4.7 Article

Lyα emission from structure formation

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 622, 期 1, 页码 7-27

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/426808

关键词

cosmology : theory; galaxies : formation; intergalactic medium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nature of the interaction between galaxies and the intergalactic medium (IGM) is one of the most fundamental problems in astrophysics. The accretion of gas onto galaxies provides fuel for star formation, while galactic winds transform the nearby IGM in a number of ways. One exciting technique to study this gas is through the imaging of hydrogen Ly alpha emission. We use cosmological simulations to study the Ly alpha signals expected from the growth of cosmic structure from z = 0-5. We show that if dust absorption is negligible, recombinations following the absorption of stellar ionizing photons dominate the total Ly alpha photon production rate. However, galaxies are also surrounded by Ly alpha coronae'' of diffuse IGM gas. These coronae are composed of a combination of accreting gas and material ejected from the central galaxy by winds. The Ly alpha emission from this phase is powered by a combination of gravitational processes and the photoionizing background. While the former dominates at z similar to 0, collisional excitation following photoheating may well dominate the total emission at higher redshifts. The central regions of these systems are dense enough to shield themselves from the metagalactic ionizing background; unfortunately, in this regime our simulations are no longer reliable. We therefore consider several scenarios for the emission from the central cores, including one in which self-shielded gas does not emit at all. We show that the combination of star formation and cooling IGM gas can explain most of the observed Ly alpha blobs'' at z similar to 3, with the important exception of the largest sources. On the other hand, except under the most optimistic assumptions, cooling IGM gas cannot explain the observations on its own.

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