1 / 43

Keck NIRSPEC/AO spectra of nearest Seyfert 1s

I. How Good Are our M BH Estimates in Local Seyfert 1 Nuclei? Test Using Gas Kinematics. Erin Hicks & Matt Malkan UCLA. Keck NIRSPEC/AO spectra of nearest Seyfert 1s Multiple slit positions  2D velocity and flux distribution maps Model 2D velocity field to estimate M BH directly.

boone
Download Presentation

Keck NIRSPEC/AO spectra of nearest Seyfert 1s

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. I. How Good Are our MBH Estimates in Local Seyfert 1 Nuclei? Test Using Gas Kinematics Erin Hicks & Matt Malkan UCLA • Keck NIRSPEC/AO spectra of nearest Seyfert 1s • Multiple slit positions 2D velocity and flux distribution maps • Model 2D velocity field to estimate MBH directly

  2. NGC 3227: H2 2.1218mm & 2.4237mm Peak 0''.5 SE • Gaussian fit to the emission line profile for each aperture • Velocities measured to an accuracy of 20 km s-1

  3. NGC 7469: H2 2.1218mm & 1.9576mm • Rotational velocity pattern confirmed in at least one other H2 line, in 3227 and 7469 • H2 velocity is measurable fairly far out

  4. NGC 4151 H2 also shows sharp velocity gradient

  5. Summary of 2D Velocity Maps Organized Velocity Gradient: NGC 3227 (150-200 k/s across central tenths of '‘,=tens of parsecs) NGC 4051 NGC 4151 NGC 7469 No Velocity Gradient: NGC 3516 NGC 5548 (NGC 6814) Emission too Weak to NGC 4593 Measure Reliably: Ark 120

  6. 2D Modeling of H2 Rotation in NGC 3227 One Single slit position (angle=100o, offset=0''.09; there are 33 more) with Sérsic n=3 stellar models and disk PA=130o Each small tick is 7 parsecs CO disk has PA=158o (Schinnerer et al. 2004).

  7. Explore wide range of acceptable models for molecular gas in NGC 3227 MBH of a few 107 Msun Is better than nothing Stellar M/LH of 0.5 to 1.0 Is very astrophysically reasonable

  8. Massive Black Hole also required in NGC 4151 MBH =0.8—3 x 107 Msun, (Again does not reach 3 s Significance)

  9. Low-inclination (not far from face-on) molecular disk always fits better

  10. Two data points aren’t quite enoughto settle the entire story

  11. With only two (noisy) detections and a few upper limits, All we can say is that reverberation masses are not too badly off

  12. Reporter asked Chou-en-lai what he thought was the significance of the French Revolution He said: “It is too soon to tell.” “…Why don’t you guys get OSIRIS data?”

  13. Colbert, MM, Teplitz, and some non-UCLA people used NICMOS in Parallel imaging mode* to measure NIR (starlight) from galaxies in X-Ray Deep Fields II. Remarkable Two-way Correlation:1. Only the most luminous galaxies are Chandra sources (accreting SMBHs) 2. Virtually all of the massive/star-forming galaxies harbor AGN (X-rays from accretion) . Not X-ray detection Large Symbol: X-ray detection (40) *Discontinued last year Colbert et al. 2005 Ap J. 621, 587

  14. So Massive Galaxies were building up central black holes early on;III. When was current Galaxy Bulge/Central Black Hole Mass correlation established? MM, with Tommaso Treu (Hubble Fellow at UCLA, now UCSB), Jonghak Woo (UCSB), and Roger Blandford (Stanford) Weigh them, way back (4 Gyears ago): Is the SMBH/host galaxy correlation the same as today?

  15. Measuring MBH/ in distant universe: 2 problems 1. Black hole mass: “sphere of influence” is too small to resolve (0.1” at z=1 is ~800 pc) Solution: Broad-line AGN 1) Reverberation mapping of BLR (AGNWatch, started late ‘80s) 2) Empirically calibrated photo-ionization method, based on reverberation masses (Wandel, Peterson, MM 1999). 2. Velocity dispersion: distant objects are faint, and heavily contaminated by AGN continuum Solution: Seyfert 1 host galaxies integrated spectra have enough starlight superposed on the featureless AGN continuum, to measure 

  16. Testing MBH-  Relation at z~0.36 Sample selection • redshift window: z=0.360.01 to avoid sky lines • 30 objects selected from SDSS, based on broad H Observations • Keck spectra for 20 objects; sigma measured for 14 • HST images for 20 objects

  17. Measuring velocity dispersion All 14 determinations of  Possible emission lines are masked out

  18. The Black-Hole Mass vs Sigma relation at z~~0.37 disagrees with z=0 Systematic errors are not that large overall systematic errors (from Stellar contamination,aperture correction, inclination): Δlog MBH = 0.25 dex, smaller than observed offset Δlog MBH ~ 0.6 dex Ie, MBH/galaxy Mass ratio was about 4 times higher 4 Gyrs ago Treu, Malkan & Blandford 2004 + Woo, MM, TT, RB 2006 first half of data gave 2 evolution; Woo et al. 2006--doubling data makes this 3

  19. Assuming this is real, We can think of too many different possible explanations Something in Mbh/Sigma/Lbulge Was different 4 Gyrs ago: Maybe Fundamental Plane--not Mbh/Lbulge correlation--was the problem?

  20. Check with ACS Images: these bulges do not look very impressive: their low Lbulge is consistent with modest sigmas

  21. Is evolution real? Independent check that bulges are “too small” for MBH • With HST ACS images, quantify host galaxy properties determined from 2-D fits: They lie on the Fundamental Plane, ie, normal for z=0.4, with simple passive Luminosity evolution of stellar population 2006 TT, MM, JW

  22. The MBH- Mbulge relation, from fits to ACS images: Δlog MBH > 0.59±0.19 dex MBH/Mbulge 4 times larger P(KS)=1.3% Assuming normal passive evolution of stellar population, Evolutionary Offset from z=0 to 0.36 in MBH/Lbulge is similar to what we found from MBH/

  23. Conclusion: Only 3 Figures to Remember 3.Cosmic evolution in Galaxy/BH Relations: Although they have been correlated over most of cosmic history, SMBH growth was “completed” ahead of bulge assembly 1. H2 rotation curves give Mbh consistent with Reverberation mapping 2.Near perfect one-to-one association between massive galaxies and AGN X-ray emission

  24. Keck NIRSPEC/AO • R ~ 2000 • 1.9 - 2.4 mm (K-band) • 0.''0185/pixel • Correction from optical nucleus, gives Average FWHM = 0''.1 • 0''.037 x 3''.93 Slit Simultaneous direct imaging • SCAM: Slit viewing camera • Accurate slit position • PSF monitoring • 0.''0168/pixel • 4''.4 x 4''.4 FOV

  25. NGC 3227 NGC 3516 NGC 4051 Sample of Seyfert 1s 74 172 47 5.1 hr 1.8 hr 3.9 hr Each thin black line is a single slit position, superposed on NICMOS images Thicker lines are overlapping slits. NGC 4151 NGC 4593 NGC 5548 Get Lots of Slit Positions 334 64 175 4.1 hr 0.3 hr 1.3 hr NGC 6814 NGC 7469 Ark 120 Galaxy Assume Ho=75 km s -1 Mpc-1 6'' pc/'' 613 101 318 Total Exp. 0.9 hr 3.1 hr 1.9 hr Assumed Ho = 75 km s -1 Mpc-1

  26. Strongest Gas Emission Lines: H2 & Brg H2 1.9576 2.1218 2.2235 2.2477 2.4066 2.4237 Brg 2.1661 Example nuclear spectra from a 0''.05 x 0''.04 aperture.

  27. The FP of Spheroids at z~0.36 • At z=0.36, all Spheroids are overluminous for their mass, as expected from passive stellar evolution.

  28. High S/N (100-1 per Angstrom) Keck LRIS Spectra H H [OIII] MgI/FeI

  29. Measuring velocity dispersion in z=0.36 Seyfert 1 galaxies: 1 example Spectrum Zoom: Fe I 5269A Mg I 5175A Broadened K giant spectrum

  30. Black-Hole Mass in Seyfert 1 nucleus: Hb width estimation MBH ~ RBLR VBLR2 /G (Wandel, Peterson, Malkan 1999) [OIII]5007 • Single epoch spectra provide a good measure of the H width (), if narrow (constant) component is removed (Vestergaard 2002) need high SNR (Keck provided it on these 19th mag Seyferts) [OIII]4959 =[OIII]5007/ 3 NLR core of H Treu, Malkan & Blandford 2004

  31. Estimating virial MBH from BLR 2) Estimating BLR size:EmpiricallyCalibrated Photo-Ionization Method • The flux needed to ionize the broad line region scales as LIONIZING/RBLR2. • An empirical correlation is found, calibrated using reverberation mapping (which determines RBLR from direct measurement of light-crossing time) BLR size RBLR (lt-days) L(5100A) (erg/s) RBLR

  32. The MBH- Lbulge relation Δlog MBH > 0.42±0.14 dex P(KS)=10%

  33. Are these BHs rapidly growing? < 10% of Eddington mass accretion rate = ~ 0.1-0.5 (solarmass/yr)

  34. Open Questions • MBH- and MBH-Lbulge relations? When were they formed? Do they evolve? • If spheroids evolve by mergers, what makes these scaling relations? • Theoretical studies “predict”: • No evolution (Granato et al. 2004) • Sigma increases with redshift (Robertson et al. 2005) • Stellar mass (sigma) decreases with redshift (Croton 2006) • Is the ratio of growth rates constant?

  35. A Scenario • Major mergers 1) trigger AGN & SF, 2) quench SF by feedback, 3) increase bulge size • The characteristic mass scale decreases with time (downsizing), consistent withthat of our galaxies at z=0.36 The M-sigma relation should be already in place for larger masses!

  36. Updated with L5100A correction Old New

  37. MBH: measuring L5100 • Calibration of spectrophotometry on SDSS-DR4 photometry

  38. Measuring velocity dispersion () Fe II subtraction Fe II fit with I zw 1 template

  39. Evolution of M-sigma Relation Δlog M BH redshift Δlog MBH = 0.62±0.10±0.25 dex for z~0.36 sample

  40. ACS images of z=0.36 Seyfert 1’s 55 Kpc These Seyfert 1 galaxy hosts are big and bright A high proportion of them (?) appear to be undergoing close encounters

  41. Conclusions • Bulges at z~0.36 are smaller/less luminous than suggested by the local MBH-sigma relation. • Systematic error? (< 0.25 dex in log MBH ) • Selection effects (possibly in the local relationship; spirals vs bulge dominated systems)? • Significant recent evolution of bulges if M-sigma relation is the final destiny of BH-galaxy co-evolution.

  42. 1. Only the most luminous galaxies are Chandra X-ray sources 2. Virtually all of the massive galaxies harbor AGN Colbert, MM, Teplitz, and some non-UCLA people used NICMOS in Parallel observing mode to measure IR (starlight) from galaxies in Chandra Deep Fields

  43. Black Hole Mass vs Sigma. Feasible in special redshift windows Seyfert 1 Galaxies selected from SDSS based on redshift z=0.35 - 0.37

More Related