observing the assembly of galaxies hans-walter rix max-planck-institute for astronomy heidelberg
DESCRIPTION
Observing the Assembly of Galaxies Hans-Walter Rix Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy Heidelberg. Overview. I. The Build-Up of the Stellar Mass in Galaxies II. The Formation and Evolution of Massive Galaxies Thursday May 5, 2:00PM III. The Evolution of (Internal) Galaxy Structure - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Observing the Assembly of Galaxies
Hans-Walter Rix
Max-Planck-Institute for AstronomyHeidelberg
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Overview
I. The Build-Up of the Stellar Mass in Galaxies
II. The Formation and Evolution of Massive GalaxiesThursday May 5, 2:00PM
III. The Evolution of (Internal) Galaxy StructureWednesday May 11, 2:00PM
IV. Archeo-Cosmology in the Local GroupFriday, May 13, 2:00PM
HWRPrinceton, 2005
I. The Build-Up of Stellar Mass
1. Casting the problem into specific questions
2. Diagnostic Tools
3. A brief survey of surveys
4. Estimating the star-formation rate = f(z)
5. Estimating the stellar mass density = f(z)
6. Results
HWRPrinceton, 2005
1. Re-phrasing “the build-up of stellar mass”
• What is <SFR(z)> and <*(z) >?
• What epoch encloses the formation of most stars?
• How to best measure <SFR (z) > and <*(z) > ?
• How much important are mergers in triggering SF and in setting the present-day mass function?
• What are the expectations from models?
HWRPrinceton, 2005
2. Diagnostic tools for star-formation rates and stellar masses
• Star formation rate estimates are based on UV luminosity produced by hot, massive, short-lived stars– Observe the UV – Observe H – Observe absorbed UV flux, re-
radiated by dust in thermal IR ! LIR(re-radiated) >> LUV(escaped) !
– Mtot estimate is based on stars >10Mo, which are small fraction of Mtot
Kroupa 2002
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Starlight and Re-processed Starlight
Devriend et al 2000Single-age, dust-free stellar population
HWRPrinceton, 2005
ground
SED of an ageing stellar population of solar metalicity with dust
Spitzer
Herschel (2007)
Redshift
HWRPrinceton, 2005
f(24m) vs Lbol
Papovich and Bell 2003
Given that Spitzer can only observe well at 24 m, what are the bolometric corrections?
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Mass measurements in cosmologically distant galaxies
• Dynamics:– OK to z~1, but quite expensive.– Very limited spatial resolution conceptually
problematic– Currently not feasible for most galaxies z>1.5
• Clustering:– Measures halo mass, not stellar mass
• M* = L x (M/L)* with M/L from SEDs
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Stellar Masses from Spectral Energy Distributions
Optical/near-IR spectra of galaxies are a nearly 1D sequence
Near-degeneracy of age, metallicity and dust
Source of despair or opportunity?
tstars = [Gyrs]
Bell and de Jong 2001
BK
HWRPrinceton, 2005
• Mapping one or few integrated galaxy colors to – age– dust extinction– metallicity
is poor!
• Mapping (optical -- across 4000A break) color to M/L should be robust!
HWRPrinceton, 2005
M/L from Colors? Compare to dyn! Van der Wel, Franx, can Dokkum and Rix, 2004
at z~1
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Look-back Galaxy Surveys: Desiderata
• Select SFR surveys by SFR, and mass surveys by stellar mass– SFR: assure most of the intense star-burst are not missing
due to dust– Stellar mass: select galaxies obs > (1+z) 4000A break
• Number of galaxies as a function of – Epoch redshift (few %)– Luminosity/stellar mass– Color/stellar age 1,000 – 10,000 galaxies
• Measure galaxy sizes/internal structure ~0.3” resolution
• Either Nfield >> 1 or field > 2xcorrelation length ~10’
HWRPrinceton, 2005
A Survey SurveyName Nfield Field
sizeHST imaging
# of bands
Depth Nredshift
HDFs/UDF 3 2.5’ + 7 R=29 700GOODS 2 12’ + 10 i=27.5 400
3000 (5%)FIRES 2 5’ + 10 KAB=26 600
(5%)COMBO-17 GEMS
3 30’ + 22 R=24 30,000(1%)
MUNICS 3 30’ - 7 K=19.5 20.000 (5%)
GDDS/LCIRS 2 30’ - 7 H=21.5 500(2000)SUBARU Rest-
UVSteidel et al Rest-
UV
HWRPrinceton, 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
COMBO-17Wolf, Meisenheimer, Rix et al. 01/03Heidelberg, Oxford,Potsdam,Edinburgh
• 3 fields @ 30’x30’• 17 filters to mr~23.6• ~10.000 redshifts (1.5%)+ SEDs per
field
Wavelength [nm]MB
Z
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Comparison of COMBO-17 with VIMOS Spectra(data from Le Fevre et al 2004)
HWRPrinceton, 2005
A quick Tour through Redshift Space
GEMS(CDFS)
Abell 901 S11 (random)
HWRPrinceton, 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Stellar Masses from the COMBO-17 SurveyBorch, Rix, Meisenheimer et al 2005
• Stellar masses to z~1 can be estimated for 10.000s of galaxies
• Flux limit (R-band) is VERY different from mass limits.
0.65<z<0.75
HWRPrinceton, 2005
FIRES: FaintInfra-Red-Extragalactic-Survey ultra-deep VLT survey
*HDF-south100 hours in JHK
FWHM=0.45”
*MS1054:5xlarger area25 hours in JHK per pointing
Franx, Rix, Rudnick, Labbe, van Dokkum, Foerster-Schreiber, Trujillo, Moorwood, et al.2001-2005
Selecting and studying galaxies z>2 in their rest-frame optical bands
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Not a Ly-break!!Just a red SED
HWRPrinceton, 2005
What kind of galaxies are found in such a search?
• Galaxies without many (really) young stars won’t be found by their Ly-break or their sub-mm dust emission.
• Ditto for galaxies with significant dust extinction that are not powerful enough for a sub-mm detection.
• Remember: both UV searches (dust) and sub-mm searches (fainter galaxies) have ~10 corrections to get total SFR
HWRPrinceton, 2005
SED fits for DRGs
Near-IR selected
UV selected
Förster-Schreiber, Franx, Rix et al; FIRES
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Improving Mass, SFR and Av Estimates at z~2.5 through IRAC (3.6m-8m) data
Labbe, Franx, Rix et al 2005
Förster-Schreiber, Rix et al 2005; FIRES
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Comparing dynamical (?) with SED masses
Van Dokkum, Franx, Rix, et al. 2004
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Results I: Cosmic Star-Formation Rate
HWRPrinceton, 2005
SFR’s from thermal-IR flux 0<z<1Zheng, Rix, Rieke, Bell et al 2004
Stacking galaxy classes (z,L) from COMBO-17 and measuring the 24m flux
HWRPrinceton, 2005
SFR’s from thermal-IR flux 0<z<1Zheng, Rix, Rieke, Bell et al 2004
LIR/LUV = f(SFR) @ all z,Lopt
Local relation
• Through stacking, Spitzer’s (single source) confusion limit can be beat by >10 to <10Jy
• IR flux dominates in all galaxies (to 3% of L*) to z~1.2;– large majority of UV photons absorbed.
• Mean LIR/LUV drops with galaxy luminosity faint galaxies contribute hardly to SF integral
• “Correction” seems to be a function of (absolute) SFR only– Insensitive to stellar luminosity, redshift
HWRPrinceton, 2005
State of Affairs: Star-fomration rate
Borch, Rix, Meisenheimer et al 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Why the drop of the SFR since z~1?or
In what type of galaxies did stars form back then?
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Whence the UV flux at z~0.7?j280 (z~0.7) ~ 4 x j280nm (now)
Pick f(2800A) as a proxy for young stars (t<tdyn)
[not necessarily true in massive, old systems]
Explore “morphology” of galaxies that give rise to these photons
Subjective – use 6 eyes
[Morphologies from GEMS, see Thursday]
UV
-to-o
ptic
al fl
ux (M
280n
m –
V)
UV luminous
“blu
e”
Wolf, Bell, Rix et al 2004 0.65<z<0.75
HWRPrinceton, 2005
• At MV>-19 and z~0.75– ½ the flux comes from
seemingly normal spirals– 20% from visibly
interacting systems
• only minority of UV flux from manifestly interacting systems at z~0.75
drop in (major) merger rate not cause of SFR drop
z~0.75Normal spiralsInteracting/Peculiar
UV-light contribution by
Galaxy type at z~0.75
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Results II:Evolution of the Stellar Mass Density with
Redshift
HWRPrinceton, 2005
The Evolution of the Stellar Mass Function over the Last 7 Gyrs
Borch, Meisenheimer, Rix, Bell et al 2005, COMBO-17
Present-day stellar mass function
COMBO-17 survey; 30,000 galaxies Mean stellar mass Build-
Up
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Where is the stellar mass at z=2-3.5?
DRGs (“distant red galaxies”) vs Ly-Break Galaxies
Distant red galaxies likely dominate the mass budget
HWRPrinceton, 2005
<*(z)>: State of Affairs
Borch, Meisenheimer, Rix et al 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
…half the mass since z~1.5…
Borch et al 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Putting it together
Borch, Meisenheimer, Rix et al 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Summary• Waning SFR not a consequence of waning major mergers
– Waning cold gas supply
• SED-based stellar mass estimates now available for 1000’s of galaxies to z~3– Need to observe at least torest>4000A– Available testing against dynamics OK
• “Distant red galaxies”, between Ly-break and sub-mm galaxies, may contain the bulk of stellar mass 2<z<3.5– Found through near-IR surveys– Quite frequent objects with SFR x tSFR ~1010-11M
• <*(z) > can be traced from z~3.5 to 0– enclosing ~90% of all stars formed
• Integral over SFR estimate agrees with <*(z) > to < 2– Assuming diet-Salpeter IMF (e.g. Kroupa 2002)– Leaves not much room for overlooked SFR
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Where do we go from here?
• Role of merging in the build-up of the galaxy mass function is observationally barely constrained
• Comprehensive linkeage of SED-based and dynamical masses
• Beat field-to-field variations at z>2
• Relate stellar masses at different z to halo masses– Lensing, clustering
HWRPrinceton, 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Improving Mass, SFR and Av Estimates at z~2.5 through IRAC (3.6m-8m) data
Labbe, Franx, Rix et al 2005
Förster-Schreiber, Rix et al 2005; FIRES
HWRPrinceton, 2005
SED Fitting of FIRES Galaxies
HWRPrinceton, 2005
Where is the stellar masses at z=2-3.5DRGs (“distant red galaxies”) vs Ly-Break
Galaxies
Förster-Schreiber, Franx, Rix et al 2005