4.7 Article

The structures of distant galaxies -: I.: Galaxy structures and the merger rate to z ∼ 3 in the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field

期刊

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13069.x

关键词

galaxies : evolution; galaxies : formation; galaxies : structure

资金

  1. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F00298X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. STFC [ST/F00298X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper begins a series in which we examine the structures of distant galaxies to directly determine the history of their formation modes. We start this series by examining the structures of z(F850LP) < 27 galaxies in the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (UDF), the deepest high-resolution optical image taken to date. We investigate a few basic features of galaxy structure using this image. These include: (1) the agreement of visual eye-ball classifications and non-parametric quantitative (CAS, Gini/M-20) methods; (2) how distant galaxy quantitative structures can vary as a function of rest-frame wavelength; and (3) the evolution of distant galaxy structures up to z similar to 3. One of our major conclusions is that the majority of galaxies with z(850) < 27 are peculiar in appearance, and that galaxy assembly is rapidly occurring at these magnitudes, even up to the present time. We find a general agreement between galaxy classification by eye and through quantitative methods, as well as a general agreement between the CAS and the Gini/M-20 parameters. We find that the Gini/M-20 method appears to find a larger number of galaxy mergers than the CAS system, but contains a larger contamination from non-mergers. We furthermore calculate the merger rate of galaxies in the UDF up to z similar to 3, finding an increase with redshift as well as stellar mass, confirming previous work in the Hubble Deep Field. We find that massive galaxies with M-* > 10(10) M-circle dot undergo 4.3(+0.8)(-0.8) major galaxy mergers at z < 3, with all of this merging occurring at z > 1.

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

4.7
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