4.7 Article

ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEUS BLACK HOLE MASS ESTIMATES IN THE ERA OF TIME DOMAIN ASTRONOMY

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 779, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/187

关键词

accretion, accretion disks; black hole physics; galaxies: active; galaxies: Seyfert; methods: statistical; quasars: general

资金

  1. Southern California Center for Galaxy Evolution
  2. University of California Office of Research
  3. NASA [NNX13AP16G, NNX11AO45G]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  5. Korea government [2012-006087]
  6. NASA [NNX11AO45G, 140126, NNX13AP16G, 467469] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the dependence of the normalization of the high-frequency part of the X-ray and optical power spectral densities (PSDs) on black hole mass for a sample of 39 active galactic nuclei (AGNs) with black hole masses estimated from reverberation mapping or dynamical modeling. We obtained new Swift observations of PG 1426+015, which has the largest estimated black hole mass of the AGNs in our sample. We develop a novel statistical method to estimate the PSD from a light curve of photon counts with arbitrary sampling, eliminating the need to bin a light curve to achieve Gaussian statistics, and we use this technique to estimate the X-ray variability parameters for the faint AGNs in our sample. We find that the normalization of the high-frequency X-ray PSD is inversely proportional to black hole mass. We discuss how to use this scaling relationship to obtain black hole mass estimates from the short timescale X-ray variability amplitude with precision similar to 0.38 dex. The amplitude of optical variability on timescales of days is also anticorrelated with black hole mass, but with larger scatter. Instead, the optical variability amplitude exhibits the strongest anticorrelation with luminosity. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our results for estimating black hole mass from the amplitude of AGN variability.

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