4.7 Article

Are galaxies with active galactic nuclei a transition population?

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12553.x

关键词

galaxies : active; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : Seyfert

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the results of an analysis of a well-selected sample of galaxies with active and inactive galactic nuclei from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, in the range 0.01 < z < 0.16. The SDSS galaxy catalogue was split into two classes of active galaxies, Type 2 active galactic nuclei (AGN) and composites, and one set of inactive, star-forming/passive galaxies. For each active galaxy, two inactive control galaxies were selected by matching redshift, absolute magnitude, inclination, and radius. The sample of inactive galaxies naturally divides into a red and a blue sequence, while the vast majority of AGN hosts occur along the red sequence. In terms of H alpha equivalent width (EW), the population of composite galaxies peaks in the valley between the two modes, suggesting a transition population. However, this effect is not observed in other properties such as the colour-magnitude space or colour-concentration plane. Active galaxies are seen to be generally bulge-dominated systems, but with enhanced H alpha emission compared to inactive red-sequence galaxies. AGN and composites also occur in less dense environments than inactive red-sequence galaxies, implying that the fuelling of AGN is more restricted in high-density environments. These results are therefore inconsistent with theories in which AGN host galaxies are a 'transition' population. We also introduce a systematic 3D spectroscopic imaging survey, to quantify and compare the gaseous and stellar kinematics of a well-selected, distance-limited sample of up to 20 nearby Seyfert galaxies, and 20 inactive control galaxies with well-matched optical properties. The survey aims to search for dynamical triggers of nuclear activity and address outstanding controversies in optical/infrared imaging surveys.

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