1. The Tully-Fisher Relation: Across Morphological Types and Redshift
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Stellar: Michael Williams, Michele Cappellari
CO: Timothy Davis, Lisa Young, Katey Alatalo, Leo Blitz
Atlas3D Team
NANTEN2: Kazafumi Torii, Satoshi Yoshiike, Selçuk Topal, Yasuo Fukui,
NANTEN2 consortium
KMOS: Sarah Miller, Mark Sullivan, Roger Davies,
UK KMOS consortium
Plans: Galaxy formation, scaling relations, T-F relation
Stellar T-F: data, modeling, Vc , S0-S evolution
CO T-F: data, Vc biases, prospects
High-z: local benchmarks, ALMA, VLT/KMOS
Summary

2. The Tully-Fisher Relation: Across Morphological Types and Redshift
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Stellar: Michael Williams, Michele Cappellari
CO: Timothy Davis, Lisa Young, Katey Alatalo, Leo Blitz
Atlas3D Team
NANTEN2: Kazafumi Torii, Satoshi Yoshiike, Selçuk Topal, Yasuo Fukui,
NANTEN2 consortium
KMOS: Sarah Miller, Mark Sullivan, Roger Davies,
UK KMOS consortium
Plans: Galaxy formation, scaling relations, T-F relation
Stellar T-F: data, modeling, Vc , S0-S evolution
CO T-F: data, Vc biases, prospects
High-z: local benchmarks, ALMA, VLT/KMOS
Summary

3. Hubble Sequence (spheroid) S Aa S Ab S Ac S Ad
Mass, velocity dispersion,
L-weighted age, density S0
(Astronomy 01)
Irr E1 E3 E7
Gas fraction, rotation, SF
(disk)
S Ba
S Bb
S Bc
S Bd

4. Broad Aims Goals: Context: Mass assembly history
(gas, stars, dark matter)
Chemical enrichment history
(age, metallicity, SFH)
Context:
Hierarchical structure formation
(merging, harassment, ...)
Internal dynamical evolution
(BH/triaxiality-driven, ...)
⇒ Exploit "fossil record"
(near-field cosmology)
(HST HDF)
(SINS)

5. Scaling Relations (correlations)
Stellar Evolution:
Colour - mag. diagram (CMD)
UVX - Mg relation
Galaxy Evolution:
Fundamental plane (FP)
Star Formation:
Far infrared - radio correlation
Kennicutt - Schmidt law (K-S)
Underlying Physics:
M/L - velocity dispersion
Dark - visible matter
(Micela et al. 88)
(Blanton et al. 06)
(Combes et al. 07)

6. Tully-Fisher: Definition
Originally, optical luminosity (magnitude) vs. HI linewidth
(corrected for disk inclination)
Generally, any luminosity
(stellar mass) vs. any rotational velocity (total mass)
⇒ Luminous vs. dark matter
Uses:
Distance determination
(H0, peculiar velocity field, …)
⇒ M/L evolution with z (and type)
(zero-point and scatter)
Lum.
(Bureau et al. 96)
V/sin i

7. Tully-Fisher: M/L evolution
Scaling:
We have:
G M / R2 = V2 / R
M α V2 R
We define:
M/L
Σ = M / πR2
We get:
L = V4 / πG2 (M/L) Σ
L α V4 (M/L)-1 Σ-1
M/L:
Stellar populations
- Age
- Metallicity
- Non-Solar abundance ratio
- Star formation history (SFH)
- Initial mass function (IMF)
- …
Dark matter
Size scale …
(Gas-rich) disk galaxies

8. Tully-Fisher: Tracers
Spirals
S0s
Ellipticals
Global HI line widths
YES
USUALLY NOT
ALMOST NEVER
Resolved ionised gas rotation curves
SOMETIMES NO
Resolved stellar rotation curves (corrected)
Circular velocity of mass models

9. Stellar + CO T-F: Goals Goals: E - S0 - S continuity: M/L evolution
Constraints on galaxy formation through zero-point and scatter
Probe E-S0-S interface
(stellar pops, DM, structure)
Constrain E-S0-S evolution
Identical treatment of E/S0/S
(avoid systematic biases)
E - S0 - S continuity:

10. The Tully-Fisher Relation: Across Morphological Types and Redshift
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Stellar: Michael Williams, Michele Cappellari
CO: Timothy Davis, Lisa Young, Katey Alatalo, Leo Blitz
Atlas3D Team
NANTEN2: Kazafumi Torii, Satoshi Yoshiike, Selçuk Topal, Yasuo Fukui,
NANTEN2 consortium
KMOS: Sarah Miller, Mark Sullivan, Roger Davies,
UK KMOS consortium
Plans: Galaxy formation, scaling relations, T-F relation
Stellar T-F: data, modeling, Vc, S0-S evolution
CO T-F: data, Vc biases, prospects
High-z: local benchmarks, ALMA, VLT/KMOS
Summary

11. Stellar T-F: Sample, data
28 edge-on disk galaxies:
14 S0, 14 Sa-Sc
Mostly bright, HSB, field objects
(Bureau & Freeman 1999)
K-band images
(Bureau et al. 06)
Stellar kinematics (2-3 Re)
(Chung et al. 04)
⇒ Inclination known, need to derive (corrected) rotation velocity
Stellar kinematics: (V, σ, h3, h4)
(Chung et al. 04) v σ h3 h4
vrms = √(v2 + σ2)

12. Stellar T-F: Modeling method
JAM:
MDM
Luminous MGE model:
Multi-Gaussian expansion of image (incl. negative terms)
⇒ Radially constant M/L* free
Dark NFW halo:
Assumed mass- concentration relation
⇒ Dark halo virial mass MDM free
JAM dynamical model:
Jeans axisymmetric modeling
⇒ Radially constant orbital anisotropy βz free
M/L*
(Williams et al. 09)
* Rotation dominant (esp. in outer parts),
so anisotropy effects unimportant
(mass-anisotropy degeneracy minimised)

13. Stellar T-F: Velocity measure
Velocities:
Need single measure of velocity
Flat (or asymptotic) velocity
Systematics:
Past works compare modeled Vcirc (or Vdrift) of S0s with HI line widths for Ss: significant biases
⇒ Here, compare Vcirc with Vcirc
Velocity definition:
(Williams et al. 10)
V (km s-1)
R (arcsec)

14. Stellar T-F: Velocity measure
Velocities:
Need single measure of velocity
Flat (or asymptotic) velocity
Systematics:
Past works compare modeled Vcirc (or Vdrift) of S0s with HI line widths for Ss: significant biases
⇒ Here, compare Vcirc with Vcirc
Velocity comparisons:
Vcirc - Vdrift S0 S
S0 (Bedregal et al. 06)
VHI - Vdrift
(Williams et al. 10)

15. Stellar T-F: Velocity measure
VLA+ATCA:
Velocities:
Need single measure of velocity
Flat (or asymptotic) velocity
Systematics:
Past works compare modeled Vcirc (or Vdrift) of S0s with HI line widths for Ss: significant biases
⇒ Here, compare Vcirc with Vcirc
(Chung et al. 06, 12)

16. Stellar T-F: S0 vs Sab S0 vs Sab: Evolution: T-F relation: K-band
Large offset to Sc-Sd T-F relation for both S0 and Sab
S0 fainter than Sab by
0.50 ± 0.15 mag at K (identical treatment)
(smaller than previous studies)
Evolution:
Fading timescale ≈1 Gyr,
but S0 up to z≈1
⇒ Passive evolution (exclusively) ruled out
T-F relation: K-band
(14 S Sa-Sc, mostly field spirals)
(K-band; 2-3 Re stellar kinematics) S0 S
(Williams et al. 10)

17. Baryonic T-F: S0 vs Sab Baryonic and “total” T-F:
S0 and Sab still slightly offset when considering stellar mass
(0.2 dex) (worse if gas added)
S0 – Sab offset unchanged for dynamical mass
(although Mdyn rather uncertain)
If S0 – Sab Mdyn offset is true, then “broken homology”
(S0 more compact by 20%)
⇒ S0 not simply S fading…
dynamical “processing”
required
T-F relation: M* and Mdyn M* S0 S
Mdyn
(Williams et al. 10)

18. Baryonic T-F: S0 vs Sab Baryonic and “total” T-F:
S0 and Sab still slightly offset when considering stellar mass
(0.2 dex) (worse if gas added)
S0 – Sab offset unchanged for dynamical mass
(although Mdyn rather uncertain)
If S0 – Sab Mdyn offset is true, then “broken homology”
(S0 more compact by 20%)
⇒ S0 not simply S fading…
dynamical “processing”
required
T-F relation: M* and Mdyn
M α V2 R
M α V4 (M/L)-1 Σ-1

19. The Tully-Fisher Relation: Across Morphological Types and Redshift
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Stellar: Michael Williams, Michele Cappellari
CO: Timothy Davis, Lisa Young, Katey Alatalo, Leo Blitz
Atlas3D Team
NANTEN2: Kazafumi Torii, Satoshi Yoshiike, Selçuk Topal, Yasuo Fukui,
NANTEN2 consortium
KMOS: Sarah Miller, Mark Sullivan, Roger Davies,
UK KMOS consortium
Plans: Galaxy formation, scaling relations, T-F relation
Stellar T-F: data, modeling, Vc , S0-S evolution
CO T-F: data, Vc biases, prospects
High-z: local benchmarks, ALMA, VLT/KMOS
Summary

20. CO T-F Tracer Spirals S0s Ellipticals Global HI line widths YES
USUALLY NOT
ALMOST NEVER
Resolved ionised gas rotation curves
SOMETIMES NO
Resolved stellar rotation curves (corrected)
Circular velocity of mass models

21. CO T-F Tracer Spirals S0s Ellipticals Global CO line widths YES
SOMETIMES
Global HI line widths
USUALLY NOT
ALMOST NEVER
Resolved ionised gas rotation curves NO
Resolved stellar rotation curves (corrected)
Circular velocity of mass models

22. CO T-F: Caveats and pitfalls
Possible Pitfalls:
CO may not extend to flat part of rotation curve
Geometry and inclination ill- defined
CO-rich populations unrepresentative of general galaxy population (biased) …
(Young et al. 11)
(Young et al. 11)

23. CO T-F: Atlas3D survey Atlas3D ⇒ 260 galaxies Sample selection:
MK < -21.5
D < 41 Mpc
|δ – 29º| < 35º , |b| > 15º
All E/S0s, no spiral structure
Data:
SAURON optical wide-field IFU
SDSS/INT optical + 2MASS NIR imaging
IRAM 30m CO (1-0)+(2-1) + CARMA CO (1-0) follow-up
WSRT HI (δ > 10º, excl. Virgo)
Various archives (XMM, Chandra, GALEX, HST, Spitzer, …)
Atlas3D
Red
Blue
g-r
(Cappellari et al. 11) Mr
⇒ 260 galaxies

24. CO T-F: Single-dish survey
IRAM 30m Survey:
CO(1-0,2-1), 23/12” FWHM
260 Atlas3D E/SOs
Sensitivity: 3 mK (30 km s-1)
3 x 107 M⊙
Results:
22% detection rate
MH2 = M⊙
CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) ≈ 1 - 2
Largely independent of:
luminosity, dynamics (λR),
environment (Virgo), …
High S/N:
Low S/N:
(Combes, Young & Bureau 07; Young et al. 11)

25. CO T-F: Single-dish survey
IRAM 30m Survey:
CO(1-0,2-1), 23/12” FWHM
260 Atlas3D E/SOs
Sensitivity: 3 mK (30 km s-1)
3 x 107 M⊙
Results:
22% detection rate
MH2 = M⊙
CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) ≈ 1 - 2
Largely independent of:
luminosity, dynamics (λR),
environment (Virgo), …
Optical CMD + CO:
(Young et al. 11, 13)

26. CO T-F: Inclination measures
Stellar:
Galaxy axis ratio
(intrinsic thickness; c/a=0.34)
JAM best-fit inclination
(Molecular) Gas:
Unsharp-masked image
ellipse fitting
Tilted-ring model best-fit inclination
⇒ Error not strongly dependent on inclination
Stellar i :
(Davis et al. 11a)
(Cappellari et al. 10)

27. CO T-F: Inclination measures
Atlas3D (CARMA):
H2 and stars often misaligned:
≥1/3 external (accretion/cooling)
≤2/3 internal (stellar mass loss)
Always aligned in clusters
Randomly misaligned in field
⇒ Increased scatter (and bias)
in field ?
(Alatalo et al. 12)
H2 - stars
(Davis et al. 11b)
Misalignment angle

28. CO T-F: Inclination measures
Stellar:
Galaxy axis ratio
(intrinsic thickness; c/a=0.34)
JAM best-fit inclination
(Molecular) Gas:
Unsharp-masked image
ellipse fitting
Tilted-ring model best-fit inclination
⇒ Error not strongly dependent on inclination
(Molecular) gas i :
(Davis et al. 11a)
(Cappellari et al. 10)

29. CO T-F: Velocity measure
Selection:
Double-horn profiles likely to reach Vflat
(imperfect diagnostic)
CO traces Vflat globally
(not Vpeak)
CO traces the circular velocity locally
⇒ CO excellent kinematic tracer
Integrated profiles :
(Young et al. 11)

30. CO T-F: Velocity measure
CO vs. Ionised Gas:
CO rotating faster (colder) then ionised gas
(and stars)
Nearly perfect tracer of the circular velocity
Better (and excellent) tracer of dynamical mass
 : BIMA CO (1-0)
--- : SAURON JAM model
+ : SAURON stars
+ : SAURON ionised gas
(Davis et al. 12)

31. CO T-F: Results CO Tully-Fisher: CO Tully-Fisher relations:
Many (potential) pitfalls
Many better than expected
Many simple workarounds
Slope and zero-point
robustly recovered
Standard intrinsic scatter
⇒ Stellar / Jeans T-F
easily recovered
⇒ No or minimum efforts !
⇒ Great prospect to probe
M/L(z) with LMT+ALMA…
CO Tully-Fisher relations:
(Davis et al. 11a)

32. CO T-F: Results ETG/FR vs Sc: CO Tully-Fisher relations:
Sc follow spirals in HI
ETG/FR fainter than Sc by 1.0 ± 0.1 mag at K-band
(identical treatment)
Consistent with Williams et al.’s 0.5 mag at K-band offset for Sab
(consistent with past work)
⇒ CO T-F easily recovered across all Hubble types
(and environments)
CO Tully-Fisher relations:
(Chung et al., in prep)

33. CO T-F Tracer Spirals S0s Ellipticals Global CO line widths YES
SOMETIMES
Global HI line widths
USUALLY NOT
ALMOST NEVER
Resolved ionised gas rotation curves NO
Resolved stellar rotation curves (corrected)
Circular velocity of mass models

34. CO T-F Tracer Spirals S0s Ellipticals Global CO line widths YES
Global HI line widths
USUALLY NOT
ALMOST NEVER
Resolved ionised gas rotation curves
SOMETIMES NO
Resolved stellar rotation curves (corrected)
Circular velocity of mass models

35. The Tully-Fisher Relation: Across Morphological Types and Redshift
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Stellar: Michael Williams, Michele Cappellari
CO: Timothy Davis, Lisa Young, Katey Alatalo, Leo Blitz
Atlas3D Team
NANTEN2: Kazafumi Torii, Satoshi Yoshiike, Selçuk Topal, Yasuo Fukui,
NANTEN2 consortium
KMOS: Sarah Miller, Mark Sullivan, Roger Davies,
UK KMOS consortium
Plans: Galaxy formation, scaling relations, T-F relation
Stellar T-F: data, modeling, Vc , S0-S evolution
CO T-F: data, Vc biases, prospects
High-z: local benchmarks, ALMA, VLT/KMOS
Summary

36. CO T-F: Local benchmark
Existing work:
Number of studies and objects limited
(Dickey, Lavezzi, Sofue, Tutui, …)
Large single dishes or interferometry
⇒ Non-optimal datasets
⇒ Hard to compare with future high-z work
CO Tully-Fisher relations:
(Lavezzi & Dickey 1998)
(Schoeniger & Sofue 1997)
(Dickey & Kazes 1992)

37. CO T-F: Local benchmark
NANTEN2:
4m mm/sub-mm dish, Atacama
CO(1-0) + (2-1) receivers
(1 GHz ≈ 2600 km s-1 bandwidth)
(61 kHz ≈ 0.15 km s-1 resolution)
Small consortium
⇒ Large beam, 170” at CO(1-0)
(entire galaxies)
⇒ Extensive, flexible scheduling
NANTEN2:

38. CO T-F: Local benchmark
Nearby galaxy survey:
Pilot observations:
- 30+ galaxies observed
(≈40 min on-source;
single pointing)
- Mosaics straightforward
(few attempted)
Full survey:
“full” galaxies (≈3 yrs)
- Preferably no CO detection,
(non-TF) accurate distance
⇒ z = 0 benchmark
(star formation, gas-to-dust ratio, …)
NANTEN2:
(Yoshiike et al., in prep)

39. CO T-F: Local benchmark
Nearby galaxy survey:
Pilot observations:
- 30+ galaxies observed
(≈40 min on-source;
single pointing)
- Mosaics straightforward
(few attempted)
Full survey:
“full” galaxies (≈3 yrs)
- Preferably no CO detection,
(non-TF) accurate distance
⇒ z = 0 benchmark
(star formation, gas-to-dust ratio, …)
NANTEN2:
(Yoshiike et al., in prep)

40. CO T-F: Intermediate z ALMA: ALMA: 50 x 12m dishes to 16 km
12 x 7m dishes compact array
4 x 12m dishes total power
10 bands, GHz
(bands 3, 6, 7, 9: cycles 0+1)
(bands 4, 8, 10: in progress)
(bands 1, 2, 5: ???)
⇒ Detect CO or CII in MW-like galaxy at z = 3 in 24 hr
(z = 1 in 1 hr?)
LMT + GBT promising
ALMA:

41. CO T-F: Intermediate z ALMA: ALMA: CO(1-0): Band 3: z = 0.0 – 0.4
⇒ Great T-F machine
(spatially-resolved or not)
⇒ Need better understanding
of CO(2-1)
ALMA:
Spiral at z = 0.0, optical, CO(2-1), cont. + CO(6-5)
(ESO)
QSO at z = 4.4, CII 158 μm (unresolved)
(ESO)

42. CO T-F: Intermediate z ALMA: CARMA: CO(1-0): Band 3: z = 0.0 – 0.4
⇒ Great T-F machine
(spatially-resolved or not)
⇒ Need better understanding
of CO(2-1)
CARMA:
(EGNoG survey: spirals at z = 0.3)
(Bauermeister et al. 13)

43. Hα T-F: Local benchmark
Existing work:
Large number of (long-)slit spectroscopic studies
(Mathewson et al., Courteau, …)
Few integral-field studies (IFU, Fabry-Perot, …)
Environment independent,
excellent “beam”
⇒ Datasets available
⇒ IFU groundwork incomplete
(simulate higher z IFU work)
Hα Tully-Fisher relations:
(C. Flynn)
(EGG, Cornell U.)

44. Hα T-F: Local benchmark
Existing work:
Large number of (long-)slit spectroscopic studies
(Mathewson et al., Courteau, …)
Few integral-field studies (IFU, Fabry-Perot, …)
Environment independent,
excellent “beam”
⇒ Datasets available
⇒ IFU groundwork incomplete
(simulate higher z IFU work)
Hα velocity fields:
(Chemin et al. 2005)
(Epinet et al. 2009)

45. Hα T-F: Intermediate z KMOS: VLT KMOS: 2nd generation VLT instrument
24 deployable IFUs over 7.2’ FOV
(2.8” x 2.8”, 14 x 14 spaxels)
JHK bands, R ≈ 3500
UK: Durham, Oxford, UKATC
Germany: MPE, Munich Obs, ESO
250 GTO nights, 120 for UK
⇒ Galaxy evolution from z = 1 to 10 (SFH, K-S, mergers, Mdyn, …)
(MPE)

46. Hα T-F: Intermediate z KMOS UK GTO: Mid-z galaxy survey:
Large z = survey
(Oxford, Durham?, MPE?)
Pilot: ≈20-30 objects per bin
3 redshifts (0.8, 1.5, 2.4)
2 morphological bins
Total: ≈1000 galaxies ?
CANDELS fields
(+ different environments)
⇒ Adapt current (z = 0) tools
⇒ Tully-Fisher (galaxy) evolution at intermediate redshifts
(Miller et al. 12)
(Förster Schreiber et al. 2009)

47. Hα T-F: Intermediate z KMOS UK GTO: Mid-z galaxy survey:
Large z = survey
(Oxford, Durham?, MPE?)
Pilot: ≈20-30 objects per bin
3 redshifts (0.8, 1.5, 2.4)
2 morphological bins
Total: ≈1000 galaxies ?
CANDELS fields
(+ different environments)
⇒ Adapt current (z = 0) tools
⇒ Tully-Fisher (galaxy) evolution at intermediate redshifts
(Koekemoer et al. 2011)
(Miller et al. 2011)

48. The Tully-Fisher Relation: Across Morphological Types and Redshift
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Stellar: Michael Williams, Michele Cappellari
CO: Timothy Davis, Lisa Young, Katey Alatalo, Leo Blitz
Atlas3D Team
NANTEN2: Kazafumi Torii, Satoshi Yoshiike, Selçuk Topal, Yasuo Fukui,
NANTEN2 consortium
KMOS: Sarah Miller, Mark Sullivan, Roger Davies,
UK KMOS consortium
Plans: Galaxy formation, scaling relations, T-F relation
Stellar T-F: data, modeling, Vc , S0-S evolution
CO T-F: data, Vc biases, prospects
High-z: local benchmarks, ALMA, VLT/KMOS
Summary

49. T-F Conclusions HI: - Trivial locally for late-type galaxies
⇒ Only exceptionally in early-types, high-density environments
⇒ Impossible to mid-z until SKA
Stars: - JAM successful; m2 good tracer of enclosed mass; Vcirc reliable
⇒ Possible for all morphological types, environments
⇒ Always time-consuming, impossible beyond local universe
CO: - Limited work locally; needs to be expanded
⇒ Routine to intermediate z with ALMA + LMT
Hα: - Extensive work locally; needs to be expanded to IFUs
⇒ Difficult in early-types, ok for all environments
⇒ Routine to intermediate z with 2nd generation 8m telescopes