SIGRAV Graduate School in Contemporary

1
Laura Ferrarese Rutgers University Lecture 5
SBH Demographics

• SIGRAV Graduate School in Contemporary
• Relativity and Gravitational Physics

2
Lecture Outline

• The First Clue Supermassive Black Hole Masses
  and the Total Luminosity of the Host Bulge
• The MBH-? Relation
• Black Holes and Dark Matter Haloes (?)
• Applications

3
SBHs and Bulges

• Kormendy Richstone (1995) first pointed out
  that given the eight SBH detections available at
  the time, SBH masses correlate with the total
  blue magnitude of their host bulge (meaning the
  entire galaxy in the case of ellipticals).
• This suggests a connection between SBH and bulge
  masses.

Kormendy Richstone 1995, ARAA, 33, 581
4
SBHs and Bulges

• This correlation was further elaborated by
  Magorrian (1998), who published a correlation
  between SBH and bulge masses based on
  axysimmetric, 2-I dynamical models.
• The ratio between SBH and bulge mass was measures
  to be MBH/Mbulge0.6.

5
Data from Magorrian et al. (1998)
? (km s-1)
? (km s-1)
R (arcsec)
R (arcsec)
? (km s-1)
R (arcsec)
6
SBHs and Bulges

• We have discussed several problems affecting the
  Magorrian analysis
• the use of 2-I models might bias the mass
  estimates
• perhaps more importantly, the models were applied
  to data which did not resolve the SBH sphere of
  influence, and therefore contained no information
  about the central SBH.
• What if we only include masses which are
• based on data that resolves the SBH sphere of
  influence.
• are derived from 3-I models
• Note that these two conditions do not assure
  that the mass estimate is reliable, but at least
  its a starting point!
• Two things happen (Merritt Ferrarese 2000)
• the average MBH/Mbulge ration decreases (from
  0.6 to 0.1). This is because most of the
  Magorrian SBH masses are overestimates.
• The scatter in the relation, however, does not
  really seem to change.

7
SBHs and Bulges

• Is the scatter in the MBH-Mbulge relation really
  as large as it seems?
• McLure Dunlop (2002) suggest that the scatter
  depends (perhaps through systematic errors in the
  bulge magnitudes) on the Hubble type of the host
  galaxy.
• They include (almost) only (but not all)
  elliptical galaxies, and use R-band instead of
  B-band magnitudes.

Ferrarese 2002/astro-ph/0203047
McLure Dunlop 2002
8
SBHs and Bulges

• Marconi Hunt (2003, astro-ph/0304274) found
  that a tighter correlation is obtained if K-band
  magnitudes, instead of B-band magnitudes, are
  used.
• This is not surprising if it is the mass of
  bulge to drive the correlation, the mass is
  better traced in the K rather than in the B-band.
  Also, the B-band magnitudes commonly used are
  likely very inaccurate, especially for spiral
  bulges.
• The bulge mass is simply the virial mass given
  by
• where re and ?e are the bulge effective radius
  and velocity dispersion respectively. k depends
  on the dynamical state of the system, and is
  therefore not likely (but was assumed to be)
  constant for all galaxies.

9
SBHs and Bulges

• A tighter relation is obtained if the bulge
  velocity dispersion ? is substituted to the bulge
  blue magnitude (Ferrarese Merritt 2000 and
  Gebhardt et al. 2000)

Ferrarese 2002
10
The Discovery of the M-s Relation

• What is relevant about the MBH?? relation? After
  all, bulge luminosity and velocity dispersion are
  known to correlate through the Faber-Jackson
  relation
• Therefore, the existence of the MBH-Mbulge
  relation, combined with the Faber-Jackson
  relation, implies that MBH must correlate with ?.
• The significance of the MBH?? relation lies in
  its small scatter, which is smaller than the
  scatter in either the MBH-Mbulge or Faber Jackson
  relations. This indicates that the MBH??
  relation is more fundamental.

From Faber Jackson 1976, ApJ, 204, 668
11
The Discovery of the M-s Relation
12
SBHs and the Concentration of Bulge Light

• Graham et al. (2001) found evidence of a strong
  correlation between the concentration of bulges
  and the mass of their central SBH.
• whatever mechanisms are responsible for the
  formation of the SBH, they not only control the
  bulge luminosity, but also the distribution of
  bulge light.
• CONS Use of the concentration index might not be
  applicable to studies of morphologically
  disturbed galaxies or dominant cD galaxies with
  extended envelopes.
• PROS Measuring central mass concentration is
  relatively easy, even for galaxies at large
  distance.

13
SBHs and the Concentration of Bulge Light

• Could we have expected a correlation between
  SBH masses and concentration of bulge light to
  exist? Probably yes
• However, just as is the case for the MBH??
  relation, the MBH?C relation seems to be tighter,
  and therefore more fundamental, than the
  relations from which it can be built

The fundamental plane for 226 galaxies in 10
clusters (from Jorgensen et al. 1996, MNRAS, 280,
167
14
The M-s Relation - Why is it Interesting?
The tightness of the MBH-s relation must be
telling us something fundamental about the
connection between BHs and bulges. Simple
interpretation A constant fraction of the bulge
mass is channeled into the BH (Ferrarese
Merritt 2000) MBH ? Mbulge ? Lbulge
(M/L)bulge ? Lbulge Lbulge 1/4 (e.g.
Jorgensen et al. 1996) ? Lbulge 5/4 ?
(s4)5/4 ? s5 (Faber Jackson relation) But
a) the MBH -s relation is tighter than the
relation between MBH and mass (or luminosity).
b) Even if a MBH - Mbulge relation were setup
in the early universe it is difficult to imagine
how it could have survived in the face of
mergers. An additional feedback mechanism
must act to directly connect black hole mass to
stellar velocity dispersion.
15
Feedback Mechanisms
Galaxy Mergers
Kauffman Haehnelt 2000 Semi-analytical models
of merger driven starbursts in CDM hierarchical
models. The cooling of gas that falls in during
mergers is assumed to be balanced by energy input
from SNe. MBH sgt2 Arbitrarily steep slopes
can be produced the model does not reproduce the
small scatter in the M-s relation
Burkert Silk (2001) Self regulated BH growth
within a major-merger scenario for the formation
of spheroids. BH growth following merging is
halted when the onset of star formation in the
outer regions of the disk limits the amount of
gas available for accretion. MBH s4-5 The
tightness of the M-s relation is not explained
Silk Rees (1998), Haehnelt, Natarajan Rees
(1998) The formation and accretion history of
SMBHs is determined by accretion at the center of
a gravitationally unstable self-gravitating disk
in the core of a newly-formed dark matter
halo. An upper limit to BH growth will be reached
when the emitted energy exceeds the energy
deposition rate necessary to unbind the disk. The
back reaction of the radiation wind will produce
a dramatic decrease in the accretion
rate. (Eddington luminosity) ? (dynamical time)
binding energy of the galaxy
4? GMBH mp/?T ? Rbulge/s ?
GM2bulge/Rbulge

? s4 Rbulge/G
MBH ? (?T / mp 4? cG2) s5 ? s5 Neglects
star formation, deviations from spherical
symmetry, mergers.
Merritt (1998) The BH shapes the distribution of
stellar orbits destroying triaxiliaty in less
than a Hubble time for fainter (M lt -19 mag)
ellipticals if MBH/Mgal 3. Once the
non-axisymmetric component is weakened, further
growth of the BH is halted. Requires a much
larger MBH/Mbulge than observed
Sellwood Moore (1999) BH growth driven by bar
instabilities which develop during the early
stages of galaxy formation. When the BH mass
reaches 1.5 the mass of the disk the bar
weakens and the accretion halts. No BHs should
be found in DM dominated galaxies Predicts a
much larger MBH/Mbulge than observed
Black Hole
16
SBH Formation from the The MBH-s Relation

• Constrain models of SBH/galaxy formation
• Silk Rees 1998 Haehnelt, Natarajan Rees
  1998 Kauffmann Haehnelt 2000 Haehnelt
  Kauffmann 2000 Burkert Silk 2001 Ciotti
  van Albada 2001 Fabian et al. 2001 Cavaliere
  Vittorini 2001 Portegies-Zwart McMillan 2002
  MacMillan Henriksen 2002 Zhao et al.
  2002Volonteri, Haardt Madau 2002 Islam,Taylor
  Silk 2002 Wyithe Loeb 2002, 2003.

Haehnelt Kauffmann 2000
17
SBH Demographics from the MBH-s Relation I

• Compare the SBH mass function in high redshift
  quasars and local quiescent galaxies
• Learn about the existence/evolution of obscured
  quasars
• Constrain the accretion

Merritt Ferrarese (2001) ? MBH derived from
the MBH-s relation ? Mbulge from Magorrian et
al. (1998) Mass density in local Black
Holes x MBH /Mbulge 0.13 rbulge 3.7?108
M? Mpc-3 (Fukugita et al. 1998) r?
4.9?105 M? Mpc-3
Merritt Ferrarese 2001
Magorrian et al. 1998
18
SBH Demographics from the MBH-s Relation - II
1) Schechter Luminosity Function (e.g. Marzke et
al. 1998) 2) Faber-Jackson relation (e.g.
Kormendy Illingworth 1993) 3)MBH-s
relation Where M must incorporate a term
accounting for the ratio between bulge and total
luminosity for galaxies of different Hubble types
(see also Merritt Ferrarese 2001 Aller
Richstone 2002)
Ferrarese 2002a (astro-ph/0203047)
19
Comparison of SBH Mass Functions

• Once the contribution of obscured AGN is
  accounted for, the cumulative SBH mass density in
  quasars is larger, by a factor 2, than the one
  measured in local quiescent galaxies.
• The SBH mass densities are different for the
  quasar and quiescent galaxy population. This
  seems to be significant at least at the high mass
  end.

Ferrarese 2002a astroph/0203047 (See also Yu
Tremaine 2002)
20
Comparison of SBH Mass Functions

• Yu Tremaine (2002) Cumulative mass density for
  Early Type galaxies from SDSS sample.
• ?(gt M, total) 1.44 ?(gt M, Early)(3.3 ?0.5)?105
  M? Mpc?3 (for H0 75 km s?1 Mpc?1)
• (Although using the MBH ? L relation gives
  5.8?105 M?Mpc?3)

Yu Tremaine 2002 (H0 65 km s?1 Mpc?1)
Quasars
Early Type Galaxies
21
Interpretation

• For MBH gt 108 M? The SBH mass function in local
  quiescent galaxies is not consistent (in
  particular, it is lower) with the high-z quasar
  luminosity function derived from optical surveys
  if the accretion efficiency is ?0.1
• Higher (?0.2) accretion efficiencies might apply
  to the more massive SBHs, i.e. massive SBHs are
  rapidly rotating (Yu Tremaine 2002 Elvis,
  Risaliti Zamorani 2002).
• Quasars might have super-Eddington luminosities
  (cfr. Begelman 2001, 2002)
• SBHs might be ejected from galactic nuclei as a
  consequence of merging (Yu Tremaine 2002 cfr.
  Milosavljevic Merritt 2001)
• Optically faint accretion (Type II QSOs,
  advection dominated accretion flow) is negligible
  for massive SBHs (Yu Tremaine 2002 but see
  Elvis, Risaliti Zamorani 2002)
• What happens in the lower mass regime (MBH lt 108
  M?) is still to be investigated. Details depend
  on the contribution of obscured QSOs, and the
  exact characterization of the QSO luminosity
  function at low redshifts.

22
The MBH-s Relation - Why is it Interesting?
Falomo, Kotilainen Treves 2001

• Measure SBH masses (30 accuracy!)
• Individual galaxies (e.g. Barth et al. 2002)
• Test accretion processes and unification schemes
• BL Lacs (Falomo, Kotilainen Treves 2002 Barth,
  Ho Sargent 2002)
• Radio Loud AGN (ODowd, Urry Scarpa 2002, also
  Woo Urry 2002)
• Investigate FRI/FRII dichotomy (Marchesini,
  Celotti Ferrarese 2002, in prep)

23
SBH Demographics in Local AGNs the MBH-MB
Relation
Laor (1998) Wandel (1999) McLure Dunlop
(2000) BLR Size R?L0.5 Rev.Map.
R?L0.7 Virial velocity v 0.87 FWHM(Hb) v
0.87 FWHM(Hb) v 1.55 FWHM(Hb) Bulge
Magnitude V-band B-band I-band Bulge/Disk
decomp. (Simien de Vaucouleurs) Bulge/disk
decomp. Distances H080 H075 H050
24
BH Demographics in Local AGNs (contd)
MBH/Mbulge 0.2 in agreement with the value
determined for local quiescent galaxies (Merritt
Ferrarese 2001a, Merritt Ferrarese (2001b,
astro-ph/0107134)
25
Testing Reverberation Mapping With the MBH-s
Relation
KPNO/4m - Gemini On-going program to measure ?
for all reverberation mapped galaxies (Ferrarese
et al. 2001, 2003)
26
Testing Reverberation Mapping with the MBH-s
Relation

• Comparison between mass estimates from resolved
  kinematics in quiescent galaxies, and
  reverberation mapping in Type 1 AGNs shows that
  reverberation mapping works!
• Future studies targeting the low and high mass
  end of the MBH?? relation, as well as its
  redshift evolution, will rely on reverberation
  mapping or secondary mass estimators calibrated
  using reverberation mapping.

Ferrarese et al. 2001 Ferrarese et al. 2003
27
Part III Beyond the Bulge the Dark Side of
Galaxies

• Recently, it has become commonplace to assume
  that SBH formation/evolution is driven
  exclusively by the dynamically hot stellar
  component

Kormendy Gebhardt 2001
However, most self-regulating models of SBH
formation link M? to the total gravitational mass
of the host galaxy or to the mass of the dark
matter halo, rather than to the mass of the bulge
(e.g. Umemura, Loeb Turner 1993 Loeb Rasio
1994 Haehenlt, Natarajan Rees 1998 Silk
Rees 1998 Cattaneo et al. 1999 Haehnelt
Kauffmann 2000 Adams, Graff Richstone 2000
Whyithe Loeb 2002 Volonteri, Haardt Madau
2002 Islam,Taylor Silk 2002). Is the M?-s
relation the fundamental reflection of the
processes that lead to the formation of SBHs?
Could M? be controlled by the total gravitation
mass of the host galaxy instead?
28
Mass Tracers

• Spiral Galaxies circular velocity of the cold
  disk component 15 objects with HI or optical
  rotation curves extending beyond R25 (e.g.
  Broeils 1992 Begeman 1987 Olling Merrifield
  1998 Newton 1980 Kent 1989Corbelli Salucci
  2000 van Albada 1980, Krumm Salpeter 1979
  Bosma 1981)

Gerhard et al. 2001

• Elliptical Galaxies circular velocity derived
  from non-parametric dynamical modeling 20
  objects (Kronawitter et al. 2000)

29
Beyond the Bulge the vc-s Relation
30
The vc - s Relation
Ferrarese 2002c, ApJ
31
The vc - s Relation

• The relation has been recently confirmed, with
  unchanged slope and scatter using a new sample of
  12 spirals (Baes et al. 2003)

32
Is the vc-s Relation a Tautology?

• Are vc and s sensitive to the same mass
  distribution?
• NO vc is measured at distances gt 15 Kpc, ? is
  measured within 0.5 kpc
• Is the vc-s relation a consequence of dynamical
  homology?
• NO spirals do not form an homologous family
• Is the vc-s relation just a reflection of the
  disk-halo conspiracy?
• NO the conspiracy does not extend to the bulge
• Is the vc-s relation simply the Tully-Fisher
  relation in disguise?
• NO the Tully-Fisher relation probes different
  scales and extends to smaller circular
  velocities

33
Is the vc-s Relation a Tautology?
1. Are vc and s sensitive to the same mass
distribution?
34
Is the vc-s Relation a Tautology?
2. Is the vc-s relation a consequence of
dynamical homology?
Casertano van Gorkom 1991
35
Is the vc-s Relation a Tautology?
3. Is the vc-s relation just a reflection of the
disk-halo conspiracy?
NGC2841
NGC2403
Begeman 1987
36
Is the vc-s Relation a Tautology?
4. Is the vc-s relation simply the Tully-Fisher
relation in disguise?
Verheijen 2001
37
Implications of the vc - s Relation

• Numerical simulations for the formation of disk
  galaxies (Steinmetz Muller 1995)

Disk rotational velocity
Bulge velocity dispersion
38
Estimating MDM from vc
Bullock et al. 2001
vc
vvir
39
The M? - MDM Relation
40
The MBH - MDM Relation
Wyithe Loeb 2002

• Theoretical models for the quasar luminosity
  function (Wyithe Loeb 2002 Hatziminaoglou et
  al. 2002)
• QSO emission triggered by galaxy mergers in a
  Press-Schechter formalism
• SBH mass proportional to a power ? of the halo
  circular velocity

41
Relation Medley
42
Suggested Readings

• Ferrarese, L. Merritt, D. 2000
• Gebhardt, K. et al. 2000
• Ferrarese, L. 2001