4.7 Article

ON THE ORIGIN OF ULTRAVIOLET EMISSION AND THE ACCRETION MODEL OF LOW-LUMINOSITY ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 726, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/87

关键词

accretion, accretion disks; black hole physics; galaxies: active; quasars: general; ultraviolet: general

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [10773024, 10833002, 10821302, 10825314]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2009CB824800]
  3. CAS/SAFEA International Partnership Program for Creative Research Teams

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low-luminosity active galactic nuclei (LLAGNs) are generally believed to be powered by an inner radiatively inefficient, advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF), an outer truncated thin disk, and a jet. Maoz recently challenged this picture based on the observation that the strength of ultraviolet emission relative to the X-ray and radio bands does not depart from empirical trends defined by more luminous sources. He advocates that AGNs across all luminosities have essentially the same accretion and radiative processes, which in luminous sources are described by a standard optically thick, geometrically thin disk. We calculate ADAF models and demonstrate that they can successfully fit the observed spectral energy distributions of the LLAGNs in Maoz's sample. Our model naturally accommodates the radio and X-ray emission, and the ultraviolet flux is well explained by a combination of the first-order Compton scattering in the ADAF, synchrotron emission in the jet, and black body emission in the truncated thin disk. It is premature to dismiss the ADAF model for LLAGNs. The UV data can be fitted equally well using a standard thin disk, but an additional corona and jet would be required to account for the X-ray and radio emission. We argue that there are strong theoretical reasons to prefer the ADAF model over the thin disk scenario. We discuss testable predictions that can potentially discriminate between the two accretion models.

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