A Deep Chandra X-Ray Survey of a Luminous Quasar Sample at z ∼ 7
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract We present new Chandra observations of seven luminous quasars at z > 6.5. Combined with archival Chandra observations of all other known quasars, they form nearly complete X-ray observations of all currently known z ∼ 7 quasars with M 1450 < –26.5, except for J0313−1806 at z = 7.642 and J0910−0414 at z = 6.636. Together with existing ground-based near-infrared spectroscopy and Atacama Large Millimeter Array observations, we investigate the correlations between X-ray emission (the X-ray luminosity L X and the optical/UV-to-X-ray spectral slope α OX ) and various quasar properties (rest-UV luminosity L 2500 Å , bolometric luminosity L bol , C iv blueshift, and infrared luminosity L IR ). We find most z > 6.5 quasars follow a similar α OX – L 2500 Å relation as z ∼ 1–6 quasars, but also display a large scatter. We find a potential correlation between α OX and the C iv blueshift, suggesting a soft optical/UV-to-X-ray spectral energy distribution shape is frequently associated with fast disk winds. Furthermore, we analyze the X-ray spectrum of 11 quasars at z > 6.5 with Chandra detection, and find that the best-fit photon index, Γ, is 2.41 ± 0.27, which is likely driven by high accretion rates of z > 6.5 quasars. In addition, we find there are no significant correlations between either L X and L IR , nor L bol and L IR , suggesting no strong correlations between quasar luminosity and star formation luminosity for the most luminous quasars at z > 6.5.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé, mais le titre doit être comparé manuellement.
- Titre Crossref
- A Deep Chandra X-Ray Survey of a Luminous Quasar Sample at <i>z</i> ∼ 7
- Date Crossref
- 15/01/2026
- Éditeur
- American Astronomical Society
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.