4.7 Article

Black hole feeding and feedback in a compact galaxy

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 523, Issue 2, Pages 1641-1647

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stad1529

Keywords

black hole physics; galaxies: active; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: nuclei

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We conducted high-resolution hydrodynamical simulations using MACER framework to investigate SMBH feeding and feedback in a massive compact galaxy. Compared to a reference galaxy, the compact galaxy shows a higher inflow rate, resulting in stronger SMBH feeding and feedback, and a larger inflow-outflow structure.
We perform high-resolution hydrodynamical simulations using the framework of MACER to investigate supermassive black hole (SMBH) feeding and feedback in a massive compact galaxy, which has a small effective radius but a large stellar mass, with a simulation duration of 10 Gyr. We compare the results with a reference galaxy with a similar stellar mass but a less concentrated stellar density distribution, as typically found in local elliptical galaxies. We find that about 10 per cent of the time, the compact galaxy develops multiphase gas within a few kpc, but the accretion flow through the inner boundary below the Bondi radius is always a single phase. The inflow rate in the compact galaxy is several times larger than in the reference galaxy, mainly due to the higher gas density caused by the more compact stellar distribution. Such a higher inflow rate results in stronger SMBH feeding and feedback and a larger fountain-like inflow-outflow structure. Compared to the reference galaxy, the star formation rate in the compact galaxy is roughly two orders of magnitude higher but is still low enough to be considered quiescent. Over the whole evolution period, the black hole mass grows by similar to 50 per cent in the compact galaxy, much larger than the value of similar to 3 per cent in the reference galaxy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available