4.6 Article

THE MORPHOLOGY OF PASSIVELY EVOLVING GALAXIES AT z ∼ 2 FROM HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE/WFC3 DEEP IMAGING IN THE HUBBLE ULTRA DEEP FIELD

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 714, 期 1, 页码 L79-L83

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L79

关键词

cosmology: observations; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: fundamental parameters

资金

  1. NASA [HST-GO-09425.01-A, HST-GO-09583.01-A, HST-GO-09822.45-A]
  2. [NAS5-26555]
  3. STFC [ST/F00298X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F00298X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present near-IR images, obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope and the WFC3/IR camera, of six passive and massive galaxies at redshift 1.3 < z < 2.4 (specific star formation rate < 10(-2) Gyr(-1); stellar mass M similar to 10(11) M-circle dot), selected from the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey. These images, which have a spatial resolution of similar to 1.5 kpc, provide the deepest view of the optical rest-frame morphology of such systems to date. We find that the light profile of these galaxies is regular and well described by a Sersic model with index typical of today's spheroids. Their size, however, is generally much smaller than today's early types of similar stellar masses, with four out of six galaxies having r(e) similar to 1 kpc or less, in quantitative agreement with previous similar measures made at rest-frame UV wavelengths. The images reach limiting surface brightness mu similar to 26.5 mag arcsec(-2) in the F160W bandpass; yet, there is no evidence of a faint halo in the galaxies of our sample, even in their stacked image. We also find that these galaxies have very weak morphological k-correction between the rest-frame UV (from the Advanced Camera for Surveys z band) and the rest-frame optical (WFC3 H band): the Sersic index, physical size, and overall morphology are independent or only mildly dependent on the wavelength, within the errors.

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

4.6
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