GEPI, Obs. Paris: F. Hammer, H. Flores, M. Puech & C. Balkowski LAM : P. Amram MPE ==> GEPI : M. Lehnert Stockholm Obs. : G. Ostlin, T. Marquart Galaxy dynamics since z ~ 1

FDF Vogt et al, (1997) 0.1< z <1.0   M B ~0.5 Simard & Pritchet al (1998)   M B ~2.0 Barden et al. (2003) 19 Sp. (0.6<z<1.5)   M B ~1.1 Ziegler et al, gal (0.1< z< 1.0)   M B ~1.0 z < 1, studies with slits B-band Tully Fisher relation & its evolution Local TF (Verjeinhen 2001)

K-band Tully Fisher relation & its evolution Conselice et al (2005) KECK/LRIS (long slit) Conselice et al (2005) Local TF (Verjeinhen 2001)

The multi-IFU mode of GIRAFFE 15 IFUs deployable over a 20 arcmin FoV R= 9000 / No cross-talk between fibers on the CCD 15 x

35 galaxies, Å: T int from 8 to 13hrs ==> 32 with enough pixels (6-18) with good S/N(OII) (> 6) CFRS , z=0.46, (3’’x2’’)Velocity field Preliminary program (GTO, Paris) 6 nights on distant galaxies (PI: H. Flores) x5 linear interpolation R> at rest [OII] doublet In most cases the doublet is well resolved

Also sigma maps… Provided by: the absence of cross-talk between individual spectra. from Blais-Ouellete, Amram et al, 2002 (Fabry-Perot/Halpha) GIRAFFE z=0.6  pixel =  random_motions   V large_scale_motions

Also sigma maps…  pixel =  random_motions   V large_scale_motions At low spatial resolution, dispersion maps of rotating disks do show a peak in their center Velocity map Dispersion or  map

And we find rotating disks at z ~ 0.6 HST/F814W Velocity field sigma map Maps from Puech et al (2006a) & Flores et al (2006), astro-ph/ & )

but also « perturbed » rotations HST/F814W Velocity fieldsigma map Maps from Puech et al (2006a) & Flores et al (2006), astro-ph/ & )

and much complex kinematics HST/F814WVelocity fieldsigma map Maps from Puech et al (2006a) & Flores et al (2006), astro-ph/ & )

Could we have missed rotating disks at z~ 0.6 ? Completness: ALL available galaxies (with redshift) with I AB 15A have been observed within the GIRAFFE field ==> no bias expected Spatial resolution: Several galaxies have r half < 0.5 arcsec in the continuum, i.e. the size of the GIRAFFE pixel But within the ionised gas region (OII): they have 11 GIRAFFE pixels (median value) with enough S/N(OII) (> 6) to be mapped HST/F814W OII hot pixels

A simple test of the classification We assume all galaxies to be rotating disks, i.e. their large scale motions to be rotational We can simply compared the derived  maps to the observed ones: Amplitude ratio versus  peak distances Complex VF Perturbed VF Rotat. disk VF ▲ █▲ █ ●

▲ ● Rotating disks (34 %) IFU: 3’’x 2’’ Perturbed rotation (22%) █ Complex kinematics (44%) Combined to photometric data: M B & M K  Tully-Fischer relation A simple classification scheme

Conselice et al (2005) KECK/LRIS (long slit) Conselice et al (2005) Tully-Fischer relation at z ~ 0.6 (K band) VLT/GIRAFFE-IFUs Flores et al (2006, A&A, astro-ph/ )

Complex VF Perturbed VF Disk-like VF ▲█▲█ ● Conselice et al (2005) KECK/LRIS (long slit) Conselice et al (2005) VLT/GIRAFFE-IFUs Flores et al (2006, A&A, astro-ph/ )

Conselice et al (2005) KECK/LRIS (long slit) Conselice et al (2005) VLT/GIRAFFE-IFUs Flores et al (2006, A&A, astro-ph/ ) Scatter is related to interlopers (non relaxed kinematics)

Local TF (Verjeinhen 2001)TF at z=0.6 (Flores et al, 2006) Tully-Fischer not evolving ? We need statistics !!!

Galaxy kinematics at z ~ 0.6: some numbers A (small) complete sample of 35 galaxies: I AB  22.5 ; W 0 (OII) > 15A and 0.4  z  0.75 ==> representative of emission line galaxies at z= 0.6 (M B representative of emission line galaxies at z= 0.6 (M B < -19.5) - Simple classification using VF+sigma+ HST morphology: rotating disks: 31%; perturbed/complex: 60%; undetermined: 9% - Accounting for all IAB< 22.5 (i.e. including quiescent E/S0/…): ==> we do find that ~ 40% of them are not relaxed systems GIRAFFE/multiple IFUs: good tool to study the VF of distant galaxies SOON: a sample with 80 z=0.6 galaxies

some prospectives with SKA To test TF evolution requires to go to z=1 and further, for catching galaxies with more significant gas content z=0: stellar TF / baryonic TF McGaugh; 2005 About 50% of today stars formed since z=1 (Hammer et al 2005) and 2 times more gas at z=0.65 than today (indirect estimate, Liang et al, 2006) ==> SKA to identify the gas origin for the star formation (better than from just modelling)

Some numbers To sample “large scale” motions in individual galaxies, requires 2-3 kpc up to z= 1 (e.g. Giraffe) ==> is this feasible with SKA ? A need to simulate the best/other configuration (baseline/field) to be used with SKA… From van der Hulst et al (2004)

Some other needs to prepare SKA To have a full understanding of the gas/star/total mass in the local universe HI surveys (v flat + M(HI) ) have still not the coverage of SDSS (optical spectra + images) and of 2MASS (stellar masses) ! HI for SDSS-2MASS galaxies Chemin et al. (2007, in preparation)

Comparison with simulations -a large fraction of on-going minor & major mergers at z= 0.6 ? * perturbed VF: minor mergers ? * complex VF: major mergers ? ==> to be compared with hydrodynamical codes (coll. with Cox, Dekel, Primack et al) Puech ‘s PhD thesis Simulations: T. J. Cox

Merger rates from imagery Morphologically-messed up things Morphologically-messed up things Close galaxy pairs Close galaxy pairs Neither are perfect Neither are perfect * Bell et al. 06 Patton et al Bundy et al Le Fevre et al Conselice et al Somerville et al. in prep. ~1/3 (EB) to 3/4 (FH) merger per L* galaxy, since z= 1 From ~1/3 (EB) to 3/4 (FH) merger per L* galaxy, since z= 1 ~ Consistent with ~ 40% of on-going mergers (from VF) at z=0.6 …

Conclusion 1- Since z=0.4, galaxy dynamics is too complex to be sampled by slits ==> is this a definitive claim ? 2- Requires multi-IFUs to sample > 50 rotating disks (among > 150 distant galaxies); goal is to verify the absence of TF evolution 3- High rate of merging (major/minor) or could this be recovered by other scenarios (cold gas, Dekel & Birboim)? 4- To be compared with gas/metal/SFR/stellar mass evolution ==> another clue of the “disk rebuilding” ?

Merger or secular evolution ?

Status of IMAGES Observations of half the targets with GIRAFFE & FORS2: -all the tools well-designed (see Flores et al, Puech et al, 2006) - further progress in estimating V max (comparison with FP data) Data reduction well in progress: -most GIRAFFE datacubes reduced, FORS2 spectra reduced and analyses in progress First paper submitted (IMAGES1, Ravikumar et al)

FLAMES/GIRAFFE on the UT2MEDUSE, 132 mono-fibers, 1”.2 IFU, IFU, 3’’x2’’arrays 15 deployable IFUs ARGUS, ARGUS, 11”x7” array 3 modes

FP velocity field ESO 400-G43 (Ostlin et al, 2001) Simulated Giraffe IFU observation (degraded spatial resolution, z=0.6) Perturbed/complex VFs are real!! - FP observations of 20 GHASP galaxies (Amram et al, 2002) ==> simulations of 60 data-cubes at different z ==> rotating disks are recovered - FP observations of complex velocity fields: Comparison to local (Fabry-Perot)