Paper detail

A survey for the missing hydrogen in high redshift radio sources

Unlike at lower redshift, where there is a 40% detection rate, surveys for 21-cm absorption arising within the hosts of z > 1 radio galaxies and quasars have been remarkably unsuccessful. Curran et al.(2008) suggest that this is due to the high redshift selection biasing towards the most optically bright objects (those most luminous in the ultra-violetin the rest-frame), where the gas is ionised by the active galactic nucleus. They therefore argue that there must be a population of fainter objects in which the hydrogen is not ionised and which exhibit a similar detection rate as at lower redshifts. In order to find this "missing" gas at high redshift, we have therefore undertaken a survey of z > 2 radio sources, selected by optical faintness. Despite having optical magnitudes which indicate that the targets have ultra-violet luminosities below the threshold where all of the gas is ionised, there were no detections in any of the eight sources for which useable data were obtained. Upon an analysis of the spectral energy distributions, ionising photon rates can only be determined for three of these, all of which suggest that the objects are above the highest luminosity of a current 21-cm detection. The possibility that the other five could be located at lower photon rates cannot be ruled out, although zero detections out of five is not statistically significant. Another possible cause of the non-detections is that our selection biases the sample towards sources which are very steep in the radio band, with a mean spectral index of = -1.0, cf. -0.3 for both the 21-cm detections and UV luminous non-detections. This adds the further possibility that the sources have very extended emission, which would have the effect of reducing the coverage by the putative absorbing gas, thus decreasing the sensitivity of the observation.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.