4.6 Article

Insight-HXMT Observations of 4U 1636-536: Corona Cooling Revealed with Single Short Type-I X-Ray Burst

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 864, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadc0e

关键词

stars: coronae; stars: neutron; X-rays: binaries; X-rays: bursts; X-rays: individual (4U 1636-536)

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFA0400800]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11473027, 11733009, U1838201, U1838104]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Corona cooling was detected previously from stacking a series of short type I bursts that occurred during the low/hard state of an atoll outburst. Type I bursts are hence regarded as sharp probes used to better our understanding of the basic properties of the corona. The first Chinese X-ray satellite, Insight-HXMT, has a large detection area at hard X-rays that provides a unique opportunity to move further in this research field. We report the first detection of corona cooling by Insight-HXMT from a single short type I burst appearing during the flare of 4U 1636-536. This type I X-ray burst has a duration of similar to 13 s and hard X-ray shortage is detected with a significance of 6.2 sigma in 40-70 keV. A cross-correlation analysis between the light curves of the soft and hard X-ray band shows that the corona shortage lags the burst emission by 1.6 +/- 1.2 s. These results are consistent with those derived previously from stacking a large amount of bursts detected by RXTE/PCA within a series of flares of 4U 1636-536. Moreover, the broad bandwidth of Insight-HXMT also allows, for the first time, one to infer the burst influence upon the continuum spectrum via performing the spectral fitting of the burst, which points to the finding that hard X-ray shortage appears at around 40 keV in the continuum spectrum. These results suggest that the evolution of the corona, along with the outburst/flare of NS XRB, may be traced via analyzing a series of embedded type I bursts using Insight-HXMT.

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

4.6
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