scaling relations recoiling black holes n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Scaling Relations, Recoiling Black Holes PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Scaling Relations, Recoiling Black Holes

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

Scaling Relations, Recoiling Black Holes - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 118 Views
  • Uploaded on

scaling relations: local and high-z mergers recoiling SMBHs & astrophysical implications. Cosmogony of AGN, Brindisi, Sept. 2010. Scaling Relations, Recoiling Black Holes. S. Komossa MPE , Garching. BH – host galaxy scaling relations.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Scaling Relations, Recoiling Black Holes' - betty


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
scaling relations recoiling black holes
scaling relations: local and high-z

mergers

recoiling SMBHs

& astrophysical implications

Cosmogony of AGN, Brindisi, Sept. 2010

Scaling Relations,Recoiling Black Holes

S. Komossa MPE, Garching

slide2

BH – host galaxy scaling relations

e.g., MBH/(108 Msun)= 1.7 (s*/s0)4.9(FF05)

  • key questions:
  • do all types of local galaxies
  • follow the same M-s* relation ?,
  • slope & scatter ?
  • do all galaxies, at all times, follow
  • the scaling relations ?
  • if not, how do galaxies evolve
  • towards the relation ?

[obs.: e.g., Gebhardt & 00, Ferrarese & Merritt 00, MF01, Tremaine & 02, Marconi & Hunt 03, Häring & Rix 04, Ferrarese & Ford 05, Gültekin+ 09, Graham+ 10, .... / models: e.g., Silk & Rees 98, Burkert & Silk 01, Haehnelt+ 03, Springel+ 05, Hopkins+ 06, Li+ 07, Jahnke+ 10.........]

slide3

BH – host galaxy scaling relations

e.g., MBH/(108 Msun)= 1.7 (s*/s0)4.9(FF05)

  • key questions:
  • do all types of local galaxies
  • follow the same M-s* relation ?,
  • slope & scatter ?
  •  slopes: a ~ 4 .... 5
  •  scatter: 0.3 – 0.5 dex
  •  bar-ed galaxies deviate
  • )* note: rev.-mapped AGN are
  • shifted on the local relation by
  • adjusting the „f-factor“ (BLR
  • geometry)

[Gültekin+09]

[Graham+10]

slide4

BH – host galaxy scaling relations

e.g., MBH/(108 Msun)= 1.7 (s*/s0)4.9(FF05)

  • key questions:
  • do all types of local galaxies
  • follow the same M-s* relation ?,
  • slope & scatter ?
  • do all galaxies, at all times, follow
  • the scaling relations ?
  • if not, how do galaxies evolve
  • towards the relation ?

 observe (a) galaxies in the early universe @ high z, or (b) look at population of rapidly growing BHs in local universe

rapidly growing bhs in the local universe nls1 galaxies on the m bh s oiii plane
rapidly growing BHs in the local universe: NLS1 galaxies on the MBH – s[OIII] plane

NLS1s on MBH - s[SII]

  • original suggestion: NLS1s are OFFMBH – s[OIII] relation
  • new analysis, SDSS-NLS1s, plus BLS1 comparison sample; using several NLR emission lines & decomposing [OIII]

 NLS1s do follow the relation,

after removing objects dominated by outflow; (remaining scatter does not depend on L/Ledd)

  • they evolve along the M-s relation

NLS1 hosts are typically not mergers; but excess of bars

  • either acc. shortlived, or (bar-driven) secular processes at work ?

[Komossa & Xu 07; Xu+ 10 in prep.]

slide6

strong outflows in several NLS1s: on the nature of [OIII] „blue outliers“

[Komossa, Xu, Zhou, Storchi-Bergmann, Binette 08]

  • what causes the „blue outliers“, which have their whole [OIII]
  • profile blueshifted, by up to several 100 km/s ?
  • and almost no [OIII] at v=0 !
  • correlation with IP: significant parts of the NLR in outflow
  • isfeedback due to outflows at work ??[e.g., di Matteo & 05, Springel & 06]
scaling relations at high z
scaling relations at high z

[Merloni+ 10]

  • several approaches:

almost all using AGN, with

- BH mass from broad lines

- host properties from

s, Lhost, M*, (SED)

  • in common: there is evolution, in the sense that BH growth precedes bulge growth,

with D log MBH ~ 0.2 ... 0.6

(z= 0.4 – 2).

except some submm & SF galaxies, z~ 2

[Shields+ 03, McLure+ 06, Peng+ 06, Woo+ 06, 08, Treu+07, Salviander+ 07, Alexander+ 08, Bennert+ 10, Decarli+ 10, Merloni+ 10, Netzer & Trakhtenbrot 07, 10, Bluck+ 10]

open questions uncertainties next steps
open questions, uncertainties, next steps

next steps:

  • go to even higher z ?
  • or, increase sample sizes at lower z ?
  • include more low(est) mass BHs, also in local relation
  • attempt measure-ments along merger sequences
  • can we find a method of BH mass estimates independent of BLR scaling relations which still works beyond the lowest z ?

comparison with models:

  • what are key model predictions ? :

slope, scatter, time-dependence, environment dependence,

galaxy type dependence ....

uncertainties

  • NLS1s: how represen-tative for AGN as a whole ? bar fraction ?
  • „classical“ AGN at high z: esentially all depend on BLR radius-luminsoty scaling to obtain MBH.

 uncertainties in f-factor (BLR geometry) and its evolution;

& unknown fraction of bars; and their evolution,

or assumptions about evolving stellar pop.

poss. selection effects at highest z

slide10
NR simulations of BBH mergers predict BH „kicks“ with velocities up to 3800 km/s;

highest for m1=m2, a1=-a2=max & in orb. plane

 recoiling BHs will oscillate about galaxy core, or could even leave massive ellipticals

z

recoiling supermassive black holes:

kicks & superkicks

[Komossa & Merritt+ 08]

[e.g., Peres 1962, Bekenstein 73, Redmount & Rees 89, ... / Baker+ 06,07,08, Brügmann+ 08, Campanelli+ 06, 07a,b, 08, Dain+08, Gonzales+ 06, 07a,b, Healy+ 08, Herrman+ 07a,b, Koppitz+ 07, Lousto & Zlochower 08, Lousto+ 09,10, Pretorius 05, 07, Pollney+07, Schnittman+ 07, 08, Tichy & Maronetti 07, vanMeter+ 10, ...]

slide11

recoiling supermassive black holes:

kicks & superkicks

  • key questions:
  • what are the astrophysical implications ?
  • what are the expected electromagnetic signatures of kicks, and what do we actually observe ?
  • how common are the (medium-large)kick configurations in nature ?

especially: are there any unsolved puzzles, which are naturally explained, when including recoil ---- or. vice versa, are there certain observations which immediately constrain the (super)kick fraction ?

slide12
„new paradigm“: SMBHs spend significant times off the cores of galaxies, or are even ejected  this affects

galaxy assembly at the epoch of structure formation & BH growth

feedback

scatter in M-s relation

redshift dependence of GW signals detectable with LISA (heavy BHseeds, late formation; vs.light seeds,early formation)

unified models of AGN, # of type-2 quasars, modelling of X-ray bg

time delays between SB and AGN activity after merging

.......

recoiling supermassive black holes:

astrophysical implications

[e.g., Madau+ 04, Favata+ 04, Merritt+ 04, Haiman 04, Boylan-Kolchin+ 04, Volonteri+ 05, 06, 07, Libeskind+ 06, Schnittman 07, Sesana 07, Gualandris & Merritt 08, Yu & Lu 08, Blecha & Loeb 08, Tanaka & Haiman 08, Volonteri & Madau 08, Komossa & Merritt 08b, Colpi+ 10, Volonteri+ 10, ...]

slide13

fraction of high-v recoils among (gas-poor) major mergers(assuming random mass and spin distributions), and based on Baker et al. 08 [sim. for Lousto & Zlochower 08] kickformula:

____: mass mix between q=0.3-1, and spin mix between a=0.5-0.9

-----:q=1, a=0.9

......: low-spin solution with a=0.3, q=0.3-1

[KM 08]

[previous estimates: e.g., Campanelli+ 07, Schnittman & Buonanno 07, Baker+ 08; latest update by Lousto+ 10]

timescale of “spin alignment” in gas rich mergers: ~105 - 109 yr for MBH = 106-7 Msun; larger MBH, high a, are resistent to alignment[Perego+09]

slide14
off-nuclear „quasars“

kinematically off-set „Broad Line Regions“

- ideally at v>> few 100 km/s, to

distinguish from „BLR physics“

- lack of „ionization stratification“in NLR

- symmetric broad lines, (and MgII at

same v as Balmer lines)

feedback trails

off-nuclear stellar tidal „recoil flares“

hypercompact stellar systems

recoiling SMBHs – e.m. signatures

most tightly bound matter remains bound after recoil 

Bonning+ 07

[e.g., Madau & Quataert 04, Merritt+ 04, 06, Bonning+ 07, Loeb 07, 09 Bogdanovic+ 07, Gualandris & Merritt 08, Kornreich & Lovelace 08, Devecchi+ 08, Fukujita 08, Lippai+ 08, Volonteri & Madau 08, Komossa & Merritt 08b, Haiman+ 08, Merritt+09, O‘Leary&Loeb 09, Schnittman 10, Krolik+ 10, .....]

slide15
SDSSJ0927+2943, @ 2650 km/s shows all predicted (B07) spectral features of a recoiling BH, plus an extra peculiar syst. of NELs which is not yet well understood

[Komossa et al. 08]

recoiling SMBHs – search for candidates via spectroscopic signatures

Komossa+ 08

  • perhaps, one more from SDSS ?,@ 3650 km/s[Shields et al. 09]
  • E 1821+643, polarimetry + kinematics, @ ~2100 km/s

- highly asymm. Hb, extra broad

component @ 450 km/s of

unclear origin

- trecoil ~ 104 yrs [Robinson+ 10]

  • COSMOSJ1000+0206, @ 1200 km/s[Civano+ 10]
slide16
SDSSJ0927+2943, @ 2650 km/s shows all predicted (B07) spectral features of a recoiling BH, plus an extra peculiar syst. of NELs which is not yet well understood

[Komossa et al. 08]

recoiling SMBHs – search for candidates via spectroscopic signatures

  • perhaps, one more from SDSS ?,@ 3650 km/s[Shields et al. 09]
  • E 1821+643, polarimetry + kinematics, @ ~2100 km/s

- highly asymm. Hb, extra broad

component @ 450 km/s of

unclear origin

- trecoil ~ 104 yrs [Robinson+ 10]

  • COSMOSJ1000+0206, @ 1200 km/s[Civano+ 10]
  • re-interpretation of pre-merger
  • „dual AGN“ scenario as GW recoil,
  • or 3body slingshot
  • - extra (faint) narrow lines at vBLR
slide17

recoiling SMBHs – implications for unified models of AGN

  • typically, rBLR < rkick < rtorus
  •  BH recoil oscillations change the
  • quasar, from type 2  type 1
  •  BH recoil oscillations may
  • explain deficiency of type
  • 2s at high L(where mergers are
  • common)
  • using N-body simulations
  • [Gualandris & Merritt 08] of BH
  • oscillating in galaxy:
  • above vkick >~ 450 km/s,
  • tosci approx tquasar ~ 107 yr
  • small-scale oscillations:
  • - change from C-thick  C-thin
  • - repeated accretion (=flaring)
  • activity at each turning point

type 1

type 2

[Komossa & Merritt 08b]

slide18
scaling relations:

- local non-actives: small scatter, slope 4...5, bar-ed galaxies off

- local rapidly growing BHs (NLS1s): on the local relation

- high-z AGN (z=0.4-2): off the local relation, BH growth precedes

bulge growth

kicks:

- astrophysical implications for: galaxy & BH assembly at epoch of

structure formation, BH growth, z-dependence of GW signals &

LISA rates, AGN statistics & unified models, time delays between SB

and AGN activity, .....

- predicted e.m. signatures: spatially & spectroscopically off-set

„quasars“, flaring disks, variable quasar absorption, off-nuclear tidal

disruption flares, hypercompact stellar systems

- several candidates @ v ~ 1000-3000 km/s

summary