1 / 26

The non-causal origin of black hole–galaxy scaling relations (and its consequences) Knud Jahnke

The non-causal origin of black hole–galaxy scaling relations (and its consequences) Knud Jahnke Andrea Macciò Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Heidelberg. Cosmogony of AGN Brindisi, 3 September 2010. www.mpia.de/coevolution. BH vs. *. Black hole growth:

duy
Download Presentation

The non-causal origin of black hole–galaxy scaling relations (and its consequences) Knud Jahnke

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 non-causal origin of black hole–galaxy scaling relations (and its consequences) Knud Jahnke Andrea Macciò Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Heidelberg • Cosmogony of AGN • Brindisi, 3 September 2010 • www.mpia.de/coevolution

  2. BH vs. * Black hole growth: • Growth by gas accretion  (cold?) gas needed • Gas supply/feeding: major & minor mergers, instabilities • Growth by assembly  galaxy mergers Galaxy growth: • Growth by star formation  (cold) gas needed • Gas supply/feeding: major & minor mergers, instabilities • Growth by assembly  galaxy mergers

  3. Pre ~1998 BH studies Galaxystudies Strange galaxies (=AGN)

  4. MBH/Msun M* /Msun z=0: Häring&Rix 2004 BH vs. * • Tight correlation: BH–bulge, 0.3 dex scatter (measurement or intrinsic?) • Evolution with z: z<1.5: ~ low z=3: x2–6 z=6: x30

  5. Pre ~1998 BH studies Galaxystudies Strange galaxies (=AGN)

  6. Post ~1998 BH studies Galaxystudies AGN feedback

  7. Post ~2010 BH studies Galaxystudies Fuelling + feedback (?)

  8. MBH/Msun M* /Msun z=0: Häring&Rix 2004 BH vs. * • Tight correlation: BH–bulge, 0.3 dex scatter (measurement or intrinsic?) • Evolution with z: z<1.5: ~ low z=3: x2–6 z=6: x30

  9. xkcd.com/552

  10. MBH/Msun M* /Msun z=0: Häring&Rix 2004 BH vs. *: Correlation or causation? • Tight correlation: BH–bulge • 0.3 dex scatter (measurement or intrinsic?) • Evolution with z: z<1.5: ~ low z=3: x2–6 z=6: x30  Coupled evolution?

  11. BH vs. *: Correlation or causation? Chien Y. Peng (2007): Galaxy merging averages properties; is MBH-M* relation due to „central limit theorem“?

  12. Using a realistic Universe What about the real Universe? w/ Andrea Macciò (MPIA): Use simulated set of DM halos and it‘s assembly merger tree (Pinocchio code, Monaco et al.)  BH seeds? M* seeds? time KJ & Macciò, subm. to ApJL arXiv:1006.0482

  13. Using a realistic Universe • dark matter merger tree (z=20…0) • seeded with M*, MBH • uncorrelated at large z  Produces very tight relation at z=0 Pure merging KJ & Macciò, subm. to ApJL arXiv:1006.0482

  14. Pure merging KJ & Macciò

  15. Take-home message 1 The MBH–M* relation (to first order) is produced by LCDM assembly, without any extra physical driver

  16. Second order: SF and BH accretion Add: • SF law: reproducing global SF(M,z) • forcing z=0 M*–MDM relation (“halo occupation”)

  17. Second order: SF and BH accretion Add: • SF law: reproducing global SF(M,z) • BHA law: random doubling events (matching z=0 normalization) Star formation density dM*(z) from star formation Bouwens+ 2010b Halo occupation distribution Moster+ 2010

  18. Second order: SF and BH accretion Add: • SF law: reproducing global SF(M,z) • forcing z=0 M*–MDM relation (“halo occupation”) • BHA law: global BHA(z) + random doubling events (matching z=0 normalization) dMBH(z) from BH accretion Hopkins+ 2007

  19. The origin of the BH–galaxy scaling relations Add: • SF law: reproducing global SF(M,z) • forcing z=0 M*–MDM relation (“halo occupation”) • BHA law: global BHA(z) + random doubling events (matching z=0 normalization) • disk  bulge mass conversion when merging

  20. The origin of the BH–galaxy scaling relations Add: • SF law: reproducing global SF(M,z) • forcing z=0 M*–MDM relation (“halo occupation”) • BHA law: global BHA(z) + random doubling events (matching z=0 normalization) • disk  bulge mass conversion when merging (6.5x106 ~10.000 halos)

  21. Take-home message 1 The MBH–M* relation (to first order) is produced by LCDM assembly, without any extra physical driver

  22. Take-home message(s) 2 • Exact shape/deviation from slope=1 due to 2nd order effects (SF cutoff at massive end  halo occupation) • AGN feedback not needed (for scaling relations!), but possibly for 2nd order (on par to grav. heating, modified SN feedback) • Evolution in MBH/Mbulge at z>1: yes  early growth of BHs  so SF and BHA not strictly parallel • Scatter evolution interesting diagnostics for seed BHs

  23. Further consequences (incomplete) Correlation with BH for all components with merger assembly (bulge, halo, #glob. clusters,…) Also: more massive BHs  more luminous AGN live in more massive halos (Alison Coil and others) 40% of gals without mergers since z=2 (Ric Davies)  „secular“ mode of bulge formation (pseudo-bulges), can substantially differ from MBH-Mbulge-relation

  24. Key questions Q 12: Which observations (current or future) provide the tightest constraints on the origin of the BH-host scaling relations? Q 13: Is AGN feedback needed in galaxy evolution? If so, for which galaxies? Any need for radiatively efficient feedback (=quasar mode)? Q 15: Is the kinetic output of radio AGN an important source of feedback in galaxy formation? For which galaxies and at which cosmic epochs is it most relevant?

  25. Post ~2010 BH studies Galaxystudies Fuelling + feedback (?) ~the end~

  26. A: reference B: SF(z) = const. C: SF(z) = const. & BHA(z) = const. D: no random component in BHA

More Related