1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[preprint2]{emulateapj}
3:
4: %\usepackage{bm}
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: %\newcommand{\figcap}[2]
7: %{\begin{figure}\caption{#1}\label{#2}
8: %\end{figure}}
9:
10: %\newcommand{\fcap}[1]
11: %{\begin{figure}\label{#1}
12: %\end{figure}}
13:
14: %\newcommand{\plot}[3]
15: %{\begin{figure}\epsscale{#3}
16: %\plotone{#1.eps}
17: %\caption{#2 \label{fig:#1}}
18: %\end{figure}}
19:
20: %\newcommand{\plotbig}[3]
21: %{\begin{figure*}\epsscale{#3}
22: %\plotone{#1.eps}
23: %\caption{#2 \label{fig:#1}}
24: %\end{figure*}}
25:
26: \def\etal{et al.\ }
27: \def\ie{i.\,e.\,, }
28: \def\eg{e.\,g.\,}
29: \def\etc{etc.\ }
30: \def\viz{viz.\,, }
31: \def\perc{\unit{percent}}
32: \def\percent{\unit{percent}}
33: \def\unit #1{\,{\rm #1}}
34: \def\micron{\unit{\mu m}}
35: \def\arcsec{\unit{arcsec}}
36: \def\arcsecsq{\unit{arcsec^2}}
37: \def\arcsecsqi{\unit{arcsec^{-2}}}
38: \def\arcmin{\unit{arcmin}}
39: \def\mjy{\unit{mJy}}
40: \def\mag{\unit{magnitude}}
41: \def\mags{\unit{magnitudes}}
42: \def\magarcsecsqi{\unit{mag\arcsecsqi}}
43: \def\iras{{\em IRAS }}
44: \def\halpha{{\rm H\,\alpha }}
45: \def\hubble#1{H_0={#1}\unit{km\,sec^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}}
46: \def\noin{\noindent}
47: \def\mbh{M_{\rm BH}}
48: \def\re{r_{\rm e}}
49: \def\bba{\left<}
50: \def\eba{\right>}
51: \def\mean #1{\bba #1 \eba}
52: \def\mubre{\mu_{\rm b}(<\re)}
53: \def\mmubre{\mean{\mubre}}
54: \def\kms{\unit{km\,s^{-1}}}
55: \def\msol{M_{\odot}}
56: \def\onlyten#1{10^{#1}}
57: \def\gne #1#2{\ \vphantom{S}^{\raise-0.5pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}}_
58: {\raise0.5pt \hbox{$\scriptstyle#2$}}}
59: \def\gneq{\gne > \sim}
60: \def\lneq{\gne < \sim}
61: \def\dequn#1#2{Equations~{\ref{eq:#1}}~and~{\ref{eq:#2}}}
62: \def\equn #1{Equation~\ref{eq:#1}}
63: \def\labequn #1{\label{eq:#1}}
64: \def\const{{\rm constant}}
65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
66: \shorttitle{SuperMassive Black Hole Fundamental Plane}
67:
68: \shortauthors{Barway \& Kembhavi}
69:
70: \begin{document}
71:
72: \title{
73: A SuperMassive Black Hole Fundamental Plane for Ellipticals}
74:
75: \author{
76: Sudhanshu Barway\altaffilmark{1}
77: and Ajit Kembhavi\altaffilmark{2}
78: }
79:
80: \affil{Inter University center for Astronomy and Astrophysics,
81: Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind\\ Pune 411 007, India}
82:
83: \altaffiltext{1}{email: sudhan@iucaa.ernet.in}
84: \altaffiltext{2}{email: akk@iucaa.ernet.in}
85:
86:
87: \begin{abstract}
88: We obtain the coefficients of a new fundamental plane for supermassive
89: black holes at the centers of elliptical galaxies, involving measured
90: central black hole mass and photometric parameters which define the
91: light distribution. The galaxies are tightly distributed around this
92: mass fundamental plane, with improvement in the rms residual over
93: those obtained from the $\mbh-\sigma$ and $\mbh-L$ relations. This
94: implies a strong multidimensional link between the central massive
95: black hole formation and global photometric properties of elliptical
96: galaxies and provides an improved estimate of black hole mass from
97: galaxy data.
98: \end{abstract}
99:
100: \keywords{black hole physics - galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD
101: - galaxies: nuclei - galaxies: evolution - galaxies: fundamental
102: parameters - galaxies: kinematics and dynamics}
103:
104:
105:
106:
107: \section{Introduction}
108:
109: The existence of massive black holes (hereafter BH) at the center of
110: nearby inactive galaxies, as well as in the nuclei of active galaxies
111: and in quasars, is well established. Observations based on high
112: resolution data and reverberation mapping are now available which
113: allow measurement of the masses of BH using different techniques
114: (Ferrarese \& Ford 2005; Metzroth \etal 2006; Shapiro \etal
115: 2006). Kormendy \& Richstone (1995) showed that the measured BH mass
116: $\mbh$ is correlated with the bulge luminosity $L$ and bulge mass
117: M$_{bulge}$ with rms scatter $\sim0.5$ dex in $\log\mbh$ (see also
118: Magorrian \etal 1998). A tight correlation between $\mbh$ and the
119: central velocity dispersion $\sigma$ of the host galaxy with smaller
120: rms scatter of $\sim0.34$ dex in $\log\mbh$ was reported by Ferrarese
121: \& Merritt (2000) and Gebhardt \etal (2000); however, the published
122: estimates of slope in $\mbh$- $\sigma$ relation span a wide range
123: (3.75-5.30, see Tremaine \etal 2002). The small scatter of the
124: $\mbh$- $\sigma$ relation suggests that the bulge dynamics (or mass),
125: rather than the luminosity, is responsible for the tight correlation.
126:
127: It is believed that massive black holes play an important role in the
128: formation and evolution of galaxies, and the growth of the BH and
129: bulges must be linked to the same physical processes; this results in
130: BH masses that are related to the properties of host galaxies (Silk \&
131: Rees 1998; Haehnelt \& Kauffmann 2000; Adams \etal 2001; Merritt \&
132: Poon 2004; Sazonov \etal 2005). Graham \etal (2001) and Marconi \&
133: Hunt (2003) have shown that when bulge parameters are measured with
134: sufficient accuracy using the technique of bulge-disk decomposition,
135: the resulting scatter in the $\mbh$-$L$ relation is comparable to that
136: in the $\mbh$-$\sigma$ relation (see also Graham 2007). Marconi \&
137: Hunt (2003) also suggested that a combination $\sigma$ and bulge
138: effective radius $\re$ should be used to derive the correlations
139: between $\mbh$ and other bulge properties. Recently, Lauer \etal
140: (2006) have suggested that the bulge luminosity may be a better
141: indicator of BH mass than the bulge velocity dispersion at the high
142: mass end for brightest cluster galaxies. However, in spite of all
143: these attempts, our understanding of how the photometric properties of
144: galaxies and their central BHs are linked in the process of formation
145: of galaxies remains unclear.
146:
147: In this Letter, we show that $\log\mbh$, $\log\re$, and $\mmubre$,
148: which is the mean bulge surface brightness in magnitude within $\re$,
149: are tightly correlated for nearby elliptical galaxies having measured
150: central BH masses. The scatter around the best fit plane is
151: significantly less than the scatter in various two-dimensional
152: relations. It is also less than the scatter obtained if BH masses are
153: estimated from the photometric parameters of galaxies using the
154: standard fundamental plane for ellipticals and the $\mbh$-$\sigma$
155: relation. In $\S$2 we provide details about the samples of galaxies
156: used in the analysis. We present the results in $\S$3, a discussion in
157: $\S$4 and in $\S$5 a summary of the work. Throughout this Letter, we
158: use $\hubble{70}$, and express $\re$ in kiloparsec, $\sigma$ in units
159: of $\kms$, and mass and luminosity in Solar units.
160:
161:
162: \section{The Data}
163: To obtain the photometric scaling relation we have considered a sample
164: of 20 galaxies classified as elliptical in the Ferrarese \& Ford
165: (2005) galaxy list with measured black hole masses. In Table 1 we
166: report the relevant data for this sample. To compare the estimates of
167: central black hole masses obtained from our planar relation and the
168: $\mbh$- $\sigma$ and $\mbh$-$L$ relations, we consider a sample of 22
169: elliptical galaxies from the Coma cluster. This sample was observed
170: by Jorgensen \etal (1992) in the Johnson $B$ band; a description of
171: the data and the global parameters obtained from the images can be had
172: from the reference.
173:
174:
175: \section{A New Fundamental Plane for Nearby Ellipticals}
176:
177: The $\mbh$- $\sigma$ and $\mbh$- $L$ relations offer two ways to
178: estimate the BH mass from other galaxy properties, and have been
179: applied to AGN (McLure \& Dunlop 2002), BL Lac objects (Falomo \etal
180: 2002), low-redshift radio galaxies (Bettoni \etal 2003) and to bright
181: cluster galaxies (Lauer \etal 2006; Batcherdor \etal 2006). We have
182: revisited the $\mbh$- $\sigma$ relation and $\mbh$- $L$ relation by
183: applying a bisector linear regression fit (Akritas \& Bershady 1996)
184: to the data given in Table 1 for the sample of nearby elliptical
185: galaxies with measured BH masses. The two best fit relations are:
186: %
187: \begin{equation}
188: \log \mbh = (4.53\pm0.49) \log \sigma - (2.24\pm1.17)
189: \labequn{smbh1}
190: \end{equation}
191: %
192: %
193: \begin{equation}
194: \log \mbh = - (0.56\pm0.06) L_B - (3.10\pm1.51)
195: \labequn{smbh2}
196: \end{equation}
197: %
198: The rms scatter around the best fit lines above is 0.34 dex and 0.42
199: dex respectively, along the $\log\mbh$ axis. Both the relations are
200: in good agreement with those in Bettoni \etal (2003) and reference
201: therein, but the relations are different from those of Ferrarese \&
202: Merritt (2000) and Gebhardt \etal (2000), as we have used a sample of
203: nearby ellipticals only. It is possible that some of the scatter seen
204: in $\mbh-\sigma$ relation and $\mbh-L$ relation is caused by the
205: effect of a third parameter. This is supported by the strong
206: correlation that we find between $\log\mbh$ and $\log\re$, with a
207: correlation coefficient $r=0.89$, which is significant at the
208: $99.99$ \% confidence level for 19 objects; Marconi and Hunt (2003)
209: have obtained a similar result.
210:
211: Our aim is to derive a planar relation involving the BH mass and the
212: basic photometric parameters $\re$ and $\mmubre$; this can be used to
213: estimate the black hole mass when it is not known from measurement,
214: without reference to a spectroscopically measured quantity like the
215: central velocity dispersion. We find that the least scatter around the
216: best-fit plane in the space of the three parameters is obtained by
217: expressing it in the form $\log\re = a\log\mbh + b\mmubre + \const$.
218: We minimize the sum of the absolute residuals perpendicular to the
219: plane, excluding one galaxy NGC\,4742, which is an outlier we have
220: identified in Figure~\ref{f1}. The equation of the best-fit mass
221: fundamental plane is
222: %
223: \begin{eqnarray}
224: \log\re &=& (0.32 \pm 0.06) \log\mbh + (0.31 \pm 0.06) \mmubre \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}
225: - 8.69 \pm 1.58
226: \labequn{bhfp}
227: \end{eqnarray}
228: %\end{equation}
229: %
230: The uncertainties on the mass FP coefficients were determined using a
231: bootstrap method. An edge-on view along log $\re$ of the plane is
232: shown in Figure~\ref{f1}(a). The rms scatter in the direction of
233: $\log\re$ is 0.061 dex. Figure~\ref{f1}(b) shows another edge-on view
234: of mass FP in the direction of $\log\mbh$, with rms scatter in that
235: direction of 0.19 dex, which is significantly less than the scatter in
236: the $\mbh$-$\sigma$ relation (Gebhardt \etal 2000; Ferrarese \&
237: Merritt 2000). The outlier NGC\,4742 is $6.32\times{({\rm
238: rms~scatter})}$ from the plane along the $\log\re$ axis. We have also
239: obtained the equation of the best fit plane including this outlier.
240: The rms scatter then increases to 0.078 dex in log $\re$ and 0.25 dex
241: along log $\mbh$ axis respectively. Therefore, even with the outlier
242: included we have less scatter than in the $\log\mbh-\log\sigma$ and
243: $\log\mbh-\log L$ fits.
244:
245: If we exclude from the fit the four galaxies NGC\,821, NGC\,2778,
246: NGC\,4649 and NGC\,7052 for which the BH sphere of influence is not
247: resolved, and the outlier from the fit, the rms scatter in $\log\mbh$
248: around the best-fit plane obtained using the remaining 14 galaxies
249: decreases to 0.17 dex.
250:
251: For nearby ellipticals we have derived the standard fundamental plane
252: relation, using the same technique as in the case of the mass
253: fundamental plane and again excluding the outlying data point
254: NGC\,4742. The equation of the best-fit FP is
255: %
256: \begin{eqnarray}
257: \log\re &=& (1.34 \pm 0.22) \log \sigma + (0.30 \pm 0.05) \mmubre \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}
258: - 8.93 \pm 0.74
259: \labequn{fp}
260: \end{eqnarray}
261: %
262: The rms scatter is 0.068 dex in log $\re$. The FP coefficients and rms
263: scatter around the fit are in agreement with those available in the
264: literature (Jorgensen \etal 2006).
265: %
266: %
267: \section{Discussion}
268: As suggested by Ferrarrese \& Ford (2005), given the photometric
269: parameters of an elliptical galaxy, the central velocity dispersion
270: $\sigma$ can be derived using the FP relation given in \equn{fp}, if
271: it is not directly observed, and then the $\mbh$- $\sigma$ relation in
272: \equn{smbh1} can be used to estimate the BH mass. However, the error
273: in the estimated BH mass will then be the cumulative error of these
274: two relations, thus increasing the uncertainty in the mass estimate.
275: Another disadvantage of this approach is that the slope in the
276: $\mbh-\sigma$ relation spans the range 3.75-5.3, leading to further
277: uncertainty in the estimate of the mass. The mass FP provides an
278: improvement over this two step procedure, and also helps to constrain
279: the slope of the $\mbh$- $\sigma$ relation, as described below.
280:
281: We consider a two-dimensional relation of the form log
282: $\mbh=\alpha\log\sigma +\beta$, where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are
283: constants to be determined. Introducing this into \equn{fp} for the
284: fundamental plane, we get a plane in the space of $\log\mbh$,
285: $\log\re$ and $\mmubre$, with the direction of the normal to the plane
286: dependent on the value of $\alpha$. In Figure~\ref{f2} we have
287: plotted, as a solid line, the angle between this normal, and the
288: normal to the mass FP in \equn{bhfp}, for a range of values of
289: $\alpha$. The filled circles on the curve indicate the angles
290: corresponding to specific values of $\alpha$ found in the literature,
291: obtained by various groups from their fits to the data (see Tremaine
292: \etal 2002). It is seen from the figure that the angle between the
293: two planes is minimum near $\alpha=4.5$, which should be the value to
294: be used in the $\log\mbh-\log\sigma$ relation to determine black hole
295: mass from the central dispersion velocity. The best fit in
296: \equn{smbh1} corresponds to $\alpha=4.53$. It will be interesting to
297: see how the minimum value of $\alpha$ depends on the morphological
298: type of the host galaxy.
299:
300: We have used the mass FP to predict the black hole mass for a set of
301: 22 elliptical galaxies from the Coma cluster, using photometric data
302: from Jorgensen \etal (1992). We have also obtained the black hole
303: mass for these galaxies using \dequn{smbh1}{smbh2}. The masses
304: obtained in these various ways are compared in Figure~\ref{f3}. It is
305: seen from Figure~\ref{f3}(a) that the agreement between $\mbh({\rm
306: mass~FP})$ and $\mbh(\sigma)$ is good; the points are distributed
307: around a line with slope close to unity, with a correlation
308: coefficient $r=0.93$, which is significant at better than the
309: $99.9$ \% level. A larger number of points will be needed for a
310: better comparison and to examine any departures from linearity. The
311: slope in the $\log\mbh-\log\sigma$ relation in \equn{smbh1} is close
312: to the minimum value of $\alpha$ obtained from Figure~\ref{f2}. Using
313: any other value of $\alpha$ will produce a less favorable comparison.
314: We see from panel (b) that $\mbh({\rm mass~FP})$ and $\mbh(L)$ are
315: distributed along a straight line with slope less than unity; for
316: $\mbh\lneq\onlyten{8.5}\msol$, masses obtained from the FP would be
317: systematically less than masses obtained from the $\log\mbh-\log L$
318: relation. The dispersion of the points around the best fit line is
319: greater in this case than in panel (a). We have for completeness
320: compared in panel (c) black hole masses obtained from the
321: $\log\mbh-\log\sigma$ and $\log\mbh-\log L$ relations respectively,
322: and find a slope greater than unity and larger dispersion than in the
323: other cases.
324:
325: The three dimensional mass FP has lesser rms deviation than in the
326: earlier two dimensional relations while some reduction in residuals is
327: expected when the number of parameters in the fit is increased from
328: two to three, it appears that the process can not be taken any
329: further. We have considered a four dimensional plane with the
330: dispersion velocity $\sigma$ included in the fit along with the two
331: photometric parameters. However, we find that the residuals from the
332: three dimensional plane are not correlated with $\log\sigma$, and the
333: quality of a four dimensional fit involving $\log\mbh$, $\log\re$,
334: $\mmubre$ and $\log\sigma$ is poor. A three dimensional relation is
335: therefore the best we can do with the available data.
336:
337: It will be interesting to obtain the mass FP for photometric data in
338: the near-infrared bands, since stellar population metallicity effects
339: are less important than in the optical region (Pahre \etal 1998).
340: Another issue to
341: examine is whether the bulges of galaxies of various morphological
342: types share a common mass FP.
343:
344:
345: \section{Summary}
346: We have shown that $\log\re$, $\log\mbh$ and $\mmubre$ for nearby
347: elliptical galaxies having measured central BH masses are tightly
348: distributed about a plane with a rms scatter of 0.19 dex along
349: $\log\mbh$. The scatter decreases to 0.17 dex in $\log\mbh$ when we
350: use only those galaxies for which the BH sphere of influence is
351: resolved. The mass FP provides a convenient way for estimating BH
352: mass from photometric data alone.
353:
354:
355: \acknowledgments
356: We thank Swara Ravindranath and Yogesh Wadadekar for helpful
357: discussions. We also thank the referee, Luca Ciotti, for insightful
358: comments, which helped to improve the original manuscript. This
359: research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED),
360: which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
361: Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics
362: and Space Administration.
363:
364:
365:
366: \begin{thebibliography}{}
367:
368: \bibitem[Adams \etal (2001)]{358} Adams, F. C., Graff, D. S., Richstone, D. O. \ 2001, ApJ, 551, L31
369: \bibitem[Akritas \& Bershady (1996)]{359} Akritas, M. G., \& Bershady, M. A. \ 1996, ApJ, 470, 706
370: \bibitem[Batcheldor \etal (2006)]{360} Batcheldor, D., Marconi, A., Merritt, D., Axon, D.J. \ 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0610264)
371: \bibitem[Bettoni \etal (2003)]{361} Bettoni, D., Falomo, R., Fasano, G., Govoni, F. \ 2003, A\&A, 399, 869
372: \bibitem[Faber \etal (1989)]{362} Faber, S.M. \etal \ 1989, ApJS, 69, 763
373: \bibitem[Falomo \etal (2002)]{363} Falomo, R., Kotilainen, J.K., Treves, A. \ 2002, ApJ, 569, L35
374: \bibitem[Ferrarese \etal (2000)]{364} Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D. \ 2000, ApJ, 539, L9
375: \bibitem[Ferrarese \etal (2005)]{365} Ferrarese, L., \& Ford, H. \ 2005, SSRv, 116, 523
376: \bibitem[Gebhardt \etal (2000)]{366} Gebhardt, K. \etal \ 2000, ApJ, 539, L13
377: \bibitem[Graham \etal (2001)]{367} Graham, A. \etal \ 2001, ApJ, 563, L11
378: \bibitem[Graham (2007)]{367} Graham, A. \ 2007, preprint (astro-ph/0705.0618)
379: \bibitem[Haehnelt \etal (2000)]{368} Haehnelt, M.G., \& Kauffmann, G. \ 2000, MNRAS, 318, 35
380: \bibitem[Jorgensen \etal (1992)]{369} Jorgensen, I., Franx, M., Kjaergaard, P. \ 1992, A\&AS, 95, 489
381: \bibitem[Jorgensen \etal (2006)]{370} Jorgensen, I., Chiboucas, K., Flint, K. \etal \ 2006, ApJ, 639, L9
382: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Richstone]{371} Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D. O. \ 1995, ARA\&A, 33, 581
383: \bibitem[Lauer \etal (2006)]{372} Lauer, T.R. \etal \ 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0606739)
384: \bibitem[Magorrian \etal (1998)]{373} Magorrian, J. \etal \ 1998, AJ, 115, 2285
385: \bibitem[Marconi \etal (2001)]{374} Marconi, A., \& Hunt, L.K. \ 2003, ApJ, 589, L21
386: \bibitem[McLure \& Dunlop (2002)]{375} McLure, R.J. \& Dunlop, J.S. \ 2002, MNRAS, 331, 795
387: \bibitem[Metzroth \etal (2006)]{376} Metzroth, K. G., Onken, C. A., Peterson, B. M. \ 2006, ApJ, 647, 901
388: \bibitem[Merritt \& Poon (2004)]{377} Merritt, D., \& Poon, M. Y. \ 2004, ApJ, 606, 788
389: \bibitem[Pahre \etal (1998)]{378} Pahre, M. A., de Carvalho, R. R., Djorgovski, S. G. 1998, AJ, 116, 1606
390: \bibitem[Sazonov \etal (2005)]{379} Sazonov, S. Yu., Ostriker, J. P., Ciotti, L., Sunyaev, R. A. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 168
391: \bibitem[Shapiro \etal (2006)]{380} Shapiro, K. L., Cappellari, M., de Zeeuw, T. \etal \ 2006, MNRAS, 370, 559
392: \bibitem[Silk \& Rees (1998)]{381} Silk, J., \& Rees, M. J. 1998, A\&A, 331, L1
393: \bibitem[Tonry \etal (2001)]{382} Tonry, J. L., Dressler, A., Blakeslee, J. P. \etal \ 2001, ApJ, 546, 681
394: \bibitem[Tremaine \etal (2002)]{383} Tremaine, S. Gebhardt, K., Bender, R. \etal \ 2002, ApJ, 574, 740
395:
396: \end{thebibliography}
397:
398:
399: \clearpage
400:
401: \begin{deluxetable}{llrccrrc}
402: \tabletypesize{\small}
403: \tablewidth{0pt}
404: \tablecaption{Basic parameters for elliptical galaxies with measured black hole mass.}
405: \tablecolumns{8}
406: \tablehead{
407: \colhead{Object} &
408: \colhead{Type} &
409: \colhead{Distance} &
410: \colhead{$\mbh$} &
411: \colhead{$\sigma$} &
412: \colhead{$L_B$} &
413: \colhead{log r$_e$} &
414: \colhead{$\mmubre$}
415: \\
416: \colhead{} &
417: \colhead{} &
418: \colhead{(Mpc)} &
419: \colhead{(10$^8$ M$_{\odot}$)} &
420: \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} &
421: \colhead{(mag)} &
422: \colhead{(kpc)} &
423: \colhead{(mag arcsec$^{-2}$)}
424: }
425: \startdata
426: NGC 221/M32 & $-$6.0 & 0.80 & $2.5^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$ $\times$ 10$^6$ &\ 75$\pm$10 & $-$15.80$\pm$0.18 & $-$0.83 & 18.69 \\
427: NGC 821 & $-$5.0 & 24.1 & $3.7^{+2.4}_{-0.8}$ $\times$ 10$^7$ & 209$\pm$26 & $-$20.42$\pm$0.21 & 0.72 & 21.85 \\
428: NGC 2778 & $-$5.0 & 22.9 & $1.4^{+0.8}_{-0.9}$ $\times$ 10$^7$ & 175$\pm$22 & $-$18.58$\pm$0.33 & 0.26 & 21.38 \\
429: NGC 3377 & $-$5.0 & 11.2 & $1.0^{+0.9}_{-0.1}$ $\times$ 10$^8$ & 145$\pm$17 & $-$19.18$\pm$0.13 & 0.26 & 20.76 \\
430: NGC 3379 & $-$5.0 & 10.6 & $1.0^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ $\times$ 10$^8$ & 206$\pm$26 & $-$19.81$\pm$0.20 & 0.26 & 20.16 \\
431: NGC 3608 & $-$5.0 & 22.9 & $1.9^{+1.0}_{-0.6}$ $\times$ 10$^8$ & 182$\pm$27 & $-$20.07$\pm$0.17 & 0.59 & 21.41 \\
432: NGC 4261 & $-$5.0 & 31.6 & $5.2^{+1.0}_{-1.1}$ $\times$ 10$^8$ & 315$\pm$38 & $-$21.23$\pm$0.20 & 0.77 & 21.25 \\
433: NGC 4291 & $-$5.0 & 26.2 & $3.1^{+0.8}_{-2.3}$ $\times$ 10$^8$ & 242$\pm$35 & $-$19.72$\pm$0.35 & 0.27 & 20.25 \\
434: NGC 4374/M84 & $-$5.0 & 18.4 & $1.0^{+2.0}_{-0.6}$ $\times$ 10$^9$ & 296$\pm$37 & $-$21.40$\pm$0.31 & 0.68 & 20.81 \\
435: NGC 4473 & $-$5.0 & 15.7 & $1.1^{+0.4}_{-0.8}$ $\times$ 10$^8$ & 190$\pm$25 & $-$19.86$\pm$0.14 & 0.28 & 20.19 \\
436: NGC 4486/M87 & $-$4.0 & 16.1 & $3.4^{+1.0}_{-1.0}$ $\times$ 10$^9$ & 375$\pm$45 & $-$21.71$\pm$0.16 & 0.91 & 21.60 \\
437: NGC 4564 & $-$5.0 & 15.0 & $5.6^{+0.3}_{-0.8}$ $\times$ 10$^7$ & 162$\pm$20 & $-$18.94$\pm$0.18 & 0.19 & 20.64 \\
438: NGC 4697 & $-$5.0 & 11.7 & $1.7^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ $\times$ 10$^8$ & 177$\pm$10 & $-$20.20$\pm$0.18 & 0.63 & 21.41 \\
439: NGC 4649/M60 & $-$5.0 & 16.8 & $2.0^{+0.4}_{-0.6}$ $\times$ 10$^9$ & 385$\pm$43 & $-$21.30$\pm$0.16 & 0.78 & 21.10 \\
440: NGC 4742 & $-$5.0 & 15.5 & $1.4^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$ $\times$ 10$^7$ &\ 90$\pm$05 & $-$19.03$\pm$0.10 & $-$0.06 & 19.36 \\
441: NGC 5845 & $-$5.0 & 25.9 & $2.4^{+0.4}_{-1.4}$ $\times$ 10$^8$ & 234$\pm$36 & $-$18.92$\pm$0.25 & $-$0.30 & 18.38 \\
442: NGC 7052 & $-$5.0 & 71.4 & $4.0^{+2.8}_{-1.6}$ $\times$ 10$^8$ & 266$\pm$34 & $-$21.43$\pm$0.38 & 0.89 & 22.01 \\
443: IC 1459 & $-$5.0 & 29.2 & $1.5^{+1.0}_{-1.0}$ $\times$ 10$^9$ & 340$\pm$41 & $-$21.45$\pm$0.32 & 0.73 & 20.81 \\
444: NGC 6251 & $-$5.0 & 107.0 & $6.1^{+2.0}_{-2.1}$ $\times$ 10$^8$ & 290$\pm$39 & $-$21.95$\pm$0.28 & 1.31 & --- \\
445: CygA & $-$5.0 & 240.0 & $2.9^{+0.7}_{-0.7}$ $\times$ 10$^9$ & 270$\pm$90 & $-$20.03$\pm$0.27 & --- & ---
446: \enddata
447: \tablecomments{Cols. 1 and 2 give the name and the morphological
448: type from RC3; Col. 3 the distance, derived from Surface Brightness Fluctuations
449: (SBF, Tonry \etal 2001); Cols. 4-6 provide the adopted values for the mass of
450: black hole $\mbh$, velocity dispersion and absolute bulge luminosity $L$ in $B$ band
451: (from Ferrarese \& Ford 2005); Cols 7 and 8 give the effective radius $\re$
452: (from Faber \etal 1989 and using the distance in Col. 3) and mean surface brightness
453: within effective radius in $B$ band (from Faber \etal 1989).}
454: \end{deluxetable}
455:
456:
457: \clearpage
458:
459: \begin{figure}
460: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}
461: \caption{Edge-on views of the mass fundamental plane relations for
462: nearby ellipticals: (a) along one of the shorter axes of the plane,
463: $\log\re$ and (b) along another axis of the plane, $\log\mbh$.}
464: \label{f1}
465: \end{figure}
466:
467:
468: \clearpage
469:
470: %
471: \begin{figure}
472: \plotone{f2.eps}
473: \caption{The curve shows the angle between (1) the best-fit mass FP,
474: and (2) the plane derived using the fundamental plane in \equn{fp} and
475: the relation $\mbh= \alpha\log\sigma + \beta$ for a range of values of
476: $\alpha$. The filled circles indicate the angle for actual values of
477: $\alpha$ taken from the literature (see Tremain \etal 2002). The
478: typical error in the measured values of $\alpha$ and the derived angle
479: between the planes is shown at the top right in the plot.}
480: \label{f2}
481: \end{figure}
482:
483: \clearpage
484:
485: \begin{figure}
486: \plotone{f3.eps}
487: \caption{Comparison of black hole mass estimated using the mass
488: fundamental plane, $\mbh(mass \ FP)$, with (a) the mass $\mbh(\sigma)$
489: estimated using \equn{smbh1} and $\mbh(\sigma)$ and (b) with the mass
490: $\mbh(L)$ estimated using \equn{smbh2}. In panel (c) we compare
491: $\mbh(\sigma)$ with $\mbh(L)$. In each panel the dark line indicates
492: the linear fit to the points shown, while the dashed line has slope
493: unity.}
494: \label{f3}
495: \end{figure}
496:
497:
498:
499: \end{document}
500:
501:
502:
503: