The black hole mass – bulge correlation

1. Hu Jian Sep. 9, 2010 The black hole mass – bulge correlation

2. Direct measurement of black hole mass 1Stellar dynamics Schwarzschild modelling Input Flux V, Sigma h3, h4 Difficulties Image spectroscopy Computing time consumption Uncertainties: Symmetry DM halo M/L ratio

3. Direct measurement of black hole mass 2Gas kinematics (including maser) Basic principle: Kepler motion Uncertainties: Kinematics tracer Symmetry Turbulence Disk wrap M/L ratio

4. Direct measurement of black hole mass 3other methods Stellar orbit (only MW now) X-ray Gas hydrodynamics

5. First correlation found: Mbh-L relation Implication: BH growth connected with the hole galaxy (bulge)! Kormendy & Richstone 1995, ARAA review Magorrian et al. 1998

6. Update (Most widely used version) Marconi & Hunt 2003 Haring & Rix 2004

7. Second correlation: Mbh-sigma(central stellar velocity dispersion)

8. Explanation: major merger Hopkins et al. 2007

9. The fast BH growth is triggered by major merger Di Matteo et al. 2005

10. The strong feedback from AGN build up the tight Mbh- correlation. Theory: cf.,Silk & Rees 1998;King 2003 Di Matteo et al. 2005

11. What we want to know Phenomena High mass end (core ellipticals) and low mass end (pseudobulges) Redshift evolution AGN dependent Other correlations Explanation

12. Low mass end: pseudo-bulges Bulges: central spheroid components or extra mass/light over the disk Shape and kinematics: disky (rotational) Stellar population: like disk Boxy/peanut (pseudo)bulges are edge-on bars. Dwarf speroidals are pseudobulges. Possible formation mechanism: Protogalactic collapse or major mergers => fast gas inflow (dynamical timescale) & SF => classical bulges Internal (bar or spiral structure driven) or environmental (minor merger, cold accretion, galaxy harassment) secular evolution => slow gas inflow & SF => pseudobulges Cf. comprehensive review of Kormendy & Kennicutt 2004, ARAA. Classical bulge vs pseudobulge

13. Identification of pseudobulges Photometric (ns<2, bluer & fainter); Kinetic (rotational support, kinetic disk-like); Morphology (nuclear bar/ring/spiral features). Drory & Fisher 2007

14. Some elliptical galaxies have core shape center profile. They are believed to be the products of “dry” mergers. Core ellipticals’ * -L relation is different (explanation: stars are puffed out in the violent relaxation) High mass end: Core elliptical galaxies

15. Mbh- * relationrevisited (Hu 2008) • Slope (4.06) is consistent with Tremaine et al. (2002), normalization is 1.5 times higher, intrinsic scatter (0.27 dex) is the same. • Psuedobulges obey different M-* relation (over 3 significance), below the relation of classical bulges. (similar results see Graham 2008). • Core elliptical galaxies may have a steeper M-* relation. bulge pseudo-bulge Mbh Core ellipticalsdry merger Normal ellipticalsclassical bulgeswet merger Low mass end (<3e7): pseudobulgesparallel below, intrinsic scatter may large. dE still follow the relation of ellipticals. High mass end (>1e8): core elliptical, steeper, intrinsic scatter may be similar. Pseudobulgessecular evolution Velocity dispersion Hu 2008

16. Bulge properties measurement To measure bulge pproperties: 2-D galaxy decomposition BUDDA, developed by D. Gadotti et al. Disk: exponential profile; Bulge, bar: Sersic profile, central unresolved source: point+PSF K band image: smooth, small dust extinction Image: 2MASS, WHT, LCO archive data Pseudobulge Elliptical Classical bulge

17. Why 2D decomposition? Advantage More accurate Detect and decouple components (e.g., the bar and bulge) Disadvantage Sometimes fitting unstable Time consumption NGC 1068

18. Mbh- Lbul, K relationrevisited(Hu, submitted) 50 elliptical galaxies/classical bulges+15 pseudobulges Slope (0.98+0.08) consistent with the previous results. Psuedobulges does not follow the Mbh-Lrelation of classical bulges;for given Mbh, L of pseudobulges may be much larger (>10 times). Core ellipticals follow the Mbh-Lrelation of classical bulges. Hu in prep

19. Mbh- M* and Mbh- Mdyn M*: M/L calibrated by Bell et al. 2003 Mdyn: solve Jeans equation in Sersic mass profile (For rotation supported pseudobulges, the Mdyn is only a lower limit)

20. Comparison with relevant work Greene et al. 2010

21. Coexistence of classical bulges and pseudobulges Some early type disk galaxies harbor both pseudobulges and small central classical bulges. (Erwin 2003, 2010) How to decouple? Luminosity profile, shape (PA and ellipticity), and kinematics.

22. 20% S0 galaxies may have composite bulges. Classical bulges is ~5-25% as bright as the pseudobulges. Mbh seems to correlate with the embedded classical bulges better. Problem with velocity dispersion: how to decouple? • (Erwin & Gadotti 2010) Hu 2010

23. Explanation of Mbh-bulge relations in pseudobulges Scenario 1: MBHs in pseudobulges are rapidly growing to catch up the Mbh-host relations in inactive local galaxies.--but, BH grow timescale seems >tH Scenario 2: MBHs are built at the very early stage of disk galaxy formation. The build up of the pseudobulges increases Mbul and *, while the Mbh growthis slow. --Why the BH grow slowly? Scenario 3: MBHs grow in the central classical bulges.--should be tested in more galaxies

24. Two growth modes Cf Hopkins & Hernquist 2008

25. Mbh-L relation for AGN Indirect Mbh measurement Slope, intercept? Bennert et al. 2010

26. Narrow line Seyfert 1 Problem: sigma tracer; BH growth catch-up or truly less massive; radiation pressure effect Marconi et al. 2008 Komossa & Xu 2007

27. Mid-infrared version Spitzer/IRAC obs. 2-D decomposition Sani et al., submitted

28. Redshift evolutioncontroversial results... Shankar at al. 2009 Bennert et al. 2010

29. New correlation 1: Mbh-vc(maximal circular velocity)implication: DM halo relevance Baes 2003 But ...

30. New correlation 2: Mbh-ns (Sersic index) Graham & Driver 2007 But ...

31. New correlation 3: Mbh-spiral pitch angleimplication: bulge-disk connection? Seigar et al. 2008

32. New correlation 4: Mbh-core mass deficitevidence for core scoured by BH binary in dry merger? Kormendy & Bender 2009

33. New correlation 5: Mbh-Ngc (globular cluster number) Only valid for elliptical galaxies Small scatter (0.21 dex) Mbh=1.3e5*Ngc^1.1 Possible origin: For every GC on average one seed BH of similar mass formed. BH growth by accretion is negligible compared to dry BH mergers Secular formation of GCs is negligible Disruption of GCs by secular processes is negligible Burkert & Tremaine 2010

34. New correlation 6: Mbh-potential energy Feoli & Mancini 2009 Hu, in prep.

35. Reverberation mapping calibration Onken et al. 2004 Hu, in prep.

36. SMBH demography Shankar 2009

37. Summary Observation: Pseudobulges don’t obey the Mbh-*, Mbh-Lbulrelation of classical bulges. Core elliptical galaxies and classical bulges have different Mbh-* relations, but same Mbh-Lbulrelations. Mbh only correlated with the mass of classical bulges. Mbh-s, Mbh-L are most tight correlations. Redshift evolution and agn dependence still unclear. We need more well-defined Mbh-bulge relations. Explanation: Mbh-* and Mbh-Lbul relation for classical bulges are products of self regulation (BH feedback on bulges) after major mergers or other violent processes. BH feedback does not work effectively on pseudobulges.