The black hole mass – spheroid luminosity relation

By Alister W. Graham. 2007

145 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The differing Mbh-L relations presented in McLure & Dunlop, Marconi & Hunt and Erwin et al. have been investigated. A number of issues have been identified and addressed in each of these studies, including but not limited to: the removal of a dependency on the Hubble constant; a correction for dust attenuation in the bulges of disc galaxies; the identification of lenticular galaxies previously treated as elliptical galaxies; and application of the same (Y |X) regression analysis. These adjustments result in relations which now predict similar black hole masses. The optimal K-band relation is log(Mbh/M ⊙ ) = −0.37(±0.04)[MK + 24] + 8.29(±0.08), with a total (not intrinsic) scatter in log Mbh equal to 0.33 dex. This level of scatter is similar to the value of 0.34 dex from the Mbh-σ relation of Tremaine et al. and compares favourably with the value of 0.31 dex from the Mbh-n relation of Graham & Driver. Using different photometric data, consistent relations in the B- and R-band are also provided, although we do note that the small (N = 13) R-band sample used by Erwin et al. is found here to have a slope of −0.30 ± 0.06 and a total scatter of 0.31 dex. Performing a symmetrical regression on the larger K-band sample gives a slope of ∼ −0.40, implying Mbh ∝ L 1.00 . Implications for galaxy-black hole coevolution, in terms of dry mergers, are briefly discussed, as are the predictions for intermediate mass black holes. Finally, as previously noted by Tundo et al., a potential bias in the galaxy sample used to define the Mbh-L relations is shown and a corrective formula provided.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4e64153613bc1d9bda43f6da983d8a3e28c3e5c3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

The Spitzer/IRAC view of black hole–bulge scaling relations (2010, result): “Particular care has been taken with its measurement and, for instance, over the last 15 years the intrinsic scatter of MBH- Lbul decreased from an initial value of rms ∼ 0.5 dex (in log MBH, Kormendy & Richstone 1995) to ∼ 0.3 − 0.4 dex (MH03, Gültekin et al. 2009, Hu 2009 c© 2010 RAS ar X iv :1 01”
Radiative efficiency, variability and Bondi accretion on to massive black holes: the transition from radio AGN to quasars in brightest cluster galaxies (2012, methodology): “Following Graham (2007), the apparent K-band magnitude of the host galaxy from the 2MASS catalogue3 (Skrutskie et al. 2006) was converted to an absolute magnitude, corrected for Galacticextinction (Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis 1998), redshift andevolution (Poggianti 1997), and used to estimate the…”
THE MBH–LSPHEROID RELATION AT HIGH AND LOW MASSES, THE QUADRATIC GROWTH OF BLACK HOLES, AND INTERMEDIATE-MASS BLACK HOLE CANDIDATES (2012, methodology): “To achieve a minimization in the x-direction, i.e. to perform the ‘inverse’ regression, one can simply replace the ǫ2 term in the denominator with b2ǫ2 (Novak et al. 2006; Graham 2007a; Graham & Driver 2007a).”
SELF-CONSISTENT MODELS OF THE AGN AND BLACK HOLE POPULATIONS: DUTY CYCLES, ACCRETION RATES, AND THE MEAN RADIATIVE EFFICIENCY (2007, background): “…et al. 1998; Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; McLure & Dunlop 2002; Marconi & Hunt 2003; Häring & Rix 2004; Ferrarese & Ford 2005; Greene & Ho 2006; Graham 2007; Hopkins et al. 2007b; Shankar & Ferrarese 2008; Shankar et al. 2008) imply that the processes of black hole growth and bulge formation…”
REVERBERATION MAPPING MEASUREMENTS OF BLACK HOLE MASSES IN SIX LOCAL SEYFERT GALAXIES (2010, background): “…is secure (i.e., observational scatter minimized) and any intrinsic scatter is well characterized (see, e.g., Bentz et al. 2006, 2009a,b; Graham 2007; Gültekin et al. 2009; Woo et al. 2010, for recent efforts to improve scaling relation calibration and characterization of intrinsic…”
Selection bias in dynamically measured supermassive black hole samples: its consequences and the quest for the most fundamental relation (2016, background): “…local dynamic l black hole samples (e.g., Ford et al. 1998; Yu & Tremaine 2002; c© 2016 RAS, MNRAS000, 1– 20 Novak et al. 2006; Lauer et al. 2007b; Graham 2007; Batcheldor 2010; Merloni et al. 2010; Graham et al. 2011; Beifiori et al. 201 ; Graham & Scott 2013; Schulze & Wisotzki 2014), the…”
An expanded Mbh–σ diagram, and a new calibration of active galactic nuclei masses (2010, methodology): “Indeed, Graham (2007a, 2008a), Hu (2008) and Graham & Li (2009) have revealed that excluding barred galaxies, or using only elliptical galaxies, results in the recovery of a tight barless, or elliptical-only, Mbh–σ relation, a result reiterated by Gültekin et al. (2009b).”
REVISITING THE SCALING RELATIONS OF BLACK HOLE MASSES AND HOST GALAXY PROPERTIES (2012, background): “…G09; Schulze & Gebhardt 2011; McConnell et al. 2011a; B12), bulge near-infrared luminosity (e.g., Marconi & Hunt 2003; McLure & Dunlop 2002, 2004; Graham 2007; Hu 2009; Sani et al. 2011), total luminos- 1 Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI;…”
MID-INFRARED SELECTION OF ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI WITH THE WIDE-FIELD INFRARED SURVEY EXPLORER. II. PROPERTIES OF WISE-SELECTED ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI IN THE NDWFS BOÖTES FIELD (2012, background): “…the luminosity of the spheroidal component of the host galaxy is – 17 – correlated with the mass of its central SMBH, and that this relation is roughly linear: Lhost ∼ MBH (see, e.g., Magorrian et al. 1998; Ferrarese & Ford 2005; Graham 2007, although also see Graham 2012 for possible deviations).”
On the correlations between galaxy properties and supermassive black hole mass (2011, methodology): “Since the differing relations do not predict the same SMBH mass, Graham (2007) investigated the effects of possible biases on the M• − Lbulge relation including any dependency on the Hubble constant, the correction for dust attenuation in the bulges of disc galaxies, the misclassification of…”
Fundamental Planes and the Barless MBH-σ Relation for Supermassive Black Holes (2008, methodology): “As detailed in Graham (2007), this updated relation benefits from a number of factors, including (i) the identification of lenticular galaxies previously treated as elliptical galaxies, (ii) it was constructed in the nearinfrared rather than the B- or V -band and so the magnitudes are less prone to…”
Quantifying the coexistence of massive black holes and dense nuclear star clusters (2009, methodology): “From the K-band MBH-L bulge relation in Graham (2007), the expected BH mass is 3 × 10 6 M⊙, equal to the NC's stellar mass (Walcher et al. 2005).”
ON THE COSMIC EVOLUTION OF THE SCALING RELATIONS BETWEEN BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES: BROAD-LINE ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI IN THE zCOSMOS SURVEY (2009, methodology): “We thus proceed in two steps: we first try and constrain the rest-frame K band magnitude of the AGN hosts, MK , for a comparison with the local MBH-MK scaling relations (Marconi and Hunt 2003; Graham 2007).”
Inclination- and dust-corrected galaxy parameters: bulge-to-disc ratios and size–luminosity relations (2008, background): “Our corrected K-band bulge magnitude (and B/T ratio) for MGC 1042 is −19.13 mag (0.054), implying a supermassive black hole mass of 3 × 106M⊙ (Graham 2007), in agreement with the upper bound estimated by Shields et al. (2008).”