Paper detail

Revisiting the Dynamical Case for a Massive Black Hole in IC10 X-1

The relative phasing of the X-ray eclipse ephemeris and optical radial velocity (RV) curve for the X-ray binary IC10 X-1 suggests the He[$λ$4686] emission-line originates in a shadowed sector of the stellar wind that avoids ionization by X-rays from the compact object. The line attains maximum blueshift when the wind is directly toward us at mid X-ray eclipse, as is also seen in Cygnus X-3. If the RV curve is unrelated to stellar motion, evidence for a massive black hole evaporates because the mass function of the binary is unknown. The reported X-ray luminosity, spectrum, slow QPO, and broad eclipses caused by absorption/scattering in the WR wind are all consistent with either a low-stellar-mass BH or a NS. For a NS, the centre of mass lies inside the WR envelope whose motion is then far below the observed 370 km/s RV amplitude, while the velocity of the compact object is as high as 600 km/s. The resulting 0.4\% doppler variation of X-ray spectral lines could be confirmed by missions in development. These arguments also apply to other putative BH binaries whose RV and eclipse curves are not yet phase-connected. Theories of BH formation and predicted rates of gravitational wave sources may need revision.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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.