50 likes | 209 Views
Prominent “new” issues. IMF. SFGs == Stream-fed galaxies, timescales, dynamics. Connection between structural parameters and SF activity (red sequence, gradual “cross-over”, dense objects, higher diversity at high z?). Environment (is it important at high z?).
E N D
Prominent “new” issues IMF SFGs == Stream-fed galaxies, timescales, dynamics • Connection between structural parameters and SF activity (red sequence, gradual “cross-over”, dense objects, higher diversity at high z?) • Environment (is it important at high z?) • Feedback (not new, but not solved; esp. star formation feedback, again issue of timescales!) Metallicity (gas, stars!) SFHs, Dust... (maybe for a future workshop?) ... 0.2 = 1.6 kpc
Challenges • Consistent comparisons over different redshift ranges (tracers/diagnostics; populations) • Consistent comparisons between observations and simulations/models (same “measured” quantities) Account for observational selection effects and biases ... 0.2 = 1.6 kpc
Ways Forward • Cf. “challenges”: can be already tackled, awareness increasing! • Environment at high z: modellers: make predictions now for near-future observations! Vote! • Complementary approaches: which is better for what aspects? - wider/deeper surveys ( stacking) - wavelength regimes - spatially-resolved properties • In massive galaxies: relative importance of - AGN feedback? - SF feedback? Is it worthwhile to update individual bits to complex models/simulations? Is the time come to play with IMF, or can we still happily ignore it for a while? • Two quotes: “Should we bother making simulations?” “Should we bother making observations”? 0.2 = 1.6 kpc ...
Quotes • Should we bother making simulations? Anonymous observer • Should we bother making observations? Anonymous modeller YES and YES!