4.7 Article

Pulsing ULXs: tip of the iceberg?

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 468, Issue 1, Pages L59-L62

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx020

Keywords

accretion, accretion discs; binaries: close; stars: black holes; stars: neutron; pulsars: general; X-rays: binaries

Funding

  1. French Space Agency CNES
  2. Polish NCN [2013/08/A/ST9/00795, 2012/04/A/ST9/00083, 2015/19/B/ST9/01099]
  3. STFC Consolidated Grant
  4. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/N000757/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. STFC [ST/N000757/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We consider the three currently knownpulsing ultraluminous X-ray sources (PULXs). We show that in one of them the observed spin-up rate requires super-Eddington accretion rates at the magnetospheric radius, even if magnetar-strength fields are assumed. In the two other systems, a normal-strength neutron star field implies super-Eddington accretion at the magnetosphere. Adopting super-Eddington mass transfer as the defining characteristic of ULX systems, we find the parameters required for self-consistent simultaneous fits of the luminosities and spin-up rates of the three pulsed systems. These imply near equality between their magnetospheric radii R-M and the spherization radii R-sph where radiation pressure becomes important and drives mass-loss from the accretion disc. We interpret this near equality as a necessary condition for the systems to appear as pulsed, since if it is violated the pulse fraction is small. We show that as a consequence all PULXs must have spin-up rates nu greater than or similar to 10(-10) s(-2), an order of magnitude higher than in any other pulsing neutron-star binaries. The fairly tight conditions required for ULXs to show pulsing support our earlier suggestion that many unpulsed ULX systems must actually contain neutron stars rather than black holes.

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