1 / 23

UNCERTAINTIES ON THE BLACK HOLE MASSES AND CONSEQUENCES FOR THE EDDINGTON RATIOS Suzy Collin

UNCERTAINTIES ON THE BLACK HOLE MASSES AND CONSEQUENCES FOR THE EDDINGTON RATIOS Suzy Collin Observatoire de Paris-Meudon, France Collaborators: T. Kawaguchi (Tokyo), B. Peterson (Ohio U), M. Vestergaard (Steward obs), C. Boisson, M. Mouchet (Paris).

vangie
Download Presentation

UNCERTAINTIES ON THE BLACK HOLE MASSES AND CONSEQUENCES FOR THE EDDINGTON RATIOS Suzy Collin

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. UNCERTAINTIES ON THE BLACK HOLE MASSES AND CONSEQUENCES FOR THE EDDINGTON RATIOS Suzy Collin Observatoire de Paris-Meudon, France Collaborators: T. Kawaguchi (Tokyo), B. Peterson (Ohio U), M. Vestergaard (Steward obs), C. Boisson, M. Mouchet (Paris)

  2. Uncertainties on direct mass determinations Indirect mass determinations: super-Eddington accretion rates

  3. I. UNCERTAINTIES ON THE MASS DETERMINATIONS IN 35 SEYFERT AND LOW REDSHIFT QUASARS BH MASSES ARE DETERMINED DIRECTLY BY THE “REVERBERATION MAPPING METHOD” It consists in measuring the time delay between the continuum and the line variations which respond to them; it gives an (approximate) size of the broad Line Region . Assuming that the BLR is gravitationally bound (certainly true for the Balmer line emitting region), the mass of the BH, , is then: where is the dispersion velocity, and a scale factor. It is usually assumed (Peterson & Wandel 1999, Kaspi et al. 2000) that which correspond to an isotropic BLR with a random distribution of orbits.  R(BLR) M(BH), M(BH) = f (c  V2/G) = f (Virial Product) V f V = FWHM, and f = 3/4 by-product: an empirical relation between R(BLR) and L(optical) IN ALL OTHER OBJECTS (EXCEPT ONE) THE MASSES ARE DETERMINED INDIRECTLY USING THIS EMPIRICAL RELATION

  4. VARIOUS UNCERTAINTIES The scale factor f depends on the geometry and on the kinematics of the BLR, and most probably on the Eddington rate (Collin et al. 2006). What is the best choice for measuring V? The FWHM (all works) or line? line seems more reliable (Peterson et al. 2004), but it is generally not measured. Is it better to use the RMS or the mean spectrum? Etc…

  5. Example of systematic uncertainties Sample of reverberation mapped objects Peterson et al. 2004: use (line) instead of FWHM, RMS spectrum instead of mean spectrum, and changed the factor f (scaled on the bulge masses by Onken et al. 2004)

  6. Collin, Kawaguchi, Peterson, Vestergaard (2006) Mean spectra RMS spectra THE SCALE FACTOR IS NOT A CONSTANT broad flat topped lines Gaussian profile NGC5548 narrow peaked lines Reverberation mapped objects, all datasets

  7. Scale factor determined by fitting M(BH) to M(*), M(BH) being FWHM-based Pop 2 f = 0.85  0.15 Remember: f = 0.75 is used Collin et al. f = 2.4  1 Pop 1 Pop B Pop A similar to Sulentic et al.

  8. THE INCLINATION OF THE BLR PLAYS A ROLE Assuming that the velocity includes a plane rotational plus an isotropic part Vobs =VKep (a 2 + sin2)1/2 and using the distribution of M(*) /M(RM), we found that a fraction of Pop1 objects should be seen at small inclination: their masses can be underestimated by factors up to ten (NGC4051, Mrk590, NGC7469…)

  9. BH MASSES DETERMINED IN LARGE SAMPLES INDIRECTLY BY THE EMPIRICAL RELATION Kaspi et al. 2000, revised by Kaspi et al. 2005 Allows to determine M(BH) for single epoch observations, simply by measuring Lopt (=L at 5100A) and the FWHM Determination of Lbol/Ledd Lbol: generally deduced from Lopt, assuming Lbol ~10 Lopt

  10. CAUTION! IT ELIMINATES THE INTRINSIC DISPERSION OF THE L-S RELATION THE SCALE FACTOR CAN STILL BE WRONG THE INCLINATION CAN STILL AFFECT THE WIDTHS

  11. Example: from the SDSS, McLure & Dunlop 2004 L/Ledd=1 Narrow line objects The relation leads to very high M(BH) for luminous quasars (~1010Mo, Netzer 2003, Vestergaard 2002).

  12. II. EXISTENCE OF SUPER-EDDINGTON ACCRETION RATES “Are quasars accreting at super-Eddington rates?” Collin, Boisson, Mouchet, et al. 2002 Reverberation mapped sample of Kaspi et al. 2000

  13. BUT We have used Ho=50, overestimating the luminosities by a factor 2 2. The masses of the sample have been revised by Peterson et al. (2004) BUT THERE ARE OTHER SAMPLES, WITH BH MASSES DETERMINED INDIRECTLY STRONG DECREASE OF

  14. THE ACCRETION RATE MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE LUMINOSITY! Let assume that Lopt is due to a thin accretion disk (as usually accepted) In the optical, the AD radiates locally like a BB (Hubeny et al. 2001) cos  =0.7, Corr-bol=10  L/Ledd=0.1 L/Ledd=1 FOR SMALL MASSES AND LARGE LOPT, THE EFFICIENCY  SHOULD BE VERY SMALL

  15. example of super-Eddington accretion rates: BH masses deduced from the size-luminosity relationship Collin & Kawaguchi, 2004

  16. Another example of super-Eddington accretion rates Collin & Kawaguchi, 2004

  17. Super-Eddington accretion rates are found not only for NLS1s, but generally for low mass samples

  18. McLure & Dunlop 2004 L/Ledd=1 After correction for the efficiency

  19. COULD THERE BE ANOTHER EXPLANATION? 1. Super-Eddington accretion rate (not large, ≤ 1 Mo per year) at large distance from the BH, but super-Eddington relativistic wind at small distance (Pounds et al. 2004, Gierlinski & Done 2004, Chevallier et al. 2006). 2. The optical-UV emission is not due to the accretion disk, even taking into account a non-gravitational external heating: but to what else? 3. The empirical L-R(BLR) relation may not be valid at large L/Ledd and small masses. 4. Alternatively, we observe really super-Eddington accretion rates. Indeed…

  20. Super-Eddington accretion rates are well explained by slim disks Collin & Kawaguchi, 2004

  21. COSMOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF SUPER-EDDINGTON ACCRETION RATES During their low mass phase, the growth time of the BHs is not Eddington limited (but most probably mass supply limited); it is thus much smaller than the Eddington time (Kawaguchi et al. 2004). Super-Eddington accretion can explain the rapid early growth of BHs 2. It implies that the BH/bulge mass relationship for NLS1s may be more dispersed than for other objects.

  22. SUMMARY There are both random (factor 3) AND systematic uncertainties (in particular in the scale factor) in the determination of M(BH) using reverberation mapping technique. These uncertainties are exported to the masses determined indirectly through the L-R(BLR) relationship in the other AGN. Moreover it is not clear whether this relationship can be extrapolated to large and small masses and to large Eddington factors. If it can be extrapolated to large Eddington factors (~1), it implies that the accretion rates should be strongly super-Eddington in low mass objects ( below 108Mo). It can have important consequences for the cosmological growth of BHs.

  23. Example: Collin & Kawaguchi, 2004 A very tight correlation appears, due to the neglect of the error bars on the empirical relation RM objects Boroson et al 04 Grupe et al 99 Grupe et al 03 Veron et al 01 Lopt < 5 1043 ergs/s x NLS1

More Related