Star Formation

• Kampakoglou et al.
• http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.1104
• Statistical model to predict/fit the star formation history of the universe. Hierarchical formation through merging seems to be favoured but not enough to exclude the monolithic scenario. Outflow models and dust are critical.

My impression is that the two priciple modes of galaxy formation seem to be subject to fashion among astronomers. While monolithic has been favoured in the early days of extragalacitc astronomy, the hierarchical formation was preferred until lately when it was realised that the former probably also plays a role.

• de Mello et al.
• http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2685
• They found both old and young stars in the region between the two galaxies and conclude that the former were flung out of either of the two while the latter have formed in the tidal tail.
• Overall, there seems to be quite little going on there compared to other tidal tails (e.g. of mergers) where active star formation is often seen.

• Kaviraj et al.
• http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3570
• postburst galaxies and quenching of star-formation
• connection to ULIRGs

• Hopkins et al.
• http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204528
• star-formation rates of 50 well known, local Blue Compact Dwarf (BCD) galaxies based on their 1.4 GHz and 60 $\mu$m luminosities
• Mk600, SBS0335-052, IZw18, UM461, UM462, Mk930

• Dowell et al.
• http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611586
• SSCs in nearby spirals and irregulars from SDSS
• SDSS colors plus spectral evolutionary modelling to determine cluster ages and mass.
• They find a steeper slope for the mass function (at high masses) in irregulars as compared to spirals.
• I wonder how reliable the masses are from this method. It’s a tricky business and dynamical cluster masses would be nicer.

• Belkus et al.
• http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701334
• dense clusters
• supermassive stars

• Wiklind et al.
• http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0406
• early red and dead galaxies that formed their stars at z >9