View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
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