4.7 Article

THE EFFECTS OF THE IONIZING RADIATION BACKGROUND ON GALAXY EVOLUTION

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 705, Issue 2, Pages 1566-1574

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1566

Keywords

galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD; Galaxy: formation; methods: numerical

Funding

  1. NSF [AST 07-07505, NNX08AH31G]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We find that the amount and nature of the assumed ionizing background can strongly affect galaxy formation and evolution. Galaxy evolution simulations typically incorporate an ultraviolet background which falls off rapidly above z = 3; e.g., that of Haardt & Madau. However, this decline may be too steep to fit the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe constraints on electron scattering optical depth or observations of intermediate redshift (z similar to 2-4) Ly alpha forest transmission. As an alternative, we present simulations of the cosmological formation of individual galaxies with UV backgrounds that decline more slowly at high redshift: both a simple intensity rescaling and the background recently derived by Faucher-Giguere, which softens the spectrum at higher redshifts. We also test an approximation of the X-ray background with a similar z dependence. We find for the test galaxies that an increase in either the intensity or hardness of ionizing radiation generically pushes star formation toward lower redshifts: although overall star formation in the simulation boxes is reduced by 10%-25%, the galaxies show a factor of similar to 2 increase in the fraction of stars within a 30 kpc radius that are formed after z = 1. Other effects include late gas inflows enhanced up to 30 times, stellar half-mass radii decreased by up to 30%, central velocity dispersions increased up to 40%, and a strong reduction in substructure. The magnitude of the effects depends on the environmental/accretion properties of the particular galaxy.

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