1: 

2: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib,usegraphicx]{mn2e}

3: 

4: \title[Transverse Proximity Effect]{The transverse proximity effect in

5: the $z \sim 2$ Lyman-$\alpha$ forest suggests

6: QSO episodic lifetimes of $\sim 1$~Myr}

7: 

8: \author[Kirkman \etal]{David Kirkman\thanks{E-mail: dkirkman@ucsd.edu}

9:   and David Tytler

10:   \\

11:   Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences,

12:   University of California San Diego,

13:   La Jolla, CA, 92093-0424

14: }

15: 

16: \input{astmac}

17: 

18: \newcommand{\dfig}[2]{

19: \begin{figure}

20: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{#1}

21: \caption{#2}

22: \end{figure}}

23: 

24: \newcommand{\dfigl}[2]{

25: \begin{figure}

26: \includegraphics[angle=270, width=80mm]{#1}

27: \caption{#2}

28: \end{figure}}

29: 

30: \newcommand{\dfigls}[3]{

31: \begin{figure}

32: \mbox{

33:   \includegraphics[angle=270, width=80mm]{#1}

34: }

35: \mbox {

36:   \includegraphics[angle=270, width=80mm]{#2}

37: }

38: \caption{#3}

39: \end{figure}}

40: 

41: \newcommand{\cc}[1]{\multicolumn{1}{c}{#1}}

42: 

43: \begin{document}

44: 

45: \date{\today}

46: 

47: \maketitle

48: 

49: \begin{abstract}

50:   We look for signs of the H~I transverse proximity effect in the spectra of

51:   130 QSO pairs, most with transverse separations in the plane of the

52:   sky of 0.1 -- 3 Mpc at $z \sim 2.2$.  We expected to see a decrease

53:   in \lyaf\ H~I absorption in the spectrum of background QSOs near the

54:   position of foreground QSOs. Instead we see no change in the

55:   absorption in front of the foreground QSOs, and we see evidence for

56:   a 50\% increase in the absorption out to 6 Mpc behind the foreground

57:   QSOs.  Further, we see no change in the H~I absorption along the

58:   line-of-sight to the foreground QSOs, the normal line-of-sight

59:   proximity effect.  We may account for the lack of change in the H~I

60:   absorption if the effect of extra UV photons is cancelled by higher

61:   gas density around QSOs.  If so, the increase in absorption behind

62:   the QSOs then suggests that the higher gas density there is not

63:   cancelled by the UV radiation from the QSOs. We can explain our observations

64:   if QSOs have had their current UV luminosities for less than

65:   approximately a million years, a time scale that has been suggested

66:   for accretion disk instabilities and gas depletion.

67: \end{abstract}

68: 

69: 

70: \begin{keywords}

71: quasars: absorption lines -- cosmology: observations -- intergalactic medium.

72: \end{keywords}

73: 

74: \section{Introduction}

75: 

76: Quasars are the most luminous known objects in the universe at 1 Ryd,

77: at least among objects that are luminous more than a few hours.

78: Consequently, they are expected to have a profound effect on neutral

79: hydrogen (H~I) in the nearby intergalactic medium (IGM).  This is

80: because in most of the volume of the IGM the H~I is expected to be

81: optically thin and in photoionization equilibrium with the

82: metagalactic UV background (UVB), so the enormous UV flux from the QSO

83: will significantly alter the photoionization equilibrium and reduce

84: the amount of neutral hydrogen.  The UV flux from a typical QSO at

85: $z=2$ should dominate the UVB as far away as 5 Mpc from the QSO.  The

86: resulting decrease in the optical depth of the \lyaf\ at redshifts

87: near to the systemic redshift of the QSO is known as the proximity

88: effect.

89: 

90: We define two proximity effects: the line-of-sight proximity effect

91: where the H~I optical depth is measured in the spectrum of the QSO

92: that is the source of the ionizing radiation, and the transverse

93: proximity effect where the H~I optical depth is measured in the

94: spectrum of an object which is near to the QSO in the plane of the

95: sky and further away.  Some other groups call the transverse

96: proximity effect the foreground proximity effect.  The line-of-sight

97: proximity effect is expected to be present in the spectra of all QSOs

98: unless there is an intervening optically thick absorber or the

99: episodic lifetime of the QSO is shorter than the inverse H~I

100: ionization rate in the IGM (0.1 Myr), i.e. the time required for each

101: H~I atom to experience one photoionization.

102: 

103: We use ``episodic lifetime'' in the same sense as

104: \citet{tp:martini2004a}, meaning the lifetime of the current outburst

105: and not the integrated ``on'' time of the QSO.  If QSOs have many

106: episodes of high UV luminosity, separated by off states with low

107: luminosity, the total QSO lifetime may be much longer than the

108: duration of the current UV luminous episode \citep{tp:martini2004a}.

109: An episodic lifetime less than a few Myr will significantly change the

110: appearance of the transverse proximity effect

111: (\citealt[Fig. 3]{tp:adelberger2004a}, \citealt{tp:schirber2004a},

112: \citealt[Fig. 1]{tp:visbal2008a}, and \citealt[Fig. 24]{tp:tytler2008a}).

113: 

114: The purpose of this paper is to measure the transverse proximity

115: effect in a large sample of QSO pairs that are separated in the plane

116: of the sky by $< 3$ Mpc.  We also measure the line-of-sight proximity

117: effect and compare it to the transverse effect because this helps us

118: explore the environments of the QSOs, anisotropic emission and episodic

119: lifetimes.

120: 

121: The line-of-sight proximity effect has been detected numerous times in

122: the spectra of tens of the brightest QSOs known at redshifts 1.6 -- 4.

123: It was first seen by \citet{carswell82} and \citet{tp:tytler1987a} in

124: the spectra of 7 and 19 QSOs, mostly at $z \sim 2$. They noticed a

125: decrease in the number of \lya\ lines at redshifts similar to QSO

126: emission redshifts.  Like most early papers, they used a sample of

127: \lya\ lines with rest frame equivalent widths exceeding a fixed

128: minimum (0.32~\AA ) and they excluded lines at redshifts that show

129: metal lines in moderate resolution spectra.  The line-of-sight

130: proximity effect can be seen in high resolution spectra of individual

131: QSOs at high redshift \citep{carswell87, giallongo96} where there is

132: more \lya\ absorption.  If QSOs are located in typical regions of the

133: IGM, then the amount of H~I absorption that is missing and the

134: distance from QSOs at which this occurs depends only upon the ratio of

135: the flux of ionizing photons from the QSO to the UVB.  Hence

136: \citet{bajtlik88} were able to use the effect to estimate the

137: intensity of the UVB in the Lyman continuum near the Lyman Limit, and

138: others have improved upon this method \citep{tp:scott2000a}.

139: 

140: Recently, \citet{tp:guimaraes2007a} used ESI spectra to examine the

141: proximity effect of 45 $z > 4$ QSOs.  They found significantly more

142: absorption than expected based upon the luminosity of the QSOs: they

143: conclude that the QSOs must reside in regions were the IGM is

144: over-dense by a factor of $\sim 5$.  A similar result was previously

145: reported by \citet{tp:rollinde2005a}.

146: 

147: We expect the gas near to QSOs to have higher than the average density

148: in the IGM because QSOs are in galaxies and the halo masses are large.

149: \citet{croom05a} estimated QSO halo masses of $4.2 \pm 2.3 \times

150: 10^{12}$ solar masses in the 2QZ sample at all redshifts.

151: \citet{coil07b} also found a mean mass of $\sim 3 \times 10^{12}$ at

152: $0.7 < z < 1.4$.  Less directly, \citet{kim07a} use the distribution

153: of H~I absorption seen in background QSOs to estimate the masses of

154: foreground QSO halos.  They find a mean mass of $\log M =

155: 12.48^{+0.53}_{-0.89}$ in solar units for QSOs at $z=3$ with an absolute

156: G-band magnitude $-27.5$, a factor of 20 above the mass of LBGs.

157: We also expect the gas near QSOs to have higher density

158: than the average IGM because \citet[Fig 14]{tp:adelberger2004a}

159: sees excess \lya\ absorption within 1 Mpc proper of LBGs.

160: 

161: The idea that QSOs are found in relatively dense environments is also

162: supported by the discovery that absorption is often produced when a

163: sightline passes within 100~kpc of a QSO. Absorbers are more often seen

164: in this case than when we look directly at a QSO. \citet{bowen06a}

165: discovered this effect with Mg~II absorption in four out of four QSOs,

166: while \citet{tp:hennawi2006a} saw the same for Lyman limit systems

167: (LLS) and Damped \lya\ lines (DLAs), and we have also seen the effect

168: in metal line systems with a super-set of the data examined here

169: \citep{tp:tytler2008a}.  \citet{hennawi07} conclude that QSOs live in

170: dense environments, and that the UV flux from the QSO

171: photo-evaporates LLS along the line-of-sight.  But because of either

172: anisotropic emission or short QSO episodic lifetimes, some of the LLS

173: in the transverse direction are spared or are less likely to be

174: photo-evaporated.  \citet{tp:wild2008a} estimate that QSOs destroy

175: nearby absorbers to comoving distances of 0.3 Mpc for C~IV systems,

176: and 0.8 Mpc for Mg~II systems.

177: 

178: For ions other than Hydrogen, enhanced ionization near to a foreground

179: QSO has been reported by several authors.  \citet{tp:jakobsen2003a}

180: find a significant lack of HeII absorption in the spectrum of

181: Q0302-003 at the redshift of a foreground QSO located $\sim 3$ Mpc

182: from the Q0302-003 line-of-sight.  Similarly, \citet{tp:worseck2007a}

183: examined both the HeII absorption and the H~I absorption towards HE

184: 2347-4342, and found evidence for a hard ionizing spectrum near the

185: redshifts of 14 low luminosity foreground QSOs.

186: \citet{tp:goncalves2007a} have also detected unusual high ionization

187: absorption systems (e.g. O~VI) indicative of a transverse proximity

188: effect in high resolution spectra of the QSO triplet KP76, KP77, and

189: KP78.

190: 

191: In contrast, an H~I transverse proximity effect has yet to be

192: detected, with perhaps one exception \citep{tp:gallerani2008}.  It is

193: interesting in part because \citet{tp:adelberger2004a} has pointed out

194: that the transverse proximity effect is one of the best ways to

195: explore changes in the UV luminosity over several Myr.  Both

196: \citet{tp:wang2005a} and \citet{tp:visbal2008a} discuss how we may

197: obtain similar information from afterglows or light-echoes from QSOs

198: that were previously luminous.

199: 

200: \citet{tp:liske2001a} detected the line-of-sight proximity effect in a

201: group of 10 QSOs near $z = 2.9$ with transverse separations of

202: 10--40\arcmin.  But with the exception of the sightline that passes about

203: 10\arcmin\ from four separate foreground QSOs, they do not detect a

204: transverse proximity effect.  They conclude that QSOs emit at least a

205: factor of 1.4 less in the plane of the sky than they do along the

206: line-of-sight.  \citet{tp:schirber2004a} also did not detect the

207: transverse proximity effect, using three pairs of SDSS spectra

208: separated by $\sim$ 2 -- 4\arcmin.

209: 

210: \citet{tp:croft2004a} analyzed a sample of 325 QSOs with SDSS

211: spectra. He also failed to detect a transverse proximity, although his

212: sample was less sensitive than ours because it had almost no QSO pairs

213: as close as ours.  \citet{tp:croft2004a} actually observed an increase

214: in the mean absorption near to QSOs in the transverse direction, at a

215: level much higher than expected by his simulations which placed QSOs

216: in high density regions.  This may be related to the \citet{bowen06a},

217: \citet{tp:hennawi2006a} and \citet{tp:tytler2008a} results, since it

218: is likely that the \citet{tp:croft2004a} simulations, like most

219: simulations, underestimate the number of LLS and DLA systems

220: \citep{tp:tytler2008b}.  Recently \citet{tp:gallerani2008} have

221: reported an increased density of flux spikes near a

222: foreground QSO at z=5.6 that they model as

223: the first example of the transverse H~I proximity effect.

224: 

225: 

226: In this paper we look for the H~I transverse proximity effect in a

227: large sample of sightlines passing within 0.1 -- 3 Mpc of QSOs.  We do

228: not see the obvious transverse proximity effect expected if the UV

229: flux from QSOs is long lived and emitted isotropically.  But we do

230: detect asymmetry in the absorption around the QSOs, which may be a

231: result of a combination of enhanced IGM density within a few Mpc of

232: QSOs, combined with short episodic lifetimes for QSO outbursts.  We

233: can understand our observations if the QSOs were much less UV luminous

234: $\sim$ 1 Myr ago than they are today.  For all of the calculations in

235: this paper we take $H_0 = 71$ \kms\ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m = 0.27$, and

236: $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.73$.  All distances in this paper are proper,

237: unless noted otherwise.

238: 

239: \section{Data}

240: \label{dataprep}

241: 

242: \begin{table*}

243:   \caption{\label{obstab} QSO Pairs.

244:     For each member of the pair we give the RA and Dec (J2000), the

245:     adopted emission redshift $z_{\rm em}$, magnitude, and the SNR 

246:     per \AA\ (S) at 1260 \AA\ in the QSO rest frame.  The background QSO 

247:     is listed first.  $\theta$ is the angular separation on the sky between 

248:     the 2 QSOs in arcseconds, and $b$ is the impact parameter in

249:     proper Mpc between the two sightlines at the $z_{\rm em}$ of the foreground

250:     QSO.  $L$ is the estimated Lyman Limit luminosity in units of $10^{30}$ ergs

251:     s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$.  $\omega_{\rm max}$ is the expected ratio of the 

252:     UV flux from the foreground QSO to the UVB, at the point of closest 

253:     approach of the background sightline to the foreground QSO.  

254:   }

255: 

256: \begin{tabular}{rrllr  rrllr rrrr}

257: \cc{RA} & \cc{Dec} & \cc{$z_{\rm em}$} & \cc{mag} & \cc{S} &

258: \cc{RA} & \cc{Dec} & \cc{$z_{\rm em}$} & \cc{mag} & \cc{S} &

259: \cc{$\theta$} & \cc{$b$} & \cc{$L$} & \cc{$\omega_{\rm max}$}  \\

260: \hline

261: \input{pairs-1.dat}

262: \end{tabular}

263: \end{table*}

264: 

265: \setcounter{table}{0}

266: \begin{table*}

267: %\caption{QSO Pair Observations {\it continued}}

268: \caption{{\it continued}}

269: \begin{tabular}{rrllr  rrllr rrrr}

270: \cc{RA} & \cc{Dec} & \cc{$z_{\rm em}$} & \cc{mag} & \cc{S} &

271: \cc{RA} & \cc{Dec} & \cc{$z_{\rm em}$} & \cc{mag} & \cc{S} &

272: \cc{$\theta$} & \cc{$b$} & \cc{$L$} & \cc{$\omega_{\rm max}$}  \\

273: \hline

274: \input{pairs-2.dat}

275: \end{tabular}

276: \end{table*}

277: 

278: \setcounter{table}{0}

279: \begin{table*}

280: %\caption{QSO Pair Observations {\it continued}}

281: \caption{{\it continued}}

282: \begin{tabular}{rrllr  rrllr rrrr}

283: \cc{RA} & \cc{Dec} & \cc{$z_{\rm em}$} & \cc{mag} & \cc{S} &

284: \cc{RA} & \cc{Dec} & \cc{$z_{\rm em}$} & \cc{mag} & \cc{S} &

285: \cc{$\theta$} & \cc{$b$} & \cc{$L$} & \cc{$\omega_{\rm max}$}  \\

286: \hline

287: \input{pairs-3.dat}

288: \end{tabular}

289: \end{table*}

290: 

291: Our data set consists of the \lyaf\ regions of the spectra of 130

292: close pairs of QSOs, which we list in Table \ref{obstab}.  We obtained

293: the spectra for a project to measure the Alcock-Paczynski effect with

294: the \lyaf.  The QSOs were selected from a list of all known QSOs with

295: NED magnitudes (the precise band varied, typically $g$, $B_J$, or $V$)

296: less than 22.  The pairs were then selected to have similar redshifts

297: to maximise the amount of overlapping \lyaf\ absorption.  The pairs we

298: chose to observe were selected based primarily on the estimated amount

299: of time it would take to get usable spectra of both members of the

300: pair, with a preference for observing pairs at close angular

301: separations.  We also added all pairs with usable \lyaf\ spectra in

302: the SDSS.  Except for nine of the pairs, at the time of the selection

303: there were no other known QSOs with $V < 22$ within 5\arcmin\ of either

304: member of any pair.  For the nine, there was one other QSO within 5\arcmin\

305: of one member the pair.

306: 

307: These data provide \lyaf\ spectra between redshifts $1.7 < z < 4.5$,

308: with a median redshift of $z_{\rm med} = 2.2$.  In all but two cases,

309: the angular separation between the two sightlines is $\theta < 5

310: \arcmin$, the median separation is $\theta_{\rm med} = 154$\arcsec,

311: and the linear separation is $b < 3$ Mpc.

312: 

313: The spectra were obtained from either Keck+LRIS (76 spectra),

314: Lick+KAST (26 spectra), NOAO 4m telescopes (10 spectra), or from the

315: SDSS DR5 archive (146 spectra).  The LRIS and KAST spectra were taken

316: with a narrow slit in a variety of conditions, so they do not

317: provide absolute spectrophotometry.  The typical SNR per \AA\ of our

318: spectra is 11.2 at a rest wavelength of 1260 \AA.  The resolution of

319: the LRIS spectra varies between 83 \kms\ and 234 \kms, the KAST spectra

320: have a resolution of 250 \kms, and the SDSS spectra have a resolution

321: of 165 \kms.  In \citet{tp:tytler2008a} we give the instrumental

322: setups, wavelength regions, exposure times and an indication of the

323: SNR for the best spectrum for each QSO. We also list the metal lines

324: we find and their redshifts.

325: 

326: 

327: To investigate the foreground QSOs' proximity effect, we would ideally

328: like to isolate the pixels which are dominated by absorption with a

329: low to moderate optical depth from H~I in the IGM.  The absorption in

330: the \lyaf\ region of a spectrum can be described by three components

331: \citep{tytler04b}: the H~I absorption from low density regions of the

332: IGM (about 80\% of the total at $z=2$), the H~I absorption from LLS

333: and DLAs ($\sim 10$\%), and metal absorption ($\sim 10$\%).  The QSO

334: radiation field we describe in Section \ref{radsec} has a well defined

335: effect on optically thin H~I, but its effect on the optically thick

336: LLS and DLA in a spectrum is less clear.  Most metal absorption near

337: the 1215 \AA\ in the QSO rest frame will come from systems with

338: redshifts much different than that of the QSO, and will hence be

339: unaffected by the QSO radiation field.  The notable exception is

340: Si~III (1206), which is often the strongest metal line in the \lyaf.

341: There will be no Si~III (1206) absorption superimposed on the \lyaf\

342: within $\sim 2500$ \kms\ (about 12 Mpc) of the QSO where the radiation

343: field is expected to be strongest, but it will be superimposed on the

344: \lyaf\ absorption at further distances.

345: 

346: To avoid contamination from non-\lyaf\ absorption, we have attempted

347: to identify all of the Lyman limit and DLA systems in the spectra.  We

348: have also attempted to identify obvious metal lines in the \lyaf\

349: associated with the systems with high H~I columns.  We specifically

350: searched for Si~III (1206).  We flagged each pixel in the \lyaf\ which

351: was found to be influenced by either a large column density \lya\

352: line, or by a known metal line.  We also flagged all pixels that seem

353: to be affected by BAL outflows.  The pixels flagged by this procedure

354: were discarded and not used again in our analysis.

355: 

356: We used an interactive program, described in \citet{kirkman05a}, to

357: manually place a B-spline continuum on each QSO.  We can control the

358: position of the continuum by moving a small number of control points

359: (the B-spline knots).  The number of knots is not constrained -- we

360: can add them as required to get a good fit.  However, we have a strong

361: bias for a smooth continuum except near the positions of known

362: emission lines.  From past experience (e.g. \citet{kirkman05a},

363: \citet{tytler04c}) we expect that this procedure should produce good

364: results on our low resolution spectra for $z < 2.5$, but that we will

365: likely place the continuum level too low at higher redshifts as line

366: blanketing increases leaving fewer pixels near the unabsorbed

367: continuum level.  With higher resolution spectra our continuum placement

368: procedure can be used at higher redshifts, but with the spectra used

369: here our continuum levels are likely to have large systematic errors

370: at the higher redshifts.  In Figures \ref{contin1} and \ref{contin2},

371: we show the spectra and continuum for two of our QSO pairs.

372: 

373: \dfigl{spec1.ps}{\label{contin1} Spectra of 22 39 51.8

374:   $-$29 48 37 (top, Keck+LRIS 1200/3400 grism) and 22 39 48.6 $-$29 47

375:   49 (bottom, Keck+LRIS 400/3400 grism).  Our continuum fit is

376:   indicated as a smooth blue line.  The wavelength units are \AA, and 

377:   the flux is linear $f_\lambda$ from zero at the lowest major axis mark.

378:   }

379: 

380: \dfigl{spec2.ps}{\label{contin2} As Figure \ref{contin1} but this

381:   time showing spectra of 14 57 56.6 +57 44 46 and 14 57 47.6 +57 44

382:   23.5, both observed with the Lick+KAST 830/3880 grism}

383: 

384: \subsection{Systemic Redshifts}

385: \label{redshifts}

386: 

387: A proximity effect analysis is very sensitive to the adopted

388: redshift for each QSO whose environment is being probed.  We would

389: like to use the systemic redshifts of the galaxies that host the QSOs,

390: but we know that the peaks of the main UV emission lines give

391: redshifts that are systematically smaller than these systemic

392: redshifts by many hundreds of \kms , and in some cases over 1000~\kms,

393: with a large QSO-to-QSO scatter \citep{gaskell82,tytler92}.  A $1000$

394: \kms\ redshift error corresponds to a 5~Mpc position error at $z=2$,

395: which is large compared to the region where we expect the QSO UV radiation

396: to be larger than the UVB, which is 3~Mpc for our median luminosity foreground

397: QSO.

398: 

399: We have measured the positions of the peaks of up to three emission

400: lines (\lya, CIV and MgII) for most QSOs in an attempt to get better

401: estimates for the systemic redshifts.  We measure vacuum heliocentric

402: wavelengths, and we do not use a line when the line peak is obscured

403: by strong absorption or the peak is not in available spectra.

404: 

405: The velocity shifts that we find between different emission lines are

406: comparable but not the same as those found by others.  We find that

407: C~IV gives a redshift smaller than Mg~II by $ 753$ \kms, with a

408: standard deviation (QSO to QSO $\sigma$) of $676$ \kms from 27 QSOs.

409: \citet{tp:richards2002a} finds Mg~II$-$C~IV $= 824$ \kms, with $\sigma

410: = 511$ \kms\ from a subset of 3814 SDSS QSO spectra.  We find \lya\

411: gives a redshift smaller by $475$ ($\sigma = 455$ \kms) than Mg~II.

412: \citet{tp:guimaraes2007a} effectively adopt a C~IV/\lya\ offset of 750

413: \kms.  \citet{tp:dallaglio2008a} adopt systemic redshifts from the

414: weak SiII+O~I emission line assuming a rest wavelength of 1305.77 \AA.

415: For their eight spectra with C~IV emission line coverage, this

416: corresponds to C~IV at a redshift smaller by 1190 \kms.

417: 

418: We calculate our redshifts using rest wavelengths 1215.67 \AA\ for

419: \lya, 1549.06 for C~IV, and 2798.74 for Mg~II. If our spectra cover

420: Mg~II, we use the redshift from that line alone (28 of our foreground

421: QSOs). Otherwise, if our spectra cover C~IV, we assign a redshift for

422: C~IV alone and then increase the redshift by 753 \kms (78 QSOs).

423: Otherwise, we use the redshift from \lya\ increased by 475 \kms (20

424: QSOs).  For 4 QSOs we did not measure any of the emission lines and we

425: list and use the redshift listed in NED.  We also used this algorithm

426: to assign redshifts to the background QSOs.

427: 

428: \subsection{SDSS redshifts}

429: \label{sdssredshiftssec}

430: 

431: A large number of our foreground QSOs have SDSS spectra and the SDSS

432: project has given these QSOs redshifts derived using a template

433: spectrum in a manner that should give the systemic redshift. 

434: For the 41 QSOs where we have both Mg~II emission lines and SDSS

435: redshifts, our redshifts are larger by 574 \kms\ with a standard

436: deviation of 552 \kms.  We obtained the SDSS redshifts from the DR5

437: QSO catalogue \citep{tp:schneider2007a}.  

438: 

439: We only understand part of the difference in the redshifts.  Our

440: methods are considerably different.  The SDSS team fit a template

441: spectrum \citep{stoughton02} based on effective rest frame wavelengths

442: for emission lines from \citet{vandenberk01}.  The

443: \citet{vandenberk01} rest frame wavelengths are calculated assuming

444: that [O~III] gives the systemic redshift of the QSO.  About a third of

445: the difference is due to our differing rest frame wavelength for the

446: Mg~II emission line.  We assume that Mg~II is systemic, while

447: \citet{vandenberk01} assume [O~III] is systemic and then find

448: [O~III]$-$Mg~II$=-161$ \kms (Mg~II gives a higher redshift than

449: [O~III]).  We expect that the rest of the difference must come from

450: the differing methods, our using line peaks vs. SDSS fitting template

451: spectra.

452: 

453: We agree that [O~III] should better represent the systemic

454: redshift, but none of our QSOs have infrared spectra that can be used

455: to measure [O~III], and there is significant disagreement about the

456: [O~III] -- Mg~II offset.  \citet{tp:richards2002a}, also using SDSS

457: spectra, find [O~III]$-$Mg~II $=-97$ \kms, and \citet{tp:nestor2008a}

458: find [O~III] -- Mg~II $ = + 102$ \kms.  Unlike the SDSS spectra, which

459: are all at low redshift so that [O~III] is in the optical, the

460: \citet{tp:nestor2008a} were at $z \sim 2$ (like our QSOs) and have

461: [O~III] positions from NIR spectra taken by \citet{tp:mcintosh1999a}

462: and \citet{tp:scott2000a}.

463: 

464: \section{Method}

465: 

466: We look for the transverse proximity effect by measuring the mean

467: amount of absorption along the lines-of-sight to the background QSOs

468: at redshifts near to that of the foreground QSOs. We sum  the spectra of

469: all 130 QSOs to average over the random changes in the amount of absorption

470: in the IGM. The amount of absorption varies by factors of many over

471: short distances, as we move in and out of absorption lines, and there

472: are correlations that we have previously measured out to scales

473: of 150~Mpc \citep{tytler04c}.

474: 

475: We then compare the result to the expected amount of absorption for

476: this data set. We convert the QSO magnitudes into luminosities, and we

477: calculate the ionizing flux we expect from the foreground QSO at

478: various distances along each background sightline.  We end by

479: examining what the foreground QSOs do to the amount of absorption in

480: the line-of-sight to us.

481: 

482: Our methods differ from all early papers on the proximity effect

483: since they counted the number of \lya\ lines with rest frame

484: equivalent width exceeding some minimum, and they excluded \lya\ lines

485: at redshifts that showed metal lines. Hence individual strong lines

486: have a larger effect on our measurements than in the line counting

487: method.  We are also sensitive to the numerous weak lines that are

488: below the equivalent width threshold. Such lines are easier to see

489: where the SNR is higher, such as in the \lya\ emission line.  We will

490: be examining the changes in the relative amount of absorption as we

491: pass the foreground QSOs.  We are then insensitive to the total amount

492: of absorption per QSO and to global systematic errors in the continuum

493: level.  

494: 

495: We are sensitive to systematic errors caused by fitting the continuum

496: differently in different parts of a spectrum.  For example, the errors

497: in our continuum may be different in and far from emission lines.

498: This is not known to be a problem, but we can not rule out the

499: possibility.  Any systematic differences in continuum fitting over

500: emission lines will be most noticeable in our line-of-sight proximity

501: effect, which uses all of our data right through the \lya\ emission

502: line.  Any errors fitting the continuum to emission lines will be less

503: important for the transverse proximity effect. First, we restrict our

504: analysis to wavelengths $< 1200$~\AA\ far from the peak of the \lya\

505: line.  In \citet[Figs. 5 \& 6]{tytler04b} we showed that 1200~\AA\ is

506: far enough from emission line peaks to avoid unusually large continuum

507: level errors.  Second, for many of our pairs the foreground QSO

508: redshift corresponds to a wavelength well away from any emission lines

509: in the background QSO.

510: 

511: Several recent papers have detected the line-of-sight proximity effect

512: using optical depth instead of line counting: \citet{tp:liske2001a},

513: \citet{tp:schirber2004a}, \citet{tp:rollinde2005a},

514: \citet{tp:guimaraes2007a} and

515: \citet{tp:dallaglio2008a}. \citet{tp:guimaraes2007a} and

516: \citet{tp:liske2001a} used $\tau_{\rm eff}$, and their methods are similar

517: to the methods we use here. The other papers use statistics derived

518: from optical depth.  \citet{tp:croft2004a} utilized the mean flux in

519: an attempt to detect the transverse proximity effect, which is

520: directly equivalent to our method.

521: 

522: We quantify the amount of absorption in our spectra with DA = $1 -

523: F/C$, where $F$ is the flux and $C$ is the continuum level.

524: Equivalently, our DA values can be converted to effective optical

525: depth using = ${\rm DA} = 1 - e^{-\tau_{\rm eff}}$, where $\tau_{\rm

526:   eff}$ is an effective optical depth.  We calculate DA for each

527: individual pixel in a spectrum, excluding of course those pixels which

528: have been flagged for containing LLS, DLA, metal or BAL absorption.

529: Most of the figures in this paper show DA which has been binned in

530: some way, e.g. the DA for all the pixels in all the spectra within

531: some redshift interval.  In such cases, we find the mean DA for all

532: the pixels in that bin from one sightline, then we average the DA

533: values from the different sightlines.

534: 

535: The error we derive for a bin comes from the distribution of binned DA

536: values, with one DA value per sightline.  So when we resample, we

537: resample the sightlines, not the individual pixels.  We do the same

538: when we estimate the error on the mean from the dispersion of the DA

539: in individual sightlines.  We do this because if we went

540: pixel-by-pixel we would give much more weight to our higher resolution

541: spectra.  Also, taken sightline by sightline the binned DA values are

542: statistically independent, while taken pixel-by-pixel they are not,

543: because adjacent pixels in individual spectra are highly correlated.

544: 

545: DA evolves rapidly with redshift (see, for example

546: \citet{tp:kirkman2007a} and references therein).  In Figure

547: \ref{figzda} we show the redshift evolution of DA in our data.  We

548: observe significantly different absorption at $z > 2.5$ than we

549: measured from high resolution spectra in \citet{tp:kirkman2007a}.  We

550: are not surprised by this, because line blending in the \lyaf\

551: makes the continuum levels difficult to measure in low resolution

552: spectra at higher redshift.  In this case it seems that we have placed

553: the continua too low, giving too little DA, though the sample is also

554: getting small at high $z$ so some of the difference could be the

555: random fluctuations in the IGM \citep{tytler04c}.

556: 

557: \dfigl{zda.ps}{\label{figzda} The DA against redshift in this data

558:   set, including both the foreground and background sightlines.  The

559:   bins contain contributions from pixels between 1070 and 1170 \AA\ in

560:   the rest frame of each QSO.  The data histogram shows DA averaged

561:   over all QSOs in various redshift bins.  This is intended to

562:   approximate the DA from the low density IGM. We have masked out and

563:   ignore the \lya\ lines of LLS and DLAs and the metal absorption that

564:   we can identify.  The solid blue curve shows our fit to the DA

565:   measured in this sample (Equation \ref{daeq}).  The dashed curve

566:   shows the IGM DA measured in spectra intended for this purpose from

567:   \citet{tp:kirkman2007a}.

568: }

569: 

570: 

571: We fit the redshift evolution of DA in our data set with a simple

572: power series

573: \begin{equation}

574: \label{daeq}

575:  {\rm DA}(z) = -0.069 + 0.082 z + 0.006 z^2.

576: \end{equation}

577: To enable us to compare data at different redshifts, the final step in

578: our data preparation is to re-scale the DA values to those expected at $z=2$,

579: \begin{equation}

580: {\rm DA}_n = (1 - F/C) {\rm DA}(2.0)/ {\rm DA}(z),

581: \end{equation}

582: where DA$(z)$ is given by Equation \ref{daeq}.

583: 

584: \section{The expected line-of-sight and transverse proximity effects}

585: \label{radsec}

586: 

587: We define the photoionization enhancement $\omega$ at a particular

588: point in space due to the foreground QSO to be

589: \begin{equation}

590: \omega = {\Gamma_{\rm QSO} \over \Gamma_{\rm UVB}}

591: \end{equation}

592: where $\Gamma_{\rm QSO}$ is the photoionization rate (ionizations per

593: H~I atom per second) due to the

594: quasar radiation, and $\Gamma_{\rm UVB}$ is the photoionization rate

595: due to the UV background.  If other factors are equal,

596: the optical depth $\tau$ near the QSO is then given by

597: \begin{equation}

598: \label{taueq}

599: \tau = {\tau_0 \over (1 + \omega)}

600: \end{equation}

601: where $\tau_0$ is the optical depth that the IGM would have had in the

602: absence of the foreground QSO UV flux.  The linear scaling with

603: $1+\omega$ is formally only true for the actual optical depth. The

604: effective optical depth $\tau_{\rm eff}$ that is proportional to DA

605: may have a slightly different scaling.  For example, a high column

606: density line on the flat part of the curve of growth will have its

607: $\tau$ decreased when subjected to an enhanced radiation field, but

608: its equivalent width will remain unchanged.  However, we have shown in

609: \citet{jena05a} that at $z=2$ the effective optical depth also scales

610: like $\tau_{\rm eff} \propto \Gamma^{-1}$, so we substitute $\tau_{\rm

611:   eff}$ for $\tau $ in Equation \ref{taueq}.  We then calculate how

612: the absorption changes near the QSOs using DA $ = 1 - e^{-\tau_{\rm

613:     eff}}$.

614: 

615: Our assumption that $\tau_{\rm eff} = \tau_0 (1+ \omega )^{-1}$ will be

616: valid for unsaturated lines which make much of the absorption, but we

617: expect less sensitivity to $(1+ \omega )$ for other lines.  While

618: \citet{jena05a} found $\tau_{\rm eff} = \tau_0 (1+\omega )^{-1}$, the

619: spectra from their simulations with different $\Gamma $ were also

620: consistent with a range of relationships, including the $\tau_{\rm eff}

621: = \tau_0 (1+\omega )^{-0.69}$ from \citet{bolton05a}.  If we change the

622: index to $-0.7$, the expected reduction in DA near the QSOs is less,

623: by at most 0.016 which is the size of our errors on DA.

624: 

625: $\Gamma_{\rm QSO}$ at some distance $r = \sqrt{d^2 + b^2}$ from the QSO is given by

626: \begin{equation}

627: \label{gammaeq}

628: \Gamma_{\rm QSO} = \int^\infty_{\nu_0} {L_{\rm QSO}(\nu) \over 4 \pi r^2} 

629:    {\sigma_{\rm HI}(\nu) \over h \nu} d\nu

630: \end{equation}

631: where $L_{\rm QSO}(\nu)$ is the luminosity of the QSO as a function of

632: frequency, $\nu_0$ is the Lyman limit frequency, and the H~I

633: photoinization cross section \citep[Section 5.1]{tp:spitzer1978}

634: \begin{equation}

635: \sigma_{\rm HI}(\nu) = 6.3 \times 10^{-18} \left( {\nu \over \nu_0} \right)^{-2.75} {\rm cm}^2

636: \end{equation}

637: Both the coefficient in front and the exponent after the $\nu/\nu_0$

638: term include the approximate effects of the Gaunt factor near 1 Ryd.

639: Since we do not have direct observations of the Lyman limit regions

640: for most of our QSOs, we assume that the flux distribution of each QSO

641: is a power law $L_{\rm QSO}(\nu) = L_{\rm QSO} ( {\nu / \nu_0}

642: )^\alpha$, where $L_{\rm QSO}$ is the luminosity of the QSO at the

643: Lyman limit $\nu_0$.

644: 

645: Integrating Equation \ref{gammaeq} gives

646: \begin{equation}

647: \Gamma_{\rm QSO}^{12} = {0.951 \over 2.75 - \alpha}

648: {L_{\rm QSO} \over 4 \pi r^2} 10^{21} (10^{-12} {\rm s}^{-1}),

649: \end{equation}

650: For this equation we use $\alpha =

651: -0.5$ for the power law index to describe the continua of the QSOs.

652: 

653: We use $\Gamma_{\rm UVB} = 1.3 \times 10^{-12}$ s$^{-1}$ for all

654: redshifts.  This is the value we found in \citet{tp:tytler2008b} at

655: $z=2$ by matching the observed absorption in the \lyaf\ with the

656: absorption seen in large hydrodynamic simulations.  \citet{bolton05a}

657: found $\Gamma_{\rm UVB} = 1.3^{+0.8}_{-0.5} \times 10^{-12}$ s$^{-1}$

658: at $z=2$ using a similar method.  \citet{tp:scott2000a} use the

659: line-of-sight proximity effect to estimate $\Gamma_{\rm IGM} = 1.9 \pm

660: 1 \times 10^{-12}$s$^{-1}$ using all absorption and some value between

661: 0.9 and $1.9 \times 10^{-12}$s$^{-1}$ when they exclude absorption by

662: the \lya\ lines with associated metal lines.  \citet{haardt01a}

663: calculate $\Gamma_{\rm IGM} = 1.33 \pm 1 \times 10^{-12}$s$^{-1}$ when

664: they absorb the flux emitted by populations of QSOs and galaxies at

665: $z=1.9$.  The median redshift of our transverse proximity measurement

666: is $z = 2.2$ and the majority of our data is near that redshift. We

667: ignore the small changes we expect in $\Gamma_{\rm IGM}$ at other

668: redshifts.

669: 

670: 

671: \subsection{QSO Luminosities}

672: \label{lumsec}

673: 

674: We compute the luminosity of each QSO at the Lyman limit (in ergs

675: sec$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$) from the observed flux density via the relation

676: \begin{equation}

677: L_{\rm QSO} = 4 \pi D_L^2(z) F_\nu / (1+z)

678: \end{equation}

679: where $F_\nu$ is the observed flux density at $\lambda = (1+z) 912$ \AA,

680: and $D_L(z)$ is the luminosity distance to redshift $z$,

681: \begin{equation}

682: D_L(z) = (1+z) {c \over H_0}

683:     \int_0^z {dz^\prime \over \sqrt{\Omega_m (1+z^\prime)^3 + \Omega_\Lambda}}

684: \end{equation}

685: 

686: 

687: We have estimated the Lyman continuum flux $F_\nu$ from a broadband

688: magnitude (either $g$, $B_J$, or $V$) for each QSO, since in general

689: we lack a direct measurement of $F_\nu$.  We estimate $F_\nu$ by

690: assuming each QSO has the spectrum of the HST composite QSO spectrum

691: \citep{zhang97}.  This is not ideal because there is significant

692: variability in the spectral slope of individual objects, but it should

693: be sufficient on average, which is what we need because we will always

694: be combining many sightlines.  To estimate $F_\nu$ for a given QSO, we

695: compute $m$, a synthetic AB magnitude for the redshifted composite spectrum

696: via the relation \citep{tp:fukugita96a}

697: \begin{equation}

698: \label{mageq}

699: m = -2.5 \log {\int d(\log \nu) A C_\nu(z) S_\nu \over 

700:                \int d(\log \nu) S_\nu} - 48.60

701: \end{equation}

702: where $C_\nu(z)$ is the HST composite QSO spectrum at a given

703: redshift, $S_\nu$ is the filter response, and $F_\nu = A C_\nu(z)$ is

704: the observed flux.  $A$ is a free parameter that is adjusted so that the 

705: synthetic magnitude is the same as the observed magnitude.  $C_\nu(z)$ 

706: is calculated by redshifting the composite QSO spectrum, and then removing 

707: flux to simulate the mean effects of \lyaf\ absorption, using the mean 

708: DA vs. redshift given in \citet{kirkman07a}.

709: 

710: Equation \ref{mageq} gives AB magnitudes, which are in the same system

711: as our $g$ band magnitudes.  $B_J$ and $V$ magnitudes are not on the

712: AB system, but the difference between AB and conventional magnitudes

713: for those filters is $< 0.15$ mag \citep{tp:fukugita96a}, and we

714: ignore the difference in this paper and assume that all magnitudes are

715: AB.  The situation is further complicated by the fact that our QSOs

716: with $B_J$ magnitudes are from the 2QZ, which has magnitudes

717: determined from APM scans of UKST photographic plates.  We do not have

718: a response curve for that combination of filter and emulsion.  Instead

719: we have used the filter-only response for the Tyson BJ filter on the

720: CTIO mosaic imager, which was designed to be consistent with the

721: photographic system.  For the V magnitudes we used the filter-only

722: response for the V filter on the CTIO mosaic.  For the $g$ magnitudes

723: we used the SDSS published filter+CCD+1.2 airmass atmosphere response.

724: The CCD and atmosphere change slowly through the filters, so their

725: primary effect is to suppress the entire response by a nearly constant

726: factor, and this has no net effect in Equation \ref{mageq}.

727: 

728: \subsection{Distances}

729: \label{distsec}

730: 

731: We compute the transverse distance $b$, the shortest distance in the plane of the sky

732: from the background sightline to the foreground QSO, with

733: \begin{equation}

734: b = {\phi \over (1+z)^2} D_L(z)

735: \end{equation}

736: where $\phi$ is the separation between the two QSOs in radians.

737: 

738: To calculate the ionizing flux expected from the foreground QSO at a

739: particular point in nearby space, we assume a Euclidean geometry and

740: calculate the distance between the QSO and the distance $r = \sqrt{b^2 + d^2}$,

741: where $d$ is the line-of-sight distance

742: \begin{equation}

743: d = {c \Delta z \over (1+z) H(z)},

744: \end{equation}

745: where $H(z)$ is the Hubble constant at the redshift of the foreground QSO, and

746: is given by

747: \begin{equation}

748: H(z) = H_0 \sqrt{\Omega_m (1+z)^3 + \Omega_\Lambda}.

749: \end{equation}

750: or 219.73 \kms\ at $z=2.2$.

751: 

752: \section{Observed Absorption near the Foreground QSOs}

753: \label{obsforsec}

754: 

755: In Figure \ref{abs00ned} we show the average absorption (expressed as

756: DA) near the foreground QSOs.  The top panel shows the absorption

757: observed in the line-of-sight towards the foreground QSOs, and the

758: lower panel shows the absorption observed in the line-of-sight towards

759: the background QSOs.  In both panels, the $x$-axis is the distance in

760: proper Mpc along a line-of-sight, with the origin at the

761: foreground QSOs, and negative distance behind the foreground QSOs.

762: 

763: 

764: The top panel of Figure \ref{abs00ned} contains contributions from

765: pixels with rest wavelength greater than 1070 \AA.  The DA value for

766: each pixel was scaled to $z=2$ using Equation \ref{daeq} and then

767: placed in the appropriate bin.  The bottom panel is computed in the

768: same way, except that only pixels with rest wavelengths between 1070

769: and 1200 \AA\ in the rest frame of the background QSO were used.  We

770: use 1070 \AA\ as the lower limit to stay well away from the O~VI and

771: \lyb\ emission lines.  We discuss this at length in \citet{tytler04b}.

772: Our upper limit of 1200 \AA\ rest is 4000 \kms\ from the QSO, or about

773: 20 Mpc.  This is expected to be well outside the proximity region of

774: most of our QSOs, and at this distance in no case is the UV radiation

775: from our background QSOs expected to be more than 20\% of the UV

776: background intensity.  The UV flux from our median background QSO is only

777: about 1\% of the UV background at 20 Mpc.

778: 

779: 

780: The curves on Figure \ref{abs00ned} show the DA we expect to see

781: assuming that (1) the foreground QSO radiates isotropically at the

782: Lyman continuum, (2) the IGM density near the foreground QSO is not

783: enhanced, and (3) the ionizing flux from the foreground QSO is either

784: 100\%, 10\% or 0\% of the ionizing flux inferred from the QSO

785: magnitude.  To generate the expected DA curves, we first computed the

786: expected DA in every pixel of every sightline, and then combined the

787: background sightlines in exactly the same way as we combined the data,

788: preserving the $d$ values of the pixels.  We add a uniform background

789: of DA$_{\rm metal} = 0.02$ to each curve at wavelengths higher than

790: the \lya\ emission line.  Our expected DA curves are specific to the

791: QSO luminosities and transverse separations of the QSOs in our data

792: set.

793: 

794: We see no sign of the expected proximity effect in either the

795: line-of-sight or transverse directions.  In the transverse direction

796: we see evidence for enhanced absorption at $-6$ to $0$~Mpc.  There are

797: fewer and fewer sightlines contributing pixels at increasingly

798: negative distances than at positive distances, so the quality of our

799: DA measurements is significantly lower at larger negative distances in

800: the transverse direction.  In the line-of-sight direction our data is

801: consistent with no proximity effect.

802: 

803: The expected transverse proximity effect would be more confined and

804: easier to see if we had smaller redshift errors.  When we calculated

805: the expected transverse proximity effect that we show in Figure

806: \ref{abs00ned}, we included random redshift errors with a standard

807: deviation of 676~\kms . The 676~\kms\ is the dispersion we measured in

808: the differences between the C~IV and Mg~II redshifts, appropriate

809: because we took 78 of the 130 foreground QSO redshifts from C~IV.  The

810: result is that the missing absorption is spread out over many DA bins

811: instead of being concentrated in the bins near zero.  In Figure

812: \ref{transversenoz} we show what would be possible if we had zero

813: error systemic redshifts for all of our foreground QSOs.

814: 

815: \dfigls{los-emission.ps}{transverse-emission.ps} {\label{abs00ned} The

816:   proximity effect.  The data histogram in the top panel shows DA

817:   averaged over all foreground QSOs as a function of distance in

818:   proper Mpc along the sightline, with the origin corresponding to the

819:   redshift of the foreground QSO.  The data are in bins with width 2.5

820:   Mpc, or 549~\kms\ at $z=2.2$.  The curves show the expected

821:   proximity effect in DA for foreground QSO UV fluxes of (top to

822:   bottom): 0, 10\%, and 100\% of the inferred flux at the Lyman limit.

823:   The bottom panel shows DA towards the background QSO, with the

824:   curves showing the expected transverse proximity effect.  We

825:   calculate the DA we expect at various $d$ (not the 3D distance $r$)

826:   along each sightline at impact parameter $b$, using the $b$ and $d$

827:   to calculate the QSO flux.  We then sum these different expected DA

828:   curves to give the mean expected DA curves that we show, preserving

829:   distances $d$ along the line-of-sight, in the same way we sum the

830:   background QSO spectra.  In calculating the expected proximity

831:   effect we have assumed that the systemic redshifts we calculate from

832:   our emission lines have random errors of $676$ \kms. This has the

833:   effect of smearing out the expected proximity effects -- note how

834:   the zero UV flux line-of-sight proximity effect is not a step

835:   function in the presence of redshift errors.  }

836: 

837: \dfigl{transverse-0-0.ps} {\label{transversenoz} The expected

838:   transverse proximity effect in the absence of $z_{\rm em}$

839:   uncertainties.  As Figure \ref{abs00ned}, but now the expected

840:   transverse proximity effect has been calculated assuming that there

841:   are no $z_{\rm em}$ errors.  At $d=0$ our total data set effectively

842:   has $\omega = 5.2$.}

843: 

844: \subsection{On our error estimates for the binned DA values} 

845: 

846: Each DA bin in Figure \ref{abs00ned} contains contributions from a

847: large number of sightlines.  For the line-of-sight panel, the typical bin

848: has contributions from about 100 QSOs.  The number is not

849: exactly 130 for each DA bin because portions of each spectra are

850: masked to exclude DLAs, known metal absorption, and regions of bad

851: data.

852: 

853: The DA bins in the transverse panel of Figure \ref{abs00ned} typically

854: have contributions from about 40 QSOs at negative velocities and 95

855: QSOs at positive velocities.  The smaller number of contributions at

856: negative distances is because our pairs were selected (for a different

857: project) to have emission redshifts that are close to each other, so

858: almost every sightline contributes pixels to the transverse DA at zero

859: and positive distances, while many fewer are able to contribute pixels

860: to the negative distance bins.

861: 

862: The value plotted for each distance bin is the mean of one DA value from

863: each of the sightlines with data at the appropriate distance.  The

864: sightlines are given equal weight.  For each bin, we take the error bar

865: to be the standard error on the mean: the standard deviation of the

866: contributing sightlines divided by the square root of the number of

867: contributing sightlines.  We have also estimated the error for each

868: bin via bootstrap resampling, and the two methods are consistent with

869: each other for all bins to better than 10\%.

870: 

871: In Figure \ref{hist2} we show the distribution of DA values measured

872: over 2.5 Mpc for all of the points that went into the transverse panel

873: of Figure \ref{abs00ned}.  In Figure \ref{hist1} we show the

874: distribution of sightline DA values for three of the individual

875: distance bins.  The distributions do not look like a normal

876: distribution because the flux probability distribution function (FPDF)

877: is highly non-normal \citep{tp:kim2007b, tp:tytler2008b}.  We work

878: with the distribution of the mean fluxes in the 2.5 Mpc bins, so our

879: distributions are much closer to a normal distribution than they are

880: to the underlying full-resolution FPDF, as shown for simulated spectra

881: by \citet[Figs. 10 \& 19]{tp:tytler2008b} and as expected by the central

882: limit theorem.

883: 

884: The central limit theorem also guarantees that if we take a large

885: number of samples from the distribution shown in Figure \ref{hist2},

886: that the mean value with be normally distributed with a standard

887: deviation given by the standard error on the mean (e.g. our error

888: bars).  The distributions we observe for individual bins in Figure

889: \ref{hist1}, as well as the fact that the distribution observed in

890: Figure \ref{hist2} is not wildly different from a normal distribution,

891: give us confidence that the errors we have presented in Figure

892: \ref{abs00ned} are reasonable.

893:  

894: \dfig{histall.ps}{\label{hist2} The distribution of DA values, each

895:   given by the mean DA measured over 2.5 Mpc in one sightline, for all

896:   of the values that are contained in the transverse panel of Figure

897:   \ref{abs00ned}.  The red curve curve shows a normal distribution

898:   centred on the mean of these values with the standard deviation

899:   given by these values.}

900: 

901: \dfig{hist1.ps}{\label{hist1} As Figure \ref{hist2}, but showing only

902:   the values contributing to the transverse bins centred at -2.5, 0,

903:   and 2.5 Mpc.}

904: 

905: We measure the covariance for adjacent 2.5 Mpc bins in our transverse

906: DA data to be 20\% of the variance in each bin.  The covariance drops

907: to 5\% two bins out.  This is a bit higher than expected purely from

908: the large scale structure of the \lyaf\ \citep{kirkman07a}, where we

909: found that the covariance at 550 \kms\ (about 2.5 Mpc) was 6\% of the

910: value at 50 \kms\ at $1.0 < z < 1.5$.  The excess covariance in our

911: sample may be due in part to its higher redshift, but it probably

912: also reflects errors in our data handling, including continuum fitting

913: errors and residuals from unmasked LLS and metal line absorption.  The

914: bin-to-bin covariance is large enough that is should be taken into

915: account when attempting to determine the significance of any feature

916: in our DA data.

