4.7 Article

THE ORIGIN OF DUST IN THE EARLY UNIVERSE: PROBING THE STAR FORMATION HISTORY OF GALAXIES BY THEIR DUST CONTENT

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 727, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/63

关键词

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: starburst; infrared: galaxies; quasars: individual (SDSS J114816.64+525150.3)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two distinct scenarios for the origin of the similar to 4 x 10(8) M-circle dot of dust observed in the high-redshift (z = 6.4) quasar J1148+5251 have been proposed. The first assumes that this galaxy is much younger than the age of the universe at that epoch so that only supernovae (SNe) could have produced this dust. The second scenario assumes a significantly older galactic age, so that the dust could have formed in lower-mass asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars. Presenting new integral solutions for the chemical evolution of metals and dust in galaxies, we offer a critical evaluation of these two scenarios and observational consequences that can discriminate between the two. We show that AGB stars can produce the inferred mass of dust in this object, however, the final mass of surviving dust depends on the galaxy's star formation history (SFH). In general, SNe cannot produce the observed amount of dust unless the average SN event creates over similar to 2 M-circle dot of dust in its ejecta. However, special SFHs can be constructed in which SNe can produce the inferred dust mass with a reasonable average dust yield of similar to 0.15 M-circle dot. The two scenarios propose different origins for the galaxy's spectral energy distribution, different star formation efficiencies and stellar masses, and consequently different comoving number densities of J1148+5251-type hyperluminous infrared (IR) objects. The detection of diagnostic mid-IR fine structure lines and more complete surveys determining the comoving number density of these objects can discriminate between the two scenarios.

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