View
215
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Mitch Begelman
JILA, University of Colorado
GROWING BLACK HOLES
COLLABORATORS
• Marta Volonteri (Michigan)• Martin Rees (Cambridge)• Elena Rossi (JILA/Leiden)• Phil Armitage (JILA)• Isaac Shlosman (JILA/Kentucky)• Kris Beckwith (JILA)• Jake Simon (JILA)
EARLYQSOs with M>109M at z>6
OFTENOne per present-day galaxy
BLACK HOLES FORMED…
HOW DID THESE BLACK HOLES GET
THEIR START?
2 SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT:
• Pop III remnants – Stars form, evolve and collapse
– M*~103 M
– MBH~102 M
• Direct collapse– Massive gas cloud accumulates in nucleus– Supermassive star forms but never fully relaxes;
keeps growing until collapse
– M*>106 M
– MBH >104 M
Rees, Physica Scripta, 1978
Rees’s flow chart
32 years later …
Begelman & Rees, “Gravity’s Fatal Attraction” 2nd Edition, 2010
Begelman & Rees, “Gravity’s Fatal Attraction” 3nd Edition E-book?
Keeping up with the times…
• Pop III remnants – ~100 (?) M BHs form at z > 20– 105-6 M halos, Tvir ~ 102-3 K– Grow by mergers & accretion– Problems:
• Slingshot ejection from merged minihalos? • Feedback/environment inhibits accretion?
• Direct collapse– Initial BH mass = ? at z < 12 – 108-9 M halos, Tvir >104 K– Grow mainly by accretion – Problem:
• Fragmentation of infalling gas?
~ Smaller seeds, more growth time
Larger seeds, less growth time
TRADEOFFS:
STAGE I:
COLLECTING THE GAS
The problem: angular momentum
The solution: self-gravitating collapse
SELF-GRAVITATING COLLAPSE: A GENERIC MECHANISM:
• “Normal” star formation
• Pop III remnants
• Direct collapse-1
Sun4 yr M2.0 K,10 MT
G
T
G
vM
2/33
~
-1Sun
24 yr M1010~ K,1000100~ MT
-1Sun
45 yr M1010~ K,10010~ MT
DM
gas
DM
gas
(approx.) 25.0en. pot.
en. rot.
Halo with slight rotation Gas collapses if virialgas TT
“BARS
WITHIN
BARS”
Shlosman, Frank & Begelman 1989
Dynamical loss of angular momentum
through nested global gravitational instabilities
Wise, Turk, & Abel 2008
Collapsing gas in a pre-galactic halo:
R-2 density profile
Wise, Turk, & Abel 2008
Global instability, “Bars within Bars”:
Instability at distinct scales → nested bars
WHY DOESN’T THE COLLAPSING GAS FRAGMENT
INTO STARS?
IT’S COLD ENOUGH …
… BUT IT’S ALSO HIGHLY TURBULENT
Wise, Turk, & Abel 2008
Collapse generates supersonic turbulence, which inhibits fragmentation:
HOW TURBULENCE COULD SUPPRESS FRAGMENTATION
Begelman & Shlosman 2009
Razor-thin disk (Toomre approximation):
FRAGMENTATION SETS IN BEFORE BAR INSTABILITY
ROTATIONAL SUPPORT ⇨
⇦ F
RA
GM
EN
T S
IZE
THE KEY IS DISK THICKENING
BAR
FR
AG
ME
NT
S
kGkvt 22222
HOW TURBULENCE COULD SUPPRESS FRAGMENTATION
Begelman & Shlosman 2009
Disk thickened by turbulent pressure:
BAR INSTABILITY SETS IN BEFORE FRAGMENTATION
ROTATIONAL SUPPORT ⇨
⇦ F
RA
GM
EN
T S
IZE
THE KEY IS DISK THICKENING
BAR
FR
AG
ME
NT
S
WHY?
THICKER DISK HAS “SOFTER” SELF-GRAVITY
⇨ LESS TENDENCY TO FRAGMENT
(DOESN’T AFFECT BAR FORMATION)hk
kGkvt
1
22222
HOW TURBULENCE COULD SUPPRESS FRAGMENTATION
Begelman & Shlosman 2009
5% of turbulent pressure used for thickening :
ENOUGH TO KILL OFF FRAGMENTATION
ROTATIONAL SUPPORT ⇨
⇦ F
RA
GM
EN
T S
IZE
THE EFFECT IS DRAMATIC
BAR
FR
AG
ME
NT
S
MORE SIMULATIONS (WITH HIGHER RESOLUTION) NEEDED!
At
radiation trapped in infalling gas halts the collapse
Rapid infall can’t create a black hole directly…
AUyr 1
4~1-
SolM
MR
STAGE II:
SUPERMASSIVE STAR
SUPERMASSIVE
STARS
• Proposed as energy source for RGs, QSOs • Burn H for ~106 yr• Supported by radiation pressure fragile
• Small Pg stabilizes against GR to 106 M
• Small rotation stabilizes to 108-109 M
Hoyle & Fowler 1963
THINGS HOYLE & FOWLER DIDN’T KNOW
ABOUT SUPERMASSIVE STARS
• They are not thermally relaxed
… because they didn’t worry about how they formed
AU 4~ mR
INCOMPLETE THERMAL RELAXATION SWELLS THE STAR:
MR
THINGS HOYLE & FOWLER DIDN’T KNOW
ABOUT SUPERMASSIVE STARS
• They are not thermally relaxed • They are not fully convective
… because they didn’t worry about how they formed
STRUCTURE OF A SUPERMASSIVE STAR
CONVECTIVE CORE
matched to
RADIATIVE ENVELOPE
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70 .0
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1 .0
cT
T
Scaled radius
coreM
M*
const.3/4 P
POLYTROPE
)(3/23/4 rMP
“HYLOTROPE”
Thanks, G. Lodato & A. Accardi!
(hyle, “matter” + tropos, “turn”)
HYLOTROPE,
NOT
HELIOTROPE!!
FULLY CONVECTIVE
PARTLY CONVECTIVE
MAX. M
ASS
INCOMPLETE CONVECTION DECREASES ITS LIFE & MAX. MASS
THINGS HOYLE & FOWLER DIDN’T KNOW
ABOUT SUPERMASSIVE STARS
• They are not thermally relaxed • They are not fully convective • If made out of pure Pop III material they
quickly create enough C to trigger CNO
… because they didn’t worry about how they formed
METAL-POOR STARS BURN HOTTER
A BLACK HOLE FORMS
SMALL (< 103 M) AT FIRST …
… BUT SOON TO GROW RAPIDLY
STAGE III:
QUASISTAR
“QUASISTAR”
• Black hole accretes from envelope, releasing energy
• Envelope absorbs energy and expands • Accretion rate decreases until energy output =
Eddington limit – supports the “star”
Begelman, Rossi & Armitage 2008
SO THE BLACK HOLE GROWS AT THE EDDINGTON LIMIT, RIGHT?
BUT WHOSE LIMIT?
EDDINGTON
GROWTH AT EDDINGTON LIMIT FOR ENVELOPE MASS > 103-4 X BH MASS
EXTREMELY RAPID GROWTH
“QUASISTAR”
• Resembles a red giant • Radiation-supported convective envelope • Photospheric temperature drops as black hole
grows
Central temp. ~106 K
Radius ~ 100 AU
Tphot drops as BH grows
DEMISE OF A QUASISTAR
• Critical ratio: RM=(Envelope mass)/(BH mass) • RM < 10: “opacity crisis” (Hayashi track)• RM < 100: powerful winds, difficulty matching accretion
to envelope (details very uncertain)
Final black hole mass:
Sol
SolSol
MBH
M
MM
MRM
64
1-27
1010~
yr 110~
STAGE IV:
“BARE” BLACK HOLE
“Normal” growth via accretion & mergers
THE COSMIC CONTEXT
• Collapse occurs only in gas-rich & low ang. mom. halos• Need ang. mom. parameterλ~0.01-0.02 vs. meanλ~0.03-0.04
• Competition with Pop III seeds• Pre-existing Pop III remnants may inhibit quasistar formation • ... but pre-existing quasistars can swallow Pop III remnants
• Merger-tree models vs. observational constraints:• Number density of BHs vs. z (active vs. inactive)• Mass density of BHs vs. z (active vs. inactive)• BH mass function vs. z• Total AGN light (Soltan constraint) • Reionization
Volonteri & Begelman 2010
BLACK HOLE mass density
All BHs: (thin lines) Active BHs: (thick lines)
TOTAL AGN LIGHT POP III
ONLY
Volonteri & Begelman 2010
CAN SUPERMASSIVE STARS OR QUASISTARS BE DETECTED?
Quasistars peak in optical/IR: some hope?
Supermassive stars:
AGNmodest a to...similar K102~
erg/s104~4/15
eff
45
mT
L
…strong UV source (hard to distinguish from clusters of hot stars)
JWST quasistar counts
Tphot=4000 K Band: 2-10 mSens. 10 nJy
Lifetime ~106 yr
λspin<0.02
λspin<0.01
1/JWST field
1/JWST field
WHAT ABOUT M-σ?
• Do AGN outflows really clear out entire galaxies? – or is global feedback a “red herring”?
• Do BH grow mainly as Eddington-limited AGN or in smothered, “force-fed” states (e.g., following mergers)• if the latter, then BH growth could be coupled
to σthrough infall rate σ3/G• ... but what is the regulation mechanism?
To conclude …
BOTH ROUTES TO SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE FORMATION ARE STILL IN PLAY
MASSIVE BLACK HOLE FORMATION BY DIRECT COLLAPSE LOOKS PROMISING
THE PROCESS INVOLVES 2 NEW CLASSES OF OBJECTS
QUASISTARS AT Z~6-10 MIGHT BE DETECTABLE WITH JWST
Requires self-gravitating infall without excessive fragmentation
Supermassive stars initial ⇨seedsQuasistars ⇨ rapid growth in massive cocoon
Many unsolved problems: Effects of mass loss? Late formation after mergers? Formation around existing black holes? ....
DIRECT COLLAPSE LOOKS PROMISING
CORE COLLAPSE OF SUPERMASSIVE STARS
QUASISTARS DETECTABLE?
RAPID GROWTH INSIDE MASSIVE COCOONS
Recommended