1 / 12

On the inconsistency between the SMBH Mass Function from velocity dispersion and luminosity

June 2nd, Ohio State University GLCW8. On the inconsistency between the SMBH Mass Function from velocity dispersion and luminosity E. Tundo 1,2 , M. Bernardi 2 , R. K. Sheth 2 J. B. Hyde 2 , A. Pizzella 1 (1) Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universitá di Padova, Italy

duscha
Download Presentation

On the inconsistency between the SMBH Mass Function from velocity dispersion and luminosity

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. June 2nd, Ohio State University GLCW8 On the inconsistency between the SMBH Mass Function from velocity dispersion and luminosity E. Tundo1,2, M. Bernardi2, R. K. Sheth2 J. B. Hyde2, A. Pizzella1 (1) Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universitá di Padova, Italy (2) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

  2. Search for SMBHs Class of Objects:Quiescent GalaxiesAGNs Primary methods: Stellar kinematics Megamasers Gas kinematics Reverberation Mapping Today we have about 50 detections, but only three are SURE detections of SMBHs

  3. SMBHs correlations Fundamental empirical relations: Mbh - Lbulge ; Mbh - σ* Figure from Gebhardt et al. (2000); but see also Ferrarese & Merritt (2000), Tremaine et al. (2002), Magorrian et al. (1998)

  4. What can we learn from these correlations? • Black holes and galaxy formation/evolution are linked • We can obtain local black hole mass function, Φ(Mbh), from measures of velocity dispersion or luminosity ● Φ(Mbh) is needed as a cosmological test for modern models for formation and evolution of galaxies.

  5. SMBHs mass function: scaling relations log(Mbh)=(8.21±0.06)+(3.83±0.21)∙log(s/200) Σ=0.22±0.06 dex log(Mbh)=(8.68±0.10)-(1.30±0.15)(Mr+22)/2.5 Σ=0.34±0.09 dex Mbh-σ, Mbh-Lrelations from Häring & Rix (2004) early type sample

  6. From luminosity From velocity dispersion Comparation of Φ(>Mbh) from the two predictors More than an order of magnitude of difference at 109.3 Mbh/M☼! Blanton+Hyde, with scatter Sheth+bulge, with scatter Tundo, E., Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Hyde, J. B., Pizzella, A. 2006, ApJ in press (astro-ph/0609297)

  7. L Mbh σ From L to Mbh From L to σ to Mbh Sheth et al. 2003 + bulges Comparation of Φ(>Mbh) from the two predictors We obtain differentΦ(>Mbh)even starting fromthe same luminosity function! L-based and σ-based cumulative mass functions should give the same result: Φ(M•)=∫Φ(O)p(M•|O)dO If this is not, something is wrong! Tundo, E., Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Hyde, J. B., Pizzella, A. 2006, ApJ in press (astro-ph/0609297)

  8. A selection effect in the local SMBHs sample Slope s of σ-L relation is different in SDSS and Häring&Rix sample: sHR = -0.14 sSDSS = -0.1 Tundo, E., Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Hyde, J. B., Pizzella, A. 2006, ApJ in press (astro-ph/0609297)

  9. Taking into account the bias… If we ‘brutally’ correct Ls to make them follow the SDSS L-σ relations, and refit Mbh-L the two predictor give the same cumulative mass function. Tundo, E, Bernardi, M, Sheth, R. K., Hyde, J. B., Pizzella, A. 2006, ApJ in press (astro-ph/0609297)

  10. Simulations An empirical model for the selection effect let us reproduce observed relations Mbh-σ, Mbh-L, σ-L Agreement is non trivial: a change of 5% in selection parameters produce significative differences. Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Tundo, E., Hyde, J. B. 2006, ApJ in press (astro-ph/0609300)

  11. Simulations σ –based Φ(>Mbh) is in better agreement with intrinsic distribution. Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Tundo, E., Hyde, J. B. 2006, ApJ (astro-ph/0609300)

  12. Conclusions L-based and σ-based cumulative mass function are different, because the L-σ relation is different for the sample in which we measure Mbh-L and Mbh-σ correlations. If it is caused by selection effects, this bias affects mailnly the luminosity, so it could be safer to use σ-based SMBH mass function. ……. Thank you!!!!!

More Related