ON SIZES, KINEMATICS, M/L GRADIENTS, AND LIGHT PROFILES OF MASSIVE COMPACT GALAXIES AT z ∼ 2

By S. Wuyts, Thomas J. Cox, C. Hayward, M. Franx, L. Hernquist, P. Hopkins, P. Jonsson, P. V. van Dokkum. 2010

136 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present a detailed analysis of the structure and resolved stellar populations of simulated merger remnants, and compare them to observations of compact quiescent galaxies at z ∼ 2. We find that major merging is a viable mechanism to produce systems of ∼1011 M☉ and ∼1 kpc size, provided the gas fraction at the time of final coalescence is high (∼40%) and provided that the progenitors are compact star-forming galaxies, as expected at high redshift. Their integrated spectral energy distributions and velocity dispersions are in good agreement with the observations, and their position in the (vmaj/σ, ϵ) diagram traces the upper envelope of the distribution of lower redshift early-type galaxies. The simulated merger remnants show time- and sightline-dependent M/L ratio gradients that result from a superposition of radially dependent stellar age, stellar metallicity, and extinction. The median ratio of the effective radius in rest-frame V-band light to that in mass surface density is ∼2 during the quiescent remnant phase. This is typically expressed by a negative color gradient (i.e., red core), which we expect to correlate with the integrated color of the system. Finally, the simulations differ from the observations in their surface brightness profile shape. The simulated remnants are typically best fit by high (n ≫ 4) Sérsic indices, whereas observed quiescent galaxies at z ∼ 2 tend to be less cuspy (〈n〉 ∼ 2.3). Limiting early star formation in the progenitors may be required to prevent the simulated merger remnants from having extended wings.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/001e23c1da6d593f9caedcbf96bf79f1dfbb965d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

  1. P. Hopkins
  2. L. Hernquist
  3. R. Dav'e
  4. A. Dekel
  5. R. Somerville
  6. T. Naab
  7. P. V. van Dokkum
  8. M. Cappellari

In Instrumentation

  1. P. Hopkins
  2. L. Hernquist
  3. M. Cappellari
  4. P. V. van Dokkum
  5. A. Dekel
  6. R. Dav'e
  7. R. Somerville
  8. T. Naab

Citations in the corpus