X
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–3What are BHC?, II
Stars end their life as one of three kinds of different compact objects:
White Dwarf: ρ ∼ 105 . . . 106 g cm−3, R ∼ R, Equilibrium between gravitation
and pressure from degenerate electrons, M < 1.44 M(Chandrasekhar-limit).
Neutron Star: ρ ∼ 1013 . . . 1016 g cm−3, R ∼ 10 km, this density causes inv.
β-decay (p + e− → n), i.e., star consists (mainly) of neutrons.
1.44 M < M . 3 M (Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit).
Black Hole: For M & 3 M no stable configuration known
=⇒ Star collapses completely
=⇒ Black Hole
Size scale: RS = 2GM/c2 = 3(M/M) km
If mass of compact object M > 3 M: Black Hole Candidate
X
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–5What are BHC?, IV
17 Aug 1998
18 Aug 1998
4840.0 4850.0 4860.0
Wavelength [A]
4870.0 4880.0
0.8
1.01.20.8
1.01.20.8
1.01.2
Nor
mal
ized
Flu
x
0.8
1.01.20.8
1.0
1.21.0
0.81.2
19 Aug 1998
20 Aug 1998
21 Aug 1998
22 Aug 1998
Motion of the Hβ line in HDE 226868/Cyg X-1(Pottschmidt, Wilms)
In binary system: Determine mass
of compact object using Kepler’s 3rd
Law
a3
P 2=
G(M1 + M2)
4π2
(a: semi-major axis, P : period,
M1,2: Masses).
Derive from this the mass function
MF =M3
2 sin3 i
(1 + (M1/M2))2=
K21P
2πG
MF is lower mass for M2.
(K2 : velocity amplitude)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–6What are BHC?, V
???
???
5 10Mass (solar Masses)
15 20
B1802−07J1012+5307J0045−7319J1713+0747
B1855+09J1518+4904cJ1518+4904B2303+46cB2303+46
B2127+11CcB2127+11CB1913+16cB1913+16
B1534+12cB1534+12
Cyg X−2Vela X−1
Cyg X−1
LMC X−3LMC X−1
GRS 1915+105XTE J1550−564XTE J1859+226XTE J1118+480
A0620−00V404 Cyg
XN Mus 91XN Oph77
GRO J0422+32GRO J1655−40
GS 2000+254U 1543−47
GRS 1009−45V4641 Sgr
after Orosz (2004, priv. comm.)
• 1971: First BHC (Cyg X-1)
• 1983: LMC X-3
• Currently 20 dynamically
confirmed Galactic Black Holes
Statistics:
• 3 High Mass X-ray Binaries
• Low Mass X-ray Binary BHC:
mainly transient sources
• Masses < 20 M
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–6What are BHC?, VI
Orosz (2004, priv. comm.)
• 1971: First BHC (Cyg X-1)
• 1983: LMC X-3
• Currently 20 dynamically
confirmed Galactic Black Holes
Statistics:
• 3 High Mass X-ray Binaries
• Low Mass X-ray Binary BHC:
mainly transient sources
• Masses < 20 M
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–7Current Questions
Jet
Corona
DiscBH
What we want to learn:
1. What does the accretion region look like:
“accretion geometry”
2. What are the physical processes
responsible for the broad-band emission?
3. Is there evidence for GR effects?
Active Galactic Nuclei and BHC have similar geometry =⇒ study similar
physical processes!
X-rays produced close to event horizon, observations give one of the few
constraints to study physics in the strong gravitational field limit.
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–8
Phenomenology 1
Long-Term Evolution
50000 50500 51000 51500 52000 52500 53000MJD
0204060 GX 339−4
020406080 Cyg X−1
012345
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004LMC X−3
RX
TE
AS
M C
ount
Rat
e
Black Holes: Variability on all time scales
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–9
Phenomenology 2
Spectral States
Energy [keV]
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
E ×
ph
cm-2
s-1
keV
-1
3 5 10 20
Obs28
Obs29
Obs30Obs31
(LMC X-3; Wilms et al., 2001)
X-ray States:
• LX & 0.05 LEdd:
soft state/high state:
– thermally dominated
– low variability (few
percent rms)
• LX . 0.05 LEdd:
hard state/low state:
– power law spectrum,
– high variability (few 10
percent rms)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–10
Phenomenology 3
Hard State: Comptonization
T
E’, p’
E, p θ
Sunyaev & Trümper (1979): power
law continuum caused by
Comptonization
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–10
Phenomenology 4
Hard State: Comptonization
T
E’, p’
E, p θ
Sunyaev & Trümper (1979): power
law continuum caused by
Comptonization
Frame of rest of electron: Photon’s energy change due to Compton scattering:
E ′ =E
1 + Emec2(1 − cos θ)
, for E mec2:
∆E
E∼ − E
mec2
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–10
Phenomenology 5
Hard State: Comptonization
T
E’, p’
E, p θ
Sunyaev & Trümper (1979): power
law continuum caused by
Comptonization
Frame of rest of electron: Photon’s energy change due to Compton scattering:
E ′ =E
1 + Emec2(1 − cos θ)
, for E mec2:
∆E
E∼ − E
mec2
If electron not at rest: energy transfer onto photon possible.
For thermal electrons:
∆E
E∼ 4kTe − E
mec2
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–11
Phenomenology 6
Hard State: Comptonization
0.01[keV]
10.00 1000.00
−1
keV
−1
−2
610
105
310
410
]s
[keV
cm
E N
(E)
102
110
0100.10 1.00
E100.00
τ=5kT=200 keV
Computation of spectrum either through solution of Kompaneets equation or
directly through Monte Carlo simulation
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–11
Phenomenology 7
Hard State: Comptonization
1
0.01[keV]
10.00 1000.00
−1
keV
−1
−2
610
105
310
410
]s
[keV
cm
E N
(E)
102
110
0100.10 1.00
E100.00
τ=5kT=200 keV
Computation of spectrum either through solution of Kompaneets equation or
directly through Monte Carlo simulation
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–11
Phenomenology 8
Hard State: Comptonization
12
0.01[keV]
10.00 1000.00
−1
keV
−1
−2
610
105
310
410
]s
[keV
cm
E N
(E)
102
110
0100.10 1.00
E100.00
τ=5kT=200 keV
Computation of spectrum either through solution of Kompaneets equation or
directly through Monte Carlo simulation
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–11
Phenomenology 9
Hard State: Comptonization
12
3
0.01[keV]
10.00 1000.00
−1
keV
−1
−2
610
105
310
410
]s
[keV
cm
E N
(E)
102
110
0100.10 1.00
E100.00
τ=5kT=200 keV
Computation of spectrum either through solution of Kompaneets equation or
directly through Monte Carlo simulation
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–11
Phenomenology 10
Hard State: Comptonization
12
3
4
0.01[keV]
10.00 1000.00
−1
keV
−1
−2
610
105
310
410
]s
[keV
cm
E N
(E)
102
110
0100.10 1.00
E100.00
τ=5kT=200 keV
Computation of spectrum either through solution of Kompaneets equation or
directly through Monte Carlo simulation
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–11
Phenomenology 11
Hard State: Comptonization
12
3
4
5
0.01[keV]
10.00 1000.00
−1
keV
−1
−2
610
105
310
410
]s
[keV
cm
E N
(E)
102
110
0100.10 1.00
E100.00
τ=5kT=200 keV
Computation of spectrum either through solution of Kompaneets equation or
directly through Monte Carlo simulation
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–11
Phenomenology 12
Hard State: Comptonization
12
3
4
5
0.01[keV]
10.00 1000.00
−1
keV
−1
−2
610
105
310
410
]s
[keV
cm
E N
(E)
102
110
0100.10 1.00
E100.00
τ=5kT=200 keV
Computation of spectrum either through solution of Kompaneets equation or
directly through Monte Carlo simulation
=⇒ Power law with exponential cutoff.
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–12
Phenomenology 13
Hard State: Comptonization
Thin Accretion DiskBH
R S
90km
Hot Corona
10 100Energy [keV]
1
10
100
Flu
x [a
rbitr
ary
units
]
Γ=1.9
Black Hole X-Ray Spectrum:
• Comptonization of soft X-rays from
accretion disk in hot corona (T ∼ 108 K):
power law continuum.
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–12
Phenomenology 14
Hard State: Comptonization
Thin Accretion DiskBH
R S
90km
Hot Corona
10 100Energy [keV]
1
10
100
Flu
x [a
rbitr
ary
units
]
Γ=1.9
Black Hole X-Ray Spectrum:
• Comptonization of soft X-rays from
accretion disk in hot corona (T ∼ 108 K):
power law continuum.
• Thomson scattering of power law photons in
disk: Compton Reflection Hump
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–12
Phenomenology 15
Hard State: Comptonization
Thin Accretion DiskBH
R S
90km
Hot Corona
10 100Energy [keV]
1
10
Fe K
Fe K
100
Flu
x [a
rbitr
ary
units
]
Γ=1.9
α
β
Black Hole X-Ray Spectrum:
• Comptonization of soft X-rays from
accretion disk in hot corona (T ∼ 108 K):
power law continuum.
• Thomson scattering of power law photons in
disk: Compton Reflection Hump
• Photoabsorption of power law photons in
disk: fluorescent Fe Kα Line at ∼6.4 keV
INTEGRAL
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–14
Hard State 2
Broad Band Spectrum, II
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–14
Hard State 3
Broad Band Spectrum, III
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–15
Hard State 4
Broad Band Spectrum, IV
0.1
1.0
keV
(ke
V c
m−2 s
−1 k
eV−
1 )
10 100Energy [keV]
−4−2
024
χ
Fritz et al. (2006)see also Pottschmidt et al. (2003a)
Fit of Comptonization model
to RXTE /INTEGRAL.
kTmax = 1.21 keV,
τp = 1.01,
`h/`s = 2.70,
`nt/`th = 0.05,
Ω/2π = 0.3/2
χ2/dof = 466/348
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–16
Hard State 5
Relativistic Lines
∆Φ
0
2
4
6
8
I ν o [a
rbitr
ary
units
]
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0Energy [keV]
−0.15−0.05 −0.100.000.100.200.30z=(E e/Eo) − 1
Total observed line profile affected by
• grav. Redshift
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–16
Hard State 6
Relativistic Lines
0
2
4
6
8
I ν o [a
rbitr
ary
units
]
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0Energy [keV]
−0.15−0.05 −0.100.000.100.200.30z=(E e/Eo) − 1
5o
10o
20o
30o
40o
50o
60o
70o
80o
Total observed line profile affected by
• grav. Redshift
• Light bending
• rel. Doppler shift
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–16
Hard State 7
Relativistic Lines
Line
Em
issi
vity constant
power law
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
I νo [
arbi
trar
y un
its]
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5Energy [keV]
−0.15−0.05 −0.100.000.100.200.30z=(E e/Eo) − 1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
io= 40 o
Total observed line profile affected by
• grav. Redshift
• Light bending
• rel. Doppler shift
• emissivity profile
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–16
Hard State 8
Relativistic Lines
rotating Black Holeve
loci
ty
velo
city
nonrotating Black Hole
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
I νo [
arbi
trar
y un
its]
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5Energy [keV]
−0.15−0.05 −0.100.000.100.200.30z=(E e/Eo) − 1
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.9981
io= 40 o
Total observed line profile affected by
• grav. Redshift
• Light bending
• rel. Doppler shift
• emissivity profile
• spin of black hole
XMM-Newton
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–18
Hard State 10
Relativistic Lines
10 1
Cyg X−1
−10−5
05
10
4 6 9Energy [keV]
norm
aliz
ed c
ount
s cm−
2 s−
1 ke
V−
1χ
Wilms et al. (2006)
XMM-Newton Observation of
Cyg X-1: Power-law fit to
E ≤ 5 keV and E ≥ 8 keV:
strong residuals in Fe Kα region
uses a modified timing mode of the
EPIC-pn camera on XMM-Newton;
inner 3 CCD columns ignored because
of pile-up
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–19
Hard State 11
Relativistic Lines
10 1
Cyg X−1
−10−5
05
10
4 6 9Energy [keV]
norm
aliz
ed c
ount
s cm−
2 s−
1 ke
V−
1χ
Wilms et al. (2006a)
4–9 keV spectrum: well
explained (χ2red = 1.3) with:
• Power lawΓ = 1.90 ± 0.01
• narrow lineE = 6.52 ± 0.02 keV,σ = 80 ± 35 eV,EW=14 eV
• relativistic line (Kerr)E = 6.76 ± 0.1 keV,emissivity ∝ r−4.3±0.1,EW=400 eV
Parameters similar (but not equal) to
Chandra intermediate state
observations (Miller et al., 2002)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–20
Hard State 12
Relativistic Lines
10 1
10 2
obs1
01020
01020
01020
01020
Cyg X−1
χco
unts
/s/k
eV
4 6 9Energy [keV]
obs2
obs3
obs4Cyg X-1 (XMM-Newton, EPIC-pn
modified timing mode, 10–20 ksec
each)
(Fritz et al., 2007)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–21
Hard State 13
Relativistic Lines
2 4 6 8 10
2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
2 4 6 8 100.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.2
0.8
1.1
1.0
Cygnus X−1
XTE J1550−564 GRO J1655−40
GRS 1915+105Dat
a/M
odel
Energy [keV]
Relativistic lines are
seen in many
Galactic Black Holes
• GX 339−4:Nowak, Wilms & Dove(2002), Miller et al. (2004)
• GRO J1655−40:Bałucinska-Church & Church(2000)
• Cyg X-1: Miller et al. (2002),Fritz et al. (2007)
• XTE J1650−500:Miller et al. (2002)
. . . and a few more
(Chandra; after Miller 2007)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–22
Long-Term Evolution 1
Hard State Monitoring
51500 52000 52500 53000MJD
20406080
ASM
[cps
]
2
4
6
F dis
k
[10−
8 cgs]
2
4
6
l h/l s
0
10
20
00
15 G
Hz
[mJy
]
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Cyg X-1 (Wilms et al., 2006b)
Never before have BHC
been studied with such
good coverage and over
such a wide energy range.
Compare to pre-RXTE: 1–2pointings per year!
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–23
Long-Term Evolution 2
Hard State Monitoring
0 2 4 6 8lh/ls
1037
Ldi
sk [
erg
s−1 ]
Fdisk∝ lh−0.19
Clear anticorrelation between
accretion disk luminosity and coronal
compactness ratio, `h/`s.
0 2 4 6 8lh/ls
0
5
10
15
20
25
F rad
io, 1
5GH
z [m
Jy]
Radio flux is strongest during
intermediate states.
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–24
Radio–X-ray connection 1
Radio–X-ray connection
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
10.0
1.0
0.1
Rad
io fl
ux d
ensi
ty [8
640
MH
z, m
Jy]
3−9keV flux (10 cgs)−10
Corbel et al. (2003): GX 339−4: During the hard state, there is a clear
correlation between X-ray flux and radio flux: F radio ∝ F 0.71X, 3–20 keV.
See also Hannikainen et al. (1998), Markoff et al. (2003).
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–25
Radio–X-ray connection 2
Radio–X-ray connection
Gallo, Fender & Pooley (2003): Lradio ∝ L0.7X also works for sample of GBHs,
although there is more scatter (and Cyg X-1 does not work at all).
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–26
Radio–X-ray connection 3
Radio–X-ray connection
5020 1002−10 keV flux (RXTE ASM cps)
10
15 G
Hz
Rad
io F
lux
(mJy
)
1 Cyg X-1: there is no
clear correlation
between radio and
X-rays in 2–10 keV!
(Nowak et al., 2005)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–27
Radio–X-ray connection 4
Radio–X-ray connection0.
11.
010
20−100 keV RXTE HEXTE flux (10 cgs)1 2 5 10 20
15 G
Hz
Rad
io F
lux
(mJy
)
−9
Cyg X-1: there is a
clear correlation
between radio and
X-rays in 20–100 keV.
=⇒Jet is related to
whatever makes
the hard spectral
componentNot surprising, but illustrates thedanger of ignoring pointedobservations and only usingRXTE-ASM.
(Nowak et al., 2005)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–28
Radio–X-ray connection 5
Radio–X-ray connection
Merloni, Heinz & di Matteo
(2003): for scale-invariant
jets (Heinz & Sunyaev,
2003), jet properties only
depend on MBH, M (, and a).
=⇒ scatter due to varying
black hole mass
=⇒ “the fundamental plane
of black holes” between
LX, Lradio, and MBH.
see Falcke, Körding & Markoff(2004) for similar results
log Lradio = (0.60 ± 0.11) log LX + (0.78+0.11−0.09) log MBH + 7.33+4.05
−4.07
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–29
Radio–X-ray connection 6
Radio–X-ray connection
But note: while
generally
Fradio ∝ F 0.7X ,
normalization
constant can change
between outbursts of
the same object!
In addition, there are fourmore hard state BHC that arealso underluminous in theradio wrt. to the correlation,see Gallo (2007), see alsoXue & Cui (2007).
(GX 339−4; Nowak et al.,2005)
195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240100
200
300
400
Time (MJD−53000)
PC
U2
coun
t rat
e
0.01 0.110
100
1000
PC
U2
coun
t rat
e
Hardness
Radio-X-ray connection: Radio
behavior is strongly correlated with
the X-ray behavior (“q-diagram”).
(GX 339−4; Belloni et al., 2006)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–31
Radio–X-ray connection 8
Radio–X-ray connection
jet l
ine
HS LSVHS/IS
Soft Hard
Γ > 2 Γ < 2
i
ii
iii
jet
Jet L
oren
tz fa
ctor
iiiiv
iv
iii
inte
nsity
hardnessX−ray
Dis
c in
ner
radi
us
no
(Fender, Belloni & Gallo, 2004)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–32
Microquasars 1
Microquasars, I
50
100
150
200
Cou
ntra
te (
coun
ts/s
)
1996 1997 1998
Some black holes show
very interesting long
and short term behavior
in all wavebands
RXTE-ASM 2–12 keV lightcurveof GRS 1915+105
GRS 1915+105 1994 March/April: weekly radio
images show blob ejection events.
Scale ∼10000 AU
Ballistic motion of events =⇒ no deceleration!
Inferred speeds: (0.65 ± 0.08)c und (1.25 ± 0.15)c
=⇒ superluminal motion!
1997 radio campaign: ∼10% higher
speeds;
Fender et al. (1998)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–35
Microquasars 4
Microquasars, IV
t 1
t 0
φ
Consider blob moving towards us with speed v and angle φ with respect to line of sight, emitting
light signals at t0 and t1 = t0 + ∆te
Light travel time: Observer sees signals separated by
∆to = ∆te − ∆tev
ccos φ =
(
1 − v
ccos φ
)
∆te (7.1)
Observed distance traveled in plane of sky:
∆`⊥ = v∆te sinφ (7.2)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–36
Microquasars 5
Microquasars, V
t 1
t 0
φ
Apparent velocity deduced from observations:
vapp =∆`⊥∆to
=v∆te sinφ
(
1 − vc cosφ
)
∆te
=v sin φ
(
1 − vc cos φ
) (7.3)
=⇒ For v/c large and φ small: vapp > c
previously only seen in Active Galaxies (“Quasars”) =⇒ Microquasars
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–37
Microquasars 6
Microquasars, VI
0 45 90 135 18000φ [deg]
0
2
4
6
8
v app
/c
β=0.500β=0.900β=0.990
Superluminal motion: Microquasars have jet speeds close to c
Jun 19.60 Jun 19.67
2
4
6
8
Time (Seconds)0 1000 2000 3000
Time (Seconds)0 1000 2000 3000
May 26.73 May 26.79
2468
10
Apr 29.84 Apr 29.91
2
3
Apr 20.57 Apr 20.64
2
3
4
5
Apr 17.57 Apr 17.63
2
3
4
5
Apr 09.70 Apr 09.77
2
4
6
Apr 06.23 Apr 06.36
2
4
6
8
GRS 1915+105,
RXTE/PCA, 2–60 keV, 1 s
resolution lightcurves
Brightness Sputters,
Large-Amplitude
Oscillations
=⇒Microquasars show
very complex short
term variability in the
X-rays!
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–39
Radio–X-ray Correlation revisited 1
Har
d−ne
ss
42−
60 k
eV r
ate
[10
cps
]
80
60
40
20
0.15
0.008.0 8.2 8.4 8.6
Time [UT, h]
0
1
2
3
4
Flu
x de
nsity
[mJy
]
1997 Sept 09
(GRS 1915+105; after Mirabel et al., 1998)
Microquasars allow study of
dynamics of jet formationWorks much better than in AGN because ofshorter timescales involved.
Flaring episodes: clear
radio–X-ray relationship
=⇒ “disk-jet-connection”
(cf. Mirabel & Rodríguez, 1994;Pooley & Fender, 1997; Eikenberry et al.,1998; Klein-Wolt et al., 2002;Fender & Belloni, 2004;Rothstein, Eikenberry & Matthews,2005. . . )
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–40
Radio–X-ray Correlation revisited 2
0
20
40
60
80
Ryl
e flu
x [m
Jy]
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
PC
A R
ate [cps/PC
U]
3 42005 April 16
3476.63 3476.64 3476.65 3476.66 3476.67JD−2450000
(Cyg X-1, 2005 April 16; Wilms et al., 2007, Ryle: 15 GHz, PCA: 2–60 keV)
Correlated radio–X-ray flaring also seen in “normal” black holes.
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–41
Radio–X-ray Correlation revisited 3
F
E
BH
Short-term radio–X-ray
correlations can be
explained with the
synchrotron bubble model
(van der Laan, 1966;
Hjellming & Johnston, 1988)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–41
Radio–X-ray Correlation revisited 4
F
E
F
E
BH
Short-term radio–X-ray
correlations can be
explained with the
synchrotron bubble model
(van der Laan, 1966;
Hjellming & Johnston, 1988)
Gallo et al. (2005):
Interaction of jet with
interstellar medium:
galactic black hole jets
can be comparable in
power to their X-ray
luminosity.
Russell et al. (2007)For Cyg X-1, Ljet = 0.3 . . . 1.0 LX.
(Maccarone & Koerding, 2006, Figure by D. Russell)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–43
Radio–X-ray Correlation revisited 6
X-rays: Jet Models?
3−9k
eV F
lux
(10
c
gs)
−10
lg 8.6 GHz Flux [mJy]
1
0
−1
−2
0 1−1
(Markoff & Nowak, 2004) (Markoff et al., 2003)
Synchrotron+SSC from a jet can explain observed long-term correlations
between radio and X-rays
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–44
Radio–X-ray Correlation revisited 7
X-rays: Jet Models?
14 2018161210
−2
0
+2
−4
Total spectrum
Outer jet syn.Jet base syn.diskbb
SSC / EC
GX 339−4
(Markoff, Nowak & Wilms, 2005)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–45
Radio–X-ray Correlation revisited 8
X-rays: Jet Models?
(Markoff, Nowak & Wilms, 2005)
Fit of synchrotron radio jet
model gives χ2 comparable
to Comptonization
(χ2red = 1.17).
X-rays mainly due to synchrotronself-Compton radiation from fairly largejet base (10–15 rg).
Systematics caused by ionisation orsmearing of reflection hump?
Is the Compton corona the base of the jet?
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–45
Radio–X-ray Correlation revisited 9
X-rays: Jet Models?
(Markoff, Nowak & Wilms, 2005)
Fit of synchrotron radio jet
model gives χ2 comparable
to Comptonization
(χ2red = 1.17).
X-rays mainly due to synchrotronself-Compton radiation from fairly largejet base (10–15 rg).
Systematics caused by ionisation orsmearing of reflection hump?
Is the Compton corona the base of the jet?
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–46
Timing 1
Timing: PSDs, I
10−4
10−3
10−2
Cyg X−1
Frequency [Hz]
f ×
PS
D [(
rms/
mea
n) ]
σ
−2
2
−2 −1 0 1 210101010 10
2
(Pottschmidt et al., 2003b)
Power spectrum in the hard
state can be well described
as superposition of broad
Lorentzians.
(Nowak, 2000)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–47
Timing 2
Timing: PSDs, II
0 2 4 6 8 10 12νpeak;1,2,3 [Hz]
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
Γ
(Pottschmidt et al., 2000)
Peak frequencies are strongly
correlated with spectral shape:
Does timing imply a simple
disk with a varying radius?
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–48
Timing 3
Timing: PSDs: Energy Dependence, I
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000Frequency (Hz)
10
10
10
10
10
/Hz
RM
S2
−1
−2
−3
−4
−5 RMS (0−3.9 keV) = 30%
(Nowak et al., 1999a)
PSD is energy dependent: softer bands: higher rms at low frequencies.
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–48
Timing 4
Timing: PSDs: Energy Dependence, II
RMS (14.1−45 keV) = 26%
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000Frequency (Hz)
10
10
10
10
10
/Hz
RM
S2
−1
−2
−3
−4
−5 RMS (0−3.9 keV) = 30%
(Nowak et al., 1999a)
PSD is energy dependent: softer bands: higher rms at low frequencies.
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–49
Timing 5
Timing: PSDs: Energy Dependence, III
Energy [keV]2 10 70
0.30
0.25
[rm
s/m
ean]
R
0.20
0.15
1
hard state
Amplitude of individual
Lorentzians is energy and
state dependent
(Pottschmidt et al., 2003b)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–49
Timing 6
Timing: PSDs: Energy Dependence, IV
Energy [keV]2 10 70
0.30
0.25
[rm
s/m
ean]
R
0.20
0.15
1
hard state
intermediate state
Amplitude of individual
Lorentzians is energy and
state dependent
(Pottschmidt et al., 2003b)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–50
Timing 7
Timing: PSDs: Transitions, I
10-3
10-2
0
40
80
May Jun Jul
1998
0
40
80
Nov Dec Jan
1999
f ×
PSD
[(r
ms/
mea
n)2 ]
f ×
PSD
[(r
ms/
mea
n)2 ]
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]10-2 10-1 10 0 10 1 10 2
10-3
10-2
0
40
80
Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000
10-2 10-1 10 0 10 1 10 2
0
40
80
Jan Feb Mar
2001
PSD shows dramatic
changes during failed
state transitions.
(Pottschmidt et al., 2003b)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–51
Timing 8
Timing: PSDs: Transitions, II
0
40
80
Nov Dec Jan
0
40
80
MarFebJan
10−2 100 102101f x
PS
D [(
rms/
mea
n)
]2
10−2
10−2
10−3
10−3
10−1
2001
1999
Frequency [Hz]
"Filter"
"Response""Source"
(Psaltis & Norman, 2001; Nowak et al., 1999b; Miyamoto & Kitamoto, 1989)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–52
Timing 9
Timing: Lags
0.100
0.010
0.001
0.1 1.0 10.0 100Frequency (Hz)
Lag
(se
c.)
tK
tD
tFF
tSC
tLC
Miyamoto & Kitamoto
(1989): Hard X-rays
lag soft X-rays
Lag has strong
dependence on
Fourier frequency:
inconsistent with
simple variability
models.
(Nowak et al., 1999b, lines show typical timescales based on coronal radius of 50GM/c2 for
M = 10 M)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–53
Timing 10
Timing: Lags
1.0 10.0 100
0.001
0.010
0.100
Lag
(se
c.)
Frequency (Hz)0.1
Possible explanation
for X-ray lags:
• Nowak et al.
(1999b): wave
propagation in
accretion disk
See alsoManmoto et al.(1996)
• Körding & Falcke
(2004): pivoting
power law spectra
plus Lorentzian
PSDs
(Nowak et al., 1999b, solid: time lag for cp = 0.01c, dashed: cp = 0.1c)
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–54
Timing 11
Timing: Lags
0.1 1.0 10.0Frequency [Hz]
10-3
10-2
10-1
Tim
e L
ag [
sec]
(a) :1996 May 29
hard to soft
:1998 Jul 15 "failed trans."
:1996 Dec 16 hard
0.1 1.0 10.0Frequency [Hz]
(b) :1996 Jun 15
soft
:1996 Dec 16 hard
(Pottschmidt et al., 2000)
• Lags are variable:
“shelves” consistent with
Lorentzians!
• Lags change during
transitions
=⇒ changing geometry?
• Soft state and hard state
lag ∼similar.
contradicts geometry change?
I
EF
CO
DRI
L
A I
N
RDNXA
EA
ESII
C
M
LMV
A
AI
AD
R
E
L G
E
7–55
Timing 12
Timing: Lags
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
ASM
Cou
nt R
ate
[cps
]
0
5
10
15
20
25
Mea
n T
ime
Lag
[m
s]
M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M1996 1997 1998
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900JD-2450000
Mean Time Lag:(<4.0 keV) vs (∼8-13 keV)3.2-10.0 Hz
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
ASM
Cou
nt R
ate
[cps
]
0
5
10
15
20
25
Mea
n T
ime
Lag
[m
s]
N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F1997 1998 1999
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500JD-2450000
(Pottschmidt et al., 2000)
Enhanced lag during
(failed) transitions
=⇒ Extremely sharp
transition indicator!
Also true in other BHC (e.g.,Kalemci et al., 2001, 2003, 2005)
7–55
Bałucinska-Church, M., & Church, M. J., 2000, MNRAS, 312, L55
Belloni, T., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1113
Corbel, S., Nowak, M. A., Fender, R. P., Tzioumis, A. K., & Markoff, S., 2003, A&A, 400, 1007
Eikenberry, S. S., Matthews, K., Morgan, E. H., Remillard, R. A., & Nelson, R. W., 1998, ApJ, 494, L61
Falcke, H., Körding, E., & Markoff, S., 2004, A&A, 414, 895
Fender, R., & Belloni, T., 2004, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 42, 317
Fender, R. P., Belloni, T. M., & Gallo, E., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1105
Fritz, S., Wilms, J., Kendziorra, E., et al., 2007, A&A, in preparation
Fritz, S., Wilms, J., Pottschmidt, K., Nowak, M. A., Kendziorra, E., Kirsch, M., Kreykenbohm, I., & Santangelo, A., 2006, in The 6th Integral Workshop: The ObscuredUniverse, ed. R. Sunyaev, S. Grebenev, C. Winkler, (Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division), in press
Gallo, E., 2007, Jets from the faintest black holes
Gallo, E., Fender, R., Kaiser, C., Russell, D., Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T., & Heinz, S., 2005, Nature, 436, 819
Gallo, E., Fender, R. P., & Pooley, G. G., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 60
Hannikainen, D. C., Hunstead, R. W., Campbell-Wilson, D., & Sood, R. K., 1998, A&A, 337, 460
Heinz, S., & Sunyaev, R. A., 2003, MNRAS, 343, L59
Hjellming, R. M., & Johnston, K. J., 1988, ApJ, 328, 600
Kalemci, E., Tomsick, J. A., Buxton, M. M., Rothschild, R. E., Pottschmidt, K., Corbel, S., Brocksopp, C., & Kaaret, P., 2005, ApJ, 622, 508
Kalemci, E., Tomsick, J. A., Rothschild, R. E., Pottschmidt, K., Corbel, S., Wijnands, R., Miller, J. M., & Kaaret, P., 2003, ApJ, 586, 419
Kalemci, E., Tomsick, J. A., Rothschild, R. E., Pottschmidt, K., & Kaaret, P., 2001, ApJ, 563, 239
Klein-Wolt, M., Fender, R. P., Pooley, G. G., Belloni, T., Migliari, S., Morgan, E. H., & van der Klis, M., 2002, MNRAS, 331, 745
Körding, E., & Falcke, H., 2004, A&A, 414, 795
7–55
Maccarone, T., & Koerding, E., 2006, Astronomy and Geophysics, 47(6), 29
Manmoto, T., Takeuchi, M., Mineshige, S., Matsumoto, R., & Negoro, H., 1996, ApJ, 464, L135
Markoff, S., Nowak, M., Corbel, S., Fender, R., & Falcke, H., 2003, A&A, 397, 645
Markoff, S., & Nowak, M. A., 2004, ApJ, 609, 972
Markoff, S., Nowak, M. A., & Wilms, J., 2005, ApJ, 635, 1203
Merloni, A., Heinz, S., & di Matteo, T., 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057
Miller, J., 2007, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., in press
Miller, J. M., et al., 2004, ApJ, 606, L131
Miller, J. M., et al., 2002, ApJ, 578, 348
Miller, J. M., et al., 2002, ApJ, 570, L69
Mirabel, I. F., Dhawan, V., Chaty, S., Rodríguez, L. F., Martí, J., Robinson, C. R., Swank, J., & Geballe, T. R., 1998, A&A, 330, L9
Mirabel, I. F., & Rodríguez, L. F., 1994, Nature, 371, 46
Miyamoto, S., & Kitamoto, S., 1989, Nature, 342, 773
Nowak, M. A., 2000, MNRAS, 318, 361
Nowak, M. A., Vaughan, B. A., Wilms, J., Dove, J. B., & Begelman, M. C., 1999a, ApJ, 510, 874
Nowak, M. A., Wilms, J., & Dove, J. B., 2002, MNRAS, 332, 856
Nowak, M. A., Wilms, J., Heinz, S., Pooley, G., Pottschmidt, K., & Corbel, S., 2005, ApJ, 626, 1006
Nowak, M. A., Wilms, J., Vaughan, B. A., Dove, J. B., & Begelman, M. C., 1999b, ApJ, 515, 726
Pooley, G. G., & Fender, R. P., 1997, MNRAS, 292, 925
Pottschmidt, K., et al., 2003a, A&A, 411, L383
Pottschmidt, K., Wilms, J., Nowak, M. A., Heindl, W. A., Smith, D. M., & Staubert, R., 2000, A&A, 357, L17
7–55
Pottschmidt, K., et al., 2003b, A&A, 407, 1039
Psaltis, D., & Norman, C., 2001, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0001391)
Rothstein, D. M., Eikenberry, S. S., & Matthews, K., 2005, ApJ, 626, 991
Russell, D. M., Fender, R. P., Gallo, E., & Kaiser, C. R., 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1341
Sunyaev, R. A., & Trümper, J., 1979, Nature, 279, 506
van der Laan, H., 1966, Nature, 211, 1131
Wilms, J., Kendziorra, E., Nowak, M. A., Pottschmidt, K., Haberl, F., Kirsch, M., & Fritz, S., 2006a, in Proc. X-ray Universe 2005, ed. A. Wilson, (Noordwijk: ESA PublicationsDivision), 217
Wilms, J., Nowak, M. A., Pottschmidt, K., et al., 2006b, A&A, 447, 245
Wilms, J., Nowak, M. A., Pottschmidt, K., Heindl, W. A., Dove, J. B., & Begelman, M. C., 2001, MNRAS, 320, 327
Wilms, J., Pottschmidt, K., Pooley, G. G., Nowak, M. A., Markoff, S., & Kreykenbohm, I., 2007, ApJ, submitted
Xue, Y. Q., & Cui, W., 2007, A&A, 466, 1053
I
EF
CO
DR
I
L
AI
N
RDNXAEA
ESI
I
C
M LMVA
AI
AD
R
E
LGE
8–1
XR
BE
volu
tion
Top Related