1: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
2:
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4:
5:
6: \newcommand{\Hubble}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{H}_0}}
7: \newcommand{\Msun}{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{M}_\odot}}
8: \newcommand{\Lsun}{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{L}_\odot}}
9: \newcommand{\LBsun}{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{L}_{B\odot}}}
10: \newcommand{\AV}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{A}_V}}
11: \newcommand{\QH}{\ensuremath{Q(\mathrm{H})}}
12: \newcommand{\BH}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{BH}}}
13: \newcommand{\MBH}{\ensuremath{M_\mathrm{BH}}}
14: \newcommand{\Msph}{\ensuremath{M_\mathrm{sph}}}
15: \newcommand{\Lsph}{\ensuremath{L_\mathrm{sph}}}
16: \newcommand{\LBsph}{\ensuremath{L_\mathrm{B,sph}}}
17: \newcommand{\sigstar}{\ensuremath{\sigma_\star}}
18:
19: \newcommand{\ten}[1]{\ensuremath{10^{#1}}}
20: \newcommand{\xten}[1]{\ensuremath{\times 10^{#1}}}
21: \newcommand{\1}{\ensuremath{^{-1}}}
22: \newcommand{\2}{\ensuremath{^{-2}}}
23: \newcommand{\3}{\ensuremath{^{-3}}}
24:
25: \newcommand{\CM}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{~cm}}}
26: \newcommand{\KM}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{~km}}}
27: \newcommand{\PC}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{~pc}}}
28: \newcommand{\KPC}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{~kpc}}}
29: \newcommand{\MPC}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{~Mpc}}}
30:
31: \newcommand{\SEC}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{~s}}}
32: \newcommand{\YR}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{~yr}}}
33:
34: \newcommand{\kms}{\KM\SEC\1}
35: \newcommand{\ERG}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{~erg}}}
36: \newcommand{\ARCSEC}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{~arcsec}}}
37:
38: \newcommand{\vel}{\ensuremath{\langle v\rangle}}
39: \newcommand{\vcirc}{\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{circ}}}
40: \newcommand{\velsq}{\ensuremath{\langle v^2\rangle}}
41:
42: \newcommand{\HA}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{H}\alpha}}
43: \newcommand{\HB}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{H}\beta}}
44: \newcommand{\NII}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{[N\,II]}}}
45: \newcommand{\OIII}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{[O\,III]}}}
46: \newcommand{\SII}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{[S\,II]}}}
47:
48: \newcommand{\tst}{\tablenotemark{\ensuremath{\star}}}
49:
50: \newcommand{\Dx}{\ensuremath{\Delta x}}
51: \newcommand{\Dy}{\ensuremath{\Delta y}}
52: \newcommand{\Dv}{\ensuremath{\Delta v}}
53: \newcommand{\Dw}{\ensuremath{\Delta w}}
54: \newcommand{\dv}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}v}}
55: \newcommand{\dw}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}w}}
56: \newcommand{\dwp}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}w'}}
57: \newcommand{\xI}{\ensuremath{x}}
58: \newcommand{\yI}{\ensuremath{y}}
59: \newcommand{\vI}{\ensuremath{v}}
60: \newcommand{\wI}{\ensuremath{w}}
61: \newcommand{\dxI}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}x}}
62: \newcommand{\dyI}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}y}}
63: \newcommand{\dvI}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}v}}
64: \newcommand{\dwI}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}w}}
65: \newcommand{\xII}{\ensuremath{x'}}
66: \newcommand{\yII}{\ensuremath{y'}}
67: \newcommand{\dxII}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}x'}}
68: \newcommand{\dyII}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}y'}}
69: \newcommand{\ms}{\ensuremath{m^\prime}}
70: \newcommand{\mssq}{\ensuremath{m^{\prime 2}}}
71: \newcommand{\xs}{\ensuremath{x^\prime}}
72: \newcommand{\xssq}{\ensuremath{x^{\prime 2}}}
73: \newcommand{\ys}{\ensuremath{y^\prime}}
74: \newcommand{\yssq}{\ensuremath{y^{\prime 2}}}
75: \newcommand{\qs}{\ensuremath{q^\prime}}
76: \newcommand{\qssq}{\ensuremath{q^{\prime 2}}}
77: \newcommand{\q}{\ensuremath{q}}
78: \newcommand{\PSF}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}
79: \newcommand{\KERN}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}}
80: \newcommand{\mlr}{\ensuremath{\Upsilon}}
81: \newcommand{\I}{\ensuremath{i}}
82: \newcommand{\Th}{\ensuremath{\theta}}
83: \newcommand{\B}{\ensuremath{b}}
84: \newcommand{\So}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{s}_\circ}}
85: \newcommand{\Vsys}{\ensuremath{V_\mathrm{sys}}}
86: \newcommand{\chisq}{\ensuremath{\chi^2}}
87: \newcommand{\chisqr}{\ensuremath{\chi^2_\mathrm{red}}}
88: \newcommand{\chisqc}{\ensuremath{\chi^2_\mathrm{c}}}
89: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g.}
90:
91:
92: \slugcomment{Draft version, \today}
93:
94: \shorttitle{Black Hole at the Center of NGC 4041}
95: \shortauthors{Marconi et al.}
96:
97: \begin{document}
98:
99: \title{
100: Is there really a Black Hole at the center of
101: NGC 4041? - Constraints from gas kinematics\altaffilmark{1}}
102:
103: \author{
104: A.~Marconi\altaffilmark{2},
105: D.J.~Axon\altaffilmark{3},
106: A.~Capetti\altaffilmark{4},
107: W.~Maciejewski\altaffilmark{2,11},
108: J.~Atkinson\altaffilmark{3},
109: D.~Batcheldor\altaffilmark{3},
110: J.~Binney\altaffilmark{6},
111: M.~Carollo\altaffilmark{7},
112: L.~Dressel\altaffilmark{5},
113: H.~Ford\altaffilmark{8},
114: J.~Gerssen\altaffilmark{5},
115: M.A.~Hughes\altaffilmark{3},
116: D.~Macchetto\altaffilmark{5,9},
117: M.R.~Merrifield\altaffilmark{10},
118: C.~Scarlata\altaffilmark{5},
119: W.~Sparks\altaffilmark{5},
120: M.~Stiavelli\altaffilmark{5},
121: Z.~Tsvetanov\altaffilmark{8},
122: R.P.~van~der~Marel\altaffilmark{5}
123: }
124:
125: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space
126: Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated
127: by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA
128: contract NAS 5-26555. These observations are associated with proposal \#8228.}
129: \altaffiltext{2}{INAF- Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri,
130: L.go Fermi 5, I-50125 Firenze, Italy}
131: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire,
132: Hatfield AL10 9AB, UK}
133: \altaffiltext{4}{INAF- Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino, Strada Osservatorio 20, 10025 Pino Torinese, Torino, Italy}
134: \altaffiltext{5}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive,
135: Baltimore, MD 21218}
136: \altaffiltext{6}{Theoretical Physics, 1 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3NP, UK}
137: \altaffiltext{7}{Eidgenoessische Technische Hochschule Zuerich, Hoenggerberg HPF G4.3, CH-8092 Zuerich, Switzerland}
138: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University,
139: 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218}
140: \altaffiltext{9}{ESA Space Telescopes Division}
141: \altaffiltext{10}{School of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK}
142: \altaffiltext{11}{also, Obserwatorium Astronomiczne Uniwersytetu Jagiello{\'n}skiego, Poland}
143:
144:
145: \begin{abstract}
146: We present HST/STIS spectra of the Sbc spiral galaxy NGC 4041 which
147: were used to map the velocity field of the gas in its nuclear region.
148: We detect the presence of a compact ($r\simeq 0\farcs4\simeq 40\PC$),
149: high surface brightness, rotating nuclear disk co-spatial with
150: a nuclear star cluster. The disk is characterized by a rotation curve
151: with a peak to peak amplitude of $\sim 40\kms$ and is systematically
152: blueshifted by $\sim 10 - 20\kms$ with respect to the galaxy
153: systemic velocity. With the standard assumption of constant
154: mass-to-light ratio and with the nuclear disk inclination taken
155: from the outer disk, we find that a dark point mass of
156: $(1_{-0.7}^{+0.6})\xten{7}\Msun$ is needed to reproduce the observed
157: rotation curve. However the observed blueshift suggests the
158: possibility that the nuclear disk could be dynamically decoupled.
159: Following this line of reasoning we relax the standard assumptions and
160: find that the kinematical data can be accounted for by the stellar
161: mass provided that either the central mass-to-light ratio is
162: increased by a factor of $\sim 2$ or that the inclination is allowed to
163: vary. This model results in a $3\sigma$ upper limit of $6
164: \xten{6}\Msun$ on the mass of any nuclear black hole. Overall,
165: our analysis only allows us to set an upper limit of
166: $2\xten{7}\Msun$ on the mass of the nuclear \BH. If this upper limit
167: is taken in conjunction with an estimated bulge B magnitude of $-17.7$
168: and with a central stellar velocity dispersion of $\simeq 95\kms$,
169: then these results are not inconsistent with both the \MBH-\Lsph\
170: and the \MBH-\sigstar\ correlations.
171: Constraints on \BH\ masses in spiral galaxies of types as late as Sbc are still very scarce and therefore the present result adds an important new datapoint to our understanding of \BH\ demography.
172: \end{abstract}
173:
174:
175: \keywords{black hole physics --- galaxies: individual (NGC 4041) ---
176: galaxies: kinematics and dynamics --- galaxies: nuclei --- galaxies: spiral}
177:
178:
179: \section{Introduction}
180:
181: It has long been suspected that the most luminous AGN are powered by
182: accretion of matter onto massive black holes \citep[hereafter \BH;
183: \eg][]{lind69}. This belief, combined with the observed evolution of
184: the space-density of AGN \citep{soltan,chokshi,ms01} and the high
185: incidence of low luminosity nuclear activity in nearby galaxies
186: \citep{ho97}, implies that a significant fraction of luminous galaxies
187: must host black holes of mass $\ten{6}-\ten{10}\Msun$.
188:
189: It is now clear that a large fraction of hot spheroids (E-S0) contains a \BH\
190: \citep{harms,kr95,k96,macchetto97,marel98,bower98,marconi01} with mass
191: proportional to the mass (or luminosity) of the host spheroid ($\MBH/\Msph
192: \approx 0.001$ \eg\ \citealt{merritt01}). Recently \citet{ferrarese00} and
193: \citet{gebhardt00} have shown that a tighter correlation holds between the BH
194: mass and the velocity dispersion of the bulge. Clearly, any correlation of
195: black hole and spheroid properties would have important implications for
196: theories of galaxy formation in general, and bulge formation in particular.
197: However, to date, there are very few secure BH measurements or
198: upper limits in spiral galaxies
199: even though we know that AGNs are common in such systems \citep{maiolino}. In
200: total, there are 37 {\it secure} \BH\ detections
201: according to \citet{kg01} or just 22
202: according to \citet{mf01}, depending on the definition of ``secure''.
203: Only $\sim 20\%$ of these \BH\ detections (7/37 or 4/22, respectively) are in
204: galaxy types later than S0, and only 3 in Sbc's and later
205: (the Milky Way, \citealt{genzel}; NGC 4258, \citealt{miyoshi}; NGC 4945,
206: \citealt{greenhill}).
207: It is therefore important to directly establish how
208: common are BHs in spiral galaxies and if they follow the same \MBH-\Msph,
209: \MBH-\sigstar\ correlations as Elliptical galaxies.
210:
211: This can be achieved only with a comprehensive survey for \BH s that
212: covers quiescent and active spiral galaxies of all Hubble types. Such
213: a survey would pin down the mass function and space density of \BH s,
214: and their connection with host galaxy properties (\eg, bulge mass,
215: disk mass etc).
216:
217: To detect \BH s one requires spectral information at the highest
218: possible angular resolution: the ``sphere of influence'' \citep{rbh} of
219: \BH s are typically $\le 1$\arcsec\ even in the most nearby
220: galaxies. Nuclear absorption-line spectra can be used to demonstrate
221: the presence of a \BH\ \citep{kr95,r98,marel98b}, but the
222: interpretation of the data is complex because it involves
223: stellar-dynamical models that have many degrees of freedom -- that
224: can be pinned down only when data of very high S/N are
225: available \citep{binney82,statler,merr97,binney98}. Radio-frequency
226: measurements of masers in disks around \BH s provide some of the most
227: spectacular evidence for \BH s, but have the disadvantage that only a
228: small fraction of the disks will be inclined such that their
229: maser emission is directed toward us \citep{braatz}. Studies of
230: ordinary optical emission lines from gas disks
231: provide an alternative and relatively simple method to
232: detect \BH s.
233:
234: HST studies have discovered many cases of such gas disks in early-type
235: galaxies (M87, \citealt{ford94}; NGC 4261, \citealt{jaffe96}; NGC
236: 5322, \citealt{carollo97}; Cen A, \citealt{schreier98}) and have
237: demonstrated that both their rotation curves and line profiles are
238: consistent with thin disks in Keplerian motion
239: \citep{ferrarese96,macchetto97,ford98,marel98,bower98,marconi01}.
240:
241: In early-type galaxies there are still worrying issues about the dynamical
242: configuration of nuclear gas (\eg, misalignment with the major axis, irregular
243: structure etc). By contrast nuclear gas in relatively quiescent spirals is
244: believed to be organized into well defined rotating disks seen in optical line
245: images (\eg, M81, \citealt{devereux97}). \citet{ho02} recently
246: found that the majority of spiral galaxies in their survey has irregular
247: velocity fields in the nuclear gas, not well suited for kinematical analysis.
248: Still, $25\%$ of the galaxies where \HA\ emission was detected all the way to
249: the center have velocity curves consistent with circular rotation and the
250: galaxies with more complicated velocity curves can also be useful for \BH\ mass
251: measurement after detailed analysis of the spectra. Indeed, even in the most
252: powerful Seyfert nuclei such as NGC 4151, where the gas is known to be
253: interacting with radio ejecta, it may be possible to get the mass of the \BH\
254: from spatially resolved HST spectroscopy by careful analysis of the velocity
255: field to separate the underlying quiescently rotating disk gas from that
256: disturbed by the jets \citep{winge99}.
257:
258: Prompted by these considerations, we have undertaken a spectroscopic
259: survey of 54 spirals using STIS on the Hubble Space Telescope. Our
260: sample was extracted from a comprehensive ground-based study by Axon
261: et al.\ who obtained \HA\ and \NII\ rotation curves at a
262: seeing-limited resolution of 1\arcsec, of 128 Sb, SBb, Sc, and SBc
263: spiral galaxies from RC3. By restricting ourselves to galaxies with
264: recession velocities $V<2000\,$km/s, we obtained a volume-limited
265: sample of 54 spirals that are known to have nuclear gas disks and span
266: wide ranges in bulge mass and concentration. The systemic
267: velocity cut-off was chosen so that we can probe close to the nuclei
268: of these galaxies, and detect even lower-mass black holes. The frequency of
269: AGN in our sample is typical of that found in other surveys of nearby
270: spirals, with comparable numbers of weak nuclear radio sources and
271: LINERS. The sample is described in detail by Axon et al.\ (paper in
272: preparation).
273:
274: This paper presents the observations of NGC 4041, the first
275: object observed, and a detailed description of the analysis and modeling
276: techniques which will be applied to the other galaxies in the sample.
277: From the Lyon/Meudon Extragalactic Database
278: (LEDA\footnote{http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr}), NGC 4041 is classified as
279: a Sbc spiral galaxy with no detected AGN activity.
280: Its average
281: heliocentric radial velocity from radio measurements is $1227\pm
282: 9\kms$ becoming $\simeq 1480\kms$ after correction for Local Group
283: infall onto Virgo. With \Hubble=75\kms\MPC\1\ this corresponds to a
284: distance of $\simeq 19.5\MPC$ and to a scale of 95\PC/\arcsec.
285:
286: The outline of the paper is as follows. In \S\ref{sec:obsdata} we present the
287: adopted observational strategy and data reduction techniques. In
288: \S\ref{sec:results} we present the rotation curves of the ionized gas and the
289: broad-band images of the nuclear region of the galaxy. In \S\ref{sec:stardens}
290: we derive the stellar luminosity density from the observed surface brightness
291: distribution which is then used in the model fitting of the kinematical data.
292: All the details of the inversion procedure are described in
293: Appendix~\ref{app:stardens}. The model fitting of the kinematical data is
294: described in \S\ref{sec:modelkin} and all the details of the model computation
295: are described in Appendix~\ref{app:gaskin}. In particular,
296: \S\ref{sec:modstand} describes the {\it standard} approach, while in
297: \S\ref{sec:modalt} an {\it alternative} approach is considered. In
298: \S\ref{sec:discussion} we discuss the effects of our assumptions on the derived
299: value of the \BH\ mass for which, in the present case, only an upper limit can
300: be set. We then compare this upper limit with the \MBH-\Lsph\ and
301: \MBH-\sigstar\ correlations. Finally, our conclusions are presented in
302: \S\ref{sec:conclusions}.
