1: \documentclass[10pt]{aastex}

2: \usepackage{emulateapj5,apjfonts}

3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: \slugcomment{{\sc Accepted to ApJ:} September 20, 2004}

6: \voffset=-1in

7: 

8: \newcommand{\begit}{\begin{itemize}}

9: \newcommand{\enit}{\end{itemize}}

10: \newcommand{\begen}{\begin{enumerate}}

11: \newcommand{\enen}{\end{enumerate}}

12: \newcommand{\p}{\partial}    

13: \newcommand{\pr}{^\prime} 

14: \setlength{\parskip}{5pt plus 1pt minus 1pt}  

15: \newcommand       \be           {\begin{equation}}

16: \newcommand       \ee           {\end{equation}}

17: \newcommand       \bea          {\begin{eqnarray}}

18: \newcommand       \eea          {\end{eqnarray}}

19: \newcommand      \fgas          {f_{g_{\,0.1}}}

20: \newcommand       \kms		{\,{\rm km \,\, s}^{-1}}

21: \newcommand       \cm		{\,{\rm cm }}

22: \newcommand       \ergs		{\,{\rm erg \,\, s}^{-1}}

23: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}} 

24: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}} 

25: \def\vp{v_\phi}

26: \def\la{\langle}

27: \def\ra{\rangle}

28: \def\ch{{\em Chandra} }

29: \def\mpy{\rm \ M_\odot \ {\rm yr^{-1}}}

30: 

31: \begin{document}

32: 

33: \title{On the Maximum Luminosity of Galaxies \& Their Central Black

34: Holes: Feedback From Momentum-Driven Winds}

35: 

36: \author{Norman Murray\altaffilmark{1,2,3}, Eliot Quataert\altaffilmark{4}, \& Todd A.~Thompson\altaffilmark{5,6}}

37: 

38: \altaffiltext{1}{Canada Research Chair in Astrophysics}

39: \altaffiltext{2}{Visiting Miller Professor, The University of California, Berkeley}

40: \altaffiltext{3}{Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, 60 St.~George Street, University of Toronto, Toronto,

41: ON M5S 3H8, Canada; murray@cita.utoronto.ca}

42: \altaffiltext{4}{

43: Astronomy Department 

44: \& Theoretical Astrophysics Center, 601 Campbell Hall, 

45: The University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; 

46: eliot@astro.berkeley.edu}

47: \altaffiltext{5}{Hubble Fellow}

48: \altaffiltext{6}{Astronomy Department 

49: \& Theoretical Astrophysics Center, 601 Campbell Hall, 

50: The University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; 

51: thomp@astro.berkeley.edu}

52: 

53: \begin{abstract}

54: 

55: We investigate large-scale galactic winds driven by momentum

56: deposition. Momentum injection is provided by (1) radiation pressure

57: produced by the continuum absorption and scattering of photons on

58: dust grains and (2) supernovae (momentum injection by supernovae is

59: important even if the supernovae energy is radiated away).  

60: Radiation can be produced by a starburst or AGN activity. 

61: 

62: We argue that momentum-driven winds are an efficient mechanism for

63: feedback during the formation of galaxies.  We show that above a

64: limiting luminosity, momentum deposition from star formation can expel

65: a significant fraction of the gas in a galaxy.  The limiting,

66: Eddington-like luminosity is $L_{\rm M}\simeq(4f_g c/G)\,\sigma^4$,

67: where $\sigma$ is the galaxy velocity dispersion and $f_g$ is the gas

68: fraction; the subscript M refers to momentum driving.  A starburst

69: that attains $L_{\rm M}$ moderates its star formation rate and its

70: luminosity does not increase significantly further.  We argue that

71: ellipticals attain this limit during their growth at $z \gtrsim 1$ and

72: that this is the origin of the Faber-Jackson relation.  We show that

73: Lyman break galaxies and ultra-luminous infrared galaxies have

74: luminosities near $L_{\rm M}$.  Since these starbursting galaxies account

75: for a significant fraction of the star formation at $z\gtrsim1$, this

76: supports our hypothesis that much of the observed stellar mass in

77: early type galaxies was formed during Eddington-limited star

78: formation.

79: 

80: Star formation is unlikely to efficiently remove gas from very small

81: scales in galactic nuclei, i.e., scales much smaller than that of a

82: nuclear starburst.  This gas is available to fuel a central black hole

83: (BH).  We argue that a BH clears gas out of its galactic nucleus when

84: the luminosity of the BH itself reaches $\approx L_{\rm M}$.  This

85: shuts off the fuel supply to the BH and may also terminate star

86: formation in the surrounding galaxy.  As a result, the BH mass is

87: fixed to be $M_{\rm BH}\simeq (f_g \kappa_{\rm es}/\pi G^2)\sigma^4$,

88: where $\kappa_{\rm es}$ is the electron scattering opacity. This limit

89: is in accord with the observed $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation.

90: 

91: \end{abstract}

92: 

93: \keywords{galaxies:general --- galaxies:formation ---

94: galaxies:intergalactic matter --- galaxies:starburst ---

95: galaxies:fundamental parameters}

96: 

97: \section{Introduction}

98: 

99: Large elliptical galaxies in the local universe exhibit a relation

100: between their luminosity $L$ and the depth of their gravitational

101: potential wells (as measured by their stellar velocity dispersion

102: $\sigma$) of the form $L\propto \sigma^4$, a result first noted nearly

103: thirty years ago (Faber \& Jackson 1976). More recently it was found

104: that most nearby early-type galaxies (ellipticals and spiral bulges)

105: contain massive black holes, and that the mass $M_{\rm BH}$ of the

106: hole scales as $M_{\rm BH}\propto\sigma^4$ (Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000;

107: Gebhardt et al.~2000; Tremaine et al.~2002).  If these black holes

108: radiate near their Eddington limit, their luminosity would also

109: satisfy $L\propto\sigma^4$. It would be remarkable if this

110: correspondence with the Faber-Jackson (FJ) relation is a

111: coincidence.

112: 

113: In an apparently unrelated phenomenon, nearby starburst galaxies,

114: which are generally spirals, but also include dwarf irregulars and

115: dwarf ellipticals, are seen to drive large-scale galactic outflows

116: (Heckman, Armus, \& Miley 1990; Martin 1999; Heckman 2000; Strickland

117: 2004; Martin 2004). More distant starburst galaxies include Lyman Break Galaxies

118: (LBGs; Steidel et al.~1996) and SCUBA sources (e.g., Smail, Ivison, \&

119: Blain 1997).  These also show evidence for large-scale outflows (e.g.,

120: Pettini et al. 2000; Adelberger et al. 2003).  The SCUBA sources have

121: infrared luminosities as large as $10^{13}L_\odot$, making them

122: Ultra-Luminous Infrared Galaxies (ULIRGs; e.g., Genzel \& Cesarsky

123: 2000).  The space density and mass of the ULIRGs suggest that they are

124: the progenitors of present day massive ellipticals.

125: 

126: In this article we argue that all of these phenomena are intimately

127: related; they result directly from a limit on the luminosity of

128: massive self-gravitating gas-rich objects set by momentum deposition

129: in the interstellar medium.  We show that significant momentum

130: injection into the ISM of star-forming galaxies may be accomplished by

131: two sources: radiation pressure from the continuum absorption and

132: scattering of photons on dust grains, and

133: supernovae.\footnote{Haehnelt (1995) also considered some properties

134: of feedback by momentum deposition during galaxy formation, focusing

135: on radiation pressure from Lyman edge photons, rather than dust or

136: supernovae.}  The photons may come either from the starburst itself

137: or from a central massive black hole. Supernovae have often been

138: considered as an energy source for thermal pressure-driven galactic

139: winds. Less consideration has been given to supernovae as a source of

140: momentum flux into the ISM; unlike energy, the momentum

141: supernovae deposit cannot be radiated away.  

142: 

143: Starburst galaxies both locally and at high redshift are typically

144: highly reddened (e.g., Heckman, Armus, \& Miley~1990; Meurer et

145: al.~1995; Sanders \& Mirabel 1996; Adelberger \& Steidel 2000;

146: Calzetti 2001; Genzel et al.~2004). Optical depths to UV/IR photons

147: may easily exceed unity, suggesting that a large fraction of the

148: momentum created by star formation is available to drive an

149: outflow. As noted above, a central AGN provides an alternative source

150: of photons. We show that either source can drive a galactic wind.

151: Previous authors have considered the possibility that dust itself is

152: expelled from galaxies by radiation pressure, particularly in the

153: context of enriching the IGM with metals (Davies et al. 1998; Aguirre

154: 1999; Aguirre et al. 2001abc).  We argue that, as in models of

155: dust-driven stellar winds (e.g., Netzer \& Elitzur 1993), the dust and

156: gas are hydrodynamically coupled and thus that the dust can drag the

157: gas out of the galaxy.

158: 

159: This paper is organized as follows. We begin by considering the

160: general properties of momentum-driven galactic winds in

161: \S\ref{section:momentum}. We show via an Eddington-like argument that

162: there exists a limiting starburst luminosity above which a large

163: fraction of the gas in a galaxy can be expelled.  When the gas is

164: optically thick, the limiting luminosity is given by

165: %

166: \be 

167: \label{eq:basic result}

168: L_{\rm M}=\frac{4f_gc}{G}\,\sigma^4,

169: \ee

170: %

171: where $f_g$ is the fraction of mass in gas.\footnote{A potentially related empirical limit on

172: the surface brightness of starburst galaxies has been described by Meurer et al.~(1997).}

173: Scoville (2003) has considered an analogous optically thin Eddington limit in setting

174: the maximum luminosity per unit mass in star-forming galaxies.

175: In \S\ref{section:energy}, we contrast the properties of momentum-driven

176: winds with those of energy-driven winds that are more typically

177: invoked in the galactic context (Chevalier \& Clegg 1985; Heckman,

178: Armus, \& Miley 1990).  We also show that the dynamics of cold gas

179: entrained in a hot thermal wind is analogous to that of the

180: momentum-driven outflows considered in \S2 (we elaborate on this point

181: in an Appendix).

182: 

183: With equation (\ref{eq:basic result}) in hand, we focus on the

184: importance of this limit for setting the observed properties of

185: elliptical galaxies.  In \S\ref{section:starburst} we present

186: observational evidence that the star formation rates required to reach

187: our limiting luminosity are realized during the formation of massive

188: galaxies at high redshift. These high star formation rates are

189: probably initiated by galaxy mergers. It follows that star formation

190: in elliptical galaxies self-regulates via momentum deposition. We show

191: that this model can account for the Faber-Jackson relation between the

192: current luminosity and velocity dispersion of early-type galaxies.

193: 

194: We also summarize data showing that the most luminous galaxies at any

195: $\sigma$ and redshift, not just massive ellipticals, roughly satisfy

196: equation (\ref{eq:basic result}). We argue that this implies that energy

197: deposition by supernovae is not efficient at globally halting star

198: formation, even in small galaxies.  This is in contrast to the

199: conventional picture in the galaxy formation literature (Dekel \& Silk

200: 1986).

201: 

202: We then consider the relative role of AGN and star formation in

203: driving large scale galactic winds (\S\ref{section:agn}).  We provide

204: observational evidence that the most luminous AGN have luminosities

205: $\approx L_{\rm M}$.  This supports a model in which accretion onto

206: AGN self-regulates in a manner similar to that of star formation on

207: galactic scales.  When the AGN luminosity (and BH mass) exceeds a

208: critical value, the AGN clears gas out of the galactic nucleus,

209: shutting off its own fuel supply.  This can account for the observed

210: $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation.  Our treatment of self-regulated black

211: hole growth is similar to that of King (2003; see also Silk \& Rees

212: 1998; Haehnelt, Natarajan, \& Rees 1998; Blandford 1999; Fabian 1999;

213: Fabian et al.~2002).

214: 

215: Finally, in \S\ref{section:conclude} we summarize our results and

216: discuss further implications of momentum-driven galactic winds.  

217: 

218: \section{Momentum-Driven Galactic Winds}

219: 

220: In this section we review the basics of momentum-driven

221: winds.  In \S\ref{section:energy} we contrast the scalings

222: derived here for momentum deposition with the corresponding

223: relations for energy-driven galactic outflows.

224: 

225: \subsection{Preliminaries}

226: \label{section:preliminary}

227: 

228: We take as a model for the gravitational

229: potential that of an isothermal sphere with gas density and mass

230: profiles given by 

231: \be 

232: \rho(r) = {f_g \sigma^2 \over 2 \pi G r^2}

233: \label{rhor}

234: \ee 

235: and 

236: \be 

237: M_g(r)={2 f_g\sigma^2 r\over G},

238: \label{mor}

239: \ee 

240: where $\sigma$ is the velocity dispersion and $f_g$ is the gas

241: fraction.  We assume that $f_g$ is a constant throughout this work.

242: 

243: The goal of this paper is both to elucidate the physics of

244: momentum-driven galactic winds, and to discuss the applicability of

245: such outflows to rapidly star-forming galaxies at high redshift.  For

246: the latter purpose, it is convenient to consider several physical

247: scales characterizing galaxies.  We follow the treatment of Mo, Mao,

248: \& White (1998).  The virial radius of the dark matter halo is given

249: by 

250: %

251: \beqa

252: R_{\rm V}&=&\sqrt{2}\sigma\Big/[10H(z)] \nonumber \\

253: &\sim&285\,\,{\rm kpc}\,\,\sigma_{200}\,h^{-1}[H_0/H(z)],

254: \eeqa 

255: %

256: where $H(z)$ is the Hubble constant at redshift $z$ where the halo is

257: formed, $H_0=100\,h\kms{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, and

258: $\sigma_{200}=\sigma/200\kms$.  The dynamical timescale on the scale

259: $R_{\rm V}$ is

260: %

261: \be 

262: \tau_{\rm Dyn}^{\rm V}=R_{\rm V}\big/\sigma\sim1.4\,\,{\rm Gyr}\,\,h^{-1}[H_0/H(z)].

263: \label{taudynv}

264: \ee 

265: %

266: The total gas mass within a dark matter halo of dispersion

267: $\sigma$ is $\approx M_g(R_V)$.  Using equation (\ref{mor}) this yields

268: %

269: \be 

270: M_g = 5 \times 10^{11}\, M_\odot\,\fgas\,\sigma_{200}^3\,h^{-1}[H_0/H(z)],

271: \label{mgtot}

272: \ee

273: %

274: where $\fgas=f_g/0.1$.

275: 

276: Although the mass in dark matter is distributed out to the virial

277: radius $R_V$, the baryons cool and condense in the dark matter halo

278: and are thus significantly concentrated with respect to the dark

279: matter. The ``disk'' radius characterizing the baryons is

280: related to the virial radius by \beqa R_{\rm D}&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}

281: \lambda R_{\rm V} \nonumber \\ &\sim&10\,\,{\rm

282: kpc}\,\,\lambda_{0.05}\,\sigma_{200}\,h^{-1}[H_0/H(z)],

283: \label{rd}\eeqa where $\lambda_{0.05}=\lambda/0.05$ is the spin

284: parameter of the dark matter halo (Bullock et al.~2001).  The

285: dynamical timescale on the scale $R_{\rm D}$ is then 

286: \be \tau_{\rm

287: Dyn}^{\rm D}=R_{\rm D}/\sigma\sim50\,\,{\rm

288: Myr}\,\,\lambda_{0.05}\,h^{-1}[H_0/H(z)].

289: \label{taudynd}

290: \ee 

291: Note that both $\tau_{\rm Dyn}^{\rm V}$ and $\tau_{\rm Dyn}^{\rm

292: D}$ are independent of $\sigma$ and are fixed fractions of the Hubble

293: time, $H(z)^{-1}$.

294: 

295: There is a final length and time scale that is not easily deduced from

296: parameters of the dark matter, namely that characterizing a starburst.

297: Observations of systems ranging from local dwarf starbursts to ULIRGs

298: at high redshift show that star formation can be distributed on scales

299: ranging from $\sim 100$ pc to several kpc.  It is important to note

300: that although the dynamical time of the starburst region might be

301: rather short (e.g., $\approx 5$ Myrs for a nuclear burst on kpc

302: scales), the duration of the star formation activity ($\equiv

303: \tau_{\rm SB}$) can be significantly longer.  In particular, for

304: starbursts triggered by a major merger, the duration of the burst may

305: be set by the duration of the merger, which is several dynamical times

306: $\tau_{\rm Dyn}^{\rm D}$ (eq.~[\ref{taudynd}]).

307: 

308: 

309: \subsection{Momentum Injection \& The Mass Loss Rate}

310: \label{section:momentum}

311: 

312: The maximal mass loss rate $\dot{M}_{\rm W}$ of a momentum-driven outflow

313: from an object with total momentum deposition rate $\dot{P}$ is given by

314: %

315: \be %$

316: \dot{M}_{\rm W}\,V_\infty \approx

317: \dot{P},

318: \label{pmom}

319: \ee %$

320: %

321: where $V_\infty$ is the terminal velocity of the wind. We show below

322: that for galaxies $V_\infty \sim \sigma$.  We consider two primary sources of

323: momentum deposition in driving large-scale galactic outflows:

324: supernovae and radiation pressure from the central starburst or AGN.

325: In the former case, assuming that each SN produces $\approx 10$ M$_\odot$

326: of material moving at $v \approx 3000\kms$, we estimate a net momentum

327: deposition rate of

328: %

329: \be %$

330: \dot{P}_{\rm SN}\sim2\times10^{33}\,\,

331: {\rm g\,cm\,s^{-2}}\,

332: \left({\dot{M}_\star \over 1 \,\ {\rm M_\odot \ yr^{-1}}}\right),

333: \label{pdotsn}

334: \ee %$

335: %

336: where $\dot{M}_\star $ is the star formation rate and we assume 1

337: supernova per 100 years per $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ of star

338: formation.\footnote{Shell-shell collisions in a spatially homogeneous distribution of 

339: supernova remnants will cancel momentum at shell-shell interfaces. Hence,

340: only outside the region where the distribution can be described

341: as homogeneous will there be a significant outward radial momentum

342: flux.  Therefore, the estimate of equation \ref{pdotsn} should be regarded

343: as an upper limit to the net momentum injection 

344: available for driving a wind.}

345: This momentum deposition by supernovae occurs even if the

346: kinetic energy of the explosion is efficiently radiated away.  Note

347: also that winds from massive stars can provide a momentum flux

348: comparable to that provided by supernovae (Leitherer et al. 1999).

349: 

350: In the case of radiation pressure from a nuclear starburst or AGN, in

351: the point-source, single-scattering limit, $\dot{P}=L/c$, where $L$ is

352: the luminosity of the central radiating object, and $L/c$ is the total

353: momentum flux.  Although both a starburst and an AGN may contribute to

354: the galaxy luminosity, we consider only the starburst contribution to

355: the total luminosity ($L_{\rm SB}$) in this section.  We explore the

356: role of AGN in \S\ref{section:agn}.

357: 

358: We can compare $\dot{P}_{\rm SN}$ with $L_{\rm SB}/c$ for the

359: starburst by writing $L_{\rm SB}=\epsilon\dot{M}_\star c^2$.

360: Examination of the starburst models of Leitherer et al.~(1999) and

361: Bruzual \& Charlot (2003) indicates that for a Salpeter

362: IMF,\footnote{The efficiency $\epsilon$ depends on the low-mass

363: cutoff of the IMF, $m_l$, as $\epsilon \propto m_l^{0.35}$.}

364: $\epsilon\sim10^{-3}\equiv\epsilon_3$, or that

365: %

366: \be %$

367: L_{\rm SB}/c\sim2\times10^{33}\,\,{\rm

368: g\,\,cm\,\,s^{-2}} \, \epsilon_3 \, 

369: \left({\dot{M}_\star \over {\rm 1 \ M_\odot \ yr^{-1}}}\right).

370: \label{pdotsb}

371: \ee %$

372: %

373: Comparing eqs.~(\ref{pdotsn}) and (\ref{pdotsb}) we see that the net

374: momentum deposited by supernova explosions is roughly the same as that

375: deposited by stars.  With this in mind, we write equation (\ref{pmom})

376: as

377: %\footnote{Although a considerable extrapolation, observations of

378: %continuum dust-driven winds from cool stars imply that equation

379: %(\ref{mom}) provides a good estimate for the mass loss rate

380: %(e.g.~Lamers \& Cassinelli 1999).}

381: %

382: \be %$

383: \dot{M}_{\rm W} V_\infty\approx L_{\rm SB}/c.

384: \label{mom} 

385: \ee %$

386: %

387: If the driving mechanism is pure radiation pressure from a central

388: starburst or AGN this equality is only appropriate if the flow has

389: optical depth ($\tau$) of order unity.  More generally, given an

390: optical depth $\tau$, ``$\tau L/c$" replaces ``$L/c$".

391: 

392: Since both $\dot{P}_{\rm SN}$ and $L_{\rm SB}$ are proportional to the

393: star formation rate $\dot{M}_\star $, equation (\ref{mom}) immediately

394: implies that in a momentum-driven galactic wind the mass loss rate is

395: proportional to the star formation rate:

396: %

397: \be %$

398: \dot{M}_{\rm

399: W}\sim\dot{M}_\star \,\left(\frac{\epsilon c}{V_\infty}\right) =

400: \dot{M}_\star \,\left(\frac{300 \ \epsilon_3 \ {\rm km \

401: s^{-1}}}{V_\infty} \right). \label{wind} 

402: \ee %$

403: %

404: This implies that, for $V_\infty \sim \sigma \sim 200\kms$, $\dot M_{\rm W}

405: \sim \dot M_\star$.

406: 

407: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

408: 

409: \subsection{Wind Dynamics: Optically Thick Limit}

410: 

411: We approximate the gas surrounding a point source with

412: luminosity $L$ as a spherical optically-thick shell.  Ignoring gas

413: pressure, the momentum equation for the gas can be written as

414: %

415: \be %$

416: {dP\over dt}=M_g(r){dV\over dt}=-{GM(r)M_g(r)\over r^2}+{L(t)\over c},

417: \label{thickmom}

418: \ee %$

419: %

420: Using equation (\ref{mor}) we see that if $L(t)$ is less than the critical luminosity

421: %

422: \be %$ 

423: L_{\rm M}=\frac{4 f_g c}{G}\,\,\sigma^4,

424: \label{lmom}

425: \ee %$

426: %

427: where the subscript ``M" on the limiting luminosity $L_{\rm M}$ stands

428: for momentum-driven, then the effective gravity is reduced by the

429: momentum deposition of the radiation, but the motion of the gas is

430: inward toward the central point source. For $L\gtrsim L_{\rm M}$, the

431: gas moves outward in a radiation pressure-driven outflow.  Taking

432: $L(t)$ constant in time in equation (\ref{thickmom}) implies

433: %

434: \be %$

435: \frac{dV}{dt}=\frac{GM(r)}{r^2}\left[\frac{L}{L_{\rm

436: M}}-1\right]=\frac{2\sigma^2}{r}\left[\frac{L}{L_{\rm M}}-1\right]. \label{thickmom2}

437: \ee %$

438: %

439: Taking equation (\ref{thickmom2}) as the momentum equation for a

440: time-independent optically thick wind (not a shell) and integrating,

441: we obtain

442: %

443: \be %$

444: V(r)=2\sigma\sqrt{\left[\frac{L}{L_{\rm

445: M}}-1\right]\ln\left(\frac{r}{R_0}\right)},

446: \label{vthick}

447: \ee %$

448: %

449: where $R_0$ is the initial radius of the outflow and we have

450: neglected $V(R_0)$.  For $L$ of a few times $L_{\rm M}$ and distances

451: as large as several $R_{\rm V}(\gg R_0)$, the asymptotic velocity does

452: not exceed several times $\sigma$, i.e., $V_\infty \approx3 \sigma$.

453: 

454: When $L \gtrsim L_{\rm M}$, the momentum injected by star formation is

455: sufficient to blow out {\it all} of the gas in the galaxy. Taking

456: $\fgas=f_g/0.1$ and $\sigma_{200}=\sigma/200$ km s$^{-1}$ yields

457: %

458: \be %$

459: L_{\rm M}\simeq3\times10^{46}\,\,\,{\rm

460: erg\,\,s^{-1}}\,\,\,\fgas\sigma_{200}^4.

461: \label{lmoms}

462: \ee %$

463: %

464: The star formation rate corresponding to $L_{\rm M}$ is then 

465: \be %$ 

466: \dot{M}_\star =L_{\rm M}/\epsilon c^2\simeq500\,\,{\rm M_\odot

467: \,\,yr^{-1}}\,\,\fgas\epsilon_3^{-1}\sigma_{200}^4.  \label{mdotstar}

468: \ee %$

469: %

470: From equation (\ref{mom}), the outflow rate is

471: %

472: \be %$

473: \dot{M}_{\rm W}\simeq500\,\,{\rm

474: M_\odot\,\,yr^{-1}}\,\,\,\fgas\sigma_{200}^3.

475: \label{mmom}

476: \ee %$

477: %

478: Equations~(\ref{lmom}) and (\ref{mmom}) imply that $\dot{M}_{\rm

479: W}\propto \sigma^3 \propto L^{3/4}$.

480: 

481: It is worth considering whether the luminosity $L_{\rm M}$ can

482: plausibly be obtained in a starburst.  In \S4 we provide observational

483: evidence that it is, while here we present a simple theoretical

484: estimate. The maximum star formation rate in a dark matter potential

485: well can be estimated by first assuming that the gas builds up on a

486: scale $\sim R_D$ without much star formation, \`{a} la Mo, Mao \& White

487: (1998).  Mergers and interactions between galaxies can then

488: efficiently convert this gas into stars on a timescale $\sim \tau^{\rm

489: D}_{\rm Dyn} \sim R_{\rm D}/\sigma$, the merger timescale.  This can

490: in principle generate a star formation rate approaching

491: %

492: \beqa %$

493: \dot{M}_\star^{\rm max}=\frac{M_g}{\tau_{\rm Dyn}^{\rm D}}&=& \frac{2^{3/2}f_g}{\lambda

494: G}\,\sigma^3 \nonumber \\ &\sim&10^4\,\,{\rm

495: M_\odot\,\,yr^{-1}}\fgas\lambda_{0.05}^{-1}\sigma_{200}^3, 

496: \eeqa %$

497: %

498: producing a maximum luminosity of 

499: %

500: \beqa %$

501: L_{\rm max}&=&\epsilon\dot{M}_\star^{\rm max}c^2 \nonumber \\

502: &\sim& 6\times10^{47}\,\,{\rm

503: erg\,\,s^{-1}}\,\,\epsilon_{3}\fgas\lambda_{0.05}^{-1}\,\sigma_{200}^3.

504: \label{lmax}

505: \eeqa %$

506: %

507: With this estimate for the maximum star formation rate, there is a

508: critical $\sigma \equiv \sigma_{\rm max}$ above which a starburst

509: cannot generate the luminosity required to expel the gas (i.e.,

510: $L_{\rm max} \lesssim L_{\rm M}$):

511: %

512: \be %$

513: \sigma_{\rm max}=\frac{\epsilon c}

514: {\sqrt{2}\lambda}\sim4000\,\,{\rm km\,\,s^{-1}}\,\,\epsilon_3\,

515: \lambda^{-1}_{0.05}.

516: \label{sigmacritd}

517: \ee %$

518: %

519: This estimate suggests that star formation rates required to produce a

520: luminosity $\sim L_{\rm M}$ can plausibly be achieved, particularly in

521: mergers when stored gas is converted into stars on a timescale $\sim

522: \tau^{\rm D}_{\rm Dyn}$.  The actual value of $\sigma_{\rm max}$ is,

523: of course, quite uncertain because it depends on the efficiency of

524: star formation and ambiguities in defining the dynamical timescale for

525: the starburst.  Equation (\ref{sigmacritd}) may well be an

526: overestimate because the gas mass available for star formation at any

527: time may be significantly less than the total mass $M_g$ in 

528: equation (\ref{mgtot}).

529: 

530: 

531: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

532: 

533: \subsection{Wind Dynamics: Optically Thin Limit}

534: 

535: So far we have assumed that the flow is optically thick at the base of

536: the wind.  This is certainly appropriate in the case of pure momentum

537: driving by supernovae ($\dot{P}_{\rm SN}$).  However, if $\dot{P}$ is

538: provided by the luminosity of the starburst or AGN, then we must

539: distinguish between the optically thick and optically

540: thin limits.  If the spherical shell surrounding a point source with

541: luminosity $L$ is optically thin, again ignoring gas pressure, the

542: momentum equation for the shell is 

543: \be %$

544: {dV\over dt}=-{GM(r)\over r^2}

545: +{\kappa L\over 4\pi r^2 c},

546: \label{thinmom}

547: \ee %$

548: %

549: where the optical depth $\tau=\kappa M_g(r)/4\pi r^2$ and $\kappa$ is

550: the opacity (per unit mass of gas).  Thus, the condition on the

551: luminosity for the shell to move outward is the classical (optically

552: thin) Eddington result, 

553: \beqa %$ 

554: L_{\rm SB}\gtrsim L_{\rm Edd}&=&{4\pi

555: GM(r)c\over\kappa}={8\pi c \over\kappa}\,\sigma^2 r \nonumber \\

556: &\approx&10^{46}\,\, \ergs\sigma_{200}^2\,r_{\rm kpc}\,\kappa_{100}^{-1},

557: \label{lthin}

558: \eeqa %$

559: %

560: where $\kappa_{100}=\kappa/100$ cm$^{2}$ g$^{-1}$ and $r_{\rm kpc}=r/1$ kpc.

561: The velocity profile for a steady-state optically thin wind can be obtained by integrating equation (\ref{thinmom}),

562: \be

563: V(r)=2\sigma\sqrt{R_{\rm g}\left({1\over R_0}-{1\over r}\right) + \ln(R_0/r)},

564: \label{vthin}

565: \ee where \be R_{\rm g}\equiv {\kappa L\over 8\pi c \sigma^2}={L\over

566: L_{\rm Edd}(R_0)}\, R_0.  \label{rg} \ee The gas, close to $R_0$,

567: initially accelerates. When it reaches $R_{\rm g}$ it begins to

568: decelerate, eventually stopping if the galaxy is much larger than the

569: initial launch radius $R_0$. In order for the gas to reach ten times

570: its initial radius, we require $L/L_{\rm Edd}\sim3$.

571: 

572: Equations (\ref{thinmom})-(\ref{rg}) also apply to optically thick

573: {\it clouds} that fill only a fraction of the volume in the galaxy (in

574: contrast to the optically thick {\it shell} considered in \S2.3).  For

575: a cloud of mass $M_c$ and area $A_c$, the force per unit mass a

576: distance $r$ from the luminosity source is $A_cL/(4 \pi r^2 c M_c)$.

577: This is identical to the force in equation (\ref{thinmom}) with $\kappa

578: \rightarrow A_c/M_c$.  In this case the Eddington limit can be

579: rewritten as \be L_{\rm Edd} \approx 2 \times 10^{45}\,\,

580: \ergs\sigma_{200}^2\,r_{\rm kpc}\,N_{21} \label{leddcloud} \ee where

581: $N_{21} = N_H/10^{21} {\rm cm^2}$ is the hydrogen column and we have

582: rewritten the mass per unit area of the cloud as $M_c/A_c = (4/3) m_p

583: N_H$. More properties of the acceleration of optically thick clouds

584: are considered in \S\ref{section:entrainment} and the Appendix.

585: 

586: \subsection{The Critical Opacity \& Dust Production}

587: 

588: The difference between the limiting luminosity derived in the

589: optically thick case ($L_{\rm M}$; eq.~\ref{lmom}) and that derived in

590: the optically thin case ($L_{\rm Edd}$; eq.~\ref{lthin}) is important.

591: The dividing line between these physical regimes is given by a

592: critical opacity $\kappa_{\rm crit}$ above which the gas is optically

593: thick.  To estimate $\kappa_{\rm crit}$, we assume that all of the gas

594: in a galaxy is concentrated on the scale $R_{\rm D}$ (see eq.~[\ref{rd}]).

595: The condition $\tau \gtrsim 1$ then requires $\kappa \gtrsim

596: \kappa_{\rm crit}$ with 

597: \beqa 

598: \kappa_{\rm crit} &\approx& \frac{\pi G

599: \lambda^2}{\sqrt{2}\sigma f_g 10 H(z)} \nonumber \\ &\simeq& 6 \ {\rm

600: cm^2\,\,g^{-1}}

601: \,\,\lambda_{0.05}^2\,\,\sigma_{200}^{-1}\,\,\fgas^{\,-1}\,\,h^{-1}\frac{H_0}{H(z)}.

602: \label{kc}

603: \eeqa Note that this estimate applies both if the gas is distributed

604: spherically on a scale $\sim R_{\rm D}$ or if it is in a disk ($\tau$

605: is then the vertical optical depth through the disk).  If $\kappa

606: <\kappa_{\rm crit}$ (particularly likely at lower redshift where $f_g

607: \ll 0.1$ or in a small galaxy with $\sigma_{200} \ll 1$), then the

608: optically thin limit obtains (eq.~\ref{lthin}).  Conversely, if

609: $\kappa>\kappa_{\rm crit}$, then the optically thick limit obtains and

610: the limiting luminosity required to drive the gas mass to infinity via

611: momentum deposition is given by equation (\ref{lmom}).

612: 

613: The critical opacity obtained in equation (\ref{kc}) is much larger than

614: the electron scattering opacity ($\kappa_{es}\simeq0.38$ cm$^2$

615: g$^{-1}$), but it is easily provided by continuum dust absorption and

616: scattering of photons (e.g.~Draine \& Lee 1984).  Dust opacity can

617: be in the range of several hundred cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ and is responsible

618: for the high reddening observed in both local (e.g.~Calzetti 2001;

619: Heckman, Armus, \& Miley~1990; Meurer et al.~1995; Lehnert \& Heckman

620: 1996) and distant starbursting galaxies including ULIRGs (Sanders \&

621: Mirabel 1996) and LBGs (e.g.~Adelberger \& Steidel 2000).  Note that

622: $\kappa > \kappa_{\rm Crit}$ can be obtained even for very subsolar

623: metallicities ($\lesssim 0.1$ solar) suggesting that the momentum

624: driven outflows considered here may be important even for the

625: formation of relatively `primordial' galaxies.

626: 

627: It is worth considering how and in what quantity dust is created in

628: young galaxies.  Dust can be created in AGB stars, but the timescale

629: to do so is $\sim 1\,{\rm Gyr}$, long compared to the

630: duration of a starburst, and so may not dominate the production of

631: dust in young galaxies. Instead, Kozasa et al.~(1989), Todini \&

632: Ferrara (2001), and Nozawa et al.~(2003) show that supernovae can

633: produce $M_{\rm Dust}\sim0.5$ M$_\odot$ of dust per supernova,

634: depending on the progenitor metallicity and mass.  To order of

635: magnitude, with ${\cal L}$ the scale of the system, the number of

636: supernovae required to yield $\tau_{\rm Dust}\sim1$ in the volume

637: $(4\pi/3){\cal L}^3$ is 

638: %

639: \be %$

640: N_{\rm SN}\sim

641: 10^6\left(\frac{\cal{L}}{2\,\,{\rm kpc}}\right)^{2}

642: \left(\frac{0.5\,\,{\rm M_\odot}}{M_{\rm Dust}}\right)

643: \left(\frac{10^4\,\,{\rm cm^2\,\,g^{-1}}}{\kappa_{\rm Dust}}\right),

644: \label{nsn} 

645: \ee %$

646: %

647: where $\kappa_{\rm Dust}$ is the opacity in units of cm$^2$ per gram

648: of {\it dust} (note that throughout the rest of this paper $\kappa$ is

649: expressed in units of cm$^2$ per gram of {\it gas}; we use

650: $\kappa_{\rm Dust}$ in equation \ref{nsn} because the result can then

651: be expressed independent of the gas mass or gas-to-dust ratio).  For a

652: supernova rate of $10^{-2}$ yr$^{-1}$ for every solar mass per year of

653: star formation, the timescale for supernovae to generate $\tau_{\rm

654: Dust}\sim1$ is $\sim10^8$ yr $\dot{M}_\star^{-1}$.  This timescale is

655: reasonably short and so we expect that the required opacity may be

656: produced either by quiescent star formation or during a starburst

657: itself.  For example, in a large starburst with $\dot{M}_\star\sim100$

658: M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, $\tau_{\rm Dust}\sim1$ is reached in just

659: $\sim10^6$ yr (or soon after the first supernovae occur).

660: 

661: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

662: 

663: \subsection{The Coupling Between Dust \& Gas}

664: 

665: The mean free path for scattering of dust and gas is simply

666: $\lambda=(n \sigma_{\rm dg})^{-1}$, where $n$ is the gas number

667: density and $\sigma_{\rm dg}$ is the dust-gas scattering cross

668: section.  Since we require that order unity of the dust momentum be

669: imparted to the gas, the quantity of interest is $\lambda_{\rm

670: M}=\lambda(m_{\rm D}/m_p)$, where $m_{\rm D}$ is the mass of an

671: individual dust grain.  For a grain of radius $a$ and a geometric

672: cross section, we estimate \be \lambda_{\rm M}\simeq10\,\,{\rm

673: pc}\,\,a_{0.1}\, \rho_{3} \, n^{-1}_{1},

674: \label{lambdam}

675: \ee where $a_{0.1}=a/(0.1 \mu{\rm m})$, $n_1$ is the number density of

676: gas, normalized to one particle per cm$^3$, and $\rho_{3}$ is the mass

677: density of an individual dust grain, normalized to three gram per

678: cm$^3$.  To assess the hydrodynamical coupling of dust and gas we

679: compare $\lambda_{\rm M}$ with the radial scale $R$ in the galaxy.  We

680: leave to future work a detailed multi-fluid model of dust-driven

681: galactic winds (as in models of winds from cool stars).

682: 

683: In a sufficiently low density phase of the ISM, it is possible to have

684: $\lambda_{\rm M} > R$ and thus for dust and gas to be hydrodynamically

685: decoupled.  In this case dust could be expelled from a galaxy without

686: the gas (e.g., Davies et al. 1998).  It seems, however, more likely

687: that the dust is present in the cold, dense phase of the ISM with $n_1

688: \gtrsim 1$, in which case $\lambda_M \ll R$ and the dust efficiently

689: shares the radiative momentum it receives with the gas.  As the flow

690: moves outwards, however, the density of gas decreases and

691: $\lambda_{\rm M}$ may eventually exceed the radius $R$.  To estimate

692: the radial scale at which this happens ($R_{\rm dg}$), we use

693: $n=\dot{M}_{\rm W}/(4\pi m_p R^2 V)$ to estimate the gas density (with

694: $\dot M_{\rm W}$ from eq.~\ref{mmom} and $V \sim \sigma$).  Combining

695: with equation (\ref{lambdam}) we find that $\lambda_{\rm M} > R$ at

696: \be R_{\rm dg}=\frac{3}{4\pi}\frac{\sigma^2 f_g}{\rho_{\rm D}a

697: G}\sim150\,\,{\rm kpc}\,\, \rho^{-1}_3\, a^{-1}_{0.1}\,

698: \sigma_{200}^{2}\, \fgas.  \ee Because $R_{\rm dg}$ is significantly

699: larger than the scale on which the outflow is accelerated, we expect

700: the dust and gas to be well coupled in the acceleration region and

701: thus that the gas can be blown out of the galaxy with the dust.  This

702: estimate of $R_{\rm dg}$ is probably conservative because the dust may

703: primarily be in cold gas clouds whose density will not decrease as

704: $R^{-2}$ as for the continuous wind considered above.  Note also that

705: near the source of UV photons the dust grains will be charged.  This

706: will further increase the coupling of the dust to the gas, both

707: because of Coulomb collisions (Draine \& Salpeter 1979) and because

708: the Larmor radius of the dust will be sufficiently small that the dust

709: is magnetically coupled to the gas.

710: 

711: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

712: 

713: \section{Energy-Driven Galactic Winds}

714: \label{section:energy}

715: 

716: Several properties of winds generated by energy deposition are

717: different from those driven by momentum deposition.  To highlight the

718: differences, we briefly review the physics of the former in the

719: galactic context (see, e.g., Chevalier \& Clegg 1985 for analytic

720: solutions).  

721: 

722: Given a total energy deposition rate $\dot{E}$ (erg s$^{-1}$), one may

723: estimate the mass loss rate of an energy deposition-driven wind by

724: equating the asymptotic kinetic energy loss rate with $\dot{E}$

725: \be 

726: \frac{1}{2}\dot{M}_{\rm W}V_\infty^2 \approx \dot{E}.

727: \label{en}

728: \ee 

729: For a starburst galaxy the energy injection is provided by

730: supernovae and winds from massive stars, with comparable energy from

731: each source (Leitherer et al.~1999).  We focus on supernovae here.

732: Assuming each supernova yields an energy of $\sim10^{51}$ erg, the

733: total energy deposition rate from supernovae is 

734: \beqa 

735: \dot{E}_{\rm

736: SN} &=& \xi E_{\rm SN}\Gamma_{\rm SN} \sim \xi E_{\rm SN}\dot{M}_\star

737: f_{\rm SN} \nonumber \\ &\sim&3\times10^{40}\,\,{\rm erg

738: \,\,s^{-1}}\,\,\xi_{0.1}\,\left({\dot{M}_\star \over {\rm 1 \,M_\odot

739: \,yr^{-1}}}\right) ,

740: \label{edotsn}

741: \eeqa 

742: where $\xi$ is the efficiency of energy transfer to the ISM

743: ($\xi_{0.1}=\xi/0.1$ implies 10\% efficiency), $\Gamma_{\rm SN}$ is

744: the number of supernovae per unit time, and $f_{\rm SN} \approx

745: 10^{-2}$ is the number of supernovae per solar mass of star formation.

746: The efficiency $\xi$ with which SN energy is transferred to the ISM is

747: uncertain and depends on, e.g., the density of the ISM. Thornton et

748: al.~(1998) showed that supernova remnants typically radiate at least

749: 90\% of their energy during their evolution.  Hence, only $\sim$10\%

750: may be efficiently thermalized in the ISM.  We normalize 

751: $\xi$ to this value, but emphasize that it is uncertain.  

752: 

753: Comparing equation (\ref{edotsn}) with equation (\ref{pdotsb}) we see that,

754: absent radiative losses ($\xi = 1$), $\dot{E}_{\rm SN}$ can be written

755: simply in terms of the starburst luminosity as $\dot{E}_{\rm SN} \sim

756: 10^{-2} L_{\rm SB}$.  The factor of $100$ appearing in this

757: relationship comes from the fact that a typical massive star releases

758: $\sim10^{53}$ erg in luminous energy over its lifetime, whereas it

759: deposits $\sim 10^{51}$ erg during its supernova (e.g.~Abbott 1982).

760: 

761: Equations (\ref{en}) and (\ref{edotsn}) can be combined to

762: give an expression for the mass loss rate in energy-driven winds;

763: \beqa

764: \dot M_{\rm W} & \approx & \dot M_\star \left(\xi \epsilon 10^{-2} c^2

765: \over V_\infty^2 \right) \nonumber \\

766: &\approx & \dot M_\star \xi_{0.1} \epsilon_3 \

767: \left({ 300 \ \kms \over

768: V_\infty}\right)^2. 

769: \label{mdoten} 

770: \eeqa

771: For fiducial numbers this estimate is similar to our estimate of the

772: mass loss rate in momentum driven winds (eq.~\ref{wind}).  However, 

773: eqs.~(\ref{mdoten}) and (\ref{wind}) differ in two important ways.

774: First, if the supernova energy is efficiently radiated away ($\xi \ll 1$),

775: equation (\ref{mdoten}) predicts a mass loss rate much less than equation (\ref{wind}).  

776: Second, momentum-driven winds yield the scaling $\dot{M}_{\rm W} \propto 

777: \dot{M}_\star/V_\infty$, whereas energy-driven winds predict $\dot

778: M_{\rm W} \propto \dot{M}_\star/V^2_\infty$.  This difference in scaling 

779: may be observationally testable.

780: 

781: We estimate the energy injection required to unbind the gas in a

782: galaxy by requiring that $\dot{E}_{\rm SN} \tau_{\rm Dyn} \gtrsim

783: E_{\rm Bind}$, where $E_{\rm Bind}=GMM_g/r$ and $\tau_{\rm Dyn}\sim

784: r/\sigma$.  This yields $\dot{E}_{\rm SN}\gtrsim 4f_g\sigma^5/G$.

785: Rewriting this in terms of the corresponding starburst luminosity

786: gives 

787: \beqa 

788: L_{\rm E}&\sim&\frac{100}{\xi}\frac{4f_g}{G}\,\sigma^5 \nonumber \\

789: &\sim&2\times10^{46}\,\,\,{\rm

790: erg\,\,s^{-1}}\,\,\,\fgas\,\xi_{0.1}^{-1}\,\sigma_{200}^5,

791: \label{edot}

792: \eeqa 

793: where the subscript ``E'' stands for ``energy-driven,'' in contrast to

794: $L_{\rm M}$ (eq.~\ref{lmom}).  Equation (\ref{edot}) is a criterion to

795: ``blow away'' all of the gas of the galaxy (following the nomenclature

796: of De Young \& Heckman 1994).  In a disk galaxy, supernovae may ``blow

797: out'' in the direction perpendicular to the disk (even for $L_{\rm

798: SB}$ less than $L_{\rm E}$), but in this case very little of the gas

799: mass of the galaxy will be affected (e.g., De Young \& Heckman 1994).

800: In fact, the numerical simulations of MacLow \& Ferrara (1999) and

801: Strickland \& Stevens (2000) find that supernova energy thermalized in

802: the ISM can be efficiently vented when the remnants break out of the

803: galactic disk.  However, very little of the mass in the galaxy is

804: actually blown away.

805: 

806: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

807: 

808: \subsection{Entrainment}

809: \label{section:entrainment}

810: 

811: A hot wind can in principle sweep up and entrain embedded clouds of

812: cold gas, driving them out of the galaxy by ram pressure.  The cold

813: gas may also be shock heated and evaporated by the hot flow. The

814: energy-driven limit considered in the previous subsection is

815: appropriate when most of the cold gas is shock heated and incorporated

816: into the hot flow (and radiative losses are small).  In the opposite

817: limit, in which the cold gas retains its identity, the dynamics of the

818: cold gas is analogous to that of a momentum-driven wind because it is

819: pushed out by the ram pressure of the hot gas.  In the Appendix we

820: show this explicitly by demonstrating that the ram pressure and

821: radiation pressure forces on cold clouds are typically comparable

822: (eq. [\ref{ramvsrad}]).  We also derive both the optically thin

823: (eq. [\ref{leddcloud}]) and optically thick (eq. [\ref{lmom}])

824: Eddington luminosities discussed in \S\ref{section:momentum} using ram

825: pressure as the acceleration mechanism (rather than radiation

826: pressure); see, in particular, equations (\ref{mdothot}) and

827: (\ref{lmoment}).

828: 

829: Distinguishing which of these two mechanisms actually dominates the

830: acceleration of cold gas is an important but difficult problem.  It

831: is, in particular, unclear whether embedded clouds can actually

832: survive entrainment in a hot flow.  Calculations show that the clouds

833: are typically destroyed in a few cloud crossing times (e.g., Klein,

834: McKee, \& Colella 1994; Poludnenko, Frank, \& Blackman 2002), though

835: considerable cloud material can be accelerated to high velocity in the

836: process.  In the Appendix we focus on the acceleration of cloud

837: material to highlight the analogy between ram pressure and radiation

838: pressure driving of cold gas, but the acceleration, ablation, and

839: destruction of the clouds likely go hand in hand.

840: 

841: \subsection{Comparing Momentum-Driven \& \\ Energy-Driven Winds}

842: \label{section:compare}

843: 

844: Equation (\ref{edot}) defines the starburst luminosity above which

845: energy injection by supernovae is sufficient to unbind all of the gas

846: in the galaxy.  Comparing this limiting luminosity with the

847: corresponding expression for momentum-driven winds ($L_{\rm M}$;

848: eq.~[\ref{lmom}]), we see that $L_{\rm M}\sim L_{\rm E}$ at a critical

849: velocity dispersion \be \sigma_{\rm crit}=\frac{\xi}{100} \,c

850: \sim300\,\,{\rm km\,\,s^{-1}}\xi_{0.1}.

851: \label{sigmacrit}

852: \ee For $\sigma<\sigma_{\rm crit}$, $L_{\rm E}<L_{\rm M}$ and one

853: might expect energy deposition via supernovae to dominate feedback on

854: the ISM.  By contrast, for $\sigma>\sigma_{\rm crit}$, $L_{\rm

855: M}<L_{\rm E}$ and momentum deposition dominates and is sufficient to

856: blow all of the gas out of the galaxy (this is true regardless of

857: whether the primary source of momentum deposition is radiation pressure or

858: supernovae).  Note that because of the many simplifications made in

859: deriving $L_{\rm M}$ and $L_{\rm E}$, the actual value for

860: $\sigma_{\rm crit}$ is only accurate to order of magnitude; it is also

861: very sensitive to assumptions about the efficiency with which

862: supernova energy is thermalized in the ISM.  In

863: \S\ref{section:starburst} we show that dwarf starbursting galaxies

864: violate equation (\ref{edot}) by several orders of magnitude.  This

865: suggests that in practice $\sigma_{\rm crit}$ is quite small,

866: significantly smaller than the nominal value in equation

867: (\ref{sigmacrit}).

868: 

869: The scale $\sigma_{\rm crit}$ sets a lower bound on the range of

870: $\sigma$ over which the luminosity limit $L_{\rm M}$ is applicable.

871: There is also an upper bound.  In eqs.~(\ref{lmax}) and

872: (\ref{sigmacritd}) we estimated (very crudely) the maximum star

873: formation rate and luminosity attainable in a starburst and the

874: $\sigma_{\rm max}$ above which a system cannot generate a luminosity

875: $\sim L_{\rm M}$.

876: 

877: Figure \ref{plot:lss} illustrates these bounds and the limiting

878: luminosities schematically.  The two limiting luminosities ($L_{\rm

879: E}\propto\sigma^5$ and $L_{\rm M}\propto\sigma^4$) as well as the

880: maximum attainable luminosity ($L_{\rm max}\propto\sigma^3$

881: eq.~[\ref{lmax}]) are sketched as a function of $\sigma$.  The limit

882: $L_{\rm M}$ is applicable in the region $\sigma_{\rm

883: crit}<\sigma<\sigma_{\rm max}$.  For reference, the Faber-Jackson

884: relation for elliptical galaxies and bulges is also sketched.  It has

885: a lower ``zero-point'' than $L_{\rm M}$, but the same dependence on

886: $\sigma$, $L_{\rm FJ}\propto\sigma^4$. We discuss this correlation and

887: its relation to $L_{\rm M}$ in detail in the next section but note

888: here that deviations from the FJ relation are possible for

889: $\sigma<\sigma_{\rm crit}$ and $\sigma>\sigma_{\rm max}$.

890: 

891: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

892: 

893: \section{Starburst Galaxies \& The Faber-Jackson Relation}

894: \label{section:starburst}

895: 

896: In this section we apply the idea of ``Eddington limited'' star

897: formation to star forming galaxies at high redshift.  The basic

898: scenario is as follows.  The luminosity of a nuclear starburst

899: increases as it forms stars.  When the luminosity increases to $L_{\rm

900: M}$ (eq.~[\ref{lmom}]) the starburst drives gas out of the galactic

901: potential and

902: regulates its luminosity to $\approx L_{\rm M}$ (a similar idea has been proposed 

903: by Elmegreen 1983 and Scoville et al.~2001 for what determines the mass

904: and luminosity of individual star clusters; Scoville 2003 discussed a limit

905: directly analogous to our optically thin limit $L_{\rm Edd}$, eq.~[\ref{lthin}]).

906: We argue

907: that this self-regulation determines the total number of stars formed

908: in a given dark matter potential well.  First, we describe observations

909: showing that star formation rates sufficient to produce $L\approx

910: L_{\rm M}$ do occur in star forming galaxies at both high and low

911: redshifts. Then we show that if all early type galaxies went through

912: such a star formation episode at $z \gtrsim 1$, self-regulation at

913: $\approx L_{\rm M}$ can explain the Faber-Jackson relation.

914: 

915: 

916: \subsection{The Maximum Luminosity $L_{\rm M}(\sigma)$: Observations}

917: 

918: %There is considerable observational evidence that starbursting

919: %galaxies do reach luminosities comparable to $L_{\rm M}$, particularly

920: %at high redshift ($z\gtrsim1$).  

921: Figure \ref{plot:ls} shows the

922: luminosity as a function of the velocity dispersion for a sample of

923: high star formation rate galaxies drawn from the literature.  We also

924: plot the expression for $L_{\rm M}$ (eq.~[\ref{lmom}]) for three values

925: of the gas fraction $f_g=1$, 0.1, and 0.01.  These different curves

926: should be taken to include both plausible variations in the gas

927: fraction (which changes in time), as well as uncertainty in the value

928: of $L_{\rm M}$.  The latter arises because the total momentum

929: deposition rate may be somewhat larger than just $L/c$ since

930: contributions from supernovae, stellar winds, and starburst photons

931: are all comparable. In addition, photons may be absorbed several times

932: as they exit the starburst region and the galaxy.

933: 

934: In collecting the data in Figure \ref{plot:ls}, we attempted to find

935: representative examples of the highest star formation rate galaxies at

936: a variety of $\sigma$ (see Tables \ref{tab:ls} and \ref{tab:ls3} for

937: details).  This includes dwarf galaxies (Mateo 1998; Martin 1998),

938: LBGs at $z \approx 2$ (Erb et al. 2003) and $z \approx 3$ (Pettini et

939: al. 2001), ULIRGs locally (Genzel et al. 2001) and at high redshift

940: (Neri et al. 2003; Genzel et al.~2003; Tecza et al.~2004), galaxies

941: from the CFRS survey at $z\approx0.6$ (Lilly et al. 1996; M{\'

942: a}llen-Ornelas et al.~1999), and a sample of local starbursts (Heckman

943: et al.~2000).  For the local starbursts we chose a sample of systems

944: that clearly show evidence for outflowing {\it cold} gas.  

945: Even though many systems  fall significantly below the $L_{\rm M}$ curve,

946: radiation pressure is sufficient to generate an outflow of cold gas

947: comparable to what is observed because 

948: the radiation pressure force on individual gas clouds can exceed

949: gravity even if $L \ll L_{\rm M}$ (since the latter criteria refers to

950: blowing out {\it all} of the gas in the galaxy).  We will discuss this

951: in more detail in a future paper.  

952: 

953: The data in Figure \ref{plot:ls} are necessarily heterogeneous, and there are

954: uncertainties in both luminosities and velocity dispersions, but this

955: compilation illustrates several important points.  First, the simple

956: momentum driving limit given by equation (\ref{lmom}) does provide a

957: reasonable upper limit to the luminosity of observed starbursting

958: systems.  The fact that some systems fall below this limit is, of

959: course, no surprise.  They might simply not have star formation rates

960: sufficient to reach $L_{\rm M}$, or they might be observed somewhat

961: after the peak star formation episode (which is, after all, where

962: systems spend most of their time; see Fig.~\ref{plot:decay1}).

963: 

964: It is also worth stressing that the upper envelope to the observed

965: luminosity as a function of $\sigma$ is incompatible with the simple

966: limit based on energy feedback from supernovae, which predicts $L_{\rm

967: E} \propto \sigma^5$ (\S\ref{section:energy}; eq.~[\ref{edot}]).  In

968: particular, the low $\sigma$ systems in Figure \ref{plot:ls}  have luminosities well

969: in excess of the energy limit given in equation (\ref{edot}).  This implies

970: that either the efficiency of transferring supernova energy to the ISM

971: is very low (e.g., $\xi \sim 10^{-2}$) or else supernovae do not

972: globally halt star formation by ejecting most of the gas (e.g.,

973: because the supernovae ``blow out'' of the galactic plane; de Young \&

974: Heckman 1994).  In either interpretation, this argues for $\sigma_{\rm

975: crit} \lesssim 20$ km s$^{-1}$ (see Fig.~\ref{plot:lss}), in which

976: case momentum injection may dominate the global mass loss in many

977: starbursting systems.

978: 

979: For the purposes of this paper, perhaps the most interesting feature

980: of Figure 2 is that starbursting galaxies at high redshift have

981: luminosities reasonably close to $L_{\rm M}$.  This includes both

982: LBGs, ULIRGs, and galaxies drawn from the CFRS redshift survey of

983: Lilly et al. (1996).  We suggest that this is not a coincidence, but

984: is instead evidence that star formation at high redshifts self-regulates;

985: when the starburst reaches a luminosity $\sim

986: L_{\rm M}$, the galaxy drives a powerful wind that limits the

987: available gas supply and thus the star formation rate.  This feedback

988: mechanism regulates the luminosity of the starburst and ultimately

989: helps set the stellar mass of the galaxy.

990: 

991: The $z \gtrsim 1$ galaxies shown in Figure 2 are representative of

992: systems that have been used to study the star formation history of the

993: universe (e.g., Madau et al. 1996; Steidel et al. 1999).  It is known

994: that integrating the inferred star formation history over redshift can

995: account reasonably well for the total stellar mass density observed at

996: $z = 0$ (Madau et al. 1998).

997: %\footnote{That is, although the IMF

998: %is uncertain and extinction and luminosity-function corrections are

999: %important, to first order it appears that much of the star formation

1000: %is accounted for by observations at $z \gtrsim 1$.}  

1001: The fact that

1002: many of the individual systems that comprise the `Madau' plot

1003: have $L \sim L_{\rm M}$ thus suggests that a significant fraction of the

1004: stellar mass in the universe has been built up through starbursts that

1005: self-regulate by momentum-driven galactic winds.  We show in the next

1006: section that if this hypothesis is correct, it can account for the

1007: Faber-Jackson relation.

1008: 

1009: A direct test of our hypothesis is that rapidly star forming galaxies

1010: at high redshift should drive powerful galactic winds.  Powerful winds

1011: are seen in LBGs (e.g., Pettini et al. 2000; Adelberger et

1012: al. 2003).  It is, however, difficult to isolate the physical

1013: mechanism responsible for driving such outflows. One prediction of the

1014: momentum-driven wind model is that observed outflows should have a

1015: momentum flux $\dot M_{\rm W} V_\infty$ comparable to that of the starburst,

1016: $L/c$.  This can be rewritten as (eq.~[\ref{wind}]) $\dot M_{\rm W} \approx

1017: \dot M_\star (c \epsilon/V_\infty)$. This prediction is difficult to test

1018: because it is hard to reliably measure the mass outflow rate $\dot

1019: M_{\rm W}$.

1020: % and because energy-driven winds also predict a similar mass

1021: %loss rate, although with a different scaling: 

1022: %$\dot M_{\rm W}\propto V_\infty^{-2}$ (eq.~[\ref{mdoten}]).  

1023: The best case so far at high redshift is

1024: probably the gravitationally lensed LBG MS 1512-cB58.  Pettini et

1025: al.~(2000) estimate a mass loss rate of $\approx 60 \ {\rm M_\odot}$

1026: yr$^{-1}$ and an outflow velocity of $V_\infty \approx 200$ km

1027: s$^{-1}$.  The inferred star formation rate is $\dot M_\star \approx 40 \

1028: {\rm M_\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, suggesting a close correspondence between

1029: the momentum input from stars and that in the outflow.

1030: 

1031: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1032: 

1033: \subsection{The Faber-Jackson Relation}

1034: \label{section:faber}

1035: 

1036: The Faber-Jackson (FJ) relation connects the luminosity of the bulge

1037: or spheroidal component of a galaxy with its velocity dispersion

1038: (Faber \& Jackson 1976; for a review, see Burstein et al.~1997).  Bernardi et al.~(2003) (their Fig.~4) give

1039: the FJ relation derived from about 9,000 early-type galaxies in the

1040: Sloan Digital Sky Survey.  In the i-band, their results imply 

1041: \be 

1042: \nu

1043: L_{\nu,i} \simeq 2 \times 10^{44}\,\,{\rm

1044: erg\,\,s^{-1}}\,\,\sigma_{200}^{3.95}

1045: \label{fj}

1046: \ee 

1047: over the range $\sigma \approx 100-300 \ \kms$.  The slope of the FJ

1048: relation is nearly identical in all of the Sloan bands, while the

1049: normalization decreases slightly (by a factor of $\approx 2$) at the

1050: shortest wavelengths (the $g$ band).  In a separate analysis Pahre et

1051: al. (1998) give the FJ relation in the near-infrared (K-band), finding

1052: $\nu L_{\nu,K} \simeq 3 \times 10^{43} \,\,{\rm

1053: erg\,\,s^{-1}}\,\,\sigma_{200}^{4.1}$.  Thus the slope of the FJ

1054: relation is essentially independent of wavelength while the change in

1055: its normalization with wavelength is consistent with the spectrum of

1056: an old stellar population.  That is, if one plots the normalization of

1057: the FJ relation as a function of wavelength, the resulting

1058: ``spectrum'' is very similar to that produced by a $\sim 10$ Gyr old

1059: instantaneous starburst.\footnote{Such an exercise is only possible

1060: because the slope of FJ is independent of $\sigma$ so one can

1061: meaningfully construct a ``spectrum.''  In particular, it is not

1062: possible to carry out the same procedure for disk galaxies because the

1063: slope of the Tully-Fisher relation increases with increasing

1064: wavelength (Binney \& Merrifield 1998).}

1065: 

1066: Our expression for the limiting starburst luminosity is given in

1067: eqs.~(\ref{lmom}) and (\ref{lmoms}).  This luminosity corresponds to

1068: that {\it during} the starburst, whereas equation (\ref{fj}) is a statement

1069: about $L$ and $\sigma$ {\it now}.  If, as we have argued above, most

1070: (all) early type galaxies went through a significant starburst phase

1071: during which their luminosities reached -- but did not exceed -- our

1072: limiting luminosity, we can determine the properties of the stellar

1073: population now by ``fading'' the starburst with time.

1074: 

1075: Figure \ref{plot:decay1} shows the luminosity of a starburst as a

1076: function of time in the models of Bruzual \& Charlot (2003).

1077: Starbursts of five durations are shown: instantaneous, 10 Myr, 30 Myr,

1078: 100 Myr, and 300 Myr (with constant star formation rates and a

1079: Salpeter IMF between $0.1-100$ M$_\odot$).  The ratio of the peak

1080: starburst luminosity to the luminosity now ($t\sim10^{10}$ yr)

1081: determines how much the stellar population fades with time and allows

1082: us to connect the maximum starburst luminosity to the currently

1083: observed FJ relation.  For the models shown in Figure

1084: \ref{plot:decay1} the starburst fades by a factor of $2500$, $1500$,

1085: $800$, $250$, and $100$ over $\approx 10^{10}$ yrs.  These results can

1086: be understood analytically by noting that, for a Salpeter IMF and a

1087: stellar mass-luminosity relation of the form $L \propto M^\beta$, the

1088: late-time luminosity of a starburst is given by \be L(t) \sim 3 L_{\rm

1089: SB} \left({\tau_{\rm SB} \over \tau_{\rm max}}\right) \left({t \over

1090: \tau_{\rm max}}\right)^{-{\beta - 1.35 \over \beta - 1}}

1091: \label{fade} 

1092: \ee where $\tau_{\rm max} \approx 3$ Myrs is the lifetime of the most

1093: massive stars, $\tau_{\rm SB}$ (assumed $> \tau_{\rm max}$) is the

1094: duration of the starburst, and $L_{SB}$ is the peak luminosity of the

1095: starburst; the factor of ``3'' has been included based on comparison

1096: to numerical calculations.  The dependence on $\tau_{\rm SB}/\tau_{\rm

1097: max}$ seen in Figure \ref{plot:decay1} and equation (\ref{fade})

1098: arises because the late-time luminosity is determined by {\it total}

1099: number of low-mass stars made during the burst, while the peak

1100: starburst luminosity ($L_{\rm SB}$) depends only on the {\it

1101: instantaneous} number of massive stars present in the starburst.  For

1102: $\beta \approx 4-5$, equation (\ref{fade}) predicts $L(t) \propto

1103: t^{-0.9}$, in reasonable agreement with Figure \ref{plot:decay1} at

1104: late times.

1105: 

1106: Comparing the observed FJ relation with the maximum starburst

1107: luminosity in equation (\ref{lmom}) shows that if the starburst fades

1108: by a factor of $\approx 100-200$ from $z \sim {\rm few}$ to now, then

1109: we can account for both the normalization and slope of the FJ relation

1110: as being due to feedback during the formation of ellipticals at high

1111: redshift.  This in turn requires that most of the stars in a galaxy

1112: were formed over a period of $\tau_{\rm SB} \sim 100-300$ Myrs

1113: (Fig. 3).\footnote{The timescale $\tau_{\rm SB}$ refers to the net

1114: timescale over which stars form at a luminosity $\sim L_{\rm M}$.  It

1115: could in principle be that many starbursts of shorter duration

1116: cumulatively last for $\sim \tau_{\rm SB}$.} This number is plausible

1117: on a number of grounds.  It is comparable to the inferred star

1118: formation timescales in LBGs (e.g., Shapley et al. 2001) and ULIRGs

1119: (e.g., Genzel et al. 2004).  It is also comparable to the dynamical

1120: timescale $\tau_{\rm Dyn}^{\rm D}$ of gas on galactic scales.  This is

1121: relevant because this dynamical timescale roughly determines the

1122: duration of starbursts in numerical simulations of merging galaxies

1123: (Mihos \& Hernquist 1996).

1124: 

1125: The scatter in the FJ relation is observed to be a factor of $\approx

1126: 2$ in $L$ at a given $\sigma$ (Bernardi et al. 2003).  In our model,

1127: this scatter is primarily due to differences in the time since, and

1128: duration of, the star formation episode that built up most of the mass

1129: of the galaxy.  Since most early type galaxies likely formed at $z

1130: \sim 1-3$, and the time difference between these redshifts is only a

1131: factor of $\approx 1.5$, the scatter produced in the observed FJ by

1132: different ``formation redshifts'' is quite mild (since $L \sim

1133: t^{-1}$; see Figure \ref{plot:decay1}).  By contrast, the amount by

1134: which a starburst fades is directly proportional to its duration

1135: $\tau_{\rm SB}$ (see eq.~[\ref{fade}]), which might {\it a priori} be

1136: expected to vary significantly from system to system.  It is unclear

1137: what would cause such a narrow range in $\tau_{\rm SB}$.  It is,

1138: however, encouraging that the dynamical timescale at $\sim R_{\rm D}$

1139: is independent of the mass ($\sigma$) of a galaxy

1140: (eq.~[\ref{taudynd}]), suggesting that to first order the duration of

1141: a merger-induced starburst might be similar in different

1142: systems.\footnote{In numerical simulations of mergers, the duration of

1143: a starburst depends on the details of the orbit and the internal

1144: dynamics of the merger constituents (e.g., the bulge to disk ratio;

1145: see Mihos \& Hernquist 1996).  Variations in these properties from

1146: merger to merger will introduce scatter into $\tau_{\rm SB}$ and thus

1147: the observed FJ relation.}  It is also possible, as we discuss in the

1148: next section, that a central AGN is responsible for terminating the

1149: star formation in its host galaxy.

1150: 

1151: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1152: 

1153: \section{Active Galactic Nuclei \& the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ Relation}

1154: \label{section:agn}

1155: 

1156: Early-type galaxies and bulges are inferred to have central

1157: supermassive black holes, whose masses correlate well with the

1158: velocity dispersion of the galaxy itself: $M_{\rm BH} = 1.5 \times

1159: 10^8 \sigma_{200}^4 \ {\rm M}_\odot$ (Tremaine et al. 2002). This

1160: correlation is remarkably similar to the FJ relation.

1161: 

1162: In \S\ref{section:momentum} we considered the general properties of galactic winds

1163: driven by momentum deposition.  We then focused on radiation from

1164: starbursts as providing this source of momentum.  However, star

1165: formation is unlikely to efficiently remove gas from very small scales

1166: in galactic nuclei (scales much smaller than that of a nuclear

1167: starburst).  This gas is available to fuel a central AGN.

1168: 

1169: We consider a central BH with a luminosity $L_{\rm BH}$.  The

1170: optically thin Eddington luminosity for the BH is (eq.~[\ref{lthin}])

1171: \be 

1172: L_{\rm Edd}={4\pi GM_{\rm BH}c\over\kappa_{\rm es}} = 

1173: 1.3\times10^{46}\,\,{\rm erg\,\,s^{-1}}\,\,M_8,  \label{edd}

1174: \ee 

1175: where $M_8=M_{\rm BH}/10^8$M$_\odot$ and $\kappa_{\rm es}=0.38{\rm\ cm^2/g}$ is the

1176: electron scattering opacity.  Note that the electron scattering

1177: opacity is appropriate close to the BH, at least out to the dust

1178: sublimation radius. The latter can be estimated by equating the

1179: absorbed flux with the radiated flux from dust grains: 

1180: \beqa 

1181: \label{eq:rsub}

1182: R_{\rm Sub}&=&\sqrt{L_{\rm BH}\over 4\pi\sigma_{SB} T^4_{\rm Sub}}

1183: \nonumber \\

1184: &\sim&3\times10^{18}L^{1/2}_{46}\left(1200{\rm \,\,K}\over T_{\rm

1185: Sub}\right)^2{\rm cm}, 

1186: \eeqa 

1187: where $L_{46}=L_{\rm BH}/10^{46}$ erg

1188: s$^{-1}$, $\sigma_{SB}$ is the Stefan-Boltzman constant, and the dust

1189: sublimation temperature is $T_{\rm Sub}\approx 1200$ K.

1190: 

1191: The ratio $\Gamma\equiv L_{\rm BH}/L_{\rm Edd}$ is estimated to be

1192: $\sim 0.1-1$ for luminous AGN at high redshift (e.g., Vestergaard

1193: 2004). If the hole radiates with an efficiency $\eta\approx0.1$, the

1194: mass accretion rate is $\dot{M}_{\rm BH}=L_{\rm BH}/(\eta c^2)$.

1195: Combining $\dot{M}_{\rm BH}$ and $L_{\rm Edd}$ gives the timescale for

1196: $L_{\rm BH}$ (and $M_{\rm BH}$) to double, the Salpeter timescale, 

1197: \be

1198: \tau_{\rm Salp}=\frac{\eta c\kappa_{\rm es}}{\Gamma4\pi G}\sim 43\

1199: {\rm Myrs}\,\,\,\Gamma^{-1}.

1200: \label{tsalp}

1201: \ee 

1202: The region exterior to the sublimation radius contains dust and

1203: can be optically thick to the UV photons of the AGN even if the AGN is

1204: sub-Eddington in the electron scattering sense (eq. [\ref{edd}]).

1205: This is simply because the dust opacity is much larger than the

1206: electron scattering opacity.  Thus, by arguments analogous to those

1207: given in \S\ref{section:momentum} and \S\ref{section:starburst}, if

1208: the luminosity of the black hole exceeds $L_{\rm M}$

1209: (eq.~[\ref{lmom}]), it drives an outflow.  This outflow drives away

1210: gas outside of $R_{\rm Sub}$, irrespective of whether or not the AGN

1211: is super-Eddington on small scales close to the BH.

1212: 

1213: Using $L_{\rm BH}=\Gamma L_{\rm Edd}$ the criterion $L_{\rm BH}

1214: \approx L_{\rm M}$ can be written in terms of the black hole mass as

1215: \be 

1216: M_{\rm BH} \approx {f_g\kappa_{es}\over \pi G^2

1217: \Gamma}\sigma^4\approx2\times10^8\,{\rm

1218: M_\odot}\,\,\fgas\Gamma^{-1}\sigma_{200}^4.  

1219: \label{msigma} 

1220: \ee 

1221: If the

1222: black hole mass exceeds the limit in equation (\ref{msigma}), then it

1223: drives a large-scale galactic outflow.  Only when $M_{\rm BH}$ reaches

1224: the critical mass in equation (\ref{msigma}) will it be able to blow dusty

1225: gas all the way out of the galaxy.  This shuts off the gas supply to

1226: the black hole on a dynamical timescale and fixes the mass to be that

1227: in equation (\ref{msigma}), in good agreement with the observed $M_{\rm

1228: BH}-\sigma$ relation.  It should be noted that the dust-free gas

1229: within $R_{\rm Sub}$ need not be blown out by the BH.  The total mass

1230: contained within this region is, however, a small fraction ($\sim$ few

1231: \%) of the BH mass (eq.~[\ref{msigma}]), so accretion of this gas does

1232: not modify the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation.

1233: 

1234: Although the context is somewhat different, equation (\ref{msigma}) is

1235: identical to the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation derived by King (2003) and it is similar to 

1236: those obtained using other `feedback' arguments for the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation 

1237:  (e.g., Silk \& Rees 1998; Haehnelt et al. 1998; Blandford 1999; Fabian 1999; Fabian et al.~2002).  

1238: Specifically, King

1239: assumed that a radiation pressure driven outflow launched from close

1240: to the BH sweeps out of the galaxy, driving all of the gas away.  We

1241: argue that the outflow is primarily due to absorption of the BHs

1242: luminosity by dust outside of $R_{\rm Sub}$, independent of whether or

1243: not the AGN drives an outflow from small radii $\ll R_{\rm Sub}$.

1244: 

1245: An interesting feature of our model -- or, more generally, of

1246: observations of AGN and starbursts -- is the apparent coincidence that

1247: the Salpeter time that governs the growth of the BH is comparable to

1248: the duration of the star formation epoch (see

1249: \S\ref{section:starburst} for a discussion of the latter).  Were the

1250: Salpeter time much shorter, the BH would grow rapidly and its outflows

1251: could significantly disrupt star formation before sufficient stars

1252: formed to lie on the FJ relation.  As is, we suggest that {both} the

1253: star formation and BH growth are independently self-regulating,

1254: reaching the maximum luminosity $\sim L_{\rm M}$ (eq.~[\ref{lmom}]).

1255: However, as explained in the previous section, it is unclear what

1256: determines the duration of the star formation epoch.  This may be

1257: determined by mergers, but it is also possible that the `coincidence'

1258: between $\tau_{\rm Salp}$ and $\tau_{\rm SB}$ is no coincidence at

1259: all: when the BH reaches the mass given in equation (\ref{msigma}) it

1260: drives an outflow that sweeps out from the galactic nucleus,

1261: terminating star formation in its host galaxy (e.g., Silk \& Rees

1262: 1998; Fabian 1999).  This possibility is interesting because the

1263: Salpeter time is likely to be similar in different systems, which

1264: could explain the narrow range of $\tau_{\rm SB}$ required to

1265: understand the FJ relation.

1266: 

1267: The above discussion assumes that BHs reach, but do not significantly

1268: exceed, the luminosity $L_{\rm M}$.  In Figure \ref{plot:lsagn} we

1269: test this prediction using data compiled by Boroson (2003) and Shields

1270: et al.~(2003).  Both papers estimate the velocity dispersion of

1271: galaxies hosting quasars using the width of the narrow OIII line (see

1272: Nelson 2000).  The bolometric luminosity is estimated using $L \approx

1273: 9 \nu L_\nu(5100 \, \AA)$, the average bolometric correction used by

1274: Kaspi et al. (2000).  There is evidence that the width of the OIII

1275: line can sometimes exceed the velocity dispersion of the galaxy in

1276: radio-loud AGN (Nelson \& Whittle 1996); these systems are indicated

1277: by open symbols in Figure \ref{plot:lsagn}.

1278: 

1279: Figure \ref{plot:lsagn} shows that the limit $L_{\rm M}$ accounts for

1280: the maximum quasar luminosity at any $\sigma$, in good agreement with

1281: the predictions of feedback models for the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$

1282: relation.  That some systems lie below $L_{\rm M}$ is not surprising

1283: because most BHs spend most of their time accreting at sub-Eddington

1284: rates; note also that Boroson's sample from SDSS contains only quasars

1285: with $z \lesssim 0.5$ and thus systematically lacks high redshift,

1286: high luminosity quasars.

1287: 

1288: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1289: 

1290: \section{Discussion}

1291: \label{section:conclude}

1292: 

1293: \subsection{Galactic Winds}

1294: 

1295: In this paper, we have investigated large-scale galactic winds driven

1296: by momentum deposition, in contrast to the usual assumption that

1297: energy deposition (thermal heating) by core-collapse supernovae drives

1298: these outflows.  The efficiency of energy-driven outflows is uncertain

1299: because much of the energy deposited by supernovae in the ISM may be

1300: radiated away.  Even in this limit, momentum injection by supernovae

1301: is important and can itself generate a powerful outflow.  Supernovae

1302: contribute to `momentum-driving' in a second way: the dynamics of cold

1303: gas entrained in a hot flow is analogous to that of a momentum-driven

1304: wind (see \S\ref{section:entrainment} and the Appendix).  Note that

1305: these mechanisms are physically distinct.  The latter (ram pressure

1306: driving of cold gas) requires a powerful hot wind, while the former

1307: operates even if the supernovae energy is radiated away.

1308: 

1309: In addition to supernovae, momentum injection is provided by continuum

1310: absorption and scattering of radiation on dust grains (radiation

1311: pressure); such radiation can be produced by either a starburst or a

1312: central AGN (or both) and is an efficient mechanism for driving cold,

1313: dusty gas out of a galaxy.

1314: Interestingly, the forces due to radiation pressure and ram pressure

1315: (entrainment) may be comparable in many cases (see

1316: eq.~[\ref{ramvsrad}]).  Distinguishing which mechanism dominates is

1317: non-trivial.  One way may be to assess the mass loss rate in hot gas

1318: via X-ray observations (see, however, Strickland \& Stevens 2000 who

1319: argue that such observations don't necessarily probe the

1320: energy-containing phase of the hot wind).

1321: 

1322: Although uncertain, we suggest that momentum injection may be more

1323: effective at halting star formation and `blowing away' the gas in a

1324: galaxy than energy injection.  For example, supernovae energy can be

1325: efficiently vented by `blowing out' of the galactic disk, even if

1326: little of the mass is lost (De Young \& Heckman 1994).  By contrast,

1327: the momentum of supernova explosions cannot be similarly vented and

1328: thus may be more disruptive to the bulk of the gas in a galaxy.  In

1329: addition, because the mass of a galaxy is primarily in the cold phase,

1330: radiation pressure and ram pressure driving of cold gas may dominate

1331: the mass loss in starbursting galaxies (even in the presence of a hot

1332: thermal wind).  

1333: 

1334: Momentum-driven winds have several properties that may allow them to

1335: be distinguished from energy-driven winds

1336: (\S\ref{section:momentum}). Specifically, (1) the momentum flux in the

1337: outflow, $\dot M_{\rm W} V_\infty$, is comparable to that in the

1338: radiation field, $L/c$ (eq.~[\ref{mom}]) and (2) the terminal velocity

1339: of the outflow should be comparable to the velocity dispersion of the

1340: host galaxy, $V_\infty \sim \sigma$ (eqs.~[\ref{vthick}] \&

1341: ~[\ref{vthin}]). Note that these predictions apply to outflowing cold

1342: gas driven by momentum-deposition.  The hot thermally-driven phase of

1343: a galactic wind satisfies different scalings (see

1344: \S\ref{section:energy}).

1345: 

1346: The simple predictions above for mass loss rates and terminal

1347: velocities could be readily incorporated into cosmological simulations

1348: to assess the global impact of momentum-driven galactic winds (as in

1349: the work of Aguirre et al. 2001a).  One interesting possibility is

1350: that because the energy carried by a momentum-driven wind may be

1351: smaller than that of a thermal supernovae-driven wind\footnote{The

1352: energy carried by a momentum-driven wind is $\sim V_\infty L/c \sim

1353: \sigma L/c$ while that in a thermal supernovae-driven wind is $\sim

1354: 10^{-2} \xi L$.}, momentum-driven winds may pollute the intergalactic

1355: medium with metals without significantly modifying its structure from

1356: that predicted by the gravitational instability paradigm.

1357: 

1358: \subsection{The Growth of Ellipticals and Black Holes}

1359: 

1360: In addition to considering the general properties of momentum-driven

1361: galactic winds, we have derived a limiting luminosity, $L_{\rm

1362: M}\simeq(4f_g c/G)\,\sigma^4$, above which momentum-deposition is

1363: sufficient to drive away a significant fraction of the gas in a galaxy

1364: (eq.~[\ref{lmom}]; King 2003 derived a similar result in the context of

1365: black hole growth; Meurer et al.~1997 and Lehnert \& Heckman 1999 discuss

1366: a potentially related observational limit on the surface brightness of local and 

1367: high-$z$ starburst galaxies).  This outflow may regulate star formation during the

1368: formation of ellipticals at high redshift by limiting the gas available for star formation, 

1369: ensuring that the luminosity never significantly exceeds $L_{\rm M}$.

1370: The fact that massive starbursts have

1371: luminosities near $L_{\rm M}$ (Fig.~\ref{plot:ls}; \S\ref{section:starburst}) and that 

1372: starbursts at $z \gtrsim 1$ account for a significant fraction of the

1373: local stellar inventory (e.g., Madau et al. 1998) supports a

1374: model in which, during the hierarchical growth of galaxies, mergers

1375: trigger intense starbursts ($L \sim L_{\rm M}$) that form a

1376: significant fraction of the stars in early-type galaxies.

1377: 

1378: %We have explored the implications of this luminosity limit for the

1379: %growth of elliptical galaxies (in starbursts) and massive black holes.

1380: We have focused on the growth of elliptical galaxies, rather than

1381: spirals, because there is evidence that star formation in spirals is

1382: reasonably quiescent (e.g., Kennicutt et al. 1994) and it is thus

1383: unlikely that a significant fraction of the mass in spiral galaxies

1384: was formed during `bursts' that reached our limiting luminosity $L_{\rm M}$.  By

1385: contrast, ellipticals are inferred to have formed most of their stars

1386: relatively quickly at high redshift $\gtrsim 1-3$ (e.g., Van Dokkum et

1387: al. 2004).

1388: 

1389: Our hypothesis that proto-elliptical galaxies at high redshift go

1390: through an extended period of star formation with $L \sim L_{\rm M}

1391: \propto \sigma^4$ can explain the Faber-Jackson relation between the

1392: {\it current} luminosity and velocity dispersion of elliptical

1393: galaxies (\S\ref{section:faber}).  Specifically, our model explains

1394: quantitatively why ellipticals do not have $L \propto M_{\rm DM}

1395: \propto \sigma^3$ (where $M_{\rm DM}$ is the total mass of the dark

1396: matter halo), as would be expected if a fixed fraction of the

1397: available gas were converted into stars.  Our model also explains why elliptical

1398: galaxies do not have $L \propto \sigma^5$, which would be expected if

1399: energy-deposition from supernovae dominated feedback (Fig.~\ref{plot:lss}).

1400: Since the luminosity of a starburst is dominated by the rate at which

1401: high mass stars are being formed, while the current luminosity of

1402: ellipticals (reflected in FJ) depends on the total number of low-mass

1403: stars in the galaxy, our interpretation of FJ requires that the

1404: duration of peak star formation activity was relatively similar in

1405: different galaxies (so that both the peak star formation rate and the

1406: total number of stars formed are similar).\footnote{Note that this

1407: will be a requirement for any model that tries to explain the FJ

1408: relation as a result of feedback during starbursts because `feedback'

1409: (generically defined) is sensitive to the star formation rate, rather

1410: than the total number of stars formed.}  By comparing the limiting

1411: luminosity $L_{\rm M}$ with the current Faber-Jackson relation, we

1412: infer a star formation duration of $\sim 100-300$ Myrs (\S\ref{section:faber}).  This

1413: is in reasonable agreement with observational inferences in LBGs

1414: (e.g., Shapley et al. 2001) and ULIRGs (e.g., Genzel et al. 2004).

1415: 

1416: Our model for the origin of the FJ relation does not fully explain why

1417: ellipticals lie in the fundamental plane.  Roughly speaking the

1418: fundamental plane can be understood via two projections: $L\propto\sigma^4$ (the FJ

1419: relation) and $R_{\rm eff}\propto\sigma^{8/3}$, where $R_{\rm eff}$ is the effective radius (Bernardi et al. 2003).  

1420: The latter relation is very different from any virial prediction, which would suggest $R_{\rm eff} \propto \sigma$,

1421: and its origin, whether a consequence of gas physics or collisionless mergers of stellar

1422: systems in unknown.

1423: 

1424: Unlike ellipticals, the optical Tully-Fisher relation in spirals is reasonably consistent with $L \propto

1425: v_c^3$ (where $v_c$ is the maximum circular velocity; e.g., Giovanelli

1426: et al.~1997).  This is probably a consequence of the more quiescent

1427: star formation histories of spirals (Kennicutt et al.~1994) so that `feedback' is less severe

1428: and the luminosity of a galaxy is simply proportional to its mass.

1429: However, the slope of the TF relation varies systematically with

1430: wavelength and in the IR, $L \propto v_c^4$ (e.g., Pierini \& Tuffs

1431: 1999), consistent with the FJ scaling for ellipticals.  This is very

1432: intriguing and might suggest that the oldest stars in spirals were

1433: formed in bursts analogous to those that formed ellipticals.

1434: 

1435: \subsubsection{Black Holes}

1436: 

1437: In addition to considering the self-regulated growth of elliptical

1438: galaxies via starbursts, we propose that the growth of black holes in

1439: early type galaxies proceeds in a similar manner.  As a black hole

1440: grows via accretion, its luminosity may eventually exceed $\sim L_{\rm

1441: M}$.  When it does so, the dusty

1442: gas around the black hole (outside the sublimation radius;

1443: eq.~[\ref{eq:rsub}]) is blown away by radiation pressure.  The black

1444: hole thus shuts off its own fuel supply. This fixes the BH mass to lie

1445: very close to the observationally inferred $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$

1446: relation (see eq.~[\ref{msigma}]).  If star formation in the host

1447: galaxy is still ongoing when the BH reaches $\sim L_{\rm M}$, the

1448: outflow from the galactic nucleus may sweep through the galaxy,

1449: terminating star formation.  This possibility is interesting because

1450: it may explain the apparent coincidence that the Salpeter time

1451: characterizing the growth of black holes (eq.~[\ref{tsalp}]) is

1452: similar to the inferred duration of star formation in high redshift

1453: starbursts (see \S\ref{section:starburst} and \S\ref{section:agn}).

1454: 

1455: Previous discussions of the interaction between a central black hole

1456: and its surrounding galaxy have also emphasized how the central black

1457: hole can regulate its own fuel supply by driving away ambient gas

1458: (e.g., Silk \& Rees 1998; Haehnelt et al. 1998; Blandford 1999; Fabian

1459: 1999; King 2003).  All such models are broadly similar (ours

1460: included), though they differ in detail as to whether energy

1461: deposition or momentum deposition is the most important feedback

1462: mechanism.  

1463: However, implicit in previous discussions of the $M_{\rm

1464: BH}-\sigma$ relation is that the stars in the galaxy ``know'' when the

1465: hole is about to reach the limiting mass at which it can blow away the

1466: surrounding gas.  Otherwise it is unclear how the right number of

1467: stars are formed so that the galaxy lies on the FJ relation.  One

1468: explanation for this is to hypothesize that the stars form as the gas

1469: is being blown out by the AGN, i.e., in one dynamical time (e.g., King

1470: 2003). Observationally, however, this is not the case in either LBGs

1471: or ULIRGs, where the star formation lasts for 100s of Myrs.  Instead,

1472: we argue that the AGN's role may be sub-dominant: feedback from stars

1473: determines the maximal luminosity of a starburst, whether or not there

1474: is an AGN present.  It is, however, possible that the AGN administers

1475: the coup de gr$\hat{\rm a}$ce, terminating star formation.

1476: 

1477: In our interpretation, the peak episode of star formation likely

1478: precedes that of AGN activity in most galaxies. There are two reasons 

1479: for this.  First, gas is transported from the outside in.  Therefore, star formation on galactic scales sets in

1480: before the central BH is fed.  Second, if the BH were to grow and reach

1481: the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation {\it before} significant star formation has

1482: occurred, it will blow out the ambient gas in the galaxy before the FJ relation is set.

1483: If the galaxy were to later accrete

1484: gas -- from the IGM or via a merger -- because the BH is already on

1485: $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation even a small amount of accretion onto the

1486: BH would be sufficient to again disrupt star formation.

1487: There is some observational support for this temporal ordering.  First, the

1488: number density of bright quasars declines more rapidly at high $z$

1489: than the number density of star forming galaxies (compare Fan et

1490: al. 2004 and Heavens et al. 2004).  Second, although some rapidly star-forming 

1491: SCUBA sources at high $z$ are inferred to host quasars, in

1492: many cases there is X-ray evidence for more modest AGN with $L \sim

1493: 10^{43}-10^{44}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ (e.g., Alexander et al. 2003).  Since

1494: many of the observed systems are Compton thin, it is unlikely that a

1495: quasar-like luminosity is hidden by obscuration.  Given the inferred

1496: $\sigma \sim 200-300 \kms$ in the SCUBA sources (\S\ref{section:starburst} and Table \ref{tab:ls}), BHs

1497: on the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation would have $M \sim 10^8-10^9

1498: M_\odot$.  To explain the observed luminosities would then require

1499: substantially sub-Eddington accretion rates.  While possible, this

1500: would be surprising in view of the large available gas supply.  It is perhaps

1501: more plausible that the BH is still growing and has not yet reached

1502: the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation (e.g., Archibald et al. 2002).

1503: 

1504: Our model makes the very strong prediction that the peak luminosity of

1505: star formation and AGN activity in a given galaxy are essentially the

1506: same ($\sim L_{\rm M}$), set by the criterion that a momentum-driven

1507: outflow blows away gas that would otherwise be available for star

1508: formation/accretion.  Figures \ref{plot:ls} and \ref{plot:lsagn}

1509: provide observational evidence that is consistent with this

1510: prediction.  

1511: %A corollary of this prediction is that starbursts and AGN should be present in

1512: %samples of ULIRGs at all luminosities, at least at high redshift when

1513: %galaxies and black holes were assembled.\footnote{There is some

1514: %evidence that the highest luminosity local ULIRGs with $L \sim 10^{13}

1515: %L_\odot$ are preferentially AGN rather than starbursts (e.g., Genzel

1516: %\& Cesarsky 2000).  But, as noted above, the most luminous high

1517: %redshift ULIRGs appear to preferentially be starbursts.  This is

1518: %probably because there is more gas available at high redshift to fuel

1519: %star formation.}  Note that there may be some variation in the

1520: %relative fraction of starbursts/AGN with luminosity, depending on the

1521: %lifetime of each.

1522: %

1523: We note, however, that in order to reach a luminosity $\sim L_{\rm M}$, a galaxy with $\sigma

1524: = 200 \, \sigma_{200}$ km s$^{-1}$ must have a star formation rate of

1525: $\approx 500 \, \sigma_{200}^4\, {\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1}}$

1526: (eq.~[\ref{mdotstar}]), while a black hole must accrete gas at

1527: $\approx 5 \, \sigma_{200}^4 \, {\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1}}$.  Moreover,

1528: if the most luminous observed AGN ($L \sim 10^{48}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, see

1529: Fig. \ref{plot:lsagn}) are Eddington-limited and lie on the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$

1530: relation, then their host galaxies must have $\sigma \sim 500 \kms$. If

1531: such galaxies indeed exist and if star formation is to reach a

1532: luminosity $\sim L_{\rm M}$, then the required star formation rate is $\sim

1533: 10^4 \, {\rm M_\odot \, yr^{-1}}$!  Such a starburst has never been

1534: observed, but would of course be extremely rare.  It is unclear

1535: whether such a star formation rate can actually be achieved and sustained.  If not,

1536: then we predict deviations from FJ for the largest ellipticals

1537: ($\sigma>\sigma_{\rm max}$; see Fig. 1).  

1538: %The sign of this deviation

1539: %is uncertain.  If very massive systems do not reach $\sim L_{\rm M}$,

1540: %one might expect feedback to be less important, and thus a larger

1541: %fraction of gas could be turned into stars.  This would imply that

1542: %more massive systems lie above the FJ relation.  On the other hand, if

1543: %more massive systems have luminosities below $\sim L_{\rm M}$, and if

1544: %the duration of star formation is the same (e.g., set by an

1545: %AGN/merger), such systems would be less luminous for their $\sigma$,

1546: %and would lie below the FJ relation.

1547: 

1548: \acknowledgments

1549: 

1550: We thank Crystal Martin for an inspiring talk that motivated this

1551: work, and for useful conversations.  We also thank Alice Shapley, Leo

1552: Blitz, Martin White, James Graham, Avishai Dekel, Reinhard Genzel,

1553: Anthony Aguirre, Chung-Pei Ma, Yoram Lithwick, Volker Springel, and

1554: Jon Arons for helpful conversations.  We thank A. Bruzual, S. Charlot,

1555: and C. Leitherer for making their starburst models available and 

1556: Gabriela Mall\'en-Ornelas for providing us with data from her thesis.

1557: We thank the referee for useful comments.

1558: N.M. is

1559: supported in part by the Canada Research Chair program and the Miller

1560: Foundation.  N.M. extends his gratitude to UC Berkeley where much of

1561: this work was completed.  T.A.T. is supported by NASA through Hubble

1562: Fellowship grant \#HST-HF-01157.01-A awarded by the Space Telescope

1563: Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of

1564: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract

1565: NAS 5-26555.  E.Q. is supported in part by NSF grant AST 0206006, NASA

1566: grant NAG5-12043, an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, and the David and

1567: Lucile Packard Foundation.

1568: 

1569: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1570: 

1571: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1572: 

1573: \bibitem[Adelberger \& Steidel(2000)]{2000ApJ...544..218A}

1574:   Adelberger, K.~L.~\& Steidel, C.~C.\ 2000, \apj, 544, 218

1575: 

1576: \bibitem[Adelberger et al.~(2003)]{adelberger}Adelberger, K.~L., Steidel, C.~C., Shapley, A.~E., \& Pettini, M.~2003, ApJ, 584, 45

1577: 

1578: \bibitem[Aguirre (1999)]{aguirre1999}Aguirre, A.~1999, ApJ, 525, 583

1579: 

1580: \bibitem[Aguirre et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...561..521A} Aguirre, A.,

1581:   Hernquist, L., Schaye, J., Katz, N., Weinberg, D.~H., \& Gardner,

1582:   J.\ 2001a, \apj, 561, 521

1583: 

1584: \bibitem[Aguirre et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...560..599A} Aguirre, A.,

1585:   Hernquist, L., Schaye, J., Weinberg, D.~H., Katz, N., \& Gardner,

1586:   J.\ 2001b, \apj, 560, 599 

1587: 

1588: \bibitem[Aguirre et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...556L..11A} Aguirre, A.,

1589:   Hernquist, L., Katz, N., Gardner, J., \& Weinberg, D.\ 2001c,

1590:   \apjl, 556, L11 

1591: 

1592: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125.1849B} 

1593:  Bernardi, M., et al.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 1849 

1594:  

1595: \bibitem[Blandford(1999)]{1999gady.conf...87B} Blandford, R.~D.\ 1999, ASP  Conf.~Ser.~182: Galaxy Dynamics - A Rutgers Symposium, 87 

1596: 

1597: \bibitem[Boroson(2003)]{2003ApJ...585..647B} Boroson, T.~A.\ 2003, \apj, 

1598: 585, 647 

1599: 

1600: \bibitem[Bruzual A.~\& Charlot(2003)]{1993ApJ...405..538B} 

1601:  Bruzual A., G.~\& Charlot, S.\ 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

1602: 

1603: \bibitem[Bullock et al.~(2001)]{bullock}

1604:  Bullock, J.~S., Dekel, A., Kolatt, T.~S., Kravtsov, A.~V., Klypin, A.~A., 

1605:  Porciani, C., \& Primack, J.~R.~2001, ApJ, 555, 240 

1606:  

1607: \bibitem[Burstein, Bender, Faber, \& Nolthenius(1997)]{1997AJ....114.1365B}  Burstein, D., Bender, R., Faber, S., \& Nolthenius, R.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 1365 

1608: 

1609: \bibitem[Calzetti(2001)]{2001PASP..113.1449C} Calzetti, D.\ 2001,

1610:   \pasp, 113, 1449 

1611: 

1612: \bibitem[Chevalier \& Clegg(1985)]{1985Natur.317...44C} Chevalier,

1613:   R.~A.~\& Clegg, A.~W.\ 1985, \nat, 317, 44 

1614: 
\bibitem[Davies, Alton, Bianchi, \& Trewhella(1998)]{1998MNRAS.300.1006D} 
Davies, J.~I., Alton, P., Bianchi, S., \& Trewhella, M.\ 1998, \mnras, 300, 
1006 

1615: \bibitem[Dekel \& Silk(1986)]{1986ApJ...303...39D} Dekel, A.~\& Silk,

1616:   J.\ 1986, \apj, 303, 39 

1617: 

1618: \bibitem[De Young \& Heckman(1994)]{1994ApJ...431..598D} De Young,

1619:   D.~S.~\& Heckman, T.~M.\ 1994, \apj, 431, 598 

1620: 

1621: \bibitem[Draine \& Lee(1984)]{1984ApJ...285...89D} Draine, B.~T.~\&

1622:   Lee, H.~M.\ 1984, \apj, 285, 89 

1623: 

1624: \bibitem[Draine \& Salpeter(1979)]{1979ApJ...231...77D} Draine, B.~T.~\& 

1625: Salpeter, E.~E.\ 1979, \apj, 231, 77

1626: 
\bibitem[Elmegreen(1983)]{1983MNRAS.203.1011E} Elmegreen, B.~G.\ 1983, 
\mnras, 203, 1011 

1627: \bibitem[Erb et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...591..101E} 

1628: Erb, D.~K., Shapley, A.~E.,  Steidel, C.~C., Pettini, M., Adelberger, K.~L., Hunt, M.~P., Moorwood,  A.~F.~M., \& Cuby, J.\ 2003, \apj, 591, 101  

1629:   

1630: \bibitem[Faber \& Jackson(1976)]{1976ApJ...204..668F} Faber, S.~M.~\&

1631:  Jackson, R.~E.\ 1976, \apj, 204, 668

1632: 

1633: \bibitem[Fabian(1999)]{1999MNRAS.308L..39F} Fabian, A.~C.\ 1999,

1634:   \mnras, 308, L39

1635:   

1636: \bibitem[Fabian et al.~(2002)]{fabian2002}

1637: Fabian, A.~C., Wilman, R.~J., \& Crawford, C.~S.~2002, MNRAS, 329, L18

1638: 

1639: \bibitem[Ferrara \& Tolstoy(2000)]{2000MNRAS.313..291F} Ferrara, A.~\&

1640:   Tolstoy, E.\ 2000, \mnras, 313, 291 

1641: 

1642: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merritt(2000)]{2000ApJ...539L...9F} Ferrarese,

1643:   L.~\& Merritt, D.\ 2000, \apjl, 539, L9 

1644: 

1645: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...539L..13G} Gebhardt, K., et al.\ 2000, \apjl, 539, L13 

1646:  

1647: \bibitem[Genzel \& Cesarsky(2000)]{2000ARA&A..38..761G} Genzel, R.~\&  Cesarsky, C.~J.\ 2000, \araa, 38, 761   

1648: 

1649: \bibitem[Genzel et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...563..527G} Genzel, R., Tacconi,  L.~J., Rigopoulou, D., Lutz, D., \& Tecza, M.\ 2001, \apj, 563, 527   

1650: 

1651: \bibitem[Genzel et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...584..633G} Genzel, R., Baker,  A.~J., Tacconi, L.~J., Lutz, D., Cox, P., Guilloteau, S., \& Omont, A.\  2003, \apj, 584, 633  

1652: 

1653: \bibitem[Genzel et al.~(2004)]{genzel}

1654: Genzel, R., et al.~2004,  to appear in the proceedings of the Venice 

1655: conference "Multiwavelength Mapping of Galaxy Formation and Evolution". Astro-ph/0403183

1656:  

1657: \bibitem[Giovanelli et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...477L...1G} Giovanelli, R.,  Haynes, M.~P., da Costa, L.~N., Freudling, W., Salzer, J.~J., \& Wegner,  G.\ 1997, \apjl, 477, L1   

1658: 

1659: \bibitem[Haehnelt(1995)]{1995MNRAS.273..249H} Haehnelt, M.~G.\ 1995,

1660:   \mnras, 273, 249

1661: 

1662: \bibitem[Haehnelt, Natarajan, \& Rees(1998)]{1998MNRAS.300..817H}

1663:   Haehnelt, M.~G., Natarajan, P., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 1998, \mnras, 300,

1664:   817 

1665: 

1666: \bibitem[Hartwell et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.348..406H} Hartwell, J.~M.,

1667:   Stevens, I.~R., Strickland, D.~K., Heckman, T.~M., \& Summers,

1668:   L.~K.\ 2004, \mnras, 348, 406 

1669: 

1670: \bibitem[Heavens, Panter, Jimenez, \& Dunlop(2004)]{2004Natur.428..625H} Heavens, A., Panter, B., Jimenez, R., \& Dunlop, J.\ 2004, \nat, 428, 625 

1671: 

1672: \bibitem[Heckman, Armus, \& Miley(1990)]{1990ApJS...74..833H} Heckman,

1673:   T.~M., Armus, L., \& Miley, G.~K.\ 1990, \apjs, 74, 833  

1674: 

1675: \bibitem[Heckman(2000)]{2000RSPTA.358.2077H} Heckman, T.~M.\ 2000, Royal  Society of London Philosophical Transactions Series A, 358, 2077 

1676: 

1677: \bibitem[Heckman, Lehnert, Strickland, \& Armus(2000)]{2000ApJS..129..493H}  Heckman, T.~M., Lehnert, M.~D., Strickland, D.~K., \& Armus, L.\ 2000,  \apjs, 129, 493  

1678: 

1679: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...533..631K} Kaspi, S., Smith, P.~S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B.~T., \& Giveon, U.\ 2000, \apj, 533, 631 

1680: 

1681: \bibitem[Kennicutt, Tamblyn, \& Congdon(1994)]{1994ApJ...435...22K}  Kennicutt, R.~C., Tamblyn, P., \& Congdon, C.~E.\ 1994, \apj, 435, 22 

1682: 

1683: \bibitem[King(2003)]{2003ApJ...596L..27K} King, A.\ 2003, \apjl, 596, L27 

1684: 

1685: \bibitem[Klein, McKee, \& Colella(1994)]{1994ApJ...420..213K} Klein, R.~I., McKee, C.~F., \& Colella, P.\ 1994, \apj, 420, 213 

1686: 

1687: \bibitem[Kozasa, Hasegawa, \& Nomoto(1989)]{1989ApJ...344..325K}

1688:   Kozasa, T., Hasegawa, H., \& Nomoto, K.\ 1989, \apj, 344, 325 

1689: 

1690: \bibitem[Lamers \& Cassinelli (1999)]{lamers}

1691: Lamers, H.~\& Cassinelli, J.~P., {\it Introduction to Stellar Winds}

1692: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999)

1693: 

1694: \bibitem[Lehnert \& Heckman(1996)]{1996ApJ...472..546L} Lehnert, 

1695:  M.~D.~\& Heckman, T.~M.\ 1996, \apj, 472, 546 

1696: 

1697: \bibitem[Leitherer et al.(1999)]{1999ApJS..123....3L} Leitherer, C.,

1698:   et al.\ 1999, \apjs, 123, 3 

1699: 

1700: \bibitem[Lilly, Le Fevre, Hammer, \& Crampton(1996)]{1996ApJ...460L...1L}  Lilly, S.~J., Le Fevre, O., Hammer, F., \& Crampton, D.\ 1996, \apjl, 460,  L1  

1701: 

1702: \bibitem[Mac Low \& Ferrara(1999)]{1999ApJ...513..142M} Mac Low, M.~\&

1703:   Ferrara, A.\ 1999, \apj, 513, 142 

1704: 

1705: \bibitem[Madau et al.(1996)]{1996MNRAS.283.1388M} Madau, P., Ferguson,  H.~C., Dickinson, M.~E., Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C.~C., \& Fruchter, A.\  1996, \mnras, 283, 1388   

1706: 

1707: \bibitem[Madau, Pozzetti, \& Dickinson(1998)]{1998ApJ...498..106M} Madau, 

1708: P., Pozzetti, L., \& Dickinson, M.\ 1998, \apj, 498, 106 

1709: 

1710: \bibitem[Mall{\' e}n-Ornelas, Lilly, Crampton, \&  Schade(1999)]{1999ApJ...518L..83M} Mall{\' e}n-Ornelas, G., Lilly, S.~J.,  Crampton, D., \& Schade, D.\ 1999, \apjl, 518, L83   

1711: 

1712: \bibitem[Martin(1998)]{1998ApJ...506..222M} Martin, C.~L.\ 1998, \apj, 506, 222 

1713: 

1714: \bibitem[Martin(1999)]{1999ApJ...513..156M} Martin, C.~L.\ 1999, \apj, 513,  156 

1715: 

1716: \bibitem[Martin(2004)]{martin2004} Martin, C.~L.\ 2004, submitted to ApJ

1717: 

1718: \bibitem[Mateo(1998)]{Mateo}Mateo, M 1998, \araa, 36, 435

1719: 

1720: \bibitem[Meurer et al.(1995)]{1995AJ....110.2665M} Meurer, G.~R.,

1721:   Heckman, T.~M., Leitherer, C., Kinney, A., Robert, C., \& Garnett,

1722:   D.~R.\ 1995, \aj, 110, 2665 

1723: 

1724: \bibitem[Meurer et al.(1997)]{meureretal} Meurer, G.~R.,

1725:   Heckman, T.~M., Lehnert, M.~D., Leitherer, C., \& Lowenthal, J.~1997, \aj, 114, 54

1726: 

1727: \bibitem[Mihos \& Hernquist(1996)]{1996ApJ...464..641M} Mihos,

1728:   J.~C.~\& Hernquist, L.\ 1996, \apj, 464, 641 

1729: 

1730: \bibitem[Mo, Mao, \& White(1998)]{1998MNRAS.295..319M} Mo, H.~J., Mao,  S., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1998, \mnras, 295, 319 

1731: 

1732: \bibitem[Nelson(2000)]{2000ApJ...544L..91N} Nelson, C.~H.\ 2000, \apjl, 

1733: 544, L91

1734: 

1735: \bibitem[Nelson \& Whittle(1996)]{1996ApJ...465...96N} Nelson, C.~H.~\& 

1736: Whittle, M.\ 1996, \apj, 465, 96

1737: 

1738: \bibitem[Neri et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...597L.113N} Neri, R., et al.\ 2003, \apjl, 597, L113 

1739: 

1740: \bibitem[Netzer \& Elitzur(1993)]{1993ApJ...410..701N} Netzer, N.~\&  Elitzur, M.\ 1993, \apj, 410, 701

1741: 

1742: \bibitem[Nozawa et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...598..785N} Nozawa, T., Kozasa,

1743:   T., Umeda, H., Maeda, K., \& Nomoto, K.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 785 

1744: 

1745: \bibitem[Nulsen et al.~(2004)]{nulsen}

1746: Nulsen, P., McNamara, B., Wise, M., \& David, L.~2004, submitted to ApJ, Astro-ph/0408315

1747: 

1748: \bibitem[Pahre, Djorgovski, \& de Carvalho(1998)]{1998AJ....116.1591P} Pahre, M.~A., Djorgovski, S.~G., \& de Carvalho, R.~R.\ 1998, \aj, 116, 1591 

1749: 

1750: \bibitem[Pettini et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...528...96P} Pettini, M., Steidel,  C.~C., Adelberger, K.~L., Dickinson, M., \& Giavalisco, M.\ 2000, \apj,  528, 96   

1751: 

1752: \bibitem[Pettini et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...554..981P} 

1753: Pettini, M., Shapley,  A.~E., Steidel, C.~C., Cuby, J., Dickinson, M., Moorwood, A.~F.~M.,  Adelberger, K.~L., \& Giavalisco, M.\ 2001, \apj, 554, 981   

1754: 

1755: \bibitem[Pierini \& Tuffs(1999)]{1999A&A...343..751P} Pierini, D.~\& Tuffs,  R.~J.\ 1999, \aap, 343, 751   

1756: 

1757: \bibitem[Poludnenko, Frank, \& Blackman(2002)]{2002ApJ...576..832P} 

1758: Poludnenko, A.~Y., Frank, A., \& Blackman, E.~G.\ 2002, \apj, 576, 832

1759: 
\bibitem[Ruszkowski \& Begelman(2002)]{2002ApJ...581..223R} Ruszkowski, 
M.~\& Begelman, M.~C.\ 2002, \apj, 581, 223 

\bibitem[Ruszkowski, Br{\" u}ggen, \& Begelman(2004)]{2004ApJ...611..158R} 
Ruszkowski, M., Br{\" u}ggen, M., \& Begelman, M.~C.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 158 

1760: \bibitem[Sanders \& Mirabel(1996)]{1996ARA&A..34..749S} Sanders, D.~B.~\& Mirabel,

1761:  I.~F.\ 1996, \araa, 34, 749 

1762:  

1763: \bibitem[Scannapieco \& Oh (2004)]{scannapieco_oh}

1764:  Scannapieco, E.~\& Oh, P.~2004, submitted to ApJ, Astro-ph/0401087  

1765:  

1766:  \bibitem[Shapley et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...562...95S} Shapley, A.~E.,  Steidel, C.~C., Adelberger, K.~L., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., \&  Pettini, M.\ 2001, \apj, 562, 95   

1767: 

1768: \bibitem[Scoville et al.~(2001)]{scoville2001}

1769: Scoville, N., Polletta, M., Ewald, S., Stolovy, S., Thompson, R., \& Rieke, M.~2001, AJ, 122, 3017

1770: 

1771: \bibitem[Scoville et al.~(2003)]{scoville2003}

1772: Scoville, N.~2003, JKAS, 36,167

1773: 

1774: \bibitem[Shields et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...583..124S} Shields, G.~A., 

1775: Gebhardt, K., Salviander, S., Wills, B.~J., Xie, B., Brotherton, M.~S., 

1776: Yuan, J., \& Dietrich, M.\ 2003, \apj, 583, 124 

1777: 

1778: \bibitem[Silk \& Rees(1998)]{1998A&A...331L...1S} 

1779: Silk, J.~\& Rees, M.~J.\ 1998, \aap, 331, L1 

1780:  

1781: \bibitem[Smail, Ivison, \& Blain(1997)]{1997ApJ...490L...5S} 

1782: Smail, I.,  Ivison, R.~J., \& Blain, A.~W.\ 1997, \apjl, 490, L5  

1783:  

1784:  

1785: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(1996)]{1996ApJ...462L..17S} 

1786: Steidel, C.~C.,  Giavalisco, M., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., \& Adelberger, K.~L.\ 1996,  \apjl, 462, L17 

1787:  

1788: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...519....1S} 

1789: Steidel, C.~C.,  Adelberger, K.~L., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M., \& Pettini, M.\ 1999,  \apj, 519, 1   

1790: 

1791: \bibitem[Strickland (2004)]{strickland2004}

1792:   Strickland, D.~K.~2004, in the proceedings of IAU symposium 222: 

1793:   {\it The Interplay among Black Holes, Stars and ISM in Galactic Nuclei}, held in Gramado, Brazil, March 1-5 2004. Eds. Th. Storchi Bergmann, L.C. Ho \& H.R. Schmitt, Astro-ph/0404316

1794:    

1795: \bibitem[Strickland \& Stevens(2000)]{2000MNRAS.314..511S} Strickland,  D.~K.~\& Stevens, I.~R.\ 2000, \mnras, 314, 511  

1796:     

1797: \bibitem[Tecza et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...605L.109T} Tecza, M., et al.\ 2004,  \apjl, 605, L109    

1798: 

1799: \bibitem[Telles \& Terlevich(1997)]{1997MNRAS.286..183T} Telles, E.~\&  Terlevich, R.\ 1997, \mnras, 286, 183    

1800: 

1801: \bibitem[Thornton, Gaudlitz, Janka, \& Steinmetz(1998)]

1802:  {1998ApJ...500...95T} Thornton, K., Gaudlitz, M.,

1803:   Janka, H.-T., \& Steinmetz, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 95 

1804: 

1805: \bibitem[Todini \& Ferrara(2001)]{2001MNRAS.325..726T} Todini, P.~\&

1806:   Ferrara, A.\ 2001, \mnras, 325, 726 

1807: 

1808: \bibitem[Tremaine et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...574..740T} Tremaine, S., et al.\ 2002, \apj, 574, 740 

1809: 

1810: \bibitem[Van Dokkum et al.~(2004)]{vandokkum} Van Dokkum et al., 2004, ApJ in press (astro-ph/0404471)

1811: 

1812: \bibitem[Vestergaard(2004)]{2004ApJ...601..676V} Vestergaard, M.\ 2004,  \apj, 601, 676   

1813: 

1814: \end{thebibliography}

1815: 

1816: \begin{appendix}

1817: 

1818: \section{Energy-Driven Galactic Winds: Entrainment}

1819: 

1820: In this Appendix, we consider entrainment in two limits: (1)

1821: entrainment of individual clouds (the ``optically thin'' limit) and

1822: (2) entrainment of shells of gas (the ``optically thick'' limit,

1823: appropriate when the cold gas occupies a large fraction of $4 \pi$ sr

1824: on the sky and thus intercepts much of the momentum flux in the hot

1825: flow).  We show that in both limits the dynamics of cold gas entrained

1826: in a hot flow is analogous to that of the momentum-driven winds

1827: considered in \S\ref{section:momentum}.

1828: 

1829: \subsection{Entrainment:  The `Optically Thin' Limit} 

1830: 

1831: \label{section:entrainthin}

1832: 

1833: We first consider the entrainment of individual clouds of cold gas;

1834: the clouds have projected area $A_c$, density $\rho_c$, and mass $M_c

1835: = (4\pi/3) \rho_c R_c^3 = (4/3) A_c R_c \rho_c$.  The hot wind has a

1836: density $\rho_h = \dot M_h/(4\pi r^2 V_h)$, a mass loss rate $\dot

1837: M_h$, and a velocity $V_h$.\footnote{In this section, we use the

1838: subscript `h' for `hot' -- rather than than our previous subscript `W'

1839: for `wind' -- to emphasize that these mass loss rates and velocities

1840: refer to that of the hot flow.}  The ram pressure force on a cold

1841: cloud is $\rho_h V_h^2 A_c$.  Comparing this to the radiation pressure

1842: force on the cloud (assuming it is optically thick to radiation)

1843: yields

1844: % 

1845: \beqa %$ 

1846: \frac{F_{\rm ram}}{F_{\rm rad}} = \frac{\rho_h V_h^2

1847: A_c}{(L/c)(A_c/4\pi r^2)} & = & \left(\frac{\dot{M}_h}{\dot{M}_\star

1848: }\right)\left(\frac{V_h}{300 \ \epsilon_3 \ {\rm km \ s^{-1}}}\right)

1849: \nonumber \\ & \approx & \left({600\,\xi_{0.1}\,\kms \over

1850: V_h}\right),

1851: \label{ramvsrad}

1852: \eeqa %$

1853: %

1854: where $A_c/(4\pi r^2)$ is the fraction of photons intercepted by the

1855: cloud and in the last equality we used $\dot E_{\rm SN} = {1 \over 2}

1856: \dot M_h V_h^2 = 10^{-2} \xi L$.  Equation (\ref{ramvsrad}) shows that

1857: ram pressure and radiation pressure can contribute comparably to the

1858: driving of cold gas, so long as $\dot M_h\sim \dot M_\star$.  Shocked

1859: supernova ejecta contribute a total mass loss of $\sim 0.1 \dot

1860: M_\star$ in the absence of radiative cooling.  It is, however,

1861: plausible that considerable swept up mass is also shock heated,

1862: leading to $\dot M_h \sim \dot M_\star$ (see, e.g., Martin 1999 for

1863: evidence to this effect in local starbursts).  Note that $V_h \sim

1864: 300-600 \kms$ is consistent with the observed temperature of hot

1865: outflowing gas in local starbursts (e.g., Martin 1999).

1866: 

1867: In the limit that ram pressure dominates the driving of cold gas, we

1868: can derive the velocity of the cloud as a function of distance from

1869: the galaxy by analogy with the optically thin radiation pressure limit

1870: considered in \S\ref{section:momentum} (since $F_{\rm ram} = \rho_h

1871: V_h^2 A_c \propto r^{-2}$, the optically thin limit, rather than the

1872: optically thick limit, is the appropriate analogy).  The velocity

1873: profile is given by \be V(r)=\sqrt{V_c^2 \left({1 - {R_0 \over

1874: r}}\right) - 4 \sigma^2\ln(r/R_0)},

1875: \label{vram}

1876: \ee where $R_0$ is the initial `launching' radius and \be V_c^2 = {3

1877: {\dot M_h} V_h \over 8 \pi \rho_c R_c R_0}. \label {vc} \ee The

1878: velocity $V_c$ is the characteristic velocity the cloud reaches before

1879: it begins to decelerate in the extended gravitational potential of the

1880: galaxy.  Note that equation (\ref{vc}) is only appropriate for $V_c < V_h$;

1881: if equation (\ref{vc}) predicts $V_c > V_h$, the actual maximal velocity is

1882: $V_h$ since ram pressure ceases to accelerate the cloud above this velocity.

1883: 

1884: In order for the cloud to move to a radius significantly larger than

1885: its starting position at $\sim R_0$, we require $V_c \gtrsim 2

1886: \sigma$.  Using $\rho_c R_c = m_p N_H$, this requirement can be

1887: rewritten as \beqa \dot M_h & \gtrsim & {32 \pi \sigma^2 m_p N_H R_0

1888: \over 3 V_h} \nonumber \\ & \approx & 35 \, {\rm M_\odot \,yr^{-1}} \,

1889: \sigma_{200}^2 \, N_{21} \left(R_0 \over 1 \,{\rm kpc}\right)\left(300

1890: \,{\rm km/s} \over V_h\right) \label{mdothot} \eeqa If

1891: $\dot{M}_h$ is less than the value given in equation (\ref{mdothot}),

1892: cold clouds cannot be pushed out of the nuclear region by the hot

1893: flow.  This criterion is analogous to the optically thin Eddington

1894: limit given in equation (\ref{leddcloud}).  Indeed, if $\dot M_h

1895: \approx \dot M_\star$, then $F_{\rm ram} \approx F_{\rm rad}$

1896: (eq. [\ref{ramvsrad}]) and so the two `Eddington-limits' are

1897: essentially equivalent.

1898: 

1899: % (this is easily seen explicitly by using $\dot M_h \approx \dot

1900: %M_\star$ and rewriting eq. [\ref{mdothot}] in terms of luminosity

1901: %using $L = \epsilon \dot M_\star c^2$).

1902: 

1903: The cloud velocity $V_c$ can be rewritten as

1904: %\beqa {V_c \over V_h} &=& \sqrt{3 {\dot M_h} \over 8 \pi m_p N_H V_h R_0}

1905: %\nonumber \\ &\approx & 2 \left({\dot M_h} \over {\rm 100\,M_\odot

1906: %\,\,yr^{-1}}\right)^{1/2} \left(N_H \over 10^{21} \, {\rm

1907: %cm^2}\right)^{-1/2} \left(R_0 \over 1 \, {\rm kpc}\right)^{-1/2}

1908: %\left(V_h \over 300 \, {\rm km \ s^{-1}}\right)^{-1/2}. \label {vcscale}

1909: %\eeqa

1910: \beqa 

1911: {V_c \over V_h} &=& \sqrt{3 {\dot M_h} \over 8 \pi m_p N_H V_h

1912: R_0} \label{vcscale} \\ & \approx & \left[\left({\dot M_h} \over

1913: {\rm 10\,M_\odot/yr}\right) \left(10^{21} \, {\rm cm^2} \over N_H

1914: \right) \left(1 \, {\rm kpc} \over R_0 \right) \left(300 \, {\rm km/s}

1915: \over V_h \right)\right]^{1/2} \nonumber 

1916: \eeqa 

1917: Equation (\ref{vcscale}) implies that, for clouds of a given column $N_H$,

1918: there is a critical mass loss rate $\sim 10 \mpy$ (in the hot phase)

1919: below which ram pressure is {insufficient} to accelerate clouds of

1920: cold material to a velocity $\sim V_h$, i.e., to the velocity of the

1921: hot wind.  Assuming that $\dot M_h \sim \dot M_\star$, this can be

1922: equivalently interpreted as defining a critical star formation rate

1923: $\dot M_c \sim 10 \mpy$ such that for $\dot M_\star \gtrsim \dot

1924: M_c$, $V_c \approx V_h$.  However, if $\dot M_\star \lesssim \dot M_c$

1925: then $V_c \lesssim V_h$ with $V_c \propto \sqrt{{\dot M_\star}/[N_H

1926: R_0]}$.  Note that the precise value of $\dot M_c$ is uncertain

1927: because it depends on the column $N_H$ and the launching radius $R_0$.

1928: 

1929: \subsection{Entrainment:  The `Optically Thick' Limit} 

1930: \label{section:entrainthick}

1931: 

1932: If the cold gas covers a significant fraction of the sky, it will

1933: intercept most of the momentum flux in the hot flow.  The ram pressure

1934: force on the cold gas is then given by $\rho_h v^2_h 4 \pi r^2$,

1935: rather than $\rho_h v^2_h A_c$ as considered in the previous section.

1936: We call this the `optically thick' limit.  In this limit, the

1937: requirement to blow out all of the cold gas in the galaxy by ram

1938: pressure is that

1939: %There are two ways in which cold clouds occupying $4\pi$ sr may be

1940: %driven to infinity by hot gas.  The first is in direct analogy with

1941: %the energy-driven wind argument of \S\ref{section:energy}.  If the

1942: %cold clouds (or shell) are shock heated and evaporated, one obtains a

1943: %limiting starburst luminosity proportional to $\sigma^5$, precisely

1944: %the same formula for $L_{\rm E}$ as in equation (\ref{edot}).  This

1945: %may be termed an 'energy-conserving' limit in the same nomenclature as

1946: %the Sedov blast wave solution.  The second way to drive the cold shell

1947: %is equivalent to the momentum-driven wind arguments presented in

1948: %\S\ref{section:momentum} and the limiting luminosity $L_{\rm M}$ is

1949: %recovered.

1950: %Explicitly, taking a spherical shell of cold gas, the requirement to

1951: %blow away all of the cold gas in the galaxy by ram pressure is that

1952: \be \rho_h v_h^2 4 \pi r^2 \gtrsim {G M M_g \over r^2} \approx {4 f_g

1953: \sigma^4 \over G},

1954: \label{cloudthick} 

1955: \ee 

1956: where we assume that most of the mass $M_g$ is in the cold phase.  Equation

1957: (\ref{cloudthick}) can be rewritten as a requirement on the luminosity

1958: of the starburst as follows: we rewrite $\rho_h$ in terms of $\dot

1959: M_h$ and then use $\dot E_{\rm SN} = {1 \over 2} \dot M_h v_h^2 =

1960: 10^{-2} \xi L$ to find \be L

1961: \gtrsim L^{\rm ent}_{\rm M} \equiv \frac{4\,f_g\,c}{G}\,\,\sigma^4 \,

1962: \left({V_h \over 600\,\xi_{0.1}\,\kms}\right). \label{lmoment} \ee

1963: Equation (\ref{lmoment}) is essentially the same as equation

1964: (\ref{lmom}) -- the criterion to blow away all of the gas via a

1965: momentum-driven wind.

1966: %This is simply because entrainment of cold gas in a hot energy-driven

1967: %wind is itself a momentum-driven process. 

1968: Note, however, that the normalization in equation (\ref{lmoment})

1969: depends on $\xi$, the efficiency with which SN energy is thermalized

1970: in the ISM.  For our fiducial value of $\xi \approx 0.1$, $L^{\rm

1971: ent}_{\rm M} \approx L_{\rm M}$, i.e., the limits set by ram pressure

1972: and radiation pressure driving are comparable.  By contrast if $\xi

1973: \sim 1$ ram pressure dominates, while if $\xi \lesssim 0.1$, radiation

1974: pressure dominates.

1975: 

1976: \end{appendix}

1977: 

1978: \figcaption{Schematic diagram of the limiting starburst luminosity for

1979: momentum-driven galactic winds as a function of $\sigma$ ($L_{\rm

1980: M}\propto\sigma^4$; eq.~[\ref{lmom}]; thick solid line).  The thin solid

1981: lines show the maximum attainable starburst luminosity determined by

1982: converting all of the available gas into stars on a dynamical

1983: time ($L_{\rm max}\propto\sigma^3$; eq.~[\ref{lmax}]) and the limiting

1984: starburst luminosity for energy-driven galactic winds ($L_{\rm

1985: E}\propto\sigma^5$; eq.~[\ref{lmom}]).  For $\sigma<\sigma_{\rm crit}$

1986: (eq.~[\ref{sigmacrit}]), energy-driven winds dominate wind driving and

1987: feedback because $L_{\rm E}<L_{\rm M}$.  The value of $\sigma_{\rm

1988: crit}$ depends sensitively on the fraction of the kinetic energy

1989: injected by SN that is radiated away (\S\ref{section:compare}).  Because the starburst

1990: luminosity is bounded by $L_{\rm max}$, for $\sigma>\sigma_{\rm max}$

1991: (eq.~[\ref{sigmacritd}]), the starburst cannot reach $L_{\rm M}$.  In

1992: the intermediate region where $\sigma_{\rm crit}<\sigma<\sigma_{\rm

1993: max}$, the starburst luminosity is bounded by $L_{\rm M}$ and

1994: momentum-deposition dominates wind driving and feedback.  As we argue

1995: in \S\ref{section:starburst}, this effect sets the Faber-Jackson

1996: relation for elliptical galaxies.  The FJ relation, $L_{\rm

1997: FJ}\propto\sigma^4$ is sketched here for comparison with the other

1998: luminosity limits (thick dashed line).  It has a lower "zero-point"

1999: than $L_{\rm M}$ as a result of passive, post-starburst evolution of

2000: the stellar population.  This schematic plot is to be compared with

2001: Fig.~\ref{plot:ls}, which shows the observed FJ relation and data from

2002: local and high redshift starburst galaxies.  Figure 2 suggest that the

2003: limit $L_{\rm M}$ -- rather than $L_{\rm E}$ -- is relevant down to

2004: quite small $\sigma \sim 20 \, \kms$.\label{plot:lss}}

2005: 

2006: 

2007: \figcaption{The limiting luminosity for momentum-driven galactic winds

2008: ($L_{\rm M}$; eq.~[\ref{lmom}]) as a function of the velocity

2009: dispersion $\sigma$, for three values of the gas fraction ($f_g=0.1$,

2010: thick solid line; $f_g=1.0$ and 0.01, dashed lines).  These curves

2011: also account for uncertainty associated with the net momentum

2012: deposition rate in starbursts, which includes contributions from

2013: radiation, stellar winds, and supernovae.  Also shown is the observed

2014: Faber-Jackson relation from eq.~(\ref{fj}).  From

2015: \S\ref{section:momentum} and \S\ref{section:starburst}, we predict

2016: that for $\sigma_{\rm crit}<\sigma<\sigma_{\rm max}$ (see

2017: Fig.~\ref{plot:lss}), no system should have a luminosity greater than

2018: $L_{\rm M}$.  We test this prediction in this figure by surveying the

2019: literature for the brightest objects at any $\sigma$.  Detailed

2020: information on all systems plotted here can be found in Tables

2021: \ref{tab:ls} and \ref{tab:ls3} and the references cited.  The open

2022: squares show high redshift ULIRGs ($z\sim2-3$), taken from Genzel et

2023: al.~(2003), Neri et al.~(2003), and Tecza et al.~(2004).  The solid

2024: squares show local ULIRGs (Genzel et al.~2001; Tables 1 and 2).  The

2025: sample of $z\sim3$ LBGs are the open circles (Pettini et al.~2001)

2026: while the $z\sim2$ LBGs are the ``X''s (Erb et al.~2003).  The open

2027: triangles are taken from the sample of blue CFRS galaxies at

2028: $z\sim0.6$ in Mall\'{e}n-Ornelas et al.~(1999) (their Fig.~2).  We

2029: have selected the brightest galaxies at several $\sigma$.  The filled

2030: triangles show the sample of HII galaxies from Telles \& Terlevich

2031: (1997) (their Tables 1 and 3).  The open stars are dwarf galaxies from

2032: Martin (1998) and Mateo (1998) (Tables 4 and 7).  The subset of dwarfs

2033: plotted here are those with the highest luminosities associated with

2034: current star formation, rather than the old stellar

2035: population. Finally, we include a selection of local starbursts from

2036: Heckman et al.~(2000) that show evidence for outflows of cold gas (see

2037: Table \ref{tab:ls3} for details).

2038: \label{plot:ls}}

2039: 

2040: \figcaption{Starburst luminosity as a function of time in the models of

2041: Bruzual \& Charlot (2003), for an instantaneous starburst, and

2042: starbursts with duration $\tau_{\rm SB}=$10, 30, 100, and 300 Myr.

2043: All calculations were normalized to the same peak luminosity and

2044: employ a Salpeter IMF from $0.1-100$ M$_\odot$.  We argue that the

2045: ratio between the peak starburst luminosity and the luminosity at

2046: $10^{10}$ yr gives the normalization between $L_{\rm M}$

2047: (eqs.~\ref{lmom} and \ref{lmoms}) and the present-day Faber-Jackson

2048: relation (eq.~[\ref{fj}]).  This requires a starburst lifetime of

2049: $\tau_{\rm SB}\sim300$ Myr.

2050: \label{plot:decay1}}

2051: 

2052: \figcaption{Same as Fig.~\ref{plot:ls}, but for quasars from the SDSS

2053: sample of Boroson (2003) (squares) and the compilation of Shields et

2054: al.~(2003) (circles).  The velocity dispersion is estimated from the

2055: OIII linewidth while the luminosity is estimated using $L \approx 9

2056: \nu L_\nu(5100 \, \AA)$, the bolometric correction advocated by Kaspi

2057: et al. (2000).  The limiting luminosity for momentum-driven galactic

2058: winds ($L_{\rm M}$; eq.~[\ref{lmom}]) is also shown, for three values

2059: of the gas fraction ($f_g=0.1$, thick solid line; $f_g=1.0$ and 0.01,

2060: dashed lines).  This limit accounts reasonably well for the maximum

2061: quasar luminosity at any $\sigma$.  Note that Boroson (2003) does not

2062: present his observed values of $\nu L_\nu(5100 \, \AA)$, but they can

2063: be determined from his inferred black hole masses and $H-\beta$

2064: linewidths ($v_{H\beta}$) using $M_{\rm BH} = 3v_{H\beta}^2 R_{\rm

2065: BLR}/(4G)$ and $R_{\rm BLR} = 34 [\nu L_\nu(5100 \, \AA)/10^{44} \,

2066: {\rm ergs \, s^{-1}}]^{0.7} \, {\rm lt-days}$, where $R_{\rm BLR}$ is

2067: the radius of the broad line region (see his Table 1).

2068: \label{plot:lsagn}}

2069: 

2070: \plotone{f1}

2071: 

2072: \plotone{f2}

2073: 

2074: \plotone{f3}

2075: 

2076: \plotone{f4}

2077: 

2078: \clearpage

2079: \include{tab1}

2080: 

2081: \clearpage

2082: \include{tab2}

2083: 

2084: \end{document}

2085: 

2086: 

2087: