1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%
3: %%%% Correlation between 3:2 QPO pairs and Jets in Black Hole X-ray Binaries
4: %%%%
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6:
7:
8:
9: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
10: \usepackage {graphicx}
11: \usepackage{aastexug}
12:
13: \shorttitle{Correlation between 3:2 QPO pairs and Jets in Black Hole
14: X-ray Binaries} \shortauthors{D. X. Wang et al.}
15:
16:
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \title{Correlation between 3:2 QPO pairs and Jets in Black Hole X-ray Binaries}
21:
22: \author{Ding-Xiong Wang\altaffilmark{1}, Yong-Chun Ye and Chang-Yin Huang}
23: \affil{Department of Physics, Huazhong University of Science and
24: Technology,Wuhan, 430074, P. R. China}
25:
26: \altaffiltext{1}{Send offprint requests to: D. X. Wang
27: (dxwang@hust.edu.cn)}
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30:
31: We argue, following our earlier works (the `CEBZMC model'), that the
32: phenomenon of twin peak high frequency quasi-periodic oscillations
33: (QPOs) observed in black hole X-ray binaries is caused by magnetic
34: coupling (MC) between accretion disk and black hole (BH). Due to MC,
35: two bright spots occur at two separate radial locations $r_{in}$ and
36: $r_{out}$ at the disk surface, energized by a kind of the
37: Blandford-Znajek mechanism (BZ). We assume, following the
38: Kluzniak-Abramowicz QPO resonance model, that Keplerian frequencies
39: at these two locations are in the 3:2 ratio. With this assumption,
40: we estimate the BH spins in several sources, including GRO J1655-40,
41: GRS 1915+105, XTE J1550-564, H1743-322 and Sgr A*. We give an
42: interpretation of the `jet line' in the hardness-intensity plane
43: discussing the parameter space consisting of the BH spin and the
44: power-law index for the variation of the large-scale magnetic field
45: in the disk. Furthermore, we propose a new scenario for the spectral
46: state transitions in BH X-ray binaries based on fluctuation in
47: densities of accreting plasma from a companion star.
48:
49:
50:
51:
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks - black hole physics - magnetic
55: fields - instabilities - stars: individual (GRO J1655-40, GRS
56: 1915+105, XTE J1550-564, H1743-322, XTE J1859+226) - stars:
57: oscillations - X-rays: stars}
58:
59:
60:
61:
62:
63:
64:
65:
66: \section{INTRODUCTION }
67:
68: Data collected by the NASA satellite Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer
69: (RXTE; Bradt, Rothschild \& Swank 1993) added a new impetus to
70: studies of QPOs, observed in X-ray binaries and other sources. The
71: QPO observations are described in several recent reviews, e.g. by
72: Remillard (2005) or Remillard \& McClintock 2006 (hereafter RM06).
73: The QPO observations present several puzzles, including why is the
74: occurrence of high frequency QPOs correlated with the occurrence of
75: relativistic jets. The jets in microquasars were first observed by
76: Mirabel \& Rodrigues (1998, 1999). For references to more recent
77: works see McClintock \& Remillard (2006, hereafter MR06) and Kalemci
78: et al. (2006). It is widely agreed (Mirabel \& Rodrigues 1999;
79: Blandford 2002) that in both active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and
80: microquasars, relativistic jets must be powered by a process similar
81: to the celebrated Blandford-Znajek (1977, hereafter BZ) mechanism. A
82: particular variant of BZ, in the form of magnetic couplings (MC)
83: between a rotating BH and its surrounding disk, has been recently
84: investigated by several authors, including Blandford (1999), Li
85: (2000, 2002), and Wang et al. 2002, hereafter W02). Our `CEBZMC'
86: model (Wang et al. 2003a, 2004, hereafter W04) also belongs to the
87: BZ plus MC class.
88:
89:
90: In this paper we consider a particular realization of the CEBZMC
91: model, in which MC between BH and accretion disk energizes `hot
92: spots' on the accretion disk surface. As discussed by Wang et al.
93: 2005 (hereafter W05), a pair of hot spots produce a pair of QPOs,
94: with frequencies $\nu_{in}$ and $\nu_{out}$ that correspond to
95: Keplerian frequencies at the locations of the two spots, $r_{in}$
96: and $r_{out}$. We \textit{assume} that the two locations agree with
97: the Kluzniak-Abramowicz resonance condition, $\nu_{in} /
98: \nu_{out}=3/2$. Abramowicz and Kluzniak (2001, hereafter AK01)
99: realized that frequencies of the QPO pairs in BH sources are in the
100: exact 3:2 ratio. They also recognized and stressed the fundamental
101: importance of this fact\footnote{Abramowicz et al. (2003) also
102: argued that~there is a statistical evidence for the same 3:2 ratio
103: for QPOs in neutron star sources. This was later confirmed by
104: Belloni et al. (2005). More recently, Abramowicz et al. (2005) found
105: an additional, independent, and direct proof for the 3:2 ratio in
106: the QPO neutron star data. They proved that although in neutron star
107: sources the \textit{observed} frequencies vary in a wide range, the
108: variations uniquely point to the 3:2 ratio of the
109: \textit{eigenfrequencies}.}. They first noticed the 3:2 ratio in the
110: QPO pair with frequencies 450 Hz and 300 Hz in GRO J1655-40,
111: observed by Strohmayer, (2001a, b). This important discovery was
112: strengthened by numerous authors, who found the 3:2 ratio in
113: different BH sources: in GRS 1915+105 MR06, in XTE J1550-564 Miller
114: (2001) and Remillard et al (2002), and in H1743-322 Homan et al.
115: (2005) and Remillard et al. (2006). There is less certain evidence
116: that the same 3:2 ratio occurs for QPOs observed in low-mass active
117: galactic nuclei - in e.g. Sgr A* (T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k 2005a, b;
118: Ashenbach 2005) and in a few nearby Seyferts (Lachowicz et al.,
119: 2006). The 3:2 ratio of frequencies is the basic feature of the
120: Kluzniak-Abramowicz QPO resonance model (see a collection of reviews
121: in Abramowicz 2005 for references). In other QPOs models, the 3:2
122: ratio of observed frequencies is either incidental or impossible as
123: for example, in the Lamb and Miller (2004) model that considered the
124: QPO pairs to be a beat frequency between neutron star spin and disk
125: rotation, or in the Wagoner et al., (2001) model, in which they are
126: fundamental g-mode and c-mode in thin disk oscillations, or in the
127: Stella and Vietri (1999) model where they emerge as a combination of
128: Keplerian and radial epicyclic frequencies. In our CEBZMC model, in
129: its present state of development, the 3:2 ratio does not directly
130: follow from the model basic assumption (MC, BZ). However, as we will
131: see later, the 3:2 ratio occurs in an interesting region of the
132: parameter space of the CEBZMC model. We therefore \textit{assumed}
133: that the ratio is equal 3:2, and examined consequences of this
134: assumption. This phenomenological approach has at least three
135: virtues. Firstly, it allows us to estimate the spin of BHs in the BH
136: sources that display the QPOs with the 3:2 ratio, using a method
137: first applied by AK01 and more recently T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k et
138: al. (2005). Secondly, it is directly related to the correlation
139: between the occurrence of the QPO 3:2 pairs and the jets. Thirdly,
140: we may offer an interpretation of the 'jet line' in the
141: hardness-intensity diagram (HID), by which the hard state and the
142: soft state of the BH X-ray binaries (BHXBs) are separated (Fender et
143: al. 2004, hereafter FBG04; Belloni 2006, hereafter B06, Remillard
144: 2005).
145:
146:
147:
148:
149:
150:
151:
152: This paper is organized as follows. In $\S$ 2 we give a brief
153: description of our model and explain the correlation between the 3:2
154: QPO pairs and the jets in BHXBs. In $\S$ 3 we compare the BH spins
155: measured by different methods. It turns out that the BH spin of GRO
156: J1655-40 estimated by CEBZMC is consistent with those estimated by
157: X-ray continuum fittings. By fitting the 3:2 QPO pairs, we estimate
158: the spin of the galactic massive BH, Sgr A*, for a given range of
159: the BH mass, and also estimate the spin and mass of the BH candidate
160: H1743-322. In addition, the spin of the BH X-ray binary XTE
161: J1859+226 is estimated by fitting its single--component high
162: frequency QPO. In $\S$ 4 we propose a new scenario for the state
163: transitions in BHXBs based on the variation of the power-law index
164: $n$, which arises from the fluctuation of the number densities of
165: the accreting plasma from a companion star. Finally, in $\S$ 5, we
166: summarize the main results, and discuss the issues related to this
167: model. Throughout this paper the geometric units $G = c = 1$ are
168: used.
169:
170:
171:
172:
173:
174:
175:
176:
177: \section{CORRELATION BETWEEN 3:2 QPO PAIRS AND JETS }
178:
179: In order to discuss the correlation of the 3:2 QPO pairs with the
180: jets in the BHXBs we give a brief review of our previous works. In
181: W05 we approached the 3:2 QPO pairs by virtue of the MC of a Kerr BH
182: with its surrounding disk as shown in Figure 1, in which the
183: large-scale magnetic field at the BH horizon consists of the open
184: and closed field lines with an angular boundary at $\theta _S $. The
185: open field lines transfer the energy and angular momentum from the
186: BH to the remote astrophysical loads in the BZ process, while the
187: closed field lines transfer those between the BH and the surrounding
188: accretion disk in the MC process. The angular boundary $\theta _S $
189: is determined by a criterion of the screw instability of the
190: magnetic field given in W04.
191:
192:
193:
194: The upper and lower frequencies of the 3:2 QPO pairs correspond
195: respectively to the inner and outer hotspots rotating with the
196: Keplerian angular velocities of the disk, which are produced by the
197: MC with the non-axisymmetric magnetic field at the BH horizon (Wang
198: et al. 2003b). As argued in W05, the positions of the inner and
199: outer hotspots are determined by the maximum radiation flux from the
200: disk and the screw instability of the non-axisymmetric magnetic
201: field, respectively.
202:
203: It turns out that the 3:2 QPO pairs fitted in our model depend
204: mainly on two parameters, i.e., the BH spin $a_ * $ and the
205: power-law index $n$. The parameter $a_ * \equiv J \mathord{\left/
206: {\vphantom {J {M^2}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {M^2}$ is
207: defined in terms of the BH mass $M$ and angular momentum $J$, and
208: the parameter $n$ is defined in terms of the variation of the
209: poloidal magnetic field $B_D^P $ with the disk radius, $B_D^P
210: \propto r^{ - n}$.
211:
212: It has been argued in W04 that the state of CEBZMC always
213: accompanies the screw instability, provided that the BH spin $a_ * $
214: and the power-law index $n$ are greater than some critical values.
215: Based on the criterion of the screw instability derived in W04 we
216: have a contour of the angular boundary $\theta _S \left( {a_ * ,n}
217: \right) = 0$ in the $a_ * - n$ parameter space as shown in Figure 2.
218:
219:
220:
221: Inspecting Figure 2, we have the following results:
222:
223: (\ref{eq1}) The shaded region indicated ``BZMC with Jet'' represents
224: the value ranges of the parameters $a_ * $ and $n$ for CEBZMC, in
225: which the jet driven by the BZ process exists.
226:
227: (\ref{eq2}) The inner hotspot arises from energy transferred from a
228: fast-rotating BH into the disk by non-symmetric MC.
229:
230: (\ref{eq3}) The outer hotspot is produced by the screw instability,
231: which always accompanies the state of CEBZMC.
232:
233: Recently, the 3:2 QPO pair has been observed in near infrared flares
234: of the massive BH Sgr A* in the Galactic Center (1.445, 0.886mHz;
235: Aschenbach 2004a, 2004b; T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k 2005). In addition,
236: Bower et al. (2004) state that their radio measurements of Sgr A*
237: are consistent with jet models. Based on the model of CEBZMC given
238: in W04 and W05 we have the fitting results of the 3:2 QPO pairs for
239: the three BHXBs and Sgr A* as shown in Table 1. It should be noticed
240: that the BH spins given in Table 1 are a little less than those
241: given in W05 (see Table 1), because some errors in calculations have
242: been corrected and the ranges of the BH masses have been updated.
243:
244: As argued in W05, the upper and lower frequencies of the 3:2 QPO
245: pairs are equal to the Keplerian frequencies of the inner and outer
246: hotspots, respectively, being expressed by
247:
248:
249: \begin{equation}
250: \label{eq1} \nu _i = \nu _0 (\xi _i^{3 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {3
251: 2}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2} \chi _{ms}^3 + a_ * )^{ -
252: 1},
253: \end{equation}
254:
255:
256:
257: \noindent where $\nu _0 \equiv \left( {m_{BH} } \right)^{ - 1}\times
258: 3.23\times 10^4Hz$ with $m_{BH} \equiv M \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom
259: {M {M_ \odot }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {M_ \odot }$.
260: The parameter $\xi _i \equiv {r_i } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{r_i
261: } {r_{ms} }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {r_{ms} }$ is the
262: disk radius expressed in terms of $r_{ms} $, the radius of the
263: innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO). The frequency $\nu _i $
264: represents $\nu _{upper} $ and $\nu _{lower} $ for $\xi _i $ equal
265: to $\xi _{upper} $ and $\xi _{lower} $, respectively. As argued in
266: W05 both $\xi _{upper} $ and $\xi _{lower} $ depend on the parameter
267: $a_
268: * $ and $n$, i.e.,
269:
270:
271: \begin{equation}
272: \label{eq2} \left\{ {\begin{array}{l}
273: \xi _{upper} = \xi _{upper} \left( {a_ * ,n} \right), \\
274: \xi _{lower} = \xi _{lower} \left( {a_ * ,n} \right). \\
275: \end{array}} \right.
276: \end{equation}
277:
278:
279:
280: It is obvious that the 3:2 QPO pair can be completely determined by
281: combining equation (\ref{eq2}) with equation (\ref{eq1}), provided
282: that the BH mass $m_{BH} $, $\nu _{upper} $ and $\nu _{lower} $ are
283: given. This implies that the 3:2 QPO pair with the given BH mass
284: corresponds to one `representative point' in the $a_ * - n$
285: parameter space. Thus we have a characteristic line of the 3:2 QPO
286: pair for a continuous distribution of $m_{BH} $ within its upper and
287: lower limits as shown by the thick solid line in Figure 3.
288:
289: On the other hand, $\nu _{upper} = const$ corresponds to a contour
290: with the given BH mass in the $a_ * - n$ parameter space based on
291: equations (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}), and we have two contours of
292: $\nu _{upper} = const$ corresponding to the lower and upper BH
293: masses in the parameter space as shown in Figure 3.
294:
295:
296:
297: It is found from Figure 3 that the characteristic lines of the 3:2
298: QPO pairs for the four BH systems are all located in the shaded
299: region indicated ``BZMC with Jet''. These results provide a natural
300: explanation for the correlation between the 3:2 QPO pairs and the
301: jets driven by the BZ process, being consistent with the fact that
302: jets are found in the above BH systems (Mirabel {\&} Rodrigues 1998,
303: 1999; Aschenbach 2004b; Bower et al. 2004; T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k
304: 2005; MR06).
305:
306: \section{ESTIMATING BH SPINS BY VIRTUE OF HIGH FREQUENCY QPOS }
307:
308: A Kerr BH is described completely by its mass $ M$ and spin $a_ * $.
309: The masses of twenty BHs in the Galaxy have already been measured or
310: constrained, and the next goal is to measure spin. As pointed out by
311: RM06, there are four avenues for measuring BH spin, which include
312: (\ref{eq1}) X-ray polarimetry, (\ref{eq2}) X-ray continuum fitting,
313: (\ref{eq3}) the Fe K line profile and (\ref{eq4}) high frequency
314: QPOs. Among these approaches high frequency QPOs are likely to offer
315: the most reliable measurement of spin once the correct model is
316: known. Unfortunately, there are significant differences in the BH
317: spins measured by different models, and a reasonable model for
318: measuring BH spins has not been accepted by astrophysical community.
319: In this paper we compare the values of the BH spins of the three
320: BHXBs and Sgr A*, which are measured by X-ray continuum and 3:2 QPO
321: pairs as listed in Table 2.
322:
323:
324:
325:
326:
327:
328:
329: The method of X-ray continuum fitting is used to measure the BH
330: spins of the binaries based on a fully relativistic model of a thin
331: accretion disk around a Kerr BH. In order to estimate the BH spin by
332: fitting the broadband X-ray spectrum, one must know the BH mass, the
333: inclination$ i$ of the accretion disk, and the distance to the
334: binary.
335:
336: The approach to the BH spin based on the 3:2 QPO pair consists of
337: two basic methods. One method is based on the epicyclic resonance
338: model (ERM), in which the resonance between orbital and epicyclic
339: motions of accreting matter is invoked (Abramowicz {\&} Kluznick
340: 2004 and references therein), and another method is based on CEBZMC,
341: in which the inner and outer hotspots are produced by a
342: non-axisymmetric MC and the screw instability of the magnetic field,
343: respectively. The BH spin measured by ERM and CEBZMC depends on the
344: BH masses.
345:
346: From Table 2 we find that the spin of GRO J1655-40 measured by
347: CEBZMC is in a good agreement with those measured by X-ray continuum
348: fittings given in G01, S06 and M06. However, an intersection of the
349: BH spins has not been found for XTE J1550-564 and GRS 1915+105 based
350: on the above two methods.
351:
352: It is found that the spin of Sgr A* measured by CEBZMC is generally
353: not overlapped with those measured by ERM except those given in
354: Br05. Up to date, the BH spin of Sgr A* has been estimated only by
355: using ERM and CEBZMC, depending sensitively on the BH mass. For
356: example, based on CEBZMC the spin is estimated as 0.811--0.951 and
357: 0.800--0.841 for $m_{BH} = \left( {2.6 - 4.4} \right)\times 10^6$
358: and $\left( {2.53 - 2.84} \right)\times 10^6$, respectively. Based
359: on ERM the spin is constrained to be 0.9865--0.9965 and 0.99616 for
360: $m_{BH} = \left( {2.53 - 2.84} \right)\times 10^6$ and $3.3\times
361: 10^6$ in A04a and A06, respectively.
362:
363: A common feature in the above measurements lies in the fact that the
364: BH spins are constrained more tightly for the narrower ranges of the
365: BH masses. Although the BH mass of H1743-322 has not been
366: constrained, it is identified as a BH candidate by the X-ray light
367: curve and variability characteristics during its 2003 outburst, and
368: its behavior resembles the BHXBs XTE J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40 in
369: many ways (Remillard et al. 2002, 2006). It is interesting to note
370: that both the 3:2 QPO pair and the jet have been observed in
371: H1743-322 also (Homan et al. 2005; Remillard et al. 2006; Kalemci et
372: al. 2006). Thus we can constrain the BH mass and spin also by the
373: 3:2 QPO pair (240, 160Hz) based on the model of CEBZMC.
374:
375: As shown in Figure 3, a characteristic line in the $a_ * - n$
376: parameter space represents the 3:2 QPO pair, which is located
377: between two contours of $\nu _{upper} = const$ for the lower and
378: upper BH masses. In the case of H1743-322 the BH mass and spin can
379: be also constrained by the characteristic line above the contour
380: $\theta _S \left( {a_ * ,n} \right) = 0$ in the $a_ * - n$ parameter
381: space as shown in Figure 4.
382:
383:
384:
385: Inspecting Figure 4, we find that the characteristic line is located
386: in the shaded region indicated by ``BZMC with Jet'', and it spans a
387: very wide range of the BH spin. Required by the 3:2 QPO pair (240,
388: 160Hz) and the upper limit ($a_ * \le 0.998)$ to the BH spin given
389: by Thorne (1974) we have the leftmost and rightmost points of the
390: characteristic line as follows:
391:
392:
393: \begin{equation}
394: \label{eq3} \left( {a_ * ,n,\xi _{\max } } \right) = \left\{
395: {\begin{array}{l}
396: (0.371,\mbox{ }5.670,\mbox{ }2.271), \\
397: (0.998,\mbox{ }4.105,\mbox{ }1.187), \\
398: \end{array}} \right.
399: \end{equation}
400:
401:
402:
403: \noindent where the upper and lower lines correspond to the leftmost
404: and rightmost points of the characteristic line in Figure 4,
405: respectively. Combining $\nu _{upper} = 240Hz$ with equations
406: (\ref{eq1})--(\ref{eq3}) for the leftmost and rightmost points of
407: the characteristic line, we can estimate the value range of the BH
408: mass: $3.76 < m_{BH} < 48.23$. Although the BH mass and spin of
409: H1743-322 are only constrained loosely by the 3:2 QPO pair, they can
410: be further constrained by other observations. For example, the BH
411: mass and spin can be limited to a smaller range by fitting the
412: observed jet power in terms of the BZ power based on the model of
413: CEBZMC.
414:
415: It is well known that single--component high frequency QPOs have
416: been observed in some confirmed and candidate BHXBs (MR06), such as
417: XTE J1859+226 (190 Hz), 4U1630--47 (184 Hz) and XTE J1650--500 (250
418: Hz). According to the model of CEBZMC the single--component high
419: frequency QPO can be fitted by ONE rotating hotspot arising from the
420: maximum radiation flux due to the non-axisymmetric MC.
