4.7 Article

The evolution of massive black hole seeds

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x

关键词

black hole physics; galaxies : evolution; quasars : general; cosmology : miscellaneous

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the evolution of high-redshift seed black hole masses at late times and their observational signatures. The massive black hole seeds studied here form at extremely high redshifts from the direct collapse of pre-galactic gas discs. Populating dark matter haloes with seeds formed in this way, we follow the mass assembly of these black holes to the present time using a Monte Carlo merger tree. Using this machinery, we predict the black hole mass function at high redshifts and at the present time, the integrated mass density of black holes and the luminosity function of accreting black holes as a function of redshift. These predictions are made for a set of three seed models with varying black hole formation efficiency. Given the accuracy of present observational constraints, all three models can be adequately fitted. Discrimination between the models appears predominantly at the low-mass end of the present-day black hole mass function which is not observationally well constrained. However, all our models predict that low surface brightness, bulgeless galaxies with large discs are least likely to be sites for the formation of massive seed black holes at high redshifts. The efficiency of seed formation at high redshifts has a direct influence on the black hole occupation fraction in galaxies at z = 0. This effect is more pronounced for low-mass galaxies. This is the key discriminant between the models studied here and the Population III remnant seed model. We find that there exist a population of low-mass galaxies that do not host nuclear black holes. Our prediction of the shape of the M-BH-sigma relation at the low-mass end is in agreement with the recent observational determination from the census of low-mass galaxies in the Virgo cluster.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据