12
Quasars as high redshift standard candles The L X -L UV relation at high redshift F. Salvestrini (Università di Bologna; OASBO) G. Risaliti, S. Bisogni, E. Lusso

Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    3

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

Quasars as high redshift standard candles

The LX-LUV relation at high redshiftF. Salvestrini (Università di Bologna; OASBO)

G. Risaliti, S. Bisogni, E. Lusso

Page 2: Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

The LX-LUV relation: why?1. Where does it come from?

Corona

Accretion disc

BH

ObserverLX = KL�UV

Page 3: Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

The LX-LUV relation: why?

Planck (2015)

27.5%

68.5%

4%

Komatsu et al. (2011)

1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism

2. Quasars as Standard Candles

Page 4: Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

Betoule et al. (2014)

Hubble Diagram of SN1A

Page 5: Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

Avni and Tananbaum (1986)

Lusso et al. (2010)

The LX-LUV relation

!intr ~ 0.35-0.40 dex

Page 6: Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

The LX-LUV relation

� ⇠ 0.6� 0.65

Lusso and Risaliti (2016)

‣ SDSS DR7 (Shen et al. 2011)

‣ 3XMM-DR5‣ No BAL sources ‣ Radio Quiet

‣ 1.6 < "X < 2.8

‣ 2153 sources‣ 0.065 < z < 4.925

Page 7: Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

The sample ‣ SDSS DR7 (Shen et al. 2011)

& DR12 (for z<5.3)

‣ No BAL sources‣ Radio Quiet ‣ Archival Chandra and XMM-Newton observations

‣ No X-ray flux upper limit‣ 4.0 < z <7.08 Evolution with redshift?

}Accurate X-ray analysis

Accurate selection

Salvestrini et al. in prep.More details in:

Page 8: Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

� = 0.51+0.12�0.12

� = 0.22 dex

Page 9: Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

Consistency with lower redshift results

Page 10: Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

⌦m = 0.34+0.07�0.08

⌦⇤ = 0.71+0.09�0.09

� = 0.615+0.012�0.012

� = 0.268+0.05�0.05

Page 11: Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

Conclusions1. LUV - LX relation

‣ Accurate sample selection

‣ More reliable flux estimates

‣ No evidence of evolution with redshift

2. Hubble Diagram of quasars

‣ Test of the #CDM model

‣ Test on possible extensions to standard model

Lower intrinsic dispersion}

Page 12: Quasars as high redshift standard candles · The LX-LUV relation: why? Planck (2015) 27.5% 68.5% 4% Komatsu et al. (2011) 1. Constraints on the unknown physical mechanism 2. Quasars

Thank you!