4.7 Article

On the significance of relativistically hot pairs in the jets of FR II radio galaxies

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa3128

关键词

acceleration of particles; radiation mechanisms: non-thermal; galaxies: active; galaxies: jets; quasars: general

资金

  1. Polish National Science Centre [2016/21/B/ST9/01620, 2015/18/E/ST9/00580]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The energetic composition of radio lobes in the FR II galaxies - estimated by comparing their radio luminosities with the powers required to inflate cavities in the external medium - seems to exclude the possibility of their energetic domination by protons. Furthermore, if the jets were dominated by the kinetic energy of cold protons, it would be difficult to efficiently accelerate leptons in the jets' terminal shocks. Assuming that the relative energy contents of leptons, protons, and magnetic fields are preserved across the shocks, the above implies that the large-scale jets should also be energetically dominated by leptons: P-e,P-j greater than or similar to P-p,P-j. On the other hand, previous studies of small-scale jets in blazars and radio cores suggest a pair content (number of electrons and positrons per proton) of the order of n(e)/n(p) similar to 20. Assuming further that the particle composition of jets does not evolve beyond the blazar scales, we show that this implies an average random Lorentz factor of leptons in large-scale jets of (gamma) over bar (e,j) greater than or similar to 70(1 + chi(p))(20n(p)/n(e)), and that the protons should be mildly relativistic with chi(p) = (is an element of(p) + P-p)/rho C-p(2) less than or similar to 2, P-p the pressure of protons, is an element of(p) the internal energy density of protons, and rho C-p(2) the rest-mass energy density of protons. We derive the necessary conditions for loading the inner jets by electron-positron pairs and proton-electron plasma, and provide arguments that heating of leptons in jets is dominated by magnetic reconnection.

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

4.7
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