4.7 Article

Lyα EMITTING GALAXIES AS EARLY STAGES IN GALAXY FORMATION

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 738, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/136

关键词

cosmology: observations; galaxies: abundances; galaxies: distances and redshifts; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: starburst

资金

  1. NSF, University of Wisconsin Research Committee [AST-0709356, AST-0708793, AST-0687850]
  2. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  3. NASA [JPL 1289080]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present optical spectroscopy of two samples of Galaxy Evolution Explorer grism selected Ly alpha emitters (LAEs): one at z = 0.195-0.44 and the other at z = 0.65-1.25. We have also observed a comparison sample of galaxies in the same redshift intervals with the same UV magnitude distributions but with no detected Ly alpha. We use the optical spectroscopy to eliminate active galactic nuclei and to obtain the optical emission-line properties of the samples. We compare the luminosities of the LAEs in the two redshift intervals and show that there is dramatic evolution in the maximum Ly alpha luminosity over z = 0-1. Focusing on the z = 0.195-0.44 samples alone, we show that there are tightly defined relations between all of the galaxy parameters and the rest-frame equivalent width (EW) of Ha. The higher EW(Ha) sources all have lower metallicities, bluer colors, smaller sizes, and less extinction, consistent with their being in the early stages of the galaxy formation process. We find that 75% +/- 12% of the LAEs have EW(H alpha) > 100 angstrom and, conversely, that 31% +/- 13% of galaxies with EW(H alpha) > 100 angstrom are LAEs. We correct the broadband magnitudes for the emission-line contributions and use spectral synthesis fits to estimate the ages of the galaxies. We find a median age of 1.1 x 10(8) yr for the LAE sample and 1.4 x 10(9) yr for the UV-continuum sample without detected Ly alpha. The median metallicity of the LAE sample is 12 + log(O/H) = 8.24, or about 0.4 dex lower than the UV-continuum sample.

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