English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Graham et al. (2015) discovered a supermassive black hole binary (SMBHB)candidate and identified the detected 5.2 yr period of the optical variabilityas the orbital period of the binary. Hydrodynamical simulations predictmultiple periodic components for the variability of SMBHBs, thus raising thepossibility that the true period of the binary is different from 5.2 yr. Weanalyse the periodogram of PG1302 and find no compelling evidence foradditional peaks. We derive upper limits on any additional periodic modulationsin the available data, by modeling the light-curve as the sum of red noise andthe known 5.2 yr periodic component, and injecting additional sinusoidalsignals. We find that, with the current data, we would be able to detect withhigh significance (false alarm probability <1%) secondary periodic terms withperiods in the range predicted by the simulations, if the amplitude of thevariability was at least ~0.07 mag (compared to 0.14 mag for the main peak). Athree-year follow-up monitoring campaign with weekly observations can increasethe sensitivity for detecting secondary peaks ~50%, and would allow a morerobust test of predictions from hydrodynamical simulations.

Multiple periods in the variability of the supermassive black hole binary candidate quasar PG1302-102?