ACCEPTED TO APJ Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 12/16/11 MASSIVE WARM/HOT GALAXY CORONAE: II. ISENTROPIC MODEL YAKOV FAERMAN 1 * ,AMIEL STERNBERG 2,3,4 , AND CHRISTOPHER F. MCKEE 5 Accepted to ApJ Abstract We construct a new analytic phenomenologicalmodel for the extended circumgalactic material (CGM) of L∗ galaxies. Our model reproduces the OVII/OVIII absorption observations of the Milky Way (MW) and the OVI measurements reported by the COS-Halos and eCGM surveys. The warm/hot gas is in hydrostatic equilibrium in a MW gravitational potential, and we adopt a barotropicequation of state, resulting in a temperature variation as a function of radius. A pressure componentwith an adiabatic index of γ = 4/3 is included to approximatethe effects of a magnetic field and cosmic rays. We introduce a metallicity gradient motivated by the enrichment of the inner CGM by the Galaxy. We then present our fiducial model for the corona, tuned to reproduce the 10 observed OVI-OVIII column densities, and with a total mass of MCGM 5.5 10 M inside rCGM 280 kpc. 5 4 ≈3 × ⊙ ≈ The gas densities in the CGM are low (nH = 10− 3 10− cm− ) and its collisional ionization state is modified by the metagalactic radiation field (MGRF).− We× show that for OVI-bearing warm/hot gas with typical 14 2 observed column densities NOVI 3 10 cm at large (& 100 kpc) impact parameters from the central ∼ × − galaxies, the ratio of the cooling to dynamical times, tcool/tdyn, has a model-independentupper limit of . 4. In our model, tcool/tdyn at large radii is 2 3. We present predictions for a wide range of future observations of the warm/hot CGM, from UV/X-ray∼ absorption− and emission spectroscopy, to dispersion measure (DM) and Sunyaev-Zeldovich CMB measurements. We provide the model outputs in machine-readable data files, for easy comparison and analysis. Subject headings: galaxies: formation — galaxies: halos — intergalactic medium — quasars: absorption lines — X-ray: galaxies — UV:galaxies 1. INTRODUCTION models provide a different avenue to address the open ques- Observations of diffuse matter around galaxies, the cir- tions regarding the structure of the CGM (Maller & Bullock cumgalactic medium (CGM), provide evidence for substan- 2004; Anderson & Bregman 2010; Miller & Bregman 2013; Mathews & Prochaska 2017; Stern et al. 2018; McQuinn & tial reservoirs of “warm/hot” (105 106 K) gas extending to Werk 2018; Qu & Bregman 2018; Voit 2019). large radii from the central galaxies− (Prochaska et al. 2011; In Faerman et al. (2017, hereafter FSM17) we presented a Tumlinson et al. 2011b; Gupta et al. 2012; Johnson et al. two-phase model, with separate warm and hot components, 2015; Burchett et al. 2019). The warm/hot CGM is traced for the circumgalactic corona, with the mean gas temperature by absorption and emission lines of highly ionized species in constant (isothermal model) as a function of radius in each the UV and X-ray (Bregman & Lloyd-Davies 2007; Henley phase. We assumed that the metallicity is constant throughout et al. 2010; Henley & Shelton 2010). Observations also find the corona and found that a value of Z = 0.5 solar is needed a cool ( 104 K) phase in the CGM, detected through ab- ′ ∼ to reproduce the oxygen column densities that are measured sorption features from hydrogen and lower metal ions (Werk in absorption. Large CGM gas masses, comparable to those et al. 2013; Prochaska et al. 2017). Many questions remain required for “baryonic closure” of the parent galaxy halos, are open, such as what are the density and temperature distribu- also needed. Our isothermal model in FSM17 is successful tions of the CGM, its metallicity, and ionization state, and to- in reproducing the highly ionized oxygen columns, but with tal mass (Bregman 2007; Putman et al. 2012; Tumlinson et al. some challenges, such as high gas temperature and pressure 2017). Numerical simulations addressing these questions are in the hot phase, and a short cooling time of the warm phase7. arXiv:1909.09169v2 [astro-ph.GA] 21 Mar 2020 challenging, due to the high resolution required and the com- In this paper, we construct an alternate model for the CGM putational cost (Hummels et al. 2019; Peeples et al. 2019). in which we assume constant entropy (isentropic model) lead- The properties of the simulated CGM are also sensitive to the ing to a single phased structure with a large scale tempera- assumed physical models, such as the feedback prescriptions ture gradient, from hot to warm. First, in 2, we present the and physical processes on small scales (McCourt et al. 2012; framework of our model. We solve the equation§ of hydro- Fielding et al. 2017; Ji etal. 2019; Li &Bryan2020). Analytic static equilibrium assuming a constant entropy adiabatic rela- tion between the gas density and temperature, resulting in a * e-mail: [email protected] temperature variation as a function of radius. We introduce a 1 Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, metallicity gradient and discuss the values for boundary con- Israel 2 School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv ditions of the gas distributions. In 3 we present our fidu- 69978, Israel cial isentropic model, defined by a specific§ set of parameters 3 Center for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute, 162 5th Av- chosen to reproduce absorption measurements of highly ion- enue, 10010, New York, NY, USA 4 Max-Planck-Institut fur Extraterrestrische Physik (MPE), Giessen- bachstr., 85748 Garching, FRG 7 In this paper we adopt the terminology used for the CGM in the literature 5 Department of Physics and Department of Astronomy, University of - “warm/hot” for gas temperatures between 105 and 107 K, and “cool” for California at Berkeley, Berkeley CA 94720 104 K gas (see also Werk et al. 2016; Prochaska et al. 2017) ∼ 2 Faerman et al. ized oxygen ions (OVI-OVIII). As in FSM17, we focus on the where r is the radius and K is the entropy parameter, which MW and external galaxies for which OVI has been detected we assume is constant with radius. Using the ideal gas law in the CGM. We show the gas density and temperature distri- allows us to relate the temperature to the density butions in the model, discuss the gas ionization mechanisms m¯ γ 1 and calculate the spatial distributions of ions and gas emis- T(r)= K ρ(r) − , (2) sion properties. We then address the different timescales in kB the model in 4. We also derive a model-independent upper § wherem ¯ is the mean mass per particle. limit for the cooling to dynamical time ratio for OVI-bearing For a mixture of n fluids, we can write the HSE equation as gas. In 5 we compare the model properties to observational § the sum of the pressures for the different components data measured in the MW and other, low-redshift L∗ galax- ies, and provide predictions for future observations in 6. We n compare our current model to FSM17 in 7, discuss the§ dif- dP = dPi = ρdϕ , (3) ∑ − ferences between our work and other models§ of the CGM in i=1 8, and summarize in 9. § § where ϕ is the gravitational potential. We include three pres- sure components, similar to those in FSM17 - (i) thermal, (ii) 2. ISENTROPIC MODEL non-thermal, from cosmic rays and magnetic fields, and (iii) In this section we introduce our model framework for set- turbulent support. We assume that the density of each compo- ting the spatial distributions of the gas density, temperature nent is proportionalto the total gravitating gas mass density ρ. and metallicity. As in FSM17, we assume that the coronal gas For the first two components we use the adiabatic EoS, with is in hydrostatic equilibrium (HSE) within the gravitational γ1 = 5/3 and γ2 = 4/3, respectively, and assume that the en- potential of the central Galaxy and dark matter halo, with neg- tropy parameter is constant with radius. For each component γi 1 ligible self-gravity for the gas. We assume that the gas is sup- dPi = γiKiρ − dρ. For the turbulent component we assume a ported by thermal pressure, magnetic fields and cosmic rays, constant velocity scale, σturb, as we did in FSM17, and write and turbulence. Given the evidence for turbulence in the CGM 2 dP3 = σturb dρ. Equation (3) is then (Tumlinson et al. 2011a; Genel et al. 2014; Werk et al. 2016), we do not imagine a perfect HSE. However, in the absence of 2 γi 1 1 large scale coherent motions (inflows or outflows) there can σturb + ∑ γiKiρ − ρ− dρ = dϕ . (4) exist a close-to-equilibrium steady state (Nelson et al. 2016; i=1,2 ! − Fielding et al. 2017; Lochhaas et al. 2020). As in FSM17 we assume a spherical version of the Milky Way potential pre- Integration then gives sented by Klypin et al. (2002). In 4 we discuss the dynamical γ r GM(r)dr § 2 i γi 1 and cooling timescales in the corona. σturb lnρ(r)+ ∑ Kiρ(r) − = Db 2 , γi 1 − r r In FSM17 we assumed a constant (isothermal) mean tem- i=1,2 − Z b perature throughout the corona, and we invoked isobaric den- (5) sity and temperature fluctuations to enable simultaneous pro- where rb is a reference point, which we normally take at the duction of OVII and OVIII, and a cooling component for the outer boundary, and Db is an integration constant. OVI. FSM17 is thus a multiphased model, hot and at con- To solve this equation for ρ(r) for a given mass profile stant mean temperature for OVII and OVIII, and warm for M(r), we must specify σturb and Ki.