1: % revised version May 23 2007
2: % draft of 9 March 2007, Michele after Massimo's comments: submitted version
3:
4: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
6: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
7:
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: \usepackage{amsmath}
10:
11: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
12: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
13: %% the \begin{document} command.
14:
15:
16: \shorttitle{Very first stars and z\~6 QSOs}
17: \shortauthors{Trenti \& Stiavelli}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
22: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
23: %% you desire.
24:
25: %\title{\emph{First} stars as seeds of luminous z=6 quasars?}
26: \title{Distribution of the very first PopIII stars and their relation
27: to bright $z\approx 6$ quasars}
28:
29: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
30: %% author and affiliation information.
31: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
32: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
33: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
34: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
35:
36: \author{M. Trenti}
37: \affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive Baltimore MD 21218 USA}
38: \and
39: \author{M. Stiavelli}
40: \affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700
41: San Martin Drive Baltimore MD 21218 USA; \\ Department of Physics and
42: Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA }
43: \email{trenti@stsci.edu; mstiavel@stsci.edu}
44:
45: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
46: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
47: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
48: %% affiliation.
49:
50:
51:
52:
53: %-------------------------------------------------%
54: \begin{abstract}
55:
56: We discuss the link between dark matter halos hosting the \emph{first}
57: PopIII stars and the rare, massive, halos that are generally
58: considered to host bright quasars at high redshift ($z \approx
59: 6$). The main question that we intend to answer is whether the
60: super-massive black holes powering these QSOs grew out from the seeds
61: planted by the \emph{first} intermediate massive black holes created
62: in the universe. This question involves a dynamical range of $10^{13}$
63: in mass and we address it by combining N-body simulations of structure
64: formation to identify the most massive halos at $z \approx 6$ with a
65: Monte Carlo method based on linear theory to obtain the location and
66: formation times of the first light halos within the whole simulation
67: box. We show that the descendants of the first $\approx 10^6 M_{\sun}$
68: virialized halos do not, on average, end up in the most massive halos
69: at $z \approx 6$, but rather live in a large variety of
70: environments. The oldest PopIII progenitors of the most massive halos
71: at $z \approx 6$, form instead from density peaks that are on average
72: one and a half standard deviations more common than the first PopIII
73: star formed in the volume occupied by one bright high-z QSO. The
74: intermediate mass black hole seeds planted by the very first PopIII
75: stars at $z\gtrsim 40$ can easily grow to masses $m_{BH}>10^{9.5}
76: M_{\sun}$ by $z=6$ assuming Eddington accretion with radiative
77: efficiency $\epsilon \lesssim 0.1$. Quenching of the black hole
78: accretion is therefore crucial to avoid an overabundance of
79: supermassive black holes at lower redshift. This can be obtained if
80: the mass accretion is limited to a fraction $\eta \approx 6 \cdot
81: 10^{-3}$ of the total baryon mass of the halo hosting the black
82: hole. The resulting high end slope of the black hole mass function at
83: $z=6$ is $\alpha \approx -3.7$, a value within the $1\sigma$ error bar
84: for the bright end slope of the observed quasar luminosity function at
85: $z=6$.
86:
87: \end{abstract}
88:
89: \keywords{cosmology: theory - galaxies: high-redshift - early universe
90: - methods: N-body simulations}
91:
92:
93: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
94: \section{Introduction}
95:
96: Bright quasars at $z \approx 6$ are very luminous and rare objects that
97: can can be detected out to huge cosmological distances in very large
98: area surveys like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep{fan04}. Their
99: estimated space density is $\approx 2.2 \cdot 10^{-9} (Mpc/h)^{-3}$
100: \citep{fan04}, that is about one object per about $200$ deg$^2$ of sky,
101: assuming a depth of $\Delta z = 1$ centered at $z=6.1$ under the third
102: year WMAP cosmology \citep{WMAP3}. Their luminosity is thought to be
103: due to accretion onto a super-massive black hole \citep[e.g.,
104: see][]{hop05}.
105: A common expectation is that the luminous high-z quasars sit at the
106: center of the biggest proto-clusters at that time. Some observational
107: evidence of over-densities of galaxies in two deep HST-ACS fields
108: containing a bright z=6 quasar has been claimed \citep{sti05,zhe06},
109: but it is unclear whether this is true in general. In fact an ACS
110: image only probes a long and narrow field of view of about $6 \times 6
111: \times 320 (Mpc/h)^3$ in the redshift range $[5.6:6.6]$, so a
112: significant number of detections may come from galaxies unrelated to
113: the environment of the host halo of the bright quasar.
114:
115: Numerical simulations to address the formation of bright quasars are
116: extremely challenging given their low number density. A huge
117: simulation cube with edge of $\gtrsim 700~Mpc/h$ is required just to
118: expect, on average, one such object in the simulation box. A major
119: computational investment, like the Millennium run \citep{MR05}, is
120: required to resolve at high redshift ($z \gtrsim 20$) virialized halos
121: on this volume and to follow their merging history down to $z \approx
122: 6$. Even assuming that the simulation volume is big enough that there
123: is the expectation to find halos hosting bright quasars, how can these
124: halos be identified? In principle two, non mutually exclusive,
125: alternatives appear plausible: either the super-massive black holes
126: are hosted in the most massive halos with the corresponding number
127: density of SDSS quasars or these black holes have grown from the first
128: PopIII Intermediate Mass Black Hole seeds, therefore representing the
129: descendant of the rarest density peaks that hosted first stars.
130:
131: The first scenario implies that the $m_{BH}-\sigma$ relation
132: \citep{fer00,geb00} is already in place at high redshift
133: \citep{vol03,hop05,dimatteo05}. In that case multigrid simulations can
134: be carried out to follow in detail the growth of the supermassive
135: black hole (e.g., see \citealt{li06}). In the second scenario the
136: quasars progenitors would be traced back to the first PopIII stars
137: created in the universe within $\approx 10^6 M_{\sun}$ mass halos
138: virialized at $z \approx 50$ \citep{bro04,abel02}. These PopIII stars
139: are very massive $M>100M_{\sun}$, so after a short life of a few
140: million years explode and may leave intermediate mass black holes,
141: plausible seeds for the super-massive black holes observed at lower
142: redshift. Of course the two scenarios can be consistent with each
143: other if the first perturbations to collapse are also the most massive
144: at $z=6$. This seems to be implied, e.g. in \citet{MR05}, where the
145: bright quasar candidate in the simulation is traced back to one of the
146: 18 collapsed halos at $z=16.7$.
147:
148: In this paper we explore the link between the first PopIII halos
149: collapsed in a simulation box and the most massive halos at lower
150: redshifts to gain insight on the scenarios of bright quasar
151: formation. This is a numerically challenging problem as the dynamical
152: range of masses involved is very large: a simulation volume of $5
153: \cdot 10^{8} (Mpc/h)^{3}$ has a mass of about $3.3 \cdot 10^{19}
154: M_{\sun}/h$, that is more than $10^{13}$ times the mass of a PopIII
155: dark matter halo. We have adopted an original approach to the problem,
156: broadly inspired by the tree method by \citet{col94}. We first
157: simulate at relatively low resolution the evolution of a simulation
158: volume down to $z=0$. Then, starting from the density fluctuations
159: field in the initial conditions of the numerical simulation, we
160: compute analytically the redshift distribution of the oldest PopIII
161: halo collapsed within each single grid cell. The information is then
162: used as input for a Monte Carlo code to sample for each particle of
163: the simulation the collapse redshift of the first PopIII progenitor
164: dark matter halo. The formation time of the oldest PopIII remnant
165: within the most massive halos identified at $z \approx 6$ is finally
166: compared with that of the oldest PopIII star sampled over the whole
167: simulation volume and the implications for the growth of supermassive
168: black holes are discussed.
169:
170: Our approach is tuned to investigate the formation and the subsequent
171: remnant distribution of the first, rare density peaks that hosted
172: PopIII stars at $z \gtrsim 30$. With this respect our study has a
173: similar goal to \citet{ree05}, with the important difference that we
174: search for the first PopIII star in the complete simulation box and
175: not by means of progressive refinements around substructures that
176: probe only a small fraction of the total box volume. As our method is
177: tuned at finding very rare fluctuations, it is not easily applied to
178: the significantly more common $3 \sigma$ peaks with mass
179: $\approx 10^{6}M_{\sun}$ that collapse at $z\approx 20$ and that might
180: constitute the majority of PopIII stars, if these are terminated by
181: chemical feedback at $z \lesssim 20$ \citep[e.g. see,][]{gre06} and
182: not by photo-dissociation of molecular hydrogen at $z \gtrsim 25$
183: \citep{hai00}.
184:
185: This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:num} we present
186: the details of the numerical simulations carried out. In
187: Sec.~\ref{sec:first_halos} we analyze the numerical results focusing
188: on the merging history of the first PopIII halos formed in the
189: simulation box. In Sec.\ref{sec:end_of_fs} we review when the first
190: stars epoch end, while in Sec.~\ref{sec:BHgrow} we discuss the
191: implications of the PopIII distribution that we find for the build-up
192: of supermassive black hole population at $z \lesssim 6$. We conclude
193: in Sec.~\ref{sec:conc}.
194:
195:
196: \section{Numerical Methods} \label{sec:num}
197:
198: \subsection{N-body simulations}
199:
200: The numerical simulations presented in this paper have been carried
201: out using the public version of the PM-Tree code Gadget-2
202: \citep{spr05}. Our standard choice is to adopt a cosmology based on
203: the third year WMAP data \citep{WMAP3}: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.74$,
204: $\Omega_{m}=0.26$, $H_0=70~km/s/Mpc$, where $\Omega_m$ is the total
205: matter density in units of the critical density ($\rho_{c}= 3H_0^2/(8
206: \pi G)$) with $H_0$ being the Hubble constant (parameterized as $H_0 =
207: 100 h~ km/s/Mpc$) and $G$ the Newton's gravitational constant
208: \citep{peebles}. $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ is the dark energy density. As
209: for $\sigma_8$, the root mean squared mass fluctuation in a sphere of
210: radius $8Mpc/h$ extrapolated at $z=0$ using linear theory, we consider
211: both $\sigma_8=0.9$ and $\sigma_8=0.75$, focusing in particular on the
212: higher value that provides a better match to the observed clustering
213: properties of galaxies \citep{evr07}.
214:
215: The initial conditions have been generated using a code based on the
216: Grafic algorithm \citep{bert01}. An initial uniform lattice is
217: perturbed using a discrete realization of a Gaussian random field
218: sampled in real space and then convolved in Fourier space with a
219: $\Lambda CDM$ transfer function computed using the fit by \citet{eis99}
220: and assuming a scale invariant long-wave spectral index ($n=1$). The
221: initial density field is saved for later reprocessing through the
222: first light Monte Carlo code (see Sec.~\ref{sec:MC}). The particles
223: velocities and displacements are then evolved to the desired starting
224: redshift ($z_{start}=65.67$, i.e. $a_{start}=0.015$) using the
225: Zel'dovich approximation and the evolution is followed using Gadget-2
226: \citep{spr05}. Dark matter halos are identified in the simulations
227: snapshots using the HOP halo finder \citep{eis98}.
228:
229:
230: To find the optimal trade-off between mass resolution and box size,
231: both critical parameters to establish a connection between PopIII
232: halos and the most massive halos identified at $z=6$, we resort to
233: simulations (see Tab.~\ref{tab:sim}) with three different box sizes,
234: all simulated with $N=512^3$ particles:
235: %
236: \begin{itemize}
237:
238: \item[(i)] A ``large'' box size of edge $720~Mpc/h$ that is large
239: enough to contain on average about one bright high-z quasar. The mass
240: resolution is $3.7 \cdot 10^{12} M_{\sun}/h$ (corresponding to a halo
241: of 20 particles).
242:
243: \item[(ii)] A ``medium'' box size of edge $512~Mpc/h$ that represents
244: a compromise between a slightly higher mass resolution than $(i)$ and
245: a still reasonably large simulation volume.
246:
247: \item[(iii)] A ``small'' box size of edge $60~Mpc/h$. While this box
248: size is too small to host a bright $z \approx 6$ quasar, its volume
249: is still larger than that of deep surveys like the UDF
250: \citep{beck06}, that spans a volume about $20$ times smaller than
251: this box in the redshift interval $z \in [5.6:6.6]$ (the typical
252: redshift uncertainty for $i$-dropouts). Halos down to about $3 \cdot
253: 10^{9} M_{\sun}/h$ can be identified in this box. The analysis of
254: the results from this simulation will show the fundamental role
255: played by the large volume employed for simulations (i) and (ii).
256:
257: \end{itemize}
258: %
259:
260: \subsection{Monte Carlo code for first light sources}\label{sec:MC}
261:
262: Given the initial density fluctuations field on the simulation grid,
263: where a cell has a mass of order $10^{10}- 10^{11} M_{\sun}/h$, our
264: goal is to estimate the redshift of the first virialized perturbation
265: within each cell at the mass scale of early PopIII dark matter halos
266: (i.e. $\lesssim 10^6 M_{\sun}$, see e.g. \citealt{bro04}). For this we
267: resort to an analytical treatment based on a linear approximation for
268: structure formation.
269:
270: The initial conditions for a N-body simulation in a box of size $L$
271: with $N$ particles and a single particle mass $m_p$ define a Gaussian
272: random field $\delta {\rho}$ for the N cells (associated to the
273: location of the N particles) of the simulation grid. This density
274: field is usually generated by convolving white noise with the transfer
275: function associated to the power spectrum of the density perturbations
276: (e.g., see \citealt{bert01}) and is used to obtain the initial
277: velocity and positions displacements for the particles (e.g. see
278: Eq.~5.115 in \citealt{peebles}). The density fluctuation in each cell
279: has a contribution from different uncorrelated frequencies in the
280: power spectrum. When the initial conditions for an N-body simulation
281: are generated, the power spectrum has an upper cutoff around the
282: Nyquist frequency for the grid used (i.e. around the frequency
283: associated to the average inter-particle distance) and a lower cutoff
284: at the frequency associated to the box size (if periodic boundary
285: conditions are enforced). A higher resolution version of the initial
286: density field can be obtained by simply increasing the grid size and
287: adding the density perturbations associated to the power spectrum
288: between the old and the new cutoff frequencies.
289:
290: In linear approximation one can use the field $\delta \rho$ to obtain
291: the redshift of virialization of a structure of mass $M_h>m_p$ at a
292: given position $\vec{x}$ in the grid. To do this one averages the
293: field $\delta \rho$ using a spherical window centered at $\vec{x}$
294: with a radius such that the window encloses a mass $M_h$ and computes
295: assuming linear growth the redshift at which the average density
296: within the window reaches $\delta \rho = 1.69$ (in units where the
297: average density of the box is 1). In fact, for a spherical collapse
298: model, when $\delta \rho = 1.69$ in linear theory, then the halo has
299: reached virial equilibrium under the full non-linear dynamics. This
300: concept is at the base of the various proposed methods for computing
301: analytically the mass function of dark matter halos (e.g., see
302: \citealt{PS,bond,she99}).
303:
304: We apply this idea to estimate the formation rate and the location in
305: the simulation volume of dark matter halos at a mass scale below the
306: single particle mass used in the simulation. A straightforward
307: implementation consists in generating first the density field
308: associated to the N-body simulation, and then to refine at higher
309: resolution the field by means of a constrained realization of the
310: initial conditions used in the N-body run (e.g. see
311: \citealt{bert01}). This provides exact and complete information on the
312: whole density field, but the price to pay is the execution of very
313: large Fast Fourier Transforms on the refined grid. If the goal is to
314: compute density fluctuations down to a mass of $\approx 10^6
315: M_{\sun}/h$ over a box of edge $720 Mpc/h$, a grid of $29184^3$ is
316: needed, which would require about $100$ TB of RAM, that is well beyond
317: the current memory capabilities of the largest supercomputers.
318:
319: A shortcut is however available, if one trades information for
320: numerical complexity. Given a realized numerical simulation, we are in
321: fact not interested in getting a detailed picture of the dynamics at
322: sub-grid resolution, but only in identifying for each grid point the
323: redshift of virialization of its first progenitor at a given sub-grid
324: mass scale. For example, given a simulation with single particle mass
325: of $10^{10} M_{\sun}/h$ our aim is to quantify the redshift of
326: virialization of the \emph{first} dark matter halo of mass $10^6
327: M_{\sun}/h$ within the volume associated to the $10^{10} M_{\sun}/h$
328: particle. In that case, if we were to have the full sub-grid
329: information we would search for the maximum realized value of the
330: density within the $10^4$ sub-grid cells of mass $10^6 M_{\sun}/h$
331: that constitute our $10^{10} M_{\sun}/h$ single particle cell. As the
332: density fluctuation field is a Gaussian random field, the density in
333: sub-grid cells will be a Gaussian centered at the density of the
334: parent cell and with variance given by integration of the power
335: spectrum of density fluctuations truncated between the Niquist
336: frequency of the parent cell and that of the sub-cells.
337:
338: Therefore, for a single cell of mass $m_p$, the redshift of collapse
339: of a sub-grid progenitor at a mass scale $m_{fs}$ can be obtained
340: simply by sampling from the probability distribution of the maximum of
341: the sub-grid fluctuations of the $k=m_p/m_{fs}$ sub-cells of mass
342: $m_{fs}$ that are within a cell of mass $m_p$.
343: The probability distribution for the maximum of these
344: fluctuations is available in analytic form when the field is Gaussian,
345: as in the case considered here.
346: In fact, given a probability distribution $p(x)$, with partition function
347: $P(x)$:
348: %%%%
349: \begin{equation}
350: P(x)=\int_{- \infty}^x p(a) da,
351: \end{equation}
352: %%%%
353: the probability distribution $q(m,k)$ for the maximum $m$ of $k$
354: random numbers extracted from $p(x)$ ($m=Max(x_1,...,x_k)$) is the
355: derivative of the partition function for $m$, that in turns is simply
356: the $k$-th power of the partition function for $x_i$,
357: i.e. $P(x)$. Therefore we have:
358: %%%%%
359: \begin{equation} \label{eq:maxpdf}
360: q(m,k) = k \cdot p(m) \cdot P(m)^{k-1}.
361: \end{equation}
362: %%%%%
363: Eq.~(\ref{eq:maxpdf}) has a simple interpretation: the probability
364: that the maximum of $k$ random numbers lies in the interval
365: $[m,m+\delta m]$ is given by the probability of sampling one of the $k$
366: numbers exactly in that interval and all the other numbers below $m$.
367:
368: With the aid of Eq.~(\ref{eq:maxpdf}) we can sample the distribution
369: of the maximum of the additional sub-grid density fluctuations that
370: need to be considered in order to probe the mass scale of PopIII
371: halos. The variance $\sigma_{fs}$ to be used in $p(x)$ may be computed
372: from the power spectrum of the density fluctuations by considering an
373: upper cut-off at the wavelength of one cell size in the initial
374: conditions. Or, equivalently, if the complete power spectrum of
375: density fluctuations has variance $\sigma(M_{grid\_cell})$ at the mass
376: scale of one grid cell and variance $\sigma(M_{PopIII\_halo})$ at the
377: mass scale of a halo hosting a first star, we set $\sigma_{fs}$ such
378: that:
379: %%%%%%%%%%
380: \begin{equation} \label{eq:sigma}
381: \sigma_{fs}^2 = \sigma(M_{PopIII\_halo})^2 - \sigma(M_{grid\_cell})^2.
382: \end{equation}
383: %%%%%%%%%%
384:
385: Therefore our recipe for estimating the age of the earliest progenitor
386: formed in each cell is the following:
387: %%%%%%%%%
388: \begin{itemize}
389: \item[(i)] Starting from the initial density fluctuation field on the
390: grid used to initialize the N-body run compute the mass refinement
391: factor $k$ to go from the mass of a single particle (i.e. the mass
392: within one grid cell) to that of a PopIII star halo
393: ($k=M_{grid\_cell}/M_{PopIII\_halo}$).
394: \item[(ii)] Given the power spectrum of the density fluctuations,
395: $M_{grid\_cell}$ and $M_{PopIII\_halo}$ compute $\sigma_{fs}$.
396: \item[(iii)] Extract one random number $r$ from $q(m,k)$ (see
397: Eq.~\ref{eq:maxpdf}) where $p(m)$ is a Gaussian distribution with zero
398: mean and variance $\sigma_{fs}$.
399: \item[(iv)] Sum $r$ to the value of the density field in the cell to
400: obtain $(\delta \rho_{fs} / \rho)_{max}$ in the cell. From the value
401: of $(\delta \rho_{fs}/ \rho)_{max}$ it is then straightforward to
402: compute the non-linear redshift for that perturbation, i.e. the
403: redshift $z_{nl}$ when the linear density contrast reaches a value
404: $(\delta \rho_{fs} / \rho)_{max} (z_{nl}) = 1.69$.
405: \end{itemize}
406: %%%%%%%%%
407:
408: The particles of the simulation now carry the additional information
409: of the redshift at which their \emph{first} PopIII star dark matter
410: halo progenitor has collapsed in linear theory (a proxy for the
411: redshift of actual virialization). Once halos have been identified in
412: simulation snapshots, the redshift of the earliest PopIII progenitor
413: within the halo is easily obtained. It is similarly easy to identify
414: in a snapshot what is the environment in which the particles with the
415: oldest progenitors live. This procedure is robust with respect to
416: variations of the simulation resolution, as long as the focus is on
417: rare density peaks, with an average occupation number per simulation
418: cell (i.e. particle) much smaller than unity. Numerical tests are
419: presented in Appendix~\ref{sec:app}.
420:
421: This method has two main advantages:
422: \begin{enumerate}
423: \item[(i)] It allows to use relatively inexpensive ``low resolution''
424: simulations to identify the largest objects at low redshift ($z
425: \lesssim 6$). In fact if we are interested in identifying the most
426: massive halos at $z \approx 6$ as host halos for quasar candidates a
427: mass resolution of $\approx 10^{11} M_{\sun}/h$ is sufficient (e.g. in
428: \citealt{MR05} the mass of the largest halo at $z=6.2$ is $3.9 \cdot
429: 10^{12} M_{\sun}/h$ for a simulation volume of $(500 Mpc/h)^3$).
430:
431: \item[(ii)] For a given numerical simulation, several Monte Carlo
432: realization can be generated to gather robust statistical constraints
433: on the properties of dark matter halos hosting first light sources as
434: well as the spatial distributions of the first halo remnants in halos
435: at lower redshift.
436:
437: \end{enumerate}
438:
439: However our method has the drawback that it cannot be easily extended
440: to the investigation of the detailed merging history at the sub-grid
441: level, as only the virialization time of the earliest progenitor of
442: each particle at a given mass scale is provided. In addition, the
443: identification of the first virialized PopIII halos is expressed in
444: terms of the halos with the highest $z_{nl}$. We are therefore
445: neglecting the non-linear evolution and the environmental dependences
446: on the dynamics of the dark matter collapse, such as tidal forces,
447: therefore missing the precise redshift at which a PopIII halo
448: virializes. These are limitations that we need to accept as the non
449: linear evolution could be followed over the whole box only at the
450: price of running a simulation prohibitively intensive in cpu and
451: memory resources, with at least $10^3$ time more particles than in the
452: Millenium Run \citep{MR05}. This appears unfeasible for the time
453: being, even considering next generation dedicated supercomputers, like
454: the GrapeDR \citep{mak05}.
455:
456: \section{The fate of the first PopIII halos} \label{sec:first_halos}
457:
458: \subsection{Analytical considerations}\label{sec:est}
459:
460: The general picture for the connection between first halos and the
461: most massive halos at $z \approx 6$ can be obtained using analytical
462: considerations, that will be later confirmed in Sec.~\ref{sec:MCres}
463: by the results of our numerical investigation.
464:
465: Following the choice for our large box simulation, we consider a
466: volume of $(720 Mpc/h)^3$ of mass $M_{Box}$, large enough to host a
467: bright $z \approx 6$ quasar. We estimate from the Press-Schechter
468: formalism (see also the masses of the $z=6$ halos in our ``large'' box
469: simulation in Sec.~\ref{sec:MCres}) that the most massive halo at $z
470: \approx 6$ has a mass (that we call $M_{qh}$) of about $10^{12} -
471: 10^{13} M_{\sun}/h$ (see also \citealt{MR05}). Since the most massive
472: halo is the first at its mass scale to be formed, through the use of
473: Eq.~\ref{eq:maxpdf} we can obtain the distribution of its initial
474: density fluctuation (see Fig.~\ref{fig:pdf}). If we assume $M_{qh} =
475: M_{Box}/180^3 = 4.3 \cdot 10^{12} M_{\sun}/h$ (in agreement with
476: \citealt{MR05}), this halo is expected to have originated from a
477: density fluctuation in the range $[5:5.7] \sigma(M_{qh})$ at $90 \%$
478: of confidence level. We now consider the volume initially occupied by
479: the mass $M_{qh}$ and we compute from the primordial power spectrum
480: the variance $\sigma_{fs}$ of density perturbations at mass scale of a
481: PopIII halo ($M_{fs} = 10^6 M_{\sun}/h = 1/160^3 M_{qh}$) considering
482: only contributions from wavelengths at a scale below the volume
483: enclosed by $M_{qh}$ (see Eq.~\ref{eq:sigma}). We obtain
484: $\sigma_{fs}=4.85 \sigma(M_{qh})$. From Eq.~\ref{eq:maxpdf} follows
485: that the maximum of $160^3$ Gaussian random numbers with variance
486: $\sigma_{fs}$ is distributed in the range $[23.4:27.0] \sigma(M_{qh})
487: $ at $90\%$ of confidence level. Combining the two $90\%$ confidence
488: level intervals, this means that the first PopIII progenitor of a
489: bright quasar originated from a perturbation in the range $[28.4:32.7]
490: \sigma(M_{qh})$. If we consider instead a random sub-cell among the
491: $160^3$, the probability that the maximum sub-grid perturbation is
492: smaller than $32.7 \sigma(M_{qh})$ is only $0.99995$, so several
493: hundreds of the $180^3$ cells among the whole simulation volume are
494: expected to have a PopIII progenitor formed before that of the most
495: massive $z=6$ halo. In fact from integration of Eq.~\ref{eq:maxpdf},
496: the sigma peak associated to the \emph{first} star in the box is
497: expected to be greater than $35.5 \sigma(M_{qh}) $ at 99.99 \% of
498: confidence level (and in the interval $[36.2:38.8] \sigma(M_{qh})$ at
499: $90\%$ of confidence level). Therefore the rarity of the earliest
500: PopIII progenitor of the most massive halo at $z=6$ is about $1.5
501: \sigma_{fs}$ less than that of the \emph{first} PopIII star formed in
502: the simulation volume. In terms of formation redshift, the
503: \emph{first} PopIII star dark matter halo in the simulation volume
504: virializes in the redshift interval $z \in [49:53]$, while the
505: earliest PopIII progenitor of the QSO halo is formed at $z \in
506: [38:44]$ (both intervals at 90\% of confidence level and computed for
507: $\sigma_8 = 0.9$).
508:
509: The picture changes quite
510: significantly if we consider a smaller box size. E.g. in our $S1$
511: simulation (see Tab.~\ref{tab:sim}) with a volume of $(60 Mpc/h)^3$ a
512: perturbation on a mass scale $M_{qh} = 7 \cdot 10^{11} M_{\sun}/h
513: \approx M_{Box}/27^3$ is expected to be the most massive at $z \approx
514: 6$. Such a halo derives at $90 \%$ of confidence level from a
515: fluctuation $[3.6:4.6] \sigma(M_{qh})$. If we further assume $M_{fs} =
516: 8.5 \cdot 10^5 M_{\sun}/h = 1/94^3 M_{qh}$, we have a sub-grid
517: variance $\sigma_{fs}=3.66$ so that the maximum of the $94^3$ random
518: first light perturbation in a cell of mass $M_{qh}$ is distributed in
519: the range $[16.4:19.4] \sigma(M_{qh})$ at $90\%$ of confidence
520: level. By combining the two intervals as above, we expect that the
521: first PopIII progenitor of the most massive $z=6$ halo derives from a
522: $[20.0:24.0] \sigma(M_{qh})$ peak. The \emph{first} PopIII star
523: derives instead from a $[23.8:26.1] \sigma(M_{qh})$ peak (always
524: $90\%$ of confidence level). At variance with the larger box, here the
525: correlation between the most massive halo at $z=6$ and the
526: \emph{first} PopIII star in the simulation is expected to be stronger and the
527: most massive halo is likely to have as progenitor one of the first 10-100 Pop III
528: stars.
529:
530: From these simple analytical estimates it is clear that the most
531: massive and rarest structures collapsed around $z \approx 6$ do not
532: descend from the rarest sigma peaks at the first light mass scale in
533: the simulation volume, when the simulation box represents a
534: significant fraction of the Hubble volume. Conversely the black holes
535: remnants of the \emph{first} PopIII stars in the universe do not
536: provide the seeds for super-massive black holes within the most
537: massive halos at $z \lesssim 6$. The descendants of first PopIII stars
538: are instead expected to be found at the center of a variety of halos,
539: as we quantify in the next Section by means of N-body simulations.
540:
541:
542: \subsection{Simulations Results}\label{sec:MCres}
543:
544: In constructing the $z=6$ halo catalogs we adopt the following
545: parameters for the HOP halo finder \citep{eis98}. The local density
546: around each particle is constructed using a 16 particles smoothing
547: kernel. For the regrouping algorithm we use: $\delta_{peak} = 240$,
548: $\delta_{saddle} = 180$, $\delta_{outer} = 100$ and a minimum group
549: size of $20$ particles. In the large simulation box (run $L1$ in
550: Tab~\ref{tab:sim}) we identify $47$ halos with 20 particles or more
551: and the most massive halo ($37$ particles) has a mass of $6.9 \cdot
552: 10^{12} M_{\sun}/h$. In the medium simulation box (run $M1$ in
553: Tab~\ref{tab:sim}) the higher mass resolution allows us to identify
554: $694$ halos with at least 20 particles and the most massive halo has
555: $92$ particles for a total mass of $6.1 \cdot 10^{12} M_{\sun}/h$,
556: consistent with the results from the larger box. Finally in the small
557: box simulations (runs $S1$ and $S2$ in Tab~\ref{tab:sim}) there are
558: 14972 halos with at least $100$ particles in $S1$ ($\sigma_8 = 0.9$)
559: and 7531 halos with at least $100$ particles in $S2$ ($\sigma_8 =
560: 0.75$). The most massive halo has a mass of $2.4\cdot 10^{12}
561: M_{\sun}/h$ in $S1$ and of $7.1\cdot 10^{11} M_{\sun}/h $ in $S2$. The
562: $z=6$ halo mass distribution for these two simulations is well
563: described (with displacements within $\approx 15\%$) by a
564: \citet{she99} mass function.
565:
566: The link between the halos identified in the snapshots and the first
567: light sources is established using the Monte Carlo method described in
568: Sec.~\ref{sec:MC}. For the large box we consider a refinement factor
569: $k=57^3$ to move from the single particle mass of the simulation to a
570: typical PopIII halo mass, so that $M_{fs} = 1.0 \cdot 10^{6}
571: M_{\sun}/h$. For the first 10 most massive halos at $z=6$ we show in
572: Fig.~\ref{fig:card720} the distribution of the redshift at which the
573: oldest progenitor crosses the virialization density contrast threshold
574: in linear theory ($\delta \rho /\rho = 1.69$) and the distribution of
575: the ranking of the collapse time computed over all the PopIII
576: progenitors of the simulation particles. The collapse rank of the
577: first PopIII progenitor of the most massive $z=6$ halo is in the
578: interval $[474:45075]$ at $90\%$ of confidence level, with median
579: $8535$. The corresponding virialization redshifts are in the interval
580: $[39.3:44.1]$ with median $41.1$. For comparison the \emph{first}
581: PopIII halo in the box virializes in the redshift interval
582: $[49.0:52.7]$ with median $50.3$; the 100th first light in the box
583: collapses in the redshift range $[45.5:45.8]$ with median
584: $45.7$. These results from the combined N-body simulation and Monte
585: Carlo code are in excellent quantitative agreement with the analytical
586: estimates of Sec.~\ref{sec:est} and confirm that in a large simulation
587: box the most massive halos at $z=6$ do not derive from the rarest
588: sigma peaks at the first light mass scale. This result is robust with
589: respect to the adopted typical mass for PopIII halos. In
590: Fig.~\ref{fig:mass} we show the results obtained by changing the mass
591: of the halos hosting the first stars considering larger halos ($M_{fs}
592: = 3.4 \cdot 10^6 M_{\sun/h}$ with $k=38^3$) and smaller halos ($M_{fs}
593: = 3.0 \cdot 10^5 M_{\sun/h}$ with $k=85^3$). The formation redshift
594: varies as the first halos are formed earlier when they are less
595: massive, but the relative ranking between the first PopIII halo in the
596: box and the first PopIII progenitor of the most massive structures at
597: $z=6$ remains similar. In passing we note that our distribution of the
598: formation redshift for the first $3 \cdot 10^{5} M_{\sun}$ progenitor
599: of the most massive $z=6$ halo (formed at $z \approx 46$) is in
600: agreement with the results by \citet{ree05}, obtained by means of
601: N-body simulations with adaptive refinements. However this halo is not
602: the first one formed in the simulation box as we find that the first
603: structure on this mass scale is formed at $z \gtrsim 55$ (see
604: Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}).
605:
606: The results are similar for the medium box, which has a volume that is
607: only three times smaller than the large one (see
608: Fig.~\ref{fig:card512}). The refinement factor used here is $k=40$
609: that gives $M_{fs} = 1.0 \cdot 10^{6} M_{\sun}/h$. The \emph{first}
610: PopIII halo in the box virializes in the redshift range $[48.3:52.4]$
611: with median $49.7$, while the oldest PopIII progenitor of the most
612: massive halo virializes in the redshift range $[38.5:43.2]$ (median
613: $40.4$) and has a collapse ranking in $[574:37499]$ at $90\%$ of
614: confidence level, with median $7261$.
615:
616: The picture changes significantly (see Fig.~\ref{fig:card60}) for the
617: small box that has a volume more than $10^3$ times smaller than the
618: large box. Here we use a refinement factor $k=5$, that leads to
619: $M_{fs} = 8.6 \cdot 10^{5} M_{\sun}/h$. The collapse rank of the first
620: light progenitor of the most massive $z=6$ halo is in the range
621: $[1:103]$ at the $90 \%$ confidence level with median $13$. The
622: correlation between the \emph{first} PopIII star and the most massive
623: structure at $z=6$ is therefore strong due to the small volume of the
624: box. This means that \emph{locally} the oldest remnants of first stars
625: are expected to be within the largest collapsed structures.
626:
627: From the medium box size numerical simulation we have also
628: characterized the fraction of \emph{first} PopIII remnants that end up
629: in identified halos at $z=0$. If we consider one of the first 100
630: first light halos collapsed in the box, there is an average
631: probability of $0.72$ of finding its remnant in a halo identified at
632: $z = 0$ with more than 100 particles (that is of mass above $6.7 \cdot
633: 10^{12} M_{\sun}/h$). The median distribution for the mass of a halo
634: hosting one of the remnants of these first light sources is $\approx 3
635: \cdot 10^{13} M_{\sun}/h$. At $95\%$ of confidence level the remnants
636: are hosted by a halo of mass less than $3.6\cdot 10^{14}
637: M_{\sun}/h$. For comparison, the most massive halo in the simulation
638: has a mass of $ 4.4 \cdot 10^{16} M_{\sun}/h$ and there are about
639: $15000$ halos more massive than $ 3 \cdot 10^{12} M_{\sun}/h$. This
640: is a consequence of the poor correlation between first PopIII halos
641: and most massive halos at low redshift.
642:
643: Finally, combining the results from all our three simulation boxes, we
644: construct in fig.~\ref{fig:sfr} the PopIII star formation rate at high
645: $z$. The total number of PopIII halos that virialize is increasing
646: with redshift, reaching a number density of $\approx 0.1 (Mpc/h)^{-3}$
647: at $z\approx 30$. In our small box simulation, this means that the
648: average density of PopIII halos is $\approx 10^{-3}$ per grid
649: cell. Therefore there is a very small probability of having two
650: collapsed halos within the same cell, an event that would not be
651: captured in our model.
652:
653: \section{When does the first stars epoch end?} \label{sec:end_of_fs}
654:
655: In Sec.~\ref{sec:first_halos} we show that the most massive halos at
656: $z=6$ have first light progenitors that have been formed when already
657: several thousands of other PopIII stars existed. Are these progenitors
658: still entitled to be called \emph{first stars}? That is, when does
659: the \emph{first stars} epoch end? Here we review the question adopting
660: two different definitions to characterize the transition from the
661: first to the second generation of stars, namely (i) a threshold for
662: the transition given by the destruction of molecular hydrogen and (ii)
663: a metallicity based threshold.
664:
665: \subsection{Molecular Hydrogen destruction} \label{sec:h2}
666:
667: One criterion for the end of the first light epoch can be based on the
668: destruction of Molecular Hydrogen in the ISM due to photons in the
669: Lyman-Werner ($[11.15:13.6] eV$) energy range emitted by PopIII
670: stars. $H_2$ is in fact needed for cooling of the gas in dark matter
671: halos of mass $\approx 10^6$ \citep[e.g. see][]{bro04}. The flux in
672: the Lyman-Werner band is about $7.5\%$ of the ionizing flux (i.e. with
673: an energy range above $13.6 eV$). A PopIII star is expected to emit a
674: total of about $7.6 \cdot 10^{61}$ photons per solar mass
675: \citep{sti04}, so if we assume $300 M_{\sun}$ as a typical mass we
676: have about $1.7 \cdot 10^{63}$ $H_2$-destroying photons emitted over
677: the stellar lifetime. Only a fraction $\approx 0.15$ of these photons
678: can effectively destroy an $H_2$, molecule, as the most probable
679: outcome of absorption of a Lyman Werner photon is a first decay to a
680: highly excited a vibrational level that later returns to the
681: fundamental state, with resulting re-emitted photons below the $11.15$
682: eV threshold \citep{shu82,glo01}. Therefore we estimate that $\approx
683: 2.5 \cdot 10^{62}$ $H_2$ molecules will be destroyed by a PopIII
684: star. Given the neutral hydrogen number density $6.2 \cdot 10^{66}
685: Mpc^{-3}$ this means that a PopIII star destroys $H_2$ over a volume
686: $4 \cdot 10^{-5} Mpc^{3} /\xi $, where $\xi$ is the ratio of molecular
687: to atomic hydrogen. Assuming a primordial molecular hydrogen fraction
688: $\xi \approx 10^{-6}$ (e.g. see \citealt{peebles}), we obtain that a
689: PopIII star has the energy to destroy primordial $H_2$ in a volume of
690: $\approx 14 (Mpc/h)^3$. This number is in broad agreement with
691: detailed radiative transfer simulations by \citet{joh07b}. From
692: Fig.~\ref{fig:sfr}, it is immediate to see that by $z\approx 30$ the
693: PopIII number density has reached the critical level of $0.1
694: (Mpc/h)^{-3}$ and therefore around that epoch the radiation background
695: destroys all the primordial $H_2$. Once all the primordial $H_2$ has
696: been cleared the universe becomes transparent in the Lyman Werner
697: bands and the new $H_2$ formed during the collapse of gas clouds is
698: dissociated by the background radiation. In fact, assuming that the
699: abundance of $H_2$ formed during collapse is $\xi_{coll}\approx 5
700: \cdot 10^{-4}$ (e.g. see \citealt{hai00}), this means that a
701: collapsing $10^6M_{\sun}$ halo produces about $1.3\cdot 10^{59}$ $H_2$
702: molecules, a negligible number with respect to the $2.5\cdot 10^{62}$
703: $H_2$ that are destroyed. Our simple estimate therefore suggests that
704: around $z\approx 30$ the star formation rate of PopIII stars in
705: $10^{6} M_{\sun}$ halos is greatly suppressed and proceeds in a
706: self-regulated fashion where only a fraction $\approx 10^{-3}$ of the
707: collapsing halos are actually able to cool and lead to the formation
708: of massive PopIII stars. Eventually the Lyman Werner background is
709: maintained by PopIII stars formed in more massive halos ($M \approx
710: 10^8 M_{\sun}$), cooled by atomic hydrogen, and, at later times, by
711: PopII stars.
712:
713: Inspired by these ideas we set the end of the \emph{primordial} epoch
714: for PopIII formation at the point where the primordial $H_2$ has been
715: destroyed, that is around $z\approx 30$. Of course this is only an
716: order of magnitude estimate and to fully address the feedback due to
717: photo-dissociating Lyman Werner photons realistic radiative transfer
718: cosmological simulations are needed, which may led even to positive
719: feedback \citep[e.g. see][]{ric01}. In particular our estimate does
720: not take into account the effects of self-shielding and the fact that
721: the formation timescale for $H_2$ during the halo collapse may be
722: faster than the timescale for photo-dissociation by the background
723: radiation. Thus it is possible that the PopIII star formation rate at
724: $z \lesssim 30$ is not suppressed as much as predicted by our
725: argument. However our estimate seems to be in broad agreement with the
726: more realistic model by \citet{hai00} that predicts the onset of a
727: significant negative feedback at $z \gtrsim 25$, depending on the
728: assumed efficiency of Lyman Werner photon production.
729:
730:
731: \subsection{Metal enrichment}
732:
733: Another possibility to end the first star epoch is based on a ISM
734: metallicity threshold. However, in this case a clear transition epoch
735: is missing (e.g. see \citealt{sca03,fur05}). This is because metal
736: enrichment, driven by stellar winds whose typical velocities are many
737: orders of magnitude lower than the speed of light, is mainly a local
738: process. Therefore pockets of primordial gas may exists in regions of
739: space that have experienced relatively little star formation, such as
740: voids, even when the average metallicity in the universe is above the
741: critical threshold assumed to define the end of the PopIII era.
742:
743: In any case this definition provides a longer duration for the first
744: star era. In fact to enrich the local metallicity above the $Z =
745: 10^{-4} Z_{\sun}$ threshold, relevant for stopping PopIII formation by
746: chemical feedback (see \citealt{bro04}), one $300 M_{\sun}$ SN must
747: explode for every $\approx 2\cdot 10^{8} M_{\sun}$ total mass volume
748: (DM+barions), assuming on average a PopIII mass of $300 M_{\sun}$ with yield
749: $0.2$. For a Milky Way like halo, this means that about 3000 first
750: stars SN are needed to enrich the IGM to the critical
751: metallicity. Accordingly to this definition, the Pop III epoch would
752: end within a significant fraction of the total simulated volume around
753: $z \approx 20$, when there is the collapse of dark matter halos
754: originated from $3\sigma$ peaks at the $10^{6} M_{\sun}$ mass scale
755: \citep[e.g., see][]{mad01}, if the suppression in the PopIII star
756: formation rate due to lack of $H_2$ cooling is neglected. A further
757: caveat is that very massive stars may end up directly in Intermediate
758: Mass Black Holes without releasing the produced metals in the IGM
759: \citep{meg02,san02}.
760:
761:
762: \section{Growth of the PopIII black hole seeds} \label{sec:BHgrow}
763:
764: From our investigation it is clear that, before the first PopIII
765: progenitor of the most massive halo at $z=6$ is born, several
766: thousands of intermediate mass ($m_{BH}\approx 10^2{M_{\sun}}$) black
767: hole seeds are planted by PopIII stars formed in a cosmic volume that
768: will on average host a bright $z=6$ quasar. This result does not allow
769: to establish an immediate correlation between the very first PopIII
770: stars created in the universe and the bright $z=6$ quasars, but
771: neither does it exclude such a link, as the formation epoch for the
772: quasar seed is still at very high redshift ($z \gtrsim 40$), when
773: radiative feedback from other PopIII stars already formed is unlikely
774: to affect the formation and evolution of the seed (see
775: Sec.~\ref{sec:h2}). Here we investigate with a simple merger tree code
776: what is the fate of the black holes seeds formed up to the formation
777: time of the quasar seed and what are the implications for the observed
778: quasar luminosity function.
779:
780: We assume Eddington accretion for the BH seeds, so that the evolution
781: of the BH mass is given by:
782: %%%%
783: \begin{equation}
784: m_{BH} = m_{0} \exp{\left [(t-t_0)/t_{sal} \right ]},
785: \end{equation}
786: %%%%
787: where $m_0$ is the mass at formation time $t_0$ and $t_{sal}$ is the
788: Salpeter time \citep{sal64}:
789: %%%%
790: \begin{equation} \label{eq:accr}
791: t_{sal} = \frac{\epsilon ~m_{BH} ~c^2}{(1-\epsilon)L_{Edd}} = 4.507 \cdot
792: 10^{8} yr \frac{\epsilon}{(1-\epsilon)},
793: \end{equation}
794: %%%%
795: where $\epsilon$ is the radiative efficiency.
796:
797: Using Eq.~\ref{eq:accr} we can immediately see that a difference of
798: $\Delta t \lesssim 2 \cdot 10^7 yr$, that is of $\Delta z \approx 10$
799: at $z=40$, in the formation epoch of the BH seed of a bright quasar is
800: not too important in terms of the final mass that can be accreted by
801: $z=6$, as this corresponds to about half a folding time. Assuming $\epsilon
802: = 0.1$ until $z=6.4$, the highest redshift in the SDSS quasar sample
803: \citep{fan04}, we obtain a ratio of final to initial mass
804: $m_{BH}/m_0 = 2.62 \cdot 10^7$ for $z=50$ and $m_{BH}/m_0 = 1.78
805: \cdot 10^7$ for $z=40$. Therefore in both cases there has been enough
806: time to build up a $z\approx 6$ supermassive black hole with mass
807: $m_{BH} \gtrsim 10^9$ starting from a PopIII remnant.
808:
809: This estimate however highlights that only a minor fraction of the
810: PopIII BH seeds formed before $z=40$ can accrue mass with high
811: efficiency, otherwise the number density of supermassive black holes
812: at low redshift would greatly exceed the observational
813: constraints. The first BH seeds in the box are distant from each
814: other, so they evolve in relative isolation, without possibly merging
815: among themselves. Therefore other mechanisms must be responsible for
816: quenching accretion of the first BH seeds. Interestingly if we were to
817: assume that accretion periods are Poisson distributed in time for each
818: seed, we would not be able to explain the observed power law
819: distribution of BH masses at $z\lesssim 6$ around the high mass end. A
820: Poisson distribution would in fact give too little scatter around the
821: median value and a sharp (faster than exponential) decay of the
822: displacements from the mean accreted mass. An exponential distribution
823: of the accretion efficiency is instead required to match the observed
824: BH mass function. In addition, it is necessary to assume that the duty
825: cycle of the BH accretion is roughly proportional to the mass of the
826: halo it resides in. This is sensible, since an accretion model
827: unrelated to the hosting halo mass may lead to the unphysical result
828: of possibly accruing more mass than the total baryon mass available
829: in that halo. In fact, a BH seed formed at $z\approx 40$ is within a
830: halo of median mass $\approx 10^{11} M_{\sun}/h$ at $z=6$ and a few
831: percent of the seeds may be in halos with mass below $\approx 10^{9}
832: M_{\sun}/h$ at that redshift.
833:
834: To explore this possibility we follow the merging history of PopIII
835: halos formed at $z=40$ by means of a merger-tree code based on
836: \citet{lac93}. We implement a BH growth based on Eq.~\ref{eq:accr},
837: but at each step of the tree we limit the BH mass to $m_{BH} \leq
838: \eta~ m_{bar}$, where $m_{bar}$ is the total baryon mass of the halo
839: that hosts the BH. The results are reported in fig.~\ref{fig:accr}. If
840: the BH growth is not constrained (or only mildly constrained), then a
841: significant fraction of the seeds grows above $10^{10} M_{\sun}$,
842: which would result in an unrealistic number density of supermassive
843: black holes at $z=6$. However, if $\eta \approx 6 \cdot 10^{-3}$ (like
844: in \citealt{yoo04}; see also \citealt{wyi03}), then we obtain an
845: expected mass for the BH powering bright $z=6$ quasar of $\approx 5
846: \cdot 10^{9} M_{\sun}$, which is in agreement with the observational
847: constraints from SDSS quasars \citep{fan04}. By fitting a power law
848: function to the BH mass function in the range $[0.055:0.2]\cdot
849: 10^{10} M_{\sun}$ we obtain a slope $\alpha \approx -2.6$, while the
850: slope is $\alpha \approx -3.7$ in the mass range $[0.2:1.0] \cdot
851: 10^{10} M_{\sun}$, a value that is consistent within the $1 \sigma$
852: error bar with the slope of the bright end of the quasar luminosity
853: function measured by \citet{fan04}.
854:
855: Another contribution to ease an overproduction of bright quasars may
856: be given by the suppression of the early growth of the PopIII BH seeds
857: for the first $\approx 10^8 yr$ after formation, that is for about $2
858: t_{sal}$ \citep{joh07}. In fact the radiation from a PopIII star may
859: evacuate most of the gas from its host halo, so that the subsequent BH
860: growth is quenched until a merger provides a new gas reservoir to
861: enable growth at near Eddington rate \citep{joh07}. Also the BH seeds
862: situated in more massive halos would probably be more likely to
863: replentish their gas supply earlier.
864:
865: \section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conc}
866:
867: In this paper we investigate the link between the first PopIII halos
868: collapsed in a simulation box and the most massive structures at $z
869: \approx 6$, with the aim of establishing the relationship between the
870: first intermediate mass black holes created in the universe and the
871: super-massive black holes that power the emission of bright $z=6$
872: quasars. We show that almost no correlation is present between the
873: sites of formation of the first few hundred $10^6 M_{\sun}/h$ halos
874: and the most massive halos at $z \lesssim 6$ when the simulation box
875: has an edge of several hundred $Mpc$. Here the PopIII progenitors
876: (halos of mass $M_{fs} \approx 10^6 M_{\sun}$) of massive halos at $z
877: \lesssim 6$ formed from density peaks that are $\approx 1.5
878: \sigma(M_{fs})$ more common than that of the \emph{first} PopIII star
879: in the $(512 Mpc/h)^3$ simulation box. These halos virialize around
880: $z_{nl} \approx 40$, to be compared with $z_{nl} \gtrsim 48$ of the
881: \emph{first} PopIII halo.
882:
883: This result has important consequences. We show that, if bright
884: quasars and supermassive black holes live in the most massive halos at
885: $z\approx 6$, then their progenitors at the $10^6 M_{\sun}$ mass scale
886: are well within the PopIII era, regardless of the PopIII termination
887: mechanism. On the other hand, if the $m_{BH}/\sigma$ relationship is
888: already in place at $z=6$, then bright quasars are not linked to the
889: remnants of the very first intermediate mass black holes (IMBHs) born
890: in the universe, as their IMBH progenitors form when already several
891: thousands of PopIII stars have been created within the typical volume
892: that hosts a bright $z=6$ quasar. The IMBH seeds planted by this very
893: first PopIII stars have sufficient time to grow up to $m_{BH} \in
894: [0.2:1] \cdot 10^{10} M_{\sun}$ by $z=6$ if we assume Eddington
895: accretion with radiative efficiency $\epsilon \lesssim 0.1$. Instead,
896: quenching of the BH accretion is required for the seeds of those
897: PopIII stars that will not end up in massive halos at $z=6$, otherwise
898: the number density of supermassive black holes would greatly exceed
899: the observational constraints. One way to obtain growth consistent
900: with the observations is to limit the accreted mass at a fraction
901: $\eta \approx 6 \cdot 10^{-3}$ of the total baryon halo mass. This
902: gives a slope of the BH mass function $\alpha = -3.7$ in the BH mass
903: range $m_{BH} \in [0.2:1] \cdot 10^{10} M_{\sun}$, which is within the
904: $1 \sigma$ uncertainty of the slope of the bright end of the $z=6$
905: quasar luminosity function ($\alpha \approx -3.5$) measured by
906: \citet{fan04}.
907:
908: Another important point highlighted by this study is that rich
909: clusters do not preferentially host the remnants of the first PopIII
910: stars. In fact the remnants of the first 100 Pop-III stars in our
911: medium sized simulation box (volume of $(512 Mpc/h)^3$) end up at
912: $z=0$ on halos that have a median mass of $3 \cdot 10^{13}
913: M_{\sun}/h$. This suggests caution in interpreting the results from
914: studies that select a specific volume of the simulation box, like a
915: rich cluster, and then progressively refine smaller and smaller
916: regions with the aim of hunting for the first lights formed in the
917: whole simulation \citep[see e.g., ][]{ree05}. Only by considering
918: refinements over the complete volume of the box the rarity and the
919: formation ranking of these progenitors can be correctly evaluated.
920:
921: \acknowledgements
922:
923: We thank Mike Santos for sharing his code to generate the initial
924: conditions and for a number of useful and interesting discussions. We
925: are grateful to the referee for constructive suggestions. This work
926: was supported in part by NASA JWST IDS grant NAG5-12458 and by
927: STScI-DDRF award D0001.82365. This material is based in part upon work
928: supported by the National Science Foundation under the following NSF
929: programs: Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure,
930: Distributed Terascale facility (DTF) and Terascale Extensions:
931: enhancements to the Extensible Terascale Facility - Grant AST060032T.
932:
933: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
934: \begin{thebibliography}{}
935:
936:
937: \bibitem[Abel et al.(2002)]{abel02} {Abel}, T. and {Bryan}, G.~L. and {Norman}, M.~L. 2002, Science, 295, 93
938:
939: \bibitem[Beckwith et al.(2006)]{beck06} {{Beckwith}, S.~V.~W. and {Stiavelli}, M. and {Koekemoer}, A.~M. and
940: {Caldwell}, J.~A.~R. and {Ferguson}, H.~C. and {Hook}, R. and
941: {Lucas}, R.~A. and {Bergeron}, L.~E. and {Corbin}, M. and {Jogee}, S. and
942: {Panagia}, N. and {Robberto}, M. and {Royle}, P. and {Somerville}, R.~S. and
943: {Sosey}, M.} 2006, \apj, 132, 1729
944:
945: \bibitem[Bertschinger(2001)]{bert01} Bertschinger E. 2001, \apj, 137, 1
946:
947: \bibitem[Bond et al.(1991)]{bond} {Bond}, J.~R. and {Cole}, S. and
948: {Efstathiou}, G. and {Kaiser}, N. 1991, \apj, 379, 440
949:
950: \bibitem[Bromm et al.(1999)]{brom99} Bromm, V. and Coppi, P.~S. and
951: Larson, R.~B. 1999, ApJL, 527, 5
952:
953: \bibitem[Bromm \& Larson(2004)]{bro04} {{Bromm}, V. and {Larson}, R.~B.} 2004, \araa, 42, 79
954:
955: \bibitem[Ciardi et al.(2000)]{cia00} Ciardi, B. and Ferrara, A. and Abel, T. 2000, ApJ, 533, 594
956:
957: \bibitem[Cole et al.(1994)]{col94} {{Cole}, S. and {Aragon-Salamanca}, A. and {Frenk}, C.~S. and
958: {Navarro}, J.~F. and {Zepf}, S.~E.} 1994, \mnras, 271, 781
959:
960: \bibitem[Di Matteo et al.(2005)]{dimatteo05} {{Di Matteo}, T. and
961: {Springel}, V. and {Hernquist}, L.} 2005, \nat, 433, 604
962:
963: \bibitem[Eisenstein \& Hut(1998)]{eis98} Eisenstein, D.~J. and Hut, P. 1998, \apj, 498, 137
964:
965: \bibitem[Eisenstein \& Hu(1999)]{eis99} Eisenstein, D.~J. and Hu, W. 1999, \apj, 511, 5
966:
967: \bibitem[Evrard et al.(2007)]{evr07} {{Evrard}, A.~E. and {Bialek}, J. and {Busha}, M. and {White}, M. and
968: {Habib}, S. and {Heitmann}, K. and {Warren}, M. and {Rasia}, E. and
969: {Tormen}, G. and {Moscardini}, L. and {Power}, C. and {Jenkins}, A.~R. and
970: {Gao}, L. and {Frenk}, C.~S. and {Springel}, V. and {White}, S.~D.~M. and
971: {Diemand}, J.} 2007, astro-ph/0702241
972:
973: \bibitem[Fan et al.(2004)]{fan04} {{Fan}, X. and {Hennawi}, J.~F. and {Richards}, G.~T. and {Strauss}, M.~A. and
974: {Schneider}, D.~P. and {Donley}, J.~L. and {Young}, J.~E. and
975: {Annis}, J. and {Lin}, H. and {Lampeitl}, H. and {Lupton}, R.~H. and
976: {Gunn}, J.~E. and {Knapp}, G.~R. and {Brandt}, W.~N. and {Anderson}, S. and
977: {Bahcall}, N.~A. and {Brinkmann}, J. and {Brunner}, R.~J. and
978: {Fukugita}, M. and {Szalay}, A.~S. and {Szokoly}, G.~P. and
979: {York}, D.~G.} 2004, \aj, 128, 515
980:
981: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merritt(2000)]{fer00} {{Ferrarese}, L. and {Merritt}, D.} 2000, \apjl, 539, L9
982:
983:
984: \bibitem[Furlanetto \& Loeb(2005)]{fur05} Furlanetto, S.~R. and Loeb, A. 2005, \apj, 634, 1
985:
986: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000)]{geb00} {{Gebhardt}, K. and {Bender}, R. and {Bower}, G. and {Dressler}, A. and
987: {Faber}, S.~M. and {Filippenko}, A.~V. and {Green}, R. and {Grillmair}, C. and
988: {Ho}, L.~C. and {Kormendy}, J. and {Lauer}, T.~R. and {Magorrian}, J. and
989: {Pinkney}, J. and {Richstone}, D. and {Tremaine}, S.} 2000, \apjl, 539, L13
990:
991: \bibitem[Glover \& Brand(2001)]{glo01} Glover, S.~C.O. and Brand, P.~W.~J.~L. 2001, \mnras, 321, 385
992:
993: \bibitem[Greif \& Bromm(2006)]{gre06} Greif, T.~H. and Bromm, V. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 128
994:
995: \bibitem[Haiman et al.(2000)]{hai00} Haiman, Z. and Abel T. and Rees, M.~J. 2000, \apj, 534, 11
996:
997: \bibitem[Heger \& Woosley(2002)]{meg02} Heger, A. and Woosley, S.~E. 2002, \apj, 567, 532
998:
999: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2005)]{hop05} {{Hopkins}, P.~F. and {Hernquist}, L. and {Cox}, T.~J. and {Di Matteo}, T. and
1000: {Robertson}, B. and {Springel}, V.} 2005, \apj, 630, 716
1001:
1002: \bibitem[Johnson \& Bromm(2007)]{joh07} Johnson, J.~L. and Bromm, V. 2007, \mnras, 374, 1557
1003:
1004: \bibitem[Johnson, Greif \& Bromm(2007)]{joh07b} Johnson, J.~L. and
1005: Greif, T.~H. and Bromm, V. 2007, \apj, in press, astro-ph/0612254
1006:
1007: \bibitem[Lacey \& Cole(1993)]{lac93} Lacey, C. and Coley, C. 1993, \mnras, 262, 627
1008:
1009: \bibitem[Li et al.(2006)]{li06} Li, Y., Hernquist L., Robertson B., Cox T.~J., Hopkins, P.~F., Springel, V., Gao, L., Di Matteo, T., Zentner A.~R., Jenkins, A. Yoshida N. 2006, \apj, submitted, astro-ph/0608190
1010:
1011: \bibitem[Mackey et al.(2003)]{mac03} Mackey J. and Bromm, V. and Hernquist, L. 2003, \apj, 586, 1
1012:
1013: \bibitem[Madau \& Rees(2001)]{mad01} Madau, P. and Rees, M.~J. 2001, \apjl, 551, 27
1014:
1015: \bibitem[Makino(2005)]{mak05} Makino, J. 2005, astro-ph/0509278
1016:
1017: \bibitem[Peebles(1993)]{peebles} Peebles, P.~J.E. 1993, "{Principles
1018: of physical cosmology}", Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton, NJ:
1019: Princeton University Press
1020:
1021: \bibitem[Press \& Schechter(1974)]{PS} Press, W.~H. and Schechter, P. 1974, \apj, 187, 425
1022:
1023: \bibitem[Reed et al.(2005)]{ree05} {Reed}, D.~S. and {Bower}, R. and {Frenk}, C.~S. and {Gao}, L. and
1024: {Jenkins}, A. and {Theuns}, T. and {White}, S.~D.~M. 2005, \mnras, 363, 393
1025:
1026: \bibitem[Ricotti et al.(2001)]{ric01} Ricotti, M. and Gnedin, N.~Y. and Shull, M.~J. 2001, ApJ, 560, 591
1027:
1028: \bibitem[Salpeter(1964)]{sal64} Salpeter, E.~E. 1964, \apj, 140, 796
1029:
1030: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2002)]{san02} Santos, M.~R. and Bromm V. and Kamionkowski M. 2002, \mnras, 336, 1082
1031:
1032: \bibitem[Scannapieco et al.(2003)]{sca03} Scannapieco, E. and Schneider, R. and Ferrara, A. 2003, \apj, 589, 35
1033:
1034: \bibitem[Sheth \& Tormen(1999)]{she99} Sheth, R.~K. and Tormen G. 1999,
1035: \mnras, 308, 119
1036:
1037: \bibitem[Shull \& Beckwith(1982)]{shu82} {Shull}, J.~M. and {Beckwith}, S. 1982, \araa, 20, 163
1038:
1039: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2006)]{WMAP3} Spergel, D.~N. et al. 2006, \apj, submitted, astro-ph0603449
1040:
1041: \bibitem[Springel(2005)]{spr05} Springel, V. 2005, \mnras, 364, 1105
1042:
1043: \bibitem[Springel et al.(2005)]{MR05} {Springel}, V. and {White}, S.~D.~M. and {Jenkins}, A. and {Frenk}, C.~S. and
1044: {Yoshida}, N. and {Gao}, L. and {Navarro}, J. and {Thacker}, R. and
1045: {Croton}, D. and {Helly}, J. and {Peacock}, J.~A. and {Cole}, S. and
1046: {Thomas}, P. and {Couchman}, H. and {Evrard}, A. and {Colberg}, J. and
1047: {Pearce}, F. 2005, \nat, 435, 629
1048:
1049: \bibitem[Stiavelli et al.(2004)]{sti04} Stiavelli, M., Fall, S.~M. and Panagia, N. 2004, \apj, 600, 508
1050:
1051: \bibitem[Stiavelli et al.(2005)]{sti05} {Stiavelli}, M. and {Djorgovski}, S.~G. and {Pavlovsky}, C. and
1052: {Scarlata}, C. and {Stern}, D. and {Mahabal}, A. and {Thompson}, D. and
1053: {Dickinson}, M. and {Panagia}, N. and {Meylan}, G. 2005, \apjl, 622, L1
1054:
1055: \bibitem[Volonteri et al.(2003)]{vol03} {{Volonteri}, M. and {Haardt}, F. and {Madau}, P.} 2003, \apj, 582, 559
1056:
1057: %\bibitem[Volonteri \& Rees(2005)]{vol05} {{Volonteri}, M. and {Rees}, M.~J.} 2005, \apj, 633, 624
1058:
1059: \bibitem[Wyithe \& Loeb(2003)]{wyi03} {Wyithe}, J.~S.~B. and {Loeb}, A. 2003, \apj, 595, 614
1060:
1061: \bibitem[Yoo \& Miralda-Escud{\'e}(2004)]{yoo04} Yoo, J. and Miralda-Escud{\'e}, J. 2004, \apjl, 614, 25
1062:
1063: \bibitem[Zhen et al.(2006)]{zhe06} {{Zheng}, W. and {Overzier}, R.~A. and {Bouwens}, R.~J. and {White}, R.~L. and
1064: {Ford}, H.~C. and {Ben{\'{\i}}tez}, N. and {Blakeslee}, J.~P. and
1065: {Bradley}, L.~D. and {Jee}, M.~J. and {Martel}, A.~R. and {Mei}, S. and
1066: {Zirm}, A.~W. and {Illingworth}, G.~D. and {Clampin}, M. and
1067: {Hartig}, G.~F. and {Ardila}, D.~R. and {Bartko}, F. and {Broadhurst}, T.~J. and
1068: {Brown}, R.~A. and {Burrows}, C.~J. and {Cheng}, E.~S. and {Cross}, N.~J.~G. and
1069: {Demarco}, R. and {Feldman}, P.~D. and {Franx}, M. and {Golimowski}, D.~A. and
1070: {Goto}, T. and {Gronwall}, C. and {Holden}, B. and {Homeier}, N. and
1071: {Infante}, L. and {Kimble}, R.~A. and {Krist}, J.~E. and {Lesser}, M.~P. and
1072: {Menanteau}, F. and {Meurer}, G.~R. and {Miley}, G.~K. and {Motta}, V. and
1073: {Postman}, M. and {Rosati}, P. and {Sirianni}, M. and {Sparks}, W.~B. and
1074: {Tran}, H.~D. and {Tsvetanov}, Z.~I.} 2006, \apj, 640, 574
1075:
1076: \end{thebibliography}
1077:
1078: \appendix
1079: \section{Tests for the First Light Monte Carlo Method}\label{sec:app}
1080:
1081: To verify the validity of our Monte Carlo method we perform two main
1082: tests. First we compare the maximum overdensity at the first light
1083: halo mass scale identified over the whole simulation box using
1084: different grid resolutions, including the analytical expectation (that
1085: is equivalent to assume that the whole box is just one cell). The
1086: results are reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:check} and confirm indeed that
1087: the method is independent of the grid size, with an excellent match
1088: between all the probability distributions computed. The figure has
1089: been obtained by first generating a Gaussian random field with $\sigma
1090: = 0.1$ on a $N=64^3$ grid and adopting $\sigma_{fs} = 0.008$ and
1091: $k=4$. Then we progressively bin grid cell values to obtain lower
1092: resolution versions of the original field. The variance in the low
1093: resolution grids scales as $(N/64^3)^{1/2}$ and the values for
1094: $\sigma_{fs}$ and $k$ are correspondingly increased. As a second test,
1095: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:checkHALO}, we have realized a constrained low
1096: resolution ($N=128^3$) version of the initial conditions for our $S1$
1097: simulation and we have then carried out the run down to $z=6$. From
1098: the snapshot at $z=6$ we identify the most massive halos in this
1099: simulations, verifying that there is a good spatial and mass match
1100: with the original $512^3$ run. The redshift distribution of the first
1101: PopIII progenitor for the most massive halos has been computed using
1102: our method and compared with that of the original run. The agreement
1103: is very good, especially considering that the dynamics of the dark
1104: matter halos has been followed at a resolution $64$ times lower.
