4.7 Article

LUMINOUS INFRARED GALAXIES WITH THE SUBMILLIMETER ARRAY. II. COMPARING THE CO (3-2) SIZES AND LUMINOSITIES OF LOCAL AND HIGH-REDSHIFT LUMINOUS INFRARED GALAXIES

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 695, 期 2, 页码 1537-1549

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1537

关键词

cosmology: observations; galaxies: formation; galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: starburst; submillimeter

资金

  1. MEXT [15071202]
  2. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. National Science Foundation [AST-0708653]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15071202] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a detailed comparison of the CO (3-2) emitting molecular gas between a local sample of luminous infrared galaxies (U/LIRGs) and a high-redshift sample that comprises submm selected galaxies (SMGs), quasars, and Lyman Break Galaxies (LBGs). The U/LIRG sample consists of our recent CO (3-2) survey using the Submillimeter Array while the CO (3-2) data for the high-redshift population are obtained from the literature. We find that the L'(CO(3-2)) and L-FIR relation is correlated over five orders of magnitude, which suggests that the molecular gas traced in CO (3-2) emission is a robust tracer of dusty star formation activity. The near unity slope of 0.93 +/- 0.03 obtained from a fit to this relation suggests that the star formation efficiency is constant to within a factor of 2 across different types of galaxies residing in vastly different epochs. The CO (3-2) size measurements suggest that the molecular gas disks in local U/LIRGs (0.3-3.1 kpc) are much more compact than the SMGs (3-16 kpc), and that the size scales of SMGs are comparable to the nuclear separation (5-40 kpc) of the widely separated nuclei of U/LIRGs in our sample. We argue from these results that the SMGs studied here are predominantly intermediate stage mergers, and that the wider line widths arise from the violent merger of two massive gas-rich galaxies taking place deep in a massive halo potential.

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