sign in sign up
<<
Home , Megamaser

Megamaser Black Hole Masses:

Deconstructing MBH-σ★

Jenny E. Greene (Princeton/Carnegie Fellow) Chien Y. Peng (Herzberg Institute) the Megamaser Cosmology Project: James Braatz, Cheng-Yu Kuo, Fred Lo, Jim Condon (NRAO), Mark Reid, Lincoln Greenhill Supermassive Black Holes and

Tremaine et al. 2002

MBH-σ★ relation reported to have scatter consistent with measurement errors 6 Bower et al.

AGN Feedback!(?)

‘radio’ mode - late-time cooling (Perseus; Fabian et al.)

Figure 2. The contribution of different processes to the vol- ume averaged rate of growth of black hole mass as a function of . The colour lines illustrate the contribution to the black hole mass growth rate from: mergers (red); disk instabilities (green); accretion associated with AGN feedback in quasi-hydrostatic flows (blue). At high redshift, the growth of black holes is dominated by instabilities in the rapidly forming Require feedback in SAMs (Bower et al. 2005) disks. At lower ,QSO mode it is - dominated make galaxies by accretion red? from quasi- hydrostatic cooling in massive halos. QSO mode - keep gala (Springel et al.) Figure 3. The function of galaxies in the local Uni- QSO mode - keep gala verse. The upper panel compares the model bJ -band luminosity function (red lines) with the observational determination from the by energy injected by supernovae and stellar winds. They 2dF galaxy redshift survey by Norberg et al. (2002). Here and essentially determine the faint end slope of the luminosity in the panel below the dotted line shows the model prediction function. without dust obscuration and the solid line the prediction taking The new parameter associated with AGN feedback, obscuration into account, while the dashed lines show models in αcool (which controls when a halo is considered to be cool- which feedback from AGN has been switched off. The lower panel ing quasi-hydrostatically as defined in eqn. 2), determines compares the K-band luminosity function in the model to the ob- the position of the exponential break in the galaxy lumi- servational determinations by Cole et al. (2001) and Huang et al. (2003). Arrows indicate the approximate magnitude faintwards of nosity function. Increasing α shifts the break to lower cool which of sample of model galaxies becomes incomplete due to the . Finally, the overall normalisation of the lumi- limited mass resolution of the Millennium simulation. nosity function is strongly affected by the parameter αreheat that determines the timescale on which reheated disk gas is added to the hot gas reservoir. disk gas to the halo virial temperature) is equal to the to- The models presented here have "SMBH =0.5, αhot = tal energy produced by supernovae in galaxies with vcirc = −1 −1 3.2, Vhot = 485 km s , αcool =0.58 and αreheat =0.92. 200 km s and exceeds the available supernovae energy by −1 −1.2 For this choice, the model gives an excellent match to the (vcirc/200 km s ) in lower mass galaxies. It should be local bJ and K-band galaxy luminosity functions, as shown noted, however, that our model does not make use of any of in Fig. 3. (The dashed lines in this figure show the lumi- the available AGN energy to eject material from the galaxy nosity function when feedback from AGN is switched off. itself. Numerical simulations of merging galaxies with cen- The match to the observational data is then very poor, due tral supermassive black holes indicate that this can be a in part to the large value of Vhot. Benson et al. (2003) and significant source of additional feedback even though the Baugh et al. (2005) were able to obtain better matches to outflow is strongly beamed (Di Matteo et al. 2005, Springel the luminosity function—albeit not as good as in our model et al. 2005b). We also require that the material be heated to including AGN feedback—through the inclusion of alterna- the virial temperature of the halo. Both of these assumptions tive means of suppressing gas cooling in massive halos.) are likely to lead to an overestimate of the energy injection The values of αhot and Vhot that we have adopted that is required. In addition, the values of these feedback are somewhat larger than the values used in our previous parameters should be treated with caution since our model work and imply that stellar feedback is extremely strong, of is undoubtedly simplified. We intend to especially in small galaxies. As a result, the energy in- present a more detailed investigation of the star formation volved in feedback (i.e. the energy required to heat cold and cooling model in future work. Supermassive Black Holes and Galaxies

• Intense discussion about proper

aperture, power-law vs. Tremaine et al. 2002 quadratic, what is most fundamental relation, second parameters, etc.

• 31 galaxies in total, with most 8 ~10 M⦿

• NOT ENOUGH OBJECTS Now, Nearly a Decade Later

• Now ~50 objects Elliptical

• Number of BCGs increased

• Investigation of import of DM S0 (Gebhart & Thomas 2009) Spiral • Instrinsic scatter has increased

• Import of triaxiality? (van den Bosch, de Zeeuw, van de Venn, etc) Gültekin et al. 2009 • But spirals/low-mass galaxies still under-represented Now, Nearly a Decade Later

• Now ~50 objects Elliptical

• Number of BCGs increased

• Investigation of import of DM S0 (Gebhart & Thomas 2009) Spiral • Instrinsic scatter has increased

• Import of triaxiality? (van den Bosch, de Zeeuw, van de Venn, etc) Gültekin et al. 2009 • But spirals/low-mass galaxies still under-represented Now, Nearly a Decade Later

• Now ~50M 32 objects Elliptical

• Number of BCGs increased small elliptical pseudobulge • Investigation of import of DM S0 (Gebhart & Thomas 2009) Spiral • Instrinsic scatter has increased spheroidal bulgeless • Import of triaxiality? (van den Bosch, de Zeeuw, van de Venn, etc) Gültekin et al. 2009 • But spirals/low-mass galaxies still under-represented NGC 4258

• H20 megamasers as dynamical tracers

• Very precise BH mass, relatively free of systematic bias

• With accelerations, also measure an independent distance

• Along with MW, best case to rule out astrophysical alternatives to SMBH (e.g., Maoz et al. 1995, 1998)

Miyoshi et al., Herrnstein et al., Greenhill, Humphreys, Moran galaxy is ~7 Mpc away NGC 3393

Kondratko et al. 2008

7 MBH=3 x 10 M⦿ Reid et al. 2008 New Megamaser Galaxies! UGC 03789

• Advent of the GBT - detect much fainter sources over larger range

• The ‘Megamaser Cosmology Project’ is dedicated to measuring H0 with a large number of independent distances

• Clean, Keplerian rotation can rule out many astrophysically plausible alternatives to supermassive BHs Real Keplerian rotation!

New Systems

• 10-20 new megamaser disks, ~6 good enough for distances

7 • Masses are all within ~x3 of 10 M⦿ (with ~15% uncertainties)

• Galaxies are all spirals (S0-Sb), with >60% barred

• Interestingly, not all edge-on galaxies

• 15 < D < 150 Mpc

• BH masses will be reported by Kuo et al. in prep.

BH Scaling relations in late-type galaxies?

Elliptical

M32

small elliptical S0

Spiral

MW Gültekin et al. 2009 Erwin & Sparke 2003

Late-type galaxies are tricky

• Bars are very common (>60%) in the maser sample

• Rings, ovals, nuclear spirals all common - what is the ‘bulge’?

• σ★ drops are seen - what is the physically meaningful number to use?

• Not to mention bars... Erwin & Sparke 2003

Late-type galaxies are tricky

• Bars are very common (>60%) in the maser sample

• Rings, ovals, nuclear spirals all common - what is the ‘bulge’?

• σ★ drops are seen - what is the physically meaningful number to use?

• Not to mention bars...

Barbosa et al. 2006 GMOS IFU (inner 5”) Pseudobulges

• Two types of bulges (central, luminous component)

• Elliptical galaxies inside disks (Sombrero), disky bulges (see right)

• Rotationally supported, bars, ovals, rings, nuclear spirals, ongoing star formation, low dispersions in the center

• These bulges built secularly (Kormendy & Kennicutt 2004)

Carollo et al. 1997, from KK04 Black Hole-Pseudobulge relations?

• General finding is that pseudobulges have higher σ★ at fixed BH mass

• see also Hu 2008, Greene et al. 2008, Graham & Li 2009, Gültekin et al. 2009

• GK09 infer BH mass from galaxy mass. What do we learn from the maser galaxies? Scaled Faber-Jackson relation

Gadotti & Kauffmann 2009 Black Hole-Pseudobulge relations?

• General finding is that pseudobulges have higher σ★ at fixed BH mass

• see also Hu 2008, Greene et al. 2008, Graham & Li 2009, Gültekin et al. 2009

• GK09 infer BH mass from galaxy mass. What do we learn from the maser galaxies? Scaled Faber-Jackson relation

Gadotti & Kauffmann 2009 Velocity Dispersions

Magellan/IMACS APO/DIS 1x4” aperture 1.5x4” aperture Greene et al. in prep Greene Elliptical

S0

Spiral

Gültekin et al. 2009 Elliptical

S0 Greene, Peng et al. in prep Greene,

Spiral ‘old’ maser galaxies

Maser galaxies Elliptical

S0 Greene, Peng et al. in prep Greene,

Spiral ‘old’ maser galaxies Scatter increases

Maser galaxies Elliptical

S0 Greene, Peng et al. in prep Greene,

Slope change? Spiral ‘old’ maser galaxies Scatter increases

Maser galaxies S0

Spiral Bulge Luminosities - 2MASS (avoid dust)

2MASS

SDSS

2MASS is not deep enough From 2MASS Bulge Luminosity/Mass

• GALFIT image decomposition of SDSS images

• Using g-r color to estimate stellar mass (Bell et al. 2003)

Greene, Peng et al. in prep MBH-Mbulge Relation

Greene, Peng et al. in prep

Gültekin et al. Haering & Rix 2009 2004

Maser galaxies with SDSS images

Maser galaxies with SDSS images Maser galaxies total mass from 2MASS MBH-Mbulge Relation

Greene, Peng et al. in prep

Gültekin et al. Haering & Rix 2009 2004

Maser galaxies with SDSS images

Maser galaxies with SDSS images Maser galaxies total mass from 2MASS

Highly Uncertain! Outstanding worries

•BH-bulge relations change in late-type galaxies

•Galaxy properties are hard to measure: bars, sigma- drops, stellar population ages

•Active galaxies: add any bias? I think not - Eddington ratios are too low (1-5%)

•Any bias in maser galaxies? Why such a narrow range in BH masses? BH Mass Function

Marconi et al. 2004 BH Mass Function

Marconi et al. 2004 AGN BH masses

• AGN mass scaling relations are calibrated on the MBH-σ★ relation “f” • overall scaling could well be off by a factor of >2

• Woo/Treu et al. result of evolution in MBH-σ★ goes away

Reverberation Mapping masses (Bentz et al. 2009) Opportunity for cross-calibration

• <5 objects have multiple dynamical BH masses (NGC 4258 is one) and cross- comparisons are not always in agreement

• 2-3 in this sample are close enough to obtain reliable stellar-dynamical BH masses, and we hope to get Gemini time to do this

• Also, we hope to estimate X-ray variability masses using hard X-rays Summary

7 • New maser galaxies are early-type spirals with ~10 M⦿ BHs

• Reveal that BH-bulge relations change in late-type/low-mass systems

• Certainly scatter increases, perhaps slope changes as well; σ★ low at a given BH mass

• Verdict is still out on MBH-Mbulge

• BH-bulge relations depend on galaxy morphology (and thus formation history)

• Megamasers represent the single largest influx of new BH masses available in the near future