Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:53:16.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evolution of bulges of galaxies in minor fly-by interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2020

Ankit Kumar Open the ORCID record for Ankit Kumar [Opens in a new window] ,
Mousumi Das  and
Sandeep Kumar Kataria
Ankit Kumar
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru, 560034, India email: ankit4physics@gmail.com Department of physics, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, 560012, India
Mousumi Das
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru, 560034, India email: ankit4physics@gmail.com
Sandeep Kumar Kataria
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru, 560034, India email: ankit4physics@gmail.com Department of physics, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, 560012, India
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

We investigate the minor interactions of two disk galaxies with mass ratio of 10:1 in fly-by encounters that do not lead to the merging of the galaxies. In our N-body simulations, we vary only the pericenter distances to see the effect of the fly-by on the bulge of the major galaxy over the course of the trajectory. At different time steps of the evolution, we did two-dimensional fittings of disk, bulge and bar to trace the variation in the sersic index of the bulge. Our results suggest that galaxy bulges can become boxy/disky through flyby interactions of galaxies.

Keywords

Methods: N-body simulationsGalaxies: BulgesGalaxies: Interactions
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 14 , Symposium S353: Galactic Dynamics in the Era of Large Surveys , June 2019 , pp. 166 - 167
Copyright
© International Astronomical Union 2020

References

Fisher, D. B. 2006, ASPCS, 352, 237Google Scholar
Gadotti, D. A. 2009 MNRAS, 393, 4, 153110.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14257.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kataria, S. K. & Das, M. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2, 165310.1093/mnras/stx3279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurikainen, E., Peletier, R., & Gadotti, D. 2016, ASSL, 418Google Scholar
Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2011, ASCL, 1104.010Google Scholar
Sinha, M. & Holley-Bockelmann, K. 2012, APJ, 751, 1, 1710.1088/0004-637X/751/1/17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 4, 110510.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yurin, D. & Springel, V. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1, 6210.1093/mnras/stu1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar