The QSOmorphology connection Is there one? and: do we care? Or: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
the qso morphology connection
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The QSOmorphology connection Is there one? and: do we care? Or: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 07, 2023 249 likes •524 views

The QSOmorphology connection Is there one? and: do we care? Or: way too much fame for bulges and mergers? Knud Jahnke (MPIA) + Katherine Inskip, Matt Mechtley, Liyu Ambachew (MPIA), Mauricio Cisternas (IAC), John Silverman (IPMU) + COSMOS

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

The QSO–morphology connection

Is there one? and: do we care? Or: way too much fame for bulges and mergers? Knud Jahnke (MPIA)

+ Katherine Inskip, Matt Mechtley, Liyu Ambachew (MPIA), Mauricio Cisternas (IAC), John Silverman (IPMU) + COSMOS

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

The role of QSOs

  • AGN feedback?
  • Maintenance (=radio) mode:

→ in clusters, ok, elsewhere?

  • Quenching (=QSO) mode:

→ ??? dependency on M, env., z? →

  • Conditions for QSO activity?
  • Environment

non-cluster →

  • Mass
  • Morphology

what about bulges? →

? ?

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

The role of QSOs What are the ... … properties of AGN (QSO) host galaxies? … conditions for fueling massive Black Holes?

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

Fundamental pitfall

xkcd.com/552

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

BH–galaxy scaling relations

Sani+ 2011

classical pseudo

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

BH–galaxy scaling relations

log(bulge mass) log(BH mass)

Initial Final

KJ & Maccio 2011 (see Peng 2007)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

BH–galaxy scaling relations

log(bulge mass) log(BH mass)

Initial Final

KJ & Maccio 2011 (see Peng 2007)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

BH–galaxy scaling relations

KJ & Maccio 2011

Observation Simulation

log(bulge mass) log(BH mass)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

BH–galaxy scaling relations

  • What does this mean?
  • BH scaling relations consequence of LCDM assembly
  • No feedback needed
  • Modification by self-regulation and normalization
  • pen

→

  • Historical misunderstanding: all BH fueling recipes successful
  • In Q+Q context: The bulge is not (necessarily) an

active player

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

No AGN–starburst relation

Luminous AGN: same stellar ages as SF galaxies Type 2 AGN, Kauffmann+ 2003

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

No AGN–starburst relation

KJ+ 2004a,b; Sanchez, KJ+ 2004 z~0.1 col–mag 0.4<z<1.3 col–z 1.7<z<2.5 col–z +Herschel (Santini+ 2012):

Luminous AGN are normal SF galaxies, not starbursts

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

The role of QSOs What are the ... … properties of AGN (QSO) host galaxies? … conditions for fueling massive Black Holes?

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

How to feed a monster BH

  • Presence of gas

see SF →

  • Need for a “trigger”?
  • Favorite mechanism: major merging

– SAMs

Rachel S. →

– SPH

Di Matteo/Phil H./Springel →

– Analytics

Andrew K. →

? ?

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

QSOs = Major Merging?

QSO host galaxies, HST: Bahcall+ 1997

Warning: unknown selection function!

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

QSOs = Major Merging?

HE 1514–0606, logMBH=8.9

Ambachew, KJ+, in prep.

inactive inactive

Low-z, high mass: P91, VLT/FORS, 0.6”, 28 QSOs logMBH~9.0 + 28 comparison galaxies

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

QSOs = Major Merging?

QSO

Mechtley, KJ+, in prep.

QSO inactive

z=2, high mass: HST WFC3/IR, 19 QSOs, logMBH~9.5

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

QSOs = Major Merging?

COSMOS z<1: Cisternas, KJ+ 2011 (see also Kocevski+ 2012, Schawinski+ 2011/12)

AGN: >50% disks (massive end: open)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

QSOs = Major Merging?

Cisternas, KJ+ 2011 AGN Inactive galaxies Smooth Mildly distorted Strongly distorted

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

QSOs = Major Merging?

  • In brief:
  • z<2: many many disk host galaxies
  • z<1: <~25% of BH accretion due to merging
  • z~2: no merger triggering for lower-L half of BH accretion
slide-22
SLIDE 22

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

QSOs = Major Merging?

  • Further diagnostics:
  • Close pairs (Silverman+KJ+ 2011, Ellison+ 2011, Lackner+KJ+

2014)

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

QSOs = Major Merging?

COSMOS/HST: Silverman, Kampczyk, KJ+ 2011 AGN fraction Pair separation [kpc]

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

QSOs = Major Merging?

  • In brief:
  • z<2: many many disk host galaxies
  • z<1: <~25% of BH accretion due to merging
  • z~2: no merger triggering for lower-L half of BH accretion

→ Most of BH accretion not triggered by major merging

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

So? → QSO phase != morphology change phase → modelers?

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Q+Q Heidelberg, 15. July 2014 The QSO–morphology connection

Summary For AGN/QSOs...

  • ...the bulge is not (necessarily) an active

ingredient

→ if you still want this, find a first principle reason, please!

  • ...host galaxies are normal starforming galaxies

→ no AGN–starburst connection; avoid ULIRG–QSO picture

  • ...major merging is subdominant for AGN at z<2

→ so why is this still in models?