4.6 Article

STAR FORMATION SIGNATURES IN OPTICALLY QUIESCENT EARLY-TYPE GALAXIES

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 714, 期 2, 页码 L290-L294

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L290

关键词

galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies: evolution; ultraviolet: galaxies

资金

  1. NASA [HST-GO-11158.03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, an argument has been made that a high fraction of early-type galaxies (ETGs) in the local universe experience low levels (less than or similar to 1 M(circle dot) yr(-1)) of star formation (SF) that causes strong excess in UV flux, yet leaves the optical colors red. Many of these studies were based on Galaxy Evolution Explorer imaging of Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) galaxies (z similar to 0.1), and were thus limited by its 5 '' FWHM. Poor UV resolution left other possibilities for UV excess open, such as the old populations or an active galactic nucleus (AGN). Here, we study high-resolution far-ultraviolet HST/ACS images of optically quiescent early-type galaxies with strong UV excess. The new images show that three-quarters of these moderately massive (similar to 5 x 10(10) M(circle dot)) ETGs shows clear evidence of extended SF, usually in form of wide or concentric UV rings, and in some cases, striking spiral arms. SDSS spectra probably miss these features due to small fiber size. UV-excess ETGs have on average less dust and larger UV sizes (D > 40 kpc) than other green-valley galaxies, which argues for an external origin for the gas that is driving the SF. Thus, most of these galaxies appear rejuvenated (e. g., through minor gas-rich mergers or intergalactic medium accretion). For a smaller subset of the sample, the declining SF (from the original internal gas) cannot be ruled out. SF is rare in very massive early-types (M(*) > 10(11) M(circle dot)), a possible consequence of AGN feedback. In addition to extended UV emission, many galaxies show a compact central source, which may be a weak, optically inconspicuous AGN.

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