4.7 Article

Probing the coevolution of supermassive black holes and quasar host galaxies

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 640, Issue 1, Pages 114-125

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/499930

Keywords

galaxies : bulges; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : fundamental parameters; galaxies : structure; quasars : general

Ask authors/readers for more resources

At low redshift, there are fundamental correlations between the mass of supermassive black holes (M-BH) and the mass (M-bulge) and luminosity of the host galaxy bulge. We investigate the same relation at z greater than or similar to 1. Using virial mass estimates for 11 quasars at z greater than or similar to 2 to measure their black hole mass, we find that black holes at high z fall nearly on the same MBH versus R-band magnitude (M-R) relation (to similar to 0.3 mag) as low-redshift active and inactive galaxies, without making any correction for luminosity evolution. Using a set of conservative assumptions about the host galaxy stellar population, we show that at z greater than or similar to 2 ( 10 Gyr ago), the ratio of M-BH/M-bulge was 3-6 times larger than today. Barring unknown systematic errors on the measurement of MBH, we also rule out scenarios in which moderately luminous quasar hosts at z greater than or similar to 2 were fully formed bulges that passively faded to the present epoch. On the other hand, five quasar hosts at z greater than or similar to 1 are consistent with the current-day M-BH-M-R relationship after taking into account evolution that is appropriate for E/S0 galaxies. Therefore, z greater than or similar to 1 host galaxies appear to fit the hypothesis that they are fully formed early-type galaxies. We also find that most quasar hosts with absolute magnitudes brighter than M-R = -23 cannot fade below L-* galaxies today, regardless of their stellar population makeup, because their black hole masses are too high and they must arrive at the local M-BH-M-R relationship by z = 0.

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