303:
304: \section{\label{sec:obsdata} Observations and Data Reduction}
305:
306: \subsection{STIS observations}
307:
308: NGC 4041 was observed with STIS on the HST in 1999 July 7. An $\sim
309: 5\arcsec\times5\arcsec$ acquisition image was obtained with the F28X50LP
310: filter and the galaxy nucleus, present within the field of view, was
311: subsequently centered and re-imaged following the ACQ procedure. The exposure
312: time of the acquisition images was 120\SEC.
313: \begin{figure}[t!]
314: \epsfig{figure=f01.eps,angle=0,width=\linewidth}
315: \caption{\label{fig:acq} Slit positions overlaid on the acquisition
316: image. The 0,0 position is the position of the target derived from the
317: STIS ACQ procedure. The white cross is the kinematic center derived
318: from the fitting of the rotation curves (see \S\ref{sec:modelkin}).}
319: \end{figure}
320:
321: The observational strategy consisted in obtaining spectra at three
322: parallel positions with the central slit centered on the nucleus and
323: the flanking ones at a distance of 0\farcs2. The slit positions are
324: overlaid on the acquisition image in Figure~\ref{fig:acq} and their
325: position angle is 43\arcdeg. At each slit position we obtained two
326: spectra with the G750M grating centered at \HA, with the second
327: spectrum shifted along the slit by an integer number of detector
328: pixels in order to remove cosmic-ray hits and hot pixels. The nuclear
329: spectrum (NUC) was obtained with the 0\farcs1 slit and no binning of
330: the detector pixels, yielding a spatial scale of 0\farcs0507/pix along
331: the slit, a dispersion per pixel of $\Delta\lambda = 0.554$~\AA\ and a
332: spectral resolution of ${\cal R} = \lambda/(2\Delta\lambda) \simeq
333: 6000$. The off-nuclear spectra (POS1 and POS2) were obtained with the
334: 0\farcs2 slit and $2\times 2$ on-chip binning of the detector pixels,
335: yielding 0\farcs101/pix along the slit, 1.108 \AA/pix along the
336: dispersion direction and ${\cal R}\simeq 3000$. Total exposure
337: times were 950\SEC\ for the NUC position and 420\SEC\ and 500\SEC\ for
338: POS1 and POS2, respectively.
339:
340: The acquisition images were flat-fielded, realigned and co-added in
341: order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. The pixel scale is
342: $0\farcs0507$. The flux calibration was first obtained using the
343: PHOTFLAM header in the image. We subsequently applied a color
344: correction to convert to Johnson R magnitudes. In order to do this,
345: we used the average spectra of Sb and Sc spiral galaxies from
346: \citet{kinney96} as spectral templates.
347:
348: The raw spectra were reprocessed through the {\it calstis} pipeline using the
349: darks obtained daily for STIS. Standard pipeline tasks were used to obtain
350: flat-field corrected images. The two exposures taken at a given slit position
351: were then realigned with a shift along the slit direction (by an integer number
352: of pixels) and the pipeline task {\it ocrreject} was used to reject cosmic rays
353: and hot pixels. Subsequent calibration procedures followed the standard
354: pipeline reduction described in the STIS Instrument Handbook \citep{stishand},
355: i.e.\ the spectra were wavelength calibrated and corrected for 2D
356: distortions. The expected accuracy of the wavelength calibration is
357: $0.1 - 0.3$ pix within a single exposure and
358: $0.2 - 0.5$ pix among different exposures
359: \citep{stishand} which converts into $\sim 3 - 8\kms$ (relative) and $\sim
360: 5 - 13\kms$ (absolute). The relative error on the wavelength calibration is
361: negligible for the data presented here because our analysis is restricted to
362: the small detector region including \HA\ and \NII\ ($\Delta\lambda<100$\AA).
363:
364: The nominal slit positions obtained as a result of the STIS ACQ procedure were
365: checked by matching the light profiles measured along the slit with the
366: synthetic ones derived from the acquisition image: we collapsed the spectra
367: along the dispersion direction and compared the resulting light profiles with
368: the ones extracted from the acquisition image for a given slit position.
369: The agreement is good for all slit positions and the center of the NUC slit if
370: offset by only $\sim 0\farcs03$ with respect to the position of the target
371: determined by the STIS ACQ procedure (0,0 position in Figure~\ref{fig:acq}).
372:
373: We selected the spectral regions containing the lines of interest and
374: subtracted the continuum by fitting a linear polynomial row by row along the
375: dispersion direction. The continuum subtracted lines were then fitted row by
376: row with gaussian functions using the task LONGSLIT in the TWODSPEC FIGARO
377: package \citep{longslit} and the task {\it specfit} in the
378: IRAF\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy
379: Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for
380: Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National
381: Science Foundation. } {\it stsdas} package. When the signal-to-noise ratio
382: (SNR) was insufficient (faint line) the fitting was improved by co-adding two
383: or more pixels along the slit direction.
384:
385: \subsection{WFPC2 images}
386:
387: WFPC2 images in the F450W ($\sim$B), F606W ($\sim$R) and F814W
388: ($\sim$I) filters were retrieved from the archive.
389: These images encompass the entire galaxy with the nucleus
390: located in the WF3 chip. The data were
391: automatically reprocessed with the best calibration files available
392: before retrieval. Two exposures were performed in each of the three
393: filters, in order to remove cosmic rays. Warm pixels and cosmic rays
394: were removed (STSDAS tasks {\it warmpix} and {\it crrej}) and
395: mosaicked images with spatial sampling of 0\farcs1/pix were obtained
396: using the {\it wmosaic} task, which also corrects for the optical
397: distortions in the four WFPC2 chips. The background was estimated from
398: areas external to the galaxy where no emission is detected. Flux
399: calibration to Vega magnitudes was performed using the zero points by
400: \citet{wfpc2cal}. To convert to standard filters in the
401: Johnson-Cousins system we estimated the color correction using various
402: spectral templates, A0V and K0V stars and the Sb and Sc spiral spectra
403: from \citet{kinney96}. The color corrections are the following:
404: $I-F814W\simeq -0.1$ (Sb, K0V) and $-0.005$ (A0V);
405: $R-F606W\simeq -0.4$ (Sb, K0V) and $-0.05$ (Sc,A0V);
406: $B-F450W\simeq 0.1$ (Sb, K0V) and 0.0 (Sc,A0V).
407: With these corrections, the differences between colors from
408: Johnson-Cousins and HST instrumental magnitudes are
409: $\Delta(R-I)\simeq -0.3; -0.04$, $\Delta(B-I)\simeq 0.2; 0.0$,
410: $\Delta(B-R)\simeq 0.5; 0.0$ according to the templates used. Unless
411: stated otherwise, we have applied the color corrections derived from
412: the K0V star and Sb spiral templates, which are most suitable to the
413: present data.
414: \begin{figure*}[t!]
415: \centerline{
416: \epsfig{figure=f02a.eps,angle=0,width=0.33\linewidth}
417: \epsfig{figure=f02b.eps,angle=0,width=0.33\linewidth}
418: \epsfig{figure=f02c.eps,angle=0,width=0.33\linewidth}
419: }
420: \caption{\label{fig:rotlarge} From left to right: velocity, FWHM and Surface
421: brightness measured along the slit at POS1, NUC and POS2 (from top to bottom).
422: Vertical bars are 1$\sigma$ errors while horizontal bars indicate the size of
423: the aperture over which the quantity was measured. In the left panel, the
424: dashed line is the velocity gradient measured in the ground based data. The
425: dotted line in the NUC rotation curve panel is the line surface brightness
426: along the slit, drawn in order to pinpoint the high surface brightness nuclear
427: disk. The dotted lines in the FWHM panels corresponds to instrumental widths.
428: The 0 position along the slit corresponds to the position of the nuclear
429: continuum peak. }
430: \end{figure*}
431: \begin{figure*}[t!]
432: \centerline{
433: \epsfig{figure=f03a.eps,angle=0,width=0.33\linewidth}
434: \epsfig{figure=f03b.eps,angle=0,width=0.33\linewidth}
435: \epsfig{figure=f03c.eps,angle=0,width=0.33\linewidth}
436: }
437: \caption{\label{fig:rotnuc} Same as previous figure but for the points related
438: to the nuclear disk. The points with the errorbars are the quantities derived
439: in the fit which takes into account the presence of the blue wing and in which
440: \HA\ and \NII\ emitting media are constrained to have the same velocity and
441: FWHM. Conversely the points without the errorbars are derived with
442: unconstrained, single gaussian fits of \HA\ (open square) and \NII\ (crosses).
443: For more details see \S\ref{sec:linefitting}. }
444: \end{figure*}
445: \begin{figure*}[t!]
446: \epsfig{figure=f04.eps,angle=-90,width=\linewidth}
447: \caption{\label{fig:fits} Fits of the line profiles at the three slit
448: positions. The dotted lines identify the two components of the fit. Each
449: component is characterized by the same velocity and FWHM for \HA\ and \NII. The
450: ratio between the two \NII\ lines is that fixed by atomic physics. At every
451: slit position the blue component has the same velocity and width at each row
452: and their values are determined in the fit of the overall nuclear spectrum
453: shown in the upper panels. The numbers in the upper right corners of each panel
454: are the row or the range of rows where the fit was performed. The strong
455: narrow lines in the right panels are residual cosmic rays
456: which have been excluded from the fit.}
457: \end{figure*}
458:
459:
460: \subsection{Ground based observations}
461:
462: NGC 4041 was also observed with NICS \citep{nics} at the Telescopio
463: Nazionale Galileo (TNG) in 2001 February 12 using the $K^\prime$
464: filter and the small field camera which yields a 0\farcs13 pixel
465: size. The night was not photometric and seeing during the observations was
466: $\sim 0\farcs8$. Observations consisted of several exposures, each
467: with the object at a different position on the array. Data reduction
468: consisted in flat-fielding and sky subtraction. The frames were then
469: combined into a mosaic. In order to flux calibrate the NICS image we
470: have used the 2MASS image available on the web. The 2MASS K band
471: image is flux calibrated to an accuracy of $<0.1$mag and has a spatial
472: resolution of $\sim 3\farcs5$ with a pixel size of 1\arcsec. We have
473: therefore degraded the spatial resolution of the NICS image to the
474: 2MASS image and rebinned to 1\arcsec\ pixels. We have performed
475: ellipse fitting to both images and rescaled the NICS image to the flux
476: calibrated 2MASS data by comparing the light profiles.
477:
478: The NICS image and WFPC2 images were then realigned by cross
479: correlating common features in the nuclear region, because no point
480: sources are present in the near infrared image. The main feature
481: which drives the correlation is the strong nuclear peak, however we
482: have checked that, even excluding the central peak, the shift between
483: the images can be determined with an accuracy of $\pm 0\farcs2$
484: (i.e.\ $\pm 2$ pixels of WFPC2) in both directions. With this accuracy
485: the nuclear continuum peaks present in both optical and infrared
486: images are consistent with being at the same position.
487:
488: \section{Results\label{sec:results}}
489:
490: \subsection{Kinematics}
491:
492: \subsubsection{\label{sec:linefitting}Line fitting procedures}
493:
494: Line-of-sight velocities, full width at half maxima (hereafter FWHM)
495: and surface brightnesses along each slit were obtained by fitting
496: single gaussians to \HA\ and \NII\ emission lines in each row of the
497: continuum-subtracted 2D spectra. In the left panels of
498: Figure~\ref{fig:rotlarge} we plot the measured velocities. Beyond
499: $0\farcs5$ of the nucleus velocities show considerable small scale
500: variations likely due to local gas motions which do not reflect the
501: mass distribution. Therefore we averaged velocities by binning the
502: spectra in steps of 1\arcsec\ (10 rows in NUC and 5 in POS1,2), while,
503: within $0\farcs5$ of the nucleus velocities are measured along each
504: row to take advantage of all the spatial information. Similarly, the
505: central and right panels in Figure~\ref{fig:rotlarge} display FWHMs and
506: \HA\ surface brightnesses as measured along the slit.
507: \begin{figure}[t!]
508: \epsfig{figure=f05.eps,angle=0,width=\linewidth}
509: \caption{\label{fig:ground} Ground based rotation curve obtained at
510: PA=43\arcdeg.
511: The dashed line is the constant velocity gradient from the solid body part of
512: the rotation curve also shown in Figures~\ref{fig:rotlarge} and \ref{fig:rotnuc}.
513: }
514: \end{figure}
515:
516: In Figure~\ref{fig:rotlarge}, the dotted line superimposed on the NUC
517: rotation curve represents the \HA\ surface brightness shown in the
518: right central panel. This helps to distinguish the presence of two
519: components: an extended one, characterized by a low surface brightness
520: ($<10^{-13}\ERG\CM\2\SEC\1\ARCSEC\2$),
521: roughly constant along the slit, and nuclear one,
522: compact (within $-0\farcs4$ and 0\farcs4), bright and cospatial with the
523: position of the nuclear continuum peak. This might be interpreted as
524: a nuclear disk of the same extent as the nuclear stellar cluster
525: described in \S\ref{sec:morpho}. As shown in more detail in the right
526: hand panel of Figure~\ref{fig:rotnuc}, the emission line surface
527: brightness of the nuclear disk is double peaked while the nuclear continuum
528: source, roughly coincident with the center of rotation, is located
529: in--between the two peaks.
530:
531: Fitting single unconstrained gaussians is acceptable for the extended
532: component but it does not produce good results for the points in the
533: nuclear region. In particular a single gaussian fit produces
534: velocities of \HA\ and \NII\ which differ by as much as $\sim
535: 30 - 40\kms$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:rotnuc}). This is not a worrisome issue
536: if the amplitude of the rotation curve is a few 100 \kms\ but makes
537: interpretation of the data uncertain in the present case where the
538: amplitude of the nuclear rotation curve is only $\sim 40\kms$. A
539: careful analysis of the line profiles in the nuclear region shows that
540: they are persistently asymmetric with the presence of a blue wing (see
541: Figure~\ref{fig:fits}).
542:
543: A fit row by row with two gaussian components, the main component and the blue
544: one, with the constraint that they have the same velocities and widths for \HA\
545: and \NII, shows that, within the large uncertainties, the ``blue wing'' has
546: always the same velocity and width. We have then deblended the ``blue''
547: component in the spectrum obtained by co-adding the central 5 rows.
548: The
549: velocity and width of the blue component were then used in the row by row
550: fit. The constrained fit is good and \HA\ and \NII\ now have the same velocity
551: in the main component. The measured velocities, FWHMs and \HA\
552: surface brightnesses in the nuclear region are shown
553: in Figure~\ref{fig:rotnuc} where we also plot, as a comparison, the values
554: obtained from unconstrained single gaussian fits of \HA\ and \NII.
555: Given the signal-to-noise of the present data, the nature of the blue wing
556: is, as yet, unclear.
557: \begin{figure*}[t!]
558: \epsfig{figure=f06.eps,angle=0,width=\linewidth}
559: \caption{\label{fig:images}Overlay of the K band isophotes on the
560: grayscales of the F450W (left) and F814W (right) WFPC2 images.
561: North is up and East is left. The bottom panels show an expanded view
562: of the nuclear region.}
563: \end{figure*}
564: \begin{figure*}[t!]
565: \epsfig{figure=f07.eps,angle=-90,width=\linewidth}
566: \caption{\label{fig:colours}$20\arcsec\times 20\arcsec$
567: view of the color images of the central region of
568: NGC 4041. The center of the images coincides with the location of the
569: nucleus. North is up and East is left. From left to right: $B-I$,
570: $B-I$ degraded to NICS resolution, $B-K$ with B (from WFPC2/F450W)
571: degraded to NICS resolution. The dark regions have redder colors.
572: }
573: \end{figure*}
574:
575:
576: \subsubsection{\label{sec:vcurves}Velocity curves}
577:
578: The velocity field of the extended component shows a quasi-linear
579: gradient of $\sim 8 \kms/\arcsec$ which agrees with the velocity
580: gradient (Figure~\ref{fig:ground}) measured from ground-based observations
581: at the same PA as our STIS spectra (Axon et al., paper in preparation).
582: The velocity gradient measured from the ground based
583: rotation curve is shown as a straight line in the figures. The large
584: scale trend observed from HST matches very well the expected gradient
585: from the solid body part of the ground based rotation curve although it
586: presents structures at small scales.
587:
588: Within 0\farcs5 of the nucleus, the velocity field shows a smooth
589: S-shaped curve with a peak to peak amplitude of only 40\kms\
590: (left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:rotnuc}). Overall
591: there is no hint of a steep Keplerian rise around a point-like mass.
592:
593: The central velocities of the nuclear curves are systematically offset
594: from the large scale velocity field by $\sim 10 - 20 \kms$ (compare with
595: the dashed line which is the solid body part of the rotation curve
596: - left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:rotnuc}). The off-nuclear slits show essentially
597: the same velocity field as the on-nucleus slit. Thus this blueshift
598: must be real and not an instrumental artifact generated by light
599: entering the slit off center (for a detailed discussion on the effects
600: of light entering the slit off-center see \citealt{witold01}).
601: For example, consider the case in which the peak of line emission
602: is on the blue side (left on Figure~\ref{fig:acq}) of the NUC slit. Then
603: the measured velocity will be blueshifted with respect to the true
604: value. The same would happen for POS1. However in POS2 the peak of
605: the line emission will be on the red side of the slit and the measured
606: velocities will be shifted to the red with respect to the true value.
607: This is not the case for our data. The possible origin and
608: implications of this blueshift are discussed in
609: \S\ref{sec:discussion}.
610:
611: \subsection{\label{sec:morpho}Morphology}
612:
613: The acquisition image, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:acq}, has a
614: field-of-view of $5\arcsec\times5\arcsec$. In Figure~\ref{fig:images} we
615: show the inner $30\arcsec\times30\arcsec$ and $5\arcsec\times5\arcsec$
616: of the WFPC2 and NICS images. Finally in Figure~\ref{fig:colours} we
617: plot the color maps.
618:
619: The acquisition image (Figure~\ref{fig:acq}) shows a compact but
620: resolved (FWHM$\simeq0\farcs2$) bright central feature superimposed to
621: the central region of the bulge. A second bright feature is present
622: $\sim 0\farcs4$ SW of the nucleus. Figure~\ref{fig:acqprof} represents
623: the radial light profile from the STIS acquisition image. As already
624: clear from the acquisition image, the light profile indicates the
625: presence of a bright central feature. This feature is spatially
626: extended as can be seen from a comparison with the light profile of an
627: unresolved source (NGC 4051) obtained with the same instrumental
628: setup. This nuclear feature is likely to be a star cluster; a
629: photometrically distinct star cluster is often present in the
630: dynamical center of spiral galaxies of all Hubble types
631: \citep[\eg][and references therein]{carollo98,carollo02,boker02}.
632:
633: The same central source is visible in all the WFPC2 images and an
634: analysis of its colors (Figure~\ref{fig:colours}) indicates that it is
635: bluer than the surrounding regions but still redder than the galaxy
636: disk and bulge.
637: Its Vega magnitudes in the three WFPC2 filters are 19.10 (F450W),
638: 18.05 (F606W) and 17.16 (F814W) with formal uncertainties of $\pm
639: 0.02$mag. These values, converted to Johnson magnitudes, become
640: B=19.2, R=17.7, I=17.1 for the K0V and Sb spiral spectra and B=19.1,
641: R=18.0, I=17.15 for the A0V and Sc spiral spectra. The star cluster
642: emission is very weak in the K band and not readily visible but its
643: location is coincident with the location of the K band peak within the
644: alignment uncertainties ($\sim 0\farcs2$, see Figure~\ref{fig:images}).
645:
646: The color images show that the inner few arcseconds are redder
647: than the galaxy disk and bulge and this could either be due to the
648: presence of obscuration by dust or to a change in stellar population.
649: \begin{figure}[t!]
650: \epsfig{figure=f08.eps,angle=0,width=\linewidth}
651: \caption{\label{fig:acqprof} Radial light profile from the STIS acquisition
652: image. The empty diamonds represent the radial light profile from a galaxy, NGC
653: 4051, having a strong central unresolved source; the profile was rescaled to
654: match the NGC 4041 one in the central pixel. }
655: \end{figure}
656:
657: \begin{figure}[t!]
658: \epsfig{figure=f09.eps,angle=0,width=\linewidth}
659: \caption{\label{fig:profiles} Azimuthally averaged light profiles for the WFPC2
660: and NICS images. All images have been rescaled to match the external light
661: profile of the F814W image. The scaling factors applied are indicated in the
662: figure and directly show the color in the outer regions where the profiles
663: match. ``NICS res.'' indicates that the F814W image has been degraded
664: to the NICS resolution.}
665: \end{figure}
666:
667: From several galaxy catalogues it can be inferred that the inclination
668: of the large scale disk is $\sim 20$\arcdeg. This is supported by the
669: nearly circular isophotes observed in the NICS and WFPC2 images at
670: large scales $> 20\arcsec-30\arcsec$. However, in the inner regions, a
671: bar-like structure is visible in the K band image oriented $\sim$ E-W.
672: It is extended for $\sim 15\arcsec$ i.e.\ $\sim 1.4\KPC$ with isophotes
673: symmetrically twisted on both ends. The twisting is most likely due to
674: spiral arms just outside (and apparently connecting to) the bar. These
675: give the bar the appearance of being larger than it is. It is well
676: known \citep[see, \eg][]{shaw95,knapen} that strong concentrations of
677: young stars can dominate the K-band. This likely happens in the region
678: where spiral arms emanate from the bar in NGC~4041: blue-star
679: complexes are seen in color images there, particularly at the west end
680: (Figure~\ref{fig:images}). The bar itself is rather short with semi-major
681: axis length at most $\sim 3\arcsec$, and a position angle of about 60\arcdeg.
682: It is a weak bar, given the fatness of the observed
683: structure and that it is lacking the pair of dust lanes characteristic for
684: strong bars \citep{athanassoula92}. Instead, a mini-spiral structure
685: is seen in the STIS ACQ image (Figure~\ref{fig:acq}), extending at least
686: out to $3\arcsec$ from the nucleus, i.e.\ throughout the entire IR bar.
687: Such a morphology indicates that we shouldn't expect strong departures
688: from the circular motion in the gas flow. In fact, the CO velocity
689: field observed by \citet[see their Figure~1f]{sakamoto99} shows no such
690: deviations down to the $4\arcsec$ beam size of the observations. The
691: PA of the kinematical line of nodes is~$\simeq 85$\arcdeg, close to the PA
692: of the bar.
693:
694: \subsubsection{\label{sec:profiles}Light Profiles}
695:
696: The canonical way to derive light profiles from images is to fit
697: ellipses to the isophotes and to measure encircled fluxes. However,
698: inspection of Figures~\ref{fig:acq} and \ref{fig:images} indicates the
699: presence of small scale structures invalidating the ellipse fits of
700: the WFPC2 and STIS images. The NICS image is much smoother but the
701: ellipticity of its inner isophotes is caused by the presence of a bar
702: and spiral arms and not by geometrical projection effects. Since the
703: inclination of the large scale disk is only $\simeq 20$\arcdeg, one
704: expects almost circular isophotes, and it is reasonable to obtain the
705: light profiles from azimuthal averages instead of canonical ellipse
706: fitting.
707:
708: In Figure~\ref{fig:profiles} we plot the azimuthally averaged light
709: profiles extracted from the WFPC2 and NICS images. The light profiles
710: have all been rescaled to match the external one of the F814W
711: image. The profiles all match well beyond $r>10\arcsec$ and the colors
712: of that region can be estimated as $B-I\sim 1.7$, $R-I\sim 0.4$ and
713: $I-K\sim 2.1$. These colors are consistent with other spiral galaxies:
714: for instance \citet{dejong96} has shown that the spirals of this
715: Hubble type on average have integrated colors $B-I=1.8\pm 0.2$
716: (observed 1.7) and $B-K=3.5\pm 0.3$ (3.8).
717:
718: The red feature observed in the color maps around the nucleus results
719: in a flattening of the light profiles which increases at
720: decreasing wavelength.
721: From the figure one can immediately estimate the color excess
722: or reddening for each pair of bands with respect to the external points.
723: Roughly $E(B-I)\sim 0.8$, $E(R-I)\sim 0.4$ and $E(I-K)\sim 0.5$. Assuming the
724: galactic extinction law by \citet{cardelli89} one finds that
725: with $\AV\sim 1.2$ mag one can approximately match the observed color excesses
726: ($\AV\sim 1.2$ implies $E(B-I)\sim 1.03$, $E(R-I)\sim 0.32$ and $E(I-K)\sim
727: 0.44$). Thus the red feature observed in the color maps is likely to be due
728: to extinction by dust with average value of $\AV\sim 1.2$ mag.
729:
730: \section{Model fitting}
731: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccc}
732: \tablewidth{0pt}
733: \tablecolumns{9}
734: \tablecaption{\label{tab:fitprofs}
735: Best fit parameters of the stellar light density.}
736: \tablehead{ \colhead{$q$} &
737: \colhead{$\rho^\star_b$\,\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$r^\star_b$\,\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$\beta^\star$}
738: & \colhead{$\rho_b$\,\tablenotemark{a}} &
739: \colhead{$m_b$\,\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$\alpha$} & \colhead{$\beta$} &
740: \colhead{\chisqr} }
741: \startdata
742: \cutinhead{I band (WFPC2/F814W)}
743: 1.0 & 1023 & 0.27 & 4.2 & 0.73 & 12.6 & 0.9 & 1.6 & 10.8 \\
744: 0.1 & 951 & 0.31 & 5.0 & 5.8 & 12.6 & 0.9 & 1.6 & 10.5 \\
745: \cutinhead{K band (NICS)}
746: 1.0 & 910 & 0.27\tablenotemark{c} & 4.2\tablenotemark{c} & 0.44 & 28.0 & 1.4 & 3.0 & 9.8 \\
747: 0.1 & 609 & 0.31\tablenotemark{c} & 5.0\tablenotemark{c} & 1.60 & 45.9 & 1.4 & 6.6 & 7.7 \\
748: \enddata
749: \tablenotetext{a}{In units of \Msun\PC\3\ assuming $\mlr=1$.}
750: \tablenotetext{b}{In units of arcsec.}
751: \tablenotetext{c}{Kept fixed at the value from the previous fit.}
752: \end{deluxetable}
753:
754:
755: \subsection{\label{sec:stardens}The stellar luminosity density}
756:
757: In order to estimate the stellar contribution to the gravitational
758: potential in the nuclear region, we have to derive the stellar
759: luminosity density from the observed surface brightness distribution.
760: This inversion is not unique if the gravitational potential does not
761: have a spherical symmetry. Here, we assume that the gravitational
762: potential is an oblate spheroid \citep[\eg,][]{marel98}.
763: We further assume that the principal plane of the potential has the
764: same inclination as the large scale disk ($\I\simeq20$, LEDA and
765: \citealt{rc3}). The knowledge of \I, combined with the observed axial
766: ratio of the isophotes, should directly provide the axial ratio of an
767: axisymmetric light distribution, but the presence of a bar-like
768: structure invalidates this approach since the flattening of the
769: isophotes cannot be ascribed to simple projection effects. Therefore
770: we consider two extreme cases: a spherical and a disk light
771: distribution. The model light profiles are computed taking into
772: account the finite spatial resolution and pixel size of the
773: detector. A detailed description of the relevant formulas for the
774: inversion and fitting procedure is presented in Appendix~\ref{app:stardens}.
775:
776: The light profiles derived from HST images have better spatial
777: resolution than the one derived from ground-based NICS image. However,
778: as shown above, the optical HST images suffer from $\AV\sim1.2$ mag
779: extinction in the nuclear region. It is also well known that K band
780: light is a better tracer of mass. Therefore it is useful to use both
781: the HST and ground based light profiles in order to infer the mass
782: profiles. The star cluster is probably washed out by the lower
783: spatial resolution in the NICS image, thus, in order to account for
784: its presence one can determine its geometrical parameters from the fit
785: of the HST light profiles and use them in the fitting the NICS image.
786:
787: In principle, the WFPC2 images could be reddening corrected by using the
788: color maps in Figure \ref{fig:colours} to derive the $E(B-V)$ map. In order to
789: do this, one might assume that the colors in the nuclear region are constant
790: and equal to those beyond 10\arcsec\ (see Figure \ref{fig:profiles}). For a
791: more detailed description of this procedure see for instance
792: \citealt{marconi00}. However the cluster would be forced to have the same
793: intrinsic
794: color as the galactic disk, which is probably not realistic. Moreover its shape
795: would be affected by PSF differences among the images. Finally it is not clear
796: if the color differences are due entirely to reddening. We therefore decided
797: not to apply any reddening correction and the consequences of this will be discussed in \S\ref{sec:discussion}.
798:
799: We first consider the light profile derived from
800: WFPC2/F814W because it is the least sensitive to reddening among the
801: HST images.
802: We then fit a model light distribution composed of the
803: central star cluster and the more extended component. We assume
804: that the star cluster luminosity density is spherically symmetric with
805: a density law:
806: \begin{equation}
807: \rho^\star (r) = \rho^\star_b
808: \left( 1+\left(\frac{r}{r^\star_b}\right)^2\right)^{-\beta^\star}
809: \end{equation}
810: The extended component has a functional form of the type
811: \begin{equation}\label{eq:dens}
812: \rho (m) = \rho_b\left(\frac{m}{m_b}\right)^{-\alpha}
813: \left( 1+\left(\frac{m}{m_b}\right)^2\right)^{-\beta}
814: \end{equation}
815: where $m^2 = x^2+y^2+z^2/q^2$ corresponds to the radius in the
816: spherical case and $q$ is the axial ratio of the mass distribution.
817: This functional form of the extended component is a reasonable
818: description of the central part of the galaxy where the bulge
819: dominates. It is sufficient for our purposes because we are
820: interested in modeling only the inner $r<5\arcsec$.
821:
822: In Equation~\ref{eq:dens}, $q=1$ for a spherical light distribution, and
823: $q=0.1$ for a disk-like one. These are the two extreme cases.
824: The best fit parameters for the HST light profile are shown
825: in the upper part of Table~\ref{tab:fitprofs}.
826: The left panel in Figure~\ref{fig:fitprofs}
827: shows the fit in the spherical case which is visually indistinguishable
828: from the disk case.
829: \begin{figure*}[t!]
830: \centerline{
831: \epsfig{figure=f10a.eps,angle=0,width=0.45\linewidth}
832: \hskip 0.05\linewidth
833: \epsfig{figure=f10b.eps,angle=0,width=0.45\linewidth}
834: }
835: \caption{\label{fig:fitprofs} Left: fit of the light profile obtained from
836: the WFPC2/F814W data. Right: fit of the
837: NICS/K light profile with the central star cluster and the extended component
838: (the geometrical parameters of the star cluster were determined in the previous
839: fit). In both cases the lower panel shows the fit residuals. The dashed line
840: in the right panel shows
841: the K band fit obtained by fixing the cluster normalization to a value which is 0.6 dex larger than the best fit value. The empty squares
842: show the corresponding residuals.}
843: \end{figure*}
844:
845: Using the geometrical parameters of the cluster determined from the
846: fit to the HST data
847: ($r^\star_b$ and $\beta^\star$) we fit the NICS profile, both the
848: spherical and disk case. The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:fitprofs}. The
849: right panels in Figure~\ref{fig:fitprofs} show the fit in the spherical case
850: which, as before, is visually indistinguishable from the disk-like case.
851:
852: The values of the reduced \chisq\ reported in Table~\ref{tab:fitprofs}
853: are much larger than the expected value of 1 and the main reason can
854: be found in the systematic deviation of the residual around 3\arcsec\
855: (Figure~\ref{fig:fitprofs}) where the data are systematically
856: lower than the model. This systematic deviation, whose maximum value
857: is $\sim 0.03$ dex, i.e.\ 7\%, is present in both the optical and
858: near-IR light profile and is caused by the presence of the bar-like
859: feature.
860:
861: \begin{figure}[t!]
862: \epsfig{figure=f11.eps,angle=0,width=\linewidth}
863: \caption{\label{fig:vels} Circular velocities in the principal plane of the potential for the density distributions determined from the fit of the NICS
864: and HST data.
865: The circular velocities are derived assuming a spherically symmetric
866: mass distribution and are plotted for $\mlr_K=0.5$
867: and $\mlr_I=2.3$. The dotted line represent the extreme case in which the
868: cluster normalization in the K band has been fixed to $+0.6$ dex of the
869: best fit value (see text).}
870: \end{figure}
871:
872: The fits to the light profiles allow an estimate of the I and K magnitudes of
873: the star cluster. With the assumed distance, the cluster luminosity is
874: $\ten{7.3}\,{\Lsun}_{wI}$ where $wI$ refers to the F814W band (in this band the
875: Sun has ${\Msun}_{wI}=4.16$). In the K band, the cluster has $\ten{7.2}\,
876: {\Lsun}_{K}$ for the spherical and $\ten{7.1}\,{\Lsun}_{K}$ for the disk cases
877: (${\Msun}_{K}=3.286$).
878: These results suggest that the cluster could be blue, with estimated
879: color $I-K\simeq 0.9$ (or 0.5 in the disk case).
880: The estimate of the K mag of the cluster is however uncertain due to the
881: fact that the cluster is unresolved in the ground based observations.
882: In order to set a limit to the amount of the cluster contribution to the
883: K band light profile, in Figure~\ref{fig:fitprofs}
884: we also plot the results of the fit when the
885: cluster normalization has been fixed to a value 0.6 dex larger (i.e.\ the
886: cluster is 1.5 magnitudes brighter) than the best fit value (dashed line).
887: The fit is worse, as clearly indicated by the residuals,
888: and we consider this a firm upper limit for
889: the cluster contribution to the K band light profile.
890: This implies that the observed color of the cluster is $I-K< 2.4$.
891: If we assume that the cluster is subjected to $\AV=1.2$ mag
892: of extinction (\S\ref{sec:profiles}),
893: the upper limit changes to $I-K< 2.0$.
894:
895: Figure~\ref{fig:vels} shows the circular velocities in the principal plane of the
896: potential expected from the density distributions determined from the fit of
897: the NICS and HST data. In order to match the different rotation curves the
898: circular velocities are plotted for $\mlr_K=0.5$ or $\mlr_I=2.3$, the values
899: derived in \S\ref{sec:modelkin} from fitting the rotation curves. It is clear
900: that the rotation curves are very similar beyond $r>0.5\arcsec$. However they
901: differ at smaller radii because of
902: the different contribution of the star cluster to
903: the total mass budget. This difference is due to the fact that the
904: mass-to-light ratio has been assumed constant in each band.
905:
906: \subsection{\label{sec:modelkin}Kinematics}
907:
908: In order to model the gas kinematical data (velocities and widths measured
909: along the slit) we select the simplest possible approach and we assume that
910: the ionized gas is circularly rotating in a thin disk located in the principal
911: plane of the galaxy potential. The latter assumption is not needed if the
912: galaxy potential has a spherical symmetry. We assume that the disk is not
913: pressure supported and we neglect all hydrodynamical effects. Thus the disk
914: motion is completely determined by the gravitational potential which is made of
915: two components: one is stellar and is completely determined by the mass
916: distribution, derived in the previous section, and by its mass-to-light ratio
917: \mlr. The other one comes from a dark mass concentration (the black hole),
918: spatially unresolved at HST+STIS resolution and defined by its total mass \MBH.
919: This is the same approach which has been followed in all previous gas
920: kinematical studies of circumnuclear gas disks
921: \citep[\eg][]{macchetto97,marel98,barth01,marconi01}.
922: \begin{figure}[t!]
923: \epsfig{figure=f12.eps,angle=0,width=\linewidth}
924: \caption{\label{fig:imflux} Contours of the modelled emission line flux
925: distribution of the nuclear gas disk with overplotted the slit
926: positions (vertical dashed lines), the position of the kinematic
927: center (filled square), and the line of nodes derived from fitting the
928: kinematic data (solid straight line). The dotted line is the line of
929: nodes of the extended material. The ellipse indicates the nuclear
930: gas disk outer limit for an inclination of 20\arcdeg\ with respect to the
931: line of sight.}
932: \end{figure}
933: \begin{figure}[t!]
934: \epsfig{figure=f13.eps,angle=0,width=\linewidth}
935: \caption{\label{fig:fluxnuc} The assumed flux distribution compared with the
936: data after folding with the telescope and instrument responses.
937: The model values are connected by straight lines in order to guide the eye.
938: }
939: \end{figure}
940:
941:
942: In principle, in order to constrain the \BH\ mass, one should compare the
943: emission line profile predicted by the model with the observed one. Even in
944: the simple potential described above, the line profiles can be very
945: complicated, with multiple peaks \citep{witold01}.
946: Nevertheless, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fits}, the line profiles are well
947: represented by single gaussians (after subtracting the ``blue'' component)
948: and therefore we compare
949: the moments of the line
950: profiles: the average velocity $\vel$ and velocity dispersion $\sigma$ defined
951: as $\sigma^2=\velsq-\vel^2$. In order to be compared with the observations, the
952: model $\vel$ and $\sigma$ are computed taking into account the spatial
953: resolution of HST/STIS and the size of the apertures over which the observed
954: quantities are measured. The formulae used to compute velocities, widths and
955: line fluxes and the details of their derivation, numerical computation and
956: model fitting are described in Appendix~\ref{app:gaskin}. To derive the
957: observed $\vel$ and $\sigma$, our approach is to parameterize the observed
958: spectra by fitting them with as many gaussian components as
959: required by the data. Then, components which are not obviously coming from
960: circularly rotating gas can be discarded \citep[\eg][]{winge99} and the
961: average velocities and line widths can be computed from the remaining ones
962: (this is trivial if, as in the present case, only a single gaussian component
963: is left). With this approach, the observed and model parameters, are
964: compared. The advantages of our approach are twofold. Firstly, much
965: computational time is saved in computing just $\vel$ and $\sigma$ instead of the
966: whole line profile. Secondly, modeling the observed emission line profiles in
967: detail requires very high S/N data and it is seldom possible to obtain such
968: high quality data with HST except for a few galaxies \citep[\eg\ M87,][]{macchetto97}. Even with the high S/N available from 8m class telescopes the matching
969: of the line profiles remains a significant problem
970: \citep[\eg\ Cen A,][]{marconi01}.
971:
972: Thus, the model $\vel$ and $\sigma$ depend on $\Sigma$, the intrinsic surface brightness distribution of the emission lines, and on the following
973: parameters:
974: \begin{itemize}
975: \item \So, the position of the kinematical center along the slit with respect
976: to the position of the continuum peak;
977: \item \B, the distance between the reference slit center of the NUC slit and
978: the kinematical center;
979: \item \I, the inclination of the rotating disk;
980: \item \Th, the angle between the disk line of nodes and the slits;
981: \item \Vsys, the systemic velocity of the disk;
982: \item \mlr, the mass-to-light ratio of the stellar population;
983: \item \MBH, the \BH\ mass.
984: \end{itemize}
985: Not all of these parameters can be independently determined by fitting the observations.
986:
987: \begin{figure*}[t!]
988: {\centering
989: \epsfig{figure=f14a.eps,angle=0,width=0.49\linewidth}
990: \epsfig{figure=f14b.eps,angle=0,width=0.49\linewidth}
991: }
992: \caption{\label{fig:fitstd} Best fit standard model of the observed rotation
993: curves (solid line) compared with the data. The dotted line is the best fit
994: model without a black hole.
995: The model values are connected by straight lines in order to guide the eye.
996: Note that points from external and nuclear regions are not
997: connected because they are kinematically decoupled.}
998: The right panel is a zoom on the nuclear disk
999: region. The plotted model uses the mass density distribution derived from
1000: the K band light profile with the assumption of spherical symmetry.
1001: \end{figure*}
1002:
1003:
1004: It can be inferred from the equations in Appendix~\ref{app:gaskin}
1005: that \MBH, \mlr\ and \I\ are
1006: directly coupled. This fact has already been discussed in detail by
1007: \citet{macchetto97} but here we briefly indicate how this coupling can be used
1008: to pose a
1009: lower limit on the disk inclination \I.
1010: Considering the case where no \BH\ is present, the amplitude of the rotation
1011: curves depends linearly on $\mlr^{0.5}\sin\I$ and its value can be determined
1012: by fitting the observations. Therefore \mlr\ will increase with decreasing \I.
1013: An upper limit on \mlr\ can be certainly set by the largest reasonable
1014: value for a very old stellar population \citep[\eg][]{bc96,maraston}
1015: and this will immediately fix the lower limit for \I. If a \BH\ is present,
1016: $\mlr^{0.5}\sin\I$ can still be determined from the kinematical data obtained
1017: beyond the \BH\ sphere of influence. Of course, the underlying assumption
1018: is that both \mlr\ and \I\ are constant.
1019:
1020: \subsubsection{The intrinsic surface brightness distribution of emission lines}
1021:
1022: The intrinsic surface brightness distribution of emission lines
1023: $\Sigma$ is an important ingredient in the model computations because
1024: it is the weight in the averaging of the observed quantities. The
1025: ideal situation would be to have an emission line image with spatial
1026: resolution higher than the spectra. Not having that, \citet{barth01}
1027: have used a deconvolved HST image to model their HST data. This helped
1028: them to match the microstructure of the velocity field at large
1029: radii, but it is important to remember that the information about the
1030: BH mass comes predominantly from within the central unresolved source
1031: of unknown luminosity distribution. Our approach is to attempt to
1032: match the emission line fluxes as observed in the spectra (or in
1033: emission line images) together with a variety of synthetic
1034: realizations of this unknown central emissivity distribution. We
1035: use this to estimate its impact on the derived value of \MBH. Thus,
1036: we assume simple analytical forms of the line flux distribution which
1037: well match the observed one along the slit, after folding with the
1038: telescope and instrument responses as described above.
1039:
1040: It is clear from the right panel in Figure~\ref{fig:rotnuc} that the
1041: flux distribution observed at the three slit positions is very complex
1042: and cannot be described by a single radially symmetric component in
1043: the disk plane. Therefore we choose the approach of modeling directly
1044: the flux distribution on the plane of the sky by exploring various
1045: simple analytical forms of the line flux distribution.
1046: We take the intrinsic light distribution at point $x,y$ in the plane
1047: of the sky in the NUC slit reference frame ($x$ is the position across
1048: the NUC slit while $y$ is the position along it) to be defined as
1049: \begin{equation} I(x,y) = \sum_i I_{\circ i}\,
1050: f_i\left(\frac{r_i}{r_{\circ i}} \right)
1051: \end{equation}
1052: where $f_i$ is a circularly symmetric function of characteristic radius
1053: $r_{\circ i}$ and weighting factor $I_{\circ i}$. Each component function
1054: $f_i$ is centered at $(x_{\circ i},y_{\circ i})$, and $r_i$ is the radial
1055: distance from this location $r_i = [(x-x_{\circ i})^2+(y-y_{\circ i})^2]^{0.5}$.
1056: This is an approach similar to that of \citet{barth01} except that we use a
1057: synthetic realization of the line flux map.
1058: Although each bright patch is assumed to be circularly symmetric, its material
1059: is in circular rotation about the galactic nucleus. Hence patches are
1060: constantly shearing rather than moving as coherent units.
1061:
1062: The free parameters characterizing the flux distribution are therefore
1063: $(x_{\circ i}$, $y_{\circ i})$, $I_{\circ i}$ and $r_{\circ i}$ and are chosen
1064: in order to match the observed flux distribution along the slit after folding
1065: the model with telescope and instrument. For example, one of the functional
1066: forms used
1067: is the combination of 4 exponentials and a constant baseline i.e.\
1068: $f_i(r_i/r_{\circ i})=\exp(r_i/r_{\circ i})$. Figure~\ref{fig:imflux} shows the
1069: contours of this line flux distribution which matches the observed profile along
1070: the slit after convolving with the instrumental response (see Figure~\ref{fig:fluxnuc}).
1071:
1072: \subsubsection{\label{sec:modstand}The standard approach}
1073: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccccc}
1074: \tablewidth{0pt}
1075: \tablecolumns{10}
1076: \tablecaption{\label{tab:fitstandard}
1077: Model fit results in the standard approach.}
1078: \tablehead{
1079: \colhead{Band} &
1080: \colhead{$q$} &
1081: \colhead{$\log \MBH$}&
1082: \colhead{\mlr}&
1083: \colhead{\So} &
1084: \colhead{\B} &
1085: \colhead{\Th} &
1086: \colhead{\Vsys} &
1087: \colhead{$\Delta\Vsys$} &
1088: \colhead{\chisqr} \\
1089: \colhead{\small (a)} &
1090: \colhead{\small (b)} &
1091: \colhead{\small (c)}&
1092: \colhead{\small (d)}&
1093: \colhead{\small (e)} &
1094: \colhead{\small (e)} &
1095: \colhead{\small (f)} &
1096: \colhead{\small (g)} &
1097: \colhead{\small (g)} &
1098: \colhead{\small (h)} }
1099: \startdata
1100: K & 1.0 & 7.04 & 0.52 & $-0.04$ & 0.02 & $-45$ & 1212 & 11 & 2.32 \\
1101: K & 1.0 & 0.0\tst & 1.00 & $-0.09$ & 0.06 & $-58$ & 1211 & 11 & 2.88 \\
1102: K & 0.1 & 7.09 & 0.22 & $-0.07$ & 0.08 & $-32$ & 1213 & 11 & 2.13 \\
1103: I & 1.0 & 6.86 & 2.28 & $-0.01$ & 0.00 & $-42$ & 1210 & 12 & 1.86 \\
1104: I & 1.0 & 0.0\tst & 2.65 & $-0.03$ & 0.03 & $-45$ & 1210 & 12 & 2.09 \\
1105: I & 0.1 & 7.14 & 1.65 & $-0.03$ & 0.01 & $-47$ & 1212 & 10 & 2.22 \\
1106: \enddata
1107: \tablenotetext{a~}{Band from which the mass density profile was derived.}
1108: \tablenotetext{b~}{Assumed axial ratio of the mass distribution.}
1109: \tablenotetext{c~}{Log of \BH\ mass in units of \Msun.}
1110: \tablenotetext{d~}{Mass-to-light ratio in used band.}
1111: \tablenotetext{e~}{Arcsec}
1112: \tablenotetext{f~}{Degrees}
1113: \tablenotetext{g~}{\kms}
1114: \tablenotetext{h~}{Reduced $\chi^2$.}
1115: \tablenotetext{\star~}{The parameter was fixed to this value.}
1116: \end{deluxetable}
1117: \begin{figure*}[t!]
1118: {\centering
1119: \epsfig{figure=f15a.eps,angle=0,width=0.49\linewidth}
1120: \epsfig{figure=f15b.eps,angle=0,width=0.49\linewidth}
1121: }
1122: \caption{\label{fig:fitaltern} Best fit alternative model of the observed
1123: rotation curves compared with the data. The solid line is the best fit model
1124: obtained by fixing \I\ and varying \mlr\ while the dotted line represent the
1125: case in which \I\ has been varied and \mlr\ kept fixed.
1126: The model values are connected by straight lines in order to guide the eye.
1127: Note that points from external and nuclear regions are not
1128: connected because they are kinematically decoupled.
1129: The right panel is a
1130: zoom on the nuclear disk region. The plotted model uses the mass density
1131: distribution derived from the K band light profile with the assumption of
1132: spherical symmetry.}
1133: \end{figure*}
1134:
1135: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccccc}
1136: \tablewidth{0pt}
1137: \tablecolumns{10}
1138: \tablecaption{\label{tab:fitaltern}
1139: Model fit results in the alternative approach.}
1140: \tablehead{
1141: \colhead{Band} & \colhead{$q$} & \colhead{$\log \MBH$}& \colhead{\mlr}&
1142: \colhead{\So} & \colhead{\B} & \colhead{\Th} & \colhead{\I} &
1143: \colhead{\Vsys} & \colhead{\chisqr} \\
1144: \colhead{\small (a)} & \colhead{\small (b)} & \colhead{\small (c)}& \colhead{\small (d)}& \colhead{(e)} &
1145: \colhead{\small (e)} & \colhead{\small (f)} & \colhead{\small (f)} & \colhead{\small (g)} & \colhead{\small (h)} }
1146: \startdata
1147: \cutinhead{Extended Component}
1148: K & 1.0 & 0.0\tst & 0.48 &0.0\tst &0.0\tst & $-43$\tst & 20\tst & 1224 & 2.7 \\
1149: K & 0.1 & 0.0\tst & 0.31 &0.0\tst &0.0\tst & $-43$\tst & 20\tst & 1224 & 2.7 \\
1150: I & 1.0 & 0.0\tst & 2.29 &0.0\tst &0.0\tst & $-43$\tst & 20\tst & 1224 & 2.5 \\
1151: I & 0.1 & 0.0\tst & 1.38 &0.0\tst &0.0\tst & $-43$\tst & 20\tst & 1224 & 2.5 \\
1152: \cutinhead{Nuclear Disk}
1153: K& 1.0& $<$6.8& 1.29 & 0.0 & $-0.05$ & $-40$ & 20\tst & 1204 & 0.66 \\
1154: K& 1.0& $<$6.6& 0.48\tst& $-0.01$ & $-0.04$ & $-39$ & 35 & 1205 & 0.67 \\
1155: K& 0.1& $<$6.8& 0.88 & $-0.01$ & $-0.05$ & $-40$ & 20\tst & 1205 & 0.69 \\
1156: I& 1.0& $<$6.8& 4.05 & $-0.01$ & $-0.04$ & $-41$ & 20\tst & 1206 & 0.60 \\
1157: I& 0.1& $<$6.8& 3.77 & 0.00 & $-0.04$ & $-41$ & 20\tst & 1205 & 0.58 \\
1158: \enddata
1159: \tablenotetext{a~}{Band from which the mass density profile was derived.}
1160: \tablenotetext{b~}{Assumed axial ratio of the mass distribution.}
1161: \tablenotetext{c~}{Log of \BH\ mass in units of \Msun.}
1162: \tablenotetext{d~}{Mass-to-light ratio in used band.}
1163: \tablenotetext{e~}{Arcsec}
1164: \tablenotetext{f~}{Degrees}
1165: \tablenotetext{g~}{\kms}
1166: \tablenotetext{h~}{Reduced $\chi^2$.}
1167: \tablenotetext{\star~}{The parameter was fixed to this value.}
1168: \end{deluxetable}
1169:
1170: \begin{figure*}[t!]
1171: {\centering
1172: \epsfig{figure=f16a.eps,angle=0,width=0.49\linewidth}
1173: \epsfig{figure=f16b.eps,angle=0,width=0.49\linewidth}
1174: }
1175: \caption{\label{fig:fitI} Best fit models of the observed rotation
1176: curves computed using the mass densities derived from the I band light profiles.
1177: The model values are connected by straight lines in order to guide the eye.
1178: The left panel refers to the standard model (the dotted line is the model
1179: without a \BH) while the right panel refers to the alternative model.}
1180: \end{figure*}
1181:
1182:
1183: The standard approach followed so far in gas kinematical analysis is to assume
1184: that (i) gas disks around black holes are not warped i.e.\ they have the same
1185: line of nodes and inclinations as the more extended components, and (ii) the
1186: stellar population has a constant mass-to-light ratio with radius
1187: \citep[\eg][]{marel98,barth01}. In the present case, the blueshift of the
1188: inner disk (\S\ref{sec:vcurves}) indicates that the standard approach must
1189: generalized to allow for the kinematical decoupling between inner and large
1190: scale disks.
1191:
1192: We use the emission line flux distribution derived in
1193: the previous section and we fix the inclination to \I=20\arcdeg, i.e.\ the
1194: inclination of the galactic disk. The free parameters of the fit are
1195: then \MBH, \mlr, \So, \B, \Th, \Vsys\ and $\Delta\Vsys$, the velocity
1196: shift of the extended component with respect to the nuclear one. We
1197: perform the fit using the mass density profiles derived for the I and
1198: K band, both in the spherical and disk cases. The results of the fit
1199: are shown in Table~\ref{tab:fitstandard}. Statistical errors at the
1200: $2\sigma$ level on $\log\MBH$ and $\log\mlr$ are $\pm 0.2$ and $\pm
1201: 0.1$, respectively, thus the derived \BH\ mass is
1202: $\MBH=1^{+0.6}_{-0.7}\xten{7}\Msun$. Figure~\ref{fig:fitstd} shows the
1203: best fit model (solid line) obtained with the mass density
1204: distribution derived from the K band light profile with the assumption
1205: of spherical symmetry. The dotted line is the best fit model without a
1206: black hole. The left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:fitI} shows the fit of
1207: the NUC data from the model with the mass distribution derived from
1208: the I band. Figures~\ref{fig:fitstd} and \ref{fig:fitI}, indicate that
1209: a model with no \BH\ cannot account for the observed nuclear rotation
1210: curve, producing a velocity gradient which is shallower than observed.
1211: Note that the position angle of the line of nodes, a free parameter of
1212: the fit, is the same as the one inferred from the large scale CO
1213: velocity map by \citet{sakamoto99}. This supports the assumption that
1214: the nuclear disk is the continuation at small scales of the
1215: galactic disk. However the fit confirms that the nuclear disk is
1216: blueshifted by $\sim 10\kms$ with respect to the extended component
1217: and this argues against the assumption in previous sentence.
1218: The fit is greatly improved if a velocity shift of 8\kms\ is allowed for
1219: the POS2 data. This velocity shift is the consequence of an error on
1220: the absolute wavelength calibration of the POS2 data and is well
1221: within the expected STIS performances \citep{stishand}.
1222:
1223: The value of \mlr\ in the K band derived from the fit varies between 0.2
1224: (disk light distribution) and 0.5 (spherical light distribution). This
1225: range of values is in good agreement with the typical K-band mass-to-light
1226: ratios of spiral bulges \citep{moriondo98}.
1227: Similarly the value of \mlr\ in the I band ranges between 2.2 and 3.6
1228: in agreement with measurements within the inner 2\KPC\ of spiral
1229: galaxies \citep{giovanelli02}.
1230:
1231: \subsubsection{\label{sec:modalt}Alternative model: the decoupled nuclear disk}
1232:
1233: To date, everyone who has determined a central \BH\ mass from gas kinematics
1234: assumed that the disks are unwarped, i.e.\ coplanar at all radii,
1235: and that the stellar mass-to-light ratio is constant with radius.
1236:
1237: The high surface brightness and velocity offset of the nuclear disk with
1238: respect to the extended component presented in \S\ref{sec:results} indicate
1239: that, at least for NGC 4041, this assumption could be untrue. The nuclear and
1240: large scale disks might be characterized by different geometrical properties
1241: like position angle of the line of nodes, inclination and systemic velocity.
1242: Recently \citet{cappellari02} have shown a discrepancy between the \BH\ mass in
1243: IC 1459 determined from gas kinematical \citep{verdoes00} and stellar dynamical
1244: models. The authors propose that a possible solution to this discrepancy could
1245: be an error on the assumed gas disk inclination.
1246:
1247: Therefore, in the alternative approach presented here, we first fit the extended
1248: component data in order to determine the mass-to-light ratio \mlr\ of
1249: the stellar component to be used in the fit of the nuclear data. For
1250: the extended component we assume a constant line flux distribution and
1251: determine \mlr\ in the two extreme cases of the spherical and
1252: disk-like light distribution (i.e.\ with an axial ratio of $q=0.1$).
1253: \begin{figure}[t!]
1254: \epsfig{figure=f17.eps,angle=0,width=\linewidth}
1255: \caption{\label{fig:uplim} Statistical upper limits on the \BH\ mass in the
1256: alternative approach for the cases in which the mass density has been derived
1257: by the I and K band light profiles.}
1258: \end{figure}
1259:
1260: From the CO velocity map by \citet{sakamoto99} the PA of the kinematic
1261: line-of-nodes is PA$=86$\arcdeg, i.e.\ almost exactly East--West. Since the
1262: PA of the slit in the STIS observations is 43\arcdeg, this means that the
1263: angle between the slit and the disk line of nodes is
1264: $\Th=-43\arcdeg$ (for the definition of \Th\ see Appendix~\ref{app:gaskin}). We
1265: also assume that the inclination of the disk is \I=20\arcdeg, as specified
1266: in the previous section. The CO velocity map also clearly indicates
1267: that the large scale velocity field is circularly symmetric.
1268:
1269: The fitted circular rotation curves of the extended gas are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fitaltern}. The derived \mlr\ for the spherical or disk geometry are
1270: shown in Table~\ref{tab:fitaltern} for the mass density profiles
1271: derived from both the K and I band light. In our
1272: derivation we allowed for a constant velocity shift between the data points in
1273: the off-nuclear slit positions and the nuclear one. This is caused by the
1274: uncertainty in the absolute wavelength calibration, and is very small, -1\kms\
1275: and 8\kms\ for POS1 and POS2 respectively.
1276: \begin{figure}[t!]
1277: \epsfig{figure=f18.eps,angle=0,width=\linewidth}
1278: \caption{\label{fig:fwhmnuc} Observed and model FWHMs at the NUC
1279: position. The solid line is the case without a BH (alternative model)
1280: and the dashed line is with a \ten{7}\Msun\ \BH\ (standard model). The
1281: assumed intrinsic velocity dispersion is 35\kms.}
1282: \end{figure}
1283:
1284: Similarly to the results of the standard model, mass-to-light ratios in the K
1285: and I band are consistent with typical values for the central regions of spiral
1286: galaxies.
1287:
1288: We now fit the nuclear data ($r\le0\farcs4$) allowing for values of \mlr\
1289: or \I\ different from those of the extended component.
1290: Results of the fit are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fitaltern} and
1291: in Table~\ref{tab:fitaltern}. The right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:fitI}
1292: shows the fit of the NUC data from the model with the mass
1293: distribution derived from the I band.
1294:
1295: In all these cases the \BH\ mass has been set to zero and the goodness
1296: of the fit suggest that no \BH\ is needed to fit the data with
1297: this approach. We estimate the upper limit on the \BH\ mass by a 1
1298: parameter variation, i.e.\ we assign a fixed value of \MBH\ and we
1299: perform the fit. When we have $\Delta\chi^2>=1,4,9$ we have reached
1300: the 1,2,3 $\sigma$ upper limit. As an example, in
1301: Figure~\ref{fig:uplim}, we show the $\chi^2$ plot corresponding to the K
1302: and I band spherical cases. There the 3$\sigma$ upper limit is
1303: \ten{6.8}\Msun.
1304:
1305: From Table~\ref{tab:fitaltern} it can be seen that the position of the
1306: nucleus along and across the slit is independent of the assumed mass
1307: distribution. The inclination varies, but like \mlr, is just a scaling
1308: factor. Indeed varying \mlr\ produces the same results, as
1309: shown in the same table. The angle between the slit and the line of
1310: nodes is very well determined in the range $-39 - \, -41$\arcdeg.
1311: This means that
1312: the PA of the kinematical line of nodes is 43\arcdeg\ (the PA of the
1313: slit) minus $-40\arcdeg$ i.e.\ $\sim 83$\arcdeg\ consistent with the PA of the
1314: kinematical line of nodes on large scales. The systemic velocity is
1315: $1204 - 1206\kms$ and is definitely blueshifted with respect to the extended
1316: rotation where it is 1224\kms.
1317:
1318: As pointed out by \citet{barth01} the FWHM of the lines might be a worrisome
1319: issue in the sense that FWHM much larger than instrumental might indicate
1320: motions which could deviate from circular (apart from the broadening of the
1321: line due to unresolved rotation around a point mass). In Figure~\ref{fig:fwhmnuc} we plot the observed FWHMs and compare them with the expected
1322: one in the framework of the alternative model
1323: assuming an intrinsic velocity dispersion of only 35\kms.
1324: Also the dashed line represents
1325: the case with a \ten{7}\Msun\ \BH\ showing that, in this case, the FWHM
1326: cannot pose good constraints on the \BH\ mass.
1327:
1328: \section{\label{sec:discussion}Discussion}
1329: \begin{figure}[t!]
1330: \epsfig{figure=f19.eps,angle=0,width=\linewidth}
1331: \caption{\label{fig:bc96} From top to bottom: $I-K$, $\log M/L_K$ and
1332: $\log M/L_I$ vs time for a single stellar population (instantaneous
1333: burst) with solar metallicity (models by \citealt{bc96}, updated in
1334: 1996). The solid and dashed line are for a \citet{s55}
1335: and a \citet{sc86} IMF
1336: respectively. In the upper panel, the solid horizontal line represents the
1337: observed upper limit on the $I-K$ color. The dotted line is the same upper
1338: limit after correction for $\AV=1.2$ mag. In the central and lower panel, the
1339: horizontal dotted lines indicates the range of mass-to-light ratios allowed by
1340: the observations.
1341: }
1342: \end{figure}
1343:
1344: \subsection{How the \BH\ mass determination is affected by assumptions.}
1345:
1346: In \S\ref{sec:modelkin} we have shown that the inclination of the nuclear disk,
1347: \I, and the mass-to-light ratio of the stellar population, \mlr, play a
1348: critical role in detecting the presence of a nuclear \BH. The {\it standard}
1349: model, in which \I\ and \mlr\ are the same for the nuclear disk and the more
1350: extended galactic disk, requires the presence of a \BH\ with $\MBH=1^{+0.6}_{-0.7}\xten{7}\Msun$
1351: (\S\ref{sec:modstand}). Conversely, allowing either \mlr\ or \I\ to vary, the
1352: kinematical data can be fit without a \BH\ (the so-called {\it alternative}
1353: model, \S\ref{sec:modalt})
1354: and $\MBH<6\xten{6}\Msun$. These results show a caveat in gas
1355: kinematical searches, where it is always assumed
1356: that \I\ and \mlr\ are constant at all radii.
1357:
1358: To distinguish between the standard and alternative models it is necessary to
1359: find some extra physical constraints. In particular the value of mass-to-light
1360: ratio \mlr\ determined from the observations should be consistent with
1361: realistic stellar populations
1362: (see \S\ref{sec:modelkin}). Little can be said about \I\ which in contrast
1363: with the other geometrical parameter of the disk, \Th, is poorly
1364: constrained by the rotation curves. Usually one can infer an estimate
1365: of \I\ from the morphology of the disk observed in emission line
1366: images, especially in E and S0
1367: galaxies \citep[\eg][]{marel98,barth01}.
1368: The root of the problem lies in the coupling between \MBH, \mlr\
1369: and \I\ that arises because they are all essentially scaling factors
1370: on the amplitude of the rotation curves.
1371:
1372: In the {\it standard} approach (Table~\ref{tab:fitstandard}) \MBH\ does
1373: not depend on the assumed mass density profile (either from the K or I
1374: band). The angle \Th, which is a free parameter of the fit, is quite
1375: well constrained around $-40\arcdeg$, i.e.\ the PA of the kinematical line of
1376: nodes is the same as the one at large scales derived from the 2D CO
1377: map by \citet{sakamoto99}. The constancy of \Th, which is not an
1378: intrinsic parameter of the system but only depends on the galaxy
1379: orientation in the plane of the sky, suggests that \I\ ($\Delta\I$
1380: between the nuclear and galactic disk is an intrinsic parameter of the
1381: system) should also be constant. No similar argument can be placed on
1382: \mlr\ which can then be allowed to vary and it is then possible to fit
1383: the kinematical data without the presence of a \BH. This requires that
1384: \mlr\ in the nuclear region is a factor of $\sim 2$ larger than that
1385: in the extended disk.
1386:
1387: To verify if this \mlr\ is consistent with the observed colors, we
1388: plot in Figure~\ref{fig:bc96} $I-K$, $\mlr_K$ and $\mlr_I$ as a function
1389: of time from the burst for a single stellar population experiencing an
1390: instantaneous burst of star formation. We have used the models by
1391: \citet{bc96}, updated in 1996, we considered solar metallicities,
1392: \citet{s55}
1393: and \citet{sc86} IMF (solid and dashed lines in the figure), and
1394: used the theoretical stellar libraries. The solid line in the
1395: upper panel marks the upper limit we placed on the $I-K$ color of the
1396: stellar cluster (\S\ref{sec:stardens}); the dotted line marks the same
1397: upper limit but dereddened for $\AV=1.2$ mag (\S\ref{sec:profiles}).
1398: Finally, the dotted lines in the central and lower panels shows the
1399: \mlr\ required to fit the data in the alternative model both for the
1400: spherical and disk-like distribution of stars.
1401: The \mlr s implied by the analysis are thus consistent with a very old
1402: nuclear star cluster, with age $\sim 10$ Gyr. This is apparently in contrast
1403: with the high \HA\ equivalent width measured in the nuclear spectrum, $\simeq
1404: 70$ \AA, which seems to require the presence of very young stars.
1405: A possibility is that the \HA\ emission is not due to young stars but to a low
1406: luminosity AGN and, indeed, the total \HA\ luminosity in the nuclear region is
1407: $L(\HA) = 4.9\xten{4}\Lsun$ corresponding to the low end of the $L(\HA)$
1408: distribution for AGNs (\citealt{ho97}). To prove that the emission lines
1409: are excited by an AGN, one could use the so-called diagnostic line ratios
1410: \NII/\HA\ and \OIII/\HB\ (\eg\ \citealt{osterbrock}). Ground
1411: based spectra with 1\arcsec\ resolution (Axon et al.\ in preparation)
1412: indicate that this object is on the
1413: boundary between HII regions and LINERs with $\NII/\HA\sim 1$ and
1414: $\OIII/\HB<0.5$. Unfortunately the spectra coverage of our
1415: HST data is limited to 6500-7000 \AA\ region but the
1416: the $\NII/\HA$ ratio at 0\farcs1 resolution remains
1417: similar to that observed from the ground suggesting that the same could
1418: be true for the \OIII/\HB.
1419:
1420: If on the other hand
1421: the star cluster is young, it can fully account for the \HA\ emission.
1422: Assuming case B recombination, the
1423: $L(\HA)$ luminosity implies an ionizing photon rate of
1424: $\QH\sim 2\xten{50} \SEC\1$ (\eg\ \citealt{osterbrock}),
1425: which corresponds to $\sim 2 - 20$ O stars \citep{panagia73}.
1426: When confronted with stellar population
1427: synthesis model \citep{leitherer99} the observed \HA\ equivalent width indicates
1428: an age of $\sim\ten{7}\YR$.
1429: In this case, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:bc96}, the I band
1430: mass-to-light ratio is more than a factor ten lower and the fit of the
1431: kinematical data requires a \BH\ even in the alternative model. However
1432: when using the stellar mass density profile derived from the K band, the data
1433: can still be explained by stars alone. The reason is that the contribution of
1434: the star cluster to the total light density profile is small, as can be seen
1435: from the rotation curves in Figure \ref{fig:vels}.
1436: Note that in order to
1437: explain the high $\NII/\HA$ ratio with photoionization
1438: from stars one needs to allow for higher-than-solar N abundances in the nucleus
1439: as has been suggested many times in the past since the work by \cite{burbidge}.
1440:
1441: In order to proceed further and firmly establish the age of the star cluster,
1442: one needs HST/NICMOS infrared images of the nuclear region.
1443: The optical to near-IR colors of the star cluster constrain
1444: its age and mass-to-light ratio. Moreover with HST/STIS blue spectra one can
1445: measure the \OIII/\HB\ ratio, in order to estimate the AGN
1446: contribution, and verify the existence of deep H Balmer lines in absorption
1447: expected if the cluster is young.
1448:
1449: The other assumptions behind the modeling are the shape of the stellar density
1450: profile (spherical vs disk-like, I vs K band, effects of reddening), the
1451: intrinsic flux distribution of the emission lines and, finally, the assumption
1452: of circular motions.
1453:
1454: The stellar density profile depends on $q$, the intrinsic axis
1455: ratio of the extended mass distribution, and on the relative
1456: importance between the nuclear star cluster and the extended stellar
1457: component. As shown in the previous section, the four cases examined
1458: there cover the most extreme cases: spherical or disk-like
1459: distribution of the extended component ($q=1$ and $q=0.1$
1460: respectively), stellar cluster which gives a small contribution to the
1461: total stellar density distribution (K band) or which dominates over
1462: the nuclear disk size i.e.\ $r<0\farcs4$ (I band). From
1463: Tables~\ref{tab:fitstandard} and \ref{tab:fitaltern} we can conclude
1464: that the value of the \BH\ mass or its upper limit do not depend on
1465: the assumed stellar density profile. From the same table it can be
1466: seen that the position of the nucleus along and across the slit is
1467: also independent of the assumed mass distribution.
1468: In \S\ref{sec:stardens} we decided not to apply a reddening correction to
1469: the light profiles because of the uncertainties involved. This reddening
1470: correction would have affected the values of the mass-to-light ratios derived
1471: from the rotation curves (see \S\ref{sec:modelkin}) whose accurate
1472: measurement is not the
1473: aim of this paper. Roughly, assuming an average $\AV=1.2$ mag
1474: (\S\ref{sec:profiles}), the I light would increase by $\sim 70\%$ and $\mlr_I$
1475: would decrease by the same amount (-0.2 in log). The K light would similarly
1476: increase only by $\sim 10\%$ with a similar decrease in $\mlr_K$ (-0.04 in
1477: log). These corrections would have a marginal effect for the conclusions on the
1478: cluster age derived in Figure \ref{fig:bc96}. Finally the reddening correction
1479: effects on the shape of the stellar light/mass density profiles, would be
1480: negligible for the estimate of the \BH\ mass upper limit. Indeed, the same
1481: value is obtained regardless of the use of mass density profiles derived from
1482: the I or K band light which are very differently affected by reddening.
1483:
1484: Another important issue is the influence of the intrinsic line flux
1485: distribution on \MBH. We have tried several other different
1486: realizations of the observed flux distribution by varying both the
1487: number of components and the functional form of single components
1488: (exponential, gaussian, power law).
1489: We have found that accurately describing the observed flux distribution is
1490: important. Models that did not do this produced fits significantly worse than those described in the previous section.
1491: When the fits of fluxes and velocities are acceptable, \MBH\ or its
1492: upper limit do not depend on the assumed flux distribution.
1493:
1494: The assumption of circular motions is probably one of the most critical ones.
1495: Circular motions in gaseous disks are expected due to the dissipative nature of
1496: the gas, however anisotropies in the stellar potential rapidly lead to
1497: non-circular streaming (\eg, \citealt{athanassoula92}). The effect of
1498: non-circular motions would be that of ``distorting'' the rotation curves and
1499: increasing the intrinsic line width of the gas. Therefore, obtaining very good
1500: fits ($\chisqr<1$) of the rotation curves in the alternative model strengthens
1501: our confidence on the assumption of circular motions. This assumption is also
1502: supported by the small intrinsic line width ($\sigma\simeq 35\kms$) required by
1503: the observations. Indeed $\sigma/\vcirc$ can be used to quantify the
1504: effects of turbulence or non-circular motions on the \BH\ mass determination
1505: (\eg\ \citealt{verdoes00,barth01}). For the best fitting models $\sigma/\vcirc$
1506: is always less than 0.4 (provided that there is s \BH\ with a mass close to the
1507: upper limit in the case of the alternative models). This is similar to what
1508: \citet{barth01} found in the case of their best fit model of NGC 3245. There
1509: the effect of the asymmetric drift correction, a possible way to include
1510: non-circular motions in the analysis (\eg\ \citealt{bt87}), is that to increase
1511: the estimate of the \BH\ mass by just $10\%$. Apart from these qualitative
1512: arguments, the presence of significant non-circular motions cannot be excluded
1513: and it is not possible at the moment to quantify their effects on the method we
1514: have adopted and described here.
1515:
1516: Non-circular motions are certainly present in the nuclear region of NGC
1517: 4041 as indicated by the presence of the blue wing, but these have
1518: been singled out in the deblending procedure as in
1519: \citet{winge99}.
1520:
1521: \subsection{The blueshift of the nuclear disk}
1522:
1523: A proposed explanation for the blueshift observed in the nuclear disk is that
1524: the star cluster is oscillating across the galactic plane. In this picture, the
1525: cluster is bound to the galaxy, is old and has a large \mlr\ ensuring that it
1526: is massive enough and not subjected to tidal disruption.
1527:
1528: Any velocity component perpendicular to the disk will give a large
1529: contribution to the observed velocity because the galaxy is almost
1530: face-on. If the cluster is oscillating across the galactic plane, the
1531: observed blueshift may be translated into a velocity modulus of
1532: similar magnitude. Thus, the cluster velocity ($\sim 10-20\kms$) is
1533: smaller than the rotational velocity (see Figure~\ref{fig:vels}) and the
1534: cluster is bound to the galaxy. If the cluster is very massive, as in
1535: the alternative model, then the gravitational potential over the star
1536: cluster size is dominated by the star cluster itself and it is not
1537: subjected to tidal disruption. Also in this picture the gaseous disk
1538: is completely dominated by the gravitational potential of the star
1539: cluster. The total cluster mass within $r<0\farcs3$ as derived from
1540: the I-band mass density profile (the one in which the cluster
1541: dominates) is $\sim 6\xten{7}\Msun$ and this gives an average density
1542: of $\simeq 200\Msun/\PC\3$, not an unusually high value, since it can
1543: be found in galactic globular clusters \citep{globulars}.
1544:
1545: In the picture in which the cluster is young (from the fit of the K
1546: band we have $I-K=0.9$, i.e.\ $\sim\ten{7}\YR$ from
1547: Figure~\ref{fig:bc96}), the stability against tidal disruption could
1548: pose a problem, since the mass in the nuclear region is completely
1549: dominated by the bulge stars. However, this problem could be solved
1550: if the lifetime of the cluster against tidal disruption is less than or
1551: equal to the cluster age.
1552:
1553: \subsection{\MBH\ - galaxy correlations}
1554:
1555: It is now clear that a large fraction of hot spheroids contain a \BH\ and,
1556: moreover, it seems that the hole mass is proportional to the mass (or
1557: luminosity) of the host spheroid. Quantitatively, $\MBH/\Msph \approx 0.001$
1558: \citep[\eg][]{merritt01}. This relation is still controversial, however, both
1559: because the sensitivity of published searches is correlated with bulge
1560: luminosity, and because there is substantial scatter in \MBH\ at fixed \Msph.
1561: Recently \citet{ferrarese00} and \citet{gebhardt00} have shown that a tighter
1562: correlation holds between the BH mass and the velocity dispersion of the bulge.
1563: The two groups however find two different slopes of the correlation,
1564: $\MBH\propto\sigstar^5$ and $\MBH\propto\sigstar^4$ respectively
1565: \citep{tremaine02}. Clearly, any correlation of black hole and spheroid
1566: properties would have important implications for theories of galaxy formation
1567: in general, and bulge formation in particular. Indeed, several authors have
1568: shown that the slope of the \MBH-\sigstar\ correlation yields information on
1569: the formation process. If the formation process is self-regulated, i.e.\ if the
1570: BH growth is limited by radiation pressure, $\MBH\propto\sigstar^5$
1571: \citep{sr98}. Conversely if the growth is regulated by ambient conditions
1572: $\MBH\propto\sigstar^4$ \citep{adams00,cavaliere02}. The uncertainties on the
1573: slope of the \MBH-\sigstar\ correlation do not allow one to distinguish between
1574: the two cases. To solve this problem more \BH\ mass measurements are needed in
1575: the low mass range (\ten{6}-\ten{7}\Msun) where spiral galaxies are expected to
1576: fit.
1577:
1578: These correlations are also very important to estimate \BH\ masses
1579: quickly and easily instead from very complex dynamical and kinematic
1580: measurements. Therefore the quantities involved in the correlations
1581: must be measured as carefully as possible in order to reduce the
1582: scatter to its intrinsic value. For instance it has been shown
1583: that with careful estimates of the bulge luminosity the \MBH-\Lsph\
1584: correlation has the same scatter as the \MBH-\sigstar\ correlation, in
1585: contrast with previous claims \citep{mclure02}.
1586:
1587: Given the low value of the \BH\ mass in NGC 4041, $\MBH<2\xten{7}\Msun$,
1588: it is worthwhile to verify the relation of this galaxy with the
1589: proposed correlations. The B magnitude from the RC3 catalogue is 11.9
1590: becoming 11.8 after extinction correction (see NED). The morphological
1591: type is Sbc/Sc and $T=4.0\pm0.3$. From \citet{simien86} the bulge to
1592: total luminosity ratio is $\simeq 0.16$ resulting in $\Delta m = 2$. Thus the
1593: bulge magnitude is 13.8. The adopted distance, 19.5\MPC, corresponds
1594: to a distance modulus of 31.5 thus the absolute bulge magnitude is
1595: $-17.7$ corresponding to 1.8\xten{9}\LBsun. The best fit of the
1596: $\MBH-\LBsph$ correlation gives
1597: $\MBH=0.8\xten{8}(\LBsph/\ten{10}\LBsun)^{1.08}$ \citep{kg01}. Thus the
1598: expected \BH\ mass in NGC 4041 would be 1.2\xten{7}\Msun, in agreement
1599: with the \BH\ mass estimate or upper limit. The best fit of the
1600: $\MBH-\sigstar$ correlation gives
1601: $\MBH=1.3\xten{8}(\sigstar/200\kms)^{4.0}$ \citep{tremaine02} or
1602: $\MBH=1.4\xten{8}(\sigstar/200\kms)^{4.8}$ \citep{merritt01}.
1603: Using INTEGRAL/WYFFOS at the WHT, we have recently measured
1604: the stellar velocity dispersion in the central 2\arcsec\ of NGC 4041
1605: (Batcheldor et al., in preparation).
1606: With $\sigstar=95\pm 5\kms$, the
1607: expected \BH\ masses are then 7\xten{6}\Msun\ and 4\xten{6}\Msun, both
1608: consistent with the result from this paper.
1609:
1610: Since the main goal of our project is to determine whether or not spirals do in
1611: fact follow the \MBH-\Lsph\ and \MBH-\sigstar\ relations, it is important to
1612: observe also objects which, a-priori, are expected to have marginally or non
1613: detectable \BH s. Indeed, even if the present measurement is only an upper
1614: limit, this is still useful in ruling out the presence of unusually massive
1615: central \BH s in late type spiral galaxies.
1616:
1617: \section{\label{sec:conclusions}Conclusions}
1618:
1619: We presented HST/STIS spectra of the Sbc spiral galaxy NGC 4041 which were used
1620: to map the velocity field of the gas in its nuclear region. We detected the
1621: presence of a compact ($r\simeq 0\farcs4\simeq 40\PC$), high surface
1622: brightness, circularly rotating nuclear disk cospatial with a nuclear star
1623: cluster. This disk is characterized by a rotation curve with a peak to peak
1624: amplitude of $\sim 40\kms$ and is systematically blueshifted by $\sim 10 -
1625: 20\kms$ with respect to the galaxy systemic velocity.
1626:
1627: We have analyzed the kinematical data assuming that the stellar mass-to-light
1628: ratio is constant with radius and that the gaseous disk is not warped, having
1629: the same inclination as the large scale galactic disk. We have found that, in
1630: order to reproduce the observed rotation curve, a dark point mass of
1631: $(1_{-0.7}^{+0.6})\xten{7}\Msun$ is needed, very likely a supermassive \BH.
1632:
1633: However the observed blueshift suggests the possibility that the nuclear disk
1634: could be dynamically independent. Following this line of reasoning we have
1635: relaxed the standard assumptions varying the stellar mass-to-light and the
1636: disk inclination. We have found that the kinematical data can be accounted for
1637: by the stellar mass provided that either the mass-to-light ratio is increased
1638: by a factor of $\sim 2$ or the inclination is allowed to vary. This model
1639: resulted in a $3\sigma$ upper limit of $6 \xten{6}\Msun$ on the mass of any
1640: nuclear black hole.
1641:
1642: Combining the results from the standard and alternative models, the present
1643: data only allow us to set an upper limit of $2\xten{7}\Msun$ to the mass of the
1644: nuclear \BH.
1645:
1646: If this upper limit is taken in conjunction with an estimated bulge B
1647: magnitude of $-17.7$ and with a central stellar velocity dispersion of $\simeq
1648: 95\kms$,
1649: the putative black hole in NGC 4041 is not inconsistent with
1650: both the \MBH-\Lsph\ and the \MBH-\sigstar\ correlations.
1651:
1652: \acknowledgments
1653:
1654: Support for proposal GO-8228 was provided by NASA through a grant from the
1655: Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of
1656: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555
1657:
1658: This work was partially supported by the Italian Space Agency (ASI) under
1659: grants I/R/35/00 and I/R/112/01.
1660:
1661: This work was partially supported by the Italian Ministry for Instruction,
1662: University and Research (MIUR) under grants Cofin00-02-35 and Cofin01-02-02
1663:
1664: We thank Peter Erwin for useful discussions and the referee, Aaron Barth, for
1665: careful reading of the manuscript, suggestions and comments which improved the
1666: paper.
1667:
1668: This publication makes use of the LEDA database (http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr).
1669:
1670: This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.
1671:
1672: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1673: \bibitem[Adams, Graff \& Richstone(2000)]{adams00}
1674: Adams, F.~C., Graff, D.~S., \& Richstone, D.~O.\ 2001, \apjl, 551, L31
1675: \bibitem[Athanassoula(1992)]{athanassoula92}
1676: Athanassola, E.\ 1992, \mnras, 259, 345
1677: \bibitem[Baffa et al.(2001)]{nics}
1678: Baffa, C.~et al.\ 2001, \aap, 378, 722
1679: \bibitem[Bahcall \& Wolf(1976)]{rbh}
1680: Bahcall, J.~N.,~\& Wolf, R.~A.\ 1976, \apj, 209, 214
1681: \bibitem[Barth et al.(2001)]{barth01}
1682: Barth, A.~J., Sarzi, M., Rix, H., Ho, L.~C., Filippenko, A.~V.,
1683: \& Sargent, W.~L.~W.\ 2001, \apj, 555, 685
1684: \bibitem[Binney \& Mamon(1982)]{binney82}
1685: Binney, J.,~\& Mamon, G.~A.\ 1982, \mnras, 200, 361
1686: \bibitem[Binney \& Merrifield(1998)]{binney98}
1687: Binney, J.,~\& Merrifield, M.\ 1998,
1688: Galactic Astronomy,
1689: (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
1690: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine(1987)]{bt87}
1691: Binney, J.,~\& Tremaine, S.\ 1987,
1692: Galactic Dynamics,
1693: (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
1694: \bibitem[B{\" o}ker et al.(2002)]{boker02}
1695: B{\" o}ker, T., Laine, S., van der Marel, R.~P., Sarzi, M., Rix, H., Ho, L.~C.,
1696: \& Shields, J.~C.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 1389
1697: \bibitem[Bower et al.(1998)]{bower98}
1698: Bower, G.~A.,~et al.\ 1998, \apjl, 492, L111
1699: \bibitem[Bowers \& Baum(1998)]{stisanam}
1700: Bowers, C.~\& Baum, S.\ 1998, STIS Instrument Science Rep.\ 98-23
1701: (Baltimore: STScI)
1702: \bibitem[Braatz, Wilson, \& Henkel(1997)]{braatz}
1703: Braatz, J.~A., Wilson, A.~S., \& Henkel, C.\ 1997, \apjs, 110, 321
1704: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(1993)]{bc96}
1705: Bruzual, A.~G.,~\& Charlot, S.\ 1993, \apj, 405, 538
1706: \bibitem[Burbidge \& Burbidge(1962)]{burbidge}
1707: Burbidge, E.~M.~\& Burbidge, G.~R.\ 1962, \apj, 135, 694
1708: \bibitem[Cappellari et al.(2002)]{cappellari02} Cappellari, M.,
1709: Verolme, E.~K., van der Marel, R.~P., Kleijn, G.~A.~V., Illingworth, G.~D.,
1710: Franx, M., Carollo, C.~M., \& de Zeeuw, P.~T.\ 2002, \apj, 578, 787
1711: \bibitem[Cardelli, Clayton, \& Mathis(1989)]{cardelli89}
1712: Cardelli, J.~A., Clayton, G.~C., \& Mathis, J.~S.\ 1989, \apj, 345, 245
1713: \bibitem[Carollo et al.(1997)]{carollo97}
1714: Carollo, C.~M., Franx, M., Illingworth, G.~D., \& Forbes, D.~A.\ 1997,
1715: \apj, 481, 710
1716: \bibitem[Carollo, Stiavelli \& Mack(1998)]{carollo98}
1717: Carollo, C.~M., Stiavelli, M., \& Mack, J.\ 1998, \aj, 116, 68
1718: \bibitem[Carollo et al.(2002)]{carollo02}
1719: Carollo, C.~M., Stiavelli, M., Seigar, M., de Zeeuw, P.~T.,
1720: \& Dejonghe, H.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 159
1721: \bibitem[Cavaliere \& Vittorini(2001)]{cavaliere02}
1722: Cavaliere, A.~\& Vittorini, V.\ 2002, \apj, 570, 114
1723: \bibitem[Chokshi \& Turner(1992)]{chokshi}
1724: Chokshi, A.~\& Turner, E.~L.\ 1992, \mnras, 259, 421
1725: \bibitem[de Jong(1996)]{dejong96}
1726: de Jong, R.~S.\ 1996, \aap, 313, 377 (IV)
1727: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs et al.(1991)]{rc3}
1728: de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, J.~R., Buta, R.~J., Paturel,
1729: G., \& Fouque, P.\ 1991, Third reference catalogue of Bright galaxies, (New
1730: York: Springer-Verlag)
1731: \bibitem[Devereux, Ford, \& Jacoby(1997)]{devereux97}
1732: Devereux, N., Ford, H., \& Jacoby, G.\ 1997, \apjl, 481, L71
1733:
1734: \bibitem[Ferrarese et al.(1996)]{ferrarese96}
1735: Ferrarese, L., Ford, H.~C., \& Jaffe, W.\ 1996, \apj, 470, 444
1736: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merritt(2000)]{ferrarese00}
1737: Ferrarese, L.~\& Merritt, D.\ 2000, \apjl, 539, L9
1738: \bibitem[Ford et al.(1998)]{ford98}
1739: Ford, H.~C., Tsvetanov, Z.~I., Ferrarese, L., \& Jaffe, W.\ 1998,
1740: in The Central Regions of the Galaxy and Galaxies, ed. Y. Sofue
1741: (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 377
1742: \bibitem[Ford et al.(1994)]{ford94}
1743: Ford, H.~C.,~et al.\ 1994, \apjl, 435, L27
1744: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000)]{gebhardt00}
1745: Gebhardt, K.~et al.\ 2000, \apjl, 539, L13
1746: \bibitem[Genzel et al.(2000)]{genzel}
1747: Genzel, R., Pichon, C.,
1748: Eckart, A., Gerhard, O.~E., \& Ott, T.\ 2000, \mnras, 317, 348
1749: \bibitem[Giovanelli \& Haynes(2002)]{giovanelli02}
1750: Giovanelli, R.~\& Haynes, M.~P.\ 2002, \apjl, 571, L107
1751: \bibitem[Greenhill, Moran, \& Herrnstein(1997)]{greenhill}
1752: Greenhill, L.~J., Moran, J.~M., \& Herrnstein, J.~R.\ 1997, \apjl, 481, L23
1753: \bibitem[Harms et al.(1994)]{harms}
1754: Harms, R.~J.,~et al.\ 1994, \apjl, 435, L35
1755: \bibitem[Ho, Filippenko, \& Sargent(1997)]{ho97}
1756: Ho, L.~C., Filippenko, A.~V., \& Sargent, W.~L.~W.\ 1997, \apj, 487, 568
1757: \bibitem[Ho et al.(2002)]{ho02}
1758: Ho, L.~C., Sarzi, M., Rix, H., Shields, J.~C., Rudnick, G., Filippenko, A.~V.,
1759: \& Barth, A.~J.\ 2002, \pasp, 114, 137
1760: \bibitem[Kinney et al.(1996)]{kinney96}
1761: Kinney, A.~L., Calzetti,
1762: D., Bohlin, R.~C., McQuade, K., Storchi-Bergmann, T., \& Schmitt, H.~R.\
1763: 1996, \apj, 467, 38
1764: \bibitem[Knapen et al.(1995)]{knapen} Knapen, J.~H., Beckman,
1765: J.~E., Heller, C.~H., Shlosman, I., \& de Jong, R.~S.\ 1995, \apj, 454, 623
1766: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Richstone(1995)]{kr95}
1767: Kormendy, J.,~\& Richstone, D.\ 1995, \araa, 33, 581
1768: \bibitem[Kormendy et al.(1996)]{k96}
1769: Kormendy, J.,~et al.\ 1996, \apjl, 459, L57
1770: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Gebhardt(2001)]{kg01}
1771: Kormendy, J.,~\& Gebhardt, K.\ 2001, in 20th Texas Symposium on Relativistic
1772: Astrophysics, eds. J.~C. Wheeler and H. Martel (Melville, NY: AIP), 363
1773: \bibitem[Krist \& Hook(1999)]{tinytim}
1774: Krist, J.~\& Hook, R.\ 1999, The Tiny Tim User's Guide (Baltimore: STScI)
1775: \bibitem[Jaffe et al.(1996)]{jaffe96} Jaffe, W., Ford, H.,
1776: Ferrarese, L., van den Bosch, F., \& O'Connell, R.~W.\ 1996, \apj, 460, 214
1777: \bibitem[Leitherer et al.(2001)]{stishand}
1778: Leitherer, C., et al.\ 2001,
1779: ``STIS Instrument Handbook'', Version 5.1, (Baltimore: STScI).
1780: \bibitem[Leitherer et al.(1999)]{leitherer99} Leitherer, C.~et al.\
1781: 1999, \apjs, 123, 3
1782: \bibitem[Lynden-Bell(1969)]{lind69}
1783: Lynden-Bell, D.\ 1969, \nat, 223, 690
1784: \bibitem[Macchetto et al.(1997)]{macchetto97}
1785: Macchetto, F., Marconi, A., Axon, D.~J., Capetti, A., Sparks, W.,
1786: \& Crane, P.\ 1997, \apj, 489, 579
1787: \bibitem[Maciejewski \& Binney(2001)]{witold01}
1788: Maciejewski, W.~\& Binney, J.\ 2001, \mnras, 323, 831
1789: \bibitem[Maiolino \& Rieke(1995)]{maiolino}
1790: Maiolino, R.,~\& Rieke, G.~H.\ 1995, \apj, 454, 95
1791: \bibitem[Maraston(2000)]{maraston}
1792: Maraston, C.\ 1998, \mnras, 300, 872
1793: \bibitem[Marconi \& Salvati(2001)]{ms01}
1794: Marconi, A., \& Salvati M., N.\ 2002, in Issues in Unification of Active
1795: Galactic Nuclei, eds. R. Maiolino, A. Marconi and N. Nagar (San Francisco:
1796: ASP), 217
1797: \bibitem[Marconi et al.(2001)]{marconi01}
1798: Marconi, A., Capetti, A., Axon, D.~J., Koekemoer, A., Macchetto, D.,
1799: \& Schreier, E.~J.\ 2001, \apj, 549, 915
1800: \bibitem[Marconi et al.(2000)]{marconi00} Marconi, A., Schreier,
1801: E.~J., Koekemoer, A., Capetti, A., Axon, D., Macchetto, D., \& Caon, N.\
1802: 2000, \apj, 528, 276
1803: \bibitem[McLure \& Dunlop(2002)]{mclure02}
1804: McLure, R.~J.,~\& Dunlop, J.~S.\ 2002, \mnras, 331, 795
1805: \bibitem[Merritt \& Ferrarese(2001)]{merritt01}
1806: Merritt, D.,~\& Ferrarese, L.\ 2001, \apj, 547, 140
1807: \bibitem[Merritt \& Ferrarese(2002)]{mf01}
1808: Merritt, D.~\& Ferrarese, L.\ 2001, in The Central Kiloparsec of Starbursts and
1809: AGN, eds. J.~H. Knapen et al.\ (San Francisco: ASP), 335
1810: \bibitem[Merritt(1997)]{merr97}
1811: Merritt, D.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 228
1812: \bibitem[Miyoshi et al.(1995)]{miyoshi} Miyoshi, M., Moran, J.,
1813: Herrnstein, J., Greenhill, L., Nakai, N., Diamond, P., \& Inoue, M.\ 1995,
1814: \nat, 373, 127
1815: \bibitem[Moriondo, Giovanardi \& Hunt (1998)]{moriondo98}
1816: Moriondo, G., Giovanardi, C., \& Hunt, L.~K.\ 1998, \aap, 339, 409
1817: \bibitem[Osterbrock(1989)]{osterbrock}
1818: Osterbrock, D.~E., 1989,
1819: Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei,
1820: (Mill Valley, CA: University Science Books)
1821: \bibitem[Panagia(1973)]{panagia73}
1822: Panagia, N.\ 1973, \aj, 78, 929
1823: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{numrec}
1824: Press, W.~H., Teukolsky, S.~A., Vetterling, W.~T., \& Flannery, B.~P.\ 1992,
1825: Numerical Recipes in C. The Art of Scientific computing,
1826: (Cambridge: University Press), 2nd edition.
1827: \bibitem[Pryor \& Meylan(2002)]{globulars}
1828: Pryor, C,.~\& Meylan, G.\ 1993, in Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters,
1829: eds. S.~G. Djorgovski and G. Meylan (San Francisco: ASP), 357
1830: \bibitem[Richstone(1998)]{r98}
1831: Richstone, D.\ 1998, \baas, 30, 1140
1832: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(1999)]{sakamoto99}
1833: Sakamoto, K., Okumura, S.~K., Ishizuki, S., \& Scoville, N.~Z.\ 1999,
1834: \apjs, 124, 403
1835: \bibitem[Salpeter(1955)]{s55}
1836: Salpeter, E.~E.\ 1955, \apj, 121, 161
1837: \bibitem[Scalo(1986)]{sc86}
1838: Scalo, J.~M.\ 1986, Fundamentals of Cosmic Physics, 11, 1
1839: \bibitem[Schreier et al.(1998)]{schreier98}
1840: Schreier, E.~J.,~et al.\ 1998, \apjl, 499, L143
1841: \bibitem[Shaw et al.(1995)]{shaw95} Shaw,
1842: M., Axon, D., Probst, R., \& Gatley, I.\ 1995, \mnras, 274, 369
1843: \bibitem[Silk \& Rees(1999)]{sr98}
1844: Silk, J.,~\& Rees, M.~J.\ 1998, \aap, 331, L1
1845: \bibitem[Simien \& de Vaucouleurs(1985)]{simien86}
1846: Simien, F.,~\& de Vaucouleurs, G.\ 1986, \apj, 302, 564
1847: \bibitem[So\l tan(1982)]{soltan}
1848: So\l tan, A.\ 1982, \mnras, 200, 115
1849: \bibitem[Statler(1987)]{statler}
1850: Statler, T.~S.\ 1987, \apj, 321, 113
1851: \bibitem[Tremaine et al.(2002)]{tremaine02} Tremaine, S.~et al.\
1852: 2002, \apj, 574, 740
1853: \bibitem[van der Marel \& van den Bosch(1998)]{marel98}
1854: van der Marel, R.~P.,~\& van den Bosch, F.~C.\ 1998, \aj, 116, 2220
1855: \bibitem[van der Marel et al.(1998b)]{marel98b}
1856: van der Marel, R.~P., Cretton, N., de
1857: Zeeuw, P.~T., \& Rix, H.\ 1998, \apj, 493, 613
1858: \bibitem[Verdoes Klein et al.(2000)]{verdoes00}
1859: Verdoes Kleijn, G.~A., van der Marel, R.~P., Carollo, C.~M.,
1860: \& de Zeeuw, P.~T.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1221
1861: \bibitem[Whitmore (1995)]{wfpc2cal}
1862: Whitmore, B.\ 1995,
1863: in Calibrating Hubble Space Telescope.~ Post Servicing Mission,
1864: eds. A.~Koratkar and C.~Leitherer (Baltimore: STScI), 269
1865: \bibitem[Wilkins \& Axon(1992)]{longslit}
1866: Wilkins, T.~W., \& Axon, D.~J.\ 1992, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software
1867: and Systems I, ed.s D.~M.\ Worral, C.\ Biemesderfer, \& J.\ Barnes (San
1868: Francisco: ASP), 427
1869: \bibitem[Winge et al.(1998)]{winge99}
1870: Winge, C., Axon, D.~J., Macchetto, F.~D., Capetti, A.,
1871: \& Marconi, A.\ 1999, \apj, 519, 134
1872: \end{thebibliography}
1873:
1874: \appendix
1875:
1876:
1877: \section{\label{app:stardens} Deriving the luminosity density of the stars from
1878: the observed surface brightness profile}
1879:
1880: The stellar luminosity density can be inferred by inverting the observed
1881: observed surface brightness profiles. Following \citet{marel98} we
1882: assume an oblate spheroidal density distribution which we parameterize as:
1883: \begin{equation}\label{eq:massdens}
1884: \rho(m) = \rho_0\left(\frac{m}{r_b}\right)^{-\alpha} \left(1+\left(\frac{m}{r_b}\right)^2\right)^{-\beta}
1885: \end{equation}
1886: $m$ is defined as
1887: $m^2 = x^2+y^2+z^2/q^2$,
1888: where $xyz$ is a reference system with the $xy$ plane corresponding to the
1889: principal plane of the potential. $q$ is the intrinsic axial ratio of the mass
1890: distribution. If \mlr\
1891: is the mass-to-light ratio, the observed surface brightness distribution is
1892: given by\,\footnote{Note the $1/4\pi$ factor. This derives from the fact that
1893: $\rho/V$ is a density (luminosity per unit volume) and $\Sigma$
1894: is a surface brightness (luminosity per unit area per unit solid angle).}:
1895: \begin{equation}
1896: \Sigma = \frac{1}{4\pi\mlr} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \rho ds
1897: \end{equation}
1898: where the integration is performed along the line of sight. It can be shown
1899: that
1900: \begin{equation}
1901: \Sigma(\ms) = \frac{1}{4\pi\mlr} \frac{\q}{\qs}
1902: \int_{{\ms}^2}^{+\infty} \frac {\rho(m^2) dm^2}{\sqrt{(m^2-\mssq)}}
1903: \end{equation}
1904: where $\mssq = \xssq+\yssq/\qssq$ and \xs\ys\ is a reference system on the sky,
1905: with the \xs\ axis aligned along the apparent major axis. $\qs$ is the observed
1906: axial ratio of the isophotes which is related to the intrinsic
1907: axial ratio of the
1908: mass distribution
1909: by $\qssq = \cos^2\I+q^2 \sin^2\I$, where \I\ is the inclination
1910: of the line of sight ($\I=90$\arcdeg\ is the edge-on case). The observed surface
1911: brightness results from the convolution of $\Sigma$
1912: with the {\it point spread function} $P$
1913: of the system (i.e.\ telescope and optics) and the detector pixels:
1914: \begin{equation}
1915: \Sigma_\mathrm{app}(X, Y) = \int_{X-\Delta X}^{X+\Delta X} \int_{Y-\Delta Y}^{Y+\Delta Y} \left[ \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\Sigma_\mathrm{true}(x, y) P(\xs-x, \ys-y) \, dx dy \right]
1916: \,\frac{d\xs d\ys}{4\Delta X\Delta Y}
1917: \end{equation}
1918: where $X,Y$ is the centre of an aperture with size $2\Delta X\times2\Delta Y$.
1919: The integration on $d\xs d\ys$ can be directly carried out on the PSF $P$ which
1920: is described by a sum of gaussians:
1921: \begin{equation}
1922: P(x,y) = \frac{1}{N_K}\sum_{i=1}^N k_i
1923: \exp\left(-\frac{x^2+y^2}{2\sigma_i^2}\right)
1924: \end{equation}
1925: with $N_K = \sum_{i=1}^N 2\pi\sigma_i^2 k_i$.
1926: Then $\Sigma_\mathrm{app}$ is given by
1927: \begin{equation}
1928: \Sigma_\mathrm{app}(X, Y) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
1929: \Sigma(x, y)_\mathrm{true}
1930: \KERN(X-\Delta X-x, X+\Delta X-x; Y-\Delta Y-y, Y+\Delta Y-y)
1931: \,\,\frac{dx dy}{4\Delta X\Delta Y}
1932: \end{equation}
1933: where $\KERN$ is the convolution kernel:
1934: \begin{equation}
1935: \KERN(X_1, X_2; Y_1, Y_2) = \frac{1}{N_K}
1936: \sum_{i=1}^N 2\pi\sigma_i^2 \frac{k_i}{4}
1937: \left[\mathcal{E}\left(\frac{X_1}{\sigma_i\sqrt{2}}\right)-\mathcal{E}\left(\frac{X_2}{\sigma_i\sqrt{2}}\right)\right]
1938: \left[\mathcal{E}\left(\frac{Y_1}{\sigma_i\sqrt{2}}\right)-\mathcal{E}\left(\frac{Y_2}{\sigma_i\sqrt{2}}\right)\right]
1939: \end{equation}
1940: where
1941: $\mathcal{E}$ is the complementary error function.
1942: The integration is then carried out numerically using the Gauss Legendre
1943: approximation.
1944:
1945: The best fitting model is determined by minimizing the reduced \chisqr\
1946: defined as:
1947: \begin{eqnarray}
1948: \chisqr & = & \frac{1}{N_d} \sum_{i=1}^{N}
1949: \left( \frac{\log\Sigma_{i}-\log\Sigma_m(r_{i}, \delta r_{i}; p_1, \dots, p_m)}{\delta \log\Sigma_{i}} \right)^2 \\
1950: \end{eqnarray}
1951: where $i=1, \dots, N$ indicates a data point with surface brightness $\Sigma_i
1952: \pm \delta\Sigma_{i}$ at radius $r_{i}$. \newline $\Sigma_m(r_{i}, \delta
1953: r_{i}; p_1, \dots, p_m)$ is the model surface brightness, averaged over radii
1954: $r_{i}-\delta r_{i}\le r \le r_{i}+\delta r_{i}$, which is a function of $m$
1955: free parameters $p_1, \dots, p_m$. $N_d =N - m$ is the number of degrees of
1956: freedom. The \chisqr\ is minimized to determine the $m$ free parameters using
1957: the downhill simplex algorithm by \citet{numrec}.
1958:
1959: When the mass density has been determined as described above,
1960: the circular velocity in the principal plane
1961: is given by the relation \citep[\eg][]{bt87}:
1962: \begin{equation}\label{eq:vcircq}
1963: V_c^2(r) = 4\pi G \q^2 \int_0^r \frac{\rho(m^2) m^2 dm }{\sqrt{r^2-m^2 e^2}}
1964: \end{equation}
1965: where $e$ is the eccentricity related to \q\ by
1966: $\q^2 = 1 -e^2$.
1967: Similarly the mass enclosed within the homoeoid defined by $m<m_\circ$ is
1968: \begin{equation}
1969: M(m_\circ) = 4\pi\q \int_0^{m_\circ} \rho(m^2) m^2 dm
1970: \end{equation}
1971:
1972: \section{\label{app:gaskin} The rotation curve model}
1973:
1974: The velocity field along the line of sight, $\bar{v}$,
1975: can be easily computed in the case of a circularly
1976: rotating thin disk. Let $XY$ be a reference frame in the plane of the sky
1977: with $Y$ axis fixed along the direction given by the slit position (hereafter called the slit reference frame).
1978: Consider a reference frame $X_dY_d$ in the sky with the $X_d$ axis aligned
1979: along the disk line of nodes and the origin coincident with the disk centre
1980: (hereafter called the ``disk reference frame'',
1981: see Figure~\ref{fig:diskgeo}). The origin of
1982: $XY$ is chosen in such a way that the disk center has coordinates $x=\B$ and
1983: $y=0$ in the slit reference frame. Then a given disk point $P$ with
1984: coordinates $(x,y)$ in the slit reference frame has coordinates $(x_d,y_d)$ in
1985: the disk reference frame given by
1986: \begin{eqnarray}
1987: x_d & = & (x-\B) \sin\Th + y \cos\Th \nonumber\\
1988: y_d & = & -(x-\B) \cos\Th + y \sin\Th
1989: \end{eqnarray}
1990: If the disk has an inclination angle \I\
1991: ($\I=0$ in the face-on case), then $P$ is at the disk radius $r$ given by
1992: \begin{equation}
1993: r^2 = x_d^2 + \left(\frac{y_d}{\cos\I}\right)^2
1994: \end{equation}
1995: The circular velocity of $P$, in the case of a spherical mass distribution,
1996: is then given by
1997: \begin{equation}
1998: V_c(r) = \left| r\frac{\mathrm{d}\Phi}{\mathrm{d} r} \right|^\frac{1}{2} =
1999: \left( \frac{GM(r)}{r} \right)^\frac{1}{2}
2000: \end{equation}
2001: where $M(r)$ is the enclosed mass at radius $r$, a constant value \MBH\
2002: in case of a point mass.
2003: In the case of an oblate spheroidal mass distribution, $V_c(r)$ is
2004: given by Equation~\ref{eq:vcircq}.
2005: \begin{figure}[t!]
2006: \centering
2007: \epsfig{figure=f20.eps,angle=-90,width=0.8\linewidth}
2008: \caption{\label{fig:diskgeo} Geometry of the disk. }
2009: \end{figure}
2010:
2011: The velocity component along the line of sight is finally given by
2012: \begin{equation}
2013: \label{eq:kepler}
2014: \bar{v} = \Vsys - V_c (r)\sin \I\frac{x_d}{r} =
2015: \Vsys - (G\MBH)^{0.5}\sin \I\frac{x_d}{r^{1.5}}
2016: \end{equation}
2017: with the latter expression describing the simple case of a point mass \MBH.
2018:
2019: This velocity field $\bar{v}$ has to be convolved with the instrumental
2020: response in order to simulate the observed quantities.
2021: Below we show how can this be done for any velocity field $\bar{v}$.
2022:
2023: Consider again the reference frame $XY$ in the plane of the sky
2024: defined above. The light distribution can be written as
2025: \begin{equation}\label{eq:w1}
2026: \Phi(\xII,\yII,\vI) = I(\xII,\yII) \phi(\vI-\bar{v}),
2027: \end{equation}
2028: where $I(\xII,\yII)$ is the total intensity at the point $(\xII,\yII)$, and
2029: $\phi(\vI-\bar{v})$ is the intrinsic line profile centered at the velocity
2030: along the line of sight $\bar{v}(\xII,\yII)$.
2031: After passing through the telescope, the light gets convolved with the
2032: instrumental PSF $P(\xI-\xII,\yI-\yII)$, and at point $(\xI,\yI)$ in
2033: the focal plane the light distribution is described by
2034: \begin{equation}\label{eq:w2}
2035: \Phi(\xI,\yI,\vI) = \int\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \dxII\dyII \,\,I(\xII,\yII)
2036: \phi(\vI-\bar{v}) P(\xI-\xII,\yI-\yII).
2037: \end{equation}
2038: As already defined,
2039: the slit in the focal plane is aligned along the $Y$ axis
2040: and let its center cross the $X$ axis at $x_0$. Let the slit width be $2\Dx$.
2041: Past the slit, the light falls into the detector plane,
2042: where the spatial coordinate $\xI$ and the velocity $\vI$ are combined
2043: into one
2044: single detector coordinate $\wI = \vI + k ( \xI - x_0)$, which we identify
2045: with the {\it observed} velocity (we denote it $w$ here in contrast
2046: to the intrinsic velocity denoted by $v$). Here, the coefficient $k$
2047: is given by $\mu\Dw/\Dy$ where $\mu$, the anamorphic
2048: magnification, accounts for the different scales on the dispersion and slit
2049: directions. In the case of STIS, the scale along the slit is 0\farcs05071 and
2050: along dispersion is 0\farcs05477, thus $\mu = 1.080$ \citep{stisanam}.
2051: The light distribution in the
2052: detector plane,
2053: $\Psi(\wI, \yI)$, is calculated by ousting $\vI$, and integrating
2054: the light contribution across the slit
2055: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:lprofile0}
2056: \Psi(\wI, \yI) & = &
2057: \int_{x_0-\Dx}^{x_0+\Dx} \dxI \,\,\Phi(\xI,\yI,\wI - k ( \xI - x_0))
2058: \nonumber \\
2059: & = & \int_{x_0-\Dx}^{x_0+\Dx} \dxI
2060: \int\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \dxII\dyII \,\,
2061: \phi[\wI-\bar{v}(\xII,\yII)-k(\xI-x_0)] \,
2062: I(\xII,\yII)\,
2063: P(\xI-\xII,\yI-\yII). \nonumber \\
2064: & &
2065: \end{eqnarray}
2066: Note the component $k(\xI-x_0)$ in the velocity profile, which is the
2067: ``spurious'' velocity for light entering off from the slit center.
2068: Properties of thus defined two-dimensional light distribution with the spurious
2069: velocity shift were investigated in detail by \citet{witold01}.
2070:
2071: The detector integrates over finite pixel sizes therefore
2072: we calculate the expected line fluxes, average velocities and widths
2073: for the line profile that is obtained by integrating the light distribution
2074: on the detector plane
2075: $\Psi(\wI, \yI)$ over the width $2\Dy$ of the $j^{th}$ pixel
2076: along the slit, and convolving it with the shape of the pixel in the
2077: dispersion direction: a top-hat of width $2\Dw$. Thus the expected line profile
2078: in the detector is
2079: \begin{equation}\label{eq:lprofile}
2080: \tilde{\Psi}_j (w) = \int_{y_j-\Dy}^{y_j+\Dy} \dyI \int_{w-\Dw}^{w+\Dw}
2081: d\wI \,\, \Psi(w^\prime, \yI),
2082: \end{equation}
2083: where the $j^{th}$ pixel has the coordinate $y_j$ along the slit.
2084: Note that the observed intensities are measured at discrete values of $w$
2085: corresponding to the pixel centers.
2086: In order to calculate the expected line fluxes, average
2087: velocities and widths, one has to evaluate moments of $\tilde{\Psi}_j (w)$:
2088: \begin{equation}\label{eq:mom}
2089: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\wI \,\, w^n \,\, \tilde{\Psi}_j (w) =
2090: \int_{y_j-\Dy}^{y_j+\Dy} \dyI \int_{x_0-\Dx}^{x_0+\Dx} \dxI
2091: \int\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \dxII\dyII \,\, \mathcal{P}
2092: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\wI \,\, w^n
2093: \int_{w-\Dw}^{w+\Dw} \dwp \phi(w'-w_0)
2094: \end{equation}
2095: where we used abbreviations $\mathcal{P} = I(\xII,\yII) P(\xI-\xII,\yI-\yII)$
2096: and $w_0 = \bar{v}(\xII,\yII) + k (x-x_0)$. The last two integrals can be
2097: simplified by inverting the order of integration:
2098: \[
2099: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\wI \,\, w^n
2100: \int_{w-\Dw}^{w+\Dw} \dwp \phi(w'-w_0) =
2101: \int\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\wI \,\, \dwp \,\, w^n \phi(w'-w_0) H(w-w') =
2102: \]
2103: \[
2104: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\wI \,\, \phi(w-w_0)
2105: \int_{w-\Dw}^{w+\Dw} \dwp \,\, w'^n =
2106: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\wI \,\, \phi(w-w_0)
2107: \frac{(w+\Dw)^{n+1}-(w-\Dw)^{n+1}}{n+1}
2108: \]
2109: where $H(w-w')$ is 1 for $|w-w'|<\Dw$ and 0 otherwise. This leads to the
2110: following formulae for the moments of $\tilde{\Psi}_j (w)$:
2111: \begin{equation}\label{eq:intens}
2112: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \tilde{\Psi}_j (w) \dwI = 2\Dw
2113: \int_{x_0-\Dx}^{x_0+\Dx} \dxI
2114: \int_{y_j-\Dy}^{y_j+\Dy} \dyI
2115: \int\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \dxII\dyII \mathcal{P}
2116: \end{equation}
2117: \begin{equation}\label{eq:veloc}
2118: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} w \, \tilde{\Psi}_j (w) \dwI = 2\Dw
2119: \int_{x_0-\Dx}^{x_0+\Dx} \dxI
2120: \int_{y_j-\Dy}^{y_j+\Dy} \dyI
2121: \int\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \dxII\dyII w_0 \,\, \mathcal{P}
2122: \end{equation}
2123: \begin{equation}\label{eq:veloc2}
2124: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} w^2 \, \tilde{\Psi}_j (w) \dwI = 2\Dw
2125: \int_{x_0-\Dx}^{x_0+\Dx} \dxI
2126: \int_{y_j-\Dy}^{y_j+\Dy} \dyI
2127: \int\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \dxII\dyII
2128: (w_0^2+\frac{(\Dw)^2}{3}+\sigma^2)\mathcal{P}
2129: \end{equation}
2130: To obtain them, we assumed that the intrinsic velocity
2131: profile $\phi(\vI)$ is bound and symmetric, i.e.\
2132: \[
2133: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \phi(\vI)\dvI = 1 \hspace{1cm}
2134: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \vI\phi(\vI)\dvI = 0 \hspace{1cm}
2135: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \vI^2\phi(\vI)\dvI = \sigma^2
2136: \]
2137: where $\sigma^2$ is the intrinsic velocity dispersion.
2138:
2139: Equations~\ref{eq:intens}, \ref{eq:veloc} and \ref{eq:veloc2} can be used to compute
2140: the expected line fluxes, average velocities and widths.
2141: For example, in the most simple case of a constant line intensity
2142: $I=const$, and velocity field $\bar{v}=const$, one can write:
2143: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:vel}
2144: \langle v_j\rangle & = & \frac{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} w \, \tilde{\Psi}_j (w) \dwI}
2145: {\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \tilde{\Psi}_j (w) \dwI} = \bar{v}
2146: \nonumber \\
2147: \langle v_j^2\rangle & = & \frac{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} w^2 \, \tilde{\Psi}_j (w) \dw}
2148: {\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \tilde{\Psi}_j (w) \dw} =
2149: \bar{v}^2 + \sigma^2 + \frac{(\Dw)^2}{3} + \frac{(k\Dx)^2}{3}.
2150: \end{eqnarray}
2151: Then the expected velocity dispersion, given by
2152: $\sigma_j^2 = \langle v_j^2 \rangle- \langle v_j \rangle ^2$, is,
2153: understandably, larger
2154: than the intrinsic velocity dispersion $\sigma$. This is due to the convolution with the pixel
2155: size and slit width, which add quadratically. However, note that while $\Dw$ and
2156: $\sigma$ enter the integral (\ref{eq:veloc2}) as constants, $w_0$ is a linear
2157: combination of the spurious velocity shift, and the intrinsic velocity. These
2158: two contributions can cancel, resulting in the expected line profile being broadened
2159: by the pixel size only, and not by the width of the slit. This implies that
2160: the wide slit can probe the disk on the scale of the pixel size rather than the
2161: slit width. \citet{witold01} explore consequences of this finding.
2162:
2163: In order to compute the model given by
2164: Equations \ref{eq:intens}, \ref{eq:veloc},
2165: and \ref{eq:veloc2}, we create a grid in $x$ and $y$ with sampling given by
2166: $\sigma_\mathrm{PSF}/n$. Here, $\sigma_\mathrm{PSF}$ is the spatial r.m.s.
2167: of the point spread function (PSF) and $n$ is the subsampling factor. We
2168: have verified that the optimal subsampling factor used is $n=3$ since larger
2169: values do not produce any appreciable differences in the final results. The
2170: PSF used is the one generated by TinyTim (V6.0, \citealt{tinytim}) at 6700\AA.
2171: Convolution with the PSF is done using the {\it Fast Fourier Transform}
2172: algorithm \citet{numrec}.
2173: Following \citet{barth01} we have also introduced the CCD scattering
2174: function \citet{stishand} but, as already noticed by them, it does
2175: not have any appreciable effect in the final results.
2176:
2177: We compare models to the observed spectrum, which is essentially
2178: an array of intensities $\Psi_{ij}$, after the observed line profile
2179: is derived in the following way: to the sequence of intensities $\Psi_{ij}$
2180: for a given row $j$ along the slit, we fit a baseline, and a continuous
2181: analytical function $\tilde{\Psi}_j(w)^{\rm obs}$, which we interpret as
2182: the observed equivalent of the expected line profile $\tilde{\Psi}_j(w)$
2183: (eq.\ref{eq:lprofile}).
2184: The best fitting model is determined by minimizing the reduced \chisqr\
2185: defined as:
2186: \begin{equation}
2187: \chisqr = \frac{1}{N_d} \sum_{k=1}^{3} \sum_{j=1}^{N_k} \left[
2188: \left( \frac{v_{kj}-\langle v_j \rangle _k (p_1, \dots, p_m)}{\delta v_{kj}} \right)^2 +
2189: \left( \frac{W_{kj}-\langle W_j \rangle _k (p_1, \dots, p_m)}{\delta W_{kj}} \right)^2 \right]
2190: \end{equation}
2191: where the index $k=1,3$ indicates the slit position, and $j=1,N_k$ counts
2192: pixels along the slit. Here, the characteristics of the model are as follows. The velocity
2193: in the $j^{th}$ row along the slit $\langle v_j \rangle _k$, and the FWHM
2194: of the velocity profile $\langle W_j \rangle _k$, are calculated directly
2195: from equations (\ref{eq:vel}), now clearly for variable
2196: intensity and velocity field. They both are functions of $m$ free parameters
2197: $p_1, \dots, p_m$, which are determined by $\chisqr$ minimization.
2198: The FWHM is calculated from the expected
2199: velocity dispersion $\sigma_j$ after assuming a Gaussian line profile.
2200: The observed velocities ($v_{ki}\pm \delta v_{ki}$), and velocity
2201: dispersions ($W_{ki}\pm \delta W_{ki}$) are also derived from equations
2202: (\ref{eq:vel}), but after $\tilde{\Psi}_j(w)$ has been
2203: replaced by $\tilde{\Psi}_j(w)^{\rm obs}$ defined above.
2204: $N_d =\sum_{k=1}^{3} 2N_k - m$ is the number of degrees of freedom.
2205:
2206: The \chisqr\ is minimized to determine the $m$ free parameters using the
2207: downhill simplex algorithm by \citet{numrec}. In order to apply statistical
2208: methods when \chisqr\ is much larger than 1, we follow \citet{barth01} and
2209: rescale errors as:
2210: \begin{equation}
2211: (\delta v_{ki}^\prime)^2 = \delta v_{ki}^2 + \delta V^2
2212: \end{equation}
2213: where $\delta V$ is a ``systematic'' error determined such that the resulting
2214: \chisqc\ of the ``best'' model is 1. The fits presented in this
2215: paper have $\chisqr\sim 1$ and the error rescaling was not performed.
2216:
2217: \end{document}
2218: