Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T01:54:22.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

AGN and the Demographics of Supermassive Black Holes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

Richard F. Green*
Affiliation:
Kitt Peak National Observatory, Tucson, AZ, USA; rgreen@noao.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

High angular resolution observations from WFPC and STIS now allow well-constrained dynamical measurement of the masses of supermassive black holes (SMBH) in nearby galaxies. An initial statistical analysis by Magorrian et al. showed that 97% of bulges host SMBH. Black hole mass is correlated moderately with bulge luminosity and strongly with the velocity dispersion of the whole bulge, suggesting that black hole formation may be an intrinsic aspect of bulge formation. Black hole masses for AGN determined from reverberation mapping fall on the same relationship with bulge velocity dispersion as those determined from stellar dynamical measurements. The prospect is therefore that the large-scale distribution of black hole masses in distant quasars may be determined through relatively straightforward measurement. Integral constraints show consistency between the total AGN luminosity density and the total volume density in SMBH contained in galaxy bulges. The strong peak of the high-luminosity quasar luminosity function at early cosmic time is consistent with the association of the build-up of SMBH through accretion and bulge formation. Alternate scenarios requiring substantial build-up of the most massive black holes at later cosmic times are more difficult to reconcile with the evolution of the LF.

Type
Part 5. AGN Phenomena
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of the Pacific 2002

References

Barger, A. et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2177.Google Scholar
Barth, A., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, R., 1990, å, 229, 441.Google Scholar
Bower, G.A., Green, R.F. et al., 1998, ApJ, 492, L111.Google Scholar
Boyle, B.J. et al., 2000, MNRAS, 317, 1014. Google Scholar
Chokshi, A. & Turner, E.L., 1992, MNRAS, 259, 441.Google Scholar
Dressler, A. & Richstone, D.O. 1988, ApJ, 324, 701.Google Scholar
Genzel, R. et al., 2000, MNRAS, 317, 348.Google Scholar
Elvis, M. et al. 1994, ApJS, 95, 1.Google Scholar
Fan, X. et al., 2001, AJ, 121, 54.Google Scholar
Ferrarese, L. & Merritt, D., 2000, ApJ, 539 L9.Google Scholar
Ferrarese, L., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 79.Google Scholar
Gebhardt, K. et al., 2000, ApJ, 539 L13.Google Scholar
Gebhardt, K. et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 2469 Google Scholar
Ghez, A. et al., 1998, ApJ, 509, 678.Google Scholar
Joseph, C. et al., 2001, Science, 293, 1116.Google Scholar
Kimble, R.A. et al., 1998, ApJ, 492, L83.Google Scholar
Kormendy, J., 1988, ApJ, 325, 128.Google Scholar
Kormendy, J. & Gebhardt, K., 2001, in AIP Conf. Proc. 586, The 20th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, eds, Wheeler, J. C. & Martel, H. (Melville:AIP), 363.Google Scholar
Magorrian, J. et al., 1998, AJ, 115, 2285.Google Scholar
Maoz, E., 1998, ApJ, 491, L181.Google Scholar
Miyoshi, M. et al. 1995, Nature, 373, 127 Google Scholar
Nelson, C., Bower, G. & Green, R.F., 2002, in preparation.Google Scholar
Richstone, D. et al. 1998, Nature, 395, A14.Google Scholar
Richstone, D. & Gebhardt, K., 2002, in preparation.Google Scholar
Salpeter, E.E., 1964, ApJ, 140, 796.Google Scholar
Sarzi, , et al., 2001, ApJ, 550, 65.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M., Schneider, D.P., & Gunn, J.E., 1991, AJ, 101, 1183.Google Scholar
Soltan, A., 1982, MNRAS, 200, 115.Google Scholar
Tremaine, S. et al., 2002, ApJ, 574, 740.Google Scholar
Wandel, A., Peterson, B. & Malkan, M., 1999, ApJ, 526, 579.Google Scholar
Woodgate, B. E. et al., 1998, PASP, 110, 1183.Google Scholar
Yu, Q. & Tremaine, S., 2002, MNRAS, in press.Google Scholar