1 / 58

Intrinsic Properties of Quasars: Testing the Standard Paradigm

Explore the models and constraints related to ELR and BALR in quasars, with emphasis on SDSS data and collaboration details. Discover the significance of black hole mass measurements in relation to normal galaxies and QSOs/AGN. Uncover clues from host galaxy types and intricate models shaping quasar behaviors.

keena
Download Presentation

Intrinsic Properties of Quasars: Testing the Standard Paradigm

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Intrinsic Properties of Quasars: Testing the Standard Paradigm David Turnshek University of Pittsburgh

  2. Outline: • Overview • Models and Constraints • Emphasis: ELR + BALR and work with SDSS data • Model Testing (2.5D ADW Models) • Recent Collaborators: • Nicholas Pereyra  modeling and variability • Kyu-Hyun Chae  gravitational lens constraints • Tim Hamilton  HST imaging • John Hillier  modeling • Norm Murray  consultant on modeling • Stan Owocki  modeling • Daniel Vanden Berk + SDSS collab  SDSS data

  3. Overview • Luminosities (1044 – 1046 ergs/s) + SEDs • x-ray, UV, optical, IR, (10% radio) • AGN/QSO Typing  lots of jargon • (Sy1, NLSy1, Sy2); (RLQ, RQQ, BAL QSO); (OVV) • QSO Hosts  relation to normal galaxies • Black Hole Mass Measurments: • normal galaxies  MBH correlated with both stellar velocity dispersion and bulge luminosity • QSOs/AGN  MBH from (spatially unresolved) reverberation size vs. Hb BEL width

  4. SDSS QSO Colors vs Redshift Richards et al. 2002: QSO selection: colors, x-ray RASS matches, radio FIRST matches.

  5. QSO Host Galaxies Bachall et al: HST shows QSO host galaxies are luminous

  6. QSO Host Galaxies • Hamilton, Casertano, Turnshek 2002: HST observations of 71 QSOs with z<0.46

  7. MBH (Normal Galaxies) Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al 2000; Tremaine et al 2002: Magorrian et al 1998; Haring & Rix 2004: MBH from spatially resolved velocity measurements versus stellar velocity dispersion MBH from spatially resolved velocity measurements versus bulge mass

  8. MBH (QSOs/AGN) Peterson et al 2004: MBH virial mass from (spatially unresolved) reverberation mapping size scale and Hb velocity width; comparisons with Eddington Luminosity.

  9. MBH (Normal Galaxies and QSOs/AGN) Ferrarese et al 2001: McLure & Dunlop 2002: MBH versus stellar velocity dispersion Bulge absolute magnitude versus MBH

  10. Models and Constraints • QSOs Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969) • Early Work on ELR and BALR (Cloud Models of the BELR) • Clues from Host Galaxy Type? • Unified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary Scenarios • ELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping • ELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing • Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy

  11. Models and Constraints • QSOs Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969) • Early Work on ELR and BALR (Cloud Models of the BELR) • Clues from Host Galaxy Type? • Unified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary Scenarios

  12. Models and Constraints • Early Work (Cloud Models of BELR): • Absence of [OIII] BEL • Presence of CIII] BEL • Baldwin Effect • Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 Interpretation • BAL QSO Interpretation • No Significant BELs from RLS (e.g. CIV) • Effect of Dust in BALR? • Narrow-Line [OIII] Interpretation

  13. Basic Early Models Constraints • Absence of [OIII] BEL •  electron densities > 105 cm-3 • Presence of CIII] BEL •  electron densities < 1011 cm-3 • Baldwin Effect •  inverse correlation: Luminosity versus BEL REW

  14. [OIII] BEL Absent – CIII] BEL Present Vanden Berk et al. 2002:

  15. Baldwin Effect Turnshek 1997:

  16. Models and Constraints • Early Work (Cloud Models of BELR): • Absence of [OIII] BEL • Presence of CIII] BEL • Baldwin Effect • Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 Interpretation • BAL QSO Interpretation – covering factor? • No Significant BELs from RLS (e.g. CIV) • Effect of Dust in BALR? • Narrow-Line [OIII] Interpretation

  17. Importance of Viewing Angle • Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 • See BELs in polarized (scattered) light of Seyfert 2!  obscuring dusty torus (Antonucci & Miller 1985)  must have viewing angle effects!

  18. Importance of Viewing AngleSeyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 NGC 4261: Jaffe et al 1993

  19. Broad Absorption Line QSOs • BAL QSOs(e.g. Turnshek et al 1980, 84, 85)  viewing angle or evolution? • CIV BEL not due to RLS  often taken as evidence that BALR covering factor small • But if dust in BALR?  could have larger BALR covering factor (RLS destroys emission)

  20. Measuring BALR Abundances Turnshek et al 1996: measure different ions of the same element  super solar abundance (but need to be careful about continuum source coverage)

  21. Maybe Viewing Angle Isn’tAlways Important! • Narrow-Line [OIII] Emission • Emission from this line should be isotropic  but some QSOs have weak [OIII] (esp. BAL QSOs) (Boroson & Green 1992, Turnshek et al 1994, 97)  suggests that BALR covering factors can be large

  22. Evidence For Intrinsic DifferencesStrong-[OIII] vs. Weak-[OIII] Boroson 2002:

  23. Models and Constraints • QSOs Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969) • Early Work on ELR and BALR (Cloud Models of the BELR) • Clues from Host Galaxy Type (Do Host Galaxies of BAL QSOs Look Different?)  open question! • Unified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary Scenarios

  24. Unified Model for QSOs/AGN e.g. Elvis 2000:

  25. Unified Model for QSOs/AGN e.g. Elvis 2000:

  26. Importance of Intrinsic Properties in QSOs/AGN e.g. Boroson 2002:

  27. Models and Constraints • ELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping (already discussed for black hole mass derivations) • ELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing • Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy

  28. ELR Sizes: Reverberation Mapping e.g. Peterson et al 2004:  Peak at 0 days due to noise.

  29. Models and Constraints • ELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping • ELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing • Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy

  30. ELR Sizes: Gravitational Lensing Cloverleaf QSO Models: Chae & Turnshek (1999) contours shown at: 40, 80, 160, 320, 640 pc

  31. ELR Sizes: Gravitational Lensing Narrow-band difference image (Lya – minus continuum)

  32. Models and Constraints • ELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping • ELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing • Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy

  33. SDSS Results – QSO Composite Vanden Berk et al 2001:

  34. SDSS Results – QSO Composite Spectrum Vanden Berk et al 2001:

  35. SDSS Results – EL Velocity Shifts Vanden Berk et al 2001:

  36. SDSS Results – BEL Velocity Shifts Richards et al 2002:

  37. SDSS Results – QSO “Types” Reichard et al 2003:

  38. SDSS Results – QSO “Types” Reichard et al 2003:

  39. SDSS Results – Low Ionization BAL QSO Reichard et al 2003:

  40. SDSS Results – Low Ionization BAL QSO Reichard et al 2003:

  41. SDSS Results – BAL Variations Reichard et al 2003:

  42. SDSS Results – QSO PCA Yip et al 2004:

  43. SDSS Results – QSO PCA Yip et al 2004: PCA benefits: Reduce dimensionality Link diverse (correlated) properties Increase effective S/N through analysis of large samples

  44. SDSS Results – QSO & Galaxy PCA Yip et al 2004:

  45. Continuum Variability – SDSS Spectra:A Method to Measure Black Hole Mass Pereyra et al 2004: Red: flux at minimum Blue: flux at maximum T*~2Tdisk,max

  46. Continuum Variability – SDSS Spectra Pereyra et al 2004: Measuring Black Hole Mass . DfOl  Macc . (T*)4 ~ (Macc/MBH2) T* ~ 2Tdisk,max

  47. Aside (non-SDSS): Continuum Variability – QSO Type Sirola et al 1999: Testing Unified Models

  48. Accretion Disk Wind Models • Murray et al 1995 1D ADW Model • Consistent with : BALs (x-ray weak), absence of double-peaked BELs, reverberation mapping results • Need for 2.5D • Proga versus Pereyra: see Pereyra et al 2004 • Stability? • Incorporation of Magnetic Fields? • 2.5D Model Calculations and Testing

  49. 2.5D ADWModels Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek

  50. 2.5D ADWModels Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek

More Related