1: %\documentstyle[12pt,/home/pepi/new/aastex/aasms4]{article} % Double-spaced format for submission
2: %\documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4]{article} % Nice, compact format w/out space jumps
3: %\documentstyle[/home/pepi/new/aastex/aas2pp4]{article} % Nice, 2-col format for preprints
4: \documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}
5: \usepackage{emulateapj5} % ApJ journal style
6:
7: \lefthead{Fabbiano et al.} \righthead{{\it Chandra} ACIS-S
8: Observations of NGC 4038/4039}
9:
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DEFINITIONS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: \def\asca{{\it ASCA }}
12: \def\einstein{{\it Einstein }} % ApJ uses Italics for 'Einstein' Satellite
13: \def\ergcm2s{~erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ } % ergs per cm**2 second smay be
14: \def\funit{~erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ } % ergs per cm**2 second
15: \def\ergs{~erg s$^{-1}$} % ergs per second
16: \def\lunit{~erg s$^{-1}$} % ergs per second
17: \def\cmcube{~cm$^{-3}$} %
18: \def\cmsq{~cm$^{-2}$ } %
19: \def\nh{~$\rm{N_{H}}$}
20:
21: \def\lx{~$\rm{L_{X}}$}
22: \def\etal{et al.~} % Present ApJ style, override older definitions
23: \def\kms{~km s$^{-1}$} % kilometers per second
24: \def\kmsmpc{~km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}
25: \def\msun{~M$_{\odot}$}
26: \def\deg{$^{\circ}$}
27: \def\n4038{~NGC4038/39} % Use in text. For title, use NGC 4038/4039
28: \def\rosat{{\it ROSAT }} % ApJ uses Italics for 'ROSAT'
29: \def\chandra{{\it Chandra }}
30: \def\sherpa{{\it Sherpa }}
31: \def\x2{$\chi^{2}$}
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33:
34:
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Emulate ApJ stuff %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36:
37: \makeatletter
38: \newenvironment{inlinetable}{%
39: \def\@captype{table}%
40: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}\footnotesize}
41: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
42: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{%
43: \def\@captype{figure}%
44: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}
45: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
46: \makeatother
47:
48: % To inc
49:
50:
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
52:
53:
54: \begin{document}
55:
56: \title{A Variable Ultraluminous Supersoft X-ray Source in ``The Antennae'':
57: Stellar-Mass Black Hole or White Dwarf?
58: \\}
59:
60: \author{ G. Fabbiano$^1$, A. R. King$^2$, A. Zezas$^1$, T. J. Ponman$^3$,
61: A. Rots$^1$ and Fran\c cois Schweizer$^4$}
62: \affil{$^1$Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden
63: Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
64: \affil{$^2$Theoretical Astrophysics Group, University of Leicester, Leicester
65: LE1 7RH, UK}
66: \affil{$^3$School of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham
67: B15 2TT, UK}
68: \affil{$^4$Carnegie Observatories, 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena,
69: CA 91101-1292}
70:
71: %\shorttitle{Luminous Supersoft source of ``The Antennae''}
72: %\shortauthors{Fabbiano et al}
73: \bigskip
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76: The \chandra\ monitoring observations of The Antennae (NGC~4038/39)
77: have led to the discovery of a variable, luminous, supersoft source
78: (SSS). This source is only detected at energies below 2~keV and, in
79: 2002 May, reached count rates comparable to those of the nine
80: ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) detected in these
81: galaxies. Spectral fits of the SSS data give acceptable results only
82: for a $\sim$100--90~eV blackbody spectrum with an intrinsic absorption
83: column of $N_{\rm H} \sim 2-3 \times 10^{21} \rm cm^{-2}$. For a
84: distance of 19~Mpc, the best-fit observed luminosity increases from
85: 1.7$\times 10^{38}$\ergs\ in 1999 December to 8.0$\times
86: 10^{38}$\ergs\ in 2002 May. The intrinsic, absorption-corrected
87: best-fit luminosity reaches 1.4$\times 10^{40}$~\ergs\ in 2002
88: May. The assumption of unbeamed emission would suggest a black hole of
89: $\ga$100\msun. However, if the emission is blackbody at all
90: times, as suggested by the steep soft spectrum, the radiating
91: area would have to vary by a factor of $\sim$10$^3$,
92: inconsistent with gravitational energy release from within a few
93: Schwarzschild radii of a black hole. Viable explanations for the
94: observed properties of the SSS are provided by anisotropic emission
95: from either an accreting nuclear-burning white dwarf or an accreting
96: stellar-mass black hole.
97:
98:
99:
100: \end{abstract}
101:
102: \keywords{galaxies: peculiar --- galaxies: individual --- galaxies:
103: interactions --- X-rays: galaxies --- X-ray: binaries
104: sources}
105:
106: \section{Introduction}
107:
108: At a distance of 19~Mpc ($H_o = 75$), NGC~4038/39 (The Antennae) have
109: long been studied as the nearest example of a galaxy pair undergoing a
110: major merger (Toomre \& Toomre 1972). In the X-ray band of 0.1--10~keV,
111: the first {\it Chandra} observation of this system in 1999 December
112: revealed an extraordinarily rich population of luminous point-like sources
113: (Fabbiano et al.\ 2001). We are now in the midst of a year-long {\it
114: Chandra} monitoring program of The Antennae. The first results of
115: this program, on the luminosity and spectral variability of nine
116: ULXs (see Fabbiano 1989 and Makishima et al.\ 2000 for earlier work on ULXs),
117: detected with luminosities $L_X > 10^{39} \rm ergs~s^{-1}$, are
118: reported in Fabbiano et al.\ (2002).
119:
120: Here we report the discovery of a very luminous, variable, supersoft
121: source in the Antennae galaxies. While SSSs with blackbody spectra of
122: $\sim\,$40--100~eV have been detected in several galaxies (e.g., in
123: Local Group galaxies: Greiner 1996; M81: Swartz et al.\ 2002; M101:
124: Pence et al.\ 2001), their typical luminosities do not exceed
125: $10^{39}$\ergs\ and are mostly lower than $10^{38}$\ergs.
126: These sources are believed to be the result of nuclear burning on the
127: surface of accreting white dwarfs in binary systems (van den Heuvel
128: et al.\ 1992; see also Kahabka \& van den Heuvel 1997). However, the source
129: of interest here, CXOANT J120151.6$-$185231.9 (= Source 13 of the Zezas et
130: al.\ 2002a list), may reach luminosities in excess of $10^{40}$\ergs.
131:
132: Source 13 was first detected in 1999 December with a count rate
133: $\sim$4 times below that of the ULX range. It is indicated by a circle
134: in fig.~1. Our monitoring of
135: The Antennae shows that this source reached a count rate comparable to
136: those of the ULXs in 2002 May, while keeping an unusual, very
137: soft emission. In this paper, we present both the light curve of this
138: source and a spectral study of its emission.
139:
140: \section{Observations and Analysis}
141:
142: Table~1 summarizes the log of the four {\it Chandra} ACIS-S3
143: (Weisskopf et al.\ 2000) observations of The Antennae discussed in the
144: present paper, and lists the observing times after screening for
145: background flares. Details of the data analysis are given in Fabbiano
146: et al.\ (2003). This analysis includes
147: astrometric correction of the 2001 December, 2002 April, and 2002 May
148: observations to the 1999 December coordinates,
149: and source detection in four spectral bands following
150: the prescriptions by Zezas et al.\ (2002a): Full band (0.3--7.0)~keV;
151: soft (0.3--1.0)~keV; medium (1.0--2.5)~keV; and hard (2.5--7.0)~keV.
152: The data were corrected for spatial and spectral variations of the
153: ACIS-S3 response, including the time-variable ACIS-S3 effective
154: area{\footnote{http://asc.harvard.edu/cal/Acis/Cal\_prods/qeDeg/}
155: \footnote{http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/chartas/xcontdir/xcont.html}}.
156: This correction results in a factor of 1.8 increase of the count rate in the
157: last three observations, when compared with the 1999 December data.
158: The back-illuminated ACIS-S3 CCD is not affected by the energy response
159: degradation experienced by the front-illuminated CCDs; therefore the CTI
160: correction is not relevant here.
161:
162: Figure~2 shows the light-curve of Source 13 in the 0.3--7.0~keV band.
163: We observe a $\sim$8-fold increase of the corrected count rate from
164: 1999 December to 2002 May. While detected at sub-ULX count rates in the
165: 1999 December data (Zezas et al.\ 2002a), in May 2002 the count rate is
166: in the range of the ULX count rate in The Antennae (corresponding to
167: $L_X > 10^{39}$\ergs, for a 5~keV bremsstrahlung spectrum), but the
168: spectrum is much softer than the spectra of the other ULXs. This
169: source remains undetected in the hard band, and only the color $(S-M/S+M)$
170: can be derived. This color is 0.88$\pm$0.04, significantly softer
171: than the typical ULX colors that all lie in the 0.2 to $-$0.4 range
172: (Fabbiano et al.\ 2003).
173:
174: We used XSPEC for the spectral analysis (see Zezas et al.\ 2002a).
175: Source counts were extracted from circles of 3~pixel (1.5\arcsec) radius,
176: with background estimated from surrounding annuli. The data from each
177: observation were fitted with a variety of models, available in the XSPEC library,
178: including blackbody,
179: disk-blackbody (used in the ASCA studies of ULXs, see Makishima et al. 2000),
180: bremsstrahlung, Raymond-Smith thin-plasma model (RS), and power-law.
181: A variable absorption column was included in
182: each model. Spectral analysis was performed on data at energies
183: 0.3--7.0~keV for all the data sets, binned so that there were at least 25 counts in each
184: bin. Typically, extremely few spectral counts were detected above 2~keV in the
185: 2002 May data, and above 1~keV in the earlier observations, when the
186: source was fainter. This binning results in four bins for the 1999 December
187: observation, when the source was faintest.
188: To verify that the determination of $N_{\rm H}$ was not
189: affected by calibration uncertainties, we also (a) ran our spectral
190: analysis excluding data below 0.6~keV (to avoid the Oxygen edge) and
191: (b) added an edge to the models. In all cases, we obtained
192: consistent results.
193:
194:
195: The RS model is a bad fit for all the data sets. Blackbody, disk-blackbody and
196: bremsstrahlung all give similar quality fits. Best-fit kT is in the range of
197: $\sim$150-90~eV for the blackbody model, 110-220~eV for the disk-blackbody,
198: and 120-370~eV for the bremsstrahlung. The power-law model is acceptable for the first and third datasets,
199: but gives a bad fit for the higher statistics 2002 May data; it is also marginal for the
200: 2001 December data. In general power-law indeces tend to be very large, reflecting the
201: very soft spectra. These results, including the best fit
202: $\chi^2$ and the degrees of freedom (number of bins minus fit parameters)
203: are summarized in Table~2, where the errors are 1$\sigma$ for 1
204: interesting parameter. To verify that different binning did not affect our results in our
205: lowest count rate dataset (1999 December), we also analyzed these data with
206: 15 counts per bin, as in Zezas et al.\ (2002a), obtaining
207: consistent results.
208:
209: The best-constrained results are from the 2002 May observation, when
210: the source was most luminous: the temperature then was
211: $kT\sim90$~eV for the blackbody model, 110~eV and 120~eV for the disk-blackbody
212: and the bremsstrahlung models, respectively. The fits also suggest a large absorption column $N_{\rm H}
213: \sim 3-5\times 10^{21} \rm cm^{-2}$, depending on the model. For the rest of this paper
214: we will assume that the emission is optically thick, and for simplicity use the blackbody
215: model. Use of the disk-blackbody model would not change our conclusions.
216: Figure~3 shows the data, best-fit
217: blackbody models, and residuals. Figure~4 shows the 1$\sigma$
218: 2-parameter $N_{\rm H}$--$kT$ confidence contours.
219: For the 2002 May data we also show the 99\% confidence
220: contour. Fitting a two-component model (blackbody or disk-blackbody plus
221: power-law) did not produce a significant improvent of the fit.
222:
223: The observed best-fit source luminosity (0.1--2~keV) varies from
224: 1.7$\times 10^{38}$\ergs\ in 1999 December to 8$\times
225: 10^{38}$\ergs\ in 2002 May (Table~3). These values can be considered to be lower limits
226: to the intrinsic source luminosity, since no extinction correction has
227: been applied. The intrinsic (i.e., emitted) best-fit luminosity is
228: significantly larger in 2002 May, because of the large $N_{\rm H}$ required
229: by the fit, and reaches 1.4$\times 10^{40}$\ergs. In 2002 May, we
230: estimate a minimum intrinsic luminosity of $\sim 4 \times 10^{39}$\ergs\,
231: by calculating the flux for the 1$\sigma$ lower limit on both $kT$ and
232: $N_{\rm H}$. If the emission of the SSS is due to nuclear burning on a white
233: dwarf (WD) surface (van den Heuvel et al.\ 1992), a hot WD atmosphere
234: may be more physical than a simple blackbody. However,
235: based on the results of Swartz et al.\ (2002), we
236: estimate that the adoption of a model WD atmosphere will result in
237: less than a factor of 2 change in the estimated luminosity.
238:
239:
240: \section{Discussion}
241:
242:
243: What is this supersoft, luminous, variable source? The large absorption
244: column and the lack of an obvious identification in the {\it HST\,}
245: WFPC2 data (Zezas et al.\ 2002b) exclude a foreground object. Given the
246: low density of supersoft AGNs (Puchnarewicz 1998), the likelihood that this
247: source could be a background object is low. If this source belongs to
248: The Antennae, it is the most luminous galaxian SSS ever detected.
249: Our observations suggest that the source has a thermal spectrum. Although
250: the uncertainties are large, the best-fit temperature does not seem to
251: increase with luminosity. Taken at face value, this behavior is incompatible
252: with isotropic emission from a constant radiating area. In the following
253: analysis, we investigate these trends systematically.
254:
255: King \& Puchnarewicz (2002) show that blackbody emission from a
256: region of size $r$ times the Schwarzschild radius of a mass $M$ obeys
257: the relations
258: \begin{equation}
259: L_{\rm sph} = {L\over b} = {2.3\times 10^{44}\over T_{100}^4}{l^2\over
260: pbr^2}\ {\rm erg\ s^{-1}},
261: \label{l}
262: \end{equation}
263: \begin{equation}
264: M = {1.8\times 10^6\over T_{100}^4}{l\over pr^2} {\rm M}_{\odot},
265: \label{m}
266: \end{equation}
267: where $L_{\rm sph}$ is the inferred isotropic luminosity of the blackbody,
268: $L$ the true
269: source luminosity, $b$ the beaming factor that accounts for eventual
270: non-spherical emission, $l = L/L_{\rm Edd}$ the Eddington factor, $p \sim 1$
271: a measure of the geometrical deviation from a spherical photosphere, and
272: $T_{100}$ the source temperature $T$ in units of 100 eV.
273:
274: Dividing (\ref{l}) by (\ref{m}) gives $lm/b$ in terms of $L_{\rm sph}$,
275: where $m = M/M_{\odot}$. Dividing (\ref{l}) by the square of eq.\ (2)
276: gives $pr^2m^2/b$ in terms of $L_{\rm sph}T^{-4}$, and we can deduce
277: $l/mpr^2$ in terms of $T^4$. We calculate these quantities (listed in
278: Table~3) from the results of Table~2 for the blackbody spectrum.
279: It is easy to show from Table~1 that $(lm/b) \propto (pr^2m^2/b)^{2/3}$,
280: so that
281: \begin{equation}
282: r \sim l^{3/4}p^{-1/2}b^{-1/4}.
283: \label{r}
284: \end{equation}
285: Thus at most one of the three quantities $b, l, pr^2$ can be constant. We
286: consider three cases.
287:
288: {\it (i) Near-isotropic emission from an intermediate-mass black hole}
289: ($b \sim 1 \sim p$). Given the peak luminosity of the SSS, this case
290: requires a black-hole mass $\geq$100\msun (cf Miller et al.\ 2003)
291: However, the large increase (a factor $\sim$1000) in radiating area is
292: very hard to reconcile with a simple picture in which a black hole
293: accretes from an accretion disk and the blackbody emission comes from
294: a region of a few Schwarzschild radii. Column 3 of Table~3 shows that
295: $l$ must increase by a factor 81 between the 1st and 4th
296: observations; for this type of geometry we clearly have $p \sim 1$, so
297: the radius factor $r$ must increase by a factor $\sim$25. Since the
298: blackbody emission comprises most of the putative accretion
299: luminosity, it must come from deep within the potential well, i.e., $r
300: \la$ a few. So, if we (generously) set $r \sim 3$ in Observation 4,
301: the emission must be confined to an implausibly small region of only
302: 0.1 Schwarzschild radii in Observation 1.
303:
304: Although the backbody fits point to the exclusion of an massive
305: black hole, this conclusion is not iron-clad. It hinges
306: on the assumption that the 1999 December
307: emission is indeed a blackbody. As discussed earlier, this is the least
308: well constrained dataset, so that we cannot exclude that the spectrum may
309: follow a power-law distribution. Although the power-law $\Gamma \sim 4$ we obtain
310: for the 1999 December data is extremely steep, in excess of typical black-hole binary power-laws,
311: the uncertainties are large (see also Zezas et al 2002a).
312: Power-law components have been seen to dominate the emission in ULXs in
313: low state (see, e.g. La~Parola et al.\ 2001; Kubota et al.\ 2001; Fabbiano et al 2003).
314: %If this were the case here, the standard model may apply, and point to a
315: %massive black hole (e.g., Miller et al.\ 2003).
316: If the first observation is discarded from the blackbody analysis
317: of Table 2, the required radius increase between observations 2 and 4
318: is reduced to a factor $\sim 2$. If we only consider observations 3 and 4,
319: we obtain a radius increase of a factor of $\sim 4$. It remains to be demonstrated how
320: this smaller increase would fit into an intermediate--mass
321: black hole picture.
322:
323: {\it (ii) Varying beaming at constant luminosity}.
324: An opposite extreme from the near-isotropic case is
325: $l \sim$ constant, in which case $b$ decreases by a factor
326: $\sim$139 between Observations 1 and 4. The last column of Table~1
327: then shows that $p$ must simultaneously increase by a factor $\sim$10.
328: Physically, holding $l$ constant while other quantities vary widely is
329: plausible only in one situation, namely that the source is radiating
330: constantly at the Eddington limit ($l = 1$) while the accretion rate may
331: change. In this case the range of $b$ is $m - m/185$. The $l/mpr^2$
332: column of Table~1 then shows that $pr^2 = 2.7\times 10^6m^{-1}$ in
333: Observation 4, giving the radiating object a radius of
334: $R = 4.8\times 10^8m^{1/2}p^{-1/2}~{\rm cm}$.
335: For $m \sim 1$, $p \sim 1$ this radius is suggestively close to the radius
336: of a white dwarf. This is not surprising, as the inferred
337: temperature and luminosity are now typical of supersoft X--ray
338: binaries, which are thought to be powered by nuclear burning of matter
339: accreting on to a white dwarf.
340:
341: If the SSS is an accreting WD, our results would be consistent with an
342: increasingly super-Eddington accretion flow ($\dot M \ga \dot M_{\rm
343: Edd} \sim 10^{-7}$\msun {\rm yr}$^{-1}$ for steady nuclear burning on
344: a WD surface). As $\dot M$ increases beyond $\dot M_{\rm Edd}$, the
345: flow geometry apparently changes gradually from a thin disk (1999
346: December), with burning on a narrow, isotropically emitting ($b \sim
347: 1$) equatorial band ($p \sim 0.1$) on the white dwarf, to a thick disk
348: with burning on most of the WD surface ($p \sim 1$), but now with a
349: strongly anisotropic radiation pattern ($b \sim 10^{-2}$) in our
350: direction. The most likely cause of this anisotropy is warping of
351: the accretion disk. We note that disks are known to warp in supersoft
352: X-ray binaries (Southwell et al.\ 1997), essentially because of their
353: proximity to the Eddington limit. At still higher $\dot M$ nuclear
354: burning on white dwarfs drives either envelope expansion where the
355: source swells up to red-giant dimensions, or a vigorous wind outflow,
356: or both (cf Hachisu et al., 1996). In all cases the system is likely
357: to be extinguished as an X-ray source.
