1 / 64

Collaborators

Merger History and Impact on Star Formation at z<=1 & [Constraints on bulge assembly via mergers since z<=4 ]. Shardha Jogee University of Texas at Austin. Collaborators - S. Miller, K. Penner , GEMS collaboration (H. W Rix, R. Skelton, R. Somerville,

zulema
Télécharger la présentation

Collaborators

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Merger History and Impact on Star Formation at z<=1 & [Constraints on bulge assembly via mergers since z<=4 ] Shardha Jogee University of Texas at Austin Collaborators - S. Miller, K. Penner , GEMS collaboration (H. W Rix, R. Skelton, R. Somerville, E. Bell, C. Wolf, Z. Zheng) & C. Conselice - S. Khochfar, R. Somerville, P. Hopkins, A. Benson, A. Maller - I. Marinova, T. Weinzirl, F. Barazza

  2. Merger History & Impact on Star Formation at z<=1 Jogee et al & GEMS team 2008, 2009 (arXiv:0810.5617) Goals What is relative importance of different galaxy assembly modes as f(z) : major mergers, minor mergers, cold gas accretion, secular mode 1) Provide empirical constraints on major + minor merger history out to z~1 2) Compare with predictions from LCDM-based models 3) By how much is <SFR> enhanced in normal vs visibly merging system? 4) What % of the SFR density comes from visibly merging galaxies ?

  3. Ingredients - ACS F606W 0.1” images from GEMS (Rix et al 2004) - Spectro-photo z + stellar masses from COMBO-17 (Borch+06; Wolf+04) - UV and IR-based SFR from COMBO-17 & Spitzer (Bell et al 2007) - z ~ 0.2 to 0.8 (Tback~3 to 7 Gyr) - High mass (M/M0 >= 2.5x1010): Complete for red seq and blue cloud : N~800 galaxies - Interm. mass (M/M0 >= 1x109): Complete for blue cloud only N~3700 galaxies

  4. Methodology : identifying mergers • Method 1 • Visual classification of ~3700 galaxies by 3 classifiers • Identify systems (of M>Mcut) which show evidence of having experienced • a merger of mass ratio >1/10 in the last visibility timescale • Method 2 • Automated CAS criterion based on asymmetry A and clumpiness S • A> 0.35 and A >S

  5. Visual classification of Interacting vs Non-Interacting systems Non-interacting E-Sd Non-Interacting Irr1 Galaxies with small –scale asymmetries that can be internally triggered (e.g., via stochastic SF or low V/s) without any galaxy-galaxy interactions. Mergers Systems with evidence (e.g., morphological distortions) indicative of a merger of M1/M2>1/10 in last t_vis. e.g., single remnants with tidal tails, warps, strongly asymmetric arms, double nuclei, galaxies bounded by a bridge, e.g. very close (d<< t_vis * v) pair of overlapping galaxies

  6. Example of interacting systems 2 at similar z 2 at similar z

  7. Separate mergers into major minor, major/minor Mergers Systems with evidence (e.g.,morphological distortions) indicative of a merger of M1/M2>1/10 in last t_vis. Clear Major (M1/M2>1/4) - Double nuclei same L - Contact pair w/ M1/M2>1/4 and z1~z2 - Train wreck Clear Minor (1/10 < M1/M2 <1/4) - Contact pair with M1/M2 ~1/4 to 1/10 and z1~z2 - Single system where disk has survived, but shows a warp or strong tidal signatures Ambiguous: Major or Minor % of minor or major % of clear majors % of clear minor

  8. Test effect of bandpass shift and SB dimming on visual f • In last bin z =0.6--0.8 • - rest-frame l of GEMS V • image shifts to near-UV • (3700-3290 A) • - SB dimming by factor of 8 • Compare f from GEMS v vs deep, redder GOODS z • Results changes by less • than 1.07

  9. Methodology : identifying mergers • Method 1 • Visual classification of ~3700 galaxies by 3 classifiers • Identify systems (of M>Mcut) which show evidence of having experienced • a merger of mass ratio >1/10 in the last visibility timescale • Method 2 • Automated CAS criterion based on asymmetry A and clumpiness S • A> 0.35 and A >S

  10. Results

  11. Merger fraction from CAS vs visual classifications What are the visual types of the M*>1e9 systems picked by the CAS criterion (A>0.35 and A>S) ? 1) 44% (z~0.3) to 80% (z~0.7) are visually-classified non-interacting (Irr1, E-Sd) galaxies  high contamination from non-interacting systems especially at z>0.5 2) the remaining are visually-classified merger systems [50% to 70% of latter are picked]

  12. Mergers/interactions missed by the CAS criterion (A>0.35,A>S) Non-Interacting galaxies picked by CAS criterion (A>0.35,A>S)

  13. Merger history of massive galaxies since z~0.8 (last 7 Gyr) For high mass (M>=2.5e10) galaxies Interaction fraction f (for mass ratio >1/10) ~ 8% to 9% fraction of clear major (M1/M2>=1/4) interactions ~1% to 3% fraction of clear minor (1:4 to 1/10) interactions ~ 4% to 8% fraction of ambiguous minor or major interactions ~ 1% to 2% For an assumed visibility time of 0.5 Gyr, this implies that over Tb=3-7 Gyr (z=0.2-0.8) , every massive galaxy has undergone 0.7 interactions of mass ratio >1/10, of which 1/4 are major mergers, 2/3 are minor mergers, and rest are major/minor. Jogee et al. & GEMS collaboration 2009

  14. Compare merger rate of galaxies with LCDM models • Data • Rate= n f /Tvis for (major+minor) • Models • solid line = f(major + minor) • dotted lime = f_major • Models • - 3 SAMs w/ AGN feedback • - HOD w/ AGN feedback • - SPH cosmological For high mass galaxies,the (major + minor) merger rate of models - show factor of 5 dispersion - bracket the observed rate & show qualitative agreement Jogee et al. & GEMS collaboration 2009

  15. Star formation over last 7 Gyr SFRUV ~ 0.1--25 Mo yr-1 Median (SFRIR/SFRUV) ~ 4 for 900 galaxies with both Spitzer and UV data  significant obscured SF

  16. <SFR> in Mergers vs Non-Interacting Galaxies over last 7 Gyr 3 measures of SFR 1) SFRUV from LUV of COMBO-17 for full sample [N= 3698] 2) SFRUV + SFRIR from Spitzer 24 mu, detected in only 24% of sample [N=878] 3) SFRUV + SFRIR-stacked from stacking 24 mu frame (Zheng et al 2007) for 87% of sample Mean SFR of visible mergers is enhanced only by a modest factor (~1.6 to 2) w.r.t that of non-interacting galaxies Similar results by Robaina et al. in prep (Jogee et al. & GEMS collaboration 2009)

  17. (Di Matteo, P. et al. 2007) Statistical study of several hundred TREE-SPH simulations of major mergers of different B/D, gas, orbital parameters, etc They find max SFR of most mergers is only enhanced by ~2 to3, compared to isolated case

  18. SFR density from mergers over last 7 Gyr For M*>=1e9 Mo & M*>=2.5e10 visible mergers account for less than 30% of the SFR density over z~0.2--0.8 (Tb=3 to 7 Gyr) • Decline in SFR density driven by shutdown in SF of normal galaxies • (Gas consumption by SF ? Decline in smooth gas accretion rate ? Transition of SF to lower masses ) (Jogee et al. & GEMS collaboration 2009)

  19. Summary: Merger History & Impact on SF over 7 Gyr 1. Merger historyfor high mass (M>=2.5e10) galaxies - Fraction of mergers (of mass ratio >1/10) ~ 8% to 9% - For an assumed visibility time of 0.5 Gyr, this implies that over Tb=3-7 Gyr, every massive galaxy has undergone 0.7 interactions of mass ratio 1/10, of which 1/4 are major mergers, 2/3 are minor mergers, and rest are major/minor. 2. Visual vs automated CAS methods CAS merger criterion  capture 50% to 70% of visually-classified mergers  at z>0.5, has high contamination rate (80% at z~0.7) by non-interacting systems 3. Comparison with LCDM-based models For high mass galaxies, the (major + minor) merger rate of models show a factor of 5 dispersion and bracket the observed rate. Qualitative agreement 4. Impact on SF For both M*>=1e9 Mo and M*>=2.5e10 Mo, visible mergers - have their mean SFR enhanced by only ~1.6 to 2 wrt to non-interacting galaxies - account for less than 30% of the SFR density over z~0.2--0.8 (Tb=3 to 7 Gyr

  20. Constraints on bulge assembly and merger history since z<4 Weinzirl, Jogee, Khochfar, Burkert & Kormendy 2009, ApJ, in press (arXiv:0807.0040) • Bulge + Disk+ Bar decomposition of H image of high mass (M*/M0 ~1010 -1011 ) spirals  Most (66%) high mass spirals have low bulge B/T < 0.2 (77% have n<2)  Such bulges exist in barred & unbarred galaxies across different H-types (S0-Sc).

  21. Comparing with Hierarchical Models • Models from Khochfar & Burkert (2005) Khochfar & Silk 2006)‏ • - DM halo merger trees from the extended Press-Schechter formalism • - Semi-analytic prescriptions for star formation (Cox+08) , cooling, SN feedback For Galaxies with a past major merger  Major mergers at z<=2 lead to bulges with present- day B/T > 0.2  Also true for most major mergers at z<=4 (Weinzirl, Jogee, Khochfar, Burkert & Kormendy 2009)

  22. Model vs data Present-day Data Model galaxies Model galaxies Model Galaxies B/T w/ major merger w/o major merger All since z<=4 since z <=4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ B/T <=0.266% ~1.6% ~66% ~68% 0.2 <B/T<= 0.4 26% ~5% ~13% ~18% B/T > 0.4 8% ~13% ~1 % ~14% •  Major mergers since z<=4 fail seriously (by a factor of ~30) to account for the low B/T<0.2 bulges present in 2/3 of high mass spirals •  It is likely that such bulges are primarily built by minor mergers • and secular processes at z<=4 (Weinzirl, Jogee, Khochfar, Burkert & Kormendy 2009)

  23. Comparing with Hierarchical Models • Make a quantitative comparison with the predicted B/T distribution from CDM-based models (Khochfar & Burkert 2005; Khochfar & Silk 2006)‏ • DM halo merger trees from the extended Press-Schechter formalism (Somerville & Kolatt 1999)‏ • Baryonic physics from semi-analytic prescriptions for SF, cooling, supernovae feedbackMajor merger (M1/M21/4) dynamics: Major mergers set B/T to 1; B/T declines after major mergers due to disk buildup by cold accretion A galaxy with a past major merger can have B/T0.2 at z=0 only if zlast2 Galaxies with a past major merger Courtesy of Khochfar & Burkert

  24. Distribution of B/T and Bulge Index • Mean B/T, bulge index are consistent with other work (e.g., Laurikainen et al. 2007; Graham & Worley 2008). • 68% of bulges have B/T0.2; 77% have n2 . Such bulges exist in barred and unbarred galaxies across a wide range in Hubble type! Weinzirl et al. 2008 Weinzirl et al. 2008

  25. Galaxies with a past major merger

  26. Distribution of B/T: Data vs Model • The fraction of model galaxies with a past major merger and B/T≤0.2 is 3%, more than 20 times smaller than the observed fraction (66%). • B/T≤0.2 bulges cannot have been built by major mergers! Weinzirl et al. 2008

  27. Constraining Galaxy Evolution….. LCDM models: good paradigm for DM + structure on large scales • Predictions for galaxy evolution • = f (baryonic physics) • Possible areas of discord •  Substructure or missing satellite problem •  Angular momentum problem •  Problem of bulgeless and low B/T galaxies (Springel et al. 2005) Need empirical constraints on baryonic ‘physics’  Merger history and its impact on SF  part 1 of this talk  Bulge properties as f (M)  part 2 …  Mechanisms redistributing angular momentum: mergers, bars  Feedback (SF and AGN)

  28. Merger fraction from visual classifications versus CAS • For high M/Mo>=2.5e10 • CAS-based f agrees within a factor of less than two with visual f • For interm M/Mo>=1e9 • CAS method overestimates f by a factor of 3 at z>0.5… as it picks up a large number of non-interacting galaxies (E-Sd and Irr1) Jogee et al 2008, 2009

  29. Properties and Origin of Bulges in High Mass Spirals

  30. Weinzirl et al. 2008 (ApJ submitted; arXiv:0807.0040) has two goals: Quantify B/T and bulge index for nearby high mass galaxies Make a detailed quantitative comparison with CDM-based models Motivation • Bulges provide important clues about galaxy formation, but the absence of bulges is likewise interesting! • Classical bulges are often absent locally: • 15% of edge-on galaxies are bulgeless (Kautsch et al. 2006)‏ • 20% of i<60○ low-mass disks are quasi-bulgeless (Barazza, Jogee, & Marinova, 2008)‏ • 11/19 galaxies with D<8 Mpc and Vc>150 km/s have pseudobulges (Kormendy & Fisher 2008) • Must compare distribution of bulge-to-total mass (B/T) and bulge index to CDM-based models for high and low masses Kautsch et al. 2006 Barazza, Jogee, Marinova (2008)‏

  31. Main sample is 146 i < 70○ galaxies, complete for M* > 1010 M⊙ and MB < -19.3 Sample • Drawn from OSU Bright Spiral Galaxy Survey: • Bright local field galaxies with mB≤12 • Reference sample for bars in the local Universe (Eskridge 2000; Marinova & Jogee 2007) • Use H-band light to trace stellar mass

  32. We perform 2D bulge-disk and bulge-disk-bar decomposition with GALFIT (Peng et al. 2002)‏ Luminosity Decomposition • Galaxy light is emitted from physically and dynamically distinct components: • Most previous 2D decompositions have used only bulge-disk models (e.g., Allen et al. 2006)‏ • Inclusion of the bar in 2D bulge-disk-bar decomposition is important: B/T and bulge index are overstated in 2D bulge-disk decomposition of barred galaxies (Laurikainen et al. 2005)‏ 60% of galaxies are barred in H-band (Marinova & Jogee 2007)‏ Optical bar fraction is higher in galaxies without prominent bulges (Odewahn 1996; Barazza, Jogee, Marinova 2008; Marinova et al. 2008; Aguerri et al. 2008)‏

  33. Stage 1:One Component Input guesses for single Sersic component Fit single Sersic profile Stage 2:Two Components(bulge+disk or bar+disk)‏ Stage 1 outputs are input guesses for bulge(disk b/a, PA fixed to pre-determined values)‏ Fit Sersic profile + exponential disk Stage 3:Three Components(bulge+disk+bar)‏ Stage 2 outputs areinput guesses for bulge and diskInclude guesses for bar parameters.(disk b/a, PA fixed to pre-determined values)‏ Fit Sersic bulge + exponential disk + Sersic bar Choose the best fit from Stage 2 and Stage 3 based on: 2ResidualsModel parametersData image Decomposition With GALFIT • For 78% of galaxies, nuclear point sources were added to the best model(to account for AGN, HII nuclei, nuclear star clusters)‏

  34. Stage 1:One Component Stage 2:Two Components(bulge+disk)‏ Stage 3:Three Components(bulge+disk+bar)‏ Sample Decomposition For NGC 4643 • B/T usually changes between Stage 2 and Stage 3 by a factor of <4 Residual bar light Weinzirl et al. 2008 Light redistributed from bulge & diskto bar ✓

  35. Sample and Method Results

  36. Distribution of B/T and Bulge Index • Mean B/T, bulge index are consistent with other work (e.g., Laurikainen et al. 2007; Graham & Worley 2008). • 68% of bulges have B/T0.2; 77% have n2 . Such bulges exist in barred and unbarred galaxies across a wide range in Hubble type! Weinzirl et al. 2008 Weinzirl et al. 2008

  37. H-band bar fraction is greater by a factor of two for low B/T and low bulge index galaxies! Bar Fraction vs B/T and Bulge Index • H-band bar fraction is 58% (84/146), in agreement with other studies on the same data (Marinova & Jogee 2007; Laurikainen et al. 2004; Eskridge et. al 2000)‏ • Is H-band bar fraction sensitive to B/T and bulge index? • Is there a relationship between bulges and bars? Secular evolution may build low-B/T, disky bulges Or, low-B/T galaxies with no ILR are more susceptible bars induced by swing amplification with a feedback loop (Julian & Toomre 1966; Toomre 1981; Binney & Tremaine 1987)‏

  38. Comparing with Hierarchical Models • Make a quantitative comparison with the predicted B/T distribution from CDM-based models (Khochfar & Burkert 2005; Khochfar & Silk 2006)‏ • DM halo merger trees from the extended Press-Schechter formalism (Somerville & Kolatt 1999)‏ • Baryonic physics from semi-analytic prescriptions for SF, cooling, supernovae feedbackMajor merger (M1/M21/4) dynamics: Major mergers set B/T to 1; B/T declines after major mergers due to disk buildup by cold accretion A galaxy with a past major merger can have B/T0.2 at z=0 only if zlast2 Galaxies with a past major merger Courtesy of Khochfar & Burkert

  39. Minor Mergers and Secular Evolution Contribution of minor mergers: Satellite deposits stars in central region of the primary Gas inflow from tidally induced bars and tidal torques Included in modelNeglected in model Contribution of secular evolution: Bar-driven inflow between mergers Boxy/peanut bulges from bar bending/buckling Minor mergers add all stellar mass in satellite to bulge of primarySecular processes are neglected • Bulge formation mechanisms include major mergers (M1/M21/4), minor mergers (1/10<M1/M2<1/4), and secular evolution

  40. Distribution of B/T: Data vs Model • The fraction of model galaxies with a past major merger and B/T≤0.2 is 3%, more than 20 times smaller than the observed fraction (66%). • B/T≤0.2 bulges cannot have been built by major mergers! Weinzirl et al. 2008

  41. Summary & Future Work • Sample: 146 i < 70○ galaxies; complete for M* > 1010 M⊙ and MB < -19.3 • Model: Hierarchical CDM-based models from Khochfar, Burkert, & Silk • Results: Low B/T0.2 bulges are found in 68% of spirals; n2 bulges are found in 77% Fraction of model galaxies with past major mergers at z<=4 and B/T<0.2 is more than 20 times smaller than the observed fraction • Future observational work: Measure ages of bulges relative to bars and disks with IFU spectroscopy • Ongoing decomposition of the dense Coma cluster (ACS Coma Cluster Treasury Survey; Carter et al. 2008) • Study properties of massive disks at 1.5<z<3 from the GOODS NICMOS survey (Conselice et al. 2008)‏

  42. M/L Ratio • Backup slide of Schneider plot for M/L ratio and stellar populations • Bell equation for stellar mass+photometric vs dynamical mass + definitions

  43. Swing Amplifier • Diagram of swing amplifier loop. Destruction of ILR

  44. Stellar Masses • Bell equation for stellar mass+photometric vs dynamical mass + definitions

More Related