Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:40:09.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Merger-Induced Quasars, Their Light Curves, and Their Host Halos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2010

Francesco Shankar*
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany Email: shankar@mpa-garching.mpg.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We revisit a basic model of quasar activation by major mergers of dark matter halos (with “galactic” masses of ≲1013Mh−1). This model usually consists of two main ingredients: the halo merger rate describing triggering, and a quasar light curve, which describes the evolution of individual quasars. We show how the matching between model predictions and a variety of new, independent data sets allows one to efficiently constrain several aspects of black hole growth and evolution that must be taken into account in future studies by more advanced models of galaxy formation. Our results can be summarized as follows: (1) A descending phase modelled such that quasars in more massive halos shut down faster than those in less massive ones allows a good description of the bright end of the AGN luminosity function at all epochs and is compatible with downsizing, with more massive galaxies shutting down star formation earlier. (2) We measure the average bias of type 2 AGNs in SDSS to be b = 1.233 ± 0.195, independent of luminosity in the range 42.5≤ log L(erg s−1) ≤ 45.5. Such a value of the bias implies that faint AGNs at z<0.3 are mainly hosted by halos more massive than ~1011.5–12Mh−1. The black hole mass function predicted by this model is flatter than previously found. (3) The high clustering signal measured at z>3 in SDSS forces successful models to be characterized by rather short delay times of tdelay≲108 yr between the triggering and the shining epochs, implying massive “seed” BHs ≳ 105Mh−1 and initial super-Eddington growth. (4) The low number counts of X-ray AGNs measured in recent deep surveys are better reproduced by models with a minimal post-peak phase and a higher minimum hosting halo mass at high redshifts. (5) Cross-correlating the feedback-constrained MBHM relation, with the redshift-dependent MstarM relation obtained from the cumulative number-matching of the stellar and halo mass functions, we find a factor of ~2 larger BH-to-stellar mass ratio at high redshifts. We discuss the meaning of such trends in connection with the mild, positive evolution in the MBHstar relation, and the strong observed evolution in the sizes and velocity dispersions of their hosts.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2010

References

Brusa, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundy, K., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fakhouri, O. & Ma, C. P. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, J.N. 1996, ApJL, 461, L65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernquist, L. 1989, Nat, 340, 687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollmeier, J. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapi, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malbon, R. K., Baugh, C. M., Frenk, C. S., & Lacey, C. G. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scannapieco, E. & Oh, S. P. 2004, ApJ, 608, 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shankar, F., Weinberg, D. H., & Miralda-Escudé, J. 2009, ApJ, 690, 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shankar, F., Bernardi, M., & Haiman, Z. 2009b, ApJ, 694, 867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 2222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y. 2009, ApJ, 704, 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheth, R. K. & Tormen, G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheth, R. K., Mo, H. J., & Tormen, G. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osmer, P. S. 1982, ApJ, 253, 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, S. D. M. & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyithe, J. S. B. & Loeb, A. 2003, ApJ, 595, 614CrossRefGoogle Scholar