1. Black Holes and Revelations

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

4. 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…

5. 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?

6. 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?

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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

11. FSRQs vs. BL Lacs
Tavecchio’s review

13. FSRQs: a “typical AGN” + jet

15. D’Ammando
PKS seems to be an outlier (not the only!) in the blazars divide...why?
PKS 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

16. 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

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

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

19. 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

20. Seed BH masses? Mseed,BH ≈100 M vs. 103-5 M
Progenitors?
Seed BH masses? Mseed,BH ≈100 M vs 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

21. 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

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

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

24. 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 – see also Nesvabda et al. 2008
How many? How much representative?

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

26. Giodini’s
review

27. 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)

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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~
Most of BH accretion happens in quasars at high-z
Most of X-ray background in Seyfert 2s at low-z

32. 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

33. 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?

34. 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’

35. 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

36. - 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

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

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

39. 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
Energy (keV)

40. 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

41. NGC 1365 (Risaliti et al. 2005)

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

43. 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 Tol (Marinucci) and BLRGs (Torresi)

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

45. 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)

46. 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

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

48. 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

49. 6. Testing General Relativity with AGN

50. 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

51. 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

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

53. See you at AGN10