4.7 Article

THE EVOLVING RELATIONS BETWEEN SIZE, MASS, SURFACE DENSITY, AND STAR FORMATION IN 3 x 104 GALAXIES SINCE z=2

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 713, 期 2, 页码 738-750

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/738

关键词

cosmology: observations; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: structure

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)
  2. Leids Kerkhoven-Bosscha Fonds
  3. NOVA
  4. Lundbeck Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of massive, compact, quiescent galaxies at z > 2 presents a major challenge for theoretical models of galaxy formation and evolution. Using one of the deepest large public near-IR surveys to date, we investigate in detail the correlations between star formation and galaxy structural parameters (size, stellar mass, and surface density) from z = 2 to the present. At all redshifts, massive quiescent galaxies (i.e., those with little or no star formation) occupy the extreme high end of the surface density distribution and follow a tight mass-size correlation, while star-forming galaxies show a broad range of both densities and sizes. Conversely, galaxies with the highest surface densities comprise a nearly homogeneous population with little or no ongoing star formation, while less dense galaxies exhibit high star formation rates and varying levels of dust obscuration. Both the sizes and surface densities of quiescent galaxies evolve strongly from z = 2-0; we parameterize this evolution for both populations with simple power-law functions and present best-fit parameters for comparison to future theoretical models. Higher-mass quiescent galaxies undergo faster structural evolution, consistent with previous results. Interestingly, star-forming galaxies' sizes and densities evolve at rates similar to those of quiescent galaxies. It is therefore possible that the same physical processes drive the structural evolution of both populations, suggesting that dry mergers may not be the sole culprit in this size evolution.

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