4.7 Article

Can retired galaxies mimic active galaxies? Clues from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 391, Issue 1, Pages L29-L33

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00550.x

Keywords

stars: AGB and post-AGB; galaxies: active; galaxies: general

Funding

  1. CAPES-COFECUB
  2. CNPq
  3. CAPES
  4. FAPESP
  5. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  6. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  7. National Science Foundation
  8. US Department of Energy
  9. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  10. Max Planck Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The classification of galaxies as star forming or active is generally done in the ([O III]/H beta, [N II]/H alpha) plane. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has revealed that, in this plane, the distribution of galaxies looks like the two wings of a seagull. Galaxies in the right wing are referred to as Seyfert/LINERs, leading to the idea that non-stellar activity in galaxies is a very common phenomenon. Here, we argue that a large fraction of the systems in the right wing could actually be galaxies which stopped forming stars. The ionization in these 'retired' galaxies would be produced by hot post-asymptotic giant branch stars and white dwarfs. Our argumentation is based on a stellar population analysis of the galaxies via our STARLIGHT code and on photoionization models using the Lyman continuum radiation predicted for this population. The proportion of LINER galaxies that can be explained in such a way is, however, uncertain. We further show how observational selection effects account for the shape of the right wing. Our study suggests that nuclear activity may not be as common as thought. If retired galaxies do explain a large part of the seagull's right wing, some of the work concerning nuclear activity in galaxies, as inferred from SDSS data, will have to be revised.

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