The central black hole masses of a sample of 30 luminous quasars are estimated using Hβ full width half-maximum (FWHM) measurements from a combination of new and previously published nuclear spectra. The quasar black hole mass estimates are combined with reverberation-mapping measurements for a sample of Seyfert galaxies in order to study active galatic nucleus (AGN) black hole masses over a wide range in nuclear luminosity. The link between bulge luminosity and black hole mass is investigated using two-dimensional disc/bulge decompositions of the host galaxy images, the vast majority of which are high-resolution Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations. It is found that black hole mass and bulge luminosity are well correlated and follow a relation consistent with that expected if black hole and bulge mass are directly proportional. Contrary to the recent results of Wandel, no evidence that Seyfert galaxies follow a different relation to quasars is found. However, the black hole mass distributions of the radio-loud and radio-quiet quasar subsamples are found to be significantly different, with the median black hole mass of the radio-loud quasars a factor of three larger than their radio-quiet counterparts. Finally, utilizing the elliptical galaxy fundamental plane to provide stellar velocity dispersion estimates, a comparison is performed between the virial Hβ black hole mass estimates and those of the correlations of Gebhardt et al. and Merritt & Ferrarese. With the disc geometry of the broad-line region adopted in this paper, the virial Hβ black hole masses indicate that the correct normalization of the black hole versus bulge mass relation is , while the standard assumption of purely random broad-line velocities leads to . The normalization of provided by the disc model is in remarkably good agreement with that inferred for our quasar sample using the (completely independent) correlations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McLure et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: