4.7 Article

ON SIZES, KINEMATICS, M/L GRADIENTS, AND LIGHT PROFILES OF MASSIVE COMPACT GALAXIES AT z ∼ 2

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 722, 期 2, 页码 1666-1684

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1666

关键词

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; galaxies: stellar content; galaxies: structure

资金

  1. W. M. Keck Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a detailed analysis of the structure and resolved stellar populations of simulated merger remnants, and compare them to observations of compact quiescent galaxies at z similar to 2. We find that major merging is a viable mechanism to produce systems of similar to 10(11) M-circle dot and similar to 1 kpc size, provided the gas fraction at the time of final coalescence is high (similar to 40%) and provided that the progenitors are compact star-forming galaxies, as expected at high redshift. Their integrated spectral energy distributions and velocity dispersions are in good agreement with the observations, and their position in the (nu(maj)/sigma, epsilon) diagram traces the upper envelope of the distribution of lower redshift early-type galaxies. The simulated merger remnants show time-and sightline-dependent M/L ratio gradients that result from a superposition of radially dependent stellar age, stellar metallicity, and extinction. The median ratio of the effective radius in rest-frame V-band light to that in mass surface density is similar to 2 during the quiescent remnant phase. This is typically expressed by a negative color gradient (i.e., red core), which we expect to correlate with the integrated color of the system. Finally, the simulations differ from the observations in their surface brightness profile shape. The simulated remnants are typically best fit by high (n >> 4) Sersic indices, whereas observed quiescent galaxies at z similar to 2 tend to be less cuspy (< n > similar to 2.3). Limiting early star formation in the progenitors may be required to prevent the simulated merger remnants from having extended wings.

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