2007
DOI: 10.1086/513086
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Black Hole Mass–Galaxy Bulge Relationship for QSOs in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 3

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

24
257
3

Year Published

2008
2008
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 227 publications
(284 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
24
257
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This relationship holds for a relatively wide range of luminosities up to L bol ¼ 10 46 ergs s À1 , and is extrapolated to higher luminosities to estimate black hole masses for bright QSOs. As discussed by Salviander et al (2007), the calibration used by Shields et al (2006b) is consistent with observed M . and à in Seyfert galaxies (Onken et al 2004).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 72%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This relationship holds for a relatively wide range of luminosities up to L bol ¼ 10 46 ergs s À1 , and is extrapolated to higher luminosities to estimate black hole masses for bright QSOs. As discussed by Salviander et al (2007), the calibration used by Shields et al (2006b) is consistent with observed M . and à in Seyfert galaxies (Onken et al 2004).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 72%
“…Recent studies by Shields et al (2006a), Peng et al (2006), Salviander et al (2007), and others suggest that the M . -Ã relationship evolves with redshift in the sense that, for a given M .…”
Section: Comment On Evolution Of Thementioning
confidence: 97%
“…As summarized above, the growth of black holes seems to occur in galaxies that are at least qualitatively similar to those in which black holes grow today. The relationship between black hole mass and galaxy velocity dispersion has apparently evolved only weakly if at all (Salviander et al 2007, but see Woo et al 2007). So the z ∼ 1 universe 8 T. M. Heckman looks sort of like the z ∼ 0 universe on steroids.…”
Section: The Importance Of Surveysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most efforts have been devoted to the study of the M BH -σ * relation. Shields et al (2003) and Salviander et al (2007) have used narrow nebular emission lines ([O iii], [O ii]) excited by the AGN emission in the nuclear region of galaxies as proxies for the central velocity dispersion, and compared these to the black hole mass estimated from the broad line width of QSOs from z ∼ 0 to z ∼ 3 (see Section 4). In both cases, a large scatter has been found in the relation between M BH and σ * , and the results are either in favor of (Salviander et al 2007) or against (Shields et al 2003) a positive evolution of the black hole mass to host dispersion ratio.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Shields et al (2003) and Salviander et al (2007) have used narrow nebular emission lines ([O iii], [O ii]) excited by the AGN emission in the nuclear region of galaxies as proxies for the central velocity dispersion, and compared these to the black hole mass estimated from the broad line width of QSOs from z ∼ 0 to z ∼ 3 (see Section 4). In both cases, a large scatter has been found in the relation between M BH and σ * , and the results are either in favor of (Salviander et al 2007) or against (Shields et al 2003) a positive evolution of the black hole mass to host dispersion ratio. However, as pointed out by Botte et al (2004) and Greene & Ho (2005), there are a number of problems with the underlying assumption that the narrow emission lines are good probes of the central gravitational potential, and the systematic uncertainties this method is endowed with are large.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%