4.6 Article

MORPHOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OF GALAXIES FROM ULTRA-DEEP HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE WIDE FIELD CAMERA 3 IMAGING: THE HUBBLE SEQUENCE AT z ∼ 2

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 735, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/735/1/L22

关键词

cosmology: observations; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; galaxies: high-redshift

资金

  1. NASA [HST-GO-10808.01-A]
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H00243X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use ultra-deep Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field Camera 3/infrared imaging of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field to investigate the rest-frame optical morphologies of a mass-selected sample of galaxies at z similar to 2. We find a large variety of galaxy morphologies, ranging from large, blue, disk-like galaxies to compact, red, early-type galaxies. We derive rest-frame u - g color profiles for these galaxies and show that most z similar to 2 galaxies in our sample have negative color gradients such that their cores are red. Although these color gradients may partly be caused by radial variations in dust content, they point to the existence of older stellar populations in the centers of z similar to 2 galaxies. This result is consistent with an inside-out scenario of galaxy growth. We find that the median color gradient is fairly constant with redshift: (Delta(u-g(rest))/Delta(log r))(median) = -0.47, -0.33, and -0.46 for z similar to 2, z similar to 1, and z = 0, respectively. Using structural parameters derived from surface brightness profiles we confirm that at z similar to 2 galaxy morphology correlates well with specific star formation rate. At the same mass, star-forming galaxies have larger effective radii, bluer rest-frame u - g colors, and lower Sersic indices than quiescent galaxies. These correlations are very similar to those at lower redshift, suggesting that the relations that give rise to the Hubble sequence at z = 0 are already in place for massive galaxies at this early epoch.

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