Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:14:40.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Co-evolution of bulges and black holes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2007

Jong-Hak Woo
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA email: woo@physics.ucsb.edu, tt@physics.ucsb.edu
Tommaso Treu
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA email: woo@physics.ucsb.edu, tt@physics.ucsb.edu
Matthew A. Malkan
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California at Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547, USA email: malkan@astro.ucla.edu
Roger D. Blandford
Affiliation:
Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford, CA 94305, USA email: rdb@slac.stanford.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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

In the present-day universe, the global properties of bulges and early-type galaxies correlate with the mass of their central black holes, indicating a connection between galaxy evolution and nuclear activity. Understanding the origin of this relation is a major challenge for cosmological models. Using Keck spectra and HST images, we present direct measurements of the correlations between black hole mass and host spheroid luminosity and velocity dispersion at z=0.36, showing that the relations evolved significantly in the past 4 billion years. It appears that black holes of a few 108 M completed their growth before their host galaxies, and that the current scaling relations are only the final point of the co-evolution of galaxies and black holes.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2008

References

Bentz, M. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciotti, L. & Ostriker, J. P. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croton, D. J. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Matteo, T., et al. 2005, Nature, 433, 604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrarese, L. & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJL, 539, L9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, ApJL, 539, L13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaspi, S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 629, 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, G., & Haehnelt, M. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marconi, & Hunt, 2003, ApJ, 589, L1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGill, K., Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., & Malkan, M. 2007, ApJ, submittedGoogle Scholar
Onken, C. A., et al. ApJ, 615, 645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, C. et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremaine, S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volonteri, Haardt & Madau, 2003, ApJ, 582, 559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woo, J.-H., Treu, T, Malkan, M. A., & Blandford, R. D. 2006, ApJ, 645, 900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treu, T., Woo, J.-H., Malkan, M. A., & Blandford, R. D. 2007, ApJ, 667, 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar