The History of Cosmological Star Formation: Three Independent Approaches and a Critical Test Using the Extragalactic Background Light

Abstract

Taking three independent approaches, we investigate the simultaneous constraints set on the cosmic star formation history from various observations, including stellar mass density and extragalactic background light (EBL). We compare results based on: 1) direct observations of past light-cone, 2) a model using local fossil evidence constrained by SDSS observations at z ∼ 0 (the 'Fossil' model), and 3) theoretical ab initio models from three calculations of cosmic star formation history: (a) new (1024) 3 Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) cosmological hydrodynamic simulation, (b) analytic expression of Hernquist & Springel based on cosmological Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations, and (c) semi-analytic model of Cole et al.We find good agreement among the three independent approaches up to the order of observational errors, except that all the models predict bolometric EBL of I tot ≃ 37 − 52 nW m −2 sr −1 , which is at the lower edge of the the observational estimate by Hauser & Dwek (2001). We emphasize that the Fossil model that consists of two componentsspheroids and disks -, when normalized to the local observations, provides a surprisingly simple but accurate description of the cosmic star formation history and other observable quantities. Our analysis suggests that the consensus global parameters at z = 0 are: Ω ⋆ = 0.0023 ± 0.0004, I EBL = 43 ± 7 nW m −2 sr −1 , ρ ⋆ = (1.06 ± 0.22) × 10 −2 M ⊙ yr −1 Mpc −3 , j bol = (3.1 ± 0.2) × 10 8 L ⊙ Mpc −3 .

Accessibility of the gravitational-wave background due to binary coalescences to second and third generation gravitational-wave detectors

“…In particular, the two extreme choices of the star formation rate, proposed by Hopkins & Beacom [48] and Nagamine et al [51], lead to a factor of ∼ 2 difference in the final contours (in the λ parameter). We have verified that using the remaining three estimates of the star formation rate [49,50,52] yields contours that fall between those shown in Figure 4.…”

“…Figure 3 compares R * (z) and I(z) for five different choices of the star formation rate [48][49][50][51][52]. Since there are non-negligible differences between these five estimates of the star formation rate, we will present the results for the two extreme cases, namely the Hopkins & Beacom [48] and Nagamine et al [51].…”

“…Since there are non-negligible differences between these five estimates of the star formation rate, we will present the results for the two extreme cases, namely the Hopkins & Beacom [48] and Nagamine et al [51]. Figure 4 shows the results of the scan of the λ − M c plane for the two estimates of the star formation rate and for the three binary coalescence cases: BNS, BBH, and BHNS.…”

“…CW and VM were supported in part by NSF grant PHY0758036. [48] (left) and Nagamine et al [51] (right). The three rows correspond to BNS, BBH, and BHNS respectively, top to bottom.…”

“…The star formation rate R * has also been investigated by several authors, for a recent review see [26,47]. We will investigate the dependence of our results on the choice of the star-formation rate by repeating our calculation for the five choices of star formation rate proposed in [48][49][50][51][52].…”