1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\received{}
4: %\accepted{}
5: %\journalid{000}{}
6: %\articleid{}{}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{A Unified Fitting of \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2} Ly${\alpha}$
11: Transmitted Flux of QSO HE2347 with $\Lambda$CDM Hydrodynamic
12: Simulations}
13:
14: \author{Jiren Liu\altaffilmark{1},
15: Priya Jamkhedkar\altaffilmark{2},
16: Wei Zheng\altaffilmark{3},
17: Long-Long Feng\altaffilmark{4,5},
18: and Li-Zhi Fang\altaffilmark{2}}
19:
20: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Astrophysics, University of Science
21: and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026,P.R.China}
22: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, University of Arizona,
23: Tucson, AZ 85721}
24: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns
25: Hopkins University, MD 21218}
26: \altaffiltext{4}{Purple Mountain Observatory, Nanjing, 210008,
27: P.R. China.}
28: \altaffiltext{5}{National
29: Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Science, Chao-Yang
30: District, Beijing 100012, P.R. China}
31:
32: \begin{abstract}
33:
34: Using cosmological hydrodynamic simulations of the LCDM model, we
35: present a comparison between the simulation sample and real data
36: sample of \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux
37: in the absorption spectra of the QSO HE2347-4342. The $\Lambda$CDM
38: model is successful in simultaneously explaining the
39: statistical features of both \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$
40: transmitted flux. It includes: 1.) the power spectra
41: of the transmitted flux of \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2}
42: can be well fitted on all scales $\geq 0.28$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc for H,
43: and $\geq 1.1$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc for He; 2.) the Doppler parameters of
44: absorption features of \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1} are found to be
45: turbulent-broadening; 3.) the ratio of \ion{He}{2} to \ion{H}{1}
46: optical depths are substantially scattered, due to the significant
47: effect of noise.
48: A large part of the $\eta$-scatter is due to the noise in
49: the \ion{He}{2} flux.
50: However, the real data contain more low-$\eta$ events than
51: simulation sample. This discrepancy may indicate that the
52: mechanism leading extra fluctuations upon the simulation data,
53: such as a fluctuating UV radiation background, is needed. Yet,
54: models of these extra fluctuations should satisfy the constraints:
55: 1.) if the fluctuations are Gaussian, they should be limited by the
56: power spectra of observed \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2} flux;
57: 2.) if the fluctuations are non-Gaussian, they should be limited by
58: the observed non-Gaussian features of the \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2} flux.
59:
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62: \keywords{cosmology: theory - large-scale structure of the
63: universe}
64:
65: \section{Introduction}
66:
67: Ly$\alpha$ forest lines and transmitted flux of QSOs' absorption
68: spectra provide the most valuable samples in studying the physical
69: state of the intergalactic medium (IGM) and gravitational
70: clustering at high redshifts. High resolution samples of QSOs'
71: Ly$\alpha$ absorption spectra are important to test models of
72: cosmic structure formation on small scales. Recently, the
73: \ion{H}{1} Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux of HE2347-4342 has been
74: used to compare with hydrodynamical simulation samples of the
75: $\Lambda$CDM model \citep[][here after Paper I]{jam05}. The
76: results suggest that the $\Lambda$CDM model is successful in
77: explaining the power spectrum and intermittency of the HE2347-4342
78: sample. There is no discrepancy between the simulated and observed
79: flux fields with regards to their statistical behavior from the
80: second to the eighth orders and till the comoving scales as small
81: as about 0.28 h$^{-1}$ Mpc. This result seems not to support the
82: necessity of reducing the power of density perturbations relative
83: to the standard $\Lambda$CDM model on small scales, as was implied
84: by the lack of dense cores in the halo's center given by the
85: so-called universal density profile
86: \citep{fp94,sw03,mc03,zb03,sim03}
87:
88: The IGM is also traced by \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$ absorption. Because the
89: ionizing threshold of \ion{He}{2} is high (54.4 eV), and recombination rate
90: of \ion{He}{3} is also high, the \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$ absorption of IGM
91: generally is much stronger than \ion{H}{1} Ly$\alpha$. Therefore, it is
92: expected that the \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$ forest and transmitted flux of
93: high redshift QSOs can play a similar role as \ion{H}{1} forests in
94: constraining cosmological models, and can even yield stronger
95: constraints on the models than \ion{H}{1} forests \citep{zhang95,croft97}.
96: However, due to the lack of \ion{He}{2} data,
97: the comparison of \ion{He}{2} spectra between
98: model predictions and observations could not be made in a similar way as
99: for \ion{H}{1} Ly$\alpha$ absorption spectra.
100: Thanks to the $FUSE$ data of HE2347-4342, we can obtain
101: moderate resolution spectra of \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux
102: in the redshift range $2.0<z<2.9$ \citep{k01}.
103: It provides the possibility of making a similar analysis
104: as for the \ion{H}{1} transmitted flux.
105:
106: We cannot simply repeat the analysis as Paper I, because of
107: a new problem: the ratio between the optical
108: depths of \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1}, $\eta = 4\tau_{\rm He
109: II}/\tau_{\rm HI}$. If assuming 1.) the effect of thermal
110: broadening and peculiar velocities of IGM are negligible,
111: and 2.) \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1} are in photoionization equilibrium,
112: the ratio $\eta$ should basically be constant,
113: and have a low level of scatter because $\eta$ is
114: weakly dependent on the temperature of IGM.
115: Observations reveal, however, that $\eta$ is significantly
116: scattered from pixel to pixel, or from line to line
117: \citep{k01,sm02}. For the $FUSE$ data of HE2347-4342, the scatter
118: of $\eta$ is from 1 to a few hundreds \citep{sh04}, and even as
119: high as $\simeq 10^4$ \citep{zh04}.
120:
121: The large $\eta$-scatter has been used as an indicator of the
122: inhomogeneity of UV radiation background caused by the radiation
123: transfer (RT) of the UV photons in a nonuniform density field. A
124: 3-dimensional radiation transfer calculation on the shadowing,
125: self-shielding and filtering predicted that the mean of $\eta$
126: should be as large as $\langle \eta \rangle > 200$ \citep{mf05}.
127: However, the observed result is $\langle \eta \rangle < 100$
128: \citep{zh04,sh04}. Therefore, the RT effect explanation of $\eta$
129: scatter is far from settling. This result motivated us to
130: reconsider the assumptions above mentioned. If above-mentioned
131: assumptions 1.) and 2.) are not hold, the $\eta$-scatter would not
132: be a direct measurement of the inhomogeneity of UV background.
133:
134: In this paper, we will study the effect of thermal broadening
135: and peculiar velocities on the \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2}
136: Ly${\alpha}$ transmitted flux. It has been shown recently that in
137: nonlinear regime the velocity field $v(x)$ of cosmic baryon matter
138: consists of strong shocks on various spatial scales and in high
139: and low mass density area \citep{Kim05}. The statistical behavior
140: of the velocity field is similar to a fully developed turbulence
141: \citep{he06}. Therefore, the effect of thermal broadening
142: and peculiar velocities of IGM would not be negligible. We should, at
143: least, estimate the imprints of the non-trivial velocity field on
144: the Ly$\alpha$ forests of \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1}.
145:
146: The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the
147: observed data of HE2347-4342. Section 3 presents the method
148: to simulate the Ly$\alpha$ forests of \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1}.
149: As in Paper I, we use the WIGEON method of cosmological
150: hydrodynamic simulations to produce the simulation samples,
151: as this code is especially effective in
152: capturing singular and complex structures \citep{feng04}. On the
153: other hand, \ion{He}{2} would be formed in hotter gas, such as
154: shock heated IGM \citep{cen99,dave01}, a method of effectively
155: simulating shocks would be important. Velocity field effect on
156: absorption width is shown in Section 4. Section 5 presents the
157: analysis of the ratio between the optical depths of \ion{He}{2}
158: and \ion{H}{1} Ly$\alpha$ transmissions. The power spectrum
159: of the \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2} flux will be
160: discussed in \S 6. Discussions and conclusions are
161: given in \S 7.
162:
163: \section{Data of HE2347-4342}
164:
165: The data of \ion{H}{1} Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux used in this paper is
166: the same as in Paper I. The $FUSE$ data of the \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$
167: transmitted flux of HE2347-4342 is described in \citet{zh04}.
168: The wavelength region is $904 - 1188$ \AA, which corresponds
169: to the redshift range $2.0 \leq z \leq 2.9$, as the wavelength
170: 303.78 \AA\ of \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$ in rest frame.
171: The spectrum has a constant bin size of $\Delta \lambda = 0.025$~\AA.
172: In terms of the local velocity, the resolution is $dv
173: \simeq 8.3 - 6.3$ km s$^{-1}$, and mean $d v \simeq 7$
174: km~s$^{-1}$. The mean $S/N$ is 2.14. Following the approach of
175: \citet{sh04}, we bin the data into
176: $\Delta \lambda = 0.05$~\AA~to reduce uncertainties
177: in the effective spectrograph resolution and oversampling effect.
178: The distance between $N$ pixels in the units of the local velocity
179: scale is given by $\delta v=2c[1-\exp(-N d v/2c)]$~km~s$^{-1}$,
180: corresponding to comoving scale $D = \delta v (1+z)/H(z)$.
181:
182: The flux in 2729 pixels, i.e., 24\% of the total pixels, are less
183: than zero. Obviously, the points with negative flux is unphysical,
184: it should be excluded in the statistics below. For sample deleting
185: all the pixels with negative flux, the mean transmission about
186: 0.4, or effective optical depth $\sim 0.9$. The optical depths of
187: \ion{He}{2}
188: over the ranges from 0.1 to 2.3 are with 10\% uncertainties. A
189: better statistical measurement of the fluctuations of flux is
190: given by the ratio between the optical depths of \ion{He}{2}, $\tau_{\rm
191: HeII}$, and \ion{H}{1}, $\tau_{\rm HI}$, for each pixel. The distribution
192: of $\eta$ is scattered in the range from 0.1 to about 500, while
193: the mean of $\eta$ is $\simeq 80$ \citep{sh04}.
194:
195: We also assume that all absorption in the $FUSE$ spectrum is due
196: to \ion{He}{2}, although it is subject to metal-line contaminations.
197: Generally identified metal-lines are connected with a Lyman-limit
198: system \citep{sm02}. The Doppler width of metal lines are
199: generally narrow with $\delta v \leq~ 20~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$. In this
200: paper, we restrict our analysis only to scales $\delta v \geq
201: 30~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ where metal-line contaminations
202: is low \citep{hu95,bok03,kim04}.
203:
204: \section{Hydrodynamic simulation sample}
205:
206: \subsection{Method}
207:
208: We use the cosmological hydrodynamic simulation samples produced by
209: the Weno for Intergalactic medium and Galaxy Evolution and formatiON
210: (WIGEON) code developed by \citet{feng04}. It is a hybrid
211: hydrodynamic/$N$-body simulation, consisting of the WENO algorithm
212: \citep{js96} for baryonic fluid, and $N$-body simulation for
213: particles of dark matter. The baryon fluid obeys the Navier-Stokes
214: equation, and is gravitationally coupled with collisionless dark
215: matter. We have assumed a standard $\Lambda$CDM model, which is
216: specified by the matter density parameter $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.27$,
217: baryonic matter density parameter $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.044$,
218: cosmological constant $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$, Hubble constant
219: $h=0.71$, the mass fluctuation $\sigma_8=0.84$, and scale-free
220: spectrum index $n=1$. The ratio of specific heats of the IGM is
221: $\gamma=5/3$. The transfer function is calculated using CMBFAST
222: \citep{sz96}.
223:
224: The simulation was performed in a periodic, cubic box of size 50
225: $h^{-1}$Mpc with a 512$^3$ grid and an equal number of dark matter
226: particles. It starts at redshift $z=99$. A uniform UV-background
227: of ionizing photons is switched on at $z = 6$ to heat the gas and
228: reionize the universe. To mimic the enhancement of temperature
229: due to radiation transfer effects \citep{abel99},
230: a thermal energy of gas with $T=2\times 10^4$
231: K is added in the total energy at $z=6$. The clumpy universe would
232: reprocess the photon spectrum from ionizing sources. The
233: reprocessing UV spectrum has been calculated by \citet{hm96}. We
234: use an ionizing background model including QSOs and galaxies with
235: 10\% ionizing photons escape fraction (kindly provided by F.
236: Haardt). At $z = 2.5$, such an ionizing background produces the
237: transmission flux of \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2} similar to
238: observation and an average $\eta$ $\simeq 72$, which is very close
239: to observed value.
240:
241: The atomic processes in the plasma of hydrogen and helium of
242: primordial composition, including ionization, radiative cooling
243: and heating, and the fraction of \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2} are
244: calculated in the same way as \citet{th98}. That is, under the
245: ``optically thin'' approximation, once density and temperature of
246: baryon gas are given, the ionizing state of H and He is directly
247: determined from the ionization-equilibrium equation.
248:
249: \subsection{Samples of Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux}
250:
251: For given sample of the fields of density, temperature and
252: velocity of the baryon matter, the optical depth of \ion{H}{1} or
253: \ion{He}{2} can be produced by a convolution with Voigt profile as
254: follows \citep{bi95, zhang97}
255: %eq1
256: \begin{equation}
257: \tau_i(z)=\sigma_i c \int dx
258: n_{i}(x)\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}H(z)b^T_i}V[\frac{\delta z}{b^T_i(1+z)}+
259: \frac{v(x)}{b^T_i},
260: b^T_i]
261: \end{equation}
262: where $i=$\ion{H}{1} or \ion{He}{2}, $\sigma_i$ is the absorption
263: cross section of Ly$\alpha$ line, $n_{i}(x)$ the number density,
264: $\delta z$ is the redshift difference between $z$ and $x$, $v(x)$
265: the peculiar velocity in unit $c$ and $b^T_i=(2kT/m_ic^2)^{1/2}$
266: the thermal velocity. $V$ is the Voigt profile, which is
267: normalized $\int dx (1/\sqrt{\pi}b)V[\frac{\delta
268: z}{b(1+z)}+\frac{v(x)}{b}, b]=1$. The Hubble constant at redshift
269: $z$ is $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{\Lambda}}$. Eq.(1)
270: shows, when the terms of thermal broadening and peculiar velocity
271: are not negligible, the Ly$\alpha$ transmission flux depends on
272: mass density field $n_{\rm HI}$, $n_{\rm HeII}$ {\it as well as}
273: the fields of temperature and velocity of IGM.
274:
275: We produced 100 mock samples of \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2}
276: Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux at $z=2.5$ with randomly selected
277: lines of sight. Each mock spectrum is sampled using $2^{10}$
278: pixels with the same spectral resolution as the observation. As
279: the corresponding comoving scale for $2^{10}$ pixels is larger
280: than the simulation box size, we replicate the sample
281: periodically. We add Gaussian noise to \ion{H}{1} sample with
282: signal-to-noise ratio, S/N=50, while \ion{He}{2} with S/N=3.
283: Figure 1 shows typical samples of \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2}
284: Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux fields.
285:
286: \section{Line width of \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1} Ly$\alpha$
287: absorptions}
288:
289: To demonstrate the importance of the velocity field, we consider
290: the line widths of Ly$\alpha$ absorption. If the Ly$\alpha$
291: absorption lines are purely thermal broadened, the line width, or
292: Doppler parameter, $b$(\ion{He}{2}) of \ion{He}{2} should be less
293: than $b$(\ion{H}{1}) by a factor of 2. However, \citet{zh04} found
294: $b$(\ion {He}{2})$=\xi b$(\ion{H}{1}) and $\xi \simeq 1$. They
295: concluded that the velocity field in IGM is dominated by
296: turbulence.
297:
298: This result can be explained with considering the velocity field
299: in eq.(1). A flux field given by eq.(1) generally is not given by
300: a superposition of lines with Gaussian profile, because the
301: peculiar velocity $v(x)$ is a random field. Therefore, the line
302: width given by Gaussian profile fitting is not always equal to the
303: thermal broadening $b^T$. For instance, when $b^T_i$ is small, the
304: Voigt profile will picks up only pixels with $\delta z +
305: (1+z)v(x)\simeq 0$. In this case, the line width can be estimated
306: by $(1+z)\langle(\Delta v)^2\rangle^{1/2}$, i.e. the line width is
307: dominated by the variance of the velocity field, which is the same
308: for \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1}. This is turbulent broadening. It
309: has been shown recently that the velocity field $v(x)$ shows the
310: feature of a fully developed turbulence \citep{he06}.
311:
312: To test this point, we identify the absorption lines by the
313: similar way as that for the real sample. We use AUTOVP code
314: \citep{dave97} to decompose the transmitted flux with Gaussian
315: profile, and estimate the parameters of line width, column
316: density, and the centroid wavelength of each line. Figure 2 shows
317: $b$(\ion{H}{1}) vs. $b$(\ion{He}{2}) for both real data and
318: simulation samples. The real data are taken from \citet{zh04}.
319: Obviously, the plot of $b$(\ion{H}{1}) vs.
320: $b$(\ion{He}{2}) from simulated data does not follow the thermal
321: broadening relation $b$(\ion{H}{1}) = 2$b$(\ion{He}{2}), but
322: similar to the turbulent broadening.
323:
324: \section{The ratio between \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1} Ly$\alpha$
325: optical depths}
326:
327: \subsection{The scatter of optical depth ratio}
328:
329: If the Voigt profile can be approximated by a Dirac delta
330: function, eq.(1) yields
331: %eq2
332: \begin{equation}
333: \frac{\tau_{\rm HeII}(z)}{\tau_{\rm HI}(z)}=\frac{1}{4}
334: \frac{n_{\rm HeII}(z)}{n_{\rm HI}(z)},
335: \end{equation}
336: If atoms and ions of \ion{H}{1}, \ion{H}{2}, \ion{He}{1}, \ion{He}{2}
337: and
338: \ion{He}{3} are in state of photoionization equilibrium, the ratio of
339: \ion{He}{2} to \ion{H}{1} is \citep{fardal98}
340: %eq3
341: \begin{equation}
342: \frac{n_{\rm HeII}(z)}{n_{\rm HI}(z)}\simeq 1.70
343: \frac{J_{\rm HI}}{J_{\rm HeII}}\frac{3+\alpha_4}
344: {3+\alpha_1}\left (\frac{T(z)}{10^{4.3}}\right )^{0.06} ,
345: \end{equation}
346: where we assume that the UV radiation backgrounds around
347: wavelengths wavelength $c/\nu_{\rm HI}=912$\AA~ and $c/\nu_{\rm
348: HeII}=228$ \AA~ are, respectively, $J_{\nu}=J_{\rm
349: HI}(\nu/\nu_{\rm HI})^{-\alpha_1}$ and $J_{\nu}=J_{\rm
350: HeII}(\nu/\nu_{\rm HeII})^{-\alpha_4}$, the parameters $J_{\rm
351: HI}$ and $J_{\rm HeII}$ being the specific intensities, $\alpha_1$
352: and $\alpha_4$ the index of their power laws.
353:
354: If the UV radiation background is spatially uniform, i.e. the
355: parameters $J_{\rm HI}$, $J_{\rm HeII}$, ${\alpha_1}$ and
356: ${\alpha_4}$ are constant, the ratio $n_{\rm HeII}(z)/n_{\rm
357: HI}(z)$ of eq.(3) is approximately spatially constant, because the
358: temperature-dependence ($T^{0.06}$) is very weak. Thus, from
359: eqs.(2) and (3) we may expect that the ratio of optical depths
360: $\tau_{\rm HeII}(z)/\tau_{\rm HI}(z)$ should basically be
361: constant, i.e. the scatter of ratio $\tau_{\rm HeII}(z)/\tau_{\rm
362: HI}(z)$ with respect to its mean $\langle \tau_{\rm
363: HeII}(z)/\tau_{\rm HI}(z)\rangle$ has to be very small.
364:
365: Thus, the observed $\eta$ scatter \citep{k01,sm02,zh04,sh04} may
366: indicate that the ratios, $J_{\rm HI}/J_{\rm HeII}$ and
367: $(3+\alpha_4)/(3+\alpha_1)$ are not constant, but significantly
368: different from pixel to pixel, or from line to line. However, eq.(2)
369: is based on the assumption that the effects of thermal broadening and
370: peculiar velocities are ignored. As has been shown in last section, the
371: effects of thermal broadening and peculiar velocities may not be
372: always small. Therefore, we should estimate the $\eta$-scatter caused
373: by thermal broadening and peculiar velocities.
374:
375: Since the assumption of eq.(2) is not hold,
376: we use $\eta$ to stand only for $4\tau_{\rm
377: HeII}/\tau_{\rm HI}(z)$ below. Figure 3 illustrates the effect of
378: thermal broadening and a peculiar velocity field. It shows 1.) top
379: panel: the 1-D distributions of the ratio $\eta$ of optical depths
380: given by eq.(1), 2.) second panel: $\eta$ distribution from optical
381: depths of eq.(1), but using a delta function for the Voigt profile; 3.)
382: third panel: $\eta$ given by optical depths of eq.(1) and adding,
383: respectively, S/N=3 and S/N=50 noises to the \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1}
384: transmitted flux; 4.) forth panel: temperature $T$ distribution; 5.)
385: bottom panel: mass density field of baryon matter.
386:
387: From the panel 2 of Fig. 3 one can see clearly that if the effect
388: of thermal broadening is ignored, i.e. the Voigt profile is
389: approximated by a Dirac delta function, $\eta$ is almost a
390: constant in the whole range. In this approximation, the ratio
391: $\eta$ does not depend on the fluctuations of temperature, mass
392: density and velocity of baryon gas, but only on the density ratio
393: $n_{\rm HII}/n_{\rm HI}$. The ratio $n_{\rm HII}/n_{\rm HI}$, however,
394: always keeps constant, even when $n_{\rm HII}$ and $n_{\rm HI}$
395: fluctuate strongly. The $\eta$ distribution shown in panel 2 contains
396: a significant sharp decline at the highest temperature region. It
397: probably results from dielectronic recombination of \ion{He}{2} that
398: is dominant at such high temperatures, and reduces the number
399: $n_{\rm HeII}$. At less high temperatures, the collision ionization
400: rate of \ion{H}{1} is higher than \ion{He}{2}, accordingly, there
401: appear some small bumps as those visualized in panel 2.
402:
403: However, the top panel shows that, when thermal broadening is
404: included, the fluctuations of $\eta$ are higher at the positions
405: with higher temperature and higher density. These fluctuations are
406: due partially to the difference between the thermal velocities of
407: \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1}. It leads to the distribution of
408: \ion{H}{1} to be more extended than \ion{He}{2}. The
409: hydrodynamical velocity field $v(x)$ is the same for \ion{He}{2}
410: and \ion{H}{1}. It doesn't cause the change of the ratio $n_{\rm
411: HII}/n_{\rm HI}$. The effect of thermal broadening on $\eta$
412: scatter has also been noted by \citet{croft97}, but in their
413: samples the scatter caused by thermal broadening is not very
414: significant. It is probably because more shocks are resolved on
415: small scales in the WIGEON simulations, which leads to stronger
416: temperature fluctuations \citep{he04}. The panel 3 of Fig. 3 shows
417: more significant scatter of $\eta$ if the noise is added. From
418: Figure 1, we have seen that the transmitted flux of \ion{He}{2} is
419: substantially affected by the S/N=3 noise.
420:
421: \subsection{PDF of $\eta$}
422:
423: We now examine the probability distribution function (PDF) of
424: $\eta$, which is calculated pixel by pixel as \citet{sh04}. Figure
425: 4 shows the PDFs for 1.) real data; 2.) simulation sample of the
426: transmitted flux from eq.(1); 3.) simulation samples of the
427: transmitted flux from eq.(1), and adding, respectively, S/N=3 and
428: S/N=50 noise to the \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1} transmitted flux,
429: and 4.) simulated samples without thermal broadening, but adding noise.
430: The simulation PDFs are calculated with 100 samples of 1-D
431: transmitted flux of \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1}. The error bars are
432: the maximum and minimum from 100 independent noise realizations.
433: The simulation data are also binned into 0.05\AA~to match
434: observation.
435:
436: We see that the PDF of the simulated data without adding noise
437: has the peak at $\log \eta \simeq 1.9$ which is about the same as
438: real data \citep{zh04,sh04}. However, the width of PDF of the
439: simulated data without adding noise is much less than the real data.
440: The maximum scatter of $\eta$ of the simulated data is about
441: 2$\langle \eta \rangle$. The factor 2 is just the
442: difference between the thermal velocities of \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2}.
443: Though there are some pixels with $\eta > 2\langle \eta \rangle$
444: caused by collision ionization, it is still less than the observed
445: scatter.
446:
447: The PDF of simulation data is significantly improved with adding
448: noise. It looks similar to the observed result. The PDF of
449: simulation data has the same peak as real data, and the width of
450: PDF is also about the same as real one. Therefore, the effect of
451: data noise is substantial for the scatter of $\eta$. This effect
452: is especially serious on the high $\eta$ events. Samples without
453: noise contamination do not have events of $\eta > 300$, but the
454: samples with noise do. This result is about the same as
455: \citet{sh04}, in which events of $\eta > 460$ are dropped, because
456: they may largely be from the uncertainty in measuring.
457:
458: Nevertheless, we see that the PDF of simulation sample with noise
459: is still lower than the real data in the range $\eta<10$. This
460: result is also similar to \citet{sh04}. They found that the events
461: of $\eta<10$ of real data show an factor 2 excess to a Monte Carlo
462: calculation. Figure 4 also shows that the number of $\eta < 10$ of
463: real data is about twice as large as simulation sample. However,
464: \citet{sh04} found that the events of $\eta<30$ of real data are
465: also more than their Monte Carlo estimation by a factor 2, while
466: Figure 3 doesn't show so large difference. This is probably
467: because our simulation contains the effect of thermal broadening
468: and peculiar velocity field. This point can be seen from the PDF
469: of $\eta$ for simulation samples without thermal broadening, but
470: adding noise (the filled dots in Figure 4). It shows there are
471: more low-$\eta$ events without thermal broadening. In a word, our
472: simulation result indicates the excess of low-$\eta$ events in
473: real data, but the difference between real and simulation data is
474: less than the Monte Carlo estimation.
475:
476: The effect of noise can also be seen in Figure 5, which presents
477: the relation between $\eta$ and $\tau_{\rm HI}$ in the range
478: $\tau_{\rm HI}> 0.01$. The top panel is from real data. The middle
479: is given by simulation samples with adding noise of S/N=3 to
480: \ion{He}{2} and S/N=50 to \ion{H}{1}. The bottom shows simulation
481: samples without noise. The $\eta$-$\tau_{\rm HI}$ distribution of
482: simulation sample with noise is similar to the real one. The
483: high-$\eta$ events at low $\tau_{\rm HI}$ area are mainly from
484: noise. This is consistent with the observed result that $\eta$ is
485: large in void area $\tau_{\rm HI}< 0.05$ \citep{sh04}.
486:
487: Figure 6 presents the relation between $\eta$ and column density
488: $N({\rm HI})$ for real data and simulation samples with noise.
489: It shows the correlation between $\eta$ and density of \ion{H}{1}:
490: $\eta$ is larger for lower column density $N({\rm HI})$, and lower
491: for higher $N({\rm HI})$. This phenomenon is also shown in the
492: \ion{He}{2} spectrum of HS1700+6416 \citep{rm05}.
493:
494: \section{Power spectrum}
495:
496: We now compare the power spectra of H and He transmitted flux of
497: simulation sample and real data. We calculate the power spectrum
498: by the same method as Paper I. It gives easy to compare the power
499: spectra of H and He. Moreover, the real data of He is highly
500: noisy, for some pixels, the S/N ratio is lower than 1, and some
501: pixels with negative flux. To eliminate the effect of these pixels
502: on the power spectrum calculation, we should use the algorithm of
503: denoising or conditional-counting as Paper I
504: \citep{donoho95,jam01}.
505:
506: The power spectra of \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$
507: transmitted flux of HE2347 are shown in Figure 7. We plot the
508: power spectrum of \ion{H}{1} in top panel as an indicator of the
509: goodness of the simulation sample of this paper, which is produced
510: in a box with size larger than that of Paper I by a factor of 4.
511: The parameters $f=1$ and $f=3$ mean, respectively, the threshold
512: condition for denoising to be S/N $>$ 1, and 3. Since the real
513: data of \ion{H}{1} Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux has high quality,
514: the power spectrum actually is $f$-independent if $f>1$
515: \citep{jam05}. On the other hand, there are very rare pixels of
516: the \ion{He}{2} data with S/N $>$ 3, and therefore, only a very
517: small number of the modes is available if taking $f>3$. One can
518: only use $f=1$ to calculate \ion{He}{2} power spectrum of He2347.
519: The error bars of Figure 7 is estimated by the maximum and minimum
520: range of bootstrap re-sampling.
521:
522: As expected, the simulation sample of \ion{H}{1} transmission flux
523: is in well agreement with observations on all scales less than
524: $\delta v=224$ km s$^{-1}$. There is no discrepancy on the smallest
525: scale $\delta v = 28~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ or length scale
526: $D = 0.28$ h$^{-1}$ Mpc. This result is the same as Paper I, and
527: therefore, the power spectrum on small scales is insensitive to the
528: size of simulation box.
529:
530: The power spectrum of the \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux of
531: HE2347, as shown in the bottom panel of Figure 7, is very
532: different from simulation samples without adding noise on scales less
533: than 56 km s$^{-1}$. On those scales, the power spectrum of observed
534: sample is much higher than the simulation results. However, the power
535: spectrum of the noisy samples of \ion{He}{2} flux gives a good fitting
536: to the observed sample. In other words, if we could remove the S/N=3 noise
537: from the real data, the power spectrum can be well fitted with the
538: simulation of the LCDM model. Thus, with \ion{He}{2} flux,
539: we can arrive at the same conclusion as \ion{H}{1}: there is no
540: evidence for the discrepancy between observation and simulation on
541: scales from 1792 to 28 km s$^{-1}$, or from 0.28 to 18 h$^{-1}$ Mpc.
542:
543: %We can see from Figure 7 that \ion{He}{2} flux power spectra is higher
544: %than \ion{H}{1} for both the simulation samples and observation samples.
545: %This is probably because \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$ absorption optical depth
546: %is about 80 times higher than \ion{H}{1}. In other words, the fluctuations
547: %of \ion{He}{2} flux are more sensitive to the fluctuations of baryon
548: %matter density than \ion{H}{1} flux. This yields a
549: %higher power-spectrum amplitude of \ion{He}{2} flux.
550:
551: \section{Discussions and conclusions}
552:
553: The \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2} Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux
554: fluctuations of QSO absorption spectrum are valuable to detect the
555: fields of baryon gas and ionizing photon field, and to constrain
556: models of the UV radiation background. With hydrodynamic
557: simulation samples of the $\Lambda$CDM model, we made a comparison
558: between the model-predicted statistical features and real data of
559: HE2347. It includes the power spectrum, the line width of
560: absorption features, and the ratio between the \ion{He}{2} and
561: \ion{H}{1} optical depths. The major conclusions are as follows:
562:
563: 1.) The absorption features of \ion{He}{2} and \ion{H}{1} basically
564: are turbulent-broadening. It should be emphasized that the observed
565: evidence for the turbulent-broadening mainly is given by the absorption
566: lines in voids \citep{zh04}. This is especially supported by the
567: simulation samples, which shows that the turbulence behavior of the
568: velocity field of IGM is on high as well as low mass density area
569: \citep{Kim05}.
570:
571: 2.) The mean of the optical depth ratio $\langle \eta \rangle$ of
572: real sample can be well fitted with simulation samples.
573:
574: 3.) The simulation samples give a very well fitting to
575: the power spectra of both \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2}
576: transmitted flux. There is no discrepancy between the power
577: spectra of simulated and observed samples on small scales. For H
578: sample, the scales are till to 0.28 h$^{-1}$ Mpc. For He, it is
579: 1.1 h$^{-1}$ Mpc. Therefore, there is no evidence that the power
580: of observed sample is less than the standard $\Lambda$CDM model on
581: small scales.
582:
583: 4.) The last but not the least is on the $\eta$-scatter.
584: The large $\eta$ scatter are generally attributed
585: to the inhomogeneity of the UV photon distributions. We showed,
586: however, that a significant part of the $\eta$-scatter is from the
587: fluctuations of the temperature and velocity fields of IGM and
588: data noise. There seems to be a discrepancy on low-$\eta$ events
589: comparing our simulation and the real data. The simulation sample
590: does not contain enough low-$\eta$ events to fit real data.
591: To solve this problem models of producing extra fluctuations on
592: Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux on scales of about 1 h$^{-1}$ Mpc
593: is needed.
594:
595: The WIGEON samples are produced with a uniformly distributed UV
596: radiation background, and therefore, we may consider an
597: inhomogeneous UV radiation background to be a possible reason of
598: the lack of low-$\eta$ events. However, the numerical results of
599: the inhomogeneous UV radiation background shows that the
600: fluctuations of UV radiation background on small scales will yield
601: more high-$\eta$ events $(200 < \eta<350)$. Therefore, at least,
602: according to the current calculation, the model of the UV
603: background inhomogeneity would not be helpful to solve the problem
604: of the lack of low-$\eta$ events.
605:
606: Note that low-$\eta$ events are related to high column density
607: $N({\rm HI})$. The lack of low-$\eta$ events may be due to that the
608: WIGEON samples are produced without considering the detailed
609: physical processes of ionizing sources, as some mechanical and
610: radiation feedback effects would not be negligible in the area of
611: high column density, which has the high probability containing
612: collapsed objects.
613:
614: Any model of producing the scatter of $\eta$ will affect
615: the transmitted flux of both \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2}.
616: Therefore, we can use our unified fitting of \ion{H}{1} and \ion{He}{2}
617: Ly${\alpha}$ transmitted flux to set some constraints on models
618: for low-$\eta$ events.
619:
620: First, if the fluctuations are Gaussian, it will play the same
621: role as Gaussian noise, and increase the power of transmitted flux
622: on scale $\simeq 1$ Mpc. However, this paper and Paper I show that
623: the power spectrum of \ion{H}{1} Ly$\alpha$ transmitted flux is in good
624: consistent with observation on scale 1 h$^{-1}$ Mpc and less.
625: Therefore, any increase of the power of simulation sample will no
626: longer be consistent with observed sample. Therefore, there is
627: small room for models of adding Gaussian fluctuation.
628:
629: Second, if the fluctuations are non-Gaussian, it should be limited
630: by the observed non-Gaussian features of the \ion{H}{1} and
631: \ion{He}{2} flux. The non-Gaussian statistical features
632: of \ion{H}{1} transmitted flux, such as
633: high order moments of the fluctuations of the flux, are sensitive
634: to the addition of non-Gaussian inhomogeneity. It has been shown
635: in Paper I that the non-Gaussian features of the \ion{H}{1} transmitted
636: flux of HE2347 can already be well fitted with the WIGEON samples
637: to eight order and on scale as small as 0.28 h$^{-1}$ Mpc.
638: Therefore, there is also small room for models of adding
639: non-Gaussian fluctuations.
640:
641: \acknowledgments
642:
643: JRL thanks Francesco Haardt for kindly providing us ionizing
644: background model, Romeel Dav\'e for making AUTOVP publicly
645: available and Hy Trac for help from his MACH code. We thank
646: our referee for helpful suggestions on shaping our paper.
647: LLF acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation
648: of China (NSFC). This work is partially supported by the
649: NSF AST-0507340.
650:
651: \begin{thebibliography}{}
652: \bibitem[Abel \& Haehnelt (1999)]{abel99} Abel, T. \& Haehnelt, M. G. 1999,
653: \apj, 520, L13
654:
655: \bibitem[Bi et al.(1995)]{bi95} Bi, H.G., Ge, J., \& Fang, L.Z. 1995, \apj, 452, 90
656:
657: \bibitem[Boksenberg et al.(2003)]{bok03} Boksenberg, A., Sargent, W., \& Rauch, M. 2003 astro-ph/0307557
658:
659: \bibitem[Cen \& Ostriker (1999)]{cen99} Cen, R., \& Ostriker, J. P. 1999, \apj, 514, 1
660:
661: \bibitem[Croft et al.(1997)]{croft97} Croft, R. A. C., Weinberg, D. H.,
662: Katz, N., \& Hernquist, L. 1997, \apj, 488, 532
663:
664: \bibitem[Daubechies et al.(1992)]{dau92} Daubechies I. 1992, {\it Ten Lectures on Wavelets} (Philadelphia: SIAM)
665:
666: \bibitem[Dav\'e et al.(1997)]{dave97} Dav\'e, R., Hernquist, L., Weinberg, D. H., \& Katz, N. 1997, \apj, 477, 21
667:
668: \bibitem[Dav\'e et al.(2001)]{dave01} Dav\'e, R., et al. 2001, \apj, 552, 473
669:
670: \bibitem[Donoho(1995)]{donoho95} Donoho, D.L. 1995, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 41, 613
671:
672: \bibitem[Fang \& Feng(2000)]{ff00} Fang, L.Z., \& Feng, L.L. 2000, \apj, 539, 5
673:
674: \bibitem[Fang \& Thews(1998)]{ft98} Fang, L.Z., \& Thews, R. 1998,
675: {\it Wavelet in Physics} (Singapore: World Scientific)
676:
677: \bibitem[Fardal et al.(1998)]{fardal98} Fardal, M. A., Giroux, M. L.,
678: \& Shull, J. M. 1998, \aj, 115, 2206
679:
680:
681: \bibitem[Farge et al.(1996)]{farge96} Farge, M., Kevlahan, N., Perrier, V. \& Goirand, E. 1996, Proceedings of the IEEE, 84, 639
682:
683: \bibitem[Feng et al.(2004)]{feng04} Feng, L.L., Shu, C.W., \& Zhang, M.P. 2004,
684: \apj, 612, 1
685:
686: \bibitem[Flores \& Primack(1994)]{fp94} Flores, R., \& Primack, J. 1994, \apj, 427, L1
687:
688: \bibitem[Haardt \& Madau(1996)]{hm96} Haardt, F., \& Madau, P. 1996, \apj, 461, 20
689:
690: \bibitem[He et al.(2004)]{he04} He, P., Feng, L.L., \& Fang, L.Z. 2004, \apj, 612, 14
691:
692: \bibitem[He et al.(2006)]{he06} He, P., Liu, J.R., Feng, L.L., Shu C.-W. \& Fang, L.Z. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett, 69, 051302
693:
694: \bibitem[Hu et al.(1995)]{hu95} Hu, E.M. et al. 1995, \aj, 110, 1526-43
695:
696: \bibitem[Jamkhedkar et al.(2001)]{jam01} Jamkhedkar, P., Bi, H.G., \& Fang, L.Z. 2001, \apj, 561, 94
697:
698: \bibitem[Jamkhedkar et al.(2003)]{jam03} Jamkhedkar, P., Feng, L.L., Zheng , W., Tytler, D., Kirkman, D., \& Fang, L. Z., 2003, \mnras, 343, 4
699:
700: \bibitem[Jamkhedkar et al.(2005)]{jam05} Jamkhedkar, P., Feng, L.L., Zheng , W.,
701: \& Fang, L. Z., 2005, \apj, 633, 52 (Paper I)
702:
703: \bibitem[Jiang \& Shu(1996)]{js96} Jiang, G., \& Shu, C.W., 1996,
704: J. Comput. Phys. 126, 202
705:
706: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2005)]{Kim05} Kim, B., He, P., Pando, J., Feng, L. L. \&
707: Fang, L. Z. 2005, \apj, 625, 599
708:
709: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2004)]{kim04} Kim, T.S., Viel, M., Haehnelt, M. G.,
710: Carswell, R. F., \& Cristiani, S. 2004, \mnras, 347, 355
711:
712: \bibitem[Kriss et al.(2001)]{k01} Kriss, G. A., et al. 2001, Science, 293, 1112
713:
714: \bibitem[Maselli \& Ferrara(2005)]{mf05} Maselli, A.,
715: \& Ferrara, A. 2005, \mnras, 364, 1429
716:
717: \bibitem[McGaugh et al.(2003)]{mc03} McGaugh, S. S., Barker, M.K.,
718: \& de Blok, W. J. G. 2003, \apj, 584 566
719:
720: \bibitem[Pando \& Fang(1998)]{pf98} Pando, J. \& Fang, L.Z., 1998,
721: Phys. Rev. E57, 3593
722:
723: \bibitem[Reimers et al.(2005)]{rm05} Reimers, D., et al. 2005, astro-ph/0410588
724:
725: \bibitem[Seljak \& Zaldarriaga(1996)]{sz96} Seljak, U., \& Zaldarriaga, M. 1996, \apj, 469, 437
726:
727: \bibitem[Smette et al.(2002)]{sm02} Smette, A., et al. 2002, \apj, 564, 542
728:
729: \bibitem[Shull et al.(2004)]{sh04} Shull, M. I., Tumlinson, J., Giroux, M. L., Kriss, G. A., \& Reimers, D. 2004, \apj, 600, 570
730:
731: \bibitem[Simon et al.(2003)]{sim03} Simon, J. D., Bolatto, A. D., Leroy, A., \& Blitz, L. 2003, \apj, 596, 957
732:
733: \bibitem[Swaters et al.(2003)]{sw03} Swaters, R. A., Madore, B. F., van den Bosch, Frank C., \& Balcells, M. 2003, \apj, 583, 732
734:
735: \bibitem[Theuns et al.(1998)]{th98} Theuns, T., Leonard, A., Efstathiou,
736: G., Pearce, F. R., \& Thomas, P. A. 1998, \mnras, 301, 478
737:
738: \bibitem[Zentner \& Bullock(2003)]{zb03} Zentner, A. R., \& Bullock, J. S. 2003, \apj, 598, 49
739:
740: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(1995)]{zhang95} Zhang, Y., Anninos, P.,
741: \& Norman, M. L. 1995, \apj, 453, L57
742:
743: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(1997)]{zhang97} Zhang, Y., Anninos, P., Norman, M. L., \&
744: Meiksin, A. 1997, \apj, 485, 469
745:
746: \bibitem[Zheng et al.(2004)]{zh04} Zheng, W., et al., 2004, \apj, 605, 631
747:
748: \end{thebibliography}
749: \clearpage
750:
751: %1
752: \begin{figure}
753: \figurenum{1}
754: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f1.eps}
755: %\centerline{\psfig{file=Fig.ps,width=8cm,angle=0}}
756: \caption{Simulated samples of \ion{H}{1} (top) and \ion{He}{2} (second from top)
757: transmitted flux without adding noise, and the same samples
758: of \ion{H}{1} (third from top) and \ion{He}{2} (bottom) with adding noise
759: with S/N=50 for \ion{H}{1} and S/N=3 for \ion{He}{2}.}
760: \end{figure}
761:
762: %2
763: \begin{figure}
764: \figurenum{2} \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f2.eps}
765: %\centerline{\psfig{file=Fig.ps,width=8cm,angle=0}}
766: \caption{Doppler parameter b(\ion{H}{1}) vs. b(\ion{He}{2}) of
767: simulation samples (left) and real data of HE2347 (right). The
768: diagonal line is expected for turbulent broadening and the dashed
769: line is for b(\ion{H}{1}) = 2b(\ion{He}{2}).}
770: \end{figure}
771:
772: %3
773: \begin{figure}
774: \figurenum{3}
775: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f3.eps}
776: %\centerline{\psfig{file=Fig.ps,width=8cm,angle=0}}
777: \caption{1-D distribution of $\eta$ with (top) and without (next top)
778: thermal broadening.The third panel shows $\eta$ with adding
779: S/N= 50 noise to \ion{H}{1} and S/N=3 noise to \ion{He}{2} flux.
780: The temperature and baryon matter density are also shown.}
781: \end{figure}
782:
783: %4
784: \begin{figure}
785: \figurenum{4}
786: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f4.eps}
787: %\centerline{\psfig{file=Fig.ps,width=8cm,angle=0}}
788: \caption{PDF of $\eta$. 1. Real data (dot line); 2. Simulation
789: samples with adding S/N= 50 noise to \ion{H}{1} and S/N=3 noise
790: to \ion{He}{2} transmitted flux (solid line), errorbars being the maximum
791: and minimum over 100 independent noise realizations; 3. Simulation
792: samples without noise (dashed line); 4. Simulation samples
793: without thermal broadening, but adding noise.}
794: \end{figure}
795:
796: %5
797: \begin{figure}
798: \figurenum{5}
799: \epsscale{0.6} \plotone{f5.eps}
800: %\centerline{\psfig{file=Fig.ps,width=6cm,angle=0}}
801: \caption{$\eta$ vs. optical depth $\tau_{\rm HI}$ for real data (top);
802: simulation samples with noise (middle) and without noise(bottom).}
803: \end{figure}
804:
805: %6
806: \begin{figure}
807: \figurenum{6} \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f6.eps}
808: %\centerline{\psfig{file=Fig.ps,width=8cm,angle=0}}
809: \caption{ $\eta$ vs. column density $N({\rm HI})$ for simulation
810: data (left) and real data of HE2347 (right). }
811: \end{figure}
812:
813: %7
814: \begin{figure}
815: \figurenum{7} \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f7.eps} \caption{Power
816: spectrum of 1.) \ion{H}{1} transmitted flux of HE2347 with the conditional
817: counting parameter $f=3$ for real data ($\ast$) and simulation
818: sample ($\Diamond$) (top); 2.) \ion{He}{2} transmitted flux of HE2347
819: with the conditional counting parameter $f=1$ for real data
820: ($\ast$), simulation sample with adding noise of S/N=3
821: ($\bigtriangleup$) and without noise adding ($\Diamond$)
822: (bottom).}
823: \end{figure}
824:
825:
826: \end{document}
827: