Cosmic Evolution of Black Holes and Spheroids to z~0.4

1. Cosmic Evolution of Black Holes and Spheroids to z~0.4 Jong-Hak Woo Univ. California Santa Barbara Collaborators: Tommaso Treu (UCSB), Matt Malkan (UCLA), & Roger Blandford (Stanford)

2. Local Scaling Relations MBH-  relation (Ferraresse et al. 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000) MBH – Lbulge relation (Magorrian et al. 1998; Marconi & Hunt 2003) Log M BH Log M BH Marconi & Hunt (2003) Tremaine et al. (2002) Dispersion () km/s Log Lbulge K

3. Open Questions • When did scaling relations form? Do they evolve? • Theoretical Predictions: • No evolution (Granato et al. 2004) • vel. dispersion increases with redshift (Robertson et al. 2005) • Stellar mass decreases with redshift (Croton 2006) • Core issues: • BH growth faster than bulge growth at high z or low z? • Stellar contribution from cold disk to bulge

4. Distant universe: two problems 1) Black hole mass: CANNOT resolve the sphere of influence (1” at z=1 is ~8 kpc) Solution: Active galaxies with BLR 1) Reverberation mapping(Blandford & McKee 1982) 2) Empirical size-luminosity relation, based on reverberation sample(Wandel et al. 1999; Kaspi et al. 2005). 2) Velocity dispersion: CANNOT avoid AGN contamination. Solution: Seyfert 1 galaxies integrated spectra have enough starlight to measure  on the featureless AGN continuum.

5. Testing MBH-  Relation at z~0.36 Sample selection • redshift window: z=0.360.01 to avoid sky lines. • 30 objects selected from SDSS, based on broad H and z Observations • Keck spectra for 20 objects; sigma measured for 14 • HST images for 20 objects • Monitoring ~10 objects with Lick for reverberation mapping

6. Measuring velocity dispersion () Fe II subtraction Fe II fit with I zw 1 template

7. The MBH - sigma Relation Tremaine 02 Ferrarese 02 Woo et al. 2006

8. Evolution of M-sigma Relation Offset (Δlog M BH) No dependency on absolute scale of MBH redshift Δlog MBH = 0.62±0.10±0.25 dex for z~0.36 sample

9. Interpretation 1) Systematic errors? Stellar contamination,aperture correction, inclination overall systematic errors: Δlog MBH = 0.25 dex, smaller than offsetΔlog MBH ~ 0.6 dex 2) Selection effects? local sample: mostly early-type, large scatter? BH mass? our sample: narrow range of parameters 3) Cosmic evolution? BH growth predates bulge assembly

10. Is evolution real? An independent check • Testing MBH- Lbulge and MBH- Mdyn relations • With HST-ACS images, host galaxy properties determined. Treu & Woo 2006 in prep.

11. The FP of Spheroids at z~0.36 • Spheroids are overluminous for their mass. • Generally interpreted as passive evolution.

12. MBH- Mbulge Relation MBH- Lbulge Relation Δlog MBH > 0.42±0.14 dex Δlog MBH > 0.59±0.19 dex

13. Recent evolution of (active) bulges?

14. A Scenario • Major mergers 1) trigger AGN & SF, 2) quench SF by feedback, 3) increase bulge size • The characteristic mass scale decreases with time (downsizing), consistent withthat of our galaxies at z=0.36 Hopkins et al. 2006 The M-sigma relation should be already in place for larger masses!

15. Conclusions • Bulges at z~0.36 appear to be smaller/less luminous than suggested by the local MBH-sigma relation. • Systematic errors? (< 0.25 dex in log MBH ) • Selection effects (possibly in the local relationship; spirals vs bulge dominated systems)? • Significant recent evolution of bulges if M-sigma relation is the final destiny of BH-galaxy co-evolution.