Paper detail

Deceptively cold dust in the massive starburst galaxy GN20 at $z\sim4$

We present new observations, carried out with IRAM NOEMA, of the atomic neutral carbon transitions [CI](1-0) at 492 GHz and [CI](2-1) at 809 GHz of GN20, a well-studied star-bursting galaxy at $z=4.05$. The high luminosity line ratio [CI](2-1)/[CI](1-0) implies an excitation temperature of $48^{+14}_{-9}$ K, which is significantly higher than the apparent dust temperature of $T_{\rm d}=33\pm2$ K ($β=1.9$) derived under the common assumption of an optically thin far-infrared dust emission, but fully consistent with $T_{\rm d}=52\pm5$ K of a general opacity model where the optical depth ($τ$) reaches unity at a wavelength of $λ_0=170\pm23$ $μ$m. Moreover, the general opacity solution returns a factor of $\sim 2\times$ lower dust mass and, hence, a lower molecular gas mass for a fixed gas-to-dust ratio, than with the optically thin dust model. The derived properties of GN20 thus provide an appealing solution to the puzzling discovery of starbursts appearing colder than main-sequence galaxies above $z>2.5$, in addition to a lower dust-to-stellar mass ratio that approaches the physical value predicted for starburst galaxies.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access16 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.