1. Scaling Relations, Recoiling Black Holes
Cosmogony of AGN, Brindisi, Sept. 2010
Scaling Relations, Recoiling Black Holes
S. Komossa MPE, Garching
scaling relations: local and high-z
mergers
recoiling SMBHs
& astrophysical implications

2. BH – host galaxy scaling relations
e.g., MBH/(108 Msun) = 1.7 (s*/s0)4.9 (FF05)
key questions:
do all types of local galaxies
follow the same M-s* relation ?,
slope & scatter ?
do all galaxies, at all times, follow
the scaling relations ?
if not, how do galaxies evolve
towards the relation ?
[obs.: e.g., Gebhardt & 00, Ferrarese & Merritt 00, MF01, Tremaine & 02, Marconi & Hunt 03, Häring & Rix 04, Ferrarese & Ford 05, Gültekin+ 09, Graham+ 10, / models: e.g., Silk & Rees 98, Burkert & Silk 01, Haehnelt+ 03, Springel+ 05, Hopkins+ 06, Li+ 07, Jahnke ]

3. BH – host galaxy scaling relations
e.g., MBH/(108 Msun) = 1.7 (s*/s0)4.9 (FF05)
key questions:
do all types of local galaxies
follow the same M-s* relation ?,
slope & scatter ?
 slopes: a ~
 scatter: 0.3 – 0.5 dex
 bar-ed galaxies deviate
)* note: rev.-mapped AGN are
shifted on the local relation by
adjusting the „f-factor“ (BLR
geometry)
[Gültekin+09]
[Graham+10]

4. BH – host galaxy scaling relations
e.g., MBH/(108 Msun) = 1.7 (s*/s0)4.9 (FF05)
key questions:
do all types of local galaxies
follow the same M-s* relation ?,
slope & scatter ?
do all galaxies, at all times, follow
the scaling relations ?
if not, how do galaxies evolve
towards the relation ?
 observe (a) galaxies in the early high z, or (b) look at population of rapidly growing BHs in local universe

5. rapidly growing BHs in the local universe: NLS1 galaxies on the MBH – s[OIII] plane
NLS1s on MBH - s[SII]
original suggestion: NLS1s are OFF MBH – s[OIII] relation
new analysis, SDSS-NLS1s, plus BLS1 comparison sample; using several NLR emission lines & decomposing [OIII]
 NLS1s do follow the relation,
after removing objects dominated by outflow; (remaining scatter does not depend on L/Ledd)
they evolve along the M-s relation
NLS1 hosts are typically not mergers; but excess of bars
either acc. shortlived, or (bar-driven) secular processes at work ?
[Komossa & Xu 07; Xu+ 10 in prep.]

6. strong outflows in several NLS1s: on the nature of [OIII] „blue outliers“
[Komossa, Xu, Zhou, Storchi-Bergmann, Binette 08]
what causes the „blue outliers“, which have their whole [OIII]
profile blueshifted, by up to several 100 km/s ?
and almost no [OIII] at v=0 !
correlation with IP: significant parts of the NLR in outflow
is feedback due to outflows at work ?? [e.g., di Matteo & 05, Springel & 06]

7. scaling relations at high z
[Merloni+ 10]
several approaches:
almost all using AGN, with
- BH mass from broad lines
- host properties from
s, Lhost, M*, (SED)
in common: there is evolution, in the sense that BH growth precedes bulge growth,
with D log MBH ~
(z= 0.4 – 2).
except some submm & SF galaxies, z ~ 2
[Shields+ 03, McLure+ 06, Peng+ 06, Woo+ 06, 08, Treu+07, Salviander+ 07, Alexander+ 08, Bennert+ 10, Decarli+ 10, Merloni+ 10, Netzer & Trakhtenbrot 07, 10, Bluck+ 10]

8. open questions, uncertainties, next steps
NLS1s: how represen-tative for AGN as a whole ? bar fraction ?
„classical“ AGN at high z: esentially all depend on BLR radius-luminsoty scaling to obtain MBH.
 uncertainties in f-factor (BLR geometry) and its evolution;
& unknown fraction of bars; and their evolution,
or assumptions about evolving stellar pop.
poss. selection effects at highest z
next steps:
go to even higher z ?
or, increase sample sizes at lower z ?
include more low(est) mass BHs, also in local relation
attempt measure-ments along merger sequences
can we find a method of BH mass estimates independent of BLR scaling relations which still works beyond the lowest z ?
comparison with models:
what are key model predictions ? :
slope, scatter, time-dependence, environment dependence,
galaxy type dependence ....

9. recoiling black holes

10. recoiling supermassive black holes: kicks & superkicks
NR simulations of BBH mergers predict BH „kicks“ with velocities up to 3800 km/s;
highest for m1=m2, a1=-a2=max & in orb. plane
 recoiling BHs will oscillate about galaxy core, or could even leave massive ellipticals
[Komossa & Merritt+ 08] z
[e.g., Peres 1962, Bekenstein 73, Redmount & Rees 89, ... / Baker+ 06,07,08, Brügmann+ 08, Campanelli+ 06, 07a,b, 08, Dain+08, Gonzales+ 06, 07a,b, Healy+ 08, Herrman+ 07a,b, Koppitz+ 07, Lousto & Zlochower 08, Lousto+ 09,10, Pretorius 05, 07, Pollney+07, Schnittman+ 07, 08, Tichy & Maronetti 07, vanMeter+ 10, ...]

11. recoiling supermassive black holes: kicks & superkicks
key questions:
what are the astrophysical implications ?
what are the expected electromagnetic signatures of kicks, and what do we actually observe ?
how common are the (medium-large)kick configurations in nature ?
especially: are there any unsolved puzzles, which are naturally explained, when including recoil or. vice versa, are there certain observations which immediately constrain the (super)kick fraction ?

12. recoiling supermassive black holes: astrophysical implications
„new paradigm“: SMBHs spend significant times off the cores of galaxies, or are even ejected  this affects
galaxy assembly at the epoch of structure formation & BH growth
feedback
scatter in M-s relation
redshift dependence of GW signals detectable with LISA (heavy BH seeds, late formation; vs. light seeds, early formation)
unified models of AGN, # of type-2 quasars, modelling of X-ray bg
time delays between SB and AGN activity after merging
[e.g., Madau+ 04, Favata+ 04, Merritt+ 04, Haiman 04, Boylan-Kolchin+ 04, Volonteri+ 05, 06, 07, Libeskind+ 06, Schnittman 07, Sesana 07, Gualandris & Merritt 08, Yu & Lu 08, Blecha & Loeb 08, Tanaka & Haiman 08, Volonteri & Madau 08, Komossa & Merritt 08b, Colpi+ 10, Volonteri+ 10, ...]

13. fraction of high-v recoils among (gas-poor) major mergers (assuming random mass and spin distributions), and based on Baker et al. 08 [sim. for Lousto & Zlochower 08] kick formula:
____: mass mix between q=0.3-1, and spin mix between a=
-----: q=1, a=0.9
......: low-spin solution with a=0.3, q=0.3-1
[KM 08]
[previous estimates: e.g., Campanelli+ 07, Schnittman & Buonanno 07, Baker+ 08; latest update by Lousto+ 10]
timescale of “spin alignment” in gas rich mergers: ~ yr for MBH = Msun; larger MBH, high a, are resistent to alignment [Perego+09]

14. recoiling SMBHs – e.m. signatures
most tightly bound matter remains bound after recoil 
off-nuclear „quasars“
kinematically off-set „Broad Line Regions“
- ideally at v>> few 100 km/s, to
distinguish from „BLR physics“
- lack of „ionization stratification“ in NLR
- symmetric broad lines, (and MgII at
same v as Balmer lines)
feedback trails
off-nuclear stellar tidal „recoil flares“
hypercompact stellar systems
Bonning+ 07
[e.g., Madau & Quataert 04, Merritt+ 04, 06, Bonning+ 07, Loeb 07, 09 Bogdanovic+ 07, Gualandris & Merritt 08, Kornreich & Lovelace 08, Devecchi+ 08, Fukujita 08, Lippai+ 08, Volonteri & Madau 08, Komossa & Merritt 08b, Haiman+ 08, Merritt+09, O‘Leary&Loeb 09, Schnittman 10, Krolik+ 10, .....]

15. recoiling SMBHs – search for candidates via spectroscopic signatures
SDSSJ , @ 2650 km/s shows all predicted (B07) spectral features of a recoiling BH, plus an extra peculiar syst. of NELs which is not yet well understood
[Komossa et al. 08]
Komossa+ 08
perhaps, one more from SDSS ?, @ 3650 km/s [Shields et al. 09]
E , polarimetry + kinematics, @ ~2100 km/s
- highly asymm. Hb, extra broad
450 km/s of
unclear origin
- trecoil ~ 104 yrs [Robinson+ 10]
km/s [Civano+ 10]

16. recoiling SMBHs – search for candidates via spectroscopic signatures
SDSSJ , @ 2650 km/s shows all predicted (B07) spectral features of a recoiling BH, plus an extra peculiar syst. of NELs which is not yet well understood
[Komossa et al. 08]
perhaps, one more from SDSS ?, @ 3650 km/s [Shields et al. 09]
E , polarimetry + kinematics, @ ~2100 km/s
- highly asymm. Hb, extra broad
450 km/s of
unclear origin
- trecoil ~ 104 yrs [Robinson+ 10]
km/s [Civano+ 10]
re-interpretation of pre-merger
„dual AGN“ scenario as GW recoil,
or 3body slingshot
- extra (faint) narrow lines at vBLR

17. recoiling SMBHs – implications for unified models of AGN
typically, rBLR < rkick < rtorus
 BH recoil oscillations change the
quasar, from type 2  type 1
 BH recoil oscillations may
explain deficiency of type
2s at high L (where mergers are
common)
using N-body simulations
[Gualandris & Merritt 08] of BH
oscillating in galaxy:
above vkick >~ 450 km/s,
tosci approx tquasar ~ 107 yr
small-scale oscillations:
- change from C-thick  C-thin
- repeated accretion (=flaring)
activity at each turning point
type 1
type 2
[Komossa & Merritt 08b]

18. summary scaling relations:
- local non-actives: small scatter, slope 4...5, bar-ed galaxies off
- local rapidly growing BHs (NLS1s): on the local relation
- high-z AGN (z=0.4-2): off the local relation, BH growth precedes
bulge growth
kicks:
- astrophysical implications for: galaxy & BH assembly at epoch of
structure formation, BH growth, z-dependence of GW signals &
LISA rates, AGN statistics & unified models, time delays between SB
and AGN activity, .....
- predicted e.m. signatures: spatially & spectroscopically off-set
„quasars“, flaring disks, variable quasar absorption, off-nuclear tidal
disruption flares, hypercompact stellar systems
- several v ~ km/s