Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Astrophysical X-ray source wikipedia , lookup
White dwarf wikipedia , lookup
Main sequence wikipedia , lookup
First observation of gravitational waves wikipedia , lookup
Stellar evolution wikipedia , lookup
Kerr metric wikipedia , lookup
Star formation wikipedia , lookup
Astronomical spectroscopy wikipedia , lookup
A Supermassive Black Hole in the Andromeda Galaxy 1. Structure of the M31 center 2. Dynamics of the blue nucleus P3 3. HST ACS imaging of P3 4. Is the Dark Object a Black Hole? Ralf Bender Max-Planck-Insitute for Extraterrestrial Physics Garching and Observatory of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich in collaboration with John Kormendy, Tod Lauer, Jens Thomas et al. Astrophys. J. 631, 280, 2005 and Astrophys. J., in prep., 2008 Apparent Size of Black Hole Event Horizons: • typical Galactic stellar mass Black Hole: 0.001 µ arcsec Cyg X-1 Apparent Size of Black Hole Event Horizons: • typical Galactic stellar mass Black Hole: 0.001 µ arcsec • Galactic center Black Hole: 8 µ arcsec Star S2: Vmax ~ 5000 km/s, Dmin ~ 18 Billion km Black hole: MBH ~ 4 Million Msun RS ~ 9 Million km Genzel et al. 1992-2004, Ghez et al. 1996-2004 Apparent Size of Black Hole Event Horizons: • typical Galactic stellar mass Black Hole: 0.001 µ arcsec • Galactic center Black Hole: 8 µ arcsec • M31 Black Hole: 4 µ arcsec Apparent Size of Black Hole Event Horizons: • typical Galactic stellar mass Black Hole: 0.001 µ arcsec • Galactic center Black Hole: 8 µ arcsec • M31 Black Hole: • M32 Black Hole: • other nearby galaxies: µ arcsec 0.07 µ arcsec <1 µ arcsec 4 Other reasons why M31 is special: • Next supermassive black hole beyond our Galaxy (+ M32) • Black hole is ~30 times more massive than in the Galaxy (see below) and large enough to produce a serious AGN. • Chance to resolve single stars some day. • Chance to exclude BH alternatives and study horizon. • Very different nuclear structure from Galaxy… • Not obscured by dust and gas. Wendelstein-Calar Alto Pixellensing Project 16’x16’ 30’’x30’’ NOAO Wendelstein FWHM ~1.0’’ M31 center has more complex structure than the Galactic center: it’s asymmetric! is it in equilibrium? Wendelstein 30”x30’’ FWHM ~ 1” Real color: F300W, F555W, F815W Lauer et al. AJ 1998 Kormendy & Bender 1999 1” ~ 3.7 pc ~ 10 l.y. M 31 with the Hubble Space Telescope The nuclear structure of M31: Real color: F300W, F555W, F815W Lauer et al. AJ 1998 Kormendy & Bender 1999 1” ~ 3.7 pc P1 P2 P3 • P1 and P2 are signatures of an eccentric disk of red stars, not two independent nuclei (Tremaine 1995, Peiris & Tremaine 2003, Kormendy & Bender 1999, Bender et al. 2005). At a separation of P1 and P2 of ~ 0.5” ~ 1.8pc and a rotation velocity of V ~ 200 km/s the orbital period is only ~ 50000 years: two clusters would merge quickly. • What is the nature of the blue nucleus P3? ( Part 2) Peiris & Tremaine’s (2003) latest version of the eccentric disk model: P1 P2 RB’s version of the eccentric disk P3 Peiris & Tremaine’s (2003) latest version of the eccentric disk model: P1 P2 P3 An eccentric thin disk with inclination ~ 55o and an appropriate population of orbits can reproduce both photometry and ground-based kinematics. The kinematics require a black hole mass of: MBH ~ 108 M. HST STIS spectroscopy in the NIR: Bender, Kormendy, Bower et al. (2005): high resolution STIS kinematics agree with Peiris and Tremaine (2003) predictions very well! P1 P2 Slit for NIR Ca triplet spectroscopy with STIS G750M on F555W image Peri-center disk stars show up in the STIS line-of-sight velocity distribution: V ~ 1000 km/s is reached at r ~ 0.1”: This provides a simple mass estimate: M ~ V2r/G ~108 M + + + + + + + − + − − − − − − radius scale flipped and offset by 0.05” HOWEVER, one issue remains a problem: Peiris & Tremaine assumed that the disk has no mass. In reality the disk stars have ~107 M , i.e. their self-gravity cannot be neglected. This creates non-closed orbits and orbit precession…. Bacon et al. 2001 suggest that P1+P2 can be explained by an m=1 mode in a disk. They study it with an N-body simulation. A pretty convincing model with a pattern speed of ~ 2 million years is obtained. However, it does not fit as well as the Peiris & Tremaine model. face-on model projected model rotation curve The nature of the blue nucleus P3 HST STIS spectroscopy in the blue and NUV • mV = 18.7 (0.3) MV = -5.7 (0.3) • is it blue AGN continuum (King et al.)? P3 • colors similar to A-type star (Lauer et al) • if P3 is indeed composed of A-stars, its light can come from: ~ 1 A0I (excluded), or ~ 200 A0V / A0III, or ~ 107.5 DA white dwarfs ???? Slit for blue nucleus spectrsocopy with STIS G430L on F300W image Hubble Space Telescope STIS spectroscopy of P3 ... … reveals: The blue nucleus is NOT an AGN accretion disk but a cluster of A-type stars. on blue nucleus on background P3 blue nucleus Which type of A-stars constitute P3? Did we possibly discover a massive cluster of DA white dwarfs ? Koester DA models well, let’s play with the parameters T and log g … NO! … this does not work, the P3 light is not dominated by DA’s • Pure A0V, A0III, and A0I-populations as well as a 200 Myr burst population fit the P3 spectrum equally well. • A0I’s are excluded because one A0I star would already have the luminosity of P3, but P3 is clearly extended. • Stellar mergers cannot form A-stars from the red background population, because multiple non-destructive mergers are required and encounter speeds are too high (~1000 km/s). A young burst population seems to provide the most likely explanation for the spectrum of P3. SSP models of Bruzual& Charlot yield: 200 Myr SSP: M ~ 5000 Msun, N ~ 15000 stars get back to this later with ACS imaging Modeling photometry and kinematics of P3 real color 300 nm − eccentric disk deconvolved individual stars are starting to be resolved 300 nm 300 nm − eccentric disk − P3 model 300 nm − eccentric disk PSF convolved P3 model Modeling photometry and kinematics of P3, continued… 300 nm − eccentric disk PSF convolved P3 model P3 has an exponential profile, its flattening is high and consistent with a disk seen under the same inclination as the larger P1+P2 eccentric disk: inclination ~ 55o! if P3 is really a disk, then it should rotate fast … P3: observed kinematics with HST STIS a thin disk model for the kinematics of P3: => once the photometry is given, only the black hole mass is a free parameter, and V and σ profiles should fit surface brightness (PSF-c.) V-field (PSF-convolved) σ -field (PSF-convolved) slit-pixels 0.5”x0.5” 0…1 -700 … +700 km/s 150 … 1000 km/s P3 disk model (PSF-c.) V-field (PSF-convolved) σ -field (PSF-convolved) P3: observed kinematics vs thin disk model (+ Plummer MDO) slit-pixels 0.5”x0.5” 0…1 -700 … +700 km/s 150 … 1000 km/s • The best fit is obtained for a point mass, i.e. a black hole of mass: MBH ~ 1.4 x 108 M • A Plummer sphere of radius 0.03” is 1-sigma off from the BH solution. b/a =0.26 The overall best fit to P3 is obtained for a thin exponential disk (i=55o), Thick disk/spheroid, orbit-superposition models (higher inclin.) are less likely. First HST WFPC imaging in UV, V, I 26 Real color WFPC image: F300W, F555W, F815W; Lauer et al. AJ 1998, Kormendy & Bender 1999 New HST ACS imaging in U and B 27 Bender, Lauer, Kormendy et al. 2008, real color UACS+BACS+IWFPC HST ACS U 28 200 Myr pop, IU - α IB , α = (fu/fb)P1, i.e. P1-P2 disappear 29 U-B M 31 P3 (U-band, P1-P2 subtracted) simulated images 100 Myr simulated images 200 Myr simulated images 400 Myr 30 power spectrum of surface brightness fluctuations (mean exponential surface brightness model subtracted) 31 Is the MDO a black hole? Is the MDO a black hole? Is the MDO a black hole? The 1-σ limit on the MDO size is rh = 0.11 pc. But then M = 2.15 × 108 M to fit kinematics. Ring Nebula (radius = 0.11 pc) at same scale Astrophysical arguments rule out dark clusters: 1. Brown dwarfs would collide, get distroyed, (or merge) and turn into gas (or visible stars) Mbrown dwarf = 0.04 Mbrown dwarf = 0.01 Mbrown dwarf = 0.001 Mbrown dwarf = 0.0001 Mbrown dwarf = 0.00001 M ⇒ tcollision = 2.5 x 107 yr M ⇒ tcollision = 4.4 x 106 yr M ⇒ tcollision = 4.4 x 105 yr M ⇒ tcollision = 9.7 x 104 yr M ⇒ tcollision = 3.4 x 104 yr If the MDO is made of any of the above brown dwarfs, collisions easily convert them into gas in «1010 yr. 2. What about clusters of white dwarfs, neutron stars or stellar mass black holes? 1 - Let’s form (M = 2.15 x 108 M, rh = 0.11 pc) via n successive generations of progenitor stars, where n = 1010 yr / (stellar lifetime). 2 - All stars of all generations have the same mass. 3 - Gas for star formation is provided. 4 - Don’t worry about the fact that mass loss during stellar evolution unbinds the young MDO. 5 - Form stars with density proportional to that of MDO (Plummer sphere). 6 - MDO has rh ∝ M-1. Compute evolution back in time from the present. This goes wrong for all types of remnants: 1 - MDO progenitors have MV = -16.3 to -17.5 throughout their formation. Such bright nuclei could not be hidden in nearby galaxies. It is unreasonable to assume that formation lasted for 1010 yr and stopped recently in all galaxies. If formation took < 1010 yr, all problems get worse. 2 - Progenitors are more massive than remnants. Dynamical friction deposits them at small radii. Therefore it is impossible to make an MDO that is as compact as a Plummer sphere. 3 - After a fraction of the MDO has been formed, the MDO velocity dispersion is many times the surface escape velocity of the newly formed stars. Collisions destroy stars. If the MDO is less compact, then it must be heavier and all problems get much worse. This goes wrong for 0.6 - 1 M white dwarfs: 1 - Interior to rh, most progenitors collide and get destroyed. If they succeed to merge, they get converted into progenitors of 1 M white dwarfs, even neglecting dynamical friction. Lower-mass white dwarfs are also irrelevant – their progenitors get destroyed (or live more than 1010 yr and therefore would be visible). This goes wrong for ≥ 1.0 M white dwarfs: 1 - Including dynamical friction, most progenitors interior to rh either get destroyed or converted into progenitors of highermass remnants. 2 - Except near the Chandrasekhar limit, white dwarfs at r ≤ r1/4 in the completed MDO collide and merge quickly enough so that there should be a Type Ia supernova every ≤ 100 years. They would easily be seen in distant galaxies. This goes wrong for neutron stars and stellar BHs: 1 – If they don’t get destroyed, progenitors interior to rh get converted into progenitors of higher-mass remnants. 2 - NS and BH progenitors die in Type II supernovae. During MDO formation, there should be a supernova every ~ 100 – 200 years. They would easily be seen in nearby and in distant galaxies. 3 - Gas expelled in supernovae easily escapes from the MDO potential well ⇒ must provide new gas for each generation of stars (~ 103 times). Is the M 31 MDO a black hole or a cluster of dark objects? half assembled ¾ assembled fully assembled applies to inner ¼ of mass. clusters built by maximum number of successive generations of stars! Conclusions: • the blue nucleus P3 in M31 is a thin to moderately thick stellar disk in Keplerian rotation around a black hole. • the P3 stellar population is dominated by A-type stars. It is very unlikely that these can be formed in collisions of low mass stars. • a 200 Million year old starburst population provides the best explanation for P3’s spectrum and the power spectrum of P3’s surface brightness fluctuations. • P3 could consist of stars that formed in the outer parts of a dense accretion disk; the gas mass needed is ~105 Msun. +1.1 • MBH = 1.4 -0.3 108 M (1σ, allowing for different inclinations). • astrophysical alternatives to a black hole in the form of dark clusters can be ruled out because even under the most favorite conditions they either evaporate or they cannot be built because the progenitors of the compact objects destroy each other. It’s a black hole! Copyright NASA