2003
DOI: 10.1088/1009-9271/3/s1/257
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

X-ray Binaries in the Milky Way and Other Galaxies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 102 publications
(138 reference statements)
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, we detected no emission above 2 keV in Source 2. The luminosity extrapolated from the fit in the energy range 2 -10 keV is L x = 1.7 +1.3 −1.2 × 10 40 erg s −1 ; this is consistent with the value expected from the observed SFR (5 +1 −2 × 10 40 erg s −1 ), however, the predicted Xray luminosity derived using the scaling relation of Grimm et al 2003 refers to the luminosity of the galaxy as a whole; instead, the X-ray luminosity quoted for Source 2 was derived from a region including no more than about 50% of the galaxy mass (this is approximately the mass ratio between the boxy-bulge and the tadpole body highlighted in the sdss u-band image, Fig.1). It might be an indication that a weak AGN is present in Source 2.…”
Section: Nuclear Activitysupporting
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…On the other hand, we detected no emission above 2 keV in Source 2. The luminosity extrapolated from the fit in the energy range 2 -10 keV is L x = 1.7 +1.3 −1.2 × 10 40 erg s −1 ; this is consistent with the value expected from the observed SFR (5 +1 −2 × 10 40 erg s −1 ), however, the predicted Xray luminosity derived using the scaling relation of Grimm et al 2003 refers to the luminosity of the galaxy as a whole; instead, the X-ray luminosity quoted for Source 2 was derived from a region including no more than about 50% of the galaxy mass (this is approximately the mass ratio between the boxy-bulge and the tadpole body highlighted in the sdss u-band image, Fig.1). It might be an indication that a weak AGN is present in Source 2.…”
Section: Nuclear Activitysupporting
confidence: 85%
“…of high-mass X-ray binaries to the X-ray luminosity. We used the relation derived by Grimm et al 2003:…”
Section: Star-formation Ratesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Secondly, ULXs are most commonly associated with star-forming galaxies (Swartz et al 2011) or even young elliptical galaxies with recent star formation events rather than old elliptical ones with no star formation (Kim & Fabbiano 2004. This is consistent with ULXs belonging to a high-luminosity extrapolation of the X-ray binary population whose abundances correlate with the star formation rate (SFR) and the stellar mass (M * ) of their host galaxies (Gilfanov 2004;Grimm et al 2003;Mineo et al 2012). And finally, but perhaps most importantly, the direct observation of regular pulsations in some ULXs unmistakably points towards accretion onto a NS in binary systems.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 62%
“…These effects may even allow violations of the Eddington limit by a factor as large as 100 (Begelman 2002(Begelman , 2006) so our super-Eddington model may remain conservative. On the other hand, NS accretors seem to remain within twice the Eddington rate (Levine et al 1991(Levine et al , 1993Grimm et al 2003a). This approximation has subsequently been employed in several theoretical models of luminous X-ray binary formation (Rappaport et al 2005;Fragos et al 2008), and we adopt this assumption throughout.…”
Section: Simulation Code and Modelsmentioning
confidence: 98%