4.6 Article

THE CANADA-FRANCE HIGH-z QUASAR SURVEY: NINE NEW QUASARS AND THE LUMINOSITY FUNCTION AT REDSHIFT 6

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 139, 期 3, 页码 906-918

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/906

关键词

cosmology: observations; quasars: emission lines; quasars: general

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (United States)
  2. Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom)
  3. National Research Council (Canada)
  4. CONICYT (Chile)
  5. Australian Research Council (Australia)
  6. CNPq (Brazil)
  7. CONICET (Argentina)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present discovery imaging and spectroscopy for nine new z similar to 6 quasars found in the Canada-France High-z Quasar Survey (CFHQS) bringing the total number of CFHQS quasars to 19. By combining the CFHQS with the more luminous Sloan Digital Sky Survey sample, we are able to derive the quasar luminosity function from a sample of 40 quasars at redshifts 5.74 < z < 6.42. Our binned luminosity function shows a slightly lower normalization and flatter slope than found in previous work. The binned data also suggest a break in the luminosity function at M(1450) approximate to -25. A double power-law maximum likelihood fit to the data is consistent with the binned results. The luminosity function is strongly constrained (1 sigma uncertainty < 0.1 dex) over the range -27.5 < M(1450) < -24.7. The best-fit parameters are Phi(M(1450)*) = 1.14 x 10(-8) Mpc(-3) mag(-1), break magnitude M(1450)* = -25.13, and bright end slope beta = -2.81. However, the covariance between beta and M(1450)* prevents strong constraints being placed on either parameter. For a break magnitude in the range -26 < M(1450)* < -24, we find -3.8 < beta < -2.3 at 95% confidence. We calculate the z = 6 quasar intergalactic ionizing flux and show it is between 20 and 100 times lower than that necessary for reionization. Finally, we use the luminosity function to predict how many higher redshift quasars may be discovered in future near-IR imaging surveys.

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

4.6
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