The X-ray Background

Günther Hasinger, MPE Garching

CDFS: J. Bergeron, S. Borgani, R. Giacconi, R. Gilli, R. Gilmozzi, K. Kellerman, L. Kewley, A. Koekemoer, I. Lehmann, V. Mainieri, M. Nonino, C. Norman, M. Romaniello, P. Rosati, E. Schreier, A. Streblyanskaya, G. Szokoly, P. Tozzi, J.X. Wang, W. Zheng, A. Zirm

Lockman Hole: X. Barcons, H. Böhringer, H. Brunner, A. Fabian, A. Finoguenov, Y. Hashimoto, P. Henry, I. Lehmann, V. Mainieri, I. Matute, M. Schmidt, A. Streblyanskaya, G. Szokoly, M. Worsley

Overall Sample & Luminosity Function: T. Miyaji, M. Schmidt

22nd Texas Symposium, SLAC Stanford, December 14th, 2004

ROSAT

XMM-Newton

Chandra

ROSAT

ROSAT

The X-ray Background

The background is the Echo of the formationof Supermassive Black Holes throughout thehistory of the Universe !

X-ray Background Spectrum

=> E<2keV XRB resolved; at E>5keV still very much work to do!

Revnivtsev et al., 2003 RXTE

XMM LH resolvedWorsley et al. 2004

from Gilli 2003

CLASXS

CLASXS

LargeX-ray

surveys

COSMOS/XMM

COSMOS/XMM

DUO Deep

DUO Wide

DUO Wide

DUO Deep

ROSITA

ROSITA

XEUS

E-CDFS

E-CDFS

XEUS

XMM Slew

Lockman

Lockman

Alexander et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 539

The Deepest X-ray Surveys

CDF-N (HDF-N) CDF-S (ACS UDF)

Brandt & Hasinger, ARAA 2005

Ultra Deep Field2.28p

AGN - opt. faint

1.69pAGN - opt. faint

0.773AGN - XBONG

0.665AGN - XBONG

3.064AGN - Ty 2

3.193AGN - Ty 1, unobs

1.216AGN - Ty 1, unobs

1.65pAGN - opt. faint

1.82pAGN - opt. faint

1.53pAGN - opt. faint

4.29pAGN - opt. faint

0.414Starburst

0.438Starburst

0.456Starburst

1.309AGN - XBONG

CDF-SACS UDF

Courtesy:S. Beckwith

> 95% have spectro- or photo-z thanks to VLT, GOODS, GEMS, ACF UDS etc. Photo-z at higher z, but all peak at z~0.7

Num

bero

f Sou

rcesSzokoly et al., 2004

(spectro-z)Wolf et al., 2004(Combo-17)Zheng et al., 2004Mainieri et al., 2004(photo-z)

Redshift

CDFS Optical IDs

Type 2 fraction

Local Seyferts

Fraction of type-2‘s decreses with luminosityUeda et al., 2003; Szokoly et al., 2004

Lockman Hole800 ks XMM-Newton observation

Keck Spectroscopy:Lehmann et al., 2001 M. Schmidt, P. Henry

Average rest-frame spectra show relativistic Fe-lines

Good news for XEUS/Con-X

Streblyanskaya et al., 2004

type-2 AGNEW~400eV

type-1 AGNEW~600eV

Large equivalent width canbe explained by 3 x solar metallicity.BH spin within reach.

The type-1 AGN 0.5-2keV X-ray luminosity function

Multi-Cone Surveys• Type-1 AGN in the 0.5-2 keV band

– Continuation of ROSAT work, most sensitive & complete

• ROSAT Samples (Miyaji et al., 2000)– ROSAT Bright Survey: 203 (0) AGN (Schwope et al., 2000)– RASS Selected North: 134 (5) AGN (Appenzeller et al., 1996)– RASS NEP Survey: 101 (9) AGN (Gioia et al., 2003)– RIXOS serendipitous: 194 (14) AGN (Mason et al., 2000)– ROSAT Deep Surveys: 84 (7) AGN (e.g. Schmidt et al., 1998)

• XMM Deep Survey (Mainieri et al., 2002)– Lockman Hole: 48 (8) AGN (Lehmann et al., 2001 ++)

• Chandra Deep Surveys– CDF North/HDF-N: 67 (21) AGN (Barger et al., 2003)– CDFS spec.+phot.: 113 (1) AGN (Szokoly, Zheng et al. 2003)

• Total: 944 (65) AGN1Yellow: unidentified

Multi-Cone SurveysSurvey Area Hubble Diagram

0.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

10000.0

100000.0

0.001 0.100 10.000 1000.000

Flux [10-14 cgs]

Solid

Ang

le [d

eg2 ]

tot. AreacorrectedRBSAppNEPSRixosRMSXMMCDFSHDFN

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

log LX [erg/s]

Red

shift

RBSAppNEPSRixosRMSXMMCDFSHDFN

Multi-cone logN-logS

XLF0.5-2 keV

type-1 AGN

Luminosity-dependentdensity evolution(LDDE) confirmed

AGN Space Density φ(z)

Hasinger, Miyaji & Schmidt, 2004,A&A submitted

M. Schmidt methodT. Miyaji treatment(dotted: upper limit)

Semianalytic Model Comparison

-7.4-7.3-7.2-7.1

-7-6.9-6.8-6.7-6.6-6.5-6.4-6.3-6.2-6.1

-6-5.9-5.8-5.7-5.6-5.5-5.4-5.3-5.2-5.1

-5-4.9-4.8-4.7-4.6-4.5-4.4-4.3-4.2-4.1

-4-3.9-3.8-3.7

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

-8

-7.5

-7

-6.5

-6

-5.5

-5

-4.5

-4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Hasinger, Miyaji & Schmidt, 2004,A&A submitted

M. Schmidt methodT. Miyaji treatment(dotted: upper limit)-10.00

-9.50

-9.00

-8.50

-8.00

-7.50

-7.00

-6.50

-6.00

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Wyithe & Loeb, 2003, ApJ, arbitrary norm

Menci et al., 2004, ApJ, arbitrary norm

Hasinger, Miyaji & Schmidt, 2005 Ueda et al., 2003, based on ~1000 AGN-1 based on ~250 AGN

Densities in soft and hard band

Very similar behaviour in hard and soft band. Soft samples go deeper and are more complete.

Local BH mass vs. accreted BH massfunction

•Accreted Black Hole massfunction derived from X-raybackground can be comparedwith the mass function of dormant relic black holes in local galaxies (Soltan 1982).

•These two estimates can bereconciled, if an energyconversion efficiency of ε=0.1 is assumed.

•Such high efficiencyrequires a spinning Kerr-BH! Marconi et al., 2004, MNRAS

X-ray vs. optical QSOs

Very large solid angle deepsurveys arerequired to discover z>5 QSOs

E-CDFSXMM/COSMOSDUO

High-z decline now seen in X-rays at all luminosities!

Wide & Deep Chandra and XMM surveys

#1 #2

PI: N. Brandt (PSU); 4x250 ksec

1.5 d

egre

e s

½ de

gree

Observations are ongoing

Extended Chandra HST/XMM-NewtonDeep Field South COSMOS Field

PI: N. Scoville (Caltech); XMM: 1.4 Msec, G. Hasinger (MPE)

Dark Universe Observatory

10°10°

Current SMEX competition; PI: R. Griffiths (CMU)

DUO will detect same number z>3 QSO, than are known from all othersurveys to date, including SDSS & 2dF

Summary• X-ray background practically resolved below 2 keV• At 2-10 keV about 50% resolved; still work to do• Type-2 QSOs found, type-2 fraction decreases

with LX• Background AGN have strong relativistic Fe line• Luminosity-dependent density evolution• Seyferts peak much later than QSO• Anti-hierarchical evolution not predicted even by

most recent semi-analytic models

=> Need (at least) 2 modes of BH accretionRole of accretion through mergers?

Binary Black Holes in Major

Mergers

NGC 6240

Komossa et al., 2003

Several more BinaryBlack Holes claimedin the meantime. BBH could bepresent in a fractionof normal quasars.

Major accretionmode for quasars?

Co-evolutionof Galaxyand BH

Simulation by Tiziana de Matteo, Volker Springel (MPA) & Lars Hernquist (CfA)

Black Hole Mass

Black Hole Luminosity

Star Formation Rate

Thank you very much !