4.7 Article

GREEN BANK TELESCOPE DETECTION OF POLARIZATION-DEPENDENT HI ABSORPTION AND HI OUTFLOWS IN LOCAL ULIRGs AND QUASARS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 765, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/95

关键词

galaxies: active; galaxies: evolution; ISM: jets and outflows; quasars: absorption lines; radio lines: galaxies

资金

  1. NASA
  2. NASA Postdoctoral Program (NPP) Fellowship
  3. Senior NPP award
  4. Humboldt Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the results of a 21 cm HI survey of 27 local massive gas-rich late-stage mergers and merger remnants with the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope. These remnants were selected from the Quasar/ULIRG Evolution Study sample of ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs; L8-1000 mu m > 10(12) L-circle dot) and quasars; our targets are all bolometrically dominated by active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and sample the later phases of the proposed ULIRG-to-quasar evolutionary sequence. We find the prevalence of Hi absorption (emission) to be 100% (29%) in ULIRGs with HI detections, 100% (88%) in FIR-strong quasars, and 63% (100%) in FIR-weak quasars. The absorption features are associated with powerful neutral outflows that change from being mainly driven by star formation in ULIRGs to being driven by the AGN in the quasars. These outflows have velocities that exceed 1500 km s(-1) in some cases. Unexpectedly, we find polarization-dependent Hi absorption in 57% of our spectra (88% and 63% of the FIR-strong and FIR-weak quasars, respectively). We attribute this result to absorption of polarized continuum emission from these sources by foreground HI clouds. About 60% of the quasars displaying polarized spectra are radio-loud, far higher than the similar to 10% observed in the general AGN population. This discrepancy suggests that radio jets play an important role in shaping the environments in these galaxies. These systems may represent a transition phase in the evolution of gas-rich mergers into mature radio galaxies.

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