4.7 Article

A Fabry-Perot imaging search for Ly alpha emission in quasar absorbers at z 2.4

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 636, 期 1, 页码 30-45

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/497885

关键词

cosmology : observations; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : high-redshift; quasars : absorption lines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have carried out a deep narrowband imaging survey of six fields with heavy-element quasar absorption lines, using the Goddard Fabry-Perot ( FP) system at the Apache Point Observatory ( APO) 3.5 m telescope. The aim of these observations was to search for redshifted Ly alpha emission from the galaxies underlying the absorbers at z = 2: 3 - 2: 5 and their companion galaxies. The 3 sigma sensitivity levels ranged between 1.9 x 10(-17) and 5.4 x 10(-17) ergs s(-1) cm(-2) in observed-frame Ly alpha flux. No significant Ly alpha emitters were detected at a level > 3 sigma. The absence of significant Ly alpha emission implies limits on the star formation rate ( SFR) of 0.9 - 2.7 M-circle dot yr(-1) per 2 pixel x 2 pixel region, if no dust attenuation is assumed. We compare our results with those from other emission-line studies of absorber fields and with predictions for the global average SFR based on the models of cosmic chemical evolution. Our limits are among the tightest existing constraints on Ly alpha emission from galaxies in absorber fields, but they are consistent with many other studies. In the absence of dust attenuation, these studies suggest that SFRs in a large fraction of objects in the absorber fields may lie below the global mean SFR. However, it is possible that dust attenuation is responsible for the low emission-line fluxes in some objects. It is also possible that the star-forming regions are compact and at smaller angular separations from the quasar than the width of our point-spread function and get lost in the quasar emission. We outline future observations that could help to distinguish between the various possibilities.

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