4.7 Article

The growth of supermassive black holes in pseudo-bulges, classical bulges and elliptical galaxies

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 399, Issue 2, Pages 621-627

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15328.x

Keywords

galaxies: bulges; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; galaxies: fundamental parameters; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; galaxies: photometry

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  2. Max Planck Society
  3. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  4. SDSS member institutions
  5. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  6. National Science Foundation
  7. US Department of Energy
  8. Japanese Monbukagakusho

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using results from structural analysis of a sample of nearly 1000 local galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, we estimate how the mass in central black holes is distributed amongst elliptical galaxies, classical bulges and pseudo-bulges, and investigate the relation between their stellar masses and central stellar velocity dispersion Sigma. Assuming a single relation between elliptical galaxy/bulge mass, M(Bulge), and central black hole mass, M(BH), we find that 55+8(-4) per cent of the mass in black holes in the local universe is in the centres of elliptical galaxies, 41+4(-2) per cent in classical bulges and 4+0.9(-0.4) per cent in pseudo-bulges. We find that ellipticals, classical bulges and pseudo-bulges follow different relations between their stellar masses and Sigma, and the most significant offset occurs for pseudo-bulges in barred galaxies. This structural dissimilarity leads to discrepant black hole masses if single M(BH)-M(Bulge) and M(BH)-Sigma relations are used. Adopting relations from the literature, we find that the M(BH)-Sigma relation yields an estimate of the total mass density in black holes that is roughly 55 per cent larger than if the M(BH)-M(Bulge) relation is used.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available