4.6 Article

The wide field imager Lyman-alpha search (WFILAS) for galaxies at redshift ∼5.7 -: II.: Survey design and sample analysis

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 455, 期 1, 页码 61-72

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064882

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. Wide-field narrowband surveys are an efficient way of searching large volumes of high-redshift space for distant galaxies. Aims. We describe the Wide Field Imager Lyman-Alpha Search (WFILAS) over 0.74 sq. degree for bright emission-line galaxies at z similar to 5.7. Methods. WFILAS uses deep images taken with the Wide Field Imager (WFI) on the ESO/MPI 2.2m telescope in three narrowband (70A), one encompassing intermediate band ( 220 A) and two broadband filters, B and R. We use the novel technique of an encompassing intermediate band filter to exclude false detections. Images taken with broadband B and R filters are used to remove low redshift galaxies from our sample. Results. We present a sample of seven Ly alpha emitting galaxy candidates, two of which are spectroscopically confirmed. Compared to other surveys all our candidates are bright, the results of this survey complements other narrowband surveys at this redshift. Most of our candidates are in the regime of bright luminosities, beyond the reach of less voluminous surveys. Adding our candidates to those of another survey increases the derived luminosity density by similar to 30%. We also find potential clustering in the Chandra Deep Field South, supporting overdensities discovered by other surveys. Based on a FORS2/VLT spectrum we additionally present the analysis of the second confirmed Ly alpha emitting galaxy in our sample. We find that it is the brightest Ly alpha emitting galaxy (1 x 10(-16) erg s(-1) cm(-2)) at this redshift to date and the second confirmed candidate of our survey. Both objects exhibit the presence of a possible second Lya component redward of the line.

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

4.6
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