Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-8r8mm Total loading time: 0.433 Render date: 2021-12-02T02:10:27.147Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

What Do Statistics Reveal About the MBHMbulge Correlation and Co-Evolution?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2010

Chien Y. Peng*
Affiliation:
Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada, 5071 West Saanich Road, Victoria, British Columbia, V9E 2E7, Canada Email: cyp@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Observational data show that the correlation between the masses of supermassive black holes MBH and galaxy bulge masses Mbulge follows a nearly linear trend, and that the correlation is strongest with the bulge rather than the total stellar mass Mgal. With increasing redshift, the ratio Γ=MBH/Mbulge relative to z = 0 also seems to be larger for MBH≳108.5M. This study looks more closely at statistics to see what effect it has on creating, and observing, the MBHMbulge correlation. It is possible to show that if galaxy merging statistics can drive the correlation, minor mergers are responsible for causing a convergence to linearity most evident at high masses, whereas major mergers have a central limit convergence that more strongly reduces the scatter. This statistical reasoning is agnostic about galaxy morphology. Therefore, combining statistical prediction (more major mergers ⟹ tighter correlation) with observations (bulges = tightest correlation), would lead one to conclude that more major mergers (throughout an entire merger tree, not just the primary branch) give rise to more prominent bulges. Lastly, with regard to controversial findings that Γ increases with redshift, this study shows why the luminosity function (LF) bias argument, taken correctly at face value, actually strengthens, rather than weakens, the findings. However, correcting for LF bias is unwarranted because the BH mass scale for quasars is bootstrapped to the MBH–σ* correlation in normal galaxies at z = 0, and quasar–quasar comparisons are mostly internally consistent. In Monte-Carlo simulations, high Γ galaxies are indeed present: they are statistical outliers (i.e., “under-merged”) that take longer to converge to linearity via minor mergers. Additional evidence that the galaxies are undermassive at z≳2 for their MBH is that the quasar hosts are very compact for their expected mass.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2010

References

Adelberger, K. L. & Steidel, C. C. 2005, ApJ, 627, L1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, D. M., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciotti, L. & van Albada, T. S. 2001, ApJ, 552, L13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrarese, L. & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, S., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, L13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granato, G. L., De Zotti, G., Silva, L., Bressan, A., & Danese, L. 2004, ApJ, 600, 580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häring, N. & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJ, 604, L89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., Robertson, B., & Krause, E. 2007a, ApJ, 669, 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, P. F., Richards, G. T., & Hernquist, L. 2007b, ApJ, 654, 731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Islam, R. R., Taylor, J. E., & Silk, J. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B. T., & Giveon, U. 2000, ApJ, 533, 631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, G., & Haehnelt, M. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollmeier, J. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormendy, J. & Richstone, D. 1995, ARAA, 33, 581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauer, T. R., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., & Faber, S. M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magorrian, J., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marconi, A. & Hunt, L. K. 2003, ApJ, 589, L21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLure, R. J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onken, C. A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 615, 645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, C. Y. 2004, PhD thesis, The University of ArizonaGoogle Scholar
Peng, C. Y. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, C. Y., Impey, C. D., Ho, L. C., Barton, E. J., & Rix, H.-W. 2006a, ApJ, 640, 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, C. Y., et al. 2006b, ApJ, 649, 616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, B., et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salviander, S., et al. 2006, New Astron. Revs., 50, 803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockton, A., McGrath, E., Canalizo, G., Iye, M., & Maihara, T. 2008, ApJ, 672, 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treu, T., Woo, J.-H., Malkan, M. A., & Blandford, R. D. 2007, ApJ, 667, 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trujillo, I., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, L5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., Malkan, M. A., & Blandford, R. D. 2006, ApJ, 645, 900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have Access
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

What Do Statistics Reveal About the MBHMbulge Correlation and Co-Evolution?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

What Do Statistics Reveal About the MBHMbulge Correlation and Co-Evolution?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

What Do Statistics Reveal About the MBHMbulge Correlation and Co-Evolution?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *