2. IAU 238 2006 Jong-Hak Woo Univ. California Santa Barbara Collaborators: Tommaso Treu (UCSB), Matt Malkan (UCLA), & Roger Blandford (Stanford) Cosmic Evolution of Black Holes and Spheroids to z~0.4

3. IAU 238 2006 Local Scaling Relations M BH -  relation (Ferraresse et al. 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000) Tremaine et al. (2002) Marconi & Hunt (2003) M BH – L bulge relation (Magorrian et al. 1998; Marconi & Hunt 2003) Log M BH Dispersion (  ) km/s Log L bulge K

4. IAU 238 2006 Open Questions Theoretical Predictions: No evolution (Granato et al. 2004) vel. dispersion increases with redshift (Robertson et al. 2005) Stellar mass decreases with redshift (Croton 2006) When did scaling relations form? Do they evolve? Core issues: BH growth faster than bulge growth at high z or low z? Stellar contribution from cold disk to bulge

5. IAU 238 2006 Distant universe: two problems 1) Black hole mass: CANNOT resolve the sphere of influence (1” at z=1 is ~8 kpc) 2) Velocity dispersion: CANNOT avoid AGN contamination. Solution: Active galaxies with BLR 1) Reverberation mapping (Blandford & McKee 1982) 2) Empirical size-luminosity relation, based on reverberation sample (Wandel et al. 1999; Kaspi et al. 2005). Solution: Seyfert 1 galaxies integrated spectra have enough starlight to measure  on the featureless AGN continuum.

6. IAU 238 2006 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  and z Observations Keck spectra for 20 objects; sigma measured for 14 HST images for 20 objects Monitoring ~10 objects with Lick for reverberation mapping

7. IAU 238 2006 Fe II subtraction Fe II fit with I zw 1 template Measuring velocity dispersion (  )

8. IAU 238 2006 The M BH - sigma Relation Woo et al. 2006 Tremaine 02 Ferrarese 02

9. IAU 238 2006 Evolution of M-sigma Relation redshift Δlog M BH = 0.62±0.10±0.25 dex for z~0.36 sample Offset (Δ log M BH ) No dependency on absolute scale of M BH

10. 1) Systematic errors? Stellar contamination, aperture correction, inclination overall systematic errors: Δlog M BH = 0.25 dex, smaller than offset Δlog M BH ~ 0.6 dex 2) Selection effects? local sample: mostly early-type, large scatter? BH mass? our sample: narrow range of parameters 3) Cosmic evolution? BH growth predates bulge assembly Interpretation

11. IAU 238 2006 Is evolution real? An independent check Testing M BH - L bulge and M BH - M dyn relations With HST-ACS images, host galaxy properties determined. Treu & Woo 2006 in prep.

12. IAU 238 2006 The FP of Spheroids at z~0.36 Spheroids are overluminous for their mass. Generally interpreted as passive evolution.

13. IAU 238 2006 M BH - L bulge Relation Δlog M BH > 0.42±0.14 dexΔlog M BH > 0.59±0.19 dex M BH - M bulge Relation

14. IAU 238 2006 Recent evolution of (active) bulges?

15. IAU 238 2006 A Scenario Hopkins et al. 2006 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

16. IAU 238 2006 Bulges at z~0.36 appear to be smaller/less luminous than suggested by the local M BH -sigma relation. Systematic errors? (< 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