4.8 Article

Dusty starburst galaxies in the early Universe as revealed by gravitational lensing

期刊

NATURE
卷 495, 期 7441, 页码 344-347

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature12001

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. Kavli Foundation
  3. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  4. NASA from the Space Telescope Science Institute
  5. NSERC
  6. CRC
  7. ClfAR
  8. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/J000647/1, ST/H00243X/1, ST/I005544/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. STFC [ST/I005544/1, ST/J000647/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  11. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1009012] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  12. Division Of Physics
  13. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1125897] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the past decade, our understanding of galaxy evolution has been revolutionized by the discovery that luminous, dusty starburst galaxies were 1,000 times more abundant in the early Universe than at present(1,2). It has, however, been difficult to measure the complete redshift distribution of these objects, especially at the highest redshifts (z>4). Here we report a redshift survey at a wavelength of three millimetres, targeting carbon monoxide line emission from the star-forming molecular gas in the direction of extraordinarily bright millimetre-wave-selected sources. High-resolution imaging demonstrates that these sources are strongly gravitationally lensed by foreground galaxies. We detect spectral lines in 23 out of 26 sources and multiple lines in 12 of those 23 sources, from which we obtain robust, unambiguous redshifts. At least 10 of the sources are found to lie at z > 4, indicating that the fraction of dusty starburst galaxies at high redshifts is greater than previously thought. Models of lens geometries in the sample indicate that the background objects are ultra-luminous infrared galaxies, powered by extreme bursts of star formation.

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