4.7 Article

Understanding the redshift evolution of the luminosity functions of Lyman α emitters

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 398, Issue 4, Pages 2061-2068

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15245.x

Keywords

galaxies: formation; galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: luminosity function; mass function; cosmology: theory; early Universe

Funding

  1. CSIR, India [9/545(23)/2003-EMR-I]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a semi-analytical model of star formation which explains simultaneously the observed ultraviolet (UV) luminosity function (LF) of high-redshift Lyman break galaxies (LBGs) and LFs of Lyman alpha emitters. We consider both models that use the Press-Schechter (PS) and Sheth-Tormen (ST) halo mass functions to calculate the abundances of dark matter haloes. The Lyman alpha LFs at z less than or similar to 4 are well reproduced with only less than or similar to 10 per cent of the LBGs emitting Lyman alpha lines with rest equivalent width greater than the limiting equivalent width of the narrow band surveys. However, the observed LF at z > 5 can be reproduced only when we assume that nearly all LBGs are Lyman alpha emitters. Thus, it appears that 4 < z < 5 marks the epoch when a clear change occurs in the physical properties of the high-redshift galaxies. As Lyman alpha escape depends on dust and gas kinematics of the interstellar medium (ISM), this could mean that on an average the ISM at z > 5 could be less dusty, more clumpy and having more complex velocity field. All of these will enable easier escape of the Lyman alpha photons. At z > 5, the observed Lyman alpha LF are well reproduced with the evolution in the halo mass function along with very minor evolution in the physical properties of high-redshift galaxies. In particular, up to z = 6.5, we do not see the effect of evolving intergalactic medium opacity on the Lyman alpha escape from these galaxies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available