917: 

918: \section{Line-of-sight Proximity Effect Discussion}

919: 

920: We see in Figure \ref{abs00ned} that we expect a relatively small

921: line-of-sight proximity effect, because our QSOs are fainter by a

922: factor of few than those in past work. Our QSOs have a median Lyman

923: Limit luminosity of 3.3$\times 10^{30}$ ergs s$^{-1}$

924: Hz$^{-1}$, which is fainter by a factor of six compared to the

925: \citet{tp:guimaraes2007a} sample.  Four of the 10

926: \citet{tp:liske2001a} QSOs are more luminous than ours by a factor $>

927: 6.7$, and the others are more luminous by a factor of $\sim 2$.

928: 

929: We still expect to readily detect the proximity effect but we see no

930: change in the amount of H~I absorption as we approach the foreground

931: QSOs.  This absence of the line-of-sight proximity effect is

932: unexpected, but not completely surprising because others have recently

933: reported reduced effects, and we have a ready qualitative explanation

934: if the gas density near to the QSOs is enhanced by a factor of a few.

935: 

936: QSOs are expected to form in dense environments.

937: \citet{tp:serber2006a} find that the galaxy density within 100 kpc of

938: $z < 0.4$ QSOs is between 1.4 and 3 times the galaxy density around

939: L$^*$ galaxies, and that the overdensity persists at some level out to

940: 1 Mpc.  The environments around QSOs at $z = 2.2$ may be significantly

941: different, as clustering will be less developed, and different

942: types of galaxy may show QSO activity.  IGM calculations indicate

943: the mean gas density may be enhanced by a factor of a few within about

944: 3 Mpc of a QSO \citep{tp:loeb1995a, tp:faucher-giguere2008a} -- this

945: is approximately the factor we need to explain our non-detection of

946: the line-of-sight effect.  The IGM \lya\ opacity will vary

947: approximately as the square of the gas density -- one factor for the

948: increased density, and another for the increased neutral

949: fraction. Hence a factor of 3 increase in density will give about a

950: factor of 9 more H~I absorption, which will change the expected

951: proximity effect to approximately that for QSOs with 10\% of their

952: observed UV luminosities.  The curve in Figure \ref{abs00ned} for this

953: reduced luminosity is consistent with the data, given the

954: uncertainties over the redshifts.

955: 

956: \citet{tp:rollinde2005a} also saw less proximity effect than expected

957: and they deduced that the gas density might be enhanced by ``a factor

958: of a few'' near to their QSOs.  \citet{tp:guimaraes2007a} saw a

959: reduced proximity effect towards more luminous QSOs at higher

960: redshifts and they claim that they need a significant density

961: enhancement over a much larger region of $\sim 21$ Mpc, more than

962: expected from simulations.

963: 

964: If the gas density is a factor of a few higher around QSOs and does not

965: depend on QSO luminosity at a given redshift, then the density

966: enhancement will have a larger impact on less luminous QSOs because

967: the distance to which the QSO flux dominates the UVB flux is then

968: smaller than for more luminous QSOs.  This might explain why earlier

969: papers \citep{carswell82,bajtlik88,tp:scott2000a} readily saw the

970: line-of-sight proximity effect around QSOs that were more luminous

971: than ours.  

972: However, the different results might instead come from the different

973: methods. Our methods and those of \citet{tp:rollinde2005a}

974: and  \citet{tp:guimaraes2007a}, who also claimed enhanced density near to QSOs,

975: are based on flux, while the early papers that saw the expected

976: line-of-sight proximity effect used line counting.

977: To our knowledge, no one has attempted

978: a proximity effect analysis on the same data set using both line

979: counting and continuous optical depth methods, so it is possible that

980: the two methods give systematically different results.

981: 

982: \subsection{Other possible explanations for why we do not see a

983:                     line-of-sight proximity effect}

984: \label{nolosexp}

985: 

986: While we are happy to entertain the idea that enhanced density

987: explains why we do not see the line-of-sight proximity effect that we

988: expect, we have not directly shown that this is the case.  It remains

989: surprising that the enhanced ionization -- density cancellation is

990: perfect within our measurement errors.  Here we explore other possible

991: explanations for what we see.

992: 

993: In addition to enhanced density near our foreground QSOs, it may be

994: possible to explain our lack of an observed proximity effect in other

995: ways.  In particular, Figure \ref{abs00ned} shows that the

996: line-of-sight data is roughly compatible with $\omega$ values 10 times

997: smaller than we expect.  This could be achieved, for example, if the

998: UV background is a factor of 10 higher than we expect.  However, our

999: work on the UVB from \lyaf\ absorption \citet{tytler04b, jena05a,

1000:   tp:tytler2008b}, the \citet{bolton05a} results using similar

1001: methods, and the \citet{haardt01a} result derived by counting UV

1002: sources all suggest that $\Gamma_{\rm UVB}$ is less than a factor of

1003: two higher than the value of $\Gamma_{\rm UVB} = 1.3 \times 10^{-12}$

1004: s$^{-1}$ that we have adopted.  We believe that the 50\% error claimed

1005: by Bolton is more reasonable than a factor of two, and hence we think

1006: that it is unlikely that our result will be explained by a higher than

1007: expected UVB.

1008: 

1009: The flux enhancement near the foreground QSOs, $\omega$, could be

1010: lower than we expect if these QSOs were less luminous in the recent

1011: past than they are today.  At a distance from a QSO where the QSO UV

1012: radiation is twice that of the UVB, we expect it to take 10 kyr ($(2

1013: \Gamma_{\rm UVB})^{-1}$) for the ionization of the gas to respond to

1014: increased UV flux from the QSO, so $\omega$ can be different than we

1015: expect if QSOs are highly variable on timescales short compared to 10

1016: kyr.  We are presumably more likely to discover and observe bright

1017: QSOs, so if QSOs are varying on short timescales the sense of this

1018: effect may on average lower $\omega$.

1019: 

1020: On time-scales of days to years, QSOs are more variable at smaller UV

1021: wavelengths and at lower luminosities \citep{tp:vandenberk2004a}.

1022: Over tens of years in the rest frame, the rest frame UV flux varies by

1023: $> 1.5$ magnitudes for 50\% of QSOs and by $>3$ mag for 9\% of QSOs

1024: \citep{tp:heckman1976a}. \citet{tp:devries2003a,tp:devries2005a} find

1025: that QSOs undergo bursts of 2-magnitudes on periods of years, with

1026: larger variations on longer time scales and for less luminous QSOs,

1027: all roughly consistent with accretion disk instabilities.  The

1028: structure function describing the variability of all QSOs rises

1029: monotonically at a constant rate out to 40 years in the QSO rest frame

1030: with no turnover \citep{tp:devries2005a, tp:devries2006a} -- the

1031: preferred time scale for QSO variation is at least this long.  If the

1032: same random walk has continued, then many QSOs could be factors of ten

1033: times less luminous 10~kyr ago.  But \citet{tp:martini2003a} estimate

1034: that QSO UV luminous episodes typically last $>20,000$ years, on the

1035: assumption that a given QSO seen on the POSS-I plates was either on or

1036: off (absolute magnitude fainter than -23) at the epoch of the SDSS

1037: observation.

1038: 

1039: Our adopted redshifts may differ systematically from the QSO systemic

1040: redshifts. To give the full expected proximity effect we would need to

1041: increase the QSO redshifts by 800~\kms , moving the origin on the

1042: figures to the left by 1.5 data bins or 3.5~Mpc.  Given that our

1043: redshifts come either directly, or indirectly from Mg~II, this seems

1044: an incredibly large error, which would imply that the C~IV lines in

1045: our QSOs have typical blueshifts of 1550~\kms\ and not the 753~\kms\

1046: that we assume.

1047: 

1048: Another alternative explanation is that part of the line-of-sight proximity

1049: effect is masked by extra H~I absorption that is not from the IGM.  It

1050: is well known that there is an excess of absorption systems that show

1051: C~IV lines with redshifts similar to QSO emission redshifts.

1052: \citet[Fig. 7a]{tp:tytler2008a} showed these excess systems for a

1053: super-set of the QSOs that we use here. \citet{tp:hennawi2006a} show

1054: there is also a strong excess of LLS and DLAs with redshifts similar

1055: to the QSOs. In addition \citet{tp:wild2008a} find that $>$ 40\% of

1056: C~IV absorbers within 3000 \kms\ of a QSO are directly associated with

1057: the QSO itself and do not arise in the IGM.  These systems will nearly

1058: all have strong \lya\ absorption lines that will tend to hide the

1059: line-of-sight proximity effect.

1060: 

1061: In general, the extra absorption near the QSO redshift is a specific

1062: example of the idea that the gas density is higher near to the QSOs.

1063: In early work on the proximity effect

1064: \citep{carswell82,tp:tytler1987a,bajtlik88}, all \lya\ lines that had

1065: associated metal lines were excluded, hence removing this non-IGM

1066: ``contamination'' at all redshifts.  This was not done in later work

1067: \citep{tp:scott2000a, scott02, tp:dallaglio2008a}.  \citet[\S\

1068: 6]{scott02} found that removing ``associated absorbers, damped \lya\ 

1069: absorbers, and blazars'' from their low redshift proximity effect

1070: analysis decreased the UVB needed to explain the proximity effect by a

1071: factor of two.  This factor of two reduction seems desirable

1072: \citep[Fig. 1]{tp:faucher-giguere2008a}, because the UVB from the

1073: proximity effect then matches that inferred by matching the observed

1074: DA to large hydrodynamic simulations \citep{bolton05a,

1075:   tp:tytler2008b}.

1076: 

1077: For this paper we have attempted to remove only part of the \lya\

1078: absorption associated with metal systems, that where the \lya\ lines

1079: are DLAs or other prominent \lya\ lines. We have not removed the \lya\

1080: lines of other metal systems, and we do not know whether these could

1081: significantly or totally cancel out the line-of-sight proximity

1082: effect.

1083: 

1084: We could also speculate that our QSOs might show more than the typical

1085: amount of extra metal systems with redshifts similar to the QSO

1086: redshifts, perhaps because they are lower luminosity QSOs. This is

1087: hinted because X-ray absorption is more common in lower luminosity

1088: AGN.

1089: 

1090: \section{Transverse Proximity Effect Discussion}

1091: 

1092: We now describe the transverse proximity data in Figure

1093: \ref{abs00ned}, and we discuss the issues that carry across from our

1094: interpretation of the line-of-sight proximity effect. We end with new

1095: factors that are specific to the transverse proximity effect.

1096: 

1097: The first point to make is that the spectra that we sum for the

1098: transverse plot are the different than the ones we use for the

1099: line-of-sight.  In the transverse direction we use the spectrum of the

1100: background QSO, while for the line-of-sight we use the spectrum of the

1101: foreground QSO.  Hence the noise characteristics are similar, but not

1102: identical.  As we previously explained, we lose spectra as we move

1103: farther behind the foreground QSOs on the transverse plot, which

1104: explains why the errors are nearly constant to the right but increase

1105: going to the left of zero.

1106: 

1107: The second point is that we see no change in the amount of absorption

1108: as we approach the QSOs from the Earth side, from the right.  This

1109: seems reasonable because we also did not see any change in the

1110: absorption in the line-of-sight to these same QSOs. The same

1111: explanation that we gave for the lack of the line-of-sight proximity

1112: effect may apply to the lack of change in the transverse absorption,

1113: because we are probing similar distances with both the foreground and

1114: the background QSO light.  Hence we propose that we do not see either

1115: the line-of-sight proximity, or the transverse proximity on the near

1116: side of the foreground QSO, because the enhanced from ionization the

1117: UV flux from the foreground QSO is cancelled by higher gas density near to

1118: those QSOs.

1119: 

1120: We discussed other possible explanations for the lack of the

1121: line-of-sight proximity effect. While arbitrarily large systematic

1122: errors in the redshifts of the foreground QSOs might enhance, diminish

1123: or remove the line-of-sight proximity effect, redshift errors have

1124: much less effect on the transverse effect, because we can now also

1125: see absorption from behind the foreground QSO.  Systematic errors in

1126: the foreground QSO emission redshifts will again move the zero point

1127: to the left or right on the plot, but this has little effect because

1128: the absorption we observe and expect does not change significantly

1129: when we apply realistic shifts in the zero point.

1130: 

1131: Random redshift errors do not change the total amount of absorption,

1132: but they do re-distribute that absorption into more pixels. In Figure

1133: \ref{transversenoz} we re-calculate the expected transverse proximity

1134: effect assuming that we have no errors in the QSO redshifts. We see a

1135: deeper and narrower expected drop in H~I absorption.

1136: 

1137: Extra \lya\ absorption for the excess of metal line systems with

1138: redshifts close to the redshift of the background QSO will have little

1139: impact on the transverse proximity effect, except when the two QSOs

1140: have similar redshifts.  The extra absorption near to the foreground

1141: QSO is one manifestation of the enhanced density that we believe is

1142: important.  Associated absorbers ejected by the foreground QSOs are

1143: not expected to reach the sightline to the background QSO.

1144: 

1145: The third point about the transverse plot is that we see extra

1146: absorption starting at the foreground QSO position and extending about

1147: 6 Mpc behind the foreground QSO. We regard this as significant for two

1148: reasons. First, we see a 2 -- 3 $\sigma $ excess over 3 pixels,

1149: extending from $-6.25$ to $+1.25$~Mpc.  Second, we had earlier decided

1150: that the lack of the expected line-of-sight proximity effect was

1151: significant, and that the lack of the expected transverse proximity

1152: effect on the front side of the foreground QSOs was also

1153: significant. These two lacks involve approximately the same deviations

1154: from the data as does the excess absorption behind the QSOs.  Hence we

1155: should also regard the excess absorption as significant.  This

1156: argument relates to the Bayesian preference that we not change our

1157: prior evaluation, of what would constitute a significant result, after

1158: we see the data.  Rather we should hold a consistent set of beliefs

1159: about probabilities before and after we obtain the data, striving for

1160: diachronic probabilistic coherence.  While we have a significant

1161: detection of excess absorption, we are less sure of the precise

1162: location of the excess because random and especially systematic

1163: redshift errors can move the apparent location of the absorption. At

1164: least some of the excess is behind the foreground QSOs.

1165: 

1166: The asymmetry between the amount of absorption in front of and behind

1167: the foreground QSOs could only be seen in the transverse analysis,

1168: because the line-of-sight analysis is only sensitive to absorption in

1169: front. We also require a large sample of close pairs of QSOs to see

1170: this effect, with emission redshifts at least as good as we have.  It

1171: is clear from Figure \ref{abs00ned} that it would be hard to see this

1172: asymmetry in a much smaller sample.

1173: 

1174: \section{Implications  of  anisotropic absorption}

1175: 

1176: The transverse sightlines in Figure \ref{abs00ned} suggest that there

1177: is more absorption behind the foreground QSOs than there is in front.

1178: If this result is correct it may have significant implications, some

1179: of which we now discuss.

1180: 

1181: The amount of excess absorption behind the QSOs is numerically similar

1182: in size to the lack of absorption that we had expected. This

1183: immediately suggests that the excess absorption is coming from an

1184: enhancement of the gas density that is the same size as the

1185: enhancement that we already invoked on the near side of the QSO. We

1186: expect the density distribution to be isotropic about the QSOs, when

1187: we average over many QSOs. We can then explain the enhanced absorption

1188: using the same density enhancement, but with no UV radiation

1189: from the foreground QSO reaching the gas behind the foreground QSOs

1190: before the absorption occurred.  We can not say precisely how much the

1191: flux behind the foreground QSOs needs to be suppressed, but we can see

1192: from Figure \ref{abs00ned} that if $\omega$ is down by about a factor

1193: of 10 behind the QSO, and we have a symmetric density enhancement

1194: centred on the QSOs, then we would expect to see something similar to

1195: our observed data.

1196: 

1197: There are two commonly discussed ways of limiting the amount of UV

1198: flux seen by the gas behind the foreground QSOs. First, the QSO

1199: emission might be anisotropic.  Second, the QSO may have a short

1200: episodic lifetime.  We will discuss both possibilities.

1201: 

1202: \subsection{Anisotropic UV emission?}

1203: 

1204: Common AGN unification models frequently contain an obscuring torus

1205: surrounding a central continuum source and broad emission-line gas

1206: (e.g.  \citep{tp:barthel89a, tp:antonucci93a}).  In this scenario, QSO

1207: UV emission is expected to be highly anisotropic, with the UV emission

1208: strongest along the poles of the system when the obscuring torus

1209: defines the equator.  But while an obscuring torus could explain a

1210: general lack of ionizing photons in the transverse direction, it does

1211: not explain why there may be fewer ionizing photons behind the QSO

1212: than in front, because the UV radiation should escape

1213: equally from both sides of the torus.

1214: 

1215: We can break the axial symmetry in the UV emission if the obscuration

1216: around the QSOs covers most sight lines, leaving only a few holes

1217: unobscured, including the hole sending UV in our direction, a

1218: modification of the cloudy torus model of \citet{tp:nenkova08a}. A

1219: single hole of diameter of order 60 -- 120 degrees seen from the QSO

1220: might explain our data.  Here 60 degrees is the minimum to illuminate

1221: enough of the volume in front of the QSO, while larger than 120

1222: degrees leads to too much flux behind the QSOs since the line-of-sight

1223: to us is often far from the centre of the hole. This model is

1224: effectively similar to a hypothetical accretion disk that emits UV

1225: from one side but not the other. Models with several smaller

1226: unobscured holes are not favored because they do not give much less

1227: flux behind the QSOs.

1228: 

1229: We might explain the excess absorption behind the QSOs if the UV flux

1230: behind the average QSO is of order 10\% or less of the flux we

1231: see. A single unobscured hole of diameter 60 -- 120 degrees covers a

1232: fraction of 0.25 -- 0.43 of the sky seen from a QSO.  We expect this

1233: fraction is related to the fraction of all QSOs that are type 1 rather

1234: than type 2. For Seyfert galaxies, \citet{tp:schmitt2001} estimate 0.3

1235: while \citet{tp:hao2005} find 0.5. This fraction rises with luminosity

1236: reaching of order 0.8 for QSOs \citep{tp:maiolino2007,tp:barger2005}. We might

1237: reconcile this high fraction of unobscured QSOs with our need for more

1238: obscuration because we need block only the Lyman continuum flux, and

1239: not the entire UV and optical.  The obscuration we need does not

1240: necessarily lead to high mid-infrared to optical flux ratios used to

1241: calculate the fraction of 0.8.

1242: 

1243: \subsection{Short episodic lifetimes?}

1244: \label{eplifesec}

1245: 

1246: A second option is that the QSOs have not been emitting for long

1247: enough to have illuminated the volume probed behind. In this case the

1248: asymmetry is caused by the extra time for the UV radiation from the

1249: foreground QSO to reach the gas behind, and to do this before the light

1250: from the background QSO passes through that gas.

1251: 

1252: We can account for the excess absorption behind the foreground QSOs if

1253: they have had their current UV luminosities for approximately 1 Myr,

1254: and prior to then, for $> 40$~Myr, they were a factor of $\sim 10$

1255: less luminous. We work in the QSO frame, so that ``today'' refers to

1256: the time in the QSO frame when the light that we see left the QSO;

1257: hence we ignore the time for light to travel from the QSO to us, and

1258: we can ignore the $(1+z)$ time dilation would apply if we were to

1259: shift to our frame.  Our closest sightlines are separated by $\sim

1260: 0.1$ Mpc, corresponding to a light propagation time of $\sim 0.32$

1261: Myr, while our median sightline is separated by 1.25 Mpc or 4.1

1262: Myr. The typical foreground QSO must have emitted the flux that we deduce

1263: for at least 4.1 Myr if that flux is to reach the closest approach of

1264: the line-of-sight from the background QSO.  Longer is needed to

1265: illuminate the parts of the background QSO line-of-sight that are

1266: behind (at higher redshift than) the foreground QSO.  The surface that

1267: is illuminated by radiation that left the foreground QSO $t$ Myr ago

1268: is a paraboloid with the QSO at the focus and the vertex $t/2$ million

1269: light-years behind the QSO, as shown in

1270: \citet[Fig. 3]{tp:adelberger2004a}, \citet[Fig. 1]{tp:visbal2008a},

1271: and \citet[Fig. 24]{tp:tytler2008a}).  We demonstrate this in Figure

1272: \ref{figdelay}.

1273: 

1274: We can obtain approximate limits on the QSO episodic lifetime from the

1275: distribution of absorption around the foreground QSOs.  If the QSOs

1276: had at least their current luminosity for more than 10 Myr, then

1277: regions that are approximately 1.2 Mpc behind the foreground QSO (and

1278: at the median sky separation) would have experienced the QSO flux, and

1279: we might expect that we would not see excess absorption in the bin

1280: centred on zero.  Hence we can deduce, because of the excess

1281: absorption in the zero bin, that the typical QSO episodic lifetime is

1282: $< 10$ Myr.

1283: 

1284: On the other extreme, we note that the bins in front of the QSO do not

1285: show enhanced absorption.  If we assume that the IGM density enhancement is

1286: symmetric in front of and behind the foreground QSOs, the lack of

1287: extra absorption in the bins in front of the foreground QSO can be

1288: taken as evidence that they have been illuminated by the QSO.  For our

1289: median separation, it will take $\sim 0.3$ Myr for the QSO to

1290: illuminate the bin sampling 1.25 -- 3.75 Mpc in front of the QSO.

1291: Hence we can deduce that the typical QSO episodic lifetime is $> 0.3$

1292: Myr.

1293: 

1294: Taken together, the transverse absorption in front of and behind the

1295: foreground QSOs suggest a QSO episodic lifetime $0.3 < t_e < 10$ Myr,

1296: or $ t_e \sim 1$ Myr.  Again, a given QSO might have several or many

1297: epochs with high UV luminosity.  Hence the 1 Myr episodic lifetime

1298: refers to the time since the start of the latest QSO outburst and not

1299: to the total QSO lifetime.  

1300: 

1301: This model also gives the approximate minimum time the QSOs should

1302: have been in their low UV luminosity ``off states'' prior to the

1303: current UV bright episode. To avoid illuminating the bin furthest

1304: behind the QSOs with excess absorption at $d= -6.25$ to $-3.75$~Mpc at

1305: the typical $b=1.25$~Mpc, we need the QSOs in the off state for $>

1306: 40$~Myr.  If we knew the distribution of density near the QSOs, and we

1307: had more accurate redshifts, we could make a more accurate estimate of

1308: how long the QSOs have had their current UV luminosities, and the

1309: minimum length of the off state.

1310: 

1311: Our conclusion that we are seeing evidence for $\sim 1$ Myr QSO

1312: episodic lifetimes hinges on our observation of increased absorption

1313: behind the QSO but not in front of it.  In an earlier analysis of the

1314: transverse proximity effect, \citet{tp:croft2004a} found enhanced

1315: absorption on both sides of the QSO.  He had few close sightlines and

1316: convolved his observed absorption with a 7~Mpc Gaussian filter, but it

1317: is clear that the excess absorption is centred near to the redshift

1318: of the foreground QSO.  We can not explain the discrepancy between our

1319: results and the \citet{tp:croft2004a} results, but the differences

1320: between our assumed systemic redshifts and the systemic redshifts used

1321: by SDSS may be part of the difference.  

1322: 

1323: We note that if we were to increase our foreground redshift by 550

1324: \kms\ to centre the excess absorption at 0 Mpc, we would observe a

1325: significant line-of-sight proximity effect.  But we would then have

1326: the problem that on average, our C IV emission lines would be at the

1327: systemic redshift of the QSO, and we discussed in \S \ref{redshifts}

1328: this is inconsistent with multiple observations. We also think this

1329: unlikely because \citet{tp:tytler2008b} see excess C~IV absorbers at

1330: velocities $\sim 300 \pm 150$~\kms\ in front of a superset of the QSOs

1331: we study here.  If we move all the QSOs back 550~\kms\ these excess

1332: C~IV absorbers would be at $\sim 850$~\kms\ in front of the QSOs,

1333: which would be hard to explain.  Rather, the C~IV absorption suggest

1334: that we might move the QSO redshifts in the other direction,

1335: decreasing them by $\sim 300$~\kms\ to approximately centre the C~IV

1336: on the QSOs. This would move the origin in Figure 4 one half bin to

1337: the right, putting the extra H I absorption entirely behind the QSOs.

1338: 

1339: 

1340: \subsection{Are short episodic lifetimes plausible?}

1341: 

1342: It has long been speculated that QSOs may exhibit highly intermittent

1343: activity.  \citet{tp:shields1978a} showed that the storage and release

1344: of gas in an accretion disk would produce just such activity.  Disk

1345: instabilities are likely to produce variation on many time scales, from

1346: $10^{1}$ -- $10^6$ yrs \citep{tp:wallinder1992a}.  But it

1347: is also the case that the characteristic e-folding time for a black

1348: hole to increase its mass by accretion is 45 Myr when its

1349: luminosity is the Eddington value and the radiative efficiency is 0.1

1350: (see review by \citet{tp:martini2004a}).  If such accretion is the

1351: dominant mode of black hole growth, then we expect a given high mass

1352: black hole to be UV luminous for of order $10^8$ yr in total, but we

1353: do not know whether this manifests as one long episode or many

1354: shorter bursts.

1355: 

1356: \citet{tp:goodman2003a} finds that there are no obvious ways to have

1357: accretion disks around giant black holes that are stable against

1358: fragmentation at large radii. Consequently, he suggests that disks do

1359: not exist much beyond 0.01 pc or 1000 Schwartzschild radii.  Such

1360: small disks would be depleted onto the black hole in $<1$ Myr,

1361: implying the typical UV luminosities 1 Myr ago could have been at

1362: least an order of magnitude less, as we require to explain the excess

1363: \lya\ absorption behind the QSOs.

1364: 

1365: The excess absorption seen behind the QSOs might be a detection of

1366: instabilities in accretion disks on Myr time-scales

1367: \citep{tp:czerny2006a}.  \citet{tp:janiuk2004a} discuss how the

1368: thermal-viscous instability in standard $\alpha -$accretion disks can

1369: lead to outbursts of $10^4$~yr duration for a $10^8$ \msun\ black

1370: hole.  \citet{tp:mchardy2006} support the old idea

1371: \citep{tp:shakura1976} that AGN are scaled up Galactic stellar

1372: mass black hole systems because they can predict the time scale of

1373: the break in the power spectrum density of the X-ray fluxes from the

1374: black hole mass and luminosity or accretion rate (see also

1375: \citet{tp:fender2007}).  \citet{tp:done2005a} discuss how the

1376: transitions between the different states of accretion luminosity seen

1377: in Galactic stellar mass black holes may manifest in $10^9$ \msun\

1378: QSOs as transition into low luminosity states on time-scales of

1379: 0.3~Myr.

1380: 

1381: If we combine these arguments with the large amplitudes of the

1382: observed short-term variability, the lack of a turn-over in the

1383: structure function out to tens of years, the increase in variability as

1384: smaller UV wavelengths (all discussed in \S \ref{nolosexp}), we find

1385: it reasonable to postulate that our sample of QSOs have episodic

1386: life-times $\sim 1$~Myr in the QSO rest frame.  Prior to the current

1387: episode, for perhaps tens of Myrs, their Lyman continuum luminosity

1388: was at least a factor of ten less than today.

1389: 

1390: \dfig{delay1.ps}{\label{figdelay}The regions of space around a QSO

1391:   that will show enhanced ionization in the spectra of background

1392:   objects, if the QSO has some fixed episodic lifetime, and the medium

1393:   is at all times highly ionized.  Absorbers to the right of the blue

1394:   parabola will have seen enhanced ionization from the QSO before the

1395:   light from the background object arrives. Light from the background

1396:   objects (horizontal lines) will arrive at absorbers to the left of

1397:   the parabola before the UV flux from the QSO arrives. In the frame

1398:   of the QSO, light from a background object will arrive at point $A$

1399:   a time in the past equal to the light travel time from $A_s$ to $Q$,

1400:   which we denote as $t(A_sQ)$. We take the light travel time as

1401:   positive. So point $A$, on the boundary of the illuminated volume,

1402:   can be found by requiring that $t(AQ) + t(A_sQ) = T$, where $T$ is

1403:   the episodic lifetime of the QSO.  The same argument applies for

1404:   $B$, but because light from a background object arrives at point $B$

1405:   at a time in the future with respect to the QSO frame, we have

1406:   $t(BQ) - t(QB_S) = T$.  Taking the set of points similar to $A$ and

1407:   $B$ at all impact parameters gives the blue parabola.  Light emitted

1408:   from the foreground QSO $T$ years ago, arrives on the parabola at

1409:   the same time as the light from the background QSO that we see.}

1410: 

1411: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1412: 

1413: We thank the anonymous referee for many very helpful suggestions and

1414: criticisms.  We thank Arlin Crotts for providing us with some of the

1415: spectra used in this paper, which he obtained from NOAO facilities,

1416: operated by AURA for the NSF. Former UCSD students John O'Meara and

1417: Nao Suzuki helped to obtain some of the spectra used in this paper. We

1418: thank Mike Fall, Jeremy Goodman, Matt Malkan, Jason Prochaska, Don

1419: Schneider, Greg Shields, Chuck Steidel and Gordon Richards for

1420: important discussions. The bulk of the data were obtained using the

1421: Kast spectrograph on the Lick Observatory 3m-Shane telescope, the LRIS

1422: spectrograph on the Keck-I telescope, and the SDSS archive.  The

1423: W.M. Keck Observatory is operated as a scientific partnership among

1424: the California Institute of Technology, the University of California

1425: and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and was made

1426: possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck

1427: Foundation. We are exceedingly grateful for the help we receive from

1428: the staff at both observatories. We recognise and acknowledge the very

1429: significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea

1430: has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community.  We are

1431: extremely grateful to have the opportunity to conduct observations

1432: from this mountain.  This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC

1433: Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion

1434: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with

1435: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  Funding for the

1436: creation and distribution of the SDSS Archive has been provided by the

1437: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the

1438: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science

1439: Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Japanese

1440: Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS Web site is

1441: http://www.sdss.org/.  This work was funded in part by NSF grants

1442: AST-0098731, 0507717 and 0808168 and by NASA grant NAG5-13113.

1443: 

1444: 

1445: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}

1446: \bibliography{archive,tp}

1447: 

1448: \end{document}

1449: 

1450: