COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?
description
Transcript of COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?
![Page 1: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES
...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?
Jari Kotilainen Tuorla Observatory, University of Turku, Finland
Renato Falomo Padova, Italy
Marzia Labita Como, Italy
Riccardo Scarpa ESO, Chile
Aldo Treves Como, Italy
![Page 2: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
MOTIVATION
black holes (BH) in all (?) nearby inactive bulgesBarth 2004, Kormendy 2004
huge quasar power due to accretion onto BH
quasars in massive bulge-dominated galaxies...Dunlop et al. 2003, Pagani et al. 2003, Floyd et al. 2004
...many with young stellar populationsNolan et al. 2001, Kauffmann et al. 2003, Jahnke et al. 2004
=> all massive galaxies host a BH and have been quasars?
![Page 3: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
tight MBH – Mbulge – bulge relations (at low z) MBH ~0.002 Mbulge
Kormendy & Richstone 1995, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000, Gebhardt et al. 2000,
McLure & Dunlop 2002, Marconi & Hunt 2003, Bettoni et al. 2003, Häring & Rix 2004
Kormendy 2004
masers
gas
stars
![Page 4: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
quasar density vs BH accretion rate vs cosmic SFR history Madau et al. 1998, Chary & Elbaz 2001, Barger et al. 2001, Yu & Tremaine 2002, Marconi et al. 2004
=> strong link between formation of BHs and galaxy bulges
Hasinger et al. 2005 Marconi et al. 2004
![Page 5: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
VIRIAL BLACK HOLE MASSES
dynamical MBH for ~40 nearby luminous inactive galaxies* must resolve BH sphere of influence (r = GMBH / 2)
high z inactive galaxies: Mbulge easy MBH impossible high z quasar hosts: MBH easy Mbulge difficult
MBH can be derived from material gravitationally bound to the BH e.g. BLR: vBLR + RBLR => virial MBH = vBLR
2 RBLR / G
Wandel et al. 1999, Kaspi et al. 2000,
McLure & Jarvis 2002, Vestergaard 2002
![Page 6: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
M31
SgrA*
![Page 7: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
vBLR from FWHM of BLR emission lines* assumes BLR geometry (vBLR = f x FWHM; f = sqrt(3)/2 for isotropic field)
RBLR from reverberation mapping
Peterson 1993, Wandel et al. 1999,
Peterson & Wandel 2000, Peterson 2001
virial MBH in agreement (at low z) with MBH – bulge relation for inactive galaxies
Nelson et al. 2004, Onken et al. 2004, Green & Ho 2005
![Page 8: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
shortcut to estimate RBLR at high z: quasar luminosityRBLR – Lcont correlation => RBLR => MBH
Kaspi et al. 2000, McLure & Jarvis 2002, Vestergaard 2002,
Pian et al. 2005, Vestergaard et al. 2006● * assumes validity of RBLR – Lcont correlation for all objects at all z...
Peterson 2004
![Page 9: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
similar MBH – Mbulge relation for low z active and inactive galaxies Merritt & Ferrarese 2001, McLure & Dunlop 2002, Bettoni et al. 2003, Labita et al. 2006
McLure & Dunlop 2002
![Page 10: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
evolution of MBH – Mbulge relation with z? Shields et al. 2003, McLure et al. 2005, Peng et al. 2005
=> MBH/Mbulge ratio larger at high z? * small samples, heterogeneous data, systematics...
Peng et al. 2005
![Page 11: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Ongoing work: ISAAC/NACO imaging of high z quasar hostsFalomo et al., 2004, 2005, 2006; Kotilainen et
al. 2006
passive evolution of spheroids
massive BHs in place by z = 2
Mbulge remains unchanged
MBH ~0.002 Mbulge (low z)
=> MBH remains unchanged?
Kotilainen et al.
2006
![Page 12: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
New project: spectra of resolved quasars at 1 < z < 2.53.6m/EFOSC2 grism #4 (4085 – 7520 A)
images => Mbulge
spectra => FWHM of CIV, CIII] and/or MgII + Lcont at 1450 A
=> virial MBH
![Page 13: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
AIMS
1) demography of MBH as a function of z2) evolution of MBH – Mbulge
* MBH can only increase with time* local MBH – Lbulge relation
* local galaxy LF and BH mass function3) virial MBH vs. MBH – Mbulge relation => geometrical factor f 4) RLQs vs RQQs
* more massive BHs in RLQs ? Best et al. 2005, Labita et al. 20065) evolution of L/LEdd
* at low z, L > LEdd common McLure & Dunlop 2003
![Page 14: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
first data: Sept 2005 DDT (6 quasars)
more to come: Sept 2006 5N
PKS 0155-495 z = 1.298 M(K)host = -26.5
PKS 0348-120z = 1.520 M(K)host = -26.2
![Page 15: COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062410/56815da8550346895dcbd68f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
PKS 0100-27z = 1.597 M(K)host = -27.6
Q 0040-3731z = 1.780 M(K)host = -27.4