The Fundamental Plane of AGN Host Galaxies

1
I. How Good Are our MBH Estimates in Local
Seyfert 1 Nuclei? Test Using Gas Kinematics
Erin Hicks Matt Malkan UCLA

• Keck NIRSPEC/AO spectra of nearest Seyfert 1s
• Multiple slit positions? 2D velocity and flux
  distribution maps
• Model 2D velocity field to estimate MBH directly

2
NGC 3227 H2 2.1218mm 2.4237mm
Peak 0''.5 SE

• Gaussian fit to the emission line profile for
  each aperture
• Velocities measured to an accuracy of 20 km s-1

3
NGC 7469 H2 2.1218mm 1.9576mm

• Rotational velocity pattern confirmed in at
  least one other H2 line, in 3227 and 7469
• H2 velocity is measurable fairly far out

4
NGC 4151 H2 also shows sharp velocity gradient
5
Summary of 2D Velocity Maps
Organized Velocity Gradient NGC 3227 (150-200
k/s across central tenths of ',tens of
parsecs) NGC 4051 NGC 4151 NGC
7469 No Velocity Gradient NGC
3516 NGC 5548 (NGC 6814)
Emission too Weak to NGC 4593
Measure Reliably Ark 120
6
2D Modeling of H2 Rotation in NGC 3227
One Single slit position (angle100o,
offset0''.09 there are 33 more) with Sérsic
n3 stellar models and disk PA130o
Each small tick is 7 parsecs
CO disk has PA158o (Schinnerer et al. 2004).
7
Explore wide range of acceptable models for
molecular gas in NGC 3227
MBH of a few 107 Msun Is better than nothing
Stellar M/LH of 0.5 to 1.0 Is very
astrophysically reasonable
8
Massive Black Hole also required in NGC 4151
MBH 0.83 x 107 Msun, (Again does not reach 3
s Significance)
9
Low-inclination (not far from face-on) molecular
disk always fits better
10
Two data points arent quite enoughto settle the
entire story
11
With only two (noisy) detections and a few upper
limits, All we can say is that reverberation
masses are not too badly off
12
Reporter asked Chou-en-lai what he thought was
the significance of the French Revolution
He said It is too soon to tell.
Why dont you guys get OSIRIS data?
13
II. Remarkable Two-way Correlation1. Only the
most luminous galaxies are Chandra sources
(accreting SMBHs)
Colbert, MM, Teplitz, and some non-UCLA
people used NICMOS in Parallel imaging mode
to measure NIR (starlight) from galaxies in X-Ray
Deep Fields
2. Virtually all of the massive/star-forming
galaxies harbor AGN (X-rays from accretion)
. Not X-ray detection Large Symbol X-ray
detection (40)
Colbert et al. 2005 Ap J. 621, 587
Discontinued last year
14
So Massive Galaxies were building up central
black holes early onIII. When was current
Galaxy Bulge/Central Black Hole Mass correlation
established?
MM, with Tommaso Treu (Hubble Fellow at UCLA,
now UCSB), Jonghak Woo (UCSB), and Roger
Blandford (Stanford)
Weigh them, way back (4 Gyears ago) Is the
SMBH/host galaxy correlation the same as today?
15
Measuring MBH/? in distant universe 2 problems

• 1. Black hole mass sphere of influence is too
  small to resolve
• (0.1 at z1 is 800 pc)

• Solution Broad-line AGN
• 1) Reverberation mapping of BLR (AGNWatch,
  started late 80s)
• 2) Empirically calibrated photo-ionization
  method, based on reverberation masses (Wandel,
  Peterson, MM 1999).

2. Velocity dispersion distant objects are
faint, and heavily contaminated by
AGN continuum
Solution Seyfert 1 host galaxies integrated
spectra have enough starlight superposed on the
featureless AGN continuum, to measure ?
16
Testing MBH- ? Relation at z0.36

• Sample selection
• redshift window z0.36?0.01 to avoid sky lines
• 30 objects selected from SDSS, based on broad H?

• Observations
• Keck spectra for 20 objects sigma measured for
  14
• HST images for 20 objects

17
Measuring velocity dispersion All 14
determinations of ?
Possible emission lines are masked out
18
The Black-Hole Mass vs Sigma relation at z0.37
disagrees with z0
Systematic errors are not that large overall
systematic errors (from Stellar contamination,
aperture correction, inclination) ?log MBH
0.25 dex, smaller than observed offset ?log
MBH 0.6 dex
Ie, MBH/galaxy Mass ratio was about 4 times
higher 4 Gyrs ago
Treu, Malkan Blandford 2004 Woo, MM, TT, RB
2006 first half of data gave 2? evolution Woo et
al. 2006--doubling data makes this 3?
19
Assuming this is real, We can think of too many
different possible explanations
Something in Mbh/Sigma/Lbulge Was different 4
Gyrs ago Maybe Fundamental Plane--not Mbh/Lbulge
correlation--was the problem?
20
Check with ACS Images these bulges do not look
very impressive their low Lbulge is consistent
with modest sigmas
21
Is evolution real? Independent check that bulges
are too small for MBH

• With HST ACS images,
• quantify host galaxy properties
• determined from 2-D fits
• They lie on the Fundamental
• Plane, ie, normal for z0.4,
• with simple passive Luminosity
• evolution of stellar population

2006 TT, MM, JW
22
The MBH- Mbulge relation, from fits to ACS
images
?log MBH gt 0.590.19 dex
MBH/Mbulge 4 times larger
P(KS)1.3
Assuming normal passive evolution of stellar
population, Evolutionary Offset from z0 to 0.36
in MBH/Lbulge is similar to what we found from
MBH/?
23
Conclusion Only 3 Figures to Remember
3.Cosmic evolution in Galaxy/BH Relations
Although they have been correlated over most of
cosmic history, SMBH growth was completed
ahead of bulge assembly
1. H2 rotation curves give Mbh consistent with
Reverberation mapping
2.Near perfect one-to-one association between
massive galaxies and AGN X-ray emission
24
Keck NIRSPEC/AO

• R 2000
• 1.9 - 2.4 mm (K-band)
• 0.''0185/pixel
• Correction from optical nucleus, gives Average
  FWHM 0''.1
• 0''.037 x 3''.93 Slit

Simultaneous direct imaging

• SCAM Slit viewing camera
• Accurate slit position
• PSF monitoring
• 0.''0168/pixel
• 4''.4 x 4''.4 FOV

25
NGC 3227
NGC 3516
NGC 4051
Sample of Seyfert 1s
74
172
47
5.1 hr
1.8 hr
3.9 hr
Each thin black line is a single slit position,
superposed on NICMOS images Thicker lines are
overlapping slits.
NGC 4151
NGC 4593
NGC 5548
Get Lots of Slit Positions
64
175
334
4.1 hr
0.3 hr
1.3 hr
Ark 120
NGC 7469
NGC 6814
Galaxy
Assume Ho75 km s -1 Mpc-1
6''
pc/''
613
101
318
0.9 hr
1.9 hr
3.1 hr
Total Exp.
Assumed Ho 75 km s -1 Mpc-1
26
Strongest Gas Emission Lines H2 Brg
H2 1.9576 2.1218 2.2235 2.2477 2.4066
2.4237 Brg 2.1661
Example nuclear spectra from a 0''.05 x 0''.04
aperture.
27
The FP of Spheroids at z0.36

• At z0.36, all Spheroids are overluminous for
  their mass, as expected from passive stellar
  evolution.

28
High S/N (100-1 per Angstrom) Keck LRIS Spectra
H? H? OIII MgI/FeI
29
Measuring velocity dispersion in z0.36 Seyfert 1
galaxies 1 example
Spectrum Zoom
Fe I 5269A
Mg I 5175A
Broadened K giant spectrum
30
Black-Hole Mass in Seyfert 1 nucleus Hb width
estimation MBH RBLR VBLR2 /G (Wandel,
Peterson, Malkan 1999)
OIII5007

• Single epoch spectra provide a good measure of
  the H? width (?), if narrow (constant) component
  is removed (Vestergaard 2002)? need high SNR
  (Keck provided it on these 19th mag Seyferts)

OIII4959 OIII5007/ 3
NLR core of H?
Treu, Malkan Blandford 2004
31
2) Estimating BLR sizeEmpirically Calibrated
Photo-Ionization Method
Estimating virial MBH from BLR
BLR size RBLR (lt-days)

• The flux needed to ionize the broad line region
  scales as LIONIZING/RBLR2.
• An empirical correlation is found, calibrated
  using reverberation mapping (which determines
  RBLR from direct measurement of light-crossing
  time)

?L?(5100A) (erg/s)
RBLR
32
The MBH- Lbulge relation
?log MBH gt 0.420.14 dex
P(KS)10
33
lt 10 of Eddington
Are these BHs rapidly growing?
mass accretion rate 0.1-0.5 (solarmass/yr)
34
Open Questions

• MBH-? and MBH-Lbulge relations? When were
  they formed? Do they evolve?
• If spheroids evolve by mergers,
• what makes these scaling relations?

• Theoretical studies predict
• No evolution (Granato et al. 2004)
• Sigma increases with redshift (Robertson et al.
  2005)
• Stellar mass (sigma) decreases with redshift
  (Croton 2006)
• Is the ratio of growth rates constant?

35
A Scenario

• Major mergers
• 1) trigger AGN SF,
• 2) quench SF by feedback,
• 3) increase bulge size

• The characteristic mass scale decreases with
  time (downsizing), consistent with that of our
  galaxies at z0.36

The M-sigma relation should be already in place
for larger masses!
36
Updated with L5100A correction
Old
New
37
MBH measuring L5100

• Calibration of spectrophotometry on SDSS-DR4
  photometry

38
Fe II subtraction
Measuring velocity dispersion (?)
Fe II fit with I zw 1 template
39
Evolution of M-sigma Relation
?log M BH
redshift
?log MBH 0.620.100.25 dex for z0.36 sample
40
ACS images of z0.36 Seyfert 1s
55 Kpc
These Seyfert 1 galaxy hosts are big and
bright A high proportion of them (?) appear to be
undergoing close encounters
41
Conclusions

• Bulges at z0.36 are smaller/less luminous than
  suggested by the local MBH-sigma relation.
• Systematic error? (lt 0.25 dex in log MBH )
• Selection effects (possibly in the local
  relationship spirals vs bulge dominated
  systems)?
• Significant recent evolution of bulges if M-sigma
  relation is the final destiny of BH-galaxy
  co-evolution.

42
1. Only the most luminous galaxies are Chandra
X-ray sources
2. Virtually all of the massive galaxies harbor
AGN
Colbert, MM, Teplitz, and some non-UCLA
people used NICMOS in Parallel observing mode
to measure IR (starlight) from galaxies in
Chandra Deep Fields
43
Black Hole Mass vs Sigma. Feasible in special
redshift windows
Seyfert 1 Galaxies selected from SDSS based on
redshift z0.35 - 0.37