358:
359: {\it (iii) Mildly anisotropic emission ($ b\ga 0.1$) from a
360: stellar-mass black hole.} At first sight the photospheric radii of
361: $\sim$10$^8$--10$^9$~cm we deduce from our observations do not appear
362: any more natural for a stellar-mass black hole than for an
363: intermediate-mass one as in (i) above. However, Mukai et al.\ (2002)
364: have pointed out that accretion at rates comparable to Eddington must
365: lead to outflow, and have shown that the electron scattering opacity of
366: the resulting wind does imply supersoft emission with a photospheric
367: size of this order. The M101 source studied by Mukai et al.\ (2002)
368: has a supersoft luminosity of order $10^{39}$\ergs\ and, hence, does
369: not require anisotropic emission for a black hole mass
370: $\ga$10\msun. However, their analysis is easily extended to the case
371: that an Eddington-limited source blows out a wind confined to a double
372: cone of total solid angle $4\pi b$ about the black-hole axis. Since
373: this wind represents the path of lowest optical depth through the
374: accretion flow, the radiation will escape this way also, implying $p
375: \sim b$. We follow Mukai et al.\ (2002) in assuming a constant
376: velocity for the outflowing material, since this material is likely to
377: achieve escape velocity and coast thereafter. We neglect any
378: emission from this wind and compute the Thomson optical depth
379: $\tau$ by integrating the electron density $N_e$ from radius $R$ to
380: infinity. Since $\int N_e dr \simeq \dot M_{\rm out}/4\pi bvRm_{\rm
381: H}$ we find a photospheric radius
382: \begin{equation}
383: R_{\rm ph} = {3\times 10^8\over bv_9}\dot M_{19}\ {\rm cm},
384: \label{wind}
385: \end{equation}
386: where $v_9$ is $v$ in units of $10^9$ cm~s$^{-1}$ and $\dot M_{19}$ is
387: the outflow rate in units of $10^{19}$~g~s$^{-1}$, the Eddington
388: accretion rate for a 10\msun\ black hole. Clearly, we must choose a
389: mass of this order for consistency. The luminosity
390: $\sim$10$^{38}$\ergs\ of Observation 1 is then definitely
391: sub-Eddington, so presumably there is very little outflow and we see
392: down to the inner accretion disk directly in this
393: observation. Observations 2, 3, and 4 are all close to $L_{\rm Edd}$,
394: i.e., $l = 1$. Since $b = p$ and the true blackbody radius $R
395: = 3\times 10^5 rm$~cm, we can read off the size of the photosphere
396: directly from the last column of the Table, and $l/b$ also. This gives
397: an inner disk radius of order $2\times 10^8$~cm for Observation 1,
398: with $R_{\rm ph} = 2\times 10^9$~cm, $5\times 10^8$~cm, and $5\times
399: 10^9$~cm for Observations 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Simultaneously
400: $l/b$ increases from $\sim$0.1 to 3.1, 0.6, and 11. This is consistent
401: with $l = 0.1$, 1, 1, and 1 over the four observations and $b$
402: eventually decreasing to a value of $\sim$0.10, presumably as $\dot
403: M_{\rm acc}$ rises above the Eddington rate. Self-consistently, the
404: assumed $v_9$ is above the escape value for the values of $R_{\rm
405: ph}$. Of course, $b$ would be larger still if we took a BH mass of
406: 15\msun\ rather than 10\msun, as observed in GRO~J1915+105 (Greiner et
407: al.\ 2001).
408:
409: The above values are consistent with the suggestion by King et al.\ (2001)
410: and King (2002) that ULXs are actually X-ray binaries involving
411: stellar-mass black holes, but with mildly anisotropic radiation
412: patterns ($b \sim 0.1$) resulting from
413: accretion at close to the Eddington rate onto the black hole.
414: The above scenario can arise in two cases (i) thermal-time-scale mass transfer when the
415: companion star in a high--mass X--ray binary fills its Roche lobe, and
416: (ii) bright outbursts of soft X--ray transients (King, 2002). The
417: first case is dominant in most galaxies, although the second must
418: account for ULXs in ellipticals.
419: Confirmation that this is a
420: reasonable explanation for ULXs as a class comes from Grimm, Gilfanov,
421: \& Sunyaev (2002), who show that---when normalized by the star formation
422: rate---ULXs form a natural extension to the luminosity function of
423: high-mass X-ray binaries in nearby galaxies.
424:
425:
426: \section{Conclusions}
427: We have discovered a variable SSS ($kT\sim 90$~keV) in The Antennae, Source
428: CXOANT J120151.6$-$185231.9, which reached a peak intrinsic luminosity of
429: $1.4 \times 10^{40}$\ergs\ in 2002 May.
430:
431: Near-isotropic emission from an intermediate-mass
432: black hole accreting from a disk would be incompatible with our observations
433: of this source in the most likely case of soft thermal emission,
434: as the radiating area would have to increase by
435: more than a factor 1000 over the four observations.
436: There remains a less likely possibility that the 1999 December
437: emission may be due to a low-intensity power-law dominated state (e.g. Kubota et al.\
438: 2001), in which case
439: the required area increase is reduced to a less demanding factor 10.
440:
441: A possible solution is a white dwarf with $M \sim 1$\msun, accreting at the
442: Eddington limit ($l = 1$) and with a variable beaming factor.
443: This explanation has the advantage of giving a natural
444: scale for the deduced photospheric radius, but does require extreme
445: beaming (up to $b \sim 10^{-2}$) .
446:
447: A second possible solution involves outflow from a stellar-mass black
448: hole, accreting near the Eddington limit (Mukai et al.\ 2002). A consistent
449: explanation of our observations results if this hypothesis is combined
450: with the suggestion
451: by King et al.\ (2001) that ULXs are actually X-ray binaries involving
452: stellar-mass black holes, but with mildly anisotropic radiation
453: patterns ($b \sim 0.1$).
454:
455: The stellar-mass black hole solution is the more conservative choice
456: in the present case, as it does not require as extreme an anisotropy as
457: a white dwarf. However the latter may remain a realistic candidate for
458: slightly less luminous supersoft ULXs.
459:
460:
461: \acknowledgments
462:
463: We thank the CXC DS and SDS teams for their efforts in reducing the
464: data and developing the software used for the reduction (SDP) and
465: analysis (CIAO). We thank John Raymonds for comments on this paper and
466: Larry David for advice on ACIS spectral
467: analysis at low energies. We are grateful to Aya Kubota for her careful reading
468: of this paper. This work was supported by NASA contract
469: NAS~8--39073 (CXC) and NASA Grant G02-3135X. ARK gratefully
470: acknowledges a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award.
471: We are grateful to the Aspen Center for Physics for fostering the
472: collaboration that resulted in this work.
473:
474:
475: \begin{thebibliography}{}
476:
477: \bibitem[Fabbiano 1989]{}Fabbiano, G. 1989, ARA\&A, 27, 87
478:
479: \bibitem[Fabbiano \etal\ 2001]{}Fabbiano, G., Zezas, A., \& Murray, S.
480: 2001, \apj, 554, 1035
481:
482: \bibitem[Fabbiano \etal\ 2003]{}Fabbiano, G., Zezas, A., King, A. R.,
483: Ponman, T. J., Rots, A., Raymond, J., \& Schweizer, F. 2002,
484: \apj (letters), in press
485:
486: \bibitem[Greiner 1996]{}Greiner, J. 1996, in Supersoft X-ray Sources,
487: ed.\ J. Greiner (Berlin: Springer), 299
488:
489: \bibitem[Greiner \etal\ 2001]{}
490: Greiner, J., Cuby, J.G., \& McCaughrean, M.J. 2001, Nat, 414, 522
491:
492: \bibitem[Grimm \etal\ 2002]{} Grimm, H.-J., Gilfanov, M., \& Sunyaev, R.
493: MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0205371)
494:
495: \bibitem[Hachisu et al]{} Hachisu, I., Kato, M., Nomoto, K., 1996,
496: ApJ, 470, L97
497:
498: \bibitem[Kahabka \& van den Heuvel 1997]{}Kahabka, P. \& van den Heuvel,
499: E. P. J. 1997, ARA\&A, 35, 69
500:
501: \bibitem[King 2002]{}King, A.R. 2002, MNRAS, 335, L13
502:
503: \bibitem[King \etal\ 2001]{} King, A.R., Davies, M.B., Ward, M.J.,
504: Fabbiano, G., \& Elvis, M. 2001, ApJ, 552, L109
505:
506: \bibitem[King \& Puchnarewicz 2002]{} King, A. R., \& Puchnarewicz, E. M.
507: 2002, MNRAS, 336, 445
508:
509: \bibitem[Kubota et al 2001]{} Kubota, A., Mizuno, T., Makishima, K.,
510: Fukuzawa, Y., Kotohu, J., Ohnishi, T. \& Tashiro, M. 2001, \apj, 547, L119
511:
512: \bibitem[La~Parola et al 2001]{} La~Parola, V., Peres, G., Fabbiano, G.,
513: Kim, D.-W., \& Bocchino, F. 2001, \apj, 556, 47.
514:
515: \bibitem[Makishima \etal\ 2000]{} Makishima, K. et al. 2000, \apj, 535, 632
516:
517: \bibitem[Miller et al 2003]{} Miller, J. M., Fabbiano, G., Miller, M. C.,
518: \& Fabian, A. C. 2003, \apj (letters), in press (astro-ph/0211178)
519:
520: \bibitem[Mukai \etal\ 2002]{} Mukai, K., Pence, W.D., Snowden, S.L., \&
521: Kuntz, K.D. 2002, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0209166)
522:
523: \bibitem[Pence \etal\ 2001]{}Pence, W. D., Snowden, S. L., \& Mukai, K.
524: 2001, \apj, 561, 189
525:
526: \bibitem[Pringle 1997]{}Pringle, J. E. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 136
527:
528: \bibitem[Puchnarewicz 1998]{} Puchnarewicz, E. M. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 299
529:
530: \bibitem[Southwell \etal\ 1997]{}Southwell, K.A., Livio, M. \&
531: Pringle, J.E., 1997, \apj, 478, L29
532:
533: \bibitem[Stark \etal\ 1992]{1992ApJS...79...77S} Stark, A.~A., Gammie,
534: C.~F., Wilson, R.~W., Bally, J., Linke, R.~A., Heiles, C., \& Hurwitz, M.
535: 1992, \apjs, 79, 77
536:
537: \bibitem[Swartz \etal\ 2002]{}Swartz, D. A., Ghosh, K. K., Suleimanov, V.,
538: Tennant, A. F., \& Wu, K. 2002, \apj, 574, 382
539:
540: \bibitem[Toomre \& Toomre 1977]{}Toomre, A. \& Toomre, J. 1972, \apj, 178, 623
541:
542: \bibitem[van den Heuvel \etal\ 1992]{}van den Heuvel, E. P. J.,
543: Bhattacharya, D., Nomoto, K., \& Rappaport, S. A. 1992, A\&A, 262, 97
544:
545: \bibitem[Weisskopf \etal\ 2000]{}Weisskopf, M., Tananbaum, H., Van
546: Speybroeck, L. \& O'Dell, S. 2000, Proc. SPIE 4012 (astro-ph 0004127)
547:
548: \bibitem[Zezas \etal\ 2002a]{} Zezas, A., Fabbiano, G. Rots, A. H., \&
549: Murray, S. 2002a, \apjs, 142, 239
550:
551: \bibitem[Zezas \etal\ 2002b]{} Zezas, A., Fabbiano, G. Rots, A. H., \&
552: Murray, S. 2002b, \apj, 577, 710
553:
554:
555: \end{thebibliography}{}
556:
557: \makeatletter
558: \def\jnl@aj{AJ}
559: \ifx\revtex@jnl\jnl@aj\let\tablebreak=\nl\fi
560: \makeatother
561: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
562: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
563: \tablecolumns{3}
564: \tablewidth{0pt}
565: \tablecaption{Observations }
566: \tablehead{ \colhead{OBSID} & \colhead{Date} & \colhead{Net Exp. }
567: \\
568: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(Ks)} }
569: \startdata
570: 315 & 1999-12-01 & 75 \\
571: 3040 & 2001-12-29 & 64 \\
572: 3043 & 2002-04-18 & 61 \\
573: 3042 & 2002-05-31 & 67\\
574: \enddata
575: \end{deluxetable}
576:
577:
578: \makeatletter
579: \def\jnl@aj{AJ}
580: \ifx\revtex@jnl\jnl@aj\let\tablebreak=\nl\fi
581: \makeatother
582: \ptlandscape
583: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccccccccccc}
584: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
585: \rotate
586: \tablecolumns{17}
587: \tablewidth{0pt}
588: %\tablenum{2}
589: \tablecaption{ Spectral Fits}
590: \tablehead{
591: \colhead{OBSID} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{B. Body} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Disk-BB} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Bremss.} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{RS} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{PO} \\
592: \colhead{} & \colhead{kT} & \colhead{\nh} & \colhead{\x2} & \colhead{kT$_{in}$} & \colhead{\nh} & \colhead{\x2} & \colhead{kT} & \colhead{\nh} & \colhead{\x2} & \colhead{kT} & \colhead{\nh} & \colhead{\x2} &\colhead{$\Gamma$} & \colhead{\nh} & \colhead{\x2} \\
593: \colhead{} & \colhead{keV} & \colhead{$10^{22}~cm^{-2}$} & \colhead{d.o.f.}&
594: \colhead{keV} & \colhead{$10^{22}~cm^{-2}$} & \colhead{d.o.f.} & \colhead{keV} &
595: \colhead{$10^{22}~cm^{-2}$} & \colhead{d.o.f.}& \colhead{keV} & \colhead{$10^{22}~cm^{-2}$} & \colhead{d.o.f.}
596: & &\colhead{$10^{22}~cm^{-2}$} & \colhead{d.o.f.} }
597: \startdata
598: 315 & $0.15^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ & $<0.12$ & 1.3 &
599: $0.22^{+0.04}_{-0.09}$ & $<0.15$ & 0.43 &
600: $0.37^{+0.27}_{-0.19}$ & $0.04 (<0.2)$ & 0.3 &
601: $0.22$ & $<0.04$ & 13.4 &
602: $4.74^{+5.3}_{-1.3}$ & $0.18^{+0.57}_{-0.13}$ & 0.23\\
603: & & & 1& & & 1& & & 1& & & 1& & & 1 \\
604: 3040 & $0.10^{+0.02}_{-0.024}$ & $0.20^{+0.22}_{-0.18}$ & 4.0 &
605: $0.11^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $0.25^{+0.22}_{-0.15}$ & 3.8 &
606: $0.14^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $0.32^{+0.32}_{-0.15}$ & 3.6 &
607: $0.09^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$ & $0.63^{+0.19}_{-0.10}$ & 11.4 &
608: $9.6 (>7.8) $ & $0.72^{+0.6}_{-0.2}$ & 6.18
609: \\
610: & & & 4& & & 4& & & 4& & & 4& & & 4\\
611: 3043 & $0.13^{+0.02}_{-0.04}$ & $0.025 (<0.22)$ & 2.2 &
612: $0.14^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $0.09 (<0.29)$ & 1.91 &
613: $0.20^{+0.10}_{-0.08}$ & $0.15^{+0.05}_{-0.11}$ & 1.64&
614: $0.20$ & $<$0.1 & 18.5 &
615: $2.64^{+2.0}_{-2.0}$ & $0.46^{+0.08}_{-0.21}$ & 2.17 \\
616: & & & 3& & & 3& & & 3& & & 3& & & 3\\
617: 3042 & $0.09^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ & $0.28^{+0.22}_{-0.16}$ & 21.7&
618: $0.11^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ & $0.35^{+0.23}_{-0.15}$ & 22.4&
619: $0.12^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$ & $0.49^{+0.28}_{-0.21}$ & 23.5 &
620: $0.26$ & $<0.06$ &44.7&
621: $9.0 (>7.1)$ & $0.70^{+0.1}_{-0.19}$ &39.2\\
622: & & & 10& & & 10& & & 10& & & 10& & & 10\\
623: \enddata
624: \end{deluxetable}
625:
626:
627: \makeatletter
628: \def\jnl@aj{AJ}
629: \ifx\revtex@jnl\jnl@aj\let\tablebreak=\nl\fi
630: \makeatother
631: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
632: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
633: \tablecolumns{6}
634: \tablewidth{0pt}
635: \tablecaption{Blackbody Luminosities and Derived Parameters}
636: \tablehead{ \colhead{OBSID}
637: &
638: \colhead{$\rm{L_{X, 0.1-2~\rm keV}^{observed}}$}
639: & \colhead{$\rm{L_{X, 0.1-2~\rm keV}^{emitted}}$}& \colhead{$lm/b$} & \colhead{$l/mpr^2$} &
640: \colhead{ $pr^2m^2/b$}\\
641: \colhead{} &
642: \colhead{$10^{39}$\ergs} & \colhead{$10^{39}$\ergs}
643: & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}\\
644: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} &\colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)}
645: }
646: \startdata
647: 315 & 0.17 & 0.17& 1.33 & $2.8\times 10^{-6}$ & $4.8\times 10^5$ \\
648: 3040 & 0.43 & 3.9& 30.5 & $5.6\times 10^{-7}$ & $5.4\times 10^7$\\
649: 3043 & 0.53 & 0.8& 6.2 & $1.6\times 10^{-6}$ & $3.9\times 10^6$\\
650: 3042 & 0.80 & 13.8 & 108 & $3.6\times 10^{-7}$ & $2.9\times 10^8$\\
651: \enddata
652: \end{deluxetable}
653:
654: % FIGURE CAPTIONS
655:
656:
657: \setcounter{figure}{0}
658:
659:
660: \begin{figure}
661: \includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{f1.eps}
662: \caption{The Dec 1999 image of The Antennae (Fabbiano et al.\ 2001), with
663: the super soft ULXs discussed in this paper identified by a circle and source
664: number from Zezas et al.\ (2002a). Soft emission is red, hard emission is blue.
665: Luminous sources appear white because they emit in the entire spectral band.}
666: \end{figure}
667:
668: \begin{figure}
669: \begin{tabular}{cc}
670: \rotatebox{270}{\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{f2.eps}}
671: \end{tabular}
672: \caption{The light curve of CXOANT J120151.6$-$185231.9. The starting date
673: of each observation is given in Table 1; the data are binned in 10~ks time
674: bins.}
675: \end{figure}
676:
677: \begin{figure}
678: \begin{tabular}{cc}
679: \rotatebox{270}{\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{f3.eps}} & \\
680: \end{tabular}
681: \caption{Observed spectral data (see text) and best-fit blackbody spectra, with
682: the fit residuals. Black: 1999 December; green: 2001 December; blue: 2002
683: April; red: 2002 May. We show only the 0.3 -- 2~keV range, where the greatest
684: majority of counts were detected. In all cases the last bin used for the fitting extends to 7~keV.}
685: \end{figure}
686:
687: \begin{figure}
688: \begin{tabular}{cc}
689: \rotatebox{270}{\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{f4.eps}} & \\
690: \end{tabular}
691: \caption{$N_{\rm H}$--$kT$ confidence contours. Solid contours are at 1$\sigma$ for
692: two interesting parameters. For the 2002 May observations, the dashed contour
693: is at 99\% for two interesting parameters.}
694: \end{figure}
695:
696:
697:
698:
699:
700: \end{document}
701:
702:
703:
704: