Paper detail

The Nature of ULX Source M101 X-1: Optically Thick Outflow from A Stellar Mass Black Hole

The nature of ultra-luminous X-ray sources (ULXs) has long been plagued by an ambiguity about whether the central compact objects are intermediate-mass (IMBH, >~ 10^3 M_sun) or stellar-mass (a few tens M_sun) black holes (BHs). The high luminosity (~ 10^39 erg/s) and super-soft spectrum (T ~ 0.1 keV) during the high state of the ULX source X-1 in the galaxy M101 suggest a large emission radius (>~ 10^9 cm), consistent with being an IMBH accreting at a sub-Eddington rate. However, recent kinematic measurement of the binary orbit of this source and identification of the secondary as a Wolf-Rayet star suggest a stellar-mass BH primary with a super-Eddington accretion. If that is the case, a hot, optically thick outflow from the BH can account for the large emission radius and the soft spectrum. By considering the interplay of photons' absorption and scattering opacities, we determine the radius and mass density of the emission region of the outflow and constrain the outflow mass loss rate. The analysis presented here can be potentially applied to other ULXs with thermally dominated spectra, and to other super-Eddington accreting sources.

preprint2014arXivOpen 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.