4.7 Article

TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF CHANGING-LOOK QUASARS: AN ARCHIVAL SPECTROSCOPIC SEARCH IN SDSS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 826, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/188

关键词

galaxies: active; quasars: emission lines; quasars: general

资金

  1. NASA through Fermi Guest Investigator grant [NNX14AQ23G]
  2. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  3. National Science Foundation
  4. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science
  5. NASA [674383, NNX14AQ23G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The uncertain origin of the recently discovered changing-look quasar phenomenon-in which a luminous quasar dims significantly to a quiescent state in repeat spectroscopy over similar to 10-year timescales-may present unexpected challenges to our understanding of quasar accretion. To better understand this phenomenon, we take a first step toward building a sample of changing-look quasars with a systematic but simple archival search for these objects in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 12. By leveraging the >10-year baselines for objects with repeat spectroscopy, we uncover two new changing-look quasars. and a third discovered previously. Decomposition of the multiepoch spectra and analysis of the broad emission lines suggest that the quasar accretion disk emission dims because of rapidly decreasing accretion rates (by factors of greater than or similar to 2.5), while disfavoring changes in intrinsic dust extinction for the two objects where these analyses are possible. Broad emission line energetics also support intrinsic dimming of quasar emission as the origin for this phenomenon rather than transient tidal disruption events or supernovae. Although our search criteria included quasars at all redshifts and transitions from either quasar-like to galaxy-like states or the reverse, all of the clear cases of changing-look quasars discovered were at relatively low redshift (z similar to 0.2-0.3) and only exhibit quasar-like to galaxy-like transitions.

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