The structures of distant galaxies – I. Galaxy structures and the merger rate to z∼ 3 in the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field

By Christopher J. Conselice, Sheena Rajgor, R. Myers. 2007

175 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper begins a series in which we examine the structures of distant galaxies to directly determine the history of their formation modes. We start this series by examining the structures of z F850LP 10 10 M ⊙ undergo 4.3 -0.8 +0.8 major galaxy mergers at z 1.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, Electrical and Electronic Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f0682646539dfcf28a3a5a1fafdb34c2fb19fa3c

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 Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

In Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Citations in the corpus

HISTORY OF GALAXY INTERACTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STAR FORMATION OVER THE LAST 7 Gyr FROM GEMS (2009, background): “We note however that quantitative CAS parameters can change with the deeper GOODS images (e.g., Conselice et al. 2008).”
GAMA: towards a physical understanding of galaxy formation (2009, background): “…2009 • Vol. 50 Driver et al.: GAMA some galaxy merging timescale, the fraction of galaxies in close physical pairs (indicative of imminent mergers: Patton et al. 2002) and the incidence of highly asymmetric or disturbed galaxies (indicative of ongoing or recent mergers: Conselice et al. 2008).”
The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Constraints on Supermassive Black Hole Binaries from the Gravitational-wave Background (2023, background): “These two distributions are typically determined empirically based on the detection of galaxy pairs in observational surveys and thus depend on observational definitions and selection criteria (e.g., Conselice et al. 2008; Mundy et al. 2017; Snyder et al. 2017; Duncan et al. 2019).”
On the Estimation of Confidence Intervals for Binomial Population Proportions in Astronomy: The Simplicity and Superiority of the Bayesian Approach (2010, background): “…et al. 2010; Ilbert et al. 2010), or to investigate whether or not major mergers were more frequent at high redshift via measurement of the closepair/asymmetric fraction (e.g., De Propris et al. 2005; Conselice et al. 2008; López-Sanjuan et al. 2010), also routinely present this class of problem.”
The Evolution of Galaxy Structure Over Cosmic Time (2014, methodology): “An alternative parameterization of the merger history is given by a combined power-law exponential (e.g., Conselice et al. 2008) whose form is: fm = α× (1 + z) mexp[β(1 + z)].”
Bulge Formation by the Coalescence of Giant Clumps in Primordial Disk Galaxies (2008, background): “5 in Elmegreen et al. 2007a, and Conselice et al. 2008).”
Size Evolution of the Most Massive Galaxies at 1.7 < z < 3 from GOODS NICMOS Survey Imaging (2008, methodology): “Observationally, we know that at z < 2 there are few gas rich mergers in massive galaxies based on structural analyses (e.g. Conselice et al. 2003; Conselice 2006; Conselice et al. 2008) preventing significant starbursts and new star populations from forming.”
MOST SUBMILLIMETER GALAXIES ARE MAJOR MERGERS (2010, background): “High-redshift galaxies are clumpy and irregular, which may either be the result of on-going mergers (Lotz et al. 2006; Conselice et al. 2008), or the consequence of clumpy star formation in a kinematically more coherent structure such as an underlying rotating disk (Förster-Schreiber et al. 2006,…”
Revisiting the Hubble sequence in the SDSS DR7 spectroscopic sample: a publicly available Bayesian automated classification (2010, background): “…goes at high redshift, several new galaxies appear that do not necessarily fit in the Hubble fork (e.g. Abraham et al. 1994; Abraham et al. 1996; Conselice et al. 2008; Delgado-Serrano et al. 2010), and secondly, everybody who has looked at galaxies in detail has realized how difficult it is to…”
Herschel PEP/HerMES: the redshift evolution (0 ≤ z ≤ 4) of dust attenuation and of the total (UV+IR) star formation rate density (2013, background): “A similar peak seems to appear at z = 1 − 2 (depending on the stellar mass) of the cosmological merger rate (Conselice et al.(2008)) and of the CIB (Béthermin et al.(2012b)).”
MERGERS AND BULGE FORMATION IN ΛCDM: WHICH MERGERS MATTER? (2009, background): “Various works have attempted to quantify merger rates as a function of stellar mass, rather than in a pure magnitude-limited sample (see e.g. Bell et al. 2006a; Conselice et al. 2008; Bundy et al. 2009; López-Sanjuan et al. 2009b; Darg et al. 2009b).”
The structures of distant galaxies – III. The merger history of over 20 000 massive galaxies at z < 1.2 (2008, methodology): “We also see a turnover in the merger history at z > 2 (Conselice et al. 2008a), which has also been seen for galaxies in pairs at similar redshifts (Ryan et al. 2008).”