4.7 Article

The role of black hole mass in quasar radio activity

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 365, Issue 1, Pages 101-109

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09649.x

Keywords

black hole physics; galaxies : active; galaxies : nuclei; quasars : general

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We use a homogeneous sample of similar to 300, 0.3 less than or similar to z less than or similar to 3, radio-loud quasars (QSOs) drawn from the FIRST and 2dF QSO surveys to investigate a possible dependence of radio activity on black hole mass. By analysing composite spectra for the populations of radio-quiet and radio-loud QSOs - chosen to have the same redshift and luminosity distributions - we find with high statistical significance that radio-loud quasars are on average associated with black holes of masses similar to 10(8.6) M-., about twice as large as those measured for radio-quiet quasars (similar to 10(8.3) M-.). We also find a clear dependence of black hole mass on optical luminosity of the form log(M-BH/M-circle dot)(RL)= 8.57(+/- 0.06) - 0.27(+/- 0.06) (M-B+ 24.5) and log(M-BH/M-circle dot)(RQ)= 8.43(+/- 0.05) - 0.32(+/- 0.06) (M-B+ 24.5), respectively, for the cases of radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars. It is intriguing to note that these two trends run roughly parallel to each other, implying that radio-loud quasars are associated to black holes more massive than those producing the radio-quiet case at all sampled luminosities. On the other hand, in the case of radio-loud quasars, we find evidence for only a weak (if any) dependence of the black hole mass on radio power. The above findings seem to support the belief that there exists - at a given optical luminosity - a threshold black hole mass associated with the onset of significant radio activity such as that of radio-loud QSOs; however, once the activity is triggered, there appears to be very little connection between black hole mass and level of radio output.

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