The Quasar Accretion Disk Size -- Black Hole Mass Relation
Christopher W. Morgan (1), C.S. Kochanek (2), Nicholas D . Morgan (2),, Emilio E. Falco (3) ((1)Department of Physics, U.S. Naval Academy,, (2)Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, (3)Harvard-Smithsonian, Center for Astrophysics)

TL;DR
This study uses gravitational lensing microlensing data to establish a relation between quasar accretion disk size and black hole mass, revealing discrepancies with standard thin disk models and suggesting the need for revised disk temperature profiles.
Contribution
It provides the first empirical measurement of the size-mass relation for quasar accretion disks using microlensing, highlighting inconsistencies with classical thin disk theory.
Findings
Accretion disk sizes are larger than predicted by standard models.
Black holes appear to radiate with very low efficiency under current assumptions.
Adjustments in inclination, Eddington ratios, and black hole masses are needed to reconcile efficiency estimates.
Abstract
We use the microlensing variability observed for eleven gravitationally lensed quasars to show that the accretion disk size at a rest-frame wavelength of 2500 Angstroms is related to the black hole mass by log(R_{2500}/cm)=(15.78\pm0.12) + (0.80\pm0.17)\log(M_BH/10^9M_sun). This scaling is consistent with the expectation from thin disk theory (R ~ M_BH^{2/3}), but when interpreted in terms of the standard thin disk model (T ~ R^{-3/4}), it implies that black holes radiate with very low efficiency, log(eta) = -1.77\pm0.29 + log(L/L_E) where eta=L/(Mdot*c^2). Only by making the maximum reasonable shifts in the average inclination, Eddington factors and black hole masses can we raise the efficiency estimate to be marginally consistent with typical efficiency estimates (eta ~ 10%). With one exception, these sizes are larger by a factor of ~4 than the size needed to produce the observed 0.8…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
