Black Holes and Revelations

Αποκάλυψις = apokálypsis = revelations Inspired by Apocalypse (Book of revelations)? Not really …

Ten important questions about AGN? 1) Testing general relativity with AGN 2) Physical parameters, mechanisms and modulators driving radio-loudness 3) AGN and environment reciprocal influence on small and large scales 4) Unified model: what to keep and what to change 5) Very high energy phenomena in AGN 6) Missing and elusive AGN: identification and relevance 7) AGN from z=0 to high-z 8) SMBH formation, and galaxy-AGN co-evolution: model predictions vs observational constraints 9) What triggers, modulates and halts accretion onto SMBHs 10) AGN and host galaxy separation: data, methods, and measurements Others? Please specify…

Ten important questions about AGN SMBH formation, and galaxy-AGN co-evolution: model predictions vs. observational constraints 4.13 2) What triggers, modulates and halts accretion onto SMBHs 3.76 3) AGN from z=0 to high-z 3.52 4) AGN and environment reciprocal influence on small and large scales 3.48 5) Unified model: what to keep and what to change 3.25 Testing general relativity with AGN 3.12 Physical parameters, mechanisms and modulators driving radio-loudness 3.00 Missing and elusive AGN: identification and relevance 2.90 Very high energy phenomena in AGN 2.75 AGN and host galaxy separation: data, methods, and measurements 2.66 Other issues: X-ray polarimetry  geometry circumnuclear matter BL Lacs vs. FSRQs: really different? Binary BH statistics and model formation: a new observational constraint?

Let’s start from the “bottom”: the other issues X-ray polarimetry  geometry circumnuclear matter BL LACs vs. FSRQs: really different? Binary BH statistics and model formation: a NEW observational constraint?

X-ray polarimetry Geometry of the torus: the polarization angle will give us the orientation of the torus, to be compared with IR results, and with the ionization cones Urry & Padovani 1995

Geometry of the torus: the polarization angle will give us the orientation of the torus, to be compared with IR results, and with the ionization cones Urry & Padovani 1995

Key parameters of future polarimetric missions NHXM Polarimeter also onboard IXO 9

Polarimetric sensitivity Soft X-ray channel 2-10 keV channel Two polarimetric channels (2 – 10 keV and 10 – 35 keV) for an effective diagnostic of the emission mechanisms 6-35 keV channel

FSRQs vs. BL Lacs Tavecchio’s review

FSRQs: a “typical AGN” + jet

D’Ammando PKS 0537-441 seems to be an outlier (not the only!) in the blazars divide...why? PKS 0537-441 is a FSRQ with non-thermal continuum so strongly enhanced that hides the broad lines... ...or it is a transitional object between FSRQs and BL Lac objects with an intermediate accretion rate? Ghisellini et al. 2009, MNRAS, 396, L105

Binary black holes Colpi’s review Piconcelli’s talk Montuori & Farina posters A NEW observational constrain for models Where can we search for binary black holes? SDSS  sampling the pairing phase? How many? Gas-rich environment, galaxy type… In ULIRGs/disturbed systems – buried AGN+STB? X-rays able to reveal buried nuclei Bianchi, Chiab, Piconcelli et al. 2009

1. SMBH and AGN-galaxy co-evolution 2. What triggers, modulates, and halts accretion onto SMBHs? Feedback …

The ‘fact’: many observational evidencies Several talks … Observations vs. theory and models What is missing?

MBH lags the stellar growth - adjustment Alexander et al. 2008 QSOs: galaxy lags the MBH growth - dominance Growth BH vs. host galaxy Eddington-limited SF at high-z (≈1000 M/kpc2) LAGN≈Ledd (review by Maiolino) SCUBA galaxies: MBH lags the stellar growth - adjustment Volonteri’s review Colpi et al. 2007

Seed BH masses? Mseed,BH ≈100 M vs. 103-5 M Progenitors? Seed BH masses? Mseed,BH ≈100 M vs. 103-5 M Pop III stars? Any chance to ‘observe’ them? High-z QSOs: already settled BHs with masses comparable with those of local SMBHs ... Gas accretion vs. gas consumption by star formation (1/3 high-z QSOs) and SN explosions Missing population of lower masses BHs at high-z … Test case for WFXT… Gas-dynamical collapse Proto- cluster Pop III remnants Eddington ratio behaviour vs. z? (Shankar …) Mass function of seed BHs Volonteri+08; Devecchi & Volonteri 09

Decarli’s talk Γ=MBH/Mstar increases with z by a factor≈7 from z=0 to z=3 Large sample, no RLQ/RQQ dichotomy Semi-analytic model by Lamastra, Menci+ able to explain high-z QSOs and SMGs

z=2 unobscured obscured X-ray selected obscured in SMGs Sarria’s talk

Largely discussed by Maiolino and Polletta Large-scale outflow? Largely discussed by Maiolino and Polletta

Review talk by Polletta Energy input required: 1059 erg over 30 Myrs  wind radiatively driven by the AGN and/or supernovae winds from intense star formation. Energy injection required to drive the outflow is comparable to the estimated binding energy of the galaxy spheroid, suggesting that it can have a significant impact on the evolution of the galaxy. z=2.07 Review talk by Polletta Alexander et al. 2010 – see also Nesvabda et al. 2008 How many? How much representative?

Halting the accretion through mechanical removal of the gas radio mode?

Giodini’s review

Disc-jet coupling in X-ray binaries LS – low/hard state HS – high/soft state VHS/IS – very high and intermediate states Shocks during jet production Data for GX 339-4 jet disc (Lorentz factor) corona Disc-dominated phase X-ray intensity track of a simple X-ray transient outburst with a single optically thin jet production episode X-ray hardness (from Fender et al. 2004; Remillard and McClintock 2007)

Fraction of obscured AGN Properties of AGN across cosmic time 3. AGN from z=0 to high-z AGN physics AGN evolution AGN demography – elusive AGN AGN census at high-z Fraction of obscured AGN Properties of AGN across cosmic time

Ionized reflection to explain the soft excess Miniutti’s review Ionized reflection to explain the soft excess and the broad-band spectrum Need for IXO to appreciate the features and BH spin measurements for large samples! See Ark 120 – Nardini’s talk

Luminosity Dependent Density Evolution (LDDE) La Franca’s review: LDDE works for X-ray selected AGN, optically selected Type 1 (once faint ones are included) (see previous results from Ueda et al. 2003) Lower luminosity AGN peak at lower redshifts: DOWNSIZING (see models of galaxy and AGN formations) LF, Fiore, Comastri+05 Downsizing: luminous QSO mostly radiate at z~2, lower-luminosity Seyferts mostly radiate at z<1. At z=2, metals already formed and big BH in place. Marconi+04

X-ray AGN LF Brusa+09 0.5-2 keV: Hasinger, Miyaji, Schmidt 05 See also: -Ueda+03 (selection effects included) -Barger+05 -Silverman+08 -Della Ceca+08 -Ebrero+09 (selection effects included) -Yencho+09 -Aird+10 Downsizing of AGN activity Quasar density peaks at z~2-3 AGN density peaks at z~0.5 - 1 Most of BH accretion happens in quasars at high-z Most of X-ray background in Seyfert 2s at low-z

LDDE found also for optically selected AGN1 once the faint end of the LF is probed Bongiorno, Zamorani+08 See also e.g. Fontanot+07, Shankar & Mathur 07

Evolution of luminous AGN at high-z Radio (Wall+05) Soft X-ray (Hasinger+05) Soft X-ray (Silverman+04) Optical (Fan+01,04) LX>1045 erg/s Brusa+09 COSMOS; still limited numbers Luminous AGN are found to decline exponentially up to z~4-6. Nothing is known above z~3 for less luminous AGN, i.e. the bulk of the population Still many open issues, mergers dominant, missing details? see Brusa’s talk What may we expect? What about the obscured QSOs at high-redshift?

Lusso+10 for X-ray selected see poster by Antonucci PSU group results (CV, Steffen, Just, Gibson)+Young+10 – but see earlier Einstein results Lusso+10 for X-ray selected see poster by Antonucci Properties of AGN similar at low and high redshift, despite different conditions of the ‘environment’

The fraction of absorbed AGN as function of LX and z INCREASE WITH THE REDSHIFT assumed *) predicted *) Assuming no luminosity and redshift dependences DECREASE WITH LUMINOSITY Earlier evidences of a decrease of the fraction of absorbed AGN with luminosity from Lawrence & Elvis (1982) and Lawrence (1991). Confirmed by Ueda et al. (2003). LF, Fiore, Comastri+05

- Type 2 fraction a strong function of luminosity The fraction of absorbed AGN as function of LX and z Strong support from many works BUT Is the ‘receding-torus’ model the right answer? Support from IR observations (CF; Maiolino+ 07) - Type 2 fraction a strong function of luminosity a) At high (quasar) luminosity: type 2 <20%; optical color selection is highly complete since all are type 1s, and includes most of luminosity AGN population emitted in the Universe b) At low (Seyfert) luminosity: type 2 ~80%; optical color selection miss most of the AGNs in the Universe in terms of number

4. AGN and environment reciprocal influence on small and large scales

Feedback through winds PG 0946+301 - Arav et al. 2001 Fast (v up to ~ 50000 km/s) winds in BAL QSOs ~15-20% of QSOs (Bruni’s talk) + mini-BALs/NALQSOs (Giustini’s talk) Optical/UV

High-velocity (v~0.1c), highly ionized outflows X-rays Pounds et al. 2003a,b High-velocity (v~0.1c), highly ionized outflows Common! (Cappi’s talk; Tombesi et al. 2010) Relevant energy budget (duty cycle…) Reeves et al. 2003 PDS456 (z=0.18) v~0.1c 2 Energy (keV) 5 7 10

X-ray wind velocity ~ 3x UV wind velocity Giustini’s talk the longest look at a mini-BAL QSO mini-BAL QSOs narrow absorption line with E ~ 7.0 keV + narrow absorption line with E ~ 7.3 keV Fe XXV K blueshifted by 0.05c + Fe XXVI K blueshifted by 0.05c X-ray wind velocity ~ 3x UV wind velocity

NGC 1365 (Risaliti et al. 2005)

Large scale structure [OIII] NGC 5252: Tadhunter & Tsvetanov 1989

Large scale structure Mrk 573: X-rays/[O III] Mrk 573: X-rays/Radio Bianchi et al. 2010 AGN ionization confirmed by high-resolution (RGS) spectra (Risaliti’s review) See results for Compton-thick Sey2 Tol0109-383 (Marinucci) and BLRGs (Torresi)

what to keep and what to change 5. Unified models: what to keep and what to change

Unified model: Pro: easy to understand, although with many ‘components’ Con: needs some adjustment based on recent observations Absorber: putative torus not supported by recent high-resolution observations + X-ray spectra  probably compact and clumpy – Review talks by Fritz (torus still a good approximation for photometric points SED fitting) − Risaliti + absorption by dust lanes (Matt 2000) + … BLR issues (number, shape, properties, ‘true’ Sey2, ‘naked QSOs’) – Review by Risaliti (see also Hawkins 04, Bianchi, Panessa; Nicastro from the theoretical side)

No significant Sey1/Sey2 difference Compact (a few pc) tori with a clumpy/filamentary dust distribution (warm disk + geom. thick torus) No significant Sey1/Sey2 difference Tristram+09; (see also Jaffe+04, Meisenheimer+07; Tristram+07) Tristram+07 - Circinus

Eclipses of the X-ray source are COMMON in nearby AGN: ΔNH ~ 1023-1024 cm-2 v>103 km/s D ≈ 1013 cm n ~ 1010-1011 cm-2 X-ray absorber “made” of BLR clouds Risaliti et al. 200n, n=[6,9]

Inner TORUS: BLR X-ray absorption DNH~1023 cm-2 DT~2 days NGC 1365 NGC 4151 DNH > 1024 cm-2 DT~10 hours Puccetti et al. 2007 Risaliti et al. 2009 DNH~3*1023 cm-2 DT<15 days DNH~1023 cm-2 DT~20 hours UGC 4203 NGC 7582 Risaliti et al. 2010 Bianchi et al. 2009

6. Testing General Relativity with AGN

The usual suspect: MCG-6-30-15 First clear detection of relativistic Fe K line (Tanaka et al 95) and first evidences for a rapidly spinning Kerr BH (Iwasawa et al 96, 99) Review by Miniutti Iwasawa et al 96

BH spin measurements rely on the id. ISCO ≅ Rin Early results in MCG-6 indicate that Rin < 2 rg which translates into a BH spin of a > 0.94 Fabian et al 02 Other models (complex absorption; Miller, Turner…) too fine-tuned – problems with observed variability

Swift J2127.4+5654 with Suzaku The broadband analysis confirms results from Fe K diagnostics a ~ 0 is excluded but just at the 3σ level a ~ 0.998 is excluded at more than 5σ Miniutti et al. 2009

See you at AGN10