4.7 Article

INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF PROTOCLUSTER GALAXIES: ACCELERATED STRUCTURAL EVOLUTION IN OVERDENSE ENVIRONMENTS?

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 744, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/181

关键词

galaxies: clusters: individual (MRC1138-262); galaxies: evolution ,galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: structure

资金

  1. Lundbeck Foundation
  2. World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan
  3. NASA [NAS 5-26555]
  4. [23740144]
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23740144] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a high spatial resolution Hubble Space Telescope/NICMOS imaging survey in the field of a known protocluster surrounding the powerful radio galaxy MRC1138-262 at z = 2.16. Previously, we have shown that this field exhibits a substantial surface overdensity of red J-H galaxies. Here we focus on the stellar masses and galaxy effective radii in an effort to compare and contrast the properties of likely protocluster galaxies with their field counterparts and to look for correlations between galaxy structure and (projected) distance relative to the radio galaxy. We find a hint that quiescent, cluster galaxies are on average less dense than quiescent field galaxies of similar stellar mass and redshift. In fact, we find that only two (of eight) quiescent protocluster galaxies are of similar density to the majority of the massive, quiescent compact galaxies (Semi-Evolved Elephantine Dense galaxies; SEEDs) found in several field surveys. Furthermore, there is some indication that the structural Sersicn parameter is higher (n similar to 3-4) on average for cluster galaxies compared to the field SEEDs (n similar to 1-2). This result may imply that the accelerated galaxy evolution expected (and observed) in overdense regions also extends to structural evolution presuming that massive galaxies began as dense (low n) SEEDs and have already evolved to be more in line with local galaxies of the same stellar mass.

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