1. Black Holes in Deep Surveys Meg Urry Yale University

2. The formation and evolution of galaxies is closely tied to the growth of black holes  Cosmic accretion (AGN) important for galaxy formation for black hole physics for understanding ionization, backgrounds, etc.

3. Cosmic Accretion Optically  selected quasars not representative, do not fairly sample cosmic accretion Need less biased surveys

4. Supermassive black holes obscured Supermassive black holes likely obscured by gas and dust: 1.Local AGN Unification 2.More likely in early Universe (“Grand Unification”) 3.Explains hard X-ray “background”

5. Supermassive black holes obscured Supermassive black holes likely obscured by gas and dust: 1.Local AGN Unification 2.More likely in early Universe (“Grand Unification”) 3.Explains hard X-ray “background”

6. Supermassive black holes obscured Supermassive black holes likely obscured by gas and dust: 1.Local AGN Unification 2.More likely in early Universe (“Grand Unification”) 3.Explains hard X-ray “background”

7. X-Ray “background” spectrum ( superposition of unresolved AGN ) is very hard Courtesy Brusa, Comastri, Gilli, Hasinger

8. unabsorbed AGN spectrum Increasing N H

9. Worsley et al. 2005 Only  50% X-Ray Background resolved at E>6 keV

10. Deep Surveys for Obscured Accretion Hard X-rays penetrate most obscuration Energy re-radiated in infrared High resolution optical separates host galaxy

11. Chandra Spitzer HST

12. GOODSGreat Observatories Origins Deep Survey

13. GOODS designed to find obscured AGN out to the quasar epoch, z  2-3 Spitzer Legacy, HST Treasury, Chandra Deep Fields Dickinson, Giavalisco, Giacconi, Garmire

14. MUSYCMUltiwavelength Survey Survey by Yale Yale & Chile Gawiser, van Dokkum, CMU, Lira, Maza

15. Extended Chandra Deep Field South Do GOODS/MUSYC/ surveys reveal hidden populations of obscured AGN? Virani et al. 2006, Lehmer et al. 2006

16. HST ACS color image (0.3% of GOODS)

17. HST+Spitzer color image (0.3% of GOODS)

18. Understanding AGN Demographics Quantitatively Model X-ray spectrum  constrain N(L,z,N H ) w XRBG spectrum, N(S x ), N(z) Model full SED  constrain N(L,z,N H ) w XRBG spectrum, N(S x ), N(z), plus N(S opt ), N(S IR ), … Also, can assess selection effects in any filter or spectroscopy OR

19. CreateAGN Create ensemble of AGN, with continuous range of obscuration, correct SEDs for Unification (model), known luminosity distribution, known cosmic evolution Generate expected survey content Generate expected survey content at X-ray, Optical, Infrared, or any wavelengths, as function of flux and redshift Compare to data GOODS, MUSYC, Compare to data GOODS, MUSYC, SEXSI, SWIRE, CLASXS, H2XMM, AMSS, GROTH, Lockman, Champ, …

20. Assumptions Hard X-ray LF & LDDE evolution for Type 1 AGN Ueda et al. 2003 Grid of AGN spectra (L X,N H ) with –SDSS quasar spectrum (normalized to X-ray) –dust/gas absorption (optical/UV/soft X-ray) –infrared dust emission Nenkova et al. 2002, Elitzur et al. 2003 –L* host galaxy N H distribution corresponding to torus geometry (matches obs) –obscured AGN = 3 x unobscured (matches local obs) –No dependence on z (for now) –Simple linear dependence on luminosity (matches obs) Ezequiel Treister Ezequiel Treister, CMU, Jeffrey van Duyne, Brooke Simmons, Eleni Chatzichristou (Yale U.), David Alexander, Franz Bauer, Niel Brandt (Penn State U.), Anton Koekemoer, Leonidas Moustakas (STScI), Jacqueline Bergeron (IAP), Ranga-Ram Chary (SSC), Christopher Conselice (Caltech), Stefano Cristiani (Padova), Norman Grogin (JHU) 2004, ApJ, 616, 123 Also Treister et al. 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007

21. Dust emission models from Nenkova et al. 2002, Elitzur et al. 2003 Simplest dust distribution that satisfies N H = 10 20 – 10 24 cm -2 3:1 ratio (divided at 10 22 cm -2 ) Random angles  N H distribution

22. Treister et al. 2004

24. Results Match optical counts, N(z)Match optical counts, N(z)  50% AGN not in CDFs Match X-ray background Match IR counts –AGN are low % of IR EBL Integral & Swift surveys for Compton-thick AGN –Number of Compton-thick AGN may be lower than assumed –Gives limit on reflection, accretion efficiency Meta-analysis  obs/unobs ratio increases with z

25. Treister et al. 2004 GOODS N+S

26. redshifts of Chandra deep X-ray sources GOODS-N Barger et al. 2002,3, Hasinger et al. 2002, Szokoly et al. 2004 Treister et al. 2004

27. redshifts of Chandra deep X-ray sources GOODS-N Barger et al. 2002,3, Hasinger et al. 2002, Szokoly et al. 2004 Treister et al. 2004

28. Results Match optical counts, N(z)  50% AGN not in CDFs Match X-ray backgroundMatch X-ray background Match IR counts –AGN are low % of IR EBL Integral & Swift surveys for Compton-thick AGN –Number of Compton-thick AGN may be lower than assumed –Gives limit on reflection, accretion efficiency Meta-analysis  obs/unobs ratio increases with z

29. Treister et al. 2005 X-ray background synthesis

30. Treister et al. 2005 X-ray background synthesis

31. Treister et al. 2005 X-ray background synthesis

32. Results Match optical counts, N(z)  50% AGN not in CDFs Match X-ray background Match IR countsMatch IR counts –AGN are low % of IR EBL Integral & Swift surveys for Compton-thick AGN –Number of Compton-thick AGN may be lower than assumed –Gives limit on reflection, accretion efficiency Meta-analysis  obs/unobs ratio increases with z

33. Near & mid-IR Spitzer counts Treister et al. 2005

34. Total AGN contribution to EBL <10% Treister et al. 2005 Infrared “Background”

35. Total 24  m luminosities Galaxies AGN

36. AGN dominate at bright 24  m fluxes

37. Results Match optical counts, N(z)  50% AGN not in CDFs Match X-ray background Match IR counts –AGN are low % of IR EBL Integral & Swift surveys for Compton-thick AGNIntegral & Swift surveys for Compton-thick AGN –Number of Compton-thick AGN may be lower than assumed –Gives limit on reflection, accretion efficiency Meta-analysis  obs/unobs ratio increases with z

39. X-Ray “Background” Spectrum 1 5 10 50 100 500 Energy (keV) 100 60 40 20 10 6 4 E F(E) [keV 2 cm  2 s  1 keV  1 str  1 ] Treister & Urry 2005

40. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 10 1 33 33 11 11 # of Compton Thick AGN Normalization of Reflection Component Integral & SWIRE Treister et al. (2007)

41. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Normalization of Reflection Component 10 8 6 4 2 Local Black Hole Mass Density (10 5 M o Mpc  3 ) Marconi et al. (2004) Shankar et al. (2004) Treister et al. (2007)

42. Hard X-ray Counts 0.1 0.01 10  3 10  4 10  5 10  12 10  11 10  10 10  9 Treister et al. (2007) F(20-40 keV) [erg cm  2 s  1 ] N(>S) [deg  2 ] Integral

43. Results Match optical counts, N(z)  50% AGN not in CDFs Match X-ray background Match IR counts –low AGN % of IR EBL Integral & Swift surveys for Compton-thick AGN –Number of Compton-thick AGN may be lower than assumed –Gives limit on reflection, accretion efficiency Meta-analysis  obs/unobs ratio increases with zMeta-analysis  obs/unobs ratio increases with z

44. 7 surveys 2341 AGN 1229 with z BL=unobscured NL=obscured Area as function of X-ray flux & optical mag Treister & Urry 2006b

47. Black Hole Accretion Obscured AGN dominate at 0<z<2 –Obscuration decreases w luminosity –Obscuration increases w redshift –Explains X-ray “background” & surveys –True z-distr does peak at z>1 (incomplete spectra) Limits on Compton Thick AGN integral, swift, spitzer –High degree of Compton reflection to match observed low #s of CT AGN to avoid overproducing local BH density Total bolometric AGN light < 10% of extragalactic light (mostly stars) Compare to local BH mass  efficiency of accretion,  0.1-0.2, where  = L/mc 2 

48. Carie Cardamone Shanil Virani Jeff van Duyne Brooke Simmons Ezequiel Treister (PhD 2005) Jonghak Woo (PhD 2005) Matt O’Dowd (PhD 2004) Yasunobu Uchiyama Eleni Chatzichristou Graduate students: Postdocs:

49. Luminosity-dependent density evolution Hasinger et al. 2005 >10 46 ergs/s 10 45-6 ergs/s 10 44-5 ergs/s 10 43-4 ergs/s 10 42-3 ergs/s

51. Van Duyne et al. 2007 Objects with hard X-ray spectra: Objects with hard (absorbed) X-ray spectra: (weak) AGN or galaxy in optical luminous thermal infrared emission AGN SEDs in GOODS

52. Van Duyne et al. 2007

55. Host galaxy morphologies Direct view of galaxy formation Simmons et al. 2007

56. Deep Integral Survey of the XMM-LSS region 300 ksec of our 2 Msec IntegralTreister et al. 2007

57. 1 Msec Integral (300 ksec of our 2 Msec) 1 Compton-Thick AGN in  150 deg 2 Deep Integral Survey of the Greater XMM-LSS region

58. Hard X-ray Counts 0.1 0.01 10  3 10  4 10  5 10  12 10  11 10  10 10  9 Treister et al. (2007) F(20-40 keV) [erg cm  2 s  1 ] N(>S) [deg  2 ] Integral

59. Barger et al. 2005, Treister et al. 2005 Simple unification Modified unification Dependence on luminosity ?

60. “EXO” Extreme X-ray-to-Optical AGN B V R BVR Z J K K AB = 21.4 R-K = 7.88 X-ray ECDFS ID: 29 Blue Green Red Composite optical Redder Near-IR Reddest Near-IR very high redshift AGN with z > 6, or very obscured AGN w old/dusty host galaxies at z~2

61. EXOs in MUSYC ECDFS

62. dec 0 RA 24 van Dokkum, Gawiser, Urry, Lira… MUSYC: MUSYC: 1 deg 2, UBVRIzJHK+NB, Spitzer, HST, Chandra, XMM, Galex, VLT, Magellan, Gemini, …

63. Chandra Deep Field South Castander’s Window (1256+01) SDSS 1030+ 05 z=6.3 QSO Field Hubble Deep Field South U,B,R=26 (5  )

64. HDF-South, UBI composite MUSYC

65. HDF-South, UBI composite MUSYC

66. HDF-South, UBI composite MUSYC

67. HDF-South, UBI composite MUSYC U-band; 13 hrs; limit ~26.5