MUSYC E-HDFS UBR composite

Formation and Clustering of High-redshift Galaxies3. Galaxy Clustering Eric Gawiser Rutgers University MUSYC E-HDFS UBR composite

Protogalaxies at z=3: TLAs • LBG=Lyman Break Galaxy selected via Lyman break, blue continuum (starburst) • LAE=Lyman Alpha Emitter selected via strong emission line (early stage of star formation) • DRG=Distant Red Galaxy selected via Balmer break in observed NIR • SMG=Sub-Millimeter Galaxy selected in sub-mm, use radio to get position • DLA=Damped Lyman  Absorption system selected in absorption, N(HI)>1020 cm-2

Images from HST-ACS: irregular morphology at z=3 AGN z=3.60 R=22.4 LBG z=3.37 R=24.3 LBG z=3.24 R=23.8 LAE z=3.10 R=26.1

ECDFS RJK

NIR selects rest-frame Balmer/4000Å break at 2<z<4 Reddy et al 2005

Distant Red Galaxies (DRG) MUSYC van Dokkum et al 2006 van Dokkum et al 2005, in prep.

Sub-Millimeter Galaxy contribution to Star Formation Rate Density Chapman et al 2005

LBGs and LAEs in MUSYC-ECDFS 1240 LBGs 162LAEs

Spatial and angular cross-correlation functions: dP(r) = 12[1 + 12(r)] dV1 dV2 dP() = 12[1 + w12()] d1 d2 Projection of 12(r)=(r/r0)- into w12() = dz1 dz2p1(z1)p2(z2) 12(r(z1,z2,)) Need redshifts to determine selection functions pi(z) for inversion of w12() to determine 12(r) For autocorrelation and acceptable geometry, Limber approximation  w() = 1- r0 (1/2, (-1)/2)p2(z) (1+z)1- DA(z)1- H(z)/cdz

LBG and LAE redshift distributions LBG LAE 2.8<z<3.7 expected for UVR Dark curve shows selection function: narrow-band filter response convolved with EW distribution

Measuring angular auto-correlation • (): Excess probability of finding pairs separated by angular distance  over uniform distribution • Landy-Szalay estimator uses counts of pairs separated by  • DD: between data pairs • DR: data-random pairs • RR: random-random pairs • The random pairs “subtract” the excess probability that is due to the geometry of the survey • Usually assumed that () = A-

LBGs and LAEs in MUSYC-ECDFS 1240 LBGs 162LAEs

LBGs in MUSYC-ECDFS Clustering analysis by Harold Francke 1240 LBGs

LAEs in MUSYC-ECDFS Clustering analysis by H. Francke 162 LAEs

Clustering Determination • LBG, LAE, and DRG samples are large enough to use r0 to determine bias • xLBG-LBG( r ) = (r/r0)- =b2LBGxDM( r ) • SMG, DLA samples are small, so study cross-correlation with numerous LBGs to determine bias • xDLA-LBG( r ) =(r/r0)-= bDLAbLBGxDM( r ) • bLBG etc. determine typical dark matter halo masses of each family of protogalaxies Method for auto-correlation from Mo & White 1996, MNRAS 282, 347 First applied to cross-correlation by Gawiser et al 2001, ApJ 562, 628

Bias minimum DM halo massnumber abundance of host halos MUSYC Quadri et al 2007

Clustering vs. halo abundance

What are the low-redshift descendants of z=3 galaxies? Gawiser et al 2007, in prep LAE

5 Unsolved Problems in Galaxy Formation • What does a protogalaxy look like? Did galaxy, stars, supermassive black holes all form simultaneously?

5 Unsolved Problems in Galaxy Formation • What does a protogalaxy look like? • When/how did each component form? Thin disk: 10 Gyr - formed at z~2 but simulations have trouble making. Angular momentum coupling between DM & baryons affects bar/disk formation and bulge cuspiness. Globular clusters: formed by Pop III stars in 106 M halos?

5 Unsolved Problems in Galaxy Formation • What does a protogalaxy look like? • When/how did each component form? • When/how did galaxy sequences evolve? Hubble sequence not yet present at z>2 Red/blue sequences (bimodality of properties) require “gastrophysics”

5 Unsolved Problems in Galaxy Formation • What does a protogalaxy look like? • When/how did each component form? • When/how did galaxy sequences evolve? • What role did feedback play? Feedback from AGN & supernovae regulates BH/bulge formation, cuspiness of DM halo, baryonic mass loss, IGM enrichment, minimum galaxy mass

5 Unsolved Problems in Galaxy Formation • What does a protogalaxy look like? • When/how did each component form? • When/how did galaxy sequences evolve? • What role did feedback play? • When/how was the universe reionized? Top-heavy IMF predicted at high-z due to low metallicity but exact mass range/epoch unknown and nature of “surviving” galaxies is sensitive

Coming Attractions • Unification of galaxy formation and evolution Needle-in-haystack techniques  evolved gals at z>2 Multiwavelength  high-z analogs at low-z Evolutionary sequence (e.g. DLALAELBGSMGDRG) as part of “grand unified” model of galaxies & AGN Spitzer is key

Coming Attractions • Unification of galaxy formation and evolution • ISM in emission at high-redshift CO, [CII] 158 micron with ALMA Compare gas mass with stellar mass Compare tips of high-redshift gas and stellar luminosity functions

Coming Attractions • Unification of galaxy formation and evolution • ISM in emission at high-redshift • High-redshift galaxies constrain dark energy? Baryon oscillations as standard rod - need z>1 point to constrain equation-of-state (w) of dark energy A million redshifts needed? WFMOS! Blake & Glazebrook 2003, Linder 2003, Seo & Eisenstein 2003

Coming Attractions • Unification of galaxy formation and evolution • ISM in emission at high-redshift • High-redshift galaxies constrain dark energy? • More jargon Sub-classes (sub-DLAs, bDLAs) may force FLAs! N2 cross-correlation functions

MUSYC Public Data Release June 1, 2007 at http://www.astro.yale.edu/MUSYC UBVRIzK imaging of 1.2 square degrees to U,B,V,R = 26, K=22 (AB) JHK imaging of 0.1 square degrees to K=23 (AB) Deep Spitzer+IRAC imaging (all 4 bands) of ECDF-S

MUSYC E-HDFS UBR composite