1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Detailed Atmosphere Model Fits to Disk-Dominated ULX Spectra}
8:
9: \author
10: {Yawei Hui, Julian H. Krolik} \affil{Department of Physics and
11: Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218;
12: \\ ywhui@pha.jhu.edu, jhk@pha.jhu.edu}
13:
14: \begin{abstract}
15: We have chosen 6 Ultra-Luminous X-ray sources from the {\it XMM-Newton}
16: archive whose spectra have high signal-to-noise and can be fitted solely
17: with a disk model without requiring any power-law component. To estimate
18: systematic errors in the inferred parameters, we fit every spectrum to two
19: different disk models, one based on local blackbody emission (KERRBB) and one
20: based on detailed atmosphere modelling (BHSPEC). Both incorporate full
21: general relativistic treatment of the disk surface brightness profile,
22: photon Doppler shifts, and photon trajectories. We found in every case that
23: they give almost identical fits and similar acceptable parameters. The
24: best-fit value of the most interesting parameter, the mass of the central
25: object, is between 23 and 73~M$_\sun$ in 5 of the 6 examples. In every
26: case, the best-fit inclination angle and mass are correlated, in the sense
27: that large mass corresponds to high inclination. Even after allowing for
28: this degeneracy, we find that, with $\gtrsim 99.9\%$ formal statistical confidence,
29: 3 of the 6 objects have mass $\gtrsim 25~M_\sun$; for the other 3, these
30: data are consistent with a wide range of masses. A mass
31: greater than several hundred $M_\sun$ is unlikely for the 3 best-constrained
32: objects. These fits also suggest
33: comparatively rapid black hole spin in the 3 objects whose masses are relatively
34: well-determined, but our estimate of the spin is subject to significant
35: systematic error having to do with uncertainty in the underlying surface
36: brightness profile.
37: \end{abstract}
38:
39: \keywords{black hole physics -- accretion disk -- IMBH -- X-ray}
40:
41: \section{Introduction\label{sec:intro}}
42:
43: Nearly two decades since their first unveiling in the X-ray sky
44: \citep[][]{fabbiano1987},
45: Ultra-Luminous X-ray sources (ULXs) still remain puzzles. The X-ray
46: luminosities of these off-galaxy-center point
47: sources fall in the range $10^{39}$ -- $10^{41}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ in the
48: 2 -- 10~keV band, at least an order of
49: magnitude larger than those of Galactic X-ray Binaries (GXB) and several
50: orders of magnitude smaller than those of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN). If
51: ULXs are accreting black hole systems that observe the Eddington limit
52: ($L_E=1.3\times10^{38}$~erg~s$^{-1}$), the central black holes must have
53: masses from a few tens to a few thousands of solar masses, i.e. they must be
54: intermediate mass black holes (IMBH). Some evidence has been found
55: in support of this view \citep[see][]{colbert1999,miller2002,miller2003}.
56: But it is also possible that ULXs' masses are smaller than the Eddington
57: limit suggests. They might be stellar mass black holes whose radiation is
58: beamed in the observed direction \citep{king2001} or which are accreting at
59: super-Eddington rates \citep{begelman2002,begelman2006,stern2006}. The only
60: way to distinguish between these scenarios is to measure the central masses
61: of ULXs as accurately as possible.
62:
63: The most reliable way to measure the masses of the stars in a binary is to
64: observe their orbital motions. Unfortunately, this method does not work
65: in the context of ULXs. Because there are so far no clearly identified
66: spectral lines in ULXs' spectra, the common technique used in spectroscopic
67: binaries cannot be applied. Temporal variability is another approach.
68: After comparing the Fourier power spectra of GXBs and AGNs, some researchers
69: (e.g.~\citet{mchardy2006}) have concluded that the characteristic timescales
70: of accreting black holes are proportional to their central objects' masses.
71: If ULXs are extragalactic analogs to the GXB
72: systems in our galaxy, similar correlations between quasi-periodic
73: oscillation (QPO) frequencies and mass may be used to estimate ULX
74: masses. These correlations have been established successfully for several
75: ULXs, for example, M82~X1 \citep{strohmayer2003} and NGC~5408~X1
76: \citep {strohmayer2007}. The discovery of the QPO in NGC~5408~X1 led to an
77: estimated ULX mass of 1500 -- 3500~M$_\sun$. However, these works treated
78: a limited number of ULXs and it is not guaranteed that QPOs can be found
79: in a large sample of ULXs. Even if there is a QPO identified in the power
80: spectrum of a ULX, the mass inferred through this method is highly dependent
81: on the ``calibration standard'' and may be quite uncertain
82: \citep[see, for example][]{strohmayer2007}.
83:
84: Another method for inferring the central mass is spectral fitting
85: \citep{vierdayanti2006,winter2006,winter2007}. To fit a ULX spectrum,
86: various models and/or model combinations can be exploited. In practice,
87: ULXs' spectra are usually modelled by a combination of a thermal disk component
88: and a power-law \citep{miller2003,miller2004,roberts2004}). In this combination,
89: the thermal disk component covers the soft X-ray (0.3 -- 1 or 2 keV) range of the
90: spectrum while the power-law takes care of the hard tail (1 -- 10 keV and
91: above). Because the spectrum of soft X-ray radiation from the accretion disk
92: is dependent on the central mass, but there is no clear relation between the
93: hard tail of the spectrum and the central mass, we define our sample to
94: include exclusively those ULXs with only
95: thermal disk components in their spectra. In this way, we can
96: focus purely on the component of the system --- the thermal accretion disk
97: --- with the tightest connection to the central object's mass, as well as the other
98: key accretion parameters: spin, accretion rate and inclination angle.
99:
100: There are many thermal disk models that have been used in this way.
101: In Xspec11, for instance, there are DISKBB, DISKPN, GRAD, KERRBB.
102: These models share more or less the same core --- the multi-color disk
103: (MCD) approximation \citep{mitsuda1984,makishima1986,shimura1995}.
104: In this approximation, one assumes that the disk emission is a sum of a
105: series of local blackbody spectra with effective temperatures defined by the
106: standard disk model but modified by a hardening factor. The version
107: we employ here is KERRBB, which also incorporates general relativistic
108: effects. Even though the
109: MCD approximation works well in the case of GXB \citep{davis2005}, in
110: this paper, we also fit the data to a model
111: in which a detailed stellar atmosphere is computed for each disk annulus.
112: Our reason to do so is that earlier work \citep{hui2005} has shown that
113: the spectral shape, especially around the peak energy, can be altered
114: by atomic features when the central mass is larger than typical stellar
115: masses ($>$~100~M$_\sun$). This model (which also fully includes general
116: relativistic effects) has been compiled to an easy-to-use
117: table model in Xspec11 (BHSPEC: \citet{davis2006}); we modified
118: it and extended its parameter space to cover a wider range of
119: central masses (see \S~4 for details).
120:
121: In \S~2 we describe the sample selection criteria and in \S~3 the data
122: reduction procedure. The disk model
123: BHSPEC is briefly discussed, and specific fitting results for each object
124: are presented in \S~4. For comparison, previous work on the objects in
125: our sample is briefly described in \S~5. We discuss our results in \S~6
126: and draw conclusions in \S~7.
127:
128: \section{Sample selection --- disk dominated ULXs}\label{sec:sample_data}
129:
130: Our sample was drawn from the {\it XMM-Newton} public data archive.
