1 / 17

S. Jonić 1 , J. Kovačević 1 , D. Ilić 2 and L. Č. Popović 1,2

Black Hole Mass Estimates Using Gravitational Redshift of Broad Emission Lines in Active Galactic Nuclei. S. Jonić 1 , J. Kovačević 1 , D. Ilić 2 and L. Č. Popović 1,2. 1. Astronomical Observatory Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

patricksrobinson
Download Presentation

S. Jonić 1 , J. Kovačević 1 , D. Ilić 2 and L. Č. Popović 1,2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Black Hole Mass Estimates Using Gravitational Redshift of Broad Emission Lines in Active Galactic Nuclei • S. Jonić1, J. Kovačević1, D. Ilić2 and L. Č. Popović1,2 1. Astronomical Observatory Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia 2. Department of Astronomy, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Belgrade, Serbia

  2. The aim of this work is to answer: • Is virial assumption valid for the Broad Line Region in AGN? • Are Hβ and Mg II emission lines good virial estimators?

  3. Is the virial assumption valid for Hβ and Mg II lines? • Redshifts and widths of BELs Hβ and Mg II in 285 type 1 AGN at 0.407 < z < 0.643 (Kovačević et al. in progress) • Estimated masses of central black holes • If Hβ and Mg II are good virial estimators: • We expect correlation between redshifts and FWHMs of each • line: • Correlation between masses estimated from Δz and masses • estimated from FWHMs of each line

  4. Methods and assumptions • Virial mass estimate: • ⟨f ⟩ = 5.5 ± 1.8 • (Onken et al. 2004) • Measure of ∆z could give us an upper limit of the black hole mass: • (Zheng & Sulentic, 1990)

  5. Determining the BLR radius • Empirical Radius - Luminosity (R−L) relationship (Koratkar & Gaskell 1991, Kaspi et al. 2000, 2005, Bentz et al. 2006, 2009): • Continuum luminosities measured at 5100 Å (near Hβ) and • 3020 Å (near Mg II) • For Mg II line (McLure & Jarvis, 2002): α ≈ 0.5 for Hβ (a, b) = (0.53, 0.47)

  6. Correlations: Δz vs. FWHMs of Hβ & Mg II

  7. Correlations: FW10%Ms vs. ∆z of Hβ & Mg II

  8. Correlations: FW5%Ms vs. ∆z of Hβ & Mg II

  9. Correlations: line widths of Hβ vs. Mg II width at 50% width at 10% width at 5%

  10. Correlations: ∆z of Hβ vs. ∆z of Mg II

  11. Continuum luminosity correlations • Results are represented as log(λLcont) where λ is wavelength at which continuum luminosities were measured (5100 Å for Hβ, 3020 Å for Mg II)

  12. Line and continuum luminosity correlations

  13. Correlations: masses estimated from Δz vs. FWHMs

  14. Correlations: masses estimated from Δzof Hβ vs. Mg II and masses estimated from FWHMs of Hβ vs. Mg II

  15. Mass estimations from Δz and FWHMs

  16. Conclusions • More redshifts than blueshifts for both Hβ and Mg II & absolute values of redshifts > absolute values of blueshifts • Gas motion influenced by gravitational force dominant in BLR • Good correlations between Δz and widths & between masses in case of Hβ • No correlation between Δz and FWHMs & between masses of Mg II • Anti-correlations between Δz and widths at the line wings of Mg II • Is Mg II good virial estimator? • Mechanism opposite of gravitation cannot be negligible? FWHMs FW10%Ms FW5%Ms correlations anti-correlations

  17. Thank you for attention!

More Related