Paper detail

Is the black hole in NGC1277 really over-massive?

A claim has been made by van den Bosch et al. (2012) that NGC1277 hosts an over-massive BH with a mass larger than half its spheroid mass. We revisit this claim by examining the predictions from dynamical realisations based on new MGE models of NGC1277. We present realisations which fit the observed photometry. M/L is fixed following scaling relations which predict a Salpeter-like IMF. A model without a BH provides a surprisingly good fit of the observed kinematics outside the unresolved central region, but not, as expected, of the central dispersion and h4 values. A model with a MBH of 5 10^9 Msun allows to fit the dispersion profile, consistently with models of the same mass and M/L in vdB+12. It departs from the central h4 values by only about twice the given uncertainty. A slightly varying M/L or the addition of high velocity stars would further lower the need for a very massive BH. These results do not rule out the presence of an over-massive BH at the centre of NGC1277. However, they lead us to advocate the use of 3-sigma confidence intervals for derived MBH as better, more conservative, guidelines for such studies. We caution for the use of ill-defined spheroidal components as an input for scaling relations, and emphasise the fact that a MBH in the range 2-5 10^9 Msun would represent less than 5% of the spheroid mass of our models. This would make the BH in NGC1277 consistent or just twice as large as what a recent version of the MBH-sigma relation predicts. We examine the impact of the presence of a bar by running simulations from the same MGE model but with extreme anisotropies. An inner small bar forms, and an end-on view gets closer to fitting the central dispersion profile without the need for a central BH, while adding a black hole of 2.5 10^9 Msun, in line with the prediction from scaling relations, allows to fit the dispersion peak and h3 profiles. EDITED and ABRIDGED.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.