1: %% Edited by Gan Zhao-Ming
2: %% email me: ganzhaoming@smail.hust.edu.cn
3: %% Modified 2008-07-10 12:03
4: %% Modified 2008-09-09 16:30
5: %% Modified 2008-09-12 10:14
6:
7: \documentclass [useAMS]{mn2e}
8: \usepackage {graphicx}
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title[3:2 HFQPO Pairs and Broad Fe K Line]
12: {Association of the 3:2 HFQPO Pairs with the Broad Fe K Line in XTE
13: J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40}
14:
15: \author[D.-X. Wang, Z.-M. Gan, C.-Y. Huang and Y. Li]
16: {Ding-Xiong WANG$^{1,2}$, Zhao-Ming GAN$^{1}$, Chang-Yin HUANG$^{1}$
17: and Yang LI$^{1}$\\\\
18: $1$ Department of Physics, Huazhong University of Science and
19: Technology,Wuhan, 430074, China\\
20: $2$ Send offprint requests to: D.-X. Wang(dxwang@hust.edu.cn)}
21:
22:
23: %\date{Received xxxxxx/ accepted xxxxxx}
24: %\pubyear{200x} \volume{xxx} \pagerange{x}
25:
26: \onecolumn
27: \maketitle
28:
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: Association of the high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation (HFQPO)
32: pairs with the broad Fe K line in XTE J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40 is
33: discussed based on the magnetic coupling (MC) of a rotating black
34: hole (BH) with its surrounding disc. The 3:2 HFQPO pairs are
35: interpreted by virtue of the inner and outer hotspots arising from
36: non-axisymmetric magnetic field, where the inner hotspot is produced
37: by a torque exerted at the inner edge of the disc, and the outer
38: hotspot is created by the screw instability of the large-scale
39: magnetic field. The very steep emissivity index is created
40: predominantly by the torque exerted at the inner edge of the disc.
41: It turns out that the 3:2 HFQPO pairs observed in the two sources
42: can be fitted by tuning several model parameters, such as the BH
43: spin, and the main features of this model lie in three aspects. (1)
44: The condition for only one HFQPO is discussed based on the two
45: mechanisms for producing the 3:2 HFQPO pairs, (2) an explanation is
46: given for a systematic shift away from disc dominated flux with the
47: increasing power-law flux as the HFQPO pairs shift from the higher
48: to lower frequencies, which is consistent with the analysis given by
49: Remillard et al. (2002), and (3) the BH spin in XTE J1550-564 and
50: GRO J1655-40 can be estimated by combining the 3:2 HFQPO pairs with
51: the very steep emissivity index required for fitting the broad Fe K
52: emission line.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55:
56:
57: \begin{keywords}{accretion, accretion discs --- black hole physics ---
58: magnetic fields --- stars: individual (XTE J1550-564, GRO J1655-40)
59: --- stars: oscillations --- X-rays: stars}\end{keywords}
60:
61:
62:
63:
64: \section{INTRODUCTION}
65:
66: Quasi-periodic oscillations in black hole X-ray binaries (BHXBs)
67: have become a very active research field since the launch of the
68: NASA satellite \emph{RXTE} (Bradt et al. 1993). One of the
69: remarkable features in BHXBs is that the high-frequency
70: quasi-periodic oscillations (HFQPOs) could appear in pairs with the
71: puzzling commensurate frequencies, which have been observed in GRO
72: J1655-40 (450, 300Hz; Remillard et al. 1999; Strohmayer 2001a;
73: Remillard et al. 2002, hereafter R02), XTE J1550-564 (276, 184,
74: 92Hz; Miller et al. 2001; R02) and GRS 1915+105 (168, 113, 67, 41Hz;
75: McClintock \& Remillard 2006; Remillard \& McClintock 2006,
76: hereafter MR06 and RM06, respectively). The above HFQPOs appear in
77: pairs with the 3:2 ratio of the higher frequency to the lower
78: frequency (henceforth 3:2 HFQPO pairs), e.g. 276 vs 184Hz and 450 vs
79: 300Hz occur in XTE J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40, respectively, while
80: two 3:2 HFQPO pairs, 168 vs 113Hz and 67 vs 41Hz, appear in GRS
81: 1915+105.
82:
83: A number of models have been proposed to explain the origin of HFQPO
84: pairs in BHXBs. Strohmayer (2001a, 2001b) investigated combinations
85: of the azimuthal and radial coordinate frequencies in general
86: relativity to explain the HFQPO pairs in GRO J1655-40 and GRS
87: 1915+105. Wagoner et al. (2001) regarded the HFQPO pairs as
88: fundamental g-mode and c-mode discoseismic oscillations in a
89: relativistic accretion disc. Very recently, Silbergleit \& Wagoner
90: (2007) discussed the corotation resonance and diskoseismology modes
91: of black hole (BH) accretion discs and suggested that the HFQPO
92: pairs may relate to the excitation of two (groups of) g-modes of
93: discoseismic oscillations. Abramowicz \& Kluzniak (2001) explained
94: the pairs in GRO J1655-40 as a resonance between orbital and
95: epicyclic motion of accreting matter. Recently, the resonance model
96: is presented in a more realistic context, in which "parametric
97: resonance" concept is introduced to describe the oscillations rooted
98: in fluid flow where there is a coupling between the radial and polar
99: coordinate frequencies (Abramowicz et al. 2003; Kluzniak et al.
100: 2004; T\"{o}r\"{o}k et al. 2005). As argued by van der Klis (2000,
101: 2006), HFQPOs in X-ray binaries probably originate from the inner
102: edge of an accretion disc around a neutron star or a stellar-mass
103: BH, since millisecond is the natural timescale for accretion process
104: in these regions.
105:
106: On the other hand, Wilms et al. (2001) presented the first
107: XMM-Newton observation of MCG-6-30-15, and they found a broad Fe
108: disc line from the observed spectrum. However, no quasi-periodic
109: oscillations have been detected in this source. A very steep
110: emissivity index ($4.3<\beta<5.0$) from the inner accretion disc is
111: required for fitting the broad Fe K emission line, which is
112: difficult to be explained within the framework of a standard
113: accretion disc (SAD). Wilms et al. (2001) suggested that the
114: magnetic extraction of rotational energy from a spinning black hole
115: should be invoked to create this steep emissivity.
116:
117: The relativistic disc lines for microquasars have been analyzed by
118: some authors, e.g., XTE J1550-564 by Sobczak et al. (2000), Miller
119: et al. (2003, 2004) ; XTE J1650-500 by Miller et al. (2004),
120: Miniutti, Fabian, and Miller (2004); GRO J1655-40 by Miller et al.
121: (2004), Diaz Trigo et al. (2007). However, the steep emissivity
122: indexes required by broad Fe K $\alpha$ lines were hardly worked out
123: except a few cases, such as, $\beta =5.5^{+0.5}_{-0.7}$ for GX 339-4
124: in the very high state, and $\beta \simeq 5$ for XTE J1650-500 based
125: on the observation of XMM-Newton. A detailed review for relativistic
126: X-ray emission lines from the inner accretion disc around black
127: holes for AGNs and stellar-mass black holes are given by Miller
128: (2007).
129:
130: With the existence of a magnetic field connecting a rotating black
131: hole to its surrounding disc, energy and angular momentum can be
132: transferred from the black hole to the disc, and this energy
133: mechanism is referred to as the MC process, which is regarded as one
134: of the variants of the Blandford-Znajek (BZ) process (Blandford {\&}
135: Znajek 1977, 1999; Li 2000, 2002, hereafter L02, Wang 2002).
136:
137:
138: Wang et al. (2002, 2003a, hereafter W03a) incorporated the BZ and MC
139: processes into black hole accretion disc, and henceforth this model
140: is referred to as MC-I model, which was used to interpret the very
141: steep emissivity index required by the observation of MCG-6-30-15.
142: In addition, Wang et al. (2005, hereafter W05) suggested that the
143: 3:2 HFQPO pairs observed in the above BHXBs can be fitted by virtue
144: of two hotspots in the inner disc, which are produced by the
145: non-axisymmetric MC process.
146:
147: The fatal shortcoming of MC-I model is that the fits of the 3:2 HFQPO pairs
148: always accompany jets, which is driven by the BZ process. As reviewed in
149: MR06 and RM06, jets are generally observed in the hard state of BHXBs, while
150: HFQPOs are always detected in the steep power-law (SPL) state. Thus the fits
151: of the 3:2 HFQPO pairs based on MC-I model are inconsistent with the
152: observations.
153:
154: Based on a careful analysis of the 1998-1999 outburst of XTE
155: J1550-564 and the 1996-1997 outburst of GRO J1655-40 some
156: interesting features have been found in R02, the 3:2 HFQPO pairs
157: could be detected simultaneously in the SPL state, and a systematic
158: shift away from disc dominated flux with the increasing power-law
159: flux is detected as the HFQPO pairs shift from 276 to 184 Hz for XTE
160: J1550-564 and from 450 to 300 Hz for GRO J1655-40 as shown in Figs.
161: 5 and 7 of R02, respectively. In addition, Remillard (2004) noted
162: that the broad Fe K emission lines can be also detected in the SPL
163: state in XTE J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40. These results imply that
164: the Fe K lines could be detected simultaneously with the 3:2 HFQPO
165: pairs in these two sources.\\
166:
167: In this paper, we interpret the 3:2 HFQPO pairs associated with the
168: broad Fe K line in XTE J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40 by modifying MC-I
169: model in two aspects. (1) The open field lines corresponding to the
170: BZ process is removed, and (2) a non-zero torque exerted at the
171: inner edge of the disc is introduced. Henceforth the modified model
172: is referred to as MC-II model. It turns out that the 3:2 HFQPO pairs
173: observed in the two sources can be fitted by tuning several model
174: parameters, such as the BH spin, and the main features of MC-II
175: model lie in the following aspects: (1) The condition for only one
176: HFQPO is discussed based on the two mechanisms for producing the 3:2
177: HFQPO pairs. (2) An explanation is given for a systematic shift away
178: from disc dominated flux with the increasing power-law flux as the
179: HFQPO pairs shift from the higher to lower frequencies, which is
180: consistent with the analysis given by R02. (3) The BH spin in XTE
181: J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40 can be estimated by combining the 3:2
182: HFQPO pairs with the very steep emissivity index required for
183: fitting the broad Fe K emission line.
184:
185: This paper is organized as follows. In \S 2 we present a detailed
186: description of MC-II model, in which the main differences between
187: MC-I and MC-II models are outlined. In \S 3 we describe the elements
188: for fitting the 3:2 HFQPO pairs observed in XTE J1550-564 and GRO
189: J1655-40, and present the calculation sequence and results based on
190: MC-II model. We discuss the possible correlation of the 3:2 HFQPO
191: pairs with the very steep emissivity index required by broad Fe K
192: $\alpha$ lines. It is expected that the 3:2 HFQPO pairs could be
193: observed with the steep emissivity index, and the black hole spin
194: could be estimated once the value ranges of the index are determined
195: in the future observations. Finally, we discuss some issues related
196: to MC-II model in \S 4.
197:
198: Throughout this paper the geometric units $G = c = 1$ are used.
199:
200:
201:
202: \section{DESCRIPTION OF MC-II MODEL }
203:
204: In this section we present a detailed description of MC-II model based on
205: the following assumptions.
206:
207: (1) The accretion disc is perfectly conducting, and the closed
208: magnetic field lines are frozen in the disc. The disc is thin and
209: relativistic, lying in the equatorial plane of a Kerr black hole.
210:
211: (2) Corona is introduced, which consists of tenuous hot plasma above
212: the disc surface as shown in Figure 1. Both large- and small-scale
213: magnetic fields are involved in MC-II model, in which the
214: large-scale magnetic field plays a key role in transferring energy
215: and angular momentum from a fast-rotating black hole to its
216: surrounding disc in the MC process, while the small-scale magnetic
217: field energizes the corona above the disc by virtue of some physical
218: processes, such as magnetic reconnection and buoyancy (Haardt {\&}
219: Maraschi 1991). It has been shown that the existence of corona can
220: improve the fitting of the output spectra from the BHXBs, which is
221: helpful to interpret the X-ray radiation observed in the SPL state
222: (Ma et al. 2006).
223:
224:
225: %%fig1
226:
227:
228: (3) The large-scale magnetic field is assumed to be non-axisymmetric
229: as described by Wang et al. (2003b, hereafter W03b). In addition,
230: the magnetic field is assumed to be constant on the black hole
231: horizon, and it varies as a power law with disc radius, i.e., $B_D
232: \propto r^{ - n}$.
233:
234: (4) One of the main differences between MC-I and MC-II models lies
235: in the fact that ``no torque boundary condition'' is assumed in MC-I
236: model as given in SAD (Novikov {\&} Thorne 1973, hereafter NT73;
237: Page {\&} Thorne 1974), while a nonzero torque is exerted at the
238: inner edge of the disc in MC-II model. This torque arises from the
239: magnetic connection of the matter in the plunging region with the
240: matter in the inner disc as argued by some authors (Livio, Ogilivie
241: {\&} Pringle 1999, hereafter L99; Krolik 1999; Gammie 1999; Agol
242: {\&} Krolik 2000).
243:
244: (5) Another difference between the two models lies in the fact that
245: the open field lines are removed from MC-II model, while the closed
246: field lines connecting the black hole with its surrounding accretion
247: disc are retained, as shown in Figure 1. So only the MC process
248: rather than the BZ process can work in MC-II model.
249:
250: The reason for the modification of the magnetic field configurations lies in
251: two points.
252:
253: (i) The existence of the closed field lines depends upon the mapping
254: relation with the conservation of the magnetic flux as argued in
255: W03a, being not the sufficient condition for the existence of the
256: open field lines at the horizon.
257:
258: (ii) The second reason is more important, i.e., the 3:2 HFQPO pairs
259: are observed in the SPL state, in which no jets are observed. Thus
260: the magnetic field configuration depicted in Figure 1 is more
261: consistent with the observations.\\
262:
263: In order to illustrate the elements for interpreting the 3:2 HFQPO
264: pairs we derive the radiation flux from the accretion disc based on
265: MC-II model. According to the conservation of energy and angular
266: momentum we have the following relations given in L02 and W03a,
267:
268: \begin{equation}
269: \label{eq1}
270: \left\{ {\begin{array}{l}
271: \frac{d}{dr}(\dot {M}_D L^\dag - g_{vis} ) = 4\pi r(F_{total} L^\dag -
272: H_{MC} ),\mbox{ } \\\\
273: \frac{d}{dr}(\dot {M}_D E^\dag - g_{vis} \Omega _D ) = 4\pi r(F_{total}
274: E^\dag - H_{MC} \Omega _D ). \\
275: \end{array}} \right.
276: \end{equation}
277:
278:
279:
280: In equation (\ref{eq1}) $\dot {M}_D $ is the accretion rate. The
281: quantities $g_{vis} $ and $H_{MC} $ are respectively the interior
282: viscous torque in the disc and the flux of angular momentum
283: transferred between the black hole and the disc in the MC process,
284: and $E^\dag $ and $L^\dag $ are the specific energy and angular
285: momentum of the disc matter, being given in NT73 as follows (where
286: $\chi \equiv \sqrt {r / M} $),
287:
288: \begin{equation}
289: \label{eq8} E^\dag = {\left( {1 - 2\chi ^{ - 2} + a_ * \chi ^{ - 3}}
290: \right)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left( {1 - 2\chi ^{ - 2} + a_
291: * \chi ^{ - 3}} \right)} {\left( {1 - 3\chi ^{ - 2} + 2a_ * \chi ^{
292: - 3}} \right)^{1 / 2}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left(
293: {1 - 3\chi ^{ - 2} + 2a_ * \chi ^{ - 3}} \right)^{1 / 2}},
294: \end{equation}
295:
296:
297:
298:
299: \begin{equation}
300: \label{eq9} L^\dag = M\chi {\left( {1 - 2a_ * \chi ^{ - 3} + a_ * ^2
301: \chi ^{ - 4}} \right)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left( {1 - 2a_
302: * \chi ^{ - 3} + a_ * ^2 \chi ^{ - 4}} \right)} {\left( {1 - 3\chi
303: ^{ - 2} + 2a_ * \chi ^{ - 3}} \right)^{1 / 2}}}} \right.
304: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left( {1 - 3\chi ^{ - 2} + 2a_ * \chi
305: ^{ - 3}} \right)^{1 / 2}}.
306: \end{equation}
307:
308: By resolving equation (\ref{eq1}) we derive the total radiation flux
309: $F_{total} $ and the interior viscous torque $g_{vis} $ in the disc
310: as follows,
311:
312:
313: \begin{equation}
314: \label{eq2}
315: F_{total} = F_{DA} + F_{MC} + F_{gin} ,
316: \end{equation}
317:
318:
319:
320:
321: \begin{equation}
322: \label{eq3}
323: g_{vis} = \frac{E^\dag - \Omega _D L^\dag }{ - d\Omega _D / dr}4\pi
324: rF_{total} .
325: \end{equation}
326:
327:
328:
329: In equation (\ref{eq2}) $F_{DA} $ and $F_{MC} $ are respectively the
330: radiation fluxes contributed by the disc accretion and the MC
331: process, and $F_{gin} $ is the extra contribution due to the
332: exterior torque exerted at the inner edge, and $\Omega _D $ is the
333: angular velocity of the relativistic thin disc and it reads
334:
335:
336: \begin{equation}
337: \label{eq4}
338: \Omega _D = \frac{1}{M\left( {\chi ^3 + a_ * } \right)}.
