Paper detail

GTC Spectra of z ~ 2.3 Quasars: Comparison with Local Luminosity Analogues

[Abridged] Context: The advent of 8-10m class telescopes makes possible for the first time detailed comparison of quasars with similar luminosity and very different redshifts. Aims: A search for z-dependent gradients in line emission diagnostics and derived physical properties by comparing, in a narrow bolometric luminosity range (log L ~ 46.1 +/- 0.4 [\ergss]), some of the most luminous local (z < 0.6) quasars with some of the lowest luminosity sources yet found at redshift z = 2.1 ~ 2.5. Method: Spectra for 22 high z sources were obtained with the 10.4m Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC) while the HST (largely FOS) archive provides a low redshift control sample. Comparison is made in the context of the 4D Eigenvector 1 formalism meaning that we divide both source samples into high accreting Population A and low accreting Population B sources. Results: CIV 1549 shows very similar properties at both redshifts confirming at high redshift the CIV profile differences between Pop. A and B that are well established in local quasars. The CIV blueshift that appears quasi- ubiquitous in higher L sources is found in only half (Pop. A) of quasars observed in both of our samples. A CIV evolutionary Baldwin effect is certainly disfavored. We find evidence for lower metallicity in the GTC sample that may point toward a gradient with z. No evidence for a gradient in black hole mass or Eddington ratio is found. Conclusions: Spectroscopic differences established at low redshift are also present in much higher redshift quasars. Given that our samples involve sources with very similar luminosity the evidence for a systematic metallicity decrease, if real, points toward an evolutionary effect. Our samples appear representative of a slow evolving quasar population likely present at all redshifts.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 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.