1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \def\etals{{ et al. }\rm}
4: \def\ga{\mathrel{\raise0.35ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle >$}\kern-0.6em
5: \lower0.40ex\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
6: \def\la{\mathrel{\raise0.35ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle <$}\kern-0.6em
7: \lower0.40ex\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
8: \def\co{CO {\it J}=1-0 }
9: \def\cothree{CO {\it J}=3-2 }
10:
11: \newcommand{\mum}{\,\mu{\rm m}}
12:
13: \shorttitle{Molecular gas in HE\,0450-2958}
14: \shortauthors{Papadopoulos, Feain, Wagg, \& Wilner}
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \title{A new twist to an old story: HE\,0450-2958, and the
18: ULIRG$\rightarrow $(optically bright QSO) transition hypothesis}
19:
20: \author{Padeli \ P.\ Papadopoulos}
21: \affil{Argelander-Institut f\"ur Astronomie, Auf dem H\"ugel 71, D-53121 Bonn, Germany}
22: \email{padeli@astro.uni-bonn.de}
23:
24: \author{Ilana J. Feain}
25: \affil{CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility, P.O. Box 76, Epping, NSW 1710, Australia}
26: \email{Ilana.Feain@CSIRO.AU}
27:
28:
29: \author{Jeff Wagg}
30: \affil{NRAO, PO Box 0, Socorro, New Mexico, 87801,USA}
31: \email{jwagg@nrao.edu}
32:
33: \and
34:
35: \author{David J. Wilner}
36: \affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA}
37: \email{dwilner@cfa.harvard.edu}
38:
39: %\altaffiltext{1}{Institut f\"ur Astronomie, ETH Zurich, 8093 Z\"urich, Switzerland}
40:
41: \begin{abstract}
42:
43: We report on interferometric imaging of the CO J=1--0 and J=3--2 line
44: emission from the controversial QSO/galaxy pair HE\,0450--2958. {\it
45: The detected CO J=1--0 line emission is found associated with the
46: disturbed companion galaxy not the luminous QSO,} and implies $\rm
47: M_{gal}(H_2)\sim (1-2)\times 10^{10}\, M_{\odot}$, which is $\ga 30\%
48: $ of the dynamical mass in its CO-luminous region. Fueled by this
49: large gas reservoir this galaxy is the site of an intense starburst
50: with $\rm SFR\sim 370\, M_{\odot }\, yr^{-1}$, placing it firmly on
51: the upper gas-rich/star-forming end of Ultra Luminous Infrared
52: Galaxies (ULIRGs, $\rm L_{IR}>10^{12}\, L_{\odot }$). This makes
53: HE\,0450--2958 the first case of extreme starburst and powerful QSO
54: activity, intimately linked (triggered by a strong interaction) but
55: not coincident. The lack of CO emission towards the QSO itself renews
56: the controversy regarding its host galaxy by making a gas-rich spiral
57: (the typical host of Narrow Line Seyfert~1 AGNs) less likely.
58: Finally, given that HE\,0450--2958 and similar IR-warm QSOs are
59: considered typical ULIRG$\rightarrow $(optically bright QSO)
60: transition candidates, our results raise the possibility that some may
61: simply be {\it gas-rich/gas-poor (e.g. spiral/elliptical) galaxy
62: interactions} which ``activate'' an optically bright unobscured QSO in
63: the gas-poor galaxy, and a starburst in the gas-rich one. We argue
64: that such interactions may have gone largely unnoticed even in the
65: local Universe because the combination of tools necessary to
66: disentagle the progenitors (high resolution and S/N optical {\it and}
67: CO imaging) became available only~recently.
68:
69: \end{abstract}
70:
71: \keywords{galaxies: active --- galaxies: ISM --- galaxies: starburst --- ISM: molecules
72: --- quasars: individual (HE\,0450-2958) --- galaxies: mergers}
73:
74:
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77:
78:
79: HE\,0450-2958 is an optically bright ($\rm M_v=-25.8$) IR-selected
80: QSO at a redshift of z=0.286 (Low et al. 1988), and one of the few in
81: the local Universe whose position in the (60$\mu $m, 25$\mu $m)
82: versus (100$\mu $m, 60$\mu $m) far-IR color-color diagram lies in the
83: area between Ultra Luminous Infrared Galaxies (ULIRGs) and optically
84: bright QSOs defined by $\rm -0.8 < \alpha (100, 60) < 0.4$ and $\rm
85: -2.0 < \alpha (60, 25) < - 0.8$ (Canalizo \& Stockton 2001). Its
86: complex environment, marked by tidal interactions, was identified
87: early with ground-based (Hutchings, \& Neff 1988) and {\it HST}
88: imaging (Boyce et al. 1996). These efforts revealed a strongly
89: interacting system consisting of the QSO and a disturbed galaxy $\sim
90: 1.5''$ away, setting this QSO/galaxy pair on par with typical ULIRGs
91: in terms of morphology, and IR luminosity ($\rm L_{IR}\sim 5\times
92: 10^{12}\, L_{\odot}$).
93:
94: The scarcity of such IR {\it and} optically luminous QSOs made
95: HE\,0450-2958 an early favorite candidate for undergoing a
96: ULIRG$\rightarrow $(optically bright QSO) transition (Hutchings, \&
97: Neff 1988; Canalizo \& Stockton 2001) in a scenario first outlined by
98: Sanders et al. (1988). The latter was proposed after FIR
99: color-color diagrams have identified a population of dust-enshrouded
100: QSOs via their AGN-heated dust component (de Grijp, Miley, \& Lub
101: 1987), and it was motivated by the similar bolometric luminosities
102: and space densities of optically powerful QSOs and ULIRGs in the
103: local Universe. It involves two gas-rich galaxies whose strong
104: dynamical interaction induces a starburst and fuels an AGN {\it
105: within} heavily dust-obscured environments. Then, as star formation
106: uses and disperses their large molecular gas reservoirs, their
107: initially cool Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) of dust emission
108: changes towards one dominated by warm AGN-heated dust with much
109: warmer IR colors. Eventually an unobscured optically bright
110: QSO~emerges out of the original ULIRG. The large dust and molecular
111: gas reservoirs found in {\it optically} selected QSOs where they fuel
112: intense starbursts (e.g. Alloin et al. 1992; Haas et al. 2000;
113: Evans et al. 2001) certainly support an AGN-starburst link, with
114: dynamical interactions/mergers as the likely trigger for both
115: activities, suggested also by optical studies (e.g. Canalizo \&
116: Stockton 2001). In this context the pivotal role of the
117: ULIRG$\rightarrow $QSO transition objects can then be understood as
118: the ``markers'' of a special evolutionary stage during which the QSO
119: emerges from a still ongoing dusty starburst, and lasting only a
120: fraction of already short molecular gas consumption timescales ($\rm
121: \la 10^8\,yrs$).
122:
123:
124: HE\,0450-2958 acquired further singular significance when Magain et
125: al. (2005), after carefully subtracting the AGN emission from an
126: ACS/HST image, failed to find the QSO host galaxy expected from
127: well-established and tight correlations of (host galaxy)-quasar
128: properties (e.g. McLure \& Dunlop 2002; Floyd et al. 2004). This
129: potentially pivotal result has been upheld by independent analysis
130: (Kim et al. 2007), and follow-up VLT spectroscopic observations
131: weakened the hypothesis for a significantly dust-enshrouded QSO host
132: galaxy (Letawe et al. 2007). The possibility of an ejected
133: (black-hole)+(fuel) system as responsible for a ``naked'' QSO, its
134: serious consequences and observable signatures have been discussed in
135: several papers. Summarizing their results here, such a configuration
136: can be produced either by a Newtonian three-body ``kick'' exerted on a
137: lighter black hole by a black hole binary residing in a gas-poor
138: elliptical (Haehnelt, Davies, \& Rees 2005; Hoffman \& Loeb 2006), or
139: by the recoil of a coalesced binary of {\it spinning} black holes due
140: to an asymmetric gravitational wave emission (Haehnelt et al. 2005;
141: Loeb 2007). The stage for both scenaria demands a strong galaxy
142: interaction, and both have important consequences for gravitational
143: wave detections by future detectors such as {\it LISA}, and the
144: hierarchical build-up of supermassive black holes in galaxy centers
145: (Haehnelt et al. 2005 and references~therein).
146:
147:
148: In the present work we report on the observations of CO J=1--0, the
149: prime molecular line used to trace metal-rich H$_2$ gas in galaxies,
150: using the Australian Telescope Compact Array (ATCA), and the J=3--2
151: line with the Smithsonian Submillimeter Array (SMA). The paper is
152: organized as follows: a) we present the observations and their
153: analysis (section 2), b) estimate the molecular gas and dust mass of
154: the system and discuss the properties of the companion galaxy (Section
155: 3), c) present the implications regarding the AGN and its host
156: (section 4), and d) discuss possible ramifications for the
157: ULIRG$\rightarrow $QSO evolutionary scheme (section 5). Throughout
158: this work we adopt a cosmology with $\rm
159: H_{\circ}=71\,km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}$, $\rm \Omega _M=0.27$ and $\rm
160: \Omega _{\Lambda}=0.73$, for which the luminosity distance of
161: HE\,0450-2958 at z=0.286 is $\rm D_{L}=1460.4\, Mpc$ and $\rm
162: 1''\rightarrow 4.28\,kpc$.
163:
164:
165:
166: \section{Observations, data reduction, and imaging}
167:
168: \subsection{The ATCA observations}
169:
170: We used the ATCA to image the CO J=1--0 line emission ($\rm \nu
171: _{rest}=115.2712\, GHz$) towards the QSO/galaxy system HE\,0450-2958
172: during four periods in April, August 2006 and May, August 2007
173: utilizing the hybrid H\,214 and H\,168 configurations which combine
174: antennas on both the east-west track and north track with maximum
175: baselines of 168\,m and 214\,m respectively. These special
176: configurations provide good brightness sensitivity while achieving
177: good u-v coverage within short ($\sim $6\,hrs) observing sessions.
178: This is important for mm observations at the ATCA site where
179: atmospheric conditions usually limit useful observing (i.e. with low
180: system temperatures and good phase stability) to time intervals
181: significantly shorter than typical full synthesis sessions ($\sim
182: $12\,hrs). For the mean redshift $\rm z = 0.2864$ of the pair
183: (Canalizo \& Stockton 2001), this CO transition is redshifted to $\rm
184: \nu (z)= 89.608\, GHz$, well within the tuning range of ATCA's 3\,mm
185: receivers (available in 5 of the 6 antennas). The correlator setup
186: consisted of two IF modules of $\rm 64 \times 2\,MHz$ channels each,
187: and frequency resolution of $\rm \Delta \nu _{res}\sim 2.2 \Delta \nu
188: _{ch}=4.4\, MHz $. The effective velocity coverage was $\rm \Delta
189: V_{(IF1+IF2)}\sim (-300\rightarrow +270)\, km\, s^{-1}$, after
190: flagging bad edge channels and channel overlap (=7 channels) between
191: the two IF modules. Pointing was checked hourly, and typical offsets
192: were $\sim 5''$ (rms), while the field of view of ATCA antennas at
193: this frequency is 32$''$ (HPBW). The array phase center was placed
194: at the AGN's position, marked by its radio core at 8.6~GHz (the C1
195: component in Feain et al. 2007).
196:
197:
198: Dedicated wideband mm continuum observations were conducted during
199: periods in May, August 2006, and August 2007 using the two IFs tuned
200: in series around a center frequency $\rm \sim 94.53\, GHz$ (well away
201: from the CO line), and the same array configurations (two tracks with
202: H\,214, three tracks with H\,168). For these observations the phase
203: center was placed $3''$ away from the QSO as to avoid any (highly
204: unlikely) small correlator DC offsets masking as a weak continuum
205: source at the phase center. Typical system temperatures during line
206: and continuum observations were $\rm T_{sys}\sim (200-350)\,K$
207: (including atmospheric absorption), estimated with hourly vane
208: calibration performed per~antenna.
209:
210:
211: Amplitude/phase calibration was obtained with 0454-234 observations
212: interleaved with HE\,0450-2958 in 1min/(3-5)mins calibrator/source
213: intervals, and passband calibration was achieved by observing 1921-293
214: or 2223-052. The absolute flux density scale was set by bootstrapping
215: that of 0454-234 from Uranus and/or Mars observations in each track.
216: These yielded $\rm S_{3\,mm}(0454-234)=(1.9\pm 0.28)\, Jy$, where the
217: $\sim 15\%$ error represents the flux scale uncertainty of the data,
218: obtained as the dispersion of $\rm S_{3\,mm}(0454-234)$ over the 2006,
219: 2007 observing periods (and thus is an upper limit since it contains
220: also any real source~variability).
221:
222:
223: \subsection{The SMA observations}
224:
225: A search for the redshifted CO J=3--2 line emission ($\rm \nu
226: _{rest}=345.796\, GHz$) was conducted using the 8-element
227: SMA\footnote{The Submillimeter Array is a joint project between the
228: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Academia Sinica
229: Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics and is funded by the
230: Smithsonian Institution and the Academia Sinica.} interferometer on
231: 9th of December 2006 with a median atmospheric opacity at 225~GHz of
232: $\tau _{225}\sim 0.08$. This transition is redshifted to
233: 269.102~GHz, covered by the lower sideband (LSB) of the 345~GHz
234: receivers placed at 268.892 GHz, while the upper sideband was offset
235: by 10 GHz from this center frequency. The bandwidth covered by each
236: is 2 GHz while the spectral resolution was 3.25~MHz for a total of
237: 768 channels. This was smoothed so that a single CO J=3-2 map was
238: created, averaged over a velocity range of 570 $\rm km\,s^{-1}$
239: centered at the redshift of the CO J=1-0 line emission.
240:
241:
242: The SMA extended configuration was used, yielding a beam of $\sim
243: 1.20'' \times 0.94''$, PA=16.9$^\circ$ at the observed frequency and
244: the u-v coverage attained. The mean system temperature was $\rm
245: T_{sys}=490\,K$ (DSB), and the total on-source integration time $\sim
246: 5.07$ hrs. Calibration of the antenna gain variations was done by
247: observing the calibrators 0522-364 and 0455-462, at regular 10~minute
248: intervals. Saturn and 3C454.3 were used to calibrate the bandpass,
249: while Uranus was observed for flux calibration, with an expected
250: uncertainty of $\sim$20\%. The MIR package was then used for the
251: calibration of the visibility~data. A search for 275~GHz continuum
252: yielded an upper limit of $\rm S_{275\,GHz}\leq 8\, mJy/beam$
253: ($3\,\sigma$), over a $\rm \sim 3.936\,GHz$ bandwidth (both
254: sidebands), while the noise in the line map was $\rm \sigma _{rms}\sim
255: 6.6\,mJy/beam$.
256:
257:
258:
259: \subsection{Data reduction and imaging}
260:
261: We used the {\it in-situ} ATCA phase monitor operating on a 230\,m
262: east-west baseline (Middelberg, Sault, \& Kesteven 2006) to identify
263: the periods when atmospheric phase noise at 90\,GHz over this baseline
264: (comparable to the longest present in our datasets) exceeded $\sim
265: 30^{\circ}$ (rms) and rejected the data taken during those periods.
266: The remaining visibilities were then edited for any remaining large
267: temporal amplitude/phase jumps. The final $\rm V(u,v)$ visibility
268: dataset has a residual phase rms of $\sigma _{\phi}\sim 20^{\circ}$,
269: in accordance with a mean coherence factor $\rm \rho _{coh} =\langle
270: V(u,v)\rangle/S =e^{-\sigma ^2 _{\phi}(rad)/2} \sim 0.95$, estimated
271: from imaging the visibilities of the calibrator with an input flux
272: density S (and antenna amplitude/phase solutions smoothed to $\rm
273: T_{avg} \sim 2\times T_{cycle}(QSO\leftrightarrow calibrator)\sim
274: 12\,mins$ intervals). The u-v range of the final dataset is $\rm \sim
275: (12\rightarrow 75)\, k{\lambda}$ for both line and continuum.
276:
277:
278: Imaging was done using MIRIAD's task INVERT with natural weight used
279: for maximum point-source sensitivity in our line and continuum maps.
280: CO J=1--0 emission was detected independently in both the H\,214 and
281: H\,168 array datasets, with peak flux densities differing by $\sim
282: 15\%$, consistent with the calibration uncertainties. An image of
283: the CO J=1--0 emission was produced by multi-frequency
284: synthesis\footnote{Fourier transform of the $\rm V(u,v)$
285: visibilities {\it per channel}, then averaging the resulting channel
286: maps} over the whole band, and combining both configurations.
287: Deconvolution using the Clark algorithm was then performed. The
288: resulting CO map and mm continuum image of the same region are shown
289: in Figure 1, and the spectrum corresponding to the peak CO emission
290: is shown in Figure 2.
291:
292: \subsubsection{Source characteristics}
293:
294: The velocity-averaged CO J=1--0 image yields the highest S/N possible
295: from our data ($\rm S_{peak}/\sigma_{rms}\sim $15, Figure 1), and thus
296: allows optimum determination of the position of the peak emission and
297: the source size. A gaussian source model yields an excellent fit
298: (i.e. after subtraction of the model, the noise in the residual image
299: over the source area is $\rm \sigma _{rms} =0.45\,mJy/beam$, as in the
300: rest of the map area) where the peak CO brightness $\rm
301: S_{peak}=(6.7\pm 0.45)\, mJy/beam$ is located at $(\Delta \alpha,
302: \Delta \delta) = (1.15''\pm 0.12'', -1.05''\pm 0.10'')$ relative to
303: the AGN's radio core at the phase center. The small positional errors
304: are those expected from the high S/N ($\rm \delta \theta _{rms} \sim
305: 1/2\, \langle \Theta _{beam} \rangle (S/N)^{-1}\sim 0.09''$ relative
306: to the phase center). The angular proximity of the amplitude/phase
307: calibrator to HE\,0450--2958 ($\rm |\Delta \vec k|\sim 6.5^{\circ}$
308: away) allows also for excellent {\it absolute} astrometry by limiting
309: $\rm \delta \theta _{bas} = (\delta \vec B\cdot \Delta \vec k)/B
310: \approx (\delta \phi _{bas}/2\pi )\langle \Theta _{beam}\rangle$ (the
311: uncertainty due to the phase error $\rm \delta \phi _{bas}\sim
312: (2\pi/\lambda) (\delta \vec B\cdot \Delta \vec k)$) to $\sim 0.086''$
313: (for typical calibration errors of the baseline length of $\rm |\delta
314: \vec B|\sim 1\,mm$). {\it Thus we are confident that the peak CO
315: emission is not located at the QSO position but $\sim 1.56''\pm0.17''
316: (\sim 6.7\,kpc)$ away.}
317:
318: The total flux density of $\rm S ^{(tot)} _{\nu }(CO)= (10\pm 2)\,
319: mJy$ emerges for a source for which the gaussian fit gives: $\theta
320: _{maj}=3.95'' \pm 0.30'' $ and $\theta _{min}=2.80'' \pm 0.22'' $
321: (PA=$57^{\circ}\pm 9^{\circ} $). Deconvolving the restoring beam
322: ($3.21''\times 2.14''$, PA=$72^{\circ}$) yields an intrinsic size of
323: $2.5''\times 1.5''$ (PA=$35^{\circ}$), larger than any expected
324: ``seeing'' disk. The latter, deduced from images of the
325: amplitude/phase calibrator, is $\sim 0.30''-0.45''$ (consistent with
326: the expected $\rm \Delta \theta _{seeing}\sim [\sigma _{\phi
327: }(rad)/2\pi] \sqrt{8\, ln2}\, \langle \Theta _{beam}\rangle \sim
328: 0.34'' $, for a residual $\rm \sigma _{\phi }\sim 20^{\circ}$ and
329: $\rm \langle \Theta _{beam}\rangle =\sqrt{\Theta _1\Theta _2}\sim
330: 2.62''$).
331:
332: No continuum emission is detected at 94.5\,GHz in either the starburst
333: or the QSO position ($\rm S_{94\,GHz}<1.4\,mJy$ (3$\sigma$), Figure
334: 1). All relevant data, and the characteristics of the CO and dust
335: emission in HE\,0450--2958 are summarized in Table 1.
336:
337:
338: \section{The molecular gas in HE\,0450--2958}
339:
340: The CO J=1--0 emission overlaid with the 8.4\,GHz radio continuum is
341: shown in Figure~2 where a good correspondence with the region C\,2
342: associated with the companion galaxy (Feain et al. 2007) is evident.
343: Regriding the observed CO emission and its deconvolved model, and then
344: overlaying them onto the HST/ACS optical frame of HE\,0450--2958
345: further underlines its association with the companion galaxy rather
346: than the QSO (Figure 4).
347:
348:
349:
350: The corresponding H$_2$ mass is given by $\rm M(H_2)=X_{CO}
351: L_{CO(1-0)}$, where $\rm L_{CO(1-0)}= \int _{\Delta V} \int_{A_s} T
352: _{b}\,dA\,dV $ is the velocity/area-integrated line brightness
353: temperature at the source reference frame, and $\rm X_{CO}$ (in $\rm
354: M_{\odot } (K\,km\,s^{-1}\, pc^2)^{-1}$ units) is the CO-H$_2$
355: luminosity-mass conversion factor. Using standard derivations (e.g.
356: Solomon et al. 1997) we have
357:
358: \begin{equation}
359: \rm L_{CO(1-0)} = 3.25\times 10^7\,(1+z)^{-1}
360: \left(\frac{\nu _{co,rest}}{GHz}\right)^{-2} \left(\frac{D_L}{Mpc}\right)^2
361: \left(\frac{\int S_{CO(1-0)} dV}{Jy\,km\,s^{-1}}\right)\, K\, km\,s^{-1}\,pc^2.
362: \end{equation}
363:
364:
365: \noindent
366: For the observed $\rm \int S_{CO(1-0)}\,dV$ (Table 1), $\rm
367: D_L=1460.4\,Mpc$ and $\rm \nu _{co,rest}=115.271\, GHz$ (the line
368: rest-frame frequency), the latter gives $\rm L_{CO(1-0)}=(2.3\pm
369: 0.46)\times 10^{10}\, K\, km\, s^{-1}\, pc^2$. This is close to the
370: maximum CO luminosity observed for starbursts, beyond which it remains
371: constant across redshift (Frayer et al. 1999; Evans, Surace, \&
372: Mazzarella 2000), a possible indication of a self-regulating process
373: occuring in extreme (maximal?) starbursts. Using $\rm X_{CO}\sim 1\,
374: M_{\odot} (K\,km\,s^{-1}\,pc^2)^{-1}$ (deduced for local ULIRGs,
375: Downes \& Solomon 1998), we obtain $\rm M_{gal}(H_2)\sim 2.3\times
376: 10^{10}\, M_{\odot}$, {\it which places the companion galaxy in this
377: galaxy/QSO pair firmly in the ULIRG category,} at its most gas-rich
378: upper end, and similar to starbursts found at high redshifts
379: (e.g. Greve et al.~2005).
380:
381:
382: A lower limit in the H$_2$ gas mass can be obtained by assuming that
383: the $ ^{12}$CO J=1--0 emission is optically thin. Using the derivation
384: in Bryant \& Scoville (1996) and assuming LTE, the new conversion
385: factor becomes
386:
387: \begin{equation}
388: \rm \frac{M(H_2)}{L_{CO(1-0)}} \sim 0.08 \left(\frac{[CO/H_2]}{10^{-4}}\right)^{-1}
389: \left[\frac{g_1}{Z}e^{-T_{\circ}/T_k} \left(\frac{J(T_k)-J(T_{bg})}{J(T_k)}\right)\right]^{-1}
390: \frac{M_{\odot }}{K\,km\,s^{-1}\,pc^2},
391: \end{equation}
392:
393:
394: \noindent
395: where $\rm T_{\circ} = E_1/k_B\sim 5.5\,K$, $\rm
396: J(T)=T_{\circ}\left(e^{T_{\circ}/T}-1\right)^{-1}$, $\rm
397: T_{bg}=(1+z)T_{cmb}\sim 3.5\,K$ (CMB temperature at z=0.286), $\rm
398: g_1=3$ (degeneracy factor of n=1 level), $\rm Z\sim 2(T_k/T_{\circ})$
399: (partition function), and $\rm [CO/H_2]\sim 10^{-4}$ (for solar
400: metallicity). For typical star forming gas where $\rm T_k\sim
401: 40-60\,K$, the last equation yields $\rm \langle X^{(thin)}
402: _{CO}\rangle _{T_k} \sim 0.55\, M_{\odot}\,
403: (K\,km\,s^{-1}\,pc^2)^{-1}$, and thus $\rm M_{gal}(H_2) _{min}\sim
404: 1.25\times 10^{10}\,M_{\odot }$.
405:
406: \subsection{Constraints on the molecular gas excitation}
407:
408:
409: The CO J=3--2 observations yield a limit of $\rm S_{CO(3-2)}\la 3
410: {N_b}^{1/2} \delta S_{CO(3-2)}\Delta V $, where $\rm \delta
411: S_{CO(3-2)}\sim 6.6\, mJy/beam $ is the noise of the CO J=3--2 map,
412: $\rm N_{b}\sim 3.3$ is the number of SMA beams corresponding to the CO
413: J=1--0 emitting region and $\rm \Delta V\sim 570\,km\,s^{-1}$. This
414: gives $\rm S_{CO(3-2)}\la 20\, Jy\, km\, s^{-1}$, and $\rm
415: L_{CO(3-2)}\la 9\times 10^{9}\, K\, km\, s^{-1}\, pc^2$, which
416: corresponds to a (3--2)/(1--0) brightness temperature ratio of $\rm
417: R_{32}\la 0.39$. This is rather low for molecular gas in starbursts
418: where $\rm \langle R_{32}\rangle \sim 0.65$ (e.g. Devereux et a.
419: 1994), though within the range found in such galaxies (e.g. Yao et
420: al. 2003). We examined an extensive grid of models with our Large
421: Velocity Gradient (LVG) code (based on work by Richardson 1985),
422: restricted by the upper limit on $\rm R_{32}$, and the condition $\rm
423: T_{\rm kin}\geq T_{dust}\ga 50\,K$ (since the gas cools less
424: efficiently than the dust, and turbulent/photoelectric heating heats
425: the gas more). Most conditions reproducing this ratio have $\rm
426: \langle n(H_2)\rangle \sim (10^2-10^3)\,cm^{-3}$ (volume-averaged
427: H$_2$ gas density), rather low for star forming H$_2$ gas. This may
428: in turn signify that not all of the CO(1-0)-emitting gas is involved
429: in star formation (and thus some of it is not CO(3-2)-bright). Given
430: the minimum $\rm R_{32}(min)\sim 0.22$ found in ULIRGs (Yao et al.
431: 2003), deeper SMA observations of CO J=3--2 at a lower resolution
432: (better matching the CO J=1--0 source size) should detect this line in
433: HE\,0450--2958 and shed light on its star-forming molecular gas phase.
434:
435:
436: \subsection{The companion galaxy: a typical ULIRG}
437:
438: The mm/IR dust continuum SED of HE\,0450--2958 from IRAS and our
439: mm/sub-mm data (Figure 5) is typical for warm ULIRGs and IR-selected
440: QSOs, where the presence of warm dust was the prime reason they were
441: considered as $\rm ULIRG\rightarrow QSO$ transition objects in the
442: evolutionary scenario linking these two classes. A cool/warm dust
443: emission SED fit yields $\rm T^{(cool)} _{dust}=45-55\,K$ and $\rm
444: T^{(warm)} _{dust}\sim 175-194\, K$ (for emissivities of $\beta
445: =1-2$). Adopting $\beta =1.5 $ as our working value yields $\rm
446: T^{(cool)} _{dust}=48\,K$, $\rm M^{(cool)} _{dust}\sim 10^8\, M_{\odot
447: }$, and $\rm L_{FIR}=2.1\times 10^{12}\, L_{\odot}$ (the luminosity of
448: the cool dust component). A starburst in the gas-rich companion
449: galaxy is a natural source of this large far-IR luminosity of
450: HE\,0450-2958, with a star formation rate of $\rm SFR \sim 1.76\times
451: 10^{-10}(L_{IR}/L_{\odot})\, M_{\odot}\, yr^{-1}\sim 370\, M_{\odot
452: }\, yr^{-1}$, and a star formation efficiency of $\rm SFE\sim
453: L_{FIR}/M_{gal}(H_2)\sim (90-165)\, (L_{\odot}/M_{\odot})$, typical
454: values for ULIRGs (e.g. Solomon et al. 1997). Moreover assuming
455: most of the cool dust mass in this system residing in the companion
456: galaxy, we obtain $\rm M_{gal}(H_2)/M^{(cool)}_{dust}\sim 125-230$.
457: These values are well within the range found in IR-luminous galaxies
458: (e.g. Sanders Scoville, \& Soifer 1991, for the $\rm X_{CO}$ adopted
459: here), adding confidence to the estimated $\rm M_{gal}(H_2)$ as a good
460: measure of the bulk molecular gas mass present in HE\,0450--2958.
461:
462:
463: The results above are certainly in good accord with evidence of
464: significant star formation and reddening in the companion galaxy, and
465: no such activity or dust obscuration evident in a putative QSO host
466: galaxy (Magain et al. 2005; Letawe, Magain, \& Courbin 2007). They
467: contradict the recent view of Kim et al. 2007 regarding the nature of
468: the companion galaxy, but also set HE\,0450-2958 apart from typical
469: ULIRGs with double nuclei. The latter have molecular gas mass ratios
470: of $\sim 1:1-2:1$ (Sanders \& Ishida 2004; Evans, Surace, \& Mazzarela
471: 2000), and their AGNs (when present) reside in the most gas-rich
472: member of the interacting/merger pair (e.g. Evans et al. 1999,
473: 2002). Subtraction of the CO emission model leaves no residual such
474: emission in the location of the QSO with $\rm S^{(peak)}
475: _{gal}/S_{QSO-host}\ga 5$ ($3\, \sigma$), which corresponds to $\rm
476: M_{gal}(H_2)/M_{QSO-host}(H_2) \ga 5:1$ (for a common velocity range
477: and $\rm X_{CO}$~value). A different (higher) $\rm X_{CO}$ factor for
478: the molecular gas in the QSO host could reduce the aforementioned
479: asymmetry in H$_2$ gas mass distribution, while some CO emission at
480: the QSO's location at velocities outside our velocity coverage of $\rm
481: \sim 570\,km\,s^{-1}$ could be missed. However the relatively small
482: velocity range traced by the ULIRG, the QSO, and the highly excitated
483: ionized gas around it (Merritt et al. 2006) make the latter
484: possibility rather small. Sensitive wideband observations of e.g. CO
485: J=3--2 with good brightness sensitivity would nevertheless be very
486: valuable in the search for any QSO-related molecular gas.
487:
488:
489: \subsection{The dynamical mass of the companion galaxy}
490:
491: The line profile towards the peak CO emission shows signs of a
492: rotating disk (Figure~3), though the lower S/N per channel across the
493: band makes this far from certain. The CO source model shows good
494: overall agreement with the galaxy's optical image (Figure 4), and at
495: $\rm z=0.2864$ where $\rm 2.5''\times 1.5''\rightarrow 10.7\,kpc
496: \times 6.4\, kpc$, its dimensions are comparable to the H$_2$-rich
497: parts of typical spiral disks (Regan et al. 2001; Helfer et al.
498: 2003), including the Milky Way, but with $\sim 10-20$ times more H$_2$
499: gas mass.
500:
501: For an underlying disk geometry the source angular dimensions
502: correspond to an inclination angle $\rm cos (i)= \theta
503: _{minor}/\theta _{major}=0.6\Rightarrow i\sim 53^{\circ}$. The
504: enclosed dynamical mass then would~be
505:
506: \begin{equation}
507: \rm M_{dyn}\sim \frac{R}{G} \left(\frac{V^{(obs)} _{rot}}{sin(i)}\right)^2 \sim 2.32\times 10^5
508: \left(\frac{R}{kpc}\right)\left(\frac{V^{(obs)} _{rot}/sin(i)}{km\,s^{-1}}\right)^2\, M_{\odot}.
509: \end{equation}
510:
511: \noindent
512: For $\rm R\sim R_{major}/2\sim 5.35\,kpc$, $\rm V^{(obs)}
513: _{rot}=(100-150)\, km\, s^{-1}$ (see Figure 2), it is $\rm M_{dyn}\sim
514: (1.9-4.4)\times 10^{10}\, M_{\odot}$. Thus the galaxy's molecular gas
515: mass amounts to $\ga 30\%$ of the dynamical mass enclosed in its
516: CO-emitting region, making this ULIRG a very gas-rich system.
517:
518:
519: Inadequate resolution and/or low S/N makes it notoriously difficult to
520: discern a gaseous disk from other possible configurations, and this
521: has led to ambiguities regarding the presence of large gas-rich
522: spirals, especially in the distant Universe (e.g. Genzel et al. 2003;
523: Tacconi et al. 2006). In our case the resolution is inadequate to
524: discern velocity/position patterns within the source and the
525: underlying dynamical configuration could certainly be different (e.g.
526: two orbiting compact gas reservoirs). Nevertheless for the intrinsic
527: size and velocity width of our source most dynamical configurations
528: would produce similar or even smaller $\rm M_{dyn}$ values (e.g.
529: Bryant \& Scoville 1996; Genzel et al. 2003), and thus the ULIRG in
530: HE\,0450-2958 would remain a very gas-rich~object in terms of its $\rm
531: M_{gal}(H_2)/M_{dyn}$ ratio.
532:
533:
534:
535:
536: \section{Implications for the QSO's host galaxy and its AGN}
537:
538: A suggestion for a Narrow Line Seyfert~1 (hereafter NLSy1) AGN
539: (which have lower mass black holes), made by Merrit et al. (2006),
540: could reconcile the lack of a massive spheroid host galaxy reported by
541: Magain et al. (2005). However this rests on the weak premise of a
542: good analogy between luminous QSOs and the much less luminous Seyfert
543: galaxies, unsupported by the fact that NLSy1 AGNs are typically hosted
544: by gas-rich spirals with luminous starbursts, while optically luminous
545: QSOs with $\rm M_v<-24$ reside mostly in gas-poor massive elliptical
546: hosts (Floyd et al. 2004). For example in I Zw 1 (the closest QSO
547: and a prototypical NLSy1), a spiral disk hosts a massive cirumnuclear
548: starburst at a radius of $\rm \sim 1.9\, kpc$ (Schinnerer, Eckart, \&
549: Tacconi 1998; Staguhn et al. 2004) fueled by a large molecular gas
550: reservoir. {\it None of that is evident in the vicinity of the AGN in
551: the HE\,0450-2958 system} whose bulk of the molecular gas and
552: starburst activity are found in the companion galaxy instead.
553: Indicatively, at z$\sim 0.286$ our CO 1--0 observations could detect
554: the molecular gas mass of the $\sim 10$ times less far-IR luminous I
555: Zw 1 at a S/N$\sim 5$. Finally, well-established {\it empirical}
556: AGN-(host galaxy) correlations also predict a hitherto absent
557: prominent elliptical (Magain et al.~2005), and thus this important
558: issue remains~open.
559:
560:
561: \subsection{The AGN-related molecular gas: could it be ejected?}
562:
563: The two-component dust continuum SED fit (section 3.2) yields $\rm
564: T^{(warm)} _{dust}(AGN)=184\,K$, $\rm M^{(warm)} _{dust}(AGN)\sim
565: 5\times 10^4\, M_{\odot }$ and $\rm L_{mid-IR}=2.6\times 10^{12}\,
566: L_{\odot}$ (the luminosity of the corresponding dust component), but
567: unlike the typical scenario this AGN-heated dust reservoir now lies
568: {\it outside} the ULIRG where the bulk of the dust and molecular gas
569: mass resides. Using the same gas/dust ratio as in the companion
570: galaxy gives $\rm M_{AGN}(H_2)\sim (0.6-1.15)\times 10^7\, M_{\odot
571: }$. This amounts to the mass of a few GMCs, and such molecular gas
572: quantities are found within $\rm \la 100\,pc$ of AGNs in the local
573: Universe (e.g. in the Sy2 galaxy NGC 1068, Planesas, Scoville, \&
574: Myers 1991; Schinnerer, Eckart, \& Tacconi~1999).
575:
576: The disturbed nature of the HE\,0450-2958 system and the extreme
577: starburst in the gas-rich companion galaxy $\sim 6.7$ kpc away from
578: the QSO argues in favor of a strong dynamical interaction. Could then
579: a black hole, along with the aforementioned gas mass, have been
580: ejected out of its host galaxy during such an event? In order to
581: answer this and check the consistency of such proposals against the
582: gas mass associated with this particular AGN, an estimate of its black
583: hole mass is first needed. A {\it lower} limit can be derived from the
584: fact that the dust within an AGN-bound gas reservoir will partly
585: obscure it (giving rise to the distinct warm IR colors), and thus
586:
587: \begin{equation}
588: \rm L^{(AGN)} _{IR}= \frac{4\pi c G m_H\, f_c \epsilon _{Edd} M_{BH}}{\sigma _T}
589: = 3.3\times 10^{12}\, f_c\, \epsilon _{Edd} \left(\frac{M_{BH}}{10^8\,
590: M_{\odot}}\right)\, L_{\odot},
591: \end{equation}
592:
593: \noindent
594: where $\rm f_c=L^{(AGN)} _{IR}/L_{AGN}\leq 1$ is the fraction of the
595: AGN's intrinsic luminosity intercepted by the dust and re-radiated at
596: IR wavelengths, $\rm \epsilon _{Edd}=L_{AGN}/L_{Edd}$ ($\rm L_{Edd}$
597: is the Eddington luminosity limit), $\rm \sigma _{T}$ is the Thomson
598: cross section, and $\rm M_{BH}$ the black hole mass. Since $\rm
599: L^{(AGN)} _{IR}=2.6\times 10^{12}\, L_{\odot }$, the last relation
600: yields,
601:
602: \begin{equation}
603: \rm M_{BH}\sim 0.8 (f_c \epsilon _{Edd})^{-1}\, 10^8\,M_{\odot}.
604: \end{equation}
605:
606: \noindent
607: For $\rm \epsilon _{Edd} \sim 0.8$ (typical for $\rm M_{V}(QSO)<-25 $,
608: Floyd et al. 2004), and $\rm f_c=(1+R_{opt,IR})^{-1}\sim 0.71 $
609: (where $\rm R_{opt,IR}=(L_{opt}/L_{IR})_{AGN}\sim [\nu _B f^{(AGN)}
610: _{\nu }(B)]/[\nu_{60\mu m} f^{(AGN)} _{\nu }(60\mu m)]\sim 0.4$,
611: Canalizo \& Stockton 2001), it is $\rm M_{BH}\sim 1.4\times
612: 10^8\,M_{\odot }$. This is consistent with the low values advocated by
613: Merritt et al. (2006), but given that ours is only a lower limit, it
614: does not settle the issue of the black hole mass (and thus of the
615: expected host galaxy) raised by Magain et al.~(2005).
616:
617:
618: If such a black hole is the recoiling remnant of a coalesced black
619: hole binary then, following Loeb 2007, it can carry a gas disk with a
620: mass of
621:
622:
623: \begin{equation}
624: \rm M_{disk}\sim 3\times 10^5 \alpha^{-0.8} \eta ^{-0.6}
625: \left(\frac{M_{BH}}{10^7\,M_{\odot}}\right)^{2.2}
626: \left(\frac{V_{ej}}{10^3\, km\, s^{-1}}\right)^{-2.8}\, M_{\odot},
627: \end{equation}
628:
629: \noindent
630: where $\alpha \sim 0.1$ is the disk viscosity parameter, $\rm \eta =
631: (\epsilon _{BH}/0.1)(L_{AGN}/L_{Edd})\sim 0.8$, and $\rm V_{ej}$ is
632: the ejection velocity of the recoiled merged BH product. For high
633: ejection velocities of $\rm V_{ej}\ga 1000\,km\,s^{-1}$ (e.g Hoffman
634: \& Loeb 2006) Equation 6 yields the maximum $\rm M_{disk}$ that can be
635: carried out by the recoiling black hole of $\rm M_{disk}\la 2\times
636: 10^6\left[M_{BH}/(10^7\,M_{\odot})\right]^{2.2}\, M_{\odot}$. Given
637: that $\rm M_{BH}\ga 10^8\,M_{\odot }$, the latter comfortably
638: encompasses the molecular gas associated with the AGN in
639: HE\,0450-2958.
640:
641:
642: \subsubsection{How long could the AGN remain luminous?}
643:
644: Apart from partly obscuring the AGN in HE\,0450-2958 via its dust
645: content, the molecular gas mass in its vicinity can in principle
646: ``fuel'' it for
647:
648: \begin{equation}
649: \rm T_{fuel}=\frac{M_{AGN}(H_2)}{L _{AGN}/(c^2\,\epsilon _{BH})}\sim
650: 1.4\times 10^8\, \epsilon _{BH}\, f_c \, \left(\frac{L^{(AGN)} _{IR}}{10^{12}\,L_{\odot}}\right)^{-1}
651: \left[\frac{M_{AGN}(H_2)}{10^7\,M_{\odot}}\right]\, yrs,
652: \end{equation}
653:
654: \noindent
655: where $\rm \epsilon _{BH}$ is the black hole fuelling efficiency. For
656: a typical $\rm\epsilon _{BH}\sim 0.1 $ and the estimated $\rm
657: M_{AGN}(H_2)$ the latter yields $\rm T_{fuel}\sim (2-4)\times 10^6\,
658: yrs$. The shortness of this timescale, and the difficulty of fueling a
659: black hole once it is outside its host galaxy, may point to
660: fundamental limitations in the observability of such events, a
661: plausible reason for their hitherto scarcity.
662:
663:
664:
665: \subsection{The origin of the radio continuum}
666:
667:
668: The system's radio continuum contains low-luminosity jets emerging
669: from a radio-quiet core located at the QSO position (Feain et
670: al. 2007). An important question arising from that study is how could
671: the location of HE\,0450-2958 near the FIR/radio correlation be
672: explained if the starburst occurs in the companion galaxy while most
673: of the radio emission is of AGN origin. Clues for a possible answer
674: may be offered by the case of 1821+643, another radio-quiet but IR and
675: optically luminous QSO ($\rm M_V\sim -28$, $\rm L_{FIR}\sim 9\times
676: 10^{12}\, L_{\odot }$) residing in a giant elliptical. This was the
677: first radio-quiet QSO discovered to have classic FR~I radio structure
678: with low brightness diffuse jets (Papadopoulos et al. 1995), and a
679: high brightness temperature compact core (Blundell et al. 1996),
680: indicative of a black hole--based central engine. Despite the obvious
681: AGN contribution in its radio continuum it did not deviate decisively
682: from the far-IR/radio correlation until the discovery of a much
683: larger, 300 kpc-sized, low-brightness FR I radio structure (Blundell
684: \& Rawlings 2001). A similar scenario may apply for HE\,0450-2958,
685: and the discovery of such a jet morphology in this system could also
686: offer independent clues regarding the black hole.
687:
688:
689: Interestingly, FR I-type radio structures may originate from a
690: precessing jet axis due to binary black holes that have yet to
691: coalesce (Blundell \& Rawlings 2001). Such binaries, residing in
692: gas-poor ellipticals (which allows for their long survival against
693: gas-dynamical friction), are a fundamental prerequisite in the
694: scenario of ejected AGNs as the outcome of a three-body kick during
695: gas-rich/gas-poor galaxy interactions (Hoffman \& Loeb 2006).
696:
697:
698: \section{HE\,0450-2958: not an ULIRG$\rightarrow $QSO transition object, implications }
699:
700: The hereby discovery of HE\,0450-2958, considered an archetypal
701: ULIRG$\rightarrow $QSO transition object, as a strongly interacting
702: pair of a gas/dust-poor galaxy (marked by a residing unobscured and
703: optically powerful QSO) and a gas-rich extreme starburst raises the
704: prospect of {\it such interactions being misclassified in the context
705: of the popular ULIRG$\rightarrow $QSO evolution scenario.} More such
706: cases would then signify an important variation in the standard
707: evolutionary picture in which starburst and QSO activity, while
708: triggered by a common cause (a strong galaxy interaction/merger), do
709: not necessarily involve two gas-rich progenitors with comparable
710: amounts of molecular gas (Sanders \& Ishida 2004). Such
711: gas-poor/gas-rich galaxy interactions would not conform to the
712: standard ULIRG$\rightarrow $QSO emergence scenario, though they can
713: still ignite a starburst in the gas-rich progenitor (Di Mateo et al.
714: 2007). They may also be the observational answer to the expectations
715: of current galaxy-formation theories that predict the so called
716: ``wet-dry'' mergers between gas-rich and gas-poor progenitors to be
717: the most common in the Universe (e.g. Springel et al. 2005).
718:
719:
720: The demanding combination of observational tools it took to reveal
721: these intriguing aspects of HE\,0450-2958 may come to exemplify why
722: such interactions have been missed until now. Moreover, it could also
723: resolve the conflicting views regarding the host galaxies of the more
724: powerful optical QSOs ($\rm M_v<-24$) in the local Universe. Unlike
725: the low luminosity AGNs such as Seyferts where a consistent picture of
726: AGNs in centers of gas-rich vigorously star-forming spirals has
727: emerged (e.g. Schinnerer et al. 1998; Staghun et al. 2004),
728: detailed {\it HST} studies by Dunlop et al. 2003 (see also Floyd et
729: al. 2004) conclude that the more powerful AGNs reside in typical
730: massive ellipticals ($\rm R^{1/4}$ light profiles, old stellar
731: populations). On the other hand Scoville et al. 2003 (see also
732: Bertram et al. 2007) found large amounts of molecular gas in such
733: systems and concluded otherwise.
734:
735: It is now clear that the latter conclusions are premature. Indeed all
736: current studies of the hosts of luminous AGN lack the {\it
737: combination} of: a) high resolution optical imaging along with
738: specialized deconvolution techniques (allowing sensitive probing of
739: the host galaxy properties against the bright QSO), and b)
740: interferometric CO maps with good resolution, high S/N, and the
741: excellent astrometry that helped identify the type of merger in the
742: HE\,0450-2958 system. Indicative of those limitations is PDS~456, the
743: most luminous QSO in the local Universe (also a ULIRG/QSO composite in
744: terms of its SED), where despite sensitive high resolution optical and
745: CO imaging observations, the QSO host galaxy type and the location of
746: the molecular gas with respect to its AGN remain unclear (Yun et
747: al. 2004).
748:
749:
750: The short gas consumption timescales by a starburst, which are shorter
751: still for optically powerful AGNs residing in gas-poor hosts, suggest
752: that these twin ``beacons'' of gas-rich/gas-poor galaxy interactions
753: may always be in close proximity. The advent of sensitive mm/sub-mm
754: arrays, along with the already available high resolution optical
755: imaging capabilities now allows their study, and the ULIRG$\rightarrow
756: $QSO transition objects are excellent~candidates.
757:
758:
759: \section{Conclusions}
760:
761: We performed CO line emission imaging observations of the enigmatic
762: QSO/galaxy pair HE\,0450-2958 using the ATCA (CO J=1--0) and the SMA
763: (CO J=3--2), detecting the J=1--0 line and placing an upper limit on
764: the J=3--2 line, our conclusions are as follows
765:
766:
767: \noindent
768: 1. The CO J=1--0 line emission is associated with the companion galaxy
769: not the QSO, it corresponds to $\rm M_{gal}(H_2) \sim (1-2)\times
770: 10^{10}\, M_{\odot}$ and amounts to $\ga 30 \%$ of the enclosed
771: dynamical mass within $\sim 8$\,kpc. This large gas reservoir fuels
772: extreme star formation at a rate of $\rm \sim 370\, M_{\odot }\,
773: yr^{-1}$, efficiencies of $\rm L_{IR}/M_{gal}(H_2)\sim (90-165)\,
774: M_{\odot }/L_{\odot }$, and places the companion galaxy on the upper
775: gas-rich and star forming end of ULIRGs. This property, along with
776: the disturbed nature of the system, solidifies the strongly
777: interacting status of this controversial galaxy/QSO pair.
778:
779:
780: \noindent
781: 2. No molecular gas is detected towards the QSO itself with $\rm
782: M_{QSO-host}(H_2)/M_{gal}(H_2)\leq 1/5$, consistent with the little
783: dust extinction or star formation activity deduced for its putative
784: host galaxy. This weakens the case for a host galaxy typical for
785: Narrow Line Seyfert 1 AGNs since these are gas-rich spirals with
786: luminous circumnuclear starbursts. HE\,0450-2958 is thus the first
787: known case of a gas-rich extreme starburst and a powerful QSO,
788: intimately linked (via a strong interaction), but not~coincident.
789:
790:
791: \noindent
792: 3. Most of the radio continuum in this system is due to low-brightness
793: AGN-driven jets rather than star formation activity. Deeper radio
794: continuum observations are needed to reveal their morphology and
795: extent, which in turn can yield more clues regarding its AGN.
796:
797:
798: \noindent
799: 4. The early prominence of HE\,0450-2958 as an IR-selected QSO that
800: exemplifies the ULIRG$\rightarrow $(optically luminous QSO)
801: transition in a popular evolutionary scenario, and its hereby
802: revealed nature as a strong interaction between a gas-rich and a
803: gas-poor, possibly elliptical, galaxy opens up the possibility that
804: some of these so-called transition objects are such interacting
805: pairs instead. Such gas-poor/gas-rich galaxy interactions can
806: activate a starburst in the gas-rich progenitor, and an optically
807: luminous AGN in the gas-poor one. Their composite dust continuum
808: would then be typical of IR-warm ULIRG$\rightarrow $QSO transition
809: objects. Sensitive optical and CO imaging at high resolution can
810: now reveal and study such dynamical interactions, and these
811: transition objects are excellent candidates.
812:
813:
814:
815: \section{Acknowledgments}
816:
817: Jeff Wagg is grateful for support from the Max-Planck Society and the
818: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The anonymous referee is gratefully
819: acknowledged for numerous suggestions that greatly clarified the
820: original document. We also thank all the people that operate and
821: maintain ATCA and in particular its 3\,mm receivers for their
822: dedicated support. Padelis Papadopoulos thanks Karl Jesienowski
823: aboard the {\it Undersea Explorer} for great conversations, and
824: Marcella Carollo for bringing this controversial object to his
825: attention. Last but not least he would like to thank Margarita
826: Zakalkas for inspiration during his time in Zurich. The Australia
827: Telescope is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as
828: a National Facility managed by CSIRO.
829:
830:
831: \newpage
832:
833: \begin{thebibliography}{}
834: \bibitem[]{} Aalto S., Booth R. S., Black J. M.,\& Johansson L. E. B. 1995, A\&A, 300, 369{}{}
835: \bibitem[]{} Alloin D., Barvainis R., Gordon M. A., \& Antonucci R. R. J. 1992, A\&A,
836: 265, 429{}{}
837: \bibitem[]{} Bahcall J. N., Kirhakos S., \& Schneider D. P. 1994, ApJ, 425, L11{}{}
838: \bibitem[]{} Barnes J. E., \& Hernquist L. 1992, ARA\&A, 30, 705{}{}
839: \bibitem[]{} Bertram T., Eckart A., Fischer S., Zuther J., Straubmeier C.,
840: Wisotzki L., \& Krips M. 2007, A\&A, 470, 571{}{}
841: \bibitem[]{} Blitz, L. 1997, in {\it CO: Twenty-Five Years of Millimeter-Wave Spectroscopy},
842: IAU Symposium No. 170, pg. 11{}{}
843: \bibitem[]{} Blundell K. M., Beasley A. J., Lacy M., \& Garrington S. T. 1996, ApJ, 468, L91{}{}
844: \bibitem[]{} Blundell K. M., Rawlings S. 2001, ApJ, 562, L5{}{}
845: \bibitem[]{} Bonning E. W., Shields G. A., \& Salviander S. 2007, ApJ, 666, L13{}{}
846: \bibitem[]{} Boyce P. J., Disney M. J., Blades J. C., Boksenberg A., Crane P., Deharveng J. M.,
847: Macchetto F. D., Mackay C. D., \& Sparks W. B. 1996, ApJ, 473, 760{}{}
848: \bibitem[]{} Bryant P. M., \& Scoville N. Z. 1996, ApJ, 457, 678{}{}
849: \bibitem[]{} Bryant P. M., \& Scoville N. Z. 1999, AJ, 117, 2632{}{}
850: \bibitem[]{} de Grijp M. H. K., Lub J., \& Miley G. K. 1987, A\&AS, 70, 95{}{}
851: \bibitem[]{} Canalizo G., \& Stockton A. 2001, ApJ, 555, 719{}{}
852: \bibitem[]{} Devereux N., Taniguchi Y., Sanders D. B., Nakai N., Young J. S. 1994, AJ,
853: vol. 107, no. 6, p. 2006-2016{}{}
854: \bibitem[]{} Di Matteo P., Combes F., Melchior A.-L., \& Semelin B. 2007, A\&A, 468, 61{}{}
855: \bibitem[]{} Downes D., Solomon, P. M. 1998, ApJ, 507, 615{}{}
856: \bibitem[]{} Dunlop J. S., McLure R. J., Kukula M. J., Baum S. A., O'Dea C. P., \&
857: Hughes D. H. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 1095{}{}
858: \bibitem[]{} Evans A. S., Kim D. C., Mazzarella J. M., Scoville N. Z., \&
859: Sanders D. B. 1999, ApJ, 521, L107{}{}
860: \bibitem[]{} Evans A. S., Surace J. A., \& Mazzarella J. M. 2000, ApJ, 529, L85{}{}
861: \bibitem[]{} Evans A. S., Frayer D. T., Surace J. A., \& Sanders D. B. 2001,
862: AJ, 121, 3286{}{}
863: \bibitem[]{} Evans A. S., Mazzarella J. M., Surace J. A. \& Sanders D. B. 2002,
864: ApJ, 580, 749{}{}
865: \bibitem[]{} Evans A. S., Solomon P. M., Tacconi L. J., Vavilkin T., \& Downes D.
866: 2006, AJ, 132, 2398{}{}
867: \bibitem[]{} Floyd D. J. E., Kukula M. J., Dunlop J. S., McLure R. J., Miller L.,
868: Percival W. J., Baum S., \& O'Dea C. P. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 196{}{}
869: \bibitem[]{} Frayer D. T. et al. 1999, ApJ, 514, L13{}{}
870: \bibitem[]{} Genzel R., Baker A. J., Tacconi, L. J., Lutz D., Cox P., Guilloteau S., \&
871: Omont A. 2003, ApJ, 584, 633{}{}
872: \bibitem[]{} Haas M., M\"uller S. A. H., Chini R., Meisenheimer K., Klaas U., Lemke D.,
873: Kreysa E., \& Camenzind M. 2000, A\&A, 354, 453{}{}
874: \bibitem[]{} Haehnelt M. G., Davies M. B., \& Rees M. J. 2005, MNRAS, 366, L22{}{}
875: \bibitem[]{} Helfer T. T., et al. 2003, ApJS, 145, 259{}{}
876: \bibitem[]{} Hoffman L., \& Loeb A. 2006, ApJ, 638, L75{}{}
877: \bibitem[]{} Hutchings J. B., \& Neff S. G. 1988, AJ, 96, 1575{}{}
878: \bibitem[]{} Feain I. J., Papadopoulos P. P., Ekers R., \& Middelberg E. 2007,
879: ApJ, 662, 872{}{}
880: \bibitem[]{} Floyd D. J. E., Kukula M. J., Dunlop J. S., McLure R. J.,
881: Miller L., Percival W. J., Baum S. A., O'Dea C. P. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 196{}{}
882: \bibitem[]{} Greve T. R., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1165{}{}
883: \bibitem[]{} Kim M., Ho L. C., Peng C. Y., Im M. 2007, ApJ, 658, 107{}{}
884: \bibitem[]{} Letawe G., Magain P., \& Courbin F. 2007, A\&A (in press), arXiv:0709.3743v1{}{}
885: \bibitem[]{} Loeb A. 2007, Physical Review Letters, 0031-9007/07/99(4)/041103(4){}{}
886: \bibitem[]{} Low F. J., Cutri R. M., Huchra J. P., \& Kleinman S. G. 1988, ApJ, 327, L41{}{}
887: \bibitem[]{} McLure R. J., \& Dunlop J. S. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 795{}{}
888: \bibitem[]{} Magain P., Letawe G., Courbin F., Jablonka P., Jahnke K., Meylan G.,
889: \& Wisotzki L. 2005, Nature, Vol. 437, 318{}{}
890: \bibitem[]{} Merritt D., Storchi-Bergmann T., Robinson A., Batcheldor D., Axon D.,
891: \& Cid Fernandes R. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1746{}{}
892: \bibitem[]{} Middelberg E., Sault R. J., \& Kesteven M. J. 2006, Publications of the
893: Astronomical Society of Australia, Vol. 23, Issue 4, p. 147{}{}
894: \bibitem[]{} Moshir M. et al. 1990, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 22, p.1325{}{}
895: \bibitem[]{} Papadopoulos P. P., Seaquist E. R., Wrobel J. M., \& Binette L. 1995, ApJ, 446, 150{}{}
896: \bibitem[]{} Planesas P., Scoville N. Z., \& Myers S. T. 1991, ApJ, 369, 364{}{}
897: \bibitem[]{} Regan W. M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 561, 218{}{}
898: \bibitem[]{} Richardson K. J. 1985, PhD Thesis, Queen Mary College, University of London{}{}
899: \bibitem[]{} Sanders D. B., et. al. 1988, ApJ, 328, L35{}{}
900: \bibitem[]{} Sanders D. B., Scoville N. Z., \& Soifer B. T. 1991, ApJ, 370, 158{}{}
901: \bibitem[]{} Sanders D. B., \& Ishida C. M. 2004, in {\it The Neutral ISM in Starburst
902: Galaxies}, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 320, pg. 230{}{}
903: \bibitem[]{} Schinnerer E., Eckart A., \& Tacconi L. J. 1998, ApJ, 500, 147{}{}
904: \bibitem[]{} Schinnerer E., Eckart A., \& Tacconi L. J. 1999, ApJ, 524, L5{}{}
905: \bibitem[]{} Scoville N. Z., Frayer D. T., Schinnerer E., \& Christopher M. 2003,
906: ApJ, 585, L105{}{}
907: \bibitem[]{} Scoville N. Z. 2004, in {\it The Neutral ISM in Starburst Galaxies},
908: ASP Conference Series, Vol. 320, pg. 253{}{}
909: \bibitem[]{} Solomon P. M., Downes D., Radford S. J. E., \& Barrett J. W. 1997, ApJ, 478, 144{}{}
910: \bibitem[]{} Springel V., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629{}{}
911: \bibitem[]{} Staguhn J. G., Schinnerer E., Eckart A., \& Scharw\"achter J. 2004, ApJ,
912: 609, 85{}{}
913: \bibitem[]{} Tacconi L. J., Genzel R., Blietz M., Cameron M., Harris A. I., \& Madden S. 1994
914: ApJ, 426, L77{}{}
915: \bibitem[]{} Tacconi L. J., Neri R., Chapman S. C., Genzel R., Smail I., Ivison R. J.,
916: Bertoldi F., Blain A., Cox P., Greve T., \& Omont, A. 2006, ApJ, 640, 228{}{}
917: \bibitem[]{} Yao L., Seaquist E. R., Kuno N., \& Dunne L. 2003, ApJ, 588, 771{}{}
918: \bibitem[]{} Yun M. S., Reddy N. A., Scoville N. Z., Frayer D. T., Robson E. I.,
919: \& Tilanus R. P. J. 2004, ApJ, 601, 723{}{}
920: \end{thebibliography}
921:
922: \clearpage
923:
924:
925:
926: \begin{figure}[h]
927: \vspace*{12cm}
928: \special{psfile=./f1a.ps hoffset=-125 voffset=370 hscale=53
929: vscale=53 angle=-90}
930: \special{psfile=./f1b.ps hoffset=165 voffset=370 hscale=53
931: vscale=53 angle=-90}
932: \caption{{\it Left:} Map of CO J=1--0 emission (NA-weighted, CLEANed)
933: averaged over $\rm 570\,km\,s^{-1}$ (see section 2.3), and contours:
934: $\rm (-2,2,4,6,8,10,12,14)\times \sigma_{rms}$. {\it Right:} The mm
935: continuum emission at 94.53\, GHz with contours of $\rm (-3, -2, 2,
936: 3)\times \sigma_{rms}$. The noise in both maps is $\rm \sigma
937: _{rms}\sim 0.45\, mJy/beam$, and the restoring beam is shown at the
938: bottom left of the CO image ($\rm \Theta _{beam}=3.21''\times
939: 2.14''$, $\rm PA=72^{\circ}$). The phase center is marked by the
940: cross, the diamond marks the AGN position, and the star marks the
941: peak of the CO emission (see Table 1). For the mm continuum imaging
942: the phase center was set $3''$ to the north of the AGN's position to
943: avoid any DC correlator offsets ``masking'' as a spurious weak
944: source.}
945: \end{figure}
946:
947: \clearpage
948:
949:
950: \begin{figure}
951: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f2.eps}
952: \caption{The spectrum corresponding to the peak CO J=1--0 line
953: emission (Figure 1). The velocity range is centered on redshift of the
954: QSO/ULIRG system shown on the upper left.}
955: \end{figure}
956:
957:
958:
959: \clearpage
960:
961: \begin{figure}
962: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f3.eps}
963: \caption{ATCA CO(1-0) greyscale image with ATCA 8.4GHz radio continuum
964: contours overlaid. Contour levels start at $200\mu$Jy~beam$^{-1}$ and
965: increase in a geometric series with a common ratio of $\sqrt{2}$. The
966: CO(1-0) and the 8.4\,GHz beams are shown in the bottom left corner of
967: the image. The cross marks the peak emission of the C\,2 radio
968: continuum emitting region associated with the companion galaxy (Feain
969: et al. 2007).}
970: \end{figure}
971:
972: \clearpage
973:
974:
975: \begin{figure}[h]
976: \vspace*{12cm}
977: %\leavevmode
978: %\includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.9]{HST_COemission.ps}
979: \special{psfile=./f4a.ps hoffset=-110 voffset=370 hscale=50
980: vscale=50 angle=-90}
981: \special{psfile=./f4b.ps hoffset=170 voffset=370 hscale=50
982: vscale=50 angle=-90}
983: \caption{{\it Left:} CO J=1--0 emission overlaid on the deconvolved
984: HST/ACS image of the HE\,0450-2958 system, with the QSO contribution
985: subtracted (from Magain et al. 2005). Contours are: $\rm (-2, 2,
986: 5,7,9,11,13)\times \sigma _{rms}$, with $\rm
987: \sigma_{rms}=0.45\,mJy/beam$. The beam is shown at the bottom left
988: (HPBW=$3.21''\times 2.14''$, $\rm PA=72^{\circ}$). {\it Right:} The
989: {\it deconvolved} CO source model (see section 2.3.1) overlaid on
990: the HST image after a $\Delta \delta_{o}=0.6''$ shift aligning the
991: optical and radio AGN positions. The good correspondence of the CO
992: emission with the companion ULIRG is~evident. In the optical image
993: the QSO (marked by the single bright pixel near the phase center) is
994: surrounded by an AGN-excited gas cloud. The cross size at the phase
995: center $(0'',0'')$ denotes the (dominant) HST astrometric
996: uncertainties ($\rm \sim 0.5''-1.0''$), and the star symbol denotes
997: the peak CO J=1--0 emission.}
998: \end{figure}
999:
1000:
1001: \clearpage
1002:
1003: \begin{figure}
1004: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.9]{f5.eps}
1005: \caption{Two component fit of the mm/IR dust continuum of
1006: HE\,0450-2958 (see section 3.2). The upper limits at mm wavelengths
1007: were obtained from this work (see Table 1), and the IRAS fluxes at
1008: $12\,\mu$m, $25\,\mu$m, $60\,\mu$m, and $100\,\mu$m are from Moshir et
1009: al. 1990. The emissivity laws adopted and the resulting temperatures
1010: from the 2-component dust emission fit are shown in the upper left
1011: (see also 3.2).}
1012: \end{figure}
1013:
1014: \clearpage
1015:
1016: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
1017: \tablecolumns{3}
1018: \tablewidth{0pc}
1019: \tablecaption{Properties of the HE\,0450--2958 system}
1020: \tablehead{
1021: \colhead{Property} & \colhead{AGN} & \colhead{Companion galaxy} }
1022: \startdata
1023: $\rm \alpha (J2000.0)$ & 04$\rm ^h$ 52$\rm ^m$ 30$\rm ^s$.1 & $+1.15''\pm 0.12''$\,\tablenotemark{a}\\
1024: $\rm \delta (J2000.0)$ & --29$^{\circ}$ 53$'$ 35.0$''$ & $-1.05''\pm 0.10''$\,\tablenotemark{a}\\
1025: $z$\,\tablenotemark{b} & 0.2863 & 0.2865 \\
1026: $\rm S_{peak}$(1--0) (mJy/beam)\tablenotemark{c} & $ <1.35 $ & $6.7\pm 0.45$\\
1027: $\rm S_{peak}$(3--2) (mJy/beam)\tablenotemark{c} & $ < 20 $ & $ < 20 $\\
1028: $\rm \int S_{CO(1-0)} dV$ (Jy\,km\,s$^{-1}$)\tablenotemark{c} & $<0.77 $ & $5.70\pm1.15$\\
1029: $\rm \int S_{CO(3-2)} dV$ (Jy\,km\,s$^{-1}$)\tablenotemark{c} & $<11$ & $<20 $\\
1030: Intrinsic CO(1-0) source size & \nodata & $2.5''\times 1.5''$\\
1031: $\rm M(H_2)$ $\rm (\times 10^{10}\,M_{\odot })$\,\tablenotemark{d} & \nodata & $1.25-2.3$\\
1032: $\rm S_{94\,GHz}$ (mJy)\tablenotemark{c} & $< 1.4$ & $ < 1.4$\\
1033: $\rm S_{275\,GHz}$ (mJy)\tablenotemark{c} & $< 8$ & $ < 8$\\
1034: $\rm L_{IR}$ $\rm (\times 10^{12}\,L_{\odot})$\tablenotemark{e} & 2.6 & 2.1 \\
1035: \enddata
1036: \tablenotetext{a}{Position of the peak CO J=1--0 emission with respect to the\\
1037: \hspace*{0.5cm} AGN (see 2.3.1)}
1038: \tablenotetext{b}{Canalizo \& Stockton 2001}
1039: \tablenotetext{c}{All limits are $3\sigma$, point source assumed for AGN-related limits}
1040: \tablenotetext{d}{See section 3}
1041: \tablenotetext{e}{from the dust continuum SED fit in Figure 6}
1042:
1043: \end{deluxetable}
1044:
1045:
1046:
1047: \end{document}
1048:
1049:
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053:
1054:
1055:
1056:
1057:
1058:
1059:
1060:
1061:
1062:
1063:
1064:
1065: