1 / 52

Galaxies in low density environments

Galaxies in low density environments. Michael Balogh University of Durham. Nature vs. Nurture: galaxy formation and environment. Michael Balogh University of Durham. Outline. Review of cluster galaxy properties Theoretical expectations First clues: clusters at intermediate redshift

fritz-hood
Download Presentation

Galaxies in low density environments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Galaxies in low density environments Michael Balogh University of Durham

  2. Nature vs. Nurture: galaxy formation and environment Michael Balogh University of Durham

  3. Outline • Review of cluster galaxy properties • Theoretical expectations • First clues: clusters at intermediate redshift • New results: tracing star formation in all environments in the local Universe • Future work

  4. Cluster Galaxies: background • Segregation of luminosities, morphologies, and emission line fraction well-known • Early-types consistent with passive evolution since z>2 • Small fraction of actively star-forming galaxies

  5. Nature or Nurture? • Nature? Elliptical galaxies only form in protoclusters at high redshift. Rest of population is due to infall. • or Nurture? Galaxy evolution proceeds along a different path within dense environments.

  6. Butcher-Oemler effect • Concentrated clusters at high redshift have more blue galaxies than concentrated clusters at low redshift Butcher & Oemler (1984)

  7. Butcher-Oemler effect • A lot of scatter • appears to be mostly due to correlation with cluster richness • still room to worry about cluster selection? Margoniner et al. (2001)

  8. Butcher-Oemler effect SDSS: Goto et al. (2003) • Many of blue galaxies turned out to have post-starburst spectra (Dressler & Gunn 1992; Couch & Sharples 1987) • Suggested nurture: • ram-pressure stripping (Gunn & Gott 1972) • tidal effects (Byrd & Valtonen 1990) • harassment? (Moore et al. 1999)

  9. But: Field galaxy evolution • But field population also evolves strongly (Lilly et al. 1996) • Post-starburst galaxies equally abundant in the field (Zabludoff et al. 1996; Goto et al. 2003) • So: does BO effect really point to cluster-specific physics, or just the evolving field and infall rate (Ellingson et al. 2001)? Steidel et al. (1999)

  10. Clusters If it is “nurture”… • Could cosmic SFR evolution be a consequence of environment? • Only if star formation rates are low in groups and low-density environments as well as clusters Groups

  11. Galaxy formation theory Cole et al. (2000), Kauffmann et al. (1999); Somerville et al. (1999) and many others

  12. Feedback Radiative cooling Radiative cooling Feedback Galaxy formation cartoon

  13. Theory 1. Typical galaxy forms stars at decaying rate Rocha-Pinto et al. (2000)

  14. Theory • Typical galaxy forms stars at exponentially decaying rate • Galaxies in dense regions form earlier z=5 z=0 Benson et al. (2002)

  15. Feedback Radiative cooling Radiative cooling Feedback Theory • Typical galaxy forms stars at exponentially decaying rate • Galaxies in dense regions form earlier • “Strangulation”: Galaxies in dense environments lose hot halo Larson et al. (1980)

  16. Theory: predictions • no ram-pressure stripping, harrassment included, yet achieve reasonable match to observed clusters (Diaferio et al. 2001; Okamoto et al. 2003) • isolated galaxies should be at centre of cooling flow, hence forming stars • Galaxies in clusters should be forming stars at a lower rate than those in the field

  17. Observations: z~0.3 CNOC clusters (with Morris, Carlberg, Yee, Ellingson, Schade) AAT spectroscopy (with Couch, Bower)

  18. Observations: z~0.3 • Average SFR varies gradually with radius • low average SFR even beyond virial radius • Gradient much steeper than expected from morphology-density relation Field Morph-density relation CNOC clusters Balogh et al. (1998)

  19. Observations: z~0.3 • Strangulation model: • infall rate + assumed decay rate of star formation => radial gradient in SFR • Radial gradients in CNOC clusters suggest t ~2 Gyr Balogh, Navarro & Morris (2000)

  20. Nod & Shuffle: LDSS++ band-limiting filter + microslit = ~800 galaxies per 7’ field observed 4 clusters at z~0.3

  21. Ha in Rich Clusters at z~0.3 • Number of emission lines galaxies is low in all clusters • However, shape of luminosity function similar to field: • consistent with shift in normalisation; not in Ha luminosity (Field) Couch et al. (2001) Balogh et al. (2002)

  22. Observations: z~0 2dFGRS (with Bower, Lewis, Eke, Couch et al.) SDSS (with Nichol, Miller, Gomez et al.)

  23. Observations: z~0 • Analysis of 2dFGRS • Ha equivalent widths, within 20 Mpc of known clusters • dependence of mean SFR on local density • “critical density”? Lewis, Balogh et al. (2002)

  24. Observations: z~0 R > 2 R200 • Analysis of 2dFGRS • Ha equivalent widths, within 20 Mpc of known clusters • dependence of mean SFR on local density • “critical density”? • independent of distance to cluster Lewis, Balogh et al. (2002)

  25. Observations: z~0 • Analysis of SDSS • same trend observed in SFR from Ha fluxes • same value of “critical density” /yr) Field 75 percentile th o 75 percentile th Star Formation Rate (M Field median Median Distance from Cluster Centre (R/ R ) virial Gomez et al. (2003)

  26. New results: combining the SDSS and 2dFGRS • Combined sample of 24,968 galaxies at 0.05<z<0.1 (Balogh, Eke et al. MNRAS submitted) • Volume limited: Mr<-20.6 (SDSS); Mb<-19.5 • 3 measures of environment: • “traditional” projected distance to 5th nearest neighbour • 3-dimensional density on 1 and 5 Mpc scales • velocity dispersion of embedding cluster or group • catalogues of Nichol, Miller et al. and Eke et al.

  27. Bimodality • SDSS colours show two distinct populations • Red population may be the result of major mergers at high redshift, followed by passive evolution (u-r)0 Baldry et al. (2003)

  28. Bimodality • Same is seen in Ha distribution: SFR is not continuous • galaxies do not have arbitrarily low SFR • So mean/median do not necessarily trace a change in SFR

  29. The star-forming population • Amongst the star-forming population, there is no trend in mean SFR with density! • Same is seen in z~0.5 cluster Ha luminosity functions • Rules out slow-decay models

  30. Correlation with density • The fraction of star-forming galaxies varies strongly with density • Correlation at all densities; still a flattening near the critical value 2dFGRS

  31. Isolated Galaxies • Selection of isolated galaxies: • non-group members, with low densities on 1 and 5.5 Mpc scales • ~30% of isolated galaxies show negligible SF • challenge for models? • environment must not be only driver of evolution. All galaxies Bright galaxies

  32. Isolated Galaxies • Fraction of SF galaxies in lowest density environments is not much larger than the average • So strong evolution in global average cannot be due only to a change in densities Average value in full sample

  33. Large scale structure • Some dependence on cluster velocity dispersion? • More obvious in 2dF catalogue than in SDSS 2dFGRS 200<s<400 km/s s>500 km/s

  34. 0.050 r5.5 (Mpc-3) 0.010 0.005 Large scale structure • Emission-line fraction appears to depend on 1 Mpc scales and on 5.5 Mpc scales. Increasing fraction of Ha emitters

  35. Nature vs. Nurture • Nurture: clusters directly affect SFR? • rule out long-timescale processes (strangulation) • trends at low densities and large scales rule out ram-pressure stripping as dominant effect z~0.3 z~0.1

  36. Nature vs. Nurture Blue galaxies only: (g-r)<0.7 • Nurture: clusters directly affect SFR? • short timescale? • few (<0.1 %) E+As • normal SFR for colour • however, these don’t provide strong constraints: it is possible to generate entire non-SF population in this way

  37. Nature vs. Nurture Passive spirals in SDSS • Nurture: clusters directly affect SFR? • short timescale? • morphology is longer lived • maybe passive spirals are more common in clusters (Goto et al. 2003; also Poggianti et al. 1999; Balogh et al. 2002; McIntosh et al. 2002) Goto et al. (2003)

  38. Nature vs. Nurture • Nature: • Dense regions just form a little earlier? • would expect to see lower SFR among active population in high-z clusters: not observed • Early-type population formed at high redshift? • would have to be a substantial fraction of today’s cluster population: so why does the fraction of SF galaxies evolve? (or does it?)

  39. Most likely scenario (for bright galaxies)? • Probably several effects: brightest ellipticals likely result of initial conditions • Galaxy-galaxy interactions: • more common in dense regions • change SFR on short timescale • effective in small groups • evolve strongly with redshift • only environment known to effectively transform SFR of a galaxy (e.g. Lambas et al. 2002)

  40. Future Work Groups at z~0.5 (Dave Wilman, R. Bower, J. Mulchaey, A. Oemler, R. Carlberg et al.)

  41. Groups at z~0.5 • Based on the CNOC2 redshift survey. Group selection and inital look at properties described in Carlberg et al. (2001) • Follow-up observations with Magellan to gain higher completeness and depth • HST data for all groups • Also infrared data from WHT

  42. The Future: Groups at z~0.5 • Deep Magellan spectroscopy and HST imaging of ~30 groups at z~0.5 • trace SFR with [OII] ) Å 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Mean EW [OII] ( 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 Distance from centre ( Mpc ) Wilman et al. in prep

  43. Groups at z~0.5 • Preliminary results suggest SFR distribution in z~0.5 groups is different from that in clusters: enhanced SFR due to interactions?

  44. Conclusions • Distribution of star formation rates is bimodal, not continuous (unlike morphology?) • SFR distribution among active population is independent of environment • Fraction of SF galaxies depends on local and large-scale densities (?) • Galaxy-galaxy interactions are the most likely cause of observed segregation

  45. Projection Effects? • Is star-forming population all projected?? • No: at high density, contrast is high, and area is small • at low density, trend is weak, so signal not diluted by projection projected population at field density projected population 10 times more dense than field True/observed emission line fraction Balogh et al. (2003)

  46. Theory: SF in clusters and field • Age effect only? Star formation rate Time

  47. Theory: SF in clusters and field cluster • Age effect only? • Then SFR in clusters should be lower at any epoch Star formation rate Time

  48. Theory: SF in clusters and field • Strangulation? • SF decays more quickly in clusters, so should still be lower cluster Star formation rate Time

  49. Theory: SF in clusters and field • Truncation? • Then star-forming galaxies should all look the same cluster Star formation rate Time

  50. Abell 2390 (z~0.23) 3.6 arcmin R image from CNOC survey (Yee et al. 1996)

More Related