Black Hole Mass Scaling Relations for Spiral Galaxies. I. M_BH–M_*,sph

Abstract

The (supermassive black hole mass, M BH )-(bulge stellar mass, M * ,sph ) relation is, obviously, derived using two quantities. We endeavor to provide accurate values for the latter via detailed multicomponent galaxy decompositions for the current full sample of 43 spiral galaxies having directly measured M BH values; 35 of these galaxies have been alleged to contain pseudobulges, 21 have water maser measurements, and three appear bulgeless. This more than doubles the previous sample size of spiral galaxies with a finessed image analysis. We have analyzed near-infrared images, accounting for not only the bulge, disk (exponential, truncated, or inclined), and bar but also for spiral arms and rings and additional central components (active galactic nuclei (AGNs), etc.). A symmetric Bayesian analysis finds log (M BH /M ) = 2.44 +0.35 −0.31 log M * ,sph /[υ(1.15 × 10 10 M )] + (7.24 ± 0.12), with υ a stellar mass-to-light ratio term. The level of scatter equals that about the M BH -σ * relation. The nonlinear slope rules out the idea that many mergers, coupled with the central limit theorem, produced this scaling relation, and it corroborates previous observational studies and simulations, which have reported a near-quadratic slope at the low-mass end of the M BH -M * ,sph diagram. Furthermore, bulges with AGNs follow this relation; they are not offset by an order of magnitude, and models that have invoked AGN feedback to establish a linear M BH -M * ,sph relation need revisiting. We additionally present an updated M BH -(Sérsic index, n sph ) relation for spiral galaxy bulges with a comparable level of scatter and a new M * ,sph -(spiral-arm pitch angle, φ) relation.

The Most Massive Galaxies with Large Depleted Cores: Structural Parameter Relations and Black Hole Masses

“…A symmetrical OLS fit finds L V ∝ n 1.65±0.75 with r ∼ −0.30 (Table 6). Interestingly, however, the M BH − n relation that we derive combining our L V − n, R b − L V and R b − M BH,direct relations for the full sample (M BH ∝ n 2.75±1.31 ) has a slope which is consistent with those of the relations in Graham & Driver (2007, slope ∼ 2.68 ± 0.40) and Davis et al (2019, slope ∼ 2.69 ± 0.33).…”

Revealing Hidden Substructures in the MBH–σ Diagram, and Refining the Bend in the L–σ Relation

“…The velocity dispersion has been measured in many ways in literature, for example: luminosity-weighted line-of-sight stellar velocity dispersion within one ef-3 Davis et al (2019) and Sahu et al (2019) use ISOFIT (Ciambur 2015 to generate a 2D model of each galaxy, and further use Profiler (Ciambur 2016) to effectively realign the semi-major axis of each isophote. This 1D surface brightness profile effectively encapsulates all of the key information about the galaxy structure and flux, including ellipticity gradients, position angle twists, and deviations from elliptical-shaped isophotes up to the 12th order Fourier harmonic coefficients.…”

“…Interestingly, out of those common 72 galaxies, we have classified 27 as barred, and 45 as non-barred. The barred and non-barred classifications for our current sample are based on the morphologies obtained from the multi-component decompositions of these galaxies presented in our recent works (Savorgnan & Graham 2016;Davis et al 2019;Sahu et al 2019). We notice that in the data-set of Graham & Scott (2013), seven barred galaxies (NGC 224, NGC 2974, NGC 3245, NGC 3998, NGC 4026, NGC 4388, and NGC 6264) were misclassified as non-barred due to the presence of weak bars not detected in optical images (Eskridge et al 2000) 11 .…”

Stellar properties of the host galaxy of an ultraluminous X-ray source in NGC 5252

“…First, the BH-host mass relation was derived from the normal galaxies with M * > 10 9 M ⊙ , and it is unknown if the correlation holds for less massive galaxies (e.g. Davis et al 2018Davis et al , 2019Schutte et al 2019;Woo et al 2019). Second, the correlation appears to be tight only for elliptical galaxies and classical bulges.…”