Paper detail

Discriminating Between the Physical Processes that Drive Spheroid Size Evolution

Massive galaxies at high-z have smaller effective radii than those today, but similar central densities. Their size growth therefore relates primarily to the evolving abundance of low-density material. Various models have been proposed to explain this evolution, which have different implications for galaxy, star, and BH formation. We compile observations of spheroid properties as a function of redshift and use them to test proposed models. Evolution in progenitor gas-richness with redshift gives rise to initial formation of smaller spheroids at high-z. These systems can then evolve in apparent or physical size via several channels: (1) equal-density 'dry' mergers, (2) later major or minor 'dry' mergers with less-dense galaxies, (3) adiabatic expansion, (4) evolution in stellar populations & mass-to-light-ratio gradients, (5) age-dependent bias in stellar mass estimators, (6) observational fitting/selection effects. If any one of these is tuned to explain observed size evolution, they make distinct predictions for evolution in other galaxy properties. Only model (2) is consistent with observations as a dominant effect. It is the only model which allows for an increase in M_BH/M_bulge with redshift. Still, the amount of merging needed is larger than that observed or predicted. We therefore compare cosmologically motivated simulations, in which all these effects occur, & show they are consistent with all the observational constraints. Effect (2), which builds up an extended low-density envelope, does dominate the evolution, but effects 1,3,4, & 6 each contribute ~20% to the size evolution (a net factor ~2). This naturally also predicts evolution in M_BH-sigma similar to that observed.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

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.

Institutions

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.