Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The ages and metallicities of Hickson Compact Group galaxies. Rob Proctor Swinburne University of Technology May 2005. Collaborators: Duncan Forbes (Swinburne University of Technology) George Hau (Durham) Mike Beasley (Santa Cruz). Aim and Outline. Aim: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The ages and metallicities of Hickson Compact Group
galaxies.
The ages and metallicities of Hickson Compact Group
galaxies.
Rob Proctor
Swinburne University of Technology
May 2005
Rob Proctor
Swinburne University of Technology
May 2005Collaborators:Duncan Forbes (Swinburne University of Technology)George Hau (Durham)
Mike Beasley (Santa Cruz)
Aim and OutlineAim and Outline• Aim: • To determine galaxy star formation histories
using galactic-archeology.• Test galaxy formation theories using Hickson
Compacts Groups (HCGs) as an extreme of environment.
• Outline • The challenges.• Our approach to cracking them using Lick
indices.• Some results and conclusions.
• Aim: • To determine galaxy star formation histories
using galactic-archeology.• Test galaxy formation theories using Hickson
Compacts Groups (HCGs) as an extreme of environment.
• Outline • The challenges.• Our approach to cracking them using Lick
indices.• Some results and conclusions.
Why HCGS?Why HCGS?• Space densities and early-type galaxy fractions are abnormal outside the centres of large clusters (Hickson 1988).
• But velocity dispersions are low.
• Conditions therefore conducive to merging.
• However, interaction rates and AGN activity are lower than expected.(Zepf & Whitmore 1991; Coziol et al. 1998;
Verdes-Montenegro et al. 1998) • And systems are virialised,
suggesting longevity.(Ponman et al. 1996)
• Space densities and early-type galaxy fractions are abnormal outside the centres of large clusters (Hickson 1988).
• But velocity dispersions are low.
• Conditions therefore conducive to merging.
• However, interaction rates and AGN activity are lower than expected.(Zepf & Whitmore 1991; Coziol et al. 1998;
Verdes-Montenegro et al. 1998) • And systems are virialised,
suggesting longevity.(Ponman et al. 1996)
Determining star formation histories: The challenges
Determining star formation histories: The challenges
• Integrated light only:• Requires models.
• The age-metallicity degeneracy:• Young, metal-rich populations strongly
resemble old, metal-poor populations.
• Abundance-ratio variations (e.g. [Mg/Fe] †):
• A new opportunity.
† [X/Y]=log(NX/NY)*
-log(NX/NY)
• Integrated light only:• Requires models.
• The age-metallicity degeneracy:• Young, metal-rich populations strongly
resemble old, metal-poor populations.
• Abundance-ratio variations (e.g. [Mg/Fe] †):
• A new opportunity.
† [X/Y]=log(NX/NY)*
-log(NX/NY)
Determining star formation histories: The challenges
Determining star formation histories: The challenges
• The age-metallicity degeneracy:• Young, metal-rich populations strongly resemble
old, metal-poor populations.
• The age-metallicity degeneracy:• Young, metal-rich populations strongly resemble
old, metal-poor populations.
Age=6 Gyr , [Fe/H]=0.2
Age=12Gyr,
[Fe/H]=0.0
15 Gyr
1.0 Gyr
1.5 Gyr
[Fe/H]=-0.4
[Fe/H]=-2.252.0 Gyr 7 Gyr
Models: Bruzual & Charlot (2003) Models: Sanchez-Blazquez (Ph.D. thesis); Vazdekis et al. 2005 (in prep)
• Different sensitivities of Lick indices result in a breaking of the age/metallicity degeneracy.
Breaking the degeneracy with Lick
indices.
Breaking the degeneracy with Lick
indices.
Age =1 GyrZ
=0.5
Age=15 Gyr
Z=-2.25
Abundance ratios ([‘’/Fe])
Abundance ratios ([‘’/Fe])
• Thought to measure ‘duration’ of star formation.• This assumes that:
• C, Mg (and other -elements) made mostly in SN.• Fe peak elements made predominantly in SNa.
• Use [E/Fe] where E is sum of C,N,O,Mg,Na,Si
• Thought to measure ‘duration’ of star formation.• This assumes that:
• C, Mg (and other -elements) made mostly in SN.• Fe peak elements made predominantly in SNa.
• Use [E/Fe] where E is sum of C,N,O,Mg,Na,Si
Results (central values). Results (central values). • Field/cluster results from:• Trager et al. (2000) • Proctor & Sansom
(2002)• Proctor et al. (2004)
(small symbols)
• HCG results from:• Proctor et al. (2004)
(large symbols)
• Correlation?• Note luminosity limited
studies.
• Field/cluster results from:• Trager et al. (2000) • Proctor & Sansom
(2002)• Proctor et al. (2004)
(small symbols)
• HCG results from:• Proctor et al. (2004)
(large symbols)
• Correlation?• Note luminosity limited
studies.Squares: S0sCircles: EllipticalsSolids: SpiralsStar: Star-burst galaxy
Large symbols: HCGS
Proctor et al. 2004
Age profile of NGC821: An important caveat.
Age profile of NGC821: An important caveat.
• Young central age.
But…
• Strong age gradient.
So….
• Recent burst must be <10 % by Mass!
(in actuality probably ≤1%)
• I.e .amounts to a ‘frosting’ of younger stars
• Young central age.
But…
• Strong age gradient.
So….
• Recent burst must be <10 % by Mass!
(in actuality probably ≤1%)
• I.e .amounts to a ‘frosting’ of younger starsProctor et al. 2005
Results (central values). Results (central values). • Old ages of most massive
galaxies are ANTI-hierarchical (Kauffmann 1996).
AND…
• Age range is inconsistent with the simple primordial collapse picture.
BUT….
• Frosting effects must be considered (e.g. NGC 821)
• Old ages of most massive galaxies are ANTI-hierarchical (Kauffmann 1996).
AND…
• Age range is inconsistent with the simple primordial collapse picture.
BUT….
• Frosting effects must be considered (e.g. NGC 821)
Squares: S0sCircles: EllipticalsSolids: SpiralsStar: Star-burst galaxy
Large symbols: HCGS
NGC 821
Metallicity in early-type galaxies.
Metallicity in early-type galaxies.
• HCGs consistent with trends in cluster/field galaxies
• Suggests relation of form:log()=log(age) +[Fe/H]+
(see Proctor et al. 2004)
• Several interpretations(My favourite is an evolving mass/metallicity relation.)
• ‘Frosting’ effects?
• Inconsistent with pure primordial collapse.
• Hierarchical merging?
• HCGs consistent with trends in cluster/field galaxies
• Suggests relation of form:log()=log(age) +[Fe/H]+
(see Proctor et al. 2004)
• Several interpretations(My favourite is an evolving mass/metallicity relation.)
• ‘Frosting’ effects?
• Inconsistent with pure primordial collapse.
• Hierarchical merging?
Solids: HCGs
Proctor et al. 2004
Metallicity in spiral bulges
Metallicity in spiral bulges
• ‘Mass’-metallicity relation.
But…
• Again, no discernable difference between cluster/field and HCGS (however, we note small numbers).
Proctor et al. 2004
Early-type galaxies: Age/metallicity distributions in HCGS, clusters and
the field
Early-type galaxies: Age/metallicity distributions in HCGS, clusters and
the field
• Early-type field galaxies ~2 Gyr younger than those in clusters (confirmed in many other studies).
• HCGs possess age and [Fe/H] distributions more similar to those of cluster galaxies than field galaxies (confirmed in Mendes de Oliveira et al. 2005).
Proctor et al. 2004
Conclusions.Conclusions.• Results are inconsistent with simple models of
both primordial collapse and hierarchical merging.
However…
• Early-type galaxies in HCGs more similar to cluster galaxies than those in the field.
• According to Mendes de Oliveira et al. this implies either:• HCGs are highly transient (I.e. collapse to form a merger
remnant extremely rapidly)OR..• HCGs possess a common dark matter halo which
promotes stability. (e.g. Verdes-Montenegro et al. 2005)
• Results are inconsistent with simple models of both primordial collapse and hierarchical merging.
However…
• Early-type galaxies in HCGs more similar to cluster galaxies than those in the field.
• According to Mendes de Oliveira et al. this implies either:• HCGs are highly transient (I.e. collapse to form a merger
remnant extremely rapidly)OR..• HCGs possess a common dark matter halo which
promotes stability. (e.g. Verdes-Montenegro et al. 2005)