339: \end{equation}
340:
341:
342:
343: In equation (\ref{eq4}) the parameter $a_ * \equiv J \mathord{\left/
344: {\vphantom {J {M^2}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {M^2}$ is
345: the black hole spin, which is defined in terms of the black hole
346: mass $M$ and angular momentum $J$, and the parameter $\chi $ is
347: related to the disc radius by $\chi = \sqrt \xi \chi _{ms} $, where
348: $\xi \equiv r \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {r {r_{ms} }}} \right.
349: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {r_{ms} }$ is defined in terms of the
350: innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO, NT73). The three parts of
351: $F_{total} $ are expressed as follows,
352:
353:
354: \begin{equation}
355: \label{eq5}
356: F_{DA} = \frac{1}{4\pi r}\frac{ - {d\Omega _D } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom
357: {{d\Omega _D } {dr}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {dr}}{\left(
358: {E^\dag - \Omega _D L^\dag } \right)^2}\int_{r_{in} }^r {\left( {E^\dag -
359: \Omega _D L^\dag } \right)} \left( {\dot {M}_D {dL^\dag } \mathord{\left/
360: {\vphantom {{dL^\dag } {dr}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {dr}}
361: \right)dr,
362: \end{equation}
363:
364:
365:
366:
367: \begin{equation}
368: \label{eq6}
369: F_{MC} = - \frac{d\Omega _D }{rdr}\left( {E^\dag - \Omega _D L^\dag }
370: \right)^{ - 2}\int_{r_{ms} }^r {\left( {E^\dag - \Omega _D L^\dag }
371: \right)H_{MC} rdr} ,
372: \end{equation}
373:
374:
375:
376:
377: \begin{equation}
378: \label{eq7} F_{gin} = \frac{1}{4\pi r}\frac{ - d\Omega _D /
379: dr}{(E^\dag - \Omega _D L^\dag )^2}\cdot g_{in} \left( {E_{in}^\dag
380: - \Omega _{in} L_{in}^\dag } \right),
381: \end{equation}
382:
383:
384:
385: \noindent
386: where $\Omega _{in} = \Omega _D (r_{in} )$ is the angular velocity at
387: $r_{in} $, other terms with subscripts ``\textit{in}'' are taken their values at
388: $r_{in} $.
389:
390:
391:
392:
393:
394: The function $H_{MC} $ in equation (\ref{eq6}) is related to the MC
395: torque by ${\partial T_{MC}^{NA} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom
396: {{\partial T_{MC}^{NA} } {\partial r}}} \right.
397: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\partial r} = 4\pi rH_{MC} $, and
398: $T_{MC}^{NA} $ is the MC torque due to non-axisymmetric magnetic
399: field and it reads (W03b)
400:
401:
402: \begin{equation}
403: \label{eq10}
404: T_{MC}^{NA} = \lambda T_{MC}^A ,
405: \end{equation}
406:
407:
408:
409: \noindent
410: where $T_{MC}^A $ is the MC torque due to axisymmetric magnetic field, being
411: expressed in W03a as
412:
413:
414: \begin{equation}
415: \label{eq11}
416: {T_{MC}^A } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{T_{MC}^A } {T_0 }}} \right.
417: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {T_0 } = 4a_ * \left( {1 + q} \right)\int_{\theta
418: _S }^\theta {\frac{\left( {1 - \beta _\Omega } \right)\sin ^3\theta d\theta
419: }{2 - \left( {1 - q} \right)\sin ^2\theta }} ,
420: \quad
421: \theta _S < \theta < \theta _L .
422: \end{equation}
423:
424:
425:
426: The parameter $\lambda $ in equation (\ref{eq10}) is used to
427: indicate the difference between $T_{MC}^A $ and $T_{MC}^{NA} $ as
428: described in W03b, and $\beta _\Omega \equiv {\Omega _D }
429: \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\Omega _D } {\Omega _H }}} \right.
430: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\Omega _H }$ is the ratio of the angular
431: velocity of the disc to that of the black hole. It is easy to check
432: by using equation (\ref{eq4}) that $\beta _\Omega < 1$ always holds
433: for a fast-spinning black hole with $a_ * > 0.3594$, implying that
434: energy and angular momentum are transferred from the black hole to
435: the inner disc in the MC process.
436:
437: Since the magnetic field on the black hole is supported by the
438: surrounding disc, there is some relation between $B_H $ and $\dot
439: {M}_D $. One possibility has been suggested by Moderski et al.
440: (1997), which is based upon the balance between the pressure of the
441: magnetic field on the horizon and the ram pressure of the innermost
442: parts of an accretion flow, i.e.,
443:
444:
445: \begin{equation}
446: \label{eq12}
447: {B_H^2 } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{B_H^2 } {\left( {8\pi } \right)}}}
448: \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left( {8\pi } \right)} = P_{ram} \sim
449: \rho c^2\sim {\dot {M}_D } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\dot {M}_D } {\left(
450: {4\pi r_H^2 } \right)}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left( {4\pi
451: r_H^2 } \right)},
452: \end{equation}
453:
454:
455:
456: \noindent
457: where $r_H $ is the radius of the black hole horizon. Considering that
458: equation (\ref{eq12}) is not a certain relation between $B_H $ and $\dot {M}_D $, we
459: rewrite it as follows,
460:
461:
462: \begin{equation}
463: \label{eq13}
464: \dot {M}_D = \alpha _m B_H^2 r_H^2 ,
465: \end{equation}
466:
467:
468:
469: \noindent
470: where $\alpha _m $ is a parameter to adjust the accretion rate $\dot {M}_D
471: $.
472:
473: Inspecting equation (\ref{eq7}), we find that the contribution
474: $F_{gin} $ is related directly to the exterior torque $g_{in} $.
475: According to L99 the strength of the magnetic field produced by
476: dynamo process in the disc is given by
477:
478:
479: \begin{equation}
480: \label{eq14}
481: \frac{B_{dyn}^2 }{4\pi } \sim \frac{W}{2h_{in} } = w_\varphi ^r ,
482: \end{equation}
483:
484:
485:
486: \noindent
487: and the torque $g_{in} $ is related to the viscous stress $w_\varphi ^r $ at
488: $r_{in} $ as follows,
489:
490:
491: \begin{equation}
492: \label{eq15}
493: g_{in} = r_{in} \cdot 2\pi r_{in} \cdot 2h_{in} \cdot w_\varphi ^r ,
494: \end{equation}
495:
496:
497:
498: \noindent
499: where $h_{in} $ is the half-thickness at $r_{in} $, being related to $r_{in}
500: $ by $h_{in} = \alpha _H r_{in} $.
501:
502: In equation (\ref{eq14}) $W$ is the integrated shear stress of the
503: disc, and the disc magnetic field $B_D $ is related to $B_{dyn} $ by
504:
505:
506: \begin{equation}
507: \label{eq16}
508: B_D \sim \left( {h \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {h r}} \right.
509: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} r} \right)_{\max } B_{dyn} ,
510: \end{equation}
511:
512:
513:
514: \noindent where $h$ is the half-thickness of the disc. As argued in
515: W03a, the field $B_D $ is related to $B_H $ by
516:
517:
518: \begin{equation}
519: \label{eq17}
520: B_D = B_H \left( {{r_H } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{r_H } {\varpi _{in}
521: }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\varpi _{in} }} \right),
522: \end{equation}
523:
524:
525:
526: \noindent
527: where $\varpi _{in} $ is the cylindrical radius at $r_{in} $ in the context
528: of Kerr metric.
529:
530: Incorporating equations (\ref{eq16}) and (\ref{eq17}), we have
531:
532:
533: \begin{equation}
534: \label{eq18}
535: B_{dyn}^2 = \left( {{r_{in} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{r_{in} } {h_{in}
536: }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {h_{in} }} \right)^2B_D^2 = \left[
537: {{\left( {r_{in} r_H } \right)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left( {r_{in}
538: r_H } \right)} {\left( {\varpi _{in} h_{in} } \right)}}} \right.
539: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left( {\varpi _{in} h_{in} } \right)}}
540: \right]^2B_H^2 .
541: \end{equation}
542:
543:
544:
545: Incorporating equations (\ref{eq14}), (\ref{eq15}) and (\ref{eq18}), we have the torque $g_{in} $ as
546: follows,
547:
548:
549: \begin{equation}
550: \label{eq19}
551: g_{in} = \alpha _H B_{dyn}^2 r_{in}^3 = \alpha _H^{ - 1} r_{in}^3 \left(
552: {{r_H } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{r_H } {\varpi _{in} }}} \right.
553: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\varpi _{in} }} \right)^2B_H^2 .
554: \end{equation}
555:
556:
557:
558: Assume that the inner edge of the disc is initially located at ISCO.
559: If the magnetic pressure inside ISCO is strong enough, a radial
560: force can be exerted at the inner edge of the disc due to the
561: magnetic connection, resulting in an outward displacement of the
562: inner edge from $r_{ms} $ to $r_{in} $. It is assumed that the
563: magnetic torque $g_{in} $ exerted at $r_{in} $ is determined by the
564: following equations,
565:
566:
567: \begin{equation}
568: \label{eq20}
569: \delta g_{in} \Omega _{in} = \left[ {E^\dag \left( {r_{in} ,a_ * } \right) -
570: E^\dag \left( {r_{ms} ,a_ * } \right)} \right]\dot {M}_D ,
571: \end{equation}
572:
573:
574:
575: \noindent
576: where $g_{in} \Omega _{in} $ is the power of the magnetic torque, and
577: $\delta $ is the fraction of the power keeping the inner edge at $r_{in} $.
578:
579: \section{FITTING 3:2 HFQPO PAIRS ASSOCIATED WITH BROAD FE K LINE}
580:
581: Considering the fact that the accretion disc is perfectly
582: conducting, and the closed magnetic field lines are frozen in the
583: disc, and the inner and outer hotspots are produced by
584: non-axisymmetric magnetic field, we infer that these hotspots rotate
585: with the angular velocity of the disc, and the upper and lower
586: frequencies of the 3:2 HFQPO pairs can be expressed by
587:
588:
589: \begin{equation}
590: \label{eq21}
591: \nu _{HFQPO} = \nu _0 \left( {\xi ^{3 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {3 2}}
592: \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}\chi _{ms}^3 + a_ * } \right)^{ - 1},
593: \end{equation}
594:
595:
596:
597: \noindent
598: where $\nu _0 \equiv \left( {m_{BH} } \right)^{ - 1}\times 3.23\times
599: 10^4Hz$, and $m_{BH} \equiv M \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {M {M_ \odot }}}
600: \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {M_ \odot }$ is the black hole mass in
601: terms of one solar mass. Equation (\ref{eq21}) can be derived directly from equation
602: (\ref{eq4}).
603:
604: The lower frequency $\nu _{lower} $ of the HFQPO pair is produced by the
605: outer hotspot, which is located at the outer boundary of the MC region as
606: shown in Figure 1. According to the Kruskal-Shafranov criterion, the screw
607: instability of the large-scale magnetic field will occur, if the magnetic
608: field line turns around itself about once (Kadomtsev 1966; Bateman 1978).
609: Based on the Kruskal-Shafranov criterion the radius $r_{out} $ can be
610: determined by the following equation (Wang et al. 2004),
611:
612:
613: \begin{equation}
614: \label{eq22}
615: {\left( {{2\pi \varpi _D } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{2\pi \varpi _D } L}}
616: \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} L} \right)B_D^p } \mathord{\left/
617: {\vphantom {{\left( {{2\pi \varpi _D } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{2\pi
618: \varpi _D } L}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} L} \right)B_D^p } {B_D^T
619: }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {B_D^T } \le 1,
620: \end{equation}
621:
622:
623:
624: \noindent where $B_D^p $ and $B_D^T $ are the poloidal and toroidal
625: components of the magnetic field on the disc, respectively. The
626: quantities $L$ and $\varpi _D $ are respectively the poloidal length
627: of the field line and the cylindrical radius on the disc, and the
628: latter reads
629:
630:
631: \begin{equation}
632: \label{eq23} \varpi _D = {\Sigma _D } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom
633: {{\Sigma _D } {\rho _D }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\rho
634: _D } = \xi M\chi _{ms}^2 \sqrt {1 + a_ * ^2 \xi ^{ - 2}\chi _{ms}^{
635: - 4} + 2a_ * ^2 \xi ^{ - 3}\chi _{ms}^{ - 6} } ,
636: \end{equation}
637:
638:
639:
640: \noindent where $\Sigma _D $ and $\rho _D $ are the Kerr metric
641: parameters (Novikov {\&} Thorns 1973).
642:
643: Wang et al. (2004) expressed equation (\ref{eq22}) in terms of the parameters
644: involved in the MC process as follows,
645:
646:
647: \begin{equation}
648: \label{eq24}
649: \left( {{2\pi \varpi _D } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{2\pi \varpi _D } L}}
650: \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} L} \right)F_{SC} \left( {a_ * ,\xi ,n}
651: \right) \le 1.
652: \end{equation}
653:
654:
655:
656: The equality in equation (\ref{eq24}) corresponds to the screw
657: instability, and $F_{SC}( {a_ * ,\xi ,n}) $ is a function of the
658: parameters, $a_ * $, $\xi $ and $n$, and it reads
659:
660:
661: \begin{equation}
662: \label{eq25}
663: F_{SC}( {a_ * ,\xi ,n}) = \frac{\xi ^{1 - n}\left( {1 +
664: q} \right)\left[ {2\csc ^2\theta - \left( {1 - q} \right)}
665: \right]}{2a_ * \left( {1 - \beta _\Omega } \right)}\sqrt {\frac{1 +
666: a_ * ^2 \chi _{ms}^{ - 4} \xi ^{ - 2} + 2a_ * ^2 \chi _{ms}^{ - 6}
667: \xi ^{ - 3}}{1 + a_ * ^2 \chi _{ms}^{ - 4} + 2a_ * ^2 \chi _{ms}^{ -
668: 6} }} ,
669: \end{equation}
670:
671:
672:
673: \noindent
674: where $q \equiv \sqrt {1 - a_ * ^2 } $ is a function of the black hole spin.
675: Thus the position of the outer hotspot can be determined by the criterion
676: (\ref{eq24}) for the given $a_ * $ and $n$.
677:
678: The upper frequency $\nu _{higher} $ of the HFQPO pair is produced
679: by the inner hotspot, of which the position is determined by the
680: maximum of the following function,
681:
682:
683: \begin{equation}
684: \label{eq26}
685: F_{HFQPO} \equiv {\xi ^2F_{total} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\xi
686: ^2F_{total} } {F_0 }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {F_0 },
687: \end{equation}
688:
689:
690:
691: \noindent
692: where $F_0 \equiv B_H^2 = B_8^2 \times \left( {3\times 10^{26}erg \cdot s^{
693: - 1} \cdot cm^{ - 2}} \right)$ is defined as a unit of the
694: radiation flux, and $B_8 $ is the magnetic field in terms
695: of $10^8gauss$.
696:
697: The emissivity index can be calculated from the total radiation flux
698: $F_{total} $ based on the definition as follows,
699:
700:
701: \begin{equation}
702: \label{eq27}
703: \beta = - {d\ln F_{total} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{d\ln F_{total} }
704: {d\ln r}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {d\ln r}.
705: \end{equation}
706:
707:
708:
709: Incorporating equations (\ref{eq2}), (\ref{eq5}), (\ref{eq6}), (\ref{eq7}), (\ref{eq19}) and (\ref{eq27}), we obtain the
710: emissivity index $\beta = \beta _{DA} + \beta _{MC} + \beta _{gin} $ by
711: calculating the following contributions,
712:
713:
714: \begin{equation}
715: \label{eq28}
716: \beta _{DA} \equiv - \frac{r}{F_{total} }\frac{dF_{DA} }{dr},
717: \quad
718: \beta _{MC} \equiv - \frac{r}{F_{total} }\frac{dF_{MC} }{dr},
719: \quad
720: \beta _{gin} \equiv - \frac{r}{F_{total} }\frac{dF_{gin} }{dr},
721: \end{equation}
722:
723:
724:
725: \noindent where $\beta _{DA} $, $\beta _{MC} $ and $\beta _{gin} $
726: are contributed by the disc accretion, the MC process and the
727: magnetic torque exerted at the inner edge of the disc, respectively.
728:
729: Based on equations (\ref{eq5}), (\ref{eq6}), (\ref{eq7}) and
730: (\ref{eq28}) we obtain the curves of the above contributions to the
731: total radiation flux and the emissivity index versus the disc radius
732: for XTE J1550-564 with $m_{BH} = \mbox{10.8}$ as shown in Figure 2a
733: and 2b, respectively.
734:
735:
736: %%fig2(a,b)
737:
738:
739: As shown in Figure 2 the contributions of the disc accretion and the
740: MC process to the total radiation flux and the emissivity index are
741: more than two orders of magnitude less than those due to the
742: magnetic torque at the inner edge of the disc, and both the total
743: radiation flux $F_{total} $ and the emissivity index $\beta $ take
744: their maxima at $r_{in} $. Thus we infer that both the inner hotspot
745: and the maximum emissivity index are located at $r_{in} $.
746:
747: Combining equation (\ref{eq21}) with the higher and lower HFQPO
748: frequencies corresponding to the disc radii $r_{in}=\xi_{in}
749: r_{ms}$ and $r_{out}=\xi_{out} r_{ms}$, we have
750:
751: \begin{equation}
752: \label{eq29} \nu_{higher}=\nu_{0} (\xi^{3/2}_{in} \chi^{3}_{ms}+a_*
753: )^{-1}
754: \end{equation}
755:
756: \begin{equation}
757: \label{eq30}\nu_{lower}=\nu_0 (\xi^{3/2}_{out} \chi^3_{ms}+a_*
758: )^{-1}
759: \end{equation}
760:
761: Equations (\ref{eq20}),(\ref{eq24}),(\ref{eq27}),(\ref{eq29}) and
762: (\ref{eq30}) can be regarded as a set of equations for calculating
763: the disc radii, $r_{in}$ and $r_{out}$ , for the 3:2 HFQPO pairs,
764: and henceforth \emph{the five independent equations} are referred to
765: as \textbf{FIE}. Four input parameters, $a_ * $, $m_{BH} $, $\nu
766: _{higher} $ and $\nu _{lower} $, are involved, and five output
767: parameters, $n$, $r_{in} $, $r_{out} $, $\delta $ and $\beta $ are
768: obtained based on \textbf{FIE}. The detailed calculation sequence is
769: described as follows.
770:
771: (1) As the first step, we assume a value of spin with the observed
772: black hole mass, e.g., $a_ * = 0.5$ and $m_{BH} = \mbox{10.8}$ for
773: XTE J1550-564. Based on the higher frequency $\nu _{higher} $, e.g.,
774: 276Hz for XTE J1550-564, the position of the inner hotspot can be
775: determined by equation (\ref{eq29}). Thus the radius $r_{in} $ can
776: be determined for the given black hole spin and mass.
777:
778: (2) In the second step, the position of the outer hotspot
779: corresponding to the lower frequency $\nu_{lower}$ , e.g., 184Hz for
780: XTE J1550-564, can be determined by combining equation (\ref{eq30})
781: with the criterion of the screw instability given by equations
782: (\ref{eq24}), and the power law index $n$ indicating the variation
783: of the magnetic field with the disc radius can be determined in
784: calculating $\nu_{lower}$ by virtue of the criterion of the screw
785: instability.
786:
787: (3) Finally, in the third step, the outward displacement of the
788: inner edge from $r_{ms}$ to $r_{in}$ can be worked out, and the
789: parameter $\delta$ is determined by equation (\ref{eq20}). Combining
790: equation (\ref{eq27}) with equation (\ref{eq2}) and the obtained
791: values $a_*$, $r_{in}$ and $n$, we have a maximum value of the
792: emissivity index $\beta$ located at $r_{in}$.
793:
794: In this way, we can obtain one set of solution of $r_{in} $,
795: $r_{out} $, $n$, $\delta $ and $\beta $ by inputting each black hole
796: spin $a_ * $ with the observed $\nu _{higher} $, $\nu _{lower} $ and
797: $m_{BH} $ into \textbf{FIE}, and the curves of $\beta $, $n$ and
798: $\delta $ varying with $a_ * $ for XTE J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40
799: are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
800:
801:
802: %%fig3(a,b,c)
803:
804: %%fig4(a,b,c)
805:
806:
807: By resolving \textbf{FIE} we have the specific solutions
808: corresponding to the two BHXBs with the lower and higher black hole
809: masses and different spins as listed in Table 1.
810:
811:
812: %%tab1
813:
814:
815: Inspecting Figures 3 and 4, and Table 1, we find that the 3:2 HFQPO
816: pairs observed in XTE J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40 can be worked out
817: with the steep emissivity index, and the features of MC-II model are
818: summarized as follows.
819:
820: (1) For a given black hole mass, a bigger spin corresponds to a
821: smaller emissivity index $\beta $ and a smaller parameter $n$, but
822: to a bigger parameter $\delta $. For a given black hole spin, a
823: bigger black hole mass corresponds to a bigger $\beta $, while the
824: parameters $n$ and \textit{$\delta $ }are insensitive to the
825: variation of the black hole mass. This result can be understood
826: based on black hole physics (Shapiro \& Teukolsky 1983). The width
827: of the plunging region decreases monotonically with the increasing
828: black hole spin, so the effects of the magnetic torque in the
829: plunging region decreases with the increasing black hole spin.
830:
831: (2) The black hole spin could be estimated, if the value range of
832: the emissivity index can be determined by the future observations.
833: As shown by the shaded regions in Figures 3a and 4a, the black hole
834: spin could be constrained in the range of $0.7 < a_ * < 0.998$ with
835: the emissivity indexes in the ranges of $3.95 < \beta < 4.12$ and
836: $3.95 < \beta < 4.24$ for XTE J1650-564 and GRO J1655-40,
837: respectively.
838:
839: As pointed out in RM06, HFQPOs are likely to offer the most reliable
840: measurement of BH spins once the correct model is known. The
841: observations involved HFQPOs are very complicated, behaving multiple
842: features in different sources, and a variety of mechanisms and
843: models are invoked to fit the HFQPOs in BHXBs. The model of the MC
844: process with a nonzero torque exerted at the inner edge of accretion
845: disc provides an interpretation for the association of the 3:2 HFQPO
846: pairs with the broad Fe K line, and it could be a possible approach
847: to the BH spins of the binaries in the Galaxy.
848:
849:
850: \section{DISCUSSION}
851:
852: In this paper, association of the 3:2 HFQPO pairs with the broad Fe
853: K line in XTE J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40 is discussed based on MC-II
854: model. It is shown that the 3:2 HFQPO pairs observed in the two
855: sources can be fitted with the observational constraints by tuning
856: several model parameters. Some related issues are given as follows.
857:
858: (1) It is noted that the mechanisms of creating the two hotspots are
859: different: the inner one is produced predominantly by the magnetic
860: torque exerted at the inner edge of the disc, while the outer one
861: arises from the screw instability of the large-scale magnetic field.
862: It is helpful to imagine the magnetic field line as an elastic
863: string. The rotating BH twists the field line, while the field line
864: tries to untwist itself. Once the toroidal component of the magnetic
865: field is strong enough to satisfy the criterion, the screw
866: instability will occurs, just as a twisted elastic string releases
867: its energy under appropriate conditions.
868:
869: (2) Some authors argued that the coronal heating in some stars
870: including the Sun is probably related to dissipation of currents,
871: and very strong X-ray emissions arise from variation of magnetic
872: fields (Galsgaard \& Parnell 2004; Peter et al. 2004). Analogously,
873: if the corona exists above the disc in MC-II model, we expect that
874: the corona above $r_{out}$ might be heated by the induced current
875: due to the screw instability of the non-axisymmetric magnetic field.
876: Thus the ratio of the disc bolometric flux to the power-law flux is
877: greater for the inner hotspot than that for the outer hotspot, and
878: the feature of X-ray radiation given by R02 can be interpreted based
879: on MC-II model with corona, i.e., there exists a systematic shift
880: away from disc dominated flux with the increasing power-law flux as
881: the HFQPO pairs shift from the higher frequency to the lower
882: frequency based on the observations of XTE J1550-564 and GRO
883: J1655-40.
884:
885: (3) Since the two hotspots are produced by two different mechanisms,
886: we can explain the observations that HFQPOs do not always appear in
887: simultaneous pairs, because the condition for the magnetic torque
888: and that for the screw instability would not be satisfied at the
889: same time. Since the inner and outer hotspots are related to two
890: different mechanisms based on the non-axisymmetric magnetic fields
891: in the plunging region and the BH horizon, either the fluctuations
892: of the magnetic fields at different position or the criterion of the
893: screw instability could affect the HFQPO pairs. Unfortunately, we
894: cannot discuss this issue in a quantitative way due to the unknown
895: origin of the magnetic field near the BH.
896:
897: (4) According to equation (21) the HFQPO frequency is inversely
898: proportional to the BH mass, which providers a strong limit to the
899: fits. We can neither fit the HFQPO with 92 Hz in XTE J1550-564 nor
900: the 3:2 HFQPO pair (67, 41Hz) in GRS 1915+105 based on equation (21)
901: for the measured BH masses. Furthermore, the 3:2 HFQPO pair (168,
902: 113Hz) of GRS 1915+105 are not fitted, because a systematic shift
903: away from disc dominated flux with the increasing power-law flux as
904: the HFQPO pair shift from the higher frequency to the lower
905: frequency has not been observed in this source.
906:
907: (5) As argued above, the higher and lower HFQPO frequencies are
908: related to the inner and outer hotspots rotating with the angular
909: velocity located at $r_{in}$ and $r_{out}$, respectively. According
910: to equation (21) the HFQPO frequencies are inversely proportional to
911: the BH mass, and the spin is related to the HFQPO frequencies via
912: $r_{in}$ and $r_{out}$, where the HFQPO frequencies are calculated
913: by the angular velocity. Since the evolution time scale of the BH
914: mass and spin are much longer than the observation time scale, the
915: two quantities are considered fixed in calculations.
916:
917: (6) As pointed out in R02, the 3:2 HFQPO pairs could have a small,
918: but significant, change in frequency. For example, the HFQPO
919: frequencies observed in XTE J1550-564 deviate from 274 Hz and 184 Hz
920: during different outbursts. These small deviations in HFQPO
921: frequencies can be calculated by resolving \textbf{FIE} with the
922: adjustable parameters $n$ and $\delta$ as shown in Table 2.
923:
924: %%tab2
925:
926: (7) As argued above, both the non-axisymmetric magnetic field
927: configuration and the corona above the disc surface are required for
928: interpreting the 3:2 HFQPO pairs observed in the SPL state of the
929: BHXBs. Thus we can interpret the observation that sometimes the 3:2
930: HFQPO pairs cannot be observed in the SPL state, if the magnetic
931: field configuration is axisymmetric. Based on the same reason we
932: predict that the 3:2 HFQPO pairs could be observed with the very
933: steep emissivity index, if the magnetic field configuration is
934: non-axisymmetric. However, the HFQPO pairs cannot be produced with
935: the emissivity index for the axisymmetric magnetic field
936: configuration.
937:
938: (8) According to $B_D \propto r^{-n}$ the ratio of the magnetic
939: field at $r_{out}$ to that at $r_{in}$ can be written as $R_B \equiv
940: (B_D)_{out}/(B_D)_{in}=(r_{in}/r_{out})^n$. Based on \textbf{FIE} we
941: have the curves of $R_B$ for XTE J1650-564 vary with $a_*$ as shown
942: in Figure 5, from which a strongly constraint to the BH spin can be
943: found. The BH spin should be very high, or at least greater than
944: some intermediate value to avoid the magnetic field at $r_{out}$ too
945: low to produce an outer hotspot.
946:
947: %%fig5(a,b)
948:
949: (9) There is less certain evidence that the same 3:2 ratio occurs
950: for QPOs observed in low-mass active galactic nuclei, Sgr A$^*$,
951: (T\"{o}r\"{o}k 2005a, b; Ashenbach 2004a, b) and in a few nearby
952: Seyferts (Lachowicz et al. 2006). MC-II model can be used to fit
953: QPOs pairs observed in the super-massive BH systems, and we obtain
954: the curves of the emissivity index $\beta$, the power-law index $n$
955: and the parameter $\delta$ varying with the BH spin of for Sgr A$^*$
956: as shown in Figure 6.
957:
958: %%fig6(a,b,c)
959:
960: We can find from Figure 6 that the parameter n varies from 4.272 to
961: 7.108 with $a_*$ decreasing from 0.998 to 0.853 for
962: $m_{BH}=4.4\times 10^6$, while it varies from 5.040 to 10.239 with
963: $a_*$ decreasing from 0.998 to 0.555 for $m_{BH}=2.6 \times 10^6$.
964:
965:
966: (10) The parameter $n$ is used to indicate the variation of the
967: large-scale magnetic field with the disc radius, which is a key
968: parameter for fitting the 3:2 frequency ratio. Based on \textbf{FIE}
969: we have the variation of the 3:2 frequency ratio with the parameter
970: n for the given values of the BH spin as shown in Figure 7.
971:
972: %%fig7(a,b)
973:
974: \textbf{Inspecting Figure 7, we find that the frequency ratio
975: decreases monotonically with the increasing parameter $n$. The
976: greater $n$ corresponds to the less ratio for the given spin, and
977: the greater spin corresponds to both the less value and less
978: variation of $n$ for the given ratio. For XTE J1550-564, e.g., the
979: ratio increases about 5.7\% as the value of $n$ decreases about 10\%
980: for $a_*=0.5$, while the same variation occurs as $n$ only
981: decreases about 1.9\% for $a_*=0.998$ . This result implies that the
982: observed 3:2 frequency ratio is reached for a very narrow range of
983: $n$ with the greater BH spin.}
984:
985:
986: (\textbf{11}) Finally, we discuss the values of the parameters
987: $\alpha_H$ and $\alpha_m$, which are used to indicate the disc
988: thickness at $r_{in}$ and the strength of the accretion rate,
989: respectively. The emissivity index of XTE J1550-564 varies with the
990: BH spin for different values of $\alpha_H$ and $\alpha_m$ are shown
991: in Figure \textbf{8}.
992:
993: %%fig8(a,b)
994:
995: Inspecting Figure \textbf{8a}, we find that the values of the
996: emissivity index are insensitive to the values of $\alpha_H$ and
997: $\alpha_m$, provided that they are limited to $\alpha _H \le 0.1$
998: and $\alpha_m \le 1.0$. These value ranges are reasonable for thin
999: accretion disc in MC-II model. In addition, based on the features of
1000: MC-II model, the 3:2 HFQPO pairs are also insensitive to the
1001: parameters with the above limited values.\\\\
1002:
1003:
1004: \noindent {\bf Acknowledgements:}\quad This work is supported by the
1005: National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant 10873005
1006: and National Basic Research Program of China under grant
1007: 2009CB824800. We are grateful to the anonymous referee for his (her)
1008: helpful comments on the manuscript.
1009:
1010:
1011:
1012:
1013:
1014: %\newpage
1015: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1016:
1017: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Abramowicz, M. A., {\&} Kluzniak, W. 2001, A{\&}A, 374, L19}
1018:
1019: \bibitem[2]{b2}{Abramowicz, M. A., Karas, V., Kluzniak, W., {\&} Lee, W. H., Rebusco, P.,
1020: 2003, PASJ, 55, 467}
1021:
1022: \bibitem[3]{b3}{Agol, E., {\&} Krolik, J. H., 2000, ApJ, 528, 161}
1023:
1024: \bibitem[301]{b301}{Aschenbach, B., et al. 2004a, A\&A, 417, 71}
1025:
1026: \bibitem[301]{b301}{---. 2004b, A\&A, 425, 1075}
1027:
1028: \bibitem[4]{b4}{Bateman G. \textit{MHD Instabilities}, 1978, (Cambridge: The MIT Press)}
1029:
1030: \bibitem[5]{b5}{Blandford, R. D., {\&} Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433}
1031:
1032: \bibitem[6]{b6}{Blandford, R. D., 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. 160,
1033: \textit{Astrophysical Discs}: An EC Summer School, ed. . A. Sellwood
1034: {\&} J. Goodman (San Francisco: ASP), 265}
1035:
1036: \bibitem[7]{b7}{Bradt, H. V., Rothschild, R. E., {\&} Swank, J. H., 1993, A{\&}AS, 97, 355}
1037:
1038: \bibitem[701]{b701}{Diaz Trigo, M., et al., 2007, A\&A, 462, 657}
1039:
1040: \bibitem[8]{b8}{Galsgaard, K., {\&} Parnell, C.,
1041: \textit{Procedings of SOHO 15 Coronal Heating, ESA publication},
1042: astro-ph/0409562}
1043:
1044: \bibitem[9]{b9}{Gammie, C. F., 1999, ApJ, 522, L57}
1045:
1046: \bibitem[10]{b10}{Haardt, F., {\&} Maraschi, L., 1991, ApJ, 380, L51}
1047:
1048: \bibitem[11]{b11}{Kadomtsev B. B. 1966, Rev. Plasma Phys., 2, 153}
1049:
1050: \bibitem[12]{b12}{Kluzniak, W., {\&} Abramowicz, M. A., Lee, W., 2004, AIPC 714, 379}
1051:
1052: \bibitem[13]{b13}{Krolik, J. H., 1999, ApJ, 515, L73}
1053:
1054: \bibitem[1301]{b1301}{Lachowicz P., Czerny B. \& Abramowicz M.A., 2006,
1055: astro-ph/0607594}
1056:
1057: \bibitem[14]{b14}{Li, L.-X., 2000, ApJ, 533, L115}
1058:
1059: \bibitem[15]{b15}{---. 2002, ApJ, 567, 463 (L02)}
1060:
1061: \bibitem[16]{b16}{Livio M., Ogilivie G. I., Pringle J. E., 1999, ApJ, 512, 100 (L99)}
1062:
1063: \bibitem[17]{b17}{Ma, R.-Y., Wang, D.-X., {\&} Zuo, X.-Q., 2006, A{\&}A, 453, 1}
1064:
1065: \bibitem[18]{b18}{McClintock, J E, {\&} Remillard R A 2006. In Compact Stellar X-ray Sources,
1066: ed. WHG Lewin, M van der Klis, pp. 157--214. Cambridge: Cambridge
1067: University Press. (astro-ph/0306213) (MR06)}
1068:
1069: \bibitem[19]{b19}{Miller, J. M. et al. 2001, ApJ, 563, 928}
1070:
1071: \bibitem[1901]{b1901}{Miller, J. M. et al., 2003, MNRAS, 338, 7}
1072:
1073: \bibitem[1902]{b1902}{Miller, J. M., et al., 2004. ApJ. 601, 450}
1074:
1075: \bibitem[1903]{b1903}{Miller, J. M., 2007, ARA\&A, 45, 441}
1076:
1077: \bibitem[1904]{b1904}{Miniutti, G., Fabian, A. C., \& Miller, J. M., 2004, MNRAS, 351,
1078: 466}
1079:
1080:
1081: \bibitem[20]{b20}{Moderaki, R., Sikora, M., Lasota, J. P. 1997, in Ostrowski M., Sikora M.,
1082: Madejski, G., Belgelman M., eds, Proc. International Conf.,
1083: Relativistic Jets in AGNs. Krakow, p. 110}
1084:
1085: \bibitem[21]{b21}{Novikov I. D., Thorne K. S., 1973, in Dewitt C., ed., Black holes. Gordon
1086: and Breach, New York (NT73)}
1087:
1088: \bibitem[22]{b22}{Page, D. N., {\&} Thorne, K. S. 1974, ApJ, 191, 499}
1089:
1090: \bibitem[23]{b23}{Peter, H., Gudiksen, B., {\&} Nordlund, A., 2004, ApJ, 617, L85}
1091:
1092: \bibitem[24]{b24}{Remillard, R. A., et al., Morgan, E. H., McClintock, J. E., Bailyn, C. D.,
1093: {\&} Orosz, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 522, 397}
1094:
1095: \bibitem[25]{b25}{Remillard, R. A., Muno, M. P., Mcclintock, J. E., {\&} Orosz, J. A. 2002,
1096: ApJ, 580, 1030 (R02)}
1097:
1098: \bibitem[26]{b26}{Remillard, R. A. 2004, AIPC, 714, 13}
1099:
1100: \bibitem[27]{b27}{Remillard, R. A., {\&} McClintock J. E. 2006, ARA{\&}A, 44, 49 (RM06)}
1101:
1102: \bibitem[2701]{b2701}{Shapiro S. L., \& Teukolsky S. A., 1983, Black Holes, White Dwarfs
1103: and Neutron Stars, John Wiley \& Sons, Inc. New York}
1104:
1105: \bibitem[28]{b28}{Silbergleit, A. S., {\&} Wagoner, R. V. 2007, arXiv:0711.4848}
1106:
1107: \bibitem[2801]{b2801}{Sobczak, G. J., et al., 2000, ApJ, 544, 993}
1108:
1109: \bibitem[29]{b29}{Strohmayer, T. E., 2001a, ApJ, 552, L49}
1110:
1111: \bibitem[30]{b30}{---. 2001b, ApJ, 554, L169}
1112:
1113: \bibitem[3001]{b3001}{T\"{o}r\"{o}k, G., 2005a, Astron. Nachr., 326, 9,
1114: 856}
1115:
1116: \bibitem[3002]{b3002}{T\"{o}r\"{o}k, G., 2005b, A\&A, 440, 1}
1117:
1118:
1119: \bibitem[31]{b31}{T\"{o}r\"{o}k, G., Abramowicz, M. A., Kluzniak, W., {\&} Stuchlik, Z., 2005, A{\&}A,
1120: 436, 1.}
1121:
1122: \bibitem[32]{b32}{van der Klis, M., 2000, ARA{\&}A, 38, 717.}
1123:
1124: \bibitem[33]{b33}{van der Klis, M., 2006, In Compact Stellar X-ray Sources, ed. WHG
1125: Lewin, {\&} M van der Klis, pp. 39 - 112. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
1126: University Press. (astro-ph/0410551)}
1127:
1128: \bibitem[34]{b34}{Wagoner, R. V., Silbergleit, A. S., {\&} Ortega-Rodriguez, M. 2001, ApJ,
1129: 559, L25}
1130:
1131: \bibitem[35]{b35}{Wang, D.-X., Xiao K., {\&} Lei W.-H. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 655}
1132:
1133: \bibitem[36]{b36}{Wang, D.-X., Ma, R.-Y., Lei, W.-H., {\&} Yao, G.-Z., 2003a, ApJ, 595, 109
1134: (W03a)}
1135:
1136: \bibitem[37]{b37}{---. 2003b, MNRAS, 344, 473 (W03b)}
1137:
1138: \bibitem[38]{b38}{---. 2004, ApJ, 601, 1031}
1139:
1140: \bibitem[39]{b39}{Wang, D.-X., Ye, Y.-C., Yao, G.-Z., {\&} Ma, R.-Y., , 2005, MNRAS, 359, 36}
1141:
1142: \bibitem[40]{b40}{Wilms J. et al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, L27}
1143:
1144: \end{thebibliography}
1145:
1146:
1147: \newpage
1148: %%tables and figures
1149:
1150: %---------------------------------- fig1----------------------
1151: \begin{figure}
1152: \vspace{0.5cm}
1153: \begin{center}
1154: \includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{fig1.eps}
1155: \caption{The Poloidal magnetic field configuration of MC-II model.}
1156: \label{fig2}
1157: \end{center}
1158: \end{figure}
1159: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1160:
1161: %%--------------------------fig2------------------------------
1162: \begin{figure*}
1163: \vspace{0.5cm}
1164: \begin{center}
1165: {\hfill\hfill
1166: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig2a.eps}\hfill
1167: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig2b.eps}
1168: \hfill\hfill}
1169:
1170: \caption{(a) Curves of $\log \left( F_{gin}/F_0 \right)$ , $\log
1171: \left(F_{DA} /F_0 \right)$ and $\log \left( F_{MC} / F_0 \right)$
1172: versus $r / r_{in}$ in solid, dashed and
1173: dotted lines, respectively. (b) Curves of $log \beta _{gin} $, $log
1174: \beta _{DA} $ and $log \beta _{MC} $ versus $r /r_{in} $ in solid,
1175: dashed and dotted lines, respectively. These curves are plotted for
1176: XTE J1550-564 with $m_{BH} = 10.8$, $a_*=0.7$ , $n=9.99$ and
1177: $\delta=3.29 \times 10^{-4}$ . } \label{fig3}
1178: \end{center}
1179: \end{figure*}
1180: %%------------------------------------------------------------
1181:
1182: %%--------------------------fig3------------------------------
1183: \begin{figure*}
1184: \vspace{0.5cm}
1185: \begin{center}
1186:
1187: {\hfill\hfill
1188: \includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig3a.eps}\hfill
1189: \includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig3b.eps}\hfill
1190: \includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig3c.eps}
1191: \hfill\hfill}
1192:
1193: \caption{The curves of the emissivity index $\beta$, the power-law
1194: index $n$ and the parameter $\delta$ versus the black hole spin
1195: $a_*$ for XTE J1550-564 are shown in Figures 3a, 3b and 3c,
1196: respectively. The solid and dotted lines correspond to the upper and
1197: lower limits to the black hole mass, respectively. The shaded region
1198: in Fig. 3a indicates $3.95 < \beta <4.12$.}
1199:
1200: \label{fig4}
1201: \end{center}
1202: \end{figure*}
1203: %%------------------------------------------------------------
1204:
1205:
1206: %%---------------------------fig4-----------------------------
1207: \begin{figure*}
1208: \vspace{0.5cm}
1209: \begin{center}
1210:
1211: {\hfill\hfill
1212: \includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig4a.eps}\hfill
1213: \includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig4b.eps}\hfill
1214: \includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig4c.eps}
1215: \hfill\hfill}
1216:
1217: \caption{ The corresponding curves for GRO J1655-40 with the same
1218: caption as given in Fig.3, except that the shaded region indicates
1219: $3.95 < \beta <4.24$.}
1220:
1221: \label{fig4}
1222: \end{center}
1223: \end{figure*}
1224: %%------------------------------------------------------------
1225:
1226: %--------------------- tab1 -----------------------------------
1227: \begin{table}
1228: \label{tab1}
1229: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1230: \caption{Calculation results for the 3:2 HFQPO pairs and the
1231: emissivity index based on MC-II model.}
1232: \begin{center}
1233: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
1234: %\tablewidth{0pt}
1235: %\tablehead{\colhead{Source} &&\colhead{Input
1236: %Quantities}&\colhead{}&&&&&&\colhead{Output Quantities}}
1237: %\startdata
1238:
1239: \hline \hline&&&&&&&\\
1240: &&{Input Quantities}&&&&&&&{Output Quantities}\\
1241: \cline{2-5} \cline{8-11} {Source}&&&&&&&\\
1242: &{$\nu_{higher}$}&{$\nu_{lower}$}&{$a_*$}&{$m_{BH}$}&&
1243: &&{$n$}&{$\delta$}&{$\beta $}\\
1244: \hline &&&&&&&\\
1245: & & &0.5 &8.4 &&&&12.29 &$2.22\times 10^{-4} $ &4.25\\
1246: & & & &10.8 &&&&12.60 &$4.42\times 10^{-5} $ &4.54\\
1247: \cline{4-11} &&&&&&&\\
1248: XTE J1550-564
1249: &276Hz &184Hz &0.7 &8.4 &&&&10.05 &$6.37\times 10^{-4} $ &4.12\\
1250: & & & &10.8 &&&&9.99 &$3.29\times 10^{-4} $ &4.33\\
1251: \cline{4-11} &&&&&&&\\
1252: & & &\ \ \ \ 0.998\ \ \ \
1253: &8.4 &&&&6.23 &$6.22\times 10^{-3} $ &3.83\\
1254: & & & &10.8 &&&&5.65 &$5.52\times 10^{-3} $ &3.95\\
1255: \hline &&&&&&&\\
1256:
1257: & & &0.5 &6.0 &&&&12.44 &$1.03\times 10^{-4} $ &4.41\\
1258: & & & &6.6 &&&&12.59 &$4.60\times 10^{-5} $ &4.53\\
1259: \cline{4-11} &&&&&&&\\
1260: GRO J1655-40
1261: &450Hz &300Hz &0.7 &6.0 &&&&9.99 &$4.45\times 10^{-4} $ &4.24\\
1262: & & & &6.6 &&&&9.99 &$3.33\times 10^{-4} $ &4.33\\
1263: \cline{4-11} &&&&&&&\\
1264: & & &0.998 &6.0 &&&&5.87 &$5.79\times 10^{-3} $ &3.90\\
1265: & & & &6.6 &&&&5.66 &$5.53\times 10^{-3} $ &3.95\\
1266: \hline
1267: \end{tabular}
1268: \end{center}
1269: Notes: {The input quantities of XTE J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40 are
1270: taken from RM06. The parameter $\delta$ is defined in equation
1271: (\ref{eq20}) as the fraction of the power of the magnetic torque to
1272: keep the inner edge at $r_{in}$.}\\
1273:
1274:
1275: \end{table}
1276: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1277:
1278: \begin{table}
1279: \label{tab2}
1280: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1281: \caption{Fits of the small changes in HFQPO frequency of XTE
1282: J1650-564 with $m_{BH}=10.8$.}
1283: %\tablewidth{0pt}
1284: %\tablehead{&\colhead{Source}&&&\colhead{1998-99A}&\colhead{1998-99B}&\colhead{2000
1285: %Apr 30-May 9}}
1286: %\startdata
1287: \begin{center}
1288: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
1289: \hline \hline\\
1290: &{Source}&&&{1998-99A}&{1998-99B}&{2000 Apr 30-May 9}\\
1291: \hline\\
1292: &{$\nu_{higher}$(Hz)}&&&$281.7\pm 1.5$ &277.7 &$269.4\pm2.7$\\
1293: \\
1294: &{$\nu_{lower}$(Hz)}&&&187.8 &$185.1\pm3.5$ &178.6\\
1295: \\
1296: & \textbf{Ratio} &&&$1.5^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ &$1.5^{-0.03}_{+0.03}$
1297: &$1.5^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ \\
1298: \hline &\\
1299: &&$\delta$ &&$3.46^{-0.23}_{+0.24} \times 10^{-5}$ &$4.12 \times
1300: 10^{-5}$ &$5.68^{-0.53}_{+0.56}\times
1301: 10^{-5}$\\\\
1302: &0.5&$n$ &&$12.64^{-0.14}_{+0.14}$ &$12.60^{+0.57}_{-0.52}$
1303: &$12.40^{-0.25}_{+0.27}$\\\\
1304: &&$\beta$ &&$4.565^{+0.008}_{-0.008}$ &$4.544$ &$4.502^{+0.014}_{-0.013}$\\
1305: \cline{2-7} &\\
1306: &&$\delta$ &&$3.06^{-0.06}_{+0.06}\times 10^{-4}$ &$3.22\times 10^{-4}$ &$3.57^{-0.12}_{+0.11}\times
1307: 10^{-4}$\\\\
1308: $a_{*}$&0.7&$n$ &&$9.99^{-0.10}_{+0.10}$ &$9.98^{+0.39}_{-0.35}$
1309: &$9.88^{-0.18}_{+0.19}$\\\\
1310: &&$\beta$ &&$4.356^{+0.006}_{-0.005}$ &$4.341$ &$4.310^{+0.010}_{-0.009}$\\
1311: \cline{2-7} &\\
1312: &&$\delta$&&$5.47^{-0.01}_{+0.01}\times 10^{-3}$ &$5.51\times
1313: 10^{-3}$ &$5.59^{-0.04}_{+0.03}\times
1314: 10^{-3}$\\\\
1315: &0.998&$n$ &&$5.61^{-0.02}_{+0.03}$ & $5.64^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$
1316: &$5.69^{-0.04}_{+0.05}$\\\\
1317: &&$\beta$ &&$3.959^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ &$3.951$ &$3.935^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$\\
1318: \hline
1319: %\enddata
1320:
1321: \end{tabular}
1322: \end{center}
1323: Notes: {(1) The super- and sub-scripts in $\delta$, $n$ and $\beta$
1324: correspond to up and down deviations of HFQPO frequencies,
1325: respectively. (2) The value of $\delta$ only depends on $a_{*}$ and
1326: $\nu_{higher}$ , being independent of the deviation of $\nu_{lower}$
1327: in the case of 1998-99B.}\\
1328:
1329: \end{table}
1330: %-------------------------------------------------------------
1331:
1332:
1333: %%--------------------------fig5------------------------------
1334: \begin{figure*}
1335: \vspace{0.5cm}
1336: \begin{center}
1337: {\hfill\hfill
1338: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig5a.eps}\hfill
1339: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig5b.eps}
1340: \hfill\hfill}
1341:
1342: \caption{The curves of the ratio $R_B$ versus the black hole spin
1343: $a_*$ for (a) XTE J1650-564 and for (b) GRO J1655-40. The solid and
1344: dotted lines correspond to the higher and lower limits to the black
1345: hole mass, respectively.}
1346:
1347: \label{fig5}
1348: \end{center}
1349: \end{figure*}
1350:
1351: %%--------------------------fig6------------------------------
1352: \begin{figure*}
1353: \vspace{0.5cm}
1354: \begin{center}
1355:
1356: {\hfill\hfill
1357: \includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig6a.eps}\hfill
1358: \includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig6b.eps}\hfill
1359: \includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig6c.eps}
1360: \hfill\hfill}
1361:
1362: \caption{ The curves of the emissivity index $\beta$, the power-law
1363: index $n$ and the parameter $\delta$ versus the black hole spin
1364: $a_*$ for Sgr A* are shown in Figures 6a, 6b and 6c, respectively.
1365: The solid and dotted lines correspond to the higher and lower limits
1366: to the black hole mass ($m_{BH}=4.4 \times 10^6$ and $m_{BH}=2.6
1367: \times 10^6$ ).}
1368:
1369: \label{fig6}
1370: \end{center}
1371: \end{figure*}
1372:
1373: %%--------------------------fig7------------------------------
1374: \begin{figure*}
1375: \vspace{0.5cm}
1376: \begin{center}
1377: {\hfill\hfill
1378: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig7a.eps}\hfill
1379: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig7b.eps}
1380: \hfill\hfill}
1381:
1382: \caption{The variation of the frequency ratio with the parameter n
1383: for (a) XTE J1550-564 and for (b) GRO J1655-40. The solid, dashed
1384: and dotted lines correspond to $a_*=0.998$, $0.7$ and $0.5$,
1385: respectively.}
1386:
1387: \label{fig7}
1388: \end{center}
1389: \end{figure*}
1390:
1391:
1392: %%--------------------------fig8------------------------------
1393: \begin{figure*}
1394: \vspace{0.5cm}
1395: \begin{center}
1396: {\hfill\hfill
1397: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig8a.eps}\hfill
1398: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig8b.eps}
1399: \hfill\hfill}
1400:
1401: \caption{The curves of emissivity index of XTE J1550-564 versus the
1402: black hole spin for (a) $\alpha_m=0.1$, and $\alpha_H=0.01$, 0.1,
1403: 0.5 and 1.0 in solid, dashed, dot-dashed and dotted lines,
1404: respectively, and for (b) $\alpha_H=0.1$, and $\alpha_m=0.01$, 0.1,
1405: 1.0 and 10.0 in solid, dashed, dot-dashed and dotted lines,
1406: respectively. The black hole mass is taken as $m_{BH}=10.8$. }
1407:
1408: \label{fig8}
1409: \end{center}
1410: \end{figure*}
1411: %%------------------------------------------------------------
1412:
1413: \end{document}
1414:
1415: \end{document}
1416: