4.7 Article

THE RADIATIVE EFFICIENCY OF ACCRETION FLOWS IN INDIVIDUAL ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 728, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/98

关键词

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

资金

  1. NSF [AST-0807432, AST-0807444]
  2. NASA [NNX08AH24G, PF6-70045, NAS8-03060]
  3. Chandra X-ray Center
  4. NSERC of Canada
  5. Institute for Advanced Study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The radiative efficiency of active galactic nucleus (AGN) is commonly estimated based on the total mass accreted and the total AGN light emitted per unit volume in the universe integrated over time (the Soltan argument). In individual AGNs, thin accretion disk model spectral fits can be used to deduce the absolute accretion rate M., if the black hole mass M is known. The radiative efficiency. is then set by the ratio of the bolometric luminosity L-bol to (M) over dotc(2). We apply this method to determine. in a sample of 80 Palomar-Green quasars with well-determined L-bol, where (M) over dot is set by thin accretion disk model fits to the optical luminosity density, and the M determination based on the bulge stellar velocity dispersion (13 objects) or the broad line region. We derive a mean log eta = -1.05 +/- 0.52 consistent with the Soltan-argument-based estimates. We find a strong correlation of eta with M, rising from eta similar to 0.03 at M = 10(7) M-circle dot and L/L-Edd similar to 1 to eta similar to 0.4 at M = 10(9) M-circle dot and L/L-Edd similar to 0.3. This trend is related to the overall uniformity of L-opt/L-bol in our sample, particularly the lack of the expected increase in L-opt/L-bol with increasing M (and decreasing L/L-Edd), which is a generic property of thermal disk emission at fixed eta. The significant uncertainty in the M determination is not large enough to remove the correlation. The rising eta with M may imply a rise in the black hole spin with M, as proposed based on other indirect arguments.

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