1 / 34

UV Radiative Feedback During Reionization

UV Radiative Feedback During Reionization. Andrei Mesinger Princeton University. Current Reionization Constraints at z~6-7. Caution:. WMAP t e ~ 0.087 0.017 reionization z~11 ? Dunkely+2009. - integrated measurement.

ringo
Download Presentation

UV Radiative Feedback During Reionization

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. UV Radiative Feedback During Reionization Andrei Mesinger Princeton University Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  2. Current Reionization Constraints at z~6-7 Caution: • WMAP te ~ 0.0870.017 reionization z~11? Dunkely+2009 - integrated measurement • rise in does not directly translate to rise in xHI(Furlanetto & Mesinger 2009) • analytical density models • -differences sensitive to low  • -extrapolation sensitive to continuum fitting • Ly forest in GP troughs of SDSS QSOs Fan et al. 2006: xHI ≥ 10-3and accelerated evolution Becker et al. 2007: no accelerated evolution • extremely model-dependent • cannot directly read size or evolution of proximity region from spectra! (Mesinger+ 2004; Mesinger & Haiman 2004; Bolton & Haehnelt 2007ab; Maselli+ 2006, 2007) • Size of Proximity Region: xHI ≥ 0.1 Wyithe & Loeb 2004; Wyithe+ 2004 Combined w/ independent constraints on L and age (Mesinger & Haiman 2004) Evolution in size (Fan et al. 2006): xHI ~ 10-3 Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  3. Current Reionization Constraints at z~6-7, cont. Caution: • L <--> M unknown • very model dependent • drop due to density and halo evolution? (Dijkstra et al. 2007) • reionization signature should be a flat suppression (Furlanetto et al. 2006; McQuinn et al. 2007; Mesinger & Furlanetto 2008a) • Iliev et al. 2008 disagree with impact on clustering • No evolution in Ly emitter (LAE) LF In isolation:xHI < 0.3 (e.g. Malhotra & Rhoads 2004) Clustered:xHI < 0.5 (Furlanetto et al. 2006) • Some evolution inLAE LF (Kashikawa et al. 2006) • LAE clustering xHI < 0.5(McQuinn et al. 2007) • no statistical significance • (McQuinn et al. 2008; • Mesinger & Furlanetto 2008b) • Lack of Ly damping wing in z=6.3 GRB Totani et al. 2006xHI < 0.2 • Detection of Ly damping wing in QSOs Sharp decline in flux (Mesinger & Haiman 2004) xHI> 0.2 Modeling Ly forest in proximity region (Mesinger & Haiman 2007) xHI > 0.03 - 2 sightlines - patchy reionization likely degrades confidence contours (Mesinger & Furlanetto 2008b) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  4. Challenges in Modeling Global Processes Virtually nothing is well-known at high-z --> enormous parameter space to explore Dynamic range required is enormous: single star --> Universe Be systematic! Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  5. Philosophy Use the right tool for the job! Mesinger (2007) one size DOES NOT fit all! Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  6. Outline • Radiative feedback throughout reionization: • advanced stages of reionization and Mmin • early stages (fossil HII regions around massive stars) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  7. Mmin in Advanced Stages of Reionization • Ionizing UVB suppresses gas content of low-mass galaxies(e.g. Efstathiou 1992; Shapiro+1994; Thoul & Weinberg 1996; Hui & Gnedin 1997; Gnedin 2000) • How important is this negative feedback during reionization? (we focus on atomically-cooled halos, Tvir>104 K) • can extend reionization • early work, z=2 halos with vcir<35km/s completely suppressed; vcir < 100km/s partially suppressed • NOT THIS SIMPLE! Not instantaneous; high-z mediated by more compact profiles, increased cooling efficiencies, shorter exposure times (Kitayama & Ikeuchi 2000; Dijkstra+ 2004) • Can we draw any general conclusions about this exceedingly complex problem? Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  8. Systematic approach -> Minimize Assumptions Does UV radiative feedback impact the advanced stages of reionization? Does/How Mmin effectively increase in ionized regions? • We do NOT attempt to self-consistently model reionization • LARGE parameter space (small knowledge at high-z): • z = 7, 10, 13 • <xHI> • ionization efficiency, fid (=1 to match z=6 LAE and LBG LFs) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  9. Two Tier Approach Mesinger & Dijkstra (2008) • 1D hydro simulations to model collapse of gas + dark matter under UVB: fg(Mhalo, z, J21, zon=14) • Semi-numerical code (DexM) to model halo, ionization and inhomogeneous flux fields: J21(x, z, <xH>, fid) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  10. Ionizing UV Flux Fields Mesinger & Dijkstra (2008) flux ∑ L(Mhalo)/r2 e-r/mfp Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  11. Global impact Mesinger & Dijkstra (2008) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  12. Mmin • Factor of 10 increase in ionizing efficiency is required to extend suppression by only factor of 2 in mass. Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  13. Being Conservative… • No self-shielding • mfp = 20 Mpc (the high-end of z<4 LLS extrapolations; Storrie-Lombardi+ 1994) • zon = 14 (zre = 11.0 +/- 1.4; Dunkley+ 2008) • biased halo formation • No redshift evolution of J21 over zon --> z Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  14. Relic HII Regions • Short lived, massive Pop III stars carve out ionized bubbles, then turn off. • Structure formation is highly biased at high-z; what happens inside these relic HII regions? ? ? Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  15. UV Radiative Feedback in Relic HII Regions • Radiative feedback on subsequent star formation can be: • positive (e- catalyzes H2 formation/cooling channel) • negative (LW radiation disassociates H2; radiative heating can photoevaporate small halos or leave gas with tenacious excess entropy) Problem is very complex and can benefit from both semi-analytic (e.g. Haiman et al. 1996; Oh & Haiman 2003; MacIntyre et al. 2005), and numerical studies (e.g. Machacek+2003; Ricotti+2002; Kuhlen & Madau 2005; O’Shea+2005; Abel+2007; ; Ahn & Shapiro 2007; Whalen+2008) We attempt to quantify the feedback effects from a UVB consistent with that expected from an early Pop III star using the cosmological AMR code, Enzo. Fiducial runs: JUV = 0 JUV = 0.08 JUV = 0.8 Flash Then add LWB of various strengths Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  16. Pretty Pictures JUV = 0.08 z = 25 20 h-1 kpc 10 104 T(K) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  17. Pretty Pictures JUV = 0.08 z = 24.9 20 h-1 kpc 10 104 T(K) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  18. Pretty Pictures JUV = 0.08 z = 24.62 20 h-1 kpc 10 104 T(K) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  19. Pretty Pictures JUV = 0.08 z = 24 20 h-1 kpc 10 104 T(K) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  20. Pretty Pictures JUV = 0.08 z = 23 20 h-1 kpc 10 104 T(K) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  21. Pretty Pictures JUV = 0.08 z = 22 20 h-1 kpc 10 104 T(K) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  22. Pretty Pictures JUV = 0.08 z = 21 20 h-1 kpc 10 104 T(K) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  23. Pretty Pictures JUV = 0.08 z = 20 20 h-1 kpc 10 104 T(K) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  24. Physics Outline • When the UVB turns on, gas gets ionized and heated to T~104 K. • The temperature increase sets-off an outward moving pressure shock in the cores of halos, where density profiles have already steepened. • This pressure shock smoothes out the gas distribution and leads to a decrease in gas density in the cores of halos. • Once the UVB is turned off, the gas rapidly cools to T~103 K through a combination of atomic, molecular hydrogen and Compton cooling. This temperature approximately corresponds to the gas temperature at the virial radius of such a proto-galactic, molecularly-cooled halo, thus effectively neutralizing the impact of temperature change on feedback. • A large amount of molecular hydrogen is produced, xH2 ~ few x 10-3, irrespective of the gas density and temperature. • The pressure-shock begins to dissipate and gas with a newly enhanced H2 abundance starts falling back onto the partially evacuated halo. • The enhanced H2 abundance allows the infalling gas to cool faster. - No RT! + Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  25. Radial Profiles JUV = 0.8 JUV = 0 Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  26. Transient Feedback _ Flash JUV = 0.08 JUV = 0.8 Mesinger+ (2006) Mesinger+ (2008) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  27. Physics Outline (halo embryos) No RT ok! • When the UVB turns on, gas gets ionized and heated to T~104 K. • The temperature increase sets-off an outward moving pressure shock in the cores of halos, where density profiles have already steepened. • This pressure shock smoothes out the gas distribution and leads to a decrease in gas density in the cores of halos. • Once the UVB is turned off, the gas rapidly cools to T~103 K through a combination of atomic, molecular hydrogen and Compton cooling. This temperature approximately corresponds to the gas temperature at the virial radius of such a proto-galactic, molecularly-cooled halo, thus effectively neutralizing the impact of temperature change on feedback. • A large amount of molecular hydrogen is produced, xH2 ~ few x 10-3, irrespective of the gas density and temperature. • The pressure-shock begins to dissipate and gas with a newly enhanced H2 abundance starts falling back onto the partially evacuated halo. • The enhanced H2 abundance allows the infalling gas to cool faster. - + Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  28. Eventual Positive Feedback JUV=0.8, JLW=10-3 JUV = 0.8 JUV = 0 Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  29. Conclusions • UV feedback on T>104 K halos NOT strong enough to notably affect bulk of reionization (requires factor of ~100 increase in ionizing efficiencies) • Likely Mmin ~ 108 Msun throughout most of reionization after minihalos no longer dominate • In early relic HII regions, feedback can be both + and -, but is transient; eventual + feedback is interesting, but can be suppressed with modest values of LWB • Natural timescale for significant part of reionization is the growth of the collapsed fraction in T>104 K halos, with small filling factor tail extending to higher z due to T<104 K halos, likely regulated by LWB??? Late stages maybe slowed down by photon sinks??? • Dynamic range is important in modeling reionization! Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  30. Halo Filtering Mesinger & Furlanetto (2007) z=8.7 N-body halo field from McQuinn et al. (2007) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  31. Density Fields z=7 Numerical results from Trac+2008 Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  32. Density Fields, cont. Mesinger+ 2009 (in preparation) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  33. HII Bubble Filtering Mesinger & Furlanetto (2007) RT ionization field from Zahn et al. (2007) Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

  34. Cool PR Movie DexM public release available at http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mesinger Ringberg, Germany 24-27. march, 2009

More Related