Galaxy Merger Energy: Calculating Total System Energy

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jl29488
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Galaxy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the total energy of a system formed by the merger of two elliptical galaxies with the same mass, size, and velocity dispersion. Participants explore concepts related to energy definitions, the virial theorem, and the implications of galaxy dynamics during the merging process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to define the "energy of a galaxy," suggesting that clarity is needed on kinetic and potential energy in this context.
  • Another participant states the relationship K.E = -1/2 P.E as per the virial theorem, assuming stability in the galaxies.
  • There is a reiteration of the kinetic energy formula K.E = 1/2 Mv^2, with a focus on the definition of "velocity" for a galaxy, which is noted to be complex due to varying velocities of individual stars.
  • Some participants propose using average velocity as a potential solution to the velocity definition issue.
  • A participant reflects on the complexity of the topic and suggests that they may not be the best person to contribute further to the discussion.
  • Another participant suggests that the total energy of the merged system could be viewed as the sum of the energies of the two separate galaxies, with considerations for energy changes during the merger process, including potential energy loss due to ejected material.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how to define and calculate the energy of galaxies, with no consensus reached on the best approach or the implications of energy changes during the merger.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the definitions of kinetic and potential energy specific to galaxies, as well as assumptions regarding stability and the reference point for measuring energy. The discussion also highlights the complexity of velocities within galaxies.

jl29488
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
If I have two galaxies... i.e Ellipticals.. with same mass, size and velocity dispersion approaching each other and merging to form a bigger galaxy, what would be the total energy of the system?

I'm assuming they would be approaching each other from 'infinity', so E=0 initially. I'm guessing its something to do with the virial theorem?

I'm really stuck! :(
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Define "energy of a galaxy"
 
K.E=-1/2P.E (virial thoerem)

Thats providing the galaxy is in a stable, which I'm assuming...
 
jl29488 said:
K.E=-1/2P.E (virial thoerem)

Thats providing the galaxy is in a stable, which I'm assuming...
Define KE or PE, either one if you think you can, for a galaxy
 
K.E = 1/2Mv^2 (v=velocity dispersion)
 
jl29488 said:
K.E = 1/2Mv^2 (v=velocity dispersion)
and what is the "velocity" of a galaxy? Hint: it has an infinite number of different velocities. Do you begin to see what the problem is?
 
You can use average velocity i guess?
 
Hm ... I see now that there is more to this than I was aware and I might be misleading you. I think I should shut up and leave this for someone who is more familiar w/ the concept of galactic energy.
 
In broadest terms, the total energy of the merged system would be equal to the sum of the energy in the two separate systems.
(I am assuming that the common reference point you use to measure the 'energy' for all objects, is the center of the newly merged galaxy, since that seems most practical)
Internally within the galaxies, some individual objects would likely gain kinetic energy and in other cases lose it.
Energy might change it's form here and there but overall no energy is gained or lost.

(Well some bits of the galaxies might get slung out during the merging, so I guess some energy might be lost in that sense.)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K