Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T08:21:24.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radio emission from the bow shock of G2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2014

P. Crumley  and
P. Kumar
P. Crumley
Affiliation:
Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA email: crumleyp@physics.utexas.edu
P. Kumar
Affiliation:
Astronomy Department, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The radio flux from the synchrotron emission of electrons accelerated in the forward bow shock of G2 is expected to have peaked when the forward shock passes close to the pericenter from the Galactic center, around autumn of 2013. This radio flux is model dependent. We find that if G2 were to be a momentum-supported bow shock of a faint star with a strong wind, the radio synchrotron flux from the forward-shock heated ISM is well below the quiescent radio flux of Sgr A*. By contrast, if G2 is a diffuse cloud, the radio flux is predicted to be much larger than the quiescent radio flux and therefore should have already been detected or will be detected shortly. No such radiation has been observed to date. Radio measurements can reveal the nature of G2 well before G2 completes its periapsis passage.

Keywords

Galaxy: center — black hole physics — radiation mechanisms: nonthermal — shock waves
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 9 , Symposium S303: The Galactic Center: Feeding and Feedback in a Normal Galactic Nucleus , October 2013 , pp. 312 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2014 

References

Ballone, A., et al. 2013, ApJ 776, 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crumley, P. & Kumar, P. 2013, MNRAS 436, 1955Google Scholar
Davies, R. D., Walsh, D., & Booth, R. S. 1976, MNRAS 177, 319Google Scholar
Falcke, H., et al. 1998, ApJ 499, 731Google Scholar
Gillessen, S., et al. 2012, Nature 481, 51Google Scholar
Gillessen, S., et al., 2013, ApJ 774, 44Google Scholar
Murray-Clay, R. A. & Loeb, A. 2012, Nature Communications 3, 1049Google Scholar
Narayan, R., Özel, F., & Sironi, L. 2012, ApJ 757, L20Google Scholar
Phifer, K., et al. 2013, ApJ 773, L13Google Scholar
Sadowski, A., Narayan, R., Sironi, L. & Özel, F. 2013a, MNRAS 433, 2165Google Scholar
Sadowski, A., Sironi, L., Abarca, D., Guo, X., Özel, F., & Narayan, R. 2013, MNRAS 432, 478Google Scholar
Scoville, N. & Burkert, A. 2013, ApJ 768, 108Google Scholar
Shcherbakov, R. V. 2013, arXiv: 1309.2282Google Scholar
Zhao, J. H., et al. 2003, ApJ 586, L29Google Scholar