Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:49:23.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High Energy γ-ray variability of NGC 1275 and 3C 120

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2020

Narek Sahakyan Open the ORCID record for Narek Sahakyan [Opens in a new window]
Narek Sahakyan*
Affiliation:
ICRANet-Armenia, Marshall Baghramian Avenue 24a, Yerevan 0019, Armenia email: [email protected]
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 recent observations in the high energy γ-ray band show that the extragalactic γ-ray sky is dominated by the emission from blazars. However, γ-ray emission from other types of AGNs, e.g., radiogalaxies, also have been detected. These sources were not considered as favored GeV emitters because the nonthermal emission from their jets is less Doppler boosted. Now, the γ-ray emission from more than 25 non-blazar AGNs has been already detected which opened a new window to have an insight into the particle acceleration and emission processes in different components of AGNs. Here, I will present the γ-ray variability of two well-known radiogalaxies, NGC 1275 and 3C 120, which show a rapid flux increase in the γ-ray band.

Keywords

galaxies: activegalaxies: individual (NGC 1275 3C 120)gamma rays: observations
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 14 , Symposium S342: Perseus in Sicily: From Black Hole to Cluster Outskirts , May 2018 , pp. 172 - 175
Copyright
© International Astronomical Union 2020

References

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 218, 23Google Scholar
Asada, K., Kameno, S., Shen, Z.-Q., et al. 2006, PASJ, 58, 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baghmanyan, V., Gasparyan, S., & Sahakyan, N. 2017, ApJ, 848, 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churazov, E., Forman, W., Jones, C., & Böhringer, H. 2003, ApJ, 590, 225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanaroff, B. L., & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31PCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homan, D. C., Ojha, R., Wardle, J. F. C., et al. 2001, ApJ, 549, 840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Gómez, J.-L., et al. 2002, Nature, 417, 625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedlar, A., Ghataure, H. S., Davies, R. D., et al. 1990, MNRAS, 246, 477Google Scholar
Peterson, B. M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K. M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahakyan, N., Zargaryan, D., & Baghmanyan, V. 2015, A&A, 574, A88Google Scholar
Sahakyan, N., Baghmanyan, V., & Zargaryan, D. 2018, A&A, 614, A6Google Scholar
Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. C., Benson, J. M., & Unwin, S. C. 1987, ApJ, 316, 546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zargaryan, D., Gasparyan, S., Baghmanyan, V., & Sahakyan, N. 2017, A&A, 608, A37Google Scholar