| Revision as of 13:12, 10 August 2023 edit2607:fb91:1993:15c9:657c:410f:dbd3:1041 (talk) →Supermassive black hole← Previous edit |
Revision as of 05:39, 17 October 2023 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,455,711 edits Add: doi-access. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Whoop whoop pull up | #UCB_webform 220/245Next edit → |
| Line 45: |
Line 45: |
|
A follow-up study,<ref name=Emsellem>{{cite journal |last=Emsellem |first=Eric |title=Is the black hole in NGC 1277 really overmassive? |journal=] |volume=433 |issue=3 |pages=1862–1870 |date=Aug 2013 |doi=10.1093/mnras/stt840 |bibcode = 2013MNRAS.433.1862E |arxiv = 1305.3630 }}</ref> based on the same data and published the following year, reached a very different conclusion. The black hole that was initially suggested at {{math|{{val|1.7|e=10|u=solar mass}}}} was not as massive as once thought. The black hole was estimated to be between 2 and 5 billion solar masses. This is less than a third of the previously estimated mass, a significant decrease. Models with no black hole at all were also found to provide reasonably good fits to the data, including the central region. |
|
A follow-up study,<ref name=Emsellem>{{cite journal |last=Emsellem |first=Eric |title=Is the black hole in NGC 1277 really overmassive? |journal=] |volume=433 |issue=3 |pages=1862–1870 |date=Aug 2013 |doi=10.1093/mnras/stt840 |bibcode = 2013MNRAS.433.1862E |arxiv = 1305.3630 }}</ref> based on the same data and published the following year, reached a very different conclusion. The black hole that was initially suggested at {{math|{{val|1.7|e=10|u=solar mass}}}} was not as massive as once thought. The black hole was estimated to be between 2 and 5 billion solar masses. This is less than a third of the previously estimated mass, a significant decrease. Models with no black hole at all were also found to provide reasonably good fits to the data, including the central region. |
|
|
|
|
|
Subsequent investigations employed ] to acquire a better estimate of the mass of the black hole.<ref name=walsh>{{cite journal|last1=Walsh|first1=Jonelle L.|last2=van den Bosch|first2=Remco C. E.|last3=Gebhardt|first3=Karl|last4=Yildirim|first4=Akin|last5=Richstone|first5=Douglas O.|last6=Gültekin|first6=Kayhan|last7=Husemann|first7=Bernd|title=A 5 x 109 Msun Black Hole in NGC 1277 from Adaptive Optics Spectroscopy|journal=The Astrophysical Journal|date=1 January 2016|volume=817|issue=1|pages=2|doi=10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/2|issn=0004-637X|bibcode=2016ApJ...817....2W|arxiv = 1511.04455 |s2cid=118487689}}</ref><ref name=graham>{{cite journal|last1=Graham|first1=Alister W.|last2=Durré|first2=Mark|last3=Savorgnan|first3=Giulia A. D.|last4=Medling|first4=Anne M.|last5=Batcheldor|first5=Dan|last6=Scott|first6=Nicholas|last7=Watson|first7=Beverly|last8=Marconi|first8=Alessandro|title=A Normal Supermassive Black Hole in NGC 1277|journal=The Astrophysical Journal|date=1 March 2016|volume=819|issue=1|pages=43|doi=10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/43|issn=0004-637X|bibcode=2016ApJ...819...43G|arxiv = 1601.05151 |s2cid=36974319 }}</ref> |
|
Subsequent investigations employed ] to acquire a better estimate of the mass of the black hole.<ref name=walsh>{{cite journal|last1=Walsh|first1=Jonelle L.|last2=van den Bosch|first2=Remco C. E.|last3=Gebhardt|first3=Karl|last4=Yildirim|first4=Akin|last5=Richstone|first5=Douglas O.|last6=Gültekin|first6=Kayhan|last7=Husemann|first7=Bernd|title=A 5 x 109 Msun Black Hole in NGC 1277 from Adaptive Optics Spectroscopy|journal=The Astrophysical Journal|date=1 January 2016|volume=817|issue=1|pages=2|doi=10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/2|issn=0004-637X|bibcode=2016ApJ...817....2W|arxiv = 1511.04455 |s2cid=118487689 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name=graham>{{cite journal|last1=Graham|first1=Alister W.|last2=Durré|first2=Mark|last3=Savorgnan|first3=Giulia A. D.|last4=Medling|first4=Anne M.|last5=Batcheldor|first5=Dan|last6=Scott|first6=Nicholas|last7=Watson|first7=Beverly|last8=Marconi|first8=Alessandro|title=A Normal Supermassive Black Hole in NGC 1277|journal=The Astrophysical Journal|date=1 March 2016|volume=819|issue=1|pages=43|doi=10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/43|issn=0004-637X|bibcode=2016ApJ...819...43G|arxiv = 1601.05151 |s2cid=36974319 |doi-access=free }}</ref> |
|
One group made observations using the Gemini Near Infrared Integral Field Spectrometer to better determine the mass of the black hole at the center of NGC 1277.<ref name="walsh"/> The group used similar models to that of van den Bosch, but with higher spatial resolution. After using stellar dynamics and luminosity models to estimate the mass of the black hole, they came to a mass of {{math|{{val|4.9|e=9|u=solar mass}}}}, similar to the estimate from the follow-up study done by Emsellem,<ref name="Emsellem"/> which estimated a mass between 2–5 billion solar masses. |
|
One group made observations using the Gemini Near Infrared Integral Field Spectrometer to better determine the mass of the black hole at the center of NGC 1277.<ref name="walsh"/> The group used similar models to that of van den Bosch, but with higher spatial resolution. After using stellar dynamics and luminosity models to estimate the mass of the black hole, they came to a mass of {{math|{{val|4.9|e=9|u=solar mass}}}}, similar to the estimate from the follow-up study done by Emsellem,<ref name="Emsellem"/> which estimated a mass between 2–5 billion solar masses. |
|
More recently, a new group<ref name="graham"/> made observations using the larger ] with superior spatial resolution, and calculated that a black hole with mass {{math|{{val|1.2|e=9|u=solar mass}}}} fits best. Moreover, this value is an order of magnitude smaller than first reported by van den Bosch,<ref name="vandenBosch"/> and was noted to probably be an upper limit due to the edge-on rotating disk in NGC 1277. |
|
More recently, a new group<ref name="graham"/> made observations using the larger ] with superior spatial resolution, and calculated that a black hole with mass {{math|{{val|1.2|e=9|u=solar mass}}}} fits best. Moreover, this value is an order of magnitude smaller than first reported by van den Bosch,<ref name="vandenBosch"/> and was noted to probably be an upper limit due to the edge-on rotating disk in NGC 1277. |
NGC 1277 has been called a "relic of the early universe" due to its stars being formed during a 100 million year interval about 12 billion years ago. Stars were formed at a rate of 1000 times that of the Milky Way galaxy's formation rate in a short burst of time. After this process of stellar formation ran its course, NGC 1277 was left populated with metal-rich stars that are about 7 billion years older than the Sun. It is still uncertain whether or not NGC 1277 is a "relic galaxy"; current studies are still researching the possibility. However, observations with Hubble Space Telescope indicate that NGC 1277 lacks metal-poor globular clusters, suggesting that it has accreted little mass over its lifetime and supporting the relic galaxy hypothesis.
NGC 1277 has a very unusual rotation curve that suggests that it contains very little Dark Matter.
A follow-up study, based on the same data and published the following year, reached a very different conclusion. The black hole that was initially suggested at 1.7×10 M☉ was not as massive as once thought. The black hole was estimated to be between 2 and 5 billion solar masses. This is less than a third of the previously estimated mass, a significant decrease. Models with no black hole at all were also found to provide reasonably good fits to the data, including the central region.
NGC 1277 as seen by the HST
Category
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Commons-logo.svg){kind=link}