4.7 Review

A fundamental plane of black hole activity

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 345, Issue 4, Pages 1057-1076

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

Keywords

accretion, accretion discs; black hole physics; galaxies : active; radio continuum : general; X-rays : binaries; X-rays : general

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examine the disc jet connection in stellar mass and supermassive black holes by investigating the properties of their compact emission in the X-ray and radio bands. We compile a sample of similar to100 active galactic nuclei with measured masses, 5-GHz core emission, and 2-10 keV luminosities, together with eight galactic black holes with a total of similar to50 simultaneous observations in the radio and X-ray bands. Using this sample, we study the correlations between the radio (L-R) and the X-ray (L-x) luminosity and the black hole mass (M). We find that the radio luminosity is correlated with both M and Lx, at a highly significant level. In particular, we show that the sources define a 'Fundamental Plane' in the three-dimensional (log L-R, log L-x, log M) space, given by log L-R = (0.60(-0.11)(+0.11)) log L-x + (0.78(-0.09)(+0.11)) log M + 7.33(-4.07)(+4.05), with a substantial scatter of sigma(R) = 0.88. We compare our results to the theoretical relations between radio flux, black hole mass, and accretion rate derived by Heinz & Sunyaev. Such relations depend only on the assumed accretion model and on the observed radio spectral index. Therefore, we are able to show that the X-ray emission from black holes accreting at less than a few per cent of the Eddington rate is unlikely to be produced by radiatively efficient accretion, and is marginally consistent with optically thin synchrotron emission from the jet. On the other hand, models for radiatively inefficient accretion flows seem to agree well with the data.

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