COEVOLUTION OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES AND THEIR HOST GALAXIES...OR: CHICKEN, EGG OR BOTH? Jari Kotilainen Tuorla Observatory, University of Turku, Finland Renato Falomo Padova, Italy Marzia Labita Como, Italy Riccardo Scarpa ESO, Chile Aldo Treves Como, Italy

MOTIVATION black holes (BH) in all (?) nearby inactive bulges Barth 2004, Kormendy 2004 huge quasar power due to accretion onto BH quasars in massive bulge-dominated galaxies... Dunlop et al. 2003, Pagani et al. 2003, Floyd et al many with young stellar populations Nolan et al. 2001, Kauffmann et al. 2003, Jahnke et al => all massive galaxies host a BH and have been quasars?

tight M BH – M bulge –  bulge relations (at low z) M BH ~0.002 M bulge Kormendy & Richstone 1995, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000, Gebhardt et al. 2000, McLure & Dunlop 2002, Marconi & Hunt 2003, Bettoni et al. 2003, Häring & Rix 2004 Kormendy 2004 masers gas stars

quasar density vs BH accretion rate vs cosmic SFR history Madau et al. 1998, Chary & Elbaz 2001, Barger et al. 2001, Yu & Tremaine 2002, Marconi et al  => strong link between formation of BHs and galaxy bulges  Hasinger et al  Marconi et al. 2004

VIRIAL BLACK HOLE MASSES dynamical M BH for ~40 nearby luminous inactive galaxies * must resolve BH sphere of influence (r = GM BH /  2 ) high z inactive galaxies: M bulge easyM BH impossible high z quasar hosts: M BH easyM bulge difficult M BH can be derived from material gravitationally bound to the BH e.g. BLR: v BLR + R BLR => virial M BH = v BLR 2 R BLR / G Wandel et al. 1999, Kaspi et al. 2000, McLure & Jarvis 2002, Vestergaard 2002

M31 SgrA*

v BLR from FWHM of BLR emission lines * assumes BLR geometry (v BLR = f x FWHM; f = sqrt(3)/2 for isotropic field) R BLR from reverberation mapping Peterson 1993, Wandel et al. 1999, Peterson & Wandel 2000, Peterson 2001 virial M BH in agreement (at low z) with M BH –  bulge relation for inactive galaxies Nelson et al. 2004, Onken et al. 2004, Green & Ho 2005

shortcut to estimate R BLR at high z: quasar luminosity R BLR – L cont correlation => R BLR => M BH Kaspi et al. 2000, McLure & Jarvis 2002, Vestergaard 2002, Pian et al. 2005, Vestergaard et al ● * assumes validity of R BLR – L cont correlation for all objects at all z... Peterson 2004

similar M BH – M bulge relation for low z active and inactive galaxies Merritt & Ferrarese 2001, McLure & Dunlop 2002, Bettoni et al. 2003, Labita et al McLure & Dunlop 2002

evolution of M BH – M bulge relation with z? Shields et al. 2003, McLure et al. 2005, Peng et al => M BH /M bulge ratio larger at high z? * small samples, heterogeneous data, systematics... Peng et al. 2005

Ongoing work: ISAAC/NACO imaging of high z quasar hosts Falomo et al., 2004, 2005, 2006; Kotilainen et al passive evolution of spheroids massive BHs in place by z = 2 M bulge remains unchanged M BH ~0.002 M bulge (low z) => M BH remains unchanged? Kotilainen et al. 2006

New project: spectra of resolved quasars at 1 < z < m/EFOSC2 grism #4 (4085 – 7520 A) images => M bulge spectra => FWHM of CIV, CIII] and/or MgII + L cont at 1450 A => virial M BH

AIMS 1) demography of M BH as a function of z 2) evolution of M BH – M bulge * M BH can only increase with time * local M BH – L bulge relation * local galaxy LF and BH mass function 3) virial M BH vs. M BH – M bulge relation => geometrical factor f 4) RLQs vs RQQs * more massive BHs in RLQs ? Best et al. 2005, Labita et al ) evolution of L/L Edd * at low z, L > L Edd common McLure & Dunlop 2003

first data: Sept 2005 DDT (6 quasars) more to come: Sept 20065N PKS z = M(K) host = PKS z = 1.520M(K) host = -26.2

PKS z = 1.597M(K) host = Q z = 1.780M(K) host = -27.4