131: We began with the object lists compiled by Winter et.~al. (see Table 6 in
132: \citet{winter2006} and Table 1 in \citet{winter2007}). For their
133: sample, Winter et~al. chose objects observed for at least 10~ks and with
134: distance less than 8~Mpc. These criteria guaranteed a minimum of 400 counts
135: for objects with $L_X>2 \times10^{38}$~erg~s$^{-1}$. To focus on ULX
136: candidates, they also removed all objects with spectra distinctly different
137: (e.g., resembling supernova remnants) and all objects located at the
138: centers of their host galaxies (to eliminate AGN). We chose those ULX
139: candidates with $>$~1000 counts in order to guarantee good signal-to-noise in
140: the reduced spectra. Then, in order to retain as much as possible of the
141: soft X-ray emission from the accretion disk, we excluded those objects with
142: neutral hydrogen column density in the line of sight larger than
143: $10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$ as determined by Winter et~al. (see Table 4 in
144: \citet{winter2006} and Table 2 in \citet{winter2007}), except for
145: Circinus~X1 and X2, which have slightly higher values. There are 23 objects meeting
146: these criteria.
147:
148: We then used the latest version (7.0) of the {\it XMM-Newton} Science
149: Analysis System (SAS) and calibration (up to date as of Jan. 2007) to reprocess
150: the data and obtain the event files. After
151: applying proper filters (see \S~3 for details), source and
152: background spectra for each of these objects were
153: created and fitted by the ``disk+powlaw'' combination in Xspec11.
154: Specifically, we used a photoelectric absorption model (phabs) to
155: account for the opacity in the interstellar medium and the thermal disk model
156: BHSPEC (a detailed disk model discussed later in this paper) plus a
157: power-law component. To decide which model component (disk or powlaw)
158: dominates the spectral output, we computed the integrated counts
159: from both components and defined the spectrum to be dominated by one or the
160: other when one component contributes more than 70\% of the total counts.
161: There are 11 powlaw-dominated spectra, 6 disk+powlaw spectra,
162: and only 6 objects (see Table~\ref{tb-diskULXs}) having
163: disk-dominated spectra. In other words, we can use the disk
164: model alone to fit those 6 disk-dominated spectra. In these objects, a non-zero
165: power-law contribution at best marginally improves the quality of the fit
166: and sometimes even harms it.
167:
168: \section{Data reduction}\label{sec:reduction}
169: We used the latest version (7.0) of SAS and the up-to-date calibration
170: (Jan. 2007) to reprocess the Observation Data Files (ODF). Commands
171: ``emchain'' (for EPIC-MOS) and ``epchain'' (for EPIC-PN) in SAS 7.0 were used
172: to get the new processed pipeline
173: products (PPS) which include the photon event files. Standard
174: data filter procedures were followed according to the instructions in the
175: {\it XMM-Newton} ABC guide. Good events were required to satisfy the
176: following conditions: 1) for the MOS
177: (both MOS1 and MOS2) detectors, the event pattern is in the 0 to 12 range
178: (single, double, triple, and quadruple pixel events) and the pulse height is
179: in the range of 0.2 -- 12 keV; 2) for the PN detector, the event pattern is in
180: the 0 to 4 range (single and double pixel events) and the pulse height is in
181: the range of 0.2 -- 15 keV. The \#XMMEA\_EM (for the MOS) filter and \#XMMEA\_EP
182: (for the PN) filter were also applied together with a ``FLAG==0'' filter to
183: kick out any bad or close-to-edge events captured by the CCDs. The light curve
184: for each observation was produced with the SAS command `evselect'' to decide a
185: proper time filtering
186: threshold in order to reduce the influence from high rate flaring. For
187: the MOS detectors, the good time intervals were selected by setting the
188: rate to less than 5~cts~s$^{-1}$ (sometimes a little bit higher); for the
189: PN detector, the threshold varies from 25 to 60~cts~s$^{-1}$.
190:
191: After obtaining the filtered event files, source and background spectra were
192: extracted by using the SAS procedure ``especget''. For the sources, circular
193: regions with radii of 20
194: arcseconds ($\pm10$ according to the size of the sources and closeness to
195: other sources or detector edges) were applied in the spectra extraction. For the
196: background, a nearby circular region close to but without overlap on the
197: source's region was used, with radius double the size of its corresponding
198: source. SAS procedures ``rmfgen'' and ``arfgen'' were used to generate the
199: response matrix files (RMF) and ancillary response files (ARF). Finally, we
200: used the command in HEASOFT 6.1 --- ``grppha'' --- to regroup the spectra so that
201: there are at least 20 photon counts in every spectral bin.
202:
203: \section{Model description and fitting results }\label{sec:model_fit}
204:
205: \subsection{BHSPEC vs KERRBB}\label{subsec:model}
206: We fitted the selected spectra with both BHSPEC (a detailed atmosphere
207: calculation) and KERRBB (a MCD model). For details
208: of KERRBB, see \citet{li2005} and the Xspec11 manual; the only significant
209: choice we made was to set the dilution factor to 1.7. BHSPEC is
210: based on an atmosphere model of a standard $\alpha-$disk \citep{shakura1973}
211: where each ring is treated in hydrostatic equilibrium and energy balance.
212: The stress parameter $\alpha$ is chosen to be 0.01 so that all disk
213: annuli are optically thick. The radiation intensity is computed as a
214: function of both frequency and position by means of a full radiation transfer
215: solution. Continuum opacities due to free electrons, H, He, C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S,
216: Ar, Ca, Fe and Ni, with the abundances given by \citet{anders1989} are
217: calculated on the basis of explicit ionization balance calculations and
218: statistical equilibrium of the most populated internal states. Photon-electron
219: energy exchange by Comptonization is also included in the transfer solution.
220: General relativity effects in photon propagation are taken
221: into account: radiation is boosted and beamed, and its trajectories ``bent''
222: in the general relativistic potential before it
223: reaches infinity \citep{agol1997}. For further details, see \citet{hui2005}.
224:
225: In the work of \citet{davis2006}, disks with many black hole masses, spins,
226: accretion rates, and inclination angles were modelled, and the spectra obtained
227: were compiled into the Xspec11 table model BHSPEC.
228: For this project, we extended the parameter space considered by Davis and
229: Hubeny to include disks around black holes with masses in the range of 10 --
230: 10$^4$~M$_\sun$. Because the internal consistency of disk
231: models becomes dubious when the luminosity approaches or exceeds the
232: Eddington luminosity, we included no models with $L/L_E > 1$. When
233: we speak of lower bounds on the mass based on BHSPEC-fitting, we
234: therefore always mean that this bound is subject to the constraint of
235: being consistent with a disk model, i.e.,
236: keeping the luminosity sub-Eddington. It should be borne in mind,
237: however, that some significant flexibility nonetheless remains at the low-mass
238: end of parameter space because altering the inclination angle or the
239: black hole rotation rate could keep the luminosity in our direction at
240: the level required by the measurements even while the luminosity in other
241: directions is diminished in order to satisfy the sub-Eddington constraint.
242: We did not so restrict KERRBB, so any super-Eddington fits it produces must
243: be regarded as extremely suspect because the underlying model would then
244: be inappropriate. For technical reasons, we limited the range of spins
245: considered by BHSPEC to $0 \leq a/M \leq 0.997$ and by KERRBB to
246: $-0.999 \leq a/M \leq 0.999$.
247:
248: \subsection{Fitting results}\label{subsec:fit_results}
249: The fitting results for the objects in our sample are shown in
250: Table~\ref{tb-fitResults}. Each object is given two rows. The first row, with
251: the object's name, describes the fit with BHSPEC; the second row shows
252: the result from KERRBB. In BHSPEC, the normalization is fixed at a
253: value corresponding to the best estimate for that object's distance
254: (tabulated in Table~\ref{tb-diskULXs}). All other parameters, i.e.,
255: the equivalent hydrogen column density of photoelectric absorption, the black
256: hole mass and spin, the
257: accretion rate, and the disk viewing angle are set free to vary. In KERRBB,
258: the parameter ``distance'' is fixed to the same value as in BHSPEC for each
259: object and the normalization is set to 1.0. KERRBB also offers several other
260: parameters. We freeze ``eta'' to zero (the zero torque inner boundary condition),
261: ``hd'' to 1.7 (common diluted black body spectrum), ``rflag'' to $-$1.0
262: (self-irradiation is off), and ``lflag'' to 1.0 (limb-darkening is on).
263:
264: The best-fit values and their uncertainties are shown in
265: Table~\ref{tb-fitResults}. All are statistically acceptable, and in each case the
266: BHSPEC least $\chi^2$ is slightly smaller than the KERRBB value. All
267: one-parameter uncertainties were computed with
268: $\Delta\chi^2=2.706$, equivalent to 90\% confidence for a single parameter.
269: For the BHSPEC fits, besides the best values, we also calculated the ratio
270: of the observed luminosity ($E=0.3$ -- $10$ keV, except for Circinus~X2
271: MOS1, in which case the integration is limited in $E=0.55$ -- $10$ keV)
272: to the computed total intrinsic luminosity ($E=0$ -- $\infty$ keV) emitted
273: in our direction; these are shown in the last column
274: of Table~\ref{tb-fitResults}. The fact that all these ratios are close
275: to unity demonstrates that the {\it XMM-Newton} energy band contains
276: nearly all the light our models suggest is being radiated.
277:
278: In the case of KERRBB, the spectral fitting gives the accretion rate in the
279: form of $\dot{M}$ instead of the
280: dimensionless $L/L_E$. We used the following formula to translate between
281: those two definitions, assuming that the radiative efficiency, $\eta$, is
282: the standard function of $a/M$ \citep{novikov1973}.
283: \begin{displaymath}
284: \frac{L}{L_E}=\frac{\eta \dot{M} c^2}{1.3\times10^{38}M}.
285: \end{displaymath}
286: Here $c$ is the speed of light, $\dot{M}$ is the accretion rate in units of
287: gm~s$^{-1}$ and $M$ is the accretor's mass in units of M$_\sun$. Because the
288: total luminosity of an object is fixed when the distance is known, the ratio
289: $L/L_E$ is actually inversely proportional to the object's mass. For this
290: reason, only the uncertainty in the estimated mass is taken into account
291: in the quoted uncertainty for $L/L_E$.
292:
293: In the following subsections, we discuss each object individually. The
294: spectra and best-fit models (BHSPEC only) are shown in the multipanel
295: Figure~\ref{fig-spectra-fits}. The KERRBB fits are so nearly identical
296: to the BHSPEC fits that figures displaying them would be visually
297: indistinguishable from each other.
298:
299: \subsubsection{M81~X1}\label{subsubsec:m81x1}
300: We used a 120~ks {\it XMM-Newton} observation (0200980101) of Holmberg IX
301: (made in September 2004) for M81~X1, which appears in the same field.
302: We extracted spectra from the event files generated for the MOS1 and MOS2
303: cameras and fitted them with BHSPEC and KERRBB. The mass of the
304: black hole is inferred to be 67 -- 85~M$_\sun$ from BHSPEC, while KERRBB gives
305: a partially overlapping, but rather wider possible range, 33 -- 74~M$_\sun$.
306: For the accretion rate, both
307: BHSPEC and KERRBB indicate values close to the Eddington limit, which
308: makes the applicability of both models suspect because both assume thin
309: disks. Both models also give
310: similar values for the hydrogen column density (1.5 -- 2.0
311: $\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$), the black hole spin (close to the maximum Kerr
312: value) and inclination angle (50$\degr$ - 70$\degr$).
313:
314: \subsubsection{M101~X2}\label{subsubsec:m101x2}
315: M101 was observed (0104260101) in June 2002 for a duration of 43 ks.
316: We extracted spectra for the MOS1, MOS2 and PN cameras. The BHSPEC fit suggests
317: that the black hole in M101~X2 has a mass 30 -- 178~M$_\sun$ and the spin
318: of the black hole is close to the maximum Kerr value. The accretion rate may
319: be anywhere from the Eddington limit down to a moderate level
320: ($L/L_E \simeq 0.3$). The viewing angle is inferred to be
321: 42$\degr$ -- 78$\degr$. Using KERRBB indicates a lower hydrogen column density
322: and larger uncertainty ranges for the mass and accretion
323: rate even though the best-fit values are not far from those found using BHSPEC.
324: The spin and the viewing angle in the KERRBB fit are totally unbounded.
325:
326: \subsubsection{NGC~253~X1, X3 and X4}\label{subsubsec:ngc253}
327: The observation (0152020101) of NGC~253 was made in June~2003 with a
328: duration of 140~ks. The spectra were drawn from the event files of the MOS1,
329: MOS2 and PN cameras.
330:
331: For NGC~253~X1, both BHSPEC and KERRBB indicate similar hydrogen
332: column densities. For the black hole mass, BHSPEC infers a 90\% confidence
333: range of 50 -- 81~M$_\sun$, while KERRBB gives a very similar, but
334: slightly wider range, 54 -- 95~M$_\sun$. In both models, the spin
335: is quite large and very close to the maximum Kerr value. The
336: Eddington-normalized luminosity inferred by BHSPEC is $0.35 < L/L_E <
337: 0.56$, while KERRBB suggests a lower range, $0.18 < L/L_E < 0.31$. The
338: viewing angle is well constrained by
339: both models in the range $64\degr$ - $83\degr$.
340:
341: In the case of NGC~253~X3, the uncertainty in the black hole mass derived
342: from both BHSPEC and KERRBB is somewhat greater, from 25 to 80~M$_\sun$ for
343: BHSPEC, from 32 to 176~M$_\sun$ for KERRBB. In terms of $L/L_E$, the range
344: preferred by BHSPEC ($L/L_E$ from 0.13 to 0.39) overlaps that of
345: KERRBB ($L/L_E$ from 0.03 to 0.18), but for the most part suggests higher
346: values. Both models give their best fits when the black hole spins rapidly. The
347: viewing angle is large, estimated to be between $44\degr$ and $85\degr$.
348:
349: The inferred black hole mass from BHSPEC for NGC~253~X4 lies in the range
350: 10 -- 91~M$_\sun$; KERRBB gives a similarly large
351: uncertainty, from 5 -- 77~M$_\sun$. For the normalized luminosity, the
352: two models have different best-fit values ($L/L_E= 0.14$ for
353: BHSPEC and 0.05 for KERRBB), but the ranges permitted within the errors
354: overlap to a considerable extent: 0.06 -- 0.24 (BHSPEC) and 0.02 -- 0.35
355: (KERRBB). BHSPEC suggests rapid black hole spin with a large viewing angle
356: (43$\degr$ -- 88$\degr$), while KERRBB puts no
357: constraint on either of these two parameters.
358:
359: \subsubsection{Circinus~X2}\label{subsubsec:cirx2}
360: Circinus~X2 was observed (0111240101) in August~2001 for a duration of 110~ks.
361: We extracted its spectra for both the MOS1 and PN cameras.
362: Both BHSPEC and KERRBB failed to constrain almost all parameters except the
363: hydrogen column density (5.0 -- 5.9 $\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$).
364: Unlike the other objects in our sample, the best-fit values of the mass
365: inferred by BHSPEC and KERRBB (i.e., 340~M$_\sun$ vs. 13~M$_\sun$) are
366: quite different, while the best-fit values of $\cos i$ are also very different
367: (0.07 vs 1.00). This apparent conflict will be addressed later in the
368: discussion when we investigate the correlation between inferred
369: mass and inclination angle.
370:
371: \section{Comparison to previous work}\label{sec:previouswork}
372:
373: In a thorough study of M81~X1 (there named M81~X6) based on a May~2000
374: observation by {\it Chandra}, \citet{swartz2003} (hereafter, S2003)
375: showed that the
376: best-fit model for the reduced spectrum is an absorbed disk blackbody. This
377: disk domination in the spectrum is confirmed in our study. Swartz et.~al.
378: found the hydrogen column density (in units of $10^{21}$ cm$^{-1}$)
379: to be $2.17\pm0.10$, which is close to our fitting results,
380: $1.91^{+0.12}_{-0.11}$ for BHSPEC and $1.61^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$ for KERRBB. The
381: black hole mass they estimated was 18~M$_\sun$, but they did so
382: assuming the black hole is non-rotating. According to our
383: fitting results (for both BHSPEC and KERRBB), the spin of the black
384: hole in M81~X1 has close to the maximum Kerr value. These results are
385: compatible with our estimate that the mass is 33 -- 85~M$_\sun$ because the
386: (Boyer-Lindquist) radial coordinate of the innermost stable circular orbit
387: (ISCO) for a maximal Kerr BH is $\simeq \frac{1}{6}$ that of a Schwarzschild
388: BH of the same mass.
389:
390: In S2003 and a previous {\it ASCA} study of M81~X1
391: \citep[][]{makishima2000}, the total luminosities were reported to be
392: equal to or even exceeding the Eddington limits of the inferred black hole
393: masses. To avoid this violation of conventional expectations, a bigger
394: black hole mass (to give a higher Eddington limit) with a larger spin
395: (to make a smaller ISCO) was suggested by
396: some authors. As shown by our results, however, if one is constrained by
397: fitting the spectrum, there is a limit to how much the mass and spin can
398: be increased, and neither our atmosphere-based spectral model nor
399: the multi-color disk model is consistent with substantially sub-Eddington
400: behavior.
401:
402: \citet{jenkins2004} studied the same {\it XMM-Newton} observation of the
403: galaxy M101 as we did, but named M101~X2 M101~XMM-1. They fitted the spectrum
404: with a single disk component (DISKBB in Xspec) with satisfactory statistics
405: and obtained an inner disk temperature ($T_{in}=1.33$~keV). Due
406: to the limited predictive power of DISKBB, no further conclusions were
407: reached in their work.
408:
409: \section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
410:
411: Before dealing with our principal concern, the inferred masses of these
412: objects, we first discuss a more technical point: the surprising
413: lack of difference between BHSPEC
414: and KERRBB when fitting the spectra. As described in \S~\ref{subsec:model},
415: BHSPEC is a much more sophisticated model than KERRBB and one might
416: expect that the atomic features it can predict might lead to interestingly
417: different fitting results. The fundamental reason why this does not
418: happen is that, at the color temperatures of the objects in our sample,
419: even Fe is fully-stripped. It is worth elaborating briefly on this
420: point because this constraint enters in a somewhat indirect fashion.
421: To zeroth order, the temperature of the disk scales as $L^{1/4}M^{-1/2}$.
422: If there were no relativistic Doppler shifts, the color temperature and
423: luminosity would then suffice to determine the mass. However, disks
424: around black holes do offer large Doppler factors, opening a wider
425: parameter space in which to search for acceptable models. For these
426: objects, we find that in part of this parameter space, the mass is
427: high enough ($\gtrsim 100$~M$_\sun$) that the temperature in the
428: disk drops to the point where the unstripped fraction of the heaviest
429: abundant elements can produce an interesting level of opacity
430: in atomic features \citep{davis2006,hui2005}. However, the very fact
431: that the fluid-frame temperature is this low means that, in order
432: for the spectrum generated to fit the data, it must be Doppler
433: boosted, which always implies large inclination angle, and can be
434: enhanced by rapid black hole spin. However, the non-uniformity of
435: the boost around the disk surface also entails strong smearing
436: of sharp features. The result is that atomic features are never
437: apparent in any of our fits, even in the extreme case of Circinus~X2,
438: in which the best-fit mass is 340~M$_\sun$. Moreover, because the
439: unstripped ion fractions are so small at thermodynamic temperatures close
440: to the observed color temperatures, this conclusion is only
441: very weakly dependent upon elemental abundances. There is however,
442: one possible exception to these arguments: in the presence of some
443: atomic opacity, the error entailed in KERRBB by assuming a Planckian output
444: spectrum with a fixed dilution factor may be larger than in a
445: case in which there is truly zero atomic opacity.
446:
447: We now turn to the main goal of this project: our attempt to use
448: spectral fitting of thermal disk spectra to constrain the masses of
449: ULXs. In Figure~\ref{fig-mass_obj}, we plot the best-fit values and
450: uncertainties of the black hole masses for all our objects except Circinus~X2.
451: As that figure shows,
452: the best-fit values of the black hole masses span a surprisingly
453: small range, between 20 and 80~M$_\sun$. In fact, the error bars are large
454: enough that the fits are consistent with all five having the same mass,
455: $\simeq 75 \pm 10$~M$_\sun$.
456:
457: Moreover, this range appears to be quite different from that seen
458: in Galactic black hole binaries. As reviewed by \citet{mcclintock2004},
459: of all 17 GXBs with measured black hole masses, there are none in which
460: the mass is likely to be smaller than 3~M$_\sun$ or larger than
461: 18~M$_\sun$.
462:
463: However, before we can conclude that these objects have a distinctly different
464: mass distribution than the Galactic black holes, it is important to look
465: more closely at the dominant source of uncertainty in the mass: the
466: degeneracy between $M$ and cos~$i$. \citet{sun1989} pointed out that
467: these two quantities are related almost inversely. In their disk fitting
468: analysis of quasars and Seyfert galaxies, they found
469: \begin{displaymath}
470: \mathrm{log}(M)\propto -b\cos i,
471: \end{displaymath}
472: where $b$ is a parameter that varies between 0.6 (for $a/M = 0$)
473: and $\simeq 1.2$ (for $a/M = 0.998$). The origin of this relationship
474: lies in the fact that higher inclination produces greater blue-shifting
475: of light from matter orbiting toward us, thus compensating for the
476: diminution of temperature that generally occurs with larger central
477: mass (and therefore radiating area). The coefficient is a function
478: of spin because the orbital speed near and outside the ISCO increases
479: with more rapid rotation.
480:
481: We find a very similar degeneracy in our fits. It is illustrated in
482: the multipanel Figure~\ref{fig-mass-incl}. These
483: figures plot the confidence level contours obtained from fitting to the
484: BHSPEC model as seen in the $M$ -- $\cos i$ plane embedded
485: in the higher-dimensional $\chi^2$ parameter space. The value of
486: $\chi^2$ as a function of $M$ and $\cos i$ is found by
487: minimizing $\chi^2$ over all the other parameters for those two values
488: of mass and inclination. There is indeed a correlation
489: between the mass and the inclination angle for every object. In addition,
490: two dashed lines in the figures show the slope of
491: the \citet{sun1989} relations, the steeper one for maximal spin, the
492: shallower one for no black hole spin. In most cases, as one might
493: expect, their slopes bracket the slope of the correlation.
494:
495: This degeneracy explains the large contrast between the BHSPEC and KERRBB
496: best-fit masses for Circinus~X2. In the former case, the best fit has
497: $\cos i \simeq$~0 and $M$~$\simeq$~340~M$_\sun$, while in the latter,
498: $\cos i \simeq$~1 and $M$~$\simeq$~13~M$_\sun$. Nonetheless, in terms
499: of the BHSPEC fitting, these two very different answers differ statistically
500: by only 1 -- $2\sigma$.
501:
502: With this degeneracy in mind, we now return to evaluating the fitting
503: results for the other five objects in our sample. If one assumes a
504: disk model, three of these --- M81~X1,
505: M101~X2, and NGC~253~X1 --- require relatively large masses, in all three
506: cases $>$~25~M$_\sun$. Smaller masses would lead to very large $\chi^2$,
507: no matter what other parameters (spin, inclination angle, intervening
508: column density) are chosen. At the same time, the fits also suggest that
509: their masses are not extremely large, generally
510: $\lesssim$~150 -- 300~M$_\sun$. Regrettably, however, our confidence
511: that the formally best constrained of these (M81~X1) has a large mass must be
512: tempered by the realization that the $L/L_E$ implied by even the highest
513: acceptable mass for this object is $\simeq 0.85$, a normalized luminosity
514: so large as to call into question the physical standing of the model
515: from which it was derived.
516:
517: It is also of interest that the three objects with the strongest lower bound
518: on the inferred mass are exactly the three objects in our sample with the
519: greatest luminosity, from $\simeq 3$ -- $8 \times 10^{39}$~erg~s$^{-1}$. Although
520: M101~X2 and NGC~253~X1 do not have inferred luminosities in Eddington units
521: as high as that of M81~X1, they are not far below:
522: $\simeq$~0.3 -- 1 for M101~X2 and $\simeq 0.35$ -- 0.55 for NGC~253~X1.
523:
524: The remaining two (NGC~253~X3 and X4) have best-fit masses that are several
525: tens of solar masses, but their data are also consistent with a mass
526: both considerably lower ($\lesssim$~10~M$_\sun$) and considerably higher
527: ($\gtrsim$~100~M$_\sun$). Circinus~X2, as we have already discussed, is
528: also in this category, but with an even wider range of uncertainty.
529: All three of these have luminosities low enough,
530: 3 -- $10 \times 10^{38}$~erg~s$^{-1}$, that they are at best borderline
531: ULXs in any case.
532:
533: Along with the mass and inclination angle, our fits are also sensitive to
534: the black hole rotation rate. Viewed in the mass--spin plane, $\chi^2$
535: rises sharply in the case of the three best-constrained
536: objects, M~81, M~101, and NGC~253~X-1 when $a/M \lesssim 0.8$--0.9.
537: There is a slight degeneracy between these two variables, in the
538: sense that lower spin requires smaller mass, but it is quite weak.
539: However, we do not regard these results as robust because of a
540: potential systematic error: our assumption of a Novikov-Thorne
541: surface brightness profile.
542:
543: If, as recent work on MHD stresses in accretion disks suggests
544: \citep{krolik2005}, there are significant stresses throughout the
545: region of marginally stable (or even unstable) orbits, additional
546: dissipation there is also likely. The result would be, for fixed
547: luminosity, a shift to higher temperature and a smaller effective
548: radiating area in the emitted spectrum \citep{ak00}.
549: Employing an estimate of the local dissipation rate derived from simulation
550: data and a general relativistic ray-tracing code to find what portion of
551: the radiation reaches infinity, \cite{beckwith2008}
552: have recently computed the effective ``radiation edge" due to these
553: effects. They found that when $a/M \lesssim 0.9$ and the inclination angle
554: is such that $\cos i \lesssim 0.7$, the characteristic radius for
555: the radiation seen by distant observers can be displaced inward by
556: factors of several relative to the prediction of the Novikov-Thorne model.
557:
558: The sense of the bias induced by fitting a spectrum on the basis of a
559: Novikov-Thorne surface brightness profile if the radiation edge really is located
560: closer to the black hole is to find a mass smaller and/or a spin larger
561: than the actual one. A factor of 2 error in the characteristic radius in
562: gravitational units (i.e., $r/r_g$) translates directly into a factor of
563: 2 in mass because $r_g = GM/c^2$. In terms of spin, a factor of 2
564: error would mean that a nominal best-fit of $a/M = 0.9$ should be reinterpreted
565: as actually indicating $a/M = 0.4$ if the true radiation edge, like the
566: radiation edge predicted by the Novikov-Thorne model, scales linearly
567: with the radius of marginal stability.
568:
569: Given the several order of magnitude {\it a priori}
570: uncertainty in our knowledge of the masses of ULXs, a factor of 2 systematic
571: error in mass is, at this stage, not a major handicap. Moreover, because we
572: are especially concerned with determining whether ULX
573: black hole masses can be as small as those found in Galactic black hole
574: binaries, the fact that any correction would {\it increase} the inferred
575: black hole mass means that the Novikov-Thorne estimate is a conservative
576: one.
577:
578: On the other hand, given the much more limited range of
579: possible black hole rotation rates, a systematic error of order unity
580: is a major concern in this context. In addition, the character of the
581: spectral fitting acts to enhance the magnitude of the possible systematic
582: error. Diminishing the spin in a model fit, by moving the
583: radiation edge outward, also lowers the characteristic temperature
584: for fixed luminosity and black hole mass. In order for the spectrum
585: that results to fit the data, a larger orbital blue shift is required,
586: forcing the model toward greater inclination angle. Large inclination
587: angles are exactly where \cite{beckwith2008} found the largest offsets
588: between the radiation edge as predicted by the Novikov-Thorne model
589: and the edge as inferred from simulation data.
590:
591: \section{Summary}\label{sec:conclusion}
592: After selecting the 23 known ULXs with the highest signal-to-noise and
593: least absorbing column density, we chose a subsample of 6 objects in
594: which the spectrum appeared to be purely that of a thermal disk, with
595: no hint of any power-law component. Fitting their spectra with two
596: different disk models (one based on the multi-color disk approximation,
597: the other resting on detailed stellar atmosphere calculations), we found
598: that in all but one case, the results were very similar: the masses
599: yielding the best fits to the data lie between 20 and 80~M$_\sun$.
600: In the exception, the two models suggested very different masses,
601: 340~M$_\sun$ in the case of the atmosphere model, 13~M$_\sun$ in
602: the case of the multi-color disk model.
603:
604: More significantly, in 3 of the 6, the model fitting (that is, a
605: search for those parameters for which a disk model can reproduce
606: the observed spectrum to within the errors) formally excludes
607: masses similar to those seen in Galactic black holes, $\sim$~10~M$_\sun$.
608: The models clearly prefer rather larger masses, from several tens of
609: solar masses to $\sim$~100~M$_\sun$, although in one case the value of
610: $L/L_E$ preferred by the model-fitting is so large ($\simeq 1$) as to
611: be physically inconsistent with a disk model. We also
612: see formal upper bounds on the mass that are generally
613: $\simeq$~150 -- 300~M$_\sun$, although systematic error having to
614: do with the detailed surface brightness profile of relativistic disks
615: may relax these bounds by a factor of 2 -- 3. In the other three objects,
616: the error bars are too broad to permit confident exclusion of either
617: conventionally small masses or considerably larger ones.
618:
619: On this basis, we believe that these data provide significant new evidence
620: that at least some ULXs have masses rather greater --- $\simeq$~30 --
621: 100~M$_\sun$ --- than is found in ordinary Galactic binary black holes.
622:
623: \acknowledgments{We are grateful to Andy Ptak for extensive instruction
624: in the proper treatment of X-ray spectral data. We also thank Shane Davis
625: and Omer Blaes for many helpful discussions about the calculation of disk
626: atmospheres. We especially acknowledge Ivan Hubeny for construction and
627: maintenance of the stellar atmosphere code TLUSTY and its disk version
628: TLUSDISK.
629:
630: This work was partially supported by NASA ATP Grant NAG5-13228 and by
631: NSF Grant AST-0507455.}
632:
633: \clearpage
634:
635: \begin{thebibliography}{}
636:
637: \bibitem[Agol(1997)]{agol1997}
638: Agol, E.\ 1997, Ph.D dissertation
639:
640: \bibitem[Agol \& Krolik (2000)]{ak00} Agol, E., \& Krolik, J.~H. 2000,
641: ApJ, 507, 304
642:
643: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{anders1989}
644: Anders, E., \& Grevesse, N.\ 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53,
645: 197
646:
647: \bibitem[Beckwith et~al.(2008)]{beckwith2008}
648: Beckwith, K., Hawley, J.~F. \& Krolik, J.~H.\ 2008, astro-ph/0801.2974,
649: submitted to MNRAS
650:
651: \bibitem[Begelman(2002)]{begelman2002}
652: Begelman, M.~C.,\ 2002, ApJ, 568, L97
653:
654: \bibitem[Begelman(2006)]{begelman2006}
655: Begelman, M.~C.,\ 2006, ApJ, 643, 1065
656:
657: \bibitem[Colbert \& Mushotzky(1999)]{colbert1999}
658: Colbert, E.~J.~M., \& Mushotzky, R.~F.\ 1999, ApJ, 519, 89
659:
660: \bibitem[Davis et~al.(2005)]{davis2005}
661: Davis, S.~W., Blaes, O.~M., Hubeny, I., \& Turner, N.~J.\ 2004, ApJ, 621, 372
662:
663: \bibitem[Davis \& Hubeny(2006)]{davis2006}
664: Davis, S.~W., \& Hubeny, I. \ 2006, ApJS, 164,530
665:
666: \bibitem[Fabbiano \& Trinchieri(1987)]{fabbiano1987}
667: Fabbiano, G., \& Trinchieri, G.\ 1987, ApJ, 315, 46
668:
669: \bibitem[Freeman et~al.(1977)]{freeman1977}
670: Freeman, K.~C., Karlsson, B., Lynga, G., Burrell, J.~F., van Woerden, H.,
671: Goss, W.~M. \& Mebold, U.\ 1977, A\&A, 55, 445
672:
673: \bibitem[Freedman et~al.(1994)]{freedman1994}
674: Freedman, W.~L. \& et.~al.\ 1994, ApJ, 427, 628
675:
676: \bibitem[Hui et~al.(2005)]{hui2005}
677: Hui, Y.~W., Krolik, J.~H., \& Hubeny, I.\ 2005, ApJ, 625, 913H
678:
679: \bibitem[Iaria et~al.(2005)]{iaria2005}
680: Iaria, R., Span\'{o}, °, M,; Di Salvo, T., Robba, N.~R., Burderi, L., Fender, R.,
681: van der Klis, M., Frontera, F.\ 2005, ApJ, 619, 503
682:
683: \bibitem[Jenkins et~al.(2004)]{jenkins2004}
684: Jenkins, L.~P., Roberts, T.~P., Warwick, R.~S. \& Kilgard, R.~E. \ 2004,
685: MNRAS, 349, 404
686:
687: \bibitem[Juvcevic \& Butcher(2006)]{juvce2006}
688: Jurcevic, J.~S. \& Butcher, D.\ 2006, AAS Meeting 208, Bulletin of the
689: American Astronomical Society, Vol. 38, p.92
690:
691: \bibitem[Karachentsev et~al.(2003)]{karachentsev2003}
692: Karachentsev, I.~D., Grebel, E.~K., Sharina, M.~E., Dolphin, A.~E., Geisler,
693: D., Guhathakurta, P., Hodge, P.~W., Karachentseva, V.~E., Sarajedini, A. \&
694: Seitzer, P. \ 2003, A\&A, 404, 93K
695:
696: \bibitem[Kelson et~al.(1996)]{kelson1996}
697: Kelson, D.~D. \& et.~al.\ 1996, ApJ, 463, 26
698:
699: \bibitem[King et~al.(2001)]{king2001}
700: King, A.~R., Davies, M.~B., Ward, M.~J., Fabbiano, G., \& Elvis,
701: M.\ 2001, ApJ, 552, L109
702:
703: \bibitem[Krolik et~al.(2005)]{krolik2005}
704: Krolik, J.~H., Hawley, J.~F. \& Hirose, S.\ 2005, ApJ, 622, 1008
705:
706: \bibitem[Li et~al.(2005)]{li2005}
707: Li, L.~X., Zimmerman, E.~R., Narayan, R., \& McClintock, J.~E.\
708: 2005, ApJS, 157, 335
709:
710: \bibitem[Makishima et~al.(1986)]{makishima1986}
711: Makishima, K., et~al\ 1986, ApJ, 308, 635
712:
713: \bibitem[Makishima et~al.(2000)]{makishima2000}
714: Makishima, K., et~al\ 2000, ApJ, 535, 632
715:
716: \bibitem[McClintock \& Remillard (2004)]{mcclintock2004}
717: McClintock J.~E. \& Remillard R.~A.\ 2004, in Compact Stellar X-Ray Sources,
718: eds. W.~H.~G. Lewin \& M. van der Klis (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
719:
720: \bibitem[McHardy et~al.(2006)]{mchardy2006}
721: McHardy, I.~M., Koerding, E., Knigge, C., Uttley, P., \& Fender, R.~P.\ 2006,
722: Nature, 444, 730
723:
724: \bibitem[Miller \& Hamilton(2002)]{miller2002}
725: Millis, M.~C., \& Hamilton, D.~P.\ 2002, MNRAS, 330, 232
726:
727: \bibitem[Miller et~al.(2003)]{miller2003}
728: Miller, J.~M., Fabbiano, G., Miller, M.~C., \& Fabian, A.~C.\
729: 2003, ApJ, 585, L37
730:
731: \bibitem[Miller et~al.(2004)]{miller2004}
732: Miller, J.~M., Fabian, A.~C., \& Miller, M.~C.\ 2004, ApJ, 607,
733: 931
734:
735: \bibitem[Mitsuda et~al.(1984)]{mitsuda1984}
736: Mitsuda, K. et~al\ 1984, PASJ, 36, 741
737:
738: \bibitem[Novikov \& Thorne(1973)]{novikov1973}
739: Novikov, I.~D., \& Thorne, K.~S.\ 1973, in Black Holes, eds. C. De
740: Witt\& B. De Witt (New York: Gordon and Breach), 343
741:
742: \bibitem[Rekola et~al.(2005)]{rekola2005}
743: Rekola, R., Richer, M.~G., McCall, M.~L., Valtonen, M.~J., Kotilainen,
744: J.~K. \& Flynn, C.\ 2005, MNRAS, 361, 330
745:
746: \bibitem[Roberts et~al.(2004)]{roberts2004}
747: Roberts, T.~P., Warwick, R.~S., Ward, M.~J., \& Goad, M.~R.\ 2004,
748: MNRAS, 349, 1193R
749:
750: \bibitem[Shakura \& Sunyaev(1973)]{shakura1973}
751: Shakura, N.~I., Sunyaev, R.~A.\ 1973, A\&A, 24, 337
752:
753: \bibitem[Shimura \& Takahara(1995)]{shimura1995}
754: Shimura, T., Takahara, F.\ 1995, ApJ, 445, 780
755:
756: \bibitem[Stern \& Poutanen(2006)]{stern2006}
757: Stern, B.~E., \& Poutanen, J.\ 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1217
758:
759: \bibitem[Strohmayer \& Mushotzky(2003)]{strohmayer2003}
760: Strohmayer, T.~E. \& Mushotzky, R.~F.\ 2003, ApJ, 586, L61
761:
762: \bibitem[Strohmayer et~al.(2007)]{strohmayer2007}
763: Strohmayer, T.~E. Mushotzky, R.~F., Winter, L., \& Soria, R.\ 2007, ApJ,
764: 660, 580
765:
766: \bibitem[Sun \& Malkan(1989)]{sun1989}
767: Sun, W-H. \& Malkan, M.~A.\ 1989, ApJ, 346, 68
768:
769: \bibitem[Swartz et~al.(2003)]{swartz2003}
770: Swartz, D.~A., Ghosh, K.~K., McCollough, M.~L., Pannuti, T.~G., Tennant,
771: A.~F., \& Wu, K.\ 2003, ApJS, 144, 213
772:
773:
774: \bibitem[Vierdayanti et~al.(2006)]{vierdayanti2006}
775: Vierdayanti, K., Mineshige, S., Ebisawa, K, \& Kawaguchi, T.\ 2006,
776: PASJ, 58, 915
777:
778: \bibitem[Winter et~al.(2006)]{winter2006}
779: Winter, L.~M., Mushotzky, R.~F., \& Reynolds, C.~S.\ 2006, ApJ, 649, 730
780:
781: \bibitem[Winter et~al.(2007)]{winter2007}
782: Winter, L.~M., Mushotzky, R.~F., \& Reynolds, C.~S.\ 2007, ApJ, 655, 163
783:
784: \end{thebibliography}
785:
786: \clearpage
787:
788: %\begin{deluxetable}{lllllllll}
789:
790: %\tablecaption{The ULX Sources Analyzed\label{tb-sample}}
791: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
792: %\tablewidth{0pt}
793: %\tablehead{
794: %\colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{Object} & \colhead{n$_{H}$} &
795: %\colhead{M/100$M_\sun$} & \colhead{L/L$_e$ } & \colhead{spin} &
796: %\colhead{cos i} & \colhead{$\Gamma$ } & \colhead{$\chi^2$/dof}
797: %}
798:
799: %\startdata
800: %M33 & x8 & 1.30 & 0.50 & 0.179 & 0.998 & 0.540 & 1.95 & 0.987 \\
801: %M81 & x1 & 2.01 & 0.59 & 0.928 & 0.998 & 0.682 & 0.638 & 0.958 \\
802: % & x2 & 6.08 & 31 & 0.064 & 0.300 & 0.396 & 3.32 & 1.38 \\
803: %M83 & x1 & 1.39 & 0.66 & 0.076 & 0.998 & 0.328 & 2.58 & 1.03 \\
804: %M101 & x1 & 0.620 & 3.02 & 0.054 & 0.769 & 0.393 & 1.13 & 0.924 \\
805: % & x2 & 1.19 & 0.50 & 0.717 & 0.989 & 0.618 & 1.01 & 1.01 \\
806: %NGC253 & x1 & 1.71 & 0.67 & 0.474 & 0.998 & 0.370 & 6.03*\tablenotemark{a} & 1.04 \\
807: % & x2 & 1.90 & 0.48 & 0.251 & 0.986 & 0.421 & 2.31 & 1.03 \\
808: % & x3 & 2.95 & 0.47 & 0.216 & 0.998 & 0.541 & 1.00* & 0.984\\
809: % & x4 & 0.676 & 0.18 & 0.175 & 0.998 & 0.550 & 1.00* & 1.03 \\
810: % & x5 & 5.18 & 5.34 & 0.057 & 0.000 & 0.392 & 2.17 & 0.995 \\
811: % & x6 & 6.17 & 0.63 & 0.131 & 0.998 & 0.121 & 3.76 & 1.02 \\
812: %NGC300 & x1 & 1.02 & 1.04 & 0.021 & 0.000 & 0.365 & 3.81 & 1.11 \\
813: %NGC1313 & x2 & 5.79 & 79 & 0.043 & 0.826 & 0.473 & 2.81 & 0.998 \\
814: %NGC4559 & x7 & 1.72 & 7.87 & 0.066 & 0.783 & 1.00 & 2.16 & 0.890 \\
815: % & x10 & 1.15 & 0.62 & 0.118 & 0.998 & 0.101 & 1.99 & 0.932 \\
816: %NGC4631 & x1 & 3.33 & 2.03 & 0.049 & 0.000 & 1.000 & 2.15 & 1.07 \\
817: %NGC5204 & x1 & 0.603 & 7.47 & 0.104 & 0.413 & 0.000 & 1.92 & 0.971 \\
818: %NGC5408 & x1 & 0.961 & 28 & 0.026 & 0.916 & 0.362 & 2.71 & 0.914 \\
819: %Holmberg II & x1 & 1.59 & 8.91 & 0.153 & 0.190 & 0.056 & 2.53 & 1.22 \\
820: %Holmberg IX & x1 & 1.96 & 6.92 & 0.060 & 0.493 & 0.400 & 1.51 & 1.07 \\
821: %Circinus & x1 & 6.43 & 1.74 & 0.170 & 0.944 & 0.141 & 1.88 & 0.872 \\
822: %Circinus & x2 & 5.43 & 3.59 & 0.042 & 0.994 & 0.049 & 1.00* & 1.03 \\
823: %\enddata
824:
825: %\tablenotetext{a}{* normalization of powlaw is zero}
826: %\end{deluxetable}
827:
828: %\clearpage
829:
830: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllll}
831: \tablecaption{The Disk-Dominated ULX Sources\label{tb-diskULXs}}
832: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
833: \tablewidth{0pt}
834: \tablehead{
835: \colhead{Ob ID} & \colhead{Galaxy} &
836: \colhead{D (Mpc)}& \colhead{Object} & \colhead{RA
837: (h m s)} & \colhead{Dec ($\circ\ \prime\ \prime\prime$)} & \colhead{Tot.
838: Red. Cts} & \colhead{Red. Ct. Rate ($10^{-2}$ cts~t$^{-1}$)}
839: }
840: \startdata
841: 0200980101 & M81 & 3.6\tablenotemark{1} & x1 & 09 55 32.9 & +69 00 34.8 & 6913, 6524, - &
842: 9.12, 8.00, - \\
843: 0104260101 & M101 & 7.4\tablenotemark{2} & x2 & 14 03 03.8 & +54 27 37 & 874, 925, 1879 &
844: 3.22, 3.04, 9.55 \\
845: 0152020101 & NGC~253 & 3.73\tablenotemark{3} & x1 & 00 47 32.8 & -25 17 52.6 & 5874, 6316, 16454 &
846: 8.78, 9.24, 28.46 \\
847: & & & x3 & 00 47 35.2 & -25 15 13.8 & 2266, 2360, 5089 &
848: 3.33, 3.41, 8.72 \\
849: & & & x4 & 00 47 23.3 & -25 19 06.5 & 801, 736, 1659 &
850: 1.16, 1.05, 2.82 \\
851: 0111240101 & Circinus & 4.0\tablenotemark{4} & x2 & 14 12 54.2 & -65 22 55.3 & 1391, -, 2703 &
852: 1.51, -, 4.07 \\
853: \enddata
854: \tablenotetext{1}{~\citet{freedman1994}.}
855: \tablenotetext{2}{~\citet{kelson1996,juvce2006}.}
856: \tablenotetext{3}{~Calculated from the distance modulus given in NED.
857: Also refer to \citet{karachentsev2003,rekola2005}.}
858: \tablenotetext{4}{~\citet{freeman1977,iaria2005}.}
859: \end{deluxetable}
860:
861: \clearpage
862:
863: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllllllc}
864: \tablecaption{Fitting Results\label{tb-fitResults}}
865: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
866: \tablewidth{0pt}
867: \tablehead{
868: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{Object} & \colhead{$n_{H}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
869: \colhead{$M$/100M$_\sun$} & \colhead{$L/L_e$\tablenotemark{b} } &
870: \colhead{Spin\tablenotemark{c}} &
871: \colhead{Cos $i$\tablenotemark{d}} & \colhead{$\chi^2$/dof} &
872: \colhead{$L_{obs}/L_{bol}$\tablenotemark{e}}
873: }
874: \startdata
875: M81 & x1 & $1.90^{+0.12}_{-0.11}$ & $0.73^{+0.12}_{-0.06}$ &
876: $1.00_{-0.15}$ & $0.997_{-0.01}$ & $0.53^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$
877: & 386.3/397 & 66.2/76.5\\
878: {\ldots} & {\ldots} & $1.61^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$ & $0.49^{+0.25}_{-0.16}$ &
879: $0.82^{+0.40}_{-0.28}$ & $0.999_{-0.05}$ & $0.52^{+0.12}_{-0.18}$
880: & 392.6/397 & -\\
881:
882: M101 & x2 & $1.18^{+0.18}_{-0.33}$ & $0.57^{+1.21}_{-0.27}$ &
883: $0.75^{+0.25}_{-0.47}$ & $0.997_{-0.20}$ & $0.59^{+0.15}_{-0.38}$
884: & 156.0/156 & 41.5/46.1\\
885: {\ldots} & {\ldots} & $0.96^{+0.18}_{-0.15}$ & $0.63^{+1.27}_{-0.60}$ &
886: $0.38^{+6.11}_{-0.26}$ & $0.999_{-2.0}$ & $0.46^{+0.54}_{-0.37}$
887: & 157.6/156 & -\\
888:
889: NGC~253 & x1 & $1.68^{+0.12}_{-0.15}$ & $0.72^{+0.09}_{-0.22}$ &
890: $0.45^{+0.11}_{-0.10}$ & $0.997_{-0.12}$ & $0.34^{+0.10}_{-0.04}$
891: & 998.5/963 & 29.2/31.5\\
892: {\ldots} & {\ldots} & $1.51^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ & $0.73^{+0.22}_{-0.19}$
893: & $0.23^{+0.08}_{-0.05}$ & $0.999_{-0.03}$ & $0.28^{+0.09}_{-0.15}$
894: & 999.3/963 & -\\
895: & x3 & $2.93^{+0.15}_{-0.19}$ & $0.50^{+0.31}_{-0.25}$ &
896: $0.20^{+0.19}_{-0.07}$ & $0.997_{-0.20}$ & $0.51^{+0.20}_{-0.17}$
897: & 379.6/388 & 10.1/11.0\\
898: {\ldots}& {\ldots} & $2.79^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ & $0.63^{+1.13}_{-0.31}$
899: & $0.09^{+0.09}_{-0.06}$ & $0.999_{-0.20}$ & $0.42^{+0.28}_{-0.33}$
900: & 380.5/388 & -\\
901: & x4 & $0.64^{+0.21}_{-0.21}$ & $0.23^{+0.68}_{-0.13}$ &
902: $0.14^{+0.10}_{-0.08}$ & $0.997_{-0.34}$ & $0.46^{+0.27}_{-0.42}$
903: & 143.9/140 & 3.0/3.4\\
904: {\ldots} & {\ldots} & $0.45^{+0.18}_{-0.27}$ & $0.35^{+0.42}_{-0.30}$
905: & $0.05^{+0.30}_{-0.03}$ & $0.999^{+0.001}_{-2.0}$ & $0.33^{+0.67}_{-0.25}$
906: & 145.4/140 & -\\
907:
908: Circinus & x2 & $5.42^{+0.27}_{-0.38}$ & $3.40^{+12.70}_{-3.30}$ &
909: $0.04^{+0.60}_{-0.01}$ & $0.996^{+0.001}_{-1.0}$ & $0.07^{+0.68}_{-0.07}$
910: & 176.4/173 & 7.3/8.6\\
911: {\ldots} & {\ldots} & $5.45^{+0.46}_{-0.36}$ & $0.13^{+3.28}_{-0.01}$
912: & $0.34^{+0.03}_{-0.33}$ & $0.501^{+0.498}_{-1.5}$ & $1.00^{+0.00}_{-0.91}$
913: & 177.6/173 & -\\
914: \enddata
915: \tablenotetext{a}{~Column density in units of $10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.}
916: \tablenotetext{b}{~Luminosity normalized to the Eddington luminosity.}
917: \tablenotetext{c}{~Dimensionless spin parameter of the black hole.}
918: \tablenotetext{d}{~$i$ - the inclination angle, i.e., the angle between the
919: disk normal and the line of sight.}
920: \tablenotetext{e}{~The ratio of the observed luminosity to the model
921: integrated luminosity. Luminosity is in units of $10^{38}$ erg~s$^{-1}$}
922: \tablecomments{~1) For each object, the first row shows the fitting results
923: from BHSPEC and the second row with ``$\ldots$'' shows the results from KERRBB;
924: 2) All uncertainties were computed with $\Delta\chi^2=2.706$, equivalent to
925: $90\%$ confidence for a single parameter. 3) Where no upper uncertainty
926: is shown, the data are consistent with all parameters up to the edge of
927: the parameter space, i.e., for $L/L_E$ the upper bound is unity while
928: for spin it is 0.997 for BHSPEC and 0.999 for KERRBB.}
929: \end{deluxetable}
930:
931: \clearpage
932:
933: \begin{figure}
934: \mbox{
935: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.35]{fig1a.eps}
936: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.35]{fig1b.eps}
937: }\par
938: \mbox{
939: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.35]{fig1c.eps}
940: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.35]{fig1d.eps}
941: }\par
942: \mbox{
943: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.35]{fig1e.eps}
944: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.35]{fig1f.eps}
945: }
946: \caption{Observed spectra and best-fit models (only BHSPEC shown). Panels from top
947: to bottom: upper left --- M81 X1, upper right --- M101 X1, middle left ---
948: NGC~253 X1, middle right --- NGC~253 X3, lower left --- NGC~253 X4, lower
949: right --- Circinus X2. In each panel, the green, blue and red colors represent the data from
950: MOS1, MOS2 and PN, respectively. \label{fig-spectra-fits}}
951: \end{figure}
952:
953: \begin{figure}
954: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig2.eps}
955: \caption{The distribution of black hole masses in our sample (except
956: Circinus X2). Masses derived using BHSPEC are shown by stars, those
957: inferred on the basis of KERRBB are shown with open diamonds. All
958: uncertainties were computed with $\Delta\chi^2=2.706$, equivalent to
959: $90\%$ confidence for a single parameter.\label{fig-mass_obj}}
960: \end{figure}
961:
962: \begin{figure}
963: \mbox{
964: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{fig3a.eps}
965: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{fig3b.eps}
966: }\par
967: \mbox{
968: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{fig3c.eps}
969: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{fig3d.eps}
970: }\par
971: \mbox{
972: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{fig3e.eps}
973: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{fig3f.eps}
974: }
975: \caption{Confidence level contours in the $M$--$\cos i$ plane. The location of
976: the least $\chi^2$ is marked by a plus sign. A pair of dashed lines shows
977: the extreme Kerr and Schwarzschild degeneracy relations suggested by
978: \citet{sun1989}. A dotted vertical line at $M =20 M_\sun$ marks the greatest mass consistent
979: with any of the known Galactic black hole binaries
980: \citep[][]{mcclintock2004}. The four contours show values of
981: $\chi^2$ above the minimum by $\Delta\chi^2$ = 2.30 (red), 6.14 (green),
982: 9.21 (blue), 13.82 (magenta). These correspond to the $68.3\%$ (1-$\sigma$),
983: $95.4\%$ (2-$\sigma$), $99.0\%$ and $99.9\%$ confidence
984: levels, respectively. Short ticks along each contour show the ``downhill''
985: direction in $\chi^2$.
986: \label{fig-mass-incl}}
987: \end{figure}
988:
989:
990:
991: \end{document}
992: