REVISITING THE SCALING RELATIONS OF BLACK HOLE MASSES AND HOST GALAXY PROPERTIES

By N. McConnell, Chung-Pei Ma. 2012

812 citations recorded by the source corpus.

New kinematic data and modeling efforts in the past few years have substantially expanded and revised dynamical measurements of black hole masses (M•) at the centers of nearby galaxies. Here we compile an updated sample of 72 black holes and their host galaxies, and present revised scaling relations between M• and stellar velocity dispersion (σ), V-band luminosity (L), and bulge stellar mass (Mbulge), for different galaxy subsamples. Our best-fitting power-law relations for the full galaxy sample are log10(M•) = 8.32 + 5.64log10(σ/200 km s−1), log10(M•) = 9.23 + 1.11log10(L/1011 L☉), and log10(M•) = 8.46 + 1.05log10(Mbulge/1011 M☉). A log-quadratic fit to the M•–σ relation with an additional term of β2 [log10(σ/200 km s−1)]2 gives β2 = 1.68 ± 1.82 and does not decrease the intrinsic scatter in M•. Including 92 additional upper limits on M• does not change the slope of the M•–σ relation. When the early- and late-type galaxies are fit separately, we obtain similar slopes of 5.20 and 5.06 for the M•–σ relation but significantly different intercepts—M• in early-type galaxies are about two times higher than in late types at a given sigma. Within early-type galaxies, our fits to M•(σ) give M• that is about two times higher in galaxies with central core profiles than those with central power-law profiles. Our M•–L and M•–Mbulge relations for early-type galaxies are similar to those from earlier compilations, and core and power-law galaxies yield similar L- and Mbulge-based predictions for M•. When the conventional quadrature method is used to determine the intrinsic scatter in M•, our data set shows weak evidence for increased scatter at Mbulge < 1011 M☉ or LV < 1010.3 L☉, while the scatter stays constant for 1011 < Mbulge < 1012.3 M☉ and 1010.3 < LV < 1011.5 L☉. A Bayesian analysis indicates that a larger sample of M• measurements would be needed to detect any statistically significant trend in the scatter with galaxy properties.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5985b3b6bae2f7f7d9698b4b608a3b72b040b60f

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 Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

The dark nemesis of galaxy formation : why hot haloes trigger black hole growth and bring star formation to an end (2016, background): “A key point in this plot is that recent observational developments have made it possible to measure the masses of black holes over a wide range of galaxy mass and morphology (eg., McConnell & Ma 2013; Savorgnan et al. 2016).”
THE LOW-LUMINOSITY END OF THE RADIUS–LUMINOSITY RELATIONSHIP FOR ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI (2013, background): “This is significantly lower than the typical scatter in black hole scaling relationships, such as the 0.4 dex scatter (or larger) of the MBH–σ* relationship (G ̈ultekin et al. 2009; Park et al. 2012; McConnell & Ma 2013).”
Detection of the Schwarzschild precession in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole (2020, background): “Following the discovery of quasars (Schmidt 1963), evidence has been growing that most massive galaxies harbour a central compact mass, perhaps in the form of a massive black hole (MBH: 106 − 1010M , Lynden-Bell & Rees 1971; Kormendy & Ho 2013; McConnell & Ma 2013).”
The EAGLE simulations of galaxy formation: calibration of subgrid physics and model variations (2015, background): “…(e) the SSFR of star-forming galaxies (Bauer et al. 2013); (f) the fraction of galaxies that are passive (Moustakas et al. 2013); (g) the central BH mass (McConnell & Ma 2013); (h) the metallicity of star-forming gas (Zahid et al. 2014); and (i) the metallicity of stars (Gallazzi et al. 2005).”
UNLEASHING POSITIVE FEEDBACK: LINKING THE RATES OF STAR FORMATION, SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE ACCRETION, AND OUTFLOWS IN DISTANT GALAXIES (2013, background): “There is a quantitative connection between black hole mass and spheroid velocity dispersion (MBH ∝∼ σ 4–5) with approximate bulge mass scaling MBH ≈ 10−3Mspheroid (Graham et al. 2011 and references therein), with deviations at low (Graham 2012) and high masses (McConnell & Ma 2013).”
Growth and activity of black holes in galaxy mergers with varying mass ratios (2014, background): “…centre of most massive galaxies in the local Universe and to obey tight relationships between their mass and several quantities of the host spheroid (e.g. Kormendy & Richstone 1995; Magorrian et al. 1998; Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000; Gültekin et al. 2009; McConnell & Ma 2013).”
STELLAR VELOCITY DISPERSION MEASUREMENTS IN HIGH-LUMINOSITY QUASAR HOSTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE AGN BLACK HOLE MASS SCALE (2013, background): “While the highmass end of the quiescent MBH–σ∗ relation is relatively well-populated to beyond 109 M⊙ (McConnell & Ma 2013), the current sample of AGNs used to calculate 〈f〉 still contains just three or four objects with MBH above 108 M⊙ (Graham et al. 2011; Park et al. 2012; Woo et al. 2013).”
Massive Black Hole Binary Mergers in Dynamical Galactic Environments (2016, methodology): “Recently, both McWilliams et al. (2014) and Kulier et al. (2015) have implemented explicit dynamical-friction formalisms along with recent MBH–Host scaling relations (McConnell & Ma 2013) applied to halo mass functions from Press-Schechter and the Millenium simulations respectively.”
The Hubble Constant from Infrared Surface Brightness Fluctuation Distances (2021, methodology): “Recognizing this, McConnell & Ma (2013) used updated distances for 44 galaxies in their black hole mass compilation, 41 of which were SBF values.”
The local nanohertz gravitational-wave landscape from supermassive black hole binaries (2017, methodology): “Supermassive Black Hole Masses We estimate the SMBHB mass by converting the 2MASS K-band luminosity to the stellar mass, take this stellar mass to be the bulge mass, and further apply the M• −Mbulge scaling relation from Ref (McConnell & Ma 2013) to obtain the total BH mass.”
Simulating galaxy formation with the IllustrisTNG model (2017, background): “H ol e M as s [M su n] [ a ll su bh al oe s ] McConnell & Ma 2013 (comp) McConnell & Ma 2013 (fit MBH - Mbulge) Kormendy & Ho 2013 (fit MBH - Mbulge) L25n128 fiducial TNG L25n256 fiducial TNG L25n512 fiducial TNG L25n128 fiducial Illustris L25n256 fiducial Illustris L25n512 fiducial Illustris 108…”
Supermassive black holes and their feedback effects in the IllustrisTNG simulation (2017, background): “…e.g. the SMBH mass with the bulge mass (or velocity dispersion) of the host (Magorrian et al. 1998; Tremaine et al. 2002; Häring & Rix 2004; McConnell & Ma 2013; Kormendy & Ho 2013; Graham & Scott 2015; Reines & Volonteri 2015; Savorgnan et al. 2016), indicates a connection between the two…”
The cosmic evolution of massive black holes in the Horizon-AGN simulation (2016, methodology): “4, at z = 1 and z = 2, the estimate by Schulze et al. (2015) at z = 1.5 based on a convolution of the observational stellar mass function (Ilbert et al. 2013) with the BH–bulge mass relation of McConnell & Ma (2013), without applying any bulge-total mass conversion.”
Observational evidence for intermediate-mass black holes (2017, background): “SMBHs are the most massive types of BHs and they reside at the center of most massive galaxies in the local Uni- verse (see reviews by Kormendy & Ho 2013; McConnell & Ma 2013; Graham 2016).”
The EAGLE project: Simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environments (2014, result): “The simulation results are compared with the compilation of observations from McConnell & Ma (2013).”
DWARF GALAXIES WITH OPTICAL SIGNATURES OF ACTIVE MASSIVE BLACK HOLES (2013, background): “The growth of supermassive BHs appears to be linked to the evolution of their hosts, with more massive galaxies generally harboring more massive BHs (e.g., Gebhardt et al. 2000a; Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Marconi & Hunt 2003; Gültekin et al. 2009; McConnell & Ma 2013).”