Paper detail

The Relation Between Compact, Quiescent High Redshift Galaxies and Massive Nearby Elliptical Galaxies: Evidence for Hierarchical, Inside-Out Growth

Recent studies have shown that massive quiescent galaxies at high redshift are much more compact than present-day galaxies of the same mass. Here we compare the radial stellar density profiles and the number density of a sample of massive galaxies at z ~ 2.3 to nearby massive elliptical galaxies. We confirm that the average stellar densities of the z ~ 2.3 galaxies within the effective radius, rho(<r_e), are two orders of magnitude higher than those of local elliptical galaxies of the same stellar mass. However, we also find that the densities measured within a constant physical radius of 1 kpc, rho(<1 kpc), are higher by a factor of 2-3 only. This suggests that inside-out growth scenarios are plausible, in which the compact high redshift galaxies make up the centers of normal nearby ellipticals. The compact galaxies are common at high redshift, which enables us to further constrain their evolution by requiring that the number density of their descendants does not exceed constraints imposed by the z=0 galaxy mass function. We infer that size growth must be efficient, with (r_{1+2}/r_1) ~ (M_{1+2}/M_1)^2. A simple model where compact galaxies with masses ~ 10^11 Msun primarily grow through minor mergers produces descendants with the approximate sizes, stellar densities, and number density of elliptical galaxies with masses 2-3 x10^11 Msun in the local Universe. We note that this model also predicts evolution in the M_BH - sigma relation, such that the progenitors of elliptical galaxies have lower black hole masses at fixed velocity dispersion. The main observational uncertainty is the conversion from light to mass; measurements of kinematics are needed to calibrate the masses and stellar densities of the high redshift galaxies.

preprint2009arXivOpen 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.