4.7 Article

The quasar proximity effect at redshift ⟨z⟩ ≃ 2.6 with the From Lines to Overdensities approach

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13611.x

关键词

intergalactic medium; quasars : absorption lines; cosmology : observations; large-scale structure of Universe

资金

  1. HEFCE
  2. PPARC
  3. ilicon Graphics/Cray Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We revisit the proximity effect produced by quasars (QSOs) at redshifts 2.1 -3.3 applying the From Lines to Overdensities (FLO) approach to a sample of similar to 6300 Ly alpha lines fitted in 21 high resolution, high signal-to-noise spectra. This new technique allows to recover the hydrogen-density field from the HI column densities of the lines in the Lya forest, on the basis of simple assumptions on the physical state of the gas. To minimize the systematic uncertainties that could affect the density recovering in the QSO vicinity, we carefully determined the redshifts of the QSOs in our sample and modelled in detail their spectra to compute the corresponding ionizing fluxes. The mean density field obtained from the observed spectra shows a significant overdensity in the regionwithin 4 proper Mpc from the QSO position, confirming that QSOs are hosted in high-density peaks. The absolute value of rho/ for the peak is uncertain by a factor of similar to 3, depending on the assumed QSO spectral slope and the minimum HI column density detectable in the spectra. We do not confirm the presence of a significant overdensity extending to separations of similar to 15 proper Mpc from the QSO, claimed in previous works at redshifts < z > similar or equal to 2.5 and 3.8. Our best guess for the ultraviolet background (UVB) ionization rate based on the intergalactic medium (IGM) mean density recovered by FLO is Gamma(UVB) similar or equal to 10(-12) s(-1). However, values of Gamma(UVB) similar or equal to 3 x 10(-12) s(-1) could be viable if an inverted temperature -density relation with index alpha similar or equal to -0.5 is adopted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据