1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\usepackage{graphicx,epsfig,times}
4:
5: \newcommand {\kms}{km s$^{-1}$}
6: \newcommand {\ang}{\AA\ }
7: \newcommand {\angns}{\AA}
8:
9: \newcommand {\lya}{Ly$\alpha$ }
10: \newcommand {\lyans}{Ly$\alpha$}
11: \newcommand {\lyb}{Ly$\beta$ }
12: \newcommand {\lyc}{Ly$\gamma$ }
13: \newcommand {\lyd}{Ly$\delta$ }
14: \newcommand {\lye}{Ly$\epsilon$ }
15: \newcommand {\lyf}{Ly$\zeta$ }
16: \newcommand {\lyg}{Ly$\eta$ }
17: \newcommand {\lyh}{Ly$\theta$ }
18:
19: \shorttitle{Lyman-$\alpha$ Forest of PC 1643+4631A,B}
20: \shortauthors{C.~M. Casey et al.}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \title{PC 1643+4631A,B: THE LYMAN-$\alpha$ FOREST AT THE EDGE OF COHERENCE}
25:
26: \author{C. M. Casey\altaffilmark{1,2}, C. D. Impey\altaffilmark{1}, C. E. Petry\altaffilmark{1},
27: A. R. Marble\altaffilmark{1}, R. Dav{\'e}\altaffilmark{1}}
28: \altaffiltext{1}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 U.S.A.}
29: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Rd, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, U.K.}
30:
31: \begin{abstract}
32: This is the first measurement and detection of coherence in the intergalactic medium (IGM) at
33: substantially high redshift (z$\sim$3.8) and on large physical scales ($\sim$2.5 $h^{-1}_{70}$ Mpc).
34: We perform the measurement by presenting new observations of the high redshift quasar pair
35: PC 1643+4631A, B and their \lya absorber coincidences. With data collected from Keck I Low
36: Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (LRIS) in a 10,200 sec integration, we have full coverage
37: of the \lya forest over the redshift range $2.6 < z < 3.8$ at a resolution of 3.6\ang ($\sim$
38: 220 \kms). This experiment extends multiple sightline quasar absorber studies to higher
39: redshift, higher opacity, larger transverse separation, and into a regime where coherence
40: across the IGM becomes weak and difficult to detect. Noteworthy features from these spectra
41: are the strong Damped \lya Absorbers (DLAs) just blueward of both \lya emission peaks, each
42: within 1000 \kms\ of the emission redshift but separated by 2500 \kms\ from each other. The
43: coherence is measured by fitting discrete \lya absorbers and by using pixel flux statistics.
44: The former technique results in 222 \lya absorbers in the A sightline and 211 in B. Relative
45: to a Monte Carlo pairing test (using symmetric, nearest neighbor matching) the data exhibit a
46: 4$\sigma$ excess of pairs at low velocity splitting ($\Delta v < 150$ \kms), thus detecting
47: coherence on transverse scales of $\sim$2.5 $h^{-1}_{70}$ Mpc. We use spectra extracted from
48: an SPH simulation to analyze symmetric pair matching, transmission distributions as a function
49: of redshift and compute zero-lag cross-correlations to compare with the quasar pair data. The
50: simulations agree with the data with the same strength ($\sim$4$\sigma$) at similarly low
51: velocity splitting above random chance pairings. In cross-correlation tests, the simulations
52: agree when the mean flux (as a function of redshift) is assumed to follow the prescription given
53: by \citet{kirkman05a}. While the detection of flux correlation (measured through coincident
54: absorbers and cross-correlation amplitude) is only marginally significant, the agreement between
55: data and simulations is encouraging for future work in which even better quality data will provide
56: the best insight into the overarching structure of the IGM and its understanding as shown by SPH
57: simulations.
58: \end{abstract}
59:
60: \keywords{quasars: absorption lines $-$ intergalactic medium $-$ cosmology:
61: observations $-$ quasars: individual (PC 1643+4631A, B)}
62:
63: \section{INTRODUCTION}
64:
65: Quasars have become vital tools for understanding the nature of the intergalactic medium (IGM)
66: over most of the Hubble time. Blueward of \lya emission, the absorption in the \lya forest
67: traces the one-dimensional distribution of the neutral component of the intervening material$-$the
68: intergalactic medium$-$along the line of sight. Since the first analyses of the forest by
69: \citet{sargent80a}, astronomers have used \lya absorption spectra to characterize
70: the physical state of the IGM at various epochs. The IGM is highly ionized and absorption of
71: neutral hydrogen (\ion{H}{1}) scales as a power law according to the gas density \citep{rauch98a}.
72: At the lowest redshifts, this so-called Gunn-Peterson approximation breaks down since a non-negligible
73: amount of the absorbing hydrogen has collapsed into dense structures or warm narrow-line \lya
74: absorbing gas.
75:
76: Over the past twenty years, several studies have shown that \lya absorbers
77: are better tracers of dark matter potential wells and baryon density than galaxies,
78: supporting expectations from theory and consistent with gas dynamic simulations
79: \citep{cen94a,zhang95a,hernquist96a,dave99a}. The HST Quasar Absorption Line Key
80: Project \citep{bahcall96a,jannuzi98a,weymann98a} used many single sightlines
81: with $z \le 1.6$ to probe the complex geometry of the evolving ``Cosmic Web''
82: through its voids and dense regions. The role of hydrodynamic simulations becomes
83: important when considering bulk properties of the IGM as inferred by \lya flux
84: decrements \citep{marble07a}; the data from the \lya forest show the characteristics
85: of the universe in long but widely-separated redshift paths while simulations perform
86: the forward experiment, modeling the evolution of the universe in finite volumes that
87: are limited by number of particles and resolution.
88:
89: Multiple sightline experiments, originally presented using gravitationally lensed
90: quasars \citep{shaver82a, shaver83a, weymann83a, foltz84a, smette92a, smette95a},
91: are used to infer the IGM's structure in two dimensions through cross-correlation
92: of the spectra giving characteristic coherence lengths. With pairs (or groups)
93: of different transverse separations and different redshifts, the evolution in the
94: typical structures of the IGM can be measured. The measurement of coherence is based
95: on the statistical excess of matched, coincident absorber features across the lines
96: of sight.
97:
98: The motivation for extending coherence measurements to higher redshift
99: and larger transverse separation, where the signal is anticipated to be
100: weak, is that it represents a new regime for testing the gravitational
101: instability paradigm that underlies the description of large scale
102: structure on scales larger than galaxies. One study yielded a marginal
103: detection of line correlations in a grid of 10 quasars on transverse scales
104: of $\sim 10 h^{-1}_{70}$ at $z \sim 2.5$ \citep{williger00a}, but the authors
105: did not compare the signal to theorectical expectations. The same group
106: subsequently used moments of the transmission probability density to measure
107: the coherence \citep{liske00a} and saw diagreement with the hydrodynamic
108: simulations of \citet{cen97a}, although they did not make direct comparisons
109: as in this paper. Other motivations for this type of study include the
110: possibility of discovering non-Gaussian structures like voids, as observed
111: on these scales at $z \sim 2$ by \cite{rollinde03a}, or testing for
112: non-gravitational effects, as anticipated by \cite{fang04a}.
113:
114: Line of sight correlations are washed out on distance scales less than the
115: the redshift resolution, and the transmission distribution on velocity
116: scales of less than several hundred kms$^{-1}$ is modulated by peculiar
117: velocities. Transverse correlations can be effectively measured given a
118: mean $SNR > 10$, which allows peaks in the opacity distribution to be
119: located in velocity reliably and with a precision better than instrumental
120: resolution. Suitable interpretation of course depends on treating data and
121: hydrodynamic simulations identically for the coherence measurement.
122:
123: These observations of the high redshift quasar pair PC 1643+4631A, B focus on the redshift
124: range from $z = 2.6$ (Lyman limit cutoff at 4377\angns) to \lya emission
125: at $z_{em} = 3.8$. With better resolution and higher signal-to-noise than previous
126: William Hershel Telescope (WHT) spectra analyzed by \citet{saunders97a}, these data
127: allow a detailed study of the \lya absorbers. \citet{saunders97a}
128: had 12\ang instrumental resolution and a 1500 sec integration yielding poor
129: blue data sufficient only to determine if the pair was a lens, since there had been
130: earlier claims of a strong CMB decrement towards the pair \citep{jones97a}.
131: They did not present analysis of \lya absorber coincidences. At redshift 3.790, quasar
132: A has magnitude $B_{A}$ = 20.0 $\pm$ 0.3 and quasar B, at redshift 3.831, has magnitude
133: $B_{B}$ = 20.7 $\pm$ 0.3; the two quasars have an angular separation of $198\arcsec$.
134: The spectra and redshifts are sufficently different that there is no doubt that the
135: quasars form a physical pair rather than a lens system.
136:
137: The best basis for estimating the requirement for a definitive detection of coherence on
138: 3 $h^{-1}$ Mpc scales comes from the work of \citet{rollinde03a}. They observed five pairs
139: and a quad spanning angular scales that encompass the anglular separation of the pair in this
140: paper, and their VLT data has almost identical resolution. Their N-body simulations indicate
141: that a mean $SNR \sim 50$ yields a 1$\sigma$ detection of flux correlation for a separation
142: of 200 arcseconds, so assuming Gaussian noise, a 3$\sigma$ detection would take 10 pairs with
143: this quality of data or a single pair with $SNR \sim 150$. In this experiment we explore two
144: methods of measuring coherence; the first fits the predictions of \citet{rollinde03a} since
145: measuring coherence is difficult with poor SNR$\sim$30, and the second is matching \lya absorbers
146: across the sightlines using nearest neighbor matching.
147:
148: In \S \ref{obsdr_s} we discuss the observations and data reduction, and \S \ref{g6sims_s}
149: introduces the mechanics of obtaining spectra from simulations. The use of automated
150: software, named $ANIMALS$, to fit lines and continua to spectra and simulations is described
151: in \S \ref{animals_s}. Physical characteristics of the spectra are given in \S \ref{charspec_s},
152: while the absorber characteristics are given in \S \ref{lines_s}. The coincidences between
153: sightlines are described in \S \ref{linecoincide_s}. We compare simulation extractions to
154: the data in \S \ref{sph_s}, both in terms of individual sightlines and their transmission
155: properties, and jointly to understand coherence in the transverse dimension.
156:
157: \section{OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION}\label{obsdr_s}
158:
159: \subsection{Processing the LRIS Spectra}\label{lris_ss}
160:
161: All data for this project were obtained with the Keck I Low
162: Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (LRIS) on 21 July 2001 and were reduced
163: using the standard $IRAF$ longslit-spectra pipeline. To cover the wavelength
164: range of scientific interest, only the red side of the spectrograph
165: and the 900/5500 grating was used. The red CCD has two amplifiers; at
166: the time of the observations the left side had a gain of 1.97 $e^{-}$/ADU and
167: read noise 6.3 $e^{-}$, and the right had gain 2.10 $e^{-}$/ADU and read noise 6.6 $e^{-}$.
