4.7 Article

The formation of galaxies hosting z ∼ 6 quasars

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 423, Issue 3, Pages 2397-2406

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21047.x

Keywords

black hole physics; methods: numerical; galaxies: active; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; quasars: general

Funding

  1. NSF [OCI-0749212]
  2. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  3. Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (OAC) [749212] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1009781] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigate the formation and properties of galaxies hosting z similar to 6 quasars in the gigaparsec scale cosmological hydrodynamical simulation MassiveBlack, which includes a self-consistent model for star formation, black hole accretion and associated feedback. We select the host galaxies based on the sample of quasars in MassiveBlack brighter than the Sloan Digital Sky Survey magnitude limit in the redshift range 5.5 ?z? 6.5. We find that quasar hosts in the simulation are compact gas-rich systems with high star formation rates (SFRs) of SFR similar to 102103 M? yr-1 consistent with observed properties. We show that the star-forming gas in these galaxies predominantly originates from high-density cold streams which efficiently penetrate the halo and grow the galaxy at the centre. The ratio of molecular to total cold gas mass in these galaxies is Mmol/Mcold similar to 0.1, much larger than local galaxies of similar masses, indicating that star formation in high-redshift quasar host galaxies is more efficient than their local counterparts. We show that MassiveBlack predicts a deviation from the local MBHs and MBHM* relations, implying that black holes are relatively more massive for a given stellar host at these redshifts.

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