1 / 22

Did Galaxies Reionize the Universe?

Did Galaxies Reionize the Universe?. Richard Ellis, Caltech. CIFAR 2010 20 February 2010. Cosmic Reionization. The third major event in cosmic history! When did it happen? Were star-forming galaxies responsible?

lona
Download Presentation

Did Galaxies Reionize the Universe?

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. Did Galaxies Reionize the Universe? Richard Ellis, Caltech CIFAR 2010 20 February 2010

  2. Cosmic Reionization • The third major event in cosmic history! • When did it happen? • Were star-forming galaxies responsible? • What feedback processes were involved & how did these affect subsequent assembly? • Major progress in 2009 in using galaxies as tracers of reionization CITA@25:Bond@60 With Dan Stark (IoA), Brant Robertson (CIT), Masami Ouchi (OCIW) Andy Bunker (Oxford), Ross McLure, Jim Dunlop (Edinburgh),

  3. High Redshift Star Forming Galaxies Lyman break galaxies: Rest-frame UV continuum discontinuity Lyman alpha emitters: Located via narrow band imaging

  4. When? WMAP Polarization • = 0.17 ± 0.08 (WMAP1, 2003)  = 0.09 ± 0.03 (WMAP3, 2007)  = 0.087± 0.017 (WMAP5, 2009)  = 0.088± 0.015 (WMAP7, 2010) Dunkley et al 2009 Jarosik et al 2010 WMAP5 Instantaneous reionization Data rejects instantaneous reionization at z~6-7 Process is likely extended over 6<z<20 CMB studies do not pinpoint the responsible cosmic sources

  5. Stellar Mass Implies Much Activity z > 7 Eyles et al (2005) zspec=5.83 M = 3.4 1010 M Age > 100 Myr SF since z~7-10 Balmer break IRAC HST VLT Egami + (2005) z=6.8 M ~ 5 108 M Age 100 – 450 Myr SF since z~ 9 -12 Stellar mass density at z~5-6 implies past SF in low luminosity galaxies may be sufficient for reionization, especially if escape fraction is high

  6. Early SF: Rapid drop in CIV from z=4.5 to z=6 3.5 drop in CIV(4) over 300 Myr (4.7 < z < 5.8) • Suggests rapid enrichment since z~9 (c.f. Oppenheimer et al vzw model) • Caveats: ionization changes, blending (c.f Becker et al), cosmic variance • If absorbers representative: ZIGM(z~6) ~ 10-4 Z (depends on ionizn) • Puzzle: implies too few escaping photons (6<z<9) to keep IGM ionized Ryan-Weber et al MN 395, 1476 (2009)

  7. Probes of Reionization: - Lyman  emitters • Ly damping wing is absorbed by HI and thus valuable tracer of its presence. • In weaker systems, it may be a sensitive probe of reionisation • Complicated by dust? (Dayal et al 1002.0839) Strong emitter Faint emitter Santos MN 349, 1137 (2004) McQuinn et al MN 381, 75 (2007)

  8. A Rapid Drop in Lyα Emitters from 5.7<z<6.6? • 1 deg2 SXDS with 608 photometric & 121 spectroscopic LAEs • Contrast with LBGs: no evolution 3<z<5.7 • Tantalizing fading (0.m3) seen in the LF of Ly  emitters over a small redshift interval 5.7< z< 6.6 (150 Myr) • Does this mark the end of reionization: an increase in xHI (e.g. xHI ~0.6 at z~7)? • Without dust constraints hard to be sure (Dayal et al 2009) SXDS ~1.0 deg2 includes cosmic variance errors z=5.7 z=6.5 ~30% Ouchi et al (2010)

  9. Keck Spectroscopic Survey of 4 < z < 7 LBGs • Target B, V, I, z drops in GOODS/UDF from Stark et al (09) ACS/IRAC catalog • 8-16 hr exposures with DEIMOS to mAB=26.5 (emission lines to mAB~27.5) • Keck/DEIMOS: 361 B drops, 141 V drops, 45 i drops, 17 z-drops = 564 targets • VLT/FORS2 retro-selected + same criteria: 195 targets (Vanzella et al) Probing sub-L* B,V drops Keck VLT i’ B V MUV Stark et al (2010) MN submitted

  10. Ly fraction vs UV luminosity and extinction more dust Wλ>50Å β X(Lyα) LBGs with Lyα Δβ Strong correlation between extinction- inferred from UV slope β (flux ~ λβ ) and presence/absence of Lyα Strongly suggests low luminosity galaxies are relatively dust-free So their Lyα fraction might be valuable probe of reionization Stark et al (2010) MN submitted

  11. Lyα Emission Statistics versus Redshift Keck LBG Spectroscopic Survey z >7 LBG spectroscopic limits X(Lyα) redshift • Keck survey avoids confusion with dust as can simultaneously measure β • Do not confirm 5.7<z<6.6 drop seen in the Subaru LAE LF • But rising fraction with z raises issue: why no z > 7 candidates with Lyα?!! Stark et al (2010) MN submitted

  12. Hubble WFC3 High z Stampede WFC3/IR: 850 - 1170nm 2.1  2.3 arcmin field of view 0.13 arcsec pixel-1 10 times survey power of NIC3 UDF 4.7 arcmin2 60 orbits in YJH Reaches mAB~29 (5) The unruly mob! Bouwens et al 0909.1803 Oesch et al 0909.1806 Bunker et al 0909.2255 McLure et al 0909.2437 Bouwens et al 0910.0001 Yan et al 0910.0077 Labbé et al 0910.0838 Bunker et al 0910.1098 Labbé et al 0911.1365 Finkelstein et al 0912.1338

  13. z >7 candidates from WFC3 UDF campaign z’ Y J H SED 2(z) 15 z > 7 candidates 3 IR filters c.f. 2 leads to more secure photometric redshifts and reliable UV continuum slopes McLure et al (2009)

  14. But beware..uncertain redshifts still an issue.. z Y H J

  15. Declining Density of Star Formation 3 < z < 8 Bouwens et al astro-ph/0909.1803

  16. WFC3 Progress – I: z~7 Luminosity Function α = -1.86 ± 0.33 (Oesch) α = -1.72 ± 0.65 (Ouchi) WFC3 UDF NIC UDF Ouchi 09 (Subaru) - ~25 z-band dropouts to YAB~28.5 corresponding to 6.5<z<7.5 - Steep faint end slope: low star formers ~1 M yr-1 dominant Oesch et al, Bunker et al 2009

  17. WFC3 Progress – II: Strong UV Continua? WFC3 data provides Y+J+H data and first reasonable estimate of the slope  of the stellar continuum where f()   : remarkably steep values   -3 ! Strong trend of increasingly steep UV continua for high z, low L sources Bunker et al 2009 Bouwens et al 2009

  18. What Might This Mean? (..if correct..) • Can reproduce  > -2.5 with dust-free young stars with Z~0.1Z - For  ~ -3 need very low metallicities, extremely young bursts or top-heavy IMF with implied high escape fraction fesc > 0.2 Schaerer 2003; Bouwens et al 0910.0001; Finkelstein et al 0912.1338

  19. Upshot: Did galaxies reionize the Universe? Emission rate of ionizing photons Mpc-3 vs CHII and fesc compared with abundance of HST star-forming galaxies Ouchi et al Excellent prospects for improving statistical test using ongoing HST programs

  20. Did Galaxies Reionize the Universe? Probably

  21. Testing the High z Stellar IMF? Ivan Baldry Integral of star formation history Observed stellar masses Various workers have proposed top-heavy IMF to explain: - intense SF in high z galaxies (Baugh et al 2005) - mismatch between integral of SF and assembled stellar mass (Wilkins et al 2008)

  22. Determining Rate of SNIIn 2<z<3 (M > 40-60M) UV luminosity density of searched LBGs c.f.♯of SNIIn – tests IMF slope SNLS light curve gmax= 25.7 rmax= 25.2 i,max= 25.1 z SN234161 2.013 SN58306 2.187 SN23222 2.231 SN19941 2.357 SN165699 2.364 SN57260 3.028* SN LBG Keck LRIS spectrum -- Lyα at z=2.32 Cooke, RSE et al

More Related