RED NUGGETS AT z ∼ 1.5: COMPACT PASSIVE GALAXIES AND THE FORMATION OF THE KORMENDY RELATION

By I. Damjanov, P. McCarthy, R. Abraham, Karl Glazebrook, Haojing Yan, E. Mentuch, D. L. Borgne, S. Savaglio, D. Crampton, R. Murowinski and 15 more. 2008

244 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present the results of Near-Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS) imaging of a sample of 19 high-mass passively evolving galaxies with 1.2 < z < 2, taken primarily from the Gemini Deep Deep Survey (GDDS). Around 80% of galaxies in our GDDS sample have spectra dominated by stars with ages ≳1 Gyr. Our rest-frame R-band images show that most of these objects have compact regular morphologies which follow the classical R1/4 law. These galaxies scatter along a tight sequence in the size versus surface brightness parameter space which defines the Kormendy relation. Around one-third (3/10) of the massive red objects in the GDDS sample are extraordinarily compact, with effective radii under 1 kpc. Our NICMOS observations allow the detection of such systems more robustly than is possible with optical (rest-frame UV) data, and while similar systems have been seen at z ≳ 2, this is the first time such systems have been detected in a rest-frame optical survey at 1.2 < z < 2. We refer to these compact galaxies as “red nuggets,” and note that similarly compact massive galaxies are completely absent in the nearby universe. We introduce a new “stellar mass Kormendy relation” (stellar mass density versus size) which we use to single out the effects of size evolution from those of luminosity and color evolution in stellar populations. The 1 < z < 2 passive galaxies have mass densities that are an order of magnitude larger then early-type galaxies today and are comparable to the compact distant red galaxies at 2 < z < 3. We briefly consider mechanisms for size evolution in contemporary models focusing on equal-mass mergers and adiabatic expansion driven by stellar mass loss. Neither of these mechanisms appears to be able to transform the high-redshift Kormendy relation into its local counterpart, leaving the origin and fate of these compact “red nuggets” unresolved.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f477026ded63dc9b8ff2db85914b1cf8eef43d98

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

In Instrumentation

1. P. Hopkins
2. L. Hernquist
3. P. V. van Dokkum
4. M. Franx
5. R. Dav'e
6. A. Dekel
7. R. Somerville
8. Christopher J. Conselice

Citations in the corpus

• THE COSMOLOGICAL SIZE AND VELOCITY DISPERSION EVOLUTION OF MASSIVE EARLY-TYPE GALAXIES (2011, background): “…magnitude higher (Daddi et al. 2005; Trujillo et al. 2006; Longhetti et al. 2007; Toft et al. 2007; Trujillo et al. 2007; Zirm et al. 2007; Buitrago et al. 2008; van Dokkum et al. 2008; Cimatti et al. 2008; Franx et al. 2008; Saracco et al. 2009; Bezanson et al. 2009; Damjanov et al. 2009, 2011).”
• SIZES AND SURFACE BRIGHTNESS PROFILES OF QUIESCENT GALAXIES AT z ∼ 2 (2011, background): “…redshift galaxies of similar mass (e.g., Daddi et al. 2005; Trujillo et al. 2006; Toft et al. 2007; van der Wel et al. 2008; van Dokkum et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2009; Hopkins et al. 2009; Saracco et al. 2009; van Dokkum et al. 2009b; Cassata et al. 2010; Mancini et al. 2010; Cassata et al.…”
• 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): “…of massive galaxies at z > 1 are surprisingly compact (e.g. Daddi et al. 2005; Trujillo et al. 2006, 2007; Cimatti et al. 2008; Franx et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2009; Targett et al. 2011), with derived effective radii (Re < 2–3 kpc) and stellar mass measurements which place these galaxies well…”
• How do minor mergers promote inside-out growth of ellipticals, transforming the size, density profile and dark matter fraction? (2012, background): “…et al. 2007; Trujillo et al. 2007; Zirm et al. 2007; Buitrago et al. 2008; van Dokkum et al. 2008; Cimatti et al. 2008; Franx et al. 2008; Saracco et al. 2009; Damjanov et al. 2009; Kriek et al. 2009; Bezanson et al. 2009; van Dokkum et al. 2010; Saglia 2010; Whitaker et al. 2012; Onodera 2012).”
• MINOR MERGERS AND THE SIZE EVOLUTION OF ELLIPTICAL GALAXIES (2009, background): “Their effective stellar mass densities are at least one order of magnitude higher (van Dokkum et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2009) with significantly higher surface brightnesses compared to their low redshift analogs (Cimatti et al. 2008).”
• DISSIPATION AND EXTRA LIGHT IN GALACTIC NUCLEI. IV. EVOLUTION IN THE SCALING RELATIONS OF SPHEROIDS (2008, background): “(2006), McIntosh et al. (2005), van Dokkum et al. (2008) and Zirm et al. (2007) (see also Franx et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2008).”
• SUPERDENSE MASSIVE GALAXIES IN WINGS LOCAL CLUSTERS (2009, methodology): “On the other hand, the sizes of galaxies in the sample of van Dokkum et al. (2008) atz= 2.4 are smaller by a factor of ∼ 3 even with respect to the WINGS datapoints in Fig.4, when the age-selection effect is taken into account.”
• Constraining the galaxy–halo connection over the last 13.3 Gyr: star formation histories, galaxy mergers and structural properties (2017, background): “…considered three different scenarios: i) central mass loss due to core-core mergers, ii) central mass loss due to stellar evolution, and iii) adiabatic expansion due to stellar winds (also considered in Damjanov et al. 2009, and referred as the less likely scenario for the mass-size relation).”
• THE MAJORITY OF COMPACT MASSIVE GALAXIES AT z ∼ 2 ARE DISK DOMINATED (2011, background): “…2006; Trujillo et al. 2006b; Zirm 2007; Toft et al. 2007; van Dokkum et al. 2008; van der Wel et al. 2008; McGrath et al. 2008; Buitrago et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2009; van der Wel et al. 2009a; Saracco et al. 2009; Hopkins et al. 2009; van Dokkum et al. 2010; Cassata et al. 2010; Mancini…”
• Wet Disc Contraction to Galactic Blue Nuggets and Quenching to Red Nuggets (2013, methodology): “…massive galaxies at redshifts z = 2 − 3 are compact ellipticals with suppressed star formation rates (SFR), for which we adopt the nickname “red nuggets” (van Dokkum et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2009; van Dokkum, Kriek & Franx 2009; Newman et al. 2010; Damjanov et al. 2011; Whitaker et al. 2012).”
• Size evolution of normal and compact galaxies in the EAGLE simulation (2015, background): “Observational studies have detected massive compact red galaxies at high redshifts (e.g. Cimatti et al. 2004; Daddi et al. 2005; Trujillo et al. 2006; van Dokkum et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2009).”
• Structural and Star-forming Relations since z ∼ 3: Connecting Compact Star-forming and Quiescent Galaxies (2015, unknown): “For a value of η = −1 (e.g., Damjanov et al. 2009), ΣQe decreases as ∆ logA ∼ 3.5∆ logM⋆, while Σ Q 1 decreases as ∆ logB ∼ ∆ logM⋆.”
• CONSTRAINTS ON THE ASSEMBLY AND DYNAMICS OF GALAXIES. I. DETAILED REST-FRAME OPTICAL MORPHOLOGIES ON KILOPARSEC SCALE OF z ∼ 2 STAR-FORMING GALAXIES (2010, background): “…the formation and evolution of such compact, quiescent galaxies at highz is the basis of much ongoing observational and theoretical work (e.g., Trujillo et al. 2007; Cimatti et al. 2008; van der Wel et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2009; Hopkins et al. 2009; Mancini et al. 2010; Wuyts et al. 2010).”
• Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): mass–size relations of z < 0.1 galaxies subdivided by Sérsic index, colour and morphology (2014, background): “…continue to identify a clear disconnect between the M∗−Re relation of nearby galaxies and those at intermediate to high redshift (McIntosh et al. 2005; Trujillo et al. 2007; Buitrago et al. 2008; van der Wel et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2009; Williams, Bureau & Cappellari 2010; Bruce et al. 2012).”
• Discriminating Between the Physical Processes that Drive Spheroid Size Evolution (2009, methodology): “…smaller effective radii than low-redshift analogues of the same mass (e.g. Daddi et al. 2005; Trujillo et al. 2006a,b, 2007; Toft et al. 2007; Zirm et al. 2007; Buitrago et al. 2008; Cimatti et al. 2008; Franx et al. 2008; van der Wel et al. 2008; van Dokkum et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2009).”