Decomposing Profiles of SDSS Galaxies

356 views
242 views

Published on

Review talk by Prof. Mariangela Bernardi at the SuperJEDI Conference, July 2013

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
356
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Decomposing Profiles of SDSS Galaxies

  1. 1. Decomposing Profiles of SDSS Galaxies: Systematics in the local L-R relation and Luminosity function M. Bernardi, A. Meert, et al.
  2. 2. SDSS z~0.1 Cimatti et al. 2008 Z ~ 1.8 5 kpc @ z~0 → 0.9 kpc @ z~2 van Dokkum et al. 2008 Z ~ 2.3 Recent work in sizes ….. At fixed stellar mass, high-z sizes are smaller by (1+z)-1 or more (e.g. Trujillo et al. 2007; Cimatti et al. 2008; van Dokkum et al. 2008; Saglia et al. 2011; Bruce et al. 2012; Fan et al. 2013)
  3. 3. Different ways ….. Major merger Minor merger Disk instability Duc et al. 2011 Major mergers (mass roughly equal) increase size and mass proportionally Minor mergers tend to increase size more then mass and decrease velocity dispersion Minor mergers is the preferred scenario, but problems still exist Some growth scenarios ….
  4. 4. The densities < 1kpc are higher by a factor of 2–3! The densities < Re are higher by a factor > 100! Bezanson et al. 2009 Inside-out growth scenario (minor mergers) is plausible, in which the compact high z galaxies make up the centers of normal nearby Es. More on mergers …..
  5. 5. Impact of Major Dry Mergers at M* > 2 x 1011 Bernardi et al. 2011b Evidence of Major dry mergers Wet mergers Two scales: 3x1010 and 2x1011 MSun
  6. 6. Less curvature with +
  7. 7. van der Wel et al. 2011 65%±15% of the population of massive, quiescent z ~ 2 galaxies are disk-dominated “The much-discussed ultra-dense high-redshift galaxies should generally be thought of as disk-like stellar systems with the majority of stars formed from gas that had time to settle into a disk”
  8. 8. Red Fraction or Early-type Fraction? Bernardi et al. 2010
  9. 9. Bernardi et al. 2010 E Red g–r Red g–r E ~ 30-40% disk contamination
  10. 10. Model where a galaxy has doubled its luminosity through 1:1 mergers between z ~ 0.8 and z ~ 0.1 Using 1:1 mergers Merger rates > 25% are ruled out with 50% confidence Using 1:3 mergers Merger rates up to 40% are allowed at 50% confidence The total stellar mass in massive red galaxies from z~0.9 must not have grown by more than 50% (Brown et al. 2007 -> 80% of M* in 4L* galaxies was already in place at z~0.7 Wake et al. 2006 -> 50% of M* in LRGs already assembled by z~0.6) In contrast L* galaxies have increased their stellar mass by a factor of ~2 Little evolution in the Luminosity Function (e.g. Wake et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2007; Cool et al. 2008) Z ~ 0.8 Cool et al. 2008 Z~0.8
  11. 11. Bernardi et al. 2010 Uncertainties in the local M*F
  12. 12. Dependence on how L is computed Bernardi et al. 2013b
  13. 13. Luminosity Function Bernardi et al. 2013b
  14. 14. M* Function Bernardi et al. 2013b
  15. 15. Dependence on Morphology
  16. 16. Some conclusions …. • higher stellar mass density at z ~ 0 resolves the tension with respect to the total mass density inferred from the integrated SFR • allows for a higher incidence of major (in addition to minor) mergers in driving the M* growth of the most massive central galaxies at late times • Constraints on halo models • Limits effects due to AGN feedback • Constraints on IMF

×