4.4 Article

Spectroscopic confirmation of four metal-poor galaxies at z=10.3-13.2

期刊

NATURE ASTRONOMY
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 622-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As part of the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES), NIRSpec has confirmed spectroscopically four young and metal-poor galaxies at redshift 10.3-13.2, from an early epoch of galaxy formation. Spectroscopic confirmation and analysis of four galaxies unambiguously detected at redshift 10.3 <= z <= 13.2 demonstrate the rapid emergence of the first generations of galaxies at cosmic dawn.
As part of the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES), NIRSpec has spectroscopically confirmed four young and metal-poor galaxies at redshift 10.3-13.2, from an early epoch of galaxy formation. Finding and characterizing the first galaxies that illuminated the early universe at cosmic dawn is pivotal to understand the physical conditions and the processes that led to the formation of the first stars. In the first few months of operations, imaging from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has been used to identify tens of candidates of galaxies at redshift (z) greater than 10, less than 450 million years after the Big Bang. However, none of such candidates has yet been confirmed spectroscopically, leaving open the possibility that they are actually low-redshift interlopers. Here we present spectroscopic confirmation and analysis of four galaxies unambiguously detected at redshift 10.3 <= z <= 13.2, previously selected from JWST Near Infrared Camera imaging. The spectra reveal that these primeval galaxies are metal poor, have masses on the order of about 10(7)-10(8) solar masses and young ages. The damping wings that shape the continuum close to the Lyman edge provide constraints on the neutral hydrogen fraction of the intergalactic medium from normal star-forming galaxies. These findings demonstrate the rapid emergence of the first generations of galaxies at cosmic dawn.

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

4.4
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