From JCMT Partner Nations:

1. From JCMT Partner Nations: Rob Ivison, Alexandra Pope, Ian Smail, Douglas Scott, Kristen Coppin, Andy Biggs, Christine Wilson, Mark Halpern, Steve Eales, John Peacock, Alastair Edge, Steve Serjeant, Dave Clements, Sebastian Oliver, Dimitra Rigopoulou, Paul van der Werf, Chris Willott, Colin Borys, Ludo Van Waerbeke, Loretta Dunne, James Dunlop, Mathew Page,Tracy Webb, Jason Stevens, Remo Tilanus Emigrants (come home, all is forgiven!) Eelco van Kampen, Kirsten Knudsen From SMA/CSO: David Wilner, Andrew Blain, Thomas Greve… how do we reach/engage these communities?

2. RXJ094144, z=1.8 (Stevens et al. 2004) 6C0140+32, z=4.4 (Ivison et al.) Stevens et al. (2003) Sought ideas that exploit unique aspects of eSMA (i.e. are not better done with SMA or IRAM PdB; are not plagued by primary beam problems) Many ideas must wait till later (e.g. SASSy, Herschel) Some ideas better suited to SMA than eSMA (e.g. known high-z AGN on scales of ~10 or 10s arcsec)

3. Other ideas that may yield high-quality science… C+ at z ~ 4.3 (van der Werf) Resolving the central regions of z > 3 highly obscured type-2 submm-bright QSOs to separate AGN emission from surrounding starburst activity (Rigopoulou) Measure statistically the mass of SMGs with SMG-galaxy lensing (van Waerbeke) Several major topics everyone seems to agree on -

4. Probing the structure and size of “representative SMGs” as a test of galaxy formation mechanisms: lensed examples of faint SMGs those with high-resolution radio data (MERLIN) those with multiple radio/24m ids those without radio ids (very high z?) (noting that what constitutes a “representative SMG” could engender decades of discussion…)

5. Goals: Determine distribution of dust and the role of mergers in typical high-z SMGs Are mergers universally responsible for SMGs? Are SMGs with multiple ids a special merging subset? Do monolithic 1013L starbursts exist? Compare 850-m morphology with matched-resolution radio (MERLIN) to explore FIR/radio correlation and search for radio-loud AGN Probing size and morphology of submm emission in SMGs is a key piece in the puzzle of galaxy formation Exploits unique resolution/sensitivityof eSMA

6. Major merger simulations Springel, Di Matteo, & Hernquist (2005)

7. Major merger simulations Submm phase? Springel, Di Matteo, & Hernquist (2005)

8. Comparing FIR/radio morphologies • Several SMG fields have deep (~106s) MERLIN integrations (GOODS-N and Lockman)… • Allows us to compare FIR/radio morphologies with matched resolution • explore FIR/radio correlation • search for AGN-related radio emission Biggs et al. (2007)

9. Ivison et al. (2001) Measuring sizes via lensed SMGs Cluster samples allow us to explore “typical” SMGs (typical in the sense of “SMGs making dominant contribution to cosmic background”) …perhaps at cost of uncertainty in lens amplification? Ivison et al. (2000)

10. Observing lensed SMGs Cluster samples contain several very bright examples, some at S850m~ 25 mJy But also want “representative” sample, so S850m ~ 5 mJy (2 mJy intrinsic) Many may be resolved, so need long integrations ~2-3 tracks per faint source

11. GOODS-N multiple-id SMGs Components separated by 2-6" (15-45/sin i kpc, z~2.5) Often, both sources look to be at the same z (spec-z or photo-z) Often the brightest SMGs in sample (why?) Are we seeing massive mergers in progress? Halo mergers? Confusion? 3.6m z-band 24m 1.4GHz 20" Pope et al. (2006)

12. SHADES multiple-id SMGs 7 in Lockman; 5 in SXDF Components separated by 2-6" (15-45/sin i kpc, z~2.5) Often, both sources look to be at the same z (spec-z or photo-z) Often the brightest SMGs in sample (why?) Are we seeing massive mergers in progress? Halo mergers? Confusion? Ivison et al. (2007)

13. Observing SMGs with multiple ids • GOODS-N/SHADES SMGs typically have S850m~ 8 mJy • Worst case for multiple ids: each component is S850m ~ 4 mJy • eSMA has sensitivity and resolution to: • separate the two components • possibly resolve each component • (~1 mJy r.m.s. in 1 track with ~0.3” fwhm) • ~2-3 tracks per source

14. Observing SMGs with no radio id No radio id because cold? Because at very high z? Because very extended? Because spurious?? Choose several examples with high S/N and exquisite radio coverage Is a long SMA integration a better approach? Do we require eSMA sensitivity? ~2-3 tracks per source Ivison et al. (2007)

15. Dust entrained in powerful outflows Smail et al. (2004) • N2 850.4 z=2.4 – mixed young starburst and obscured AGN • SFR ~103Mo/yr • P-Cygni features suggest young starburst (~10Myr) and 500-km/s wind • Extended halo around galaxy >20kpc

16. Probing the structure and size of “representative SMGs” as a test of galaxy formation mechanisms: lensed examples of faint SMGs ***** those with high-resolution radio data (MERLIN) ***** those with multiple radio/24m ids **** those without radio ids (very high z?) *** Ideally want a sample of >10 SCUBA/MAMBO/AzTEC sources to explore range of size/separation/flux density

18. Galaxy and halo merger trees Galaxy-galaxy mergers: single star-burst Halo-halo mergers: multiple star-bursts Eelco van Kampen Simple halo/galaxy merger sequence

19. Eelco van Kampen Starburst galaxy halo size versus redshift JCMT 850 micron resolution half-mass radius 2 arcsec resolution

20. Eelco van Kampen 850m galaxies: parent halo properties Bulge+disk half-mass radius Halo mass Gas mass

21. Eelco van Kampen Science goals • Overall science goal: understanding massive galaxy formation… • More specifically: • the merger sequence as traced by starbursts • the distribution and physical properties of the various dust components • Need to (at high redshift): • decompose the disk, bulge and clouds • separate the various dust components

22. Eelco van Kampen Uniqueness of galaxy-formation models Mostly quiescent star formation, z=3 Mostly bursting star formation, z=3 Bursting and quiescent star formation, z=3 z=0 z=0 z=0