The Stellar Mass Tully-Fisher Relation to z = 1.2 from AEGIS

By S. Kassin, B. Weiner, S. Faber, D. Koo, J. Lotz, J. Diemand, J. Harker, K. Bundy, A. Metevier, A. Phillips and 5 more. 2006

172 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We combine newly measured rotation velocities, velocity dispersions, and stellar masses to construct stellar mass Tully-Fisher relations (M*TFRs) for 544 galaxies with strong emission lines at 0.1 < z < 1.2 from the All-Wavelength Extended Groth Strip International Survey (AEGIS) and the Deep Extragalactic Evolutionary Probe 2 (DEEP2) survey. The conventional M*TFR using only rotation velocity (Vrot) shows large scatter (~1.5 dex in velocity). The scatter and residuals are correlated with morphology in the sense that disturbed, compact, and major merger galaxies have lower velocities for their masses. We construct an M*TFR using the kinematic estimator S0.5, which is defined as 1/2 and accounts for disordered or noncircular motions through the gas velocity dispersion (σg). The new M*TFR, termed S0.5/M*TFR, is remarkably tight over 0.1 < z < 1.2, with no detectable evolution of its intercept or slope with redshift. The average best-fit relation has 0.47 dex scatter in stellar mass, corresponding to ~1.2 "magnitudes," assuming a constant mass-to-light ratio. Interestingly, the S0.5/M*TFR is consistent with the absorption-line-based stellar mass Faber-Jackson relation for nearby elliptical galaxies in terms of slope and intercept, which might suggest a physical connection between the two relations.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/845a8bdda879befe9135a58daf025d45fe83e896

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. Somerville
  4. R. Dav'e
  5. Volker Springel
  6. A. Dekel
  7. Thomas J. Cox
  8. T. Naab

In Instrumentation

  1. P. Hopkins
  2. L. Hernquist
  3. R. Somerville
  4. R. Dav'e
  5. A. Dekel
  6. Thomas J. Cox
  7. C. Conroy
  8. Christopher J. Conselice

Citations in the corpus