# Presentation: 198794

## Jong-Hak Woo (UCSB)

Collaborators: Tommaso Treu (UCSB),
Matt Malkan (UCLA), & Roger Blandford (Stanford)

- Collaborators: Tommaso Treu (UCSB),
- Matt Malkan (UCLA), & Roger Blandford (Stanford)

- Cosmic Evolution of Black Holes and Spheroids: Testing Scaling Relations at z~0.4

## Local Scaling Relations

- MBH-  relation
- (Ferraresse et al. 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000)

- Tremaine et al. (2002)

- Marconi & Hunt (2003)

- MBH – Lbulge relation
- (Magorrian et al. 1998; Marconi & Hunt 2003)

## Open Questions

- Theoretical Predictions:
-  No evolution (Granato et al. 2004)
-  Sigma increases with redshift (Robertson et al. 2005)
-  Stellar mass (sigma) decreases  with redshift (Croton 2006)

-   When did they form?  Do they evolve?
-   If spheroids evolve by mergers,
-    what makes these scaling relations?

- Core issues:
-  Is the ratio of growth rates constant?
-  Stellar contribution from cold disk to bulge

## The distant universe: two problems

- 1) Black hole mass: CANNOT resolve the sphere of influence     (1” at z=1 is ~8 kpc)

- 2) Velocity dispersion:  CANNOT avoid AGN contamination._x0010_

- Solution: Active galaxies with BLR
- 1) Reverberation mapping (Blandford & McKee 1982)
- 2) Empirically calibrated photo-ionization method,
-     based on reverberation sample (Wandel et al. 1999; Kaspi et al. 2005).

- Solution: Seyfert 1 galaxies
- integrated spectra have enough starlight to measure 
- on the featureless AGN continuum._x0010_

## Testing MBH-  Relation at z~0.36

-   Sample selection
-  redshift window: z=0.360.01 to avoid sky lines.
-  30 objects selected from SDSS, based on broad H and z

-   Observations
-  Keck spectra for 20 objects; sigma measured for 14
-  HST images for 20 objects
-  Monitoring ~10 objects with Lick for reverberation mapping

**Notes:**
Look back time ~ 4 Gyr

## Measuring _x0010_velocity dispersion ()

- Measuring _x0010_velocity dispersion ()

**Notes:**
Mgb triplet and Fe around 5200A

## The MBH - sigma Relation

- The MBH - sigma Relation

- Woo et al. 2006

- Tremaine 02
- Ferrarese 02

**Notes:**
Type   offset
Bulge-dominate = 0.45
Disk-dominate = 0.75
-------------------------------
Face-on = 0.92
Intermediate+undefined = 0.43
Without face on = 0.45

## Evolution of M-sigma Relation

**redshift**

- Δlog MBH = 0.62±0.10±0.25 dex for z~0.36 sample

**Δ****log M ****BH**

**Notes:**
Offset independent of shape factor

## Interpretation

-     Stellar contamination, aperture correction, inclination
-     overall systematic errors: Δlog MBH = 0.25 dex,
-      much samller than offset Δlog MBH ~ 0.6 dex

- 2) Selection effects?
-     local sample: mostly early-type, large scatter? BH mass?
-     our sample: narrow range of parameters

- 3) Cosmic evolution?
-     BH growth predates bulge assembly

##     Is evolution real? An independent check

-  Testing MBH- Lbulge, MBH- Mdyn,
-  and  fundamental plane relations.
-  With HST-ACS images,
-   host galaxy properties determined.

- Treu et al. 2006 in prep.

## The FP of Spheroids at z~0.36

- Spheroids are overluminous for their mass.
- Generally interpreted as passive evolution.

## The MBH- Lbulge Relation

- Δlog MBH > 0.42±0.14 dex

- P(KS)=10%

## The MBH- Mbulge Relation

- The MBH- Mbulge Relation

- Δlog MBH > 0.59±0.19 dex

- P(KS)=1.3%

**Notes:**
All three relations -> evolution  

## Recent evolution of (active) bulges?

## A Scenario

- Hopkins et al. 2006

- The M-sigma relation should be already in place for larger masses!

- The characteristic mass scale  decreases with time (downsizing), consistent with** **that of our galaxies at z=0.36

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

## Future works

-  Probe more massive host galaxies at z~0.4
-  Test of MBH-sigma at higher z (~0.6)
-  Test of MBH-Lbulge at high z (z<~1)

- Normal galaxies

- AGN host

- Woo, Urry et al. 2005

- Massive AGN host galaxies
- at 0.1<z<0.5

## Bulges at z~0.36 appear to be smaller/less luminous than suggested by the local MBH-sigma relation.

Systematic errors? (< 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. 

- Systematic errors? (< 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.

- Conclusions

## Estimating virial MBH from BLR 

- The H width should be measured on the rms spectrum (i.e. the variable component)
- Single epoch spectra provide a good approximation

- Treu, Malkan & Blandford 2004

- 1) Measuring H line width

-     MBH ~ RBLR V2 /G (Peterson et al. 1999, 2004)

## 2) Estimating BLR size:Empirically Calibrated Photo-Ionization Method

- The flux needed to ionize the broad line region scales as  L(ion)/r2.
- An empirical correlation is found, calibrated using reverberation mapping

- Kaspi et al. 2005

**_x0002_**BLR size (lt-days)

- L(5100A) (erg/s)

- Estimating virial MBH from BLR

## Updated with L5100A correction

- Old

- New