4.7 Article

Pulsating ULXs: large pulsed fraction excludes strong beaming

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 501, Issue 2, Pages 2424-2429

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa3809

Keywords

accretion, accretion discs; stars: neutron; stars: oscillations; X-rays: binaries

Funding

  1. Dutch Research Council (NWO) Veni Fellowship (AAM) [14, W03.31.0021]
  2. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The discovery of pulsating ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) indicates that the apparent luminosity of accreting neutron stars can exceed the Eddington luminosity by a factor of 100s. The relationship between actual and apparent luminosity in ULXs is still debated. A large pulsed fraction is a typical feature of discovered pulsating ULXs. Using Monte Carlo simulations, it is argued that strong beaming and high pulsed fraction largely exclude each other in ULXs. This suggests that pulsating ULXs are not strongly beamed and their apparent luminosity is close to the actual one.
The recent discovery of pulsating ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) shows that the apparent luminosity of accreting neutron stars can exceed the Eddington luminosity by a factor of 100s. The relation between the actual and apparent luminosity is a key ingredient in theoretical models of ULXs, but it is still under debate. A typical feature of the discovered pulsating ULXs is a large pulsed fraction (PF). Using Monte Carlo simulations, we consider a simple geometry of accretion flow and test the possibility of simultaneous presence of a large luminosity amplification due the geometrical beaming and a high PF. We argue that these factors largely exclude each other and only a negligible fraction of strongly beamed ULX pulsars can show PF above 10 per cent. Discrepancy between this conclusion and current observations indicates that pulsating ULXs are not strongly beamed and their apparent luminosity is close to the actual one.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available