168: The LRIS red CCD also has unexposed rows due to the sub-array readout, but
169: these presented no practical problem in the data analysis. Since both
170: quasars were placed on the long slit simultaneously, all images
171: were examined to make sure no alignment shift occurred during the observations.
172: The target was continuously tracked and the slit was aligned close enough to
173: the parallactic angle to avoid significant loss of blue light.
174: Lyman limit absorption means there is little useful data below 4400\angns. These July
175: 2001 data had an effective integration time of 10,200 seconds. A previous
176: dataset from 2 June 2001 was of too poor quality to be useful.
177:
178: While most data reduction steps were performed with the standard $IRAF$ packages,
179: we used two tasks ($lccdproc$ and $lrisbias$) that are specific to LRIS. The
180: column bias effects from the overscan region were removed from all science
181: frames using $lccdproc$ with gain of 1.97 and read noise 6.3 $e^{-}$ entered as
182: parameters for the left channel. The images were then trimmed to the appropriate
183: size and $zerocombine$ was used to combine the bias frames. The biases were
184: averaged together to reduce cosmic rays with a sigma-clipping algorithm.
185: With $lccdproc$, this averaged bias frame was then subtracted from the remaining
186: images.
187:
188: To remove pixel-to-pixel variations and optical vignetting, we created a flat
189: field image using $flatcombine$. The only complication was a gain discontinuity
190: between right and left amplifiers. The discontinuity is not noticeable in
191: the low exposure frames (the science images), but it was removed by dividing
192: each side of the combined flat by its respective gain. Once this correction
193: had been made, we used $response$ to fit a continuous spectral response function
194: to the flat frame. After the resultant flat field was normalized, the remaining
195: images (flux calibration and science) were divided by the flat field, removing
196: pixel-to-pixel variations down to a level of 3$\%$.
197:
198: \subsection{Spectral Extraction}\label{specex_ss}
199:
200: For cosmic ray rejection, we combined five individual 1800 second
201: exposures and one 1200 second exposure in 2D before extraction. To line up
202: the quasar spectra, each image was shifted in x and y coordinates using $imshift$.
203: The images were then averaged together using $imcombine$ and its 'cosmic ray
204: rejection' algorithm. Prior to extracting the spectra using $apall$ (part of
205: the package $APEXTRACT$), suitable regions for sky subtraction were chosen by
206: visual inspection. There was a star close to quasar B that had to be avoided.
207: For quasars A and B, the trace had a FWHM of 6-7 pixels, indicating seeing
208: of 0.6\arcsec\ during the observations. Even after sky subtraction, the strong sky line at
209: 5577\ang shows up as a residual artifact in the final spectra. $Apall$ was used to create
210: a weighted variance spectrum array, an unweighted spectrum array, a background
211: spectrum array, and an error array for each quasar. A second order trace function
212: was used to linearize the spectra.
213:
214: \subsection{Wavelength and Flux Calibration}\label{svfxcalib_ss}
215:
216: For wavelength calibration, the lamp spectra were extracted using the same
217: trace functions given by the quasar pair A and B. HgNeArCdZn and CdZn lamps
218: were taken before and after the quasar exposures. The $IRAF$ tasks $identify$
219: and $reidentify$ were used to iteratively fit lines, with solutions for all
220: permutations of the two lamps and the two target apertures inspected. The
221: final wavelength solution applied to A and B was based on the HgNeArCdZn
222: lamp since it had a more uniform distribution of lines; after excluding one line
223: from the fit, the final RMS wavelength error was 0.054\angns, which is $\sim$2$\%$ of
224: a resolution element. The wavelength solution was applied using the $IRAF$ tasks
225: $refspec$ then $dispcor$ sequentially. The sampling of the final reduced spectra
226: was 0.85\ang per pixel.
227:
228: Flux calibration is not necessary to achieve the scientific goals of the
229: experiment, but it is useful for seeing the true continuum shape. To
230: calibrate the flux, we divided each amplifier by its gain (to eliminate the
231: right/left channel discrepancy) and remultiplied by 1.97 (the left channel
232: gain). This preserves the normalization of the counts, but eliminates the
233: discontinuity of the spectrum. We ran $apall$ to extract a spectrum for the
234: standard star, BD 284211, then used $standard$ and $sensfunc$ to fit the sensitivity
235: function of the LRIS instrument. The flux calibration was applied using
236: $calibrate$ and the final spectra are shown (with 1.5 pixel boxcar smoothing) in Figure
237: \ref{allspec_f}. The flux and error arrays are available in the electronic version of
238: the article.
239:
240: \begin{figure*}
241: \centering
242: \includegraphics[width=1.90\columnwidth]{f1.eps}
243: \caption{
244: The spectra of the quasars PC 1643+4631A (top) and B (bottom). The quasars have
245: magnitudes $B_{A} = 20.0$ and $B_{B} = 20.7$, and the mean signal to noise ratios are 32 and 16 respectively.
246: The red end of the LRIS spectrograph covers wavelengths 4200\ang to 6100\angns, yielding the full
247: coverage of the \lya forest, but little data redward of \lya emission.
248: }
249: \label{allspec_f}
250: \end{figure*}
251:
252: \subsection{Instrumental Resolution and Signal to Noise}\label{irsnr_ss}
253:
254: To calculate a representative value for instrumental resolution, we used the
255: average FWHM from our observation run. Blended lines, saturated lines,
256: peripheral lines widened by defocusing, and low intensity lines were excluded
257: from the resolution calculation, and only the FWHM of lamp lines in the \lya
258: forest wavelength range were used. Averaging the FWHM of 11 features with
259: characteristic Gaussian line profiles gives an instrumental resolution of
260: 3.6 $\pm$ 0.3\angns. At 5000\angns, this corresponds to $\sim$220 \kms.
261:
262: To calculate signal to noise (SNR) for each quasar, we used the output flux and
263: error arrays from $IRAF$. First, we divided the signal by the error for each
264: wavelength bin and averaged the SNR value over the \lya forest range.
265: This method gives the SNR of quasar A as 32.2 $\pm$ 5.7 and 16.8 $\pm$ 4.3 for
266: quasar B. A second method averages the signal over the \lya region (fairly
267: constant), averages the flux error similarly, and divides the two values.
268: This gives the SNR for A as 31.3 $\pm$ 7.4 and SNR for B as 16.6 $\pm$ 6.4.
269: Since the methods agree well, we round the SNR values to 32 for quasar A and
270: 16 for quasar B in the remainder of this paper.
271:
272: \section{SPECTRA DRAWN FROM SIMULATIONS}\label{g6sims_s}
273:
274: We will compare our cross-correlation measurements with simulations, to see if
275: current structure formation models can reproduce observations. For this purpose,
276: we considered pairs of synthetic Ly$\alpha$ absorption spectra extracted from the
277: smoothed particle hydrodynamic (SPH) cosmological simulation G6 \citep[described
278: below;][]{springel03a,finlator06a}. We extracted 1,000 paired lines of sight (separated
279: by 198 arcseconds, converted to physical transverse distance as a function of
280: simulation redshift) randomly distributed across each of the three orthogonal
281: faces of the simulation box for four different epochs ($z=2.5,\ 3.0,\ 3.5,$
282: and $4.0$) giving a total of 24,000 individual spectra. The physcial transverse
283: separations of sightlines at these four epochs are 2.16, 2.54, 2.61, and 2.66
284: $h^{-1}_{70}$ Mpc respectively. These extractions were originally made for a
285: study of the Alcock-Paczynski effect in the Ly$\alpha$ forest, and are described
286: in more detail in \citet{marble07a}.
287:
288: The G6 simulation is an extension of the G-series \citep*{springel03a}, which was
289: run with a modified version of the N-body+SPH galaxy formation code {\sc Gadget}
290: \citep{springel01a}. The following cosmological parameters were employed:
291: $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, $\Omega_b=0.04$, $\sigma_8=0.9$, and $h=0.7$,
292: consistent with first-year WMAP data as well as Ly$\alpha$ forest power spectrum
293: results \citep{spergel03a}. The relatively large volume of G6 (100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc
294: comoving on a side) is necessary to accurately model matter correlations on the
295: scale of few Mpc. With $486^3$ dark matter and $486^3$ gas particles, it is one
296: of the largest cosmological hydroydnamic simulations ever done, and its large
297: dynamic range is critical for resolving the small-scale structure associated with
298: the Ly$\alpha$ forest. The corresponding gas mass resolution of $9.79\times10^7$
299: $h^{-1}M_{\sun}$ is not ideal for detailed study of the Ly$\alpha$ forest as it does not
300: quite resolve the Jeans mass in the IGM \citep{schaye01a}, but given that the observations
301: considered here have a spectral resolution of 220~km/s (i.e. a distance of about
302: 0.7~Mpc/h in Hubble flow), the mean interparticle spacing of 0.2~Mpc/h is sufficient
303: to resolve fluctuations at the level probed by the data.
304:
305: Radiative heating and cooling were calculated assuming photoionization equilibrium and
306: optically thin gas. Additional prescriptions for star formation and supernova feedback
307: were incorporated, though the impact of these subgrid prescriptions on the Ly$\alpha$
308: forest is minimal. Additionally, G6 included galactic outflows via a Monte Carlo
309: ejection of gas from star-forming regions, where the outflow speed is taken to be
310: 484~km/s and the mass loading factor (i.e. the mass outflow rate relative to the star
311: formation rate) is taken to be 2. Recent work has shown that this particular outflow model
312: is not as successful as one where the outflow velocity scales with the characteristic
313: velocity of the galaxy \citep[i.e. the ``momentum-driven wind'' scalings of][]{oppenheimer06a}.
314: For instance, momentum-driven wind scalings better reproduce IGM enrichment~\citep{oppenheimer06a},
315: the galaxy mass-metallicity relation~\citep{finlator08a}, and observations of high-redshift
316: galaxies~\citep{dave07a}, among other things. However, \citet{marble07a} demonstrated that
317: the outflow prescription has only a very minor impact on correlations in the Ly$\alpha$
318: forest; in particular the difference in Ly$\alpha$ forest correlation between using the
319: G6 wind model and a momentum-driven wind model is $\scriptstyle\lesssim$ 5\%. This is
320: primarily because outflows enrich a relatively small volume of the Universe~\citep{oppenheimer06a},
321: so do not impact the bulk of the volume traced by Ly$\alpha$ absorbers.
322:
323: Finally, a spatially uniform photoionization background was included, with
324: the spectral shape and redshift evolution given by \citet*{haardt96a}.
325: For moderate overdensities characteristic of the Ly$\alpha$ forest
326: ($\rho/\langle\rho\rangle < 10$), the amplitude of this background can be
327: effectively and subsequently changed by rescaling the resulting opacity
328: distribution \citep{croft98a} to match the desired mean transmitted flux,
329: $\langle f \rangle$, of the Ly$\alpha$ forest. However, $\langle f \rangle$
330: remains an observationally uncertain quantity. Measurements of
331: $\langle f \rangle$ made directly from high-resolution echelle spectroscopy
332: (\emph{e.g.}, \citet*{kim01a} and \citet{kirkman05a}) have yielded consistently
333: higher values than those based on extrapolation from redward of the Ly$\alpha$
334: forest in much larger samples of lower-resolution spectra (\emph{e.g.},
335: \citet*{press93a} and \citet{bernardi03a}), with relative differences of
336: $5\%-25\%$ at $2.5<z<4.0$. For this reason, two sets of simulated spectra
337: were produced, corresponding to the mean flux prescriptions of both
338: \citet*{press93a} and \citet{kirkman05a}, hereafter referred to as P93 and
339: K05.
340:
341: \section{$ANIMALS$ PROCESSING}\label{animals_s}
342:
343: To detect, fit and analyze quasar absorption lines, we used a custom made software package: ANalysis
344: of the Intergalactic Medium via Absorption Lines Software ($ANIMALS$), originally based on a kernel
345: developed by Tom Aldcroft with substantial modifications by Cathy Petry at Steward Observatory.
346: The software is faithful to the methodology of the HST Quasar Absorption Line Key Project
347: \citep{bahcall96a,jannuzi98a,weymann98a}, and its characteristics are described at length in the
348: original method paper \citep{petry98a}. While it was originally designed to handle typical observed
349: quasar spectra, it has since been expanded to accomodate spectral extractions from SPH simulations
350: (which have much shorter spectral coverage but higher resolution than is typical of real observations)
351: and automate the process of continuum fitting \citep{petry02a}. This expansion also included improvements
352: to handle data with a wide range of SNR and line density$-$particularly useful when analyzing high
353: redshift quasar \lya forest lines. For a more complete discussion of the software, see \citet{petry06a}.
354:
355: We use $ANIMALS$ in three contexts in this paper$-$to fit continua to the data, to fit absorption lines and
356: measure their significances and equivalent widths (EW), and to degrade spectra of SPH extractions to the
357: instrumental resolution and signal-to-noise of our observations. These processes are described below,
358: and their purposes become apparent later in the paper.
359:
360: \subsection{Continuum Fitting}\label{contfit_ss}
361:
362: The continua for both PC 1643+4631A and B were fit by automatically computing the average
363: flux value in 50\ang bins using $ANIMALS$'s simple cubic spline fitting routine.
364: If points on the spectrum deviated by more than $2\sigma$ from the averaged flux values
365: (the ``continuum'') in the negative direction, they were flagged as potentially absorbed pixels
366: and rejected from the averages that tether subsequent iterations of the
367: continuum fit. The procedure generally converged after four iterations, after
368: which the spline fit rested near the top of the spectral features.
369:
370: This initial fit was not completely adequate. Continuum fitting is made more
371: challenging by the high redshift of the quasars and modest spectral resolution of the data, which means
372: there is \ion{H}{1} opacity at essentially every pixel. Combined with the high signal-to-noise
373: ratio, this implies that most of the small scale structure is real transmission variation.
374: Based on the structure of the quasar continuum and careful scrutiny of each
375: feature, the continuum was
376: adjusted--with a stiffer fit in most cases (on 80\ang scales instead of 50\ang scales), or (near the \lya or \lyb
377: emission lines) a higher order fit. In a few regions final manual adjustment
378: had to be made to the spline fit, where individual points were connected with
379: straight lines on a scale of 20 \angns. The result is a continuum that sits at
380: or just below spectral peaks (less-absorbed regions) and is low-order enough not
381: to follow individual absorber features or fluctuations due to noise.
382:
383: We also used $ANIMALS$ to fit continua to our SPH extractions to analyze the reliability
384: of our continuum fitting techniques for different line densities and underlying opacity distributions
385: as a function of redshift. The results are given in \S \ref{underestimation_ss}, but
386: in \S \ref{specdeg_ss} we discuss minor differences between fitting the simulations and the observed data.
387:
388: \subsection{Line Fitting}\label{linefit_ss}
389:
390: $ANIMALS$ fits Gaussian profiles to individual absorbers in regions where the flux is below the continuum fit.
391: The line fitting algorithm allows the central wavelength, amplitude and FWHM of each line to be variables.
392: While no limit is set to the fitted equivalent width ($W_{obs}$), this analysis is based on the assumption
393: that individual features are unresolved, since the spectral resolution ($\sim$220 \kms) is well beyond the
394: upper bound of the distribution of absorber Doppler parameters, as measured by echelle observations \citep*{kim01a}.
395: At the redshifts of this experiment, 80$\%$ of the absorbers will have Doppler parameters in the range 20-50
396: \kms, contributing a negligible broadening in quadrature to the instrumental profile. The damped features
397: described in \S \ref{charspec_s} are excised from the spectra during line fitting since $ANIMALS$ is not designed
398: to fit the profiles of high column density absorbers.
399:
400: \input{tab1}
401: \input{tab2}
402:
403: The process of line selection in $ANIMALS$ focuses on maximizing real features and reducing
404: contamination from false signals$-$caused by noise or variation in the true continuum, which
405: is unknown a priori \citep{petry98a}. Applying the software to PC 1643+4631A and B yields 240
406: and 234 unresolved fitted lines respectively. A list of all the detected lines is found in Tables
407: \ref{tab1} and \ref{tab2}, where each line is characterized by its central wavelength, observed
408: $EW$ ($W_{obs}$), $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ (based on the quality of the fit), $S_{fit}$ and $S_{det}$
409: (significances to be discussed in \S \ref{sigs_ss}), and special notes. Identification of the
410: \lya sample is explained in \S \ref{lyasample_ss}, resulting in 222 A lines and 211 B lines that
411: are used for the analysis. We also perform line fitting of SPH simulation spectra, whose details
412: are discussed in \S \ref{simlines_ss}.
413:
414: \subsection{Spectral Degradation}\label{specdeg_ss}
415:
416: For a fair comparison with observations, the spectra extracted from the SPH simulation
417: must be degraded to the instrumental resolution and observed SNR of the observations.
418: To degrade, the spectra were convolved with a Gaussian line spread function, resampled
419: to the correct dispersion (0.85\ang per pixel) using spline interpolation, and Gaussian
420: noise was added to match the SNR as a function of wavelength given by the data.
421:
422: Since the simulation extractions each span only 300\ang (corresponding
423: to a 100 $h^{-1}_{70}$ Mpc box), automatic continuum fitting can be problematic near
424: the boundary. Although periodic boundary conditions in the simulation
425: prevent any discontinuity in transmission at the box edge, an ``unlucky''
426: anisotropy in opacity, or region of heavy absorption, can skew or tilt the continuum
427: fit. To avoid large transmission deviations in the continuum
428: fit, the simulated spectra were replicated three times using a different
429: noise seed and joined end-to-end. Similar to the continuum fits for the data, $ANIMALS$
430: was used to automatically fit continua to the degraded simulation extractions using a
431: cubic spline fitting routine. The fits used 170-255\ang
432: smoothing, and the middle third of each fit was adopted as the continuum.
433:
434:
435: \section{CHARACTERISTSCS OF THE SPECTRA}\label{charspec_s}
436:
437: \subsection{Spectral Features}\label{specfeat_ss}
438:
439: The quasar spectra in Figure \ref{allspec_f} show \lya emission peaks at wavelength 5838\ang
440: for A and 5880\ang for B. An expanded normalized flux plot of the spectra is shown in Figure
441: \ref{expandspec_f}. These \lya wavelengths are redward of the values anticipated from the published
442: redshifts \citep{schneider91a} at 5823\ang and 5872\angns, but their peaks are possibly shifted due
443: to heavy absorption by strong intervening damped Lyman absorbers (DLAs) just blueward of \lya emission.
444:
445: \begin{figure}
446: \includegraphics[height=0.99\columnwidth,angle=270]{f2a.eps}
447: \includegraphics[height=0.99\columnwidth,angle=270]{f2b.eps}
448: \includegraphics[height=0.99\columnwidth,angle=270]{f2c.eps}
449: \caption{
450: The normalized flux (relative to the continuum fit) of the spectra of quasars PC 1643+4631A (above)
451: and B (below). Fitted absorption lines from the \lya sample are numbered (every third line) above
452: the spectra and are traced by the dashed line overlayed on the spectra. For wavelengths below 4370\ang
453: in spectrum A and below 4400 in spectrum B, the flux is nearly zero due to Lyman limit absorption,
454: so the normalized flux in these regions has been set to zero.
455: }
456: \label{expandspec_f}
457: \end{figure}
458:
459: Both spectra exhibit strong, independent damped Lyman absorbers just blueward of \lya emission at 5808\ang
460: in spectrum A and at $\sim$5859\ang in B. The DLAs have separations of 770 \kms\ and 665 \kms\ from their
461: respective quasars (A and B) and are thus associated systems. The absorption in spectrum B is bimodal and
462: consists of two different absorbers: one at $z = 3.827$ which is intrinsic to the quasar with strong
463: \ion{N}{5} absorption, and another at $z = 3.818$ (at 5859\angns). We claim that two independent absorbers,
464: at $z = 3.783$ (5815\angns) in A and at $z = 3.818$ (5859\angns) in B, are DLAs. The occurrence of a single
465: close associated DLA with a quasar is quite rare ($\sim$2$\%$), so the presence of two of these features in
466: a pair with fairly large separation is significant \citep{hennawi06a}. The DLAs are too widely separated
467: from each other (by 2500 \kms\ or $\Delta z = 0.012$) to be considered part of the same cosmic structure,
468: showing a velocity separation roughly the same as that between the quasars. These absorbers, and the quasars
469: themselves, may probe a much larger overdense region at $z \sim 3.8$.
470:
471: In spectrum A, we see another strong damped feature from 5005-5060\ang. This region is blocked out of
472: \lya absorber analysis. In spectrum B, there is a somewhat weaker system ranging from 5145-5160\angns.
473: Both spectra show Lyman limit systems, at 4370\ang in A and at 4409\ang in B. Redward of \lya there is
474: very little wavelength coverage, but a strong \ion{N}{5} doublet appears in spectrum B at redshift 3.82.
475: No lines redward of \lya could be identified.
476:
477: \subsection{Redshift Estimation}\label{zguess_ss}
478:
479: The most recent estimations of the pair's redshift, from \citet{schneider91a}, is $z=$3.790 $\pm$ 0.004 for A and $z=$3.831 $\pm$
480: 0.005 for B. Since neither spectrum presented here has significant redward coverage, any
481: re-estimation of the redshifts must be done with \lya emission, \lyb emission, and the corresponding
482: Lyman limit. The spectrum for quasar A is too irregular to reliably pick out \lyb emission, the peak of
483: \lya emission is slightly shifted as described previously, and the Lyman limit (while agreeing with the
484: published redshift) cannot give a very precise redshift estimate. In spectrum B,
485: \lyb emission is well-traced by the continuum fit, but the fitted peak is located 40\ang
486: redward of the expected \lyb emission peak (using the published redshift z = 3.831 $\pm$
487: 0.005). While this offset might
488: be attributed to a faulty wavelength solution, we found that both the \lya and the Lyman limit agree
489: with the published redshift, and the 5575\ang sky line affirms that there is no
490: zero point shift in the wavelength solution. The deficit blueward of the \lyb peak is attributed
491: to absorption associated with the DLA system seen just blueward of \lya emission. This,
492: coupled with OVI emission at 1036\angns, creates the impression of the shifted \lyb peak. Without any
493: sharp and non-absorbed emission peaks, we confirm but cannot improve on the published redshifts.
494:
495: \section{CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ABSORBERS}\label{lines_s}
496:
497: The line-fitting methodology is taxed at high redshift because increased opacity significantly
498: affects the reliability of line fitting. High opacity can cause a substantial underestimation of
499: continuum flux and thus underestimation of line density and equivalent width. At high redshift,
500: line densities are high and blending is a severe problem. We discuss
501: these effects quantitatively with SPH simulation extractions in \S \ref{underestimation_ss}.
502: Below we describe the characteristics of absorbers, define the \lya sample, discuss
503: contamination from metals and higher order Lyman lines, and calculate line densities.
504:
505:
506: \subsection{Line Significances}\label{sigs_ss}
507:
508: ANIMALS provides two independent measures of absorption line
509: identification reliability. The detection significance, $S_{det} =
510: W_{obs} / \sigma_{det}$, relates the strength of each line to the
511: detection limit of the data at the corresponding wavelength. Here,
512: $\sigma_{det}$ is given by the convolution of the instrumental line
513: spread function with the 1$\sigma$ flux error array, and, as before,
514: $W_{obs}$ is the fitted equivalent width. How well a given line is
515: fit is quantified by the fitting significance, $S_{fit} = W_{obs} /
516: \sigma_{W_{obs}}$, which is simply the ratio of the fitted equivalent
517: width and the uncertainty in that measurement. For a more detailed
518: discussion, see \citet{petry06a}. Since it is possible for a line
519: to be clearly detected but fit poorly (e.g., a blended line) and a
520: feature generated by noise to be reasonably fit with a Gaussian, these
521: significance parameters are used in tandem to assess absorption line
522: reliability. Lines with both $S_{det} < 5$ and $S_{fit} < 2$ were
523: excluded from the Ly$\alpha$ sample. These lower limits were selected
524: as a compromise between contamination by spurious lines and exclusion
525: of legitimate ones. In a direct comparison of line identifications
526: for moderate resolution spectra and echelle spectroscopy of the same
527: targets, false positive and genuine line loss yields were found to be
528: approximately 8\% and 6\%, respectively (Marble \& Impey, in
529: preparation). Due to high SNR, there are very few low significance
530: lines in our sample; only one line at 5114\AA\ in spectrum B (which is
531: blended with the wing of another line) was rejected using these
532: criteria (Figure \ref{sigs_f}).
533:
534: \begin{figure}
535: \includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{f3.eps}
536: \caption{
537: Fitted significance vs. detection significance for A and B absorbers (76 highly
538: significant lines from A and 9 from B lie outside of the plot boundaries).
539: Based on previously determined significance parameters discussed in
540: \S \ref{sigs_ss}, we exclude lines with $S_{fit} < 2$ and $S_{det} < 5$ from the
541: \lya sample, only containing one line in either spectra: a blended line at 5114\ang in B.
542: }
543: \label{sigs_f}
544: \end{figure}
545:
546: \subsection{\lya Absorber Sample}\label{lyasample_ss}
547:
548: As a prelude to analysis, we must ensure that the sample of absorbers represents only \lya
549: lines in the IGM. Damped systems appear in both spectra just blueward of \lya emission.
550: The redshifts of these features are measured as $z = 3.778 \pm 0.003$ for A and $3.818 \pm
551: 0.003$ for B. We performed a search for metal lines associated with these systems which
552: produced statistically insignificant results. To declare a match, the wavelength of a
553: ``matched'' line had to be within $2\sigma_{\lambda}$ of the redshifted metal line,
554: corresponding to the redshift of the DLA. With this procedure, five lines were matched to
555: the DLA in A (\lyb, \lyc, \lyd, N II, Si III), and eight lines were matched to the DLA in B
556: (\lyb, \lyc, \lyd, \lye, \lyf, \lyg, \lyh, C II). Since the line density is so high at high
557: redshift, we tested the significance of our matches by performing an offset experiment in
558: which we shifted the spectrum and matched metals at each iteration. This was done 400 times,
559: from a 100\ang offset redward to 100\ang offset blueward using a 0.5\ang stepsize (the stepsize
560: is larger than the wavelength error for a typical line). The average number of random matches
561: was 2.1 $\pm$ 1.4 in A and 3.2 $\pm$ 1.7 in B. Since the number of metal matches were within
562: $\sim2\sigma$ of the average number of random matches, we do not claim the identifications to
563: be significant. However, we contend that we can identify the higher order Lyman lines in A and
564: B up to \lyd with good reliability. The same offset experiment performed for higher order Lyman
565: lines reveals a $2\sigma$ statistical excess at zero offset and the strengths of the lines in
566: rough agreement with a predicted line strength. These lines are removed from the \lya sample
567: and marked as such in the Tables.
568:
569: To determine the impact of the proximity effect \citep{scott00a} on absorbers close to
570: \lya emission, we considered the luminosity of the quasars. Both A and B are relatively faint,
571: with apparent magnitudes $B_{A} = 20.0\pm0.03$ and $B_{B} = 20.7\pm0.03$ at redshift $\sim$3.8,
572: suggesting the extent of the proximity effect is minimal. The intervening DLAs further limit
573: the extent of the proximity effect, to about 1000\kms, which does not include any lines in our
574: lists (save the DLAs themselves). Another consideration is the damped systems that in each case
575: sit close ($\sim$800 \kms) to the emission redshift. With a high column density, these features
576: further limit the extent of the proposed Str{\"o}mgen spheres. These coupled effects lead us
577: to keep all lines fitted blueward of the DLA systems at $z = 3.778$ and $z = 3.818$, which is
578: out to $\sim$1700 \kms.
579:
580: \subsection{The \lyb ``Forest''}\label{lybforest_ss}
581:
582: To test for \lyb contamination blueward of the \lyb emission line we performed an offset experiment.
583: The baseline, or zero offset, measurement involved assuming each absorber between the wavelengths of \lya and \lyb
584: emission is a \lya absorber, and predicting the wavelength positions of \lyb from each \lya line. Then we shifted
585: the wavelength centers of lines (blueward of \lyb emission) by offset increments of 5\angns, and measured the number
586: of \lya$-$\lyb pairs. The offsets ranged over $\pm$ 200\ang. The criterion of accepting a pairing had to be that
587: the observed line wavelength was within 2 $\sigma_{\lambda}$ of its predicted wavelength,
588: which was on the order of 0.4\ang (but determined uniquely from the corresponding \lya line). Over the entire range
589: of offsets, the average number of matched pairs was 8.5 $\pm$ 2.6 for A and 15.4 $\pm$ 4.0 for B. At zero wavelength
590: offset, the data show 10 pairs in A and 16 pairs in B, so there is no statistical detection of \lya$-$\lyb pairs.
591:
592: \begin{figure}
593: \includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{f4a.eps}
594: \includegraphics[width=1.10\columnwidth]{f4b.eps}
595: \caption{
596: Mean transmission (averaged over $\pm$ 150\angns) vs. wavelength, showing little change
597: blueward of \lyb emission relative to redward (upper panel). The vertical lines mark
598: \lyb emission for each quasar. The lower panel shows the rolling average of the line
599: density in a 150\ang bin which is independent of equivalent width (since the distribution
600: in equivalent width does not significantly evolve with redshift). Since we do not detect
601: extra absorption from metals or higher order Lyman lines and only observe slight changes
602: in transmission and line density, we carry forward into the analysis both (a) the entire
603: region from the Lyman limit to \lya emission and (b) the \lya forest alone.
604: }
605: \label{lyalyb_f}
606: \end{figure}
607:
608: As further tests of whether we could use the full region down to the Lyman limit ($z \sim 2.65$)
609: to define a \lya absorber sample we looked at mean transmission and line density. Figure
610: \ref{lyalyb_f} shows that there is no significant change in mean transmission when passing from
611: the pure \lya forest to the region where \lyb lines are also present, the ``\lyb forest.'' The
612: line density (calculated independent of equivalent width) is also shown in Figure \ref{lyalyb_f}
613: and is constant across the entire range of data, supporting the assumption that most lines are
614: \lya unless otherwise noted. This line density comparison is valid since the observed distribution
615: of equivalent widths does not change as a function of redshift. Our discrete absorber analysis
616: includes the \lyb region, while our flux statistics studies and cross-correlation calculations
617: proceed through analysis with and without exclusion of the \lyb forest, which will be discussed more
618: thoroughly in \S \ref{sph_s}.
619:
620: \subsection{Statistical Absorber Properties}\label{dnewdz_ss}
621:
622: The line culling process described in the preceding sections (removing
623: lines from metal contamination, proximity effect, poor fitted or detection
624: significance, or damped system lines), reduces the full line lists in
625: Tables \ref{tab1} and \ref{tab2} to the \lya sample: 222 lines in A and
626: 211 lines in B. In accordance with previous studies, we express the number
627: of absorption lines per unit redshift per unit rest equivalent width as
628: \begin{equation}
629: \frac{\partial^{2} N}{\partial z \partial W} = \frac{A_{0}}{W*} (1 +
630: z)^{\gamma} exp\{-\frac{W}{W*}\}
631: \end{equation}
632: where $\gamma$ and $W*$ are determined by maximum likelihood estimation as
633: in \citet{murdoch86a} with code written by A. Dobrzycki. We can also
634: express the number of lines per unit redshift above a fixed equivalent
635: width limit (often taken in the literature as 0.32\ang or 0.16\ang), as
636: \begin{equation}
637: \frac{dN}{dz} = A_{0} (1 + z)^{\gamma}
638: \end{equation}
639: The most appropriate line density comparison from the literature
640: comes from \citet{bechtold94a}, who presented a moderate resolution, high
641: redshift ($z > 2.6$) sample (their Table 4, sample 21a for $W_{thr} =0.32$\ang
642: and sample 22a for $W_{thr} = 0.16$\angns), and from
643: \citet{kim97a} (likewise from \citealt{hu95a}), who used high resolution
644: data at all redshifts (with $W_{thr} = 0.32$\angns). We adopt the
645: equivalent width threshold value of 0.32\ang since it is above our
646: limiting equivalent widths for A and B at nearly all wavelengths.
647: Splitting the data into five redshift bins each centered at redshifts
648: 2.75, 2.99, 3.26, 3.47 and 3.67 (excluding data from the damped feature in
649: A surrounding 5005\angns-5060\angns) we present $dN/dz$ in Figure
650: \ref{dndz_f}. The difference between the two earlier studies is readily
651: understood as an effect of line blending and limited resolution. Kim et
652: al. did simulations to show that their completeness to 0.32\ang lines
653: at $z\sim 3$ was about 90\%. Bechtold only was able to recover about
654: half of the lines at this strength, and our data is intermediate in
655: completeness.
656:
657: \begin{figure}
658: \includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{f5.eps}
659: \caption{
660: \lya absorber density as a function of redshift for lines with $W_{0} > 0.32$\angns, compared to two previoius studies
661: \citet{bechtold94a}, and \citet{kim97a}, both with lower limits on equivalent width of 0.32\angns. The higher line density
662: of the latter study is due to better signal-to-noise and resolution.
663: Line density is calculated in five bins (avoiding the strong DLA in spectrum A at $\sim$5030\angns) centered
664: on redshifts 2.75, 2.99, 3.26, 3.47 and 3.67. No evolution of strong lines is apparent since we underestimate
665: the continuum and thus underestimate line counts and line strengths at higher redshifts.
666: }
667: \label{dndz_f}
668: \end{figure}
669:
670:
671: We see broad agreement with the two earlier studies except
672: in the lowest one (for B) or two (for A) redshift bins. Since the \lyb
673: forest begins in the middle of the second lowest redshift bin, around $z\sim 3$,
674: this casts some doubt on using this region in the \lya analysis.
675: From this direct comparison of $dN/dz$ with literature values of high
676: resolution data, we estimate the number of absorbers that are averaged
677: together due to the spectral resolution and SNR. As a function of
678: redshift (split into the five redshift bins earlier described at z=2.75,
679: 2.99, 3.26, 3.47, and 3.67), the number of hypothetical \lya absorbers
680: divided by the observed number of absorbers is 0.67, 0.96, 1.36, 1.51, and
681: 1.50 (i.e. blending of $\sim 3$ true \lya absorbers into $\sim 2$ fitted
682: lines at the highest redshifts).
683:
684: While the additional signal to noise in spectrum A might lead one to believe that more absorbers
685: should be fit than in spectrum B, the resolution and high line density of this high redshift data
686: washes out the dependence of line count on signal to noise directly. We fit all lines with the
687: assumption that they are unresolved, and had line profiles equal to the resolution of our
688: observations (3.6\angns). The separation between adjacent fitted lines is on order 2-4 times
689: this wavelength interval. Since the separation between lines and width of lines is comparable,
690: and lines are restricted to have a minimal seperation of at least one sampling unit (0.85\angns),
691: it can have a enormous effect on the effective line density of the data. Weaker features are
692: washed out of the experiment due to the resolution limit of line fitting. So the additional lines
693: that one might expect to exist in spectrum A were likely neglected due to blending. When fitting
694: lines to the simulation spectra (as part of our comparison with simulations in \S \ref{simlines_ss}),
695: we find that the number of lines fit to either sightline (A or B) are comperable, and S/N does not
696: have an effect on the lists from resolution limitations and a very high line density.
697:
698: \begin{figure}
699: \includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{f6.eps}
700: \caption{
701: The distribution in rest equivalent widths for \lya absorbers from both sightlines.
702: Above 0.32\angns, the distributions are moderately well-described by exponentials.
703: The exponential fits (dashed lines) are described by $N_{A}(W_{0}) = 48.42$exp$(-2.29W_{0})$
704: for A and $N_{B}(W_{0}) = 50.91$exp$(-2.42W_{0})$ for B. The distribution shapes
705: are similar, and when split into higher and lower redshift bins show no sign of evolution.
706: }
707: \label{dndw_f}
708: \end{figure}
709:
710:
711: The distribution in rest EW for both \lya forests is shown in Figure
712: \ref{dndw_f} with exponentials overplotted that only fit data above the
713: $W_{thr} = 0.32$\ang limit. Above this limit, the distribution is
714: well-described by an exponential. At high redshift ($z > 3.4$) the
715: continuum fit from \S \ref{contfit_ss} is suspected to significantly
716: underestimate the true continuum level (discussed quantitatively in \S
717: \ref{underestimation_ss}), which means that the equivalent widths of high
718: redshift absorbers are underestimated. We observe no evolution of the
719: distribution of equivalent widths with redshift. The effect on line count
720: and line strength from continuum underestimation is complex, based both on
721: the omission of weaker absorbers and the underestimation of equivalent
722: widths from stronger features. This systematic bias in the continuum
723: applies equally to both sightlines and does not affect measures of the
724: transverse coherence between discrete absorbers (since the effect is equal
725: for both sightlines), but it will significantly impact measures of
726: transverse correlation when considered in flux statistics tests, which is
727: why we quantify the underestimation in \S \ref{underestimation_ss}.
728:
729: \section{ABSORBER COINCIDENCES}\label{linecoincide_s}
730:
731: \subsection{Symmetric Matching}\label{symmmatch_ss}
732:
733: \input{tab3}
734:
735: Symmetric pairing of lines across the spectra is done via nearest neighbor matching in wavelength space.
736: A pair is considered symmetric if both lines are each others' nearest neighbor,
737: i.e. the line from A is the nearest feature in wavelength to the line in B and vice versa. This
738: matching method is the simplest way to measure coherence with
739: discrete measures of opacity like absorption lines.
740: We find 152 matches across the sightlines; the specifics of
741: the absorber properties and separations are listed in Table \ref{tab3}. Next
742: we explore the properties of the symmetric matches in this dataset, the scale on which we expect
743: matches to be made, and whether or not coherence can be inferred from this high redshift data relative to Monte
744: Carlo simulations.
745:
746: \subsection{Characteristic Absorber Separations}\label{charlength_ss}
747:
748: \begin{figure*}
749: \centering
750: \includegraphics[width=1.90\columnwidth]{f7.eps}
751: \caption{
752: The velocity splitting of 152 symmetrically matched pairs. The results of random matching
753: Monte Carlo experiments are overplotted with 90$\%$, 95$\%$, and 99$\%$ confidence intervals.
754: The first data bin, from 0-50 \kms, is significantly limited by the instrumental resolution
755: and thus contains fewer matches than high resolution echelle spectra would exhibit. The 50-100
756: \kms\ and 100-150 \kms\ bins show a 3-4$\sigma$ coherence signal above the Monte Carlo expectation.
757: Wider velocity splitting bins with $\Delta v > 150$ \kms\ follow expectation from random pairings.
758: }
759: \label{montecarlo_f}
760: \end{figure*}
761:
762: Symmetric pair matches may just be chance pairings. The
763: mean separation between matched pairs is 1.4\ang or $\sim$84 \kms, as seen as a peak in Figure \ref{montecarlo_f}.
764: In contrast, the average separation between adjacent lines in each individual spectrum
765: (a measure of line density) is 6.1 $\pm$ 3.6\ang ($\sim$370 \kms) in A and 6.8 $\pm$ 4.2\ang ($\sim$410 \kms) in B.
766: If the requirement of symmetry (A matches to B and B matches to A) is dropped in the matching process, the
767: mean $\Delta\lambda$ increases as expected (to 3.4$\pm$6.5\angns).
768: To indicate the physical scale on which lines are being matched,
769: we calculate the velocity scale of differential Hubble flow. Using an angular separation
770: of 198\arcsec, a typical radial line separation translates to $\Delta\lambda_{o}$ =
771: 4.5\angns, or $\sim$270 \kms.
772:
773: \subsection{Monte Carlo Experiment}\label{montecarlo_ss}
774:
775: We perform a Monte Carlo experiment to test the significance of symmetric line matches, by
776: making matches across sightlines as a way to detect coherence (above the chance matching
777: resulting from randomly placed lines). This test is not limited or compromised by low
778: resolution because lines are typically centroided to 30 \kms ($\sim$0.5\angns), which is
779: $\sim$7 times smaller than our 220 \kms (3.6\angns) resolution \citep[][, using the same
780: method for HST data of similar resolution]{dinshaw98a}. Since the line velocity error
781: (30 \kms) is much less than the mean velocity splitting of matched pairs (84 \kms), the
782: measurement error does not impact this line matching coherence measure. With 1000
783: realizations, the experiment recreates the two sightlines, sampled to mimic the line
784: density and equivalent width distribution of the observed spectra, and computes symmetric
785: matches between the two randomly drawn sets of absorbers. The entire range of the data is
786: used, including the \lyb forest. This adds needed line statistics to the \lya sample, and
787: since line fitting is somewhat immune from varying mean flux and continuum fits (which
788: exhibit strange behavior in the \lyb region as can be seen by excessive opacity in Figure
789: \ref{allspec_f}, particularly in A) there is no concern that line matches in the \lyb region
790: are not meaningful. The only risk in including the \lyb region is double counting \lya and
791: their \lyb counterpart matches, which will also trace coherence in the IGM. This double
792: counting is unlikely since we found very little evidence that \lyb contamination is significant,
793: and at most, would only change the result by $\sim$10$\%$.
794:
795: To create the simulated Monte Carlo samples, we use the limiting equivalent width (or detection limit)
796: as a function of wavelength, which hovers about 0.24\angns. Damped regions are removed from
797: the simulated spectra as from the data: 5005-5060\ang in A and 5145-5160\ang in B. We overplot the
798: results of this Monte Carlo matching experiment on our observed matches in Figure \ref{montecarlo_f}.
799: The data show a $\sim$4$\sigma$ coherence signal above the Monte Carlo random
800: matching result in the 50-100 \kms\ and 100-150 \kms\ bins (pair excesses are 3.9$\sigma$ and 3.7$\sigma$
801: respectively). The experiment was repeated by splitting the sample into strong and weak lines (split at
802: 0.5\angns, roughly half the sample), but it did not show that coherence was more prevelent in either strong
803: or weak absorbers. The first bin (0-50\kms) is depopulated due to line blending;
804: few symmetric matches on small velocity splitting scales would be counted if blended features containing
805: two absorbers correspond to single absorbers in the opposite sightline. Therefore, we do not claim that the
806: offset signal (peak between 50 \kms\ $< \Delta v <$ 150 \kms) is due to inherent shear in the IGM.
807:
808:
809: \section{COMPARISON WITH THE SIMULATIONS}\label{sph_s}
810:
811: \subsection{Absorber Coincidences from Simulations}\label{simlines_ss}
812:
813: \begin{figure}
814: \includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{f8.eps}
815: \caption{
816: The velocity splitting distribution of absorbers in the spectra
817: extracted from the simulations. The left panel shows the
818: distribution as a function of realization redshift.
819: For reference, we have overplotted the random
820: absorber result from Monte Carlo tests (as shown in Figure \ref
821: {montecarlo_f}), and we see that the simulations show a weak but
822: detectable coherence signal above random chance pairings. When
823: properly weighted over the redshift interval of our data (2.6 $<$ z $<$
824: 3.8), we show the simulations alongside the data result and the
825: random test result in the right panel.
826: }
827: \label{sims_vs_f}
828: \end{figure}
829:
830: To further interpret our $\sim$4$\sigma$ detection of coherence from
831: the previous section, we perform a similar symmetric pair matching on
832: absorbers in the spectra extracted from simulations (as described in
833: \S \ref{g6sims_s}). Line fitting was done with the same $ANIMALS$
834: utility that was used for the data, this time applied to the degraded
835: extractions from simulations designed to match the data. Figure \ref
836: {sims_vs_f} (left panel) shows the velocity splitting distribution at
837: each redshift for symmetrically matched pairs in associated A and B
838: simulated spectra (with the MC randomization result overplotted for
839: reference). At higher redshift, greater line densities generate a
840: steeper peak at zero splitting as expected, while lower redshifts give
841: shallower distributions. To make a fair comparison with the data, we
842: interpolate the distribution shape that simulations would produce for
843: a spectrum continuously sampling redshifts 2.6 $<$ z $<$ 3.8. This is
844: shown alongside the randomized result and the data in the right panel
845: of Figure \ref{sims_vs_f}. This not only reaffirms that we can
846: detect weak coherence in the lya forest at high redshifts, but that
847: the simulations agree with our data in showing a signal of roughly
848: the same strength.
849:
850: The one area of disagreement between data and degraded extractions
851: from the simulations is in the first velocity offset bin (0-50\kms).
852: This can be explained simply as a depopulation of the smallest velocity
853: offset bin in the data due to line blending (i.e. the discrepancy is
854: non-physical). Although this happens to some degree in the spectra
855: extracted from simulations, the settings in $ANIMALS$ used to generate
856: line lists from the simulations allow lines to be fitted with smaller
857: wavelength separations (below the 0.85\ang restriction applied to the
858: data) since the spectra themselves are so short (only 300\ang,
859: rather than the data that span $\sim$1500\angns). The lowest bin,
860: where the turn-down occurs in the data, correponds to splittings less
861: than 40$\%$ of the instrumental resultion. At these high redshifts, where
862: blending is severe, the transverse matching result will be sensitive to
863: the exact criterion used for minimum line separation in each sightline.
864: The slight depopulation of simulation matched pairs relative to data
865: at high velocity splitting is a consequence of the same effect. To
866: first order, this preliminary test for high-z coherence is successful
867: and it encourages additional testing of the simulations that can be
868: done in the future more effectively using higher quality data.
869:
870: \subsection{Evolution in the Transmission Distribution}\label{transhist_ss}
871:
872: \begin{figure}
873: \includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{f9.eps}
874: \caption{
875: The transmission distributions of 3000 spectra extracted from SPH simulations at four discrete redshifts. The first column
876: shows the distributions of non-degraded simulation spectra, with no noise added and very high resolution, which
877: characterizes the intrinsic cosmic evolution of the IGM in the simulations. The second column
878: shows the distributions for simulations after degrading to the signal-to-noise and instrumental resolution
879: of the spectra, but without rescaling the mean flux. The distributions of A and B
880: do not differ despite a difference in SNR, so they are combined.
881: The effect of resolution is particularly visible at high redshift. The third and fourth
882: columns represent the same distributions from column 2 after being rescaled by mean flux according to P93 \citep*{press93a}
883: and K05 \citep{kirkman05a} respectively. The vertical lines in the three last columns represent the average
884: transmission value of the fitted continua as described in \S \ref{underestimation_ss}.
885: }
886: \label{transhist_f}
887: \end{figure}
888:
889: The spectra extracted from the G6 simulation (\S \ref{g6sims_s}) show significant changes
890: in opacity distributions over the redshift range of our data. At their initial high
891: resolution and infinite SNR, the transmission distributions show substantial absorption
892: at higher redshift while very little at low redshift, the anticipated strong cosmic evolution
893: from z = 2.6 to z = 3.8 (Lyman limit to \lya emission in our data). The
894: transmission distributions in the first column of Figure \ref{transhist_f}
895: combine the statistics of both A and B simulated sightlines, non-degraded
896: and not rescaled to mean flux via either P93 or K05. At z = 2.5, the lowest
897: redshift of simulation extractions, there is a strong peak at high transmission
898: indicating little absorption relative to the true continua; the small tail
899: at zero transmission indicates the number of pixels in damped systems. At
900: higher redshifts, z = 3.0 and 3.5, there is a clear shift in the distribution
901: towards lower transmission, and the z = 4.0 distribution suggests opacity at
902: nearly every pixel. The number of opaque pixels increases tenfold from z =
903: 2.5 to z = 4.0 from 3.1$\%$ to 20.0$\%$ of all pixels.
904:
905: After degrading the raw extracted spectra to the signal-to-noise and resolution of the
906: data, the second column of Figure \ref{transhist_f} shows changes in the overall transmission
907: distribution at each redshift. There was no observed SNR effect on transmission distributions
908: shape, so the statistics from both fabricated sightlines were combined and weighted by relative
909: SNR. The effects are as expected: the peaks have broadened, there are fewer pixels with zero
910: transmission, and since noise has been added, a small fraction of pixels have transmission
911: greater than one. With increasing redshift, the distribution shape evolves from a high
912: transmission peak to a nearly linear fall off with higher transmission at z = 4.0. In the
913: figure, the dotted line indicates zero opacity (the true continuum), and the dashed line
914: indicates the average level of the continuum fit after the simulation extractions are degraded.
915:
916: If the degraded simulations are altered to match the mean flux estimates given
917: by P93 and K05 the transmission distributions change shape, as shown in the third and fourth columns of Figure
918: \ref{transhist_f}. The P93 rescaled simulations have very similar shapes to the raw degraded
919: simulations, while the K05 rescaled simulations do not show as much dramatic evolution at high redshift.
920: This comparison shows the importance of mean transmission in interpreting data where it is not known a priori.
921:
922:
923: \subsection{Underestimation in Continuum Flux}\label{underestimation_ss}
924:
925: From the simulation, we infer a systematic error in $ANIMALS$ continuum fitting as a
926: function of redshift. When degraded to the resolution of our observations, the
927: smoothing of transmission on small velocity scales shifts the peak transmission
928: values lower, and so depresses any algorithmic fit to the continuum. This effect
929: becomes larger at higher redshifts as the mean opacity in the IGM increases. The
930: vertical dashed lines on columns 2-4 of Figure \ref{transhist_f} represent the
931: transmission values of the fitted continuum (with respect to the true continuum level).
932: When we compare the data's transmission distributions to those of the simulation, we
933: use the estimate of the continuum fit transmission to rescale the data's flux, thus
934: correcting the underestimation and making the comparison between data and simulation fair.
935: The flux decrement of the continuum may be modeled as a parabolic function of $(1+z)$:
936: \begin{equation}\label{contunder_eq}
937: fd_{cont}(1 + z) = 0.697 - 0.419 (1 + z) + 0.065 (1 + z)^{2}
938: \end{equation}
939: with variance $\sigma_{fd}^{2} = 0.002$, and valid for $2.5 < z < 4.0$. A quadratic fit
940: is empirically chosen because a linear fit is an inappropriate choice to model such redshift
941: evolution. The rescaling of degraded spectra to either P93 or K05 does
942: not have any additional impact on the underestimation of continuum flux. Pixels that have
943: very high or low transmission are not affected by rescaling the mean flux as much as pixels with
944: intermediate absorption, and since the continuum fitting is based on the highest transmission
945: pixels, the rescaling effect will be minimal, particularly at low redshift. At high redshift
946: the size and uncertainty in the continuum underestimation grow as would the effect
947: of rescaling by mean flux, but it is clear that the systematic error in the fit dominates
948: the continuum flux value over the smaller variations between raw, P93, and K05 mean flux rescalings.
949:
950: This systematic effect leads to an underestimation of line density
951: as well as equivalent width. At high redshift, where the effect is most severe, only the
952: strongest and highest column density features will be fit via $ANIMALS$ methods, while the much weaker
953: lines in blended regions are not fit. The size of this effect cannot
954: be properly measured since line fitting relative to the true continua is
955: not a unique process when there is opacity at nearly every pixel. Echelle spectra
956: can mitigate this problem, since moderately strong features will be fully resolved and reliably
957: measured regardless of the true continuum level.
958:
959: \subsection{Comparisons of Transmission Distributions}\label{datavsims_ss}
960:
961: When comparing the observational data to simulations we must recall that the SPH
962: extractions represent discrete epochs (z = 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0) while the data
963: samples redshift continuously with cosmic evolution superimposed. We split the
964: spectra into five bins $\sim$300\ang wide, centered at redshifts 2.75, 2.99, 3.26,
965: 3.47 and 3.67. These redshift bins were chosen to avoid problem areas in both
966: spectra$-$the large damped system in quasar A (5005-5060\angns), all data blueward
967: of the Lyman limit in either spectrum ($\lambda > $4420\angns), and all data redward
968: of the DLAs close to the \lya emission peaks ($\lambda < $5790\angns). The first two
969: bins, z = 2.75 and 2.99, cover the \lyb forest while the three subsequent bins, z =
970: 3.26, 3.47 and 3.67, cover the \lya forest and are slightly narrower in width
971: ($\sim280$\angns).
972:
973: \begin{figure}
974: \includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{f10.eps}
975: \caption{
976: Transmission distributions of combined data for both quasars split into five redshift
977: bins centered at 2.75, 2.99, 3.26, 3.47, and 3.67. The distributions of spectra
978: extracted from simulations are overplotted at these redshifts by linearly interpolating
979: the transmission distribution shapes from the four extraction redshifts: 2.5, 3.0, 3.5,
980: and 4.0. \citet*{press93a} (dashed lines) and \citet{kirkman05a} (solid lines) mean flux
981: rescalings show quite different distribution shapes, particularly at high redshift. The
982: data transmission was rescaled to correct for the systematic underestimation in the
983: $ANIMALS$ continuum fit, as described in \S \ref{underestimation_ss}.
984: }
985: \label{datasims_f}
986: \end{figure}
987:
988: We linearly interpolate the shapes of the simulations' transmission distributions
989: to infer the distribution shape at these five intermediate redshifts. We do these
990: procedures using both P93 and K05 sets of spectra, adopting different mean flux
991: values for the simulations. Figure \ref{datasims_f} shows the transmission
992: distributions for the data (histogram) and the simulations (P93 scaling is dashed
993: and K05 scaling is solid) at the five redshift bins. Since the continuum flux has
994: a significant effect on transmission (particularly at high redshift), we rescale
995: the normalized data flux by a factor representing the mean $ANIMALS$ fitted continuum
996: flux (as a function of redshift). The transmission of each pixel in the data is
997: rescaled by this continuum flux factor, given by equation \ref{contunder_eq}, which
998: removes the effect of the systematic underestimation in the continuum fit.
