1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4]{article}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: %\input epsf
5: %\tighten
6: %\received{2003 December 12}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: %\def\plotone#1{\centering \leavevmode
11: %\epsfxsize=\columnwidth \epsfbox{#1}}
12:
13: \def\wisk#1{\ifmmode{#1}\else{$#1$}\fi}
14:
15: \def\lt {\wisk{<}}
16: \def\gt {\wisk{>}}
17: \def\le {\wisk{_<\atop^=}}
18: \def\ge {\wisk{_>\atop^=}}
19: \def\lsim {\wisk{_<\atop^{\sim}}}
20: \def\gsim {\wisk{_>\atop^{\sim}}}
21: \def\kms {\wisk{{\rm ~km~s^{-1}}}}
22: \def\Lsun {\wisk{{\rm L_\odot}}}
23: \def\Zsun {\wisk{{\rm Z_\odot}}}
24: \def\Msun {\wisk{{\rm M_\odot}}}
25: \def\um {$\mu$m}
26: \def\mic {\mu{\rm m}}
27: \def\sig {\wisk{\sigma}}
28: \def\etal {{\sl et~al.\ }}
29: \def\eg {{\it e.g.\ }}
30: \def\ie {{\it i.e.\ }}
31: \def\bsl {\wisk{\backslash}}
32: \def\by {\wisk{\times}}
33: \def\half {\wisk{\frac{1}{2}}}
34: \def\third {\wisk{\frac{1}{3}}}
35: \def\nwm2sr {\wisk{\rm nW/m^2/sr\ }}
36: \def\nw2m4sr {\wisk{\rm nW^2/m^4/sr\ }}
37:
38: \title{On the nature of the sources of the cosmic infrared background.}
39:
40: \author{
41: A. Kashlinsky\altaffilmark{1,2,4}, R. G. Arendt\altaffilmark{1,2},
42: J. Mather \altaffilmark{1,3}, S. H. Moseley \altaffilmark{1,3} }
43: \altaffiltext{1}{Observational Cosmology Laboratory, Code 665,
44: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD 20771}
45: \altaffiltext{2}{SSAI}\altaffiltext{3}{NASA}\altaffiltext{4}{e--mail:
46: kashlinsky@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov}
47:
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50: We discuss interpretation of the cosmic infrared background (CIB)
51: anisotropies detected by us recently in the Spitzer IRAC based
52: measurements. The fluctuations are approximately isotropic on the
53: sky consistent with their cosmological origin. They remain after
54: removal of fairly faint intervening sources and must arise from a
55: population which has a strong CIB clustering component with only a
56: small shot-noise level. We discuss the constraints the data place
57: on the luminosities, epochs and mass-to-light ratios of the
58: indvidual sources producing them. Assuming the concordance
59: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology the measurements imply that the luminous
60: sources producing them lie at cosmic times $<$ 1 Gyr and were
61: individually much brighter per unit mass than the present stellar
62: populations.
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65: \keywords{cosmology: theory - cosmology: observations - diffuse
66: radiation - early Universe}
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: If the early Universe contained significantly more luminous
71: populations than at present, such as is thought to be the case
72: with the very first metal-free stars (see review by Bromm \&
73: Larson 2005), these populations could have produced a significant
74: contribution to the cosmic infrared background (CIB) with
75: potentially measurable structure (Santos et al 2002, Salvaterra \&
76: Ferrara 2003, Cooray et al 2004, Kashlinsky et al 2004; see
77: Kashlinsky (2005) for recent review). In an attempt to uncover the
78: CIB fluctuations from early populations we have analyzed deep
79: images obtained with the Spitzer IRAC instrument (Kashlinsky,
80: Arendt, Mather \& Moseley 2005; hereafter KAMM1), which led to
81: detecting significant CIB fluctuations remaining after subtracting
82: sources to faint flux levels. In a companion paper we presented
83: analysis from deeper and larger fields using the GOODS Spitzer
84: data (Kashlinsky, Arendt, Mather \& Moseley 2006; hereafter
85: KAMM2), which confirms our earlier findings and extends them to
86: fainter levels of removed galaxy populations and larger angular
87: scales.
88:
89:
90: In this {\it Letter} we discuss the cosmological implications of
91: the recent measurements of the CIB fluctuations from early
92: populations obtained by us (KAMM1,KAMM2). These measurements imply
93: that the signal must come from cosmic sources which have a
94: significant clustering component, but a low shot-noise
95: contribution to the power spectrum. Given the amplitude of the CIB
96: flux expected from these populations in the concordance
97: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology ($\gsim$1 \nwm2sr ), we show that these
98: sources must have very faint individual fluxes of $\lsim$10-20 nJy
99: in order not to exceed the measured levels of the remaining
100: shot-noise. Furthermore, these populations had to have
101: mass-to-light ratio significantly below that of the present day
102: stellar populations in order to produce the required CIB fluxes in
103: the short cosmic time available ($<$1 Gyr) from the available
104: baryons. Finally, we discuss the prospects for their individual
105: detection with future space missions. We use the AB magnitude
106: system, so flux per frequency $\nu$ of magnitude $m$ is
107: $S_\nu(m)$=$3631 \times 10^{-0.4m}$ Jy; diffuse flux in \nwm2sr is
108: defined as $\nu I_\nu$, with $I_\nu$ being the surface brightness
109: in MJy/sr.
110:
111: \section{Magnitudes and epochs of the sources of the CIB fluctuations}
112:
113: In their analysis KAMM1 and KAMM2 used a total of 5 different
114: fields with deep Spitzer IRAC observations of up to 24 hours per
115: pixel. All the observed fields are located at high Galactic and
116: Ecliptic latitudes and are free of significant zodiacal emissions
117: at all IRAC channels and of cirrus at the IRAC channels 1-3 (3.6
118: to 5.8 \um). Individual galaxies and other sources were removed
119: until a fixed level of the shot noise from remaining sources was
120: reached. The power spectrum of the remaining diffuse emission
121: showed a residual shot-noise component on small angles and a
122: significant excess due to clustering of faint/distant sources at
123: scales $\gsim 0.5^\prime$. Within the errors all fields cleaned to
124: the same shot-noise level showed the same excess fluctuations
125: consistent with their cosmological origin (see Fig. 1 of KAMM2).
126: At 8 \um\ there is a significant pollution by the Galactic cirrus
127: and at 5.8 \um\ the larger instrumental noise leads to relatively
128: large errors in the large-scale fluctuations. Here we concentrate
129: on the interpretation of the data at 3.6 and 4.5 \um\ in terms of
130: the luminosities, the epochs and the nature of the cosmological
131: sources contributing to these fluctuations.
132:
133: KAMM1-2 show that the CIB fluctuations must come from cosmological
134: sources, such as ordinary galaxies and the putative Population
135: III. The former are defined as metal-rich stars with IMFs of a
136: Salpeter-Scalo \cite{kennicutt} type with masses $\sim 1M_\odot$.
137: Population III is defined (loosely) as luminous sources that
138: existed at, say, $z\gsim 10$ which possibly were individually very
139: massive and intrinsically very luminous. Data such as discussed
140: here cannot resolve whether the sources contributing to the CIB
141: were metal-rich \cite{komatsu} and whether the source of this
142: radiation was stellar nucleosynthesis \cite{santos} or black-hole
143: accretion in the early Universe \cite{pop3-qso}. Population III
144: epochs, $z\gsim$10, may contain emissions by both stars and
145: quasar-like objects \cite{kr83}.
146:
147: Any model aimed to explain the CIB fluctuations results must
148: reproduce three major aspects: 1) The sources producing the
149: measured CIB fluctuations must be fainter than those removed from
150: the data. 2) They must reproduce the observed excess CIB
151: fluctuations at $\gsim 0.5^\prime$, where $\delta F
152: \simeq$0.07-0.1 \nwm2sr . 3) Lastly, the populations below the
153: above cutoff must account not only for the correlated part of the
154: CIB, but must also reproduce the observed (low) shot-noise
155: component of the signal. These lead to:
156:
157: 1) The the shot-noise component of the power spectrum from source
158: counts $dN/dm$ per magnitude interval $dm$ is $P_{\rm SN}$=$\int
159: S^2(m)dN(m)$ with $S$=$\nu S_\nu$. To estimate limiting magnitudes
160: implied by the measured shot-noise, we generated source counts for
161: the observed fields with SExtractor \cite{sextractor}. Fig.
162: \ref{fig:shot-noise} shows the remaining shot noise levels in
163: KAMM1-2 analysis and the counts data. The intersection of the
164: counts with the lowest shot noise levels shows that the sources
165: are eliminated to $m\!\gsim$25-26, so the detected CIB
166: fluctuations come from fainter sources. This magnitude limit at
167: 3.6 \um\ corresponds to only $10^9 h^{-2}
168: 10^{-0.4(m-25.5)}L_\odot$ emitted at 6000 \AA\ at $z$=5 where $h$
169: is the Hubble constant in units of 100 km/sec/Mpc. If the counts
170: contain extra populations in addition to those from \cite{fazio},
171: the magnitude limit will be fainter. Thus KAMM1,KAMM2 have removed
172: a significant fraction of galaxies even at $z$=5 and the CIB
173: fluctuations must come from sources at higher $z$.
174:
175: 2) The clustering component of the CIB at $ 0.5^\prime \lsim
176: 2\pi/q \lsim 5^\prime$ requires $F_{\rm CIB}\sim$ a few \nwm2sr as
177: noted by us earlier \cite{kamm1}. The rms fluctuation in the CIB
178: flux, $\delta F$=$\sqrt{q^2P_2(q)/2\pi}$, on angular scale
179: $2\pi/q$ is related to the underlying 3-dimensional power spectrum
180: of the emitters' clustering, $P_3(k)$, the duration over which the
181: flux was produced, $\Delta t$, and the rate of the CIB production
182: rate, $dF/dt$, via the Limber equation (e.g. Kashlinsky 2005a):
183: \begin{equation}
184: \delta F = F_{\rm CIB} \bar{\Delta}_F \;\; ; \;\;
185: \bar{\Delta}_F^2\equiv \frac{\Delta t \int_{\Delta t} (dF/dt)^2
186: \Delta^2(qd_A^{-1}) dt}{[\int_{\Delta t} (dF/dt) \; dt]^2}
187: \label{cib}
188: \end{equation}
189: where $\Delta(k)=[k^2P_3(k)/2\pi c\Delta t]^{1/2}$ is the rms
190: fluctuation in source counts over the cylinder of radius $2\pi/k$
191: and length $c\Delta t$. In the limit when the CIB release rate is
192: approximately constant, the relative CIB fluctuation,
193: $\bar{\Delta}_F$, will be $\sim\langle
194: \Delta^2(qd_A^{-1})\rangle^{1/2}$ with $\langle \ldots \rangle
195: \equiv (\Delta t)^{-1}\int_{\Delta t} \ldots dt$. If $dF/dt$ peaks
196: at some cosmic epoch $z_p$, the relative fluctuation will be
197: $\simeq \Delta(qd_A^{-1}(z_p))$.
198:
199: To evaluate the range of the expected CIB flux from the sources
200: producing the measured fluctuations, we adopt the $\Lambda$CDM
201: model with $(\Omega,\Omega_{\rm baryon}, \Omega_\Lambda,
202: h)$=(0.3,0.044,0.7,0.71) and consider the epochs spanning 5$\leq\!
203: z \!\leq$20. The cosmic time at $z$=20 is $\simeq$0.2 Gyr and the
204: time between $z$=20 and $z$=5 is 1 Gyr. The scale
205: $r_8$=$8h^{-1}$Mpc, with today's density contrast $\sigma_8$,
206: subtends $\theta_8 \simeq$(3-4)$^\prime$. The relative fluctuation
207: in the projected 2-dimensional power spectrum, $\Delta$, on that
208: angular scale $\theta_8$, produced from sources located at mean
209: value of $\bar{z}$ and spanning the cosmic time $\Delta t$, would
210: be $\Delta(\theta_8)\sim \sigma_8 (1+\bar{z})^{-1}(r_8/c\Delta
211: t)^{1/2}\simeq 0.02 \sigma_8
212: (\frac{\bar{z}}{10})^{-1}(\frac{\Delta t}{{\rm Gyr}})^{-1/2}$
213: neglecting the amplification due to biasing. Biasing, due to
214: sources forming out of rare peaks of the density field, will
215: increase $\Delta$ \cite{kaiser} and for reasonable bias factors
216: ($\sim 2$ for systems collapsing at $z\sim$5 to $\gsim 3$ at
217: $z\gsim 10$) one can gain amplification factors, $A$, in $\Delta$
218: of $\simeq 2$ to $\gsim$4-5 between $z$=5 and 20
219: \cite{k91,k98,cooray,kagmm}. Thus the arcminute scale CIB
220: fluctuations of $\delta F\sim$0.07-0.1 \nwm2sr at 3.6, 4.5 \um\
221: require the mean CIB from these sources to be $F_{\rm CIB} \sim
222: 4-5 \langle A [(1+z)/6]^{-1}\rangle^{-1} (\Delta t/1{\rm
223: Gyr})^{1/2}$ \nwm2sr . Assuming that the fluctuations are produced
224: by low surface brightness systems at much lower $z$ does not alter
225: the required high value of their mean CIB contribution: e.g.
226: taking $\Delta t$=5Gyr corresponding to the cosmic time between
227: $z$=1 and 20 gives $\bar{\Delta}\simeq$0.02 at 1$^\prime$ assuming
228: no biasing. (As discussed below such sources would likely produce
229: shot-noise in excess of what we measure.) We can reach similar
230: conclusions with the entire range of scales $\gsim 0.5^\prime$
231: where we measure the clustering component of the CIB. The left
232: panels of Fig. \ref{fig:shot-noise} show the least squares fits
233: for $F_{\rm CIB}$, assuming the $\Lambda$CDM model, from all the
234: fields data at 3.6 and 4.5 \um. This gives $F_{\rm CIB} \langle A
235: (\frac{1+z}{10})\rangle \gsim (4, 2.5) (\Delta t/1{\rm
236: Gyr})^{-1/2}$ \nwm2sr at (3.6,4.5) \um\ respectively.
237:
238: We thus conservatively take the fiducial flux of $F_{\rm CIB}$=1
239: \nwm2sr as the minimal CIB flux at 3.6 and 4.5 \um\ required by
240: the fluctuations, corresponding to the relative minimal CIB
241: fluctuations of $\sim$7\%. The results below can be re-scaled to
242: arbitrary $F_{\rm CIB}$, but our general conclusions will be valid
243: unless the CIB flux from sources producing the measured
244: fluctuations is significantly {\it below} the above number.
245: Although the net CIB fluxes may be, in principle, much higher,
246: this {\it minimal} CIB level at 3.6 \um\ is smaller than the
247: claimed CIB excess from DIRBE and IRTS measurements over that from
248: galaxy counts \cite{dwekarendt,arendtdwek,irts}, and is consistent
249: with the recent measurements of absorption in the spectra of
250: fairly distant ($z$=0.13-0.18) blazars at TeV energies
251: \cite{dwek05,hess}. Such CIB levels should, however, be measurable
252: from the spectra of gamma-ray bursts at $z\gsim$1-2 detectable
253: with the upcoming NASA's GLAST mission out to 300 Gev \cite{grbs}.
254: Spitzer counts \cite{fazio} show that the remaining ordinary
255: galaxies can contribute only $\simeq$0.15 \nwm2sr at 3.6 \um\
256: \cite{kamm1}, so to explain the CIB fluctuations with the
257: remaining (extrapolated) Spitzer counts sources requires almost
258: $\sim$100\% fluctuation on arcminute scales.
259:
260: 3) The CIB in the populations producing the measured fluctuations
261: significantly exceeds that from extrapolated IRAC counts
262: \cite{fazio}, so the excess flux must come from fainter
263: populations with a significant deviation from the extrapolated
264: counts slope \cite{kamm1}. The measured fluctuations indicate a
265: population with a relatively strong clustering component, which at
266: the same time has low shot noise. This means that the sources must
267: be individually faint. The shot-noise from the remaining galaxies
268: dominates the power spectrum of the CIB at $\lsim$0.5$^\prime$ and
269: its amplitude sets an {\it upper} limit on the shot-noise
270: component of the sources contributing to the arcminute scale CIB
271: fluctuations. The amplitude of the shot-noise component is
272: \cite{review}: $P_{\rm SN}$=$\int_{>m}S(m) dF(m)\!\equiv\!
273: S(\bar{m}) F_{\rm tot}(>\!m)$, where $dF(m)$=$S(m) dN(m)$ is the
274: CIB from sources at the magnitude interval $dm$ and $F_{\rm
275: tot}(m)$ is the total flux from the remaining sources of $>\!m$.
276: The sources contributing to the clustering component of the
277: fluctuations at arcminute scales must not exceed the level of the
278: residual shot noise in the data of $P_{\rm SN}\simeq (2,1) \times
279: 10^{-11}$ nW$^2$/m$^4$/sr at (3.6, 4.5) \um. At 4.5 \um\ this
280: shot-noise amplitude of $P_{\rm SN}$=$10^{-11}$ nW$^2$/m$^4$/sr or
281: $10 (\lambda/3\mu{\rm m})^{-1} $ nJy$\cdot$\nwm2sr , would lead to
282: sources contributing to the signal having mean fluxes less than 12
283: $(F_{\rm CIB}/{\rm nWm^{-2}sr^{-1}})^{-1}$ nJy or AB magnitudes
284: $\bar{m} \geq 29 + 2.5 \lg(\frac{F_{\rm CIB}}{{\rm
285: nWm^{-2}sr^{-1}}})$. At 3.6 \um\ the shot-noise levels are a
286: factor of $\simeq 2$ larger leading to $\bar{m}$ about one
287: magnitude brighter. An important further information could be
288: obtained in still deeper measurements by setting a lower limit on
289: the shot-noise component of the sources contributing to the CIB
290: fluctuations determined when the clustering component disappears
291: of is substantially reduced.
292:
293: \section{Discussion}
294:
295: More information on the nature of populations of these faint
296: sources can be obtained by considering the fraction of baryons
297: that went through stars prior to $z\gsim 5$ ($\Delta t \lsim$1
298: Gyr) needed to explain the level of the CIB required by our data.
299: The net flux at frequency $\nu$ produced by the population with
300: comoving luminosity density ${\cal L}$, is $F_{\rm
301: CIB}$=$\frac{c}{4\pi}\int_{\Delta t} {\cal L}_{\nu^\prime}
302: (1+z)^{-1} dt$, where $\nu^\prime$=$\nu(1+z)$. This requires the
303: average comoving luminosity density at
304: (0.36-0.45)\um$\frac{10}{1+z}$ of:
305: \begin{equation}
306: {\bar{\cal L}} \simeq \frac{4\pi}{c}F_{\rm CIB}(\Delta t)^{-1}
307: (1+{\bar z}) \simeq 1.2\times 10^9 L_\odot{\rm Mpc}^{-3}\; \frac{1
308: {\rm Gyr}}{\Delta t} \frac{1+{\bar z}}{10} \frac{F_{\rm CIB}}{{\rm
309: nW m}^{-2}\mbox{sr}^{-1}} \label{eq:lumden}
310: \end{equation}
311: For comparison the present-day luminosity density measured by the
312: Sloan Digital Sky Survey at 0.32 \um\ to 0.68 \um\ is about an
313: order of magnitude lower \cite{blanton}. This indicates
314: significantly more luminous populations contributing to the CIB
315: fluctuations than at present. The contribution to the density
316: parameter by these sources is thus given by:
317: \begin{equation}
318: \Omega_{\rm *} = \frac{(\Gamma \; \bar{{\cal
319: L}})|_{(0.36-0.45)\mu{\rm m} \frac{10}{1+z}} }{3H_0^2/8\pi G}
320: \simeq
321: 8.3\times10^{-3} \frac{F_{\rm CIB}}{{\rm nW m^{-2}sr^{-1}}}
322: \;\frac{\Gamma}{\Gamma_\odot} \left(\frac{\Delta t}{1 {\rm Gyr}}
323: \right)^{-1} \frac{1+\bar{z}}{10}
324: \label{eq:omega_lum}
325: \end{equation}
326: where $\Gamma$ is the mass-to-light ratio. For comparison the mean
327: density in present day stars is significantly lower at
328: $\Omega_{*,z=0}\! \simeq \!2\!\times\!10^{-3}$
329: \cite{fukugita,cole} and much of the contribution to
330: $\Omega_{*,z=0}$ comes from the late stellar Population I stars
331: with solar metallicities. Strictly speaking eq. \ref{eq:omega_lum}
332: assumes no re-processing of baryons and may thus overestimate the
333: required amount of luminous baryons in the case of short lived
334: massive stars, such as Population III, but it shows that it is
335: energetically easier to produce the significant CIB levels implied
336: by the Spitzer data in the cosmic time available with stars whose
337: mass-function is skewed toward $\Gamma \ll \Gamma_\odot$. (For
338: populations made up of massive stars it can be replaced with eq. 3
339: of Kashlinsky, 2005b). If the CIB fluctuations are produced by
340: populations containing a significant fraction of low-mass stars,
341: which should still be burning today, they would require a large
342: fraction of the present-day stars to have been produced at
343: $z\gsim$6-10.
344:
345: To model the ordinary stellar populations, we have run stellar
346: evolution models using the PEGASE code \cite{pegase}, assuming
347: normal IMF with various metallicities and the ongoing star
348: formation (i.e. star formation rate $\propto \exp(-t/t_{\rm
349: burst})$ with $t_{\rm burst}$=20 Gyr). For Population III we
350: adopted the spectral energy distribution from \cite{santos}. Fig.
351: \ref{fig:m2l} shows the luminosity per unit mass in stars
352: ($\Gamma^{-1}$) assuming the ordinary population to be less than 1
353: Gyr old ($\Gamma \sim$0.2-0.5$\Gamma_\odot$) and contrasts them
354: with the expectations for massive Pop III systems
355: ($10^{-2}$-$10^{-3}\Gamma_\odot$). If the CIB fluctuation signal
356: comes entirely from the Population III systems, eq.
357: \ref{eq:omega_lum} would give the minimal fraction of baryons
358: locked in them $\sim 0.15 \% (F_{\rm CIB}/{\rm
359: nW\;m^{-2}sr^{-1}})$. If the baryons are re-used in stars this
360: fraction would be decreased. This number is in agreement with that
361: of \cite{grbs} after scaling to the appropriate CIB levels: 0.14\%
362: $(F_{\rm CIB, bolometric}/{\rm nW\;m^{-2}sr^{-1}}) (z/10)
363: (\epsilon/0.007)^{-1}$ assuming the hydrogen burning efficiency
364: $\epsilon$. (Such massive stars would be fully convective with the
365: overall efficiency reaching $\epsilon \gsim 3\times 10^{-3}$,
366: Schaerer 2002).
367:
368: The sources satisfying the above constraints had masses in
369: luminous matter of:
370: \begin{equation}
371: M_* \sim 4\pi d_L^2(1+z)^{-1} \;\Gamma S(\bar{m}) \lsim 7 \times
372: 10^5 h^{-2} M_\odot \; \frac{\Gamma_{\frac{(3.6-4.5)\mu{\rm
373: m}}{(1+z)}}}{5\times 10^{-3}\Gamma_\odot}\;
374: \frac{[S(\bar{m})/\nu]}{20 {\rm nJy}} \;
375: \left(\frac{1+z}{10}\right)^{1.6} \label{mass}
376: \end{equation}
377: where the luminosity distance was approximated $d_L\simeq 3.2
378: (1+z)^{1.3}h^{-1}$Gpc. Such Population III sources, with only
379: $\lsim$ a few times $10^5 M_\odot$ in stellar material, would be
380: below the detection threshold in the high-$z$ Lyman dropout
381: searches of \cite{bouwens,willis} considered by \cite{sf06}. In
382: any case theoretical predictions of the luminosity function of
383: Population III sources are necessarily model-dependent as they
384: depend on the assumptions of the small-scale power and its
385: evolution as well as the microphysics governing the various
386: feedback effects during the collapse of the first haloes. The
387: Press-Schechter type prescriptions may break down for the slope
388: and regime of power spectra on the relevant scale \cite{springel}
389: and the feedback mechanisms due to the $H_2$ destruction by the
390: Lyman-Werner bands radiation \cite{haiman} likely suppress star
391: formation in a complicated halo-mass dependent way.
392:
393: To resolve the faint sources responsible for the CIB fluctuations,
394: their individual flux must
395: exceed the confusion limit usually taken to be $\alpha\geq 5$
396: times the flux dispersion produced by these emissions
397: \cite{condon}. Lower flux sources will be drowned in the confusion
398: noise; of course, this is precisely where CIB studies would take
399: off. If such sources were to contribute the CIB required by our
400: data, at 3.6 \um\ they had to have the average surface density of
401: $\bar{n} \sim F_{\rm CIB}^2/P_{\rm SN} \sim 2 \; {\rm arcsec}^{-2}
402: \; \left(\frac{F_{\rm CIB}}{{\rm nWm^{-2}sr^{-1}}}\right)^2
403: \left(\frac{P_{\rm SN}}{10^{-11}\; {\rm
404: nW^2m^{-4}sr^{-1}}}\right)^{-1}$. To avoid the confusion limit and
405: resolve these sources individually at, say, 5-sigma level
406: ($\alpha$=5) one would need a beam area $\omega_{\rm beam} \leq
407: \alpha^{-2}/\bar{n} \sim 0.017\left(\frac{F_{\rm CIB}}{{\rm
408: nWm^{-2}sr^{-1}}}\right)^{-2}{\rm arcsec}^2 $
409: or circular radius
410: $\lsim$0.07 $(F_{\rm CIB}/{\rm nWm^{-2}sr^{-1}})^{-1}$arcsec. This
411: is not in the realm of the current instruments, but the {\it JWST}
412: could be able to resolve these objects \cite{jwst}. Extrapolation
413: of this argument to shorter $\lambda$ is model-dependent as it
414: would assume both the SED of these sources (to predict their
415: magnitudes at $\lambda <$3 \um) and their $z$ (to predict the
416: location of their Lyman break and whether or not they are
417: observable at $\lambda <$3 \um). In any case, at 1.1 and 1.6 \um\
418: confusion is not reached until $m_{\rm AB} \gsim 28$
419: \cite{thompson}. If the first stars produced dusty environments
420: their far-IR luminosities will be substantial and these sources
421: should be visible at wavelengths redshifted today to mm and sub-mm
422: bands. In that case, they may be resolvable with the ALMA
423: \footnote{http://www.alma.nrao.edu/} large array, whose sub-mm
424: resolution is better than 0.02$^{\prime\prime}$.
425:
426: Finally, the fluctuations are unlikely to come from low-luminosity
427: low-$z$ normal galaxies. Such galaxies must have the surface
428: density $\bar{n} \gsim 3\times 10^7$deg$^{-2}$ with the 3.6, 4.5
429: \um\ fluxes $\lsim$10-20 nJy. Unless they are significantly
430: fainter than this limit, emissions from star-forming systems
431: should have comparable flux at shorter $\lambda$ out to the 4000
432: \AA\ break for passively evolving populations or to the Lyman
433: cutoff at $\simeq$0.1 \um\ for star-forming galaxies. Galaxy
434: counts now extend to $m\simeq$30.5 (2 nJy) at 0.67 \um\ and to 29
435: (10 nJy) at 1.6 \um\ \cite{madaupozzetti} and are over an order of
436: magnitude below the required value of $\bar{n}$ at the faintest
437: magnitudes. This would exclude star forming galaxies as faint as 2
438: nJy at 0.67$/(1+z)$ \um\ at $z\lsim$5.7 and passively evolving
439: populations out to 10 nJy at 1.6$/(1+z)$ \um\ at $z\lsim$3. We
440: note, however, that this analysis cannot exclude ``abnormal"
441: populations at low $z$.
442:
443: This work is supported by NSF AST-0406587 and NASA Spitzer
444: NM0710076 grants.
445:
446: %\texttt{\{thebibliography\}}%
447: \begin{thebibliography}{3}
448: %\bibitem [Abell 2002]{abell}{Abell, T. 2002, Science, 295, 93}
449: \bibitem [Aharonian et al 2006]{hess}{Aharonian, F. et al 2006,
450: Nature, 440,1018}
451: \bibitem [Arendt \& Dwek 2003]{arendtdwek}{Arendt, R. \& Dwek, E. 2003, Ap.J., 585, 305}
452: \bibitem [Bertin \& Arnouts 1996]{sextractor}{Bertin, E. \& Arnouts, S. 1996, Astron.Astrophys. Suppl., 117, 393-404}
453: \bibitem [Blanton et al 2003]{blanton}{Blanton, M.R. et al 2003, Ap.J., 592,
454: 819-838}
455: \bibitem [Bouwens et al 2005]{bouwens}{Bouwens, R.J., Illingworth,
456: G., Thompson, R., \& Franx, M. 2005, Ap.J., 624, L5-L8}
457: %\bibitem [Bromm et al 1999]{bromm}{Bromm, V. et al 1999, Ap.J., 527, L5}
458: \bibitem [Bromm \& Larson 2004]{brommlarson}{Bromm, V. \& Larson,
459: R. 2004, Ann. Rev. A. A., 42, 79}
460: \bibitem [Bruzual \& Charlot 2003]{bruzual-charlot}{Bruzual, A. \& Charlot, S. 2003,
461: MNRAS, 344, 1000-1028}
462: \bibitem [Cooray et al 2004]{cooray}{Cooray, A. et al 2004, Ap.J., 606, 611}
463: \bibitem [Cooray \& Yoshida 2004]{pop3-qso}{Cooray, A. \& Yoshida,
464: N. 2004, MNRAS, 351, L71}
465: \bibitem [Cole et al 2001]{cole}{Cole, S. et al 2001, MNRAS, 326, 255-273}
466: \bibitem [Condon 1974]{condon}{Condon, J. 1974, Ap.J., 188, 279-286}
467: \bibitem [Dickinson et al 2003]{goods}{Dickinson, M. et al 2003, ``The great observatories origins deeps survey",
468: in ``The mass of galaxies at low and high redshift", ed. R. Bender
469: \& A. Renzini, astro-ph/0204213}
470: \bibitem [Dwek \& Arendt 1998]{dwekarendt}{Dwek, E. \& Arendt, R. 1998,
471: Ap.J.,508,L9}
472: \bibitem [Dwek et al 2005]{dwek05}{Dwek, E., Krennrich, F., \& Arendt,
473: R. 2005, Ap.J., 634,155}
474: \bibitem [Fazio et al 2004]{fazio}{Fazio, G. et al 2004,
475: Ap.J.Suppl., 154, 39}
476: \bibitem [Fernandez \& Komatsu 2005]{komatsu}{Fernandez, E. \&
477: Komatsu, E. 2005, Ap.J., astro-ph/0508174}
478: \bibitem [Fioc \& Rocca-Volmerange 1998]{pegase}{Fioc, M. \& Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1998,
479: Astron. Astrophys., 326, 950-962}
480: \bibitem [Fukugita et al 1998]{fukugita}{Fukugita, M., Hogan, C.J. \& Peebles,
481: P.J.E. 1998, 503, 518-530}
482: \bibitem [Gardner et al 2006]{jwst}{Gardner, J.P. et al 2006,
483: Space Sci Reviews, in press. astro-ph/0606175}
484: %\bibitem [Gordon et al 1998]{ere}{Gordon, K.D., Witt, A.N. \& Friedman, B.C.
485: %1998, Ap.J., 522-540}
486: %\bibitem [Greif \& Bromm 2006]{pop2.5}{Greif, T. H. \& Bromm, V. 2006, MNRAS,
487: %submitted, astro-ph/0604367}
488: \bibitem [Haiman et al 1997]{haiman}{Haiman, Z., Rees, M.J., \&
489: Loeb, A. 1997, Ap.J., 476, 458}
490: \bibitem [Kaiser 1984]{kaiser}{Kaiser, N. 1984, Ap.J., 284, L9}
491: \bibitem [Kashlinsky 1991]{k91}{Kashlinsky 1991, Ap.J., 376, L5}
492: \bibitem [Kashlinsky 1998]{k98}{Kashlinsky 1998, Ap.J., 492, 1}
493: \bibitem [Kashlinsky 2005a]{review}{Kashlinsky, A. 2005, Phys. Rep., 409,
494: 361-438}
495: \bibitem [Kashlinsky 2005b]{grbs}{Kashlinsky, A. 2005, Ap.J., 633,
496: L5}
497: \bibitem [Kashlinsky \& Rees 1983]{kr83}{Kashlinsky, A. \& Rees,
498: M.J. 1983, MNRAS, 205, 955}
499: \bibitem [Kashlinsky et al 2004]{kagmm}{Kashlinsky, A., Arendt, R., Gardner, J.P., Mather, J.C., \& Moseley, S.H. 2004, Ap.J., 608, 1 }
500: \bibitem [KAMM1]{kamm1}{Kashlinsky, A., Arendt,
501: R., Mather, J.C. \& Moseley, S.H. 2005, Nature, 438, 45. (KAMM1)}
502: \bibitem [KAMM2]{kamm2}{Kashlinsky, A., Arendt,
503: R., Mather, J.C. \& Moseley, S.H. 2006, Ap.J., submitted. (KAMM2)}
504: \bibitem [Kennicutt 1998]{kennicutt}{Kennicutt, R. 1998, ARAA,
505: 36,189}
506: %\bibitem [Leinert et al 1997]{leinert}{Leinert, Ch. et al 1997, A\&A Suppl, 127,
507: %1-99}
508: \bibitem [Madau \& Pozzetti 2000]{madaupozzetti}{Madau, P. \&
509: Pozzetti, L. 2000, MNRAS, 312, L9}
510: \bibitem [Madau \& Silk 2005]{madausilk}{Madau, P. \& Silk, J.
511: 2005,MNRAS, 359, L37}
512: \bibitem [Matsumoto et al 2005]{irts}{Matsumoto, M. et al 2005, Ap.J., 626, 31}
513: \bibitem [Press \& Schechter 1974]{pressschechter}{Press, W. \&
514: Schechter, P. 1974, Ap.J., 184, 425}
515: \bibitem [Santos et al 2002]{santos}{Santos, M.R., Bromm, V., Kamionkowski, M. 2002,MNRAS,336,1082}
516: \bibitem [Salvaterra \& Ferrara 2003]{sf2003}{Salvaterra, R. \& Ferrara, A. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 973}
517: \bibitem [Salvaterra \& Ferrara 2006]{sf06}{Salvaterra,R. \& Ferrara, A. 2006, MNRAS, 367, L11-L15}
518: \bibitem [Savage \& Oliver 2005]{so}{Savage, R.S. \& Oliver, S.
519: 2005, astro-ph/0511359}
520: \bibitem [Scalo 1986]{scalo}{Scalo, J.M. 1986, Fundamentals of Cosmic
521: Physics, 11, 1-278}
522: \bibitem [Schaerer 2002]{schaerer}{Schaerer, D. 2002, Aston. Astrophys., 382,28}
523: %\bibitem [Spergel et al 2006]{wmap}{Spergel, D. et al 2003, Ap.J., submitted.
524: %astro-ph/0603449}
525: \bibitem [Springel et al 2005]{springel}{Springel, V. et al 2005,
526: Nature, 435, 629}
527: \bibitem [Thompson et al 2005]{thompson}{Thompson, R. I. et al 2005, Astron. J.,
528: 130, 1-12}
529: \bibitem [Willis \& Courbin 2005]{willis}{Willis, J.P. \& Courbin,
530: F. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 1348-1356}
531: %\bibitem [50]{bernstein}{Bernstein, R., Freedman, W. \& Madore, B.
532: %2002, Ap.J., 571, 85-106}
533: %\bibitem [51]{mattila}{Mattila, K. 2003, Ap.J., 591, 119-124}
534: %\bibitem [Cambresy et al 2001]{cambresy}{Cambresy, L. et al 2001,Ap.J.,555,563}
535: %\bibitem [Ferrara 1998]{h2creation}{Ferrara, A. 1998, Ap.J., 499, L17}
536: %\bibitem [Gorjian et al 2001]{gorjian}{Gorjian, V. et al 2001,536,550}
537: %\bibitem [Kashlinsky \& Odenwald 2000a]{ko}{Kashlinsky, A. \&
538: %Odenwald, S. 2000a, Ap.J.,528,74}
539: %\bibitem [Kashlinsky \& Odenwald 2000b]{koscience}{Kashlinsky, A. \& Odenwald, S. 2000b, Science,289,246}
540: %\bibitem [Kashlinsky et al 2002]{komsc}{Kashlinsky, A., Odenwald, S., Mather, J.C., Skrutskie, M. 2002, Ap.J,579,L53}
541: %\bibitem [Kogut et al 2003]{kogut}{Kogut, A. et al 2003, Ap.J.Suppl.,148,161}
542: %\bibitem [Madau \& Pozzetti 2000]{madau}{Madau, P. \& Pozzetti, L. 2000,MNRAS,312,L9}
543: %\bibitem [Magliochetti et al 2003]{ferrara}{Magliochetti, M., Salvaterra, R., Ferrara, A. 2003, MNRAS,342,L25}
544: %\bibitem [Peacock \& Heavens 1991]{peacock}{Peacock, J.A. \&
545: %Heavens, A.F. 1991, MNRAS, 243, 133}
546: %\bibitem [Salvaterra et al 2005]{salva2005}{Salvaterra, R. et al 2005, MNRAS, in press. astro-ph/05122403 (SMFS)}
547: %\bibitem [Schneider et al 2005]{schneider}{Schneider, R. et al 2005, astro-ph/0510685}
548: %\bibitem [Sheth \& Tormen 1999]{sheth}{Sheth, R. \& Tormen, G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119}
549: %\bibitem [Wright \& Reese 2000]{wrightreese}{Wright, E.L. \& Reese, E.D. 2000, Ap.J., 545, 43}
550: \end{thebibliography}
551:
552: \clearpage
553:
554: \begin{figure}
555: \plotone{f1.eps}
556: \caption{Left: Shot noise power amplitude from the data is
557: compared to the values of $P_{\rm SN}$ estimated by integrating
558: the counts. Solid lines show the levels of $P_{\rm SN}$ reached in
559: the QSO1700 analysis \cite{kamm1}. Light shaded areas show the
560: levels of $P_{\rm SN}$ reached in KAMM2. Symbols plot $P_{\rm SN}$
561: by integrating the counts evaluated for all five fields in Table 1
562: of KAMM2. Diamonds correspond to HDFN-E1 region, triangles to
563: HDFN-E2, squares to CDFS-E1 and asterisks to CDFS-E2; open circles
564: correspond to counts for the QS1700 field. Solid line shows
565: $P_{\rm SN}$ according to the fit to IRAC counts of \cite{fazio}
566: used in \cite{kamm1}; dashed lines correspond to the IRAC counts
567: analysis from \cite{so}. The counts are significantly incomplete
568: due to confusion at the levels of $P_{\rm SN}$ reached with our
569: analysis and give a {\it lower} limit on the limiting magnitude.
570: Right: CIB fluctuations from KAMM2 at the shot-noise levels shown
571: with shaded regions in the left panel. The notations for the
572: counts from the GOODS data is the same as in the left panels.
573: Light-shaded dashes show the shot noise fluctuations. Solid lines
574: show the least squares fits to the CIB fluctuations from sources
575: at $z\gsim 6$ assuming $\Lambda$CDM model as described in the
576: text. } \label{fig:shot-noise}
577: \end{figure}
578:
579: \clearpage
580:
581: \begin{figure}
582: \plotone{f2.eps}
583: \caption{Rest-frame luminosity per unit mass plotted vs
584: wavelength for Population III spectra (from Santos et al - dashed
585: lines) and ``ordinary" stellar populations at 0.5 and 1 Gyr with
586: Salpeter-Scalo IMF (computed from PEGASE for $Z=0, 10^{-3},2\times
587: 10^{-3}, 5\times 10^{-3}, 10^{-1}$ assuming constant burst of star
588: formation, i.e. $SFR \propto \exp(-t/t_{\rm burst})$ with $t_{\rm
589: burst}=20$ Gyr.) $L_\odot = 3.8\times 10^{33}$ erg/sec is the
590: solar bolometric luminosity. The part of emissions probed by the
591: IRAC Channels 1 (3.6 \um) and 2 (4.5 \um) at $z$=5,10 is shown
592: with the marked regions.} \label{fig:m2l}
593: \end{figure}
594:
595: \end{document}
596: