On the correlations between galaxy properties and supermassive black hole mass

By A. Beifiori, S. Courteau, E. Corsini, Y. F. M. F. E. Physik, Heidelberg · Germany, Icg Portsmouth, UK., Queen's University, Canada., D. D. Astronomia and 4 more. 2011

175 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We use a large sample of upper limits and accurate estimates of supermassive black hole (SMBH) masses coupled with libraries of host galaxy velocity dispersions, rotational velocities and photometric parameters extracted from Sloan Digital Sky Survey i-band images to establish correlations between the SMBH and host galaxy parameters. We test whether the mass of the black hole, M•, is fundamentally driven by either local or global galaxy properties. We explore correlations between M• and stellar velocity dispersion σe, i-band bulge luminosity Li, bulge, bulge mass Mbulge, bulge Sersic index n, bulge mean effective surface brightness 〈μe, bulge〉, i-band luminosity of the galaxy Li, gal, galaxy stellar mass , maximum circular velocity Vc, and galaxy dynamical and effective masses Mdyn, gal and Me, gal. We verify the tightness of the M•–σe relation and find that correlations with other galaxy parameters do not yield tighter trends. We do not find differences in the M•–σe relation of barred and unbarred galaxies. The M•–σe relation of pseudo-bulges is also coarser and has a different slope than that involving classical bulges. The M•–Mbulge is not as tight as the M•–σe relation, despite the bulge mass proving to be a better proxy of M• than bulge luminosity, and despite adding the bulge effective radius as an additional fitting parameter. Contrary to various published reports, we find a rather poor correlation between M• and n (or 〈μe, bulge〉), suggesting that M• is not related to the bulge light concentration. The correlations between M• and galaxy luminosity or mass are not a marked improvement over the M•–σe relation. These scaling relations depend sensitively on the host galaxy morphology: early-type galaxies follow a tighter relation than late-type galaxies. If Vc is a proxy for the dark matter halo mass, the large scatter of the M•–Vc relation then suggests that M• is more coupled to the baryonic rather than the dark matter. We have tested the need for a third parameter in the M• scaling relations, through various linear correlations with bulge and galaxy parameters, only to confirm that the Fundamental Plane of the SMBH is mainly driven by σe with a small tilt due to the effective radius. We provide a compendium of galaxy structural properties for most of the SMBH hosts known to date.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eeb2e8bfb892dba6038574ea1637284d2d9cdd1b

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

Expected properties of the first gravitational wave signal detected with pulsar timing arrays (2015, background): “…relations found in the literature (Häring & Rix 2004; Gültekin et al. 2009; Sani et al. 2011; Graham et al. 2011; Graham 2012; Graham & Scott 2013; Beifiori et al. 2012; McConnell & Ma 2013; Kormendy & Ho 2013), spanning a broad range of uncertainty and including recent observations that…”
THE IMPACT OF INTERACTIONS, BARS, BULGES, AND ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI ON STAR FORMATION EFFICIENCY IN LOCAL MASSIVE GALAXIES (2012, background): “…the wellestablished correlation between supermassive black holes and bulges (e.g. Häring & Rix 2004; Magorrian et al. 1998; Merloni et al. 2010; Beifiori et al. 2012), AGN feedback as an important quenching mechanism is appealing (e.g. Somerville et al. 2008), as it would explain why few…”
Selection bias in dynamically measured supermassive black hole samples: its consequences and the quest for the most fundamental relation (2016, methodology): “Mean slopes and uncertainties are again computed from 100 bootstrap iterations n which 3 sources were removed at a time, except for the smaller Beifiori et al. (2012) sample, for which we only removed a single object at a time.”
Self-Interacting Dark Matter from a Non-Abelian Hidden Sector (2014, background): “[101] A.”
THE MBH–LSPHEROID RELATION AT HIGH AND LOW MASSES, THE QUADRATIC GROWTH OF BLACK HOLES, AND INTERMEDIATE-MASS BLACK HOLE CANDIDATES (2012, background): “L relation have continued to be largely dominated by luminous spheroids with Mbh & 10 7–108M⊙, and have continued to fit a straight line to the data (e.g. Sani et al. 2011; Vika et al. 2011; McConnell et al. 2011a; Beifiori et al. 2012).”
REVISITING THE SCALING RELATIONS OF BLACK HOLE MASSES AND HOST GALAXY PROPERTIES (2012, background): “…et al. 2002; Wyithe 2006a,b; Hu 2008; Gültekin et al. 2009a, hereafter G09; Schulze & Gebhardt 2011; McConnell et al. 2011a; Graham et al. 2011; Beifiori et al. 2012, hereafter B12) and between M• and the stellar mass of the bulge (e.g., Magorrian et al. 1998; Marconi & Hunt 2003; Häring &…”
THE SINFONI BLACK HOLE SURVEY: THE BLACK HOLE FUNDAMENTAL PLANE REVISITED AND THE PATHS OF (CO)EVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND BULGES (2016, methodology): “The fit of Beifiori et al. (2012) overestimates the measured profile at radii larger than 70′′ by 0.4 mag.”
RELATIONS BETWEEN CENTRAL BLACK HOLE MASS AND TOTAL GALAXY STELLAR MASS IN THE LOCAL UNIVERSE (2015, background): “…bulge mass, velocity dispersion, infrared luminosity, see for instance Magorrian et al. 1998; Gebhardt et al. 2000a; Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Marconi & Hunt 2003; Häring & Rix 2004; Gültekin et al. 2009; Beifiori et al. 2012; Kormendy & Ho 2013; McConnell & Ma 2013, and references therein).”