Paper detail

The Masses of Nuclear Black Holes in Luminous Elliptical Galaxies and Implications for the Space Density of the Most Massive Black Holes

Black hole masses predicted from the Mbh-sigma relationship conflict with those predicted from the Mbh-L relationship for the most luminous galaxies, such as brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs). This is because stellar velocity dispersion, sigma, increases only weakly with L for BCGs and other giant ellipticals. The Mbh-L relationship predicts that the most luminous BCGs may have Mbh approaching 10^{10}M_sol, while the M-sigma relationship always predicts Mbh<3X10^9M_sol. We argue that the Mbh-L relationship is a plausible or even preferred description for BCGs and other galaxies of similar luminosity. If cores in central stellar density are formed by binary BHs, then the inner-core cusp radius, r_gamma, may be an independent witness of Mbh. Using structural parameters derived from a large sample of early-type galaxies observed by HST, we argue that L is superior to sigma as an indicator of r_gamma in luminous galaxies. The observed r_gamma-Mbh relationship for 11 core galaxies with measured Mbh appears to be consistent with the Mbh-L relationship for BCGs. BCGs have large cores appropriate for their large luminosities that may be difficult to generate with the modest BH masses inferred from the Mbh-sigma relationship. Mbh~L may be expected to hold for BCGs, if they were formed in dissipationless mergers, which should preserve ratio of BH to stellar mass. This picture appears to be consistent with the slow increase in sigma with L and the more rapid increase in effective radii with L seen in BCGs. If BCGs have large BHs commensurate with their luminosities, then the local BH mass function for Mbh>3X10^9M_sol may be nearly an order of magnitude richer than that inferred from the Mbh-sigma relationship. The volume density of QSOs at earlier epochs may favor the predictions from the Mbh-L relationship.

preprint2007arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access14 authors1 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.

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.