1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[preprint2]{emulateapj}
3: %\usepackage[a4paper,lmargin=2.4cm,rmargin=0.6cm,bmargin=0cm,tmargin=5.5cm]{geometry}
4: \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{rotating}
5: %\usepackage{amssymb}
6: \usepackage{natbib} \bibpunct{(}{)}{;}{a}{}{,} % to follow the A&A style
7:
8: \def\eg{{\em e.g.}} \def\ev{\,{\rm eV}} \def\mev{\,{\rm MeV}}
9: \def\gev{\,{\rm GeV}} \def\erg{\,{\rm erg}} \def\ie{{\em i.e.}}
10: \def\km{\,{\rm km}} \def\cm{\,{\rm cm}} \def\wrt{{\it w.r.t.}}
11:
12: \shorttitle{\Large Quark-Novae, Reionization, and Early R-Process Elements}
13: \shortauthors{Ouyed et al.}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \title{Quark-Novae, cosmic reionization, and early r-process element production}
18:
19: \author{Rachid Ouyed\altaffilmark{1,2}, Ralph
20: E. Pudritz\altaffilmark{2} and Prashanth Jaikumar\altaffilmark{3}}
21:
22: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
23: Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada; and Origins Institute
24: Senior Visiting Professor}
25:
26: \altaffiltext{2}{Origins Institute, ABB 241, McMaster
27: University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M1, Canada}
28:
29: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute of Mathematical Sciences, CIT Campus,
30: Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600013, India and\\ Physics Division, Argonne
31: National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, U.S.A.}
32: \email{ouyed@phas.ucalgary.ca}
33:
34:
35:
36: \begin{abstract} We examine the case for Quark-Novae (QNe) as possible
37: sources for the reionization and early metal enrichment of the universe.
38: Quark-Novae are predicted to arise from the explosive collapse (and conversion) of sufficiently
39: massive neutron stars into quark stars.
40: A Quark-Nova (QN) can occur over a range of time scales following
41: the supernova event. For QNe that arise days to weeks after the supernovae,
42: we show that dual-shock that arises as the QN ejecta encounter the
43: supernova ejecta can produce enough photons to reionize hydrogen in
44: most of the Inter-Galactic medium (IGM) by $z\sim 6$. Such events can
45: explain the large optical depth $\tau_e\sim 0.1$ as measured by WMAP,
46: if the clumping factor, $C$, of the material being ionized is smaller
47: than 10. We suggest a way in which a normal initial mass function (IMF) for the oldest
48: stars can be reconciled with a large optical depth as well as the mean
49: metallicity of the early IGM post reionization. We find that
50: QN also make a contribution to r-process element abundances for
51: atomic numbers $A \ge 130$. We predict that the main
52: cosmological signatures of Quark-Novae are the gamma-ray bursts that
53: announce their birth. These will be clustered at redshifts in
54: the range $z\sim 7$-$8$ in our model.
55:
56: \end{abstract} \keywords{Reionization -- Quark-Nova -- r-process -- Gamma-Ray bursts}
57:
58:
59:
60:
61: \section{INTRODUCTION}
62:
63: The end of the cosmic ``dark age" began with the production of
64: reionizing UV radiation from the first luminous objects. Several
65: independent lines of evidence, including recent
66: WMAP results suggest that beginning at redshifts of about $z\sim 17$,
67: an inhomogenous and possibly non-monotonic decrease in the fraction
68: of neutral H and He in the IGM took place, and that this process was largely
69: completed by $z\sim 6$. The nature of the first ionizing sources is
70: still mysterious - possible candidates for ``early'' sources (i.e.,
71: well before $z\sim 6$), include metal-free Population III (Pop III) stars,
72: high-$z$ dwarf galaxies, intermediate-mass black holes or sterile neutrinos.
73: Current models favour luminous objects that formed from collapsed
74: gas haloes of mass $M\sim 10^6M_{\odot}$.
75:
76: Although quasars and active galactic nuclei (AGNs) are efficient
77: emitters of UV photons, results from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
78: (SDSS) imply that they contribute much less to the ionizing radiation
79: than star-forming galaxies at high redshift (Fan et al. 2006).
80: The first stars, owing to their metal-free composition ($Z$=0) which
81: makes them a copious source of ionizing photons, are increasingly viewed
82: as prime candidates for early reionization sources. It has been argued
83: that a top-heavy IMF (40-100$M_{\odot}$) may be required to explain the large WMAP optical
84: depth and the ongoing overlap of HII regions at lower redshifts
85: $z\lesssim 9$ suggested by IGM temperatures inferred from the
86: Ly$\alpha$ forest (Theuns et al. 2002).
87: Pop III stars derived from a top-heavy IMF
88: can emit as many as $10^5$ ionizing photons per baryon during the
89: star's life (Tumlinson\&Shull 2000; Bromm et al. 2001; Schaerer
90: 2002). A population of very massive stars (VMS), that have been
91: linked to pair-instability SNe, was advocated by Qian \& Wasserburg
92: (2002) to explain r-process element abundances as well as that of C,
93: O and Si in some extremely metal-poor stars, while other works
94: (Tumlinson et al. 2004; Daigne et al. 2004; Venkatesan \& Truran
95: 2003; Fang\&Cen 2004) argue that an ordinary Type II-SN IMF can
96: explain these abundances just as well while also providing the large
97: optical depth $\tau_e$ measured by WMAP. Furthermore, the escape
98: efficiency of UV photons required for early reionization is smaller
99: for a top-heavy IMF than for the VMS, making the former better
100: candidates for reionization sources.
101:
102: While the high production of ionizing photons from a top-heavy
103: $Z$=$0$ stellar population is desirable, their short lifetimes (few
104: million years in the absence of significant mass loss) imply that
105: successive generations do not remain metal-free. This creates
106: some major difficulties. The issue here is that the IGM is
107: rapidly polluted in metals~\footnote{Analysis of quasar metal
108: absorption lines have shown that the IGM is enriched in heavy elements
109: from a level of $\sim
110: 10^{-4}$ Z$_{\odot}$ at $z\sim 5.3$ to
111: $\sim 10^{-3}$ Z$_{\odot}$ at $z\leq 4.3$ where Z$_{\odot}$ is the solar
112: metallicity (Songaila 2001). That such an abundance of heavy elements
113: is observed commonly and uniformly in the low-density IGM where no
114: bright galaxies are found may be due to outflows from small
115: protogalaxies (Madau et al. 2001; Mori et al. 2002), but prompt
116: enrichment by Pop III stars provides a more natural solution for the
117: distribution of metagalactic heavy elements.}. This ``negative
118: feedback'' mechanism (e.g. Sokasian et al. 2004; Ricotti \& Ostriker
119: 2004) is a problem - it might result in the reneutralization of
120: the IGM, calling for another sub-epoch of reionization from a
121: different stellar population in a metal-enriched IGM. This may
122: necessitate double or even multiple reionization (Wyithe \& Loeb
123: 2003). It may be possible to extend the Pop III lifetime by
124: ``hiding'' most heavy elements in the collapse to black holes, with
125: added benefits of additional accretion generated X-ray photons, but
126: this appears to require extreme black hole formation rates and
127: smaller than normal metal yields from Pop II stars (see
128: Ricotti\&Ostriker 2004 for a discussion).
129:
130: In this paper, we argue that explosions that result from
131: the conversion of neutron stars (born from progenitors with
132: mass in the $25M_{\odot}\le M\le 40M_{\odot}$ range) to quark stars
133: - known as
134: Quark-Novae (QNe; Ouyed et al. 2002) - may be important sources of reionizing UV photons.
135: This mechanism has the advantage of not leading to heavy chemical pollution of
136: the IGM or ISM, thereby alleviating the requirement of producing several
137: generations of chemically pristine massive stars early on in cosmic
138: star formation history. The first QNe in the universe can occur very soon after
139: Pop III stars end their lives as Supernovae (SN) - in fact the time delay between
140: the SN and the subsequent QN is one of the main parameters of QN theory (Ouyed
141: et al. 2007). The
142: ioinizing photons are produced
143: when QN shock waves overtake their progenitor SN shocks (Leahy\&Ouyed 2008). Copious
144: energy releases can occur in this way if the QN delay is days to months
145: after the initial SN. QNe can provide enough UV
146: photons to explain the large optical depth measured by WMAP. The
147: contribution to reionization from the main-sequence lifetime of the
148: first stars is then reduced, which eliminates the need for a top-heavy IMF. The ``negative feedback'' problem of the increasing
149: metallicity is mitigated by effectively decoupling metal-enrichment from
150: reionization in the QN picture, without recourse to a large
151: formation rate of black holes. QNe also provide a local and
152: prompt r-process enrichment for elements above $A\sim 130$, which can
153: be related to the element abundance patterns in extremely metal-poor
154: stars once chemical evolution studies are performed.
155:
156: The properties of QN summarized above are the basis of
157: our proposed modification of reionization and chemical
158: enrichment wherein: (i) the most massive stars ($M\ge
159: 40M_{\odot}$) in a conventional or slightly top-heavy IMF collapse to
160: black-holes with a possible (small) contribution to reionization from
161: accretion but no contribution to metallicity while (ii) the
162: reionization is driven by intermediate-mass Pop III stars, whose higher
163: mass members ($25M_{\odot}\le M\le 40M_{\odot}$) end up as
164: QNe, providing the bulk of reionzing photons and enriching
165: their environment in elements beyond $A\sim 130$, and (iii) low
166: mass Pop III stars ($8M_{\odot}\le M\le 25M_{\odot}$) end up
167: as type II SNe. A long-lived and metal-poor population of low-mass stars
168: begins to emerge at the end of the reionization epoch (Greif et al. (2008)).
169: In our scenario, the dying out of the first heavy stars coincides with a
170: peak in the QN rate and therefore a peak in ionizing radiation.
171:
172:
173: In this paper, we first outline the basic observational constraints
174: on reionization models (\S 2), followed by a description of QNe
175: features in \S3 (the explosion, the compact remnant
176: and the ejecta), and then derive the properties of
177: reionization by QNe (\S 4) as well as early r-process enrichment
178: (\S5). Our discussion and conclusions (\S 6) suggest observational
179: tests of this scenario.
