DOCSLIB.ORG

Are Ultralong Grbs Caused by Blue Supergiant Explosions, Newborn

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Are Ultralong Grbs Caused by Blue Supergiant Explosions, Newborn Are Ultralong GRBs Caused by Blue Supergiant Explosions, Newborn Magnetars, White Dwarf Tidal Disruption Events? Kunihito Ioka (Center for Gravitational Physics, YITP, Kyoto U.) with Kenta Hotokezaka (Hebrew) Tsvi Piran (Hebrew) arXiv: 1608.02938 ApJ 833, 110 (2016) 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 2 Summary Supernova(-like Event) Lbol (Greiner+15) ] -1 L using unbroken afterglow Collapsar 44 bol 10 PS1-11af (TDE) PTF11rks (SLSN) 1043 98bw (SN) Explosion 52 4 9 -1 Ei=1.4×10 erg, ti=1×10 s, M=3 M , v=2×10 cm s , =0.2 ⊙ 2 Magnetar H=(E/te)/(1+t/te) 50 6 9 -1 E=1.4×10 erg, te=1.1×10 s, M=2.2 M , v=2×10 cm s , =0.04 42 ⊙ 5/3 Bolometric luminosity [erg s 10 Tidal Disruption Event H=(2E/3te)/(1+t/te) 50 5 9 -1 E=2.4×10 erg, te=2×10 s, M=1 M , v=2×10 cm s , =0.2 ⊙ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Rest-frame time after explosion [days] 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 3 Summary Supernova(-like Event) Lbol (Greiner+15) ] -1 L using unbroken afterglow Collapsar 44 bol 10 PS1-11af (TDE) PTF11rks (SLSN) 1043 98bw (SN) Explosion Magnetar 52 4 9 -1 Ei=1.4×10 erg, ti=1×10 s, M=3 M , v=2×10 cm s , =0.2 ⊙ 2 Magnetar H=(E/te)/(1+t/te) 50 6 9 -1 E=1.4×10 erg, te=1.1×10 s, M=2.2 M , v=2×10 cm s , =0.04 42 ⊙ 5/3 Bolometric luminosity [erg s 10 Tidal Disruption Event H=(2E/3te)/(1+t/te) 50 5 9 -1 E=2.4×10 erg, te=2×10 s, M=1 M , v=2×10 cm s , =0.2 ⊙ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Rest-frame time after explosion [days] 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 4 Summary Supernova(-like Event) Lbol (Greiner+15) ] -1 L using unbroken afterglow Collapsar 44 bol 10 PS1-11af (TDE) PTF11rks (SLSN) 1043 98bw (SN) Explosion Magnetar 52 4 9 -1 Ei=1.4×10 erg, ti=1×10 s, M=3 M , v=2×10 cm s , =0.2 ⊙ 2 Magnetar H=(E/te)/(1+t/te) 50 6 9 -1 E=1.4×10 erg, te=1.1×10 s, M=2.2 M , v=2×10 cm s , =0.04 42 ⊙ 5/3 Bolometric luminosity [erg s 10 Tidal Disruption Event H=(2E/3te)/(1+t/te) 50 5 9 -1 E=2.4×10 erg, te=2×10 s, M=1 M , v=2×10 cm s , =0.2 + Tidal ⊙ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Disruption Rest-frame time after explosion [days] Event 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 2 Diversity of GRB Ultra-long GRB GRB 130925A Low-Luminosity GRB Magnetar Tidal Levan+ 14 Disruption Gendre+ 13 Lien+ 16 Event 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka Nakauchi+2 13 Kashiyama+ 13 Suwa & KI 11 Collapsar? Nagakura+ 12 Ultra-long GRB GRB 130925A Low-Luminosity GRB Magnetar Tidal Levan+ 14 Disruption Gendre+ 13 Lien+ 16 Event 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 7 Pop III GRB? Present Day GRB Komissarov & Barkov 10 ? Meszaros & Rees 10 Suwa & KI 11 Nagakura, Suwa & KI 12 Envelope accretion ⇒ Ultra-long 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 8 Cooling Envelope? z=0.677 Blue supergiant (BSG) M=75M¤, Z=1e-4Z¤, R=8.6e12cm Ec=1e53 erg, Mc=5.8M¤ Cocoon thermal emission Nakauchi+ 13, 12; Kashiyama+ 13 ≈ Superluminous supernova 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 2 Levan+ 14 Gendre+ 13 TDE? MacLeod+ 14 Ultra-long GRB GRB 130925A Low-Luminosity GRB Magnetar Tidal Levan+ 14 Disruption Gendre+ 13 Lien+ 16 Event 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 10 Swift J1644+57 ~t-5/3 tvar~100sec flare~103-4sec quiescent~5x104s Burrows+ 11 duration~107s 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 11 ULGRB = TDE? Similar? Dissimilar? Evans+ 14 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 12 White Dwarf TDE ⎛ ⎞2 3 ⎛ ⎞−1 3 M BH 12 M* amin ~ ⎜ ⎟ R* ~ 10 cm⎜ ⎟ ⎝ M* ⎠ ⎝ M8 ⎠ ⎛ ⎞2 3 ⎛ ⎞−1 3 M BH ρ* ×⎜ 5 ⎟ ⎜ 6 −3 ⎟ ⎝10 M8 ⎠ ⎝10 g cm ⎠ 1 2 3 ⎛ ⎞− amin 3 M* t0 ~ 2π ~ 4 ×10 sec⎜ ⎟ GM BH ⎝ M8 ⎠ 1 2 −1 2 ⎛ M ⎞ ⎛ ρ ⎞ × BH * a ⎜ 5 ⎟ ⎜ 6 −3 ⎟ min ⎝10 M8 ⎠ ⎝10 g cm ⎠ Ultra-long duration requires WD density Krolik & Piran 11 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 2 Magnetar? Greiner+ 15 Ultra-long GRB GRB 130925A Low-Luminosity GRB Magnetar Toma+ 07 Tidal Levan+ 14 Disruption Gendre+ 13 Lien+ 16 Event 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 14 Supernova Component? Even brighter than SN1998bw (hypernova)? Against TDE model? Really supernova? Levan+ 14 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 15 Bright SN 2011kl ~10 days after GRB 111209 GROND multiband X-shooter on VLT Supernova ⇒ TDE × No H line ⇒ BSG × ⇒ Magnetar? Greiner+ 15 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 16 Spectrum X-shooter spectrum − GRB afterglow# " host galaxy Supernova ⇒ TDE $! No H line ⇒ BSG $! ⇒ Magnetar No Ca II, C II lines ⇒ v>2e9 cm/s Greiner+ 15 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 17 SN does not Exclude TDE Half bound Half unbound Super-Eddington ⇒ Disk outflow, γ ⇒ E into Ejecta ⇒ SN-like bump KI, Hotokezaka & Piran 16 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 18 Light Curve Modeling One zone Arnett 79, 82 3 Kasen & Bildsten 10 V ∝ R Dexter & Kasen 13 ∂E ∂V E int p = int = −p + H (t) + L(t) 3V t t ∂ ∂ v = R! L t c ∂ E V c E V ( ) = ( int ) ≈ int 4π R2 3κρ ∂R 3κρ R ! d t $ t Diffusion time # + 2 &L(t) = 2 H (t) " dt td % td t2 3κM − 2 2 t( 2td t = e t 2 d L t = dt( t(e 2td H t( 4πcv ( ) 2 ∫ 0 ( ) td 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 19 SN-like Light Curve Lbol (Greiner+15) ] GM BH (M* 2) -1 L using unbroken afterglow 44 bol E ~ 10 PS1-11af (TDE) 2amin 51 PTF11rks (SLSN) ~ 4 ×10 erg 43 −1 L ~ LEdd ~ 10 erg s 43 ⎛ ⎞ 10 M BH 98bw (SN) ×⎜ 5 ⎟ ⎝10 M8 ⎠ Explosion 52 4 9 -1 Ei=1.4×10 erg, ti=1×10 s, M=3 M , v=2×10 cm s , =0.2 GM BH ⊙ 2 v ~ Magnetar H=(E/te)/(1+t/te) min 50 6 9 -1 E=1.4×10 erg, te=1.1×10 s, M=2.2 M , v=2×10 cm s , =0.04 2amin 42 ⊙ 5/3 Bolometric luminosity [erg s 10 Tidal Disruption Event H=(2E/3te)/(1+t/te) 50 5 9 -1 9 −1 E=2.4×10 erg, te=2×10 s, M=1 M , v=2×10 cm s , =0.2 ~ 2 10 cm s ⊙ × 0 10 20 30 40 50 Rest-frame time after explosion [days] KI, Hotokezaka & Piran 16 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 20 Multi-band Lightcurve 1 18 u 19 g r 20 i z 21 22 Magnetar 2 AB magnitude 23 H=(E/te)/(1+t/te) 50 E=1.4×10 erg 6 24 te=1.1×10 s M=2.2 M 9 ⊙ -1 Caveat 25 v=2×10 cm s =0.04 Ekin >> Einj 26 4 5 6 7 ~0.04 10 10 10 10 κ Observer time after burst trigger [s] 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 21 Multi-band Lightcurve 2 18 u 19 g r 20 i z 21 22 Blue Supergiant AB magnitude 23 52 Ei=1.4×10 erg 4 24 ti=1×10 s M=3 M ⊙9 -1 25 v=2×10 cm s =0.2 Caveat 26 4 5 6 7 10 10 10 10 Ekin >> Einj Observer time after burst trigger [s] 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 22 Multi-band Lightcurve 3 18 u 19 g r Power-law AG 20 i z (Not broken PL) 21 ⇒ Different Lbol 22 Tidal Disruption Event 5/3 AB magnitude 23 H=(2E/3te)/(1+t/te) 50 E=2.4×10 erg 5 24 te=2×10 s M=1 M ⊙9 -1 25 v=2×10 cm s =0.2 26 104 105 106 107 Observer time after burst trigger [s] 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 23 Peculiar Magnetar l Spindown time should be tuned to tpeak# 3 −2 2 # 6Ic 6 $ B ' $ P ' te = ≈ 1.1×10 s& ) & ) # B2 R6Ω2 % 7.5×1014 G ( %12.2ms( >> tGRB See also Cano, Johansson & Maeda 16 l Radiation energy# Bersten+ 16 # 1 E = IΩ2 ≈ 1.3×1050 erg # rot 2 << Kinetic energy Mv2/2 l How to explain GRB? Not simple 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 24 Tidal Disruption Event? • Supernova: might be • GRB timescales ⇒ WD TDE • Energy ⇒ WD has enough mass • Super-Eddington ⇒ Jet • Event rate ~3e-6/yr ⇒ consistent • Light curve L~t-5/3 • Host galaxies 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K. Ioka 25 Host Galaxies • faint, compact, and highly star forming dwarf galaxies, typical of "blue compact galaxies” For WD TDE 6 MBH<10 M¤ M-σ relation 2017/01/24 ultralong GRB & TDE by K.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Radio Afterglow of the Jetted Tidal Disruption Event Swift J1644+57 B.D
    EPJ Web of Conferences 39, 04001 (2012) DOI: 10.1051/epjconf/20123904001 c Owned by the authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2012 Radio afterglow of the jetted tidal disruption event Swift J1644+57 B.D. Metzger1,a, D. Giannios1, and P. Mimica2 1 Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Peyton Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA 2 Departmento de Astronomia y Astrofisica, University de Valencia, 46100 Burjassot, Spain Abstract. The recent transient event Swift J1644+57 has been interpreted as resulting from a relativistic outflow, powered by the accretion of a tidally disrupted star onto a supermassive black hole. This discovery of a new class of relativistic transients opens new windows into the study of tidal disruption events (TDEs) and offers a unique probe of the physics of relativistic jet formation and the conditions in the centers of distant quiescent galaxies. Unlike the rapidly-varying γ/X-ray emission from Swift J1644+57, the radio emission varies more slowly and is well modeled as synchrotron radiation from the shock interaction between the jet and the gaseous circumnuclear medium (CNM). Early after the onset of the jet, a reverse shock propagates through and decelerates the ejecta released during the first few days of activity, while at much later times the outflow approaches the self-similar evolution of Blandford and McKee. The point at which the reverse shock entirely crosses the earliest ejecta is clearly observed as an achromatic break in the radio light curve at t ≈ 10 days. The flux and break frequencies of the afterglow constrain the properties of the jet and the CNM, including providing robust evidence for a narrowly collimated jet.
    [Show full text]
  • Correction: Corrigendum: the Superluminous Transient ASASSN
    LETTERS PUBLISHED: 12 DECEMBER 2016 | VOLUME: 1 | ARTICLE NUMBER: 0002 The superluminous transient ASASSN-15lh as a tidal disruption event from a Kerr black hole G. Leloudas1,​2*, M. Fraser3, N. C. Stone4, S. van Velzen5, P. G. Jonker6,​7, I. Arcavi8,​9, C. Fremling10, J. R. Maund11, S. J. Smartt12, T. Krühler13, J. C. A. Miller-Jones14, P. M. Vreeswijk1, A. Gal-Yam1, P. A. Mazzali15,​16, A. De Cia17, D. A. Howell8,​18, C. Inserra12, F. Patat17, A. de Ugarte Postigo2,​19, O. Yaron1, C. Ashall15, I. Bar1, H. Campbell3,​20, T.-W. Chen13, M. Childress21, N. Elias-Rosa22, J. Harmanen23, G. Hosseinzadeh8,​18, J. Johansson1, T. Kangas23, E. Kankare12, S. Kim24, H. Kuncarayakti25,​26, J. Lyman27, M. R. Magee12, K. Maguire12, D. Malesani2, S. Mattila3,​23,​28, C. V. McCully8,​18, M. Nicholl29, S. Prentice15, C. Romero-Cañizales24,​25, S. Schulze24,​25, K. W. Smith12, J. Sollerman10, M. Sullivan21, B. E. Tucker30,​31, S. Valenti32, J. C. Wheeler33 and D. R. Young12 8 12,13 When a star passes within the tidal radius of a supermassive has a mass >10 M⊙ , a star with the same mass as the Sun black hole, it will be torn apart1. For a star with the mass of the could be disrupted outside the event horizon if the black hole 8 14 Sun (M⊙) and a non-spinning black hole with a mass <10 M⊙, were spinning rapidly . The rapid spin and high black hole the tidal radius lies outside the black hole event horizon2 and mass can explain the high luminosity of this event.
    [Show full text]
  • In-System'' Fission-Events: an Insight Into Puzzles of Exoplanets and Stars?
    universe Review “In-System” Fission-Events: An Insight into Puzzles of Exoplanets and Stars? Elizabeth P. Tito 1,* and Vadim I. Pavlov 2,* 1 Scientific Advisory Group, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA 2 Faculté des Sciences et Technologies, Université de Lille, F-59000 Lille, France * Correspondence: [email protected] (E.P.T.); [email protected] (V.I.P.) Abstract: In expansion of our recent proposal that the solar system’s evolution occurred in two stages—during the first stage, the gaseous giants formed (via disk instability), and, during the second stage (caused by an encounter with a particular stellar-object leading to “in-system” fission- driven nucleogenesis), the terrestrial planets formed (via accretion)—we emphasize here that the mechanism of formation of such stellar-objects is generally universal and therefore encounters of such objects with stellar-systems may have occurred elsewhere across galaxies. If so, their aftereffects may perhaps be observed as puzzling features in the spectra of individual stars (such as idiosyncratic chemical enrichments) and/or in the structures of exoplanetary systems (such as unusually high planet densities or short orbital periods). This paper reviews and reinterprets astronomical data within the “fission-events framework”. Classification of stellar systems as “pristine” or “impacted” is offered. Keywords: exoplanets; stellar chemical compositions; nuclear fission; origin and evolution Citation: Tito, E.P.; Pavlov, V.I. “In-System” Fission-Events: An 1. Introduction Insight into Puzzles of Exoplanets As facilities and techniques for astronomical observations and analyses continue to and Stars?. Universe 2021, 7, 118. expand and gain in resolution power, their results provide increasingly detailed information https://doi.org/10.3390/universe about stellar systems, in particular, about the chemical compositions of stellar atmospheres 7050118 and structures of exoplanets.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Evidence of Black Holes Andreas Müller
    Experimental Evidence of Black Holes Andreas Müller∗ Max–Planck–Institut für extraterrestrische Physik, p.o. box 1312, D–85741 Garching, Germany E-mail: [email protected] Classical black holes are solutions of the field equations of General Relativity. Many astronomi- cal observations suggest that black holes really exist in nature. However, an unambiguous proof for their existence is still lacking. Neither event horizon nor intrinsic curvature singularity have been observed by means of astronomical techniques. This paper introduces to particular features of black holes. Then, we give a synopsis on current astronomical techniques to detect black holes. Further methods are outlined that will become important in the near future. For the first time, the zoo of black hole detection techniques is completely presented and classified into kinematical, spectro–relativistic, accretive, eruptive, ob- scurative, aberrative, temporal, and gravitational–wave induced verification methods. Principal and technical obstacles avoid undoubtfully proving black hole existence. We critically discuss alternatives to the black hole. However, classical rotating Kerr black holes are still the best theo- retical model to explain astronomical observations. arXiv:astro-ph/0701228v1 9 Jan 2007 School on Particle Physics, Gravity and Cosmology 21 August - 2 September 2006 Dubrovnik, Croatia ∗Speaker. c Copyright owned by the author(s) under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Licence. http://pos.sissa.it/ Experimental Evidence of Black Holes Andreas Müller 1. Introduction Black holes (BHs) are the most compact objects known in the Universe. They are the most efficient gravitational lens, a lens that captures even light. Albert Einstein’s General Relativity (GR) is a powerful theory to describe BHs mathematically.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Disruption Events in Active Galactic Nuclei
    The Astrophysical Journal, 881:113 (14pp), 2019 August 20 https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b40 © 2019. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Tidal Disruption Events in Active Galactic Nuclei Chi-Ho Chan1,2 , Tsvi Piran1 , Julian H. Krolik3 , and Dekel Saban1 1 Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel 2 School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel 3 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA Received 2019 April 27; revised 2019 June 18; accepted 2019 June 18; published 2019 August 20 Abstract A fraction of tidal disruption events (TDEs) occur in active galactic nuclei (AGNs) whose black holes possess accretion disks; these TDEs can be confused with common AGN flares. The disruption itself is unaffected by the disk, but the evolution of the bound debris stream is modified by its collision with the disk when it returns to pericenter. The outcome of the collision is largely determined by the ratio of the stream mass current to the azimuthal mass current of the disk rotating underneath the stream footprint, which in turns depends on the mass and luminosity of the AGN. To characterize TDEs in AGNs, we simulated a suite of stream–disk collisions with various mass current ratios. The collision excites shocks in the disk, leading to inflow and energy dissipation orders of magnitude above Eddington; however, much of the radiation is trapped in the inflow and advected into the black hole, so the actual bolometric luminosity may be closer to Eddington. The emergent spectrum may not be thermal, TDE-like, or AGN-like.
    [Show full text]
  • Probing Quiescent Massive Black Holes: Insights from Tidal Disruption Events
    Probing Quiescent Massive Black Holes: Insights from Tidal Disruption Events A Whitepaper Submitted to the Decadal Survey Committee Authors Suvi Gezari (Johns Hopkins, Hubble Fellow), Linda Strubbe, Joshua S. Bloom (UC Berkeley), J. E. Grindlay, Alicia Soderberg, Martin Elvis (Harvard/CfA), Paolo Coppi (Yale), Andrew Lawrence (Edinburgh), Zeljko Ivezic (University of Washington), David Merritt (RIT), Stefanie Komossa (MPG), Jules Halpern (Columbia), and Michael Eracleous (Pennsylvania State) Science Frontier Panels: Galaxies Across Cosmic Time (GCT) Projects/Programs Emphasized: 1. The Energetic X-ray Imaging Survey Telescope (EXIST); http://exist.gsfc.nasa.gov 2. The Wide-Field X-ray Telescope (WFXT); http://wfxt.pha.jhu.edu 3. Panoramic Survey Telescope & Rapid Response System (Pan-STARRS); http://pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/public/ 4. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST); http://lsst.org 5. The Synoptic All-Sky Infrared Survey (SASIR); http://sasir.org Key Questions: 1. What is the assembly history of massive black holes in the uni- verse? 2. Is there a population of intermediate mass black holes that are the primordial seeds of supermassive black holes? 3. How can we increase our understanding of the physics of accre- tion onto black holes? 4. Can we localize sources of gravitational waves from the de- tection of tidal disruption events around massive black holes and recoiling binary black hole mergers? 1 Introduction Dynamical studies of nearby galaxies suggest that most if not all galaxies with a bulge component host a central supermassive black hole (SMBH), and that the bulge and BH masses are tightly correlated [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. This is referred to as the MBH−σ∗ relation, where the velocity dispersion (σ∗) of bulge stars is a proxy of the bulge mass.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2009.01306V1 [Astro-Ph.HE] 2 Sep 2020 Constraint Narrows Down the Identity of the Sources
    Using High-Energy Neutrinos As Cosmic Magnetometers Mauricio Bustamante1, ∗ and Irene Tamborra1, y 1Niels Bohr International Academy & DARK, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark (Dated: September 2, 2020) Magnetic fields are crucial in shaping the non-thermal emission of the TeV{PeV neutrinos of astrophysical origin seen by the IceCube neutrino telescope. The sources of these neutrinos are un- known, but if they harbor a strong magnetic field, then the synchrotron energy losses of the neutrino parent particles|protons, pions, and muons|leave characteristic imprints on the neutrino energy distribution and its flavor composition. We use high-energy neutrinos as \cosmic magnetometers" to constrain the identity of their sources by placing limits on the strength of the magnetic field in them. We look for evidence of synchrotron losses in public IceCube data: 6 years of High Energy Starting Events (HESE) and 2 years of Medium Energy Starting Events (MESE). In the absence of evidence, we place an upper limit of 10 kG{10 MG (95% C.L.) on the average magnetic field strength of the sources. I. INTRODUCTION ) 8 /G 0 7 B Magnetic fields are pivotal to the dynamics of high- ( 10 6 energy astrophysical sources. They help to launch and 5 LL GRBs HL GRBs collimate outflows in relativistic jets, affect matter ac- cretion processes, and aid angular momentum transport. 4 Magnetic fields also play a crucial role in the emission 3 SNe Neutron-star & of high-energy astrophysical neutrinos, gamma rays, and 2 magnetar winds cosmic rays. Although the sources of these particles are TDEs 1 largely unknown, a fundamental requirement is that they BL Lacs 0 must harbor a magnetic field capable of accelerating pro- FR-I tons and charged nuclei to PeV energies or more [1{4].
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Disruption Event Host Galaxies
    Tidal Disruption Event Host Galaxies K. Decker French (Hubble Fellow, Carnegie Obs) with: Iair Arcavi, Ann Zabludof, Or Graur Tidal Disruption Event Host Galaxies • What kinds of galaxies host TDEs? • What galaxy properties infuence the TDE rate? K. Decker French (Hubble Fellow, Carnegie Obs) with: Iair Arcavi, Ann Zabludof, Or Graur What kinds of galaxies host TDEs? • Only answerable with sample of TDEs • Sample of 8 UV/ optical bright TDEs from ASASSN, PTF, subtracted) (continuum Pan-Starrs, SDSS Arcavi+ 2014 Decker French (Carnegie) What kinds of galaxies host TDEs? Arcavi+ 2014 Decker French (Carnegie) Large # of E+A galaxies! What kinds of galaxies host TDEs? 25 20 Star-forming galaxies 15 10 5 Early-type galaxies EW Emission [Å] (Current SFR) 0 α H −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 Lick HδA Absorption [Å] (SFR over past Gyr) French+2016 Decker French (Carnegie) What kinds of galaxies host TDEs? 25 20 15 10 5 EW Emission [Å] (Current SFR) 0 α Post-starburst/ E+A “spur” H −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 Lick HδA Absorption [Å] (SFR over past Gyr) French+2016 Decker French (Carnegie) What kinds of galaxies host TDEs? 25 TDE hosts 20 15 10 5 EW Emission [Å] (Current SFR) 0 α H −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 Lick HδA Absorption [Å] (SFR over past Gyr) French+2016 Decker French (Carnegie) TDEs Occur at Higher Rates in Post-Starburst Galaxies 100 Myr burst 25 200 Myr burst 3 Gyr decline 0.2% 2.3% SDSS Galaxies 20 Optical TDE hosts Swift J1644 15 33x rate enhancement 190x rate enhancement 10 5 EW Emission [Å] (Current SFR) 0 α H −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 Lick HδA Absorption [Å] (SFR over past Gyr) French+2016 Decker French (Carnegie) TDEs Occur at Higher Rates` in Post-Starburst Galaxies X-ray TDEs from Auchettl+17a may have lower post-starburst rate enhancement ~20-40x Decker French (Carnegie) (Graur, KDF, et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Attraction and Rejection Forces
    Emanuel Gafton Tidal disruptions are astrophysical events in which a star that ap- proaches a supermassive black hole too closely is ripped apart by tidal Attraction and Rejection forces. The resulting stream of stellar fluid falls back towards the hole, circularizes into an accretion disc, and gives rise to a bright transient. On the love–hate relationship between stars and black holes In this thesis we present a new method for simulating such events under the framework of general relativity, but at a very reduced computational cost. We apply this method to study how relativistic and Rejection Attraction Emanuel Gafton effects such as periapsis shift and Lense–Thirring precession affect the outcome of a tidal disruption. Emanuel Gafton BSc (2011) and MSc (2012) from Jacobs University Bremen. Since 2017, Software Engineer at the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes Nordic Optical Telescope in La Palma. Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes ISBN 978-91-7797-582-3 Department of Astronomy Doctoral Thesis in Astronomy at Stockholm University, Sweden 2019 Attraction and Rejection On the love–hate relationship between stars and black holes Emanuel Gafton Academic dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Astronomy at Stockholm University to be publicly defended on Wednesday 18 September 2019 at 10.00 in sal FA31, AlbaNova universitetscentrum, Roslagstullsbacken 21. Abstract Solitary stars wandering too close to the supermassive black hole at the centre of their galaxy may become tidally disrupted, if the tidal forces due to the black hole overcome the self-gravity holding the star together. Depending on the strength of the encounter, the star may be partially disrupted, resulting in a surviving stellar core and two tidal arms, or may be completely disrupted, resulting in a long and thin tidal stream expected to fall back and circularize into an accretion disc (the two cases are illustrated on the cover of this thesis).
    [Show full text]
  • A Dust-Enshrouded Tidal Disruption Event with a Resolved Radio Jet in a Galaxy Merger S
    A dust-enshrouded tidal disruption event with a resolved radio jet in a galaxy merger S. Mattila1,2*†, M. Pérez-Torres3,4*†, A. Efstathiou5, P. Mimica6, M. Fraser7,8, E. Kankare9, A. Alberdi3, M. Á. Aloy6, T. Heikkilä1, P.G. Jonker10,11, P. Lundqvist12, I. Martí-Vidal13, W.P.S. Meikle14, C. Romero-Cañizales15,16, S. J. Smartt9, S. Tsygankov1, E. Varenius13,17, A. Alonso- Herrero18, M. Bondi19, C. Fransson12, R. Herrero-Illana20, T. Kangas1,21, R. Kotak1,9, N. Ramírez-Olivencia3, P. Väisänen22,23, R.J. Beswick17, D.L. Clements14, R. Greimel24, J. Harmanen1, J. Kotilainen2,1, K. Nandra25, T. Reynolds1, S. Ryder26, N.A. Walton8, K. Wiik1, G. Östlin12 1Tuorla Observatory, Department of Physics and Astronomy, FI-20014 University of Turku, Finland. 2Finnish Centre for Astronomy with ESO (FINCA), FI-20014 University of Turku, Finland. 3Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía - Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), PO Box 3004, 18008, Granada, Spain. 4Visiting Researcher: Departamento de Física Teórica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Zaragoza, 50019, Zaragoza, Spain. 5School of Sciences, European University Cyprus, Diogenes Street, Engomi, 1516 Nicosia, Cyprus. 6Departament d’Astronomia i Astrofisica, Universitat de València Estudi General, 46100 Burjassot, València, Spain. 7School of Physics, O'Brien Centre for Science North, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. 8Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK. 9Astrophysics Research Centre, School of Mathematics and Physics, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK. 10SRON, Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Sorbonnelaan 2, NL-3584 CA Utrecht, the Netherlands. 11Department of Astrophysics / Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics and Particle Physics, Radboud University, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Grbs and Tdes As Sources of Uhecrs and Neutrinos
    GRBs and TDEs as sources of UHECRs and neutrinos GRB: Gamma-Ray Burst TDE: Tidal Disruption Event https://multimessenger.desy.de/ Winter, Walter DESY, Zeuthen, Germany CRPHYS2020 Connecting high-energy astroparticle physics for origins of cosmic rays and future perspectives YITP Kyoto, Japan (hybrid) Dec. 7-10, 2020 Contents • Introduction • High-luminosity GRBs • Low-luminosity GRBs • Tidal Disruption Events • Summary | CRPHYS2020 | Winter Walter, Dec. 8, 2020, Kyoto, Japan Page 2 Transients which can power the UHECRs from Baerwald, • Required energy per transient event to power UHECRs: Bustamante, Winter, Astropart. Phys. 62 (2015) 66; Gpc-3 yr-1 Fit energetics: Jiang, Zhang, Murase, arXiv:2012.03122; early args: Waxman, Bahcall, ... Required energy Liang, Zhang, output per source Fit to UHECR data Source density Virgili, Dai, 2007; see also: Sun, Zhang, Li, 2015 -1 • Connection with gamma-rays: ~ 0.2 fe Eg if all UHECRs can escape, and 20% of the CR energy is in UHECRs (typical for E-2 spectrum). -1 fe : baryonic loading (LCR/Lg)inj • Examples in this talk: can all sustain this energy (roughly) 52 -1 53 -3 -1 • HL-GRBs: Eg ~10 erg s x 10 s ~ 10 erg, rate ~ 1 Gpc yr -1 ☞ Ok for fe > 10. Seems widely accepted mainstream ... 47 -1 -3 -1 • LL-GRBs: Lg ~10 erg s , rate ~ 300 Gpc yr -1 5 ☞ Ok for Duration [s] x fe > 10 ; duration disputed (closer to typical GRBs, rather than 104 s?) 47 -1 6 53 • Jetted TDEs: Eg ~10 erg s x 10 s ~ 10 erg (Sw J1644+57), rate < -3 -1 -1 0.1 Gpc yr ☞ Ok for fe >~ 100; local rate + Lg disputed | CRPHYS2020 | Winter Walter, Dec.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of Tidal Disruption Events by the Stellar Orbits
    Classification of tidal disruption events by the stellar orbits KH et al. 2017 (submitted to ApJ) Kimi Hayasaki (CBNU) In collaboration with Shiyan Zhong1 , Shuo Li1 , Peter Berczik1, and Rainer Spurzem1,2,3 1National Astronomical Observatory China / Chinese Academy Science 2Kavli Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics 3Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Zentrum fu r̈ Astronomie, University of Heidelberg, Germany Outline 1. Introduction # Tidal disruption events（TDEs) 2. Classification of TDEs by the stellar orbits # Our hypothesis # Testing it by N-body experiments 3. Summary and Discussion 1. Introduction Scientific motivation for studying TDEs 1. Probe of quiescent supermassive black holes (SMBHs) 2. Contribution to SMBH growth 3. Laboratory for super-Eddington accretion and outflow physics 4. Gravitational wave source candidates Good phenomena for multi-messenger astronomy Tidal Disruption of a star by a SMBH Standard Picture 1. Spread in debris energy by tidal force Rees (1988) GMbh r ⇤ ~1pc 5 ∆✏ = 4 rt rt 3 2. Debris specific energy 2 Stellar debris flies if ε>=0 1 away from the black hole Parabolic orbit Stellar debris is bounded by if ε< 0 the black hole’s gravity and falls back to black hole 3. Fallback time of most tightly bound debris 2/3 1 1/2 r m − Mbh t 0.1yr ⇤ ⇤ Tidal disruption radius fb ⇠ R M 106 M (Tidal force=self-gravity force): ✓ ◆ ✓ ◆ ✓ ◆ 1/3 Mbh rt = r What is the rate of mass fallback? m ⇤ ✓ ⇤ ◆ Tidal disruption radius rS : Schwarzschild radius 2/3 M − r =1.1 r bh t S 108 M ✓ ◆ 1. The condition that TDE occurs 8 rS <rt Mbh < 1.1 10 M ⇥ 2.
    [Show full text]