4.7 Article

THE AzTEC/SMA INTERFEROMETRIC IMAGING SURVEY OF SUBMILLIMETER-SELECTED HIGH-REDSHIFT GALAXIES

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 704, 期 1, 页码 803-812

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/803

关键词

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

资金

  1. Smithsonian Institution
  2. Academia Sinica
  3. NASA [1407, HF-51266.01, NAS 5-26555]
  4. NSF [0540852]
  5. Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF)
  6. CONACyT
  7. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  8. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0540852] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present results from a continuing interferometric survey of high-redshift submillimeter galaxies (SMGs) with the Submillimeter Array, including high-resolution (beam size similar to 2 arcsec) imaging of eight additional AzTEC 1.1 mm selected sources in the COSMOS field, for which we obtain six reliable (peak signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) > 5 or peak S/N > 4 with multiwavelength counterparts within the beam) and two moderate significance (peak S/N > 4) detections. When combined with previous detections, this yields an unbiased sample of millimeter-selected SMGs with complete interferometric follow up. With this sample in hand, we (1) empirically confirm the radio-submillimeter association, (2) examine the submillimeter morphology-including the nature of SMGs with multiple radio counterparts and constraints on the physical scale of the far infrared-of the sample, and (3) find additional evidence for a population of extremely luminous, radio-dim SMGs that peaks at higher redshift than previous, radio-selected samples. In particular, the presence of such a population of high-redshift sources has important consequences for models of galaxy formation-which struggle to account for such objects even under liberal assumptions-and dust production models given the limited time since the big bang.

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