DINGO: Design Study Martin Meyer, Arniston, 2010 Image credit: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
dingo design study
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

DINGO: Design Study Martin Meyer, Arniston, 2010 Image credit: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 31, 2022 214 likes •495 views

DINGO: Design Study Martin Meyer, Arniston, 2010 Image credit: Swinburne DINGO Team Martin Meyer (PI, ICRAR) Adam Muzzin (Yale) Peder Norberg (ROE) Ivan Baldry (LJMU) Ray Norris (ATNF) Steven Bamford (Nottingham) Roderik Overzier (MPA)

slide-1
SLIDE 1

DINGO: Design Study

Martin Meyer, Arniston, 2010 Image credit: Swinburne

slide-2
SLIDE 2

DINGO Team

Martin Meyer (PI, ICRAR) Ivan Baldry (LJMU) Steven Bamford (Nottingham) Sarah Blyth (UCT) Antoine Bouchard (UCT) Robert Braun (ATNF) Michael Brown (Monash) Alan Duffy (ICRAR) Loretta Dunne (Nottingham) Simon Driver (St Andrews) Steve Eales (Cardiff) Tim Heckman (JHU) Trish Henning (UNM) Benne Holwerda (UCT) Andrew Hopkins (AAO) Matt Jarvis (Hertfordshire) Virginia Kilborn (Swinburne) Baerbel Koribalski (ATNF) Joe Liske (ESO) Jon Loveday (Sussex) Gerhardt Meurer (ICRAR) Adam Muzzin (Yale) Peder Norberg (ROE) Ray Norris (ATNF) Roderik Overzier (MPA) John Peacock (ROE) Ue-Li Pen (Toronto) Peter Quinn (ICRAR) Steve Rawlings (Oxford) Emma Ryan-Weber (Swinburne) Elaine Sadler (Sydney) Lister Staveley-Smith (ICRAR) Jamie Stevens (UTas) Kurt van der Heyden (UCT) Brad Warren (ICRAR) Michael Warren (LANL) Tobias Westmeier (ATNF) Matthew Whiting (ATNF) Chris Willott (CADC) Ivy Wong (Yale) Martin Zwaan (ESO)

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Goals

How Does ΩHI Evolve? What Drives Galaxy Formation and Evolution? How Does the HI Cosmic Web Evolve?

  • How does the cosmic

density of HI evolve?

  • How do we explain ΩHI
  • cf. ΩSFR?

DINGO Science Questions

  • How does the distribution of

HI in the universe evolve?

  • What factors does this

depend on? (environment, halo mass etc)

  • What regulates the baryonic

processes in galaxies? (multiwavelength)

  • What star formation

efficiencies and gas infall rates are required?

  • What are the halo properties
  • f gas-rich galaxies?
  • How does the Tully-Fisher

relation evolve?

z cosmic density HI stars SFR

slide-4
SLIDE 4

DINGO Observations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lookback time (Gyr) Lookback Time (Gyrs) Redshift Redshift 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

  • Deep: 150 deg2, 0 < z< 0.26, 500 hours/pointing
  • Ultradeep: 60 deg2, 0.1 < z< 0.43, 2500 hours/pointing
slide-5
SLIDE 5

0.4 < z < 1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Redshift Lookback Time (Gyrs)

  • Deep: 150 deg2, 0 < z< 0.26, 500 hours/pointing
  • Ultradeep: 60 deg2, 0.1 < z< 0.43, 2500 hours/pointing
  • Ultradeep high-z: 30 deg2, 0.4 < z < 1, 2500 hours/pointing

Redshift 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

slide-6
SLIDE 6

WALLABY DINGO Deep DINGO Ultradeep MeerKAT Ultradeep I MeerKAT Ultradeep II Area Hours/Field Detections Redshift Cube Pixels Cube Channels Observations (~10hr) Final Cubes ~30,000 deg2 150 deg2 60 deg2 2+ deg2 1+ deg2 8 500 2500 1000 4000 5x105 ~6x104 ~6x104 ~104 ~2x104 z<0.26 0.0<z<0.26 0.1<z<0.43 0<z<0.58 0<z<1.4 2,048x2,048 (10”) 2,048x2,048 (10”) 2,048x2,048 (10”) 1,800x1,800 (2”) 1,800x1,800 (2”) 16,384 (4 km s-1) 16,384 (4 km s-1) 16,384 (4 km s-1) 16,384 16,384 1200 (330 TB) 250 (69 TB) 500 (138 TB) 200 (40 TB) 400 (80 TB) 1200 (330 TB) 5 (1.38 TB) 2 (550 GB) 2 (400 GB) 1 (200 GB)

Blind HI Pathfinder Surveys

slide-7
SLIDE 7

WALLABY DINGO Deep DINGO Ultradeep MeerKAT Ultradeep I MeerKAT Ultradeep II Area Hours/Field Detections Redshift Cube Pixels Cube Channels Observations (~10hr) Final Cubes ~30,000 deg2 150 deg2 60 deg2 2+ deg2 1+ deg2 8 500 2500 1000 4000 5x105 ~6x104 ~6x104 ~104 ~2x104 z<0.26 0.0<z<0.26 0.1<z<0.43 0<z<0.58 0<z<1.4 2,048x2,048 (10”) 8,192x8,192 (10”➔3”) 8,192x8,192 (10”➔3”) 1,800x1,800 (2”) 1,800x1,800 (2”) 16,384 (4 km s-1) 16,384 (4 km s-1) 16,384 (4 km s-1) 16,384 16,384 1200 (330 TB) 250 (1.1 PB) 500 (2.2 PB) 200 (40 TB) 400 (80 TB) 1200 (330 TB) 5 (22 TB) 2 (8.8 TB) 2 (400 GB) 1 (200 GB)

Blind HI Pathfinder Surveys

slide-8
SLIDE 8

HI Survey Areas and Sensitivities

Redshift 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Lookback time [Gyrs] 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Adapted from Driver et al.

Wallaby Dingo Ultradeep MeerKAT Ultradeep II MeerKAT Ultradeep I

z limits

Dingo Deep Redshift Lookback Time (Gyrs) Area (deg2)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

HI Survey Areas and Sensitivities

Redshift 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Lookback time [Gyrs] 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Wallaby Dingo Ultradeep MeerKAT Ultradeep II MeerKAT Ultradeep I

MHI* detection limit z limits

Dingo Deep

Adapted from Driver et al.

Redshift Lookback Time (Gyrs) Area (deg2)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

GAMA - the Multiwavelength Data

slide-11
SLIDE 11

GAMA Redshifts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lookback time (Gyr) Redshift 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5 10 15 5 10 15 Lookback Time (Gyrs) Redshift

slide-12
SLIDE 12

GAMA Redshifts

Redshift

GAMA I z-survey finishes this year! 3 4x12 deg2 regions:

  • GAMA09 r<19.4
  • GAMA12 r<19.8
  • GAMA15 r<19.4

115K redshifts

Driver et al.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Field Selection

Dec 00 Dec -500

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Field Selection

GAMA II AAT large programme submitted Mar 2010

slide-15
SLIDE 15

GAMA Redshifts

GAMA I GAMA II Survey Blocks Fields Targets r < 19.4 r < 19.8 4x12 deg2 6x12 deg2 3: 9h, 12h, 15h 5: 9h, 12h, 15h, 2h, 23h 115 000 330 000 144 deg2 360 deg2 48 deg2 360 deg2

Current Proposed (174 nights)

slide-16
SLIDE 16

GAMA Redshifts

GAMA I GAMA II Ultradeep z’s Survey Blocks Fields Targets r < 19.4 r < 19.8 r < 21 4x12 deg2 6x12 deg2 6x12 deg2 3: 9h, 12h, 15h 5: 9h, 12h, 15h, 2h, 23h 5: 9h, 12h, 15h, 2h, 23h 115 000 330 000 330 000+ 144 deg2 360 deg2 360 deg2 48 deg2 360 deg2 360 deg2 0 deg2 0 deg2 60 deg2

Current Proposed (174 nights) Future?

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Field Selection: AB

  • 12
  • 10
  • 8
  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 8 10 12 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 RA J2000 (deg) Dec J2000 (deg)

SUMSS: 0.5 < St < 1 Jy SUMMS: St > 1 Jy PKSCAT90: 0.5 < S1410 < 1 Jy PKSCAT90: S1410 > 1 Jy NVSS: 0.5 < S1.4 < 1 Jy NVSS: S1.4 > 1 Jy NVSS All

Fields A&B

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Field Selection: CD

Fields C&D

  • 12
  • 10
  • 8
  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 8 10 12 166 168 170 172 174 176 178 180 182 184 186 188 190 192 194 RA J2000 (deg) Dec J2000 (deg)

SUMSS: 0.5 < St < 1 Jy SUMMS: St > 1 Jy PKSCAT90: 0.5 < S1410 < 1 Jy PKSCAT90: S1410 > 1 Jy NVSS: 0.5 < S1.4 < 1 Jy NVSS: S1.4 > 1 Jy NVSS All

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Field Selection: EF

Fields E&F

  • 12
  • 10
  • 8
  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 8 10 12 204 206 208 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 232 RA J2000 (deg) Dec J2000 (deg)

SUMSS: 0.5 < St < 1 Jy SUMMS: St > 1 Jy PKSCAT90: 0.5 < S1410 < 1 Jy PKSCAT90: S1410 > 1 Jy NVSS: 0.5 < S1.4 < 1 Jy NVSS: S1.4 > 1 Jy NVSS All

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Field Selection: GH

Fields G&H

  • 46
  • 44
  • 42
  • 40
  • 38
  • 36
  • 34
  • 32
  • 30
  • 28
  • 26
  • 24
  • 22
  • 20

325 330 335 340 345 350 355 RA J2000 (deg) Dec J2000 (deg)

SUMSS: 0.5 < St < 1 Jy SUMMS: St > 1 Jy PKSCAT90: 0.5 < S1410 < 1 Jy PKSCAT90: S1410 > 1 Jy NVSS: 0.5 < S1.4 < 1 Jy NVSS: S1.4 > 1 Jy NVSS All

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Field Selection: LM

Fields L&M

  • 46
  • 44
  • 42
  • 40
  • 38
  • 36
  • 34
  • 32
  • 30
  • 28
  • 26
  • 24
  • 22
  • 20

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 RA J2000 (deg) Dec J2000 (deg)

SUMSS: 0.5 < St < 1 Jy SUMMS: St > 1 Jy PKSCAT90: 0.5 < S1410 < 1 Jy PKSCAT90: S1410 > 1 Jy NVSS: 0.5 < S1.4 < 1 Jy NVSS: S1.4 > 1 Jy NVSS All

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Evolution of Ω(HI) - AUDS

Freudling, Staveley-Smith 10

slide-23
SLIDE 23

A stacked HI signal at z=0.1 with Parkes

(GAMA9 field; Delhaize et al.)

randomized catalogue

slide-24
SLIDE 24

GAMA HI Stacking

Delhaize

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Where to from here?

Simulations Source Finding Pipeline Processing Ancillary Datasets

  • GAMA progress
  • optical spectroscopy
  • examine various evolutionary scenarios

Science Analysis

  • how well are stated science goals met?
  • results consistent with best deep datasets?
  • cosmic variance
  • ‘observe’ simulated data (eg. ASKAPsoft)
  • RFI, cube combination methodology
  • highest resolution data cubes possible?
  • DuChamp/new software
  • parametrization, completeness and reliability

BETA

  • receiver performance and stability, dynamic

range, calibration accuracy, bandpass stability, noise characteristics, sidelobe response... GAMA II submitted Ongoing, SSFs! Jurek, Westmeier Duffy, Whiting 1st dish on-site!

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Super Science Fellows

  • ICRAR awarded 5 ‘Super

Science Fellowships’

  • 2 positions for DINGO/

WALLABY related work:

  • deep HI science simulations
  • multiwavelength analysis
  • 3 year, ECR postdoctoral

positions w/ excellent research support

  • Will appear in June AAS

listings, application deadline July 2010

slide-27
SLIDE 27