2021
DOI: 10.3389/fspas.2021.694554
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Past, Present, and Future of the Scaling Relations of Galaxies and Active Galactic Nuclei

Abstract: We review the properties of the established Scaling Relations (SRs) of galaxies and active galactic nuclei (AGN), focusing on their origin and expected evolution back in time, providing a short history of the most important progresses obtained up to now and discussing the possible future studies. We also try to connect the observed SRs with the physical mechanisms behind them, examining to what extent current models reproduce the observational data. The emerging picture clarifies the complexity intrinsic to th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 874 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, the derived relation with dynamical mass measurements of MBHs may suffer significant selection bias (Shankar et al 2016). The MBH-host galaxy scaling relation may evolve with redshift as suggested by many authors (e.g., McLure et al 2006;Salviander et al 2007;Merloni et al 2010;Zhang et al 2012;Schulze & Wisotzki 2014;Decarli et al 2018;D'Onofrio et al 2021), which may contain critical information about the coevolution of MBHs with their host galaxies. In this work, we also demonstrate the potential of using GWB "observations" to set strong constraints on the redshift evolution of the MBHhost galaxy relationship.…”
Section: Constraining the Mbh-host Galaxy Relationship From The Gwbmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…In addition, the derived relation with dynamical mass measurements of MBHs may suffer significant selection bias (Shankar et al 2016). The MBH-host galaxy scaling relation may evolve with redshift as suggested by many authors (e.g., McLure et al 2006;Salviander et al 2007;Merloni et al 2010;Zhang et al 2012;Schulze & Wisotzki 2014;Decarli et al 2018;D'Onofrio et al 2021), which may contain critical information about the coevolution of MBHs with their host galaxies. In this work, we also demonstrate the potential of using GWB "observations" to set strong constraints on the redshift evolution of the MBHhost galaxy relationship.…”
Section: Constraining the Mbh-host Galaxy Relationship From The Gwbmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…1 To date, only about 150 such supermassive black holes (SMBHs) with M •  10 6 M e have been directly measured in just the nearest and most massive galaxies. 2 With SMBHs expected to reside in the hearts of almost every massive galaxy (Rees 1984), one can take their pick of scaling relations (see Graham 2016;D'Onofrio et al 2021 for informative reviews) to perform black hole mass estimates for large numbers of galaxies in surveys to construct black hole mass functions (e.g., Graham et al 2007;Mutlu-Pakdil et al 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even though galaxy formation and evolution is thought to depend on a number of different factors and processes, galaxies show remarkably tight correlations between some of their basic stellar and dynamical properties (e.g., Binggeli & Jerjen 1997;Tassis et al 2008). These scaling relations have been extensively studied for different galaxy types, in a range of environments, and in particular in light of a possible evolution with time (see, e.g., D'Onofrio et al 2021, for a recent review). A few examples of well-established galaxy scaling relations are the velocity-luminosity or Tully-Fisher relation (Tully & Fisher 1977;Courteau et al 2007), the Faber-Jackson relation (Faber & Jackson 1976), the Kormendy relation (Kormendy 1977), the fundamental plane of galaxies (e.g., Djorgovski & Davis 1987;Dressler et al 1987;Cappellari et al 2006;La Barbera et al 2008), the bulge-to-black hole mass relation (Magorrian et al 1998) and the mass-radius relation (Chiosi et al 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%