4.7 Article

Probing cosmic star formation using long gamma-ray bursts:: New constraints from the Spitzer Space Telescope

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 642, 期 2, 页码 636-652

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/501118

关键词

cosmology : observations; galaxies : high-redshift; galaxies : individual (GRB 970828, GRB 980425; GRB 980613, GRB 980703, GRB 981226, GRB 990705); infrared : galaxies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report on IRAC 4.5 mu m, IRAC 8.0 mu m, and MIPS 24 mu m deep observations of 16 gamma-ray burst (GRB) host galaxies performed with the Spitzer Space Telescope, and we investigate in the thermal infrared the presence of evolved stellar populations and dust-enshrouded star-forming activity associated with these objects. Our sample is derived from GRBs that were identified with subarcsecond localization between 1997 and 2001, and only a very small fraction(similar to 20%) of the targeted sources are detected down to f(4: 5) mu m similar to 3: 5 mu Jy and f(24) mu m similar to 85 mu Jy (3 sigma). This likely argues against a population dominated by massive and strongly starbursting ( i.e., SFR greater than or similar to 100 M-circle dot yr(-1)) galaxies as has been recently suggested from submillimeter/radio and optical studies of similarly selected GRB hosts. Furthermore, we find evidence that some GRBs do not occur in the most infrared luminous regions-hence the most actively star-forming environments-of their host galaxies. Should the GRB hosts be representative of all star-forming galaxies at high redshift, models of infrared galaxy evolution indicate that greater than or similar to 50% of GRB hosts should have f(24) mu m greater than or similar to 100 mu Jy. Unless the identification of GRBs prior to 2001 was prone to strong selection effects biasing our sample against dusty galaxies, we infer in this context that the GRBs identified with the current techniques cannot be directly used as unbiased probes of the global and integrated star formation history of the universe.

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