Outline AGN Feedback - inaf iasf bologna

AGN Feedback
Massimo Cappi
INAF/IASF-Bologna
Outline
Ø
Ø
Ø
Framework – Open Issues
Modes of AGN Feedback
Athena’s contribution(s)
In collaboration with, and with contributions from:
M.Giustini, F. Tombesi, G. Lanzuisi, M. Dadina, C. Vignali, A. Fabian, G. Chartas,
J. Reeves, V. Braito, and the Athena’s Science Team

Athena’s overall science case
(studying the Extremes of the Universe: from Black Holes to Large-scale structure)
A new fundamental
“field” of astrophysics

Framework (i/iv): Co-evolution of galaxies
First unexpected “revolution” in extragal. astrophysics: not only most (all?)
galaxies have SMBHs (MDOs) in their centers, these also correlate with bulge properties
Kormendy & Richstone, 1995, ARA&A

Framework (ii/iv): Feedback in the co-evolution of galaxies
⇒ evidence for feedback mechanism between SMBH(AGN) and its’ host galaxy?
Magorrian et al. '98; Tremaine '02; Gebhardt '02...etc M bh
~ б 4
(see e.g. King and Pounds '03, Crenshaw, Kraemer & George '03, ARA&A)

Framework (iii/iv): (P)re-heating of groups and clusters of galaxies
Second unexpected “revolution” in extragal. astrophysics: need preheating to recover L-T relations & cooling
flows extra-heating ⇒ Energy feedback from AGNs/QSOs in groups&clusters?
No. 1, 2003 X-RAY CONSTRAINTS ON CLUSTER COOLING FLOWS 217
Grav. scaling
With SN
preheating
With AGN
pre-heating
Lapi, Cavaliere & Menci, ‘05
With QSO
ejection/outflows
2002), as has been discussed for the case of NGC 4636 by
Xu et al. (2002) and Capella by Behar, Cottam, & Kahn
(2001).
The differential luminosity distribution for all clusters is
plotted in Figure 6. The luminosity is normalized with
respect to the prediction from the isobaric radiative multiphase
model using equation (1) and _M from Table 4. The
presence of points above the dotted line is not unexpected,
since these can result from the background uncooled hot
plasma. This can also result from the ambiguity in defining
adistinctcoolingradius.However,thedatashouldclosely
Fig. 4.—Continued
Peterson et al. ’03
track the line y ¼ 1 at lower temperatures, if the coolingflow
model is correct. Many upper limits, however, are well
below that line at temperatures near one-third of the background
temperatures. As can be seen, the well-measured
clusters show clear deviations from isothermality, with significant
plasma existing down to one-quarter of the background
temperature. In Figure 7, we plot the same results
with the horizontal axis now scaled to the background temperature.
Here the discrepancies from the cooling-flow prediction
look more systematic. In particular, the differential
luminosity distribution appears to be roughly consistent
Perseus Cluster
Fabian et al. ‘05

Framework (iv/iv): MBH vs SFR, most (important) “action” was at z~2-3
QSO space density
SFR space density
Wall et al. ‘05
Madau et al. ‘96

Athena will address all (4) “modes” of feedback
1. Mechanical/kinetic feedback: relativistic, collimated, radiatively bright, radio jets
Hydra A
Heat the IGM and the ICM, quench the cooling
flow in rich Clusters of Galaxies (and groups?)
e.g. Fabian et al. ‘09, Sanders et al. ‘09
But jets involve only ~10% of AGN, and are highly collimated:
low global impact for AGN with L/L Edd > 0.01 e.g., Ciotti et al. ‘09
2. Mechanical/kinetic feedback: non-relativistic, wide angle, radiatively dark, massive winds/outflow
May be present in most, if not all, AGNs (not only RL…but also RQs);
Warm absorbers, Ultra Fast Outflows, etc.
e.g., Silk & Rees ‘98; Begelman ‘03;
Crenshaw, et al., ‘03, ARAA; Gaspari et al., ‘11, ’12
3. Radiative feedback:
3C 273
€
•
( )
L acc
= η M acc
c 2
Able to quench the star formation and the cooling flow at the center of elliptical galaxies
e.g. Ciotti & Ostriker ‘01, Sazonov et al. ‘05
But (maybe) not enough to reproduce the M BH -б relation e.g., Ciotti et al. ‘09
4. Feedback from wide-angle starburst -driven superwinds:
Starburst-driven superwinds/Galactic fountains
How much relevant for feedback?
e.g., Cox et al. ‘07

Athena: i) a unique spectroscopic machine
XMS/(RGS and HETG)
XMS/pn (XMM)
XMS/SXS (Astro-H)

Athena: ii) a unique “integral-field” spectroscopic machine
chemical enrichment, supernova remnants, etc.)

Cosmic Feedback: 1. From relativistic Jets, in clusters and groups
Measurement of bulk velocities and line broadening in cool core regions of clusters
where feedback is observed directly, revealing how the AGN couples to the
intracluster gas, the energy content and timescale.
(Spatially-resolved XMS spectra)

Cosmic Feedback: 2. From wide-angle AGN outflows/winds
Do detailed modeling and probe the outflow dynamics in brightest AGNs
(to constrain geometry and location, hence energetics)
(via Detailed and time-resolved XMS spectra)
First probes of absorption line profiles (P-Cygni?)
Probe of flow dynamics on short time-scales
Important to probe unambiguously the geometry and location of
the outflow, and therefore the total mass outflow and the kinetic
power associated to AGN feedback.

AGN Winds/outflows theoretical interpretation(s): Still an open issue
Radiation driven
Magnetic driving
UV Line Driving: effective if the wind is shielded against the
central ionizing continuum (Murray et al. 1995)
A “shield” of highly dense gas naturally
arises in state-of-the-art hydrodynamical
simulations of highly accreting AGN
(Proga et al. 2000, 2004)
No need for shielding
(e.g. Konigl & Kartje 1994, Everett 2005, Porth
& Fendt 2009, Fukumura et al. 2010)
Hybrid Models
e.g. launched by magnetic pressure, accelerated
by radiation pressure
(Everett, Konigl & Kartje 2001)

Cosmic Feedback: 2. From wide-angle AGN outflows/winds
Characterise their properties up to z=2
(thanks to unique throughput XMS+WFI spectra)
ATHENA Calorimeter
APM 08279+5255, texp = 40ks
100 ks 30 ks 10 ks
BAL QSO @ z=3.91
Rate (cnts s −1 keV −1 )
0.05 0.1 0.2
Fe XXV Heα (v 1 )
Fe XXVI Lyα (v 1 )
1 2
Observed−Frame Energy (keV)
Fe XXVHeβ (v 1 )
Fe XXVHeα (v 2 )
Minimum 2-10 keV flux to
constrain (N W , ξ) within (20%, 10%)
in a 100 ks observation
Characterize the outflow properties (N w , ξ, υ out ) in
QSOs up to z=2; i.e. quantify AGN mechanical
feedback at z=2.

Cosmic Feedback: 3. Radiative feedback
Estimate importance of radiative feedback via census of supermassive black
holes across cosmic time and evolution of absorption
(Deep, and wide area surveys with WFI)
Sey2
NGC5252
OIII cones
Tadhunter & Tsvetanov, Nature, ‘89;
Wilson & Tsvetanov, ‘94
Cappi et al. ‘95

Cosmic Feedback: 3. Radiative feedback and SMBH black hole growth
Main motivation to reach 5” PSF goal is to
increase the number of z>6 QSOs
(Wide, medium and deep WFI surveys)
SMBH growth mode via spin distribution
(Detailed XMS+WFI spectra of
~80 nearby AGN)
Model from Berti & Volonteri ‘08

Cosmic Feedback: 4. From wide-angle starburst-driven superwinds
Measure gas, metal and energy feedback from
starburst galaxies
(Detailed and spatially-resolved XMS spectra)
o
Starburst Galaxy
M82

Strawman (simulated total observing program)

Conclusions
ü Athena will address broad science case (from BHs
to LSS), but feedback is core science for Athena
ü It is “the” (killer) mission to study all possible
“modes” of AGN/SB feedbacks, i.e.:
ü Study AGN feedback in groups and clusters (and
solve the L-T relation and cooling-flow problems)
ü Study AGN feedback in galaxies (and understand
origin of M-sigma relation)
ü Study of SB-driven feedback (quantify metal
enrichment in and out of ISM)

Thank you very much for
your attention
The SVM and FMS elements will be covered by multi-layer insulation (MLI) in order to minimise the
temperature gradients (Figure 5.5). The thermal analysis indicated that, with a modest heater power, it is
possible to maintain the inner surfaces at a temperature close to ambient, with modest gradients between
the Sun (+X) and the anti-Sun (-X) sides.
Sign up as an Athena supporter here:
https://lists.mpe.mpg.de/mailman/listinfo/athena-supporters
The electrical power subsystem is based on a 50 V regulated bus and a set of Li-ion batteries, with triplejunction
GaAs solar arrays sized for a total power of ~5 kW. In the ESA design two conventional solar
arrays are attached to the SVM (Figure 5.5). Alternative solar array configurations exist (e.g. single large
solar array acting also as a Sun-shield or part of the total solar array area body-mounted on the FMS). The

The “classic” X-ray view: Warm Absorbers in nearby AGNs
ASCA
50% of all Sey 1s exhibit WAs
Many details from Chandra/XMM gratings
NGC3783 Exp=900 ks
Fabian, et al. ’94
Otani, ’95, PhD
Reynolds et al. '97
Georges et al. '97
Kaspi et al. '01; Netzer et al. '02;
Georges et al. '03; Krongold et al. ‘03
⇒ Clear now that often multiple ionization & kinetic components
(from Optical, UV and soft X): outflows with v~100-1000 km/s
Blustin et al. 2004

The “classic” X-ray view: Warm Aborbers in nearby QSOs
WAs present in ~50% of PG QSOs contrary
to older measurements of 5-10%
Porquet et al. 2004
Piconcelli et al. 2005

The “new” X-ray view: Blue-shifted absorption lines/edges – High-v, High-ξ
New and unexpected results from Chandra and XMM-Newton observations
PG1211+143 (z=0.08) v~0.1c
2 Energy (keV) 5 7 10
Pounds et al. 2003a,b
PDS456 (z=0.18) v~0.1c
(If) interpreted as Kα resonant
absorption by Fe XXV (6.70 keV)
or FeXXVI (6.96 keV)
2 Energy (keV) 5 7 10
Reeves et al. 2003
è massive, high velocity and highly ionized outflows in several RQ AGNs
Mass outflow rate: comparable to Edd. Acc. rate (~M ◉
/yr); velocity ~0.1-0.2 c

The “new” X-ray view: Variability of a few PG QSOs
15 UV *AL QSOs with 32 XMM exposures
Δt=4 yrs
Δt=6 months
on time scales of years
on time scales of months
Δt=3 days
Δt=10 ks
on time scales of days
See Giustini’s talk, Giustini+11,
and Giustini et al., in prep
on time scales of hours
Compact absorbers

The “new” X-ray view: Blue-shifted absorption lines/edges – in High-z QSOs
Massive outflows…also (mostly?) at high redshift
2 high-z BAL QSOs
PG 1115+080 (z=1.72) v~0.1-0.3c
Chartas et al. 2002,
Hasinger, Schartel & Komossa 2002
APM 08279+5255 (z=3.91) v~0.2-0.4c
MOS
PN
Chartas, Brandt & Gallagher, 2003
See also Wang et al. ’05 (v=0.8c in qso@z=2.6)
N.B.: Would have been undetected at z=0...

HS 1700+6416 (z=2.735)
NAL Quasar
2000 obs
Chandra results
Nw>4x10 23 cm -2 ,
Logcξ>3.3
V~0.2-0.4c
2007 obs
UFOs in high-z QSOs
But how many?
Lanzuisi et al., 2011, in prep.; see poster G29

The “new” X-ray view: Variability of a mini-BAL QSO
z=0.06
l The longest X-ray look ever at a mini-BAL QSO
Giustini et al., ‘11, submitted
l Moderately ionized absorber
l
l
l
N W ~ 8 x 10 22 cm -2 , log ~ 1.5 erg cm s -1
l Highly ionized outflowing absorber
N W ~ 8 x 10 23 cm -2 , log ~ 3.5 erg cm s -1
out (X) ~ 0.055 c ~ 3 ut (UV)
l Typical intrinsic continuum, ~2
l Secondary soft component: ~2.5, f scatt ~2-3%
l Variability over time scales of months:
variable continuum and moderately ionized
absorber
l Variable ox
l Variability over time scales of hours:
variable continuum and highly
ionized absorber
START TO PROBE THE DYNAMICS
OF THE INNER ACCRETION/
EJECTION FLOW!
l
l l l l l
7A
7B
8

Data Interpretation:
Yes indeed…one expects (mostly/only) strong Fe line absorptions
when accounting for proper wind geometries and physics
Sim et al., 2008

Future: XMS absorption spectroscopy
Absorption spectroscopy with calorimeter resolution
from 0.1 keV up to 8-10 keV will revolutionize the field
First probes of absorption line profiles (P-Cygni?)
Probe of flow dynamics on short time-scales
Important to probe unambiguously the geometry and location of
the outflow, and therefore the total mass outflow and the kinetic
power associated to AGN feedback.