1 / 28

A simple model for superluminal motion and state transition of microquasars

A simple model for superluminal motion and state transition of microquasars. Huazhong University of Science and technology. Gong Biping. Bulk motion. M. Rees 1966. Mirabel et al., 1994, Nature, 371, 46. XTE J1550-564 in 2000 and 2002. 2002, Science, 298, 196. GRS 1915+105

anneke
Download Presentation

A simple model for superluminal motion and state transition of microquasars

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A simple model for superluminal motion and state transition of microquasars Huazhong University of Science and technology Gong Biping

  2. Bulk motion M. Rees 1966

  3. Mirabel et al., 1994, Nature, 371, 46.

  4. XTE J1550-564 in 2000 and 2002 2002, Science, 298, 196.

  5. GRS 1915+105 in 1994 and 1997 2004, ARA&A, 42, 317.

  6. Miller-Jones et al 2005

  7. Position angle variation 1999, ApJ, 511, 398.

  8. Difficult questions on SLM (a) why the ratio of the displacement of the approaching blob to the receding blob is not a constant. (b) why the receding jet appears later than the approaching jet in XTEJ1550-564 (for months) and GRS 1915+105 (for days). (c) why deceleration appeared in XTE J1550-564 but not in GRS 1915+105. (d) why the position angle changes 10 deg in 20-30 days in GRS 1915+105. (e) why there is obvious oscillation in the receding blob. (f) why 20% discrepancy in proper motion between the ejection of 1994 and 1997. (g) why the size of condensations do not increase rapidly as expected from adiabatic expansion.

  9. Other possibility? Bulk motion precession

  10. The precession of GRS 1915+105 and SS433

  11. Jet precession model

  12. Primary precession

  13. Perturbation to orbital elements

  14. Nutation

  15. SLM under precession scenario

  16. (a) why the ratio of the displacement of the approaching blob to the receding blob is not a constant. is not a constant under precession model It is a constant under bulk motion

  17. (b) why the receding jet appears later than the approaching jet in XTEJ1550-564 .

  18. (c) why deceleration appeared in XTE J1550-564 but not in GRS 1915+105.

  19. (d) why the decrease in flux density with angular separation from the core on GRS 1915+105 is remarkably similar with that of SS 433. (e) why 20% discrepancy in proper motion between the ejection of 1994 and 1997.

  20. (f) why the position angle changes 10 deg in 20-30 days in GRS 1915+105. (g) why there is obvious oscillation in the receding blob.

  21. Observations which are difficult to understand under the bulk motion scenario can be interpreted by the jet precession model naturally.

  22. The state evolution of GRS 1915+105 Fender et al. 2004

  23. Fender et al. 2004

  24. Structured jet

  25. Precession of the structured jet

  26. Summary Simple Unified Easy to test

  27. Thanks for your attention

More Related