arXiv:1512.03602v1 [astro-ph.

CO] 11 Dec 2015

Estimating the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Signal from

Quasar Hosts using a Halo Occupation
Distribution based approach

Dhruba Dutta Chowdhury

Department of Physics, Presidency University

Thesis Adviser
Dr. Suchetana Chatterjee
Assistant Professor, Department of Physics, Presidency University
 Dr. Suchetana Chatterjee
Assistant Professor
Deparment of Physics
Presidency University

Certificate
This is to certify that the work incorporated in the thesis “Estimating
the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Signal from Quasar Hosts using a Halo Occupation
Distribution based approach” has been submitted by Mr. Dhruba Dutta
Chowdhury to the Department of Physics at Presidency University, Kolkata
in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of Master of Science. This
report is a bonafide record of the research work carried out by Mr. Dutta
Chowdhury under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge, the results
presented in this report have not been submitted to any other university or
institute for the award of any degree or diploma.

Dr. Suchetana Chatterjee

Thesis Adviser

June 1, 2021
Kolkata

1
 Declaration by the Candidate
I hereby declare that the work reported in this thesis is original. It was
carried out by me at the Department of Physics at Presidency University,
Kolkata, India, under the supervision of Dr. Suchetana Chatterjee. The re-
port is based on discovery of new facts and new interpretation of established
facts by others. The author is solely responsible for unintentional oversights
and errors, if any. I further declare that it has not formed the basis for the
award of any degree, or diploma, of any other university or institution.

June 1, 2021
Department of Physics
Presidency University
86/1 College Street
Kolkata-700 073, West Bengal, India

Dhruba Dutta Chowdhury

2
 Abstract

The Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect is a spectral distortion in the Cosmic

Microwave Background (CMB), caused due to up-scattering of CMB photons
by high energy electron distributions. The largest SZ distortion in the CMB
is caused by the hot electrons present in the intra-cluster medium (ICM).
However several other small scale astrophysical processes can also contribute
to the SZ distortion in the CMB.
Analytic studies have shown that the interstellar (ISM) electron gas of the
host galaxy heated by quasar feedback can also cause substantial SZ effect.
For successful detection of the quasar feedback signal, the SZ signal from the
virialised gas in the host haloes of quasars needs to be properly quantified. In
this dissertation work, I have estimated the SZ signal from quasar hosts using
analytic models of the virialised gas in the ICM/ISM. As a new extension
to existing work I have used the measured Halo Occupation Distribution
properties of quasar hosts. The results show that the average SZ signal from
quasar hosts decreases with redshift, varying from 10−4 arcminute2 at z = 0.1
to 10−5 arcminute2 at z = 1. This result is consistent with what has been
observed by the Planck team and will be used to theoretically validate the
experimental findings of Ruan et al. (2015) who reported a first detection of
the SZ signal from quasar feedback.
Contents

1 Introduction 6
1.1 Standard Model of Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Cosmic Microwave Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.1 Origin of the CMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3 Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3.1 Thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Effect . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3.2 Kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.4 Quasars and Thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Effect . . . . . . . . 16
1.4.1 Quasar Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.4.2 Thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Effect as a Probe of Feed-
back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.5 Chapter Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2 Modelling the Intracluster Gas in Quasar Hosting Haloes 20

2.1 Universal Dark Matter Density Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2 Universal Halo Gas Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.1 Polytropic Gas Model in Hydrostatic Equilibrium . . . 22
2.2.2 Gas tracing Dark Matter in Halo Outskirts . . . . . . . 23
2.2.3 Central Gas Density and Temperature . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.4 Gas Pressure Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3 Limitations of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3 Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Distortion from Host Halo Gas 29

3.1 3D Compton y-Parameter Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2 Total SZ Distortion from a Halo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 Rescaling the SZ Signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4 Average Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Signal from Quasar Hosts 35

4.1 Halo Mass Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.2 Halo Occupation Distribution of Quasars . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.3 Number Density of Quasar hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

1
 4.4 Average SZ signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5 Discussion of Results 43

2
List of Tables

1.1 Cosmological Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4.1 Best fit values of HOD model from Richardson et al. (2012) . 39
4.2 The rescaled average Compton y-parameter at different redshifts 42

3
List of Figures

1.1 COBE blackbody spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.2 COBE all-sky map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 WMAP all-sky map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4 Planck all-sky map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5 Planck all-sky map at all its nine frequencies . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.6 Spectral distortion from SZ effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.7 Comparison of Thermal and Kinetic SZ effect . . . . . . . . . 16

2.1 Comparison of gas density and dark matter density profiles . . 26

2.2 Gas density profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3 Gas temperature profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.4 Gas pressure profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.1 3D Compton y-parameter profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.2 Y-M relation at different redshifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.3 Y re − M relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.1 Sheth & Tormen Halo Mass Function (1999) . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.2 Mean Occupation Function of Quasars . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3 Number of quasar hosting haloes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4 Rescaled Compton y-parameter varying with redshift . . . . . 42

4
Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my thesis adviser Suchetana

Chatterjee. It has been a great experience working with her for my master’s
thesis. Her constant encouragement and guidance have been instrumental in
completing my dissertation. I look forward to continuing my work with her.
I would also like to thank Ritaban Chatterjee, who has kindly agreed to be
the co-reader of my dissertation work. Both of them have taken great pains
to read through my project proposal and point out every mistake committed.
I am grateful to all the professors who have taught me, starting from my
undergraduate days at Presidency College and helped to lay my foundations
in physics, to my school teachers who have done all the hard work to nurture
me into what I am today, and especially to my high school physics tuition
teacher, Mr. P.K. Singh whose passionate teaching made me love physics and
take it up as a career.
I would like to thank all PRESI-PACT (our research group) members.
Our group-meetings were immensely fruitful where we learnt from each other.
I thank all my friends who have played a major role in my life both
academically and otherwise. Life without them is unimaginable. In the last
two years of my formal education at Presidency University, I have made
friendships that I will cherish forever.
Last but not the least, I thank my family for having faith in me, partic-
ularly my mother who has been a great source of inspiration. Her untiring
work and courage to succeed in the face of adversities encourages me to live
up to her expectations and scale newer heights.

5
Chapter 1

Introduction

In this chapter, I shall review the background on which my project is based,

thereby establishing a motivation for my dissertation work. I shall also
present the organisation of the rest of my thesis.

1.1 Standard Model of Cosmology

Our current understanding of the large-scale properties of the Universe is
based on the standard model of cosmology, which assumes that the Universe
began in an initially hot and dense state and has been expanding since then.
Our paradigm relies on the cosmological principle which states that on length
scales of the order of 100 Mpc or more the Universe is spatially homogeneous
and isotropic. The total energy of the Universe is conserved and as the Uni-
verse expands adiabatically, its energy density and temperature decreases.
Within the framework of Einstein’s General Relativity and the cosmologi-
cal principle, the space-time separation between two events is given by the
Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric-

ds2 = −c2 dt2 + a2 (t) dr 2 + Sk2 (r) dΩ2

(1.1)

where a(t) is the dimensionless scale factor of the Universe with a(t0 ) = 1,
which is the scale factor at the current epoch, (r, θ, φ) are the comoving co-
ordinates of a point in space and t is the cosmological proper time. As to
the contents of the Universe, it is spatially flat and about 70% of the to-
tal energy density consists of dark energy, which is either the ‘cosmological
constant’ or some other form of energy with a negative pressure. The remain-
ing 30% is comprised of matter (only 4% is ordinary matter, the rest being
dark matter). A small fraction of the total energy is in the form of radiation:
photons and neutrinos (Spergel et al. 2003; Planck Collaboration XVI 2014).

6
To explain the growth of gravitationally collapsed structures in the Universe,
it is assumed that inflation (brief period of exponential expansion) in the
early Universe generated density perturbations with a nearly scale invariant
spectrum involving Gaussian fluctuations.
The Standard Model was established through years of observations and
theoretical effort. In 1929, Edwin Hubble measured redshifts of nearby galax-
ies and found that a linear relationship exists between redshifts and the
proper distances of these galaxies z = Hc0 r. ‘Hubble’s Law’ suggested an ex-
panding Universe and the subsequent aspects of Big Bang theory. However
the theory was firmly established with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave
Background (CMB) in the 1960s (Penzias & Wilson 1965; Dicke et al. 1965).
Along with the CMB and other observations, the standard model of cosmol-
ogy known as the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model (ΛCDM) was established
(e.g., Freedman et al. 2001; Spergel et al. 2003; Percival et al. 2007; Kowal-
ski et al. 2008).

1.2 Cosmic Microwave Background

The existence of the CMB was first predicted by George Gammow, Ralph
Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948 based on the Big Bang Model (Alpher, Herman & Gamow
1948). They estimated the CMB temperature to be 5K. It was again pre-
dicted by Yakov Zel’vodich and Robert Dicke in the early 1960s and finally
discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964. While working with a
radio antenna in Bell Laboratories Penzias and Wilson observed an isotropic
signal at λ = 7.35 cm which was free from seasonal variations and could not
be associated with an isolated celestial source (Penzias & Wilson 1965). In a
companion letter to the same issue of the journal Dicke et al. (1965) proposed
that the isotropic signal detected by Penzias & Wilson (1965) could be the
relic radiation from the early, hot, dense and opaque universe as predicted
by the Big Bang theory.
The CMB spectrum was first measured accurately by the Cosmic Back-
ground Explorer (COBE) satellite over a wide range of wavelength. COBE
measured the spectrum in the wavelength range 0.1 mm < λ < 10 mm and
found it to be very close to that of an ideal blackbody with an accuracy
∆ǫ/ǫ ≤ 10−4 at any point (θ, φ) on the sky (Hinshaw et al. 1996). The
CMB temperature field has a dipolar anisotropy, which arises due to the
motion of the satellite with respect to a frame in which the CMB is at rest.
COBE accurately measured the dipole anisotropy and found its amplitude
∆Tdipole = 3.372 ± 0.004 mK (95% CL) (Fixsen et al. 1996).
After subtraction of the dipole distortion, it is found that the radiation

7
field is nearly isotropic with mean temperature of the all sky CMB map
measured to be T◦ = 2.728 ± 0.002 K (95% C.L) (Fixsen et al. 1996) and
relative standard deviation of 1 part in 105 (Hinshaw et al. 1996). COBE
had an angular resolution of 7◦ .
1
Z
hT i = T (θ, φ) sin θdθdφ = 2.728K (1.2)
4π
*  +1/2
2
δT
= 1.1 × 10−5 (1.3)
T
With a better resolution of 0.3◦ , the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) has measured some of the basic parameters of the ΛCDM
model with very high precision (e.g. Spergel et al. 2003; Dunkley et al. 2009).
These parameters are dark matter density in the Universe (ΩDM ), baryonic
matter density (Ωb ), the Hubble constant (H0 ), the scale dependence of fluc-
tuations (ns ), and the redshift of reionization (zreion ). These together with
other measurements, determine the remaining parameters of the standard
model.
Coming to the state of the art measurements, the Planck satellite has a
resolution of 5 − 33′ (depending on the frequency channel). The first Planck
data was released in 2013 and it further constrained the cosmological param-
eters (Planck Collaboration XVI 2014). According to its 2013 data release,
the universe is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years old, and contains 69 ± 1% dark en-
ergy, 25.8±0.4% dark matter and 4.82±0.05% ordinary matter. The Hubble
constant is found to be 67.4 ± 1.4 (km/s)/Mpc. (Planck Collaboration XVI
2014).

Cosmological parameters Best fit value (68 % C.L.)

Dark Enegry density, ΩΛ 0.67 ± 0.02
Dark matter density, Ωdm 0.27 ± 0.02
Baryon density, Ωb 0.04 ± 0.01
Matter density, Ωm 0.31 ± 0.02
Hubble constant, H 67.4 ± 1.4 km/s/Mpc
Reduced Hubble constant, h=H/100 0.67 ± 0.01

Table 1.1: Cosmological Parameters as determined by

Planck Collaboration XVI (2014)

8
Figure 1.1: Blackbody spectrum from COBE at 2.728 K. Image courtesy:
COBE science team (Fixsen et al. 1996)

Figure 1.2: Four-year temperature smoothed all sky maps from COBE
over angular resolution of 10◦ after subtraction of the monopole and dipole
anisotropy. Image courtesy: COBE science team (Bandey et al. 1998)

9
Figure 1.3: WMAP Nine-year temperature all sky maps measured to an
angular resolution of 0.3◦ shown in a Mollweide projection after subtraction
of the monopole and dipole anisotropy. The anisotropies are resolved further
compared to COBE. Image courtesy: WMAP science team (Bennett et al.
2013)

Figure 1.4: Planck SMICA February (2015) all sky map of temperature
anisotropies after subtraction of the monopole, dipole and galactic dust cor-
rection. Planck has a resolution of 5−33′ depending on the frequency channel.
Image courtesy: ESA, Planck Collaboration

10
Figure 1.5: Planck all-sky maps at nine frequencies during its first 15.5
months of observations released in March 2013. The Cosmic Microwave
Background is most evident in the frequency bands between 70 and 217
GHz. Observations at the lowest frequencies are affected by foreground ra-
dio emission from the interstellar material in the Milky Way, mostly due to
synchrotron radiation emitted by electrons. At the highest frequencies, ob-
servations are affected by emission from interstellar dust in the Milky Way.
The combination of data collected at all the nine frequencies is important for
optimal reconstruction of the noise, in order to subtract them and find the
exact signal from the CMB. Image courtesy: ESA, Planck Collaboration

1.2.1 Origin of the CMB

In the hot and dense initial stages of the Universe, the average energy per
photon was very high and with a very large photon to baryon ratio, any atom
which formed by radiative combination of protons and electrons was short-
lived. Thus the Universe was almost completely ionised. Due to frequent
Thomson scatterings of the photons with the electrons and proton-electron
interaction, the baryon-photon plasma was tightly coupled, rendering the
Universe opaque. Any density fluctuations in the plasma at scales smaller
than the horizon size tended to smoothen out, resulting in a homogeneous
Universe (at least at scales of the horizon size) in thermal equilibrium, with
the energy density of the photons being nearly that of a blackbody.
Then as the Universe expanded adiabatically, the temperature of the
plasma fell. The ionization fraction of the Universe which is a measure of
the number density of free electrons started decreasing and stable atoms

11
began to form. At about T = 3740K,the ionization fraction reduced to half,
there were not enough partners left for the photons to scatter from and the
plasma began to go out of equilibrium. Finally when the expansion rate of
the Universe overtook the Thomson scattering rate, the photons decoupled
from the plasma and the Universe became transparent. Most of the photons
could no longer scatter off the remaining free electrons and the epoch of last
scattering followed soon after. This is the epoch in the history of the Universe
when a typical photon underwent scattering for the last time and has been
free-streaming since then. In the ΛCDM model, ( Ω◦Λ = 0.7, Ω◦m = 0.3, Ω◦b =
0.04, Ω◦ = 1, Ω◦r = 8.5 × 10−5 ) and the epoch of last scattering occurs at z
= 1100, when the temperature of the Universe is 3000 K. It is these photons
that comprise the Cosmic Microwave Background. Since then the Universe
has expanded and CMB photons have been continuously redshifted to lower
energies, maintaining a blackbody spectrum (excluding late Universe effects
on the CMB) following the relation

T (z) = T◦ (1 + z) (1.4)

Following Weins displacement law the peak of the CMB spectrum occurs
around λmax ≈ 2 mm, νmax ≈ 160 GHz with mean energy density ǫ◦r =
αT◦4 = 0.261 MeVm3 . The near isotropic blackbody spectrum of the CMB
as observed at the current epoch provides strong evidence in favour of the
Big Bang Model.
It has been already noted that the CMB temperature field is not perfectly
isotropic. The anisotropies of the CMB can be broadly divided into two
categories namely primary anisotropies due to effects which occurred at the
epoch of last scattering or before and secondary anisotropies due to late time
effects on the CMB photons during their journey from the last scattering
surface to the observer.
Among the secondary anisotropies important ones are the gravitational
lensing of the photons by late Universe dark matter haloes and Sunyaev
Zel’dovich Effect which occurs due to scattering of the CMB photons by rich
concentrations of hot electrons in the Universe (e.g., galaxy clusters). While
the primary anisotropies tell us about the seeds of structure formation in
the Universe, the secondary anisotropies throw light on the properties of the
structures in the late Universe. Together they can be used as a probe of
structure formation in the Universe.

12
1.3 Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Effect
The most prominent of the secondary anisotropies of the CMB is the Sunyaev-
Zel’dovich (SZ) effect (Sunyaev & Zeldovich 1970, 1972). It is further classi-
fied into Thermal and Kinetic SZ effect.

1.3.1 Thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Effect

Thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (TSZ) effect is a spectral distortion of the CMB
due to inverse Compton scattering of CMB photons by a distribution of hot
free electrons with Te >> TCM B , where Te is the temperature of the ele-
cron distribution. The effect was first predicted by Sunyaev & Zeldovich
(1970). The theoretical derivation of the TSZ temperature fluctuation as-
suming a non-relativistic electron distribution can be found in the literature
(Sunyaev & Zeldovich 1970, 1972; Birkinshaw 1999). Relativistic corrections
to it can be found in e.g., Rephaeli (1995).
In this thesis I have followed the derivation from Chatterjee (2009) and
Rybicki & Lightman (2002) where we start from the collisional Boltzman
equation. Since the electrons are non-relativistic (Kb Te << me c2 ), the scat-
tering cross-section can be approximated by Thompson scattering. The main
features of the theoretical calculation are presented below.
1. On an average the photons gain energy on scattering and move from
low to high ν. As photons are neither created nor destroyed in scatter-
ing events, we observe a fall in intensity below and a rise of intensity
above a certain critical frequency, at which the intensity of the SZ
spectrum is exactly similar to the CMB blackbody at a given temper-
ature. It is called the null frequency and comes out to be ∼ 218 GHz
(Carlstrom et al. 2002). This is an unique observational signature of
the TSZ effect.

2. The change in intensity from the CMB blackbody, ∆ISZ is given by-
∆ISZ = g(x)I0 y (1.5)
where I0 = 2(kb TCM B )3 /(hc)2 , x = hν/kb TCM B and
x4 ex
 x 
e +1
g(x) = x x x −4 (1.6)
(e − 1)2 e −1
σT
Z
yl = ne kb Te dl (1.7)
me c2

13
 σT is the Thompson scattering cross-section, me c2 is the electron rest-
mass energy, ne is the electron number density, kb is Boltzman constant
and Te is the temperature of the electron. yl is called the Compton y
parameter and is proportional to the line of sight integral of the ther-
mal pressure Pe = ne kb Te of the electron distribution.

3. If one associates a brightness temperature with the change of intensity,

an increase and decrease of intensity manifest as hot and cold spots in
the CMB map.
∆TSZ /TCM B = f (x)y (1.8)
where  x 
e +1
f (x) = x x −4 (1.9)
e −1

One of the richest sources of high energy electron distribution in the

Universe is the intra-cluster medium (ICM) of galaxy clusters. The ICM
consists of virialised electron gas, having typical temperatures of the order
of 107 − 108 K. A quick calculation shows that Kb Te ∼ 10−2 Mev much
less than the electron rest mass energy of 0.51 Mev. Thus it can be safely
assumed to be non-relativistic and the above formalism can be applied. The
integrated SZ effect from a cluster Yin is proportional to (Carlstrom et al.
2002).
Z Z
yl dΩ α ne kb Te dldΩ α Ne < T > /DA2 α Mg < T > /DA2 (1.10)

where dΩ is the solid angle subtended by the cluster, DA is its angular di-
ameter distance, Ne is the total electron number of the distribution, < T >
is the average temperature of the cluster and Mg is the mass of the cluster
gas. The angular diameter distance DA does not vary much at high redshift,
and a cluster of a given mass is denser and hence hotter at high redshift as
the mean matter density increases as (1 + z)3 . So the SZ signal has very
little dependence on redshift and clusters above a certain mass limit can be
detected with equal ease at low and high redshits (Carlstrom et al. 2002).
However since the ICM is diffuse, Yin for typical clusters is of the order of
∼ 10−4, producing ∆T ∼ 1 mK (Carlstrom et al. 2002). It is thus an impor-
tant tool in cluster cosmology and can be used to study evolution of galaxy
clusters as a function of redshift, providing hints about structure formation
and evolution.

14
1.3.2 Kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect
A spectral distortion of the CMB also arises if the electron distribution
(source of scattering) has a line of sight bulk velocity, and the CMB spectrum
suffers a net shift due to the Doppler effect (Carlstrom et al. 2002). This is
called the Kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect. It can be used to measure pe-
culiar cluster velocities. Thermal SZ effect is in general more dominant of
the two.

Figure 1.6: The dashed line shows blackbody spectrum of CMB Photons
before scattering which is modified after Sunyaev Zel’dovich Effect from a
hot cluster.The modified spectrum is shown by the solid line due to a fictional
cluster 1000 times more massive than original galaxy clusters.The existence
of null frequency at ∼ 218 GHz is evident. Image credit: Carlstrom et al.
(2002)

15
Figure 1.7: The left panel shows the variation of ∆ISZ and the right panel
variation of ∆TSZ as a function of frequency for a cluster of average tem-
perature 10 KeV,Compton parameter yin = 10−4 and peculiar velocity 500
km/sec.The CMB blackbody at 2.7K with intensity scaled down by 0.0005
is shown for reference by dotted line.The solid curve represents Thermal
SZ effect and the dashed curve is due to Kinetc SZ effect. Image credit:
Carlstrom et al. (2002)

1.4 Quasars and Thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich

Effect
In this section, I will give a brief description of quasars and feedback processes
in a galaxy, thereby trying to establish the motivation for my dissertation.
It is believed that all massive galaxies have a supper massive black-hole
(SMBH) at their centres with masses in the range 106 − 109 M⊙ (e.g., Oort
1977; Soltan 1982; Tremaine et al. 2002). About 1 − 10% of these are active
(e.g. Soltan 1982; Maoz 2007), meaning they are accreting matter from the
surroundings at a rate strong enough to produce high luminosity for the
central region of the galaxy. Such galaxies are said to possess an Active
Galactic Nuclei (AGN) and are referred as AGN host galaxies.

1.4.1 Quasar Feedback

The most luminous AGNs are called quasars with luminosities of the order of
1045 − 1047 ergs−1, which is close to the Eddington limit for the SMBHs. The
Eddington Limit is the maximum luminosity of an AGN at which the outward

16
radiation pressure on the accreting matter balances the inward gravitational
pull of the black hole. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has detected over
one million quasars through its photometric survey (Richards et al. 2009)
and 308,377 quasars have optical spectra till its Data Release 10 with their
comoving space density peaking at z ∼ 2) (Richards et al. 2006; SDSS DR 10
2013). An interesting observation is that quasars were more common in the
past and are very rare in nearby galaxies. Apparently most SMBHs in the
present day are accreting at low or moderate rates, and hence are producing
less luminosities than the Eddington luminosity LE . The rise and fall of the
quasar population, in addition to the relation between SMBH masses and the
velocity dispersion of host galaxy bulges (MBH − σ relation) suggest a likely
connection between the growth and evolution of galaxies with their central
SMBH (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Merritt & Ferrarese 2001; Gebhardt et al.
2000).
Accretion in Quasars is caused due to large scale inflows of gas towards the
black hole, possibly due to galaxy mergers (Bahcall et al. 1997; Sanders et al.
1988; Hopkins & Hernquist 2006). While the size of the accretion disc is of
the order of few parsecs, as the accretion continues energetic outflows in the
form of winds or as relativistic jets are launched from the accretion disk
surrounding the black hole. This is called quaser feedback which injects
significant amount of kinetic energy into the interstellar medium (ISM) (Kpc
scale) and the surrounding circumgalactic region, resulting in removal of
gas from the host galaxy and thus limiting the gas inflow into the SMBH
regulating its accretion rate (Fabian 1999; Silk & Rees 1998). This can also
terminate star formation in the host galaxy bulge by stopping gas cooling
(e.g., Farrah et al. 2012; Page et al. 2012; Lapi et al. 2014).
Hence quasar feedback may hold the key to correlations between SMBH
mass and host galaxy properties, redshift evolution of star formation and
quasar activity in galaxies. While many of these observed trends have been
reproduced in semi-analytical models and cosmological simulations of galaxy
formation (e.g. Kauffmann & Haehnelt 2000; Di Matteo et al. 2005; Bower et al.
2006; Springel et al. 2005; Sijacki et al. 2007; Somerville et al. 2008), details
of the feedback energetics, mechanism, and effects on galaxy evolution are
still largely unknown, as quasar activity mainly occurs at high redshifts and
is often obscured by dust and gas (e.g., Mo & Mao 2002; Oh & Benson 2003;
Granato et al. 2004; Ruan et al. 2015).

17
1.4.2 Thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Effect as a Probe of
Feedback
Since quasar feedback alters the thermal energy of the free electrons in the
ISM of the host galaxy and the surrounding circumgalactic medium, thermal
Sunyaev Zel’dovich effect can be used as a potential probe to understand
this feedback process. As TSZ signal is weakly dependent on redshift, it can
be used to detect quasar feedback upto very high redshifts. However the
feedback signal predicted by anatytic studies is too low to be detected for in-
dividual quasars (e.g., Chatterjee & Kosowsky 2007; Chatterjee et al. 2008;
Lapi et al. 2003; Natarajan & Sigurdsson 1999). An additional complication
is that the TSZ signal measured will be in general coming from both the
ionized gas in the host galaxy heated from quasar feedback and the ICM of
the host halo in which the quasar resides. The signal from the host halo
ICM can also get modified due to input of feedback energy. Thus a proper
calibration of the SZ signal from the ICM in absence of any feedback mech-
anism is necessary so that if a significant alteration in it within the limits
of experimental accuracy is obtained, a detection of SZ signal due to quasar
feedback can be claimed.

1.5 Chapter Organisation

In this dissertation work, I have estimated the SZ signal from the ICM of
quasar host haloes, using analytic models of the virialised gas in the ICM
and through measured Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD) properties of
quasar hosts. In Chapter 2, I shall present a model for the halo ICM which
can predict average properties of the halo gas. This model shall be used in
Chapter 3 to calculate the total SZ distortion from a dark matter halo. Its
dependence on halo mass and redshift will be studied. Thereafter in Chapter
4, I shall estimate the average SZ signal from all quasar hosting haloes at
a given redshift using the Halo Mass Function and the HOD to model the
number of quasar hosting haloes at a given redshift. Since individual halo
signals are weak, the average signal has to be studied and only a statistical
detection of the signature of quasar feedback in the SZ signal can be claimed
if any. Finally in Chapter 5, I shall elucidate on the future goals of this
project. Very recently Ruan et al. (2015) have claimed to have detected
the signature of quasar feedback in the SZ signal using Planck data. As an
extension of my work, I shall compare my theoretical model with the findings
of Ruan et al. (2015).
In my work I have used a ΛCDM Cosmology with cosmological parame-

18
ters taken from Planck Collaboration et al. XVI (2014). The values of the
relevant parameters are given in Table 1.1.

19
Chapter 2

Modelling the Intracluster Gas

in Quasar Hosting Haloes

In this chapter, I will discuss a model for the virialised gas in a dark mat-
ter halo following the prescription of Komatsu & Seljak (2001), (2002). The
model predicts the radial profiles of the density and temperature of gas inside
a virialised halo under simple assumptions motivated from numerical simu-
lations. The density and temperature will be used in chapter 3 to calculate
the Compton y-parameter from the halo.

2.1 Universal Dark Matter Density Profile

As suggested by high-resolution N-body simulations (Navarro et al. 1996,
1997; Moore et al. 1998) the dark matter density profile in a halo is well
described by a self similar spherically symmetric form. This means that the
dark matter density profile can be represented by a dimensionless function,
ydm (r) so that

ρdm (r) = ρs ydm (r/rs ) (2.1)

x = r/rs (2.2)

where ρs is the mass density at a characteristic radius rs from the centre of

the halo which serves as a normalisation factor.

20
 The dark matter mass within a sphere of radius r is given by -
Z r
M (≤ r) = ρdm (r) 4πr 2 dr (2.3)
0
Z x
3
= 4πρs rs ydm (u)u2du, u = r/rs
0
3
= 4πρs rs m(x) (2.4)
Z x
m(x) = ydm (u)u2 du (2.5)
0

In the current work the total dark matter mass of the halo, M is defined as
the mass within the virial radius, rvir of the halo, M ≡ M(≤ rvir ). c = rvir /rs
is called the concentration parameter of the halo. From Eq. 2.4, for x = c
we get
c3 M
ρs = 3
(2.6)
4πrvir m(c)
The virial radius of a halo is calculated according to the spherical collapse
model (Press & Schechter 1974; Peebles 1980).
 1/3
M
rvir = (2.7)
4/3π∆c (z)ρc (z)

where ∆c (z) is the spherical overdensity of the virialised halo within rvir at
redshift z in units of the critical density of the universe, ρc (z) given by (e.g.,
Bryan & Norman 1998)

∆c (z) = 18π 2 + 82y − 39y 2 (2.8)

Ω0 (1 + z)3
y= 0 m −1 f or Ωr = 0 (2.9)
Ωm (1 + z)3 + ΩΛ

where Ω0m is matter density of the universe at z=0 and ΩΛ is the dark energy
density (cosmological constant) as a fraction of the critical density at z = 0.
The concentration parameter c is given by
c0
c= (2.10)
1+z
 −1/5
M
c0 = 6 (2.11)
1014 M⊙

where c0 is taken from Seljak (2000) and the redshift dependence of c is taken
from Bullock et al. (2001). Mass of the halo is in solar mass units.

21
 The functional form of ydm (x) is taken to be
1
ydm (x) = (2.12)
xα (1 + x)3−α

For x ≫ 1, ydm (x) = x−3 which is the average behaviour found in most
simulations (eg. Navarro et al 1996,1997; Moore et al. 1998; Thomas et al.
2001). For x ≪ 1, ydm (x) = x−α where 1 < α < 3/2 (Navarro et al. 1996,
1997; Moore et al. 1998). I will use α = 1 in my work which corresponds
to the Navarro, Frenk & White (NFW) profile proposed by Navarro et al.
(1996) (1997). Thus
ρs
ρdm (x) = (2.13)
x(1 + x)2
For NFW profile,
x
x
Z
m(x) = ydm (u)u2du = ln(1 + x) − (2.14)
0 (1 + x)
Z x
m(u) ln(1 + x)
2
du = 1 − (2.15)
0 u x

2.2 Universal Halo Gas Profile

2.2.1 Polytropic Gas Model in Hydrostatic Equilib-
rium
If no additional scale-dependence is introduced, the gas density profile in a
halo would also be self similar following the assumption for the dark matter
density profile.
ρgas (r) = ρgas (0)ygas (r/rs ) (2.16)
whrere ρgas (0) is the gas density at r = 0.
To take into account the effect of gas temperature gradient which is found
from both observations and simulations a polytropic equation of state is
assumed following Suto et al. (1998).

Pgas (r) α ρgas (r)Tgas (r) α ργgas (r), (2.17)

where γ is the polytropic index of the gas. This gives a self similar temper-
ature profile as follows-

Tgas α ργ−1
gas (2.18)
γ−1
Tgas (r) = Tgas (0) ygas (r/rs ) (2.19)

22
where Tgas (0) is the central gas temperature.
The gas is assumed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, with the gas pressure
gradient balancing the gravitational attraction of the dark matter. Thus
dPgas Gρgas M(≤ r)
=− (2.20)
dr r2
Substituting Pgas from Eq. 2.17, we get the differential equation for the gas
profile ygas (r/rs ) as
γ−1
dygas
 
γ−1 Gµmp M m(r/rs )
=− (2.21)
dr γ kb Tgas (0)r 2 m(c)

Here G is the universal gravitational constant, µ is the average mass of the gas
particles as a fraction of the proton mass, and kb is the Boltzman constant.
Since ygas (0) = 1 (Eq. 2.16), Eq. 2.21 can be analytically solved to give
  Z x
γ−1 −1 γ−1 c m(u)
ygas (x) = 1 − 3η (0) du (2.22)
γ m(c) 0 u2
Gµmp M
η −1 (x) = (2.23)
3rvir kb Tgas (x)

2.2.2 Gas tracing Dark Matter in Halo Outskirts

To determine ygas (x) we require to fix two free parameters in the model
namely η(0) called the mass-temperature normalisation factor and the poly-
tropic index γ. This is done by requiring that the gas traces the dark matter
in the outer parts of the halo for r > rvir /2 which is found in many hy-
drodynamic simulations (e.g., Navarro et al. 1995; Bryan & Norman 1998).
Mathematically,

ygas (x) α ydm (x) f or x > c/2 (2.24)

d ln ydm (x) d ln ygas (x)
or, = f or x > c/2 (2.25)
d ln x d ln x
Imposing the above condition gives the best-fit values for γ and η(0) as

γ = 1.15 + 0.01(c − 6.5) (2.26)

η(0) = 0.00676(c − 6.5)2 + 0.206(c − 6.5) + 2.48 (2.27)

valid for 1 < c < 25 (Komatsu & Seljak 2001). Since c depends on the mass
of the halo M and its redshift z (Eq. 2.10), γ and η(0) are functions of halo
mass and redshift.

23
2.2.3 Central Gas Density and Temperature
As the halo merges with the cosmic background at around the virial radius,
the ratio of the matter and dark matter density should be the same as that
of the cosmic average at r = rvir . Thus the gas density is normalised as
Ωb
ρgas (c) = ρgas (0)ygas (c) = ρdm (c) (2.28)
Ωdm
Evaluating Eq. 2.13 at x = c and substituting ρs from Eq. 2.6 we get
−1
c2

1 Ωb M c
ρgas (0) = 3
ln(1 + c) − (2.29)
ygas (c) Ωdm 4πrvir (1 + c)2 1+c

Let the density of hydrogen be ρH and that of helium be ρHe . We define

their mass abundances as X ≡ ρH /ρgas and Y ≡ ρHe /ρgas . Since the halo
is assumed to consist of only hydrogen and helium, Y = 1 − X. If the
number density of hydrogen atoms is nH and that of helium atoms is nHe ,
then nH = Xρ mH
gas
and nHe = Y4m
ρgas
H
. As the gases are ionised, the total number
of gas particles is given by

n = 2nH + 3nHe
 
ρgas 3
= 2X + (1 − X)
mH 4
ρgas (5X + 3)
=
4mH
(2.30)
ρgas
Thus the average particle mass as a fraction of proton mass is µ = n mH
=
4
5X+3
, where we take X = 0.75. Hence from Eq. 2.23
4 Gmp M
Tgas (0) = η(0) (2.31)
3 + 5X 3rvir kb

24
2.2.4 Gas Pressure Profile
From the ideal gas equation-

ρgas (r)
Pgas (r) = kb Tgas (r) (2.32)
µmp
5X + 3
= ρgas (r) kb Tgas (r) (2.33)
4mp
5X + 3 γ−1
= ρgas (0) ygas (r/rs ) kb Tgas (0) ygas (r/rs )
4mp
5X + 3 γ
= ρgas (0) kb Tgas (0) ygas (r/rs ) (2.34)
4mp

Thus starting from a universal dark matter profile (NFW profile here),
a universal gas profile has been anatytically obtained. It models the gas
density, temperature and pressure in a halo as a function of halo mass and
redshift without containing any other free parameters, thereby representing
the average behaviour of gas in a halo. The plots for the density, pressure
and temperature profiles are shown in Figures 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.

25
 1e+ 16 1e+ 16
b
gas Ωb
ρgas
ρdm
m
dm Ωm

1e+ 15 1e+ 15
density (M ⊙ / Mpc3)

density (M ⊙ / Mpc3)
1e+ 14 1e+ 14

1e+ 13 1e+ 13

1e+ 12 1e+ 12

1e+ 11 1e+ 11
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r / r vi r r / r vi r

Figure 2.1: The gas density and dark matter density profiles for a halo of
mass 1012 M⊙ (left image) and 1015 M⊙ (right image) at z= 0.1. The gas traces
the dark matter in the halo outskrits

1e+ 15 1e+ 15
z = 0.1 z= 0
z = 0.5 z = 0.5
z = 1.0 z= 1
1e+ 14 1e+ 14
ρgas (M ⊙ / M pc3 )

pc3)
gas (M ⊙ / M

1e+ 13 1e+ 13


1e+ 12 1e+ 12

1e+ 11 1e+ 11
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r / r vi r r / r vi r

Figure 2.2: The gas density profile for a halo of mass 1012 M⊙ (left image) and
1015 M⊙ (right image) varying with redshift.

26
 1 10
z = 0.1 z = 0.1
z = 0.5 z = 0.5
z = 1.0 z = 1.0
Tgas (keV)

0.1

0.01 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r/rvir r/rvir

Figure 2.3: The gas temperature profile for a halo of mass 1012 M⊙ (left image)
and 1015 M⊙ (right image) varying with redshift.

0.01 0.1
z = 0.1 z = 0.1
z = 0.5 z = 0.5
z = 1.0 z = 1.0
0.001

0.01
Pgas (keV/cm3 )

0.0001

1e-05 1 1
0.001

1e-06

1e-07 0.0001
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r/rvir r/rvir

Figure 2.4: The gas pressure profile for a halo of mass 1012 M⊙ (left image)
and 1015 M⊙ (right image) varying with redshift.

27
2.3 Limitations of the Model
The above model is only a first approximation of the gas in a dark matter
halo. It does not take into account star-formation which will dominate in
the central parts of the halo. The cooled down gas in the star-forming region
will not have significant thermal energy to cause appreciable SZ effect (e.g.,
Shaw et al. 2010, Bode et al. 2009, Ostriker et al. 2005). In addition
the gas can be heated by non-gravitational processes such as feedback from
supernovae and halo mergers (e.g., Bode et al. 2009, Ostriker et al. 2005).
Also there can be a significant non-thermal pressure support due to random
gas motions and turbulence in the intracluster medium (Shaw et al. 2010).
As the total pressure support, thermal and non-thermal, will balance the
gravitational attraction of the dark matter in the halo, this will alter the
thermal component of the gas pressure.

28
Chapter 3

Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Distortion
from Host Halo Gas

In this chapter I will use the model developed in the previous chapter to
calculate the total SZ distortion due to intracluster gas in a halo.

3.1 3D Compton y-Parameter Profile

As shown in Chapter-1 Eq. 1.8, the SZ distortion along a line of sight from
a halo is proportional to the Compton y-parameter defined as
σT
Z
y= ne (r) kb Te (r) dl
me c2 l
σT
Z
= Pe (r) dl (3.1)
me c2 l

where σT is the Thompson scattering cross-section and me c2 is the electron

rest mass energy. ne (r) is the electron number density, Te (r) = Tgas (r) is
the gas temperature in the halo and Pe (r) is the thermal pressure of the
electrons, each at a distance r from the halo centre. The integral is over a
line of light to the halo.
We define the 3D Compton y-parameter profile of a halo as
σT
y3D (r) = Pe (r) (3.2)
me c2
Now, the electron gas pressure

Pe (r) = ne (r) kb Tgas (r)

29
Since the gas consists of hydrogen and helium,

ne = nH + 2nHe
Xρgas (2 − 2X)ρgas
= +
mp 4mp
ρgas
= (2X + 2)
4mp

where X is the hydrogen mass fraction taken to be 0.75. Hence,

ρgas (2X + 2)
Pe (r) = kb Tgas (r) (3.3)
4mp

Using the expression for Pgas (r) as in Eq. 2.32, I obtain

2X + 2
Pe (r) = Pgas (r) (3.4)
5X + 3
Thus, the 3D Compton y-parameter profile is given as
 
σT 2X + 2
y3D (r) = Pgas (r) (3.5)
me c2 5X + 3

-4 -4.5 -4.5
1012 M⊙ 1012 M⊙ 1012 M⊙
-4.5 1013 M⊙ -5 1013 M⊙ -5 1013 M⊙
1015 M⊙ 1015 M⊙ 1015 M⊙
-5
-5.5 -5.5
-5.5
-6 -6
-6
y3D (Mpc−1 )

-6.5 -6.5 -6.5

-7 -7 -7
-7.5
-7.5 -7.5
-8
-8 -8
-8.5
-9 -8.5 -8.5
-9.5 -9 -9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r/rvir r/rvir r/rvir

Figure 3.1: The 3D Compton y-parameter profile for a halo of given mass.
The left panel is at redshift 0, the middle one at 0.5 and the right panel at
1.0. The profiles vary little with redshift and at a given reshift is proportional
to the halo mass.

30

1 1 1
3.2 Total SZ Distortion from a Halo
The total SZ distortion from a halo can be obtained by integrating the line of
sight SZ distortion over the solid angle subtended by the halo at the observer
(z = 0) as explained in Chapter 1. Thus the integrated Compton y-parameter
from a halo is given by (e.g., Calstrom et al. 2002)
Z
Y = y dΩ (3.6)
Ω
σT
Z Z
= 2
Pe (r) dl dΩ
Ω Zl me c
1
= 2 y3D (r) dV (3.7)
DA V

where the last integral is over the total volume of the dark matter halo.
dΩ = dA/DA2 , where dA is a differential area element on the visible disk of
the halo and DA is its angular diameter distance.
Using Eqns. 2.2, 2.33, 3.2, 3.7 and the definition of concentration param-
eter c, the integrated Compton y-parameter, Y can be calculated as
1
Z
Y = 2 y3D (r) dV
DA V
 
1 σT 2X + 2
Z
= 2 Pgas (r)dV
DA V me c2 5X + 3
1 σT 2X + 2
Z
= 2 Pgas (r)dV
DA me c2 5X + 3 V
1 σT 2X + 2
Z
γ
= 2 ρgas (0) kb Tgas (0) ygas (r/rs )dV
DA me c2 4mp V
3 Z c
1 σT 2X + 2 4πrvir γ
= 2 2
ρgas (0) kb Tgas (0) 3
ygas (x)x2 dx (3.8)
DA me c 4mp c 0

As ρgas (0), Tgas (0), ygas and γ are functions of halo mass and redshift only
the integrated Compton y-parameter from the halo ICM, Y = f (M, z).
Using Eq. 3.8, I calculate the integrated Compton y-parameter, Y(M,z)
for haloes in the mass range 1012 M⊙ to 1015 M⊙ and in the redshift intervel
z = 0 to 1. By convention Y(M,z) is expressed in square arcminutes. (Planck
Collaboration XI 2013)

31
 0.1

0.01

0.001
Y (arcmin2 )

0.0001
z = 0.1
z = 0.2
1e-05 z = 0.3
z = 0.4
1e-06 z = 0.5
z = 0.6
z = 0.7
1e-07 z = 0.8
z = 0.9
z = 1.0
1e-08
1e+12 1e+13 1e+14 1e+15 1e+16
halo mass M (M⊙ )

Figure 3.2: Y-M relation calculated using Eq. 3.8 due to virialised halo gas
at different redshifts from z= 0 to z=1. At a given redshift the Y-M relation
appears to be a straight line in log-log plot implying a power law scaling of
Y with respect to halo mass

3.3 Rescaling the SZ Signal

Due to differences in angular-diameter distance, in order to compare the
integrated Compton y-parameter at different redshifts in my work and to
those of Ruan et al. (2015), the SZ signal is rescaled to a common DA =
500 Mpc. The expected redshift dependence of the signal due to virialised
halo gas is also divided out to get the rescaled Compton y-parameter Y re
following the prescription of Planck Collaboration XI (2013). This is also
expressed in square arcminutes as
 2
re −2/3 DA
Y =Y E (z) (3.9)
500 Mpc

where E 2 (z) = Ω0m (1 + z)3 + ΩΛ

32
 -1.5
points
-2 best fit
-2.5
-3
Y re (arcmin2 )

-3.5
-4
-4.5
-5
-5.5
-6
-6.5
-7
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5
logM (M⊙ )

Figure 3.3: Y re − M relation. The log-log plot is a straight line independent

of redshift implying a self-similar power law scaling of Y re with the halo mass
M. The power-law exponent is obtained as a = 1.66

In Fig. 3.3, I plot Y re due to the virialised halo gas. The profiles for
different redshifts merge to give a single straight line implying the Y re − M
relation to be independent of redshift as expected. For a halo of fixed mass,
the rescaled y-parameter is the same for all redshifts.
A linear fit to the data gives the power-law slope and the normalization
as a = 1.66 and b = 10−26.84 respectively. Thus we have a self similar relation
between Yre and M given by

Y re = b M a (3.10)
a
Y re

M
or, re = (3.11)
Ys Ms

where Ysre is the rescaled Compton parameter for a characteristic halo mass
Ms . The characteristic halo mass is chosen as Ms = 3.0 × 1014 M⊙ following
Planck Collaboration XI (2013).

33
 From Eq. 3.10
Ysre
b = a = 10−26.84
Ms
Ysre = 10−26.84 × Msa
= 1.55 × 10−3 (3.12)

Thus the self similar Y re − M relation is obtained as

 1.66
re −3 M
Y = 1.55 × 10 (3.13)
3 × 1014 M⊙

The Y re − M relation obtained above is compared to that observation-

ally estimated by Planck Collaboration XI (2013). Planck Collaboration XI
(2013) in their work stacked the Planck SZ maps in order to estimate the
mean SZ signal from locally bright galaxies (LBGs) in a series of stellar mass
bins. They used mock galaxy catalogues based on the Millennium Simula-
tion and tuned to fit the observed abundance and clustering of SDSS galaxies
to establish the relation between stellar and halo mass and found that the
Y re − M data agrees well with a single power law within its statistical un-
certainties given by
 5/3
re −3 M
Y = (0.73 ± 0.07) × 10 . (3.14)
3 × 1014 M⊙
I note that the observational results support the self similar scaling rela-
tion, which justifies my theoretical assumption and the model of Komatsu &
Seljack.
The normalisation factor in my model is nearly double to that of the
Planck estimation. This is because the Planck team analyses the halo upto
a radius R500 , which defines a sphere inside which the average dark matter
density is 500 times the mean matter density at that epoch. However in my
model the contribution to SZ signal is taken from gas upto the virial radius
of the halo, which is defined in terms of the overdensity parameter with
respect to the critical density in Eq. 2.7. Hence, in my model integration is
done over a larger volume of gas which results in a difference between the
normalisaions.

34
Chapter 4

Average Sunyaev-Zel’dovich
Signal from Quasar Hosts

In the previous chapter the rescaled SZ signal due to virialised gas from a
single halo of mass M was obtained given by Eq. 3.13. It was found to be
independent of redshift. In this chapter, I will model the average SZ signal
due to virialised gas of quasar hosting haloes at a given redshift. The average
signal has a redshift dependence because the number of quasar hosting haloes
will depend on redshift both due to the redshift dependence of the halo mass
functions and the redshift dependence of the quasar hod parameters (e.g.,
Sheth & Torman 1999; Jenkins et al. 2001; Chatterjee et al. 2012).
Thus to find the average signal, I will first model the number of quasar
hosting haloes at a given redshift using the Halo Mass Function (Sheth &
Torman 1999) and the Halo Occupation Distribution of quasars (Richardson
et al. 2012, Chatterjee et al. 2012).

4.1 Halo Mass Function

dn
The Halo Mass Function (HMF), dM (M, z) is defined as the number of dark
matter haloes of mass M per unit mass interval, per unit comoving volume
at a given redshift z. Thus, it is the comoving number density of dark matter
haloes per unit mass interval. The redshift evolution of the mass function is
dependent on the cosmology. A halo is defined as an approximately spherical
region of dark matter with average density much greater, typically 200 times
the mean matter density at that epoch. In the standard model of cosmol-
ogy with cold dark matter, small and less massive haloes form first which
then merge together to form more maasive haloes. Thus the number of mas-
sive haloes decreases with increasing redshift (earlier epoch). Assuming a

35
spherical or an ellipsodial collapse model for dark matter particles, HMF can
be analytically calculated following the prescriptions of Press & Schechter
(1974) and Sheth & Torman (1999) respectively. It can also be obtained
from high resolution N-body simulations. (e.g., Jenkins et al. 2001; Tinker
et al. 2008; Klypin et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999; Davis et al. 1985; Lacy &
Cole 1994; Reed et al. 2003; Warren et al. 2006; Peacock et al. 2007)
In my work, I use the Sheth & Torman (1999) mass function. Sheth &
Tormen (1999) assumed an ellipsoidal collapse model of dark matter particles
rather than a spherical collapse model to account for the discrepancy between
the Press & Schechter (1974) model and N-body simulations. In the original
spherical model, a region collapses if the initial density within it exceeds a
threshold value, dsc . This value is independent of the initial size of the region
and since the mass of the collapsed object is related to its initial size, dsc is
independent of final mass. In the ellipsoidal model, the collapse of a region
depends on the surrounding shear field, as well as on its initial overdensity.
Since for Gaussian random fields, the distribution of these quantities depend
on the size of the region considered, there is a relation between the threshold
density value required for collapse and the mass of the final object. The
Sheth & Tormen (1999) mass function is analytically given by

dn ρm dν
= f (ν) (4.1)
dln M M dln M
   2 1/2
1 ν
exp −ν 2 /2


νf (ν) = 2A 1 + 2q (4.2)
ν 2π

Here q=0.3, A=0.3222 and ν = δscσm(z) is the ratio of the critical overdensity
required for collapse in the spherical model to the rms density fluctuation
on a scale equivalent to the size of the collapsing mass M (Sheth & Tormen,
1999)
To obtain the halo mass function, I use the numerically generated data
files from HMFcalc. HMFcalc is a web application for calculating the HMF
(Murray, Power & Robotham, 2013). By choosing the cosmological param-
eters, the desired redshift, overdensity parameter, range of halo masses and
the bin size for halo mass as run parameters the data files can be generated
for any desired HMF. I generated the data files in the redshift range 0 to 1
and halo mass range 1012 M⊙ to 1015 M⊙ with mass bin size 100.05 M⊙ . Shown
in Fig 4.1 is a log-log plot of the mass function at different redshifts.

36
 -15
-16
-17
-18
(1/Mpc3 M⊙ )

-19
-20 zz = 0.1
= 0.2
-21 z = 0.3
z = 0.4
dM
dn

-22 z = 0.5
z = 0.6
-23 z = 0.7
z = 0.8
-24 z = 0.9
z = 1.0
-25
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5
halo mass M (M⊙ )

Figure 4.1: Sheth & Tormen (1999) Halo Mass Function at different redshifts
obtained with HMFcalc data files

4.2 Halo Occupation Distribution of Quasars

The growth of black-holes or AGNs in dark matter haloes is governed by
the properties of the dark matter particles and the gas dynamics in the host
halo. The clustering properties of AGNs can be studied using semi-analytic
techniques (e.g., Shankar et al. 2010; Bonoli et al. 2009; Lidz et al. 2006)
while the environment dependence of accretion can be modelled through
hydrodynamic simulations of galaxy formation with black hole growth (e.g.,
Thacker et al. 2009; Degraf et al. 2011). Such simulations can be used to
effectively study the co-evolution of AGNs with dark matter haloes and host
galaxies. However due to the complex parameter spaces of these models and
the time it takes to run simulations make difficult to work with.
The Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD) (e.g., Ma & Fry 2000; Seljak
2000; Berlind & Weinberg 2002) is an alternative approach where the entire
astrophysics determining the connection between AGNs and their host haloes
is encoded in an analytic probabilty distribution function characterised by
the mass of the host halo. It can be used to study the clustering properties
of AGNs. The HOD for AGNs is defined by the conditional probability
P (N |M) that a halo of mass M contains N AGNs of a given type (generally

37
based on luminosity), along with their spatial and velocity distribution inside
the halo. This formalism distinguishes between the background cosmology
and AGN evolution models as the cosmological parameters are encoded in the
distribution of haloes given by the HMF, where as the relation between halo
mass and AGN is fully described by the probability distribution P (N |M)
(Chatterjee et al. 2012).
The mean occupation function for AGNs of a given type, hN(M)i, is
the average number of AGNs of that type in a halo of mass M. Assuming
P (N |M) to be normalised, the mean occupation fraction is given by

hN(M)i = ΣN
0
max
N P (N |M) (4.3)
It can be represented as the sum of two components- central mean occu-
pation fraction, hN c (M)i and satellite mean occupation fraction, hN s (M)i.
(e.g., Kravtsov et al. 2004; Zheng et al. 2005; Chatterjee et al. 2012)
I use the Chatterjee et al. (2012) HOD model in my work. Chatterjee et
al. (2012) did a study of low luminosity AGNs in cosmological hydrodynamic
simulations to obtain their mean occupation function. In this parameteriza-
tion the central AGN was chosen as the most massive black hole within R200
and the rest of the black holes within R200 were taken as satellite AGNs.
According to this model, the mean occupation function of central AGNs is
given by a softened step function and for the satellite AGNs it is a rolling off
power law.
  
c 1 log M − log Mmin
hN (M)i = 1 + erf (4.4)
2 σlog M
 α  
s M Mcut
hN (M)i = exp − (4.5)
M1 M
hN(M)i = N c (M)i + hN s (M)i (4.6)

The model has five free parameters namely Mmin , σlog M , M1 , α and Mcut .
Mmin is the approximate mass scale at which on average half of the haloes
have one quasar at their centre; σlog M is the characteristic transition width
of the softened step function; M1 is the approximate mass scale at which
haloes on average have one satellite quasar; α is the power law exponent
of the mean satellite occupation function; and Mcut is the mass scale below
which the satellite mean occupation decays exponentially.
This model although obtained from study of low-luminosity AGNs can
be extended to quasars (most luminous AGNs) as Richardson et al. (2012)
showed that it explains the observed 2 pt correlation functions of quasars.
Richardson et al. (2012) determined the free parameters of the model by

38
fitting the 2-point correlation function calculated from this model with ob-
served data from SDSS quasars at z = 1. The best fit values for the same
are given in Table 4.1. For the current work I used these values to compute
the quasar HOD.

Free parameters Best fit value

Mmin 1016.46
σlog M 1.667
M1 1012.47
α 0.6158
Mcut 1015.28

Table 4.1: Best fit values of the free parameters for the quasar HOD in the
Chatterjee et al. (2012) model as determined by Richardson et al. (2012)

Using these parameters, I numerically calculate the central, sattelite and

total mean occupation of quasars as a function of halo mass as shown in fig.
4.2

10
hN c (M)i
hN s (M)i
1 hN(M)i
mean occupation function

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001

1e-05
1e+12 1e+13 1e+14 1e+15 1e+16
halo mass M (M⊙ )

Figure 4.2: The central, sattelite and total mean occupation of quasars in
host haloes as a function of halo mass

Chatterjee et al. (2012) showed that the HOD parameters evolve with
redshift for low luminosity AGNs. However due to lack of measured redshift

39
evolution of quasar HODs, I shall assume the mean occupation function of
quasars to be independent of redshift specified at all redshifts by the same
parameters as those at z = 1.

4.3 Number Density of Quasar hosts

The HMF gives the total number of haloes per unit comoving volume at a
given redsift. However all haloes will not be hosting quasars. The fraction of
total haloes of mass M per unit mass intervel per unit comoving volume that
host quasars, is given by the mean occupation function of quasars, hN(M)i.
Thus the number of quasar hosting haloes of mass M at redshift z, Nq (M, z)
per unit mass per unit comoving volume can be modelled by
dn
Nq (M, z) = hN(M)i (M, z) (4.7)
dM
In this model the redshift dependence in the number of quasar hosts comes
from the redshift dependence of the halo mass function.
The number of quasar hosts per unit volume per unit mass intervel is
calculated following Eq. 4.7 and plotted as a function of halo mass at z = 1.0.
Nq has a local maximum at around M = 1012.5 M⊙ . At this halo mass,
the satellite mean occupation is negligable and the total mean occupation
is entirely due to central quasars. Thus the number of haloes hosting cen-
tral quasars peaks at around halo mass M = 1012.5 M⊙ . Another peak in
Nq occurs around M = 1014.8 M⊙ . This occurs because for haloes having
mass M = 1014 M⊙ and above the satellite mean occupation of quasars in-
creases rapidly and overshoots the central population. Thus this mass peak
represents the maxima in the number of haloes hosting satellite quasars.

4.4 Average SZ signal

The average SZ signal at a given redshift due to virialised halo gas is pro-
portional to the average rescaled Compton Y-parameter and is given by
R M2
Yre (M) Nq (M) dM dV
hY (z)i = M1 R M2
re
(4.8)
M1
Nq (M) dM dV
where dV is the comoving volume between redshift z to z + dz. Using Eq.
4.6
R M2 dn
Yre (M) hN(M)i dM dM
hY re (z)i = M1 R M2 dn
(4.9)
M1
hN(M)i dM
dM

40
 -19.2
-19.4
-19.6
-19.8
hN(M)i

-20
-20.2
-20.4
dM
dn

-20.6
-20.8
-21
-21.2
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5
M (M⊙ )

Figure 4.3: Number of quasar hosting haloes per unit mass per unit comoving
volume at z = 1.0. The first peak at M = 1012.5 M⊙ represents the maximum
in the number density of central quasar occupying haloes and the second
peak at M = 1014 M⊙ represents the maximum in the number density of
satellite qusar occupying haloes.

Using the self similar fitting function obtained for Y re in Eq. 3.13, the
integral in Eq. 4.9 is computed for redshifts varying from 0 to 1. The limits
of integration are taken as M1 = 1012 M⊙ and M2 = 1015 M⊙ as it is seen in
the previous section that most of the quasar hosting haloes are in this mass
range. The calculated values are tabulated in Table 4.2. With increasing
redshift from 0 to 1, the average rescaled Compton y-parameter decreases
from ∼ (10−4 to 10−5 )
As the quasar HOD is assumed to be redshift independent, the redshift
evolution of the number of quasar hosting haloes follows that of the HMF. At
lower redshifts, there are significant number of high mass haloes (1014 M⊙ −
1015 M⊙ ) as compared to high redshifts around 1. From Eq. 3.15, Yre from
them is of the order of 10−4 − 10−3 arcmin2 . With increasing redshift, the
number of high mass haloes decreases and the majority of haloes are in
the mass range 1012 M⊙ − 1013 M⊙ . Yre from these haloes is of the order of
10−6 − 10−5 arcmin2 . This might explain the decreasing trend obtained in
hY re i with increasing redshift.

41
 redshift z average Compton Y (hY re (z)i)
0.1 1.76 E -04
0.2 1.38 E -04
0.3 1.06 E -04
0.4 8.01 E -05
0.5 6.00 E -05
0.6 4.46 E -05
0.7 3.32 E -05
0.8 2.50 E -05
0.9 1.91 E -05
1.0 1.50 E -05

Table 4.2: The rescaled average Compton y-parameter at different redshifts

0.00018
0.00016
0.00014
0.00012
hY re (z)i

0.0001
8e-05
6e-05
4e-05
2e-05
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
redshift z

Figure 4.4: The rescaled average Compton y-parameter varying with redshfit.
A decreasing trend is observed with increase in redshift from 0 to 1

42
Chapter 5

Discussion of Results

Very recently, Ruan et al. (2015) claimed to have detected signals of quasar
feedback in the TSZ Compton y-maps cross-correlated with the locations of
26,686 SDSS spectroscopic quasars. The integrated TSZ signal detected in
the stacked Compton y-maps is likely to be originating from both interstellar
gas of the host galaxy heated by quasar feedback as well as virialised halo
gas in quasar hosts.
To isolate the quasar feedback signal, two different stacks of quasar sub-
samples from the total SDSS sample was created, one at high redshift (z ∼ 2)
and the other at low redshift (z ∼ 1). Ruan et al. (2015) assumed that the
high-redshift subsample will not contain quasars lying in massive clusters
and thus its TSZ signal will be purely due to feedback effects without any
contamination from the host halo. From this signal, they derived the quasar
feedback energetics. They further showed that the low redshift stacked sig-
nal is roughly consistent with that estimated from a combination of quasar
feedback at low redshift with similar feedback parameters as that at high
redshift plus a virialised halo gas component from quasar hosts. The host
halo mass distribution of quasars was obtained from quasar clustring data
by Shen et al. (2013).
Using my estimation for the average Compton Y-parameter, hY re (z)i, due
to the virialised gas of quasar hosts at both low and high redshifts, I will check
if the virialised gas signal at high redshifts can at all be neglected compared
to that at low redshifts as assumed by Ruan et al. (2015). I have already
obtained trends in my work which show that hY re (z)i decreases with redshift.
However the best fit values of the HOD model parameters as determined by
Richardson et al. (2012) have errors. Using these errors, the error in hY re (z)i
needs to be estimated. If the results are positive, then using my estimate for
hY re (z)i at low redshift and the feedback parameters determined from the
high redshift quasar subsample by Ruan et al. (2015), I will check whether

43
the stacked SZ signal from the low redshift quasar subsample of Ruan et al.
(2015) can be reproduced. Thus, my work will provide a theoretical route to
estimate the significance of the results obtained by Ruan et al. (2015).
It will be the first effort to clearly validate the thermal SZ effect from
quasar feedback, a signal that has been predicted by different groups (e.g.,
Natarajan & Sigurdsson 1999; Yamada et al. 1999; Lapi et al. 2003; Platania
et al. 2002; Chatterjee & Kowosky 2007)
The gas profile used for calculating the Y-M relation may also be modi-
fied if needed taking into account star formation, non-thermal pressure and
supernova feedback (Shaw et al. 2010) and the results compared with that
obtained from the Komatsu & Seljak model. Finally I will incorporate the
redshift dependence of the quasar HOD in my work.

44
Bibliography

Alpher R. A., Herman R., Gamow G. A., 1948, PhRv, 74, 1198

Bahcall J. N., Kirhakos S., Saxe D. H., Schneider D. P., 1997, ApJ, 479, 642

Bandey T.,Hinshaw G. construction of 4 year Cobe CMB maps.

Bennett C. L., et al., 2013, ApJS, 208, 20

Birkinshaw M., 1999, PhR, 310, 9

Bode P., Ostriker J. P., Vikhlinin A., 2009, ApJ, 700, 989

Bower R. G., Benson A. J., Malbon R., Helly J. C., Frenk C. S., Baugh
C. M., Cole S., Lacey C. G., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645

Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 1998, ApJ, 495, 80

Bullock J. S., Kolatt T. S., Sigad Y., Somerville R. S., Kravtsov A. V., Klypin
A. A., Primack J. R., Dekel A., 2001, MNRAS, 321, 559

Carlstrom J. E., Holder G. P., Reese E. D., 2002, ARA&A, 40, 643

Chatterjee S., University of Pittsburg, 2007 Phd Thesis

Chatterjee S., Kosowsky A., 2007, ApJ, 661, L113

Chatterjee S., Di Matteo T., Kosowsky A., Pelupessy I., 2008, MNRAS, 390,
535

Chatterjee S., Ho S., Newman J. A., Kosowsky A., 2010, ApJ, 720, 299

Chatterjee S., Degraf C., Richardson J., Zheng Z., Nagai D., Di Matteo T.,
2012, MNRAS, 419, 2657

Colberg J. M., Di Matteo T., 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1163

45
Dicke R. H., Peebles P. J. E., Roll P. G., Wilkinson D. T., 1965, ApJ, 142,
414

Di Matteo T., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2005, Nature, 433, 604

Di Matteo T., Colberg J., Springel V., Hernquist L., Sijacki D., 2008, ApJ,
676, 33

Dunkley J., et al., 2009, ApJ, 701, 1804

Fabian A. C., 1999, MNRAS, 308, L39

Farrah D., et al., 2012, ApJ, 745, 178

Ferrarese L., Merritt D., 2000, ApJ, 539, L9

Fixsen D. J., Cheng E. S., Gales J. M., Mather J. C., Shafer R. A., Wright
E. L., 1996, ApJ, 473, 576

Gebhardt K., et al., 2000, ApJ, 539, L13

Granato G. L., De Zotti G., Silva L., Bressan A., Danese L.,2004, ApJ, 600,
580

Hinshaw G., Fixsen D., Bennett C. L., Mather J. C., 1996, AAS, 28, #116.05

Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., 2006, ApJS, 166, 1

Jenkins A., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., Colberg J. M., Cole S., Evrard
A. E., Couchman H. M. P., Yoshida N., 2001, MNRAS, 321, 372

Kauffmann G., Haehnelt M., 2000, MNRAS, 311, 576

Komatsu E., Seljak U., 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1353

Komatsu E., Seljak U., 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1256

Lapi A., Raimundo S., Aversa R., Cai Z.-Y., Negrello M., Celotti A., De
Zotti G., Danese L., 2014, ApJ, 782, 69

Lapi A., Cavaliere A., De Zotti G., 2003, ApJ, 597, L93

Maoz, D. Basic Astrophysics Princeton University Press 2007

Merritt D., Ferrarese L., 2001, ASPC, 249, 335

Mo H. J., Mao S., 2002, MNRAS, 333, 768

46
Moore B., Governato F., Quinn T., Stadel J., Lake G., 1998, ApJ, 499, L5

Murray S. G., Power C., Robotham A. S. G., 2013, A&C, 3, 23

Natarajan P., Sigurdsson S., 1999, MNRAS, 302, 288

Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1995, MNRAS, 275, 720

Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

Oort J. H., 1977, ARA&A, 15, 295

Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

Oh S. P., Benson A. J., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 664

Ostriker J. P., Bode P., Babul A., 2005, ApJ, 634, 964

Page M. J., et al., 2012, Natur, 485, 213

Penzias A. A., Wilson R. W., 1965, ApJ, 142, 419

Planck Collaboration, et al., 2013, A&A, 557, A52

Planck Collaboration, et al., 2014, A&A, 571, AA16

Press W. H., Schechter P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425

Reed D., Gardner J., Quinn T., Stadel J., Fardal M., Lake G., Governato F.,
2003, MNRAS, 346, 565

Rephaeli Y., 1995, ARA&A, 33, 541

Richards G. T., et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 2766

Richards G. T., et al., 2009, yCat, 218, 67

Richardson J., Zheng Z., Chatterjee S., Nagai D., Shen Y., 2012, ApJ, 755,
30

Ruan J. J., McQuinn M., Anderson S. F., 2015, ApJ, 802, 135

Rybicki G. and Lightman A,, Radiative processes in astrophysics, Wiley 2004

Sanders D. B., Soifer B. T., Elias J. H., Madore B. F., Matthews K., Neuge-
bauer G., Scoville N. Z., 1988, ApJ, 325, 74

Seljak U., 2000, MNRAS, 318, 203

47
Shaw L. D., Nagai D., Bhattacharya S., Lau E. T., 2010, ApJ, 725, 1452

Sheth R. K., Mo H. J., Tormen G., 2001, MNRAS, 323, 1

Sijacki D., Springel V., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., 2007, MNRAS, 380, 877

Silk J., Rees M. J., 1998, A&A, 331, L1

Spergel D. N., et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 175

Soltan A., 1982, MNRAS, 200, 115

Springel V., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776

Sunyaev R. A., Zeldovich Y. B., 1970, Ap&SS, 7, 3

Sunyaev R. A., Zeldovich Y. B., 1972, CoASP, 4, 173

Suto Y., Sasaki S., Makino N., 1998, ApJ, 509, 544

Somerville R. S., Hopkins P. F., Cox T. J., Robertson B. E., Hernquist L.,
2008, MNRAS, 391, 481

Sloan Digital Sky survey Data Release 10.(from sdss website)

Tinker J., Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A., Abazajian K., Warren M., Yepes G.,
Gottlöber S., Holz D. E., 2008, ApJ, 688, 709

Tremaine S., 2002, hst..prop, 9513

Warren M. S., Abazajian K., Holz D. E., Teodoro L., 2006, ApJ, 646, 881

48