Evolution of massive galaxies in clusters and less dense - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
evolution of massive galaxies in clusters and less dense
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Evolution of massive galaxies in clusters and less dense - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jul 03, 2023 226 likes •590 views

Evolution of massive galaxies in clusters and less dense environments from z~1.5 to present Simona Mei - GEPI - Observatory of Paris - University of Paris D. Diderot Friday, February 6, 15 Anand Raichoor Marc Huertas-Company Lauriane Delaye

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Evolution of massive galaxies in clusters and less dense environments from z~1.5 to present

Simona Mei - GEPI - Observatory of Paris - University of Paris D. Diderot

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Marc Huertas-Company Anand Raichoor Lauriane Delaye Francesco Shankar Rossella Licitra

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Questions

  • Does Environment change galaxy size evolution?
  • Are massive and central galaxies special?

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Cosmos X-ray groups 0.2<z<1 (George et al. 2011)

  • X-ray detected groups in the Cosmos field (Finoguenov et al. 2007), with

weak lensing mass estimates (Leauthaud et al. 2007) in the range 1013 - 1014

M

  • 298 group and 384 field quiescent early-type galaxies with stellar masses >

1010.5 M Photometric redshifts from Ilbert et al. 2009: 0<z<1. Galaxy sample purity ~70% - 85% within 0.5 x R200

  • Spectroscopic redshifts from zCOSMOS, Keck, MMT, SDSS, and our own

VLT/FORS 2 spectroscopic follow-up of BCGs, bright satellites and galaxy mergers (P .I. Mei)

  • Galaxy masses from Bundy et al 2007 and independent estimation by

LePhare using BC03 stellar population models

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Disky ETG mass-size relation 0.2<z<1

Huertas-Company, Mei et al. 2013

X-ray detected groups in the Cosmos field (Finoguenov et al. 2007) from the George et al. 2011, weak lensing mass estimates (Leauthaud et al. 2007) in the range 1013 - 1014 M, 298 group and 384 field quiescent ETGs with stellar masses > 1010.5 M

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Disky ETG mass-size relation 0.2<z<1

Huertas-Company, Mei et al. 2013

X-ray detected groups in the Cosmos field (Finoguenov et al. 2007) from the George et al. 2011, weak lensing mass estimates (Leauthaud et al. 2007) in the range 1013 - 1014 M, 298 group and 384 field quiescent ETGs with stellar masses > 1010.5 M

Size Evolution does not depend on Mass Range

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-7
SLIDE 7

E (not disky) mass-size relation 0.2<z<1

Huertas-Company, Mei et al. 2013

X-ray detected groups in the Cosmos field (Finoguenov et al. 2007) from the George et al. 2011, weak lensing mass estimates (Leauthaud et al. 2007) in the range 1013 - 1014 M, 298 group and 384 field quiescent ETGs with stellar masses > 1010.5 M

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-8
SLIDE 8

E (not disky) mass-size relation 0.2<z<1

Huertas-Company, Mei et al. 2013

X-ray detected groups in the Cosmos field (Finoguenov et al. 2007) from the George et al. 2011, weak lensing mass estimates (Leauthaud et al. 2007) in the range 1013 - 1014 M, 298 group and 384 field quiescent ETGs with stellar masses > 1010.5 M

Size Evolution depends on Mass Range

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-9
SLIDE 9

E (not disky) mass-size relation 0.2<z<1

Huertas-Company, Mei et al. 2013

X-ray detected groups in the Cosmos field (Finoguenov et al. 2007) from the George et al. 2011, weak lensing mass estimates (Leauthaud et al. 2007) in the range 1013 - 1014 M, 298 group and 384 field quiescent ETGs with stellar masses > 1010.5 M

Size Evolution depends on Mass Range

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Cosmos X-ray group E mass-size relation

Huertas-Company, Mei, Shankar et al. 2013 see also Newman et al. 2012, Bluck et al. 2011

Add element envionment since most ofthese galaxies lie in dense environments and are centrals

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Size, Mass and Environment

see also Poggianti et al. 2013, Vulcani et al. 2014

Huertas-Company, Shankar, Mei et al. 2013 z~0 SDSS Yang et al. 2007 group sample; sizes from Bernardi et al. 2012

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Clusters 0.8<z<1.5

Delaye, Huertas-Company, Mei et al. 2014

Nine clusters (ACS GTO, Sparcs, RCS) with z~0.8-1.5 and mass in the range 2-7 x 1014 M from the HAWKI Cluster survey (Lidman et al. 2013). ~400 ETGs (morphology selected and passive) with masses > 1010.5 M

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Size evolution and Environment

Delaye, Huertas-Company, Mei et al. 2014

see also Weinmann et al. 2009; Maltby et al. 2010; Rettura et al. 2010, Valentinuzzi et al. 2010 Cooper et al. 2012, Papovich et al. 2012, Raichoor et al 2012, Poggianti et al. 2013, Lani et al. 2013, Bassett et al. 2013

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Size evolution and Environment

Delaye, Huertas-Company, Mei et al. 2014

see also Weinmann et al. 2009; Maltby et al. 2010; Rettura et al. 2010, Valentinuzzi et al. 2010 Cooper et al. 2012, Papovich et al. 2012, Raichoor et al 2012, Poggianti et al. 2013, Lani et al. 2013, Bassett et al. 2013

Median

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Size evolution and Environment

Delaye, Huertas-Company, Mei et al. 2014

see also Weinmann et al. 2009; Maltby et al. 2010; Rettura et al. 2010, Valentinuzzi et al. 2010 Cooper et al. 2012, Papovich et al. 2012, Raichoor et al 2012, Poggianti et al. 2013, Lani et al. 2013, Bassett et al. 2013

Median

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Which galaxies The larger galaxies are the last massive

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Clusters 0.8<z<1.5

Delaye, Huertas-Company, Mei et al. 2014

Nine clusters (ACS GTO, Sparcs, RCS) with z~0.8-1.5 and mass in the range 2-7 x 1014 M from the HAWKI Cluster survey (Lidman et al. 2013). ~400 ETGs (morphology selected and passive) with masses > 1010.5 M

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Star forming blue ETGs in significant overdensities at z=1.84 and 1.9

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Mass-size relation at z~1.8

Delaye et al. 2014 Newman et al. 2014 Lani et al. 2014 Strazzullo et al. 2013

Mei et al. arXiv:1403.7524

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Size growth - only ETGs

Delaye et al. 2014 Newman et al. 2014 Mei et al. 2014 Strazzullo et al. 2013

Mei et al. arXiv:1403.7524

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Hierarchical model predictions

(Shankar et al. 2012, Shankar, Mei et al. 2014)

  • Models based on the standard model and Millenium simulations- Different

prescription for size growth

Mergers Disk Instabilities

We concentrated on the size evolution of central galaxies

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Hierarchical model predictions

(Shankar et al. 2012, Shankar, Mei et al. 2014)

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Environment can distinguish predictions from different models

Shankar, Mei, Huertas-Company et al. 2014

Observations are at z~0 from Bernardi et al. 2012, Huertas-Company et al. 2013

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Environment can distinguish predictions from different models

Shankar, Mei, Huertas-Company et al. 2013

Observations are at z~0 from Bernardi et al. 2012, Huertas-Company et al. 2013

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Environment can distinguish predictions from different models

Shankar, Mei, Huertas-Company et al. 2013

Observations are at z~0 from Bernardi et al. 2012, Huertas-Company et al. 2013

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Environment can distinguish predictions from different models

Shankar, Mei, Huertas-Company et al. 2013

Observations are at z~0 from Bernardi et al. 2012, Huertas-Company et al. 2013

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-27
SLIDE 27

What about mergers?

Shankar, Mei, Huertas-Company et al. 2013 see also Maulbetsch et al. 2007, Bertone & Conselice 2009

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Some caveats...

  • Estimation of galaxy stellar masses can be biased up to 0.2dex in the high

mass end due to different estimator and stellar population models (Bernardi et al. 2010, Raichoor, Mei et al. 2011)

  • Fit with a single Sersic profile of a galaxy that has an exponential component

can bias the Size and the Mass estimation up to 20%/0.2 dex, respectively (Bernardi et al. 2013a,b)

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Some caveats...

  • Estimation of galaxy stellar masses can be biased up to 0.2dex in the high

mass end due to different estimator and stellar population models (Bernardi et al. 2010, Raichoor, Mei et al. 2011)

  • Fit with a single Sersic profile of a galaxy that has an exponential component

can bias the Size and the Mass estimation up to 20%/0.2 dex, respectively (Bernardi et al. 2013a,b)

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Some caveats...

  • Estimation of galaxy stellar masses can be biased up to 0.2dex in the high

mass end due to different estimator and stellar population models (Bernardi et al. 2010, Raichoor, Mei et al. 2011)

  • Fit with a single Sersic profile of a galaxy that has an exponential component

can bias the Size and the Mass estimation up to 20%/0.2 dex, respectively (Bernardi et al. 2013a,b)

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Questions

  • Signature of quenching?
  • What is the role of mergers in different environments at

at different redshifts?

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Comparison to other structures at z~1.8-2

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Friday, February 6, 15

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Friday, February 6, 15