Paper detail

The Quasar Mass-Luminosity Plane I: A Sub-Eddington Limit for Quasars

We use 62185 quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 5 sample to explore the relationship between black hole mass and luminosity. Black hole masses were estimated based on the widths of their Hβ, MgII and CIV lines and adjacent continuum luminosities using standard virial mass estimate scaling laws. We find that, over the range 0.2 < z < 4.0, the most luminous low-mass quasars are at their Eddington luminosity, but the most luminous high-mass quasars in each redshift bin fall short of their Eddington luminosities, with the shortfall of the order of 10 or more at 0.2 < z < 0.6. We examine several potential sources of measurement uncertainty or bias and show that none of them can account for this effect. We also show the statistical uncertainty in virial mass estimation to have an upper bound of ~0.15 dex, smaller than the 0.4 dex previously reported. We also examine the highest mass quasars in every redshift bin in an effort to learn more about quasars that are about to cease their luminous accretion. We conclude that the quasar mass-luminosity locus contains a number of new puzzles that must be explained theoretically.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

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.