1: % Template article for preprint document class `elsart'

2: % with harvard style bibliographic references

3: % SP 2006/04/26

4: 

5: \documentclass{elsart3p}

6: 

7: % Use the option doublespacing or reviewcopy to obtain double line spacing

8: % \documentclass[doublespacing]{elsart}

9: 

10: % the natbib package allows both number and author-year (Harvard)

11: % style referencing;

12: \usepackage{natbib}

13: 

14: % if you use PostScript figures in your article

15: % use the graphics package for simple commands

16: % \usepackage{graphics}

17: % or use the graphicx package for more complicated commands

18: \usepackage{graphicx}

19: % or use the epsfig package if you prefer to use the old commands

20: % \usepackage{epsfig}

21: 

22: % The amssymb package provides various useful mathematical symbols

23: \usepackage{amssymb}

24: 

25: % The lineno packages adds line numbers. Start line numbering with

26: % \begin{linenumbers}, end it with \end{linenumbers}. Or switch it on

27: % for the whole article with \linenumbers.

28: % \usepackage{lineno}

29: 

30: % \linenumbers

31: \begin{document}

32: 

33: \def\lta{\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle <}

34:    \over {\scriptstyle\sim}$}}

35: \def\gta{\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle >}

36:    \over {\scriptstyle\sim}$}}

37: \def\msun{M_\odot}

38: 

39: \begin{frontmatter}

40: 

41: % Title, authors and addresses

42: 

43: % use the thanksref command within \title, \author or \address for footnotes;

44: % use the corauthref command within \author for corresponding author footnotes;

45: % use the ead command for the email address,

46: % and the form \ead[url] for the home page:

47: \title{Advection-Dominated Accretion and the Black Hole Event Horizon}

48: \author{Ramesh Narayan}, 

49: \ead{rnarayan@cfa.harvard.edu}

50: \author{Jeffrey E. McClintock}

51: \ead{jmcclintock@cfa.harvard.edu}

52: \address{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.}

53: 

54: \begin{abstract}

55: As the luminosity of an accreting black hole drops to a few percent of

56: Eddington, the spectrum switches from the familiar soft state to a

57: hard state that is well-described by a distended and tenuous

58: advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF).  An ADAF is a poor

59: radiator, and the ion temperature can approach $10^{12}$~K near the

60: center, although the electrons are cooler, with their temperature

61: typically capped at $\sim 10^{9-11}$~K.  The foundational papers

62: predicted that the large thermal energy in an ADAF would drive strong

63: winds and jets, as later observed and also confirmed in computer

64: simulations.  Of chief interest, however, is the accreting gas that

65: races inward.  It carries the bulk of the accretion energy as stored

66: thermal energy, which vanishes without a trace as the gas passes

67: through the hole's event horizon.  One thus expects black holes in the

68: ADAF regime to be unusually faint.  Indeed, this is confirmed by a

69: comparison of accreting stellar-mass black holes and neutron stars,

70: which reside in very similar transient X-ray binary systems.  The

71: black holes are on average observed to be fainter by a factor of $\sim

72: 100-1000$.  The natural explanation is that a neutron star must

73: radiate the advected thermal energy from its surface, whereas a black

74: hole can hide the energy behind its event horizon.  The case for an

75: event horizon in Sagittarius A$^*$, which is immune to caveats on jet

76: outflows and is furthermore independent of the ADAF model, is

77: especially compelling.  These two lines of evidence for event horizons

78: are impervious to counterarguments that invoke strong gravity or

79: exotic stars.

80: \end{abstract}

81: 

82: \begin{keyword}

83: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword

84: 

85: % PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code

86: 

87: \end{keyword}

88: 

89: \end{frontmatter}

90: 

91: % main text

92: \section{Introduction}

93: \label{Intro}

94: 

95: The foundations of our present understanding of {\it

96: advection-dominated accretion} were laid out in a series of papers by

97: Narayan \& Yi (1994, 1995a,b, hereafter NY94, NY95a, NY95b),

98: Abramowicz et al. (1995) and Chen et al. (1995), although some ideas

99: were anticipated much earlier by Ichimaru (1977).  The specific

100: abbreviation ADAF, which stands for {\it advection-dominated accretion

101: flow}, was introduced by Lasota\footnote{It gives the authors great

102: pleasure to highlight Jean-Pierre Lasota's research on ADAFs in this

103: contribution to his Festschrift.}(1996) and has become standard in the

104: field.  We review here the application of ADAFs to accreting black

105: holes (BHs), and in \S4 we also consider their application to

106: accreting neutron stars.

107: 

108: \section{Accretion Regimes}

109: 

110: The energy equation per unit volume of an accretion flow can be

111: written compactly in the form

112: \begin{equation}

113: \rho T{dS\over dt} \equiv 

114: \rho T \left({\partial S\over \partial t} +

115: \vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla}S\right) = q_+ - q_-,

116: \end{equation}

117: where $\rho$ is the density, $T$ is the temperature, $S$ is the

118: entropy per unit mass, $t$ is time, $\vec{v}$ is the flow velocity,

119: and $q_+$ and $q_-$ are the heating and cooling rates per unit volume.

120: This equation states that the rate at which the entropy per unit

121: volume of the gas increases is equal to the heating rate minus the

122: cooling rate.  Since any entropy stored in the gas is advected with

123: the flow, the left-hand side of equation (1) may be viewed as the

124: effective {\it advective cooling} rate $q_{\rm adv}$.  Equation (1)

125: can then be rearranged to give

126: \begin{equation}

127: q_+ = q_- + q_{\rm adv},

128: \end{equation}

129: which states that the heat energy released by viscous dissipation is

130: partially lost by radiative cooling and partially by advective

131: cooling.

132: 

133: The standard thin accretion disk model (Shakura \& Sunyaev 1973;

134: Novikov \& Thorne 1973; Frank, King \& Raine 2002) corresponds to the

135: case when the accreting gas is {\it radiatively efficient}, so that we have

136: \begin{equation}

137: {\rm Thin~Disk}: \quad q_- \gg q_{\rm adv}, \quad L \sim 0.1\dot{M}c^2.

138: \end{equation}  

139: Since the gas cools efficiently, the sound speed is much less than the

140: local Keplerian speed $v_K$ and the disk is geometrically thin.  Also,

141: the disk radiates about a tenth of the rest mass energy of the

142: accreting gas, the precise fraction depending on the BH spin (see

143: Shapiro \& Teukolsky 1983).

144: 

145: An ADAF corresponds to the opposite regime.  Here the gas is {\it

146: radiatively inefficient} and the accretion flow is underluminous.

147: Thus, an ADAF is defined by the condition

148: \begin{equation}

149: {\rm ADAF}: \quad q_{\rm adv} \gg q_-, \quad L \ll 0.1\dot{M}c^2.

150: \label{ADAFdef}

151: \end{equation}

152: Some papers in the literature define an ADAF as a flow that

153: corresponds exactly to a self-similar solution described in NY94 (see

154: \S3.1).  This is a needless restriction.  In our opinion, it is more

155: fruitful to employ the general definition of an ADAF as given in

156: equation (\ref{ADAFdef})\footnote{Actually, at mass accretion rates

157: for which the flow is close to the boundary between the thin disk and

158: ADAF solutions, we have (by continuity) $q_{\rm adv} \ \gta\ q_-$, and

159: the flow is only marginally radiatively inefficient (see Fig. 4).

160: Nevertheless, even here, the two solutions are very distinct from each

161: other.}.

162: 

163: There are two distinct regimes of advection-dominated accretion.  The

164: first, the one that we focus on in this article is when the accreting

165: gas is very tenuous and has a long cooling time (NY94; NY95b;

166: Abramowicz et al. 1995).  This regime is sometimes referred to as a

167: RIAF --- a ``radiatively inefficient accretion flow'' --- and is

168: defined by the condition

169: \begin{equation}

170: {\rm ADAF/RIAF}: \quad t_{\rm cool} \gg t_{\rm acc}.

171: \end{equation}

172: Here $t_{\rm cool}$ is the cooling time of the gas and $t_{\rm acc}$

173: is the accretion time.

174: 

175: The second regime of advection-dominated accretion is when the

176: particles in the gas have no trouble cooling, but the scattering

177: optical depth of the accretion flow is so large that the radiation is

178: unable to diffuse out of the system.  This radiation-trapped regime

179: was briefly discussed by Begelman (1979) and was developed in detail

180: by Abramowicz et al. (1988) in their ``slim disk'' model.  The

181: defining condition for this regime of ADAFs is

182: \begin{equation}

183: {\rm ADAF/Slim~Disk}: \quad t_{\rm diff} \gg t_{\rm acc},

184: \end{equation}

185: where $t_{\rm diff}$ is the diffusion time for photons.

186: 

187: The present review is devoted exclusively to the ADAF/RIAF form of

188: accretion (see Narayan, Mahadevan \& Quataert 1998b; Kato, Fukue \&

189: Mineshige 1998; Lasota 1999a,b; Quataert 2001; Narayan 2002, 2005;

190: Igumenshchev 2004; Done, Gierlinsky \& Kubota 2007 for reviews

191: emphasizing various aspects of ADAFs).  We will henceforth drop the

192: modifier RIAF and refer to these flows simply as ADAFs.

193: 

194: As explained above, an ADAF is by definition very different from the

195: standard thin accretion disk.  Correspondingly, it is characterized by

196: very distinct observational signatures.  Both ADAFs and thin disks

197: have well-known counterparts in nature.

198: 

199: \section{Properties of ADAFs}

200: 

201: \subsection{Geometry and Kinematics}

202: 

203: In an ADAF, since most of the energy released by viscous dissipation

204: is retained in the gas, the pressure is large, and so is the sound

205: speed: $c_s \sim v_K$, where the Keplerian velocity $v_K(R)$ is equal

206: to $c/\sqrt{2r}$ with $r=R/R_S$ being the radius in Schwarzschild

207: units, $R_S=2GM/c^2$.  The large pressure has several immediate

208: consequences.  First, the accretion flow becomes geometrically thick,

209: with a vertical height $H$ of order the radius $R$ (an ADAF may be

210: viewed as the viscous rotating analog of spherical Bondi accretion).

211: Second, the flow has considerable pressure-support in the radial

212: direction, so the angular velocity becomes sub-Keplerian.  Third, the

213: radial velocity of the gas is relatively large: $v \sim \alpha

214: v_K(H/R)^2 \sim \alpha c/r^{1/2}$, where $\alpha\sim0.1-0.3$ (see

215: below) is the standard dimensionless viscosity parameter (Shakura \&

216: Sunyaev 1973).  Fourth, the large radial velocity leads to a short

217: accretion time: $t_{\rm acc} =R/v \sim t_{\rm ff}/\alpha$, where

218: $t_{\rm ff}=(2GM/R^3)^{1/2}$ is the free-fall time.  Finally, the

219: large velocity and large scale height cause the gas density to be very

220: low, and so the cooling time is very long and the medium is optically

221: thin.

222: 

223: The above properties are nicely illustrated in the self-similar ADAF

224: solution derived by NY94, in which all quantities in the accretion

225: flow behave as power-laws in radius.  (A similar solution was obtained

226: by Spruit et al. 1987 in a different context.)  NY94 obtained a

227: general solution for arbitrary viscosity parameter $\alpha$, adiabatic

228: index $\gamma$, and advection parameter\footnote{By this definition,

229: $f= 0$ corresponds to a fully cooling-dominated (no advection) flow

230: and $f=1 $ corresponds to a fully advection-dominated (no radiative

231: cooling) flow.} $f \equiv q_{\rm adv}/q_+$.  In the limit

232: $\alpha^2\ll1$ (a good approximation) and $f\to1$ (radiatively very

233: inefficient flow), the solution simplifies to

234: \begin{eqnarray}

235: v &=& -\alpha \left[{\gamma-1\over\gamma-5/9}\right]v_K = 

236: -0.53 \alpha v_K, \\

237: \Omega &=& \left[{2(5/3-\gamma)\over3(\gamma-5/9)}\right]^{1/2}\Omega_K = 

238: 0.34 \Omega_K, \\

239: c_s &=& \left[{2(\gamma-1)\over3(\gamma-5/9)}\right]^{1/2}v_K = 

240: 0.59 v_K.

241: \end{eqnarray}

242: The numerical coefficients on the right correspond to $\gamma=1.5$, a

243: reasonable choice (see Quataert \& Narayan 1999).

244: 

245: The great virtue of the above self-similar solution is that it is

246: analytic and provides an easy and transparent way of understanding all

247: the key properties of an ADAF.  Its biggest deficiency is that it is

248: scale-free, which means that it is inappropriate near the inner or

249: outer boundary of the flow.  Therefore, for detailed work, one must

250: use global solutions of the ADAF equations that satisfy appropriate

251: boundary conditions (e.g., Abramowicz et al. 1996; Narayan, Kato \&

252: Honma 1997c; Chen, Abramowicz \& Lasota 1997; Manmoto, Mineshige \&

253: Kusunose 1997; Popham \& Gammie 1998; Manmoto 2000).  Calculating

254: global solutions is somewhat involved and one may wish to employ some

255: short-cuts (e.g., Yuan, Ma \& Narayan 2008).  On the other hand, even

256: the exact global solutions are somewhat limited since they solve a set

257: of height-integrated equations.  For greater realism, one might wish

258: to work directly with numerical simulations (e.g., Goldston, Quataert

259: \& Igumenshchev 2005; Noble et al. 2007).

260: 

261: \subsection{Thermal Properties}

262: 

263: The ADAF solution is gas pressure dominated.  Since $c_s\sim v_K$,

264: this means the gas temperature is nearly virial.  Under normal

265: conditions, gas at such a high temperature will radiate copiously,

266: especially at small radii where the temperature can approach $10^{12}$

267: K.  Thus, in order to have an ADAF, the accreting gas generally has to

268: be a {\it two-temperature plasma} (at least at small radii), with

269: electron temperature $T_e$ much less than the ion temperature $T_i$

270: (NY95b).  (The only way to avoid this condition is by having an

271: extremely low accretion rate below about $10^{-6}$ of the Eddington

272: rate.)  Typical ADAF models have the two temperatures scaling as

273: \begin{equation}

274: T_i \sim 10^{12}{\rm K}/r, \quad T_e \sim

275: {\rm Min}\, (T_i,\, 10^{9-11} {\rm K}).

276: \end{equation}

277: 

278: In order for gas in an ADAF to be two-temperature, there must be weak

279: coupling between electrons and ions.  Models generally assume that the

280: coupling occurs via Coulomb collisions, which is inefficient at the

281: densities under consideration.  Begelman \& Chiueh (1988) investigated

282: whether plasma instabilities might enhance the coupling and drive the

283: plasma rapidly to a single temperature; this would be problematic for

284: the ADAF solution.  However, they were unable to identify a clear

285: mechanism.  For normal mass accretion rates, the electrons in a

286: two-temperature ADAF will have a thermal energy distribution (but not

287: necessarily the ions, see Mahadevan \& Quataert 1997).

288: 

289: Early work on two-temperature ADAFs assumed that viscous heating acts

290: primarily on the ions; for instance, NY95b took the ratio of electron

291: heating to total heating, $\delta$, to be zero, while Esin, McClintock

292: \& Narayan (1997) assumed $\delta \sim m_e/m_p \sim10^{-3}$.  However,

293: an ADAF does not {\it require} $\delta$ to be this small.  Because of

294: a degeneracy in model parameters (Quataert \& Narayan 1999), it is

295: possible to have a viable ADAF model with larger values of $\delta$,

296: provided the mass loss parameter $s$, defined in \S3.6, is adjusted.

297: More recent ADAF models (e.g., Yuan, Quataert \& Narayan 2003)

298: typically assume $\delta\sim0.3-0.5$.

299: 

300: Various attempts have been made to estimate the value of $\delta$ from

301: first principles by considering the effects of reconnection

302: (Bisnovatyi-Kogan \& Lovelace 1997; Quataert \& Gruzinov 1999) or MHD

303: turbulence (Quataert 1998; Blackman 1999; Medvedev 2000).  These

304: studies do not agree on a single value of $\delta$, but generally

305: suggest that $\delta$ is likely to be much larger than $10^{-3}$.

306: Recently, Sharma et al. (2007) considered heating by the dissipation

307: of pressure anisotropy and showed that $\delta\sim (T_e/T_i)^{1/2}/3$.

308: 

309: It should be noted that, even if electrons and ions receive equal

310: amounts of the dissipated energy (i.e., $\delta=0.5$), the plasma can

311: still be two-temperature.  This is because a large part of the heating

312: in an ADAF is by compression (since the density increases inward).

313: Once $kT \ \gta\ m_e c^2$, which is the case for $r\ \lta$ a few

314: hundred, the electrons become relativistic and have an adiabatic index

315: $\gamma_e\sim4/3$, whereas the ions continue to be non-relativistic

316: with $\gamma_i\sim5/3$.  Since adiabatic heating by compression causes

317: the temperature to scale as $T \propto \rho^{\gamma-1}$, the electrons

318: heat up only as $T_e \sim \rho^{1/3}$ whereas the ions heat up as $T_i

319: \sim \rho^{2/3}$.  Thus, even in the limiting case of $\delta\sim0.5$,

320: ADAFs naturally become two-temperature at small radii.  For instance,

321: in the ADAF model of Sagittarius A$^*$ (Sgr A$^*$) proposed by Yuan et

322: al. (2003), the authors obtain $T_e \sim 0.1T_i$ close to the BH even

323: though they assumed $\delta=0.55$.

324: 

325: An important property of the ADAF solution is that it is thermally

326: stable (NY95b; Wu \& Li 1996; Kato et al. 1997; Wu 1997).  The

327: demonstration of this property was a crucial advance.  Two decades

328: earlier, in a seminal paper, Shapiro, Lightman \& Eardley (1976), and

329: after them Rees et al. (1982; 'ion tori'), introduced the idea of a

330: two-temperature accretion flow and derived a hot two-temperature

331: accretion flow solution, the SLE solution.  However, that solution

332: turned out to be thermally unstable (Piran 1978).  Until the

333: development of the ADAF solution, and the recognition that it is

334: different from the SLE solution, no stable, hot, optically thin

335: solution was available to model the many accretion systems whose

336: spectra (especially in the hard state, see below) demand such a flow.

337: 

338: Chen et al. (1995) and Yuan (2003) have explored the relationships

339: among the ADAF/RIAF, SLE, ADAF/Slim Disk and Thin Disk solutions.

340: 

341: \subsection{Models and Spectra}

342: 

343: The ADAF is a full accretion solution which incorporates consistent

344: dynamics, thermal balance, radiation physics, etc.  Therefore, the

345: radial profiles of all gas properties can be calculated

346: self-consistently once we know the values of certain parameters: BH

347: mass $M$, accretion rate $\dot{M}$, viscosity parameter $\alpha$,

348: pressure parameter $\beta\equiv P_{\rm gas}/(P_{\rm gas}+P_{\rm

349: mag})$, adiabatic index $\gamma$ (usually $\sim1.5$), viscous heating

350: parameter $\delta$, advection parameter $f$.

351: 

352: Actually, apart from the system-specific parameters $M$ and $\dot{M}$

353: (which may be estimated through observation), most of the other

354: parameters are constrained.  Under the nearly collisionless conditions

355: expected in an ADAF, the viscosity parameter is moderately enhanced

356: relative to a collisional gas (Sharma et al. 2006).  In the case of

357: dwarf novae in the hot state, Smak (1999) estimates $\alpha\sim0.2$,

358: while numerical simulations of the magneto-rotational instability give

359: $\alpha\ \lta\ 0.1$ (Hawley, Gammie \& Balbus 1996).  Thus we expect

360: $\alpha\sim0.1-0.3$ for an ADAF (typical values used in models are

361: $0.2-0.3$).  Numerical simulations further suggest that magnetic

362: fields are generally subthermal, with $P_{\rm mag}/P_{\rm gas}\sim

363: 0.1$ (e.g., Hawley et al. 1996), so we expect $\beta\sim0.9$.  By

364: calculating the energy loss via radiation from the hot accretion flow

365: (synchrotron, bremsstrahlung, Compton scattering), $f$ can be obtained

366: self-consistently (e.g., NY95b; Narayan, Barret \& McClintock 1997a;

367: Esin et al. 1997; Yuan et al. 2003).  Thus, we have only one poorly

368: constrained parameter: $\delta$.  The recent work of Sharma et

369: al. (2007) provides a serviceable prescription even for this

370: parameter.  At large radii, where the plasma is effectively

371: one-temperature, their formula gives $\delta\sim0.3$, while in the

372: energetically important inner region, where the plasma is

373: two-temperature, they find $\delta\sim 0.01-0.1$, depending on model

374: details.  The final two parameters are discussed later: the transition

375: radius $R_{\rm tr}$, \S3.5, and the wind parameter $s$, \S3.6.

376: 

377: \begin{figure}

378: \includegraphics[width=3.3in,clip]{J0422}

379: 

380: \caption{Combined TTM (2--20 keV), HEXE (20--200 keV), and OSSE

381: (50--600 keV) spectrum of GRO J0422+32 observed between 1992 August 29

382: and September 2.  The solid line is an ADAF model which reproduces the

383: overall luminosity of the source, the power-law slope below the peak

384: and the shape of the high-energy cutoff.  The model has a mass

385: accretion rate $\sim 0.1\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$. (From Esin et al. 1998)}

386: \end{figure}

387: 

388: Since the earliest days of X-ray astronomy, it has been clear that BH

389: binaries (BHBs) have a number of distinct spectral states (see

390: Zdziarski \& Gierlinski 2004; McClintock \& Remillard 2006; Done et

391: al. 2007).

392: %A dramatic example is the black hole binary (BHB) source

393: %GX 339-4, which exhibits several states, 

394: The most notable among these are the luminous {\it high soft state},

395: or {\it thermal state}, the slightly less luminous {\it low hard

396: state}, and the very under-luminous {\it quiescent state}.

397: 

398: The thermal state is well described by the thin disk model, and a

399: multi-color disk (MCD) blackbody model (e.g., {\it diskbb}, Mitsuda et

400: al. 1984; {\it ezdiskbb}, Zimmerman et al. 2005; both available in

401: XSPEC, Arnaud et al. 1996) has been successfully used for years to

402: model the X-ray spectra of sources in this state.  Recently, fully

403: relativistic versions of the MCD model for arbitrary BH spin ({\it

404: kerrbb}, Li et al. 2005; {\it bhspec}, Davis \& Hubeny 2006) have been

405: developed, based on the relativistic thin disk model of Novikov \&

406: Thorne (1973).  These models provide excellent fits to the X-ray

407: spectra of BHBs in the thermal state (e.g., McClintock et al. 2006;

408: Davis, Done \& Blaes 2006).

409: 

410: Whereas a satisfactory theoretical model, viz., the thin disk model,

411: was established early on for the thermal state, the hard state was for

412: many years a mystery.  Figure 1 shows the spectrum of a typical BHB,

413: GRO J0422+32, in the hard state (Esin et al. 1998).  The observations

414: indicate that the accreting gas is very hot, $kT\ \gta\ 100$ keV.  The

415: gas must also be optically thin, since optically thick blackbody

416: emission at a temperature of 100 keV would correspond to a luminosity

417: $L=\sigma T^4 A\ \gta\ 10^{46} ~{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$ for any reasonable

418: estimate of the radiating area $A$.

419: 

420: The most natural explanation of the emission in J0422 and other BHBs

421: in the hard state is that it is produced by thermal Comptonization.

422: Until the ADAF model was established, no accretion model could

423: reproduce such a spectrum.  (The SLE solution could, but it was

424: unstable.)  Indeed, astronomers were reduced to using empirical

425: Comptonization models (Sunyaev \& Titarchuk 1980) in which they

426: postulated a Comptonizing cloud with some arbitrary geometry and

427: parameterized the cloud with an adjustable temperature and an optical

428: depth (e.g., Zdziarski et al. 1996, 1998; Gierlinski et al. 1997).

429: 

430: The situation changed with the recognition of the ADAF solution.  This

431: model turned out to have the precise properties --- density, electron

432: temperature, stability --- needed to explain the hard state.  The

433: solid line in Fig. 1 shows an ADAF model of J0422 (Esin et al. 1998)

434: in which the accretion rate has been adjusted to fit the spectrum; the

435: required rate is about a tenth of the Eddington mass accretion rate

436: $\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$, where $\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}=L_{\rm Edd}/(0.1c^2)$,

437: i.e., it is the mass accretion rate at which a disk with radiative

438: efficiency 0.1 would radiate at the Eddington luminosity.  It is

439: gratifying that both the temperature (which determines the position of

440: the peak) and the Compton $y$-parameter (which determines the

441: power-law slope below the peak) are reproduced well.  Esin et

442: al. (1997, 1998, 2001) present models of other BHBs in the hard state.

443: 

444: \begin{figure}

445: \vskip-0.2in

446: \includegraphics[width=3.7in,clip]{V404}

447: \vskip -1.5in

448: \caption{The spectrum of the BHB source V404 Cyg in quiescence.  The

449: three dots on the left represent optical fluxes (Narayan et al. 1996),

450: the error box in the X-ray band corresponds to $2\sigma$ limits from

451: ASCA (Narayan et al. 1997a), and the upper limit in the EUV is derived

452: from the absence of a HeII $\lambda4686$ line.  The solid line

453: corresponds to an ADAF model with $\dot{M}\sim 0.005\dot{M}_{\rm

454: Edd}$.  The dashed line is a thin disk model whose $\dot{M}$ has been

455: adjusted to fit the optical data.  This model fits poorly in the X-ray

456: band and is inconsistent with the EUV limit.  (From Narayan et

457: al. 1997a)}

458: \end{figure}

459: 

460: \begin{figure}

461: \includegraphics[width=3in,clip]{Sgr}

462: 

463: \caption{The quiescent spectrum of Sgr A$^*$.  The radio data are from

464: Falcke et al. (1998; open circles) and Zhao et al. (2003; filled

465: circles), the IR data are from Serabyn et al. (1997) and Hornstein et

466: al. (2002), and the two ``bow-ties'' in the X-ray band correspond to

467: the quiescent (lower) and flaring (higher) data from Baganoff et

468: al. (2001, 2003).  The solid line is an ADAF model of Sgr A$^*$ in the

469: quiescent state.  The mass accretion rate is

470: $\dot{M}\sim10^{-6}\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ near the BH.  (From Yuan et al. 2003)}

471: \end{figure}

472: 

473: A typical accreting BH observed in the hard state has a luminosity on

474: the order of a few percent of Eddington.  At much lower luminosities,

475: we have the quiescent state, where the spectrum becomes noticeably

476: different.  Figures 2 and 3 show observations of a quiescent BHB, V404

477: Cyg, and a quiescent supermassive BH, the Galactic Center source Sgr

478: A$^*$.  Although these spectra look very different from the one shown

479: in Fig. 1, the ADAF model is able to fit these and other observations

480: of quiescent systems (Narayan, McClintock \& Yi 1996; Narayan et

481: al. 1997a; Yuan et al. 2003).  All it requires is a lower value of

482: $\dot{M}$, as appropriate for the lower luminosity.  The qualitative

483: features of the spectrum, e.g., a softening of the X-ray power-law

484: index (see Corbel, Tomsick \& Kaaret 2006), follow naturally.

485: However, a caveat is in order: In some cases, the X-ray emission in

486: quiescence may be from a jet lauched from the ADAF (\S3.6), rather

487: than from the ADAF itself (e.g., Yuan \& Cui 2005).

488: 

489: \subsection{Radiative Efficiency}

490: 

491: \begin{figure}

492: \includegraphics[width=3.3in,clip]{radeff2}

493: 

494: \caption{Radiative efficiency $\eta$ of an accretion flow around a BH,

495: as a function of the Eddington-scaled mass accretion rate (Hopkins,

496: Narayan \& Hernquist 2006b).  The horizontal segment between 0.01 and

497: 0.1 of the Eddington accretion rate shows a transition regime in which

498: a part of the accretion flow is an ADAF, but the radiative efficiency

499: is still large.  It might correspond to the Intermediate State, and

500: perhaps the upper end of the Hard State (\S3.5, Fig. 5).  Although

501: this plot is based on calculations shown in Fig. 11 of NY95b and

502: Fig. 13 of Esin et al. (1997), it is still very approximate.}

503: \end{figure}

504: 

505: As expressed in equation (\ref{ADAFdef}), the defining property of an

506: ADAF is that it is radiatively inefficient,

507: \begin{equation}

508: {\rm ADAF}: \qquad \eta\equiv L/\dot{M}c^2 \ll 0.1  .

509: \label{eta}

510: \end{equation}

511: Calculations show that the ADAF solution is possible only for low mass

512: accretion rates.  Specifically, only when $L\ \lta\ 0.1L_{\rm Edd}$ is

513: the gas density low enough to permit a two-temperature plasma (NY95b;

514: Narayan 1996; Esin et al. 1997).  Near the critical luminosity $L_{\rm

515: crit}$ or critical mass accretion rate $\dot{M}_{\rm crit}$ at which

516: the ADAF solution first becomes viable, the radiative efficiency is,

517: by continuity, not very different from that of a thin disk:

518: $\eta\sim0.1$.  However, with decreasing $\dot{M}$, the efficiency

519: decreases.  Very roughly, we estimate (Fig. 4)

520: \begin{equation}

521: \eta \sim 0.1\left(\dot{M}/0.01\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}\right), \quad

522: \dot{M} < 0.01\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}.

523: \end{equation}

524: %Here $\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}=L_{\rm Edd}/ (0.1c^2)$, i.e., it is the mass

525: %accretion rate at which a disk with radiative efficiency 0.1 would

526: %radiate at the Eddington luminosity.  

527: (We note that for the different

528: prescription for $\delta$ used by Sharma et al. 2006, $\eta$ falls

529: rapidly only for $\dot{M} \ \lta\ 10^{-4} \dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$.)

530: 

531: The extreme inefficiency of an ADAF at very low accretion rates is

532: critical for understanding the peculiar properties of accreting BHs in

533: the quiescent state (as first discussed by Narayan et al.  1996 for

534: BHBs and Narayan et al. 1995 for supermassive BHs).  We do not discuss

535: this topic here, but point the reader to other reviews for details

536: (e.g., Quataert 2001; Narayan 2002, 2005).  The quiescent state has

537: also played a major role in our efforts to test for the presence of an

538: event horizon in BHBs.  This is a key topic of \S4.

539: 

540: \subsection{Spectral Regimes}

541: 

542: \begin{figure}

543: \includegraphics[width=3.7in,clip]{states}

544: 

545: \caption{Configuration of the accretion flow in different spectral

546: states, shown schematically as a function of the mass accretion rate

547: $\dot{M}$ (based on Esin et al. 1997).  The ADAF is represented by the

548: hatched ellipses, with the intensity of hatching indicating the

549: density of the hot gas.  The horizontal lines represent a standard

550: thin disk.  The lowest panel shows the quiescent state (QS), which

551: corresponds to a very low mass accretion rate (say $<10^{-3}

552: \dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$), a weak jet (\S3.6), a low radiative efficiency

553: (Fig. 4), and a large transition radius (Fig. 6).  The second panel

554: from the bottom shows the hard state (HS), where the mass accretion

555: rate is higher ($\sim 10^{-3}-10^{-1.5}\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$) but still

556: below the critical rate $\dot{M}_{\rm crit}$, the jet is stronger, the

557: radiative efficiency is somewhat larger, and the transition radius is

558: smaller.  The second panel from the top shows the intermediate state

559: (IS), where $\dot{M}\sim 10^{-1.5}-10^{-1}\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}\ \lta\

560: \dot{M}_{\rm crit}$, the jet is even stronger, the radiative

561: efficiency is high $\sim0.1$, and the transition radius is fairly

562: close to the ISCO.  Finally, the top panel shows the thermal state

563: (TS), where there is no ADAF, the thin disk extends down to the ISCO,

564: $\eta\sim0.1$, and there is no jet.  Esin et al. (1997) included a

565: tentative proposal for the so-called very high state (see also Done et

566: al. 2007), now called the steep power-law state (SPL, McClintock \&

567: Remillard 2006), but we do not include this still-mysterious state

568: here.}

569: \end{figure}

570: 

571: Based on the properties of the ADAF solution discussed above, Narayan

572: (1996) proposed a simple model for understanding the spectral states

573: of accreting BHs.  This picture was developed in detail by Esin et

574: al. (1997).  The basic idea is illustrated in Fig. 5.

575: 

576: The key parameter that determines the spectral state of an accreting

577: BH is $\dot{M}$.  When $\dot{M}>\dot{M}_{\rm crit}$, only the thin

578: disk solution is available, and so the accretion flow is in the form

579: of a thin disk all the way down to the innermost stable circular orbit

580: (ISCO).  The system is then in the thermal state, and its spectrum is

581: well-described by the MCD model.

582: 

583: Once $\dot{M}$ falls below $\dot{M}_{\rm crit}$, both the thin disk

584: and ADAF solutions become viable (at least at small radii).  Now

585: accretion continues as a thin disk at radii larger than a transition

586: radius, $R > R_{\rm tr}$, but the flow switches to an ADAF at smaller

587: radii.  When the transition from a pure thin disk (thermal state) to a

588: disk-plus-ADAF configuration first occurs, i.e., when $\dot{M}$ is

589: just below $\dot{M}_{\rm crit}$, the ADAF is very small in size and we

590: have a more-or-less radiatively efficient flow, with $\eta\sim0.1$.

591: This corresponds to the so-called {\it intermediate state}.  Then, at

592: a somewhat lower $\dot{M}$, the ADAF expands a bit and $\eta$ is

593: modestly lower and we have the classic hard state.  Finally, when

594: $\dot{M}$ is much lower than $\dot{M}_{\rm crit}$, the ADAF becomes

595: much larger, $R_{\rm tr} \sim10^3-10^4R_S$, with $\eta\ll0.1$ (Narayan

596: et al. 1996, 1997a; Menou, Narayan \& Lasota 1999b).  This is the

597: quiescent state.

598: 

599: The above paradigm has proved durable (see Zdziarski \& Gierlinski

600: 2004; Done et al. 2007).  In particular, considerable evidence has

601: accumulated that the thin disk retreats from the innermost stable

602: circular orbit (ISCO) to a large radius in the quiescent state.  The

603: evidence is strongest in transient BHBs and CVs.  The spectra of

604: quiescent BHBs show absolutely no sign of any soft blackbody-like

605: X-ray emission from a thin disk at small radii (Narayan et al. 1996,

606: 1997a; McClintock, Narayan \& Rybicki 2004).  Timing properties also

607: indicate a large a large size for the ADAF (Hynes et al. 2003; Shahbaz

608: et al. 2005). In additional, theoretical arguments indicate that the

609: thermal-viscous disk instability, which causes the transient behavior

610: in these systems, is incompatible with observations unless the disk is

611: severely truncated in the quiescent state (Lasota, Narayan \& Yi

612: 1996b; Hameury, Lasota \& Dubus 1999; Lasota 2001, 2008; Dubus,

613: Hameury \& Lasota 2001; Yungelson et al. 2006).  There are also

614: indications from the time delay between the optical and X-ray

615: outbursts in the BHB GRO J1655--40 (Orosz et al. 1997; Hameury et

616: al. 1997) that the cool disk is truncated at a large radius in the

617: quiescent state.

618: 

619: In the case of supermassive BHs in the quiescent state, there is no

620: feature in the spectrum that might be associated with a thin disk,

621: suggesting that there is no disk at all; examples are Sgr A$^*$

622: (Narayan et al. 1998a; Narayan 2002) and M87 (Di Matteo et al. 2000,

623: 2003).  Intermediate luminosity AGN do exhibit optical emission from a

624: disk, but the ``big blue bump'' is much less pronounced than in

625: high-luminosity AGN (Ho 1999); this suggests that the disk is

626: truncated at a radius $\sim10-100R_S$ and the interior is filled with

627: an ADAF (Gammie, Narayan \& Blandford 1999; Quataert et al. 1999).

628: Incidentally, the thermal-viscous disk instability does not appear to

629: operate in AGN disks (Menou \& Quataert 2001; Hameury, Lasota \&

630: Viallet 2007).

631: 

632: In the more luminous hard state, again, there is considerable spectral

633: evidence that the disk is truncated at a transition radius outside the

634: ISCO, and that the inside is filled with an ADAF-like hot flow.  The

635: most spectacular example is the BHB XTE J1118+480, for which

636: observations carried out in the hard state had unprecedented spectral

637: coverage.  The observations are fit well with an ADAF model, with a

638: transition radius at $\sim 50 R_S$ (Esin et al. 2001).  The model even

639: fits the complicated timing behavior of the source (Yuan, Cui \&

640: Narayan 2005).  It is hard to imagine that the same data could be

641: explained with any model in which a cool disk extends down to the

642: ISCO.  Done et al. (2007) review spectral observations of a number of

643: other BHBs where again the data require a truncated disk.  Nemmen et

644: al. (2006) show that both the spectrum and the double-peaked Balmer

645: line profile of the LINER source NGC 1097 are consistent with a disk

646: truncated at a few hundred $R_S$.

647: 

648: In an interesting study of Cyg X--1, Gilfanov, Churazov \& Revnivtsev

649: (1999; see Cui et al. 1999; Done et al. 2007; for discussions of other

650: sources) found that, as the characteristic frequency in the

651: variability spectrum of the source increases, the power-law tail in

652: the spectral energy distribution steepens and the amplitude of the

653: reflection component in the spectrum increases.  This is exactly what

654: one expects when the transition radius between the outer cool disk and

655: the inner hot ADAF varies.  With decreasing transition radius, (i) the

656: noise frequency (which is likely related in some fashion to the

657: Keplerian frequency at the transition radius) should increase, (ii)

658: the hot medium should be cooled more effectively by soft photons from

659: the disk, giving a steeper power-law tail, and (iii) the solid angle

660: subtended by the cool disk at the ADAF should increase, and there

661: should be a larger reflection component.  Zdziarski, Lubinski \& Smith

662: (1999) have noted that a correlation between spectral slope and

663: reflection is commonly seen in both BHBs and AGN.

664: 

665: A few BHBs in the hard state have been found to show a soft

666: blackbody-like component in their spectra (Balucinska-Church et

667: al. 1995; Di Salvo et al. 2001; Miller et al. 2006a,b; Ramadevi \&

668: Seetha 2007; Rykoff et al. 2007).  This could be interpreted as

669: evidence that the thin disk extends all the way down to the

670: ISCO\footnote{However, Di Salvo et al. (2001) estimate from their

671: observations of Cyg X--1 that the disk inner edge is located at tens

672: of $R_S$, not at the ISCO}.  Some authors have noted that it is

673: possible for a thin disk to evaporate to an ADAF at a relatively large

674: radius and for the hot gas to then re-condense into a thin disk at

675: small radii (Rozanska \& Czerny 2000; Liu et al. 2007; Mayer \&

676: Pringle 2007)\footnote{Models of this kind may give hard spectra

677: without a significant decrease in radiative efficiency.  This would be

678: consistent with the transition region between mass accretion rates of

679: 0.01 and 0.1 of Eddington shown in Fig. 4, where we have suggested an

680: ADAF with high radiative efficiency may be present.}.  Such models

681: might explain the occurrence of a soft spectral component in some hard

682: state sources.  However, we note that the soft component typically has

683: only 10\% of the total observed luminosity.  It is hard to understand

684: how a radiatively efficient thin disk located at the ISCO could be

685: such a minor contributor to the emitted radiation.

686: 

687: This difficulty is highlighted in the work of D'Angelo et al. (2008).

688: They point out that, in any model of the hard state, there will be

689: considerable interaction between the hot gas which produces the hard

690: X-rays and cool gas that may be present in a conventional disk.  The

691: interaction will occur via X-ray irradiation (unless one has large

692: outward beaming, which seems unlikely, e.g., Narayan \& McClintock

693: 2005) as well as particle bombardment.  Using a prototype model for

694: ion bombardment (Deufel et al. 2002; Spruit \& Deufel 2002; Dullemond

695: \& Spruit 2005), D'Angelo et al. (2008) show that a weak soft

696: component in the X-ray spectrum arises quite naturally when the thin

697: disk is truncated at $\sim15-20 R_S$\footnote{This is a reasonable

698: location for the transition radius in the hard state (Esin et

699: al. 1998; Done et al. 2007)}.  The model fits the observations

700: surprisingly well; in fact, the same model would predict a much

701: stronger soft component, and would strongly disagree with the

702: observations, if the cool disk were to extend down to the ISCO.

703: 

704: \begin{figure}

705: \includegraphics[width=3.1in,clip]{rtrans}

706: 

707: \caption{Estimated location of the dimensionless transition radius

708: $R_{\rm tr}/R_S$, plotted as a function of the Eddington-scaled

709: accretion luminosity $L/L_{\rm Edd}$, for a sample of BHBs and

710: low-luminosity AGN (Yuan \& Narayan 2004).  The individual estimates

711: of $R_{\rm tr}$ are obtained by fitting spectral observations and are

712: very uncertain.  Nevertheless, there seems to be a trend of increasing

713: transition radius with decreasing luminosity.}

714: \end{figure}

715: 

716: One of the most vexing problems in the theory of ADAFs is that we do

717: not have a robust method of estimating the location of the transition

718: radius $R_{\rm tr}$.  From the earliest studies (e.g., NY95b; Meyer \&

719: Meyer-Hofmeister 1994), it has been plausibly argued that $R_{\rm tr}$

720: increases with decreasing $\dot{M}$.  However, reliable predictions of

721: the exact dependence have proved difficult, although a number of

722: studies have come up with semi-quantitative results (Meyer \&

723: Meyer-Hofmeister 1994; Honma 1996; Rozanska \& Czerny 2000; Meyer, Liu

724: \& Meyer-Hofmeister 2000; Spruit \& Deufel 2002; Mayer \& Pringle

725: 2007).  Yuan \& Narayan (2004) tried to use observations to deduce the

726: run of $R_{\rm tr}$ with accretion luminosity.  Figure 6 shows their

727: results.

728: 

729: Another issue that has been discussed recently is hysteresis in the

730: transition between the thermal state and the hard state.

731: Specifically, with increasing $\dot{M}$, the hard state survives up to

732: fairly high luminosities $\sim0.1-0.2L_{\rm Edd}$, whereas with

733: decreasing $\dot{M}$, the transition from the thermal state to the

734: hard state occurs at a much lower luminosity $\sim 0.02-0.05L_{\rm

735: Edd}$ (Miyamoto et al. 1995; Maccarone \& Coppi 2003; Zdziarski et

736: al. 2004; Done et al. 2007).  Meyer-Hofmeister, Liu \& Meyer (2005)

737: have provided a plausible explanation.  Their disk evaporation model,

738: coupled with Compton-cooling of the hot electrons in the ADAF,

739: naturally produces a hysteresis in the location of the transition

740: radius.

741: 

742: The brightest systems in the hard state ($L\ \gta\ 0.1L_{\rm Edd}$)

743: are difficult to model with the standard ADAF model.  A variant of the

744: ADAF solution --- a natural extension of the model --- called the

745: luminous hot flow (LHAF; Yuan 2001, 2003; Yuan \& Zdziarski 2004; Yuan

746: et al. 2007; see also Machida, Nakamura \& Matsumoto 2006), looks

747: promising for modeling these sources.

748: 

749: \subsection{Outflows and Jets}

750: 

751: NY94, NY95a discovered an unexpected property of the ADAF solution:

752: {\it the accreting gas in an ADAF has a positive Bernoulli

753: parameter}\footnote{Technically, it should be called the Bernoulli

754: ``function'' since the quantity varies with radius, but we use

755: Bernoulli ``parameter'' since that was the term used in NY94}, which

756: is defined as the sum of the kinetic energy, potential energy and

757: enthalpy,

758: \begin{equation}

759: Be = v^2/2 -GM/R +w.  

760: \end{equation} 

761: A positive Bernoulli constant means that the gas is not bound to the

762: BH.  (This is not surprising, since the gas is not losing energy

763: through radiation.)  Therefore, the above authors suggested that ADAFs

764: should be associated with strong winds and jets\footnote{There has

765: been a tendency in the literature to ignore these early papers and to

766: credit Blandford \& Begelman (1999) for establishing the connection

767: between ADAFs and outflows.  We note that the abstract of the first

768: paper on ADAFs, NY94, states: ``Further, the Bernoulli parameter is

769: positive, implying that advection-dominated flows are susceptible to

770: producing outflows...We suggest that advection-dominated accretion may

771: provide an explanation for...the widespread occurrence of outflows and

772: jets in accreting systems.''  In the second paper, NY95a, the title

773: itself mentions outflows, ``Advection-Dominated Accretion:

774: Self-Similarity and Bipolar Outflows,'' and an entire paragraph of the

775: abstract is devoted to the topic.} (see also Meier 2001).

776: 

777: Strong outflows have been seen in numerical simulations of ADAFs.  The

778: first indications came from 2D and 3D hydrodynamic simulations (Stone,

779: Pringle \& Begelman 1999; Igumenshchev \& Abramowicz 2000;

780: Igumenshchev, Abramowicz \& Narayan 2000), but it was soon confirmed

781: in MHD simulations as well (Stone \& Pringle 2001; Hawley \& Balbus

782: 2002; Igumenshchev, Narayan \& Abramowicz 2003; Pen, Matzner \& Wong

783: 2003; Machida, Nakamura \& Matsumoto 2004; McKinney \& Gammie 2004;

784: Igumenshchev 2004).

785: 

786: Apart from producing a gas-dominated, large-scale outflow, MHD

787: simulations of ADAFs also have a second distinct outflow component

788: along the axis in the form of a collimated, Poynting-dominated,

789: relativistic jet (McKinney 2005, 2006).  The original suggestion of

790: NY94 that ADAFs would have outflows and jets has thus been confirmed

791: by these simulations.  Nevertheless, some authors have disputed a

792: connection between a positive Bernoulli parameter and an outflow since

793: it is possible to come up with explicit models that have a positive

794: Bernoulli parameter but no outflow (Paczy\'nski 1998; Abramowicz et

795: al. 2000).

796: 

797: Observational evidence for the association of nonthermal relativistic

798: jets with ADAFs has accumulated in recent years with the discovery of

799: radio emission in virtually every BHB in the hard state (Corbel et

800: al. 2000; Fender 2001; Fender, Belloni \& Gallo 2004; Fender \&

801: Belloni 2004).  The radio emission is generally too bright to be

802: produced by thermal electrons in the accretion flow.  It is therefore

803: very likely to come from nonthermal electrons in a jet; in fact, radio

804: VLBI imaging has revealed a resolved jet in a few sources.  Thus, it

805: is now observationally well-established that the hard state/ADAF is

806: associated with relativistic jets.  According to the discussion in

807: \S3.5, the quiescent state also has an ADAF and should have a

808: (weaker) jet.  Indeed, radio emission has been seen from two quiescent

809: systems, V404 Cyg (Hjellming et al. 2000; Gallo, Fender \& Hynes 2005)

810: and A0620--00 (Gallo et al. 2006), confirming this expectation.

811: 

812: How much of the X-ray emission in an ADAF system comes from the

813: accretion flow and how much from the jet?  A strong correlation has

814: been seen between radio and X-ray luminosity in the hard state and

815: quiescent state (Corbel et al. 2003; Gallo, Fender \& Pooley 2003).

816: At first sight this might suggest that the X-ray must also come from

817: the jet (e.g., Falcke, K\"ording \& Markoff 2004).  However, since the

818: jet flows out of the ADAF and is thus highly coupled to it, any model

819: in which the X-ray emission is from the ADAF and radio is from the jet

820: is equally compatible with the observations.  In recent times, several

821: authors have come down in favor of an ADAF origin for the X-rays

822: (e.g., Heinz \& Sunyaev 2003; Merloni, Heinz \& Di Matteo 2003; Heinz

823: 2004; Heinz et al. 2005; Yuan et al. 2005).

824: 

825: Additional evidence on this issue comes from hard state spectra

826: indicating thermal emission (e.g., see Fig. 1), which is very

827: different from the nonthermal power-law emission one expects from a

828: jet.  Markoff, Falcke \& Fender (2001), among others, have argued that

829: the X-ray emission is due to synchrotron emission from a carefully

830: tuned distrubution of nonthermal electrons.  However, Zdziarski et

831: al. (2003) and Zdziarski \& Gierlinski (2004) showed that the

832: high-energy cutoff in the spectra of BHBs in the hard state, which

833: arises naturally in a thermal ADAF-like model, is very difficult to

834: reproduce in a nonthermal synchrotron model.  A variant of the jet

835: model assigns the X-ray emission to thermal electrons in the ``base of

836: the jet'' (Markoff, Nowak \& Wilm 2005), but the discussion then

837: becomes semantic.  The base of the jet is surely embedded in the

838: underlying ADAF and it is not clear that one gains anything by simply

839: relabeling the radiation from the ADAF as jet emission.  The issue is

840: discussed in greater depth in Narayan (2005), who advocates a

841: `jet-ADAF' model (as described in Yuan et al. 2005; Malzac, Merloni \&

842: Fabian 2004), in which the high energy X-ray emission in the hard

843: state comes from the ADAF and the low-energy radio (and infrared)

844: emission comes from a jet.

845: 

846: The situation is less clear-cut in the quiescent state, where

847: nonthermal emission from the jet might dominate even in X-rays (Yuan

848: \& Cui 2005; Wu, Yuan \& Cao 2007).  It is interesting, however, that

849: the most quiescent system we know, Sgr A$^*$, shows no sign of a jet.

850: Radio images with a resolution of $\sim15R_S$ appear to be jet-free

851: (Shen et al. 2005), while the quiescent X-ray emission is spatially

852: resolved and appears to be from thermal gas near the Bondi radius at

853: $\sim10^5R_S$, not from a jet (Baganoff et al. 2001, 2003).

854: 

855: Turning our attention now to the extended wind that is predicted from

856: an ADAF, and seen in numerical simulations, one consequence of the

857: wind is that, at each radius, a fraction of the accreting gas is lost

858: from the system.  Thus, the accretion rate itself varies with radius.

859: This is usually parameterized with an index $s$ such that $\dot{M}(r)

860: \propto r^{s}$.  Operationally, this means that, in the self-similar

861: regime, the gas density varies with radius as $\rho\propto r^{-3/2+s}$

862: rather than as $r^{-3/2}$ in the NY94 model.  Unfortunately, apart

863: from the rather general constraint that $s$ should lie between 0 (no

864: mass loss) and 1 (the limit of a CDAF, \S3.7), there is no good

865: theoretical estimate of the value of $s$.  We have to resort to

866: numerical simulations or observations.  The former tends to give

867: somewhat larger values, e.g., $s\sim0.7$ (Pen et al. 2003), while the

868: one case where the latter approach has been tried, Sgr A$^*$, yields a

869: smaller value, $s\sim0.3$ (Yuan et al. 2003).

870: 

871: \subsection{Convection}

872: 

873: Another general property of ADAFs was highlighted by NY94 (see also

874: Begelman \& Meier 1982): ADAFs have entropy increasing inward and

875: should be convectively unstable by the Schwarzschild criterion.

876: Numerical hydrodynamic simulations of ADAFs confirmed the presence of

877: strong convection (Igumenshchev et al. 2000; Narayan, Igumenshchev \&

878: Abramowicz 2000) and led to the development of an analytical

879: self-similar model called the convection-dominated accretion flow

880: (CDAF; Narayan et al.  2000; Quataert \& Gruzinov 2000).

881: 

882: The CDAF model employs a simplified one-dimensional treatment of the

883: accretion flow, in which all fluxes are assumed to be in the radial

884: direction.  The resulting density varies as $\rho \propto r^{-1/2}$.

885: In the language of \S3.6, a CDAF corresponds to $s=1$.  However,

886: technically, an idealized CDAF has no mass outflow, only an outward

887: flow of energy by convection; the energy is assumed to flow out into a

888: surrounding medium.  In practice, the flow is never perfectly

889: one-dimensional; 2D effects intrude and one expects substantial winds

890: and mass loss as well.  A real ADAF thus involves a complicated

891: interplay between convection and winds.

892: 

893: Magnetic fields introduce further complexity, and there has been some

894: discussion in the literature on whether MHD ADAFs do or do not have

895: real convection (Machida, Matsumoto \& Mineshige 2001; Balbus \&

896: Hawley 2002; Narayan et al. 2002b; Pen et al. 2003; Igumenshchev

897: 2004).  The question has no practical significance, however, since

898: there is general agreement that ADAFs have both unstable entropy

899: gradients and strong magnetic stresses.

900: 

901: In the particular case of a spherical, non-rotating, MHD flow (the

902: magnetic analog of the Bondi problem), some complications are absent

903: and the problem becomes relatively clean.  Here one finds that

904: convection and magnetic fields strongly influence the accretion

905: physics, and the resulting flow is very different from the standard

906: Bondi solution (Igumenshchev \& Narayan 2002; Igumenshchev 2004,

907: 2006).  This result is likely to have significant implications for

908: astrophysics; for instance, isolated neutron stars accreting from the

909: interstellar medium will be very much dimmer than one might expect

910: based on the Bondi solution (Perna et al. 2003).

911: 

912: \subsection{ADAFs Around Supermassive Black Holes}

913: 

914: The ADAF solution is essentially independent of the mass $M$ of the

915: central BH.  That is, if length and time are scaled by $M$ and the

916: accretion rate is scaled by the Eddington rate (also proportional to

917: $M$), then the same solution is valid for any BH mass.  Therefore, any

918: successful application of the ADAF model to a BHB system has immediate

919: consequences for supermassive BHs (SMBHs) in an equivalent state, and

920: vice versa.  This close connection between ADAFs in BHBs and ADAFs in

921: AGN was highlighted in Narayan (1996); it is also empirically obvious

922: from Fig. 6, which combines observations and models of BHBs and AGN.

923: 

924: The first SMBH to be modeled as an ADAF was the Galactic Center source

925: Sgr A$^*$ (Narayan et al. 1995).  This was soon followed by Fabian \&

926: Rees (1995), who suggested that quiescent nuclei in nearby giant

927: ellipticals (e.g., M87) must be accreting via ADAFs, and by Lasota et

928: al. (1996a), who argued that Low Ionization Nuclear Emission-line

929: Region sources (LINERs, e.g., NGC 4258) and low-luminosity active

930: galactic nuclei (LLAGN) must have ADAFs.  Both suggestions have turned

931: out to be correct (e.g., Reynolds et al. 1996; Mahadevan 1997; Gammie

932: et al. 1999; Quataert et al. 1999; Di Matteo et al. 2000, 2003;

933: Loewenstein et al. 2001; Ulvestad \& Ho 2001; Nemmen et al. 2006).  

934: 

935: Other authors have suggested that all of the following systems have

936: ADAFs: FRI sources (Baum, Zirbel \& O'Dea 1995; Reynolds et al. 1996;

937: Begelman \& Celotti 2004), BL Lac sources (Maraschi \& Tavecchio

938: 2003), X-ray Bright Optically Normal Galaxies (XBONGs; Yuan \& Narayan

939: 2004), and even some Seyferts (Chiang \& Blaes 2003).  All of these

940: sources are relatively low-luminosity AGN, where an ADAF is likely to

941: be present (Figs. 5, 6).

942: 

943: As discussed in \S3.6, a feature of the ADAF model is the presence of

944: outflows and jets.  This implies that ADAF systems should generally be

945: radio-loud.  This is certainly the case for the FRI and BL Lac sources

946: mentioned above.  Ho (2002; see also Nagar et al. 2000; Falcke et

947: al. 2000) presents in Fig. 5b of his paper a very interesting plot of

948: radio loudness, defined as the ratio of the flux at 6 cm to the flux

949: in the optical B band versus Eddington-scaled luminosity, for a

950: sample of galactic nuclei.  Virtually every source in the plot with an

951: Eddington-ratio below about 0.01 is radio loud, which is perfectly

952: consistent with our expectation that all such sources should have

953: ADAFs.  Moreover, the degree of radio loudness increases with

954: decreasing Eddington ratio, again consistent with our expectation that

955: the ADAF should become more and more dominant with decreasing

956: $\dot{M}$.  The majority of sources in Ho's plot that have $L/L_{\rm

957: Edd} > 0.1$ are radio-quiet, as we would expect from Fig. 5 if these

958: systems have cool disks.  However, a small minority of these bright

959: sources do show powerful jets (they are generally FRII sources).  The

960: exact nature of the accretion in these sources is unclear.  A more

961: complete plot, with updated data, can be found in Sikora, Stawarz \&

962: Lasota (2007).

963: 

964: The jet and the extended wind from an ADAF carry with them substantial

965: kinetic energy.  This energy will be dumped into the external medium

966: and will have important consequences.  In the context of galaxy

967: formation, there has been discussion recently of the so-called ``radio

968: mode'' of accretion (Croton et al. 2006) in which outflowing energy

969: from an accreting SMBH in the galactic nucleus heats up the

970: surrounding medium.  This kind of AGN feedback can lead to various

971: effects such as shutting off accretion and/or star formation (Di

972: Matteo et al. 2005; Hopkins et al. 2006a).

973: 

974: It is worth noting that this radio mode is nothing other than the ADAF

975: mode of accretion reviewed in this article.  Investigators of AGN

976: feedback may find it profitable to study the considerable work that

977: has been done on ADAFs over the last fifteen years.

978: 

979: \section{The Black Hole Event Horizon}

980: 

981: The first BH, Cygnus X-1, was identified and established in 1972 via a

982: measurement of its mass, which was shown to be too large for a neutron

983: star (NS).  The surest evidence for the existence of BHs continues to

984: be through dynamical mass measurements.  We now know of 20 additional

985: compact binary X-ray sources (McClintock \& Remillard 2006; Orosz et

986: al. 2007) with primaries that are too massive to be a NS or any stable

987: assembly of cold degenerate matter, assuming that GR is valid.

988: Similarly, dynamical data have established the existence of

989: supermassive BHs, most notably in the nucleus of our Milky Way Galacy

990: (Sch\"odel et al. 2002; Ghez et al. 2005a) and in NGC 4258 (Miyoshi et

991: al. 1995).

992: 

993: Are these compact objects genuine BHs -- pockets of fully collapsed

994: matter that are walled off from sight by self gravity and that, like a

995: shadow, reveal no detail --- or are they exotic objects that have no

996: event horizons but manage to masquerade as BHs?  Most astrophysicists

997: believe that they are genuine BHs.  There are several reasons for this

998: confidence, the most important being that BHs are an almost inevitable

999: prediction of GR.  However, this argument is circular because it

1000: presumes that GR is the correct theory of gravity.  Furthermore, it

1001: ignores the many exotic alternatives to BHs that have been suggested.

1002: Thus, the collapsed objects that we refer to throughout as ``black

1003: holes'' are strictly speaking dynamical BH candidates.  The current

1004: evidence for BHs is not decisive, nor can dynamical measurements be

1005: expected to make it so.  We now consider some approaches aimed at

1006: establishing that these dynamical BHs are genuine.

1007: 

1008: The defining property of a BH is its event horizon.  Demonstrating the

1009: existence of this immaterial surface would be the certain way to prove

1010: the reality of BHs.  Unfortunately, unlike any ordinary astronomical

1011: body such as a planet or a star of any kind, it is quite impossible to

1012: detect radiation from the event horizon's surface of infinite

1013: redshift.  (Hawking radiation is negligibly weak for massive

1014: astrophysical BHs.)  Nevertheless, despite the complete absence of any

1015: emitted radiation, it is possible to marshal strong {\it

1016: circumstantial evidence} for the reality of the event horizon.  The

1017: fruitful approaches described below are based on comparing X-ray

1018: binary systems that contain BH primaries with very similar systems

1019: that contain NS primaries.  Such investigations are motivated by the

1020: simple fact that the termination of an accretion flow at the hard

1021: surface of a NS has observational consequences.

1022: 

1023: The earliest and strongest evidence for the event horizon is based on

1024: the faintness in quiescence of BH transient systems relative to

1025: comparable NS systems.  In \S4.1, we discuss the physical arguments

1026: that underpin this evidence, and in \S4.2 we present the comparative

1027: luminosity data for BHs and NSs.  Alternative explanations for the

1028: lower luminosities of the BH systems, which do not involve the event

1029: horizon, are considered in \S4.3.  In \S4.4, we present three

1030: independent and additional arguments for the existence of the event

1031: horizon, which are again rooted in comparing BH and NS X-ray binaries.

1032: In \S4.5, we discuss the extreme faintness and properties of Sgr A*

1033: and the evidence that this supermassive BH has an event horizon, and

1034: in \S4.6 we argue that even very exotic objects with enormously strong

1035: surface gravity (e.g., gravastars) cannot escape our arguments for the

1036: event horizon.

1037: 

1038: \subsection{Accretion and the Event Horizon}

1039: 

1040: A test particle in a circular orbit at radius $R$ around a mass $M$

1041: has, in the Newtonian limit, kinetic energy per unit mass equal to

1042: $GM/2R$, and potential energy equal to $-GM/R$.  In the context of a

1043: gaseous accretion disk, this means that a gas blob at radius $R$

1044: retains $50\%$ of its potential energy as kinetic energy.  The

1045: remaining 50\% was transformed into thermal energy during the viscous

1046: accretion of the blob to its current radius (Frank et al. 2002).

1047: 

1048: We now turn to consider accretion on to the material surface of a NS.

1049: If the mass $M$ at the center of an accretion disk has a surface, then

1050: the kinetic energy in the accreting gas will be converted to thermal

1051: energy in a viscous boundary layer and radiated (Frank et al. 2002).

1052: In addition, the residual thermal energy that the gas possesses when

1053: it reaches the inner edge of the disk will also be radiated from the

1054: surface.

1055: 

1056: If accretion occurs via an ADAF, the luminosity from the accretion

1057: disk $L_{\rm acc}$ and that from the stellar surface $L_{\rm surf}$

1058: will satisfy

1059: \begin{eqnarray}

1060: L_{\rm acc} &\ll& GM\dot{M}/2R_*, \\

1061: L_{\rm surf} &\approx& GM\dot{M}/R_* \gg L_{\rm acc},

1062: \label{ADAFsurf}

1063: \end{eqnarray}

1064: where $R_*$ is the radius of the stellar surface.  The accretion

1065: luminosity is small because the flow is radiatively inefficient.

1066: Therefore, essentially all the potential energy of the accreting gas

1067: remains in the gas in the form of thermal and kinetic energy.  If the

1068: central object has a surface, e.g., it is a NS, the total luminosity

1069: we observe will be equal to $L_{\rm surf}$.  However, if the object

1070: has an event horizon, i.e., it is a BH, there will be no radiation

1071: from a stellar surface and the luminosity we observe will only be

1072: equal to $L_{\rm acc}$.  Thus, we expect

1073: \begin{equation}

1074: {\rm ADAF}: \quad L_{\rm NS} \gg L_{\rm BH}.

1075: \label{ADAFlum}

1076: \end{equation}

1077: 

1078: \begin{figure}

1079: \includegraphics[width=3.3in,clip]{radeff}

1080: 

1081: \caption{Predicted luminosities of accreting BHs and NSs as a function

1082: of mass accretion rate.  This plot is based on the accretion

1083: efficiency prescription shown in Fig. 4.  Because a NS has a surface,

1084: the total luminosity is always $\sim GM_{\rm NS}\dot{M}/R_{\rm NS}

1085: \sim 0.1\dot{M}c^2$, regardless of whether the accretion flow is

1086: radiatively efficient or not.  In the case of a BH, however, the

1087: radiative efficiency $\eta$ of the accretion flow is of paramount

1088: importance, and the observed luminosity becomes $\ll0.1\dot{M}c^2$

1089: when the accretion rate is highly sub-Eddington.}

1090: \end{figure}

1091: 

1092: Figure 7 shows schematically the luminosity difference we predict

1093: between a NS and a BH.  This plot is based on the accretion efficiency

1094: estimate shown in Fig. 4.  Especially at low mass accretion rates, say

1095: $\dot{M}\ \lta\ 10^{-4}\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ (deep quiescent state), we

1096: expect a huge luminosity difference between NSs and BHs.  Efforts to

1097: test this prediction are described in \S4.2.

1098: 

1099: If the accretion disk is radiatively efficient, then the gas has

1100: little thermal energy when it reaches the inner edge of the disk.  In

1101: this case, we expect\footnote{The result given here is for a

1102: non-spinning accretor.  If the central mass is spinning, the boundary

1103: layer luminosity from the surface will be somewhat smaller.  However,

1104: it requires very fine tuning to make $L_{\rm surf} \ll L_{\rm acc}$.

1105: Moreover, if the central mass spins too close to the ``break-up''

1106: limit, the extra luminosity due to the surface can actually exceed

1107: $GM\dot{M}/2R_*$ by a large factor (Popham \& Narayan 1991).}

1108: \begin{eqnarray}

1109: L_{\rm acc} &\approx& GM\dot{M}/2R_*, \\

1110: L_{\rm surf} &\approx& GM\dot{M}/2R_* \sim L_{\rm acc}.

1111: \label{surf2}

1112: \end{eqnarray}

1113: The above result is based on a Newtonian analysis and is okay so long

1114: as the central object has a radius $R_*\ \gta\ R_{\rm ISCO}$, the

1115: radius of the ISCO.  For more compact objects, we must allow for the

1116: fact that, inside the ISCO, the accreting gas no longer spirals in by

1117: viscosity but free-falls in the gravitational potential of the central

1118: mass.  Now we have

1119: \begin{eqnarray}

1120: L_{\rm acc} &\approx& 0.1\dot{M}c^2, \\

1121: L_{\rm surf} &\approx& GM\dot{M}/R_*- L_{\rm acc} > L_{\rm acc}.

1122: \label{surf3}

1123: \end{eqnarray}

1124: The accretion luminosity is limited by the binding energy of the gas

1125: at the ISCO, which gives a radiative efficiency $\eta\sim0.1$.  On the

1126: other hand, the total energy budget is $GM\dot{M}/R_*$, which means

1127: that a larger fraction of the luminosity is released at the surface.

1128: (The free-falling gas inside the ISCO, crashes on the surface and

1129: releases its energy in a shock.)  In the limit when $R_*$ is

1130: arbitrarily close to $R_S$ (cf., the discussion of gravastars in

1131: \S4.6), the total luminosity is equal to $\dot{M}c^2$, i.e., the

1132: entire rest mass energy of the accreting gas is converted to radiation

1133: (100\% radiative efficiency).  Note that all luminosities discussed

1134: here refer to measurements by an observer at infinity.

1135: 

1136: Combining the results in equations (\ref{ADAFsurf}), (\ref{surf2}) and

1137: (\ref{surf3}), we see that, regardless of the radius of the accretor

1138: and whether the accretion flow is radiatively efficient or

1139: inefficient, we expect

1140: \begin{equation}

1141: {\rm Any~Accretion~Flow:} \qquad L_{\rm surf} \ \gta\ L_{\rm acc}.

1142: \label{Lsurfacc}

1143: \end{equation}

1144: Although this relation is weaker than (\ref{ADAFsurf}), it can still

1145: be used in favorable cases to test for the presence of an event

1146: horizon (\S4.5).

1147: 

1148: \subsection{Evidence for the Event Horizon: Luminosities of Quiescent X-ray

1149:   Binaries}

1150: 

1151: BH and NS transient binary systems are very similar in many respects,

1152: and it is reasonable to expect that their mass accretion rates and

1153: luminosities would be comparable under similar conditions.  There is,

1154: however, one important qualitative difference between the two kinds of

1155: object --- NSs have surfaces whereas BHs do not.  Often, this

1156: difference is not important.  However, as discussed in \S4.1 (see

1157: eq. \ref{ADAFlum}), when accretion occurs via an ADAF, a NS binary

1158: should be much more luminous than a BH binary (NY95b).  The difference

1159: will be especially large in the quiescent state, when the accretion

1160: flow is radiatively extremely inefficient (Fig. 7).

1161: 

1162: Narayan, Garcia \& McClintock (1997b) and Garcia, McClintock \&

1163: Narayan (1998) collected available X-ray data on quiescent NS and BH

1164: transients and showed that BH systems are consistently fainter than NS

1165: systems.  This was the first indication that the objects that

1166: astronomers call ``black holes'' are indeed genuine BHs with

1167: event horizons.

1168: 

1169: \begin{figure}

1170: \includegraphics[width=3.3in,clip]{nsbh1}

1171: \caption{Eddington-scaled luminosities (0.5--10 keV) of BH transients

1172: ({\it filled circles}) and NS transients ({\it open circles}) versus

1173: the orbital period (see Garcia et al. 2001; McClintock et al. 2004).

1174: Only the lowest quiescent detections or {\it Chandra/XMM} upper limits

1175: are shown.  The plot shows all systems with known orbital periods,

1176: which have optical counterparts and good distance estimates.  The

1177: diagonal hatched areas delineate the regions occupied by the two

1178: classes of sources and indicate the observed dependence of luminosity

1179: on orbital period.  Note that the BH systems are on average nearly 3

1180: orders of magnitude fainter than the NS systems with similar orbital

1181: periods. }

1182: \end{figure}

1183: 

1184: \begin{figure}

1185: \includegraphics[width=3.3in,clip]{nsbh2}

1186: \caption{Same as Fig.\ 8 except that shown here are the observed

1187: luminosities without Eddington scaling.  In this representation, the

1188: BH systems are on average a factor of $\sim 100$ fainter than NS

1189: systems with similar orbital periods. }

1190: \end{figure}

1191: 

1192: Lasota \& Hameury (1998) made the important point that it is necessary

1193: to compare quiescent NS and BH transients at similar mass accretion

1194: rates, and the surest way to achieve this is to plot luminosities as a

1195: function of the binary orbital period $P_{\rm orb}$ (the relevant

1196: arguments are outlined in Menou et al. 1999b; Lasota 2000, 2008).

1197: Since 1999, this has been the standard way of plotting the data (Menou

1198: et al. 1999a; Garcia et al. 2001; Narayan, Garcia \& McClintock 2002a;

1199: Hameury et al. 2003; McClintock et al. 2004).  Figure 8 shows the

1200: current status of the comparison, with the luminosities of quiescent

1201: BH and NS transients plotted in (most-appropriate) Eddington units.

1202: Fig. 9 shows the same data without the luminosities being scaled.  It

1203: is clear that, for comparable orbital periods, the BH systems are 2 to

1204: 3 orders of magnitude fainter than their NS cousins.

1205: 

1206: As discussed in \S4.2, a radiatively inefficient ADAF provides a

1207: natural explanation for the large luminosity deficit of the BH

1208: systems.  In this model, the gas approaches the center with a large

1209: amount of thermal energy.  A BH is dim because the bulk of this

1210: thermal energy is trapped in the advective flow, passes through the

1211: event horizon, and is lost from sight.  On the other hand, a NS is

1212: bright because the thermal energy is radiated from its surface.

1213: 

1214: \subsection{Other Explanations for the Relative Faintness of Quiescent

1215:   Black Hole Binaries}

1216: 

1217: A number of alternative models have been put forward in an attempt to

1218: rationalize the luminosity differences between quiescent NS and BH

1219: systems.  Notice below that some of these models generate X-ray

1220: emission without invoking accretion at all.  We first consider a

1221: recent challenge centered on the discovery of the extremely

1222: low-luminosity NS transient 1H 1905+00.  Next, we discuss the

1223: possibility that the bulk of the accretion power is channeled into a

1224: steady jet rather than into X-ray emission.  We then consider several

1225: diverse models that are discussed in further detail in Narayan et

1226: al. (2002a).

1227: 

1228: {\it The case of 1H 1905+00:} Jonker et al.\ (2007) claim that the

1229: extremely low X-ray luminosity of the NS transient and type I burst

1230: source 1H 1905+00 (hereafter, H1905) undermines the evidence

1231: summarized in \S4.2 for the existence of the event horizon.  The

1232: luminosity of this NS ($\approx 2 \times 10^{30} ~{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$;

1233: $D = 10$~kpc), is the same as the luminosity of A0620--00 and several

1234: other short-period ($P_{\rm orb} \approx 4-12$~hr) BH systems.  Based

1235: on this result, Jonker et al.\ assert that the evidence for event

1236: horizons is ``unproven.''  However, they ignore a key point of our

1237: argument: Namely, as discussed above and illustrated in Figures 8 and

1238: 9, the case for event horizons depends critically on comparing BH and

1239: NS systems with {\it similar orbital periods}.

1240: 

1241: We first note that the orbital period of H1905 is unknown.  More

1242: importantly, this unknown period is believed to be very short -- so

1243: short that there are no BH systems with comparable periods.  This

1244: conclusion is based on deep optical imaging data and the lack of a

1245: counterpart.  Jonker et al.\ (2007) conclude that the secondary ``can

1246: only be a brown or a white dwarf,'' and that the system is probably an

1247: ultracompact binary.  Hence the orbital period is likely to be tens of

1248: minutes, far less than the shortest BH binary period of 4.1~hr.  

1249: 

1250: Thus, there is no BH system comparable to H1905.  And there is no way

1251: to usefully predict the mass accretion rate, as Jonker et al. conclude

1252: in the paper's final sentence.  The rough trend of luminosity with

1253: period indicated in Figure 9 for NSs might imply a very low luminosity

1254: for H1905, as observed, but such an extrapolation is unwarranted.  See

1255: Lasota (2007, 2008) for a more detailed discussion of this and other

1256: issues.

1257: 

1258: Jonker et al.\ (2007) additionally argue that an unknown amount of

1259: mass transfered from the secondary might be lost from the system in

1260: winds or jets.  Their one example of a wind, viz., an extraordinary

1261: mass-loss episode observed in GRO J1655-40 (Miller et al. 2006c) when

1262: the source was in outburst and had a luminosity $\sim 10^6$ times the

1263: quiescent level, is quite inappropriate.  Also, their mention of

1264: possible mass expulsion for quiescent NSs via the propeller mechanism

1265: (Lasota \& Hameury 1998; Menou et al. 1999a), if effective, would

1266: reduce the luminosities of NSs and would only strengthen our argument.

1267: %On the other hand, if shown to be

1268: %significant, the preferential mass loss from BHs via their stronger

1269: %jets would weaken the above evidence for event horizons, a subject

1270: %that we discuss next.

1271: 

1272: {\it Jet outflows:} Fender et al. (2003) argue that transient BHs at

1273: low accretion rates ($L/L_{\rm Edd} < 10^{-4}$) ``should enter

1274: `jet-dominated' states,'' in which the majority of the accretion power

1275: drives a radiatively-inefficient jet.  As we have seen in \S3.6, there

1276: is good evidence for this.  For instance, the presence of a radio jet

1277: has been reasonably well established in quiescence for A0620--00

1278: (Gallo et al. 2006), the closest and one of the least luminous of the

1279: BHs in question.  Fender et al. (2003) appeal to the empirical result

1280: that BHs are $\sim 30$ times as `radio loud' as NSs at similar

1281: accretion rates to deduce that quiescent BHs should be $\sim 100$

1282: times {\it less} luminous in X-rays than quiescent NSs.  Their

1283: argument is a little convoluted since, if the radio and X-ray emission

1284: in quiescence come from the jet (see \S3.6), one would think the BHs

1285: would be $\sim 30$ times {\it more} luminous, not 100 times less

1286: luminous.  Therefore, naively, the jet argument only makes the

1287: discrepancy in Figs. 8 and 9 more severe.  Fender et al. (2003) get

1288: around this difficulty by postulating, in addition to different jet

1289: efficiencies, also different origins for the X-rays seen in quiescent

1290: BHs and NSs.

1291: %This ad hoc argument does not require any significant

1292: %advection of energy through the event horizon and, if true, provides

1293: %an alternative explanation for the faintness of BHs.  Fender et al.\

1294: %conclude that the difference in the quiescent X-ray luminosities of

1295: %BHs and NS can be mostly, if not entirely, explained by a difference

1296: %in the efficiency of jet production between the two types of sources.

1297: 

1298: It is unsatisfying that the reason for the difference in jet activity

1299: between BHs and NSs ``remains unclear.''  At bottom, the authors are

1300: suggesting that in quiescence the BHs are in the `jet-dominated'

1301: regime and the NSs are, ``if not jet-dominated, close to the

1302: transition to this regime.''  A key uncertainty in this suggestion is

1303: whether the scaling relation that has been established for BHs between

1304: radio luminosity and jet luminosity ($L_{\rm radio} \propto L_{\rm

1305: x}^{0.7}$) is also valid for NSs, as is assumed.

1306: %Fender et al's.\ explanation is also

1307: %based on a purely theoretical relation for optically thick jets that

1308: %implies a radio luminosity that scales as the fourth root of the jet

1309: %power [**Ramesh: can their eqn 3 be criticized as uncertain for

1310: %stellar BHs?**].

1311: %While there are a number of uncertainties in the above argument, we

1312: %note that 

1313: %($L/L_{\rm Edd} ~ 10^{-8.5}$).  

1314: %Is the bulk of the accretion power in

1315: %this system carried off by its jet while only a small fraction of the

1316: %power is tapped off in X-rays, as Fender et al.\ argue?  This is

1317: %possible.  However, in addition to the uncertainties noted above,

1318: In addition, Occam's razor suggests that the relative faintness of BHs

1319: is unlikely to be attributable to their stronger jets: In \S4.5, we

1320: show that Sagittarius A$^*$, which is radiating in quiescence at the

1321: same level of Eddington-scaled luminosity as A0620-00, does not

1322: possess an energetically-important jet.

1323: 

1324: {\it Coronal emission from BH secondaries:} The quiescent X-ray

1325: luminosity of the BH systems has been attributed to a

1326: rotationally-enhanced stellar corona in the secondary star (Bildsten

1327: and Rutledge 2000, but see Lasota 2000).  However, as discussed in

1328: detail by Narayan et al. (2002a), the luminosities of three of the

1329: systems plotted in Figures 8 and 9 exceed by a factor of 6--60 the

1330: maximum predicted luminosity of the coronal model; likewise the three

1331: systems with adequate data quality show X-ray spectra that are

1332: harder/hotter than that typically seen in stellar coronae.  Finally,

1333: if stellar coronae do contribute at some level, then the accretion

1334: luminosities of the BHs are even lower than our estimates, which would

1335: further strengthen the evidence for event horizons.

1336: 

1337: {\it Incandescent neutron stars:} The quiescent luminosity of NS

1338: transients has been attributed to heating of the star's crust during

1339: outburst followed by cooling in quiescence.  This model likewise has

1340: problems.  (For details and references, see Narayan et al. 2002a.)

1341: Briefly, the rapid variability of the prototypical NS transient system

1342: Cen X-4 is not expected in a cooling model and implies that no more

1343: than about a third of the quiescent luminosity is due to crustal

1344: cooling.  Furthermore, power-law tails that carry about half the total

1345: luminosity are observed for many NS transients (e.g., Cen X-4 and Aql

1346: X-1).  These are unlikely to arise from a cooling NS surface, but

1347: could easily be produced by accretion.  Finally, strong evidence for

1348: continued accretion in quiescence comes from optical variability,

1349: which is widely observed for these quiescent systems.

1350: 

1351: {\it Pulsar wind/shock emission:} In another accretionless model, the

1352: NS transient switches to a radio pulsar-like mode in quiescence

1353: (Campana \& Stella 2000).  The X-ray luminosity is expected to be of

1354: order the ``pulsar shock'' luminosity $\sim 2 \times 10^{32} ~{\rm

1355: erg\,s^{-1}}$, which is close to the observed level.  Both the

1356: observed power-law and thermal components of emission (see the

1357: previous paragraph) are naturally explained by this model: the former

1358: component is produced by the shock and the latter is radiated from the

1359: NS surface.  The lack of any significant periodicity in the quiescent

1360: emission (in any electromagnetic band) could be a problem for this

1361: model.  Millisecond X-ray pulsars such as SAX J1808.4-3658 do show

1362: periodicities in outburst, but that emission is clearly the result of

1363: accretion, not a pulsar wind/shock.

1364: 

1365: {\it Optical/UV luminosity:} Campana \& Stella (2000) note that the

1366: comparison shown in Figs. 8 and 9 assumes the X-ray luminosity is an

1367: accurate measure of the accretion rate near the BH or NS.  They argue

1368: that the optical and UV luminosity also originates near the central

1369: object and should therefore be included in the comparison.  The

1370: non-stellar optical/UV luminosity is much greater than the X-ray

1371: luminosity.  When it is included, the difference between the BH and NS

1372: systems largely disappears.  However, as detailed in Narayan et

1373: al. (2002a), there are some problems with this argument.  The level of

1374: optical/UV emission generated in the inner region of ADAFs is strongly

1375: suppressed by winds and convection, as evidenced by a comparison of

1376: the luminosities of NSs and white dwarfs (Loeb, Narayan \& Raymond

1377: 2001).  It thus appears unlikely that the optical and UV emission is

1378: generated in the hot gas close to the accretor (see Shahbaz et

1379: al. 2005).  In the case of CVs, it has been established that a large

1380: fraction of the optical/UV emission comes from the ``hot spot,'' and

1381: it is quite reasonable to expect that this is true for BH and NS

1382: systems as well (there is some evidence to support this; Narayan et

1383: al. 2002a).

1384: %If true, the similar optical/UV luminosities of quiescent BH and NS

1385: %binaries with comparable orbital periods provides observational

1386: %confirmation of our interpretation of Figure 1.  

1387: Further observations are needed to determine the origin of optical/UV

1388: emission in these systems.

1389: 

1390: \subsection{Further Evidence for the Event Horizon in BHBs}

1391: 

1392: In addition to the arguments discussed above, we briefly summarize

1393: three additional lines of evidence for the existence of event

1394: horizons.  All three are based on comparisons between BH and NS X-ray

1395: binaries.  As in the examples above, the first argument considers

1396: quiescent systems, whereas the latter two consider active states of

1397: accretion.

1398: 

1399: In quiescence, a soft component of thermal emission is very commonly

1400: observed from the surfaces of accreting NSs, which is widely

1401: attributed to either deep crustal heating (Brown, Bildsten \& Rutledge

1402: 1998) or to accretion.  No such component is present in the spectrum

1403: of the quiescent BHB XTE J1118+480 (hereafter J1118), as one would

1404: expect if the compact X-ray source is a bona fide BH that possesses an

1405: event horizon (McClintock et al.\ 2004).  Because of the remarkably

1406: low column density to J1118 ($N_{\rm H} \approx 1.2 \times

1407: 10^{20}$~cm$^{-2}$) the limit on a hypothetical thermal source is very

1408: strong ($kT_{\infty}<$ 0.011 keV); it is in fact a factor of $\sim 25$

1409: lower in flux than the emission predicted by the theory of deep

1410: crustal heating, assuming that J1118 has a material surface analogous

1411: to that of NSs.  Likewise, there is no evidence that accretion is

1412: occurring in quiescence onto the surface of J1118, which is the

1413: mechanism often invoked to explain the far greater thermal

1414: luminosities of NSs.  The simplest explanation for the absence of any

1415: thermal emission is that J1118 lacks a material surface and possesses

1416: an event horizon.

1417: 

1418: Type I X-ray bursts are very common in NS X-ray binaries, but no type

1419: I burst has been seen among the BH systems.  A model developed by

1420: Narayan \& Heyl (2002, 2003), which reproduces the gross observational

1421: trends of bursts in NS systems, shows that, if the dynamical BHs have

1422: surfaces, they should exhibit instabilities similar to those that lead

1423: to type I bursts on NSs.  Remillard et al.\ (2006), following earlier

1424: work by Tournear et al. (2003), measured the rates of type I X-ray

1425: bursts from a sample of 37 nonpulsing X-ray transients observed with

1426: {\it RXTE} during 1996--2004.  Among the NS sources, they found 135

1427: type I bursts in 3.7 Ms of PCA exposures (13 sources) with a burst

1428: rate function consistent with the Narayan \& Heyl model.  However, for

1429: the BH group (18 sources), they found no confirmed type I bursts in

1430: 6.5 Ms of exposure.  Their upper limit on the incidence of burst

1431: activity in these sources is inconsistent with the model predictions

1432: at a high statistical significance if the accretors in BHBs have solid

1433: surfaces.  The results provide strong indirect evidence for BH event

1434: horizons, and it would appear that the evidence can be refuted only by

1435: invoking rather exotic physics.

1436: 

1437: Likewise drawing on the extensive archive of {\it RXTE} data, Done and

1438: Gierlinski (2003) have examined the patterns of X-ray spectral

1439: evolution of active BH and NS sources and identified a distinct type

1440: of soft spectrum that is occasionally observed only in the BH sources.

1441: They attribute this spectrum to thermal emission from the inner

1442: accretion disk (corresponding to the high state discussed earlier).

1443: They then argue that NSs with a similar accretion rate cannot exhibit

1444: such a simple, low-temperature spectrum because they would have a

1445: second component in the emission from the boundary layer where

1446: accreting matter impacts the stellar surface.  They present a

1447: thermal/nonthermal Comptonization model for the boundary layer

1448: emission which has significant uncertainty, given that so many details

1449: of the accretion physics are complex and poorly understood.

1450: Nevertheless, Done \& Gierlinski (2003) do appear to have identified a

1451: systematic difference in the X-ray spectra of accreting BHs and NSs,

1452: and it is surely worth pursuing this signature in the effort to amass

1453: evidence for the reality of event horizons.

1454: 

1455: %Sunyaev \& Revnivtsev (2000) analyzed {\it RXTE} timing data for a

1456: %sample of 9 BHs and 9 weakly-magnetized NSs in the low hard state.  They

1457: %find that the power spectra of the NSs contain significant power at

1458: %frequencies above $\sim 500$~kHz, whereas the power spectra of the BHs

1459: %decline at much lower frequencies.  They attribute this difference to NS

1460: %surface effects that occur in a thin radiation-dominated ``spreading

1461: %layer.''  It is suggested that via turbulence this layer generates

1462: %resonant sound waves and plasma instabilities with characteristic

1463: %frequencies well above the maximum Keplerian frequency and reaching up

1464: %to several kilohertz.  The empirical result that NSs are noisier at high

1465: %frequencies is potentially useful for distinguishing them from BHs.

1466: %However, achieving a useful model of the extreme, noise-generating

1467: %accretion flow near the NS surface is a formidable task, and...

1468: 

1469: \subsection{Event Horizon in Sagittarius A$^*$}

1470: 

1471: The supermassive BH in Sgr A$^*$ has a mass $M\sim4\times10^6 M_\odot$

1472: (Sch\"odel et al. 2002; Ghez et al. 2005a) but an accretion luminosity

1473: of only $\sim 10^{36} ~{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$; thus the source is highly

1474: sub-Eddington, $L\ \lta\ 10^{-8}L_{\rm Edd}$.  From our earlier

1475: discussion, the accretion flow must be in the form of an ADAF, i.e.,

1476: the radiating gas must be extremely hot and optically thin.  This

1477: expectation is confirmed by the $10^{10}$ K brightness temperature of

1478: the radio/millimeter emission (Shen et al. 2005) and the fact that

1479: most of the emission is in this band rather than at frequencies $\nu

1480: \sim kT/h$ (X-ray/$\gamma$-ray band).

1481: 

1482: The ADAF model has been successfully applied to Sgr A$^*$ (Narayan et

1483: al. 1995, 1998a; Manmoto et al. 1997; Mahadevan 1998; Yuan et al. 2003;

1484: to mention a few).  If we assume that the accretion flow is

1485: radiatively very inefficient, then it is easy to make a strong case

1486: for Sgr A$^*$ not having a surface (Narayan et al. 1998a).  However, as

1487: Broderick \& Narayan (2006, 2007) showed, we can argue for the

1488: presence of an event horizon even without assuming an ADAF.

1489: 

1490: If Sgr A$^*$ does not have an event horizon, but has a surface, then

1491: any emission from the surface will be blackbody-like.  This is because

1492: we expect the surface to be optically thick.  However, the

1493: radio/millimeter emission mentioned above cannot be from this surface

1494: because of its incredibly high $10^{10}$ K brightness temperature.

1495: Thus, the radio/millimeter radiation is from the accretion flow, and

1496: its luminosity gives a strict lower bound on $L_{\rm acc}$.  By

1497: equation (\ref{Lsurfacc}) then, we expect a luminosity of at least

1498: $L_{\rm surf}\sim 10^{36} ~{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$ from the surface.  The

1499: surface radiation would be thermal and blackbody-like and should come

1500: out in the infrared (as easily shown, given the luminosity and the

1501: likely area of the surface).  However, there is no sign of it!

1502: 

1503: \begin{figure}

1504: \includegraphics[width=3.3in,clip]{SgrEH}

1505: 

1506: \caption{The four solid lines show independent upper limits on the

1507: mass accretion rate at the surface of Sgr A$^*$ (assuming the source

1508: has a surface) as a function of the surface radius $R$.  Each limiting

1509: curve is derived from a limit on the quiescent flux of Sgr A$^*$ in an

1510: infrared band.  The hatched area at the top labeled ``Typical RIAF

1511: Range'' corresponds to the mass accretion rate in typical ADAF models

1512: of Sgr A$^*$ (e.g., Yuan et al. 2003).  The horizontal dashed line

1513: represents the minimum accretion rate needed to power the bolometric

1514: luminosity of Sgr A$^*$.  (From Broderick \& Narayan 2006)}

1515: \end{figure}

1516: 

1517: Figure 10 shows constraints on the mass accretion rate in Sgr A$^*$.

1518: The horizontal dashed line is the minimum accretion rate $\dot{M}_{\rm

1519: acc}$ in Sgr A$^*$; this is the rate needed, even with a radiatively

1520: efficient flow ($\eta\sim0.1$), just to power the observed

1521: radio/millimeter radiation.  The four solid lines show the maximum

1522: mass accretion rate $\dot{M}_{\rm surf}$ allowed if Sgr A$^*$ has a

1523: spherical surface of radius $R$.  Each curve corresponds to a measured

1524: limit on the steady quiescent infrared flux in a particular band

1525: (Stolovy et al. 2003; Clenet et al. 2004; Ghez et al. 2005b) and

1526: provides an independent upper limit on $\dot{M}_{\rm surf}$.  For

1527: radii less than $15GM/c^2$ (the upper limit on the size of Sgr A$^*$;

1528: Shen et al. 2005), we see that all four bands give upper limits on

1529: $\dot{M}_{\rm surf}$ that are far below the minimum $\dot{M}_{\rm

1530: acc}$; in fact, the discrepancy is larger than a factor of 100 in the

1531: $3.8 ~\mu{\rm m}$ band.  Note that the discrepancy would be much

1532: larger if we assumed that the accretion flow is radiatively

1533: inefficient (corresponding to the hatched region in Fig. 10).

1534: 

1535: The only way to avoid the large discrepancy illustrated in Fig. 10 is

1536: to give up the assumption that Sgr A$^*$ has a surface.  Obviously, if

1537: the source has an event horizon, then we do not expect any surface

1538: radiation, and there is no problem.

1539: 

1540: What if Sgr A$^*$ ejects all the accreting mass via a jet before the

1541: gas reaches the surface?  Is this a viable explanation for the lack of

1542: surface emission?  We can easily rule out this possibility.  Recall

1543: that the source of energy in an accretion system is gravity.  At a

1544: bare minimum, we know that matter is being accreted at a rate

1545: $\dot{M}_{\rm acc}$ (shown by the horizontal dashed line in Fig. 10)

1546: in order to produce the observed radiation.  All of this mass {\it

1547: has} to fall into the potential well in order to release its energy.

1548: If Sgr A$^*$ has a jet with a kinetic luminosity $L_{\rm jet}$, the

1549: energy for this must also come from accretion.  We will then require

1550: an even larger $\dot{M}_{\rm acc}$, and hence a larger $\dot{M}_{\rm

1551: surf}$, since the accreting gas now has to power both the radiation

1552: and the jet.  The discrepancy with the observed limits on the

1553: quiescent infrared flux would then be even larger.

1554: 

1555: 

1556: \subsection{Effects of Very Strong Gravity}

1557: 

1558: The arguments for the event horizon presented in \S\S4.2, 4.5 are

1559: based on Newtonian ideas.  Some authors (e.g., Abramowicz, Kluzniak \&

1560: Lasota 2002) have questioned whether the arguments might be

1561: substantially modified by strong gravity in the vicinity of the

1562: compact accretor.

1563: 

1564: Buchdahl (1959) showed, for a wide class of reasonable equations of

1565: state, that the smallest radius allowed for a compact non-rotating

1566: object is $R_{\rm min}= (9/8)R_S$.  An object with this limiting

1567: radius has a gravitational redshift from its surface $z_{\rm gr}=2$.

1568: At such modest redshifts, we do not expect the effects of strong

1569: gravity to be particularly large, and so the arguments presented in

1570: \S\S4.2, 4.5 will continue to hold.

1571: 

1572: Recently, however, a new class of solutions has been discussed, which

1573: goes variously under the name of ``gravastar'' and ``dark energy

1574: star'' (Mazur \& Mottola 2001; Chapline et al. 2003; Visser \&

1575: Wiltshire 2004; Carter 2005; Lobo 2006).  In this model, the radius

1576: $R$ of an object of mass $M$ is allowed to be arbitrarily close to

1577: $R_S$: $\Delta R \equiv R-R_S \ll R_S$.  The surface redshift can

1578: then be arbitrarily large:

1579: \begin{equation}

1580: 1+z_{\rm gr}\approx (R_S/\Delta R)^{1/2} \gg 1.

1581: \end{equation}

1582: Although the gravastar model is very artificial\footnote{Broderick \&

1583: Narayan first submitted their 2007 paper to Phys. Rev. Lett., but the

1584: paper was not even sent out for review because, in the words of the

1585: editor, ``the gravastar model of Mazur and Mottola is not considered

1586: by the community to be a viable alternative.''  B\&N then submitted

1587: the paper to Class. Quantum Grav., where most papers on gravastars and

1588: dark energy stars are published.}, it is nevertheless interesting to

1589: ask whether such a model, which has no event horizon, can explain the

1590: observations described in \S\S4.2, 4.5 (Abramowicz et al. 2002).

1591: Broderick \& Narayan (2006, 2007) show that it cannot.  We briefly

1592: summarize the arguments here.

1593: 

1594: A large value of $z_{\rm gr}$ means that any radiation emitted from

1595: the surface is redshifted greatly before it reaches the observer at

1596: infinity.  This looks like an easy way of hiding the surface

1597: luminosity.  However, a simple energy conservation argument shows

1598: otherwise.  Assuming steady state, in the limit as $\Delta R/R_S\to

1599: 0$, the total luminosity observed at infinity, $L_{\rm acc} +L_{\rm

1600: surf}$, {\it must} be equal to $\dot{M}c^2$ (the rate of accretion of

1601: rest mass energy).  Moreover, the effective radius of the source as

1602: viewed by a distant observer is $(3\sqrt{3}/2)R_S=2.6R_S$, and so the

1603: surface radiation will be in the X-ray band for accreting BHBs

1604: (\S4.2) and in the infrared for Sgr A$^*$ (\S4.5), exactly as in the

1605: Newtonian analysis.

1606: 

1607: Could the large gravitational redshift cause a large delay in the

1608: signals from the surface of the star, and could this be why we do not

1609: see the radiation?  The extra delay due to relativity is easily

1610: estimated by considering null geodesics in the Schwarzschild metric:

1611: \begin{equation}

1612: \Delta t = (R_S/c)\ln(R_S/\Delta R).

1613: \end{equation}

1614: Since the dependence is only logarithmic, the extra delay is not

1615: significant.  For instance, even if we take $\Delta R$ to be

1616: comparable to the Planck length $\sim 10^{-33}$ cm (the smallest

1617: length we can legitimately consider), the delay is only $\sim 10$ ms

1618: for a BHB and $\sim 1000$ s for Sgr A$^*$.

1619: 

1620: We assumed that the radiation from the surface would have a

1621: blackbody-like spectrum.  Is this likely?  Actually, it is virtually

1622: guaranteed as $\Delta R/R_S\to0$.  When the radius of an object is

1623: very close to the Schwarzschild radius, most rays emitted from the

1624: surface are bent back on to the surface, and only a tiny fraction of

1625: rays escapes to infinity.  The solid angle corresponding to escape is

1626: $\Omega_{\rm esc} \sim \Delta R/R_S \ll 1$.  In this limit, the

1627: surface behaves just like a furnace with a pinhole (the textbook

1628: example of a blackbody!), and so the escaping radiation is certain to

1629: have a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum.

1630: 

1631: Could the surface luminosity escape in the form of particles rather

1632: than radiation?  By the blackbody argument given above, whatever

1633: escapes must be in thermodynamic equilibrium at the temperature

1634: $T_\infty$ observed at infinity.  For the sources of interest to us,

1635: $kT_\infty \sim$ eV (Sgr A$^*$) and keV (BHBs).  In thermodynamic

1636: equilibrium, the only particles with any significant number density at

1637: these temperatures are neutrinos.  Even if we include all three

1638: species of neutrinos, the radiation flux is reduced by a factor of

1639: only 8/29 (Broderick \& Narayan 2007).  This is a small correction

1640: compared to the large discrepancies $\gta\ 100$ that we described in

1641: \S\S4.2, 4.5.

1642: 

1643: Finally, we note that our arguments for the event horizon are based on

1644: a steady state assumption.  Specifically, we assume that the surface

1645: luminosity is proportional to the average mass accretion rate on the

1646: surface.  In the gravastar model, in particular, one can imagine

1647: scenarios in which steady state is not reached.  However, Broderick \&

1648: Narayan (2007) show that this explanation can be ruled out, at least

1649: with current gravastar models.

1650: 

1651: We thus conclude that strong gravity effects are unable to weaken our

1652: arguments for the presence of an event horizon in quiescent BHBs and

1653: in Sgr A$^*$.  We must look to more conventional astrophysical

1654: explanations.  

1655: %One possibility is that the surface is somehow able to radiate in a

1656: %band completely different from the blackbody band that we assume.

1657: %(For this to work, obviously, we cannot have an extremely compact

1658: %object with $\Delta R\ll R_S$, since we argued above that, in that

1659: %limit, a blackbody is guaranteed.)  We are not aware of any reasonable

1660: %radiation model that can do this, but it is possible in principle.

1661: The only idea that we find somewhat plausible is that the radiation we

1662: observe from quiescent X-ray binaries and Sgr A$^*$ is not produced by

1663: accretion at all, but by some other process.  This would undercut all

1664: our arguments since we assume, as an article of faith, that the

1665: radiation we observe is powered by gravity through accretion.  Given

1666: the success of the accretion paradigm in explaining a vast body of

1667: observations on a variety of BH systems in many different spectral

1668: states, it seems rather extreme to abandon the idea of accretion in

1669: just those particular sources where we find evidence for the presence

1670: of an event horizon.

1671: 

1672: %Other explanations such as those discussed in \S4.3 are not promising

1673: %since they work only in some sources and not in others.  For instance,

1674: %one could invoke mass outflow in a jet to explain why quiescent BHBs

1675: %are underluminous (Gallo et al. ??), but the same jet explanation will

1676: %not work in the case of Sgr A$^*$ (\S4.5).

1677: 

1678: \section{Conclusion}

1679: 

1680: The aim of this article is two-fold: To give an updated and current

1681: account of the ADAF model, with an emphasis on applications to

1682: accreting BHs (\S3), and to review the considerable body of evidence

1683: presently available for the presence of event horizons in

1684: astrophysical BHs (\S4).

1685: 

1686: Observations of BH binaries (BHBs) and active galactic nuclei (AGN)

1687: indicate that, at luminosities of a few percent or less of Eddington,

1688: accretion occurs via a very different mode than the standard thin

1689: accretion disk.  At these luminosities, sources have hard X-ray

1690: spectra, quite unlike the soft blackbody-like spectra seen in more

1691: luminous sources.  Prior to the establishment of the ADAF model,

1692: observations in the hard state were modeled in an ad hoc way using

1693: empirical thermal Comptonization models.  In the mid-1990s, the ADAF

1694: solution was shown to have precisely the densities, temperatures,

1695: radiative (in)efficiencies -- and stability -- required to provide a

1696: physical description of the observations.  Moreover, since the ADAF

1697: model is essentially mass-independent, observations of BHBs and AGN

1698: are both explained with more-or-less the same ADAF model.  The model

1699: gives satisfactory results for a wide range of luminosity, from about

1700: $10^{-1}$ down to $10^{-8}$ of Eddington (below which there are no

1701: observations).

1702: 

1703: The defining characteristic of an ADAF is that the gas is not

1704: radiatively efficient.  A significant fraction of the energy released

1705: by viscous dissipation is retained in the accreting gas and advected

1706: with the flow.  The trapped thermal energy causes the accreting gas to

1707: be weakly bound to the BH.  Based on this property, it was predicted

1708: already in the earliest ADAF papers that sources in the ADAF state

1709: would have strong winds and jets.  Nonthermal radio emission has been

1710: detected in recent years from BHBs in the hard state and quiescent

1711: state, as well as from all AGN with luminosities below $\sim1\%$ of

1712: Eddington.  These sources have spectra consistent with the ADAF model,

1713: thus confirming a strong connection between ADAFs and jets/outflows.

1714: A currently active topic of research is the role of AGN feedback on

1715: galaxy formation.  Research in this area can now draw on the extensive

1716: literature on ADAFs.

1717: 

1718: Of special interest in this work are those accreting objects for which

1719: there exist estimates or constraints on the two system specific

1720: parameters: BH mass $M$ and mass accretion rate $\dot M$.

1721: Specifically, we are referring here to Saggitarius A$^*$ and a

1722: selected sample of quiescent BH and NS X-ray binaries.  We have

1723: featured these two examples because they provide strong observational

1724: evidence for the existence of the event horizon.

1725: 

1726: In the case of the binaries, one can make a plausible argument that,

1727: for comparable orbital periods, the mass accretion rates and

1728: luminosities of both types of systems should be comparable.

1729: Remarkably, however, the BH systems are observed to be dimmer by a

1730: factor of $\sim100-1000$.  We review a wide range of unsatisfactory

1731: attempts to explain this large luminosity difference.  In contrast,

1732: the ADAF model provides an entirely straightforward explanation for

1733: the faintness of quiescent BHs: A NS must radiate the trapped thermal

1734: radiation that is advected with the accretion flow and rains down on

1735: its surface, whereas the BH hides the energy behind its event horizon.

1736: Additional evidence for the event horizon is provided in further

1737: comparisons of NSs and BHs in outburst: The BHs lack type I X-ray

1738: bursts, and they lack a distinctive boundary-layer component of

1739: emission.  Both of these properties are expected if the BHs possess

1740: event horizons, but hard to explain otherwise.

1741: 

1742: The supermassive BH in Sgr A$^*$ is extraordinarily quiescent.  The

1743: observations strongly support the existence of an ADAF, and it is

1744: consequently easy to provide a compelling argument for an event

1745: horizon.  However, for Sgr A$^*$, one can make an even stronger

1746: argument for the lack of a hypothetical material surface without at

1747: all invoking an ADAF.  The large radio/millimeter accretion luminosity

1748: of Sgr A$^*$, which has a brightness temperature $>10^{10}$ K,

1749: obviously cannot be emitted by an optically-thick surface, and so it

1750: must be radiated from the accretion flow.  This establishes a hard

1751: lower limit on the accretion luminosity and $\dot{M}$.  Meanwhile,

1752: high angular resolution radio observations constrain the radius of the

1753: surface to be $< 15R_{\rm S}$.  This constraint and the lower limit on

1754: $\dot M$ predict a near-IR flux of thermal, blackbody-like surface

1755: emission that is far above the observed limits.  The obvious

1756: explanation is that there is no material surface, only an event

1757: horizon.  As an added bonus, it is energetically impossible to explain

1758: away the lack of surface emission by appealing to mass loss in a jet.

1759: 

1760: The case for event horizons in both Sgr A$^*$ and in the stellar-mass

1761: BHs is robust against appeals to strong gravity or the leading models

1762: of exotic stars.  First, GR effects will be mild for nearly all

1763: conventional models of degenerate stars, whose radii are restricted to

1764: be $\ge 9/8R_{\rm S}$ and whose surface redshifts are therefore $\le

1765: 2$.  Secondly, even for an exotic star (a gravastar) with an

1766: extraordinary surface redshift of a million or more, the full

1767: accretion luminosity from its surface will be delivered as X-rays (in

1768: binaries) or infrared (in Sgr A$^*$) to a distant observer.  Thus,

1769: extreme redshifts have practically no effect on the argument for the

1770: event horizon.

1771: 

1772: To play on Carl Sagan's famous comment, there will always be an

1773: absence of {\it direct} evidence for the event horizon, but this

1774: surely cannot be taken as evidence of its absence in nature.  On the

1775: contrary, and with a pun in mind, many indicators show that the event

1776: horizon is an inescapable reality.

1777: 

1778: \medskip\noindent The authors thank Bozena Czerny, Jean-Pierre Lasota

1779: and Feng Yuan for helpful comments.

1780: 

1781: % The Appendices part is started with the command \appendix;

1782: % appendix sections are then done as normal sections

1783: % \appendix

1784: 

1785: % \section{}

1786: % \label{}

1787: 

1788: % Bibliographic references with the natbib package:

1789: % Parenthetical: \citep{Bai92} produces (Bailyn 1992).

1790: % Textual: \citet{Bai95} produces Bailyn et al. (1995).

1791: % An affix and part of a reference:

1792: %   \citep[e.g.][Ch. 2]{Bar76}

1793: %   produces (e.g. Barnes et al. 1976, Ch. 2).

1794: 

1795: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1796: 

1797: % \bibitem[Names(Year)]{label} or \bibitem[Names(Year)Long names]{label}.

1798: % (\harvarditem{Name}{Year}{label} is also supported.)

1799: % Text of bibliographic item

1800: 

1801: \bibitem[Abramowicz et al.(1996)]{abr96}

1802: Abramowicz, M. A., Chen, X., Granath, M., \& Lasota, J. P. 1996,

1803: ApJ, 471, 762

1804: 

1805: \bibitem[Abramowicz et al.(1995)]{abr95}

1806: Abramowicz, M. A., Chen, X., Kato, S., Lasota, J. P., \& Regev, O.

1807: 1995, ApJ, 438, L37

1808: 

1809: \bibitem[Abramowicz et al.(1988)]{abr88} 

1810: Abramowicz, M. A., Czerny, B., Lasota, J. P., \& Szuszkiewicz,

1811: E. 1988, ApJ, 332, 646

1812: 

1813: \bibitem[Abramowicz et al.(2002)]{abr02}

1814: Abramowicz, M. A., Kluzniak, W., \& Lasota, J. P. 2002, A\&A, 396, L31

1815: 

1816: \bibitem[Abramowicz et al.(2000)]{ali00}

1817: Abramowicz, M. A., Lasota, J. P., \& Igumenshchev, I. V.

1818: 2000, MNRAS, 314, 775

1819: 

1820: \bibitem[Arnaud(1996)]{arn96}

1821: Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser. 191, Astronomical Data Analysis and

1822: Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby \& J. Barnes (San Francisco: ASP) p17

1823: 

1824: \bibitem[Baganoff(2001)]{bag01}

1825: Baganoff, F. K., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 45

1826: 

1827: \bibitem[Baganoff(2003)]{bag03}

1828: Baganoff, F. K., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 891

1829: 

1830: \bibitem[Balbus \& Hawley(2002)]{bal02}

1831: Balbus, S. A., \& Hawley, J. F. 2002, ApJ, 573, 749

1832: 

1833: \bibitem[Balucinska-Church et al.(1995)]{bal95}

1834: Balucinska-Church, M., Belloni, T., Church, M. J., \&

1835: Hasinger, G. 1995, A\&A, 302, L5

1836: 

1837: \bibitem[Baum et al.(1995)]{bau95}

1838: Baum, S. A., Zirbel, E. L., \& O'Dea, C. P. 1995, ApJ, 451, 88

1839: 

1840: \bibitem[Begelman(1979)]{beg79}

1841: Begelman, M. C. 1979, MNRAS, 187, 237

1842: 

1843: \bibitem[Begelman \& Celotti(2004)]{beg04}

1844: Begelman, M. C., \& Celotti, A. 2004, MNRAS, 352, L45

1845: 

1846: \bibitem[Begelman \& Chiueh(1988)]{bc88}

1847: Begelman, M. C., \& Chiueh, T. 1988, ApJ, 332, 872

1848: 

1849: \bibitem[Begelman \& Meier(1982)]{beg82}

1850: Begelman, M. C., \& Meier, D. L. 1982, ApJ, 253, 873

1851: 

1852: \bibitem[Bildsten \& Rutledge(2000)]{bil00}

1853: Bildsten, L., \& Rutledge, R. E. 2000, ApJ, 541, 908

1854: 

1855: \bibitem[Bisnovatyi-Kogan \& Lovelace(1997)]{bl97}

1856: Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G., \& Lovelace, R. V. E. 1997, ApJ, 486, L43

1857: 

1858: \bibitem[Blackman(1999)]{bla99}

1859: Blackman, E. G. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 723

1860: 

1861: \bibitem[Blandford \& Begelman(1999)]{bb99}

1862: Blandford, R. D., \& Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1

1863: 

1864: \bibitem[Broderick \& Narayan(2006)]{bn06}

1865: Broderick, A. E., \& Narayan, R. 2006, ApJ, 638, L21

1866: 

1867: \bibitem[Broderick \& Narayan(2007)]{bn07}

1868: Broderick, A. E., \& Narayan, R. 2007, Class. Quantum Grav., 24, 659

1869: 

1870: \bibitem[Brown et al.(1998)]{bbr98}

1871: Brown, E. F., Bildsten, L., \& Rutledge, R. E. 1998, ApJ, 504, L95

1872: 

1873: \bibitem[Buchdahl(1959)]{buc59}

1874: Buchdahl, H. A. 1959, Phys. Rev., 116, 1027

1875: 

1876: \bibitem[Campana \& Stella(2000)]{cam00}

1877: Campana, S., \& Stella, L. 2000, ApJ, 541, 849

1878: 

1879: \bibitem[Carter(2005)]{car05}

1880: Carter, B. M. N. 2005, Class. Quantum Grav., 22, 4551

1881: 

1882: \bibitem[Chapline et al.(2003)]{cha03}

1883: Chapline, G., et al. 2003, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 18, 3587

1884: 

1885: \bibitem[Chen et al.(1997)]{che97}

1886: Chen, X., Abramowicz, M. A., \& Lasota, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 476, 61

1887: 

1888: \bibitem[Chen et al.(1995)]{che95}

1889: Chen, X., Abramowicz, M. A., Lasota, J. P., Narayan, R., \& Yi, I. 1995,

1890: ApJ, 443, L61

1891: 

1892: \bibitem[Chiang \& Blaes(2003)]{chi03}

1893: Chiang, J., \& Blaes, O. 2003, ApJ, 586, 97

1894: 

1895: \bibitem[Clenet et al.(2004)]{cle04}

1896: Clenet, Y., et al. 2004, A\&A, 424, L21

1897: 

1898: \bibitem[Corbel et al.(2000)]{cor00}

1899: Corbel, S., et al. 2000, A\&A, 359, 251

1900: 

1901: \bibitem[Corbel et al.(2003)]{cor03}

1902: Corbel, S., Nowak, M. A., Fender, R. P., Tzioumis, A. K., \& Markoff, S.

1903: 2003, A\&A, 400, 1007

1904: 

1905: \bibitem[Corbel et al.(2006)]{cor06}

1906: Corbel, S., Tomsick, J. A., \& Kaaret, P. 2006, ApJ, 636, 971

1907: 

1908: \bibitem[Croton et al.(2006)]{cro06}

1909: Croton, D. J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11

1910: 

1911: \bibitem[Cui et al.(1999)]{cui99}

1912: Cui, W., Zhang, S. N., Chen, W., \& Morgan, E. H. 1999, ApJ, 512, L43

1913: 

1914: \bibitem[D'Angelo et al.(2008)]{dan08}

1915: D'Angelo, C., Giannios, D., Dullemond, C., \& Spruit, H. 2008, 

1916: A\&A, submitted

1917: 

1918: \bibitem[Davis et al.(2006)]{ddb06}

1919: Davis, S. W., Done, C., \& Blaes, O. M. 2006, ApJ, 647, 525

1920: 

1921: \bibitem[Davis \& Hubeny(2006)]{dav06}

1922: Davis, S. W., \& Hubeny, I. 2006, ApJS, 164, 530

1923: 

1924: \bibitem[Deufel et al.(2002)]{deu02}

1925: Deufel, B., Dullemond, C. P., \& Spruit, H. C. 2002, A\&A, 387, 907

1926: 

1927: %\bibitem[Deufel \& Spruit(2000)]{deu00}

1928: %Deufel, B., \& Spruit, H. C. 2000, A\&A, 362, 1

1929: 

1930: \bibitem[Di Matteo et al.(2003)]{dim03}

1931: Di Matteo, T., Allen, S. W., Fabian, A. C., Wilson, A. S., \& Young, A. J.

1932: 2003, ApJ, 582, 133

1933: 

1934: \bibitem[Di Matteo et al.(2000)]{dim00}

1935: Di Matteo, T., Quataert, E., Allen, S. W., Fabian, A. C., \& Narayan, R.

1936: 2000, MNRAS, 311, 507

1937: 

1938: \bibitem[Di Matteo et al.(2005)]{dim05}

1939: Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604

1940: 

1941: \bibitem[Di Salvo et al.(2001)]{dis01}

1942: Di Salvo, T., Done, C., Zycki, P. T., Burderi, L., \& Robba, N. R. 2001,

1943: ApJ, 547, 1024

1944: 

1945: \bibitem[Done \& Gierlinski(2003)]{dg03}

1946: Done, C., \& Gierlinski, M. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1041

1947: 

1948: \bibitem[Done et al.(2007)]{don07}

1949: Done, C., Gierlinski, M., \& Kubota, A. 2007, A\&AR, 15, 1

1950: 

1951: \bibitem[Dubus et al.(2001)]{dub01}

1952: Dubus, G., Hameury, J. M., \& Lasota, J. P. 2001, A\&A, 373, 251

1953: 

1954: \bibitem[Dullemond \& Spruit(2005)]{dul05}

1955: Dullemond, C. P., \& Spruit, H. C. 2005, A\&A, 434, 415

1956: 

1957: \bibitem[Esin et al.(1997)]{esi97}

1958: Esin, A. A., McClintock, J. E., \& Narayan, R. 1997, ApJ, 489, 865

1959: 

1960: \bibitem[Esin et al.(1998)]{esi98}

1961: Esin, A. A., Narayan, R., Cui, W., Grove, J. E., \& Zhang, S. N. 1998, 

1962: ApJ, 505, 854

1963: 

1964: \bibitem[Esin et al.(2001)]{esi01}

1965: Esin, A. A., et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 483

1966: 

1967: \bibitem[Fabian \& Rees(1995)]{fab95}

1968: Fabian, A. C., \& Rees, M. J. 1995, MNRAS, 277, L5

1969: 

1970: \bibitem[Falcke et al.(1998)]{fal98}

1971: Falcke, H., Goss, W. M., Matsuo, H., Teuben, P., Zhao, J. H., \& Zylka,

1972: R. 1998, ApJ, 499, 731

1973: 

1974: \bibitem[Falcke et al.(2000)]{fal00}

1975: Falcke, H., Nagar, N. M., Wilson, A. S., \& Ulvestad, J. S. 2000,

1976: ApJ, 542, 197

1977: 

1978: \bibitem[Fender(2001)]{fen01}

1979: Fender, R. P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 31

1980: 

1981: \bibitem[Fender \& Belloni(2004)]{fb04}

1982: Fender, R. P., \& Belloni, T. 2004, ARAA, 42, 317

1983: 

1984: \bibitem[Fender et al.(2004)]{fbg04}

1985: Fender, R. P., Belloni, T. M., \& Gallo, E. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1105

1986: 

1987: \bibitem[Fender et al.(2003)]{fen03}

1988: Fender, R. P., Gallo, E., \& Jonker, P. G. 2003, MNRAS, 343, L99

1989: 

1990: \bibitem[Frank et al.(2002)]{fkr02}

1991: Frank, J., King, A., \& Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics

1992: (Cambridge Univ. Press)

1993: 

1994: \bibitem[Gallo et al.(2005)]{gal05}

1995: Gallo, E., Fender, R. P., \& Hynes, R. I. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1017

1996: 

1997: \bibitem[Gallo et al.(2003)]{gal03}

1998: Gallo, E., Fender, R. P., \& Pooley, G. G. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 60

1999: 

2000: \bibitem[Gallo et al.(2006)]{gal06}

2001: Gallo, E., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1351

2002: 

2003: \bibitem[Gammie et al.(1999)]{gam99}

2004: Gammie, C. F., Narayan, R., \& Blandford, R. 1999, ApJ, 516, 177

2005: 

2006: \bibitem[Garcia et al.(1998)]{gar98} 

2007: Garcia, M. R., McClintock, J. E.,

2008: \& Narayan, R. 1998, ASP Conf. Series, Vol. 137, ed. S. Howell,

2009: E. Kuulkers \& C. Woodward, p.506

2010: 

2011: \bibitem[Garcia et al.(2001)]{gar01}

2012: Garcia, M. R., McClintock, J. E., Narayan, R., Callanan, P.,

2013: Barret, D., \& Murray, S. S. 2001, ApJ, 553, L47

2014: 

2015: \bibitem[Ghez et al.(2005a)]{ghe05a}

2016: Ghez, A. M., et al. 2005a, ApJ, 620, 744

2017: 

2018: \bibitem[Ghez et al.(2005b)]{ghe05b}

2019: Ghez, A. M., et al. 2005b, ApJ, 635, 1087

2020: 

2021: \bibitem[Gierlinski et al.(1997)]{gie97}

2022: Gierlinski, M., et al. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 958

2023: 

2024: \bibitem[Gilfanov et al.(1999)]{gil99}

2025: Gilfanov, M., Churazov, E., \& Revnivtsev, M. 1999, A\&A, 352, 182

2026: 

2027: \bibitem[Goldston et al.(2005)]{gol05}

2028: Goldston, J. E., Quataert, E., \& Igumenshchev, I. V. 2005, ApJ, 621, 785

2029: 

2030: \bibitem[Hameury et al.(1999)]{ham99}

2031: Hameury, J. M., Lasota, J. P., \& Dubus, G. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 39

2032: 

2033: \bibitem[Hameury et al.(1997)]{ham97}

2034: Hameury, J. M., Lasota, J. P., McClintock, J. E., \& Narayan, R.

2035: 1997, ApJ, 489, 234

2036: 

2037: \bibitem[Hameury et al.(2003)]{ham03}

2038: Hameury, J. M., et al. 2003, A\&A, 399, 631

2039: 

2040: \bibitem[Hameury et al.(2007)]{ham07}

2041: Hameury, J. M., Lasota, J. P., \& Viallet, M. 2007, in Black Holes from

2042: Stars to Galaxies, ed. V. Karas \& G. Matt, Cambridge Univ. Press, p297

2043: 

2044: \bibitem[Hawley \& Balbus(2002)]{haw02}

2045: Hawley, J. F., \& Balbus, S. A. 2002, ApJ, 573, 738

2046: 

2047: \bibitem[Hawley et al.(1996)]{haw96}

2048: Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., \& Balbus, S. A. 1996, ApJ, 464, 690

2049: 

2050: \bibitem[Heinz(2004)]{hei04}

2051: Heinz, S. 2004, 355, 835

2052: 

2053: \bibitem[Heinz et al.(2005)]{hei05}

2054: Heinz, S., Merloni, A., Di Matteo, T., \& Sunyaev, R. 2005, Astrophys.

2055: Sp. Sci., 300, 15

2056: 

2057: \bibitem[Heinz \& Sunyaev(2003)]{hei03}

2058: Heins, S., \& Sunyaev, R. 2003, MNRAS, 343, L59

2059: 

2060: \bibitem[Hjellming et al.(2000)]{hje00}

2061: Hjellming, R. M., Rupen, M. P., Mioduszewski, A. J., \& Narayan, R.

2062: 2000, ATel, \#54

2063: 

2064: \bibitem[Ho(1999)]{ho99}

2065: Ho, L. C. 1999, ApJ, 516, 672

2066: 

2067: \bibitem[Ho(2002)]{ho02}

2068: Ho, L. C. 2002, ApJ, 564, 120

2069: 

2070: \bibitem[Honma(1996)]{hon96}

2071: Honma, F. 1996, PASJ, 48, 77

2072: 

2073: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2006a)]{hop06a}

2074: Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2006a, ApJS, 163, 1

2075: 

2076: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2006b)]{hop06b}

2077: Hopkins, P. F., Narayan, R., \& Hernquist, L. 2006b, ApJ, 643, 641

2078: 

2079: \bibitem[Hornstein et al.(2002)]{hor02}

2080: Hornstein, S. D., Ghez, A. M., Tanner, A., Morris, M., Becklin, E. E.,

2081: \& Wizinowich, P. 2002, ApJ, 577, 738

2082: 

2083: \bibitem[Hynes et al.(2003)]{hyn03}

2084: Hynes, R. I., Charles, P. A., Casares, J., Haswell, C. A., Zurita, C.,

2085: \& Shahbaz, T. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 447

2086: 

2087: \bibitem[Ichimaru(1977)]{ich77}

2088: Ichimaru, S. 1977, ApJ, 214, 840

2089: 

2090: \bibitem[Igumenshchev(2004)]{igu04}

2091: Igumenshchev, I. V. 2004, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 155, 87

2092: 

2093: \bibitem[Igumenshchev(2006)]{igu06}

2094: Igumenshchev, I. V. 2006, ApJ, 649, 361

2095: 

2096: \bibitem[Igumenshchev \& Abramowicz(2000)]{ia00}

2097: Igumenshchev, I. V., \& Abramowicz, M. A. 2000, ApJS, 130, 463

2098: 

2099: \bibitem[Igumenshchev et al.(2000)]{igu00}

2100: Igumenshchev, I. V., Abramowicz, M. A., \& Narayan, R. 2000,

2101: ApJ, 537, L27

2102: 

2103: \bibitem[Igumenshchev \& Narayan(2002)]{igu02}

2104: Igumenshchev, I. V., \& Narayan, R. 2002, ApJ, 566, 137

2105: 

2106: \bibitem[Igumenshchev et al.(2003)]{igu03}

2107: Igumenshchev, I. V., Narayan, R., \& Abramowicz, M. A. 2003,

2108: ApJ, 592, 2042

2109: 

2110: \bibitem[Jonker et al.(2007)]{jon07}

2111: Jonker, P. G., Steeghs, D., Chakrabarty, D., \& Juett, A. M. 2007,

2112: ApJ, 665, L147

2113: 

2114: \bibitem[Kato et al.(1998)]{kfm98}

2115: Kato, S., Fukue, J., \& Mineshige, S. 1998, Black Hole Accretion Disks

2116: (Kyoto Univ. Press)

2117: 

2118: \bibitem[Kato et al.(1997)]{kat97}

2119: Kato, S., Yamasaki, T., Abramowicz, M. A., \& Chen, X. 1997, PASJ, 49, 221

2120: 

2121: \bibitem[Lasota(1996)]{las96}

2122: Lasota, J. P. 1996, in Physics of Accretion Disks, ed. S. Kato, 

2123: J. Fukue \& S. Mineshige (Gordon \& Breach) p85

2124: 

2125: \bibitem[Lasota(1999a)]{las99a}

2126: Lasota, J. P. 1999a, Phys. Rep., 311, 247

2127: 

2128: \bibitem[Lasota(1999b)]{las99b}

2129: Lasota, J. P. 1999b, Sci. Am., 280, 30

2130: 

2131: \bibitem[Lasota(2000)]{las00}

2132: Lasota, J. P. 2000, A\&A, 360, 575

2133: 

2134: \bibitem[Lasota(2001)]{las01}

2135: Lasota, J. P. 2001, in Black Hole Binaries and Galactic Nuclei,

2136: ed. L. Kaper, E. P. J. van den Heuvel \& P. A. Woudt, Springer-Verlag, p149

2137: 

2138: \bibitem[Lasota(2007)]{las07}

2139: Lasota, J. P. 2007, Comptes Rendus Physique, 8, 45

2140: 

2141: \bibitem[Lasota(2008)]{las08}

2142: Lasota, J. P. 2008, New Astron. Rev., ed. M. A. Abramowicz 

2143: (astro-ph/0801.0490)

2144: 

2145: \bibitem[Lasota et al.(1996a)]{las96a}

2146: Lasota, J. P., Abramowicz, M. A., Chen, X., Krolik, J., Narayan, R., \&

2147: Yi, I. 1996a, ApJ, 462, 142

2148: 

2149: \bibitem[Lasota \& Hameury(1998)]{las98}

2150: Lasota, J. P., \& Hameury, J. P. 1998, AIP conf. Series, 431, 351

2151: 

2152: \bibitem[Lasota et al.(1996b)]{las96b}

2153: Lasota, J. P., Narayan, R., \& Yi, I. 1996b, A\&A, 314, 813

2154: 

2155: \bibitem[Li et al.(2005)]{li05}

2156: Li, L. X., Zimmerman, E. R., Narayan, R., \& McClintock, J. E.

2157: 2005, ApJS, 157, 335

2158: 

2159: \bibitem[Liu et al.(2007)]{liu07}

2160: Liu, B. F., Taam, R. F., Meyer-Hofmeister, E., \& Meyer, F. 2007,

2161: ApJ, 671, 695

2162: 

2163: \bibitem[Lobo(2006)]{lob06}

2164: Lobo, F. S. N. 2006, Class. Quantum Grav., 23, 1525

2165: 

2166: \bibitem[Loeb et al.(2001)]{lnr01}

2167: Loeb, A., Narayan, R., \& Raymond, J. C. 2001, ApJ, 547, L151

2168: 

2169: \bibitem[Loewenstein et al.(2001)]{loe01}

2170: Loewenstein, M., Mushotzky, R. F., Angelini, L., Arnaud, K., \&

2171: Quataert, E. 2001, ApJ, 555, L21

2172: 

2173: \bibitem[Maccarone \& Coppi(2003)]{mac03}

2174: Maccarone, T. C., \& Coppi, P. S. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 189

2175: 

2176: \bibitem[Machida et al.(2001)]{mch01}

2177: Machida, M., Matsumoto, R., \& Mineshige, S. 2001, PASJ, 53, L1

2178: 

2179: \bibitem[Machida et al.(2004)]{mch04}

2180: Machida, M., Nakamura, K., \& Matsumoto, R. 2004, PASJ, 56, 671

2181: 

2182: \bibitem[Machida et al.(2006)]{mch06}

2183: Machida, M., Nakamura, K., \& Matsumoto, R. 2006, PASJ, 58, 193

2184: 

2185: \bibitem[Mahadevan(1997)]{mah97}

2186: Mahadevan, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 585

2187: 

2188: \bibitem[Mahadevan(1998)]{mah98}

2189: Mahadevan, R. 1998, Nature, 394, 651

2190: 

2191: \bibitem[Mahadevan \& Quataert(1997)]{mq97}

2192: Mahadevan, R., \& Quataert, E. 1997, ApJ, 490, 605

2193: 

2194: \bibitem[Malzac et al.(20040]{mal04}

2195: Malzac, J., Merloni, A., \& Fabian, A. C. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 253

2196: 

2197: \bibitem[Manmoto(2000)]{man00}

2198: Manmoto, T. 2000, ApJ, 534, 734

2199: 

2200: \bibitem[Manmoto et al.(1997)]{man97}

2201: Manmoto, T., Mineshige, S., \& Kusunose, M. 1997, ApJ, 489, 791

2202: 

2203: \bibitem[Maraschi \& Tavecchio(2003)]{mar03}

2204: Maraschi, L., \& Tavecchio, F. 2003, ApJ, 593, 667

2205: 

2206: \bibitem[Markoff et al.(2001)]{mar01}

2207: Markoff, S., Falcke, H., \& Fender, R. P. 2001, A\&A, 372, L25

2208: 

2209: \bibitem[Markoff et al.(2005)]{mar05}

2210: Markoff, S., Nowak, M. A., \& Wilms, J. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1203

2211: 

2212: \bibitem[Mayer \& Pringle(2007)]{may07}

2213: Mayer, M., \& Pringle, J. E. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 435

2214: 

2215: \bibitem[Mazur \& Mottola(2001)]{maz01}

2216: Mazur, P. O., \& Mottola, E. 2001, gr-qc/0109035

2217: 

2218: \bibitem[McClintock, J. E. et al.(2004)]{mcc04}

2219: McClintock, J. E., Narayan, R., \& Rybicki, G. B. 2004,

2220: ApJ, 615, 402

2221: 

2222: \bibitem[McClintock \& Remillard(2007)]{mr07}

2223: McClintock, J. E., \& Remillard, R. A. 2006, in Black Hole Binaries,

2224: ed. W. Lewin \& M. van der Klis (Cambridge Univ. press) p157

2225: 

2226: \bibitem[McClintock et al.(2006)]{mcc06}

2227: McClintock, J. E., Shafee, R., Narayan, R., Remillard, R. A., Davis,

2228: S. W., \& Li, L. X. 2006, ApJ, 652, 518

2229: 

2230: \bibitem[McKinney \& Gammie(2004)]{mck04}

2231: McKinney, J. C., \& Gammie, C. F. 2004, ApJ, 611, 977

2232: 

2233: \bibitem[McKinney(2005)]{mck05}

2234: McKinney, J. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, L5

2235: 

2236: \bibitem[McKinney(2006)]{mck06}

2237: McKinney, J. C. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1561

2238: 

2239: \bibitem[Medvedev(2000)]{med00}

2240: Medvedev, M. V. 2000, ApJ, 541, 811

2241: 

2242: \bibitem[Meier(2001)]{mei01}

2243: Meier, D. L. 2001, ApJ, 548, L9

2244: 

2245: \bibitem[Menou et al.(1999a)]{men99a}

2246: Menou, K., Esin, A. A., Narayan, R.,  Garcia, M. R., Lasota, J. P.,

2247: \& McClintock, J. E. 1999a, ApJ, 520, 276

2248: 

2249: \bibitem[Menou et al.(1999b)]{men99b}

2250: Menou, K., Narayan, R., \& Lasota, J. P. 1999b, ApJ, 513, 811

2251: 

2252: \bibitem[Menou \& Quataert(2001)]{men01}

2253: Menou, K., \& Quataert, E. 2001, ApJ, 552, 204

2254: 

2255: \bibitem[Merlone et al.(2003)]{mer03}

2256: Merloni, A., Heinz, S., \& Di Matteo, T. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057

2257: 

2258: \bibitem[Meyer et al.(2000)]{MLM00} 

2259: Meyer, F., Liu, B. F., \& Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 2000, A\&A, 361, 175

2260: 

2261: \bibitem[Meyer \& Meyer-Hofmeister(1994)]{mm94} 

2262: Meyer, F., \& Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 1994, A\&A, 361, 175

2263: 

2264: \bibitem[Meyer-Hofmeister et al.(2005)]{MLM05} 

2265: Meyer-Hofmeister, E., Liu, B. F., \& Meyer, F. 2005, A\&A, 432, 181

2266: 

2267: \bibitem[Miller et al.(2006a)]{mil06a}

2268: Miller, J. M., Homan, J., \& Miniutti, G. 2006a, ApJ, 652, L113

2269: 

2270: \bibitem[Miller et al.(2006b)]{mil06b}

2271: Miller, J. M., et al. 2006b, ApJ, 653, 525

2272: 

2273: \bibitem[Miller et al.(2006c)]{mil06c}

2274: Miller, J. M., et al. 2006c, Nature, 441, 953

2275: 

2276: \bibitem[Mitsuda et al.(1984)]{mit84}

2277: Mitsuda, K., et al. 1984, PASJ, 36, 741

2278: 

2279: \bibitem[Miyamoto et al.(1995)]{miy95}

2280: Miyamoto, S., et al. 1995, ApJ, 442, L13

2281: 

2282: \bibitem[Miyoshi et al.(1995)]{mi95}

2283: Miyoshi, M., et al. 1995, Nature, 373, 127

2284: 

2285: \bibitem[Nagar et al.(2000)]{nag00}

2286: Nagar, N. M., Falcke, H., Wilson, A. S., \& Ho, L. C. 2000,

2287: ApJ, 542, 186

2288: 

2289: \bibitem[Narayan(1996)]{nar96}

2290: Narayan, R. 1996, ApJ, 461, 136

2291: 

2292: \bibitem[Narayan(2002)]{nar02}

2293: Narayan, R. 2002, in Lighthouses of the Universe, ed. M. Gilfanov,

2294: R. Sunyaev (Springer) p405

2295: 

2296: \bibitem[Narayan(2005)]{nar05}

2297: Narayan, R. 2005, Astrophys. Sp. Sci., 300, 177

2298: 

2299: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(1997a)]{nbm97a}

2300: Narayan, R., Barret, D., \& McClintock, J. E. 1997a, ApJ, 482, 448

2301: 

2302: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(1997b)]{nar97b}

2303: Narayan, R., Garcia, M. R., \& McClintock, J. E. 1997b, ApJ, 478, L79

2304: 

2305: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(2002a)]{ngm02a} Narayan, R., Garcia, M. R.,

2306: \& McClintock, J. E. 2002a, in The Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting,

2307: ed. V. G. Gurzadyan, R. T. Jantzen \& R. Ruffini, World Scientific, p405

2308: 

2309: \bibitem[Narayan \& Heyl(2002)]{nh02}

2310: Narayan, R., \& Heyl, J. S. 2002, ApJ, 574, L139

2311: 

2312: \bibitem[Narayan \& Heyl(2003)]{nh03}

2313: Narayan, R., \& Heyl, J. S. 2003, ApJ, 599, 419

2314: 

2315: \bibitem[Narayan \& Igumenshchev(2000)]{ni00}

2316: Narayan, R., \& Igumenshchev, I. V. 2000, ApJ, 539, 798

2317: 

2318: \bibitem[Narayan, Kato \& Honma(1997c)]{nkh97c}

2319: Narayan, R., Kato, S., \& Honma, F. 1997c, ApJ, 476, 49

2320: 

2321: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(1998a)]{nar98a}

2322: Narayan, R., Mahadevan, R., Grindlay, J. E., Popham, R. G., \&

2323: Gammie, C. 1998a, ApJ, 492, 554

2324: 

2325: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(1998b)]{nar98b} Narayan, R., Mahadevan, R., \&

2326: Quataert, E. 1998b, in Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks,

2327: ed. M. A. Abramowicz, G. Bjornsson, \& J. E. Pringle (Cambridge

2328: Univ. Press) p148

2329: 

2330: \bibitem[Narayan \& McClintock(2005)]{nmc05}

2331: Narayan, R., \& McClintock, J. E. 2005, ApJ, 623, 1017

2332: 

2333: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(1996)]{nmy96}

2334: Narayan, R., McClintock, J. E., \& Yi, I. 1996, ApJ, 457, 821

2335: 

2336: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(2002b)]{nqia02b}

2337: Narayan, R., Quataert, E., Igumenshchev, I. V., \& Abramowicz, M. A.

2338: 2002b, ApJ, 577, 295

2339: 

2340: \bibitem[Narayan \& Yi(1994)]{NY94}

2341: Narayan, R., \& Yi, I. 1994, ApJ, 428, L13 (NY94)

2342: 

2343: \bibitem[Narayan \& Yi(1995a)]{NY95a}

2344: Narayan, R., \& Yi, I. 1995a, ApJ, 444, 231 (NY95a)

2345: 

2346: \bibitem[Narayan \& Yi(1995b)]{NY95b}

2347: Narayan, R., \& Yi, I. 1995b, ApJ, 452, 710 (NY95b)

2348: 

2349: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(1995)]{nar95}

2350: Narayan, R., Yi, I., \& Mahadevan, R. 1995, Nature, 374, 623

2351: 

2352: \bibitem[Nemmen et al.(2006)]{nem06}

2353: Nemmen, R. S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 643, 652

2354: 

2355: \bibitem[Noble et al.(2007)]{non07}

2356: Noble, S. C., Leung, P. K., Gammie, C. F., \& Book, L. G.

2357: 2007, Class. Quant. Grav., 24, S259

2358: 

2359: \bibitem[Novikov \& Thorne(1973)]{nt73}

2360: Novikov, I. D., \& Thorne, K. S. 1973, in Blackholes, ed. C. DeWitt,

2361: \& B. DeWitt (Gordon \& Breach) p343

2362: 

2363: \bibitem[Orosz et al.(1997)]{oro97}

2364: Orosz, J. A., Remillard, R. A., Bailyn, C. D., \& McClitnock, J. E.

2365: 1997, ApJ, 478, L83

2366: 

2367: \bibitem[Orosz et al.(2007)]{oro07}

2368: Orosz, J. A., et al. 2007, Nature, 449, 872

2369: 

2370: \bibitem[Paczy\'nski(1998)]{pac98}

2371: Paczy\'nski, B. 1998, Acta Astronomica, 48, 667

2372: 

2373: \bibitem[Pen et al.(2003)]{pen03}

2374: Pen, U. L., Matzner, C. D., \& Wong, S. 2003, ApJ, 596, L207

2375: 

2376: \bibitem[Perna et al.(2003)]{per03}

2377: Perna, R., Narayan, R., Rybicki, G., Stella, L., \& Treves, A.

2378: 2003, ApJ, 594, 936

2379: 

2380: \bibitem[Piran(1978)]{pir78}

2381: Piran, T. 1978, ApJ, 221, 652

2382: 

2383: \bibitem[Popham \& Gammie(1998)]{pop98}

2384: Popham, R. G., \& Gammie, C. F. 1998, ApJ, 504, 419

2385: 

2386: \bibitem[Popham \& Narayan(1991)]{pop91}

2387: Popham, R. G., \& Narayan, R. 1991, ApJ, 370, 604

2388: 

2389: \bibitem[Quataert(2001)]{qua01}

2390: Quataert, E. 2001, in Probing the Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei by 

2391: Multiwavelength Monitoring, ed. B. M. Peterson, R. S. Polidan \& R. W.

2392: Pogge (Astr. Soc. Pacific) p71

2393: 

2394: \bibitem[Quataert(1998)]{qua98}

2395: Quataert, E. 1998, ApJ, 500, 978

2396: 

2397: \bibitem[Quataert et al.(1999)]{q99}

2398: Quataert, E., Di Matteo, T., Narayan, R., \& Ho, L. C. 1999,

2399: ApJ, 525, L89

2400: 

2401: \bibitem[Quataert \& Gruzinov(1999)]{qg99}

2402: Quataert, E., \& Gruzinov, A. 1999, ApJ, 520, 248

2403: 

2404: \bibitem[Quataert \& Gruzinov(1999)]{qg00}

2405: Quataert, E., \& Gruzinov, A. 2000, ApJ, 539, 809

2406: 

2407: \bibitem[Quataert \& Narayan(1999)]{qn99}

2408: Quataert, E., \& Narayan, R. 1999, ApJ, 520, 298

2409: 

2410: \bibitem[Ramadevi \& Seetha(2007)]{rs07}

2411: Ramadevi, M. C., \& Seetha, S. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 182

2412: 

2413: \bibitem[Rees et al.(1982)]{ree82}

2414: Rees, M. J., Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., \& Phinney, E. S.

2415: 1982, Nature, 295, 17

2416: 

2417: \bibitem[Remillard et al.(2006)]{rem06}

2418: Remillard, R. A., Lin, D., Cooper, R. L., \& Narayan, R. 2006,

2419: ApJ, 646, 407

2420: 

2421: \bibitem[Reynolds et al.(1996)]{rey96}

2422: Reynolds, C. S., Di Matteo, T., Fabian, A. C., Hwang, U., \& Canizares,

2423: C. R. 1996, MNRAS, 283, L111

2424: 

2425: \bibitem[Rozanska \& Czerny(2000)]{rc00}

2426: Rozanska, A., \& Czerny, B. 2000, A\&A, 360, 1170

2427: 

2428: \bibitem[Rykoff et al.(2007)]{ryk07}

2429: Rykoff, E. S., Miller, J. M., Steeghs, D., \& Torres, M. A. P. 2007,

2430: ApJ, 666, 1129

2431: 

2432: \bibitem[Sch\"odel et al.(2002)]{sch02}

2433: Sch\"odel, R., et al. 2002, Nature, 419, 694

2434: 

2435: \bibitem[Serabyn et al.(1997)]{ser97}

2436: Serabyn, E., Carlstrom, J., Lay, O., Lis, D. C., Hunter, T. R., 

2437: \& Lacy, J. H. 1997, ApJ, 490, L77

2438: 

2439: \bibitem[Shahbaz et al.(2005)]{sha05}

2440: Shahbaz, T., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 975

2441: 

2442: \bibitem[Shakura \& Sunyaev(1973)]{ss73}

2443: Shakura, N. I., \& Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A\&A, 24, 337

2444: 

2445: \bibitem[Shapiro et al.(1976)]{sle76}

2446: Shapiro, S. L., Lightman, A. P., \& Eardley, D. M. 1976, ApJ, 204, 187

2447: 

2448: \bibitem[Shapiro \& Teukolsky(1983)]{sha83}

2449: Shapiro, S. L., \& Teukolsky, 1983, Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and

2450: Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects (Wiley-Interscience)

2451: 

2452: \bibitem[Sharma et al.(2007)]{sha07} 

2453: Sharma, P., Quataert, E., Hammett, G. W., \& Stone, J. M. 2007, ApJ,

2454: 667, 714

2455: 

2456: \bibitem[Sharma et al.(2006)]{sha06}

2457: Sharma, P., Hammett, G. W., Quataert, E., \& Stone, J. M. 2006, ApJ,

2458: 637, 952

2459: 

2460: \bibitem[Shen et al.(2005)]{she05}

2461: Shen, Z. Q., Lo, K. Y., Liang, M. C., Ho, P. T., \& Zhao, J. H.

2462: 2005, Nature, 438, 62

2463: 

2464: \bibitem[Sikora et al.(2007)]{sik07}

2465: Sikora, M., Stawarz, L., \& Lasota, J. P. 2007, ApJ, 658, 815

2466: 

2467: \bibitem[Smak(1999)]{sma99}

2468: Smak, J. 1999, Acta Astronomica, 49, 391

2469: 

2470: \bibitem[Spruit \& Deufel(2002)]{sd02}

2471: Spruit, H. C., \& Deufel, B. 2002, A\&A, 387, 918

2472: 

2473: \bibitem[Spruit et al.(1987)]{spr87}

2474: Spruit, H. C., Matsuda, T., Inoue, M., \& Sawada, K. 1987, 

2475: MNRAS, 229, 517

2476: 

2477: \bibitem[Stolovy et al.(2003)]{sto03}

2478: Stolovy, S., Melia, F., McCarthy, D., \& Yusef-Zadeh, F. 2003,

2479: Astron. Nachr., 324, 419

2480: 

2481: \bibitem[Stone \& Pringle(2001)]{sto01}

2482: Stone, J. M., \& Pringle, J. E. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 461

2483: 

2484: \bibitem[Stone et al.(1999)]{sto99}

2485: Stone, J. M., Pringle, J. E., \& Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1002

2486: 

2487: \bibitem[Sunyaev \& Titarchuk(1980)]{st80}

2488: Sunyaev, R. A., \& Titarchuk, L. G. 1980, A\&A, 86, 121

2489: 

2490: %\bibitem[Tomsick(2006)]{tom06}

2491: %Tomsick, J. A. 2006, Adv. Sp. Res., 38, 2805

2492: 

2493: \bibitem[Tournear et al.(2003)]{tou03}

2494: Tournear, D., et al. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1058

2495: 

2496: \bibitem[Ulvestad \& Ho(2001)]{ulv01}

2497: Ulvestad, J. S., \& Ho, L. C. 2001, ApJ, 562, L133

2498: 

2499: \bibitem[Visser \& Wiltshire(2004)]{vis04}

2500: Visser, M., \& Wiltshire, D. L. 2004, Class. Quantum Grav., 21, 1135

2501: 

2502: \bibitem[Wu(1997)]{wu97}

2503: Wu, X. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 113

2504: 

2505: \bibitem[Wu \& Li(1996)]{wu96}

2506: Wu, X., \& Li, Q. 1996, ApJ, 469, 776

2507: 

2508: \bibitem[Wu et al.(2007)]{wu07}

2509: Wu, Q., Yuan, F., \& Cao, X. 2007, ApJ, 669, 96

2510: 

2511: \bibitem[Yuan(2001)]{yua01}

2512: Yuan, F. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 119

2513: 

2514: \bibitem[Yuan(2003)]{yua03}

2515: Yuan, F. 2003, ApJ, 594, L99

2516: 

2517: \bibitem[Yuan \& Cui(2005)]{yua05}

2518: Yuan, F., \& Cui, W. 2005, ApJ, 629, 408

2519: 

2520: \bibitem[Yuan et al.(2005)]{ycn05}

2521: Yuan, F., Cui, W., \& Narayan, R. 2005, ApJ, 620, 905

2522: 

2523: \bibitem[Yuan et al.(2008)]{yua08} 

2524: Yuan, F., Ma, R., \& Narayan, R. 2008, ApJ, in press

2525: (astro-ph/08021679)

2526: 

2527: \bibitem[Yuan \& Narayan(2004)]{yn04}

2528: Yuan, F., \& Narayan, R. 2004, ApJ, 612, 724

2529: 

2530: \bibitem[Yuan et al.(2003)]{yqn03}

2531: Yuan, F., Quataert, E., \& Narayan, R. 2003, ApJ, 598, 301

2532: 

2533: \bibitem[Yuan \& Zdziarski(2004)]{yua04}

2534: Yuan, F., \& Zdziarski, A. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 953

2535: 

2536: \bibitem[Yuan et al.(2007)]{yua07}

2537: Yuan, F., Zdziarski, A., Xue, Y., \& Wu, X. B. 2007, ApJ, 659, 541

2538: 

2539: \bibitem[Yungelson et al.(2006)]{yun06}

2540: Yungelson, L. R., et al. 2006, A\&A, 454, 559

2541: 

2542: \bibitem[Zdziarski \& Gierlinski(2004)]{zg04}

2543: Zdziarski, A. A., \& Gierlinski, M. 2004, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 

2544: 155, 99

2545: 

2546: \bibitem[Zdziarski et al.(1999)]{zdz99}

2547: Zdziarski, A. A., Lubinski, P., \& Smith, D. A. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L11

2548: 

2549: \bibitem[Zdziarski et al.(2003)]{zdz03}

2550: Zdziarski, A. A., Lubinski, P., Gilfanov, M., \& Revnivtsev, M. 2003,

2551: MNRAS, 342, 355

2552: 

2553: \bibitem[Zdziarski et al.(2004)]{zdz04}

2554: Zdziarski, A. A., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 791

2555: 

2556: \bibitem[Zdziarski et al.(1996)]{zdz96}

2557: Zdziarski, A. A., Johnson, W. N., \& Magdiarz, P. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 193

2558: 

2559: \bibitem[Zdziarski et al.(1998)]{zdz98}

2560: Zdziarski, A. A., Poutanen, J., Mikolajewska, J., Gierlinski, M., Ebisawa,

2561: K., \& Johnson, W. L. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 435

2562: 

2563: \bibitem[Zhao et al.(2003)]{zha03}

2564: Zhao, J. H., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, L29

2565: 

2566: \bibitem[Zimmerman et al.(2005)]{Zim05}

2567: Zimmerman, E. R., Narayan, R., McClintock, J. E., \& Miller, J. M.

2568: 2005, ApJ, 618, 832

2569: 

2570: \end{thebibliography}

2571: 

2572: \end{document}

2573: 

2574: