Presentation on theme: "Conference Summary Richard Ellis (Caltech) 51 talks × 30 slides = 1530 slides AND 54 posters All carefully digested, rationalized, inter- compared with."— Presentation transcript:
Conference Summary Richard Ellis (Caltech) 51 talks × 30 slides = 1530 slides AND 54 posters All carefully digested, rationalized, inter- compared with results in the literature to give a lucid, crisp, holistic view of the role of the environment in the formation of galaxies…..
`Environmental processes as `astronomical weather Everyone knows it happens Theorists dont think its important in the `big picture Numerical predictions of it are often famously wrong …and we all know it does have an important effect! Totally soaked!
Dressler 1980Butcher et al 1984 Key ingredients governing `environmental revolution Morphology – density relation (T – Σ) Rising blue fraction f B (z) Gas stripping as likely mechanism (Gunn & Gott 1972) The Environmental Revolution
But also strong evolution in the field 0
Importance of Environment: (Mpc -2 ) ~25% of all stars at z~0 are in ellipticals (75% in spheroids) Most are in massive galaxies whose mass function is correlated with 25% of stellar mass is in dense environments (lg > 0.4) Baldry, Balogh, Bower et al MNRAS 373, 469 (2006) Mass fn: (M, ) Fraction in red light f( )
Environmental density plays key role in governing morphological mix: - Continued growth in high but delay for lower regions - Slower conversion of spirals to S0s with only Es at z > 1? Smith et al Ap J 620, 78 (2005) f E/S0 Evolution of Morphology Density Relation
Changing Paradigms of Galaxy Formation Classical paradigm ( ): galaxies evolve in isolation present-day properties governed by SF history ellipticals: prompt conversion of gas stars spirals: gradual consumption of gas, continuous SF DM paradigm (1985-): grav. instability governs merging of halos low mass halos collapse first (bottom up formation) mergers transform morphologies (ellipticals form late) dense environments evolve faster (clusters older than field) Enhanced DM paradigm (2003-): feedback solves all finally match the galaxy LF (after 20 years of trying) reverse assembly history (a.k.a downsizing, initially disputed) now enthusiastically embraced via AGNheating externally-driven processes not so important Have we come full circle?
Why Question Importance of the Environment? Its hard to distinguish between effects of mass (which depends on ) and external processes expected due to the environment (accelerated evolution vs environmental evolution) Its hard to find correlations between some of the finer properties of galaxies and (but this depends on scale/epoch) Evolutionary trends (T- ) may reflect global trends in the field or subtle biases Theorists are happy `fiddling with feedback as it does so well it matching data BEWARE OF ANY THEORY THAT EXPLAINS ALL KNOWN DATA!
Profound statements by some of our pundits This slide will self-destruct after the meeting, so dont worry.. -`Nature is beating `nurture (Bower) but I dont think he meant it! - `Halo mass is king (Croton) - Its all compatible with hierarchical assembly (Croton) - Environment just buys you more time in mass assembly (Lilly) - I have nothing to say about clusters (Lilly) - Field L* galaxies are the most important objects (Cooper) Possible explanation: - environmental effects are relevant but at a level below that for which the above pundits are interested (i.e. secondary) - the data is good enough to warrant much more detailed physical considerations, so numerical simulations particularly important `Gene-expression is influenced by environment which in turn is shaped by gene-expression (Babul)
Environment is equivalent to > 2 Gyr retardation NB: Cosmos field does not probe full range of cosmic densities A mere delay in gas exhaustion or two different processes? Cross-over mass for early types Lilly/Tasca
Fraction of star forming galaxies suppressed in dense environments – but its a continuous trend Local density is more important than halo mass Luminosity is more important than environment isolated galaxies Even isolated regions contain passive galaxies Balogh et al The colour-magnitude diagram
- Do AGNs really live in quenched/ing galaxies? Nandra et al. 2006
Topics at the Meeting (..a selection ) Environmental processes in clusters (Bekki, Babul, Ma, Poggianti, Kodama, Tran) Detailed studies of local clusters (Chung, Cote, Gallazzi, Ferrari, Smith) Growth of red sequence galaxies and dependences (Bower, Almaini, Rettura, Aragon-Salamanca, Lilly, Tasca, Cooper, Yee, Kaviraj) Dynamical masses and ages of red galaxies (Hudson, Colless) Groups vs clusters (Barton, Balogh, Rasmussen, V-Montenegro,Wilman) HI/X-ray studies of galaxies and groups (Alighieri, Hau, Hughes, Mulchaey) Role of mergers (Duc, Conselice, Robaina) Dusty SF galaxies as tracers (Cirasuolo, Saintonge, Le Floch, Haines) Nearby E and E+A galaxies (Bureau, Goto, Couch) Mass - metallicity relations (Ellison)
Clusters are excellent laboratories They contain a significant fraction of red galaxies at high Physically-sound simulations indicating a range of important processes occur (stripping, starvation, tidal effects, harassment) (Bekki, Smith) We see evidence of these processes: - recent production of S0s (Just, Wilman) - in-situ evolution in selected clusters (Moran, Kodama) - intracluster stars (Coté, Tran) Issues: -why is it hard to see environmental dependencies in local color-mag and FP (Bower, Colless) - could many of the evolutionary trends simply reflect processes occurring naturally in the field (Haines)?
Recent Formation of S0s Dennis Just (award-winning poster!) see also Wilman Strong differential growth of S0s between field and cluster is clear evidence for importance of environmental processes
Hot gas Disk gas Halo gas V=500 km/s T=10 7 K (M cl =10 14 M sun ) M d =6*10 10 M sun,v c =220 km/s,B/D=0.2 (DM halo + bulge + disk stars/gas + halo gas+SF) Removal of gas in cluster environs (Bekki) More efficient stripping in clusters (F strip depends on M cl, V, T etc). Typically 70% of gas can be removed from galaxy halos.
Sharp onset of [OII] emitters at R VIRIAL ~1.5Mpc Subsequently enhanced Balmer absorption (H ) Recently-arrived field galaxies interact with ICM in cluster environs Model illustration: 200 Myr burst at R VIRIAL involving 1% burst by mass Environmental rejuvenation as important as mass-dependent trends [OII] H + H E+A R (Mpc) Moran et al (2007) In Situ Evoln - I: Radial Trends in Cluster E/S0s
No optical emission (OII <5 Å) –lack of star formation Visible spiral structure –no major disruption to the structure of the galaxy (e.g. major merger) But strong FUV emission! Passive spirals caught in final decline in SFR in last yr Moran et al Ap J 641, L97 (2006) E Sp In Situ Evoln - II: Passive Spirals
Measuring the Quenching Timescale ~100Myr ~1Gyr NUV-r D n 4000
Passive spirals less concentrated in MS0451 as expected for starvation Abundances timescales sufficient for production of local S0s Passive Spirals: Cl 0024 vs. MS 0451
high med low high cluster core med group / filament low field Sharp colour transition in groups/outskirts RXJ1716 cluster (z=0.81) Koyama, TK, et al. (2008)
Spatial Distribution of the 15μm sources Koyama, TK, et al. (2008 ) A void of 15um sources at the center! single / blended 15μm sources X-ray (Chandra) map (Jeltema et al.)
The S0 Bulge Problem: A Possible Resolution Passive spirals are sufficiently abundant over 0
Diffuse Starlight in Virgo (Mihos et al)
6dF survey K< ,000g (Colless) Maybe environmental trends have been erased by z=0?
Treu et al Ap J 622, L5 (2005) v Dokkum & vd Marel (2007) Only marginal trends seen with density (including SDSS): - mass-dependent growth is a galactic-scale phenomenon? - age differential (field vs cluster) ~ 0.4 z~0 (4%) clusters field SDSS log Marginal Environmental Dependence of FP
Radial Dependence of FP in One System Radial dependence of FP: 71 spheroidals in Cl (z=0.40) Spheroidals in core are passively evolving since z F > 2 Outermost spheroids have younger stellar pop n ( t > 0.6 Gyr) Moran et al Ap J 634,977 (2005) Coma
Are Mergers a key feature of galaxy assembly? We all agree mergers happen Simulations show they can destroy disks, remove/consume remaining gas and produce a red and dead product Detailed studies of nearby spheroidals show evidence of past accretions But what fraction of the mass growth in the red sequence comes from these events [Speakers seemed more obsessed with comparing observations with Millenium Simulation rather than addressing this question!]
Dichotomy in Local Early-Types Martin Bureau
We Know the Growth Rate in Red Galaxies Using rest-frame U-B color as a discriminant, a threshold stellar mass is apparent above which there is no SF Mass threshold increases from ~10 11 M at z~0.3 to ~10 12 M at z >1 Stable from field-to-field (V/bin~ Mpc 3 ) Little change for high mass quiescent galaxies over z<1 Bundy et al (2006)
Downsizing: Red Growth Mass Increasing abundance but strongly mass-dependent Morphological spheroidals have a similar formation pattern. (Bundy et al. 2005) Bundy et al. 2006
Mass Dependent Pair Fraction Background field correction Redshift pair correction. Log M* ~ 11.3 Log M* ~ 10.3 Lin et al DEEP2 Bundy et al 2009
Volumetric Merger Rate Log Merger Rate Density, Gyr -1 Mpc -3 Log M * Too few mergers to explain growth of early types AND to drive AGN activity! Bundy et al (2008)
Selected `Interesting Results Stripping most efficient at the time when groups merge to form clusters (Bekki) Extension of FP to very feeble galaxies suggest downsizing ends at 70 km/s dispersions (Hudson) Serious selection effects in deriving color/T- relation in L-selected samples (Lilly/Tasca) Incorporation of strangulation into semi-analytic models (Bower) Evidence for environmental heating in clusters galaxy stirring (Babul) Appearance of color-L relation at z > 2 in UKIDSS UDS (Almaini) IFU spectroscopy of local E+A galaxies (Couch) MIR B-O effect (Saintongue, Haines, Kodama) Renewed interest in S0s (Wilman, Just, Bamford..)
The End of Downsizing? (Smith et al 07, Allanson et al 09) Hudson/Smith
Biases inherent in luminosity-selected samples?
1.5 < z <
Clustering evolution with redshift and luminosity (passive vs starforming) Hartley et al. (in prep) Almaini/Hartley
Some good things about semi-analytic models Current models seem to do reasonably well …. (Im sure someone will contradict me!) Current models seem to do reasonably well …. (Im sure someone will contradict me!) Present-day luminosity functions Present-day luminosity functions The transition mass The transition mass Galaxy down-sizing Galaxy down-sizing The models achieve this by suppressing cooling in high mass haloes The models achieve this by suppressing cooling in high mass haloes See also Croton et al., De Lucia et al.; Kitzbichler et al., Somerville et al 2008
Where Next? Multi-wavelength studies continue to drive the field Detailed studies of individual systems (STAGES, A3921, 0024/0451) can be just as valuable as big surveys High s/n spectroscopy can be very influential (also GALEX) Resolved studies of distant galaxies is arriving (e.g. bulges, S0s) Disentangling group processes from clusters is key - good progress Attention to detail on biases in L/M-selected samples Making semi-analytical models more realistic using physical simulations Lots of work to keep us all happy and motivated!
We Spanned the Full Range of Environment! Kuala Lumpur log = 3.0 (excluding motorcycles!) Kuala Selangor log = 0.0 (discounting fireflies)
..and we had a great party! Many thanks to.. Meghan, Frazer, Mike Merrifield, Duncan, Taddy, Jiasheng…and others!
Conference Philosophy Just as a distinction between nature and nurture can prevent us from taking a holistic view of galaxy evolution, so divisions between observations at different wavelengths and redshifts, simulations and theory can inhibit a full understanding of galaxy evolution. The aim of this conference is to synthesize these diverse lines of research by dividing the programme into astrophysical rather than astronomical strands. The intention is that speakers should place their own contributions in a broader context, in order to develop understanding of the individual underlying physical processes that shape galaxy evolution.
Halo Merger Rates from Millennium Bundy et al. Ap J 665, L5 (2007) Growth rate of halos seen in MS also fails to match production rate of halos hosting new spheroidals in GOODS