1 / 33

Integrating X-ray and Infrared Views of BAL Quasars

Integrating X-ray and Infrared Views of BAL Quasars. Sarah Gallagher (UCLA) October 2006. IR Optical-UV X-ray. `big blue bump’ lt days. `torus’ 1-100 pc. `corona’ ~AUs. outflow from here. NASA/CXC. A Model for All RQ Quasars. UV emission lines

rhys
Download Presentation

Integrating X-ray and Infrared Views of BAL Quasars

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. Integrating X-rayandInfraredViews of BALQuasars Sarah Gallagher (UCLA) October 2006

  2. IR Optical-UV X-ray `big blue bump’ lt days `torus’ 1-100 pc `corona’ ~AUs outflow from here NASA/CXC

  3. A Model for AllRQ Quasars UV emission lines ~light yr (1017-18 cm) X-ray continuum source ~light mins (1012-14 cm) UV/optical continuum source ~light hrs-days (1015-16 cm) (Gallagher et al. 2002a: Adapted from Königl & Kartje 1994; Murray et al. 1995)

  4. The Views Through the Wind X-ray UV shielding gas BAL Wind

  5. X-ray Absorption by Neutral Gas G = 2 NH = almost optically thick to Compton scattering (assuming solar metallicity)

  6. PG 2112+059 (z=0.466): First BAL Quasar X-ray Spectra G = 1.97±0.25; NH ~ 1022 cm-2 (Gallagher et al. 2001)

  7. X-ray Spectroscopy of ~12 RQ BAL Quasars • normal underlying X-ray continua • significant intrinsic absorption • NH = (0.1-5.0) x 1023 cm-2 • from >5 keV continuum: • normal aox (UV/X-ray flux ratio) • not just simple absorption • partial coverage? ionized gas? Δv? (e.g., Gallagher et al. 2002b; Chartas et al. 2002, 2003; Aldcroft & Green 2003; Grupe et al. 2003; Page et al. 2005; Shemmer et al. 2005)

  8. Chandra BAL Quasar Survey Large, well-defined sample • 35 luminous BAL quasars • bona fide BAL features • z = 1.4—2.9 • MB ~ -26.1 to -28.4 • UV spectra for all (from literature) • 4—7 ks exploratory observations • 35 observed; 27 detected (77%) (Gallagher et al. 2006) Collaborators: Niel Brandt, George Chartas, Gordon Garmire (Penn State), Robert Priddey (Hertfordshire), & Rita Sambruna (Goddard)

  9. Exploratory Surveys: X-ray Data • Rough continuum shape: GHR • from hardness ratio: (hard-soft)/(hard+soft) (analogous to B-V spectral index) • Relative UV-to-X-ray power: Daox • from hard-band flux:Daox(corr)

  10. UV Luminosity vs.aox brighter in X-rays Define: Daox=aox -aox (Luv) fainter in X-rays log(Luv) (ergs s-1 Hz-1) 228 SDSS Quasars with ROSAT(Strateva et al. 2005)

  11. All RQ BAL quasars show evidence for X-ray absorption (complex with NH ~ (1—80)x1022 cm-2) Spectral Shape vs. X-ray Weakness: X-ray Faint  X-ray Hard normal RQ quasars: G = 2.0 ± 0.25 Daox = 0.0 ± 0.15 Softer (less absorbed) Harder (more absorbed) % covered Daox Fainter Brighter

  12. Bright Quasar Survey z<0.5 Sample BAL Quasars Daox X-ray weak (400x) X-ray normal 55 BQS Quasars with z<0.5(Data from Brandt, Laor, & Wills 2000)

  13. CIV EWa and Daox: no correlation for BAL quasars BQS + Chandra BAL Quasars Chandra BALQs Daox

  14. UV Spectra:X-ray Bright vs. X-ray Weak CIV CIV SiIV SiIV X-ray BRIGHT X-ray FAINT

  15. vmax and Daox: ~3s correlation high velocity appears to require large NH vmax vs. Daox te~1 Daox

  16. Conclusions I:Exploratory X-ray Observations • compact & thick ‘X-ray—only’ absorbers • X-ray & UV absorption not consistent • some may be Compton-thick! • (te ~ 1; NH~1.5x1024 cm2) • likely correlation of vmax & Daox • first UV/X-ray correlation found  supports radiative driving of UV outflows (Gallagher et al. 2006)

  17. vterm œ (GMBH/Rlaunch)1/2 Link Between Shielding Gas and vmax? thinner shield  less X-ray weak thicker shield  more X-ray weak BH BH larger Rlaunch  lower vterm smaller Rlaunch  higher vterm • (cf. Chelouche & Netzer 2000; Everett 2005)

  18. Radio-Loud BAL Quasars See Brotherton talk & Benn poster #334 • Phenomenological differences: • BAL properties: lower EW and vmax with increasing Lradio (e.g, Becker et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 2006) • X-ray properties: no evidence that X-ray weakness due to absorption (e.g, Brotherton et al. 2005, Schaefer et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2006)

  19. PG1004+130 (a.k.a. PKS1004+13) X-ray weak: NH~1022 cm-2 Only RL BALQ with X-ray spectra. (Miller et al. 2006)

  20. Radio-Loud BAL Quasars See Brotherton talk & Benn poster #334 • Phenomenological differences: • BAL properties: lower EW and vmax with increasing Lradio (e.g, Becker et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 2006) • X-ray properties: no evidence that X-ray weakness due to absorption (e.g, Brotherton et al. 2005, Schaefer et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2006) Not the same thing – radiative driving may not be dominant acceleration mechanism

  21. BAL Quasars: Evolution or Orientation? Test: Compare SEDs of BAL and non-BAL Quasars • mid-IR bright? • UV-optically faint or “cocoon” picture (e.g., Goodrich 1997; Krolik & Voit 1998; Gregg et al. 2002) • enhanced star formation? • merger  ULIRG  quasar (e.g., Sanders et al. 1988) Or: is it just a phase? (e.g., Hazard et al. 1984; Becker et al. 2001)

  22. IR Optical-UV X-ray `big blue bump’ lt days `torus’ 1-100 pc `corona’ ~AUs outflow from here NASA/CXC

  23. BAL Quasar SED ProjectX-ray,UV-optical,IR,submm, radio • Question: are BAL quasars inherently different? • check: (1) differences in mid-IR SEDs vs. non-BAL quasars (2) evidence for enhanced star formation Large Bright Quasar Survey (z =1.4—3.0) • 38 – Spitzer MIPS: L8 (8 mm luminosity) + Lfir,SF, Lfir,QSO • 38 – 2MASS: L5000 (5000 Å luminosity) • 38 – LBQS: L2500 (2500 Å luminosity) • 35 – VLA (FIRST, NVSS, Stocke et al. 1992) • 35 – Chandra (Gallagher et al. 2006) + XMM-Newton (Clavel et al. 2006) • 25 – SDSS • 16 – SCUBA (Priddey et al. 2006) Collaborators: Dean Hines, Robert Priddey, Niel Brandt

  24. VLA SCUBAMIPS 2MASS SDSSChandra log(nLn) (erg s-1) log(n) (Hz) (Gallagher et al., submitted)

  25. BAL Quasars: notmid-IR bright LBQS BALQs and SDSS comparison sample — statistically indistinguishable.

  26. BAL Quasar Composite SED 8 mm 5000 Å 2 keV Comparison SED: SDSS luminous (Lbol > 1046.2 erg s-1) composite (Richards et al. 2006)

  27. BAL Quasar SEDs by BAL Type

  28. VLA SCUBAMIPS 2MASS SDSSChandra log(nLn) (erg s-1) log(n) (Hz) (Gallagher et al., submitted)

  29. Lfir,SF vs. Lfir,QSO HiBALQs no evidence for SF LoBALQs

  30. Conclusions II • BAL Quasars: • UV-optical shows reddening • (e.g. Sprayberry & Foltz 1992; Reichard et al. 2003; Trump et al. 2006) • X-ray shows strong absorption • range of star-formation contributions to FIR • no mid-IR excess no evidence for “cocoon”  outflows are common

  31. Multiwavelength Synthesis: The Stratified Wind Picture X-ray Ultraviolet Mid-Infrared Gallagher 2006

  32. BAL Quasar IRS Spectra silicates (Gallagher et al. in prep; see also Shi et al. 2006)

  33. Physical Parameters of the Stratified Wind See also Aoki #185; Ganguly #88; Rodriguez-Hidalgo talk; Simon #196; Wang #90

More Related