The Dramatic Size Evolution of Elliptical Galaxies and the Quasar Feedback

By L. Fan, A. Lapi, G. De Zotti, L. Danese. 2008

202 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Observations have shown that passively evolving massive galaxies at high redshift are much more compact than local galaxies with the same stellar mass. We argue that the observed strong evolution in size is directly related to the quasar feedback, which removes huge amounts of cold gas from the central regions in a Salpeter time, inducing an expansion of the stellar distribution. The new equilibrium configuration, with a size increased by a factor ≳3, is attained after ~40 dynamical times, corresponding to ~2 Gyr. This means that massive galaxies observed at z ⩾ 1 will settle on the fundamental plane by z ∼ 0.8-1. In less massive galaxies (M⋆≲ 2 × 1010 M☉), the nuclear feedback is subdominant, and the mass loss is mainly due to stellar winds. In this case, the mass-loss timescale is longer than the dynamical time and results in adiabatic expansion that may increase the effective radius by a factor of up to ~2 in 10 Gyr, although a growth by a factor of ≃1.6 occurs within the first 0.5 Gyr. Since observations are focused on relatively old galaxies, with ages ≳1 Gyr, the evolution for smaller galaxies is more difficult to perceive. Significant evolution of velocity dispersion is predicted for both small and large galaxies.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/77efc317c076ba92fbd374c1abbce75b58c887ee

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Electrical and Electronic Engineering

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

SUPERDENSE MASSIVE GALAXIES IN THE NEARBY UNIVERSE (2009, background): “Recently, however, Fan et al. (2008) have suggested an alternative scenario where the size evolution is related to the quasar feedback instead of merging.”
Discriminating Between the Physical Processes that Drive Spheroid Size Evolution (2009, background): “…of its central (baryon-dominated) mass, either by efficiently expelling the material from stellar mass loss or by blowing out a large fraction of the baryonic mass in an initially very gas-rich system (from e.g. quasar feedback; Fan et al. 2008), the radius will grow correspondingly (Re ∝ M−1).”
The size evolution of star-forming and quenched galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulation (2017, background): “…commonly been attributed to (in particular, minor) mergers (Naab et al. 2009; Oser et al. 2012; Oogi & Habe 2013; but see Nipoti et al. 2012), however also expansion due to mass loss has been suggested (driven by feedback as well as stellar evolution; Fan et al. 2008, 2010; van Dokkum et al. 2014).”
ON SIZES, KINEMATICS, M/L GRADIENTS, AND LIGHT PROFILES OF MASSIVE COMPACT GALAXIES AT z ∼ 2 (2010, background): “However, alternative scenarios involving an expansion of the stellar distribution as response to significant mass losses have been suggested as well (Fan et al. 2008).”
THE COSMOLOGICAL SIZE AND VELOCITY DISPERSION EVOLUTION OF MASSIVE EARLY-TYPE GALAXIES (2011, background): “…be ruled out (Kriek et al. 2008; van Dokkum et al. 2008; Trujillo et al. 2009) unless the increase in size of ellipticals can be explained by secular processes such as adiabatic expansion driven by stellar mass loss and/or strong feedback (Fan et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2009; Fan et al. 2010).”
Dissecting the size evolution of elliptical galaxies since z∼ 1: puffing-up versus minor-merging scenarios (2011, methodology): “…of gas during their formation phase (Khochfar & Silk 2006); and (ii) their subsequent growth through either gas expulsion in the socalled puffing-up scenario (Fan et al. 2008, 2010; Damjanov et al. 2009) or by minor-merging activity (Hopkins et al. 2009a; Naab, Johansson & Ostriker 2009).”
Galaxy luminosities, stellar masses, sizes, velocity dispersions as a function of morphological type (2009, background): “Bezanson et al. (2009) argue that models in which the high redshift objects change their sizes but not their masses by the present time (e.g. Fan et al. 2008) lie well below the z = 0 counts.”
The formation of massive, compact galaxies at z = 2 in the Illustris simulation (2014, background): “Galaxies may also expand adiabatically as a response to mass loss (Fan et al. 2008, 2010), but this process would only take place during early, active phases in their evolution.”
The Morphologies of Massive Galaxies at 1<z<3 in the CANDELS-UDS Field: Compact Bulges, and the Rise and Fall of Massive Disks (2012, background): “Various physical mechanisms have been suggested as the primary drivers of this process, including major or minor mergers (Khochfar & Silk 2006; Naab et al. 2007; Hopkins et al. 2009; Shankar et al. 2011) or AGN feedback (Fan et al. 2008, 2010).”
CAN MINOR MERGING ACCOUNT FOR THE SIZE GROWTH OF QUIESCENT GALAXIES? NEW RESULTS FROM THE CANDELS SURVEY (2011, background): “Adiabatic expansion through significant mass loss can lead to size growth (Fan et al. 2008, 2010).”
MINOR MERGERS AND THE SIZE EVOLUTION OF ELLIPTICAL GALAXIES (2009, background): “…have fully formed in a simple monolithic collapse nor a binary merger of gas-rich disks at high redshift, unless their increase in size can be explained by secular processes such as adiabatic expansion driven by stellar mass loss and/or strong feedback (Damjanov et al. 2009; Fan et al. 2008).”
SUPERDENSE MASSIVE GALAXIES IN WINGS LOCAL CLUSTERS (2009, background): “Another viable explanation for puffing up galaxies might be connected with the quasar phase that these galaxies have likely undergone fromz ∼ 2.5 to z ∼ 1 (Fan et al. 2008), which caused a dramatic mass loss with consequent expansion of the galaxy.”
THE SINFONI BLACK HOLE SURVEY: THE BLACK HOLE FUNDAMENTAL PLANE REVISITED AND THE PATHS OF (CO)EVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND BULGES (2016, background): “This process has been also proposed for changing sizes and velocity dispersions of galaxies through its feedback (Fan et al. 2008), but it fails to explain the redshift evolution of sizes of early-type galaxies (Saglia et al. 2010).”
The DEEP3 Galaxy Redshift Survey: the impact of environment on the size evolution of massive early-type galaxies at intermediate redshift (2011, background): “…structural evolution may be driven by secular processes such as adiabatic expansion resulting from stellar mass loss and/or strong active galactic nucleus (AGN) fuelled feedback (Fan et al. 2008, 2010; Damjanov et al. 2009; Hopkins et al. 2010a,b; see also Nipoti et al. 2009; Williams et al. 2010).”
Galaxy Zoo: the dependence of morphology and colour on environment (2008, background): “There is even a possibility that AGN activity could directly affect the morphology of galaxies (Fan et al. 2008).”
The sizes, masses and specific star formation rates of massive galaxies at 1.3 < z < 1.5: strong evidence in favour of evolution via minor mergers (2012, background): “Finally, it has also been suggested (e.g. Fan et al. 2008) that feedback from AGN could expel material from the central regions of highredshift galaxies, thereby allowing them to expand significantly at a constant stellar mass.”
ON THE DEARTH OF COMPACT, MASSIVE, RED SEQUENCE GALAXIES IN THE LOCAL UNIVERSE (2009, background): “Whatever the mechanism for this growth in size (see, e.g., Fan et al. 2008; Hopkins et al. 2009; Naab et al. 2009; Khochfar & Silk 2009), the formation of massive, passive galaxies is not monolithic.”
THE GROWTH OF MASSIVE GALAXIES SINCE z = 2 (2009, background): “It may cool and form new stars, still be present in massive elliptical galaxies in diffuse form (e.g., Temi, Brighenti, & Mathews 2007), or lead to a “puffing up” of the galaxies if it is removed by stripping or other effects (e.g., Fan et al. 2008).”
SUPERDENSE GALAXIES AND THE MASS–SIZE RELATION AT LOW REDSHIFT (2012, background): “One such mechanism is expansion for mass loss, due to an active galactic nucleus (Fan et al. 2008) or stellar winds (Damjanov et al. 2009), though Ragone-Figueroa & Granato (2011) have found that these are insufficient to ex- plain the observed evolution.”