David vs. goliath: What accreting Stellar mass black holes can teach us about the supermassive

S e r a M a r k o f f (API, University of Amsterdam) Outline Introduction, big picture, jargon Little black holes ⇔ supermassive? Evidence for mass-scaling physics, example applications Works in progress, and outlook/ summary Accretion (Gravitational Capture) V

ra

1 GMm Jet mv2 = From ra inwards: 2 r 2GM r = a v2 Jets form in many astronomical objects

SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES STELLAR-MASS BLACK HOLES FORMING

Cygnus A

GRS 1915+105 HH 47

DYING STARS

Cas A PN M2-9 Text GRB

DEAD STARS

R AQUARII CRAB PULSAR SS 433 Enormous effect on the local environment

~ 600k light years across!

(McNamara et al. 2005) Enormous effect on the local environment

Can actually stunt the growth of the host ! Very important for galaxy evolution/cosmology. Also interested in the first black holes/ XRBs: epoch of reionization.

(McNamara et al. 2005) Jets are likely the most powerful cosmic accelerators: AUGER 1st results We need a much better theoretical understanding of jet physics!

What’s inside them? How and why are jets launched and confined? Requires more information about conditions near jet/disk interface: accretion flow “type” and geometry, balance of energy between magnetic fields and , plasma content Enter the David vs. Goliath metaphor Jet X-ray Binary: /Neutron compact corona Donor star

Active Galactic Nucleus (Jets optional) Accretion disk corona Accretion disk

7-9 MBH ~ 10 M☉ MBH ~ 10 M☉ Black holes have no “hair” (J. Wheeler) ✸Is BH accretion (roughly) generic? —GR: shape of spacetime around BH determined only by M and a=Jc/GM2 (between 0-1) 2 — (rs=2GM/c ):

rs 2rsa c2dτ 2 = 1 − c2dt2 + cdtdφ− ! r " # rc $ 2 −1 2 2 rs a a rsa 1 − + dr2 − 1+ + r2dφ2 ! r r2c2 " ! r2c2 r3c2 " ➠ If yes, physics of accretion should scale predictably between stellar and supermassive black holes ➠ Two scales: mass and accretion rate (power) ➠ CAVEAT: Accretion from one star vs. accretion from many stars + mergers seems pretty different... And yet...they look pretty similar!

QUASAR (AGN) MICROQUASAR (XRB)

104-5 yrs! 1 day

(Mirabel et al. 92,98) (Mirabel et al. 92,98) Time variable X-ray binary (XRB) behavior: The Hardness-Intensity Diagram (HID) Time variable XRB behavior: The HID Spectrum and Interpretation

(Done, Gierlinski & Kubota 2007) Time variable XRB behavior: The HID Real data with states indicated Time variable XRB behavior: The HID What are the jets doing?

Hard state: HIM/SIM transition = steady jets = ballistic jets

Soft state: = no jets How can we test if this variability relates to the supermassive black holes in AGN?

Mass scaling makes testable predictions The main effect of black hole mass difference will be in the timescales, τdyn ∝ size ∝ M: τXRB ∼ week @ 10 M☉ 6 8 τAGN ∼ 10 years @ 10 M☉ !! We can test this idea by searching for trends from individual XRB studies in AGN populations (ensembles)

If such scaling exists, some AGN classes could be “unified” in a HID of their own ➠ also useful for evolution schemes Mapping XRB states ⇔ AGN classes?

Radio (Loud) ?

? LLAGN (Sgr A*, M81*, NGC4258) ?

Seyferts/ Radio Quiet ? First mapping established: “hard” state XRBs with Low-luminosity AGN

Strong evidence both theoretically, and empirically:

“Fundamental plane of black hole accretion” linking radio and X-ray luminosities with black hole mass Same physical models fit the data (well) over 7 orders of magnitude in mass, with the same physical parameters XRB hard state -- Universal Radio/X-ray Correlation

Prediction of jet synchrotron model

(Corbel et al. 2000, 2003; Markoff et al. 2003) “Traditional” Hard State SED components Fν

Companion Accretion Jet Star Disk Corona Disk

▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲

✜✜✜✜✜ ➞ Radio to IR/opt ➞

✜✜✜✜✜

➞ Opt/UV/soft X-ray ➞ Hard X-rays ν Break frequency (normalization) scales with mass Fν

2/3 -1 νbreak ∝ Qjet M

AGN: XRBs: radio IR/opt

▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲ ✜✜✜✜✜✜

✜✜✜✜✜✜

Expect same radio/X-ray correlation slope but AGN will have lower “normalization” in X-ray luminosity, comparatively! ν Fundamental plane of BH accretion

Observed Merloni et al. 2006, Kording 2006) Falcke, Körding & Markoff 2004, 2005, (Markoff et al. 2003, Merloni,Heinz & diMatteo

Mass “corrected” Modeling weakly accreting black holes

Radio

Synchrotron

zacc,p,pl%,ξ IR/opt/ X-rays

X-rays r0,Nj,Te, SSC/EC k=partition Modeling weakly accreting black holes

Radio NIR OPT UV X-rays Stellar 0

1 Companion ! keV 2 ! 11 cm 1 ! 0.1 keV Photons s 0.01 024 C 2 ! 4 ! 10 !8 10 !7 10 !6 10 !5 10 !4 10 !3 0.01 0.1 110 100

Energy (keV) (Markoff et al. 04-07) XRBs: modeling simultaneous broadband data Migliari et al. 07, Gallo Maitra 08) 05, (Markoff et al. 03, Markoff, Nowak & Wilms M81*: nearby AGN hard state equivalent?

All observations (Markoff et al. 2008) Sgr A*− Oddball black hole?

M81*

NGC 4258 NGC 4258

M81

Flares Sgr A* Quiescence

Sgr A* GX 339-4

(Markoff 2005) Sgr A*− consistent with XRB hysteresis?

NGC 4258

GX 339-4

(Corbel & Coriat, in prep.) Sgr A*: decomposing the system

(Markoff, Bower & Falcke 2007, Doeleman (Markoff, & Falcke et al. 2008, Falcke, Bower Markoff 2009, Maitra, Markoff& Bower in prep.) & Falcke,

With the latest radio global interferometry techniques, we can now almost image the ! (factor of ∼3 to go) Sgr A*: decomposing the system

(Markoff, Bower & Falcke 2007, Doeleman (Markoff, & Falcke et al. 2008, Falcke, Bower Markoff 2009, Maitra, Markoff& Bower in prep.) & Falcke,

With the latest radio global interferometry techniques, we can now almost image the event horizon! (factor of ∼3 to go) Sgr A*: decomposing the system

(Markoff, Bower & Falcke 2007, Doeleman (Markoff, & Falcke et al. 2008, Falcke, Bower Markoff 2009, Maitra, Markoff& Bower in prep.) & Falcke,

With the latest radio global interferometry techniques, we can now almost image the event horizon! (factor of ∼3 to go) Sgr A*: decomposing the system

(Markoff, Bower & Falcke 2007, Doeleman (Markoff, & Falcke et al. 2008, Falcke, Bower Markoff 2009, Maitra, Markoff& Bower in prep.) & Falcke,

With the latest radio global interferometry techniques, we can now almost image the event horizon! (factor of ∼3 to go) Other groups: mass scaling in timing features

(Uttley, McHardy, et al.) 2 τB ∝MBH /Lbol What sorts of things are we learning?

8 ✴From fitting 10-10 M☉, we find that all low- luminosity BH sources share similar traits:

‣ Jets anchored in rather compact “coronae” (~5-10rg) ‣ For these weaker states, magnetic acceleration of the bulk plasma not required ‣ Energetics: cold proton/hot electron model works, p- acceleration still needs to be incorporated ‣ Plasma only slightly magnetically dominated ‣ Particle acceleration is efficient, and occurs at fairly stable location in jets (~10-100rg), except in Sgr A*/A0620? ☛ Can use as boundary conditions for improved MHD models, and for time dependent models of transitional, higher accretion rate states. Gives clues about jet launching and accretion. X-1: trove of radio/X-ray data

✴ Over 10 years of bi-weekly, simultaneous monitoring with RXTE and Ryle radio, most recently with other X-ray instruments like XMM, Integral, Suzaku and Chandra (Wilms, Pottschmidt, Nowak, Pooley, Markoff, et al.) ‣ Beyond spectral and timing evolution, we are starting to resolve timescales between emission regions (e.g., Wilms et al. 2007): JD!2453476 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 80 0.4 RXTE PCA Rate [counts s

2500 0.3 60

2000 0.2

[mJy] 40

15 GHz 0.1 Scargle CCF F 1500 ! 1 20 PCU 0.0 ! 1 1000 ] 0 !0.1 3 4 !2000 !1000 0 1000 2000 2005 April 16 Time Lag [s] -1: Corona/jet relationship (Hanke et al. 2009) (Hanke Cygnus X-1: Corona/jet relationship II (Hanke et al. 2009, Nowak et al. 2009) et al. 2009, Nowak (Hanke Cygnus X-1: Corona/jet relationship II (Hanke et al. 2009, Nowak et al. 2009) et al. 2009, Nowak (Hanke Cygnus X-1: Corona/jet relationship III

Single Two Eqpair Eqpair T (high) T’s (low)

Jet + T/NT et al. 2009) (Nowak diskbb hybrid + Jet T (low) T (low) Radio/ IR Cygnus X-1: Corona/jet relationship IV

Lepton number density Pair production rate Pair annihilation rate

(Maitra, Markoff et al. 2009; Markoff, Pe’er & Maitra, in prep.) Modeling weakly accreting black holes

Radio

Synchrotron

zacc,p,pl%,ξ IR/opt/ X-rays

X-rays r0,Nj,Te, SSC/EC k=partition Developing jet internal dynamics

(Vlahakis 2003,& Königl Polko--PhD, Markoff, Meier, Markoff, Meier, Polko--PhD, in prep.)

Outward Modified Fast Point (MFP) integration

Alfvén Point Inward integration Modified Slow Point (MSP) Accretion disk Black hole Developing jet internal dynamics

(Vlahakis 2003,& Königl Polko--PhD, Markoff, Meier, Markoff, Meier, Polko--PhD, in prep.)

Outward Modified Fast Point (MFP) integration

Alfvén Point Inward integration Modified Slow Point (MSP) Accretion disk Black hole Developing jet internal dynamics

(Vlahakis 2003,& Königl Polko--PhD, Markoff, Meier, Markoff, Meier, Polko--PhD, Outward Modified Fast Point (MFP) in prep.) integration

Alfvén Point Inward integration Modified Slow Point (MSP) Accretion disk Black hole AGN ⇔ XRB mapping?

Radio Galaxies

?

LLAGN ? (Sgr A*, ? M81*, ➝ Seyferts/ NGC4258) Radio Quiet AGN? Luminosity Summary ✸ Little black holes behave remarkably like scaled down supermassive ones (not obvious astronomically speaking) ✸ Shorter timescales in XRBs make them extremely valuable for answering the “big” questions in accretion ✸ Already providing an important stepping stone for understanding the largest scale behavior: ➠ Some of the AGN “zoology” can be interpreted as very long- term evolution between XRB state analogs, with differnt driving mechanism (mergers, etc.) ➠ One “unification” so far: the steady, weakly accreting hard state XRBs and weakly accreting AGN ➠ Provided new clues about the role and geometry of the accretion flow and magnetic fields, plasma content, particle acceleration and more... ➠ Multi-messenger approach and new MHD codes: good chance to finally address the many open questions about accretion/jet physics Extra slides More evidence of universal behavior in accreting compact objects Neutron stars and white dwarfs show a similar evolution

(Körding et al. 2008) Predictions for radio/X-ray correlations

Fν Radio IR/opt Xrays

17/12 2/3 -1 LR ∝ Qjet νbreak νbreak ∝ Qjet MBH

˙ q LX ∝ M ν

For objects with the same mass: 17 − 2 m 12 3 αR 1.4 LR ∝ LX m = ≈ q q Synchrotron: q=2, ADAF/RIAF: q=2-2.3, Radiatively efficient disk/corona: q=1 ➠ problematic

(Markoff et al. 2003, Merloni, Heinz & diMatteo 2003, Falcke, Körding & Markoff 2004 ) Hydra A Shock

R ~ 100-225 kpc D ~ 120-200 kpc t > 200 Myr

R ~ 30 kpc D ~ 30-40 kpc t ~ 50 Myr 0.7 Mpc 0.7

R ~ 60-100 kpc D ~ 50-80 kpc t ~ 100 Myr

(Wise et al. 2007) Universal correlation for XRBs

(Hannikainan 1998, Corbel et al. 2000,2003; Gallo, Fender & Pooley 2003) XRBs: drastic changes on ~weeks timescales Luminosity “Soft” State

(no jets)

~1 keV

“Hard” State

(jets)

~100 keV Evidence that HIDs (or equiv.) are universal to accreting sources — AGN For (cyclic)AGN, hardness is not the best diagnostic. Körding et al. 2006 suggest “Disk fraction/luminosity diagrams” (DFLG)