Lab 02: The 21 cm Line: Spin Temperature and HI Column Density

Apply the 21 cm radiative-transfer solution and column-density formula to a representative spectrum and two real published sightlines.

Apparatus and Setup

This lab applies Lecture 03's radiative-transfer solution and Lecture 04's column-density formula to a representative two-component (CNM+WNM) 21 cm brightness-temperature spectrum, and compares the result to two real, published all-sky-survey HI column densities.

Materials and Data

ComponentT_spin (K)Peak T_B (K)FWHM (km/s)
CNM100253.0
WNM8000425

T_spin values and characteristic linewidths are real, standard published CNM/WNM values (level 2, Kalberla & Kerp 2009 review); the specific peak-T_B synthetic Gaussian profile shape is an illustrative representative spectrum (level 3), not a claimed measurement of one specific real sightline (see ../reference-log.md). Real comparison sightlines: 3C 273 (N(HI)=1.79e+20 cm^-2, HI4PI Collaboration 2016) and Cygnus X-1 (N(H)=6.0e+21 cm^-2, X-ray absorption studies).

Procedure

  1. Using the Boltzmann population-ratio formula, compute n1/n0 for both the CNM and WNM spin temperatures and confirm both are close to, but measurably below, the high-temperature limit of 3.0.
  2. Using the Gaussian-integral column-density formula, compute N(HI) separately for the CNM and WNM components and sum them for the total.
  3. Compare your total N(HI) to the real, published 3C 273 sightline value and to the real, published Cygnus X-1 sightline value; state which real sightline your representative spectrum's total is closer to in order of magnitude, and why this is only a loose comparison (your spectrum is illustrative, not a fit to either specific sightline).
  4. Recompute N(HI) for the CNM component using the full (not optically thin) radiative-transfer solution at a specified optical depth of tau=0.05, and confirm the optically thin approximation is accurate to better than 1% at this value.

Analysis and Uncertainty

Discuss what would happen to your total N(HI) estimate if the CNM component were in fact optically thick (tau approaching or exceeding 1) rather than the optically thin tau=0.05 used above, and why narrow, high-peak-brightness CNM features are the ones most likely to violate the optically thin assumption in real spectra.

Deliverables

Assessment Criteria

References and Provenance