Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:36:19.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Galaxy Interactions and Their Cosmic and Morphological Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2006

Tapan K. Chatterjee*
Affiliation:
University of the Americas (Department of Physics), A. P. 1316, Puebla, Mexico e-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Merger theory, in its extreme form, postulates that ellipticals are the products of mergers of spirals. While the morphology-clustercentric relationship (Whitmore et al., 1993), indicates that the morphological fractions are unaffected by the local properties of the clusters, considerable observational evidence has surfaced in favor of the existence of marginally bound pairs; that are the source of the most frequent collisions (Chengalur et al., 1996 and references therein). To test the global impact of galaxy collisions on their evolution we have studied many collisions between spirals and ellipticals, as well as spiral and elliptical pairs. The details of the models and methods are in Chatterjee & Magalinsky, 2002; and we refer to it. Marginally bound, eccentric orbits are found to maintain their eccentricities for a long time; which is supported by analytical research (Magalinsky & Chatterjee, 2000). The calculation of collision frequency indicates that only of the order of 5% of ellipticals can be formed in this way. A remarkable phenomenon is that the fraction of blue galaxies around z = 0.3 to 0.5 is more than in the present epoch – the B-O effect (Butcher & Oemler, 1978). While observations indicate that the effect is primarily due to an increase in galaxies with perturbed morphology (e.g., Faber et al., 1995), in the same environment we find a homogeneous population of normal red galaxies, that have almost finished their star formation.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2007

References

Aragon-Salamanca, A., Ellis, R. S., Couch, W. J., & Carter, D. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadhurst, T., & Bouwens, R. J., 2000, ApJ, 530, L53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, H., & Oemler, A., 1978, ApJ, 219, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, T. K., & Magalinsky, V. B. 2002, Astron. Astrophys. Trans. 21, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chengalur, J., Salpeter, E. E., & Terzian, Y. 1966, ApJ, 461, 546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combes, F. 2006, this symposium.Google Scholar
De Propris, R., Stranford, S. A., Eisenhardt, P. R., Dickson, M., & Elston, R. 1999, ApJ, 118, 719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, A. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 185.Google Scholar
Faber, S. M., Trager, S. C., Gonzalez, J. J., & Worthy, G. 1995, In IAU Symp. 164 (Reidel).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilly, S. J., Tresse, L., Hammer, F., Crampton, D., & LeFevre, O. 1995, ApJ 455, 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magalinsky, V. B., & Chatterjee, T. K. 2000, Astron. Astrophys. Trans. 18, 807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dokkum, P. G., & Franx, M. 1966, MNRAS, 281, 985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitmore, B. C., Gilmore, D. M., & Jones, C., 1993, ApJ, 407, 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar