Scaling Relations,Scaling Relations,Recoiling Black HolesRecoiling Black Holes

Cosmogony of AGN, Brindisi, Sept. 2010

• scaling relations: local and high-z

• mergers• recoiling SMBHs & astrophysical

implications

S. Komossa MPE, Garching

BH – host galaxy scaling relationsBH – host galaxy scaling relations

key questions:

• do all types of local galaxies follow the same M- relation ?, slope & scatter ?• do all galaxies, at all times, follow the scaling relations ?• if not, how do galaxies evolve towards the relation ?

e.g., MBH/sun = 1.7 /0 (FF05)

[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 .........]

BH – host galaxy scaling relationsBH – host galaxy scaling relations

key questions:

• do all types of local galaxies follow the same M- relation ?, slope & scatter ?

slopes: ~ 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)

e.g., MBH/sun = 1.7 /0 (FF05)

[Gültekin+09]

[Graham+10]

observe (a) galaxies in the early universe @ high z, or (b) look at population of rapidly growing BHs in local universe

key questions:

• do all types of local galaxies follow the same M- relation ?, slope & scatter ?• do all galaxies, at all times, follow the scaling relations ?• if not, how do galaxies evolve towards the relation ?

e.g., MBH/sun = 1.7 /0 (FF05)

BH – host galaxy scaling relationsBH – host galaxy scaling relations

• original suggestion: NLS1s are OFF MBH – 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- 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.]

rapidly growing BHs in the local universe: rapidly growing BHs in the local universe: NLS1 galaxies on the NLS1 galaxies on the MMBHBH – – [OIII][OIII] plane plane

NLS1s onon MBH - SII]

strong outflows in several NLS1s: strong outflows in several NLS1s: on the nature of [OIII] „blue outliers“on the nature of [OIII] „blue outliers“

• 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

• is feedback due to outflows at work ?? [e.g., di Matteo & 05, Springel & 06]

[Kom

oss

a, X

u,

Zh

ou

, Sto

rchi-

Berg

man

n, B

inett

e 0

8]

scaling relations at high zscaling relations at high z

• several approaches: almost all using AGN, with - BH mass from broad lines - host properties from , Lhost, M*, (SED)

• in common: there is evolution, in the sense that BH growth precedes bulge growth,

with 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]

[Merloni+ 10]

open questions, uncertainties, next open questions, uncertainties, next stepssteps

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

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 ....

recoiling black holesrecoiling black holes

recoiling supermassive black holes: recoiling supermassive black holes: kicks & superkickskicks & superkicks• 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

[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, ...]

z

[Kom

oss

a &

Merr

itt+

08

]

recoiling supermassive black holes: recoiling supermassive black holes: kicks & superkickskicks & superkicks

key questions:

(1) what are the astrophysical implications ?

(2) what are the expected electromagnetic signatures of kicks, and what do we actually observe ?

(3) 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 ?

• „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- relation • redshift dependence of GW signals detectable with LISA (heavy

BH seeds, 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• .......

[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, ...]

recoiling supermassive black holes: recoiling supermassive black holes: astrophysical implications

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] kick formula:

____: 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[previous estimates: e.g., Campanelli+ 07, Schnittman

& Buonanno 07, Baker+ 08; latest update by Lousto+ 10]

[KM 08]

timescale of “spin alignment” in gas rich mergers: ~10 - 10 yr for MBH = 10 Msun; larger MBH, high a, are resistent to alignment [Perego+09]

• 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. signaturesrecoiling SMBHs – e.m. signatures

[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, .....]

most tightly bound matter remains bound after recoil

Bon

nin

g+

07

• 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 recoiling SMBHs – search for candidates via spectroscopic signaturesvia 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. H, extra broad component @ 450 km/s of unclear origin - trecoil ~ 104 yrs [Robinson+ 10]

• COSMOSJ1000+0206, @ 1200 km/s [Civano+ 10]

• 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 recoiling SMBHs – search for candidates via spectroscopic signaturesvia spectroscopic signatures

• perhaps, one more from SDSS ?, @ 3650 km/s [Shields et al. 09]

• E 1821+643, polarimetry +

kinematics, @ ~2100 km/s

- highly asymm. H, 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

recoiling SMBHs – implications for unified recoiling SMBHs – implications for unified models of AGNmodels 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 ~ 10 yr

• small-scale oscillations: - change from C-thick C-thin - repeated accretion (=flaring) activity at each turning point

[Komossa & Merritt 08b]

type 2

type 1

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

summarysummary