4.6 Article

The spatial clustering of distant, z ∼ 1, early-type galaxies

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 376, 期 3, 页码 825-836

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011029

关键词

cosmology : large-scale structure of Universe galaxies: evolution; galaxies : elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies : formation; galaxies : fundamental parameters

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examine the spatial clustering of extremely red objects (EROs) found in a relatively large survey of 700 arcmin(2), containing 400 galaxies with R - Ks > 5 to Ks = 19.2. A comoving correlation length r(o) = 12 +/- 3 h(-1) Mpc is derived, under the assumption that the selection function is described by a passively evolving early-type galaxy population, with an effective redshift of z similar to 1.2. This correlation length is very similar to that of local L* elliptical galaxies implying, at face value, no significant clustering evolution in comoving coordinates of early-type galaxies to the limiting depth of our sample, z similar to 1.5. A rapidly evolving clustering bias can be designed to reproduce a null result; however, our data do not show the corresponding strong reduction in the average population density expected for consistency with underlying growth of the mass-function. We discuss our data in the context of recent ideas regarding bias evolution. The uncertainty we quote on r(o) accounts for the spikey redshift distribution expected along relatively narrow sightlines, which we quantify with detailed simulations. This is an improvement over the standard use of Limber's equation which, because of its implicit assumption of a smooth selection function, underestimates the true noise by a factor of approximate to 3 for the parameters of our survey. We propose a general recipe for the analysis of angular clustering, suggesting that any measurement of the angular clustering amplitude, A, has an intrinsic additional uncertainty of sigma (A)/A = root AC, where AC is the appropriate integral constraint.

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