Paper detail

A systematic study of the advection-dominated accretion flow for the origin of the X-ray emission in weakly magnetized low-level accreting neutron star

Observationally, the X-ray spectrum ($0.5-10$ keV) of low-level accreting neutron stars (NSs) can generally be well fitted by the model with two components, i.e, a thermal soft X-ray component plus a power-law component. Meanwhile, the fractional contribution of the power-law luminosity $η$ ($η\equiv L^{\rm power\ law}_{\rm 0.5-10\rm keV}/L_{\rm 0.5-10\rm keV}$) varies with the X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm 0.5-10\rm keV}$. In this paper, we systematically investigate the origin of such X-ray emission within the framework of the advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF) around a weakly magnetized NS, in which the thermal soft X-ray component arises from the surface of the NS and the power-law component arises from the ADAF itself. We test the effects of the viscosity parameter $α$ in the ADAF and thermalized parameter $f_{\rm th}$ (describing the fraction of the ADAF energy released at the surface of the NS as thermal emission) on the relation of $η$ versus $L_{\rm 0.5-10\rm keV}$. It is found that $η$ is nearly a constant ($\sim$ zero) with $L_{\rm 0.5-10\rm keV}$ for different $α$ with $f_{\rm th}=1$, which is inconsistent with observations. Meanwhile, it is found that a change of $f_{\rm th}$ can significantly change the relation of $η$ versus $L_{\rm 0.5-10\rm keV}$. By comparing with a sample of non-pulsating NS-LMXBs probably dominated by low-level accretion onto NSs, it is found that a small value of $f_{\rm th} \lesssim 0.1$ is needed to match the observed range of $η\gtrsim 10\%$ in the diagram of $η$ versus $L_{\rm 0.5-10\rm keV}$. Finally, we argue that the small value of $f_{\rm th} \lesssim 0.1$ implies that the radiative efficiency of NSs with an ADAF accretion may not be as high as the predicted result previously of $ε\sim {\dot M GM\over R_{*}}/{\dot M c^2}\sim 0.2$ despite the existence of the hard surface.

preprint2019arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.