a simple model for superluminal motion and state transition of microquasars

A simple model for superluminal motiA simple model for superluminal motion and state transition of microquasaon and state transition of microquasa

rsrs

Huazhong University of Science and technology

Gong Biping

Bulk motionBulk motion

M. Rees 1966

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

XTE J1550-564XTE J1550-564 in 2000 and 2002 in 2000 and 2002

2002, Science, 298, 196.

2004, ARA&A, 42, 317.

GRS 1915+105

in 1994 and 1997

Miller-Jones et al 2005

Position angle Position angle variationvariation

1999, ApJ, 511, 398.

Difficult questions on SLMDifficult questions on SLM

(a) why the ratio of the displacement of the approaching blob to the receding blob is not a constant.

(b) why the receding jet appears later than the approaching jet in XTEJ1550-564 (for months) and GRS 1915+105 (for days).

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

(d) why the position angle changes 10 deg in 20-30 days in GRS 1915+105.

(e) why there is obvious oscillation in the receding blob.

(f) why 20% discrepancy in proper motion between the ejection of 1994 and 1997.

(g) why the size of condensations do not increase rapidly as expected from adiabatic expansion.

Other possibility?Other possibility?

Bulk motion

precession

The precession of GRS 1915+105 and SS433The precession of GRS 1915+105 and SS433

Jet precession model Jet precession model

Primary precessionPrimary precession

Perturbation to orbital elementsPerturbation to orbital elements

NutationNutation

SLM under precession scenarioSLM under precession scenario

(a) why the ratio of the displacement of the approaching blob to the (a) why the ratio of the displacement of the approaching blob to the receding blob is not a constant. receding blob is not a constant.

is not a constant under precession model

It is a constant under bulk motion

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

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

(d) why the decrease in flux density with angular separation from the core on GRS 1915+105 is remarkably similar with that of SS 433.

(e) why 20% discrepancy in proper motion between the ejection of 1994 and 1997.

(f) why the position angle changes 10 deg in 20-30 days in GRS 1915+105.

(g) why there is obvious oscillation in the receding blob.

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

The state evolution of GRS 1915+105The state evolution of GRS 1915+105

Fender et al. 2004

Fender et al. 2004

Structured jet

Precession of the structured jetPrecession of the structured jet

SummarySummary

Simple

Unified

Easy to test

Thanks for your attention