1:
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
3: %\usepackage{epsfig}
4: %********************************************************************
5: % to be substituted with aastex and double spaced for submission!!!
6: %********************************************************************
7: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
8: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
9: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
10: %
11: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
12: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\mdot}{$\dot{m}$ }
15: \newcommand{\kms}{\,{\rm {km\, s$^{-1}$}}}
16: \newcommand{\msun}{{$M_{\odot}$~}}
17: \newcommand{\ledd}{$L_{\rm Edd}$~}
18: \newcommand{\mic}{$\mu$m }
19: \newcommand{\uJ}{$\mu$Jy}
20: \newcommand{\se}{s$^{-1}$ }
21: \newcommand{\degree}{$^{\circ}$}
22: \newcommand{\gtsima}{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
23: \newcommand{\ltsima}{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
24: \newcommand{\prosima}{$\; \buildrel \propto \over \sim \;$}
25: \newcommand{\gsim}{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
26: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
27: \newcommand{\simgt}{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
28: \newcommand{\simlt}{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
29: \newcommand{\simpr}{\lower.5ex\hbox{\prosima}}
30: \newcommand{\es}{erg~s$^{-1}$}
31: \newcommand{\esc}{erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$}
32: \newcommand{\lsun}{L_\odot}
33: \newcommand{\nh}{N$_{\rm H}$}
34: \newcommand{\ie}{{i.e.~}}
35: \newcommand{\etal}{{et al.~}}
36: \newcommand{\cxo}{\textit{Chandra~}}
37: \newcommand{\spi}{\textit{Spitzer~}}
38: \newcommand{\4}{{V404~Cyg}}
39: \newcommand{\azero}{{A0620--00}}
40:
41: \shorttitle{SED of quiescent black hole X-ray binaries}
42: \shortauthors{Gallo et al.}
43:
44:
45: \begin{document}
46:
47:
48:
49: \title{The Spectral Energy Distribution of Quiescent Black Hole X-ray Binaries:
50: New Constraints from \textit{Spitzer}}
51:
52:
53: \author{Elena Gallo\altaffilmark{1,2},
54: Simone Migliari\altaffilmark{3}, Sera Markoff\altaffilmark{4}, John A.
55: Tomsick\altaffilmark{5}, Charles D. Bailyn\altaffilmark{6}, Stefano
56: Berta\altaffilmark{3,7}, Rob Fender\altaffilmark{8}, James C. A. Miller-Jones\altaffilmark{4}}
57: \altaffiltext{1}{Physics Department, Broida Hall, University of
58: California Santa Barbara, CA 93106}
59: \altaffiltext{2}{Chandra Fellow}
60: \altaffiltext{3}{Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, 9500 Gilman Dr.,
61: University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093}
62: \altaffiltext{4}{Astronomical Institute `Anton Pannekoek', University of
63: Amsterdam, Kruislaan 403, 1098 SJ, Amsterdam, NL}
64: \altaffiltext{5}{
65: Space Sciences Laboratory, 7 Gauss Way, University of California
66: Berkeley, CA 94720}
67: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astronomy, Yale University, P.O. Box 208101,
68: New Haven, CT 06520}
69: \altaffiltext{7}{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit{\` a} di Padova, Vicolo
70: dell'~Osservatorio 2, 35122 Padova, IT}
71: \altaffiltext{8}{School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
72: Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK}
73:
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76: Among the various issues that remain open in the field of accretion
77: onto black hole X-ray binaries (BHBs) is the way the gas accretes at
78: very low Eddington ratios, in the so-called quiescent regime. While
79: there is general agreement that the X-rays are produced by a
80: population of high-energy electrons near to the BH, the controversy
81: comes about in modeling the contribution from inflowing vs. outflowing
82: particles, and their relative energy budget. Recent \spi observations
83: of three quiescent BHBs have shown evidence for excess emission with
84: respect to the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of the companion star between 8--24
85: $\mu$m. We suggest that synchrotron emission from a partially
86: self-absorbed outflow might be responsible for the observed mid-IR
87: excess, in place of, or in addition to, thermal emission from
88: circumbinary material. If so, then the jet synchrotron luminosity, integrated from
89: radio up to near-IR frequencies, exceeds the measured 2-10 keV
90: luminosity by a factor of a few in these systems. In turn, the
91: mechanical power stored in the jet exceeds the bolometric X-ray
92: luminosity at least by 4 orders of magnitude. We then compile the
93: broadband spectral energy distribution (SED) of A0620--00, the lowest
94: Eddington-ratio stellar mass BH with a known radio counterpart, by
95: means of simultaneous radio, optical and X-ray observations, and the
96: archival \spi data. We are able to fit the SED of A0620--00 with a
97: `maximally jet-dominated' model in which the radio through the soft
98: X-rays are dominated by synchrotron emission, while the hard X-rays
99: are dominated by inverse Compton at the jet base. The fitted
100: parameters land in a range of values that is reminiscent of the
101: Galactic Center super-massive black hole Sgr A*. Most notably, the
102: inferred ratio of the jet acceleration rate to local cooling rates is
103: two orders of magnitude weaker with respect to higher luminosity, hard
104: state sources.
105:
106: \end{abstract}
107:
108:
109: \keywords{X-rays: binaries --- radiation mechanisms: general --- stars: individual (A0620--00, V404 Cyg, XTE J1118+480)}
110: %*********************
111: \section{Introduction}
112: %*********************
113: The \textit{Spitzer Space Telescope~}offers the opportunity for the first time
114: to identify and characterize the properties of highly sub-Eddington Galactic
115: black hole X-ray binaries (BHBs) in the mid-infrared band, a frequency window
116: that is still largely unexplored for these systems, and that can prove to be
117: crucial for our understanding of the overall structure of the accretion flow
118: in quiescence.
119: %
120: The infrared (IR) spectra of BHBs with a low mass donor star are
121: likely shaped by a number of competing emission mechanisms, among
122: which: reprocessing of accretion-powered X-ray and ultraviolet photons,
123: either by the donor star surface or by the outer accretion disk,
124: direct thermal emission from the outer disk, non-thermal synchrotron
125: emission from a relativistic outflow and thermal emission from
126: circumbinary dust.
127: %
128: We refer the reader to Russell \etal (2006; R06 hereafter), and
129: references therein, for a recent comprehensive work on the optical and
130: near-IR spectral properties of X-ray binaries. Here we wish to stress
131: that, as well as for other wavebands, the relative strength of each
132: mechanism is known to vary greatly in response to changes in the
133: `X-ray state' of the system (see McClintock \& Remillard 2006; Homan
134: \& Belloni 2005). Throughout this work, we shall focus on the IR
135: properties of hard and quiescent low mass BHBs. Such (generally
136: transient) systems are characterized by strong variability, power-law
137: dominated X-ray spectra, and integrated X-ray luminosities that are
138: largely sub-Eddington (roughly between a few $10^{-6}-10^{-2}$ times
139: the Eddington luminosity, $L_{\rm Edd}$, for the hard state, and below a few
140: $10^{-6}$\ledd for the quiescent state).
141:
142: In spite of the large degree of uncertainty on the overall geometry of
143: the accretion flow in this regime, there is general agreement that the
144: X-rays are produced by a population of high-energy electrons near to
145: the BH, and that the accreting gas is highly inefficient at radiating,
146: either as a result of an intrinsically reduced radiative efficiency
147: (Narayan \& Yi 1994), or because of a substantial mass loss (Blandford
148: \& Begelman 1999), or a combination of the two (e.g. Markoff \etal
149: 2001; Yuan \etal 2005). The hard state is associated with the
150: production of persistent, partially self-absorbed,
151: synchrotron-emitting outflows with flat/inverted radio-mm spectra
152: (Fender 2001). Such jets appear to survive down to quiescent X-ray
153: luminosities (Gallo \etal 2006), even though sensitivity limitations
154: on current radio telescopes make it extremely difficult to reach the
155: signal-to-noise ratios required to assess their presence for low
156: luminosity systems farther than 2 kpc or so.
157: There is evidence from large-scale structures that the jets' mechanical power
158: is comparable to the bolometric X-ray luminosity in some hard state sources
159: (e.g. Cyg X-1, Gallo \etal 2005a; Russell \etal 2007). However,
160: even for the highest quality spectral energy distribution (SED), disentangling
161: the relative contributions of inflow vs. outflow to the radiation spectrum and
162: global accretion energy budget can be quite challenging, as illustrated by the emblematic
163: case of
164: \object{XTE J1118+480} in McClintock \etal (2003) and Markoff \etal (2001).
165: %
166: Estimates of the total jet power based on its radiation spectrum depend crucially
167: on the assumed frequency at which the flat, partially self-absorbed spectrum
168: turns and becomes optically thin, as the jet `radiative efficiency' depends
169: ultimately on the location of the high-energy cutoff induced by the higher
170: synchrotron cooling rate of the most energetic particles. Once again, this
171: quantity has proved hard to measure.
172:
173: R06 have collected all the available quasi-simultaneous optical and near-IR
174: data of a large sample of Galactic X-ray binaries over different X-ray
175: states. The optical/near-IR luminosity of hard/quiescent BHBs correlates with
176: the X-ray luminosity to the power $\sim$0.6, consistent with the known
177: radio/X-ray correlation slope down to $10^{-8}$\ledd (Gallo \etal 2006; but
178: see Gallo 2007 and Xue \& Cui 2007). Combined with the fact that the near-IR
179: emission is largely suppressed in the thermal-dominant state (R06, Figure 4),
180: this leads to the conclusion that, for the BHBs, the break to the optically
181: thin portion would take place in the mid-IR (2-40 $\mu$m). Additional evidence
182: for a synchrotron contribution to the IR band in hard state BHBs comes from
183: variability studies during outbursts (e.g. Hynes \etal 2006; Homan \etal
184: 2005).
185: %
186: Indeed, from a theoretical point of view, the {\it break frequency},
187: here defined as the frequency at which the partially self-absorbed jet
188: becomes optically thin, is inversely proportional to the BH mass: as
189: jet spectral breaks are often observed in the GHz/sub-mm regime in
190: active nuclei, they are expected to occur in the IR-optical band for
191: $10^{5-7}$ times lighter objects (see discussion in e.g. Markoff
192: \etal 2001 and references therein).
193: We know however from observations of \object{GX~339--4}, the only BHB
194: where the optically thin jet spectrum has been perhaps observed
195: (Corbel \& Fender 2002; Homan \etal 2005), that the exact break frequency can
196: vary with the overall luminosity, possibly reflecting changes in the
197: magnetic field energy density, particle density and mass loading at
198: the jet base (Nowak \etal 2005). Determining the location of
199: the jet break as a function of the bolometric luminosity is important
200: to assess the synchrotron contribution to the hard X-ray band, and may
201: even highlight substantial differences among different classes of objects.
202: %
203: As an example, the fact that the optically thin jet IR-emission in GX~339--4
204: connects smoothly with the hard X-ray power law has led to challenge the
205: `standard' Comptonization scenario for the hard X-ray state of BHBs (Markoff
206: \etal 2001). On the contrary, recent \spi observations of the ultra-compact
207: {\it neutron star} X-ray binary 4U~0614+091 (while in a hard state) revealed
208: that the break frequency must take place in the far-IR in this system,
209: effectively ruling out a synchrotron origin for the X-ray power law (Migliari
210: \etal 2006).
211:
212: In addition to the jet, \spi observations of quiescent BHBs should be
213: sensitive to possible emission from circumbinary material.
214: Circumbinary disks may be formed as a result of mass outflow from the
215: accretion disk, and have been invoked as an efficient process for the
216: removal of orbital angular momentum in addition to gravitational
217: radiation loss and/or magnetic braking (see Taam \& Spruit 2001 in
218: the context of cataclysmic variables). Alternatively, circumbinary
219: material could be due to the presence of a post-supernova explosion
220: fall-back disk, as argued in the case of the anomalous X-ray pulsar 4U
221: 0142+61 (Wang \etal 2006).
222: %
223: Muno \& Mauerhan (2006; MM06 hereafter) report on \spi observations
224: of four nearby low mass X-ray binaries: three BHBs plus one neutron
225: star system. Excess mid-IR emission -- with respect to the
226: Rayleigh-Jeans tail of the donor blackbody spectrum -- is detected
227: from two (possibly all three) BH systems; MM06 attribute this bump to
228: circumbinary dust that is illuminated by the low mass companion star.
229: This would imply that the optically
230: thick-to-thin jet break occurs in the mm regime, at much lower
231: frequencies than, e.g., inferred by R06.
232:
233: In this paper, we aim to reassess the relative contribution of the various
234: emission components to the radio/IR/optical spectra of the BHBs A0620--00, V404 Cyg and
235: XTE J1118+480 while in the quiescent state.
236: We first report on the re-analysis of
237: \spi observations, focusing on the rms estimate in the 24 \mic datasets
238: (Section~\ref{spi}), then proceed by examining the SED of each source
239: (Section~\ref{sed}).
240: The origin of the detected mid-IR excess emission is discussed in
241: Section~\ref{origin}. We finally focus on the broadband SED of A0620--00, a
242: highly sub-Eddington ($L_{\rm X}/L_{\rm Edd}\simeq 10^{-8}$) BHB for which
243: we put together previously published radio/X-ray data, the \spi data and new
244: optical data, all taken in 2005. We discuss the results of fitting the whole
245: SED by means of a maximally jet-dominated model in Section~\ref{jet}. A summary is given is
246: Section~\ref{sum}.
247:
248:
249: %***********************************************************************
250: \section{\textit{Spitzer} observations}
251: %***********************************************************************
252: \label{spi}
253:
254: The BHBs A0620--00, V404 Cyg and XTE J1118+480 were observed by {\it Spitzer}
255: between 2004 October and 2005 May as part of a survey of nearby low-mass
256: X-ray binaries (PI: Muno, Program 3289).
257: Photometry of the three targets was acquired using the Multi-band Imaging
258: Photometer for \spi (MIPS; Rieke \etal 2004) at 24 \mic and the Infrared Array
259: Camera (IRAC; Fazio \etal 2004) at 8 and 4.5 $\mu$m.
260: The Basic Calibrated Data (BCD) were re-processed and then mosaicked with the
261: {\textsc mopex} software (Makovoz \& Marleau 2005), which uses single, multi-frame,
262: and dual outlier rejection.
263: %%
264: As discussed by MM06, in the case of A0620--00, the MIPS image was
265: affected by dark latent features from a previous observation. The
266: artifacts were corrected by dividing each BCD frame by a normalized
267: median frame (based on all BCDs excluding the source). These corrected
268: BCDs were then mosaicked using {\textsc mopex}. Unique IR counter-parts,
269: consistent with the radio positions, are significantly ($>5\sigma$)
270: detected at 4.5 and 8 \mic for all the three sources. The MIPS 24 \mic
271: images of the targets are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:mips}: V404 Cyg and
272: A0620--00 are detected at the 2-2.5$\sigma$ level, while XTE J1118+480
273: is undetected.
274:
275: For each counterpart, we constructed the observation-specific
276: point-response function (PRF) with {\textsc prf\_estimate}, and extracted
277: the source flux using both standard aperture photometry on the
278: background-subtracted image and PRF-fitting (using {\textsc apex}), taking
279: care to mask foreground stars.
280: Sky subtraction
281: was carried out through the use of multiple 10 arcsec sky apertures placed over an annulus
282: around the
283: source.
284: %
285: Table~\ref{tab:spi} lists the fluxes as measured using both aperture
286: photometry and PRF-fitting on the mosaic images (the measured fluxes were then
287: corrected for interstellar extinction following the standard prescription for
288: the frequency-variable absorption by Cardelli \etal 1989).
289: %
290: The values obtained with the two methods are consistent with each other within
291: the errors. While they are also consistent, within the errors, with those
292: measured by MM06, we derive systematically larger (typically by a
293: factor 3) rms noise levels for the MIPS 24 \mic fluxes. In fact, statistical
294: uncertainties related to sky subtraction are usually negligible compared to
295: calibration and systematic uncertainties. However, statistical uncertainties
296: can be appreciable -- tens of percent -- for low signal/noise sources
297: (e.g. Dale \etal 2005). At 24 $\mu$m, this is clearly the case for A0620--00
298: and V404 Cyg, which are both affected by high cirrus background, as apparent
299: from Figure~\ref{fig:mips}.
300:
301: %
302: %*********************************
303: \section{Radio/Infrared/Optical spectra}
304: \label{sed}
305: %*********************************
306: We first compile the SEDs of the three systems by putting together the
307: \spi data discussed above, plus optical and radio data available in the
308: literature. For A0620--00, we make use of new optical data, presented in
309: Section~\ref{a0620sed}. Clearly, the non-strict simultaneity of the observations,
310: combined with the known variability of quiescent BHBs at all wavelengths
311: (e.g. Hynes \etal 2003, 2004),
312: should be kept in mind before drawing any definitive conclusion on the
313: modeling. Figure~\ref{fig:seds} shows the broadband SEDs of V404 Cyg, XTE
314: J1118+480 and A0620--00, while in the quiescent state, from radio to optical
315: wavelengths.
316:
317: We first focus on the IR-optical spectra: unlike MM06, we do not compare the
318: data against stellar atmosphere models: the smoothness of our SEDs does not
319: demand a sophisticated model which can account for fine spectral features.
320: Most importantly, we aim to quantify the relative goodness of the various
321: models via proper $\chi^2$ fitting, which would be meaningless if we were to
322: apply stellar atmosphere codes to our sparse data-points. Hence, for each
323: object we first model the IR-optical spectrum with a single temperature
324: blackbody, using the best available estimates for the source distance,
325: inclination and effective temperature. The blackbody approximation is meant to
326: mimic the contribution from the donor star. As shown by MM06, the
327: contribution from the irradiated outer accretion disk is negligible for the
328: parameter space relevant to these quiescent systems, at least in the IR band.
329: The best-fitting blackbody curves are shown in the left panels of
330: Figure~\ref{fig:eg}, with the fitted parameters and reduced $\chi^2$ given in
331: Table~\ref{tab:bb}. Evidently, the single blackbody model provides a poor fit
332: to the data: excess mid-IR emission, with respect to the Rayleigh-Jeans tail
333: of the donor/disk, is detected in all three cases.
334:
335: Fitting the data with two blackbodies (Figure~\ref{fig:eg}, middle panels)
336: slightly improves the reduced $\chi^2$ in all cases
337: (Table~\ref{tab:bb-bb}). The temperatures and normalizations of these
338: secondary blackbodies imply indeed larger physical sizes than the orbital
339: separation, possibly supporting the circumbinary material interpretation
340: (MM06). However, radio emission has been detected in two of these sources
341: (V404 Cyg: Hjellming \etal 2000, and A0620--00, Gallo \etal 2006), and
342: interpreted as partially self-absorbed synchrotron emission from a
343: relativistic outflow. The flat/slightly inverted outflow spectrum must become
344: optically thin at higher frequencies, possibly in the mid-IR (R06). We thus
345: explore the possibility that the mid-IR excess might be, at least partly, due
346: to non-thermal emission from a jet. This possibility has been ruled out by
347: MM06 on the basis of far too low fluxes/upper limits at 24 $\mu$m. However,
348: our revised estimates for the 24 \mic rms noise levels leave this possibility
349: open.
350:
351: We choose to fit the {\it radio}/IR/optical SEDs with a
352: single blackbody plus a broken power law of the form:
353: \begin{equation}
354: \label{eq:bp}
355: F_{\nu} = F_{\nu_0} \times \left\{
356: \begin{array}{ll}
357: (\nu / \nu_0)^{\alpha_1}, & \nu < \nu_b \\
358: (\nu_b / \nu_0)^{(\alpha_1 - \alpha_2)} (\nu / \nu_0)^{\alpha_2}, & \nu > \nu_b \\
359: \end{array}\right.\;
360: \end{equation}
361: This is meant to account for a partially self-absorbed synchrotron
362: spectrum with index $\alpha_1=0.0-0.5$ up to the break frequency
363: $\nu_b$, above which it becomes optically thin with index $\alpha_2$.
364: After running a grid of models with all the six fitting parameters
365: (blackbody temperature and normalization, plus the four broken power
366: law parameters) free to vary, we choose to fix the index of the
367: optically thin portion to $\alpha_2 = -0.8$ (corresponding to a `canonical'
368: electron distribution $N(E)\propto E^{-p}$ with power law index
369: $p=+2.6$, $E$ being the electron energy; e.g. Fender 2006) and the
370: position of the break to $\nu_b=10^{14}$ Hz, in order to maximize the
371: jet contribution to the mid-IR band. The results of the blackbody plus
372: broken power law fits are shown in the right panels of
373: Figure~\ref{fig:eg}, with the fitted parameters in
374: Table~\ref{tab:bb-pl}. We discuss below the SED compilation and the
375: results of the modeling on a case by case basis.
376: %**********************************
377: \subsection{V404~Cyg (GS~2023+338)}
378: % *********************************
379: Casares \etal (1993) report on $B$-$V$-$R$-$J$-$H$-$K$~band photometry
380: of \4 taken in 1991 July-August, 2 years after the end of the 1989
381: outburst that preceded the current quiescent regime (even though this
382: system, because of its relatively high quiescent X-ray luminosity
383: [$L_{\rm X}/L_{\rm Edd}\simeq 10^{-6.5}$], is often considered at the
384: boundary between `quiescence' and the hard X-ray state). Several
385: later works have established \4 to be variable by a factor of a few at
386: IR-to-X-ray wavelengths (see e.g. Hynes \etal 2004, Bradley \etal 2007
387: for the X-ray/optical variability; Zurita \etal 2004 for a study of
388: the long term optical/IR variability, and references therein). The
389: origin of such variability is yet to be well understood, even though
390: there is general agreement that it should take place somewhere in the
391: accretion flow rather than in the hot gas stream/donor star (Shahbaz
392: \etal 2003; Zurita \etal 2003; Hynes \etal 2003; 2004).
393:
394: Over the past few years, V404 Cyg has been known as a relatively stable radio
395: source, with an average flux density of $\sim 350~\mu$Jy, and a flat/slightly
396: inverted spectrum at GHz frequencies (Hjellming \etal 2000; Gallo \etal 2005b), interpreted in
397: terms of partially self-absorbed synchrotron radiation from outflowing plasma.
398: %
399: The variable nature of this system, combined with the fact that the available
400: data spread an interval of several years (the optical and \spi data
401: were acquired more than 10 years apart), make it especially difficult
402: to draw definite conclusions about the mid-IR emission detected with
403: MIPS (on the other hand, R06 showed that the optical-IR luminosity of
404: hard/quiescent state sources scales with the X-ray luminosity to the
405: power 0.6, implying that the X-ray variability should be reduced to
406: some extent in the IR).
407:
408: The top panels of Figure~\ref{fig:eg} show the IR-optical spectrum of
409: V404 Cyg as fitted with a single and double blackbody model (left and
410: middle panel, respectively): clearly the latter model provides a
411: better fit to the IR-optical data, with $\chi^2$/d.o.f.=10.3/7 and
412: $\chi^2$/d.o.f.=1.4/5, respectively.
413: %
414: However, these components do not account for the radio emission.
415: Because of the flat radio spectrum, it can not be ruled out that the
416: excess emission at 24 \mic might be due to the high frequency portion
417: of the well-established synchrotron-emitting outflow. The top right
418: panel of Figure~\ref{fig:eg} shows a fit to the radio-IR-optical data
419: with a single blackbody with $T\simeq 4600$ K plus a broken power law,
420: where the fitted index of the partially self-absorbed regime is
421: $\alpha_1=0.02$. This two-component model provides as a good fit as
422: the double blackbody model ($\chi^2$/d.o.f.=4.0/9), and it also accounts
423: for the radio emission.
424:
425: This suggests that, in this system, synchrotron emission from a
426: partially self-absorbed outflow is likely to be responsible for the
427: observed mid-IR excess as much as thermal emission from circumbinary
428: material. As an aside, if such excess were entirely due to
429: circumbinary disk emission, this would imply that the jet break to the
430: optically thin portion has to occur somewhere in the mm regime, \ie at
431: lower frequencies than predicted by R06. While the system SED could be
432: comfortably reproduced by the sum of two blackbody components plus a
433: broken power law, accommodating the circumbinary material and jet
434: the contribution, this would require as many free parameters as data points.
435: %*************************
436: \subsection{XTE~J1118+480}
437: %*************************
438:
439: Gelino \etal (2006) present $B$-$V$-$R$-$J$-$H$-$K_S$ band photometry
440: of XTE~J1118+480 in quiescence. Due to its high Galactic latitude,
441: XTE~J1118+480 is a virtually unabsorbed source ($A_V=0.06$) and yet it
442: can be taken as an example of how tricky it can be to infer the
443: properties and the geometry of the accretion flow based on modeling
444: the SED. For instance, the high quality simultaneous multi-wavelength
445: data acquired while in the hard state (at $L_{\rm X}/L_{\rm Edd}\simeq 10^{-3}$)
446: have been successfully modeled in terms of an advection-dominated
447: accretion flow (McClintock \etal 2003; Yuan \etal 2005), as well as
448: using a jet synchrotron model (Markoff \etal 2001). As shown in
449: Figure~\ref{fig:eg}, middle panels, there is evidence for substantial
450: excess emission at 8 \mic with respect to the donor star tail. We
451: notice that the single blackbody model provides a very poor
452: representation of the donor star spectrum: in this case, the actual
453: stellar atmosphere model is certainly more appropriate (see MM06,
454: Figure 2). However, as noticed above, we are interested in
455: constraining the nature of the excess mid-IR emission via proper
456: $\chi^2$ fitting: in this framework, irrespective of how well the
457: donor star thermal emission is modeled, our goal is to determine
458: whether fitting the mid-IR excess with a broken power law model
459: provides a better or worse description of the data in a statistical
460: sense. The radio counterpart to XTE J1118+480 is undetected in
461: quiescence, with an upper limit of 0.1 mJy at 8.5 GHz (Mirabel \etal
462: 2001). Because of this shallow upper limit, the measured excess at 8
463: \mic might still be interpreted as due to a partially self-absorbed
464: outflow that extends its power-law spectrum from the radio up to the
465: IRAC regime. This is illustrated in middle right panel of
466: Figure~\ref{fig:eg}, where a partially self-absorbed synchrotron
467: emitting outflow with $\alpha_1=0.27$, plus a $\sim 4300$ K blackbody
468: component, account for the system SED.
469: The reduced $\chi^2$ is
470: improved with respect to the double blackbody model ($\chi^2$/d.o.f. =
471: 12.0/3 vs. $6.2/3$, respectively for the double blackbody and
472: blackbody plus broken power law model). Within the blackbody plus
473: power-law model, the fitted values for the blackbody temperature and
474: normalization are consistent, within the errors, with the inferred
475: values for the donor star (namely $\sim 4250$ K and $\simeq$0.4 $R_{\odot}$;
476: Gelino \etal 2006).
477: %
478: The fitted radio spectral index is consistent with hard state sources
479: (Fender 2001), and predicts a GHz flux density lower than 5 $\mu$Jy,
480: practically undetectable with current radio facilities over reasonable
481: integration times (the rms noise level for a 24 hr integration with
482: the VLA is about 5 $\mu$Jy at 8.5 GHz; however, planned upgrades, such as the
483: eMERLIN and EVLA will be able to probe such flux density levels in
484: hrs-long exposures).
485:
486: %********************************
487: \subsection{A0620--00 (V616~Mon)}
488: %**********************************
489: \subsubsection{SMARTS observations}\label{a0620sed}
490: %
491: We construct the SED of A0620--00 by means of radio, IR, optical and X-ray
492: observations, all taken in 2005; the optical/near-IR data were acquired by the
493: Small and Moderate Aperture Research Telescope System
494: (SMARTS\footnote{http://www.astro.yale.edu/smarts}) consortium, using the
495: Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) 1.3 m together with
496: ANDICAM\footnote{http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ANDICAM}, a dual-channel
497: imager capable of obtaining optical and IR data simultaneously.
498: A0620--00 was observed through $I$-$V$-$H$ filters on 2005 August 18, one day
499: before the beginning of the (strictly simultaneous) Chandra/VLA observations
500: (taken on 2005 August 19-20;
501: Gallo \etal 2006), while the \spi data discussed above were acquired on 2005
502: March 06 (MIPS) and March 25 (IRAC).
503:
504: SMARTS data were calibrated using data from previous nights and were processed
505: and reduced using standard IRAF aperture photometry routines. The measured
506: magnitudes were converted into fluxes using the SMARTS photometric
507: zero-points; we used a color excess of $E(B-V)$=$0.39\pm0.02$ (Wu
508: \etal 1976), and corrected for extinction following again the standard prescription
509: for the frequency-variable absorption by Cardelli \etal (1989).
510: The results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:smarts}.
511: Interestingly, all of the measured magnitudes are brighter than the maximum
512: magnitude from the previously published quiescent light-curves (see Table 1 in
513: Gelino \etal 2001, reporting on optical and IR observations of A0620--00
514: between 1976 and 2001), and from 0.5-0.7 mag brighter than the mean magnitudes.
515: However, given the observed trend over the past few years of increasing
516: brightness in this source, it seems very unlikely that these results
517: require a sudden flare. This however has to be kept in mind when inspecting
518: the whole SED of A0620--00, in particular when comparing the 2005 March \spi
519: observations with the optical, near-IR values given by Gelino \etal (2001).
520:
521: %****************************
522: \subsubsection{Broadband SED}
523: %****************************
524: Significant excess emission with respect to the Rayleigh-Jeans
525: portion of the donor's blackbody spectrum is detected at 8 and 24 $\mu$m.
526: As shown in the middle-bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:eg}, the sum of two
527: blackbodies ($\sim 4700 + 390$ K) provides
528: a good fit to the IR-optical data ($\chi^2$/d.o.f.=2.0/2).
529: The detection of a radio counterpart to A0620--00 strongly
530: suggests that this quiescent system is powering a synchrotron-emitting
531: outflow (Gallo \etal 2006). Arbitrarily assuming a flat spectrum for the
532: partially self-absorbed portion of the jet, this would have to become
533: optically thin at frequencies lower than $10^{13}$ Hz for it not to contribute
534: to the mid-IR excess. Alternatively, the whole radio-IR-optical spectrum can be well
535: fit by
536: the sum of $\sim 4900$ K blackbody plus a broken power law with slightly inverted
537: spectrum in the radio-IR regime with $\alpha_1=0.1$ (yielding $\chi^2$/d.o.f.=7.8/3).
538:
539:
540:
541: %********************************************************************
542: \section{Origin of the mid-IR excess: implications for the jet power}
543: \label{origin}
544: %********************************************************************
545: The \spi observations of three quiescent BHBs discussed above show evidence
546: for excess emission in the mid-IR band; while it may possible to reproduce the
547: emission between $2-4\times 10^{14}$ Hz with a blackbody whose temperature is
548: consistent with the shown temperatures of the secondary stars, it would be
549: difficult to explain the excess at $10^{13}$ Hz with any model for which the
550: temperature is high enough so that $10^{13}$ Hz is in the Rayleigh-Jeans
551: portion of the blackbody spectrum. Thus, two main possibilities arise to
552: account for the measured excess: thermal emission from cool (hundreds of K)
553: circumbinary material, or synchrotron emission from outflowing plasma. The
554: latter hypothesis was dismissed by MM06 on the basis of far too low 24 \mic
555: fluxes/upper limits. Our estimates for the statistical uncertainties on the 24
556: $\mu$m observations, however, reinstate this
557: possibility.
558:
559: Under the assumption that non-thermal synchrotron emission is at the
560: origin of the measured IR-excess, we can estimate the amount of power
561: stored in the outflows. Integrating the partially self-absorbed jet
562: spectra up to $10^{14}$ Hz, and assuming a (conservatively low) jet
563: radiative efficiency of 5$\%$, and no Doppler boosting (see Fender
564: 2001), we obtain jet powers in the range $\sim 4 \times 10^{32}$
565: erg s$^{-1}$, for A0620--00 and XTE J1118+480, the lower Eddington
566: ratio sources, up to $\sim 2 \times 10^{34}$ erg s$^{-1}$, for V404
567: Cyg (see Table~\ref{tab:jets}). Under these assumptions, the total jet
568: power exceed the measured X-ray luminosities (between 2-10 keV) in
569: quiescence by a factor 50 at least. Assuming that the steep X-ray
570: power laws observed in quiescent BHBs (with average photon index
571: $\Gamma\simeq 2$; e.g. Corbel et al. 2006) extend up to $\sim 100$
572: keV, where a spectral cutoff is observable in higher Eddington-ratio
573: systems, the {\it bolometric} (0.1-100 keV) X-ray luminosities
574: are likely to exceed the measured 2-10 keV luminosities
575: by a factor of a few. Therefore, this regime of $L_{\rm j, tot}\simgt
576: L_{\rm X}$ fits the definition of `jet-dominated' state put forward by
577: Fender \etal (2003).
578: %
579: The above estimates of $L_{\rm j,tot}$ are based on a conservative
580: radiative efficiency for the synchrotron process of 5$\%$; as such,
581: they represent strict lower limits. Alternatively, we can estimate
582: the total jet power following the formalism by Heinz \& Grimm (2005),
583: where the monochromatic radio core emission ($L_{\rm r}$, in units of
584: $10^{30}$ erg s$^{-1}$) of three well studied radio galaxies was
585: directly compared to the radio lobe emission, and combined with a
586: self-similar jet model (Heinz \& Sunyaev 2001) in order to calibrate
587: the ratio of mechanical vs. radiative power of partially self-absorbed
588: jets. They proposed that the jet kinetic power of both super-massive
589: and stellar size BHs can be estimated from the core radio luminosity
590: as: $ L_{\rm j,tot} = 6.2 \times 10^{37}L_{\rm r}^{1/(1.4-\alpha_{\rm
591: r}/3)}{\cal W}_{37.8}$ {erg} {s}$^{-1}$, where $\alpha_{\rm r}$ is the
592: radio spectral index over the partially self-absorbed regime, and the
593: parameter ${\cal W}_{37.8}$ carries the (quite large) uncertainty on
594: the radio galaxy calibration. The normalization value by Heinz \&
595: Grimm is roughly in agreement to that estimated by K\"ording \etal
596: (2006): here, for flat spectrum radio sources, the jet power (at the
597: hard to soft state transition) is expressed as: $L_{\rm
598: j,tot}\simlt 3.6\times 10^{37} (f/0.75)(\eta/0.1)L_{\rm r}^{(12/17)}$
599: erg s$^{-1}$, $f$ being the fraction of outer mass accretion rate that
600: is not expelled via winds/outflows, and $\eta$ the standard accretion
601: efficiency. Either way, the inferred total jet power would exceed
602: the {\it bolometric} X-ray luminosity by at least 4 orders of
603: magnitude for the three quiescent BHBs under consideration.
604: %
605: It is worth mentioning that, independently of normalization and
606: efficiency factors, in all three cases the jet {\it synchrotron}
607: luminosity, integrated up to $10^{14}$ Hz (that is neglecting the optically thin
608: portion), already exceed the measured 2-10 keV luminosities by a factor
609: of a few (Table~\ref{tab:jets}, right column).
610:
611: In contrast, if thermal emission from circumbinary disk material is entirely
612: responsible for the measured mid-IR excess, this would imply that the jet
613: spectrum breaks at much lower frequencies, perhaps in far-IR/mm regime,
614: lowering the above estimates by a factor of ten at least. A final test to
615: assess the origin of the measured excess could be variability study in the
616: mid-IR, possibly coordinated with the radio.
617:
618: %*********************************************
619: \section{A maximally jet-dominated model for the quiescent state}
620: \label{jet}
621: %*********************************************
622:
623: Ultimately, as discussed by McClintock \etal (2003), while there is
624: general agreement that the X-ray emission in quiescent BHBs comes from
625: high-energy electrons near the BH, the disagreement comes about in:
626: {\it i)} attributing the emission to outflowing vs. inflowing
627: electrons; {\it ii)} modeling the electron distribution as thermal
628: vs. non-thermal (or hybrid). The SEDs of quiescent BHBs, as well as
629: low-luminosity AGN are often examined in the context of the
630: advection-dominated accretion flow model (ADAF; Narayan \& Yi 1994),
631: whereby the low X-ray luminosities would be due to a highly reduced
632: radiative efficiency, and most of the liberated accretion power
633: disappears into the horizon. Alternatively, building on the work by
634: Falcke \& Biermann (1995) on AGN jets, a jet model has been proposed
635: for hard state BHBs. The model is based upon four assumptions: 1) the
636: total power in the jets scales with the total accretion power at the
637: innermost part of the accretion disk, $\dot{m}c^2$, 2) the jets are
638: freely expanding and only weakly accelerated via their own internal
639: pressure gradients only, 3) the jets contain cold protons which carry
640: most of the kinetic energy while leptons dominate the radiation and 4)
641: some fraction of the initially quasi-thermal particles are accelerated
642: into power-law tails. Markoff \etal (2001) argued that jet
643: synchrotron emission could account for the broad continuum features of
644: the simultaneous radio through X-ray observations of XTE J1118+480
645: while in the hard state. This same model could also explain the broad
646: spectral features of 13 quasi-simultaneous radio/X-ray observations of
647: GX 339--4, and was able to reproduce the observed non-linear
648: radio/X-ray correlation in this system (Corbel et al. 2003) by varying
649: the amount of power that is channeled in the jet (Markoff et
650: al. 2003). Based on the required reflection signatures a new model
651: was developed (Markoff \etal 2005; MNW05 hereafter) which could
652: reproduce the simultaneous radio/X-ray data of hard state systems
653: (GX~339--4 and Cygnus X-1) via radiation from a compact, mildly
654: relativistic jet, combined with a truncated thermal disk. In
655: particular, the X-ray emission can be interpreted as a combination of
656: optically thin synchrotron emission predominantly from an acceleration
657: region $\sim 10-100$ gravitational radii along the jets, plus external
658: (thermal disk photons) and synchrotron self-Compton emission from the
659: base of the jets, in a region associated with a magnetic compact
660: corona. The radio through the soft X-rays are dominated by
661: synchrotron emission, while the hard X-rays are mostly Comptonization,
662: with weak reflection. This {\it `maximally jet-dominated model'} was
663: intended to explore the possibility that the `hot
664: electron corona' and `jet base' may be intimately related, or, in the
665: extreme case, synonymous (we refer the reader to MNW05 for a fuller
666: description). This model has been tested extensively on simultaneous
667: radio and X-ray data, and for a number of hard state BHBs. The mid-IR
668: portion of the spectrum is clearly crucial in order to put constraints
669: on the optically thick-to-thin jet breaks, as demonstrated by the \spi
670: observations of the neutron star X-ray binary 4U 0614+091 (Migliari
671: \etal 2006) and the BHB GRO 1655--40 (Migliari \etal, submitted to
672: ApJ).
673:
674: In the following we attempt to fit the radio through X-rays SED of
675: A0620--00 in quiescence via the maximally jet-dominated model, where
676: full details can be found in the Appendix of MNW05. The choice of
677: A0620--00 (over e.g. V404 Cyg, for which the radio spectrum is well
678: constrained) is motivated by the fact that, with the exception of the
679: \spi data, the observations were acquired nearly-simultaneously (the
680: VLA/\cxo observations were strictly simultaneous, while the SMARTS
681: observations were taken only one day apart). As a comparison, the
682: broadband SED of V404 Cyg is built on datasets that were taken over 10
683: years apart. In addition, A0620--00 has been in quiescence for over
684: 30 years, and is considered as a stable and moderately variable
685: system, while V404 Cyg is known to vary in flux by a factor of a few
686: within hours (e.g. Hynes \etal 2003).
687:
688: %************************************
689: \subsection{Application to A0620--00}
690: %************************************
691: The fitting was performed with the \textsc{Interactive Spectral Interpretation
692: System} (\textsc{ISIS}; Houck \& De Nicola 2000). As outlined in MNW05, the
693: fitting is initiated outside ISIS in order to avoid local minima, using
694: unfolded data that yield a set of starting parameters for which the reduced
695: $\chi^2$ is lower than 2. We have decided to fix several parameters which
696: previously have been allowed to vary, in some cases because the results of
697: fitting the model to several hard state sources suggest that there may be
698: canonical values, and secondly because of the low count rates.
699: %
700: In spite of the large luminosity difference between A0620--00 ($L_{\rm
701: X}/L_{\rm Edd}\simeq 10^{-8}$) and other sources whose hard state
702: spectra were successfully fitted by the jet model, such as XTE
703: J1118+480 (Markoff \etal 2001), GX339--4 and Cygnus X--1 (Markoff
704: \etal 2005), simultaneous VLA/\cxo observations of A0620--00 in
705: quiescence have shown that the non-linear radio/X-ray correlation for
706: hard state BHBs appears unbroken all the way down to $10^{-8}L_{\rm
707: Edd}$, arguing for no substantial difference between hard and
708: quiescent state (Gallo \etal 2006; but see Xue \& Cui 2007 and Gallo
709: 2007). On the other hand, recent high statistics X-ray observations
710: of hard state BHBs seem to show that a geometrically thin disk is
711: present and extends close to the innermost stable orbit already at
712: $10^{-3} L_{\rm Edd}$ (Miller \etal 2006a, 2006b; Rykoff \etal
713: 2007). As such solution would be very difficult to maintain at
714: $10^{-8}L_{\rm Edd}$, these authors conclude that a major transition
715: has to take place at intermediate luminosities. Consequently, in
716: light of the large degree of uncertainty over the nature and geometry
717: of the accretion flow in quiescence, this must be considered as an
718: exploratory study. \\
719:
720: The model is most sensitive to the fitted parameter $N_{\rm j}$, which
721: acts as a normalization, though it is not strictly equivalent to the
722: total power in the jets (see discussion in
723: MNW05). It dictates the power initially divided
724: between the particles and magnetic field at the base of the jet, and
725: is expressed in terms of a fraction of
726: $L_{\rm Edd}$.
727: Once $N_{\rm j}$ is specified and conservation is assumed, the macroscopic
728: physical parameters along the jet are determined assuming that the
729: jet power is roughly shared between the internal and external
730: pressures.
731: The radiating particles enter the base of the jet where
732: the bulk velocities are lowest, with a quasi-thermal
733: distribution. Starting at location $z_{\rm acc}$ in the jets, a free
734: parameter, a fraction 85$\%$ of the particles are accelerated into a powerlaw
735: with index $p$, also a fitted parameter.
736: The maximum energy of the accelerated leptons is calculated by setting
737: the acceleration rate to the local cooling rates from synchrotron and
738: inverse Compton radiation at $z_{\rm acc}$. If the acceleration
739: process is diffusive Fermi acceleration, the acceleration rate depends
740: on the factor $f=\frac{(u_{\rm acc}/c)^2}{f_{sc}}$, where $u_{\rm acc}$ is
741: the shock speed relative to the bulk plasma flow, and $f_{\rm sc}$ is
742: the ratio of the scattering mean free path to the gyro-radius. Because
743: neither plasma parameter is known, we fit for their combined
744: contribution via $f$, which thus reflects the {\it efficiency of
745: acceleration}.
746: The particles in the jet radiatively cool via adiabatic expansion, the
747: synchrotron process, and inverse Compton up-scattering; however,
748: adiabatic expansion is assumed to dominate the observed effects of
749: cooling. A weak thermal accretion disk is assumed to be present, with an inner
750: disk temperature (somewhat arbitrarily) fixed at
751: $T=10^6$ K, or $\sim90$ eV (inner disk temperatures between 50--200 keV are
752: typically obtained for higher Eddington ratio sources).
753: This component is also included in the
754: Figure~\ref{fig:sera} and its photons are considered for local inverse Compton
755: up-scattering. However they are negligible compared to the photons
756: produced by synchrotron radiation.
757: The other main model parameters are the electron temperature $T_e$,
758: and the equipartition parameter between the magnetic field and the
759: radiating (lepton) particle energy densities, $k$.
760: A blackbody with temperature $4900$ K, consistent with the companion
761: star (Casares \etal 1993), is added to the model to account for the
762: optical emission. An additional blackbody component has been also
763: added to the fit, with normalization free to vary, in order to account
764: for possible contribution from the outer disk. These photons are also
765: included in the Comptonization. The ratio of the
766: `nozzle' (i.e. the pre-acceleration region) length to its radius has been
767: fixed to $1.5$, based on results in MNW05. The inclination angle
768: between the jet axis and line of sight $i$ has been fixed to
769: $43^\circ$, the mass fixed to 9.7 $M_\odot$ and the distance to 1.2
770: kpc, according to the recent results by Froning \etal (2007). We wish
771: to stress that adopting the system parameters inferred by Gelino \etal
772: (2001) --i.e. 11 \msun for the BH mass and $i$=40.75$^{\circ}$--
773: does not result in a substantial change of the fitted parameters.
774: Starting with parameter values
775: similar to those found in other hard state BHBs, we have obtained a
776: reasonable fit to the data, with $\chi^2$/d.o.f.=14.3/11. The best fit model is
777: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sera}, with parameters and 90\%
778: confidence error bars given in Table~\ref{tab:sera}.
779:
780: %********************************************
781: \subsection{Comparison to hard state sources}
782: %********************************************
783:
784: Most of the free parameters have landed in ranges which we are starting to
785: recognize as `typical' based on higher luminosity sources such as Cyg X-1 and
786: GX~339-4 (MNW05), GRO~J1655-40 (Migliari et al., submitted to ApJ) and the low
787: luminosity AGN M81* (Markoff et al., in prep.). Interestingly, the two main
788: differences appear to be related to the acceleration and equipartition. In
789: higher luminosity sources we have found ratios of magnetic energy density to
790: the energy densities in radiating particles on the order of $\sim 1-5$, while
791: here our best fit value actually favors a slight domination of the particle
792: energy over the magnetic field ($0.1<k<0.2$). The low error bar was limited
793: by the value 0.1, and thus does not represent a complete exploration of the
794: parameter space. Nevertheless, exact equipartition appears to be ruled out,
795: pointing towards a change in energy distribution.
796:
797: What is quite different compared to higher luminosity sources,
798: however, is the required high-energy cutoff in the optically thin
799: synchrotron component, and thus in the accelerated electron
800: population. This is determined by the acceleration parameter $f$
801: compared to the local cooling rates. We find $f$ to be around two
802: orders of magnitude lower for A0620--00 than in higher luminosity
803: sources. Interestingly, the only other black hole we can study
804: currently with similarly weak accretion is Sgr A*, the Galactic Center
805: super-massive BH.
806: %
807: In fact, the jet model was first developed in simplified form by
808: Falcke \& Markoff (2000), with the aim to determine whether the same
809: kind of model that could explain the inverted radio spectrum of Sgr A*
810: could also account for the newly discovered X-ray emission (Baganoff \etal 2000) . They concluded
811: that the SED of Sgr A* does not require a power law of optically thin
812: synchrotron emission after the break from its flat/inverted radio
813: spectrum. Therefore, if the radiating particles have a power-law
814: distribution, it must be so steep as to be indistinguishable from a
815: Maxwellian in the optically thin regime, i.e. they must be only weakly
816: accelerated\footnote{In this framework, radically different particle
817: distributions, such as power laws and Maxwellians, may result in
818: similar fits as long as the characteristic particle energy (minimum
819: and peak energy, respectively for the power law and the Maxwellian)
820: is similar. See MNW05, Appendix. }.
821: %
822: Here we have shown that something similar, albeit less extreme, is occurring
823: in the quiescent BHB A0620--00; either scenario implies that acceleration in
824: the jets is absent or very inefficient at $10^{-9}-10^{-8}L_{\rm Edd}$.
825:
826:
827:
828:
829: %****************
830: \section{Summary}
831: \label{sum}
832: %****************
833:
834: We compile the radio/IR/optical spectra of three quiescent BHBs: V404 Cyg, XTE
835: J1118+480 and A0620--00, for which we also present new optical SMARTS
836: observations. Re-analysis of the archival \spi MIPS data for these systems
837: yields systematically higher values for the statistical uncertainties related
838: to sky subtraction with respect to the standard $\sim 10\%$ value that is
839: typically quoted for bright point-like sources. While our revised values for
840: the 24 \mic fluxes are still consistent with those given by MM06 at the
841: 3$\sigma$ level, they allow for a different interpretation of the measured
842: mid-IR excess with respect to the tail of the donor star thermal component.
843: We suggest that non-thermal emission from a jet could be responsible for a
844: significant fraction (or all) of the measured excess mid-IR emission. While
845: this possibly may not rule out the presence of circumbinary material, we argue
846: that the radio/IR/optical spectra of the three BHBs under consideration do not
847: require -- in a statistical sense -- the presence of an additional thermal
848: component. A variability study could definitively address
849: the question on the origin of the mid-IR excess, as, contrary to non-thermal
850: jet emission, circumbinary disk emission is expected to be steady.
851:
852: If non-thermal emission from a partially self-absorbed outflow is
853: indeed responsible for the measured mid-IR excess, then the
854: synchrotron luminosity of the jet, even excluding optically thin
855: radiation from the base, exceeds the measured 2-10 keV luminosity by a
856: factor of a few in all three systems. In turn, the jet mechanical
857: power in quiescence is greater than the bolometric (0.1-100 keV) X-ray luminosity
858: by several ($\simgt 4$) orders of magnitude.
859:
860: We proceed by focusing on A0620--00, the lowest Eddington-ratio BHB
861: with a known radio counterpart, and construct its quiescent SED by
862: adding VLA, {\it Spitzer}, SMARTS and \cxo
863: data. In spite of the
864: non-simultaneity of the \spi observations with the radio/optical/X-ray
865: observations (which were taken over a two day period), we fit its
866: broadband SED of A0620-00 with a maximally jet-dominated model (MNW05).
867: This is the first time that such a complex model is
868: applied in the context of quiescent BHBs, and with the strong
869: constraints on the jet break frequency cut-off provided by the \spi
870: data in the mid-IR regime. In terms of best-fitting parameters, the major
871: difference with respect to higher luminosity sources for which
872: this model has been successfully tested is in the value of the
873: acceleration parameter $f$ compared to the local cooling rates, which
874: turns out to be two orders of magnitude lower for A0620--00. This
875: weak acceleration scenario is reminiscent of the Galactic Center
876: super-massive BH Sgr A*. Within the jet model working hypothesis,
877: both SEDs are in fact consistent with the hard X-ray emission
878: stemming primarily from inverse Compton processes in a corona/jet base
879: which is dominated by quasi-thermal particles.
880:
881:
882: \acknowledgments E.G. is funded by NASA through \cxo Postdoctoral
883: Fellowship grant number PF5-60037, issued by the \cxo X-Ray Center,
884: which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for
885: NASA under contract NAS8-03060. J.A.T. acknowledges partial support
886: from \spi contract number 1278068. C.D.B. is funded by NSF grant
887: AST-0407063. S.B. acknowledges support by the Ing.~Aldo Gini
888: Foundation. We are grateful to Mike Nowak for providing us with the
889: analysis scripts for ISIS.
890:
891:
892:
893: \begin{thebibliography}{}
894:
895:
896: %\bibitem{allen06}
897: %Allen S. W. \etal, 2006, MNRAS, 372, 21
898:
899: %\bibitem{bl01}
900: %Blandford R. D., 2001, in Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, astro-ph/0110394
901:
902: \bibitem[]{}
903: Baganoff F. \etal 2000, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 32, 1184
904:
905: \bibitem{bb99}
906: Blandford R. \& Begelman C., 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1
907:
908: %\bibitem{bk79}
909: %Blandford R. D., K\"onigl A., 1979, ApJ, 232, 34
910:
911: \bibitem{bradley}
912: Bradley C., Hynes R., Kong A., Haswell C., Casares J., Gallo E., 2007, ApJ, in
913: press (arXiv:astro-ph/07062652v1)
914:
915:
916: %\bibitem{brock}
917: %Brocksopp C. \etal, 2005, MNRAS, 356, 125
918:
919: %\bibitem{burbidge59}
920: %Burbidge G. R., 1959, ApJ, 129, 849
921:
922: %\bibitem{cadolle}
923: %Cadolle-Bel M. \etal, 2006, Proceedings of the VI Microquasar
924: %Workshop: Microquasars and beyond, Proceedings of Science,
925: %ed. T. Belloni
926:
927: %\bibitem{chaty}
928: %Chaty S., 2006, Proceedings of the VI Microquasar
929: %Workshop: Microquasars and beyond, Proceedings of Science,
930: %ed. T. Belloni
931:
932: \bibitem[]{}
933: Cardelli J., Clayton, G., Mathis, J., 1989, ApJ, 345, 245
934:
935: \bibitem[]{}
936: Casares J., Charles P. A., Naylor T., Pavlekno E. P., 1993, MNRAS, 265, 834
937:
938:
939: %\bibitem[]{}
940: %Casares J., Charles P. A., 1994, MNRAS, 271, L5
941:
942: \bibitem{corbel06}
943: Corbel S., Tomsick J., Kaaret P., 2006, ApJ, 636,
944:
945: %\bibitem{corbel04}
946: %Corbel S., Fender R. P., Tomsick J. A., Tzioumis A., Tingay S., 2004,
947: %ApJ, 617, 1272
948:
949: \bibitem{corbel03}
950: Corbel S., Nowak M., Fender R. P., Tzioumis A. K., Markoff S., 2003, A\&A,
951: 400, 1007
952:
953: \bibitem[]{}
954: Corbel S. \& Fender R., 2002, ApJ, 573, L35
955:
956: %\bibitem{chaty01}
957: %Chaty S. \etal, 2001, A\&A, 366, 1035
958:
959: %\bibitem{corbel02}
960: %Corbel S. \etal, 2002, Science, 298, 196
961:
962: %\bibitem{corbel01}
963: %Corbel S. \etal, 2001, ApJ, 554, 43
964:
965: %\bibitem{corbel00}
966: %Corbel S. \etal, 2000, A\&A, 359, 251
967:
968: %\bibitem{cotton}
969: %Cotton W. D. \etal, 1980, ApJ, 312, L123
970:
971: \bibitem[]{}
972: Dale D. \etal 2005, ApJ, 633, 857
973:
974: %\bibitem{disalvo01}
975: %Di Salvo T., Done C., Zycki P. T., Burderi L., Robba N. R., 2001, ApJ, 547,
976: %1024
977:
978: %\bibitem{dhawan}
979: %Dhawan V., Mirabel I. F., Rodr\'\i guez L. F., 2000, ApJ, 543, 373
980:
981: %\bibitem[]{}
982: %Downes R. A., Webbink R. F., Shara M. M., Ritter H., Kolb U., Duerbeck H. W.,
983: %2001, PASP, 113, 764
984:
985: %\bibitem{esin01}
986: %Esin A. A., McClintock J. E., Drake J. J., Garcia M. R., Haswell C. A., Hynes
987: %R. I., Muno M. P., 2001, ApJ, 555, 483
988:
989: %\bibitem{fkm04}
990: %Falcke H., K\"ording E., Markoff S., 2004, A\&A, 414, 895
991:
992: \bibitem[]{}
993: Falcke H. \& Markoff S., 2000, A\&A, 362, 113
994:
995: \bibitem{fb95}
996: Falcke H. \& Biermann P. L., 1996, A\&A, 308, 321
997:
998: \bibitem[]{}
999: Fazio G. \etal 2004, ApJS, 154, 10
1000:
1001: \bibitem{fender06}
1002: Fender R. P., 2006, in Lewin W. H. G., van der Klis M., eds, Compact
1003: Stellar X-Ray Sources. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
1004:
1005: \bibitem{fbg}
1006: Fender R. P., Belloni T., Gallo E., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1105
1007:
1008: %\bibitem{fb04}
1009: %Fender R. P. \& Belloni T. M., 2004, ARA\&A, 42, 317
1010:
1011: %\bibitem[]{}
1012: %Fender R. P., Pooley G. G., 1998, MNRAS, 300, 573
1013:
1014: \bibitem{fgj}
1015: Fender R. P., Gallo E., Jonker P. G., 2003, MNRAS, 343, L99
1016:
1017: %\bibitem{fender02}
1018: %Fender R. P., Rayner D., Trushkin S. A., O'Brien K., Sault R. J., Pooley
1019: %G. G., Norris R. P., 2002, MNRAS, 330, 212
1020:
1021: \bibitem{fender01}
1022: Fender R. P., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 31
1023:
1024: %\bibitem{fenderetal01}
1025: %Fender R. P., Hjellming R. M., Tilanus R. P. J., Pooley G. G., Deane J. R.,
1026: %Ogley R. N., Spencer R. E., 2001, MNRAS, 322, L23
1027:
1028: %\bibitem{fenderetal00}
1029: %Fender R. P., Pooley G. G., Durouchoux P. Tilanus R. P. J., Brocksopp C.,
1030: %2000, MNRAS, 312, 853
1031:
1032: %\bibitem{fender99}
1033: %Fender R. P. \etal, 1999, ApJ, 519, L165
1034:
1035: \bibitem[]{}
1036: Froning C., Robinson E., Bitner M., 2007, ApJ, in press (arXiv:astro-ph/07040267v1)
1037:
1038: %\bibitem{fuchs03}
1039: %Fuchs Y. \etal, 2003, A\&A, 409, L35
1040:
1041:
1042: \bibitem{g07}
1043: Gallo E., 2007, in Proc. of `The Multicolored Landscape of Compact Objects and
1044: their Explosive Origins', AIP Conf. Proc. (arXiv:astro-ph/0702126v1)
1045:
1046: \bibitem{gallo06}
1047: Gallo E. \etal 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1351
1048:
1049: \bibitem{g05a}
1050: Gallo E., Fender R. P., Hynes R. I., 2005b, MNRAS, 356, 1017
1051:
1052: \bibitem{nat}
1053: Gallo E., Fender R., Kaiser, C., Russell, D., Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T., Heinz, S., 2005a, Nature, 436, 819
1054:
1055:
1056: %\bibitem{gallo04}
1057: %Gallo E., Corbel S, Fender R. P., Maccarone T. J., Tzioumis A. K., 2004,
1058: %MNRAS, 347, L52
1059:
1060: \bibitem{gfp}
1061: Gallo E., Fender R. P., Pooley G. G., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 60
1062:
1063: \bibitem[]{}
1064: Gelino D., Balman S., Kiziloglu \"U., Yilmaz A., Kalemci E., Tomsick J., 2006, ApJ, 642, 438
1065:
1066: \bibitem{gelino01}
1067: Gelino D. M., Harrison T. E., Orosz J. E. 2001, AJ, 122, 2668
1068:
1069: %\bibitem{greiner}
1070: %Greiner J., Cuby J. G., McCaughrean J., 2001, Nature, 414, 522
1071:
1072: %\bibitem{garcia03}
1073: %Garcia M. R., Miller J. M., McClintock J. E., King A. R., Orosz J., 2003, ApJ,
1074: %591, 388
1075:
1076: %McClintock J. E., Narayan R., Callanan P., Barret D., Murray
1077: %S. S., 2001, ApJ, 553, L47
1078:
1079: %\bibitem{hm}
1080: %Haardt F., Maraschi L., 1991, 380, L51
1081:
1082: %\bibitem{hh95}
1083: %Hjellming P. M., Han X., 1995, in `X-ray Binaries', ed. Camdridge, p. 308
1084:
1085: \bibitem[]{}
1086: Heinz S. \& Sunyaev R., 2003, MNRAS, 343, L59
1087:
1088: \bibitem{heinzgrimm}
1089: Heinz S. \& Grimm H.-J. 2005, ApJ, 633, 384
1090:
1091: %\bibitem{hj88}
1092: %Hjellming P. M., Johnston K. J., 1988, ApJ, 328, 600
1093:
1094: \bibitem{hj00}
1095: Hjellming P. M., Rupen M. P., Mioduszewski A. J., Narayan R., 2000, ATel 54
1096:
1097: %\bibitem[]{}
1098: %Harrison T., Howell S., Szkody P., Cordova F., 2007, AJ, 133, 162
1099:
1100: \bibitem{ho2}
1101: Homan J., Buxton, M., Markoff, S., Bailyn, C., Nespoli, E., Belloni, T., 2005, ApJ, 624, 295
1102:
1103: \bibitem{ho1}
1104: Homan J. \& Belloni T., 2005, A\&SS, 300, 107
1105:
1106: \bibitem[]{}
1107: Houck J. \& De Nicola L., 2000, in ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 216, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IX, eds. N. Manset, C. Veillet, D. Crabtree (San Francisco: ASP), 591
1108:
1109: \bibitem{hynes06}
1110: Hynes R. \etal 2006, ApJ, 651, 401
1111:
1112: \bibitem{hynes04}
1113: Hynes R. \etal 2004, ApJ, 611, L125
1114:
1115: \bibitem[]{}
1116: Hynes R. I. \etal 2003, MNRAS, 345, 292
1117:
1118: %\bibitem[]{}
1119: %Hynes R. I., Zurita C., Haswell C. A., Casares J., Charles P. A., Pavlenko
1120: %E. P., Shugarov S. Y., Lott A. D., 2002, MNRAS, 330, 1009
1121:
1122: %\bibitem{jn04}
1123: %Jonker P. G., Nelemans G., 2004, MNRAS, 354, 355
1124:
1125: %\bibitem{kaiser06}
1126: %Kaiser C. R. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1083
1127:
1128: %\bibitem{ka97}
1129: %Kaiser C. R., Alexander P., 1997, MNRAS, 286, 215
1130:
1131: %\bibitem{kaiser04}
1132: %Kaiser C. R. \etal, 2004, ApJ, 612, 332-341
1133:
1134: %\bibitem{k-w}
1135: %Klein-Wolt M. \etal, 2002, MNRAS, 331, 745
1136:
1137: \bibitem[]{}
1138: K\"ording E., Fender R., Migliari S., 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1451
1139:
1140: %\bibitem{kong}
1141: %Kong A. K. H., McClintock J. E., Garcia M. R., Murray S. S., Barret D., 2002,
1142: %ApJ, 570, 277
1143:
1144: \bibitem[]{}
1145: Makovoz D. \& Marleau F., 2005, PASP, 117, 1113
1146:
1147: \bibitem{mnw05}
1148: Markoff S., Nowak M. A., Wilms J., 2005, ApJ, 635, 1203 (MNW05)
1149:
1150: \bibitem{mn04}
1151: Markoff S. \& Nowak M. A., 2004, ApJ, 609, 972
1152:
1153: \bibitem{markoff03}
1154: Markoff S., Nowak, M., Corbel, S., Fender, R., Falcke, H., 2003, A\&A, 397, 645
1155:
1156: \bibitem{mff}
1157: Markoff S., Falcke H., Fender R., 2001, A\&A, 372, L25
1158:
1159: %\bibitem{marti02}
1160: %Mart\'{i} J., Mirabel I. F., Rodr\'\i guez L. F., Smith I. A., 2002, A\&A,
1161: %386, 571
1162:
1163: %\bibitem{martietal02}
1164: %Mart\'\i~J., Mirabel I. F., Rodr\'\i guez L. F., Smith I. A., 2002, A\&A,
1165: %386, 571
1166:
1167: %\bibitem{martietal96}
1168: %Mart\'\i~J.,.306, Rodriguez L. F., Mirabel I. F., Paredes J. M., 1996, A\&A,
1169: %306, 449
1170:
1171: %\bibitem{mf02}
1172: %Merloni A., Fabian A. C. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 165
1173:
1174: %\bibitem[]{}
1175: %Merloni A., Heinz S., Di Matteo T. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057 (MHdM03)
1176:
1177: %\bibitem{mhm99}
1178: %Meyer-Hofmeister E. \& Meyer F. 1999, A\&A, 348, 154
1179:
1180: \bibitem[]{}
1181: Miller J., Homan, J., Steeghs, D., Rupen, M., Hunstead, R. W., Wijnands, R., Charles, P. A., Fabian, A. C., 2006a, ApJ, 653, 525
1182:
1183: \bibitem[]{}
1184: Miller J., Homan, J., Miniutti G., 2006b, ApJ, 652, L113
1185:
1186: \bibitem{mccr06}
1187: McClintock J. E., Remillard R. A., 2006, in Lewin W. H. G., van der Klis M.,
1188: eds, Compact Stellar X-Ray Sources. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
1189:
1190: \bibitem{mcc03}
1191: McClintock J. E. \etal 2003, ApJ, 593, 435
1192:
1193: %\bibitem{mcc95}
1194: %McClintock J. E., Horne K., Remillard R. A. 1995, ApJ, 442, 358
1195:
1196: \bibitem[]{}
1197: Migliari S., Tomsick, J., Maccarone, T., Gallo, E., Fender, R., Nelemans, G., Russell, D., 2006, ApJ, 643, L41
1198:
1199: %\bibitem{mirabel01}
1200: %Mirabel I. F., Dhawan V., Mignani R. P., Rodrigues I., Guglielmetti F., 2001,
1201: %Nature, 413, 139
1202:
1203: %\bibitem{mirabel92}
1204: %Mirabel I. F., Rodr\'\i guez L. F., Cordier B., Paul J., Lebrun F., 1992,
1205: %Nature, 358, 215
1206:
1207: %\bibitem{mhdm}
1208: %Merloni A., Heinz S., Di Matteo T., 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057
1209:
1210: %\bibitem{meier01}
1211: %Meier D. L., 2001, ApJ, 548, L9
1212:
1213:
1214: %\bibitem{mirabel03}
1215: %Mirabel; I. F., Rodrigues I., 2003, Science, 300, 1119
1216:
1217: \bibitem[]{}
1218: Mirabel I. F., Dhawan V., Mignani R., Rodrigues I., Giglielmetti F., 2001, Nature, 413, 139
1219:
1220: %\bibitem{mirabelrodriguez99}
1221: %Mirabel I. F., Rodr\'\i guez L. F., 1999, ARA\&A, 37, 409
1222:
1223: %\bibitem{mirabeletal92}
1224: %Mirabel I. F., Rodr\'\i guez L. F., Cordier B., Paul J., Lebrun F., 1992,
1225: %Nature, 358, 215
1226:
1227: %\bibitem{mirabeletal98}
1228: %Mirabel I. F. \etal, 1998, A\&A, 330, L9
1229:
1230: \bibitem{mm06}
1231: Muno M. \& Mauerhan J., 2006, ApJ, 648, L135 (MM06)
1232:
1233: \bibitem[]{}
1234: Nowak, M.; Wilms, J., Heinz, S., Pooley, G., Pottschmidt, K., Corbel, S., 2005, ApJ, 629, 1006
1235:
1236: %\bibitem{orosz}
1237: %Orosz J., 2002, in Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 212, ed. K.A. van der
1238: %Hucht, A. Herrero \& C. Esteban
1239:
1240: %\bibitem{quataert}
1241: %Quataert E., Gruzinov A., 2000, ApJ, 539, 809
1242:
1243: %\bibitem{ny95}
1244: %Narayan R., Yi I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710
1245:
1246: \bibitem{ny94}
1247: Narayan R., Yi I. 1994, ApJ, 428, L13
1248:
1249: %\bibitem[]{}
1250: %Narayan R., Igumenshchev I. V., Abramowicz M. A. 2000, ApJ,
1251: %539, 798
1252: %\bibitem[]{}
1253: %Narayan R., Barret D., McClintock J. E. 1997, ApJ, 482, 448
1254: %\bibitem[]{}
1255: %Narayan R., Garcia M. R., McClintock J. E. 1997, ApJ, 478, L79
1256: %\bibitem{}
1257: %Narayan R., McClintock J. E., Yi I. 1996, ApJ, 457, 821
1258: %\bibitem{narayanetal98}
1259: %Narayan R., Mahadevan R., Quataert E., 1998, Theory of Black Hole Accretion
1260: %Disks, ed. M. A. Abramowicz, G. Bjornsson, and J.
1261: %E. Pringle, Cambridge University Press, 148
1262:
1263: %\bibitem{pf97}
1264: %Pooley G. G., Fender R. P., 1997, MNRAS, 292, 925
1265:
1266: %\bibitem{ps96}
1267: %Poutanen J., Svensson R. 1996, ApJ, 470, 249
1268:
1269: %\bibitem{qn99}
1270: %Quataert E., Narayan R., 1999, 520, 298
1271:
1272:
1273: %\bibitem{rodriguezj}
1274: %Rodriguez J. \etal 2006, ApJ submitted (astro-ph/0611341)
1275:
1276: %\bibitem{rm98}
1277: %Rodr\'\i guez L. F., Mirabel I. F., 1998, A\&A, 340, L47
1278:
1279: %\bibitem{rodriguez92}
1280: %Rodr\'\i guez L. F., Mirabel I. F., Mart\'\i~J., 1992, ApJ, 401, L15
1281:
1282: \bibitem[]{}
1283: Rieke G. \etal 2004, ApJS, 154, 25
1284:
1285: \bibitem{r07}
1286: Russell D., Fender R., Gallo E., Kaiser C., 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1341
1287:
1288: \bibitem{r06}
1289: Russell, D., Fender, R., Hynes, R., Brocksopp, C., Homan, J., Jonker, P., Buxton, M., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1334 (R06)
1290:
1291: \bibitem[]{}
1292: Rykoff E., Miller J., Steeghs D., Torres M., 2007, submitted to ApJ (arXiv:astro-ph/0703497v1)
1293:
1294: \bibitem{shahbaz03}
1295: Shahbaz T., Dhillon V. S., Marsh T. R., Zurita C., Haswell C. A., Charles
1296: P. A., Hynes R. I., Casares J., 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1116
1297:
1298: %\bibitem{shahbaz94}
1299: %Shahbaz T. \etal,
1300: %1994, MNRAS, 271, L10
1301:
1302: %\bibitem{ss73}
1303: %Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, A\&A, 24, 337
1304: %Shapiro S. L., Lightman A. P., Eardley, D. M., 1976, ApJ, 204, 187
1305:
1306: %\bibitem{spitzer}
1307: %Spitzer L., 1978, `Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium',
1308: %ed. J. Wiley \& Sons
1309:
1310: %\bibitem{stirling}
1311: %Stirling A. M. \etal, 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1273
1312:
1313: %\bibitem{st}
1314: %Sunyaev R. A., Titarchuk L. G., 1980, A\&A, 86, 121
1315:
1316: %\bibitem{tigelaar}
1317: %Tigelaar S. P., Fender R. P., Tilanus R. P. J., Gallo E., Pooley G. G., 2004,
1318: %MNRAS, 352, 1015
1319:
1320: %\bibitem{tit}
1321: %Titarchuk L. 1994, ApJ, 434, 570
1322:
1323: %\bibitem{wang}
1324: %Wang J., Chan X., Xu J., Qian T, 1997, ApJ, 491, 501
1325:
1326: %\bibitem{warner}
1327: %Warner B. 1987, MNRAS, 227, 23
1328:
1329: \bibitem[]{}
1330: Taam R. \& Spruit H., 2001, ApJ, 561, 329
1331:
1332: \bibitem[]{}
1333: Wang Z., Chakrabarty D., Kaplan D., 2006, Nature, 440, 772
1334:
1335: \bibitem[]{}
1336: Wu C.-C., Aalders J., van Duinen R., Kester D., Wesselius P., 1976, A\&A, 50, 445
1337:
1338: \bibitem{xcui}
1339: Xue Y. \& Cui W., 2007, A\&A, 466, 1053
1340:
1341: \bibitem{yuan}
1342: Yuan F., Cui W., Narayan R., 2005, ApJ, 620, 905
1343:
1344: \bibitem[]{}
1345: Zurita C., Casares J., Hynes R., Shahbaz T., Charles P., Pavlenko E., 2004, MNRAS, 352, 877
1346:
1347: \bibitem[]{}
1348: Zurita C., Casares J., Shahbaz T., 2003, ApJ, 582, 369
1349:
1350: \end{thebibliography}
1351:
1352: % tables
1353:
1354: \clearpage
1355:
1356: %*** table 1
1357:
1358: \begin{center}
1359: \newcommand\tabspace{\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}}
1360: \def\errtwo#1#2#3{$#1^{+#2}_{-#3}$}
1361:
1362: \begin{deluxetable}{clrrr}
1363: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.15in}
1364: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1365: \tablewidth{0pt}
1366: \tablecaption{Spitzer observations of quiescent black hole binaries\label{tab:spi}.}
1367: \tablehead{ \colhead{Target}
1368: &
1369: &
1370: & \colhead{Flux ($\mu$Jy)}
1371: &
1372: \\
1373: & Method
1374: & $4.5 \mu$m
1375: & $8.0 \mu$m
1376: & $24.0 \mu$m
1377: }
1378: \startdata
1379: V404 Cyg
1380: & Ap. Photometry
1381: & 3336
1382: & 1820
1383: & 414$\pm$220
1384: \\
1385: & PRF fitting
1386: & 3220
1387: & 1760
1388: & 436$\pm$220
1389: \\
1390: XTE J1118+480
1391: & Ap. Photometry
1392: & 69
1393: & 59
1394: & $<$50
1395: \\
1396: & PRF fitting
1397: & 69
1398: & 58
1399: & $<$50
1400: \\
1401: A0620--00
1402: & Ap. Photometry
1403: & 412
1404: & 288
1405: & 138$\pm$65
1406: \\
1407: & PRF fitting
1408: & 380
1409: & 305
1410: &121$\pm$65
1411: \\
1412: \tabspace
1413: \enddata
1414:
1415: \tablecomments{Un-dereddened values. Unless otherwise noted, flux
1416: errors are taken to be 10$\%$, due to calibration systematic
1417: errors. For the extinction corrections, we used the following
1418: values: V404 Cyg: $A_V$=2.8 (Shahbaz \etal 2003); XTE J1118+480: $A_V$=0.06
1419: (Gelino \etal 2006); A0620--00: $A_V$=1.2 (Wu \etal 1983). }
1420:
1421: \end{deluxetable}
1422:
1423: \end{center}
1424:
1425: \clearpage
1426:
1427:
1428: %*** table 2
1429:
1430: \begin{center}
1431: \newcommand\tabspace{\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}}
1432: \def\errtwo#1#2#3{$#1^{+#2}_{-#3}$}
1433:
1434: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
1435: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.07in}
1436: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1437: \tablewidth{0pt}
1438: \tablecaption{Single blackbody fits to the IR-optical spectra\label{tab:bb}}
1439: \tablehead{ \colhead{Target}
1440: & \colhead{$R/D$}
1441: & \colhead{$T_{\rm fit}$}
1442: & \colhead{$T_{\rm star}$}
1443: & \colhead{$\chi^2/$d.o.f.}
1444: \\
1445: \colhead{(1)}
1446: & \colhead{(2)}
1447: & \colhead{(3)}
1448: & \colhead{(4)}
1449: & \colhead{(5)}
1450: }
1451: \startdata
1452: V404 Cyg
1453: & 5.4$\pm$0.2
1454: & 4533$\pm$80
1455: & 5500
1456: &10.3/7
1457: \\
1458: XTE J1118+480
1459: & 0.7$\pm$0.1
1460: & 3850$\pm$113
1461: & 4250
1462: & 69.6/5
1463: \\
1464: A0620--00
1465: & 2.0$\pm$0.1
1466: & 4468$\pm$104
1467: & 4900
1468: & 21.8/4
1469: \\
1470: \tabspace
1471: \enddata \tablecomments{Columns are: (1) Source name; (2) Fitted star radius over distance,
1472: $R/D$, times $10^{-11}$; (3) Fitted star temperature, $T_{\rm fit}$, in $K$;
1473: (4) Star temperatures as found in the literature, $T_{\rm star}$, in $K$
1474: (references for the star temperature and system inclination and distance are
1475: the same as listed in the caption of Table~\ref{tab:spi} for the extinction
1476: values); (5) Fitted $\chi^2$ over degrees of freedom (d.o.f.).}
1477:
1478: \end{deluxetable}
1479:
1480: \end{center}
1481:
1482: \clearpage
1483:
1484: %*** table 3
1485:
1486: \begin{center}
1487: \newcommand\tabspace{\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}}
1488: \def\errtwo#1#2#3{$#1^{+#2}_{-#3}$}
1489:
1490: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
1491: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.07in}
1492: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1493: \tablewidth{0pt}
1494: \tablecaption{Double blackbody fits to the IR-optical spectra\label{tab:bb-bb}}
1495: \tablehead{ \colhead{Target}
1496: & \colhead{$(R/D)_1$}
1497: & \colhead{$T_{\rm fit,1}$}
1498: & \colhead{$(R/D)_2$}
1499: & \colhead{$T_{\rm fit,2}$}
1500: & \colhead{$\chi^2/$d.o.f.}
1501: \\
1502: \colhead{(1)}
1503: & \colhead{(2)}
1504: & \colhead{(3)}
1505: & \colhead{(4)}
1506: & \colhead{(5)}
1507: & \colhead{(6)}
1508: }
1509: \startdata
1510: V404 Cyg
1511: & 5.09$\pm$0.02
1512: & 4623$\pm$94
1513: & 30$\pm$18
1514: & 489$\pm$169
1515: &1.4/5
1516: \\
1517: XTE J1118+480
1518: & 0.55$\pm$0.04
1519: & 4234$\pm$150
1520: & 4$\pm$1
1521: & 754$\pm$140
1522: & 12.0/3
1523: \\
1524: A0620--00
1525: & 1.7$\pm$0.1
1526: & 4691$\pm$149
1527: & 23$\pm$10
1528: & 393$\pm$83
1529: & 2.0/2
1530: \\
1531: \tabspace
1532: \enddata \tablecomments{Columns are: (1) Source name; (2)\&(4) Fitted blackbody radius over distance, times $10^{-11}$; (3)\&(5) Fitted blackbody temperature, in $K$; (6) Reduced $\chi^2$. Subscripts 1 and 2 indicate the first and
1533: second blackbody components.}
1534:
1535: \end{deluxetable}
1536:
1537: \end{center}
1538:
1539: \clearpage
1540:
1541: %*** table 4
1542:
1543: \begin{center}
1544: \newcommand\tabspace{\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}}
1545: \def\errtwo#1#2#3{$#1^{+#2}_{-#3}$}
1546:
1547: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
1548: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.07in}
1549: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1550: \tablewidth{0pt}
1551: \tablecaption{Blackbody + broken power law fits to the
1552: radio-IR-optical spectra.
1553: \label{tab:bb-pl}}
1554: \tablehead{ \colhead{Target}
1555: & \colhead{$(R/D)$}
1556: & \colhead{$T_{\rm fit}$}
1557: & \colhead{$F_{\nu_0}$}
1558: & \colhead{$\alpha_1$}
1559: & \colhead{$\chi^2$/d.o.f.}
1560: \\
1561: \colhead{(1)}
1562: & \colhead{(2)}
1563: & \colhead{(3)}
1564: & \colhead{(4)}
1565: & \colhead{(5)}
1566: & \colhead{(6)}
1567: }
1568: \startdata
1569: V404 Cyg
1570: & 5.0$\pm$0.2
1571: & 4626$\pm$94
1572: & 448$\pm$189
1573: & 0.02$\pm$0.04
1574: & 4.0/9
1575: \\
1576: XTE J1118+480
1577: & 0.5$\pm$0.1
1578: & 4302$\pm$211
1579: & 62$\pm$23
1580: & 0.27$\pm$0.39
1581: & 6.2/3
1582: \\
1583: A0620--00
1584: & 1.54$\pm$0.03
1585: & 4897$\pm$6
1586: & 148$\pm$1
1587: & 0.113$\pm$0.001
1588: & 7.8/3
1589: \\
1590: \tabspace
1591: \enddata
1592:
1593: \tablecomments{Columns are: (1), (2), (3): see Table 1; (4) Fitted power law
1594: normalization at $\nu_0=10^{14}$ Hz, in $\mu$Jy (the broken power-law
1595: expression is given in equation~\ref{eq:bp}; we fixed $\nu_b=10^{14}$ Hz and
1596: $\alpha_2=-0.8$); (5) Fitted power law index below $\nu_b$; (6) Reduced
1597: $\chi^2$. }
1598:
1599:
1600: \end{deluxetable}
1601:
1602: \end{center}
1603:
1604: \clearpage
1605:
1606: %*** table 5
1607:
1608: \begin{center}
1609: \newcommand\tabspace{\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}}
1610: \def\errtwo#1#2#3{$#1^{+#2}_{-#3}$}
1611:
1612: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
1613: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.07in}
1614: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1615: \tablewidth{0pt}
1616: \tablecaption{A0620--00: SMARTS observations\label{tab:smarts}}
1617: \tablehead{ \colhead{Band}
1618: & \colhead{UT start}
1619: & \colhead{mag$^{a}$}
1620: & \colhead{Flux$^{b}$ ($\mu$Jy)}
1621: \\
1622: }
1623: \startdata
1624: $V$
1625: & 05Aug18-09:28:15
1626: & 17.75$\pm$0.03
1627: & 884$\pm$68
1628: \\
1629: $I$
1630: & 05Aug18-09:19:31
1631: & 16.04$\pm$0.05
1632: & 1673$\pm$161
1633: \\
1634: $H$
1635: & 05Aug18-09:28:12
1636: & 14.6$\pm$0.1
1637: & 1910$\pm$283
1638: \\
1639: \tabspace
1640: \enddata
1641:
1642: \tablecomments{$^{a}$Un-dereddened values.\\$^{b}$De-reddened values (adopting $A_V$=1.2),
1643: allowing for an extra 0.05 mag uncertainty due to systematic calibration
1644: errors.}
1645:
1646: \end{deluxetable}
1647:
1648: \end{center}
1649:
1650: \clearpage
1651:
1652:
1653:
1654: %*** table 6
1655:
1656: \begin{center}
1657: \newcommand\tabspace{\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}}
1658: \def\errtwo#1#2#3{$#1^{+#2}_{-#3}$}
1659:
1660: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
1661: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.07in}
1662: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1663: \tablewidth{0pt}
1664: \tablecaption{Jet power\label{tab:jets}}
1665: \tablehead{ \colhead{Target}
1666: & \colhead{$\alpha_1$}
1667: & \colhead{D}
1668: & \colhead{$L_{\rm j,tot}$}
1669: & \colhead{$L_{\rm j,rad}/L_X$}
1670: \\
1671: \colhead{(1)}
1672: & \colhead{(2)}
1673: & \colhead{(3)}
1674: & \colhead{(4)}
1675: & \colhead{(5)}
1676: \\
1677: }
1678: %%%
1679: \startdata
1680: %%%
1681: V404 Cyg
1682: & 0.022
1683: & 4
1684: & $>$1.7$\times 10^{34}$
1685: & 2.8
1686: \\
1687: XTE J1118+480
1688: & 0.270
1689: & 1.8
1690: & $>$3.7$\times 10^{32}$
1691: & 5.4
1692: \\
1693: A0620--00
1694: & 0.113
1695: & 1.2
1696: & $>$4.5$\times 10^{32}$
1697: & 3.8
1698: \\
1699: \tabspace
1700: \enddata
1701:
1702: \tablecomments{Columns are: (1) Source name; (2) Fitted jet spectral
1703: index below $\nu_b=10^{14}$ Hz; (3) Distance, in kpc; (4) {\it Total}
1704: (kinetic + radiative) jet power, in erg s$^{-1}$; (5) Ratio between
1705: the {\it radiative} jet power, integrated up to $\nu_b$, and the
1706: quiescent X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm X}$, between 2--10 keV. $L_{\rm
1707: j,tot}$ is calculated assuming no Doppler boosting, and a
1708: (conservative) 5$\%$ radiative efficiency; as such, it represents a
1709: strict lower limit to the total jet power. Accordingly, $L_{\rm
1710: j,rad}=0.05\times L_{\rm j,tot}$ only accounts for the partially
1711: self-absorbed synchrotron emission from the jet. Quiescent X-ray
1712: luminosities are taken from: V404 Cyg: Garcia et al. (2001), Kong et
1713: al. (2002), Hynes et al. (2004). XTE J1118+480: McClintock \etal
1714: (2004). A0620--00: Kong \etal (2002), Gallo \etal (2006).}
1715:
1716: \end{deluxetable}
1717: \end{center}
1718:
1719: \clearpage
1720:
1721: %*** table 7
1722:
1723: \begin{center}
1724: \newcommand\tabspace{\noalign{\vspace*{0.7mm}}}
1725: \def\errtwo#1#2#3{$#1^{+#2}_{-#3}$}
1726:
1727: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccc}
1728: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.09in}
1729: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1730: \tablewidth{0pt}
1731: \tablecaption{Jet Model for A0620--00\label{tab:sera}}
1732: \tablehead{ \colhead{$N_{\rm H}$}
1733: & \colhead{$N_{\rm j}$}
1734: & \colhead{$r_{0}$}
1735: & \colhead{$z_{\rm acc}$}
1736: & \colhead{$T_{\rm e}$}
1737: & \colhead{$p$}
1738: & \colhead{$f$}
1739: & \colhead{$k$}
1740: & \colhead{$BB_{\rm norm}$}
1741: % \\
1742: % ($10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$)
1743: % & ($10^{-4}$ L$_{\rm Edd}$)
1744: % & ($GM/c^2$)
1745: % & ($GM/c^2$)
1746: % & ($10^{10}$\,K)
1747: % &
1748: % & ($10^{-6}$)
1749: % &
1750: % & ($10^{30}$ erg s$^{-1}$)
1751: \\
1752: (1)
1753: & (2)
1754: & (3)
1755: & (4)
1756: & (5)
1757: & (6)
1758: & (7)
1759: & (8)
1760: & (9)
1761: }
1762: \startdata
1763: \errtwo{3.6}{0.7}{1.1} % Nh
1764: % & \errtwo{2.21}{2.95}{1.72} %Nj 11 msun
1765: & \errtwo{14.6}{0.4}{7.3} %Nj
1766: % & \errtwo{2.87}{1.88}{0.75} % r_0 11 msun
1767: & \errtwo{3.9}{2.2}{0.1} % r_0
1768: % & \errtwo{25}{520}{15} % z_acc (limited by range)
1769: & \errtwo{25}{272}{2} % z_acc
1770: % & \errtwo{3.49}{1.70}{1.43} % Te 11 msun
1771: & \errtwo{2.57}{0.29}{0.01} % Te
1772: % & \errtwo{2.45}{0.29}{0.22} % p 11 musn
1773: & \errtwo{2.5}{0.1}{0.3} % p
1774: % & \errtwo{5.72}{1.77}{2.86} %f 11 msun
1775: & \errtwo{5.1}{1.0}{1.5} %f
1776: % & \errtwo{0.24}{0.82}{0.14} % eqp 11 msun (limited by range)
1777: & \errtwo{0.1}{0.1}{0.0} % eqp
1778: % & \errtwo{1.57$\times 10^{-2}${1.85e-2}{3.5e-3} % bbf2 (fix units)
1779: & \errtwo{0.5}{0.2}{0.1} % bbf2 (fix units)
1780: \\
1781: \tabspace
1782: \enddata
1783:
1784: \tablecomments{Columns are: fitted (1) Hydrogen equivalent column density, in
1785: $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$; (2) Model internal normalization, expressed in units of
1786: $10^{-4}L_{\rm Edd}$: it dictates the power dived by the particles and the
1787: magnetic field at the base; (3) Jet base (or `nozzle') radius, in
1788: units of gravitational radii $r_g=GM_{\rm BH}/c^2$; (4) Acceleration
1789: region, $z_{\rm acc}$, in $r_g$; it sets the location along the jet at
1790: which (a fraction of) the particles start being accelerated; (5) Temperature
1791: of the relativistic quasi-Maxwellian distribution with which the leptons
1792: enter the jet, in $10^{10}$ K; (6) Power law index of the accelerated
1793: electron distribution, $p$, where $N(E)\propto E^{-p}$; (7) Acceleration
1794: parameter, $f$, in units of $10^{-6}$: sets the balance between particle
1795: acceleration and radiative plus adiabatic cooling, such that the
1796: quasi-thermal particles be energized into a power-law tail; (8)
1797: Equipartition parameter, $k=(u_{\rm B }/u_{\rm rad}$): the ratio between the
1798: energy density in radiating leptons and the magnetic field energy density;
1799: (9) Internal disk blackbody normalization, in $10^{30}$ erg s$^{-1}$. We
1800: fixed the BH mass, distance and inclination of A0620--00 to: 9.7
1801: $M_{\odot}$, 1.2 kpc and 43$^{\circ}$ (Froning \etal 2007), yielding
1802: $\chi^2_{\rm red}=1.3$. Similar parameters, within the errors, are obtained
1803: adopting a mass of 11 $M_{\odot}$ and inclination of 40.75$^{\circ}$ (Gelino
1804: \etal 2001). Error bars are given at the 90\% confidence level.}
1805:
1806: \end{deluxetable}
1807:
1808: \end{center}
1809:
1810:
1811:
1812:
1813:
1814:
1815:
1816:
1817: % Figures
1818:
1819: \clearpage
1820:
1821: %*** figure 1
1822:
1823: \begin{figure}
1824: \vspace{0.4cm}
1825: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.85]{f1.eps}
1826: \vspace{0.4cm}
1827: \caption{
1828: \spi MIPS 24 \mic images of V404 Cyg, XTE J1118+480, and A0620--00. White
1829: circles (with 2 arcsec radius) mark the position of the radio counterparts,
1830: from MERLIN and VLA observations for V404 Cyg (R. Spencer and M. Rupen,
1831: private communications); VLA for A0620--00 (Gallo \etal 2006); MERLIN for XTE
1832: J1118+480 (Fender \etal 2001). The fields of view of V404 Cyg and A0620--00 are
1833: evidently affected by high background contaminations, resulting in high
1834: statistical uncertainties related to sky subtraction. For reference, 1 MIPS pixel corresponds to 1.2 arcsec in size. North is at the top, and East is to the left of these images.
1835: \label{fig:mips}}
1836: \end{figure}
1837:
1838: \clearpage
1839:
1840: %*** figure 2
1841:
1842: \begin{figure}
1843: \vspace{0.4cm}
1844: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.78]{f2.eps}
1845: \vspace{0.4cm}
1846: \caption{Composite radio/IR/optical spectra of quiescent black hole binaries. \textit{V404 Cyg}:
1847: radio data from Gallo \etal (2005b), taken in 2002; IR data from
1848: this work, taken in 2004-2005; optical photometry from Casares \etal 1993,
1849: taken between 1990-1992.
1850: \textit{A0620--00}: radio data
1851: from Gallo \etal (2006), acquired in August 2005; IR and optical data from
1852: this work. The data span a period of 5 months, with nearly
1853: simultaneous radio/optical coverage. \textit{XTE
1854: J1118+480}: radio upper
1855: limit from Mirabel \etal (2001); IR data from this work; optical
1856: photometry from Gelino \etal (2006).
1857: \label{fig:seds}}
1858: \end{figure}
1859:
1860: \clearpage
1861:
1862: %*** figure 3
1863:
1864: \begin{figure}
1865: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=.22]{f3a.eps}\includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=.22]{f3b.eps}\includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=.22]{f3c.eps}\\
1866: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=.22]{f3d.eps}\includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=.22]{f3e.eps}\includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=.22]{f3f.eps}\\
1867: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=.22]{f3g.eps}\includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=.22]{f3h.eps}\includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=.22]{f3i.eps}
1868: \vspace{1cm}
1869: \caption{From top to bottom: V404 Cyg, XTE J1118+480, A0620--00. Curves on
1870: the left panels show the fits to the IR/optical data with a single blackbody curve (see
1871: Table~\ref{tab:bb} for the fitted parameters); curves in middle are for
1872: a double blackbody fit (Table~\ref{tab:bb-bb}); the right panels show the
1873: fit to the radio-IR-optical SEDs with a single blackbody plus a broken power law (Table~\ref{tab:bb-pl}).
1874: \label{fig:eg}}
1875: \end{figure}
1876:
1877: \clearpage
1878:
1879: %*** figure 4
1880:
1881: \begin{figure}
1882: \vspace{0.4cm}
1883: \hspace{0.4cm}
1884: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.8]{f4.eps}
1885: \vspace{0.4cm}
1886: \caption{Jet model fit to broadband A0620-00 data with
1887: residuals. The symbols represent the data,
1888: while the solid red line is the model fit in
1889: detector space. Other indicated components are
1890: not convolved with the detector matrices nor do
1891: they include absorption, and serve only to
1892: illustrate how the various emission mechanisms
1893: and regions contribute to the continuum. Solid
1894: (gray): total spectrum; Dot-long-dashed (light
1895: green): pre-acceleration inner jet synchrotron
1896: emission; Dot-long-dashed (darker green):
1897: post-acceleration outer jet synchrotron;
1898: Dot-dash-dash (orange): Compton emission from
1899: the inner jet, including external disk photons
1900: as well as synchrotron self-Compton;
1901: Dot-short-dash (magenta): thermal
1902: multicolor-blackbody disk model plus single
1903: blackbody representing the star. See Table~\ref{tab:sera} for the fitted
1904: parameters.
1905: \label{fig:sera}}
1906: \end{figure}
1907:
1908: \end{document}
1909: %
1910:
1911: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1912: