4.7 Article

Chandra multiwavelength project:: Normal galaxies at intermediate redshift

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 644, 期 2, 页码 829-842

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/503828

关键词

surveys; X-rays : galaxies; X-rays : general

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have investigated 136 Chandra extragalactic sources, including 93 galaxies with narrow emission lines (NELGs) and 43 with only absorption lines (ALGs). Based on f(X)/f(O), L-X, X-ray spectral hardness, and optical emission-line diagnostics, we have conservatively classified 36 normal galaxies and 71 AGNs. Their redshift ranges from 0.01 to 1.2, with normal galaxies in the range z = 0.01-0.3. Our normal galaxies appear to share characteristics with local galaxies, as expected from the X-ray binary populations and the hot interstellar matter ( ISM). In conjunction with normal galaxies found in other surveys, we found no statistically significant evolution in L-X/L-B, within the limited z range (less than or similar to 0.1). The best-fit slope of our log (N)-log (S) relationship is -1.5 for both S (0.5-2 keV) and B (0.5-8 keV) energy bands, which is considerably steeper than that of the AGN-dominated cosmic background sources, but slightly flatter than the previous estimate, indicating that normal galaxies will not exceed the AGN population until f(X)(0.5-2.0 keV) similar to 2 x 10(-18) ergs s(-1) cm(-2) (a factor of similar to 5 lower than the previous estimate). A group of NELGs appear to be heavily obscured in X-rays. After correcting for intrinsic absorption, their X-ray luminosities could be L-X > 10(44) ergs s(-1), making them type 2 quasar candidates. While most X-ray-luminous ALGs do not appear to be significantly absorbed, we found two heavily obscured objects that could be as luminous as an unobscured broad-line quasar. Among 43 ALGs, we found two E+A galaxy candidates. The X-ray spectra of both galaxies are soft, and one of them has a nearby close companion galaxy, supporting the merger/interaction scenario rather than the dusty starburst hypothesis.

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