martin bureau, oxford university the tully-fisher relation: across morphological types and redshift...
Post on 25-Dec-2015
222 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
The Tully-Fisher Relation: Across Morphological Types
and Redshift Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Plans: Galaxy formation, scaling relations, T-F relation Stellar T-F: data, modeling, Vc , S0-S evolution CO T-F: data, Vc biases, prospects High-z: local benchmarks, ALMA, VLT/KMOS Summary
Stellar: Michael Williams, Michele CappellariCO: Timothy Davis, Lisa Young, Katey Alatalo, Leo Blitz
Atlas3D TeamNANTEN2: Kazafumi Torii, Satoshi Yoshiike, Selçuk Topal, Yasuo
Fukui,NANTEN2 consortium
KMOS: Sarah Miller, Mark Sullivan, Roger Davies,UK KMOS consortium
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Plans: Galaxy formation, scaling relations, T-F relation Stellar T-F: data, modeling, Vc , S0-S evolution CO T-F: data, Vc biases, prospects High-z: local benchmarks, ALMA, VLT/KMOS Summary
The Tully-Fisher Relation: Across Morphological Types
and Redshift
Stellar: Michael Williams, Michele CappellariCO: Timothy Davis, Lisa Young, Katey Alatalo, Leo Blitz
Atlas3D TeamNANTEN2: Kazafumi Torii, Satoshi Yoshiike, Selçuk Topal, Yasuo
Fukui,NANTEN2 consortium
KMOS: Sarah Miller, Mark Sullivan, Roger Davies,UK KMOS consortium
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Hubble Sequence
(Astronomy 01)
E1 E3 E7
S0
S Aa S Ab S Ac S Ad
S Ba S Bb S Bc S Bd
Irr
Mass, velocity dispersion,L-weighted age, density
Gas fraction, rotation, SF
(spheroid)
(disk)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Broad Aims
Goals:• Mass assembly history (gas, stars, dark matter)• Chemical enrichment
history (age, metallicity, SFH)
Context:• Hierarchical structure
formation (merging, harassment, ...)• Internal dynamical
evolution (BH/triaxiality-driven, ...)
⇒ Exploit "fossil record" (near-field cosmology)
(HST H
DF)
(SIN
S)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Scaling Relations (correlations)
Stellar Evolution:• Colour - mag. diagram
(CMD)• UVX - Mg relation
Galaxy Evolution:• Colour - mag. diagram
(CMD)• Fundamental plane (FP)
Star Formation:• Far infrared - radio
correlation• Kennicutt - Schmidt law (K-
S)
Underlying Physics:• M/L - velocity dispersion• Dark - visible matter
(Mice
la e
t al.
88
)
(Bla
nto
n e
t al.
06
)
(Combes et al. 07)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Tully-Fisher: Definition
Definition:• Originally, optical
luminosity (magnitude) vs. HI linewidth
(corrected for disk inclination)
• Generally, any luminosity (stellar mass) vs. any
rotational velocity (total mass)
⇒ Luminous vs. dark matter
Uses:• Distance determination (H0, peculiar velocity field,
…)
⇒ M/L evolution with z (and type)
(zero-point and scatter)
(Bure
au e
t al. 9
6)
Lum
.
V/sin i
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Tully-Fisher: M/L evolution
M/L:• Stellar populations - Age - Metallicity - Non-Solar abundance
ratio - Star formation history
(SFH) - Initial mass function
(IMF) - …• Dark matter
• Size scale• …
(Gas-rich) disk galaxies
Scaling:• We have: G M / R2 = V2 / R
M α V2 R
• We define: M/L Σ = M / πR2
• We get: L = V4 / πG2 (M/L) Σ
L α V4 (M/L)-1 Σ-1
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Tully-Fisher: Tracers
Tracer Spirals S0s Ellipticals
Global HI line widths
YES USUALLY NOTALMOST NEVER
Resolved ionised gas
rotation curves
YES SOMETIMES NO
Resolved stellar
rotation curves
(corrected)
YES YES NO
Circular velocity of
mass modelsYES YES YES
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Stellar + CO T-F: Goals
Goals: M/L evolution Constraints on galaxy
formation through zero-point and scatter
• Probe E-S0-S interface (stellar pops, DM, structure)• Constrain E-S0-S evolution Identical treatment of E/S0/S (avoid systematic biases)
E - S0 - S continuity:
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Plans: Galaxy formation, scaling relations, T-F relation Stellar T-F: data, modeling, Vc, S0-S evolution CO T-F: data, Vc biases, prospects High-z: local benchmarks, ALMA, VLT/KMOS Summary
The Tully-Fisher Relation: Across Morphological Types
and Redshift
Stellar: Michael Williams, Michele CappellariCO: Timothy Davis, Lisa Young, Katey Alatalo, Leo Blitz
Atlas3D TeamNANTEN2: Kazafumi Torii, Satoshi Yoshiike, Selçuk Topal, Yasuo
Fukui,NANTEN2 consortium
KMOS: Sarah Miller, Mark Sullivan, Roger Davies,UK KMOS consortium
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Stellar T-F: Sample, data
Stellar kinematics: (V, σ, h3, h4)
(Chung e
t al. 0
4)
v
σ
h3
h4
Sample:• 28 edge-on disk
galaxies: 14 S0, 14 Sa-Sc Mostly bright, HSB, field
objects (Bureau & Freeman 1999)
• K-band images (Bureau et al. 06)
• Stellar kinematics (2-3 Re)
(Chung et al. 04)
⇒ Inclination known, need to derive (corrected) rotation velocity
vrms = √(v2 + σ2)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
* Rotation dominant (esp. in outer parts), so anisotropy effects unimportant (mass-anisotropy degeneracy minimised)
Stellar T-F: Modeling method
Luminous MGE model:
• Multi-Gaussian expansion of image (incl. negative terms)
⇒ Radially constant M/L*
free
Dark NFW halo:• Assumed mass-
concentration relation⇒ Dark halo virial mass MDM
free
JAM dynamical model:
• Jeans axisymmetric modeling
⇒ Radially constant orbital anisotropy βz free
JAM:
(Williams et al. 09)
MDM
M/L*
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Stellar T-F: Velocity measure
Velocity definition:
Velocities:• Need single measure of
velocity• Flat (or asymptotic) velocity
Systematics:• Past works compare
modeled Vcirc (or Vdrift) of S0s with HI line widths for Ss: significant biases
⇒ Here, compare Vcirc with Vcirc
(Williams et al. 10)
V (
km
s-
1)
R (arcsec)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Stellar T-F: Velocity measure
Velocity comparisons:
(Will
iam
s et
al.
10
)
SS0
Vcirc - Vdrift
VHI - Vdrift
S0 (Bedregal et al. 06)
Velocities:• Need single measure of
velocity• Flat (or asymptotic) velocity
Systematics:• Past works compare
modeled Vcirc (or Vdrift) of S0s with HI line widths for Ss: significant biases
⇒ Here, compare Vcirc with Vcirc
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Stellar T-F: Velocity measure
VLA+ATCA:(C
hung e
t al. 0
6,
12
)Velocities:• Need single measure of
velocity• Flat (or asymptotic) velocity
Systematics:• Past works compare
modeled Vcirc (or Vdrift) of S0s with HI line widths for Ss: significant biases
⇒ Here, compare Vcirc with Vcirc
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Stellar T-F: S0 vs Sab
T-F relation: K-band (14 S0 + 14 Sa-Sc, mostly field spirals) (K-band; 2-3 Re stellar kinematics)
S0 vs Sab:• Large offset to Sc-Sd T-F
relation for both S0 and Sab
• S0 fainter than Sab by 0.50 ± 0.15 mag at K
(identical treatment) (smaller than previous
studies)
Evolution:• Fading timescale ≈1 Gyr, but S0 up to z≈1
⇒ Passive evolution (exclusively) ruled out
(Williams et al. 10)
S0S
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Baryonic T-F: S0 vs Sab
Baryonic and “total” T-F:
• S0 and Sab still slightly offset when considering stellar mass
(0.2 dex) (worse if gas added)
• S0 – Sab offset unchanged for dynamical mass
(although Mdyn rather uncertain)
• If S0 – Sab Mdyn offset is true, then “broken homology”
(S0 more compact by 20%)
⇒ S0 not simply S fading… dynamical “processing” required
(Will
iam
s et
al.
10
)
M*
Mdyn
S0S
T-F relation: M* and Mdyn
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Baryonic T-F: S0 vs Sab
T-F relation: M* and Mdyn
Baryonic and “total” T-F:
• S0 and Sab still slightly offset when considering stellar mass
(0.2 dex) (worse if gas added)
• S0 – Sab offset unchanged for dynamical mass
(although Mdyn rather uncertain)
• If S0 – Sab Mdyn offset is true, then “broken homology”
(S0 more compact by 20%)
⇒ S0 not simply S fading… dynamical “processing” required
M α V2 R
M α V4 (M/L)-1 Σ-
1
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Plans: Galaxy formation, scaling relations, T-F relation Stellar T-F: data, modeling, Vc , S0-S evolution CO T-F: data, Vc biases, prospects High-z: local benchmarks, ALMA, VLT/KMOS Summary
The Tully-Fisher Relation: Across Morphological Types
and Redshift
Stellar: Michael Williams, Michele CappellariCO: Timothy Davis, Lisa Young, Katey Alatalo, Leo Blitz
Atlas3D TeamNANTEN2: Kazafumi Torii, Satoshi Yoshiike, Selçuk Topal, Yasuo
Fukui,NANTEN2 consortium
KMOS: Sarah Miller, Mark Sullivan, Roger Davies,UK KMOS consortium
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F
Tracer Spirals S0s Ellipticals
Global HI line widths
YES USUALLY NOTALMOST NEVER
Resolved ionised gas
rotation curves
YES SOMETIMES NO
Resolved stellar
rotation curves
(corrected)
YES YES NO
Circular velocity of
mass modelsYES YES YES
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F
Tracer Spirals S0s Ellipticals
Global CO line widths
YES SOMETIMES SOMETIMES
Global HI line widths
YES USUALLY NOTALMOST NEVER
Resolved ionised gas
rotation curves
YES SOMETIMES NO
Resolved stellar
rotation curves
(corrected)
YES YES NO
Circular velocity of
mass modelsYES YES YES
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Possible Pitfalls:
• CO may not extend to flat part of rotation curve
• Geometry and inclination ill-defined
• CO-rich populations unrepresentative of general galaxy population (biased)
• …
CO T-F: Caveats and pitfalls
(Young e
t al.
11
)(Y
oung e
t al.
11
)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Sample selection:• MK < -21.5• D < 41 Mpc• |δ – 29º| < 35º , |b| > 15º• All E/S0s, no spiral structure
Data:• SAURON optical wide-field
IFU• SDSS/INT optical + 2MASS
NIR imaging• IRAM 30m CO (1-0)+(2-1) +
CARMA CO (1-0) follow-up• WSRT HI (δ > 10º, excl.
Virgo) Various archives
(XMM, Chandra, GALEX, HST, Spitzer, …)
RedRed
BlueBlue
Mr
CO T-F: Atlas3D survey
Atlas3D
g-r
⇒ 260 galaxies
(Cappella
ri et a
l. 1
1)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Single-dish survey
IRAM 30m Survey:• CO(1-0,2-1), 23/12”
FWHM• 260 Atlas3D E/SOs• Sensitivity: 3 mK (30 km
s-1) 3 x 107 M⊙
Results:• 22% detection rate• MH2 = 107.1-9.3 M⊙
• CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) ≈ 1 - 2 Largely independent of: luminosity, dynamics
(λR),
environment (Virgo), …
High S/N:
Low S/N:
(Combes, Young & Bureau 07; Young et al. 11)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Single-dish survey
IRAM 30m Survey:• CO(1-0,2-1), 23/12”
FWHM• 260 Atlas3D E/SOs• Sensitivity: 3 mK (30 km
s-1) 3 x 107 M⊙
Results:• 22% detection rate• MH2 = 107.1-9.3 M⊙
• CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) ≈ 1 - 2 Largely independent of: luminosity, dynamics
(λR),
environment (Virgo), …
Optical CMD + CO:
(Young et al. 11, 13)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Inclination measures
Stellar:• Galaxy axis ratio (intrinsic thickness;
c/a=0.34) JAM best-fit inclination
(Molecular) Gas:• Unsharp-masked image ellipse fitting Tilted-ring model best-fit
inclination
⇒ Error not strongly dependent on inclination
Stellar i :
(Davis e
t al.
11
a)
(Cappella
ri et a
l. 1
0)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Inclination measures
H2 - stars
Misalignment angle
(Davis
et
al. 1
1b)
Atlas3D (CARMA):• H2 and stars often
misaligned: ≥1/3 external
(accretion/cooling) ≤2/3 internal (stellar mass
loss)
• Always aligned in clusters• Randomly misaligned in
field
⇒ Increased scatter (and bias)
in field ?
(Ala
talo
et
al. 1
2)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Inclination measures
Stellar:• Galaxy axis ratio (intrinsic thickness;
c/a=0.34) JAM best-fit inclination
(Molecular) Gas:• Unsharp-masked image ellipse fitting Tilted-ring model best-fit
inclination
⇒ Error not strongly dependent on inclination
(Molecular) gas i :
(Davis e
t al.
11
a)
(Cappella
ri et a
l. 1
0)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Velocity measure
Selection:• Double-horn profiles
likely to reach Vflat
(imperfect diagnostic)
• CO traces Vflat globally
(not Vpeak)
• CO traces the circular velocity locally
⇒ CO excellent kinematic tracer
Integrated profiles : (Y
oung e
t al. 1
1)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Velocity measure
CO vs. Ionised Gas:• CO rotating faster
(colder) then ionised gas
(and stars)• Nearly perfect tracer of
the circular velocity
• Better (and excellent) tracer of dynamical mass
✗ : BIMA CO (1-0) --- : SAURON JAM model + : SAURON stars + : SAURON ionised gas
(Davis et al. 12)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Results
CO Tully-Fisher:• Many (potential) pitfalls • Many better than
expected• Many simple
workarounds
• Slope and zero-point robustly recovered• Standard intrinsic
scatter
⇒ Stellar / Jeans T-F easily recovered⇒ No or minimum efforts !⇒ Great prospect to probe M/L(z) with
LMT+ALMA…
CO Tully-Fisher relations:
(Davis et al. 11a)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Results
ETG/FR vs Sc:• Sc follow spirals in HI • ETG/FR fainter than Sc
by 1.0 ± 0.1 mag at K-band
(identical treatment)• Consistent with
Williams et al.’s 0.5 mag at K-band offset for Sab
(consistent with past work)
⇒ CO T-F easily recovered across all Hubble types
(and environments)
CO Tully-Fisher relations:
(Chung et al., in prep)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F
Tracer Spirals S0s Ellipticals
Global CO line widths
YES SOMETIMES SOMETIMES
Global HI line widths
YES USUALLY NOTALMOST NEVER
Resolved ionised gas
rotation curves
YES SOMETIMES NO
Resolved stellar
rotation curves
(corrected)
YES YES NO
Circular velocity of
mass modelsYES YES YES
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F
Tracer Spirals S0s Ellipticals
Global CO line widths
YES YES YES
Global HI line widths
YES USUALLY NOTALMOST NEVER
Resolved ionised gas
rotation curves
YES SOMETIMES NO
Resolved stellar
rotation curves
(corrected)
YES YES NO
Circular velocity of
mass modelsYES YES YES
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Plans: Galaxy formation, scaling relations, T-F relation Stellar T-F: data, modeling, Vc , S0-S evolution CO T-F: data, Vc biases, prospects High-z: local benchmarks, ALMA, VLT/KMOS Summary
The Tully-Fisher Relation: Across Morphological Types
and Redshift
Stellar: Michael Williams, Michele CappellariCO: Timothy Davis, Lisa Young, Katey Alatalo, Leo Blitz
Atlas3D TeamNANTEN2: Kazafumi Torii, Satoshi Yoshiike, Selçuk Topal, Yasuo
Fukui,NANTEN2 consortium
KMOS: Sarah Miller, Mark Sullivan, Roger Davies,UK KMOS consortium
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Local benchmark
Existing work:• Number of studies and
objects limited (Dickey, Lavezzi, Sofue, Tutui, …)
• Large single dishes or interferometry
⇒ Non-optimal datasets⇒ Hard to compare with
future high-z work
CO Tully-Fisher relations:
(Lavezzi & Dickey 1998)
(Dickey & Kazes 1992)(Schoeniger & Sofue 1997)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Local benchmark
NANTEN2:• 4m mm/sub-mm dish,
Atacama• CO(1-0) + (2-1) receivers (1 GHz ≈ 2600 km s-1
bandwidth) (61 kHz ≈ 0.15 km s-1
resolution)• Small consortium
⇒ Large beam, 170” at CO(1-0)
(entire galaxies)
⇒ Extensive, flexible scheduling
NANTEN2:
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Local benchmark
Nearby galaxy survey:• Pilot observations: - 30+ galaxies observed (≈40 min on-source; single pointing) - Mosaics straightforward (few attempted)• Full survey: - 250+ “full” galaxies (≈3
yrs) - Preferably no CO
detection, (non-TF) accurate
distance
⇒ z = 0 benchmark (star formation, gas-to-dust ratio,
…)
NANTEN2:
(Yoshiike et al., in prep)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Local benchmark
Nearby galaxy survey:• Pilot observations: - 30+ galaxies observed (≈40 min on-source; single pointing) - Mosaics straightforward (few attempted)• Full survey: - 250+ “full” galaxies (≈3
yrs) - Preferably no CO
detection, (non-TF) accurate
distance
⇒ z = 0 benchmark (star formation, gas-to-dust ratio,
…)
NANTEN2:
(Yoshiike et al., in prep)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Intermediate z
ALMA:• 50 x 12m dishes to 16 km• 12 x 7m dishes compact
array• 4 x 12m dishes total power
• 10 bands, 30 - 950 GHz (bands 3, 6, 7, 9: cycles
0+1) (bands 4, 8, 10: in
progress) (bands 1, 2, 5: ???)
⇒ Detect CO or CII in MW-like galaxy at z = 3 in 24 hr
(z = 1 in 1 hr?)
LMT + GBT promising
ALMA:
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Intermediate z
ALMA:• CO(1-0): Band 3: z = 0.0 –
0.4 Band 2: z = 0.3 –
0.7 Band 1: z = 1.6 –
3.7• CO(2-1): Band 6: z = 0.0 –
0.1 Band 5: z = 0.1 –
0.4 Band 4: z = 0.4 –
0.8 Band 3: z = 1.0 –
1.7 Band 2: z = 1.6 –
2.4 Band 1: z = 4.1 –
6.4
⇒ Great T-F machine (spatially-resolved or
not) ⇒ Need better
understanding of CO(2-1)
ALMA:
QSO at z = 4.4, CII 158 μm (unresolved)
Spiral at z = 0.0, optical, CO(2-1), cont. + CO(6-5)
(ESO
)(E
SO
)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
CO T-F: Intermediate z
ALMA:• CO(1-0): Band 3: z = 0.0 –
0.4 Band 2: z = 0.3 –
0.7 Band 1: z = 1.6 –
3.7• CO(2-1): Band 6: z = 0.0 –
0.1 Band 5: z = 0.1 –
0.4 Band 4: z = 0.4 –
0.8 Band 3: z = 1.0 –
1.7 Band 2: z = 1.6 –
2.4 Band 1: z = 4.1 –
6.4
⇒ Great T-F machine (spatially-resolved or
not) ⇒ Need better
understanding of CO(2-1)
CARMA:(EGNoG survey: spirals at z = 0.3)
(Bauermeister et al. 13)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Hα T-F: Local benchmark
Existing work:• Large number of
(long-)slit spectroscopic studies
(Mathewson et al., Courteau, …)
• Few integral-field studies (IFU, Fabry-Perot, …)
Environment independent,
excellent “beam”
⇒ Datasets available
⇒ IFU groundwork incomplete
(simulate higher z IFU work)
Hα Tully-Fisher relations:
(EG
G, C
orn
ell U
.)
(C. Flynn)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Hα T-F: Local benchmark
Hα velocity fields:
(Chemin et al. 2005)
(Epinet et al. 2009)
Existing work:• Large number of
(long-)slit spectroscopic studies
(Mathewson et al., Courteau, …)
• Few integral-field studies (IFU, Fabry-Perot, …)
Environment independent,
excellent “beam”
⇒ Datasets available
⇒ IFU groundwork incomplete
(simulate higher z IFU work)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Hα T-F: Intermediate z
KMOS:• 2nd generation VLT instrument• 24 deployable IFUs over 7.2’
FOV (2.8” x 2.8”, 14 x 14 spaxels)• JHK bands, R ≈ 3500
• UK: Durham, Oxford, UKATC Germany: MPE, Munich Obs,
ESO• 250 GTO nights, 120 for UK
⇒ Galaxy evolution from z = 1 to 10 (SFH, K-S, mergers, Mdyn, …)
VLT KMOS:
(MPE)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Hα T-F: Intermediate z
KMOS UK GTO:• Large z = 0.5 - 3.0 survey (Oxford, Durham?, MPE?)• Pilot: ≈20-30 objects per
bin 3 redshifts (0.8, 1.5,
2.4) 2 morphological bins• Total: ≈1000 galaxies ? CANDELS fields (+ different
environments)
⇒ Adapt current (z = 0) tools⇒ Tully-Fisher (galaxy)
evolution at intermediate redshifts
Mid-z galaxy survey:
(Förster Schreiber et al. 2009)
(Miller et al. 12)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Hα T-F: Intermediate z
Mid-z galaxy survey:
(Miller et al. 2011)
KMOS UK GTO:• Large z = 0.5 - 3.0 survey (Oxford, Durham?, MPE?)• Pilot: ≈20-30 objects per
bin 3 redshifts (0.8, 1.5,
2.4) 2 morphological bins• Total: ≈1000 galaxies ? CANDELS fields (+ different
environments)
⇒ Adapt current (z = 0) tools⇒ Tully-Fisher (galaxy)
evolution at intermediate redshifts
(Koekemoer et al. 2011)
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
Plans: Galaxy formation, scaling relations, T-F relation Stellar T-F: data, modeling, Vc , S0-S evolution CO T-F: data, Vc biases, prospects High-z: local benchmarks, ALMA, VLT/KMOS Summary
The Tully-Fisher Relation: Across Morphological Types
and Redshift
Stellar: Michael Williams, Michele CappellariCO: Timothy Davis, Lisa Young, Katey Alatalo, Leo Blitz
Atlas3D TeamNANTEN2: Kazafumi Torii, Satoshi Yoshiike, Selçuk Topal, Yasuo
Fukui,NANTEN2 consortium
KMOS: Sarah Miller, Mark Sullivan, Roger Davies,UK KMOS consortium
Martin Bureau, Oxford University
T-F Conclusions
HI: - Trivial locally for late-type galaxies
⇒ Only exceptionally in early-types, high-density environments
⇒ Impossible to mid-z until SKA
Stars: - JAM successful; 2 good tracer of enclosed mass; Vcirc reliable
⇒ Possible for all morphological types, environments
⇒ Always time-consuming, impossible beyond local universe
CO: - Limited work locally; needs to be expanded
⇒ Possible for all morphological types, environments
⇒ Routine to intermediate z with ALMA + LMT
Hα: - Extensive work locally; needs to be expanded to IFUs
⇒ Difficult in early-types, ok for all environments
⇒ Routine to intermediate z with 2nd generation 8m telescopes
top related