Tuesday, April 24, 2012

1204.5118 (Emiliano Merlin et al.)

Formation and Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies. III Star formation history as a function of mass and over-density    [PDF]

Emiliano Merlin, Cesare Chiosi, Lorenzo Piovan, Tommaso Grassi, Umberto Buonomo, Francesco La Barbera
We investigate the influence of the initial proto-galaxies over-densities and masses on their evolution, to understand whether the internal properties of the proto-galactic haloes are sufficient to account for the varied properties of the galactic populations. By means of fully hydrodynamical N-body simulations performed with the code EvoL we produce twelve self-similar models of early-type galaxies of different initial masses and over-densities, following their evolution from z \geq 20 down to z \leq 1. The simulations include radiative cooling, star formation, stellar energy feedback, a reionizing photoheating background, and chemical enrichment of the ISM. We find a strong correlation between the initial properties of the proto-haloes and their star formation histories. Massive (10^13M\odot) haloes experience a single, intense burst of star formation (with rates \geq 10^3M\odot/yr) at early epochs, consistently with observations, with a less pronounced dependence on the initial over-density; intermediate mass (10^11M\odot) haloes histories strongly depend on their initial over-density, whereas small (10^9M\odot) haloes always have fragmented histories, resulting in multiple stellar populations, due to the "galactic breathing" phenomenon. The galaxy models have morphological, structural and photometric properties comparable to real galaxies, often closely matching the observed data; even though some disagreement is still there, likely a consequence of some numerical choices. We conclude that internal properties are essentially sufficient to explain many of the observed features of early type galaxies, particularly the complicated and different star formation histories shown by haloes of very different mass. In this picture, nature seems to play the dominant role, whereas nurture has a secondary importance.
View original: http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5118

No comments:

Post a Comment