1 / 15

The merger-AGN connection since z~1: causal or circumstantial?

The merger-AGN connection since z~1: causal or circumstantial?. Mauricio Cisternas MPIA, Heidelberg. COSMOS Meeting IfA, 09/06/2010. + K. Jahnke, K. Inskip, A. Robaina (MPIA) T. Lisker, J. Kartaltepe, A. Koekemoer, M. Scodeggio, J. Trump, K. Sheth. M BH /M sun. Step 1. Step 3.

kert
Download Presentation

The merger-AGN connection since z~1: causal or circumstantial?

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 merger-AGN connection since z~1:causal or circumstantial? Mauricio Cisternas MPIA, Heidelberg COSMOS Meeting IfA, 09/06/2010 + K. Jahnke, K. Inskip, A. Robaina (MPIA) T. Lisker, J. Kartaltepe, A. Koekemoer, M. Scodeggio, J. Trump, K. Sheth

  2. MBH/Msun Step 1 Step 3 M* /Msun z=0 Häring & Rix (2004) Co-evolution • Scaling relations: “proof” for the tied growth of galaxies and their supermassive black holes • BH mass: built up during a quasar phase • But, what triggers a quasar? Step 2 Major mergers Minor mergers Large scale bars Nuclear bars ISM turbulence … ???

  3. Appealing scenario: major mergers • BUT: • Are those representative samples of QSOs? • High frequency of mergers compared to what? • Signatures heavily dependant on bandpass, image depth Since the 80’s, observations have found: • quasars with close companions • post merger features on their host galaxies • “High frequency of mergers” COSMOS AGN

  4. Our approach We study the distortions of a sample of AGN host galaxies. But, what makes us special? • The Data • ~2000 X-ray sources detected with XMM and Chandra • Classification as type-1/2 from spectroscopic surveys and SED fitting • Optical counterparts: HST/ACS • Solid sample of 140 type-1/2 (IAB<24, 0.3< z <1)

  5. Our approach Active Galaxy 2) Comparison Sample • The key measurement: not just the merger fraction of the AGN hosts, but the enhancement of merging over the “background level” • ~10 inactive galaxies per active galaxy • Compiled from the same dataset • Matched in redshift and brightness (including special treatment for the type-1 AGN) Control Sample

  6. Our approach Smooth 3) Visual Classification • No definitive way to identify mergers automatically... …then let’s do it by eye (& brain)! • Basically: • Hubble type • Distortion level • Consistency: • We use 10 independent classifiers (people) • We classify blindly: mixing the AGN hosts with the inactive galaxies Mildly distorted Strongly distorted

  7. 4 5 2 3 1 6 7 9 10 8 14 11 13 12

  8. The Result • This means: No enhancement in the merger fraction of AGN host galaxies over the background level Mean difference between the distortion fractions: 2.4% ± 3.6%

  9. The Result The K-S test can’t distinct between the 2 sets of measurements

  10. “AGN do not prefer to live inmerging systems” This result allows for 2 possible interpretations: • There is a significant time-lag between merging and AGN triggering… • … or major merging is not the main fueling mechanism AGN lifetime: Merger timescale: time

  11. Clues from the Hubble sequence • Hubble-type classification: ~60% of AGN hosted by galaxies with a significant disk • Since z~1: • Methods that do not involve destruction of the disk dominate • Minor mergers, accretion of surrounding gas, bar instabilities, nuclear bars, SN explosions, … • Tied growth of BHs and their host galaxies? not so much (Preprint coming soon)

  12. Quasar-host galaxy decomposition with GALFIT (originals) z=0.67 z=0.74 z=0.91 (models) (host galaxies)

  13. Comparison sample: creating mock AGN Procedure: i) For each type-1 AGN, we select 10 inactive galaxies that match in redshift and magnitude ii) Using the Host/Nucleus flux relation for a given AGN, we search for a star that fits that ratio against the inactive galaxy iii) By adding the star on top of the galaxy, we create a mock AGN iv) We treat our mock AGN exactly the same way as the original ones, which yields to a set of galaxies with the same conditions than our hosts + (inactive galaxy) (star) = (mock AGN) (galaxy + residuals)

  14. www.mpia.de/coevolution To recap… • AGN host galaxies show virtually the same frequency of distortions than inactive galaxies • Large fraction of disks on our AGN sample implies alternative fueling methods not caused by recent major mergers • Since z~1, merging and quasar activity disconnect • Preprint coming soon… Some advertising Just today at astro-ph: “The non-causal origin of the black hole-galaxy scaling relations” K. Jahnke & A. Maccio (arXiv:1006.0482)

More Related