1. Keck NIRSPEC/AO spectra of nearest Seyfert 1s Multiple slit positions  2D velocity and flux distribution maps Model 2D velocity field to estimate M BH directly I. How Good Are our M BH Estimates in Local Seyfert 1 Nuclei? Test Using Gas Kinematics Erin Hicks & Matt Malkan UCLA

2. NGC 3227: H 2 2.1218  m & 2.4237  m  Gaussian fit to the emission line profile for each aperture  Velocities measured to an accuracy of 20 km s -1 Peak 0''.5 SE

3. NGC 7469: H 2 2.1218  m & 1.9576  m  Rotational velocity pattern confirmed in at least one other H 2 line, in 3227 and 7469  H2 velocity is measurable fairly far out

4. NGC 4151 H2 also shows sharp velocity gradient

5. Summary of 2D Velocity Maps Organized Velocity Gradient: NGC 3227 (150-200 k/s across central tenths of '‘,=tens of parsecs) NGC 4051 NGC 4151 NGC 7469 No Velocity Gradient: NGC 3516 NGC 5548 (NGC 6814) Emission too Weak to NGC 4593 Measure Reliably: Ark 120

6. One Single slit position (angle=100 o, offset=0''.09; there are 33 more) with Sérsic n=3 stellar models and disk PA=130 o CO disk has PA=158 o (Schinnerer et al. 2004). 2D Modeling of H 2 Rotation in NGC 3227 Each small tick is 7 parsecs

7. Explore wide range of acceptable models for molecular gas in NGC 3227 M BH of a few 10 7 M sun Is better than nothing Stellar M/L H of 0.5 to 1.0 Is very astrophysically reasonable

8. Massive Black Hole also required in NGC 4151 M BH =0.8—3 x 10 7 M sun, (Again does not reach 3  Significance)

9. Low-inclination (not far from face-on) molecular disk always fits better

10. Two data points aren’t quite enough to settle the entire story

11. With only two (noisy) detections and a few upper limits, All we can say is that reverberation masses are not too badly off

12. Reporter asked Chou-en-lai what he thought was the significance of the French Revolution He said: “It is too soon to tell.” “…Why don’t you guys get OSIRIS data?”

13. II. Remarkable Two-way Correlation: 1. Only the most luminous galaxies are Chandra sources (accreting SMBHs) Colbert, MM, Teplitz, and some non-UCLA people used NICMOS in Parallel imaging mode* to measure NIR (starlight) from galaxies in X-Ray Deep Fields 2. Virtually all of the massive/star- forming galaxies harbor AGN (X-rays from accretion). Not X-ray detection Large Symbol: X-ray detection (40) Colbert et al. 2005 Ap J. 621, 587 * Discontinued last year

14. So Massive Galaxies were building up central black holes early on; III. When was current Galaxy Bulge/Central Black Hole Mass correlation established? MM, with Tommaso Treu (Hubble Fellow at UCLA, now UCSB), Jonghak Woo (UCSB), and Roger Blandford (Stanford) Weigh them, way back (4 Gyears ago): Is the SMBH/host galaxy correlation the same as today?

15. Measuring MBH/  in distant universe: 2 problems 1. Black hole mass: “sphere of influence” is too small to resolve (0.1” at z=1 is ~800 pc) 2. Velocity dispersion: distant objects are faint, and heavily contaminated by AGN continuum Solution: Broad-line AGN 1) Reverberation mapping of BLR (AGNWatch, started late ‘80s) 2) Empirically calibrated photo-ionization method, based on reverberation masses (Wandel, Peterson, MM 1999). Solution: Seyfert 1 host galaxies integrated spectra have enough starlight superposed on the featureless AGN continuum, to measure 

16. Testing M BH -  Relation at z~0.36 Sample selection redshift window: z=0.36  0.01 to avoid sky lines 30 objects selected from SDSS, based on broad H  Observations Keck spectra for 20 objects; sigma measured for 14 HST images for 20 objects

17. Measuring velocity dispersion All 14 determinations of  Possible emission lines are masked out

18. The Black-Hole Mass vs Sigma relation at z~~0.37 disagrees with z=0 Treu, Malkan & Blandford 2004 + Woo, MM, TT, RB 2006 first half of data gave 2  evolution; Woo et al. 2006--doubling data makes this 3  Systematic errors are not that large overall systematic errors ( from Stellar contamination, aperture correction, inclination): Δlog MBH = 0.25 dex, smaller than observed offset Δlog MBH ~ 0.6 dex Ie, M BH /galaxy Mass ratio was about 4 times higher 4 Gyrs ago

19. Assuming this is real, We can think of too many different possible explanations Something in Mbh/Sigma/Lbulge Was different 4 Gyrs ago: Maybe Fundamental Plane--not Mbh/Lbulge correlation--was the problem?

20. Check with ACS Images: these bulges do not look very impressive: their low L bulge is consistent with modest sigmas

21. Is evolution real? Independent check that bulges are “too small” for M BH With HST ACS images, quantify host galaxy properties determined from 2-D fits: They lie on the Fundamental Plane, ie, normal for z=0.4, with simple passive Luminosity evolution of stellar population 2006 TT, MM, JW

22. The M BH - M bulge relation, from fits to ACS images: Δlog M BH > 0.59±0.19 dex P(KS)=1.3% Assuming normal passive evolution of stellar population, Evolutionary Offset from z=0 to 0.36 in M BH /L bulge is similar to what we found from M BH /  M BH /M bulge 4 times larger

23. 2.Near perfect one-to-one association between massive galaxies and AGN X-ray emission 3.Cosmic evolution in Galaxy/BH Relations: Although they have been correlated over most of cosmic history, SM BH growth was “completed” ahead of bulge assembly Conclusion: Only 3 Figures to Remember 1. H 2 rotation curves give M bh consistent with Reverberation mapping

24. Keck NIRSPEC/AO  R ~ 2000  1.9 - 2.4  m (K-band)  0.''0185/pixel  Correction from optical nucleus, gives Average FWHM = 0''.1  0''.037 x 3''.93 Slit SCAM : Slit viewing camera  Accurate slit position  PSF monitoring  0.''0168/pixel  4''.4 x 4''.4 FOV Simultaneous direct imaging

25. NGC 3227NGC 3516NGC 4051 NGC 4151NGC 4593NGC 5548 Ark 120NGC 7469NGC 6814 6'' 74 172 47 64175 334 101318 613 pc/'' Galaxy 5.1 hr1.8 hr3.9 hr 4.1 hr0.3 hr1.3 hr 0.9 hr1.9 hr3.1 hrTotal Exp. Get Lots of Slit Positions Assume Ho=75 km s -1 Mpc -1 Sample of Seyfert 1s Each thin black line is a single slit position, superposed on NICMOS images Thicker lines are overlapping slits. Assumed Ho = 75 km s -1 Mpc -1

26. Strongest Gas Emission Lines: H 2 & Br H 2 1.9576 2.1218 2.2235 2.2477 2.4066 2.4237 Br 2.1661 Example nuclear spectra from a 0''.05 x 0''.04 aperture.

27. The FP of Spheroids at z~0.36 At z=0.36, all Spheroids are overluminous for their mass, as expected from passive stellar evolution.

28. High S/N (100-1 per Angstrom) Keck LRIS Spectra H  H  [OIII] MgI/FeI

29. Measuring velocity dispersion in z=0.36 Seyfert 1 galaxies: 1 example Mg I 5175A Fe I 5269A Broadened K giant spectrum Spectrum Zoom:

30. Black-Hole Mass in Seyfert 1 nucleus: H  width estimation M BH ~ R BLR V BLR 2 /G (Wandel, Peterson, Malkan 1999) Single epoch spectra provide a good measure of the H  width (  ), if narrow (constant) component is removed (Vestergaard 2002)  need high SNR (Keck provided it on these 19 th mag Seyferts) Treu, Malkan & Blandford 2004 [OIII]5007 [OIII]4959 =[OIII]5007/ 3 NLR core of H 

31. 2) Estimating BLR size: Empirically Calibrated Photo-Ionization Method The flux needed to ionize the broad line region scales as L IONIZING /R BLR 2. An empirical correlation is found, calibrated using reverberation mapping (which determines R BLR from direct measurement of light-crossing time) BLR size R BLR (lt-days) L (5100A) (erg/s) Estimating virial M BH from BLR R BLR

32. The M BH - L bulge relation Δlog M BH > 0.42±0.14 dex P(KS)=10%

33. < 10% of Eddington mass accretion rate = ~ 0.1-0.5 (solarmass/yr) Are these BHs rapidly growing?

34. Open Questions Theoretical studies “predict”: No evolution (Granato et al. 2004) Sigma increases with redshift (Robertson et al. 2005) Stellar mass (sigma) decreases with redshift (Croton 2006)  Is the ratio of growth rates constant? M BH -  and M BH -L bulge relations? When were they formed? Do they evolve? If spheroids evolve by mergers, what makes these scaling relations?

35. A Scenario The M-sigma relation should be already in place for larger masses! The characteristic mass scale decreases with time (downsizing), consistent with that of our galaxies at z=0.36 Major mergers 1) trigger AGN & SF, 2) quench SF by feedback, 3) increase bulge size

36. Updated with L 5100A correction OldNew

37. M BH : measuring L 5100 Calibration of spectrophotometry on SDSS-DR4 photometry

38. Fe II subtraction Fe II fit with I zw 1 template Measuring velocity dispersion (  )

39. Evolution of M-sigma Relation redshift Δlog M BH = 0.62±0.10±0.25 dex for z~0.36 sample Δ log M BH

40. ACS images of z=0.36 Seyfert 1’s These Seyfert 1 galaxy hosts are big and bright A high proportion of them (?) appear to be undergoing close encounters 55 Kpc

41. Bulges at z~0.36 are smaller/less luminous than suggested by the local M BH -sigma relation. Systematic error? (< 0.25 dex in log M BH ) Selection effects (possibly in the local relationship; spirals vs bulge dominated systems)? Significant recent evolution of bulges if M-sigma relation is the final destiny of BH-galaxy co-evolution. Conclusions

42. 1. Only the most luminous galaxies are Chandra X-ray sources Colbert, MM, Teplitz, and some non-UCLA people used NICMOS in Parallel observing mode to measure IR (starlight) from galaxies in Chandra Deep Fields 2. Virtually all of the massive galaxies harbor AGN

43. Black Hole Mass vs Sigma. Feasible in special redshift windows Seyfert 1 Galaxies selected from SDSS based on redshift z=0.35 - 0.37