Feedback from Stars & Black Holes in Galaxy Formation
Feedback from Stars & Black Holes in Galaxy Formation
Feedback from Stars & Black Holes in Galaxy Formation
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Feedback</strong> <strong>from</strong> <strong>Stars</strong> & <strong>Black</strong> <strong>Holes</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>Galaxy</strong> <strong>Formation</strong><br />
Philip Hopk<strong>in</strong>s<br />
Eliot Quataert, Norm Murray,<br />
Lars Hernquist, Todd Thompson, Dusan Keres, Chris Hayward, Stijn Wuyts,<br />
Kev<strong>in</strong> Bundy, Desika Narayanan, Ryan Hickox, Rachel Somerville, & more<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Q: WHY IS STAR FORMATION SO INEFFICIENT?<br />
Moster 2009<br />
Log( Stellar/Halo Mass )<br />
10% of baryons<br />
Log( Halo Mass )<br />
Log SFR<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
Log<br />
Kennicutt 1998<br />
gas / dyn
A: Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong>!<br />
SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?<br />
“Disk” with thermal feedback<br />
Ø<br />
Standard (<strong>in</strong> <strong>Galaxy</strong> <strong>Formation</strong>):<br />
Couple SNe energy<br />
as “heat<strong>in</strong>g”/thermal energy<br />
Ø<br />
⇣ n<br />
⌘ 1<br />
t cool ⇠ 4000 yr<br />
cm 3<br />
⇣ n<br />
⌘ 1/2<br />
t dyn ⇠ 10 8 yr<br />
cm 3<br />
FAILS:<br />
Ø<br />
“Cheat”:<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Turn off cool<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Force w<strong>in</strong>d by hand<br />
(‘kick’ out of galaxy)<br />
No <strong>Feedback</strong><br />
Piontek & Ste<strong>in</strong>metz<br />
SNe Heat<strong>in</strong>g Alone<br />
Cool<strong>in</strong>g Turned Off<br />
make really ~1<br />
m<strong>in</strong><br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong>: How Can We Do Better?<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
ESA
Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong>: How Can We Do Better?<br />
Ø<br />
High-resolution (~1pc), molecular cool<strong>in</strong>g (1000 cm -3 )<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
ESA
Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong>: How Can We Do Better?<br />
Ø<br />
High-resolution (~1pc), molecular cool<strong>in</strong>g (1000 cm -3 )<br />
Ø<br />
Heat<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
SNe (II & Ia)<br />
Stellar W<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
Photoionization (HII Regions)<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
ESA
Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong>: How Can We Do Better?<br />
Ø<br />
High-resolution (~1pc), molecular cool<strong>in</strong>g (1000 cm -3 )<br />
Ø<br />
Heat<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
SNe (II & Ia)<br />
Stellar W<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
Photoionization (HII Regions)<br />
Ø<br />
Explicit Momentum Flux:<br />
Ø<br />
Radiation Pressure<br />
˙ P rad ⇠ L c (1 + IR)<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
SNe<br />
˙ P SNe ⇠ ĖSNe v 1<br />
ejecta<br />
Stellar W<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
˙ P W ⇠<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
Ṁv w<strong>in</strong>d<br />
ESA
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Hopk<strong>in</strong>s, Quataert, & Murray, <strong>in</strong> prep<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
NGC 1097 (Spitzer)<br />
Hopk<strong>in</strong>s, Quataert, & Murray, <strong>in</strong> prep<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Genzel+ 2011<br />
Hopk<strong>in</strong>s, Quataert, & Murray, <strong>in</strong> prep<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong> gives Self-Regulated Star <strong>Formation</strong><br />
Massive High-z Disk<br />
Dwarf Starburst<br />
no feedback<br />
with feedback<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong> gives Self-Regulated Star <strong>Formation</strong><br />
Massive High-z Disk<br />
Dwarf Starburst<br />
no radiation<br />
pressure<br />
no feedback<br />
with feedback<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong> gives Self-Regulated Star <strong>Formation</strong><br />
Massive High-z Disk<br />
Dwarf Starburst<br />
no<br />
no<br />
radiation<br />
SNe or<br />
pressure<br />
stellar w<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
no feedback<br />
with feedback<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong> gives Self-Regulated Star <strong>Formation</strong><br />
Massive High-z Disk<br />
Dwarf Starburst<br />
no<br />
no<br />
radiation<br />
SNe or<br />
pressure<br />
stellar w<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
no feedback<br />
with feedback<br />
No HII<br />
Photoheat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong> & Self-Regulation<br />
WHICH MECHANISMS MATTER?<br />
Ø<br />
SFR ~ 100+ M sun /yr<br />
(L ~ L EDD )<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
Ø Optically thick Ø ~ 100 cm -3<br />
T cool ~ 1000 yr
Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong> & Self-Regulation<br />
WHICH MECHANISMS MATTER?<br />
Ø<br />
SFR ~ 0.01 M sun /yr<br />
(L
Kennicutt-Schmidt relation emerges naturally<br />
no feedback<br />
with feedback<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Kennicutt-Schmidt relation emerges naturally<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Kennicutt-Schmidt relation emerges naturally<br />
Ø Efficient cool<strong>in</strong>g the gas disk dissipates its support:<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Kennicutt-Schmidt relation emerges naturally<br />
Ø Efficient cool<strong>in</strong>g the gas disk dissipates its support:<br />
P˙<br />
diss ⇠ M gas v turb<br />
t cross<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Kennicutt-Schmidt relation emerges naturally<br />
Ø Efficient cool<strong>in</strong>g the gas disk dissipates its support:<br />
P˙<br />
diss ⇠ M gas v turb<br />
⇠ M gas disk ⌦<br />
t cross<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Kennicutt-Schmidt relation emerges naturally<br />
Ø Efficient cool<strong>in</strong>g the gas disk dissipates its support:<br />
P˙<br />
diss ⇠ M gas v turb<br />
⇠ M gas disk ⌦<br />
t cross<strong>in</strong>g<br />
set by global properties:<br />
Q ⌘<br />
⌦<br />
⇡G⌃<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Kennicutt-Schmidt relation emerges naturally<br />
Ø Efficient cool<strong>in</strong>g the gas disk dissipates its support:<br />
P˙<br />
diss ⇠ M gas v turb<br />
⇠ M gas disk ⌦<br />
t cross<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Ø<br />
Collapse stops when momentum <strong>in</strong>put <strong>from</strong> feedback:<br />
set by global properties:<br />
Q ⌘<br />
⌦<br />
⇡G⌃<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Kennicutt-Schmidt relation emerges naturally<br />
Ø Efficient cool<strong>in</strong>g the gas disk dissipates its support:<br />
P˙<br />
diss ⇠ M gas v turb<br />
⇠ M gas disk ⌦<br />
t cross<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Ø<br />
Collapse stops when momentum <strong>in</strong>put <strong>from</strong> feedback:<br />
P˙<br />
⇤ ⇠ P ˙ diss<br />
set by global properties:<br />
Q ⌘<br />
⌦<br />
⇡G⌃<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Kennicutt-Schmidt relation emerges naturally<br />
Ø Efficient cool<strong>in</strong>g the gas disk dissipates its support:<br />
P˙<br />
diss ⇠ M gas v turb<br />
t cross<strong>in</strong>g<br />
⇠ M gas<br />
disk ⌦<br />
Ø<br />
Collapse stops when momentum <strong>in</strong>put <strong>from</strong> feedback:<br />
P˙<br />
⇤ ⇠ P ˙ diss<br />
set by global properties:<br />
Q ⌘<br />
⌦<br />
⇡G⌃<br />
P˙<br />
⇤ ⇠ few ⇥ L c ⇠ ✏ ⇤<br />
Ṁ⇤ c<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Kennicutt-Schmidt relation emerges naturally<br />
Ø Efficient cool<strong>in</strong>g the gas disk dissipates its support:<br />
P˙<br />
diss ⇠ M gas v turb<br />
t cross<strong>in</strong>g<br />
⇠ M gas<br />
disk ⌦<br />
Ø<br />
Collapse stops when momentum <strong>in</strong>put <strong>from</strong> feedback:<br />
P˙<br />
⇤ ⇠ P ˙ diss<br />
set by global properties:<br />
Q ⌘<br />
⌦<br />
⇡G⌃<br />
P˙<br />
⇤ ⇠ few ⇥ L c ⇠ ✏ ⇤<br />
˙⌃ ⇤ ⇠<br />
✓<br />
✏ ⇤ c<br />
◆<br />
Ṁ⇤ c<br />
⌃ gas ⌦ ⇠ 0.02 ⌃ gas ⌦<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Global Star <strong>Formation</strong> Rates are INDEPENDENT of High-Density SF Law<br />
Efficiency (SF per tdyn) Index (SFR ~ r n )<br />
SF Density Threshold<br />
Hopk<strong>in</strong>s, Quataert, & Murray 2011<br />
also Saitoh et al. 2008<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Global Star <strong>Formation</strong> Rates are INDEPENDENT of High-Density SF Law<br />
Efficiency (SF per tdyn) Index (SFR ~ r n )<br />
SF Density Threshold<br />
• Set by feedback (i.e. SFR) needed to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> marg<strong>in</strong>al stability<br />
Hopk<strong>in</strong>s, Quataert, & Murray 2011<br />
also Saitoh et al. 2008<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Molecular Chemistry doesn’t change th<strong>in</strong>gs above modest Metallicity<br />
MOLECULES ARE A TRACER<br />
No Chemistry (SF <strong>from</strong> all gas)<br />
SF <strong>from</strong> molecules only<br />
SF, cool<strong>in</strong>g track molecules<br />
see also Glover 2011<br />
SMC<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Molecular Chemistry doesn’t change th<strong>in</strong>gs above modest Metallicity<br />
MOLECULES ARE A TRACER<br />
No Chemistry (SF <strong>from</strong> all gas)<br />
SF <strong>from</strong> molecules only<br />
SF, cool<strong>in</strong>g track molecules<br />
see also Glover 2011<br />
SMC<br />
Ø<br />
Just need some cool<strong>in</strong>g channel: changes at Mgal < 10 6 Msun, Z
How Does Star <strong>Formation</strong> Self-Regulate?<br />
SELF-ADJUST THE MASS IN DENSE GAS<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
How Does Star <strong>Formation</strong> Self-Regulate?<br />
SELF-ADJUST THE MASS IN DENSE GAS<br />
Ø<br />
Need net momentum <strong>in</strong>jection dP/dt ~ L/c ~ SFR<br />
to cancel dissipation ~ Mgas sdisk W and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> Q~1<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
How Does Star <strong>Formation</strong> Self-Regulate?<br />
SELF-ADJUST THE MASS IN DENSE GAS<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Need net momentum <strong>in</strong>jection dP/dt ~ L/c ~ SFR<br />
to cancel dissipation ~ Mgas sdisk W and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> Q~1<br />
Not just top-down collapse<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Star <strong>Formation</strong> is <strong>Feedback</strong>-Regulated:<br />
MORE FEEDBACK = LESS STAR FORMATION<br />
MW<br />
“Normal” <strong>Feedback</strong> Strength<br />
1/3 <strong>Feedback</strong> Strength<br />
3x <strong>Feedback</strong> Strength<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Star <strong>Formation</strong> is <strong>Feedback</strong>-Regulated:<br />
MORE FEEDBACK = LESS STAR FORMATION<br />
MW<br />
“Normal” <strong>Feedback</strong> Strength<br />
1/3 <strong>Feedback</strong> Strength<br />
3x <strong>Feedback</strong> Strength<br />
1/3 Strength<br />
Normal Strength<br />
3x Strength<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Properties of GMCs<br />
DEPENDENCE ON FEEDBACK AND OTHER SCALINGS<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Properties of GMCs<br />
THINGS TO EXAMINE IN THE FUTURE...<br />
L<strong>in</strong>ewidth [km s -1 ]<br />
Sims<br />
Observed<br />
Number of GMCs<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
Galactic<br />
Super-W<strong>in</strong>ds
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
X-Rays
How Efficient Are Galactic Super-W<strong>in</strong>ds?<br />
AND WHAT MECHANISMS DRIVE THEM?<br />
Massive High-z Disk<br />
Dwarf Starburst<br />
with feedback<br />
no feedback<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
How Efficient Are Galactic Super-W<strong>in</strong>ds?<br />
AND WHAT MECHANISMS DRIVE THEM?<br />
Massive High-z Disk<br />
Dwarf Starburst<br />
with feedback<br />
no radiation<br />
pressure<br />
no feedback<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
How Efficient Are Galactic Super-W<strong>in</strong>ds?<br />
AND WHAT MECHANISMS DRIVE THEM?<br />
Massive High-z Disk<br />
Dwarf Starburst<br />
with feedback<br />
no SNe or<br />
stellar w<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
no radiation<br />
pressure<br />
no feedback<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
How Efficient Are Galactic Super-W<strong>in</strong>ds?<br />
AND WHAT MECHANISMS DRIVE THEM?<br />
Massive High-z Disk<br />
Dwarf Starburst<br />
with feedback<br />
no SNe or<br />
stellar w<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
no radiation<br />
pressure<br />
no feedback<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
How Efficient Are Galactic Super-W<strong>in</strong>ds?<br />
Yang+ 03<br />
Log( Stellar/Halo Mass )<br />
Log( Halo Mass )<br />
Ø<br />
Large mass-load<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
Ṁ w<strong>in</strong>d ⇡ 10 Ṁ⇤<br />
⇣<br />
V<br />
⌘ 1.1 ⇣<br />
c<br />
⌃<br />
⌘ 0.5<br />
gas<br />
100 km s 1 10 M pc 2<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
How Efficient Are Galactic Super-W<strong>in</strong>ds?<br />
Ø<br />
Large mass-load<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
Ṁ w<strong>in</strong>d ⇡ 10 Ṁ⇤<br />
⇣<br />
V<br />
⌘ 1.1 ⇣<br />
c<br />
⌃<br />
⌘ 0.5<br />
gas<br />
100 km s 1 10 M pc 2<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Future Directions<br />
WHAT CAN WE EXPLORE WITH MORE REALISTIC ISM/FEEDBACK MODELS?<br />
Ø<br />
Mergers:<br />
Ø<br />
Star cluster formation? Starburst environments?<br />
Ø<br />
AGN <strong>Feedback</strong>:<br />
Ø<br />
How does it couple to a multi-phase ISM?<br />
Ø<br />
Cosmological simulations:<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
“Zoom-<strong>in</strong>” disk formation simulations (D. Keres)<br />
Cosmological volume AMR: dwarf populations<br />
and mass function evolution (M. Kuhlen)<br />
Ø<br />
GMCs & ISM Structure:<br />
Ø<br />
<strong>Formation</strong> & destruction of GMCs, lifetimes,<br />
star formation efficiencies<br />
~30 sec<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
What About the AGN?
Ø<br />
Every massive galaxy hosts a<br />
supermassive black hole<br />
Ø<br />
Mass accreted <strong>in</strong> ~couple bright quasar phase(s)<br />
(Soltan, Salucci+, Trema<strong>in</strong>e+, Yu & Lu, PFH, Shankar, et al.)<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Scatter <strong>in</strong> the mass<br />
that “gets down<br />
to” MBH<br />
Gebhardt et al.<br />
Ferrarese et al.<br />
Har<strong>in</strong>g & Rix<br />
Trema<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Marconi & Hunt<br />
Scatter <strong>in</strong> M BH<br />
BHs must<br />
somehow<br />
self-regulate<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
PFH, Murray, & Thompson 2009
What can AGN <strong>Feedback</strong> Do For You?<br />
No <strong>Feedback</strong><br />
Oppenheimer & Dave<br />
Number Density<br />
No AGN FB<br />
Observed<br />
Observed<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Sharp color bimodality<br />
Lower<strong>in</strong>g mass of >M* galaxies<br />
Remov<strong>in</strong>g/heat<strong>in</strong>g gas <strong>in</strong> groups<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
What can AGN <strong>Feedback</strong> Do For You?<br />
Oppenheimer & Dave<br />
Number Density<br />
No AGN FB<br />
Observed<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Sharp color bimodality<br />
Lower<strong>in</strong>g mass of >M* galaxies<br />
Remov<strong>in</strong>g/heat<strong>in</strong>g gas <strong>in</strong> groups<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
“Transition”<br />
vs.<br />
“Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance”<br />
Ø<br />
“Quasar” mode (high mdot)<br />
Ø<br />
“Radio” mode (low mdot)<br />
Ø<br />
Move mass <strong>from</strong> Blue to Red?<br />
Ø<br />
Keep it Red<br />
Ø<br />
Rapid (~10 7 yr)<br />
Ø<br />
Long-lived (~Hubble time)<br />
Ø<br />
Small(er) scales (~pc-kpc)<br />
Ø<br />
Large (~halo) scales<br />
Ø<br />
Morphological Transformation<br />
Ø<br />
Subtle morphological change<br />
Ø<br />
Gas-rich/Dissipational Mergers?<br />
Ø<br />
Hot Halos & Dry Mergers<br />
Ø<br />
Regulates <strong>Black</strong> Hole Mass<br />
Ø<br />
Regulates <strong>Galaxy</strong> Mass<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
What Can Quasar <strong>Feedback</strong> Do?
<strong>Feedback</strong> Energy:<br />
SILK & REES ‘98<br />
L = r Ṁ BH c 2 ( r ⇠ 0.1)<br />
! E rad ⇠ 0.1 M BH c 2 ⇠ 10 61 erg<br />
(M BH ⇠ 10 8 M )<br />
E gal ⇠ M gal<br />
2 ⇠ (10 11 M ) (200 km/s) 2 ⇠ 10 59 erg<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
M-sigma Suggests Self-Regulated BH Growth<br />
PREVENTS RUNAWAY BLACK HOLE GROWTH<br />
<strong>Black</strong> hole growth<br />
without feedback<br />
with<br />
feedback<br />
Di Matteo et al. 2005<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Quasar Outflows: Heat<strong>in</strong>g Halo Gas<br />
SHUT DOWN COOLING AND/OR “SET UP” RADIO MODE<br />
McCarthy et al. 2010,11<br />
No <strong>Feedback</strong><br />
Cox et al. 2006<br />
Quasar<br />
<strong>Feedback</strong><br />
With Quasar<br />
No Quasar<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Expulsion of Gas Turns off Star <strong>Formation</strong><br />
ENSURES ELLIPTICALS ARE SUFFICIENTLY “RED & DEAD”?<br />
Spr<strong>in</strong>gel et al. 2005<br />
No AGN<br />
<strong>Feedback</strong><br />
With AGN<br />
<strong>Feedback</strong><br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
But Does Quasar Mode <strong>Feedback</strong> Exist?
Optical (<strong>Stars</strong>)<br />
NGC 5728<br />
OIII Ionization Cone<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Broad Absorption L<strong>in</strong>e Quasars<br />
Ø<br />
Preferentially <strong>in</strong> high-L quasars<br />
Ø Cover<strong>in</strong>g factor ~20%<br />
Ø<br />
~12 (16) objects now,<br />
10/12 confirmed:<br />
Ṁ w<strong>in</strong>d v & L AGN /c<br />
L w<strong>in</strong>d & 0.01 L AGN<br />
R w<strong>in</strong>d 1 20 kpc<br />
v 1000 km s 1<br />
Ṁ w<strong>in</strong>d 100 600 M yr 1<br />
Arav et al.<br />
Wampler et al. 1995<br />
Hamann et al. 2001<br />
de Kool et al. 2001&2<br />
Korista et al. 2008<br />
Moe et al. 2009<br />
Dunn et al. 2010<br />
Aoki et al. 2011<br />
Kaastra et al. 2011<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
“Broad w<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> Narrow L<strong>in</strong>es” <strong>in</strong> Type-2 (Narrow-L<strong>in</strong>e) Quasars<br />
Laor et al., Crenshaw et al.<br />
(lower-lum<strong>in</strong>osity, v ~ 100-400 km/s)<br />
Humphrey et al. 2010<br />
Green & Zakamska et al. 2011<br />
Shen et al. 2011 (Double-Peaked NLRs)<br />
Ṁ ⇠ 50<br />
1000 M /yr<br />
Ṁv⇠ 1 30 L AGN /c<br />
L w<strong>in</strong>d ⇠ 0.01 L AGN<br />
|DVBLUE|<br />
|DVRED|<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Molecular Outflows <strong>in</strong> AGN ULIRGs<br />
CO:<br />
Rupke & Veilleux 2005,2011<br />
Fischer et al. 2010 (Mrk 231)<br />
Feruglio et al. 2010 (Mrk 231)<br />
Alatalo et al. 2011 (NGC 1266)<br />
Molecular+Ionized Outflows:<br />
R w<strong>in</strong>d 1 4kpc<br />
kpc<br />
v>500 km s 1<br />
Ṁ w<strong>in</strong>d 1000 M yr 1<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Molecular Outflows <strong>in</strong> AGN ULIRGs<br />
Sturm et al. 2011:<br />
Ṁ ⇠ 100 1000 M /yr<br />
Ṁv⇠ 5 30 L AGN /c<br />
L w<strong>in</strong>d ⇠ 0.03 0.10L AGN<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
Where to now? How Do We Model This?
Step 1: Inflow<br />
Ø<br />
Beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g to directly follow <strong>in</strong>flow<br />
to sub-pc scales<br />
R < 0.1 pc:<br />
~ few M⊙ yr -1<br />
PFH & Quataert 2009,10,11<br />
Lev<strong>in</strong>e, Gned<strong>in</strong>, Kravtsov 09,10<br />
Mayer, Callegari, 09,10<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Step 1: Inflow<br />
Ø<br />
Beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g to directly follow <strong>in</strong>flow<br />
to sub-pc scales<br />
R < 0.1 pc:<br />
~ few M⊙ yr -1<br />
PFH & Quataert 2009,10,11<br />
Lev<strong>in</strong>e, Gned<strong>in</strong>, Kravtsov 09,10<br />
Mayer, Callegari, 09,10<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Bars w/<strong>in</strong> Bars<br />
(Shlosman et al. 1989)<br />
(PFH & Quataert 2010)<br />
“It’s Bars all the Way Down ...”<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Bars w/<strong>in</strong> Bars<br />
(Shlosman et al. 1989)<br />
(PFH & Quataert 2010)<br />
“It’s Bars all the Way Down ...”<br />
Derive ‘Instability’ Rate:<br />
Ṁ 10 M yr 1 Disk<br />
Total<br />
5/2<br />
1/6 M<br />
BH, 8 M gas, 9 R 3/2<br />
0,100<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
(PFH & Quataert 2010)<br />
Bars w/<strong>in</strong> Bars<br />
(Shlosman et al. 1989)<br />
“It’s Bars all the Way Down ...”<br />
More accurately ...<br />
“It’s Non-axisymmetric<br />
Features all the Way Down ...”<br />
Derive ‘Instability’ Rate:<br />
Ṁ 10 M yr 1 Disk<br />
Total<br />
5/2<br />
1/6 M<br />
BH, 8 M gas, 9 R 3/2<br />
0,100<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Step 2: Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong> & the ISM<br />
Ø<br />
High-resolution (~1pc), molecular cool<strong>in</strong>g (1000 cm -3 )<br />
Ø<br />
Heat<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
SNe (II & Ia)<br />
Stellar W<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
Photoionization (HII Regions)<br />
Ø<br />
Explicit Momentum Flux:<br />
Ø<br />
Radiation Pressure<br />
˙ P rad ⇠ L c (1 + IR)<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
SNe<br />
˙ P SNe ⇠ ĖSNe v 1<br />
ejecta<br />
Stellar W<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
˙ P W ⇠<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
Ṁv w<strong>in</strong>d<br />
ESA
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Do we still need ‘Quasar Mode’ <strong>Feedback</strong>?<br />
100<br />
Spr<strong>in</strong>gel et al. 2005<br />
10<br />
No Quasar<br />
<strong>Feedback</strong><br />
1<br />
0.1<br />
With Quasar<br />
<strong>Feedback</strong><br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Do we still need ‘Quasar Mode’ <strong>Feedback</strong>?<br />
100<br />
Spr<strong>in</strong>gel et al. 2005<br />
10<br />
Stellar <strong>Feedback</strong>, No Quasar<br />
No Quasar <strong>Feedback</strong><br />
1<br />
0.1<br />
With Quasar<br />
<strong>Feedback</strong><br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Step 3: Physical Sources of AGN <strong>Feedback</strong><br />
mechanical (jets & w<strong>in</strong>ds) & radiative<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
• Jets<br />
• heat IGM/ICM (low ρ), but not dense ISM<br />
• W<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
• BAL-QSO w<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
✓ equatorial<br />
✓ Ṗ up to ~ 5L/c (Arav+)<br />
• Photons<br />
• UV: Ṗ ~ L/c (absorbed by dust): κUV ~ 10 3 cm 2 g -1 ~ 10 3 e scatt<br />
• FIR: Ṗ ~ τL/c (τ ~ dust FIR optical depth ~ 10-100): κFIR ~10 e scatt<br />
• Compton Heat<strong>in</strong>g (only low density gas)<br />
• Outstand<strong>in</strong>g Problem: Which Dom<strong>in</strong>ates?<br />
• Different physics <strong>in</strong> ISM & IGM<br />
ESA
Step 2: <strong>Feedback</strong><br />
Proga et al. 00-07; Kurosawa et al. 08-11<br />
Ø L/LEdd >~ 0.1<br />
Ø Cover<strong>in</strong>g factor ~10-30%<br />
z<br />
Ø Launched at < pc<br />
Ṁ launch ⇠<br />
ṀBH<br />
v launch ⇠ 30, 000 km/s<br />
z<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12<br />
ESA<br />
R
BAL W<strong>in</strong>ds on ~1pc - 1kpc scales:<br />
PFH <strong>in</strong> prep<br />
Wada et al.<br />
No BAL W<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
With BAL W<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
Ṁ launch (0.1 pc) = 0.5 ṀBH<br />
v launch (0.1 pc) = 10, 000 km/s<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
BAL W<strong>in</strong>ds on Galactic Scales<br />
CAN IT REALLY AFFECT STAR FORMATION?<br />
Novak et al. 2010,11<br />
Debuhr, Ma, Quataert 2010,11<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Recover M-s<br />
Ø Normalization ~ (efficiency) -1<br />
Launch ~1000 km/s<br />
“tail” <strong>in</strong> w<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
Only Long-Range<br />
<strong>Feedback</strong><br />
Ø<br />
Suppress SFR<br />
with BAL w<strong>in</strong>ds<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Summary:<br />
Global Star formation is <strong>Feedback</strong>-Regulated: <strong>in</strong>dependent of small-scale SF ‘law’<br />
Ø<br />
Need ‘enough’ stars to offset dissipation (set by gravity)<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
<strong>Feedback</strong> leads to Kennicutt relation & super-w<strong>in</strong>ds:<br />
⇣<br />
V<br />
⌘ 1.1 ⇣<br />
c<br />
⌃<br />
⌘ 0.5<br />
gas<br />
Ṁ w<strong>in</strong>d ⇡ 10 Ṁ⇤ 100 km s 1 10 M pc 2<br />
Different mechanisms dom<strong>in</strong>ate different regimes:<br />
Ø High densities: radiation pressure<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Intermediate: HII heat<strong>in</strong>g, stellar w<strong>in</strong>d momentum<br />
Low densities: SNe & stellar w<strong>in</strong>d shock-heat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Ø No one mechanism works<br />
Thanks!<br />
Ø Quasar feedback is here to stay:<br />
Ø<br />
BAL W<strong>in</strong>ds:<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
Ø<br />
CAN expla<strong>in</strong> MBH-s<br />
WILL suppress SFRs<br />
SHOULD heat & help clear IGM & Proto-Group Environments<br />
Ø<br />
Inflows: “Stuff with<strong>in</strong> Stuff”: Cascade of <strong>in</strong>stabilities with diverse morphology<br />
Ṁ BH / f(B/T) M gas (R)/t dyn<br />
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Tuesday, December 25, 12
Change language