Leo I dwarf galaxy has a stunningly large SMBH
- notFritzArgelander
- In Memory
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 14925
- Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
- 4
- Location: Idaho US
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Awards Badges
Leo I dwarf galaxy has a stunningly large SMBH
at least for its size. Very little DM is present too. (Take that you MONDians!),
https://phys.org/news/2021-12-astronome ... -hole.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-12-astronome ... -hole.html
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
- helicon
- Co-Administrator
- Articles: 585
- Posts: 12280
- Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 1:35 pm
- 4
- Location: Washington
- Status:
Online
-
TSS Awards Badges
Re: Leo I dwarf galaxy has a stunningly large SMBH
It seems like most galaxies, even dwarves, have SMBH 's at their center. Normal part of astrophysics, I suppose.
-Michael
Refractors: ES AR152 f/6.5 Achromat on Twilight II, Celestron 102mm XLT f/9.8 on Celestron Heavy Duty Alt Az mount, KOWA 90mm spotting scope
Binoculars: Celestron SkyMaster 15x70, Bushnell 10x50
Eyepieces: Various, GSO Superview, 9mm Plossl, Celestron 25mm Plossl
Camera: ZWO ASI 120
Naked Eye: Two Eyeballs
Latitude: 48.7229° N
Refractors: ES AR152 f/6.5 Achromat on Twilight II, Celestron 102mm XLT f/9.8 on Celestron Heavy Duty Alt Az mount, KOWA 90mm spotting scope
Binoculars: Celestron SkyMaster 15x70, Bushnell 10x50
Eyepieces: Various, GSO Superview, 9mm Plossl, Celestron 25mm Plossl
Camera: ZWO ASI 120
Naked Eye: Two Eyeballs
Latitude: 48.7229° N
- notFritzArgelander
- In Memory
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 14925
- Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
- 4
- Location: Idaho US
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Awards Badges
Re: Leo I dwarf galaxy has a stunningly large SMBH
What is abnormal about this is the size of the
https://aasnova.org/2020/09/30/the-link ... -galaxies/
Shows that there are three leading hypotheses for such a relationship, one of them being that it is a meaningless statistical fluke.
The most recent reference I know of takes the relationship seriously https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.11875
The only part of this that is settled is the relationship that determined the mass of Leo I'sCorrelations between the mass of a supermassive black hole and the properties of its host galaxy (e.g., total stellar mass (M*), luminosity (Lhost)) suggest an evolutionary connection. A powerful test of a co-evolution scenario is to measure the relations MBH-Lhost and MBH-M* at high redshift and compare with local estimates. For this purpose, we acquired HST imaging with WFC3 of 32 X-ray-selected broad-line AGN at 1.2<z<1.7 in deep survey fields. By applying state-of-the-art tools to decompose the HST images including available ACS data, we measured the host galaxy luminosity and stellar mass along with other properties through the 2D model fitting. The black hole mass was determined using the broad Halpha line, detected in the near-infrared with Subaru/FMOS, which potentially minimizes systematic effects using other indicators. We find that the observed ratio of MBH to total M* is 2.7 times larger at z~1.5 than in the local universe, while the scatter is equivalent between the two epochs. A non-evolving mass ratio is consistent with the data at the 2-3 sigma confidence level when accounting for selection effects and their uncertainties. The relationship between MBH-Lhost paints a similar picture. Therefore, our results cannot distinguish whether SMBHs and their total M* and Lhost proceed in lockstep or whether the growth of the former somewhat overshoots the latter, given the uncertainties. Based on a statistical estimate of the bulge-to-total mass fraction, the ratio MBH/M* is offset from the local value by a factor of ~7 which is significant even accounting for selection effects. Taken together, these observations are consistent with a scenario in which stellar mass is subsequently transferred from an angular momentum supported component of the galaxy to the pressure supported one through secular processes or minor mergers at a faster rate than mass accretion onto the SMBH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M–sigma_relation
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
Create an account or sign in to join the discussion
You need to be a member in order to post a reply
Create an account
Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute