4.7 Article

The diversity of SCUBA-selected galaxies

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03376.x

关键词

galaxies : formation; galaxies : starburst; cosmology : observations; early Universe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present extensive observations of a sample of distant, submillimetre (submm) galaxies detected in the field of the massive cluster lens Abell 1835, using the Submm Common-User Bolometer Array (SCUBA). Taken in conjunction with earlier observations of other submm-selected sources, we now have detailed, multiwavelength observations of seven examples of the submm population, having exploited the combination of achromatic amplification by cluster lenses and lavish archival data sets. These sources, all clearly at z greater than or similar to 1, illustrate the wide range in the radio and optical properties of distant submm-selected galaxies. We include detailed observations of the first candidate 'pure' starburst submm galaxy at high redshift, a z = 2.56 interacting galaxy which shows no obvious sign of hosting an AGN. The remaining sources have varying degrees of inferred AGN activity (three out of seven of the most luminous show some evidence of the presence of an AGN), although even when an AGN is obviously present it is still not apparent whether reprocessed radiation from this source dominates the submm emission. In contrast with the variation in the spectral properties, we see relatively homogeneous morphologies for the population, with a large fraction of merging or interacting systems. Our study shows that virtually identical spectral energy distributions are seen for galaxies that exhibit strikingly different optical/UV spectral-line characteristics. We conclude that standard optical/UV spectral classifications are misleading when applied to distant, highly obscured galaxies, and that we must seek other means of determining the various contributions to the overall energy budget of submm galaxies and hence to the far-infrared extragalactic background.

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