# Photoelectric heating for dust grains at high redshifts

## 1 Introduction

Recent observations with high resolution have provided evidences for the existence of heavy elements in $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ forest clouds at redshifts $`z3`$ (Cowie et al., 1995, Tytler et al., 1995). Songaila and Cowie (1996) claimed that more than $`75\%`$ of all $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers with $`N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}\stackrel{>}{}10^{14}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup> at $`z3`$ are enriched. Tytler et al. (1995) reported similar results : all $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems with $`N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}\stackrel{>}{}10^{15}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup> and 60% with $`N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}\stackrel{>}{}10^{14}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup>. These values are expected to be lower limits, since the measurements of heavy elements are S/N limited, and all $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems may contain heavy elements (see also Tytler 1988).

The abundance of metals, however, remains somewhat uncertain, especially because it depends on the value of the ionization parameter ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the ratio of ionizing photon density to the particle density) assumed. Nevertheless, for a reasonable range of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10^{1.5}\text{}10^{2.5}`$, the inferred metallicity is almost independent of the H I column density, and is of order $`Z/Z_{}10^2`$ (Songaila & Cowie 1996). Rauch et al. (1997) found from the comparison of the data with their numerical simulations that the metallicity has a mean $`10^{2.5}`$ solar and that there is a large scatter. Songaila (1997) has recently reported a lower limit to the metallicity of order $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{metals}/\mathrm{\Omega }_b1\text{}4\times 10^5h(1+2q_oz)^{1/2}`$. For a low $`q_o`$ universe ($`q_o=0.02`$), $`h=0.65`$ and a solar metallicity of $`0.019`$, this implies a minimum metallicity of order $`10^{3.3}\text{}10^{2.8}`$ solar.

Recent studies of metallicity and dust content in nearby galaxies have demonstrated that dust-to-gas ratio $`k`$ and metallicity $`\zeta =Z/Z_{}`$ correlate (Schmidt & Boller, 1993, Lisenfeld & Ferrara, 1997). Though the correlation is not always good, it definitely shows that the production of metals in galaxies is accompanied with dust formation. Moreover, weak correlation between $`k`$ and $`\zeta `$ in blue compact dwarf galaxies may indicate that galaxies during active phases of star formation eject dust along with metals in gaseous outflows (Lisenfeld & Ferrara, 1997). It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that if the IGM and $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers are enriched with metals, they are also contaminated with dust grains, produced inside the galaxies and transported into the IGM along with metals. The presence of dust in the IGM and its consequences was first discussed by Rowan-Robinson et al. (1979), who suggested that dust in the early universe at $`z200`$ could lead to distortions of CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) (see also Vainer 1990; Loeb & Haiman 1997). More recently, Fall et al. (1989) and Pei et al. (1991) have argued that the reddening of background quasars indicates directly that dust grains exist in damped $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems. Their dust-to-gas ratio ranges from $`k=0.06`$ to $`k=0.35`$ for different extinction curves assumed (here $`k=10^{21}\tau _B/N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}`$, $`k_G=0.79`$ for the Galaxy, Fall & Pei, 1989). Arguments based on the extinction of light by dust have led Zou et al. (1997) to similar estimates of $`k`$ in damped $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ clouds toward the lensed quasar 0957+561. They explain the difference in the continuum shape of the two spectra by differential reddening due to the presence of dust grains. Recently, however, Pettini et al. (1997) have shown that the dust-to-metals ratio in damped $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems is only $`1/2`$ of its value in local interstellar clouds (thus, dust-to-gas ratio is $`kk_G\zeta /2`$). They infer this from the fact that Cr and other refractory elements are depleted only by a factor of $`2`$ in 18 studied damped $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems, much less than in the interstellar medium, and assuming that this depletion is due to freezing on dust grains.

In this paper we assume that dust particles are present not only in damped $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems, but also in $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ forest clouds, following the idea that dust is associated with metals. We concentrate here on detailed study of dust charging in the high redshift IGM illuminated by the background UV and X-ray photons and heating due to injected supra-thermal photo-electrons—in several respects these processes differ from those in the local interstellar medium.

We do not discuss here how metals and dust particles are supplied to the IGM; we refer the reader to the papers where the IGM enrichment has been associated with population III stars (Ciardi & Ferrara, 1997, Gnedin & Ostriker 1997), early-forming very massive objects (Carr, Bond & Arnett 1984), galactic winds from galaxies at high redshifts (Silk, Wyse & Shields 1987; Miralda-Escudé & Rees 1997; Nath & Trentham 1997). The estimates show that an enriched IGM with a metallicity of $`10^{2.5}`$ Z at $`z3`$ can be understood in terms of either Population III objects or galactic winds.

The paper is structured as follows. In §2 we describe the basic processes and the equations, in §3 we describe the basic characteristics of charged high-redshift dust particles exposed to the background UV radiation, and photo-emitted electrons, and in §4 we present the results of the evolution of temperature in the IGM with photo-induced dust heating as an important energy source. We then briefly discuss the implication of our results for $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers. Throughout the paper we use a Hubble constant $`H_0=h_{50}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}50}`$ km s<sup>-1</sup> Mpc<sup>-1</sup> and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$.

## 2 The charge of a dust grain in the IGM

### 2.1 The UV background radiation

We first discuss the ambient photon background that is important for the process of charging of the dust at high redshift. The existence of a UV background radiation at high redshift has been inferred from proximity effect observations (Bajtlik et al. 1988). These observations show that the UV background radiation has an intensity at $`\lambda =912\mathrm{\AA }`$ of $`J_{912,21}0.3\text{}1`$, in the units of $`10^{21}`$ erg s<sup>-1</sup> cm<sup>-2</sup> sr<sup>-1</sup> Hz<sup>-1</sup> ($`2<z<3`$) (Bechtold 1994; Cristiani et al. 1995; Cooke et al. 1996).

On the theoretical front, following the pioneering work of Miralda-Escudé & Ostriker (1990), several authors have calculated the expected value of $`J_{912,21}`$ from the quasars, using existing quasar luminosity functions, and taking into account the absorption of photons by the intervening $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption systems (e.g., Madau 1992; Haardt and Madau 1996). This predicted intensity, however, falls short of the inferred intensity from the proximity effect (Cooke, Espey and Carswell 1996). It has, therefore, been suggested that there are other sources of UV photons at high redshift, e.g. young star forming galaxies, decaying neutrinos, or even a warm, collisionally ionized IGM. The predicted spectrum of the UV background in these cases however is much different, and, therefore, observational constraints on the spectrum hold the clue to the origin of the high redshift UV background radiation. The observations of He II absorption at high redshift put constraints on the spectrum of the ionizing background (Jakobsen et al.1994; Davidsen et al.1996). Meiksin & Madau (1994) showed that the He II opacity observed by Jakobsen et al.(1994) softness ratio, $`S_LJ_{912}/J_{228}\stackrel{>}{}40`$ at $`z3.3`$ assuming a reasonable value of the opacity due to diffuse H I (see also, Songaila, Hu & Cowie 1995). For the Davidsen et al.(1996) observations, Sethi and Nath (1997) found that the allowed range of models is still large, after taking various uncertainties into account ($`16\stackrel{<}{}S_L\stackrel{<}{}650`$). There has been recent claims that the spectral index changes around $`z3`$ (Songaila 1998, Reimers et al.1997, Hogan et al.1997, Savaglio et al.1997), but we assume a constant spectral index for simplicity. We discuss the effect of such a change in the section §3.3.

For our purpose here, we will use two models for the UV background radiation for our calculation, bearing in mind the above uncertainties. The first one (referred to as QSO) represents the background radiation expected from only quasars, and the second one (QSO+YG), represents the radiation expected from quasars and young galaxies. The models are described in Table 1. The model QSO is a broken power-law fit to the spectrum obtained by Haardt and Madau (1996), for an intermediate redshift of $`z2.5`$. Note that their calculation was actually for $`q_o=0.1`$. The model QSO+YG assumes the QSO luminosity function of Boyle (1991), as in Madau (1992), and a population of young galaxies, which is used to make $`J_{912,21}=1`$ using the A3 model of absorption of Giroux & Shapiro (1996) (again at $`z2.5`$; see also Sethi and Nath 1997). The values of the softness ratio $`S_L`$ for each model is given in Table 1. Although the broken power laws are crude approximations to the actual spectrum, they suffice for our purpose of illustrating the effect of dust charging and heating at high redshift, in the light of the uncertainty in our knowledge of the UV background radiation.

Beyond $`228\mathrm{\AA }`$, we use $`J_\nu \nu ^1`$ till $`h\nu =3`$ keV for both models. This again mimics well the Haardt & Madau (1996) spectra for $`10\mathrm{\AA }\stackrel{<}{}\lambda \stackrel{<}{}228\mathrm{\AA }`$. For $`E_\gamma \stackrel{>}{}3`$ keV, we use the quasar X-ray spectral index of $`0.9`$. Zdziarski et al.(1995) found a good fit to the data of Seyferts with a spectral index of $`0.9`$ till $`100`$ keV. However, photons with energies much above $`1`$ keV do not contribute significantly in the charging and heating processes due to small absorption coefficients at these energies.

The evolution of the background radiation in redshift also remains uncertain. For simplicity, we assume that $`J_{912,21}`$ remains a constant for $`2<z<5`$, and $`J_{912,21}(1+z)^{2.8}`$ for $`z<2`$. This is a fit to the evolution of $`J_{912,21}`$ as calculated by Madau (1992) for $`z<2`$. Also, we assume that the spectral shape remains a constant in time, although in reality the spectrum becomes softer at higher redshift due to increase in absorption (Miralda-Escudé & & Ostriker 1990). Again, however, the uncertainties involved are large, and we assume a constant spectral shape for simplicity.

### 2.2 Basic processes for charging grains

In this paper we follow Draine (1978) and Draine & Salpeter (1979, hereafter DS) in describing the processes determining the grain charge. The equation governing the charge on a grain is written as follows

$$\frac{dq}{dt}=4\pi a^2e\mathrm{\Sigma }_iJ_i,$$
(1)   
where $`J_i`$ is the partial current due to particle of the $`i`$-th kind, and $`a`$ is the grain radius. The currents which mainly determine grain charge in the ISM are due to: i) impinging electrons, ii) impinging ions (mainly protons), iii) UV photons. In principle, secondary processes can be associated with these three (such as secondary electron emission), however, in the conditions we are interested in they play a minor role. In case of incident electrons and protons, currents $`J_i`$ are enhanced due to Coulomb interaction by factor $`g(x)`$. For electrons, with $`x=eU/kT`$, where $`U`$ is the grain potential, (Spitzer, 1978),

$$g_e(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(x)\hfill & \text{if }x<0\hfill \\ 1+x\hfill & \text{if }x>0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)   
For ions, it is given by,

$$g_i(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(zx)\hfill & \text{if }x>0\hfill \\ 1zx\hfill & \text{if }x<0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)   
where $`z`$ is the ion charge.

#### 2.2.1 The current due to impinging electrons

Grain particles in low density IGM exposed by UV and X-ray photons are positively charged, and the electron current can be written as (DS),

$$J_e=n_e\left(\frac{kT}{2\pi m_e}\right)^{1/2}(s_e\delta )(1+x),$$
(4)   
here $`s_e`$, the thermally averaged sticking probability for incident electrons. This probability, $`s_e1`$ for thermal electrons with temperature $`T`$ and grain size $`a`$ satisfying the condition (Draine, 1989),

$$a>10\left(\frac{T}{10^6\mathrm{K}}\right)^{1.5}\AA ,$$
(5)   
which is valid for temperature $`T10^5`$ K, the range of temperatures relevant in our case. $`\delta `$ is the secondary emission coefficient, for incident thermal electrons with $`kT300500`$ eV $`\delta 1`$.

#### 2.2.2 The current due to impinging ions (protons)

DS give, for the proton current,

$$J_{ip}=n_p\left(\frac{kT}{2\pi M}\right)^{1/2}(zs_p+\nu _p\beta Y_p)\mathrm{exp}(x).$$
(6)   
where $`s_p1`$, the effective sticking coefficient, $`\nu _p1`$, the secondary electron emission coefficient, and $`\beta Y_z1`$, the charging due to sputtered charge particles, as can be estimated from DS for temperature $`T10^5`$ K. It is seen clearly that in fully ionized IGM, contribution of protons to grain charging is of order $`|J_p|0.03|J_e|`$. We neglect the current from helium ions, since for the situations we are concerned with in this paper, the contribution from ions is in general small compared to electron and photoinduced currents.

#### 2.2.3 Photoelectric current per area

Photoelectric current per grain area is

$$J_{UV}=\underset{\nu _{min}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q(a,\nu )y_\nu \frac{4\pi J_\nu }{h\nu }𝑑\nu ,$$
(7)   
where $`J_\nu `$ is the spectral energy flux of incident photons (\[erg cm<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup> Hz<sup>-1</sup> sr<sup>-1</sup>\]), $`y_\nu `$, the photo-yield, i.e. the number of photo-emitted electrons per absorbed photon, $`Q_\nu (a)`$, the efficiency of photoabsorptions, and $`\nu _{min}=(w+eU)/h`$ corresponds to the minimum energy for which electrons can escape from the surface of a dust grain, $`w`$ being the work function. The normalized photo-yield can be written as (Draine, 1978, Bakes & Tielens, 1994, hereafter BT) ,

$$y_\nu =y_0\left(1\frac{I_z}{h\nu }\right)f_z(a),$$
(8)   
where (Draine, 1978),

$$f_z(a)=\left(\frac{\zeta }{\alpha }\right)^2\frac{(\alpha ^22\alpha +22e^\alpha )}{(\zeta ^22\zeta +22e^\zeta )},$$
(9)   
with

$$\alpha =\frac{a}{l_a}+\frac{a}{l_e};\zeta =\frac{a}{l_a},$$
(10)   
where $`a`$ is the grain radius, $`l_a`$, the photon attenuation length, $`l_e`$, the electron escape length; BT give $`l_a=10^6`$ cm, and $`l_e=10^7`$ cm. The asymptotic (at photon energies much larger than the ionization potential of a grain $`I_z`$) value of $`y_0`$ is determined by Draine (1978) as $`y_0=0.5`$ to reproduce the enhanced value of the photo-yield of a small particle over the bulk graphite, and by BT as $`y_0=0.14`$ to fit experimental data for coronene (Verstraete et al, 1990). $`I_z`$ is the ionization potential for a grain with charge $`Z`$ (BT), and is given by,

$$I_z=w+(Z+\frac{1}{2})\frac{e^2}{a}.$$
(11)   
Here $`e`$ is in esu units. It is important to note here that when the photo-induced current is calculated for the ISM in the Galaxy, the upper limit in the integral is defined as the Lyman limit frequency $`\nu _L`$ (Drain, 1978, BT), regarding the fact that Lyman continuum photons are confined within HII regions. This restricts from above the charge of dust grains, the energy of photo-emitted electrons and thus the photoelectric heating. In our case, charging of dust grains and photoelectric heating are determined by photons with energy above Lyman limit. BT stress that near threshold the photo-yield for graphite grains is usually overestimated. In our case, with photon energies and electric potentials much higher than in the ISM, the contribution from the threshold region is small.

#### 2.2.4 Photoabsorption efficiency

For silicate particles $`Q`$ can be reasonably approximated for sizes what we are concerning $`a0.1\mu \mathrm{m}`$, and photon energies $`ϵ10`$ eV by (Ferrara & Dettmar, 1994)

$$Q(a,ϵ)=\left(\frac{ϵ}{8\mathrm{eV}}\right)^{\gamma _a},$$
(12)   
where

$$\gamma _a=2.5\left[(10a)^{0.1}1\right],$$
(13)   
here and throughout the paper $`a`$ is in $`\mu `$m, if not specified.

For graphite particles, we use the approximation,

$`Q(a,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`30\times a\mathrm{exp}(11.9\sqrt{a})\sigma _1(ϵ)`$ (14)   
$`+`$ $`60\times {\displaystyle \frac{a}{1+25a}}\mathrm{exp}(7.5\sqrt{a})\sigma _2(ϵ)`$   
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10a}{(1+a)(1+10a)}}\sigma _3(ϵ),`$   
where $`\sigma _i`$, the cross sections per carbon atom in a particle (in MegaBarns), are described below. For $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$, we used the data given in BT (see their Fig. 1), which we approximated as

$$\sigma _1(ϵ)=\{\begin{array}{cc}5.24\times 10^4ϵ^{3.78},ϵ17.29\mathrm{eV}\hfill & \\ 1.37\times 10^5ϵ^{3.02},ϵ>17.29\mathrm{eV}\hfill & \end{array};$$
(15)   
$$\sigma _2(ϵ)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.032ϵ^{2.5},ϵ<6.13\mathrm{eV}\hfill & \\ 112.7ϵ^2,ϵ>6.13\mathrm{eV}\hfill & \end{array};$$
(16)   
$$\sigma _3(ϵ)=1.5+2\times 10^4(ϵ0.22)(ϵ18)(ϵ40),$$
(17)   
here $`ϵ`$ is given in eV. This approximation for $`Q(a,ϵ)`$ agrees with the results of Draine and Lee (1984) (see their Fig. 4) for grain sizes $`a=0.030.1`$ and with the results of BT (see their Fig. 1), which are based on an extrapolation of the results of Draine and Lee to smaller particles, to within 10–15 %, for $`3\mathrm{eV}\stackrel{<}{}ϵ\stackrel{<}{}40\mathrm{eV}`$, and 20–30 % for $`ϵ\stackrel{<}{}3\mathrm{eV}`$. BT showed that the ionization cross sections obtained in this way are in good agreement with the data for small PAH coronene (Verstraete et al. 1990).

At energies $`ϵ>40\mathrm{eV}`$, for $`Q(a,ϵ)`$, we use the approximation given by DS

$$Q(a,ϵ)=Q(a,40\mathrm{eV})\left(\frac{40\mathrm{eV}}{ϵ}\right);$$
(18)   
and for $`ϵ>1`$ keV,

$$Q(a,ϵ)=Q(a,1\mathrm{keV})\left(\frac{1\mathrm{keV}}{ϵ}\right)^3.$$
(19)   
These approximations give reasonable fits (within 10–15 %) in the entire energy range. One should stress however, that in the high-energy interval, $`ϵ\stackrel{>}{}1`$ keV, the $`Q(a,ϵ)ϵ^3`$ dependence is contaminated by very sharp increases in $`Q`$ when the photon energy approaches the edge of an atomic subshell, and can exceed the $`Q(a,ϵ)ϵ^3`$ value by 1–1.5 orders of magnitude, (Dwek & Smith, 1996). From this point of view our results for dust charging and heating can be considered conservative.

### 2.3 Grain potential

It is readily seen from the charge equation that characteristic charging times caused by the photo-induced and electron currents, for $`n_e10^7`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>, are much shorter than the Hubble time at $`z\stackrel{<}{}20`$ ($`t_H10^{15}`$ s) and sound crossing time for a cloud with $`R>1`$ kpc with temperature $`T10^410^5`$ K ($`t_R10^{15}`$ s). Therefore, the grain charge is kept at equilibrium, $`\dot{q}=0`$, and can be easily determined from

$$n_e\left(\frac{8kT}{\pi m_e}\right)^{1/2}(1+x)=_{\nu _{min}}^{\mathrm{}}Q(a,\nu )y_\nu \frac{4\pi J_\nu }{h\nu }𝑑\nu +n_p\left(\frac{8kT}{\pi m_p}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(20)   
It is clear that the proton current can be comparable to the photo-induced current when the particle flux for protons $`n_pv_p`$ is comparable with the photon flux $`J_\nu /h`$. More precisely, for a power law spectrum $`J_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$ it is equivalent to the condition,

$$\left(\frac{8kT}{\pi m_p}\right)^{1/2}n_p\frac{4\pi QyJ_0}{\alpha h}\left(\frac{h\nu _L}{w}\right)^\alpha ,$$
(21)   
where $`J_0`$ is the spectral energy flux at the Lyman limit frequency, $`\nu _L`$, $`Q`$ and $`y`$, the absorption efficiency and photo-yield averaged over the spectrum. For typical values $`J_010^{21}`$, $`Q0.1`$, $`y0.1`$ this is equivalent to $`n_e0.2T_4^{1/2}`$. Thus, for conditions in the IGM at $`z3`$ photo-induced current dominates dust charging.

#### 2.3.1 Analytical estimates

For grains exposed to hard UV radiation, the charge and potential are expected to be high, $`x1`$, and can be estimated for a power-law spectrum of incident photons $`J\nu ^\alpha `$ and a power-law dependence for $`Q(a,\nu )Q(a,\nu _L)(\nu /\nu _L)^\beta `$, as

$$x\left[\frac{10^{\alpha +\beta 2}}{n_eT_4^{\alpha +\beta +1/2}(\alpha +\beta )}Q(a,\nu _L)\right]^{1/(\alpha +\beta +1)}.$$
(22)   
Here, we have used $`y=0.1`$; our assumption of $`x1`$ is valid for $`n_e<10^310^4`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>, and $`T_4<10`$. For $`\alpha 1`$, $`\beta 3`$ (such $`\beta `$ is typical for graphites particles of small sizes in the energy interval $`ϵ=17.340`$ eV), this gives a weak dependence of the potential on gas density and absorption characteristics, $`x2n_e^{0.2}T_4^{0.9}[J_{21}Q(a,\nu _L)]^{0.2}`$. In $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ clouds with $`n_e10^4`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> and $`T10^4`$ K $`x10[J_{21}Q(a,\nu _L)]^{0.2}`$ which is much larger than the value for grains in the local ISM illuminated by photons below Lyman limit. For graphite particles with larger radius, $`a0.1`$, $`\beta 11.5`$, and $`x0.8n_e^{0.25}T_4^{0.6}[J_{21}Q(a,\nu _L)]^{0.25}`$ $`n_e^{0.28}T_4^{0.86}[J_{21}Q(a,\nu _L)]^{0.28}`$.

Silicate particles have less strong dependence of $`Q(a,ϵ)`$ on photon energy in the interval $`ϵ>10`$ eV, $`\beta 01`$ for $`a=0.10.001`$, respectively, which results in a stronger dependence of grain potential on the parameters of ambient medium: $`x0.3n_e^{0.5}T_4^{0.75}[J_{21}Q(a,\nu _L)]^{0.5}`$$`0.8n_e^{0.33}T_4^{0.83}[J_{21}Q(a,\nu _L)]^{0.33}`$. Note that for the dependence of the graphites grain potential on $`Q(a)`$ and on grain size is weaker than for silicates.

#### 2.3.2 Numerical results

Figures 1a and 1b show the dependence of grain potential $`x=eU/kT`$ for graphites and silicates, respectively, on the ambient density for hard (QSO, solid lines) and soft (QSO+YG, dashed lines) spectra of background photons, for a grain size of $`a=10^5`$ cm and for fixed gas temperature $`T=10^4`$ K. Figures 2a and 2b show the dependence of $`x`$ for graphites and silicates on the grain size $`a`$ for different ambient densities for the QSO and QSO+YG spectra.

The figures show that the dependences follow qualitatively the above simple estimates. In general, hard spectrum (QSO) results in higher value of $`x`$, especially for silicates, and both graphites and silicates have comparatively lower grain potentials for soft spectrum. QSO spectra with low equivalent $`\alpha `$ result in more strong dependence of grain potential on density than QSO+YG spectra with larger equivalent $`\alpha `$ do. Graphites do not show much dependence of the potential on the grain size, while silicates do, which is due to more weak dependence of $`Q(a,ϵ)`$ on photon energy for silicates, as seen from analytical estimates. It is also seen that grain potential on silicate particles depends on the ambient density stronger than on graphite particles.

### 2.4 Photo-electric heating

The heating rate due to photo-electric effect in dust grains (in erg cm<sup>-3</sup> s<sup>-1</sup>) is given by,

$$H_{ph}=n_H𝑑a𝒩_g(a)\sigma (a)\underset{\nu _{m1(a)}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\nu Q(a,\nu )y_\nu \frac{4\pi J_\nu }{h\nu }(h\nu weU(a)),$$
(23)   
where $`\nu _{m1(a)}=(w+eU+3kT/2)/h`$, the minimum frequency of photons needed to eject electrons which have sufficient energy to heat the surrounding gas, $`𝒩_g(a)=dn/da`$, the size distribution of grains, is taken a power-law $`𝒩_g(a)=Aa^q`$. The normalizing factor $`A`$ can be determined from

$$A\underset{a_{min}}{\overset{a_{max}}{}}a^q\frac{4}{3}\pi \rho _ga^3𝑑a=10^2\zeta m_Hn,$$
(24)   
where $`a_{min}=5\times 10^7`$ cm, $`a_{max}=4\times 10^5`$ cm (see, O’Donnel & Mathis, 1997), are the minimal and maximal sizes of dust particles, respectively. Then, the coefficient $`A`$ is

$$A=3.8\times 10^{27}(4q)\left(\frac{Z}{Z_{}}\right)\frac{n}{a_{max}^{4q}a_{min}^{4q}},$$
(25)   
for typical grain density $`\rho _g=1`$ g cm<sup>-3</sup>. For $`U(a)`$ in Eq. 23, we use the results for grain charge as obtained in §2.3.

#### 2.4.1 Mean energy of photoelectrons

An important parameter which determines the photo-electric heating is the mean energy of photo-emitted electrons,

$$E(a)=\frac{\underset{\nu _{min}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\nu Q(a,\nu )y_\nu \frac{4\pi J_\nu }{h\nu }(h\nu weU(a))}{\underset{\nu _{min}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\nu Q(a,\nu )y_\nu \frac{4\pi J_\nu }{h\nu }}.$$
(26)   
In the local interstellar medium $`E(a)`$ is of the order of $`h\nu _Lw5.6`$ eV. In a medium exposed to hard UV photons it is restricted only from below, and the exact value depends on the UV spectrum. Figures 3 and 4 show this dependence for graphite and silicate particles. It is seen that $`E(a)`$ can reach hundreds of eV at low densities, while typical values for moderate densities is $`3050kT`$ tens of eV.

Note that although the curves in Figures 3 & 4 show that in general $`E(a)`$ for grains with higher charges is large, it should not be taken to mean that higher charge causes the mean electron energies to be larger. The dependence of $`E(a)`$ on $`eU/kT`$ at $`T=10^4`$ K is shown in Figure 5 for silicates (solid lines) and graphites (dotted lines), for QSO type (thick lines) and QSO+YG type spectra (thin lines) (the upper set of curves are for $`a=10^5`$ cm and the lower set of curves are for $`a=10^6`$ cm). It is seen that $`E(a)`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`eU/kT`$, and the nature of the curve depends on $`Q(a,\nu )`$, $`y_\nu `$ and the photon spectrum.

The differential heating rate (per unit grain) is a product of absorbed photons and $`E(a)`$

$$\frac{dH_{ph}}{dn_g(a)}=E(a)\underset{\nu _{m1(a)}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\nu Q(a,\nu )y_\nu \sigma (a)\frac{4\pi J_\nu }{h\nu },$$

and can be therefore roughly estimated as $`dH_{ph}(a)/dn_g(a)E(a)(eU)^{\beta +\alpha 1}E(a)n_e^{(\beta +\alpha 1)/(\beta +\alpha +1)}`$, i.e. flatter than linear.

#### 2.4.2 Differential heating rates

Using the approximate solution for dust potential what we found in section 2.3.1 one can estimate partial contributions to the total heating rate from silicates and graphites. In the integral

$$\frac{dH_{ph}}{dn_g(a)}=\underset{\nu _{m1(a)}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\nu Q(a,\nu )y_\nu \sigma (a)\frac{4\pi J_\nu }{h\nu }(h\nu weU(a)),$$
(27)   
we can neglect $`w`$ in comparison with $`h\nu `$ and $`eU`$, and using as above power laws for the flux $`J`$ and absorption coefficient $`Q(a,\nu )`$ we get

$$\frac{dH_{ph}}{dn_g(a)}4\times 10^5f(\alpha ,\beta )\sigma (a)n_e^{\frac{\alpha +\beta 1}{\alpha +\beta +1}}T_4^{\frac{\alpha +\beta 1}{2(\alpha +\beta +1)}}[J_{21}Q(a,\nu _L)]^{\frac{2}{\alpha +\beta +1}},$$
(28)   
where $`f(\alpha ,\beta )1`$. It is seen from this equation that the differential heating rate, both for graphite and silicate particles, depends on grain radius through $`Q(a,\nu _L)`$ rather weakly, and thus contribution from grains of small radius dominates due to the factor $`𝒩_g(a)a^q`$. However, the integrated heating rate is insensitive to the grain size distribution: for $`Q^{2/\alpha +\beta +1}a^\eta `$, with $`0<\eta <1`$ the dependence of heating rate on $`q`$ is close to be eliminated with normalizing factor $`A`$ in Eq. 25.

In figure 6 we show heating rates (per unit volume) due to graphite and silicate particles, respectively, integrated over size distributions for both incident photon spectra, and for different size distribution of grains, $`q=3.5`$ and $`q=3.9`$. For comparison we show also the photoionization heating rate for a primordial gas. It is seen that photoelectric dust heating depends on density less strongly than photoionization heating. Silicates produce weaker dependence of heating rate on density, which can be explained by the weak dependence of grain potential and the mean energy of photo-electrons on density (see, Figs 2 and 3). Due to the fact that both $`eU`$ and $`E(a)`$ for silicates are higher than for graphites, the heating rate by silicate grains is also higher. Changing the size distribution results in a weak change (within factor of 1.5) of the heating rate: dust with $`q=3.9`$ heats more efficiently than with $`q=3.5`$, as expected. In Figure 7, we show the heating rate as a function of the lower limit of the grain size assumed, for different grain types and ambient densities. The curves show that the heating is dominated by small grains in general. In brief, in all cases the photo-electric dust heating is comparable or even exceeds (at low densities) the photoionization heating.

The dependence of the dust heating rate on the ionizing radiation flux at Lyman edge $`J(\nu _L)`$ is quite weak, particularly for QSO+YG spectra with large $`\alpha `$. However, it can lead to variations in temperature due to local inhomogeneity in exposing UV flux. On the other hand, the photoionization heating does not depend on the flux in a fully ionized medium with $`n_{HI}n_H`$ for low density ($`n10^{3.5}`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> as considered here), as the photoionization heating rate is proportional to the recombination rate and thus weakly depends on the UV flux..

Dust heating can also stimulate at appropriate conditions spatial variations in temperature via thermal instability. In the simplest case of steady energy balance: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)n^2=H_{ph}`$, with $`H_{ph}`$ depending on density and temperature as given in Eq. 28, Field’s criterion for thermal instability of condensation mode (Field, 1965) is written as

$$\frac{d\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }}{d\mathrm{log}T}1+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\alpha +\beta 1}{\alpha +\beta +1}<0,$$
(29)   
which shows that for $`\alpha +\beta <1`$ (hard spectrum and dominance of silicate grains with $`a>0.01\mu `$m), dust heating works as a destabilizing factor.

## 3 Thermal evolution of the clumpy IGM with dust heating

Next, we compute the thermal evolution of the clumps in the IGM with overdensities of order $`10`$, which either keep their overdensity constant (i.e. , adiabatically expand), or are confined by some mechanism and keep their density constant. These are described below in detail as Models I and II.

We assume that the gas in $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems evolves passively, driven by the UV background flux and the expansion (or non-expansion) of the cloud. This is consistent with the picture of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems as described by the recent numerical simulations (e.g., Miralda-Escudé et al.1996) in which $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ system gas is not involved in star formation and are not affected by the processes related to it.

We note here that Miralda-Escudé & Rees (1994) also calculated the evolution of temperature in overdense regions of IGM, which first collapse under gravity, during which the temperature rises to $`10^5`$ K due to adiabatic heating, and which then evolve with constant (proper) density, during which, due to high density and the consequent high recombination and line cooling rate, temperature falls down quickly to $`10^4`$ K.They, however, considered much higher densities ($`\stackrel{>}{}10^3`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>) than we use here ($`\stackrel{<}{}10^4`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>) (at lower densities, the balance between the heating and cooling processes will be different, for example, adiabatic cooling will be more important).

The evolution of temperature in an overdense region in the IGM would depend on the initial temperature (and epoch) assumed. If the gas in the overdense region were initially compressed adiabatically, then the maximum temperature would be $`T_{cl}(\rho _{cl}/\rho _{IGM})^{2/3}T_{IGM}`$, where $`\rho _{cl}`$ is the density in the overdense region. For overdensities of order $`5\text{}10`$, that are considered to be typical values for $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbing systems (see below), $`T_{cl}3\text{}5T_{IGM}`$. The value of $`T_{IGM}`$, however, depends on the thermal history of the IGM (Miralda-Escudé & Rees 1994) which remains uncertain. We, therefore, for the sake of illustrating the importance of dust heating, assume a few values of the initial temperatures of the overdense region $`T_{in}`$ which are of order $`10^4`$ K, and follow the thermal evolution in time.

### 3.1 Models: heating and cooling processes

In numerical calculations we used the heating rate due to photo-electric effect in dust grains as described above with grain size distribution $`𝒩_ga^q`$ with $`q=3.5`$. For the relative fraction of graphites and silicates, we use the one given by Pei (1992) for the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), which seems suitable for low metallicity objects at high redshift (Pei, Fall & Bechtold 1991). We also show the thermal evolutions with only graphites and silicates involved. The case of only silicates correspond to the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) type dust grains (Pei 1992). For other heating processes apart from dust heating, we use photoionization heating of a primordial gas, for both models of UV radiation. The heating due to photoionization of carbon atoms is smaller than this by a factor of $`3`$ ($`10`$) for the QSO+YG (QSO) spectrum for a metallicity of $`Z/Z_{}=0.01`$. For cooling, we use recombination cooling, cooling due to collisional ionization, line cooling (in the presence of the UV radiation) and bremsstrahlung for a primordial gas, as given in Cen (1992). Cooling due to heavy elements at this metallicity and temperature is unimportant. Inverse Compton cooling at $`z\stackrel{<}{}5`$ is not important and is neglected here (the corresponding cooling time-scale is $`t_{iC}9\times 10^{12}(1+z)^4`$ yr; Tegmark, Silk & Evrard (1993)).

In the Model I, we assume that the overdense regions adiabatically expand keeping the overdensity a constant in time. In this case, therefore, we also include cooling due to adiabatic expansion. In the Model II, we consider regions with constant (proper) density, in which the gas is confined by gravity or shock ram pressure, or some other confinement mechanism. For Model I, we use $`\rho _{cl}/\mathrm{\Omega }_b\rho _c=10`$, for all redshifts, where $`\rho _{cl}`$ is the density inside the cloud, $`\rho _c`$ is the critical density and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ is the global mean baryon density in the units of $`\rho _c`$ . For Model II, we use $`\rho _{cl}/\mathrm{\Omega }_b\rho _c=10`$ (at $`z=z_{in}`$) for different values of the initial redshift $`z_{in}`$. We use $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.03`$ and initial temperature $`T_{in}=10^4,2\times 10^4,5\times 10^4`$ K. Our choice of the parameters follow the result of Cen & Simcoe (1997), that $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers with $`N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}10^{14}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup> had $`\rho _{cl}/\rho _b10`$ at $`z3`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b0.03`$. The minimum width of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ lines at $`z4`$ has been recently found to be $`b=15`$ km s<sup>-1</sup> (Kim et al.1997). If the minimum width (in the distribution of $`b`$ values) is considered to be due to gas temperature (see below for more discussion on this), this corresponds to a temperature of $`10^4`$ K and proves the presence of overdense regions with such temperatures at $`z4`$. Here we consider the temperature evolution of such regions in time.

In reality, the gas in $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems is expected to behave in a way which lies between our two models. Numerical simulations show that the structures in the IGM corresponding to $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ forest absorption lines are sheet-like structures (Miralda-Escudé et al.1996). The gas is confined in one dimension and flows along the sheet toward semi-spherical vortices. Therefore, the density is expected to fall slower than $`(1+z)^3`$. Also, since these structures are transient, lasting about a Hubble time, our calculations would be relevant only on time scales shorter than this.

### 3.2 Models: numerical results

We show the evolution of the gas temperature in Figure 8a and 8b for graphites and silicates. The dotted and solid lines refer to the cases without dust, and with dust with $`\zeta =Z/Z_{}=0.01`$. The plots show the evolution for various initial temperatures, for the two models of background photons (upper panels for QSO and lower panels for QSO+YG spectra). The case of silicates, of course, correspond to the grain mixture of the SMC type (Pei 1992). In figure 9 we show the case of grain mixture of the LMC type (Pei 1992) for the QSO spectrum for three values of initial temperatures and metallicities.

It is seen that the dominant contribution to the heating comes from silicate grains for both type of spectra. This is due to the fact that for silicates, the absorption efficiency does not decrease with increasing photon energy as sharply as it does for graphites, and therefore, the high energy photons contribute substantially in this case. In case with hard background spectrum (QSO), the dust heating is more efficient for the same reasons— due to contribution of high energy photons, and as a result of the high mean energy of photo-emitted electrons. In Models I without dust heating adiabatic cooling decreases temperature sharply, so that at $`z=12`$ it is below 10<sup>4</sup> K. Dust heating is able to support temperature at the level $`T\stackrel{>}{}10^4`$ down to $`z=0`$. In Models II with dust heating temperature is factor of 1.5–2 higher than without dust heating. At $`z<1`$ both photoionization and photoelectric heating decrease due to decrease of the UV flux.

Since dust heating manifests itself better (compared to other sources of heating) at lower densities, it is conceivable that the diffuse, low density, ‘intercloud’ component of the IGM, if any, would have a much different thermal history with dust than with only photoionization heating. The density of such a component remains, however, uncertain. Recent numerical studies show that most of the baryons in the IGM are in the overdense regions, leaving about $`5\%`$ in the diffuse component (Zhang et al.1997). Their results show a fragmented IGM at high redshift, and they claim that even the ‘diffuse’ medium is also possibly fragmented into scales smaller than the resolution of the simulation. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.03`$ and $`h_{50}=1`$, this corresponds to a density $`4\times 10^9(1+z)^3`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> (using $`5\%`$ of the baryons in the diffuse component). Judging from the heating curves of Fig. 6, such a component would be hotter than if only photoionization is used. However, the temperature would depend on the thermal history of the IGM.

### 3.3 Uncertainties

Here we discuss briefly the effect of uncertainties in the parameters on our results. Since the type of dust particles in $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems is uncertain, we showed the temperature evolution for different types of dust (graphite and silicate) in Figures 8a and 8b. It is seen that the effect on the temperature of the gas is by factors of order $`\stackrel{<}{}1.5`$. We also show the effect of different metallicities on the temperature evolution in Figure 9, for $`Z/Z_{}=0.003,0.01`$. The difference in the temperature of the gas is again of order $`1.5`$. Since the actual temperature evolution of the gas would depend on the initial conditions, the readers are urged to use the heating rate shown in Figure 6, and scale it for the required metallicity for different cases (the heating rate is proportional to the metallicity).

Finally, the evolution of the UV background radiation is still uncertain. For example, it has been claimed that the spectrum changes at $`z3`$ from soft at higher redshifts to a harder spectrum later (Songaila 1998 and the references therein). We have already shown the heating rates (Figure 6) and temperature evolution of the gas (Figures 8a and 8b) for a hard (QSO) and a soft (QSO+YG) spectra, with the spectral index being constant in time. Figures 8a and 8b show that the temperature of the gas at later redshifts ($`z2`$) differ by very small factors for different values of $`z_{in}`$. Since the heating rate for the soft spectrum case is very small compared to the hard spectrum case, a change in the spectrum at $`z3`$ would essentially be equivalent to the case of $`z_{in}3`$, and as explained above, it would effect the temperature evolution at later redshifts only negligibly. For $`z_{in}=4`$, the temperature would evolve much like the case of just photoionization between $`3\stackrel{<}{}z\stackrel{<}{}4`$ (dotted lines in Figures 8a and 8b).

Similarly, the possibility that the value of $`J_{912,21}`$ drops by a factor of $`3\text{}10`$ from $`z2.5`$ to $`z4.2`$ (Williger et al.1994, Kim et al.1997), would essentially mean a very small heating rate at $`z\stackrel{>}{}3`$, but as explained above, it would not effect the temperature evolution at later redshifts much.

## 4 Discussions

Finally, we discuss various implications of our results on photoelectric heating due to dust in IGM. To begin with, we discuss the plausibility of having dust in the IGM in the first place, i.e. , the survival of dust grains in IGM.

### 4.1 Survival of dust particles

Before the discussion of the heating process due to dust, let us first consider the question of the survival of dust grains in high-redshift Lyman-$`\alpha `$ clouds. As already mentioned, these clouds have typical densities $`\stackrel{<}{}10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$ at high redshift, metallicities $`10^{2.5}Z_{}`$, and they are exposed to background radiation $`10^{21}`$ erg cm<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup> sr<sup>-1</sup>. It is not clear if these clouds were enriched by metals driven out of earlier generation dwarf galaxies with galactic winds or these metals come from in situ  star formation; though the small scatter in observed metallicities as $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ changes by over four orders seems to favour the former explanation (Cowie & Songaila 1998).

In the model of enriching the IGM by galactic winds at high redshifts (Silk, Wyse & Shields 1987; Miralda-Escudé & Rees 1997; Nath & Trentham 1997), the enriched gas is swept along with the ambient IGM by winds erupting out of dwarf galaxies due to the injection of energy by supernovae from an early bout of star formation. Dust grains could form either the stars or in the shells of supernovae (Dwek 1998). Inside the parent galaxies, the processes of destruction of dust grains could be as efficient as in the Galactic ISM. The destruction of dust grains in our Galaxy is still not well understood (see McKee et al.  1987, and references therein). However, detailed modelling show that it is reasonable to assume that a fraction ($`10\%`$) of refractory dust survives the destruction process in ISM (Dwek 1998).

When the enriched material, presumably along with the dust grains, are ejected in the IGM, the destruction processes become less important. For sputtering, for example, the grain life time (above the sputtering threshold) is,

$$t_{sp}\frac{N_a}{Y_{sp}}\frac{1}{vn_s\sigma _gQ_{coll}}6\times 10^{13}\frac{1}{(Y_{sp}/0.01)n_sT_4^{1/2}}\mathrm{s}.$$
(30)   
Here, $`N_a`$ is the number of heavy atoms in the grain, $`Y_{sp}0.01`$ is the sputtering yield (number of atoms ejected from the grain per impinging atom) (Draine & Salpeter 1979), $`<v>`$ is the thermal speed of the ambient particles with density $`n_s`$ and temperature $`T=T_4\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$ K, $`\sigma _g=\pi a^2`$ is the geometrical cross-section of the grains with radius $`a`$ and $`Q_{coll}`$ is a measure of the efficiency of collision. The numerical factor in the second expressions assumes $`N_a=3\times 10^8`$ and $`a=1\mu `$ m. In this equation, $`n_s`$ is the density in the shell of the radiative shock ploughing through the IGM. Compare the above time-scale with the cooling time behind the shock (Shull & Silk 1981),

$$t_c6\times 10^{12}\frac{T_4^{1/2}}{(1+8.3\times 10^3\zeta T_4^{1/2})n_s}\mathrm{s},$$
(31)   
where $`\zeta =Z/Z_{}`$. Therefore, dust can survive sputtering in the hot postshock region before it cools.

The Lyman-$`\alpha `$ clouds are exposed to UV background radiation which can potentially destroy the dust particles from sublimation. However, the intensity of background radiation is several orders below the ambient radiation in local HII regions and it can be shown that the grain temperature is close to that of the microwave background radiation (Loeb & Haiman 1997; Ferrara et al.  1998), which is too low for sublimation to be important.

If Lyman-$`\alpha `$ clouds are assumed to be star-forming regions then the UV flux inside these clouds can greatly exceed the background value (for dust heating we do not consider this case). From deep, serendipitous searches for redshifted Lyman-$`\alpha `$ and $`H\alpha `$ emission lines, it is possible to put an upper limit on the ionizing intensity (or equivalently on the average star-formation rate) inside the clouds (Hogan & Weymann 1987). These searches give upper limits which suggest that the Hydrogen-ionizing flux inside the clouds do not exceed the background value by more than a factor of 10 (Thomson and Djorgovski 1995, Thomson et al.  1996). As the dust grain temperature, $`T_dJ_\nu ^{1/5}`$, this additional UV flux does not appreciably enhance it.

In the local ISM, other destruction mechanisms are cosmic ray erosion and shattering from dust collisions . The properties of cosmic ray at high redshifts are largely unknown. However, even if we assume the cosmic ray density in the clouds to be comparable to local ISM, the timescales of dust erosion are $`10^{10}\mathrm{yrs}`$ (Draine & Salpeter 1979). The timescale of dust-dust collision in shocks in local ISM is $`10^8\mathrm{yrs}`$ (Jones et al.  1996). In Lyman-$`\alpha `$ clouds this time scale would be larger by a factor of the square of the ratio of ISM to the cloud number density of grains. As this factor is $`10^7`$, dust-dust collision can be neglected as an important destruction mechanism. Also, since the magnetic field in the IGM is thought be small ($`B10^9`$ G; Kronberg 1994), other destruction processes like non-thermal sputtering from betatron acceleration also become unimportant.

Therefore, we assume the dust to gas ratio to be proportional to that in Galactic ISM with a factor $`\zeta =Z/Z_{}`$.

### 4.2 $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers

It is clear from the Figures 5, 6 and 7 that dust heating can play an important role in determining the physical state of the gas in $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers, if they can be considered as overdense regions in the IGM. As mentioned in §3, the gas in $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers are most likely to behave somewhere between the two extreme cases considered here, expand in two dimensions while being confined in one direction. In this case the gas would behave close to the evolution in Model I, and dust can heat up the gas instead of letting it cool.

The gas temperature in $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers, however, is not directly observable. What is instead observed is the line width (the $`b`$ value), and lines can be both thermally and velocity broadened. However, Haehnelt, Rauch & Steinmetz (1996) have argued that the minimum value of $`b`$ in its distribution corresponds to the gas temperature, at least for lines with $`N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}\stackrel{>}{}10^{14}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup>. Numerical simulations seem to show that lines with lower column density are mostly velocity broadened (Miralda-Escudé & Rees 1996). In this context, it is interesting to note the recent observations of Kim et al.(1997). They used Keck spectra of 5 quasars at different redshifts and found that the minimum value of $`b`$ increased in time. We show the corresponding values of temperature in Figure 7 as thick lines. Although it is difficult to draw any firm conclusion, the evolution of temperature does suggest that dust heating can contribute towards raising the gas temperature in $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers as required by these observations. Note, that an alternative explanation for increase of the minimal Doppler width with decreasing $`z`$ has been suggested recently by Giallongo (1997) as a result of decrease of the softness parameter in framework of the photoionized heating model (Ferrara & Giallongo, 1996).

A note on the uncertainties in our calculations due to our assumptions concerning the background radiation is in order here. Unlike simple photoionization heating, heating due to dust grains is proportional to the intensity of the background radiation. This makes our calculations sensitive to the uncertainties in the background radiation, which include uncertainties in the QSO luminosity function, the contribution from young galaxies and the opacity due to $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems. As an example, using the LA model of absorption from $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ clouds of Meiksin & Madau (1993) (see, Sethi & Nath 1997), instead of model A3 of Giroux & Shapiro (1996), would increase the background flux and the dust heating rate.

Since dust heating rate is proportional to the flux of photons, we would expect a rise in temperature in absorbing systems close to quasars. The uncertainties in various parameter, however, may make this prediction difficult to test. Another prediction of our calculation is that, with a large scatter in the metallicity and also in the value of $`z_{in}`$, there would be a scatter in the temperature and in the minimum width in the distribution of $`b`$ at a given redshift.

As we have shown in §3, if there is a low density ‘intercloud’ part of the IGM, then the thermal evolution of this component of IGM would be much different with the inclusion of dust heating than if only photoionization heating were used. This heating would also depend on the metallicity, and the metallicity of the IGM is not expected to be homogeneous. Nath and Trentham (1997) have estimated the probability distribution function of metallicity in the IGM, in the case of IGM enrichment from galactic winds, and found the standard deviation of the metallicity of order $`0.01Z_{}`$. Rauch et al.(1997) found from the comparison of data with their numerical simulation a scatter of an order of magnitude in the metallicity of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbers. It, therefore, is reasonable to assume that there are regions in the IGM with higher dust content than we have considered above, and so, hotter in general. (Of course, the actual temperature would depend on the thermal history of the region.)

Finally, we estimate the metallicity that is needed for dust heating to be more important than photoionization of a primordial gas. From fig. 6, we estimate this lower limit for the accepted QSO type spectrum to be $`Z/Z_{}\stackrel{>}{}10^{2.5}(n/10^5cm^3)(J_{912,21}/0.5)^{0.7}`$, when the grain mixture is dominated by silicates (as in LMC or SMC type of mixture).

### 4.3 Feedback from IGM with dust heating

The feedback of the intergalactic medium on the process of galaxy formation is an interesting phenomenon and has been discussed in by several authors. The reionization and reheating of the intergalactic medium inhibit the formation of small galaxies by the suppression of cooling and because of the high temperature of the IGM gas (Efstathiou 1992, Thoul & Weinberg 1996). Here we briefly discuss the implications of dust photo-electric heating for such feedback mechanisms.

First, unlike photoionization heating of a primordial gas, the dust photo-electric heating is proportional to the UV background radiation intensity. Fluctuations in the intensity and spectrum of the background radiation would result in variation in the inhibiting efficiency. However, even for silicates and for QSO type spectrum, the gas temperature is expected to change only by a factor $`1.5`$, thereby increasing the Jeans mass by a factor of $`2`$. The dependence of the dust heating on the dust-to-gas ratio, however, has more interesting effects. When dust heating dominates in gravitationally confined (i.e. with constant or growing density) clouds, and the cooling is determined mainly by bremsstrahlung emission, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)T^{1/2}`$, the gas temperature can be estimated from Eq. 28 as

$$T𝒟^{(\alpha +\beta +1)/(\alpha +\beta )}J^{2/(\alpha +\beta )}n^{2/(\alpha +\beta )},$$
(32)   
where $`𝒟`$, is the dust-to-gas ratio. Therefore, the enrichment of the gas (higher $`𝒟`$) results in the increase of gas temperature (and Jeans mass, $`M_J𝒟^{3(\alpha +\beta +1)/2(\alpha +\beta )}`$), and thus suppresses subsequent formation of low mass galaxies. One can speculate from these simplified arguments that dust heating tends to suppress the progressive enrichment of the IGM with heavy elements. However, if the metallicity of enriched IGM gas exceeds a critical value $`\zeta >\zeta _c`$, when radiative cooling from heavy elements dominates over bremsstrahlung cooling, metal-enriched regions cool efficiently and dust heating does not work anymore as a negative feedback. For cooling due to C IV, which is the most dominant heavy element for cooling in these conditions, we estimate that $`\zeta _c0.05(n/10^4)^1`$, for $`J_{912,21}=1`$, $`\alpha =1`$, and $`T=5\times 10^4`$ K. Note also, that dust heating can work as a positive feedback (stimulating formation of regions of low temperature due to thermal instability) if hard spectrum ($`\alpha 0.5`$) and large ($`a0.01\mu `$m) silicate grains dominate, though this case seems to be unrealistic.

## 5 Conclusion

We summarise our findings:

(a) It is reasonable to associate dust grains with the metallicity observed in high redshift $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorbing systems, as the probability of the survival of dust grains during the process of spreading the metals and dust in the IGM and in the $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems is high.

(b) With the presence of the UV background radiation at high redshift, the dust particles in the IGM acquire charges which are much larger than is typical in the ISM, especially because of the low density of gas and high intensity of hard UV and X-ray photons. We illustrate this effect using two models of the UV background radiation, described in Table 1. Figures 1 and 2 show the dependences of the grain potential on gas density and grain size for graphites and silicates. Silicates in general have larger charges, and harder spectra help to produce larger grain potentials.

(c) This results in a higher mean energy of the photo-ejected electrons, and therefore, yields an important source of heating of the IGM gas. We show the volume heating rate as functions of the gas density, grain size distribution and grain type. Silicates fare better as heating agents, and smaller grains dominates the heating rate in general. We estimate that dust heating would be important for our QSO type spectra for a metallicity $`Z/Z_{}\stackrel{>}{}10^{2.5}(n/10^5cm^3)J_{912,21}^{0.7}`$.

(d) Using these heating rates, and grain mixtures of the LMC type, we compute the temperature evolution of the gas in overdense regions of the IGM, with overdensity of $`10`$, for various initial redshifts, initial temperatures and metallicities. We assume that the $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ systems evolve in a passive manner, driven by the evolution of the background UV radiation and the boundary condition of the cloud expansion. We show the evolution for overdense regions which (i) adiabatically expand and keep the overdensity constant and (ii) which are confined either by shocks or gravity and keep the (proper) density constant. The difference in the temperatures in the cases when dust heating is included and when it is not, is of order of a factor of $`2`$ for our hard QSO type spectra, for a metallicity of $`Z/Z_{}=0.01`$ in a Hubble time at $`z3`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.03`$.

(e) We have speculated on the connection between the dust heating in such systems and the observed increase in the minimum width of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption lines in time (most probably indicative of increase in the gas temperature). We have also discussed the possible increase in the gas temperature of $`\mathrm{Ly}\alpha `$ absorption systems near QSOs due to increased UV flux, and the patchiness in the temperature of the IGM due to (i) density inhomogeneity and the (ii) inhomogeneity in the metallicity.

Acknowledgements :  We thank A. Ferrara and E. E. Salpeter for valuable discussions and the anonymous referee for his comments. YS acknowledges the hospitality of IUCAA, India, where this work began, the hospitality of Astronomishes Institut, Ruhr Universität Bochum at final stages of the work. and financial support from Italian Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche within NATO Guest Fellowship programme 1996 (Ann. No. 219.29). 

Figure captions

Figure 1(a) – Grain potential $`eU/kT`$ is plotted against ambient density $`n_e`$ for QSO and QSO+YG spectra for graphites for two values of $`J_{912,21}=0.5,0.05`$ and for $`a=10^5`$ cm.

Figure 1(b) – Same as in Fig.1a but for silicates.

Figure 2(a) – The grain potential is plotted against $`a`$ for graphites for two incident photon spectra (QSO and QSO+YG) for $`J_{912,21}=0.5,0.05`$, and for $`n_e=10^5,10^4`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>.

Figure 2(b) – Same as in Fig. 2a but for silicates.

Figure 3 – Mean energy of photo-emitted electrons is shown against ambient density for $`a=10^5`$ cm, for QSO and QSO+YG spectra, for graphites.

Figure 4 – Same as in Fig. 3 but for silicates.

Figure 5 – The mean electron energy $`E(a)`$ is plotted against $`eU/kT`$ for various sizes, photon spectra and grain types, at $`T=10^4`$ K. The solid lines are for silicates and the dotted lines are for graphites. The thicker lines refer to QSO and thin lines denote QSO+YG type spectra. The upper set of curves are for $`a=10^5`$cm and the lower set for $`a=10^6`$ cm.

Figure 6 – Integrated (over size distribution) heating rate for graphites and silicates vs ambient density for QSO (solid lines) and QSO+YG (dotted lines) spectra. The upper set of curves are for $`J_{912,21}=0.5`$ and the lower set for $`J_{912,21}=0.05`$. Photoionization heating rate for a primordial gas is shown for QSO (short dashed lines) and QSO+YG (long dashed lines).

Figure 7 – The heating rate is shown as a function of the lower limit of the grain size (a), for silicates (solid lines) and graphites (dotted lines) for two different densities $`n=10^4,10^5`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>, for QSO spectrum and at $`T=10^4`$ K.

Figure 8(a) – Temperature evolution for clouds with constant density (left panels) and constant overdensity (right panels) for graphites. The evolution is shown for $`z_{in}=3`$ & $`4`$. The top and bottom panels are for QSO and QSO+YG spectra respectively. The dotted lines show the case with only photoionization heating. the solid lines correspond to the case where dust heating is included for a metallicity of $`Z/Z_{}=0.01`$, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.03`$, and $`T_{in}=10^4`$ K. Thermal history with the QSO spectrum is added also with $`T_{in}=2\times 10^4`$ K.

Figure 8(b) – The same as Fig8a but for silicates.

Figure 9 – Temperature evolution for clouds with constant density (left panel) and constant overdensity (right panel) for QSO spectrum for a mixture of grains of LMC type. The evolution is shown for $`z_{in}=3`$ & $`4`$. The dotted, dashed and solid lines correspond to the cases with only photoionization, with dust with metallicities $`Z/Z_{}=0.003`$ and $`0.01`$. The three sets of curves correspond to initial temperatures $`T_{in}=1,2,5\times 10^4`$ K. The thick solid lines show the temperatures corresponding to the minimum $`b`$ values from Kim et al.(1997).