0.2 = 1.6 kpc Prominent “new” issues IMF Metallicity (gas, stars!) Environment (is it important at high z?) Feedback (not new, but not solved; esp. star formation feedback, again issue of timescales!) SFHs, Dust... (maybe for a future workshop?) Connection between structural parameters and SF activity (red sequence, gradual “cross-over”, dense objects, higher diversity at high z?) SFGs == Stream-fed galaxies, timescales, dynamics ...
0.2 = 1.6 kpc Consistent comparisons over different redshift ranges (tracers/diagnostics; populations) Account for observational selection effects and biases Consistent comparisons between observations and simulations/models (same “measured” quantities) Challenges ...
0.2 = 1.6 kpc Ways Forward Cf. “challenges”: can be already tackled, awareness increasing! Complementary approaches: which is better for what aspects? - wider/deeper surveys ( stacking) - wavelength regimes - spatially-resolved properties Environment at high z: modellers: make predictions now for near-future observations! In massive galaxies: relative importance of - AGN feedback? - SF feedback? Is the time come to play with IMF, or can we still happily ignore it for a while? Is it worthwhile to update individual bits to complex models/simulations? Two quotes: “Should we bother making simulations?” “Should we bother making observations”? Vote! ...
Quotes Should we bother making simulations? Anonymous observer Should we bother making observations? Anonymous modeller YES and YES!
Thank you!