4.7 Article

Models for jet power in elliptical galaxies: a case for rapidly spinning black holes

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11726.x

关键词

accretion, accretion discs; black hole physics; MHD; galaxies : active; galaxies : jets; X-rays : galaxies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The power of jets from black holes is expected to depend on both the spin of the black hole and the structure of the accretion disc in the region of the last stable orbit. We investigate these dependencies using two different physical models for the jet power: the classical Blandford-Znajek (BZ) model and a hybrid model developed by Meier. In the BZ case, the jets are powered by magnetic fields directly threading the spinning black hole while in the hybrid model, the jet energy is extracted from both the accretion disc as well as the black hole via magnetic fields anchored to the accretion flow inside and outside the hole's ergosphere. The hybrid model takes advantage of the strengths of both the Blandford-Payne and BZ mechanisms, while avoiding the more controversial features of the latter. We develop these models more fully to account for general relativistic effects and to focus on advection-dominated accretion flows (ADAFs) for which the jet power is expected to be a significant fraction of the accreted rest mass energy. We apply the models to elliptical galaxies, in order to see if these models can explain the observed correlation between the Bondi accretion rates and the total jet powers. For typical values of the disc viscosity parameter alpha similar to 0.04-0.3 and mass accretion rates consistent with ADAF model expectations, we find that the observed correlation requires j greater than or similar to 0.9; that is, it implies that the black holes are rapidly spinning. Our results suggest that the central black holes in the cores of clusters of galaxies must be rapidly rotating in order to drive jets powerful enough to heat the intracluster medium and quench cooling flows.

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