![]() | Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 1988. 26:
561-630 Copyright © 1988 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved |
7.3. Reassessment of the N(m) Count Evidence for Luminosity Evolution at z > 0.5
Faint multicolor photometry of survey fields for the galaxy number count data is beginning to produce data that will eventually tell if the N(m, q0, E) excess for m > 21 is due to luminosity evolution, i.e. to the E(z) term in Equation 35. Ellis (1988) reviews the enigma that the colors become significantly bluer than expected at magnitude fainter than mJ ~ 21 (see also Kron 1980a, Hamilton 1985), where mJ is the J-band magnitude. Furthermore, this is just brightward of where the N(m) counts begin to show an excess from the predicted curves (Figure 2), an excess that grows to a factor of ~ 10 over the model at mJ ~ 26. Recall that this excess has been considered to be strong evidence for luminosity evolution.
However, the mean redshift at mJ ~ 21 for field
galaxies is only z ~ 0.4, which is so small that no appreciable
luminosity evolution is
expected in any reasonable galaxy evolution model. This circumstance
gives a clue to what is happening. Spectroscopy is not yet available
for complete galaxy samples in the critical magnitude range of
mJ > 21.5 so as to determine the redshift
distribution. However, in an initial redshift survey that is complete
between 20.0 < mJ < 21.5,
Broadhurst et al. (1987,
as summarized by
Ellis 1987)
found a subset
of the complete 200 field galaxy sample that was blue and had strong
emission lines. A further subset of these blue galaxies has a slope of
d log N(m) / dm = 0.6 ± 0.2 for the
counts, suggesting that they are nearby
and intrinsically faint. If the blue galaxies are removed from the
complete sample, the slope for the remainder of the counts is
d log N(m) / dm = 0.34 rather than 0.44,
causing the excess counts at faint
magnitudes in Figure 3 to
disappear. Clearly redshifts for the entire
blue subset are required to make a stronger case. However, these data
suggest that luminosity evolution for field galaxies at z
0.4 may
not be needed to explain the N(m) counts. But if so, one
of the stronger cases for evolution would disappear.