Paper detail

Confronting the models of 3:2 quasiperiodic oscillations with the rapid spin of the microquasar GRS 1915+105

Spectral fitting of the spin a in the microquasar GRS 1915+105 estimate values higher than a=0.98. However, there are certain doubts about this (nearly) extremal number. Confirming a high value of a>0.9 would have significant concequences for the theory of high-frequency quasiperiodic oscillations (HF QPOs). Here we discuss its possible implications assuming several commonly used orbital models of 3:2 HF QPOs. We show that the estimate of a>0.9 is almost inconsistent with two hot-spot (relativistic precession and tidal disruption) models and the warped disc resonance model. In contrast, we demonstrate that the epicyclic resonance and discoseismic models assuming the c- and g- modes are favoured. We extend our discussion to another two microquasars that display the 3:2 HF QPOs. The frequencies of these QPOs scale roughly inversely to the microquasar masses, and the differences in the individual spins, such as a=0.9 compared to a=0.7, represent a generic problem for most of the discussed geodesic 3:2 QPO models. To explain the observations of all the three microquasars by one unique mechanism, the models would have to accommodate very large non-geodesic corrections.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.