4.7 Article

EVIDENCE OF ELEVATED X-RAY ABSORPTION BEFORE AND DURING MAJOR FLARE EJECTIONS IN GRS 1915+105

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 783, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/133

关键词

accretion, accretion disks; black hole physics; galaxies: active; galaxies: jets; magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)

资金

  1. French Research National Agency: CHAOS project [ANR-12BS05-0009]
  2. UnivEarthS Labex program of Sorbonne Paris Cit'e [ANR-10-LABX-0023, ANR-11-IDEX-0005-02]
  3. Russian Foundation [N12-02-00812]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present time-resolved X-ray spectroscopy of the microquasar GRS 1915+ 105 with the MAXI observatory in order to study the accretion state just before and during the ejections associated with its major flares. Radio monitoring with the RATAN-600 radio telescope from 4.8-11.2 GHz has revealed two large, steep-spectrum major flares in the first eight months of 2013. Since the RATAN has received one measurement per day, we cannot determine the jet-forming time without more information. Fortunately, this is possible since a distinct X-ray light curve signature that occurs preceding and during major ejections has been determined in an earlier study. The X-ray luminosity spikes to very high levels in the hours before ejection, then becomes variable (with a nearly equal X-ray luminosity when averaged over the duration of the ejection) during a brief 3-8 hr ejection process. By comparing this X-ray behavior with MAXI light curves, we can estimate the beginning and end of the ejection episode of the strong 2013 flares to within similar to 3 hr. Using this estimate in conjunction with time-resolved spectroscopy from the data in the MAXI archives allows us to deduce that the X-ray absorbing hydrogen column density increases significantly in the hours preceding the ejections and remains elevated during the ejections responsible for the major flares. This finding is consistent with an outflowing wind or enhanced accretion at high latitudes.

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