The Bimodal Galaxy Color Distribution: Dependence on Luminosity and Environment

By M. Balogh, I. Baldry, Robert Nichol, C. J. Miller, Richard G. Bower, Karl Glazebrook. 2004

523 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We analyze the u - r color distribution of 24,346 galaxies with Mr ≤ -18 and z < 0.08, drawn from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey first data release, as a function of luminosity and environment. The color distribution is well fitted with two Gaussian distributions, which we use to divide the sample into a blue and red population. At fixed luminosity, the mean color of the blue (red) distribution is nearly independent of environment, with a weakly significant (~3 σ) detection of a trend for colors to become redder by 0.1-0.14 (0.03-0.06) mag with a factor of ~100 increase in local density, as characterized by the surface density of galaxies within a ±1000 km s-1 redshift slice. In contrast, at fixed luminosity the fraction of galaxies in the red distribution is a strong function of local density, increasing from ~10%-30% of the population in the lowest density environments to ~70% at the highest densities. The strength of this trend is similar for both the brightest (-23 < Mr < -22) and faintest (-19 < Mr < -18) galaxies in our sample. The fraction of red galaxies within the virialized regions of clusters shows no significant dependence on velocity dispersion. Even at the lowest densities explored, a substantial population of red galaxies exists, which might be fossil groups. We propose that most star-forming galaxies today evolve at a rate that is determined primarily by their intrinsic properties and independent of their environment. Any environmentally triggered transformations from blue to red colors must occur either on a short timescale or preferentially at high redshift to preserve the simple Gaussian nature of the color distribution. The mechanism must be effective for both bright and faint galaxies.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1194620ad04c7cf27af01404ee4d8e91792a2c3c

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. C. Conroy
  4. R. Somerville
  5. R. Dav'e
  6. Volker Springel
  7. Simon D. M. White
  8. A. Dekel

In Instrumentation

  1. P. Hopkins
  2. L. Hernquist
  3. C. Conroy
  4. R. Somerville
  5. R. Dav'e
  6. P. V. van Dokkum
  7. Simon D. M. White
  8. Volker Springel

Citations in the corpus