4.7 Article

RELICS: The Reionization Lensing Cluster Survey and the Brightest High-z Galaxies

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 889, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5a8b

Keywords

Galaxies; galaxies: high-redshift

Funding

  1. NASA [NAS 5-26555, NAS 5-32864]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344]
  3. Chandra grant [G03-14131X]
  4. NASA through ADAP grant [80NSSC18K0945]
  5. NASA/HST [HST-GO-14096, HST-GO-13666]
  6. Spitzer/JPL/Caltech
  7. SRELICS_DEEP program
  8. SRELICS program
  9. [GO-14096]
  10. [GO-9270]
  11. [GO-12166]
  12. [GO-12477]
  13. [GO-12253]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Massive foreground galaxy clusters magnify and distort the light of objects behind them, permitting a view into both the extremely distant and intrinsically faint galaxy populations. We present here the z similar to 6-8 candidate highredshift galaxies from the Reionization Lensing Cluster Survey (RELICS), a Hubble and Spitzer Space Telescope survey of 41 massive galaxy clusters spanning an area of approximate to 200 arcmin(2). These clusters were selected to be excellent lenses, and we find similar high-redshift sample sizes and magnitude distributions as the Cluster Lensing And Supernova survey with Hubble (CLASH). We discover 257, 57, and eight candidate galaxies at z similar to 6, 7, and 8 respectively, (322 in total). The observed (lensed) magnitudes of the z similar to 6 candidates are as bright as AB mag similar to 23, making them among the brightest known at these redshifts, comparable with discoveries from much wider, blank-field surveys. RELICS demonstrates the efficiency of using strong gravitational lenses to produce highredshift samples in the epoch of reionization. These brightly observed galaxies are excellent targets for follow-up study with current and future observatories, including the James Webb Space Telescope.

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