4.7 Article

Puffing up early-type galaxies by baryonic mass loss: numerical experiments

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18670.x

关键词

methods: numerical; galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD-galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; quasars: general

资金

  1. Consejo de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas de la Republica Argentina (CONICET)
  2. Secretaria de Ciencia y Tecnica de la Universidad Nacional de Cordoba (SeCyT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Observations performed in the last few years indicate that most massive early-type galaxies (ETGs) observed at redshift z greater than or similar to 1 exhibit sizes smaller by a factor of a few than local ETGs of analogous stellar mass. We present numerical simulations of the effect of baryonic mass loss on the structure of a spheroidal stellar system, embedded in a dark matter halo. This process, invoked as a possible explanation of the observed size increase of ETGs since z similar to 2, could be caused either by quasi-stellar object/starburst driven galactic winds, promptly ejecting from ETGs the residual gas and halting star formation (galactic winds), or by stellarmass returned to the interstellar medium in the final stages of stellar evolution. Indeed, we find that a conceivable loss of similar to 50 per cent of the baryonic mass can produce a significant size increase. However, the puffing up due to galactic winds occurs when the stellar populations are much younger than the estimated ages greater than or similar to 0.5 Gyr of compact high-z ETGs. Therefore, while it may have had a role in deciding the final structure of ETGs, it cannot explain the evolution observed so far of their size-mass relation; its signature should be searched for in much younger systems. Conversely, the mass loss due to stellar evolution could cause a relatively modest expansion of passively evolving stellar systems later on, contributing to, without dominating, the observed evolution of their mass-size relationship.

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