1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %===========================================================================
4: % NPH defined commands
5: \newcommand{\ii}{$i'$}
6: \newcommand{\zz}{$z'$}
7: \newcommand{\uu}{$U$}
8: \newcommand{\bb}{$B$}
9: \newcommand{\vv}{$V$}
10: \newcommand{\jj}{$J$}
11: \newcommand{\hh}{$H$}
12: \newcommand{\gw}{$G$}
13: \newcommand{\rw}{$R$}
14: \newcommand{\iw}{$I$}
15: \newcommand{\ts}{\thinspace}
16: \newcommand{\iz}{\ensuremath{(i'\!-\!z')}}
17: \newcommand{\gi}{\ensuremath{(g\!-\!i')}}
18: \newcommand{\zj}{\ensuremath{(z'-J)}}
19: \newcommand{\etal}{{et\thinspace al.}}
20: \newcommand{\cg}{c.\thinspace g.}
21: \newcommand{\Ang}{\AA\thinspace}
22: \newcommand{\SN}{$S/N$}
23: \newcommand{\Ho}{$H_{0}$}
24: \newcommand{\super}[1]{$^{#1}$}
25: \newcommand{\sub}[1]{$_{#1}$}
26: \newcommand{\tabref}[1]{Table~\ref{#1}}
27: \newcommand{\figref}[1]{Figure~\ref{#1}}
28: \newcommand{\secref}[1]{\S~\ref{#1}}
29:
30: %===========================================================================
31:
32: \begin{document}
33:
34: \title{Starburst Intensity Limit of Galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$}
35:
36: \shorttitle{Starburst Intensity Limit at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$}
37:
38: \author{N. P. Hathi\altaffilmark{1}, S. Malhotra\altaffilmark{1,2} and J. E. Rhoads\altaffilmark{1,2}}
39:
40: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1504, USA}
41:
42: \altaffiltext{2}{School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404, USA}
43:
44: \email{Nimish.Hathi@asu.edu}
45: \shortauthors{Hathi et al}
46:
47: %--------------------------------------------------
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50: The peak star formation intensity in starburst galaxies does not vary
51: significantly from the local universe to redshift $z\!\sim\!6$. We
52: arrive at this conclusion through new surface brightness measurements
53: of 47 starburst galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$, doubling the
54: redshift range for such observations. These galaxies are
55: spectroscopically confirmed in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF)
56: through the GRism ACS program for Extragalactic Science (GRAPES)
57: project. The starburst intensity limit for galaxies at
58: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ agree with those at $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!4$ and
59: $z\!\simeq\!0$ to within a factor of a few, after correcting for
60: cosmological surface brightness dimming and for dust. The most
61: natural interpretation of this constancy over cosmic time is that the
62: same physical mechanisms limit starburst intensity at all redshifts up
63: to $z\!\simeq\!6$ (be they galactic winds, gravitational instability,
64: or something else). We do see two trends with redshift: First, the UV
65: spectral slope ($\beta$) of galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ is bluer
66: than that of $z\!\simeq\!3$ galaxies, suggesting an increase in dust
67: content over time. Second, the galaxy sizes from $z\!\simeq\!3$ to
68: $z\!\simeq\!6$ scale approximately as the Hubble parameter
69: $H^{-1}(z)$. Thus, galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!6$ are high redshift
70: starbursts, much like their local analogs except for slightly bluer
71: colors, smaller physical sizes, and correspondingly lower overall
72: luminosities. If we now assume a constant maximum star formation
73: intensity, the differences in observed surface brightness between
74: $z\!\simeq\!0$ and $z\!\simeq\!6$ are consistent with standard
75: expanding cosmology and strongly inconsistent with tired light model.
76: %
77: \end{abstract}
78:
79: \keywords{galaxies: high redshift --- galaxies: starburst}
80:
81: %--------------------------------------------------
82:
83: \section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
84:
85: Star formation on galactic scales is a key ingredient in understanding
86: galaxy evolution. We cannot compare structure formation calculations
87: to observed galaxy populations without some model for how star
88: formation proceeds. Such models are based on detailed observations in
89: the nearby universe, combined with physically motivated scaling for
90: differing conditions elsewhere in the universe. To test the validity
91: of such scaling, it is valuable to directly measure the properties of
92: star formation events in the distant universe, and see how they
93: compare with their nearby counterparts.
94:
95: Starbursts are regions of intense massive star formation that can
96: dominate a galaxy's integrated spectrum. By comparing the properties
97: of starbursts over a wide range of redshifts, we can test whether the
98: most intense star formation events look the same throughout the
99: observable history of the universe. High redshift galaxies are
100: expected, on average, to be less massive and lower in metal abundance
101: than their present-day counterparts. Either effect could in principle
102: change the maximum intensity of star formation that such galaxies can
103: sustain.
104:
105: \citet{meur97} (hereafter M97) measured the effective surface
106: brightness, i.e., the average surface brightness within an aperture
107: that encompasses half of the total light, for various samples. They
108: conclude that the maximum effective surface brightness of starburst
109: galaxies is unchanged to better than an order of magnitude out to
110: redshifts $z\!\simeq\!3$. \citet{weed98} (hereafter W98) measured
111: observed surface brightness from the single brightest pixel and
112: concluded that high-redshift (2.2$\la\!z\!\la$3.5) starburst galaxies
113: have intrinsic ultra-violet (UV) surface brightnesses that are
114: typically 4 times higher than for low-redshift starburst galaxies.
115: Both M97 and W98 measured their surface brightness for
116: spectroscopically confirmed galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field
117: \citep[HDF;][]{will96}.
118:
119: We have measured the surface brightness of starburst regions at
120: $3\!\la\!z\!\la\!6$, using photometry from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field
121: (HUDF) images \citep{beck06} and redshifts from the GRism ACS Program
122: for Extragalactic Science (GRAPES) project \citep[PI S.
123: Malhotra;][]{pirz04}. We combine these with earlier published results
124: comparing $z\!\simeq\!3$ and $z\!\simeq\!0$ starbursts (M97, W98).
125: The starburst intensity limit of starburst regions at
126: $5\!\la\!z\!\la\!6$ sample is consistent with that at $z\!\simeq\!3$
127: and $z\!\simeq\!0$ to within the uncertainties, which are about a
128: factor of three. \emph {These high redshift star forming regions are
129: thus starbursts, with a star formation intensity similar to their
130: local counterparts despite any effects of differing metallicity
131: and/or galaxy size.} The starbursts should then be a set of
132: standard surface brightness objects, and can be used to apply Tolman's
133: test for expansion of the universe \citep{tolm30,tolm34} over an
134: unprecedented redshift range ($0\!<\!z\!\la\!6$). Our surface
135: brightness observations fully support standard expanding universe
136: models. This result is robust to even rather large systematic errors,
137: thanks to the wide redshift range spanned by the data.
138:
139: This paper is organized as follows: In \secref{data} we summarize the
140: HUDF and the GRAPES observations, and we present details of the sample
141: selection. In \secref{m97} we describe our data analysis to measure
142: the UV spectral slope and the effective surface brightness of
143: starburst galaxies following the method used by M97, in \secref{w98}
144: we apply the pixel based method of W98 to estimate the limiting
145: surface brightness for our galaxies, in \secref{results} we discuss
146: measurement biases that will affect our surface brightness
147: measurements, and our results of the starburst intensity limit, the
148: size evolution \& the change in the UV spectral slope. Finally, in
149: \secref{summary} we summarize our results.
150:
151: Throughout this paper we denote the \emph{HST}/ACS F435W, F606W, F775W
152: and F850LP filters as \bb, \vv, \ii, \zz, \emph{HST}/WFPC2 F814W as
153: \iw\ts and \emph{HST}/NIC3 F110W and F160W as \jj\ts and \hh-bands,
154: respectively. We assume a \emph{Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe}
155: (WMAP) cosmology of $\Omega_m$=0.24, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.76 and
156: \Ho=73~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$, in accord with the recent 3 year WMAP
157: estimates of \citet{sper07}. This implies an age for the Universe of
158: 13.7~Gyr. Magnitudes are given in the AB system \citep{oke83}.
159:
160: %--------------------------------------------------
161:
162: \section{Observational Data and Sample Selection}\label{data}
163:
164: The HUDF is a 400 orbit survey of a $3.4'\times3.4'$ field carried out
165: with the ACS in the \bb, \vv, \ii\ts and \zz\ts filters
166: \citep[see][for further details]{beck06}. We have carried out deep
167: unbiased slitless spectroscopy of this field with the ACS grism as
168: part of the GRAPES project, which was awarded 40 HST orbits during
169: Cycle 12 (ID 9793; PI S. Malhotra). The grism observations were
170: taken at four different orientations in order to minimize the spectra
171: contamination and overlapping from nearby sources. We have extracted
172: useful low resolution spectra ($R\simeq100$) from 5900\Ang to 9500\Ang
173: for many sources in the HUDF down to a limiting magnitude of $z'_{\rm
174: AB}\!\simeq$27.5 in the AB system. Details of the observations, data
175: reduction and final GRAPES catalog are described in a paper by
176: \citet{pirz04}.
177:
178: We identify high-redshift galaxies on the basis of their ACS grism
179: spectra. This identification was based on detecting the Lyman break
180: in the continuum or the Ly$\alpha$ emission for these sources. With
181: the ACS grism low-resolution spectra, we are able to determine the
182: redshifts to an accuracy of $\Delta z\!\approx$0.15 even for the
183: faintest detectable Lyman Break Galaxies (LBGs) ($z'_{\rm
184: AB}\!\simeq$27.5). Details of the selection process are described
185: in \citet{malh05}. There are 47 star-forming galaxies at
186: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ in the GRAPES/HUDF with confirmed spectroscopic
187: redshifts. These redshifts are sufficiently high that rest-frame flux
188: measurements are available for UV wavelengths comparable to those at
189: which M97 and W98 measured the surface brightness of starburst regions
190: at $z\!\lesssim\!3$. We used the following spectroscopically
191: confirmed samples for our analysis.
192: \begin{itemize}
193:
194: \item The $z\!\simeq\!3$ LBGs from the Hubble Deep Field
195: \citep[HDF,][]{giav96,stei96a,stei96b} were used to compare our
196: measurements with M97. This sample of 10 galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!3$
197: forms the subset of UV samples used by M97. We measured the UV
198: spectral slopes ($\beta$) using observed (\vv--\iw) and ($G$--$R$)
199: colors, and rest-frame UV fluxes were derived from the observed
200: $R$-band (combined \vv\ts and \iw\ts\ts light) magnitudes
201: \citep{giav96,stei96a,stei96b}.
202:
203: \item The $z\!\simeq\!4$ \bb-band dropout galaxies were selected from
204: the VLT redshift catalog of \citet{vanz06}. This sample is small (4
205: galaxies), but is useful for comparing $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!4$ and
206: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ galaxy samples. We used the observed (\ii--\zz)
207: color to estimate $\beta$, and rest-frame UV fluxes were derived from
208: the observed \zz-band magnitudes. The observed \ii- and \zz-band
209: magnitudes for $z\!\simeq\!4$ galaxies were obtained from the HUDF
210: catalogs of \citet{beck06}.
211:
212: \item We use a sample of 47 $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ starburst galaxies
213: having GRAPES redshifts (Malhotra et al. 2005; Rhoads et al. 2007, in
214: preparation) in the HUDF. \tabref{tab1} shows properties (coordinates,
215: magnitudes, sizes and redshifts) for these 47 galaxies. We further
216: selected a subset of 19 galaxies covered by the \citet{thom05} HUDF
217: NICMOS images. We estimate $\beta$ from the observed (\jj--\hh)
218: color. The rest-frame UV fluxes were derived from the observed \jj\ts
219: and \hh-band magnitudes for 19 galaxies, while the average $\beta$ is
220: used to predict \jj\ts and \hh-band magnitudes for the remaining 28
221: galaxies.
222: \end{itemize}
223: %--------------------------------------------------
224:
225: \section{Starburst Intensity Limit Using M97 Approach}\label{m97}
226:
227: %--------------------------------------------------
228:
229: \subsection{Magnitudes and Color Measurements}\label{mags}
230:
231: All measurements for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ were done on the
232: HST ACS HUDF images \citep{beck06} and HST NICMOS images
233: \citep{thom05}. The HST NICMOS images were reprocessed by L. Eddie
234: Bergeron (private communication). The HST NICMOS images cover
235: $\sim$50\% of the HUDF ACS field. Therefore, only half of our galaxies
236: have \jj- and \hh-band imaging. We need \jj\ts and \hh\ts magnitudes
237: for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ to measure the UV spectral slopes
238: and luminosities at $\sim$2200\Ang\ rest-frame. We use rest-frame
239: $\sim$2200\Ang\ts to measure the effective surface brightness for
240: consistency with M97. All broad-band magnitudes are measured as
241: \texttt{SExtractor} \citep{bert96} \texttt{MAG\_AUTO} magnitudes,
242: using dual-image mode to generate aperture matched catalogs. We use
243: the \zz-band image as the detection image. \texttt{MAG\_AUTO}
244: apertures are Kron-like \citep{kron80} flexible apertures and they
245: enclose most of the flux for an object. These apertures are same in
246: all filters for a given object. We also measured \texttt{SExtractor}
247: \citet{petr76} magnitudes (\texttt{MAG\_PETRO}), with $\eta$=0.2
248: \citep{holw05}, and isophotal magnitudes (\texttt{MAG\_ISO}). We find
249: that the average difference between \texttt{MAG\_AUTO} and
250: \texttt{MAG\_PETRO} is $\sim$0.1 mag, while the average difference
251: between \texttt{MAG\_AUTO} and \texttt{MAG\_ISO} is $\sim$0.2 mag.
252: The effect of this magnitude uncertainty on the surface brightness
253: measurements is very small ($<$0.1 dex). Our method to measure
254: magnitudes is the same for all galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$, and
255: is consistent with the curve-of-growth method used for our comparison
256: sample of $z\!\simeq\!3$ galaxies \citep{giav96,stei96a,stei96b}. We
257: use \texttt{MAG\_AUTO} magnitudes to calculate the UV spectral slope
258: ($\beta$) and the effective surface brightness.
259:
260: \subsection{The UV Spectral Slope (\boldmath{$\beta$})}\label{beta}
261:
262: The UV spectral slope ($\beta$) is determined from a power-law fit to
263: the UV continuum spectrum \citep{calz94},
264: \[
265: f_{\lambda} \varpropto \lambda^{\beta} ~~,
266: \]
267: where $f_{\lambda}$ is the flux density per unit wavelength (ergs
268: s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ \Ang$^{-1}$). Converting this into magnitude units
269: yields a linear relationship between $\beta$ and colors.
270: \figref{fig1} shows the average values of the UV spectral slopes,
271: $\beta$, for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!4$ and
272: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$. The mean values are plotted with error bars
273: indicating the standard deviation of the mean (i.e. the sample
274: standard deviation ($\sigma$) divided by the square root of the sample
275: size ($N$)). The UV slopes for 10 galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!3$ are
276: obtained using the following two equations (M97) for two slightly
277: different samples:
278: \[
279: \beta = 2.55 \cdot (G - R) - 2 \; \; {\rm and} \; \; \beta = 3.23 \cdot (V - I) - 2 ~~.
280: \]
281: Here $G$ and $R$ filters are defined in \citet{stei93}. We also plot
282: the average $\beta$ measured for 4 galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4$, using:
283: \[
284: \beta = 5.65 \cdot (i' - z') - 2
285: \]
286: where we have used pivot wavelengths for \ii- and \zz-band,
287: $\lambda_i$=7693\Ang and $\lambda_{z'}$=9055\Ang, respectively, to
288: obtain the slope of 5.65 in $\beta$--color linear relationship.
289: \figref{fig1} also shows the average $\beta$ for 19 galaxies at
290: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ obtained using
291: \[
292: \beta = 2.56 \cdot (J - H) - 2
293: \]
294: where we have used pivot wavelengths for \jj- and \hh-band,
295: $\lambda_J$=11200\Ang\ts and $\lambda_H$=16040\Ang, respectively, to
296: obtain the slope of 2.56 in $\beta$--color linear relationship. We do
297: not use (\zz--\jj) color to estimate $\beta$ for galaxies at
298: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ because, the (\zz--\jj) colors can be insensitive
299: to rest-frame UV colors due to the shorter color baseline and are also
300: more sensitive to uncertainties in the optical to infrared zero points
301: \citep{bouw06}. Therefore for comparison, we also measured $\beta$
302: for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5$ using (\ii--\zz) colors and found that
303: the average $\beta$ is --1.53$\pm$0.38 compared to --1.65$\pm$0.21,
304: the average $\beta$ at $z\!\simeq\!5$ using (\jj--\hh) colors. This
305: comparison implies that small variations in the UV rest-frame
306: wavelength and observed colors does not affect the slope within the
307: quoted uncertainties.
308:
309: \figref{fig1} shows that the average $\beta$ decreases from
310: --1.13$\pm$0.17 at $z\!\simeq\!3$ to --1.74$\pm$0.35 at
311: $z\!\simeq\!6$. The change in the average slope shows that the
312: galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ are bluer than those at
313: $z\!\simeq\!3$, but redder than the flat slope in $f_\nu$
314: ($f_{\lambda} \propto \lambda^{-2}$), that would be expected for a
315: dust-free starburst galaxy.
316:
317: %--------------------------------------------------
318:
319: \subsection{Half-Light Radius (\boldmath{$r_e$}) Measurements}
320:
321: The half-light radius is defined as the radius containing 50\% of the
322: total flux of an object. The half-light radii for galaxies at
323: $z\!\simeq\!3$ are derived by \citet{giav96} \& \citet{stei96b} and
324: are measured such that half of the total emission from the starburst
325: is enclosed within a circular aperture. We used the
326: \texttt{SExtractor} half-light radii (R50, radii enclosing 50\% of the
327: flux within a circular aperture) obtained from the HUDF \zz-band
328: catalog \citep{beck06} for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$. All
329: radii are converted from arcsecs to kpc using a WMAP cosmology in the
330: cosmological calculator by \citet{wrig06}. The half-light radii for
331: galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ are measured at rest-frame UV
332: wavelengths $\lambda$=1500$\pm$300\Ang. The sizes do not change
333: appreciably when measured within this wavelength range. \figref{fig2}
334: shows the average values of the half-light radii for 10 starburst
335: galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!3$, 4 starburst galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4$,
336: and 47 starburst galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$. Mean half-light
337: radii are plotted with error bars indicating the standard deviation of
338: the mean. The solid and dashed curves show the trend if sizes evolve
339: as $H^{-1}(z)$ or $H^{-2/3}(z)$, respectively, where $H(z)$ is the
340: Hubble parameter at redshift $z$. The curves are normalized to the
341: mean size we measure at $z\!\simeq\!4$ ($\sim$0.21\arcsec\ts or
342: $\sim$1.5 kpc). Comparison between galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!3$ and
343: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ shows that the galaxy sizes increase as we go
344: from $z\!\simeq\!6$ to $z\!\simeq\!3$.
345:
346: We independently measured various flavors of \texttt{SExtractor} radii
347: (half-light, \citet{petr76}, Kron) for galaxies at
348: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ to assess the differences in these measurements.
349: The Petrosian radius is defined as the radius at which the surface
350: brightness is certain factor ($\eta$) of the average surface
351: brightness within this isophote, while the Kron radius is defined as
352: the typical size of the flexible aperture computed from the moments
353: \citep[see \texttt{SExtractor} manual by][for further
354: details]{holw05}. The difference in the average values of the
355: half-light and the other two radii was approximately
356: $\pm$0.04\arcsec. Therefore, we expect about 30\% uncertainty in the
357: measurements of the half-light radii for galaxies at
358: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$.
359:
360: %--------------------------------------------------
361:
362: \subsection{Calculation of Surface Brightness for Starburst Galaxies}\label{calculations}
363:
364: We measure the effective surface brightness for 14 starburst galaxies
365: at $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!4$ and 47 starburst galaxies at
366: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ by adopting the method used by M97. First, we
367: need to estimate dust extinction A$_{\rm 1600}$ and $k$-corrections
368: from the UV spectral slope ($\beta$). Dust extinction is estimated
369: using the linear empirical relation between A$_{\rm 1600}$ and $\beta$
370: \citep{meur99}, which is given by following equation:
371: \[
372: {\rm A}_{\rm 1600}=4.43+1.99 \cdot (\beta)
373: \]
374: where A$_{\rm 1600}$ is the net absorption in magnitudes by dust at
375: 1600\Ang.
376:
377: The next step in correcting apparent flux for corresponding rest-frame
378: UV flux is to apply, where appropriate, the $k$-correction. We use
379: following equation to estimate $k$-correction (M97):
380: \[
381: k = \frac{f_{\rm 2320}}{f_{\lambda_c/1+z}} = \left [\frac{(1+z) \cdot 2320 {\rm \Ang}}{\lambda_c} \right ]^\beta
382: \]
383: where $\lambda_c$ corresponds to the central wavelength of the filters
384: used for the observed flux. Here we reference all observations to the
385: observations in M97, which has UV central wavelength of 2320\Ang. We
386: apply above mentioned dust and $k$-corrections to apparent magnitudes
387: to estimate absolute magnitudes and intrinsic UV luminosities for our
388: samples of $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!6$ galaxies. The ratio of intrinsic UV
389: to bolometric luminosity can be calculated for young starbursts. By
390: using the stellar population models of \citet{bruz03} to convert from
391: intrinsic F220W flux/luminosity to bolometric luminosity, we find that
392: the ratio of the UV to bolometric luminosity changes due to variations
393: in the metallicity and the dust attenuation. The luminosity ratio
394: spans a range from $\sim$0.2 to $\sim$0.5. The adopted ratio of the
395: intrinsic UV to bolometric luminosity is:
396: \[
397: \frac{L}{L_{\rm bol}} \simeq 0.33
398: \]
399: We are using this value for the UV to bolometric luminosity ratio for
400: two reasons: (1) this bolometric correction is very close to the
401: average value we get from our stellar population models and (2) this
402: correction factor is also predicted by the models used by M97.
403:
404: From $L_{\rm bol}$ and the half-light radii ($r_e$), we calculate
405: effective surface brightness (S$_{e}$) using following relation:
406: \[
407: {\rm S}_e = \frac{L_{\rm bol}}{2 \pi r_e^2} \; \; \; \left (\frac{L_{\sun}}{{\rm kpc}^2} \right ) ~~.
408: \]
409: Here $r_e$ is measured in kpc and $L_{\rm bol}$ in solar luminosities
410: ($L_{\sun}$).
411:
412: To characterize the S$_{e}$ distribution for all galaxies in our
413: sample we consider the median and 90$^{th}$ percentiles, which we
414: denote as S$_{e,\rm 50}$ and S$_{e,\rm 90}$, respectively. The upper
415: limit to the surface brightness (starburst intensity limit) of
416: starbursts is traced by S$_{e,\rm 90}$. Here we have used average
417: $\beta$ (from \figref{fig1}) for each sample to estimate the surface
418: brightness. \figref{fig3} shows $L_{\rm bol}$ and S$_e$ as a function
419: of $r_e$ for the $z\!\simeq\!0\!-\!6$ galaxy samples. The
420: $z\!\simeq\!0$ and $z\!\simeq\!0.4$ surface brightness measurements
421: are taken from M97. The $z\!\simeq\!0$ data point is the median
422: measurement for 11 nearby galaxies. The S$_{e,\rm 50}$ and S$_{e,\rm
423: 90}$ surface brightness levels of the combined sample are plotted as
424: dashed and dotted lines respectively.
425:
426: The top panel of the \figref{fig3} shows that the bolometric
427: luminosities for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ are smaller than the
428: luminosities of galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!3$. Using a two-sided K-S
429: test on these luminosity distributions, we reject the hypothesis that
430: the $z\!\simeq\!3$ and $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ luminosities are drawn
431: from the same population at $>$99\% probability. From the bottom
432: panel of \figref{fig3}, it is apparent that S$_e$ shows little or no
433: dependence on $r_e$ over about one order of magnitude in size; hence
434: there is no dependence on $L_{\rm bol}$ over about two orders of
435: magnitude in luminosity. \figref{fig4} shows the effective surface
436: brightness (S$_{e}$) as a function of redshift. The $z\!\simeq\!0$
437: and $z\!\simeq\!0.4$ surface brightness measurements are taken from
438: M97. From \figref{fig3} and \figref{fig4}, we find that S$_{e,\rm
439: 90}$ of the starbursts remains constant (within uncertainties) with
440: redshift.
441:
442: %--------------------------------------------------
443:
444: \section{Starburst Intensity Limit Using W98 Approach}\label{w98}
445:
446: We also studied the surface brightnesses using the brightest pixel
447: approach pioneered by \citet{weed98}. \citet{weed98} measures observed
448: surface brightness of the brightest pixel for galaxies at
449: $2.2\!\la\!z\!\la\!3.5$ in the HDF and compared with the local
450: starbursts by fading their observed ($f_\lambda$) surface brightness
451: by (1+$z$)$^{-5}$. We use this approach to compare surface
452: brightnesses of the brightest pixel for galaxies at $z\simeq\!3\!-\!6$.
453:
454: A postage stamp (51$\times$51 pixels) for each galaxy at
455: $z\simeq5\!-\!6$ was excised from the \zz-band HUDF image. Using
456: \zz-band segmentation maps, only object pixels were selected. For
457: each object pixel in the postage stamp, we estimate the apparent
458: magnitude. For the brightest pixel in each galaxy, the average UV
459: spectral slope $\beta$ was used to predict \jj-band (for galaxies at
460: $z\!\simeq\!5$) and \hh-band (for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!6$)
461: magnitudes from \zz-band apparent magnitudes. Using similar approach
462: as discussed in \secref{calculations}, we calculated the intrinsic UV
463: luminosity ($L_{\sun}^{\rm UV}$) for the brightest pixel in each
464: galaxy at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$. For surface brightness measurements,
465: we divide the intrinsic UV luminosity by the area of one pixel in
466: kpc$^2$.
467:
468: \figref{fig5} shows surface brightness ($L_{\sun}^{\rm
469: UV}$~kpc$^{-2}$) for the brightest pixel in each of the 47 galaxies at
470: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ and 4 galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4$. We have also
471: plotted 18 galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!3$ from W98. The W98 galaxies has
472: observed surface brightnesses for the brightest pixels and hence, for
473: proper comparison, we converted observed surface brightnesses for W98
474: galaxies to their corresponding rest-frame surface brightnesses. Here
475: we have used average $\beta$ for $z\!\simeq\!3$ galaxies as shown in
476: \figref{fig1}, to estimate extinction and $k$-correction. The median
477: (S$_{bp,\rm 50}$) and 90$^{th}$ percentile (S$_{bp,\rm 90}$) surface
478: brightness levels of the combined sample are plotted as dashed and
479: dotted lines, respectively. Here, the starburst intensity limit of
480: starbursts is traced by S$_{bp,\rm 90}$. The S$_{bp,\rm 90}$ of
481: galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!3$ and $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ is same to within
482: a factor of $\sim$0.10 dex.
483:
484: We cannot properly compare the brightest pixel surface brightnesses
485: between the W98 sample at $z\!\simeq\!0$ and galaxies at
486: $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!6$ for two reasons. First, the aperture sizes for
487: W98 galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!0$ are larger than the physical sizes
488: corresponding to one pixel at $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!6$, and the sizes for
489: W98 galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!0$ are also larger than the effective
490: radii measured by \citet{meur95} for some of these local galaxies.
491: Second, the discrepancy between the W98 adopted UV spectral slope
492: ($\beta$) and $\beta$ from \citet{meur95} is large for some of these
493: galaxies, which affects the applied extinction for their luminosity
494: measurements.
495:
496: The effective surface brightness approach of M97 (\secref{m97}) and
497: the brightest pixel approach of W98 suggests that the starburst
498: intensity limit, as defined by S$_{e,\rm 90}$ or S$_{bp,\rm 90}$, of
499: the starbursts is unchanged (within uncertainties) from
500: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ down to $z\!\simeq\!3$.
501:
502: %--------------------------------------------------
503:
504: \section{Results and Discussion}\label{results}
505:
506: \subsection{Selection and Measurement Effects}\label{bias}
507:
508: \emph{Different radii-measurements.} --- The results shown in Figures
509: 2 and 4 use \texttt{SExtractor} half-light radii derived by
510: \citet{beck06}. Here we discuss the uncertainty in the surface
511: brightness measurements due to radii measurements. We use three
512: different flavors of radii measured using \texttt{SExtractor}. We
513: measured the half-light radii, the \citet{petr76} radii and the Kron
514: radii for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$. We found that the average
515: difference between the half-light radius and other two radii was
516: approximately $\pm$0.04\arcsec. This difference does not affect our
517: conclusion that $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ galaxies are smaller compared to
518: $z\!\simeq\!3$ galaxies. As shown in \figref{fig2}, the average value
519: of the half-light radii for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ is
520: 0.14\arcsec\ts compared to 0.32\arcsec\ts which is the average value
521: for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!3$. The uncertainty in three different
522: radii measurements is $\pm$0.04\arcsec. Therefore for a given
523: luminosity, we expect that this difference in radii measurement will
524: cause $\sim$0.2 dex difference in S$_{e,\rm 90}$ estimate.
525:
526: \emph{Surface brightness selection.} --- The limiting surface
527: brightness in the HUDF samples is S$_{e} \sim$ 5.0 x 10$^{9}$
528: $L_{\sun}$ kpc$^{-2}$ at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$, which is much fainter
529: than the observed maximum surface brightness (S$_{e,\rm 90} \simeq 2.3
530: {\rm \; x \;} 10^{11}$ $L_{\sun}$ kpc$^{-2}$) for all galaxies. At
531: low surface brightness limit our sample could be incomplete but at the
532: maximum surface brightness level our sample is complete.
533:
534: \emph{Size selection effect.} --- The $z\!\simeq\!3$ galaxies are
535: spectroscopically confirmed by Keck observations. The limiting
536: magnitude for Keck spectroscopy is $R \lesssim 25.3$ \citep{stei96b}.
537: Using S$_{e,\rm 90}$ and the limiting magnitude, we estimate the
538: minimum observable size for this sample as $\sim$700 pc or
539: $\sim$0.1\arcsec. Therefore, this sample of galaxies at
540: $z\!\simeq\!3$ is not biased against smaller sizes.
541:
542: \emph{Flux uncertainty.} --- Here we discuss three possible sources
543: of uncertainties in the magnitudes (for a given size) that will affect
544: our surface brightness measurements. They are as follows: (1) The
545: average \texttt{SExtractor} uncertainties in $J$, $H$ magnitudes are
546: $\sim$0.2 mag. The largest magnitude uncertainties in the sample
547: range up to $\sim$0.5 mag for three objects. Even this worst case
548: magnitude uncertainty affects S$_{e,\rm 90}$ by only $\sim$0.2 dex.
549: The uncertainty in S$_{e,\rm 90}$ due to the average difference
550: between various magnitudes (\texttt{MAG\_AUTO}, \texttt{MAG\_PETRO}
551: and \texttt{MAG\_ISO}) is very small ($<$0.1 dex) and hence the
552: magnitude uncertainty dominates the uncertainty in S$_{e,\rm 90}$.
553: (2) The ratio of the UV to bolometric luminosity for starburst
554: galaxies is based on the stellar population models. We find that this
555: ratio is affected by the change in metallicity or dust extinction in
556: the stellar population models. The uncertainty in this ratio can be as
557: large as a factor of $\sim$2.0. This uncertainty in the bolometric
558: correction will change S$_{e,\rm 90}$ estimate by $\sim$0.3 dex but
559: this is systematic uncertainty and will affect all starburst galaxies.
560: (3) We have used linear fit to the observed relation between the
561: F$_{\rm FIR}$/F$_{\rm 1600}$ and the UV spectral slope ($\beta$) to
562: estimate A$_{\rm 1600}$ \citep[Fig.1 in][]{meur99}. The scatter in
563: this plot can cause an uncertainty in A$_{\rm 1600}$ of $\sim$0.4 mag.
564: This uncertainty in A$_{\rm 1600}$ will change S$_{e,\rm 90}$ estimate
565: by $\sim$0.2 dex. This uncertainty will systematically affect all
566: galaxies in this study.
567:
568: Therefore, if these logarithmic uncertainties add in quadrature, we
569: would expect the total uncertainty in S$_{e,\rm 90}$ to be $\sim$0.5
570: dex.
571:
572: \subsection{The Starburst Intensity Limit}
573:
574: We measure the effective surface brightness (S$_e$) and the brightest
575: pixel surface brightness (S$_{bp}$) of the \emph{spectroscopically}
576: confirmed galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ in the HUDF and compare
577: with the spectroscopically confirmed galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!3$ in the
578: HDF. We conclude that to better than a factor of 3, the starburst
579: intensity limit of starbursts at $z\!\simeq\!3$ and
580: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ are the same. Using the K-S test on these
581: distributions, the resulting probabilities ($\gtrsim$20\%) support the
582: hypothesis that these distributions are drawn from the same
583: population. By combining the samples at $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!4$ and
584: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$, we find a mean S$_{e,\rm 90} \simeq 2.3 {\rm \;
585: x \;} 10^{11}$ $L_{\sun}$ kpc$^{-2}$ (with a factor of 3 or
586: $\sim$0.5 dex uncertainty). We quantify the scatter in the S$_e$ and
587: S$_{bp}$ distributions (Figure 5 and 6) by measuring standard
588: deviation ($\sigma$) from a Gaussian fit to these distributions. We
589: find that the scatter in the S$_e$ distribution
590: ($\sigma_{log(S_e)}\!\simeq\!0.37$) is higher than the scatter in the
591: S$_{bp}$ distribution
592: ($\sigma_{log(S_{bp})}\!\simeq\!0.27$). Therefore, the brightest pixel
593: method could be very useful in estimating the starburst intensity
594: limit of starburst galaxies.
595:
596: The approximate constancy of peak starburst intensity can be
597: interpreted as the evidence that the interstellar medium (ISM) can
598: only support some maximum pressure. \citet{heck90} used [S II]
599: emission line ratios to determine the ISM pressure (P$_0$) for a
600: sample of galaxies (mostly starbursts) undergoing a strong galactic
601: wind. The star formation intensity required to produce P$_0$ is
602: S$_{e} \simeq 1.7 {\rm \; x \;} 10^{11}$ $L_{\sun}$ kpc$^{-2}$ (M97).
603: This value agrees closely with our S$_{e,\rm 90}$ but derived using
604: different method. The physical process can be explained by assuming
605: that the ISM pressure provides a ``thermostat'' for star formation,
606: such that strong outflows will result whenever the pressure rises
607: above P$_0$ and shut down further star formation for a time. This
608: results in a characteristic peak starburst intensity. We convert
609: S$_{e,\rm 90}$ to an equivalent star formation intensity ($M_{\sun} \;
610: {\rm yr}^{-1} \; {\rm kpc}^{-2}$) by using conversion factors between
611: UV luminosity and star formation rate from \citet{kenn98} and M97. We
612: get star formation intensity in the range of 30--50 $M_{\sun} \; {\rm
613: yr}^{-1} \; {\rm kpc}^{-2}$ depending on the conversion factor.
