High Energy Astrophysics Division (HEAD) · High Energy Astrophysics Division (HEAD) Session...

1

Current HEAD Officers Nicholas White ChairChris Reynolds Vice-ChairRandall Smith SecretaryKeith Arnaud TreasurerMegan Watzke Press OfficerJoel Bregman Past Chair

Current HEAD CommitteeSteve Reynolds 2014-2015Paolo Coppi 2012-2015Daryl Haggard 2013-2016Henric Krawczynski 2013-2016Mark Bautz 2014-2017Q. Daniel Wang 2014-2017

14th Meeting of theAMERICAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY’S

High Energy Astrophysics Division(HEAD)

Session Numbering Key

100s Monday and Posters

200s Tuesday

300s Wednesday

400s Thursday

Please note: All posters are displayed Monday-Thursday

17-21 August, 2014 | Chicago, Illinois

ATTENDEE SERVICES ................. 2

SCHEDULE AT-A-GLANCE .......... 3

EXHIBITORS .............................. 5

SPONSORS ............................... 5

MONDAY .................................. 6

POSTERS ................................ 11

TUESDAY ................................ 43

WEDNESDAY .......................... 47

THURSDAY.............................. 52

AUTHOR INDEX ...................... 57

2

Wear your badge at all times during the meeting. Please do not leave personal items unattended. HEAD is not responsible for lost or stolen property.

RegistrationGreat Lakes Foyer

Sunday: 3:00 pm - 7:00 pmMonday - Wednesday: 7:30 am - 6:00 pmThursday: 7:30 am - 12:00 pm

Speaker Ready DeskGreat Lakes Grand Ballroom

Sunday: 3:00 pm - 7:00 pmMonday - Wednesday: 7:30 am - 6:00 pmThursday: 7:30 am - 5:00 pm

Poster ViewingMichigan, Ontario and Erie

Monday - Wednesday: 7:30 am - 6:30 pmThursday: 7:30 am - 5:00 pm

Posters not removed by 5:00 pm on Thursday will be recycled.

Please note: Posters numbered with a ‘P’ at the end are supplemental posters which relate to an oral talk in the program.

Using Your Own Laptop While At The Meeting• Alldevicesarerequiredtoberunningthemostup-to-datevirusandspy-

ware protection.

• Nodeviceshouldberunningasaserverforoffsiteclients.

• Absolutelynorouterscanbeattachedtothenetworkwithoutpriorautho-rizationfromtheHEADITstaff.

• ThenetworkwillbemonitoredthroughoutthemeetingandtheHEADstaffreservestherighttodisconnectanydevicethatiscausingnetworkproblems.

• Wirelessconnectioninformationwillbeprintedonthebackofyourbadge.

AttENDEE SErviCES

3

SCHEDULE At-A-GLANCE

Sunday, 17 August 2014

3:00 pmRegistration,3:00pm-7:00pm,GreatLakesFoyerSpeakerReady,3:00pm-7:00pm, GreatLakesGrandBallroom(backofroom)

7:00 pm Opening Reception, 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm, ChicagoBallroom,16thFloor

Monday, 18 August 2014

7:30 am

Registration,7:30am-6:00pm,GreatLakesFoyerSpeakerReadyDesk,7:30am-6:00pm, GreatLakesGrandBallroom(backofroom)Poster Viewing, 7:30 am - 6:30 pm

8:20 am OpeningRemarks,8:20am-8:30am,GreatLakesGrandBallroom

8:30 am 100AGNI:LowLuminosityAGNandtheGalacticCenter, 8:30am-10:00am,GreatLakesGrandBallroom

10:00 am Break,10:00am-10:30am,GreatLakesFoyer

10:30 am 101Plenary:HEADDissertationPrizeTalk, 10:30am-11:00am,GreatLakesGrandBallroom

11:00 am 102 Galaxy Clusters, 11:00 am - 12:15 pm, GreatLakesGrandBallroom

12:15 pm LunchBreak,12:15pm-2:00pm

2:00 pm103StellarClustersandStarFormation,2:00pm-3:30pm,Huron104Ballooning&SoundingRockets,2:00pm-3:30pm, GreatLakesGrandBallroom

3:30 pm Break,3:30pm-4:00pm,GreatLakesFoyer

4:00 pm 105X-RayBinariesI,4:00pm-5:30pm, GreatLakesGrandBallroom

5:30 pm

HappyHour&PosterViewing,5:30pm-6:30pm

106 AGNs 115 Laboratory Astrophysics and Data Analysis

107 Astroparticles, Cosmic Rays,andNeutrinos 116Missions&Instruments

108CosmicBackgroundsandDeep Surveys 117NuSTAR

109 GalacticBlackHoles 118SMBH110 Galaxies and ISM 119 Solar and Stellar

111 Galaxy Clusters 120 Supernovae and Supernova Remnants

112Gamma-RayBursts 121WDs&CVs

113 Gravitational Waves 122XRBsandPopulationSurveys

114IsolatedNss7:00 pm ArtinScience,7:00pm-8:30pm,GreatLakesGrandBallroom

4

tuesday, 19 August 2014

7:30 am


8:30 am 200TheNuclearSpectroscopicTelescopeArray(NuStar), 8:30am-10:00am,GreatLakesGrandBallroom


10:30 am201 Cosmic Rays, 10:30 am - 12:00 pm, Huron202 Space Missions: Why Do They Cost So Much?, 10:30am-12:00pm,GreatLakesGrandBallroom

12:00 pm LunchBreak,12:00pm-1:30pm,GreatLakesFoyer

12:30 pm 203 PCOS Town Hall, 12:30 am - 1:30 pm, GreatLakesGrandBallroom

1:30 pm 204Plenary:PeVNeutrinos,1:30pm-2:00pm, GreatLakesGrandBallroom

2:00 pm Special Poster Viewing, 2:00 pm - 3:30 pm3:30 pm Break,3:30pm-4:00pm,GreatLakesFoyer

4:00 pm 205X-RayBinariesII,4:00pm-5:30pm, GreatLakesGrandBallroom

5:30 pm HappyHour&PosterViewing,5:30pm-6:30pm

7:00 pmExplosionsfromSupermassiveBlackHolesand the Origin of the Galaxies, 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm, SamuelC.JohnsonFamilyStarTheater,AdlerPlanetarium

Wednesday, 20 August 2014

7:30 am

EmploymentCommitteeBreakfast(RegistrationRequired), 7:30am-8:30am,LincolnPark,3rdFloorRegistration,7:30am-6:00pm,GreatLakesFoyerSpeakerReadyDesk,7:30am-6:00pm, GreatLakesGrandBallroom(backofroom)Poster Viewing, 7:30 am - 6:30 pm

8:30 am 300AGNII:VariabilityandTheory,8:30am-10:00am, GreatLakesGrandBallroom


10:30 am 301Missions&Instruments,10:30am-12:15pm, GreatLakesGrandBallroom


1:30 pm

302TheNeutronStarInteriorCompositionExplorer(NICER), 1:30pm-3:00pm,GreatLakesGrandBallroom303BridgingLaboratoryandHighEnergyAstrophysics, 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm, Huron


5

Wednesday, 20 August 2014 (continued)3:00 pm Break,3:00pm-3:30pm,GreatLakesFoyer

3:30 pm 304SNR,GRB,andGravitationalWaves,3:30pm-5:30pm, GreatLakesGrandBallroom

5:30 pm HappyHour&PosterViewing,5:30pm-6:30pm7:00 pm Banquet(RegistrationRequired),7:00pm-9:00pm,Carnivale

thursday, 21 August 2014

7:30 am


8:30 am 400AGNIII:Blazars,Quasars,Surveys,andAGN/GalaxyConnections,8:30am-10:00am,GreatLakesGrandBallroom


10:30 am401 Science and Technology for a Successor to the Chandra X-ray Observatory,10:30am-12:00pm,GreatLakesGrandBallroom402 The Gravitational Universe, 10:30 am - 12:00 pm, Huron


1:30 pm 403Galaxies&ISM,1:30pm-3:00pm, GreatLakesGrandBallroom

3:00 pm Break,3:00pm-3:30pm,GreatLakesFoyer

3:30 pm 404X-RayBinariesIII,CompactandStellarObjects, 3:30pm-5:00pm,GreatLakesGrandBallroom


GOLD ExHibitOrS

ExHibitOrS

NASA Physics of the Cosmos

NASA NuStAr

6

100 AGN i: Low Luminosity AGN and the Galactic CenterMonday, 8:30 am - 10:00 am; Great Lakes Grand Ballroom

Chair(s):Keith Arnaud (CRESST/UMd/GSFC)

100.01 BlackHolesandGalaxies:An``Active’’Field Author(s): Jenny E. Greene1

Institution(s): 1. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States.

100.02 HuntingfortheVariableIronLineinNGC4258 Author(s): Michael Nowak1, Christopher S. Reynolds2, Sera Markoff3, Joern

Wilms4, Andrew J. Young5, John C. Houck6

Institution(s): 1. MIT Kavli Institute, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States. 3. Astronomical Institute Anton Pannekoek, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 4. Dr. Karl Remeis-Sternwarte and ECAP, Bamberg, Germany. 5. University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. 6. Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States.

100.03 The3MegasecondChandraCampaignonSgrA*:ACensusofX-rayFlaring ActivityfromtheGalacticCenter

Author(s): JosephNeilsen1, 2, Michael Nowak2, Charles F. Gammie3, Jason Dexter4, Sera Markoff5, Daryl Haggard6, Sergei Nayakshin7, Q. D. Wang8, N. Grosso9, D. Porquet9, John Tomsick10, 4, Nathalie Degenaar11, P. C. Fragile12, John C. Houck2, Rudy Wijnands5, Jon M. Miller11, Frederick K. Baganoff2

Institution(s): 1. Boston University, Boston, MA, United States. 2. MIT Kavli Institute, Cambridge, MA, United States. 3. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States. 4. University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 5. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 6. CIERA, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States. 7. University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom. 8. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, United States. 9. Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg, CNRS, Strasbourg, France. 10. Space Sciences Lab, Berkeley, CA, United States. 11. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. 12. College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, United States.

100.04 UpdateontheSgrA*/G2CollisonfromChandraandVLA Author(s): DarylHaggard1, Frederick K. Baganoff2, Gabriele Ponti3, Craig O.

Heinke4, Nanda Rea5, Joseph Neilsen7, Michael Nowak2, Sera Markoff5, Farhad Yusef-Zadeh1, Douglas A. Roberts1, Christaan Brinkerink8, Casey J. Law9, William D. Cotton6, Stefan Gillessen3, Norbert S. Schulz2, Riley Connors5

Institution(s): 1. Northwestern University/CIERA, Evanston, IL, United States. 2.

MIT/Kavli Institute, Cambridge, MA, United States. 3. Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik, Garching, Bavaria, Germany. 4. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 5. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands. 6. NRAO, Charlottesville, VA, United States. 7. Boston University, Boston, MA, United States. 8. Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands. 9. UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.

MONDAy, 18 AUGUSt

MO

ND

Ay

7

MONDAy, 18 AUGUSt

100.05 TheCharacterizationoftheGamma-RaySignalfromtheCentralMilkyWay:A CompellingCaseforAnnihilatingDarkMatter

Author(s): Tim Linden1

Institution(s): 1. Chicago/KICP, Chicago, IL, United States

101 HEAD Dissertation Prize talkMonday, 10:30 am - 11:00 am; Great Lakes Grand Ballroom

101.01 ParticleAccelerationinMergingGalaxyClusters Author(s): Reinout J. Van Weeren1

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States.

102 Galaxy ClustersMonday,11:00am-12:15pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

Chair(s):Mark Bautz (MIT)

102.01 SunyaevZel’dovichClusterSurveys Author(s):BradfordBenson2, 1

Institution(s): 1. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. 2. Fermilab, Batavia, IL, United States.

102.02 WeighingtheGiants:GalaxyClusterCosmologyAnchoredbyWeak GravitationalLensing

Author(s): Adam Mantz1, Anja Von Der Linden2, 3, Steven W. Allen3, 4, Douglas Applegate5, Patrick Kelly6, Glenn Morris4, David Rapetti2, Robert Schmidt7, Harald Ebeling8

Institution(s): 1. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. 2. DARK, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States. 4.

SLAC, Menlo Park, CA, United States. 5. University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 6.

University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States. 7. University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. Institute for Astronomy, Honolulu, HI, United States.

102.03 DetectionofanUnexplainedEmissionLineat3.56keV Author(s):EsraBulbul1, Maxim L. Markevitch2, Adam Foster1, Randall K. Smith1,

Michael Loewenstein2, Scott W. Randall1

Institution(s): 1. Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

102.04 WhatdodensityfluctuationstellusaboutphysicsoftheICM? Author(s):IrinaZhuravleva1

Institution(s): 1. KIPAC/Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

MO

ND

Ay

8

103 Stellar Clusters and Star FormationMonday,2:00pm-3:30pm;Huron

Chair(s):EricFeigelson (Penn State Univ.)

103.01 X-rayInsightsintotheOriginofStarClusters Author(s): EricFeigelson1

Institution(s): 1. Penn State Univ., University Park, PA, United States.

103.02 INTER-ANDINTRA-CLUSTERAGEGRADIENTSINMASSIVESTARFORMING REGIONS AND INDIVIDUAL NEARBY STELLAR CLUSTERS REVEALED BY MYStIX

Author(s): KonstantinV.Getman1, Eric Feigelson1, Michael A. Kuhn1, Patrick S. Broos1, Leisa K. Townsley1, Tim Naylor2, Matthew S. Povich3, Kevin Luhman1, Gordon Garmire4

Institution(s): 1. Penn State Univ., University Park, PA, United States. 2. University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom. 3. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA, United States. 4. Huntingdon Institute for X-ray Astronomy, Huntingdon, PA, United States.

103.03 MYStIX:Dynamicalevolutionofyoungclusters Author(s): Michael A. Kuhn1

Institution(s): 1. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States. Contributing teams: the MYStIX Collaboration

103.04 X-rayandIRSurveysoftheOrionMolecularCloudsandtheCepheusOB3b Cluster

Author(s):S.ThomasMegeath1, Scott J. Wolk2, Ignazio Pillitteri3, Tom Allen1

Institution(s): 1. Univ. Of Toledo, Toledo, OH, United States. 2. Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 3.

Observatorio Astronomico di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

103.05 CygnusOB2:StarFormationUglyDucklingCausesaFlap Author(s): Jeremy J. Drake1, Mario G. Guarcello2, 1, Nicholas J. Wright3, 1

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian, CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. Osservatorio Astronomico di Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 3. University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Herts AL10 9AB, United Kingdom.

Contributing teams: Chandra Cygnus OB2 Team

104 ballooning & Sounding rockets Monday,2:00pm-3:30pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

Chair(s):Henric Krawczynski (Washington Univ, St. Louis)

104.01 OverviewoftheNASASuborbitalProgram Author(s): W. Vernon Jones1

Institution(s): 1. NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, United States.

104.02 ObservingStarFormationwiththeNextGenerationBLASTPolExperiment Author(s):GilesNovak1

Institution(s): 1. Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL, United States. Contributing teams: The BLAST collaboration

MONDAy, 18 AUGUSt

MO

ND

Ay

9

104.03 StudyingtheHotISMwiththeX-rayQuantumCalorimeterSoundingRocket Author(s):KelseyMorgan1, Felix Jaeckel1, Dan McCammon1, Dallas Wulf1,

Andrew E. Szymkowiak2, Gabriele Betancourt-Martinez3, Youaraj Uprety4

Institution(s): 1. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison, WI, United States. 2. Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States. 3. University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, United States. 4. University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States.

104.04 TheOff-planeGratingRocketExperiment(OGRE) Author(s):RandallL.McEntaffer1, Casey DeRoo1, James Tutt1, Ted Schultz1,

William Zhang2, Ryan McClelland2, Neil Murray3, Andrew Holland3

Institution(s): 1. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. 2. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.

104.05 TheMicro-XHigh-Energy-ResolutionMicrocalorimeterX-rayImagingRocket Author(s):EnectaliFigueroa-Feliciano1

Institution(s): 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States.

Contributing teams: Micro-X Collaboration

104.06 ThehardX-raypolarimeterX-Calibur Author(s):MatthiasBeilicke1

Institution(s): 1. Washington University of ST.LOUIS, ST.LOUIS, MO, United States. Contributing teams: X-Calibur collaboration

104.07 TheComptonSpectrometerandImager(COSI)SuperpressureBalloonPayload Author(s):StevenE.Boggs1

Institution(s): 1. UC, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. Contributing teams: COSI Team

105 x-ray binaries iMonday,4:00pm-5:30pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

Chair(s):PaoloCoppi(Yale Univ.)

105.01 ProgressinHighEnergyAstrophysicsofStellarCompactObjects Author(s): Elena Gallo1

Institution(s): 1. University of Michigan

105.02 ADeepChandraSurveyofOneoftheNearestStar-FormingLow-Metallicity Galaxies:FirstResults

Author(s): Vallia Antoniou1, Andreas Zezas1, Jeremy J. Drake1, Paul P. Plucinsky1

Institution(s): 1. Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA, United States.

Contributing teams: SMC XVP Collaboration

105.03 SimultaneousChandraandNuSTARViewoftheBurstingPulsar Author(s):GeorgeA.Younes1, Chryssa Kouveliotou2, Jamie A. Kennea3, Brian

Grefenstette4, Jon M. Miller5, John Tomsick6, Fiona Harrison4

MONDAy, 18 AUGUSt

MO

ND

Ay

10

Institution(s): 1. USRA/NASA-MSFC, Huntsville, AL, United States. 2. NASA MSFC, Huntsville, AL, United States. 3. Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, United States. 4. Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. 5. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. 6. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.

105.04 NuSTARdetectionofanabsorptionlineintheTypeIburstspectrumofGRS 1741.9-2853

Author(s): Nicolas M. Barrière1, Roman Krivonos1, John Tomsick1, Matteo Bachetti2, Steven E. Boggs1, Finn Christensen3, William W. Craig4, 1, Charles J. Hailey5, Fiona Harrison6, JaeSub Hong7, Kaya Mori5, Daniel Stern8, William Zhang9

Institution(s): 1. Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 2. Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie, UMR 5277, Toulouse, France. 3. National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States. 5. Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 6. Cahill Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. 7. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 8. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech, Pasadena,, CA, United States. 9. X-ray Astrophysics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

105.05 DiscoveryofaNeutronStarOscillationModeDuringaSuperburst Author(s): Tod E. Strohmayer1, 3, Simin Mahmoodifar2, 3

Institution(s): 1. NASA’s GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. University of Maryland, College Park, College Park , MD, United States. 3. Joint Space-Science Institute (JSI), Greenbelt/College Park, MD, United States.

Happy Hour & Poster viewingMonday,5:30pm-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

Art in ScienceMonday,7:00pm-8:30pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

What is the connection between the scientific and artistic mind and how does one inform the other? How does modern day physics inspire art creations in painting, music and literature? How does the beauty of the Universe look with an astronomer’s eyes? This session is poised to at least address, if not answer, all these questions in three lectures. Astronomer David Weinberg will describe his collaboration with artist Josiah McElheny on the design of sculptures inspired by some of the key ideas and discoveries of modern cosmology. Sociologist of science Gerhard Sonnert will narrate how he collaborated with blind astronomer Wanda Diaz Merced, who is an expert in sonifying astronomic data as a tool for data analysis and signal detection, and how sonified data turned into music with the help of composer Volkmar Studtrucker. Emmy-nominated astronomer José Francisco Salgado will explain how he uses art as a vehicle to communicate science in non-traditional venues, such as music halls in “Science and Symphony” films.

MONDAy, 18 AUGUSt

MO

ND

Ay

11

MONDAy – tHUrSDAy POStErS

Posters will be displayed Monday – Thursday. Poster sessions are scheduled each day.

106 AGNsTuesday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

106.01 TheoriginofthesoftexcessemissioninArk120,andtheimportanceoftaking thebroadview

Author(s):GiorgioMatt1

Institution(s): 1. Math and Physics, Universita’ degli Studi Roma Tre, Roma, Italy. Contributing teams: NuSTAR AGN Phyics WG

106.02 TheAGNofNGC4151asrevealedbyNuSTARandSuzaku Author(s): Mason Keck1, Laura Brenneman2, Martin Elvis2, Felix Fuerst3,

Grzegorz M. Madejski4, Giorgio Matt5, Fiona Harrison3, Daniel Stern6, 3, Jonathan C. McDowell2, Guido Risaliti7, Andrea Marinucci5, Dom Walton3, David R. Ballantyne8

Institution(s): 1. Astronomy, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States. 2. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 3. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States. 4. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Menlo Park, CA, United States. 5. Università Roma Tre, Roma, Italy. 6. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, United States. 7.

INAF – Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Firenze, Italy. 8. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, United States.

Contributing teams: The NuSTAR Team

106.03 NuSTARandXMM-NewtonObservationsofNGC1365:ExtremeAbsorption VariabilityandaConstantInnerDisk

Author(s): Dom Walton1

Institution(s): 1. Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. Contributing teams: The NuSTAR Team

106.04 NuSTARRevealstheComptonizingCoronaoftheBroad-LineRadioGalaxy3C 382

Author(s):DavidR.Ballantyne1, John Bollenbacher1, Laura Brenneman2, Kristin Madsen3, Mislav Balokovic3, Steven E. Boggs4, Finn Christensen5, William W. Craig5, 6, Poshak Gandhi7, Charles J. Hailey8, Fiona Harrison3, Anne M. Lohfink9, Andrea Marinucci10, Craig Markwardt11, Daniel Stern12, Dom Walton3, William Zhang11

Institution(s): 1. Center for Relativistic Astrophysics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, United States. 2. Harvard-Smithsonian CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States. 3. Cahill Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. 4. Space Science Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States. 5. DTU Space, National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark. 6. Lawrence Livermore

MONDAy - tHUrSDAy POStErS

POStErS

12

National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States. 7. Department of Physics, University of Durham, Durham, United Kingdom. 8. Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 9. Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States. 10.

Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Universita degli Studi Roma Tre, Rome, Italy. 11. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 12. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States.

106.05 NuSTARmeasurementofthehighspinofthesupermassiveblackholeinNGC 4051

Author(s):GuidoRisaliti1

Institution(s): 1. CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States.

106.06 NuSTARViewoftheNearbyObscuredAGN Author(s):MislavBalokovic1, Fiona Harrison1, Andrea Comastri2

Institution(s): 1. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States. 2.

INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, Bologna, Italy. Contributing teams: NuSTAR Extragalactic Science Team

106.07 HotFlowModelforLowLuminosityAGNsandBlackHoleBinaries:theRole andOriginofNon-thermalElectrons

Author(s):AndrzejNiedzwiecki1, Fu-Guo Xie2, Agnieszka Stepnik1

Institution(s): 1. University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland. 2. Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.

106.08 TheParsec-scaleStructureandKinematicsofRadio-LoudNarrow-LineSeyfert 1 Galaxies

Author(s): JosephL.Richards1, Matthew L. Lister1, Luigi Foschini2, Tuomas Savolainen3, Daniel C. Homan4, Matthias Kadler5, Talvikki Hovatta6, Anthony C. Readhead6, Tigran Arshakian7, Vahram Chavushyan8

Institution(s): 1. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States. 2. INAF, Brera, Italy. 3. MPIfR, Bonn, Germany. 4. Denison University, Granville, OH, United States. 5. University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 6. Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. 7. University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 8. INAOE, Puebla, Mexico.

106.09 Gamma-rayflaresinblazarsaccompaniedbysynchrotronpolarizationangle swings

Author(s):HaochengZhang1, 2, Markus Boettcher1, 3, Xuhui Chen4, 5

Institution(s): 1. Physics and Astronomy, Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States. 2. Los Alamos National Lab, Los Alamos, NM, United States. 3. North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. 4. University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany. 5. DESY, Zeuthen, Germany.

106.10 VeryHighEnergyBlazarsandthePotentialforCosmologicalInsight Author(s):AmyFurniss1

Institution(s): 1. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States. Contributing teams: VERITAS


POSt

ErS

13

106.11 Brightgamma-rayflaresofthequasars3C279andPKS1222+216observedat thehighestenergieswithFermi-LATandVERITAS

Author(s): Manel Errando1

Institution(s): 1. Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.

Contributing teams: VERITAS Collaboration

106.12 FermiGBMobservationsofthehardx-rayspectrumofMrk421 Author(s): Ching-ChengHsu1, Ching-Cheng Hsu1, Valerie Connaughton2,

Michael L. Cherry1, James Rodi1, Narayana P. Bhat2, Mark H. Finger4, Peter Jenke3, Colleen Wilson-Hodge3

Institution(s): 1. LSU, Baton Rouge, LA, United States. 2. University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, United States. 3. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsvill, AL, United States. 4. Universities Space Research Associatio, Huntsville, AL, United States.

106.13 First-EpochVLBAImagesofTwentyFainterTeVBlazars Author(s): B. G. Piner1, Philip Edwards2

Institution(s): 1. Whittier College, Whittier, CA, United States. 2. CSIRO, Epping, NSW, Australia.

106.14 SimultaneousX-rayandgamma-rayobservationsofMrk421duringastrong flaringepisode

Author(s): QiFeng1, Wei Cui1

Institution(s): 1. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States. Contributing teams: a large MWL collaboration

106.15 ProbingFastX-rayVariabilityofBlazarswithaLargeDataSetfromSwift Author(s):AbrahamFalcone1, Matthew Pryal1, Michael Stroh1

Institution(s): 1. Penn State University, University Park, PA, United States.

106.16 SMARTScienceTools:InteractingWithBlazarDataInTheWebBrowser Author(s): Imran Hasan1, 2, Jedidah Isler3, 1, C. M. Urry1, Emily MacPherson1, 2,

Michelle Buxton1, 2, Charles D. Bailyn1, 2, Paolo S. Coppi1

Institution(s): 1. Yale University, New York, CT, United States. 2. SMARTS, La Serena, C.T.I.O, Chile. 3. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, United States.

106.17 WhatcanwelearnfromtheFourieranalysisofblazarlightcurves? Author(s): JustinFinke1, Peter A. Becker2

Institution(s): 1. US Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, United States. 2.

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States.

106.18 Eddington-classflaresandtheirdistancefromthecentralblackholeinblazars Author(s):MarkosGeorganopoulos1, David Rivas1

Institution(s): 1. UMBC, Baltimore, MD, United States.

106.19 SneakyGamma-Rays:UsingGravitationalLensingtoAvoidGamma-Gamma- Absorption

Author(s):MarkusBoettcher1, 2, Anna Barnacka3

Institution(s): 1. Centre for Space Research, North-West University, Potchefstroom, North-West Province, South Africa. 2. Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States. 3. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States.


POStErS

14

106.20 BlazarObservationswiththeSpace-BorneX-CaliburX-RayPolarimeter Author(s):QingzhenGuo1, Henric Krawczynski1, Matthew G. Baring2, Markus

Boettcher3, Haocheng Zhang4

Institution(s): 1. Physics, Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis, MO, United States. 2. Rice University, Houston, TX, United States. 3. North-West University, Potchefstroom, North West, South Africa. 4. Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States.

106.21 QuasarJetsonthekpcscale:FastandSuper-EddingtonorSlowandMulti-TeV Accelerators?

Author(s): Eileen T. Meyer1, Markos Georganopoulos2, William B. Sparks1

Institution(s): 1. Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD, United States. 2. University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, United States.

106.22 StabilityofAstrophysicalJets Author(s):SergueiKomissarov1, 2

Institution(s): 1. Physics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States. 2. University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Contributing teams: Porth, O.

106.23 TimeDependentLeptonicModelingofFermiIIProcessesintheJetsofFlat SpectrumRadioQuasars.

Author(s): Chris S. Diltz1, Markus Boettcher1, 2

Institution(s): 1. Physics and Astronomy, Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States. 2. North Western University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

106.24 Radiationfromacceleratedparticlesinrelativisticjetswithshocksandshear- flow

Author(s): Ken-Ichi Nishikawa1, Phil Hardee2, Ioana Dutan3, Jacek Niemiec4, Mikhail Medvedev5, Athina Meli6, Yosuke Mizuno7, Aake Nordlund8, Jacob Trier Frederiksen8, Helene Sol9, Bing Zhang12, Martin Pohl10, 13, Dieter Hartmann11

Institution(s): 1. UA Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, United States. 2. UAlabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, United States. 3. ISS, Bucharest, Romania. 4. INP-PAN, Krakow, Poland. 5. Univ. of Kansas, Kansas, KS, United States. 6. Univ. of Gent, Gent, Belgium. 7. NTHU, Hsimchu, Taiwan. 8. NBI, Copenhagen, Denmark. 9.

OPMueudon, Meudon, France. 10. Univ. of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany. 11. Celmson Univ., Clemson, SC, United States. 12. UNLV, Las Vegas, NV, United States. 13. DESY, Zeuthen, Germany.

106.25 ParticleDiffusionandLocalizedAccelerationinInhomogeneousAGNJets Author(s): Xuhui Chen1, 2, Martin Pohl1, 2, Markus Boettcher3, 4

Institution(s): 1. University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany. 2. DESY, Zeuthen, Brandenburg, Germany. 3. North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. 4. Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States.

106.26 CosmicCollisions:GalaxyMergersandEvolution Author(s): Laura Trouille1, 3, Kyle Willett2, Karen Masters4, Christopher Lintott4,

Laura Whyte3, Stuart Lynn3, Christina A. Tremonti5

Institution(s): 1. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States. 2.


POSt

ErS

15

University of Minnesota-Minneapolis, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 3. Adler Planetarium, Chicago, IL, United States. 4. Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom. 5. University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

Contributing teams: Zooniverse Team

107 Astroparticles, Cosmic rays, and NeutrinosMonday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

107.01 ProbingEfficientCosmic-RayAccelerationinYoungSupernovaeusingthe CherenkovTelescopeArray

Author(s): Vikram Dwarkadas1, Matthieu Renaud2, Alexandre Marcowith2, Vincent Tatischeff3

Institution(s): 1. Univ. of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. 2. Universite Montpellier 2, Montpellier, France. 3. Universite Paris-Sud, Orsay, France.

107.02 HighEnergyAstrophysicswiththeHAWCObservatory Author(s):ThomasWeisgarber1

Institution(s): 1. University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, United States. Contributing teams: the HAWC Collaboration

107.03 ProtonCalorimetryandGamma-RaysinArp220 Author(s):TovaYoast-Hull1, John S. Gallagher1, Ellen G. Zweibel1

Institution(s): 1. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

107.04 Ultra-HighEnergyNeutrinoAstrophysicsfromGreenland;Insitu measurementsoftheRadioAttenuationLengthattheproposedGreenland NeutrinoObservatorySite

Author(s):JessicaAvva1, Abigail Vieregg1

Institution(s): 1. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. Contributing teams: Greenland Neutrino Observatory

107.05 IndirectDarkMatterDetectioninDwarfSpheroidalGalaxiesatVERITAS Author(s): James Tucci1, John P. Finley1, Ben Zitzer2

Institution(s): 1. Purdue University Department of Physics and Astronomy, West Lafayette, IN, United States. 2. Argonne National Laboratory High Energy Physics Division, Argonne, IL, United States.

Contributing teams: The VERITAS Collaboration

107.06 ConstraintsonAxionsandAxion-LikeParticlesfromFermi-LATObservationsof Neutron Stars

Author(s):BijanBerenji1, 2, Jennifer M. Siegal-Gaskins3

Institution(s): 1. El Camino College, Torrance, CA, United States. 2. fiziSim LLC, Thousand Oaks, CA, United States. 3. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States.

Contributing teams: Fermi LAT Collaboration


POStErS

16

108 Cosmic backgrounds and Deep SurveysMonday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

108.01 TheVERITASSurveyoftheCygnusRegionoftheGalaxy Author(s):AlexisPopkow1, Taylor Aune1, Rene A. Ong1, John E. Ward2

Institution(s): 1. UCLA, Santa Monica, CA, United States. 2. Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.

Contributing teams: for the VERITAS Collaboration

108.02 TheChIcAGOSurvey:Multi-wavelengthIdentificationofGalacticPlaneX-ray Sources

Author(s): Gemma Anderson1, 2, Bryan M. Gaensler2, Patrick O. Slane3, David L. Kaplan4, Bettina Posselt5

Institution(s): 1. Department of Physics, Astrophysics, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom. 2. University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 4. University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States.

5. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States. Contributing teams: The ChIcAGO Team

108.03 X-rayScatteringthroughtheIntergalacticMedium:TimeVariabilityandGhost Halos

Author(s): Lia Corrales1, 2

Institution(s): 1. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 2. MIT Kavli Institute, Boston, MA, United States.

108.04 IntensityoftheIsotropicDiffuseGamma-rayBackgroundfrom100MeVto 820 GeV

Author(s): Keith Bechtol1

Institution(s): 1. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. Contributing teams: Fermi-LAT Collaboration

108.05 DetectingtheMissingBaryonsinX-rayswithaStatisticalApproach Author(s):EugenioUrsino1, Massimiliano Galeazzi1, Wenhao Liu1, Tomykkutty

Velliyedathu1

Institution(s): 1. University of Miami, Miami, FL, United States.

108.06 TheChandraCOSMOSLegacySurvey:firstresults Author(s):StefanoMarchesi1, 3, Francesca M. Civano1, 2, Martin Elvis2, C. M.

Urry1, Andrea Comastri4

Institution(s): 1. Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States. 2. SAO - Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA, United States. 3. Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 4. INAF-OABO, Bologna, Italy.


POSt

ErS

17

109 Galactic black HolesTuesday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

109.01 AGlobalLookatReflectioninBlack-HoleX-rayBinariesUsingRXTE Author(s):JamesF.Steiner1, Javier Garcia1, Ruben C. Reis2, Jeffrey E.

McClintock1

Institution(s): 1. Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.

109.02 LMXBX-rayTransients:RevealingBasicAccretionParametersinNon- stationaryRegimes

Author(s):WenfeiYu1, Zhen Yan1, Hui Zhang1, Wenda Zhang1

Institution(s): 1. Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Shanghai , China.

109.03 SwiftObservationsofthe2014OutburstoftheX-rayNova/BlackHole Candidate GRS 1739-278

Author(s): Hans A. Krimm2, 1, Jamie A. Kennea3, Nikolai Shaposhnikov5, 1, John Tomsick4

Institution(s): 1. NASA’s GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. USRA/CRESST, Columbia, MD, United States. 3. Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA, United States. 4. Univ. of California , Berkeley, CA, United States. 5. Univ. of Maryland/CRESST, College Park, MD, United States.

110 Galaxies & iSMTuesday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

110.01 Theoriginofthe“local”¼keVX-rayflux Author(s):YouarajUprety1, Meng Chiao2, Michael Collier2, Thomas Cravens3,

Massimiliano Galeazzi1, Dimitra Koutroumpa4, K. D. Kuntz5, Rosine Lallement6, Susan T. Lepri7, Wenhao Liu1, Dan McCammon8, Kelsey Morgan8, Frederick Scott Porter2, Lucky Puspitarini6, Ina Robertson3, Steven L. Snowden2, Nicholas E. Thomas2, Eugenio Ursino1, Brian R. Walsh9

Institution(s): 1. University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, United States. 2. NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. University of Kansas, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Lawrence, KS, United States. 4. Universit’e Versailles St-Quentin; Sorbonne Universit’es, UPMC Univ. Paris 06; CNRS/INSU, LATMOS-IPSL, Paris, Guyancourt, France. 5. The Johns Hopkins University, The Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, Baltimore, MD, United States. 6. GEPI, Observatoire de Paris, CNRS UMR8111, Universit’e Paris Diderot, Meudon, Meudon, France. 7. Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. 8. University of Wisconsin, Department of Physics, Madison, WI, United States. 9. Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States.


POStErS

18

110.02 ShadowingObservationsoftheSoftX-rayBackgroundwithXMM-Newtonand Suzaku

Author(s):DavidHenley1, Robin L. Shelton1, Renata Cumbee1, Phillip C. Stancil1

Institution(s): 1. University Of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.

110.03 Missingmetalsandbaryonsingalaxies:CluesfromourMilkyWay Author(s): Smita Mathur1, Anjali Gupta1, Yair Krongold2

Institution(s): 1. Astronomy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. 2. UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico.

110.04 Filamentarystarformationinauniqueenvironment Author(s):RebeccaCanning1, 2

Institution(s): 1. KIPAC, Stanford, CA, United States. 2. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

110.05 FaintX-RayBinariesandTheirOpticalCounterpartsinM31 Author(s):NevenVulic1, Sarah Gallagher1, Pauline Barmby1

Institution(s): 1. Physics and Astronomy, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

110.06 AdiagnostictoolforcompactobjectsandaccretionstatesofX-raybinaries Author(s):AndreasZezas1, 2, Stergios Kyanidis2, Malgosia Sobolewska3, Pablo

Reig2, Ann E. Hornschemeier4, Michael Nowak5, Bret Lehmer4, Mihoko Yukita4, Katja Pottschmidt4, Andrew Ptak4, John Tomsick6

Institution(s): 1. SAO, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. Dept. of Physics, University of Crete, Herakion, Crete, Greece. 3. Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center, Warsaw, Poland. 4. Goddard Space Flight Center, Washington DC, DC, United States. 5. MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States. 6. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.

110.07 ThediscreteX-raysourcepopulationofM51 Author(s):RoyE.Kilgard1, Trevor Dorn-Wallenstein1, K. D. Kuntz2

Institution(s): 1. Wesleyan Univ., Middletown, CT, United States. 2. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.

110.08 TheUltravioletHalosofNearbySpiralGalaxies Author(s):EdmundJ.Hodges-Kluck1, Joel N. Bregman1, Julian Cafmeyer1

Institution(s): 1. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.

110.09 ImplicationsofUltravioletHalosinSpiralGalaxies Author(s):JulianCafmeyer1, Edmund J. Hodges-Kluck1, Joel N. Bregman1


110.10 NuSTARobservationsofthestarburstgalaxyNGC253:constraintsondiffuse inverseComptonemission

Author(s): Keith Bechtol1

Institution(s): 1. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. Contributing teams: NuSTAR


POSt

ErS

19

110.11 InSearchofAGNinStarburstGalaxieswithNuSTAR Author(s): Andrew Ptak1, 2, Ann E. Hornschemeier1, 2, Andreas Zezas3, Vallia

Antoniou3, Meg Argo4, Keith Bechtol5, Fiona Harrison6, Roman Krivonos7, Bret Lehmer1, 2, Thomas J. Maccarone8, Daniel Stern9, Tonia M. Venters1, Daniel R. Wik1, 2, Mihoko Yukita1, 2, William Zhang1, Malachi Tatum1, 10

Institution(s): 1. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA, United States. 4. ASTRON, Lhee, Dwingeloo, Netherlands. 5. Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, Chicago, IL, United States. 6. CalTech, Pasadena, CA, United States. 7. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 8. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, United States. 9. NASA/JPL, Pasadena, CA, United States. 10. ORAU, Oak Ridge, TN, United States.

110.12 What’simportantatz>5?X-rayEmissionfromStarbursts! Author(s): Ann E. Hornschemeier1, 2, Antara Basu-Zych3, 1, Mihoko Yukita2,1,

Stefano Mineo4, 5, Bret Lehmer2, 1, Andrew Ptak1, 2, Tassos Fragos6, Andreas Zezas5

Institution(s): 1. NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. JHU, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. UMBC, Baltimore, MD, United States. 4. MPA, Garching, Germany. 5. SAO, Cambridge, MA, United States. 6. Univ. of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.

111 Galaxy ClustersTuesday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

111.01 ImprovingourknowledgeofthedistantX-rayUniverseviagravitational lensing:RCS2032327-132623,acasestudy

Author(s):MelvilleP.Ulmer1, Junfeng Wang1, 2, Gastao B. Lima Neto3

Institution(s): 1. Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL, United States. 2. University of Xiamen, Fujian, China. 3. Universidade de São Paulo, Butantã, São Paulo, Brazil.

111.02 ExploringtheOutskirtsofGalaxyClusters Author(s): Eric D. Miller1, Jithin V. George2, Richard Mushotzky2, Mark W.

Bautz1, David S. Davis3, 4, J. P. Henry5

Institution(s): 1. MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. U. Maryland, College Park, MD, United States. 3. GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 4. U. Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, United States. 5. U. Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, United States.

111.03 TheACCEPT2.0databaseofgalaxyclusterproperties Author(s): Alessandro Baldi1, Megan Donahue1, Gerard M. Voit1, Stefano

Ettori2, Andisheh Mahdavi3

Institution(s): 1. Michigan State University - Department of Physics & Astronomy, East Lansing, MI, United States. 2. INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, Bologna, BO, Italy. 3. San Francisco State University - Department of Physics & Astronomy, San Francisco, CA, United States.


POStErS

20

111.04 ConstrainingSNeModelsUsingGalaxyClusters Author(s):RenatoA.Dupke1, Thales Estevao2

Institution(s): 1. Univ. of Michigan / Eureka Scientific, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. 2. National Observatory, , Brazil.

111.05 Developmentofahotintergalacticmediuminspiral-richgalaxygroups:the exampleofHCG16

Author(s):JanM.Vrtilek1, Ewan O’Sullivan1, Laurence P. David1, Simona Giacintucci2, Andreas Zezas3, Gary Mamon4, Trevor J. Ponman5, Somak Raychaudhury6

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian, CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2.

University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States. 3. Univerity of Crete, Heraklion, Greece. 4. Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, Paris, France. 5. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 6. Presidency University, Kolkata, India.

111.06 Distributedheatinganddisruptionofacoolcorethroughgassloshing:Abell 3581

Author(s):RebeccaCanning1, 2, Ming Sun3, Jeremy Sanders4, Tracy E. Clarke5, Andrew C. Fabian6, Simona Giacintucci7, 8, Dharam Lal9, Norbert Werner1, 2, Steven W. Allen2, 10, Megan Donahue11, Alastair Edge12, Roderick Johnstone6, Paul Nulsen13, Philippe Salome14, Craig L. Sarazin15

Institution(s): 1. KIPAC, Stanford, CA, United States. 2. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States. 3. Eureka Scientific Inc, Oakland, CA, United States. 4.

MPE, Garching, Germany. 5. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, United States. 6. Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 7. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States. 8. Joint Space-Science Institute, College Park, MD, United States. 9. National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, Pune, India. 10. SLAC, Stanford, CA, United States. 11. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States. 12. University of Durham, Durhum, United Kingdom. 13. CFA, Cambridge, MA, United States. 14. Observatoire de Paris, Paris, France. 15. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States.

111.07 X-rayObservationsoftheOutskirtsoftheNearestNon-CoolCoreCluster:the Antlia Cluster

Author(s):Ka-WahWong1, Jimmy Irwin2, Daniel R. Wik3

Institution(s): 1. Eureka Scientific, Oakland, CA, United States. 2. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Tuscaloosa, AL, United States. 3. GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

111.08 X-rayandWeakLensingMassesforaSampleof50RelaxedandNon-Relaxed ClustersofGalaxies

Author(s):AndishehMahdavi1, Henk Hoekstra2, Arif Babul3

Institution(s): 1. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, United States. 2. Sterrewacht Leiden, Leiden, Netherlands. 3. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.


POSt

ErS

21

111.09 CharacterizingPlanck-detectedClustersofGalaxieswithChandra Author(s):ChristineJones1, Felipe Andrade-Santos1, William R. Forman1,

Stephen S. Murray2, 1, Eugene Churazov3, 4

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian, CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. MPA, Garching, Germany. 4. IKI, Moscow, Russian Federation.

Contributing teams: Members of the Planck Collaboration

111.10 3C28inAbell115-ARadioSourceWithaTwist:TracingGasVorticesina MergingSubclusterCore

Author(s):WilliamR.Forman1, Christine Jones1, Eugene Churazov2, 3

Institution(s): 1. SAO, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. MPA, Garching, Germany. 3. IKI, Moscow, Russian Federation.

112 Gamma-ray burstsTuesday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

112.01 Pair-dominatedGeV-opticalflashinGRB130427A Author(s): Indrek Vurm1, Romain Hascoet1, Andrei M. Beloborodov1

Institution(s): 1. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.

112.02 ProbingtheCosmicGamma-RayBurstRatewithTriggerSimulationsofthe SwiftBurstAlertTelescope

Author(s): Amy Y. Lien1, 2, Takanori Sakamoto3, Neil Gehrels1, David Palmer4, Scott D. Barthelmy1, Carlo Graziani5, 6, John K. Cannizzo1, 2

Institution(s): 1. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. Aoyama Gakuin University, Fuchinobe, Kanagawa, Japan. 4. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States. 5. The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. 6. Flash Center Computational Science, Chicago, IL, United States.

112.03 TowardsaNewModelforGRBPromptEmissionandaNewHardness- LuminosityRelationforCosmology

Author(s):SylvainGuiriec1

Institution(s): 1. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center / UMD / CRESST, Washington, DC, United States.

112.04 UNCOVERINGTHEINTRINSICVARIABILITYOFGAMMA-RAYBURSTS Author(s):V.ZachGolkhou1, Nathaniel R. Butler1

Institution(s): 1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States.

112.05 AComprehensiveAnalysisofGRBAfterglowswithDeepChandraFollow-up: ImplicationsforOff-AxisJets

Author(s):DavidN.Burrows1, Binbin Zhang1, 2, Hendrik Van Eerten3, Geoffrey S. Ryan4, Judith L. Racusin5, Eleonora Troja5, 6, Andrew MacFadyen4

Institution(s): 1. Penn State Univ., University Park, PA, United States. 2. Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research, University of Alabama-Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, United States. 3. Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics


POStErS

22

(MPE), Garching, Germany. 4. Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Physics Department, New York University, New York, NY, United States. 5. NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 6. Center for Research and Exploration in Space Science and Technology (CRESST), Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States.

112.06 Non-ThermalGamma-RayEmissionfromDelayedPairBreakdownin MagnetizedandPhoton-RichOutflows

Author(s):RamandeepGill1, Christopher Thompson1

Institution(s): 1. CITA, Toronto, ON, Canada.

113 Gravitational WavesWednesday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

113.01 TheFirstTwoYearsofElectromagneticFollow-UpwithAdvancedLIGOand Virgo

Author(s):BenjaminF.Farr1, 2, Leo Singer3, Larry Price3, Alex Urban4, Chris Pankow4, Salvatore Vitale5, John Veitch6, 7, Will Farr7, Chad Hanna8, 9, Kipp Cannon10, Tom Downes4, Philip Graff11, Carl-Johan Haster7, Ilya Mandel7, Trevor Sidery7, Alberto Vecchio7

Institution(s): 1. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States. 2. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. 3. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States. 4. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, United States. 5. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States. 6. Nikhef, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 7. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 8. Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 9. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States. 10. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 11. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

113.02 FormationandDynamicsofBinaryBlackHolesinGlobularClusters Author(s):CarlRodriguez1, Meagan Morscher1, Stefan Umbreit1, Frederic A.

Rasio1

Institution(s): 1. Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States.

113.03 Searchesforgravitationalwavesassociatedwithgamma-raybursts Author(s):DipongkarTalukder1

Institution(s): 1. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States. Contributing teams: For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration

113.04 FollowingUpGravitationalWaveTransientswiththeCherenkovTelescope Array

Author(s): Brian Humensky1, Imre Bartos1, Peter Veres2, Daniel Nieto1, Valerie Connaughton3, Kevin C. Hurley4, Szabolcs Marka1, Peter Meszaros2, Reshmi Mukherjee5, P. T. O’Brien6, Julian Osborne6

Institution(s): 1. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 2. Pennsylvania


POSt

ErS

23

State University, University Park, PA, United States. 3. University of Alabama, Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, United States. 4. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 5. Barnard College, Columbia University, New York City, NY, United States. 6. University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.

113.05 ANumericalCalculationoftheGravitationalWaveSignalintheLow FrequencyRegimeProducedbyBinarySupermassiveBlackHoles

Author(s):ElinoreRoebber1, Gilbert P. Holder1, Daniel Holz2

Institution(s): 1. McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.

114 isolated NSsTuesday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

114.01 X-rayemissionmechanisminmagnetars Author(s): Romain Hascoet1, Andrei M. Beloborodov1


114.02 PhaseResolvedObservationsofMagnetar4U0142+61withNuSTAR Author(s): Shriharsh P. Tendulkar1, Chengwei Yang2, 3, Victoria M. Kaspi2,

Romain Hascoet4, Andrei M. Beloborodov4

Institution(s): 1. Space Radiation Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States. 2. Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. National Space Science Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, Beijing, China. 4. Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.

Contributing teams: NuSTAR Science Team

114.03 LatesteffortsinthehuntforBlackWidowandRedbackpulsarswithFermi-LAT Author(s):PabloSazParkinson1, 2, Andrea Belfiore1, 3, Massimiliano Razzano4, 5

Institution(s): 1. Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics (SCIPP), University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, United States. 2. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 3. INAF, Milan, Italy. 4. University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 5. INFN, Pisa, Italy.

Contributing teams: Fermi-LAT Collaboration

114.04 RevisitingtheMagneticandSpinEvolutionofTwoYoungX-rayPulsars Author(s):RobertFerdman1, Victoria M. Kaspi1, Robert F. Archibald1

Institution(s): 1. Physics, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.

114.05 HighSpatialResolutionX-RaySpectroscopyoftheIC443PulsarWindNebula Author(s):DouglasA.Swartz1, Martin C. Weisskopf2, Niccolo Bucciantini7,

Tracy E. Clarke6, Margarita Karovska4, George G. Pavlov3, Alexander van der Horst8, Mihoko Yukita5, Vyacheslav Zavlin1

Institution(s): 1. USRA/MSFC, Huntsville, AL, United States. 2. NASA/MSFC, Huntsville, AL, United States. 3. PSU, University Park, PA, United States. 4. CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States. 5. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, United States. 6. NRL, Washington, DC, United States. 7. INAF, Firenze, Italy. 8. AIAP, Amsterdam, Netherlands.


POStErS

24

114.06 PSRJ1640-4631:aYoung,EnergeticPulsarPoweringtheGamma-raySource HESS J1640-465

Author(s):EricV.Gotthelf1, Jules P. Halpern1, Joseph Gelfand2, 3

Institution(s): 1. Columbia Astrophysics Lab., New York, NY, United States. 2.

NYU Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 3. NYU, New York, NY, United States.

Contributing teams: The Nustar Observatory Team

114.07 DiscoveryofX-rayPulsationsfromtheINTEGRALSourceIGRJ11014?6103 Author(s):JulesP.Halpern1, John Tomsick2, Eric V. Gotthelf1, Fernando

Camilo1, Chi-Yung Ng3, Arash Bodaghee4, Jerome Rodriguez5, Sylvain Chaty5, Farid Rahoui6

Institution(s): 1. Columbia U., New York, NY, United States. 2. U. C. Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 3. U. Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 4. Georgia C., Milledgeville, GA, United States. 5. CEA Saclay, Saclay, France. 6. ESO, Garching, Germany.

114.08 ASearchforX-rayCounterpartsofRadioPulsars Author(s): Werner Becker1, 2

Institution(s): 1. Max-Planck Institut für extraterr. Physik, Garching, Bavaria, Germany. 2. Max-Planck Institut für Radioastronomie, Bonn, NRW, Germany.

Contributing teams: Tobias Prinz

114.09 ThedynamicsofBow-shockPulsarWindNebula:Reconstructionofmulti- bubbles

Author(s): Doosoo Yoon1, Sebastian Heinz1

Institution(s): 1. Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

114.10 TimingNoiseinPulsarsandMagnetarsandtheMagnetosphericMomentof Inertia

Author(s):DavidTsang1, Kostas N. Gourgouliatos1

Institution(s): 1. McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.

114.11 InvestigatingbrightFermi-LATpulsar-likeunassociatedsources Author(s):ElizabethC.Ferrara1

Institution(s): 1. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States. Contributing teams: The Fermi-LAT Collaboration

114.12 TheCentralCompactObjectinKesteven79:AStronglyMagnetizedNeutron Star

Author(s):SlavkoBogdanov1


114.13 AnExplorationofX-rayBasedDistanceEstimatestoPulsars Author(s):MalloryRoberts1, 2, Kristof Bognar2, Shami Chatterjee3

Institution(s): 1. Eureka Scientific, New York, NY, United States. 2. NYU Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 3. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.


POSt

ErS

25

114.14 ComptonScatteringCrossSectionsinStrongMagneticFields:Advancesfor NeutronStarApplications

Author(s): Jesse Ickes1, Peter L. Gonthier1, Matthew Eiles1, Matthew G. Baring2, Zorawar Wadiasingh2

Institution(s): 1. Hope College, Holland, MI, United States. 2. Rice University, Houston, TX, United States.

114.15 TheSurprisingHigh-EnergyPulsationsofPSRJ1813-1246 Author(s):AliceK.Harding1, Martino Marelli2, Daniele Pizzocaro2, 3, Andrea De

Luca2, Kent S. Wood6, Patrizia Caraveo2, David Salvetti2, Pablo Saz Parkinson4, 5

Institution(s): 1. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. INAF, Milano, Italy. 3. Universita degli Studi dell’Insubria, Varese, Italy. 4. Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, Santa Cruz, CA, United States. 5. The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 6. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, United States.

Contributing teams: Fermi LAT

114.16 Gamma-RayActivityfromtheBinarySystemPSRB1259-63/SS2283Nearits 2014 Periastron

Author(s): Kent S. Wood1, Giuseppe A. Caliandro2, Jian Li3, Diego F. Torres3, Masha Chernyakova4

Institution(s): 1. NRL, Washington, DC, United States. 2. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory , Stanford, CA, United States. 3. UAB, Barcelona, Spain. 4. DCU, Dublin, Ireland.

Contributing teams: Fermi LAT Collaboration

115 Laboratory Astrophysics and Data AnalysisTuesday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

115.01 ElectronImpactExcitationCollisionStrengthsforExtremeUltravioletLinesof FeVIIandFeIX

Author(s):SwarajS.Tayal1, Oleg Zatsarinny2

Institution(s): 1. Clark Atlanta Univ., Atlanta, GA, United States. 2. Drake University, Des Moines, IA, United States.

115.02 Laboratory-basedstandardsforinterpretingX-rayspectrafromcelestial sources

Author(s):GregoryV.Brown1

Institution(s): 1. LLNL, Livermore, CA, United States. Contributing teams: Hi-Lite Collaboration, NASA/GSFC Calorimeter Group

115.03 MeasurementoftheRadiativeDecayoftheLongest-LivedLevelintheFeXVII Spectrum

Author(s):GregoryV.Brown1, Peter Beiersdorfer1, Elmar Träbert1

Institution(s): 1. LLNL, Livermore, CA, United States.

115.04 XSPEC:ProgressandPlans Author(s): Keith A. Arnaud1

Institution(s): 1. CRESST/UMd/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States.


POStErS

26

115.05 X-rayLineDiagnosticsandNon-equilibriumIonizationApplicationsbasedon AtomDBv3.0

Author(s): Li Ji1, Adam Foster2, Randall K. Smith2, Shuinai Zhang1, Xin Zhou1, Yu Cheng3, Zhiyuan Ji3

Institution(s): 1. Purple Mountain Observatory, CAS, Nanjing, China. 2. Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Boston, MA, United States. 3. Astronomy and Space School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, jIangsu, China.

115.06 UsingthenewAtomDB3.0:Non-EquilibriumPlasmaAnalysis. Author(s):AdamFoster1, Randall K. Smith1, Nancy S. Brickhouse1, Timothy R.

Kallman3, Li Ji2, Shuinai Zhang2, Xin Zhou2, Joern Wilms4, Natalie Hell4

Institution(s): 1. Harvard Smithsonian, CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. Purple Mountain Observatory, CAS, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. 3. NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 4. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany.

116 Missions & instrumentsMonday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

116.01 AnimatingFermi-ScienceOutreachthroughArt Author(s):RobinCorbet1, 2, Laurence Arcadias3

Institution(s): 1. UMBC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. Maryland Institute College of Art, Baltimore, MD, United States.

Contributing teams: MICA/Fermi Animation Collaboration

116.02 AutonomousSpacecraftNavigationWithPulsars Author(s): Werner Becker1, 2

Institution(s): 1. Max Planck Institute for extraterr. Physics, Garching, Bavaria, Germany. 2. Max-Planck Institut für Radioastronomie, Bonn, NRW, Germany.

Contributing teams: Mike G. Bernhardt, Tobias Prinz

116.03 TheEffectsofOrbitalEnvironmentonX-rayCCDPerformance Author(s): Catherine E. Grant1, Beverly LaMarr1, Eric D. Miller1, Mark W. Bautz1

Institution(s): 1. MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States.

116.04 NewprospectsforLauelensesmadeofself-focusingSiLaueComponents (SiLCs)

Author(s): Nicolas M. Barrière1, Marcel Ackermann2, Colin Wade3, Steven E. Boggs1, Lorraine Hanlon3, John Tomsick1, Peter von Ballmoos4

Institution(s): 1. Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 2. cosine Research B.V, Leiden, Netherlands. 3. School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. 4. Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie, UMR 5277, Toulouse, France.

116.05 TheSpeedster-EXD-ANewEvent-TriggeredHybridCMOSX-rayDetector Author(s):ChristopherGriffith1, Abraham Falcone1, Zachary Prieskorn1, David

N. Burrows1

Institution(s): 1. Penn State, University Park, PA, United States.


POSt

ErS

27

116.06 In-FlightCalibrationPlansforAstro-H Author(s): Laura Brenneman1, 2, Randall K. Smith1, Robert Petre2, Matteo

Guainazzi3

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. ESAC, Madrid, Spain.

116.07 AFutureNICERObservationofPulsarJ0437-4715fromthePerspectiveofthe X-rayConcentators’Performance

Author(s): Erin Balsamo1, 4, Keith Gendreau2, Zaven Arzoumanian3, 2

Institution(s): 1. University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Catonsville, MD, United States. 2. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. Universities Space Research Association, Columbia, MD, United States. 4. Center for Research and Exploration in Space Science & Technology, Baltimore, MD, United States.

Contributing teams: NICER

116.08 Cross-calibrationoftheX-rayInstrumentsonboardtheChandra,Suzaku,Swift, &XMM-NewtonObservatoriesusing1E0102.2-7219

Author(s): Paul P. Plucinsky1, Andrew P. Beardmore2, Daniel Dewey3, Adam Foster1, Frank Haberl5, Eric D. Miller3, Andrew Pollock4, Steve Sembay2, Randall K. Smith1

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian, CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom. 3. MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Cambridge, MA, United States. 4. European Space Astronomy Centre, Villanueva de la Canada, Madrid, Spain. 5. Max Planck Institut fuer Extraterrestrische Physik, Garching bei Muenchen, Germany.

116.09 ChandraOpticalAxis,AimpointandTheirDrifts Author(s):PingZhao1

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian, CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States.

116.10 OngoingandPlannedSpaceMissionsforHighEnergyAstrophysicsinChina: HowtoReducetheCost?

Author(s):MengSu1


116.11 BurstCube:AGamma-rayBurstDetectingSwarmofCubeSats Author(s): Jeremy S. Perkins1, Judith L. Racusin1, John F. Krizmanic2, Julie E.

McEnery1

Institution(s): 1. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. USRA/CRESST/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

116.12 Detectionofultra-highenergyneutrinointeractionsinice:comparingradio detectorarraydesigns

Author(s): Keith Bechtol1, Abigail Vieregg1

Institution(s): 1. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.


POStErS

28

116.13 TestsofGeneralRelativityintheStrongGravityRegimeWiththeSpace-Borne X-CaliburX-rayPolarimeter

Author(s): Janie Hoormann1, Banafsheh Beheshtipour1, Nathan Walsh1, Henric Krawczynski1

Institution(s): 1. Physics Department, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.

116.14 TheAdvancedEnergeticPairTelescope(AdEPT),aHighSensitivityMedium- EnergyGamma-RayPolarimeter

Author(s): Stanley D. Hunter1, Georgia De Nolfo1, Andrei R. Hanu1, John F. Krizmanic1, Floyd W. Stecker1, Andrey Timokhin1, Tonia M. Venters1

Institution(s): 1. Code 661, NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

116.15 TransformingOurUnderstandingoftheX-rayUniverse:TheImagingX-ray PolarimeterExplorer(IXPE)

Author(s):MartinC.Weisskopf1, Ronaldo Bellazzini2, Enrico Costa3, Giorgio Matt4, Herman L. Marshall5, Stephen L. O’Dell1, George G. Pavlov6, Brian Ramsey1, Roger W. Romani7

Institution(s): 1. NASA/MSFC, Huntsville, AL, United States. 2. INFN, Pisa, Italy. 3. IAPS-INAF, Rome, Italy. 4. Universita Roma Tre, Rome, Italy. 5. MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States. 6. PSU, Happy Valley, PA, United States. 7. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.

Contributing teams: The IXPE Collaboration

116.16 TheAthenaX-rayObservatory:observingluminousextragalactictransients Author(s):P.T.O’Brien1, Peter G. Jonker2

Institution(s): 1. University of Leicester, Leicester, England, UK, United Kingdom. 2. SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Utrecht, Netherlands.

116.17 PANGU:AHighResolutionGamma-RaySpaceTelescope Author(s):MengSu1


116.18 Arcus:ALowCostandHighCapabilityX-rayGratingSpectrometerontheISS Author(s): Randall K. Smith1

Institution(s): 1. Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA, United States.

Contributing teams: The Arcus Collaboration

116.19 Arcus:AnX-rayGratingSpectrometerontheISS:MissionOverview Author(s):JayA.Bookbinder1

Institution(s): 1. Smithsonian Astrophysical Obs., Cambridge, MA, United States. Contributing teams: the Arcus Team

116.20 GEMSInstrumentPerformanceandScience Author(s): Timothy R. Kallman1, Kevin Black1, Joanne E. Hill1, Keith Jahoda1

Institution(s): 1. NASA’s GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

116.21 HaloSat–ACubeSattoStudytheHotGalacticHalo Author(s):PhilipKaaret1, Keith Jahoda2, Brenda Dingwall3

Institution(s): 1. Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. 2. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. NASA/WFF, Wallops Island, VA, United States.


POSt

ErS

29

116.22 ThinfusedsilicaopticsforahighangularresolutionandlargecollectingareaX RaytelescopeafterChandra

Author(s):GiovanniPareschi1, Oberto Citterio2, Marta M. Civitani1, Stefano Basso1, Sergio Campana1, Paolo Conconi1, Mauro Ghigo1, Enrico Mattaini3, Alberto Moretti1, Giancarlo Parodi4, Gianpiero Tagliaferri1

Institution(s): 1. INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, Merate, Italy. 2. Media Lario Technologies, Bosisio Parini (LC), Italy. 3. INAF-IASF Milano, Milano, Italy.

4. BCV Progetti, Milano, Italy.

116.23 NextGenerationX-rayOptics:HighAngularResolution,LightWeight,andLow ProductionCost

Author(s):WilliamZhang1

Institution(s): 1. NASA’s GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

116.24 DevelopmentStatusofAdjustableX-rayOpticswith0.5ArcsecondResolution Author(s): Paul B. Reid1, Thomas Aldcroft1, Ryan Allured1, Vincenzo Cotroneo1,

Raegan L. Johnson-Wilke2, Vanessa Marquez1, Stuart McMuldroch1, Daniel A. Schwartz1, Susan Trolier-McKinstry2, Alexey Vikhlinin1, Rudeger Wilke2, Mikhail V. Gubarev3, Stephen L. O’Dell3, Brian Ramsey3

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. The Pennsylvanian State University, State College, PA, United States. 3. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, United States.

116.25 TheASTRI/CTAmini-arrayofSmallSizeTelescopesasaprecursorofthe CherenkovTelescopeArray

Author(s):GiovanniPareschi6, Gaetano Agnetta3, Elisa Antolini13, Lucio Angelo Antonelli10, Denis Bastieri12, Giancarlo Bellassai8, Massimiliano Belluso8, Ciro Bigongiari11, Sergio Billotta8, Benedetto Biondo 3, Markus Boettcher14, Giovanni Bonanno8, Giacomo Bonnoli6, Pietro Bruno 8, Andrea Bulgarelli11, Rodolfo Canestrari6, Milvia Capalbi3, G. Capobianco11, Patrizia Caraveo2, Alòessandro Carosi10, Enrico Cascone7, Osvaldo Catalano3, Michele Cereda6, Paolo Conconi6, Vito Conforti1, Giancarlo Cusumano3, Vincenzo De Caprio7, Andrea De Luca2, Elisabete de Gouveia Dal Pino15, Andrea Di Paola10, Federico Di Pierro11, Daniela Fantinel9, Mauro Fiorini2, Dino Fugazza6, Daniele Gardiol11, Carmelo Gargano3, Salvatore Garozzo 8, Fulvio Gianotti 1, Salvatore Giarrusso 3, Enrico Giro9, Aledssandro Grillo8, Domenico Impiombato3, Salvatore Incorvaia 2, Antonino La Barbera 3, Nicola La Palombara 2, Valentina La Parola 3, Giovanni La Rosa3, Luigi Lessio9, Giuseppe Leto8, Saverio Lombardi 10, Fabrizio Lucarelli10, Maria Concetta Maccarone3, Giuseppe Malaspina6, Davide Marano8, Eugenio Martinetti 8, C. Melioli15, Rachele Millul6, Teresa Mineo 3, Carlo Morello11, Giovanni Morlino4, R. Nemmen15, Luca Perri6, Gabriele Rodeghiero9, Patrizia Romano3, Giuseppe Romeo8, Francesco Russo3, Br

Institution(s): 1. (1)INAF - Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale e Fisica Cosmica di Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 2. (2)INAF - Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale e Fisica Cosmica di Milano, Milano, Italy. 3. (3)INAF - Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale e Fisica Cosmica di Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 4. (4)INAF – Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Firenze, Italy. 5. (5)INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, Bologna,


POStErS

30

Italy. 6. (6)INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, Merate, Italy. 7. (7)INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, Napoli, Italy. 8. (8)INAF – Osservatorio Astrofisico di Catania, Catania, Italy. 9. (9)INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Padova, Italy. 10. (10)INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, Roma, Italy. 11. (11)INAF – Osservatorio Astrofisico di Torino, Torino e Pino Torinese, Italy. 12. Università di Padova Dip. Fisica e Astronomia, Padova, Italy. 13. (13)Università di Perugia, Dip. Fisica, Perugia, Italy. 14. (14)Centre for Space Research, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. 15. (15)Instituto Astronomico e Geofisico (IAG-USP), Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Contributing teams: for the CTA Consortium

116.26 DevelopmentofaSchwarzschild-CouderOpticalSystemfortheCherenkov TelescopeArray

Author(s): Brian Humensky1, Valerie Connaughton2, Manel Errando3, Reshmi Mukherjee3, Daniel Nieto1, Akira Okumura4, Julien Rousselle5, Vladimir Vassiliev5

Institution(s): 1. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 2. University of Alabama, Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, United States. 3. Barnard College, Columbia University, New York City, NY, United States. 4. Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan. 5. University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.

Contributing teams: CTA Consortium

116.27 CherenkovTelescopeArrayTechnologies Author(s):JustinVandenbroucke1

Institution(s): 1. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.

116.28 CherenkovTelescopeArraySensitivity Author(s): Brian Humensky1, Jeff Grube2, 3

Institution(s): 1. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 2. Adler Planetarium, Chicago, IL, United States. 3. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.


116.29 CherenkovTelescopeArraySiteSearch Author(s): Brian Humensky1, Jeff Grube2, 3

Institution(s): 1. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 2. Adler Planetarium, Chicago, IL, United States. 3. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.


116.30 SciencewiththeCherenkovTelescopeArray Author(s):JeffGrube1

Institution(s): 1. Adler Planetarium for the CTA Consortium, Chicago, IL, United States.


POSt

ErS

31

117 NuStArMonday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

117.01 NuSTARObservationsoftheNormaArmRegion Author(s):FrancescaFornasini1, 2, John Tomsick2, Arash Bodaghee5, 2, Roman

Krivonos2, Farid Rahoui3, 4, Franz E. Bauer6, 7, Jesus Corral-Santana6, Daniel Stern8

Institution(s): 1. University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 2. Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 3.

European Southern Observatory, Garching bei Munchen, Germany. 4. Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States. 5. Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville, GA, United States. 6. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 7. Space Science Institute, Boulder, CO, United States. 8. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States.

117.02 NuSTARobservationsofSMCX-1attwodifferentsuperorbitalphases Author(s):KatjaPottschmidt1, 2, Matteo Bachetti3, 4, Felix Fuerst5, Jean-

Christophe Leyder6, 2, Steven E. Boggs7, Deepto Chakrabarty8, Finn Christensen9, William W. Craig10, 7, Brian Grefenstette5, Charles J. Hailey11, Fiona Harrison5, Ann E. Hornschemeier2, Kristin Madsen5, Craig Markwardt2, Daniel Stern12, 5, Rebecca Tang5, John Tomsick7, Joern Wilms13, William Zhang2

Institution(s): 1. University of Maryland - Baltimore County, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. NASA-GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. IRAP, Toulouse, France. 4. CNRS, Toulouse, France. 5. Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. 6. ESAC, Madrid, Spain. 7. SSL-UCB, Berkeley, CA, United States. 8. MKI, Cambridge, MA, United States. 9. DTU, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark. 10. LLNL, Livermore, CA, United States. 11. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 12. JPL, Pasadena, CA, United States. 13. Remeis Observatory / ECAP / FAU, Erlangen, Germany.

117.03 SupernovaRemnantswithNuSTAR:Highlightsandnewdiscoveries Author(s):BrianGrefenstette1


117.04 ObservationsoftheMagnetar1E2259+586withNuSTAR Author(s):JuliaK.Vogel1, Romain Hascoet2, Victoria M. Kaspi3, Hongjun An3,

Robert F. Archibald3, Andrei M. Beloborodov2, Steven E. Boggs4, Finn Christensen5, William W. Craig4, Eric V. Gotthelf2, Brian Grefenstette6, Charles J. Hailey2, Fiona Harrison6, Jamie A. Kennea7, Kristin Madsen6, Michael Pivovaroff1, Daniel Stern8, William Zhang9

Institution(s): 1. PLS/Physics, LLNL, Livermore, CA, United States. 2. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 3. McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 4. SSL UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 5. DTU Space, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. 7. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States. 8. JPL, Pasadena, CA, United States. 9. GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

Contributing teams: NuSTAR Magnetar/RPP Team, NuSTAR Team


POStErS

32

117.05 ANuSTARSurveyofNearbyUltraluminousInfraredGalaxies Author(s):StacyH.Teng1

Institution(s): 1. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. Contributing teams: the NuSTAR team

118 SMbHWednesday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

118.01 FlaringActivityofSgrA*DuringthePassageoftheG2Cloud Author(s):FarhadYusef-Zadeh1, Howard A. Bushouse2, William D. Cotton3, N.

Grosso4, Daryl Haggard1, Craig O. Heinke5, E. Mossoux 4, D. Porquet4, Douglas A. Roberts1, M. Wardle6

Institution(s): 1. Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL, United States. 2. STScI, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. NRAO, Charlottesville, VA, United States. 4. Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, Alsace, France. 5. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 6. University of Maquarie, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

118.02 NewandRecurringGalacticCenterX-rayTransientsfromChandra,Swift,and XMM

Author(s):DarylHaggard1, Nanda Rea2, Francesco Coti Zelati2, Craig O. Heinke3, Eric Koch3, Arash Bahramian3, Kaya Mori4, Nathalie Degenaar5, Gabriele Ponti6, Frederick K. Baganoff7

Institution(s): 1. Northwestern University/CIERA, Evanston, IL, United States. 2. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands. 3. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 4. Columbia University, New York City, NY, United States. 5. University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, MI, United States. 6. Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik, Garching, Bavaria, Germany. 7. Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Cambridge, MA, United States.

118.03 ModellingPericenterPassagenearaSupermassiveBlackHole Author(s): Vladimir Karas1, Michal Zajacek1, Andreas Eckart2, 3, Devaky

Kunneriath1, Monica Valencia-S.2

Institution(s): 1. Astronomical Institute, Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic. 2. I. Physikalisches Institut, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 3. Max-Planck-Institut fur Radioastronomie (MPIfR), Bonn, Germany.

118.04 Two-phasemediumoftheGalacticcentremini-spiralastheoriginofactivity ofSgrA*supermassiveblackholeatdifferentlevelofaccretionrate

Author(s):DevakyKunneriath1, Agata Rozanska2, Bozena Czerny2, Tek P. Adhikari2, Vladimir Karas1, Monika Moscibrodzka3

Institution(s): 1. Astronomical Institute, Prague, Czech Republic. 2. Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center, Warsaw, Poland. 3. Department of Astrophysics, IMAPP, Nijmegen, Netherlands.


POSt

ErS

33

118.05 VERITASObservationsofTheGalacticCenterRidge Author(s): Andrew W. Smith1

Institution(s): 1. Physics and Astronomy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.

Contributing teams: VERITAS

118.06 ARapidlySpinningBlackholeintheLensedQuasarRXJ1131-1231atz=0.658 Author(s): Mark Reynolds1, Ruben C. Reis1, Jon M. Miller1, Dom Walton2

Institution(s): 1. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. 2. California Institute of technology, Pasadena, CA, United States.

119 Solar and StellarWednesday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

119.01 SwiftObservationsofProximaCen Author(s):BradfordJ.Wargelin1, Steven H. Saar1, Jeremy J. Drake1, Vinay

Kashyap1


119.02 X-rayEvidenceforaPole-DominatedCoronaonABDor Author(s): Jeremy J. Drake1, Sun Mi Chung2, Vinay Kashyap1, David Garcia-

Alvarez3, 4

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian, CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. 3. Instituto de Astrofsica de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain. 4. Dpto. de Astrofsica, Universidad de La Laguna,, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain.

119.03 BenchmarkingabundancedeterminationsofmassivestarswithX-ray spectroscopy

Author(s):MauriceA.Leutenegger1, Jake Neely2, David H. Cohen2, Stan Owocki3, Jon Sundqvist3, 5, Janos Zsargo4

Institution(s): 1. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, United States. 3. University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States. 4. IPN, Mexico City, D.F., Mexico. 5. Universitaetssternwarte Muenchen, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.

119.04 AnIsolatedFormingStarintheGalacticBulgeSurvey Author(s):ChristopherBritt1, Thomas J. Maccarone1, Joel D. Green2

Institution(s): 1. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, United States. 2. UT Austin, Austin, TX, United States.

Contributing teams: Chandra Galactic Bulge Survey Collaboration

119.05 Tanagra:TimingAnalysisofGratingData Author(s):VinayKashyap1, Jennifer Posson-Brown1, Jeremy J. Drake1, Steven H.

Saar1, Jeffrey D. Scargle2, Alanna Connors3

Institution(s): 1. Harvard Smithsonian, CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. NASA-Ames, Moffet Field, CA, United States. 3. Eureka Scientific, Arlington, MA, United States.

Contributing teams: CHASC AstroStatistics Collaboration


POStErS

34

120 Supernovae and Supernova remnantsMonday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

120.01 ChandraObservationsofRCW103 Author(s):DavidN.Burrows1, Kari A. Frank1

Institution(s): 1. Penn State Univ., University Park, PA, United States.

120.02 X-rayEmissionFromYoungSupernovaeasaProbeoftheirProgenitorStars Author(s): Vikram Dwarkadas1

Institution(s): 1. Univ. of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.

120.03 NonuniformExpansionoftheYoungestGalacticSupernovaRemnantG1.9+0.3 Author(s):StephenP.Reynolds1, Kazimierz J. Borkowski1, David Green2, Una

Hwang3, Robert Petre4

Institution(s): 1. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, United States. 2. Cavendish Lab, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 3. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States. 4. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

120.04 HighSpatialResolutionSpectralAnalysisoftheSWLimbinRCW86 Author(s):ThomasBrantseg1, Randall L. McEntaffer1, Natalie Butterfield1,

Allison H. Savage1

Institution(s): 1. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States.

120.05 CHANDRAVIEWOFG340.6+0.3 Author(s):VanessaMangano1, David N. Burrows1, Sangwook Park2, Taylor K.

Shea2

Institution(s): 1. Astronomy and Astrophysics, Penn State University, University Park, PA, United States. 2. University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, United States.

120.06 TheX-rayandRadioEvolutionofSupernova1993J Author(s): Vikram Dwarkadas1, Franz E. Bauer2, 3, Michael Bietenholz4, 5,

Norbert Bartel4

Institution(s): 1. Univ. of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. 2. Pontificia Universidad Catolica, Santiago, Chile. 3. Space Science institute, Boulder, CO, United States. 4. York University, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory, Krugersdorp, South Africa.

120.07 ComplexitiesofaMid-LifeCrush:AStudyoftheVelaXPulsarWindNebula Author(s): Patrick O. Slane1

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian, CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States. Contributing teams: XMM Vela X Large Project Team

120.08 NewChandraACISObservationsofSN1987A Author(s):KariA.Frank1, David N. Burrows1

Institution(s): 1. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.


POSt

ErS

35

120.09 SpitzerObservationsoftheTypeIaSupernovaRemnantN103B:ATypeIawith CSMInteraction?

Author(s): Brian J. Williams1, Kazimierz J. Borkowski2, Stephen P. Reynolds2, Parviz Ghavamian3, John C. Raymond4, Knox S. Long5, William P. Blair6, Ravi Sankrit7, P. F. Winkler8, Sean P. Hendrick9

Institution(s): 1. NASA Goddard, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States. 3. Towson University, Baltimore, MD, United States. 4. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 5. Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD, United States. 6. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States. 7. SOFIA/USRA, Mountain View, CA, United States. 8. Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT, United States. 9. Millersville University, Millersville, PA, United States.

120.10 TheExpansionRate,Age,andDistanceoftheSupernovaRemnantG266.2?1.2 Author(s): Glenn E. Allen1, Tracey DeLaney2, Miroslav D. Filipovic3, John C.

Houck4, Thomas Pannuti5, Michael D. Stage6

Institution(s): 1. MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. West Virginia Wesleyan College, Buckhannon, WV, United States. 3. University of Western Sydney, Penrith South DC, NSW, Australia. 4. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 5. Morehead State University, Morehead, KY, United States. 6. Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA, United States.

120.11 CharacterizingSASI-andConvection-DomninatedCore-CollapseSupernovae Author(s):RodrigoFernandez1, Bernhard Mueller2, Thierry Foglizzo3, Hans-

Thomas Janka4

Institution(s): 1. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 2. Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 3. CEA-Saclay, Saclay, France. 4. Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Garching, Germany.

120.12 NewsfromSupernovaRemnantsandPulsarWindNebulaeintheTeVBand Author(s): Brian Humensky1

Institution(s): 1. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. Contributing teams: VERITAS Collaboration

120.13 SupernovaLightCurvesandSpectrafromTwoDifferentCodes:Supernuand Phoenix

Author(s): Daniel R. Van Rossum1, Ryan T. Wollaeger2, 1

Institution(s): 1. Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. 2. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.

120.14 PulsarEvolutionwithinaCompositeSupernovaRemnant Author(s):ChristopherKolb1, John M. Blondin1, Patrick O. Slane2, Tea Temim3, 4

Institution(s): 1. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States. 2. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States.

3. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 4. Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), Oak Ridge, TN, United States.

120.15 RotationMeasureSynthesisofCassiopeiaA


POStErS

36

Author(s): Tracey DeLaney1, Matthew Stadelman1, Lawrence Rudnick2, Michael P. Rupen3, Urvashi Rau3, Sanjay Bhatnagar3, Eric Greisen3, Robert Petre4

Institution(s): 1. West Virginia Wesleyan College, Buckhannon, WV, United States. 2. National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro, NM, United States. 3. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 4. NASA-GSFC, Green Belt, MD, United States.

120.16 DependenceoftheObservedPropertiesofTypeIaSupernovaeontheMassof theProgenitorWhiteDwarfintheGravitationallyConfinedDetonationModel

Author(s):DonQ.Lamb1, 2, George C. Jordan1, 2, Eva Wuyts2, Kevin A. Jumper3, Robert Fisher3

Institution(s): 1. Flash Center for Computational Science, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. 2. Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. 3. Physics Department, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, United States.

120.17 ParticleAccelerationandMagneticFields:LookingattheNorthwesternRimof RCW 86 with Chandra

Author(s): Daniel Castro1


120.18 TheSwift-BAT104MonthHardX-raySurvey Author(s):WayneH.Baumgartner1, 2, Craig Markwardt1, Eleonora Troja1, 3,

Scott D. Barthelmy1, Neil Gehrels1

Institution(s): 1. NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. UMBC, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. UMCP, College Park, MD, United States.

121 WDs & CvsWednesday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

121.02 StudiesofAccretionofSolarMaterialontoWhiteDwarfs:Theyareall GrowinginMass

Author(s):SumnerStarrfield1, F. X. Timmes1

Institution(s): 1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States.

121.03 ANuSTARObservationofNovaV475Sco Author(s): Marina Orio1, 2

Institution(s): 1. U Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States. 2. INAF Padova, Padova, Italy.

Contributing teams: Vikram Rana, Caltech, Jeno Sockoloski, Columbia University, Fiona Harrison, Caltech


POSt

ErS

37

122 xrbs and Population SurveysTuesday,7:30am-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

122.01 Measuringtheneutronstarradiustoconstrainthedense-matterequationof state.

Author(s):SebastienGuillot1, Mathieu Servillat2, Natalie Webb3, Robert E. Rutledge1

Institution(s): 1. McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. CEA Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France. 3. IRAP, Toulouse, France.

122.02 SuperorbitalPeriodsinSupergiantHigh-MassX-rayBinaries Author(s):RobinCorbet1, 2, Hans A. Krimm3, 2

Institution(s): 1. UMBC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. USRA, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

122.03 TheHarmonicContentofHigh-FrequencyQPOsfromtheRelativisticOrbiting- Spotvs.Oscillating-TorusModels

Author(s): Vladimir Karas1, Pavel Bakala2, Gabriel Torok2, Martin Wildner2, Katerina Goluchova2

Institution(s): 1. Astronomical Institute, Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic. 2. Silesian University, Institute of Physics, Opava, Czech Republic.

122.04 LookingintotheTheoryofPulsarAccretion:TheCaseofXTEJ1946+274 Author(s): Diana M. Marcu1, 2, Katja Pottschmidt1, 2, Matthias Kühnel3,

Michael T. Wolff4, Peter A. Becker5, Sebastian Müller3, Paul B. Hemphill6, Isabel Caballero7, Mark H. Finger8, 9, Peter Jenke10, Colleen Wilson-Hodge10, Felix Fuerst11, Victoria Grinberg12, Ingo Kreykenbohm3, Dmitry Klochkov13, Richard E. Rothschild5, Yukikatsu Terada14, Teruaki Enoto1, Wataru Iwakiri14, Motoki Nakajima15, Joern Wilms3

Institution(s): 1. NASA/GSFC, Greenblet, MD, United States. 2. UMBC, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. Dr. Karl Remeis-Observatory & ECAP, Bamberg, Germany. 4. NRL, Washington, DC, DC, United States. 5. GMU, Fairfax, VA, United States. 6. UCSD, La Jolla, CA, United States. 7. University of Paris, Paris, France. 8. NSSTC, Huntsville, AL, United States. 9. USRA, Huntsville, AL, United States. 10. NASA/MSFC, Huntsville, AL, United States. 11. Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. 12. MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States. 13. University of Tubingen, Tubingen, Germany. 14. Saitama University, Saitama, Japan. 15. University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

122.05 GROJ1744-28:TheSwiftviewofthereactivationofTheBurstingPulsar Author(s): Jamie A. Kennea1, Chryssa Kouveliotou2, George A. Younes2, Jon M.

Miller3, David Palmer4, Hans A. Krimm5, Manuel Linares6

Institution(s): 1. Penn State Univ., State College, PA, United States. 2. MSFC, Huntsville, AL, United States. 3. Michigan University, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. 4. LANL, Los Alamos, NM, United States. 5. NASA/GSFC/CRESST, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 6. IAC, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain.


POStErS

38

122.06 Determiningthemassesandradiiofrapidlyrotating,oblateneutronstars usingenergy-resolvedwaveformsoftheirX-rayburstoscillations

Author(s):FrederickK.Lamb1, M. C. Miller2

Institution(s): 1. Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL, United States. 2. Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States.

122.07 WISEDetectionofLow-MassX-rayBinaries Author(s):ZhongxiangWang1

Institution(s): 1. Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Shanghai, China.

122.08 ConstrainingSystemParametersofEclipsingX-rayBinarieswiththeSwift BurstAlertTelescope(BAT)

Author(s): Joel B. Coley1, 2, Robin Corbet1, 2, Hans A. Krimm3, 4

Institution(s): 1. University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, United States. 2. CRESST/Mail Code 662, X-ray Astrophysics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. Universities Space Research Association, Columbia, MD, United States. 4. CRESST/Mail Code 661, X-ray Astroparticle Physics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

122.09 ResultsfromthefirsttwoyearsoftheINTEGRALSpiralArmsMonitoring Program

Author(s):ArashBodaghee1, Keri Spetzer1

Institution(s): 1. Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville, GA, United States.

Contributing teams: The ISA Collaboration

122.10 AMulti-WavelengthStudyoftheGammaRayBinary1FGLJ1018.6-5856 Author(s): Joel B. Coley1, 2, Robin Corbet1, 2, Chi C. Cheung3, Malcolm J. Coe4,

Philip Edwards5, Vanessa McBride6, M. V. McSwain7, Jamie Stevens5

Institution(s): 1. University of Maryland,Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, United States. 2. CRESST/Mail Code 662, X-ray Astrophysics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, United States. 4. University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. 5. CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science, Marsfield NSW 2122, NSW, Australia. 6. University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 7. Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, United States.

122.11 SpectralSofteningObservedintheNeutronStarLMXBSAXJ1750.8-2900 Author(s): Jessamyn Allen1, Manuel Linares2, 3, Deepto Chakrabarty1

Institution(s): 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain. 3. Universidad de La Laguna, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain.

122.12 BurstRecurrenceStabilityinGS1826-238 Author(s): Richard E. Rothschild1

Institution(s): 1. UC, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.


POSt

ErS

39

122.13 OrbitalmodulationofthephotoionizedwindinCygnusX-1 Author(s): Natalie Hell1, 2, Ivica Miškovi?ova1, Manfred Hanke1, Michael

Nowak3, Katja Pottschmidt4, 5, Norbert S. Schulz3, Victoria Grinberg3, 1, Refiz Duro1, Oliwia K. Madej6, 7, Anne M. Lohfink8, Jerome Rodriguez9, Marion Cadolle Bel10, Arash Bodaghee11, 12, John Tomsick11, Julia C. Lee13, Gregory V. Brown2, Joern Wilms1

Institution(s): 1. Remeis Observatory & ECAP, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Bamberg, Germany. 2. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States. 3. MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Cambridge, MA, United States. 4. CRESST, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, United States. 5. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 6. Department of Astrophysics/IMAPP, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands. 7. SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Utrecht, Netherlands. 8. Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland/Joint Space-Science Institute (JSI), College Park, MD, United States. 9. Laboratoire AIM, UMR 7158, CEA/DSM-CNRS-Université Paris Diderot, Paris, France. 10. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Exzellenzcluster “Origin and Structure of the Universe”, Garching, Germany. 11. Space Sciences Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, United States. 12. Department of Chemistry, Physics, and Astronomy, Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville, GA, United States. 13. Harvard University Department of Astronomy/Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States.

122.14 ApplicationofahotflowmodeltoNGC4151andXTEJ1118+480 Author(s):AgnieszkaStepnik1, Andrzej Niedzwiecki1

Institution(s): 1. University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.

122.15 XSSJ12270-4859:ATransformationfromanX-rayBinarytoaRotation- Powered Millisecond Pulsar System

Author(s):SlavkoBogdanov1, Cees Bassa2, Anne M. Archibald2, Alessandro Patruno3, Jason Hessels2, Gemma H. Janssen2, Benjamin Stappers4, Shriharsh P. Tendulkar5

Institution(s): 1. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 2. ASTRON, Dwingeloo, Netherlands. 3. Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands. 4. Jodrell Bank, Manchester, United Kingdom. 5. Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States.

122.16 DeepXMM-NewtonObservationsofthe“MissingLink”BinaryPSR J1023+0038inanAccretingState

Author(s):SlavkoBogdanov1, Anne M. Archibald2, Cees Bassa2, Alessandro Patruno3, Gemma H. Janssen2, Victoria M. Kaspi5, Benjamin Stappers4, Shriharsh P. Tendulkar6, Jason Hessels2

Institution(s): 1. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 2. ASTRON, Dwingeloo, Netherlands. 3. Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands. 4. Jodrell Bank, Manchester, Netherlands. 5. McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 6. Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States.


POStErS

40

122.17 X-rayBinariesinBlueCompactDwarfGalaxies Author(s):MatthewBrorby1, Philip Kaaret1, Andrea H. Prestwich2

Institution(s): 1. Physics & Astronomy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. 2. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States.

122.18 InitialresultsfromNuSTARobservationsoftheNormaArm Author(s):ArashBodaghee1, 2, John Tomsick1, Roman Krivonos1, Daniel Stern3,

Franz E. Bauer4, 5, Francesca Fornasini1, Nicolas M. Barrière1, Steven E. Boggs1, Finn Christensen6, William W. Craig1, 7, Eric V. Gotthelf8, Charles J. Hailey8, Fiona Harrison9, JaeSub Hong10, Kaya Mori8, William Zhang11

Institution(s): 1. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 2. Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville, GA, United States. 3. JPL/Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. 4. Pontifica Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 5. Space Science Institute, Boulder, CO, United States. 6. Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark. 7. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States. 8. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 9. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States. 10. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States. 11. GSFC/NASA, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

122.19 GiantX-rayFlaresFromSuspectedBlackHolesinExtragalacticGlobular Clusters

Author(s): Jimmy Irwin1, Tyler Speegle1, Ian Prado1, David Mildebrath1, Aaron J. Romanowsky2, 3, Jay Strader4

Institution(s): 1. University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa, Tuscaloosa, AL, United States. 2. San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, United States. 3. University of California Observatories, Santa Cruz, CA, United States. 4. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.

122.20 RecenthighlightsfromNuSTARObservationsofextremeULXs Author(s): Dom Walton1


122.21 TheSiKedgeinLow-MassX-RayBinaries Author(s):NorbertS.Schulz1, Victoria Grinberg2, Claude R. Canizares3

Institution(s): 1. MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States. 3. MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States.


POSt

ErS

41

122.23 NuSTARObservationsoftheStateTransitionofMillisecondPulsarBinaryPSR J1023+0038

Author(s): Shriharsh P. Tendulkar1, Chengwei Yang2, 3, Hongjun An2, Victoria M. Kaspi2, Anne M. Archibald4, Cees Bassa4, Eric Bellm1, Slavko Bogdanov5, Fiona Harrison1, Jason Hessels4, 6, Gemma H. Janssen4, Andrew G. Lyne7, Alessandro Patruno8, 4, Benjamin Stappers7, Daniel Stern9, John Tomsick10, Steven E. Boggs10, Deepto Chakrabarty11, Finn Christensen12, William W. Craig10, 13, Charles J. Hailey5, William Zhang14

Institution(s): 1. Space Radiation Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States. 2. Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. National Space Science Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, Beijing, China. 4. ASTRON, The Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy, Dwingeloo, Dwingeloo, Netherlands. 5. Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 6. Astronomical Institute ‘Anton Pannekoek’, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 7. Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 8. Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, Leiden, Leiden, Netherlands. 9. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States. 10. Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States. 11. Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States. 12. DTU Space, National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Lyngby, Denmark. 13. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States. 14. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Astrophysics Science Division, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

122.24 TheLMXBpopulationoflocalearlytypegalaxiesandimplicationsfora variableIMF

Author(s): Mark Peacock1, Steve E. Zepf1, Thomas J. Maccarone2, Arunav Kundu3, 4, Anthony H. Gonzalez5, Bret Lehmer6, 7, Claudia Maraston8

Institution(s): 1. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States. 2. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, United States. 3. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India. 4. Eureka Scientific, Oakland, CA, United States. 5. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States. 6. The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States. 7. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 8. Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.

122.25 AStable3:2TwinPeakX-rayQuasi-periodicOscillationfromanUltraluminous X-raySource:Evidencefora400solarmassblackhole

Author(s):DheerajRangaReddyPasham1, Tod E. Strohmayer2, Richard Mushotzky1, 2

Institution(s): 1. Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, United States. 2. NASA, Greenbelt, MD, United States.


POStErS

42

122.26 Discoveryofa1.69msradiopulsarassociatedwiththeX-raybinaryXSS J12270-4859

Author(s): Paul S. Ray1, Jayanta Roy2, 3, Bhaswati Bhattacharyya2, 3, Julia S. Deneva4, Fernando M. Camilo5, 6

Institution(s): 1. NRL, Washington, DC, United States. 2. Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 3. NCRA, Pune, India. 4. NRC/NRL, Washington, DC, United States. 5. Arecibo Observatory, Arecibo, Puerto Rico, United States. 6. Columbia, New York, NY, United States.

122.27 Asuperburst’simpactontheaccretiondiskaroundtheneutronstarin4U 1636-536

Author(s): Laurens Keek1, David R. Ballantyne1, Erik Kuulkers2, Tod E. Strohmayer3

Institution(s): 1. Center for Relativistic Astrophysics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, United States. 2. European Space Astronomy Centre, Madrid, Spain. 3. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

122.28 Energydependenceofpower-spectralnoiseinX-raybinaries Author(s):HolgerStiele1, Wenfei Yu1

Institution(s): 1. Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Shanghai, China.


POSt

ErS

43

tUESDAy, 19 AUGUSt

200 the Nuclear Spectroscopic telescope Array (NuStar)Tuesday, 8:30 am - 10:00 am; Great Lakes Grand Ballroom

Chair(s):Daniel Stern (JPL/ Caltech)

200.01 NuSTAR Status and Plans Author(s):FionaHarrison1

Institution(s): 1. Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States

200.02 DiscoveryofDiffuseHardX-rayEmissionintheGalacticCenter Author(s):KerstinPerez1

Institution(s): 1. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. Contributing teams: The NuSTAR Team

200.03 ThePowerfulBlackHoleWindintheLuminousQuasarPDS456 Author(s):JamesReeves1, 2, Emanuele Nardini1, Jason Gofford2, 1, Fiona

Harrison3, Guido Risaliti4, Valentina Braito5, Michele Costa1, Gabriele Matzeu1, Dom Walton3, Ehud Behar6, P. T. O’Brien7, Tracey J. Turner2, Martin Ward8

Institution(s): 1. Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom. 2. UMBC, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States. 4. INAF – Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Firenze, Italy. 5. INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, Milano, Italy. 6. Department of Physics, Technion, Haifa, Israel. 7. University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom. 8.

Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom. Contributing teams: NuSTAR team

200.04 DanielStern’sTalk

200.05 WeakHardX-rayEmissionfromBroadAbsorptionLineQuasarsObservedwith NuSTAR:EvidenceforIntrinsicX-rayWeakness

Author(s): Bin Luo1, W. N. Brandt1, David M. Alexander2, Daniel Stern3, Stacy H. Teng4, Patricia Arevalo5, Franz E. Bauer5, Steven E. Boggs6, Finn Christensen7, Andrea Comastri8, William W. Craig9, Duncan Farrah10, Poshak Gandhi2, Charles J. Hailey11, Fiona Harrison3, Michael Koss12, Patrick M. Ogle3, Simonetta Puccetti13, Cristian Saez14, Amy Scott1, Dom Walton3, William Zhang4

Institution(s): 1. Penn State University, State College, PA, United States. 2. Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom. 3. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States. 4. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 5. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 6. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 7. Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark. 8. INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 9. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States. 10. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States. 11. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States. 12. Institute for Astronomy, Zurich, Switzerland. 13. ASDC-ASI, Roma, Italy. 14. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States.

Contributing teams: NuSTAR Team

POStErS

tUESD

Ay

44

201 Cosmic raysTuesday,10:30am-12:00pm;Huron

Chair(s):MartinIsrael(Washington Univ.)

201.01 Voyager1ObservationsofGalacticCosmicRaysintheLocalInterstellar Medium

Author(s):AlanCummings1, Edward C. Stone1, Bryant Heikkila2, Nand Lal2, William R. Webber3

Institution(s): 1. Space Radiation Laboratory, Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. 2. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, United States.

201.02 CosmicRayEnergeticsAndMass Author(s): Eun-Suk Seo1

Institution(s): 1. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States. Contributing teams: the CREAM collaboration

201.03 ResultsfromthePAMELAexperiment. Author(s): Nicola Mori1, 2

Institution(s): 1. University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 2. INFN Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.

Contributing teams: PAMELA collaboration

201.04 GalacticCosmicRayOriginswiththeSuperTIGERLong-DurationBalloon Instrument

Author(s): Thomas Hams1

Institution(s): 1.NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States

201.05 Cosmic-rayCompositionandSpectrabelow1GeV/nucleon:Highlightsfrom theFirst17YearsofObservationswithNASA’sAdvancedCompositionExplorer

Author(s):MarkE.Wiedenbeck1

Institution(s): 1. JPL/Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. Contributing teams: ACE/CRIS

202 Space Missions: Why Do they Cost So Much?Tuesday,10:30am-12:00pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

Chair(s):JoelBregman(Univ. of Michigan)

202.01 HowtoRespondtoaNASAAnnouncementofOpportunityandWin Author(s): Colleen N. Hartman1

Institution(s): 1. NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, United States.

202.02 CostEstimatingofSpaceScienceMissions Author(s): RobertBitten1

Institution(s): 1. The Aerospace Corporation, Chantilly, VA, United States.

tUESDAy, 19 AUGUSt

tUES

DAy

45

202.03 ControllingCostGrowthinPI-ledMissions Author(s):FionaHarrison1

Institution(s): 1. Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States

202.04 ThePlanningandExecutionofNASA’sStrategicScienceMissions Author(s):LennardA.Fisk1

Institution(s): 1. Dept. of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.

203 PCOS town HallTuesday,12:30pm-1:30pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

204 Pev NeutrinosTuesday,1:30pm-2:00pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

204.01 IceCubeandtheDiscoveryofHigh-EnergyCosmicNeutrinos Author(s):FrancisHalzen1

Institution(s): 1. WIPAC, Madison, WI, United States.

205 x-ray binaries iiTuesday,4:00pm-5:30pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

Chair(s):Q.Wang(Univ. of Massachusetts)

205.01 TheModernBlackHoleX-RayBinaryDatabase:AComprehensiveAll-Sky ObservationalStudy

Author(s): Bailey Tetarenko1, Gregory R. Sivakoff1, Craig O. Heinke1, Jeanette C. Gladstone1

Institution(s): 1. Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

205.02 ModelingReflectionSignaturesintheRXTESpectrafromX-rayBinaries:The GX 339-4 Case

Author(s):JavierGarcia1, Jeffrey E. McClintock1, James F. Steiner1, Ronald A. Remillard2, Victoria Grinberg2

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States.

205.03 InnerAccretionDiskRegionsofBlackHoleX-rayBinaries Author(s):GregSalvesen2, 1, Mitchell C. Begelman2, 1, Jon M. Miller3

Institution(s): 1. Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States. 2. JILA, Boulder, CO, United States. 3. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.

tUESDAy, 19 AUGUSt

tUESD

Ay

46

205.04 StudyingtheinneraccretiondiskofGX339-4withNuSTARandSwift Author(s):FelixFuerst1

Institution(s): 1. SRL, Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. Contributing teams: NuSTAR Galactic Binaries working group

205.05 TheOriginofBlack-HoleSpininGalacticLow-MassX-rayBinaries Author(s):TassosFragos1, Jeffrey E. McClintock2, Ramesh Narayan2

Institution(s): 1. University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 2. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States.

205.06 HighPrecisionMassMeasurementfortheBlackHoleinNovaMuscae1991 Author(s):JianfengWu1, Jeffrey E. McClintock1, Danny Steeghs2, Penelope

Longa2, Manuel Torres3, Luis C. Ho4, Paul Callanan5, Mark Reynolds6, Jerome A. Orosz7, Peter G. Jonker3, 1

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom. 3. SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Utrecht, Netherlands. 4. The Carnegie Observatories, Pasadena, CA, United States. 5. University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 6. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. 7. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, United States.

Happy Hour & Poster viewingTuesday,5:30pm-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

Explosions from Supermassive black Holes and the Origin of the GalaxiesTuesday,7:00pm–8:00pm;SamuelC.JohnsonFamilyStarTheater–AdlerPlanetarium

Lecture given by: Brian McNamara, University of Waterloo, Canada

tUESDAy, 19 AUGUSt

tUES

DAy

47

WEDNESDAy, 20 AUGUSt

300 AGN ii: variability and theoryWednesday, 8:30 am - 10:00 am; Great Lakes Grand Ballroom

Chair(s):ChristopherReynolds(Univ. of Maryland)

300.01 AbsorptionVariabilityinNGC1365SeenWithNuSTARandXMM-Newton Author(s):ElizabethRivers1, Fiona Harrison1, Dom Walton1, Guido Risaliti3,

Daniel Stern2

Institution(s): 1. SRL, Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. 2. JPL, Pasadena, CA, United States. 3. INAF, Firenze, Italy.

Contributing teams: NuSTAR Team

300.02 DrivingExtremeVariability:MeasuringtheChangingCharacteristicsofthe X-rayEmittingCoronaeinAGN

Author(s): Daniel Wilkins1, Luigi C. Gallo1, Erin Kara2, Andrew C. Fabian2

Institution(s): 1. Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada. 2. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

300.03 ProbingSupermassiveBlackHoleSpinsinMCG--6-30-15andNGC1365with XMM-Newton and NuSTAR

Author(s): Laura Brenneman1, Dom Walton2, Andrea Marinucci3, 1, Giorgio Matt3, Guido Risaliti4, 1, Fiona Harrison2, Daniel Stern5, 2

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States. 3. Universita Roma Tre, Rome, Italy. 4. INAF, Firenze, Italy. 5. NASA/JPL, Pasadena, CA, United States.

Contributing teams: the NuSTAR team

300.04 ModellingbroadFeK-alphareverberationinAGN Author(s):EdwardCackett1, Abderahmen Zoghbi2, Christopher S. Reynolds2,

Andrew C. Fabian3, Erin Kara3, Phil Uttley4, Dan Wilkins5

Institution(s): 1. Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States. 2. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States. 3. Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 4. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 5. St Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada.

300.05 ParticleAccelerationandPlasmaDynamicsduringMagneticReconnectionin HighlyMagnetizedPlasmas

Author(s):FanGuo1, Yi-Hsin Liu1, William Daughton1, Hui Li1

Institution(s): 1. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States.

300.06 Poweringjetswithsmall-scalemagneticflux Author(s):KyleParfrey1, Dimitrios Giannios2, Andrei M. Beloborodov3

Institution(s): 1. Dept. of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States. 2. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States. 3. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.

WED

NESD

Ay

48

301 Missions & instrumentsWednesday,10:30am-12:15pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

Chair(s):Randall Smith (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory)

301.01 Athena:ExploringtheHotandEnergeticUniverse Author(s):KirpalNandra1

Institution(s): 1. MPE, Garching, Germany.

301.02 InstrumentallimitstoourknowledgeoftheX-raysky Author(s):MatteoGuainazzi1

Institution(s): 1. European Space Agency, Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain.

301.03 GalacticTeVobservationswithHAWC Author(s): Chiumun M. Hui1

Institution(s): 1. Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, United States.

Contributing teams: HAWC collaboration

301.04 TheHEROESBalloon-borneHardX-rayTelescope Author(s):ColleenWilson-Hodge1, Jessica Gaskin1, Steven Christe2, Albert Y.

Shih2, Douglas A. Swartz3, Allyn F. Tennant1, Brian Ramsey1, Kiranmayee Kilaru3

Institution(s): 1. NASA’s MSFC, Huntsville, AL, United States. 2. NASA’s GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. USRA/MSFC, Huntsville, AL, United States.

301.05 PerformanceofVERITAS Author(s):JeffGrube1

Institution(s): 1. Adler Planetarium, Chicago, IL, United States. Contributing teams: the VERITAS Collaboration

301.06 TheCherenkovTelescopeArray:ANewObservatoryfortheHighestEnergy Astrophysics

Author(s):JustinVandenbroucke1

Institution(s): 1. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States. Contributing teams: CTA Consortium

302 the Neutron Star interior Composition Explorer (NiCEr)Wednesday,1:30pm-3:00pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

Chair(s):ZavenArzoumanian (NASA/GSFC)

302.01 TheNeutronStarInteriorCompositionExplorerMissionofOpportunity Author(s): Keith Gendreau1

Institution(s): 1. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States.


WED

NES

DAy

49

302.02 NeutronStarEquationofStateConstraintsfromX-rayObservationsof Recycled Millisecond Pulsars

Author(s):SlavkoBogdanov1


302.03 EffectsofRapidSpinontheSpectraandPulseProfilesofNeutronStars Author(s):FeryalOzel1, Dimitrios Psaltis1, Michi Baubock1, Deepto

Chakrabarty2, Sharon Morsink3

Institution(s): 1. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States. 2. MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States. 3. University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

302.04 ScreeningandCalibrationofSiliconDriftDetectorsforNICER. Author(s):BeverlyLaMarr1, Ronald A. Remillard1, Wayne H. Baumgartner2,

Michael Vezie1, Gregory Prigozhin1, John Doty3, Craig Markwardt2

Institution(s): 1. MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd., Pine, CO, United States.

Contributing teams: NICER

302.05 In-FlightCalibrationandTestofNICER Author(s):CraigMarkwardt1, Beverly LaMarr2, Keith Gendreau1, Zaven

Arzoumanian1, 3, Ronald A. Remillard2

Institution(s): 1. NASA’s GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. MIT Kavli Institute, Cambridge, MA, United States. 3. USRA, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

Contributing teams: NICER Team

302.06 NICER’sproposedGuestInvestigatorandGuestObserverprograms Author(s):ZavenArzoumanian1, 2

Institution(s): 1. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. CRESST/USRA, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

302.07 UseofNICERforStudyofAccretioninPolar-typeCataclysmicVariables Author(s): Kent S. Wood1, Michael T. Wolff1

Institution(s): 1. NRL, Washington, DC, United States.

302.08 SEXTANT:ADemonstrationofX-rayPulsar-BasedNavigationUsingNICER Author(s): Paul S. Ray1, Jason W. Mitchell2, Luke M. Winternitz2, Monther A.

Hasouneh2, Samuel R. Price2, Jennifer Valdez2, Wayne H. Yu2, Sean R. Semper2, Kent S. Wood1, Michael T. Wolff1, Zaven Arzoumanian3, Ronald J. Litchford4, Keith Gendreau2

Institution(s): 1. NRL, Washington, DC, United States. 2. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. CREST/USRA, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 4. NASA HQ, Washington, DC, United States.


WED

NESD

Ay

50

303 bridging Laboratory and High Energy AstrophysicsWednesday,1:30pm-3:00pm;Huron

Chair(s):DanielSavin(Columbia Astrophysics Lab.)

303.01 ChargeExchangeinX-rayAstronomy Author(s): Dan McCammon1

Institution(s): 1. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.

303.02 TheDirtonCosmicDust:AnX-rayPerspectivethroughBlackHoleandNeutron Star Eyes

Author(s): Julia C. Lee1, 2

Institution(s): 1. Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States.

303.03 Exploringtheuniverseinthelaboratory:photoionizedplasmaexperimentsat Zrelevanttoastrophysics

Author(s):RobertoMancini1

Institution(s): 1. Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV, United States.

304 SNr, Grb, and Gravitational WavesWednesday,3:30pm-5:30pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

Chair(s):Joshua Bloom (UC, Berkeley)

304.01 TheEmergingPictureofSupernovaRemnantsandGRBsatHighEnergies Author(s):LauraA.Lopez1


304.02 EfficientCollisionlessElectronHeatingattheReverseShocksofYoung SupernovaRemnantsRevealedbyFe-KEmissionDiagnostics

Author(s):HiroyaYamaguchi1, 2, Kristoffer A. Eriksen3, Carles Badenes4, John P. Hughes5, Nancy S. Brickhouse6, Adam Foster6, Daniel Patnaude6, Robert Petre1, Patrick O. Slane6, Randall K. Smith6

Institution(s): 1. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States. 3. LANL, Los Alamos, NM, United States. 4. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. 5. Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, United States. 6. SAO, Cambridge, MA, United States.


WED

NES

DAy

51

304.03 THEPROPERMOTIONANDX-RAYANALYSISOFTHEPULSARWINDNEBULA, PSR J1741-2054 USING CHANDRA.

Author(s):KatieAuchettl1, 5, Patrick O. Slane1, Roger W. Romani2, Oleg Kargaltsev4, George G. Pavlov3

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. Department of Physics, Stanford University, Standford, CA, United States. 3. Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States. 4. Department of Physics, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States. 5. School of Physics, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

304.04 ExplainingextendedemissionGRBsusingaccretionontoamagnetar Author(s):P.T.O’Brien1, Ben Gompertz1

Institution(s): 1. University of Leicester, Leicester, England, UK, United Kingdom.

304.05 EmissionfromPairInstabilitySupernovaewithRotation Author(s):EmmanouilChatzopoulos1, Daniel R. Van Rossum1, Daniel J.

Whalen2

Institution(s): 1. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. 2. T-2, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States.

304.06 ResonantShatteringofNeutronStarCrusts Author(s):DavidTsang1, Jocelyn Read2, Anthony Piro3, Tanja Hinderer4

Institution(s): 1. McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. Cal State Univ. Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, United States. 3. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States. 4. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States.

304.07 ElectromagneticEmissionandr-processNucleosynthesisfromLate-Time WindsofNeutronStarMergerRemnantAccretionDisks

Author(s):RodrigoFernandez1, Brian Metzger2

Institution(s): 1. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.

2. Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.

Happy Hour & Poster viewingWednesday,5:30pm-6:30pm;Michigan/Ontario/Erie

HEAD banquetWednesday,7:00pm-9:00pm;CarnivaleChicago

Join us at Carnivale for the Banquet of the 14th HEAD Meeting. Exciting. Colorful. Unique. That’s Jerry Kleiner’s Carnivale, the hottest restaurant and bar in Chicago’s West Loop. Featuring energetic colors, glamour, photography, and wild design, Carnivale engages all of the senses with global flavors, Latin music, savory aromas and luxurious comfort.


WED

NESD

Ay

52

400 AGN iii: blazars, Quasars, Surveys, and AGN/Galaxy ConnectionsThursday, 8:30 am - 10:00 am; Great Lakes Grand Ballroom

Chair(s):DarylHaggard (Northwestern University/CIERA)

400.01 BlackHoleVariabilityandTheStarFormation-AGNConnection:DoAllStar- formingGalaxiesHostanAGN?

Author(s): Ryan C. Hickox1

Institution(s): 1. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States.

400.02 UnveilingObscuredAGNwithX-raySpectralAnalysis Author(s):StephanieM.LaMassa1, Tahir Yaqoob2, Andrew Ptak2, Jianjun Jia3,

Timothy M. Heckman3, Poshak Gandhi4, C. M. Urry1

Institution(s): 1. Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States. 2. NASA-GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States. 4. Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.

400.03 Highlevelsofabsorptioninorientation-unbiased,radio-selected3CRActive Galaxies

Author(s): Belinda J. Wilkes1, Martin Haas2, Peter Barthel3, Christian Leipski4, Joanna Kuraszkiewicz1, Diana Worrall5, Mark Birkinshaw5, Steven P. Willner1

Institution(s): 1. Harvard-Smithsonian, CfA, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany. 3. University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. 4. Max-Planck-Institut fur Astronomie, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.

400.04 CharacterizingtheLong-TermOpticalandInfraredColorVariabilityofa SampleofSouthernHemisphereBlazars

Author(s): Jedidah Isler1, 2, Charles D. Bailyn1, C. M. Urry1, Paolo S. Coppi1, Michelle Buxton1, Imran Hasan1, Emily MacPherson1

Institution(s): 1. Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States. 2. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, United States.

Contributing teams: SMARTS

400.05 SimultaneousBroadbandObservationsofjet-dominatedactivegalaxieswith NuSTAR

Author(s):AmyFurniss1

Institution(s): 1. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States. Contributing teams: NuSTAR, VERITAS, MAGIC

400.06 TheresolvedandunresolvedcomponentsoftheIsotropicGamma-ray Background

Author(s):MarcoAjello1, Dario Gasparrini3, Roger W. Romani2, Keith Bechtol5, Markus Ackermann4

Institution(s): 1. Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States. 2. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States. 3. ASI Space Data Center, Rome, Italy. 4. DESY Zeuthen, Berlin, Germany. 5. Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, Chicago, IL, United States.

Contributing teams: on behalf of the Fermi-LAT Collaboration

tHUrSDAy, 21 AUGUSt

tHU

rSD

Ay

53

tHUrSDAy, 21 AUGUSt

401 Science and technology for a Successor to the Chandra x-ray ObservatoryThursday,10:30am-12:00pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

Chair(s):Alexey Vikhlinin (Harvard-Smithsonian, CfA)

401.01 Overviewoftheconfiguration,technologychallenges,andsciencecapabilities forasuccessortotheChandraX-rayObservatory

Author(s): Alexey Vikhlinin1


401.02 AGNfeedbackontheclusterandgalacticscales:Whatthenextgenerationof X-rayobservatoriesshoulddeliver

Author(s):SebastianHeinz1

Institution(s): 1. Univ. Of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

401.03 Theoreticalexpectationsforthepropertiesofhotgasaroundgalaxiesand prospectsforfuturedetection

Author(s):AndreyKravtsov1

Institution(s): 1. Univ. of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.

401.04 WindowintoBlackHoleGrowthatHighRedshift Author(s):PriyaNatarajan1

Institution(s): 1. Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.

402 the Gravitational Universe Thursday,10:30am-12:00pm;Huron

Chair(s):Guido Mueller (University of Florida)

402.01 ShaneLarson’sTalk

402.02 GoingOutwithaBang:GravitationalWavesfromMassiveBlackHoleMergers Author(s):TysonLittenberg1

Institution(s): 1. CIERA/Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States.

402.03 LayingtheFoundationforSpace-basedGravitationalWaveDetection:LISA Pathfinder,theLISATestPackage,andST7-DRS

Author(s):JamesThorpe1

Institution(s): 1. NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. Contributing teams: LPF Team

402.04 Space-BasedGravitational-WaveObservatoryMissionConcept Author(s):JeffreyC.Livas1

Institution(s): 1. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

Contributing teams: Gravitational-wave Mission Concept Development Team

tHU

rSDAy

54

403 Galaxies & iSMThursday,1:30pm-3:00pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

Chair(s):JoelBregman (Univ. of Michigan)

403.01 TheImportantRoleofDarkMatterHaloinRetainingHotGasContentinEarly- typeGalaxies

Author(s): Yuanyuan Su1, 2, Jimmy Irwin2, Raymond E. White2, David A. Buote1, Liyi Gu3

Institution(s): 1. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States. 2. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa , AL, United States. 3. University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

403.02 TheEntropyProfilesandBaryonFractionsofIsolatedEllipticalGalaxies Author(s):DavidA.Buote1, Ewan O’Sullivan2, Trevor J. Ponman3

Institution(s): 1. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States. 2. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 3. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

403.03 StudyingtheGalacticContributiontotheSoftX-rayBackground Author(s): Wenhao Liu1, Massimiliano Galeazzi1, Eugenio Ursino1, Dimitra

Koutroumpa4, K. D. Kuntz2, Steven L. Snowden3

Institution(s): 1. physics, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, United States. 2. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 4. Université Versailles St-Quentin, paris, Guyancourt, France.

403.04 AnalyzingtheMilkyWay’sHotGasHalowithOVIIandOVIIIEmissionLines Author(s):MatthewJ.Miller1, Joel N. Bregman1


403.05 H.E.S.S.ObservationsofTheLargeMagellanicCloud Author(s): Chia-Chun Lu1, Felix Aharonian1, 7, Francois Brun1, Ryan Chaves3,

Wilfried Domainko1, Werner Hofmann1, Nukri Komin6, Thomas Lohse8, Michael Mayer2, Stefan Ohm2, Matthieu Renaud4, Christian Stegmann2, Jacco Vink5, Heinrich Voelk1

Institution(s): 1. MPIK, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. DESY, Zeuthen, Germany. 3. DSM/Irfu, Saclay, France. 4. CNRS/IN2P3, Montpellier, France. 5. Anton Pannekoek Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 6. North-West university, Potchefstroom, South Africa. 7. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Dublin, Ireland. 8. Institut f�uer Physik, Humboldt-Universit�aet zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Contributing teams: H.E.S.S. collaboration

403.06 ANuSTARPerspectiveontheStar-formingGalaxyM83 Author(s): Mihoko Yukita1, 2, Bret Lehmer1, 2, Daniel R. Wik1, 2, Ann E.

Hornschemeier2, 1, Andrew Ptak2, 1, Vallia Antoniou3, Meg Argo4, Keith Bechtol5, Fiona Harrison6, Roman Krivonos7, Thomas J. Maccarone8, Daniel Stern6, Malachi Tatum2, Tonia M. Venters2, William Zhang2

Institution(s): 1. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States. 2. NASA/

tHUrSDAy, 21 AUGUSt

tHU

rSD

Ay

55

GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. SAO, Cambridge, MA, United States. 4. ASTRON, Postbus, Dwingeloo, Netherlands. 5. Kavli Institue for Cosmological Physics, Chicago, IL, United States. 6. Caltech, Pasadena, CA, United States. 7. UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 8. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, United States.

404 x-ray binaries iii, Compact and Stellar ObjectsThursday,3:30pm-5:00pm;GreatLakesGrandBallroom

Chair(s):Nicholas White (USRA)

404.01 TimingtheBeast:ASpectro-TimingApproachtoUnderstandingX-rayBinaries Author(s):VictoriaGrinberg1, Katja Pottschmidt2, 3, Moritz Böck4, Christian

Schmid5, Michael Nowak1, Phil Uttley6, John Tomsick7, Jerome Rodriguez8, Natalie Hell5, 9, Alex Markowitz5, 10, Arash Bodaghee7, Marion Cadolle Bel11, Richard E. Rothschild10, Joern Wilms5

Institution(s): 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Kavli Institute for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 2. CRESST, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 4. Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Bonn, Germany. 5. Dr. Karl-Remeis-Sternwarte and Erlangen Centre for Astroparticle Physics (ECAP), Friedrich Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Bamberg, Germany. 6. Astronomical Institute “Anton Pannekoek”, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 7. Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States. 8. Laboratoire AIM, UMR 7158, CEA/DSM – CNRS – Université Paris Diderot, IRFU/SAp, Paris, France. 9. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States. 10. Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States. 11. Ludwig-Maximilians University, Excellence Cluster “Universe”, Garching, Germany.

404.02 BlackHoleJetsattheLowestLuminosities Author(s): Richard Plotkin1, Elena Gallo1, Peter G. Jonker2, Sera Markoff3,

Jeroen Homan4, James Miler-Jones5, David M. Russell6, Samia Drappeau7

Institution(s): 1. Astronomy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. 2. Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Utrecht, Netherlands. 3.

University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 4. MIT, Cambridge, MA, United States. 5. Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia. 6. NYU-Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 7. IRAP, Toulouse, France.

404.03 The100-monthSwiftCatalogueofSupergiantFastX-rayTransients Author(s): Patrizia Romano1, Hans A. Krimm2, David Palmer3, Lorenzo Ducci4,

Paolo Esposito5, Stefano Vercellone1, Phil Evans6, Cristiano Guidorzi7, Vanessa Mangano8, Jamie A. Kennea8, Scott D. Barthelmy2, David N. Burrows8, Neil Gehrels2

tHUrSDAy, 21 AUGUSt

tHU

rSDAy

56

Institution(s): 1. INAF-IASF Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 2. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 3. LANL, Los Alamos, NM, United States. 4. IAAT, Uni. Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. 5. INAF-IASF Milano, Milano, Italy. 6. University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom. 7. University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. 8. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States

404.04 Near-infraredcounterpartsofultraluminousX-raysources-towards dynamical mass measurements

Author(s): Marianne Heida1, 2, Peter G. Jonker1, 2, Manuel Torres1, 2, Erik Kool1, Mathieu Servillat4, 3, Tim P. Roberts5, Paul J. Groot2, Dom Walton6, Dae- Sik Moon7, Fiona Harrison6

Institution(s): 1. SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Utrecht, Netherlands. 2. Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands. 3. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, United States. 4. CEA Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France. 5. University of Durham, Durham, United Kingdom. 6. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, United States. 7. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

404.05 X-rayandRadioPulseProfilesandX-rayPhase-ResolvedSpectroscopyofthe YoungIsolatedNeutronStarPSRJ0726-2612

Author(s):MeganE.DeCesar1, David L. Kaplan1, Paul Demorest2

Institution(s): 1. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, United States. 2. National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Charlottesville, VA, United States.

404.06 VeryBright,VeryHotandVeryLong:SwiftObservationsoftheDGCVn “Superflare”ofApril23rd,2014

Author(s):StephenA.Drake1, Rachel A. Osten2, Kim L. Page3, Jamie A. Kennea4, Samantha R. Oates5, Hans A. Krimm1, Neil Gehrels6, Mathew J. Page7, Adam Kowalski8

Institution(s): 1. CRESST/USRA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 2. STScI, Baltimore, MD, United States. 3. U. Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom. 4. PSU, State College, PA, United States. 5. IAA-CSIC, Granada, Spain. 6. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States. 7. UCL, London, United Kingdom. 8. ORAU/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, United States.

tHUrSDAy, 21 AUGUSt

tHU

rSD

Ay

57

AUtHOrS iNDEx

Ackermann, Marcel 116.04Ackermann, Markus 400.06Adhikari, Tek P 118.04Agnetta, Gaetano 116.25Aharonian, Felix 403.05Ajello, Marco 400.06Alberto, Segreto 116.25Aldcroft, Thomas 116.24Alexander, David M 200.05Allen, Glenn E.120.10Allen, Jessamyn 122.11Allen, Steven W. 102.02, 111.06Allen, Tom 103.04Allured, Ryan 116.24An, Hongjun 117.04, 122.23Anderson, Gemma 108.02Andrade-Santos, Felipe 111.09Antolini, Elisa 116.25Antonelli, Lucio Angelo 116.25Antoniou, Vallia 110.11, 403.06, 404.03Applegate, Douglas 102.02Arcadias, Laurence 116.01Archibald, Anne M 122.15, 122.16, 122.23Archibald, Robert Frederic 114.04, 117.04Arevalo, Patricia 200.05Argo, Meg 110.11, 403.06Arnaud, Keith A.115.04Arshakian, Tigran 106.08Arzoumanian, Zaven 116.07, 302.05, 302.06, 302.08Auchettl, Katie 304.03Aune, Taylor 108.01Avva, Jessica 107.04Babul, Arif 111.08Bachetti, Matteo 105.04, 117.02Badenes, Carles 304.02Baganoff, Frederick K. 100.03, 100.04, 118.02Bahramian, Arash 118.02Bailyn, Charles D. 106.16, 400.04Bakala, Pavel 122.03Baldi, Alessandro 111.03Ballantyne, David R. 106.02, 106.04, 122.27Balokovic, Mislav 106.04, 106.06Balsamo, Erin 116.07Baring, Matthew G. 106.20, 114.14Barmby, Pauline 110.05Barnacka, Anna 106.19Barrière, Nicolas M105.04, 116.04, 122.18Bartel, Norbert 120.06Barthel, Peter 400.03Barthelmy, Scott Douglas 105.02, 112.02, 120.18Bartos, Imre 113.04Bassa, Cees 122.15, 122.16, 122.23Basso, Stefano 116.22Bastieri, Denis 116.25Basu-Zych, Antara 110.12Baubock, Michi 302.03Bauer, Franz E. 117.01, 120.06, 122.18, 200.05

Baumgartner, Wayne H.120.18, 302.04Bautz, Mark W. 111.02, 116.03Beardmore, Andrew P 116.08Bechtol, Keith 400.06, 403.06Bechtol, Keith 108.04, 110.10, 110.11, 116.12Becker, Peter A. 106.17, 122.04Becker, Werner 114.08, 116.02Begelman, Mitchell C. 205.03Behar, Ehud 200.03Beheshtipour, Banafsheh 116.13Beiersdorfer, Peter 115.03Beilicke, Matthias 104.06Belfiore, Andrea 114.03Bellassai, Giancarlo 116.25Bellazzini, Ronaldo 116.15Bellm, Eric 122.23Belluso, Massimiliano 116.25Beloborodov, Andrei M 112.01, 114.01, 114.02,

117.04, 300.06Benson, Bradford 102.01Berenji, Bijan 107.06Betancourt-Martinez, Gabriele 104.03Bhat, Narayana P. 106.12Bhatnagar, Sanjay 120.15Bhattacharyya, Bhaswati 122.26Bietenholz, Michael 120.06Bigongiari, Ciro 116.25Billotta, Sergio 116.25Biondo , Benedetto 116.25Birkinshaw, Mark 400.03Bitten, Robert 202.02Black, Kevin 116.20Blair, William P. 120.09Blondin, John M. 120.14Böck, Moritz 404.01Bodaghee, Arash 114.07, 117.01, 122.09, 122.13,

122.18, 404.01Bodaghee, Arash 114.07, 117.01, 122.09, 122.13,

122.18, 404.01Boettcher, Markus 106.09, 106.19, 106.20, 106.23,

106.25, 116.25Bogdanov, Slavko 114.12, 122.15, 122.16, 122.23,

302.02Boggs, Steven E.104.07, 105.04, 106.04, 116.04,

117.02, 117.04, 122.18, 122.23, 200.05Bognar, Kristof 114.13Bollenbacher, John 106.04Bonanno, Giovanni 116.25Bonnoli, Giacomo 116.25Bookbinder, Jay A.116.19Borkowski, Kazimierz J. 120.03, 120.09Braito, Valentina 200.03Brandt, W. Niel 200.05Brantseg, Thomas 120.04Bregman, Joel N. 110.08, 110.09, 403.04Brenneman, Laura 106.02, 106.04, 116.06, 300.03Brickhouse, Nancy S. 115.06, 304.02Brinkerink, Christaan 100.04

58

AUtHOrS iNDEx

Britt, Christopher 119.04, 122.22Broos, Patrick S 103.02Brorby, Matthew 122.17Brown, Gregory V.115.02, 115.03, 122.13Brun, Francois 403.05Bruno , Pietro 116.25Bucciantini, Niccolo 114.05Bulbul, Esra 102.03Bulgarelli, Andrea 116.25Buote, David A. 403.01, 403.02Burrows, David N. 105.02, 112.05, 116.05, 120.01,

120.05, 120.08Bushouse, Howard A. 118.01Butler, Nathaniel R 112.04Butterfield, Natalie 120.04Buxton, Michelle 106.16, 400.04Caballero, Isabel 122.04Cackett, Edward 300.04Cadolle Bel, Marion 122.13, 404.01Cafmeyer, Julian 110.08Cafmeyer, Julian 110.09Caliandro, Giuseppe A 114.16Callanan, Paul 205.06Camilo, Fernando 114.07Camilo, Fernando M. 122.26Campana, Sergio 116.22Canestrari, Rodolfo 116.25Canizares, Claude R 122.21Canning, Rebecca 110.04, 111.06Cannizzo, John K. 112.02Cannon, Kipp 113.01Capalbi, Milvia 116.25Capobianco, G. 116.25Caraveo, Patrizia 114.15, 116.25Carosi, Alòessandro 116.25Cascone, Enrico 116.25Castro, Daniel 120.17Catalano, Osvaldo 116.25Cereda, Michele 116.25Chakrabarty, Deepto 117.02, 122.11, 122.23, 302.03Chatterjee, Shami 114.13Chaty, Sylvain 114.07Chatzopoulos, Emmanouil 304.05Chaves, Ryan 403.05Chavushyan, Vahram 106.08Chen, Xuhui 106.09Chen, Xuhui 106.25Cheng, Yu 115.05Chernyakova, Masha 114.16Cherry, Michael L. 106.12Cheung, Chi C. 122.10Chiao, Meng 110.01Chomiuk, Laura 121.01Christe, Steven 301.04Christensen, Finn 105.04, 106.04, 117.02, 117.04,

122.18, 122.23, 200.05Chung, Sun Mi 119.02

Churazov, Eugene 111.09, 111.10Citterio, Oberto 116.22Civano, Francesca M. 108.06Civitani, Marta M 116.22Clarke, Tracy E. 111.06, 114.05Coe, Malcolm J. 122.10Cohen, David Held 119.03Coley, Joel Barry122.08, 122.10Collier, Michael 110.01Comastri, Andrea 106.06, 108.06, 200.05Conconi, Paolo 116.22, 116.25Conforti, Vito 116.25Connaughton, Valerie 106.12, 113.04, 116.26Connors, Alanna 119.05Connors, Riley 100.04Coppi, Paolo S. 106.16, 400.04Corbet, Robin 116.01, 122.02, 122.08, 122.10Corral-Santana, Jesus 117.01Corrales, Lia 108.03Costa, Enrico 116.15Costa, Michele 200.03Coti Zelati, Francesco 118.02Cotroneo, Vincenzo 116.24Cotton, William D. 100.04, 118.01Craig, William W. 105.04, 106.04, 117.02, 117.04,

122.18, 122.23, 200.05Cravens, Thomas 110.01Cui, Wei 106.14Cumbee, Renata 110.02Cummings, Alan 201.01Cusumano, Giancarlo 116.25Czerny, Bozena 118.04Daughton, William 300.05David, Laurence P. 111.05Davis, David S. 111.02De Caprio, Vincenzo 116.25de Gouveia Dal Pino, Elisabete 116.25De Luca, Andrea 114.15, 116.25De Nolfo, Georgia 116.14DeCesar, Megan E.404.05Degenaar, Nathalie 100.03, 118.02DeLaney, Tracey 120.10, 120.15Demorest, Paul 404.05Deneva, Julia S. 122.26DeRoo, Casey 104.04Dewey, Daniel 116.08Dexter, Jason 100.03Di Paola, Andrea 116.25Di Pierro, Federico 116.25Diltz, Chris Scott106.23Dingwall, Brenda 116.21Domainko, Wilfried 403.05Donahue, Megan 111.03, 111.06Dorn-Wallenstein, Trevor 110.07Doty, John 302.04Downes, Tom 113.01Drake, Jeremy J.103.05, 119.01, 119.02, 119.05,

59

AUtHOrS iNDEx

404.03Drake, Stephen Alan404.06Drappeau, Samia 404.02Ducci, Lorenzo 105.02Dupke, Renato A.111.04Duro, Refiz 122.13Dutan, Ioana 106.24Dwarkadas, Vikram 107.01, 120.02, 120.06Ebeling, Harald 102.02Eckart, Andreas 118.03Edge, Alastair 111.06Edwards, Philip 122.10Edwards, Philip 106.13Eiles, Matthew 114.14Elvis, Martin 106.02, 108.06Enoto, Teruaki 122.04Eriksen, Kristoffer A. 304.02Errando, Manel 106.11, 116.26Esposito, Paolo 105.02Estevao, Thales 111.04Ettori, Stefano 111.03Evans, Phil 105.02Fabian, Andrew c 111.06, 300.02, 300.04Falcone, Abraham 106.15, 116.05Fantinel, Daniela 116.25Farr, Benjamin F.113.01Farr, Will 113.01Farrah, Duncan 200.05Feigelson, Eric 103.01, 103.02Feng, Qi 106.14Ferdman, Robert 114.04Fernandez, Rodrigo 120.11, 304.07Ferrara, Elizabeth C.114.11Figueroa-Feliciano, Enectali 104.05Filipovic, Miroslav D 120.10Finger, Mark H. 106.12, 122.04Finke, Justin 106.17Finley, John P. 107.05Fiorini, Mauro 116.25Fisher, Robert 120.16Fisk, Lennard A.202.04Foglizzo, Thierry 120.11Forman, William R. 111.09, 111.10Fornasini, Francesca 117.01, 122.18Foschini, Luigi 106.08Foster, Adam 102.03, 115.05, 115.06, 116.08, 304.02Fragile, P. Christopher 100.03Fragos, Tassos 110.12, 205.05Frank, Kari A. 120.01, 120.08Fuerst, Felix 106.02, 117.02, 122.04, 205.04Fugazza, Dino 116.25Furniss, Amy 106.10, 400.05Gaensler, Bryan M. 108.02Galeazzi, Massimiliano 108.05, 110.01, 403.03Gallagher, John S. 107.03Gallagher, Sarah 110.05Gallo, Elena 404.02

Gallo, Luigi C. 300.02Gammie, Charles F. 100.03Gandhi, Poshak 106.04, 200.05, 400.02Garcia, Javier 109.01, 205.02Garcia-Alvarez, David 119.02Gardiol, Daniele 116.25Gargano, Carmelo 116.25Garmire, Gordon 103.02Garozzo , Salvatore 116.25Gaskin, Jessica 301.04Gasparrini, Dario 400.06Gehrels, Neil 105.02, 112.02, 120.18, 404.06Gelfand, Joseph 114.06Gendreau, Keith 116.07, 302.01, 302.05, 302.08Georganopoulos, Markos 106.18, 106.21George, Jithin V. 111.02Getman, Konstantin V.103.02Ghavamian, Parviz 120.09Ghigo, Mauro 116.22Giacintucci, Simona 111.05, 111.06Giannios, Dimitrios 300.06Gianotti , Fulvio 116.25Giarrusso , Salvatore 116.25Gill, Ramandeep 112.06Gillessen, Stefan 100.04Giro, Enrico 116.25Gladstone, Jeanette C 205.01Gofford, Jason 200.03Golkhou, V. Zach 112.04Goluchova, Katerina 122.03Gompertz, Ben 304.04Gonthier, Peter L. 114.14Gonzalez, Anthony H. 122.24Gotthelf, Eric V.114.06, 114.07, 117.04, 122.18Gourgouliatos, Kostas N 114.10Graff, Philip 113.01Grant, Catherine E.116.03Graziani, Carlo 112.02Green, David 120.03Green, Joel D. 119.04Greene, Jenny E.100.01Grefenstette, Brian 105.03, 117.02, 117.03, 117.04Greisen, Eric 120.15Greiss, Sandra 122.22Griffith, Christopher 116.05Grillo, Aledssandro 116.25Grinberg, Victoria 122.21Grinberg, Victoria 122.04, 122.13, 205.02, 404.01Groot, Paul J 404.04Grosso, N. 100.03, 118.01Grube, Jeff 116.30Grube, Jeff 116.28, 116.29, 301.05Gu, Liyi 403.01Guainazzi, Matteo 116.06Guainazzi, Matteo 301.02Guarcello, Mario G. 103.05Gubarev, Mikhail V 116.24

60

Guidorzi, Cristiano 105.02Guillot, Sebastien 122.01Guiriec, Sylvain 112.03Guo, Fan 300.05Guo, Qingzhen 106.20Gupta, Anjali 110.03Haas, Martin 400.03Haberl, Frank 116.08Haggard, Daryl 100.03, 100.04, 118.01, 118.02Hailey, Charles James 105.04, 106.04, 117.02, 117.04,

122.18, 122.23, 200.05Halpern, Jules P. 114.06, 114.07Halzen, Francis 204.01Hanke, Manfred 122.13Hanlon, Lorraine 116.04Hanna, Chad 113.01Hanu, Andrei R 116.14Hardee, Phil 106.24Harding, Alice Kust114.15Harrison, Fiona 105.03, 105.04, 106.02, 106.04,

106.06, 110.11, 117.02, 117.04, 122.18, 122.23, 200.03, 200.05, 300.01, 300.03, 403.06, 404.04

Hartman, Colleen N.202.01Hartmann, Dieter 106.24Hasan, Imran 106.16, 400.04Hascoet, Romain 112.01, 114.01, 117.04Hascoet, Romain 114.02Hasouneh, Monther A 302.08Haster, Carl-Johan 113.01Heckman, Timothy M. 400.02Heida, Marianne 404.04Heikkila, Bryant 201.01Heinke, Craig O. 100.04, 118.01, 118.02, 205.01Heinz, Sebastian 114.09, 401.02Hell, Natalie 115.06, 122.13, 404.01Hemphill, Paul Britton 122.04Hendrick, Sean Patrick 120.09Henley, David 110.02Henry, J. Patrick 111.02Hessels, Jason 122.15, 122.16, 122.23Hickox, Ryan C.400.01Hill, Joanne E. 116.20Hinderer, Tanja 304.06Ho, Luis C. 205.06Hodges-Kluck, Edmund J.110.08, 110.09Hoekstra, Henk 111.08Hofmann, Werner 403.05Holder, Gilbert P. 113.05Holland, Andrew 104.04Holz, Daniel 113.05Homan, Daniel C. 106.08Homan, Jeroen 404.02Hong, JaeSub 105.04, 122.18Hoormann, Janie 116.13Hornschemeier, Ann E. 110.06, 110.11, 110.12, 117.02,

403.06Houck, John C. 100.02, 100.03, 120.10

Hovatta, Talvikki 106.08Hsu, Ching-Cheng 106.12Hughes, John Patrick 304.02Hui, Chiumun Michelle301.03Humensky, Brian 113.04, 116.26, 116.28, 116.29,

120.12Hunter, Stanley D116.14Hurley, Kevin C. 113.04Hwang, Una 120.03Hynes, Robert I. 122.22Ickes, Jesse 114.14Impiombato, Domenico 116.25Incorvaia , Salvatore 116.25Irwin, Jimmy 111.07, 122.19, 403.01Isler, Jedidah 106.16, 400.04Iwakiri, Wataru 122.04Jaeckel, Felix 104.03Jahoda, Keith 116.20, 116.21Janka, Hans-Thomas 120.11Janssen, Gemma H 122.15, 122.16, 122.23Jenke, Peter 106.12, 122.04Ji, Li 115.05, 115.06Ji, Zhiyuan 115.05Jia, Jianjun 400.02Johnson, Chris B 122.22Johnson-Wilke, Raegan L 116.24Johnstone, Roderick 111.06Jones, Christine 111.09, 111.10Jones, W. Vernon 104.01Jonker, Peter G 116.16, 122.22, 205.06, 404.02, 404.04Jordan, George C 120.16Jumper, Kevin A. 120.16Kaaret, Philip 116.21, 122.17Kadler, Matthias 106.08Kallman, Timothy R. 115.06, 116.20Kaplan, David L.A. 108.02, 404.05Kara, Erin 300.02, 300.04Karas, Vladimir 118.03, 118.04, 122.03Kargaltsev, Oleg 304.03Karovska, Margarita 114.05Kashyap, Vinay 119.01, 119.02, 119.05Kaspi, Victoria M. 114.02, 114.04, 117.04, 122.16,

122.23Keck, Mason 106.02Keek, Laurens 122.27Kelly, Patrick 102.02Kennea, Jamie A. 105.03, 109.03, 117.04, 122.05Kennea, Jamie A 105.02, 404.06Kilaru, Kiranmayee 301.04Kilgard, Roy E.110.07Klochkov, Dmitry 122.04Koch, Eric 118.02Kolb, Christopher 120.14Komin, Nukri 403.05Komissarov, Serguei 106.22Kool, Erik 404.04Koss, Michael 200.05

AUtHOrS iNDEx

61

Koutroumpa, Dimitra 110.01, 403.03Kouveliotou, Chryssa 105.03, 122.05Kowalski, Adam 404.06Kravtsov, Andrey 401.03Krawczynski, Henric 106.20, 116.13Kreykenbohm, Ingo 122.04Krimm, Hans A. 105.02, 109.03, 122.02, 122.05, 122.08Krimm, Hans A 404.06Krivonos, Roman 105.04, 110.11, 117.01, 122.18,

403.06Krizmanic, John F 116.11, 116.14Krongold, Yair 110.03Kuhn, Michael A. 103.02, 103.03Kühnel, Matthias 122.04Kundu, Arunav 122.24Kunneriath, Devaky 118.03, 118.04Kuntz, K. D. 110.01, 110.07, 403.03Kuraszkiewicz, Joanna 400.03Kuulkers, Erik 122.27Kyanidis, Stergios 110.06La Barbera , Antonino 116.25La Palombara , Nicola 116.25La Parola , Valentina 116.25La Rosa, Giovanni 116.25Lal, Dharam 111.06Lal, Nand 201.01Lallement, Rosine 110.01LaMarr, Beverly 116.03, 302.04, 302.05LaMassa, Stephanie M.400.02Lamb, Don Q.120.16Lamb, Frederick K.122.06Law, Casey J. 100.04Lee, Julia C. 122.13, 303.02Lehmer, Bret 110.06, 110.11, 110.12, 122.24, 403.06Leipski, Christian 400.03Lepri, Susan T. 110.01Lessio, Luigi 116.25Leto, Giuseppe 116.25Leutenegger, Maurice A.119.03Leyder, Jean-Christophe 117.02Li, Hui 300.05Li, Jian 114.16Lien, Amy Y.112.02Lima Neto, Gastao B 111.01Linares, Manuel 122.05, 122.11Linden, Tim 100.05Linford, Justin D.121.01Lintott, Christopher 106.26Lister, Matthew L. 106.08Litchford, Ronald J 302.08Littenberg, Tyson 402.02Liu, Wenhao 403.03Liu, Wenhao 108.05, 110.01Liu, Yi-Hsin 300.05Livas, Jeffrey C.402.04Loewenstein, Michael 102.03Lohfink, Anne M. 106.04, 122.13

Lohse, Thomas 403.05Lombardi , Saverio 116.25Long, Knox S. 120.09Longa, Penelope 205.06Lopez, Laura A.304.01Lu, Chia-Chun 403.05Lucarelli, Fabrizio 116.25Luhman, Kevin 103.02Luo, Bin 200.05Lyne, Andrew G 122.23Lynn, Stuart 106.26Maccarone, Maria Concetta 116.25Maccarone, Thomas J. 110.11, 119.04, 122.22, 122.24,

403.06MacFadyen, Andrew 112.05MacPherson, Emily 106.16, 400.04Madej, Oliwia K 122.13Madejski, Grzegorz Maria 106.02Madsen, Kristin 106.04, 117.02, 117.04Mahdavi, Andisheh 111.03, 111.08Mahmoodifar, Simin 105.05Malaspina, Giuseppe 116.25Mamon, Gary 111.05Mancini, Roberto 303.03Mandel, Ilya 113.01Mangano, Vanessa 105.02, 120.05Mantz, Adam 102.02Marano, Davide 116.25Maraston, Claudia 122.24Marchesi, Stefano 108.06Marcowith, Alexandre 107.01Marcu, Diana Monica122.04Marelli, Martino 114.15Marinucci, Andrea 106.02Marinucci, Andrea 106.04, 300.03Marka, Szabolcs 113.04Markevitch, Maxim L. 102.03Markoff, Sera 100.02, 100.03, 100.04, 404.02Markowitz, Alex 404.01Markwardt, Craig 106.04, 117.02, 120.18, 302.04,

302.05Marquez, Vanessa 116.24Marshall, Herman L. 116.15Martinetti , Eugenio 116.25Masters, Karen 106.26Mathur, Smita 110.03Matt, Giorgio 116.15Matt, Giorgio 106.01, 106.02, 300.03Mattaini, Enrico 116.22Matzeu, Gabriele 200.03Mayer, Michael 403.05McBride, Vanessa 122.10McCammon, Dan 104.03, 110.01, 303.01McClelland, Ryan 104.04McClintock, Jeffrey E. 109.01, 205.02, 205.05, 205.06McDowell, Jonathan C. 106.02McEnery, Julie E. 116.11

AUtHOrS iNDEx

62

McEntaffer, Randall L.104.04, 120.04McMuldroch, Stuart 116.24McSwain, M. Virginia 122.10Medvedev, Mikhail 106.24Megeath, S. Thomas 103.04Meli, Athina 106.24Melioli, C. 116.25Meszaros, Peter 113.04Metzger, Brian 304.07Meyer, Eileen T.106.21Mildebrath, David 122.19Miler-Jones, James 404.02Miller, Eric D.111.02, 116.03, 116.08Miller, Jon M. 100.03, 105.03, 118.06, 122.05, 205.03Miller, M. Coleman 122.06Miller, Matthew J.403.04Millul, Rachele 116.25Mineo, Stefano 110.12Mineo , Teresa 116.25Miškovi?ova, Ivica 122.13Mitchell, Jason W 302.08Mizuno, Yosuke 106.24Moon, Dae-Sik 404.04Morello, Carlo 116.25Moretti, Alberto 116.22Morgan, Kelsey 104.03, 110.01Mori, Kaya 105.04, 118.02, 122.18Mori, Nicola 201.03Morlino, Giovanni 116.25Morris, Glenn 102.02Morscher, Meagan 113.02Morsink, Sharon 302.03Moscibrodzka, Monika 118.04Mossoux , E. 118.01Mueller, Bernhard 120.11Mukherjee, Reshmi 113.04, 116.26Müller, Sebastian 122.04Murray, Neil 104.04Murray, Stephen S. 111.09Mushotzky, Richard 111.02, 122.25Nakajima, Motoki 122.04Nandra, Kirpal 301.01Narayan, Ramesh 205.05Nardini, Emanuele 200.03Natarajan, Priya 401.04Nayakshin, Sergei 100.03Naylor, Tim 103.02Neely, Jake 119.03Neilsen, Joseph 100.03, 100.04Nelemans, Gijs 122.22Nemmen, R. 116.25Ng, Chi-Yung 114.07Niedzwiecki, Andrzej 106.07, 122.14Niemiec, Jacek 106.24Nieto, Daniel 113.04, 116.26Nishikawa, Ken-Ichi 106.24Nordlund, Aake 106.24

Novak, Giles 104.02Nowak, Michael 100.02, 100.03, 100.04, 110.06,

122.13, 404.01Nulsen, Paul 111.06O’Brien, P. T. 113.04, 116.16, 200.03, 304.04O’Dell, Stephen L. 116.15, 116.24O’Sullivan, Ewan 111.05, 403.02Oates, Samantha R 404.06Ogle, Patrick M. 200.05Ohm, Stefan 403.05Okumura, Akira 116.26Ong, Rene A. 108.01Orio, Marina 121.03Orosz, Jerome A. 205.06Osborne, Julian 113.04Osten, Rachel A. 404.06Owocki, Stan 119.03Ozel, Feryal 302.03Page, Kim L 404.06Page, Mathew J 404.06Palmer, David 105.02, 112.02, 122.05Pankow, Chris 113.01Pannuti, Thomas 120.10Pareschi, Giovanni 116.22, 116.25Parfrey, Kyle 300.06Park, Sangwook 120.05Parodi, Giancarlo 116.22Pasham, Dheeraj Ranga Reddy 122.25Patnaude, Daniel 304.02Patruno, Alessandro 122.15, 122.16, 122.23Pavlov, George G. 114.05, 116.15, 304.03Peacock, Mark 122.24Perez, Kerstin 200.02Perkins, Jeremy S116.11Perri, Luca 116.25Petre, Robert 116.06, 120.03, 120.15, 304.02Pillitteri, Ignazio 103.04Piner, B. Glenn106.13Piro, Anthony 304.06Pivovaroff, Michael 117.04Pizzocaro, Daniele 114.15Plotkin, Richard 404.02Plucinsky, Paul P.116.08, 404.03Plucinsky, Paul P.116.08, 404.03Pohl, Martin 106.24, 106.25Pollock, Andrew 116.08Ponman, Trevor J 111.05, 403.02Ponti, Gabriele 100.04, 118.02Popkow, Alexis 108.01Porquet, D. 100.03, 118.01Porter, Frederick Scott 110.01Posselt, Bettina 108.02Posson-Brown, Jennifer 119.05Pottschmidt, Katja 110.06, 117.02, 122.04, 122.13,

404.01Povich, Matthew S. 103.02Prado, Ian 122.19

AUtHOrS iNDEx

63

Prestwich, Andrea H. 122.17Price, Larry 113.01Price, Samuel R 302.08Prieskorn, Zachary 116.05Prigozhin, Gregory 302.04Pryal, Matthew 106.15Psaltis, Dimitrios 302.03Ptak, Andrew 110.06, 110.11, 110.12, 400.02, 403.06Puccetti, Simonetta 200.05Puspitarini, Lucky 110.01Racusin, Judith L. 112.05, 116.11Rahoui, Farid 114.07, 117.01Ramsey, Brian 116.15, 116.24, 301.04Randall, Scott W. 102.03Rapetti, David 102.02Rasio, Frederic A. 113.02Rau, Urvashi 120.15Ray, Paul S.122.26, 302.08Raychaudhury, Somak 111.05Raymond, John C. 120.09Razzano, Massimiliano 114.03Rea, Nanda 100.04, 118.02Read, Jocelyn 304.06Readhead, Anthony C. S. 106.08Reeves, James 200.03Reid, Paul B.116.24Reig, Pablo 110.06Reis, Ruben C. 109.01, 118.06Remillard, Ronald A. 205.02, 302.04, 302.05Renaud, Matthieu 107.01, 403.05Reynolds, Christopher S. 100.02, 300.04Reynolds, Mark 118.06, 205.06Reynolds, Stephen P.120.03, 120.09Ribeiro, Valerio 121.01Richards, Joseph L106.08Risaliti, Guido 106.05Risaliti, Guido 106.02, 200.03, 300.01, 300.03Rivas, David 106.18Rivers, Elizabeth 300.01Roberts, Douglas A. 100.04, 118.01Roberts, Mallory 114.13Roberts, Tim P 404.04Robertson, Ina 110.01Rodeghiero, Gabriele 116.25Rodi, James 106.12Rodriguez, Carl 113.02Rodriguez, Jerome 114.07, 122.13, 404.01Roebber, Elinore 113.05Romani, Roger W. 116.15, 304.03, 400.06Romano, Patrizia 105.02, 116.25Romanowsky, Aaron J. 122.19Romeo, Giuseppe 116.25Rothschild, Richard E. 122.04, 122.12, 404.01Rousselle, Julien 116.26Roy, Jayanta 122.26Rozanska, Agata 118.04Rudnick, Lawrence 120.15

Rupen, Michael P. 120.15Russell, David M 404.02Russo, Francesco 116.25Rutledge, Robert E. 122.01Ryan, Geoffrey S 112.05Saar, Steven H. 119.01, 119.05Sacco, Bruno 116.25Saez, Cristian 200.05Sakamoto, Takanori 112.02Salome, Philippe 111.06Salvesen, Greg 205.03Salvetti, David 114.15Sanders, Jeremy 111.06Sankrit, Ravi 120.09Sarazin, Craig L. 111.06Sartore, Nicola 116.25Savage, Allison H. 120.04Savolainen, Tuomas 106.08Saz Parkinson, Pablo 114.03, 114.15Scargle, Jeffrey D 119.05Schmid, Christian 404.01Schmidt, Robert 102.02Schultz, Ted 104.04Schulz, Norbert S. 100.04, 122.13, 122.21Schwartz, Daniel A. 116.24Schwarz, Joseph 116.25Scott, Amy 200.05Selvestrel, Danilo 116.25Sembay, Steve 116.08Semper, Sean R 302.08Seo, Eun-Suk 201.02Servillat, Mathieu 122.01, 404.04Shaposhnikov, Nikolai 109.03Shea, Taylor K 120.05Shelton, Robin L. 110.02Shih, Albert Y. 301.04Sidery, Trevor 113.01Siegal-Gaskins, Jennifer M. 107.06Singer, Leo 113.01Sironi, Giorgia 116.25Sivakoff, Gregory R. 205.01Slane, Patrick O. 108.02, 120.07, 120.14, 304.02,

304.03Smith, Andrew W118.05Smith, Randall K. 102.03, 115.05, 115.06, 116.06,

116.08, 116.18, 304.02Snowden, Steven L. 110.01, 403.03Sobolewska, Malgosia 110.06Sol, Helene 106.24Sparks, William B. 106.21Speegle, Tyler 122.19Spetzer, Keri 122.09Stadelman, Matthew 120.15Stage, Michael D. 120.10Stamerra, Antonio 116.25Stancil, Phillip C. 110.02Stappers, Benjamin 122.15, 122.16, 122.23

AUtHOrS iNDEx

64

Starrfield, Sumner 121.02Stecker, Floyd W. 116.14Steeghs, Danny 122.22, 205.06Stegmann, Christian 403.05Steiner, James F.109.01, 205.02Stepnik, Agnieszka 106.07Stepnik, Agnieszka 122.14Stern, Daniel 105.04, 106.02, 106.04, 110.11, 117.01,

117.02, 117.04, 122.18, 122.23, 200.05, 300.01, 300.03, 403.06

Stevens, Jamie 122.10Stiele, Holger 122.28Stone, Edward C. 201.01Strader, Jay 122.19Strazzeri, Elisabetta 116.25Stringhetti, Luca 116.25Stroh, Michael 106.15Strohmayer, Tod E.105.05, 122.25, 122.27Su, Meng 116.10, 116.17Su, Yuanyuan 403.01Sun, Ming 111.06Sundqvist, Jon 119.03Swartz, Douglas A.114.05, 301.04Szymkowiak, Andrew E. 104.03Tagliaferri, Gianpiero 116.22, 116.25Talukder, Dipongkar 113.03Tanci, Claudio 116.25Tang, Rebecca 117.02Tatischeff, Vincent 107.01Tatum, Malachi 110.11, 403.06Tayal, Swaraj S.115.01Temim, Tea 120.14Tendulkar, Shriharsh P.114.02, 122.15, 122.16, 122.23Teng, Stacy H.117.05, 200.05Tennant, Allyn F. 301.04Terada, Yukikatsu 122.04Testa, Vincenzo 116.25Tetarenko, Bailey 205.01Thomas, Nicholas Evan 110.01Thompson, Christopher 112.06Thorpe, James 402.03Timmes, F. X. 121.02Timokhin, Andrey 116.14Timpanaro , Maria Cristina 116.25Tomsick, John 100.03, 105.03, 105.04, 109.03, 110.06,

114.07, 116.04, 117.01, 117.02, 122.13, 122.18, 122.23, 404.01

Torok, Gabriel 122.03Torres, Diego F 114.16Torres, Manuel 404.04Torres, Manuel 122.22, 205.06Toso, Giorgio 116.25Tosti, Gino 116.25Townsley, Leisa K. 103.02Träbert, Elmar 115.03Tremonti, Christina A. 106.26Trier Frederiksen, Jacob 106.24

Trifoglio, Massimo 116.25Troja, Eleonora 112.05, 120.18Trolier-McKinstry, Susan 116.24Trouille, Laura 106.26Tsang, David 114.10, 304.06Tucci, James 107.05Turner, Tracey J. 200.03Tutt, James 104.04Ulmer, Melville P.111.01Umbreit, Stefan 113.02Uprety, Youaraj 104.03, 110.01Urban, Alex 113.01Urry, C. Megan 106.16, 108.06, 400.02, 400.04Ursino, Eugenio 108.05, 110.01, 403.03Uttley, Phil 300.04, 404.01Valdez, Jennifer 302.08Valencia-S., Monica 118.03Vallania, Piero 116.25van der Horst, Alexander 114.05Van Eerten, Hendrik 112.05Van Rossum, Daniel R120.13, 304.05Van Weeren, Reinout J.101.01Vandenbroucke, Justin 116.27, 301.06Vassiliev, Vladimir 116.26Vecchio, Alberto 113.01Veitch, John 113.01Velliyedathu, Tomykkutty 108.05Venters, Tonia M. 110.11, 116.14, 403.06Vercellone, Stefano 105.02, 116.25Veres, Peter 113.04Vezie, Michael 302.04Vieregg, Abigail 107.04, 116.12Vikhlinin, Alexey 116.24, 401.01Vink, Jacco 403.05Vitale, Salvatore 113.01Voelk, Heinrich 403.05Vogel, Julia Katharina117.04Voit, Gerard Mark 111.03Volpicelli, Antonio 116.25von Ballmoos, Peter 116.04Von Der Linden, Anja 102.02Vrtilek, Jan M.111.05Vulic, Neven 110.05Vurm, Indrek 112.01Wade, Colin 116.04Wadiasingh, Zorawar 114.14Walsh, Brian R. 110.01Walsh, Nathan 116.13Walton, Dom 106.02, 106.03, 106.04, 118.06, 122.20,

200.03, 200.05, 300.01, 300.03, 404.04Wang, Junfeng 111.01Wang, Q. Daniel 100.03Wang, Zhongxiang 122.07Ward, John E 108.01Ward, Martin 200.03Wardle, M. 118.01Wargelin, Bradford J.119.01

AUtHOrS iNDEx

65

Webb, Natalie 122.01Webber, William R. 201.01Weisgarber, Thomas 107.02Weisskopf, Martin C. 114.05, 116.15Werner, Norbert 111.06Whalen, Daniel J. 304.05White, Raymond Edwin 403.01Whyte, Laura 106.26Wiedenbeck, Mark E.201.05Wijnands, Rudy 100.03Wik, Daniel R. 110.11, 111.07, 403.06Wildner, Martin 122.03Wilke, Rudeger 116.24Wilkes, Belinda J.400.03Wilkins, Dan 300.02, 300.04Wilkins, Daniel 300.02, 300.04Willett, Kyle 106.26Williams, Brian J.120.09Willner, Steven P. 400.03Wilms, Joern 100.02, 115.06, 117.02, 122.04, 122.13,

404.01Wilson-Hodge, Colleen 106.12, 122.04, 301.04Winkler, P. Frank 120.09Winternitz, Luke M 302.08Wolff, Michael Thomas 122.04, 302.07, 302.08Wolk, Scott J. 103.04Wollaeger, Ryan T 120.13Wong, Ka-Wah 111.07Wood, Kent S. 114.15, 114.16, 302.07, 302.08Worrall, Diana 400.03Wright, Nicholas James 103.05Wu, Jianfeng 122.22, 205.06Wulf, Dallas 104.03Wuyts, Eva 120.16Xie, Fu-Guo 106.07

Yamaguchi, Hiroya 304.02Yan, Zhen 109.02Yang, Chengwei 114.02, 122.23Yaqoob, Tahir 400.02Yoast-Hull, Tova 107.03Yoon, Doosoo 114.09Younes, George A.105.03, 122.05Young, Andrew J. 100.02Yu, Wayne H 302.08Yu, Wenfei 109.02, 122.28Yukita, Mihoko 110.06, 110.11, 110.12, 114.05, 403.06Yusef-Zadeh, Farhad 100.04, 118.01Zajacek, Michal 118.03Zatsarinny, Oleg 115.01Zavlin, Vyacheslav 114.05Zepf, Steve E. 122.24Zezas, Andreas 110.06, 110.11, 110.12, 111.05, 404.03Zhang, Binbin 112.05Zhang, Bing 106.24Zhang, Haocheng 106.09Zhang, Haocheng 106.20Zhang, Hui 109.02Zhang, Shuinai 115.05, 115.06Zhang, Wenda 109.02Zhang, William 104.04, 105.04, 106.04, 110.11,

116.23, 117.02, 117.04, 122.18, 122.23, 200.05, 403.06

Zhao, Ping 116.09Zhou, Xin 115.05, 115.06Zhuravleva, Irina 102.04Zitelli, Valentina 116.25Zitzer, Ben 107.05Zoghbi, Abderahmen 300.04Zsargo, Janos 119.03Zweibel, Ellen Gould 107.03

AUtHOrS iNDEx

66

HEAD Dissertation Summaries HEAD is happy to present brief summaries of the following recent PhD theses, representing some of the best new high energy astrophysics work done around the world.

Author Page%

Dr. Gemma Anderson! 1!Dr. Michael Anderson! 6!Dr. Drew Clausen! 11!Dr. Adam Goldstein! 16!Dr. Ashley King! 20!Dr. Harsha Kumar! 23!Dr. Anne Lohfink! 27!Dr. W. Peter Maksym 31!Dr. Maria Petropoulou 36!Dr. James Steiner 41!Dr. Malachi Tatum 46!Dr. Reinout van Weeren 51!!

DiSSErtAtiON SUMMAriES

67

The ChIcAGO Survey: Multi-wavelength Identification of

Galactic Plane X-ray Sources

Gemma Elizabeth Anderson

1 Introduction

From 1996 to 1999, the Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics (ASCA) performed theASCA Galactic plane survey (AGPS), which was designed to study 40 deg2 of the X-ray sky, overthe Galactic coordinates |l| . 45◦ and |b| . 0◦.4, in the 0.7− 10 keV energy range (Sugizaki et al.,2001). This survey resulted in a catalog of 163 discrete X-ray sources with X-ray fluxes betweenFx

⇠ 10−13 and 10−11 erg cm−2 s−1, many of which are much harder and more absorbed than anyother X-ray source previously detected in the Galactic plane. While the AGPS yielded the first everlogN− logS distribution of hard (2−10 keV) Galactic plane X-ray sources, ASCA’s limited spatialresolution (30) and large positional uncertainty (10) left over 100 of the AGPS sources unidentified.Even in the era of the Chandra X-ray Observatory and the XMM-Newton telescope, a substantialfraction of the AGPS source catalog, and therefore a large fraction of the Galactic plane X-raypopulation, still remain unidentified.

The key to obtaining a complete understanding of the Galactic plane X-ray source populations, from0.3−10 keV, that make up the F

x

⇠ 10−13 to 10−11 erg cm−2 s−1 X-ray flux range is to identify theunidentified AGPS sources. As a result the Chasing the Identification of ASCA Galactic Objects(ChIcAGO) survey was conceived, which combines the subarcsecond localization capabilities ofChandra with an extensive multi-wavelength follow-up program, which is aimed at determining theidentities of the AGPS sources and the nature of their X-ray emission.

In my thesis I presented the results of the ChIcAGO survey using new Chandra observations of 93unidentified AGPS sources. In 87 out of the 93 AGPS source fields observed with Chandra a total of253 X-ray point sources were detected. The position of each point source was compared to archivalmulti-wavelength surveys and new observations in the optical, infrared and radio. Owing to thearcsecond positional accuracy of Chandra, about 60% of these 253 X-ray point sources have opticaland/or infrared counterparts while 40% are coincident with di↵use radio sources such as supernovaremnants (SNRs) and H ii regions, or compact radio sources. These multi-wavelength studies haveled to the discovery of several interesting Galactic plane X-ray sources and the identification of themain populations that make up the F

x

⇠ 10−13 to 10−11 erg cm−2 s−1 X-ray flux range in theGalactic plane. The following sections summarise these results.

2 X-ray Emitting Massive Stars in the Galactic Plane

The earliest results from the ChIcAGO survey, and the first part of my thesis, involves the inves-tigation of four previously unidentified AGPS sources: AX J163252–4746, AX J184738–0156, AXJ144701–5919, and AX J144547–5931. The detection of each of these Galactic plane X-ray sourceswith Chandra provided a sub-arcsecond localized position that was compared to multi-wavelengtharchival surveys, allowing the identification of bright infrared counterparts. Further infrared andoptical observations revealed that each of these AGPS sources are associated with Wolf-Rayet (WR)and O-type supergiant stars, with spectral classifications: Ofpe/WN9 (AX J163252–4746), WN7(AX J184738–0156 = WR121a), WN7–8h (AX J144701–5919), and OIf+ (AX J144547–5931).

1

HEAD Dissertations - 1


68

The generation of X-ray emission from massive stars is based upon their extremely fast stellarwinds. This is usually through instability-driven wind-shocks within a single hot star that producessoft, thermal X-ray emission, with temperatures of kT < 1 keV (Lucy & White, 1980; Lucy, 1982).However, much harder X-ray emission with hotter temperatures (kT > 1 keV) can be generatedby the collision of these powerful winds in a binary system known as a colliding wind binary(CWB; Prilutskii & Usov, 1976; Cherepashchuk, 1976; Pittard & Parkin, 2010). The two mostX-ray luminous (L

x

⇠ 1034 erg s−1) of these four investigated sources, AX J163252–4746 and AXJ184738–0156, have very hard X-ray spectra. The analysis of archival XMM spectra with thinthermal plasma models showed temperatures > 3 keV and display strong Fe XXV emission lines(6.7 keV), indicating plasma temperatures that could only be generated in a CWB. The source ofX-ray emission from AX J144701–5919 and AX J144547–5931 is still unknown as they are muchfainter and somewhat softer, displaying X-ray luminosities and spectra that are consistent withputatively single massive stars, CWBs, and some types of quiescent X-ray binaries.

By identifying the association of these four AGPS sources with massive stars, two of which areCWBs, suggests that other AGPS sources could be similar objects. A population of X-ray emittingmassive stars could therefore be contributing to the overall population of Galactic X-ray sourcesemitting in the F

x

⇠ 10−13 to 10−11 erg cm−2 s−1 X-ray flux range that were originally detectedin the AGPS (published in Anderson et al., 2011).

3 Magnetar PSR J1622–4950 and its Supernova Remnant

A Chandra observation of AX J162246–4946 conducted in 2007 as part of the ChIcAGO surveydetected an X-ray source coincident with the candidate magnetar PSR J1622–4950. This was thefirst magnetar to have been discovered by its pulsed radio emission making it one of only a smallnumber known to emit at radio wavelengths (Levin et al., 2010). I studied the X-ray emissionfrom PSR J1622–4950 by analyzing three X-ray observations taken with Chandra in 2007 June and2009 June and July, and the other with XMM in 2011 February, confirming AX J162246–4946 asthe likely X-ray counterpart. The first Chandra observation in 2007 demonstrated that the X-rayluminosity (L

x

) was 3.5 times the spin-down luminosity (E) of PSR J1622–4950. One of the definingcharacteristics of a magnetar is L

x

> E (Mereghetti, 2008) demonstrating that extra X-ray emissionis being generated by the decay of magnetic fields, not just from the spin-down of the pulsar. Thisresult confirmed the Levin et al. (2010) identification of PSR J1622–4950 as a magnetar.

Over the 3.7 year period of Chandra and XMM observations the X-ray flux of PSR J1622–4950decreased by a factor of ⇠ 50, decaying exponentially with a characteristic decay time of ⌧ = 360±11days (see Figure 1). This behaviour therefore identified PSR J1622–4950 as a possible addition to thetransient magnetar class. The decay likely indicates that PSR J1622–4950 is recovering from an X-ray outburst that occurred earlier in 2007, before the first Chandra observation. Parkes observationshave also shown that PSR J1622–4950 has undergone significant periods of radio variability (Levinet al., 2010). However, Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) observations conducted aspart of the ChIcAGO survey demonstrate that toward the end of 2008, PSR J1622–4950 may haveundergone a radio flare that could have been triggered by the X-ray outburst in 2007 (see Figure 1).

Investigations of the Molonglo Galactic Plane Survey, a radio survey conducted at 843 MHz, revealedthat PSR J1622–4950 is 80 southeast of a di↵use radio arc, G333.9+0.0, which appears to be non-

2



69

thermal in nature and which could possibly be a previously undiscovered SNR. If G333.9+0.0 isa SNR then the estimates of its size and age, combined with its close proximity and reasonableimplied velocity of PSR J1622–4950, suggest that these two objects could be physically associated.If real, such an association would add to the small number of known magnetar/SNR associations(published in Anderson et al., 2012).

Figure 1: Radio and X-ray light-curves of PSR J1622–4950 over 1500 days. The left vertical axisshows the radio flux at 1.4 GHz in units of mJy and the right vertical axis shows the absorbedX-ray flux in units of 10−13 erg cm−2 s−1 in the 0.3 − 10.0 keV energy range. The radio fluxpoints are in red where the Parkes 1.4 GHz data are denoted by asterisks and the Parkes 6.5 GHzMultibeam pulsar survey measurement is a range of possible values at 1.4 GHz, calculated from arange of possible radio spectral indices, denoted by two crosses connected by a dashed line. (Theselight-curve points were originally depicted in Figure 1 of Levin et al., 2010). The red squares showthe ATCA detections of PSR J1622-4950 when extrapolated to 1.4 GHz. The ATCA detection withthe horizontal error bar is the average flux value from two ATCA observations, taken in 2009 Decand 2010 Feb, published by Levin et al. (2010). The ATCA flux errors are the size of the data point.The X-ray flux points are in blue where the Chandra observations are denoted by open circles andthe XMM observation by a filled circle. The error bars are 1σ.

3



70

4 Population Statistics

In the 93 Chandra-observed AGPS fields, all point sources within 30 of the original ASCA positionwere investigated resulting in a catalog that includes the X-ray properties and likely optical, infraredand radio counterparts of each of the 253 point sources detected (from now on these will all be re-ferred to as “ChIcAGO sources”). In 62 out of the 93 AGPS fields observed there were 74 ChIcAGOsources detected with > 20 X-ray counts. The population statistical studies described below focuson those 74 unidentified ChIcAGO sources with > 20 X-ray counts as they are approximately withinthe AGPS flux range.

I developed a new statistical diagnostic for identifying likely populations of X-ray emitting sourcesusing K-band fluxes and upper-limits, which also takes into account the hardness of each of theunidentified ChIcAGO sources (see Figure 2). Figure 2 plots the X-ray-to-K

s

-band flux ratio(F

x,0.3−8.0keV/FKs

) versus the median energy (E50 keV), in the 0.3− 8.0 keV energy band, of eachunidentified ChIcAGO source (“U ChIcAGO;” red data points). I further separated the ChIcAGOsources into the categories “low”, “medium” and “high”, based on their X-ray count rates, usingsymbol sizes to distinguish these categories. The smallest data points (low) have count rates < 15counts s−1, the medium sized data points (medium) have count rates between 15 and 40 counts s−1,and the largest data points (high) have count rates > 40 counts s−1. The identified AGPS sources,also divided into categories based on the X-ray count-rate expected from a Chandra observation,have also been included in Figure 2. Using the relative positions between the unidentified ChIcAGOsources and the identified AGPS sources, I divided Figure 2 into six possible population regions.These regions are marked by dashed lines and labeled with Roman numerals in Figure 2. Eachregion, and the possible populations of X-ray sources they contain, are listed below.

• Region i: Soft X-ray stars with active stellar coronae or pre-main sequence stars

• Region ii: Massive stars that are producing X-ray emission through instability-driven wind-shocks or are in CWBs

• Region iii: High-mass and symbiotic X-ray binaries and active Galactic nuclei (AGN)

• Region iv: Unknown, however, there is likely to be one Galactic and one extragalactic popu-lation

• Region v: Cataclysmic variables

• Region vi: Magnetars and possibly low-mass X-ray binaries

Through the statistical population studies of the bright (>20 X-ray count) ChIcAGO sources I haveidentified the predominant populations of X-ray point sources emitting in the F

x

⇠ 10−13 to 10−11

erg cm−2 s−1 flux range in the Galactic plane that were originally detected in the AGPS (Sugizakiet al., 2001). These are active stellar coronae, massive stars with strong winds that are possiblyin CWBs, X-ray binaries and magnetars. The population in Region iv is still unidentified, butbased on its X-ray and infrared properties, likely comprise partly of Galactic sources and partlyof AGN. As a result of my thesis work in the ChIcAGO survey I have assembled a list of all theconfirmed and tentatively identified AGPS sources. This has improved the number of identifiedAGPS sources from ⇠ 30% to ⇠ 60% and has allowed us to gain a more complete picture of the

4



71

X-ray populations that emit in the Fx

⇠ 10−13 to 10−11 erg cm−2 s−1 flux range throughout theGalactic plane (Anderson et al., 2014).

Figure 2: Observed X-ray-to-Ks

-band flux ratio (Fx,0.3−8keV/FKs

) vs median energy (E50 keV)of unidentified ChIcAGO sources and the identified ChIcAGO and AGPS sources. The di↵erentsizes of data points represent whether a given source has a low count-rate (L as listed in thelegend), medium count-rate (M) or a high count-rate (H). The unidentified ChIcAGO sources (“UChIcAGO”) are represented by red data points and the identified ChIcAGO and archival sources arein other colors. The triangles represent those sources that only have upper limits on their K

s

-bandfluxes, implying lower limits on their F

x

/FKs

ratios. The representative error bars demonstrate thesizes of errors expected from a 20− 60 count X-ray source or a 80− 120 count X-ray source. Thisplot has been divided into 6 regions, indicated by the dashed lines and Roman numerals, in orderto further explore the source populations.

References

Anderson, G. E. et al.. 2011, ApJ, 727, 105

—. 2014, Accepted for Publication in ApJS

—. 2012, ApJ, 751, 53

Cherepashchuk, A. M. 1976, Soviet AstronomyLetters, 2, 138

Levin, L. et al.. 2010, ApJ, 721, L33

Lucy, L. B. 1982, ApJ, 255, 286

Lucy, L. B. & White, R. L. 1980, ApJ, 241, 300

Mereghetti, S. 2008, A&A Rev., 15, 225

Pittard, J. M. & Parkin, E. R. 2010, MNRAS,403, 1657

Prilutskii, O. F. & Usov, V. V. 1976, Soviet As-tronomy, 20, 2

Sugizaki, M., Mitsuda, K., Kaneda, H., Mat-suzaki, K., Yamauchi, S., & Koyama, K. 2001,ApJS, 134, 77

5



72

Hot Gaseous Halos Around Galaxies Mike Anderson !

The modern theory of galaxy formation traces its roots to White and Rees (1978), who showed that hot gas plays a critical role in the formation of galaxies. In their original (analytic) model, baryons falling into nascent protogalactic potential wells experienced accretion shocks, which heated them to the virial temperature of the system (T ~ a few x 10^6 K for the Milky Way). The result was a “hot halo” of gas, tracing the dark matter and filling the virial volume out to hundreds of kpc, from which gas slowly cooled from the inside-out, forming a galaxy. !At the same time, it was also appreciated that gas at similar hot temperatures should also be expected around massive galaxies for another, completely independent, reason -- supernova-driven winds. These winds were first proposed by Mathews and Baker (1971) to explain the dearth of interstellar gas in massive elliptical galaxies. In their model, the interstellar medium was heated as stellar winds collided and shocked to a temperature corresponding to the velocity dispersion of the stars, and then supernovae added additional energy to the ISM and produced galaxy-scale outflows. This model seemed to successfully explain the observed deficit of cold gas in ellipticals (Faber and Gallagher 1976), and was soon incorporated into three-phase models of the ISM in spiral galaxies as well (e.g. McKee and Ostriker 1977). !Ever since these initial pioneering studies, the field of galaxy formation has largely been the story of the complex interplay between accretion and outflow (feedback) on galactic scales. Both accretion and feedback should produce hot gaseous halos around massive galaxies, and indeed elliptical galaxies are generally observed to be surrounded by hot gas (Forman et al 1985, Fabbiano et al. 1989). Due to the much higher velocity dispersion of the stars in elliptical galaxies, as well as the measured iron abundances of the gas which are Solar or even super-Solar (Mathews and Brighenti 2003), the hot halos around ellipticals are typically thought to be produced primarily by feedback. Additionally, ellipticals are often located in dense environments suffused with a hot X-ray emitting intragroup or intracluster medium. Therefore, spirals have typically been considered more promising targets for the study of galactic-scale hot halos, particularly those formed from accretion shocks. !In addition to accretion and feedback, the other important implication of hot gaseous halos is the problem of missing baryons from galaxies. Ever since the concordance model of cosmology was established and the approximate values of Ωm and Ωb became fairly settled quantities, it was realized that the observed baryon fraction in galaxies is much lower than the baryon fraction of the Universe (Silk 2003, McGaugh 2005). This problem is related to, but conceptually slightly separate from, the classical ``missing baryons problem’’ and is known as the problem of missing baryons from galaxies. !Hot halos have often been considered the obvious reservoir for the missing baryons from galaxies, as they were already invoked in the theory of White and Rees (1978) as a natural product of the galaxy formation process and as the reservoir for continuing accretion and fuel for star formation over the lifetime of the galaxy. This theory was elaborated by White and Frenk (1991), who predicted soft X-ray luminosities in excess of 10^41 erg/s for L* galaxies accreting at 1 M⊙/yr, and luminosities more than an order of magnitude larger for the giant spirals. Essentially the same calculation was repeated again by Fukugita and Peebles (2006), and they found a similar value for the total predicted luminosity (though they focus on the luminosity at radii beyond 10 kpc, which they predict to be ~10^40 erg/s. !In order to study galactic feedback and to search for these missing baryons, three successive generations of X-ray telescopes have examined the extended halos of massive spirals. The first search for hot gas around spiral galaxies was undertaken by Bregman and Glassgold (1982). They looked at the nearby massive edge-on spirals NGC 3628 and NGC 4244 with the Einstein IPC.



73

However, in contrast to the situation with the elliptical galaxies, Bregman and Glassgold found no evidence of diffuse soft X-ray emission around these spirals down to extremely stringent upper limits (2x10^38 erg/s). Subsequently, pointed observations with the ROSAT PSPC were undertaken by Benson et al. (2000) for the same purpose; they found no extended soft X-ray emission around the massive spirals NGC 2841, NGC 4594, and NGC 5529 down to upper limits of below 10^41 erg/s. Finally, another search was conducted with the Chandra X-ray observatory (Pedersen et al. 2006) around the massive spirals NGC 5746 and NGC 5170. These authors originally reported a detection of a hot halo around NGC 5746, but the detection disappeared upon reanalysis with an updated Chandra calibration (Rasmussen et al. 2009); their 3σ upper limit on the hot halo luminosity around NGC 5746 is 4x10^39 erg/s !In this thesis, we use these nondetections to draw important conclusions about galactic feedback and about missing baryons. We then present the first two detections of hot halos around spiral galaxies, as well as a number of results characterizing the hot gas and its implications. In addition, we perform a stacking analysis of ROSAT All-Sky Survey images of isolated galaxies, in which we detect X-ray emission from L* spirals and ellipticals at high confidence, and find moderate evidence that the emission is extended on scales of tens of kpc. Finally, we introduce significant improvements for the spatial analysis of extended X-ray emission, which we use to trace the emission around the isolated elliptical NGC 720 to below 1/10 of the background, and which will push forward the study of extended emission to lower surface brightness limits. !The first section of the thesis (Anderson and Bregman 2010) introduced the problem of missing baryons from galaxies, and established observationally motivated constraints on the mass and radii of hot gaseous halos using a variety of independent arguments. We pointed out a particularly robust constraint on the hot halo around the Milky Way: the observed dispersion measure of pulsars in the Large Magellanic Cloud suggests that a hot halo following a Navarro, Frenk, and White (NFW) profile must contain less than 4%–5% of the missing baryons from the Galaxy. This is similar to other upper limits on the Galactic hot halo which we compile, such as the soft X-ray background and the pressure around high-velocity clouds. Second, we note that the X-ray surface brightness of hot halos with NFW profiles around large isolated galaxies is high enough that such emission should be observed, unless their halos contain less than 10%–25% of their missing baryons. Third, we place constraints on the column density of hot halos using nondetections of OVII absorption along AGN sightlines: in general they must contain less than 70% of the missing baryons or extend to no more than 40 kpc. Flattening the density profile of galactic hot halos weakens the surface brightness constraint, but the OVII constraint remains unchanged. We also argued that AGN and supernovae at low to moderate redshift—the theoretical sources of winds responsible for driving out the missing baryons—do not produce the expected correlations with the baryonic Tully–Fisher relationship and, therefore, are insufficient to explain the missing baryons from galaxies. We conclude that most of missing baryons from galaxies do not lie in hot halos around the galaxies. We speculate that the missing baryons never fell into the potential wells of high-redshift galaxies in the first place, perhaps due to pre-heating or ejective feedback early in the process of galaxy formation. !The next two sections of the thesis present the first two detections of hot gaseous halos at large radii around spiral galaxies (Figure 1). We first examined the giant spiral galaxy NGC 1961 with Chandra ACIS-I (Anderson and Bregman 2011). We observed four quadrants around the galaxy for 30 ks each, carefully subtracting background and point-source emission, and found diffuse emission that appears to extend to 40–50 kpc. We fit β-models to the emission and estimate a hot halo mass within 50 kpc of 5×10^9 M⊙. We next presented XMM-Newton observations of UGC 12591, an early-type spiral of around 9x the luminosity of the Milky Way (Dai, Anderson, and Bregman 2012). Again we detect a hot gaseous halo out to at least 40-50 kpc, with a hot gas mass of 4×10^9 M⊙. We measure the temperature of the gas to be 0.64 ± 0.03 keV, similar to the value for NGC 1961 and about the temperature one would expect for a quasi-static hot gaseous halo at the virial temperature of the system. We estimate baryon budgets for both galaxies, accounting for stars, cold gas, and the hot halo (extrapolating the observed density profile to the virial radius), and



74

infer baryon fractions less than a third of the cosmological value. This is in accordance with our conclusions from section 1, that the hot gaseous halo does not seem to be able to serve as a reservoir of the missing baryons from galaxies. It also suggests a deviation from the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation of less massive galaxies. Finally, we compute the cooling rates from these hot gaseous halos (<1 M⊙/year), and note that these cooling rates are insufficient to power the observed star formation in these galaxies, and are also insufficient to build up the stellar mass of these galaxies over the Hubble time. Therefore these galaxies must have relied on colder gas to fuel their star formation at some point in the past. !In the penultimate section, we shift our focus from giant spirals to L* galaxies (Anderson, Bregman, and Dai 2013). We examine stacked images of 2165 galaxies from the 2MASS Isolated Galaxy Catalog as well as subsets of this sample based on galaxy morphology and K-band luminosity. We detect X-ray emission at high confidence (ranging up to nearly 10σ) for each subsample of galaxies (Figure 2). The average Lx within 50 kpc is 1.0 ± 0.1 (statistical) ±0.2 (systematic) ×10^40 erg/s, although the early-type galaxies are more than twice as luminous as the late-type galaxies. Using a spatial analysis, we also find evidence for extended emission around five out of seven subsamples (the full sample, the luminous galaxies, early-type galaxies, luminous late-type galaxies, and luminous early-type galaxies) at 92.7%, 99.3%, 89.3%, 98.7%, and 92.1% confidence, respectively. Several additional lines of evidence also support this conclusion and suggest that about 1/2 of the total emission is extended, and about 1/3 of the extended emission comes from hot gas. For the sample of luminous galaxies, which has the strongest evidence for extended emission, the average hot gas mass is 4×10^9 M⊙ within 50 kpc (Figure 3) and the implied accretion rate is 0.4 M⊙ /yr. !Finally, in the last paper of the thesis (Anderson and Bregman 2014, modified slightly from the version in the thesis), we begin to prepare methods for future analysis. We draw a conceptual distinction between two methods of studying extended X-ray emission: spatial analysis (through its surface brightness profile) or spectral analysis (measuring the spectrum at various locations in the field). Both techniques have advantages and disadvantages, and when the emission becomes particularly faint and/or extended, the two methods can disagree. We argue that an ideal approach would be to model the events file directly, and therefore to use both the spectral and spatial information which are simultaneously available for each event. In this work we propose a first step in this direction, introducing a method for spatial analysis which can be extended to leverage spectral information simultaneously. We construct a model for the entire X-ray image in a given energy band, and generate a likelihood function to compare the model to the data. A critical goal of this modeling is disentangling vignetted and unvignetted backgrounds through their different spatial distributions. Employing either maximum likelihood or Markov Chain Monte Carlo, we can derive probability distribution functions for the source and background parameters together, or we can fit and subtract the background, leaving the description of the source non-parametric. We calibrate and demonstrate this method against a variety of simulated images (Figure 4), and then apply it to Chandra observations of the hot gaseous halo around the elliptical galaxy NGC 720. We are able to follow the X-ray emission below a tenth of the background, and to infer a hot gas mass within 35 kpc of 4-5x10^9 M⊙, with some indication that the profile continues to at least 50 kpc and that it steepens as the radius increases (Figure 5). We derive much stronger constraints on the surface brightness profile than previous studies, which employed the spectral method, and we show that the density profiles inferred from these studies are in conflict with the observed surface brightness profile. We therefore conclude that, contrary to a previous claim, the X- ray halo of NGC 720 does not seem to contain the full complement of missing baryons from this galaxy. !The conclusion of the thesis contains a review of the various results summarised above (see, e.g. Table 1 below). We also perform a critical assessment of systematic uncertainties in these results, where we conclude the metallicity is probably the most important. Future work is also described, which will also examine some of these systematics in more detail. !


!!

NGC 1961 UGC 12591

Figure 1: Soft X-ray surface brightness profiles of diffuse emission around (left) NGC 1961 and (right) UGC 12591. The shaded regions in each plot show the range of acceptable fits to the data. The points indicate the remaining emission after background subtraction (background level is indicated by the dashed line) We have also subtracted emission from resolved point sources, unresolved X-ray binaries, and coronally active stars. The insets show in more detail the behavior outside the central region.

Figure 2 (left): Stacked soft X-ray images of isolated 2MASS galaxies. Clockwise from upper left, the samples are: early-type galaxies, luminous galaxies, faint galaxies, random positions on the sky (i.e. a null sample), all 2185 galaxies, and late-type galaxies. All images have been smoothed with a 3-pixel Gaussian kernel. Note the different colorers used in the three rows of images. Emission is clearly visible in the center of all of the samples of galaxies, and no emission is visible in the stack of random positions on the sky.

Figure 3 (above): Probability distribution functions (pdfs) for the hot gas mass within 50 kpc of an average galaxy in each sample. The median of each distribution is marked with a vertical dash at the top of the plot. The pdfs for the late-type and faint subsamples are shown as dashed lines because the statistical significance of the extended component is well below 90%. The gas was assumed to have kT = 0.2 keV and Z = 0.3 Z⊙; uncertainties in the metallicity of the gas lead to additional uncertainties in the inferred mass on the order of 75%.



75

!!

NGC 1961 UGC 12591

Figure 1: Soft X-ray surface brightness profiles of diffuse emission around (left) NGC 1961 and (right) UGC 12591. The shaded regions in each plot show the range of acceptable fits to the data. The points indicate the remaining emission after background subtraction (background level is indicated by the dashed line) We have also subtracted emission from resolved point sources, unresolved X-ray binaries, and coronally active stars. The insets show in more detail the behavior outside the central region.

Figure 2 (left): Stacked soft X-ray images of isolated 2MASS galaxies. Clockwise from upper left, the samples are: early-type galaxies, luminous galaxies, faint galaxies, random positions on the sky (i.e. a null sample), all 2185 galaxies, and late-type galaxies. All images have been smoothed with a 3-pixel Gaussian kernel. Note the different colorers used in the three rows of images. Emission is clearly visible in the center of all of the samples of galaxies, and no emission is visible in the stack of random positions on the sky.

Figure 3 (above): Probability distribution functions (pdfs) for the hot gas mass within 50 kpc of an average galaxy in each sample. The median of each distribution is marked with a vertical dash at the top of the plot. The pdfs for the late-type and faint subsamples are shown as dashed lines because the statistical significance of the extended component is well below 90%. The gas was assumed to have kT = 0.2 keV and Z = 0.3 Z⊙; uncertainties in the metallicity of the gas lead to additional uncertainties in the inferred mass on the order of 75%.



76

Table 7.1 Summary of Hot Halo PropertiesGalaxy LK(10

11L⊙) Hubble type Mgas(< 50 kpc) (109M⊙) Mgas(< Rvir) (109M⊙) Z(Z⊙)

NGC 1961 5.2 Sb/c 5.0+0.2−0.1 2.3+0.3

−0.9+5.1 0.5

UGC 12591 5.6 S0/a 4.4+0.7−0.9 1.5+1.6

−1.3+3.0 0.5

stacked luminous 1.4+0.8−0.4 - 4.1+0.6

−1.0(stat)± 2.9(sys) - 0.3stacked faint 0.3+0.4

−0.1 - 0.9+0.5−0.4(stat)± 0.6(sys)* - 0.3

stacked early-type 0.7+1.2−0.3 E and S0 1.9± 0.9(stat)± 1.3(sys) - 0.3

stacked late-type 0.4+1.0−0.2 Sabc & Irr 1.2+0.5

−0.6(stat)± 0.8(sys)* - 0.3NGC 720 (this work) 1.6 E5 6.5± 0.5 0.8± 0.1 0.6

Hot halo masses measured in this thesis. NGC 1961 is discussed in Chapter 3. UGC 12591 is discussed in Chapter 4. The stacked galaxies are discussed in Chapter 5. AndNGC 720 is discussed in Chapter 6. For each column, LK comes from 2MASS and the Hubble type from NED. Our measurements of the hot halo gas mass within 50 kpcand within the virial radius are then listed for each galaxy. In general, the mass within 50 kpc is fairly secure, and the mass within the virial radius depends on extrapolatingthe density profile out to much larger radii than it is observed. In general the errors quoted are statistical errors based on uncertainties in the surface brightness profile; othersources of error are discussed in the text and in Section 7.3 below (most of these other errors are folded into the systematic errors quoted for the stacked galaxies, however).Note that the asterisks on the stacked faint galaxies and the stacked late-type galaxies denote lower confidence that we are actually detecting and characterizing extendedemission around these galaxies. For NGC 1961 and UGC 12591, the second listed uncertainty on the mass within the virial radius accounts for the possibility of a flattenedprofile, as discussed in the text. For the stacked galaxies, we do not extrapolate the mass to the virial radius since we do not have a strong measurement of the slope of thedensity profile. The final column lists the assumed (or measured, in the case of NGC 720) metallicity used to convert the surface brightness profile into a gas mass.

213

Figure 5: Comparison of background-subtracted surface brightness profiles for NGC 720 from our non-parametric method (data points) and parametric method (shaded regions). The red shaded regions denote the 68% confidence regions for each of the six Chandra observations of NGC 720 (the outlier is obsid 492 which is significantly affected by flaring). Blue and green shaded regions correspond to the 68% confidence regions inferred from two previous analyses of this galaxy; the former (Humphrey et al. 2006) provides a reasonable fit to the data but the latter (Humphrey et al. 2011) significantly overestimates the surface brightness profile. The dotted black line shows the level of the background in the fiducial observation (obsid 11868), as determined with the non-parametric method. The solid black line is a smoothing spline fit to the black data points; note that the profile appears to steepen faster than allowed by a β-model at r≳25 kpc.

Table 1: Hot halo masses measured in this thesis. For each column, LK comes from 2MASS and the Hubble type from NED. Our measurements of the hot halo gas mass within 50 kpc and within the virial radius are listed for each galaxy. In general, the mass within 50 kpc is fairly secure, and the mass within the virial radius depends on extrapolating the density profile out to much larger radii than it is observed. The errors quoted are statistical errors based on uncertainties in the surface brightness profile; other sources of error are discussed in the papers and in the conclusion of the thesis. Note that the asterisks on the stacked faint galaxies and the stacked late-type galaxies denote lower confidence that we are actually detecting and characterizing extended emission around these galaxies. For NGC 1961 and UGC 12591, the second uncertainty on the mass within the virial radius accounts for the possibility of a flattened profile, which is discussed in the thesis as a possible way to hide more mass in the hot halo. For the stacked galaxies, we do not extrapolate the mass to the virial radius since we do not have a strong measurement of the slope of the density profile. The final column lists the assumed (or measured, in the case of NGC 720) metallicity used in the conversion from surface brightness into a gas mass.

References Anderson, M. E. and Bregman, J. N. 2010, ApJ, 714, 320 Anderson, M. E. and Bregman, J. N. 2011, ApJ, 737, 22 Anderson, M. E., Bregman, J. N., and Dai, X. 2013, ApJ, 762, 106 Anderson, M. E. and Bregman, J. N. 2014, ApJ in press Benson, A. J. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 557 Bregman, J. N. and Glassgold, A. E. 1982, ApJ, 263, 564 Dai, X., Anderson, M. E., and Bregman, J. N. 2012, ApJ, 755, 107 Fabbiano, G. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 87 Faber, S. M. and Gallagher, J. S. 1976, ApJ, 204, 365 Forman, W. et al. 1984, ApJ, 293, 102 Fukugita, M. and Peebles, P. J. E. 2006, ApJ, 639, 590 !!!

!Humphrey, P. J. et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 899 Humphrey, P. J. et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 53 Mathews, W. G. and Baker, J. C. 1971, ApJ, 170, 241 McGaugh, S. S. 2005, ApJ, 632, 859 McKee, C. F. and Ostriker, J. P. 1977, AJ, 218, 148 Mathews, W. G. and Brighenti, F. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 191 Silk, J. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 249 Pedersen, K. et al. 2006, NewA, 11, 465 Rasmussen, J. et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 79 White, S. D. M. and Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52 White, S. D. M. and Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341

1011

Figure 4: Background-subtracted surface brightness profile of extended sources in simulated Chandra observations in the ACIS-I (left and middle) and ACIS-S (right) configurations. The background was estimated using our non-parametric method and is indicated with the dotted black line; note the shuttle changes in its level with radius due to vignetting effects. The red curve shows the true surface brightness profile, i.e. the model used to generate the simulated image. A smoothing spline (black line) has been fit to the recovered profile data in order to minimize the effects of the binning and to show the magnitude of the negative points at large radius. Note that we can recover the correct profile even at surface brightness well below 10% of the background.



77

Strong Encounters with Black Holes in Globular Clusters

Drew Clausen

The Pennsylvania State University

I. Introduction

The nature of the globular cluster black hole (BH) population remains uncertain despite

decades of observational and theoretical study. Shortly after X-ray sources were first ob-

served in Milky Way globular clusters, it was proposed that the X-ray emission could be pro-

duced by accretion onto either stellar mass BHs, or intermediate mass black holes (IMBHs;

MBH ∼ 102−104 M⊙; Clark et al. 1975; Bahcall & Ostriker 1975). These X-ray sources were

subsequently shown to be accreting neutron stars (NSs; e.g. Grindlay et al. 1984), and the

quest continues for unambiguous evidence of stellar or intermediate mass BHs in globular

clusters.

Stellar mass BHs might be extremely rare in globular clusters, and this could explain

the scarcity of firm observational evidence. Models suggest that the BHs formed through

stellar evolution in a globular cluster will sink to the center, form a decoupled sub-cluster,

and rapidly eject one another from the globular cluster in a frenzy of intense self-interaction

(Sigurdsson & Hernquist 1993; Aarseth 2012). The end result is a substantial depletion of

the cluster’s BH population, with only 0–2 BHs remaining in the cluster after 1 Gyr.

Theory also predicts that an IMBH could form in a globular cluster through successive

mergers of stellar mass BHs (Miller & Hamilton 2002); or runaway collisions between stars,

which result in the formation of a very massive star that collapses directly into an IMBH

(Portegies Zwart et al. 2004; Gurkan et al. 2004). However, there is little observational evi-

dence for the existence of IMBHs beyond controversial detections of their dynamical influence

on the stars in the cores of a few globular clusters (e.g., Noyola et al. 2008; Gebhardt et al.

2005). Furthermore, non-detections in deep radio searches of three Milky Way globular

clusters indicate that IMBHs with masses larger than 1000 M⊙ are either rare in globular

clusters, or extremely inefficient accretors (Strader et al. 2012b).

In recent years the study of globular cluster BHs has been revitalized by the discovery

of bright X-ray sources in several clusters associated with early type galaxies outside the

Local Group. These sources are strong BH candidates, but beamed emission from accret-

ing neutron stars cannot be firmly ruled out (e.g., Maccarone et al. 2007; Irwin et al. 2010;

Brassington et al. 2012; King 2011). Surprisingly, constraints from the X-ray observations

suggest that many of these sources could be stellar mass BHs. There is also a growing

number of stellar mass BH candidates in Local Group globular clusters, including eight in

M31 globular clusters and two in the Milky Way globular cluster M22 (Barnard et al. 2012;

Strader et al. 2012a). If globular clusters do retain a significant BH population, encounters

between these BHs and other cluster members could produce exotic binary systems, gravi-

tational wave sources, and high energy transients. In this thesis, we model the formation,

evolution, and observational signatures of two outcomes of these interactions: dynamically

formed BH+NS binaries and the tidal disruption of evolved stars by IMBHs.

1HEAD Dissertations - 11

Table 7.1 Summary of Hot Halo PropertiesGalaxy LK(10

11L⊙) Hubble type Mgas(< 50 kpc) (109M⊙) Mgas(< Rvir) (109M⊙) Z(Z⊙)

NGC 1961 5.2 Sb/c 5.0+0.2−0.1 2.3+0.3

−0.9+5.1 0.5

UGC 12591 5.6 S0/a 4.4+0.7−0.9 1.5+1.6

−1.3+3.0 0.5

stacked luminous 1.4+0.8−0.4 - 4.1+0.6

−1.0(stat)± 2.9(sys) - 0.3stacked faint 0.3+0.4

−0.1 - 0.9+0.5−0.4(stat)± 0.6(sys)* - 0.3

stacked early-type 0.7+1.2−0.3 E and S0 1.9± 0.9(stat)± 1.3(sys) - 0.3

stacked late-type 0.4+1.0−0.2 Sabc & Irr 1.2+0.5

−0.6(stat)± 0.8(sys)* - 0.3NGC 720 (this work) 1.6 E5 6.5± 0.5 0.8± 0.1 0.6

Hot halo masses measured in this thesis. NGC 1961 is discussed in Chapter 3. UGC 12591 is discussed in Chapter 4. The stacked galaxies are discussed in Chapter 5. AndNGC 720 is discussed in Chapter 6. For each column, LK comes from 2MASS and the Hubble type from NED. Our measurements of the hot halo gas mass within 50 kpcand within the virial radius are then listed for each galaxy. In general, the mass within 50 kpc is fairly secure, and the mass within the virial radius depends on extrapolatingthe density profile out to much larger radii than it is observed. In general the errors quoted are statistical errors based on uncertainties in the surface brightness profile; othersources of error are discussed in the text and in Section 7.3 below (most of these other errors are folded into the systematic errors quoted for the stacked galaxies, however).Note that the asterisks on the stacked faint galaxies and the stacked late-type galaxies denote lower confidence that we are actually detecting and characterizing extendedemission around these galaxies. For NGC 1961 and UGC 12591, the second listed uncertainty on the mass within the virial radius accounts for the possibility of a flattenedprofile, as discussed in the text. For the stacked galaxies, we do not extrapolate the mass to the virial radius since we do not have a strong measurement of the slope of thedensity profile. The final column lists the assumed (or measured, in the case of NGC 720) metallicity used to convert the surface brightness profile into a gas mass.

213

Figure 5: Comparison of background-subtracted surface brightness profiles for NGC 720 from our non-parametric method (data points) and parametric method (shaded regions). The red shaded regions denote the 68% confidence regions for each of the six Chandra observations of NGC 720 (the outlier is obsid 492 which is significantly affected by flaring). Blue and green shaded regions correspond to the 68% confidence regions inferred from two previous analyses of this galaxy; the former (Humphrey et al. 2006) provides a reasonable fit to the data but the latter (Humphrey et al. 2011) significantly overestimates the surface brightness profile. The dotted black line shows the level of the background in the fiducial observation (obsid 11868), as determined with the non-parametric method. The solid black line is a smoothing spline fit to the black data points; note that the profile appears to steepen faster than allowed by a β-model at r≳25 kpc.

Table 1: Hot halo masses measured in this thesis. For each column, LK comes from 2MASS and the Hubble type from NED. Our measurements of the hot halo gas mass within 50 kpc and within the virial radius are listed for each galaxy. In general, the mass within 50 kpc is fairly secure, and the mass within the virial radius depends on extrapolating the density profile out to much larger radii than it is observed. The errors quoted are statistical errors based on uncertainties in the surface brightness profile; other sources of error are discussed in the papers and in the conclusion of the thesis. Note that the asterisks on the stacked faint galaxies and the stacked late-type galaxies denote lower confidence that we are actually detecting and characterizing extended emission around these galaxies. For NGC 1961 and UGC 12591, the second uncertainty on the mass within the virial radius accounts for the possibility of a flattened profile, which is discussed in the thesis as a possible way to hide more mass in the hot halo. For the stacked galaxies, we do not extrapolate the mass to the virial radius since we do not have a strong measurement of the slope of the density profile. The final column lists the assumed (or measured, in the case of NGC 720) metallicity used in the conversion from surface brightness into a gas mass.

References Anderson, M. E. and Bregman, J. N. 2010, ApJ, 714, 320 Anderson, M. E. and Bregman, J. N. 2011, ApJ, 737, 22 Anderson, M. E., Bregman, J. N., and Dai, X. 2013, ApJ, 762, 106 Anderson, M. E. and Bregman, J. N. 2014, ApJ in press Benson, A. J. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 557 Bregman, J. N. and Glassgold, A. E. 1982, ApJ, 263, 564 Dai, X., Anderson, M. E., and Bregman, J. N. 2012, ApJ, 755, 107 Fabbiano, G. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 87 Faber, S. M. and Gallagher, J. S. 1976, ApJ, 204, 365 Forman, W. et al. 1984, ApJ, 293, 102 Fukugita, M. and Peebles, P. J. E. 2006, ApJ, 639, 590 !!!

!Humphrey, P. J. et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 899 Humphrey, P. J. et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 53 Mathews, W. G. and Baker, J. C. 1971, ApJ, 170, 241 McGaugh, S. S. 2005, ApJ, 632, 859 McKee, C. F. and Ostriker, J. P. 1977, AJ, 218, 148 Mathews, W. G. and Brighenti, F. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 191 Silk, J. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 249 Pedersen, K. et al. 2006, NewA, 11, 465 Rasmussen, J. et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 79 White, S. D. M. and Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52 White, S. D. M. and Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341

1011

Figure 4: Background-subtracted surface brightness profile of extended sources in simulated Chandra observations in the ACIS-I (left and middle) and ACIS-S (right) configurations. The background was estimated using our non-parametric method and is indicated with the dotted black line; note the shuttle changes in its level with radius due to vignetting effects. The red curve shows the true surface brightness profile, i.e. the model used to generate the simulated image. A smoothing spline (black line) has been fit to the recovered profile data in order to minimize the effects of the binning and to show the magnitude of the negative points at large radius. Note that we can recover the correct profile even at surface brightness well below 10% of the background.



78

II. Dynamically formed Black Hole–Neutron Star Binaries

We explored the dynamical formation of BH+NS binaries through exchange interactions

between binary and single stars and assessed the prospect of detecting the gravitational waves

emitted by these binaries as they merge (Clausen et al. 2013). The merger rate depends

critically upon whether or not the BH is retained by the cluster after the merger. If the

BH is retained, it can acquire and merge with additional NS companions, thereby greatly

enhancing the merger rate (see Figure 1). General relativistic simulations indicate that the

magnitude of the kick imparted to a ∼ 7 M⊙ BH after it merges with a NS will exceed

a globular cluster’s escape velocity (e.g. Shibata et al. 2009). For mergers involving more

massive BHs, the recoil speed is suppressed and the BH can remain in the cluster after each

merger. In addition to increasing the merger rate per cluster, the coalescence of a NS with a

more massive BH can be detected out to much larger distances. Thus, the rate of detectable

mergers is extremely sensitive to the mass of the BH. However, the BH mass function is

not the only poorly understood characteristic of a globular cluster that strongly impacts

the BH+NS merger rate. Our models show that the rate is also sensitive to the nature of

a cluster’s binary population. A post-merger BH is more likely to gain a subsequent NS

companion if there is a large reservoir of background binaries for this newly single BH to

exchange into. Given the uncertainty in these inputs to our models, we predict a broad range

of aLIGO detection rates, 0 – 0.7 yr−1.

Only a fraction of the BH+NS binaries formed through exchange interactions in globular

clusters will merge within a Hubble time. However, if the NS had been spun up into a

millisecond pulsar (MSP) before exchanging into a binary with a BH, then these BH+MSP

binaries could be observed in the electromagnetic band. The orbital period distributions of

these dynamically formed BH+MSP binaries are most sensitive to the structural properties

of the globular cluster in which they are produced, and not the uncertain nature of the

underlying BH or binary populations. In dense, massive clusters, where the encounter rate

is large, the BH+MSP binaries are rapidly hardened to small orbital separations. The

median orbital period of the BH+MSP binaries in such clusters is around 5 days. On

the other hand, in lower density clusters, where binaries are not hardened as quickly, the

typical orbital period of a BH+MSP binary is over 100 days. The more gradual hardening

process in these clusters also results in longer lifetimes for the BH+MSP binaries, which

increases the probability that such a system can be observed. However, the probability that

a BH+MSP binary exists in a globular cluster also depends on the BH mass function, the

number of BHs present in the cluster, and properties of the cluster’s binary population.

BH+MSP binaries are produced most efficiently in clusters with a few dozen low-mass BHs

and high binary fractions. Our optimistic estimates predict that there could be as many as

10 BH+MSP binaries in the Milky Way globular cluster system. Clusters with structures

similar to 47 Tuc, NGC 1851, M62, and Terzan 5 are most likely to harbor a BH+MSP

binary. Unfortunately, the dynamical production of BH+NS binaries may be too inefficient

for either of these manifestations to be detected using the current generation of instruments.



79

III. The Tidal Disruption of Evolved Stars By Intermediate Mass Black Holes

We also investigated a mechanism that probes the IMBHs that might be lurking in the centers

of globular clusters. We modeled the emission lines produced in the photoionized debris of

white dwarfs (WDs) and horizontal branch (HB) stars that have been tidally disrupted by an

IMBH (Clausen & Eracleous 2011; Clausen et al. 2012). Emission line light curves for these

two scenarios are shown in Figure 2. We found that bright, broad C IV λ1549 and [O III]

λλ4959, 5007 emission lines can be used to identify WD tidal disruption events, provided

that there are no hydrogen lines observed along side these features in the spectrum, and

that the emission lines are seen in concert with an UV/X-ray flare near the center of a

globular cluster or a galaxy. The peak luminosity of the [O III] λ5007 emission line depends

weakly on the mass of the IMBH, but this mass dependance is degenerate with changes in

the peak luminosity produced by varying the IMBH’s spin. Furthermore, little is understood

about the structure of the accretion flow and the efficiency at which the potential energy

of the debris that falls into the BH is converted into ionizing radiation following a tidal

disruption event. Therefore, we concluded that it is difficult to determine the IMBH’s mass

to better than an order of magnitude given observations of the [O III] λ5007 line alone.

Our HB star tidal disruption models showed that the emission lines produced in these

events can remain bright for more than a century. Our models suggest that the photoionized

debris of a tidally disrupted HB star may emit detectable Hα and Hβ lines shortly after

disruption. At late times, however, the spectra should be devoid of hydrogen lines. In

addition to the [O III] doublet expected in WD tidal disruptions, the photoionized debris

of a tidally disrupted HB star will also emit a bright [N II] λλ6548, 6583 doublet. The

[N II] doublet is produced because the core of a HB star is enriched with nitrogen as a result

of CNO-cycle burning.

We compared our modeled emission line luminosities and profiles to two WD tidal

disruption candidates in extragalactic globular clusters (Maccarone et al. 2007; Zepf et al.

2008; Irwin et al. 2010). Both candidates exhibit a bright X-ray source and an [O III] λ5007

emission line luminosity that is comparable to that predicted by our models. However,

there are drawbacks to interpreting either source as a WD tidal disruption. Interestingly,

the optical spectrum of the WD tidal disruption candidate in a globular cluster associated

with NGC 1399 exhibits both of the bright emission features predicted by our HB star tidal

disruption models. Beyond identifying this source as a HB star tidal disruption candidate,

we can use the observed [N II]/[O III] emission line luminosity ratio, and the limits on the

[N II]/Hα and [O III]/Hβ ratios, to constrain the mass of the BH in this cluster. Reproducing

the observed [N II]/[O III] ∼ 1 requires that MBH < 200 M⊙.



80

REFERENCES

Aarseth S. J. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 841

Bahcall J. N. & Ostriker J. P. 1975, Nature, 256, 23

Barnard R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 40

Brassington N. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 162

Clark G. W., et al. 1975, ApJ, 199, L93

Clausen D. & Eracleous M. 2011, ApJ, 726, 34

Clausen D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3618

Clausen D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1268

Gebhardt K., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 1093

Grindlay J. E., et al. 1984, ApJ, 282, L13

Gurkan M. A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 604, 632

Irwin J. A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, L1

King A. 2011, ApJ, 732, L28

Maccarone T. J., et al. 2007, Nature, 445, 183

Maccarone T. J. & Warner B. 2011, MNRAS, 410, L32

Miller M. C. & Hamilton D. P. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 232

Noyola E., et al. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1008

Portegies Zwart S. F., et al. 2004, Nature, 428, 724

Porter R. L. 2010, MNRAS, 407, L59

Ramirez-Ruiz E. & Rosswog S. 2009, ApJ, 697, L77

Ripamonti E. & Mapelli M. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1144

Shibata M., et al. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 044030

Sigurdsson S. & Hernquist L. 1993, Nature, 364, 423

Strader J., et al. 2012a, Nature, 490, 71

Strader J., et al. 2012b, ApJ, 750, L27

Zepf S. E., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, L139



81

7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0log tmrg [yr]

0

200

400

600

800

1000

N

7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0log tmrg [yr]

0

200

400

600

800

1000

N

7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0log tmrg [yr]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

N

7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0log tmrg [yr]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

N

Fig. 1.— Distribution of the merger times for BH+NS binaries in a globular cluster with a central

density of 106 pc−3 that contains one BH of mass MBH = 7 M⊙ (left right panel) and the case

in which the same cluster harbors one 35 M⊙ BH (right panel). The more massive BH can be

retained by the cluster after merging with a NS, gain additional NS companions, and undergo

several BH+NS mergers. These subsequent mergers boost the BH+NS merger rate and push the

peak of the merger time distribution to the present day, increasing the likelihood that such a merger

could be detected.

10 100 1000time [days]

1033

1034

1035

1036

1037

1038

Lli

ne

[erg

s-1

]

C III 977

C IV 1549

[O III] 5007

[C I] 8727

[O III] 4363

L t-5/3

1 10 100time [years]

C IV 1549

[O III] 5007

H

[N II] 6583

He I 5876

Fig. 2.— Light curves of the strongest emission lines produced in the photoionized debris of

a tidally disrupted WD (left panel) and HB star (right panel). In each case we assumed that

the star was disrupted by a 1000 M⊙ IMBH. The dotted portions of the curves denote the

period during which the debris fallback rate is super-Eddington. The dashed line illustrates

the t−5/3 dependance of the accretion flare luminosity. The normalization of the dashed line

is arbitrary and is shown for comparison with the slopes of the emission line light curves.



82

The Use of the Bulk Properties of Gamma-Ray Burst Prompt Emission

Spectra for the Study of Cosmology

Adam Goldstein

Introduction

Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) are the most intense and powerful observed explosions in the universe. Sincetheir discovery in 1973 (Klebesedal, Strong, & Olson, 1973), a large e↵ort has coalesced to discern thephysical nature of these events and their progenitors. After years of study and debate, there is much aboutGRBs that is unknown. The observations of thousands of GRBs, however, has led to the formulation ofseveral theories of their production and how GRBs could potentially be used to study the universe.

A primary discovery of the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) (Fishman et al., 1989)was to show that GRBs are distributed on the sky in an angularly isotropic manner, first suggesting thatthese events are not nearby Galactic events (Meegan et al., 1992). More recently, dedicated missionssuch as BeppoSax and Swift have been able to quickly localize GRBs on the sky so that follow-up opticalobservations could measure a redshift. Indeed, the redshifts of >250 GRBs are now known (Greiner, 2012).The large redshift range of long GRBs is particularly interesting and potentially useful for cosmologicalstudies since there exists a significant population overlap with Type Ia Supernova (SNe Ia) at z < 1.5, andyet GRBs extend out to redshifts where few objects have been observed. The primary interest in usingGRBs is to construct a distance-redshift relationship known as a Hubble diagram, where the distance istypically expressed as the relationship between the observed flux of the GRB and its intrinsic luminosity.

Several correlations between the observed temporal or spectral properties and the energetics of GRBshave been discovered (e.g., Norris et al., 2000; Reichart et al., 2001; Amati et al., 2002; Ghirlanda et al.,2004; Yonetoku et al., 2004; Liang & Zhang, 2005; Firmani et al., 2006; Schaefer, 2007). GRB luminosityrelations are generally described as a power law,

Lbol

L0= ⇠[O(1 + z)λ]⌘, (1)

where Lbol

is the bolometric luminosity (or the bolometric energy); O is an observed spectral, temporal, orlightcurve property; (1 + z) is the redshift term that is used to boost the observed quantity into the rest-frame of the GRB; λ and ⌘ are the power law indices; and ⇠ is the power law amplitude. The luminosityis typically normalized to some value L0 to increase stability when fitting the power law to an observedcorrelation. Examples of the spectral correlations described by Ghirlanda et al. (2004) and Yonetoku et al.(2004) are shown in Figure 1. The correlations can be used as luminosity relations, where the intrinsicluminosity of the GRB could be determined by an observed temporal or spectral quantity. One problem,however, is that only a small fraction of all known GRBs (⇠5%) have measured redshifts, and withoutknowledge of this quantity, the luminosity relations are not useful for the study of cosmology. Additionally,the amount of kinetic beaming or collimation in GRBs is not known and has been inferred in only a veryfew cases, therefore the true luminosity when accounted for collimation is only estimated in rare cases.These problems pose serious obstacles for the use of GRBs as cosmological probes.

GRB spectroscopy

For this study, only spectral luminosity relations were considered, therefore a large catalog of GRB spec-tral properties were required. The spectral catalog of 2154 BATSE GRBs (Goldstein et al., 2013) andthe spectral catalog of 487 Fermi/GBM GRBs (Goldstein et al., 2012) were compiled with spectroscopyinvestigated over the duration of each GRB, as well as during the peak flux of each GRB. Each spectrum

1



83

1049

1050

1051

1052

Eγ (erg)

100

1000

Ep(1

+z)

(ke

V)

Ep,z = 415.8 ± 22.1 (Eγ/ 1051

erg)0.54± 0.02

keV

1051

1052

1053

1054

Liso (erg s− 1

)

100

1000

Ep (

1+

z)

Ep,z = 222.4 ± 12.3 (Liso/L0)0.73± 0.04

keV

Figure 1: Examples of GRB spectral luminosity relations. [Left] There appears to be a tight correlation betweenthe peak of the time-integrated ⌫F

⌫

spectrum (Ep

) in the rest-frame and the total amount of energy released in theexplosion when corrected for collimation (E

γ

). [Right] A correlation between the peak of the ⌫F⌫

spectrum at thepeak flux of the GRB in the rest-frame (E

p

) and the luminosity of a GRB assuming a spherical, isotropic explosion(L

iso

). Note the significant scatter of this correlation.

was fit with four or five di↵erent spectral functions to ascertain the di↵erent properties of the spectrum.Since most GRB spectral luminosity relations rely on an estimate of the peak of the ⌫F

⌫

spectrum (Epeak),only GRBs from these catalogs that were well fit by models admitting this feature were considered in thiswork.

Estimating GRB Redshifts and the Hubble Diagram

The numerous luminosity relations for GRBs have indicated that the redshift and distance could be es-timated for GRBs with no direct redshift observations (Yonetoku et al., 2004). One problem with thismethod is the fact that a cosmological model must first be assumed and the existence of significant scat-ter and dispersion within each luminosity relation. This problem can be resolved if a sample of GRBswith known redshift and distance can be used to calibrate the luminosity relations. Liang et al. (2008)pointed out that since the low redshift tail of GRBs extends to z < 1.0, Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia)could be used to calibrate the low-redshift GRBs in a similar manner to the method used to calibrate SNeIa using Cepheid variables. Riess et al. (2004, 2007) published over 200 SNe Ia with known redshift anddistance in the 0.001 < z < 1.5 region, thereby allowing the redshifts of GRBs within that range to beinterpolated using the SN Ia distance data to determine the distances of the GRBs for the correspondingredshifts. Results of interpolating GRBs over the SN Ia Hubble diagram are shown in the left panel ofFigure 2. Using this sample of low-redshift GRBs and the assumption that the luminosity relations do notappreciably evolve at high redshift, the luminosity relations can be calibrated without any assumption ofa cosmological model.

Another problem, however, is the fact that the fully propagated uncertainty on the estimated redshiftor distance from the luminosity relations is on the order of the value of the redshift itself, indicating thatthe redshifts and distances are easily constrained. This can be caused by scatter of the correlations aswell as degeneracy related to expressing the correlations as a function of redshift (Nakar & Piran, 2005;Band & Preece, 2005). Therefore, a method has been developed to use three calibrated luminosity relationsto simultaneously solve for the redshift, distance, and collimation for each GRB. The luminosity relationsused showed correlation between the peak in the ⌫F

⌫

power density spectrum from di↵erent fiducial timesof the GRB and the luminosity of the GRB at those times. The extended Hubble diagram could then beconstructed using several hundred GRBs, an example of which is shown in the right panel of Figure 2.The primary complication with the proposed method is that the propagated uncertainty is on the order ofthe estimates for the redshift and distance. The large uncertainties can be partially mitigated by realizingthat the several hundred GRBs can be placed in Gaussian bins so that the trend in the Hubble diagram

2



84

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0Redshift, z

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

µ

Gold

Silver

GRBs

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00Redshift, z

35

40

45

50

µ

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Combined Uncertainty

Figure 2: [Left] The SN Ia Hubble Diagram (gold and gray) and the low-z GRBs (red) interpolated using the SNe.[Right] The SN+GRB Hubble diagram using a sample of BATSE GRBs. The color denotes the combined relativeuncertainty in the redshift and the distance modulus. The black and purple data show the calibrated SNe and low-zGRBs, and the lighter colored data use the estimated redshift and distance modulus.

is constrained. Binning of the GRB Hubble diagram, however, necessarily decreases its resolution and thesignificance of the results.

Results

The results from the SN+GRB Hubble diagram prefer an interesting cosmological model. The SN+GRBHubble diagram spans approximately three orders of magnitude in redshift and the left panel in Figure3 shows a significant deviation from the concordant cosmological model of a cosmological constant andcold dark matter (⇤CDM) at z > 3. This flattening of the Hubble diagram at large redshift indicatesthat dark energy is not simply represented by a constant equation of state, but rather the equation ofstate of dark energy changes as a function of the redshift. For a cosmological fluid, the equation of state ischaracterized by the index w, and w⇤ = −1 for dark energy represents the cosmological constant. However,Riess et al. (2004, 2007) studying only SNe Ia found evidence for a dynamic equation of state for darkenergy, w⇤ = w0 +w0z. While these results were evidence of possible dark energy evolution, the confidenceregion of the results still included the cosmological constant at ⇠ 1σ.

Two di↵erent methods were employed in fitting a particular cosmological model to the data. First,a frequentist statistical method was applied to calculate the goodness-of-fit of the model given di↵erentsets of parameters compared to the data. A grid in parameter space was constructed, and a model wascalculated by using the parameter values at each grid point in parameter space. The goodness-of-fit wasthen calculated between the model given the parameters at each grid point and the data. This allows alarge parameter space search to be performed to find the most likely set of model parameters that fitsthe observed data. The second method used was a Bayesian method involving a Markov Chain MonteCarlo (MCMC) process to estimate the probability distributions of the parameters in the model. TheMCMC draws from auxiliary distributions in parameter space, in this case a uniform distribution overthe physically allowed parameter space. Each step in the MCMC draws a set of parameters from theauxiliary distribution and calculates the likelihood of the model being true given the data observed. Alikelihood ratio test is performed to determine if the step is accepted into the final parameter distributionor discarded. The results from both methods were used to confirm the best model fit to the data.

The parameters of interest in the SN+GRB Hubble diagram are those describing the dark energy equa-tion of state. For this reason, the matter density and dark energy density parameters were fixed to theirwidely-observed values of 0.27 and 0.73, respectively, which indicates a geometrically flat universe. Theparameters for a dark energy equation of state were treated as free parameters, and fit by the aforemen-tioned processes. The model fits to the SN+GRB Hubble diagram prefer a dynamic equation of state, andthe right panel of Figure 3 shows that extending the Hubble diagram to higher redshift using GRBs can

3



85

10Redshift, z

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

µ

CDMBest−fit SNe Ia onlyBest−fit SNe Ia + GRBs

−3.0 −2.5 −2.0 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.0w0

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

4

wFigure 3: [Left] The binned GRB Hubble diagram, zoomed in to higher redshift. Three models are over-plotted,with the ⇤CDM model deviating significantly at z ⇠3, while the model found by Riess using only SNe Ia and thebest-fit model for SNe Ia and GRB data are closely matching. [Right] Contour plot showing the 1, 2, and 3 σconfidence regions resulting from the GRB Hubble diagram for the Riess model of a dynamical equation of state fordark energy. The gray oval indicates the 1 σ confidence region from only SNe Ia (Riess et al., 2007) and the bluepoint marks the value for the cosmological constant.

help constrain and reduce the size of the confidence region for the dark energy equation of state. The bestfit to the Hubble diagram is w⇤ = (−1.8 ± 0.2) + (2.0 ± 0.5)z. Results from this e↵ort show that the bestfit values found by using SN+GRB Hubble diagram are close to the best fit values found by using the SNeIa alone, and rejects the cosmological constant form of the dark energy equation of state at greater than3σ.

References

Amati, L., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81Band, D. L. & Preece, R. D. 2005, ApJ, 627, 319Firmani, C. et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, L28Fishman, G.J., et al. 1989, GRO Science Workshop

Proceedings, NASA: Greenbelt, MD, 1, 2Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Lazzati, D. 2004,

ApJ, 616, 331Goldstein, A., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 19Goldstein, A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 21Greiner, J. October 2012,http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~jcg/grbgen.html

Klebesedal, R.W., Strong, I.B., & Olson, R.A. 1973,ApJ, 182, L85

Liang, E.W., & Zhang, B. 2005, ApJ, 633, 611Liang, N. et al. 2008, ApJ, 685, 354Meegan, C.A., et al. 1992, Nature, 355, 14Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2005, MNRAS, 360, L73Norris, J.P., Marani, G.F., & Bonnell, J.T. 2000,

ApJ, 534, 248Riechart, D.E., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, 57Riess, A.G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, 665Riess, A.G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 659, 98Schaefer, B.E. 2007, ApJ, 660, 16Yonetoku, D., et al. 2004, ApJ, 609, 935

4



86

! King!Thesis!Statement!

! ! Ashley!L.!King!1!

During my graduate career I have developed the necessary skills to improve our understanding of outflows from accreting black holes across the mass scale. This quickly-emerging field is uncovering galactic and cluster feedback as well as the evolution and growth of black holes. Observations across the electromagnetic spectrum, especially X-ray and radio, are used to accurately quantify black hole winds and jets. I have mastered both high-resolution, X-ray gratings spectroscopy and interferometric radio reduction to study winds and jets, respectively. In addition, I have learned to make custom photoionization grids to model X-ray winds. I have authored 12 accepted proposals, including radio, sub-millimeter, infrared, optical, and X-ray (10 as principal investigator, totaling over 100 hours). I have also joined both the NuSTAR and Astro-H science teams, which are the newest state-of-the-art X-ray telescopes, all in order to provide myself with the best tools and data to further our understanding of outflows from black holes. My thesis work will show that I have started to make progress on the outflows from black holes by first examining the connection between the material accreting onto black holes and their jets (King et al. 2011, King et al. 2013c, King et al. 2013, in prep, King et al. 2013f, in prep). This was done via simultaneous X-ray and radio observing campaigns. Next, I examined X-ray winds from black holes and showed that they likely arise from the inner accretion disk with velocities that begin to approach jets (King et al. 2012a, King et al. 2012b, King et al. 2013d, submitted). Finally, I put these individual case studies into a broader context by examining the outflows across the black hole mass scale (King et al. 2013a, King et al. 2013b). In this respect, I have discovered evidence for a common driving mechanism between winds and jets as well as a tentative jet power dependence on spin. A Distinctive Disk-Jet Coupling in Supermassive Black Holes: At the start of my graduate career, I began examining the connection between the material that accretes onto black holes and the material that escapes from the inner accretion disk in the form of collimated outflows known as jets. In individual stellar-mass black holes, the connection between accretion rate and jet production has been observed when utilizing simultaneous X-ray (accretion rate) and radio (jets) observations (e.g., Gallo et al. 2003). However, the same trend has only been detected in an ensemble of supermassive black holes, and not in individual sources. With nearly simultaneous Chandra X-ray and Karl Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) radio observations, I was able to measure the correlation between X-ray and radio emission on viscous timescales of the inner accretion disk of the supermassive black hole NGC 4051, where the jet is thought to be launched (Blandford & Znajek 19XX). I discovered a distinctive coupling (King et al. 2011) that does not agree with the “Fundamental Plane of Black Hole Activity” (Merloni et al. 2003, Falcke et al. 2004, Gultekin et al. 2009, See Figure 1). I recently extended this simultaneous monitoring to the supermassive black hole with the lowest reverberation measured mass, NGC 4395, with Swift and the VLA. Again, I sampled the viscous timescales of the inner accretion disk, and found that NGC 4395 did not follow the canonical “Fundamental Plane” (See Figure 1, King et al. 2013c). NCG 4395’s behavior indicated that NGC 4051 was not unique in its behavior across the plane. The X-ray-radio coupling in NGC 4051 and NGC 4395 suggest that either 1) as an ensemble, supermassive black holes follow this plane, but individually they may move across the plane, or 2) that the jet is correlated with much longer variability timescales and not associated with the viscous timescales of the inner disk. Interestingly, individual stellar-mass black hole studies of accretion driven jets are on longer viscous timescales of the outer accretion disk and may further support the later explanation. The Disk-Jet Connection in Flaring Black Holes- Resolving Jet Structure: Accretion is a dynamic process involving sudden outbursts. These flares are observed across the electromagnetic spectrum, indicating rapid accretion and jet production. I obtained observations of two black holes during recent outbursts, a supermassive black hole, M81*, and a stellar-mass black, MAXI J1910-057. My observing campaign of M81* had over 42 hours of discretionary time on the VLA, the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), the Submillimeter Array, Swift, and Suzaku. My radio campaign of MAXI J1910-057 had more



87



than 10 hrs with both the VLA and the VLBA, in conjunction with my collaborators time on XMM-Newton, Swift and SMARTS. I reached out to Amy Mioduszewski, Michael Rupen and Vivek Dhawan at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, visiting them in Socorro, New Mexico to learn both VLBA data reduction and AIPS software. These data sets allow us to study isolated events in which the broadband emission dramatically increases on short timescales (less than a month), and in the case of M81*, resolve jet structure at <15,000 gravitational radii (See Figure 2, King et al. 2013e, in prep). We also find strong evidence for the X-ray correlating with the radio in the M81* flare. Winds From the Inner Accretion Disk of a Supermassive Black Hole: Jets are not the only outflows from black holes that have a profound impact on the accretion flow and their environment. Wide-angle winds observed in X-rays can remove accreting material and deposit hot gas and energy into their surroundings. However, their exact physical properties remain elusive as fundamental quantities such as density, filling factor and duty cycle are still unknown. To address this, I utilized Fe XXII absorption features to measure wind density for the first time in a supermassive black hole (King et al. 2012b). The typical density diagnostics in winds are emission lines, which are not necessarily associated with the outflows detected in absorption (King et al. 2012b). After detecting the density sensitive absorption diagnostics, I created physically-motivated photoionization models with both XSTAR and CLOUDY. Fitting these models to the Chandra grating spectrum of NGC 4051 showed a range of ionizations, and that the wind components likely arose within 13000 gravitational radii and potentially as close as 70 gravitational radii for the most ionized gas (See Figure 3). The close launching radii and high ionization of the observed outflow suggests the wind was magnetically-driven. Ultra-Fast Outflows from a Stellar-Mass Black Hole: Evidence for magnetically-driven winds are observed in stellar-mass black holes as well. I discovered such a wind in the stellar-mass black hole IGR J17091-3624 with Chandra high energy grating. I showed that the Fe XXV and Fe XXVI absorption features were highly blue shifted with a velocity of v/c=0.04. This is the fastest disk-wind from a stellar-mass black hole (King et al. 2012a). Ultra-fast outflows have been tentatively noted in supermassive black holes (e.g., Chartas et al. 2002, Tombesi et al. 2010). If present, these outflows would provide enough hot gas to quench star formation and potentially explain galactic-black hole relations such as the M-σ relation (Fabian 2012). The wind in J17091-3624 is the most statistically significant detection of such a high velocity X-ray wind from any black hole, giving secure evidence of their existence. I have procured further monitoring with both Chandra and the VLA. In addition, I have recently showed, with NuSTAR, that another stellar-mass black hole, 4U 1630-472, has a similar highly ionized outflow with tentative outflowing velocity of nearly 0.01c (King et al. 2013d, Accepted). Is there a Common Launching Mechanism Between Black Hole Winds and Jets? After examining individual sources, I realized the necessity to place them into broader context. I first focused on the relationship between X-ray winds and jets, determining a common regulation between the two (King et al. 2013a). A common regulation would imply a shared launching mechanism that is likely magnetic (Blandford & Payne 1982, Blandford & Znajek 1977). Using jet power estimates from excavated radio cavities and wind power estimates from blue-shifted, X-ray absorption features, I discovered that outflow power scales with the total accretion disk luminosity for both winds and jets (See Figure 4). This was the first time that winds have been shown to scale with accretion luminosity, i.e. accretion rate, across the mass scale. Further this was the first time that winds and jets have been shown to have the same scaling relation, with implications for common regulation between both types of outflows (King et al. 2013a). As this trend is still tentative, additional black holes, especially low-mass supermassive black holes, i.e. 105 Msolar, are required to confirm this relation. In addition, if there are separate launching mechanisms between winds and jets, my work has set the framework for future exploration of their relative importance. Finally, my work has shown that ultra-fast outflows show evidence that their power exceeds



88



that of typical winds and approaches jet power (See Figure 4). In fact, the ultra-fast winds may be the transition between winds and jets, and further follow-up is required. Evidence for Jet Dependence on Spin: After observing the dependence of outflow power on accretion luminosity, i.e. accretion rate, I extended this technique to examine other outflow power dependencies. In particular, I examined the effects of spin on jet power (King et al. 2013b). What was unique about my approach to this long-argued problem was my inclusion of jet power scaled by accretion rate and inclusion of sources across the mass scale. I found that there was tentative evidence that jet power does scale with spin, if accretion rate is taken into account. Because the trend is tentative, it begs for more measurements of spin in these accreting sources, which will help verify this trend. During my thesis career I have begun to delve into the nature of accretion-drive outflows from black holes, utilizing both X-ray and radio techniques. I will apply these skills to even broader samples in order to further our understanding of black hole feedback, co-evolution, and the underlying physics at work.

References: Blandford, R. D. & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883! • Blandrod, R. D. & Znajek, R. L., 1977, MNRAS, 179, 443 • Chartas, G. et al., 2002, ApJ, 579, 169!• Fabian, A. C., 2012, A&A, 50, 45 • Falcke, H., et al., 2004, A\&A, 414, 895 • Gallo, E., et al., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 60 • Gultekin, K. et al., 2009, ApJ, 706, 404 • King, A. L., 2011, ApJ, 728, 19 • King, A. L., et al. 2012a, ApJ, 746, 2 • King, A. L., et al. 2012b, ApJL 746, 20 • King, A. L., et al. 2013a, ApJ, 762, 103 • King, A. L., et al. 2013b, ApJ, 771, 84 • King, A. L., et al. 2013c, ApJL, 774, 25 • King, A. L., et al. 2013d ApJL, accepted • King, A. L., et al. 2013e, ApJ, in prep • King, A. L., et al. 2013f, ApJ, in prep, • Merloni, A. et al., 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057 • Tombesi, F. et al., 2010, ApJ, 719, 700

Figure 1: This plot shows how NGC 4051 and NGC 4395 do not follow the conical 'Fundamental Plane of Black Hole Activity' (Gultekin et al. 2009). The plane is made up of an ensemble of supermassive black holes, while my work tracks two individual supermassive black holes with simultaneous X-ray (accretion) and radio (jet power) observations taken on viscous timescales of the inner disk (King et al. 2013c).

Figure 3: This figure shows the outflow in absorption of NGC 4051 in the Chandra high energy grating spectra. The red line is the self-consistent photoionization model. This is the first time density sensitive Fe XXII lines have been used in a supermassive black hole X-ray wind (King et al. 2012b).

Figure 2: This plot shows the jet resolved in M81* with the VLBA at 22 GHz. As M81* is a low-luminosity active galactic nuclei, jet activity denoted by the radio flare is unexpected and extremely interesting. In addition, we find evidence for X-ray correlation with the radio flare (King et al. 2013e, in prep).

Figure 4: This plot shows, for the first time, that wind power (yaxis) scales with accretion rate (xaxis) (black points), and that winds (black) and jets (red) may both scale with accretion luminosity in the same way, suggesting that the two distinct outflows have the same regulating mechanism (King et al. 2013a).

11 11.5 12 12.5 13

10−2

05×

10−2

12×

10−2

05×

10−2

0

Phot

ons

cm−2

s−1

Hz−

1

Wavelength (Å)

CONT: M81 IPOL 23692.000 MHZ M81 AP.ICL001.7PLot file version 1 created 19-FEB-2014 16:22:57

Cont peak flux = 1.5277E-01 JY/BEAMLevs = 1.800E-04 * (-3, 3, 6, 9, 20, 50, 100, 150)

Declin

ation

(J200

0)

Right ascension (J2000)09 55 33.1738 33.1736 33.1734 33.1732 33.1730 33.1728 33.1726 33.1724

69 03 55.064

55.063

55.062

55.061

55.060

55.059

55.058

55.057



89

Harsha S. Kumar

In my PhD research, I focussed on the observational study of highly magnetized neutron stars usingthe Chandra, XMM-Newton, and Swift satellites. Recent years have revealed many distinct breeds ofneutron stars such as the rotation-powered pulsars (or Crab-like pulsars), high-magnetic field pulsars(HBPs), central compact objects (CCOs), magnetars etc. displaying a wide range of magnetic fieldstrengths, ages, evolutionary stages, and progenitor masses. As a result, the major challenge amongthe neutron star community is in establishing a common unification scenario to explain this remarkablediversity. My thesis, in particular, focussed on the study of HBPs and magnetars, and their connectionto Crab-like pulsars. Some of the HBPs and magnetars showed association with supernova remnants(SNRs), and hence, the evolutionary links between them were further addressed by studying theirassociated SNRs. In the following, I give a brief background on the HBPs and magnetars, followed bymy thesis results.

Supernova explosions are among the most energetic events in the universe, releasing a total kineticenergy of the order of ∼1051 ergs. After the explosion, the collapsed cores of massive stars may leavebehind a neutron star/pulsar or a black hole. Rotation-powered pulsars are the most common oneswith magnetic fields ∼1012 G and are powered by the loss of their rotational kinetic energy. Magnetarsoccupy the extreme end of the neutron stars population with magnetic fields ∼1014−15 G (greater thanthe quantum critical field strength of BQED ∼ m2

ec3/�e ≃ 4.4 × 1013 G) and with X-ray luminosities

exceeding their spin-down energy (LX ≫ E). They are believed to be powered by the decay of theirultra-strong magnetic fields (Duncan & Thompson 1992). Unlike Crab-like pulsars, magnetars showflux variabilities and sporadic burst events in the X-ray and soft γ-ray wavelengths. Two types ofsources are considered to be magnetar candidates: Soft Gamma Repeaters (SGRs) and AnomalousX-ray Pulsars (AXPs). SGRs were originally discovered through the detection of short bursts in theX-ray and soft γ-radiation (<100 keV) while the anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs) were discovered asisolated neutron stars with persistent X-ray luminosities �1034 ergs s−1, but were later found to beshowing SGR-like bursts (Mereghetti 2008). The high-magnetic field pulsars (HBPs) are a small classof highly magnetized neutron stars, with magnetic fields (�1013 G; above QED) and spin propertiesintermediate between that of the Crab-like pulsars and magnetars. Their X-ray luminosities LX wereinferred to be smaller than their spin-down energies E, although their LX/E < 1 ratio was higherthan those typically observed for the rotation-powered pulsars. This suggested that HBPs could bepowered by the loss of their rotation energy despite having ultra-high magnetic fields. At the timeof their discovery, it was not clear whether HBPs were transient objects between the classical pulsarsand magnetars, or stood as a separate class of population.

In order to achieve my thesis objectives, I performed a comprehensive study of 2 HBPs (J1846–0258, J1119–6127), 2 magnetars (SGR 0501+4516, AXP 1E 1841–045), and 2 SNRs (G292.2–0.5,Kes 73). The major results are discussed below.

Study of HBPs: J1846–0258, J1119–6127

PSR J1846–0258, at the center of SNR Kes 75, has a spin-down energy E ∼ 8.0×1036 ergs s−1

and magnetic field of B ∼ 5×1013 G and powers a bright pulsar wind nebula (Figure 1 (left);Gotthelf et al. 2000). It is the only HBP discovered in X-rays, with no known radio counterpartto date. It was classified as a Crab-like pulsar despite having a relatively high LX/E ratio(but still <1) in comparison to other rotation-powered pulsars, which suggested that it maybe magnetically powered or a transition object. Using archival data obtained with Chandra,we discovered a softening of the pulsar’s X-ray spectrum and a brightening of the pulsar bya factor of ∼6 from 2000 to 2006 (Figure 1 (right)), all pointing to this HBP revealing itselfas a magnetar (Kumar & Safi-Harb 2008). The magnetar-like behavior was also confirmed bythe detection of magnetar-like bursts from PSR J1846–0258 using RXTE (Gavriil et al. 2008).These results suggested that HBPs could be powered by both rotational and magnetic energy,providing for the first time a connection between them and magnetars (Camilo 2008). Thediscovery of magnetar-like behavior from an HBP was a major breakthrough in the neutron starresearch field, as it provided the first evidence for a connection between HBPs and magnetars

1



90

Harsha S. Kumar

Figure 1: Left: Chandra ACIS-S3 tri-color image of the PSR J1846−0258 and its hard PWN at thecenter of the SNR Kes 75. Right: Chandra spectrum of PSR J1846–0258 taken in 2000 (red crosses)

and in 2006 (blue, cyan, black, and green crosses).

(previously thought to fall under apparently distinct classes). This is a key result in the generaleffort of unifying the different emission properties displayed by the neutron star zoo.

PSR J1119–6127 residing within the SNR G292.2–0.5 (Figure 2 (left)) also shows a high magneticfield B ∼ 4.1×1013 G and spin-down luminosity E ∼ 2.3×1036 ergs s−1 (Camilo et al. 2000),similar to PSR J1846–0258. The X-ray counterpart to this radio pulsar was first resolved withChandra, which also revealed for the first time the evidence of a compact PWN (Gonzalez &Safi-Harb 2003). Using new Chandra observations, a detailed study of its compact PWN wasperformed, which led to the discovery of a long southern jet (�20′′) and the evidence for a smalltorus. This pulsar, however, has not shown any magnetar-like behavior so far and its LX/E andpulsar wind nebula properties are more consistent with rotation-powered pulsars (Safi-Harb &Kumar 2008).

Study of magnetars: SGR 0501+4516, AXP 1E 1841–045

With the detection of magnetar-like bursts from one of the HBPs, we studied the burstingand spectral properties of two magnetars. The study of magnetar bursts provides a uniqueopportunity to probe their high-energy properties as well as the exotic physics underlying thedifferent emission regions of a magnetar. SGR 0501+4516 was discovered by the Swift γ-rayobservatory on 2008 August 22. A detailed spectral and statistical analysis of these bursts wasperformed, and the results were found consistent with those typically emitted by other SGRsand with the magnetar model predictions (Kumar et al. 2010).

The AXP 1E 1841–045, associated with the SNR Kes 73, had been manifesting itself as aquiescent magnetar since its discovery in 1985. On 2010 May 6, this AXP displayed its firstmagnetar-like burst caught by the Swift γ-ray observatory. We studied this event in detailto determine the AXP’s burst and persistent emission properties. The burst observed from1E 1841–045 was short (∼32 ms) and similar to those observed for typical SGR bursts. Bycomparing with the AXP’s pre-burst persistent emission obtained with XMM-Newton duringOctober 2002, we discovered that its X-ray spectrum softened and the pulsar brightened by afactor of ∼2 due to the burst activity. The burst activity and the persistent emission propertiesof AXP 1E 1841–045 were found consistent with those observed for other magnetars and withthe magnetar model predictions (Kumar & Safi-Harb 2010).

2



91

Harsha S. Kumar

Study of SNRs: G292.2–0.5, Kes 73

The origin of ultra-high magnetic fields in HBPs and magnetars has always been a debatable topicand despite decades of research, we still do not have any conclusive evidence. Two competingscenarios for their origin are the dynamo mechanism (convection currents inside a neutron starcoupled with its fast rotation sets up a dynamo effect and an incredibly high magnetic field;Duncan & Thompson 1992) and fossil field amplification of the progenitor star (∼20-45 solarmasses) during its collapse in order to conserve magnetic flux (fossil field theory; Ferrario &Wickramasinghe 2006). Therefore, the study of progenitor star properties by investigating theSNRs associated with HBPs/magnetars is an important tool in testing the different modelshypothesizing the origin of high magnetic fields. In addition, one can estimate the intrinsicproperties of the SNR (explosion energy, age, ambient density, shock velocity) from the spectralparameters derived by fitting the X-ray spectrum of the blast wave, thus shedding light ontheir environment and evolutionary stage. We can also infer the mass of its progenitor star bycomparing the fitted metal abundances obtained from the X-ray spectra to nucleosynthesis modelyields. My thesis involved the detailed imaging and spatially resolved spectroscopic studies oftwo SNRs, G292.2–0.5 and Kes 73, combining all the available Chandra and XMM-Newton

observations. These two SNRs were considered since the former is associated with the HBPJ1119–6127 while the latter is associated with the magnetar 1E 1841–045 (both compact objectsstudied in my thesis), so as to explore any differences in their environments.

30.0 25.0 18:41:20.0 15.0 10.0

53:00.0

54:00.0

55:00.0

-4:56:00.0

57:00.0

58:00.0

59:00.0

Right Ascension (J2000)

Dec

linat

ion

(J20

00)

1’

Figure 2: Left: XMM-Newton MOS tri-color image of the SNR G292.2–0.5 and its associated HBPJ1119–6127 overlaid with radio contours. Right: Chandra tri-color image of SNR Kes 73 hosting the

AXP 1E 1841–045.

The high-resolution X-ray images of G292.2–0.5 revealed a partially limb-brightened morphologyin the west, with diffuse emission concentrated towards the interior of the remnant unlike thecomplete shell-like morphology observed at radio wavelengths (Figure 2 (left)). The Chandra

and XMM-Newton studies showed that the SNR plasma was best described by a two-componentthermal + non-thermal model. The interior regions of the remnant indicated the presence ofslightly enhanced abundances from Ne, Mg, Si, and hinted for the first time at the presenceof reverse-shocked ejecta. Our results showed the presence of hard non-thermal X-ray emissionfrom regions close to the pulsar, which was partly attributed to leakage of relativistic particlesfrom the pulsar or its associated nebula. We estimate an SNR age of 4200–7100 yr, an explosionenergy of ∼0.6×1051, a shock velocity of 1100 km s−1, and a high progenitor mass of ∼30 M⊙

3



92

Harsha S. Kumar

suggesting a type SN Ib/c Wolf-Rayet progenitor star (Kumar et al. 2012).

SNR Kes 73 has a circular morphology showing small-scale and bright clumpy structures acrossthe remnant with enhanced emission along the western rim (Figure 2 (right)). The global X-ray spectrum is well described by a two-component, non-equilibrium ionization, thermal model.We detected enhanced metal abundances, particularly from Si and S, suggesting that Kes 73 isejecta-dominated. We infer an SNR age ranging between 750 yr and 2100 yr, an explosion energyof ∼0.3×1051 ergs, a shock velocity of 1200 km s−1, and a high progenitor mass of ≥20 M⊙ forKes 73, consistent with a type SN IIL/b star (Kumar et al. 2014).

Our studies on these two SNRs suggesting massive progenitors further support the accumulatingevidence that magnetars originate from very massive progenitors (∼20–50 M⊙; Safi-Harb &Kumar 2012). In addition, we also find that remnants have explosion energies of �1051 ergssimilar to other normal SNRs as suggested by previous authors (e.g., Vink & Kuiper 2006). Thisis again a very significant result indicating that the fossil magnetic field amplification could (orpartially) contribute to the origin of super-strong magnetic fields in magnetars in addition todynamo effect, and indirectly, implies that massive stars do not necessarily collapse to formblack holes (as was originally thought).

In summary, many important discoveries were made during the course of my PhD studies in thisresearch area such as the discovery of radio emission from magnetars (Camilo et al. 2006; Levinet al. 2010), the discovery of low-magnetic field (B∼1012) magnetars (Rea et al. 2010, 2012) etc.Together with the discovery of magnetar-like emission from PSR J1846–0258 (Kumar & Safi-Harb2008) which was done as part of my PhD thesis, these diverse observational properties of neutronstars suggest that many normal radio pulsars can also behave like magnetars at some point in time.To conclude, HBPs and magnetars are no longer considered two distinct classes of neutron stars as wenow see a continuum of properties between them, and what makes a neutron star born with Crab-likeproperties or magnetar-like properties may be influenced by their magnetic field geometry, evolution,and environment in which they are born.

Bibliography

Camilo, F., et al. 2000, ApJ, 541, 367Camilo, F., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 892Camilo, F. 2008, Nature Physics, 4, 353Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJ, 392, L9Ferrario, L. & Wickramasinghe, D. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1323Gavriil, F. et al. 2008, Science, 319, 1802Gonzalez, M. E., & Safi-Harb, S. 2003, ApJ, 591, 143Gotthelf, E. V., Vashisht, G., Boylan-Kolchin, M., & Torri, K. 2000, ApJ, 542, 37Kumar, H. S., & Safi-Harb, S. 2008, ApJ, 678, 43Kumar, H.S., Ibrahim, A. I., & Safi-Harb, S. 2010, ApJ, 716, 97Kumar, H. S., & Safi-Harb, S. 2010, ApJ, 725, 191Kumar, H. S., Safi-Harb, S., & Gonzalez, M. E. 2012, ApJ, 754, 96Kumar, H. S., Safi-Harb, S., Slane, P. O., & Gotthelf, E. V. 2014, ApJ, 781, 14Levin, L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 33Mereghetti, S. 2008, A&ARv, 15, 225Safi-Harb, S., & Kumar, H. S. 2008, ApJ, 684, 532Safi-Harb, S., & Kumar, H. S. 2012, Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 291, arXiv:1210.5261Rea, N. et al. 2010, Science, 330, 944Rea, N. 2012, Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 291, arXiv:1211.2086Vink, J., & Kuiper, L. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1, L14

4



93

Probing the Central Regions of Active Galactic Nuclei

Thesis Summary

Anne M. Lohfink

1 Background and Motivation

Accreting supermassive black holes, found in the centers of active galactic nuclei (AGN), influence

their surroundings via feedback processes and contribute significantly to the evolution of their

host galaxies, as well as the formation of structure in the Universe (Silk & Rees, 1998). While

this paradigm is well established, our understanding of the processes involved is incomplete. A

crucial missing piece of the puzzle is an understanding of the processes in the heart of the AGN

close to the black hole, where the vast majority of the energy is released. The properties of the

black hole itself govern the processes and define the structures in this realm. In particular, the spin

may be crucial to understanding the creation of powerful jets, which are launched from the very

central regions and are major drivers of feedback (Blandford & Znajek, 1977; Fabian, 2012). The

details of how exactly jets are created is still unknown; most theoretical models for jet formation

rely on magnetic fields/flux as the key ingredient (McKinney, 2006; Sikora & Begelman, 2013).

This is thought to reveal itself through a disk-jet cycle in which the inner accretion disk becomes

unstable once a certain magnetic flux limit is reached, leading to the creation of a new jet knot

(Chatterjee et al., 2009; Lohfink et al., 2013).

X-ray spectroscopy has proven invaluable for probing the accretion disk and the regions very

close to the black hole. In particular, the spin of a supermassive black hole can be deduced from

the shape of the iron Kα line (Laor, 1991). This line is part of the so-called “reflection” spectrum

and is thought to originate from backscattered radiation from the inner accretion disk in response

to irradiation by hard X-rays (George & Fabian, 1991). Other components of an AGN X-ray

spectrum are the accretion disk emission itself, peaking in the UV and the Comptonizing corona,

which produces a hard X-ray power law out to at least 100 keV (Haardt & Maraschi, 1991). At

lower energies (<1 keV) a soft excess is observed, the origin of which is not yet understood

(Dewangan et al., 2007).

X-ray spectroscopy is not the only tool that can be used to study the closest regions to the

black hole. Spectroscopic studies have always been accompanied by variability studies, which

offer an alternative viewing angle on the processes taking place. These studies using X-ray data

have been complemented by observations at various other wavelengths to obtain a complete pic-

ture of the interactions between the different, key components of the AGN. Most notable are the

large campaigns compiled by the AGN Watch Consortium in the 1990s, covering several AGN

on time scales from minutes to years (e.g. Rodriguez-Pascual et al., 1997; Marshall et al., 1997;

O’Brien & Leighly, 1998, and references therein), which showed that the optical/UV emissions in

these sources was often variable down to the sampling time scale. As no time-lag was detected

between the different bands, it was clear that the optical/UV photons must originate from the same

region, which had to be very close to the black hole. But even today, studies with XMM and Swift

have been fruitful, mostly confirming previous results and pointing towards reprocessing as the

driver for most of the UV/optical short time scale variability (Bachev et al., 2009; Cameron et al.,

2012; Alston et al., 2013).

Thesis Summary – Anne M. Lohfink page 1 of 4HEAD Dissertations - 27


94

2 My Thesis – Probing the Central Regions of AGN

My PhD thesis has focused on solidifying our knowledge of these important central regions in

several AGN. My analysis has mostly used the powerful technique of X-ray spectroscopy, but also

incorporated multi-wavelength data and studies of spectral variability.

2.1 Studying the Reflection Spectrum

The first part of my thesis explores the regions immediate to the black hole by studying the reflec-

tion spectrum focusing on data obtained from the Suzaku AGN Key Project. The first target is the

central region of the Seyfert 1 galaxy Fairall 9 (Lohfink et al., 2012b). Using high quality Suzaku

and XMM data, I obtained reliable measurements of the fundamental parameters that govern these

central regions, e.g. black hole spin. I constrain the spin to be intermediate (a=0.52+0.19−0.15

) and the

disk inclination to be 48+6−2

deg. Key to these robust measurements is a unique spectral decompo-

sition, despite the wealth of data this is challenging. It became clear during the analysis, that in

order to obtain such a physically self-consistent decomposition, we had to understand both the soft

excess and the behavior of the source at different epochs. My analysis suggests that the soft excess

is a composite of a distinct spectral component, such as Comptonization from lukewarm material

and blurred ionized reflection, which is required to describe the prominent broad iron line in the

source.

The remainder of the first section focuses on learning more about the formation of jets (Lohfink et al.,

2013). In particular, I studied the central engine in the broad-line radio galaxy 3C120 using a

multi-epoch analysis of a deep XMM observation and two deep Suzaku pointings. In order to

place my X-ray spectral data into the context of the disk-disruption/jet-ejection cycles already

detected in this object (Chatterjee et al., 2009), the source was monitored in the UV/X-ray bands

with the Swift satellite, and in the radio band with VLBA. I found three statistically acceptable

spectral models: a disk-reflection model, a jet-model and a jet+disk model. Despite all three mod-

els describing the data well, two of them can be ruled out by simple physical consistency checks.

Only a composite jet+disk model can explain the data at all times. Within the context of this

model, the basic predictions of the jet-cycle paradigm are verified, implying a resettling disk dur-

ing the Suzaku observations and a complete disk extending down to the innermost stable circular

orbit during the XMM-Newton observation. The idea of a resettling disk is further supported by

the detection of a new jet knot being ejected in the VLBA images, approximately one month after

the Suzaku pointings (Fig. 1).

2.2 Variability Studies

The second part of my thesis scrutinizes the regions immediate to the black hole by studying

the flux variability in various bands on different time scales. My efforts were targeted again at

Fairall 9, as it lacks complex absorption in the vicinity of the AGN and possesses a high black

hole mass, making it easier to study short time scales. Investigating a 10 year RXTE monitoring,

I discovered the existence of 4–7 day long flux dips (Lohfink et al., 2012a). Their short duration

makes them hard to explain; viable options are rapidly variable absorption, the failed formation

of radio jets or a sudden disruption of the corona. From the RXTE data alone, I was unable to

determine the exact nature of these dips.



95

In the last project of my thesis, I turned towards the optical/UV/X-ray variability of Fairall 9

in a 2.5 month Swift monitoring with a 4-day cadence. I found correlated optical/UV variability

on all time scales ranging from the sampling time to the length of the campaign. The nature of

the variability indicates that a significant fraction of the UV-emission must be driven by irradia-

tion/reprocessing of emission from the central disk. An archival XMM observation was then used

to examine shorter time scale UV/X-ray variability and very rapid (< 10 ks) UV flares of small

amplitude was found. Unless this emission is non-thermal, it must be the Wien tail from a compact

(< 3 light hours), hot (T > 8 × 104 K) region. The possible association with X- ray microflares

suggests that we may be seeing the UV signatures of direct X-ray flare heating of the innermost

disk. This reinforces the findings from the Swift monitoring that on less than month time scales

reprocessing dominates the variability in this source.

2.3 Significance of Results

The results from my thesis highlight the need for a unique spectral decomposition and an explana-

tion for the soft excess. This is a vital step when working towards understanding the processes tak-

ing place in the immediate vicinity of the black hole. Even with the best data available today, this

remains challenging. A definitive answer will require more work, possibly utilizing data from the

recently launched NuSTAR satellite, whose spectra provide the most complete broad-band views

of AGNs yet achieved. Nevertheless, I was able to obtain dependable spectral decompositions for

a few AGN with archival data by using all available CCD data and applying consistency checks.

For Fairall 9, I find compelling evidence for an additional Comptonization component which ex-

tends from the optical/UV into soft X-ray band. Similar results have been obtained for Mrk 509

(Mehdipour et al., 2011) and are hinted at in other cases (Noda et al., 2013). However, it remains

unclear today whether the soft excess is a universal feature of AGN spectra and, if so, whether it

is always produced by the same physical mechanism. My analysis of the broad-line radio galaxy

3C120 strongly supports the current idea of jet formation, which links the ejection of a new jet

knot to a disturbance of the inner parts of the accretion disk. Results like these help anchor the

numerical simulations of astrophysical jets and are another step forward towards understanding

AGN feedback.

The second part of my thesis shows how variability studies can contribute to our understanding

the interaction between the different components in an active galaxy nucleus. The fast X-ray dips

in Fairall 9 are indicative of variability on very short time scales, given that the black hole mass has

been measured to be 3×108 M⊙ (Peterson et al., 2004). The analysis of the UV/X-ray variability in

the source confirms the commonly accepted idea that reprocessing is dominating the fast time scale

variability at these wavelengths. However, a complete understanding can only be reached when

the driving X-ray variability is understood. The speed of the microvariability suggests it could

be connected to changes in the corona. As the cooling of the corona is thought to be regulated

by radiation, i.e. the optical disk emission entering the corona, this heating could be the driver.

Although our understanding of coronal heating is incomplete, it is mostly accepted today that

magnetic fields play a crucial role in it (e.g., Di Matteo, 1998). If in fact there is coronal heating

on fast time scales, this would suggest that NuSTAR will detect changes in the coronal temperature

on these time scales. As of today, such changes are yet to be discovered.



96

Fig. 1: Time sequence of VLBA images at 43

GHz of 3C120 at nine epochs. Contours corre-

spond to 0.5, 1, 2, ..., 64, and 90% of the maxi-

mum intensity of 1.8 Jy beam−1 (reached on 2013

January 15). The movement of the new jet knot

K12 can be seen, with a mean trajectory (shown

by line) and an “ejection” date of 2012 March

15 ± 10.

1

cts

sec−

1

2−10 keV1800

JD−2450000

0.01

0.10

1.00

cts

sec−

1

10−20 keV

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar2000 2001

Fig. 2: Zoom-In into long term RXTE-PCA light

curves for 2–10 keV (top panel) and 10–20 keV

(lower panel) of Fairall 9. Very short-time scale

count rate dips are apparent in both bands.

Alston W.N., et al., 2013, MNRAS429, 75

Bachev R., et al., 2009, MNRAS399, 750

Blandford R.D., et al., 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

Cameron D.T., et al., 2012, MNRAS422, 902

Chatterjee R., et al., 2009, ApJ, 704, 1689

Dewangan G.C., et al., 2007, ApJ, 671, 1284

Di Matteo T., 1998, MNRAS299, L15

Fabian A.C., 2012, ARA&A 50, 455

George I.M., et al., 1991, MNRAS, 249, 352

Haardt F., et al., 1991, ApJL, 380, L51

Laor A., 1991, ApJ, 376, 90

Lohfink A.M., et al., 2013, ApJ, 772, 83

Lohfink A.M., et al., 2012a, ApJ, 758, 67

Lohfink A.M., et al., 2012b, ApJL, 749, L31

Marshall H.L., et al., 1997, ApJ479, 222

McKinney J.C., 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1561

Mehdipour M., et al., 2011, A&A 534, A39

Noda H., et al., 2013, PASJ 65, 4

O’Brien P.T., et al., 1998, Advances in Space Research

21, 67

Peterson B.M., et al., 2004, ApJ613, 682

Rodriguez-Pascual P.M., et al., 1997, ApJS110, 9

Sikora M., et al., 2013, ApJL 764, L24

Silk J., et al., 1998, A&A 331, L1



97

DISSERTATION SUMMARY: W. PETER MAKSYM:

Background: Galaxies are frequently observed to host massive black holes (MBHs) in their cores,via luminous multiwavelength emission in the form of AGNs, as well as through the kinematicsignatures of stars and gas at their centers. Such black holes are thought to play a significantrole in the formation and evolution of galaxies, but the interrelationship between black holes andgalaxies is complicated and uncertain. There are observed relationships between MBHs and thevelocity dispersion of the nuclear stellar cluster (M•–σ), as well as with the bulge luminosity (M•–Lbulge). But this relationship is difficult to measure at the low end of the M• distribution, owing tothe inherent faintness of dwarf galaxies and the difficulty involved in spatially resolving small ordistant galactic nuclei.

This low end is particularly critical to models of hierarchical galaxy formation (e.g. Volonteri,2010; Volonteri & Natarajan, 2009) where varying theories of black hole origin (such as via directcollapse, population III stars, or runaway stellar mergers) predict di↵erent slopes to the low-masstail. The low-mass tail is also of interest to rates of gravitational wave events (Amaro-Seoane, etal., 2007). Ongoing research into dwarf AGNs has proven a fruitful measure of the low-mass tail(Xiao et al., 2011; Jiang et al., 2011) but it probes a particular phase of galactic evolution, whereasmost MBHs in the local universe are observed to be quiescent.

A normally quiescent black hole can, however, occasionally flare up when it tidally disruptsa star. The star is shredded by the di↵erence in gravitational force across its extent, with >⇠ hal fof its debris scattered to escape velocities and the remainder returning to pericenter on a spreadof elliptical orbits. There it shock-heats, emitting a luminous flare (to first order) approximatelyas a blackbody of kT ⇠ 0.01 − 0.1 keV, hence predominantly in the ultraviolet and soft X-rays,and whose bolometric luminosity should to first order evolve with the accretion rate, thought to beroughly / t−5/3 owing to Kepler’s laws (see, e.g., Rees, 1988, and Ulmer, 1999). There exists apractical upper limit to M• for tidal disruption flares (TDFs), such that the event horizon is greaterthan the disruption radius and the star is ingested prior to disruption. For a M⇤ ⇠ 1 M� main-sequence star and a non-spinning MBH, M• . 108 M�.

The rate at which these events occur (γ) is a matter well-studied by dynamicists, and a largebody of literature exists to infer the rate at which these events occur as a function of M• and nuclearstellar populations, as well any possible basic deviations from the typical observational signatureoutlined above. These events are sufficiently rare, however, that despite their luminosity and longduration (⇠ 1042 − 1045 erg s−1 for months or years), they are difficult to observe. Theory generallypredicts γ ⇠ 10−6 − 10−3 galaxy−1year−1, and though there is still room for disagreement, theobserved and theoretical rate is generally so low that there are few candidates.

For example, at the start of this thesis, ⇠ 5 TDFs had been claimed in the literature. Thetotal now stands at ⇠ 20, of which two have been found via this thesis. Estimates of the rate arecompounded by difficulty in distinguishing TDF candidates from other highly variable, luminousobjects such flares from obscured or weakly accreting AGN disks. Each new candidate is thereforeimportant to disentangling the broader understanding of γ and TDF observational characteristics.

A major uncertainty in γ arises from the MBH fraction in dwarf spheroidal galaxies. These

1



98

galaxies are common in galaxy clusters, and their sheer numbers have the potential to dominatethe TDF rate. In particular, Wang & Merritt (2004) predict γ ⇠ 10−3 galaxy−1year−1 if nucleateddwarf spheroidal galaxies typically host MBHs.

Goals and Implementation: The major purposes of this thesis were to identify new examples oftidal disruption flares, thereby exploring the properties of these TDFs and their host galaxies, aswell as better determining γ for a well-defined population.

X-ray surveys are a well-established method of identifying TDFs, as the X-ray band is likelyto contain the bulk of the TDF bolometric luminosity and is relatively unhindered by host galaxycontamination and obscuration as compared to ultraviolet or optical surveys (e.g. Komossa et al.,2004; Esquej et al., 2008; Cappelluti et al, 2009). X-rays may also best track the characteristic t−5/3

signature over long time periods (Lodato & Rossi, 2011). However, X-rays surveys are challengingto implement, owing to the poor sensitivity of all-sky monitors and the narrow fields of view offocusing X-ray telescopes.

Galaxy clusters are, however, popular targets for studies of di↵use emission from the intraclus-ter medium (ICM). Hundreds of galaxy clusters have been observed by Chandra and XMM-Newtonover their 13-year missions, many of them multiple times. The basic premise of this dissertation’simplementation is therefore simple: rich galaxy clusters hold as many as ⇠ 1000 galaxies in aChandra or XMM-Newton field-of-view. By observing galaxy clusters multiple times and search-ing for highly variable (>⇠ 10⇥) point sources and eliminating alternate explanations (such as AGNflares, supernovae, M-dwarfs, etc.), we maximize the chance of finding a TDF within any givenpointing. Galaxy clusters also typically have well-studied, uniform populations which aid in es-timating the flare distance (and energetics), as well as the determination of γ. Galaxy clustersalso (as per Wang & Merritt 2004) present an unusual galaxy population by which to search forenvironmental e↵ects on γ.

The technical execution is, however, complicated, owing to variations in instrumental resolu-tion and response across di↵erent instruments, di↵erent pointings, and di↵erent locations withina given pointing, as well as highly non-uniform coverage given the variety of survey designs bythe original cluster observation programs. Finally, there is an inherent uncertainty to the natureof any TDF candidate. Spectroscopy is necessary to unambiguously confirm the distance to thehost galaxy as well as to set limits on the presence of any hidden or weakly accreting AGN, butspectroscopy of sufficient quality to achieve these goals may not be easy to obtain.

Significant Results: In addition to the major goals of the survey, this dissertation contained athorough review of the state of tidal disruption flare observations. This review was timely and islikely to be useful, as TDF studies have experienced considerable growth over the past few years.To pick a few examples from the review, several flares have been found via new observationaltechniques in the ultraviolet (e.g. Gezari et al., 2006; 2009), optical (van Velzen et al., 2011a;Cenko et al., 2012a), and numerous other means. Several significant new papers have produceddetailed new models of multiwavelength TDF evolution dependent upon stellar structure, (e.g.Strubbe & Quataert 2009; 2011; Lodato et al., 2009; Lodato & Rossi 2011). And the identificationof jetted, relativistic (beamed) TDFs via Swift has e↵ectively redefined the TDF paradigm (e.g.

2



99

Bloom et al., 2011; Cenko et al., 2012b; Zauderer et al., 2011).

In keeping with the major scientific issues of this dissertation, it also included a direct compar-ison of M• as inferred from M•–Lbulge to M• as inferred from a variety of observed TDF propertiesin the literature. This study was laborious, owing to the very non-uniform nature of discoverymethods and reported properties. But this comparison found that reported M• inferred TDFs aregenerally consistent with the assumption of the Eddington limit and remarkably consistent with abroad range of thermal models appropriate to the reported data. Estimates of M• from the timescaleof light curve decay are less certain, but is consistent with the assumption that stars are maxi-mally spun-up upon closest approach. The implications of this finding are uncertain, given thisapproach to TDF modeling is currently disfavored by recent modeling (Gezari, private communi-cation; Lodato et al., 2009).

The initial results of the X-ray survey included a single likely TDF associated with SDSSJ131122.15-012345.6, a moderately sized (MV = −17.10) early-type galaxy ⇠ 30.7 from the clustercore (Fig. 1). Via modeling of the galaxy population from previous optical and infrared studiesof A1689, by assuming a flare duration consistent with t−5/3 decay (Fig. 2), and by taking intoaccount the cadence and sensitivity of the ⇠ 7 years of Chandra observations, γ was inferred to be⇠ 1.2 ⇥ 10−4 galaxy−1year−1, lower than predicted by Wang & Merritt (2004) but modestly higherthan other observational studies (⇠ few ⇥ 10−5 galaxy−1year−1). Subsequent analysis covered atotal of 10 galaxy clusters, almost all of which contained non-detections. Considering the qualityof coverage and relative galaxy populations, the adjusted γ is ⇠ 3 ⇥ 10−5 galaxy−1year−1.

The remarkable exception to this string of non-detections was Abell 1795, which containedpossibly the most significant result of this thesis. A luminous TDF candidate was identified at aprojected distance of ⇠ 50 kpc from the cluster core. The associated galaxy, WINGS J134849.88+263557.5 (WINGS J1348), is exceptionally faint, such that in multiple serendipitous observationsbetween 100µm and ⇠ 1700Å it was only identified at B,V = 23.3, 22.5. The flare is, however,consistent with a TDF and would be one of the best-sampled TDFs to date, with ⇠ 28 Chandraand XMM-Newton pointings over ⇠ 13 years (Fig. 3; owing to the fact that A1795 is a Chandracallibration source). The flare is also exceptional due to its excellent photon statistics; high-qualityX-ray data is relatively rare in TDFs, and the multiple Chandra epochs with counts sufficient formeaningful spectral modeling (⇠ 700) is only exceeded by flares reported by Saxton et al. (2012),Lin et al. (2011) and the Swift flares. The flare is associated with a bright archival EUVE flare,making it the first reported EUV identification of a TDF and solves a mystery posed by Bowyer etal. (1999).

Finally and most intriguingly, limits from multi-band photometry and Magellan echellette spec-troscopy suggest the galaxy is likely a cluster member (Fig. 4). If so, its intrinsic faintness(MV ⇠ −14.7) would make it a dwarf galaxy an order of magnitude less massive than POX 52(Thornton et al., 2008) or Henize 2-10 (Reines et al., 2011), and the lowest-mass galaxy knownto host a MBH, to the best of our knowledge. This state of a↵airs is extremely difficult to explainfrom a galaxy formation standpoint, but its proximity to the cluster core (>⇠ 50 kpc) suggests that itcould have been tidally stripped during passage through the cluster core. This object is interestingfrom many perspectives and will likely serve as a focus for investigations for years to come.

3



100

FIGURES

2 4 6 8

Figure 1: Pre-flare HST WFPC2 image of SDSSJ131122.15-012345.6 taken using the HST/WFPC2F606W filter. The larger overlaid pixels are singly binnedX-ray events from the flare at its peak at epoch 2004.16.The circle indicates centroid error at r ⇠ 1008 and thecross is the middle of the centroid.

Figure 2: Light curve for SDSS J1311 with error bars.Arrows indicate upper bounds. LX(0.3–3) corrected forgalactic extinction are indicated by ⇥. The dashed line isa t−5/3 light curve which assumes pericenter passage timetD at the expected value for a solar-type star, indicatedby the solid vertical line. Dotted lines indicate the errorrange for tD.

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Date

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

10000.0

F(0.

2-2

keV)

10-1

4 erg

s-1 c

m-2

Figure 3: Model-dependent X-ray evolution forWINGS J1348: At the distance of A1795 (z ⇠ 0.062),10−14 erg cm−2s−2 ⇠ 1041 erg s−1. Chandra (blue), XMM-Newton (black ⇥) EUVE (red/purple). The ROSAT upperlimit is 1.6 ⇥ 10−14 erg cm−2 s−1 at Date = 1997.57.

Figure 4: Color-magnitude diagram of A1795 galax-ies, with ridge line (dashed) and WINGS J1348 (asterisk).WINGS J1348 position is consistent with the ridge line.Correlation of Magellan echellette spectra with templatessupports this analysis.

4



101

REFERENCES

Amaro-Seoane, et al., 2007,Classical and Quantum Gravity, 24, 113

Berger et al., 2011, arXiv:1112.1697Bloom et al., 2011, Science, 333, 203Bowyer et al, 1999, ApJ, 526, 592Cappelluti et al., 2009, A&A, 495L, 9Cenko et al., 2012a, MNRAS, 420, 2684Cenko et al., 2012b, ApJ, 753, 77Cenko, S.B., CIERA/Northwestern

Astrophysics Seminar, Dec. 6, 2011Esquej et al., 2008, A&A, 489, 543Farrar & Gruzinov, 2009, ApJ, 693, 329Gezari et al., 2006, ApJ, 653, 25Gezari et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1367Jiang et al., 2011, ApJ, 737, L45Komossa et al., 2004, ApJ, 603, 17Levan et al., 2011, Science, 333, 199Lin, D. et al., ApJ, 738, 52Lodato et al. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 332Lodato and Rossi, 2011, MNRAS, 410, 359Luo et al., 2008, ApJ, 674, 122Maksym et al., 2010, ApJ, 722, 1035Maksym, W. P., Tidal Flares and Rates from an

Archival Cluster Survey, in proceedings of‘Tidal Disruption Events and AGNOutbursts Workshop’, (2012) EPJ Web ofConferences

Maksym et al., in prep.Meusinger et al., 2010, A&A, 512, 1Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523Reines, A., et al., 2011, Nature, 470, 66-68Saxton, R. D. et al, A&A, 541, A106Strubbe & Quataert, 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2070Strubbe & Quataert, 2011, MNRAS, 415, 168Thornton et al, ApJ, 2008, 686, 892Ulmer, 1999, ApJ, 514, 180van Velzen et al., 2011a, ApJ, 741, 73van Velzen et al., 2011b, MNRAS, 417, 51Volonteri, 2010, A&AR, 18, 279Volonteri & Natarajan, 2009,

MNRAS, 400, 1911Wang and Merrit, 2004, ApJ, 600, 149Xiao, et al., 2011, ApJ, 739, 28Zauderer et al., 2011, Nature, 476, 425

5



102

Summary

Maria Petropoulou

My PhD thesis focused on two different research subjects that are, however,both related to high-energy emitting astrophysical sources: on radiative insta-bilities that may appear in compact gamma-ray sources and on the afterglowemission from Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs).

The first subject, although of more theoretical interest, has important impli-cations for astrophysical sources, such as Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN). Insteadof studying the applications of radiative instabilities that were discovered in thepast [1, 2], we focused on one newly discovered radiative instability called ‘au-tomatic γ-ray quenching’ [3], according to which the γ-ray compactness of asufficiently magnetized source cannot become arbitrarily high. What actuallyhappens to the excessive γ-ray luminosity is that it becomes absorbed by lowenergy photons. In fact, there is no need for a finite number density of lowenergy photons ab initio. Since we are dealing with an instability, even onestray photon with sufficient energy in the source, can serve as target for theabsorption of one gamma-ray photon and produce a large number of low energyphotons. The number density of the latter actually increases exponentially. Inother words, the instability of automatic photon quenching initiates an electro-magnetic cascade that redistributes the energy from the high-energy part of thespectrum, i.e. gamma-rays, to softer energy bands, such as X-rays and optical.

First, we specified the conditions which enable the growth of the instability.For this, we have written a system of partial differential equations (PDE) thatadequately describes the evolution of (i) γ-ray photons, (ii) electron/positronpairs produced by the spontaneous absorption of γ-ray photons and (iii) lowerenergy (soft) photons emitted by the pairs through synchrotron radiation. Thissystem has a trivial stationary solution that simply describes the balance be-tween the production and escape rates of γ-ray photons. We then linearized theset of PDE’s with respect to this solution and investigated its stability by uti-lizing an eigenvalue/eigenvector analysis. Our analytical treatment significantlyimproved that of the original work by [3], by using a better approximation forthe photon-photon absorption cross section and by treating synchrotron radi-ation as a continuous energy loss mechanism for pairs [4]. We finally testedthe analytically derived criterion for the growth of the istability against thatcalculated numerically. For this, we used a numerical code that solves the cou-pled PDE’s and employes the full expressions for the various cross sections andemissivities (see e.g. [5]).

As a second step, we specified the radiation process responsibe for the γ-ray

1



103

emission. In particular, we assumed that γ-rays are the synchrotron radiationof secondary electrons, which are the final decay product of charged pions. Thelatter, are produced through photopion interactions of relativistic protons withsome ambient photon field. In other words, we studied the properties of ‘auto-matic γ-ray quenching’ when this is embedded in a leptohadronic magnetizedplasma, i.e. a magnetized plasma that initially consists of relativistic protonsand electrons, and, in some cases photons [6]. Although the equations describingthis system are far more complicated than those of a pure photon-pair plasma(see e.g. [7]), we managed to simplify them in such a degree as to make theanalytical treatment of the problem tractable and, at the same time, retain theimportant properties of the physical system. Using an eigenvector/eigenvalueanalysis of the linearized system of differential equations describing the lepto-hadronic processes, we derived the criteria for the growth of the instability. Wealso showed that, if these are satisfied, the dynamics of the proton-electron-photon system resemble that of a prey-predator one. For specific cases, weshowed analytically that the photon lightcurve as well as the energy densityof protons oscillate periodically (see Fig. 1). Interestingly enough, this type oflimit cycle behaviour has been reported in the early 90’s [8], but the underlyingreason for it remained unclear since then. Finally, we tested our results againstthose obtained from a fully numerical treatment of the problem and found agood agreement between the qualitative results of both treatments.

As a final step, we applied the ideas of ‘automatic γ-ray quenching’ to asubclass of AGN, i.e. to γ-ray emitting blazars, for constraining some of theirproperties, such as their Doppler factor and their magnetic field strength [9].Our method can be regarded as an extension of the widely used method for esti-mating equipartition magnetic fields using radio observations [10]. In our case,the leptonic synchrotron component is replaced by the proton synchrotron emis-sion and the radio by very high-energy gamma-ray observations. The innovativefeature of our method, however, was that the instability of automatic photonquenching sets a minimum value for the Doppler factor δmin of the gamma-rayemitting region. Figure 2 shows δmin as a function of the magnetic field strengthfor the case of blazar 3C 279.

The second research subject is relevant to the long-lasting multiwavelength(MW) emission that follows the Gamma-Ray Burst itself, the so-called afterglowemission. In order to model the MW spectral evolution during the afterglowphase we adopted an one-zone emission model, where relativistic electrons, hav-ing a power-law distribution in energies, are assumed to be continuously injectedinto a magnetized region of typical size r moving outwards with respect to thecentral engine with a bulk Lorentz factor Γ. We note that the spherical emis-sion region was used to simulate the shell of shocked ejecta of an external shockwave that propagates with relativistic speed into the interstellar medium. Theassumption of a spherical region is adequate as long as Γ ≫ 1, since the radia-tion that a distant observer receives comes only from a small portion of the shell(� 1/Γ). As the shock wave propagates into the medium, it sweeps up massand gradually decelerates. Thus, the emitting region becomes less compact andat the same time the magnetic field strength decreases.

2



104

Figure 1: Time evolution of the proton (solid lines) and photon (dashed lines)compactnesses for an increasing proton injection rate – panels (a) to (d). Thesystem exhibits time variability (panels (a) and (b)) even if the proton injectionrate is constant. This is an intrinsic property of the system.

3



105

Figure 2: Minimum Doppler factor δmin as a function of the magnetic fieldstrength. The points represent the numerically derived values from fitting theTeV data (February 2006) of blazar 3C 279 and using the contemporary X-rayobservations only as an upper limit. Dashed lines are the result of interpolation.

The evolution of the radiating particle distribution (both in time and inenergy) is a prerequisite for the self-consistent calculation of the photon spec-trum. In particular, electrons undergo energy losses due to synchrotron radi-ation as well as due to inverse Compton scattering of their own synchrotronphotons (synchrotron self-Compton). At the same time, they may escape fromthe region on an average time which is taken to be a multiple of the dynamicaltimescale, i.e. ∼ r/Γc. Because of the varying physical quantities that describethe emission region during the afterglow phase, the relative significance of thevarious loss processes changes also in time and has an imprint on the photonspectra/lightcurves. To calculate self-consistently the MW afterglow emissionwe used a numerical code that solves the coupled kinetic equations for electronsand photons under the influence of the evolving size and magnetic field strengthof the emitting region [5]. This proves to be a powerful tool for obtaining time-dependent MW spectra as well as model lightcurves in different wavelengths.In particular, we focused on the phenomenology of X-ray lightcurves, as it wassignificantly enriched by recent observations.

The theoretical understanding of the GRB afterglow physics changed radi-cally after the first X-ray observations of the Swift satellite [11], which revealeda whole new class of X-ray afterglow lightcurves. One of the new features isthat the X-ray emission does not, in general, decay as a power-law with timebut it consists of several power-law segments [12, 13, 14]. Here, we attemptedto give an explanation of the newly discovered X-ray afterglow phenomenol-ogy. In particular , we showed that different X-ray lightcurve morphologies canbe obtained within the standard afterglow model by varying only the maxi-mum Lorentz factor of the electron distribution, which is responsible for thenon-thermal multiwavelength afterglow emission. For example, we showed thatlightcurves showing a shallow decay phase may be obtained whenever the maxi-

4



106

mum energy of the electron distribution is a few times larger than the minimumone [15]. Since the maximum energy of radiating electrons emerged as an im-portant parameter in our analysis, we attempted as a second step, to deriveit self-consistently instead of treating it as a free-parameter. For this, we ap-plied the ideas of the ‘box’-model acceleration to the GRB afterglow phase. Bymodelling in an approximate manner the acceleration timescales and by numer-ically solving the kinetic equation of electrons including both synchrotron andsynchrotron-self Compton cooling, we derived time-dependent solutions of theelectron and photon distributions. These solutions are relevant to the GRB af-terglow phenomenology only if electron acceleration is mediated by Fermi-typeshock acceleration and the escape of electrons from the acceleration zone is fast.

References

[1] J. G. Kirk & A. Mastichiadis, Nature, 360, 6400, 135 (1992)

[2] D. Kazanas, M. Georganopoulos, A. Mastichiadis, ApJL, 578, 1, L15 (2002)

[3] L. Stawarz & J. G. Kirk, ApJL, 661, L17 (2007)

[4] M. Petropoulou & A. Mastichiadis, A&A, 532, 11, 10 (2011)

[5] M. Petropoulou & A. Mastichiadis, A&A, 507, 2, 559 (2009)

[6] M. Petropoulou & A. Mastichiadis, MNRAS, 421, 3, 2325 (2012)

[7] S. Dimitrakoudis, A. Mastichiadis, R. J. Protheroe, A. Reimer, A&A, 546,A120, 13 (2012)

[8] B. Stern & R. Svensson, (1991), Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin SpringerVerlag, eds. A. A. Zdziarski & M. Sikora

[9] M. Petropoulou & A. Mastichiadis, MNRAS, 426, 1, 462 (2012)

[10] A. G. Pacholzyk, (1970), Radio astrophysics. Nonthermal processes ingalactic and extragalactic sources, San Francisco: Freeman

[11] N. Gehrels et al., ApJ, 611, 2, 1005 (2004)

[12] J. A. Nousek et al., ApJ, 642, 1, 389 (2006)

[13] P. T. O’Brien et al., ApJ, 647, 2, 1213 (2006)

[14] B. Zhang et al., ApJ, 642, 1, 354 (2006)

[15] M. Petropoulou, A. Mastichiadis, T. Piran, A&A, 531, A76, 10 (2011)

5



107

Dissertation Summary

Spin Measurements of Accreting Black Holes:

A Foundation for X-ray Continuum Fitting1

James F. Steiner

1. Introduction

The thesis is comprised of six published papers on the measurement of the spins of

stellar-mass black holes via the continuum-fitting (CF) method. Spin is measured by esti-

mating the inner radius of the accretion disk Rin, which is identified with the radius of the

innermost stable circular orbit RISCO. One determines RISCO by fitting the thermal disk

component of X-ray emission to the thin-disk model of Novikov and Thorne (Li et al. 2005).

The observables are X-ray flux, temperature, distance D, disk inclination i, and black hole

mass M . The dimensionless radius RISCO/M is uniquely and simply related to the black

hole’s spin (Bardeen et al. 1972). Successful application of the CF method requires the

selection of X-ray spectral data that are dominated by the thermal disk component and are

of moderate luminosity.

The first two of the six papers present and apply a new methodology that has greatly

increased the scope of the CF method. The third paper demonstrates the remarkable con-

stancy of the inner disk radius of LMC X-3. The fourth paper presents independent estimates

of spin of an accreting black hole using both the CF method and the other leading method

of measuring black hole spin. The final two papers model the jet kinematics of two micro-

quasars and, respectively, test a fundamental assumption of the CF method and determine

the spin of the microquasar H1743–322.

2. A Simple Comptonization Model

Steiner et al. 2009 (PASP, 121, 1279): This paper describes an empirical model of

Comptonization for fitting the spectra of X-ray binaries. This model, named simpl, is pub-

licly available as a package implemented in XSPEC. The scattering of a seed spectrum occurs

via convolution, which self-consistently mimics physical reprocessing of photons from, e.g.,

an accretion disk. simpl is completely flexible and can be used self-consistently with any

seed spectrum of photons. With only two free parameters, simpl is competitive as the sim-

plest model of Compton scattering. Unlike the pervasive standard power-law model, simpl

incorporates the basic features of Compton scattering of soft photons by energetic coronal

electrons. Fits to RXTE spectra of two black holes using both simpl and the standard

power-law are presented. A comparison shows that simpl gives equally good fits, while

eliminating the troublesome divergence of the standard power-law model at low energies.

1 Doctoral thesis presented in 2012 to the faculty of The Department of Astronomy, Harvard University.



108

– 2 –

3. Measuring Black Hole Spin via the X-ray Continuum-Fitting Method:

Beyond the Thermal Dominant State

Steiner et al. 2009 (ApJ, 701, L83): Prior to the publication of this paper, all CF

measurements of the spins of stellar-mass black holes relied on the use of weakly Comptonized

spectra obtained in the “thermal dominant” state (Remillard & McClintock 2006). Using

the self-consistent Comptonization model simpl (Section 2), this paper establishes that one

can analyze strongly Comptonized spectra and obtain values of spin that are consistent with

those obtained in the thermal dominant state. Specifically, based on the analysis of a few

hundred RXTE spectra of two black hole microquasars, it is demonstrated that the radius of

the inner edge of the accretion disk remains constant to within a few percent as the strength

of the Comptonized component increases by an order of magnitude, i.e., as the fraction of the

thermal seed photons that are scattered approaches 25%. This result has greatly increased

the power of the CF method by (1) allowing this method to be applied to a much wider body

of data than previously thought possible, and (2) enabling spin measurements of sources that

have never been observed to enter the thermal dominant state such as Cyg X-1 (Gou et al.

2011, 2014).

4. The Constant Inner-Disk Radius of LMC X–3: A Basis for Measuring

Black Hole Spin

Steiner et al. 2010 (ApJ, 718, L117): The black-hole binary system LMC X–3 has been

observed by virtually every X-ray mission since the inception of X-ray astronomy. This

paper presents the analysis of hundreds of spectra of LMC X–3 collected during eight X-

ray missions that span 26 years. For a selected sample of 391 RXTE spectra it is shown

that to within ⇡ 2 percent the inner radius of the accretion disk is constant over time and

una↵ected by the gross variability of the source. Even considering an ensemble of eight X-ray

missions, the values of radius are consistent to within ⇡ 4 percent. These results provide

strong evidence for the existence of a fixed inner-disk radius. The only reasonable inference

is that this radius is closely associated with the general relativistic innermost stable circular

orbit (ISCO). Thus, these findings establish a firm foundation for the measurement of black

hole spin.

As an important corollary, the inter-mission consistency of ⇡ 4 percent is crucial in

cases where only one (or a few) spectra of a source are available in the data archives, as in

the case of A0620–00 (Gou et al. 2010). The results for LMC X–3 show that, as long as the

power-law component is reliably measured, even a single, suitable spectrum can deliver an

estimate of the disk inner radius accurate to several percent, and thereby a reliable estimate

of spin.



109

– 3 –

0.1

l D

0.03

0.1

0.3

1980 1990 2000 2010

2

3

4

56

r in

XMMSwiftSuzakuRXTE

EXOSATGingaBeppoSAXASCA

Fig. 1.— top: Disk luminosity in Eddington-scaled units for LMC X–3. Data in the shaded

region are excluded because the thin-disk model breaks down above 30% of the Eddington

limit; data at low luminosities are excluded because the thermal component is no longer

dominant. bottom: The ISCO radius is shown for all thin-disk data in the top panel that

meet the selection criteria. Despite large luminosity variations, the radius remains constant

to a few percent over time (the dashed line indicates the average value).

5. The Spin of the Black Hole Microquasar XTE J1550–564 via the

Continuum-Fitting and Fe-Line Methods

Steiner et al. 2011 (MNRAS, 416, 941): This paper reports on measurements of the

spin of XTE J1550–564 using both the CF method and the other leading method, namely

modeling the broad red wing of the reflection fluorescence Fe K line. These two independent

measurements of spin are found to be in agreement. For the CF method, the spin is −0.11 <

a/M < 0.71 (90 percent confidence), with a most likely spin of a/M = 0.34. In obtaining

this result, a wide range of model-dependent systematic errors and observational errors have

been considered. For the Fe-line method, the spin is a/M = 0.55+0.15−0.22. Combining these

results, gives a moderate value of spin, a/M = 0.49+0.13−0.20.

6. Modeling the Jet Kinematics of the Black Hole Microquasar XTE

J1550–564: A Constraint on Spin-Orbit Alignment

Steiner and McClintock 2012 (ApJ, 745, 136): Measurements of black hole spin made

using the CF method rely on the assumption that the inclination of the black hole’s spin

axis to our line of sight is the same as the orbital inclination angle i of the host binary



110

– 4 –

system. The X-ray and radio jet data available for the microquasar XTE J1550–564 o↵er

a rare opportunity to test this assumption. These data are modeled in order to determine

the inclination angle ✓ of the jet axis, which is presumed to be aligned with the black hole’s

spin axis. We find ✓ ⇡ 71◦ and place an upper limit on the di↵erence between the spin and

orbital inclinations of |✓−i| < 12 deg (90% confidence). This constraint on the misalignment

angle supports the prediction that the spinning black hole in XTE J1550–564 has aligned

itself with the orbital plane and provides support for the measurement of its spin via the CF

method.

7. The Distance, Inclination, and Spin of the Black Hole Microquasar

H1743–322

Steiner et al. 2012 (ApJ, 745, L7): During its 2003 outburst, the black-hole X-ray tran-

sient H1743–322 produced two-sided radio and X-ray jets. Applying a simple and symmetric

kinematic model to the trajectories of these jets, Steiner et al. determined the source dis-

tance, 8.5± 0.8 kpc, and the inclination angle of the jets, 75◦ ± 3◦. Using these values and a

semiempirical distribution of black hole masses, the spin of this microquasar was determined

to be a/M = 0.2 ± 0.3 (68% limits); −0.3 < a/M < 0.7 at 90% confidence. This result

takes into account all known sources of measurement error. H1743–322 is the third known

microquasar (after A0620–00 and XTE J1550–564) that displays large-scale ballistic jets and

has a surprisingly moderate value of spin.

0

2

4

6

8

Pro

ject

ed S

epar

atio

n α

(′′)

Approaching Jet

Receding Jet

0 100 200 300 400Days Since Flare

-101

Res

idu

als

Fig. 2.— H1743–322’s twin ballistic jets.

The proper-motion data have been obtained

from the VLA and Chandra, and are shown

with the best fitting kinematic model over-

laid. The corresponding Markov-Chain

Monte Carlo (MCMC) results are shown in

Figure 3.

1 10Γ0

Pro

bab

ilit

y D

ensi

ty

0.1 1.0E~

(1045 erg)

-1 0 1 2 3 4T0 - MJD 52766

65 70 75 80θ (degrees)

5 6 7 8 9 10D (kpc)

Pro

bab

ilit

y D

ensi

ty

Fig. 3.— MCMC posterior probability distri-

butions for the jets’ Lorentz factor Γ0, kinetic

energy E, and launch date T0, as well as the

distance and inclination. Dashed lines indi-

cate the prior assumed. These results directly

led to H1743–322’s spin measurement.



111

– 5 –

Additional References

Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, Rotating Black Holes: Locally

Nonrotating Frames, Energy Extraction, and Scalar Synchrotron Radiation, ApJ, 178, 347–

370

Gou, L., McClintock, J. E., Reid, M. J., Orosz, J. A., Steiner, J. F., Narayan, R., Xiang, J.,

Remillard, R. A., Arnaud, K. A., & Davis, S. W. 2011, The Extreme Spin of the Black Hole

in Cygnus X-1, ApJ, 742, 85–101

Gou, L., McClintock, J. E., Remillard, R. A., Steiner, J. F., Reid, M. J., Orosz, J. A.,

Narayan, R., Hanke, M., Garcia, J. 2014, submitted (arXiv:1308.4760)

Gou, L., McClintock, J. E., Steiner, J. F., Narayan, R., Cantrell, A. G., Bailyn, C. D., &

Orosz, J. A. 2010, The Spin of the Black Hole in the Soft X-ray Transient A0620–00, ApJ,

718, L122–L126

Li, L.-X., Zimmerman, E. R., Narayan, R., & McClintock, J. E. 2005, Multitemperature

Blackbody Spectrum of a Thin Accretion Disk around a Kerr Black Hole: Model Computa-

tions and Comparison with Observations, ApJS, 157, 335–370

Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, X-ray Properties of Black-Hole Binaries,

ARA&A, 44, 49–92



112

EXAMINING THE ROLE OF THE COMPTON-THICK, X-RAY REPROCESSORIN TYPE 1 ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI

M.M. Tatum

1 Abstract

In this study, we investigate the role of the Compton-thick, X-ray reprocessor in the local (z< 0.1),radio-quiet active galactic nuclei (AGN) population, using simultaneous medium (2–10 keV) andhard ( > 10 keV) X-ray data from the Suzaku X-ray observatory. We model a small sample ofSeyfert galaxies that were previously identified as having simple X-ray spectra with little intrin-sic absorption, using a Compton-thick (NH > 1024 atoms cm−2), accretion disk wind model, andexplore the prevalence of the excess flux above 10 keV, dubbed a ‘hard excess’, in the local AGNpopulation, using a hard X-ray selected sample of radio-quiet AGN. We find that the Fe K emis-sion line profiles are well described with a model of a Compton-thick accretion-disk wind of solarabundances, arising tens to hundred of gravitational radii from the central black hole, thus demon-strating that a Compton-thick wind can have a profound e↵ect on the observed X-ray spectrumof an AGN, even when the system is not viewed through the flow. We also find the hard excessphenomenon to be a ubiquitous property of local radio-quiet AGN. Taken together, the spectralhardness and equivalent width of Fe K↵ emission are consistent with reprocessing by an ensembleof Compton-thick clouds that partially cover the continuum source.

2 Background

With the spectral capabilities of the current X-ray observatories, Chandra, XMM-Newton andSuzaku, the detection of a multitude of absorption and emission signatures in AGN has o↵eredinsight into the structure of the nuclear environs. The detection of absorption features–such as H-and He-like species of C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Al, Si, and S in the soft X-ray band (using Chandra andXMM-Newton gratings), the H-like and He-like species of Fe at higher energies, a broad unresolvedtransition array from the M-shell just below 1 keV (e.g. Behar et al. 2001), and the Fe L transition–are signatures of the complex absorption in the X-ray band. The soft X-ray absorption featuresand the H- and He- like Fe absorption signatures generally show blueshifts (typically in the range100 ⇠ 1000 km s−1 and a few thousand km s−1 to 0.3 c, respectively, Blustin et al., 2005; Tombesiet al., 2010), suggesting than this circumnuclear material originates in an outflow. Initially, complexabsorption in the soft X-ray band was detected over three decades in ionization parameter (log ⇠ ⇠0 – 3) and three decades in column density (NH ⇠ 1020 – 1023 cm−2, e.g. Turner & Miller 2009).However, the detection of deep Fe xxv and Fe xxvi absorption lines expanded the known range ofionization parameter (log ⇠ ⇠ 0 – 5) and column density (NH ⇠ 1020 – few ⇥ 1024 cm−2), in theAGN population (e.g, Reeves et al., 2004; Risaliti et al., 2005; Turner et al., 2008).

The presence of Fe xxv and xxvi are common in the local type 1 AGN population. Recently,Tombesi et al. (2010) performed a blind search for absorption signatures in the Fe K regime ofradio-quiet AGN by cross-correlating the sources detected in the RXTE All-Sky Slew Survey withthe XMM-Newton archive and detected absorption from Fe xxv, Fe xxvi or both, in ⇠ 40% of thesources studied in their sample. The depth of these absorption lines constrains this highly ionizedcomponent of gas to NH⇠ 1022 – 1024 cm−2 along the line-of-sight. We note that the sources inthis sample were limited to being X-ray bright (4-10 keV Flux > 10−12 cm−2) and local (x < 0.1).

With the X-ray data necessitating an outflowing complex absorber, some teams have successfullymodeled local type 1 AGN with a partial-covering model (Miller et al., 2008; Turner et al., 2007).

1



113

In the framework of complex absorption models, Compton-thick (NH > 1024 cm−2) clouds mayphysically manifest via a disk-wind and observationally dominate in the hard X-ray band.

3 Modeling the Fe K Line Profiles in Type I AGN with a Compton-Thick Disk Wind

We (Tatum et al., 2012) selected a small sample of Seyfert galaxies that were previously identifiedas having simple X-ray spectra with little intrinsic absorption and were observed by Suzaku. Thesesources all contained moderately broad components of Fe K-shell emission and were ideal for testingthe applicability of a Compton-thick, accretion-disk wind model to AGN spectra.

To model the Compton-thick wind, we used a model grid based on the Compton-thick windmodel of Sim et al. (2010). Given the limited spectral resolution and signal-to-noise ratio of thedata, we found that it was not possible to determine all wind parameters simultaneously. As a resultof these parameter degeneracies, we fixed both the inner radius, the focal point, the outer radiusand the Fe abundance. As such, the wind model parameter values must be taken in context withthe assumed geometry, i.e. the goal was to demonstrate that the Compton-thick wind model canexplain the profiles of the broad components of Fe K↵ emission for a reasonable area of parameter-space.

The Fe K emission line profiles and X-ray spectra were well described (average reduced χ2 ⇠1.1 for the 2-10 keV fits) with a model of a Compton-thick accretion-disk wind of solar abundances,arising tens to hundred of gravitational radii from the central black hole (see Figure 1). Further tothis, the fits required a neutral component of Fe K↵ emission that is too narrow to arise from theinner part of the wind, and likely comes from a more distant reprocessing region. Our study demon-strated that a Compton-thick wind can have a profound e↵ect on the observed X-ray spectrum ofan AGN.

4 The Global Implications of the Hard X-ray Excess in Type 1AGN

The Suzaku observations of 1H 0419–577, PDS 456 and NGC 1365 revealed a marked excess offlux above 20 keV, compared to that predicted from fits to data below 10 keV, dubbed a ‘hardexcess’ (Turner et al., 2009; Reeves et al., 2009; Risaliti et al., 2009a, respectively). In these sources,the high PIN-band flux (15–50 keV) was explained by the presence of a Compton-thick absorbercovering > 70% of the continuum source, suggesting that type 1 AGN can be unobscured in theoptical bandpass, but partially covered in the X-ray regime. This motivated an exploratory studyof the hard excess phenomenon in the local type 1 AGN population.

We (Tatum et al., 2013) selected all type 1-1.9 AGN in the Swift Burst Alert Telescope (BAT)58-month catalog and cross-correlated them with the holdings of the Suzaku public archive. Ourselection criteria yielded a total sample of 43 objects and 76 Suzaku observations. Using onlySuzaku data, we extracted the observed energy fluxes (ergs cm−2 s−1) for the 2-10 keV and 15-50keV bandpasses to determine the hardness ratio, Flux15−50 keV /Flux2−10 keV , for each observation.

To understand the distribution of hardness ratios in the sample, we plotted the hardness ratioagainst the BAT flux and compared our results to some simple models: disk reflection and partialcovering (see Figure 2). For these models, we assumed Γ=2.0, consistent with the average photonindex found for a sample of type 1 AGN (cf. Scott et al., 2011) and a continuum cut-o↵ at 500keV, beyond the bandpass considered here. First we calculated the expected hardness ratio for astandard thin disk of neutral material subtending 2⇡ sr at the continuum source and having Solar

2



114

abundances, parameterized using pexrav (Magdziarz & Zdziarski, 1995). In our sample, 90% ofthe objects were harder than this model prediction. When comparing our observational result tothe model prediction where the continuum source is completely hidden (pure reflection), using thesame parameter values as the previous disk model, we found that pure reflection cannot explainthe most extreme objects in this sample.

We also compared the data to predictions based upon a simple partial-covering model, charac-terized by a neutral absorber (pcfabs in xspec). In this case, a neutral column of Compton-thickgas (taken here to be 2 x 1024 cm−2) partially covers the Γ = 2 continuum source, with 50%, 70%,90% and 98% covering fractions (not corrected for Compton-scattering losses). Approximately 80%(35 objects, 63 observations) of the sample had hardness ratios consistent with > 50% covering ofthe continuum by Compton-thick gas.

We extracted the total EW of the Fe K↵ emission for each observation and plotted it against thespectral hardness. This observational result was most consistent with a 3D Monte-Carlo radiativetransfer realization of a spherical distribution of Compton-thick clouds that partially cover thecontinuum source. This sponge-like topology, surrounding the X-ray continuum source, accountedfor Compton scattering and Fe K line absorption and re-emission. The hardness ratios and Fe K↵emission line widths are well characterized by varying the volume filling factor of the neutral, clumpygas, as the model lines lie within the 1σ errors of 83% of the data (see Figure 2). Considerationsof the FWHM Fe K core measurements and the corresponding Hβ measurements of Shu et al.(2010) for those sources common to both Shu et al. (2010) and our study and the known spectralvariability in some type 1 AGN (e.g., Risaliti et al., 2009b; Turner et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2008)placed the gas within the optical broad line region.

The most extreme sources in our study possess sharp Fe K absorption edges. The absorptionor reflection components that account for those edges also explain the hard spectral form of thosesources. No relativistically-blurred components are required to explain these extreme sources, orany of the sample properties. We concluded that there is no evidence for any significant contributionby blurred reflection to the hard spectral form of local Seyfert galaxies.

The ubiquitous presence of Compton-thick material in type 1 AGN should have implicationsin regards to the cosmic X-ray background as its spectral shape suggests that a fraction of AGNare heavily obscured by Compton-thick material (Gilli et al., 2007; Treister et al., 2009). To date,contributions to the cosmic X-ray background from type 1 AGN have been modeled assuming thesesources are unobscured (log NH < 21) with a distant reflector subtending 2⇡ sr at the continuumsource (c.f. Comastri et al., 1995; Gilli et al., 2007). However, with the widespread evidence forpartial covering of the X-ray absorber by high columns of gas (e.g. Miller et al., 2007; Turneret al., 2011), the type 1 AGN population may be a more important contributor to the cosmic X-raybackground, than previously thought.

5 Conclusion

We conclude that the X-ray signatures of a Compton-thick wind have a profound e↵ect on theobserved X-ray spectra of AGN, even when the nuclear system is not viewed through the wind. Inprinciple, fits to X-ray spectra of AGN can provide important constraints on the wind mass lossrate, geometry and orientation of the nuclear wind.

We also conclude that pure reflection models do not adequate represent both the spectralhardness and Fe K↵ emission line equivalent width for our hard X-ray selected sample. Furthermore,the presence of sharp edges in the hardest objects in the sample indicates that the extreme hardnesscannot be dominated by blurred reflection components. However, a model comprising partial-covering by an ensemble of Compton-thick clouds is most consistent with the observational result.

3



115

0.01

0.02

keV

2 (

Photo

ns c

m−

2 s

−1 k

eV

−1)

Ark 120

5

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

ratio

Energy (keV)

Figure 1: The 2-10 keV fit: The black markers represent the data, the green curve represents the wind model component,and the red curve represent the total spectrum. See Tatum et al. (2012) for all 2-10 keV fits.

10 10020 50 200 500

110

Flu

x1

5−

50/F

lux

2−

10

BAT Flux (10−12 ergs s−1 cm−2)

10 100 1000

110

25

20

Flu

x1

5−

50/F

lux

2−

10

EWFeKα Total

(eV)

Figure 2: (Left) The hardness ratio, Flux1550 keV /Flux210 keV , plotted against the Swift BAT flux. Superimposed is theweighted hardness ratio mean (solid horizontal line). Overlaid are model predictions for simple disk reflection for R=1 (dashedline) and R! 1 (dash-dot) and for partial covering by neutral, Compton-thick, NH=2 x 1024 cm2, clouds with 98% (circle-dot), 90% (circle-cross), 70% (square), and 50% (triangle) covering fractions, not accounting for Compton-scattering losses.(Right) Model predictions from the 3D Monte-Carlo radiative transfer realization of a Compton-thick spherical distribution ofclouds (red, green, blue, cyan, magenta) correspond to various filling factors of the Compton-thick cloud distribution. Movingcounterclockwise around any one loop corresponds to increasing column density of an individual spherical cloud. See Tatumet al. (2013).

4



116

References

Behar, E., Sako, M., & Kahn, S. M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 497

Blustin, A. J., Page, M. J., Fuerst, S. V., Branduardi-Raymont, G., & Ashton, C. E. 2005, A&A,431, 111

Comastri, A., Setti, G., Zamorani, G., & Hasinger, G. 1995, A&A, 296, 1

Gilli, R., Comastri, A., & Hasinger, G. 2007, A&A, 463, 79

Magdziarz, P. & Zdziarski, A. A. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 837

Miller, L., Turner, T. J., & Reeves, J. N. 2008, A&A, 483, 437

Miller, L., Turner, T. J., Reeves, J. N., George, I. M., Kraemer, S. B., & Wingert, B. 2007, A&A,463, 131

Reeves, J. N., Nandra, K., George, I. M., Pounds, K. A., Turner, T. J., & Yaqoob, T. 2004, ApJ,602, 648

Reeves, J. N., O’Brien, P. T., Braito, V., Behar, E., Miller, L., Turner, T. J., Fabian, A. C., Kaspi,S., Mushotzky, R., & Ward, M. 2009, ApJ, 701, 493

Risaliti, G., Bianchi, S., Matt, G., Baldi, A., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., & Zezas, A. 2005, ApJL,630, L129

Risaliti, G., Braito, V., Laparola, V., Bianchi, S., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., Maiolino, R., Matt, G.,Reeves, J., Salvati, M., & Wang, J. 2009a, ApJL, 705, L1

Risaliti, G., Miniutti, G., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., Salvati, M., Baldi, A., Braito, V., Bianchi, S.,Matt, G., Reeves, J., Soria, R., & Zezas, A. 2009b, ApJ, 696, 160

Scott, A. E., Stewart, G. C., Mateos, S., Alexander, D. M., Hutton, S., & Ward, M. J. 2011,MNRAS, 417, 992

Shu, X. W., Yaqoob, T., & Wang, J. X. 2010, ApJS, 187, 581

Sim, S. A., Miller, L., Long, K. S., Turner, T. J., & Reeves, J. N. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1369

Tatum, M. M., Turner, T. J., Miller, L., & Reeves, J. N. 2013, ApJ, 762, 80

Tatum, M. M., Turner, T. J., Sim, S. A., Miller, L., Reeves, J. N., Patrick, A. R., & Long, K. S.2012, ApJ, 752, 94

Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., Palumbo, G. G. C., Yaqoob, T., Braito, V., & Dadina, M.2010, A&A, 521, A57

Treister, E., Urry, C. M., & Virani, S. 2009, ApJ, 696, 110

Turner, T. J. & Miller, L. 2009, A&Ar, 17, 47

Turner, T. J., Miller, L., Kraemer, S. B., & Reeves, J. N. 2011, ApJ, 733, 48

Turner, T. J., Miller, L., Kraemer, S. B., Reeves, J. N., & Pounds, K. A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 99

Turner, T. J., Miller, L., Reeves, J. N., & Kraemer, S. B. 2007, A&A, 475, 121

Turner, T. J., Reeves, J. N., Kraemer, S. B., & Miller, L. 2008, A&A, 483, 161

5



117

Thesis overview Reinout J. van Weeren

Supervisors: Prof. dr. H. J. A. Rottgering & Prof. dr. G. K. Miley

Radio emission from merging galaxy clusters: characterizing shocks, magneticfields and particle acceleration

Short summaryDi↵use cluster radio sources, unrelated to any indi-vidual galaxies in clusters, trace giant shock wavesand turbulence, generated when galaxy clusters col-lide and merge. Within the merger induced shocks,particles are thought to be accelerated to extremelyrelativistic energies, emitting synchrotron radiation inthe presence of magnetic fields.

For van Weeren’s thesis work, a comprehensivestudy was performed of di↵use cluster radio sourcesto unravel their origin. The results are presented in11 thesis chapters each of which were published asseparate papers. Highlights from the thesis include:

• The discovery and study of the remarkable2 Mpc size relic in the massive clusterCIZA J2242.8+5301. From the properties of thisrelic, van Weeren showed that shocks in mergingclusters are the largest particle accelerators in theUniverse (van Weeren et al. 2010, Science, 330,347, see also Figs. 1 and 2).

• Based on extensive hydrodynamical simulationsof the CIZA J2242.8+5301 merger event, vanWeeren derived for the first time a consistent setof parameters describing a cluster merging eventthat produces radio relics. These parameters in-clude the mass ratio, impact parameter, orienta-tion, and time since core passage.

• The discovery of the most powerful di↵use ra-dio emitter so far associated with a cluster,(MACS J0717.5+3745 at z = 0.55). The mea-sured co-location of this radio source with aregion of high temperature X-ray gas providesstrong evidence that the radio-emitting particlesare accelerated in a merger-related shock wave.

• Construction of the first substantial sample ofdi↵use radio sources associated with clusters

shocks. A statistical analysis of this sample al-lowed the properties of the relics (the location,sizes, and cluster centric distances) to be relatedto the overall properties of the merging clusters(merging axis orientation, X-ray luminosity).

• Extensive technical work with commissioningdata from the new radio telescope LOFAR, onthe cluster Abell 2256, led to the first deep im-ages at extremely low radio frequencies.

1 Background1.1 Galaxy clustersGalaxy clusters form through a sequence of merg-ers of smaller sub-clusters. These cluster mergers arethe most energetic events after the Big Bang, releas-ing energies of 1062−65 ergs on timescales of a Gyr.Galaxy clusters contain up to several thousand galax-ies. However, most of their visible mass is in the hot(106−7 K) intracluster medium (ICM), which emits atX-ray wavelengths and permeates the entire cluster’svolume.

1.2 Di↵use cluster radio emissionRadio observations of colliding galaxy clusters haverevealed the existence of large Mpc-size, di↵use syn-chrotron emitting sources: so-called radio halos orrelics, depending on their location in the cluster cen-ter or outskirts, respectively. They are unrelated tothe radio galaxies commonly found in clusters. Theobserved synchrotron radiation implies the existenceof highly relativistic particles (i.e., Cosmic rays withLorentz factors of ⇠ 104−5) and magnetic fields (⇠1µGauss). Two major questions are how these parti-cles are accelerated up to such extreme energies andwhat is the origin of cluster-wide magnetic fields.

Radio halos are centrally located and roughly fol-low the X-ray emitting ICM. Halos have been ex-



118

plained by turbulence, driven by recent merger events,which re-accelerates relativistic particles. In an alter-native scenario, the energetic electrons are secondaryproducts of proton-proton collisions.

Radio relics are found mostly in the outskirts ofclusters and show a high degree of polarization. Large(& 500 kpc) relics have been explained by particles(re)accelerated at shocks. Studying relics is impor-tant, since this can provide information of the merg-ing activity independently from X-ray observations.

1.3 Observational Challenges

The radio spectra of halos and relics are steep, mean-ing that they are only bright at low-frequencies (< 200MHz). However, observing at low frequencies is verychallenging due the disturbing nature of the Earth’sionosphere. In addition, relics and halos have low-surface brightness which makes it hard to obtain datawith sufficient quality for detailed polarimetric andspectral studies, crucial to determine the origin andproperties of the relativistic particles and magneticfields. Therefore studies of non-thermal processes inthe ICM, as traced by the di↵use radio sources were,until recently, mainly limited to the brightest and mostnearby clusters. Also, due to these combined factors,only a few dozen halos and relics had been found.

2 The thesisRecently, the above situation has improved becauseof (i) advances in calibration algorithms to correct forthe ionospheric “blurring”, (ii) the availability of all-sky radio and X-ray surveys which enable a searchfor new di↵use cluster radio sources, (iii) the in-crease in computing power to perform detailed hy-drodynamical simulations of cluster mergers, and (iv)the construction of the new low-frequency radio tele-scope LOFAR, having unprecedented sensitivity andresolution in the largely unexplored 10–250 MHzband. These new opportunities were exploited for vanWeeren’s thesis and below some of key results of thiswork are listed in more detail.

2.1 Cluster shocks as giant particle acceler-ators

A unique 2 Mpc size radio relic was found in the clus-ter CIZA J2242.8+5301 (Figs. 1 and 2). The detailedstudy by van Weeren on this relic provided the best

evidence so far that large relics trace outward mov-ing shocks and act as giant particle accelerators. Thisconclusion is based on the extremely high measuredpolarization fraction (60%) and clear spectral indexgradients (Fig. 2). These spectral index gradients areexpected for particles that are accelerated at the shockfronts and cool in the post-shock region as the shockstravel outwards.

2.2 The discovery of the most powerful anddistant di↵use radio emitter

In the cluster MACS J0717.5+3745 (z = 0.55), com-plex di↵use radio emission was found using deepGMRT and VLA observations. The di↵use emis-sion is extremely luminous and this is likely relatedto the quadruple merger event this system is under-going. The measured co-location of this radio sourcewith a region of high temperature X-ray gas providesstrong evidence that the radio-emitting particles areaccelerated by merger-related shocks and turbulence.

2.3 Determining cluster merger parameterswith radio relics and simulations

Van Weeren developed a new technique to use the lo-cation, size, and shape of radio relics to determinethe cluster merger parameters, including the mass ra-tio, impact parameter, inclination of the merger axis,and time since collision. In addition, this method pro-vides a new way to constrain the ICM clumping inthe clusters outskirts, using the morphology of relics.Measuring the amount of clumping is crucial to de-termining the baryon fraction, density, and entropy atthe virial radius and beyond.

The method involves running hydrodynamical sim-ulations of merger events and creating mock imagesof radio relics, which are then compared with actualradio images. This new technique was applied to thecluster CIZA J2242.8+5301 (Fig. 3) to find a 1 : 2mass ratio merger, 1 Gyr after core passage, withclose to zero impact parameter.

2.4 Construction of a sample of di↵use radiosources

A major problem in the quest for understanding theorigin of di↵use cluster radio emission is that onlya few dozen of these sources were known. Simula-tions indicate that many more halos and relics should



119

be present in current large all-sky radio surveys (e.g.,the 1.4 GHz NVSS survey), given that many mas-sive clusters are undergoing merger events. Thereforevarious new selection methods were developed to ex-tract promising relic and halo candidates from exist-ing large surveys. The new methods used the spec-tral index, angular extent, and location of the di↵useemission with respect to the X-ray emission. Can-didates were then followed-up with deeper WSRT,GMRT, or VLA observations for confirmation.

The new selection criteria turned out to be verysuccessful and more than a dozen new di↵use clus-ter radio sources were found in this way. One of thisnew sources is the peculiar shaped “toothbrush” relicin the cluster RX J0603.3+4214 (Fig. 4, left). Bycomplementing the new observational data with mea-surements from the literature, correlations betweenthe physical sizes, locations of the di↵use emissionwith respect to the cluster center, and spectral in-dices for relics were uncovered. The results pro-vide strong support for the association of relics withshocks waves.

2.5 The first ultra-low frequency study

The first commissioning LOFAR observations wereused to study the cluster Abell 2256, hosting a pre-viously known large radio relic and halo. Extensivetechnical and commissioning work was carried outincluding the development of new calibration algo-rithms to handle these very challenging observations.The resulting LOFAR images are (still) the deepestimages ever obtained below 100 MHz (Fig. 4, right),and these were also the first published LOFAR im-ages.

The goal of these observations was to determinethe low-frequency spectral shape of the halo andrelic emission. The surprising outcome of this studywas the finding that the radio halo spectrum steep-ens below 100 MHz, indicating the presence of mul-tiple non-thermal particle populations in the ICM.This could suggest that the halo emission origi-nates from two underlying physical processes: turbu-lent re-acceleration (dominating the emission at low-frequencies) and secondary electrons (dominating theemission at high-frequencies). Alternatively, it couldindicate particle acceleration in an in-homogenousturbulent ICM, leading to locally di↵erent particledistributions.

List of chapters1. Particle Acceleration on Megaparsec Scales in a

Merging Galaxy Cluster; Published in: R. J. vanWeeren, H. J. A. Rottgering, M. Bruggen, M. Hoeft,Science, 2010, 230, 347-349

2. The “toothbrush-relic”: evidence for a coherent lin-ear 2-Mpc scale shock wave in a massive merginggalaxy cluster?; Published in: R. J. van Weeren,H. J. A. Rottgering, H. T. Intema, L. Rudnick, et al.,A&A, 2012, 546, 124

3. First LOFAR observations at very low frequencies ofcluster-scale non-thermal emission: the case of Abell2256; Published in: R. J. van Weeren, H. J. A.Rottgering, D. A. Ra↵erty, R. Pizzo, et al., A&A,2012, 543, 43

4. A double radio relic in the merging galaxy clusterZwCl 0008.8+5215; Published in: R. J. van Weeren,M. Hoeft , H. J. A. Rottgering, M. Bruggen, et al.,A&A, 2011, 528, 38

5. Di↵use steep-spectrum sources from the 74 MHzVLSS survey; Published in: R. J. van Weeren, H.J. A. Rottgering, M. Bruggen, A&A, 2011, 527, 114

6. Radio continuum observations of new radio halosand relics from the NVSS and WENSS surveys: Relicorientations, cluster X-ray luminosity and redshiftdistributions; Published in: R. J. van Weeren, M.Bruggen, H. J. A. Rottgering, M. Hoeft, et al., A&A,2011, 533, 35

7. Using double radio relics to constrain galaxy clustermerger events: A model of the double radio relics inCIZA J2252.8+5301; Published in: R. J. van Weeren,M. Bruggen, H. J. A. Rottgering, M. Hoeft, , MN-RAS, 2011, 418, 230

8. Radio observations of ZwCl 2341.1+0000: a doubleradio relic cluster; Published in: R. J. van WeerenH. J. A. Rottgering, J. Bagchi, S. Raychaudhury, etal., A&A, 2009, 506, 1083-1094

9. Di↵use radio emission in the merging cluster MACSJ0717.5+3745: the discovery of the most powerfulradio halo; Published in: R. J. van Weeren, H. J. A.Rottgering, M. Bruggen, A. Cohen, A&A, 2009, 505,991-997

10. A search for steep spectrum radio relics and haloswith the GMRT; Published in: R. J. van Weeren, H.J. A. Rottgering, M. Bruggen, A. Cohen, A&A, 2009,508, 75-92

11. The discovery of di↵use steep spectrum sources inAbell 2256; Published in: R. J. van Weeren, H. T. In-tema, J. B. R. Oonk, H. J. A. Rottgering, T. E. Clarke,A&A, 2009, 508, 1269-1273



120

Figure 1: Left: Combined radio (GMRT 610 MHz, red) and X-ray (ROSAT, blue) image of the galaxy clusterCIZA J2242.8+5301 (van Weeren et al., Science, 2010, 230, 347, see also Fig. 2). The radio arc likely tracesa giant shock caused by the merging of two subclusters. The location of the outward moving shock waves,in which particles are accelerated, are indicated with arrows. These observations provided the best evidenceto date for particle acceleration in cluster shocks. Middle: Simulated cluster merger event (van Weeren etal. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 230, see also Fig. 3). Colors show the gas temperature (blue: hot, purple: cold),white contours the gas density distribution. Two shocks can be seen at the top and bottom of the image,i.e., characterized by the high gas temperature and density jumps. Right: XMM-Newton image, in the 0.5–4 keV band, overlaid with 1.4 GHz WSRT radio contours (point sources were masked). The XMM-Newtonobservations confirmed the merging nature of this cluster. Temperature jumps at the location of the relics werelater reported by Akamatsu et al. (2013, PASJ, 65, 16) and Ogrean et al. (2013, MNRAS, 429, 2617) usingSuzaku and XMM data.

Figure 2: Radio spectral index (left) and polarization map (right) of the relic in CIZA J2242.8+5301 (vanWeeren et al., Science, 2010, 230, 347, see also Fig. 1). As a merger shock moves outwards, spectral steep-ening is expected in the shock downstream region due to electron energy losses. At the shock front the ICMis compressed and magnetic fields should align within the plane of the shock. Both of these e↵ects wereobserved for the relic in CIZA J2242.8+5301. The spectral index was determined using observations be-tween 0.61–1.7 GHz. The polarization electric field vector map was obtained with the VLA at a frequency of4.9 GHz.



121

Figure 3: Modeled radio emission of relics (shocks) employing hydrodynamical cluster merger sim-ulations including particle acceleration. Observed WSRT radio contours are overlaid for the clusterCIZA J2242.8+5301. Top panels: Varying the mass ratio of the merger event between 1:1 and 1:3. Amass ratio of 2:1 gives the best match to the observations. Bottom panels: Simulations with di↵erent ICMclumping properties (van Weeren et al., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 230).

Figure 4: Left: GMRT 610 MHz image of the extraordinary “Toothbrush” relic in the newly discovered clusterRX J0603.1+4214 at z = 0.225. The relic likely traces a 2 Mpc shock front. Right: The cluster Abell 2256observed with LOFAR in August 2011 (van Weeren et al., 2012, A&A, 534, 43). The 60 MHz LOFAR imagehas a resolution of 15 arcsec and an unprecedented noise level of 10 mJy beam−1, revealing for the first timethe faint di↵use radio emission in the cluster at frequencies below 100 MHz.



122

NOtES

123

NOtES

124

NOtES

High Energy Astrophysics Division (HEAD) · High Energy Astrophysics Division (HEAD) Session...

Documents

Transcript of High Energy Astrophysics Division (HEAD) · High Energy Astrophysics Division (HEAD) Session...