An alternative track of An alternative track of Black hole – galaxy co-Black hole – galaxy co-

evolution evolution

Smita MathurSmita Mathur

The Ohio State UniversityThe Ohio State University

Hopkins+06

Black hole—Bulge relationsBlack hole—Bulge relations

Gebhardt et al 2000, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000

Deviations from the BH—bulge Deviations from the BH—bulge relations relations

NLS1 do not lie on the NLS1 do not lie on the MMBHBH—L—Lbulgebulge relation relation

Log

MB

H

Log LBulge

Mathur et al 2001

Locus of NLS1s on the Locus of NLS1s on the MMBHBH---- plane plane

The MThe MBHBH---- for for normal galaxies and normal galaxies and broad line Seyfert 1s broad line Seyfert 1s is is not not followed by followed by the narrow line the narrow line Seyfert 1 galaxies.Seyfert 1 galaxies.

Grupe & Mathur 2004Grupe & Mathur 2004

Mathur & Grupe 2005a,bMathur & Grupe 2005a,b

Independent methods of BH Independent methods of BH mass determination give mass determination give

same results same results BH mass from fits to BH mass from fits to

SEDs. (Mathur et al SEDs. (Mathur et al 2001)2001)

BH mass from power BH mass from power spectrum analysis spectrum analysis (Czerny et al 2001)(Czerny et al 2001)

HHββ width (GM04) width (GM04) SameSame method for method for

both BLS1s and both BLS1s and NLS1sNLS1s

HST/ACS observations of HST/ACS observations of NLS1sNLS1s

Mathur et al. 2011

NLS1s lie below the NLS1s lie below the “Magorrian” relation: a robust “Magorrian” relation: a robust

resultresult

Mathur et al 2011

BH

mass

Bulge luminosity

NLS1s also lie off the fundamental plane of AGNs NLS1s also lie off the fundamental plane of AGNs (Barway & Kembhavi; Graham et al. )(Barway & Kembhavi; Graham et al. )

Is bulge crucial for the existence of a Is bulge crucial for the existence of a BH?BH?

Supermassive BHs in Bulge-less Supermassive BHs in Bulge-less galaxiesgalaxies

1. NGC 4561, an Sdm galaxy

2. NGC 3184, an Scd galaxy

3. NGC 4713, an Sd galaxy3. NGC 4713, an Sd galaxy

4. M 101, an Scd galaxy

Ghosh, Mathur et al.

See also Satyapal et al; Shields et al; Peterson et al.

Araya et al 2011 Submitted

Unabsorbed luminosity few x 10^42 erg/s

Chandra image XMM spectrum

NGC 5457 (M101)NGC 5457 (M101)Scd, 7 Mpc, HScd, 7 Mpc, HIIII

AGN activity – Star-formationAGN activity – Star-formation

No clear correlation with star No clear correlation with star formation rateformation rate

log L(0.3—10 keV)

log L

(24

mic

ron)

AGNs in SINGS galaxiesAGNs in SINGS galaxies

Grier, Mathur et al 2011

Log 3

.6 m

icro

n lum

inosi

ty

Log Lx

Hershel observations of Hershel observations of GOODSGOODS

Shao, Lutz et al 2010

AGN Luminosity

Sta

r-fo

rmin

g L

um

inosi

ty

Classical bulges vs. Classical bulges vs. PsuedobulgesPsuedobulges

Classical bulges vs. Classical bulges vs. PsuedobulgesPsuedobulges

HST/ACS observations of HST/ACS observations of NLS1sNLS1s

Mathur et al. 2011

Host galaxies have Host galaxies have pseudobulges pseudobulges

Five out of ten Five out of ten galaxies have galaxies have Sersic index n Sersic index n < about 2.2< about 2.2

n

B/T

NLS1s in PseudobulgesNLS1s in Pseudobulges

Orban de Xivry et al 2011

Pseudobulges host BHsPseudobulges host BHs

Pseudobulges do not follow the Pseudobulges do not follow the fundamental plane of galaxiesfundamental plane of galaxies

Pseudobulges form & grow by Pseudobulges form & grow by secular processessecular processes

…….and these are not pathological .and these are not pathological casescases

About 2/3 of all bright spirals host About 2/3 of all bright spirals host pseudobulges (n≤2) (B/T≤0.2)pseudobulges (n≤2) (B/T≤0.2)

About 65% of these also host a barAbout 65% of these also host a bar

Weinzerl et al 2009

…….and these are not pathological .and these are not pathological casescases

About 2/3 of all bright spirals host About 2/3 of all bright spirals host pseudobulges (n≤2) (B/T≤0.2)pseudobulges (n≤2) (B/T≤0.2)

About 65% of these also host a barAbout 65% of these also host a bar

Weinzerl et al 2009

Several nails in the present Several nails in the present paradigmparadigm

Bulge crucial for BH formation & Bulge crucial for BH formation & evolution: evolution: NONO, we discovered BHs in , we discovered BHs in bulge-less galaxiesbulge-less galaxies

BH—bulge correlations tight: BH—bulge correlations tight: NONO, we , we observe significant scatter/ offsetobserve significant scatter/ offset

Correlation of AGN activity with star Correlation of AGN activity with star formation rate: formation rate: NONO, not seen in local , not seen in local galaxies galaxies NORNOR at high redshift at high redshift

Feedback regulates BH/Bulge Feedback regulates BH/Bulge growth: growth: NONO, measured feedback , measured feedback orders of magnitude smaller.orders of magnitude smaller.

Hierarchical growth is the driver: Hierarchical growth is the driver: NONO, , pseudobulges host AGNs; secular pseudobulges host AGNs; secular processes importantprocesses important

ConclusionsConclusions

All galaxies host a supermassive BHAll galaxies host a supermassive BH Bigger galaxies, bigger BHsBigger galaxies, bigger BHs Total mass, not just the bulge massTotal mass, not just the bulge mass Non-causal relationNon-causal relation The current paradigm applicable only to The current paradigm applicable only to

luminous quasarsluminous quasars Secular processes dominate Secular processes dominate

(fly-bys, gas rich mergers, DM halo (fly-bys, gas rich mergers, DM halo mass………) mass………)

Semi-analytic modelsSemi-analytic models

Shankar et al. Submitted.

Pseudobulges and the Pseudobulges and the local BH mass densitylocal BH mass density

Shankar et al. 2011

Double BHsDouble BHs

Stay tuned …..

A strong correlation……A strong correlation……

…………does not mean does not mean causationcausation

Kennicutt 1990

Non-causal origin of the black Non-causal origin of the black hole-- galaxy scaling relationshole-- galaxy scaling relations

Janhke & Maccio 2010