4.6 Article

THE COMPOSITE SPECTRUM OF STRONG Lyα FOREST ABSORBERS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 724, 期 1, 页码 L69-L73

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/724/1/L69

关键词

galaxies: formation; intergalactic medium; quasars: absorption lines

资金

  1. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  2. NSF
  3. US Department of Energy
  4. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
  5. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  6. Max Planck Society
  7. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  8. Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at Ohio State University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a new method for probing the physical conditions and metal enrichment of the intergalactic medium: the composite spectrum of Ly alpha forest absorbers. We apply this technique to a sample of 9480 Ly alpha absorbers with redshift 2 < z < 3.5 identified in the spectra of 13,279 high-redshift quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Fifth Data Release (DR5). Absorbers are selected as local minima in the spectra with 2.4 < tau(Ly alpha) < 4.0; at SDSS resolution (approximate to 150 km s(-1) FWHM), these absorbers are blends of systems that are individually weaker. In the stacked spectra, we detect seven Lyman series lines and metal lines of O VI, N V, C IV, C III, Si IV, C II, Al II, Si II, Fe II, Mg II, and O I. Many of these lines have peak optical depths of < 0.02, but they are nonetheless detected at high statistical significance. Modeling the Lyman series measurements implies that our selected systems have total H I column densities N(H) (I) approximate to 1015.4 cm(-2). Assuming typical physical conditions rho/<(rho)over bar> = 10, T = 10(4)-10(4.5) K, and [Fe/H] = -2 yields reasonable agreement with the line strengths of high-ionization species, but it underpredicts the low-ionization species by two orders of magnitude or more. This discrepancy suggests that the low-ionization lines arise in dense, cool, metal-rich clumps, present in some absorption systems.

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