Paper detail

AGN feedback in an isolated elliptical galaxy: the effect of strong radiative feedback in the kinetic mode

Based on two-dimensional high resolution hydrodynamic numerical simulation, we study the mechanical and radiative feedback effects from the central AGN on the cosmological evolution of an isolated elliptical galaxy. Physical processes such as star formation and supernovae are considered. The inner boundary of the simulation domain is carefully chosen so that the fiducial Bondi radius is resolved and the accretion rate of the black hole is determined self-consistently. In analogy to previous works, we assume that the specific angular momentum of the galaxy is low. It is well-known that when the accretion rates are high and low, the central AGNs will be in cold and hot accretion modes, which correspond to the radiative and kinetic feedback modes, respectively. The emitted spectrum from the hot accretion flows is harder than that from the cold accretion flows, which could result in a higher Compton temperature accompanied by a more efficient radiative heating, according to previous theoretical works. Such a difference of the Compton temperature between the two feedback modes, the focus of this study, has been neglected in previous works. Significant differences in the kinetic feedback mode are found as a result of the stronger Compton heating and accretion becomes more chaotic. More importantly, if we constrain models to correctly predict black hole growth and AGN duty cycle after cosmological evolution, we find that the favored model parameters are constrained: mechanical feedback efficiency diminishes with decreasing luminosity (the maximum efficiency being $\simeq 10^{-3.5}$) and X-ray Compton temperature increases with decreasing luminosity, although models with fixed mechanical efficiency and Compton temperature can be found that are satisfactory as well. We conclude that radiative feedback in the kinetic mode is much more important than previously thought.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.