1. Intrinsic Properties of Quasars: Testing the Standard Paradigm David Turnshek University of Pittsburgh

2. Outline: Outline: Overview Overview Models and Constraints Models and Constraints Emphasis: ELR + BALR and work with SDSS data Emphasis: ELR + BALR and work with SDSS data Model Testing (2.5D ADW Models) Model Testing (2.5D ADW Models) Recent Collaborators: Recent Collaborators: Nicholas Pereyra  modeling and variability Nicholas Pereyra  modeling and variability Kyu-Hyun Chae  gravitational lens constraints Kyu-Hyun Chae  gravitational lens constraints Tim Hamilton  HST imaging Tim Hamilton  HST imaging John Hillier  modeling John Hillier  modeling Norm Murray  consultant on modeling Norm Murray  consultant on modeling Stan Owocki  modeling Stan Owocki  modeling Daniel Vanden Berk + SDSS collab  SDSS data Daniel Vanden Berk + SDSS collab  SDSS data

3. Overview Luminosities (10 44 – 10 46 ergs/s) + SEDs Luminosities (10 44 – 10 46 ergs/s) + SEDs x-ray, UV, optical, IR, (10% radio) x-ray, UV, optical, IR, (10% radio) AGN/QSO Typing  lots of jargon AGN/QSO Typing  lots of jargon (Sy1, NLSy1, Sy2); (RLQ, RQQ, BAL QSO); (OVV) (Sy1, NLSy1, Sy2); (RLQ, RQQ, BAL QSO); (OVV) QSO Hosts  relation to normal galaxies QSO Hosts  relation to normal galaxies Black Hole Mass Measurments: Black Hole Mass Measurments: normal galaxies  M BH correlated with both stellar velocity dispersion and bulge luminosity normal galaxies  M BH correlated with both stellar velocity dispersion and bulge luminosity QSOs/AGN  M BH from (spatially unresolved) reverberation size vs. H b BEL width QSOs/AGN  M BH from (spatially unresolved) reverberation size vs. H b BEL width

4. SDSS QSO Colors vs Redshift Richards et al. 2002: QSO selection: colors, x-ray RASS matches, radio FIRST matches.

5. QSO Host Galaxies Bachall et al: HST shows QSO host galaxies are luminous

6. QSO Host Galaxies Hamilton, Casertano, Turnshek 2002: HST observations of 71 QSOs with z<0.46 Hamilton, Casertano, Turnshek 2002: HST observations of 71 QSOs with z<0.46

7. M BH (Normal Galaxies) M BH from spatially resolved velocity measurements versus stellar velocity dispersion M BH from spatially resolved velocity measurements versus bulge mass Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al 2000; Tremaine et al 2002: Magorrian et al 1998; Haring & Rix 2004:

8. M BH (QSOs/AGN) M BH virial mass from (spatially unresolved) reverberation mapping size scale and H b velocity width; comparisons with Eddington Luminosity. Peterson et al 2004:

9. M BH (Normal Galaxies and QSOs/AGN) M BH versus stellar velocity dispersion Bulge absolute magnitude versus M BH McLure & Dunlop 2002:Ferrarese et al 2001:

10. Models and Constraints QSOs  Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969) QSOs  Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969) Early Work on ELR and BALR (Cloud Models of the BELR) Early Work on ELR and BALR (Cloud Models of the BELR) Clues from Host Galaxy Type? Clues from Host Galaxy Type? Unified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary Scenarios Unified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary Scenarios ELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping ELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping ELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing ELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy

11. Models and Constraints QSOs  Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969) QSOs  Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969) Early Work on ELR and BALR Early Work on ELR and BALR (Cloud Models of the BELR) Clues from Host Galaxy Type? Clues from Host Galaxy Type? Unified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary Scenarios Unified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary Scenarios

12. Models and Constraints Early Work (Cloud Models of BELR): Early Work (Cloud Models of BELR): Absence of [OIII] BEL Absence of [OIII] BEL Presence of CIII] BEL Presence of CIII] BEL Baldwin Effect Baldwin Effect Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 Interpretation Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 Interpretation BAL QSO Interpretation BAL QSO Interpretation No Significant BELs from RLS (e.g. CIV) No Significant BELs from RLS (e.g. CIV) Effect of Dust in BALR? Effect of Dust in BALR? Narrow-Line [OIII] Interpretation Narrow-Line [OIII] Interpretation

13. Basic Early Models Constraints Absence of [OIII] BEL Absence of [OIII] BEL  electron densities > 10 5 cm -3  electron densities > 10 5 cm -3 Presence of CIII] BEL Presence of CIII] BEL  electron densities < 10 11 cm -3  electron densities < 10 11 cm -3 Baldwin Effect Baldwin Effect  inverse correlation: Luminosity versus BEL REW  inverse correlation: Luminosity versus BEL REW

14. [OIII] BEL Absent – CIII] BEL Present Vanden Berk et al. 2002:

15. Baldwin Effect Turnshek 1997:

16. Models and Constraints Early Work (Cloud Models of BELR): Early Work (Cloud Models of BELR): Absence of [OIII] BEL Absence of [OIII] BEL Presence of CIII] BEL Presence of CIII] BEL Baldwin Effect Baldwin Effect Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 Interpretation Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 Interpretation BAL QSO Interpretation – covering factor? BAL QSO Interpretation – covering factor? No Significant BELs from RLS (e.g. CIV) No Significant BELs from RLS (e.g. CIV) Effect of Dust in BALR? Effect of Dust in BALR? Narrow-Line [OIII] Interpretation Narrow-Line [OIII] Interpretation

17. Importance of Viewing Angle Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 See BELs in polarized (scattered) light of Seyfert 2! See BELs in polarized (scattered) light of Seyfert 2!  obscuring dusty torus (Antonucci & Miller 1985)  must have viewing angle effects!

18. Importance of Viewing Angle Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 NGC 4261: Jaffe et al 1993

19. Broad Absorption Line QSOs BAL QSOs (e.g. Turnshek et al 1980, 84, 85) BAL QSOs (e.g. Turnshek et al 1980, 84, 85)  viewing angle or evolution? CIV BEL not due to RLS  often taken as evidence that BALR covering factor small But if dust in BALR?  could have larger BALR covering factor (RLS destroys emission)

20. Measuring BALR Abundances Turnshek et al 1996: measure different ions of the same element  super solar abundance (but need to be careful about continuum source coverage)

21. Maybe Viewing Angle Isn’t Always Important! Narrow-Line [OIII] Emission Narrow-Line [OIII] Emission Emission from this line should be isotropic Emission from this line should be isotropic  but some QSOs have weak [OIII] (esp. BAL QSOs) (Boroson & Green 1992, Turnshek et al 1994, 97)  suggests that BALR covering factors can be large (Boroson & Green 1992, Turnshek et al 1994, 97)  suggests that BALR covering factors can be large

22. Evidence For Intrinsic Differences Strong-[OIII] vs. Weak-[OIII] Boroson 2002:

23. Models and Constraints QSOs  Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969) QSOs  Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969) Early Work on ELR and BALR Early Work on ELR and BALR (Cloud Models of the BELR) Clues from Host Galaxy Type Clues from Host Galaxy Type (Do Host Galaxies of BAL QSOs Look Different?)  open question! Unified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary Scenarios Unified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary Scenarios

24. Unified Model for QSOs/AGN e.g. Elvis 2000:

25. Unified Model for QSOs/AGN e.g. Elvis 2000:

26. Importance of Intrinsic Properties in QSOs/AGN e.g. Boroson 2002:

27. Models and Constraints ELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping ELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping (already discussed for black hole mass derivations) (already discussed for black hole mass derivations) ELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing ELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy

28. ELR Sizes: Reverberation Mapping e.g. Peterson et al 2004:  Peak at 0 days due to noise.

29. Models and Constraints ELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping ELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping ELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing ELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy

30. ELR Sizes: Gravitational Lensing Cloverleaf QSO Models: Chae & Turnshek (1999) contours shown at: 40, 80, 160, 320, 640 pc

31. ELR Sizes: Gravitational Lensing Narrow-band difference image (Ly a – minus continuum)

32. Models and Constraints ELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping ELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping ELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing ELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy

33. SDSS Results – QSO Composite Vanden Berk et al 2001:

34. SDSS Results – QSO Composite Spectrum Vanden Berk et al 2001:

35. SDSS Results – EL Velocity Shifts Vanden Berk et al 2001:

36. SDSS Results – BEL Velocity Shifts Richards et al 2002:

37. SDSS Results – QSO “Types” Reichard et al 2003:

38. SDSS Results – QSO “Types” Reichard et al 2003:

39. SDSS Results – Low Ionization BAL QSO Reichard et al 2003:

40. SDSS Results – Low Ionization BAL QSO Reichard et al 2003:

41. SDSS Results – BAL Variations Reichard et al 2003:

42. SDSS Results – QSO PCA Yip et al 2004:

43. SDSS Results – QSO PCA Yip et al 2004: PCA benefits: Reduce dimensionality Link diverse (correlated) properties Increase effective S/N through analysis of large samples

44. SDSS Results – QSO & Galaxy PCA Yip et al 2004:

45. Continuum Variability – SDSS Spectra: A Method to Measure Black Hole Mass Pereyra et al 2004: T * ~2T disk,max Red: flux at minimum Blue: flux at maximum

46. Continuum Variability – SDSS Spectra Pereyra et al 2004: Measuring Black Hole Mass T* ~ 2Tdisk,max (T*) 4 ~ (M acc /M BH 2 ). D f O l  M acc.

47. Aside (non-SDSS): Continuum Variability – QSO Type Sirola et al 1999: Testing Unified Models

48. Accretion Disk Wind Models Murray et al 1995 1D ADW Model Murray et al 1995 1D ADW Model Consistent with : BALs (x-ray weak), absence of double-peaked BELs, reverberation mapping results Consistent with : BALs (x-ray weak), absence of double-peaked BELs, reverberation mapping results Need for 2.5D Need for 2.5D Proga versus Pereyra: see Pereyra et al 2004 Proga versus Pereyra: see Pereyra et al 2004 Stability? Stability? Incorporation of Magnetic Fields? Incorporation of Magnetic Fields? 2.5D Model Calculations and Testing 2.5D Model Calculations and Testing

49. 2.5D ADW Models Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek

50. 2.5D ADW Models Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek

51. 2.5D ADW Models Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek

52. 2.5D ADW Models Absorbing gas originates from a small range of radii, rotating tornado-like (BEL widths comparable to Keplerian velocities, but with significant outflow component to velocity). Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek

53. Broad Absorption Line QSOs

54. 2.5D ADW Models BALs flow is quasi-steady outflow. Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek

55. 2.5D ADW Models Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek

56. 2.5D ADW Models Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek Left: Q = 85 o Right: disk obscuration at 9000 km/s (units of inner disk radii – deprojected)

57. Conclusions Unified Models of QSOs/AGN need to be further developed  they can now be rigorously tested. Unified Models of QSOs/AGN need to be further developed  they can now be rigorously tested. 2.5D Accretion Disk Wind Models (M BH, M acc, …) offer a good starting point for this. 2.5D Accretion Disk Wind Models (M BH, M acc, …) offer a good starting point for this. The wealth of information from the SDSS database, and other observations, offer unprecedented opportunities to test QSO/AGN models: The wealth of information from the SDSS database, and other observations, offer unprecedented opportunities to test QSO/AGN models: Can we explain the frequency distribution of QSO properties (esp. EL velocity shifts + BAL types)? Can we explain the frequency distribution of QSO properties (esp. EL velocity shifts + BAL types)? Can we find a signature of orientation in Radio Quiet QSOs? Can we find a signature of orientation in Radio Quiet QSOs? Can we find good cases for measurement of metal abundances? Can we find good cases for measurement of metal abundances?.