COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES ...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?

1. COEVOLUTION OFSUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLESAND THEIR HOST GALAXIES...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH? Jari KotilainenTuorla Observatory, University of Turku, Finland Renato Falomo Padova, Italy Marzia LabitaComo, Italy Riccardo ScarpaESO, Chile Aldo TrevesComo, Italy

2. black holes (BH) in all (?) nearby inactive bulges Barth 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 populations Nolan et al. 2001, Kauffmann et al. 2003, Jahnke et al. 2004 => all massive galaxies host a BH and have been quasars? MOTIVATION

3. masers gas stars Kormendy 2004 tight MBH – Mbulge – bulge relations (at low z) MBH~0.002Mbulge Kormendy & Richstone 1995, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000, Gebhardt et al. 2000, McLure & Dunlop 2002, Marconi & Hunt 2003, Bettoni et al. 2003, Häring & Rix 2004

4. Hasinger et al. 2005 • Marconi et al. 2004 quasar density vs BH accretion ratevs 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 galaxybulges

5. 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 Mbulgedifficult MBH can be derived from material gravitationally bound to the BH e.g. BLR: vBLR + RBLR => virial MBH= vBLR2 RBLR / G Wandel et al. 1999, Kaspi et al. 2000, McLure & Jarvis 2002, Vestergaard 2002

6. SgrA* M31

7. 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 MBHin agreement (at low z) with MBH – bulge relation for inactive galaxies Nelson et al. 2004, Onken et al. 2004, Green & Ho 2005

8. shortcut to estimate RBLR at high z: quasar luminosity RBLR – 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

9. similar MBH – Mbulgerelation for low z active and inactive galaxies Merritt & Ferrarese 2001, McLure & Dunlop 2002, Bettoni et al. 2003, Labita et al. 2006 McLure & Dunlop 2002

10. evolution of MBH –Mbulgerelation with z? Shields et al. 2003, McLure et al. 2005, Peng et al. 2005 => MBH/Mbulgeratio larger at high z? * small samples, heterogeneous data, systematics... Peng et al. 2005

11. Ongoing work: ISAAC/NACO imaging of high z quasar hosts Falomo et al., 2004, 2005, 2006; Kotilainen et al. 2006 passive evolution of spheroids massiveBHs in place by z = 2 Mbulge remains unchanged MBH~0.002Mbulge (low z) => MBHremains unchanged? Kotilainen et al. 2006

12. New project: spectra of resolved quasars at 1 < z < 2.5 3.6m/EFOSC2 grism #4 (4085 – 7520 A) images => Mbulge spectra => FWHM of CIV, CIII] and/or MgII + Lcont at 1450 A => virialMBH

13. AIMS 1) demography of MBHas a function of z 2) evolution of MBH–Mbulge * MBH can only increase with time * local MBH–Lbulgerelation * local galaxy LF and BH mass function 3) virial MBHvs. MBH–Mbulgerelation => geometrical factor f 4) RLQs vs RQQs * more massive BHs in RLQs ? Best et al. 2005, Labita et al. 2006 5) evolution of L/LEdd * at low z, L > LEddcommon McLure & Dunlop 2003

14. first data: Sept 2005 DDT (6 quasars) more to come: Sept 2006 5N PKS 0348-120 z = 1.520 M(K)host = -26.2 PKS 0155-495 z = 1.298 M(K)host = -26.5

15. PKS 0100-27 z = 1.597 M(K)host = -27.6 Q 0040-3731 z = 1.780 M(K)host = -27.4