1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
3: \newcommand{\kms}{$\rm {km}~\rm s^{-1}$}
4: \begin{document}
5: \title{Gemini and $\it{Hubble~Space~Telescope}$ Evidence for an Intermediate Mass Black Hole in omega Centauri}
6: \shorttitle{Black Hole in $\omega$ Centauri}
7: \author{Eva Noyola}
8: \affil{Astronomy Department, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712}
9: \affil{Max-Planck-Institut fuer extraterrestrische Physik, 85748, Garching, Germany}
10: \author{Karl Gebhardt}
11: \affil{Astronomy Department, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712}
12: \email{noyola@mpe.mpg.de}
13: \author{Marcel Bergmann}
14: \affil{Gemini Observatory, Tucson, AZ 85726}
15:
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18:
19: The globular cluster $\omega$ Centauri is one of the largest and most
20: massive members of the galactic system. However, its classification as
21: a globular cluster has been challenged making it a candidate for being
22: the stripped core of an accreted dwarf galaxy; this together with the
23: fact that it has one of the largest velocity dispersions for star
24: clusters in our galaxy makes it an interesting candidate for harboring
25: an intermediate mass black hole. We measure the surface brightness
26: profile from integrated light on an $\it{HST}$/ACS image of the
27: center, and find a central power-law cusp of logarithmic slope
28: -0.08. We also analyze Gemini GMOS-IFU kinematic data for a
29: 5x5\arcsec~field centered on the nucleus of the cluster, as well as
30: for a field 14\arcsec~away. We detect a clear rise in the velocity
31: dispersion from 18.6~\kms\ at 14\arcsec~to 23 \kms\ in the center. A
32: rise in the velocity dispersion could be due to a central black hole,
33: a central concentration of stellar remnants, or a central orbital
34: structure that is radially biased. We discuss each of these
35: possibilities. An isotropic, spherical dynamical model implies a black
36: hole mass of $4.0^{+0.75}_{-1.0}\times10^4 M_\odot$, and excludes the
37: no black hole case at greater than 99\% significance. We have also run
38: flattened, orbit-based models and find similar results. While our
39: preferred model is the existence of a central black hole, detailed
40: numerical simulations are required to confidently rule out the other
41: possibilities.
42:
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \keywords{globular clusters:individual($\omega$ Centauri), stellar
46: dynamics, black hole physics}
47:
48: \section{Introduction}
49:
50: \vspace{10pt}
51:
52: The globular cluster $\omega$ Centauri (NGC~5139) is regarded to be
53: the largest and most massive member of the Galactic cluster system
54: with a tidal radius of 69 parsecs \citep{har96}, an estimated mass of
55: $5.1\times10^6 M_\odot$, and a measured central velocity dispersion of
56: $22 \pm 4$ \kms\ \citep {mey95}. The cluster presents a large scale
57: global rotation, measured with radial velocities, of 8 \kms\ at a
58: radius of 11pc from the center \citep{mer97} and confirmed with proper
59: motions \citep{van00}, which makes it one of the most flattened
60: galactic globular clusters \citep{whi87}. A rotating flattened model
61: including proper motion and radial velocity datasets by \citet{ven06}
62: calculate a lower total mass of $2.5\times10^6 M_\odot$ and confirm
63: the central line of sight velocity dispersion value of 20 \kms. They
64: measure a dynamical distance of $4.8\pm0.3$ kpc (which we adopt for
65: this paper). $\omega$ Cen has a peculiar highly bound retrograde orbit
66: \citep{din01}. It also has a stellar population that makes it stand
67: out from the rest of the Galactic globular clusters due to its
68: complexity. It shows a broad metallicity distribution
69: \citep{bed04,nor96}, as well as a kinematical and spatial separation
70: between the different subpopulations \citep{pan03, nor97}.
71:
72: All the above results have led to the hypothesis that $\omega$ Cen is
73: not a classical globular cluster, but instead is the nucleus of an
74: accreted galaxy \citep{fre03,bek03,mez05}. The scenarios of it being
75: the product a merger of two globular clusters \citep{ick88} and of
76: self-enrichment \citep{iku00} have also been proposed to explain the
77: stellar populations.
78:
79: The high measured velocity dispersion together with the possibility of
80: being a stripped galaxy make $\omega$ Cen an interesting candidate for
81: harboring a black hole in its center. The extrapolation of
82: $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation for galaxies \citep{geb00a,fer00,tre02}
83: predicts a $1.3\times10^4 M_{\odot}$ black hole for this cluster. The
84: sphere of influence of such black hole for a star cluster at the
85: distance of $\omega$ Cen with a velocity dispersion of 20 \kms\ is
86: $\sim$ 5\arcsec, making it an excellent target for ground-based
87: observations.
88:
89: Two globular clusters have been suggested for harboring an
90: intermediate mass black hole in their nucleus. One is the galactic
91: cluster M15 \citep{geb00,ger02,ger03} and the other is G1, a giant
92: globular cluster around M31 \citep{geb02,geb05}. M15 is assumed to be
93: in a post-core collapse state, therefore its dynamical state has been
94: debated between harboring a black hole or containing a large number of
95: compact remnants in its center \citep{bau03a,bau03b}. Unfortunately,
96: observational constraints between these two hypothesis remain
97: inconclusive \citep{bos06}. G1 on the other hand, has a core with
98: characteristics closer to those of $\omega$ Cen, and observations
99: support the black hole interpretation for G1. \citet{bau03c} propose
100: an alternative interpretation for G1 in which they match the
101: observations with a model of two colliding globular clusters. The G1
102: black hole models are preferred since the M/L profile is expected to
103: be flat in its core, so any rise in the velocity dispersion is
104: unlikely to be due to remnants that concentrated there from mass
105: segregation. The black hole interpretation for G1 is strongly
106: supported by radio \citep{ulv07} and x-ray \citep {poo06} detections
107: centered on the nucleus. $\omega$ Cen and G1 have similar properties
108: in both their photometric and kinematic profiles. In this paper we
109: report photometric and kinematical measurements that suggest the
110: presence of a central black hole in $\omega$ Cen.
111:
112: \begin{figure}
113: \plotone{f1.eps}
114: \caption{Surface brightness profiles for $\omega$ Cen. The circles
115: show our measured photometric points from the ACS (filled) and
116: H-alpha (open) images. The triangles show photometric points
117: obtained from ground based images by Trager et al. The dashed line
118: is Trager's Chebychev fit. The solid line is our smooth fit to the
119: combination of the ACS points inside 40\arcsec\ and Trager's
120: Chebychev fit outside.}
121: \label{sb}
122: \end{figure}
123:
124: \section{Surface Brightness Profile}
125:
126: \vspace{10pt}
127:
128: The surface density profile at large radii for $\omega$ Cen has been
129: measured from a combination of star counts and aperture photometry
130: from ground based images \citep{mey87,tra95,van00}. We measure the
131: central part of the profile taking advantage of
132: $\it{Hubble~Space~Telescope}$ ($\it{HST}$) spatial resolution. We
133: measure integrated light from an ACS F435W image (340 sec) applying
134: the technique described in detail in \citet{noy06}, which uses a
135: robust statistical estimator, the bi-weight, to calculate number of
136: counts per pixel on a given annulus around the center of the
137: cluster. As a test, we also measure the profile from a narrow band
138: H-alpha image from the Rutgers Fabry-Perot \citep{xie06} with lower
139: spatial resolution. Since both images have a limited radial coverage,
140: we use the Chebychev fit of \citet{tra95} for the surface brightness
141: profile to cover the full, radial extent of the cluster. All profiles
142: are normalized to the Trager profile.
143:
144: Having accurate coordinates for the center of the cluster is crucial
145: when measuring density profiles. Using the wrong center typically
146: produces a shallower inner profile. We use a technique where we take
147: an initial guess center, divide the cluster in eight concentric
148: sectors around this center, and calculate the standard deviation of
149: the sum of stars for the eight sectors. The radius of the sectors is
150: chosen to be as large as the image will allow, in this case it is
151: $\sim$2\arcmin. We repeat the procedure for a grid of center
152: coordinates and use the one that has the minimum standard
153: deviation. Details about the technique can be found in
154: \citet{noy06}. The coordinates for our center are RA $13:26:46.043$ and
155: DEC $-47:28:44.8$ on the ACS dataset J6LP05WEQ using its WCS zeropoint.
156:
157: The measured profiles from the B-band and H-alpha images are
158: consistent as can be seen on Figure \ref{sb}. The H-alpha profile
159: follows the turnover around the core radius very well up to
160: 100\arcsec~and it also shows the rise toward the center, but it is
161: noisier than the ACS profile. The solid line is a smooth fit made to
162: the combination of the photometric points from ACS inside
163: 40\arcsec~and Trager et al. Chebychev fit outside 40\arcsec. For
164: comparison, we include the \citet{tra95} photometric points in the
165: plot. The surface brightness profile shows a continuous rise toward
166: the center with a logarithmic slope of $-0.08\pm0.03$, which is in
167: contrast to the common notion that $\omega$ Cen has a flat
168: core. \nocite{van00} Van Leeuwen et al (2000) perform star counts for
169: giant stars and notice that they are more concentrated than previously
170: thought. Our result is consistent with their finding.~\citet{bau05}
171: perform N-body models of star clusters with initial King profiles and
172: containing a central black hole. They predict the formation of a
173: shallow cusp of $-0.1$ to $-0.3$ logarithmic slope after $1.5-4$
174: relaxation times.~\citet{tre07} perform similar N-body models and
175: conclude that clusters containing central IMBHs evolve to
176: configurations that have extended cores, with $r_c/r_h\sim0.3$. The
177: $r_c/r_h$ ratio for $\omega$ Centauri is 0.33, which is in very good
178: agreement with the predictions from this models. Our observed surface
179: brightness profile is intriguing considering that it follows the two
180: specific predictions from these N-body models, but of course, only
181: kinematical measurements can determine the mass profile, and test the
182: existence of a central black hole.
183:
184:
185: \section{Kinematic Measurements}
186:
187: \vspace{10pt}
188:
189: Obtaining kinematic information of the central regions of Galactic
190: globular clusters is a challenging task since the brightest stars
191: dominate with typical ground-based conditions and the extreme crowding
192: produces confusion. Measuring individual radial velocities requires a
193: spatial resolution that can only be achieved with adaptive optics or
194: from space. On the other hand, measuring velocity dispersion from an
195: integrated spectrum is subject to shot noise due to giant stars whose
196: contribution dominates the light. \citet{dub97} calculate the relative
197: contribution to integrated light by different stellar groups. They
198: find that the contribution from the few brightest stars is equal in
199: weight to that of the much larger numbers of fainter stars. Therefore,
200: the only way to obtain accurate radial velocity dispersion
201: measurements from an integrated spectrum is if the participation of
202: the brightest stars can somehow be avoided or at least minimized. One
203: way to do this is by observing crowded regions with an integral field
204: unit (IFU) which produces individual spectra of subsections in the
205: region (typically $\sim$0.2\arcsec\ in size). One can exclude the
206: spectra affected by the brightest stars when measuring the integrated
207: background light and thus decrease the shot-noise contribution to the
208: uncertainty. The Gemini telescopes operate primarily using a queue
209: scheduling, which makes them an excellent tool to measure integral
210: field spectra of globular clusters since observing constraints (such
211: as excellent seeing) can be specified in advance, and data is only
212: taken when the required observing constraints are met.
213:
214: \begin{figure}
215: \plotone{f2.ps}
216: \caption{The central field observed with the GMOS-IFU. The green box
217: represents the GMOS field of view. Top left: ACS image of the
218: observed region. The red circle marks the center of the cluster. Top
219: right: Convolved ACS image to reproduce the reported seeing during
220: observations. Bottom left: GMOS acquisition image. Bottom right:
221: Reconstructed GMOS-IFU image.}
222: \label{frame59}
223: \end{figure}
224:
225: \begin{figure}
226: \plotone{f3.ps}
227: \caption{Same as fig 2 for the field 14\arcsec\ away.}
228: \label{frame52}
229: \end{figure}
230:
231: As part of the Science Verification program for the Gemini GMOS-South
232: IFU, we obtained nod-and-shuffle observations on February 29 2004
233: (program ID: GS-2003B-SV-208). We use the IFU in 2-slit
234: nod-and-shuffle mode, which gives a field of view of
235: $5\arcsec\times5\arcsec$, comprised of 700 individual lenslets plus
236: fiber elements, each of which covers approximately 0\arcsec.2 on the
237: sky. We use the R600 grating, yielding a resolving power R=5560, which
238: we measure from the lamp spectral lines, along with the Calcium
239: Triplet filter to give a wavelength coverage of 7900-9300\AA. Three
240: fields are observed, each for a total integration time of 900 sec on
241: source and 900 sec on sky. The observations are made using the
242: nod-and-shuffle technique with 30 sec sub-integrations observed in a
243: B-A-A-B pattern, where A is the on-source position and B is the sky
244: position, located 498\arcsec\ away. The nod-and-shuffle technique
245: improves the sky subtraction, especially in the presence of CCD
246: fringing, by sampling the object and sky on exactly the same CCD
247: pixels, with exactly the same light path, on timescales comparable to
248: those of the sky emission line variability. The first of the three
249: fields is located at the cluster center, and the second field is
250: centered 14\arcsec\ away. The third field appears to have been
251: pointing somewhere else but, despite much efforts, we cannot determine
252: exactly where the IFU observations are pointed (they do not match
253: anything in the acquisition image for this field). The reconstructed
254: IFU image for this third field contains fewer stars and the PSF is
255: obviously broader than for the other two. It is clear that the
256: exposure was taken during much worse seeing conditions than the other
257: two fields, so shot-noise effects are likely to be important; for this
258: reasons we exclude the third field from further analysis. Using the
259: standard tasks from the IRAF-GEMINI package we sky subtract,
260: flat-field, and extract the spectra for each fiber and apply a
261: wavelength calibration.
262:
263: \begin{figure}
264: \plotone{f4.eps}
265: \caption{Velocity dispersion profile for $\omega$ Cen with various
266: central black hole models. Filled squares are the dispersions and
267: uncertainties from the GMOS-IFU and open circles are from individual
268: radial velocity measurements. A set of isotropic spherical models of
269: varying black hole masses is shown for comparison. The thick line is
270: the no black hole model and the thin lines represent models with
271: black holes as labeled. The dashed (red) line is the velocity
272: dispersion profile for the best-fit orbit-based model (in Section
273: 4).}
274: \label{models}
275: \end{figure}
276:
277: The standard flat subtraction does not remove all of the fringing
278: pattern in the image. As a result, a constant number of counts have to
279: be subtracted from the data frames before flattening in order to
280: reduce fringing problems. Relative to the bias frame, the amount of
281: additional counts from scattered light is about 8\%. Even after this
282: procedure, there is some residual fringing that can only be alleviated
283: by combining individual fibers over the full field into one
284: spectrum. To combine individual fibers we first divide by the
285: continuum. The intention is to de-weight the bright stars with respect
286: to the fainter ones, which helps to lessen the problems due to shot
287: noise. For the continuum fit, we run a boxcar of dimension
288: $111\times1$ over the reduced image, and then divide the central pixel
289: by the median of the pixels in the box. This procedure brings all
290: spectra to the same continuum level. We then combine every individual
291: fiber with the six adjacent ones, since this represents one seeing
292: disk for the observations
293:
294: Figure \ref{frame59} shows the reconstructed image from the IFU fibers
295: for the central frame and the acquisition image as well as the same
296: region on the ACS image. We also show a convolved image (with the
297: reported seeing for the observations) of the ACS frame. The same match
298: is performed for the field 14\arcsec~away (Fig \ref{frame52}). Both
299: ACS fields contain $\sim100$ resolved stars. We construct a luminosity
300: function for the detected stars for each field and compare it to the
301: luminosity function of the entire cluster core. The luminosity
302: function is consistent between the two fields. The brightest stars
303: detected in both fields are two magnitudes fainter than the brightest
304: stars detected in the core of the cluster. This excludes the
305: possibility of the integrated spectra being artificially broadened by
306: the presence of more blue straggler stars in the central field
307: compared to the field 14\arcsec\ away. Using the photometric
308: measurements of individual stars together with the reported seeing, we
309: calculate how many stars contribute to each fiber. Excluding the
310: fibers which are dominated by a single star we estimate that the
311: integrated spectrum of the background unresolved light represent about
312: 60 stars in both fields.
313:
314: We focus on the Ca triplet region (8450\AA -8700\AA) for our
315: analysis. We measure the relative velocities between each fiber for
316: the two fields and obtain velocity distributions from the individual
317: fiber velocities. We fit a Gaussian to the velocity distributions and
318: observe that the one for the central field is clearly broader than for
319: the one 14\arcsec\ away. The largest relative velocity between two
320: fibers is 80 \kms\ for the central frame, and 60 \kms\ for the other
321: one. Using the dispersion of the individual fiber velocities as a
322: measure of the cluster velocity dispersion will be biased. Since
323: multiple stars, in general, provide light to an single fiber, the
324: measured velocity in that fiber will be pulled toward the cluster mean
325: as opposed to representing one star. Thus, the dispersions of the
326: fiber velocities will be biased significantly low. This is what we
327: find although the central frame does have a obviously larger spread in
328: fiber velocities.
329:
330: To properly estimate the velocity dispersion we have to rely on the
331: integrated light, and require template stars in this
332: case. Unfortunately, we do not have isolated stars that are free from
333: the fringe problems mentioned earlier, so we cannot accurately use
334: template stars observed with the same instrument. We rely on the
335: template stars observed by \citet{wal05}, from VLT-UVES observations
336: at around R=35000. We convolve the spectra to our measured resolving
337: power. To extract the velocity dispersion from the integrated light we
338: utilize the non-parametric, pixel-based technique as described in
339: \citep{geb00b,pin03}. We choose an initial velocity profile in bins,
340: convolve it with the template (or set of templates), and calculate
341: residuals to the integrated spectrum. The parameters for the line of
342: sight velocity distribution (either velocity bin values or, if
343: desired, a parametric Gauss-Hermite expansion) are varied to provide
344: the best match. Monte Carlo simulations determine the uncertainties,
345: and use the measured noise in the spectrum.
346:
347: The dispersion fitting routine allows for a mismatch in the equivalent
348: width between the object and template. In this case, there is a 30\%
349: difference in the equivalent width of the calcium triplet lines. We
350: do not know whether this is caused by the scattered light (unlikely
351: given the amplitude), the specific templates we used, omega Cen's
352: particular composition, or a combination of all three. We have run a
353: variety of tests to determine whether stars of difference equivalent
354: widths would cause a bias in dispersions, and find no such bias. We
355: have also measured the dispersions using template stars from the same
356: IFU data, since there is at least one star that is fairly
357: isolated. The uncertainties are larger due to the scattered light
358: problems, but the value of the dispersion remains the same. Thus, we
359: conclude that template issues are not a significant source of bias in
360: the dispersion estimate.
361:
362: \begin{figure}
363: \plotone{f5.eps}
364: \caption{$\chi^2$ vs. black hole mass. The minimum is found for a
365: black hole mass of $4.0\times10^4 M_\odot$, with 68\% confidence
366: limit at $3$ and $4.75\times10^4 M_\odot$ marked by the dashed
367: line. For our model assumptions, the no black hole model is excluded
368: at greater than the 99\% confidence}
369: \label{chibh}
370: \end{figure}
371:
372: We combine the spectra from individual fibers using a biweight
373: estimator. Different sets of fibers for each frame are combined in
374: order to test for consistency in our results. First, we combine every
375: fiber on the frame, then we exclude the 25\%, 50\% and 75\% brightest
376: fibers. We measure the velocity dispersion for these four spectra for
377: each frame. The measured velocity for the central frame is always
378: higher than the one for the frame 14\arcsec\ away for every equivalent
379: pair of combined spectra. We measure velocity dispersions from 21.8 to
380: 25.2 \kms\ for the central field, and 18.2 to 19.1 \kms\ for the field
381: 14\arcsec\ away. We adopt $23.0\pm2.0$\kms\ for the central field and
382: $18.6\pm1.6$\kms\ for the other. The latter measurement coincides with
383: the central velocity dispersion value measured for $\omega$ Cen by
384: various authors. Van den Ven et al. (2006) measure a line of sight
385: velocity dispersion profile by combining various datasets
386: \citep{sun96,may97,rei06,xie06}. They use 2163 individual radial
387: velocity measurements divided into polar apertures to obtain the final
388: velocity dispersion profile. We use dispersion estimates as presented
389: in their table 4. The average radius for the spectra that contribute
390: to the central values is 2.5\arcsec\ and 14\arcsec\ for the
391: second. Figure \ref{models} presents the velocity dispersion data.
392:
393: \section{Models}
394:
395: \vspace{10pt}
396:
397: As discussed in Section 2, the central shape of the surface brightness
398: profile of $\omega$ Cen resembles that found by \citet{bau05} in star
399: clusters harboring black holes. The presence of an intermediate black
400: hole at the center of this cluster is one of the possibilities for
401: explaining the observed rise in velocity dispersion. We have run two
402: types of modeling: 1) spherical and isotropic, and 2) flattened,
403: orbit-based models that allow for general anisotropy. Although the
404: orbit-based models are more general, they do not consider dynamical
405: stability. For a system with a half light relaxation time shorter than
406: its age, like $\omega$ Cen, the dynamical evolution cannot be ignored.
407: Therefore, while the two models give similar results we quote results
408: from the isotropic analysis and use the orbit-based models to explore
409: possible velocity anisotropies.
410:
411: \begin{figure}
412: \plotone{f6.eps}
413: \caption{Inferred density profiles. The solid line is the
414: deprojected density profile for the luminous component. The dashed
415: line represents the required dark component to reproduce the
416: observed kinematics.}
417: \label{dens}
418: \end{figure}
419:
420:
421:
422: For the isotropic analysis, we create a series of models using the
423: non-parametric method described in \citet{geb95b}. As a first step we
424: apply a reddening correction to the observed surface brightness
425: profile. \citet{har96} reports a 0.1 reddening for this cluster,
426: which, although being relatively low, it is important for the proper
427: $M/L$ determination of the models. The reddening correction will only
428: affect the $M/L$ value of the models, but not the shape of the
429: profiles. We deproject the surface brightness profile using Abel
430: integrals assuming spheroidal symmetry. The integral involves a
431: derivative of the profile, therefore, any amount of noise present is
432: amplified. We apply a spline smoother to the surface brightness
433: profile before deprojecting and thus obtain a luminosity density
434: profile as discussed in \citet{geb96}. By assuming an M/L ratio, we
435: calculate a mass density profile, from which the potential and the
436: velocity dispersion can be derived. We repeat the calculation adding a
437: variety of central point masses ranging from 0 to
438: $7.5\times10^4M_\odot$ while keeping the global $M/L$ value fixed. Van
439: de Ven et al (2006) measure a fairly constant stellar $M/L$ profile
440: for $\omega$ Cen of $2.5\pm0.1$. We find a constant mass luminosity
441: ratio of 2.7, since this provides the best match to the observed
442: velocity dispersion profile outside the core.
443:
444: Figure \ref{models} shows the comparison between the different models
445: and the measured dispersion profile. The most relevant part of the
446: comparison is the rise inside the core radius, in particular the rise
447: between the two innermost measurements. As it can be seen, an
448: isotropic model with no black hole present predicts a slight decline
449: in velocity dispersion toward the center, instead we observe a clear
450: rise. The predicted central velocity for the no black hole model is
451: 14.6 \kms\ which is well below any line of sight velocity dispersion
452: measured inside 1\arcmin. The calculated $\chi^2$ values for each
453: model are plotted in Figure \ref{chibh}, as well as a line showing a
454: $\Delta\chi^2=1$. The $\chi^2$ curve implies a best-fitted black hole
455: mass of $4^{+0.75}_{-1}\times10^4M_\odot$. Even the original velocity
456: dispersion profile without our two innermost measurement already
457: points to an intriguing discrepancy, but the central measurements
458: confirm an important rise in $M/L$ from the core radius to the center
459: of this cluster. The central $M/L$ value is 6.7, which is a
460: considerable rise from the value of 2.7 just inside the core
461: radius. Our best fit model implies a central density of
462: $5.6\times10^7M_\odot/pc^3$ the largest measured in a globular
463: cluster.
464:
465:
466: \begin{figure}
467: \plotone{f7.ps}
468: \caption{Contours of $\chi^2$ as a function of black hole mass and
469: mass-to-light ratio. Each point represents a particular model. The
470: contours represent the 68, 90, 95, and 99\% confidence for one
471: degree-of-freedom, implying $\Delta\chi^2=1.0, 2.7, 4.0,$ and 6.6. The
472: circled point is the model that has the minimum value.}
473: \label{2dchi}
474: \end{figure}
475:
476: We also construct axisymmetric orbit-based dynamical models. The
477: models are based on the formulation by \citet{sch79} and are
478: constructed as in \citet{geb00b,geb03}. These models provide the most
479: freedom possible of the distribution function for an axisymmetric
480: system. We use the same deprojection as describe above, except we also
481: include the observed flattening. Assuming an $M/L$ ratio and a BH
482: mass, the mass distribution of the cluster is obtained and from it,
483: the potential can be computed. Using this potential, we generate about
484: $10^4$ representative orbits. The best match to the observed
485: photometric and kinematical data provide the orbital weights for a
486: given potential. The process is repeated for various $M/L$ values and
487: BH masses until the minimum $\chi^2$ model is found. The kinematical
488: observations matched here are the individual radial velocities from
489: van den Ven et al. (2006), and the two integrated measurements
490: described above. We plan to perform more detailed orbit-based models
491: including proper motion measurements in the future.
492:
493: Figure \ref{2dchi} plots $\chi^2$ as a function of black hole mass and
494: stellar M/L. The best fit model requires a black hole mass of
495: $3\pm1\times10^4~M_\odot$, with 1-sigma of the isotropic result. As
496: expected, since orbit-based models are more general, the difference in
497: $\chi^2$ compared to the no black hole case is smaller than in the
498: isotropic case. The $\Delta\chi^2$ between the best-fitted black hole
499: model and no black hole model is 4 (marginalized over M/L), implying a
500: 95\% significance. In comparison, the $\chi^2$ difference for the
501: isotropic models is 25. As discussed below, the reason for the
502: difference is that the orbit-based models allow for significant radial
503: anisotropy in the core for the no black hole model, while the best-fitted
504: mass produces a nearly isotropic distribution consistent with previous
505: measurements \citep{ven06}.
506:
507: We also plot the velocity dispersion profile as measured in the
508: best-fit orbit based model in Figure \ref{models}, given as the dashed
509: (red) line. The dispersion profile for the orbit-based model with no
510: black hole is very similar, with no obvious correlated
511: differences. The reason there are no obvious differences is because
512: the overall change in $\chi^2$ is small and the orbit-based models
513: tend to redistribute orbital weights to spread $\chi^2$ over the full
514: radial range. As discussed in Gebhardt et al. (2003), it is difficult
515: to see differences in radial profiles of projected kinematics between
516: models with black holes and without, even for galaxies where the
517: overall $\chi^2$ difference is large. This is understood since the
518: orbit models have the freedom to change the orbital properties in such
519: a way to even out the $\chi^2$ differences over the full spatial
520: extent of the observations. For omega Cen, the black hole model only
521: provides an increase in $\chi^2$ of 4; thus with 23 data points, the
522: average difference in terms of the measurement uncertainty is 0.42. For
523: these reasons, the orbit-based models provide a modest significance
524: for a black hole, and the argument is significantly strengthened when
525: considering the need for the strong amount of radial anisotropy when a
526: black hole is not included.
527:
528: The observations we use in the dynamical modeling rely on only the
529: first and second moments of the velocity distribution. Since we have
530: individual velocities (except for the central two radial points), we
531: can utilize the full velocity profile. Furthermore, proper motion data
532: exists for data at larger radii (van den Ven et al. 2006). Including
533: both effects, full velocity profiles and proper motions, will be the
534: subject of a more detailed paper on omega Cen.
535:
536: \subsection{Alternative to a Black Hole: Dark Remnants}
537:
538: A possible alternative to explain the observed rise in $M/L$ toward
539: the center is a concentration of dark stellar remnants, e.g. neutron
540: stars, stellar mass black holes, or massive white dwarfs. Using the
541: observed velocity dispersion profile, we calculate the total enclosed
542: mass and from this, the mass density profile. We then compare this
543: with the enclosed mass implied by the luminosity density profile,
544: assuming the same M/L as for the models in the previous section. From
545: these two profiles, we can estimate the density profile of the implied
546: extended dark component, if we assume this was the cause of the
547: velocity dispersion rise towards the center. Figure \ref{dens} shows
548: the estimated density profile for the dark and luminous components. It
549: is clear that, if the velocity rise is due to an extended distribution
550: of dark stellar remnants, the density profile of this dark component
551: needs to be very concentrated and steep, with a logarithmic slope of
552: $\sim-2.0$ (the slope of the dashed line in the figure), resembling a
553: cluster undergoing core collapse. The relaxation time for $\omega$ Cen
554: implies a much slower dynamical evolution than the one necessary to
555: reach such a configuration. Core-collapse models have shown that when
556: a cluster has reached such a high degree of mass segregation, the
557: observable core to half light radius gets very small, with values
558: below 0.05 \citep{bre94,mak96}, while this ratio is 0.3 for
559: $\omega$~Cen. Also, the concentration value for $\omega$~Cen is
560: $c=1.6$ \citep{har96}, which is too low a value for the cluster to
561: have undergone core-collapse. No evolutionary model predicts such a
562: concentrated distribution of dark remnants inside a cluster with a
563: shallow extended core for the visible stars. Furthermore, the
564: required number of dark remnants is around 1\% of the cluster mass.
565: While this number is expected from stellar evolution, it is not
566: expected to have all of the remnants to be concentrated inside of the
567: core.
568:
569:
570: \begin{figure}
571: \plotone{f8.eps}
572: \caption{Radial over tangential anisotropy vs. radius from
573: orbit-based models. The solid line is for the best fit model
574: containing a black hole. The dashed line is for a model with no
575: black hole present. The vertical line marks the location of the
576: core radius.}
577: \label{anis}
578: \end{figure}
579:
580: \subsection{Alternative to a Black Hole: Orbital Anisotropy}
581:
582: Another possibility is that the observed rise in velocity dispersion
583: is due to velocity anisotropy in the cluster. The orbit-based models
584: explore this possibility. The two main results from the orbit analysis
585: are that 1) the lowest $\chi^2$ model is the one with a central black
586: hole and 2) the model with no black hole requires a substantial amount
587: of radial anisotropy. Figure \ref{anis} shows that without the
588: presence of a central black hole, a large degree of radial anisotropy
589: -- $\sigma_r/\sigma_t$=1.5 -- is required inside $0.3~r_c$. At
590: $r>28$\arcsec, the models with and without a black hole are close to
591: isotropic, in agreement with the results of van den Ven et
592: al. (2006). For a system as dense as $\omega$~Cen, such a degree of
593: anisotropy as measured in the no black hole case is expected to be
594: quickly erased through relaxation processes. However, even with such a
595: strong amount of radial anisotropy, the no black hole case is a poorer
596: fit than the best-fitted black hole. One of the disadvantages of the
597: orbit-based models is that we cannot include the dynamical stability
598: arguments in the $\chi^2$ analysis, and for a system with a short
599: relaxation time such as a globular cluster, this may be important. We,
600: therefore, adopt results from the isotropic models, in particular
601: since the analysis of van den Ven et al. (2006) find an isotropic
602: distribution.
603:
604: \section{Discussion}
605:
606: \vspace{10pt}
607:
608: We measure the surface brightness profile for the globular cluster
609: $\omega$ Centauri (NGC~5139) from an ACS image in the central
610: 40\arcsec. The profile shows a continuous rise toward the center with
611: a logarithmic slope of $-0.08\pm0.03$, in contrast with previous
612: measurements which found a flat core. The shape of the profile is
613: similar to that obtained from numerical models of star clusters
614: containing black holes in their centers. We measure a line of sight
615: velocity dispersion for two 5\arcsec$\times$5\arcsec~regions, one at
616: the center of the cluster and the other 14\arcsec~away. We detect a
617: rise in velocity dispersion from 18.6 \kms\ for the outer field to 23
618: \kms\ for the central one. We combine these two measurements with
619: previously measured velocity dispersion at larger radii.
620:
621: When we compare the observed velocity dispersion profile with a series
622: of isotropic models containing black holes of various masses, we find
623: that a black hole of $4.0 ^{+0.75}_{-1.0}\times~10^4 M_\odot$ is
624: necessary to match the observations. We explore alternative
625: explanations for the observed rise in our central velocity dispersion
626: measurements. First we consider the possibility that the observed
627: $M/L$ rise is due to the presence of an extended component composed of
628: dark remnants such as neutron stars or faint white dwarfs. The density
629: profile of the dark component is required to be extremely concentrated
630: toward the center, with a configuration practically decoupled from the
631: luminous component. $\omega$ Cen has a weak cusp in the central
632: luminosity density profile, implying that the gravitational potential
633: is very shallow inside the core and therefore mass segregation is only
634: a weak effect. \citet{fer06} confirm the lack of segregation by
635: measuring the radial distribution of blue straggler stars, which are
636: heavy stars and should sink to the center of the cluster if there is
637: mass segregation. They find a flat radial distribution of blue
638: stragglers with respect to lighter stellar populations. Also, the
639: formation channel of the blue stragglers is not collisional, as it
640: would be expected if there was a considerable amount of mass
641: segregation. With this evidence in hand, there is no reason to expect
642: a large variation of $M/L$ inside the core due to stellar content, so
643: a detected rise in $M/L$ is likely to come from the presence of a
644: concentrated massive object.
645:
646:
647: \begin{figure}
648: \plotone{f9.eps}
649: \caption{$M_\bullet-\sigma_{vel}$ relation for elliptical galaxies
650: and bulges. The solid line is the relation in \citet{tre02}.
651: $\omega$ Cen lies on the low mass extrapolation and suggests a
652: similarity between it and the galaxies. Different types of systems
653: such as star clusters and low luminosity AGN appear to populate the
654: low mass end of the diagram.}
655: \label{bhsigma}
656: \end{figure}
657:
658: There is also a stability argument against a dense compact cluster of
659: dark remnants. The central density as measured from the 23~\kms\
660: dispersion estimate at 1.8\arcsec\ is $5.6\times10^7
661: M_\odot/pc^3$. This is the largest measured for a globular cluster and
662: it would be difficult to maintain using stellar remnants. Obviously,
663: if the density is due to solar mass remnants, over $10^4$ remnants
664: would be required inside of 0.05 parsecs. Using the arguments of Maoz
665: (1998) and Miller (2006), this mass and density makes $\omega$~Cen one
666: of the better examples where stellar remnants can be ruled out due to
667: evaporation. Maoz estimates that for these numbers, any cluster of
668: remnants will have evaporated within the age of the cluster.
669:
670: An observed velocity dispersion rise toward the center of a cluster
671: can also occur if a degree of anisotropy is present. If more radial
672: orbits are present, those stars pass near the center at higher
673: velocities than they would in an isotropic case. This possibility is
674: evaluated with our orbit-based models. Our results agree with the
675: model by van den Ven et al. (2006) in showing no anisotropy in the
676: central 10 arcmin. Their models show a degree of tangential anisotropy
677: at large radius, but no radial anisotropy. Models without a central
678: black hole but having a large degree of anisotropy inside 28\arcsec\
679: are not as as good as models including a black hole. Furthermore, the
680: high degree of radial anisotropy is highly unstable in dense systems
681: like $\omega$~Cen and therefore it is an unlikely explanation for the
682: observed kinematics.
683:
684: Figure \ref{bhsigma} shows the known $M_\bullet-\sigma_v$ relation for
685: black holes in elliptical galaxies and bulges \citep{geb00a,fer00}. The
686: galaxies used to determine the relation \citep{tre02} are plotted
687: along with objects containing smaller black holes in low luminosity
688: quasars \citep{bar05}, two nearby low luminosity AGN (NGC~4595 and
689: Pox~52), and three globular clusters (G1, M15 and $\omega$ Cen). We
690: also plot the upper limit for the black hole mass in the nucleus of
691: M33 \citep{geb01}, which does not lie on the correlation. The black
692: hole in $\omega$ Cen lies above the relation, but it is consistent
693: with the scatter observed a larger masses. The measured black hole
694: mass is 1.6\% of the total mass of the cluster, which is much larger
695: than the canonical value of $\sim0.3$\% for larger spheroids
696: \citep{mag98}. If $\omega$ Cen is indeed the nucleus of an accreted
697: galaxy it is expected that it's original mass was considerably larger
698: than what we measure now. \citet{bek03} reproduce the current mass and
699: orbital characteristics of $\omega$ Cen with a model of an accreted
700: $10^7M_\odot$ dwarf galaxy. A mass of $4\times10^7M_\odot$ for the
701: original spheroid would put the black hole near the 0.3\% value.
702:
703: The two pieces of observational evidence that $\omega$ Cen could
704: harbor a central black hole come from the photometry and the
705: kinematics. From the HST image of $\omega$ Cen, we measure a central
706: logarithmic surface brightness slope of $-0.08\pm0.03$. This value is
707: very similar to that claimed by the N-body simulations of Baumgardt et
708: al. (2005) that are most likely explained by a central black hole.
709: Standard core-collapse does not lead to such a large core with a
710: shallow central slope. The black hole tends to prevent core collapse
711: while leaving an imprint of a shallow cusp. It will be important to
712: run models tailored to $\omega$~Cen to see if one can cause and
713: maintain a shallow cusp without invoking a central black hole.
714: However, the main observational evidence for the central mass comes
715: from the increase in the central velocity dispersion, where we detect
716: a rise from 18.6 to 23~\kms\ from radii of 14 to 2.5\arcsec. In fact,
717: even excluding the Gemini data presented here, the previous
718: ground-based data suggest a central mass concentration as well. The
719: core of $\omega$~Cen is around 155 \arcsec\ (about 2.5 \arcmin), so
720: the dispersion rise is seen well within the core.
721:
722: \acknowledgments
723:
724: \vspace{5pt}
725:
726: E.N. would like to thank Tim de Zeeuw for very valuable discussions
727: and Glenn van de Ven for kindly sharing his data. K.G. acknowledges
728: NSF CAREER grant AST 03-49095. We thank Carl Jakob Walcher for
729: promptly making his data available to us. This publication is based on
730: observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, which is
731: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
732: Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555, and observations obtained at
733: the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of
734: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc, under cooperative
735: agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the
736: National Science Foundation (United States), the Particle Physics and
737: Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Research
738: Council (Canada), CONACYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council
739: (Australia), CNPq (Brazil) and CONICET (Argentina). We acknowledge the
740: technical support from the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre, which is
741: operated by the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research
742: Council of Canada, and the support by CONACYT.
743:
744:
745: \begin{thebibliography}{}
746:
747: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Barth}, {Greene}, \& {Ho}}{{Barth}
748: et~al.}{2005}]{bar05}
749: {Barth}, A.~J., {Greene}, J.~E., \& {Ho}, L.~C. 2005, ApJL, 619, L151
750:
751: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Baumgardt} et~al.}{{Baumgardt}
752: et~al.}{2003a}]{bau03b}
753: {Baumgardt}, H., {Heggie}, D.~C., {Hut}, P., \& {Makino}, J. 2003a, MNRAS,
754: 341, 247
755:
756: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Baumgardt} et~al.}{{Baumgardt}
757: et~al.}{2003b}]{bau03a}
758: {Baumgardt}, H., {Hut}, P., {Makino}, J., {McMillan}, S., \& {Portegies
759: Zwart}, S. 2003b, ApJL, 582, L21
760:
761: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Baumgardt}, {Makino}, \& {Hut}}{{Baumgardt}
762: et~al.}{2005}]{bau05}
763: {Baumgardt}, H., {Makino}, J., \& {Hut}, P. 2005, ApJ, 620, 238
764:
765: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Baumgardt} et~al.}{{Baumgardt}
766: et~al.}{2003c}]{bau03c}
767: {Baumgardt}, H., {Makino}, J., {Hut}, P., {McMillan}, S., \& {Portegies
768: Zwart}, S. 2003c, ApJL, 589, L25
769:
770: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bedin} et~al.}{{Bedin} et~al.}{2004}]{bed04}
771: {Bedin}, L.~R., {Piotto}, G., {Anderson}, J., {Cassisi}, S., {King}, I.~R.,
772: {Momany}, Y., \& {Carraro}, G. 2004, ApJL, 605, L125
773:
774: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bekki} \& {Freeman}}{{Bekki} \&
775: {Freeman}}{2003}]{bek03}
776: {Bekki}, K., \& {Freeman}, K.~C. 2003, MNRAS, 346, L11
777:
778: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Breeden}, {Cohn}, \& {Hut}}{{Breeden}
779: et~al.}{1994}]{bre94}
780: {Breeden}, J.~L., {Cohn}, H.~N., \& {Hut}, P. 1994, ApJ, 421, 195
781:
782: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dinescu}, {Majewski}, \& {Girard}}{{Dinescu}
783: et~al.}{2001}]{din01}
784: {Dinescu}, D.~I., {Majewski}, S.~R., \& {Girard}, K.~M., T.~M.~and{Cudworth}.
785: 2001, AJ, 122, 1916
786:
787: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Dubath}, {Meylan}, \& {Mayor}}{{Dubath}
788: et~al.}{1997}]{dub97}
789: {Dubath}, P., {Meylan}, G., \& {Mayor}, M. 1997, AAP, 324, 505
790:
791: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ferrarese} \& {Merritt}}{{Ferrarese} \&
792: {Merritt}}{2000}]{fer00}
793: {Ferrarese}, L., \& {Merritt}, D. 2000, ApJL, 539, L9
794:
795: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ferraro} et~al.}{{Ferraro}
796: et~al.}{2006}]{fer06}
797: {Ferraro}, F.~R., {Sollima}, A., {Rood}, R.~T., {Origlia}, L., {Pancino}, E.,
798: \& {Bellazzini}, M. 2006, ApJ, 638, 433
799:
800: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Freeman}}{{Freeman}}{1993}]{fre03}
801: {Freeman}, K.~C. 1993, in {ASP Conf. Ser. 48: The Globular Cluster-Galaxy
802: Connection}, 608
803:
804: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gebhardt} et~al.}{{Gebhardt}
805: et~al.}{2000a}]{geb00a}
806: {Gebhardt}, K., et~al. 2000a, \apjl, 539, L13
807:
808: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gebhardt} \& {Fischer}}{{Gebhardt} \&
809: {Fischer}}{1995}]{geb95b}
810: {Gebhardt}, K., \& {Fischer}, P. 1995, AJ, 109, 209
811:
812: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gebhardt} et~al.}{{Gebhardt}
813: et~al.}{2001}]{geb01}
814: {Gebhardt}, K., et~al. 2001, \aj, 122, 2469
815:
816: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gebhardt} et~al.}{{Gebhardt}
817: et~al.}{2000b}]{geb00}
818: {Gebhardt}, K., {Pryor}, C., {O'Connell}, R.~D., {Williams}, T.~B., \&
819: {Hesser}, J.~E. 2000b, AJ, 119, 1268
820:
821: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gebhardt}, {Rich}, \& {Ho}}{{Gebhardt}
822: et~al.}{2002}]{geb02}
823: {Gebhardt}, K., {Rich}, R.~M., \& {Ho}, L.~C. 2002, \apjl, 578, L41
824:
825: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gebhardt}, {Rich}, \& {Ho}}{{Gebhardt}
826: et~al.}{2005}]{geb05}
827: {Gebhardt}, K., {Rich}, R.~M., \& {Ho}, L.~C. 2005, ApJ, 634, 1093
828:
829: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gebhardt} et~al.}{{Gebhardt}
830: et~al.}{1996}]{geb96}
831: {Gebhardt}, K., et~al. 1996, AJ, 112, 105
832:
833: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gebhardt} et~al.}{{Gebhardt}
834: et~al.}{2000c}]{geb00b}
835: {Gebhardt}, K., et~al. 2000c, AJ, 119, 1157
836:
837: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gebhardt} et~al.}{{Gebhardt}
838: et~al.}{2003}]{geb03}
839: {Gebhardt}, K., et~al. 2003, \apj, 583, 92
840:
841: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gerssen} et~al.}{{Gerssen}
842: et~al.}{2002}]{ger02}
843: {Gerssen}, J., {van der Marel}, R.~P., {Gebhardt}, K., {Guhathakurta}, P.,
844: {Peterson}, R.~C., \& {Pryor}, C. 2002, AJ, 124, 3270
845:
846: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gerssen} et~al.}{{Gerssen}
847: et~al.}{2003}]{ger03}
848: {Gerssen}, J., {van der Marel}, R.~P., {Gebhardt}, K., {Guhathakurta}, P.,
849: {Peterson}, R.~C., \& {Pryor}, C. 2003, AJ, 125, 376
850:
851: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Harris}}{{Harris}}{1996}]{har96}
852: {Harris}, W.~E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487
853:
854: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Icke} \& {Alcaino}}{{Icke} \&
855: {Alcaino}}{1988}]{ick88}
856: {Icke}, V., \& {Alcaino}, G. 1988, AAP, 204, 115
857:
858: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ikuta} \& {Arimoto}}{{Ikuta} \&
859: {Arimoto}}{2000}]{iku00}
860: {Ikuta}, C., \& {Arimoto}, N. 2000, AAP, 358, 535
861:
862: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Magorrian} et~al.}{{Magorrian}
863: et~al.}{1998}]{mag98}
864: {Magorrian}, J., et~al. 1998, \aj, 115, 2285
865:
866: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Makino}}{{Makino}}{1996}]{mak96}
867: {Makino}, J. 1996, ApJ, 471, 796
868:
869: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Mayor} et~al.}{{Mayor} et~al.}{1997}]{may97}
870: {Mayor}, M., et~al. 1997, AJ, 114, 1087
871:
872: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Merritt}, {Meylan}, \& {Mayor}}{{Merritt}
873: et~al.}{1997}]{mer97}
874: {Merritt}, D., {Meylan}, G., \& {Mayor}, M. 1997, AJ, 114, 1074
875:
876: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Meylan}}{{Meylan}}{1987}]{mey87}
877: {Meylan}, G. 1987, AAP, 184, 144
878:
879: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Meylan} et~al.}{{Meylan}
880: et~al.}{1995}]{mey95}
881: {Meylan}, G., {Mayor}, M., {Duquennoy}, A., \& {Dubath}, P. 1995, AAP, 303,
882: 761
883:
884: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Meza} et~al.}{{Meza} et~al.}{2005}]{mez05}
885: {Meza}, A., {Navarro}, J.~F., {Abadi}, M.~G., \& {Steinmetz}, M. 2005, MNRAS,
886: 359, 93
887:
888: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Norris} et~al.}{{Norris}
889: et~al.}{1997}]{nor97}
890: {Norris}, J.~E., {Freeman}, K.~C., {Mayor}, M., \& {Seitzer}, P. 1997, ApJL,
891: 487, L187
892:
893: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Norris}, {Freeman}, \& {Mighell}}{{Norris}
894: et~al.}{1996}]{nor96}
895: {Norris}, J.~E., {Freeman}, K.~C., \& {Mighell}, K.~J. 1996, ApJ, 462, 241
896:
897: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Noyola} \& {Gebhardt}}{{Noyola} \&
898: {Gebhardt}}{2006}]{noy06}
899: {Noyola}, E., \& {Gebhardt}, K. 2006, \aj, 132, 447
900:
901: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pancino} et~al.}{{Pancino}
902: et~al.}{2003}]{pan03}
903: {Pancino}, E., {Seleznev}, A., {Ferraro}, F.~R., {Bellazzini}, M., \&
904: {Piotto}, G. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 683
905:
906: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pinkney} et~al.}{{Pinkney}
907: et~al.}{2003}]{pin03}
908: {Pinkney}, J., et~al. 2003, ApJ, 596, 903
909:
910: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pooley} \& {Rappaport}}{{Pooley} \&
911: {Rappaport}}{2006}]{poo06}
912: {Pooley}, D., \& {Rappaport}, S. 2006, \apjl, 644, L45
913:
914: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Reijns} et~al.}{{Reijns}
915: et~al.}{2006}]{rei06}
916: {Reijns}, R.~A., {Seitzer}, P., {Arnold}, R., {Freeman}, K.~C., {Ingerson}, T.,
917: {van den Bosch}, R.~C.~E., {van de Ven}, G., \& {de Zeeuw}, P.~T. 2006, AAP,
918: 445, 503
919:
920: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Schwarzschild}}{{Schwarzschild}}{1979}]{sch7%
921: 9}
922: {Schwarzschild}, M. 1979, \apj, 232, 236
923:
924: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Suntzeff} \& {Kraft}}{{Suntzeff} \&
925: {Kraft}}{1996}]{sun96}
926: {Suntzeff}, N.~B., \& {Kraft}, R.~P. 1996, AJ, 111, 1913
927:
928: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Trager}, {King}, \& {Djorgovski}}{{Trager}
929: et~al.}{1995}]{tra95}
930: {Trager}, S.~C., {King}, I.~R., \& {Djorgovski}, S. 1995, AJ, 109, 218
931:
932: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Tremaine} et~al.}{{Tremaine}
933: et~al.}{2002}]{tre02}
934: {Tremaine}, S., et~al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740
935:
936: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Trenti} et~al.}{{Trenti}
937: et~al.}{2007}]{tre07}
938: {Trenti}, M., {Ardi}, E., {Mineshige}, S., \& {Hut}, P. 2007, \mnras, 374, 857
939:
940: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ulvestad}, {Greene}, \& {Ho}}{{Ulvestad}
941: et~al.}{2007}]{ulv07}
942: {Ulvestad}, J.~S., {Greene}, J., \& {Ho}, L. 2007, ApJL, accepted
943:
944: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{van de Ven} et~al.}{{van de Ven}
945: et~al.}{2006}]{ven06}
946: {van de Ven}, G., {van den Bosch}, R.~C.~E., {Verolme}, E.~K., \& {de Zeeuw},
947: P.~T. 2006, AAP, 445, 513
948:
949: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{van den Bosch} et~al.}{{van den Bosch}
950: et~al.}{2006}]{bos06}
951: {van den Bosch}, R., {de Zeeuw}, T., {Gebhardt}, K., {Noyola}, E., \& {van de
952: Ven}, G. 2006, ApJ, 641, 852
953:
954: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{van Leeuwen} et~al.}{{van Leeuwen}
955: et~al.}{2000}]{van00}
956: {van Leeuwen}, F., {Le Poole}, R.~S., {Reijns}, R.~A., {Freeman}, K.~C., \&
957: {de Zeeuw}, P.~T. 2000, AAP, 360, 472
958:
959: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Walcher} et~al.}{{Walcher}
960: et~al.}{2005}]{wal05}
961: {Walcher}, C.~J., et~al. 2005, ApJ, 618, 237
962:
963: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{White} \& {Shawl}}{{White} \&
964: {Shawl}}{1987}]{whi87}
965: {White}, R.~E., \& {Shawl}, S.~J. 1987, ApJ, 317, 246
966:
967: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Xie} et~al.}{{Xie} et~al.}{2006}]{xie06}
968: {Xie}, B., {Gebhardt}, K., {Pryor}, C., \& {Williams}, T.~B. 2006, in prep
969:
970: \end{thebibliography}
971:
972: \end{document}
973: