Paper detail

The Stellar Mass Fundamental Plane and Compact Quiescent Galaxies at z < 0.6

We examine the evolution of the relation between stellar mass surface density, velocity dispersion and half-light radius$-$the stellar mass fundamental plane$-$for quiescent galaxies at $z<0.6$. We measure the local relation from galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the intermediate redshift relation from $\sim500$ quiescent galaxies with stellar masses $10 \lesssim \mathrm{log}(M_\ast/M_\odot) \lesssim 11.5$. Nearly half of the quiescent galaxies in our intermediate redshift sample are compact. After accounting for important selection and systematic effects, the velocity dispersion distribution of galaxies at intermediate redshifts is similar to galaxies in the local universe. Galaxies at $z<0.6$ appear to be smaller ($\lesssim0.1$ dex) than galaxies in the local sample. The orientation of the stellar mass fundamental plane is independent of redshift for massive quiescent galaxies at $z<0.6$ and the zero-point evolves by $\sim 0.04$ dex. Compact quiescent galaxies fall on the same relation as the extended objects. We confirm that compact quiescent galaxies are the tail of the size and mass distribution of the normal quiescent galaxy population.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 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.

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.