4.7 Article

SUZAKU X-RAY SPECTRA AND PULSE PROFILE VARIATIONS DURING THE SUPERORBITAL CYCLE OF LMC X-4

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 720, 期 2, 页码 1202-1214

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1202

关键词

accretion, accretion disks; pulsars: individual (LMC X-4); stars: neutron; X-rays: binaries

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. Department of Defense [0754568]
  3. Suzaku [NNX08AI17G]
  4. ADP [NNX08AJ61G]
  5. Smithsonian Institution
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  7. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [0754568] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present results from spectral and temporal analyses of Suzaku and RXTE observations of the high-mass X-ray binary LMC X-4. Using the full 13 years of available RXTE/all-sky monitor data, we apply the ANOVA and Lomb Normalized Periodogram methods to obtain an improved superorbital period measurement of 30.32 +/- 0.04 days. The phase-averaged X-ray spectra from Suzaku observations during the high state of the superorbital period can be modeled in the 0.6-50 keV band as the combination of a power law with Gamma similar to 0.6 and a highenergy cutoff at similar to 25 keV, a blackbody with kT(BB) similar to 0.18 keV, and emission lines from Fe K-alpha, OVIII, and NeIX (x Ly alpha). Assuming a distance of 50 kpc, the source has luminosity L-X similar to 3 x 10(38) erg s(-1) in the 2-50 keV band, and the luminosity of the soft (blackbody) component is L-BB similar to 1.5 x 10(37) erg s-1. The energy-resolved pulse profiles show single-peaked soft (0.5-1 keV) and hard (6-10 keV) pulses but a more complex pattern of medium (2-10 keV) pulses; cross-correlation of the hard with the soft pulses shows a phase shift that varies between observations. We interpret these results in terms of a picture in which a precessing disk reprocesses the hard X-rays and produces the observed soft spectral component, as has been suggested for the similar sources Her X-1 and SMC X-1.

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