4.7 Article

Quasar Standardization: Overcoming Selection Biases and Redshift Evolution

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 931, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6593

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea - Korea government (MSIT) [NRF-2020R1A2C1102899]
  2. US National Science Foundation [PHY-2014021]
  3. SarAmadan [ISEF/M/400121]
  4. Division of Science and NAOJ

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quasars are extremely luminous active galactic nuclei with the potential to be used as cosmological probes. Finding intrinsic correlations among their observables could allow for their use as standard candles and extend the Hubble diagram's range.
Quasars (QSOs) are extremely luminous active galactic nuclei currently observed up to redshift z = 7.642. As such, they have the potential to be the next rung of the cosmic distance ladder beyond Type Ia supernovae, if they can reliably be used as cosmological probes. The main issue in adopting QSOs as standard candles (similarly to gamma-ray bursts) is the large intrinsic scatter in the relations between their observed properties. This could be overcome by finding correlations among their observables that are intrinsic to the physics of QSOs and not artifacts of selection biases and/or redshift evolution. The reliability of these correlations should be verified through well-established statistical tests. The correlation between the ultraviolet and X-ray fluxes developed by Risaliti & Lusso is one of the most promising relations. We apply a statistical method to correct this relation for redshift evolution and selection biases. Remarkably, we recover the the same parameters of the slope and the normalization as Risaliti & Lusso. Our results establish the reliability of this relation, which is intrinsic to the QSO properties and not merely an effect of selection biases or redshift evolution. Hence, the possibility to standardize QSOs as cosmological candles, thereby extending the Hubble diagram up to z = 7.54.

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