4.8 Article

A dusty, normal galaxy in the epoch of reionization

期刊

NATURE
卷 519, 期 7543, 页码 327-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/nature14164

关键词

-

资金

  1. Danish National Research Foundation
  2. EU under a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship [PIEF-GA-2010-274117]
  3. Swedish Research Council
  4. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  5. European Research Council starting grant
  6. CALENDS
  7. Career Integration Grant [294074]
  8. European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [267251]
  9. Science and Technology Facilities Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Candidates for the modest galaxies that formed most of the stars in the early Universe, at redshifts z> 7, have been found in large numbers with extremely deep restframe-ultraviolet imagingl. But it has proved difficult for existing spectrographs to characterize them using their ultraviolet light(2-4). The detailed properties of these galaxies could be measured from dust and cool gas emission at far-infrared wavelengths if the galaxies have become sufficiently enriched in dust and metals. So far, however, the most distant galaxy discovered via its ultraviolet emission and subsequently detected in dust emission is only at z = 3.2 (ref. 5), and recent results have cast doubt on whether dust and molecules can be found in typical galaxies at z >= 7(6-8). Here we report thermal dust emission from an archetypal early Universe star-forming galaxy, A1689-zDI. We detect its stellar continuum in spectroscopy and determine its redshift to be z = 7.5 +/- 0.2 from a spectroscopic detection of the Lyman-a break. A1689-zD1 is representative of the star-forming population during the epoch of reionization(9), with a total star-formation rate of about 12 solar masses per year. The galaxy is highly evolved: it has a large stellar mass and is heavily enriched in dust, with a dust-to-gas ratio close to that of the Milky Way. Dusty, evolved galaxies are thus present among the fainter star-forming population at z> 7.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据