1105:
1106: \clearpage
1107:
1108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1109: \begin{figure}
1110: \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{Probability distribution functions
1111: $p(m)$ for the maximum $m$ of $k$ random Gaussian fluctuations
1112: representative of mass scale for halos hosting $z=6$ QSO candidates
1113: (red curve) and PopIII stars (black curve). To compute $p(m)$ for
1114: QSO hosting halos we have assumed a box of $720Mpc/h$ and a mass
1115: scale of $M_{qh} = 4.3~10^{12} M_{\sun}/h$ which implies
1116: $k=180^3$. This curve represents the probability distribution for a
1117: sigma peak that at $z \approx 6$ leads to one of the most massive
1118: halos in the simulation volume. The curve associated to first light
1119: perturbations (solid black, with $M_{fs}=10^{6} M_{\sun}/h$) is
1120: derived using
1121: $\sigma_{fs}=\sqrt{\sigma_{M_{fs}}^2-\sigma_{M_{qh}}^2}$ and
1122: $k=160^3$: it represents the probability distribution for the
1123: maximum of the sub-grid scale fluctuations at the $M_{fs}$ scale
1124: within one cell of the $180^3$ volume. The dashed green line
1125: represents the probability distribution of the density fluctuation
1126: associated to the first PopIII progenitor of a $5.7 \sigma(M_{qh})$
1127: peak. $m$ is given in units of $\sigma_{M_{qh}}$.}\label{fig:pdf}
1128: \end{figure}
1129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1130:
1131:
1132: \clearpage
1133:
1134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1135: \begin{figure}
1136: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps} \caption{Left panel: Distribution
1137: for the ranking of the collapse epoch for the oldest PopIII
1138: halo progenitor (with $M_{fs} = 10^6 M_{\sun}/h$) of the most
1139: massive halo (black line) and averaged over the 10 most massive
1140: halos (red line) at $z=6$ in the $(720 Mpc/h)^3$ box simulation. The
1141: cardinality is measured over $600$ Monte Carlo realizations. Right
1142: panel: Like in the left panel but distribution of the collapse time
1143: $z_{nl}$ for the oldest PopIII progenitor. The blue line
1144: represents the collapse redshift of the \emph{first} PopIII star
1145: perturbation, while the dotted green line refers to the collapse
1146: redshift of the 100th PopIII in the box.}\label{fig:card720}
1147: \end{figure}
1148: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1149:
1150: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1151: \begin{figure}
1152: \plotone{mass.eps}\caption{Probability distribution of the collapse
1153: time for the oldest PopIII progenitor of the most massive halo at
1154: $z=6$ (upper panel) and for the first PopIII halo formed in the box
1155: (bottom panel) in the $(720 Mpc/h)^3$ box simulation. The curves
1156: refer to different masses for the PopIII halo: $M_{fs}= 3.4 \cdot
1157: 10^6 M_{\sun}/h$ (blue, short dashed), $M_{fs}= 1.0 \cdot 10^6
1158: M_{\sun}/h$ (black, solid) and $M_{fs}= 3.0 \cdot 10^5 M_{\sun}/h$
1159: (red, long dashed). }\label{fig:mass}
1160: \end{figure}
1161: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1162:
1163:
1164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1165: \begin{figure}
1166: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps} \caption{Like in
1167: Fig.~\ref{fig:card720}, but for a simulation of a $(512
1168: Mpc/h)^3$ volume and using 200 Monte Carlo realizations.
1169: }\label{fig:card512}
1170: \end{figure}
1171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1172:
1173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1174: \begin{figure}
1175: \plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps} \caption{Like in
1176: Fig.~\ref{fig:card720}, but for the $S2$ simulation, with volume of
1177: $(60 Mpc/h)^3$ and $\sigma_8 = 0.75$}\label{fig:card60}
1178: \end{figure}
1179: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1180:
1181:
1182: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1183: \begin{figure}
1184: \plotone{f5.eps}\caption{Cumulative comoving number density of
1185: virialized PopIII halos ($M_{fs}=10^6 M_{\sun}/h$) versus redshift for
1186: $z>29$ as measured by means of our MC code.}\label{fig:sfr}
1187: \end{figure}
1188: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1189:
1190:
1191: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1192: \begin{figure}
1193: \plotone{f6.eps}\caption{Final BH mass at $z=6$ for a $100
1194: M_{\sun}/h$ seed starting Eddington accretion with radiative
1195: efficiency $\epsilon=0.1$ at $z=40$. The growth of the BH is limited
1196: to a fraction $\eta$ of the total baryon mass of its halo, as
1197: obtained with a merger-tree Monte Carlo code.}\label{fig:accr}
1198: \end{figure}
1199: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1200:
1201:
1202:
1203: \clearpage
1204:
1205: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1206: \begin{figure}
1207: \plotone{f7.eps} \caption{Probability distribution for the maximum
1208: density fluctuation at first light scale ($\sigma_{fl}$) in a
1209: synthetic test of the refinement method obtained generating first a
1210: gaussian random field with $\sigma=0.1$ on a $N_g^3=64^3$ grid and
1211: then applying our MC method with a refinement factor $4$, subgrid
1212: fluctuations $\sigma_{fs}=0.08$ and 400 Monte Carlo realizations. We
1213: progressively downgrade the resolution of the simulation grid to
1214: $N_g=32$ and $N_g=16$, increasing $\sigma_{fs}$ following our
1215: prescription. The MC sampling results are compared with the
1216: theoretical probability distribution for $\sigma_{fl}$ (dashed
1217: line). }\label{fig:check}
1218: \end{figure}
1219: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1220:
1221: \clearpage
1222:
1223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1224: \begin{figure}
1225: \plottwo{f8a.eps}{f8b.eps} \caption{Probability distribution for
1226: the earliest PopIII star in the two most massive halos of the $S1$
1227: run obtained from the full resolution (red dashed line) and from a
1228: lower resolution constrained realization of the same initial
1229: conditions (solid black).}\label{fig:checkHALO}
1230: \end{figure}
1231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1232:
1233: \clearpage
1234:
1235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1236: \begin{table}
1237: \begin{center}
1238: \caption{Simulations Summary}
1239: \label{tab:sim}
1240: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
1241: \tableline\tableline
1242: ID & $L_{box}$ {\small{h/Mpc}} &$\sigma_{8}$ & $k^{1/3}_{ref}$ & $M_{fs}$ {\small{h/$M_{\sun}$}} & $N_{MC}$ \\
1243: \tableline
1244: S1 & 60 & 0.9 & 5 &$8.6~10^5$& $100$ \\
1245: S2 & 60 & 0.75 & 5 &$8.6~10^5$& $100$ \\
1246: M1 & 512 & 0.9 & 40 &$1.0~10^6$& $200$ \\
1247: L1 & 720 & 0.9 & 57 &$1.0~10^6$& $600$ \\
1248:
1249: \tableline
1250: \end{tabular}
1251: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.
1252: \tablecomments{Summary table with the details of the numerical
1253: simulations carried out in this paper. The first column gives the
1254: simulation ID ; $L_{box}$ (second column) is the box size, while the
1255: third column contains the value of $\sigma_8$ used to generate the
1256: initial conditions. $k_{ref}$ (fourth column) is the refinement
1257: factor from the mass of a single particle in the N-body run to the
1258: mass assumed for a PopIII star halo ($M_{fs}$; fifth column). The
1259: last column ($N_{MC}$) reports the number of different Monte Carlo
1260: realizations of the PopIII halo density field for each N-body
1261: realization.}
1262: \end{center}
1263: \end{table}
1264:
1265:
1266: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1267:
1268:
1269: \end{document}
1270:
1271: