4.7 Article

RADIO-LOUD AND RADIO-QUIET QSOs

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 831, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/168

Keywords

quasars: general

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We discuss 6 GHz JVLA observations covering a volume-limited sample of 178 low-redshift (0.2 < z < 0.3) optically selected quasi-stellar objects (QSOs). Our 176 radio detections fall into two clear categories: (1) about 20% are radio-loud QSOs (RLQs) with spectral luminosities of L-6 greater than or similar to 10(23.2) W Hz(-1) that are primarily generated in the active galactic nucleus (AGN) responsible for the excess optical luminosity that defines a bona fide QSO; and (2) the remaining 80% that are radio-quiet QSOs (RQQs) that have 10(21) less than or similar to L-6 less than or similar to 10(23.2) W Hz(-1) and radio sizes less than or similar to 10 kpc, and we suggest that the bulk of their radio emission is powered by star formation in their host galaxies. Radio-silent QSOs (L-6 less than or similar to 10(21) W Hz(-1)) are rare, so most RQQ host galaxies form stars faster than the Milky Way; they are not red and dead ellipticals. Earlier radio observations did not have the luminosity sensitivity of L-6 less than or similar to 10(21) W Hz(-1) that is needed to distinguish between such RLQs and RQQs. Strong, generally double-sided radio emission spanning. >> 10 kpc was found to be associated with 13 of the 18 RLQ cores with peak flux densities of S-p > 5 mJy beam(-1) (log(L) greater than or similar to 24). The radio luminosity function of optically selected QSOs and the extended radio emission associated with RLQs are both inconsistent with simple unified models that invoke relativistic beaming from randomly oriented QSOs to explain the difference between RLQs and RQQs. Some intrinsic property of the AGNs or their host galaxies must also determine whether or not a QSO appears radio-loud.

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