Paper detail

A blind Green Bank Telescope millimetre-wave survey for redshifted molecular absorption

We present the methodology for ``blind'' millimetre-wave surveys for redshifted molecular absorption in the CO/HCO$^+$ rotational lines. The frequency range $30-50$ GHz appears optimal for such surveys, providing sensitivity to absorbers at $z \gtrsim 0.85$. It is critical that the survey is ``blind'', i.e. based on a radio-selected sample, including sources without known redshifts. We also report results from the first large survey of this kind, using the Q-band receiver on the Green Bank Telescope (GBT) to search for molecular absorption towards 36 sources, 3 without known redshifts, over the frequency range $39.6 - 49.5$ GHz. The GBT survey has a total redshift path of $Δz \approx 24$, mostly at $0.81 < z < 1.91$, and a sensitivity sufficient to detect equivalent ${\rm H_2}$ column densities $\gtrsim 3 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ in absorption at $5σ$ significance (using the CO-to-${\rm H_2}$ and HCO$^+$-to-${\rm H_2}$ conversion factors of the Milky Way). The survey yielded no confirmed detections of molecular absorption, yielding the $2σ$ upper limit $n(z=1.2) < 0.15$ on the redshift number density of molecular gas at column densities $N({\rm H_2}) \gtrsim 3 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.