1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
3:
4: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5:
6: %\usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{apjfonts} \usepackage{mathptmx}
7: %\usepackage{eulergreek}
8:
9: \makeatletter \newenvironment{inlinetable}{% \def\@captype{table}%
10: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}\footnotesize}
11: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
12:
13: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{% \def\@captype{figure}%
14: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}
15: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip} \makeatother
16:
17: %\usepackage{timesexpert}
18:
19: \def\***#1{{\sc #1}} \def\plan#1{\relax} \def\Plan#1{\relax}
20: \def\PLAN#1{\relax}
21:
22: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
23:
24:
25: \newcommand{\gcc}{g~cm$^{-3}\ $} \newcommand{\sfun}[2]{$#1(#2)\ $}
26: \newcommand{\rhonot}{$\rho_{\circ}\ $} \newcommand{\msun}{$M_{\odot}\
27: $} \newcommand{\greq}{$\stackrel{>}{ _{\sim}}$}
28: \newcommand{\lteq}{$\stackrel{<}{ _{\sim}}$}
29: \def\lta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}} \raise
30: 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}} \def\gta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower
31: 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}} \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}
32: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}} \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}
33:
34: \shortauthors{Senorita Devi et al.}
35: \shorttitle{Ultra-Luminous X-ray source in NGC 6946}
36:
37:
38:
39: \def\mathnew{\mathsurround=0pt}
40:
41: \def\simov#1#2{\lower .5pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt \lineskip-.5pt
42: \ialign{$\mathnew#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
43:
44: \def\simgreat{\mathrel{\mathpalette\simov >}}
45: \def\simless{\mathrel{\mathpalette\simov <}}
46:
47:
48: \begin{document}
49:
50: \title{The spectral and temporal properties of an Ultra-Luminous X-ray source in
51: NGC 6946}
52:
53:
54:
55: \author{A. Senorita Devi\altaffilmark{1}, R. Misra\altaffilmark{2}, K. Shanthi\altaffilmark{3} and K. Y. Singh\altaffilmark{1} }
56:
57: \altaffiltext{1}{Department Of Physics, Manipur University, Canchipur,
58: Imphal-795003, Manipur, India; senorita@iucaa.ernet.in}
59:
60: \altaffiltext{2}{Inter-University Center for Astronomy and
61: Astrophysics, Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind, Pune-411007, India;
62: rmisra@iucaa.ernet.in}
63:
64:
65: \altaffiltext{3}{UGC Academic Staff College, University of Mumbai,
66: Mumbai-400098, India}
67:
68:
69:
70: \begin{abstract}
71:
72: We report variability of the X-ray source, X-7, in NGC 6946,
73: during a 60 ksec {\it Chandra} observation when the count rate
74: decreased by a factor of $\sim 1.5$ in $\sim 5000$ secs. Spectral fitting of
75: the high and low count rate segments of the light curve reveal that the
76: simplest and most probable interpretation is that the X-ray spectra are due to
77: disk black body emission with an absorbing hydrogen column density equal to
78: the Galactic value of $2.1 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. During the variation, the
79: inner disk temperature decreased from $\sim 0.29$ to $\sim 0.26$ keV while the inner disk radius
80: remained constant at $\sim 6 \times 10^8$ cm. This translates into a luminosity variation
81: from $3.8$ to $ 2.8 \times 10^{39}$
82: ergs cm$^{-2}$sec$^{-1}$ and a black hole mass of $\sim 400 M_\odot$. More complicated models
83: like assuming intrinsic absorption and/or the addition of a power-law component imply a higher
84: luminosity and a larger black hole mass. Even if the emission is beamed by a factor of $\sim 5$, the
85: size of the emitting region would be $> 2.7 \times 10^8$ cm implying a black hole mass $> 180 M_\odot$.
86: Thus, these spectral results provide strong evidence that the mass of the black hole in this source
87: is definitely
88: $> 100 M_\odot$ and more probably $\sim 400 M_\odot$.
89:
90:
91:
92: \end{abstract}
93:
94: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks --- galaxies: individual (NGC6946) --- X-rays: binaries}
95:
96: \section{Introduction}
97:
98: {\it Chandra} observations of nearby galaxies, have confirmed the presence
99: of non-nuclear X-ray point sources
100: \citep{Kaa01,Mat01,Zez02}, which have luminosities $> 10^{39}$ ergs/s and hence
101: have been called Ultra luminous X-ray Sources (ULX).
102:
103: Since
104: these sources radiate at a rate greater than the Eddington
105: luminosity for a ten-solar mass black hole, they are believed to
106: harbor a black hole of mass $10 \, M_\odot\! < \! M \! <\! 10^5
107: \,M_\odot$ \citep{Col99,Mak00}
108: where the upper limit
109: is constrained by the argument that a
110: more massive black hole would have settled into the nucleus due to
111: dynamical friction \citep{Kaa01}. If this interpretation is true,
112: than these black holes have mass in the intermediate mass range between those of
113: stellar mass black holes found in Galactic X-ray binaries and those associated
114: with Active Galactic Nuclei and hence are called Intermediate Mass Black Holes (IMBH).
115: For a review see \cite{Mil04} and \cite{Mil05}.
116:
117: The creation of such
118: black holes \citep{Por02,Tan00,Mad01} and the process by which they sustain
119: such high accretion rates \citep{Kin01}, are largely unknown and and when understood are expected to
120: make radically shifts in the present paradigms of stellar and binary evolution
121: and the history of the Universe. On the other hand, alternate models for ULX
122: challenge our present understanding of accreting systems such as super-Eddington disks
123: \citep{Beg02} or emission that is
124: beamed from a geometrically thick accretion disk \citep{Kin01}. For the latter case,
125: it has been argued that such thick "funnel" shaped disks enhance the observed flux by just
126: a factor of few \citep{Mis03}. Thus, it is important to ascertain whether ULX do indeed
127: harbor IMBH or not.
128:
129: Since a more direct measure of the mass such as spectroscopic mass function measurement
130: of the binary, is not possible for ULX, indirect evidences have to be used. One such
131: way is to look for similarities in the spectral and temporal properties of ULX and black hole
132: X-ray binaries. There are theoretical indications that the
133: nature of the accretion flow should depend on the Eddington ratio $L/L_{edd} $
134: rather than on the actual values of the bolometric luminosity $L$ and the
135: Eddington limit $L_{Edd}$. Thus, a ULX should display
136: similar spectral and temporal characteristics as a black hole X-ray binary accreting at a
137: similar $L/L_{Edd}$, even though the masses of the black holes are different.
138:
139:
140:
141: If ULX harbor IMBH, they should display analogues spectral states to X-ray binaries. Based on such a
142: analogy, \cite{Yua07} modeled the X-ray spectrum detected by {\it Chandra} of
143: the ULX X-1 in M82, within the framework of Advection Dominated Accretion Flows (ADAF)
144: which successfully explains the hard state spectra of X-ray binaries. They found that if
145: the source is likened to the low-luminosity hard state then the black hole mass
146: should be $M \sim 10^5 M_\odot$ else it should be $\sim 10^4 M_\odot$ if the system
147: is to be compared
148: with the high luminosity hard state. This degeneracy occurs because
149: the observed spectrum during an off axis observation by {\it Chandra} ( the source is affected
150: by count pile-up for normal observations) was a featureless power-law as it should be if it
151: is analogues to the hard state. XMM observations of the source reveal a more complex
152: turnover at around $\sim 8$ keV \citep{Agr06}, which could either be because the
153: spectral state was different during the XMM observation or that there were
154: serious contamination from nearby sources. However, \cite{Sto06} report that
155: many ULX observed by XMM-Newton do show such high energy turnovers, which makes the
156: comparison with the hard state of black hole binaries ambiguous.
157:
158: A more robust argument would be provided if a ULX reveals soft state like
159: spectral property. In the pure soft state of X-ray binaries, the
160: luminosity is dominated by emission from a standard disk that extends to the last
161: stable orbit. During this state, the high energy power-law
162: component (which is dominant during the low and intermediate states) contributes
163: $ < 5$\% of the total luminoisty. The state occurs when the Eddington ratio $> 0.02$.
164: During luminosity variations (typically for X-ray novae)
165: the constancy of the inner most radius and it's value being always close to the predicted
166: last stable orbit is taken as strong evidence for the correctness of the model. In fact,
167: based on the model, recent attempts have been made to estimate the spin of black holes by measuring the
168: subtle strong gravity effects of light bending and red-shift on the spectra \citep[e.g.][]{Mcc06}.
169: The analogy to ULX predicts that they should exhibit a similar disk black body
170: component with a smaller inner disk temperature, due to the larger black hole mass.
171: Indeed, \cite{Mil03} report the presence of a power-law spectrum with a cool accretion disk
172: component ($kT_{in} \sim 0.1-0.5 $ keV) in
173: NGC 1313 X-1 and X-2 corresponding to black hole masses $M \sim 10^{4} M_\odot$.
174: A comparison of ULX which show such soft components with X-ray binaries has
175: been undertaken by \cite{Mil04} who argue that the systematic lower temperatures
176: indicate that the systems harbor IMBH, but also caution for potential weakness
177: of such interpretations. The primary issue is the possibility of incorrect
178: spectral modeling especially of data with low counts \citep{Gon06}. The soft component is
179: strongly effected by absorption and errors in the estimation of the column density may crucially
180: affect the results. Another
181: perhaps inconsistent aspect is that for these systems, the power-law component is
182: nearly as luminous as the disk one and hence an analogy has to be made
183: with the rarer Very High state (VHS) rather than the more frequent
184: pure soft state. Moreover, since the power-law component is an important
185: contributer to the flux, the modeling of the disk component is suspect to
186: the uncertainties in modeling the power-law one.
187:
188: The existence of ULX in different spectral states may also be revealed in
189: a systematic spectral study of a large sample of potential sources
190: \citep{Win06}. \cite{Swa04} fitted the spectra of such a large sample
191: with an absorbed power-law model and found no bimodal distribution on the
192: spectral index. However, using a disk black body model, a bimodal distribution
193: was revealed at least for high luminosity sources for samples obtained from
194: XMM-Newton \citep{Win06} and {\it Chandra} \citep{Dev07}. One set of high luminosity
195: sources have temperatures $kT \sim 0.1$ keV while the other have systematically
196: higher temperatures $kT \sim 1 $ keV. While the higher temperature sources do
197: not seem to have an analogy with black hole binaries, the lower temperature one may
198: be identified as the equivalent of the soft state.
199: For a sample consisting of sources observed by {\it Chandra} which were
200: not affected by pile-up and which were not located in regions of excessive diffuse
201: emission, \cite{Dev07} fitted both an absorbed power-law and a disk black body spectral model to
202: ascertain the dependency of luminosity on the spectral model used. They identified a highly
203: luminous source, X-7, in NGC 6946 as having a soft spectrum and with
204: sufficiently high counts for more detailed studies
205:
206:
207:
208: In the next section we report on spectral and temporal analysis of the {\it Chandra}
209: observation of this source and summarize and discuss the results in the last section.
210:
211:
212:
213:
214: \section{Spectral and Temporal properties of NGC 6946, X-7}
215:
216:
217: While the temporal behavior of all the sources examined by \cite{Dev07} will be presented
218: elsewhere, here we report on the ksec variability observed for source,
219: X-7, (R.A: 20 35 0.13 and Dec: +60 9 7.97) in
220: NGC 6946. The source is a known variable source \citep{Liu05,Lir00} and has been called
221: IXO 85 \citep{Col02} and source no. 56 \citep{Hol03}.
222:
223:
224: NGC 6946 was observed by {\it Chandra} for an effective time of 59 ksec on 7 September, 2001 (Observation ID: 1043). The data reduction and analysis were done using CIAO3.2 and
225: HEASOFT6.0.2. Using a combination
226: of CIAO tools and calibration data, the source (and background) spectrum and light curve were
227: extracted. Spectral
228: fitting was done over the energy range $0.3$ to $8$ keV and spectra were rebinned such that each bin
229: had a minimum of 40 counts.
230: The distance to the source has been estimated to be between 5.1 Mpc \citep{DeV79}
231: and 5.9 Mpc \citep{Kar00} and hence we adopt here a distance of 5.5 Mpc.
232:
233:
234: \begin{deluxetable} {lcccc}
235: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
236: \tablewidth{0pt}
237: \tablecaption{Spectral properties of NGC 6946, X-7 }
238: \tablehead{
239: \colhead{} & \colhead{$kT_{in}$ (keV)} & \colhead{$R_{in} (\times 10^8$ cm) } & \colhead{$L (\times 10^{39}$ erg/sec) } & \colhead{$\chi^2$/d.o.f } }
240: \startdata
241:
242: HCR & $0.29^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $6.0^{+1.5}_{-1.6}$ & $3.7^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$ & $10.9/16$ \\
243:
244: LCR & $0.26^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $6.0^{+1.6}_{-1.4}$ & $2.8^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$ & $22.0/14$ \\
245:
246:
247:
248:
249:
250: \enddata
251: \tablecomments{Best fit spectral parameters for the high rate segment (HCR) and
252: the low rate segment (LCR). The model is an absorbed disk black body emission with the
253: column density fixed at the Galactic value $ 2.1 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.
254: The inner radius of the disk $R_{in}$ is
255: computed from the normalization of the disk black body component using the distance to
256: the source $D = 5.5$ Mpc, the viewing angle cos$i = 0.5$ and color factor $f = 1.7$. }
257:
258: \end{deluxetable}
259:
260:
261: \begin{figure}
262: \begin{center}
263: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f1.eps}}
264: \end{center}
265: \caption{Top panel: Light Curve of source X-7, binned over 2000 secs. A clear decrease of counts
266: by a factor $\sim 1.5$ is visible. The vertical lines mark the time which is used to
267: divide the light curve into high count rate (HCR) and low count rate (LCR) states for
268: spectral analysis. Bottom panel: Hardness ratio versus time binned over 8000 secs. The ratio is defined
269: as the ratio between flux in the $0.3-1.0$ keV band over that in the $1.0-8.0$ keV band. There is evidence that
270: the ratio decreases with the intensity. }
271: \end{figure}
272:
273:
274: The light curve binned over 2 ksec is shown in Figure 1, where
275: a clear transition from high to low count rate is visible.
276: The probability that the count rate was a constant during the observations is $ < 2 \times
277: 10^{-10}$. The bottom panel of the Figure shows the hardness ratio versus time binned over 8000 secs. The ratio is defined
278: as the ratio between flux in the $0.3-1.0$ keV band over that in the $1.0-8.0$ keV band. There is evidence that
279: the ratio decreases with the intensity.
280: The two vertical lines mark the time ranges used for spectral analysis, with
281: the first $22.46$ ksec being called high count rate segment (HCR) state and the last $29.54$
282: ksec as the low count rate one (LCR). The total number of counts for the HCR segment was 820 while
283: for the LCR segment it was 725.
284:
285:
286: \begin{figure}
287: \begin{center}
288: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f2.eps}}
289: \end{center}
290: \caption{The fitted unfolded spectra for the high count rate segment, HCR, for parameters listed in Table 1.
291: The solid line is the best fit model, while the dashed line represents unabsorbed spectra.
292: }
293: \end{figure}
294:
295: \begin{figure}
296: \begin{center}
297: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f3.eps}}
298: \end{center}
299: \caption{The fitted unfolded spectra for
300: the low count rate segment, LCR, for parameters listed in Table 1.
301: The solid line is the best fit model, while the dashed line represents unabsorbed spectra.
302: }
303: \end{figure}
304:
305:
306:
307: The Galactic hydrogen column density along the direction of the source is
308: $2.1 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.
309: An absorbed power-law model with this value of absorption gives an unacceptable fit
310: to both HCR and LCR segments, with reduced $\chi^2_{\nu} > 2.5$. The fit can be significantly improved by
311: allowing for intrinsic absorption, $ N_H \sim 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ but with a large unphysical photon
312: index of $\Gamma > 5$. On the other hand, as shown in Table 1 and illustrated in Figures 2 and 3,
313: an absorbed disk black body
314: model with the column density at the Galactic value, provides adequate fits to both segments.
315: The inner radius of the disk $R_{in}$ is
316: computed from the normalization of the disk black body component using the distance to
317: the source $D = 5.5$ Mpc, the viewing angle cos $i = 0.5$ and color factor $f = 1.7$.
318: The result and it implications are better represented in Figure 4, where confidence region ellipses
319: are shown for the two parameters $R_{in}$ and inner disk temperature $T_{in}$. The Figure
320: reveals that the simplest and more favored interpretation is that the inner disk radius remains
321: constant, while the temperature decreases during the variation. Assuming that $R_{in} \sim 10 GM/c^2$,
322: the black hole mass, $M$, can be estimated and confidence ellipses for $M$ and total bolometric
323: luminosity are shown in Figure 5. A black hole mass of $M \sim 400 M_\odot$ is favored for
324: both sets while the luminosity decreases from $\sim 3.7$ to $\sim 2.8 \times 10^{39}$ ergs/sec,
325: corresponding to an Eddington ratio, $L/L_{Edd} \sim 0.06$.
326:
327: \begin{figure}
328: \begin{center}
329: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f4.eps}}
330: \end{center}
331: \caption{Confidence region ellipses for the inner disk radius, $R_{in}$ and temperature, $T_{in}$,
332: for the HCR and LCR segments for best fit parameters given in Table 1. The solid
333: (dashed) curves represent $\Delta \chi^2 = 2.3 (4.61)$ corresponding to $68.3$ ($90$\%) confidence
334: level. The results favor the interpretation that $R_{in}$ is a constant and that the decrease in
335: count rate is due to a decrease in $T_{in}$. }
336: \end{figure}
337:
338:
339: \begin{figure}
340: \begin{center}
341: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f5.eps}}
342: \end{center}
343: \caption{Confidence region ellipses for the black hole mass, $M$ and bolometric luminosity, $L$,
344: for the HCR and LCR segments estimated from $R_{in}$ and $T_{in}$ values shown in Figure 3. The solid
345: (dashed) curves represent $\Delta \chi^2 = 2.3 (4.61)$ corresponding to $68.3$ ($90$\%) confidence
346: levels. For both the segments a black hole mass, $M \sim 400 M_\odot$ is favored.}
347: \end{figure}
348:
349:
350: It is worth emphasizing that the above interpretation is the simplest one which
351: provides acceptable fit to the data and requires the smallest black hole mass.
352: If one allows for intrinsic absorbing column density, the best fit temperature decreases
353: and the inner radius increases implying a larger black hole mass. For example, a
354: simple model could be that the variation is only due to changes in the
355: intrinsic column density. A model where the column density is allowed to vary, with
356: $R_{in}$ and $T_{in}$ same for both segments, indeed gives an acceptable combined $\chi^2$/dof = $36.9/32$,
357: with $N_H$ increasing from $3\pm 0.4$ to $3.9\pm 0.4 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ and inner
358: disk temperature $T_{in} = 0.22 \pm 0.1$ keV. The inner disk radius turns out to be
359: $1.5 \pm 0.3 \times 10^9$ cm corresponding to a $\sim 950 M_\odot$ black hole. If
360: the column density and temperature are allowed to vary independently
361: for the two segments, $\chi^2/dof = 29/29$, with $R_{in} = 1.3 \pm 0.4 \times 10^9$ cm
362: corresponding to $M \sim 900 M_\odot$. An additional power-law component with photon index
363: $\Gamma = 2.0$ or $\Gamma = 2.7$ does not improve the fit if the column density is fixed
364: at the Galactic value. For $N_H \sim 6 \times 10^{21}$, a disk black body and a power-law component
365: with $\Gamma = 2$, provides a good fit to both segments $\chi^2/dof = 19.9/27$. Here, the variability
366: is due to a change of normalization of the power-law component, while the temperature
367: $T_{in} \sim 0.13$ keV and $R_{in} \sim 1.2 \times 10^{10}$ cm remain nearly constant. Again, in
368: these more complicated interpretations $R_{in}$ is significantly larger implying a larger black hole
369: mass.
370:
371:
372:
373:
374:
375:
376:
377:
378:
379:
380: \section{Summary and Discussion}
381:
382: The X-ray source X-7 in NGC 6946 is located in a region of low diffuse emission and has
383: a count rate which does not cause pile-up in {\it Chandra} detectors. The light curve
384: of this source reveals a decrease of $\sim 1.5$ in the count rate over $5000$ sec making it
385: one of the few ULX that have clearly shown variability on ksec time-scales \citep{Kra05,Miz01}.
386:
387: Spectral fitting of the high and low count rate parts of the light curve reveals that
388: a simple model of a disk black body emission absorbed by the Galactic column density of
389: $N_H = 2.1 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ can adequately represent both segments. The best fit temperature
390: varies from $0.26$ to $0.29$ keV while the inner disk radius remains constant at $ \sim 6 \times 10^8$ cm.
391: This would imply that the mass of the black hole is $\sim 400 M_\odot$ and at a luminosity of
392: $\sim 3 \times 10^{39}$ ergs/sec the system has an Eddington ratio of $\sim 0.06$. Other more
393: complicated spectral fits like assuming intrinsic column density for the source and/or addition
394: of a power-law component results in a larger estimation of inner disk radius and hence a
395: larger black hole mass. Although the luminosity of the source estimated here is only
396: mildly super-Eddington for ten solar mass black hole, the low inner disk temperature
397: $\sim 0.3$ keV implies a larger inner disk radius and hence a large black hole mass $\sim 400 M_\odot$.
398: A low sub-Eddington accretion rate on a ten solar mass black hole could produce the observed low inner disk temperature, but then
399: the predicted luminosity would be significantly less than what is observed.
400: As cautioned by \cite{Mil04}, the source could be a background AGN and
401: the soft component observed is actually the soft excess which is detected in many AGN.
402: These soft excesses can be modeled as black body emission at $kT \sim 0.1$ keV similar
403: to the soft component in ULX.
404: While this may be true for some ULX, this is unlikely in this case because here (unlike soft excess
405: of AGN) the soft component totally dominates the luminosity.
406:
407: If the emission is beamed \citep{Kin01} by a factor $\eta$, the inner disk radius would be overestimated
408: by $\eta^{1/2}$. However, even for extreme geometries \cite{Mis03} have computed $\eta < 5$. Hence
409: an extreme beaming of $\eta \sim 5$, would imply that $R_{in} \sim 2.7 \times 10^8$ cm corresponding
410: to a black hole mass of $180 M_\odot$. The color factor used in this analysis is the standard
411: value of $1.7$. Even for the extreme case that there is no color correction,
412: $R_{in} \sim 2 \times 10^8$ cm corresponding to a black hole mass of $130 M_\odot$. Thus only
413: in the extremely unlikely case of having no color correction and high beaming factor
414: $\eta \sim 5$ would the black hole mass be $< 100 M_\odot$.
415:
416: A model can be envisioned where the inner disk radius is not at $10 GM/c^2$ but is
417: at a much larger radius say $100 GM/c^2$, with the inner region being highly radiatively
418: inefficient. Then the mass of the black hole could be $\sim 40 M_\odot$. However to produce a
419: luminosity of $\sim 2 \times 10^{39}$ ergs/sec at $100 GM/c^2$ would require an accretion rate
420: which is $50$ times the Eddington value and it is not clear how the inner region would remain
421: radiatively inefficient at such accretion rates. A more radical model would be that the emission
422: arises from an optically thick sphere of radius $ \sim 100 GM/c^2$ surrounding a $40 M_\odot$ black hole,
423: but that would be a serious paradigm shift from our present understanding of accretion flows.
424:
425: In a contemporary work, \cite{Fri08}, have studied the long term variability of
426: sources in NGC 6946 using five {\it Chandra} observations. They confirm
427: the variability of this source (their source no. 60) for this
428: observation, but not for the others. They
429: detect long term flux variability for the different observations.
430: Their hardness
431: ratio estimations confirm the soft nature of this source for all the
432: observations.
433:
434: The results presented here indicate that the black hole mass of this source is $> 400 M_\odot$
435: which may be true for other super-soft X-ray sources and for ULX in general. However,
436: further analysis of data of this and other super-soft sources are required to
437: ascertain whether such temporal and spectral behavior is common among ULX.
438:
439:
440:
441:
442:
443: \acknowledgements
444:
445: ASD thanks CSIR and IUCAA for support. The authors would like to thank
446: V. Agrawal, S. Ashtamkar, M. Patil and V. Wadwalkar for helping in the
447: data analysis and Phil Charles for useful comments on an earlier draft.
448:
449: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
450:
451: \bibitem[Agrawal \& Misra(2006)]{Agr06} Agrawal, V.~K., \&
452: Misra, R.\ 2006, \apjl, 638, L83
453:
454: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Begelman}{2002}]{Beg02}
455: Begelman, M. C., 2002, \apj, 568, L97.
456:
457: \bibitem[Colbert \& Mushotzky(1999)]{Col99} Colbert,
458: E.~J.~M., \& Mushotzky, R.~F.\ 1999, \apj, 519, 89
459:
460: \bibitem[Colbert \& Ptak(2002)]{Col02} Colbert, E.~J.~M., \&
461: Ptak, A.~F.\ 2002, \apjs, 143, 25
462:
463: \bibitem[Devi et al.(2007)]{Dev07} Devi, A.~S., Misra, R.,
464: Agrawal, V.~K., \& Singh, K.~Y.\ 2007, \apj, 664, 458
465:
466: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs(1979)]{DeV79} de Vaucouleurs, G.\
467: 1979, \apj, 227, 729
468:
469:
470:
471:
472:
473: \bibitem[Done \& Gierli{\'n}ski(2003)]{Don03} Done, C., \&
474: Gierli{\'n}ski, M.\ 2003, \mnras, 342, 1041
475:
476:
477:
478: \bibitem[Fridriksson et al.(2008)]{Fri08} Fridriksson, J.~K.,
479: Homan, J., Lewin, W.~H.~G., Kong, A.~K.~H.,
480: \& Pooley, D.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804, arXiv:0804.1411
481:
482: \bibitem[Gon{\c c}alves \& Soria(2006)]{Gon06} Gon{\c
483: c}alves, A.~C., \& Soria, R.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, 673
484:
485:
486:
487:
488:
489:
490:
491: \bibitem[Holt et al.(2003)]{Hol03} Holt, S.~S., Schlegel,
492: E.~M., Hwang, U., \& Petre, R.\ 2003, \apj, 588, 792
493:
494: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kaaret \etal}{2001 }]{Kaa01}
495: Kaaret, P., \etal\ 2001, \mnras, 321, L29.
496:
497: \bibitem[Karachentsev et al.(2000)]{Kar00} Karachentsev,
498: I.~D., Sharina, M.~E., \& Huchtmeier, W.~K.\ 2000, \aap, 362, 544
499:
500: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{King \etal}{2001}]{Kin01}
501: King, A. R. \etal\ 2001, \apj, 552, L109.
502:
503: \bibitem[Krauss et al.(2005)]{Kra05} Krauss, M.~I., Kilgard,
504: R.~E., Garcia, M.~R., Roberts, T.~P., \& Prestwich, A.~H.\ 2005, \apj, 630,
505: 228
506:
507:
508:
509: \bibitem[Lira et al.(2000)]{Lir00} Lira, P., Lawrence, A., \&
510: Johnson, R.~A.\ 2000, \mnras, 319, 17
511:
512: \bibitem[Liu \& Mirabel(2005)]{Liu05} Liu, Q.~Z., \& Mirabel,
513: I.~F.\ 2005, \aap, 429, 1125
514:
515: \bibitem[Maccarone(2003)]{Mac03} Maccarone, T.~J.\ 2003,
516: \aap, 409, 697
517:
518: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Madau \& Rees}{2001}]{Mad01}
519: Madau, P., \& Rees, M. J., 2001, \apj, 551, L27.
520:
521: \bibitem[Makishima et al.(2000)]{Mak00} Makishima, K., et
522: al.\ 2000, \apj, 535, 632
523:
524: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Matsumoto \etal}{2001}]{Mat01}
525: Matsumoto, H., \etal\ 2001, \apj , 547, L25.
526:
527: \bibitem[McClintock et al.(2006)]{Mcc06} McClintock, J.~E.,
528: Shafee, R., Narayan, R., Remillard, R.~A., Davis, S.~W.,
529: \& Li, L.-X.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 518
530:
531: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Miller \etal}{2003}]{Mil03}
532: Miller, J. M., Fabbiano, G., Miller, M. C., \& Fabian, A. C.,
533: 2003, \apjl, 585, L37.
534:
535:
536:
537: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Miller, Fabian \& Miller}{2004}]{Mil04}
538: Miller, J. M., Fabian, A. C., \& Miller, M. C., 2004, \apj, 607, 931.
539:
540: \bibitem[Miller(2005)]{Mil05} Miller, J.~M.\ 2005, \apss,
541: 300, 227
542:
543: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Misra \& Sriram}{2003}]{Mis03} Misra, R., \&
544: Sriram, K., 2003, \apj, 584, 981.
545:
546:
547: \bibitem[Mizuno et al.(2001)]{Miz01} Mizuno, T., Kubota, A.,
548: \& Makishima, K.\ 2001, \apj, 554, 1282
549:
550: \bibitem[Netzer et al.(2003)]{Net03} Netzer, H., et al.\
551: 2003, \apj, 599, 933
552:
553: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Portegies, Zwart \& McMillian}{2002}]{Por02}
554: Portegies Zwart, S. F., \& McMillian, S. L. W., 2002, \apj, 576, 899.
555:
556:
557:
558:
559:
560:
561:
562:
563:
564: \bibitem[Stobbart et al.(2006)]{Sto06} Stobbart, A.-M.,
565: Roberts, T.~P., \& Wilms, J.\ 2006, \mnras, 368, 397
566:
567:
568:
569: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Swartz \etal}{2004}]{Swa04}
570: Swartz, D. A., Ghosh, K. K., Tennant, A. F., Wu K. 2004, \apjs, 154, 519.
571:
572: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Taniguchi \etal}{2000}] {Tan00}
573: Taniguchi, Y., Shioya, Y., Tsuru, T. G. \& Ikeuchi, S., 2000,
574: PASJ, 52, 533.
575:
576: \bibitem[Yuan et al.(2007)]{Yua07} Yuan, F., Taam, R.~E.,
577: Misra, R., Wu, X.-B., \& Xue, Y.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 282
578:
579:
580:
581: \bibitem[Winter et al.(2006)]{Win06} Winter, L.~M.,
582: Mushotzky, R.~F., \& Reynolds, C.~S.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 730
583:
584:
585: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zezas \& Fabbiano}{2002}]{Zez02}
586: Zezas, A., \& Fabbiano, G., \apj, 577, 726.
587:
588: \bibitem[Zdziarski \& Gierli{\'n}ski(2004)]{Zdz04} Zdziarski,
589: A.~A., \& Gierli{\'n}ski, M.\ 2004, Progress of Theoretical Physics
590: Supplement, 155, 99
591:
592: \end{thebibliography}
593:
594:
595:
596:
597:
598:
599:
600: \end{document}
601: