Integrating X-ray and Infrared Views of BAL Quasars Sarah Gallagher (UCLA) October 2006

`torus’ pc `big blue bump’ lt days `corona’~AUs NASA/CXC IR Optical-UV X-ray IR Optical-UV X-ray outflow from here

A Model for All RQ Quasars (Gallagher et al. 2002a: Adapted from Königl & Kartje 1994; Murray et al. 1995) X-ray continuum source ~light mins ( cm) UV/optical continuum source ~light hrs-days ( cm) UV emission lines ~light yr ( cm)

The Views Through the Wind UV X-ray shieldinggas BAL Wind

 = 2 X-ray Absorption by Neutral Gas N H = (assuming solar metallicity) almost optically thick to Compton scattering

PG (z=0.466): First BAL Quasar X-ray Spectra  = 1.97±0.25; N H ~ cm -2  = 1.97±0.25; N H ~ cm -2 (Gallagher et al. 2001)

X-ray Spectroscopy of ~12 RQ BAL Quasars normal underlying X-ray continua normal underlying X-ray continua significant intrinsic absorption significant intrinsic absorption N H = ( ) x cm -2N H = ( ) x cm -2 from >5 keV continuum: from >5 keV continuum: normal  ox (UV/X-ray flux ratio)normal  ox (UV/X-ray flux ratio) not just simple absorption not just simple absorption partial coverage? ionized gas? Δv?partial coverage? ionized gas? Δv? (e.g., Gallagher et al. 2002b; Chartas et al. 2002, 2003; Aldcroft & Green 2003; Grupe et al. 2003; Page et al. 2005; Shemmer et al. 2005)

Chandra BAL Quasar Survey 35 luminous BAL quasars 35 luminous BAL quasars bona fide BAL features bona fide BAL features z = 1.4—2.9 z = 1.4—2.9 M B ~ to M B ~ to UV spectra for all (from literature) UV spectra for all (from literature) 4—7 ks exploratory observations 4—7 ks exploratory observations 35 observed; 27 detected (77%) 35 observed; 27 detected (77%) Large, well-defined sample (Gallagher et al. 2006) Collaborators: Niel Brandt, George Chartas, Gordon Garmire (Penn State), Robert Priddey (Hertfordshire), & Rita Sambruna (Goddard)

Rough continuum shape:  HR Rough continuum shape:  HR from hardness ratio: (hard-soft)/(hard+soft)from hardness ratio: (hard-soft)/(hard+soft) (analogous to B-V  spectral index) (analogous to B-V  spectral index) Relative UV-to-X-ray power:   ox Relative UV-to-X-ray power:   ox from hard-band flux:   ox (corr)from hard-band flux:   ox (corr) Exploratory Surveys: X-ray Data

fainter in X-rays 228 SDSS Quasars with ROSAT (Strateva et al. 2005) UV Luminosity vs.  ox brighter in X-rays Define:  ox  ox  ox (L uv )  ox =  ox -  ox (L uv ) log(L uv ) (ergs s -1 Hz -1 )

Spectral Shape vs. X-ray Weakness: X-ray Faint  X-ray Hard Fainter Harder (more absorbed) Softer (less absorbed) Brighter  ox All RQ BAL quasars show evidence for X-ray absorption (complex with N H ~ (1—80)x10 22 cm -2 ) % covered normal RQ quasars:  = 2.0 ± 0.25  ox = 0.0 ± 0.15

BAL Quasars 55 BQS Quasars with z<0.5 (Data from Brandt, Laor, & Wills 2000)  ox X-ray weak (400x) X-ray normal Bright Quasar Survey z<0.5 Sample

 ox BQS + Chandra BAL Quasars Chandra BALQs CIV EW a and  ox : no correlation for BAL quasars

UV Spectra: X-ray Bright vs. X-ray Weak CIV SiIV X-ray BRIGHT X-ray FAINT

v max vs.  ox  ox v max and  ox : ~3 correlation high velocity appears to require large N H e~1e~1e~1e~1

(Gallagher et al. 2006) Conclusions I: Exploratory X-ray Observations compact & thick ‘X-ray—only’ absorbers compact & thick ‘X-ray—only’ absorbers X-ray & UV absorption not consistentX-ray & UV absorption not consistent some may be Compton-thick!some may be Compton-thick! ( e ~ 1; N H ~1.5x10 24 cm 2 ) ( e ~ 1; N H ~1.5x10 24 cm 2 ) likely correlation of v max &  ox likely correlation of v max &  ox first UV/X-ray correlation foundfirst UV/X-ray correlation found  supports radiative driving of UV outflows

v term œ (GM BH /R launch ) 1/2 Link Between Shielding Gas and v max ? BH smaller R launch  higher v term larger R launch  lower v term thicker shield  more X-ray weak thinner shield  less X-ray weak (cf. Chelouche & Netzer 2000; Everett 2005)

Phenomenological differences: Phenomenological differences: BAL properties: lower EW and v max with increasing L radioBAL properties: lower EW and v max with increasing L radio (e.g, Becker et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 2006) X-ray properties: no evidence that X-ray weakness due to absorptionX-ray properties: no evidence that X-ray weakness due to absorption (e.g, Brotherton et al. 2005, Schaefer et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2006) Radio-Loud BAL Quasars See Brotherton talk & Benn poster #334

PG (a.k.a. PKS ) X-ray weak: N H ~10 22 cm -2 Only RL BALQ with X-ray spectra. (Miller et al. 2006)

Phenomenological differences: Phenomenological differences: BAL properties: lower EW and v max with increasing L radioBAL properties: lower EW and v max with increasing L radio (e.g, Becker et al. 2000, Gregg et al. 2006) X-ray properties: no evidence that X-ray weakness due to absorptionX-ray properties: no evidence that X-ray weakness due to absorption (e.g, Brotherton et al. 2005, Schaefer et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2006) Not the same thing – radiative driving may not be dominant acceleration mechanism Not the same thing – radiative driving may not be dominant acceleration mechanism Radio-Loud BAL Quasars See Brotherton talk & Benn poster #334

Test: Compare SEDs of BAL and non-BAL Quasars mid-IR bright? mid-IR bright? UV-optically faint or “cocoon” pictureUV-optically faint or “cocoon” picture (e.g., Goodrich 1997; Krolik & Voit 1998; Gregg et al. 2002) enhanced star formation? enhanced star formation? merger  ULIRG  quasarmerger  ULIRG  quasar (e.g., Sanders et al. 1988) (e.g., Sanders et al. 1988) BAL Quasars: Evolution or Orientation? Or: is it just a phase? (e.g., Hazard et al. 1984; Becker et al. 2001)

`torus’ pc `big blue bump’ lt days `corona’~AUs NASA/CXC IR Optical-UV X-ray IR Optical-UV X-ray outflow from here

Question: are BAL quasars inherently different? Question: are BAL quasars inherently different? check: (1) differences in mid-IR SEDs vs. non-BAL quasarscheck: (1) differences in mid-IR SEDs vs. non-BAL quasars (2) evidence for enhanced star formation (2) evidence for enhanced star formation Large Bright Quasar Survey (z =1.4—3.0) 38 – Spitzer MIPS: L 8 (8  m luminosity) + L fir,SF, L fir,QSO38 – Spitzer MIPS: L 8 (8  m luminosity) + L fir,SF, L fir,QSO 38 – 2MASS: L 5000 (5000 Å luminosity)38 – 2MASS: L 5000 (5000 Å luminosity) 38 – LBQS: L 2500 (2500 Å luminosity)38 – LBQS: L 2500 (2500 Å luminosity) 35 – VLA (FIRST, NVSS, Stocke et al. 1992)35 – VLA (FIRST, NVSS, Stocke et al. 1992) 35 – Chandra (Gallagher et al. 2006) + XMM-Newton (Clavel et al. 2006)35 – Chandra (Gallagher et al. 2006) + XMM-Newton (Clavel et al. 2006) 25 – SDSS25 – SDSS 16 – SCUBA (Priddey et al. 2006)16 – SCUBA (Priddey et al. 2006) BAL Quasar SED Project X-ray, UV-optical, IR, submm, radio Collaborators: Dean Hines, Robert Priddey, Niel Brandt

VLA SCUBA MIPS 2MASS SDSS Chandra log( L ) (erg s -1 ) log( ) (Hz) (Gallagher et al., submitted)

BAL Quasars: not mid-IR bright LBQS BALQs and SDSS comparison sample — statistically indistinguishable.

BAL Quasar Composite SED 5000 Å 8  m 2 keV Comparison SED: SDSS luminous (L bol > erg s -1 ) composite (Richards et al. 2006)

BAL Quasar SEDs by BAL Type

VLA SCUBA MIPS 2MASS SDSS Chandra log( L ) (erg s -1 ) log( ) (Hz) (Gallagher et al., submitted)

L fir,SF vs. L fir,QSO no evidence for SF HiBALQs LoBALQs

Conclusions II BAL Quasars: BAL Quasars: UV-optical shows reddeningUV-optical shows reddening (e.g. Sprayberry & Foltz 1992; Reichard et al. 2003; Trump et al. 2006) (e.g. Sprayberry & Foltz 1992; Reichard et al. 2003; Trump et al. 2006) X-ray shows strong absorptionX-ray shows strong absorption range of star-formation contributions to FIRrange of star-formation contributions to FIR no mid-IR excessno mid-IR excess no evidence for “cocoon”  outflows are common  outflows are common

Ultraviolet Multiwavelength Synthesis: The Stratified Wind Picture X-ray Mid-Infrared Gallagher 2006

silicates BAL Quasar IRS Spectra (Gallagher et al. in prep; see also Shi et al. 2006)

Physical Parameters of the Stratified Wind WindComponentR(cm) f cov  (erg cm) N H (cm -2 ) v(km/s) X-ray >f UV ~100 (O VII /O VIII ) ??? Ultraviolet (R BLR ) 0.2(1-f QSO2 ) ~1 (C IV/ O VI ) Mid-IR>1pc f QSO2 neutral See also Aoki #185; Ganguly #88; Rodriguez-Hidalgo talk; Simon #196; Wang #90