1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \title{Log-Poisson Hierarchical Clustering of Cosmic Neutral Hydrogen
7: and Ly$\alpha$ Transmitted Flux of QSO Absorption Spectrum}
8:
9: \author{Yi Lu\altaffilmark{1,2}, Yao-Quan Chu\altaffilmark{1}, and
10: Li-Zhi Fang\altaffilmark{2}}
11:
12: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Astrophysics, University of Science and
13: Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China}
14: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, University of Arizona,
15: Tucson, AZ 85721}
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18:
19: We study, in this paper, the non-Gaussian features of the mass
20: density field of neutral hydrogen fluid and the Ly$\alpha$
21: transmitted flux of QSO absorption spectrum from the point-of-view
22: of self-similar log-Poisson hierarchy. It has been shown recently
23: that, in the scale range from the onset of nonlinear evolution to
24: dissipation, the velocity and mass density fields of cosmic baryon
25: fluid are extremely well described by the She-Leveque's scaling
26: formula, which is due to the log-Poisson hierarchical cascade. Since the
27: mass density ratio between ionized hydrogen to total hydrogen is not
28: uniform in space, the mass density field of neutral hydrogen
29: component is not given by a similar mapping of total baryon fluid.
30: Nevertheless, we show, with hydrodynamic simulation samples of the
31: concordance $\Lambda$CDM universe, that the mass density field of
32: neutral hydrogen, is also well described by the log-Poisson
33: hierarchy.
34:
35: We then investigate the field of Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux of QSO
36: absorption spectrum. Due to redshift distortion, Ly$\alpha$ transmitted
37: flux fluctuations are no longer to show all features of the
38: log-Poisson hierarchy. However, some non-Gaussian features predicted
39: by the log-Poisson hierarchy are not affected by the redshift
40: distortion. We test these predictions with the high resolution and
41: high S/N data of quasars Ly$\alpha$ absorption spectra. All results
42: given by real data, including $\beta$-hierarchy, high order moments
43: and scale-scale correlation, are found to be well consistent with the
44: log-Poisson hierarchy. We compare the log-Poisson hierarchy with the
45: popular log-normal model of the Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux. The later
46: is found to yield too strong non-Gaussianity at high orders, while
47: the log-Poisson hierarchy is in agreement with observed data.
48:
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \keywords{cosmology: theory - large-scale structure of universe}
52:
53: \section{Introduction.}
54:
55: Baryon matter of the universe is mainly in the form of
56: intergalactic medium (IGM), of which the dynamics can be described
57: as compressible fluid. Luminous objects are formed from baryon matter
58: in the gravitational well of dark matter. Therefore, the dynamical
59: state of baryon fluid in nonlinear regime is crucial to understand
60: the formation and evolution of the large scale structures of the
61: universe. In the linear regime, the baryon fluid follows the mass
62: and velocity fields of collisionless dark matter. In the nonlinear
63: regime, however, the baryon fluid statistically decouples from the
64: underlying dark matter field. The statistical behavior of baryon
65: fluid is no longer described by a similar mapping of the underlying
66: dark matter field (e.g. Pando et al. 2004).
67:
68: It was first pointed out by Shandarin and Zeldovich (1989) that the
69: dynamical behavior of baryon matter clustering on large scales is
70: similar to turbulence. The expansion of the universe eliminates
71: the gravity of uniformly distributed dark matter. The motion of baryon
72: matter on scales larger than dissipation is like that of matter moving
73: by inertia. In this regime, the evolution of baryon matter is scale-free
74: and dynamically like fully developed turbulence in inertial range.
75: The turbulence of incompressible fluid leads the energy passes from
76: large to the smallest eddies, and finally dissipates into thermal motion.
77: While the clustering of cosmic baryon fluid is also due to the transform
78: of density perturbations on different scales, and finally falls and
79: dissipates into virialized halos of dark matter. Yet, the turbulence of
80: incompressible fluid is rotational (Landau \& Lifshitz 1987), while the
81: clustering of cosmic matter is irrotational, because vorticities
82: do not grow in an expanding universe (Peebles 1980).
83:
84: Nevertheless, the turbulence-like behavior of cosmic baryon fluid
85: has been gradually noticed. First, the dynamics of growth modes of
86: the cosmic matter is found to be sketched by a stochastic force
87: driven by Burger's equation (Gurbatov, et al 1989, Berera \& Fang,
88: 1994). The Burger's equation driven by the random force of the
89: gravity of dark matter can also sketch the evolution of baryon
90: fluid, if cooling and heating are ignored (Jones 1999; Matarrese \&
91: Mohayaee 2002). Later, the Burger's fluid is found to show
92: turbulence behavior if the Reynolds number is large enough (Polyakov
93: 1995; Lassig 2000; Bec \& Frisch 2000; Davoudi et al. 2001). The
94: Reynolds number of IGM at nonlinear regime actually is large.
95: Therefore, we may expect that, in the scale free range, the
96: dynamical state of cosmic baryon fluid should be Burger's
97: turbulence. The turbulence of Burger's fluid is different from the
98: turbulence of incompressible fluid. The later consists of vortices
99: on various scales, while the former is a collection of shocks.
100:
101: With the cosmological hydrodynamic simulation based on Navier-Stokes
102: equations in which heating and cooling processes are properly
103: accounted, it has been found that the velocity field of the IGM consists of
104: an ensemble of shocks, and satisfies some scaling relations predicted by
105: Burger's turbulence (Kim et al. 2005). This result reveals that the
106: turbulence features of cosmic baryon fluid are independent of the
107: details of dissipation (heating and cooling) mechanism if we consider only
108: the scale free range, i.e. from the scale of the onset of nonlinear evolution to
109: the scale of dissipation, say Jeans length.
110:
111: A new progress is to show that the velocity field of cosmic baryon fluid can
112: extremely well described by She-Leveque's (SL) scaling formula (He et al.
113: 2006). The SL formula is considered to be the basic statistical features of the
114: self-similar evolution of fully developed turbulence. Very recently, the
115: non-Gaussianities of mass density field of the hydrodynamic simulation
116: samples are found to be well consistent with the predictions of the
117: log-Poisson hierarchy, which originates from some hidden symmetry of the
118: Navier-Stokes equations. This hierarchical model gives a unified explanation
119: of non-Gaussian features of baryon fluid, including the intermittence,
120: hierarchical relation, scale-scale correlations etc (Liu \& Fang
121: 2008). These results strongly indicate that, in the scale free range, dynamical
122: state of cosmic baryon fluid is similar to a fully developed turbulence.
123:
124: In this paper, we investigate the log-Poisson hierarchy of cosmic
125: baryon fluid with observed data -- the Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux
126: of quasar absorption spectrum, which is due to the absorptions of
127: quasar continuum by the diffusely distributed neutral hydrogen (Bi
128: et al 1995, Bi \& Devidsen 1997, Rauch 1998). These samples offer a
129: unique way to study the non-Gaussian feature of cosmic baryon fluid.
130: It has been known for a long time that the fields of Ly$\alpha$
131: forests and transmitted flux are highly non-Gaussian. Observation
132: samples of Ly$\alpha$ forests and transmitted flux show scale-scale
133: correlation (Pando et al 1998), intermittence (Jamkhedkar et al.
134: 2000; Pando et al. 2002; Feng et al. 2003), non-thermal broadening
135: of \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$ absorption lines (Zheng et
136: al. 2004; Liu et al. 2006). We will show that the log-Poisson
137: hierarchy provides a crux to understand the non-Gaussian behavior.
138:
139: The outline of this paper is as follows. \S 2 gives an introduction of the
140: log-Poisson hierarchy. \S 3 shows that the neutral hydrogen component of cosmic
141: baryon fluid is of log-Poisson hierarchy. In \S 4, we study the log-Poisson
142: hierarchy of the field of Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux with observed samples of quasar
143: absorption spectra. A comparison between log-Poisson hierarchy and
144: log-normal model is also presented in \S 4. The conclusion and discussion are
145: given in \S 5.
146:
147: \section{Log-Poisson hierarchy}
148:
149: \subsection{Structure function}
150:
151: To describe the statistical properties of an isotropic and homogenous random field
152: $\rho({\bf x})$, it generally uses correlation functions of
153: $\delta \rho({\bf x})=\rho({\bf x})-\bar{\rho}$, $\bar{\rho}$ being the mean of
154: density. For instance, a two-point correlation function is
155: $\langle \delta \rho({\bf x})\delta \rho({\bf x'})\rangle$. To reveal the
156: turbulence-like
157: behavior, we use variable $\delta\rho_{r}= \rho({\bf x+r})-\rho({\bf x})$,
158: where $r=|\bf r|$. The variable $\delta\rho_{r}$ is very different from variable
159: $\delta \rho({\bf x})$. The later can be larger than $\bar{\rho}$, but cannot be less
160: than $-\bar{\rho}$, and therefore, for a nonlinear field, the distribution of $\delta
161: \rho({\bf x})$ generally is skew; however, the distribution of $\delta\rho_{r}$ is
162: symmetric with respect to positive and negative $\delta\rho_{r}$ if the field is
163: statistically uniform.
164:
165: With $\delta \rho({\bf x})$ the clustering and non-Gaussianity of mass density
166: $\rho({\bf x})$ are measured by two and multiple point correlation functions of
167: $\delta \rho({\bf x})$. With $\delta \rho_{r}$, the statistical features are
168: described by structure function defined as
169: %eq1
170: \begin{equation}
171: S_p(r)\equiv \langle |\delta\rho_r|^p\rangle,
172: \end{equation}
173: where $p$ is the order of statistics, and the average $\langle ...\rangle$
174: is taken over the ensemble of density field. A comparison of the correlation
175: function and structure function has been analyzed in detail by Monin \& Yaglom
176: (1975). The 2nd structure function $S_2=\langle |\delta\rho_r|^2\rangle$ as a
177: function $r$ (scale) actually is the power spectrum of the mass density field
178: $\rho({\bf r})$ (Fang \& Feng 2000).
179:
180: In the scale-free range of the dynamical equations and initial conditions,
181: the structure function is scale-invariant, and therefore, it is generally
182: expressed as a power law of $r$
183: %eq2
184: \begin{equation}
185: S_p(r)\propto r^{\xi(p)}.
186: \end{equation}
187: $\xi(p)$ is called intermittent exponent. Since the pioneer work of
188: Kolmogorov (1941), it is believed that the relation of $\xi(p)$ vs.
189: $p$ is related to the scale-covariance of the dynamical equations
190: and initial conditions. For fully developed turbulence of
191: Navier-Stokes fluid, $\xi(p)$ is a nonlinear function of $p$. Since
192: then many hierarchy models for interpreting $\xi(p)$ have been proposed
193: (Frisch 1995). Finally the best model is given by the SL scaling
194: formula (She \& Leveque 1994), which is yielded from the Log-Poisson
195: hierarchy process (Dubrulle 1994).
196:
197: Although the cosmic baryon fluid is not incompressible, samples of
198: mass and velocity fields of cosmic baryon fluid produced by the
199: cosmological hydroidynamic simulation of the concordance
200: $\Lambda$CDM model show in good arrgement with the SL scaling and
201: log-Poisson hierarchy. This is not surprising, because the
202: hierarchical structure model is mainly based on the invariance and
203: symmetry of nonlinear dynamical systems. Therefore, systems other
204: than the Navier-Stokes incompressible fluid will also show the SZ
205: scaling and log-Poisson hierarchy if they have the similar
206: invariance and symmetry (She 1997).
207:
208: \subsection{Log-Poisson hierarchical cascade}
209:
210: The scenario of hierarchical clustering has been widely used to
211: describe nonlinear evolution of the mass field of cosmic matter. We
212: will first give the basic assumptions of log-Poisson hierarchy
213: cascade, and then discuss the physics behind this model.
214:
215: The log-Poisson hierarchy assumes that, in the scale free range, the
216: variables (density fluctuation) $|\delta\rho_{r}|$ on different scales $r$
217: are related by a statistical relation as (Dubrulle 1994, She \&
218: Waymire 1995),
219: %eq3
220: \begin{equation}
221: |\delta\rho_{r_2}| = W_{r_1r_2}|\delta\rho_{r_1}|,
222: \end{equation}
223: where
224: %eq4
225: \begin{equation}
226: W_{r_1r_2}=\beta^m (r_1/r_2)^{\gamma}.
227: \end{equation}
228: In eqs.(3) and (4), $r_1\geq r_2$, and $m$ is a random variable with the
229: Poisson PDF as
230: %eq5
231: \begin{equation}
232: P(m)=\exp(-\lambda_{r_1r_2})\lambda_{r_1r_2}^m/m!.
233: \end{equation}
234: To insure the normalization $\langle W_{r_1r_2} \rangle=1$, where
235: $\langle...\rangle$ is over $m$, the mean $\lambda_{r_1r_2}$ of the
236: Poisson distribution should be
237: %eq6
238: \begin{equation}
239: \lambda_{r_1r_2}= \gamma[\ln(r_1/r_2)]/(1-\beta).
240: \end{equation}
241:
242: The model eq.(3) describes how a density fluctuation $|\delta\rho_{r_1}|$
243: on larger scale $r_1$ statistically related to fluctuation $|\delta\rho_{r_2}|$
244: on smaller
245: scale $r_2$. The log-Poisson model depends only on the ratio
246: $r_1/r_2$. Thus, it is scale invariant. The random variable $m$ can be
247: considered as the steps of the evolution from $|\delta\rho_{r_1}|$ to
248: $|\delta\rho_{r_2}|$. When $\beta$ is smaller, only the evolutionary
249: process with lower steps is important.
250:
251: For a Gaussian field, variables $\delta\rho_{r_1}$ and
252: $\delta\rho_{r_2}$ have to be statistically independent. It likes
253: that the Fourier modes with different wavenumber $k_1\propto 1/r_1$
254: and $k_2\propto 1/r_2$ are statistically independent. Therefore, a
255: Gaussian field has to be $\beta = 1$. Thus, the parameters $\beta<1$
256: is a measure of the deviation from Gaussian field. The meaning of
257: $\gamma$ will be given later.
258:
259: Among hierarchical clustering models, the log-Poisson hierarchy has
260: the following features. First, the relation between
261: $|\delta\rho_{r_1}|$ and $|\delta\rho_{r_2}|$ given by eq.(3) is a
262: multiplicative random process. A random multiplicative cascade
263: generally yields a non-Gaussian field. That is, even the field on
264: large scale $r_1$ is Gaussian, it will be non-Gaussian on small
265: scale $r_2$. This is different from additive random process (e.g.
266: Cole \& Kaiser 1988), which generally yields Gaussian field (Pando
267: et al. 1998).
268:
269: Second, the cascade from scale $r_1$ to $r_2$, and then to $r_3$ is
270: identical to the cascade from $r_1$ to $r_3$. It is because
271: $W_{r_1r_3}=W_{r_1r_2}W_{r_2r_3}=\beta^N (r_1/r_3)^{\gamma}$, where
272: $N$ is again a Poisson random variable with
273: $\lambda_{r_1r_3}=\lambda_{r_1r_2}+\lambda_{r_2r_3}$. Therefore, the
274: log-Poisson hierarchy removes an arbitrariness in defining the steps
275: of cascade from $r_1$ to $r_2$ or $r_2$ to $r_3$. This arbitrariness
276: is a major shortcoming of many hierarchical clustering
277: models, one of them, for instance, is the clustering hierarchy
278: models (Soneira \& Peebles 1977, Peebles 1980).
279:
280: Third, although the log-Poisson hierarchical process is discrete in
281: terms of the discrete random number $m$, it is infinitely divisible.
282: That is, there is no lower limit on the difference $r_1-r_2$. It
283: can be infinitesimal. This is consistent with the continuous
284: variable $r$ used in the hydrodynamic equation of cosmic baryon
285: fluid. The infinite divisibility can not be modeled with hierarchy
286: of discrete objects with finite size. Log-normal model is also
287: infinitely divisible. However, their asymptotic behavior of $\xi(p)$
288: at larger $p$ is unbound. We will compare the log-normal model with
289: log-Poisson in \S 4.4.
290:
291: \subsection{Intermitted exponent}
292:
293: With log-Poisson hierarchy eq.(3), the intermittent exponent $\xi(p)$
294: is found to be (Liu \& Fang 2008)
295: %eq7
296: \begin{equation}
297: \xi(p)=-\gamma[p-(1-\beta^{p})/(1-\beta)].
298: \end{equation}
299: When $\beta \rightarrow 1$, we have $\xi(p)=0$. Therefore, $\beta= 1$ is a
300: Gaussian field. A field with $\beta<1$ is called intermittent. Eq.(7) requires
301: $\xi(1)=0$. Therefore, the difference of an intermittent field from
302: Gaussian is mainly given by the term $\gamma(1-\beta^{p})/(1-\beta)$ of
303: eq.(7).
304:
305: From eq.(7), the power spectrum $S_2(r)={\rm const}$ is
306: flat. This is not generally applicable for the cosmic density field.
307: In the scale free range, the power spectrum of mass field is of
308: power-law. Thus, we should generalize the
309: log-Poisson hierarchy eq.(3) by replacing $\delta\rho_{r_1}$ and
310: $\delta\rho_{r_2}$ with $r_1^{\alpha}\delta\rho_{r_1}$ and
311: $r_2^{\alpha}\delta\rho_{r_2}$. In this case, the intermitted exponent
312: $\xi(p)$ is
313: %eq8
314: \begin{equation}
315: \xi(p)=-\alpha p-\gamma[p-(1-\beta^{p})/(1-\beta)].
316: \end{equation}
317: Eqs.(2) and (7) yield $S_2(r)\propto r^{-2\alpha}$, and therefore, the
318: parameter $2\alpha$ is the index of power spectrum. When $\alpha=0$,
319: eq.(8) is the same as eq.(7).
320:
321: \subsection{$\beta$-hierarchy}
322:
323: Since $|\delta\rho_r|^p$ is the $p$-th moment of the $\delta\rho_r$,
324: for high $p$, one can attribute the structure function $S_p(r)$ to
325: the events located at the tail of the probability
326: distribution function (PDF) of $\delta\rho_r$. To pick up the
327: structures, which dominant the $p$-order statistics of
328: $\delta\rho_r$, we define
329: %eq9
330: \begin{equation}
331: F_p(r) \equiv S_{p+1}(r)/S_p(r).
332: \end{equation}
333: From equations (2) and (8), equation (9) gives
334: %eq10
335: \begin{equation}
336: F_p(r) =A r^{-\alpha -\gamma(1-\beta^p)}.
337: \end{equation}
338: where the constant $A$ is independent of $r$ and $p$. For an
339: intermittent field $\beta<1$, we have $F_{\infty}(r) =A
340: r^{-\alpha-\gamma}$. Thus, from eq.(10), one can find
341: %eq11
342: \begin{equation}
343: \frac{F_{p}(r)}{F_{\infty}(r)}= \left
344: [\frac{F_{p+1}(r)}{F_{\infty}(r)}\right]^{1/\beta},
345: \end{equation}
346:
347: Equation (11) is invariant with respect to a translation in $p$.
348: Since $F_p(r)$ measures the structures dominating the $p$ order
349: statistics, the larger the $p$, the larger the contribution of
350: strong-clustered structures to $F_p(r)$. Therefore, equation (11)
351: describes the hierarchical relation between the stronger (or high
352: $p$) and weaker (or low $p$) clustering. In the scale-free range
353: where $F_{p+1}(r)/F_{\infty}(r)<1$, we have $F_{p}(r)/F_{\infty}(r)<
354: F_{p+1}(r)/F_{\infty}(r)$ if $\beta<1$. That is, for an intermittent
355: field, weak clustering structures are strongly suppressed with
356: respect to the strong clustering; the smaller the $\beta$, the
357: stronger the suppression of weak clustering structures.
358:
359: From eq.(11), we have
360: %eq12
361: \begin{equation}
362: \ln F_{p+1}(r)/F_3(r)=\beta\ln F_{p}(r)/ F_2(r).
363: \end{equation}
364: This, for {\it all} $r$ and $p$, $\ln [F_{p+1}(r)/F_3(r)]$ vs.
365: $\ln [F_{p}(r)/F_2(r)]$ should be on a straight line with slope
366: $\beta$. It is called $\beta$-hierarchy. Eq.(12) does not contain
367: parameter $\gamma$ and term $F_{\infty}(r)$, and therefore, it is a
368: testable prediction of the log-Poisson hierarchy.
369:
370: Therefore, log-Poisson hierarchy links the sizes of fluctuation
371: structures [eq.(3)] as well as their amplitude or intensity [eq.(11)].
372: This is different from hierarchy models, which give only
373: the relationship between the sizes of objects. The hierarchical relation
374: eq.(11) actually is the origin of the log-Poisson hierarchy. That is,
375: the hierarchical relation like eq.(11) is the first recognized to be held
376: for dynamical system described by the Naiver-Stokes equations, or equations
377: close to the Naiver-Stokes fluid (Dubrulle 1994, Leveque \& She 1997).
378: Therefore, the SL formula has also been successfully applied to describe the
379: mass fields of compressible fluid (Boldyrev et al 2002, Padoan et al 2003).
380:
381: \subsection{$\gamma$-related non-Gaussianities}
382:
383: The ratio between higher order to second order moments $\langle
384: \delta\rho_r^{2p}\rangle/\langle\delta\rho_r^{2}\rangle^p$ is a
385: popular tool to measure non-Gaussianity. When $p=2$, the ratio is
386: kurtosis. For a Gaussian field, the ratio is independent of $r$, and
387: equal to
388: %eq14
389: \begin{equation}
390: \frac{\langle \delta\rho_r^{2p}\rangle}{\langle
391: \delta\rho_r^{2}\rangle^p}= (2p-1)!!.
392: \end{equation}
393: For log-Poisson hierarchy, one can show(Liu \& Fang 2008)
394: %eq15
395: \begin{equation}
396: \ln \frac{\langle \delta\rho_r^{2p}\rangle}{\langle
397: \delta\rho_r^{2}\rangle^p}= K_p\ln r +{\rm const}
398: \end{equation}
399: The moment ratio
400: $\ln(\langle\delta\rho_r^{2p}\rangle/\langle\delta \rho_r^2\rangle^p)$
401: is linearly dependent on $\ln r$ (scale free) with the slope $K_p$
402: given by
403: %eq16
404: \begin{equation}
405: K_p=-\gamma\frac{p(1-\beta^2)-(1-\beta^{2p})}{1-\beta}.
406: \end{equation}
407: As expected, for Gaussian field $(\beta\rightarrow 1)$, $K_p=0$,
408: i.e. the ratio of moments is independent of $r$ [Eq.(14)]. That is,
409: $K_p$ only depends on the last term on the right hand side of
410: eq.(8), regardless the parameter $\alpha$.
411:
412: Other useful non-Gaussian detector is the scale-scale correlation
413: defined as
414: %eq17
415: \begin{equation}
416: C^{p,p}_{r_1,r_2}\equiv \frac{\langle \delta \rho_{r_1}^{p}\delta
417: \rho_{r_2}^{p}\rangle} {\langle \delta \rho_{r_1}^{p}\rangle
418: \langle\delta \rho_{r_2}^{p}\rangle},
419: \end{equation}
420: which describes the correlation between the density fluctuations on
421: scales $r_1$ and $r_2$. Obviously, for a Gaussian field,
422: $C^{p,p}_{r_1,r_2}=1$. The clustering of cosmic large scale
423: structure in the nonlinear regime essentially is due to the
424: interaction between the modes of fluctuations on different scales
425: (e.g., Peebles 1980). Therefore, it is important to detect the
426: scale-scale correlation of cosmic baryon matter.
427:
428: If the ratio $r_2/r_1$ is fixed, the log-Poisson hierarchy predicts
429: the scale-scale correlation to be (Liu \& Fang 2008)
430: %eq17
431: \begin{equation}
432: C^{p,p}_{r_1,r_2}=B(r_2/r_1)r_1^{\xi(2p)-2\xi(p)},
433: \end{equation}
434: where the factor $B(r_2/r_1)$ is constant when the ratio $r_2/r_1$
435: is fixed. This is because the log-Poisson model is invariant with
436: respect to scale dilation. From eqs.(7) or (8), we have
437: %eq18
438: \begin{equation}
439: \xi(2p)-2\xi(p)= -\gamma(1-\beta^p)^2/(1-\beta)
440: \end{equation}
441: Thus, if $r_2/r_1$ remains constant, the relationship of $\ln
442: C^{p,p}_{r_1,r_2}$ vs. $\ln r_1$ should be a straight line with
443: slope $-\gamma(1-\beta^p)^2/(1-\beta)$. This slop is also only
444: dependent on the last term on the right hand side of eq.(8), regardless the
445: parameter $\alpha$.
446:
447: \section{Log-Poisson hierarchy of neutral hydrogen density field}
448:
449: Ly$\alpha$ absorption spectrum depends on the distribution of
450: neutral hydrogen. We first study the mass density field of diffused
451: neutral hydrogen. Since the UV background radiation is uniform and
452: does not introduce special spatial scale, one may expect that the
453: mass density field of neutral hydrogen is also a field of the
454: log-Poisson hierarchy. However, the ratio of the neutral hydrogen
455: density $\rho_{\rm HI}({\bf x})$ to total hydrogen density
456: $\rho_{\rm H}({\bf x})$ is not spatially constant, because
457: the temperature-density relation is of multiphase (He et
458: al 2004, 2005). Therefore, the mass field of the neutral hydrogen would
459: not have the same log-Poisson hierarchical features as of $\rho({\bf
460: x})$.
461:
462: \subsection{Simulation samples}
463:
464: The simulation samples of the fields of baryon fluid are generated
465: by the same way as Liu \& Fang (2008), which is based on the hybrid
466: hydrodynamic N-body code of Weighted Essentially Non-oscillatory
467: (WENO) scheme (Feng et al. 2004). It is in Eulerian scheme and
468: suitable to analyze the fluid in high as well as in low mass density
469: areas. The WENO samples have been successfully applied to reveal the
470: self-similar hierarchy behavior of cosmic baryon fluid (Kim et al.
471: 2005; He et al. 2006; Liu \& Fang 2008), to explain the HI and HeII
472: Ly$\alpha$ absorption in quasar spectra (Liu et al. 2006), and to
473: study the relation between X-ray luminosity and temperature of
474: groups of galaxies (Zhang et al. 2006). It is also used for studying
475: Ly$\alpha$ leaks at high redshift (Liu et al. 2007).
476:
477: The simulation is performed in a comoving cubic box of 100 $h^{-1}$
478: Mpc with 512$^3$ grids and an equal number of dark matter
479: particles. The grid size is $100/512\sim 0.2$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc, which is
480: less than Jeans length, and therefore, it is enough to catch the
481: statistical behavior in the scale-free range, i.e. larger than the
482: Jeans length and less than non-linear scale. We use the concordance
483: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology model with parameters $\Omega_{\rm m}$=0.27,
484: $\Omega_{\rm b}$=0.044, $\Omega_\Lambda$=0.73, $h$=0.71,
485: $\sigma_8$=0.84, and spectral index $n=1$. The transfer function is
486: calculated using CMBFAST (Seljak \& Zaldarriaga 1996). We take a
487: primordial composition of H and He ($X$=0.76, $Y$=0.24).
488:
489: The ionization fraction is calculated with ionization-recombination
490: equilibrium under a uniform UV radiative background, of which the intensity is
491: adjusted to fit the mean of observed Ly$\alpha$ tarnsmitted flux. We
492: produce the distributions of the mass density of hydrogen $\rho({\bf x})$,
493: the fraction of neutral hydrogen $f_{\rm HI}({\bf x})$, temperature
494: $T({\bf x)}$, and velocity ${\bf v}({\bf x})$ at redshift $z\simeq
495: 2.5$, which is the mean redshift of observed samples used in \S 4.
496:
497: We randomly sample 10,000 one-dimensional sub-samples to simulate the
498: Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux (\S 4). To estimate the errors,
499: we divided the 10,000 samples into 10 subsamples, each of which has 1,000
500: line samples.
501:
502: %fig1
503: \begin{figure}[htb]
504: \center
505: \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=-90]{f1.eps}
506: \caption{Function $F_p(r)$ vs. $r$ of simulation samples of the mass
507: density field of neutral hydrogen in the scale range $0.9 < r< 15$
508: h$^{-1}$ Mpc, and $p=0.5\times n$, with $n=1,2...8$ from bottom to
509: top.}
510: \end{figure}
511:
512: \subsection{Log-Poisson hierarchical statistics}
513:
514: The variable $\delta\rho_{r}= \rho({\bf x+r})-\rho({\bf x})$ of
515: density field $\rho({\bf x+r})$ can be calculated by a discrete wavelet
516: transform (DWT) as
517: %eq20
518: \begin{equation}
519: \delta\rho_{r,l}=\int \rho_{\rm HI}({x})\psi_{j,l}({x})d{x},
520: \end{equation}
521: where $\psi_{j,l}({x})$ is the base of discrete wavelet transform
522: (e.g. Fang \& Thews 1998). For a one-dimensional sample in physical
523: space from $x=0$ to $L$, the scale index $j$ is related to the scale
524: $r$ by $r=L/2^{j}$ and the position index $l$ is for the cell located
525: at $x=lL/2^{j}$ to $(l+1)L/2^{j}$. Because the DWT bases
526: $\psi_{j,l}({x})$ are orthogonal, the variables $\delta\rho_{r,l}$
527: do not cause false correlation. They are effective to describe
528: turbulence of fluid (Farge 1992). For a given scale $r$ or $j$, the
529: statistical average $\langle ...\rangle$ of eq.(5) is over all cells
530: $l$. We will use the Harr wavelet to do the calculation below. We
531: also repeat the calculations with wavelet Daubechies 4.
532:
533: %fig2
534: \begin{figure}[htb]
535: \center
536: \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=-90]{f2.eps}
537: \caption{$\ln [F_{p+1}(r)/F_3(r)]$ vs. $\ln [F_p(r)/F_2(r)]$ for
538: simulation samples of the mass density field of neutral hydrogen.
539: The data points are on scales $r=$1.78, 3.57, 7.14 and 14.3 h$^{-1}$
540: Mpc and the statistical order to be $p=$ 1, 1.5, 2, and 2.5.}
541: \end{figure}
542:
543: %fig3
544: \begin{figure}[htb]
545: \center
546: \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=-90]{f3.eps}
547: \caption{Intermittent exponent $\xi(p)$ of simulation samples of the
548: mass density field of neutral hydrogen. The solid line is given by
549: equation (8) with parameters $\alpha=0.25$, $\beta=0.60$ and
550: $\gamma=0.75$. The error bars are the variance of $\xi(p)$ over 10
551: samples, each of which contains of 1000 one-dimensional samples.}
552: \end{figure}
553:
554: Figures 1 - 3 demonstrate that the density field $\rho_{\rm HI}({\bf
555: x})$ of neutral hydrogen shows the features of log-Poisson
556: hierarchy. Figure 1 shows the functions $F_p(r)$ of the field
557: $\rho_{\rm HI}$ in the physical length scale range $0.9 <r< 15$
558: h$^{-1}$ Mpc and orders of $p=0.5\times n$ with $n=1, 2...8$. For
559: all $p$, $\ln F_p(r)$ can be well fitted by a straight line of $\ln
560: r$. It is consistent with eq.(10). When $p>3$, $F_p(r)$ given in
561: Figure 1 is almost independent of $p$. This indicates that
562: $F_p(r)\rightarrow F_{\infty}$ for higher $p$. Thus, from eq.(10),
563: $\beta$ should be less than 1, and therefore, the field is
564: intermittent. In this case, the slope of the straight lines with
565: higher $p$ has to be equal to $-\alpha-\gamma$. Figure 1 shows
566: $\alpha+\gamma = 1.0$.
567:
568: Figure 2 is the $\beta$-hierarchy eq.(12) of the density field
569: $\rho_{\rm HI}$, in which the error bars are given by the ranges of
570: $\ln [F_{p+1}(r)/F_3(r)]$ and $\ln [F_p(r)/F_2(r)]$ of the 10 subsamples,
571: each of which consists of 1,000 lines. The $\beta$-hierarchy is held
572: for all $r$ in $1 <r< 15$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc and $p=$0.5 to 4. It yields
573: $\beta =0.73 \pm 0.19$.
574:
575: Figure 3 plots the intermittent exponent $\xi(p)$ [eq.(8)]. It shows
576: that $\xi(p)$ can be well fitted with eq.(8) with parameters
577: $\beta=0.60$, $\alpha+\gamma=1.0$ and $\alpha=0.25$. These
578: parameters are in agreement with that given by Figures 1 and 2. The
579: error bars of Figure 3 are also the range of the 10 subsamples.
580: Therefore, the HI mass density distribution in the scale range of
581: $\sim 1$ to 15 h$^{-1}$Mpc can also be described by the log-Poisson
582: hierarchy. However, the parameters $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are
583: different from that of density field $\rho({\bf x})$, which has
584: $\beta \simeq 0.47$, and $\gamma\simeq 1$ (Liu \& Fang 2008). That
585: is, the density field $\rho_{\rm HI}({\bf x})$ is weaker
586: intermittent and less singular than that of $\rho({\bf x})$.
587:
588: \section{Log-Poisson hierarchy of Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux}
589:
590: \subsection{Samples}
591:
592: \subsubsection{Observed data}
593:
594: For observed samples of Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux, we use the high
595: resolution, high signal to noise ratio QSO Ly$\alpha$ absorption
596: spectra of Jamkhedkar (2002), Jamkhedkar et al. (2003). The power spectrum
597: and intermittency of this data set have been extensively and deeply analyzed
598: (Pando et al. 2002; Feng et al. 2002; Jamkhedkar et al.2003). It is useful
599: for testing the log-Poisson hierarchy.
600:
601: This observational data set consists of 28 Keck High Resolution
602: (HIRES) QSO spectra (Kirkman \& Tytler 1997). The QSO emission
603: redshifts cover a redshift range from 2.19 to 4.11. The resolution
604: is about 8 km s$^{-1}$. For each of the 28 QSOs, the data are given
605: in form of pixels with wavelength, flux and noise. The noise
606: accounts for the Poisson fluctuations in the photon count, the noise
607: due to the background and the instrumentation. The continuum of each
608: spectrum is given by IRAF CONTINUUM fitting.
609:
610: The data are divided into 12 redshift ranges from $z=1.6 + n\times
611: 0.20$ to 1.6 + $(n+1)\times$ 0.20 where $n=0, \ldots, 11$. In our
612: analysis below, we use only the data in the range $z = 2.4$ to 2.6,
613: which is the same as our simulation data. The scale range is taken
614: to be 1.54 to 12.3 h$^{-1}$ Mpc, which is also about the same as
615: simulation samples. The mean flux in this redshift range is
616: $\langle F\rangle\simeq 0.75$ (Jamkhedkar, 2002).
617:
618: We use the same methods of Jamkhedkar et al. (2003) to deal with
619: noises, metal lines, proximity effect, and bad data chunks. On
620: average the S/N ratio of the Keck spectra is high. Most of the
621: regions with low S/N are saturated absorption regions. Although the
622: percentage of pixels within these regions is not large, they may
623: introduce large uncertainties in the analysis. We should reduce the
624: uncertainty given by low S/N pixels. The method is as follows.
625: First, we calculate the SFCs (scaling function coefficients) of both
626: transmission flux field $F(x)$ and noise field $n(x)$ with
627: $\epsilon_{jl}^F=\int F(x)\phi_{j,l}(x)dx$ and $\epsilon_{jl}^N=\int
628: n(x)\phi_{j,l}(x)dx$, where $\phi_{j,l}(x)$ is the scaling function
629: of wavelet on scale $j$ and at position $l$. We then identify
630: unwanted mode $(j,l)$ by using the threshold condition
631: $|\epsilon_{jl}^F/\epsilon_{jl}^N| < f$. This condition flags all
632: modes with S/N less than f. The parameter $f$ is taken to be 3. We
633: also flag modes dominated by metal lines. In order to easily flag
634: data gaps, we set the flux at the gaps to be zero and the error to
635: one, and do the same thing for pixels with negative flux. Finally,
636: we skip all the flagged modes when doing statistics. With this
637: method, no rejoining and smoothing of the data are needed.
638:
639: \subsubsection{Simulation samples}
640:
641: To simulate Ly$\alpha$ transmitted
642: flux $F$, we use the 10,000 one-dimensional samples given in \S 3.1.
643: For each 1-D sample, the transmitted flux of Ly$\alpha$, $F(z)$ in
644: redshift space is calculated with $F(z)=\exp[-\tau(z)]$, where
645: $\tau(z)$ is the optical depth defined as
646: %eq21
647: \begin{equation}
648: \tau(z)=\frac{\sigma_0 c}{H}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} n_{\rm HI}(x)
649: V[z-x-v(x), b(x)]dx,
650: \end{equation}
651: in which $\sigma_0$ is the effective cross-section of the resonant
652: absorption; $H$ is Hubble constant at the redshift of the sample,
653: $n_{\rm HI}(x)$ is the number density of neutral hydrogen atoms. The
654: Voigt function is $V[z-x-v(x),
655: b(x)]=1/(\pi^{1/2}b)\exp\{-[z-x-v(x)]^2/b^2(x)\}$, and $b(x)$ being
656: the thermal broadening. To has a proper comparison between
657: simulation and observation, we add noises $n_i=G \times A_i$ to each
658: pixel $i$, where $G$ is randomly sampled from standard normal
659: distribution and $A_i$ is the noise level of pixel $i$. We then
660: take the same data reduction of noised modes as observed data.
661:
662: \subsection{Redshift distortion and $\beta$-hierarchy}
663:
664: The velocity field $v(x)$ and thermal broadening $b(x)$ of eq.(20)
665: will lead to the deviation of the statistical properties of $\ln
666: F(z)=-\tau(z)$ from $n_{\rm HI}(x)$ or $\rho_{\rm HI}(x)$. The field
667: $\ln F(z)$ is no longer to show all features of log-Poisson
668: hierarchy. We should study which properties of the log-Poisson
669: hierarchy can still be seen with Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux.
670:
671: Because the scale free range is larger than the Jeans length, the
672: effect of thermal broadening would be small in this range. In this
673: case, eq.(20) can be approximately as
674: %eq22
675: \begin{equation}
676: -\ln F(z)=\tau(z)=\frac{\sigma_0 c}{H}\int n_{\rm HI}(x)\delta[z-x-v(x)]dx.
677: \end{equation}
678: This relation actually is a mapping from a physical space field
679: $n_{\rm HI}(x)$ to redshift space field $\tau(z)$, which is the same
680: as that used in the redshift distortion of galaxy distribution. It
681: has been shown that, with the DWT variables, the redshift distortion
682: of eq.(21) can be estimated by (Yang et al 2002)
683: %eq23
684: \begin{equation}
685: \delta \tau_{r,l}=\mathfrak{R}_r \delta \rho_{r,l},
686: \end{equation}
687: where the DWT variables $\delta \tau_{r,l}$ are given by $\delta \tau_{r,l}=\int
688: \tau({x})\psi_{j,l}({x})d{x}= \int[-\ln F(x)]\psi_{j,l}({x})d{x}$.
689: The redshift distortion factor $\mathfrak{R}_r$ depends on the DWT
690: power spectrum of the velocity field $v(x)$ on scale $r=L/2^j$.
691:
692: %fig4
693: \begin{figure}[htb]
694: \center
695: \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=-90]{f4.eps}
696: \caption{The $\beta$-hierarchy of observed sample of the Ly$\alpha$
697: transmitted flux at redshift $z=2.4 - 2.6$ and physical scale range
698: from $\sim$ 1 to 15 h$^{-1}$ Mpc. The error bars are given by the
699: maximum and minimum of bootstrap resampling.}
700: \end{figure}
701:
702: Because the average of $\langle ...\rangle$ in the structure
703: function eq.(1), or $S_p(r=L/2^j)=\langle |\delta\rho_{j,l}|^p\rangle$,
704: is only over on modes $l$, the redshift distortion factor
705: $\mathfrak{R}_r$ does not involve in this average. Thus, the function
706: $F_p(r)$ of $\delta \tau_{r,l}$ will be different from the function
707: $F_p(r)$ of $\delta \rho_{r,l}$ by a factor $\mathfrak{R}_r$. Thus,
708: both $ F_{p+1}(r)/F_3(r)$ and $F_{p}(r)/ F_2(r)$ of $\delta
709: \tau_{r,l}$ do not contain the redshift distortion factor
710: $\mathfrak{R}_r$. Thus, $F_{p+1}(r)/F_3(r)$ and $F_{p}(r)/ F_2(r)$
711: of $\delta \tau_{r,l}$ should also satisfy the $\beta$-hierarchy
712: eq.(12) as that of field $\rho_{\rm HI}$. That is, the
713: $\beta$-hierarchy is not affected by the redshift distortion.
714:
715: Figure 4 presents the $\beta$-hierarchy of observed transmitted flux
716: $F(z)$. It is very well fitted by a straight line for data on
717: the scale range from $\sim$ 1 to 15 h$^{-1}$ Mpc. It yields
718: $\beta=0.67\pm 0.02$. Figure 5 shows the $\beta$-hierarchy of
719: observed transmitted flux, which is the same as Fig.4, and the
720: noised simulation samples $F$. We see that the both real and simulation
721: samples are well coincident. The simulation samples yield
722: $\beta=0.66\pm 0.02$. Therefore, both real and simulation samples are well
723: $\beta$-hierarchical, and the numbers of $\beta$ are well
724: consistent.
725:
726: %fig5
727: \begin{figure}[htb]
728: \center
729: \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=-90]{f5.eps}
730: \caption{The $\beta$-hierarchy for a. observed data (square) as Fig.
731: 4; b. simulation sample (circle) of the Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux
732: at redshift $z=2.5$ and Gaussian noises are added with the same
733: level as real data.}
734: \end{figure}
735:
736: The data points of Figure 4 are scattered along the straight line
737: $F_{p+1}(r)/F_3(r)$-$F_{p}(r)/ F_2(r)$, while the points of Figure 5
738: are clustered. This is due to all simulation samples have the same
739: length, while for real samples consisting quasars with different
740: redshift, we take only the sections of transmitted flux, which are
741: in the redshift range $z\simeq 2.4$ - 2.6.
742:
743: \subsection{High order moments}
744:
745: The statistics of eq.(14) is based on the ratio between high order
746: moment $\langle\delta\rho_r^{2p}\rangle$ and
747: $\langle\delta\rho_r^{2}\rangle^p$, both of which have the same
748: order of $\delta\rho_r$. When $p=2$, the ratio actually is kurtosis.
749: The moment ratio of $\langle\delta\tau_r^{2p}\rangle$ to
750: $\langle\delta\tau_r^{2}\rangle^p$, obviously, is independent of the
751: redshift distortion factor $\mathfrak{R}_r$. Therefore, the ratio of
752: $\langle\delta\tau_r^{2p}\rangle$ to
753: $\langle\delta\tau_r^{2}\rangle^p$ has to satisfy the same property
754: as $\langle\delta\rho_r^{2p}\rangle$ to
755: $\langle\delta\rho_r^{2}\rangle^p$. Thus, for a given $p$, the
756: relation of
757: $\ln\langle(\delta\tau_r)^{2p}\rangle/\langle(\delta\tau_r)^{2}\rangle^p$
758: and $\ln r$ has to be a straight line with slope
759: $-\gamma[p(1-\beta^2)-(1-\beta^{2p})]/(1-\beta)$ [eq.(15)]. Since
760: the parameter $\beta$ is already determined by the
761: $\beta$-hierarchy, the test here is whether we can find one parameter
762: $\gamma$ to fit the slops of
763: $\langle\delta\tau_r^{2p}\rangle/\langle\delta\tau_r^{2}\rangle^p$ vs.
764: $\ln r$ for different $p$.
765:
766: %fig6
767: \begin{figure}[htb]
768: \center
769: \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=-90]{f6.eps}
770: \caption{$\ln
771: [\langle(\delta\tau_r)^{2p}\rangle/\langle(\delta\tau_r)^{2}\rangle^p]$
772: vs. $r$ of real data in the scale range $\sim 1 $ - 15 h$^{-1}$ Mpc,
773: and $p$ is taken to be 2 (bottom) and 3 (top). The solid lines are
774: given by the least square fitting, which yield slopes $0.54\pm 0.19
775: $ ($p=2$), and $1.3\pm 0.4$ ($p=3$). The error bars are given by the
776: maximum and minimum of bootstrap resampling.}
777: \end{figure}
778:
779: The result is presented in Fig. 6. It shows the relation of $\ln (\langle
780: \delta\tau_r^{2p}\rangle/\langle (\delta\tau_r)^{2}\rangle^p)$ vs.
781: $\ln r$ for real data with $p=2$ and 3, i.e. the statistics are of
782: the order of 4 and 6. The slopes of the fitted straight lines are
783: $0.54\pm 0.19$ for $p=2$, and $1.3\pm 0.4$ for $p=3$.
784: Thus, using $\beta=0.67$, we have $\gamma= 0.59\pm 0.20$ for $p=2$ and
785: $\gamma=0.58\pm 0.22$ for $p=3$. In spite that the statistical errors
786: are still large, one can already see that different $p$-lines yield
787: about the same parameter $\gamma$. In other words, the moment
788: statistics passed the test of log-Poisson hierarchy.
789:
790: The number of $\gamma$ given by the real data of the transmitted
791: flux is less than the number $\gamma=0.75$ of $\rho_{\rm HI}$ field
792: (\S 3.2). Therefore, the field of transmitted flux of real samples
793: is less singular than the field $\rho_{\rm HI}$. This is reasonable
794: if considering the real data are noised.
795:
796: \subsection{Log-Poisson hierarchy and log-normal model}
797:
798: In \S 4.2 and 4.3., we have found that the log-Poisson parameters of
799: the transmitted flux should be $\beta=0.67\pm 0.02 $ and
800: $\gamma=0.58\pm 0.22$. This result can be used to compare the
801: log-Poisson hierarchy and log-normal model. We now consider the
802: moment ratio $\ln [\langle
803: \delta\tau_r^{2p}\rangle/\langle (\delta\tau_r)^{2}\rangle^p]$ as a
804: function of $p$ on a given scale $r$.
805:
806: %fig7
807: \begin{figure}[htb]
808: \center
809: \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=-90]{f7.eps}
810: %\includegraphics[scale=0.35,angle=-90]{F9_final.ps}
811: \caption{$\ln
812: \langle\delta\tau_r^{2p}\rangle/\langle\delta\tau_r^{2}\rangle^p$ as
813: a function of $p$ for real data of Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux at
814: the range $z\sim 2.4$ - 2.6 on physical scales $r=1.54$ (nabla),
815: 3.07 (triangle), 6.14 (circle)and 12.3 (square) h$^{-1}$ Mpc. The
816: curves are from the fitting of log-Poisson model. For clarify, we show
817: only the error bars for data points of $r=1.54$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc. The errors
818: of other $r$ are about the same level as $r=1.54$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc.}
819: \end{figure}
820:
821: Figure 7 presents the $\langle \delta\tau_r^{2p}\rangle/\langle
822: \delta\tau_r^{2}\rangle^p$ as a function of $p$ for real data on
823: scales $r=1.54$ (nabla), 3.07 (triangle), 6.14 (circle)and 12.3
824: (square) h$^{-1}$ Mpc. $p$ is from 1 to 4. The $p$-dependent
825: curves shown in Figure 7 are given by eqs.(14) and (15), in which
826: the fitted parameters are $\beta=0.67\pm 0.02 $ and $\gamma=0.55\pm
827: 0.10$ The $const$ in eq.(14) is determined by $\ln[\langle
828: \delta\tau_r^{2p}\rangle/\langle\delta\tau_r^{2}\rangle^p]=0$ when
829: $p=1$.
830:
831: Although the observed data points of Figure 7 actually are the same
832: as Figure 6, we see that the observed data points show large scatter in
833: Figure 6, but almost no scatter in Figure 7. This is because Figure 6 gives
834: moment ratio as a $r$ function, while Figure 7 shows the $p$-dependence of
835: the moment ratio. For a given $r$, the Gaussian noise will yield a moment
836: ratio given by eq.(13), which is a smooth function of $p$. Therefore, a
837: Gaussian noisy sample should not cause scatter with respect to $p$. On
838: the other hand, Gaussian noise generally is not a smooth function of $r$.
839: It yields the scatter of Fig. 6.
840:
841: Figure 7 shows that the $p$-dependence of moment ratio $\ln
842: [\langle\delta\tau_r^{2p}\rangle/\langle\delta\tau_r^{2}\rangle^p]$
843: is significantly dependent on scale $r$. Therefore, it can not be
844: fitted by a Gaussian field, for which moment ratio is
845: $r$-independent [eq.(13)]. The field of $\delta \tau$ is
846: non-Gaussian. The smaller the scale $r$, the stronger the
847: non-Gaussianity.
848:
849: %fig8
850: \begin{figure}[htb]
851: \center
852: \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=-90]{f8.eps}
853: \caption{The same as Figure 7, but the curves are from the fitting
854: of log-normal model.}
855: \end{figure}
856:
857: The log-normal model of the transmitted flux of QSO Ly$\alpha$
858: absorption spectrum is very successful to explain various low-order
859: statistical features of Ly$\alpha$ forests (Bi 1993; Bi \& Davidsen
860: 1997). The log-normal model also predicts that the transmitted flux
861: is non-Gaussian and intermittent. For the moment ratio, the
862: log-normal model yields (Pando et al 2002)
863: %eq24
864: \begin{equation}
865: \frac{\langle \delta\tau_r^{2p}\rangle}{\langle
866: \delta\tau_r^{2}\rangle^p}= \exp[2(p^2-p)\sigma^2(r)]
867: \end{equation}
868: where $\sigma^2(r)$ is the power spectrum of the field. For each
869: $r$, one can fit eq.(24) to observed points with $\sigma^2(r)$. The
870: results are plotted in Figure 8. It shows that, if we try to give a
871: good fitting of eq.(24) with real data at orders $p\leq 2$, the
872: $p$-curves of eq.(24) always give a large deviation from the real
873: data at $p> 2$. This deviation cannot be reduced with selecting
874: $\sigma^2(r)$. This is because the deviation is from the
875: $p^2$-dependence of $\langle \delta\tau_r^{2p}\rangle/\langle
876: \delta\tau_r^{2}\rangle^p$ when $p$ is large. The $p^2$-dependence
877: cannot be reduced with the parameter $\sigma^2(r)$.
878:
879: On the other hand, at high $p$, the log-Poisson model gives $\langle
880: \delta\tau_r^{2p}\rangle/\langle \delta\tau_r^{2}\rangle^p \propto
881: p$. The increasing with $p$ is then consistent with observation. In
882: Figs. 7 and 8 we show the error bars for data points of $r=1.54$
883: h$^{-1}$ Mpc. Although the errors are large at high $p$, the result
884: is clearly consistent with $p$-dependence, and unfavor the
885: $p^2$-dependence. Therefore, the higher order statistics of the
886: Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux is effective to discriminate between the
887: log-Poisson and the log-normal model. The log-normal model yields too
888: strong non-Gaussianity. This point actually has already been
889: mentioned in the study of turbulence (e.g. Frisch 1995).
890:
891: \subsection{Scale-scale correlation}
892:
893: The last statistical feature used to test the log-Poisson hierarchy is the
894: scale-scale correction. Similar to the statistics of high order
895: moment (\S 4.3), the ratio of scale-scale correction, $\langle
896: \delta \tau_{r_1}^{p}\delta \tau_{r_2}^{p}\rangle/\langle \delta
897: \tau_{r_1}^{p}\rangle \langle\delta \tau_{r_2}^{p}\rangle$ is
898: independent of the redshift distortion factor $\mathfrak{R}_r$. The
899: field $\tau$ should show the scale-scale correlation as $\rho_{\rm
900: HI}$ eqs.(17)-(19).
901: %fig9
902: \begin{figure}[htb]
903: \center
904: \includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=-90]{f9.eps}
905: \caption{Scale-scale correlation of observed data of Ly$\alpha$
906: transmitted flux at the range $z\sim 2.4$ - 2.6 for $p=2$ and
907: $r_2/r_1=2$. The error bars are given by the maximum and minimum of
908: bootstrap resampling.}
909: \end{figure}
910:
911: Before doing this test, we would emphasize that the scale-scale
912: correlation is statistically independent of the statistics of high
913: order moments. For instance, one can construct a field, which shows
914: Gaussian distribution in terms of its one point distribution of
915: $\delta\rho_{j,l}$, but highly scale-scale correlated between
916: variables $\delta\rho_{j,l}$ with different $j$ (Pando et al 1998,
917: Feng \& Fang 2000). The clustering of cosmic large scale structure
918: in the nonlinear regime essentially is due to the interaction
919: between Fourier modes on different scales.
920: Therefore, cosmic clustering will definitely leads to scale-scale
921: correlation. Scale-scale correlation is also very effective to
922: distinguish various hierarchy cascade models (Pando et al. 1998).
923:
924: Figure 9 presents the $p=2$ scale-scale correlation of observed
925: data, in which the ratio $r_2/r_1$ is fixed to be equal to 2. The
926: slop of the fitting straight line in Fig. 9 should be given by
927: eq.(19). Since eq.(19) depends only on the parameters $\beta$ and
928: $\gamma$, both of which have already been determined in \S 4.2 and
929: 4.3. There is no free parameters in the fitting of Fig. 9. If we
930: doing a straight line, we found the parameters $\beta=0.67$ and
931: $\gamma=0.43\pm 0.12$. The value of $\beta$ is the same as that of
932: \S 4.2, while the value of $\gamma$ is smaller than that of \S 4.3,
933: but the deviation is not larger than 1-$\sigma$. The scale-scale
934: correlation is more sensitive to the quality of the data, as it is
935: the correlation between modes on different scales. The result of
936: Figure 9 is basically consistent with the scale-scale correlation
937: predicted by the log-Poisson hierarchy.
938:
939: \section{Discussion and conclusion}
940:
941: Nonlinear evolution of mass and velocity fields is a central problem
942: of large scale structure of the universe. The clustering of the
943: cosmic baryon fluid, governed by the Navier-Stokes equation in
944: gravitational field of an expanding universe, has to be self
945: similarly hierarchical in the scale free range in which the
946: dynamical equations and initial perturbations are scale-invariant.
947:
948: The log-Poisson hierarchical clustering sketches the nonlinear
949: evolution of cosmic baryon fluid in the scale free range. If the
950: initial density perturbations are Gaussian, and their power spectrum
951: is given by power law $P(k)\propto k^{\alpha}$, the structure
952: functions initially have to be $S_p(r)\propto r^{-p\alpha/2}$. In
953: the regime of linear evolution, the structure functions will keep to
954: be $S_p(r)\propto r^{\xi_{l}(p)}$, and the intermittent exponent is
955: $\xi_{l}(p)=-p\alpha/2$. According to the log-Poisson hierarchy
956: scenario, the nonlinear evolution leads to the hierarchical transfer
957: of the power of clustering from large scales to small scales. The
958: structure function will become $S_p(r)\propto
959: r^{\xi_{l}(p)+\xi_{nl}(p)}$, where the nonlinear term of the
960: intermittent exponent is
961: $\xi_{nl}(p)=-\gamma[p-(1-\beta^{p})/(1-\beta)]$, in which the parameters
962: $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are dimensionless. $\beta$ measures the intermittency of
963: the field, and $\gamma$ measures the singularity of the clustering. For Gaussian
964: field, we have $\beta=1$, and therefore, $\xi_{nl}(p)=0$ for all order $p$.
965: Since the onset of nonlinear evolution, the parameter $\beta$ will gradually
966: decrease, and the field becomes intermittent.
967:
968: With simulation samples, we found that the parameter $\beta$ is decreasing
969: with the decrease of redshift $z$. It means that the field
970: is weakly intermittent at earlier time, but strong intermittent at
971: later time (Liu \& Fang 2008). Although $\xi_{nl}(p)\neq 0$, the
972: nonlinear evolution keeps the cosmic baryon fluid to be
973: scale-invariant. We showed that the mass density field of neutral
974: hydrogen fluid in the scale free range is also well described by the
975: log-Poisson hierarchy in spite of the neutral hydrogen fraction of
976: the baryon fluid is not constant in space. This is because the UV
977: ionization photon is assumed to be uniform, and it does not violate the
978: scale invariance of this system. However, the number of $\beta$ of
979: neutral hydrogen is found to be less than that of total baryon
980: fluid. Therefore, the neutral hydrogen is less intermitted.
981:
982: The Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux of quasars Ly$\alpha$ absorption
983: spectrum is considered to be effective to probe the mass and
984: velocity fields of neutral hydrogen. However, the redshift
985: distortion of the velocity field leads to the deviation of the field
986: of the Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux from the neutral hydrogen field.
987: The transmitted flux does not satisfy all predictions of log-Poisson
988: hierarchy. Fortunately, the effect of radshift distortion is
989: approximately negligible for some log-Poisson hierarchical predicted
990: features. Thus, we can test the log-Poisson hierarchy with quasars
991: Ly$\alpha$ absorption spectrum.
992:
993: Using high resolution and high S/N data of quasars Ly$\alpha$
994: absorption spectrum, we show that all the non-Gaussian features
995: predicted by the log-Poisson hierarchy, including the hierarchical
996: relation, the intermittent exponent, the ratios of different
997: moments, and the scale-scale correlation, are consistent with
998: observed samples. The observed samples of the transmitted flux yield
999: the same intermittence parameter $\beta$ as that of neutral hydrogen
1000: field produced with hydrodynamic simulation of the concordance
1001: $\Lambda$CDM universe. Our result shows that the intermittent
1002: exponent $\xi(p)$, or parameters $\beta$ and $\gamma$, is effective
1003: to discriminate among models of nonlinear evolution.
1004:
1005: The log-normal model can well fit observed data on lower order statistics, but
1006: not good on higher orders. On the other hand, the log-Poisson model gives
1007: good fitting on lower order as well as higher order statistics. Therefore,
1008: a comparison between the log-Poisson model and log-normal model on lower order
1009: statistics will be able to find the relation between parameters of the log-Poisson
1010: and log-normal models. This relations would be useful to explain the parameters
1011: of log-Poisson model with well-known parameters in cosmology, as the parameters
1012: of log-normal model generally are known in cosmology.
1013:
1014: Recent studies have shown that the turbulence behavior of
1015: baryon gas can be detected by the Doppler-broadened spectral lines
1016: (Sunyaev et al. 2003; Lazarian \& Pogosyan 2006). Although these
1017: works focus on the turbulence of baryon gas in clusters, the result
1018: is still applicable, at least, for the warm-hot intergalactic medium
1019: (WHIM), which is shown to follow the evolution of Burger's fluid on
1020: large scales (He et al. 2004, 2005). The last but not least, the
1021: polarization of CMB is dependent on the density of electrons, and
1022: therefore, the map of CMB polarization would provide a direct test
1023: on the non-Gaussian features of ionized gas when the data on small
1024: scales become available.
1025:
1026: \acknowledgments
1027:
1028: We thank Ji-Ren Liu for his contributions in the early stage of
1029: this project. Y. Lu is supported by China Scholarship Council.
1030: This work was partially supported by US NSF AST 05-07340.
1031:
1032: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1033:
1034:
1035: \bibitem{be} Bec, J. \& Frisch, U. 2000, Phys. Rev. E61, 1395
1036:
1037: \bibitem{ber} Berera, A. \& Fang, L.Z., 1994, Phys. Rev. Lett., 72, 458
1038:
1039: \bibitem{bi} Bi, H. G., 1993, ApJ, 405, 479
1040:
1041: \bibitem{bia} Bi, H.G. \& Davidsen, A.F. 1997, \apj, 479,
1042: 523
1043:
1044: \bibitem{bib} Bi, H.G., Ge, J. \& Fang, L.Z., 1995, \apj, 52, 90
1045:
1046: \bibitem{bol} Boldyrev, S., Nordlund, A. \& Padoan, P. 2002, Phys.
1047: Rev. Lett., 89, 031102
1048:
1049: \bibitem{c} Cole, S. \& Kaiser, N. 1988, \mnras, 233, 637
1050:
1051: \bibitem{Du1} Davoudi, J., Masoudi, A.A., Tabar, M.R., Rastegar, A.R. \&
1052: Shahbazi, F., 2001, Phys. Rev. E63, 056308
1053:
1054: \bibitem{Du} Dubrulle, B. 1994, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 959
1055:
1056: \bibitem{FF} Fang, L.Z. \& Feng, L.L. 2000, \apj, 539, 5
1057:
1058: \bibitem{FT} Fang, L.Z. \& Thews, R. 1998, Wavelets in Physics,
1059: World Scientific (Singapore)
1060:
1061: \bibitem{Farge} Farge, M. 1992, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 24, 395
1062:
1063: \bibitem{FFab} Feng, L.L. \& Fang, L.Z. 2000, \apj, 535, 519
1064:
1065: \bibitem{FFb} Feng, L.L. Shu, C.W. \& Zhang, M.P., 2002, \apj, 612, 1
1066:
1067: \bibitem{FPF} Feng, L.L., Pando, J., \& Fang, L.Z., 2003, \apj, 587, 487
1068:
1069: \bibitem{FLL} Feng, L.L., Shu, C.W., \& Zhang, M.P. 2004, \apj,
1070: 612, 1
1071:
1072: \bibitem{Frisch} Frisch, U. 1995, Turbulence, Cambridge University Press
1073:
1074: \bibitem{G} Gurbatov, S. N., Saichev, A. I. \& Shandarin, S. F.,
1075: 1989, \mnras, 236, 385
1076:
1077: \bibitem{HE} He, P., Feng, L.L. \& Fang, L.Z. 2004, \apj, 612, 14
1078:
1079: \bibitem{HE2} He, P., Feng, L.L. \& Fang, L.Z. 2005, \apj, 623, 601
1080:
1081: \bibitem{he1} He, P., Liu, J.R., Feng, L.L., Shu, C.W. \& Fang, L.Z.
1082: 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 051302
1083:
1084: \bibitem{J00a} Jamkhedkar, P. 2002, dissertation: Intermittency in the
1085: large scale structures of the universe, University of Arizona.
1086:
1087: \bibitem{J00} Jamkhedkar, P., Zhan, H. \& Fang, L.Z. 2000, \apj, 543, L1
1088:
1089: \bibitem{J03} Jamkhedkar, P., Feng, L.L., Zheng, W., Kirkman, D., Tytler,
1090: D., \& Fang, L.Z., 2003, \mnras, 343, 1110
1091:
1092: \bibitem{J3} Jones, B.J.T. 1999, \mnras, 307, 376
1093:
1094: \bibitem{Kim} Kim, B., He, P., Pando, J., Feng, L.L., \& Fang, L.Z.
1095: 2005, \apj, 625, 599
1096:
1097: \bibitem{Kir} Kirkman, D. \& Tytler, D., 1997, \apj, 484, 672
1098:
1099: \bibitem{Ko} Kolmogorov, A., 1941, Acad. Sci. USSR, 30, 301
1100:
1101: \bibitem{la} Laessig, M., 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2618
1102:
1103: \bibitem{lan} Landau, L. D. \& Lifshitz, E,M., 1987, Fluid Mechanics 2nd Ed.,
1104: Pergamon Press.
1105:
1106: \bibitem{laz} Lazrian, A. and Pogosyan, D. 2006, \apj, 652, 1348
1107:
1108: \bibitem{le} Leveque, E. \& She, Z.-S. 1997, Phys. Rev. E55, 2789
1109:
1110: \bibitem{Liu07} Liu, J., Bi, H.G. \& Fang, L.Z. 2007, \apjl, 671, L89
1111:
1112: \bibitem{Liu08} Liu, J. \& Fang, L. Z. 2008, \apj, 672, 11
1113:
1114: \bibitem{Liu06} Liu, J., Jamkhedkar, P., Zheng, W., Feng, L. L.,
1115: \& Fang, L. Z. 2006, \apj, 645, 861
1116:
1117: \bibitem{M} Matarrese, S. \& Mohayaee, R. 2002, \mnras, 329, 37
1118:
1119: \bibitem{Mb} Monin, A.S. \& Yaglom A.M., 1975, Statistical fluid mechanics:
1120: Machanics of turbulence, Vol.2, (Cambridge, MIT Press)
1121:
1122: \bibitem{Pad} Padoan, P., Boldyrev, S., Langer, W. \& Nordlund, A. 2003, \apj,
1123: 583, 308
1124:
1125: \bibitem{Pando} Pando, J., Lipa, P., Greiner, M. \& Fang, L.Z., 1998,
1126: \apj, 496, 9
1127:
1128: \bibitem{P02} Pando, J., Feng, L.L., Jamkhedkar, P., Zheng, W.,
1129: Kirkman, D., Tytler, D., Fang, L.Z., 2002, \apj, 574, 575
1130:
1131: \bibitem{Pandoa} Pando, J., Feng, L.L. and Fang, L.Z.,
1132: 2004, \apjs, 154, 475
1133:
1134: \bibitem{Peeb} Peebles, P. J. E. 1980,
1135: The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Princeton University Press
1136:
1137: \bibitem{Po} Polyakov, A. M. 1995, Phys. Rev. E, 52, 6183
1138:
1139: \bibitem{Rauch} Rauch, M. 1998, ARA\&A, 36, 267
1140:
1141: \bibitem{sel} Seljak, U. \& Zaldarriaga, M. 1996, \apj, 469, 437
1142:
1143: \bibitem{SZ} Shandarin, S.F. \& Zeldovich, Ya. B. 1989, Rev. Mod. Phys.
1144: 61, 185
1145:
1146: \bibitem{SheA} She, Z. S. 1997, Turbulence Modeling and Vortex Dynamics,
1147: Lecture Notes in Physics, Volume 491. Springer-Verlag, p. 28
1148:
1149: \bibitem{SL} She, Z.S. \& Leveque, E., 1994, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72,
1150: 336
1151:
1152: \bibitem{she} She, Z.S. \& Waymire, E.C., 1995, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 262
1153:
1154: \bibitem{so} Soneira, R. M. \& Peebles, P. J. E. 1977, \apj, 211, 1S
1155:
1156: \bibitem{Sun} Sunyaev, R.A., Norman, M.L. \& Bryan, G.L. 2003,
1157: Astronomy Letters, 2, 783
1158:
1159: \bibitem{Yang} Yang, X. H., Feng, L. L., Chu, Y.Q. \& Fang, L.Z.. 2002 \apj,
1160: 566, 630
1161:
1162: \bibitem{Zhang} Zhang, T.J., Liu, J.R., Feng, L.L., He, P.
1163: \& Fang, L.Z., 2006, \apj, 642, 625
1164:
1165: \bibitem{Zhe} Zheng, W., et al., 2004, \apj, 605, 631
1166:
1167: \end{thebibliography}
1168: \end{document}
1169: