Ly<i>α</i>escape during cosmological hydrogen recombination: the 3d-1s and 3s-1s two-photon processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We give a formulation of the radiative transfer equation for Lyman α photons, which allows us to include the two-photon corrections for the 3s-1s and 3d-1s decay channels during cosmological hydrogen recombination. We use this equation to compute the corrections to the Sobolev escape probability for Lyman α photons during hydrogen recombination, which then allow us to calculate the changes in the free electron fraction and CMB temperature and polarization power spectra. We show that the effective escape probability changes by ΔP/P ~ +11% at z ~ 1400 in comparison with the one obtained using the Sobolev approximation. This accelerates hydrogen recombination by ΔNe/Ne ~ -1.6% at z ~ 1190, implying that |ΔCl/Cl| ~ 1-3% at l 1500 with shifts in the positions of the maxima and minima in the CMB power spectra. These corrections will be important to the analysis of future CMB data. The total correction is the result of the superposition of three independent processes, related to (i) time-dependent aspects of the problem; (ii) corrections due to quantum mechanical deviations in the shape of the emission and absorption profiles in the vicinity of the Lyman α line, from the normal Lorentzian; and (iii) a thermodynamic correction factor, which is found to be very important. All of these corrections are neglected in the Sobolev-approximation, but they are important in the context of future CMB observations. All three can be naturally obtained in the two-photon formulation of the Lyman α absorption process. However, the corrections (i) and (iii) can also be deduced in the normal “1+1” photon language, without necessarily going to the two-photon picture. Therefore, only (ii) is really related to the quantum mechanical aspects of the two-photon process. We show here that (i) and (iii) represent the largest individual contributions to the result, although they partially cancel each other close to z ~ 1100. At z ~ 1100, the modification due to the shape of the line profile contributes about ΔNe/Ne ~ -0.4%, while the sum of the other two contributions gives ΔNe/Ne ~ -0.9%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".