4.7 Article

Probing similar to L-* Lyman-break galaxies at z approximate to 7 in GOODS-South with WFC3 on Hubble Space Telescope

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16175.x

关键词

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: starburst; ultraviolet: galaxies

资金

  1. UK Science and Technology Facilities Council
  2. RCUK
  3. European Commission [PITN-GA-2008-214227]
  4. STFC [ST/G002630/1, ST/G001774/1, ST/H002456/1, ST/H001913/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/G001774/1, ST/H002456/1, ST/G002630/1, ST/H001913/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyse recently acquired near-infrared Hubble Space Telescope imaging of the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS)-South field to search for star-forming galaxies at z approximate to 7.0. By comparing Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) 0.98 mu m Y-band images with Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) z-band (0.85 mu m) images, we identify objects with colours consistent with Lyman-break galaxies at z similar or equal to 6.4-7.4. This new data cover an area five times larger than that previously reported in the WFC3 imaging of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and affords a valuable constraint on the bright end of the luminosity function. Using additional imaging of the region in the ACS B, V and i bands from GOODS v2.0 and the WFC3J band, we attempt to remove any low-redshift interlopers. Our selection criteria yields six candidates brighter than Y-AB = 27.0, of which all except one are detected in the ACS z-band imaging and are thus unlikely to be transients. Assuming all six candidates are at z approximate to 7, this implies a surface density of objects brighter than Y-AB = 27.0 of 0.30 +/- 0.12 arcmin-2, a value significantly smaller than the prediction from z approximate to 6 luminosity function. This suggests continued evolution of the bright end of the luminosity function between z = 6 and 7, with number densities lower at higher redshift.

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