4.7 Article

Population statistics of beamed sources - II. Evaluation of Doppler factor estimates

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 454, Issue 2, Pages 1767-1777

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv2028

Keywords

galaxies: active; galaxies: jets

Funding

  1. 'Aristeia' Action of the 'Operational Program Education and Lifelong Learning'
  2. European Social Fund (ESF)
  3. Greek National Resources
  4. European Commission [PCIG10-GA-2011-304001 'JetPop', PIRSES-GA-2012-31578 'EuroCal']

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In a companion paper we presented a statistical model for the blazar population, consisting of distributions for the unbeamed radio luminosity function and the Lorentz factor distribution of each of the BL Lac and Flat Spectrum Radio Quasar (FSRQ) classes. Our model has been optimized so that it reproduces the MOJAVE (Monitoring Of Jets in Active galactic nuclei with VLBA Experiments) distributions of apparent speeds and redshifts when the appropriate flux limit is applied and a uniform distribution of jet viewing angles is assumed for the population. Here we use this model to predict the Doppler factor distribution for various flux-limited samples for which Doppler factors have been estimated in a variety of ways (equipartition, variability + equipartition, inverse Compton dominance) on a blazar-by-blazar basis. By comparing the simulated and data-estimated Doppler factor distributions in each case, we evaluate the different methods of estimating blazar Doppler factors. We find that the variability Doppler factors assuming equipartition are the ones in the best agreement with our statistical model, whereas the inverse Compton Doppler factor method is only suitable for FSRQs. In the case of variability Doppler factors, we find that while random errors are relatively low (similar to 30 per cent), uncertainties are dominated by systematic effects. In the case of inverse Compton Doppler factors, random errors appear to dominate, but are significantly larger (similar to 60 per cent).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available