1 / 17

M-σ

M-σ. M-σ. Predicted in 1998-1999 based on self-regulated BH growth M ~ σ 5 (Silk & Rees) M ~ σ 4 (Fabian). Discovery of M-σ. Ferrarese & Merritt (2000) Gebhardt et al. (2000). Discovery of M-σ. Ferrarese & Merritt (2000) Gebhardt et al. (2000). What about AGNs ?.

kevlyn
Download Presentation

M-σ

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. M-σ

  2. M-σ • Predicted in 1998-1999 based on self-regulated BH growth • M ~ σ5 (Silk & Rees) • M ~ σ4 (Fabian)

  3. Discovery of M-σ • Ferrarese & Merritt (2000) • Gebhardt et al. (2000)

  4. Discovery of M-σ • Ferrarese & Merritt (2000) • Gebhardt et al. (2000)

  5. What about AGNs? • Ferrarese et al. 2001

  6. Is M-sigma an upper bound? • Batcheldor (2010) argues that using “sphere of influence” argument to limit which galaxies to include in M-σ can lead to a false relationship • ri = GMbh/σ2 ; θi = ri/D < 1” for almost all galaxies • Selection effect: If ri < telescope resolution, we skip that galaxy • Using list of all galaxies with M<100 Mpc and measured σ, assign a random Mbh then plot M-σ with low and high cutoffs

  7. Gultekin et al. (2011) rebuttal • “We find that this hypothesis can be rejected … for early type galaxies with relatively high velocity dispersions, that comprise most of our sample.” • M-σ is basically unchanged when incorporating a general procedure to account for observational selection effects • Consider 325 < sigma < 385; G09 contains 4 galaxies; expect ~ 40 galaxies if M randomized; there are only 3 upper limits. Could this be because observers don’t publish nondetections, or have other clues to BH existence, e.g. weak AGN? • Construct “top 50” list by predicted θi ; choose top 30 from these, 15 have measured Mbh. Run statistical tests against “upper envelope” model

  8. The high mass end …McConnell et al. find M=1010BH’s

  9. McConnell et al M-L predicts very massive BH in BCGs but sigma values are typical of other large ellipticals

  10. The high-mass end • A special formation history for BCGs? • Multiple generations of gas-poor mergers • These are the most massive & luminous galaxies; with the most massive BH’s • Anisotropic infall (along cosmological filamets?); unique assembly history leads to displacement from M-sigma?

  11. The Low-mass end • Important for understanding BH seeds • Models include: • “light seeds” from pop III stars • Predict wide range of present-day BH masses, inc. v. low mass systems • High “occupation fraction” • “heavy seeds” from collapse of massive gas clouds in halos • Low “occupation fraction” • Minimum BH mass is higher (no v. low mass BHs) • Current observations don’t distinguish between these models – need more low-mass BH measurements

  12. The Low-mass end • It is difficult to measure stellar-dynamical BH masses for low-mass galaxies AGNs are a better place to look • Approximate low-mass BH mass with “virialestimate”. Low precision, but widely applicable. • Get BLR velocity dispersion from line width • Guess BLR radius based on AGN luminosity • This relation is calibrated by reverberation mapping from a sample of ~ 30 galaxies • Mbh = fRv2/G (f accounts for unknown geometry of BLR)

  13. Xiao et al. (2011): Exploring the low-mass end • Greene & Ho measured MBH with SDSS • Add 71 AGNs with M=105 – 107BHs • Follow trend of inactive galaxies • Slightly flatter slope; similar scatter • Barred/Unbarred similar

  14. Xiao et al. (2011): Exploring the low-mass end • Edge-on galaxies have more scatter in sigma, presumably from rotational contribution

  15. Massive galaxies with no SMBH? • High-mass BH growth is driven by mergers • Mergers  binary BHs • If viscosity/dynamical friction leads to small separation, grav radiation can lead to merger • BHs with unequal masses can lead to recoil  up to 200 km/s • BHs with aligned spins can recoil up to ~ 4000 km/s; escape velocity < 1000 km/s SMBH on the loose!! • These ejections predict increased scatter in M-sigma at low mass, where escape velocity is lower • Gas-poor mergers cannot reestablish the M-σ relation by growing a new BH

  16. What is the Intrinsic Shape?

  17. Some questions • How does slope and intrinsic scatter vary for different classes of galaxies, and what does this tell us? • E.g. classical vs. pseudo bulges; morphological types • Do differences of slope/scatter in host galaxy types account for most of the scatter at the low-mass end? • What can M-sigma tell us about formation of BH seeds? • How do the very massive BHs detected at high redshift evolve? Present day BCDs? • Can we detect escaped SMBHs?

More Related