Observational inferences of black hole spin and jet power across the mass scale. Elena Gallo University of Michigan

Observational inferences of black hole spin and jet power across the mass scale Elena Gallo University of Michigan

Are black hole jets spin- powered? Theory [McKinney talk s]: Likely so (at least the most powerful ones) E.g.: McKinney+ 07,09,12; Tchekhovskoy+ 10,11,12 Observations: Possibly This talk: Spin and jet power measurements Stellar BHs Continuum vs. reflection fitting Steady vs. transient jets Super- massive black holes Radio loud/quiet AGN, BCGs, blazars, lensing Tchekhovskoy+ 10

Measuring spin Continuum fitting [Steiner s talk] Uses the S- B law to measure the emitting area of the disk and hence the ISCO size for stellar BHs Requires pure thermal- dominant state (<30% Eddington), knowledge of X- ray calibration and hardening correction (Davis+) Relies on independent estimates of BH mass Distance Inclination 10 stellar BHs with estimated spins, remarkable stability of multiple obs. Davis 06 Steiner+ 10 McClintock+11; McClintock Narayan & Steiner 14

Measuring spin Relativistic reﬂection [Brenneman s talk] Relies primarily on atomic physics and relative measurements (such as widths); uses GM/c2 units Risaliti+ 13 Inner disk inclination free to vary Sensitive to shape of the disk reﬂ. emissivity, and its cutoﬀ Spin- Fe abundance degeneracy 16 stellar and 22 super- massive BHs with reﬂ. constraints. NuSTAR highlights: Cyg X- 1 (Tomsick+ 14) NGC1365 (Risaliti+ 13) Reynolds 14 after Ross & Fabian 05; see Reynolds 13, 14

Measuring spin Cyg X- 1 with Suzaku+NuSTAR a* > 0.83 (phenom. and/or self- consistent physical models) i = 42 69 deg inferred from modeling, vs. 27 ±1 from optical (Orosz+11) Misalignment? Risaliti+ 13 a * > 0.83 Cyg X- 1, Tomsick+ 14 also: GRS1915+105 Miller+13; 1E1740.7-2942, Natalucci+14; 4U 1630-472, King+ 14

Measuring spin C. Miller & J. Miller 15 Agreement within 2 sigma for stellar BHs with spin measurements from both methods (cf. Fabian) Others mothods: QPOs ratios and rel. precession model (Motta+); X- ray reverberation (Zoghbi+, Cackett+)

Spin and super- massive BH growth Cosmological modeling of BH- galaxy growth (numerical and/or semi- analytic merger trees) leads to spin distribution prediction [Dubois and Dotti s talks] Possible caveats: Observational biases (brightest/most massive BHs preferentially targeted) ~50% of the sample with a>0.95, ﬁnite thickness eﬀects become important (Reynolds & Fabian 08) Retrograde disks? (Garofalo+09) Deviation from Kerr metric (Bambi+) Sesana+ 14

Spin and super- massive BH growth Possible caveats: 40 30 20 4 10 3 90% 0 New sample for measuring spins: lensed quasars (Reis+14; Reynolds+14; Walton+ in prep., stacking analysis of 20+ lensed quasars with Chandra coverage, 60,000 counts) 5 2 min ~50% of the sample with a>0.95, ﬁnite thickness eﬀects become important (Reynolds & Fabian 08) Einstein s cross 2 Observational biases (brightest/bhs preferentially targeted, which state?) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 a* a* > 0.6 (5σ) Red: Fe > solar Black : Fe = solar Reynolds+14

Measuring jet power Doeleman+ 12 Radio luminosity, radio loudness, work? Which jet?

Disk/jet phenomenology in stellar BHs X- ray states (cf McClintock & Remillard 05; see Fender & Gallo 14, Gilfanov & Merloni 14 for recent reviews) Hard state: RIAF, steady radio jet on, reflection weak Soft state: thin disk, steady radio jet off, reflection- dominated Corona < few 10s R g (Reis & Miller 13, Jiménez- Vicente+14) Possible inner disk re- condensation in luminous hard states (Reis+10, Meyer- Hofmeister & Meyer 12,14) Ponti+ 12 see also: Miller+ 12,14; King+ 12,13a,b,14; Neilsen 13, Neilsen+ 12a,b

Jets from stellar- mass BHs Ubiquitous steady jets in hard state flat radio- IR spectrum, opt. thick 10s of AU long lived: months- yrs Transient, flaring jets during hard- to- soft transitions adiabatically expanding optically thin 100s AU short lived: days- weeks Ubiquitous sub- relativistic equatorial winds in soft state (X- ray absorption; Ponti+ 12, Miller+08,09,14) [Tombesi s talk] Cygnus X- 1, Stirling+ 01

Jet power: caveats Steady jet luminosity Synchrotron luminosity is at most few % of the total jet power radio lum. varies over >7 decades for same BH [Körding s talk] Transient jet luminosity Peak radio flare luminosity as a proxy for P jet (relies on implicit assumption that the flare duration is constant among different outbursts/ sources) Radio luminosity- based power: factor 10 uncertainty at best log(l r erg s 1 ) 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 BHXBs XTEJ1118+480 GX339 4 V404 Cyg GMF12 upper track GMF12 lower track 30 32 34 36 38 log(l X erg s 1 ) Gallo+ 14 see also Jonker+10, Miller- Jones+11, Coriat+ 11, Ratti+ 12, Gallo+12, Corbel+13

Jet power: caveats Mechanical power from jet- inﬂated cavities: only available for 3 X- ray binaries (Cyg X- 1, SS433, Cir X- 1) due to low density contrast (Heinz 07); more viable for AGN (e.g. Allen+ 2006; McNamara+ 2011) Cyg X- 1: Pj ~ LX ~ 105 Lradio, where Lradio is integrated over the optically thick part only

Spin vs. jet power in stellar BHs First comprehensive investigation fora handful BH X- ray binaries in hard state yields no P jet vs a correlation, nor P jet vs jet velocity P jet for steady jet from the normalization of the radio(/ir):x- ray correlation in X- hard state P jet for transient jets from min. energy / rise time Spin from either CF or Reflection If measurements are to be trusted, then no evidence for BZ- powering of steady jets (notice: these are powered by thick disks!) Fender Gallo Russell 2010

Spin vs. jet power in stellar BHs Positive correlation (consistent with BZ- scaling) claimed for transient (a.k.a. ballistic) jets P jet from peak radio luminosity of bright radio flare associated with hard to soft state transition Spin from thermal cont. fitting Low- mass X- ray binaries only Narayan & McClintock 12 Steiner, Narayan & McClintock 13

Spin vs. jet power in stellar BHs Result sensitive to exclusion of the high mass X- ray binary Cyg X- 1; Treatment of GROJ1665-40 and 4U1543-47 Large scatter observed in peak radio lum. over different outbursts (though maximum possible lum. is adopted as proxy) Increased frequency of radio monitoring (e.g. with MeerKAT) needed pppp p See McClintock, Narayan & Steiner 14 for a recent review of the controversy Russell Gallo Fender 13

Spin vs. jet power in stellar and SMBHs Positive correlation between radio lum./bol. lum. vs. spin for a heterogeneous sample of Seyferts +stellar BHs+NSs Second parameter (e.g. disk B field, mdot) might act as valve for maximum jet luminosity (b) This figure compares the absolute value of the Doppler-corrected radio luminosity per unit mass in natural units to the spin parameter. The dashed line is P J a 2. The black points are Seyferts, the blue points are BHB and the red points are neutron stars. When considering the entire compact object sample, we find a partial correlation coefficient of τ p =0.219 with a 3.3σ confidence level of correlation. s the absolute value of the Doppler-corrected sity per unit mass 2 versus the spin paramehed line shows νl ν,5ghz /M 2 BH a2. The King+ 13 (d) This plots shows the absolute value of the Dopplercorrected radio luminosity per Bolometric luminosity versus the spin parameter. The data is positively cor-

Spin vs. jet power in stellar and SMBHs Positive correlation between radio lum./bol. lum. vs. spin for a heterogeneous sample of Seyferts +stellar BHs+NSs Second parameter (e.g. disk B field, mdot) might act as valve for maximum jet luminosity Positive correlation between mass- scaled X- ray luminosity and (transient) jet knot velocity King+15 Jet velocity is also a function of polar angle, supporting "spine- sheath structure King+ 15

Spn vs. jet power in AGN - blazars Correlation reported between radiative jet power and accretion luminosity for 200+ Fermi LAT BL Lacs and FSRQs Radiative P jet measured through SED fitting with 1 zone leptonic model L acc from broad emission lines Total jet power dominates the disk luminosity, in agreement with numerical simulations (Tchekhovskoy+ 11 find a jet efficiency of ~140% for a=0.99) Ghisellini+14

Spin vs. jet power in AGN - BCGs Distribution of BCGs power estimated from X- ray cavities consistent with broad range of both spin and accretion rates No correlation between AGN power and molecular gas mass over the range of jet powers Bondi accretion generally insufficient If cavities are powered by BH rotation, then P jet must exceed the locally dissipated accretion power (MAD) McNamara+11

Jet power in AGN 400+ NLRGs with extended radio structure covering ~four decades in L bol /L Edd ~ L line /M BH L 1.4 GHz /M BH strongly correlates with L bol /L Edd Radio loudness (=L 1.4GHZ /L line ) strongly anti- correlates with L bol /L Edd High jet production efficiencies favor magnetically choked accretion (McKinney+ 12) where strongest jets result from the secular accumulation of flux (Sikora & Begelman 13) Sikora+ 13

Are BH jets spin powered? Strong theoretical support for P- B- Z process at work, at least in the most powerful jets. Is there strong observational evidence? NOT quite. If the jet- powering mechanism is scale- invariant, then stellar- mass black holes remain the best lab for probing a correlation between jet power and spin parameter. Several (know) uncertainties in measuring spin WILD uncertainties in measuring P jet Radio luminosity of STEADY jet associated with THICK disks is at best a poor indicator of jet power. Claimed correlation for transient jets is at best an upper envelope. Results from cavities inconclusive. For theorists: beware of (over- interpreting) observations