4.7 Article

ON THE BL LACERTAE OBJECTS/RADIO QUASARS AND THE FR I/II DICHOTOMY

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
Volume 694, Issue 2, Pages L107-L110

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/L107

Keywords

black hole physics; BL Lacertae objects: general; galaxies: active; galaxies: nuclei; quasars: emission lines

Funding

  1. NSFC [10778621, 10703003, 10773020, 10821302, 10833002]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2009CB824800]
  3. CAS [KJCX2-YW-T03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the frame of unification schemes for radio-loud active galactic nuclei (AGNs), FR I radio galaxies are believed to be BL Lacertae (BL Lac) objects with the relativistic jet misaligned to our line of sight, and FR II radio galaxies correspond to misaligned radio quasars. The Ledlow-Owen dividing line for the FR I/FR II dichotomy in the optical absolute magnitude of the host galaxy-radio luminosity (M-R-L-Rad) plane can be translated to the line in the black hole mass-jet power (M-bh-Q(jet)) plane by using two empirical relations: Q(jet)-L-Rad and M-bh-M-R. We use a sample of radio quasars and BL Lac objects with measured black hole masses to explore the relation of the jet power with black hole mass, in which the jet power is estimated from the extended radio emission. It is found that the BL Lac objects are clearly separated from radio quasars by the Ledlow-Owen FR I/II dividing line in the M-bh-Q(jet) plane. This strongly supports the unification schemes for FR I/BL Lac object and FR II/radio quasar. We find that the Eddington ratios L-bol/L-Edd of BL Lac objects are systematically lower than those of radio quasars in the sample with a rough division at L-bol/L-Edd similar to 0.01, and the distribution of Eddington ratios of BL Lac objects/quasars exhibits a bimodal nature, which imply that the accretion mode of BL Lac objects may be different from that of radio quasars.

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