Download Evidence for Early Black Hole Growth and Efficient Accretion

First Steps Toward Constraining
Supermassive Black-Hole Growth:
Mass Estimates of Black Holes in
Distant Quasars
Marianne Vestergaard
University of Arizona
Collaborators: Alex Beelen, Misty Bentz, Frank Bertoldi, Chris Carilli,
Pierre Cox, Xiaohui Fan, Shai Kaspi, Dan Maoz, Hagai Netzer, Chris Onken,
Pat Osmer, Chien Peng, Brad Peterson, Rick Pogge, Gordon Richards,
Francesco Shankar, Adam Steed, Fabian Walter, David Weinberg
Drexel University, February 10, 2006
Active Galactic Nuclei
• Bright galaxies with a
point-source of non-stellar
activity in nuclei
• They are rare – comprise
only a few percent of
bright galaxies
• The most powerful are
called quasars.
• Quasar nuclei outshine
their host galaxy light
(Elvis et al. 1994)
~10 17 cm -- scale of our
solar system
(Francis et al. 1991)
Supermassive Black Holes
• How are their mass measured?
• How do they grow?
• How are black holes and
galaxies connected?
Black Holes and Galaxy Formation
• Black holes are likely ubiquitous in galaxy centers
• MBH – σ* relationship
The M – σ Relationship
M  σ4
(Tremaine et
al. 2002;
See also
Ferrarese &
Merritt 2000;
Gebhardt et
al. 2000)
Black Hole
Mass
Bulge Velocity Dispersion
Black Holes and Galaxy Formation
• Black holes are likely ubiquitous in galaxy centers
• MBH – σ* relationship
– Formation and evolution of bulges and black holes
must be intimately connected
– When was it established? And how?
– What came first, black hole or bulge (galaxy)?
• Black hole/star-formation feedback (theory)
– Negative feedback kills star formation and black hole
growth by expelling gas (e.g., Springel, Di Matteo, & Hernquist 2005)
Star formation
activity
Black hole
activity
Time (Gyr)
(Springel et al. 2005)
Black Holes and Galaxy Formation
• Black holes are likely ubiquitous in galaxy centers
• MBH – σ* relationship
– Formation and evolution of bulges and black holes
must be intimately connected
– When was it established? And how?
– What came first, black hole or bulge (galaxy)?
• Black hole/star-formation feedback (theory)
– Negative feedback kills star formation and black hole
growth by expelling gas (e.g., Springel, Di Matteo, & Hernquist 2005)
– Positive feedback stimulate star formation (Silk 2005)
• Consequence: Galaxy bulges form later than supermassive black holes
Talk Outline
I.
Black Hole Mass
a. Determinations
b. Distributions
II. Black Hole – Galaxy Connection
III. Black Hole Evolution
Talk Outline
I.
Black Hole Mass
a. Determinations
b. Distributions
II. Black Hole – Galaxy Connection
III. Black Hole Evolution
Black Hole Mass
2
mv –
m
GmMBH /R = 0
M
Black Hole Mass
MBH =
2
v
M
R /G
Black Hole Mass
MBH =
2
v
R /G
Black Hole
Mass
2
MBH = v R /G
R
V
Insert figure from HST/ MW?
Why Study Quasar Black-Holes?
HST/STIS
• Quiescent black holes (in normal galaxies) can
109
only be studied in the nearby Universe 8m telescope
108
30m telesc.
• Quasars are luminous and therefore ideal tracers
of black holes to the highest observable redshifts
Black Hole
Mass
• Their host galaxies are prime targets for studying
galaxy evolution in the early(Ferrarese
Universe
2003)
Distance (Mpc) 10
100
How Can MBH be Determined for
Active Black Holes?
Local Universe Higher-z
• Stellar kinematics
(√)

• Gas kinematics
(√)

• Reverberation mapping
√
√
Possible Virial
Estimators
Source
Distance from
central source
3-10 RS
X-Ray Fe K
Broad-Line Region 600 RS
Megamasers
4 104 RS
Gas Dynamics
8 105 RS
Stellar Dynamics 106 RS
In units of the Schwarzschild radius
RS = 2GM/c2 = 3 × 1013 M8 cm .
Mass estimates from the
virial theorem:
M = f (r V 2 /G)
where
r = scale length of
region
V = velocity dispersion
f = a factor of order
unity, depends on
details of geometry
and kinematics
Note: the reverberation technique is
independent of angular resolution
Virial Mass Estimates
MBH = f v2 RBLR/G
Reverberation Mapping:
RBLR= c τ
t = t3 + 
t = t3
t = t2
t1 – t2 = 
t = t1
Reverberation Mapping Results
Continuum
Light
Curves
Emission line
NGC 5548, the most closely monitored active galaxy
(Peterson et al. 2002)
Virial Mass Estimates
MBH = f v2 RBLR/G
Reverberation Mapping:
–RBLR= c τ
t = t3 + 
t = t3
• vBLR
t = t2
t1– t2= 
t = t1
Line width in variable (rms) spectrum
Reverberation Mapping
NGC 5548, the most closely
monitored active galaxy
(Peterson et al. 1999)
Velocity Dispersion of the Broad Line Region
and the Virial Mass
• Velocity dispersion is
measured from the
2R
in
the
rms
Mline
=
f
v
BH
BLR/G
spectrum.
– The rms spectrum
isolates the variable
part of the
f depends
on lines.
structure
– Constant
components
and
geometry
of broad
(like narrow lines)
line region
vanish in rms spectrum
(based on Korista et al. 1995)
MBH-: Comparison of Active
and Quiescent Galaxies
Mass
• Reverberation
masses appear to
fall along the
MBH -  relation for
quiescent galaxies
• The scatter is also
similar: ≲ a factor
of 3
Gals
AGNs
Bulge velocity dispersion
(Courtesy C. Onken)
How Can Quasar MBH be Determined?
Local Universe Higher-z
• Stellar kinematics
(√)

• Gas kinematics
(√)

• Reverberation mapping
√
√
• Scaling relations
√
√
Virial Mass Estimates
MBH = f v2 RBLR/G
• Reverberation Mapping: RBLR=cτ, vBLR
Radius – Luminosity Relation:
(Kaspi et al. (incl MV)
RBLR  Lλ(5100Å)0.50
2005; Bentz,Peterson,
RBLR  Lλ(1350Å)0.53
Pogge,MV,Onken 2006,
ApJ, submitted)
• Scaling Relationships:
MBH  FWHM2 L β
(see e.g. Vestergaard 2002)
Single-Epoch Mass Estimates - CIV
 FWHM(CIV)   λL λ (1350 ) 

 4.5  106 
 
3
44
10
km/s
10
ergs/s

 

2
M BH
0.53
M
• 1  scatter = factor 2.3
Log [VP(CIV, single-epoch)/M]
(Vestergaard & Peterson 2006)
Virial Mass Estimates: MBH=f v2 RBLR/G
Scaling Relationships:
(calibrated to 2004 Reverberation MBH)
• CIV:
 FWHM(CIV)   λLλ (1350 ) 

M BH  4.5  10 
 
3
44
 10 km/s   10 ergs/s 
2
0.53
6
M
1σ uncertainty: factor ~3.5
• Hβ:
 FWHM(H β) 
M BH  8.3  106 

3
10
km/s


2
 λL λ (5100 ) 


44
 10 ergs/s 
0.50
M
( Vestergaard & Peterson 2006)
(see also Vestergaard 2002, and McLure & Jarvis 2002 for MgII)
NGC 5548
Highest
ionization
lines have
smallest
lags and
largest
Doppler
widths.
R  (M/V) -1/2
 Filled circles: 1989 data from IUE and ground-based telescopes.
 Open circles: 1993 data from HST and IUE.
… Dotted line corresponds to virial relationship with M = 6 × 107 M.
Peterson and Wandel 1999
Virial Relationships
• All 4 testable AGNs comply:
–
–
–
–
NGC 7469: 1.2 107 M
NGC 3783: 3.0 107 M
NGC 5548: 6.7 107 M
3C 390.3: 2.9 108 M
• Scalings between lines:
vFWHM2(H) lag (H)
 vFWHM2(CIV) lag (CIV)
• R-L relation extends to high-z
and high luminosity quasars:
Emission
Radiuslines:
– Luminosity Relation
SiIV1400,
HeII1640,
(Data fromCIV1549,
Kaspi et al. 2005)
CIII]1909, H4861, HeII4686
– spectra similar (e.g., Dietrich et al 2002)
– luminosities are not extreme
al 2002)2002)
(Peterson & Wandel 1999, 2000;(Dietrich
Onken &etPeterson
• R-L defined for 1042 – 1046 erg/s
(Vestergaard 2004)
Improving the Scaling Relationships
Main goal: improve scaling
laws by reducing scatter
R-L relation scatter dominates
scatter in mass scaling law
Issues:
• Host galaxy contamination
– HST imaging
• Accuracy of Single-epoch MBH
estimates
– HST & ground-based study
(HST archive project, PI: MV)
• Improved Masses and RBLR
– Improved monitoring of
nearby sources
(Bentz, Peterson, Pogge, MV, Onken 2006)
Talk Outline
I.
Black Hole Mass
a. Determinations
b. Distributions
II. Black Hole – Galaxy Connection
III. Black Hole Evolution
Masses of Distant Quasars
• Ceilings at
MBH ≈ 1010 M
LBOL < 1048
ergs/s
• MBH ≈ 109 M
beyond space
density drop at
z≈3
(Vestergaard 2004)
(H0=70 km/s/Mpc; ΩΛ = 0.7)
Quasars
• Dramatic space
density drop at z ≳3
• Very luminous AGNs
were much more
common in the past.
• The “quasar era”
occurred when the
Universe was 10-20%
its current age.
(Peterson 1997)
Masses of Distant Quasars
• Ceilings at
MBH ≈ 1010 M
LBOL < 1048
ergs/s
• MBH ≈ 109 M
beyond space
density drop at
z≈3
(Vestergaard et al. in prep)
(H0=70 km/s/Mpc; ΩΛ = 0.7)
Masses of Distant Quasars
• Ceilings at
MBH ≈ 1010 M
LBOL < 1048
ergs/s
• MBH ≈ 109 M
beyond space
density drop at
z≈3
(DR3 Qcat: Schneider et al. 2005)
(Vestergaard et al. in prep)
Using MgII line to Estimate
Black Hole Mass
• Bridge 0.8 ≲ z ≲ 1.3 gap
• Will use SDSS to
calibrate MgII scaling
law
• Complications:
– FeII contamination of line
and continuum
Requires template
fitting
(Vestergaard & Wilkes 2001)
Talk Outline
I. Black Hole Masses
II. Black Hole – Galaxy Connection
III. Black Hole Evolution
High Redshift Quasars and their Galaxies
• UV, radio, X-ray properties similar at z > 3 (e.g., Constantin et al.
2002; Dietrich et al. 2002; Stern et al. 2000; Mathur et al. 2002)
• Black holes of distant quasars are very massive ~ (1-5)x 109 M
– Are their host galaxies also massive and old?
• Circumstantial evidence for intense star formation on galaxy scales
associated with quasars at z ≳ 4:
– strong sub-mm/far-IR emission: ~108 M warm dust
– strong CO emission: ~1011 M of cold molecular gas
(Ohta et al. 1996; Walter et al. 2003)
 Dust and CO emission: large scale star formation rates
500 – 2000 M/yr (e.g., Omont et al. 2001, Carilli et al. 2001)
High Redshift
Quasars and
their Galaxies
• Some evidence for massive, old galaxies:
– z~2 quasar hosts have bulge luminosity consistent
with old passively evolving stellar populations
(Kukula et al. 2001)
– Low-z host galaxies are dominated by old
(8-14Gyr) stellar populations (Nolan et al. 2001)
Quasar Host Galaxies at High Redshift
• Conclusive test: mean age
and mass of stellar bulge
• Study of the most massive
black holes at z ≳ 4
– HST UV imaging: young stars
L(1500Å) → star formation rate
– HST Cy15 IR imaging: older stars
– Spitzer mid-IR: warm dust
– Sub-mm data: cooler dust
– CO imaging: cold molecular gas
• Goals:
– Characterize stellar bulge:
mean age, mean mass, and
star formation rate
– Determine MBH /MBulge
Redshift →
(Vestergaard
2004)
(Data from Bruzual
& Charlot
2003)
Black Hole to Bulge Mass Ratio
at High Redshift
(Peng et al. 2006, in prep)
Lensed Quasar Host Galaxy at Redshift 4.7
Original data
PSF+Galaxy Model Galaxy residual
HST ACS UV image
Strong sub-mm source
VLA CO (2-1) emission image
with Einstein Ring
(Carilli et al. 2003)
Talk Outline
I. Black Hole Masses
II. Black Hole – Galaxy Connection
III. Black Hole Evolution
Black Hole Growth in the Early Universe
Theoretical model predictions:
• Accretion only
– Radiatively efficient
– Radiatively inefficient
• Merger activity
• Obscured growth
• A combination of the above?
(Steed & Weinberg 2003)
Predicted
evolution of
black hole mass
functions for
different growth
scenarios
Preliminary Mass Functions of Active
Supermassive Black Holes
• Different samples show
relatively consistent
mass functions (shape,
slope, normalization)
(Vestergaard & Osmer, in prep.;
Vestergaard, Fan, Osmer et al., in prep.)
• Goal:
constrain BH growth
(with Fan, Osmer, Steeds, Shankar,
Weinberg)
• BQS: 10 700 sq. deg; B16.16mag
(H0=70 km/s/Mpc; ΩΛ = 0.7)
• LBQS: 454 sq. deg; 16.0BJ18.85mag
• SDSS: 182 sq. deg; i* 20mag
• DR3: 5000 sq. deg.; i* >15, 19.1, 20.2
Preliminary Mass Functions of Active
Supermassive Black Holes
• Different samples show
relatively consistent
mass functions (shape,
slope)
(Vestergaard & Osmer, in prep.;
Vestergaard, Fan, Osmer et al., in prep.)
• Goal:
constrain BH growth
(with Fan, Osmer, Steeds, Shankar,
Weinberg)
• BQS: 10 700 sq. deg; B16.16mag
(H0=70 km/s/Mpc; ΩΛ = 0.7)
• LBQS: 454 sq. deg; 16.0BJ18.85mag
• SDSS: 182 sq. deg; i* 20mag
• DR3: 5000 sq. deg.; i* >15, 19.1, 20.2
Preliminary Mass Functions of Active
Supermassive Black Holes
• Different samples show
relatively consistent
mass functions (shape,
slope)
(Vestergaard & Osmer, in prep.;
Vestergaard, Fan, Osmer et al., in prep.)
• Goal:
constrain BH growth
(with Fan, Osmer, Steeds, Shankar,
Weinberg)
• BQS: 10 700 sq. deg; B16.16mag
(H0=70 km/s/Mpc; ΩΛ = 0.7)
• LBQS: 454 sq. deg; 16.0BJ18.85mag
• SDSS: 182 sq. deg; i* 20mag
• DR3: 5000 sq. deg.; i* >15, 19.1, 20.2
Preliminary Mass Functions of Active
Supermassive Black Holes
• Locally mapped volume
(R ≤ 100 Mpc):
MBH ≤ 3x109 M
• SDSS color-selected sample
and DR3: (Fan et al. 2001, Schneider et al.
2005)
~9.5 quasars per Gpc3 with
MBH ≥ 5x109 M
→ need ~25 times larger volume
locally
(R ≤ 290 Mpc)
(H0=70 km/s/Mpc; ΩΛ = 0.7)
Summary
• >>> We can do physics with active galaxies and quasars <<<
• MBH in Active Nuclei can be determined to within an accuracy:
– Low-z:
~factor of 3 (measured)
– Higher z: ~factor of 4 (estimated!!)
• Black hole mass distributions:
– <MBH> ≈ 109 M, even at 4 ≲ z ≲ 6
– Maximum black hole mass at ~1010 M
• Black Hole Evolution and Galaxy Formation in Early Universe:
– Ongoing study of galaxies at high redshift with the most
massive black holes (~1010 M)
– MBH /MBulge ratio
– Mass functions of active black holes
– Constrain growth of black holes and their galaxy bulges by
comparing these data with theoretical evolutionary models
Black Holes and their Implications for
Galaxy Formation and Evolution?
The blue and red
galaxy sequences
SDSS DR1
(Baldry et al. 2004)
Masses of Distant Quasars
Mass
LBOL
LBOL/LEdd
LBOL= BC1 L(1350Å) = BC2 L(4400 Å)
• BQS: Boroson & Green (1992)
• z ≈ 2: Barthel, Tytler, & Thomson (1990), Vestergaard (2000)
• z ≈ 4: Fan et al. (1999, 2000, 2001), Anderson et al. (2001),
Constantin et al. (2002)
(Vestergaard 2004)
(H0=70 km/s/Mpc; ΩΛ = 0.7)
Mass Estimates of Distant Quasars
LBOL
Mass
LBOL
=BC1L(1350Å)
=BC2L(4400Å)
BC’s from
updated Elvis et
al. (1994) radioquiet SED.
• z ≈ 0.3: BQS: Boroson & Green (1992); 87 quasars; MBH(reverberation) & MBH
(H); LBQS: Hewett et al.(1995); Forster et al. (2001) 145 quasars MBH (H)
• z≈2: LBQS: Hewett et al. (1995); Forster et al. (2001) 483 quasars; MBH (CIV)
• z≈4: Fan et al. (1999, 2001), 39 quasars; MBH (CIV)
(H0=70 km/s/Mpc; ΩΛ = 0.7)
(Vestergaard & Osmer, in prep)
The M – σ Relationship
• Vittorini, Shankar, & Cavalier 2005, astro-ph/0508640 (BH
growth history from merger/feedback events; simulation)
• Robertson et al. 2005, astro-ph/0506038 (mergers simulation)
• Di Matteo, Springel, & Hernquist 2005, Nature, 433, 604
(merger induced BH growth and starformation; simulation)
• Springel, Di Matteo, & Hernquist 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776
(BH/star formation feedback; simulations)
• Miralda-Escude & Kollmeier 2005, ApJ 619, 30 (stellar capture)
• Sazonov et al. 2005, MNRAS 358, 168 (radiative BH feedback)
• King 2003, ApJ 596, L27 (supercritical accretion, outflows)
• Adams et al. 2003, ApJ 591, 125 (rotating BH collapse model)
• ….and many more…..
MBH- Relation for Active and
Quiescent Galaxies
Mass
Gals
AGNs
(Courtesy C. Onken)
Bulge velocity dispersion
Secondary Mass Estimation Methods
Via MBH - *bulge Relation
Measured *bulge :
CaII 8498, 8542, 8662Å;
z < 0.06
1  scatter ≈ 0.3 dex
M   4.0
AGNs
(Ferrarese et al. 2001)
(Tremaine et al. 2002)
Secondary Mass Estimation Methods
Via MBH - *bulge Relation
[OIII]5007 FWHM  *bulge
1 scatter ≈ 0.7 dex
(Nelson & Whittle 1996; Nelson 2000)
Radio-louds
• Line asymmetries
• Outflows
• Radio sources
• (Interacting systems)
Tremaine slope
(Boroson 2003)
Secondary Mass Estimation Methods
Via MBH - *bulge Relation
Fundamental Plane:
e, re  *bulge  MBH
• Possibly significantly
uncertain
- nuclear glare
- bulge/disk decomposition
1 scatter = ? ( 0.7dex)
Fundamental
Plane 
(e.g., McLeod & Rieke 1995; Barth et al 2003)
-FP scatter (~0.6dex for RGs;
e.g. Woo & Urry 2002)
- MBH - *bulge scatter
log re 
FP(,<e>) 
(Barth et al. 2003)
Secondary Mass Estimation Methods
Via MBH - Lbulge Relation
MR  Lbulge
1 scatter ≈ 0.45 - 0.6 dex
• Nuclear glare
• Bulge/disk decomposition
(e.g., McLeod & Rieke 1995; Barth et al 2003)
• Scaling relation scatter ?
MBH(dynamical)
MBH(scaling)
(McLure & Dunlop 2001, 2002)
Where Do We Go From Here?
Best Accuracy
(dex)
Reverberation
Mapping
Scaling Relations
Via MBH - *bulge:
0.3
Future Work
Zero-point, understand BLR  f,
odd objects (3C390.3class?)
0.5-0.6
R-L relationships, understand
outliers
0.3
0.7
Extend to luminous quasars
Understand scatter & outliers
-- Fundamental
Plane: e, re
?
Quantify & establish higher
accuracy
Via MBH – Lbulge
& scaling rel.:
0.6-0.7
-- *bulge
-- [OIII] FWHM
– MR
Calibrate to reverberation mapped
sources
To first
order quasar
spectra look
similar at
all redshifts
(Dietrich et al 2002)
Radius – Luminosity Relations
To first order, AGN
spectra look the same
Q(H)
L
U 

2
4 r nH c nH r 2
 Same ionization
parameter
 Same density
[Kaspi et al (2000) data]
r  L1/2
Radius-UV Luminosity
Relationship for High-z Quasars
M = VFWHM2 RBLR/G
↑
↑
↓
0.1109 M 4500km/s 33 lt-days
Ф  RBLR-2 L
<L> ≈ 1047 ergs/s
Log Ф
Log n(H)


(Korista et al. 1997)
Radius-UV Luminosity
Relationship for High-z Quasars
M = VFWHM2 RBLR/G
Ф  RBLR2
(Dietrich et al. 2002)
Reverberation Mapping
• Kinematics and
geometry of the
broad-line region
(BLR) can be tightly
constrained by
measuring the
emission-line
response to
continuum variations.
• Can be done with
UV/optical lines.
NGC 5548, the most closely
monitored Seyfert 1 galaxy
Reverberation Mapping Results
• BLR sizes are
measured from
the crosscorrelation time
lags between
continuum and
emission-line
variations.
Continuum
Emission line
• This gives the
first moment of
the transfer
function.
NGC 5548, the most closely
monitored Seyfert 1 galaxy
Reverberation Mapping Assumptions
1 Continuum originates in a single central source.
– Continuum source (1013–14 cm) is much smaller than
BLR (~1016 cm)
– Continuum source not necessarily isotropic
2 Light-travel time is most important time scale.
• Cloud response instantaneous
• rec = ( ne B)1  0.1 n101 hr
• BLR structure stable
• dyn = (R/VFWHM)  3 – 5 yrs
3 There is a simple, though not necessarily linear,
relationship between the observed continuum and
the ionizing continuum.
The Transfer Equation
• Under these assumptions, the relationship between the
continuum and emission lines is:

L(V, t ) 
 (V,  )C ( t   )d

Emission-line
light curve
“Transfer Continuum
Function” Light Curve
– Transfer function is line response to a -function outburst.
• In practice, programs have concentrated on solving the
velocity-independent (or 1-d) transfer equation:

L( t )   ( )C ( t  )d

• It is most common to determine the cross-correlation
function and obtain the “lag”

CCF( t )    ( ) ACF( t   )d

The Transfer Equation
• The aim of reverberation mapping is to solve for the
transfer function from the observables, the continuum
light curve C(t) and the emission-line light curve L(V,t).

L(V, t ) 
 (V,  )C ( t   )d

Emission-line
light curve
“Transfer
Function”
Continuum
Light Curve
• As noted earlier, currently we have been able to get
only the cross-correlation lag with any certainty.

CCF( t )   ( )ACF( t   )d

Reverberation
Mapping Results
• AGNs with lags for
multiple lines show
that highest ionization
emission lines respond
most rapidly 
ionization stratification
• Combine lag with line
width to get a “virial
mass”.
Lyman Break Galaxies
• Discovered by color-selection (Ly-break)
• High-z equivalent of local star-forming galaxies
• Star-formation rates: ≈ 4-25 M /yr ;
≈9 M /yr typical
(Steidel et al. 1996)
AGNs in z ≈ 3 Lyman-break Galaxies
Broad-lined AGNs:
1% of Lymanbreak galaxies (z ≈3)
FWHM (CIV)
≈4700 km/s
(Steidel et al. 2002)
AGNs in z ≈ 3 Lyman-break Galaxies
Broad-lined AGNs:
∼1% of Lymanbreak galaxies
FWHM (CIV)
≈4700 km/s
MBH ≈ 108 M
LBOL ≈1045 ergs/s
LBOL/LEdd ≈ 0.2
(Vestergaard 2002b)
Luminosities of Distant Quasars
(Vestergaard 2004)
Masses of Distant Quasars
•
Ceiling at
MBH ≦ 1010 M
; LBOL < 1048
ergs/s
•
MBH ≈ 109 M
beyond space
density drop at
z≈3
(Vestergaard 2004)
Masses of Distant Quasars II
(Vestergaard 2004)
Luminosities of Distant Quasars II
(Vestergaard 2004)
Limitations of UV Scaling Relations
NLS1s: low MBH
high LBOL/LEdd
Possible outflow
component to CIV
(Leighly 2001)
Are Quasar CIV Profiles Problematic?
~15%
(EW)
(FWHM)
(Richards et al. 2002)
Virial Mass Estimates: MBH=f v2 RBLR/G
Scaling Relationships:
(now calibrated to 2004 Reverberation MBH)
• CIV:
6  FWHM(CIV)   λL λ (1350  ) 

M BH  4.5  10 
 
3
44
 10 km/s   10 ergs/s 
2
0.53
M
1σ uncertainty: factor ~3.5
• Hβ:
6  FWHM(H β)   λL λ ( 5100  ) 

M BH  8.3  10 
 
3
44
 10 km/s   10 ergs/s 
2
 FWHM(H β) 
M BH  4.6  10 

3
 10 km/s 
6
2
 L(Hβ) 
 42

 10 ergs/s 
0.50
M
0.63
M
(H0=70 km/s/Mpc; ΩΛ = 0.7; Vestergaard & Peterson 2006)
(see also Vestergaard 2002, and McLure & Jarvis 2002 for MgII)
How Can AGN MBH be Determined?
Local Universe Higher-z
• Stellar kinematics
(√)

• Gas kinematics
(√)

• Reverberation mapping
√
√
• Scaling relations
√
√
Black Holes and their Implications for
Galaxy Formation and Evolution?
• Black holes are likely ubiquitous in galaxy centers
• MBH – σ* relationship
– Formation and evolution of bulges and black holes
must be intimately connected
– When was it established? And how?
– What came first, black hole or bulge (galaxy)?
• Black hole/star-formation feedback (theory)
– Negative feedback kills star formation and black hole
growth by expelling gas (e.g., Springel, Di Matteo, & Hernquist 2005)
– Positive feedback stimulate star formation (Silk 2005)
• Consequence: Galaxy bulges form later than supermassive black holes
High Redshift Quasars and their Galaxies
• Black holes of distant quasars are very massive
~ (1-5)x 109 M
– Are their host galaxies also massive and old?
• Dust and molecular gas emission indicate large scale
intense star formation (500 – 2000 M/yr)
• Some evidence for massive, old galaxies:
– z~2 quasar hosts have bulge luminosity consistent
with old passively evolving stellar populations
(Kukula et al. 2001)
– Low-z host galaxies are dominated by old (814Gyr) stellar populations (Nolan et al. 2001)
Black Hole Mass
2
½mvM- GmM
/R
2
BH
=
v
R
/G
BH
=0
1
GmM
2
mv 
0
2
R