4.7 Article

The effect of stellar evolution uncertainties on the rest-frame ultraviolet stellar lines of C IV and He II in high-redshift Lyman-break galaxies

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19713.x

关键词

binaries: general; stars: evolution; stars: Wolf-Rayet; galaxies: high redshift; galaxies: starburst; galaxies: stellar content

资金

  1. UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
  2. STFC
  3. STFC [ST/J001414/1, ST/G00269X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/G00269X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Young, massive stars dominate the rest-frame ultraviolet (UV) spectra of star-forming galaxies. At high redshifts (z > 2), these rest-frame UV features are shifted into the observed-frame optical and a combination of gravitational lensing, deep spectroscopy and spectral stacking analysis allows the stellar population characteristics of these sources to be investigated. We use our stellar population synthesis code Binary Population and Spectral Synthesis (bpass) to fit two strong rest-frame UV spectral features in published Lyman-break galaxy spectra, taking into account the effects of binary evolution on the stellar spectrum. In particular, we consider the effects of quasi-homogeneous evolution (arising from the rotational mixing of rapidly rotating stars), metallicity and the relative abundance of carbon and oxygen on the observed strengths of He II lambda 1640 angstrom and C IV lambda 1548, 1551 angstrom spectral lines. We find that Lyman-break galaxy spectra at z similar to 2-3 are best fitted with moderately sub-solar metallicities, and with a depleted carbon-to-oxygen ratio. We also find that the spectra of the lowest metallicity sources are best fitted with model spectra in which the He II emission line is boosted by the inclusion of the effect of massive stars being spun-up during binary mass transfer so these rapidly rotating stars experience quasi-homogeneous evolution.

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