The redshift dependence of the MBH-Mhost relation in quasars Max-Planck Institut fuer Astronomie Università degli Studi dell’Insubria Roberto Decarli The redshift dependence of the MBH-Mhost relation in quasars A. Treves R. Falomo M. Labita J.K. Kotilainen R. Scarpa M. Uslenghi Decarli et al., 2010a-b, MNRAS 402, 2441 & 2453 AGN9 Ferrara - May, 26, 2010

MBH – host galaxy relations Gultekin et al. (2009)

MBH – host galaxy relations Black holes BLR Host galaxies Rinf = G MBH / s*2 ~ 0.001 Rhost Gultekin et al. (2009)

MBH – host galaxy relations Black holes BLR Host galaxies Rinf = G MBH / s*2 ~ 0.001 Rhost ? ? ? Gultekin et al. (2009)

Our study 96 quasars (48 RQQs, 48 RLQs) with 0<z<3 (2x the sample by Peng et al., 2006 and 3x McLure et al., 2006) Host galaxy luminosity from high res. images Black hole masses from spectra

Our study 96 quasars (48 RQQs, 48 RLQs) with 0<z<3 (2x the sample by Peng et al., 2006 and 3x McLure et al., 2006) Host galaxy luminosity from high res. images Black hole masses from spectra For low-z quasars, images in the HST-WFPC2, spectra from the SDSS and HST-FOS and from on- purpose observations at the Asiago 1.82m Telescope. For z>0.5 targets, images taken at the NOT and the ESO/VLT, spectra from the NOT and ESO/3.6m Telescope.

Virial estimate of MBH MBH = G-1 RBLR vBLR2 RBLR ~ lLla (Kaspi et al., 2000, 2005, 2007) vBLR = f FWHM

Virial estimate of MBH MBH = G-1 RBLR vBLR2 RBLR ~ lLla (Kaspi et al., 2000, 2005, 2007) vBLR = f FWHM

QSO PSF

QSO PSF

QSO PSF

QSO PSF

QSO PSF

The MBH–Mhost ratio as a function of z G ≡ MBH/Mhost increases of a factor ~7 from z=0 to z=3 log G = (0.28 ± 0.06) z + - (2.91 ± 0.08) Decarli et al (2010 a,b)

The MBH–Mhost ratio as a function of z G ≡ MBH/Mhost increases of a factor ~7 from z=0 to z=3 log G = (0.28 ± 0.06) z + - (2.91 ± 0.08) Decarli et al (2010 a,b)

The MBH–Mhost ratio as a function of z G ≡ MBH/Mhost increases of a factor ~7 from z=0 to z=3 log G = (0.28 ± 0.06) z + - (2.91 ± 0.08) Decarli et al (2009 a,b)

Unresolved hosts / disk contaminations Decarli et al (2010 a,b)

Unresolved hosts / disk contaminations Decarli et al (2010 a,b)

Different SFHs Decarli et al (2009 a,b)

Different SFHs G ≡ MBH/Mhost increases of a factor ~7 from z=0 to z=3 log G = (0.28 ± 0.06) z + - (2.91 ± 0.08) Decarli et al (2009 a,b)

The MBH–Mhost ratio as a function of z G ≡ MBH/Mhost increases of a factor ~7 from z=0 to z=3 log G = (0.28 ± 0.06) z + - (2.91 ± 0.08) Peng et al. (2006) McLure et al. (2006) Merloni et al. (2010) Decarli et al. (2010) Decarli et al (2010 a,b)

Conclusions We probed the MBH-Mhost relation up to z=3, both for RLQs and RQQs The MBH-Lhost is practically constant Once we correct for the evolution of the M/L ratio, G increases of a factor ~7 from z=0 to z=3, similarly for RLQs and RQQs

What does it mean? The MBH-Mhost ratio at z=3 is 7 times larger than at z=0 They move onto the local MBH-Mhost Mhost increases with Cosmic Time through merger events What is the fate of z=3 galaxies with MBH/Mhost~0.01? Mhost increases by gas consumption Evolution of the host galaxy fundamental plane They do not move onto the local MBH-Mhost Why don’t we see such high G in the local galaxies?

What does it mean? They move onto the local MBH-Mhost Mhost increases with Cosmic Time through merger events Only 1-2 major mergers are expected (e.g., Volonteri et al., 2003) Mhost increases by gas consumption Stellar populations are old. If strong SF occurs, the G evolution is even stronger Evolution of the host galaxy fundamental plane MBH-s* studies also find a similar trend in G They do not move onto the local MBH-Mhost Why don’t we see such high G in the local galaxies? The high-mass end of the MBH-host relations is poorly constrained, but…

Luminosity Function bias The scatter in the MBH-Mhost (Lhost, s*, etc) relation introduces a bias (Lauer et al., 2007). The steeper is the luminosity function, the larger is the bias.  log MBH =  ((M2)-(M1)) / ∫M1M2 (M)dM

Radiation pressure?

N/H ratio