P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
2
Transcript of P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]
![Page 1: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
P.Coppi, Yale
?
AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]
![Page 2: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
What’s a Blandford, à la Google:
![Page 3: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Kid’s definition
Dr. Roger BlandfordAstrophysicist
His research interests include: black holes, those famous supermassive space objects that gobble up matter and light; "gravitational lensing," which refers to the way light travels in curved paths around stars and galaxies; high-energy waves from space known as gamma ray bursts; the dim class of stars known as white dwarfs; and the structure and evolution of the universe.[pbs.org]
![Page 4: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
AGN à la Blandford, ca. 1986, IAUS
![Page 5: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Mkn 421
Mkn 421
GeV Blazars…
EGRET
Pian et al. 1998
Gaidos et al. 1996
Fossati et al. 2002
One of the biggestsurprises!
TeV Blazars…
![Page 6: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
PKS 2155, ~5 min variability
![Page 7: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Another superluminal jet source
…oops … it’s in our galaxy!
![Page 8: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
A “boring” object in the sky: the nearby elliptical galaxy M87
Optical
Radio“FEAST vs. FAMINE”A starved black hole…..
![Page 9: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
D. Harris,2003
M87 jet is not wimpy!!!
X-ray variability seen in HST-1 knot too!!
![Page 10: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
GX339 - Corbel et al. 2004 AGN !? - Maccarone et al. 2003
ADIOS: The X-ray/Radio correlation …
![Page 11: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Another major development: arcsecond X-ray Imaging
CDF-S
When you can see with X-rays, again black holes much more common!
CDF-N/GOODS 2Msec(!) Chandra
![Page 13: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
The “M- Relation” (Ferrarese & Merritt, see also Gebhardt et al.)
Guess what: our black holeis not special!
Every big galaxy has one !
![Page 14: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Finally some answers? Rare long-lived AGN vs. many short-lived AGN? Seems to be tilting decisively towards
relation,
( many relic SMBH)
X-ray/2MASS counts
( many active AGN missed optically)
No more Soltan/ problem?
M
M
Also, relation BH and galaxy know about each other!?
Galaxy & BH formation same process?
(Once correct for obscuration, redshift evolution s
M
imilar?)
Mergers/gas are clearly important in at least AGN phase.
FEEDBACK??? Even “low energy” astronomers can’t ignore black holes…
![Page 15: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Blandford was right…. While LCDM appears correct, Both galaxy and AGN formation do seem to be anti-hiearchical (kind of) …
At z=2, massive elliptical progenitors COMPACT and this one may have σ ~500 km/sec!!
![Page 16: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
The “Feasting Objects” (FSRQ): interesting probes?
Eagerly await Fermi results on n(z),but in meantime have SWIFT/BATsurvey: see Ajello et al. 2009 ….
![Page 17: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Old (pre-CGRO) view of gamma-ray Universe.
![Page 18: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
My model for thepre-CGRO sources…
The transitionfrom a non-thermalto a thermal pairplasma…
Coppi 1998
![Page 19: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Johnson et al., 1994 …. There goes the thesis….
After CGRO…
![Page 20: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
EGRET Blazars and gamma-spheres:
![Page 21: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Compilation by A. Zdziarski
Even though pairs may not be dominant, that pair plasma code was good for something ….
![Page 22: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Chandra
??
Spectra of this quality generally do not exist for AGN!
Possible AGN spectral “states” not well-sampled!
![Page 23: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
What if you don’t have broad band data – X-ray binary example…
What’s E_cut => no idea what reflection spectrum to expect !
![Page 24: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
No broad band data = big uncertainties!
Ecut =900 kev, R=0.5,
Ecut =100 kev, R=1,
PEXRIV
OSSE
BAT
RXTE PCA
kTe = 68 keV,R = 0.4, = 1.8
kTe = 85 keV,R = 1.0, = 1.3(green)
Fitting only <20 keV or >50 keV leaves big uncertainty in predictions for other half of spectrum. Even with great statistics, an X-ray mission that only measured spectrum 20-150 keV allows a factor two uncertainty in reflection fraction!
Your line fit is only as good as yourcontinuum fit/model!
![Page 25: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Chandra
??
Spectra of this quality generally do not exist for AGN!
Possible AGN spectral “states” not well-sampled!
![Page 26: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Risaliti et al. 2002, BeppoSAX survey of Compton-thin Seyfert 2’s (NH~ 1022 – 1024 ) …
Red dots - measuredvalues
Black dots – lower limits
Contrary to what is assumedin XRB model fits, there is a large scatter in high energyspectra of AGN (both in power law index and high-energy cutoff).
~30% of objects haveE_C > 400 keV, which isNOT obviously compatiblewith XRB shape …
Typical (single)value assumedfor XRB models…
[N.B. The objects shown are a large fraction of the existingsample of AGN withgood HX spectra! ]
?
In fact, we are just starting to see tip of iceberg in terms of possible AGN spectra!
![Page 27: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Our view of the black hole universe is still highly biased….
![Page 28: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
The Super-Antennae, IRAS 19254 (Braito et al., 2009, Suzaku)
![Page 29: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Even if the unabsorbed spectrum did not vary (unlikely), we know the environment varies. Details like the exact geometry of the absorber matter, especially in the Compton thick (NH > 1024) case, and may depend on host type, redshift, etc. This complication is largely ignored in current XRB models – we need broadband measurements of many objects to disentangle intrinsic vs. extrinsic (absorber-induced) variations!
Sample theoretical calculation (Monte Carlo, exact) --
Lines of sight
Geometry of obscuring material –a sphere. with an empty conical hole, andpossible paths of photons.
Spectrum on axis (black), perpendicular to axis (green), and on edge of obscuring material (red), and spectrum of source (dashed), for an opening of 30% of surface area, NH=1.0E25 and EC=300 KeV.
![Page 30: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Different obscuration geometries imply different polarization signatures.
X-ray/gamma-ray polarimetry difficult but very useful! Disentangles geometryand emission
components.
Degree of polarization perpendicular to axis (green) and on edge of obscuring material (red) – same parameters as above.
![Page 31: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
On cosmic train wrecks, feasting, and the formation of black holes…
How do we make quasars at z>6!?
![Page 32: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Multi-scale simulation by Mayer et al. 2009
Don’t ignore that gas!
Escala et al. 2004
![Page 33: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
LISA: gravitational waves!
Sensitivity best for LOWER mass (MBH<106 Mo) mergers!
![Page 34: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Escala 2008
Origin of M-sigma relation?
Fueling-limitedscenario!
ENZO AMR simulationincluding star formationand accretion onto“large” central black holeparticle --
who needs a seed black hole?
![Page 35: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
1 arc sec
Where are the black holes??
Radio
X-Ray
Max et al. 2007, Science
Keck Adaptive Optics2.2 micron
NGC 6240
?
![Page 36: P.Coppi, Yale ? AGN à la Blandford, cont. [ What Worked, What Didn’t, and What Next? ]](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062714/56649d3f5503460f94a18bb8/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
[Sorry ]