2015
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/72
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Coevolution of Nuclear Star Clusters, Massive Black Holes, and Their Host Galaxies

Abstract: Studying how nuclear star clusters (NSCs) form and how they are related to the growth of the central massive black holes (MBHs) and their host galaxies is fundamental for our understanding of the evolution of galaxies and the processes that have shaped their central structures. We present the results of a semi-analytical galaxy formation model that follows the evolution of dark matter halos along merger trees, as well as that of the baryonic components. This model allows us to study the evolution of NSCs in a … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
212
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 181 publications
(220 citation statements)
references
References 139 publications
2
212
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Including (the bulges of) spirals in our reference sample of ellipticals and lenticulars (that of Savorgnan et al 2016) confirms and extends our results. In this context it is no longer meaningful, at least within the biased samples, to look for outliers in the observed M bhMstar relation, such as "pseudo-bulges" (e.g., , or examine whether bulge or total luminosity is a better predictor of M bh (e.g., Marconi & Hunt 2003;Häring & Rix 2004;Läsker et al 2014), or consider the connection to nuclear star clusters only in terms of stellar mass (e.g., Antonini et al 2015;Georgiev et al 2016). Our Monte Carlo results constrain the normalization of the intrinsic black hole-galaxy scaling relations to be a factor of 3 lower than current estimates, in terms of velocity dispersion, and up to a factor of ∼ 50 − 100 lower when expressing black hole masses as a function of stellar mass (e.g., Figure 3).…”
Section: Direct Implications Of the Bias In The Observed Scaling Relamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Including (the bulges of) spirals in our reference sample of ellipticals and lenticulars (that of Savorgnan et al 2016) confirms and extends our results. In this context it is no longer meaningful, at least within the biased samples, to look for outliers in the observed M bhMstar relation, such as "pseudo-bulges" (e.g., , or examine whether bulge or total luminosity is a better predictor of M bh (e.g., Marconi & Hunt 2003;Häring & Rix 2004;Läsker et al 2014), or consider the connection to nuclear star clusters only in terms of stellar mass (e.g., Antonini et al 2015;Georgiev et al 2016). Our Monte Carlo results constrain the normalization of the intrinsic black hole-galaxy scaling relations to be a factor of 3 lower than current estimates, in terms of velocity dispersion, and up to a factor of ∼ 50 − 100 lower when expressing black hole masses as a function of stellar mass (e.g., Figure 3).…”
Section: Direct Implications Of the Bias In The Observed Scaling Relamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The minus sign in the expression of the inflow 3 An additional caveat is related to a putative stellar spike which might have formed jointly with a DM spike in the adiabatic formation scenario. However, this would strongly rely on the existence of a nuclear star cluster (NSC), which in the most accepted view is formed by merging globular clusters [32]. Unlike the Milky Way, M87 is actually not an optimal candidate for such mergers, due to the large velocity dispersion induced by the very massive central BH.…”
Section: B Electron Propagation In the Presence Of Advectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An alternative formation channel is in situ growth through star formation (Milosavljević 2004;Antonini et al 2015). It is not clear which of these two mechanisms dominates NSC formation, and the data is often consistent with contributions from both channels (Leigh et al 2012;Antonini et al 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%