arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 1709.07008astro-ph.GA
收藏

博物馆范围调查的$237$莱曼- $α$光谱建模

Modeling $237$ Lyman-$α$ spectra of the MUSE-Wide survey

Max Gronke

备注：
10 pages, 7 figures; data can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/a-spectra-of-MW
发表信息：
A&A 608, A139 (2017)
阅读 PDF
arXiv 页面 ↗HTML 原文 ↗

摘要：

我们将“全博物馆调查”（Herenz et al. 2017）的$237$ Lyman- $α$（Ly $α$）光谱与一套辐射转移模拟进行了比较，该模拟由中性气体和尘埃的同心移动壳内的中心光源组成。这六个参数的壳模型已被大量使用在以前的研究中，然而，显着较小的数据集。我们发现壳模型可以很好地再现观察到的光谱形状-比我们也拟合到数据集的常见的“高斯-高斯”模型更好。具体来说，我们发现，$\sim 94\%$的拟合具有良好的拟合值$p(χ^2)>0.1$。大量的光谱使我们能够鲁棒地表征壳模型参数范围，因此，典型的现实光谱的光谱形状。我们发现，绝大多数的Ly $α$光谱形状需要流出，只有$\sim 5\%$是很好地拟合通过流入壳。此外，我们发现$\sim 46\%$的光谱是一致的中性氢柱密度$<10^{17}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ -建议的一个不可忽略的部分连续泄漏的博物馆范围内的样品。此外，我们相关的光谱对赖氨酸$α$晕属性对彼此，但没有发现任何强相关性。

英文摘要：

We compare $237$ Lyman-$α$ (Ly$α$) spectra of the "MUSE-Wide survey" (Herenz et al. 2017) to a suite of radiative transfer simulations consisting of a central luminous source within a concentric, moving shell of neutral gas, and dust. This six parameter shell-model has been used numerously in previous studies, however, on significantly smaller data-sets. We find that the shell-model can reproduce the observed spectral shape very well - better than the also common `Gaussian-minus-Gaussian' model which we also fitted to the dataset. Specifically, we find that $\sim 94\%$ of the fits possess a goodness-of-fit value of $p(χ^2)>0.1$. The large number of spectra allows us to robustly characterize the shell-model parameter range, and consequently, the spectral shapes typical for realistic spectra. We find that the vast majority of the Ly$α$ spectral shapes require an outflow and only $\sim 5\%$ are well-fitted through an inflowing shell. In addition, we find $\sim 46\%$ of the spectra to be consistent with a neutral hydrogen column density $<10^{17}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ - suggestive of a non-negligible fraction of continuum leakers in the MUSE-Wide sample. Furthermore, we correlate the spectral against the Ly$α$ halo properties against each other but do not find any strong correlation.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。

↑