How common are DSFGs in galaxy cluster progenitors? z~6 z~3 z~1 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

How common are DSFGs in galaxy cluster progenitors? z~6 z~3 z~1 z~0 IGM, ICM, GALAXIES Casey et al. 2015a, Hung et al. 2016, Casey 2016, Champagne et al., in prep. Caitlin M. Casey Assistant Professor University of Texas at Austin

Sinclaire Manning Jaclyn Champagne Patrick Drew e-MERLIN radio Kinematics & Optical/NIR Molecular gas content of morphology of galaxies spectroscopy of DSFGs galaxies in overdense in SuperCLASS environments Chao-Ling Hung Jorge Zavala Justin Spilker

z~6 z~3 z~1 z~0 IGM, ICM, GALAXIES protocluster stage virialized cluster stage 1. Can DSFGs be useful tools in studying the assembly history of protoclusters (galaxy cluster progenitors)? 2. Do DSFGs (at z>2) preferentially live in overdensities?

1. Review / known DSFG-rich overdensities at z>2: convince you that they are real. 
 (Omitting discussion of overdensities that are not spectroscopically- confirmed, Planck candidates, flux excesses, etc.) 
 2. In Context / Expectation from simulations and physical implications. (Simultaneous triggering of DSFGs vs. random triggering?) 
 3. Outlook / What should we aim to measure from future large submm+OIR datasets?

SSA22 at z=3.09 * 4 Lyman- blobs with submm emission 
 α (Geach et al. 2005, Chapman et al. 2005) * 283 LAE Candidates spanning ~1/2 degree 
 (Hayashino et al. 2004, Matsuda et al. 2005) * ALMA follow-up reveal 9 DSFGs in core 
 (Umehata et al. 2015) SSA22 Protocluster at z=3.09, 5-8 DSFGs associated with LABs Steidel et al. (1998), Hayashino et al. (2004), Matsuda et al. (2005), Yamada et al. (2012)

SSA22 at z=3.09 30 x 40 x 40 Mpc comoving Matsuda et al. (2005)

HDF z=1.99 Structure * Marginal significance (~2.5) in HDF spectroscopic samples of LBGs, much higher significance in DSFGs Blain et al. (2004), Chapman et al. (2009) * Contains some well-studied systems: HDF254/255 DSFG pair (mergers) HDF147 (massive radio galaxy) HDF130 (relic FRII galaxy) Casey et al. (2009a,b), Fabian et al. (2009), Bothwell et al. (2010) Chapman et al. (2009)

HDF z=1.99 Structure HDF147 HDF254 HDF255 HDF Overdensity at z=1.99, 6-9 DSFGs Chapman et al. (2009) Blain et al. (2004), Chapman et al. (2009) HDF130

HDF z=1.99 Structure HDF147 HDF254 HDF255 HDF Overdensity at z=1.99, 6-9 DSFGs Chapman et al. (2009) Blain et al. (2004), Chapman et al. (2009) HDF130

HDF z=1.99 Structure HDF147 HDF254 Inverse compton ghost of radio galaxy (~FRII luminosity); Fabian et al. (2009) HDF255 HDF Overdensity at z=1.99, 6-9 DSFGs Chapman et al. (2009) Blain et al. (2004), Chapman et al. (2009) HDF130

HDF z=1.99 Structure Radio galaxies in/ around protoclusters? Cosmic Downsizing: Most rare, evolved galaxies should live in most massive overdensities at early times “We estimate that roughly 75% of powerful ( L 2.7GHz > 1033 erg s − 1 Hz − 1 sr − 1) high redshift radio galaxies reside in a protocluster.” Inverse compton ghost of —Venemans et al. 2007 radio galaxy (~FRII luminosity); Fabian et al. Carilli et al. (2001), Stevens et al. (2003), Miley et al. (2009) (2004), Venemans et al. (2004, 2007 ), Tamura et al. (2009), Mostardi et al. (2013), Lee et al. (2014)

Spiderweb z=2.16 Structure * strong excess of Ly emitters α around radio galaxy Kurk et al. (2000, 2004a,b), Pentericci et al. (2000), Hatch et al. (2011b) CO(1-0) extending 150kpc in Spiderweb’s (Emonts et al. * statistical excess of submm 2016) and around HAE229 (Dannerbauer et al. 2017) emission around Spiderweb galaxy (the cD progenitor) Stevens et al. (2003), Miley et al. (2006), Rigby et al. (2014), Valtchanov et al. (2013) * 16 LABOCA sources detected in Dannerbauer et al. (2014), five DSFGs spectroscopically- confirmed at z=2.16

COSMOS z=2.47 Structure * Found via statistical overdensity of DSFGs: 9 DSFGs spectroscopically-confirmed with MOSFIRE (H ) and CO α Casey et al. (2015a) * Confirmed through zCOSMOS N(z) distribution with ~3.5 significance * As large as SSA22 structure, less complete (similar to HDF structure) Casey et al. (2015a) * Related structures also reported: 
 Chiang et al. (2015) at z=2.44, Diener et al. (2015) at z=2.45, T. Wang et al. (2016) at z=2.50

COSMOS z=2.47 Structure * Found via statistical overdensity of DSFGs: 9 DSFGs spectroscopically-confirmed with MOSFIRE (H ) and CO α Casey et al. (2015a) * Confirmed through zCOSMOS N(z) distribution with ~3.5 significance * As large as SSA22 structure, less complete (similar to HDF structure) Casey et al. (2015a) * Related structures also reported: 
 Chiang et al. (2015) at z=2.44, Diener et al. (2015) at z=2.45, T. Wang et al. (2016) at z=2.50

COSMOS z=2.47 Structure Casey et al. (2015a) * Related structures also reported: 
 Chiang et al. (2015) at z=2.44, Diener et al. (2015) at z=2.45, T. Wang et al. (2016) at z=2.50

COSMOS z=2.47 Structure Casey et al. (2015a) * Related structures also reported: 
 Chiang et al. (2015) at z=2.44, Diener et al. (2015) at z=2.45, T. Wang et al. (2016) at z=2.50

*peculiar velocities (infall) would only mean the structure is more elongated* COSMOS z=2.47 Structure 20” T. Wang et al. (2016) structure appears to be a line-of-sight filament within the larger structure, VLA CO(1-0) map, 16 detections: Champagne et al. in prep not virialized cluster core.

COSMOS z=2.47 Structure K.-G. Lee et al. 2015, 2016

T. Yuan et al. (2014) COSMOS z=2.10 Structure * Found in zFOURGE team intermediate-band imaging, MOSFIRE follow up via Swinburne, 100 sources in H α Spitler et al. (2012), Yuan et al. (2014) * Also present in zCOSMOS catalog, and on larger scales, contains: - 9 DSFGs - 5 X-ray AGN Casey et al. (2012c), Hung et al. (2016) Hung, Casey et al. 2016

T. Yuan et al. (2014) COSMOS z=2.10 Structure * Found in zFOURGE team intermediate-band imaging, MOSFIRE follow up via Swinburne, 100 sources in H α Spitler et al. (2012), Yuan et al. (2014) * Also present in zCOSMOS catalog, and on larger scales, contains: - 9 DSFGs - 5 X-ray AGN Casey et al. (2012c), Hung et al. (2016) Hung, Casey et al. 2016

T. Yuan et al. (2014) COSMOS z=2.10 Structure * Found in zFOURGE team intermediate-band imaging, MOSFIRE follow up via Swinburne, 100 sources in H α Spitler et al. (2012), Yuan et al. (2014) * Also present in zCOSMOS catalog, and on larger scales, contains: - 9 DSFGs - 5 X-ray AGN Casey et al. (2012c), Hung et al. (2016) Hung, Casey et al. 2016

T. Yuan et al. (2014) COSMOS z=2.10 Structure * Found in zFOURGE team intermediate-band imaging, MOSFIRE follow up via Swinburne, 100 sources in H α Spitler et al. (2012), Yuan et al. (2014) * Also present in zCOSMOS catalog, and on larger scales, contains: - 9 DSFGs - 5 X-ray AGN Casey et al. (2012c), Hung et al. (2016) Hung, Casey et al. 2016

Higher-redshift Overdensities with DSFGs less spectroscopically robust (50-100s of members vs. ~10) …SPT2349 at z=4.3 + others? AzTEC3 z=5.3 GN20 z=4.06 HDF850.1 Capak et al. (2011) Hodge et al. (2013) Walter et al. (2012) N(gals) = 11 N(gals) = 8 N(gals) = 13 N(rare) = 2 N(rare) = 3 N(rare) = 2

SSA22 z=3.09, HDF z=1.99, Spiderweb z=2.16, COSMOS z=2.47 and z=2.10. 40 x 40 x 40 Mpc comoving Are there more? 
 Selection is messy and heterogeneous.

SSA22 z=3.09, HDF z=1.99, Spiderweb z=2.16, COSMOS z=2.47 and z=2.10. 40 x 40 x 40 Mpc comoving Are there more? 
 Selection is messy and heterogeneous. What should we expect?

Expectation from Simulations: Protocluster Size D [ h − 1 cMpc] Muldrew et al. (2015) Protoclusters are physically HUGE, and the most massive progenitors are the largest. Volume collapses by a factor of ~100 between z=3 and z=0.5. (Quantities measured related to protoclusters should consider this volume transformation) STOP LOOKING ON ~ARCMIN SCALES. Chiang et al. (2013); see also Oñorbe et al. (2014)

Expectation from Simulations: Protocluster Size D [ h − 1 cMpc] Muldrew et al. (2015) Protoclusters are physically HUGE, and the most massive progenitors are the largest. Volume collapses by a factor of ~100 between z=3 and z=0.5. (Quantities measured related to protoclusters should consider this volume transformation) STOP LOOKING ON ~ARCMIN SCALES. Chiang et al. (2013); see also Oñorbe et al. (2014)

Expectation from Simulations: Will it collapse? Mo & White 1996: Press-Schechter spherical collapse: probability of collapse needs to exceed critical value Non-virialized structures are in non- linear regime, direct SAM output needed to predict collapse (Chiang et al. 2013, Granato et al. 2015, Lacey et al. 2015) Chiang et al. (2013)

Expectation from Simulations: Will it collapse? COS z=2.10 HDF z=1.99 SW z=2.16 Mo & White 1996: Press-Schechter spherical collapse: probability of COS z=2.47 SSA22 collapse needs to exceed critical value Non-virialized structures are in non- linear regime, direct SAM output needed to predict collapse (Chiang et al. 2013, Granato et al. 2015, Lacey et al. 2015) Chiang et al. (2013)

Expectation from Simulations: Protocluster SFRD epoch of interest Chiang et al. (2017)

Expectation from Simulations: Protocluster SFRD epoch of interest Chiang et al. (2017)