614: %
615: This peak intensity is physically distinct from the minimum intensity
616: required to produce a galactic wind, which is orders of magnitude
617: lower, at $\sim 0.1 \; M_{\sun} \; {\rm yr}^{-1} \; {\rm kpc}^{-2}$
618: \citep{lehn96,heck01}. Thus, {\em every} galaxy in our sample is
619: expected to have a wind, as \citet{lehn07} remark for a similar sample
620: of $z\ga 3$ Lyman break galaxies. However, only in galaxies near the
621: starburst intensity limit does the ``thermostat'' become active.
622:
623: While the peak starburst intensity stays constant with redshift, the
624: dust optical depth that we infer from the observed spectral slope
625: $\beta$ decreases systematically with redshift. This suggests that
626: the star formation intensity limit does not depend on dust content, at
627: least over the range of dust optical depths $\tau_{dust} \ga 1$ probed
628: by our sample. At yet higher redshifts we might expect that
629: $\tau_{dust} < 1$, and that the starburst radiation field would no
630: longer couple efficiently to the interstellar medium. Whether this
631: would substantially change the starburst intensity limit would depend
632: on the fraction of starburst wind driving that is due to radiation
633: pressure rather than stellar winds and mechanical energy from
634: supernova explosions.
635:
636: The constancy of maximum star-formation surface intensity with
637: redshift provides a basis for a strong test of the expanding Universe.
638: Standard cosmologies predict that the bolometric surface brightness
639: should vary with redshift as $(1+z)^{-4}$. Our results (using
640: standard cosmology) combined with M97 results at low redshifts show
641: that the maximum star formation intensity remains constant (within
642: uncertainties) from $z\!\simeq\!0$ to $z\!\simeq\!6$. This conclusion
643: depends critically on the use of a standard cosmology to go from
644: observed flux and radius to inferred star formation intensity. Thus,
645: if the peak star formation rate per unit area is controlled by some
646: physical limit that is based on local, redshift-independent physics,
647: our observations essentially require standard surface brightness
648: dimming. While other evolutionary effects could become important, we
649: have minimized these by measuring surface brightnesses at nearly fixed
650: rest wavelength. Had we instead taken a ``tired light'' model, where
651: bolometric surface brightness falls of as $(1+z)^{-1}$, our
652: observations would require the true star formation intensity to be
dramatically lower at high redshift--- by a factor of order $(1+z)^3
653: \sim 7^3 \sim 300$. This factor greatly exceeds the estimated
654: uncertainties in our analysis. Hence, the wide redshift range of our
655: sample yields a strong application of Tolman's \citep{tolm30,tolm34}
656: test, and we derive strong evidence in favor of the expanding Universe
657: and against any alternative ``tired light'' models.
658: %We don't expect that any
659: %improvement in our analysis would bring this factor into line with
660: %unity. Thus, if there is a characteristic maximum star formation
661: %intensity, our observations do allow a strong application of the
662: %Tolman test \citep{tolm30,tolm34}.
663:
664: \subsection{Size and Luminosity Evolution}
665:
666: An average galaxy at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ in our sample has half-light
667: radii of $\sim$0.8 kpc or $\sim$0.14\arcsec, as shown in
668: \figref{fig2}, which is in good agreement with a number of recent
669: studies \citep{bouw04,bouw06,pirz07,dow07}. \citet{ferg04} compares
670: sizes of galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!1$--$5$ within a fixed luminosity
671: range. Our results agree with \cite{ferg04} for $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!4$.
672: The UV intrinsic luminosities for our sample of galaxies are brighter
673: or equal to $L^{*}$ (i.e. $L\!\gtrsim\!L^{*}$) at respective redshifts
674: but we do not require any particular minimum luminosity, while
675: \citet{ferg04} do require a minimum luminosity. Given that surface
676: brightness is near-constant, a minimum luminosity immediately implies
677: some minimum radius for inclusion in the \citet{ferg04} sample.
678: \figref{fig2} also shows comparison of our size measurements with the
679: \citet{ferg04} and the \citet{bouw06} results. The solid and dashed
680: curves in the \figref{fig2} show the trend if sizes evolve as
681: $H^{-1}(z)$ or $H^{-2/3}(z)$, respectively, where $H(z)$ is the Hubble
682: parameter at redshift $z$. The curves are normalized to the mean size
683: we measure at $z\!\simeq\!4$ ($\sim$0.21\arcsec\ts or $\sim$1.5 kpc).
684: The galaxy sizes from $z\!\simeq\!3$ to $z\!\simeq\!6$ scale
685: approximately as the Hubble parameter $H^{-1}(z)$, though it is
686: difficult to conclude with certainty how sizes scale from the
687: measurements of high redshift ($z\!\gtrsim\!3$) galaxies only, because
688: two trends diverge significantly at lower redshifts ($z\!<\!3$).
689:
690: We also find that the bolometric or intrinsic UV luminosity for
691: galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ is lower than for galaxies at
692: $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!4$. The galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ are
693: smaller compared to $z\!\simeq\!3$ galaxies, while the surface
694: brightness as measured in \secref{calculations} remains approximately
695: constant. Therefore, the luminosity evolution could be due to the
696: constant upper limit on the surface brightness as a function of
697: redshift.
698:
699: \subsection{Evolution in UV Spectral Slope \boldmath{($\beta$)}}\label{betainfo}
700:
701: Our $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!6$ sample also allows us to place constraints on
702: the rest-frame UV slope. We obtained these constraints by measuring
703: rest-frame UV colors of $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!4$ and $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$
704: galaxies as shown in \figref{fig1}. A comparison of our measured
705: colors with those obtained in two previous studies
706: \citep{stan05,bouw06} show agreement within our 1$\sigma$
707: uncertainties. The mean $\beta$ inferred from this study for
708: $z\!\simeq\!6$ galaxies is $\beta$=--1.74$\pm$0.35, which is redder
709: than the $\beta$=--2.0$\pm$0.3 inferred in the \citet{bouw06} or the
710: $\beta$=--2.2$\pm$0.2 inferred in the \citet{stan05}. We also find
711: that the mean $\beta$ value for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ is
712: bluer than the $\beta$=--1.1$\pm$0.2 we measure at $z\!\simeq\!3$ or
713: the $\beta$=--1.5$\pm$0.4 observed by the \citet{adel00}.
714: Irrespective of the exact $\beta$, the mean rest-frame UV slope
715: observed at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ is bluer than that observed at
716: $z\!\simeq\!3$. This evolution is consistent with number of recent
717: studies \citep{stan05, yan05,bouw06}.
718:
719: To understand the evolution in the $\beta$, we use the
720: \texttt{STARBURST99} stellar synthesis code \emph{version 5.1}
721: \citep{leit99,vazq05} to investigate the variations in $\beta$ as
722: function of IMF, metallicity and the star formation history. We
723: assume two different metallicities ($Z$ = 0.004 and 0.02), two
724: different star formation histories (constant and instantaneous) and
725: two different versions of the \citet{salp55} IMFs ($\alpha$=2.35 with
726: M$_{up}$=100 M$_{\odot}$ and $\alpha$=2.35 with M$_{up}$=30
727: M$_{\odot}$). We measure $\beta$ for various models by fitting a
728: first-order polynomial to the UV spectra through the wavelength
729: interval 1250--1850\Ang. We find that the changes in metallicity and
730: the IMF have much smaller effect on the rest-frame UV slope for young
731: ($\lesssim$20 Myr) starbursts. Our results agree with the
732: \citet{leit99} models showing that the UV spectral slopes are
733: independent of evolution and IMF effects. \citet{leit99} shows that
734: for young starbursts, the UV spectral slope ($\beta$) at 2500\Ang\ts
735: also does not change very much as a function of model parameters ($Z$
736: and IMF). Therefore the observed evolution in $\beta$ from
737: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ to $z\!\simeq\!3$ is more likely due to the
738: change in the dust content.
739:
740: %--------------------------------------------------
741: \section{Summary}\label{summary}
742:
743: We have measured the starburst intensity limit for
744: \emph{spectroscopically confirmed} galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$
745: from ACS grism survey GRAPES in the HUDF. We find that there is
746: little variation in the surface brightness from $z\!\simeq\!3$ to
747: $z\!\simeq\!6$ and the starburst intensity limit is within a factor of
748: 3 when compared with the sample of $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!4$ galaxies. The
749: constancy of starburst intensity limit for starburst galaxies at
750: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ combined with the results obtained by M97 for
751: starbursts at $z\!\lesssim\!3$ implies that the physical processes
752: limiting starburst intensity at lower redshifts also apply to these
753: high redshift galaxies. We find that the high redshift starbursts
754: have a smaller characteristic linear size than their local
755: counterparts, and a correspondingly lower luminosity (since their
756: surface brightnesses are similar, and their sizes smaller). We
757: observe the galaxy size evolution from $z\!\simeq\!3$ to
758: $z\!\simeq\!6$ and find that the sizes scale approximately as the
759: Hubble parameter $H^{-1}(z)$. Finally, using rest-frame UV colors we
760: conclude that the evolution in the UV spectral slope from
761: $z\!\simeq\!3$ to $z\!\simeq\!6$ reinforces the dust evolution which
762: leads to bluer galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ compared to galaxies
763: at $z\!\simeq\!3$. This implies that starbursts were less obscured
764: when the universe was younger and had lower heavy element abundances.
765: Any future search for galaxies at higher redshifts \citep[e.g.\emph{
766: James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)};][]{wind07} needs to take into
767: account the size evolution \& constancy of surface brightness;
768: therefore the decrease in characteristic luminosity with redshift.
769:
770:
771: %--------------------------------------------------
772:
773: \acknowledgments
774: We would like to thank Rogier Windhorst, Rolf Jansen and Seth Cohen
775: for providing useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. This
776: work was supported by grants GO 9793 and GO 10530 from the Space
777: Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA under NASA
778: contract NAS5-26555. We also thank the anonymous referee for helpful
779: suggestions that improved the paper.
780:
781: %Facilities: \facility{HST(ACS)}
782: %--------------------------------------------------
783: %\pagebreak
784:
785: \begin{thebibliography}{}
786: \bibitem[Adelberger \& Steidel(2000)]{adel00} Adelberger, K. L., \&
787: Steidel, C. C. 2000, ApJ, 544, 218
788: \bibitem[Beckwith \etal(2006)]{beck06} Beckwith, S., et al. 2006, AJ,
789: 132, 1729
790: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{bert96} Bertin, E., \& Arnouts,
791: S. 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393
792: \bibitem[Bouwens \etal(2004)]{bouw04} Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth,
793: G. D., Blakeslee, J. P., Broadhurst, T. J., \& Franx, M. 2004, ApJ,
794: 611, 1
795: \bibitem[Bouwens \etal(2006)]{bouw06} Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth,
796: G. D., Blakeslee, J. P., \& Franx, M. 2006, ApJ, 653, 53
797: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bruz03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot,
798: S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
799: \bibitem[Calzetti \etal(1994)]{calz94} Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., \&
800: Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582
801: \bibitem[Dow-Hygelund \etal(2007)]{dow07} Dow-Hygelund, C. C., et
802: al. 2007, ApJ, 660, 47
803: \bibitem[Eyles \etal(2005)]{eyle05} Eyles, L. P., Bunker, A. J.,
804: Stanway, E. R., Lacy, M., Ellis R. S., \& Doherty, M. 2005, MNRAS,
805: 364, 443
806: \bibitem[Ferguson \etal(2004)]{ferg04} Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2004,
807: ApJ, 600, L107
808: \bibitem[Giavalisco \etal(1996)]{giav96} Giavalisco, M., Steidel,
809: C. C., \& Macchetto, F. D. 1996, ApJ, 470, 189
810: \bibitem[Heckman \etal(1990)]{heck90} Heckman, T. M., Armus, L., \&
811: Miley, G. K. 1990, ApJS, 74, 833
812: \bibitem[Heckman \etal(2000)]{heck00} Heckman, T. M., Lehnert, M. D.,
813: Strickland, D. K., \& Armus, L. 2000, ApJS, 129, 493
814: \bibitem[Heckman(2001)]{heck01} Heckman, T. M. 2001, in ASP
815: Conf. Ser. 240, Gas and Galaxy Evolution, ed. J. E. Hibbard,
816: M. Rupen, \& J. H. van Gorkom (San Francisco: ASP), 345
817: \bibitem[Holwerda(2005)]{holw05} Holwerda, B. W. 2005, (astro-ph/0512139)
818: \bibitem[Kennicutt(1998)]{kenn98} Kennicutt, R. C., Jr. 1998, ARA\&A,
819: 36, 189
820: \bibitem[Kron(1980)]{kron80} Kron, R. G. 1980, ApJS, 43, 305
821: \bibitem[Lehnert \& Heckman (1996)]{lehn96} Lehnert, M. D., \& Heckman,
822: T. 1996, ApJ 472, 546
823: \bibitem[Lehnert \etal(2007)]{lehn07} Lehnert, M. D., Bremer, M.,
824: Verma, A., Douglas, L., \& Forster Schreiber, N. 2007, in ASP
825: Conf. Ser., Pathways Through an Eclectic Universe,
826: ed. J. H. Knappen, T. J. Mahoney, \& A. Vazedekis (astro-ph/0708.3000)
827: \bibitem[Leitherer \etal(1999)]{leit99} Leitherer, C., et al. 1999,
828: ApJS, 123, 3
829: \bibitem[Malhotra \etal(2005)]{malh05} Malhotra, S., et al. 2005, ApJ,
830: 626, 666
831: \bibitem[Meurer \etal(1995)]{meur95} Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M.,
832: Leitherer, C., Kinney, A., Robert, A., \& Garnett, D. R. 1995, AJ,
833: 110, 2665
834: \bibitem[Meurer \etal(1997)]{meur97} Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M.,
835: Lehnert, M. D., Leitherer, C., \& Lowenthal, J. 1997, AJ, 114, 54
836: (M97)
837: \bibitem[Meurer \etal(1999)]{meur99} Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M., \&
838: Calzetti, D. 1999, ApJ, 521, 64
839: \bibitem[Oke \& Gunn(1983)]{oke83} Oke, J. B., \& Gunn, J.E. 1983,
840: ApJ, 266, 713
841: \bibitem[Petrosian(1976)]{petr76} Petrosian, V. 1976, ApJ, 209, L1
842: \bibitem[Pirzkal \etal(2004)]{pirz04} Pirzkal, N., et al. 2004, ApJS,
843: 154, 501
844: \bibitem[Pirzkal \etal(2007)]{pirz07} Pirzkal, N., Malhotra, S.,
845: Rhoads, J., \& Xu, C. 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0612513)
846: \bibitem[Salpeter(1955)]{salp55} Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161
847: \bibitem[Spergel \etal(2007)]{sper07} Spergel, D. N., et al. 2007,
848: ApJS, 170, 377
849: \bibitem[Stanway \etal(2005)]{stan05} Stanway, E. R., McMahon, R. G.,
850: \& Bunker, A. J. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1184
851: \bibitem[Steidel \& Hamilton(1993)]{stei93} Steidel, C. C., \&
852: Hamilton, D. 1993, AJ, 105, 2017
853: \bibitem[Steidel \etal(1996a)]{stei96a} Steidel, C. C., Giavalisco,
854: M., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., \& Adelberger, K. L. 1996a, ApJ,
855: 462, L17
856: \bibitem[Steidel \etal(1996b)]{stei96b} Steidel, C. C., Giavalisco,
857: M., Dickinson, M., \& Adelberger, K. L. 1996b, AJ, 112, 352
858: \bibitem[Thompson \etal(2005)]{thom05} Thompson, R. I., et al. 2005,
859: AJ, 130, 1
860: \bibitem[Tolman(1930)]{tolm30} Tolman, R. C. 1930, PNAS, 16, 511
861: \bibitem[Tolman(1934)]{tolm34} Tolman, R. C. 1934, \emph{Relativity,
862: Thermodynamics, \& Cosmology}, (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press), 467
863: \bibitem[Vanzella \etal(2006)]{vanz06} Vanzella, E., et al. 2006,
864: A\&A, 454, 423
865: \bibitem[V\'{a}zquez \& Leitherer(2005)]{vazq05} V\'{a}zquez, G. A.,
866: \& Leitherer, C. 2005, ApJ, 621, 695
867: \bibitem[Weedman \etal(1998)]{weed98} Weedman, D. W., Wolovitz, J. B.,
868: Bershady, M. A., \& Schneider, D. P. 1998, AJ, 116, 1643 (W98)
869: \bibitem[Williams \etal(1996)]{will96} Williams, R. E., Blacker, B.,
870: Dickinson, M., et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 1335
871: \bibitem[Windhorst \etal(2007)]{wind07} Windhorst, R. A., Hathi,
872: N. P., Cohen, S.H., \& Jansen, R. A. 2007, \emph{Advances in Space
873: Research}, in press (astro-ph/0703171)
874: \bibitem[Wright(2006)]{wrig06} Wright, E. L. 2006, PASP, 118, 1711
875: \bibitem[Yan \etal(2005)]{yan05} Yan, H., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 109
876: \end{thebibliography}
877:
878: %--------------------------------------------------
879: \clearpage
880:
881: \input tab1.tex
882:
883: %--------------------------------------------------
884: \clearpage
885:
886: \begin{figure}
887: \epsscale{0.7}
888: \plotone{f1.eps}
889: \caption{UV spectral slopes ($\beta$) v/s redshift relation. Mean
890: $\beta$ are plotted with error bars indicating the standard
891: deviation of the mean (i.e. $\sigma / \sqrt N$). We have plotted
892: the data points at $z\!\simeq\!3$ from \citet{adel00} and at
893: $z\!\simeq\!6$ from \citet{bouw06} for comparison.}\label{fig1}
894: \end{figure}
895:
896: %--------------------------------------------------
897: \clearpage
898:
899: \begin{figure}
900: \epsscale{0.7}
901: \plotone{f2.eps}
902: \caption{Size v/s redshift relation. Mean half-light radii are plotted
903: with error bars indicating the standard deviation of the mean (i.e.
904: $\sigma / \sqrt N$). The solid and dashed curves shows the trend
905: if sizes evolve as $H^{-1}(z)$ and $H^{-2/3}(z)$, respectively.
906: Both curves are normalized to the mean size at $z\!\simeq\!4$
907: ($\sim$0.21\arcsec\ts or $\sim$1.5 kpc). We have plotted the data
908: points at $z\!\simeq\!3$ from \citet{ferg04} and at $z\!\simeq\!6$
909: from \citet{bouw06} for comparison.}\label{fig2}
910: \end{figure}
911:
912: %--------------------------------------------------
913: \clearpage
914:
915: \begin{figure}
916: \epsscale{0.7}
917: \plotone{f3.eps}
918: \caption{Bolometric luminosity ($L_{\sun}^{\rm bol}$) and effective
919: surface brightness ($L_{\sun}^{\rm bol}$~kpc$^{-2}$) against
920: effective radii for starburst galaxies. The filled squares, circles
921: and triangles are measurements for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!3$,
922: $z\!\simeq\!4$ and $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$, respectively. The open
923: square ($z\!\simeq\!0$) is the median measurement of 11 nearby
924: galaxies from M97. The open diamonds ($z\!\simeq\!0.4$) are S$_{e}$
925: measurements from M97. The dotted and dashed lines correspond to
926: S$_{e,\rm 90}$ and S$_{e,\rm 50}$ of the combine sample.
927: Uncertainties in $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!6$ surface brightness and radii
928: measurements are shown in lower right corner, details are given in
929: \secref{bias}.}\label{fig3}
930: \end{figure}
931:
932: %--------------------------------------------------
933: \clearpage
934:
935: \begin{figure}
936: \epsscale{0.7}
937: \plotone{f4.eps}
938: \caption{Bolometric effective surface brightness ($L_{\sun}^{\rm
939: bol}$~kpc$^{-2}$) as a function of redshift. The open square
940: ($z\!\simeq\!0$) is the median measurement of 11 nearby galaxies
941: from M97. The filled squares ($z\!\simeq\!0.4$) are S$_{e}$
942: measurements from M97. The filled squares ($z\!\simeq\!3$) are
943: the galaxies from the sample of M97 for which we measured surface
944: brightnesses. The circles are the galaxies in our sample
945: ($z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$). The dotted and dashed lines correspond to
946: S$_{e,\rm 90}$ and S$_{e,\rm 50}$ of the combine sample.
947: Uncertainties in $z\!\simeq\!3\!-\!6$ surface brightness (due to
948: radii and flux uncertainties) is shown in lower left corner,
949: details are given in \secref{bias}.}\label{fig4}
950: \end{figure}
951:
952: %--------------------------------------------------
953: \clearpage
954:
955: \begin{figure}
956: \epsscale{0.7}
957: \plotone{f5.eps}
958: \caption{Surface Brightness ($L_{\sun}^{\rm UV}$~kpc$^{-2}$) obtained
959: from the brightest pixel of 47 galaxy images at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$
960: and 4 galaxy images at $z\!\simeq\!4$ . The squares are 18 W98
961: galaxies. The W98 galaxies had observed surface brightnesses and
962: hence, for proper comparison, we converted observed surface
963: brightnesses to corresponding rest-frame surface brightnesses. The
964: dotted and dashed lines correspond to S$_{bp,\rm 90}$ and S$_{bp,\rm
965: 50}$ of the combine sample. Uncertainties in surface brightness
966: (due to flux uncertainties only) is shown in lower right corner,
967: details are given in \secref{bias}.}\label{fig5}
968: \end{figure}
969:
970: %--------------------------------------------------
971:
972:
973: \end{document}
974: