1: \documentstyle[emulateapj]{article}
2: \newcommand{\kms}{km s$^{-1}$}
3: \newcommand{\zabs}{$z_{\rm abs}$}
4: \newcommand{\lya}{Ly$\alpha$\ }
5: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in the {\it Ap.J. Letters}}
6: \lefthead{TRIPP ET AL.}
7: \righthead{BARYONIC CONTENT OF O VI ABSORBERS}
8: \begin{document}
9: \title{Intervening \ion{O}{6} Quasar Absorption Systems at Low Redshift: \nl
10: A Significant Baryon Reservoir\altaffilmark{1}}
11:
12: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations with the NASA/ESA {\it Hubble
13: Space Telescope}, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which
14: is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
15: Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-2555. The data were reduced with the STIS
16: Team software, and the research was supported by NASA through grants
17: GO-08165.01-97A and GO-08165.02-97A from STScI.}
18:
19: \author{Todd M. Tripp,\altaffilmark{2} Blair D. Savage,\altaffilmark{3}
20: and Edward B. Jenkins\altaffilmark{2}}
21:
22: \altaffiltext{2}{Princeton University Observatory,
23: Peyton Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544,
24: Electronic mail: tripp@astro.princeton.edu, ebj@astro.princeton.edu}
25:
26: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
27: Madison, WI 53706
28: Electronic mail: savage@astro.wisc.edu}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: Far-UV echelle spectroscopy of the radio-quiet QSO H1821+643 ($z_{\rm em}$ =
32: 0.297), obtained with the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) at
33: $\sim$7 \kms\ resolution, reveals 4 definite \ion{O}{6} absorption line systems
34: and one probable \ion{O}{6} absorber at 0.15 $<$ \zabs\ $<$ 0.27. The four
35: definite \ion{O}{6} absorbers are located near galaxies and are highly
36: displaced from the quasar in redshift; these are likely intervening systems
37: unrelated to the background QSO. In the case of the strong \ion{O}{6} system
38: at \zabs\ = 0.22497, multiple components are detected in \ion{Si}{3} and
39: \ion{O}{6} as well as \ion{H}{1} Lyman series lines, and the differing
40: component velocity centroids and $b-$values firmly establish that this is a
41: multiphase absorption system. A weak \ion{O}{6} absorber is detected at \zabs\
42: = 0.22637, i.e., offset by $\sim$340 \kms\ from the \zabs\ = 0.22497 system.
43: \lya\ absorption is detected at \zabs\ = 0.22613, but no \lya\ absorption is
44: significantly detected at 0.22637. Other weak \ion{O}{6} absorbers at \zabs\ =
45: 0.24531 and 0.26659 and the probable \ion{O}{6} system at 0.21326 have widely
46: diverse \ion{O}{6}/\ion{H}{1} column density ratios with
47: $N$(\ion{O}{6})/$N$(\ion{H}{1}) ranging from $\leq 0.14\pm 0.03$ to
48: $5.2\pm 1.2$. The number density of \ion{O}{6} absorbers with rest
49: equivalent width $>$ 30 m\AA\ in the H1821+643 spectrum is remarkably high,
50: $dN/dz \sim$ 48, with a high (90\%) confidence that it is greater than 17. We
51: conservatively estimate that the cosmological mass density of the
52: \ion{O}{6} systems $\Omega _{b}({\rm O \ VI}) \gtrsim 0.0008 h_{75} ^{-1}$.
53: With an assumed metallicity of 1/10 solar and a conservative assumption that
54: the fraction of oxygen in the \ion{O}{6} ionization stage is 0.2, we obtain
55: $\Omega _{b}({\rm O \ VI}) \gtrsim 0.004 h_{75} ^{-1}$. This is comparable to
56: the combined cosmological mass density of stars and cool gas in galaxies and
57: X-ray emitting gas in galaxy clusters at low redshift.
58: \end{abstract}
59:
60: \keywords{cosmology: observations --- galaxies: halos ---
61: intergalactic medium --- quasars: absorption lines ---
62: quasars: individual (H1821+643)}
63:
64: \section{Introduction}
65:
66: The resonance line doublet of Li-like \ion{O}{6} is a sensitive probe of hot
67: collisionally ionized or warm very low density photoionized gas in the
68: intergalactic medium and galaxy halos. The \ion{O}{6} $\lambda
69: \lambda$1031.92, 1037.62 doublet has been detected in
70: absorption toward QSOs over a wide range of
71: redshifts (see \S 1 in Tripp \& Savage\markcite{ts2000} 2000). The lowest
72: redshift \ion{O}{6} absorbers are particularly interesting because the
73: redshifts of galaxies near the QSO sight lines can be measured, and the
74: relationship between the \ion{O}{6} absorber properties and environment can
75: be studied. Furthermore, cosmological simulations predict that a substantial
76: fraction of the baryons in the universe are in a shock-heated phase at
77: $10^{5} - 10^{7}$ K at low $z$ (e.g., Cen \& Ostriker\markcite{co99} 1999;
78: Dav\'{e} et al.\markcite{dave99} 1999), and preliminary results indicate that
79: low-$z$ \ion{O}{6} systems may indeed be an
80: important baryon reservoir (Tripp \& Savage\markcite{ts2000} 2000).
81: In a previous paper, Savage, Tripp, \& Lu\markcite{stl98} (1998) studied
82: an intervening \ion{O}{6} absorber associated with two galaxies at $z \approx$
83: 0.225 in the spectrum of the radio-quiet QSO H1821+643 using a combination of
84: low resolution {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)} spectra with broad wavelength
85: coverage and a high resolution {\it HST} spectrum with very limited wavelength
86: coverage. We have re-observed this QSO with an echelle mode of the Space
87: Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) on {\it HST}, which provides a resolution
88: of $\sim$7 \kms\ (FWHM) with broad wavelength coverage. In this paper we
89: present in \S 2 and \S 3 new results on one probable and four definite
90: \ion{O}{6} absorption line systems in the STIS H1821+643 spectrum. In \S 4 we
91: discuss the implications of the high rate of occurance of \ion{O}{6} absorbers
92: at low redshift. The direct information we obtain about the highly ionized
93: state of the gas from the presence of \ion{O}{6} allows us to estimate the
94: baryonic content of these systems. We conclude that \ion{O}{6} systems are
95: likely to harbor an important fraction of the baryons at the present epoch.
96:
97: \section{Observations and Absorption Line Measurements}
98:
99: H1821+643 was observed with STIS for 25466 seconds on 1999 June 25 with the
100: medium resolution FUV echelle mode (E140M) and the 0.2$\times$0.06''
101: slit.\footnote{{\it HST} archive ID numbers O5E703010--O5E7030E0.} This STIS
102: mode provides a resolution of $R \ = \ \lambda /\Delta \lambda \approx$ 46000
103: or FWHM $\approx$ 7 \kms\ (Kimble et al.\markcite{kim98} 1998).
104: The data were reduced as described by Tripp \& Savage\markcite{ts99}
105: (2000) including the scattered light correction developed by the STIS
106: Instrument Definition Team. The spectrum extends from $\sim$1150 to 1710 \AA\
107: with four small gaps between orders at $\lambda >$ 1630 \AA . Throughout
108: this paper wavelengths and redshifts are heliocentric.
109:
110: We first searched the spectrum for \ion{O}{6} absorbers by checking for lines
111: with the velocity separation and relative line strengths expected for the
112: doublet. This identified the four definite \ion{O}{6} systems. We then
113: searched for \ion{O}{6} lines associated with known \lya absorbers, and this
114: revealed the probable system (see below). A selected sample of the spectrum
115: is shown in Figure ~\ref{samplespec}. This portion of the spectrum shows the
116: \ion{O}{6} doublet at \zabs\ = 0.22497 as well as a much weaker \ion{O}{6}
117: doublet at \zabs\ = 0.22637. Both of these \ion{O}{6} absorbers are discussed
118: in \S 3.1. In addition to the \ion{O}{6} systems in Figure ~\ref{samplespec},
119: the STIS echelle spectrum shows new \ion{O}{6} absorbers at \zabs\ = 0.24531
120: and 0.26659 which have small equivalent widths; these systems are briefly
121: discussed in \S 3.2 along with a possible \ion{O}{6} system at \zabs\ =
122: 0.21326. The \zabs\ = 0.21326 system is a strong \ion{H}{1}
123: Ly$\alpha$/Ly$\beta$ absorber with a $> 4\sigma$ line detected at the
124: expected wavelength of \ion{O}{6} $\lambda$1031.93. However, the corresponding
125: \ion{O}{6} $\lambda$1037.62 line is blended with Milky Way \ion{S}{2}
126: $\lambda$1259.52 absorption due to two high velocity clouds, so we consider
127: this a probable but not definite \ion{O}{6} detection. The component structure
128: establishes that this blend is mostly due to Milky Way \ion{S}{2}, but it is
129: possible that an \ion{O}{6} $\lambda$1037.62 line of the right strength is
130: present as well. In principle this could be proved by comparing the \ion{S}{2}
131: $\lambda$1259.52 line strengths to the \ion{S}{2} $\lambda \lambda$1250.58,
132: 1253.81 line strengths. However, this does not yield a clear result at the
133: current S/N level due to ambiguity of the continuum placement near 1259 \AA .
134:
135: Restframe equivalent widths ($W_{\rm r}$) of absorption lines detected in the
136: \ion{O}{6} systems, measured using the software of Sembach \&
137: Savage\markcite{ss92} (1992), are listed in Table ~\ref{lineprop}. Note that
138: the quoted errors in equivalent width include contributions from uncertainties
139: in the height and curvature of the continuum as well as a 2\% uncertainty
140: in the flux zero point.
141: Integrated apparent column densities (Savage \& Sembach\markcite{ss91} 1991)
142: are also found in Table ~\ref{lineprop} with error bars including
143: contributions from continuum and zero point uncertainties.
144: To measure line widths, we used the Voigt profile fitting software of
145: Fitzpatrick \& Spitzer\markcite{fitz97} (1997) with the line spread functions
146: from the Cycle 9 STIS Handbook.
147:
148: \section{Absorber Properties}
149:
150: Four of the five absorption systems in Table ~\ref{lineprop} are within a
151: projected distance of 1 $h_{75}^{-1}$ Mpc or less of at least one galaxy with
152: $\mid \Delta v\mid \ = \mid c(z_{\rm gal} - z_{\rm abs})/(1 + z_{\rm mean})
153: \mid \ \leq$ 300 \kms , and some of them are close to multiple
154: galaxies (see Table 1 in Tripp et al.\markcite{tls98} 1998). These absorbers
155: are also displaced from the QSO redshift by 7100 \kms\ (\zabs\ = 0.26659) to
156: 17100 \kms\ (\zabs\ = 0.22497). Finally, the \ion{O}{6} profiles are
157: relatively narrow. Therefore these are probably intervening
158: systems that trace the large-scale gaseous environment in galaxy envelopes
159: and the IGM rather than ``intrinsic'' absorbers (Hamann \&
160: Ferland\markcite{hf99} 1999).
161:
162: \subsection{\ion{O}{6} Absorbers at z = 0.22497 and 0.22637}
163:
164: Since the \ion{O}{6} doublets at \zabs\ = 0.22497 and 0.22637 shown in Figure
165: ~\ref{samplespec} are separated by only $\sim$340 \kms , they are probably
166: related and we discuss them together. Two emission line galaxies are known at
167: heliocentric redshifts of 0.22560 and 0.22650 at projected distances of 105
168: and 388 $h_{75}^{-1}$ kpc from the sight line\footnote{In this paper, the
169: cosmological parameters are set to $H_{0} = 75 h_{75}$ \kms\ Mpc$^{-1}$ and
170: $q_{0}$ = 0.0.} (Tripp et al.\markcite{tls98} 1998). In addition to
171: the \ion{O}{6} doublet, the STIS spectrum shows strong absorption lines due to
172: \ion{H}{1} \lya , Ly$\beta$, Ly$\gamma$, \ion{Si}{3} $\lambda$1206.5, and
173: possibly \ion{C}{3} $\lambda$977.02 at \zabs\ = 0.22497; the absorption
174: profiles of most of these species are plotted on a velocity scale in
175: Figure ~\ref{stack22497}. The lines of \ion{N}{5} and \ion{Si}{4} are not
176: detected at greater than 3$\sigma$ significance, and upper limits on their
177: equivalent widths and column densities are listed in Table ~\ref{lineprop}
178: along with upper limits on \ion{C}{2} and \ion{Si}{2}.
179:
180: Figure ~\ref{stack22497} provides several indications that these
181: systems are multiphase absorbers. Several components are readily apparent in
182: most of the \zabs\ = 0.22497 profiles including the \ion{O}{6} lines (see
183: also Figure ~\ref{samplespec}). Fitting of the \ion{Si}{3} profile yields $b$ =
184: 7.7$^{+2.9}_{-2.1}$ and 1.6$^{+2.1}_{-0.9}$ \kms\ for the two well-detected
185: components at $v$ = --3 and +25 \kms , respectively. However, the component
186: velocity centroids and $b$-values are not compatible with a homogeneous
187: mixture of \ion{O}{6} and \ion{Si}{3}. For example, the \ion{Si}{3} profile
188: shows a prominent narrow component at $v \approx$ 25 \kms , and there is no
189: obviously corresponding component in the \ion{O}{6} profiles. While thermal
190: Doppler broadening can make the \ion{O}{6} profiles broader than those of
191: \ion{Si}{3}, at most the increase will be a factor of $\sqrt{28/16}$, and this
192: is inadequate to produce the breadth of the observed \ion{O}{6} lines.
193: Thus we are compelled to consider a mixture of phases, some of which show
194: up in \ion{Si}{3}, while others are prominent in \ion{O}{6}.
195:
196: In the case of the \ion{O}{6} at \zabs\ = 0.22637, which is also visible in
197: Figure ~\ref{stack22497}, the multiphase nature is suggested by an offset of
198: 60 \kms\ between the \ion{H}{1} \lya\ and \ion{O}{6} velocity centroids.
199: Also we note that no \ion{H}{1} absorption is significantly detected at the
200: velocity of the \ion{O}{6} suggesting that the hydrogen is thoroughly ionized
201: in the \ion{O}{6} gas. This \ion{O}{6} absorber may be analogous to the highly
202: ionized high velocity clouds seen near the Milky Way which show strong high ion
203: absorption with very weak or absent low ion absorption (Sembach et
204: al.\markcite{sem99} 1999).
205:
206: \subsection{Other Weak \ion{O}{6} Systems}
207:
208: The two new \ion{O}{6} systems at \zabs\ = 0.24531 and \zabs\ = 0.26659 are
209: plotted in Figure ~\ref{weak}. A striking feature of these weak \ion{O}{6}
210: absorbers (and the candidate \ion{O}{6} at \zabs\ = 0.21326) is that while
211: their \ion{O}{6} column densities are comparable, the strengths of their
212: corresponding \ion{H}{1} absorption lines are significantly different (see
213: Table ~\ref{lineprop} and Figure ~\ref{weak}). For example,
214: $N$(\ion{O}{6})/$N$(\ion{H}{1}) = 5.2$\pm 1.2$ in the \zabs\ = 0.24531 system
215: while $N$(\ion{O}{6})/$N$(\ion{H}{1}) = 1.2$\pm 0.2$ in the \zabs\ = 0.26659
216: absorber. The contrast is even more dramatic with the \zabs\ = 0.21326
217: absorber, which has $N$(\ion{O}{6})/$N$(\ion{H}{1}) $\leq 0.14\pm 0.03$.
218: For reference, in collisional ionization equilibrium (Sutherland \&
219: Dopita\markcite{sd93} 1993), gas with solar metallicity at the peak
220: \ion{O}{6} ionization temperature should have
221: $N$(\ion{O}{6})/$N$(\ion{H}{1}) $\sim$ 100.
222: The large variablility of the observed \ion{O}{6}/\ion{H}{1} ratio could
223: indicate that the metallicity of the \ion{O}{6} absorbers varies substantially,
224: or this could be due to differences in the physical conditions
225: and ionization of the gas. If, for example, these are multiphase absorbers
226: with the \ion{H}{1} lines arising in a cool phase which is embedded in a hot
227: phase which produces the \ion{O}{6} absorption (e.g., Mo \&
228: Miralda-Escud\'{e}\markcite{mo} 1996), then the wide variations in the
229: \ion{O}{6}/\ion{H}{1} ratio could simply be due to interception of fewer cool
230: phase clouds in one absorber compared to another.
231:
232: A full analysis of the range of physical conditions of these absorbers will be
233: presented in a later paper. However, it is interesting to note that the
234: \ion{H}{1} \lya profile of the \zabs\ = 0.26659 system is rather broad and
235: relatively smooth (see the bottom panel of Figure ~\ref{weak}), which may
236: indicate that this absorber is collisionally ionized and hot. However, fitting
237: a single component to the \zabs\ = 0.26659 \lya profile yields
238: $b = 44.6^{+7.3}_{-6.3}$, which implies that $T \lesssim 1.2 \times 10^{5}$ K.
239: At this temperature the \ion{O}{6} ionization fraction is rather small in
240: collisional ionization equilibrium (Sutherland \& Dopita\markcite{sd93} 1993),
241: and an unreasonably high metallicity is required to produce the observed
242: $N$(\ion{O}{6}) and $N$(\ion{H}{1}) in the same gas. This may be another
243: indication that these are multiphase absorbers or that the gas is not in
244: ionization equilibrium.
245:
246: \section{Number Density and Cosmological Mass Density}
247:
248: The new STIS data in this paper provide an opportunity to evaluate
249: the number density of low-$z$ \ion{O}{6} absorbers per unit redshift
250: ($dN/dz$) and a lower limit on their cosmological mass density. If we neglect
251: continuum placement uncertainty and other systematic error sources, the STIS
252: E140M spectrum of H1821+643 is formally adequate for $\geq 4\sigma$ detection
253: of narrow lines with $W_{\rm r} \geq$ 30 m\AA\ at $\lambda _{\rm obs}
254: \gtrsim$ 1188 \AA\ (\zabs\ $\gtrsim$ 0.151 for \ion{O}{6} $\lambda$1031.93).
255: However, the continuum placement ambiguity substantially increases the
256: uncertainty in $W_{\rm r}$ for weak lines. Moreover,
257: broader resolved lines spread over more pixels have higher limiting equivalent
258: widths (limiting $W \propto \sqrt{\rm no. pixels}$), so broad weak lines may
259: not be detected at the $4 \sigma$ level. Consequently, the $dN/dz$ derived
260: below should be treated as a lower limit. We require detection of both lines
261: of the \ion{O}{6} doublet with $W_{\rm r} \geq$ 30 m\AA , and we exclude one
262: absorber\footnote{We exclude the associated O VI absorber at \zabs\ =
263: 0.2967. This system is not listed in Table ~\ref{lineprop} but is discussed in
264: detail in Savage et al.\markcite{stl98} (1998) and Oegerle et
265: al.\markcite{bill} (2000).} within $\mid \Delta v \mid \ \leq$ 5000 \kms\ of
266: $z_{\rm em}$ to avoid contamination of the sample with intrinsic absorbers.
267: This results in a sample of three \ion{O}{6} systems\footnote{The three
268: systems include those at \zabs\ = 0.22497, 0.24531, and 0.26659. We exclude
269: the probable system at \zabs\ = 0.21326, and the \zabs\ = 0.22637 system
270: falls below the equivalent width threshold.} over a redshift path of
271: $\Delta z$ = 0.063 (after correction for a loss of $\Delta z$ = 0.061 for
272: spectral regions in which either of the \ion{O}{6} lines is blocked by ISM or
273: extragalactic lines from other redshifts). Therefore the most probable $dN/dz
274: \sim$ 48 for $W_{\rm r} \geq$ 30 m\AA\ and 0.15 $\leq$ \zabs\ $\leq$ 0.27, and
275: we conservatively conclude that $dN/dz \geq$ 17 at the 90\% confidence level
276: (following the Gehrels\markcite{geh} 1986 treatment for small sample
277: statistics). This is a remarkably high number density. It is important to
278: emphasize that the sample is extremely small and, since very little is known
279: about {\it weak} \ion{O}{6} lines at low redshift, it remains possible that
280: $dN/dz$ is unusually high toward H1821+643 for some reason. However, there is
281: supporting evidence that $dN/dz$ is generally high: (1) a similar $dN/dz$ is
282: derived from STIS echelle spectroscopy of PG0953+415 (Tripp \&
283: Savage\markcite{ts2000} 2000), and (2) one or two additional intervening
284: \ion{O}{6} absorbers are evident in the H1821+643 spectrum which did not
285: satisfy the selection criteria to be included in the sample. More observations
286: are needed to build the sample of weak \ion{O}{6} lines at low $z$.
287:
288: For comparison, low to moderate redshift \ion{Mg}{2} absorbers with
289: $W_{\rm r} \geq$ 20 m\AA\ have $dN/dz = 2.65 \pm 0.15$ (Churchill et
290: al.\markcite{crcv99} 1999; see also Tripp, Lu, \& Savage\markcite{tls97}
291: 1997). The {\it stronger} \ion{O}{6} absorbers are less common;
292: Burles \& Tytler\markcite{bt96} (1996) report $dN/dz = 1.0\pm 0.6$ for
293: \ion{O}{6} systems with $W_{\rm r} \geq$ 210 m\AA\ at $<z_{\rm abs}>$ = 0.9.
294: Evidently, the $dN/dz$ of the weak \ion{O}{6} lines is substantially
295: larger than $dN/dz$ of other known classes of low $z$ metal absorbers and is
296: more comparable to that of low $z$ weak \lya absorbers, which have $dN/dz \sim$
297: 100 for $W_{\rm r} \geq$ 50 m\AA\ (Tripp et al.\markcite{tls98} 1998;
298: Penton et al.\markcite{pss} 2000).
299:
300: Following analogous calculations (e.g., Storrie-Lombardi et al.\markcite{sl96}
301: 1996; Burles \& Tytler\markcite{bt96} 1996),\footnote{Note that while
302: Burles \& Tytler\markcite{bt96} (1996) calculated the cosmological mass
303: density of the oxygen ions in O VI absorbers (which is quite small),
304: they did not apply an ionization and metallicity correction to estimate the
305: total baryonic content of the O VI systems. Instead, they used this
306: method to place a lower limit on the mean metallicity of the O VI
307: systems.} the mean cosmological mass density in the \ion{O}{6} absorbers, in
308: units of the current critical density $\rho _{c}$, can be estimated using
309: \begin{equation}
310: \Omega _{b}({\rm O \ VI}) = \frac{\mu m_{\rm H} H_{0}}{\rho _{c} c
311: f({\rm O \ VI})} \left( \frac{\rm O}{\rm H} \right)^{-1}_{\rm O \ VI}
312: \frac{\sum_{i} N_{i}({\rm O \ VI})}{\Delta X}
313: \end{equation}
314: where $\mu$ is the mean atomic weight (taken to be 1.3), $f$(\ion{O}{6})
315: is a representative \ion{O}{6} ionization fraction, (O/H)$_{\rm O \ VI}$
316: is the assumed mean oxygen
317: abundance by number in the \ion{O}{6} absorbers, $\sum_{i} N_{i}$(\ion{O}{6})
318: is the total \ion{O}{6} column density from the $i$ absorbers, and $\Delta X$
319: is the absorption distance interval (Bahcall \& Peebles\markcite{bah69} 1969),
320: corrected for blocked spectral regions. With the sample defined above, we have
321: $\Omega _{b}({\rm O \ VI}) = 8.0 \times 10^{-5} f({\rm O \ VI})^{-1}
322: 10^{-[{\rm O/H}]} h_{75} ^{-1} $ where [O/H] = log (O/H) - log (O/H)$_{\odot}$.
323: To set a conservative lower limit on $\Omega _{b}$(\ion{O}{6}), we
324: assume [O/H] = $-$0.3 and $f$(\ion{O}{6}) = 0.2 (which is
325: close to the maximum value in photo- or collisional ionization, see
326: Tripp \& Savage\markcite{ts2000} 2000), which yields
327: $\Omega _{b}$(\ion{O}{6}) $\geq 0.0008 h_{75} ^{-1}$. If we set the mean
328: metallicity to a more realistic value such as [O/H] = $-$1,
329: $\Omega _{b}$(\ion{O}{6}) increases to $\geq 0.004 h_{75} ^{-1}$. Similar
330: lower limits on $\Omega _{b}$(\ion{O}{6}) have been derived by Tripp \&
331: Savage\markcite{ts2000} (2000) using a slightly less sensitive sample based on
332: STIS echelle spectroscopy of PG0953+415 and earlier Goddard High Resolution
333: Spectrograph observations of H1821+643. The lower limit assuming (O/H) = 1/10
334: solar is comparable to the combined cosmological mass density of stars, cool
335: neutral gas, and X-ray emitting cluster gas at low redshift, $\Omega _{*} +
336: \Omega _{\rm H~I \ 21cm} + \Omega _{\rm H_{2}} + \Omega _{\rm X-ray} \approx$
337: 0.006 (Fukugita, Hogan, \& Peebles\markcite{fhp98} 1998). Though still
338: uncertain due to the small sample,\footnote{For a discussion of the impact of
339: small number statistics on the $\Omega _{b}$(O VI) estimates, see
340: Tripp \& Savage\markcite{ts2000} (2000).} small redshift path probed, and
341: uncertain (O/H)$_{\rm O \ VI}$, these preliminary lower limits
342: on $\Omega _{b}$(\ion{O}{6}) suggest that \ion{O}{6} absorbers contain an
343: important fraction of the baryons in the low redshift universe.
344:
345: \acknowledgements
346:
347: We thank Ken Sembach and Ed Fitzpatrick for sharing their software
348: for the measurement of column densities and $b$-values.
349:
350: \begin{references}
351: \reference{bah69} Bahcall, J. N., \& Peebles, P. J. E. 1969, ApJ, 156, L7
352: \reference{bt96} Burles, S., \& Tytler, D. 1996, ApJ, 460, 584
353: \reference{co99} Cen, R., \& Ostriker, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 514, 1
354: \reference{crcv99} Churchill, C. W., Rigby, J. R., Charlton, J. C., \&
355: Vogt, S. S. 1999, ApJS, 120, 51
356: \reference{dave99} Dav\'{e}, R., Hernquist, L., Katz, N., \& Weinberg,
357: D. H. 1999, ApJ, 511, 521
358: \reference{duf} Dufton, P. L., Hibbert, A., Kingston, A. E., \& Tully, J. A.
359: 1983, MNRAS, 202, 145
360: \reference{fitz97} Fitzpatrick, E. L., \& Spitzer, L. 1997, ApJ, 475,
361: 623
362: \reference{fhp98} Fukugita, M., Hogan, C. J., \& Peebles, P. J. E. 1998,
363: ApJ, 503, 518
364: \reference{geh} Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336
365: \reference{hf99} Hamann, F., \& Ferland, G. 1999, ARA\&A, 37, 487
366: \reference{kim98} Kimble, R. A., et al. 1998, ApJ, 492, L83
367: \reference{mo} Mo, H. J., \& Miralda-Escud\'{e} , J. 1996, ApJ, 469, 589
368: \reference{mort91} Morton, D. C. 1991, ApJS, 77, 119
369: \reference{bill} Oegerle, W. R., et al. 2000, ApJ, in preparation
370: \reference{pss} Penton, S. V., Shull, J. M., \& Stocke, J. T. 2000, ApJ,
371: submitted, astro-ph/9911128
372: \reference{ss91} Savage, B. D., \& Sembach, K. R. 1991, ApJ, 379, 245
373: \reference{stl98} Savage, B. D., Tripp, T. M., \& Lu, L. 1998, AJ, 115
374: 436
375: \reference{ss92} Sembach, K. R., \& Savage, B. D. 1992, ApJS, 83, 147
376: \reference{sem99} Sembach, K. R., Savage, B. D., Lu, L., \& Murphy, E. 1999,
377: ApJ, 515, 108
378: \reference{sl96} Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., McMahon, R. G., \& Irwin, M. J.
379: 1996, MNRAS, 283, L79
380: \reference{sd93} Sutherland, R. S., \& Dopita, M. A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253
381: \reference{tls97} Tripp, T. M., Lu, L., \& Savage, B. D. 1997, ApJS, 112, 1
382: \reference{tls98} Tripp, T. M., Lu, L., \& Savage, B. D. 1998, ApJ, 508,
383: 200
384: \reference{ts2000} Tripp, T. M., \& Savage, B. D. 2000, ApJ, submitted
385: \end{references}
386:
387: {\footnotesize
388: \begin{deluxetable}{llccc}
389: \tablewidth{0pc}
390: \tablecaption{Equivalent Widths and Integrated Column Densities\label{lineprop}}
391: \tablehead{$\lambda _{\rm obs}$\tablenotemark{a} & Species & $\lambda _{0}$\tablenotemark{b} & $W_{\rm
392: r}$\tablenotemark{c} & $N_{\rm a}$\tablenotemark{d} \nl
393: \ & \ & (\AA ) & (m\AA ) & ($10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$) }
394: \startdata
395: \multicolumn{5}{c}{\bf $\bf z_{\rm abs}$ = 0.21326} \nl
396: 1474.93 & H I & 1215.67 & 471$\pm$14 & $>19.4$\tablenotemark{e} \nl
397: 1244.47 & H I & 1025.72 & 134$\pm$9 & $24.7\pm 2.0$ \nl
398: 1252.07 & O VI\tablenotemark{f} & 1031.93 & 38$\pm$9 & $3.55\pm 0.81$ \nl
399: \hline
400: \multicolumn{5}{c}{\bf $\bf z_{\rm abs}$ = 0.22497} \nl
401: 1488.97 & H I & 1215.67 & 852$\pm$22 & $>34.4$\tablenotemark{e} \nl
402: 1256.41 & H I & 1025.72 & 503$\pm$14 & $>155$\tablenotemark{e} \nl
403: 1191.27 & H I & 972.54 & 340$\pm$17 & $>266$\tablenotemark{e} \nl
404: 1264.09 & O VI & 1031.93 & 185$\pm$9 & $19.9\pm 1.2$ \nl
405: 1271.05 & O VI & 1037.62 & 110$\pm$10 & $21.0\pm 2.0$ \nl
406: \nodata & Si II & 1260.42 & $<$47\tablenotemark{g} & $<$0.31\tablenotemark{g} \nl
407: 1477.93 & Si III & 1206.50 & 108$\pm$9 & $0.73\pm 0.07$ \nl
408: \nodata & Si IV & 1393.76 & 48$\pm$23\tablenotemark{h} & $<$1.3\tablenotemark{h} \nl
409: \nodata & C II\tablenotemark{i} & 1036.34 & $<$40\tablenotemark{g} & $<$3.6 \nl
410: 1196.79 & C III?\tablenotemark{j} & 977.02 & 319$\pm$16 & $\geq 8.9$\tablenotemark{d} \nl
411: \nodata & N V & 1238.82 & $<$52\tablenotemark{g} & $<$2.5\tablenotemark{g} \nl
412: \hline
413: \multicolumn{5}{c}{\bf $\bf z_{\rm abs}$ = 0.22637} \nl
414: 1490.57 & H I & 1215.67 & 168$\pm$15 & $3.7\pm 0.3$ \nl
415: 1265.53 & O VI & 1031.93 & 25$\pm$5 & $2.4\pm 0.5$ \nl
416: 1272.49 & O VI & 1037.62 & 21$\pm$5 & $3.7\pm 1.0$ \nl
417: \hline
418: \multicolumn{5}{c}{\bf $\bf z_{\rm abs}$ = 0.24531} \nl
419: 1513.86 & H I & 1215.67 & 45$\pm$9 & $1.0\pm 0.2$ \nl
420: 1285.07 & O VI & 1031.93 & 55$\pm$6 & $5.2\pm 0.6$ \nl
421: 1292.15 & O VI & 1037.62 & 39$\pm$6 & $7.0\pm 1.1$ \nl
422: \hline %\tablebreak
423: \multicolumn{5}{c}{\bf $\bf z_{\rm abs}$ = 0.26659} \nl
424: 1539.75 & H I & 1215.67 & 177$\pm$12 & $4.2\pm 0.3$ \nl
425: 1307.04 & O VI & 1031.93 & 55$\pm$8 & $5.1\pm 0.8$\nl
426: 1314.26 & O VI & 1037.62 & 32$\pm$8 & $5.8\pm 1.3$
427: \enddata
428: \tablenotetext{a}{Observed vacuum Heliocentric wavelength of the line centroid.}
429: \tablenotetext{b}{Restframe vacuum wavelength from
430: Morton\markcite{mort91} (1991). Oscillator strengths used for these
431: measurements were also obtained from Morton\markcite{mort91} (1991)
432: except for the Si II $\lambda$1260.42 $f-$value, which is from
433: Dufton et al.\markcite{duf} (1983).}
434: \tablenotetext{c}{Restframe equivalent width integrated across
435: all components.}
436: \tablenotetext{d}{Integrated apparent column density $N_{\rm a} = \int N_{\rm a}(v) dv$.}
437: \tablenotetext{e}{Saturated absorption line. Lower limits are
438: derived from integrated apparent column densities with pixels with flux $\leq$
439: 0 set to their 3$\sigma$ upper limits.}
440: \tablenotetext{f}{This line is probably the stronger line of the O VI
441: doublet. However, the line identification is less secure than the other
442: O VI lines in this table because the weaker O VI line at 1037.62
443: \AA\ is blended with Milky Way S II $\lambda$1259.52 absorption. With
444: higher signal-to-noise, it should be possible to confirm or refute this
445: identification.}
446: \tablenotetext{g}{4$\sigma$ upper limit.}
447: \tablenotetext{h}{A 2$\sigma$ feature is detected at the expected wavelength,
448: but we do not consider this significance adequate to claim a reliable
449: detection. Consequently, we set an upper limit on $N_{\rm a}$ which is the
450: measured column density of the marginal line + 2$\sigma$.}
451: \tablenotetext{i}{The somewhat stronger C II $\lambda$1334.53 line falls in a gap between orders.}
452: \tablenotetext{j}{The strength and velocity extent of this line is
453: surprising compared to the strength and velocity extent of the Si III
454: $\lambda$1206.5 line. However, it is difficult to find convincing alternative
455: identifications of this strong feature. The line may be a blend.}
456: \end{deluxetable}
457: }
458: %\clearpage
459:
460: \begin{figure}
461: \plotone{f1.eps}
462: %\plotfiddle{smp2.ps}{4.0in}{0}{55}{55}{-200}{-70}
463: \caption[]{Portion of the STIS E140M spectrum of H1821+643 showing the
464: strong \ion{O}{6} absorption lines at \zabs\ = 0.22497 and the weaker \ion{O}{6}
465: absorber at \zabs\ = 0.22637. The calibrated flux is plotted vs. observed
466: heliocentric wavelength, and the solid line near zero is the $1\sigma$ flux
467: uncertainty. The line at 1266.9 \AA\ is an unrelated \ion{C}{3} line from the
468: absorption system at \zabs\ = 0.2967. In this figure, the
469: spectrum has been binned 2 pixels $\rightarrow$ 1 pixel for display purposes
470: only (all measurements in the text were made using the unbinned full resolution
471: data).\label{samplespec}}
472: \end{figure}
473:
474: \begin{figure}
475: %\plotone{stack_onep22497.eps}
476: \plotfiddle{f2.eps}{6.0in}{0}{72}{72}{-200}{-150}
477: \caption[]{Profiles of absorption lines detected in the \ion{O}{6} system
478: at \zabs\ = 0.22497, plotted versus restframe velocity where $v$ = 0 at
479: \zabs\ = 0.22497. The tick mark at $v \approx$ 340 \kms\ indicates the velocity
480: of the \zabs\ = 0.22637 absorber in the \zabs\ = 0.22497 restframe. The dotted
481: lines show the continua adopted for absorption line measurements, and the grey
482: lines show the flux zero levels. The data in this figure are shown at full
483: resolution (no binning has been applied). Note that the strong lines at $v
484: <$ $-$200 and $>$ 330 \kms\ in the \ion{H}{1} Ly$\gamma$ panel are
485: due to the ISM \ion{Si}{2} 1190.42 and 1193.29 \AA\ lines, respectively.
486: \label{stack22497}}
487: \end{figure}
488:
489: \begin{figure}
490: %\plotone{stackweak.eps}
491: \plotfiddle{f3.eps}{6.0in}{0}{72}{72}{-200}{-150}
492: \caption[]{Absorption profiles of lines detected in the \ion{O}{6} absorbers
493: at \zabs\ = 0.24531 (upper three panels) and at \zabs\ = 0.26659 (lower
494: three panels), plotted versus restframe velocity. \label{weak}}
495: \end{figure}
496:
497: \end{document}
498:
499:
500:
501:
502:
503: