1 / 38

Massive galaxies at z ~ 2 from K20+

Massive galaxies at z ~ 2 from K20+. Preamble: (Cimatti, Daddi, Fontana, Arimoto, GOODS, GRAPES, COSMOS ) Looking at z~2 massive galaxies gives us more leverage than looking at z~1 ✰ as their predicted abundance and properties (e.g. Passive vs. starbursting)

ann-hopkins
Télécharger la présentation

Massive galaxies at z ~ 2 from K20+

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. Massive galaxies at z ~ 2 from K20+ Preamble: (Cimatti, Daddi, Fontana, Arimoto, GOODS, GRAPES, COSMOS ) Looking at z~2 massive galaxies gives us more leverage than looking at z~1 ✰ as their predicted abundance and properties (e.g. Passive vs. starbursting) are most critically dependent on theoretical model *assumptions, *algorithms and *parameters →allow to narrow down our model shopping list. Fontana et al. 2004 A Renzini, STScI, September 27, 2004

  2. The Local Mass Function (from the SDSS) et al. (2003) In the local universe: Among the MMGs the old passively evolving, early-type galaxies outnumber the starforming galaxies by more than a factor ~10

  3. The High-z Tail in the K20 Sample K<20 galaxies at z > 1.6: ~ 0.0 predicted by SAMs 32 observed in the the K20 sample (apparent agreement with PLE models) PLE Cimatti et al. 2002 (old)SAM

  4. The Nature of the K<20, z>1.6 galaxies1. The Star-Forming Galaxies Daddi et al. (2004)

  5. The K<20, z≈2 starforming galaxies Coadded spectra of 5 best S/N galaxies (de Mello et al. 2004). More stronglined than LBGs both for ISM and photospheric absorptions ➔ >~solar metallicity which along with: ● M*>1011M⊙ ● SFR > ~ 100 M⊙/yr ● Strong clustering ➔ Likely progenitors of local ellipticals and big bulges

  6. (The Highest redshift ellipticals) 2. The Passively Evolving Galaxies Cimatti et al. (Nature, July 8, 2004) ACS/GOODS images Coadded VLT spectra → zF > 2.5-3

  7. The MgUV Feature: a key to hi-z passive galaxies First used by Dunlop/Spinrad et al '96; Cimatti et al '04; McCarthy et al. '04)

  8. Passively Evolving galaxies (cont.) In red LBDS 53w091 (z=1.55) Blue=average of the 4 gals. 1 Gyr 3Gyr 0.5 Gyr z=1 old EROs Z=1 SF ERO SDSS <z>=0.5 F5V F2V F2V

  9. The 4 galaxies in real color GOODS ACS BViz images

  10. Old galaxies at high redshift In the K20/GOODS field (32 □) Passive galaxies with R-K>6, z>1.5, K<20: 4 objects with zspec 3 objects with zphot 7 objects in total In the currently “best” semi-analytic model (Somerville 2004): Mock catalog for a whole GOODS field (160 □): Only one object with the same characteristics. 35 expected scaling from the K20

  11. 32 K20 galaxies at z>1.4 with deep z-band ACS imaging The ACS/GOODS Morphologies S=Starforming ➔ mergers, starbursts P=Passively evolving ➔ Elliptical and Bulge-dominated galaxies

  12. Some Inferences (so far) ●Massive (M*>1011M⊙) galaxies appear to be in place at z ~ 2 in much greater number than predicted by most CDM Simulations Models with strong SN/AGN feedback do better (Nagamine et al. 2001; Granato et al. 2004) [Anti-hierarchical galaxy assembly!] While at z=0 most “most massive galaxies” are passively evolving, old ellipticals, by z~2 passive and active star-forming galaxies coexist in nearly equal number ☹Limitations of the K20 survey: ✈relatively small area (prone to cosmic variance) ✈relatively shallow (K<20)

  13. Post-K20: go wider, go deeper,focus on z~2 Daddi et al. (2004) The BzK criterion for selecting BOTH starforming (reddening independent!) and passively evolving galaxies at 1.4<z<2.5 Calibrated on the K20, GOODS, and GDDS datasets. ⇦K20/GOODS data only shown here.

  14. Why the BzK criterion works Daddi et al. (2004) BC03 models with various ages, SF histories, and reddening: Nice agreement with the K20 empirical findings SSPs Cont. SF SFR ~ e(-t/τ) z<1.4

  15. BzK- vs. LBG UGR-selected Galaxies A preliminary comparison: K20 BzK sample vs UGR sample (Steidel et al. 2004) UGR Objects (R<25) E(B-V) < 0.3 <SFR> =~50 M⊙/yr ~9 objects/□' ~2/3 of the BzK+UGR Star Formation Rate @ z = 2 Misses highly reddened objects ~ 9 Objects/□' ~2/3 of the BzK+UGR Star Formation Rate @ z = 2 Misses highly reddened objects K20 BzK Objects (K<20) <E(B-V)> > 0.3 <SFR> = ~ 200 M⊙/yr ~1 Object/□' ~1/3 of the BzK+UGR Star Formation Rate @ z=2 Misses objects with K>20 Misses Objects wit /y ~ 1 Object/□' ~1/3 of the BzK+UGR Star Formation Rate @ z = 2 Misses objects with K>20 / che-1 drwx------ 31 alvio alvio 4096 Feb 20 12:15 . [alvio@nb004358 alvio]$

  16. Going deeper: the GMASS project (Also called the K21 project) VLT/FORS2 ultradeep spectroscopy (~30 hours integration per mask) over the UDF/GOODS-South field. PI A. Cimatti, Co-Is as usual Scheduled for September-November 2004. The selected targets on the BzK diagram All targets with: K>20 (average 21.2) (4.5)AB<23.5 (FromSpitzer/GOODS) Perhaps the first Spitzer-selected sample.

  17. Going Deeper: the UDF+GRAPES* Sample Selecting candidate passively evolving galaxies at z>1.4 from the UDF field (Bz) & GOODS (K) with the BzK plot. ACS/GRISM spectra from the GRAPES project. Daddi et al. 2004 (in prep) Targets down to K=21.1 GOODS K20 UDF *Malhotra et al. 2004

  18. ACS Cutouts & ACS/GRISM Spectra The MgUV Feature as a function of SSP age and for Continous SF + E(B-V)=1.2 ← Redshifts identified by the MgUV Feature agree with photo-z's

  19. ACS&NICMOS Morphologies Sersic index in z n~1.0 n=2.9 n= 4.7 n=9.0 n=4.2 n=4.3 merger? N=8.2

  20. Passive or Active? Object #4950 @ z=1.55

  21. Masses and Mass Densities Typical (stellar) masses of these galaxies are ~ 0.5-2 1011M⊙ The 6 passively evolving galaxies at 1.4<z<2.0 with M* > ~1011M⊙correspond to 20-40% of the number density of such galaxies at z=0. Assuming ro= 10 Mpc for their correlation length the 1 range becomes 10-80% (!) COSMIC VARIANCE dominates BIGGER FIELDS ARE NEEDED!

  22. Going Wider: BzK-selected galaxiesOver ~ 1000 □ ESO/SUBARU Collaboration:Cimatti, Daddi, Renzini, + Arimoto, Ikuta, Kong, Broadhurst, Pozzetti et al. Onodera, et al. K-band (<20.2) from NTT, Bz bands from SuprimeCam Objects observed with VIMOS, February '04 ❍ Blue grism, R=200  Red grism, R=600 Reductions in progress

  23. Work in Progress Typical VIMOS/Blue grism spectra of BzK-selected galaxies (R=200) Z=2.360 B=24.4 Z=1.565 B=24.3 Z = 1.822 B=23.6 Z=2.200 B=24.3

  24. GOODS, COSMOS, ..... GOODS: 160 + 160 □'COSMOS: 2 □° ACS Equatorial Field Goal: ~90,000 redshifts w/ VLT/VIMOS GOODS-South: To be proposed ... + Magellan/IMACS ~6000 redshifts from the VLT + whoever may like to join with other ~2000 released, the rest next fall telescopes COSMOS: Mapping galaxy evolution as a function of redshift and LSS Context by 2006-07.

  25. COSMOS Targets BzK+UGR selected Red, Blue, Black: (K)<0.2 2000; 20,000; 100,000 (BzK-selected galaxies) Yellow,Cyan: (K)>0.2 ~50,000 (UGR-selected, à la Steidel) Yellow+Blue: VLT/VIMOS/LR-blue Black: VLT/VIMOS/LR-Red Red: Magellan/IMACS Starforming, 1.4<z<2.5 Passive, z>1.4 Galaxies, z<1.4 Stars Data: Bz (SUBARU), K (NOAO, IfA), U (CFHT) from B. Mobasher catalog

  26. COSMOS Targets Bottom line: all selection criteria are +/- biased: the BzK+UGR selection is the most un-biased criterion we were able to invent. COSMOS PIs: ACS (Scoville), SUBARU (Taniguchi) CFHT (LeFevere) VLT (Lilly) Magellan (McCarthy) XMM (Hasinger) Galex (Rich) VLA (Schinnerer) ................. UGR BzK

  27. SUMMARY  Different CDM Models tuned to match some z=0 observable diverge widely by z=2.  By z=2 the massive galaxy mix is ~50-50 passive and starbursting  Current data favor an early build up of galactic spheroids, with the more massive ones completing their star formation ahead of the less massive ones (seemingly “anti-hierarchical”, “downsizing”)  Fully explored fields (< 100 □) are still dominated by cosmic variance. But ..................

  28. 2005-2007 (~full) Mapping of Galaxy Evolution up to z = 6.7 GOODS, IDDS, GDDS, GMASS, GEMS, COMBO17, UDF, CDFS, SDF, DEEP2, VVDS, COSMOS, SWIRE, GALEX, DEIMOS, VIMOS, IMAX, MOIRCS, GMOS, ACS, SuPrime, CHANDRA, XMM, SPITZER, SCUBA, VLA, FORS2, ISAAC, NICMOS, ............................................................. END

  29. Ellipticals in clusters and fieldlook much the same Bernardi et al. (2003): ~9000 ellipticals in the SDSS sample. No appreciable trend of the stellar population content with local density. “Field” ellipticals less than ~1 Gyr younger than cluster ellipticals.

  30. Searching for the high-z Precursors ofthe MMGs at z=0 By and large, this is ~equivalent to searching for the precursors of elliptical galaxies. @ z=1: Passively evolving “EROs” (R-K>5) in (almost) enough number Beyond z=1: ■Up to which redshift passively evolving galaxies can be found? ■Given that the bulk of stars in ellipticals formed at z>~3: where are the ELLIPTICALS IN FORMATION?

  31. Searching for High-z Massive Galaxies(the K20 Project, and Beyond) 1999: in absence of a better criterion, pick near-IR bright galaxies as best proxies to MMGs: i.e. Select for VLT spectroscopy K 20 galaxies ➔ the “K20 project” PI: A. Cimatti, Co-Is: E. Daddi, A. Fontana, L. Pozzetti, A. Renzini, G. Zamorani, T. Broadhurst, M. Mignoli, et al.  Deep VLT Spectroscopy of 546 K 20 objects, over two fields (52 □) ● Now  92% complete ( 95 % over the subfield included in the GOODS field) 1999: in absence of a better criterion, pick near-IR bright galaxies i.e. Select for VLT spectroscopy K 20 galaxies ➔ the “K20 project” PI: A. Cimatti, Co-Is: E. Daddi, A. Fontana, L. Pozzetti, A. Renzini, G. Zamorani, T. Broadhurst, M. Mignoli, et al.

  32. The Redshift Distribution of the K<20 Sample of Galaxies SAM Pure Luminosity Evolution (PLE) Models apparently do better than CDM (<2002) Semianalytic Models (SAM)(Cimatti et al. 2002) SAM PLE

  33. The Stellar Masses of K20 Galaxies Stellar masses derived from either color (R-K) (MA) or SED (UBVRIzJHK) fits (BF) and the K magnitude. ● Old Passive (Early type) ❍ Early + Emission line  Photo-z only X Star forming

  34. The Evolution of the Galaxy Mass Function Fontana et al. (2004) □ BF Masses ∇ MA Masses ❍ zspec only Color code: Bad fit Poor fit Fair fit Good fit Menci et al '02,'04 Nagamine et al '01 Cole et al. '00;Granato et al. '04 (Salpeter IMF) (Gould IMF) Somerville et al. '04a, '04b (Kennicutt IMF)

  35. The K20 vs the Munics Mass Function up to z=1.2 (Very nice agreement) Drory et al. (2004) 1 □o ; K<19.5; mostly photo-z's

  36. The Build Up of Stellar MassThrough Cosmic Time ⇧ is my preferred value from the fossil evidence (mass and formation redshift of local spheroids), i.e. >30% of the stellar mass done by z=3 (Renzini 1998, 1999) ⇧ From Fontana et al. (2004)

  37. Baryon-to-star conversion as a function of galaxy mass Available baryons from CDM simulation assuming cosmic share (b/m) Two Main Points:  There are enough massive DM halos to account for the massive galaxies we see (No fundamental failure of the DM paradigm).  Strong mass dependence of the baryon-to-star conversion efficiency (many interesting ramifications ... ). PLE

More Related