4.6 Article

The nature of z ∼ 2.3 Lyman-α emitters

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 529, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015606

关键词

cosmology: observations; galaxies: high-redshift

资金

  1. DNRF
  2. Knut and Alice Wallenberg foundation
  3. Swedish research council
  4. Swedish national space board

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the multi-wavelength properties of a set of 171 Ly alpha emitting candidates at redshift z = 2.25 found in the COSMOS field, with the aim of understanding the underlying stellar populations in the galaxies. We especially seek to understand what the dust contents, ages and stellar masses of the galaxies are, and how they relate to similar properties of Ly alpha emitters at other redshifts. The candidates here are shown to have different properties from those of Ly alpha emitters found at higher redshift, by fitting the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) using a Monte-Carlo Markov-Chain technique and including nebular emission in the spectra. The stellar masses, and possibly the dust contents, are higher, with stellar masses in the range log M-* = 8.5-11.0 M-circle dot and A(v) = 0.0-2.5 mag. Young population ages are well constrained, but the ages of older populations are typically unconstrained. In 15% of the galaxies only a single, young population of stars is observed. We show that the Ly alpha fluxes of the best fit galaxies are correlated with their dust properties, with higher dust extinction in Ly alpha faint galaxies. Testing for whether results derived from a light-weighted stack of objects correlate to those found when fitting individual objects we see that stellar masses are robust to stacking, but ages and especially dust extinctions are derived incorrectly from stacks. We conclude that the stellar properties of Ly alpha emitters at z = 2.25 are different from those at higher redshift and that they are diverse. Ly alpha selection appears to be tracing systematically different galaxies at different redshifts.

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