4.7 Article

Hubble space telescope morphologies of local Lyman break galaxy analogs.: I.: Evidence for starbursts triggered by merging

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 677, 期 1, 页码 37-62

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/529134

关键词

cosmology : observations; early universe; galaxies : high-redshift; galaxies : starburst

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heckman and coworkers used the GALEX UV imaging survey to show that there exists a rare population of nearby compact UV-luminous galaxies ( UVLGs) that closely resemble high-redshift Lyman break galaxies ( LBGs). We present HST images in the UV, optical, and H alpha and resimulate them at the depth and resolution of the GOODS/UDF fields to show that the morphologies of UVLGs are also similar to those of LBGs. Our sample of eight LBG analogs thus provides detailed insight into the connection between star formation and LBG morphology. Faint tidal features or companions can be seen in all of the rest-frame optical images, suggesting that the starbursts are the result of a merger or interaction. The UV/optical light is dominated by unresolved (similar to 100-300 pc) super starburst regions ( SSBs). A detailed comparison with the galaxies Haro 11 and VV 114 at z = 0.02 indicates that the SSBs themselves consist of diffuse stars and ( super) star clusters. The structural features revealed by the new HST images occur on very small physical scales and are thus not detectable in images of high-redshift LBGs, except in a few cases where they are magnified by gravitational lensing. We propose, therefore, that LBGs are mergers of gas-rich, relatively low- mass (M* similar to 10(10) M-circle dot) systems, and that the mergers trigger the formation of SSBs. If galaxies at high redshifts are dominated by SSBs, then the faint-end slope of the luminosity function is predicted to have slope alpha similar to 2. Our results are the most direct confirmation to date of models that predict that the main mode of star formation in the early universe was highly collisional.

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