180:
181: \section{Observational Constraints on Reionization}
182:
183: We first examine the constraints provided by the Gunn-Peterson test
184: and the latest WMAP results. Since even a tiny fraction of neutral H
185: ($x_{\rm HI}\sim 10^{-3}$) in the IGM is sufficient to extinguish
186: the transmitted flux bluewards of the Ly$\alpha$ emission line from
187: distant Quasars, the onset of the Gunn-Peterson trough (Gunn \&
188: Peterson 1965) in recent observations of Quasar emission spectra
189: (Schneider, Schmidt, \& Gunn 1991; see Djorgovski et al 2001 and references
190: therein) and the increased variance in the Gunn-Peterson optical depth
191: at $z\sim6$ shows that the IGM was transiting rapidly to a fully
192: reionized state by then. This observation, although not a deep probe
193: of reionization history, places a floor on the emissivity of UV
194: photons required to keep up with recombination during the
195: reionization epoch (Miralda-Escud\'e, Haehnet \& Rees 2000):
196:
197: \begin{equation}
198: \label{eq:floor} \dot{N}_{\rm ioni.} (z) = 10^{51.2}\ {\rm s}^{-1}\
199: {\rm Mpc}^{-3}\ \left(\frac{C}{30}\right) \left(\frac{1+z}{6}\right)^3
200: \left(\frac{\Omega_{\rm b}h^2}{0.02}\right)^2\ ,
201: \end{equation}
202:
203: where $h= H_0/(100\ {\rm
204: km\ s}^{-1}\ {\rm Mpc}^{-1})$ is the scaled Hubble constant, and
205: $C$ is the clumping factor of the IGM related to small-scale ($\sim$ kpc)
206: gas inhomogeneities caused by structure formation (Shapiro\&Giroux 1987).
207: We adopt a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $h= 0.72$, $\Omega_{\rm 0M}=0.26$ and
208: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.74$, $\Omega_{\rm b}h^2=0.023$ which are consistent
209: with the 5-year WMAP data (Dunkley et al. 2009).
210:
211:
212: The WMAP results provide important constraints on the Thompson optical
213: depth at the time of reioinization. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
214: photons in the reionized epoch are Thomson rescattered by free
215: electrons. This damps the primary temperature anisotropy of the CMB
216: on scales smaller than the horizon size at rescattering, and generates
217: additonal polarization on large scales (tens of degrees). The WMAP
218: mission's measurements of the CMB polarization spectrum at low $l$
219: have quantified this effect through an integrated Thomson optical
220: depth $\tau_e$. Recent analysis of 5-year WMAP data constrains it to be
221: $\tau_{e}=0.087\pm 0.017$ for the best-fit $\Lambda$CDM cosmology
222: (Dunkley et al. 2009); this is a much tightened value compared to
223: the 3-year WMAP value $\tau_e=0.089\pm 0.030$ (Spergel et al. (2007)).
224: These results rule out prompt reionization at redshift $z\simeq
225: 6$ at 3.5$\sigma$ and taken together with the varying Gunn-Peterson
226: optical depth at $z\sim 6$, argue for an extended period of reionization
227: stretching back to $z\sim 20$. The smaller mass fraction in
228: collapsed halos at such high $z$ (e.g. Iliev et al. 2007 and
229: references therein) implies that a high emissivity of
230: ionizing photon per unit mass is required early in the
231: reionization epoch. This may be achieved with high formation
232: efficiency of metal-free massive Pop III stars, but as we show in
233: sections 3 and 4, our estimates for QN formation rates, the QN yield
234: in heavy elements and UV photons imply that QNe allow
235: for a more conventional star formation rate for Pop
236: III stars as a viable alternative.
237:
238:
239:
240:
241: \section{The Quark-Nova}
242:
243: If a neutron star undergoes a deconfinement
244: phase transition to quark matter in its interior, it can undergo core
245: collapse, resulting in mass ejection of the outer crust (Takahara \& Sato 1986; Gentile et al. 1993; Fryer \& Woosley 1998;) and the
246: formation of a stable strange quark star (a star
247: made of up, down and strange quarks; e.g. Itoh 1970; Bodmer 1971;
248: Witten 1984; Alcock et al. 1986, Bombaci et al. 2004). Ouyed et
249: al. (2002) suggested that for sufficiently massive progenitors, the deconfined
250: cores physically separate from the overlaying hadronic layers giving
251: rise to powerful novae. They termed this the Quark-Nova scenario (see
252: also Ker\"anen\&Ouyed 2003).
253:
254: As outlined in Ker\"anen et al. 2005, the initial state for the QN is that
255: of a deleptonized neutron star with a {\it (u,d)} core.
256: In the quark-nova (QN) picture, the {\it (u,d)} quark
257: core of a hybrid star that undergoes the phase transition to the {\it (u,d,s)} quark phase,
258: shrinks in a spherically symmetric fashion to a stable, more compact strange
259: matter configuration faster than the overlaying material (the neutron-rich
260: hadronic envelope) can respond, leading to an effective core collapse.
261: The two-step process, neutron to {\it (u,d)},
262: then {\it (u,d)} to {\it (u,d,s)} is crucial.
263: In this scenario, the neutrinos come from weak reactions at the edge of the {\it (u,d)}
264: core and can leak out easily into the surrounding cooler and deleptonized
265: envelope where they can deposit energy. This
266: is significantly different from phase conversion in a proto-neutron star stage where neutrino
267: transport is slower (of the order of seconds) because of the hot and
268: lepton-rich matter.
269:
270:
271:
272:
273:
274:
275: A complete dynamical treatment of the QN, including neutrino
276: transport and full stellar evolution is only
277: just beginning to be explored (Sagert et al. 2009)
278: and preliminary results support a strong secondary explosion. However,
279: we can make reliable estimates by adopting the viewpoint of numerous
280: previous authors (Horvath \&
281: Benvenuto 1988; Lugones et al. 1994; Anand et al. 1997; Ouyed et al. 2002; Ker\"anen et al. 2005;
282: Jaikumar et al. 2007; Sagert et al. 2009) who assume a
283: rapid adiabatic collapse on gravitational free-fall timescales ($\sim
284: 10^{-4}$s) along with a conversion of the core to ($u,d,s$) quark
285: matter on weak interaction timescales ($\sim 10^{-4}$s). The
286: gravitational potential energy released in the collapse is converted
287: partly into latent heat of the (presumably) first-order phase
288: transition and partly into outward propagating shock waves from the
289: supersonic motion of the ($u,d,s$) conversion front~\footnote{More
290: recent work, assuming realistic quark matter equations of state,
291: argues for strong deflagration (Drago et al. 2007), but this too may
292: be preceded by a compression shock (Lugones et al. 1994) in the
293: hadronic phase.}. The temperature of the quark core thus formed rises
294: quickly to (10-20) MeV since the collapse is adiabatic rather than
295: isothermal (Gentile et al. 1993).
296:
297: \subsection{The quark-nova compact remnant}
298:
299: We assume that hot quark
300: matter in the color-flavor-locked (CFL) phase
301: is the true ground state of matter at high density.
302: This is a superconducting phase that
303: is energetically favored at extremely high densities and
304: low temperatures (CFL; Alford et al. 1999).
305: In this phase u, d, and s quarks pair, forming a quark
306: condensate (a superfluid) that is antisymmetric in color and flavor indices.
307: This state is reached by the QN compact remnant as it cools
308: below a few tens of MeV (see Appendix A for a discussion
309: on CFL and contamination of the universe).
310:
311: Mannarelli et al. (2008) argue that CFL stars are unlikely to constitute a significant number of puslars since the r-mode is undamped for frequencies above 1Hz, due to the weak damping effect of mutual friction. However, this conclusion is derived for low temperatures $T\lesssim 0.01$MeV, while the temperature for the quark-nova is tens of MeV. As shown in Jaikumar et al. (2008), bulk viscosity from Kaons in the CFL phase is effective in damping out the r-mode at $T\geq 1$MeV, allowing the star to spin rapidly. Thus, the r-mode instability argument does not contradict the quark-nova mechanism (and the related CFL fireball; e.g. Vogt et al. 2004). However, it is clear that following the cooling phase of the quark-nova, the temperature will fall below 0.01 MeV. While mutual friction is too weak in this regime, other sources of viscosity may be important, such as shear viscosity from electromagnetic processes (it was shown in Manuel et al. (2005) that shear viscosity from phonons, though large, is inconsequential since it violates the basic hydrodynamic assumptions at such low temperatures). Therefore, we cannot comment on the ultimate fate of the CFL star below 0.01 MeV, but the quark-nova mechanism, which operates at much larger temperature, is not in obvious conflict with the r-mode instability.
312:
313:
314:
315: \subsection{The quark-nova ejecta}
316:
317: The gravitational potential energy
318: released (plus latent heat of
319: phase transition) during this event is converted partly into internal energy and partly into outward propagating shock waves
320: which impart kinetic energy to the material that eventually forms the
321: ejecta. Unlike Supernovae,
322: neutrino-driven mass ejection in Quark-novae is not feasible, as
323: neutrinos are trapped inside a hot and dense expanding quark core,
324: once it grows to more than $\sim$2~km (Ker\"anen et al. 2005). Mass ejection due to core
325: bounce is also unlikely unless the quark core is very compact (1-2)km.
326: A more promising alternative is mass ejection from an expanding
327: thermal fireball that is a direct consequence of dense, hot quark
328: matter in the color-flavor-locked (CFL) phase (Jaikumar et al. 2002;
329: Vogt et al. 2004; Ouyed et al. 2005). Depending on the conversion
330: efficiency of photon energy to kinetic energy of the ejecta, up to
331: $10^{-2}M_{\odot}$ of neutron-rich material can be ejected at nearly
332: relativistic speeds (Ouyed\&Leahy 2009). Thus, QNe ejecta decompress material
333: from the outer layers of exploding neutron stars. This is important
334: for the operation of the r-process (Jaikumar et al. 2007).
335:
336: \subsection{Dual-shock quark-novae}
337:
338: If a QN occurs a few days to weeks
339: (Yasutake et al. 2005; Staff et al. 2006) after the Supernova, the
340: QN ejecta propagating into the Supernova envelope rapidly
341: sweep up enough mass to become sub-relativistic. The collision of the
342: two ejecta sets up a blast wave that propagates outward and
343: re-energizes the Supernova ejecta. Part of the reshocked ejecta's
344: energy is then radiated away in photons. This model for a
345: ``dual-shock'' QN (hereafter dsQN) has been successfully applied to the
346: observed light-curve of the most energetic Supernovae (eq. SN2006gy,
347: SN2005ap, SN2005gj; see Leahy\&Ouyed 2008). It is this radiation
348: coming from the reshocked ejecta which we wish to evaluate as a
349: potential reionizing source, keeping in mind that such
350: dsQNe may be fairly frequent (discussed below).
351:
352: \section{Quark-Novae and Reionization}
353:
354: \subsection{The Ionization Efficiency}
355:
356:
357: We estimate the frequency of dsQNe, denoted by $f_{\rm dsQN}$, by assuming a
358: conventional IMF for massive stars (Scalo 1986), an average Galaxy
359: density $n_g(z)$=$n_g(0)(1+z)^3$, and an average Type II supernova
360: rate $f_{SN}(z)$ per year per Galaxy. For purpose of
361: estimation, we take $(1+z)\sim 10$ as typical of the reionization
362: epoch, $n_g(0)$=$0.02$/(Mpc)$^3$ and $f_{SN}(z)\sim 1$ yr$^{-1}$
363: Galaxy$^{-1}$. We find $f_{\rm dsQN}=0.1x_{\rm
364: QN}f_{SN}n_g(0)(10)^3\sim 0.2$ yr$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ where $x_{\rm QN}\sim 0.1$
365: is the fraction of stars in the 25-40$M_{\odot}$ range relative to all
366: supernovae (8-40$M_{\odot}$) in the Scalo IMF. These stars are expected to
367: undergo a Quark-Nova ~\footnote{ Staff et al. (2006) estimated that 1 out of a 1000 neutron stars could undergo the deconfinement transition during a Hubble time from spin-down alone. Mass fallback is more efficient at rapid conversion and upto 1 in 10 neutron stars with progenitors above 25$M_{\odot}$ can become quark stars. Although this rate may seem
368: high, Leahy \& Ouyed (2007) have argued that this is consistent with
369: the inferred birth rate of AXPs and SGRs (Gil\&Heyl
370: 2007), which are quark stars in their model.} with delay time between the supernova and the quark-nova
371: decreasing with increasing mass (we assume conversion due to increased
372: fall-back for more massive stars; see also Appendix B). The additional pre-factor of 0.1 is
373: the fraction of quark-novae that can support an efficient dual shock.
374: As argued in Leahy \& Ouyed (2008), to be consistent
375: with the fraction of superluminous supernovae such as SN2006gy, the
376: fraction of quark-novae which happen fast enough for the dual shock to
377: be effective is typically about 0.1. Galaxy mergers or a longer
378: ionization history can easily increase $f_{\rm dsQN}\sim$ 10 yr$^{-1}$
379: Mpc$^{-3}$. We choose $f_{\rm dsQN} \sim 1$ yr$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ as an average
380: frequency of QN events during the reionization epoch.
381:
382: To determine the number of ionizing photons, we note that the
383: time-dependent luminosity of a dsQN is given by (Leahy\&Ouyed 2008)
384:
385:
386: \begin{equation}
387: \label{eq:luminosity} L_{\rm SN}(t) = c_{\rm v} \Delta T_{\rm core}
388: n_{\rm ejec.} 4\pi R_{\rm phot.}(t)^2 \frac{d D(t)}{d t}\ ,
389: \end{equation}
390:
391: \noindent
392: where $c_{\rm v}\sim (3/2) k_{\rm B}$ is the specific heat of the
393: ejecta, $\Delta T_{\rm core}\sim T_{\rm core}$ is the core temperature
394: of the ejecta, $n_{\rm ejec}$ is the number density of the ejecta,
395: $R_{\rm phot.}(t)$ is the photospheric radius and $D(t)$ is the photon
396: diffusion length. This yields an integrated luminosity of
397: ~$10^{51}$ergs, in agreement with observations of SN2006gy, for the
398: parameter choice $R_{\rm phot.}(t)\sim 3\times 10^{10}$km
399: ~\footnote{$R_{\rm phot.}(t)$=$R_0+v_{SN}t$ with $R_0$ being the
400: radius of the progenitor star and $v_{SN}$ being the speed of the
401: shocked material.}. Furthermore, during time when the ejecta are
402: optically thick (tens of days for the most energetic Supernovae), the
403: luminosity can be approximated by $L_{\rm SN}(t)$=$\sigma 4\pi R_{\rm
404: phot}(t)^2T^4$ with $T\approx 10^4$K. This is close to the observed
405: spectral peak of SN2006gy, in the first tens of days( Smith et al. (2007)).
406: For metal-free Pop III progenitors however, we expect the peak to lie in
407: the UV region ($T_{\rm pk}\approx (2-4)\times 10^4$K). The number of
408: ionizing photons is then
409:
410: \begin{equation}
411: \label{eq:ionizephotons} N_{\rm
412: ion}\approx\frac{N_0}{2.4}\int_{13.6/T_{\rm pk}({\rm eV})}^{\infty}
413: \frac{dx~x^2}{{\rm e}^x-1}
414: \end{equation}
415:
416: \noindent
417: where $N_0$=$0.244(4\pi~R_{\rm phot}^3/3)T_{\rm pk}^3$ is the total
418: number of radiated photons. We find $N_0$=$2\times 10^{61}$-$2\times
419: 10^{62}$ while $N_{\rm ion}\approx 3\times 10^{59}$-$4\times 10^{61}$
420: for the lower and upper limit of $T_{\rm pk}$ respectively. Since we
421: have neglected the ionizing photon flux after the supernova ejecta
422: becomes transparent, our estimate is a very conservative one. The
423: exact number of ionizing photons is very sensitive to $T_{\rm pk}$ and
424: $R_{\rm phot}(t)$, so we choose $R_{\rm phot}(t)$=3$\times 10^{15}$cm,
425: $T_{\rm pk}$=$3\times 10^4$K, giving $N_{\rm ion}$=$5\times 10^{60}$
426: as a reasonable estimate (see also Appendix C). Then, the corresponding emissivity of UV
427: ionizing photons is conveniently expressed as
428:
429: \begin{eqnarray} \dot{N}_{\rm ioni.,QNe}&\approx& 1.5\times
430: 10^{53} \ {\rm s}^{-1}\ {\rm Mpc}^{-3}\\\nonumber &\times&
431: \left(\frac{f_{\rm dsQN}}{1\ {\rm yr}^{-1}\ {\rm Mpc}^{-3}}\right)
432: \left(\frac{N_{\rm ion}}{5\times 10^{60}\ {\rm photons}}\right)\ .
433: \end{eqnarray}
434:
435: \noindent
436: which exceeds the floor on the emissivity of ionizing photons from
437: Equation~(\ref{eq:floor}), even for the lower limit on $N_{\rm
438: ion}\sim 3\times 10^{59}$.
439:
440:
441: It follows that the total number of ionizing photons {\it per baryon}
442: produced in dsQNe during the epoch $\delta t_{\rm
443: re}$ (between $z\sim 17$ and $z\sim 6$) is
444:
445: \begin{eqnarray}
446: \label{eq:photons} f_{\rm re} &\sim& 2\left(\frac{N_{\rm
447: ion}}{5\times 10^{60}}\right) \left(\frac{f_{\rm dsQN}}{1 {\rm
448: yr}^{-1}\ {\rm Mpc}^{-3}}\right) \\\nonumber
449: &\times&\left(\frac{\delta t_{\rm re}}{1\ {\rm Gyr}}\right)
450: \left(\frac{R_{\rm uni.}}{1\ {\rm Gpc}}\right)^3\left(\frac{N_{\rm
451: univ.}} {10^{79}}\right)^{-1}\ ,
452: \end{eqnarray}
453:
454:
455: \noindent
456: where $R_{\rm univ.} \sim 1$Gpc is the comoving radius of the
457: universe at the reionization epoch ($(1+z)\sim 10$) and $N_{\rm
458: univ.}$ is the total number of baryons of the universe, estimated to
459: be $\sim 10^{79}$ baryons. Taking into account the uncertainties in
460: Supernova rates in the distant past, we find from
461: Equation~(\ref{eq:photons}) that QNe generate about
462: 0.1-10 photons per baryon in the universe. A slightly higher (lower)
463: $T_{\rm pk}$ or $R_{\rm phot}$ can substantially increase (decrease)
464: this percentage. However, Equation~(\ref{eq:photons}) suggests the
465: definite possibility that QNe can be an important source of
466: reionizing photons.
467:
468:
469: \subsection{The Thomson Optical Depth}
470:
471: The Thomson optical depth is the observational link with the ionization
472: history of the universe. It is defined by the relation
473:
474: \begin{equation}\label{eq:depth} \tau_e = \int n_e(z) \sigma_T c dt =
475: \int f(z) n_{\rm H}(z) \sigma_T c \frac{dz}{(1+z)H(z)}\ ,
476: \end{equation}
477:
478: \noindent
479: where $n_e(z)$ is the co-moving electron density and
480: $\sigma_T=6.6524\times 10^{-25}$ cm$^2$ is the Thomson cross-section.
481: In the second part of Equation~(\ref{eq:depth}), $f(z)$ is the
482: hydrogen ionization fraction, $n_H$ is the number density of Hydrogen,
483: and $H(z)$=$H_0 \left ( \Omega_{0M} (1+z)^3
484: +\Omega_{\Lambda}\right)^{1/2}$ is the Hubble parameter in terms of
485: the cosmological redshift in a flat universe with a cosmological
486: constant. We calculate $f(z)$ for QN, and then show
487: how observational constraints on the optical depth provide constraints
488: on QN associated with Pop III stars.
489:
490:
491: Each dsQN will set up an ionization front that
492: propagates outward from $R_{\rm phot}(t)$. Detailed balance implies
493: that the number of hydrogen atoms that are reionized $x(z)n_H(z)$ can
494: be determined from (see \S 2.1 in Osterbrock 1988)
495:
496: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ionrate} \left(1-x(z)\right) n_{\rm
497: H}\int_{13.6\ {\rm eV}}^{\infty} 4\pi j_{\gamma} \sigma_{\rm E} dE =
498: x(z)^2 n_{\rm H}^2 \alpha(T)\ ,
499: \end{equation}
500:
501: \noindent
502: where $j_{\gamma}$ is the photon flux in units of cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
503: sr$^{-1}$ erg$^{-1}$, $\alpha(T)= 4.18\times 10^{-13} (T/10^4\ {\rm
504: K})^{-0.726}$ cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$ is the recombination coefficient
505: (Mapelli \& Ferrara (2005)) and
506: $\sigma_{\rm E} \approx 6\times 10^{-18}$ cm$^{-2}$ is the
507: photo-ionization cross-section of hydrogen atoms near threshold.
508:
509: The flux $j_{\gamma}$ can be related to $N_{\rm ion}$ at a particular
510: distance from the QN. Since the thickness of the ionization
511: boundary is much smaller than the Str\"omgren sphere, we can take the
512: radius of the Str\"omgren sphere $R_S$ as the typical distance at
513: which Eq.~(\ref{eq:ionrate}) applies. Using a typical parameter set
514: $R_S\approx 100$pc, $R_{\rm phot}(t)$=3$\times 10^{15}$cm and $T_{\rm
515: pk}$=$3\times 10^4$K, we then obtain the solution for $x(z)$ from
516: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ionrate}). To determine the volume fraction $f(z)$ of
517: ionized hydrogen in the universe as a function of $z$, we use
518: $f(z)\approx \nu(z)x(z)$ where the filling factor of non-overlapping
519: Str\"omgren spheres from QNe, $\nu(z)$, is determined from (Barkana \&
520: Loeb (2001)
521:
522: \begin{equation}
523: \label{eq:hfront} \frac{d\nu(z)}{dz}=\frac{0.1x_{\rm QN}N_{I/B}}{0.76}
524: \left(\frac{dF_{\rm col}(z)}{dz}\right)- \frac{\alpha(T)Cn_{\rm
525: H}^{(0)}\nu(z)}{a^3(1+z)H(z)}
526: \end{equation}
527:
528: \noindent
529: In this equation, $N_{I/B}$ denotes the number of ionizing photons released in a
530: QN per baryon in the star, $n_{\rm H}^{(0)}$ is the present-day
531: density of neutral hydrogen and $a(t)$ is the scale factor defined such
532: that $a(0)=1$. The factor of 0.76 in the denominator is the primordial mass
533: fraction of H (we adopt 0.24 for He; see \S \ref{sec:he}). $F_{\rm col}(z)$ is the collapse fraction at high
534: redshift which is estimated simply as the mass fraction in halos above
535: the atomic cooling threshold in the Press-Schechter model (Press\&Schechter 1974).
536: An order of magnitude estimate, assuming $10^{57}$ baryons in a $1.4M_{\odot}$ neutron
537: star gives $N_{I/B}=1000$ and yields $0.1x_{\rm QN}N_{I/B}$=10, which we keep fixed for all the curves in the
538: figures below.
539:
540: The most important factor in determining the ionization state is clumping factor $C$.
541: We choose $C$=1,10,30 in
542: displaying results in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. These values are typical of the
543: reionization era and are supported by more detailed modelling of the
544: evolution of the inhomogeneities of the IGM (Furlanetto \& Oh (2008a\&b), Trac \& Cen (2007), Miralda-Escud\'e et al. (2000)).
545:
546: Our approximations also assume that a particular
547: ionization front can be associated to a unique source, which is valid
548: until the late stages of reionization when these fronts overlap. Since
549: we do not include such effects, we simply set $\nu(z)$=1 when $\nu(z)$
550: crosses 1, leading to the artefact of discontinuities at low redshift
551: in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
552:
553: \begin{figure}[h!] \vskip 0.5cm \plotone{f1.eps}
554: \caption{The fraction of ionized volume in the universe $f(z)$ from
555: Quark-Nova events for various clumping factors $C$=1,10,30. The vertical
556: dashed line denotes the observed lower limit of reionization at a redshift
557: of $z=5.8$.}
558: \label{fig1}
559: \end{figure}
560:
561: The vertical dashed line shows the observational lower limit on the
562: reionization redshift (Fan et al. 2003) $z$=5.8. For $C\leq 10$
563: (moderate recombination rate), it is clear that QNe can make
564: a large contribution to reionization.
565:
566: We can now plot the
567: results for the optical depth $\tau_e$ as a function of
568: reionizing source turn-on at $z=z_0$ - shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
569: These plots are determined from
570: Eq.~(\ref{eq:depth}) for $C=1,10,30$ with $f_{\rm re}$=10. The
571: best-fit value for $\tau_e$ from $\Lambda$CDM cosmology
572: (Dunkley et al. (2009)), assuming {\it prompt} reionization at $z=z_0$, along
573: with $1\sigma$ limits are also shown.
574:
575: The
576: contribution of QNe to the optical depth depends sensitively on the
577: clumping factor\footnote{We have varied the clumping factor from 5-15 and find that correspondingly, $\tau_e$ varies from $\approx 0.13$ to $\approx 0.066$, assuming prompt reionization at $z\sim 20$. Thus, we do find sensitivity to the clumping factor, but this senstivity diminishes at large values of the clumping factor. A similar observation is made in relation to reionization simulations in inhomegeneous IGM (Miralda-Escud\'e, et al. 2000), where the effect of increasing overdensity saturates since late-time reionization (which is the era where the optical depth builds up) proceeds preferentially in underdense regions.}, but can be significant for $C\sim 10$, while for
578: $C\sim 30$ or higher, the contribution is small. If $C\sim 1$, including
579: QNe leads to too large an optical depth in comparison to the 5-year WMAP
580: data. Other reionizing sources such as Pop III stars have been studied for
581: consistency with the WMAP optical depth, with most reasonable models
582: of their evolution suggesting a ``shortfall'' in the optical depth
583: ($\tau_e\sim 0.05$) due to feedback effects that lead to self-regulation
584: (Sokasian et al 2004), even in the case of high escape efficiency of the
585: ionizing photons. Based on the results displayed in Figs.\ref{fig1} and
586: \ref{fig2}, we suggest the intriguing possibility that QNe can
587: help make up this shortfall.
588:
589: \begin{figure}[h!] \vskip 0.5cm \plotone{f2.eps}
590: \caption{The Thompson optical depth $\tau_e(z)$ from eq. (\ref{eq:depth})
591: for various clumping factors $C$=1,10,30.}
592: \label{fig2}
593: \end{figure}
594:
595: \subsection{Helium reionization}
596: \label{sec:he}
597:
598: Helium reionization occured more recently, as suggested by a rapidly
599: varying HeII optical depth at $z\approx 2.9$ with a small line of
600: sight variation $\Delta z\approx 0.1$ (Reimers et al.
601: 2005,2006). Observations of the HeII Ly$\alpha$ forest (Fardal et
602: al. 1998) along lines of sight to bright quasars at $z\approx 3$ as
603: well as empirical modelling of quasar luminosities and distributions
604: (Furlanetto \& Oh 2008a\&b) hint that quasars are good candiates
605: for HeII reionization. However, the latter work also cautions against
606: a simple picture in which quasars are the only HeII ionizing
607: source. This is because even a small fraction of HeII can absorb the
608: redshifted Ly$\alpha$ photons, so that a modest contribution from a
609: widespread low-intensity source above the HeII edge can also explain
610: the apparent patchy nature of HeII reionization at $z\gtrsim
611: 3$. Naturally, this raises the question: can QNe play a role
612: in HeliumII reionization?
613:
614:
615: First, we consider the case for HeI, which has an ionization potential
616: of 24.6eV. We find from Eq.(\ref{eq:ionizephotons}) that only 5\% of
617: the photons that ionize HI can also ionize HeI; however there are far
618: fewer HeI atoms $n_{\rm He}/n_{\rm H}\sim 0.08$. Since the
619: recombination rates of HI and HeI differ only slightly, the
620: ionization front for HeI may end up closely following that of HI. If we
621: assume that Helium reionization does not affect HI
622: reionization, then for $T_{\rm pk}=3\times 10^4$K, we find that the radius
623: ratio of Str\"omgren spheres $R_S^{\rm HeII}/R_S^{\rm HII}\approx 1$.
624:
625: In
626: reality, the two ionization fronts are coupled since
627: photons above 26.4eV can ionize both H and He. While we have not performed
628: a detailed solution of the coupled fronts here, the results of such an
629: exercise can be mocked up by a parameter
630: $y=n_{{\rm HI}}a_{\nu}({\rm HI})/(n_{{\rm HI}}a_{\nu}({\rm HI})+n_{{{\rm HeI}}}a_{\nu}({{\rm HeI}}))$ which is the fraction of photons with
631: energy $E=h\nu\geq 24.6$eV that are used up to ionize Hydrogen
632: ($n$ is the number density and $a_{\nu}$ is the photoionization cross-section). Although $a_{\nu}$ is strongly energy dependent, the
633: ratio $a_{\nu}({\rm HeI})/a_{\nu}({\rm HI})$ is about 8 for
634: $h\nu\gtrsim 24.6$eV. With $n_{{\rm HeI}}/n_{{\rm HI}}\sim 0.08$, we
635: find $y\sim 0.65$. This implies that $(1-y)\sim 0.35$ is the fraction of
636: such photons that ionize Helium. The ratio of HII to HeII Stromgren radii
637: depends on $y$ as well as on the emissivity of the source (and recombination
638: coefficients) and the ratio
639: $R_S^{HeII}/R_S^{HII}\approx 0.35$ for $T_{\rm pk}\approx 3\times 10^4$K.
640: For a higher $T_{\rm pk}\approx 4\times 10^4$K, this ratio is almost 1.
641: It follows that the ratio of volume fractions $V_S^{HeII}/V_S^{HII}\approx 0.04$ for $T_{\rm pk}\approx 3\times 10^4$K and $\approx$ 1 for $T_{\rm pk}\approx 4\times 10^4$K. Including other smaller effects in Eq.(8) of our paper,
642: such as the difference in recombination rates between H and He, and
643: the number of ionizing photons/baryon for H and He, we find that the
644: volume fraction of ionized Helium can vary dramatically from about 2\% to
645: 100\% that of ionized Hydrogen. With such a strong dependence on the
646: temperature of the ionizing source, it is not possible to make a robust
647: claim on the efficacy of the Quark-nova on HeI reionization.
648:
649: For HeII ionization, with a large ionization threshold of 54.6 eV, the
650: emissivity of QNe implies that only about 1 in $10^5$ photons
651: can reionize HeII. Employing the front-decoupling approximation as for
652: HeI ionization, we find that $R_S^{\rm HeIII}/R_S^{\rm HII}\approx
653: 0.015$ and that even for the largest $T_{\rm pk}$=$4\times 10^4$K,
654: approximately 5-10\% of HeII is reionized by QNe by $z\sim 3$,
655: depending on $C$~\footnote{This number will be lower once coupling between the HII,
656: HeII and HeIII fronts is introduced}. Thus, we can conservatively say that
657: QNe cannot be major sources of Helium reionization but they may constitute
658: a low-intensity source compared to bright Quasars.
659:
660:
661:
662: \section{Quark-Novae and IGM Enrichment}
663:
664: The large value of $\tau_e$ implies that the first stars appeared as
665: early as $z\sim 20$, affecting the chemical evolution of the Galaxy
666: and subsequent star-formation. A fingerprint of early chemical
667: abundances has been preserved in the extremely metal-poor stars
668: ([Fe/H] is used here as a proxy for the metallicity) such as
669: HE-0107-5240 with [Fe/H]=-5.3 (Christlieb et al. 2004, Bessell et
670: al. 2004) and CS 22949-037, with [Fe/H]=-4 (Depagne et al. 2002,
671: Israelian et al. 2004) which constrains correlations between
672: nucleosynthetic yields and the reionizing photon flux, since both are
673: affected (the former somewhat weakly) by the star's metallicity.
674: Previous works (Daigne et al. 2004; Tumlinson al. 2004) concluded
675: that a top-heavy (40-100$M_{\odot}$) IMF with a lifetime of 50-100 Myr
676: is required to simultaenously satisfy constraints set by the
677: nucleosynthetic pattern in EMPs and early reionization. This
678: requirement can change once the contribution of QNe to reionization is
679: included. At present, we lack a comprehensive model of chemical
680: evolution that takes into account the contribution from QNe. However,
681: we can assess their importance in a global sense.
682:
683:
684: If most of the metals produced in supernovae explosions of the first
685: stars are expelled into the IGM, Ricotti \& Ostriker (2004) have
686: estimated that the IGM metallicity is given by
687:
688: \begin{equation}
689: \label{eq:metals} Z_{\rm IGM}\sim (1-f_{\rm
690: BH})3g\times10^{-3}Z_{\odot}\left(\frac{\tau_e}{0.1}\right)
691: \end{equation}
692:
693: \noindent
694: where $f_{\rm BH}$ is the collapse-fraction of massive stars into
695: black holes, $0.3<g<2$ depends weakly on the metallicity, and
696: $Z_{\odot}$ is the solar metallicity. This assumes that the first
697: stars are the sole reionizing sources, in which case, one needs to
698: invoke a large black hole collapse fraction $\sim 0.3$ in order to
699: satisfy the observational constraint on the metallicity of the early
700: IGM $Z_{\rm IGM}\simeq 2\times10^{-4}Z_{\odot}$ (Schaye et
701: al.(2003)). Such a large collapse fraction requires a top-heavy IMF.
702:
703: QNe can change this scenario dramatically. As already shown,
704: QNe can generate enough photons to provide a large optical
705: depth, particularly if the clumping factor is small. Consistency with
706: the optical depth then implies that the first stars contribute much
707: less to the UV photon flux, so that $\tau_e$ from the first stars can
708: be much less than 0.1. From Eq.(\ref{eq:metals}), it is apparent that
709: even with a small collapse fraction into black holes and a normal
710: IMF, one may be able to satisfy the observational constraint on the
711: IGM metallicity. It may not be necessary to invoke a large population
712: of short-lived massive stars very early on and the IMF of Pop III
713: stars could actually be more like the present-day IMF. We also note
714: that since QNe only produce elements above $A\sim 130$, they
715: essentially do not contribute to metallicity, which is associated with
716: the production of much lighter elements such as C and O. Early IGM
717: metallicity and reionization are decoupled in the QN
718: scenario.
719:
720: However, there is a link between early r-process abundance
721: and reionization. The amount of r-process material ejected in a QN,
722: as estimated from the energetics of the underlying phase transition,
723: is about $10^{-4}M_{\odot}$. The frequency of such events during the
724: reionization era is $f_{\rm dsQN}\sim .01$~yr$^{-1}$~Galaxy$^{-1}$,
725: so that the total r-process material ejected by $z\sim 6$ ($10^9$
726: yrs) is about $10^3M_{\odot}$. Since the total r-process abundance
727: in our Galaxy at present is constrained to be $\sim 10^4M_{\odot}$
728: (Wallerstein et al. (1997)), we conclude that about 10\% of the total
729: r-process elements at $A\gtrsim 130$ was produced early on in
730: QNe, with the rest produced in Type-II supernovae or binary
731: neutron star mergers, as QNe became much less frequent. In
732: this way, QNe also provide a prompt and local initial
733: enrichment of heavy elements $A\gtrsim 130$ that is seen in some of
734: the oldest stars found to date.~\footnote{The large ratios of
735: [C/Fe],[O/Fe],[N/Fe] seen in the EMPs is believed to be related to
736: lower mass stars, $20<M/M_{\odot}<40$ and would not be affected by
737: QN events, which require heavier progenitors and only produce
738: elements beyond $A\sim 130$.} We plan to study the implications
739: for the observed scatter of r-process abundance in metal-poor stars in a
740: subsequent study with a chemical evolution model.
741:
742: \section{Conclusions and discussion}
743:
744: We have examined the role of Quark-Novae in reionizing
745: the universe and contributing to its metal enrichment.
746: In particular, we have suggested that:
747:
748: (i) the most massive stars ($M\ge
749: 40M_{\odot}$) in a conventional or slightly top-heavy IMF collapse to
750: black-holes with a possible (small) contribution to reionization from
751: accretion but not to metallicity;
752:
753: (ii) the
754: reionization is driven by intermediate-mass Pop III stars, whose higher
755: mass members ($25M_{\odot}\le M\le 40M_{\odot}$) end up as
756: QNe, providing the bulk of reionzing photons and enriching
757: their environment in elements beyond $A\sim 130$; and
758:
759: (iii) low
760: mass Pop III stars ($8M_{\odot}\le M\le 25M_{\odot}$) end up
761: as type II SNe. A long-lived and metal-poor population of low-mass stars
762: begins to emerge at the end of the reionization epoch (Greif et al. (2008)).
763: In our scenario, the dying out of the first heavy stars coincides with a
764: peak in the QN rate and therefore a peak in ionizing radiation.
765:
766: Our calculations have shown that the photon flux produced in
767: dual-shock Quark-Novae can be large enough to overcome recombination
768: in the reionization epoch. Complete reionization by $z\sim 6$ is
769: achieved if the clumping factor of matter is small $C\sim{\cal
770: O}(1)$ but the optical depth is then $\tau_e\sim 0.17$, almost twice
771: that of the latest WMAP measurement . We have made estimates for
772: the evolution of the ionized fraction of the IGM in a simple model of
773: non-overlapping outward-propagating ionization spheres. Our results
774: imply that the optical depth from Thomson rescattering of CMB photons
775: can be close to the value measured by WMAP, if the clumping factor
776: $C\sim 10$. In this case, QNe provide about 60\% of the reionizing photons.
777: Alternatively, if $C\sim{\cal O}(30)$ or larger, QNe
778: play a minor role in reionization compared to the first
779: stars. QNe can be important for HI and HeI reionization, but
780: their spectra do not contain sufficient high-energy photons to
781: reionize HeII in any significant amount. Of central observational
782: interest is the production of r-process elements beyond $A\sim 130$ in
783: QNe, a feature which distinguishes QNe from SNe (the latter
784: require larger entropy than predicted in current simulations to produce
785: r-process elements beyond $A\sim 130$).
786:
787:
788: There are several novel aspects of the dsQN which
789: must be addressed in future. The most important is the final
790: composition of the Supernova ejecta from the first explosion which is
791: subsequently shocked by r-process rich QN ejecta. This is a
792: critical input to chemical evolution studies which can assess the
793: effect of QNe on early r-process abundance patterns observed
794: in metal-poor stars. In addition, the effect of
795: QNe on the extra-galactic radiation field as well as its
796: potentially large impact on the dissociation of molecular Hydrogen,
797: which is a ``negative feedback'' to the formation of massive stars,
798: remains to be analyzed. Further details relevant to the reionization era,
799: such as the metallicity, the evolution of the clumping factor,
800: the star formation efficiency in Galaxies, and the early supernovae rate
801: will have some quantitative impact on our results. These quantities are
802: poorly known at present and present a source of uncertainty in any model
803: of reionization.
804:
805: We close by predicting some important distinguishing features of
806: QNe that are amenable to cosmological observations:
807:
808:
809:
810: i) \underline{Quark-Novae\ and\ nucleosynthesis}: QNe are a
811: novel nucleosynthetic site for the $r$-process. We expect the
812: QN ejecta to achieve $\gamma$-ray transparency sooner than
813: Supernova ejecta since QN progenitors (i.e., neutron stars)
814: lack extended atmospheres. Thus r-process-only nuclei with
815: $\gamma$-decay lifetimes of the order of years (such as $^{137}$Cs,
816: $^{144}$Ce, $^{155}$Eu and $^{194}$Os) can be used as tags for the
817: QN (Jaikumar et al.(2007)), differentiating them from
818: pair-instability SNe (due to the lack of any neutron excess) or
819: core-collapse SNe (lower neutron excess than the QN ejecta).
820: This could be observed by Gamma-ray satellites such as INTEGRAL.
821:
822:
823: ii) \underline{Quark-Novae\ and\ high\ redshift\ gamma-ray\ bursts}:
824: It has been
825: argued that QNe provides an additional energy reservoir in the
826: context of Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs). The QN leads to a three stage
827: model for long GRBs, involving a neutron star phase, followed by a Quark-
828: Star (QS) phase and a plausible third stage that occurs when the QS accretes
829: enough material to become a black hole. As shown in Ouyed et al. (2007) and Staff et
830: al. (2007) by including the QS phase, one can account for both energy
831: and extended duration of the prompt emission, X-ray flaring and the
832: flattening observed in GRBs light curves. Our findings in this paper
833: link QNe to the reionization epoch. The connection between QNe and
834: GRBs suggested above would imply that GRBs should be observed as far
835: back as the epoch of reionization.
836:
837:
838: To further pursue this connection between early QN and high redshift gamma ray
839: sources, we note that the recent detection of GRB 080913 with {\it Swift} (Gehrels et
840: al. 2004) at redshift 6.7 makes it the highest redshift GRB to date
841: - more distant than the highest-redshift QSO (Fynbo et al. 2008).
842: At $z=6.7$ the burst occurred when the universe was less than a Gyr
843: old when a high fraction of massive stars is expected to be of Pop
844: III. It is thus possible that this GRB is a member of the
845: long-soft GRBs produced by the collapse of the massive Pop III star
846: (Greiner et al. 2009). However, making GRBs by the collapsar
847: mechanism from Pop III has been questioned since simulations suggest
848: that the exploding stars will retain its hydrogen and helium rich
849: outer layers (e.g. Lawlor et al. 2008 and references therein). This
850: violates the main requirement in the collapsar scenario that the star
851: loses its extended envelope to enable the relativistic jet to punch
852: through the compact core on timescale for long-soft GRBs (Fryer et
853: al. 2001). Pop III binary evolution can both help remove the
854: hydrogen envelope and spin up binary components. However, recent simulations
855: question the efficiency in producing GRBs in this process
856: (e.g. Belczynski et al. 2007 and references therein). Furthermore,
857: classifying it as a long duration GRB begs the question, in the
858: collapsar scenario, of how can a massive star produce a burst as
859: short as 1 second? If instead GRB 080913 belongs to the short-hard
860: class (Pal'shin et al. 2008; Xu 2008), then a neutron star-black hole
861: merger is favored over a double neutron star merger, with the
862: Blandford-Znajek process at play (P\'erez-Ram\'irez et al. 2008).
863:
864:
865: The present detection rate of GRBs at $z>5$ is about what is
866: predicted on the basis of the star formation rate (Jakobsson et
867: al. 2005). In addition, with hints of first stars having formed as
868: early as $z > 20$ (Kogut et al. 2003), GRBs are believed to exist as
869: early as $z\sim 15$-$20$. The lack of many high-$z$ GRBs can be
870: explained in our model, as a consequence of clustering of GRB events
871: near the end of the cosmic reionization era. We recall that in our
872: model, the dying out of the first stars (at $z\sim 7$-$8$ when
873: adopting a normal IMF) coincides with a peak in the QN rate. This
874: peak in the QNe rate (i.e. a peak in the GRB rate at $z\sim 7$-$8$
875: in our model) offers a possible explanation for the sparsity of GRBs
876: out to the highest redshifts ($z > 10$) despite the immense luminosity
877: of both the prompt gamma-ray emission and X-ray and optical afterglows
878: of GRBs, and the current technology (i.e. the high detection rate
879: delivered by {\it Swift}). While a merger origin of GRB080913 cannot
880: be definitively ruled out, we suggest that this burst could instead
881: be the first ever detection of a QN near the end of the cosmic
882: reionization era.
883:
884: \begin{acknowledgements}
885: The authors thank Ken Nollett for helpful discussions and an anonymous
886: referee for useful points that improved the manuscript. RO and REP
887: are supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
888: Research Council of Canada (NSERC). RO also thanks the
889: Origins Institute at McMaster for hospitality and support through a Senior Visiting
890: Fellowship. PJ acknowledges support from the
891: Department of Atomic Energy of the Government of India and from the
892: Argonne National Laboratory as a visiting scientist under US
893: Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics, contract
894: no. DE-AC02-06CH11357.
895: \end{acknowledgements}
896:
897:
898: \appendix
899:
900:
901:
902: \section{A: Pollution by CFL strangelets}
903: \label{appendixA}
904:
905: By assuming that strange quark matter is absolutely stable, the universe might be polluted by strangelets (e.g. ejected during coalescence of quark stars in binary systems; e.g. Madsen 2005).
906: With a NS-NS binary collision rate of $10^{-4}-10^{-6}$yr$^{-1}$Galaxy$^{-1}$ (Belczynski et al., 2002), we expect the rate of QS-NS collisions to be at most $10^{-5}-10^{-7}$yr$^{-1}$Galaxy$^{-1}$. This will be somewhat reduced by the fact that, just as about 50\% of binary systems are disrupted by a supernova, binary neutron stars can become gravitationally unbound in a quark-nova. The amount of ejected mass will also be smaller since quark matter is stiffer than neutron matter. Following Madsen (2005), we have estimated the flux of CFL strangelets in the Earth's vicinity, accounting for factors such as the geomagnetic cutoff on the rigidity of the strangelet, and the confinement time of typical CFL strangelets in our Galaxy. We find this flux (assuming strangelet number distribution to peak in the baryon number range $A\sim 10^2-10^3$) to be $\sim 10^2-10^4$m$^{-2}$yr$^{-1}$sr$^{-1}$. This flux is too low to be tested conclusively by terrestrial experiments (although for particular values of the strangelet charge, 1 or 2 candidate events have been identified; see Finch 2006). The satellite-based AMS-02 detector launched recently has a threshold senstivity that is sufficient to detect the expected flux of CFL strangelets from quark star collisions across a wide range in $A$; these results are expected within a few years. Lunar searches, which benefit from lack of geological mixing and no magnetic field deflection, are also just approaching the required flux senstivity. Thus, at present, the strange quark matter hypothesis is not inconsistent with observations, even taking into account the binary QS-NS collisions and consequent pollution by CFL strangelets.
907: The most recent work about strange star binary mergers by Bauswein et. al. (2008) found that for high values of the MIT bag constant, strange stars could co-exist with ordinary neutron stars as they are not converted by the capture of cosmic ray strangelets. Combining their simulations with recent estimates of stellar binary populations, Bauswein et al. (2008) conclude that an unambiguous detection of an ordinary neutron star would not rule out the strange matter hypothesis.
908:
909:
910: \section{B: Quark-Novae progenitors}
911: \label{appendixB}
912:
913:
914:
915: The fit to the observed light curve of SN2006gy, Leahy \& Ouyed (2008) assumes
916: QNe progenitor mass in the (40-60)$M_{\odot}$ range.
917: However, one can employ the parameter degeneracy in that fit to examine the dual-shock scenario with the more conservative mass range of (25-40)$M_{\odot}$ which is more in line with the literature (e.g. Heger et al. ApJ 591 2003; Nakazato et al. 2008) which suggets prompt BH formation above
918: $40M_{\odot}$. It should be noted however that the effect of the fireball in the CFL phase
919: (Ouyed et al. 2005) has not been taken into account in any of these simulations, which means the range 25-40$M_{\odot}$ could be somewhat underestimated.
920:
921:
922: \section{C: Shock efficiency in dual-shock Quark-Novae}
923: \label{appendixC}
924:
925: According to Ouyed et al. (2007), the shock efficiency varies as $\rho_{\rm env.}^2$ with the mean
926: SN envelope density given by $\rho_{\rm env}\propto M_{\rm env.}/R_{\rm env}^3$. If we choose
927: 40$M_{\odot}$ instead of 60$M_{\odot}$ for the progenitor of the SN,
928: and demand the same efficiency, we find that
929: the collision radius should be $R_{40} =
930: (40/60)^{1/3}\times R_{60}\sim 0.876\times R_{60}$ and the delay time $t_{\rm delay, 40} = 0.876 t_{\rm delay, 60}\sim 0.876\times 15$ days $\sim 13$ days. Similarly, $T_{\rm pk, 40} = (R_{40}/R_{60})^{1/2}T_{\rm pk, 60} = (0.876)^{1/2}T_{\rm pk, 60}\sim 0.94T_{\rm pk, 60}$. With these changes, we find a reduction factor of 0.6
931: in the total number of ionizing photons. This does not change our order of magnitude arguments on the ionization efficiency and we had in any case adopted a very conservative estimate for the number of ionizing photons initially by neglecting photons emitted after the ejecta becomes transparent.
932:
933:
934:
935:
936:
937: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
938:
939:
940: \bibitem[Alcock et al. (1986)]{Alcock} Alcock, C., Farhi, E., \& Olinto, A. V. 1986, Astrophys. J., 310, 261
941:
942: \bibitem[Alford et al.(1999)]{1999NuPhB.537..443A} Alford, M., Rajagopal,
943: K., \& Wilczek, F.\ 1999, Nuclear Physics B, 537, 443
944:
945: \bibitem[Anand et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...481..954A} Anand, J.~D., Goyal, A.,
946: Gupta, V.~K., \& Singh, S.\ 1997, \apj, 481, 954
947:
948: \bibitem[Barkana \& Loeb (2001)]{Barkana} Barkana, R. \& Loeb, A. 2001, Physics Reports, v349, issue 2, p125
949:
950: \bibitem[Bauswein et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0812.4248B} Bauswein, A., Janka,
951: H.~-., Oechslin, R., Pagliara, G., Sagert, I., Schaffner-Bielich, J.,
952: Hohle, M.~M., \& Neuhaeuser, R.\ 2008, arXiv:0812.4248
953:
954: \bibitem[Belczynski et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...572..407B} Belczynski, K.,
955: Kalogera, V., \& Bulik, T.\ 2002, \apj, 572, 407
956:
957: \bibitem[Belczynski et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...664..986B} Belczynski, K.,
958: Bulik, T., Heger, A., \& Fryer, C.\ 2007, \apj, 664, 986
959:
960: \bibitem[Bessell et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...612L..61B} Bessell, M.~S.,
961: Christlieb, N., \& Gustafsson, B.\ 2004, \apjl, 612, L61
962:
963: \bibitem[Bodmer (1971)]{Bodmer} Bodmer, A. R. 1971, Phys. Rev. D, 4, 1601
964:
965: \bibitem[Bombaci et al. (2004)]{Bombaci} Bombaci, I., Parenti, I., \& Vidana, I. 2004, Astrophys. J., 614, 314
966:
967: \bibitem[Bromm et al. (2001)]{Bromm} Bromm, V., Kudritzki, R. P., \& Loeb, A., ApJ, 2001, 552,
968: 464
969:
970: \bibitem[Christlieb et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...603..708C} Christlieb, N.,
971: Gustafsson, B., Korn, A.~J., Barklem, P.~S., Beers, T.~C., Bessell, M.~S.,
972: Karlsson, T., \& Mizuno-Wiedner, M.\ 2004, \apj, 603, 708
973:
974: \bibitem[Daigne et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...617..693D} Daigne, F., Olive,
975: K.~A., Vangioni-Flam, E., Silk, J., \& Audouze, J.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 693
976:
977: \bibitem[Depagne et
978: al.(2002)]{2002A&A...390..187D} Depagne, E., et al.\ 2002, \aap, 390, 187
979:
980: \bibitem[Djorgovski et al. (2002)]{Djorgovski} Djorgovski S. G. et al. 2001, ApJ, 560, L5
981:
982: %\bibitem[Drago et al. (2005)]{Drago} Drago, A., Lavagno, A., \& Parenti,
983: %I. 2005; astro-ph/0512652
984:
985: \bibitem[Drago et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...659.1519D} Drago, A., Lavagno, A.,
986: \& Parenti, I.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 1519
987:
988: %\bibitem[Dunkley et al. (2008)]{Dunkley} Dunkley, J., Komatsu, E., Nolta,
989: %M. R. et al. ; arXiv:0803.0586v2 [astro-ph]
990:
991: \bibitem[Dunkley et al.(2009)]{2009ApJS..180..306D} Dunkley, J., et al.\
992: 2009, \apjs, 180, 306
993:
994: \bibitem[Fan et al, (2003)]{Fan03} Fan, X. et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1649
995:
996: \bibitem[Fan et al, (2006)]{Fan06} Fan, X., Carilli, C. L., \& Keating, B. 2006, ARAA, 44, 415
997:
998: \bibitem[Fang et al. (2004)]{Fang} Fang, T. \& Cen, R. 2004, 616, L87
999:
1000: \bibitem[Fardal et al.(1998)]{1998AJ....115.2206F} Fardal, M.~A., Giroux,
1001: M.~L., \& Shull, J.~M.\ 1998, \aj, 115, 2206
1002:
1003: \bibitem[Finch(2006)]{2006JPhG...32S.251F} Finch, E.\ 2006, Journal of
1004: Physics G Nuclear Physics, 32, 251
1005:
1006: \bibitem[Fryer et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...550..372F} Fryer, C.~L., Woosley,
1007: S.~E., \& Heger, A.\ 2001, \apj, 550, 372
1008:
1009: \bibitem[Furlanetto
1010: \& Oh(2008)]{2008ApJ...681....1F} Furlanetto, S.~R., \& Oh, S.~P.\ 2008a, \apj, 681, 1
1011:
1012: \bibitem[Furlanetto
1013: \& Oh (2008)]{2008ApJ...682...14F} Furlanetto, S.~R., \& Oh, S.~P.\ 2008b, \apj, 682, 14
1014:
1015: \bibitem[Fryer \& Woosley (1998)]{Fry} Fryer, C. L., \& Woosley, S. E. 1998, Astrophys. J., 501, 780
1016:
1017: \bibitem[]{} Fynbo, J. et al. 2008, GCN Circ. 8220
1018:
1019: \bibitem[Gentile et al. (1993)]{Gentile} Gentile, N. A., Aufderheide,
1020: M. B., Mathews, G. J., Swesty, F. D., \& Fuller, G. M 1993,
1021: Astrophys. J., 414, 701
1022:
1023: \bibitem[Gehrels et al. (2004)]{Gehrels} Gehrels, N. et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005
1024:
1025: \bibitem[Gill
1026: \& Heyl(2007)]{2007MNRAS.381...52G} Gill, R., \& Heyl, J.\ 2007, \mnras, 381, 52
1027:
1028: %\bibitem[Greif et al. (2008)]{Greif} Greif, T. H., Schleicher, D. R. G.,
1029: % Johnson, J. L. et al. 2008, arXiv:0808.1647 [astro-ph]
1030:
1031: \bibitem[Greif et al.(2008)]{2008IAUS..255...33G} Greif, T.~H., et al.\
1032: 2008, IAU Symposium, 255, 33
1033:
1034:
1035: %\bibitem[Greiner et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0810.2314G} Greiner, J., et al.\
1036: %2008, arXiv:0810.2314
1037:
1038: \bibitem[Greiner et al.(2009)]{2009ApJ...693.1610G} Greiner, J., et al.\
1039: 2009, \apj, 693, 1610
1040:
1041: \bibitem[Gunn \& Peterson(1965)]{1965ApJ...142.1633G} Gunn, J.~E., \&
1042: Peterson, B.~A.\ 1965, \apj, 142, 1633
1043:
1044: %\bibitem[Haiman \& Loeb (1998)]{Haiman} Haiman, Z., \& Loeb, A. 1998, ApJ, 503, 505
1045:
1046: \bibitem[Heger et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...591..288H} Heger, A., Fryer, C.~L.,
1047: Woosley, S.~E., Langer, N., \& Hartmann, D.~H.\ 2003, \apj, 591, 288
1048:
1049: \bibitem[Horvath
1050: \& Benvenuto(1988)]{1988PhLB..213..516H} Horvath, J.~E., \& Benvenuto, O.~G.\ 1988, Physics Letters B, 213, 516
1051:
1052: \bibitem[Iliev et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.376..534I} Iliev, I.~T., Mellema,
1053: G., Shapiro, P.~R., \& Pen, U.-L.\ 2007, \mnras, 376, 534
1054:
1055: \bibitem[Israelian et
1056: al.(2004)]{2004A&A...419.1095I} Israelian, G., Shchukina, N., Rebolo, R., Basri, G., Gonz{\'a}lez Hern{\'a}ndez, J.~I., \& Kajino, T.\ 2004, \aap, 419, 1095
1057:
1058: \bibitem[Itoh (1970)]{Itoh} Itoh, N. 1970, Prog. Theor. Phys., 44, 291
1059:
1060: \bibitem[Jaikumar et al. (2002)]{2002PRC..65..055205}Jaikumar, P.,
1061: Rapp, R., \& Zahed, I.\ 2002, Phys. Rev. C65, 055205
1062:
1063: \bibitem[Jaikumar et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...471..227J} Jaikumar, P.,
1064: Meyer, B.~S., Otsuki, K., \& Ouyed, R.\ 2007, A\&A, 471, 227
1065:
1066: \bibitem[Jaikumar et al.(2008)]{2008PhRvD..78l3007J} Jaikumar, P., Rupak,
1067: G., \& Steiner, A.~W.\ 2008, \prd, 78, 123007
1068:
1069: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.362..245J} Jakobsson, P., et
1070: al.\ 2005, \mnras, 362, 245
1071:
1072: \bibitem[Ker{\"a}nen
1073: \& Ouyed(2003)]{2003A&A...407L..51K} Ker{\"a}nen, P., \& Ouyed, R.\ 2003, \aap, 407, L51
1074:
1075: \bibitem[Ker\"anen et al. (2005)]{KOJ} Ker\"anen, P., Ouyed, R., \&
1076: Jaikumar, P. 2005, ApJ, 618, 485
1077:
1078: \bibitem[Kogut et al.(2003)]{2003ApJS..148..161K} Kogut, A., et al.\ 2003,
1079: \apjs, 148, 161
1080:
1081: \bibitem[Lawlor et al.(2008)]{2008MNRAS.384.1533L} Lawlor, T.~M., Young,
1082: T.~R., Johnson, T.~A., \& MacDonald, J.\ 2008, \mnras, 384, 1533
1083:
1084: %\bibitem[Leahy
1085: %\& Ouyed(2007)]{2007arXiv0710.2114L} Leahy, D., \& Ouyed, R.\ 2007, arXiv:0710.2114
1086:
1087: \bibitem[Leahy
1088: \& Ouyed(2007)]{2007arXiv0710.2114L} Leahy, D., \& Ouyed, R.\ 2007, arXiv:0710.2114
1089:
1090: \bibitem[Leahy
1091: \& Ouyed(2008)]{2008MNRAS.387.1193L} Leahy, D., \& Ouyed, R.\ 2008, \mnras, 387, 1193
1092:
1093: \bibitem[Lugones et al. (1994)]{LBV} Lugones, G., Benvenuto, O. G., \&
1094: Vucetich, H. 1994, Phys. Rev. D, 50, 6100
1095:
1096: \bibitem[Madau et al. (2001)]{Madau} Madau, P., Ferrara, A., \& Rees, M. J. 2001, ApJ, 555, 92
1097:
1098: \bibitem[Madsen(2005)]{2005PhRvD..71a4026M} Madsen, J.\ 2005, \prd, 71,
1099: 014026
1100:
1101: \bibitem[Mannarelli et al.(2008)]{2008PhRvL.101x1101M} Mannarelli, M.,
1102: Manuel, C., \& Sa'D, B.~A.\ 2008, Physical Review Letters, 101, 241101
1103:
1104: \bibitem[Manuel et al.(2005)]{2005JHEP...09..076M} Manuel, C., Dobado, A.,
1105: \& Llanes-Estrada, F.~J.\ 2005, Journal of High Energy Physics, 9, 76
1106:
1107: \bibitem[Mapelli \& Ferrara (2005)]{Mapelli} Mapelli. M. \& Ferrara, A. 2005, MNRAS, 364, issue 1, 2
1108:
1109: \bibitem[Miralda-Escud\'e et al. (2000)]{Miralda} Miralda-Escud\'e, J., Haehnelt, M., \& Rees, M. J. 2000,
1110: ApJ, 530, 1
1111:
1112: \bibitem[Mori et al. (2002)]{Mori} Mori, M., Ferrara, A., \& Madau, P. 2002, ApJ, 571, 40
1113:
1114: \bibitem[Nakazato et al.(2008)]{2008PhRvD..77j3006N} Nakazato, K.,
1115: Sumiyoshi, K., \& Yamada, S.\ 2008, \prd, 77, 103006
1116:
1117: \bibitem[Osterbrock (1989)]{Osterbrock89} Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei (University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA)
1118:
1119: \bibitem[Osterbrock (1988)]{Osterbrock} Osterbrock, D. E. 1988, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei. (Univ. Science. Book, Herndon, VA)
1120:
1121: \bibitem[Ouyed et al. (2002)]{ODD} Ouyed, R., Dey, J., \& Dey, M. 2002,
1122: A\&A, 390, L39
1123:
1124: \bibitem[Ouyed et al.(2005)]{ORV} Ouyed, R., Rapp, R., \& Vogt, C. 2005,
1125: ApJ, 632, 1001
1126:
1127: \bibitem[Ouyed et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0705.1240O} Ouyed, R., Leahy, D.,
1128: Staff, J., \& Niebergal, B.\ 2007, Advances in Astronomy, in Press [arXiv:0705.1240]
1129:
1130: %\bibitem[Ouyed
1131: %\& Leahy(2008)]{2008arXiv0812.4441O} Ouyed, R., \& Leahy, D.\ 2008, ApJ, in Press [arXiv:0812.4441]
1132:
1133: \bibitem[Ouyed
1134: \& Leahy(2009)]{2009ApJ...696..562O} Ouyed, R., \& Leahy, D.\ 2009, \apj, 696, 562
1135:
1136: %\bibitem[Ouyed et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...420.1025O} Ouyed, R., Elgar{\o}y,
1137: %{\O}., Dahle, H., \& Ker{\"a}nen, P.\ 2004, \aap, 420, 1025
1138:
1139: %\bibitem[Ouyed et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...653..558O} Ouyed, R., Niebergal, B.,
1140: %Dobler, W., \& Leahy, D.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 558
1141:
1142: %\bibitem[Ouyed et al.(2007a)]{2007A&A...473..357O} Ouyed, R., Leahy, D., \&
1143: %Niebergal, B.\ 2007a, \aap, 473, 357
1144:
1145: %\bibitem[Ouyed et
1146: %al.(2007)]{2007A&A...475...63O} Ouyed, R., Leahy, D., \& Niebergal, B.\ 2007b, \aap, 475, 63
1147:
1148:
1149: %\bibitem[Page et al. (2006)]{Page} Page, L., et al., 2006, ApJ, astro-ph/0603450
1150:
1151: \bibitem[Pal'Shin et al.(2008)]{2008GCN..8256....1P} Pal'Shin, V., et al.\
1152: 2008, GRB Coordinates Network, 8256, 1
1153:
1154: %\bibitem[Pettini (1999)]{1999cezh.conf..233P} Pettini, M.\ 1999,
1155: Chemical Evolution from Zero to High Redshift, 233 [astro-ph/9902173]
1156:
1157: \bibitem[Perez-Ramirez et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0810.2107P} Perez-Ramirez,
1158: D., et al.\ 2008, arXiv:0810.2107
1159:
1160: \bibitem[Press \& Schecter (1974)]{1974} Press, W. H. \& Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425
1161:
1162: \bibitem[Qian
1163: \& Wasserburg (2002)]{2002ApJ...567..515Q} Qian, Y.-Z., \& Wasserburg, G.~J.\ 2002, \apj, 567, 515
1164:
1165: \bibitem[Reimers et
1166: al.(2005)]{2005A&A...442...63R} Reimers, D., Fechner, C., Hagen, H.-J., Jakobsen, P., Tytler, D., \& Kirkman, D.\ 2005, \aap, 442, 63
1167:
1168: \bibitem[Reimers et
1169: al.(2006)]{2006A&A...449....9R} Reimers, D., Agafonova, I.~I., Levshakov, S.~A., Hagen, H.-J., Fechner, C., Tytler, D., Kirkman, D., \& Lopez, S.\ 2006, \aap, 449, 9
1170:
1171: \bibitem[Ricotti \& Ostriker (2004)]{Ricotti} Ricotti, M., \& Ostriker, J. P. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 539
1172:
1173: %\bibitem[Sagert et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0809.4225S} Sagert, I., Hempel, M.,
1174: %Pagliara, G., Schaffner-Bielich, J., Fischer, T., Mezzacappa, A.,
1175: %Thielemann, F.~-., \& Liebend{\"o}rfer, M.\ 2008, arXiv:0809.4225
1176:
1177: \bibitem[Sagert et al.(2009)]{2009PhRvL.102h1101S} Sagert, I., Fischer, T.,
1178: Hempel, M., Pagliara, G., Schaffner-Bielich, J., Mezzacappa, A.,
1179: Thielemann, F.-K.,
1180: \& Liebend{\"o}rfer, M.\ 2009, Physical Review Letters, 102, 081101
1181:
1182: \bibitem[Scalo(1986)]{1986FCPh...11....1S} Scalo, J.~M.\ 1986, Fundamentals
1183: of Cosmic Physics, 11, 1
1184:
1185: \bibitem[Schaerer (2002)]{Schaerer} Schaerer, D. A\&A, 2002, 382, 28
1186:
1187: \bibitem[Schaye et al.(2003)]{Schaye} Schaye, J. Aguirre, A., Kim, T.-S., Theuns, T., Rauch, M., Sargent, W.L.W. 2003, ApJ, 596, 768.
1188:
1189: \bibitem[Schneider et al. (1991)]{Schneider} Schneider, D., Schmidt, M., \& Gunn, J. E. 1991, ApJ, 101, 2004
1190:
1191: \bibitem[Shapiro \& Giroux (1987)]{Shapiro} Shapiro, P. R., \& Giroux,
1192: M. L. 1987, ApJ, 321, L107
1193:
1194: \bibitem [Smith et al. (2007)]{Smith} Smith, N., Weidong. L., Foley, R. J. et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1116S
1195:
1196: \bibitem[Sokasian et al (2004)]{Sokasian} Sokasian, A. et al. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 47
1197:
1198: \bibitem[Songaila (2001)]{Songaila} Songaila, A. 2001, ApJ, 561, L153
1199:
1200: %\bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{2003ApJS..148..175S} Spergel, D.~N., et
1201: %al.\ 2003, \apjs, 148, 175
1202:
1203: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2007)]{2007ApJS..170..377S} Spergel, D.~N., et
1204: al.\ 2007, \apjs, 170, 377
1205:
1206: \bibitem[Staff et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...645L.145S} Staff, J.~E., Ouyed, R.,
1207: \& Jaikumar, P.\ 2006, \apjl, 645, L145
1208:
1209: \bibitem[Staff et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...667..340S} Staff, J., Ouyed, R.,
1210: \& Bagchi, M.\ 2007, \apj, 667, 340
1211:
1212: \bibitem[Takahara
1213: \& Sato(1986)]{1986Ap&SS.119...45T} Takahara, M., \& Sato, K.\ 1986, \apss, 119, 45
1214:
1215: %\bibitem[Tegmark et al. (2004)]{Tegmark} Tegmark, M. et al. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 103501
1216:
1217: \bibitem[Theuns et al. (2002)]{Theuns} Theuns, T., Schaye, J., Zaroubi, S., Kim, T., Tzanavaris, P., \& Carswell, B. 2002, ApJ 567, L103
1218:
1219: %\bibitem[Treves et al.(2000)]{2000PASP..112..297T} Treves, A., Turolla, R.,
1220: %Zane, S., \& Colpi, M.\ 2000, \pasp, 112, 297
1221:
1222: \bibitem[Trac \& Cen (2008)]{Trac} Trac,H. \& Cen, R. 2007, ApJ 671, 1
1223:
1224: \bibitem[Tumlinson \& Shull (2000)]{Tumlinson} Tumlinson, J., \& Shull, J. M. 2000, ApJ, , 528, L65
1225:
1226: \bibitem[Tumlinson et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...612..602T} Tumlinson, J.,
1227: Venkatesan, A., \& Shull, J.~M.\ 2004, \apj, 612, 602
1228:
1229: \bibitem[Venkatesan \& Truran(2003)]{2003ApJ...594L...1V} Venkatesan, A., \& Truran, J.~W.\ 2003, \apjl, 594, L1
1230:
1231:
1232: \bibitem[Vogt et al. (2004)]{1035} Vogt, C., Rapp, R., \& Ouyed, R. 2004,
1233: Nucl. Phys. A., 735, 543
1234:
1235: \bibitem[Wallerstein (1997)]{Wallerstein} Wallerstein, G., Iben, I. Jr.,
1236: Parker, P. et al. 1997, Rev. Mod. Phys., 69, 995.
1237:
1238: \bibitem[Witten (1984)]{Witten} Witten, E. 1984, Phys. Rev. D, 30, 272
1239:
1240: \bibitem[Wyithe \& Loeb (2003)]{Wyithe} Wyithe, J. S. B., \& Loeb, A. 2003, ApJ, 588, L69
1241:
1242: \bibitem[Xu(2008)]{2008GCN..8267....1X} Xu, D.\ 2008, GRB Coordinates
1243: Network, 8267, 1
1244:
1245: \bibitem[Yasutake et al.(2005)]{2005PThPh.113..953Y} Yasutake, N.,
1246: Hashimoto, M.,
1247: \& Eriguchi, Y.\ 2005, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 113, 953
1248:
1249: \end{thebibliography}
1250:
1251:
1252: \end{document}
1253:
1254:
1255:
1256:
1257:
1258:
1259:
1260:
1261:
1262:
1263:
1264: