High accretion rates, tidal disruption flares and recoils: recent results on supermassive black holes Introduction Highly accreting AGN on the M- sigma relation Flares from tidally disrupted stars Recoiling black holes Peking University, 10. April 2008 Stefanie Komossa MPE MPE
BHs in astrophysical context: how frequent are SMBHs, do they reside in all galaxies ? what is the distribution of their masses & spins ? when & how did most SMBHs form ? before, simultaneous with, after galaxies ? why are SMBH and galaxy bulge properties so closely linked ? how do SMBHs grow ? accretion, BH-BH merging, stellar disruptions; timescales ? why are some SMBHs `dark´ ? how long do the phases of accretion activity last, what is the relation between different types of „Active Galaxies“ (quasars – Seyfert galaxies), etc.,... Supermassive Black Holes (SMBHs) – key questions
the SMBH at our Galactic Center stars in Keplerian orbits around central black hole high-precision measurement of BH mass: M = 4 2 a 3 /GP 2 = 3.6 M sun periastron of closest encounter: ~2000 R S (star S2, period: 15 yrs) constraints on mass/volume very tight only possible in our own G.C. ; in ~30 nearby galaxies we can still resolve the „sphere of influence“ of the SMBH [e.g., Schödel & 02, 03, Genzel & 03, Ghez & 03, 05, Eisenhauer & 05; Boganoff & 03, Aschenbach & 04, Eckart & 06, Krabbe & 06, Belanger & 06; Genzel &Karas 07]
the M BH - relation implies close link between BH and galaxy formation & evolution models: regulation of bulge- growth due to feedback from active BH and/or star formation correlation between black hole mass, M BH, and bulge stellar velocity dispersion, , M BH / sun = 1.7 / 0 (FF05) [M- : Ferrarese & Merritt 00, Gebhardt & 00, MF01, Tremaine & 02, Ferrarese & Ford 05] [models: e.g., Silk & Rees 98, Burkert & Silk 01, Haehnelt 03, Springel et al. 05, Li et al. 07,...]
the M BH - relation do all types of galaxies, at all times, follow the M- relation ? how do objects ‚move onto‘ the relation ? check nearby AGN, accreting at high rates; i.e., rapidly growing their BHs [M- : Ferrarese & Merritt 00, Gebhardt & 00, MF01, Tremaine & 02, Ferrarese & Ford 05] [models: e.g., Silk & Rees 98, Burkert & Silk 01, Haehnelt 03, Springel et al. 05, Li et al. 07,...] seen at hi z ??
Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) most luminous long-lived objects in the universe powered by accretion onto supermassive black holes (SMBH) strict „unified model“: key difference between AGN types (Sy1, Sy2,....) due to viewing angle effects emission lines provide a wealth of information on the physical conditions in the cores of AGN
M BH and measurements in AGN in AGN, we have an independent way to measure BH masses from „reverberation mapping“ of the BLR, R BLR -L relation [e.g., Kaspi et al. 2005, Peterson 2007] do we also have a way to measure ? Not really, AGN conti bright; stellar absorption features often superposed by bright conti & emission-complexes [Nelson & Whittle 96, Nelson 2000] use gaseous kinematics, traced by emission-lines, instead. Indeed, FWHM([OIII]) and * correlate - after removing galaxies with strong kpc-scale radio sources.
AGN on the M BH – relation what about ‚extreme‘ AGN : Narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies - defined as AGN with narrow BLR Balmer lines ( FWHM Hb < 2000 km/s ), weak [OIII]/H emission - at one extreme end of AGN correlation space (strongest FeII, steepest X-ray spectra, most rapid X-ray var.,...) NLS1s are AGN with low BH masses & high Eddington rates L/L edd objects rapidly growing their BHs, in the local universe do they follow the M- relation ? method widely applied, up to high z [e.g., Shields & 03, Boroson 03, Greene & Ho 05, Salviander & 07, Netzer & 07,... ] nearby ‚normal‘ AGN : agree with M BH – relation if is used as substitue for
original claim: NLS1s are OFF M BH – relation few real measurements (Botte 05: „on“; Zhou 06: „off“) [Mathur et al. 01, Wang & Lu 01, Wandel 02, Grupe & Mathur 04, Bian & Zhao 04,06, Botte & 04, 05, Barth & 05, Mathur & Grupe 05a,b, Greene & Ho 05, Zhou & 06, Ryan & 07, Watson & 07, Komossa & Xu 07] NLS1s on the M BH – [OIII] planes how reliable is [OIII] as substitute for stellar velocity dispersion ? influence of outflows ?
[Komossa & Xu 07] NLS1s on the M BH – relation new analysis, based on sample of SDSS-NLS1s, plus BLS1 comparison sample; using several NLR emission lines (& decomposing complex [OIII] profile) on NLS1s on M BH - SII] follow NLS1s follow the M BH - [SII] relation and they follow the M BH - [OIII] relation, if objects with outflows in [OIII] are removed remaining scatter in the relation does not systematically depend on [OIII] strength, FeII, density, M i, L/L edd ?
summary: NLS1 galaxies do follow M- , if objects dominated by outflows)* are removed they evolve along the M- relation BH mass increases by fact. 10 within yr (L~L edd ), if BH keeps growing NLS1 hosts: no mergers, but perhaps excess of bars either acc. short-lived, or else secular processes at work to adjust host properties, keeping them on the relation NLS1s on the M BH – relation )* also occur in BLS1s ( relevant for all studies which involve [OIII] lines as surrogate for * ), but less often
extreme outflows in AGN: on the nature of [OIII] „blue outliers“ what causes the „blue outliers“, which have their whole [OIII] profile blueshifted, by up to several 100 km/s ? [Komossa, Xu, Zhou, Storchi- Bergmann, Binette 08]
on the nature of [OIII] „blue outliers“ they show evidence for extreme outflows up to 1000 km/s affecting the (hi-ion BLR), CLR, and large parts of the NLR - while the outer NLR is quiescent driving mechanism is still being investigated - radiation pressure, cloud-entrainment in jets, thermal winds high L/L edd, & pole-on view into an outflow ? is feedback due to outflows at work ? follow-up HST imaging: search for mergers a la Springel et al. / or bars [Komossa, Xu, Zhou, Storchi- Bergmann, Binette 08]
Tidal disruption of stars by SMBHs stellar distortion & disruption extreme squeezing of star ign. of nucl. burning collision of unbound gas with ISM, shocks (?) accretion phase(s): luminous flare of radiation [artist‘s view; NASA/ CXC/ M. Weiss/ Komossa & 04 ]
giant-amplitude X-ray outbursts from non-active galaxies [e.g., Komossa & Bade 99, Halpern & 04, Komossa et al. 04, 08] initial flare of X-rays with L x at least sev. 10 erg/s from otherwise normal, non-active galaxies still detected with Chandra ~10 yrs after the initial burst fast rise, slow decline, consistent with predicted t law amplitudes of variability: up to factor 6000 disruption of solar-type star enough to power the flare collective lightcurve, measured with ROSAT, XMM and Chandra
NLS1 galaxies do follow the M – relation of BL-AGN and normal galaxies ( large scatter, as usual ), if [SII], [OIII] core are used to measure if BHs keep accreting for long time, host properties must adjust accordingly to keep them on M– location of galaxies on the M– plane does not systematically depend on emi-line strength, n NLR, L/L edd,... except: lines with systematic blueshifts in [OIII] have anomaleously broad profiles outflows dominate not suitable for measurements ( their non-removal was cause for previous claims that NLS1s deviate; all samples making use of [OIII] have to remove ‚blue outliers‘ ) these [OIII] outliers are of independent interest because of their extreme large –scale outflows ( constraints on mechanisms to drive AGN winds on large scales, mechanisms of cloud entrainment ?) Summary- part 1
Summary – part 2 we have detected the emission-line light-echo & low-E tail (NUV, opt, NIR) of a high-E outburst (EUV, X) of huge amplitude likely caused by stellar tidal disruption such events are rare; provide rare chance & very efficient way to `map´ physical conditions in circum-nuclear gas (e.g., inner wall of dusty torus) large-scale spectroscopic surveys, like SDSS, well suited to find more `light- echos´, while future X-ray all-sky surveys will detect the actual X-ray flares