421:
422: Since neither jets nor 3:2 QPO pairs are observed in XTE J1859+226,
423: its state should be confined in the shaded region below the contour
424: of $\theta _S \left( {a_ * ,n} \right) = 0$ as shown in Figure 5. As
425: argued by Li (2002) the minimum spin for transferring energy from
426: the BH to the disk in the MC process is $a_ * = 0.3594$, and it is
427: regarded as the left boundary of the shaded region in Figure 5. Thus
428: the BH spin of XTE J1859+226 can be estimated as $0.3594 < a_ * <
429: 0.5890$ by combining $\nu _{QPO} = 190Hz$ with the BH mass, $7.6 <
430: m_{BH} < 12.0$, which is taken from RM06.
431:
432: \section{A SCENARIO FOR STATE TRANSITIONS IN BHXBS }
433:
434: The prominent feature of the model of CEBZMC lies in the correlation
435: of the high frequency QPO pairs with the jets from the BHXBs. As is
436: well known, state transitions in BHXBs involve a number of
437: unresolved issues in astrophysics, displaying complex variations not
438: only in the luminosities and energy spectra, but also in
439: presence/absence of jets and QPOs. How to analyze and classify
440: states in BHXBs from observations in multi-wavelength band is of
441: foremost importance.
442:
443: Recently, FBG04 proposed a unified semi-quantitative model for the
444: disk-jet coupling in BHXBs, in which the states of BHXBs are
445: described in an X-ray hardness-intensity diagram (HID), and the
446: states with jet and those with no jet are divided by a 'jet line' in
447: HID. Later, B06 classified the states of BHXBs into four types:
448: (\ref{eq1}) Low/Hard State (LS), (\ref{eq2}) Hard Intermediate State
449: (HIMS), (\ref{eq3}) Soft Intermediate State (SIMS) and (\ref{eq4})
450: High/Soft State (HS), which display different luminosity and
451: hardness associated with different behavior of QPOs and radio
452: loudness. It is pointed out in B06 that these states might be
453: reduced to only two basic states, i.e., a hard state and a soft one.
454: The states LS and HIMS are included in the hard state, and the
455: states SIMS and HS in the soft state. The jets can be observed in
456: hard states, but can not in soft states.
457:
458: Very recently, MR06 used four parameters to define X-ray states
459: based on the very extensive RXTE data archive for BHXBs, in which
460: three states are included: (\ref{eq1}) thermal state (high/soft
461: state), (\ref{eq2}) hard state (low/hard state) and (\ref{eq3})
462: steep power law (SPL) state. In the thermal state, the flux is
463: dominated by the heat radiation from the inner accretion disk, and
464: QPOs are absent or very weak. The hard state is characterized by a
465: hard power-law component at 2--20 keV, being associated with the
466: presence of a quasi-steady radio jet. The SPL state is a strong
467: power-law component with $\Gamma $ $\sim $ 2.5, which is associated
468: with high-frequency QPOs. In MR06 luminosity is abandoned as a
469: criterion for defining the X-ray states.
470:
471: However, a consistent interpretation for the state transitions in
472: BHXBs remains controversial, and this becomes a great challenge to
473: the present theoretical models. Some authors (e.g. Belloni et al.
474: 1997a,b; 2000) interpreted the transition between State C and States
475: A/B as being caused by the disappearance and reappearance of the
476: inner accretion disk due to a disk instability mechanism. Livio et
477: al. (2003) pointed out that the inner disk remains present rather
478: than absent in the state transitions, and it switches between two
479: states in two different ways of converting accretion energy. In one
480: state, the accretion energy is dissipated locally to produce the
481: observed disk luminosity. In another state the energy liberated in
482: the accretion is converted efficiently into magnetic energy in the
483: form of a magnetically dominated outflow or jet. However, a detailed
484: argument for producing jets in BHXBs has not been given by these
485: authors.
486:
487: Motivated by the above discussion we suggest a new scenario for the
488: state transition in BHXBs based on the model of CEBZMC. Inspecting
489: Figures 2--4, we find that the two basic states suggested by B06 can
490: be naturally divided by the contour of $\theta _S \left( {a_ * ,n}
491: \right) = 0$ in $a_ * - n$ parameter space: a hard state with jet is
492: represented by a point in the shaded region above the contour of
493: $\theta _S \left( {a_ * ,n} \right) = 0$, while a soft state without
494: jet by a point in the region below this contour. The state
495: transition in BHXBs can be interpreted in terms of the variation of
496: the power-law index$ n$. As shown in Figure 6, a hard state will
497: transit to a soft state with the decreasing $n$, while a soft state
498: will change to a hard state with the increasing $n$. The contour of
499: $\theta _S \left( {a_ * ,n} \right) = 0$ corresponds exactly to the
500: `jet line' in HID.
501:
502:
503:
504: One of the main problems of this scenario is in knowing what
505: mechanism gives rise to the variation of the power-law index $n$.
506: This issue might be related to the fluctuation in the number density
507: of the accreting plasma from the companion star, and a rough
508: explanation is given as follows.
509:
510: In our model the power-law index $n$ is used to describe the
511: variation of the poloidal magnetic field with the disk radius, i.e.,
512:
513:
514: \begin{equation}
515: \label{eq4} B_D^p = \left( {B_D^p } \right)_{ms} \left( {r
516: \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {r {r_{ms} }}} \right.
517: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {r_{ms} }} \right)^{ - n} = \left( {B_D^p
518: } \right)_{ms} \xi ^{ - n},
519: \end{equation}
520:
521:
522:
523: \noindent where $\left( {B_D^p } \right)_{ms} $ is the poloidal
524: magnetic field at ISCO. Based on Ampere's law we have the toroidal
525: current density $j_\varphi $ at the disk as follows,
526:
527:
528: \begin{equation}
529: \label{eq5} j_\varphi = \frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{dB_D^p }{dr} =
530: \frac{1}{4\pi r_{ms} }\frac{dB_D^p }{d\xi } = - \frac{n\left( {B_D^p
531: } \right)_{ms} }{4\pi M\chi _{ms}^2 }\xi ^{ - \left( {n + 1}
532: \right)}.
533: \end{equation}
534:
535:
536:
537: From equations (\ref{eq4}) and (\ref{eq5}) we find that the profile
538: of the magnetic field at the disk is related directly to the
539: toroidal current at the same place, and the power-law index of the
540: latter becomes $n + 1$. Thus the variation of the magnetic field can
541: be explained by the variation of the toroidal current, and the
542: latter might be produced due to the fluctuation of the accreting
543: plasma coming from the companion star.
544:
545: As a simple analysis, we assume that the accreting plasma consists
546: of electrons and protons, of which the number densities are $n_e $
547: and $n_p $, respectively. Generally, the two number densities are
548: not equal exactly, and they are related by $n_p = n_e + n_\delta $.
549: Thus a toroidal current density could be generated due to the
550: charged particles' Keplerian rotation and it reads
551:
552:
553: \begin{equation}
554: \label{eq6} j_\varphi = en_\delta \upsilon _\varphi = {en_\delta \xi
555: \chi _{ms}^2 } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{en_\delta \xi \chi
556: _{ms}^2 } {\left( {\chi _{ms}^3 + a_ * } \right)}}} \right.
557: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left( {\chi _{ms}^3 + a_ * } \right)}.
558: \end{equation}
559:
560:
561:
562: \noindent where $e = 4.8\times 10^{ - 10}e.s.u.$ is the electron
563: charge. Incorporating equations (\ref{eq5}) and (\ref{eq6}), we have
564:
565:
566: \begin{equation}
567: \label{eq7} n_\delta = - \frac{n\left( {B_D^p } \right)_{ms} }{4\pi
568: e\xi M}\left( {\frac{\chi _{ms}^3 + a_ * }{\chi _{ms}^4 }}
569: \right)\xi ^{ - \left( {n + 1} \right)}.
570: \end{equation}
571:
572:
573:
574: As argued in W05, $B_4 \approx 10^5$ is the strength of the magnetic
575: field required by the hotspots for emitting X-ray. Taking $\left(
576: {B_D^p } \right)_{ms} = B_4 \times 10^5gauss$, $M = m_{BH} M_ \odot
577: $ and $\xi = 1$, we have
578:
579:
580: \begin{equation}
581: \label{eq8} \mid n_{\delta } \mid = 4.5\times 10^8\times \left( {B_4
582: m_{BH}^{ - 1} } \right)\left( {\chi _{ms}^{ - 1} + a_ * \chi _{ms}^{
583: - 4} } \right)cm^{ - 3}.
584: \end{equation}
585:
586:
587:
588: By taking the disk mass as $M_{disk} = \alpha _m m_{BH} M_ \odot $,
589: the average disk height as $H = \beta r$ and the outer boundary
590: radius $r_{out} = 1000r_{ms} $, the average number density of
591: protons can be estimated as
592:
593:
594: \begin{equation}
595: \label{eq9} \bar {n}_p = \frac{M_{disk} }{m_p \int_{r_{ms}
596: }^{r_{out} } 2 \pi rHdr} = \left( {\alpha _m \beta ^{ - 1}m_{BH}^{ -
597: 2} \chi _{ms}^{ - 6} } \right)\times 1.77\times 10^{32}cm^{ - 3},
598: \end{equation}
599:
600:
601:
602: \noindent where $m_p = 1.67\times 10^{ - 24}g$ is a proton's mass.
603: Incorporating equations (\ref{eq8}) and (\ref{eq9}) with the given
604: values of the concerned parameter, such as $\alpha _m \approx 10^{ -
605: 3}$, $\beta = 0.1$, $m_{BH} = 10$, $B_4 \approx 10^5$, and $0.3594 <
606: a_ * < 0.9980$, we have
607:
608:
609: \begin{equation}
610: \label{eq10} 7.3\times 10^{ - 16} < \mid n_{\delta}\mid / \bar
611: {n}_p < 1.28\times 10^{ - 14}.
612: \end{equation}
613:
614:
615:
616: \noindent It seems reasonable that the fluctuation in the number
617: densities of the accreting plasma can be realized in the realistic
618: astrophysical context for the small value of ${n_\delta }
619: \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{n_\delta } {\bar {n}_p }}} \right.
620: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\bar {n}_p }$ given in equation
621: (\ref{eq10}).
622:
623: Another issue related to the state transition in BHXBs is how to
624: estimate the timescale of the fluctuation in density of the
625: accreting plasma. If the toroidal current arises from the
626: fluctuation of the number density of the accreting plasma, we think
627: that the variation of the power-law index $n$ might occur due to
628: this fluctuation, and it gives rise to the state transition in
629: BHXBs. Not long ago, Brown et al. (2000) discussed the MC effect on
630: the accretion flow, and they estimated the viscous inflow time for
631: the fluctuations as
632:
633:
634: \begin{equation}
635: \label{eq11} \tau \sim r \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {r {\upsilon _r
636: }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\upsilon _r } \sim \left( {r
637: \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {r H}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace}
638: H} \right)^2\alpha _{vis}^{ - 1} \Omega _D^{ - 1} ,
639: \end{equation}
640:
641:
642:
643: \noindent where $\upsilon _r $ is radial velocity of the accreting
644: plasma and $H$ is the height of the disk at radius $r$. We take the
645: coefficient of kinematic viscosity $\alpha _{vis} = 0.1$ in
646: calculations. Since the variation occurs within the outer boundary
647: of the MC, we calculate the timescale corresponding to $r_{out} =
648: \xi _{lower} r_{ms} $ by using equation (\ref{eq11}) as listed in
649: Table 3.
650:
651:
652:
653:
654: It is obvious, from equation (\ref{eq11}) and Table 3, that the
655: ratio $r \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {r H}} \right.
656: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} H$ is dominative in determining the
657: timescales of state transitions, which are insensitive to the
658: parameters, $m_{BH} $, $a_ * $ and $\xi _{lower} $. Inspecting Table
659: 3, we find that the timescales of state transitions in BHXBs from
660: less than one second to more than one hour can be fitted by the
661: fluctuation in density of the accreting plasma. We expect that the
662: timescales of the state transitions in the above sources can be
663: fitted by adjusting the ratio $r \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {r H}}
664: \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} H$ based on this simplified
665: model.
666:
667: Since the fluctuation in densities of the accreting plasma is
668: stochastic, this results in a stochastic variation of the power-law
669: index $n$, and it is consistent with the observation of the state
670: transitions in BHXBs: a hard state can transit to a soft one and
671: then back to the hard one again, passing across the jet line several
672: times as shown in Figure 7 of FBG04.
673:
674: \section{DISCUSSION}
675:
676: In this paper, we assume that Keplerian frequencies at two locations
677: are in the 3:2 ratio based on the CEBZMC model. Compared with the
678: Kluzniak-Abramowicz QPO resonance model, the 3:2 QPO pairs arising
679: from the two hotspots are produced by the MC between a rotating BH
680: and its surrounding disk. The BH spins of several BH sources
681: measured by different methods are compared. It turns out that the BH
682: spin of GRO J1655-40 measured by the CEBZMC model is in a good
683: agreement with the recent results based on X-ray continuum fitting.
684: In addition, the correlation of the 3:2 QPO pairs with the jet from
685: the BH systems including Sgr A* is discussed in the parameter
686: space. It is shown that the `jet line' in HID can be interpreted
687: naturally by the CEBZMC model. Finally, we suggest that the state
688: transition in BHXBs could be realized by virtue of the variation of
689: the power-law index n, which could be related to the fluctuation of
690: the number densities of the accreting plasma from the companion
691: star.
692:
693: In our model the 3:2 QPO pairs are determined by the BH spin $a_ * $
694: and the power-law index $n$ for the given BH mass. The parameter $n$
695: is introduced to describe the basic feature of the large-scale
696: magnetic field anchored at the disk, indicating the degree of its
697: concentration at the inner region. It turns out that the parameter
698: $n $ plays a very important role not only in fitting the 3:2 QPO
699: pairs but also in interpreting the state transitions of BHXBs.
700:
701: It is easy to find from the parameter spaces in Figures 2---6 that
702: the state transition from a hard state to a soft state can be
703: realized by decreasing the BH spin, and the inverse transition
704: occurs with the increasing spin. However, our calculations show that
705: the timescale for the variation of the spin is too long to fit the
706: observations. In addition, the evolution of the BH spin is generally
707: one-direction, i.e., it decreases from a high spin to the
708: equilibrium spin or increases from a low spin to the equilibrium
709: spin as argued in W02. Thus, this account of the BH spin is not
710: consistent with the observations: the states of BHXBs can switch
711: from time to time between a hard state and a soft state. Compared
712: with the BH spin the variation of the parameter $ n$ involves the
713: timescale of the fluctuation of the number density, which is
714: consistent with the state transition of BHXBs both in the timescale
715: and in the repeating switches between the hard and soft states.
716:
717: Very recently, Ma et al. (2006) introduced corona into the model of
718: CEBZMC, which might be helpful to understand the association of the
719: SPL state with the high frequency QPOs in BHXBs as argued in MR06.
720: We shall discuss this issue in our future work.
721:
722:
723:
724:
725: \acknowledgments
726: {\bf Acknowledgements:}This work is supported by the National
727: Natural Science Foundation of China under grants 10373006, 10573006
728: and 10121503. We are very grateful to the anonymous referee for his
729: (her) instructive comments on the role of MC in the 3:2 frequency
730: ratio and the related issues.
731:
732:
733:
734:
735: \begin{thebibliography}
736:
737: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Abramowicz, M. A., {\&} Kluzniak, W., 2001, A{\&}A, 374, L19
738: (AK01)}
739:
740: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Abramowicz M.A., Bulik T., Bursa M. \& Kluzniak W., 2003, A{\&}A
741: Letters 404, L21}
742:
743: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Abramowicz, M. A., {\&} Kluzniak, W., 2004, in AIP Conf.
744: Proceedings, 714, \textit{X-ray Timing 2003: Rossi and Beyond,} ed.
745: P Kaaret, F K. Lamb, J H. Swank. (NY: AIP), 21 (AK04)}
746:
747:
748: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Abramowicz M.A., 2005, (ed.), 2005, AN, Vol. 326, No. 9 (Abramowicz 2005)}
749:
750: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Abramowicz M.A., Barret D., Bursa M., Horak J. Kluzniak W.
751: Olive J.-F. Rebusco, P. {\&} T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k G., 2005, AN,
752: 326, 864}
753:
754:
755:
756: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Aschenbach, B., et al. 2004a, A{\&}A, 417, 71
757: (A04a)}
758:
759: \bibitem[1]{b1}{---. 2004b, A{\&}A, 425, 1075 (A04b)}
760:
761: \bibitem[1]{b1}{---. 2006, Chinese J. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl., 6, 221 (A06)}
762:
763: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Belloni, T., Mendez, M., King, A. R., van der Klis, M., {\&} van
764: Paradijs, J. 1997a, ApJ, 479, L145}
765:
766: \bibitem[1]{b1}{---.1997b, ApJ, 488, L109}
767:
768: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Belloni, T., Klein-Wolt, M., Mendez, M., van der Klis, M., {\&} van
769: Paradijs, J. 2000, A{\&}A, 355, 271}
770:
771: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Belloni T., Mendez M. {\&} Homan J., 2005, A{\&}A, 437,
772: 209}
773:
774: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Belloni, T., 2006, Adv. Space Res., 38, 2801 (B06)}
775:
776: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Blandford, R. D., {\&} Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179,
777: 433}
778:
779: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Blandford, R. D., 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. 160, \textit{Astrophysical
780: Discs}: An EC Summer School,
781:
782: ed. J. A. Sellwood {\&} J. Goodman (San Francisco: ASP), 265}
783:
784: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Blandford, R. D., 2002, Lighthouses of the Universe: The Most
785: Luminous Celestial Objects and Their Use for Cosmology Proceedings
786: of the MPA/ESO/, p. 381.}
787:
788: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Bradt, H. V., Rothschild, R. E., {\&} Swank, J. H., 1993, A{\&}AS,
789: 97, 355}
790:
791: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Brown, G. E., et al. 2000, New Astronomy 5, 191}
792:
793: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Bower, G. C., Falcke, H., Herrnstein, R. M., et al. 2004, Science,
794: 304, 704}
795:
796: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Bursa, M., 2005, in Proceedings of RAGtime 6/7: Workshops on black
797: holes and neutron stars,
798:
799: ed. S. Hled\'{\i}k {\&} Z. Stuchl\'{\i}k (Silesian University in
800: Opava, Czech), 39 (Br05)}
801:
802: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Davis, S. W., Done, C., {\&} Blaes, O. M., 2006, ApJ, 647, 525
803: (D06)}
804:
805: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Fender, R.P., Belloni, T., {\&} Gallo, E., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1105
806: (FBG04)}
807:
808: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Gierlinski, et al. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1253 (G01)}
809:
810: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Homan, J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 383}
811:
812: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Kalemci, E. et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 340}
813:
814: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Kato, S., {\&} Fukue, J., 2006, PASJ, 58, 909 (KF06)}
815:
816: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Lachowicz P., Czerny B. {\&} Abramowicz M.A., 2006,
817: astro-ph/0607594}
818:
819:
820: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Lamb F. K. {\&} Miller M.C., 2004, Bull. AAS, 36, 937}
821:
822:
823:
824: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Li, L. -X., 2000, ApJ, 533, L115}
825:
826: \bibitem[1]{b1}{---. 2002, ApJ, 567, 463}
827:
828: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Livio, M., Pringle, J. E., {\&} King, A. R., 2003, ApJ, 593, 184
829: (LPK03)}
830:
831: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Ma, R.-Y., Wang, D.-X., {\&} Zuo, X.-Q., 2006, A{\&}A, 453,
832: 1}
833:
834: \bibitem[1]{b1}{McClintock, J E, {\&} Remillard R A 2006. In Compact Stellar X-ray
835: Sources, ed. WHG Lewin, M van der Klis, pp. 157--214. Cambridge:
836: Cambridge University Press. (astro-ph/0306213) (MR06)}
837:
838: \bibitem[1]{b1}{McClintock, J E et al., 2006, ApJ, 652, 518 (M06)}
839:
840: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Middleton, M., et al., MNRAS, 373, 1004 (MD06)}
841:
842: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Mirabel, I. F., {\&} Rodriguez L. F., 1998, Nat, 392,
843: 673}
844:
845: \bibitem[1]{b1}{---. 1999, ARA{\&}A, 37, 409}
846:
847: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Miller, J. M. et al. 2001, ApJ, 563, 928}
848:
849: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Remillard, R. A., et al., 2002, ApJ, 564, 962}
850:
851: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Remillard, R. A., {\&} Muno, M. P., ApJ, 2002, 580, 1030
852: (RM02)}
853:
854: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Remillard R.A., 2005, AN, 326, 804}
855:
856: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Remillard, R. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 637, 1002}
857:
858: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Remillard, R. A., {\&} McClintock J. E., 2006, ARA{\&}A, 44, 49
859: (RM06)}
860:
861: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Shafee, R., et al. ApJ, 2006, 636, L113 (S06)}
862:
863: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Stella L. {\&} Vietri M., 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett., 82,
864: 17}
865:
866: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Strohmayer, T. E., 2001a, ApJ, 552, L49}
867:
868: \bibitem[1]{b1}{---. 2001b, ApJ, 554, L169}
869:
870: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Thorne, K. S. 1974, ApJ, 191, 507}
871:
872: \bibitem[1]{b1}{T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k G., Abramowicz M. A., Kluzniak, W., Stuchl¨ªk, Z., 2005,
873: A{\&}A, 436, 1}
874:
875: \bibitem[1]{b1}{T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k, G., 2005a, AN, 326, 856}
876:
877: \bibitem[1]{b1}{T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k G., 2005b, A{\&}A, 440, 1}
878:
879: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Wagoner, R. V., Silbergleit, A. S., {\&} Ortega-Rodriguez, M. 2001,
880: ApJ, 559, L25}
881:
882: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Wang, D.-X., Xiao K., {\&} Lei W.-H. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 655
883: (W02)}
884:
885: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Wang, D.-X., et al., 2003a, ApJ, 595, 109 (W03)}
886:
887: \bibitem[1]{b1}{---. 2003b, MNRAS, 344, 473}
888:
889: \bibitem[1]{b1}{---. 2004, ApJ, 601, 1031 (W04)}
890:
891: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Wang, et al., MNRAS, 2005, 359, 36 (W05)}
892:
893: \bibitem[1]{b1}{Zhang, S. N., Cui, W., {\&} Chen, W., 1997, ApJ, 482, L155
894: (Z97)}
895:
896: \end{thebibliography}
897:
898:
899: %----------------------------------------------------------
900: \begin{figure}
901:
902: \epsscale{0.5}
903: \begin{center}
904: \plotone{f1.eps}
905: \end{center}
906:
907: \caption{Poloidal magnetic field connecting a rotating BH with a
908: remote astrophysical load and the surrounding disk. The inner and
909: outer hotspots are located at different places of the disk.}
910: \label{fig1}
911:
912: \end{figure}
913:
914:
915:
916:
917: \begin{figure}
918: \epsscale{0.5}
919: \begin{center}
920: \plotone{f2.eps}
921: \end{center}
922:
923: \caption{The contour of angular boundary $\theta _S ( a_ * ,n ) = 0$
924: in $a_ * - n$ parameter space.} \label{fig2}
925: \end{figure}
926:
927:
928:
929: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-------- fig 3 %%%%%%%%
930: \begin{center}
931: \begin{figure}
932: \epsscale{0.30}
933: \begin{center}
934: \plotone{f3a.eps}
935: \end{center}
936: \begin{center}
937: \epsscale{0.30}
938: \plotone{f3b.eps}
939: \end{center}
940: \begin{center}
941: \epsscale{0.30}
942: \plotone{f3c.eps}
943: \end{center}
944: \begin{center}
945: \epsscale{0.30}
946: \plotone{f3d.eps}
947: \end{center}
948: \caption{Two contours of $\nu _{upper} = const$ corresponding to the
949: lower and upper BH masses are shown respectively in dashed and
950: dotted lines, between which the thick solid line represents the BH
951: state with the 3:2 QPO pair for (a) GRO J1655-40, (b) XTEJ1550-564,
952: (c) GRS 1915+105 and (d) Sgr A*.} \label{fig3}
953: \end{figure}
954: \end{center}
955:
956:
957:
958:
959:
960:
961:
962: \begin{figure}
963:
964: \epsscale{0.5}
965: \begin{center}
966: \plotone{f4.eps}
967: \end{center}
968:
969: \caption{The characteristic line of the 3:2 QPO pair (240, 160Hz)
970: for H1743-322 in $a_ * - n$ parameter space.} \label{fig4}
971:
972: \end{figure}
973:
974:
975:
976:
977:
978:
979:
980: \begin{figure}
981:
982: \epsscale{0.5}
983: \begin{center}
984: \plotone{f5.eps}
985: \end{center}
986:
987: \caption{Two contours of $\nu _{QPO} = 190Hz$ corresponding to the
988: lower and upper BH masses of XTE J1859+226 are shown in dashed and
989: dotted lines, respectively.} \label{fig5}
990:
991: \end{figure}
992:
993:
994:
995:
996:
997:
998:
999:
1000: \begin{figure}
1001:
1002: \epsscale{0.5}
1003: \begin{center}
1004: \plotone{f6.eps}
1005: \end{center}
1006:
1007: \caption{A schematic drawing for interpreting the state transitions
1008: of BHXBs in $a_ * - n$ parameter space.} \label{fig6}
1009:
1010: \end{figure}
1011:
1012:
1013:
1014:
1015:
1016:
1017:
1018:
1019:
1020:
1021:
1022:
1023:
1024:
1025:
1026:
1027:
1028:
1029:
1030: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-------- tab 1 %%%%%%%%
1031:
1032: \clearpage
1033:
1034:
1035:
1036: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccc}
1037: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecaption{The fitting results for
1038: the 3:2 QPOs pairs in GRO J1655-40, XTE J1550-564, GRS 1915+105 and
1039: Sgr A*.} \tablewidth{0pt} \tablehead{\colhead{Source} &
1040: \colhead{$m_{_{BH}} $}& \colhead{$a_{*} $} & \colhead{$n$} &
1041: \colhead{Jet} & \colhead{Inner Hotspot} & &\colhead{Outer Hotspot}&
1042: } \startdata
1043: &
1044: &
1045: &
1046: &
1047: & $\xi _{upper} $ & $\nu _{upper} ( Hz )$ & $\xi _{lower} $ &
1048: $\nu _{lower} ( Hz )$ \\
1049: \hline
1050: GRO J1655-40& 6.0& 0.667&
1051: 5.887&
1052: Yes&
1053: 1.421& 450& 1.887 &
1054: 300 \\
1055: \cline{2-4} \cline{6-6} \cline{8-8}
1056: & 6.6& 0.709&
1057: 5.763&
1058: &
1059: 1.400& & 1.863 &
1060: \\
1061: \hline
1062: XTE J1550-564& 8.4& 0.603&
1063: 5.996&
1064: Yes&
1065: 1.473& 276& 1.949 &
1066: 184 \\
1067:
1068: \cline{2-4} \cline{6-6} \cline{8-8}
1069: & 10.8& 0.710&
1070: 5.771&
1071: &
1072: 1.397& & 1.860 &
1073: \\
1074: \hline
1075: GRS 1915+105& 10.0& 0.496&
1076: 5.955&
1077: Yes&
1078: 1.660& 168& 2.174 &
1079: 113 \\
1080: \cline{2-4} \cline{6-6} \cline{8-8}
1081:
1082: & 18.0& 0.716&
1083: 5.785&
1084: &
1085: 1.395& & 1.845 &
1086: \\
1087: \hline
1088: Sgr A*& 2.6x10$^{6}$& 0.811&
1089: 5.069&
1090: Yes&
1091: 1.378& 1.445 x10$^{ - 3}$& 1.961 &
1092: 0.886 x10$^{ - 3}$ \\
1093:
1094: \cline{2-4} \cline{6-6} \cline{8-8}
1095:
1096: & 4.4x10$^{6}$& 0.951&
1097: 4.181&
1098: &
1099: 1.334& & 1.957 &
1100: \\
1101: \hline
1102: \enddata
1103:
1104: \tablecomments{The value ranges of the BH mass corresponding to GRO
1105: J1655-40, GRS 1915+105 and XTE J1550-564 are adopted from RM06, and
1106: the BH mass of Sgr A* is taken from T$\ddot{o}$r$\ddot{o}$k (2005).}
1107: \end{deluxetable}
1108:
1109:
1110:
1111:
1112: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
1113: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecaption{The BH spins measured by
1114: X-ray continuum and 3:2 QPO pairs} \tablewidth{0pt}
1115: \tablehead{\colhead{Sources} & & \colhead{Methods} & } \startdata
1116:
1117:
1118: & X-ray continuum& 3:2 QPO pairs&
1119: \\
1120: \cline{3-4}
1121: &
1122: &
1123: ERM& CEBZMC
1124: \\
1125: \hline GRO J1655-40& 0.633-0.651 (D06), 0.65-0.80 (M06) & 0.2-0.67
1126: (AK01), 0.96 (AK04), & 0.667-0.709
1127: \\
1128: & 0.65-0.75 (S06), 0.7-0.95 (Z97), & 0.996 (A04b), 0.31-0.42
1129: (KF06), &
1130: \\
1131: &0.68-0.88 (G01)& 0.64-0.76 (Br05)&
1132: \\
1133: \hline
1134:
1135: XTE J1550-564& 0.71-0.87 (D06)& 0.94 (AK04), 0.99616 (A04b) &
1136: 0.603-0.710
1137: \\
1138: & & 0.11-0.42 (KF06), 0.1-0.6 (RM02), &
1139: \\
1140: & & 0.41-0.77 (Br05)&
1141: \\
1142: \hline
1143:
1144: GRS 1915+105&
1145: $>$0.98 (M06), 0.7 (MD06)& 0.84(AK04), 0.996 (A04b), & 0.496-0.716
1146: \\
1147: & & negative-0.44(KF06), -0.09-0.78(Br05)&
1148: \\
1149: \hline
1150:
1151: Sgr A*& & 0.99616 (A06), 0.9865-0.9965 (A04a)&
1152: 0.811-0.951 \\
1153: \hline
1154:
1155: \enddata
1156:
1157: \tablecomments{\textbf{The abbreviations for the references in Table
1158: 2 are given as follows:} \\AK01---Abramowicz {\&} Kluzniak (2001);
1159: AK04---Abramowicz {\&} Kluzniak (2004); A04a---Aschenbach, et al.,
1160: (2004); A04b---Aschenbach, (2004); A06---Aschenbach, (2006);
1161: Br05---Bursa, (2005); D06---Davis et al. (2006); G01---Gierlinski et
1162: al.(2001); KF06---Kato {\&} Fukue (2006); M06
1163: ---McClintock et al.(2006); MD06 --- Middleton et al. (2006); RM02---
1164: Remillard et al. (2002); S06---Shafee et al.(2006); Z97---Zhang et
1165: al. (1997).}
1166: \end{deluxetable}
1167:
1168:
1169:
1170:
1171:
1172: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
1173: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecaption{The timescale of state
1174: transition in BHXBs fitted by the fluctuations in accreting plasma.}
1175: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablehead{\colhead{Sources} & \colhead{$m_{_{BH}}
1176: $}& \colhead{$a_ * $} & \colhead{$\xi _{lower} $} & \colhead{} &
1177: \colhead{$\tau $(sec)} &\colhead{}}
1178:
1179: \startdata
1180: &
1181: &
1182: &
1183: & $r/H = 10$ & $r/H = 100$ & $r/H = 1000$
1184: \\
1185: \hline
1186:
1187: GRO J1655-40& 6.0& 0.667& 1.887& 0.5305& 53.05&
1188: 5305 \\
1189: \cline{2-4}
1190: &
1191: 6.6& 0.709& 1.863&
1192: &
1193: &
1194: \\
1195: \hline XTE J1550-564& 8.4& 0.603& 1.949& 0.8650& 86.50&
1196: 8650 \\
1197: \cline{2-4}
1198: &
1199: 10.8& 0.710& 1.860&
1200: &
1201: &
1202: \\
1203: \hline GRS 1915+105& 10.0& 0.496& 2.174& 1.408& 140.8&
1204: 14080 \\
1205: \cline{2-4}
1206: &
1207: 18.0& 0.716& 1.845&
1208: &
1209: &
1210: \\
1211: \hline Sgr A*& 2.6x10$^{6}$& 0.811& 1.961& $1.796\times 10^5$&
1212: $1.796\times 10^7$&
1213: $1.796\times 10^9$ \\
1214: \cline{2-4}
1215: &
1216: 4.4x10$^{6}$& 0.951& 1.957&
1217: &
1218: &
1219: \\
1220: \hline
1221:
1222:
1223:
1224: \enddata
1225:
1226: \end{deluxetable}
1227:
1228:
1229:
1230:
1231:
1232: \end{document}
1233:
1234:
1235:
1236:
1237:
1238:
1239:
1240:
1241:
1242:
1243:
1244:
1245:
1246:
1247: \begin{center}
1248: \textbf{Table 3 The timescale of state transition in BHXBs fitted by
1249: the fluctuations in accreting plasma.}
1250: \end{center}
1251:
1252:
1253: \begin{table}[htbp]
1254: \begin{tabular}
1255: {|p{54pt}|p{54pt}|p{54pt}|p{54pt}|p{69pt}|p{69pt}|p{69pt}|} \hline
1256: \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{\textbf{Sources}}&
1257: \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{$m_{BH} $ }&
1258: \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{$a_ * $}&
1259: \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{$\xi _{lower} $}&
1260: \multicolumn{3}{|p{207pt}|}{$\tau $(sec)} \\
1261: \cline{5-7}
1262: &
1263: &
1264: &
1265: &
1266: $r \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {r H}} \right.
1267: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} H = 10$& $r \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {r
1268: H}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} H = 100$&
1269: $r \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {r H}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} H = 1000$ \\
1270: \hline \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{GRO J1655-40}& 6.0& 0.667&
1271: \textbf{1.887}& \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{0.5305}&
1272: \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{53.05}&
1273: \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{5305} \\
1274: \cline{2-4}
1275: &
1276: 6.6& 0.709& \textbf{1.863}&
1277: &
1278: &
1279: \\
1280: \hline \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{XTE J1550-564}& 8.4& 0.603&
1281: \textbf{1.949}& \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{0.8650}&
1282: \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{86.50}&
1283: \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{8650} \\
1284: \cline{2-4}
1285: &
1286: 10.8& 0.710& \textbf{1.860}&
1287: &
1288: &
1289: \\
1290: \hline \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{GRS 1915+105}& 10.0& 0.496&
1291: \textbf{2.174}& \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{1.408}&
1292: \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{140.8}&
1293: \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{14080} \\
1294: \cline{2-4}
1295: &
1296: 18.0& 0.716& \textbf{1.845}&
1297: &
1298: &
1299: \\
1300: \hline \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{Sgr A*}& 2.6x10$^{6}$& 0.811&
1301: \textbf{1.961}& \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{$1.796\times 10^5$}&
1302: \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{$1.796\times 10^7$}&
1303: \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{$1.796\times 10^9$} \\
1304: \cline{2-4}
1305: &
1306: 4.4x10$^{6}$& 0.951& \textbf{1.957}&
1307: &
1308: &
1309: \\
1310: \hline
1311: \end{tabular}
1312: \label{tab3}
1313: \end{table}
1314:
1315:
1316:
1317:
1318:
1319:
1320:
1321:
1322:
1323:
1324:
1325: \end{document}
1326: