GMASS ultradeep spectroscopy of galaxies at $z$ ~ 2 - II. Superdense passive galaxies: how did they form and evolve?

By A. Cimatti, P. Cassata, L. Pozzetti, J. Kurk, M. Mignoli, A. Renzini, E. Daddi, M. Bolzonella, M. Brusa, G. Rodighiero and 6 more. 2008

437 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Aims. The aim of this work is to investigate the physical, structur al and evolutionary properties of old, passive galaxies at z> 1.4 and to place new constraints on massive galaxy formation and evolution. Methods. We combine ultradeep optical spectroscopy from the GMASS project (Galaxy Mass Assembly ultradeep Spectroscopic Survey) with GOODS multi-band (optical to mid‐infrared) photometry and HST imaging to study a sample of spectroscopically identified passive galaxies at 1.39 2. No X-ray emission was found neither from individual galaxies nor from a stacking analysis of the sample. Only one galaxy shows a marginal detection at 24� m. These galaxies have morphologies that are predominantly compact and spheroidal. However, their sizes (Re. 1 kpc) are much smaller than those of spheroids in the present‐day Universe. Their stellar mass surface densities are consequently hig her by≈1 dex if compared to spheroids at z≈ 0 with the same mass. Their rest-frame B-band surface brightness scales with the effective radius, but the offset with respect to the surface brightness of the local Korme ndy relation is too large to be explained by simple passive evolution. At z≈ 1, a larger fraction of passive galaxies follows the z≈ 0 size ‐ mass relation. Superdense relics with Re≈ 1 kpc are extremely rare at z≈ 0 with respect to z> 1, and absent if Re 2. The results are compared with theoretical models and the main implications discussed in the framework of massive galaxy formation and evolution.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/90216cf380cddc7603e4b728c598c7fd6ad47301

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. P. V. van Dokkum
  4. R. Somerville
  5. R. Dav'e
  6. C. Conroy
  7. A. Dekel
  8. Christopher J. Conselice

In Instrumentation

  1. P. Hopkins
  2. L. Hernquist
  3. P. V. van Dokkum
  4. M. Cappellari
  5. C. Conroy
  6. M. Franx
  7. R. Dav'e
  8. A. Dekel

Citations in the corpus