THE BLACK HOLE MASS, STELLAR MASS-TO-LIGHT RATIO, AND DARK HALO IN M87

By K. Gebhardt, Jens Thomas. 2009

228 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We model the dynamical structure of M87 (NGC4486) using high spatial resolution long-slit observations of stellar light in the central regions, two-dimensional stellar light kinematics out to half of the effective radius, and globular cluster velocities out to eight effective radii. We simultaneously fit for four parameters: black hole mass, dark halo core radius, dark halo circular velocity, and stellar mass-to-light (M/L) ratio. We find a black hole mass of 6.4(±0.5) × 109 M☉ (the uncertainty is 68% confidence marginalized over the other parameters). The stellar M/LV = 6.3 ± 0.8. The best-fit dark halo core radius is 14 ± 2 kpc, assuming a cored logarithmic potential. The best-fit dark halo circular velocity is 715 ± 15 km s−1. Our black hole mass is over a factor of 2 larger than previous stellar dynamical measures, and our derived stellar M/L ratio is two times lower than previous dynamical measures. When we do not include a dark halo, we measure a black hole mass and stellar M/L ratio that is consistent with previous measures, implying that the major difference is in the model assumptions. The stellar M/L ratio from our models is very similar to that derived from stellar population models of M87. The reason for the difference in the black hole mass is because we allow the M/L ratio to change with radius. The dark halo is degenerate with the stellar M/L ratio, which is subsequently degenerate with the black hole mass. We argue that dynamical models of galaxies that do not include the contribution from a dark halo may produce a biased result for the black hole mass. This bias is especially large for a galaxy with a shallow light profile such as M87, and may not be as severe in galaxies with steeper light profiles unless they have a large stellar population change with radius.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8ea259f05942b8bad1d82fc1707a3987d4fe8ea9

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

  1. Luis C. Ho
  2. Jenny E. Greene
  3. P. Hopkins
  4. L. Hernquist
  5. Alister W. Graham
  6. M. Volonteri
  7. J. Kormendy
  8. Jeremiah P. Ostriker

In Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

  1. Jenny E. Greene
  2. Luis C. Ho
  3. R. Blandford
  4. J. Dexter
  5. E. Agol
  6. J. Kormendy
  7. S. Tremaine
  8. Jeremiah P. Ostriker

In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

  1. Luis C. Ho
  2. J. Kormendy
  3. S. Tremaine
  4. O. Gnedin
  5. Jeremiah P. Ostriker
  6. A. Barth
  7. M. Sarzi
  8. Jonelle L. Walsh

Citations in the corpus