4.6 Article

Ageing analysis of the giant radio galaxy J1343+3758

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 433, 期 2, 页码 467-477

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042007

关键词

radio continuum : galaxies; galaxies : active; galaxies : individual : J1343+3758

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deep 4860 and 8350 MHz observations with the VLA and 100-m Effelsberg telescopes, supplementing available radio survey maps at the frequencies of 327 MHz (WENSS survey) and 1400 MHz (NVSS survey), are used to study the synchrotron spectra and radiative ages of relativistic particles in opposite lobes of the giant radio galaxy J1343+3758 (Machalski & Jamrozy 2000). The classical spectral ageing analysis ( e. g. Myers & Spangler 1985) with assumption of equipartition magnetic fields gives a mean separation velocity (]v(sep)]) of about 0.16 c and 0.12 c measured with respect to the emitting plasma, and suggests a maximum particle age of about 48 and 50 Myr in the NE and SW lobes, respectively. On the contrary, a mean jet-head advance speed ([v(adv)]) in the above lobes, derived from ram-pressure arguments, is about 0.016 c and 0.017 c, respectively. This would imply a substantial backflow of the lobe material from the hotspot regions towards the radio core, v(bf), which is not supported by the available radio maps. A compromise is achieved by assuming an enhancement of 3 to 5 times the equipartition magnetic field strengths in the lobes which gives [v(sep)] approximate to 0.06 c and [v(adv)] approximate to [v(bf)] approximate to 0.03 c, hence a dynamical age of the source of 204 +/- 40 Myr. A comparison of the radiative and dynamical ages of the investigated giant radio galaxy implies that the dynamical age is about 4 times the maximum synchrotron age of the emitting particles, which supports the conclusion of Blundell & Rawlings ( 2000) that the spectral and dynamical ages are comparable only when they are << 10 Myr, and suggests that for FRII-type sources the discrepancy between these ages increases with age.

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

4.6
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