WHAT TURNS GALAXIES OFF? THE DIFFERENT MORPHOLOGIES OF STAR-FORMING AND QUIESCENT GALAXIES SINCE z ∼ 2 FROM CANDELS

By Eric F. Bell, A. van der Wel, C. Papovich, D. Kocevski, J. Lotz, D. H. Mcintosh, J. Kartaltepe, S. Faber, H. Ferguson, A. Koekemoer and 14 more. 2011

228 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We use HST/WFC3 imaging from the CANDELS Multi-Cycle Treasury Survey, in conjunction with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, to explore the evolution of galactic structure for galaxies with stellar masses >3 × 1010 M☉ from z = 2.2 to the present epoch, a time span of 10 Gyr. We explore the relationship between rest-frame optical color, stellar mass, star formation activity, and galaxy structure. We confirm the dramatic increase from z = 2.2 to the present day in the number density of non-star-forming galaxies above 3 × 1010 M☉ reported by others. We further find that the vast majority of these quiescent systems have concentrated light profiles, as parameterized by the Sérsic index, and the population of concentrated galaxies grows similarly rapidly. We examine the joint distribution of star formation activity, Sérsic index, stellar mass, inferred velocity dispersion, and stellar surface density. Quiescence correlates poorly with stellar mass at all z < 2.2. Quiescence correlates well with Sérsic index at all redshifts. Quiescence correlates well with “velocity dispersion” and stellar surface density at z > 1.3, and somewhat less well at lower redshifts. Yet, there is significant scatter between quiescence and galaxy structure: while the vast majority of quiescent galaxies have prominent bulges, many of them have significant disks, and a number of bulge-dominated galaxies have significant star formation. Noting the rarity of quiescent galaxies without prominent bulges, we argue that a prominent bulge (and perhaps, by association, a supermassive black hole) is an important condition for quenching star formation on galactic scales over the last 10 Gyr, in qualitative agreement with the active galactic nucleus feedback paradigm.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Electrical and Electronic Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eb68fe4a0d7fa1de23684e7d04a1b900b4a729c7

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

In Electrical and Electronic Engineering

  1. J. Dunlop
  2. P. Oesch
  3. P. V. van Dokkum
  4. M. Franx
  5. R. McLure
  6. I. Labbé
  7. Christopher J. Conselice
  8. Richard S. Ellis

Citations in the corpus