2018
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is there a UV/X-ray connection in IRAS 13224−3809?

Abstract: We present results from the optical, ultraviolet and X-ray monitoring of the NLS1 galaxy IRAS 13224-3809 taken with Swift and XMM-Newton during 2016. IRAS 13224-3809 is the most variable bright AGN in the X-ray sky and shows strong X-ray reflection, implying that the X-rays strongly illuminate the inner disc. Therefore, it is a good candidate to study the relationship between coronal X-ray and disc UV emission. However, we find no correlation between the X-ray and UV flux over the available ∼ 40 day monitoring… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
33
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
3
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the case of NGC 5548, the X-ray emission has been found to lead the optical emission on timescales of 1 year (Uttley et al 2003), but it has been noted recently that the X-ray and UV/optical emissions correlate poorly on shorter timescales, which again require extra reprocessing mechanisms to explain such results (Edelson et al 2015;Gardner & Done 2017;Starkey et al 2017). Others, however, have found no correlation between the X-ray and UV emission, attributing this to light bending of a centrally compact X-ray source near to the black hole, X-ray flux in our line of sight not being correlated with the X-ray emission that is reprocessed in the disk, and/or other mechanisms driving the observed UV variability (Robertson et al 2015;Buisson et al 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…In the case of NGC 5548, the X-ray emission has been found to lead the optical emission on timescales of 1 year (Uttley et al 2003), but it has been noted recently that the X-ray and UV/optical emissions correlate poorly on shorter timescales, which again require extra reprocessing mechanisms to explain such results (Edelson et al 2015;Gardner & Done 2017;Starkey et al 2017). Others, however, have found no correlation between the X-ray and UV emission, attributing this to light bending of a centrally compact X-ray source near to the black hole, X-ray flux in our line of sight not being correlated with the X-ray emission that is reprocessed in the disk, and/or other mechanisms driving the observed UV variability (Robertson et al 2015;Buisson et al 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…Its X-ray spectrum shows a soft continuum with strong relativistic reflection and soft excess (Ponti et al 2010;Fabian et al 2013;Chiang et al 2015;Jiang et al 2018). The relationship between the variable X-ray and UV emission was explored in (Buisson et al 2018). The UV was found to have a low fractional variability amplitude (∼ 2 % on timescales ∼ < 10 −5 Hz) and no significant correlation was found between the X-ray and UV emission, which is typical of high accretion-rate Seyferts (e.g.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For NLS1s the correlation between X-ray and UV variability is weak or nonexistent for some objects (see e.g. [23]).…”
Section: Monitoring Of the Typical CL Object Ngc 2617mentioning
confidence: 99%