Quasars: old black holes Quasars: old black holes with young starswith young stars

Knud JahnkeKnud Jahnke

Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, HeidelbergMax-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Heidelberg

SebastiSebastiáán F. Sn F. Sáánchez (CAHA)nchez (CAHA)

Lutz Wisotzki (AIP)Lutz Wisotzki (AIP)

Asmus Böhm (AIP)Asmus Böhm (AIP)

Isabelle Gavignaud (AIP)Isabelle Gavignaud (AIP)

+the GEMS team+the GEMS team

Eva Schinnerer (MPIA)Eva Schinnerer (MPIA)

Vernesa Smolcic (MPIA)Vernesa Smolcic (MPIA)

+the COSMOS team(s)+the COSMOS team(s)

Frederic Courbin (Lausanne)Frederic Courbin (Lausanne)

Geraldine Letawe (Liege)Geraldine Letawe (Liege)

Lutz WisotzkiLutz Wisotzki

et al.et al.

(?)(?)

State of the art:State of the art:•luminous QSOs lie in massive bulges (not only E)luminous QSOs lie in massive bulges (not only E)•most BH mass accretion in high-L type 1 QSOsmost BH mass accretion in high-L type 1 QSOs•accretion at 10%—100% Eddingtonaccretion at 10%—100% Eddington

Goals: Goals: •state & evolution of QSO host galaxies state & evolution of QSO host galaxies •role of QSOs in general galaxy formation & role of QSOs in general galaxy formation & evolution (and vice versa)evolution (and vice versa)•host diagnostics: luminosities, morphologies, stellar host diagnostics: luminosities, morphologies, stellar composition, gas state, interactionscomposition, gas state, interactions

GEMS/E-CDFS: 80 type 1 QSOs (55 @ z<3)GEMS/E-CDFS: 80 type 1 QSOs (55 @ z<3)•optically selected and photo-z‘s (COMBO17)optically selected and photo-z‘s (COMBO17)•V, z band optical ACS imagingV, z band optical ACS imaging

COSMOS: 120 type 1 QSOs, z<2.5 (future: ~500)COSMOS: 120 type 1 QSOs, z<2.5 (future: ~500)•optically selected (SDSS & SDSS+MMT)optically selected (SDSS & SDSS+MMT)•radio selected (VLA-COSMOS)radio selected (VLA-COSMOS)•spectro-z‘s (IMACS, zCOSMOS, SDSS)spectro-z‘s (IMACS, zCOSMOS, SDSS)•i band ACS imagingi band ACS imaging

VLT spectroscopy: 20 type 1 QSOs, 0.05<z<0.35VLT spectroscopy: 20 type 1 QSOs, 0.05<z<0.35•3 grisms optical, 3500—90003 grisms optical, 3500—9000ÅÅ

Imaging and spectroscopy samplesImaging and spectroscopy samples

SS

Broad-line AGN sample: Broad-line AGN sample: redshift distribution redshift distribution (z<3)(z<3)

55 QSOs55 QSOs

COSMOS

120 QSOs120 QSOs

GEMSGEMS

2“F606W(GEMS)

F850LP(GEMS)

F814W(COSMOS

)

500 stars

4500 stars

500 stars

0.3–0.70.3–0.7

0.9–1.00.9–1.0

1.0–1.151.0–1.15

1.15–1.31.15–1.3

1.3–1.51.3–1.5

1.5–1.61.5–1.6

1.6–1.81.6–1.8

1.8–1.91.8–1.9

1.9–2.11.9–2.1

2.1–2.92.1–2.9

z =z =C

OS

MO

S A

CS F

81

4W

CO

SM

OS A

CS F

81

4W

4“4“

z=2.24z=2.24z=2.16z=2.16

z=1.53z=1.53

z=0.65z=0.65

0.3–0.70.3–0.7

0.9–1.00.9–1.0

1.0–1.151.0–1.15

1.15–1.31.15–1.3

1.3–1.51.3–1.5

1.5–1.61.5–1.6

1.6–1.81.6–1.8

1.8–1.91.8–1.9

1.9–2.11.9–2.1

2.1–2.92.1–2.9

z =z =

0.3–0.70.3–0.7

0.9–1.00.9–1.0

1.0–1.151.0–1.15

1.15–1.31.15–1.3

1.3–1.51.3–1.5

1.5–1.61.5–1.6

1.6–1.81.6–1.8

1.8–1.91.8–1.9

1.9–2.11.9–2.1

2.1–2.92.1–2.9

z =z =

COSMOS: ~50/120 resolved type 1 QSO hostsCOSMOS: ~50/120 resolved type 1 QSO hosts

•Jahnke et al. (in prep)Jahnke et al. (in prep)

GEMS: ~45 resolved (with optical colour)GEMS: ~45 resolved (with optical colour)

•Sanchez et al. 2004Sanchez et al. 2004

•Jahnke et al. 2004Jahnke et al. 2004

•Jahnke et al. (in prep)Jahnke et al. (in prep)

Others: Kukula/Dunlop et al., Hutchings et al., Others: Kukula/Dunlop et al., Hutchings et al., Falomo et al., Peng et al., Kuhlbrodt et al. (at Falomo et al., Peng et al., Kuhlbrodt et al. (at high z, 1–10 objects each) high z, 1–10 objects each)

Current status & knowledgeCurrent status & knowledge

disk dominateddisk dominated bulge dominatedbulge dominated undecidedundecided

GEMS & ground based GEMS & ground based colourscolours

B&C03 B&C03 (solar)(solar)

GEMS z=0.7 mag-size relationGEMS z=0.7 mag-size relation

z=0z=0

Inactive:Inactive:

z=0.7z=0.7

COSMOS: host galaxy luminositiesCOSMOS: host galaxy luminosities

z=0.6z=0.6 z=1.0z=1.0

COSMOS+GEMS: homogeneous COSMOS+GEMS: homogeneous inactive comparison samplesinactive comparison samples

COSMOS+GEMS combined COSMOS+GEMS combined

Radio detectedRadio detected

GOODS-MUSIC(Grazian et al.

2006)

Diagnostic power Diagnostic power

•Differential host galaxy evolution compared to Differential host galaxy evolution compared to inactive galaxiesinactive galaxies

•Influence of interaction on QSO activity (from Influence of interaction on QSO activity (from merger fraction)merger fraction)

•Test unified model for AGN from radio loud—quiet & Test unified model for AGN from radio loud—quiet & type 1—type 2 comparison (luminosities, morphology)type 1—type 2 comparison (luminosities, morphology)

•QSO host galaxy parent populationQSO host galaxy parent population

•With 2nd COSMOS (HST?-) band: spectrum of With 2nd COSMOS (HST?-) band: spectrum of interaction strength triggering AGN activity (5% of interaction strength triggering AGN activity (5% of QSOs with NICMOS data); trying Subaru 0.5“ seeing QSOs with NICMOS data); trying Subaru 0.5“ seeing datadata

QSO host spectroscopy: on-QSO host spectroscopy: on-nucleus nucleus

•FORS slitletsFORS slitlets

•Centered on QSOCentered on QSO

•PSF star in the fieldPSF star in the field

2d host galaxy spectrum2d host galaxy spectrum

totaltotal

host host

QSO host spectroscopy QSO host spectroscopy

Jahnke et al., submitted to MNRASJahnke et al., submitted to MNRAS

SampleSample

•20 type 1 QSOs20 type 1 QSOs

•Hamburg/ESO Hamburg/ESO surveysurvey

•0.05 < z < 0.350.05 < z < 0.35

•Imaging availableImaging available

•20/20 successful host galaxy extraction20/20 successful host galaxy extraction

•7 confirmed disk dominated, 2 bulge 7 confirmed disk dominated, 2 bulge dominateddominated

•1 QSO with very faint host galaxy (upper limit) 1 QSO with very faint host galaxy (upper limit)

•Publication:Publication:

•Courbin et al. 2002, A&A, 394, 863Courbin et al. 2002, A&A, 394, 863

•Letawe et al. 2004, A&A, 424, 455Letawe et al. 2004, A&A, 424, 455

•Magain et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 381Magain et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 381

•Letawe et al., submitted to MNRASLetawe et al., submitted to MNRAS

•Jahnke et al., submitted to MNRASJahnke et al., submitted to MNRAS

Property overviewProperty overview

QSO host spectroscopy QSO host spectroscopy

Letawe et al., submitted to MNRASLetawe et al., submitted to MNRAS

Trager et al. 1998 early type galaxiesTrager et al. 1998 early type galaxies

Kennicutt et al. 1992 late type Kennicutt et al. 1992 late type galaxiesgalaxies

ISM stateISM state

Letawe et al., submitted to MNRASLetawe et al., submitted to MNRAS

disturbed disturbed rotation rotation Le

taw

e e

t al., su

bm

itted

to M

NR

AS

Leta

we e

t al., su

bm

itted

to M

NR

AS

Results/conclusions/summary Results/conclusions/summary

•BL QSO host galaxies are very luminousBL QSO host galaxies are very luminous

•Radio selected type 1 QSO hosts @z=1 are (on Radio selected type 1 QSO hosts @z=1 are (on average) more luminous than optically selectedaverage) more luminous than optically selected

• Host galaxies span colour range from reddish to Host galaxies span colour range from reddish to blue blue contribution of young stars contribution of young stars

•Early type hosts can be substantially bluer/have Early type hosts can be substantially bluer/have younger stellar populations than inactive younger stellar populations than inactive counterparts (confirmed for z<1.1, counterparts (confirmed for z<1.1, SDSS+HES+GEMS)SDSS+HES+GEMS)

•No extreme starbursts!No extreme starbursts!

•Moderate to substantial UV flux at z~2, similar to Moderate to substantial UV flux at z~2, similar to LBGsLBGs

•Merger/distortion fraction seems increased (to be Merger/distortion fraction seems increased (to be quantified!)quantified!)