1: 

2: % reionization and CMB

3: 

4: 

5: \documentclass{aa}

6: %\documentclass[referee]{aa}

7: 

8: \usepackage{graphics}

9: \usepackage{epsfig}

10: 

11: %

12: % my definitions

13: %

14: \def\bib{\bibitem{}}

15: 

16: \newcommand{\xia}{\overline{\xi}}

17: \newcommand{\rhob}{\overline{\rho}}

18: \newcommand{\rhoa}{\overline{\rho}}

19: \newcommand{\gam}{\gamma}

20: \newcommand{\inta}{\int_{-i\infty}^{+i\infty}}

21: \newcommand{\pl}{\partial}

22: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

23: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

24: \newcommand{\lag}{\langle}

25: \newcommand{\rag}{\rangle}

26: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega_{\rm m}}

27: \newcommand{\Ol}{\Omega_{\Lambda}}

28: \newcommand{\Ob}{\Omega_{\rm b}}

29: \newcommand{\Omo}{\Omega_{\rm m,0}}

30: \newcommand{\De}{{\cal D}}

31: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}

32: \newcommand{\hgam}{\hat{\vec \gam}}

33: \newcommand{\na}{\overline{n}}

34: \newcommand{\xiIGM}{\xi_{\rm IGM}}

35: \newcommand{\cP}{{\cal P}}

36: \newcommand{\Vion}{V_{\rm ion}}

37: \newcommand{\xcool}{x_{\rm cool}}

38: \newcommand{\CIGM}{C_{\rm IGM}}

39: \newcommand{\Cb}{C_{\rm b}}

40: \newcommand{\TIGM}{T_{\rm IGM}}

41: \newcommand{\Rd}{R_{\rm d}}

42: \renewcommand{\d}{{\rm d}}

43: \newcommand{\xie}{\xi_e}

44: \newcommand{\xies}{\xi_{e,{\rm s}}}

45: \newcommand{\xieQ}{\xi_{e,{\rm Q}}}

46: \newcommand{\xieu}{\xi_{e,{\rm u}}}

47: \newcommand{\xieh}{\xi_{e,{\rm h}}}

48: \newcommand{\xiegal}{\xi_{e,{\rm gal}}}

49: \newcommand{\xigal}{\xi_{\rm gal}}

50: \newcommand{\Fgalvol}{F_{\rm gal,vol}}

51: \newcommand{\Fgal}{F_{\rm gal}}

52: \newcommand{\Cgal}{C_{\rm gal}}

53: \newcommand{\Rcool}{R_{\rm cool}}

54: \newcommand{\zri}{z_{\rm ri}}

55: \newcommand{\Cs}{C_{\rm s}}

56: \newcommand{\CQ}{C_{\rm Q}}

57: \newcommand{\Cu}{C_{\rm u}}

58: \newcommand{\Ch}{C_{\rm h}}

59: \newcommand{\Sl}{S_l}

60: \newcommand{\Slgal}{S_{l,{\rm gal}}}

61: \newcommand{\Slu}{S_{l,{\rm u}}}

62: \newcommand{\Slh}{S_{l,{\rm h}}}

63: \newcommand{\Chs}{C_{\rm h,s}}

64: \newcommand{\ChQ}{C_{\rm h,Q}}

65: \newcommand{\Sls}{S_{l,{\rm s}}}

66: \newcommand{\SlQ}{S_{l,{\rm Q}}}

67: \newcommand{\Slhs}{S_{l,{\rm h,s}}}

68: \newcommand{\SlhQ}{S_{l,{\rm h,Q}}}

69: \newcommand{\Cl}{C_l}

70: \newcommand{\Ctheta}{C_{\theta}}

71: \newcommand{\Cthetagal}{C_{\theta,{\rm gal}}}

72: %

73: %

74: % end of my definitions

75: %

76: %

77: %

78: % US addition pour papier US

79: %

80: %\textwidth=7.0in

81: %\textheight=21.0cm

82: %

83: %

84: \begin{document}

85: %

86: % US additions

87: % 

88: %\topmargin=2.5 cm

89: %\evensidemargin=2.5 cm

90: %\oddsidemargin=2.5 cm

91: %\thispagestyle{empty}

92: %

93: %

94: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{.01}

95: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.99}

96: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.99}

97: \setlength{\textfloatsep}{2.5ex}

98: %

99: %

100: \thesaurus{Sect.02 (12.03.1; 12.03.4; 11.09.3; 12.12.1)}

101: \title{Secondary CMB anisotropies from the kinetic SZ effect}   

102: \author{P. Valageas\inst{1}, A. Balbi\inst{2} and J.

103: Silk\inst{3,}\inst{4}}

104: \institute{Service de Physique Th\'eorique, CEA Saclay, 91191

105: Gif-sur-Yvette, 

106: France

107: \and

108: Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a Tor Vergata, Roma I-00133, Italy

109: \and

110: Astrophysics, Department of Physics, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, U.K.

111: \and

112: Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, CNRS, 98bis Boulevard Arago,

113: F-75014 Paris, France}

114: \date{Received / Accepted }

115: \maketitle

116: \markboth{P. Valageas, A. Balbi \& J. Silk: Secondary CMB anisotropies

117: from the 

118: kinetic SZ effect}{P. Valageas, A. Balbi \& J. Silk: Secondary CMB

119: anisotropies 

120: from the kinetic SZ effect}

121: 

122: \begin{abstract}

123: 

124: The reionization of the universe by stars and quasars is expected to be

125: a highly 

126: inhomogeneous process. Moreover, the fluctuations of the matter density

127: field 

128: also lead to inhomogeneities of the free electron distribution. These

129: patterns 

130: gave rise to secondary CMB anisotropies through Thomson scattering of

131: photons by 

132: free electrons. In this article we present an analytic model, based on

133: our 

134: previous work which tackled the reionization history of the universe,

135: which 

136: allows us to describe the generation of these secondary CMB

137: anisotropies. We 

138: take into account the ``patchy pattern'' of reionization (HII bubbles),

139: the 

140: cross-correlations of these ionized regions, the small-scale

141: fluctuations of the 

142: matter density field and the contribution from collapsed objects.

143: 

144: For an open universe, we find that the angular correlation function

145: $C(\theta)$ 

146: displays a very slow decline from $C(0) \sim 6 \times 10^{-13}$ up to

147: the scale 

148: $\theta \sim 10^{-3}$ rad where it shows a sharp drop. On the other

149: hand, the 

150: power-spectrum $l(l+1)\Cl/(2\pi)$ (and the ``local average'' $\Sl$)

151: exhibits a 

152: plateau of height $\sim 10^{-13}$ in the range $10^3 < l < 10^6$. We

153: find that 

154: for large wavenumbers $l > 10^4$ the signal is dominated by the

155: contribution 

156: from collapsed halos while for $l < 10^4$ it is governed by the

157: large-scale 

158: correlations of HII bubbles. This implies that one cannot discriminate 

159: reionization by stars from a quasar-driven scenario since the size of

160: ionized 

161: regions never dominates the behaviour of the anisotropies. Moreover, the 

162: secondary CMB anisotropies arise from a broad range of redshifts ($7.5 <

163: z <10$ 

164: for the IGM and $0<z<7$ for galactic halos). Thus, we find that the

165: generation 

166: of these anisotropies involves several intricate processes and they are

167: close to 

168: the resolution limit of current numerical simulations.

169: The signal expected in our model might bias the cosmological

170: parameter estimation from CMB experiments such as Planck or MAP, and

171: could be detected by future mm-wavelength interferometers (e.g., ALMA).

172: 

173: \end{abstract}

174: 

175: 

176: \keywords{cosmic microwave background - cosmology: theory -

177: intergalactic medium 

178: - large-scale structure of Universe}

179: 

180: 

181: 

182: \section{Introduction}

183: 

184: 

185: Observations of the spectra of distant quasars show that the universe is

186: highly 

187: ionized by $z=5$, while recombination took place at $z \sim 1100$. In

188: current 

189: cosmological scenarios, the reionization (and reheating) of the universe

190: occurs 

191: at $\zri \sim 10$ (typically $6 \la \zri \la 15$) when structure

192: formation is 

193: sufficiently advanced to build a large number of radiation sources

194: (galaxies or 

195: quasars) which photoionize the IGM (e.g., Valageas \& Silk 1999a).

196: However, the 

197: whole reionization history is a gradual and inhomogeneous process: each

198: emitting 

199: object builds an HII region in its surroundings and reionization occurs

200: when 

201: these bubbles overlap. This last stage is very rapid (e.g., Gnedin 2000)

202: but at 

203: earlier redshifts there is a very inhomogeneous phase which evolves

204: rather 

205: slowly, as the size of the ionized regions grows and the number of

206: radiation 

207: sources increase. Then, this process can leave an imprint on the CMB

208: through 

209: Thomson scattering of photons from free electrons. First, the mixing of

210: photons 

211: coming from different lines of sight leads to a damping of small-scale

212: primary 

213: fluctuations. Second, the Doppler effect (photons get some of the

214: peculiar 

215: momentum of free electrons) generates secondary anisotropies since the 

216: distribution of free electrons is highly inhomogeneous. Thus,

217: observations of 

218: CMB anisotropies could provide some information on the properties of the 

219: reionization process and on the features of the IGM at high redshifts.

220: 

221: As pointed out by Sunyaev (1978) and Kaiser (1984) the oscillations of

222: the 

223: velocity field (as opposite sides of overdensities have almost opposite 

224: velocities) lead to a strong suppression of these secondary

225: anisotropies. 

226: However, the modulation produced by the spatial variation of the number

227: density 

228: of free electrons removes this cancelation on small scales and can

229: generate 

230: significant CMB anisotropies. These fluctuations of the density of free 

231: electrons can be produced by several processes. First, as explained

232: above, 

233: spatial variations of the ionized fraction of hydrogen due to patchy 

234: reionization provide a source of inhomogeneities (even if the IGM is

235: uniform). 

236: This is relevant before reionization. Second, the fluctuations of the

237: matter 

238: density field itself lead to inhomogeneities of the density of free

239: electrons. 

240: This occurs both before and after reionization. When the density

241: fluctuations 

242: are in the linear regime this corresponds to the Ostriker-Vishniac

243: effect 

244: (Ostriker \& Vishniac 1986) while the non-linear regime is usually

245: called the 

246: kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (e.g., Sunyaev \& Zel'dovich 1980). 

247: 

248: In this article, we study both processes (patchy reionization and matter

249: density 

250: fluctuations) in a unified fashion. To this order, we use an analytic

251: model 

252: described in a previous paper (Valageas \& Silk 1999a) which we built to 

253: investigate the reionization and reheating history of the universe. It

254: includes 

255: a model for galaxy formation (described in details in Valageas \&

256: Schaeffer 

257: 1999) and for the quasar multiplicity function, which have been compared

258: with 

259: observations at low redshifts ($z < 4.5$). Moreover, it also provides a 

260: description of the correlations of the matter density field which is

261: consistent 

262: with these mass functions. The underlying model of the non-linear

263: density field 

264: is based on the stable-clustering ansatz as detailed in Balian \&

265: Schaeffer 

266: (1989) (see also Valageas \& Schaeffer 1997). This allows us to take

267: into 

268: account density fluctuations within the IGM, the reionization process

269: through 

270: the creation of HII regions and the correlations of these ionized

271: bubbles. In 

272: addition to the IGM, we also consider the contribution from galactic

273: halos. Here 

274: we restrict ourselves to the temperature anisotropies and we do not

275: consider 

276: polarization. Thus, the main goals of this article are to:

277: 

278: - present an analytic model which can describe in a more detailed

279: fashion than 

280: previous works the generation of these secondary CMB anisotropies.

281: Moreover, our 

282: approach is self-consistent and it agrees with observations at low

283: redshifts.

284: 

285: - obtain the redshift distribution of the contributions to these

286: anisotropies.

287: 

288: - take advantage of the fact that we use an analytic model to explicitly 

289: separate the contributions from different physical processes

290: (small-scale 

291: density fluctuations, patchy reionization, correlations of ionized

292: bubbles). 

293: This allows us to see which information can be recovered from

294: observations of 

295: the CMB.

296: 

297: - investigate whether one can discriminate reionization by stars versus

298: quasars 

299: from the observed CMB anisotropies.

300: 

301: - check whether the main features of this process strongly depend on the 

302: cosmological scenario.

303: 

304: 

305: We present in Sect.\ref{Secondary anisotropies} the formalism we use to

306: compute 

307: these secondary CMB anisotropies, as well as the approximations we

308: introduce. 

309: Then, in Sect.\ref{Numerical results} we describe our numerical results

310: for the 

311: case of an open universe. This corresponds to the model we used in a

312: previous 

313: work (Valageas \& Silk 1999a) to investigate the reionization history of

314: the 

315: universe. In the last section we also consider briefly a critical

316: density 

317: universe for comparison.

318: 

319: 

320: 

321: 

322: \section{Secondary anisotropies}

323: \label{Secondary anisotropies}

324: 

325: 

326: \subsection{Contribution from inhomogeneities of the free electron

327: distribution}

328: \label{Contribution from inhomogeneities of the free electron

329: distribution}

330: 

331: 

332: As described for instance in Gruzinov \& Hu (1998) and Knox et al.

333: (1998), 

334: Thomson scattering of CMB photons off moving free electrons in the IGM

335: generates 

336: secondary anisotropies. Thus, for small optical depths the temperature 

337: perturbation $\Delta_T(\hgam) = \delta T /T$ on the direction $\hgam$ on

338: the sky 

339: is:

340: \begin{eqnarray} 

341: {\displaystyle  \Delta_T(\hgam) = - \int \d {\bf l} . \frac{\bf v}{c} \; \sigma_T n_{e,\rm f} e^{-\tau} = - \frac{\sigma_T c}{H_0} \int \frac{\d\chi}{1+z} \; \frac{\hgam .\bf v}{c} n_{e,\rm f} } \nonumber \\

342: \label{DeltaT}

343: \end{eqnarray}

344: where $\sigma_T$ is the Thomson cross-section, $n_{e,\rm f}$ the number

345: density 

346: of free electrons, ${\bf v}$ the peculiar velocity and $l$ the

347: coordinate along 

348: the line of sight, all in physical units. We also defined $\chi$ as the 

349: dimensionless radial comoving coordinate:

350: \beq

351: \d\chi = \frac{\d z}{\sqrt{\Ol+(1-\Om-\Ol)(1+z)^2+\Om(1+z)^3}} .

352: \label{chi}

353: \eeq

354: Since in our scenario reionization occurs at $z=6.8$, the optical depth $\tau$ from $\chi=0$ up to $\chi$ in (\ref{DeltaT}) is very small ($\tau < 0.024$, see Fig. 15 in Valageas \& Silk 1999a) and it plays no role so that we used the approximation $e^{-\tau} \simeq 1$.

355: Then, the two-point correlation function $C(\theta)$ of these

356: temperature 

357: distortions is simply:

358: \beq

359: \begin{array}{l} {\displaystyle C(\theta) = \left( \frac{\sigma_T \;

360: c}{H_0} 

361: \right)^2 \int \frac{\d\chi_1}{1+z_1} \int \frac{\d\chi_2}{1+z_2} } \\

362: \\ 

363: {\displaystyle \hspace{2.5cm} \times \; \lag \frac{\hgam_1 .{\bf

364: v}_1}{c} \; 

365: \frac{\hgam_2 .{\bf v}_2}{c} \;\; n_{e,\rm f,1} \; n_{e,\rm f,2} \rag } 

366: \end{array}

367: \label{Corr1}

368: \eeq

369: where the directions $\hgam_1$ and $\hgam_2$ make the angle $\theta$.

370: One can 

371: distinguish two effects which contribute to the correlation function in 

372: (\ref{Corr1}). Firstly, a uniform reionization in a homogeneous IGM

373: (i.e. 

374: $n_{e,\rm f,1}$ shows no fluctuations) provides a non-zero contribution

375: through 

376: the fluctuations $\lag (\hgam_1 . {\bf v}_1) (\hgam_2 . {\bf v}_2) \rag$

377: of the 

378: velocity field. However, because of the oscillations of the velocity

379: correlation 

380: (related to the infall from opposite sides into potential wells) the

381: integration 

382: along the line of sight leads to a strong suppression of these Doppler

383: effects 

384: (Sunyaev 1978; Kaiser 1984). Secondly, the inhomogeneities of the free

385: electron 

386: number density add a second contribution which avoids this cancelation

387: of the 

388: velocity term. Most of the power which builds the fluctuations of the

389: velocity 

390: comes from scales of the order of $R_{-1}$ where the local slope of the 

391: power-spectrum is $n=-1$. This gives $R_{-1} \sim 10$ comoving Mpc. On

392: the other 

393: hand, the characteristic scale of the inhomogeneities of the electron 

394: distribution is of order $R_{n_e} \sim 100$ comoving kpc (it is set by

395: the size 

396: of the ionized bubbles and the scale of non-linear structures). Thus, we

397: make 

398: the approximation that the velocity fluctuations are not correlated to

399: the 

400: density field and we write:

401: \begin{eqnarray} 

402: {\displaystyle C(\theta) = \tau_0^2 \int \d\chi_1 \d\chi_2 \; (1+z_1)^2 

403: (1+z_2)^2 \; \lag \frac{\hgam_1 .{\bf v}_1}{c} \; \frac{\hgam_2 .{\bf

404: v}_2}{c} 

405: \rag } \nonumber \\  \nonumber \\  {\displaystyle \hspace{0.cm} \times

406: \left[ 

407: \lag (1+\delta_1) x_{e,1} (1+\delta_2) x_{e,2} \rag - \lag (1+\delta_1)

408: x_{e,1} 

409: \rag \lag (1+\delta_2) x_{e,2} \rag \right] } \nonumber \\

410: \label{Corr2}

411: \end{eqnarray}

412: where $x_e = n_{e,\rm f}/n_e$ is the ionization fraction, $\delta = (n_b

413: - 

414: \na_b)/\na_b$ is the density contrast and we defined:

415: \beq

416: \tau_0 = \frac{n_{e,0} \; \sigma_T \; c}{H_0} .

417: \label{tau0}

418: \eeq

419: Here $n_{e,0}$ is the present number density of free electrons:

420: \beq

421: n_{e,0} = \frac{\Omega_b}{\Om} \; \frac{\rhoa_0}{m_p} \; \left( 1 -

422: \frac{Y}{2} 

423: \right)

424: \eeq

425: where $Y=0.26$ is the helium mass fraction. The difference which enters

426: the term 

427: in the second line of expression (\ref{Corr2}) corresponds to the fact

428: that here 

429: we only consider the contribution to secondary CMB anisotropies due to

430: the 

431: modulation of the velocity field by the fluctuations of the free

432: electron number 

433: density. Thus, for a uniform free electron density field the quantity 

434: $C(\theta)$ written in (\ref{Corr2}) vanishes. As we discussed above,

435: the 

436: factorization of the velocity and density averages we used in

437: (\ref{Corr2}) is 

438: valid at small scales $r \ll R_{-1}$ where we actually have: $\lag

439: (\hgam_1 

440: .{\bf v}_1) (\hgam_2 .{\bf v}_2) \rag \simeq \lag (\hgam_1 .{\bf v}_1)

441: (\hgam_2 

442: .{\bf v}_1) \rag \simeq \lag (\hgam_1 .{\bf v}_1)^2 \rag$. To get the

443: last 

444: approximation we used the fact that the lines of sight $\hgam_1$ and

445: $\hgam_2$ 

446: must be nearly parallel since all scales of interest are much smaller

447: than the 

448: Hubble scale. In other words, at small distances we can consider the

449: velocity 

450: field to be constant. However, in practice we shall also consider larger

451: scales 

452: where the cross-correlation of ionized bubbles generates some power.

453: These 

454: scales are close to $R_{-1}$ hence we keep the expression (\ref{Corr2})

455: rather 

456: than making the approximation $\lag (\hgam_1 .{\bf v}_1) (\hgam_2 .{\bf

457: v}_2) 

458: \rag \simeq \lag v^2 \rag/3$. However, on these scales we can expect to 

459: underestimate somewhat the angular correlation $C(\theta)$ since the

460: velocity 

461: field should be correlated with the density field. We note $\xi_v({\bf 

462: R}_{\theta} + {\bf l})$ the velocity term and $\xi_e({\bf R}_{\theta} +

463: {\bf 

464: l})$ the electron density correlation which enter the expression

465: (\ref{Corr2}) 

466: and we write (\ref{Corr2}) as:

467: \beq

468: C(\theta) = \tau_0^2 \int \d\chi \; \frac{H_0}{c} (1+z)^5 

469: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \d l \; \xi_v({\bf R}_{\theta} + {\bf l}) \;

470: \xi_e( {\bf 

471: R}_{\theta} + {\bf l} ) .

472: \label{Corr3}

473: \eeq

474: Here $l$ is the physical length along the line of sight while ${\bf

475: R}_{\theta}$ 

476: is the physical distance at redshift $z$ between both lines of sight

477: (${\bf 

478: R}_{\theta}$ is orthogonal to ${\bf l}$):

479: \beq

480: R_{\theta}(z) = \frac{c}{H_0} \; \frac{\De(z)}{1+z} \; \theta

481: \label{Rtheta}

482: \eeq

483: where the dimensionless comoving angular distance $\De$ is defined by:

484: \beq

485: \De(z) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\Om-\Ol}} \sinh \left( \sqrt{1-\Om-\Ol} \;\;

486: \chi 

487: \right) .

488: \label{De}

489: \eeq

490: In this article we only consider the secondary anisotropies due to the 

491: inhomogeneities of the free electron number distribution, described by 

492: (\ref{Corr3}). As discussed above, the contribution which arises from

493: the 

494: fluctuations of the velocity field only is smaller because of the

495: cancelations 

496: along the line of sight. 

497: 

498: 

499: 

500: \subsection{Velocity fluctuations}

501: \label{Velocity fluctuations}

502: 

503: 

504: First, the velocity term in (\ref{Corr3}) is obtained as follows. Since

505: most of 

506: the scales which contribute to the velocity fluctuations are in the

507: linear 

508: regime until $z=0$, we can use the linear relation between the velocity

509: and 

510: density fluctuations (Peebles 1980):

511: \beq

512: {\bf v}({\bf x}) = a H(z) f[\Om(z)] \int \d^3k \; e^{i {\bf k . x}} \;

513: \frac{i 

514: {\bf k}}{k^2} \; \delta({\bf k})

515: \eeq

516: where $f(\Om) \simeq \Om^{0.6}$ if $\Ol=0$, $a$ is the scale factor

517: ($a=1$ at 

518: $z=0$), ${\bf k}$ and ${\bf x}$ are comoving quantities. Since we

519: consider lines 

520: of sight which are almost parallel (small angles $\theta$) we write the

521: velocity 

522: correlation as (e.g., Groth et al. 1989):

523: \begin{eqnarray}

524: \xi_v({\bf x}) & = & \frac{4\pi}{c^2} \left( a H(z) f[\Om(z)] \right)^2 

525: \int_0^{\infty} \d k \; P(k;z) \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ & &

526: \hspace{2cm} \times 

527: \left[ j_0(k x) - 2 \; \frac{j_1(k x)}{k x} \right]

528: \end{eqnarray}

529: where $j_0$ and $j_1$ are the spherical Bessel functions. Here we

530: introduced the 

531: linear power-spectrum defined by $\lag \delta({\bf k}_1) \delta({\bf

532: k}_2) \rag 

533: = P(k_1) \delta_D({\bf k}_1+{\bf k}_2)$. Next we define at $z=0$:

534: \beq

535: v_0^2 = 4\pi \; \left( H_0 f(\Omo) \right)^2 \; \int_0^{\infty} \d k \;

536: P(k;0)

537: \eeq

538: and

539: \beq

540: \Pi_v(x) = 3 \; \frac{ \int \d k \; P(k;0) \; \left[ j_0(k x) - 2 \;

541: \frac{j_1(k 

542: x)}{k x} \right] } { \int \d k \; P(k;0) } .

543: \eeq

544: Thus, $\Pi_v(x)$ only depends on the shape of the power-spectrum and we

545: have 

546: $\Pi_v(0)=1$ while at large scales $x \gg R_{-1}$ it shows an

547: oscillatory 

548: behaviour. Then, we can write $\xi_v({\bf x})$ as:

549: \beq

550: \xi_v({\bf x}) = \frac{v_0^2}{3 c^2} \; \Pi_v(x) \; \left[ (1+z)^{-2} 

551: \frac{H(z)}{H_0} \frac{f[\Om(z)]}{f(\Omo)} \right]^2

552: \label{v1}

553: \eeq

554: where we used the redshift evolution $P(k) \propto (1+z)^{-2}$ of the

555: linear 

556: power-spectrum.

557: 

558: 

559: \subsection{Free electron density fluctuations}

560: \label{Free electron density fluctuations}

561: 

562: 

563: Second, we have to model the fluctuations of the free electron density 

564: distribution. As seen in (\ref{Corr2}) two effects contribute to these 

565: fluctuations: i) inhomogeneities of the baryonic matter distribution and

566: ii) of 

567: the ionization fraction. In most previous studies of these secondary CMB 

568: anisotropies only the second contribution was taken into account through

569: a model 

570: of ionized bubbles within a uniform IGM (e.g., Gruzinov \& Hu 1998; Knox

571: et al. 

572: 1998). However, as shown in Valageas \& Silk (1999a) the clumping of the

573: gas is 

574: not negligible even at $z \sim 10$. As can be seen from (\ref{Corr2}),

575: and as we 

576: shall check below, this increases somewhat the amplitude of these CMB 

577: anisotropies. In this article we use a simple model to estimate the

578: correlation 

579: term $\xi_e(r)$. First, although the baryonic density fluctuations may

580: be 

581: correlated with the ionization fraction we make the approximation:

582: \beq

583: \xi_e \simeq \lag (1+\delta_1) (1+\delta_2) \rag \lag x_{e,1} x_{e,2}

584: \rag - 

585: \lag 1+\delta \rag^2 \lag x_e \rag^2

586: \label{xie0}

587: \eeq

588: which can be written:

589: \beq

590: \! \xi_e(r) = \left( [1+\xiIGM(r)] \lag x_{e,1} x_{e,2} \rag(r) - \lag

591: x_e 

592: \rag^2 \right) \lag 1+\delta \rag_{\rm IGM}^2 .

593: \label{xie1}

594: \eeq

595: Here we note $\xiIGM(r)$ the two-point correlation function of the gas

596: density 

597: within the IGM and $\lag \delta \rag_{\rm IGM}$ the mean density

598: contrast of the 

599: IGM. Note that at low redshifts after reionization $x_e=1$ almost

600: everywhere 

601: within the IGM and the relation $\xi_e(r) = \xiIGM(r) \lag 1+\delta

602: \rag_{\rm 

603: IGM}^2$ becomes exact. Until $z \sim 1$ most of the matter is contained

604: in the 

605: IGM since only a very small amount of gas was able to cool and form

606: galaxies, 

607: hence $\lag 1+\delta \rag_{\rm IGM}$ is close to unity, while at $z=0$

608: we have 

609: $\lag 1+\delta \rag_{\rm IGM} \sim 0.4$ (Valageas \& Silk 1999a;

610: Valageas et al. 

611: 2000).

612: 

613: 

614: 

615: \subsubsection{Ionization fraction}

616: \label{Ionization fraction}

617: 

618: 

619: In order to obtain the term $\lag x_{e,1} x_{e,2} \rag(r)$ we use a

620: model of spherical ionized bubbles around galaxies and quasars as in Valageas \& Silk

621: (1999a). 

622: Thus, we consider that $x_e=1$ within ionized patches and $x_e=0$

623: everywhere 

624: else. At low $z$ after overlap of the ionized regions $x_e=1$ throughout

625: the 

626: IGM. Indeed, reionization occurs thanks to the growth of the ionized

627: bubbles 

628: which finally occupy all the volume (and not through a slow increase of

629: a 

630: uniform ionization fraction). Then, $\lag x_{e,1} x_{e,2} \rag(r)$ is

631: simply the 

632: probability that two points at distance $r$ are located within ionized

633: regions. 

634: First, let us consider uncorrelated ionizing sources. Then, the

635: probability that 

636: the first point ${\bf r}_1$ is within an ionized bubble is the volume

637: fraction 

638: occupied by these regions:

639: \beq

640: \cP_1 = \int \frac{\d x_1}{x_1} \frac{\rhoa}{M_1} x_1^2 H(x_1)

641: \Vion(x_1)

642: \label{Proba1}

643: \eeq

644: where $\Vion(x_1)$ is the volume of the ionized bubble associated to the

645: source 

646: $x_1$ (galaxy or quasar) and $(\rhoa/M_1) x_1 H(x_1) \d x_1$ is the number density of radiation sources labelled by the parameter $x_1$ in the range $[x_1 , x_1+\d x_1]$ (see Valageas \& Silk 1999a; Valageas \& Schaeffer 1997). Next, a simple geometrical calculation shows

647: that the 

648: second point ${\bf r}_2={\bf r}_1+{\bf r}$ can be located within the

649: same 

650: ionized spherical bubble of radius $R_1$ with a probability $\cP_{2,\rm

651: s}$:

652: \beq

653: \cP_{2,\rm s} = F\left( \frac{r}{R_1} \right) \hspace{0.2cm} \mbox{with}

654: \left\{ 

655: \begin{array}{l} F(x)= 1- \frac{3x}{4}+\frac{x^3}{16} \;\;\; \mbox{if}

656: \; x<2 \\ 

657: \\ F(x)=0 \;\;\; \mbox{if} \; x \geq 2 \end{array} \right.

658: \eeq

659: On the other hand, the point ${\bf r}_2$ can be embedded within another

660: bubble 

661: with a probability $\cP_{2,\rm o}$ with:

662: \beq

663: \cP_{2,\rm o} = \left[ 1 - F\left( \frac{r}{R_1} \right) \right] \int

664: \frac{\d 

665: x_2}{x_2} \frac{\rhoa}{M_2} x_2^2 H(x_2) \Vion(x_2)

666: \eeq

667: where we assumed that the bubbles associated to different sources do not 

668: overlap. This should be a good approximation before reionization when

669: there are 

670: very few ionized regions. Hence we obtain for uncorrelated sources $\lag

671: x_{e,1} 

672: x_{e,2} \rag(r) = \cP_1 (\cP_{2,\rm s}+\cP_{2,\rm o})$. However, the

673: sources 

674: $x_1$ and $x_2$ should be correlated, especially at high $z$ where they 

675: correspond to very rare large density fluctuations. Thus, we write:

676: \beq

677: \begin{array}{l} {\displaystyle \cP_2(r;x_1) = \mbox{Min} \Biggl \lbrace

678: 1 \; ,  

679: \; F\left( \frac{r}{R_1} \right) \; + \; \left[ 1-F\left( \frac{r}{R_1}

680: \right) 

681: \right] } \\ \\ {\displaystyle \hspace{1cm} \times \int \frac{\d

682: x_2}{x_2} 

683: \frac{\rhoa}{M_2} x_2^2 H(x_2) \Vion(x_2) \left[ 1+\xi_{x_1,x_2}(r)

684: \right]

685:  \Biggl \rbrace } \end{array}

686: \label{P2}

687: \eeq

688: where $\xi_{x_1,x_2}(r)$ is the correlation function of the objects

689: $x_1$ and 

690: $x_2$. Following the analytic results obtained in Bernardeau \&

691: Schaeffer (1992, 

692: 1999) we have:

693: \beq

694: \xi_{x_1,x_2}(r) = b(x_1) b(x_2) \xi(r)

695: \label{bias}

696: \eeq

697: with

698: \beq

699: x \ll 1 : \; b(x) \propto x^{(1-\om)/2} \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{and}

700: \hspace{0.5cm} 

701: x \gg 1 : \; b(x) \propto x

702: \eeq

703: where $b(x)$ is the bias associated to an object defined by the

704: parameter $x$. 

705: This behaviour has been shown to agree with the results of numerical

706: simulations 

707: in Munshi et al. (1999). In Valageas et al. (2000) the predictions of

708: this model 

709: for the correlation functions of galaxies, quasars, Lyman-$\alpha$

710: clouds and 

711: clusters have been compared to observations. Thus, this provides a

712: unified model 

713: for all these objects (which are characterized by different scales and 

714: densities) which agrees reasonably well with observations and

715: simulations. In 

716: (\ref{P2}) the use of the minimum ensures that $\cP_2 \leq 1$. Indeed,

717: at small 

718: redshift after reionization the second term in the minimum of (\ref{P2})

719: becomes 

720: larger than unity since all the volume is ionized (the ionized bubbles

721: overlap 

722: and $\Vion$ goes to infinity). Finally, we obtain $\lag x_{e,1} x_{e,2}

723: \rag(r)$ 

724: as:

725: \beq

726: \begin{array}{l} {\displaystyle \lag x_{e,1} x_{e,2} \rag(r) = } \\ \\ 

727: {\displaystyle \hspace{0.9cm} \mbox{Min} \left\{ 1 \; , \; \int \frac{\d 

728: x_1}{x_1} \frac{\rhoa}{M_1} x_1^2 H(x_1) \Vion(x_1) \cP_2(r;x_1)

729: \right\} } 

730: \end{array}

731: \label{Xixe}

732: \eeq

733: while the mean ionization fraction is simply:

734: \beq

735: \lag x_e \rag = \mbox{Min} \left\{ 1 \; , \; \int \frac{\d x_1}{x_1} 

736: \frac{\rhoa}{M_1} x_1^2 H(x_1) \Vion(x_1) \right\} .

737: \label{xe}

738: \eeq

739: The minima in (\ref{Xixe}) and (\ref{xe}) ensure again that $\lag

740: x_{e,1} 

741: x_{e,2} \rag \leq 1$ and $\lag x_e \rag \leq 1$ after reionization.

742: 

743: 

744: \subsubsection{Density fluctuations}

745: \label{Density fluctuations}

746: 

747: 

748: Finally, we need to evaluate the two-point correlation function

749: $\xiIGM(r)$ of 

750: the gas density within the IGM which appears in (\ref{xie1}). We

751: consider that 

752: the universe is made of collapsed objects which have been able to cool

753: and to 

754: form galaxies, embedded within a lower density medium which we call the

755: IGM. 

756: Hence, the latter corresponds to voids as well as to density

757: fluctuations (which 

758: may appear as filaments or shallow spherical halos) associated with the 

759: Lyman-$\alpha$ forest (Valageas et al. 1999). Then, as in Valageas \&

760: Silk 

761: (1999a) the mean density of the matter which forms the IGM is given by:

762: \beq

763: \lag 1+\delta \rag_{\rm IGM} = (1+\Delta)_u + \int_0^{\xcool} \frac{\d

764: x}{x} \; 

765: x^2 H(x)

766: \label{DeltaIGM}

767: \eeq

768: while the mean square density is:

769: \beq

770: \lag (1+\delta)^2 \rag_{\rm IGM} = (1+\Delta)_u^2 + \int_0^{\xcool}

771: \frac{\d 

772: x}{x} \; x^2 H(x) (1+\Delta) .

773: \label{Delta2IGM}

774: \eeq

775: The term $(1+\Delta)_u$ corresponds to voids while the second term in

776: the r.h.s. 

777: in (\ref{DeltaIGM}) and (\ref{Delta2IGM}) is the contribution from 

778: Lyman-$\alpha$ forest clouds. The upper bound $\xcool$ ensures that we

779: do not 

780: count cooled objects (which are identified to galactic halos) nor

781: clusters of 

782: galaxies, since they are not part of the IGM. Then, the clumping factor

783: of the 

784: IGM is simply:

785: \beq

786: \CIGM \equiv 1 + \xiIGM(r=0) = \frac{ \lag (1+\delta)^2 \rag_{\rm IGM} }

787: { \lag 

788: 1+\delta \rag_{\rm IGM}^2 }

789: \label{CIGM}

790: \eeq

791: (which we noted $C_n$ in Valageas \& Silk 1999a). In addition, as

792: described in 

793: Valageas et al. (1999) and Valageas \& Silk (1999a), baryonic density 

794: fluctuations within the IGM are erased on small scales below $\Rd(z)$

795: due to the 

796: non-zero temperature $\TIGM$ with:

797: \beq

798: \Rd(z) \sim t_H \sqrt{ \frac{k \TIGM}{\mu m_p} } \sim t_H \; c_s .

799: \label{Rd}

800: \eeq

801: This corresponds to the scale reached by acoustic waves over the Hubble

802: time 

803: $t_H$ (with the sound velocity $c_s$). Note that the damping scale $\Rd$

804: is 

805: usually smaller than the standard Jeans scale $R_{\rm Jeans}$ which

806: corresponds 

807: to the limit of large times. Hence we write:

808: \beq

809: r \leq \Rd(z) : \hspace{0.2cm} \xiIGM(r) = \xiIGM(\Rd) = \CIGM - 1

810: \label{cutRd}

811: \eeq

812: in order to take into account the damping of the baryonic power-spectrum

813: on 

814: small scales within the IGM, in a fashion which is consistent with

815: (\ref{CIGM}). 

816: Finally, for larger scales we use the prescription:

817: \beq

818: r > \Rd(z) : \hspace{0.2cm} \xiIGM(r) = (\CIGM-1) \;

819: \frac{\xi(r)}{\xi(\Rd)} .

820: \label{xiGM}

821: \eeq

822: Note that this large$-r$ behaviour (i.e. for $r > \Rd$) is consistent

823: with the 

824: factorization (\ref{bias}).

825: 

826: 

827: 

828: \subsection{Contribution from galactic halos}

829: \label{Contribution from galactic halos}

830: 

831: 

832: In addition to the free electron IGM number density correlation function 

833: $\xi_e(r)$ which we defined in (\ref{xie1}), we also introduce the

834: correlation 

835: function $\xiegal(r)$ due to collapsed halos which were able to cool and

836: to form 

837: galaxies. We estimate this contribution as follows. We assume that

838: within these 

839: halos the gas is totally ionized (by the radiation of the central stars

840: or QSO 

841: and by collisional ionization, due to shock-heating up to the virial 

842: temperature). Then, we can write (\ref{xie0}) as:

843: \beq

844: \xiegal(r) = \Fgalvol^2 \; (1+\Delta_c)^2 \; \xigal(r) = \Fgal^2 \;

845: \xigal(r)

846: \label{xiegal}

847: \eeq

848: where $\Fgalvol$ is the volume fraction (i.e. the filling factor)

849: occupied by 

850: these objects and $\Fgal = \Fgalvol (1+\Delta_c)$ is the fraction of

851: matter they 

852: contain. We note $\Delta_c(z)$ the mean density contrast of

853: just-virialized 

854: halos, given by the usual spherical model, while $\xigal(r)$ is the

855: matter 

856: correlation function associated with these halos. If we do not take into

857: account 

858: the density profile of these objects (i.e. we take a constant density

859: equal to 

860: $(1+\Delta_c) \rhoa$) we have for the clumping of the gas:

861: \beq

862: \Cgal = 1 + \xigal(r=0) = \frac{1+\Delta_c}{\Fgal} \gg 1 .

863: \label{Cgal}

864: \eeq

865: Then, in a fashion similar to (\ref{cutRd}) and (\ref{xiGM}) we write

866: the matter 

867: correlation function as:

868: \beq

869: r > \Rcool(z) : \hspace{0.2cm} \xigal(r) = (\Cgal-1) \; 

870: \frac{\xi(r)}{\xi(\Rcool)}

871: \label{xigal}

872: \eeq

873: and $\xigal(r) = (\Cgal-1)$ for $r<\Rcool$. Here we defined $\Rcool(z)$

874: as the 

875: virial radius of the smallest halos which are able to cool at redshift

876: $z$, as 

877: in Valageas \& Silk (1999a). Of course, our prescription for

878: $\xiegal(r)$ is 

879: only meant to provide a crude estimate of the contribution due to

880: galactic 

881: halos. Note that if we consider a specific density profile for the dark

882: matter 

883: halos we would only need to multiply $\Cgal$ by a numerical factor of

884: order 

885: unity, provided that the slope of the density in the inner regions is

886: shallower 

887: than $-3/2$ (otherwise $\Cgal$ is not finite). In addition, one should

888: take into 

889: account the additional collapse of the gas (while it cools) and the

890: effects of 

891: matter ejection through supernovae or stellar winds. In this article, we

892: shall 

893: restrict ourselves to the simple prescription (\ref{xigal}) which should

894: exhibit 

895: the right trend with $r$, keeping in mind that at small scales $r <

896: \Rcool$ we 

897: might underestimate the signal by a factor $\sim 3$. The comparison of

898: $\xiegal$ 

899: with $\xi_e$ allows us to see which of these two contributions (from

900: galactic 

901: halos or from the IGM) is dominant at a given scale. It also shows the 

902: characteristic scales associated with both processes.

903: 

904: 

905: 

906: \subsection{Power spectrum of secondary anisotropies}

907: \label{Power spectrum of secondary anisotropies}

908: 

909: 

910: Using the results of the previous sections, we can write the two-point 

911: correlation function $C(\theta)$ obtained in (\ref{Corr3}) as:

912: \beq

913: C(\theta) = \frac{2 \tau_0^2 v_0^2}{3 \; c^2} \int \d z \; w(z) 

914: \int_{R_{\theta}}^{\infty} \frac{\d r}{R_z} \; \frac{r \; \Pi_v[r (1+z)]

915: \; 

916: \xi_e(r)}{\sqrt{r^2-R_{\theta}^2}}

917: \label{Corr4}

918: \eeq

919: with:

920: \beq

921: w(z) = \frac{\d\chi}{\d z} \; \De(z) \; \left( \frac{H(z) f[\Om(z)]}{H_0 

922: f(\Omo)} \right)^2

923: \eeq

924: and:

925: \beq

926: R_z = \frac{c}{H_0} \; \frac{\De(z)}{1+z} .

927: \label{R0}

928: \eeq

929: In (\ref{Corr4}) we made the change of variable $r=| {\bf R}_{\theta} +

930: {\bf l} 

931: |$. The angular power-spectrum of these secondary anisotropies is given

932: by:

933: \beq

934: C_l = 2\pi \int \d (\cos \theta) \; P_l(\cos \theta) \; C(\theta)

935: \eeq

936: which for $l \gg 1$ can be approximated by:

937: \beq

938: l \gg 1 : \hspace{0.2cm} C_l = 2\pi \int_0^{\infty} \d\theta \; \theta

939: \; J_0(l 

940: \theta) \; C(\theta)

941: \label{Cl0}

942: \eeq

943: where $P_l$ are the Legendre polynomials and $J_0$ is the Bessel

944: function of 

945: order 0. Then, from (\ref{Corr4}) we obtain after integration over

946: $\theta$ (see 

947: Gradshteyn \& Ryzhik 1965, \S6.554.2, p.706):

948: \begin{eqnarray}

949: C_l & = & \frac{4 \pi \tau_0^2 v_0^2}{3 \; c^2 \; l} \int \d z \; w(z) 

950: \int_0^{\infty} \frac{\d r}{R_z} \; \frac{r}{R_z} \sin \left( \frac{l \;

951: r}{R_z} 

952: \right) \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{3.5cm} \times \;

953: \Pi_v[r(1+z)] \; 

954: \xi_e(r) .

955: \label{Cl1}

956: \end{eqnarray}

957: The expression (\ref{Cl1}) clearly shows that $C_l$ will exhibit a

958: strong 

959: decline at large $l$ for wavelengths which are smaller than the typical

960: scales 

961: of the free electron inhomogeneities ($R_z/l \ll R_{n_e}$) because of

962: the 

963: oscillatory term $\sin(l . r/R_z)$. On the other hand, for small $l$

964: (i.e. at 

965: large scales $R_z/l \gg R_{n_e}$ where the correlation of the electron 

966: distribution vanishes) we recover a white noise power-spectrum ($C_l$ is 

967: constant).

968: 

969: Finally, following Bruscoli et al. (2000) we define the quantity $S_l$

970: by:

971: \beq

972: S_l = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{l/2}^{3l/2} \d l \; l \; C_l \sim \lag

973: \frac{l (l+1) 

974: C_l}{2\pi} \rag_l.

975: \label{Sl0}

976: \eeq

977: This ``local average'' of $l (l+1) C_l/(2\pi)$ removes some of the

978: oscillations 

979: of $C_l$ at large $l$ and it allows us to see more clearly the drop at

980: large $l$ 

981: of the spectrum. It is also more convenient for numerical calculations

982: since it 

983: requires a lower resolution. From the relation (\ref{Cl1}) we obtain:

984: \begin{eqnarray}

985: S_l & = & \frac{2 \tau_0^2 v_0^2}{3 \; c^2} \int \d z \; w(z)

986: \int_0^{\infty} 

987: \frac{\d r}{R_z} \left( \cos \frac{l r}{2 R_z} - \cos \frac{3 l r}{2

988: R_z} 

989: \right) \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{3.5cm} \times \;

990: \Pi_v[r(1+z)] \; 

991: \xi_e(r) .

992: \label{Sl1}

993: \end{eqnarray}

994: Using (\ref{Cl0}) we can also write $S_l$ in terms of $C(\theta)$ as:

995: \beq

996: S_l = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{\d\theta}{\theta} \; C(\theta) \; \left[ 

997: \frac{3l\theta}{2} J_1\left( \frac{3l\theta}{2} \right) -

998: \frac{l\theta}{2} 

999: J_1\left( \frac{l\theta}{2} \right) \right] .

1000: \label{Sl2}

1001: \eeq

1002: 

1003: Note that the expressions (\ref{Corr4}), (\ref{Cl1}) and (\ref{Sl1}) are

1004: quite 

1005: general and do not depend on our model for the inhomogeneities of the

1006: free 

1007: electron distribution (which enters $\xi_e(r)$). They merely use the

1008: linear 

1009: evolution (\ref{v1}) of the velocity fluctuations and the approximation

1010: that 

1011: velocity and density fluctuations are uncorrelated. Moreover, it is more 

1012: accurate (hence more convenient in terms of numerical resolution) to

1013: compute 

1014: $C_l$ and $S_l$ from (\ref{Cl1}) and (\ref{Sl1}) rather than from the

1015: Fourier 

1016: transform of the final angular correlation $C(\theta)$.

1017: 

1018: 

1019: 

1020: \section{Numerical results}

1021: \label{Numerical results}

1022: 

1023: 

1024: For the numerical calculations we consider an open CDM universe (OCDM)

1025: with 

1026: $\Om=0.3$, $\Ol=0$, $\Ob=0.03$, $H_0=60$ km/s/Mpc and $\sigma_8=0.77$.

1027: These 

1028: values are those we used in previous articles where we considered the

1029: luminosity 

1030: functions of galaxies (Valageas \& Schaeffer 1999), Lyman-$\alpha$

1031: absorbers 

1032: (Valageas et al. 1999), clusters (Valageas \& Schaeffer 2000) and

1033: reionization 

1034: by stars and quasars (Valageas \& Silk 1999a,b).

1035: 

1036: 

1037: 

1038: 

1039: \subsection{Velocity fluctuations}

1040: \label{Velocity fluctuations}

1041: 

1042: 

1043: First, we display in Fig.\ref{figvelo} the magnitude of the velocity correlation function $\xi_v(x)$ at $z=0$. It shows a plateau at small scales $x \ll R_{-1}$ (most of the power comes from $R_{-1}$ where the quantity $k P(k)$ is maximum) and it declines at large scales with oscillations. Thus, in our model velocity fluctations are of order $\Delta v \sim 400$ km/s at $z=0$ (and they roughly decrease as $(1+z)^{-1/2}$). They only arise from the linear growth of initial perturbations through gravitational interaction. In the actual universe, an additional source of velocity fluctuations (mainly at small scales) could be provided by other processes like the ejection of matter by supernovae or turbulence. If these velocity fluctuations are larger by a factor $\alpha$ than the value we use for $\Delta v$ shown in Fig.\ref{figvelo}, then on the corresponding scales we should roughly increase our predictions for the secondary CMB anistropies $C_l$ by a factor $(1+\alpha^2)$. We shall not investigate here this possibility but we can note that a significant effect would require rather large velocities. 

1044: 

1045: 

1046: 

1047: 

1048: \begin{figure}[htb]

1049: 

1050: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8.2 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm \epsfbox{figveloO03.ps}}

1051: 

1052: \caption{The magnitude of the velocity correlation function $\xi_v(x)$ at redshift $z=0$. The solid curve shows the quantity $v_0 \; |\Pi_v(x)|^{1/2}$, see (\ref{v1}). The feature at $x \simeq 100$ Mpc corresponds to the fact that $\Pi_v(x)$ becomes negative for $x \ge 100$ Mpc.}

1053: \label{figvelo}

1054: 

1055: \end{figure}

1056: 

1057: 

1058: 

1059: 

1060: 

1061: \subsection{Free electron correlation function}

1062: \label{Free electron correlation function}

1063: 

1064: 

1065: The angular correlation $C(\theta)$ and the power-spectrum $C_l$

1066: correspond to 

1067: the sum over the line of sight of the fluctuations of the free electron

1068: number 

1069: density, up to the recombination redshift. Then, this integration over

1070: redshift 

1071: could blur some features of these density fluctuations. Hence, in order to

1072: clarify 

1073: the analysis it is interesting to consider first the real-space

1074: correlation 

1075: function $\xi_e(r;z)$ obtained for a given redshift $z$. This also

1076: allows us to 

1077: see the evolution with redshift of the free electron density

1078: fluctuations.

1079: 

1080: In order to understand the physical origin of the signal we split up the 

1081: correlation function into several parts. First, we consider the total 

1082: contribution $\xi_e(r)$ from the IGM, as defined in (\ref{xie1}). Next,

1083: we 

1084: introduce $\xieu$ as the correlation function we get when we do not take

1085: into 

1086: account the correlations of ionized bubbles (subscript ``u'' for 

1087: ``uncorrelated''). That is, in (\ref{P2}) we set the term

1088: $\xi_{x_1,x_2}(r)$ to 

1089: 0. Then, we define $\xieh$ as the signal produced by uncorrelated

1090: bubbles into a 

1091: ``homogeneous'' IGM (subscript ``h'' for ``homogeneous''). That is, in 

1092: (\ref{xie1}) we set the term $\xiIGM(r)$ to 0. Thus, $\xieh$ allows us

1093: to see 

1094: the contribution to $\xi_e$ due to the inhomogeneities of the free

1095: electron 

1096: number density produced by patchy reionization in distant bubbles. Then,

1097: $\xieu$ 

1098: shows by comparison with $\xieh$ the importance of the clumping of the

1099: gas 

1100: within the IGM. Finally, the difference between $\xieu$ and the total

1101: signal 

1102: $\xi_e(r)$ measures the effect of the correlations of these ionized

1103: bubbles.

1104: 

1105: 

1106: 

1107: 

1108: \begin{figure}[htb]

1109: 

1110: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=8 cm \epsfbox{figXie2O03.ps}}

1111: 

1112: \caption{The real-space two-point correlation function $\xi_e(r)$ at two 

1113: different redshifts. The solid line labeled $\xi_e$ (resp. $\xiegal$)

1114: shows the 

1115: contribution from the IGM (resp. from galactic halos). The curves

1116: $\xieu$ and 

1117: $\xieh$ correspond to the ``uncorrelated bubbles'' and ``homogeneous

1118: IGM'' 

1119: scenarios (see main text).}

1120: \label{figXie2}

1121: 

1122: \end{figure}

1123: 

1124: 

1125: 

1126: We show our results in Fig.\ref{figXie2} for two different redshifts.

1127: The upper 

1128: panel at $z_1=7.5$ corresponds to a redshift slightly before

1129: reionization (at 

1130: $\zri=6.8$). First, we clearly see on $\xieh$ the contribution due to

1131: patchy 

1132: reionization within finite size bubbles. Thus, $\xieh$ is constant at

1133: small 

1134: scales below the characteristic size of the ionized bubbles ($\sim 0.5$

1135: comoving 

1136: Mpc) and it drops at large scales. Of course, since $\xieh$ only

1137: corresponds to 

1138: fluctuations in the ionized fraction (it does not take into account

1139: matter 

1140: density fluctuations) it is of the form $\xieh(r) = \lag x_{e,1} x_{e,2}

1141: \rag(r) 

1142: - \lag x_e \rag^2$. Since by definition we have $x_e \leq 1$ we get

1143: $\xieh \leq 

1144: 1$. In fact, $\xieh$ never reaches unity because at large redshift the

1145: filling 

1146: factor $Q_{HII}$ of the ionized bubbles is much smaller than unity while

1147: at low 

1148: $z$ after reionization all the medium is reionized hence $\xieh(r) = 0$.

1149: In the 

1150: upper panel we have $Q_{HII} \simeq 0.9 < 1$ while in the lower panel

1151: after 

1152: reionization we have $\xieh(r) = 0$ hence the curve does not appear in

1153: the 

1154: figure. 

1155: 

1156: Next, $\xieu$ shows the influence of the clumping of the gas within the

1157: IGM. 

1158: Since $\CIGM > 1$ we no longer have the upper bound $\xieu \leq 1$ and

1159: we can 

1160: check in the figure that indeed we can have $\xieu > 1$. However, the

1161: typical 

1162: overdensities within the IGM are smaller than the density contrast

1163: $\Delta_c(z)$ 

1164: of just-virialized halos hence $\CIGM \leq 1+\Delta_c$, see the

1165: expression 

1166: (\ref{CIGM}). Thus, we obtain $\xieu \leq \Delta_c(z)$. We can check in

1167: both 

1168: panels in Fig.\ref{figXie2} that our results agree with this upper bound 

1169: ($\Delta_c(z) \sim 200$). In fact, $\xieu$ is significantly smaller

1170: ($\xieu \la 

1171: 10$) since most of the volume of the universe is filled by lower density

1172: regions 

1173: with $\rho \la \rhoa$. In agreement with (\ref{cutRd}) the correlation

1174: function 

1175: $\xieu(r)$ saturates at small scales below the damping scale $\Rd$ and

1176: it 

1177: follows the decrease at larger scales of the matter correlation

1178: function. Since 

1179: $\Rd$ is smaller than the typical sizes of the ionized bubbles the 

1180: characteristic break of $\xieu(r)$ occurs at smaller scales than for

1181: $\xieh$. In 

1182: other words, the matter density fluctuations provide more small scale

1183: power in 

1184: relative terms than ionized bubbles. Moreover, since the clumping of the

1185: gas is 

1186: rather large, even at large redshifts (at $z\ga 10$ we already have

1187: $\CIGM \ga 

1188: 10$, see Valageas \& Silk 1999a), we find that $\xieu \gg \xieh$ at all

1189: scales.

1190: 

1191: However, the presence of the ionized bubbles is not totally blurred by

1192: the 

1193: superimposed matter density fluctuations. Indeed, we can see in the

1194: upper panel 

1195: that at large scales the actual correlation $\xi_e$ is much larger than

1196: $\xieu$. 

1197: This means that for $r \ga 1$ comoving Mpc the signal is dominated by

1198: the 

1199: cross-correlation of ionized bubbles. This arises from the correlations

1200: of their 

1201: central collapsed halos (which are the sites of formation of the central 

1202: radiation source, either a galaxy or a QSO), see (\ref{P2}), which

1203: correspond to 

1204: very rare overdensities. Of course, by definition this effect appears at

1205: scales 

1206: larger than the typical size of the ionized bubbles. It provides excess

1207: large 

1208: scale power to $\xi_e$, as compared with $\xieu$, and it leads to a 

1209: characteristic feature in the shape of the correlation function

1210: $\xi_e(r)$. 

1211: After reionization (lower panel) since there are no more ionized bubbles

1212: this 

1213: effect disappears and $\xi_e(r)$ is only governed by the fluctuations of

1214: the 

1215: matter density, hence $\xieu$ (not shown) becomes equal to $\xi_e$.

1216: 

1217: Finally, the curve $\xiegal$ shows the contribution from galactic halos.

1218: We can 

1219: see that the scale $\Rcool$ is somewhat smaller than the damping scale

1220: $\Rd$ 

1221: (this is related to the fact that the density of virialized halos is

1222: larger by a 

1223: factor $\Delta_c \sim 200$ than the typical IGM density) so that

1224: $\xiegal$ 

1225: saturates at smaller scales than $\xi_e$. Moreover, the clumping factor 

1226: associated with these halos is larger than for the IGM (because of this 

1227: difference between the typical densities) hence the plateau at small

1228: scales of 

1229: $\xiegal$ is higher than for $\xi_e$. From (\ref{xiegal}) and

1230: (\ref{Cgal}) we 

1231: can check that $\xiegal \leq \Fgal \Delta_c \leq \Delta_c$. We can see

1232: in the 

1233: figure that $\xiegal$ is somewhat smaller than this upper bound because

1234: the 

1235: fraction of matter enclosed within such halos is still low at these

1236: redshifts: 

1237: $\Fgal \sim 0.12$ at $z \sim 7$ (see also Fig.12 in Valageas \& Silk

1238: 1999a). We 

1239: note that at larger scales ($r \sim 1$ Mpc) the contribution from the

1240: IGM and 

1241: ``galaxies'' are of the same order while at very large scales ($r > 1$

1242: Mpc) 

1243: before reionization the signal is dominated by the IGM through the 

1244: cross-correlation of ionized bubbles. We can expect to recover these

1245: features in 

1246: the integrated quantities $C(\theta)$ and $C_l$.

1247: 

1248: 

1249: 

1250: 

1251: 

1252: 

1253: \subsection{Angular two-point correlation function}

1254: \label{Angular two-point correlation function}

1255: 

1256: 

1257: 

1258: \begin{figure}[htb]

1259: 

1260: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm \epsfbox{figCthetaO03.ps}}

1261: 

1262: \caption{The angular two-point correlation function $C(\theta)$. The

1263: solid line 

1264: labeled $C$ shows the contribution from the IGM. The curve $\Cgal$

1265: displays the 

1266: contribution from galactic halos. The curves $\Cu$ and $\Ch$ correspond

1267: to the 

1268: ``uncorrelated bubbles'' and ``homogeneous IGM'' scenarios (see main

1269: text).}

1270: \label{figCtheta}

1271: 

1272: \end{figure}

1273: 

1274: 

1275: We show in Fig.\ref{figCtheta} our results for the angular two-point

1276: correlation 

1277: function $C(\theta)$. We can check that we recover the trends described

1278: in 

1279: Sect.\ref{Free electron correlation function}, which have not been

1280: totally 

1281: blurred by the integration over redshift.

1282: 

1283: First, we recover as in Fig.\ref{figXie2} the characteristic shape of

1284: the 

1285: contribution $\Ch$ from pure ionized bubbles: a plateau at small angular

1286: scales 

1287: $\theta \la 10^{-4}$ rad and a sharp drop at larger scales, beyond the

1288: size of 

1289: the bubbles. Note that a characteristic length scale $r$ is related to

1290: the 

1291: angular scale $\theta$ by $r \sim \theta c/H_0 \sim 5 \theta \times

1292: 10^3$ (in 

1293: comoving Mpc). Hence $\theta \la 10^{-4}$ corresponds indeed to the

1294: scale $r 

1295: \sim 0.5$ Mpc seen in Fig.\ref{figXie2} (the knee of $\xieh(r)$). Then,

1296: the 

1297: correlation $\Cu$ shows a smoother shape, due to the power-law behaviour

1298: of the 

1299: real-space matter correlation function $\xi(r)$, with a break at a

1300: smaller scale 

1301: $\theta \sim 10^{-5.5}$ rad due to small scale matter density

1302: fluctuations. 

1303: Moreover, we have $\Cu > \Ch$, in agreement with Fig.\ref{figXie2}.

1304: Next, the 

1305: total signal $C(\theta)$ from the IGM is larger than $\Cu$, especially

1306: at large 

1307: angular scales $\theta \sim 10^{-3}$ rad, because of the

1308: cross-correlation of 

1309: ionized bubbles. Note that the integration along the line of sight

1310: spreads the 

1311: difference between $\Cu$ and $C$ over all angles $\theta$ (in particular

1312: down to 

1313: $\theta \rightarrow 0$) since a small angular separation $\theta$

1314: corresponds to 

1315: a large real-space distance $r$ at high $z$. This leads to a difference

1316: with the 

1317: real-space correlation $\xie(r)$ shown in Fig.\ref{figXie2} where we

1318: found that 

1319: at small scales (below the size of ionized bubbles) $\xieu$ is equal to

1320: $\xie$. 

1321: In a similar fashion, the integration over redshift also leads to

1322: smoother 

1323: curves $C(\theta)$. Finally, we can see that the contribution $\Cgal$

1324: from 

1325: galactic halos is larger than the signal from the IGM at small scales

1326: $\theta 

1327: \la 10^{-4}$ rad while it becomes smaller at larger scales, as expected

1328: from 

1329: Fig.\ref{figXie2}. However, on the whole the difference between both 

1330: contributions is not very large.

1331: 

1332: 

1333: 

1334: 

1335: \subsection{Power-spectra $C_l$ and $S_l$}

1336: \label{Power-spectra Cl and Sl}

1337: 

1338: 

1339: 

1340: We show in Fig.\ref{figClSl} the quantity $l(l+1)C_l/(2\pi)$ and the

1341: ``local 

1342: average'' $S_l$, for the contributions from the IGM and from galactic

1343: halos. 

1344: We also plot for comparison the power spectrum of primary anisotropies 

1345: calculated using CMBFAST (Seljak \& Zaldarriaga 1996).

1346: At small $l$ both quantities $l(l+1)C_l/(2\pi)$ and $S_l$ are almost

1347: identical 

1348: since $C_l$ varies slowly with the wavenumber $l$. At large $l$ ($l \ga

1349: 10^5$) 

1350: the power-spectrum $C_l$ exhibits an oscillatory behaviour (since it is

1351: the 

1352: Fourier transform of a function $C(\theta)$ which shows a sharp drop at

1353: large 

1354: angular scales) and a slow decline. In particular, at very large $l$ ($l

1355: \ga 

1356: 10^7$) the oscillations of $C_l$ are not resolved by the numerical

1357: calculation. 

1358: On the other hand, $S_l$ becomes significantly different from

1359: $l(l+1)C_l/(2\pi)$ 

1360: as it shows a sharp decrease with $l$ and fewer oscillations. Of course,

1361: this is 

1362: due to the ``averaging procedure'' which enters the definition

1363: (\ref{Sl0}) of 

1364: $S_l$. At large $l$ the numerous oscillations of $C_l$ over the range 

1365: $[l/2,3l/2]$ partially cancel out which leads to a stronger falloff for

1366: $S_l$. 

1367: Moreover, this ``averaging'' smoothes the behaviour of $S_l$ which shows

1368: much 

1369: weaker oscillations. This also allows us to resolve $S_l$ up to larger

1370: $l$ (note 

1371: that $S_l$ is not computed from $C_l$ but directly from the expression 

1372: (\ref{Sl1})). This suggests that for observational purposes too, the

1373: quantity 

1374: $S_l$ may be more convenient as it should be more robust (i.e. require a

1375: lower 

1376: resolution) than $C_l$ at large $l$ and it shows more clearly the

1377: transition to 

1378: the large-$l$ regime by a sudden drop.

1379: 

1380: Note that for a correlation function $C(\theta) =

1381: \exp[-(\theta/\theta_0)^2]$ 

1382: with a Gaussian cutoff with a characteristic scale $\theta_0$ we get

1383: from 

1384: (\ref{Sl2}):

1385: \beq

1386: S_l = e^{-(l \theta_0)^2/16} - e^{-9(l \theta_0)^2/16} \sim e^{-(l 

1387: \theta_0)^2/16}

1388: \label{Slgauss}

1389: \eeq

1390: while (\ref{Cl0}) gives:

1391: \beq

1392: \frac{l^2 C_l}{2\pi} = \frac{1}{2} \; (l\theta_0)^2 \; e^{-(l

1393: \theta_0)^2/4} .

1394: \label{Clgauss}

1395: \eeq

1396: On the other hand, for an exponential cutoff $C(\theta) = 

1397: \exp(-\theta/\theta_0)$ we obtain the same slow cutoff for both

1398: quantities: $S_l 

1399: \sim l^2 C_l \sim 1/(l \theta_0)$. Finally, for a correlation function

1400: which is 

1401: a top-hat (i.e. $C(\theta)=1$ for $\theta < \theta_0$ and $C(\theta)=0$

1402: for 

1403: $\theta > \theta_0$) we get:

1404: \beq

1405: S_l = J_0\left( \frac{l \theta_0}{2} \right) - J_0\left( \frac{3 l

1406: \theta_0}{2} 

1407: \right)

1408: \eeq

1409: and

1410: \beq

1411: \frac{l^2 C_l}{2\pi} = (l \theta_0) J_1(l \theta_0) .

1412: \eeq

1413: In this latter case, at large $l$ both $C_l$ and $S_l$ show an

1414: oscillatory 

1415: behaviour but we have $|S_l| \sim l^{-1/2}$ while $|l^2 C_l| \sim

1416: l^{1/2}$, so 

1417: that $S_l$ shows again a stronger decrease than $l(l+1)C_l/(2\pi)$.

1418: Thus, these 

1419: examples explicitly show that the shape of the large-$l$ tail of $S_l$

1420: depends 

1421: rather strongly on the details of the angular correlation function (and

1422: even 

1423: more so for $\Cl$). However, the ``local average'' $S_l$ usually shows a

1424: drop 

1425: beyond the characteristic wavenumber $1/\theta_0$ (while $|l^2 C_l|$ may

1426: either 

1427: decrease or grow in an oscillatory fashion).

1428: 

1429: 

1430: 

1431: 

1432: \begin{figure}[htb]

1433: 

1434: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm \epsfbox{figClSlO03.ps}}

1435: 

1436: \caption{The power-spectra $C_l$ and $S_l$ of the secondary anisotropies

1437: for the 

1438: OCDM cosmology. The solid curves show the quantity $S_l$ for the

1439: contributions 

1440: from the IGM and from galactic halos. The dotted (resp. dashed) curve

1441: with 

1442: oscillations at large $l$ displays $l(l+1)C_l/(2\pi)$ for the IGM (resp. 

1443: galactic halos). The upper curve labeled ``primary'' shows

1444: $l(l+1)C_l/(2\pi)$ of the primary anisotropies for the same OCDM model (see text).}

1445: \label{figClSl}

1446: 

1447: \end{figure}

1448: 

1449: 

1450: 

1451: 

1452: The oscillatory behaviour of $C_l$ (hence the sharp drop of $S_l$)

1453: appears at 

1454: lower $l$ for the IGM than for galactic halos. This is due to the fact

1455: that the 

1456: correlations $\xie(r)$ and $C(\theta)$ show less small-scale power for

1457: the IGM 

1458: contribution than for the signal from galactic halos, as seen in 

1459: Fig.\ref{figXie2} and Fig.\ref{figCtheta}. Indeed, as shown in

1460: (\ref{Cl0}) and 

1461: (\ref{Cl1}) a characteristic angle $\theta$ (resp. a physical length

1462: $r$) 

1463: translates into a characteristic wavenumber $l \sim 1/\theta$ (resp. $l

1464: \sim 

1465: R_z/r$). Hence, since the scales of the fluctuations of the free

1466: electron number 

1467: density are larger for the IGM than for the galactic halo component the 

1468: power-spectra $C_l$ and $S_l$ of the IGM appear shifted towards smaller

1469: $l$ with 

1470: respect to the contribution from galaxies. At low $l$ we recover a white

1471: noise 

1472: spectrum ($C_l$ is constant, hence $S_l \propto l^2$) since this

1473: corresponds to 

1474: very large scales where the correlations of the electron distribution

1475: are 

1476: negligible. However, the slope of $\Sl$ we find at low $l$ for the

1477: contribution 

1478: from galactic halos is smaller because of the large-scale correlations

1479: of these 

1480: rare overdense objects.

1481: 

1482: We note that we clearly recover the main features of the correlation

1483: $C(\theta)$ 

1484: shown in Fig.\ref{figCtheta}. Thus, for the IGM we find that the

1485: transition to 

1486: the white noise part (the falloff at low $l$ with a slope $l^2$) occurs

1487: at $l 

1488: \sim 10^3$ which corresponds to the cutoff at large angles $\theta \sim

1489: 10^{-3}$ 

1490: rad of the correlation $C(\theta)$ (see the strong knee in

1491: Fig.\ref{figCtheta}). 

1492: On the other hand, for the galactic halo contribution the transition to

1493: the 

1494: large-$l$ regime (marked by the drop of $S_l$) appears at $l \sim 10^6$

1495: which 

1496: corresponds to the scale $\theta \sim 10^{-6}$ rad below which

1497: $\Cgal(\theta)$ 

1498: saturates (hence to the smallest angular scale of the density

1499: fluctuations). 

1500: Note that additional power at smaller scales (due to substructures

1501: within halos 

1502: and to the subsequent collapse of baryons when they cool) would shift

1503: this 

1504: transition towards higher $l$.

1505: 

1506: 

1507: 

1508: In a fashion similar to Fig.\ref{figCtheta} we can split up the spectrum

1509: $S_l$ 

1510: into several components. This decomposition is shown in Fig.\ref{figSl}.

1511: First, 

1512: in agreement with Fig.\ref{figXie2} and Fig.\ref{figCtheta} we can see

1513: that the 

1514: contribution $\Slh$ from uncorrelated ionized bubbles within a uniform

1515: medium is 

1516: strongly peaked at $l \sim 10^4$ which corresponds to the typical size

1517: of the 

1518: ionized bubbles ($\theta_0 \sim 10^{-4}$ rad, $r \sim 0.5$ comoving

1519: Mpc). At 

1520: small wavenumber $(l \theta_0) \ll 1$ we recover a white noise spectrum

1521: $S_l 

1522: \sim (l\theta_0)^2$ while at larger $l$ we get a somewhat smoother

1523: decrease than $l^{-2}$.

1524: 

1525: 

1526: 

1527: 

1528: \begin{figure}[htb]

1529: 

1530: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm \epsfbox{figSlO03.ps}}

1531: 

1532: \caption{The power-spectrum $S_l$ of the secondary anisotropies for the

1533: OCDM 

1534: cosmology. The solid curve labeled $\Sl$ (resp. $\Slgal$) shows the

1535: contribution 

1536: from the IGM (resp. from galactic halos). The curves $\Slu$ and $\Slh$ 

1537: correspond to the ``uncorrelated bubbles'' and ``homogeneous IGM''

1538: scenarios.}

1539: \label{figSl}

1540: 

1541: \end{figure}

1542: 

1543: 

1544: 

1545: Next, in agreement with Fig.\ref{figCtheta} we can see that $\Slu$ is

1546: larger 

1547: than $\Slh$ and it shows a broader maximum, due to the additional power

1548: at small 

1549: and large scales provided by the density fluctuations within the IGM.

1550: The 

1551: comparison with the total signal $\Sl$ shows that this Fourier transform 

1552: actually separates the various contributions to the power-spectrum.

1553: Thus, for 

1554: $l>10^4$ we have $\Sl=\Slu$ and the peak at $l \sim 10^{5.5}$

1555: corresponds to the 

1556: break at $\theta \sim 10^{-5.5}$ of the correlation $\Cu(\theta)$ (and

1557: to the 

1558: saturation at $r \sim 2 \times 10^{-2}$ Mpc of $\xieu(r)$). This

1559: directly probes 

1560: the small-scale fluctuations of the matter density field. Moreover, the

1561: equality 

1562: $\Sl=\Slu$ in this large-$l$ regime translates the fact that at small

1563: scales $r 

1564: < 1$ Mpc we had $\xie = \xieu$, as seen in Fig.\ref{figXie2}. Note that

1565: in the 

1566: angular space representation $C(\theta)$ the integration over redshift

1567: along the 

1568: line of sight destroys this feature as $C(\theta) > \Cu(\theta)$ for all

1569: angles 

1570: and one cannot recognize from the total signal $C$ the signature of this

1571: small 

1572: scale feature. Thus, the Fourier transform presents the strong advantage

1573: to 

1574: separate various physical processes as they act on different scales.

1575: However, in 

1576: this regime $l>10^4$ the signal should be dominated by the contribution

1577: from 

1578: galactic halos. 

1579: 

1580: Here we can note that in our calculations we modelled ionized regions as spherical bubbles while detailed numerical simulations show they can display a more complex morphology (e.g., Abel et al. 1999) as ionization fronts propagate more easily in voids. This means that the bell-shaped curve $\Slh$ in Fig.\ref{figSl} (which measures the contribution from patchy reionization, i.e. from the geometry of HII regions) underestimates the actual signal at large wavenumbers ($l > 10^4$) where we neglected the contribution from higher-order spherical harmonics (which provide some power on scales smaller than the typical radius $R_i$ of the ionized bubble). However, we can check in Fig.\ref{figSl} that even if we spread the maximum of the curve $\Slh$ up to wavenumbers $l$ ten times larger (i.e. the geometry of the ionization front displays significant power up to scales ten times smaller than $R_i$) our results remain unchanged. Indeed, most of the power in this range is due to the fluctuations of the matter density itself rather than to the geometry of HII regions. Moreover, the smallest scales displayed by the geometry of the ionization fronts are at least of the same order as the size of the smallest structures of the density field (from which they originate). Then, the factor $n_e^2$ in the correlation $C(\theta)$ ensures that if a large fraction of such clouds, enclosed within the distance $R_i$ to the radiation source, are ionized and if they show a density contrast $\delta \ga 10$, the signal is dominated on these scales by the fluctuations of the free electron density rather than by sheer geometrical patterns. Hence our results are not very sensitive to the approximation of spherical HII bubbles.

1581: 

1582: 

1583: 

1584: 

1585: Then, the comparison of $\Sl$ with $\Slu$ shows that the peak at $l \sim

1586: 10^3$ 

1587: comes from the correlations of ionized bubbles. This also corresponds to

1588: the 

1589: knee at $\theta \sim 10^{-3}$ rad of $C(\theta)$. In agreement with 

1590: Fig.\ref{figCtheta} we find that at small wavenumbers $l \la 10^3$ the 

1591: power-spectrum is dominated by the IGM contribution (i.e. the

1592: correlations of 

1593: ionized bubbles) while at larger $l$ most of the signal comes from

1594: galactic 

1595: halos which provide much small scale power. The peak at $l \sim 10^6$ of 

1596: $\Slgal$ corresponds to the break at $\theta \sim 10^{-6}$ rad of

1597: $\Cgal$. Thus, 

1598: we see that the power-spectrum of the final signal mainly probes the

1599: small-scale 

1600: density fluctuations which give rise to galactic halos (and their

1601: possible 

1602: substructures) and the correlations at large scales of ionized bubbles.

1603: 

1604: 

1605: Analytical studies of the power-spectrum $\Cl$ of these secondary CMB 

1606: anisotropies have also been presented in some earlier works. Thus,

1607: Gruzinov \& 

1608: Hu (1998) consider the effect of patchy reionization within a uniform

1609: medium, 

1610: assuming a Gaussian falloff for the real-space correlation function

1611: $\xie(r)$. 

1612: This could arise from a Gaussian distribution of the size of the HII

1613: regions. 

1614: Then, as in (\ref{Slgauss}) and (\ref{Clgauss}) they obtain a Gaussian

1615: cutoff 

1616: for the angular correlation $C(\theta)$ and the power-spectra $\Sl$ and

1617: $\Cl$. 

1618: This corresponds to our curves $\Ch$ and $\Slh$ in Fig.\ref{figCtheta}

1619: and in 

1620: Fig.\ref{figSl}. Our predictions for this scenario are similar to their

1621: results, 

1622: but our spectrum $\Sl$ peaks at a larger $l$ ($l \sim 10^4$) than theirs

1623: ($l 

1624: \sim 10^3$). This is due to the fact that in our model the comoving size

1625: of HII 

1626: regions is of order $0.5$ Mpc (see Fig.\ref{figXie2}) while they assume

1627: a very 

1628: large radius of $20$ Mpc for the bubbles. We can also note that our

1629: cutoff at 

1630: large $l$ is smoother than a Gaussian. Indeed, since observed luminosity 

1631: functions usually show a simple exponential cutoff (and our results

1632: match 

1633: observations at low $z$) we can expect a shallow cutoff of the form 

1634: $\exp(-r^{1/3})$ (because the volume of ionized bubbles is proportional

1635: to the 

1636: number of ionized atoms, hence to the luminosity of the source) and we

1637: noticed 

1638: above that a pure exponential cutoff already leads to a simple power-law

1639: decline

1640: of the spectrum $\Sl$ (as $1/l$).

1641: Using a slightly more sophisticated model, Aghanim et al. (1996) calculate

1642: the 

1643: reionization from early formed quasars, deducing the statistic of the

1644: ionized

1645: bubbles size from the distribution of quasar luminosities. Their results 

1646: predict that most of the power is at $l\sim 10^3$ and they are 

1647: similar to a one-patch scenario with a bubble radius of $\sim 10$ Mpc,

1648: except

1649: for the high $l$ cutoff which is less steep, due to the smaller patches 

1650: distribution.

1651: Then, Knox et al. (1998) consider the effect 

1652: of the correlations of these ionized bubbles. In agreement with our

1653: results, 

1654: they find that this leads to a much broader distribution of the

1655: power-spectrum. 

1656: Note that in our analysis we have split up the influence of matter

1657: correlations 

1658: into two processes: the cross-correlation of HII regions themselves

1659: (through the 

1660: correlation of the emitting sources), which provides additional power at

1661: larger 

1662: scales ($l<10^4$) than the size of these patches, and the fluctuations

1663: of the 

1664: matter density field within these bubbles, which builds power at smaller

1665: scales 

1666: ($l>10^4$). Thus, the final signals $C(\theta)$ and $\Sl$ are the sum of

1667: the 

1668: contributions from various processes. The advantage of our approach is

1669: that it 

1670: provides a fully consistent description of these different scales, from

1671: a model 

1672: built to study the detailed reionization history of the universe which

1673: has 

1674: already been compared with observations for various aspects (e.g.,

1675: galaxy 

1676: luminosity function in Valageas \& Schaeffer 1999; X-ray emission from

1677: clusters, 

1678: galaxies and quasars in Valageas \& Schaeffer 2000).

1679: 

1680: 

1681: 

1682: 

1683: 

1684: \subsection{Redshift distribution}

1685: \label{Redshift distribution}

1686: 

1687: 

1688: 

1689: The angular correlation $C(\theta)$ and the power-spectra $C_l$ and

1690: $S_l$ 

1691: correspond to an integration along the line of sight of the fluctuations

1692: of the 

1693: free electron number density. However, it would be interesting to see

1694: the 

1695: relative importance of the contributions from various redshifts to the

1696: final 

1697: signal. In particular, this would show whether these secondary CMB

1698: anisotropies 

1699: arise from a narrow range of redshifts close to reionization at

1700: $\zri=6.8$ or 

1701: from a more extended interval. Thus, we define the normalized quantity 

1702: $\Ctheta(z)$ by:

1703: \beq

1704: \Ctheta(z) = \frac{2 \tau_0^2 v_0^2}{3 c^2 C(\theta)} \; w(z) 

1705: \int_{R_{\theta}}^{\infty} \frac{\d r}{R_z} \; \frac{r \; \Pi_v[r (1+z)]

1706: \; 

1707: \xi_e(r)}{\sqrt{r^2-R_{\theta}^2}} .

1708: \label{Cthetaz}

1709: \eeq

1710: It obeys the normalization condition:

1711: \beq

1712: \int_0^{\infty} \d z \; \Ctheta(z) = 1

1713: \eeq

1714: and $\Ctheta(z) \d z$ is the fraction of the final angular correlation

1715: function 

1716: which is generated in the redshift interval $\d z$. In a similar fashion

1717: we 

1718: define the quantities $\Cl(z)$ and $\Sl(z)$, from (\ref{Cl1}) and

1719: (\ref{Sl1}), 

1720: which are also normalized to unity. For these three redshift

1721: distributions we 

1722: alternatively consider the contributions from the IGM and from galactic

1723: halos.

1724: 

1725: 

1726: 

1727: \subsubsection{IGM contribution}

1728: \label{IGM contribution}

1729: 

1730: 

1731: 

1732: 

1733: \begin{figure}[htb]

1734: 

1735: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm

1736: \epsfbox{figCthetazO03.ps}}

1737: 

1738: \caption{The redshift distribution $\Ctheta(z)$ of the angular

1739: correlation 

1740: (normalized to unity) from the IGM, for $\theta=10^{-3}$ rad (solid

1741: line) and 

1742: $\theta=10^{-5}$ rad (dashed line).}

1743: \label{figCthetaz}

1744: 

1745: \end{figure}

1746: 

1747: 

1748: 

1749: 

1750: \begin{figure}[htb]

1751: 

1752: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm \epsfbox{figClzO03.ps}}

1753: 

1754: \caption{The redshift distribution $\Cl(z)$ of the power-spectrum $\Cl$ 

1755: (normalized to unity) from the IGM, for $l=10^3$ (solid line) and

1756: $l=10^5$ 

1757: (dashed line).}

1758: \label{figClz}

1759: 

1760: \end{figure}

1761: 

1762: 

1763: First, we consider the contributions from the IGM to the secondary CMB 

1764: anisotropies. We show our results for the redshift distribution

1765: $\Ctheta(z)$ of 

1766: the angular correlation in Fig.\ref{figCthetaz}, for two different

1767: angular 

1768: scales. We note that the contributions to the final signal $C(\theta)$

1769: come from 

1770: a rather large range of redshifts, typically $7.5 < z < 10$ (so that

1771: $\delta z 

1772: /\zri \sim 0.36$). There is a sharp cutoff at $z \simeq \zri$ since at

1773: lower 

1774: redshifts there are no more ionized bubbles. This drop is sharper for

1775: larger 

1776: angular scales, in agreement with Fig.\ref{figCtheta} and

1777: Fig.\ref{figSl} where 

1778: we noticed that large scales $\theta > 10^{-4}$ rad ($l<10^4$) are

1779: dominated by 

1780: the correlations of ionized bubbles. However, at small scales $\theta

1781: \la 

1782: 10^{-5}$ there is a non-negligible tail at lower redshifts due to the

1783: matter 

1784: density fluctuations within the fully ionized IGM. Of course, smaller

1785: scales 

1786: also show a slightly more extended tail at high $z$ since at higher

1787: redshift the 

1788: typical size of ionized bubbles and the correlation length of the matter

1789: density 

1790: field were smaller, which damps the contribution to large angular scales 

1791: $\theta$. Hence the redshift distribution of the angular correlation

1792: $C(\theta)$ 

1793: is somewhat broader for lower $\theta$ (which translates into the

1794: smaller height 

1795: of the maximum of $\Ctheta(z)$ in the figure since the curves are

1796: normalized to 

1797: unity).

1798: 

1799: 

1800: 

1801: 

1802: 

1803: \begin{figure}[htb]

1804: 

1805: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm \epsfbox{figSlzO03.ps}}

1806: 

1807: \caption{The redshift distribution $\Sl(z)$ of the power-spectrum $\Sl$ 

1808: (normalized to unity) from the IGM, for $l=10^3$ (solid line) and

1809: $l=10^5$ 

1810: (dashed line).}

1811: \label{figSlz}

1812: 

1813: \end{figure}

1814: 

1815: 

1816: 

1817: We display in Fig.\ref{figClz} the redshift distribution $\Cl(z)$ of the 

1818: contribution from the IGM to the power-spectrum $\Cl$ for two different 

1819: wavenumbers (normalized to unity). Of course, for $l=10^3$ we recover a

1820: shape 

1821: similar to the redshift distribution $\Ctheta(z)$ we obtained for 

1822: $\theta=10^{-3}$ rad, since both quantities correspond to the same

1823: scale. For 

1824: $l=10^5$ the envelope of $\Cl$ agrees again with the shape we got in 

1825: Fig.\ref{figCthetaz} for $\Ctheta(z)$ (with a tail at low $z$ due to

1826: small-scale 

1827: density fluctuations) but the distribution $\Cl(z)$ now shows several 

1828: oscillations. This is due to the Fourier transform involved in the

1829: definition of 

1830: $\Cl$. Thus, the contributions from successive redshifts along the line

1831: of sight 

1832: almost cancel out. This agrees with the behaviour we obtained in 

1833: Fig.\ref{figClSl}. Note that the oscillations occur before reionization:

1834: they 

1835: are due to the patchy pattern of reionization in HII bubbles with a size

1836: larger 

1837: than $R_z/l$. At lower redshift this feature disappears as there are no

1838: more 

1839: ionized regions to single out a large characteristic scale.

1840: 

1841: 

1842: Finally, we display in Fig.\ref{figSlz} the redshift distribution

1843: $\Sl(z)$ of 

1844: the contribution from the IGM to the power-spectrum $\Sl$. As expected,

1845: for 

1846: $l=10^3$ we recover the results we obtained for the power-spectrum

1847: $\Cl$. 

1848: Indeed, as noticed in Fig.\ref{figClSl} for small wavenumbers there are

1849: no 

1850: oscillations since one probes scales which are larger or of the order of

1851: the 

1852: correlation lengths of the free electron distribution, so that $\Sl

1853: \simeq 

1854: l(l+1)\Cl/(2\pi)$. At larger $l$ some oscillations start to appear and

1855: $\Sl(z)$ 

1856: shows a different shape than $\Cl(z)$. In particular, the oscillations

1857: of 

1858: $\Sl(z)$ are much smoother and broader than for $\Cl(z)$ and they appear

1859: at a 

1860: larger wavenumber. Indeed, the ``local averaging'' over $l$ associated

1861: with the 

1862: procedure used to define $\Sl$ ``smoothes'' the contributions from

1863: various 

1864: scales. In particular, this allows us to see more clearly the redshift 

1865: distribution associated with $l=10^5$ where there are no oscillations

1866: yet. 

1867: Moreover, it clearly shows that the large oscillations we obtained

1868: shortly 

1869: before reionization for $\Cl$ almost cancel out so that high redshifts

1870: $z>\zri$ 

1871: only provide a small contribution to the final signal. This leads to a

1872: redshift 

1873: distribution which is very different from the one obtained for smaller

1874: $l$ which 

1875: shows a sharp cutoff at $z\simeq \zri$. Thus, we find that for these

1876: small 

1877: scales the contributions to the power-spectrum $\Sl$ come from an

1878: extended range 

1879: of redshifts $2 < z <8$. As noticed in Fig.\ref{figSl}, we find again

1880: that the 

1881: use of the power-spectrum allows one to clearly see the various

1882: processes 

1883: associated with different scales, which are somewhat blurred in the

1884: angular 

1885: representation $C(\theta)$. 

1886: 

1887: 

1888: 

1889: 

1890: 

1891: \subsubsection{Contribution from galactic halos}

1892: \label{Contribution from galactic halos}

1893: 

1894: 

1895: 

1896: \begin{figure}[htb]

1897: 

1898: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm

1899: \epsfbox{figCthetazcoolO03.ps}}

1900: 

1901: \caption{The redshift distribution $\Cthetagal(z)$ of the angular

1902: correlation 

1903: (normalized to unity) from galactic halos, for $\theta=10^{-3}$ rad

1904: (solid line) 

1905: and $\theta=10^{-5}$ rad (dashed line).}

1906: \label{figCthetazcool}

1907: 

1908: \end{figure}

1909: 

1910: 

1911: 

1912: 

1913: \begin{figure}[htb]

1914: 

1915: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm

1916: \epsfbox{figSlzcoolO03.ps}}

1917: 

1918: \caption{The redshift distribution $\Slgal(z)$ of the power-spectrum

1919: $\Sl$ 

1920: (normalized to unity) from galactic halos, for $l=10^3$ (solid line) and 

1921: $l=10^5$ (dashed line).}

1922: \label{figSlzcool}

1923: 

1924: \end{figure}

1925: 

1926: 

1927: Now, we consider the redshift distribution of the contribution from

1928: galactic 

1929: halos to the CMB anisotropies. We show in Fig.\ref{figCthetazcool} our

1930: results 

1931: for the angular correlation function. First, we note that there is no

1932: drop at 

1933: the reionization redshift $\zri$. Indeed, the fact that ionized bubbles

1934: suddenly 

1935: overlap so that the signal from the patchy pattern of reionization

1936: disappears 

1937: does not affect the contribution from galactic halos. On the other hand, 

1938: reionization does not lead to a sharp drop of the galaxy or quasar

1939: multiplicity 

1940: functions either since it does not imply a sudden increase of the IGM 

1941: temperature and of the Jeans mass. Indeed, as seen in Valageas \& Silk

1942: (1999a) 

1943: most of the reheating of the universe occured earlier in a gradual

1944: fashion so 

1945: that the small increase of the IGM temperature at $\zri$ has no impact

1946: on the 

1947: population of radiation sources. Thus, the redshift distribution

1948: $\Cthetagal(z)$ 

1949: follows the growth of non-linear structures so that smaller redshifts

1950: provide a 

1951: larger contribution. This appears clearly for $\theta=10^{-3}$ rad where

1952: most of 

1953: the signal is generated at $z \la 1$ when the scale $r \sim 5$ Mpc

1954: enters the 

1955: non-linear regime. On the other hand, for the smaller angular scale 

1956: $\theta=10^{-5}$ rad the contribution from very low $z$ becomes smaller

1957: as the 

1958: typical size of virialized objects becomes larger than the scale which 

1959: corresponds to $\theta$. However, we may underestimate the power at low

1960: $z$ 

1961: because we neglected substructures within halos. Note that on these

1962: small 

1963: angular scales the secondary CMB anisotropies should be dominated by the 

1964: contribution from galactic halos. Hence they arise from a very broad

1965: range of 

1966: redshifts (typically $0 < z <7$) which is not related to $\zri$.

1967: 

1968: 

1969: 

1970: We display in Fig.\ref{figSlzcool} the redshift distribution $\Slgal(z)$

1971: of the 

1972: power-spectrum $\Slgal$. We recover a behaviour similar to 

1973: Fig.\ref{figCthetazcool}. In particular, note the large range of

1974: redshifts which 

1975: is probed by large wavenumbers $l \sim 10^5$. Higher $l$ which are

1976: beyond the 

1977: cutoff of the spectrum $\Sl$ show increasingly important oscillations.

1978: 

1979: 

1980: 

1981: 

1982: \subsection{Quasars versus stars}

1983: \label{Quasars versus stars}

1984: 

1985: 

1986: 

1987: In usual scenarios the universe is reionized by the radiation emitted by 

1988: non-linear structures as collisional ionization is likely to be less

1989: efficient 

1990: (e.g., Madau 2000; Valageas \& Silk 1999b). There are two natural

1991: sources of 

1992: radiation in present cosmological models: stars and quasars. In

1993: particular, in 

1994: our model the universe is reionized when HII bubbles created by galaxies

1995: and 

1996: quasars overlap at $\zri$ (see Valageas \& Silk 1999a). The multiplicity 

1997: functions we use for galaxies and QSOs are normalized to the

1998: low-redshift 

1999: universe ($z<4$) and are obtained in a consistent fashion (see also

2000: Valageas \& 

2001: Schaeffer 1999). Then, we find that the energy output provided by QSOs

2002: is of the 

2003: same order as the energy radiated by stars. However, the spatial

2004: features of 

2005: these two reionization processes may be different since one can expect

2006: QSOs to 

2007: create fewer but more extended HII bubbles, since quasars are not as

2008: numerous as 

2009: galaxies but their luminosity is much larger. Hence, the correlation

2010: function 

2011: $C(\theta)$ and the power-spectrum $C_l$ may show more large-scale power

2012: for a 

2013: quasar-driven reionization than for a galaxy-driven process. This is

2014: quite 

2015: interesting as it might allow one to discriminate both scenarios. Note

2016: on the 

2017: other hand that the reionization of helium is usually due to the

2018: radiation 

2019: emitted by quasars, as in our model. Indeed, stars have a black-body

2020: spectrum 

2021: which yields very few high energy photons while quasars exhibit a harder 

2022: power-law spectrum over the relevant frequency range. However, as

2023: pointed out by 

2024: Tumlinson \& Shull (2000) population III metal-free stars have a harder

2025: spectrum 

2026: than typical low-$z$ stars, hence they might be able to ionize helium in 

2027: addition to hydrogen. Thus, the relative importance of quasars and stars

2028: is 

2029: still an open problem. Unfortunately, we shall see below that the

2030: observation of 

2031: the secondary anisotropies of the CMB is unlikely to answer this

2032: problem.

2033: 

2034: 

2035: 

2036: \begin{figure}[htb]

2037: 

2038: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm

2039: \epsfbox{figCtheta0QO03.ps}}

2040: 

2041: \caption{The angular two-point correlation functions $\Cs(\theta)$ and 

2042: $\CQ(\theta)$ due to stars and quasars. The solid line labeled $\Cs$

2043: (resp. 

2044: $\CQ$) shows the contribution from the IGM when we only take into

2045: account the 

2046: ionized bubbles created by a central QSO (resp. by a central galaxy).

2047: The curves 

2048: $\Chs$ (resp. $\ChQ$) corresponds to the ``homogeneous IGM'' scenario of

2049: ionized 

2050: bubbles created by stellar radiation (resp. quasars) within a uniform

2051: medium. 

2052: The dotted line shows the total IGM correlation function $C(\theta)$ (it

2053: is 

2054: identical to the solid line $C$ in Fig.\ref{figCtheta}).}

2055: \label{figCtheta0Q}

2056: 

2057: \end{figure}

2058: 

2059: 

2060: 

2061: 

2062: Thus, we define $\Cs$ and $\Chs$ (resp. $\CQ$ and $\ChQ$) as the angular 

2063: correlation functions we obtain for the total IGM signal and for the 

2064: contribution due to patchy reionization through uncorrelated ionized

2065: bubbles 

2066: within a uniform IGM when we only count in our model the bubbles created

2067: by 

2068: stellar radiation (resp. quasar radiation). In other words, we use the 

2069: reionization history described in the previous sections (see Valageas \&

2070: Silk 

2071: 1999a) but to compute the CMB secondary anisotropies we only take into

2072: account 

2073: the bubbles associated with either one of the two available sources of

2074: radiation 

2075: (stars or quasars). This allows us to compare the importance of stars

2076: and QSOs 

2077: in our results (for the peculiar scenario of structure formation we

2078: use). We 

2079: show our results in Fig.\ref{figCtheta0Q}. First, we note that we

2080: recover for 

2081: both cases the main features described in Sect.\ref{Angular two-point 

2082: correlation function} for the total signal. Then, as expected, the

2083: comparison of 

2084: $\Chs$ with $\ChQ$ shows that the characteristic scale of the ionized

2085: bubbles 

2086: associated with quasars is larger than for the HII regions produced by

2087: galaxies. 

2088: However, the difference is not very large (note that the radius only

2089: scales as 

2090: $L^{1/3}$, where $L$ is the source luminosity, and one has to integrate

2091: over an 

2092: extended population of sources and over redshift). Moreover, we find

2093: that the 

2094: total signals $\Cs$ and $\CQ$ are very close and they do not exhibit

2095: different 

2096: characteristic scales. Indeed, as we described in Sect.\ref{Angular

2097: two-point 

2098: correlation function} most of the power is provided by the small-scale

2099: matter 

2100: density fluctuations of the IGM and by the large-scale cross

2101: correlations of 

2102: ionized bubbles. Hence the typical size of the ionized bubbles cannot be

2103: seen in 

2104: the shape of the angular correlation $C(\theta)$. Besides, since quasars

2105: and 

2106: galaxies are drawn from the same population of collapsed halos they have

2107: similar 

2108: correlations hence the cross-correlations of their associated HII

2109: regions are 

2110: rather close (see Valageas et al. 2000 for a detailed study of the

2111: correlation 

2112: properties of these various objects).

2113: 

2114: 

2115: 

2116: 

2117: \begin{figure}[htb]

2118: 

2119: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm \epsfbox{figSl0QO03.ps}}

2120: 

2121: \caption{The power-spectra $\Sls$ and $\SlQ$ due to stars and quasars.

2122: The 

2123: dashed curve $\Slhs$ (resp. $\SlhQ$) correspond to the ``homogeneous

2124: IGM'' 

2125: scenario for ionized bubbles created by stellar radiation (resp.

2126: quasars) within 

2127: a uniform medium. The dotted line shows the total IGM spectrum $\Sl$ (it

2128: is 

2129: identical to the solid line $\Sl$ in Fig.\ref{figSl}).}

2130: \label{figSl0Q}

2131: 

2132: \end{figure}

2133: 

2134: 

2135: 

2136: 

2137: We show in Fig.\ref{figSl0Q} the power-spectra $\Sls$ and $\SlQ$ (as

2138: well as 

2139: $\Slhs$ and $\SlhQ$ for the ``homogeneous'' scenario) associated with

2140: stars and 

2141: quasars, which also correspond to the correlations displayed in 

2142: Fig.\ref{figCtheta0Q}. We find again that the spectra $\Slhs$ and

2143: $\SlhQ$ which 

2144: directly probe the size of the HII regions exhibit two slightly

2145: different scales 

2146: for quasars and stars, in agreement with Fig.\ref{figCtheta0Q}. Thus,

2147: $\Slhs$ 

2148: peaks at $l \sim 10^{4.3}$ while $\SlhQ$ peaks at $l \sim 10^{3.8}$. The 

2149: wavenumber associated with quasar-driven bubbles is smaller than for

2150: stellar 

2151: radiation since the size of the HII region is larger. However, we find

2152: again 

2153: that this signature is lost in the total power-spectra $\Sls$ and $\SlQ$

2154: which 

2155: are dominated at all scales by other processes (i.e. the correlations of

2156: the 

2157: matter density field itself). Thus, observations of the secondary

2158: anisotropies 

2159: of the CMB are unlikely to provide strong constraints on the size of the

2160: ionized 

2161: bubbles. Hence they cannot discriminate between both sources of

2162: radiation (stars 

2163: versus quasars).

2164: 

2165: 

2166: 

2167: 

2168: Of course, this conclusion relies on the assumption that quasars are closely associated with galaxies. More precisely, our model is based on the usual scenario where QSOs correspond to massive black holes located in the nuclei of galaxies and powered by accretion (e.g., Rees 1984). Thus, an ``exotic'' model where quasars would not reside within massive virialized halos similar to galaxies might provide a different signature on the CMB. However, such a scenario is rather unlikely (e.g., in view of the energy requirements to power the quasars which favor large gravitational potential wells) and the standard model has been shown to agree reasonably well with numerous observations (e.g., the B-band luminosity functions and the X-ray emission, Valageas \& Schaeffer 2000). As we have shown above, on small scales ($l > 10^4$) the signal comes from the fluctuations of the density field within the IGM and from galactic halos, while the pattern of reionization plays a minor role. Hence our results in this range do not strongly depend on the clustering properties of quasars. On the other hand, on larger scales the kinetic SZ effect probes the spatial correlations of QSOs and in this sense it becomes more ``model-dependent''. However, we can be reasonably confident in our results as our model has already been checked against observations of the QSO multiplicity functions (e.g., Valageas \& Schaeffer 2000). Moreover, as shown in Fig.8 in Valageas et al. (2000) we also recover the observed behaviour with redshift of the correlation length associated with quasars. This means that any model which satisfies the same observational constraints (up to $z \la 5$) is likely to give analoguous results. Note that although the clustering properties of QSOs and galaxies as a whole are similar, since they are drawn from similar collapsed halos, the observed redshift-dependence of their correlation length is qualitatively different if one selects objects by a given luminosity threshold, due to the different behaviour of their mass-luminosity relations (see Valageas et al. 2000 for a detailed discussion).

2169: 

2170: 

2171: 

2172: 

2173: 

2174: \subsection{Dependence on cosmology}

2175: \label{Dependence on cosmology}

2176: 

2177: 

2178: 

2179: 

2180: 

2181: \begin{figure}[htb]

2182: 

2183: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm \epsfbox{figCthetaO1.ps}}

2184: 

2185: \caption{The angular two-point correlation function $C(\theta)$ for a

2186: SCDM 

2187: cosmology. The solid line labeled $C$ shows the contribution from the

2188: IGM. The 

2189: curve $\Cgal$ displays the contribution from galactic halos. The curves

2190: $\Cu$ 

2191: and $\Ch$ correspond to the ``uncorrelated bubbles'' and ``homogeneous

2192: IGM'' 

2193: scenarios, as in Fig.\ref{figCtheta}.}

2194: \label{figCthetaO1}

2195: 

2196: \end{figure}

2197: 

2198: 

2199: 

2200: 

2201: \begin{figure}[htb]

2202: 

2203: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8 cm \epsfysize=5.5 cm \epsfbox{figSlO1.ps}}

2204: 

2205: \caption{The power-spectrum $S_l$ of the secondary anisotropies for the

2206: SCDM 

2207: cosmology. The solid curve labeled $\Sl$ (resp. $\Slgal$) shows the

2208: contribution 

2209: from the IGM (resp. from galactic halos). The curves $\Slu$ and $\Slh$ 

2210: correspond to the ``uncorrelated bubbles'' and ``homogeneous IGM''

2211: scenarios, as 

2212: in Fig.\ref{figSl}. The upper curve labeled ``primary'' shows

2213: $l(l+1)C_l/(2\pi)$ 

2214: of the primary anisotropies for the same SCDM model (see text).}

2215: \label{figSlO1}

2216: 

2217: \end{figure}

2218: 

2219: 

2220: 

2221: 

2222: Finally, in order to check whether our results strongly depend on the 

2223: reionization history of the universe we also study the case of a

2224: standard CDM 

2225: cosmology (SCDM): $\Om=1$. We use the same model as in Valageas \& Silk

2226: (1999a): 

2227: $\Ob=0.04$, $H_0=60$ km/s/Mpc and $\sigma_8=0.5$. The physical processes 

2228: included in the model are the same as for the open cosmology and the

2229: galaxy and 

2230: quasar multiplicity functions are again normalized to observations at

2231: low $z$ 

2232: (Valageas \& Schaeffer 1999; Valageas \& Silk 1999a). The reionization

2233: redshift 

2234: we get in this scenario is lower than previously: we now have

2235: $\zri=5.6$.

2236: 

2237: We show in Fig.\ref{figCthetaO1} and in Fig.\ref{figSlO1} the angular 

2238: correlation $C(\theta)$ and the power-spectrum $\Sl$ we obtain for this

2239: critical 

2240: density universe. First, we note that the amplitude of the secondary

2241: distortions 

2242: of the CMB is smaller than for the previous cosmology. This is due to

2243: the 

2244: smaller reionization redshift $\zri$. Indeed, the expression

2245: (\ref{Corr4}) shows 

2246: that:

2247: \beq

2248: C(\theta) \sim \delta z \; w(\zri) \sim \delta z \; (1+\zri)^{3/2}

2249: \label{Czri}

2250: \eeq

2251: where $\delta z$ is the redshift interval during which reionization

2252: occurs. The 

2253: smaller reionization redshift is due to the smaller variance $\sigma_8$

2254: and to 

2255: the faster growth with redshift of density fluctuations (which implies

2256: that for 

2257: the same normalization at $z=0$ structure formation was less advanced at

2258: high 

2259: redshift for the SCDM cosmology). Next, we can check in the figures that

2260: we 

2261: recover the same features for the secondary anisotropies as for the open 

2262: universe. In particular, we obtain the same shapes for all contributions

2263: to the 

2264: correlation functions and the relative importance of each process

2265: remains 

2266: unchanged. Hence all the points we discussed in the previous sections

2267: for the 

2268: low-density cosmology remain valid. This is not surprising since the

2269: basic 

2270: astrophysical model we use is the same. However, it shows that our

2271: conclusions 

2272: do not strongly depend on the details of the model (e.g., the

2273: reionization 

2274: redshift). 

2275: 

2276: For these reasons, we expect that for low-density flat 

2277: models, such as the `cosmic concordance' $\Lambda$CDM model (Ostriker 

2278: \& Steinhardt 1995; Krauss \& Turner 1995), the results should be

2279: similar to the 

2280: OCDM model, except for a shift of the features to lower $l$ (larger

2281: angular 

2282: scales) due to the different angular geometry.

2283: 

2284: 

2285: 

2286: 

2287: \subsection{Comparison with numerical simulations}

2288: \label{Comparison with numerical simulations}

2289: 

2290: 

2291: Here, we briefly compare our results with other available studies. First, Benson et al. (2000) presented a semi-analytic model of galaxy formation to compute the kinetic SZ effect (within a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology). They roughly get the same amplitude $\Cl \sim 10^{-13}$ at $l \sim 10^4$ and they also find that at low wavenumbers ($l \la 10^3$) most of the power is provided by density fluctuations and the clustering of ionization sources. However, because of numerical resolution limitations they get a sharp drop at $l \sim 2 \times 10^4$ while we obtained a plateau for $\Cl$ up to $l \sim 10^6$. Note that our model is entirely analytic, although the scaling function $H(x)$ which enters the multiplicity functions in (\ref{Proba1}) is obtained from a fit to N-body simulations, so that we have no resolution limitations (we are simply limited by the approximations involved in our model).

2292: 

2293: The secondary anisotropies produced by inhomogeneous reionization which

2294: we study in this article have also been computed by means of numerical

2295: simulations in Bruscoli et al. (2000), Gnedin \& Jaffe (2000) and Springel et al. (2000), using different cosmologies and astrophysical models. These authors find a broad maximum for the power-spectra $\Cl$ and $\Sl$ of $\Cl \sim 10^{-13} - 10^{-12}$ around $l \sim 10^4$. In particular, Springel et al. (2000) get a slowly decreasing plateau down to $l \sim 500$ (below this scale they are limited by finite box size effects while both other numerical studies are restricted to $l \ga 10^4$). This behaviour agrees with our results (see the curve $\Slu$ in Fig.\ref{figSl}) since these authors use a simple toy model without including galaxy formation and radiative processes so that they miss the additional power due to the correlation of ionizing sources. Moreover, the drop we get for $\Cl$ at $l \la 300$, where we recover a white noise power

2296: spectrum, is beyond the range of these numerical simulations. 

2297: 

2298: On small scales, Gnedin \& Jaffe (2000) (with the highest resolution) find a plateau at $\Cl \sim 10^{-13}$ which slowly decreases up to their resolution limit at $l \sim 10^6$. This again roughly agrees with our predictions, although we rather obtain a slight increase of the total power with $l$ in this range. Note that these numerical simulations are restricted to $z>4$ and these authors estimate the missing signal by a simple extrapolation (i.e. they multiply their output by a factor 1.25). However, as we discussed in Sect.\ref{Redshift distribution} the redshift distribution of the kinetic SZ effect depends on the angular scale one considers. Thus, large wavenumbers ($l \sim 10^5$), which probe high density fluctuations, are more sensitive to low $z$ than large scales ($l \sim 10^3$), which probe the inhomogeneous pattern of reionization and where most of the signal comes from epochs close to the reionization redshift $\zri$. This could explain the small difference between both predictions for the slope of this plateau. We can expect that with a higher resolution these authors would also recover a sharp cutoff at $l \ga 10^6$ for $\Sl$ (note that this drop is not readily apparent if one only computes the oscillatory spectrum $\Cl$, see Fig.\ref{figClSl}). These two behaviours are recovered by Bruscoli et al. (2000) at $l \sim 2 \times 10^5$, but this smaller value for the location of the transition might be due to the finite numerical resolution. Since this scale is directly related

2299: to the size of virialized halos we can expect our result to be rather robust

2300: (in fact we would even expect some power at slightly smaller scales due to the

2301: collapse of baryons after they cool and to the substructures within halos, which would improve the agreement of our predictions with the results of Gnedin \& Jaffe 2000).

2302: 

2303: Bruscoli et al. (2000) also display the angular correlation function $C(\theta)$. It reaches a plateau $C(\theta) \sim 5 \times 10^{-12}$ for $\theta < 10^{-5}$ rad and it shows oscillations for $\theta > 2 \times 10^{-4}$ rad. Thus, the amplitude of the signal they get is larger than our predictions (as for $\Cl$). This could be due in part to their higher reionization redshift, see (\ref{Czri}). Moreover, Gnedin \& Jaffe (2000) argue that those authors overestimate the SZ effect by a factor 3-10 because of the uncorrected periodicity of the simulations. On the other hand, we obtain more large-scale power since in our model the cutoff of $C(\theta)$ only appears for $\theta \ga 10^{-3}$ rad. On these large scales, secondary CMB anisotropies are generated by the cross-correlations of ionized bubbles. Hence this difference between both predictions may also be related to our smaller value for $\zri$ since in our case at reionization structure formation is more advanced and the 

2304: correlation length of the matter density field (hence of the radiation sources) 

2305: is larger. Moreover, these large scales are not adequately resolved by these numerical simulations, as shown by their results for $\Cl$ which are restricted to $l \ga 10^4$. 

2306:  

2307: Finally, we note that the independent study by Gnedin \& Jaffe (2000) also finds that the signal is dominated by the contribution from high-density ionized regions rather than from the patchy pattern of reionization (for $l>10^4$). This agrees with our results. Note that we find in addition that the inhomogeneous pattern of reionization plays an important role at larger scales ($l \sim 10^3$) but this is beyond the range of these simulations. Thus, the agreement of our predictions with these various numerical studies, which use different cosmologies and astrophysical models, appears quite reasonable. Note that those numerical works do not include quasar formation models.

2308: 

2309: 

2310: 

2311: 

2312: \section{Conclusion}

2313: \label{Conclusion}

2314: 

2315: 

2316: In this article, we have presented an analytic model (based on our

2317: previous work 

2318: which described structure formation processes and the reionization

2319: history of 

2320: the universe) which allows us to compute the secondary CMB anisotropies 

2321: generated by the kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. This model includes

2322: a 

2323: consistent description of galaxies, quasars and matter density

2324: fluctuations. 

2325: 

2326: We have found that {\it the contribution due to patchy reionization is

2327: negligible 

2328: except at very large scales} ($\theta \ga 10^{-3}$ rad) and small

2329: wavenumbers ($l 

2330: \la 10^3$). Over this range, which corresponds to scales larger than the

2331: typical 

2332: size of HII regions, the signal actually comes from the

2333: cross-correlation of 

2334: ionized bubbles, induced by the correlations of the rare radiation

2335: sources. On 

2336: smaller scales, the IGM contribution is governed by the fluctuations of

2337: the 

2338: matter density field itself. However, over this range the secondary

2339: anisotropies 

2340: should be dominated by the contribution from galactic halos, which are 

2341: characterized by smaller scales than the IGM (and larger densities).

2342: This leads 

2343: to a cutoff of the power-spectrum $l(l+1)\Cl$ at a large wavenumber $l

2344: \sim 

2345: 10^6$. On the other hand, at low wavenumbers $l < 10^3$ we recover a

2346: white noise 

2347: power-spectrum. This very extended range of wavenumbers $10^3 < l <

2348: 10^6$ is 

2349: close to the limitations of current numerical simulations. Thus,

2350: observations of 

2351: {\it these secondary CMB anisotropies should mainly probe the correlation

2352: properties 

2353: of the underlying matter density field}, through the correlations of the

2354: HII 

2355: regions and the small-scale density fluctuations. We also found that the

2356: ``local 

2357: average'' $\Sl$ of the power-spectrum should be a more convenient tool

2358: than 

2359: $\Cl$.

2360: 

2361: Some comments are in order about the detectability of the effects 

2362: described in this paper. First, we notice that in the range 

2363: $10^2 \la l \la 10^4$ the power

2364: predicted by our model (relative to primary anisotropies) is comparable 

2365: to the one found by Knox et al. (1998). Following their conclusions, we

2366: infer that this signal, if not taken into account correctly, might 

2367: introduce a small bias in the determination of cosmological parameters from 

2368: future experiments like MAP (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov) and particullarly Planck (http://astro.estec.esa.nl/SA-general/Projects/Planck/). Second, although the range of $l$ where our model produces most of the power 

2369: ($10^4\la l \la 10^6$) is likely to be out of reach for MAP and Planck, 

2370: future mm-wavelength interferometers, such as ALMA (http://www.mma.nrao.edu) 

2371: may have the right sensitivity ($\sim 2\mu$K rms for a $1'$ beam in one 

2372: hour) and the right resolution ($< 2'$) to be able to measure such

2373: a signal. Indeed, although the amplitude of the secondary anisotropies which we obtain is somewhat lower than the sensitivity of ALMA, a larger normalization of the power-spectrum (for the SCDM case we used $\sigma_8=0.5$ while a COBE normalization would give $\sigma_8 \sim 1.4$) or a larger reionization redshift would push the signal into the range of detectability.

2374: 

2375: We noticed that {\it the redshift distribution of the contributions to these 

2376: secondary CMB anisotropies is rather broad}. Thus, for the angular

2377: correlation 

2378: from the IGM we get $7.5 < z < 10$ with a sharp cutoff at the

2379: reionization 

2380: redshift $\zri=6.8$, when the ``patchy pattern'' of hydrogen ionization 

2381: disappears. However, some small-scale anisotropies are still produced at

2382: lower 

2383: redshifts.  The redshift distributions of the contributions from

2384: galactic halos 

2385: are even broader, we typically get $0<z<7$, and show no strong feature

2386: at 

2387: $\zri$. Since the total signal should be dominated by the contribution

2388: from 

2389: these collapsed objects for a large range of wavenumbers ($l \ga 10^4$)

2390: this 

2391: implies that one should not assume that most of the secondary CMB

2392: anisotropies 

2393: are generated during a small redshift interval $\delta z$ around the 

2394: reionization redshift $\zri$.

2395: 

2396: 

2397: Next, as expected we have found that within our scenario ionized bubbles 

2398: produced by quasars are larger than those built by galaxies. This

2399: implies that 

2400: the ``patchy patterns'' of the HII regions associated with QSOs and

2401: stars are 

2402: different. However, since the total signal is dominated by the

2403: correlations of 

2404: the matter density field, and not by the size of the ionized bubbles, it

2405: is 

2406: similar for both radiation sources (which also have similar correlation 

2407: properties). Hence, unfortunately {\it one cannot distinguish a quasar-driven 

2408: reionization process from a galaxy-driven reionization history}, using

2409: the CMB 

2410: anisotropies.

2411: 

2412: 

2413: Finally, we have checked that our predictions apply both for an open

2414: cosmology 

2415: and for a critical density universe. Thus, our conclusions do not depend

2416: on the 

2417: cosmological scenario and can be extended to low-density flat

2418: models. 

2419: However, the amplitude of the anisotropies is larger for 

2420: the low-density universe because of the higher reionization redshift.

2421: 

2422: 

2423: 

2424: 

2425: \begin{thebibliography}{}

2426: 

2427: \bib

2428: Abel T., Norman M.L., Madau P., 1999, ApJ 523, 66

2429: \bib

2430: Aghanim, N., D\'esert, F.X., Puget, J.L., Gispert, R., 1996, A\&A 311, 1

2431: \bib

2432: Balian R., Schaeffer R., 1989, A\&A 220, 1

2433: \bib

2434: Benson A.J., Nusser A., Sugiyama N., Lacey C.G., 2000, to appear in MNRAS, astro-ph 0002457

2435: \bib

2436: Bernardeau F., Schaeffer R., 1992, A\&A 255, 1

2437: \bib

2438: Bernardeau F., Schaeffer R., 1999, A\&A 349, 697

2439: \bib

2440: Bruscoli M., Ferrara A., Fabbri R., Ciardi B., 2000, submitted to MNRAS, 

2441: astro-ph 9911467

2442: \bib

2443: Davis M., Efstathiou G.P., Frenk C.S., White S.D.M., 1985, ApJ 292, 371

2444: \bib

2445: Gnedin N.Y., 2000, accepted by ApJ, astro-ph 9909383

2446: \bib

2447: Gnedin N.Y., Jaffe A., 2000, submitted to ApJ, astro-ph 0008469 

2448: \bib

2449: Gradshteyn I.S., Ryzhik I.M., 1965, "Table of integrals, series and

2450: products", 

2451: fifth edition, Academic Press

2452: \bib

2453: Groth E.J., Juskiewicz R., Ostriker J.P., 1989, ApJ 346, 558 

2454: \bib

2455: Gruzinov A., Hu W., 1998, ApJ 508, 435

2456: \bib

2457: Kaiser N., 1984, ApJ 282, 374

2458: \bib

2459: Knox L., Scoccimarro R., Dodelson S., 1998, Phys. Re. Lett. 81, 2004

2460: \bib

2461: Krauss L., Turner M.S., 1995, Gen. Rel. Grav. 27, 1137

2462: \bib

2463: Madau P., 2000, submitted to the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

2464: Society 

2465: A, astro-ph 0003096

2466: \bib

2467: Munshi D., Coles P., Melott A.L., 1999, MNRAS 310, 892

2468: \bib

2469: Ostriker, J.P., Steinhardt, P.J., 1995, Nature 377, 600

2470: \bib

2471: Ostriker J.P., Vishniac E.T., 1986, ApJ 306, L51

2472: \bib

2473: Peebles P.J.E., 1980, The large scale structure of the universe,

2474: Princeton University Press

2475: \bib

2476: Rees M.J., 1984, ARA\&A 22, 471

2477: \bib

2478: Seljak U., Zaldarriaga M., 1996, ApJ 469, 437

2479: \bib

2480: Springel V., White M., Hernquist L., 2000, submitted to ApJL, astro-ph 0008133

2481: \bib

2482: Sunyaev R.A., 1978, in "Large-scale structure of the Universe", eds.

2483: M.S. 

2484: Longair \& J. Einasto (Dordrecht: Reidel), p.393

2485: \bib

2486: Sunyaev R.A., Zel'dovich Y.B., 1980, MNRAS 190, 413 

2487: \bib

2488: Tumlinson J., Shull J.M., 2000, ApJ 528, L65

2489: \bib

2490: Valageas P., Schaeffer R., 1997, A\&A 328, 435

2491: \bib

2492: Valageas P., Schaeffer R., 1999, A\&A 345, 329

2493: \bib

2494: Valageas P., Silk J., 1999a, A\&A 347, 1

2495: \bib

2496: Valageas P., Silk J., 1999b, A\&A 350, 725

2497: \bib

2498: Valageas P., Schaeffer R., Silk J., 1999, A\&A 345, 691

2499: \bib

2500: Valageas P., Schaeffer R., 2000, A\&A 359, 821

2501: \bib

2502: Valageas P., Schaeffer R., Silk J., 2000, accepted by A\&A, astro-ph

2503: 0001207

2504: 

2505: 

2506: 

2507: \end{thebibliography}

2508:   

2509: 

2510: 

2511: \end{document}

2512: