Hostname: page-component-7857688df4-q9hl9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-17T20:26:37.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cosmic Variance in the HI Mass Function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2007

Stephen E. Schneider
Stephen E. Schneider*
Affiliation:
Department of Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA email: schneider@astro.umass.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

I review the history of blind HI surveys and the evidence for cosmic variance in the HI mass function. Even the most sensitive current surveys are challenged by noise levels that make determining the shape of the mass function difficult, and this can lead to discrepant results. However, some differences in the mass function appear to be real environmental effects, and this suggest that there are locales where dark (or dim) HI-rich galaxies are more likely to be found. The requirements for significantly deeper surveys beyond the local supercluster to sample cosmic variance in a wider variety of environoments are modeled and discussed.

Keywords

galaxies: mass functionstellar contentstatistics

Information

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 3 , Symposium S244: Dark Galaxies and Lost Baryons , June 2007 , pp. 103 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2008

References

Auld, R. 2007, PhD thesis, University of Cardiff, Wales.Google Scholar
Barnes, D. G., et al. , 2001, MNRAS 322, 486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, F. H. 1990, AJ 100, 999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, F. H. & Rao, S. 1993, ApJ 417, 494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henning, P. A., et al. , 2000, AJ 119, 2686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Impey, C., Bothun, G. & Malin, D. 1988, ApJ 330, 634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, J. L. & Schneider, S. E. 2000, ApJS 130, 177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, J. L. & Schneider, S. E. 2002, ApJ 567, 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, J. L. & Schneider, S. E. 2003, ApJ 585, 256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, J. L., Schneider, S. E. & Posson-Brown, J. 2005, AJ 129, 1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S. E., Spitzak, J. G. & Rosenberg, J. L. 1998, ApJL 507, L9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzak, J. G. & Schneider, S. E. 1998, ApJS 119, 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, M. A., Briggs, F. H., Sprayberry, D. & Sorar, E. 1997, ApJ 490, 173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verheijen, M. A. W., Trentham, N., Tully, B. & Zwaan, M. 2001, ASPC 240, 507Google Scholar
Zwaan, M. A., et al. , 2003, AJ 125, 2842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, M. A., Meyer, M. J., Staveley-Smith, L. & Webster, R. L. 2005, MNRAS 359, 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar