What determines satellite galaxy disruption

By Andrew Wetzel, M. White. 2009

146 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In hierarchical structure formation, dark matter halos that merge with larger halos can persist as subhalos. These subhalos are likely hosts of visible galaxies. While the dense halo environment rapidly strips subhalos of their dark mass, the compact luminous material can remain intact for some time, making the correspondence of galaxies with severely stripped subhalos unclear. Many galaxy evolution models assume that satellite galaxies eventually merge with their central galaxy, but this ignores the possibility of satellite tidal disruption. We use a high-resolution N-body simulation of cosmological volume to explore satellite galaxy merging/disruption criteria based on dark matter subhalo dynamics. We explore the impact that satellite merging/disruption has on the Halo Occupation Distribution and radial profile of the remnants. Using abundance matching to assign stellar mass/luminosity to subhalos, we compare with observed galaxy clustering, satellite fractions, cluster satellite luminosity functions, finding that subhalos reproduce well these observables. Our results imply that satellite subhalos

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f29382dfb36e2c1894d34c105c58e327a702418b

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 Instrumentation

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

Galaxy assembly bias: a significant source of systematic error in the galaxy–halo relationship (2013, background): “In addition, subhalo incompleteness may also pose a problem for detailed predictions of galaxy clustering (Wetzel & White 2010; Watson et al. 2012; Guo & White 2014), even in state-of-the-art simulations such as Bolshoi and Millennium (although see also Klypin et al. 2013).”
COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND CONSTRAINTS ON THE DURATION AND TIMING OF REIONIZATION FROM THE SOUTH POLE TELESCOPE (2011, methodology): “In brief, the Shang et al. (2012) model populates halos and sub-halos with DSFGs utilizing the halo mass function of Tinker et al. (2008) and the sub-halo mass function of Wetzel & White (2010).”
The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: mock galaxy catalogues for the BOSS Final Data Release (2015, unknown): “…on the HAM technique to connect haloes to galaxies (Kravtsov et al. 2004; Neyrinck, Hamilton & Gnedin 2004; Tasitsiomi et al. 2004; Vale & Ostriker 2004; Conroy, Wechsler & Kravtsov 2006; Kim, Park & Choi 2008; Guo et al. 2010; Wetzel & White 2010; Trujillo-Gomez et al. 2011; Nuza et al. 2013).”
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN GALAXIES AND DARK MATTER STRUCTURES IN THE LOCAL UNIVERSE (2012, methodology): “The work of Wetzel & White (2010), using an abundance matching model based on Macc, considered in detail the effect of satellite disruption in a form similar to ourµcut on the clustering and satellite fraction of galaxies.”
THE AVERAGE STAR FORMATION HISTORIES OF GALAXIES IN DARK MATTER HALOS FROM z = 0–8 (2012, background): “Studying the subhalo destruction rate is more difficult because ofissues with halo finding completeness when subhalos pass close to the centers of their hosts (Behroozi et al. 2013b,c), and relativ y few authors have attempted to correct for this issue in theirwork (c.f., Wetzel & White 2010).”
Galaxy evolution in groups and clusters: star formation rates, red sequence fractions and the persistent bimodality (2011, background): “First, satellite dynamical infall times are shortest when the satellite-to-halo mass ratio is closest, being shorter than a Hubble time when the satellite halo to host halo mass ratio is closer than ∼0.1 (Boylan-Kolchin, Ma & Quataert 2008; Jiang et al. 2008; Wetzel & White 2010).”
MERGERS IN ΛCDM: UNCERTAINTIES IN THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MERGER RATE (2010, background): “Similar conclusions are reached in Wetzel & White (2010).”
Galaxy evolution in groups and clusters: satellite star formation histories and quenching time-scales in a hierarchical Universe (2012, methodology): “…many observed galaxy statistics, including spatial clustering, satellite fractions, cluster luminosity functions, and luminosity-velocity relations (Conroy et al. 2006; Vale & Ostriker 2006; Berrier et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2006; Yang et al. 2009; Wetzel & White 2010; TrujilloGomez et al. 2011).”
There's no place like home? Statistics of Milky Way-mass dark matter haloes (2009, background): “This “abundance matching” assumption (Vale & Ostriker 2004) can reproduce observed galaxy clustering and its evolution with redshift (Conroy et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2008; Conroy & Wechsler 2009; Wetzel & White 2010; Guo et al. 2010).”
A BARYONIC SOLUTION TO THE MISSING SATELLITES PROBLEM (2012, methodology): “The flatter density profiles make them more vulnerable to tidal effects of the baryonic disk (see also Taylor & Babul 2001; Read et al. 2006a; Choi et al. 2009; Wetzel & White 2010; Romano-Dı́az et al. 2010a; D’Onghia et al. 2010a; Peñarrubia et al. 2010).”
The dark side of galaxy colour (2013, result): “Recent results (Wetzel & White 2010) indicate that halos at the faint end of our mock galaxy sample (Mr .”
GRAVITATIONALLY CONSISTENT HALO CATALOGS AND MERGER TREES FOR PRECISION COSMOLOGY (2011, background): “In some more recent implementations (Springel et al. 2005; Allgood 2005; Allgood et al. 2006; Wetzel et al. 2009; Wetzel & White 2010; Klypin et al. 2011) attempts have been made to extend progenitor identification beyond particle-based merger trees to ensure the halo continuity; however many of…”
Not so lumpy after all: modelling the depletion of dark matter subhaloes by Milky Way-like galaxies (2017, background): “…of DMO simulations to interpret small-scale (‘one-halo’) clustering statistics through subhalo abundance matching (e.g. Conroy et al. 2006; Reddick et al. 2013), as compared with studies that examined these trends for subhalo disruption without modeling a central galaxy (e.g. Wetzel & White 2010).”
The relation between velocity dispersion and mass in simulated clusters of galaxies: dependence on the tracer and the baryonic physics (2013, background): “Another important process is dynamical friction (Chandrasekhar 1943; Esquivel & Fuchs 2007), which removes energy from a galaxy orbit, bringing it closer to the cluster centre, and slowing down its velocity (e.g. Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2008; Wetzel & White 2010).”
Constraining the galaxy–halo connection over the last 13.3 Gyr: star formation histories, galaxy mergers and structural properties (2017, background): “This is because the effect of the convolution in Equation (6) depends on the logarithmic slope of φgI (Cattaneo et al. 2008; Behroozi, Conroy & Wechsler 2010; Wetzel & White 2010).”
Are Brightest Halo Galaxies Central Galaxies (2010, background): “Another effect that may cause the SAMs to underpredict fBNC is the fact that they often adopt dynamical friction time-scales that are too short (Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2008; Wetzel & White 2010).”
FIRE-2 simulations: physics versus numerics in galaxy formation (2017, background): “…masses of ∼ 5− 100 times the element mass are “believable” in the sense that they exist and can be identified as self-gravitating in higher-resolution re-simulations (Klypin et al. 1999; Springel et al. 2001; Kravtsov et al. 2004; Nurmi et al. 2006; Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2009; Wetzel & White 2010).”
ROBUST OPTICAL RICHNESS ESTIMATION WITH REDUCED SCATTER (2011, background): “While recent work indicates the scatter may be significantly super-Poisson at the cluster scale (Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2010; Wetzel & White 2010; Busha et al. 2011), even in this case the intrinsic scatter is expected to be closer to σln M|N = 0.20–0.25 rather than 0.45 at M200 ∼ 2×1014 M , so it…”