1: \documentstyle[psfig]{elsart}
2: %\documentclass{elsart}
3: %\usepackage{natbib}
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9: \begin{document}
10: \begin{frontmatter}
11: \title{The mass distribution in the innermost regions of
12: Spiral Galaxies.
13: }
14:
15: \author
16: { Charu Ratnam $\&$ Paolo Salucci}
17: \address{
18: International School for Advanced Studies, SISSA, Via
19: Beirut 2-4,
20: I-34013 Trieste, Italy
21: }
22:
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25:
26: We use high-spatial resolution ($\sim 100\ pc$)
27: rotation curves of 83 spiral galaxies to investigate
28: the mass distribution of their innermost kpc. We show
29: that, {\it in this region}, the luminous matter completely accounts for the
30: gravitational potential and no dark component is required. The derived
31: I-band disk mass-to-light ratios ${\mathcal{ Y}}_I $ agree well with those
32: obtained from population
33: synthesis models and correlate with color in a similar way. We
34: find strict upper limits of $\sim 10^7 M_\odot$ for the masses of compact bodies
35: at the center of spirals, ruling out that these systems
36: host the remnants of the quasar activity.
37:
38:
39:
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42: \end{frontmatter}
43:
44: \section {Introduction}
45:
46: There is increasing direct evidence that, at the centers of
47: bulge-dominated galaxies there reside Massive Dark Objects
48: (MDO), which are probably the remnants of the engines that once
49: powered the QSO phenomenon (Ho, 1998; Kormendy \& Richstone, 1995). In fact,
50: virtually every hot
51: galaxy hosts a MDO/BH with a mass ranging from $\sim
52: 10^8 M_\odot$ to $2\times 10^{10} M_\odot$, similar to those
53: related to the QSO phenomenon.
54: For disk galaxies, the situation is different and much more
55: uncertain.
56: A direct determination of the central mass has been obtained
57: only in
58: very few cases which include our own Galaxy where a black hole with a mass
59: $2\times 10^6 M_{\odot}$ has been discovered (Ghez \etal 1999, Genzel 1998;
60: see also Salucci et al 1999 for other few cases).
61: Remarkably, these masses do not exceed $10^7 M_\odot$;
62: however, the lack of detections of very massive objects
63: ($M_{MDO} >10^8 M_\odot$) cannot be ascribed to
64: observational biases.
65: In fact, the rotation curves (RC), in great number available
66: down to $r_{in }\sim 100 \ pc $, could easily
67: expose central bodies with masses of the order of $\sim 10^{8}
68: M_\odot$, given that usually $V(r_{in}) \sim \ 10\ km/s$,
69: or equivalently, the stellar mass inside $100 pc $ barely reaches $10^7
70: M_\odot$. On the other hand, the same RC analysis determining the
71: MDO mass, obtain also the mass distribution of the innermost regions.
72: This is particularly important in the case of low luminosity
73: DM-dominated spirals (see Persic and Salucci, 1990)
74: for which it is generally difficult
75: to disentangle the disk component from the whole bulk of
76: gravitating matter. In any cases, let us stress that to proper model the
77: region where the luminous matter dominates is indispensable
78: to infer the structural properties of dark matter.
79:
80:
81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
82: %%
83: %
84: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
85: %%
86: %%%%%%%%%%%
87: \begin{figure}
88: \vspace{12cm}
89: \special{psfile=bhind1.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-84
90: hscale=81
91: vscale=61
92: angle=0}
93: \vspace{10cm}
94: \special{psfile=bhind2.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-149
95: hscale=81
96: vscale=61
97: angle=0}
98: \end{figure}
99: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
100: %%
101: %%%
102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
103: %%
104: %%%%%%%%%
105: \begin{figure}
106: \vspace{12cm}
107: \special{psfile=bhind3.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-84
108: hscale=81
109: vscale=61
110: angle=0}
111: \vspace{10cm}
112: \special{psfile=bhind4.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-149
113: hscale=81
114: vscale=61
115: angle=0}
116: \end{figure}
117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
118: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
120: \begin{figure}
121: \vspace{12cm}
122: \special{psfile=bhind5.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-84
123: hscale=81
124: vscale=61
125: angle=0}
126: \vspace{10cm}
127: \special{psfile=bhind6.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-149
128: hscale=81
129: vscale=61
130: angle=0}
131: \end{figure}
132: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
133: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
134: %%
135: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
136:
137: \begin{figure}
138: \vspace{12cm}
139: \special{psfile=bhind7.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-84
140: hscale=81
141: vscale=61
142: angle=0}
143: \vspace{10cm}
144: \special{psfile=bhind8.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-149
145: hscale=81
146: vscale=61
147: angle=0}
148: \end{figure}
149:
150: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
151: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
152: %%
153: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
154: \begin{figure}
155: \vspace{12cm}
156: \special{psfile=bhind9.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-84
157: hscale=81
158: vscale=61
159: angle=0}
160: \vspace{10cm}
161: \special{psfile=bhind10.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-149
162: hscale=81
163: vscale=61
164: angle=0}
165: \end{figure}
166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
167: %%
168: %%%%%%%%%%%
169: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
170: \begin{figure}
171: \vspace{12cm}
172: \special{psfile=bhind11.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-84
173: hscale=81
174: vscale=61
175: angle=0}
176: \vspace{10cm}
177: \special{psfile=bhind12.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-149
178: hscale=81
179: vscale=61
180: angle=0}
181: \end{figure}
182: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
183: %%
184: %%%%%%%%
185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
186: %%
187: %%%
188: \begin{figure}
189: \vspace{12cm}
190: \special{psfile=bhind13.ps hoffset=-40 voffset=-84
191: hscale=81
192: vscale=61
193: angle=0}
194: \vspace{11.4cm}
195: \special{psfile=bhind14.ps hoffset=-38 voffset=-94
196: hscale=81
197: vscale=60
198: angle=0}
199: \caption{Mass models of the 83 objects of
200: sample B.
201: The dashed lines indicate the OD model (in a few cases
202: a bulge has been included) while the solid line indicates the disk+BH
203: model.}
204:
205:
206: \end{figure}
207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
208: %%
209: %%%%%%%
210: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
211: %%
212: %%
213: The aim of this work is to study the innermost
214: kinematics of spirals in order to {\it a)} investigate the
215: distribution of matter in relation to that
216: of light
217: {\it b)} set stringent upper limits on the MDO masses.
218: The plan of the paper is the following: in section 2 we
219: analyse a sample drawn from
220: the 967 rotation curves (RC's)
221: of Persic and Salucci (1995), in section 3 we
222: derive and discuss
223: the disk properties and in sections 4 and 5 we derive
224: upper limits on the MDO/BH masses and
225: discuss the results.
226: In this paper we assume $H_0=75 \ km/s \ Mpc^{-1}$, and
227: take, as the reference
228: magnitude in the B-band, $M_{*}=-20.5$, which translates
229: to $M_*-21.9$
230: in the I-band (e.g. Rhee, 1997). All luminosities correspond
231: to the I-band unless otherwise specified.
232:
233:
234: \section{Inner Rotation Curves of Late Types Spirals and
235: mass modeling}
236:
237: Recently, about a thousand
238: rotation curves of spiral galaxies (PS95),
239: tracing the kinematics inside the central kpc, have been available.
240: Among these, about one hundred have at least one
241: measurement $<200\ pc$ and several $<500-1000 \ pc$.
242: For these objects the detection of a MDO of $\sim 10^8 M_{\odot}$ or more,
243: if present,
244: is guaranteed and so is the determination of the
245: stellar disk mass, provided that in this region the stellar disk is the
246: major mass component.
247:
248: Therefore, we select from PS95 the largest sample of
249: rotation curves equally distributed in magnitude interval and
250: of sufficient high-quality for our purposes, by setting the
251: following
252: criteria: {\it i)} each RC has at least 4 measurements inside
253: a radius of $340 (1-{(M_I+15)\over {9}})\ pc\sim (350-500)\ pc$,
254: {\it ii)} for each RC, the innermost data is situated
255: at a radius $r_{in}<100(1 -{( M_I+15)\over 18})\sim (100-150)\
256: pc$. Let us notice that to restrict the criteria
257: reduces the number of RC's without improving their already
258: high quality that however rapidly decreases as they are relaxed.
259: The rotation curves resulting from the selection are
260: generally smooth, axisymmetric and with negligible non
261: circular perturbations. It is evident that there is a very
262: good agreement
263: between the rotation fields
264: on the receding and the approaching arm (see PS95). The
265: sample (Sample B in Salucci et al., 2000) has 83 objects,
266: well mixed in luminosity and almost equally distributed
267: between Sb-Sc and Sd-Im Hubble types.
268:
269: We aim to reproduce the RCs by a mass model
270: featuring: ({\it i)} a Freeman disk of length-scale $R_D$,
271: (derived in PS95)
272: and mass $M_D$, which contributes to the circular velocity as:
273: $$
274: V^2_d(R)={1\over 2} GM_D/R_D \ x^2
275: (I_0K_0-I_1K_1)_{x/2}
276: \eqno(1)
277: $$
278: where $I_n, K_n$ are modified Bessel functions and
279: $x=R/R_D$, and
280: ({\it ii)} a MDO which contributes
281: to $V(R)$ as:
282: $$
283: V^2_{MDO}(R)=GM_{MDO}/R
284: \eqno(2a)
285: $$
286: where the MDO mass is:
287: $$
288: M_{MDO}=f G^{-1} V^2(r_{in}) r_{in}
289: \eqno(2b)
290: $$
291: with $0<f\leq1$.
292:
293: In Fig.(1) we compare the velocity
294: data with the best-fitting mass models in the cases of 1)
295: $f=0$ (only disk, OD) mass model and of 2) $f>0$
296: (disk+ black hole) mass model (in practice: $f\simeq 1$).
297: As result, we find no central-body-dominated
298: (CBD) rotation curve, i.e. no RC shows the Keplerian
299: fall-off expected for a CBD RC. On the contrary,
300: rotation curves are strikingly close to those predicted by the OD model, i.e.
301: by a self-gravitating exponential thin disk with radially constant
302: mass-to-light ratio.
303: The results of the mass modeling are: in 57 objects
304: the OD velocity curve accounts for the rotation data in a {\it excellent} way and it
305: lies within the data error bars (for $R<R_{IBD}$ see below).
306: In 14 cases\footnote{349-G6, 38-G23, 35-G18, 157-G20, 436-G3, 468-G23, 547-G24,
307: 550-G7, N4348, 358G-63, 582-G12, 547-G31, I96099, N4705}the luminous matter
308: accounts for the rotation curve in a {\it satisfactory} way: data and
309: model differ utmost by $2\sigma$ and no evidence for an additional component emerges. In 9 cases\footnote
310: {347-G84, 328-G43, 249-G16, 84-G10, N755, 79-G14, M222025, N7218, 249-G16} the
311: OD fits are {\it reasonable} expecially if we consider that the corresponding
312: RC's have non-negligible internal dispersion and/or some asymmetry.
313: The low-luminosity
314: galaxy 545-G3 is dominated by dark matter at any radius.
315: Finally, in 2 cases; 346-G26, 410-G19, the OD model reproduces the data
316: with some difficulty.
317:
318: A simple inspection of the results shows that in every galaxy only
319: for $R\geq R_{IBD}$\footnote{Inner Baryon Dominance}the dark component
320: begins to
321: significantly contribute to the total gravitational
322: potential. We then confirm the picture of Salucci \& Persic (1999) and
323: Salucci etal,
324: (2000)
325: according to which, the luminous matter dominates an
326: innermost region of spirals of size
327: $R_{IBD}$. This truly baryonic scale turns out to be a
328: function of galaxy luminosity by ranging from $0.5R_{D}\sim 0.5 kpc$
329: to $2R_{D} \sim 30 kpc$ along the luminosity sequence
330: Such a transition can be seen, e.g. in the RC of
331: 55-G4: OD curve reproduces the data only out to
332: $R=R_{IBD}\sim 0.5 kpc$.
333: More in general, the best-fit models (see Fig 1) clearly show
334: that, with the exception of the least luminous galaxy, at
335: $R\sim 0.5 \ kpc$, the DM
336: contribution to the RC
337: lies below the detection
338: threshold.
339: On the other hand, in
340: order to become the major component at a $2-3$ disk scale-lenghts, the dark
341: mass, negligible at $0.5 kpc$ must {\it strongly} increase with radius.
342:
343: We conclude by stating that the OD mass models reproduce the innermost kpc of
344: the rotation
345: curves extremely well: on this scale, there is
346: {\ it no hint of a
347: dark component}.
348:
349:
350: \section {Disk properties}
351: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
352: %%
353: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
354: %%
355: %%%%%
356: \begin{figure}
357: \vspace{8.9cm}
358: \special{psfile=tmp.ps hoffset=25 voffset=-70 hscale=52
359: vscale=52
360: angle=0}
361: \caption{The 3D space of galaxy properties.
362: $M_D-(B-I)-L_{I}$.}
363: \label{fig:fig2}
364: \end{figure}
365: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
366: %%
367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
368: %%
369: %%%%%%%
370: Disk masses are derived from eq (1);
371: Although the uncertainties on the {\it disk}
372: mass-to-light ratio values must include model-fit uncertainties,
373: photometry
374: errors, and uncertainties on the assumed inclination and distance
375: (the latter present also for
376: Tully-Fisher distances).
377: The uncertainty budget can be roughly estimated as:
378: $\delta M_{D}/L_{I} \simeq 0.4 M_{D}/L_{I}$.
379:
380:
381:
382: The present sample of DM-free mass models is a most
383: suitable one for investigating the disk masses in relation with
384: the photometric properties of galaxies. In detail,
385: this is done with a sub-sample of Sample B comprising 28 objects for which
386: $I$-band luminosities and
387: $B-I$ colors are available.
388: In Table 1 we
389: report best-fit disk masses, color, mass-to-light ratios $M_{D}/L_{I}$
390: and luminosity for these objects.
391: B-I color are good indicators of stellar mass-to-light ratio (Vazdekis
392: et al 1996).
393: In Fig.2 we the show ${\mathcal Y}_I$ vs. $B-I$ colors
394: alongside with with the same relation
395: predicted by population synthesis models. We find
396: $$
397: {\cal Y}_I \simeq 0.63\times \Big({1.6 L_B\over {L_I}}\Big)^2
398: \eqno(3a)
399: $$
400: in good agreement with Vadzekis et al
401: \begin{figure}
402: \vspace{10.cm}
403: \special{psfile=mlbi.ps hoffset=25 voffset=-93 hscale=61
404: vscale=61 angle=0}
405: \vskip -0.8truecm
406: \caption{Logarithm of the mass-to-light ratio in the I band as a function of
407: the B-I color.
408: The solid line is from Vazdekis etal. 1996. The uncertainty in
409: B-I is 0.1 mag}
410: \label{fig:fig3}
411: \end{figure}
412: Finally, we compare the kinematical disk masses
413: $M_D$ with those
414: derived from the galaxy specto-photometry:
415: $M_{phot}={\mathcal Y}_I \ (B-I) \ L_I$
416: (let us remind that ${\mathcal {Y}}_I$ is
417: the average stellar mass-to-light ratio for
418: a stellar
419: population
420: of color $B-I$. As a quite general outcome of the past history of
421: galaxies, Vazdekis et
422: al. 1996 found
423: $$
424: {\mathcal {Y}}_I=b \ (B-I)+ c
425: \eqno(3b)
426: $$
427: where $b\sim \ 0.8$ and the value of the
428: constant $c$ is irrelevant. We find:
429: $$
430: M_D=(0.96 \pm 0.1) M_{phot}
431: \eqno(4)
432: $$
433: (28 d.o.f., see Fig 4), i.e. dynamical and
434: photometric mass estimates statistically coincide.
435: Notice that the disk mass and I-band luminosity are not
436: directly proportional:
437: $$
438: log \ M_D=(0.79 \pm 0.1)\ log L_I +
439: const
440: \eqno(5)
441: $$
442: with the log slope being significantly different from unity.
443: Then, the
444: existence of a relationship
445: between the maximum rotation velocity and the galaxy
446: luminosity is far from being a trivial one, in that the $I$-band
447: luminosity is not a straightforward measure of the stellar mass.
448: It is worth to note that in the 3-D space defined
449: by the ($log L_{I}$, $log (M_D/L_I)$, $ B-I$)
450: coordinate vector, spirals are not randomly distributed, but
451: occupy a very thin plane (see Fig. 2).
452:
453:
454:
455: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
456: %%
457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
458: %%
459: %%%%%%%%%%
460: \begin{figure}
461: \vspace{9.5cm}
462: \special{psfile=mm1.ps hoffset=43 voffset=-127 hscale=65
463: vscale=65 angle=0}
464: \caption{ Kinematical mass $M_D$ {\it vs} photometric disk
465: masses. Units in $log M_\odot$}
466: \bigskip
467: \label{fig:fig4}
468: \end{figure}
469:
470: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
471: %%
472: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
473: %%
474: %%%%%%%%%%%
475: \section {MDO/BH masses. Upper limits}
476:
477: The very good
478: spatial resolution of the RC's of our sample
479: plays a crucial role in the determination of strict and reliable MDO
480: upper
481: limits. In fact, since at small radii
482: $V\propto R $ and the mass inside $r_{in}$ scales as $ r_{in}^3$, a spatial
483: resolution of $r_{in} \sim 100pc$ yields to a mass resolution
484: of $\sim 10^6M_\odot$,
485: given that $V(r_{in}) \sim 10 km/s$.
486: In detail, the
487: ratio of the rotational velocities $(V_{MDO}/V_d)^2
488: \propto (M_{MDO}/r_{in})^3$,
489: implies that a
490: higher spatial resolutions lead to stronger limits on
491: $M_{MDO}$ (or easier detection).
492:
493:
494: We now force the presence of a central MDO/BH by adopting
495: the maximum possible MDO mass compatible with the rotation curve.
496: We determine the upper mass limits by assuming $f=1$ or $f=f_{max}$ with
497: $f=f_{max}$ the value that brings the model RC
498: $1\sigma$ higher than the innermost data. Note that for $f=1$
499: all the mass inside $r_{in}$ is in the black hole. We typically find:
500: $f_{max}=0.7-0.8$ and that, in spite of having an additional parameter,
501: the disk+black hole model performs
502: significantly worse than the OD model.
503:
504:
505: Notice that only in a few cases $f_{max}\sim 0.2$, furthermore,
506: no result changes if we assume$ f_{max}=1$ for all the objects.
507: $M_{BH}$ is then
508: obtained by substituting in equation (2b) the
509: corresponding values of $f$.
510: These are shown in Table 1: it is evident that typically
511: $M_{MDO}<<10^8 M_{\odot}$ especially at low luminosity.
512: It is clear that these
513: limits are short of the mass residing in a accreting BH
514: which is required to
515: power
516: high redshifts quasars, thus,
517: spirals do
518: not host QSO remnants (see also Salucci etal 2000).
519: More specifically, if central MDO's of
520: masses
521: $\sim 2\ M_{MDO}$ (and
522: still $<10^8 M_\odot$) were actually
523: present at the center of the late type spirals
524: of our sample, they would have
525: affected the inner kpc of the available RC's
526: more strongly than MDO's
527: of $\sim 10^9 M_\odot$
528: affect the inner kinematics of ellipticals
529: (Magorrian et al., 1998).
530:
531: %%%%%%%%%%
532: \begin{figure}
533: \vspace{8.5cm}
534: \special{psfile=diskmbh.ps hoffset=20 voffset=-121
535: hscale=74
536: vscale=71
537: angle=0}
538: \caption{ Upper limits BH/MDO masses {\it vs.} disk
539: masses. The solid line is the BH/MDO mass {\it vs.} stellar
540: mass of ellipticals.}
541: \label{fig:fig5}
542: \end{figure}
543: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
544:
545:
546: In Fig. 5 we show the relationship $M_{BH}$ {\it vs } the stellar
547: disk mass $M_D$, and, as a reference, we plot the
548: extrapolation to spirals of the elliptical's
549: stellar mass-MDO/BH mass relationship
550: $M_{MDO}=0.005 \times M_{stars}$ (Magorrian et
551: al.,1998, Kormendy \& Richstone 1995 ).
552: We immediately realize, that in
553: spirals, the MDO masses, if different from zero, are
554: however much smaller than those
555: detected at
556: the centers of ellipticals of same stellar luminosity;
557: whether this is related to their less prominent bulge content or does
558: reflect also a morphological mass segregation,
559: will be considered elsewhere (Salucci et al 2000). Notice that in the same paper
560: we perform a detailed investigation on possible biases occurring
561: in the present estimate of the MDO upper limits.
562:
563:
564: \section {DISCUSSION}
565:
566: Accurate mass models
567: of the innermost kpc of 83 spirals derived from
568: high spatial resolution RC's, reveal that,
569: inside this region, the luminous matter fully accounts for
570: the observed kinematics: a stellar disk of constant mass-to-light ratio (in
571: some cases in conjunction
572: with a spheroid) is virtually the only mass component.
573: In this region, with the exception of
574: very high luminosity galaxy with complex dynamics,
575: we find
576: $$
577: V^2(R) \propto {\sl light(<R)} /R
578: \eqno(6)
579: $$
580: which is indicative of the absence of a sizable dark component.
581: Therefore, the only possibility for the presence of a dark halo in the
582: central regions of spirals
583: is that it conceals itself below the detection threshold.
584:
585: More in detail, inside the innermost
586: kpc or so, the contribution to the gravitational potential from
587: a dark component cannot exceed 10\%; this is
588: in disagreement with claims and scenarios in which a dark
589: halo has a major role at
590: any radii. Moreover, in the same objects studied here,
591: the DM, undetected at $R< 1/3 \ R_D$, begins to
592: dominate the mass distribution at $R\sim 3R_D$ (PSS). Then, the dark
593: mass inside a giv en radius $R$ must increase with $R$
594: very steeply, e.g. as in the case of a constant
595: density distribution.
596:
597: In a DM-free environment, we have been
598: able to estimate the disk masses also for objects in which the
599: global influence of the dark matter is relevant and to
600: relate disk colors and masses across a large range of galaxy
601: luminosities. The next step will be to pursue a
602: coordinated kinematical and photometric study to tackle open
603: cosmological issues.
604: \section{Appendix}
605: In the appendix we produce the two Tables of galaxy and
606: MDO/BH properties.
607: \nopagebreak
608: \begin{table*}[hb]
609: \centering
610: \begin{tabular}{||lcccc||}
611: \hline
612: ${\it name}$&$M_{D}$&B-I&${\mathcal{Y}}$&$L_{I}$ \\
613: 116-G12 &9.83 &.675 &.51& 9.59\cr
614: 121-G6 &10.27 &.700 &.72
615: &9.84\cr
616: 143-G10 &8.83 &.225 &-.08
617: &8.92\cr
618: 346-G26 &10.11 &-.125 &.247 &9.82\cr
619: 347-G28 &9.56 &-.150 &.01
620: &9.49\cr
621: 347-G33 &10.40 &.300 &.23
622: &10.30\cr
623: 347-G34 &10.27 &.025 &-.08
624: &10.36\cr
625: 357-G16 &8.99 &-.350 &-.32
626: &9.17\cr
627: 359-G6 &9.04 &-.100 &-.5
628: &9.50\cr
629: 362-G11 &9.89 &.775 &.11
630: &10.10\cr
631: 374-G8 &8.95 &.000 &.11
632: &8.85\cr
633: 380-G23 &9.67 &.875 &.17
634: &9.85\cr
635: 406-G26 &10.11 &.000 &.30
636: &9.81\cr
637: 418-G1 &9.85 &.050 &.11
638: &9.76\cr
639: 441-G2 &10.18 &-.050 &.35
640: &9.81\cr
641: 468-G23 &9.55 &.000 &-.19
642: &9.74\cr
643: 487-G2 &10.00 &.525 &.14
644: &10.08\cr
645: 488-G54 &10.21 &-.250 &.07
646: &10.04\cr
647: 51-G18 &10.06 &-.075 &.37
648: &9.67\cr
649: 533-G53 &10.06 &.125 &-.30
650: &10.41\cr
651: 54-G21 &9.35 &.375 &-.25
652: &9.75\cr
653: 554-G28 &9.35 &.075 &.12
654: &9.27\cr
655: 556-G23 &10.09 &.200 &.12
656: &10.05\cr
657: 566-G22 &9.90 &-.150 &.14
658: &9.70\cr
659: 60-G25 &8.98 &-.250 &-.08
660: &8.97\cr
661: 84-G10 &9.80 &.050 &-.35
662: &10.17\cr
663: 305-G6 &10.45 &.250 &.13
664: &10.43\cr
665: 476-G15 &10.42 &-.025 &.12
666: &10.30\cr
667: 79-G14 &10.55 &.525 &.33
668: &10.43\cr
669: 79-G3 &10.24 &.800 &.29
670: &10.28\cr
671: \hline
672:
673: \end{tabular}
674:
675: \smallskip
676:
677: \caption{ (1) Galaxy name (2) Logarithm of the disk
678: mass in solar units
679: (3) B-I color (4) Logarithm of the disk mass-to-light ratio (I-band).
680: (5) I-Band luminosity.}
681:
682: \end{table*}
683:
684: \begin{table*}
685: \centering
686: \begin{tabular}{||lccccc||}
687: \hline
688: {\it name}&$log M_{BH}$&{\it name}&$log M_{BH}$&{\it
689: name}&$log \
690: M_{BH}$\\
691:
692: 116-g12 &6.6& 418-g8 &6.4& m-1-2524
693: &7.0\cr
694: 121-g6 &6.7& 436-g3 &6.7& m-214003
695: &6.3\cr
696: 13-g16 &5.9& 441-g2 &7.0& m-3-1042
697: &5.8\cr
698: 143-g10 &5.2& 446-g53 &6.8& n1090
699: &5.6\cr
700: 157-g20 &7.2& 468-g23 &5.4& n1832
701: &8.3\cr
702: 157-g38 &5.9& 481-g13 &5.6& n2763
703: &7.6\cr
704: 162-g17 &6.2& 487-g2 &7.2& n3715
705: &8.2\cr
706: 233-g42 &6.3& 488-g54 &6.3& n4348
707: &6.2\cr
708:
709: 249-g16 &5.8& 490-g28 &5.9& n699
710: &6.3\cr
711: 249-g35 &5.5& 490-g45 &7.3& n7218
712: &7.6\cr
713: 265-g2 &6.7& 498-g3 &6.6& n7339
714: &6.6\cr
715: 302-g9 &6.6& 51-g18 &5.3& n755
716: &5.7\cr
717: 328-g43 &6.2& 533-g53 &5.1& ua17
718: &5.8\cr
719: 329-g7 &7.2& 54-g21 &5.5& 269-g19
720: &8.3\cr
721: 346-g26 &4.9& 545-g3 &5.1& 305-g6
722: &7.8\cr
723: 347-g28 &5.7& 545-g5 &6.4& 358-g63
724: &6.7\cr
725: 347-g33 &7.1& 547-g24 &7.0& 36-g19
726: &7.7\cr
727: 347-g34 &5.9& 55-g4 &6.3& 476-g15
728: &6.6\cr
729: 35-g18 &7.7& 550-g7 &5.6& 545-g11
730: &8.3\cr
731: 357-g16 &5.6& 554-g28 &6.4& 547-g31
732: &7.4\cr
733: 359-g6 &4.7& 556-g23 &7.3& 582-g12
734: &7.7\cr
735: 362-g11 &6.2& 563-g14 &7.3& 79-g14
736: &7.6\cr
737: 374-g8 &5.2& 566-g22 &6.5& 79-g3
738: &6.2\cr
739: 380-g23 &6.8& 575-g53 &6.0& i96099
740: &6.9\cr
741: 406-g26 &5.2& 58-g30 &6.6& m-222025
742: &8.6\cr
743: 410-g19 &7.0& 60-g25 &6.4& n4705
744: &7.2\cr
745: 418-g1 &5.9& 84-g10 &5.5& n697
746: &8.4\cr
747: I407 &7.& I96099 &6.9&& \cr
748:
749:
750: \hline
751: \bigskip
752: \end{tabular}
753: \caption{ BH/MDO upper limits for the galaxies of the sample, in units of $log M_\odot$ }
754: \end{table*}
755: \newpage
756:
757: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
758:
759: \bibitem {1} Ghez A.M, Cline B.L, Morris M.,Becklin E.E., 1999,ApJ 509, 678
760:
761: \bibitem {2} Genzel R., AAS, 1998, 193, 620
762:
763: \bibitem {3} Ho L.C., 1998, in Observational
764: Evidence for Black Holes in the Universe, ed. Chakrabarti, S.
765: K., Kluwer Academic Pub.
766:
767: \bibitem {4} Kormendy J., Richstone D., 1995, ARA\&A, 33, 581
768:
769: \bibitem {5} Magorrian J., Tremaine S., Richstone D., Bender R.,
770: Bower G., Dressler A., Faber S.M., Gebhardt K., Green R.,
771: Grillmair C., Kormendy J., Lauer T.R., 1998, 115, 2285
772:
773:
774: \bibitem {6} Persic M., Salucci P., 1995 (PS95), ApJS, 99, 501
775:
776: \bibitem {7} Persic M., Salucci P., 1990, MNRAS, 245, 577
777:
778: \bibitem {8} Persic M., Salucci P., Stel F. (PSS), 1996, MNRAS, 281, 27
779:
780: \bibitem {9} Rhee M.H. 1997, Phd. Thesis, Groningen University
781:
782: \bibitem{10} Salucci P., Persic M., A\&A, 351, 442
783:
784:
785: \bibitem {11} Salucci P., Ratnam C., Monaco P., Danese G., 2000 MNRAS in press
786:
787: \bibitem {12} Salucci P., Szuskiewicz E., Monaco P., Danese G., 1999
788: MNRAS, 307, 637
789:
790: \bibitem {13} Vazdekis A., Casuso E., Peletier R.F., Beckman J.E., 1996, ApJS, 106,307
791:
792: \bibitem {14} Vazdekis A., Peletier R.F., Beckman J.E., Casuso E., 1997, ApJS, 111,203
793:
794:
795: \end{thebibliography}
796:
797:
798:
799: \end{document}
800:
801:
802: