1 / 39

Confronting models of intergalactic enrichment with the observations

Confronting models of intergalactic enrichment with the observations. with: Joop Schaye Leiden (as of last week). QSO spectra by: T.-S. Kim, W. Sargent, M. Rauch. Simulation provided by: Tom Theuns, Volker Springel, Lars Hernquist, Scott Kay. Anthony Aguirre UC Santa Cruz.

chogan
Download Presentation

Confronting models of intergalactic enrichment with the observations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Confronting models of intergalactic enrichment with the observations with: Joop Schaye Leiden (as of last week) QSO spectra by: T.-S. Kim, W. Sargent, M. Rauch Simulation provided by: Tom Theuns, Volker Springel, Lars Hernquist, Scott Kay Anthony Aguirre UC Santa Cruz

  2. IGM metallicity provides information on: • History of star/galaxy formation. • Formation of unobservably early stars/galaxies. • UV ionizing background. • Feedback in galaxy formation processes. • Basic question: how did the enrichment happen?

  3. Two basic enrichment scenarios: 1. “Early” enrichment by z >> 6 galaxies. Features: • Outflows from protogalaxies/Pop. III. • Small wells easier to escape from. • Low outflow velocities -> little heating. • IGM has time to “recover.” Model as: no effect on IGM, metals sprinkled in.

  4. Two basic enrichment scenarios: 2. “Late” enrichment by 2 < z < 6 galaxies. Features: • Strong feedback during galaxy formation. • Heating of IGM. • Supported: Observed z ~ 3 galaxies drive strong winds like low-z starbursts.

  5. Two basic enrichment scenarios: 2. “Late” enrichment by 2 < z < 6 galaxies.

  6. Two basic enrichment scenarios: 2. “Late” enrichment by 2 < z < 6 galaxies. Features: • Strong feedback during galaxy formation. • Heating of IGM. • Supported: Observed z ~ 3 galaxies drive strong winds like low-z starbursts. • Galaxy formation theory: strong feedback seems necessary. • Most of cosmic star formation at z < 5.

  7. Signatures of early vs. late in observed IGM. Look for evolution in Z at z < 5. Check temperature of gas (late enrichment should come with/in hot gas). Compare amount of metals with expectations. Look at spatial distribution of metals. Look at abundance ratios for info. on nucleosynthetic sources. Pixel statistics All this and more can be done with:

  8. Pixel method in brief 19x HI, CIV pixel optical depth pairs Correlations (see Aguirre et al. 02; Schaye et al. 03 for details)

  9. Infer metallicity from observations (using non-enriching simulations were necessary). Generate spectra from enrichment simulations and compare optical depth ratios to those in observed spectra. Two approaches:

  10. 1. Metallicity inferences Hydro. simulations Correlations UVB model Metallicities

  11. 1. The carbon metallicity [C/H] is inhomogeneous and density-dependant. Results: Carbon metallicities from CIV (see Schaye et al. 2003)

  12. 2. The median carbon metallicity [C/H] does not evolve (for our fiducial UVB) from z~4 to z~2. Results: Carbon metallicities from CIV Neither does s([C/H])

  13. 2. The median carbon metallicity [C/H] does not evolve (for our fiducial UVB) from z~4 to z~2. Clearly favors enrichment at z > 4. But: there is some room for more. Results: Carbon metallicities from CIV

  14. 3. [C/H] depends on UVB model. Results: Carbon metallicities from CIV But very different UVBs can be ruled out.

  15. Gas temperature from CIII, SiIII • 4. CIII/CIV, SiIII/SiIV provide thermometer. • Bulk of SiIV gas at T<104.9K • Little scatter in gas temp. • But some evidence for hotter gas? (< 30%) • Similar results using CIII/CIV. (see Aguirre et al. 2004)

  16. Gas temperature from CIII, SiIII • 4. CIII/CIV, SiIII/SiIV provide thermometer. • Most observed metals are in photoionized, warm gas, not the collisionally ionized warm/hot gas expected from winds.

  17. Silicon metallicities from SiIV, CIV • 5. SiIV/CIV vs CIV: ratios depend on d, reproduced by simulation. • [Si/C] ~ 0.25-1.5 (for diff. UVBs) • No scatter in inferred [Si/C] (see Aguirre et al. 2004)

  18. Adding up global C, Si abundances. • 6. Lots of metals in the forest! • [C/H] = -2.8, [Si/H] = -2.0 • Easily half of all metals at z ~ 3. Can z >> 6 enrichment suffice? • Also, clusters: metallicity evolution and/or hidden metals in hot gas and low-z IGM appears to have Z ~ 0.1 Zsol! (see Aguirre et al. 2004)

  19. Method 2: comparing observed spectra to feedback simulations by:Theuns et al. 02 and Springel & Hernquist 03both: Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations with baryon particle mass ~106 Msolar.But: different feedback prescriptions. (see Aguirre et al. 2005)

  20. Comparison with CIV/HI • Non-feedback/imposed metallicity: good fit. • Feedback models:too low CIV/HI.

  21. Comparison with CIII/CIV • Non-feedback/imposed metallicity: good fit. • Feedback models:too low CIII/CIV

  22. Problem: gas too hot, too low-density • Enriched gas at 105-107 K, -1 < d < 1 • But CIV/C, CIII/CIV fall at low-d, high T. Enriched low-density gas

  23. Problem: gas too hot, too low-density • Possible rescue: metal cooling.

  24. Comparison with CIV/HI, CIII/CIV • With cooling prescription: Better. Not so much.

  25. Final problem: sims. too inhomogeneous • Independent of cooling and UVB, simulations cannot simultaneously explain multiple percentiles. • Stems from small filling factor. 0.5% of metal-rich 0.05% of metal-free

  26. Summary and Ruminations: • Simulations cannot reproduce CIV/HI, or CIII/CIV, or CIV distribution. (ButMetal cooling needed).

  27. Summary and Ruminations: • Simulations cannot reproduce CIV/HI, or CIII/CIV, or CIV distribution. (But Metal cooling needed). • Galactic winds: hot, low filling-factor enrichment avoiding filaments. • But observations: cool, (relatively) high f.f., in filaments. • The observations are consistent with metals “sprinkled” at z > 5 with and s ~ 0.75 dex, [Si/C] ~ 0.75. • Yet there are strong indications (observed winds, increase in Z by z ~ 0) that enrichment occurs at z < 4!

  28. Summary and Ruminations: • Could it be a mix? • Late winds may be compatible with observations: hidden in a hot phase with small filling factor, later becoming group/clusters enrichment. • Observed metals came earlier, don’t evolve. • How could we tell? • OVI (in progress) may be helpful. • More simulations (with cooling) can place limits. • Other ideas? (Pairs, UV/X-ray lines, etc.) • In short: much progress but much to be done.

  29. The scorecard

  30. Real picture: a conundum. Early and late? • Some questions/considerations: • Metals sprinked in non-feedback simulation reproduce all current observations. But… • Do the observed winds escape? If so, where do the metals go? • If not winds, how to we fix baryon fraction in galaxies? • How do we close the cluster -- forest gap? • Metal from late galaxies may be hidden in unobservably hot gas, with low filling factor (and avoiding the filaments?) • Metal and H absorption does not have to come from same gas. • Data allows some evolution, esp. using freedom in UVB.

  31. Metals in the IGM Compare metal lines to HI lines Keck HIRES, z = 3.62

  32. Springel & Hernquist simulations . (10h-1 Mpc)3 box, 2163 SPH particles

  33. Springel & Hernquist simulations

  34. Springel & Hernquist simulations

  35. Springel & Hernquist simulations normalized

  36. Springel & Hernquist simulations

More Related