IAU Jong-Hak Woo Univ. California Santa Barbara Collaborators: Tommaso Treu (UCSB), Matt Malkan (UCLA), & Roger Blandford (Stanford) Cosmic Evolution of Black Holes and Spheroids to z~0.4

IAU Local Scaling Relations M BH -  relation (Ferraresse et al. 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000) Tremaine et al. (2002) Marconi & Hunt (2003) M BH – L bulge relation (Magorrian et al. 1998; Marconi & Hunt 2003) Log M BH Dispersion (  ) km/s Log L bulge K

IAU Open Questions Theoretical Predictions: No evolution (Granato et al. 2004) vel. dispersion increases with redshift (Robertson et al. 2005) Stellar mass decreases with redshift (Croton 2006) When did scaling relations form? Do they evolve? Core issues: BH growth faster than bulge growth at high z or low z? Stellar contribution from cold disk to bulge

IAU Distant universe: two problems 1) Black hole mass: CANNOT resolve the sphere of influence (1” at z=1 is ~8 kpc) 2) Velocity dispersion: CANNOT avoid AGN contamination. Solution: Active galaxies with BLR 1) Reverberation mapping (Blandford & McKee 1982) 2) Empirical size-luminosity relation, based on reverberation sample (Wandel et al. 1999; Kaspi et al. 2005). Solution: Seyfert 1 galaxies integrated spectra have enough starlight to measure  on the featureless AGN continuum.

IAU Testing M BH -  Relation at z~0.36 Sample selection redshift window: z=0.36  0.01 to avoid sky lines. 30 objects selected from SDSS, based on broad H  and z Observations Keck spectra for 20 objects; sigma measured for 14 HST images for 20 objects Monitoring ~10 objects with Lick for reverberation mapping

IAU Fe II subtraction Fe II fit with I zw 1 template Measuring velocity dispersion (  )

IAU The M BH - sigma Relation Woo et al Tremaine 02 Ferrarese 02

IAU Evolution of M-sigma Relation redshift Δlog M BH = 0.62±0.10±0.25 dex for z~0.36 sample Offset (Δ log M BH ) No dependency on absolute scale of M BH

1) Systematic errors? Stellar contamination, aperture correction, inclination overall systematic errors: Δlog M BH = 0.25 dex, smaller than offset Δlog M BH ~ 0.6 dex 2) Selection effects? local sample: mostly early-type, large scatter? BH mass? our sample: narrow range of parameters 3) Cosmic evolution? BH growth predates bulge assembly Interpretation

IAU Is evolution real? An independent check Testing M BH - L bulge and M BH - M dyn relations With HST-ACS images, host galaxy properties determined. Treu & Woo 2006 in prep.

IAU The FP of Spheroids at z~0.36 Spheroids are overluminous for their mass. Generally interpreted as passive evolution.

IAU M BH - L bulge Relation Δlog M BH > 0.42±0.14 dexΔlog M BH > 0.59±0.19 dex M BH - M bulge Relation

IAU Recent evolution of (active) bulges?

IAU A Scenario Hopkins et al The M-sigma relation should be already in place for larger masses! The characteristic mass scale decreases with time (downsizing), consistent with that of our galaxies at z=0.36 Major mergers 1) trigger AGN & SF, 2) quench SF by feedback, 3) increase bulge size

IAU Bulges at z~0.36 appear to be smaller/less luminous than suggested by the local M BH -sigma relation. Systematic errors? (< 0.25 dex in log M BH ) Selection effects (possibly in the local relationship; spirals vs bulge dominated systems)? Significant recent evolution of bulges if M-sigma relation is the final destiny of BH-galaxy co- evolution. Conclusions