1 / 30

The Co-evolution of Galaxies and Black Holes (Part 1)

This article discusses the connection between galaxies and black holes and their evolution over time. It explores the BH-galaxy connection in the local universe and the demographics of galaxies observed compared to theoretical predictions. The potential solution of black hole feedback and its role in galaxy evolution is also explored.

wardg
Download Presentation

The Co-evolution of Galaxies and Black Holes (Part 1)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The co-evolution of galaxies and black holes (part 1) Knud Jahnke, MPIA Emmy Noether-Group: Katherine Inskip, Mauricio Cisternas, Dading Nugroho VLA-COSMOS: Eva Schinnerer, Alejo Martinez-Sansigre, Mark Sargent Hans-Walter Rix, Eric Bell Lutz Wisotzki, Asmus Böhm, Malte Schramm, Bernd Husemann (AIP) Jared Gabor (Arizona), Mara Salvato (CalTech), John Silverman (ETH)

  2. Problem 1: BH–galaxy connection Local Universe Evolution? MBH [Msun] <MBH>/<Mbulge> Mbulge [Msun] Lookback time [Gyrs] Häring & Rix 2004 • Models: ad hoc assumptions • Scarce data, large uncertainties • Poor observational proxies for past Universe • MBH=0.14% Mbulge(0.3 dex scatter) • Despite 109 scale ratio: Mbulge and MBH are related • Tightly coupled time evolution of galaxies and their BHs!

  3. λCDM paradigm: Dark Matter and Dark Energy are 95% of all mass-energy Bimodal: blue cloud, red sequence Sims: Most massive galaxies should be blue star formers Obs: Different! Problem 2: Galaxy demographics observed (20.000 galaxies) theoretical prediction red/ old SDSS: Baldry et al. 2004 Sims: Croton et al. 2006 Colour/age blue/ young high low Luminosity/mass red/ old blue/ young

  4. Potential solution: Black Hole Feedback • Rare high-state mass accretion phase (1 in 1000): „quasar“ • Quasars can outshine the galaxy • Energy released can exceed binding energy of galaxy • Numerical simulation of galaxy merger • DM, stars, gas, central Black Hole • Shown: gas only • BH gas accretion not resolved but manually inserted Springel, Di Matteo, Hernquist 2005

  5. red quasar galaxies Colour blue 8 10 3 Lookback time [Gyr] Previous work: Young stars in quasar host galaxies • Local and distant Universe • Colour imaging and spectroscopy • GEMS project: largest Hubble colour imaging dataset • Quasar galaxies are very luminous/massive out to >10 Gyrs in the past • Quasar galaxies have younger stars locally and out to >10 Gyrs in the past • Connection of young stars and accreting BHs! Local Universe KJ et al. 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2007, 2009 Distant Universe KJ et al. 2004b; Sanchez et al., 2004; KJ et al., in prep.

  6. Previous work: Merging vs. Black hole fuelling? HE0450-2958, z=0.286 KJ et al. (submitted)

  7. Goal 1: Constraining Mbulge–MBH evolution “(How) did the Mbulge–Mblack hole relation evolve over the past 10 Gyrs?” • Estimate Mbulge/MBH at 7+10 Gyrs in the past • Constrain evolution to x2 over 10 Gyrs • Observational proxies: • BH masses: line widths + luminosity • 7+10 Gyrs: GEMS+COSMOS stellar masses through M/L relation • 10 Gyrs: dynamical masses 35+5 targets: 100 <MBH>/<Mbulge> Lookback time [Gyrs]

  8. 100.000 pixel 100.000 pixel GEMS/COSMOS: HST galore • COSMOS/GEMS: largest single band/colour HST images; 1800 AGN, >500 broad-line quasars • Massive multi-λ (XMM, Chandra, HST, VLA, Spitzer, VLT, Magellan, Subaru, Galex,…) Much data public, but team member = early access

  9. COSMOS broad line AGN sample: • XMM-cat based sample • Photo-z existing • 494 type 1 AGN with I<24.5 and ACS images • ~300 w/ spectro-z‘s • C-COSMOS to be included • ACS, F814W

  10. COSMOS broad line AGN sample: • XMM-cat based sample • Photo-z existing • 494 type 1 AGN with I<24.5 and ACS images • ~300 w/ spectro-z‘s • C-COSMOS to be included • ~300 host galaxies resolved • @ 0.1<z<2 • ACS, F814W

  11. COSMOS: 300 resolved BL AGN host galaxies • ~500 XMM broad-line AGN w/ photo-z • ~300 w/ spectro-z • ~300 resolved w/ ACS imaging: largest host galaxy sample existing! • Missing: C-COSMOS Radio detected Radio loud

  12. Started: MBH vs. Mgal @ z<1 • ~100 resolved type 1 AGN @ z<1 • use Subaru with ACS morphology prior for colours  M/L  mass  Katherine Inskip, 2009 Matthew James, *5.11.08 From GEMS, KJ/Sanchez 2004, +KJ in prep.

  13. Started: ACS+NICMOS MBH vs. Mgal @ 1<z<2.5 • Type 1 AGN with ACS+NICMOS: 25 (+3) • Resolved in ACS: 21 • Currently with MBH: 12 • Resolved with MBH: 8 • Still needed: 16 x MBH • Wanted: WFC3!!! M(L/Ledd, host gal, …) (+10 @z=1.6 from GEMS, Schramm et al. in prep) KJ in prep.

  14. – = – = – = Started: ACS+NICMOS MBH vs. Mgal @ 1<z<2.5 xID 14, z=1.06, I=20.8 H=20.0, log(MBH)=8.2, log(Mgal)=11.2 xID 281, z=1.18, I=22.9 H=21.0, log(MBH)=8.25, log(Mgal)=11.25 xID 329, z=1.14, I=23.3 H=21.5, log(MBH)=7.4, log(Mgal)=11.0 NIC3, F160W

  15. Started: Dynamical masses:SINFONI + PARSEC @1.7<z<2.3 • High-z QSOs • Extended H w/ IFU spectroscopy • AO + Laser • 7/30h observed • 4 targets

  16. Started: Dynamical masses:SINFONI + PARSEC @1.7<z<2.3 PG1115+080, z=1.72  Katherine Inskip 2009

  17. Future: X-calibration of masses • Walter et al. 2003: MBH =1-10% of total mass @z=6.4 • Systematics of individual methods •  cross calibration • @z~1: dynamical vs. M/L with LUCIFER <MBH>/<Mbulge> Lookback time [Gyrs]

  18. Goal 2: Merging vs. Black hole fuelling? xID99, z=0.72 Thesis Mauricio Cisternas: • Search for mergers/interaction • z<0.85 (optical!) • ~100 AGN • 1:1 comparison to inactive galaxies • 1) Visual • 2) Automatic xID22, z=0.55 xID2653, z=0.94 xID14, z=1.06

  19. Goal 3: Role of star formation for AGN? KJ et al. 2007 Letawe et al. 2007

  20. Goal 2.5: Kinematical structures • Some perfect rotation curves • Some severely distorted velocity structures • Velocities several 100km/s • Merging? Inflow? Outflow? • PMAS IFS: 50% of EELRs with distorted velocity fields Letawe et al. 2007

  21. Goal 2.5+3: SF and kinematical structures Thesis Dading Nugroho: • Peculiar velocity structures in QSO hosts • Stellar populations • Time-link with AGN • VIMOS IFU z<0.2 • 10 (+9) AGN • FORS long slit, z<0.15 • ~50 AGN VIMOS IFU FORS longslit

  22. HE1043-1346, z=0.068 Thesis Dading Nugroho: • Peculiar velocity structures in QSO hosts • Stellar populations • Time-link with AGN • VIMOS IFU z<0.2 • 10 (+9) AGN • FORS long slit, z<0.15 • ~50 AGN H (VIMOS IFU) R-band (ESO 1.5m)

  23. HE1029-1401, z=0.184, VIMOS IFU, hires red grism H velocity map S.F. Sanchez

  24. HE1043-1346 • VIMOS IFU slices around H • Stepping blue red • Velocity structure • Nucleus removal TBD • Line fitting TBD  velocity map Major axis

  25. Summary (part 1) • Black holes and bulges coevolve somehow • “AGN Feedback” might solve galaxy evolution problems Goals: • MBH estimates to z>2 to constrain BH-galaxy coevolution • Importance of galaxy merging for AGN at high masses • Role of star formation in AGN at high masses • First Emmy Noether-group papers in 2009 (then part 2 of the talk)

  26. the end (for now)

  27. TBD: • OK: General intro, Häring&Rix, Bimodality, De Lucia sims • OK:  movie! • OK: MBH relation, today • OK: Ground based cols, specs, “bluer” statement • Interactions ground based • OK: GEMS complete with history and new plots • Asmus, GEMS intro • Dading: scope of project and goal, sebastians image, some dading images • OK: Mauricio: scope of project, morphs ground based? Some of his pics? Asmus plots! • OK: NICMOS images, tentative masses and plots • OK: Katherine, principle plot, no data, really, maybe the one slice and baby pic • OK: Kath COSMOS • OK: Take my work from Ringberg talks • Part 2 in two years or so…

  28. Radio vs. X-ray • Upper envelope of Lradio vs. LX

  29. X-ray vs. MBH vs. Radio • Correlation LX with MBH • And with M(F814W) of nucleus Symbol size: Lradio

  30. Host galaxy • Host galaxies are very luminous • Rest-frame optical: no correlation with MBH • Different in UV z<1 1<z<2  Heng/Martin

More Related