4.6 Article

Surface brightness profiles of composite images of compact galaxies at z similar or equal to 4-6 in the hubble ultra deep field

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 135, 期 1, 页码 156-166

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/156

关键词

galaxies : formation; galaxies : high-redshift; galaxies : structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) contains a significant number of B-, V-, and i'-band dropout objects, many of which were recently confirmed to be young star-forming galaxies at z similar or equal to 4-6. These galaxies are too faint individually to accurately measure their radial surface-brightness profiles. Their average light profiles are potentially of great interest, since they may contain clues to the time since the onset of significant galaxy assembly. We separately co-add V-, i'-, and z'-band HUDF images of sets of z similar or equal to 4, 5, and 6 objects, pre-selected to have nearly identical compact sizes and the roundest shapes. From these stacked images, we are able to study the average(d) radial structure of these objects at much higher signal-to-noise ratio than possible for an individual faint object. Here, we explore the reliability and usefulness of a stacking technique of compact objects at z similar or equal to 4-6 in the HUDE Our results are: (1) image stacking provides reliable and reproducible average surface-brightness profiles; (2) the shape of the average surface-brightness profile shows that even the faintest z similar or equal to 4-6 objects are resolved; and (3) if late-type galaxies dominate the population of galaxies at z similar or equal to 4-6, as previous Hubble Space Telescope studies have shown for z less than or similar to 4, then limits to dynamical age estimates for these galaxies from their profile shapes are comparable with the spectral energy distribution ages obtained from the broadband colors. We also present accurate measurements of the sky background in the HUDF and its associated 1 sigma uncertainties.

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