4.7 Article

Cosmic reionization by stellar sources: population III stars

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07636.x

关键词

radiative transfer; intergalactic medium; galaxies : starburst

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We combine fast radiative transfer calculations with high-resolution hydrodynamical simulations to study an epoch of early hydrogen reionization by primordial stellar sources at redshifts 15less than or similar tozless than or similar to30. We consider the implications of various local and global feedback mechanisms using a set of models that bracket the severity of these effects to determine, qualitatively, how they may have influenced the global star formation rate and the details of hydrogen reionization. With relatively conservative assumptions, most of our models suggest that population III star formation proceeds in a self-regulated manner both locally and globally and, for a conventional LambdaCDM cosmology, can significantly reionize the intergalactic medium between 15less than or similar tozless than or similar to20 as long as a large fraction of ionizing photons can escape from these earliest galaxies. We then combine these results with our earlier work focusing on the role of population II stars in galaxies with virial temperatures greater than or similar to 10(4) K at redshifts 5less than or similar tozless than or similar to20. Hence, we construct a complete reionization history of the Universe that matches the Thomson optical depths as measured by the WMAP satellite as well as the evolution of the Gunn-Peterson optical depth as seen in the absorption spectra of the highest redshift quasars. We find that even with conservative estimates for the impact of negative feedback mechanisms, primordial stellar sources contribute significantly to early reionization. Future observations of a Thomson optical depth of tau(e)greater than or similar to0.13 would bolster the claim for the existence of population III stars similar to the ones studied here.

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