Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:37:32.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Black hole and nuclear cluster scaling relations: Mbh ∝ Mnc2.7±0.7

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2016

Alister W. Graham
Alister W. Graham*
Affiliation:
Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia. email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

There is a growing array of supermassive black hole and nuclear star cluster scaling relations with their host spheroid, including a bent (black hole mass)–(host spheroid mass) Mbh–Msph relation and a different (massive compact object mass)–(host spheroid velocity dispersion) Mmco–σ relations for black holes and nuclear star clusters. By combining the observed Mbh ∝ σ5.5 relation with the observed Mnc ∝ σ1.6–2.7 relation, we derive the expression Mbh ∝ Mnc2–3.4, which should hold until the nuclear star clusters are eventually destroyed in the larger core-Sérsic spheroids. This new mass scaling relation helps better quantify the rapid evolutionary growth of massive black holes in dense star clusters, and the relation is consistently recovered when coupling the observed Mnc ∝ Msph0.6–1.0 relation with the recently observed quadratic relation Mbh ∝ Msph2 for Sérsic spheroids.

Keywords

galaxiesblack holesnuclear star clusters
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 10 , Issue S312: Star Clusters and Black Holes in Galaxies across Cosmic Time , August 2014 , pp. 269 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2016 

References

Balcells, M., Graham, A. W., Domínguez-Palmero, L., & Peletier, R. F. 2003, ApJ Lett., 582, L79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcells, M., Graham, A. W., & Peletier, R. F. 2007a, ApJ, 665, 1084Google Scholar
Bekki, K. & Graham, A. W. 2010, ApJ Lett., 714, L313Google Scholar
Brown, J. S., Valluri, M., Shen, J., & Debattista, V. P. 2013, ApJ, 778, 151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappellari, M., McDermid, R. M., Alatalo, K.et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1862Google Scholar
Côté, P., Piatek, S., Ferrarese, L., et al. 2006, ApJS, 165, 57Google Scholar
Davies, R. L., Efstathiou, G., Fall, S. M., Illingworth, G., & Schechter, P. L. 1983, ApJ, 266, 41Google Scholar
Debattista, V. P., Kazantzidis, S., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2013, ApJ, 765, 23Google Scholar
den Brok, M., Peletier, R. F., Seth, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, accepted (arXiv:1409.4766)Google Scholar
Dullo, B. T. & Graham, A. W. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2700Google Scholar
GonzálezDelgado, R. M. Delgado, R. M., Pérez, E., CidFernandes, R. Fernandes, R., & Schmitt, H. 2008, AJ, 135, 747Google Scholar
Graham, A. W. 2008, ApJ, 680, 143Google Scholar
Graham, A. W. 2012a, ApJ, 746, 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, A. W. 2012b, MNRAS, 422, 1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, A. W. 2013, in “Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems”, Vol. 6, p. 91–140, Oswalt, T.D. & Keel, W.C (eds.), Springer Publishing (arXiv:1108.0997)Google Scholar
Graham, A. W., Erwin, P., Trujillo, I., & AsensioRamos, A. Ramos, A. 2003, AJ, 125, 2951Google Scholar
Graham, A. W. & Guzmán, R. 2003, AJ, 125, 2936Google Scholar
Graham, A. W., Onken, C. A., Athanassoula, E., & Combes, F. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2211Google Scholar
Graham, A. W. & Li, I-H. 2009, ApJ, 698, 812Google Scholar
Graham, A. W. & Scott, N. 2013, ApJ, 764, 151Google Scholar
Graham, A. W. & Spitler, L. R. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 2148Google Scholar
Grant, N. I., Kuipers, J. A., & Phillipps, S. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, J. E., Peng, C. Y., Kim, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, M., Debattista, V. P., Cole, D. R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 441, 1243Google Scholar
Hu, J. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 2242Google Scholar
Kormendy, J. & Bender, R. 2011, Nature, 469, 377Google Scholar
Lauer, T. R., Ajhar, E. A., Byun, Y.-I., et al. 1995, AJ, 110, 2622Google Scholar
Leigh, N., Böker, T., & Knigge, C. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2130Google Scholar
Matković, A., & Guzmán, R. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, N. J. & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184Google Scholar
Neumayer, N. & Walcher, C. J. 2012, Advances in Astronomy 2012 (arXiv:1201.4950)Google Scholar
Scott, N. & Graham, A. W. 2013, ApJ, 763, 76Google Scholar
Scott, N., Graham, A. W., & Schombert, J. 2013, ApJ, 768, 76Google Scholar
Sérsic, J.-L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia, vol.6, p.41Google Scholar
Seth, A., Agüeros, M., Lee, D., & Basu-Zych, A. 2008, ApJ, 678, 116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trujillo, I., Erwin, P., Asensio Ramos, A., & Graham, A. W. 2004, AJ, 127, 1917Google Scholar
Wehner, E. H. & Harris, W. E. 2006, ApJ Lett., 644, L17Google Scholar