999:
1000: At the lowest redshift (z = 2.75 in Figure \ref{datasims_f}), the data show far
1001: more low transmission pixels than anticipated. The extra absorption relates
1002: directly to the excess in line density seen in Figure \ref{dndz_f}, but is too
1003: large an effect to be attributed directly to \lyb absorbers or metal absorbers.
1004: Since the signal-to-noise of the blue end of the data is quite low, the true
1005: transmission distribution may be modified by a large flux error. The remaining
1006: four bins from 2.99 to 3.67 show fairly good agreement between simulations and
1007: data. To test agreement with the simulations models, both from the Kirkman et
1008: al. and Press et al. treatments, we performed K-S tests to test goodness of fit.
1009: It revealed that significant agreement ($>$45$\%$) only occured in the three
1010: highest redshift bins (z = 3.26, 3.47 and 3.67) using the Kirkman mean flux
1011: scaling simulations treatment (with probabilities of 48$\%$, 96$\%$, and 63$\%$
1012: respectively). The lower redshift bins in the Kirkman treatment, and none of the
1013: \citet*{press93a} transmission distributions were proper fits, all with probabilities
1014: lower than 3$\%$.
1015:
1016: \subsection{Transverse Correlation Comparison}\label{andystat_ss}
1017:
1018: \begin{figure}
1019: \centering
1020: \includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{f11a.eps}
1021: \includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{f11b.eps}
1022: \caption{
1023: The distribution in cross-correlation amplitude for the simulations, with \citet{kirkman05a}
1024: (top) and \citet*{press93a} (bottom) mean flux rescalings. The 2000 simulations used for
1025: this experiment are split into four (uneven) redshift bins to reproduce the cleanest portions
1026: of observed spectra: $2.75 < z < 2.95$, $3.19 < z < 3.22$, $3.26 < z < 3.58$ and $3.59 < z <
1027: 3.75$. The first bin shown includes a portion of the \lyb forest. The final two panels are
1028: combinations of the first four: 'ALL' means it covers the entire range of our data (all four
1029: bins) and 'LYA' represents the exclusive \lya forest experiment, $z > 3.19$ (excluding the
1030: lowest redshift bin). The dashed vertical lines indicate the cross-correlation measurements
1031: for the data.
1032: }
1033: \label{simcrscor_f}
1034: \end{figure}
1035:
1036: To compute the cross-correlation between simulation sightlines, the extracted spectra
1037: are pieced together from the z = 3.0 and z = 3.5 realizations to cover the wavelength
1038: range of the data. Instead of using linear interpolation to account for evolution at
1039: intermediate redshifts, piecing together extraction spectra (300\ang in length) from
1040: the discrete redshift bins (2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0) is a better test of simulation and data
1041: agreement. Rather than measuring cross-correlation for each redshift and then
1042: interpolating, we meaasure the cross-correlation from spectra pieced together to model
1043: the redshift evolution. The spliced simulation spectra run from 4420\ang (the Lyman
1044: limit in B) at the blue end to 3000 \kms\ blueward of \lya emission in A (5765\angns).
1045: Portions of the spectra are masked due to features in the data: the damped system in A
1046: from 5005-5060\angns, an emission feature in A from 5142-5148\angns, and the 5575\ang
1047: sky line. Since inclusion of the \lyb forest region may not be warranted (see the
1048: discussion in \S \ref{dnewdz_ss}), we perform cross-correlation in segments: from $2.75
1049: < z < 2.95$ (the \lyb region with $SNR > 10$), $3.19 < z < 3.22$ (the \lya forest between
1050: the damped feature and \lya emission), $3.26 < z < 3.58$ (the \lya forest between \lya
1051: emission and the 5577\ang sky line), and $3.59 < z < 3.75$. The results are then combined
1052: into two larger bins: the \lya forest (all bins with $z > 3.19$) and the entire range
1053: (including the lowest bin, which spans part of the \lyb forest). The cross-correlations
1054: are computed for both P93 and K05 mean flux scalings. The distribution of the
1055: cross-correlation amplitudes for the simulations is shown in Figure \ref{simcrscor_f}.
1056: The top set of panels shows the results for \citet{kirkman05a} mean flux rescalings while
1057: the bottom half show those for \citet*{press93a}. The cross-correlation amplitude is
1058: within 1-2$\sigma$ of zero in every case, which emphasizes the difficulty of measuring
1059: coherence at this physical separation and redshift, given sample variance. Overall, the
1060: experiment shows that the K05 rescaled simulations are correctly modeling the \lya absorbers
1061: at high redshifts since the data measurements are consistently within $\sim$1$\sigma$ of
1062: the mean cross-correlation amplitude. On the other hand, simulations assuming rescaled flux
1063: according to \citet*{press93a} do not agree with data, with a difference of $\sim$8$\sigma$
1064: over the \lya region. This agreement with \citet{kirkman05a} rather than
1065: \citet*{press93a} is consistent with the earlier result from transmission distributions in
1066: \S \ref{datavsims_ss} (as seen in Figure \ref{datasims_f}).
1067:
1068:
1069: \section{SUMMARY}\label{summary_s}
1070:
1071: This paper has presented new spectroscopic observations of the $z \sim 3.8$, 198\arcsec\ separation
1072: quasar pair PC 1643+4631A, B and associated detection of coherence in the IGM on scales that have not
1073: been previously tested, $\sim$2.5 $h^{-1}_{70}$ Mpc. The observations cover the full extent of the
1074: \lya forest range from \lya emission to the Lyman limit (with high signal-to-noise and moderate
1075: resolution, 3.6\angns) and provide an excellent opportunity to not only measure coherence and large
1076: scale structure in the IGM at high redshift, but also compare observations with predictions from
1077: cosmological simulations.
1078:
1079:
1080: The \lya absorber sample was defined in two ways: using the entire range of data from \lya emission to the Lyman
1081: limit, or restricting the \lya experiment to the region between \lya emission and \lyb emission, dubbed
1082: the pure \lya region. Metal and higher order Lyman lines were not detected in the \lyb forest region
1083: due to the high line densities, but since contamination may be present and the blue wavelengths have low
1084: SNR we treat the \lyb forest region separately from the \lya forest in flux statistics studies. A Monte
1085: Carlo random pairing experiment using the entire range revealed that chance pairs account for a significant
1086: portion of the velocity splitting of symmetric matches, but in addition to that the data show a 4$\sigma$
1087: excess of pairs relative to random, near zero velocity splitting ($\Delta v < 150$ \kms). This shows that multiple sightline
1088: coherence techniques work using line counting when applied to high redshift quasar pairs, and produce
1089: significant detections of coherence on $\sim$ 2.5 $h^{-1}_{70}$ Mpc scales up to $z \sim 3.8$.
1090:
1091: This data set have provided a unique opportunity to test expecations from simulations. The nearest-neighbor
1092: absorber matching, transmission distribution and transverse coherence all indicate agreement between
1093: simulation expectations and results from data, which has not been reliably tested before at this high
1094: redshift and wide separation, primarily since quasar pairs of this type are rare. The absorber matching
1095: experiment shows that the simulations show a weak but detectable coherence signal at low velocity splitting,
1096: with the same 4$\sigma$ strength as the data. Combining sightline statistics, we compared transmission
1097: distributions in five discrete bins and see that the data generally agree with the redshift evolution of
1098: the simulation's transmission distribution shapes, and agree best with the \citet{kirkman05a} treatment
1099: of mean flux rescaling. The cross-correlation experiment finds a weak coherence signal from the simulations
1100: for both mean flux decrements \citep{press93a,kirkman05a}; the data also show a weak signal when rescaled by
1101: \citet{kirkman05a}, agreeing with the simulation result, but show a strong coherence measurement if rescaled
1102: by \citet*{press93a}. These three separate statistics (arbsorber matching, transmission distribution shape
1103: and cross-correlation amplitude) are mutually consistent and have opened a new regime in redshift and wide
1104: separation on which to compare the structure of the IGM, and agreement between data and simulations.
1105:
1106: \acknowledgements
1107: This work could not have been completed without the help of the excellent day and nighttime staff of the
1108: Keck Observatory. We thank Volker Springel and Lars Hernquist for providing us with the G6 simulation
1109: run, and we thank Jill Bechtold, Jason Prochaska, and Joe Hennawi for helpful advice and conversations
1110: along the way. We also thank our referee, John Stocke, for his insightful comments which have helped
1111: improve the paper.
1112:
1113:
1114: % =================== B I B L I O G R A P H Y ========================= %
1115:
1116: \begin{thebibliography}{37}
1117: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1118:
1119: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} {et~al.}(1996)}]{bahcall96a}
1120: {Bahcall}, J.~N., {et~al.} 1996, \apj, 457, 19
1121:
1122: \bibitem[{{Bechtold}(1994)}]{bechtold94a}
1123: {Bechtold}, J. 1994, \apjs, 91, 1
1124:
1125: \bibitem[{{Bernardi} {et~al.}(2003)}]{bernardi03a}
1126: {Bernardi}, M., {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 125, 32
1127:
1128: \bibitem[{{Cen} {et~al.}(1994){Cen}, {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}, {Ostriker}, \&
1129: {Rauch}}]{cen94a}
1130: {Cen}, R., {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}, J., {Ostriker}, J.~P., \& {Rauch}, M. 1994,
1131: \apjl, 437, L9
1132:
1133: \bibitem[{{Cen} \& {Simcoe}(1997)}]{cen97a}
1134: {Cen}, R., \& {Simcoe}, R.~A.\ 1997, \apj, 483, 8
1135:
1136: \bibitem[{{Croft} {et~al.}(1998){Croft}, {Weinberg}, {Katz}, \&
1137: {Hernquist}}]{croft98a}
1138: {Croft}, R.~A.~C., {Weinberg}, D.~H., {Katz}, N., \& {Hernquist}, L. 1998,
1139: \apj, 495, 44
1140:
1141: \bibitem[{{Dav{\'e}} {et~al.}(1999){Dav{\'e}}, {Hernquist}, {Katz}, \&
1142: {Weinberg}}]{dave99a}
1143: {Dav{\'e}}, R., {Hernquist}, L., {Katz}, N., \& {Weinberg}, D.~H. 1999, \apj,
1144: 511, 521
1145:
1146: \bibitem[{{Dav{\'e}} \& {Oppenheimer}(2007)}]{dave07a}
1147: {Dav{\'e}}, R., \& {Oppenheimer}, B.~D.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, 427
1148:
1149: \bibitem[{{Dinshaw} {et~al.}(1998){Dinshaw}, {Foltz}, {Impey}, \& {Weymann}}]{dinshaw98a}
1150: {Dinshaw}, N., {Foltz}, C.~B., {Impey}, C.~D., \& {Weymann}, R.~J.\ 1998, \apj,
1151: 494, 567
1152:
1153: \bibitem[{{Fang} \& {White}(2004)}]{fang04a}
1154: {Fang}, T., \& {White}, M.\ 2004, \apjl, 606, L9
1155:
1156: \bibitem[{{Finlator} {et~al.}(2006){Finlator}, {Dav{\'e}}, {Papovich}, \&
1157: {Hernquist}}]{finlator06a}
1158: {Finlator}, K., {Dav{\'e}}, R., {Papovich}, C., \& {Hernquist}, L. 2006, \apj,
1159: 639, 672
1160:
1161: \bibitem[{{Finlator} \& {Dav{\'e}}(2008)}]{finlator08a}
1162: {Finlator}, K. \& {Dav{\'e}}, R.\ 2008, submitted to \mnras
1163:
1164: \bibitem[{{Foltz} {et~al.}(1984){Foltz}, {Weymann}, {Roser}, \&
1165: {Chaffee}}]{foltz84a}
1166: {Foltz}, C.~B., {Weymann}, R.~J., {Roser}, H.-J., \& {Chaffee}, Jr., F.~H.
1167: 1984, \apjl, 281, L1
1168:
1169: \bibitem[{{Haardt} \& {Madau}(1996)}]{haardt96a}
1170: {Haardt}, F., \& {Madau}, P. 1996, \apj, 461, 20
1171:
1172: \bibitem[{{Hennawi} {et~al.}(2006)}]{hennawi06a}
1173: {Hennawi}, J.~F., {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 651, 61
1174:
1175: \bibitem[{{Hernquist} {et~al.}(1996){Hernquist}, {Katz}, {Weinberg}, \&
1176: {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}}]{hernquist96a}
1177: {Hernquist}, L., {Katz}, N., {Weinberg}, D.~H., \& {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}, J.
1178: 1996, \apjl, 457, L51
1179:
1180: \bibitem[{{Hu} {et~al.}(1995){Hu}, {Kim}, {Cowie}, {Songaila}, \&
1181: {Rauch}}]{hu95a}
1182: {Hu}, E.~M., {Kim}, T.-S., {Cowie}, L.~L., {Songaila}, A., \& {Rauch}, M. 1995,
1183: \aj, 110, 1526
1184:
1185: \bibitem[{{Jannuzi} {et~al.}(1998)}]{jannuzi98a}
1186: {Jannuzi}, B.~T., {et~al.} 1998, \apjs, 118, 1
1187:
1188: \bibitem[{{Jones} {et~al.}(1997)}]{jones97a}
1189: {Jones}, M.~E., {et~al.} 1997, \apjl, 479, L1
1190:
1191: \bibitem[{{Kim} {et~al.}(2001){Kim}, {Cristiani}, \& {D'Odorico}}]{kim01a}
1192: {Kim}, T.-S., {Cristiani}, S., \& {D'Odorico}, S. 2001, \aap, 373, 757
1193:
1194: \bibitem[{{Kim} {et~al.}(1997){Kim}, {Hu}, {Cowie}, \& {Songaila}}]{kim97a}
1195: {Kim}, T.-S., {Hu}, E.~M., {Cowie}, L.~L., \& {Songaila}, A. 1997, \aj, 114, 1
1196:
1197: \bibitem[{{Kirkman} {et~al.}(2005)}]{kirkman05a}
1198: {Kirkman}, D., {et~al.} 2005, \mnras, 360, 1373
1199:
1200: \bibitem[{Liske} {et~al.}(2000)]{liske00a}
1201: {Liske}, J., {Webb}, J.~K., {Williger}, G.~M., {Fern{\'a}ndez-Soto}, A.,
1202: \& {Carswell}, R.~F.\ 2000, \mnras, 311, 657
1203:
1204: \bibitem[{{Marble} {et~al.}(2007){Marble}, {Eriksen}, {Impey}, {Oppenheimer},
1205: \& {Dav\'{e}}}]{marble07a}
1206: {Marble}, A.~R., {Eriksen}, K.~A., {Impey}, C.~D., {Oppenheimer}, B.~D., \&
1207: {Dav\'{e}}, D. 2007, submitted to \apj
1208:
1209: \bibitem[{{Murdoch} {et~al.}(1986){Murdoch}, {Hunstead}, {Pettini}, \&
1210: {Blades}}]{murdoch86a}
1211: {Murdoch}, H.~S., {Hunstead}, R.~W., {Pettini}, M., \& {Blades}, J.~C. 1986,
1212: \apj, 309, 19
1213:
1214: \bibitem[{{Oppenheimer} \& {Dav{\'e}}(2006)}]{oppenheimer06a}
1215: {Oppenheimer}, B.~D., \& {Dav{\'e}}, R. 2006, \mnras, 373, 1265
1216:
1217: \bibitem[{{Petry} {et~al.}(2006){Petry}, {Impey}, {Fenton}, \&
1218: {Foltz}}]{petry06a}
1219: {Petry}, C.~E., {Impey}, C.~D., {Fenton}, J.~L., \& {Foltz}, C.~B. 2006, \aj,
1220: 132, 2046
1221:
1222: \bibitem[{{Petry} {et~al.}(1998){Petry}, {Impey}, \& {Foltz}}]{petry98a}
1223: {Petry}, C.~E., {Impey}, C.~D., \& {Foltz}, C.~B. 1998, \apj, 494, 60
1224:
1225: \bibitem[{{Petry} {et~al.}(2002){Petry}, {Impey}, {Katz}, {Weinberg}, \&
1226: {Hernquist}}]{petry02a}
1227: {Petry}, C.~E., {Impey}, C.~D., {Katz}, N., {Weinberg}, D.~H., \& {Hernquist},
1228: L.~E. 2002, \apj, 566, 30
1229:
1230: \bibitem[{{Press} {et~al.}(1993){Press}, {Rybicki}, \& {Schneider}}]{press93a}
1231: {Press}, W.~H., {Rybicki}, G.~B., \& {Schneider}, D.~P. 1993, \apj, 414, 64
1232:
1233: \bibitem[{{Rauch}(1998)}]{rauch98a}
1234: {Rauch}, M. 1998, \araa, 36, 267
1235:
1236: \bibitem[{{Rollinde} {et~al.}(2003)}]{rollinde03a}
1237: {Rollinde}, E., {Petitjean}, P., {Pichon}, C., {Colombi}, S., {Aracil}, B.,
1238: {D'Odorico}, V., \& {Haehnelt}, M.~G.\ 2003, \mnras, 341, 1279
1239:
1240: \bibitem[{{Sargent} {et~al.}(1980){Sargent}, {Young}, {Boksenberg}, \&
1241: {Tytler}}]{sargent80a}
1242: {Sargent}, W.~L.~W., {Young}, P.~J., {Boksenberg}, A., \& {Tytler}, D. 1980,
1243: \apjs, 42, 41
1244:
1245: \bibitem[{{Saunders} {et~al.}(1997)}]{saunders97a}
1246: {Saunders}, R., {et~al.} 1997, \apjl, 479, L5
1247:
1248: \bibitem[{{Schaye}(2001)}]{schaye01a}
1249: {Schaye}, J. 2001, \apjl, 562, L95
1250:
1251: \bibitem[{{Schneider} {et~al.}(1991){Schneider}, {Schmidt}, \&
1252: {Gunn}}]{schneider91a}
1253: {Schneider}, D.~P., {Schmidt}, M., \& {Gunn}, J.~E. 1991, \aj, 101, 2004
1254:
1255: \bibitem[{{Scott} {et~al.}(2000){Scott}, {Bechtold}, {Dobrzycki}, \&
1256: {Kulkarni}}]{scott00a}
1257: {Scott}, J., {Bechtold}, J., {Dobrzycki}, A., \& {Kulkarni}, V.~P. 2000, \apjs,
1258: 130, 67
1259:
1260: \bibitem[{{Shaver} {et~al.}(1982){Shaver}, {Boksenberg}, \&
1261: {Robertson}}]{shaver82a}
1262: {Shaver}, P.~A., {Boksenberg}, A., \& {Robertson}, J.~G. 1982, \apjl, 261, L7
1263:
1264: \bibitem[{{Shaver} \& {Robertson}(1983)}]{shaver83a}
1265: {Shaver}, P.~A., \& {Robertson}, J.~G. 1983, \apjl, 268, L57
1266:
1267: \bibitem[{{Smette} {et~al.}(1995){Smette}, {Robertson}, {Shaver}, {Reimers},
1268: {Wisotzki}, \& {Koehler}}]{smette95a}
1269: {Smette}, A., {Robertson}, J.~G., {Shaver}, P.~A., {Reimers}, D., {Wisotzki},
1270: L., \& {Koehler}, T. 1995, \aaps, 113, 199
1271:
1272: \bibitem[{{Smette} {et~al.}(1992){Smette}, {Surdej}, {Shaver}, {Foltz}, H.,
1273: {Weymann}, {Williams}, \& {Magain}}]{smette92a}
1274: {Smette}, A., {Surdej}, J., {Shaver}, P.~A., {Foltz}, C.~B., H., F., {Weymann},
1275: R.~J., {Williams}, R.~E., \& {Magain}, P. 1992, \apj, 389, 39
1276:
1277: \bibitem[{{Spergel} {et~al.}(2003)}]{spergel03a}
1278: {Spergel}, D.~N., {et~al.} 2003, \apjs, 148, 175
1279:
1280: \bibitem[{{Springel} \& {Hernquist}(2003)}]{springel03a}
1281: {Springel}, V., \& {Hernquist}, L. 2003, \mnras, 339, 312
1282:
1283: \bibitem[{{Springel} {et~al.}(2001){Springel}, {Yoshida}, \&
1284: {White}}]{springel01a}
1285: {Springel}, V., {Yoshida}, N., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 2001, New Astronomy, 6, 79
1286:
1287: \bibitem[{{Weymann} \& {Foltz}(1983)}]{weymann83a}
1288: {Weymann}, R.~J., \& {Foltz}, C.~B. 1983, \apjl, 272, L1
1289:
1290: \bibitem[{{Weymann} {et~al.}(1998)}]{weymann98a}
1291: {Weymann}, R.~J., {et~al.} 1998, \apj, 506, 1
1292:
1293: \bibitem[{{Williger} {et~al.}(2000){Williger}, {Smette},
1294: {Hazard}, {Baldwin}, \& {McMahon}}]{williger00a}
1295: {Williger}, G.~M., {Smette}, A., {Hazard}, C., {Baldwin}, J.~A.,
1296: \& {McMahon}, R.~G.\ 2000, \apj, 532, 77
1297:
1298: \bibitem[{{Zhang} {et~al.}(1995){Zhang}, {Anninos}, \& {Norman}}]{zhang95a}
1299: {Zhang}, Y., {Anninos}, P., \& {Norman}, M.~L. 1995, \apjl, 453, L57
1300:
1301: \end{thebibliography}
1302:
1303:
1304: %%------------------------------------%%
1305: %% FIGURES %%
1306: %%------------------------------------%%
1307:
1308:
1309: \end{document}
1310: