4.6 Article

No periodicity revealed for an eclipsing'' ultraluminous supersoft X-ray source in M81

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT SERIES
卷 177, 期 1, 页码 181-188

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/587551

关键词

galaxies : individual (M81); X-rays : binaries

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Luminous supersoft X-ray sources found in the Milky Way and Magellanic Clouds are likely white dwarfs that steadily or cyclically burn accreted matter on their surface, which are promising Type Ia supernova progenitors. Observations of distant galaxies with Chandra and XMM-Newton have revealed supersoft sources that are generally hotter and more luminous, including some ultraluminous supersoft sources (ULSs) that are possibly intermediate-mass black holes of a few thousand solar masses. In this paper we report our X-ray spectral and timing analysis for M81-ULS 1, a ULS in the nearby spiral galaxy M81. M81-ULS 1 has been persistently supersoft in 17 Chandra ACIS observations spanning 6 years, and its spectrum can be described by either a kT(bb) approximate to 70 eV blackbody for a similar to 1.2 M-circle dot white dwarf, or a kT(in) approximate to 80 eV multicolor accretion disk for a greater than or similar to 10(3) M-circle dot intermediate-mass black hole. In two observations, the light curves exhibited dramatic flux drop/rise on timescales of 10(3) s, reminiscent of eclipse ingress/egress in eclipsing X-ray binaries. However, the exhaustive search for periodicity in the reasonable range of 50 ks to 50 days failed to reveal an orbital period. The failure to reveal any periodicity is consistent with the long period (>= 30 yr) predicted for this system given the optical identification of the secondary with an asymptotic giant star. In addition, the eclipse-like dramatic flux changes in hours are hard to explain under the white dwarf model, but can in principle be explained by disk temperature changes induced by accretion rate variations under the intermediatemass black hole model.

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