text:
# Dynamical Evidence for a Black Hole in the Microquasar XTE J1550-5641

## 1 Introduction

X-ray novae provide the strongest evidence for the existence of stellar mass black holes. These objects are interacting binaries containing a compact primary (a neutron star or a black hole) and what is usually a late-type secondary. X-ray novae spend most of their time in a low X-ray luminosity “quiescent” state, with an X-ray luminosity ($`L_x`$) roughly similar to the optical luminosity ($`L_{\mathrm{opt}}`$), which includes a substantial contribution from the secondary star ($`L_{\mathrm{star}}`$). The quiescent state is occasionally interrupted by “outbursts” where typically $`L_xL_{\mathrm{opt}}L_{\mathrm{star}}`$. In quiescence, the observed radial velocity and light curves of the secondary star lead to dynamical mass estimates for the compact primary. If its mass exceeds the maximum stable mass of a neutron star ($`3M_{}`$), the compact object is presumed to be a black hole (Chitre & Hartle, 1976; Kalogera & Baym, 1996). In thirteen cases, the mass of the primary of an X-ray nova has been shown to exceed $`3M_{}`$, confirming the presence of black holes in these systems (Bailyn et al., 1995; Casares, Charles, & Naylor, 1992; Casares, Charles, & Marsh, 1995; Filippenko, Matheson, & Ho, 1995; Filippenko et al., 1999; Filippenko & Chornock, 2001; Greiner, Cuby, & McCaughrean, 2001; McClintock & Remillard, 1986; McClintock et al., 2001; Orosz et al., 1998, 2001; Remillard, McClintock, & Bailyn, 1992; Remillard et al., 1996). These X-ray novae open up the possibility of studying the strong-field regime of general relativity. For example, quiescent X-ray spectra and ADAF (advection-dominated accretion flow) models provide evidence for black hole event horizons (Narayan, McClintock, & Yi, 1996; Garcia et al., 2001). Also, the study of high-frequency QPOs (quasi-periodic oscillations) may lead to the first secure measurement of black hole spin (e.g. Remillard et al. 1999; Strohmayer 2001).

XTE J1550-564 was discovered on 1998 September 7 by the All-Sky Monitor (ASM) aboard the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) (Smith et al., 1998). The optical counterpart (designated V381 Normae) and the radio counterpart were discovered shortly thereafter (Orosz, Jain, & Bailyn, 1998; Campbell-Wilson et al., 1998). This source was quickly identified as a promising black hole candidate based on its rapid X-ray variability, hard energy spectrum, and the absence of pulsations or X-ray bursts (Cui et al., 1999; Sobczak et al., 1999a). Relativistic plasma ejections at probable superluminal velocities were observed at radio wavelengths shortly after the strong X-ray flare in 1998 September (Hannikainen et al., 2001), indicating that XTE J1550-564 is another microquasar. The galactic microquasars are excellent laboratories for the study of relativistic jets since they evolve orders of magnitude more quickly than do the jets in quasars (Mirabel & Rodriguez, 1999). XTE J1550-564 is also of special interest owing to its complex X-ray variability (e.g. Homan et al. 2001; Remillard et al. 2002). In this paper we report the results of our recent optical observations of XTE J1550-564. The observations and basic data reductions are summarized in §2. In §3 we establish the orbital parameters of the system, derive some properties of the secondary star, derive geometrical parameters for the binary, and discuss limits on the mass of the compact object. The implications of our results are discussed in §4 and summarized in §5.

## 2 The Observations and Their Reductions

### 2.1 Spectroscopy

We obtained a total of 18 spectra of the source on 2001 May 24-27 using Antu, which is the first 8.2 m telescope at the European Southern Observatory, Paranal. We used the FORS1 imaging spectrograph with the 600V grism and a 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7 wide slit; this combination gives a spectral resolution of 3.6 Å FWHM and a wavelength coverage of 4571-6927 Å. The seeing was better than 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8 on May 24 and May 27, and relatively poor on May 26 ($`>1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$). Clouds were present on the night of May 25, and only one useful spectrum was obtained in 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 seeing. The exposure times ranged from 20 to 40 minutes depending on the conditions. We also observed eight bright subgiant (luminosity class IV) and giant (luminosity class III) stars with spectral types from G8 to M0. An atmospheric dispersion corrector was used and the slit was kept at the default north-south direction. Following the standard procedure at Paranal, the flat-field and wavelength calibration exposures were obtained during the daytime hours with the telescope pointed at the zenith.

We reduced all of the spectra using IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.. The standard tasks were used to apply the bias and flat-field corrections, and to extract and wavelength-calibrate the spectra. The night-sky emission lines were used to make small adjustments to the wavelength scales of the spectra. The spectra were placed on an approximate flux scale using observations (taken May 27) of the white dwarf flux standards EG 274 and Feige 110. The final reduced spectra of XTE J1550-564 have typical signal-to-noise ratios in the continuum near 6 per 1.16 Å pixel at 6000 Å and about 2 per 1.16 Å pixel at 5000 Å.

We extended our grid of comparison stars by making use of archival observations. Eleven spectra of seven different stars were taken from the FORS1 archive222ESO programs 63.N-0481, 65.H-0360, and 265.D-5016. These spectra were obtained using the 600R grism and a 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7 wide slit; this combination gives a spectral resolution of 3.2 Å FWHM and a wavelength coverage of 5142-7283 Å. All of the standard reductions were performed with IRAF. We also used 49 spectra of 34 different stars obtained 1995 April 30 and 1995 May 2-4 using the CTIO 4m telescope and the RC spectrograph and the Loral $`3072\times 1024`$ CCD (see Bailyn et al. 1995; Orosz & Bailyn 1997). The spectral resolution is 3.3 Å FWHM and the wavelength coverage is 3850-7149 Å. Finally, we used moderate resolution spectra of 6 stars with spectral types K5V to M0V obtained on 2001 February 16 and 17 with the red arm of the ISIS instrument on the 4.2m William Herschel Telescope (WHT) on La Palma. The combination of the 600R grating with the $`1024\times 1024`$ TEK4 CCD and a 1 arcsecond slit width yields a resolution of $`70`$ km s-1 FWHM and a wavelength coverage of 5856-6646 Å. These spectra were reduced with IRAF.

### 2.2 Photometry

We observed XTE J1550-564 2001 June 26-28 using the Magellan Instant Camera (MagIC) on the Walter Baade 6.5m telescope located at Las Campanas Observatory. The MagIC contains a SITe $`2048\times 2048`$ CCD with a scale of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$069 per pixel. The source was observed for about 5 hours on each of the three nights in generally good conditions (0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$3 to 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7 seeing and thin cirrus) with the Sloan $`r^{}`$, $`i^{}`$, and $`z^{}`$ filters. Some images in the Sloan $`g^{}`$ filter were also obtained on the night of June 26.

XTE J1550-564 has been monitored extensively by the 1m YALO telescope (Bailyn et al. 2000) at Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory since the discovery of the optical counterpart in 1998 September (Orosz, Jain, & Bailyn, 1998). The $`V`$-band data from 2001 discussed here were collected and reduced in a similar manner to previous data from this source described by Jain et al. (2001b, c).

As part of the normal acquisition procedure for spectroscopy we obtained a total of nine direct $`V`$ images with exposure times of 30 to 90 seconds with VLT/FORS1 in its imaging mode. In addition, two additional direct images in $`B`$ with exposure times of 120 and 200 seconds were taken. The image scale of FORS1 is 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2 per pixel, and the field of view is $`6.8\times 6.8`$ square arcminutes.

Finally, photometry of XTE J1550-564 was obtained 2001 June 1 using the SuSI2 instrument on the Nasmyth focus of the 3.5m New Technology Telescope (NTT) located at the European Southern Observatory, La Silla. SuSI2 is a mosaic of two $`2048\times 4096`$, thinned, anti-reflection coated EEV CCDs. We used $`3\times 3`$ on-chip binning, yielding a scale of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$24 per pixel and a field of view of $`5.5\times 5.5`$ square arcminutes. The observing conditions were quite poor: the seeing was between 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 and 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 and there were passing clouds. We obtained a total of 51 usable $`R`$-band images and 4 usable $`V`$-band images with exposure times of 3 to 5 minutes.

The image processing routines in IRAF were used to correct for the electronic bias and to apply the flat-field corrections to the VLT, NTT, and Magellan images. The programs DAOPHOT IIe, ALLSTAR and DAOMASTER (Stetson 1987; Stetson, Davis, & Crabtree 1991; Stetson 1992a,b) were used to compute the instrumental magnitudes of XTE J1550-564 and all of the field stars within about a 1.2 arcminute radius. The comparison stars “A”, “B”, and “C” shown in Figure 2 of Jain et al. (2001b) were used to place the $`B`$\- and $`V`$-band instrumental magnitudes on the standard scales. The $`R`$-band photometry and the Magellan photometry were left on the instrumental magnitude scales. Since some of the $`V`$-band images from the VLT and NTT were slightly under-exposed, we averaged groups of two to four consecutive exposures together, yielding two measurements from 24 May, and one measurement each from the nights of 25-27 May and 1 June.

## 3 Analysis

### 3.1 Long-term Photometry

Figure 1a shows the complete YALO $`V`$-band light curve together with our VLT photometry. The 2-12 keV X-ray light curve from the All Sky Monitor (ASM) on RXTE is shown in Figure 1b. XTE J1550-564 had an optical reflare in 2001 January (Jain, Bailyn, & Tomsick, 2001a, Fig. 1a). Strangely enough, the corresponding outburst in X-rays was quite weak, with a peak level of less than 10 ASM counts per second. The source returned to its quiescent level by about April 20, and our $`V`$-band magnitudes from May 24-27 are fully consistent with the quiescent level: $`21.83V22.24`$, with typical errors of 0.04 mag.

The source was not detected in $`B`$, and we place a conservative lower limit of $`B>24.0\pm 0.1`$. Jain et al. (1999) had estimated $`B=22.0\pm 0.5`$ for the quiescent level based on a detection (near the plate limit) of the source on the SERC J survey print. The effective bandpass of the SERC J print is actually much redder than the standard Johnson $`B`$ filter333http://www.roe.ac.uk/ukstu/platelib.html#eqj, so the quiescent magnitude given in Jain et al. (1999) is not a proper $`B`$ magnitude but is closer to a $`V`$ magnitude.

### 3.2 Orbital Period and Spectroscopic Elements

We measured the radial velocities of the secondary star using the fxcor task within IRAF, which is an implementation of the technique of Tonry & Davis (1979). The cross correlations were computed over the wavelength range 5000-6850 Å, excluding the H$`\alpha `$ emission line, interstellar lines (Na D and the diffuse band near 5876 Å), and a telluric feature near 6280 Å. The spectra were continuum-subtracted prior to computing the cross correlation, and a Fourier filter was used to remove high frequency noise. With the exception of one spectrum from the end of the night of May 27 which had poor signal-to-noise, the cross correlation peaks were generally quite significant. The value of the Tonry & Davis “$`r`$” parameter, which is a measure of the signal-to-noise in a cross correlation, was generally in the range of 3.0-4.8. The spectrum of the K3III star HD 181110 usually gave the best cross correlation peaks as judged by the value of the $`r`$ parameter, and the spectrum of the K4III star HD 181480 generally gave the second-best cross correlation peaks. In the analysis below we adopt the velocities measured using the K3III template. Since the source was at or very near quiescence, we believe our radial velocities are not biased by X-ray heating.

To search for the spectroscopic period we computed a three-parameter sinusoidal fit to the 17 velocities for a dense range of trial periods between 0 and 4 days. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ values for these fits are shown in Fig. 2a. The free parameters at each trial period are the velocity semiamplitude $`K_2`$, the epoch of maximum velocity $`T_0`$(spect), and the systemic velocity $`\gamma `$. The best fit is at a period of $`P_{\mathrm{sp}}=1.552\pm 0.010`$ days ($`1\sigma `$ error), where $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.38`$. The two alias periods near 0.7 and 2.5 days are ruled out by their large values of $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ and by inspection of the folded velocity curves. We adopt the following spectroscopic elements with $`1\sigma `$ errors: $`P_{\mathrm{sp}}=1.552\pm 0.010`$ days, $`K_2=349\pm 12`$ km s-1, and $`T_0(\mathrm{spect})=\mathrm{HJD}2,452,054.296\pm 0.014`$. In order to find the true systemic velocity we must know the radial velocity of the template star. We cross correlated the spectrum of HD 181110 with 47 template spectra of stars with a radial velocity measurement listed in the SIMBAD database. The median heliocentric velocity for HD 181110 was $`71`$ km s-1 and the standard deviation of the velocities was 18 km s-1. Based on this, we adopt $`\gamma =68\pm 19`$ km s-1 for XTE J1550-564. The velocities and the best fitting sinusoid are shown in Fig. 2b, and the spectroscopic elements are listed in Table 1. (The velocity plotted as an open circle in Fig. 2b was excluded from the fit since it deviates by more than $`4\sigma `$ from the fit.) We note that our spectroscopic period is consistent with the photometric period of $`P_{\mathrm{ph}}=1.541\pm 0.009`$ days found by Jain et al. (2001b). The optical mass function is then

$$f(M)\frac{P_{\mathrm{sp}}K_2^3}{2\pi G}=\frac{M_1^3\mathrm{sin}^3i}{(M_1+M_2)^2}=6.86\pm 0.71M_{}.$$
(1)
($`1\sigma `$ error). The optical mass function places an immediate lower limit on the mass of the compact object, and since this minimum mass of the compact object is well above the maximum mass of a stable neutron star ($`3M_{}`$, Chitre & Hartle 1976; Kalogera & Baym 1996), we conclude XTE J1550-564 contains a black hole. See §3.5 for further discussion of the mass of the black hole.

### 3.3 Parameters for the Secondary Star

Using the spectroscopic ephemeris in Table 1, the eleven spectra with the highest signal-to-noise were Doppler corrected to zero velocity and averaged to create a “restframe” spectrum. The restframe spectrum was dereddened using the extinction law of Cardelli, Clayton, & Mathis (1989), where we adopted a visual extinction of $`A_V=4.75`$ magnitudes \[$`N_H=(8.5_{2.4}^{+2.2})\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2, Tomsick et al. (2001) and $`A_V=N_H/1.79\times 10^{21}`$, Predehl & Schmitt (1995)\]. The true extinction is unlikely to be greater than 4.75 mag, since the extinction derived from X-ray measurements of $`N_H`$ nearly always exceeds the optically measured value (Vtrilek et al., 1991).

#### 3.3.1 Spectral Type and Effective Temperature

We used the technique outlined in Marsh, Robinson, & Wood (1994) to decompose the restframe spectrum into its disk and stellar components. For this purpose we have three sets of template spectra: eight spectra of eight different stars taken with the FORS1 600V grism (resolution $`3.6`$ Å), eleven spectra of seven different stars taken with the FORS1 600R grism (resolution $`3.6`$ Å), and 49 spectra of 34 different stars taken at CTIO (resolution $`3.3`$ Å). The dereddened restframe spectrum and the template spectra were all normalized to unity at 6000 Å and resampled to a pixel size of 1.155 Å. The template spectra were then scaled by various values of a weight factor $`w`$ between 0.0 and 1.0 in steps of 0.02, and subtracted from the restframe spectrum. The scatter in each difference spectrum was measured by fitting a low-order polynomial and computing the rms difference over the same wavelength region used for the cross correlation analysis above. For each template spectrum we looked for the value of $`w`$ that gave the “smoothest” difference spectrum (i.e. the $`w`$ with the lowest associated rms). Figure 3 shows the rms values as a function of the template spectral type for the three sets of templates. Since the spectral resolution in each of the three sets is slightly different, one should only compare the rms values within a single set. For the CTIO grid the minimum rms is near spectral type G6. However, the difference spectra for the G6 templates (and the templates of earlier type) have negative flux in the blue parts of the spectrum, which is unphysical. This difficulty could be lessened if one were to adopt a larger value of $`A_V`$; however, values larger than $`A_V=4.75`$ mag are unlikely (see above). The templates with spectral type G8 and later, on the other hand, all produce subtracted spectra with positive differences. The minimum rms values for the FORS1 templates is at spectral type G8 for the grism 600V and spectral type K1 for the grism 600R. In general, there is a steep rise in the rms values for template spectral types later than K5 and earlier than G5. The weight factor $`w`$ is roughly correlated with the template spectral type where templates with later spectral types have smaller values of $`w`$.

Fig. 4 shows the restframe spectrum decomposed into the disk and stellar components for two different templates observed with the FORS1 grism 600V (i.e. the same instrumental configuration used for the XTE J1550-564 spectra). Fig. 4a shows the decomposition using the K3III template HD 181110 ($`w=0.48`$) and Fig. 4b shows the decomposition using the G8IV template HD 157931 ($`w=0.74`$). In both cases the disk spectrum is basically flat in $`F_\lambda `$, and the only obvious features remaining are the H$`\alpha `$ emission line, the interstellar lines, and the telluric line (note that these features have been smeared in the process of making the restframe spectrum). The Mg b lines near 5169 Å are matched better with the G8IV template. Apart from Mg b, the two difference spectra look very similar to the eye.

Based on the decomposition analysis above, we adopt a spectral type of G8-K4 for the secondary star. The spectral type is almost certainly not K7 or later since the TiO bands near 6230 and 6700 Å become apparent in dwarfs at K7 and later and in giants at K5 and later, and these bands are not evident in our spectrum. Spectral types earlier than about G5 are also firmly ruled out based on the high rms values (Fig. 4b) and the partly negative difference spectra. The secondary star cannot have a normal main sequence gravity owing to the relatively long orbital period, so its surface gravity must be somewhat less than the nominal values for luminosity class V. The surface gravity of the secondary is easily found using Kepler’s Third Law, assuming that the star fills its Roche lobe. In that case, there is a relationship between the mean density of the secondary star and the orbital period:

$$\rho =\frac{M_2}{\frac{4}{3}\pi R_2^3}=\frac{3\pi }{P^2GR_{RL}^3(Q)}\frac{1}{1+Q}$$
(2)
where $`R_{RL}(Q)`$ is the sphere-equivalent radius of the Roche lobe for unit separation, and $`G`$ is the universal constant of gravity. One can readily show through numerical integration that for $`2Q20`$, the quantity $`R_{RL}^3(Q)(1+Q)^1`$ only varies by 4.6% (between 9.7 and 10.2). Hence, for a fixed orbital period $`P`$, the mean density of the secondary is nearly independent of the mass ratio $`Q`$. This in turn means that the resulting surface gravity is a very weak function of the assumed secondary star mass $`M_2`$ ($`\mathrm{log}g\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{log}M_2`$). We find surface gravities of $`\mathrm{log}g=3.51,`$ 3.61, and 3.72 for secondary star masses of $`0.5`$, 1.0, and $`2.0M_{}`$, respectively. These values of $`\mathrm{log}g`$ imply a luminosity class between III and V \[e.g. a K4V star nominally has $`\mathrm{log}g=4.60`$ and a K4III star nominally has $`\mathrm{log}g=1.7`$, Gray (1992)\]. The temperature corresponding to a given spectral type depends on the luminosity class, where main sequence stars of a given spectral type (i.e. luminosity class V) are hotter than the corresponding giants (luminosity class III). Straižys & Kuriliene (1981) give $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}4100`$ K for a K4III star and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}5100`$ K for a G8IV star. Thus we adopt $`4100T_{\mathrm{eff}}5100`$ K for the analysis below.

#### 3.3.2 Rotational Broadening

We used the Marsh et al. (1994) technique to estimate the projected rotational velocity $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ of the XTE J1550-564 restframe spectrum. The dereddened restframe spectrum, the spectrum of the G8IV star HD 157931, and the spectrum of the K3III star HD 181110 were each normalized to unity at 6000 Å and resampled to a pixel size of 0.46 Å. An IRAF procedure implementing the analytic broadening kernel given in Gray (1992, p. 374) was used to broaden the template spectrum using values of $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ between 50 and 160 km s-1 in steps of 5 km s-1 (we adopted a linear limb darkening coefficient of 0.6). The value of the weight factor $`w`$ was optimized to find the minimum rms value at each input value of $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$. The results are shown in Fig. 5a. The minimum rms value occurs for $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i=90`$ km s-1 for the G8IV template and at $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i=95`$ km s-1 for the K3III template.

We next attempted to measure $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ for the secondary star using a different technique that is based on the relationship between the width of the cross correlation (cc) peak and the rotational velocities of the object and template spectra (Horne, Wade, & Szkody, 1986; Echevarría et al., 1989; Casares et al., 1993). A Gaussian with a fitting width of 750 km s-1 and a baseline of zero was used to determine the width of the cc peaks. The measured widths were relatively insensitive to the exact width of the fitting region. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the restframe spectrum cc peak is in the range of 285 to 305 km s-1, depending on which template is used. In order to find out what rotational velocity this corresponds to, we constructed calibration curves using some bright comparison stars observed with the FORS1 600V grism. Three different comparison stars were each broadened by various amounts, and the FWHM of the cc peaks were measured using the K3III template HD 181110. The results are shown in Fig. 5b. These calibration curves show that a cc peak FWHM of 305 km s-1 corresponds to a rotational velocity of $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i90`$ km s-1, and that a FWHM of 285 km s-1 corresponds to an input $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ of about 50 km s-1.

The Marsh et al. (1994) technique indicates a rotational velocity of $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i=90`$ km s-1 (given the better performance of the G8 template in separating the star and disk spectra we adopted the value of $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ measured with this template, Fig. 5a), and the cross correlation technique indicates $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i90`$ km s-1 (Fig. 5b). Based on the results of the two techniques, we adopt a value of $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i=90\pm 10`$ km s-1 for the rotational velocity of the secondary star.

The value of $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ should be treated with caution since our spectral resolution is relatively low (about 160 km s-1) and the signal-to-noise ratio is modest (about 20 per pixel in the restframe spectrum). In order to have some idea of the size of the systematic errors involved with measuring the rotational velocity in a relatively noisy low resolution spectrum, we performed some numerical experiments using the moderate resolution spectra obtained with the WHT. These experiments are by no means comprehensive since we have only a limited range of spectral types (K5 to M0, all dwarfs) and wavelength coverage (roughly between the Na D lines and H$`\alpha `$). The six template spectra were first normalized at a common wavelength (6450 Å). A simulated object spectrum was made as follows: a template was scaled by 0.7, rotationally broadened by 90 km s-1, degraded to a resolution of 3.6 Å by convolution with a Gaussian, and resampled to 1.16 Å (to match the pixel size of the VLT/FORS1 spectra). Next, a constant value of 0.3 was added (to simulate the accretion disk), and Gaussian noise was added so that the signal-to-noise ratio was $`20`$. Finally, the simulated object spectrum and the remaining template spectra were resampled to a pixel size of 0.46 Å. The rotational velocity of the simulated object spectrum was extracted by the two different techniques, and the results are shown in Figs. 5c and d. The Marsh et al. technique gives a rotational velocity of just over 100 km s-1 using the two best matched templates, and the cross correlation technique gives a rotational velocity between about 80 and 110 km s-1 using all templates and between about 100 and 110 km s-1 using the two best matched templates. Given that the input rotational velocity for the simulated spectrum was 90 km s-1, we conclude that the systematic errors involved in this technique are not excessively large and are probably on the order of our adopted $`1\sigma `$ error of 10 km s-1. Needless to say it would be desirable to repeat the measurement of the rotational velocity of the secondary star in XTE J1550-564 using data with better resolution and a higher signal-to-noise ratio.

If the secondary star is rotating synchronously with the orbit, its mean rotational velocity depends only on the binary mass ratio $`QM_1/M_2`$ and the projected orbital velocity $`K_2`$ (e.g. Horne, Wade, & Szkody 1986). We used the ELC code (Orosz & Hauschildt, 2000) to numerically compute sphere-equivalent Roche lobe radii as a function of the mass ratio $`Q`$, and a simple Monte Carlo code to propagate the ($`1\sigma `$) uncertainties on the input parameters. We find $`Q=6.6_{1.6}^{+2.5}`$ ($`1\sigma `$) for $`K_2=349\pm 12`$ km s-1 and $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i=90\pm 10`$ km s-1. This mass ratio is relatively far from unity, which is typical of X-ray novae with cool low mass companions (e.g. Bailyn et al. 1998 and references therein).

### 3.4 The H$`\alpha `$ Profile

The XTE J1550-564 spectra show a strong, double-peaked H$`\alpha `$ emission line. Fig. 6 shows the mean H$`\alpha `$ line profile obtained by averaging the eleven spectra with the highest signal-to-noise. The equivalent width of the line is about 24.7 Å, the full width at half maximum is about 1500 km s-1, and the maximum velocity in the line wings is about 1000 km s-1. We do not detect any feature at the wavelength of H$`\beta `$, although the signal-to-noise is rather poor there.

The double-peaked emission line is characteristic of emission from an accretion disk (Smak, 1981). In this case there is $`8\%`$ stellar contribution to the H$`\alpha `$ profile since late G and early K stars have relatively weak H$`\alpha `$ absorption lines (EW $`<2`$ Å, Fig. 4). We modelled the line profile using a simple model outlined in Smak (1981; see also Johnston, Kulkarni, & Oke 1989, and Orosz et al. 1994). The three main parameters are (1) the power-law exponent $`\alpha `$, which determines the density function of the emitting atoms, $`f(r)r^\alpha `$ (where the coordinate $`r`$ is normalized to 1 at the outer edge of the disk), (2) the ratio $`r_1`$ of the inner disk radius to the outer disk radius, and (3) the radial velocity $`v_d`$ of the outer edge of the disk. Horne & Marsh (1986) have modified the model to include profiles from an optically thick disk; this modification requires that the inclination be included as an additional parameter. An optically thin model with $`\alpha =2`$, $`r_1=0.17`$, and $`v_d=420`$ km s-1 provides a reasonably good match to the observed profile (we have made no attempt to optimize the model fits), although there is some excess emission in the blue line wing and the central depression in the observed profile is deeper than the model (see Fig. 6). The optically thick models have deeper central depressions, and the depth of an optically thick model with $`i=50^{}`$ (and $`\alpha =2`$, $`r_1=0.17`$, and $`v_d=420`$ km s-1, Fig. 6) matches the depth of the central depression reasonably well. One should note that the inclination used in the model profile may not be a good indicator of the actual binary inclination (see §3.5). For example, the depth of the central depression in the H$`\alpha `$ profile of GS 1124-683 (XN Mus91) was observed to vary over an orbital cycle (Orosz et al., 1994).

The line wings of the H$`\alpha `$ profile of XTE J1550-564 are relatively steep and do not extend to very high velocities (slightly more than 1000 km s-1). In contrast, the line wings of the H$`\alpha `$ profile of GS 1124-683 and H1705-250 (XN Oph77) extend out to almost 2000 km s-1 (Orosz et al., 1994; Remillard et al., 1996). For A0620-00, the width of the H$`\alpha `$ profile has been observed to vary between these extremes during 1991-1993 (Orosz et al., 1994). The weakness or absence of the H$`\beta `$ line in XTE J1550-564 is similar to what is observed in H1705-250 in 1994 (Remillard et al., 1996). There is some excess emission in the blue line wing of the XTE J1550-564 H$`\alpha `$ profile. Excess emission in the blue line wing was observed in GS 1124-683 in 1992, but not in 1993, and in A0620-00 in 1991, but not in 1993. Finally, we note that the ratio of the disk velocity $`v_d`$ to the $`K`$-velocity in XTE J1550-564 is $`v_d/K_2=1.2`$. This value is well within the range observed for the other black hole X-ray novae with (cool) low mass companions (see Table 2). Thus in terms of the properties of its quiescent accretion disk, XTE J1550-564 appears to be a typical black hole system.

### 3.5 Ellipsoidal Light Curve Models and Derived Astrophysical Parameters

The value of the orbital inclination $`i`$ is needed to compute the component masses and other interesting parameters. Normally one models the ellipsoidal light curves to estimate the inclination of a semi-detached system such as XTE J1550-564, and for this purpose we used the ELC code (Orosz & Hauschildt, 2000). The model has many free parameters. The binary parameters for a circular orbit are the inclination $`i`$, the mass ratio $`Q`$, the orbital separation $`a`$, the orbital period $`P`$, and the epoch of the inferior conjunction of the secondary star $`T_0`$(photo). The main parameters for the secondary star are its mean temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, its gravity darkening exponent $`\beta `$, its Roche lobe filling factor $`f`$, and its rotational velocity with respect to synchronous $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Finally there are parameters related to the accretion disk which are the outer radius of the disk $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$, the inner radius of the disk $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$, the opening angle of the outer disk rim $`\beta _{\mathrm{rim}}`$, the temperature at the inner edge $`T_{\mathrm{disk}}`$, and the power-law exponent on the disk temperature profile $`\xi `$, where $`T(r)=T_{\mathrm{disk}}(r/r_{\mathrm{in}})^\xi `$. Some of these parameters can be fixed at reasonable values. We assume the secondary star exactly fills its Roche lobe and is in synchronous rotation. Hence $`f=\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$. Following Claret (2000) the value of the gravity darkening exponent $`\beta `$ is a function of the mean temperature of the secondary star. In this case the gravity darkening exponent is in the range of $`0.06\beta 0.11`$ for our adopted temperature range of $`4100T_{\mathrm{eff}}5100`$ K. We used the specific intensities from the NextGen models (Hauschildt, Allard, & Baron, 1999a; Hauschildt et al., 1999b), so consequently no parameterized limb darkening law was needed. The inner radius of the disk was taken to be 3% of the compact object’s Roche lobe radius, which is roughly $`10^4`$ Schwartzshild radii (see Hameury et al. 1997).

We are left with ten free parameters in the ellipsoidal model: $`Q`$, $`i`$, $`a`$, $`P`$, $`T_0`$(photo), $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\xi `$, $`T_{\mathrm{disk}}`$, $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$, and $`\beta _{\mathrm{rim}}`$. For a given ellipsoidal model, we can compute various observable quantities such as the shape of the light curves in a given bandpass, the amplitude and phasing of the radial velocity curve of the secondary star, the amount of disk light in various bandpasses, the radius, gravity, and rotational velocity of the secondary star, etc. The goal is to find the set of model parameters which gives the best fit to all the observed properties of XTE J1550-564.

To accomplish the optimization goal we used a genetic optimization code based on the PIKAIA routine given in Charbonneau (1995), with the “black sheep” modification outlined by Bobinger (2000). This genetic code is very efficient at finding the global optimal solution in a large parameter space (see Charbonneau 1995 and Metcalfe 2001 for more detailed discussions of genetic algorithms). The algorithm used in the code is quite simple. We define a “population” of 100 random parameter sets. For each parameter set we compute the ellipsoidal model and define a “fitness” based on how well the particular model compares with the available observations. After the fitness of the initial population is determined, 100 new parameter sets are produced as a result of “breeding” between pairs of members, where the probability of breeding is based on the fitness. Random variations (i.e. “mutations”) are introduced into a small fraction of the breeding events. The process of breeding a new population and evaluating its members is repeated (i.e. the population “evolves”) over many generations (typically a few hundred or more) until convergence is achieved.

We will use the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic to evaluate the goodness-of-fit between the predicted and observed light and velocity curves:

$`\chi _{\mathrm{total}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\mathrm{light}}^2+\chi _{\mathrm{velocity}}^2`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_j}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(y(x_i;a_1\mathrm{}a_{10})y_i)^2}{\sigma _i^2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{17}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(y(x_i;a_1\mathrm{}a_{10})y_i)^2}{\sigma _i^2}}.`$
Here the notation $`y(i_i;a_1\mathrm{}a_{10})`$ means the “model value computed at $`x_i`$” and $`y_i`$ means the “observed quantity at the same $`x_i`$.” There is a double summation in the $`\chi _{\mathrm{light}}^2`$ term because we have six filters. In the genetic code, the fitness of a population member is related to its relative value of the $`\chi ^2`$. The member with the lowest $`\chi ^2`$ has the highest fitness, the one with the second lowest $`\chi ^2`$ has the second highest fitness, and so on. We can also consider at least three additional measures of fitness: (i) For each model we can predict $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the duration of an X-ray eclipse, if any. In the case of XTE J1550-564, the X-ray eclipse duration is $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ at a high level of confidence since there were no eclipses observed in the almost 300 pointed RXTE observations of XTE J1550-564 during its various outbursts nor in the extensive RXTE ASM observations (Fig. 1b). Thus we have:

$$\chi _\mathrm{\Theta }^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{\Theta }=0\text{;}\hfill \\ 10^6,\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{\Theta }>0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
As a result of this definition of $`\chi _\mathrm{\Theta }^2`$, any model where the X-ray source is eclipsed is assigned a very low fitness. (ii) For each model we can predict $`k_V`$, which is the fraction of the $`V`$-band light contributed by the accretion disk. Observationally, $`k_V`$ can be estimated using the decompositions discussed in §3.3. At 5500 Å, the disk fraction is $`0.4`$ for the K3III template (Fig. 4a), and $`0.2`$ for the G8 IV template (Fig. 4b). For the purposes of the ellipsoidal modelling we will adopt $`k_V=0.3\pm 0.1`$. We then have

$$\chi _{k_V}^2=\frac{(k_V(a_1\mathrm{}a_{10})0.3)^2}{0.1^2}.$$
(5)
For simplicity we will neglect the small correlation between the disk fraction and the effective temperature. (iii) For each model we can predict $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$, which is the value of the projected rotational velocity of the secondary star. In §3.3.2 we tentatively measured $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i=90\pm 10`$ km s-1. We then have

$$\chi _{\mathrm{rot}}^2=\frac{(V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i(a_1\mathrm{}a_{10})90)^2}{10^2}.$$
(6)
Our total $`\chi ^2`$ becomes $`\chi _{\mathrm{total}}^2=\chi _{\mathrm{light}}^2+\chi _{\mathrm{vel}}^2+\chi _\mathrm{\Theta }^2+\chi _{k_V}^2+\chi _{\mathrm{rot}}^2`$.

In any optimization procedure, one must decide how to assign weights to the observations. In our case some initial fits were performed to get an approximate solution. Based on these initial results, the error bars on the photometric measurements were scaled slightly to give $`\chi _{\mathrm{light}}^2/\nu 1`$ at the minimum in each of the six filters separately. Similarly, the errors on the radial velocities were scaled to give $`\chi _{\mathrm{vel}}^2/\nu 1`$ at the minimum.

Since our measured value of the rotational velocity may have a large systemic error (the value we measured is smaller than the spectral resolution), we ran two sets of fits. Fitting run A did not include the contribution of $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ in the total $`\chi ^2`$. Fitting run B did include the observed value of $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i=90`$ km s-1 in the total $`\chi ^2`$ (i.e. we are taking the value of 90 km s-1 at face value). For each of the two fitting runs A and B, the genetic fitting code was run six separate times on the data with the scaled error bars, using a population size of 100. The volume of parameter space that was searched was the same in all six cases, but the order in which the parameters were encoded into the “genes” was different. In practice this means that the initial random populations were different, and the way two population members exchange parameters when breeding was different. In all cases the final best-fitting parameters were statistically identical after about 200 generations, giving us great confidence that our solutions for each of runs A and B are truly the global ones.

The folded light curves in the six bands and the model light curves are shown in Fig. 7. Although we fit the unbinned data, we also show in Fig. 7 smoothed versions of the light curves which were made by computing the magnitude within bins 0.05 phase units wide. The smoothed light curves generally follow the fitted models quite well.

In order to estimate the uncertainties on the fitted parameters and the uncertainties on the derived astrophysical parameters we collapse the 10-dimensional $`\chi ^2`$ function onto the appropriate parameter of interest. The 1, 2, and $`3\sigma `$ confidence limits are then the values of the parameter where $`\chi ^2=\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2+1,\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2+4`$, and $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2+9`$, respectively. Using the genetic fitting code and the Black Sheep modification it is quite easy to compute these confidence limits since the region of parameter space near the $`\chi ^2`$ minimum is sampled quite well. For each model that is computed, the $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit, the values of the free parameters, and the computed astrophysical parameters (e.g. the black hole mass, the secondary star radius, etc.) are saved. After a sufficiently large number of models have been computed (more than 515,000 in fitting run A and 465,000 in fitting run B), we can collapse the $`\chi ^2`$ function onto the parameter of interest by simply plotting the $`\chi ^2`$ vs. the parameter of interest and looking at the “lower envelope” (i.e. the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ within small bins over the whole range).

Fig. 8 shows the collapsed $`\chi ^2`$ function for the ten fitted parameters in the fitting run A, and Fig. 9 shows the similar plot for the fitting run B. In some cases, we fitted fifth or sixth order polynomials to the curves to more objectively to determine the value of the parameter where $`\chi ^2=\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ and the 1, 2, and $`3\sigma `$ confidence limits. In general, the important geometrical parameters in the ellipsoidal model (i.e. the inclination $`i`$, separation $`a`$, etc.) have well-defined minima and $`3\sigma `$ limits. In addition, the derived parameter ranges are not too different between fitting run A and fitting run B. The one exception is the mass ratio $`Q`$. In the fitting run A, where the observed rotational velocity was not included in the total $`\chi ^2`$, the value of $`Q`$ can only be assigned a lower limit ($`Q>6`$ at the $`3\sigma `$ level). However, the mass ratio $`Q`$ does have well defined upper and lower limits in the fitting run B, where the observed rotational velocity was included in the total $`\chi ^2`$. On the other hand, the accretion disk parameters and the effective temperature of the secondary star are not so well constrained.

Fig. 10 shows the collapsed $`\chi ^2`$ function for six derived parameters in fitting run A: $`M_1`$ (the compact object’s mass), and $`M_2`$ (the secondary star’s mass), $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$, (the predicted rotational velocity of the secondary star), $`R_2`$ (secondary star’s radius), $`\mathrm{log}g`$ (the secondary star surface gravity), and $`L_2`$ (the secondary star’s bolometric luminosity). Fig. 11 shows the similar plot for fitting run B. Key results are summarized are in Table 3. The nominal mass of the black hole is $`9.41M_{}`$ for fitting run A and $`10.56M_{}`$ for fitting run B, respectively. We will adopt the results from fitting run B in the following discussions.

The only observational constraint related to the disk at present is that the disk should contribute roughly 30% of the light in the $`V`$-band, and there is a wide range of accretion disk parameters which produce a disk with roughly the correct brightness. Since the inclination seems to be fairly high, the disk may partially eclipse the secondary star, and vice versa. Unfortunately, we do not have complete phase coverage, so we cannot at present detect the subtle signatures of grazing eclipses. Therefore, observations with much better phase coverage near the conjunction phases should be obtained. Alternatively, observations in the infrared (i.e. $`J`$, $`H`$, and $`K`$ bands) would also be especially useful since the usual assumption is that the relative contribution of the accretion disk is much smaller at these wavelengths. This assumption can and should be tested with good quality infrared spectra. If the disk turns out to be faint in the infrared, then the model fits would of course be much less sensitive to the assumed disk parameters.

The inclusion of the rotational velocity as an additional fitting constraint resulted in only a modest ($`10\%`$) change in the derived mass of the black hole. This is because the black hole mass scales as $`f(M)(1+1/Q)^2`$, and the mass ratio $`Q`$ is relatively large. On the other hand, the derived properties of the secondary star are quite different between the two fitting runs. For example, $`M_2<0.79M_{}`$ ($`1\sigma `$) for fitting run A and $`M_2=1.31M_{}`$ for fitting run B. Clearly, a better measurement of $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ would be quite useful since it would place a much stronger constraint on the mass ratio, which in turn would place stronger constraints on the properties of the secondary star. In order to significantly improve the precision of the black hole mass, one would need to also improve the precision of the mass function $`f(M)`$.

Finally, it is worthwhile to point out that the results summarized in Table 3 are our best estimates based on the data we currently have. Although the parameter uncertainties have been rigorously computed, they represent statistical errors only. There may be systematic errors in, for example, the measured rotational velocity $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i`$ owing to the low spectral resolution or in the derived inclination owing to the less than perfect phase coverage and errors in measuring the contamination from the accretion disk. It was straightforward to perform two fitting sequences to see what effect including the rotational velocity as a fitting constraint had on the outcome. It is less straightforward to quantify the effects of incomplete phase coverage or imperfect disk/stellar decomposition. However, we can say with some confidence that since our derived inclination is already quite high and near the upper limit imposed by the lack of X-ray eclipses, it is unlikely that we have underestimated the true inclination significantly. Ultimately one would need to obtain additional data to see if similar light curves are observed.

### 3.6 Distance

The distance to the source is a function of four parameters: The mass $`M_2`$ and temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of the secondary star fix its luminosity (see Eq. 2); interstellar extinction ($`A_V`$) makes the source appear fainter; and extra light from the accretion disk (parameterized by the $`V`$-band “disk fraction” $`k_V`$) makes the source appear brighter. We have reasonably good values for all of these parameters. As noted in §3.3, $`A_V4.75`$ can be derived by modelling the X-ray spectrum and assuming a typical gas to dust ratio for the interstellar medium; $`k_V0.30`$ was determined from our spectral decomposition (Figs. 4a and 4b); and a temperature range of $`4100T_{\mathrm{eff}}5100`$ K was deduced for the secondary star. Using these results and a simple Monte Carlo procedure, we computed the distance and its uncertainty for various values of the secondary star mass $`M_2`$. We used the synthetic photometry computed from the NextGen models444ftp://calvin.physast.uga.edu/pub/NextGen/Colors/ to determine the expected absolute $`V`$ magnitude of the star from its temperature, radius, and surface gravity. For this procedure we adopted $`4100T_{\mathrm{eff}}5100`$ K, $`k_V=0.30\pm 0.05`$, a mean apparent $`V`$ magnitude of $`22.0\pm 0.2`$, and $`N_H=(8.5\pm 2.3)\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 (90% confidence) and $`A_V=N_H/1.79\times 10^{21}`$ (exact). The results are displayed in Table 4 for a wide range of secondary star masses. For masses in the range of 0.15 to $`3.0M_{}`$ the computed distance is in the range 3.0 to 7.6 kpc. However, at a fixed mass, the formal error on the distance is rather large due to the relatively large adopted temperature range and to the relatively large error in $`N_H`$. The distance for the case of $`M_2=1.31M_{}`$ is 5.9 kpc, again with a rather large formal error ($`1\sigma `$ range of 2.8 to 7.6 kpc).

We can make an independent estimate of the distance if we assume the observed systemic velocity of $`\gamma =68\pm 12`$ km s-1 is entirely due to differential galactic rotation. We use the rotation curve of Fich, Blitz, & Stark (1989) and the standard IAU rotation constants of $`R_0=8.5`$ kpc and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0=220`$ km s-1. The rotation curve for a source with galactic coordinates of $`\mathrm{}325.88^{}`$ and $`b=1.83^{}`$ is roughly parabolic, with a minimum radial velocity of $`95`$ km s-1 at a distance of $`7`$ kpc. The expected distance for a source with $`\gamma =68`$ km s-1 is either $`4.4`$ kpc or $`9.7`$ kpc. Considering the errors on $`\gamma `$, the kinematic distance can be anywhere between $`3.2`$ kpc and $`10.8`$ kpc at the $`1\sigma `$ level, which is entirely consistent with the ranges derived above. Given the general agreement between the two distance estimates we conclude that XTE J1550-564 has essentially no (radial) velocity with respect to its local standard of rest.

We can use the distance estimates for XTE J1550-564 to calculate an order of magnitude estimate for the maximum X-ray luminosity seen during outbursts. The spectral analysis of Sobczak et al. (2000) for the intense flare of 1998 September 19 implies an unabsorbed flux of $`3.7\times 10^7`$ erg cm-2 s-1 over the range of 1-20 keV, with the spectrum dominated by the power-law component. For our favored distance of 5.3 kpc, the isotropic luminosity is then $`1.77\times 10^{39}`$ erg s-1 (with a large error owing to the uncertainty in the distance). This is just slightly above the Eddington luminosity for a $`10.56M_{}`$ black hole, which is a remarkable coincidence given the significant uncertainty in the distance.

## 4 Discussion

Bailyn et al. (1998) analyzed the distribution of black hole masses in seven systems and found a high probability that six of the seven systems (GRO J0422+32, A0620-00, GS 1124-683, GRO J1655-40, H1705-250, and GS 2000+25) have masses which are consistent with $`7M_{}`$. The seventh system, V404 Cyg, has a mass which is significantly larger (about $`12M_{}`$; Shahbaz et al. 1994). The mass of the black hole in XTE J1550-564 is well above $`7M_{}`$. With $`M_18.1M_{}`$ at $`3\sigma `$ confidence (Table 3), its mass may in fact be similar to the mass of the black hole in V404 Cyg. Since the work of Bailyn et al. (1998), the mass functions for seven additional systems have been measured, and improved parameters for some of the original seven systems have been measured. Thus the issue of the observed black hole mass distribution should be revisited to see if the clustering of black hole masses near $`7M_{}`$ is still significant. Given the new data, we can begin to make meaningful comparisons with formation theory. For example, the detailed formation models of Fryer & Kalogera (2001) predict a mass distribution which is continuous and which extends over a broad range (in particular, they predict no peak at $`7M_{}`$).

The determination of the black hole mass for XTE J1550-564 is especially important for the interpretation of the high-frequency X-ray quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) observed for this system (Remillard et al. 2002; Homan et al. 2001). Models for several types of oscillations predicted in general relativity are under investigation as possible causes of these QPOs (e.g. Remillard 2001, and references therein); all of these depend on both the mass and spin of the black hole, and possibly also on conditions in the inner accretion disk. Despite considerable uncertainties in the models, we can offer a few comments on the implications of our mass determination for XTE J1550-564. At the nominal mass of $`10.7M_{}`$, oscillations at the frequency of the last stable orbit for a Schwarzschild black hole (spin parameter, $`a_{}=0`$) would be seen at a frequency, $`\nu =2199/(M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_{})=208.2`$ Hz (Shapiro & Teukolsky, 1983). Since XTE J1550-564 has exhibited QPOs with frequencies up to 284 Hz (Homan et al., 2001), it appears that plausible mechanisms require $`a_{}>0`$. (The oscillation frequency would be 284 Hz (for $`a_{}=0`$) if $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=7.74M_{}`$, which is below the $`3\sigma `$ lower limit on the black hole mass.) This argument was used by Strohmayer (2001) to suggest that the 450 Hz QPO in GRO J1655-40 implies appreciable spin for the black hole in that system. We further note that the ratio of the black hole masses for XTE J1550-564 ($`M_1=10.6M_{}`$, Table 3) and GRO J1655-40 ($`M_1=6.3M_{}`$, Greene, Bailyn, & Orosz 2001) is $`1.7`$, which is nearly inversely proportional to their maximum QPO frequencies: $`(284\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}/450\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z})^11.6`$. We may then speculate that these results are consistent with a common QPO origin, with QPO frequencies that vary as $`M^1`$, which might be expected if the black holes have similar values of the spin parameter.

Both XTE J1550-564 and GRO J1655-40 have had several closely-spaced outburst events relatively shortly after their initial discoveries. Interestingly enough, optical precursors to X-ray outbursts (i.e. X-ray delays) have been observed for both sources. According to Hameury et al. (1997), these X-ray delays can best be understood using a two component accretion model consisting of a standard thin disk in the outer regions and an ADAF region in the inner region. At the onset of an outburst, the heating front reaches the ADAF region relatively quickly, but then must propagate more slowly on a viscous timescale, thereby greatly delaying the production of X-rays. Orosz et al. (1997) observed an optical precursor to the 1996 April outburst of GRO J1655-40. In that case, the delay between the $`V`$-band rise and the detection by the ASM on RXTE was $`5.6\pm 0.8`$ days. In the case of the 2000 outburst of XTE J1550-564, Jain et al. (2001c) reported a delay of $`8.8\pm 0.6`$ days between the rise in $`V`$ and the detection by the RXTE ASM. The ratio of these delays is $`8.8/5.61.6`$, which is nearly the same as the ratio of the masses and is the same as the inverse ratio of their maximum QPO frequencies ($`1.7`$ and $`1.6`$ respectively). We may again speculate that these results imply that the size of the ADAF cavity scales with the mass of the black hole.

For the case of a companion star mass of $`1.3M_{}`$ (Table 3), the companion star in XTE J1550-564 appears to have mass that is larger than the typical mass for X-ray novae with a cool (K or M) companion. For comparison, the K0 secondary star in V404 Cyg has a mass of about $`0.7M_{}`$ (Shahbaz et al., 1994). Since the secondary star in XTE J1550-564 is about three times larger than a normal K3/4 dwarf, its evolutionary state may be different than the dwarf secondaries in the short period X-ray novae such as A0620-00 or GS 1124-683. If the star is still in the core hydrogen burning phase, then its nuclear evolution timescale would be $`1\times 10^9`$ years, leading to an average mass transfer rate of $`10^9M_{}`$ yr-1. If the star has finished its core hydrogen burning, then presumably its radius is expanding on a thermal timescale of $`10^7`$ years, leading to an average mass transfer rate of $`10^7M_{}`$ yr-1.

We can make a rough estimate of the mass transfer rate in XTE J1550-564 as follows. The RXTE satellite performed numerous observations of XTE J1550-564 during its 1998 and 1999 outbursts. Sobczak et al. (2000) give the unabsorbed 2-20 keV flux and the 20-100 keV flux for the $`200`$ PCA and HEXTE observations from this period, respectively (their Fig. 6). Integrating under the curves, we find a total 2-100 keV fluence of 1.06 erg cm-2 for the 1998-1999 outburst. Integrating the ASM light curve (Fig. 1) we find that the outburst in 2000 was about 20 times fainter in the 2-12 keV band than the 1998 and 1999 events. Assuming similar spectral characteristics for the two events, we conclude that total X-ray fluence in the 2-100 keV band was 1.1 erg cm-2 in the interval between 1998 and 2001. To get the average mass transfer rate, we need to know the recurrence time between major outbursts and the distance. According to Chen, Shrader, & Livio (1997), the sky coverage provided by scanning X-ray instruments has been quite good since about 1988, so it seems likely that the recurrence time of XTE J1550-564 is at least ten years. The distance is not well known, but it is probably about 6 kpc to within a factor of two (Table 4). In Table 5 we give total isotropic energies and average mass transfer rates for assumed distances of 3, 6, and 10 kpc and recurrence times of 10 and 50 years (we assume an accretion efficiency of 10% and that the mass transfer rate from the secondary star is the same as the mass transfer rate onto the black hole). The mass transfer rates are between about $`1\times 10^{10}`$ and $`7\times 10^9M_{}`$ yr-1, which suggests the star is evolving on a relatively long nuclear timescale.

GRO J1655-40 might be a similar system in terms of its evolutionary state. The average mass transfer rate in GRO J1655-40 has been estimated to be about $`1\times 10^{10}M_{}`$ yr-1 (van Paradijs 1996). However, the secondary star is located in the Hertzsprung gap in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (e.g. Orosz & Bailyn 1997), so one would expect a mass transfer rate of about $`1\times 10^7M_{}`$ yr-1 (e.g. Kolb et al. 1997). Regos, Tout, & Wickramasinghe (1998) have suggested that the secondary star in GRO J1655-40 is still in the core hydrogen burning phase, and they have constructed evolutionary models with mass transfer rates much closer to the observed value. It remains to be seen if a similar model can be constructed for XTE J1550-564.

Although the presence of a black hole in XTE J1550-564 is now firmly established, follow-up observations would be desirable to confirm and improve upon our results. The statistical error in the mass function can be easily reduced by adding more radial velocities. Spectroscopic observations with higher resolution should be obtained so that the rotational velocity of the companion star can be measured more precisely. Our inclination limits can be improved by obtaining multicolor light curves with much better phase coverage.

## 5 Summary

Our optical spectroscopic observations of the companion star in XTE J1550-564 have established the orbital period of $`P_{\mathrm{sp}}=1.552\pm 0.010`$ days and the semiamplitude of $`K_2=349\pm 12`$ km s-1. The optical mass function is $`f(M)=6.86\pm 0.71M_{}`$. The rotational velocity of the companion star is $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i=90\pm 10`$ km s-1, which implies a mass ratio of $`QM_1/M_1=6.6_{1.6}^{+2.5}`$ ($`1\sigma `$). This result should be confirmed with better data. From light curve modelling we find the most likely value of the mass of the compact object is $`9.41M_{}`$ with a $`1\sigma `$ range of $`8.36M_{}M_110.76M_{}`$. If we apply our tentative value of $`V_{\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{sin}i=90\pm 10`$ km s-1 as an additional constraint in the ellipsoidal modelling, we find the most likely value of the mass of the compact object is $`10.56M_{}`$ with a $`1\sigma `$ range of $`9.68M_{}M_111.58M_{}`$. The black hole nature of XTE J1550-564 is therefore firmly established by this work.

It is a great pleasure to thank the numerous people at the Las Campanas, Paranal, and La Silla Observatories who made this project a success, and the two YALO observers, Juan Espinoza and David Gonzalez Huerta, for providing data in a timely and efficient manner. JAO appreciates useful discussions with Norbert Langer. CDB and RKJ were supported in part by the NSF grant AST-9730774 and JEM was supported in part by NASA grant NAG5-10813. PJG was supported by a CfA Fellowship. RR acknowledges support from the NASA contract to MIT for instruments of the RXTE mission. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, and NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service.


format: text

text:
# References

UA/NPPS-15-2001

THE PATH FROM CHEMICAL TO THERMAL FREEZE-OUT
A. S. Kapoyannis
University of Athens, Division of Nuclear and Particle Physics,
GR-15771 Athens, Greece

## Abstract

The evolution of a hadronic system after its chemical decomposition is described through a model that conserves the hadronic multiplicities to their values at chemical freeze-out. The state of the system is found as function of temperature and the corresponding baryon density is evaluated. The baryon density at thermal decoupling is also computed.

PACS numbers: 25.75.-q, 12.40.Ee, 05.70.Ce, 12.38.Mh

Keywords: chemical, thermal, freeze-out, hadron gas, baryon density

1. Introduction

Thermal approaches have extensively been used to describe the particle multiplicities which emerge from high energy collisions \[1-16\]. The results of such approaches are satisfactory since they are able to predict a large number of different experimentally measured hadronic multiplicities as functions of a few thermodynamic variables, such as temperature, volume and chemical potentials.

The extracted parameters from such approaches are associated with “chemical freeze-out”, i.e. the point where the chemical composition of the fireball is fixed. After this stage the particles continue to interact until their momentum distribution is fixed, as well. This second point is called “thermal freeze-out”.

Since a set of experimentally measured abundances define the chemical freeze-out point these abundances have to remain fixed through the whole cooling process until thermal freeze-out. After all, the particles are measured once freeze-out has been completed.

Various authors have used models of thermally equilibrated relativistic hadronic abundances to determine the chemical freeze-out parameters. In some of these models the hadrons are non-interacting particles \[2-7\] and in others a kind of interaction among them has been included \[1,8-16\]. In this paper the main focus will be on a model of a non-interacting hadronic gas formulated in the grand canonical ensemble, called “Ideal Hadron Gas” (IHG) \[2-5\]. It will be argued that in this model, as in the rest of thermal models, it is not possible to fulfil the requirement that all the particle multiplicities will remain fixed for the whole way from chemical decoupling to thermal freeze-out. Considering for example IHG, the partition function is expressed as function of $`(V,T,\{\lambda \})`$ where $`\{\lambda \}`$ are fugacities associated with quantum numbers, such as Baryon Number, $`B`$, Charge, $`Q`$ and Strangeness, $`S`$, as well as the departure from absolute chemical equilibrium. In this particular case the total number of these fugacities is limited to at most five. Not all of them are independent since quantities such as $`<B>`$, $`<Q>`$, $`<S>`$ have to remain fixed, limiting the total number of independent parameters to four. The temperature at thermal freeze-out point is generally different from the chemical freeze-out one. So it will be impossible for someone who will use the same model at thermal freeze-out point to have all the multiplicities fixed to their chemical freeze-out values. The existing free parameters will not be enough.

In this work the necessity to have fixed particle numbers will be used to construct a thermal model which will determine the evolution of the hadronic system after its chemical freeze-out. With the use of this model the construction of the “path” followed by the system in the diagram of temperature as function of baryon density will be possible.

2. The model and its application

In the context of IHG the grand canonical partition function, formulated in the Boltzmann approximation, has the form

$$\mathrm{ln}Z(V,T,\{\lambda \})_{IHG}=V\underset{i}{}\lambda _{QN_i}\underset{j}{}Z_{H_{ij}}(T)V\underset{i}{}\lambda _{QN_i}\underset{j}{}\frac{T}{2\pi ^2}g_{ij}m_{ij}^2K_2(\frac{m_{ij}}{T}),$$
(1)
where $`i`$ runs over all hadronic families such as mesons, $`N`$ Baryons, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Baryons, etc. and $`j`$ represents the specific member of the family with degeneracy factor $`g_{ij}`$ and mass $`m_{ij}`$. $`\lambda _{QN_i}`$ stands for the product of all the fugacities associated with the particular family. These fugacities can either be quantum numbers fugacities related to Baryon number, Strangeness, etc. or to quark flavour111For example, for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ Baryons, $`\lambda _{QN}`$ would read $`\lambda _B\lambda _Q^1\lambda _S^2\gamma _s^2`$ or $`\lambda _d\lambda _s^2\gamma _s^2`$. One can look for example in , eq. 14, to find out how the two sets of fugacities are related..

Using the above relation one can evaluate particle abundances if one extends the partition function by introducing a fugacity $`\lambda _{ij}`$ for every particle. After calculating the particle number one has to set $`\lambda _{ij}=1`$ , so again the particle number is only expressed as function of the quantum numbers fugacities.

Now, if someone wishes to keep the particle numbers fixed, e.g. at their chemical freeze-out values, it is only natural to use the fugacities $`\lambda _{ij}`$, but with the difference that they are allowed to be $`\lambda _{ij}1`$. This model is called Fixed Particle Numbers (FPN) model and accordingly the partition function depends on $`\lambda _{ij}`$’s

$$\mathrm{ln}Z(V,T,\{\lambda \})_{FPN}=V\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{H_{ij}}Z_{H_{ij}}(T)V\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{H_{ij}}\frac{T}{2\pi ^2}g_{ij}m_{ij}^2K_2(\frac{m_{ij}}{T}),$$
(2)
where $`\lambda _{H_{ij}}`$ is product of quantum numbers as well as particle number fugacities222For example, for $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1530)^{}`$ Baryon, $`\lambda _H`$ would read $`\lambda _B\lambda _Q^1\lambda _S^2\gamma _s^2\lambda _{\mathrm{\Xi }(1530)^{}}`$.. The mean particle number can be evaluated through the relation

$$<N_{ij}>=\lambda _{ij}\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z(V,T,\{\lambda \})_{FPN}}{\lambda _{ij}}|_{\{\lambda \}\lambda _{ij}},$$
(3)
where $`\{\lambda \}\lambda _{ij}`$ means that all fugacities except $`\lambda _{ij}`$ are considered as constants.

A thermal model, like IHG, can then be used to extract the set of chemical freeze-out parameters $`\{V,T,\lambda _B,\lambda _S,\mathrm{}\}`$ which best fit a set of experimentally measured multiplicities. With these given parameters the numbers $`<N_{ij}>`$ of all particles that compose the hadronic gas can be calculated. All these numbers have to stay fixed during the evolution of the system after chemical freeze-out, so $`\lambda _{ij}`$ will be allowed to become different than one. With the use of (3) this requirement takes the form333The primed variables in this paper will generally be related to subsequent points of the chemical freeze-out point.

$$<N_{ij}>=<N_{ij}^{}>V\lambda _{QN_i}Z_{H_{ij}}(T)=V^{}\lambda _{H_{ij}}Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})$$

$$\lambda _{H_{ij}}=\frac{V\lambda _{QN_i}Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}{V^{}Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})}.$$
(4)
In the last equation $`\lambda _{H_{ij}}`$ may contain quantum numbers fugacities as well the particle number fugacity. As it is shown in the Appendix it is not possible to evaluate each quantum number fugacity, but this is irrelevant since the full product of fugacities can be calculated. Let me point out that all quantum numbers are automatically conserved because they are linear combination of the particle numbers.

The volume of the system at chemical freeze-out, $`V`$, on the other hand, need not necessarily stay fixed. If $`V^{}`$ at temperature $`T^{}`$ is different from $`V`$, then all fugacities given by (4) depend on a multiplicand factor $`\frac{V}{V^{}}`$, which cannot be determined from the constraints imposed by the conservation of particle numbers. An additional constraint has to be applied. For example conservation of entropy can be assumed444A lot of authors assume isentropic evolution of the system, e.g. see ..

The entropy of the system can be calculated from555The symbol of entropy is tilded in order not to be confused with the symbol of Strangeness. $`K`$ can be set equal to one.

$$\stackrel{~}{S}=\left(\frac{[T\mathrm{ln}Z(V,T,\{\mu \})]}{T}\right)_{V,\{\mu \}},$$
(5)
where $`\mu `$ represents the chemical potential associated with fugacity $`\lambda =\mathrm{exp}(\mu /T)`$. Applying (5) to the partition function (2)666The IHG partition function (1), where $`\lambda _{ij}=1`$, can be used for the evaluation of the entropy at the chemical freeze-out point. the constraint of fixed entropy will read

$$\stackrel{~}{S}=\stackrel{~}{S}^{}$$

$$\mathrm{ln}Z(V,T,\{\mu \})+VT\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{QN_i}\frac{Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}{T}VT\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{QN_i}\frac{\mu _{QN_i}}{T^2}Z_{H_{ij}}(T)=$$

$$=\mathrm{ln}Z(V^{},T^{},\{\mu ^{}\})+V^{}T^{}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{H_{ij}}\frac{Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})}{T^{}}V^{}T^{}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{H_{ij}}\frac{\mu _{H_{ij}}}{T^2}Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{}).$$

With the use of (4) the last equation becomes

$$VT\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{QN_i}\frac{Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}{T}V\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{QN_i}\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _{QN_i})Z_{H_{ij}}(T)=$$

$$=V^{}T^{}\underset{ij}{}\frac{V\lambda _{QN_i}Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}{V^{}Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})}\frac{Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})}{T^{}}V^{}\underset{ij}{}Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})\frac{V\lambda _{QN_i}Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}{V^{}Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{V\lambda _{QN_i}Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}{V^{}Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})})$$

$$T\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{QN_i}\frac{Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}{T}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{QN_i}\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _{QN_i})Z_{H_{ij}}(T)=$$

$$=T^{}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{QN_i}\frac{Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}{Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})}\frac{Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})}{T^{}}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{QN_i}Z_{H_{ij}}(T)\mathrm{ln}(\frac{V\lambda _{QN_i}Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}{V^{}Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})}).$$
(6)
Setting $`x\frac{V^{}}{V}`$, (6) can be solved for $`x`$ to give777All hadrons with masses up to 2400 MeV are included in the calculations corresponding to FPN and to IHG models.

$$x=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{_{ij}\lambda _{QN_i}Z_{H_{ij}}(T)\mathrm{ln}(\frac{Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}{Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})})+T_{ij}\lambda _{QN_i}\frac{Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}{T}T^{}_{ij}\lambda _{QN_i}\frac{Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}{Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})}\frac{Z_{H_{ij}}(T^{})}{T^{}}}{_{ij}\lambda _{QN_i}Z_{H_{ij}}(T)}\right].$$
(7)
Equation (7) can be used to evaluate the volume expansion ratio as the system has cooled to a temperature $`T^{}`$ less than the chemical freeze-out temperature $`T`$. With the use of the same equation, quantities like the baryon density of the system can be calculated at $`T^{}`$. One has to remember that baryon number is also fixed with the imposition of the constraints (4). So

$$n_B=\frac{}{V^{}}=\frac{^{ch}}{V^{}}=\frac{V}{V^{}}\frac{^{ch}}{V}=\frac{n_B^{ch}}{x}.$$
(8)
Other constraints which have to be applied to the system and are connected to quantum numbers, like

$$<S>=0,\frac{}{<Q>}=\left(\frac{}{<Q>}\right)^{ch},<|S|>=<|S|>^{ch},$$
(9)
are also satisfied.

Thus, the contour which is followed by the system after the fixation of its chemical composition until its thermal freeze-out can be evaluated. This contour can be defined on a $`(T,n_B)`$ plane with the use of eqs. (7) and (8) but not on a $`(T,\mu _B)`$ plane for the reasons explained in the Appendix.

As an example the model is used to depict the path followed by hadronic systems which have been formed at different interactions at SPS after their chemical freeze-out. The chemical freeze-out parameters used, along with the corresponding references are listed in Table 1. From a variety of thermal analyses performed by different authors the particular ones have been chosen because they allow for partial strangeness equilibrium ($`\gamma _s1`$) and they use most recent available values for the experimentally measured hadronic multiplicities. The values of Table 1 are then used, for each interaction separately, as input to the equations $`<S>=0`$ and $`\frac{<B>}{2<Q>}=\beta `$,888$`\beta `$ is fixed from the baryon number and charge of the participant nucleons, e.g. see . evaluated through IHG, to determine the rest of the fugacities. Thus the whole set of chemical freeze-out parameters $`(T,\mu _B,\mu _Q,\mu _S,\gamma _s)`$ are calculated and also the products of fugacities $`\lambda _{QN_i}`$ in (1) are also set.

Giving different values to temperature $`T`$, equation (8) can be used to calculate the corresponding baryon density. The resulting paths for $`S+S`$, $`S+Ag`$ and $`Pb+Pb`$ interactions are shown in Figure 1. For the $`Pb+Pb`$ interaction the thermal freeze-out temperature is calculated in Refs.  and . For these values baryon density at thermal freeze-out $`n_B^{ther}`$ can be evaluated. The results are listed in Table 2. The path for $`Pb+Pb`$ is followed until the lower temperature (of the two given in Refs. ) is reached.

In order to compare FPN with an IHG model which presents the closest characteristics with it, points that are subjected to the constraint that the baryon number and the entropy is fixed ($`<B>=<B>^{ch}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}=\stackrel{~}{S}^{ch}`$)999The rest of the constraints on quantum numbers, like $`<S>=0`$, etc., are applied as well. are also depicted on Figure 1. Let me emphasise that at these points the particle numbers are not conserved. But the IHG points have no problem to be depicted on a ($`T,\mu _B`$) plane. This is done in Figure 2. On this Figure there is also depicted an “equivalent” value of baryon chemical potential $`\mu _{B}^{}{}_{eq}{}^{}`$ for FPN model as function of temperature. This chemical potential is calculated through IHG and the only connection it has with FPN is that it gives the same baryon density

$$n_B(T,\mu _{B}^{}{}_{eq}{}^{})_{IHG}=n_B(T)_{FPN}.$$
(10)
For comparison with FPN, points that correspond to calculations through IHG for the given thermal freeze-out temperatures of Table 2 have also been depicted on Figs 1 and 2.

Finally in Figure 3 the ratio $`x=V^{}/V`$, where $`V`$ is the chemical freeze-out volume, is plotted as function of temperature for FPN and for IHG (with fixed entropy and baryon number).

3. Conclusion

After chemical freeze-out the collisions among hadrons that compose the hadronic gas can no longer change its chemical composition. Following this requirement an ideal hadron gas model (FPN) has been presented that keeps the multiplicity of every particle fixed to the value dictated by the chemical freeze-out conditions. In the context of FPN the constraints of conservation of quantum numbers are broken up to a larger number of constraints, these of conservation of particle numbers. The chemical potentials of quantum numbers are no longer “good” variables to describe the evolution of the system. Of course the fugacities of particle numbers used as variables in FPN are not “free” parameters. Their values are fixed from the given set of the quantum numbers fugacities at chemical freeze-out. So the evolution of a hadronic system is described as function of temperature and baryon density (after imposing conservation of entropy). This is done for three SPS interactions.

Following this evolution and using values of thermal freeze-out temperature extracted for the $`Pb+Pb`$ interaction the baryon density at freeze-out is evaluated. As the temperature at thermal decoupling for various interactions can be calculated using transverse mass spectra or HBT analysis  the same procedure can be applied to evaluate the corresponding baryon density before free streaming for these interactions. Finally let me point out that the necessity to keep the particle multiplicities fixed after chemical freeze-out can be fulfilled to any thermal model, apart from IHG, through the use of the particle fugacities.

Acknowledgement I would like to thank Professor N. G. Antoniou and Professor C. N. Ktorides for reviewing the manuscript and for useful remarks.

Appendix

It will be argued that an ambiguity presents itself when someone tries to evaluate the quantum numbers fugacities. Let us suppose that the system is initially in a state which is determined by volume $`V`$, temperature $`T`$, quantum fugacities $`\lambda _B,\lambda _S,\mathrm{}`$ and particle number fugacities $`\lambda _{ij}`$. The question that arises is whether it is possible to determine the thermodynamic variables connected to a subsequent temperature $`T^{}`$. Normally the new fugacities could be calculated from a set of $`n`$ equations of the form101010The primed quantities are connected to $`T^{}`$.

$$=,$$

$$<S(V,T,\{\lambda \})>=<S^{}(V^{},T^{},\{\lambda \}^{})>,\mathrm{}$$
(11)
which insure for the conservation of the $`n`$ quantum numbers and a set of $`m`$ equations of the form

$$<N_{ij}(V,T,\{\lambda \})>=<N_{ij}^{}(V^{},T^{},\{\lambda \}^{})>,\mathrm{}$$
(12)
which insure for the conservation of the number of the $`m`$ particle species that are available in the hadronic gas. If one tries to solve the above set of the $`n+m`$ equations one will find out that it is impossible to determine all the fugacities. The reason for this is that the $`n+m`$ equations are not linearly independent. When the particle numbers are fixed, automatically the quantum numbers are fixed as well (the opposite, of course, is not true). For example the equation for the conservation of the baryon number can be expressed as a linear combination of equations for the conservation of the number of certain particle species

$$=(<N_n><N_n^{}>)+(<N_p><N_p^{}>)+\mathrm{}$$

$$(<N_{\overline{n}}><N_{\overline{n}}^{}>)(<N_{\overline{p}}><N_{\overline{p}}^{}>)\mathrm{}.$$
(13)
One might think that a way out of the problem of the linear dependency of the equations (11) and (12) would be to reduce the number of particle number fugacities by $`n`$ in which case $`n`$ particle species would be described by only quantum numbers fugacities. Let us suppose for simplicity that the hadronic gas is composed only of particles $`1`$ and $`2`$ and the only relevant quantum number is $`B`$. If one decided to describe the hadronic gas with the fugacities $`\lambda _B`$ and $`\lambda _2`$, then two equations would have to be satisfied

$$=V(Z_{H_1}(T)\lambda _B+Z_{H_2}(T)\lambda _B\lambda _2)=V^{}(Z_{H_1}(T^{})\lambda _B^{}+Z_{H_2}(T^{})\lambda _B^{}\lambda _2^{})$$
(14)
$$<N_2>=<N_2^{}>V(Z_{H_2}(T)\lambda _B\lambda _2)=V^{}(Z_{H_2}(T^{})\lambda _B^{}\lambda _2^{}).$$
(15)
Using (15) in (14) one can solve for the final $`\lambda _B^{}`$ to find

$$\lambda _B^{}=\frac{V}{V^{}}\lambda _B\frac{Z_{H_1}(T)}{Z_{H_1}(T^{})}=\frac{VT}{V^{}T^{}}\lambda _B\frac{K_2(m_1/T)}{K_2(m_1/T^{})}.$$
(16)
On the other hand if someone had decided to use the set of fugacities $`\lambda _B`$ and $`\lambda _1`$ he would arrive in a similar way to the relation

$$\lambda _B^{}=\frac{V}{V^{}}\lambda _B\frac{Z_{H_2}(T)}{Z_{H_2}(T^{})}=\frac{VT}{V^{}T^{}}\lambda _B\frac{K_2(m_2/T)}{K_2(m_2/T^{})}.$$
(17)
It is obvious from comparing (16) and (17)111111The hadron masses are in general different ($`m_1m_2`$). that the value of baryon number fugacity depends on the choice of which particle number fugacities are kept. This, of course, is undesirable.

Two alternative choices thereby present themselves. The first is to drop the quantum numbers fugacities after chemical freeze-out and describe the evolution of the system with only the particle number fugacities. The second is to keep the quantum numbers fugacities with the ambiguity that accompanies them. In either case the product of fugacities which accompany the part of the partition function associated with each particle species has no problem to be evaluated. Thus quantities like the baryon density can be calculated.

Figure Captions

###### Figure 1

Contours (thick lines) that follow hadronic systems after chemical freeze-out on ($`T,n_B`$) plane for 3 interactions at SPS, calculated through FPN (model of Fixed Particle Numbers). On the same graph points (dotted lines) calculated through an IHG model that conserve entropy and baryon number are depicted.

###### Figure 2

The points of the IHG model of Figure 1 on the ($`T,\mu _B`$) plane (dotted lines). The thick lines represent calculation through IHG of the baryon chemical potential that leads for a given temperature to the same baryon density as FPN.

###### Figure 3

The ratio of the volume $`V^{}`$ of the hadronic system to its volume $`V^{ch}`$ at chemical freeze-out as function of temperature calculated for the models FPN and IHG of Figure 1.

Table Captions

###### Table 1

Chemical freeze-out parameters calculated for different interactions at SPS and the corresponding references.

###### Table 2

Thermal freeze-out temperature calculated in two different references for the $`Pb+Pb`$ interaction and the corresponding computation of baryon density through FPN. The upper errors of baryon density correspond to the upper errors of temperature. The same is true for the lower errors.

| Experiment | $`T^{ch}(MeV)`$ | $`\mu _B^{ch}(MeV)`$ | $`\gamma _s^{ch}`$ | Reference |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| S+S 200 $`AGeV`$ | $`180.5\pm 10.9`$ | $`220.2\pm 18.0`$ | $`0.747\pm 0.048`$ |  |
| S+Ag 200 $`AGeV`$ | $`178.9\pm 8.1`$ | $`241.5\pm 14.5`$ | $`0.711\pm 0.063`$ |  |
| Pb+Pb 158 $`AGeV`$ | $`174.7\pm 6.7`$ | $`240\pm 14`$ | $`0.900\pm 0.049`$ |  |

Table 1.

| Experiment | $`T^{ther}(MeV)`$ | Reference | $`n_B^{ther}`$ ($`fm^3`$) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Pb+Pb 158 $`AGeV`$ | $`120\pm 12`$ |  | $`0.099_{0.019}^{+0.022}`$ |
| Pb+Pb 158 $`AGeV`$ | $`95.8\pm 3.5`$ |  | $`0.0627_{0.0045}^{+0.0047}`$ |

Table 2.