4.7 Article

On the inconsistency between the black hole mass function inferred from M•-σ and M•-L correlations

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 663, Issue 1, Pages 53-60

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/518225

Keywords

black hole physics; galaxies : elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies : fundamental parameters

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Black hole masses are tightly correlated with the stellar velocity dispersions of the bulges which surround them and slightly less well correlated with the bulge luminosity. It is common to use these correlations to estimate the expected abundance of massive black holes. This is usually done by starting from an observed distribution of velocity dispersions or luminosities and then changing variables. This procedure neglects the fact that there is intrinsic scatter in these black hole massYobservable correlations. Accounting for this scatter results in estimates of black hole abundances which are larger by almost an order of magnitude at masses > 10(9)M(circle dot). Including this scatter is particularly important for models which seek to infer quasar lifetimes and duty cycles from the local black hole mass function. However, even when scatter has been accounted for, the M-square-sigma relation predicts fewer massive black holes than does the M-square-L relation. This is because the sigma-L relation in the black hole samples currently available is inconsistent with that in the SDSS sample from which the distributions of L or sigma are based: the black hole samples have smaller L for a given sigma, or larger sigma for a given L. The sigma-L relation in the black hole samples is similarly discrepant with that in other samples of nearby early-type galaxies. This suggests that current black hole samples are biased: if this is a selection rather than a physical effect, then the M-circle-sigma and M-circle-L relations currently in the literature are also biased from their true values.

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