4.6 Article

Using radial velocities to reveal black holes in binaries: A test case

Journal

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
Volume 645, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039317

Keywords

stars: black holes; stars: individual: UCAC4 721-037069; X-rays: stars; binaries: eclipsing; techniques: radial velocities

Funding

  1. UK Science and Technology Facilities Council
  2. Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES)
  3. Spanish MINECO [AYA2017-83216-P]
  4. STFC [ST/S006176/1, ST/P006892/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research found that identifying potential black holes only using radial velocity can lead to misjudgments, and studying candidates with known X-ray counterparts showed that it is actually an eclipsing stellar binary.
Aims. Large radial velocity variations in the LAMOST spectra of giant stars have been used to infer the presence of unseen companions. Some of them have been proposed as possible black hole candidates. We test this selection by investigating the classification of the one candidate that has a known X-ray counterpart (UCAC4 721-037069).Methods. We obtained time-resolved spectra from the Liverpool Telescope and a 5 ks observation from the Chandra observatory to fully constrain the orbital parameters and the X-ray emission of this system.Results. We find the source to be an eclipsing stellar binary that can be classified as an RS CVn. The giant star fills its Roche lobe, and the binary mass ratio is greater than one. The system may be an example of stable mass transfer from an intermediate-mass star with a convective envelope.Conclusions. Using only radial velocity to identify black hole candidates can lead to many false positives. The presence of an optical orbital modulation, such as what has been observed for all LAMOST candidates, will in most cases indicate that the system is a stellar binary.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available