COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES

...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH?

Jari Kotilainen Tuorla Observatory, University of Turku, Finland

Renato Falomo Padova, Italy

Marzia Labita Como, Italy

Riccardo Scarpa ESO, Chile

Aldo Treves Como, Italy

MOTIVATION

black holes (BH) in all (?) nearby inactive bulgesBarth 2004, Kormendy 2004

huge quasar power due to accretion onto BH

quasars in massive bulge-dominated galaxies...Dunlop et al. 2003, Pagani et al. 2003, Floyd et al. 2004

...many with young stellar populationsNolan et al. 2001, Kauffmann et al. 2003, Jahnke et al. 2004

=> all massive galaxies host a BH and have been quasars?

tight MBH – Mbulge – bulge relations (at low z) MBH ~0.002 Mbulge

Kormendy & Richstone 1995, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000, Gebhardt et al. 2000,

McLure & Dunlop 2002, Marconi & Hunt 2003, Bettoni et al. 2003, Häring & Rix 2004

Kormendy 2004

masers

gas

stars

quasar density vs BH accretion rate vs cosmic SFR history Madau et al. 1998, Chary & Elbaz 2001, Barger et al. 2001, Yu & Tremaine 2002, Marconi et al. 2004

=> strong link between formation of BHs and galaxy bulges

Hasinger et al. 2005 Marconi et al. 2004

VIRIAL BLACK HOLE MASSES

dynamical MBH for ~40 nearby luminous inactive galaxies* must resolve BH sphere of influence (r = GMBH / 2)

high z inactive galaxies: Mbulge easy MBH impossible high z quasar hosts: MBH easy Mbulge difficult

MBH can be derived from material gravitationally bound to the BH e.g. BLR: vBLR + RBLR => virial MBH = vBLR

2 RBLR / G

Wandel et al. 1999, Kaspi et al. 2000,

McLure & Jarvis 2002, Vestergaard 2002

M31

SgrA*

vBLR from FWHM of BLR emission lines* assumes BLR geometry (vBLR = f x FWHM; f = sqrt(3)/2 for isotropic field)

RBLR from reverberation mapping

Peterson 1993, Wandel et al. 1999,

Peterson & Wandel 2000, Peterson 2001

virial MBH in agreement (at low z) with MBH – bulge relation for inactive galaxies

Nelson et al. 2004, Onken et al. 2004, Green & Ho 2005

shortcut to estimate RBLR at high z: quasar luminosityRBLR – Lcont correlation => RBLR => MBH

Kaspi et al. 2000, McLure & Jarvis 2002, Vestergaard 2002,

Pian et al. 2005, Vestergaard et al. 2006● * assumes validity of RBLR – Lcont correlation for all objects at all z...

Peterson 2004

similar MBH – Mbulge relation for low z active and inactive galaxies Merritt & Ferrarese 2001, McLure & Dunlop 2002, Bettoni et al. 2003, Labita et al. 2006

McLure & Dunlop 2002

evolution of MBH – Mbulge relation with z? Shields et al. 2003, McLure et al. 2005, Peng et al. 2005

=> MBH/Mbulge ratio larger at high z? * small samples, heterogeneous data, systematics...

Peng et al. 2005

Ongoing work: ISAAC/NACO imaging of high z quasar hostsFalomo et al., 2004, 2005, 2006; Kotilainen et

al. 2006

passive evolution of spheroids

massive BHs in place by z = 2

Mbulge remains unchanged

MBH ~0.002 Mbulge (low z)

=> MBH remains unchanged?

Kotilainen et al.

2006

New project: spectra of resolved quasars at 1 < z < 2.53.6m/EFOSC2 grism #4 (4085 – 7520 A)

images => Mbulge

spectra => FWHM of CIV, CIII] and/or MgII + Lcont at 1450 A

=> virial MBH

AIMS

1) demography of MBH as a function of z2) evolution of MBH – Mbulge

* MBH can only increase with time* local MBH – Lbulge relation

* local galaxy LF and BH mass function3) virial MBH vs. MBH – Mbulge relation => geometrical factor f 4) RLQs vs RQQs

* more massive BHs in RLQs ? Best et al. 2005, Labita et al. 20065) evolution of L/LEdd

* at low z, L > LEdd common McLure & Dunlop 2003

first data: Sept 2005 DDT (6 quasars)

more to come: Sept 2006 5N

PKS 0155-495 z = 1.298 M(K)host = -26.5

PKS 0348-120z = 1.520 M(K)host = -26.2

PKS 0100-27z = 1.597 M(K)host = -27.6

Q 0040-3731z = 1.780 M(K)host = -27.4