Paper detail

ULXs: Neutron Stars vs Black Holes

We consider ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) where the accretor is a neutron star rather than a black hole. We show that the recently-discovered example (M82 X-2) fits naturally into the simple picture of ULXs as beamed X-ray sources fed at super-Eddington rates, provided that its magnetic field is weaker ($\simeq 10^{11}{\rm G}$) than a new-born X-ray pulsar, as expected if there has been mass gain. Continuing accretion is likely to weaken the field to the point that pulsing stops, and make the system indistinguishable from a ULX containing a black hole. Accordingly we suggest that a significant fraction of all ULXs may actually contain neutron star accretors rather than black holes, reflecting the neutron-star fraction among their X-ray binary progenitors. We emphasize that neutron-star ULXs are likely to have {\it higher} apparent luminosities than black hole ULXs for a given mass transfer rate, as their tighter beaming outweighs their lower Eddington luminosities. This further increases the likely proportion of neutron-star accretors among all ULXs. Cygnus X-2 is probably a typical descendant of neutron-star ULXs, which may therefore ultimately end as millisecond pulsar binaries with massive white dwarf companions.

preprint2016arXivOpen 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.