clusters at low redshift university of durham university of waterloo (canada) university of durham...
TRANSCRIPT
Clusters at low redshiftClusters at low redshift
University of Durham University of Waterloo (Canada)
University of Durham
Michael Balogh
Bob Nichol, Chris Miller
& Alex GrayCarnegie
Mellon
CollaboratorsRichard BowerDurham Ivan Baldry &
Karl GlazebrookJohns Hopkins
Ian Lewis (Oxford)and the 2dFGRS
team
GALFORM people: Baugh, Cole, Lacey, Frenk Durham
Vince EkeDurham
Outline
1. Background: Galaxy properties as a function of environment
2. Galaxy colour distributions 3. Galaxy SFR distributions4. Interpretation5. Large-scale structure dependence6. Conclusions
E
Morphology-Density Relation
The “Outskirts” of clusters
Dressler 1980
Clusters
Fie
ld
Where does the transition begin, and what causes it?
S0Spirals
Postman & Geller 1984
Dressler 1980
• Morphology-density relation holds for irregular clusters, centrally-concentrated clusters, and groups• Therefore it is local galaxy density that is of most interest, not global cluster properties• Possibly additional effects in innermost regions (Whitmore et al., Dominguez et al.)
High concentration clusters
Low concentration (non-relaxed)
Groups
SFR-Density relation
R>2R200
2dFGRS: Lewis et al. 2003
SDSS: Gomez et al. 2004
criticaldensity?
Field Field
Clusters
Empirical questions
1. How best to characterise galaxy population?
• morphology, colour, SFR, or luminosity?• how to quantify distribution (mean/median
etc.)
2. How to define environment observationally?
• clustercentric distance?• projected galaxy density?• 3-dimensional density? dark matter density
(Gray et al.)?• cluster type/mass?
Outline
1. Background: Galaxy properties as a function of environment
2.Galaxy colour distributions 3. Galaxy SFR distributions4. Interpretation5. Large-scale structure dependence6. Conclusions
Colours
• morphology is difficult to quantify– Especially to distinguish E from S0
• colours simple and direct tracer of SF (also metallicity, dust)
• Sloan Digital Sky Survey– digital ugriz photometry and redshifts for
nearby galaxies– use “model magnitudes” which give high S/N,
centrally-concentrated colours• density:
– projected distance to 5th nearest neighbour– 3D density based on convolution with Gaussian
kernel– cluster velocity dispersion
Colour-magnitude relation
Baldry et al. 2003(see also Hogg et al. 2003)
Sloan DSS data
Blue Fraction
Margoniner et al. 2000 De Propris et al. 2004 (2dFGRS)
Baldry et al. 2004(u-r)
Analysis of colours in SDSS data:
•Colour distribution in 0.5 mag bins can be fit with two Gaussians
•Mean and dispersion of each distribution depends strongly on luminosity
•Dispersion includes variation in dust, metallicity, SF history, and photometric errors
Density Dependence• 23520 galaxies from
SDSS DR1. magnitude limited with z<0.08
• density estimates based on Mr<-20
• keep mean and dispersion fixed at Baldry et al. (2004) values
• Fit height of two distributions to different density bins
Balogh, Baldry, Nichol, Miller, Bower & Glazebrook, submitted to ApJ Letters
Lowest Densities
Bri
gh
tF
ain
t
Density Dependence3X denser • 2 Gaussian model still a
good fit
• mean/dispersion of each population shows no strong dependence on density
Balogh, Baldry, Nichol, Miller, Bower & Glazebrook, submitted to ApJ Letters
Bri
gh
tF
ain
t
Density Dependence3X denser • 2 Gaussian model still a
good fit
• mean/dispersion of each population shows no strong dependence on density
Balogh, Baldry, Nichol, Miller, Bower & Glazebrook, submitted to ApJ Letters
Bri
gh
tF
ain
t
Density Dependence3X denser
Bri
gh
tF
ain
t
“Infall regions”
• mean/dispersion of each population shows no strong dependence on density
• Some evidence for a departure from the 2-Gaussian model
Balogh, Baldry, Nichol, Miller, Bower & Glazebrook, submitted to ApJ Letters
Density DependenceHighest density
• mean/dispersion of each population shows no strong dependence on density
• Some evidence for a departure from the 2-Gaussian model
Balogh, Baldry, Nichol, Miller, Bower & Glazebrook, submitted to ApJ Letters
Bri
gh
tF
ain
t
• Red sequence independence on environment has been known for a long time (e.g. Sandage & Visvanathan 1978)
• But the insensitivity of blue mean and dispersion to environment is surprising:
Properties of star-forming galaxies depend only on internal structure of galaxy
Clusters do not inhibit SF in all blue galaxies
• Fraction of red galaxies depends strongly on density. This is the primary influence of environment on the colour distribution.
• Use cluster catalogue of Miller, Nichol et al. (C4 algorithm)
• No dependence on cluster velocity dispersion observed. Local density is the main driver
Outline
1. Background: Galaxy properties as a function of environment
2. Galaxy colour distributions 3.Galaxy SFR distributions4. Interpretation5. Large-scale structure dependence6. Conclusions
H distribution• Use H equivalent
widths from SDSS and 2dFGRS (volume-limited samples Mr<-20)
• H distribution also shows a bimodality
• Star-forming galaxies with W(H)>4 Å
Balogh et al. 2004 (MNRAS 348, 1355)
The star-forming population
• Amongst the star-forming population, there is no trend in H distribution with density
• Trends of mean or median with density can be misleading
• Hard to explain with simple, slow-decay models (e.g. Balogh et al. 2000)
Correlation with density
• The fraction of star-forming galaxies varies strongly with density
• Correlation at all densities; still a flattening near the critical value
• Fraction never reaches 100%, even at lowest densities
2dFGRS
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– environment must
not be only driver of evolution.
All galaxiesBright galaxies
Outline
1. Background: Galaxy properties as a function of environment
2. Galaxy colour distributions 3. Galaxy SFR distributions4.Interpretation5. Large-scale structure dependence6. Conclusions
• Departures from 2-Gaussian model in dense regions might indicate a transforming population
• Start with colour distribution in the lowest density regions
• Transform galaxies from blue to red at uniform rate over a Hubble time
Instantaneous truncation
• If SFR is truncated instantly, result is similar to 2-Gaussian model
• This is because:
1. Colour evolution is rapid after truncation
2. Number of galaxies caught in transition at present day is small
• Short-timescale truncation could be important at all luminosities and densities
Strangulation models• Slower SFR decay
begins to populate intermediate colour regime
Strangulation models• Slower SFR decay
begins to populate intermediate colour regime
Strangulation models• Slower SFR decay
begins to populate intermediate colour regime
• 2 Gyr timescale approximately what is expected if hot gas is stripped and galaxy allowed to consume cold gas supply at normal rate (Larson, Tinsley & Caldwell 1980; Balogh, Navarro & Morris 2000)
• Not the only interpretation, but a successful model nonetheless
GALFORM model
• GALFORM is Durham model of galaxy formation (Cole et al. 2000)– parameters fixed to reproduce global properties of
galaxies at z=0 (e.g. luminosity function) and abundance of SCUBA galaxies at high redshift
• Use mock catalogues of 2dFGRS which include all selection biasses
• Predict H from Lyman continuum photons, choose dust model to match observed H distribution
• Assume hot gas is stripped from galaxies when they merge with larger halo (i.e. groups and clusters) which leads to strangulation of SFR (gradual decline)
GALFORM predictions
1. Fraction of SF galaxies declines with increasing density as in data
GALFORM predictions• Over most of the density
range, correlation between stellar mass and SFR fraction is invariant
Therefore SFR-density correlation is due to mass-density correlation
• At highest densities, models predict fewer SF galaxies at fixed mass due to strangulation
GALFORM predictions
Observed H distribution independent of environment at all densities
5<0.2 Mpc-2
5<0.2 Mpc-2
GALFORM predictions
1. Fraction of SF galaxies declines with increasing density as in data
2. At low densities, H distribution independent of environment
GALFORM predictions
1. Fraction of SF galaxies declines with increasing density as in data
2. At low densities, H distribution independent of environment
GALFORM predictions
1. Fraction of SF galaxies declines with increasing density as in data
2. At low densities, H distribution independent of environment
3. In densest environments, H distribution skewed toward low values
GALFORM predictions
Kauffmann et al. (2004) work with SDSS suggests correlation between SFR and stellar mass depends on environment. However this is not directly comparable in this form.
Outline
1. Background: Galaxy properties as a function of environment
2. Galaxy colour distributions 3. Galaxy SFR distributions4. Interpretation5.Large-scale structure
dependence6. Conclusions
Large scale structure
Contours are lines of constant emission-line fraction
• Emission-line fraction appears to depend on 1 Mpc scales and on 5.5 Mpc scales.
5.5 (
Mp
c-3)
0.050
0.010
0.005 Increasing fraction of Hemitters
2dFGRS data. Similar results for
SDSS
GALFORM predictions: LSS
5.5 (
Mp
c-3)
5.5
(Mp
c-3)
1.1 (Mpc-3)
Model Data
GALFORM predictions: LSS
• Fraction of star-forming galaxies depends primarily on local density, but there is a further weak correlation with large scales
• Not expected in CDM models because halo merger history depends only on local environment (Kauffmann et al. 1994)
• Should be independently confirmed but suggests an important element missing from these models
Conclusions
• SFR/colour distribution among active population is independent of environment
• Fraction of SF/blue galaxies decreases with increasing density
• At low densities this trend may be due to change in mass function with environment
• At high densities (~infall regions of clusters) there is evidence for a slowly transforming population. Details differ from GALFORM models
• Evidence for dependence on large-scale densities that is not anticipated by models