intrinsic properties of quasars: testing the standard paradigm

Intrinsic Properties of Quasars: Testing the Standard Paradigm

David TurnshekUniversity of Pittsburgh

Outline:Outline: OverviewOverview Models and ConstraintsModels and Constraints

Emphasis: ELR + BALR and work with SDSS dataEmphasis: ELR + BALR and work with SDSS data Model Testing (2.5D ADW Models)Model Testing (2.5D ADW Models)

Recent Collaborators:Recent Collaborators: Nicholas Pereyra Nicholas Pereyra modeling and variability modeling and variability Kyu-Hyun Chae Kyu-Hyun Chae gravitational lens constraints gravitational lens constraints Tim Hamilton Tim Hamilton HST imaging HST imaging John Hillier John Hillier modeling modeling Norm Murray Norm Murray consultant on modeling consultant on modeling Stan Owocki Stan Owocki modeling modeling Daniel Vanden Berk + SDSS collab Daniel Vanden Berk + SDSS collab SDSS data SDSS data

OverviewOverview Luminosities (10Luminosities (1044 44 – 10– 104646 ergs/s) + SEDs ergs/s) + SEDs

x-ray, UV, optical, IR, (10% radio)x-ray, UV, optical, IR, (10% radio)

AGN/QSO Typing AGN/QSO Typing lots of jargon lots of jargon (Sy1, NLSy1, Sy2); (RLQ, RQQ, BAL QSO); (OVV)(Sy1, NLSy1, Sy2); (RLQ, RQQ, BAL QSO); (OVV)

QSO Hosts QSO Hosts relation to normal galaxies relation to normal galaxies

Black Hole Mass Measurments:Black Hole Mass Measurments: normal galaxies normal galaxies M MBHBH correlated with both correlated with both

stellar velocity dispersion and bulge luminosity stellar velocity dispersion and bulge luminosity QSOs/AGN QSOs/AGN M MBHBH from (spatially unresolved) from (spatially unresolved)

reverberation size vs. Hreverberation size vs. H BEL width BEL width

SDSS QSO Colors vs SDSS QSO Colors vs RedshiftRedshift

Richards et al. 2002:

QSO selection:colors, x-ray RASS matches,radio FIRST matches.

QSO Host GalaxiesQSO Host GalaxiesBachall et al: HST shows QSO host galaxies are luminous

QSO Host GalaxiesQSO Host Galaxies Hamilton, Casertano, Turnshek 2002: Hamilton, Casertano, Turnshek 2002:

HST observations of 71 QSOs with z<0.46 HST observations of 71 QSOs with z<0.46

MMBH BH (Normal Galaxies)(Normal Galaxies)

MBH from spatially resolved velocity measurements versus stellar velocity dispersion

MBH from spatially resolved velocity measurements versus bulge mass

Ferrarese & Merritt 2000;Gebhardt et al 2000;Tremaine et al 2002:

Magorrian et al 1998;Haring & Rix 2004:

MMBH BH (QSOs/AGN)(QSOs/AGN)

MBH virial mass from (spatially unresolved) reverberation mapping size scale and H velocity width; comparisons with Eddington Luminosity.

Peterson et al 2004:

MMBH BH (Normal Galaxies and (Normal Galaxies and

QSOs/AGN)QSOs/AGN)

MBH versus stellar velocity dispersion

Bulge absolute magnitude versus MBH

McLure & Dunlop 2002:Ferrarese et al 2001:

Models and ConstraintsModels and Constraints

QSOs QSOs Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969) Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969)

Early Work on ELR and BALR (Cloud Models of the BELR)Early Work on ELR and BALR (Cloud Models of the BELR)

Clues from Host Galaxy Type?Clues from Host Galaxy Type?

Unified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary ScenariosUnified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary Scenarios

ELR sizes from Reverberation MappingELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping

ELR sizes from Gravitational LensingELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing

Systematics + Constraints from SDSS SpectroscopySystematics + Constraints from SDSS Spectroscopy

Models and ConstraintsModels and Constraints

QSOs QSOs Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969) 1969)

Early Work on ELR and BALREarly Work on ELR and BALR(Cloud Models of the BELR)(Cloud Models of the BELR)

Clues from Host Galaxy Type?Clues from Host Galaxy Type?

Unified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary ScenariosUnified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary Scenarios

Models and ConstraintsModels and Constraints

Early Work (Cloud Models of BELR)Early Work (Cloud Models of BELR):: Absence of [OIII] BELAbsence of [OIII] BEL Presence of CIII] BELPresence of CIII] BEL Baldwin Effect Baldwin Effect Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 InterpretationSeyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 Interpretation BAL QSO InterpretationBAL QSO Interpretation

No Significant BELs from RLS (e.g. No Significant BELs from RLS (e.g. CIV)CIV)

Effect of Dust in BALR? Effect of Dust in BALR? Narrow-Line [OIII] InterpretationNarrow-Line [OIII] Interpretation

Basic Early Models Basic Early Models ConstraintsConstraints

Absence of [OIII] BELAbsence of [OIII] BEL electron densities > 10electron densities > 105 5 cmcm-3-3

Presence of CIII] BELPresence of CIII] BEL electron densities < 10electron densities < 1011 11 cmcm-3-3

Baldwin EffectBaldwin Effect inverse correlation: Luminosity versus BEL REWinverse correlation: Luminosity versus BEL REW

[OIII] BEL Absent – CIII] BEL Present[OIII] BEL Absent – CIII] BEL Present

Vanden Berk et al. 2002:

Baldwin EffectBaldwin EffectTurnshek 1997:

Models and ConstraintsModels and Constraints

Early Work (Cloud Models of BELR)Early Work (Cloud Models of BELR):: Absence of [OIII] BELAbsence of [OIII] BEL Presence of CIII] BELPresence of CIII] BEL Baldwin Effect Baldwin Effect Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 InterpretationSeyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 Interpretation BAL QSO Interpretation – covering factor?BAL QSO Interpretation – covering factor?

No Significant BELs from RLS (e.g. CIV)No Significant BELs from RLS (e.g. CIV) Effect of Dust in BALR? Effect of Dust in BALR?

Narrow-Line [OIII] InterpretationNarrow-Line [OIII] Interpretation

Importance of Viewing Importance of Viewing AngleAngle

Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2 See BELs in polarized (scattered) light of Seyfert 2!See BELs in polarized (scattered) light of Seyfert 2!

obscuring dusty torus (Antonucci & Miller 1985)obscuring dusty torus (Antonucci & Miller 1985)

must have viewing angle effects!must have viewing angle effects!

Importance of Viewing AngleImportance of Viewing AngleSeyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2Seyfert 1 vs. Seyfert 2

NGC 4261: Jaffe et al 1993

Broad Absorption Line Broad Absorption Line QSOsQSOs

BAL QSOsBAL QSOs (e.g. Turnshek et al 1980, 84, (e.g. Turnshek et al 1980, 84, 85)85) viewing angle or evolution?viewing angle or evolution?

CIV BEL not due to CIV BEL not due to RLS RLS often taken often taken as evidence that as evidence that BALR covering BALR covering factor small factor small

But if dust in But if dust in BALR? BALR? could could have larger BALR have larger BALR covering factor covering factor (RLS destroys (RLS destroys emission)emission)

Measuring BALR Measuring BALR AbundancesAbundances

Turnshek et al 1996: measure different ions of thesame element super solar abundance

(but need to be careful about continuum source coverage)

Maybe Viewing Angle Isn’tMaybe Viewing Angle Isn’tAlways Important!Always Important!

Narrow-Line [OIII] EmissionNarrow-Line [OIII] Emission Emission from this line should be isotropic Emission from this line should be isotropic

but some QSOs have weak [OIII] (esp. BAL QSOs)but some QSOs have weak [OIII] (esp. BAL QSOs)

(Boroson & Green 1992, Turnshek et al 1994, 97) (Boroson & Green 1992, Turnshek et al 1994, 97) suggests that BALR covering factors can be suggests that BALR covering factors can be largelarge

Evidence For Intrinsic DifferencesEvidence For Intrinsic DifferencesStrong-[OIII] vs. Weak-[OIII]Strong-[OIII] vs. Weak-[OIII]

Boroson 2002:

Models and ConstraintsModels and Constraints

QSOs QSOs Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell Black Hole Accretion (Lynden-Bell 1969) 1969)

Early Work on ELR and BALREarly Work on ELR and BALR(Cloud Models of the BELR)(Cloud Models of the BELR)

Clues from Host Galaxy TypeClues from Host Galaxy Type(Do Host Galaxies of BAL QSOs Look Different?) (Do Host Galaxies of BAL QSOs Look Different?) open open

question!question!

Unified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary ScenariosUnified Scenarios vs. Evolutionary Scenarios

Unified Model for QSOs/AGNUnified Model for QSOs/AGN

e.g. Elvis 2000:

Unified Model for QSOs/AGNUnified Model for QSOs/AGN

e.g. Elvis 2000:

Importance of Intrinsic Properties in Importance of Intrinsic Properties in QSOs/AGNQSOs/AGN

e.g. Boroson 2002:

Models and ConstraintsModels and Constraints

ELR sizes from Reverberation MappingELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping

(already discussed for black hole mass derivations)(already discussed for black hole mass derivations)

ELR sizes from Gravitational LensingELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing

Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Systematics + Constraints from SDSS SpectroscopySpectroscopy

ELR Sizes: Reverberation MappingELR Sizes: Reverberation Mapping

e.g. Peterson et al 2004:

Peak at 0 daysdue to noise.

Models and ConstraintsModels and Constraints

ELR sizes from Reverberation MappingELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping

ELR sizes from Gravitational LensingELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing

Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Systematics + Constraints from SDSS SpectroscopySpectroscopy

ELR Sizes: Gravitational LensingELR Sizes: Gravitational Lensing

Cloverleaf QSO Models: Chae & Turnshek (1999)

contours shown at: 40, 80, 160, 320, 640 pc

ELR Sizes: Gravitational LensingELR Sizes: Gravitational Lensing

Narrow-band difference image (Ly–minus continuum)

Models and ConstraintsModels and Constraints

ELR sizes from Reverberation MappingELR sizes from Reverberation Mapping

ELR sizes from Gravitational LensingELR sizes from Gravitational Lensing

Systematics + Constraints from SDSS Systematics + Constraints from SDSS SpectroscopySpectroscopy

SDSS Results – QSO CompositeSDSS Results – QSO Composite

Vanden Berk et al 2001:

SDSS Results – QSO Composite SDSS Results – QSO Composite SpectrumSpectrum

Vanden Berk et al 2001:

SDSS Results – EL Velocity ShiftsSDSS Results – EL Velocity ShiftsVanden Berk et al 2001:

SDSS Results – BEL Velocity ShiftsSDSS Results – BEL Velocity ShiftsRichards et al 2002:

SDSS Results – QSO “Types”SDSS Results – QSO “Types”

Reichard et al 2003:

SDSS Results – QSO “Types”SDSS Results – QSO “Types”

Reichard et al 2003:

SDSS Results – Low Ionization BAL QSOSDSS Results – Low Ionization BAL QSO

Reichard et al 2003:

SDSS Results – Low Ionization BAL QSOSDSS Results – Low Ionization BAL QSO

Reichard et al 2003:

SDSS Results – BAL VariationsSDSS Results – BAL Variations

Reichard et al 2003:

SDSS Results – QSO PCASDSS Results – QSO PCA

Yip et al 2004:

SDSS Results – QSO PCASDSS Results – QSO PCAYip et al 2004:

PCA benefits:

Reduce dimensionality

Link diverse(correlated)properties

Increase effective S/Nthrough analysisof large samples

SDSS Results – QSO & Galaxy PCASDSS Results – QSO & Galaxy PCA

Yip et al 2004:

Continuum Variability – SDSS Spectra:Continuum Variability – SDSS Spectra:A Method to Measure Black Hole MassA Method to Measure Black Hole Mass

Pereyra et al 2004:

T*~2Tdisk,maxRed: flux at minimumBlue: flux at maximum

Continuum Variability – SDSS SpectraContinuum Variability – SDSS Spectra

Pereyra et al 2004: Measuring Black Hole Mass

T* ~ 2Tdisk,max

(T*)4 ~ (Macc/MBH2)

.fOMacc

.

Aside (non-SDSS): Aside (non-SDSS): Continuum Variability – QSO TypeContinuum Variability – QSO Type

Sirola et al 1999: Testing Unified Models

Accretion Disk Wind Accretion Disk Wind ModelsModels

Murray et al 1995 1D ADW ModelMurray et al 1995 1D ADW Model Consistent with : BALs (x-ray weak), absence of Consistent with : BALs (x-ray weak), absence of

double-peaked BELs, reverberation mapping double-peaked BELs, reverberation mapping resultsresults

Need for 2.5DNeed for 2.5D

Proga versus Pereyra: see Pereyra et al 2004Proga versus Pereyra: see Pereyra et al 2004 Stability?Stability? Incorporation of Magnetic Fields?Incorporation of Magnetic Fields?

2.5D Model Calculations and Testing2.5D Model Calculations and Testing

2.5D 2.5D ADWADWModelModelss

Pereyra,Hillier,Murray,Owocki,Turnshek

2.5D 2.5D ADWADWModelModelss

Pereyra,Hillier,Murray,Owocki,Turnshek

2.5D 2.5D ADWADWModelModelss

Pereyra,Hillier,Murray,Owocki,Turnshek

2.5D ADW 2.5D ADW ModelsModels

Absorbing gas originates from a small range of radii, rotatingtornado-like (BEL widths comparable to Keplerian velocities,but with significant outflow component to velocity).Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek

Broad Absorption Line Broad Absorption Line QSOsQSOs

2.5D ADW 2.5D ADW ModelsModels

BALs flow is quasi-steady outflow.Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek

2.5D ADW 2.5D ADW ModelsModels

Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek

2.5D ADW 2.5D ADW ModelsModels

Pereyra, Hillier, Murray, Owocki, Turnshek

Left: oRight: disk obscuration at 9000 km/s(units of inner disk radii – deprojected)

ConclusionsConclusions

Unified Models of QSOs/AGN need to be further Unified Models of QSOs/AGN need to be further developed developed they can now be rigorously tested. they can now be rigorously tested.

2.5D Accretion Disk Wind Models (M2.5D Accretion Disk Wind Models (MBHBH, M, Maccacc, …) offer , …) offer a good starting point for this.a good starting point for this.

The wealth of information from the SDSS database, The wealth of information from the SDSS database, and other observations, offer unprecedented and other observations, offer unprecedented opportunities to test QSO/AGN models:opportunities to test QSO/AGN models: Can we explain the frequency distribution of QSO Can we explain the frequency distribution of QSO

properties (esp. EL velocity shifts + BAL types)?properties (esp. EL velocity shifts + BAL types)? Can we find a signature of orientation in Radio Quiet QSOs?Can we find a signature of orientation in Radio Quiet QSOs? Can we find good cases for measurement of metal Can we find good cases for measurement of metal

abundances?abundances?

.