Dissecting the co-evolution of Black Holes and galaxies via basic accretion and clustering models and the size distribution of early-type galaxies Francesco.

Dissecting the co-evolution of Black Holes and galaxies via basic accretion and clustering models and the size distribution of early-type galaxies Francesco Shankar FERRARA AGN9 26/05/10 with: D. Weinberg, M. Bernardi, F. Marulli, J. Moreno, Y. Shen, R. Sheth, S. Bonoli, J. Miralda-Escude’, L. Ferrarese, M. Crocce, Z. Haiman, C. Li, G. Kauffmann, S. White

SAMs are working hard to understand what is going on… ``our knowledge on the physics of accretion onto BHs and their interaction with galaxies is still poor to draw firm conclusions’’ Fontanot et al. Malbon et al.Lapi, FS, et al.

A model-independent approach: The Continuity Equation Important historical references : Cavaliere et al. (1971); Soltan (1982); Small & Blandford (1992); Salucci et al. (1999)

Redshift-dependent P(L/L Edd,z) distributions?

Mass-dependent P(L/L Edd,M BH,z) and radiative efficiency? ~ M BH ^(-a)

n M bh n M halo Large Scale Clustering of BHs FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2010

n M bh n M halo Pc(M bh ) Nc[M h (M bh )]/N tot + Ps(M bh ) Ns[M h (M bh )]/N tot =U(M bh,z) N(M h ) MhMh M min Seeding Central and Satellite Halos with BHs Q=Ps/Pc~0.3-1 FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2010

FS, Marulli, Bernardi, Sheth et al. 2010b FS & Bernardi 2009 The median size decreases and σ increases at high-z, at FIXED Stellar Mass

FS et al. in preparation Gaskell 2009

FS, Bernardi, Haiman 2009 A “Cumulative” Test

SO…WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUT HOW BHs EVOLVE? ACCRETION: possible redshift and mass dependence in P(λ), and mass dependence in ε. QUASAR CLUSTERING: scatter L-dep. (?), small-scales-> significant fraction of satellites increasing with time (?); Negative Evolution in Mbh-σ!!! Negative Evolution in Mbh-σ!!! STRONG SIZE EVOLUTION: implies negative evolution but… Data->Positive Evolution in the Mbh-σ Data->Positive Evolution in the Mbh-σ

A basic model for QSOs

The luminosity function

Quasar clustering

Scaling Relations: an evolving M bh -M STAR relation?

Two-phase Galaxy Evolution: 1-High-z wet phase; 2-low-z Dry Accretion (?) FS, Marulli, Bernardi, Sheth et al. 2010a

CONCLUSIONS: -Strong Size, Sersic index Evolution, milder Velocity Dispersion Evolution ?!? (More Data) -Minor Mergers good candidates: keep also central density! However: enough? All galaxies on the same size-mass relation? Downsizing? -Implications: Evolution in the M bh -M bulge relation by a factor ~2 But : role of S0 galaxies? Role of Disk-Instability? -Other additional constraints from Ф(Re,z) ; Ф(σ,z); FP(z)

Observational Evidence: -Number/mass density strong decrease -Gas fraction increase -Sizes decrease

What drives Late Size Evolution and… by How Much?

Not only Sizes: Velocity Dispersion and Sersic Index

Comparing with different type of data….

More detailed comparison models-observations: a “Cosmological Model”

If velocity dispersions and stellar masses evolve…. What Happens to the SMBH-Galaxy Scaling Relations??

Other interesting empirical results on The Evolution of Scaling Relations: Gaskell 2009Jahnke et al. 2009

FS, Bernardi, Haiman 2009 A “Cumulative” Test

A basic model for QSOs

Quasar clustering

Scaling Relations: an evolving M bh -M STAR relation?

FS, Marulli, Bernardi, Boylan-Kolchin, Sheth et al. 2009a,bFS & Bernardi 2009 ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS FROM THE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF SDSS GALAXIES:

CONCLUSIONS: -Strong Size, Sersic index Evolution, milder Velocity Dispersion Evolution ?!? (More Data) -Minor Mergers good candidates: keep also central density! However: enough? All galaxies on the same size-mass relation? Downsizing? Mancini et al. 2009

CONCLUSIONS: -Strong Size, Sersic index Evolution, milder Velocity Dispersion Evolution ?!? (More Data) -Minor Mergers good candidates: keep also central density! However: enough? All galaxies on the same size-mass relation? Downsizing? -Implications: Evolution in the M bh -M bulge relation by a factor ~2 But : role of S0 galaxies? Role of Disk-Instability? -Other additional constraints from Ф(Re,z) ; Ф(σ,z); FP(z)

A closer look to low galaxy profiles….

Triggering epoch Shining epoch DELAY

PASSIVE BIAS : A SIGNATURE OF RAPID BH GROWTH AND MASSIVE ‘’SEEDs’’ A long delay ‘’lowers’’ the bias at the shining R. Angulo, M. Crocce

Quasar clustering

Second Ingredient: BH Light Curve Mass-dependent Light Curve: more Extended for less Massive BHs Feedback-Constrained L peak :

The Clustering of “MERGING” Halos S. Bonoli, FS, S. White, et al. 1e12 2e13

What is producing faint AGNs? More massive halos in minor events or less Massive halos in Major events? We converted to bias estimates the L-dependent cross-correlations of AGNs in SDSS by Cheng Li

An evolving Mbh-σ relation?

FS, Marulli, Bernardi, Sheth et al. 2009a,b FS & Bernardi 2009 The sizes decrease and σ increase at high-z at FIXED Stellar Mass

High Clustering: Less Massive BHs in the Local Universe!

FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2009 FS 2009 Continuity Equation : to reduce number density of low-mass BHs continuosly decrease the Eddington Ratio in time!

A non-evolving Mbh-σ relation!

CONCLUSIONS Starting From a Basic Model for the Triggering and Shining of QSOs we find: 1-Mass-dependent Light Curves favored 2-High clustering of z>3 QSOs : implies rapid growth/massive BH seeds; NO excess ‘’merger bias’’ 3-High Clustering of AGNs in SDSS: implies flat BH mass function at the low-mass end 4-Scaling Relations : at high-z same Mbh-σ, but smaller sizes and higher σ for given stellar mass favors higher Mbh-Mstar!

The Clustering of “MERGING” Halos S. Bonoli, FS, S. White, et al. 2009 We select the halos from the MS which have recently merged Merger Rate enough to host all QSOs

First Ingredient: Merger/Virialization Rates of Halos F&M rates consistent with accurate theoretical estimates! Fakhouri&Ma rates fits to the MS J. Moreno

Another Application: The SDSS z>3 Quasar Clustering FS, M. Crocce, J. Miralda-Escude’, P. Fosalba, D. Weinberg 2008 Duty cycle~1 n(Mb h=L/ )~Ф(L)/P 0

First Ingredient: Merger/Virialization Rates of Halos F&M rates consistent with accurate theoretical estimates! Fakhouri&Ma rates fits to the MS J. Moreno

The ratio probably was nearly constant at all times at least up to z~1.5 Do BHs grow faster than Galaxies?

How do we cope with the evolving σ in Ellipticals?

SO…WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUT HOW BHs EVOLVE? ACCRETION: can reproduce the local BH mass function; preferred parameters are 0.5< <1 and 0.07<  <0.1. Multi Edd. Ratios do not change Accreted BHMF. The Quasar clustering, independent constraints on duty cycle, mean L-Mhalo relation, and scatter, small-scales constraints on the BH triggering mechanisms Constraints on co-evolution from evolution of QSO LF matching

The ratio probably was nearly constant at all times at least up to z~1.5 Do BHs grow faster than Galaxies?

ISSUES ABOUT WHICH IS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL RELATION, IF IT IS A 3-VARIABLE ONE, ETC… WE FIND THE M BH - σ RELATION TO BE THE TIGHEST ~0.18 dex FS, L. Ferrarese 2009

An Application: The SDSS z~1.5 quasar clustering FS, Shen, Weinberg, et al. 2009 Coupling with duty cycle from Continuity Equation breaks some degeneracies! First Results: large scatter!

Broad Eddington ratio Distributions III Very Broad p( )Very Broad p( )+f(z)

SPECIAL MODELS: -dependent Bolometric Correction Vasudevan & Fabian 2007

Low Radiative Efficiency+Low Eddington ratios Similar Downsizing Harder to match the local BHMF: <0.1;  <0.06

Broad Distributions IV: The Obscured Fraction  M BH -α Babic et al.; Tozzi et al.; Alexander et al. Hasinger; Akylas et al. FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2009a

Broad Distributions III: The Obscured Fraction  M BH -α

SO FAR WE HAVE CONSIDERED MODELS WITH CONSTANT EDDINGTON RATIO DISTRIBUTIONS WE NOW ALLOW FOR THE ACCRETION RATES TO DEPEND ON REDSHIFT (INCREASE/DECREASE WITH z) AND, AT FIXED TIME, TO DEPEND ON BLACK HOLE MASS (INCREASE/DECREASE WITH M BH )

INPUT/CONSTRAINTS FOR MODELS AGN LUMINOSITY FUNCTION LOCAL BH MASS FUNCTION

PASSIVE BIAS : A SIGNATURE OF RAPID BH GROWTH AND MASSIVE SEEDs a long delay ``lowers’’ the bias at the shining R. Angulo, M. Crocce

f s = fraction of AGNs which are satellites Eastman et al.; Martini et al.; Sivakoff et al.

Low-z Clustering: RESULTS Coil et al.; Croom et al.; da Angela et al.; Francke et al.; Hennawi et al; Mountrichas et al.; Myers et al.; Padmanabhan et al.; Plionis et al; Porciani et al.; Shen et al.

Varying the Reference Model… L~ M BH

The M bh -σ Relation The M bh -σ Relation At peak At shutdown Observed locally

L= L Edd (M BH ) L Edd =1.3e38x(M BH /1e8) erg/s t ef   / FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2008 P 0 =Ф(L)/n(Mb h=L/ )

An Example of applying inputs from Accretion+Clustering into SAMs for Co-evolution Integrating the duty cycles in time: estimate of the mean lifetime of quasars of a given final mass Clumpy GAS at T vir COLD GAS RESERVOIR (low J) STARS IGM SMBH-QSO SNae & QSO feedback Radiative cooling Radiation drag (  SFR) Viscous accretion Collapse Stellar evolution Granato et al. 2004, 2006, FS et al. 2006 QSO outflows Within each virialized DM halo Outputs of Granato et al. model negligble post-peak accretion as demography assumptions SCUBA QSO phase Passive Evolution t delay t vis

FOR THE FUTURE: Study of the Black Holes in MPA SAM: -link light-curve to energy self-regulation -compute the number of BH pairs and make predictions for LISA -compute the statistics of radio sources -probe more triggers for BH accretion

FS, F. Marulli, M. Bernardi, et al. 2009 But if Galaxies merge…what happens to SMBHs?

SO…WHAT DID WE LEARN ON HOW BHs EVOLVE? Single- models can reproduce the local BH mass function; preferred parameters are 0.5< <1 and 0.07<  <0.1. Broad p( ) distributions yield similar BH growth histories if is independent of BH mass. The high-z clustering, especially at z=4 measured in SDSS, requires very high host halo masses and matching the AGN luminosity function requires 0.4 0.2 if >0.5! 0.4 0.2 if >0.5! If the Eddington ratio decreases with BH mass and z: -match to the AGN fraction in the field and clusters -match to the AGN fraction in the field and clusters -match to small-scale clustering -match to small-scale clustering -match to the obscured fraction -match to the obscured fraction

MODELING THE low-z QUASAR CLUSTERING 1-The previous method breaks down at low-z: multiple quasars in halos! 2-We return to our previous accretion modeling tied to the observed AGN Luminosity Function: BH mass function predicted from continuity equation 3-We add the assumption that BH mass is a monotonic function (with scatter) of halo mass or the maximum mass of the subhalo 4-Scatter between L and M HALO can come either from scatter in M BH -M HALO or from a broad p(,z) distribution 5-Add new physical parameter Q=P s /P c ! Small difference at large scales, significant at small ones

AN EXAMPLE OF BASIC CO-EVOLUTION MODEL FOR BHs AND GALAXIES cut-off at 3  10 11 M   M VIR  2  10 13 M  and z vir  1.5 slightly redshift depend. Eddington accretion Bardeen power spectrum with baryons and  8 =0.84 Sheth & Tormen positive derivative scatter in the M BH -M VIR relation of ~0.3 dex Clumpy GAS at T vir COLD GAS RESERVOIR (low J) STARS IGM SMBH-QSO SNae & QSO feedback Radiative cooling Radiation drag (  SFR) Viscous accretion Collapse Stellar evolution Granato et al. 2004, 2006, FS et al. 2006 QSO outflows Within each virialized DM halo Outputs of Granato et al. model negligble post-peak accretion as demography assumptions SCUBA QSO phase Passive Evolution t delay t vis

FS, M. Crocce, J. Miralda-Escude’, P. Fosalba, D. Weinberg 2008 Another Application: The SDSS z>3 Quasar Clustering

Soltan argument independent of cosm. par. but very dependent on the K bol /ε ratio! SMBH from Merging/Dark Accretion or through Visible Accretion detected in the AGN luminosity Functions?

Massive Dark Objects  observed in all bulged-galaxies  strong link with the host spheroid M/n/  What are MDOs? How and why are they connected with spheroids and DM? What is their role in shaping galaxies? Dunlop & McLure; Ferrarese et al.; Gebhardt et al.; Graham et al.; Haring & Rix; Lauer et al.; Magorrian et al.; Marconi & Hunt; FS & L. Ferrarese 2009a,b V C +DM profile  V VIR (z vir =0)  (M vir ) 1/3  =k  V c +

SAMs are working hard to understand what is going on… ``our knowledge on the physics of accretion onto BHs and their interaction with galaxies is still poor to draw firm conclusions’’ Fontanot et al. Malbon et al.Lapi et al.

OUTLINE OF THE TALK GOAL = EMPIRICALLY CONSTRAIN BLACK HOLE EVOLUTION IN A STATISTICAL SENSE Local BH mass function and AGN lum. Functions: Constraints on radiative efficiency, duty cycles, Eddington ratios AGN Clustering: Independent constraints on radiative efficiency, duty cycles, and dependencies on mass, redshift Basic Modeling: Evolution of sizes and velocities in Elliptical galaxies and the M BH -σ

For all relations used I convolve with a Gaussian weight to account for intrinsic scatter ! For all relations used I convolve with a Gaussian weight to account for intrinsic scatter ! How many SMBH?How Massive? First Step: How many SMBH?How Massive? Φ(L) → Φ(L bulge ) M BH - L bulge Ф(M BH ) M BH -  ()()

Results: systematic uncertainties!

THE ACTIVE EVOLUTION OF BLACK HOLES: THE AGN LUMINOSITY FUNCTION

L=  dM/dt c 2 ; L= L Edd (M BH ) L Edd =1.3e38x(M BH /M sun ) erg/s t ef   / FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2008

Duty cycles: U(M bh,z)=Ф(L,z)/n(M bh [L],z) Mean Mass Accretion Histories: Evidence for downsizing

Broad Eddington ratio Distributions I FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2009a

…Same DOWNSIZING….

Broad Eddington ratio Distributions II Very Narrow p( )Very Broad p( )

The Effect of SMBH Merging… Negligible effect on accretion histories and duty cycles:

CONCLUDING on THE LMF 0.06<  <0.11 ~0.5 More Massive+Sub-Edd Less Massive+Edd Merging

How to link Clustering to Accretion Ф L n M halo From matching the bias in output duty cycle f AGN b M halo Rule of thumb: at fixed scatter, high duty cycle massive halos low numbers Martini & Weinberg 2001; Haiman & Hui 2001

n M bh n M halo Pc(M bh ) Nc[M h (M bh )]/N tot + Ps(M bh ) Ns[M h (M bh )]/N tot =U(M bh,z) N(M h ) MhMh M min Seeding Central and Satellite Halos with BHs Q=Ps/Pc FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2009b

CONCLUDING on CLUSTERING Cumulative matching: -constraints on duty cycle -median L-M h relation -radiative efficiency when coupled to AGN accretion history

Let’s have a look at what we think co-evolution is…. Evolution of Ellipticals in models: Wet phase+Dry phase FS, Marulli, Bernardi, et al. 2009a

The ratio probably was nearly constant at all times at least up to z~1.5-2 Do BHs grow faster than Galaxies? FS, M. Bernardi, Z. Haiman 2008

Low-z Clustering: RESULTS Coil et al.; Croom et al.; da Angela et al.; Francke et al.; Hennawi et al; Mountrichas et al.; Myers et al.; Padmanabhan et al.; Plionis et al; Porciani et al.; Shen et al.

FS, M. Crocce, J. Miralda-Escude’, P. Fosalba, D. Weinberg 2008 Another Application: The SDSS z>3 Quasar Clustering

Good constraints from the small scales….

What do we learn from high-z clustering? 1-DIFFICULT: high bias  rare BHs, high duty cycles! 2-Reproducing the LF requires high  and/or low : 0.4 >0.5 -->  >0.2 3-High halo mass and the limit duty cycle ≤ 1 leads to very rapid drop of quasar number counts at z>6 FS, M. Crocce, J. Miralda-Escude’, P. Fosalba, D. Weinberg 2008

Towards a successful Model: -W-We already saw in PART I: mass dependence can match the obscured fraction -A reasonable match to duty cycles and low-z clustering can be found if: 1-  M BH -1/3 2-  f(z)=[1-exp(z/2)] 3-Q=0.5-1 4-Scatter in M BH -Mhalo ~0.3-0.5 dex

f s = fraction of AGNs which are satellites Eastman et al.; Martini et al.; Sivakoff et al.

Towards a successful Model II:

TO GET FINAL ANSWERS: FROM OBSERVATIONS: FROM OBSERVATIONS: Resolve systematics in the AGN LF knee and bright end Understand biases in the -distributions Systematics in the mean bias values FROM THEORY: FROM THEORY: Convolve continuity Equation with BH merger rates Get final BH mass function at all z consistent with ALL observables with ALL observables Predict the BH mass function from SAM

WILL WE BE ABLE TO OBSERVE z>6 QSOs? 1 QSO over the whole sky

Same RedShift Distributions…but… more Accretion for the more Massive BHs Very Broad p( )Very Narrow p( )

Broad Eddington ratio Distributions Very Broad p( )Very Broad p( )+f(z)

We have checked we are using the right bias ….

SPECIAL MODELS II: Low Accretion in ADAF modes

Broad Distributions III: The Obscured Fraction

 M BH -α Babic et al.; Tozzi et al.; Alexander et al. Hasinger; Akylas et al.

ANOTHER APPLICATION: THE z>3 QUASAR CLUSTERING M BH ~ α (M HALO ) β ---> Ф(M HALO,z) ---> Ф(M BH,z) t ef ~  / 2-Assuming , we know how much energy is radiated and at which L 1-Assuming monotonic relation between BH and Halos 3-The parameters we use are: ,, , ,  Scatter  weakens the bias The growth of the halo MF determines the BH growth

Low-z Clustering: Small and Large Scales NO match at the small scales

Broad Eddington ratio Distributions FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2009

…Same DOWNSIZING….

Duty cycle of AGNs: fraction of “Active’’ Galaxies

Broad Eddington ratio Distributions II Very Narrow p( )Very Broad p( ) Hopkins et al. LF+ Broad p( ) peaked at higher

SPECIAL MODELS: -dependent Bolometric Correction Vasudevan & Fabian 2007

Low Radiative Efficiency+Low Eddington ratios Similar Downsizing Harder to match the local BHMF: <0.1;  <0.06

THE SUPERMASSIVE-BLACK HOLE “BUSINESS” IN 4 BULLETS: 1-The tightest local relations and their evolution with redshift/mass 2-The Demography of SMBHs, AGN statistics and Accretion 3-AGN Clustering 4-SAMs: Co-Evolution BH-Galaxies

Self-regulation

Dissecting the co-evolution of Black Holes and galaxies via basic accretion and clustering models and the size distribution of early-type galaxies Francesco.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Dissecting the co-evolution of Black Holes and galaxies via basic accretion and clustering models and the size distribution of early-type galaxies Francesco."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Dissecting the co-evolution of Black Holes and galaxies via basic accretion and clustering models and the size distribution of early-type galaxies Francesco.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Dissecting the co-evolution of Black Holes and galaxies via basic accretion and clustering models and the size distribution of early-type galaxies Francesco."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback