1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,psfig]{article}
3: \documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4,psfig,flushrt,tighten]{article}
4: %\documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4,psfig]{article}
5: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}} \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
6: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}} \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
7: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.\ } \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim
8: \;$} \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
9: \def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
10: \def\lsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
11: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
12: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
13: \def\simpr{\lower.5ex\hbox{\prosima}} \def\la{\lsim} \def\ga{\gsim}
14: \def\zcr{Z_{\rm cr}} \def\ekin{\mbox{\cal E}_{\rm kin}}
15: \def\ekin{{\cal E}_{\rm kin}} \def\gg{\gamma\gamma}
16: \def\fgg{f_{\gamma\gamma}} \def\Lya{Ly$\alpha$~}
17: \def\sngg{SN$_{\gamma\gamma}$~} \def\msun{{M_\odot}}
18: \def\ie{{\frenchspacing\it i.e. }} \def\eg{{\frenchspacing\it e.g. }}
19: \def\Eg{{\cal E}_{\rm g}} \def\Eunit{{\times10^{51} {\rm erg} \,
20: M_\odot^{-1}}} \def\sEunit{10^{51} {\rm erg} \, M_\odot^{-1}}
21: \def\CIII{C{\sc ~iii} } \def\CIV{C{\sc ~iv} } \def\SiIV{Si{\sc ~iv} }
22: \def\OVI{O{\sc ~vi} }
23:
24: %%%%%%%%%% Start TeXmacs macros
25: %%%%%%%%%% End TeXmacs macros
26:
27: \begin{document}
28: \title{What can the Distribution of Intergalactic Metals Tell us About
29: the History of Cosmological Enrichment?}
30:
31: \author{Evan Scannapieco\altaffilmark{1}}
32: \altaffiltext{1}{Kavli Institute for
33: Theoretical Physics, Kohn Hall, UC Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA
34: 93106}
35:
36:
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39:
40: I study the relationship between the spatial distribution of
41: intergalactic metals and the masses and ejection energies of the
42: sources that produced them. Over a wide range of models, metal
43: enrichment is dominated by the smallest efficient sources, as the
44: enriched volume scales roughly as $E^{3/5} \sim M^{3/5}$ while the
45: number density of sources goes as $\sim M^{-1}.$ In all cases,
46: the earliest sources have the biggest impact, because fixed
47: comoving distances correspond to smaller physical distances at higher
48: redshifts. This means that most of the enriched volume is found
49: around rare peaks, and intergalactic metals are naturally highly
50: clustered. Furthermore, this clustering is so strong as to lead to a
51: large overlap between individual bubbles. Thus the typical radius of
52: enriched $z \sim 3$ regions should be interpreted as a constraint on
53: {\em groupings} of sources rather than the ejection radius of a
54: typical source. Similarly, the clustering of enriched regions should
55: be taken as a measurement of source bias rather than mass.
56: \end{abstract}
57:
58: \keywords{intergalactic medium -- galaxies: evolution}
59:
60:
61: \section{Introduction}
62:
63: It is now clear that the intergalactic metals detected at $z \sim 3$
64: have only a secondary impact on further structure formation. Numerous
65: studies of the \CIV, \SiIV, \OVI and \CIII content of the
66: intergalactic medium (IGM) have been carried out (\eg Songaila \&
67: Cowie 1996; Aracil \etal 2004; Aguirre \etal 2005) only to find that this
68: material is a small fraction of the metals produced (Pettini 1999);
69: there have been many detailed measurements of $z \lesssim 5$ galaxy
70: outflows (\eg Pettini 2001; Schwartz \& Martin 2004), but the intergalactic
71: metal distribution is observed to be roughly constant over this entire
72: range (Songaila 2001; Pettini \etal 2003); and metal ejection has been
73: incorporated into several simulations (\eg Thacker \etal 2002;
74: Springel \& Hernquist 2003; Cen \etal 2005), which found that it has
75: a negligible impact on IGM cooling and the statistical properties of
76: the Lyman-alpha forest (Theuns \etal 2002; Bruscoli 2003). In short,
77: the IGM metals that we see are not doing very much.
78:
79: Yet as a {\em tracer} of the higher-redshift interplay between
80: galaxies and the IGM, intergalactic metals are unparalleled. It is
81: indeed remarkable that this material has made its way from the centers
82: of stars into the lowest-density environments detectable (Schaye
83: \etal 2003; Aracil \etal 2004), with far-reaching implications.
84: The depletion of metals through outflows
85: directly impacts the galaxy mass-metallicity relation (\eg Dekel \&
86: Woo 2003; Tremonti \etal 2004); outflows suppress
87: the formation of nearby objects (Scannapieco
88: \etal 2000; Sigward \etal 2005); and the distribution of IGM
89: metals is closely linked to the evolution of the first
90: generation of stars (\eg Bromm 2003; Scannapieco \etal 2003).
91:
92: Extracting the details of each of these processes from observation, however,
93: requires an uncertain extrapolation from $z \sim 3$ to much higher
94: redshifts. One approach to this problem is to focus on deriving
95: constraints from the IGM composition, which can be
96: related to the star formation history, initial mass function,
97: and metallicity of the sources (\eg Aguirre \etal 2004;
98: Qian \& Wasserburg 2005). In this case the
99: primary complications are due to uncertainties in abundances and
100: the ionizing background.
101:
102:
103: A second method relies on the spatial distribution of intergalactic
104: metals. Regardless of the details of IGM enrichment, it is clear that
105: metals were formed in the densest regions of space, regions that are
106: far more clustered than the overall matter distribution. Furthermore,
107: this ``geometrical biasing'' is a systematic function of mass and
108: redshift (\eg Kaiser 1984), and thus the observed
109: large-scale clustering of metal absorbers encodes information on the
110: scales of the objects from which they were ejected. Likewise, the
111: size of each enriched region is dependent on the energy at which the
112: metals were dispersed.
113:
114: Thus recent measurements of the sizes of enriched regions (\eg Rauch
115: \etal 2001), the metallicity as a function of IGM density (\eg Schaye
116: \etal 2003), the \CIV absorber correlation function (Rauch \etal
117: 1996; Pichon \etal 2003), and the galaxy-\CIV cross-correlation
118: function (\eg Adelberger 2003), are already providing useful
119: constraints on simulations of metal enrichment. Yet such detailed
120: comparisons are too expensive to carry out over a large range of
121: parameter space, and provide little intuition. One is left wondering
122: if perhaps there might be some general rules of thumb that can be kept
123: in mind when interpreting observations or selecting simulation
124: parameters.
125:
126: It is this issue that I take up in this {\em Letter}. Adopting a
127: simplified model, I show that the sizes and
128: clustering of the enriched regions that we see should {\em not} be
129: interpreted as ejection radii of individual sources or correlated with
130: masses at $z \sim 3,$ but that nevertheless these quantities have
131: natural interpretations related to the properties
132: of the sources of IGM enrichment.
133: Throughout, I assume a cold dark matter
134: cosmological model with parameters $h=0.65$, $\Omega_0$ = 0.3,
135: $\Omega_\Lambda$ = 0.7, $\Omega_b = 0.05$, $\sigma_8 = 0.87$, and
136: $n=1$, where $h$ is the Hubble constant in units of 100 km/s/Mpc,
137: $\Omega_0$, $\Omega_\Lambda$, and $\Omega_b$ are the
138: total matter, vacuum, and baryonic densities in units of the critical
139: density, $\sigma_8^2$ is the linear variance on the $8
140: h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ scale, and $n$ is the ``tilt'' of the primordial
141: power spectrum (\eg Spergel \etal 2003), with the transfer
142: function taken from Eisenstein \& Hu (1999).
143:
144:
145: The structure of this work is as follows. In \S 2 I describe a
146: general model of cosmological enrichment and apply it
147: in \S 3 to derive the clustering properties
148: and sizes of enriched regions under a wide range of
149: assumptions. I conclude with a short discussion in \S 4.
150:
151:
152:
153:
154: \section{Modeling Cosmological Enrichment}
155:
156: As we are interested in making general statements,
157: I adopt here an extremely simple approach. All
158: outflows are taken to be pressure-driven
159: spherical shells, expanding into the Hubble
160: flow (\eg Ostriker \& McKee 1988).
161: To keep this model as transparent as possible, I
162: do not attempt to include secondary effects, such as cooling,
163: a stochastic star formation rate, external pressure, or
164: the gravitational drag from the source halo
165: (Madau \etal 2001; Scannapieco \etal 2002).
166: In this case the evolutionary equations are
167: \ba \dot{R_s}
168: &=& \frac{3 P_b}{\bar \rho R_s} - \frac{3}{R_s}(\dot{R_s} - HR_s)^2 -
169: \Omega_m \frac{H^2 R_s}{2}, \nonumber \\
170: \dot{E_b} &=& L(t) - 4 \pi R_s^2 \dot{R_s} P_b,
171: \label{eq:rs}
172: \ea
173: where the overdots represent time derivatives, the subscripts {\it s}
174: and {\it b} indicate shell and bubble quantities respectively, $R_s$
175: is the physical radius of the shell, $E_b$ is the internal energy of the
176: hot bubble gas, $P_b$ is the pressure of this gas, and $\bar \rho$ is
177: the mean IGM background density. I assume adiabatic expansion
178: with an index $\gamma=5/3$ such that $P_b=E_b/2\pi R_s^3.$ When outflows
179: slow down to the sound speed, the shell is likely to fragment.
180: At this point I let the region expand with the Hubble flow.
181:
182: In this model, the evolution of the shell is completely determined by
183: the mechanical luminosity,
184: \be
185: L(t) = 160 \, L_\odot \, f_\star \, f_w \, {\cal N} \, M_b
186: \, \Theta(t_{\rm SN}-t),
187: \label{eq:lum}
188: \ee
189: where $f_\star$ is the fraction of gas converted into stars, $f_w$ is the
190: fraction of the supernova (SN) kinetic energy that is channeled into the galaxy
191: outflow, ${\cal N}$ is the number of SNe per solar mass of stars
192: formed (each assumed to explode with $10^{51}$ ergs of kinetic energy),
193: $M_b$ is the baryonic mass of the galaxy in units of solar
194: mass, and $t_{\rm SN} = 5 \times 10^7$ years.
195: Following Scannapieco \etal (2003),
196: I define the product, $f_\star f_w \ekin {\cal N}$,
197: as the ``energy input per unit gas mass'' ${\cal E}_{\rm g}$.
198: Assuming $f_\star = 0.1,$ $f_w = 0.1,$ and 1 SN per 300 solar masses
199: gives a fiducial estimate for $\Eg$ of $10^{-4.5}$,
200: although I vary this parameter over a wide range below.
201: Note that the choice of $t_{\rm SN}$ has no direct impact on
202: the results.
203:
204: By combining eqs.\ (\ref{eq:rs}) and (\ref{eq:lum}) with
205: the standard analytical mass distribution,
206: one can compute the porosity, which is
207: defined as the product of the number density of sources and the bubble
208: volume around each source:
209: \be
210: Q(z) = \int_{M_{\rm min}}^\infty dM' \int_z^\infty dz'
211: \, \frac{d^2 n}{dz' dM'} \, V(\Eg,M',z,z'),
212: \label{eq:Q}
213: \ee
214: where $V(\Eg,M,z,z') \equiv 4 \pi r_s(\Eg,M',z,z')^3/3$ and
215: $r_s(\Eg, M',z,z')$ is the comoving radius at a redshift
216: $z$ of a shell from a source with total mass $M'$ that
217: hosts an outflow at a redshift $z'$ with an energy input per
218: unit gas mass $\Eg$. Finally, $\frac{d^2 n}{dM' dz'}$ is the
219: differential Press-Schechter comoving number density of objects forming
220: as a function of mass and redshift calculated from:
221: \be
222: \frac{d n}{d{\rm ln} M} = \frac{\rho}{(2 \pi)^{1/2}M} \, \nu e^{-\nu^2/2} \,
223: \frac{d {\rm \ln}\sigma^2}{d {\rm ln} M}
224: \label{eq:ps}
225: \ee
226: where $\nu(M,z) \equiv \delta_c/[D(z) \sigma(M)],$ $D(z)$ is the linear
227: growth factor, $\sigma(M)^2$ is the variance associated
228: with the mass-scale $M$, and $\delta_c \equiv 1.69.$
229: Note that although, strictly speaking, $\frac{d^2 n}{dM' dz'}$ accounts
230: for both the creation of new sources and the destruction of older sources by
231: merging into larger objects (\eg Benson \etal 2005), it is sufficiently
232: close to the formation rate for the objects in which we are
233: most interested here.
234:
235:
236: The porosity $Q$ can be thought of as the average number of
237: outflows impacting a random point in space, and it
238: depends on only two free parameters: $\Eg$ and the minimum mass,
239: $M_{\rm min}(z)$. Here I assume for the fiducial case that
240: efficient star formation occurs only in halos with
241: virial temperatures above $10^4 K$, because smaller objects are
242: photevaporated after reionization, and
243: before reionization, gas cooling in these objects requires
244: $H_2$, which is an inefficient coolant
245: (Madau \etal 2001) that is easily dissociated
246: (Haiman \etal 1997; Ciardi \etal 2000).
247: In our cosmology, this gives
248: $M_{\rm min} = 2.4 \times 10^7 [(1+z)/10]^{-3/2} \msun,$ although
249: I also consider variations in $M_{\rm min}$ in \S 3.2 below.
250:
251:
252: Carrying out similar integrals as in eq.\ (\ref{eq:Q}) we can
253: compute ``porosity-weighted'' estimates of the properties
254: of typical sources. For example the
255: source mass that contributes most significantly to enrichment
256: can be estimated as
257: \be
258: \left< {\rm log}(M) \right>_Q =
259: Q^{-1} \int_{M_{\rm min}}^\infty dM' \int_z^\infty dz' \
260: \frac{dn}{dz' dM'} \, V(\Eg,M',z,z') \, {\rm log}(M').
261: \label{eq:lnM}
262: \ee
263: Similar averages can be used to compute the typical comoving bubble radius,
264: $\left<r_{b} \right>_Q$, the number density
265: of sources, $\left<\frac{dn}{d{\rm ln}M} \right>_Q$, and the source bias
266: $\left< b \right>_Q$,
267: where $b(z,M) = 1+ \left[ \nu(z',M')^2-1 \right]/\delta_c$ (Mo \& White 1996).
268:
269:
270: \begin{figure}
271: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f1.eps,height=16cm}}
272: %\plotone{f1.eps}
273: %{\small {\sc Fig.}~1. Properties of $T_{\rm vir} \geq 10^4$K enrichment for
274: \caption{Properties of $T_{\rm vir} \geq 10^4$K enrichment for
275: an energetic model with $\Eg = 10^{-3.5}$ (left column), the fiducial
276: model with $\Eg = 10^{-4.5}$ (center), and a weak outflow model with
277: $\Eg = 10^{-5.5}$ (right). {\em Top row:} Porosity-weighted average
278: source mass as a function of redshift (solid) as compared to the
279: minimum mass (dotted). {\em Second row:}
280: Porosity-weighed average bias $\left< b \right>_Q$ (dashed), and bias
281: normalized versus $z=3$, $\left< b \right>_Q \times D(z)/D(3)$ (solid)
282: which tracks the evolution of the correlation function as in
283: eq.\ (\protect\ref{eq:xibias}).
284: {\em Third Row:} Volume-weighed average comoving outflow size, $\left<r_s
285: \right>_Q$ (dashed), and the typical comoving size of enriched region,
286: $\max\left\{r_{\rm overlap}, \left< r_s \right>_Q \right\}$ (solid),
287: which can be significantly larger due to overlapping sources. {\em
288: Bottom Row:} Simple $1 - \exp(-Q)$ estimate of the filling factor (solid),
289: and 1/2 of the collapse fraction (dotted), an estimate of
290: the enriched gas falling back onto further generations of sources.}
291: \label{fig:T4}
292: \end{figure}
293:
294: \section{Results}
295:
296: \subsection{Variations in Energy Input}
297:
298:
299: The properties of three enrichment models with $T_{\rm vir} \geq 10^4$
300: K, and widely varying $\Eg$ values are shown in Figure 1. In all
301: cases, the average source mass closely follows the minimum allowed
302: value. The reason for this behavior can be seen from a simple
303: Sedov-Taylor estimate. In this case the physical radius goes as $R
304: \propto (E/\rho)^{1/5},$ where $E$ is the energy of the blast and
305: $\rho$ is the ambient density, and thus the
306: comoving volume goes as
307: \be
308: V_b \propto r_b^3 \propto M^{3/5} (1+z)^{6/5}.
309: \label{eq:ST}
310: \ee
311: From eq.\ (\ref{eq:ps}) the comoving number density goes as $1/M$
312: (with only a small correction from the
313: $\frac{d {\rm ln}\sigma^2}{d {\rm ln} M}$ term)
314: such that $Q \propto M^{-2/5}$. Notice that this is a general result,
315: which follows from dimensional analysis. The smallest sources
316: naturally dominate the enrichment process, an effect that is only
317: amplified by complications such as the additional gravitational drag
318: in large halos (Scannapieco \etal 2002) or
319: the inefficiency of OB associations at driving winds from large
320: galaxies (Ferrara \etal 2002). In fact only an
321: extremely strong increase in efficiency with mass ($\Eg \propto
322: M^n$, with $n \geq 2/3$) can alter this conclusion.
323:
324: Similarly, the strong redshift scaling in eq.\ (\ref{eq:ST}) means
325: that for any given mass the earliest sources enrich most
326: efficiently.
327: This is due to the simple fact that a fixed comoving
328: distance corresponds to a smaller physical distance at higher
329: redshift, yet it has profound implications for the resulting spatial
330: distribution.
331: In the second row of Fig.\ 1, I plot the
332: porosity-averaged bias for each of the $\Eg$ models considered. The
333: strong increase of $V_b$ at high-redshift means that the
334: relatively rare, high-$\nu$ sources contribute most strongly to $Q$.
335: This results in a high bias, as such rare sources are highly clustered
336: relative to the lower-$\nu$ peaks that collapse at lower redshifts
337: (\eg Mo \& White 1996). Again this is a general result,
338: that arises from dimensional arguments, and the strong
339: clustering seen in this figure can only be amplified by IGM
340: transitions such as reionization, which remove lower-mass,
341: lower-redshift (and hence lower-$\nu$) peaks (\eg
342: Klypin \etal 1999). Note that in general while bias increases with
343: redshift, the amplitude of the correlation function is given by
344: \be
345: \xi\left(r,z,\left<b\right>_Q \right) =
346: \left[ \left< b \right>_Q D(z) \right]^2 \xi_0(r),
347: \label{eq:xibias}
348: \ee
349: where $\xi_0(r)$ is the matter correlation function, linearly
350: extrapolated to the present, and $D(z)$ decreases with redshift.
351: Thus $\xi(r,z,\left< b \right>_Q)$
352: remains roughly constant with redshift.
353:
354: The strong clustering of enriched regions must be also taken
355: into consideration when interpreting the typical sizes of enriched
356: regions. In the third row of Figure 1, I plot
357: $\left< r_s \right>_Q$, which again scales roughly as
358: $\Eg^{1/5},$ and is always smaller than 300 comoving
359: kpc. In order to estimate the sizes of typical
360: {\em measured regions}, however, we must also consider
361: the overlapping of such bubbles.
362: This can be estimated by considering the distance from
363: the center of a typical source at which the product of the
364: number density of neighboring sources $n(r_{\rm overlap})$ and
365: the volume around each source is equal to one. In our formalism this gives
366: \be
367: \left[ 1+\xi \left(r_{\rm overlap},z,\left< b_L \right>_Q \right) \right]
368: \times Q = 1,
369: \ee
370: where here it is more appropriate to calculate bias in the Lagrangian
371: coordinate system that does not include the peculiar motions of the
372: sources, as these motions were not included in our outflow model.
373: This means $\left< b_L \right>_Q = \left< b\right>_Q -1$ (\eg Mo \&
374: White 1996).
375:
376: \begin{figure}
377: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f2.eps,height=16cm}}
378: %{\epsscale{1.1}
379: %\plotone{f2.eps}
380: %{\small {\sc Fig.}~2. Properties of enrichment models as a function
381: \caption{Properties of enrichment models as a function
382: of minimum mass. Each row is labeled by the assumed $M_{\rm min}$
383: value, while the curves in each row are as in Figure 1.
384: In the left column $M_{\rm min} = 10^9 \msun,$ and I consider
385: two cases with $\Eg = 10^{-4.5}$ and $\Eg = 10^{-3.5}$. In
386: the center panel, $M_{\rm min} = 10^{11} \msun$, and I take
387: even higher energies of $\Eg = 10^{-3.5}$ and $\Eg = 10^{-2.5}$,
388: which still give very low filling factors. Finally the right column
389: shows the results of an extreme low-mass model in which
390: $T_{\rm vir} \geq 10^3$K, and with low $\Eg$ values of
391: $10^{-4.5}$ and $10^{-5.5}$.}
392: \label{fig:mass}
393: \end{figure}
394:
395:
396: Despite the large range in $\Eg$ values considered, the overlap radius
397: is well above $\left< r_s \right>_Q$ at $z \leq 6$ for all three
398: models. Thus the observed radii of enriched regions correspond to the
399: sizes of typical overlapping {\em groupings} of sources, rather than
400: the ejection radii from individual objects. Similarly, the growth of
401: this scale with time is not caused by the expansion of material from
402: a typical source, but rather is due to the formation of ever-larger
403: groupings of overlapping bubbles. Indeed $r_{\rm overlap}$ increases
404: drastically at late times in all three models, greatly outpacing the
405: growth of the typical outflow as defined by $\left< r_s \right>_Q.$
406:
407: The last row of Fig.\ 1 provides simple estimates of the filling
408: factor of enriched regions. If the distribution of sources were
409: completely uncorrelated, this could be computed directly from the
410: porosity as $F = 1 - \exp(-Q),$ which corresponds to the solid lines
411: in these panels. However, the strong overlapping between bubbles
412: means that the true filling factor is probably somewhat smaller than
413: this estimate. Finally, the dotted lines in these panels
414: are 1/2 of the total collapse fraction, which is intended as a rough
415: estimate of the gas that would fall {\em back onto}
416: new sources in a more detailed simulation. This shows that infall
417: is not important in these models, except for perhaps a small
418: correction in the $\Eg= 10^{-5.5}$ case.
419:
420:
421: \subsection{Variations in Minimum Mass}
422:
423: The second major parameter in our models is the minimum mass, which is
424: raised to $10^9 \msun$ in the cases shown in the left column of
425: Figure 2, as might be caused by the increase in the IGM temperature
426: following reionization, for example. This naturally raises $\left<
427: \log(M) \right>_Q$ by over an order of magnitude, but the bias is much
428: less affected, shifting from $\sim 3.5$ up to
429: $\sim 4.0$. Thus although enrichment now occurs later, it is
430: dominated by sources with similar $\nu$ values as in the $T_{\rm
431: vir} \geq 10^4$ K case. Also as in the fiducial models, $r_{\rm
432: overlap} > r_s$ in the observed redshift range, such that the scale of
433: enriched regions is set by groupings of objects. Interestingly, as
434: the filling factors are smaller in this case for the same values of
435: $\Eg$, raising the minimum mass actually {\em lowers} the sizes of
436: typical enriched regions. However, there is probably a significant
437: infall correction in this model.
438:
439: These effects are intensified in the extreme $10^{11} \msun$ model
440: shown in the center column of Figure 2. In this case, the bias
441: rises to $\sim 5.5$, but the filling factors are so low that
442: $r_{\rm overlap} < r_s$. The observed bubble radii
443: are even smaller than in the $10^{9} \msun$ case, but now
444: one is actually looking around individual sources.
445: However, the very high energies and low filling factors
446: make this case unlikely. Infall only makes this worse.
447:
448: Finally, the right column of this figure shows the results of
449: an extreme low-mass model in which the minimum virial temperature
450: has been reduced to $10^3$ K. Even in this case
451: $\left< b \right>_Q$ is about 3.5 at $z=3.$ The radii of
452: enriched regions are again set by clustering, and are even larger
453: than in the fiducial $T_{\rm vir} \geq 10^4$ K cases with the same
454: choices of $\Eg.$
455:
456:
457: \section{Discussion}
458:
459: It is clear that the simplified models described above gloss over many
460: of the detailed issues that are now beginning to be addressed
461: numerically. Nevertheless, this simplicity serves to highlight how
462: many counterintuitive observational trends can be understood from
463: general arguments, which can be explored in more detail with
464: future simulations.
465:
466: Thus, the seeming contradiction between widespread outflows
467: from large $z \sim 3$ galaxies and the lack of evolution in \CIV
468: number densities is most likely related to the $V \propto E^{3/5}$
469: scaling of outflows and the $1/M$ scaling in the number density of
470: sources. Likewise the strong clustering of metal line systems is
471: likely to be be reconciled with the efficient ejection of metals from
472: small $M \lesssim 10^{10.5} \msun$ galaxies (Tremoni \etal 2004)
473: because cosmological enrichment is dominated by early, rare sources,
474: that can expand to cover the same comoving volume in shorter
475: times. Finally, as strong clustering results in a significant overlap
476: between sources, this may account for the large observed sizes of
477: typical enriched regions, which require extremely large ejection
478: energies to be explained by single sources (Kollmeier \etal 2003).
479: Although there is much more to be learned, it is clear that the
480: efficiency of lower mass, high-redshift sources and the overlap
481: between bubbles should always be kept in mind when interpreting
482: measurements of the spatial distribution of intergalactic metals.
483:
484:
485:
486:
487: \acknowledgements
488:
489: I thank Andrea Ferrara, Pavel Kovtun, Crystal Martin,
490: Piero Madau, Michael Rauch, and an anonymous referee
491: for helpful comments and
492: useful conversations. This work was supported by the National
493: Science Foundation under grant PHY99-07949.
494:
495: \fontsize{10}{10pt}\selectfont
496: \begin{thebibliography}{}
497:
498: \item Adelberger, K. L., Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., \& Pettini, M.
499: 2003, 584, 45
500: \item Aguirre, A., Schaye, J., Kim, T.-S., Theuns, T., Rauch, M.,
501: \& Sargent, W. L. W. 2004, ApJ, 602, 38
502: \item Aguirre, A., Schaye, J., Hernquist, L. Kay, S., Springel, V.,
503: \& Theuns, T. 2005, ApJ, 620, L13
504: \item Aracil, B., Petitjean, P., Pichon, C., \& Bergeron, J. 2004,
505: A\&A, 419, 811
506: \item Benson, A. \& Kamionkowski, M., \& Hassani, S. H. 2005 MNRAS, submitted
507: (astro-ph/0407136)
508: \item Bromm, V., Yoshida, N., \& Hernquist, L. 2003, ApJ, 596, L135
509: \item Bruscoli, M. \etal 2003, MNRAS, 343, L41
510: \item Cen, R., Nagamine, K., \& Ostriker. J. P. 2005, ApJ, submitted
511: (astro-ph/0407143)
512: \item Ciardi, B., Ferrara, A., Governato, F.,
513: \& Jenkins, A. 2000, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 314, 661
514: \item Dekel, A., \& Woo, J. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1131
515: \item Eisenstein, D. J. \& Hu, W. 1999, ApJ, 511, 5
516: \item Ferrara, A., Pettini, M., \& Shchekinov, Y. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 539
517: \item Haiman, Z., Rees, M., \& Loeb, A. 1997, ApJ, 476, 458
518: (erratum 484, 985 [1997])
519: \item Kaiser, N. 1984, ApJ, 284, L9
520: \item Klypin, Anatoly, Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., \& Prada, F.
521: 1999, ApJ, 522, 82
522: \item Kollmeier, J. A., Weinberg, D. H., Dav\'e, R., \& Katz, N. 2003,
523: ApJ, 594, 75
524: \item Madau, P., Ferrara, A., \& Rees, M. J. 2001, ApJ, 555, 9
525: \item Mo, H. J. \& White, S. D. M. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 348
526: \item Qian, Y.Z. \& Wasserburg, G. J. 2005, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0501232)
527: \item Ostriker, J. P. \& McKee, C. F. 1988, Rev. Mod. Phys., 60, 1
528: \item Pettini, M. 1999, in Chemical Evolution from Zero to High
529: Redshift, Proc. ESO Workshop, ed. J. Walsh \& M. Rosa (Berling: Springer), 233\item Pettini, M. \etal, 2001, ApJ, 554, 981
530: \item Pettini, M., Madau, P., Bolte, M., Prochaska, J. X.,
531: Ellison, S., \& Fan, X. 2003, \apj, 594, 695
532: \item Pichon, C. \etal 2003, ApJ, 597, L97
533: \item Rauch, M., Sargent, W. L. W., Womble, D. S., \& Barlow, T. A. 1996,
534: ApJ, 467 L5
535: \item Rauch, M., Sargent, W. L. W., \& Barlow, T. A. 2001,
536: ApJ, 554, 823
537: \item Scannapieco, E., Ferrara, A., \& Broadhurst, T. 2000,
538: ApJ, 536, L11
539: \item Scannapieco, E., Ferrara, A., \& Madau, P. 2002,
540: ApJ, 574, 590
541: \item Scannapieco, E., Schneider, R., \& Ferrara, A. 2003, ApJ, 589, 35
542: \item Schaye, J., Aguirre, A., Kim T.-S., Theuns, T., Rauch, M.,
543: \& Sargent, W. L. W. 2003, ApJ, 596, 768
544: \item Schwartz, C. M., \& Martin, C. L. 2004, ApJ, 610, 201
545: \item Sigward, F., Ferrara, A., \& Scannapieco, E. 2005, MNRAS, in press
546: (astro-ph/0411187)
547: \item Songaila, A. 1996 \& Cowie L. L. 1996, AJ, 112, 335
548: \item Songaila, A. 2001, \apj, 561, L153
549: \item Spergel, D. N. \etal 2003, ApJS, 14, 175
550: \item Springel, V. \& Hernquist, L. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 289
551: \item Thacker, R., Scannapieco, E. \& Davis, M. 2002, ApJ, 581, 836
552: \item Theuns, T., Viel, M., Kay, S., Schaye, J., Carswell, R. F.,\&
553: Tzanavaris, P. 2002, ApJ, 578, L5
554: \item Tremonti, C. A. \etal 2004, ApJ, 613, 898
555: \end{thebibliography}
556:
557:
558:
559:
560:
561:
562: \end{document}
563:
564:
565:
566:
567:
568:
569:
570:
571:
572:
573:
574:
575:
576: