Exploring High-z Black Hole - Bulge Relations With Semi ...€¦ · Exploring High-z Black Hole - Bulge Relations With Semi-Analytics Madeline Marshall with Stuart Wyithe & Simon

Exploring High-z Black Hole - Bulge Relations

With Semi-AnalyticsMadeline Marshall

with Stuart Wyithe & Simon Mutch

Black Hole - Host Relations

• Correlations between black holes and hosts at low redshift

• To understand, need to study at high redshift

Kormendy & Ho (2013)

High Redshift Quasars

Mechtley et al. (2016)

• Try to detect hosts using quasar subtraction technique

• Haven’t detected any z~6 hosts in rest-frame UV or optical (only upper limits so far)

• We’re observing two z~6 quasars with JWST, so developing models while we wait

• Semi-analytic model designed for studying galaxy formation during EoR

• Adds galaxies to haloes from N-body dark matter simulation

• Models processes like gas cooling, star formation, feedback, mergers etc.

MERAXES Semi-Analytic Model

(Mutch et al. 2016)

• Seed black holes in all galaxies

• “Radio-mode” hot gas accretion:

• Bondi–Hoyle accretion rate

• Eddington-limited

• “Quasar-mode” cold gas accretion:

• Due to galaxy mergers & disc instabilities (NEW)

• Eddington-limited

MERAXES Black Hole Growth

(Qin et al. 2017)

Artist* impression of a black hole

*my

• Galaxy mergers:

• In major mergers, remnant is a bulge

• In minor mergers, mass of secondary’s stars sent to bulge

• Disc instabilities:

•

• Enough disc material is sent to bulge such that it becomes stable

• Get a starburst, with stars added to bulge

MERAXES Bulge Growth

(New, analogous to Tonini et al. 2016)

A galaxy with a disc and a bulge

Mdisk >V 2diskRscale

G

�5

�4

�3

�2lo

g(�

/dex

�1M

pc�

3)

z = 8 z = 7 z = 6 z = 5

8 10 12

log(M⇤/M�)

�5

�4

�3

�2

log(

�/

dex

�1M

pc�

3)

z = 4

8 10 12

log(M⇤/M�)

z = 3

8 10 12

log(M⇤/M�)

z = 2

8 10 12

log(M⇤/M�)

z = 0

Q17 Meraxes

M18 MeraxesM18 Meraxes(Tiamat-125-HR)

Q17 Meraxes(Tiamat-125-HR)

Katsianis2015

Davidzon2017

Santini2012

Ilbert2013

Muzzin2013

Huertas-Company2016

Grazian2015

Gonzalez2011

Duncan2014

Song2016

Stefanon2017

Bell2003

Cole2001

Thanjavur2016

Baldry2012

Perez-Gonzalez2008

Pozzetti2010

Yang2009

✓

Calibration Stellar Masses

Model

Observations

Calibration Black Hole - Bulge Relation

9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5

log(Mbulge)

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

log(

MB

H)

Kormendy & Ho (2013)- Ellipticals

Kormendy & Ho (2013)- Classical Bulges

Scott et al. (2013)

Jiang et al. (2011)

Graham and Scott (2015)

Reines & Volonteri (2015)

z = 0

Kormendy & Ho (2013)- Fit

9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5

log(M⇤)

Model

Observations

✓

BulgeFractio

n

Verification Bulge Masses

✓ModelSDSSObservations(Thanjavuretal.2016)

BulgeFractio

n

Verification Bulge Masses

• Also verified with:

• Stellar mass - disc size relation

• Stellar mass - star formation rate relation

• High-z UV galaxy luminosity function

✓

✓✓✓

ModelSDSSObservations(Thanjavuretal.2016)

Black Hole - Bulge Relations

9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5

log(Mbulge)

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

log(

MB

H)

9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5

log(M⇤)

z = 7

z = 6

z = 5

z = 4

z = 3

z = 2

z = 0

9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5

log(Mbulge)

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

log(

MB

H)

9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5

log(M⇤)

z = 7

z = 6

z = 5

z = 4

z = 3

z = 2

z = 0

Redshift Dependence

• Very little evolution for z<5

• Get smaller black holes for same size bulge at z>5

�3.5

�3.0

�2.5

�2.0

log(

MB

H/M

⇤)

M⇤, total

Mbulge

Kormendy & Ho (2013)

02468Redshift

-3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

log(

MB

H/M

Bulg

e)

106M� < MBH < 107M�

107M� < MBH < 108M�

MBH > 108M�

�3.5

�3.0

�2.5

�2.0

log(

MB

H/M

⇤)

M⇤, total

Mbulge

Kormendy & Ho (2013)

02468Redshift

-3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0lo

g(M

BH/M

Bulg

e)

106M� < MBH < 107M�

107M� < MBH < 108M�

MBH > 108M�

8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5

log(Mbulge)

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

log(

MB

H)

Bulge Dominated Galaxies

Disk Dominated Galaxies

8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5

log(M⇤)

Morphological Dependence

• Disc dominated galaxies offset from black hole-bulge but not black hole-stellar relation [See also Simmons et al. (2017) observations and Martin et al. (2018) simulations]

• Relative significance of growth modes different for bulges and discs

• Bulges grow more during disc instabilities than minor mergers

• Both modes grow the total stellar mass by the same amount in proportion to the black hole growth

•

Morphological Dependence

7.0 7.5 8.0

log MBH/M�

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Num

ber

ofQ

uas

arH

osts

6 8 10 12

log M/M�

Stellar

Gas

0 1 2 3

Disk Scale Length (kpc)

Stellar

Gas

0.6 0.8 1.0

B/T

High-z Quasar Hosts

• z=5 quasar hosts are:

• Mostly bulge-dominated

• Have gas and stellar masses around ~1010 M⦿

• Can observe in ~100s in JWST imaging, if no quasar light

7.0 7.5 8.0

log MBH/M�

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140N

um

ber

ofQ

uas

arH

osts

6 8 10 12

log M/M�

Stellar

Gas

0 1 2 3

Disk Scale Length (kpc)

Stellar

Gas

0.6 0.8 1.0

B/TBulge Fraction

CONCLUSIONS

• We haven’t detected high-z quasar hosts in the optical/near-IR, yet

• Need to make models to estimate their properties & the evolution of the black hole - host relations

• Will try to confirm this using JWST

Madeline Marshall