4.6 Article

SECULAR EVOLUTION AND A NON-EVOLVING BLACK-HOLE-TO-GALAXY MASS RATIO IN THE LAST 7 Gyr

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 741, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/1/L11

关键词

galaxies: active; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: nuclei

资金

  1. German Science Foundation (DFG)
  2. AURA Inc. under NASA [NAS 5-26555]
  3. ESA Member States
  4. NASA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present new constraints on the ratio of black hole (BH) mass to total galaxy stellar mass at 0.3 < z < 0.9 for a sample of 32 type-1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs) from the XMM-COSMOS survey covering the range M-BH similar to 10(7.2) (8.7) M-circle dot. Virial MBH estimates based on H beta are available from the COSMOS Magellan/IMACS survey. We use high-resolution Hubble Space Telescope (HST) imaging to decompose the light of each type-1 AGN and host galaxy, and employ a specially built mass-to-light ratio to estimate the stellar masses (M*). The M-BH-M* ratio shows a zero offset with respect to the local relation for galactic bulge masses, and we also find no evolution in the mass ratio M-BH/M*. alpha (1 + z)(0.02 +/- 0.34) up to z similar to 0.9. Interestingly, at the high-M-BH end there is a positive offset from the z = 0 relation, which can be fully explained by a mass function bias with a cosmic scatter of sigma(mu) = 0.3, reaffirming that the intrinsic distribution is consistent with zero evolution. From our results we conclude that since z similar to 0.9 no substantial addition of stellar mass is required: the decline in star formation rates and merger activity at z < 1 support this scenario. Nevertheless, given that a significant fraction of these galaxies show a disk component, their bulges are indeed undermassive. This is a direct indication that for the last 7 Gyr the only essential mechanism required for these galaxies to obey the z = 0 relation is a redistribution of stellar mass to the bulge, likely driven by secular processes, i.e., internal instabilities and minor merging.

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

4.6
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