1 / 18

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. BH – host galaxy scaling relations.

betty
Download Presentation

Scaling Relations, Recoiling Black Holes

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. 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

  2. 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.........]

  3. 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]

  4. 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

  5. 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.]

  6. 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]

  7. 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]

  8. 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

  9. recoiling black holes

  10. 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, ...]

  11. 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 ?

  12. „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, ...]

  13. 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]

  14. 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, .....]

  15. 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]

  16. 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

  17. 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]

  18. 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

More Related