1 / 18

Local SMBH and Galaxy Correlations

z ≲ 0.2 QSOs. McLure and Dunlop (2001). High z. Low z. Local SMBH and Galaxy Correlations. M BH - σ * relation. M bul / M BH  800. (e.g. Kormendy & Richstone 1995, Magorrian et al. 1998, Haering & Rix 2004). (Gebhardt et al. 2000, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000).

ronna
Télécharger la présentation

Local SMBH and Galaxy Correlations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. z ≲ 0.2 QSOs McLure and Dunlop (2001) High z Low z Local SMBH and Galaxy Correlations MBH-σ* relation Mbul / MBH 800 (e.g. Kormendy & Richstone 1995, Magorrian et al. 1998, Haering & Rix 2004) (Gebhardt et al. 2000, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000) Barth et al. (2004, 2005), Greene & Ho (2005) Marconi & Hunt 2003

  2. Chien Peng (STScI) Hans-Walter Rix (MPIA) Chuck Keeton (Rutgers) Emilio Falco (CfA) Chris Impey (Steward) Chris Kochanek (OSU) Joseph Lehár (CfA) Brian McLeod (CfA) The Coevolution of SMBHs & Galaxies out to z=4.5(Using Gravitationally Lensed Quasar Hosts)

  3. How does the MBH/Mbulge ratio change as we look to very high redshift (z > 1, observations only)? z=MBH/Mbulge(z) relative to today

  4. Road Map: how to get BH & bulge mass GALFIT (Peng et. al. 2002) or other sim tech Non-lensed Deblend AGN/host w./ 2-Dimensional Parametric image fitting Lensed LENSFIT Peng et al. (2006) Bulge mass: Inferred from host luminosity Black Hole mass: Virial technique of Type 1 AGN using C IV (z > 1.5), Mg II (0.8 < z < 1.5), H.

  5. Quasar Host Galaxies: low z (< 0.5-ish) McLeod & McLeod (2001) Data Host Resid

  6. z  2-3 Radio Quiet Quasar Hosts (RQQ) Ridgway et al. (2001) Quasar subtracted images, HST/NICMOS H-band (restframe V) Deep images: 4-7 orbits each (30 total)

  7. Road Map: how to get BH & Bulge mass GALFIT (Peng et. al. 2002) or other sim tech Non-lensed Deblend AGN/host w./ 2-Dimensional Parametric image fitting Lensed LENSFIT Peng et al. (2006) Bulge mass: Inferred from host luminosity Black Hole mass: Virial technique of Type 1 AGN using C IV (z > 1.5), Mg II (0.8 < z < 1.5), H.

  8. Softened Isothermal Ellipsoids (SIE): (x, y), mass, Rc, q, PA (6N free parameters) Lensed quasar: point source (x, y), mag (3N free params) Lensed host galaxy: Sérsic Profile (x, y), mag, Re, n, q, PA (7N free params) External “shear”: γ, PA (2 free params) Foregound galaxy: Sérsic profile (x, y), mag, Re, n, q, PA (7N free parameters) LENSFIT: A New, Parametric, Way to Solve the Lens Equation While Image Fitting Peng et al. (2006, in prep) N = number of comps. (light + deflector), unrestricted. The simplest model has a minimum of 22 free parameters (no maximum), all simultaneously adjusted to reduce pixel χ2. Most params have small covariance: Objs. well resolved (x,y) accurate Shapes very different ⇒params well constrained. Light profiles (analogous to GALFIT): Deflection models:

  9. Lenses: 1 SIE + 2 SIS Host: n ∼ 4 re 2 kpc H = 20.4 ⇒ MV = -22.5 MBH = 1 x 109 M☉ (expect re∼10 kpc if host fully formed, passively evolving)

  10. Host: n ∼ 1.5 re2.3 kpc H = 20.6 ⇒ MV = -23.5 MBH = 2 x 109 M☉ (expect re∼15 kpc if host fully formed, passively evolving)

  11. Edge-on spiral galaxy lens + face on barred spiral external perturber (SIE + γ). Host: n ∼ 1.6 re 3 kpc H = 21.3 ⇒ MV = -22.1 MBH = 1 x 108 M☉ (expect re3 kpc if host fully evol.)

  12. Highest redshift host in lensed sample Host: re  kpc H = 22.3 ⇒ MV -25 MBH = 1 x 109 M☉ (expect re10 kpc if host fully evol.)

  13. Road Map: how to get BH & Bulge mass GALFIT (Peng et. al. 2002) or other sim tech Non-lensed Deblend AGN/host w./ 2-Dimensional Parametric image fitting Lensed LENSFIT Peng et al. (2006) Bulge mass: Inferred from host luminosity Black Hole mass: Virial technique of Type 1 AGN using C IV (z > 1.5), Mg II (0.8 < z < 1.5), H.

  14. Mass (modulo M/L) Black Hole - Bulge Coevolution @ z≳ 2 Peng et al. (2006)

  15. Black Hole - Bulge Coevolution Peng et al. (2006)

  16. Black Hole / Bulge Mass Ratio at z ≳ 1 z=MBH/Mbulge(z) relative to today

  17. Conclusion: • z2 hosts almost follow the MBH vs. restframe R-band luminosity of z0. • The MBH vs. MBulge is 3-6 times higher at z > 2 than at z=0, so galaxies may gain mass by a factor of 3-6 since z2. • At z ≳ 2, the re of hosts are 1/2 to 1/5 the size expected of fully formed, passively evolving E/S0s. • Systematics issues (dust, BH mass normalization, normalization dependence on z) remain to be checked.

  18. Future: What can Weaken Conclusions Significantly? • Dust can’t be ruled out (but, locally, at least, star formation wins over dust extinction.) Will do rest-frame IR imaging of lensed hosts, resolved IFU kinematics of lensed hosts at z > 1. • Black hole masses over-estimated by a factor of 2-3 (evolution of the virial relation?, Dep. on L/Ledd?)? Will estimate MBH using Hlinewidth. But fundamentally, the limitation on the normalization is the small size of the reverberation mapped sample and redshift regime.

More Related