4.7 Article

RADIATION PRESSURE FORCE AND BLACK HOLE MASS DETERMINATION IN LOW-REDSHIFT TYPE-I AND TYPE-II ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 695, Issue 1, Pages 793-797

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/793

Keywords

black hole physics; galaxies: active; galaxies: nuclei; quasars: emission lines

Funding

  1. Israel Science Foundation [364/07]
  2. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  3. Participating Institutions
  4. National Science Foundation
  5. U.S. Department of Energy
  6. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  7. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  8. Max Planck Society
  9. Higher Education Funding Council for England

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The distributions of L([O III] lambda 5007), black hole (BH) mass and L/L(Edd) in two large samples of type-I and type-II active galactic nuclei (AGNs) are compared in order to test the suggestion that radiation pressure force is affecting the gas velocity in the broad line region and hence the BH mass determination. The samples are drawn from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey archive and are modified to represent the same parent distribution at 0.1 <= z <= 0.2. BH masses in type-I sources are calculated in two different ways, one using a simple virial mass assumption and the other by taking into account the effect of radiation pressure force on the gas. The simple virial-mass estimate results in good agreement with the sigma*-based BH mass and L/L(Edd) estimates in type-II sources. In contrast, there is a clear disagreement in the L/L(Edd) distributions when radiation pressure-based estimates are used. This indicates that radiation pressure force is not important in 0.1 <= z <= 0.2 AGNs with L(5100) = 10(42.8-44.8) erg s(-1). This has important implications to the physics of the gas producing the broad emission lines in AGNs, in particular the existence of extremely large column density (similar to 10(24) cm(-2)) clouds.

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