Exploring Supermassive BH growth with ALMA & TMT...Black Hole BH Galactic bulge Galactic disk v t L...
Transcript of Exploring Supermassive BH growth with ALMA & TMT...Black Hole BH Galactic bulge Galactic disk v t L...
Exploring Supermassive BH growth with ALMA & TMT
Nozomu Kawakatu (Univ. of Tsukuba⇒Kure National College of Technology)
Collaborator: Keiichi Wada (Kagoshima University)
ALMA時代の宇宙構造形成理論研究会@北海道大学 (1/26-1/28)
A Scenario of SMBH Formation (e.g., Rees Diagram 1984)
2~ 10BH,seedM M
4 5~ 10BH,seedM M−
e.g, Omukai+2008, Inayoshi & Omukai 2011
e.g., Yoshida 2006;Hosokawa+2011
Greene 2012
7
9
10
10BH
BH
M MM M
=
⇒ =
Mainly gas accretion X-ray/optical observations
Gas accretion and/or
BH mergers
710BH,seed BHM M M⇒ =
No constrain from observations
e.g., Tanikawa & Umemura 2011
Accretion disk (< sub-pc)
Ohsuga+09
Slim disk (L/LE >1)
Standard disk (L/LE <1)
RIAF (L/LE <<1)
Three accretion mode
Super-Eddington can be possible since both the radiation field and mass inflow around BH is non-spherical. Q. Does super-Eddington phase last for long times ? Large perturbation is required for super-Eddigton flow.
e.g., Saitoh & Wada 2004; Saitoh+2010, Matsui+2012
Evolution
Tidal torque driven by major mergers
Host galaxy ( > kpc)
The accumulated gas cannot directly accrete onto BHs.
©4D2U (Saitoh-san)
・Disk has complicated internal structure and velocity fields is turbulent-like. ・Global shape is determined by energy balance between turbulent dissipation and SN heating under the influence of the central massive black hole. ・The mechanism to transport the angular momentum is the turbulent viscosity.
64 pc density
(Wada & Norman 02, Wada +09, Wada 12) pc Starburst driven “torus” around SMBH (~100pc)
Circumuclear disk
rin (~ 1 pc) rout (~ 50 pc)
Host galaxy gMBHM
Black Hole
BH
Galactic bulge Galactic disk
tv
AGNLaccM
Modeling growth of SMBH and circumnuclear disk
Gas accretion driven by turbulent viscosity
NK & Wada 2008, ApJ, 681, 73 100pc ⇒1pc
fueling from host galaxy
( )sup
sup
M tt
“Turbulent pressure-supported” circumnuclear disk
)1()()()()()( 2 rhrgrrvr gtg ρ=ρ
)2()()()(
*
2
SNdis
tg ErSt
rvrη≈
ρ
Energy balance (Turbulent Energy dissipation =Energy input from SNe)
Hydrodynamical equilibrium (Turbulent pressure = gravity in vertical direction)
h
CND
tv
tv :turbulent velocity h: scale height of disk
:SNE
)()( ** rCrS gρ=
total energy (1051 erg) injected by an SN
:star formation rate per unit volume
gρ :gas density
SMBH
:η heating efficiency
(1)+(2) ⇒ turbulent velocity and scale height
(see also Wada & Norman 02; Vollmer & Beckert 03; Vollmer +08; Collin & Zhan 08)
gravity
( )( ) 2 ( )BH g ln
ln td rM r r
d rπν Ω
= Σ
t SN tv hν α= :viscous parameter
gg 2 ρh=Σ :surface density of gaseous matter Ω :angular velocity
Gas accretion rate in a turbulent nuclear disk
17
33
* *,( ) 3 ( ) 0.13 [ ]inBH in SN SN g in SN,1 in,3
Bg,1 7
HBH, yrrM r E C r r
MC MM
Gπα η α −
−
= Σ =
Σ /
Eddington mass accretion rate 2
2 2 10 [ / ]EddEdd BH,7 yrLM M M
c−≡ = ×
Gcrr
πκ s
crit)()( =Σ :epicyclic frequency )(rκ
Critical mass accretion rate
*, 70.01 [ ]crit SN,1 s,1 yrM c MCα −⇒
/Minimum accretion rate for turbulent nuclear disk
Toomre’s stability criterion
Result 1: Mass accretion rate vs. Black hole mass
110
23 10−×
Slim disk Super-Ediington
RIAF
Standard disk
5 2 6 1*10 , 10g pc yrM C− − −Σ = =
4 2 7 1*10 , 10g pc yrM C− − −Σ = =
3 2 7 1*10 , 10g pc yrM C− − −Σ = =
*( ) &g inr CΣ
critM
/ EddM M
NLS1 (red dots) s & BLS1s Collin & Kawaguchi 2004
*( ) &g inr CΣ
Prediction (red lines)
Comparison with observations: 1
max ~ 3M M
1BH BHM M −∝
Result 2: Eddington ratio vs. Black hole mass
*( ) &g inr CΣ
*2/ ( )Edd g in BHL L C r M −∝ Σ
Super-Ediington
Critical
Critical
5 2 6 1*10 , 10g pc yrM C− − −Σ = =
4 2 7 1*10 , 10g pc yrM C− − −Σ = =
3 2 7 1*10 , 10g pc yrM C− − −Σ = =
Nobuta, Akiyama+2012
Prediction (red lines)
*( ) &g inr CΣ
Super-Ediington
SDSS
BLAGNs @z~2
Comparison with observations: 2
2/ Edd BHL L M −∝
~ Short Summary~ • Mass accretion rate due to turbulent viscosity Larger SFE & higher surface density ⇒ higher mass accretion rate • Super-Eddington flow is common even in CND scale (~pc), if BH mass is small enough, i.e., MBH <107M . • CNDs with higher surface density ⇒ More massive SMBH Theory: Size, Mass & SFE of CND (<100pc) are key properties. Observation: Eddington ratio (or mass accretion rate onto BHs) vs. dependence of Surface density &SFE “ALMA (cold gas) & TMT (star)”
1* ( )BH g in BHM C r M −∝ Σ
tdtMtMtMtMt
′′−′−′= ∫0)]()()([)( BH*supg
Mass conservation (without mass loss from CNDs due to starburst wind)
Evolution of SMBH and CND
( )sup
sup
M tt
)(tMg
CND
)(BH tM
)(tMBH time
Mass supply rate (step function)
supM
tsup
:Gas mass
)(tM*
SFR
rin :dust sublimation radius
Angular momentum transfer due to turbulent viscosity
( ) ( , )BH acc in tM t M r t v= ∝
1/2(t t SFR)v hν ≈ ∝“viscous parameter”
h tv
SMBH
High -accretion phase
Toomre Q < 1
turbulent pressure supported thick disk
Low-accretion phase
Toomre Q > 1
gas pressure supported thin disk
*MsupM
BHMHigh-accretion
phase Low-accretion
phase
The growth of SMBHs is changed from high accretion phase to low one.
MM 8sup 10= 18
* 103, −−×= yrC
supt
The growth rate of SMBH and SFR
Observable properties of Proto-QSOs
CND+MBH
Bulge
evolution
Massive CNDs
Massive CNDs
critg⇒ Σ < Σ8sup 10 MM ≤
10g BHM M >
7sup 10 MM = 810 M
910 M1010 M
Discussion: Host morphology vs. CND property Hypothesis: (i) Major merger driven accretion in bulge dominated galaxies ⇒ “Compact & massive CNDs ⇒Massive SMBHs” (ii) Bar driven accretion in disk dominated galaxies ⇒ “Extended & less massive CNDs ⇒ less Massive SMBHs”
critM
“ALMA issue “
(i)
(ii) Saitoh+, Matsui+
Baba+, Namekata+
Bulge dominated galaxies (Magorrian relation)
Disk dominated galaxies
Greene 2012
Conclusions • Mass accretion rate due to turbulent viscosity Larger SFE & higher surface density ⇒ higher mass accretion rate • Super-Eddington flow is common even in CND scale (~pc), if BH mass is small enough, i.e., MBH <107M . • CNDs with higher surface density ⇒ More massive SMBH • Proto-QSOs : massive CNDs, i.e, Theory: - Size, Mass & SFE of CNDs are key properties. - CND formation via major merger driven/bar driven accretion - Enoki-san’s SA model including KW model Observation: - Eddington ratio vs. dependence of CND properties (surface density &SFE) - CND properties (surface density & SFE) vs. Host morphologies “ALMA (cold gas) & TMT (star)”
1* ( )BH g in BHM C r M −∝ Σ
10g BHM M >
z
Φ
[ Mpc
-3 m
ag-1
]
model (M1450) -22 -23 -24 -25
obs. (M1450) -22 -23 -24 -25
2SLAQ & SDSS COSMOS GOODS
0 1 2 3 4 510-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
Discussion: SA model vs. Observational data
< Overestimate > - Some fraction of gas supplied from hosts turns to stars,
but this effect is more efficient for massive BHs. - Msup (gas)/MBH is getting smaller at lower z.
Enoki+2013