4.7 Article

Optical and X-ray correlations during the 2015 outburst of the black hole V404 Cyg

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stz1238

关键词

accretion, accretion discs; X-rays: binaries; X-rays: individual: V404 Cyg

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [AST-1411685]
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council, STFC [ST/R000506/1]
  3. STFC
  4. STFC [ST/J001333/1]
  5. STFC [ST/S006567/1, PP/D002370/1, ST/R000964/1, PP/E001777/1, ST/H008500/1, ST/P00721X/1, ST/R000506/1, ST/P000495/1, ST/J001333/1, ST/G003092/1, ST/F012276/1, ST/K002783/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a serendipitous multiwavelength campaign of optical photometry simultaneous with Integral X-ray monitoring of the 2015 outburst of the black hole V404 Cyg. Large-amplitude optical variability is generally correlated with X-rays, with lags of order a minute or less compatible with binary light travel time-scales or jet ejections. Rapid optical flaring on time-scales of seconds or less is incompatible with binary light-travel time-scales and has instead been associated with synchrotron emission from a jet. Both this rapid jet response and the lagged and smeared one can be present simultaneously. The optical brightness is not uniquely determined by the X-ray brightness, but the X-ray/optical relationship is bounded by a lower envelope such that at any given optical brightness there is a maximum X-ray brightness seen. This lower envelope traces out a F-opt proportional to F-X(0.54) relation that can be approximately extrapolated back to quiescence. Rapid optical variability is only seen near this envelope, and these periods correspond to the hardest hard X-ray colours. This correlation between hard X-ray colour and optical variability (and anticorrelation with optical brightness) is a novel finding of this campaign, and apparently a facet of the outburst behaviour in V404 Cyg. It is likely that these correlations are driven by changes in the central accretion rate and geometry.

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