4.7 Article

Lyman break galaxies and the star formation rate of the Universe at z≈6

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06546.x

关键词

surveys; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : formation; galaxies : high-redshift; galaxies : starburst; ultraviolet : galaxies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We determine the space density of UV-luminous starburst galaxies at z approximate to 6 using deep HST ACS SDSS-i ' (F775W) and SDSS-z ' (F850LP) and VLT ISAAC J and K (s) band imaging of the Chandra Deep Field South. We find eight galaxies and one star with (i '-z ') > 1.5 to a depth of z ' (AB) = 25.6 (an 8sigma detection in each of the 3 available ACS epochs). This corresponds to an unobscured star formation rate of approximate to15 h (-2) (70) M-circle dot yr(-1) at z = 5.9, equivalent to L * for the Lyman-break population at z = 3-4 (Omega(Lambda) = 0.7, Omega (M) = 0.3). We are sensitive to star-forming galaxies at 5.6 less than or similar toz less than or similar to 7.0 with an effective comoving volume of approximate to1.8 x 10(5) h (-3) (70) Mpc(3) after accounting for incompleteness at the higher redshifts due to luminosity bias. This volume should encompass the primeval subgalactic-scale fragments of the progenitors of about a thousand L * galaxies at the current epoch. We determine a volume-averaged global star formation rate of (6.7 +/- 2.7) x 10(-4) h (70) M-circle dot yr(-1) Mpc(-3) at z similar to 6 from rest-frame UV selected starbursts at the bright end of the luminosity function: this is a lower limit because of dust obscuration and galaxies below our sensitivity limit. This measurement shows that at z similar to 6 the star formation density at the bright end is a factor of similar to6 times less than that determined by Steidel et al. for a comparable sample of UV-selected galaxies at z = 3-4, and so extends our knowledge of the star formation history of the Universe to earlier times than previous work and into the epoch where reionization may have occurred.

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