Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T20:00:42.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How do Galaxies get their Baryons?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

Christopher J. Conselice*
Affiliation:
Centre for Astronomy and Particle Theory, Nottingham University Nottingham, UK email: conselice@nottingham.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Understanding how galaxies obtain baryons, their stars and gas, over cosmic time is traditionally approached in two different ways - theoretically and observationally. In general, observational approaches to galaxy formation include measuring basic galaxy properties, such as luminosities, stellar masses, rotation speeds, star formation rates and how these features evolve through time. Theoretically, cosmologically based models collate the physical effects driving galaxy assembly - mergers of galaxies, accretion of gas, star formation, and feedback, amongst others, to form predictions which are matched to galaxy observables. An alternative approach is to examine directly, in an observational way, the processes driving galaxy assembly, including the effects of feedback. This is a new ‘third way’ towards understanding how galaxies are forming from gas accretion and mergers, and directly probes these effects instead of relying on simulations designed to reproduce observations. This empirical approach towards understanding galaxy formation, including the acquisition history of baryons, displays some significant differences with the latest galaxy formation models, in addition to directly demonstrating the mechanisms by which galaxies form most of their baryonic mass.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2011

References

Bauer, A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, submittedGoogle Scholar
Bluck, A. F. L., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1174Google Scholar
Bluck, A. F. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 51LGoogle Scholar
Buitrago, F., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 61LCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertone, S. & Conselice, C. J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 2345Google Scholar
Conselice, C. J. 2003, ApJS, 147, 1Google Scholar
Conselice, C. J., Bershady, M. A., Dickinson, M., & Papovich, C. 2003, AJ, 126, 1183Google Scholar
Conselice, C. J. 2006, ApJ, 638, 686Google Scholar
Conselice, C. J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 962Google Scholar
Conselice, C. J., Rajgor, S., & Myers, R. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 909Google Scholar
Conselice, C. J., Yang, C., & Bluck, A. F. L. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1956Google Scholar
Conselice, C. J., et al. 2010, arXiv:1010.1164Google Scholar
Daddi, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 118LGoogle Scholar
Daddi, E., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 156Google Scholar
Dekel, A., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451Google Scholar
Eggen, O., Lyden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A. 1962, ApJ, 136, 748Google Scholar
Erb, D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 107Google Scholar
Genzel, R., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 59Google Scholar
Guo, et al. , 2010, arXiv:1006.0106Google Scholar
Haring, N. & Rix, H. 2004, ApJ, 604, 89LGoogle Scholar
Lotz, J., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1137Google Scholar
Mortlock, A., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2011, arXiv:1101.2867Google Scholar