4.7 Article

THE BROADBAND SPECTRAL VARIABILITY OF MCG-6-30-15 OBSERVED BY NUSTAR AND XMM-NEWTON

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 787, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/83

关键词

accretion, accretion disks; galaxies: active; galaxies: Seyfert; X-rays: individual (MCG-6-30-015)

资金

  1. Fondazione Angelo Della Riccia.
  2. Italian Space Agency [ASI/INAF I/037/12/0-011/13]
  3. European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [312789]
  4. Anillo [ACT1101]
  5. NASA [NNG08FD60C]
  6. California Institute of Technology
  7. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
  8. NuSTAR Operations, Software, and Calibration
  9. NuSTAR Data Analysis Software (NuSTARDAS)
  10. ASI Science Data Center (ASDC, Italy)
  11. California Institute of Technology (USA)
  12. Science and Technology Facilities Council [1233534] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MCG-6-30-15, at a distance of 37 Mpc (z = 0.008), is the archetypical Seyfert 1 galaxy showing very broad Fe K alpha emission. We present results from a joint NuSTAR and XMM-Newton observational campaign that, for the first time, allows a sensitive, time-resolved spectral analysis from 0.35 keV up to 80 keV. The strong variability of the source is best explained in terms of intrinsic X-ray flux variations and in the context of the light-bending model: the primary, variable emission is reprocessed by the accretion disk, which produces secondary, less variable, reflected emission. The broad Fe K alpha profile is, as usual for this source, well explained by relativistic effects occurring in the innermost regions of the accretion disk around a rapidly rotating black hole. We also discuss the alternative model in which the broadening of the Fe K alpha is due to the complex nature of the circumnuclear absorbing structure. Even if this model cannot be ruled out, it is disfavored on statistical grounds. We also detected an occultation event likely caused by broad-line region clouds crossing the line of sight.

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