Duilia de Mello (CUA-GSFC)

Amy Soto (CUA), Nick Bond (GSFC), Jon P. Gardner (GSFC), Swara Ravindranath (STScI), Claudia Scarlata (UMN), Elysse

Voyer (LAM), Harry Teplitz (IRSA)

Elmegreen et al. 05UDF i image (lines=0.5”)

884 gals with d >0.3”114 chain178 clump cluster126 double97 tadpole269 spiral100 elliptical

Clump cluster propertieszphot= 1.6 - 36x108 Msun

D = 1.8 kpc5 – 10 clumps per galaxy

Simulations: high-z clumps could both dissipate to form Simulations: high-z clumps could both dissipate to form

disks and coalesce to form bulges (e.g., Bournaud et al disks and coalesce to form bulges (e.g., Bournaud et al

2011; Ceverino et al. 2010, Krumholz et al. 2010; Agertz et 2011; Ceverino et al. 2010, Krumholz et al. 2010; Agertz et

al. 2009; Elmegreen 2008) – potential building block of local al. 2009; Elmegreen 2008) – potential building block of local

spiralsspirals

Simulation

Ceverino et al. 10

Bournaud et al. 11

(Faucher-Giguere's

Perret's

simulations)

When UV Clumps become disks?

z < 1.5 – restframe UV

Instruments:

WFPC2 F300W U band (de Mello et al. 2006, Voyer et al. 2009)

ACS SBC F150LP (Voyer et al. 2011)

BUT more recently WFC3 UVIS (de Mello, Soto, Bond, Teplitz)

Voyer et al. (2011, 2013)

230 FUV selected galaxies (0.1<z<1.2) ACS/SBC F150LP GOODS-N and S

104.5 Lsun < LFUV < 108 Lsun

Optical morphologies (GALFIT) compared to spectral types (SED fitting)

Majority of unobscured star formation occurs in:

Spectral type typical of quiescent disks almost evenly in Sersic (n) typical of disks and clumpy merger/tidal morphologies

~50% of Starburst STs have disky morphologies

disky

n<0.8 mergers

0.8<n<2.5 disks

n>2.5 Early-type

Ravindranath+Lotz+

uvu

df.i

pac

.ca

ltec.

ed

u

Teplitz et al. 2013 arXiv 0711360

Charge Transfer Efficiency CTEarrows = readout direction

CTE degradationEffect is worse for objects far fromCCD readout(Solar activity)

Epoch 3 – post-flash (unbinned)

ACS WFC3F275W

WFPC2 F300W

phot-z 0.63

0.57

0.77

1.18

270 objects

ACS WFC3F275W

WFPC2 F300W

phot-z 0.63

0.57

0.77

1.18

270 objects

Templates: early- to late-type Coleman et al.Starbursts Kinney et al.

E Sbc Scd

Im Starburst Starburst

2 spheroids3 chains4 clump clusters5 irregulars6 spirals7 clumpy disks

rest-frame 3000 A 1500 A color (1500-3000) 7000A

Bond et al. 2013

Bond et al. 2013

rest-frame 3000 A 1500 A color (1500-3000) 7000A

ID5: (4”x4”)

Redshift: 0.57

WFPC2 F300W – Voyer et al. (2013) WFC3 F275W

ID5 with contour levels 6 – 11σ

Redshift: 0

ID5-Clump Area Comparison

1

2

3

4

5

6Clump 2 Clump

3

Clump 4

Clump 6

Contours are ≥ 6 σClump 5 is 4σ

Sizes:0.8 to 1.6 kpc

ID17: (2.5”x2.5”)

ID17: (2.5”x2.5”) with contour level 5σ

Redshift: 1.18

WFC3 F275WWFPC2 F300W

zoomed in clumps

Redshift: 1.18

Sizes1.6 kpc1.3 kpc0.7 kpc0.8 kpc

F275Wz ~ 0.8 = rest frame 1500 AA

Sta

rbur

st99

1000 – 2500A

Why UV?

Giant HII regions/Super OB associations

Powered by massive young clusters with 100 to 1000 O/WR stars, instead of a few as in regular HII regions (Zinnecker & Yorke ARAA 2007).

The Carina Nebula in the Milky Way – 150 pc

30 Doradus in the LMC – 100 pc (radius)

NGC 604 in M33 – 200 pc (radius)

200 pc radius

Giant Spiral: NGC6872

D=65 Mpc size > 100 Kpc Eufrasio et al. (2013)

NGC 3079

Petty et al. 2009

GALEX UV images redshifted to z ~ 1.5 and z ~4resembles LBGs (Gini, M20, Sersic)

Careful when using UV to study overall properties of galaxies

There are UV clumps without clear signatures of disks

Most of UV clumps seem to be in disks at z ~ 1

UV clumps are much larger than HII regions, SSCs, etc

Found no signatures of size evolution in UV clumps at z~1 in comparison with higher-z