1: % paper on Chandra ToT observations of M82 in 2007
2:
3: %\documentclass{aastex}
4: \documentclass{emulateapj}
5: %\usepackage{emulateapj5,apjfonts}
6:
7: % format needed for submission
8: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
9: % preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
10: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
11: %\usepackage{psfig}
12:
13: \newcommand{\fluxu}{$10^{-11} \, \rm erg \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}$}
14:
15: % You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
16: \slugcomment{submitted to ApJ}
17:
18: \shorttitle{X-Ray Outburst from M82}
19: \shortauthors{Kaaret, Feng, \& Gorski}
20:
21: \begin{document}
22:
23:
24:
25: \title{A Major X-ray Outburst from an Ultraluminous X-Ray Source in M82}
26:
27: \author{Philip Kaaret\altaffilmark{1}, Hua Feng\altaffilmark{2,1}, and
28: Mark Gorski\altaffilmark{1}}
29:
30: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
31: Iowa, Van Allen Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242.}
32:
33: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Engineering Physics and Center for
34: Astrophysics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.}
35:
36:
37: %\thanks{E-mail: philip-kaaret@uiowa.edu}
38:
39: \begin{abstract}
40:
41: We detected a major X-ray outburst from M82 with a duration of 79 days,
42: an average flux of $5 \times 10^{-11} \rm \, erg \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}$
43: in the 2-10~keV band, and strong variability. The X-ray spectrum
44: remained hard throughout the outburst. We obtained a Chandra
45: observation during the outburst that shows that the emission arises from
46: the ultraluminous X-ray source X41.4+60. This source has an unabsorbed
47: flux of $(5.4 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-11} \rm \, erg \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}$
48: in the 0.3-8~keV band, equivalent to an isotropic luminosity of $8.5
49: \times 10^{40} \rm \, erg \, s^{-1}$. The spectrum is adequately fitted
50: with an absorbed power-law with a photon index of $1.55 \pm 0.05$. This
51: photon index is very similar to the value of $1.61 \pm 0.06$ measured
52: previously while the flux was $(2.64 \pm 0.14) \times 10^{-11} \rm \,
53: erg \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}$. Thus, the source appears to remain in the
54: hard state even at the highest flux levels observed. The X-ray spectral
55: and timing data available for X41.4+60 are consistent with the source
56: being in a luminous hard state and a black hole mass in the range of one
57: to a few thousand solar masses.
58:
59: \end{abstract}
60:
61: \keywords{black hole physics -- galaxies: individual: M82
62: galaxies: stellar content -- X-rays: galaxies -- X-rays: black holes}
63:
64:
65: \section{Introduction}
66:
67: The bright X-ray sources in external galaxies, known as ultraluminous
68: X-ray sources (ULXs), are of current interest because they represent
69: either an unusual state of mass accretion, not or seldom seen from
70: Galactic stellar-mass black hole X-ray binaries, or binary systems
71: containing intermediate-mass black holes \citep{Colbert99,Makishima00}.
72: The ULX with the highest observed X-ray flux, CXOU J095550.2+694047 =
73: X41.4+60 \citep{Kaaret01}, is located in the nearby starburst galaxy M82
74: at a distance of 3.63~Mpc. If the radiation from X41.4+60 is isotropic
75: and from an accreting object, then the mass of the accretor must be in
76: excess of $500 M_{\sun}$ to avoid violating the Eddington limit.
77: X41.4+60 is offset from the dynamical center of the galaxy
78: \citep{Kaaret01}, produces quasiperiodic oscillations (QPOs) in the
79: 50--120~mHz range \citep{Strohmayer03,Mucciarelli06,Dewangan06,Feng07},
80: produces little if any radio emission \citep{Kaaret06}, and exhibits an
81: X-ray periodicity of 62 days \citep{Kaaret06sci,Kaaret06,Kaaret07}. The
82: position of X41.4+60 is within $1\arcsec$ of the position of an infrared
83: source \citep{Kaaret04} identified as the super star cluster MGG 11
84: \citep{McCrady03} that has an extremely dense core that may have led to
85: numerous stellar collisions and the formation of an intermediate mass
86: black hole \citep{Portegies04}.
87:
88: In on-going monitoring of M82 using the Proportional Counter Array (PCA)
89: on the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE), we detected a major flare
90: from M82 with a peak flux corresponding to an isotropic luminosity of
91: $1.1 \times 10^{41} \rm \, erg \, s^{-1}$. After the onset of this
92: remarkable X-ray flare, we obtained imaging X-ray observations with the
93: Chandra X-Ray Observatory. We describe X-ray observations with RXTE in
94: \S~2, with Chandra in \S~3, and discuss the results in \S~4.
95:
96:
97: \section{RXTE observations}
98:
99: We monitored M82 using the PCA on RXTE \citep{Bradt93} under programs
100: 92098 and 93123 (PI Kaaret). As described in
101: \citet{Kaaret06sci,Kaaret06,Kaaret07}, we analyzed the real time data
102: from RXTE soon after the data became available on the RXTE ftp site
103: which enabled us to request a target of opportunity observation with the
104: Chandra X-ray Observatory \citep{Weisskopf02} after detection of the
105: flare.
106:
107: The RXTE results presented here were obtained with the production data
108: and the analysis was carried out with version 6.4.1 of the HEAsoft
109: package and the CALDB available in June 2008. After the data were
110: retrieved, they were filtered to select good time intervals such that
111: Proportional Counter Unit (PCU) 2 was on, the source was more than ten
112: degrees above the horizon, the pointing offset from the source was less
113: than $0.01\arcdeg$, the satellite was more than 30~s past the South
114: Atlantic Anomaly (SAA), and the electron contamination was low,
115: specifically with an electron rate less than 0.1~c/s. A background file
116: was made for the same interval as the observation with the model
117: pca\_bkgd\_cmfaintl7\_eMv20051128.mdl. The tool {\tt saextrct} was used
118: to make both light curves and spectra for the source and background,
119: using only data from PCU 2. Spectra in the 3-12~keV band were fitted
120: with a power-law model using the spectral fitting program XSPEC to
121: obtain a measurement of the flux in the 2--10~keV band. A power-law
122: model with interstellar absorption with the column density fixed to $1.2
123: \times 10^{22} \rm \, cm^{-2}$ was used. The average photon index for
124: the observations shown in Fig.~\ref{xtelc} was 2.15 with a standard
125: deviation of 0.21. The average uncertainty in the photon index was
126: 0.20, so there is no evidence for spectral variation. Fluxes calculated
127: with the photon index fixed to the average value agree with those
128: calculated from the fits with the photon index left free. We note that
129: the PCA field of view is about $1\arcdeg$ FWHM. Thus, the PCA spectra
130: represent the summed spectra of all the sources in M82 and not the
131: spectrum of the X41.4+60 alone; the spectral index measured with the PCA
132: is not expected to agree with that measured for X41.4+60 alone with
133: Chandra. We have reduced the PCA fluxes by a factor of 1.18 because the
134: PCA calibration appears to give systematically higher fluxes than
135: previous and other current X-ray instruments \citep{Tomsick99}.
136:
137: \begin{figure*}[tb]
138: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=5.5in]{f1.eps}}
139: \caption{\label{xtelc} Light curve of M82 obtained using the PCA on
140: RXTE. The plot shows the flux in the 2--10~keV band calculated for each
141: observation versus the observation date in MJD. The vertical dashed
142: lines indicate the time of the Chandra observation. An X-ray outburst
143: occurred from MJD 54247 to MJD 54326.} \end{figure*}
144:
145: Fig.~\ref{xtelc} shows the observed flux in the 2-10~keV band versus
146: time from spectral fits with the photon index fixed to 2.15. The X-ray
147: flare begins at MJD 54247.2 when the flux rises above $5 \times 10^{-11}
148: \rm \, erg \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}$. The flux remains high, although highly
149: variable, until MJD 54325.7. After that date, the flux returns to the
150: usual range for M82 of $\sim 2-3 \times 10^{-11} \rm \, erg \, cm^{-2}
151: \, s^{-1}$. The flare duration was 79 days. The peak flux was $6.1
152: \times 10^{-11} \rm \, erg \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}$, the average flux was
153: $4.6 \times 10^{-11} \rm \, erg \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}$, and the
154: root-mean-square (rms) variation in the flux was $9.7 \times 10^{-12}
155: \rm \, erg \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}$ indicating an rms amplitude of 21\%.
156: The duration of the flare is similar to that of the flare found by
157: \citet{Rephaeli02}. The level of variability is higher, but that may,
158: at least in part, be due to the limited coverage (only four
159: observations) available to \citet{Rephaeli02}.
160:
161: \begin{figure}[tb] \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{f2.eps}}
162: \caption{\label{xtehid} Hardness-intensity diagram of M82 obtained
163: using the PCA on RXTE. The plot shows the count rate in the 3.6-21.6 keV
164: band as a function of the hardness, defined as the ratio of counts in
165: the 6.5-11.0 keV band to those in the 3.6-6.5~keV band. The plot
166: includes those observations shown in Fig.~\ref{xtelc} for which the
167: hardness could be calculated to a fractional accuracy of better than
168: 0.15. The source remained in the hard state for the whole outburst.}
169: \end{figure}
170:
171: Fig.~\ref{xtehid} shows a hardness-intensity diagram for M82. We chose
172: energy bands similar to those used by \citet{Belloni05} in order to
173: facilitate comparison with previous results. Specifically, we used the
174: count rate in the 3.6-21.6 keV band as the measure of intensity and the
175: ratio of counts in the 6.5-11.0 keV band to those in the 3.6-6.5~keV
176: band as the measure of hardness. The plot includes those observations
177: shown in Fig.~\ref{xtelc} for which the hardness could be calculated to
178: a fractional accuracy of better than 0.15. The photons recorded by the
179: PCA include diffuse emission and other X-ray sources in M82 that affect
180: the intensity and hardness. However, the changes in intensity and
181: hardness are likely dominated by X41.4+60. Fig.~\ref{xtehid} indicates
182: that X41.4+60 is usually in the hard state and remains in the hard state
183: during the whole of the outburst. There is no significant change in
184: hardness as the intensity changes over a factor of about 4.
185:
186: We searched for rapid variability following the procedures described in
187: \citet{Kaaret07}. No statistically significant quasiperiodic
188: oscillations (QPOs) were found. This may be because the new RXTE
189: observations are rather short, typically less than 1000~s, and have
190: fewer Proportional Counter Units turned on compared to previous RXTE
191: observations in which QPOs were detected.
192:
193:
194: \section{Observations and results}
195:
196: After detection of a high X-ray flux level with the PCA, a Chandra
197: \citep{Weisskopf02} Target of Opportunity Observation (TOO) was
198: triggered. The observation (ObsID 8190; PI Kaaret) began on 2007 June
199: 2 at 02:41:29 UT (MJD 54253.112). The observation was made using the
200: Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer spectroscopy array (ACIS-S) and the
201: High Resolution Mirror Assembly (HRMA). We obtained 52,768~s of useful
202: exposure. The ACIS-S was used in imaging mode. As described in
203: \citet{Kaaret06} for our previous TOO, we attempted to reduce pile-up by
204: offsetting the target $-3\farcm57$ along the Y-detector coordinate in
205: order to image the source using a point spread function that spread the
206: beam over many CCD pixels and operating only the S3 chip in the 1/8
207: sub-array mode to reduce the frame time to 0.441~s. We also re-analyzed
208: the Chandra observation (ObsID 6097) of M82 that began on 2005 February
209: 4 at 23:34:40 UT (MJD 53405.982).
210:
211: \begin{figure*}[tb]
212: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{f3a.eps} ~
213: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{f3b.eps}}
214: \caption{\label{chandra_image} X-ray images of M82 in the 2--8~keV
215: band. The panel on the left shows the Chandra observation on 2005
216: February 4, while the panel on the right shows the new Chandra
217: observation on 2007 June 2. The intensity scale is the same in the two
218: images. In both panels, the solid ellipse shows the source extraction
219: region, the rectangle is the background region, and the arrow points
220: North and has a length of $5\arcsec$. For the 2007 observation, the
221: dashed ellipse shows the source region for the X-ray source X42.3+59.
222: This region was excluded in the extraction of photons from X41.4+60.}
223: \end{figure*}
224:
225: The Chandra data were subjected to standard data processing and event
226: screening (Ciao version 4.0.1 using CALDB version 3.4.3). Neither
227: observation showed any strong background flares. Following
228: \citet{Kaaret06}, we constructed images for the 2--8~keV band and used
229: the {\it wavdetect} tool to locate the X-ray sources.
230: Fig.~\ref{chandra_image} shows the images and the source regions for
231: X41.4+60 defined using the 2--8~keV band. Note that the sources appear
232: elongated because they are off axis. The ellipses encompassing X41.4+60
233: have semi-major axes of $5.69\arcsec$ and $7.11\arcsec$, and semi-minor
234: axes of $3.33\arcsec$ and $2.93\arcsec$, respectively for observation
235: 6097 and 8190. The background region is defined by a $8.49\arcsec$ by
236: $3.81\arcsec$ box placed near the source, but avoiding other point
237: sources and the readout streak for X41.4+60. In observation 8190, some
238: photons from another bright source, X42.3+59, fall into the region
239: defined for X41.4+60. When accumulating the spectrum for X41.4+60, we
240: excluded photons from the region around X42.3+59, indicated by the
241: dotted ellipse in Fig.~\ref{chandra_image}, in order to minimize the
242: contamination. Response matrices were calculated using {\it mkacisrmf}
243: and the spectra were fitted using {XSPEC 12} which is part of the
244: HEAsoft package.
245:
246: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccc}
247: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
248: \tablecaption{X-Ray Spectral Fits \label{spectralfits}}
249: \tablewidth{0pt}
250: \tablehead{ & \colhead{$\Gamma$} & \colhead{$N_H$} & \colhead{Flux} & \colhead{$\chi^2$/DoF} \\
251: & & ($10^{22} \, \rm cm^{-2}$)
252: & ($10^{-11} \, \rm erg \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1}$)
253: & }
254: \startdata \hline
255: \multicolumn{5}{l}{Observation 6097 - 2005 February 4} \\
256: MARX input & 1.61 & 1.15 & 1.55 & \\
257: MARX output & 1.65$\pm$0.03 & 1.20$\pm$0.03 & 1.27$\pm$0.05 & 433.2/401 \\
258: " pileup & 1.73$\pm$0.05 & 1.24$\pm$0.03 & 1.30$\pm$0.06 & 421.7/400 \\
259: Data & 1.63$\pm$0.03 & 1.18$\pm$0.03 & 1.29$\pm$0.05 & 347.1/407 \\
260: " pileup & 1.67$\pm$0.05 & 1.20$\pm$0.03 & 1.30$\pm$0.07 & 343.1/406 \\ \hline
261: \multicolumn{5}{l}{Observation 8190 - 2007 June 2} \\
262: MARX input & 1.55 & 1.29 & 3.20 & \\
263: MARX output & 1.50$\pm$0.02 & 1.32$\pm$0.02 & 2.67$\pm$0.08 & 596.6/456 \\
264: " pileup & 1.63$\pm$0.04 & 1.39$\pm$0.03 & 2.77$\pm$0.11 & 533.9/455 \\
265: Data & 1.50$\pm$0.02 & 1.31$\pm$0.02 & 2.66$\pm$0.08 & 587.8/463 \\
266: " pileup & 1.56$\pm$0.03 & 1.34$\pm$0.03 & 2.70$\pm$0.11 & 575.2/462 \\ \hline
267: \enddata
268:
269: \tablecomments{The table includes for both observations: the parameters
270: input to the Marx, the best fitted parameters for fits of an absorbed
271: power-law model and an absorbed power-law model with pile-up correction
272: fitted to the output of the Marx simulation and to the data. The
273: columns give: $\Gamma$ - the photon index, $N_H$ - the absorption column
274: density, Flux -- absorbed source flux in the 0.3--10~keV band; and the
275: $\chi^2$ and number of degrees of freedom in the fit.}
276: \end{deluxetable*}
277:
278: \begin{figure}[tb] \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{f4.eps}}
279: \caption{\label{chandra_spec} Energy spectrum of X41.4+60. The top
280: panel shows the counts~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~keV$^{-1}$ for both
281: observations on the same scale. Observation 8190 is the upper curve at
282: all energies. The middle panel shows the residuals of the fit for
283: observation 6097. The bottom panel shows the residuals for observation
284: 8190. The spectral shape at high energies is very similar between the
285: two observations. The column density for observation 8190 is slightly
286: higher than for observation 6097.} \end{figure}
287:
288: We estimated the pileup in the spectrum for each observation by summing
289: the counts (with no energy selection) in a 3$\times$3 pixel box around
290: the pixel with the maximum number of counts and then calculating the
291: counts per frame within the box. Observation 6097 yielded 0.18
292: counts/frame and observation 8190 yielded 0.31 counts/frame. Thus,
293: within the central 3$\times$3 pixel box, the fraction of piled-up events
294: is 5.2\% for observation 6097 and 10.3\% for observation 8190. The
295: central 3$\times$3 pixel box contains 40\% and 38\% of the total events,
296: so the overall pile-up fraction is about 2\% and $4$\%, respectively
297: for observation 6097 and 8190.
298:
299: Even though the overall pile-up is low, the central regions of the image
300: in the second observation are strongly affected by pile-up. We chose to
301: use two methods to model the pile-up. The first was to use the ACIS
302: pile-up model in XSPEC version 12.4.0x. We fitted the spectral data in
303: the 0.3--8~keV band with an absorbed power law with and without the
304: pileup model. The pileup model parameters were set to match the frame
305: time of the Chandra observations. Since the observation is off-axis,
306: the fraction of photons in the piled-up part of the spectrum is
307: different from the 95\% for an on-axis point source. We set this
308: fraction (the parameter psffrac) to the ratio of counts, with no energy
309: selection, in the 3$\times$3 pixel box around the pixel with the maximum
310: number of counts to the total counts in the source extraction region.
311: The values are 0.40 and 0.38 for observations 6097 and 8190,
312: respectively. The alpha values from the best fits are 0.33 for
313: observation 6097 and 0.25 for observation 8190.
314:
315: To check the modeling of the pileup, the observations were simulated
316: using Marx version 4.3.0. The Marx program is designed to simulate a
317: Chandra observation. We set up simulations matching the off-axis
318: pointing and roll angle for each observation. We followed an iterative
319: process to find input parameters to Marx that best matched the data: we
320: assumed a set of input parameter for an absorbed power-law model
321: (absorption column density, photon index, and normalization), ran Marx
322: using those parameters, fitted the output from Marx using an absorbed
323: power-law model, and then compared those best fitted parameters to those
324: obtained from the data. Because of the high source flux, the parameters
325: extracted from fits to the Marx simulation without the pile-up model
326: differ significantly from the input parameters due to the effects of
327: pile-up even the off-axis pointing and the use of a 1/8${\rm th}$
328: sub-array. We then adjusted the input parameters to Marx and repeated
329: the procedure until a good match was obtained between the fits to the
330: output of the simulation and the data.
331:
332: The final set of parameters input to the Marx simulation, the results
333: of the fits to output of that simulation, and the results of the fit to
334: the data are presented in Table~\ref{spectralfits}. We take the input
335: to the Marx simulations as our best estimate of the true source
336: properties. Comparing the Marx inputs with the fits to the data using
337: the power-law model with pile-up correction provide an indication of the
338: level of systematic uncertainty in the modeling. Our best estimate of
339: the photon index is $1.61 \pm 0.06$ for observation 6097 and $1.55 \pm
340: 0.05$ for 8190. The absorption-corrected flux in the 0.3-8~keV band in
341: units of \fluxu\ is 2.64$\pm$0.14 for the first observation, and
342: 5.4$\pm$0.2 for the second. In the 2--10~keV band, the
343: absorption-corrected fluxes are 1.86$\pm$0.10 and 4.0$\pm$0.2 in the
344: same units. Thus, the photon index remained constant, within the
345: uncertainties, while the flux changed by a factor of 2. We note that
346: \citet{Berghea08} reported an unusually hard spectrum for X41.4+60 for
347: an observation on 1999 December 30, but this observation is strongly
348: affected by pile-up with a pile fraction of at least 17\% in the peak
349: 3$\times$3 pixel box.
350:
351: The spectra of some ULXs appear to have curvature at high energies,
352: around 5~keV and above \citep{Feng05,Stobbart06,Roberts07}, and it is of
353: interest to search for spectral curvature from X41.4+60. Unfortunately,
354: the PCA observations around the time of the Chandra observation are too
355: short to make a useful measurement of the high energy extension of the
356: spectrum. Also, as noted above, the PCA field of view is larger than
357: the angular size of M82, so the PCA spectrum would not reflect that of
358: X41.4+60 alone.
359:
360: We fitted the Chandra data for observation 8190 using various models
361: with pile-up and interstellar absorption. We fixed the alpha parameter
362: to the value found in the single power-law fit as this was necessary to
363: prevent alpha from being driven to 1.0 (in which case all piled-up
364: photons are accepted as valid, negating the pile-up correction). A
365: Comptonization model, {\tt comptt} in XSPEC, provided no improvement in
366: the fit over the power-law model and the best fit temperature was well
367: above 8~keV. An exponentially cutoff power-law model, {\tt cutoffpl},
368: gave a cutoff energy larger than 8~keV, i.e.\ above the Chandra band. A
369: multicolor disk blackbody model provides a substantially worse fit than
370: the simple power-law model. A multicolor disk blackbody model in which
371: the temperature varies with radius as $r^{-p}$, the {\tt diskpbb},
372: provided an adequate fit with $p = 0.57 \pm 0.01$ and an inner disk
373: temperature of $6.5^{+1.3}_{-0.8}$~keV. However, difficulties with the
374: physical interpretation of this model given the high apparent luminosity
375: and high temperature needed for X41.4+60 have already been raised by
376: \citet{Miyakawa08} based on spectral fitting with Suzaku. They conclude
377: that the model is physically untenable and that the source appears to be
378: in the power-law state. We find an even higher temperature than
379: \citet{Miyakawa08} which would exacerbate the problems.
380:
381: \begin{figure}[tb] \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{f5.eps}}
382: \caption{\label{x41lc} Light curves of X41.4+60 in the 2--8~keV band
383: (crosses) and the 0.3--2~keV band (diamonds) for the 2007 observation.
384: The source was strongly variable in the 2--8 keV band.} \end{figure}
385:
386: Fig.~\ref{x41lc} shows light curves of X41.4+60 in the 0.3--2~keV and
387: 2--8~keV bands for the 2007 observation. The same source region used to
388: extract the spectrum was used to extract the light curve. The time bin
389: size is 2048 times the CCD frame time, i.e. 903.2~s. No attempt was
390: made to correct for pile-up. The source was variable on time scales of
391: thousands of seconds in the 2--8 keV band, but remained relatively
392: constant in the 0.3--2~keV band. We divided the data into high count
393: rate and low count rate halves and fitted the spectra for each using an
394: absorbed power-law model with pile-up correction. The absorption column
395: density is consistent, within errors, while the photon index for the
396: high count rate part, $\Gamma = 1.52 \pm 0.03$, is somewhat harder than
397: for the low count rate part, $\Gamma = 1.63 \pm 0.04$. This would favor
398: spectral pivoting as the origin of the variability.
399:
400:
401: \section{Discussion}
402:
403: The observed flux of X41.4+60 measured with Chandra on 2007 June 2 is
404: 3.0$\times$\fluxu\ in the 2-10~keV band. The flux from the remainder
405: of M82 is 1.8$\times$\fluxu. The flux of the whole galaxy as measured
406: by the PCA just before the start of the Chandra observation was $(5.0
407: \pm 0.2)\times$\fluxu\ which is in agreement. We adopt
408: 1.8$\times$\fluxu\ as an estimate of the flux arising from sources other
409: than X41.4+60 in M82 for the PCA observations. Then, the peak observed
410: flux in the 2--10~keV band from X41.4+60 during the outburst is
411: 4.3$\times$\fluxu\ and the average flux is 2.8$\times$\fluxu. Assuming
412: isotropic emission from a source located in M82 and converting these
413: absorbed fluxes into intrinsic fluxes using the Chandra spectrum derived
414: above, the peak luminosity in the 2--10~keV band is $7.6 \times 10^{40}
415: \rm \, erg \, s^{-1}$, the average luminosity is $4.9 \times 10^{40} \rm
416: \, erg \, s^{-1}$, and the total energy released in the outburst is
417: $\sim 3 \times 10^{47} \rm \, erg$. Extending the energy band to the
418: full band, 0.3--12~keV, detected from X41.4+60 during the outburst would
419: increase these values by 70\%.
420:
421: \citet{Remillard06} have identified three main spectral/timing states of
422: stellar-mass black hole X-ray binaries (BHXBs): the steep power-law
423: state, the thermal dominant state, and the hard state. The Chandra
424: spectra show that X41.4+60 is quite hard during both observations with a
425: photon index near 1.6. While it is not possible to rule out spectral
426: curvature above 8~keV, the observed 0.3--8~keV Chandra spectra are
427: inconsistent with those observed for BHXBs in the steep power-law state
428: or thermal dominant states. The Chandra spectra of X41.4+60 are
429: adequately described by a single power-law with a photon index of
430: $\Gamma = 1.6$ and are consistent with identification of the source as
431: being in the hard state -- defined as having a spectrum dominated by a
432: power-law component with 80\% or more of the total flux and a photon
433: index $1.4 < \Gamma < 2.1$, and pronounced continuum timing noise with
434: an integrated rms power greater than 10\%. We note that the photon
435: index at energies below any break or cutoff in the power-law component
436: is used by \citet{Remillard06} for the state classifications. Thus,
437: identification of X41.4+60 as in the hard state is robust, even if the
438: spectrum shows curvature at higher energies.
439:
440: The spectrum remains hard when the flux increases to the brightest
441: levels ever seen from the source. The Chandra data show that the source
442: is variable during the second observation, but are inadequate to detect
443: fast timing noise. An XMM-Newton observation made on 2004 April 21
444: reveals broad band timing noise \citep{Dewangan06,Mucciarelli06} which
445: appears to arise from X41.4+60 \citep{Feng07}. The integrated power in
446: the 6-80~mHz range is near 17\%. This value is consistent with the
447: magnitude of the rms power required for a source to be in the hard
448: state, but the frequency band is shifted relative to the 0.1-10~Hz band
449: used by \citet{Remillard06}.
450:
451: The PCA data show that X41.4+60 remains in the hard state during the
452: whole of the outburst, see Fig~\ref{xtehid}. There is no significant
453: change in hardness as the intensity changes over a factor of about 4.
454: This lack of change in hardness is similar to the evolution of GX 339-4
455: in the rising phase of its 2002/3 outburst \citep{Belloni05}. This
456: behavior suggests that the mass accretion rate in X41.4+60 never becomes
457: high enough at any point during the outburst to push the system out of
458: the hard state.
459:
460: Stellar-mass black hole X-ray binaries have been observed to remain in
461: the hard state at luminosities as high as $L/L_E \sim 0.3$ for GX 339-4
462: \citep{Zdziarski04,Miyakawa08} and as high as $L/L_E \sim 0.1$ for XTE
463: J1550-564 \citep{Rodriguez03,Yuan07}, where $L$ is the source luminosity
464: and $L_E$ is the Eddington luminosity. Above this luminosity, the
465: sources transition to a softer spectral state. Assuming that the same
466: limit of $L/L_E < 0.3$ applies to more massive black holes found in the
467: hard state, then the 0.3--8~keV flux measured with Chandra would imply a
468: mass in excess of 2000~$M_{\odot}$ if the object is radiating
469: isotropically. Converting the peak flux observed with RXTE to a
470: 0.3--20~keV luminosity of $1.6 \times 10^{41} \rm \, erg \, s^{-1}$
471: would imply a black hole mass in excess of 4000~$M_{\odot}$. Allowing
472: for moderate beaming (note that a geometically thin accretion disk has a
473: beaming factor of 2 when viewed on axis), could reduce these values by a
474: factor of a few.
475:
476: Using the correlation between X-ray spectral shape and $L/L_E$ found by
477: \citet{Shemmer08} for radio-quiet active galactic nuclei (AGN), the
478: photon index of $\Gamma = 1.6$ would suggest that $L/L_E \approx 0.1$.
479: The highest luminosity measured with Chandra would then imply a mass of
480: about 7000~$M_{\odot}$. However, mass estimation via $\Gamma$ and $L_X$
481: is only accurate within a factor of about 3 \citep{Shemmer08}.
482:
483: Quasi-periodic oscillations have been detected from the central region
484: of M82 \citep{Strohmayer03,Mucciarelli06,Dewangan06} and were localized
485: to X41.4+60 \citep{Feng07}. The strength and coherence of the QPOs
486: suggests they are of `type C' as defined for stellar-mass black hole
487: X-ray binaries \citep{Remillard06}. Type C QPOs occur in the hard and
488: intermediate states. Thus, the detected QPOs are consistent with the
489: assertion that X41.4+60 remains in the hard state.
490:
491: Estimation of a precise compact object mass using the QPO frequencies
492: alone is uncertain since the QPO frequencies for individual stellar-mass
493: black holes are known to vary by large factors, but the QPO frequencies
494: can be used to place bounds on the allowed range of masses. Comparing
495: the maximum QPO frequency of 0.113~Hz observed from X41.4+60 with
496: XMM-Newton to the highest observed QPOs frequencies for GRO J1655-40,
497: GRS 1915+105, and XTE J1550-564 \citep{Remillard06} by scaling mass
498: linearly with QPO frequency, leads to an upper bound on the compact
499: object mass of $2.7 \times 10^4 M_{\odot}$. If the QPO from X41.4+60 is
500: identified as a low frequency QPO, then a similar comparison with the
501: highest observed low frequency QPOs for the same stellar-mass black hole
502: binaries \citep{McClintock06} suggests an upper bound of $1700
503: M_{\odot}$. We note that the ratio of the QPO frequency to the frequency
504: of the break in the broad-band timing noise of X41.4+60 is consistent
505: with that seen for low frequency QPOs. This, and the fact that strong
506: high frequency QPOs are seen only in the steep power-law state of
507: stellar mass black holes while low frequency QPOs are seen in the hard
508: state, suggests that the QPOs from X41.4+60 are analogous to low
509: frequency QPOs.
510:
511: Better mass constraints may be obtained by combining spectral and timing
512: information. We note that several authors have used XMM-Newton data to
513: infer the spectral shape of X41.4+60. This is unreliable since X42.3+59
514: contributes significant flux is not resolved from X41.4+60 with
515: XMM-Newton. Thus, all previous work suggesting the presence of a
516: thermal component in the spectrum or identification of the source as
517: being in the steep power-law or intermediate state must be re-visited
518: \citep{Strohmayer03,Fiorito04,Mucciarelli06,Dewangan06,Okajima06,Casella08}.
519: Simultaneous timing and spectral measurements of X41.4+60 will require
520: simultaneous observations with XMM-Newton and Chandra.
521:
522: Accreting black holes of all masses are known to produce radio emission
523: while in the hard state. The radio emission, X-ray emission, and black
524: hole mass are related via the `fundamental plane' \citep{Merloni03}. As
525: noted in \citet{Kaaret01}, there was a radio transient in 1981 close to
526: the position of X41.4+60, but no radio emission has been detected
527: subsequently. \citet{Kaaret06} place an upper limit on the radio flux
528: of 0.7~mJy at 8.5~GHz on 2005 February 3, just before the Chandra
529: observation giving a 2--10~keV luminosity of $3 \times 10^{40} \rm \,
530: erg \, s^{-1}$. \citet{Paragi06} place an upper limit of 67~$\mu$Jy at
531: 1.6~GHz on 2005 October 27, but, unfortunately, there is no
532: contemporaneous X-ray observation. For upper limits on the radio
533: fluxes, the `fundamental plane' relation can be re-cast to place an
534: upper limit on the black hole mass:
535:
536: $$ \textstyle
537: M \lesssim 2000 M_{\odot}
538: \left( \frac{F}{100~\mu{\rm Jy}} \right)^{1.28}
539: \left( \frac{L_X}{10^{40}~{\rm erg/s}} \right)^{-0.77}
540: \left( \frac{d}{3.6~{\rm Mpc}} \right)^{2.56} $$
541:
542: \noindent where $M$ is the black hole mass, $F$ is the flux at 5~GHz,
543: $L_X$ is the luminosity in the 2--10~keV band, and $d$ is the distance.
544: From the 2005 February data, the limit is $M \lesssim 10^4 M_{\odot}$.
545: Because there is no X-ray information available for 2005 October, any
546: limit is less secure. Assuming an X-ray luminosity of $1 \times
547: 10^{40} \rm \, erg \, s^{-1}$, would imply a limit of $M \lesssim 1200
548: M_{\odot}$. The scatter in the fundamental plane is significant, about a
549: factor of 10, so the limits from the above equation are uncertain by at
550: least a factor of 3. However, simultaneous X-ray and sensitive radio
551: observations may provide a means to constrain the mass of X41.4+60.
552:
553: There are several other known ULXs with luminosities near $10^{41} \rm
554: \, erg \, s^{-1}$ \citep{Gao03,Wolter06,Miniutti06}. All of these
555: sources have hard spectra and are, together with X41.4+60, perhaps the
556: best candidates for X-ray detected intermediate-mass black holes
557: \citep{Roberts07}. Unfortunately, due to the large distances to most of
558: these hyper luminous sources, detailed spectral information and
559: information on any spectral changes correlated with luminosity is
560: limited. This trend toward hard spectra appears to continue down to
561: luminosities around $10^{40} \rm \, erg \, s^{-1}$
562: \citep{Feng06,Soria07,Berghea08}. For sources with multiple
563: observations, particularly X-16 and X-11 in the Antennae \citep{Feng06}
564: and the ULX in NGC 1365 \citep{Soria07}, the sources appear to remain in
565: the hard state even when the flux changes by factors of several. This
566: suggests that these objects also remain in the hard state. This is
567: evidence against the suggestion that these sources are stellar-mass
568: black hole X-ray binaries that enter an ``ultraluminuous branch'' of the
569: very high or steep power-law state at high luminosities, since a
570: transition out of this state would be expected at lower luminosities.
571:
572:
573: \acknowledgements
574:
575: We acknowledge partial support from Chandra grant CXC GO7-8085X and NASA
576: Grant NNX08AJ26G. PK acknowledges support from a University of Iowa
577: Faculty Scholar Award.
578:
579: {\it Facilities:} \facility{CXO (HRMA, ACIS)}, \facility{RXTE (PCA)}
580:
581:
582: %--------------
583:
584: \begin{thebibliography}{}
585:
586: \bibitem[Belloni et al.(2005)]{Belloni05} Belloni, T., Homan, J.,
587: Casella, P., van der Klis, M., Nespoli, E., Lewin, W.H.G., Miller, J.M.,
588: Mendez, M.\ 2005, A\&A, 440, 207
589:
590: \bibitem[Berghea et al.(2008)]{Berghea08} Berghea, C.T., Weaver, K.A.,
591: Colbert, E.J.M., Roberts, T.P.\ 2008, ApJ to appear, arXiv:0807.1547
592:
593: \bibitem[Bradt, Rothschild, \& Swank(1993)]{Bradt93} Bradt, H.V.,
594: Rothschild, R.E., \& Swank, J.H. 1993, A\&AS, 97, 355
595:
596: \bibitem[Casella et al.(2008)]{Casella08} Casella, P., Ponti, G.,
597: Patruno, A., Belloni, T., Miniutti, G., Zampieri, L.\ 2008, MNRAS, 387,
598: 1707
599:
600: \bibitem[Colbert \& Mushotzky(1999)]{Colbert99} Colbert, E.J.M.\ \&
601: Mushotzky, R.F.\ 1999, ApJ, 519, 89
602:
603: \bibitem[Dewangan, Titarchuk, \& Griffiths(2006)]{Dewangan06} Dewangan,
604: G.C.\, Titarchuk, L., Griffiths, R.E.\ 2006, ApJ, 637, L21
605:
606: \bibitem[Feng \& Kaaret(2005)]{Feng05} Feng, H.\ \& Kaaret, P.\ 2005,
607: ApJ, 633, 1052
608:
609: \bibitem[Feng \& Kaaret(2006)]{Feng06} Feng, H.\ \& Kaaret, P.\ 2006,
610: ApJ, 653, 536
611:
612: \bibitem[Feng \& Kaaret(2007)]{Feng07} Feng, H.\ \& Kaaret, P.\ 2007,
613: ApJ, 668, 941
614:
615: \bibitem[Fiorito \& Titarchuk(2004)]{Fiorito04} Fiorito, R.\ \&
616: Titarchuk, L.\ 2004, ApJ, 614, L113
617:
618: \bibitem[Gao et al.(2003)]{Gao03} Gao, Y., Wang, Q.D., Appleton, P.N.,
619: Lucas, R.A.\ 2003, ApJ, 596, L171
620:
621: \bibitem[Kaaret et al.(2001)]{Kaaret01} Kaaret, P.\ et al.\ 2001, MNRAS,
622: 321, L29
623:
624: \bibitem[Kaaret et al.(2004)]{Kaaret04} Kaaret, P., Alonso-Herrero,
625: A., Gallagher, J.S.\ III, Fabbiano, G., Zezas, A., Rieke, M.J.\ 2004,
626: MNRAS, 348, L28
627:
628: \bibitem[Kaaret, Simet, \& Lang(2006a)]{Kaaret06sci} Kaaret, P., Simet,
629: M.G., Lang, C.C.\ 2006, Science, 311, 491
630:
631: \bibitem[Kaaret, Simet, \& Lang(2006b)]{Kaaret06} Kaaret, P., Simet,
632: M.G., Lang, C.C.\ 2006, ApJ, 646, 174
633:
634: \bibitem[Kaaret \& Feng(2007)]{Kaaret07} Kaaret, P.\ \& Feng, H.\ 2007,
635: ApJ, 669, 106
636:
637: \bibitem[Makishima et al.(2000)]{Makishima00} Makishima, K.\ et al.\
638: 2000, ApJ, 535, 632
639:
640: \bibitem[McClintock \& Remillard(2006)]{McClintock06} McClintock, J.E.\
641: \& Remillard, R.A.\ 2006, in Compact Stellar X-Ray Sources, ed.\ W.H.G.\
642: Lewin, M.\ van der Klis, pp.\ 157-214, Cambridge: Cambridge University
643: Press
644:
645: \bibitem[McCrady, Gilbert, \& Graham(2003)]{McCrady03} McCrady, N.,
646: Gilbert, A.M., Graham, J.R.\ 2003, ApJ, 596, 240
647:
648: \bibitem[Merloni, Heinz, \& Di Matteo(2003)]{Merloni03} Merloni, A.,
649: Heinz, S., Di Matteo, T.\ 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057
650:
651: \bibitem[Miniutti et al.(2006)]{Miniutti06} Miniutti, G., Ponti, G.,
652: Dadina, M., Cappi, M., Malaguti, G., Fabian, A.C., Gandhi, P.\ 2006,
653: MNRAS, 373, L1
654:
655: \bibitem[Miyakawa et al.(2008)]{Miyakawa08} Miyakawa, T., Yamaoka, K.,
656: Homan, J., Saito, K., Dotani, T., Yoshida, A., Inoue, H.\ 2008, PASJ,
657: 60, 637
658:
659: \bibitem[Mucciarelli et al.(2006)]{Mucciarelli06} Mucciarelli, P.,
660: Casella, P., Belloni, T., Zampieri, L., Ranalli, P.\ 2006, MNRAS, 365,
661: 1123
662:
663: \bibitem[Okajima, Ebisawa, \& Kawaguchi(2006)]{Okajima06} Okajima, T,
664: Ebisawa, K., Kawaguchi, T.\ 2006, ApJ, 652, L105
665:
666: \bibitem[Paragi, Garrett, Biggs(2006)]{Paragi06} Paragi, Z., Garrett,
667: M.A., \& Biggs, A.D.\ 2006, in The 8th European VLBI Network Symposium,
668: Torun, Poland, PoS(8thEVN)016
669:
670: \bibitem[Portegies Zwart et al.(2004)]{Portegies04} Portegies Zwart,
671: S.F., Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., McMillan, S. L. W.\ 2004,
672: Nature 428, 724
673:
674: \bibitem[Remillard \& McClintock(2006)]{Remillard06} Remillard, R.A.\ \&
675: McClintock, J.E.\ 2006, ARA\&A, 44, 49
676:
677: \bibitem[Rephaeli \& Gruber(2002)]{Rephaeli02} Rephaeli, Y.\ \& Gruber,
678: D.\ 2002, A\&A, 389, 752
679:
680: \bibitem[Roberts(2007)]{Roberts07} Roberts, T.P.\ 2007, ApSS, 311, 203
681:
682: \bibitem[Rodriguez, Corbel, \& Tomsick(2003)]{Rodriguez03} Rodriguez,
683: J., Corbel, S., Tomsick, J.A.\ 2003, ApJ, 595, 1032
684:
685: \bibitem[Shemmer et al.(2008)]{Shemmer08} Shemmer, O., Brandt, W.N.,
686: Netzer, H., Maiolino, R., Kaspi, S.\ 2008, ApJ, 682, 81
687:
688: \bibitem[Soria et al.(2007)]{Soria07} Soria, R., Baldi, A., Risaliti,
689: G., Fabbiano, G., King, A., La Parola, V., Zezas, A.\ 2007, MNRAS, 379,
690: 1313
691:
692: \bibitem[Stobbart et al.(2006)]{Stobbart06} Stobbart, A.-M., Roberts,
693: T.P., Wilms, J.\ 2006, MNRAS, 368, 397
694:
695: \bibitem[Strohmayer \& Mushotzky(2003)]{Strohmayer03} Strohmayer, T.E.\
696: \& Mushotzky, R.F.\ 2003, ApJ, 586, L61
697:
698: \bibitem[Tomsick et al.(1999)]{Tomsick99} Tomsick, J.A., Kaaret, P.,
699: Kroeger, R.A., Remillard, R.A. 1999, ApJ, 512, 892
700:
701: \bibitem[Weisskopf et al.(2002)]{Weisskopf02} Weisskopf, M.C., Brinkman,
702: B., Canizares, C., Garmire, G., Murray, S., Van Speybrock, L.P.\ 2002,
703: PASP, 114, 1
704:
705: \bibitem[Wolter et al.(2006)]{Wolter06} Wolter, A., Trinchieri, G.,
706: Colpi, M.\ 2006, MNRAS 373, 1637
707:
708: \bibitem[Yuan et al.(2007)]{Yuan07} Yuan, F., Zdziarski, A. A., Xue, Y.,
709: Wu, X.-B.\ 2007, ApJ, 659, 541
710:
711: \bibitem[Zdziarski et al.(2004)]{Zdziarski04} Zdziarski, A. A.,
712: Gierli\'nski, M., Miko\'lajewska, J., Wardzi\'nski, G., Smith, D.M.,
713: Harmon, B.A., Kitamoto, S. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 791
714:
715: \end{thebibliography}
716:
717: \label{lastpage}
718:
719: \end{document}
720:
721: