4.7 Article

COMMENT ON THE BLACK HOLE RECOIL CANDIDATE QUASAR SDSS J092712.65+294344.0

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 696, Issue 2, Pages 1367-1373

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1367

Keywords

black hole physics; galaxies: active; quasars: general

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) quasar J092712.65+294344.0 has been proposed as a candidate for a supermassive black hole (similar to 10(8.8) M(circle dot)) ejected at high speed from the host galactic nucleus by gravitational radiation recoil, or alternatively for a supermassive black hole binary. This is based on a blueshift of 2650 km s(-1) of the broad emission lines (b-system) relative to the narrow emission lines (r-system) presumed to reflect the galaxy velocity. New observations with the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) confirm the essential features of the spectrum. We note a third redshift system, characterized by weak, narrow emission lines of [O III] and [O II] at an intermediate velocity 900 km s(-1) redward of the broad-line velocity (i-system). A composite spectrum of SDSS QSOs similar to J0927+2943 illustrates the feasibility of detecting the calcium K absorption line in spectra of sufficient quality. The i-system may represent the QSO host galaxy or a companion. Photoionization requires the black hole to be similar to 3 kpc from the r-system emitting gas, implying that we are observing the system only 10(6) yr after the recoil event and contributing to the low probability of observing such a system. The HET observations give an upper limit of 10 km s(-1) per year on the rate of change of the velocity difference between the r- and b-systems, constraining the orbital phase in the binary model. These considerations and the presence of a cluster of galaxies apparently containing J0927+2943 favor the idea that this system represents a superposition of two active galactic nuclei.

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