joseph f. hennawi uc berkeley & osu october 3, 2007 xavier prochaska (ucsc) quasars probing...
Post on 20-Dec-2015
222 views
TRANSCRIPT
Joseph F. HennawiUC Berkeley
&
OSUOctober 3, 2007
Xavier Prochaska(UCSC)
Quasars Probing QuasarsQuasars Probing QuasarsQuasars Probing QuasarsQuasars Probing Quasars
The Basic PictureThe Basic Picture
HI cloud
Line-of-Sight
QSO
Transverse
b/g QSO
f/g QSOR||
R
HI cloud
• Ly absorption can probe 8 decades in NHI (Ly is large!).
• Neighboring sightline provides a another view of the QSO.
• Redshift space distortions from kT motions (~ 20 km/s ) smooth with Gaussian of Rprop ~ 60 kpc = 10” @ z = 2.
• Need projected QSO pairs to study small scales!
What Can Proximity Effects Teach Us?
What Can Proximity Effects Teach Us?
• How is HI distributed around quasars?
• What is the quasar duty cycle tQSO/tH ?• What is the obscured fraction (1- Ω/4)?
• Can we constrain episodic QSO variability, tburst?
• Directly observe impact of AGN feedback on the IGM?
nQSO(> L) :
tQSO
tH
Ω4
⎛⎝⎜
⎞⎠⎟nHost/Relics(> ?) ;
Ω4π
=nQSO
nQSO + nobscured
Physics of IGM well understood no sub-grid physics or semi-analytical recipes!
Mining Large SurveysMining Large SurveysApache Point Observatory (APO) • Spectroscopic QSO survey
– 5000 deg2
– 45,000 z < 2.2; i < 19.1– 5,000 z > 3; i < 20.2– Precise (u,g,r, i, z) photometry
• Photometric QSO sample– 8000 deg2
– 500,000 z < 3; i < 21.0– 20,000 z > 3; i < 21.0 – Richards et al. 2004; Hennawi et al. 2006
SDSS 2.5m
ARC 3.5m
Jim Gunn
Follow up QSO pair confirmation
from ARC 3.5m and MMT 6.5m
MMT 6.5m
= 3.7”
2’55”
ExcludedArea
Finding Quasar PairsFinding Quasar Pairs
SDSS QSO @ z =3.13
4.02.0
3.0
2.03.0
3.0
2.04.0
low-zQSOs
f/g QSO z = 2.29
b/g QSO z = 3.13
Keck LRIS spectra (Å)
Cosmology with Quasar PairsCosmology with Quasar PairsClose Quasar Pair Survey
• Discovered > 100 sub-Mpc pairs (z > 2) • Factor 25 increase in number known• Moderate & Echelle Resolution Spectra• Near-IR Foreground QSO Redshifts• About 50 Keck & Gemni nights.
= 13.8”, z = 3.00; Beam =79 kpc/h
Spectra from Keck ESI
Keck Gemini-N
Science• Dark energy at z > 2 from AP test
• Small scale structure of Ly forest
• Thermal history of the Universe
• Topology of metal enrichment from
• Transverse proximity effects
Gemini-S
Collaborators: Jason Prochaska, Crystal Martin, Sara Ellison, George Djorgovski, Scott Burles
Ly Forest Correlations
CIV Metal Line Correlations
Nor
mal
ized
Flu
x
Quasar Absorption LinesQuasar Absorption Lines
DLA (HST/STIS)
Moller et al. (2003)
LLS
Nobody et al. (200?)
Lyz = 2.96
Lyman Limitz = 2.96
QSO z = 3.0 LLS
Lyz = 2.58
DLA
• Ly Forest– Optically thin diffuse IGM / ~ 1-10; 1014 < NHI < 1017.2
– well studied for R > 1 Mpc/h
• Lyman Limit Systems (LLSs)– Optically thick 912 > 1
– 1017.2 < NHI < 1020.3
– almost totally unexplored
• Damped Ly Systems (DLAs)– NHI > 1020.3 comparable to disks
– sub-L galaxies?
– Dominate HI content of Universe
Self Shielding: A Local ExampleSelf Shielding: A Local Example
Sharp edges of galaxy disks set by ionization equilibrium with the UV background. HI is ‘self-shielded’ from extragalactic UV photons.
Braun & Thilker (2004)M31 (Andromeda) M33 VLA 21cm map
DLA
Ly forest
LLS
What if the MBH = 3107 M black hole at Andromeda’s center started accreting at the Eddington limit? What would M33 look like then?
bump due
to M33
Average HI of Andromeda
Neutral Gas
Isolated QSO
Proximity EffectsProximity Effects
• Proximity Effect Decrease in Ly forest absorption due to large ionizing flux near a quasar
• Transverse Proximity Effect Decrease in absorption in background QSO spectrum due to transverse ionizing flux of a foreground quasar– Geometry of quasar radiation field (obscuration?)
– Quasar lifetime/variability
– Measure distribution of HI in quasar environments
Are there similar effects for optically thick absorbers?
Ionized Gas
Projected QSO Pair
nQSO :
tQSO
tH
Ω4
⎛⎝⎜
⎞⎠⎟nHosts
Transverse Optically ThickTransverse Optically Thick
Hennawi, Prochaska, et al. (2007)
zbg = 3.13; zfg= 2.29; R = 22 kpc/h; logNHI = 20.5
zbg = 2.07; zfg= 1.98; R = 139 kpc/h; logNHI = 19.0
zbg = 2.21; zfg= 2.18; R = 61 kpc/h; logNHI = 18.5
zbg = 2.53; zfg= 2.43; R = 78 kpc/h; logNHI = 19.7
zbg = 2.35; zfg= 2.28; R = 37 kpc/h; logNHI = 18.9
zbg = 2.17; zfg= 2.11; R = 97 kpc/h; logNHI = 20.3
Transverse Optically Thick Clustering
Transverse Optically Thick ClusteringHennawi, Prochaska et al. (2007);
Hennawi & Prochaska (2007)
= Keck = Gemini = SDSS
= has absorber = no absorber
En
han
cem
ent
over
UV
Bz
(re
dsh
ift)
= 2.0 = 1.6
QSO-LBG
• 29 new QSO-LLSs with R < 2 Mpc/h
• High covering factor for R < 100 kpc/h
• For T(r) = (r/rT)-, = 1.6, log NHI > 19
rT = 9 1.7 Mpc/h (3 QSO-LBG)
Line-of-Sight ClusteringLine-of-Sight Clustering
Prochaska, Hennawi, & Herbert-Fort (2007)
• Factor 5-10 fewer PDLAs then expected from transverse clustering.
• Transverse clustering strength at z = 2.5 predicts that ~ 90% of QSO’s should
have an absorber with NHI > 1019 cm-2 along the LOS??
• Rapid redshift evolution of QSO clustering compared to paucity of proximate
DLAs implies that photoevaporation has to be occurring.
Transverse prediction
1 +
||(
∆v)
z
Line-of-Sight Clustering Strength
Extrapolation of trans. predictions
Line-of-sight measurements
Proximate DLA DLA within v < 3000 km/s
PhotoevaporationPhotoevaporation
f/g QSO
b/g QSO
R
QSO is to DLA . . . as . . . O-star is to interstellar cloud
Γ =nphotons
nH
= 2.6 ×10−4S56RMpc-2 n−1
H, -1
Hennawi & Prochaska (2007a)
δ =trect IF
= 500ΓNH
1020.3cm-2
⎛⎝⎜
⎞⎠⎟
−1
< 1
Otherwise it is photoevaporatedBertoldi (1989), Bertodi & McKee (1989)
Cloud survives provided
r = 17r = 19r = 21
nH = 0.1
log NHI = 20.3
Emission AnisotropyEmission AnisotropyObscuration/Beaming
f/g QSO
b/g QSO
Absorber
R
Ω > 104 yr
• Episodic Variability QSO’s vary significantly on timescale
t < tcross ~ 4 105 yr @ = 20” (120 kpc/h).
Current best limit is tburst > 104 yr.
Episodic Variability
f/g QSO
b/g QSO
Absorber
We observe light emitted at time t = t0
Ionization state of gas depends on QSO at time t = t0 - R/c R
t = t0
• Optically Thick LLSs and DLAs (today’s talk)
– Nature of absorbers near QSO’s is unclear.
• Gas entrained from AGN driven outflow? (AGN feedback!)
• Absorption from nearby dwarf galaxies?
– To measure tQSO/tH or (Ω/4) we need to model
absorbers and do radiative transfer (hard).
• Optically Thin Ly Forest (in progess)
– Best for constraining tQSO/tH and (Ω/4).
– Why? Because we can predict the Ly forest
fluctuations ab initio from N-body simulations (easy).
Proximity Effects: Thick and ThinProximity Effects: Thick and Thin
Optically Thin (Sneak Preview)Optically Thin (Sneak Preview)Hennawi, et al. (2007), in prep
= Gemini
= accurate z = no accurate z
En
han
cem
ent
over
UV
Bz
(re
dsh
ift)
Sample
• 1.6 < z < 4.5; 20 kpc < R < 10 Mpc
• 59 pairs with gUV > 100.
• 30 accurate near-IR redshifts.
(
m)
, , = Keck , = SDSS
gUV ≡1+FQSO
FUVB
; ′Lyα = τ Lyα gUV
z = 2.4360z = 44 km/s
Gemini NIRI K-band spectrum
Transverse Proximity Effect?Transverse Proximity Effect?
z = 3.8135
z = 44 km/s
zbg = 4.11, zfg= 3.81
= 34”, R = 175 kpc/h
tcross = 5.7107 yr
gUV = 626!
with f/g QSO
without f/g QSO
RealReal
SimulatedSimulated
Hennawi et al. 2007, in prep.
Gemini NIRI K-band spectrumSpectrum from Keck ESI
SummarySummary• With projected pairs, QSO environments can be probed
down to ~ 20 kpc where ionizing flux is ~ 104 times the UVB.
• Clustering of optically thick absorbers around QSOs is highly anisotropic.
• Paucity of PDLAs implies photoevaporation has to occur.
• Physical arguments indicate DLAs < 1 Mpc from a QSO can
be photoevaporated.
• There is a LOS optically thick proximity effect but no transverse one.
• Either QSOs emit anisotropically or are variable on timescales < 106 yr.
• The optically thin proximity effect will distinguish between these two possibility and yield new quantitative constraints.