# Photodissociative Regulation of Star Formation in Metal-Free Pregalactic Clouds

## 1 Introduction

After standard recombination at $`z1100`$, the universe is considered to be reionized at some redshift $`z5`$ from the negative results of Gunn-Peterson experiments in quasar spectra. It has been pointed out that first stars can play an important role in the reionization of the universe (e.g., Couchman & Rees 1986). This scenario has been investigated in detail using numerical simulations (e.g., Gnedin & Ostriker 1997) or semi-analytical models (e.g., Fukugita & Kawasaki 1994; Haiman & Loeb 1997). In the latter models, it is crucial to know whether a cloud of mass $`M`$ that virializes at redshift $`z`$ can cool or not, i.e., if star formation occurs or not.

Haiman, Thoul, & Loeb (1996) investigated this problem (see also Tegmark et al. 1997). They found that molecular cooling plays a crucial role for clouds with $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}10^4\mathrm{K}`$ (“small” pregalactic clouds, hereafter) at $`10z_{\mathrm{vir}}100`$, where $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ are the virial temperature and the redshift at virialization respectively, and determined the minimum mass of the virialized cloud must have in order to cool in a Hubble time.

On the other hand, Haiman, Rees, & Loeb (1997) pointed out that in the presence of ultraviolet (UV) background radiation at the level needed to ionize the universe, molecular hydrogen is photodissociated by far ultraviolet (FUV) photons, whose radiation energy is less than the Lyman limit, in small pregalactic clouds. Thus, they asserted that molecular hydrogen in small pregalactic clouds is universally destroyed long before the reionization of the universe. In their reionization model, Haiman & Loeb (1997) assumed that only objects with virial temperature above $`10^4`$ K can cool in a Hubble time, owing to atomic cooling and star formation occurs subsequently.

Recently, Ciardi, Ferrara, & Abel (1999) found that the photodissociated regions are not large enough to overlap at $`z2030`$. In the same redshift range, the flux of FUV background is well below the threshold required by Haiman et al.(1997) to prevent the collapse of the clouds.

However, molecular hydrogen in a virialized cloud is photodissociated not only by external FUV background radiation, but also by FUV photons produced by massive stars within the cloud. Here, we assess the negative feedback of massive star formation on molecular hydrogen formation in a primordial cloud.

## 2 Region of Influence of an OB star

Around an OB star, hydrogen is photoionized, and an HII region is formed. Ionizing photons hardly escape from the HII region, but photons whose radiation energy are below the Lyman limit can get away. Such FUV photons photodissociate molecular hydrogen, and a photodissociation region (PDR) is formed just outside the HII region. In this section, we study how much mass in a primordial cloud is affected by such FUV photons from an OB star and, as a result, becomes unable to cool in a free-fall time owing to the lack of the coolant.

We consider a small pregalactic cloud of primordial composition. In such an object, H<sub>2</sub> is formed mainly by the H<sup>-</sup> process at $`z100`$:

$`\mathrm{H}+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{H}^{}+\gamma ;`$ (1)   
$`\mathrm{H}+\mathrm{H}^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{H}_2+e^{}.`$ (2)   
At $`z100`$, H<sup>-</sup> is predominantly photodissociated by CMB photons before the reaction (2) proceeds. On the other hand, in a PDR, photodissociation of H<sup>-</sup> by UV radiation from an OB star does not dominate the reaction (2) except in the vicinity of the star. Then we neglect the photodissociation of H<sup>-</sup>.

The rate-determining stage of the H<sup>-</sup> process is the reaction (1), whose rate coefficient $`k_\mathrm{H}^{}`$ is (de Jong 1972)

$$k_\mathrm{H}^{}=1.0\times 10^{18}T\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^3.$$
(3)   
In a PDR, H<sub>2</sub> is dissociated mainly via the two-step photodissociation process:

$$\mathrm{H}_2+\gamma \mathrm{H}_2^{}2\mathrm{H},$$
(4)   
whose rate coefficient $`k_{2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{p}}`$ is given by (Kepner, Babul, & Spergel 1997; Draine & Bertoldi 1996)

$$k_{2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{p}}=1.13\times 10^8F_{\mathrm{LW}}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(5)   
Here $`F_{\mathrm{LW}}(\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{Hz}^1)`$ is the averaged radiation flux in the Lyman and Werner (LW) bands and can be written as

$$F_{\mathrm{LW}}=F_{\mathrm{LW},\mathrm{ex}}f_{\mathrm{shield}},$$
(6)   
where $`F_{\mathrm{LW},\mathrm{ex}}`$ is the incident flux into the PDR at 12.4 eV and the shielding factor $`f_{\mathrm{shield}}`$ is given by (Draine & Bertoldi 1996)

$$f_{\mathrm{shield}}=\mathrm{min}[1,(\frac{N_{\mathrm{H}_2}}{10^{14}})^{0.75}].$$
(7)   
The timescale in which the H<sub>2</sub> fraction reaches the equilibrium value is given by

$$t_{\mathrm{dis}}=k_{2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{p}}^1.$$
(8)   
In the presence of FUV radiation, if the temperature and density were fixed, the H<sub>2</sub> fraction $`f`$ initially would increase and reach the equilibrium value for a temporal ionization fraction after $`t_{\mathrm{dis}}`$, and then it would decline as ionization fraction decreased as a result of recombination. Actually, if the pregalactic cloud can once produce a sufficient amount of molecular hydrogen to cool in a free-fall time, the cloud can collapse and star formation occurs subsequently. Note that because of their low ionization degree, inverse Compton cooling by CMB photons is not effective in small objects with $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}10^4`$ K.

We investigate here how much mass around an OB star is affected by the photodissociating FUV radiation from the star and becomes unable to cool in a free-fall time. In particular, we seek the lower bound of such mass.

The equilibrium number density of H<sub>2</sub> under ionization degree $`x`$ is

$`n_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mathrm{H}^{}}{k_{2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{p}}}}xn^2`$ (9)   
$`=`$ $`0.88\times 10^{26}xF_{\mathrm{LW}}^1Tn^2.`$ (10)   
Near the star, $`F_{\mathrm{LW}}`$ is so large that the dissociation time $`t_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ is smaller than the recombination time $`t_{\mathrm{rec}}=(k_{\mathrm{rec}}x_\mathrm{i}n)^1`$, where $`k_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ is the recombination coefficient, $`x_\mathrm{i}`$ is the ionization degree at virialization, and $`n`$ is the number density of hydrogen nuclei. Then the chemical equilibrium between above processes is reached before significant recombination proceeds. Far distant from the star, the recombination proceeds before the molecular fraction reaches the equilibrium value and the ionization degree significantly diminishes. However, since we are seeking how much mass is at least affected by the photodissociating FUV radiation from the star, we use the equilibrium value (9) with initial ionization degree $`x=x_\mathrm{i}`$ as the H<sub>2</sub> number density.

Consider an OB star, which radiates at the rate of $`L_{\mathrm{LW}}`$ \[ergs s<sup>-1</sup> Hz<sup>-1</sup>\] in the LW bands. For an O5 star, whose mass is 40 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`L_{\mathrm{LW}}10^{24}`$ ergs s<sup>-1</sup> Hz<sup>-1</sup>. At the point whose distance from the star is $`r`$, the averaged flux in the Lyman and Werner bands is approximately given by

$$F_{\mathrm{LW}}=\frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{4\pi r^2}f_{\mathrm{shield}}.$$
(11)   
Using above relations, we obtain the H<sub>2</sub> column density between the star and the point whose distance from the star is $`r`$:

$$N_{\mathrm{H}_2}=\{\begin{array}{cc}CV\hfill & \text{(}N_{\mathrm{H}_2}<10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^3\text{)}\hfill \\ 10^{14}[0.25(CV/10^{14})+0.75]^4\hfill & \text{(}N_{\mathrm{H}_2}>10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^3\text{)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)   
where

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`0.88\times 10^{26}x_\mathrm{i}L_{\mathrm{LW}}^1Tn^2,`$ (13)   
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}r^3.`$ (14)   
Here we have assumed $`n=`$const. in space, for simplicity. We define here the region of influence around a star as that where the cooling time $`t_{\mathrm{cool}}=\frac{(3/2)kT}{fn\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{H}_2}}`$ becomes larger than the free-fall time $`t_{\mathrm{ff}}=(\frac{3\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{32Gm_\mathrm{p}n})^{1/2}`$ as a result of the photodissociation of molecular hydrogen, where $`f=n_{\mathrm{H}_2}/n`$ is the H<sub>2</sub> concentration, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ is the cooling function of molecular hydrogen, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ is the baryon mass fraction.

The condition $`t_{\mathrm{cool}}>t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ is satisfied as long as the H<sub>2</sub> fraction

$`f<f^{(\mathrm{cool})}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{24Gm_\mathrm{p}}{\pi }})^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{kT}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}^{1/2}n^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{H}_2}}}`$ (15)   
$`=`$ $`1\times 10^3({\displaystyle \frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3}})^{1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10^3\mathrm{K}}})^3({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05}})^{1/2},`$ (16)   
where we used our fit to the Martin, Schwarz,& Mandy (1996) H<sub>2</sub> cooling function

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{H}_2}4\times 10^{25}(\frac{T}{1000\mathrm{K}})^4\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^3$$
(17)   
for the low temperature ($`600\mathrm{K}T3000\mathrm{K}`$) and low density ($`n10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$) regime. The same condition leads to the condition on the averaged flux in the LW bands with equation (9):

$`F_{\mathrm{LW}}>F_{\mathrm{LW}}^{(\mathrm{cool})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mathrm{H}^{}x_\mathrm{i}n}{1.13\times 10^8f^{(\mathrm{cool})}}}`$ (18)   
$`=`$ $`0.7\times 10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{Hz}^1({\displaystyle \frac{x_\mathrm{i}}{10^4}})({\displaystyle \frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3}})^{3/2}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10^3\mathrm{K}}})^4({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05}})^{1/2}.`$ (19)   
Corresponding to this critical LW flux $`F_{\mathrm{LW}}^{(\mathrm{cool})}`$, a critical radius $`r^{(\mathrm{cool})}`$ is determined by the relation

$$F_{\mathrm{LW}}[r^{(\mathrm{cool})}]=F_{\mathrm{LW}}^{(\mathrm{cool})}.$$
(20)   
Actually, the timescale for molecular hydrogen to reach the equilibrium value at $`r=r^{(\mathrm{cool})}`$,

$$t_{\mathrm{dis}}[r^{(\mathrm{cool})}]=4.0\times 10^8\mathrm{yr}(\frac{x_\mathrm{i}}{10^4})^1(\frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3})^{3/2}(\frac{T}{10^3\mathrm{K}})^4(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05})^{1/2},$$
(21)   
is longer than the lifetime of an OB star $`t_{\mathrm{OB}}3\times 10^6`$ yr. This means that as far region as $`r=r^{(\mathrm{cool})}`$ is rarely affected within the lifetime of a single massive star. We define here another critical LW flux $`F_{\mathrm{LW}}^{(\mathrm{eq})}`$ and its corresponding radius $`r^{(\mathrm{eq})}`$ where the timescale for molecular hydrogen to reach the equilibrium value $`t_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ becomes equal to the lifetime of an OB star;

$$F_{\mathrm{LW}}^{(\mathrm{eq})}=0.93\times 10^{22}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{Hz}^1(\frac{t_{\mathrm{OB}}}{3\times 10^6\mathrm{yr}})^1,$$
(22)   
$$F_{\mathrm{LW}}[r^{(\mathrm{eq})}]=F_{\mathrm{LW}}^{(\mathrm{eq})}.$$
(23)   
In the region of influence, we require that two conditions be met: (1) the cooling time for the equilibrium H<sub>2</sub> fraction is longer than the free-fall time (i.e., $`t_{\mathrm{cool}}[f=f^{(\mathrm{eq})}]>t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$,where $`f^{(\mathrm{eq})}`$ is the equilibrium H<sub>2</sub> fraction) and (2) the equilibrium H<sub>2</sub> fraction is reached within the lifetime of the central star (i.e., $`t_{\mathrm{dis}}<t_{\mathrm{OB}}`$). Hence the radius of influence $`r^{(\mathrm{inf})}`$ is determined by the smaller one of either $`r^{(\mathrm{cool})}`$ or $`r^{(\mathrm{eq})}`$;

$$r^{(\mathrm{inf})}=\mathrm{min}[r^{(\mathrm{cool})},r^{(\mathrm{eq})}].$$
(24)   
Note the LW flux $`F_{\mathrm{LW}}`$ at which $`t_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ becomes equal to $`t_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ is $`2\times 10^{24}(x_\mathrm{i}/10^4)(n/1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3)(T/10^3\mathrm{K})^{0.64}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{Hz}^1`$. Here we used the recombination coefficient $`k_{\mathrm{rec}}=1.88\times 10^{10}T^{0.64}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^3`$ (Hutchins 1976). Therefore, even at the edge of the region of influence, the condition $`t_{\mathrm{dis}}<t_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ is usually satisfied. In this case, the chemical equilibrium value for H<sub>2</sub> is reached before the ionization degree significantly decreases from the initial value $`x_\mathrm{i}`$.

If the self-shielding of LW band photons could be neglected, the radius $`r^{(\mathrm{cool})}`$ would be given by

$`r^{(\mathrm{cool})}=r_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{sh}}^{(\mathrm{cool})}`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{4\pi F_{\mathrm{LW}}^{(\mathrm{cool})}}}]^{1/2}`$ (25)   
$`=`$ $`3.4\times 10^{23}\mathrm{cm}({\displaystyle \frac{x_\mathrm{i}}{10^4}})^{1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1}})^{1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10^3\mathrm{K}}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3}})^{3/4}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05}})^{1/4}.`$ (26)   
This expression is valid only when $`N_{\mathrm{H}_2}<10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^2`$.

When the H<sub>2</sub> column density $`N_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ becomes larger than $`10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, self-shielding of LW band photons begins as can be seen from equation (7). Here, we define the shielding radius $`r_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ as the radius where $`N_{\mathrm{H}_2}(r_{\mathrm{sh}})=10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Using equation (12), the shielding radius is

$`r_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{10^{14}}{(4\pi /3)C}}]^{1/3}`$ (27)   
$`=`$ $`3.0\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}({\displaystyle \frac{x_\mathrm{i}}{10^4}})^{1/3}({\displaystyle \frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1}})^{1/3}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10^3\mathrm{K}}})^{1/3}({\displaystyle \frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3}})^{2/3}.`$ (28)   
When the self-shielding becomes important, $`N_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ increases and $`F_{\mathrm{LW}}`$ decreases rapidly with $`r`$. Then $`r^{(\mathrm{cool})}`$ is not much larger than $`r_{\mathrm{sh}}`$. In such a case, we put $`r^{(\mathrm{cool})}=r_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ as a lower bound. Then $`r^{(\mathrm{cool})}`$ is given by the lesser one of those given by equations (25) or (27).

In all the same way as above, we can obtain the value of $`r^{(\mathrm{eq})}`$;

$$r^{(\mathrm{eq})}=\mathrm{min}[r_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{sh}}^{(\mathrm{eq})},r_{\mathrm{sh}}],$$
(29)   
where

$`r_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{sh}}^{(\mathrm{eq})}`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{4\pi F_{\mathrm{LW}}^{(\mathrm{eq})}}}]^{1/2}`$ (30)   
$`=`$ $`2.9\times 10^{22}({\displaystyle \frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1}})^{1/2}({\displaystyle \frac{t_{\mathrm{OB}}}{3\times 10^6\mathrm{yr}}})^{1/2}.`$ (31)   
The baryonic mass within the region of influence $`M_\mathrm{b}^{(\mathrm{inf})}`$ is then

$`M_\mathrm{b}^{(\mathrm{inf})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}nm_\mathrm{p}r_{}^{(\mathrm{inf})}{}_{}{}^{3}`$ (32)   
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{min}\left\{\begin{array}{cc}1.4\times 10^{14}M_{\mathrm{}}(\frac{x_\mathrm{i}}{10^4})^{3/2}(\frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1})^{3/2}(\frac{T}{10^3\mathrm{K}})^6(\frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3})^{5/4}(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05})^{3/4}\hfill & \\ 0.85\times 10^{11}M_{\mathrm{}}(\frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1})^{3/2}(\frac{t_{\mathrm{OB}}}{3\times 10^6\mathrm{yr}})^{3/2}(\frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3})\hfill & \\ 1.0\times 10^8M_{\mathrm{}}(\frac{x_\mathrm{i}}{10^4})^1(\frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1})(\frac{T}{10^3\mathrm{K}})^1(\frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3})^1\hfill & \end{array}\right\}`$ (36)   
In equation (36), each expression corresponds to the case of $`r^{(\mathrm{inf})}=r_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{sh}}^{(\mathrm{cool})}`$, $`r_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{sh}}^{(\mathrm{eq})}`$, and $`r_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ from the top to bottom, respectively. We shall keep this order hereafter. At first glance, the first expression in equation (36) seems to be always larger than the others, but its stronger dependence on temperature makes it important for higher temperature (i.e., more massive) objects than the normalized value. From equation (36), we can see that the mass within a region of influence of an O star already exceeds the scale of the small pregalactic object.

We have considered in this letter the regulation of star formation by photodissociation of molecular hydrogen in a pregalactic cloud. On the other hand, Lin & Murray (1992) considered only the regulation by photoionization. In such a case, the mass affected by an OB star, namely the baryonic mass within a Strömgren sphere, is

$`M_\mathrm{b}^{(\mathrm{St})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{p}nQ_{}}{k_{\mathrm{rec}}n^2}}`$ (37)   
$`=`$ $`3.7\times 10^3M_{\mathrm{}}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10^3\mathrm{K}}})^{0.64}({\displaystyle \frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3}})^1({\displaystyle \frac{Q_{}}{10^{49}\mathrm{s}^1}}),`$ (38)   
where $`Q_{}`$ is the flux of ionizing photons by a OB star and $`Q_{}10^{49}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for an O5 star. This is by far smaller than our estimated mass of photodissociative influence $`M_\mathrm{b}^{(\mathrm{inf})}`$.

To be more specific in the cosmological context, we consider here pregalactic clouds at virialization. The number density at virialization is

$$n_{\mathrm{vir}}=0.68\mathrm{cm}^3h_{50}^2(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05})(\frac{1+z_{\mathrm{vir}}}{30})^3,$$
(39)   
and the virial temperature is

$$T_{\mathrm{vir}}=6.8\times 10^2\mathrm{K}h_{50}^{2/3}(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05})^{2/3}(\frac{M_\mathrm{b}}{10^4M_{\mathrm{}}})^{2/3}(\frac{1+z_{\mathrm{vir}}}{30}).$$
(40)   
Substituting equations (39) and (40) into equation (36), we obtain

$$M_\mathrm{b}^{(\mathrm{inf})}=\mathrm{min}\left\{\begin{array}{cc}2.3\times 10^{15}M_{\mathrm{}}(\frac{x_\mathrm{i}}{10^4})^{3/2}(\frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1})^{3/2}h_{50}^{13/2}(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05})^2(\frac{M_\mathrm{b}}{10^4M_{\mathrm{}}})^4(\frac{1+z_{\mathrm{vir}}}{30})^{39/4}\hfill & \\ 0.58\times 10^{11}M_{\mathrm{}}(\frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1})^{3/2}(\frac{t_{\mathrm{OB}}}{3\times 10^6\mathrm{yr}})^{3/2}h_{50}^2(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05})(\frac{1+z_{\mathrm{vir}}}{30})^3\hfill & \\ 2.2\times 10^8M_{\mathrm{}}(\frac{x_\mathrm{i}}{10^4})^1(\frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1})h_{50}^{8/3}(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05})^{1/3}(\frac{M_\mathrm{b}}{10^4M_{\mathrm{}}})^{2/3}(\frac{1+z_{\mathrm{vir}}}{30})^4\hfill & \end{array}\right\}$$
(41)   
In order for the star formation to continue after a massive star forms, the region of influence must be smaller than the original pregalactic cloud. Then $`M_\mathrm{b}^{(\mathrm{inf})}<M_\mathrm{b}`$ is the necessary condition, which leads to

$$M_\mathrm{b}>\mathrm{min}\left\{\begin{array}{cc}1.9\times 10^6M_{\mathrm{}}(\frac{x_\mathrm{i}}{10^4})^{3/10}(\frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1})^{3/10}h_{50}^{13/10}(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05})^{2/5}(\frac{1+z_{\mathrm{vir}}}{30})^{39/20}\hfill & \\ 0.58\times 10^{11}M_{\mathrm{}}(\frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1})^{3/2}(\frac{t_{\mathrm{OB}}}{3\times 10^6\mathrm{yr}})^{3/2}h_{50}^2(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05})(\frac{1+z_{\mathrm{vir}}}{30})^3\hfill & \\ 4.0\times 10^6M_{\mathrm{}}(\frac{x_\mathrm{i}}{10^4})^{3/5}(\frac{L_{\mathrm{LW}}}{10^{24}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1})^{3/5}h_{50}^{8/5}(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05})^{1/5}(\frac{1+z_{\mathrm{vir}}}{30})^{12/5}\hfill & \end{array}\right\}.$$
(42)   
On the other hand, the baryonic mass of a pregalactic cloud that has virial temperature $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ is

$$M_\mathrm{b}=1.8\times 10^4M_{\mathrm{}}(\frac{T_{\mathrm{vir}}}{1000\mathrm{K}})^{3/2}h_{50}^1(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05})(\frac{1+z_{\mathrm{vir}}}{30})^{3/2}.$$
(43)   
Comparing equations (42) and (43), we can see that for a small pregalactic cloud ($`T_{\mathrm{vir}}<10^4`$K) the condition $`M_\mathrm{b}^{(\mathrm{inf})}<M_\mathrm{b}`$ is hardly satisfied in the redshift range of $`10z_{\mathrm{vir}}100`$. This indicates that FUV radiation from one or a few OB stars prohibits the whole small pregalactic cloud from H<sub>2</sub> cooling and quenches subsequent star formation in it.

After the death of the first OB star, star formation could occur somewhere in the cloud, and another OB star could form successively. Thereafter, some massive stars might form one after another, but only a few could co-exist simultaneously, as we have shown above. The timescale for reformation of OB stars depends on that for $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ replenishment after the death of the dissociating OB star, which is

$`t_{\mathrm{rep}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(\mathrm{cool})}}{k_\mathrm{H}^{}x_\mathrm{e}n}}`$ (44)   
$`=`$ $`3\times 10^8\mathrm{yr}({\displaystyle \frac{n}{1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}^3}})^{3/2}({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10^3\mathrm{K}}})^4({\displaystyle \frac{x_\mathrm{e}}{10^4}})^1({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05}})^{1/2}.`$ (45)   
If the ionization degree is as high as unity, which is typical in the HII region, this timescale can be very short, namely, $`t_{\mathrm{rep}}3\times 10^4`$ yr. If the timescale for reformation of OB stars is smaller than the lifetime of OB star, it would be possible for a few OB stars to form every few million years, and, as a result, a considerable amount of stars would form in a Hubble time. However, we do not expect that the star formation continues as long as a Hubble time, because the gravitational binding energy of baryonic gas in such a small pregalactic cloud,

$`E_{\mathrm{gr}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{GMM_\mathrm{b}}{R_{\mathrm{vir}}}}`$ (46)   
$``$ $`3.3\times 10^{48}\mathrm{ergs}({\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{b}}{10^4M_{\mathrm{}}}})^{5/3}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{0.05}})^{2/3}h_{50}^{2/3}({\displaystyle \frac{1+z_{\mathrm{vir}}}{30}}),`$ (47)   
where $`M`$ is the total mass, and $`R_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ is the virial radius of the cloud, is so small that a few supernova explosions would blow out such a small pregalactic cloud (see, e.g., Dekel & Silk 1986). Thus, our probable scenario is as follows: in a small pregalactic cloud, star formation occurs only in a photodissociatively regulated fashion until several supernovae explode, and it stops thereafter.

If numerous small stars were formed per a massive star, a substantial proportion of the original cloud would be converted to stars at last. However, in the primordial circumstance, the stellar initial mass function could be strongly biased toward the formation of massive stars because of the higher temperatures relative to the present-day counterpart. If this was the case and OB stars were formed selectively, the amount of gas mass that was converted to stars would be extremely small.

## 3 Summary

We have studied the H<sub>2</sub> photodissociation region around an OB star in a primordial gas cloud. A region as large as the whole small pregalactic cloud is affected by only one or a few OB stars and becomes unable to cool in a free-fall time under the condition appropriate to virialization. Therefore, in those clouds which have virial temperatures less than $`10^4`$ K, star formation does not occur efficiently, unless the primordial initial mass function is extremely weighted toward low mass stars.

If the reionization of the universe is caused by stellar UV radiation, some OB stars must form. However as we have shown, an OB star formed in a small pregalactic cloud would inevitably photodissociate the whole cloud and subsequent star formation would be strongly suppressed. Therefore, stellar UV radiation from small pregalactic clouds cannot play a significant role in the reionization of the universe.

The authors would like to thank Toru Tsuribe for fruitful discussions, Humitaka Sato and Naoshi Sugiyama for continuous encouragement, Evan Scannapieco for checking the English, and the referee, Zoltán Haiman, for a careful reading of the manuscript and for useful comments. This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas (No. 10147105) (R.N.), and the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, No. 08740170 (R.N.).