GEPI, Obs. Paris: F. Hammer, H. Flores, & C. BalkowskiGEPI, Obs. Paris: F. Hammer, H. Flores, & C. BalkowskiLAMLAM : P. Amram : P. AmramMPE, Garching : M. LehnertMPE, Garching : M. LehnertStockholm Obs. : G. Östlin, T. MarquartStockholm Obs. : G. Östlin, T. Marquart

Galaxy kinematics at z ~ 1

Mathieu PUECHPost-Doc GEPI – Obs. Paris

FLAMES/GIRAFFE on the UT2

MEDUSE, MEDUSE, 132 mono-fibers, 1”.2

IFU, IFU, 15 x 3’’x2’’arrays (20 sq. lenses, 0’’.52)

ARGUS, ARGUS, 11”x7” array(300 sq. lenses)

3 modes

15 IFUs deployable over a 20 arcmin FoV with R~10000

35 galaxies with 0.4 < z < 0.75 and W0([OII])> 15Å: Tint ~ 8 - 13hrs35 galaxies with 0.4 < z < 0.75 and W0([OII])> 15Å: Tint ~ 8 - 13hrs

32 galaxies with enough S/N (at least 4 pixels with S/N([OII]) > 5)

CFRS03.0488, z=0.46, (3’’x2’’)

Preliminary program : 6 nights on distant galaxies

1

2

3

4

R> 13000 at rest: the [OII] doublet can be resolved

All but 6 galaxies show a well resolved [OII] doublet.

Only pixels with S/N > 3

5x5 linear interpolation

Also sigma maps…

Provided by: the absence of cross-talk between individual spectra.

from Blais-Ouellete, Amram et al, 2002(Fabry-Perot/Halpha)

GIRAFFE pixel @ z=0.6

pixel= random_motions Vlarge_scale_motions

Also sigma maps… pixel= random_motions Vlarge_scale_motions

At low spatial resolution, dispersion maps of rotating disks do show a peak in their dynamical center

Velocity map Dispersion or map

And we find rotating disks at z ~ 0.6HST/F814W Velocity field sigma map

Maps from Puech et al (2006a) & Flores et al (2006)

Rotating disks : 31 % of the sample

Rotation is seen in the VF and the sigma map is peaked in the dynamical center

but also « perturbed » rotations HST/F814W Velocity field sigma map

Maps from Puech et al (2006a) & Flores et al (2006)

Perturbed rotations: 20% of the sample

Rotation is seen in the VF but the sigma map is perturbed

and much complex kinematicsHST/F814W Velocity field sigma map

Maps from Puech et al (2006a) & Flores et al (2006)

Complex kinematics: 40% of the sample

FP velocity fieldESO 400-G43 (Ostlin et al, 2001)

Simulated Giraffe IFU observation(degraded spatial resolution, z=0.6)

Perturbed/complex VFPerturbed/complex VFss are are real!!real!!

- FP observations of 20 GHASP galaxies (Amram et al, 2002) simulations of 60 data-cubes at different z rotating disks are recovered

- FP observations of complex velocity fields:

Comparison to local (Fabry-Perot)

CFRS03.9003

CFRS22.0504

CFRS22.0293

HDFS4070

observée modélisée

A simple test of the classification

We assume all galaxies to be rotating disks, i.e. their large scale motions to be rotational

We can simply compared the derived maps to the observed ones:

Amplitude ratio versus peak distances

Galaxy kinematics at z ~0.6: some numbersA (small) complete sample of 35 galaxies: IIABAB 22.5 ; W 22.5 ; W00(OII) > 15A and 0.4 (OII) > 15A and 0.4 z z 0.75 0.75

==> representative of emission line galaxies at z= 0.6 (M==> representative of emission line galaxies at z= 0.6 (MBB < -19.5) < -19.5)

- Simple classification using VF+sigma+ HST morphology:rotating disks: 31%; perturbed/complex: 60%; undetermined: 9%

- Accounting for all IAB< 22.5 (i.e. including quiescent E/S0/…): we do find that 26-40% of them are not relaxed systems !

GIRAFFE/multiple IFUs: unique tool to GIRAFFE/multiple IFUs: unique tool to study the study the kinematics of distant galaxieskinematics of distant galaxies

Conselice et al (2005)

KECK/LRIS (long slit)Conselice et al (2005)

Tully-Fischer relation at z ~ 0.6 (K band)

VLT/GIRAFFE-IFUsFlores et al (2006)

Conselice et al (2005)

KECK/LRIS (long slit)Conselice et al (2005)

VLT/GIRAFFE-IFUsFlores et al (2006)

Complex KinematicsPerturbed RotationsRotating Disks

▲

●■

Conselice et al (2005)

KECK/LRIS (long slit)Conselice et al (2005)

VLT/GIRAFFE-IFUsFlores et al (2006)

Scatter is related to interlopers (non relaxed kinematics)

Local TF (Verjeinhen 2001) TF at z=0.6 (Flores et al, 2006)

Tully-Fischer not evolving ?

We need statistics !!!

Specific Angular Momentum

Evidence for a non linear growth

of jdisk

Evidence for through merging ?

Robustness of the

dynamical classification

Puech et al. 2006, in revision

jdisk=2RdVmax

Comparison with simulations* perturbed rotations = minor mergers ?* complex kinematics = major mergers ?

to be compared with hydrodynamical codes (Simulations by T.J. Cox)

Puech ‘s PhD thesisPuech et al., in preparation

Conclusion

1- Since z=0.4, galaxy dynamics is too complex to be sampled by slits is this a definitive claim ?

2- Requires multi-IFUs to sample > 50 rotating disks (among > 150 distant galaxies); goal is to verify the absence of TF evolution~ analysis of 40 new CDFS galaxies in progress ; ~ 50 more will be observedthis semester

3- High rate of merging (major/minor) or could this be recovered by other scenarios (smooth gas accretion) ?