1: %version 1, 28/Oct., 2005 (XLZ)
2: %version 3, 19/Jun., 2006 (JMW, XLZ)
3: %version 4, 12/Sep., 2006 (JMW, XLZ)
4:
5: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
6:
7: %\documentclass{aastex}
8: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
9: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
10: %\usepackage{epsf}
11: %\usepackage{lscape}
12:
13: \slugcomment{Submitted to the Astronomical Journal}
14: \shorttitle{X-ray properties of HE0450-2958} \shortauthors{Zhou, Yang,
15: L\"u, \& Wang}
16:
17: %
18: \def\eqpair{{\textsc{eqpair}} \ }
19: \def\laor{{\textsc{laor}} \ }
20: \def\pexrav{{\textsc{pexrav}} \ }
21: \def\pexriv{{\textsc{pexriv}} \ }
22:
23: % satellites
24: \def\einstein{{\it Einstein} \ }
25: \def\exosat{{\it EXOSAT} \ }
26: \def\xmm{{\it XMM-Newton}}
27: \def\chandra{{\it Chandra}}
28: \def\astroe{{\it Astro-E} }
29: \def\hst{{\it Hubble}}
30: \def\rosat{{\it ROSAT} \ }
31: \def\ginga{{\it GINGA} \ }
32: \def\euve{{\it EUVE} \ }
33: \def\heao{{\it HEAO-1} A2 \ }
34: \def\asca{{\it ASCA}}
35: \def\sax{{\it BeppoSAX} \ }
36: \def\xte{{\it RXTE} \ }
37: \def\integral{{\it Integral} \ }
38: \def\eue{{\it Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer}}
39: \def\fuse{{\it FUSE}}
40:
41: \def\h0 {$H_0$=70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}
42:
43: % ab.
44:
45: \newcommand{\arc}{arcsec \ }
46: \newcommand{\he}{HE0450-2958}
47:
48: \newcommand{\ce}{\ifmmode {\cal E} \else ${\cal E}$\ \fi}
49: \newcommand{\kms}{\ifmmode {\rm km\ s}^{-1} \else km s$^{-1}$\ \fi}
50: \newcommand{\ergs}{\ifmmode {\rm erg\ s}^{-1} \else erg s$^{-1}$\ \fi}
51: \newcommand{\erg}{ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$}
52: \newcommand{\tes}{\ifmmode \tau_{\rm es} \else $\tau_{\rm es}$\ \fi}
53: \newcommand{\tk}{\ifmmode \tau_{\rm K} \else $\tau_{\rm K}$\ \fi}
54: \newcommand{\vfwhm}{\ifmmode V_{\mbox{\tiny FWHM}} \else
55: $V_{\mbox{\tiny FWHM}}$\fi}
56: \newcommand{\msun}{\ifmmode M_{\odot} \else $M_{\odot}$\ \fi}
57: \newcommand{\afe}{\ifmmode {\mathcal A_{\rm Fe}} \else${\mathcal A_{\rm Fe}}$\ \fi}
58: \newcommand{\et}{et al.\ }
59: \newcommand{\fei}{Fe {\sc i} \ }
60: \newcommand{\feii}{Fe {\sc ii}\ }
61: \newcommand{\fexx}{Fe {\sc xx}\ }
62: \newcommand{\fexxii}{Fe {\sc xxii}\ }
63: \newcommand{\fexxiii}{Fe {\sc xxiii}\ }
64: \newcommand{\fexxiv}{Fe {\sc xxiv}\ }
65: \newcommand{\fexxv}{Fe {\sc xxv}\ }
66: \newcommand{\fexxvi}{Fe {\sc xxvi}\ }
67: \newcommand{\mgii}{Mg {\sc ii}\ }
68: \newcommand{\nv}{N {\sc v}\ }
69: \newcommand{\ngc} {NGC }
70: \newcommand{\ciii}{C {\sc iii}\ }
71: \newcommand{\civ}{C {\sc iv}\ }
72: \newcommand{\ovii}{O {\sc vii}\ }
73: \newcommand{\oviii}{O {\sc viii}\ }
74: \newcommand{\lb}{\ifmmode L_{\rm Bol} \else $L_{\rm Bol}$\ \fi}
75: \newcommand{\ledd}{\ifmmode L_{\rm Edd} \else $L_{\rm Edd}$\ \fi}
76: \newcommand{\lx}{\ifmmode L_{\rm 2-10keV} \else $L_{\rm 2-10keV}$\ \fi}
77: \newcommand{\hb}{H$\beta$}
78: \newcommand{\mbh}{\ifmmode M_{\rm BH} \else $M_{\rm BH}$\ \fi}
79: \newcommand{\lv}{\ifmmode \lambda L_{\lambda}(5100\AA) \else $\lambda L_{\lambda}(5100\AA)$\ \fi}
80:
81: \received{2006 April }
82: \begin{document}
83:
84: \title{X-ray properties of the quasar HE0450-2958}
85:
86: \author{Xin-Lin Zhou\altaffilmark{1,2}, Fang Yang\altaffilmark{1,2}, Xiao-Rong
87: L\"u\altaffilmark{1,2}, Jian-Min Wang\altaffilmark{1}}
88:
89: \altaffiltext{1}{Key Laboratory for Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics,
90: Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China}
91: \altaffiltext{2}{Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China}
92:
93: \begin{abstract}
94: We present an {\it XMM-Newton} EPIC observation of HE0450-2958 which
95: may be a ``naked''quasar as suggested by Magain et al.
96: The \xmm \ EPIC spectra show a substantial soft X-ray
97: excess, a steep photon index,
98: as well as marginal evidence for a weak Fe K$\alpha$ line.
99: The X-ray absorption is consistent with the galactic level.
100: The 0.3-10 keV EPIC spectra can be fitted by a power law plus a
101: blackbody model, however, the fit by the relativistically blurred photoionized disc
102: reflection is better.
103: We estimate the black hole mass of $2^{+7}_{-1.3} \times 10^{7} M_{\odot}$ from the
104: X-ray variability. This broadly agrees with the value derived from the optical \hb~
105: line width. These results support a high-state Seyfert galaxy of the source.
106: HE0450-2958 shares similar properties of transitionary objects from ultra-luminous
107: infrared galaxies to quasars.
108: We suggest that HE0450-2958 is just in the beginning of an optical
109: quasar window.
110:
111: \end{abstract}
112:
113: \keywords{infrared: galaxies-
114: galaxies: individual: HE0450-2958- galaxies: active - X-rays: galaxies}
115:
116: \section{INTRODUCTION}
117: HE0450-2958 is a bright quasar ($z=0.285$) locating $\sim$ $1.5''$ from an
118: ultra-luminous infrared galaxy (ULIRG) and revealed by the \hst~ space
119: telescope (Boyce et al. 1996; Canalizo \& Stockton 2001).
120: Recently, there have been controversies on the nature of
121: HE0450-2958 (Magain et al. 2005; Merritt et al. 2006; Haehnelt et
122: al. 2006; Hoffman \& Loeb 2006).
123: HE0450-2958 resides in an elliptical galaxy. Assuming that the
124: quasar is accreting at half the Eddington limit with a
125: radiative efficiency of 10\%, Magain et al. (2005) inferred the mass of
126: the central supermassive black hole (SMBH) of $8\times10^{8}$
127: $M_{\odot}$ from the quasar absolute magnitude $M_{V}=-25.8$. They
128: argued that the host galaxy luminosity is at least 6
129: times fainter than that predicted
130: from the relation between the SMBH mass and the host-galaxy
131: spheroid luminosity (Mclure \& Dunlop 2002). They thus concluded that the
132: quasar's host galaxy is dark, or the quasar is ``naked''. This suggests the
133: possible evidence for the ejection of a SMBH from a galaxy merger event
134: (Haehnelt et al. 2006; Hoffman \& Loeb 2006).
135:
136: However, Merritt et al. (2006) presented the optical spectra to argue
137: that \he~ is a narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy (NLS1). They derived the SMBH mass
138: of $(2-11)\times$10$^{7}$ $M_{\odot}$ from the \hb~ line width.
139: Then the inferred host-galaxy luminosity from the SMBH mass is consistent
140: with the observed luminosity. They also argued that the ejection model
141: (Haehnelt et al. 2006; Hoffman \& Loeb 2006) can be ruled out since the narrow emission
142: line gas remains bound to the SMBH as showed by the quasar's optical spectra.
143:
144: The controversies lie in the host nature and the SMBH mass of the
145: quasar. X-ray observations, as a powerful probe of the SMBH activities
146: (Mushotzky et al. 1993), may provide independent clues to understand
147: the nature of the source. Here we present an \xmm~ observation of the X-ray
148: counterpart of \he. We find that it is a high-state Seyfert 1
149: galaxy, i.e., accreting above the Eddington limit. Throughout this
150: paper, we use the cosmological parameters of \h0 , $\Omega_{m}=0.3$,
151: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$.
152:
153: \section{DATA REDUCTION}
154: HE0450-2958 was observed by \xmm \ on 2003 Sep.9 during
155: orbit 687 (PI: N. Anabuki). The observational details of the
156: European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) onboard \xmm, including the
157: two MOS cameras (Turner \et 2001) and the pn camera (Str\"uder \et
158: 2001) can be seen in Table 1.
159:
160: %__________________________________________________ One column table
161: \begin{table}
162: \footnotesize
163: \caption{Instrument modes and exposure times. }
164: %\label{tbl-2}
165: \vskip 0.1cm
166: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}\hline \hline
167: Ins. & Mode & filter & time(ksec) \\
168: \hline
169: MOS 1 & Full Frame & medium & 15.7 \\
170: MOS 2 & Full Frame & medium & 15.7 \\
171: pn & Full Frame & medium & 14.0 \\
172:
173: \hline
174: \end{tabular}
175: %\vskip 0.1cm
176: %\parbox{3.45in}
177: %{\baselineskip 9pt
178: %\indent
179: %{ Note:-- }
180: %}
181: \end{table}
182: \normalsize
183:
184: The cookbook for the \xmm~ data analysis software SAS in the \xmm~
185: Data Center at MPE \footnote{{\it
186: http://wave.xray.mpe.mpg.de/xmm/cookbook}} is referred for the data
187: reduction. The EPIC data are screened with the SAS v6.0 software
188: (Gabriel \et 2004), and the corresponding calibration files are
189: available \footnote{ {\it http://xmm.vilspa.esa.es/ccf}}. The X-ray
190: events corresponding to patterns 0-4 (single and double pixel
191: events) for the pn data and patterns 0-12 for the
192: MOS data are selected. The EPIC data are used in the 0.3 - 10 keV range and
193: hot or bad pixels are removed. We extract the source spectra from a
194: circle within $38''$(760 pixels) of the detected source position,
195: with the background being taken from a circular source-free region
196: with the same size avoiding the CCD chip gaps.
197: The presence of background flaring in the observation has been checked and
198: removed via using a Good Time Interval (GTI) file, leaving 13.1 ks for the pn and
199: 15.2 ks for the MOS. We find no pile-ups
200: in the EPIC data after checking by the SAS task {\it epatplot}. The
201: response files are generated with the SAS tools {\it rmfgen} and
202: {\it arfgen}. Spectral files are binned to at least 20 counts per
203: bin to apply the $\chi^2$ statistics. Spectral fit is based on the
204: XSPEC v12.3.0 package (Arnaud 1996). Errors are quoted at the 90\% confidence level ($\Delta
205: \chi^{2}=2.71$).
206:
207: The X-ray source is located at $04^{\rm h}52^{\rm m}30^{\rm s}.2$,
208: $-29^{\circ} 53'34''.6$ (J2000.0). Note that EPIC has a spatial
209: resolution of $\sim$ $10''$ or worse (Ghizzardi et al. 2001), however, the quasar
210: is $\sim$ $1.5''$ apart from
211: the ULIRG. Thus, the \he~ system can't be resolved spatially by
212: EPIC. All the fits include the absorption due to the line-of-sight
213: Galactic column of $N_{\rm H}=1.68\times10^{20}\rm{cm}^{-2}$ (Dickey
214: \& Lockman 1990), and fitting parameters are given in the
215: rest-frame.
216:
217: \section{Results}
218:
219: \subsection{Temporal analysis}
220:
221: \subsubsection{excess variance}
222:
223: We extract the 2-10 keV EPIC pn light curve with the time bin of 256
224: s, the same as adopted by O'Neill et al. (2005). The count rates show evident
225: variations in $\sim$ ks timescale (Fig. 1).
226: To quantify the X-ray variability of \he, we invoke the X-ray excess variance
227: denoted as $\sigma^2_{\rm rms}$ (Nandra et al. 1997 and Turner et al. 1999),
228:
229: \begin{equation}
230: \label{sigma2}
231: \sigma^{2}_{\rm rms}=\frac{1}{N\mu^{2}}\sum_{i=1}^{N} [(X_{i}-\mu)^2-\sigma_{i}^{2}],
232: \end{equation}
233: where $X_{i}$ is the count rates for the $N$ points in the light curve, with the errors
234: $\sigma_{i}$. $\mu$ is the arithmetic mean of $X_{i}$.
235: The errors of $\sigma^2_{\rm rms}$, which depend on the measurement uncertainties and the
236: stochastic nature of the source, can be expressed as (O'Neill et al. 2005),
237: \begin{equation}
238: \label{sigma2er}
239: \Delta_{\mathrm{tot}}(\sigma^{2}_{\rm rms}) = \sqrt{ \left( \frac{
240: \sigma_{\mathrm{frac}} \sigma^{2}_{\rm rms}}{\sqrt{N_{\mathrm{seg}}}} \right)^{2} +
241: [\Delta_{\mathrm{boot}}(\sigma^{2}_{\rm rms})]^{2} },
242: \end{equation}
243: where $N_{\mathrm{seg}}$ is the number of available ligh-curve segments,
244: $\sigma_{\mathrm{frac}}$ is a fractional standard deviation, $\sigma_{\mathrm{frac}}=0.74$ for
245: log$M_{\mathrm{BH}}>$ 6.54 and $\sigma_{\mathrm{frac}}=0.48$ for log$M_{\mathrm{BH}}<$ 6.54.
246: $\Delta_{\mathrm{boot}}(\sigma^{2}_{\rm rms})$ is the bootstrap uncertainty which comes from
247: the bootstrap simulation accounting for the measurement uncertainties.
248: We find that $\sigma^2_{\rm rms} = 0.0081\pm0.0063$ from the 2-10
249: keV EPIC pn data. We don't use the EPIC MOS data since the MOS data have much
250: lower count rates with relatively larger errors.
251:
252:
253:
254: \subsubsection{Time lag}
255: We calculate the cross-correlation function (CCF) between the light curves of 0.3-2
256: keV and 2-10 keV with the time bin of 50 s (Fig. 2).
257: The CCF is obtained using the {\sc XRONOS} command {\sc crosscor}, which uses a direct
258: Fourier method to compute the coefficient. Errors are obtained via propagating
259: the errors of the concerned light curves through the cross correlation formulae.
260: The results show the hard X-ray to be no lagging with respect to the soft X-ray emission.
261:
262: \subsection{Spectral analysis}
263:
264: \subsubsection{Power law}
265: We use all the EPIC data (pn+MOS1+MOS2) for the spectral analysis to improve the
266: photon statistics allowing tighter constraints on spectral parameters.
267: Initially we use a power law to fit the data above 1 keV with a free
268: intrinsic absorption. A good fit can be obtained
269: ($\chi^2_{\upsilon}$ of 1.06 for 521 d.o.f.), with the intrinsic absorption
270: consistent with zero. A substantial soft X-ray excess below 1 keV can be seen in
271: the EPIC pn and MOS data when extrapolating this power law over the
272: full energy range of EPIC (Fig. 3).
273:
274: \begin{table*}[t]
275: %\begin{center}
276: \tiny
277: \caption{Spectral fits to the combined EPIC (pn+MOS1+MOS2) data}
278: %\vglue 0.1cm
279: \begin{tabular}{llcccccccccccr}\hline \hline
280: Model$^a$ & $\Gamma$ & $N_{\rm H}^{\rm int}$ &
281: $kT_{BB}$ & $N_{BB}$ & $E_{edge}$ & $\tau$ & $E_{K\alpha}$ & $EW_{K\alpha}$
282: & $\theta$ &log$\xi$ & $\chi^2/d.o.f.$ \\
283: & & (10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$) & (eV) & ($\times$10$^{-5}$) &
284: (eV)
285: & & (keV) & (eV) & \\
286: (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8)& (9) & (10) & (11) & (12) \\
287:
288: \hline
289:
290: 1. & $2.13^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $<0.03$ & $99^{-3}_{+2}$ &
291: $9.7^{+3.4}_{-0.5}$ & -& - &- &- &
292: -& - & 872.8/747 \\
293: 2. & $2.16^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $<0.01$ & $107^{+5}_{-8}$ &
294: $7.5^{+1.7}_{-0.4}$
295: & $773^{+34}_{-18}$ & $0.29^{+0.07}_{-0.11}$ & - & - &-&- & 845.0/745 \\
296: 3. & $2.16^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ &$<0.01$ & $106^{+6}_{-6}$
297: &$7.7^{+1.4}_{-0.6}$ &
298: $776^{+29}_{-19}$ & $0.26^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ & $6.40^f$ & $<64$ &-&-& 842.2/744 \\
299: 4. & $2.15^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $<0.01$ & - & - & $788^{+31}_{-29}$ & $0.38^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$
300: & $6.40^f$ & $<36$ & $42^{+8}_{-10}$ & $3.2^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ & 798.1/738 \\
301:
302: 5. & $2.35^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $<0.01$ & - & - & $759^{+11}_{-13}$
303: & $0.49^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$
304: & $6.40^f$ & $<42$ &$38^{+10}_{-8}$ &$3.4^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ & 849.2/741\\
305: & & & & & $1190^{+30}_{-40}$ & $0.30^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & & & \\
306: % 4. & $2.65^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 0. & - & - & $0.790^{+0.12}_{-0.13}$ & -& 6.40$^f$ &-&
307: % - & - & 551.0/382 \\
308:
309: \hline
310: \end{tabular}
311: %\parbox{3.45in}
312: {\baselineskip 9pt \indent \\
313: Note. -(1): model; (2): photon index; (3): intrinsic column density;
314: (4): blackbody temperature; (5) blackbody normalization; (6) energy
315: of absorption \\ edge; (7) optical depth of absorption edge; (8)
316: energy of Fe K$\alpha$ line; (9) equivalent
317: width of Fe K$\alpha$ line; (10) inclination angle in the reflection model \\ of {\sc pexriv}; ]
318: (11) ionization parameter in {\sc pexriv}.
319: $^a$ Model expressed in XSPEC command. 1: phabs * zphabs (powerlaw+zbbody);
320: 2: phabs * zphabs\\ * zedge (powerlaw+zbbody);
321: 3: phabs * zphabs * zedge (powerlaw+zbbody+zgauss);
322: 4: phabs * zphabs * zedge (kdblur (powerlaw+atable $\lbrace$reflion.mod$\rbrace$)+zgauss);
323: 5: phabs * zphabs * zedge * zedge (pexriv+zgauss). $^f$ fixed.}
324: %\end{center}
325: \end{table*}
326: \normalsize
327:
328:
329: We use the models listed in Table 2 to fit 0.3 - 10 keV spectrum.
330: The soft X-ray excess is traditionally taken as thermal emission (e.g. Pounds et al. 1995).
331: Model 1 is an absorbed power law plus a blackbody model. This gives
332: an acceptable fit over the full energy range ($\chi^2_{\upsilon}$ of 1.17
333: for 747 d.o.f., Model 1 in Table 2), with the photon index of $2.13^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$.
334: There are some evidences for an absorption gap between
335: 0.7-0.8 keV in the spectra. We add an absorption edge to Model 1.
336: This improves the fit significantly ($\Delta \chi^2$ of 27.8 for 2 fewer d.o.f., Model 2).
337: We find that the edge significance is at the level of $>99.9\%$ by applying the
338: $F$-test. It should be due to the absorption edge of \ovii in 739 eV
339: (Reynolds 1997). The second absorption edge due to \oviii is not
340: required in this model ($\Delta \chi^2$ of 1.2 for 2 fewer d.o.f. when including the
341: second absorption edge).
342:
343:
344: \subsubsection{Fe K line}
345: We first try to add a Gaussian line with all free parameters. However,
346: this fit does not improve significantly ($\Delta \chi^2$ of 2.7 for 3 fewer d.o.f.).
347: Since the Fe K$\alpha$ lines in current data are generally narrow (Nandra
348: 2006), we fix the intrinsic width of the line at 10 eV. This fit is still
349: poor ($\Delta \chi^2$ of 2.6 for 2 fewer d.o.f.), and the line energy can not be constrained
350: well. We also fix the line energy at 6.40 keV. This returns an equivalent width of $<64$ eV.
351: The line significance $F^{line}$ is at a level of 89\% compared to the continuum alone.
352: Generally, the significance should be larger than 90\% for the presence of
353: a Fe K$\alpha$ line. Thus, the line is barely significant.
354:
355:
356:
357:
358:
359: \subsubsection{soft X-ray excess}
360:
361: Recently, it has been suggested that the soft X-ray excess can be
362: arised from a relativistically blurred photoionized disc reflection
363: in a large sample of AGNs (Crummy et al. 2006). The relativistic
364: convolution {\sc kdblur} has been included in XSPEC v12.3.0 and
365: the photoionized disc reflection model of {\sc REFLION} (Ross \& Fabian 2005) is also available
366: \footnote{{\it http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xanadu/xspec/models/reflion.html}}.
367: We follow Crummy et al. (2006), fix the outer radius of accretion disc at 100 $R_{\rm g}$.
368: This fit (Model 4) is better than the blackbody fit of Model 3 ($\Delta \chi^2$ of 44.1
369: for 6 fewer d.o.f., see Table 2), with the
370: inner radius of the accretion disc at $1.6^{+0.6}_{-0.2}$ $R_{\rm g}$, the index of the
371: emissivity of the accretion disc of $8.1^{+1.9}_{-3.5}$, the iron abundance of
372: the accretion disc of $0.4^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ (relative to solar), the photon index for
373: illuminating power-law spectrum of $2.38^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$. Other parameters in this model have been listed in Table 2.
374:
375: We further test the reflection scenario by using the {\sc pexriv}
376: model (Magdziarz \& Zdziarski 1995) to fit 0.3-10 keV spectrum.
377: Although the {\sc pexriv} model doesn't include the relativistically blurring effect, it can
378: generally represent the
379: reflection from the ionized material. We fix the high-energy cutoff at 200 keV, the reflector
380: at unity (Malizia et al. 2003). This fit is worse than the blackbody model
381: ($\Delta \chi^2$ of -7 for 3 fewer d.o.f. ), but still acceptable ($\chi^2_{\upsilon}$ of 1.15
382: for 741 d.o.f.).
383:
384:
385: \section{Discussion}
386:
387:
388:
389: \subsection{BH mass}
390: We calculate the black hole (BH) mass based on the
391: anti-correlation between the X-ray excess variance $\sigma^2_{\rm rms}$ and the BH
392: mass (Lu \& Yu 2001; Bian \& Zhao 2003; Papadakis 2004; O'Neill et al. 2005).
393: Using the correlation derived from Eq. 3 in O'Neill et al. (2005),
394: \begin{equation}
395: \log M_{\rm BH}=5.75+1.20\log \left( \frac{0.144}{\sigma^2_{\rm rms}}-1\right),
396: \end{equation}
397: we obtain the BH mass of $2^{+7}_{-1.3}\times10^{7}$ $M_{\odot}$ (Fig. 7).
398:
399: We plot the spectral energy distribution (SED)
400: for \he~ in Fig. 8. There is a ``Big Blue Bump''(BBB) in
401: the UV band. We fit the BBB with a standard thin accretion
402: disk model (D\"oerrer et al. 1996) and fit the X-ray data with a power law plus
403: a blackbody model. The accretion disk fit (dotted line in Fig. 8) returns a
404: large BH mass of $8\times10^{8}$ $M_{\odot}$, with the
405: Eddington ratio of 0.3, the inclination angle cos$\theta=0.5$ and the BH spin parameter
406: $a=0.6$. This BH mass is much
407: higher than our result. It is possible that the UV and optical data is
408: contaminated by the nearby ULIRG and thus the SED luminosity is overestimated.
409: A similar case appears in NLS1 Ton S180,
410: the estimation of BH mass based on the SED from the
411: simultaneous multiple band observations is also much higher than that from the
412: \hb~ line width (Turner et al. 2002). Alternatively, it is not a reliable way to
413: estimate the BH masses in NLS1s by fitting SED using a standard thin disk model,
414: since they may accrete above the Eddington limit and the standard thin disk model
415: does not work in this case (Kawaguchi et al. 2004). It is worth studying the SED of
416: \he~ through more sophisticated slim disk model (Abramowicz et al.
417: 1988; Wang et al. 1999) in future.
418:
419:
420: \subsection{Eddington ratio}
421:
422: The X-ray excess variance is related with the observed X-ray luminosity
423: $L_{\rm X}$ and the Eddington ratio ${\cal E}\equiv L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$
424: through (Leighly 1999),
425: \begin{equation}
426: \sigma^2_{\rm rms}\propto \left( \frac{L_{\rm X}}{\eta {\cal
427: E}}\right)^{1-\alpha},
428: \end{equation}
429: where $L_{\rm bol}$ is the bolometric luminosity and $L_{\rm Edd}$
430: is the Eddington luminosity, $\eta$ is the radiation efficiency and
431: $\alpha$ is the slope of the power spectrum, assuming $\alpha=2$
432: (Leighly 1999). The integrated $2-10$ keV flux of \he~ is
433: $2.00\times 10^{-12}$ \erg, corresponding to a luminosity of 5.13
434: $\times$ 10$^{44}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. We find that \he~ is located in
435: the NLS1 region in the $\sigma^2_{\rm rms}-L_{\rm X}$ plot of
436: Leighly (1999), indicating that \he~ has a high Eddington ratio.
437: This supports the hypothesis that HE0450-2958 is a NLS1 galaxy.
438:
439: The soft and the hard X-rays in \he~ can arise from very close
440: regions. As suggested above, a slim disk may be powering \he.
441: The fluctuations of the slim accretion disk can be the
442: origin of the simultaneous X-rays variations (Mineshige et al. 2000;
443: Wang \& Netzer 2003). In this case, the slim disk suffers the
444: so-called ``photon bubble instability'' (Gammie 1998) since the
445: energy densities of the trapped photons and the magnetic field are
446: larger than those in standard accretion disks. This leads to the
447: hard X-rays closely following the soft X-rays variations. The
448: zero lag between the soft and the hard X-rays in \he~ supports this scenario.
449:
450:
451: The yielded hard photon index of $2.16^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$, is
452: steeper than the average photon index of $1.8-2.0$ in Seyfert 1
453: galaxies (Nandra \& Pounds 1994; George et al. 2000) and in quasars
454: (Reeves \& Turner 2000). The AGNs with steep X-ray indices as
455: well as the strong soft X-ray emission have been considered as high-state objects
456: (Pounds et al. 1995).
457: According to the anti-correlation between the FWHM (\hb) and the
458: hard X-ray index (Brandt et al. 1997), the FWHM (\hb) of \he~
459: should be narrow, also consistent with a NLS1.
460:
461: The hard X-ray photon index is related to Eddington ratio
462: (e.g. Shemmer et al. 2006). We calculate ${\cal E}$ from
463: the $\Gamma_{\rm 2-10 keV}- {\cal E}$ relation in Wang et al. (2004),
464: \begin{equation}
465: \Gamma_{\rm 2-10 keV}=2.05+0.26\log{\cal E}.
466: \end{equation}
467: We find ${\cal E}= 3^{+1}_{-1}$ for $\Gamma_{\rm 2-10
468: keV}=2.16\pm0.03$. This suggests that \he~ is accreting above the Eddington
469: limit.
470:
471: The AGN bolometric luminosity can be estimated from the X-ray
472: luminosity by multiplying the
473: bolometric correction $f_{\rm bol/x}$. We
474: find the bolometric luminosity to be $9^{+16}_{-6}\times$ 10$^{45}$
475: ergs s$^{-1}$ by assuming $f_{\rm bol/x} = 17^{+33}_{-11}$. The $f_{\rm bol/x}$ we used is
476: the range in conversion factors that the bolometric luminosity accounts
477: for the X-ray luminosity found in Elvis et al. (1994), also
478: consistent with recent estimation by Marconi et al. (2004) and Barger et al. (2005).
479: We then estimate the BH mass of $2^{+5}_{-1.2}$$\times$
480: 10$^{7}$ $M_{\odot}$ for $L_{\rm bol}=9^{+16}_{-6}\times$ 10$^{45}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ and
481: ${\cal E}= 3$, agreeing with the $M_{\rm BH}$ from the X-ray variability.
482:
483: The weak
484: Fe K$\alpha$ emission can be also due to the high Eddington ratio
485: (Pounds et al. 2003) for the anti-correlation between the equivalent width of
486: narrow Fe K$\alpha$ line and Eddington ratio (Zhou \& Wang 2005).
487:
488:
489:
490: \subsection{On the origin of Soft X-ray excess}
491: The origin of the soft X-ray excess is still under debate.
492: The traditional view is that the soft X-ray excess is the high-energy tail of BBB
493: which is the thermal emission from the inner region of the accretion disc.
494: The inferred Eddington ratio (${\cal E}= 3^{+1}_{-1}$), is too high
495: for a standard accretion disk. The slim disc can be
496: applied for the super-Eddington accretion.
497: The effective temperature of the slim disc can be written as (Wang \& Netzer 2003),
498: \begin{equation}
499: T_{\rm eff}= 3.14 \times 10^{3} \gamma_{0}^{-1/4}M_{\rm BH}^{-1/4}\left(r/r_{\rm s}\right)^{-1/2} {\rm eV},
500: \end{equation}
501: where $\gamma_{0}=(5+\alpha^{2}/2)^{1/2}$ is a weak function of the
502: viscosity $\alpha$, $\gamma_{0}\approx2.24$ for $\alpha\ll1$. We
503: find $T_{\rm eff}\approx $ 23 eV for $r=3 r_{\rm s}$ and $M_{\rm
504: BH}= 2\times10^7 M_{\odot}$. However, the derived blackbody
505: temperature from the spectral fitting, $kT_{BB}=106\pm6$ eV,
506: is much higher than expected. For the thermal origin of
507: the soft X-ray excess, it is difficult to reconcile the BH mass to the
508: blackbody temperature (e.g., a slim disc temperature 100 eV requires a BH mass
509: of $<10^5 M_{\odot}$). However the innermost region of accretion disk may be very
510: complicated, such as strong outflow developed from the disk itself, evidenced by
511: PG 1211+143 (Pounds \& Page 2006). Comptonization inside the outflow has not been studied,
512: but might significantly contribute to the soft X-ray excess. Actually the temperature holds
513: a constant in the transition layer between the hot corona and cold disk, it may also have
514: important contribution to the soft X-ray excess (Nayakshin \& Melia 1997). As noted by
515: Gierli\'nski \& Done (2004), many AGNs with quite
516: different BH masses have soft X-ray excess with the temperature confined in a very narrow range.
517: This points out towards an atomic nature (either related to absorption or reflection)
518: for the soft excess, rather than a thermal origin.
519:
520: Whereas the blackbody model can fit the spectra,
521: our result shows that the fit by relativistically blurred
522: disc reflection model is better. This supports that
523: the soft X-ray excess can arise from the disc reflection.
524: The ionization parameter given by the reflection model
525: is large (log$\xi=3.2^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$), implying that the reflection material
526: is highly ionized.
527: The simulation of X-ray photoionized accretion disc shows that the surface of the
528: accretion disc can be significantly ionized at a high Eddington
529: ratio (Matt et al. 1993). The highly-ionized disc surface becomes reflective
530: in the soft X-ray band,
531: producing a steepening X-ray continuum (Haardt \& Maraschi 1993; Nayakshin et al. 2000;
532: Ballantyne et al. 2001). This scenario is physically plausible for \he.
533:
534:
535:
536: \subsection{X-ray properties of the transitionary objects}
537:
538: Canalizo \& Stockton (2001) compiled a sample (including \he) of
539: low-redshift ($z\leqslant0.4$) objects that are
540: in a transitionary stage between ULIRGs and quasars. Their sample selected from
541: the intermediate position in the far-infrared color-color diagram between the regions
542: occupied by the two classes of objects from the IRAS all-sky survey is nearly complete.
543: We collect the X-ray data of Canalizo \& Stockton (2001) sample given in Table 3.
544: For seven X-ray detected objects, all show steep X-ray photon
545: indices and small X-ray intrinsic absorption, with the exception of
546: Mrk 231, which is heavily obscured. Thus \he~ is very similar to other objects.
547:
548: \clearpage
549:
550: \begin{table}
551: \footnotesize
552: \caption{The transitionary objects in Canalizo \& Stockton (2001) }
553: %\label{tbl-2}
554: %\vskip 0.1cm
555: \begin{tabular}{llcccc}\hline \hline
556: Name & $z$ & log$L_{\rm IR}$ & $\Gamma_{\rm 2-10 keV}$ &
557: $N_{\rm H}^{\rm int}$ & Ref. \\
558: & & ($L_{\odot}$) & & (10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) \\
559: \hline
560: I Zw1 & 0.061 & 11.97 & $2.31^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $0.09^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & 1 \\
561: 3C48 & 0.367 & 13.02 & $1.96^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $<0.21$ & 4 \\
562: IR 07598+6508 & 0.148 & 12.54 & $2.9^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ & $0.08^{+0.1}_{-0.06}$ & 5 \\
563: Mrk 231 & 0.042 & 12.55 & $2.48^{+0.20}_{-0.11}$ & $265^{+173}_{-85}$ & 6 \\ F00275-2859 & 0.279& 12.71 & - & - & - \\
564: PG 1700+518 & 0.292 & 12.70 & X-ray & undetected & 3 \\
565: HE 0450-2958 & 0.285 &12.72 & $2.16^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $<0.01$ & 2 \\
566: PG 1543+489 & 0.400 & 12.78 & $2.64^{+0.19}_{-0.20}$ & $0.07^{+0.11}_{-0.07}$ & 3 \\
567:
568: Mrk 1014 & 0.163 & 12.63 & $2.24^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ & 0. & 1 \\
569:
570: \hline
571: \end{tabular}
572: \vskip 0.1cm
573: \parbox{3.05in}
574: {\baselineskip 9pt \indent { Ref. for X-ray data: 1. Piconcelli et
575: al. (2005); 2. this work; 3. George et al. (2000); 4. Siemiginowska
576: et al. (2003); 5. Imanishi \& Terashima (2004); 6. Braito et al.
577: (2004). } }
578:
579: \end{table}
580: \normalsize
581:
582: In the hierarchical formation paradigm, quasars are formed and
583: fueled via galaxy-galaxy mergers (Kauffmann \& Haehnelt 2000; Di
584: Matteo et al. 2005). During the major merger of two comparable
585: galaxies, the quasar is dust-enshrouded and the SMBH growth is
586: obscured by the gas funneled toward a merger nucleus.
587: This picture is supported by a new population of submm and hard X-ray sources at
588: $z\approx1.5-3$ (Chapman et al. 2003; Alexander et al. 2005).
589: When SMBH reaches a critical mass, the feedback from the SMBH
590: activity expels gas, and cleans the obscuring material (Silk \& Rees 1998;
591: Fabian 1999; Ciotti \& Ostriker 2001). The detailed simulation of
592: galaxy mergers shows that this process creates a window in which
593: the SMBH is observable as an optical quasar for the duration of $\sim10-20$ Myr for
594: a $B$-band luminosity greater than 10$^{11}$ $L_{\odot}$ (Hopkins et al. 2005). We
595: argue that \he~ is just in the beginning
596: of the optical quasar window for: 1) the small X-ray
597: intrinsic absorption, implying that the AGN is dust-cleaned and
598: optical-visible; 2) the high accretion rate inferred from the steep
599: X-ray index and the NLS1 nature; 3) the relatively smaller BH mass
600: compared with the optical-selected quasars (Hao et al. 2005;
601: Kawakatu et al. 2006).
602:
603: The IR luminosities of ULIRGs denote the intense bursts of star
604: formation and also the ``violence'' of interactions and mergers
605: (Sanders \& Mirabel 1996). The steep X-ray photon indices of AGNs
606: denote the super-Eddington accretion of SMBHs. These ULIRGs
607: associated with AGNs with steep X-ray indices shed new light on the
608: coeval growth of the stellar bulges and SMBHs in the hierarchical
609: paradigm.
610:
611: \section{Conclusions}
612: The \xmm \ EPIC spectra of \he~ show a substantial soft X-ray
613: excess, a steep photon index,
614: as well as marginal evidence for a weak Fe K$\alpha$ line.
615: The X-ray absorption is consistent with the galactic level.
616: The 0.3-10 keV EPIC spectra
617: can be fitted by a power law plus a
618: blackbody model, however, the fit by the relativistically blurred photoionized disc
619: reflection is better.
620: We estimate the black hole mass of $2^{+7}_{-1.3} \times 10^{7} M_{\odot}$ from the
621: X-ray variability.
622: This broadly agrees with the value derived from the optical \hb~ line width.
623: These results support a high-state Seyfert galaxy of the source.
624:
625: \he~ shares similar properties of transitionary objects from ultra-luminous infrared
626: galaxies to quasars. we suggest that \he~ is just in the beginning of the optical quasar
627: window.
628:
629:
630: \acknowledgements{We are grateful to an anonymous referee for the constructive comments
631: and help with English. W.-H. Bian, Z.-H. Fan, F. Zhang and Y.-M. Chen are thanked
632: for reading the manuscript. We also appreciate the discussion among people
633: in IHEP AGN group. This research is supported by NSFC through NSFC-10325313,
634: 10233030 and 10521001.}
635:
636:
637: \begin{thebibliography}{}
638: \bibitem[]{659} Abramowicz, M. A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J. P., \& Szuszkiewicz,
639: E. 1988, \apj, 332, 646
640: \bibitem[]{661} Alexander, D. M., Smail, I., Bauer, F. E., Chapman, S. C.,
641: Blain, A. W., Brandt, W. N., \& Ivison, R. J. 2005, Nature, 434, 738
642: \bibitem[]{663} Arnaud, K. A. 1996, ASPC, 101, 17
643: \bibitem[]{664} Ballantyne, D. R., Ross, R. R., \& Fabian, A. C. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 506
644: \bibitem[]{665} Barger, A. J., Cowie, L. L., Mushotzky, R. F., Yang, Y., Wang, W. H., Steffen, A. T., \& Capak, P. 2005, AJ, 129, 578
645: \bibitem[]{666} Bian, W.-H., \& Zhao, Y.-H. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 164
646: \bibitem[]{668} Boyce, P. J. et al. 1996, \apj, 473, 760
647: \bibitem[]{669} Braito, V. et al. 2004, \aap, 420, 79
648: \bibitem[]{670} Brandt, W. N., Mathur, S., \& Elvis, M. 1997, MNRAS, 285, L25
649: \bibitem[]{671} Canalizo, G., \& Stockton, A. 2001, \apj, 555, 719
650: \bibitem[]{672} Chapman, S. C., Blain, A. W., Ivison, R. J., \& Smail, I. R. 2003, Nature, 422,
651: 695
652: \bibitem[]{674} Ciotti, L., \& Ostriker, J. P. 2001, \apj, 551, 131
653: \bibitem[]{C05} Crummy, J., Fabian, A. C., Gallo, L., \& Ross, R. R. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1067
654: \bibitem[]{676} Dickey, J. M., \& Lockman, F. J. 1990, AR\aap, 28, 215
655: \bibitem[]{677} Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604
656: \bibitem[]{678} D\"oerrer, T., Riffert, H., Staubert, R., \& Ruder, H. 1996, \aap, 311, 69
657: \bibitem[]{679} Elvis, M. et al. 1994, \apjs, 95, 1
658: \bibitem[]{680} Fabian, A. C. 1999, MNRAS, 308, L39
659: \bibitem[]{682} Gabriel, C. et al. 2004, ASPC, 314, 759
660: \bibitem[]{683} Gammie, C. F. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 929
661: \bibitem[]{684} George, I. M., Turner, T. J., Yaqoob, T., Netzer, H., Laor, A., Mushotzky, R. F.,
662: Nandra, K., \& Takahashi, T. 2000, \apj, 531, 52
663: \bibitem[]{685} Ghizzardi S. et al. 2001, In flight calibration of the PSF for the MOS1 and
664: MOS2 cameras, EPIC-MCT-TN-011
665: \bibitem[]{686} Gierli\'nski, M., \& Done, C. 2004, MNRAS, 349, L7
666: \bibitem[]{687} Haardt, F., \& Maraschi, L. 1993, \apj, 413, 507
667: \bibitem[]{688} Haehnelt, M. G., Davies, M. B., \& Rees, M. J. 2006, MNRAS, 366, L22
668: \bibitem[]{689} Hao, C.-N., Xia, X.-Y., Mao, S.-D., Wu, H., \& Deng, Z.-G.
669: 2005, \apj, 625, 78
670: \bibitem[]{690} Imanishi, M., \& Terashima, Y. 2004, AJ, 127, 758
671: \bibitem[]{691} Hoffman, L., \& Loeb, A. 2006, \apj, 638, L75
672: \bibitem[]{692} Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Martini, P., Cox, T. J., Robertson, B.,
673: Di Matteo, T., \& Springel, V. 2005, \apj, 625, L71
674: \bibitem[]{694} Kauffmann, G., \& Haehnelt, M. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 576
675: \bibitem[]{695} Kawaguchi, T., Pierens, A., \& Hur\'e, J. M. 2004, \aap, 415, 47
676: \bibitem[]{696} Kawakatu, N., Anabuki, N., Nagao, T., Umemura, M., \& Nakagawa, T.
677: 2006, \apj, 637, 104
678: \bibitem[]{698} Letawe, G., Magain, P., Courbin, F., Jablonka, P., Jahnke, K., Meylan, G.,
679: \& Wisotzki, L. 2006, MNRAS(astro-ph/0605288)
680: \bibitem[]{700} Leighly, K. M. 1999, ApJS, 125, 297
681: \bibitem[]{701} Lu, Y. J., \& Yu, Q. J. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 653
682: \bibitem[]{702} Magain, P., Letawe, G., Courbin, F., Jablonka, P., Jahnke, K., Meylan, G.,
683: \& Wisotzki, L. 2005, Nature, 437, 381
684: \bibitem[]{MZ95} Magdziarz, P., \& Zdziarski, A. A. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 837
685: \bibitem[]{705} Malizia, A., Bassani, L., Stephen, J. B., Di Cocco, G., Fiore, F.,
686: \& Dean, A. J. 2003, \apj, 589, L17
687: \bibitem[]{707} Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., Hunt, L. K., Maiolino, R., \& Salvati, M.
688: 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169
689: \bibitem[]{709} Matt, G., Fabian, A. C., \& Ross, R. R. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 179
690: \bibitem[]{710} McLure, R. J., \& Dunlop, J. S. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 795
691: \bibitem[]{711} Merritt, D., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Robinson, A., Batcheldor, D., Axon, D., \&
692: Roberto, C. F. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1746
693: \bibitem[]{713} Mineshige, S., Kawaguchi, T., Takeuchi, M., \& Hayashida,
694: K. 2000, PASJ, 52, 499
695: \bibitem[]{715} Mushotzky, R. F., Done, C., \& Pounds, K. A. 1993, AR\aap, 31, 717
696: \bibitem[]{716} Nandra, K., \& Pounds, K. A. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 405
697: \bibitem[]{717} Nandra, K., George, I. M., Mushotzky, R. F., Turner, T. J., \& Yaqoob, T.
698: 1997, \apj, 476, 70
699: \bibitem[]{719} Nandra, K. 2006, MNRAS, 368, L62
700: \bibitem[]{720} Nayakshin, S., Kazanas, D., \& Kallman, T. R. 2000, \apj, 537, 833
701: \bibitem[]{721} Nayakshin, S., \& Melia, F. 1997, \apj, 484, L103
702: \bibitem[]{722} O'Neill, P. M., Nandra, K., Papadakis, I. E., \& Turner, T. J. 2005, MNRAS,
703: 358, 1405
704: \bibitem[]{723} Papadakis, I. E. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 207
705: \bibitem[]{724} Piconcelli, E., Jimenez-Bailón, E., Guainazzi, M., Schartel, N.,
706: Rodríguez-Pascual, P. M.,\& Santos-Lleó, M. 2005, \aap, 432, 15
707: \bibitem[]{726} Pounds, K. A., Done, C., \& Osborne, J. P. 1995, MNRAS, 277, L5
708: \bibitem[]{727} Pounds, K. A., Reeves, J. N., Page, K. L., Wynn, G. A., \& O'Brien, P. T. 2003,
709: MNRAS, 342, 1147
710: \bibitem[]{728} Pounds, K. A., \& Page, K. L. 2006, MNRAS, preprint (astro-ph/0607099)
711: \bibitem[]{729} Ross, R. R., \& Fabian, A. C. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 211
712: \bibitem[]{730} Reeves, J. N., \& Turner, M. J. L. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 234
713: \bibitem[]{731} Reynolds, C. S. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 513
714: \bibitem[]{SM96} Sanders, D. B., \& Mirabel, I. F. 1996, AR\aap, 34, 749
715: \bibitem[]{733} Scott, J. E., Kriss, G. A., Brotherton, M., Green, R. F., Hutchings, J., Shull, J.
716: M., \& Zheng, W. 2004, \apj, 615, 135
717: \bibitem[]{735} Siemiginowska, A., Aldcroft, T. L., Bechtold, J., Brunetti, G., Elvis, M., \&
718: Stanghellini, C. 2003, PASA, 20, 113
719: \bibitem[]{736} Shemmer, O., Brandt, W. N., Netzer, H., Maiolino, R., \& Kaspi, S. 2006,
720: \apj, 646, L29
721: \bibitem[]{737} Silk, J., \& Rees, M. J. 1998, \aap, 331, L1
722: \bibitem[]{738} Str\"uder, L. et al. 2001, \aap, 365, L18
723: \bibitem[]{739} Turner, M. J. L. et al. 2001, \aap, 365, L27
724: \bibitem[]{740} Turner, T. J., George, I. M., Nandra, K., \& Turcan, D. 1999, \apj, 524, 667
725: \bibitem[]{741} Turner, T. J., et al. 2002, \apj, 568, 120
726: \bibitem[]{744} Wang, J.-M., \& Netzer, H. 2003, \aap, 398, 927
727: \bibitem[]{745} Wang, J.-M., Szuszkiewicz, E., Lu, F.-J., \& Zhou, Y.-Y. 1999, \apj, 522, 839
728: \bibitem[]{746} Wang, J.-M., Watarai, K.-Y.,\& Mineshige, S. 2004, \apj, 607, L107
729: \bibitem[]{747} Zhou, X.-L, \& Wang, J.-M. 2005, \apj, 618, L83
730:
731:
732: \end{thebibliography}
733:
734: \clearpage
735:
736: %
737: \begin{figure}
738: \figurenum{1}
739: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{f1.ps}}
740: \figcaption{The 2-10 keV EPIC pn light curve of \he~ with the time bin
741: of 256 s shows the rapid variability. }
742: \label{fig1}
743: \end{figure}
744: %\vglue 0.5cm
745: %
746:
747: \clearpage
748:
749: %
750: \begin{figure}
751: \figurenum{2}
752: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{f2.ps}}
753: \figcaption{The cross-correlation function between the light curves of 0.3-2
754: keV and 2-10 keV with the time bin of 50 s shows no time lag
755: between these two X-ray bands. }
756: \label{fig2}
757: \end{figure}
758: %\vglue 0.5cm
759: %
760:
761: \clearpage
762:
763: %
764: \begin{figure}
765: \figurenum{3}
766: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{f3.ps}}
767: \figcaption{The EPIC pn (green), MOS1 (black) and MOS2 (red) spectra of
768: \he. The data is fitted with a simple power law over 1-10 keV, index
769: $\Gamma=2.14\pm0.03$. A soft X-ray excess is clear seen below 1 keV.}
770: \label{fig3}
771: \end{figure}
772: %\vglue 0.5cm
773: %
774:
775: \clearpage
776:
777: %
778: \begin{figure}
779: \figurenum{4}
780: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{f4.ps}}
781: \figcaption{The power law plus blackbody model fit to the EPIC pn (green),
782: MOS1 (black) and MOS2 (red) data ($\chi^2_{\upsilon}$ of 1.13 for 744 d.o.f.,
783: Model 3 in Table 2). This model also includes a narrow Gaussian and an absorption edge. }
784: \label{fig4}
785: \end{figure}
786: %\vglue0.5cm
787: %
788:
789: \clearpage
790:
791: %
792: \begin{figure}
793: \figurenum{5}
794: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{f5.ps}}
795: \figcaption{The relativistically blurred photoionized disc reflection fit
796: to the EPIC pn (green), MOS1 (black) and MOS2 (red) data (Model 4 in Table 2).
797: This model also includes a narrow Gaussian and an absorption edge.
798: The fit is statistically better than the blackbody fit
799: ($\Delta \chi^2$ of 44.1 for 6 fewer d.o.f.) and physically plausible. }
800: \label{fig6}
801: \end{figure}
802: %\vglue 0.5cm
803: %
804: \clearpage
805:
806:
807:
808: %
809: \begin{figure}
810: \figurenum{6}
811: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{f6.ps}}
812: \figcaption{The reflection model of {\sc pexriv} fit to the EPIC pn (green),
813: MOS1 (black) and MOS2 (red) data (Model 5 in Table 2). This model also includes
814: two absorption edges and a narrow Gaussian. The fit is worse than
815: the blackbody fit ($\Delta \chi^2$ of -7 for 3 fewer d.o.f. ),
816: but still acceptable ($\chi^2_{\upsilon}$ of 1.15 for 741 d.o.f.).}
817: \label{fig6}
818: \end{figure}
819: %\vglue 0.5cm
820: %
821:
822: \clearpage
823:
824: %
825: \begin{figure}
826: \figurenum{7}
827: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{f7.ps}}
828: \figcaption{The X-ray excess variance $\sigma^2_{\rm rms}$ against the BH mass.
829: The filled circles are taken from
830: O'Neill et al. (2005), the pentacle indicates our result of \he.}
831: \label{fig7}
832: \end{figure}
833: %\vglue 0.5cm
834: %
835:
836:
837: %
838: \begin{figure}
839: \figurenum{8}
840: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{f8.ps}}
841: \figcaption{The spectral energy distribution of \he~ shows a big
842: blue bump in the UV band. The UV and optical data are taken from
843: Scott et al. (2004) and Letawe et al. (2006), respectively. A
844: standard thin accretion disk model is used to fit the UV bump (dotted line). This gives
845: a BH mass of $8\times10^{8}$ $M_{\odot}$ with an Eddington ratio of 0.3,
846: the inclination angle cos$\theta=0.5$ and the BH spin parameter
847: $a=0.6$. This mass is much higher than the estimation
848: from the X-ray variability. The X-ray data are fitted with a power law plus a
849: blackbody model (solid line). }
850: \label{fig8}
851: \end{figure}
852: %\vglue 0.5cm
853: %
854:
855:
856:
857:
858:
859: \end{document}
860: