ON THE DEARTH OF COMPACT, MASSIVE, RED SEQUENCE GALAXIES IN THE LOCAL UNIVERSE

By E. Taylor, M. Franx, Karl Glazebrook, J. Brinchmann, A. van der Wel, P. V. van Dokkum. 2009

139 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We set out to test the claim that the recently identified population of compact, massive, and quiescent galaxies at z ∼ 2.3 must undergo significant size evolution to match the properties of galaxies found in the local universe. Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; Data Release 7), we have conducted a search for local red sequence galaxies with sizes and masses comparable to those found at z ∼ 2.3. The SDSS spectroscopic target selection algorithm excludes high surface brightness objects; we show that this makes incompleteness a concern for such massive, compact galaxies, particularly for low redshifts (z ≲ 0.05). We have identified 63 M*>1010.7 M☉ (≈5 × 1010 M☉) red sequence galaxies at 0.066 < zspec < 0.12 which are smaller than the median size–mass relation by a factor of 2 or more. Consistent with expectations from the virial theorem, the median offset from the mass–velocity dispersion relation for these galaxies is 0.12 dex. We do not, however, find any galaxies with sizes and masses comparable to those observed at z ∼ 2.3, implying a decrease in the comoving number density of these galaxies, at fixed size and mass, by a factor of ≳5000. This result cannot be explained by incompleteness: in the 0.066 < z < 0.12 interval, we estimate that the SDSS spectroscopic sample should typically be ≳75% complete for galaxies with the sizes and masses seen at high redshift, although for the very smallest galaxies it may be as low as ∼20%. In order to confirm that the absence of such compact massive galaxies in SDSS is not produced by spectroscopic selection effects, we have also looked for such galaxies in the basic SDSS photometric catalog, using photometric redshifts. While we do find signs of a slight bias against massive, compact galaxies, this analysis suggests that the SDSS spectroscopic sample is missing at most a few objects in the regime we consider. Accepting the high-redshift results, it is clear that massive galaxies must undergo significant structural evolution over z ≲ 2 in order to match the population seen in the local universe. Our results suggest that a highly stochastic mechanism (e.g., major mergers) cannot be the primary driver of this strong size evolution.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/73d1359f7a4de2d314e33588e81984680f4696a1

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

In Electrical and Electronic Engineering

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

How do minor mergers promote inside-out growth of ellipticals, transforming the size, density profile and dark matter fraction? (2012, background): “Another argument against major mergers driving the size evolution is the apparent absence (or very low number) of massive compact galaxies in the present day universe (Trujillo et al. 2009; Taylor et al. 2010).”
The DEEP3 Galaxy Redshift Survey: the impact of environment on the size evolution of massive early-type galaxies at intermediate redshift (2011, background): “…populations and remarkably small sizes relative to their local counterparts (e.g. Daddi et al. 2005; Labbé et al. 2005; Kriek et al. 2006; Papovich et al. 2006; Trujillo et al. 2006, 2007; Zirm et al. 2007; van Dokkum et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2009, 2011; Toft et al. 2009; Taylor et al. 2010).”
STELLAR KINEMATICS OF z ∼ 2 GALAXIES AND THE INSIDE-OUT GROWTH OF QUIESCENT GALAXIES, (2012, methodology): “Low-Redshift Sample At low redshift we select galaxies from the SDSS DR7.”
Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): the star formation rate dependence of the stellar initial mass function (2011, methodology): “The stellar masses used in this investigation are derived based on the observed tight relation between (g − i) colour and the mass– luminosity (M/L) relation (Taylor et al. 2010) using the Bruzual & Charlot (2003) models and assuming a Chabrier (2003a) IMF.”
The ATLAS3D project – I. A volume-limited sample of 260 nearby early-type galaxies: science goals and selection criteria (2010, result): “Consistently with other larger local galaxy samples (van Dokkum et al. 2008; Trujillo et al. 2009; Taylor et al. 2010), we find no massive and superdense (LK >∼ 10 11 L⊙,K and Re <∼ 2 kpc) ETGs in our parent sample, contrary to what is found from photometry of ETGs at redshiftz >∼ 1.5 (e.g. Daddi…”
Dissecting the size evolution of elliptical galaxies since z∼ 1: puffing-up versus minor-merging scenarios (2011, background): “Secondly, the near absence of compact massive galaxies in the nearby Universe (Trujillo et al. 2009; Taylor et al. 2010; Valentinuzzi et al. 2010), which were very common in the early Universe, indicates that individual objects (at least the very old and compact ones) have evolved significantly in…”
SUPERDENSE GALAXIES AND THE MASS–SIZE RELATION AT LOW REDSHIFT (2012, methodology): “…selected SDSS red sequence galaxies withM⋆ > 1010.7M⊙ with sizes less than half the size predicted by the Shen et al. (2003)n > 2.5 relation, excluding galaxies that were disklike by visual inspection, showed marked asymmetries, were merging or affected by bright stars (Taylor et al. 2010).”
CAN MINOR MERGING ACCOUNT FOR THE SIZE GROWTH OF QUIESCENT GALAXIES? NEW RESULTS FROM THE CANDELS SURVEY (2011, background): “Although there may be a few compact systems persisting even to z = 0 (Valentinuzzi et al. 2010), their comoving number density is clearly greatly depleted (Trujillo et al. 2009; Taylor et al. 2010).”
Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): the galaxy stellar mass function at z < 0.06 (2011, background): “Taylor et al. (2010a) estimated that the net differential bias was.”
The sizes, masses and specific star formation rates of massive galaxies at 1.3 < z < 1.5: strong evidence in favour of evolution via minor mergers (2012, background): “For example, it has been claimed that the number densities of compact ETGs at high redshift are actually compatible with compact cluster galaxies seen locally (Valentinuzzi et al. 2010), although this has been disputed by Taylor et al. (2010).”
The Morphologies of Massive Galaxies at 1<z<3 in the CANDELS-UDS Field: Compact Bulges, and the Rise and Fall of Massive Disks (2012, background): “…several local studies have now clarified the relative dearth of comparably compact systems surviving to the present day (Trujillo et al. 2009; Taylor et al. 2010), strengthening the argument that the compact high-redshift systems must undergo a period of significant size evolution…”
FORMING COMPACT MASSIVE GALAXIES (2015, methodology): “As shown in Taylor et al. (2010a), the residuals between expected and observed dispersions correlate with the Sersic index.”
3D-HST+CANDELS: THE EVOLUTION OF THE GALAXY SIZE–MASS DISTRIBUTION SINCE z = 3 (2014, unknown): “…exists within present-day clusters, with a number density comparable to that of higher-redshift early-type galaxies (Valentinuzzi et al. 2010; Poggianti et al. 2013); tension with the absence of such galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) remains (Trujillo et al. 2009; Taylor et al. 2010).”
THE COSMOLOGICAL SIZE AND VELOCITY DISPERSION EVOLUTION OF MASSIVE EARLY-TYPE GALAXIES (2011, background): “This confirms previous suggestions motivated by the dearth of compact galaxies in the nearby Universe, that a highly stochastical process like major mergers cannot be the main driver for the observed size evolution (Bezanson et al. 2009; Trujillo et al. 2009; Taylor et al. 2010).”
SIZES AND SURFACE BRIGHTNESS PROFILES OF QUIESCENT GALAXIES AT z ∼ 2 (2011, methodology): “At low redshift there is good agreement between stellar masses determined by photometric SED fitting methods and dynamical masses (Taylor et al. 2010).”