4.1 Article

A RIAF interpretation for the past higher activity of the galactic center black hole and the 511 keV annihilation emission

Journal

PUBLICATIONS OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF JAPAN
Volume 58, Issue 6, Pages 965-977

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pasj/58.6.965

Keywords

accretion; accretion disks; galaxy : center; gamma rays : observations

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are several lines of evidence to show that the supermassive black hole at the Galactic center had higher activities in the past than directly observed at present. It is shown here that these lines of evidence can quantitatively and consistently be explained if the mean accretion rate during the past similar to 10(7) yr has been similar to 10(3-4) times higher than the current rate, based on the picture of radiatively inefficient accretion flow (RIAF) and associated outflow that has been successfully applied to Sgr A*. We argue that this increased rate and its duration are theoretically reasonable in the Galactic center environment, while the accretion rate suddenly dropped about 300 yr ago, most likely because of the shell passage of the supernova remnant Sgr A East. The chance probability of witnessing Sgr A* in such a low state is not extremely small (similar to 0.5%). The outflow energetics is sufficient to keep the hot (similar to 8 keV) diffuse gas observed in the Galactic center region. It is then shown that a significant amount of positrons should have been created around the event horizon during the higher activity phase, and injected into interstellar medium by the outflow. The predicted positron production rate and propagation distance are close to those required to explain the observed 511 keV annihilation line emission from the Galactic bulge, giving a natural explanation for the large bulge-to-disk ratio of the emission. The expected injection energy into interstellar medium is similar to MeV, which is also favorable for an explanation of the 511 keV line emission.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available