Paper detail

The scaling relation between the mass of supermassive black holes and the kinetic energy of random motions of the host galaxies

Thanks to the angular resolution of modern telescopes and kinematic models, the existence of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) in the inner part of galaxies has been established on quite solid grounds. A possible correlation between the mass of SMBHs and the evolutionary state of their host galaxies is expected. Based on the recent 2D decomposition of mid-infrared Spiter/IRAC images of local galaxies with M_bh measurements, we investigated various scaling laws, studying what the best predictor of the mass of the central SMBHs is. We focused on the M_bh-M_G sigma^2 law, the relation between the mass of SMBHs and the kinetic energy of random motions of the corresponding host galaxies. In order to find the best fit for each of the scaling laws examined, we performed a least-squares regression of M_bh on x for the considered sample of galaxies, x being a whatever known parameter of the galaxy bulge. Our analysis shows that M_bh-M_G sigma^2 law fits the examined experimental data successfully as much as the other known scaling laws and shows a value of chi^2 better than the others, a result which is consistent with previous determinations. This means that a combination of sigma and M_G could be necessary to drive the correlations between M_bh and other bulge properties. This issue has been investigated by a careful analysis of the residuals of the various relations. In order to avoid rushed conclusions on galaxy activity and evolution, the indirect inferring of M_bh from the kinetic energy of random motions should be considered, especially when applied to higher redshift galaxies. This statement is suggested by a reanalysis of the SDSS data used to study the SMBH growth in the nearby Universe. Adopting the M_bh-M_G sigma^2 relation instead of the M_bh-sigma, a radio-quiet/radio-loud dichotomy appears in the SMBH mass distribution of the corresponding SDSS early-type AGN galaxies.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.

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.