The Luminosity-Size relation of galaxies.pptVIP

The Luminosity-Size relation of galaxies Simon Driver and Ewan Cameron (University of St Andrews) The Luminosity-size/SB relation Dwarfs The UDF and MGC UDF provides deepest data to date But even UDF has z limits K-corrections severe requiring bandpass shifting Near-IR data not deep enough to probe below M* for z 1 Understanding selection bias key to robust results Detectability and recoverability Detailed and realistic simulations are required Simulated disc galaxies are thrown into real UDF data etc… Robustness is not defined by detectability but by recoverability Galaxies identified in grey area have huge systematics Systematic trend is to push galaxies to low flux and smaller sizes (!) which can be miss-interpreted as luminosity-size evolution UDF v MGC results UDF comparison window is narrow Define comparison boundaries from reliability plots for MGC and UDF MGC = z=0 reference sample (Driver et al 2006) At z=1 UDF SB boundary brighter than reference sample, I.e., large diffuse objects’ sizes and fluxes will be underestimated…. Galaxy Evolution to z=0.7 Results are consistent with 1 mag of luminosity evolution and no size evolution. 3 Major Additional Problems ! This analysis has ignored three important issues: Bimodality and structural multiplicity of galaxies: Spheroids (inc bulges) and discs are fundamentally different beasts, could they have distinct evolutionary paths ? (Driver et al 2006a) Shape/profile bias: Previous simulations assumed all galaxies were n=1 discs, but they’re not (Cameron, Driver Freeman 2006) Dust attenuation: MGC results suggest attenuation much more severe than previously thought and dependent on inclination and B/T ratio (Driver et al 2006b) Bimodality in (u-r)-log(n) Bimodality now seen in the Colour Sersic-index plane (Driver et al 2006) Two populations or two components ? . Shape or Sersic index bias Disc n=1 Sph’d n=4 Empirical dust attenuation-inclination relations Results incorporating shape bias Qualitativel