Collaborators: Alex Beelen, Misty Bentz, Frank Bertoldi, Chris Carilli, Pierre Cox, Xiaohui Fan, Shai Kaspi, Dan Maoz, Hagai Netzer, Chris Onken, Pat Osmer,

Collaborators: Alex Beelen, Misty Bentz, Frank Bertoldi, Chris Carilli, Pierre Cox, Xiaohui Fan, Shai Kaspi, Dan Maoz, Hagai Netzer, Chris Onken, Pat Osmer, Chien Peng, Brad Peterson, Rick Pogge, Gordon Richards, Francesco Shankar, Adam Steed, Fabian Walter, David Weinberg Marianne Vestergaard University of Arizona First Steps Toward Constraining Supermassive Black-Hole Growth: Mass Estimates of Black Holes in Distant Quasars Drexel University, February 10, 2006

Active Galactic Nuclei Bright galaxies with a point-source of non-stellar activity in nuclei They are rare – comprise only a few percent of bright galaxies The most powerful are called quasars. Quasar nuclei outshine their host galaxy light

~10 17 cm -- scale of our solar system (Francis et al. 1991) (Elvis et al. 1994)

Supermassive Black Holes How are their mass measured? How do they grow? How are black holes and galaxies connected?

Black Holes and Galaxy Formation Black holes are likely ubiquitous in galaxy centers M BH – σ * relationship

The M – σ Relationship (Tremaine et al. 2002; See also Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000) Black Hole Mass Bulge Velocity Dispersion M  σ 4

Black holes are likely ubiquitous in galaxy centers M BH – σ * relationship –Formation and evolution of bulges and black holes must be intimately connected –When was it established? And how? –What came first, black hole or bulge (galaxy)? Black hole/star-formation feedback (theory) –Negative feedback kills star formation and black hole growth by expelling gas (e.g., Springel, Di Matteo, & Hernquist 2005) Black Holes and Galaxy Formation

(Springel et al. 2005) Black hole activity Star formation activity Time (Gyr)

Black holes are likely ubiquitous in galaxy centers M BH – σ * relationship –Formation and evolution of bulges and black holes must be intimately connected –When was it established? And how? –What came first, black hole or bulge (galaxy)? Black hole/star-formation feedback (theory) –Negative feedback kills star formation and black hole growth by expelling gas (e.g., Springel, Di Matteo, & Hernquist 2005) –Positive feedback stimulate star formation (Silk 2005) Consequence: Galaxy bulges form later than supermassive black holes Black Holes and Galaxy Formation

I.Black Hole Mass a.Determinations b.Distributions II.Black Hole – Galaxy Connection III. Black Hole Evolution Talk Outline

I.Black Hole Mass a.Determinations b.Distributions II.Black Hole – Galaxy Connection III. Black Hole Evolution

mv 2 – GmM BH /R = 0 Black Hole Mass M m

M BH = v 2 R /G Black Hole Mass M

M BH = v 2 R /G Black Hole Mass

M BH = v 2 R /G Black Hole Mass Insert figure from HST/ MW? R V

Why Study Quasar Black-Holes? Quiescent black holes (in normal galaxies) can only be studied in the nearby Universe Quasars are luminous and therefore ideal tracers of black holes to the highest observable redshifts Their host galaxies are prime targets for studying galaxy evolution in the early Universe HST/STIS 8m telescope 30m telesc. 10010 Distance (Mpc) (Ferrarese 2003) 10 9 10 8 Black Hole Mass

How Can M BH be Determined for Active Black Holes? Stellar kinematics Gas kinematics Reverberation mapping (√)  √ √ Local UniverseHigher-z

Possible Virial Estimators In units of the Schwarzschild radius R S = 2GM/c 2 = 3 × 10 13 M 8 cm. Mass estimates from the virial theorem: M = f (r  V 2 /G) where r = scale length of region  V = velocity dispersion f = a factor of order unity, depends on details of geometry and kinematics Note: the reverberation technique is independent of angular resolution

M BH = f v 2 R BLR /G Reverberation Mapping: R BLR = c τ Virial Mass Estimates t 1 – t 2 =  t = t 1 t = t 2 t = t 3 t = t 3 + 

Reverberation Mapping Results NGC 5548, the most closely monitored active galaxy Continuum Emission line Light Curves (Peterson et al. 2002)

M BH = f v 2 R BLR /G Reverberation Mapping: –R BLR = c τ v BLR Line width in variable (rms) spectrum Virial Mass Estimates t 1 – t 2 =  t = t 1 t = t 2 t = t 3 t = t 3 + 

Reverberation Mapping NGC 5548, the most closely monitored active galaxy (Peterson et al. 1999)

Velocity dispersion is measured from the line in the rms spectrum. –The rms spectrum isolates the variable part of the lines. –Constant components (like narrow lines) vanish in rms spectrum Velocity Dispersion of the Broad Line Region and the Virial Mass M BH = f v 2 R BLR /G f depends on structure and geometry of broad line region (based on Korista et al. 1995)

M BH -  : Comparison of Active and Quiescent Galaxies Reverberation masses appear to fall along the M BH -  relation for quiescent galaxies The scatter is also similar: ≲ a factor of 3 Bulge velocity dispersion (Courtesy C. Onken) Mass AGNs Gals

How Can Quasar M BH be Determined? Stellar kinematics Gas kinematics Reverberation mapping (√)  √ √ Local UniverseHigher-z Scaling relations √ √

Virial Mass Estimates M BH = f v 2 R BLR /G Reverberation Mapping: R BLR =cτ, v BLR Radius – Luminosity Relation: (Kaspi et al. (incl MV) 2005; Bentz,Peterson, Pogge,MV,Onken 2006, ApJ, submitted) Scaling Relationships: M BH  FWHM 2 L β R BLR  L λ (5100Å) 0.50 R BLR  L λ (1350Å) 0.53 (see e.g. Vestergaard 2002)

Single-Epoch Mass Estimates - Hβ 1  scatter ≈ factor 2.5 (Vestergaard & Peterson 2006) Log [VP(Hβ,single-epoch)/M  ] Log[ M BH (Reverberation)/ M  ] 

Single-Epoch Mass Estimates - CIV 1  scatter = factor 2.3 (Vestergaard & Peterson 2006)  Log [VP(CIV, single-epoch)/M  ] Log[ M BH (Reverberation)/ M  ]

Scaling Relationships: (calibrated to 2004 Reverberation M BH ) CIV: 1σ uncertainty: factor ~3.5 Hβ: Virial Mass Estimates : M BH =f v 2 R BLR /G ( see also Vestergaard 2002, and McLure & Jarvis 2002 for MgII )   ( Vestergaard & Peterson 2006)

NGC 5548  Filled circles: 1989 data from IUE and ground-based telescopes.  Open circles: 1993 data from HST and IUE. …Dotted line corresponds to virial relationship with M = 6 × 10 7 M . Highest ionization lines have smallest lags and largest Doppler widths. Peterson and Wandel 1999 R  (M/V) -1/2

Virial Relationships (Peterson & Wandel 1999, 2000; Onken & Peterson 2002) Emission lines: SiIV 1400, CIV 1549, HeII 1640, CIII] 1909, H  4861, HeII 4686 All 4 testable AGNs comply: –NGC 7469: 1.2  10 7 M  –NGC 3783: 3.0  10 7 M  –NGC 5548: 6.7  10 7 M  –3C 390.3: 2.9  10 8 M  Scalings between lines: v FWHM 2 (H  ) lag (H  )  v FWHM 2 (CIV) lag (CIV) R-L relation extends to high-z and high luminosity quasars: –spectra similar (e.g., Dietrich et al 2002) –luminosities are not extreme R-L defined for 10 42 – 10 46 erg/s (Vestergaard 2004) (Dietrich et al 2002) Radius – Luminosity Relation (Data from Kaspi et al. 2005)

Main goal: improve scaling laws by reducing scatter Improving the Scaling Relationships Issues: Host galaxy contamination – HST imaging Accuracy of Single-epoch M BH estimates – HST & ground-based study (HST archive project, PI: MV) Improved Masses and R BLR – Improved monitoring of nearby sources R-L relation scatter dominates scatter in mass scaling law (Bentz, Peterson, Pogge, MV, Onken 2006)

Talk Outline I.Black Hole Mass a.Determinations b.Distributions II.Black Hole – Galaxy Connection III. Black Hole Evolution

Masses of Distant Quasars Ceilings at M BH ≈ 10 10 M  L BOL < 10 48 ergs/s M BH ≈ 10 9 M  beyond space density drop at z ≈ 3 (H 0 =70 km/s/Mpc; Ω Λ = 0.7) (Vestergaard 2004)

Quasars Dramatic space density drop at z ≳ 3 Very luminous AGNs were much more common in the past. The “quasar era” occurred when the Universe was 10-20% its current age. (Peterson 1997)

Masses of Distant Quasars Ceilings at M BH ≈ 10 10 M  L BOL < 10 48 ergs/s M BH ≈ 10 9 M  beyond space density drop at z ≈ 3 (H 0 =70 km/s/Mpc; Ω Λ = 0.7) (Vestergaard et al. in prep)

Masses of Distant Quasars Ceilings at M BH ≈ 10 10 M  L BOL < 10 48 ergs/s M BH ≈ 10 9 M  beyond space density drop at z ≈ 3 (DR3 Qcat: Schneider et al. 2005) (Vestergaard et al. in prep)

Using MgII line to Estimate Black Hole Mass Bridge 0.8 ≲ z ≲ 1.3 gap Will use SDSS to calibrate MgII scaling law Complications: –FeII contamination of line and continuum (Vestergaard & Wilkes 2001) Requires template fitting

Talk Outline I.Black Hole Masses II.Black Hole – Galaxy Connection III. Black Hole Evolution

High Redshift Quasars and their Galaxies UV, radio, X-ray properties similar at z > 3 (e.g., Constantin et al. 2002; Dietrich et al. 2002; Stern et al. 2000; Mathur et al. 2002) Black holes of distant quasars are very massive ~ (1-5)x 10 9 M  –Are their host galaxies also massive and old? Circumstantial evidence for intense star formation on galaxy scales associated with quasars at z ≳ 4: –strong sub-mm/far-IR emission: ~10 8 M  warm dust –strong CO emission: ~10 11 M  of cold molecular gas (Ohta et al. 1996; Walter et al. 2003)  Dust and CO emission: large scale star formation rates 500 – 2000 M  /yr (e.g., Omont et al. 2001, Carilli et al. 2001)

High Redshift Quasars and their Galaxies Some evidence for massive, old galaxies: –z~2 quasar hosts have bulge luminosity consistent with old passively evolving stellar populations (Kukula et al. 2001) –Low-z host galaxies are dominated by old (8-14Gyr) stellar populations (Nolan et al. 2001)

Quasar Host Galaxies at High Redshift – Does M-σ relation extend to high z? Evidence circumstantial and controversial: –[OIII] λ5007 FWHM as σ-proxy: Good to z >3 (eg Shields et al. 2003) -- large scatter –CO line width as σ-proxy: z > 3 galaxies under-massive (eg Shields et al. 2005) -- large uncertainties –Direct σ * measurements at z  0.37: σ is smaller than M – σ predicts (Treu et al. 2004) -- M from scaling relations; factor >4 uncertain –Resolved CO data: Dynamical mass estimates ~10 11 M , dominated by cold gas – no room for massive bulge (z~6): MBH and M-σ relationship → ~10 12 M  stellar bulges expected (eg Walter et al. 2003; z~6.4)

Quasar Host Galaxies at High Redshift Conclusive test: mean age and mass of stellar bulge Study of the most massive black holes at z ≳ 4 –HST UV imaging: young stars L(1500Å) → star formation rate –HST Cy15 IR imaging: older stars –Spitzer mid-IR: warm dust –Sub-mm data: cooler dust –CO imaging: cold molecular gas Goals: –Characterize stellar bulge: mean age, mean mass, and star formation rate –Determine M BH /M Bulge (Vestergaard 2004) Redshift → (Data from Bruzual & Charlot 2003)

Black Hole to Bulge Mass Ratio at High Redshift (Peng et al. 2006, in prep)

Lensed Quasar Host Galaxy at Redshift 4.7 Original data PSF+Galaxy Model Galaxy residual VLA CO (2-1) emission image with Einstein Ring (Carilli et al. 2003) HST ACS UV image Strong sub-mm source

Talk Outline I.Black Hole Masses II.Black Hole – Galaxy Connection III. Black Hole Evolution

Black Hole Growth in the Early Universe Theoretical model predictions: Accretion only –Radiatively efficient –Radiatively inefficient Merger activity Obscured growth A combination of the above? (Steed & Weinberg 2003) Predicted evolution of black hole mass functions for different growth scenarios

Preliminary Mass Functions of Active Supermassive Black Holes Different samples show relatively consistent mass functions (shape, slope, normalization) (Vestergaard & Osmer, in prep.; Vestergaard, Fan, Osmer et al., in prep.) Goal: constrain BH growth (with Fan, Osmer, Steeds, Shankar, Weinberg) (H 0 =70 km/s/Mpc; Ω Λ = 0.7) BQS: 10 700 sq. deg; B  16.16 mag LBQS: 454 sq. deg; 16.0  B J  18.85 mag SDSS: 182 sq. deg; i*  20 mag DR3: 5000 sq. deg.; i* >15,  19.1, 20.2

Preliminary Mass Functions of Active Supermassive Black Holes Different samples show relatively consistent mass functions (shape, slope) (Vestergaard & Osmer, in prep.; Vestergaard, Fan, Osmer et al., in prep.) Goal: constrain BH growth (with Fan, Osmer, Steeds, Shankar, Weinberg) (H 0 =70 km/s/Mpc; Ω Λ = 0.7) BQS: 10 700 sq. deg; B  16.16 mag LBQS: 454 sq. deg; 16.0  B J  18.85 mag SDSS: 182 sq. deg; i*  20 mag DR3: 5000 sq. deg.; i* >15,  19.1, 20.2

Preliminary Mass Functions of Active Supermassive Black Holes Locally mapped volume (R ≤ 100 Mpc): M BH ≤ 3x10 9 M  SDSS color-selected sample and DR3: (Fan et al. 2001, Schneider et al. 2005) ~9.5 quasars per Gpc 3 with M BH ≥ 5x10 9 M  → need ~25 times larger volume locally (R ≤ 290 Mpc) (H 0 =70 km/s/Mpc; Ω Λ = 0.7)

Summary >>> We can do physics with active galaxies and quasars <<< M BH in Active Nuclei can be determined to within an accuracy: –Low-z: ~factor of 3 (measured) –Higher z: ~factor of 4 (estimated!!) Black hole mass distributions: – ≈ 10 9 M , even at 4 ≲ z ≲ 6 –Maximum black hole mass at ~10 10 M  Black Hole Evolution and Galaxy Formation in Early Universe: –Ongoing study of galaxies at high redshift with the most massive black holes (~10 10 M  ) –M BH /M Bulge ratio –Mass functions of active black holes –Constrain growth of black holes and their galaxy bulges by comparing these data with theoretical evolutionary models

Black Holes and their Implications for Galaxy Formation and Evolution? The blue and red galaxy sequences SDSS DR1 (Baldry et al. 2004)

Masses of Distant Quasars BQS: Boroson & Green (1992) z ≈ 2: Barthel, Tytler, & Thomson (1990), Vestergaard (2000) z ≈ 4: Fan et al. (1999, 2000, 2001), Anderson et al. (2001), Constantin et al. (2002) L BOL = BC 1 L (1350Å) = BC 2 L (4400 Å) MassL BOL L BOL /L Edd (H 0 =70 km/s/Mpc; Ω Λ = 0.7) (Vestergaard 2004)

z ≈ 0.3: BQS: Boroson & Green (1992); 87 quasars; M BH (reverberation) & M BH (H  ); LBQS: Hewett et al.(1995); Forster et al. (2001) 145 quasars M BH (H  ) z≈2: LBQS: Hewett et al. (1995); Forster et al. (2001) 483 quasars; M BH (CIV) z≈4: Fan et al. (1999, 2001), 39 quasars; M BH (CIV) Mass Estimates of Distant Quasars L BOL =BC 1 L (1350Å) =BC 2 L (4400Å) BC’s from updated Elvis et al. (1994) radio- quiet SED. (Vestergaard & Osmer, in prep) Mass L BOL (H 0 =70 km/s/Mpc; Ω Λ = 0.7)

Luminosities of Distant Quasars (H 0 =70 km/s/Mpc; Ω Λ = 0.7) L Edd  M BH (Vestergaard et al. in prep)

Masses of Distant Quasars L BOL = BC 1 L (1350Å) = BC 2 L (4400 Å) MassL BOL L BOL /L Edd (H 0 =70 km/s/Mpc; Ω Λ = 0.7) SDSS: DR3 (Vestergaard et al. in prep)

The M – σ Relationship Vittorini, Shankar, & Cavalier 2005, astro-ph/0508640 (BH growth history from merger/feedback events; simulation) Robertson et al. 2005, astro-ph/0506038 (mergers simulation) Di Matteo, Springel, & Hernquist 2005, Nature, 433, 604 (merger induced BH growth and starformation; simulation) Springel, Di Matteo, & Hernquist 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776 (BH/star formation feedback; simulations) Miralda-Escude & Kollmeier 2005, ApJ 619, 30 (stellar capture) Sazonov et al. 2005, MNRAS 358, 168 (radiative BH feedback) King 2003, ApJ 596, L27 (supercritical accretion, outflows) Adams et al. 2003, ApJ 591, 125 (rotating BH collapse model) ….and many more…..

M BH -  Relation for Active and Quiescent Galaxies Bulge velocity dispersion (Courtesy C. Onken) Mass AGNs Gals

Secondary Mass Estimation Methods Via M BH -  * bulge Relation Measured  * bulge : CaII 8498, 8542, 8662Å; z < 0.06 (Tremaine et al. 2002)(Ferrarese et al. 2001) M    4.0 1  scatter ≈ 0.3 dex M    4.72 ; MF00 AGNs

Secondary Mass Estimation Methods Via M BH -  * bulge Relation [OIII] 5007 FWHM   * bulge (Nelson & Whittle 1996; Nelson 2000) (Boroson 2003) Tremaine slope Radio-louds 1  scatter ≈ 0.7 dex Line asymmetries Outflows Radio sources (Interacting systems)

Secondary Mass Estimation Methods Via M BH -  * bulge Relation Fundamental Plane:  e, r e   * bulge  M BH Possibly significantly uncertain - nuclear glare - bulge/disk decomposition (e.g., McLeod & Rieke 1995; Barth et al 2003) -FP scatter (~0.6dex for RGs; e.g. Woo & Urry 2002 ) - M BH -  * bulge scatter (Barth et al. 2003) 1  scatter = ? (  0.7dex) Fundamental Plane  log r e  FP( , ) 

Secondary Mass Estimation Methods Via M BH - L bulge Relation (McLure & Dunlop 2001, 2002) M R  L bulge 1  scatter ≈ 0.45 - 0.6 dex Nuclear glare Bulge/disk decomposition (e.g., McLeod & Rieke 1995; Barth et al 2003) Scaling relation scatter ? M BH (dynamical) M BH (scaling)

Where Do We Go From Here? Future Work (dex) Best Accuracy Reverberation 0.3 Zero-point, understand BLR  f, Mapping odd objects (3C390.3  class?) Scaling Relations 0.5-0.6 R-L relationships, understand outliers Via M BH -  * bulge : --  * bulge 0.3 Extend to luminous quasars -- [OIII] FWHM 0.7 Understand scatter & outliers -- Fundamental ? Quantify & establish higher Plane:  e, r e accuracy Via M BH – L bulge 0.6-0.7 Calibrate to reverberation mapped & scaling rel.: sources – M R

To first order quasar spectra look similar at all redshifts (Dietrich et al 2002)

Radius – Luminosity Relations r  L 1/2 To first order, AGN spectra look the same Þ Same ionization parameter Þ Same density [Kaspi et al (2000) data]

Radius-UV Luminosity Relationship for High-z Quasars (Korista et al. 1997) M = V FWHM 2 R BLR /G ↑ ↑ ↓ 0.1  10 9 M  4500 km/s 33 lt-days Ф  R BLR -2 L Log Ф  Log n(H)  ≈ 10 47 ergs/s

Radius-UV Luminosity Relationship for High-z Quasars (Dietrich et al. 2002) M = V FWHM 2 R BLR /G Ф  R BLR - 2

Reverberation Mapping Kinematics and geometry of the broad-line region (BLR) can be tightly constrained by measuring the emission-line response to continuum variations. Can be done with UV/optical lines. NGC 5548, the most closely monitored Seyfert 1 galaxy

Reverberation Mapping Results BLR sizes are measured from the cross- correlation time lags between continuum and emission-line variations. This gives the first moment of the transfer function. NGC 5548, the most closely monitored Seyfert 1 galaxy Continuum Emission line

Reverberation Mapping Assumptions 1Continuum originates in a single central source. –Continuum source (10 13–14 cm) is much smaller than BLR (~10 16 cm) –Continuum source not necessarily isotropic 2Light-travel time is most important time scale. Cloud response instantaneous  rec = ( n e  B )  1  0.1 n 10  1 hr BLR structure stable  dyn = (R/V FWHM )  3 – 5 yrs 3There is a simple, though not necessarily linear, relationship between the observed continuum and the ionizing continuum.

In practice, programs have concentrated on solving the velocity-independent (or 1-d) transfer equation: The Transfer Equation – Transfer function is line response to a  -function outburst. It is most common to determine the cross-correlation function and obtain the “lag” Under these assumptions, the relationship between the continuum and emission lines is: Emission-line light curve “Transfer Function” Continuum Light Curve

The Transfer Equation The aim of reverberation mapping is to solve for the transfer function from the observables, the continuum light curve C(t) and the emission-line light curve L(V,t). As noted earlier, currently we have been able to get only the cross-correlation lag with any certainty. Emission-line light curve “Transfer Function” Continuum Light Curve

Reverberation Mapping Results AGNs with lags for multiple lines show that highest ionization emission lines respond most rapidly  ionization stratification Combine lag with line width to get a “virial mass”.

Lyman Break Galaxies Discovered by color-selection (Ly-break) High-z equivalent of local star-forming galaxies Star-formation rates: ≈ 4-25 M  /yr ; ≈9 M  /yr typical (Steidel et al. 1996)

AGNs in z ≈ 3 Lyman-break Galaxies (Steidel et al. 2002) Broad-lined AGNs:  1% of Lyman- break galaxies (z ≈3) FWHM (CIV) ≈4700 km/s

AGNs in z ≈ 3 Lyman-break Galaxies (Vestergaard 2002b) Broad-lined AGNs: ∼ 1% of Lyman- break galaxies FWHM (CIV) ≈4700 km/s M BH ≈ 10 8 M  L BOL ≈10 45 ergs/s L BOL /L Edd ≈ 0.2

Luminosities of Distant Quasars (Vestergaard 2004)

Masses of Distant Quasars Ceiling at M BH ≦ 10 10 M  ; L BOL < 10 48 ergs/s M BH ≈ 10 9 M  beyond space density drop at z ≈ 3 (Vestergaard 2004)

Masses of Distant Quasars II (Vestergaard 2004)

Luminosities of Distant Quasars II (Vestergaard 2004)

Preliminary Mass Functions of Active Supermassive Black Holes in Quasars Different samples show relatively consistent mass functions (shape, slope) (Vestergaard & Osmer, in prep.; Vestergaard, Fan, Osmer et al. in prep.) Goal: constrain BH growth (with Fan, Osmer, Steeds, Weinberg) (H 0 =70 km/s/Mpc; Ω Λ = 0.7) BQS: 10 700 sq. deg; B  16.16 mag LBQS: 454 sq. deg; 16.0  B J  18.85 mag SDSS: 182 sq. deg; i*  20 mag DR3: 5000 sq. deg.; i* >15,  19.1, 20.2

Implications of Black Holes for Galaxy Formation and Evolution? Black holes ubiquitous in galaxy centers M BH – σ * relationship –Formation and evolution of bulges and black holes must be intimately connected –When was it established? And how? Black hole/star-formation feedback (theory) –Negative feedback kills star formation and black hole growth by expelling gas (e.g., Springel, Di Matteo, & Hernquist 2005) Required to explain the blue and red galaxy sequences –Positive feedback stimulate star formation (Silk 2005) Consequence: Galaxy bulges form later than supermassive black holes

High Redshift Quasars and their Galaxies UV, radio, X-ray properties similar at z > 3 (e.g., Constantin et al. 2002; Dietrich et al. 2002; Stern et al. 2000; Mathur et al. 2002; Bechtold et al. 2002) Black holes of distant quasars are very massive ~ (1-5)x 10 9 M  –Are their host galaxies also massive and old? Growing (circumstantial) evidence for intense star formation on galaxy scales associated with high redshift quasars (z ≳ 4): –Solar metallicities or higher in spectra even at z > 6 (eg Hamann & ferland 1999; Freudling et al. 2003) –Vicinity of luminous z ≳ 4 quasars among the most active galaxy forming environments (e.g, Hu et al. 1996) –Large fraction of z ≳ 4 quasars are strong sub-mm and far-IR sources showing presence of large amounts of dust ~10 8 M  –Some are also detected in CO indicating ~10 11 M  of cold molecular gas - the CO emission is resolved in a few cases (Ohta et al. 1996; Walter et al. 2003) –Dust and CO emission: large scale star formation rates 500 – 2000 M  /yr (e.g., Omont et al. 2001, Carilli et al. 2001)

High Redshift Quasars and their Galaxies Evidence for large scale intense star formation: –Solar metallicities or higher in spectra even at z > 6 –High-z quasar vicinity among the most active galaxy forming regions –Many z ≳ 4 quasars are strong sub-mm and far-IR sources: M dust ~10 8 M  –CO detections, some resolved: ~10 11 M  of cold molecular gas –Dust and CO emission: large scale star formation rates 500 – 2000 M  /yr Additional evidence of young host galaxies at z ≳ 3: –z > 3 radio galaxies: clumpy structure of smaller star-forming galaxies – assembly in progress? (e.g., van Breugel et al. 1998; Pentericci et al. 1999, 2001) –Stellar mass  10%-20% of final mass and possibly small scale lengths (Papovich et al. 2001; Ridgway et al. 2001) –Dynamical mass estimates based on resolved CO data leave little room for ~10 11 - 10 12 M  stellar bulges in some quasar systems as expected from M-σ relationship (eg Walter et al. 2003)

High Redshift Quasars and their Galaxies Evidence for large scale intense star formation (500 – 2000 M  /yr) Additional evidence of young host galaxies at z ≳ 3: –z > 3 radio galaxies – assembly in progress? –Host of z~3 radio quiet quasars possibly undersized and under-massive Evidence for massive, old galaxies: –z~2 quasar hosts have bulge luminosity consistent with old passively evolving stellar populations (Kukula et al. 2001) –Low-z host galaxies are dominated by old (8-14Gyr) stellar populations (Nolan et al. 2001)

Quasar Host Galaxies at High Redshift – Does M-σ relation extend to high z? Evidence circumstantial and controversial: –Quasar hosts at z  2 consistent with old, massive elliptical galaxies (eg Kukula et al. 2001) -- hard to characterize –Quasar hosts at z  3 likely under-massive for their M BH (eg Ridgway et al. 2001) -- hard to characterize –[OIII] λ5007 FWHM as σ-proxy: Good to z >3 (eg Shields et al. 2003) -- large scatter –CO line width as σ-proxy: z > 3 galaxies under-massive (eg Shields et al. 2005) -- large uncertainties –Direct σ * measurements at z  0.37: σ is smaller than M – σ predicts (Treu et al. 2004) -- M from scaling relations; factor >4 uncertain –Dynamical mass estimates based on resolved CO data are inconsistent with ~10 12 M  stellar bulges in some systems as expected from M-σ relationship (eg Walter et al. 2003; z~6.4)

Quasar Host Galaxies at High Redshift (Peng et al. 2006)

High Redshift Quasars and their Galaxies Evidence for large scale intense star formation: –Solar metallicities or higher in spectra even at z > 6 –High-z quasar vicinity among the most active galaxy forming regions –Many z ≳ 4 quasars are strong sub-mm and far-IR sources: M dust ~10 8 M  –CO detections, some resolved: ~10 11 M  of cold molecular gas –Dust and CO emission: large scale star formation rates 500 – 2000 M  /yr Additional evidence of young host galaxies at z ≳ 3: –z > 3 radio galaxies: clumpy structure of smaller star-forming galaxies – assembly in progress? (e.g., van Breugel et al. 1998; Pentericci et al. 1999, 2001) –Stellar mass  10%-20% of final mass and possibly small scale lengths (Papovich et al. 2001; Ridgway et al. 2001)

How Can We Measure Black-Hole Masses? Virial mass measurements based on motions of stars and gas in nucleus. –Stars Advantage: gravitational forces only Disadvantage: requires high spatial resolution –Gas Advantage: can be found very close to nucleus Disadvantage: possible role of non-gravitational forces

Secondary Mass Estimators Scaling Relations Via M BH -  * bulge : –  * bulge –[OIII] FWHM –Fundamental Plane:  e, r e Via M BH – L bulge & scaling rel.: –M R √ √ √ 0.5-0.6 √ √  0.3 √ √ √ 0.7 √ √  ? √ √  0.6-0.7 Low-z High-z Low-L High-L High-L Liners, Sy2 QSOs, Sy1 QSOs BL Lacs (dex) Best Accu- racy

Limitations of UV Scaling Relations NLS1s : low M BH high L BOL /L Edd Possible outflow component to CIV (Leighly 2001)

Are Quasar CIV Profiles Problematic? (EW) (FWHM) (Richards et al. 2002) ~15%

Scaling Relationships: (now calibrated to 2004 Reverberation M BH ) CIV: 1σ uncertainty: factor ~3.5 Hβ: Virial Mass Estimates : M BH =f v 2 R BLR /G (see also Vestergaard 2002, and McLure & Jarvis 2002 for MgII)    (H 0 =70 km/s/Mpc; Ω Λ = 0.7; Vestergaard & Peterson 2006 )

How Can AGN M BH be Determined? Stellar kinematics Gas kinematics Reverberation mapping (√)  √ √ Local UniverseHigher-z Scaling relations √ √

Black Holes and their Implications for Galaxy Formation and Evolution? Black holes are likely ubiquitous in galaxy centers M BH – σ * relationship –Formation and evolution of bulges and black holes must be intimately connected –When was it established? And how? –What came first, black hole or bulge (galaxy)? Black hole/star-formation feedback (theory) –Negative feedback kills star formation and black hole growth by expelling gas (e.g., Springel, Di Matteo, & Hernquist 2005) –Positive feedback stimulate star formation (Silk 2005) Consequence: Galaxy bulges form later than supermassive black holes

M BH = v 2 R /G Black Holes Insert figure from HST/ MW?

Masses of Distant Quasars Ceilings at M BH ≈ 10 10 M  L BOL < 10 48 ergs/s M BH ≈ 10 9 M  beyond space density drop at z ≈ 3 (H 0 =70 km/s/Mpc; Ω Λ = 0.7) (Vestergaard 2004)

Quasar Broad Line Widths

High Redshift Quasars and their Galaxies Black holes of distant quasars are very massive ~ (1-5)x 10 9 M  –Are their host galaxies also massive and old? Dust and molecular gas emission indicate large scale intense star formation (500 – 2000 M  /yr) Some evidence for massive, old galaxies: –z~2 quasar hosts have bulge luminosity consistent with old passively evolving stellar populations (Kukula et al. 2001) –Low-z host galaxies are dominated by old (8- 14Gyr) stellar populations (Nolan et al. 2001)

M BH = v 2 R /G Black Hole Mass ½mv 2 - GmM BH /R = 0

Collaborators: Alex Beelen, Misty Bentz, Frank Bertoldi, Chris Carilli, Pierre Cox, Xiaohui Fan, Shai Kaspi, Dan Maoz, Hagai Netzer, Chris Onken, Pat Osmer,

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Collaborators: Alex Beelen, Misty Bentz, Frank Bertoldi, Chris Carilli, Pierre Cox, Xiaohui Fan, Shai Kaspi, Dan Maoz, Hagai Netzer, Chris Onken, Pat Osmer,"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Collaborators: Alex Beelen, Misty Bentz, Frank Bertoldi, Chris Carilli, Pierre Cox, Xiaohui Fan, Shai Kaspi, Dan Maoz, Hagai Netzer, Chris Onken, Pat Osmer,

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Collaborators: Alex Beelen, Misty Bentz, Frank Bertoldi, Chris Carilli, Pierre Cox, Xiaohui Fan, Shai Kaspi, Dan Maoz, Hagai Netzer, Chris Onken, Pat Osmer,"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback