4.7 Article

Ultraluminous X-ray sources with flat-topped noise and QPO

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stz1027

关键词

accretion, accretion discs; X-rays: binaries; X-rays: individuals (NGC5408 X-1, NGC6946 X-1, M82 X-1, NGC1313 X-1, IC 342 X-1)

资金

  1. ESA member states
  2. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [18-32-20214, 19-02-00432]
  3. GA CR [18-00533S]
  4. ESA
  5. USA (NASA)
  6. European Seventh Frame-work Programme (FP7/2007-2013) [312789]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analysed the X-ray power density spectra of five ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) NGC5408 X-1, NGC6946 X-1, M82 X-1, NGC1313 X-1, and IC 342 X-1 that are the only ULXs that display both flat-topped noise (FTN) and quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs). We studied the QPO frequencies, fractional root-mean-square (rms) variability, X-ray luminosity, and spectral hardness. We found that the level of FTN is anticorrelated with the QPO frequency. As the frequency of the QPO and brightness of the sources increase, their fractional variability decreases. We propose a simple interpretation using the spherization radius, viscosity time, and a-parameter as basic properties of these systems. The main physical driver of the observed variability is the mass accretion rate that varies greater than or similar to 3 between different observations of the same source. As the accretion rate decreases the spherization radius reduces and the FTN plus the QPO move towards higher frequencies, resulting in a decrease of the fractional rms variability. We also propose that in all ULXs when the accretion rate is low enough (but still super-Eddington) the QPO and FTN disappear. Assuming that the maximum X-ray luminosity depends only on the black hole (BH) mass and not on the accretion rate (not considering the effects of either the inclination of the super-Eddington disc or geometrical beaming of radiation), we estimate that all the ULXs have about similar BH masses, with the exception of M82 X-1, which might be 10 times more massive.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据