X- Ray and UV Baryon Accoun1ng Mike Anderson University of Michigan Jess Werk UC Santa Cruz
Baryon Budgets of Galaxies Frac%on 24% 24% Stars ISM 24% 24% 4% 0% HVCs Cool CGM Warm CGM Hot Halo A late- type L* galaxy at z=0
Baryon Budgets of Galaxies Frac%on Stars 47% 29% ISM HVCs Cool CGM 6% 6% 6% 6% 0% Warm CGM Hot Halo Missing? A late- type L* galaxy at z=0 M* = 5x10 10 M Mvir = 1 (or 2) x 10 12 M
Stellar Mass Galactic star formation and accretion histories Moster+ 12 M* 5x10 10 M f*/f b 0.2±0.1 10-2 Leauthaud+ 12 WMAP5 Ω b /Ω m dn/dlogm * [Mpc -3 dex -1 ] 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 Non IMF-systematic error margin COSMOS, this work, z~0.37 COSMOS, Drory et al. 2009, z~0.3 SDSS, Li et al. 2009 SDSS, Baldry et al. 2008 SDSS, Panter et al. 2007 f 0.10 0.01 Systematic uncertainty on f : COSMOS HOD, z=0.37 Abundance matching, COSMOS SMFs Abundance matching, Behroozi et al. 2010 Chabrier IMF Salpeter IMF (0.25 dex shift) 9 10 11 12 log 10 ( M * [M ]) 10 11 10 12 10 13 10 14 10 15 Halo Mass M 500c [ M ]
Molecular Gas = Saintonge 2011 M H2 10-1.5 x M* few x 10 9 M f H2 / f b 0.006
Cold Neutral ISM M HI ~ 10 9.7 M Haynes & Giovanelli 84 Roberts & Haynes 94 Catinella+10
Stars + Molecular Gas + Neutral Gas McGaugh 2010 Baryon Tully- Fisher Rela1on Also can use Kennicu`- Schmidt Rela1on M* + M H2 + M HI 6x10 10 M f *+H2+HI / f b 0.35
Atomic Halo Gas M HVC ~ 10 7.5 M Thilker+04 Wakker+08 Putman+12
Warm, Ionized CGM ( 10 5 K < T < 10 6 K) MOVI = πr 2 NOVI 16mH M... then apply ioniza1on correc1on fovi... MOxygen = 1.2 x 10 7 (0.2/fOVI) M Mgas > 2 x 10 9 (Z /Z) (0.2/fOVI) M HM01 Background+CIE R = 150 kpc
Lower Limit: Cool, Ionized CGM ( 10 4 K < T < 10 5 K) MSiIII = C f πr 2 NSiIII 28mH M... then apply ioniza1on correc1on fsiiii... MSilicon = 5.5 x 10 5 (0.7/fSiIII) M Mgas > 8 x 10 8 (Z /Z) (0.7/fSiIII) M
Be`er Yet? Cool, Ionized CGM ( 10 4 K < T < 10 5 K) Get ioniza1on frac1on from modeling all low and intermediate ioniza1on states of metal lines observed. Get metallicity from modeling. 0.5 0.0!0.5 Log [M/H]!1.0!1.5!2.0!2.5!4.0!3.5!3.0!2.5!2.0!1.5 Log U
Cool, Ionized CGM ( 10 4 K < T < 10 5 K) M CGM, cool ~ 10 10.5 M *this number is pre`y insensi1ve to the input CLOUDY spectrum Warm, Ionized CGM ( 10 4 K < T < 10 5 K) M CGM, warm ~ 10 10 M if Z/Z = 0.1 * unfortunately, we don t have mul1ple transi1ons in this phase, but this number could easily be even higher!
Hot Gas Depends on gas density profile! Also metallicity (gradient?) for emission- based measurements Anywhere from: few x 10 9 M (if only extends out to 50 kpc) few x 10 10 M (Anderson + Bregman 2010) (NFW or β) 10 11 M (Bullock, Fang) (adiaba1c profile) upwards? (uniform profile) Can we constrain density profile using QSO absorp1on lines? the visible part of early- type halos follows a β- model out to tens of kpc
Missing? No reason galaxies must have all their baryons is there? z=0 z=1 z=2 z=3 z=4 z=5 CAFG+ 11 Figure 7. Comparison of the median baryon mass fractions within halos, broken down by components, for the different wind prescriptions. We comment on the relative contributions of stellar and ISM material in 3.3. Dashed: constant-velocity winds with v w =342kms 1 and mass loading η =1(winds). Dotted: constant-velocity winds with v w =342kms 1 and mass loading η =2(swinds). Dash-dotted: constant-velocity winds with v w =684kms 1 and mass loading η =2(fwinds). The thick grey lines show the universal ratio Ω b /Ω m.
Ques1ons Is the O VI a dis1nct phase from the lower ions? Density profile? Lifecycle? Stability? Is CLOUDY the right thing to do? What spectrum to use? Does cloud size ma`er? (covering frac v. volume filling frac)? Metal mixing? How does this budget change with galaxy type? How does this budget change with halo mass? How does this budget evolve with redshiu? Pre- hea1ng? Pre- ejec1on?
Are OVI and the Lower Ioniza1on States of Heavy Metal Lines Tracing dis1nct gas phases? 1. Including OVI in photoioniza1on models does not allow for a consistent solu1on. 2. OVI *looks* a li`le broader, generally.
Mul1phase?
Why do things look so similar at z ~ 0 (COS- Halos) and z ~ 2-3 (KBSS)? 3.0 2.5 z~2; LBG z~0; L* W Ly! (Ang) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 R phys (kpc)
How does the mass of the Warm, Ionized CGM change with galaxy type?
How does the mass of the hot halo change with galaxy type? Increases? 4 R. A. Crain et al. L X -L K plane in a very similar way: the relation between these two properties has similar slope, normalisation and scatter for both classes. We conclude that, for fixed stellar mass, the X-ray luminosity of hot coronae is unrelated to the morphology of the host galaxy. Since the X-ray emission has been explicitly corrected for non-thermal point-source contamination, the correlation in Fig. 1 is not a reflection of the linear correlation between total X-ray luminosity (i.e. uncorrected for point sources) and optical luminosity that is known to exist for low optical luminosity ellipticals (O Sullivan Humphrey+ et al. 2001). Nor11,12 is the correlation driven by a contribution from faint thermal point sources (e.g. accreting white dwarfs and cataclysmic variable stars) that cannot be removed spectrally, since only a small number of faint ellipticals in our sample have coronal luminosities that are comparable to, or less than, the integrated luminosity of thermal point sources inferred from the relation of Revnivtsev et al. (2008, see dotted line in Fig. 1). Several of our faint disc galaxies also lie below this relation but, as discussed in 2.2, the luminosities from Str04, W05, T06, L07, and R09 are attributed exclusively to extra-planar emission, and are therefore unlikely to be contaminated by point sources. The correlation between the optical and X-ray luminosities of disc and elliptical galaxies has been explored previously (e.g. Fabbiano 1989). However, such studies analysed data from the Einstein and ROSAT telescopes, which i) lacked the sensitivity to detect diffuse X-ray emission in low (optical) luminosity galaxies and ii) Stays the same? Crain+ 10 Figure 2. The X-ray luminosity-temperature relation in the 0.5-2.0 kev band. We plot those galaxies from the sample shown in Fig. 1 that i) have a spectroscopic measurement of the coronal temperature and ii) in the case of ellipticals, have a total X-ray luminosity above the expected thermal point source contribution. Also plotted are measurements for the Milky Way (Henley et al. 2010) and M31 (Liu et al. 2010), shown as green error bars, the galaxy group samples of Helsdon & Ponman (2000) and Mulchaey et al.
Pre- hea1ng? Pre- ejec1on? z 85 2 1 0.5 0.2 0 0.20 Halo1 z 85 2 1 0.5 0.2 0 0.18 Halo2 0.16 0.15 0.14 fb fb 0.12 0.10 0.05 Sim1a Sim1b Sim2 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (Gyr) 0.10 0.08 0.06 Sim1a Sim1b Sim2 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (Gyr) Peirani+ 12