1:
2: \documentclass{aa}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4:
5: \newcommand{\refe}{}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{A simple model for the complex lag structure of microquasars}
10:
11: \author{P. Varni\`ere}
12:
13: \institute{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Rochester University,
14: Rochester NY 14627-0171
15: pvarni@pas.rochester.edu}
16:
17: \abstract{The phase lag structure between the hard and soft X-ray photons
18: observed in GRS $1915$+$105$ and XTE J$1550$+$564$ has been said to be
19: ``complex'' because the phase of the Quasi-Periodic Oscillation fundamental Fourier
20: mode changes with time
21: and because the even and odd harmonics signs behave differentely. From simultaneous
22: X-ray and radio observations this seems to be related to the presence of a jet
23: (level of radio emission). We propose a simple idea where a partial
24: absorption of the signal can shift the phases of the Fourier modes and account
25: for the phase lag reversal. We also briefly discuss a possible physical
26: mechanism that could lead to such an absorption of the quasi-periodic
27: oscillation modulation.
28: \keywords{ X-rays: binaries,
29: stars: individual (GRS $1915$+$105$, XTE J$1550$-$564$), accretion disks}
30: }
31:
32:
33: \maketitle
34: \section{Introduction}
35: \label{sect:intro}
36:
37: RXTE has provided us with a better picture of the temporal
38: behavior of X-ray binaries, using such techniques as Fourier Transform (FT), {\refe time}
39: lag and coherence
40: computation.
41: The {\refe time} lag between the low-energy ($2$ - $5$ keV) and the high-energy ($5$ - $20$ kev) is
42: generally associated with Inverse-Compton of soft photons producing hard
43: photons. {\refe Most of the time, the high energy variability lags behind the low energy
44: emission ; this is the so called ``hard-lag''}.
45: Surprisingly, {\refe there exist some observations where the QPO hard} lags appear to change sign
46: ({\refe becoming what is called a ``soft-lag''})
47: during an observation and also between
48: observations. This is inconsistent with the Inverse-Compton explanation.
49: In GRS $1915$+$105$ (e.g. Cui, 1999, Lin { et al.}, 2000) and XTE J$1550$-$564$
50: (e.g. Wijnands { et al.}, 1999, Cui { et al.}, 2000), this unusual time lag
51: behavior has been reported during outburst and/or the radio-loud state. Namely, the sign of the
52: QPO's time lag changed over a single observation whereas the sign of its first harmonics'
53: time lag stayed the same.
54:
55: {\refe
56: In their 1999 paper, Wijnands { et al.} point out that a change in the waveform of the QPO
57: between the low and high energy emission could explain the sign difference in the lag of the
58: fundamental and the first harmonic, but this was not explored further.
59: Lin { et al.} (2000) noted that the presence of that same sign difference
60: does not imply a real time delay. For example the same effect appears
61: in the presence of a decaying oscillating signal.
62: Here we will explore in more detail what is at the origin of the fundamental lag's sign change.
63: The same mechanism will also create the sign difference mentioned above without implying
64: a real time delay.}
65:
66:
67: Sect. $2$ discuss simultaneous radio and X-ray data from GRS $1915$+$105$
68: taken from the plateau/hard-steady ($\chi$, Belloni { et al.}, 2000) state \cite{M01}.
69: We use this data to gain insight
70: into the relation between radio/jet and the X-ray timing properties of the system.
71: In Sect. $3$ we show the behavior of the Fourier Transform (FT)
72: in the case of an absorbed sinusoid.
73: In Sect. $4$ we make use of this simple, zeroth order, model to explain the
74: complex lag structure observed in GRS $1915$+$105$ and XTE J$1550$-$564$ and see what
75: we can infer about those systems.
76:
77:
78: \section{The Case of GRS $1915$+$105$}
79: \label{sect:1915}
80:
81: Muno et al. (2001) studied the hard state ($\chi$ state in the classifications by
82: Belloni et al., 2000, or radio plateau) using simultaneous X-ray and radio observations.
83: {\refe In this section we will discuss Fig. $7$ and $8$ in Muno et al. (2001),
84: in order to emphasize the observational constraints on the behaviour we are trying to explain here.}
85:
86: % Here we will present some of their figures from the hard X-ray state.
87: % The left of figure 1
88: The left of their Fig. $8$
89: shows how the temporal properties (QPO frequency on the top and phase lag at the
90: QPO frequency at the bottom) correlate with the different components of the X-ray flux, namely from left
91: to right, the total flux, the thermal/disk flux and the power-law flux.
92: By looking carefully at the plots two populations can be distinguished (the triangle and the cross). This
93: distinction is more apparent in the graph showing the lag.
94:
95:
96: On the left upper panel of Fig. $8$ we see that
97: for a QPO frequency higher than about two hertz, the QPO frequency
98: appears to be correlated with the total flux and the power-law flux (which in fact
99: dominates the total flux). This applies for most of the low-mass X-ray binaries.
100: For a QPO frequency lower than $2$Hz, this QPO frequency no longer correlates with
101: any of the X-ray fluxes. In fact all of the frequencies below $2$ Hz appear
102: at a similar flux level for both the thermal and power-law flux, {\em .i.e} the cluster of
103: triangles is very narrow. These points are also the ones with a high radio flux (the
104: triangles represent the radio-loud state) as is seen in Fig. $7$.
105: These radio-loud points are also the only ones to exhibit a positive phase lag.
106: Concerning this lag, there is also another difference besides the change of sign
107: between the radio-loud and the radio-quiet state:
108: If we look at the left lower panel of Fig. $8$, there is no correlation between the lag
109: and any of the X-ray fluxes.
110: However,
111: depending on wherever the source is radio-loud or radio-quiet the ``clusters'' of points appear to be
112: perpendicular to each other.
113:
114:
115: In the radio-loud case, the temporal behavior of the source is modified for quasi
116: constant X-ray fluxes.
117: These modifications are a function of the radio flux.
118: On Fig. $7$ is shown the evolution of the temporal
119: properties such as the QPO frequency, the phase lag, the coherence and the ratio of
120: low-frequency power as a function of the radio flux at $15.2$ GHz.
121: Once again the radio-loud and radio-quiet points are well separated.
122: The separation occurs at a radio flux of about $60$ mJy.
123:
124: By looking in more detail at the first plot (QPO frequency - radio flux) we see that a QPO frequency
125: less than two hertz is always
126: associated with a radio flux of more than $60$ mJy. These same QPOs have a positive phase lag
127: and show much less coherence than the QPOs in the radio quiet state.
128: Moreover, the phase lag which seems totally
129: uncorrelated with the radio flux when it is less than $60$ mJy, appears to be correlated with
130: the higher radio fluxes. In the graph of the ratio of low-frequency power as function of the radio flux the
131: possible correlation
132: seems to reverse during the transition between radio-quiet and radio-loud.
133:
134:
135: Either these QPOs (less than $2$Hz, more than $2$Hz) arise from a different mechanism
136: ( {\em e.g.} one related with
137: the jet and the other one not) or there is a threshold in radio flux above which new
138: phenomena appear in addition to the QPO mechanism. This could cause a modification of
139: the temporal behavior of the source, especially relevant to the lag which seems to become
140: proportional to the radio flux.
141: We will focus on this last possibility.
142: The presence of two different unrelated mechanisms, {\refe one from the jet and the other
143: from the disk}, seems improbable because of the smooth
144: transition
145: in QPO properties as a function of time (see for example Fig. $6$ of Muno {et al}, 2001)
146: However, before exploring the possible origin for the change in temporal properties, we will
147: look at the lag definition and its computation through Fourier transforms.
148:
149:
150: \section{Fourier Transform and phase lag}
151: \label{sect:FT}
152:
153: \subsection{Definition of lag and coherence}
154:
155:
156: We will briefly go over the definition of the lag as presented by Vaughan \& Nowak (1997).
157: Suppose that $x_1(t_k)$ and $x_2(t_k)$ represent the X-ray flux in two energy bands (soft and hard)
158: at time $t_k$. We note $X_1(\nu_j)$ and $X_2(\nu_j)$ as their Fourier transforms at the frequency $\nu_j$:
159: \begin{equation}
160: X(\nu_j) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int x(t_k) e^{-i\nu_jt_k} dt_k\nonumber
161: \end{equation}
162:
163: The time lag between the hard and soft X-ray is then defined as:
164: \begin{equation}
165: \delta t(\nu_j) = \frac{1}{2\pi \nu_j} \times arg (X_1^\star(\nu_j)X_2(\nu_j)) \nonumber \\
166: = \frac{arg(X_2) -arg(X_1)}{2\pi \nu_j} \nonumber
167: \end{equation}
168:
169:
170: Modification of one of the two phases (lowering the phase of the soft band or increasing the phase of the
171: hard band) could induce the lag to change sign. More generally, any change
172: in the phase of one of the bands, caused by internal or external phenomena, could lead to a
173: sign change in the lag.
174:
175: The coherence is a measure of how much of a signal $f$ can be predicted knowing a signal $h$.
176: In our case it means how much of the high energy flux can be predicted knowing the
177: low energy flux. If the two signals are related then the coherence is high; the maximum
178: equals one, which correspond to the case where there is a linear transformation to go from one to the other.
179:
180:
181: \subsection{Lag: a simple derivation}
182:
183: One can reproduce the observed behavior of
184: the lag and harmonics using simple assumptions about the initial profile.
185: The idea is to compare the Fourier representation of an initial profile
186: (here a constant plus a cosine) taken to be the hard X-ray, to a modified profile
187: taken to be the soft X-ray. We will then compute the lag between them and
188: show a simple way to match the observed lag behavior.
189:
190: If we compute the Fourier Transform of a sinusoid function we obtain the frequency, amplitude
191: and phase. In order to make it similar to data we take the sinusoidal profile surimposed
192: on a constant background and add a small amount of random noise to it. By using the FT
193: we still find the frequency, amplitude and phase.
194: Now take into account the case where some part of the modulated emission does
195: not arrive to the
196: observer but a part of it is "absorbed/obscured" by a media located in the system.
197: This would make a profile similar to the one of fig 1.
198:
199: \begin{figure}[htbp]
200: \centering
201: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{GRS1915_gris.eps}}
202: \caption{{\small \cite{M97} studied GRS $1915$+$105$ timing variability using
203: average QPO-folded profile for the $0.63$Hz QPO. The profile show an absorbed-like
204: feature for the soft energy band ($< 5.2$ keV) emphasized on the figure by the grey
205: "missing part". {\refe \cite{M97} also showed the QPO profile at higher (hard) energies.
206: For higher energies, the profiles appear more sinusoidal, i.e. the
207: ``missing/absorb part'' becomes smaller.}
208: }}
209: \label{fig:QPO_profile}
210: \end{figure}
211: Table $1$ shows the Fourier Transform
212: using an input profile of unity plus a sinusoid with rms amplitude $rms=0.14$
213: minus a Gaussian profile of amplitude $\gamma$ centered to
214: reproduce a profile like the one from the Fig. $15$ of
215: \cite{M97}\footnote{In the first step of this work we searched for which type of profiles
216: are able to reproduce the lag structure. In a second step we tried to find similar
217: profiles in observations. The paper \cite{M97} has this ``absorbed''-like profile
218: we use as an example here.}. The first line is the representation of the initial
219: state, the test \# 1 shows the first two frequencies of the Fourier representation
220: of the absorbed signal.
221:
222: \begin{table}[htbp]
223: \caption{Representation obtained from the FT of a signal $1 +\cos \phi$ plus an absorption of
224: amplitude $\gamma$.}
225: \label{Tab:run1}
226: \centering
227: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
228: \hline
229: test & $\gamma$ & freq & amp & phase \\
230: \hline
231: \# 0 & $0$ & $1$ &$0.14$ & $0$ \\
232: \# 1 & $0.07$ & $1$ &$0.12$ & $-0.02$ \\
233: & $0.07$ & $2$ &$0.016$& $1.27$ \\
234: \hline
235: \end{tabular}
236: \end{table}
237:
238:
239: We see that by doing the FT on this signal we obtain different
240: parameters for the sinusoid.
241: Depending on the amount of "absorption" we can obtain a
242: smaller value for the amplitudes but the striking feature is the effect on
243: the phase: a change is observed.
244: Moreover, the sign of the phase difference is not the same for the fundamental and
245: its first harmonics.
246: If we take the formula for phase lag and say that only the low energy/soft X-rays
247: are absorbed and not the hard ones we can compute the phase lag which appears as
248: a consequence of the absorption of only part of the signal. Doing so reproduces
249: the observed phase characteristics: a different sign for the fundamental and first harmonics.
250: In addition, if the absorption is turned on, it creates a change in the sign of the lag.
251: This comes from the fact that the FT adjusts the data with a shifted sinusoid, creating
252: a phase difference. We propose that this is the origin of the changing sign of the lag presented in the
253: previous section. This will also decrease the coherence between the two bands
254: as a new signal is added to only one band. This happens without changing the primary physical
255: phenomena that produces the emission in the two bands.
256: The above results can be easily illustrated even using two sinusoidal signals with a $\pi/2$ phase between them:
257: \begin{equation}
258: \cos \theta + \epsilon\ \sin \theta = \frac{1}{\cos \phi}\ \cos(\theta -\phi) ,
259: \tan \phi = \epsilon
260: \end{equation}
261:
262: The presence of a second, small, sinusoidal signal with a phase lag of $\pi/2$ and
263: an amplitude $\epsilon$ is
264: enough to create an ``apparent'' phase lag of $\phi$= atan$(\epsilon)$, which is
265: about $\epsilon$, the amplitude of the perturbation.
266:
267: If we now add the presence of a small harmonic
268: to the QPO (of amplitude label $rms2$ in table $2$) and compare the
269: result from the FT to that with the the same signal absorbed, the effect on the phase is
270: even more striking. Table $2$ shows the results of such a simulation.
271: Indeed, the induced phase lag between the real data and the absorbed one
272: does not have the same sign at the fundamental vs. the first
273: harmonics. This could be at the origin of the observed phenomena.
274: {\refe In this work
275: we show that an absorption of the low energy part of the signal will give the sign difference
276: in the lag and also explain the observed change of sign for the fundamental.}
277:
278: \begin{table}[htbp]
279: \caption{Representation obtain from the FT of a signal $1 +\cos \phi + rms2\cos(2\phi)$ plus an absorption of
280: amplitude $\gamma$.}
281: \label{Tab:run2}
282: \centering
283: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
284: \hline
285: test & rms2& $\gamma$ & freq & amp & phase & lag \\
286: \hline
287: \# 2 & $0.07$& $0.0$ & $1$ &$0.14$ & $0$ & \\
288: & $0.07$& $0.0$ & $2$ &$0.07$ & $-\pi/2$& \\
289: \# 3 & $0.07$& $0.07$ & $1$ &$0.12$ & $-0.02$ & 0.02 \\
290: & $0.07$& $0.07$ & $2$ &$0.054$& $-1.47$ & -0.1 \\
291: \# 4 & $0.07$& $0.1$ & $1$ &$0.112$& $-0.03$ & 0.03 \\
292: & $0.07$& $0.1$ & $2$ &$0.048$& $-1.42$ & -0.15 \\
293: \hline
294: \end{tabular}
295: \end{table}
296:
297: \section{Application to microquasar observations}
298: \label{sect:application}
299:
300: Using the above argument it appears that the use of an FT can lead to an incorrect interpretation
301: of the lag in the presence of an absorption which depends on the energy band.
302: To use this idea for the observations of GRS $1915$+$105$ presented in Sect. $2$, we
303: need to find what may produce the "absorbed" part of the QPO modulation.
304: This has to be related to the jet,
305: either having the same origin, or being a consequence of it. In the
306: following we will assume that the QPO modulation
307: is created by a hot spiral/point, {\refe for example in Varni\`ere et al. (2002, 2005 in preparation)
308: % \cite{V02} for the Accretion-Ejection
309: %Instability or
310: %\cite{V04} for a more general description
311: }, and we are just interested in further
312: absorption/modulation of this already existing modulation.
313: {\refe As mentioned before, we choose to keep the same mechanism for
314: the QPO above and below $2$Hz. Another possibility is that the QPO above $2$Hz
315: comes from the disk while the one below $2$Hz is coming from the jet. This however,
316: seems improbable because the passage through $2$Hz is smooth in all
317: variables (see Fig. $6$ of Muno { et al} (2001).}
318:
319:
320: Suppose that the basis of the jet/corona gets "between" the observer and the spiral during one
321: orbit of the spiral in the disk. This is enough to "absorb" a part of the flux modulation, especially
322: if it happens when the spiral is "behind" the black hole and therefore near the maximum
323: of the modulation. This simple model is able to explain both the occurrence of changing sign
324: lag and its
325: relation with the jet. In the same way it can also explain the fact that absorption is energy
326: dependant, which makes the coherence drop.
327: In fact, anything located inside the inner radius of the disk that can absorb a small part
328: of the flux coming
329: from the hot spiral could explain the changing sign of the lag and the complex behavior of
330: the harmonics. But this needs to be related to the radio flux and therefore to the jet mechanism.
331: \newline
332:
333: The first way to check this idea is to look at the QPO profile and see if there is an energy
334: dependant departure
335: from a sinusoidal signal. Morgan et al. (1997)
336: show for the low-frequency QPO that there is indeed a departure from a sinusoid, which seems
337: compatible with an absorption feature. This kind of analysis is difficult and rarely done for
338: QPOs because of the lack of photons at these timescales.
339: Another way to check the same properties is to see how the value of the lag depends on the
340: energy band chosen. Using the idea of an energy dependant absorption we see that the
341: negative lag
342: will be more important between the lower energy band (say, $2-4$keV) and the highest possible
343: band available, than between two high energy bands.
344: It seems possible to have a change of the sign of the lag if we look to high enough
345: energies (for example using INTEGRAL data).
346: \newline
347:
348: This simple model can also be used with observational data to gain insight into
349: the geometry near the black hole. The pulse shape of the QPO in different
350: energy bands can allow us to constrain the relative geometry of the absorption
351: region with respect to the emissive region (QPO origin), and also the column
352: density of the absorber. We will test several mechanisms that could lead to
353: this ``absorbed-like'' profile and compare them with observationnal data.
354:
355:
356:
357: \section{Conclusions}
358: \label{sect:conclusion}
359:
360: This letter shows how absorption can modify the X-Ray signal and give rise to
361: an apparent change in the phase lag between the hard and soft photons. The
362: model is phenomenological, and future simulation work is needed to yield more
363: quantitive predictions that can be compared with observational data and
364: thereby giving access to the geometry in the inner part of the disk.
365: Indeed, with numerical simulation we intend to probe the relative geometry
366: of the QPO emission region with respect to the absorbing media by using the shape of the QPO pulse.
367: The use of RXTE and INTEGRAL data
368: together with numerical simulations of the absorption of a ``hot-spot''
369: orbiting in the disk will further test this idea.
370:
371:
372: \begin{acknowledgements}
373: PV is supported by NSF grants AST-9702484, AST-0098442, NASA
374: grant NAG5-8428, HST grant, DOE grant DE-FG02-00ER54600, the
375: Laboratory for Laser Energetics and the french GDR PCHE.
376:
377: PV thanks Michel Tagger, Eric Blackman, Jason Maron, Jerome Rodriguez and Mike Muno for all the discussions,
378: helpful comments on the paper and data. PV thanks the annonymous referee for the comments that helped
379: to clarify the paper.
380: \end{acknowledgements}
381:
382:
383:
384: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
385:
386: \bibitem[Belloni { et al} (2000)]{B00} Belloni, T., Klein-Wolt, M., M\'endez, M. \&
387: van der Klis, M.; van~Paradijs, J. 2000, A\&A, 355, 271
388:
389: \bibitem[Cui, 1999]{C99} Cui, W. 1999, ApJ, 524, 59
390:
391: \bibitem[Cui { et al.}, 2000]{C00} Cui, W., Zhang, S.N. \& Chen, W. 2000, ApJ, 531,
392: 45
393:
394: \bibitem[Lin { et al.}, 2000]{L00} Lin, D., Smith, I.A., Liang, E.P. \& Bottcher, M. 2000,
395: ApJ, 543, 141
396:
397:
398: \bibitem[Morgan et al (1997)]{M97} Morgan, E.H., Remillard, R.A. \& Greiner, J. 1997,
399: \apj, 482, 993
400:
401:
402: \bibitem[Muno et al (2001)]{M01} Muno, M., Remillard, R., Morgan, E.,
403: Waltman, E., Dhawan, V., Hjellming, R., Pooley, G. 2001, \apj, 556, 515
404:
405:
406: \bibitem[Varni\`ere et al., 2002]{V02} Varni\`ere, P., Muno, P. \& Tagger, M. 2002, in the
407: proceeding of the fourth microquasars workshop.
408:
409:
410: \bibitem[Vaughan \& Nowak, 1997]{VN97} Vaughan, B.A. \& Nowak, M.A. 1997, ApJ, 474, 43
411:
412: \bibitem[Wijnands { et al.}, 1999]{W99} Wijnands,R., Homan, J. \& van der Klis, M. 1999,
413: ApJ, 526, 33
414:
415: \end{thebibliography}
416:
417:
418: \end{document}
419: