Paper detail

Do sub-millimeter galaxy number counts provide evidence for a top-heavy IMF?

Theoretical models have had difficulty matching the observed number density of sub-millimeter galaxies (SMGs), causing some authors (e.g., Baugh et al. 2005) to suggest that SMGs provide evidence for a top-heavy initial mass function (IMF). To test this claim, we have, for the first time, combined high-resolution 3-D hydrodynamic simulations of isolated and merging massive, gas-rich galaxies, radiative transfer, and a semi-empirical merger rate model to predict the number density of SMGs. Our model can reproduce the observed SMG number density even when using a standard (Kroupa) IMF. The agreement is due to a combination of relatively long sub-mm duty cycles for mergers (a few times 10^8 years for our most massive models), which owe to our combination of high-resolution 3-D hydrodynamic simulations and dust radiative transfer; sufficient number densities of massive, gas-rich mergers; and the decrease in sub-mm counts observed by recent deep/wide surveys (e.g., Austermann et al. 2010) relative to previous surveys. Our results suggest that the observed SMG number counts do not provide evidence for a top-heavy IMF at high redshift.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.