1. Discovering galaxy individuality with SAMI The Sydney-AAO Multi-object Integral field spectrograph Scott Croom, Julia Bryant and the SAMI team Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA) CAASTRO ARC Centre of Excellence University of Sydney www.sami-survey.org @SAMI_survey

2. ›1 degree diameter field-of-view. ›13 x 61 fibre IFUs using hexabundles (Bland-Hawthorn et al. 2011; Bryant et al. 2014) with high fill factor: 75%. ›15” diameter IFUs, 1.6” diameter fibres. ›Feed AAT’s AAOmega spectrograph: -Blue: 3700-5800A, R~1750, sigma=70km/s -Red: 6300-7400A, R~4500, sigma=30km/s ›Instrument description: Croom, Lawrence, Bland-Hawthorn et al. (2012). ›SAMI: 793 fibres across 13 objects. ›CALIFA: 331 fibres targeting one galaxy. The Sydney-AAO Multi-object Integral field spectrograph (SAMI) 2

3. The SAMI Galaxy Survey ›Started in March 2013. ›Aim for 3400 galaxies in ~200 nights, currently 1750 observed. ›Primary fields are the Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA; Driver et al. 2010) regions. -Three 4x12 deg equatorial regions at 9hr, 12hr and 15hr RA. -Deep, complete, spectroscopy to r=19.8 to define environment ~3 mags fainter than M* at z~0.05. -58% in GAMA groups (Robotham et al. 2011); c.f. 15% in shallower SDSS groups (Yang et al. 2007) -GALEX, SDSS, VST, UKIDSS, VISTA, WISE, Herschel imaging. -HI 21cm from ALFALFA (half the area), and in the future ASKAP. ›8 specific clusters (~600 gals) to probe the highest densities.

4. SAMI Hα maps 4 660 SAMI galaxies (~1/3 current sample) + emission lines fits (LZIFU Ho et al. 2016).

5. SAMI gas velocity maps 5

6. SAMI [NII]/Hα maps 6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 Log([NII]/H α)

7. What drives the uniqueness of galaxies? ›What drives galaxy properties? -Stellar mass. -Halo mass. -Environment – i.e. more than just halo mass. -Central vs. satellite. -Merger/accretion history. -Intrinsic stochasticity (disk instability, local instability, secular evolution, other parameters?). 7 De Lucia & Blaizot (2007) Stellar mass Merger historyHalo mass “I’m not a number, I’m a free galaxy…” Embrace the scatter!!!!

8. Viewing merger history ›Deep imaging to see merger remnant features (e.g. van Dokkum 2005). ›Close pairs for future mergers (e.g. Ellison et al. 2010, 2011). 8 Ellison et al. 2011 Van Dokkum 2005

9. Viewing merger history ›Dynamical disturbance: -SAMI Galaxy Survey (Bloom et al. 2016 submitted). -See also Shapiro et al. (2008) using SINFONI. 9

10. Viewing accretion through kinematic misalignment ›Kinematically misaligned gas must have been accreted (e.g. Davis et al. 2011). ›SAMI misalignments (Bryant et al. in prep) compared to visual morphology for 620 SAMI galaxies. 10 ›Misalignment = kinematic PAs for gas and stars differ by > 30°. ›Gas more quickly re-aligned for late-types? ›Do the early types give us a clear view of the intrinsic accretion? ›Differences between clusters and field, but morphology more important? Cluster galaxies Field/group galaxies

11. Viewing accretion through kinematic misalignment 11 (Bryant et al. in prep) ›Weak peak at 180° misaligned. ›Lack of intermediate misaligned late types ›Re-alignment time-scale t torque ≈ t dyn /ε (e.g. Davis & Bureau 2016). Davis & Bureau 2016

12. Looking at the individuals… 12 52/483 = 11+/-2% misaligned16/135 = 12+/-3% misaligned 8 Clusters Field/group galaxies Different to Davis et al (2011; ATLAS-3D) due to morphological mix. Misalignment (degrees)

13. Looking at the individuals… 13 52/483 = 11+/-2% misaligned16/135 = 12+/-3% misaligned 8 Clusters Field/group galaxies Different to Davis et al (2011; ATLAS-3D) due to morphological mix. Misalignment (degrees)

14. Looking at the individuals… 14 52/483 = 11+/-2% misaligned16/135 = 12+/-3% misaligned 8 Clusters Field/group galaxies Different to Davis et al (2011; ATLAS-3D) due to morphological mix. Misalignment (degrees)

15. Summary ›SAMI early data release available, see: www.sami-survey.orgwww.sami-survey.org ›Next major release of 850 galaxies with high-level science products in July this year. ›Merger/accretion history must be one of the strongest drivers of galaxy individuality. ›Kinematic misalignments: -Strong increase in misalignment towards earlier morphologies. -Is accretion intrinsically different as a function of morphology? -Faster dynamical settling in late type galaxies. -One view of one of the drivers of galaxy individuality. -Embrace the scatter! 15 @SAMI_survey

16. The Changing Face of Galaxies: uncovering transformational physics 16 Hobart, Tasmania, 19 th -23 rd September 2016 www.caastro.org/event/2016-galaxy Abstract deadline 30 th April 2016 Invited speakers: Joss Bland-Hawthorn, USYD Alyson Brooks, Rutgers Martin Bureau, Oxford Michele Cappellari, Oxford Marcella Carollo, ETH, Zurich Charlotte Christensen, Arizona Luca Cortese, UWA Rob Crain, LJMU Sara Ellison, UVIC Jesús Falcón-Barroso, IAC Natascha Förster Schreiber, MPE Philip Hopkins, Caltech Lisa Kewley, ANU Claudia Lagos, ICRAR Roberto Maiolino, Cambridge Crystal Martin, UCSB Thorsten Naab, MPA Amelie Saintonge, UCL Rachel Somerville, Rutgers Paul Torrey, MIT Pieter van Dokkum, Yale Jessica Werk, UCO SOC: Scott Croom (Chair), USYD Joss Bland-Hawthorn, USYD Kevin Bundy, IPMU Sara Ellison, UVIC Natascha Förster Schreiber, MPE Rosa González Delgado, IAA Martha Haynes, Cornell Phil Hopkins, Caltech Lisa Kewley, ANU Thorsten Naab, MPA Chris Power, UWA Amelie Saintonge, UCL Stas Shabala, UTAS Rachel Somerville, Rutgers