4.2 Article

Multi-wavelength observations of the BL Lac object FermiJ1544-0649: One year after its awakening

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY ASTROPHYSICS
卷 26, 期 -, 页码 45-57

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.02.004

关键词

Galaxies; BL Lacertae objects: General; Radiation mechanisms: Non-thermal; Surveys

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [11633007, 11661161010, U1731136]
  2. NSFC [11833007, 11421303, 11673062, 11733001, U1531245]
  3. Hundred Talent Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences
  4. Major Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [KJZD-EW-M06]
  5. Oversea Talent Program of Yunnan Province
  6. Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)
  7. Planetary Science Division of NASA
  8. ESA Member States
  9. NASA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report observations of a transient source FermiJ1544-0649 from radio to gamma-rays. FermiJ1544-0649 was discovered by the Fermi-LAT in May 2017. Follow-up Swift-XRT observations revealed three flaring episodes through March 2018, and the peak X-ray flux is about 10(3) higher than the ROSAT all-sky survey (RASS) flux upper limit. Optical spectral measurements taken by the Magellan 6.5-m telescope and the Lick-Shane telescope both show a largely featureless spectrum, strengthening the BL Lac interpretation first proposed by Bruni et al. (2018). The optical and mid-infrared (MIR) emission goes to a higher state in 2018, when the flux in high energies goes down to a lower level. Our RATAN-600 m measurements at 4.8 GHz and 8.2 GHz do not indicate any significant radio flux variation over the monitoring seasons in 2017 and 2018, nor deviate from the archival NVSS flux level. During GeV flaring times, the spectrum is very hard (Gamma(gamma) similar to 1.7) in the GeV band and at times also very hard ((Gamma(X) less than or similar to 2) in the X-rays, similar to a high-synchrotron-peak (or even an extreme) BL Lac object, making FermiJ1544-0649 a good target for ground-based Cherenkov telescopes. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据