Paper detail

Dependence of Fanaroff--Riley break of radio galaxies on luminosity and redshift

We investigate the dependence of the Fanaroff-Riley (FR) 1/2 dichotomy of radio galaxies on their luminosities and redshifts. Because of a very strong redshift-luminosity correlation (Malmquist bias) in a flux-limited sample, any redshift-dependent effect could appear as a luminosity related effect and vice versa. A question could then arise - do all the morphological differences seen in the two classes (FR 1 and 2 types) of sources, usually attributed to the differences in their luminosities, could as well be primarily a redshift-dependent effect? A sharp break in luminosity, seen among the two classes, could after all reflect a sharp redshift-dependence due to a rather critical ambient density value at some cosmic epoch. A doubt on these lines does not seem to have been raised in past and things have never been examined with this particular aspect in mind. We want to ascertain the customary prevalent view in the literature that the systematic differences in the two broad morphology types of FR 1 and 2 radio galaxies are indeed due to the differences in their luminosities, and not due to a change in redshift. Here we investigate the dependence of FR 1/2 dichotomy of radio galaxies on luminosity and redshift by using the 3CR sample, where the FR 1/2 dichotomy was first seen, supplemented by data from an additional sample (MRC), that goes about a factor of 5 or more deeper in flux-density than the original 3CR sample. This lets us compare sources with similar luminosities but at different redshifts as well as examine sources at similar redshifts but with different luminosities, thereby allowing us a successful separation of the otherwise two intricately entangled effects. We find that the morphology type is not directly related to redshift and the break between the two types of morphologies seems to depend only upon the radio luminosity.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.