Dissecting the co-evolution of Black Holes and galaxies

Dissecting the Dissecting the co-evolutionco-evolution of of Black Holes and galaxies Black Holes and galaxies via basic accretion and via basic accretion and

clustering models and the size clustering models and the size distribution of early-type distribution of early-type

galaxies galaxies

Francesco ShankarFrancesco Shankar

FERRARA AGN9 26/05/10

with: D. Weinberg, M. Bernardi, F. Marulli, with: D. Weinberg, M. Bernardi, F. Marulli, J. Moreno, Y. Shen, R. Sheth, S. Bonoli, J. Miralda-Escude’, J. Moreno, Y. Shen, R. Sheth, S. Bonoli, J. Miralda-Escude’,

L. Ferrarese, M. Crocce, Z. Haiman, C. Li, G. Kauffmann, L. Ferrarese, M. Crocce, Z. Haiman, C. Li, G. Kauffmann, S. WhiteS. White

SAMs are working hard tounderstand what is going on…

``our knowledge on the physics of accretion ontoBHs and their interaction with galaxies is still poor to drawfirm conclusions’’

Fontanot et al.

Malbon et al. Lapi, FS, et al.

A model-independent approach: The Continuity Equation

),(),(),(),(),(

tMStMStMntMMMt

tMnBHoutBHinBHBH

BH

BH

Important historical references : Cavaliere et al. (1971); Soltan (1982); Small & Blandford (1992); Salucci et al. (1999)

Ess

BHBHj BHjBH tt

t

MzMUzMptMM ;),(),(),( ,

BHM BHjBHBHj BHj MLzMzMUzMpzL ),(),(),,(),(

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

Mass-dependent P(L/LEdd,MBH,z) and radiative efficiency?

<L/Ledd > ~ MBH^(-a)

n

Mbh

n

Mhalo

Large Scale Clustering of BHs

FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2010

n

Mbh

n

Mhalo

Pc(Mbh) Nc[Mh(Mbh)]/Ntot+Ps(Mbh) Ns[Mh(Mbh)]/Ntot=U(Mbh,z) N(Mh)

MhMmin

Seeding Central and Satellite Halos with BHs

Q=Ps/Pc~0.3-1


HSTARHBH MzMMzM )()(

VIRHHBH VMMzM )(

FS, Marulli, Bernardi, Sheth et al. 2010b FS & Bernardi 2009

The median size decreases and σ increases at high-z, at FIXED Stellar Mass

)()Re()( 2 zzzM DYN

FS et al. in preparation

Gaskell 2009

FS, Bernardi, Haiman 2009

A “Cumulative” Test

SO…WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUTSO…WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUTHOW BHs EVOLVE? HOW BHs EVOLVE?

ACCRETION:ACCRETION: possible redshift and mass possible redshift and mass dependence in P(dependence in P(λλ), and mass ), and mass dependence in dependence in εε..

QUASAR CLUSTERINGQUASAR CLUSTERING: scatter L-dep. : scatter L-dep. (?), small-scales-> significant fraction of (?), small-scales-> significant fraction of satellites increasing with time (?); satellites increasing with time (?);

Negative Evolution in Mbh-Negative Evolution in Mbh-σσ!!!!!!

STRONG SIZE EVOLUTIONSTRONG SIZE EVOLUTION: implies : implies negative evolution but…negative evolution but…

Data->Positive Evolution in the Mbh-Data->Positive Evolution in the Mbh-σσ

A basic model for QSOs

],,|[),(2

ztMLPdtdM

nddtdMzL H

H

HH

The luminosity functionThe luminosity function

Quasar clusteringQuasar clustering

Scaling Relations:Scaling Relations:an evolving Man evolving Mbhbh-M-MSTARSTAR relation? relation?

HSTARHBH MzMMzM )()(

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 Mbh-Mbulge 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 2009 Jahnke et al. 2009

FS, Bernardi, Haiman 2009

A “Cumulative” Test

A basic model for QSOs

],,|[),(2

ztMLPdtdM

nddtdMzL H

H

HH

Scaling Relations:Scaling Relations:an evolving Man evolving Mbhbh-M-MSTARSTAR relation? relation?

)()Re()(

)()(2 zzzM

MzMMzM

STAR

HSTARHBH

FS, Marulli, Bernardi, Boylan-Kolchin, Sheth et al. 2009a,b FS & Bernardi 2009

ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS FROM THE SIZEDISTRIBUTION OF SDSS GALAXIES:

CONCLUSIONS:



Mancini et al. 2009

CONCLUSIONS:



-Implications: Evolution in the Mbh-Mbulge 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

Shiningepoch

DELAY

PASSIVE BIAS : A SIGNATURE OF RAPID BH GROWTHAND MASSIVE ‘’SEEDs’’

A long delay ‘’lowers’’the bias at the shining

R. Angulo, M. Crocce

Second Ingredient: BH Light Curve

Mass-dependentLight Curve: moreExtended for lessMassive BHs

5.13

5

3

4

)1(~ zML HPEAK

Feedback-Constrained Lpeak:

The Clustering of “MERGING” Halos

S. Bonoli, FS, S. White, et al.

b

bF MERG

1e12

2e13

What is producing faint AGNs?More massive halos in minor eventsor less Massive halos in Major events?

We converted to biasestimates the L-dependentcross-correlations of AGNsin SDSS by Cheng Li

An evolving Mbh-An evolving Mbh-σσ relation? relation?

35.1

54545.13

5

3

4

)1(~

~~)1(~

VIRH

VIRHBH

VzM

VzMM

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

dzdz

dt

L

zL

ttM

efBH log

),(

)10ln(

1),(

Continuity Equation : to reduce number density of low-mass BHscontinuosly decrease the Eddington Ratio in time!

A non-evolving Mbh-A non-evolving Mbh-σσ relation! relation!

35.1

54545.13

5

3

4

)1(~

~~)1(~

VIRH

VIRHBH

VzM

VzMM

CONCLUSIONSStarting 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 MSwhich have recently merged

Merger Rate enough to host all QSOs

First Ingredient: Merger/Virialization Rates of Halos

F&M rates consistentwith 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(Mbh=L/)~Ф(L)/P0

First Ingredient: Merger/Virialization Rates of Halos

F&M rates consistentwith accurate theoretical estimates!

Fakhouri&Ma rates fits to the MS

J. Moreno

The ratio <MBH/MSTAR> probably was nearly constantat all times at least up to z~1.5

Do BHs grow faster than Galaxies?

How do we cope with the How do we cope with the evolving evolving σσ in Ellipticals? in Ellipticals?

SO…WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUTSO…WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUTHOW BHs EVOLVE? HOW BHs EVOLVE?

ACCRETION:ACCRETION: can reproduce the local BH can reproduce the local BH mass function; preferred parameters are mass function; preferred parameters are 0.5<0.5<<1 and 0.07<<1 and 0.07<<0.1. Multi Edd. Ratios <0.1. Multi Edd. Ratios do not change Accreted BHMF.do not change Accreted BHMF.

The The Quasar clusteringQuasar clustering, independent , independent constraints on duty cycle, mean L-Mhalo constraints on duty cycle, mean L-Mhalo relation, and scatter, small-scales constraints relation, and scatter, small-scales constraints on the BH triggering mechanismson the BH triggering mechanisms

Constraints on co-evolution Constraints on co-evolution from evolution from evolution of QSO LF matchingof QSO LF matching

The ratio <MBH/MSTAR> probably was nearly constantat all times at least up to z~1.5


ISSUES ABOUT WHICH IS THE MOST FUNDAMENTALRELATION, IF IT IS A 3-VARIABLE ONE, ETC…

WE FIND THE MBH-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 cyclefrom Continuity Equationbreaks 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

SimilarDownsizing

Harder to matchthe local BHMF:<0.1; <0.06

Broad Distributions IV: The Obscured Fraction

MBH-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

MBH-αMBH

-α

SO FAR WE HAVE CONSIDERED MODELSWITH 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 MBH)

INPUT/CONSTRAINTS FOR MODELS

AGN LUMINOSITYFUNCTION

LOCAL BH MASS FUNCTION

PASSIVE BIAS : A SIGNATURE OF RAPID BH GROWTHAND MASSIVE SEEDs

a long delay ``lowers’’the bias at the shining

R. Angulo, M. Crocce

fs= fraction of AGNs which are satellites

Eastman et al.; Martini et al.; Sivakoff et al.

Low-z Clustering: RESULTSCoil 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~MBH

The MThe Mbhbh--σσ Relation Relation

At peak

At shutdown

Observed locally

35.1

545423

5

3

4

)1(~

~~)1(~

VIRH

VIRHBH

VzM

VzMM

dzdz

dt

L

zL

ttM

efBH log

),(

)10ln(

1),(

L=LEdd (MBH )LEdd=1.3e38x(MBH/1e8) erg/s tef /


P0=Ф(L)/n(Mbh=L/)

An Example of applying inputs fromAccretion+Clustering

into SAMs for Co-evolution

•Integrating the duty cycles in time: estimate of the mean lifetime of quasarsof a given final mass

Clumpy GAS at Tvir COLD GAS

RESERVOIR(low J)

STARS

IGMSMBH-QSO

SNae & QSO feedback

Radiative cooling

Radiation drag(SFR)

Viscous accretion

Collapse

Stellarevolution

Granato et al. 2004, 2006, FS et al. 2006

QSO ou

tflows

Within each virialized DM halo

SCUBA QSO phase

Passive Evolution

tdelaytvis

0

0

5.0

8

080

0 1010),(

t

BHBH M

MyrdttMP

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 SO…WHAT DID WE LEARN ON HOW BHs EVOLVE? HOW BHs EVOLVE?

Single-Single- models models can reproduce the local BH mass can reproduce the local BH mass function; preferred parameters are 0.5<function; preferred parameters are 0.5<<1 and <1 and 0.07<0.07<<0.1. <0.1.

Broad p(Broad p() distributions) distributions yield similar BH growth yield similar BH growth histories if histories if is independent of BH mass. is independent of BH mass.

The The high-z clusteringhigh-z clustering, especially at z=4 measured in , especially at z=4 measured in SDSS, requires very high host halo masses and SDSS, requires very high host halo masses and matching the AGN luminosity function requiresmatching the AGN luminosity function requires

0.4<0.4<//<1, i.e., <1, i.e., >0.2 if >0.2 if >0.5!>0.5!

If the If the Eddington ratio decreases with BH mass and zEddington 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 MHALO can come either from scatter in MBH-MHALO or from a broad p(,z) distribution

5-Add new physical parameter Q=Ps/Pc! Small difference at large scales, significant at small ones

AN EXAMPLE OF BASIC CO-EVOLUTION MODEL FOR

BHs AND GALAXIES

•cut-off at 31011 M MVIR 21013 M and zvir1.5

EddMMz /)( •slightly redshift depend. Eddington accretion

•Bardeen power spectrum with baryons and 8=0.84

•Sheth & Tormen positive derivative

•scatter in the MBH-MVIR relation of ~0.3 dex

Clumpy GAS at Tvir COLD GAS

RESERVOIR(low J)

STARS

IGMSMBH-QSO

SNae & QSO feedback

Radiative cooling

Radiation drag(SFR)

Viscous accretion

Collapse

Stellarevolution

Granato et al. 2004, 2006, FS et al. 2006

QSO ou

tflows

Within each virialized DM halo

SCUBA QSO phase

Passive Evolution

tdelaytvis

Soltan argument

maxmax

min0

2

2

),()1(

/)1(/

/

zL

LBoltotal

ACCBH

ACCBolBol

dLzLc

L

dz

dtdzK

dtdMdtdM

cdtdMKLL

maxmax

min0

2

232

2

),(4

)1()1(

)1()1()(

4),(),(

zS

S

Boltotal

A

LA

L

dSSzSnc

zdzc

K

zD

DzdtcDdV

D

LSdz

dz

dVdLzLdzdSzSn

independent of cosm. par. but very dependent on the Kbol/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

VC+DM profile VVIR(zvir=0)(Mvir )1/3

=kVc

+

SAMs are working hard tounderstand what is going on…

``our knowledge on the physics of accretion ontoBHs and their interaction with galaxies is still poor to drawfirm conclusions’’

Fontanot et al.

Malbon et al. Lapi et al.

OUTLINE OF THE TALKGOAL = 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 MBH-σ

For all relations used I convolve For all relations used I convolve with a Gaussian weightwith a Gaussian weight to account to account for intrinsic for intrinsic scatterscatter ! !

First Step: How many SMBH?How Massive?How many SMBH?How Massive?

Φ(L)→Φ(Lbulge)

MBH - Lbulge

Ф(MBH)

MBH - ()

Results: systematic uncertainties!

THE ACTIVE EVOLUTION OF BLACK HOLES: THE AGN LUMINOSITY FUNCTION

dzdz

dt

L

zL

ttM

efBH log

),(

)10ln(

1),(

L= dM/dt c2; L=LEdd (MBH )LEdd=1.3e38x(MBH/Msun) erg/s tef /


Duty cycles:U(Mbh,z)=Ф(L,z)/n(Mbh[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-EddLess Massive+Edd

Merging

How to link Clustering to AccretionHow to link Clustering to Accretion

Ф

L

n

Mhalo

MINL

HALOHALOAGNGAUSS dMMnfWdLL )()(0

From matching the bias in output duty cycle fAGN

b

Mhalo

Rule of thumb: at fixed scatter, high duty cycle massive halos low numbers

Martini & Weinberg 2001; Haiman & Hui 2001

n

Mbh

n

Mhalo

Pc(Mbh) Nc[Mh(Mbh)]/Ntot+Ps(Mbh) Ns[Mh(Mbh)]/Ntot=U(Mbh,z) N(Mh)

MhMmin

Seeding Central and Satellite Halos with BHs

Q=Ps/Pc

FS, D. Weinberg, J. Miralda-Escude’ 2009b

CONCLUDING on CLUSTERING

MINL

HALOHALOAGNGAUSS dMMnfWdLL )()(0

Cumulative matching:

-constraints on duty cycle

-median L-Mh 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 <MBH/MSTAR> probably was nearly constantat all times at least up to z~1.5-2


FS, M. Bernardi, Z. Haiman 2008

Low-z Clustering: RESULTSCoil 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.

Good constraints from the small scales….

What do we learn fromhigh-z clustering?

1-DIFFICULT: high bias rare BHs, high duty cycles!

2-Reproducing the LF requires high and/or low : 0.4</<1; Shen et al. --> >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


Towards a successful Model:

-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-MBH-1/3

2- f(z)=[1-exp(z/2)]

3-Q=0.5-1

4-Scatter in MBH-Mhalo ~0.3-0.5 dex

fs= fraction of AGNs which are satellites

Eastman et al.; Martini et al.; Sivakoff et al.

Towards a successful Model II:

TO GET FINAL ANSWERS:TO GET FINAL ANSWERS:

FROM OBSERVATIONS:FROM OBSERVATIONS:Resolve systematics in the AGN LF knee and bright endResolve systematics in the AGN LF knee and bright endUnderstand biases in the Understand biases in the -distributions-distributionsSystematics in the mean bias valuesSystematics in the mean bias values

FROM THEORY:FROM THEORY:Convolve continuity Equation with BH merger rates Convolve continuity Equation with BH merger rates Get final BH mass function at all z consistentGet final BH mass function at all z consistent

with ALL observableswith ALL observablesPredict the BH mass function from SAM Predict the BH mass function from SAM

WILL WE BE ABLE TO OBSERVE z>6 QSOs?

1 QSO overthe 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


MBH-α

Babic et al.; Tozzi et al.;Alexander et al.

Hasinger; Akylas et al.

ANOTHER APPLICATION: THE z>3 QUASAR CLUSTERING

MBH ~ α (MHALO)β ---> Ф(MHALO,z) ---> Ф(MBH,z)

BHBH

BHef Md

Md

Ld

dt

dz

z

zMtzL 'log

'log

log),'()10ln(),(

tef~/

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: ,,,,

1.4

1

10),(

28.1

12

z

M

MzfM mBH

Scatter weakens the bias

The growth of the halo MF determines the BH growth

Low-z Clustering: Small and Large Scales

cP

sPQ

dmmLMNmsPmncPMn

dmmLMNmsPmnmbcPMnMb

Lb

M

M

,

,

)|][()(,)(,)(

)|][()(,)()(,)()(

)(

NO match at the small scales

Broad Eddington ratio Distributions


…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

SimilarDownsizing

Harder to matchthe 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-regulationSelf-regulation

Dissecting the co-evolution of Black Holes and galaxies

Documents

Transcript of Dissecting the co-evolution of Black Holes and galaxies