4.7 Article

The black hole mass of NGC 4151: Comparison of reverberation mapping and stellar dynamical measurements

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 670, 期 1, 页码 105-115

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/522220

关键词

black hole physics; galaxies : active; galaxies : nuclei; galaxies : structure; stellar dynamics

资金

  1. STFC [PP/D001013/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [PP/D001013/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a stellar dynamical estimate of the black hole (BH) mass in the Seyfert 1 galaxy, NGC 4151. We analyze ground-based spectroscopy as well as imaging data from the ground and space, and we construct three-integral axisymmetric models in order to constrain the BH mass and mass-to-light ratio. The dynamical models depend on the assumed inclination of the kinematic symmetry axis of the stellar bulge. In the case in which the bulge is assumed to be viewed edge-on, the kinematical data give only an upper limit to the mass of the BH, of similar to 4 x 10(7) M circle dot (1 sigma). If the bulge kinematic axis is assumed to have the same inclination as the symmetry axis of the large-scale galaxy disk (i.e., 23 degrees relative to the line of sight), a best-fit dynamical mass between 4 and 5; 10(7) M circle dot is obtained. However, because of the poor quality of the fit when the bulge is assumed to be inclined (as determined by the noisiness of the chi(2) surface and its minimumvalue) and becausewe lack spectroscopic data that clearly resolves the BH sphere of influence, we consider our measurements to be tentative estimates of the dynamical BH mass. With this preliminary result, NGC 4151 is now among the small sample of galaxies in which the BH mass has been constrained from two independent techniques, and the mass values we find for both bulge inclinations are in reasonable agreement with the recent estimate from reverberation mapping (4.57(-0.47)(+0.57) x 10(7) M circle dot) published by Bentz et al.

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