Paper detail

Multiple periods in the variability of the supermassive black hole binary candidate quasar PG1302-102?

Graham et al. (2015) discovered a supermassive black hole binary (SMBHB) candidate and identified the detected 5.2 yr period of the optical variability as the orbital period of the binary. Hydrodynamical simulations predict multiple periodic components for the variability of SMBHBs, thus raising the possibility that the true period of the binary is different from 5.2 yr. We analyse the periodogram of PG1302 and find no compelling evidence for additional peaks. We derive upper limits on any additional periodic modulations in the available data, by modeling the light-curve as the sum of red noise and the known 5.2 yr periodic component, and injecting additional sinusoidal signals. We find that, with the current data, we would be able to detect with high significance (false alarm probability <1%) secondary periodic terms with periods in the range predicted by the simulations, if the amplitude of the variability was at least ~0.07 mag (compared to 0.14 mag for the main peak). A three-year follow-up monitoring campaign with weekly observations can increase the sensitivity for detecting secondary peaks ~50%, and would allow a more robust test of predictions from hydrodynamical simulations.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 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.