4.6 Article

Overdensities of extremely red objects in the fields of high-redshift radio-loud quasars

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 126, 期 4, 页码 1776-1786

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/378362

关键词

galaxies : clusters : general; galaxies : high-redshift; infrared radiation; quasars : general

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have examined the occurrence of extremely red objects (EROs) in the fields of 13 luminous quasars (11 radio-loud and two radio-quiet) at 1.8 < z < 3.0. The average surface density of K(s) less than or equal to 19 mag EROs is 2-3 times higher than in large, random-field surveys, and the excess is significant at the approximate to3 sigma level even after taking into account that the ERO distribution is highly inhomogeneous. This is the first systematic investigation of the surface density of EROs in the fields of radio-loud quasars above z approximate to 2 and shows that a large number of the fields contain clumps of EROs, similar to what is seen only in the densest areas in random-field surveys. The high surface densities and angular distribution of EROs suggest that the excess originates in high-redshift galaxy concentrations, possibly young clusters of galaxies. The fainter EROs at Ks e 19 mag show some evidence of being more clustered in the immediate 2000 region around the quasars, suggesting an association with the quasars. Comparing with predictions from spectral synthesis models, we find that if the K(s) approximate to 19 mag ERO excess is associated with the quasars at z approximate to 2, their magnitudes are typical of greater than or similar toL* passively evolving galaxies formed at z approximate to 3.5 (Omega(m) = 0.3, Omega(A) = 0.7, and H(0) = 70 km s(-1) Mpc(-1)). Another interpretation of our results is that the excess originates in concentrations of galaxies at z approximate to 1 lying along the line of sight to the quasars. If this is the case, the EROs may be tracing massive structures responsible for a magnification bias of the quasars.

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