4.7 Article

QSO 0130-4021: A third QSO showing a low deuterium-to-hydrogen abundance ratio

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 529, 期 2, 页码 655-660

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/308317

关键词

cosmology : observations; intergalactic medium; quasars : absorption lines; quasars : individual (QSO 0130-4021)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have discovered a third quasar absorption system which is consistent with a low deuterium-to-hydrogen abundance ratio, D/H = 3.4 x 10(-5). The z(abs) similar to 2.8 partial Lyman limit system toward Q0130-4021 provides the strongest evidence to date against large D/H ratios because the H I absorption, which consists of a single high column density component with unsaturated high-order Lyman series lines, is readily modeled-a task which is more complex in other D/H systems. We have obtained 22 hr of spectra from the High-Resolution Echelle Spectrograph on the W. RI. Keek Telescope, which allow a detailed description of the hydrogen. We see excess absorption on the blue wing of the H I Ly alpha line, near the expected position of deuterium. However, we find that deuterium cannot explain all of the excess absorption, and hence there must be contamination by additional absorption, probably H I. This extra H I can account for most or all of the absorption at the D position, and hence D/H = 0 is allowed. We find an upper limit of D/H less than or equal to 6.7 x 10(-5) in this system, consistent with the value of D/H similar or equal to 3.4 x 10(-5) deduced toward QSO 1009 + 2956 and QSO 1937 - 1009 by Buries and Tytler. This absorption system shows only weak metal-line absorption, and we estimate [Si/H] less than or equal to -2.6, indicating that the D/H ratio of the system is likely primordial. All four of the known high-redshift absorption-line systems simple enough to provide useful limits on D are consistent with D/H = 3.4 +/- 0.25 x 10(-5). Conversely, this QSO provides the third case which is inconsistent with much larger values.

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