Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/galevol/Mei_Cambridge13.pdf Дата изменения: Sun Oct 6 18:30:36 2013 Дата индексирования: Fri Feb 28 00:05:22 2014 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: phoenix

The ETG Mass-Size relation in different environment from z~1.6 to present
Simona Mei - GEPI - Observatory of Paris - University of Paris D. Diderot Marc Huertas-Company, Francesco Shankar, Lauriane Delaye, Rossella Licitra, Anand Raichoor, Mariangela Bernardi, Chris Lidman + ACS GTO, COSMOS collaborators

Wednesday, September 4, 13


Anand Raichoor

Marc Huertas-Company

Lauriane Delaye

Rossella Licitra

Francesco Shankar
Wednesday, September 4, 13

Francesco Shankar


Galaxy Mass-Size Relation Evolution
(see Rachel's Somerville talk for the status of the field)

Newman et al. 2012 Bezanson et al. 2009

Wednesday, September 4, 13


...and newly formed/accreted larger galaxies
UltraVista - Ilbert et al. 2013

Wednesday, September 4, 13


Cosmos X-ray group E mass-size relation 0.2
Huertas-Company, Mei, Shankar 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
Wednesday, September 4, 13


Cosmos X-ray group E mass-size relation 0.2
Huertas-Company, Mei, Shankar 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
Wednesday, September 4, 13


Cosmos X-ray group E mass-size relation 0.2
Huertas-Company, Mei, Shankar 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
Wednesday, September 4, 13


Cosmos X-ray group E mass-size relation 0.2 High mass Ellipticals double their size since z~1
Low mass Ellipticals grow by 10-30%

S0 evolution does not depend on mass,
S0s roughly double their size since z~1

S0 sizes are systematically lower than E sizes

Huertas-Company, Mei, Shankar 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
Wednesday, September 4, 13


Cosmos X-ray group E mass-size relation 0.2
Huertas-Company, Mei, Shankar et al. 2013 see also Newman et al. 2012, Bluck et al. 2011
Wednesday, September 4, 13


Size and Environment

Huertas-Company, Shankar, Mei et al. 2013 z~0 SDSS Yang et al. 2007 group sample
see also Poggianti et al. 2013
Wednesday, September 4, 13


Size evolution and Environment
Delaye, Huertas-Company, Mei et al. 2013
HAWKI Cluster survey (Lidman et al. 2013) Nine clusters (ACS GTO, Sparcs, RCS) with z~0.8-1.5 and mass in the range 2-7 x 1014 M

Sizes of galaxies in clusters systematically higher of ~30-50%

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
Wednesday, September 4, 13


Size evolution and Environment

Delaye, Huertas-Company, Mei et al. 2013
see also Carollo et al 2013 for similar results for COSMOS field galaxies
Wednesday, September 4, 13


Hierarchical model predictions
· Models based on the standard model - Different prescription for size growth

Mergers

Disk Instabilities

· Dynamical friction of infalling satellites from McCavana et al. 2012

We will concentrate on the size evolution of central galaxies
Wednesday, September 4, 13


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
Wednesday, September 4, 13


Environment can distinguish predictions from different models

Shankar, Mei, Huertas-Company et al. 2013
Wednesday, September 4, 13


Environment can distinguish predictions from different models

Shankar, Mei, Huertas-Company et al. 2013
Wednesday, September 4, 13


What about mergers?

Shankar, Mei, Huertas-Company et al. 2013 see also Maulbetsch et al. 2007, Bertone & Conselice 2009
Wednesday, September 4, 13


What about mergers?

Shankar, Mei, Huertas-Company et al. 2013 see also Maulbetsch et al. 2007, Bertone & Conselice 2009
Wednesday, September 4, 13


Conclusions
· The evolution of the mass-size relation up to z~1 depends on - mass - Elliptical galaxies with mass < 1011 M show a slower evolution than more massive ellipticals (a growth of ~10-30% compared to ~50-60%) - morphology - E and S0 evolve differently. S0 roughly doubled their size independent of mass - environment At z>0.8 cluster galaxies have a tail of larger galaxies with respect to the field · Current hierarchical galaxy evolution models cannot explain the size growth of very massive ellipticals. However, models with strong disk instability, strong dissipation in major mergers, short dynamical friction timescales, and short quenching timescales in infalling satellites tend to have more difficulties to reproduce current observations at z~0

Wednesday, September 4, 13


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)

Wednesday, September 4, 13


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)

Wednesday, September 4, 13


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)

Wednesday, September 4, 13