Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T21:09:21.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Synthetic nebular emission lines of simulated galaxies over cosmic time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2020

Michaela Hirschmann*
Affiliation:
DARK, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Lynbyvej 2, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark email: michaela.hirschmann@nbi.ku.dk
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.

This article presents an up-dated analysis of synthetic optical and UV emission lines of simulated galaxies over cosmic time. The strong emission lines are derived from self-consistently coupling novel spectral models accounting for nebular emission from young stars, AGN and Post-AGB stars to cosmological zoom-in as well as large-scale simulations. Investigating the evolution of optical line-ratios in the BPT diagrams, the simulations can successfully reproduce the observed trend of [OIII]/Hβ ratio increasing from low to high redshifts, due to evolving star formation rate and gas metallicity. Standard selection criteria in the BPT diagrams can appropriately distinguish the main ionising source(s) of galaxies at low redshifts, but they are less reliable for metal-poor galaxies, dominating the early Universe. To robustly classify the ionising radiation of such metal-poor galaxies, diagnostic diagrams based on luminosity ratios of UV lines are discussed. The novel interface between simulations and observations is potentially important for the interpretation of high-quality spectra of very distant galaxies to be gathered by next-generation telescopes, such as the James Webb Space Telescope.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
© International Astronomical Union 2020

References

Berg, , et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 12610.3847/0004-637X/827/2/126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, , et al. 2017, ApJ, 472, 2468Google Scholar
Feltre, , et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutkin, , et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschmann, , et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izotov, , et al. 1999, ApJ, 511, 63910.1086/306708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, , et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kewley, , et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 12110.1086/321545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kewley, & Ellison, 2008, ApJ, 681, 118310.1086/587500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiolino, , et al. 2008, A & A, 488, 463Google Scholar
Morisett, , et al. 2016, A & A, 594, A37Google Scholar
Nelson, , et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 62410.1136/heartjnl-2017-312672Google Scholar
Pillepich, , et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapley, , et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, , et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steidel, , et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, , et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 16410.3917/criti.836.0164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yabe, , et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3647Google Scholar