text:
# Computational universes

## 1 Historical notes

In a broad context, the development of rationalism, the enlightenment and science can be perceived as an awakening from the illusory world of the senses (Maya in Sanskrit); as a growing awareness that ”facts” which once were perceived as self-evident turned out to be utterly wrong. Humanity once took it for granted that it was located at the epicentre of the Universe. A closer inspection revealed that there is no ground to claims of any preference in location: Earth is conveniently situated in a solar system of a remote part of our galaxy, which in turn is part of a group of galaxies and of the physical Universe as we perceive it today. People also trusted that their bodies are made-up of solid stuff. Later on they learned that, as their bodies consist of atomic and subatomic “point” particles, things only appear to be solidly filled, but in another perspective, space is “almost empty.” Time turned out to be relative to the motion of observers, and single “particles” such as photons and neutrons, seemed to be at two or more spatial positions at once. On another issue, people previously thought that they have been created in a different way than other species. As it turned out, from a biological point of view, mankind evolved and spread just like locusts and everyone else around. This is corroborated not only by phylogenetic evidence, but by analysis of the very DNA code that constitutes the genetic heritage and blueprint of our ancestors and of all living beings. Indeed, the DNA itself turns out to be a biochemical code running on cellular computers to the effect of creating, maintaining and reproducing the organism of which it is a part.

Further disillusionments may lie ahead. Consciousness is still an “undiscover’d country,” and maybe it is just a manifestation of neuronal brain functions. Or, consciousness may be just the opposite: transcendental. Despite the achievements of Freud, certain dream phases are barely understood. Artists have speculated that we are ”fleshware” units inside of a simulation-computation-game that appears gigantic or even infinite to us. Who knows, we might have even paid for to live a life in the twenty-first century in a beyond fair. That is to say, we might be embedded in a literal “game” that we chose to pass the time. To make things more realistic, all memories of the our life in the beyond might have been erased from our immediate memories 111 This is mind-body dualism in a new form. For a concrete mind-brain interface model, see for instance Eccles’ proposal . In this view, what appears to us as the physical world is just a simulation-computation-game; and the mind(s) of the player(s) is (are) transcendental with respect to the characters in this emulation. Note the phrase “we are the dead on vacation” in Godard’s film Breathless.. Maybe the “meaning” of our world is rather trivial; like the simulation of marketing measures for a beyond world 222 This is the theme in Galouye’s 1964 novel Simulacron 3; the novel stimulated Fassbinder’s Welt am Draht, as well the recent movie Thirteenth Floor. Somewhat related scripts are those of Total Recall and Matrix. In Contact, Sagan mentions the ”Zoo hypothesis” claiming that there is somebody (in this case aliens) watching us for ethnographic or other reasons. Philosophical speculations include Rene Descartes’ world-as-a-lucid-dream vision \[2, Meditation 1,9\], and Putnam’s brain-in-a-vat metaphor ; see also http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com. . As computers have begun to permeate our societies, it is no wonder that the “universe as a computer” metaphor for the physical Universe has attracted increasing attention. Perhaps some day our own technology could achieve such visions, and put it to our practical use 333 There is a possibly apocryphal story \[4, p. 127\] that, when asked by his Prime Minister Peel or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gladstone about the usefulness of his findings, Faraday responded, “Why, sir, there is the probability that you will soon be able to tax it.” .

In antiquity, Pythagoras (6th cent. B.C.) “considered numbers as the essence and principle of all things, and attributed to them a real and distinct existence; so that, in his view, they were the elements out of which the universe was constructed” (from Bulfinch ). Plato’s (c. 427- c. 347 B.C.) emphasis in geometry, in particular his dictum “God geometrizes” 444 In Convivialium disputationum, liber 8,2, Plutarch stated, “Plato said God geometrizes continually.” was interpreted by Gauss (1777-1855) as “o theos arithmetizei,” or “God computes.” The vision of a clockwork universe is probably best characterized by the (probably apocryphal) story, that when Laplace was asked by Napoleon how God fitted into his secular system of Mécanique Céleste, he replied \[6, p. 538\], “I have no need for that hypothesis” 555 In his memoires written on St. Hélène, Napoleon states that he removed Laplace from office as Minister of the Interior \[6, p. 536\] after only six weeks “because he brought the spirit of the infinitely small into the government.” .

In his famous lecture delivered before the International Congress of Mathematicians at Paris in 1900, Hilbert (1862-1943) enumerated twenty-three problems, among them the compatibility of the arithmetical axioms (# 2), the mathematical treatment of the axioms of physics (# 6), and the determination of the solvability of a diophantine equation (# 10) 666 http://babbage.clarku.edu/$`\stackrel{~}{}`$djoyce/hilbert/problems.html . Gödel (1906-78), as well as Turing (1912-54) contributed towards the (negative) solution of # 2 & # 10. They pursued a formalization of mathematics by coding of axiomatic systems, either by the uniqueness of prime factorization or by their representation as (universal) computer programs 777 In a postscript dated from June 3rd, 1964 \[7, p. 369-370\], Gödel’s opinion is clearly expressed, $`\mathrm{}`$ due to A. M. Turing’s work \[\[on the universal Turing machine\]\], a precise and unquestionably adequate definition of the general concept of formal system can now be given, the existence of undecidable arithmetical propositions and the non-demonstrability of the consistency of a system in the same system can now be proved rigorously for every consistent formal system containing a certain amount of finitary number theory. $`\mathrm{}`$ Turing’s work gives an analysis of the concept of “mechanical procedure” (alias “algorithm” or “computation procedure” or “finite combinatorial procedure”). This concept is shown to be equivalent with that of a “Turing machine.” A formal system can simply be defined to be any mechanical procedure for producing formulas, called provable formulas.” .

For the first time in human history, we are able to articulate precisely what we mean when discussing computations. Turing’s universal computer model is modelled after the syntax of everyday pencil and paper operations which children learn at school. The paper lines are unwound into a tape, and whatever rules there are for computing can be represented by the combination of tape, finite memory and simple read-write operations of the Turing machine.

The notion of universal computation is robust in the sense that any universal computer can emulate any other universal computer (regardless of efficiency and overhead), so that it does not really matter which one is actually implemented. In a sense, the entire class of universal computer counts as a single computer, because they are all equivalent with respect to algorithmic emulation of one another.

Robustness is a very important concept for the matter of computational universes, because it is not really important on which particular models or hardware these universes are implemented; they are all in the same equivalence class. Apart from the translation from one coding scheme to another, each one of them is equivalent to the entire class. So, when it comes to their generic properties, it is not really important whether automaton universes are modelled to be Cellular Automata, Turing Machines, colliding billiard balls , or biological substrates. All of this means that one is free to choose whatever computational model suits best the particular purpose one has in mind.

Gödel, Tarski, Turing and Chaitin, among others, revealed that, stated pointedly, mathematical “truth” extends formal “provability.” Mathematics is incomplete, and there always will be true theorems about a particular formal system of axioms (sufficiently rich to contain arithmetic), such as consistency, which are not provable “from within” that system 888 Gödel’s own thoughts on the interpretation of his results are formulated very nicely in a reply to a letter by A. W. Burks, reprinted in \[9, p. 55\], “I think the theorem of mine which von Neumann refers to is $`\mathrm{}`$ the fact that a complete epistemological description of a language A cannot be given in the same language A, because the concept of truth of sentences of A cannot be defined in A. It is this theorem which is the true reason for the existence of undecidable propositions in the formal systems containing arithmetic. I did not, however, formulate it explicitly in my paper of 1931 but only in my Princeton lectures of 1934. The same theorem was proved by Tarski in his paper on the concept of truth $`\mathrm{}`$ .

Wigner considered ”the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” , which is usually taken for granted but which, upon inspection, seems unfounded. One obvious solution to this bewilderment seems to be the Pythagorean assumption that numbers are the elements out of which the universe was constructed; and what appears to us as the laws of Nature are just mathematical theorems or computations. Notice that, whereas Gödel once and for all settled the question of a complete finite description of mathematics to the negative, the question of whether or not a finite mathematical treatment of the axioms of physics exists (Hilbert’s problem # 6) remains open.

Another thread was opened by Edward Moore. Puzzled by the quantum mechanical feature of complementarity, Moore conceived a finite deterministic model of complementarity capable of being run on a computer . This formalization of complementarity, not in terms of Hilbert space quantum mechanics, but by constructive algebraic, even finitistic, means, may be perceived as the continuation of the Turing program to formalize the notion of “algorithm” or “computation” by conceptualizing it as a concrete machine model.

In another development, Von Neumann (preceded by Ulam ) constructed a two-dimensional cellular array of finite deterministic automata which are connected to their neighbors such that the state of each one of these automata is determined by the previous states of itself and of its neigbors . He was able to show that such cellular automata (CA) could not only be in the robust class of universal computers, but that entities inside such arrays could reproduce themselves by holding their own descriptional code and the algorithmic means to construct identical copies of themselves.

Stimulated by Von Neumann’s concept of CA, Konrad Zuse, the creator of one of the first general purpose digital computers, suggested to look into the idea that physical space itself might actually be such a “calculating space” (“Rechnender Raum”) . In this view, the physical objects exist as computational entities immersed in such a computational medium. Zuse became fascinated by the idea of going beyond quantum mechanics in discretizing physics 999 Quantum theory just discretizes the number of quanta within a mode, yet the modes themselves are still continuous. , a vision he shared with the late Einstein 101010 In \[17, p. 163\], Einstein states, “There are good reasons to assume that nature cannot be represented by a continuous field. From quantum theory it could be inferred with certainty that a finite system with finite energy can be completely described by a finite number of (quantum) numbers. This seems not in accordance with continuum theory and has to render trials to describe reality with purely algebraic means. However, nobody has any idea of how one can find the basis of such a theory.”   and many researchers, among others Fredkin, Toffoli, Margolus, and Wolfram.

Fredkin and Toffoli investigated reversible CA, in which the global temporal evolution can be inverted uniquely. That is, any CA configuration has a unique predecessor and a unique successor. Note that, if the evolution is a bijective map; i.e., is one-to-one for every single cell, then the global array is a reversible CA as well. (The converse need not be satisfied.) For a concise account 111111 Reversibility of CA should not be confused with Bennett’s strategy to produce “reversible” calculations from irreversible ones by temporarily copying their intermediate results and permanently copying their final result, thereby setting the computing agent to its initial state, as well as retaining the result of the computation . Any such operation must necessarily allow for copying; i.e., for a one-to-many evolution, which is clearly not meant here.  the reader is referred to the reviews by Toffoli & Margolus , Fredkin  and Wolfram 121212 Wolfram recently self-published a long-awaited and widely publicised book which, among other issues, deals with some of the rules categorized for one-dimensional automata  and their conceivable physical applications. It has been received ambivalently with reviews ranging from the author doing nice computer graphics to becoming the biggest physics guru of all times . Wolfram has attracted a lot of attention for this subject; and it can only be hoped that the many claims made in this opus will not deter others.. In a reversible world, nothing is lost or gained; and all revelations are permutated back and forth. In this sense, the very concept of question and answer, of problem and solution, of past, present and future, and thus of a directed “lapse of time,” remains relative, subjective and conventional .

## 2 Intrinsic randomness and undecidability

Contemporary theoretical physics postulates at least three types of randomness: (i) the “chaotic” randomness residing in the initial conditions, which are assumed to be “drawn” (via the postulated axiom of choice) from a “continuum urn.” Almost all elements of the continuum are nonrecursively enumerable and even random; i.e., algorithmically incompressible ; (ii) the random occurrence of individual quantum events such as a detector click; (iii) complementarity; i.e., the impossibility to measure two or more observables with arbitrary precision at once.

### 2.1 Computational complementarity

As already mentioned, Moore  invented (parts of) finite automata theory to formalize and model physical complementarity. Research in this area became totally separated from its original physical perspective and developed into a beautiful algebraic theory of its own . Finkelstein  rediscovered Moore’s paper and coined the term “computational complementarity.” Its concrete logico-algebraic structure has been investigated by the author in a series of papers with C. and E. Calude, Khoussainov, Lipponen, Schaller and others , also in the context of reversible computation . Automaton logic turns out to be logically equivalent  to generalized urn models , indicating that the associated logico-algebraic structure is more robust than could be assumed from those single model types alone.

Arguably, the simplest automaton model featuring complementarity is a finite (Mealy) automaton in which the sets contain three internal states $`S=\{1,2,3\}`$, three input symbols $`I=\{1,2,3\}`$, and two output symbols $`O=\{0,1\}`$. Let, for $`sS`$, $`iI`$, the (irreversible “guessing”) output function be $`\lambda (s,i)=\delta _{si}`$. The (irreversible) transition function just steers the automaton into a state corresponding to the input symbol; i.e., $`t(s,i)=i`$. The problem of finding an unknown initial state by analysis of experimental input–output sequences yields a partitioning of the internal states $`\{\{1\},\{2,3\}\}`$, $`\{\{1,3\},\{2\}\}`$, and $`\{\{1,2\},\{3\}\}`$, according to the input $`1`$, $`2`$, and $`3`$, respectively. Every one of the partitions constitutes a Boolean algebra whose elements are comeasurable. The pasting of these three Boolean algebras along their common elements (in this case just $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\{1,2,3\}`$) yields a nonclassical, nondistributive logical structure $`MO_3`$, which is also realized by the algebra of propositions associated with the electron spin state measurements along three different directions.

A systematic investigation shows that the logico-algebraic structures arising from computational complementarity are very similar to those encountered in quantum logics \[32, Sec. 3.5.2\]. In particular, any finite quantum (sub-)algebra can be represented as an automaton logic and thus can be modelled with a finite automaton. Clearly, infinite quantum structures, such as the continuous “Chinese lantern” lattices $`MO_c`$ involved in electron spin state measurements in continuous directions, or quantum contextuality, cannot be modelled with a finite automaton.

Reversible finite automata have been introduced by the author  as Mealy automata whose input and output symbols are identical. Consider the Cartesian product $`S\times I`$ of the set of automaton states $`S`$ with the set of input symbols $`I`$, arranged in vector form $`SI=((s_1,i_1),\mathrm{})`$; as well as the Cartesian product $`S\times O`$ of the set of automaton states with the set of output symbols $`O`$, again arranged in vector form $`SO=((s_1,o_1),\mathrm{})`$. The transition and output functions and thus the automaton computation can then be formalized by a matrix multiplication $`SO=SIP`$, where $`P`$ is the matrix associated with the combined transition and output function $`P:SISO`$. Reversibility implies that these matrices $`P`$ are permutation matrices (i.e., every row and every column contains exactly one entry “1,” all other entries are zeroes).

The most general probabilistic state of all reversible Mealy automata associated with a particular matrix “dimension” can be represented as the weighted convex sum over all permutation matrices of this dimension. The result is a doubly stochastic matrix (i.e., the sum of the real components of every row and column adds up to one). Formally, let $`\psi :SI\times SO[0,1]`$ be the transition probability. The convex sum of all transition probabilities is one; i.e., $`_{SI,SO}\psi (SI,SO)=1`$.

A modification of this model, according to Fortnov , captures the class BQP, the class of efficiently quantum computable problems. The modification is twofold: first, the weighted sum over all permutation matrices contains coefficients $`\psi `$, called “probability amplitudes,” which take on arbitrary rational values including negative values. Secondly, in order for the “quantum” probabilities to be positive, the probability amplitudes $`\psi `$ have to be squared. These two modifications—negativity and square values—mark a demarcation line between quantum and classical computation.

Although computational complementarity will not be reviewed any further here, it should be mentioned that Moore conceptualized input/output experiments on finite automata, making a distinction between “intrinsic” cases where only one automaton is available, and those in which an arbitrary number of identical copies are accessible. In the latter case, there is no complementarity, because after any experiment it is always possible to dispose of the used automaton and get a fresh automaton copy for further experiment(s).

The intrinsic, embedded, case is the one experienced in physics, because the observer cannot escape and always is part of the (“Cartesian prison” \[2, Meditation 5,15\]) system. Due to restrictions in copying and cloning, it is not possible, for instance, to obtain an identical copy of a single photon or electron in a nonclassical state. And only in the single automaton case there is a chance to experience complementarity, for only in this case it may happen that, after answering to some query, the automaton undergoes an irreversible transition, making it impossible for the experimenter to probe a different observable (and vice versa). Reversibility does not change the picture, since if both the observer and the observed object were immersed in a reversible environment, then the experiment could be “undone” and the original automaton state reconstructed only at the price of loosing all the information gathered so far . This is an analogue to the quantum eraser experiment  and other setups (e.g., ) developed for demonstrating the feasibility of a reconstruction of quantum states.

Bear in mind that complementarity is not only a feature of exotic finite models which were specially crafted for this particular purpose. Since these finite models represent a subset of objects that can be simulated by any universal computer, such as a CA or a Turing machine, complementarity is, in a sense, a generic and robust property of all computational universes.

### 2.2 Intrinsic undecidability

The quest to translate Gödel-Turing type recursion theoretic undecidability into physics has a long history. Gödel himself did not believe that his results have any relevance for physics, at least not for quantum physics 131313In \[43, 140-141\], Bernstein writes, Wheeler said, “I went to Gödel, and I asked him, ‘Prof. Gödel, what connection do you see between your incompleteness theorem and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle?’ I believe that Wheeler exaggerated a little bit now. He said, ‘And Gödel got angry and threw me out of his office!’ Wheeler blamed Einstein for this. He said that Einstein had brain-washed Gödel against quantum mechanics and against Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle! (The author has asked professor Wheeler and got this anecdote confirmed.) . Early on, Popper speculated about limits of forecast in the light of these findings . More recent undecidability results are based on physical configurations which are provably unsolvable through the reduction to the halting problem (e.g., ).

Indeed, since the Turing machine is modelled after a paper and pencil real world scenario, universal computers can be embedded into certain physical systems capable of universal computation. Undecidabilities can then be obtained almost as a “free lunch;” i.e., by reduction to the recursive unsolvability of certain prediction problems, such as the halting problem.

So, why do people such as Casti 141414 Casti (co-)organized two conferences; one in Santa Fe  and one in Abisko , bringing together many who were interested in this issue at the time. , who had been very interested in the subject, consider this issue as a “red herring?” Maybe because so far not a single problem of relevance in physics not constructed for this particular purpose is provably undecidable.

### 2.3 Continuum versus discrete physics

The conceptualization of the number system—from just a few finger counts to the natural numbers, the integers, rationals, reals  and further on to complex numbers, quaternions and hyperreals is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful and greatest achievements of humanity. Nevertheless, as more and more abstractions enter these great patterns of thought, one is compelled to question their practical physical relevance. Clearly, for instance, infinite divisibility (from the rational onwards) and continuity (from the reals onwards) find strong pragmatic justifications by their applicability to almost all branches of theoretical physics, including quantum mechanics. Even so, some doubts as to the appropriateness of transfinite concepts in physical modelling remain . Let us state the following correspondence principle between physical phenomena and their models : every feature of a computational model should be reflected by the capacity of the corresponding physical system. Conversely, every physical capacity, in particular of a physical theory, should correspond to a feature of an appropriate computational model.

Nature does not seem to allow Zeno squeezing  and other transfinite processes. It could therefore be conjectured that, as physical systems do not possess adequate transfinite capacities, only finite computational models ought to be acceptable for theoretical modelling. This still admits universal computation and finite automata, but it wipes out classical, nonconstructive continua.

Having said this, there may be some indication of absolute randomness involved in certain quantum measurements, though. Suppose a single electron is prepared in a particular spin state in one direction $`\theta _p`$. Assume further that its spin state is not measured in this particular direction, but in another direction $`\theta _m`$. Then quantum mechanics predicts that the probability that identical spin states are measured is $`\mathrm{cos}^2[(\theta _p\theta _m)/2]`$; for a non-identical result the probability is $`1\mathrm{cos}^2[(\theta _p\theta _m)/2]=\mathrm{sin}^2[(\theta _p\theta _m)/2]`$ (classically, one would expect linear dependencies on the measurement angles, such as $`1|\theta _p\theta _m|/\pi `$ and $`|\theta _p\theta _m|/\pi `$, respectively). Moreover, quantum mechanics postulates that these outcomes are stochastic and cannot be reduced to some form of microscopic law governing the single measurement outcomes. At $`\theta _p\theta _m=\pi /2`$, a series of such experiments, when coded into a $`0,1`$-sequence, is postulated by the quantum mechanical canon to render an algorithmically incompressible random sequence ; a fact which can be used to construct a plug-in device ; just like another card which can be inserted into a computer and facilitates the desired function, in this case the production of random data.

Here seems to be a physical source of absolute randomness  which appears almost totally “free” of any computational costs. Just detune preparation and measurement to attain the goal of a perfect random number generator. Indeed, this quantum postulate of microphysical randomness seems to be a remarkable fact, in particular since randomness is a valuable resource which, in the context of universal computation, cannot be obtained “for nothing.” Although “almost all” reals are random, it is hard (indeed impossible) to come by any concrete element with that property. The closest one could get may be Chaitin’s $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ number, which is the Kraft sum of the length of all prefix-free halting programs on some universal computer (see  for details). It is even possible to write down a finite program for computing the first bits of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, but for better precision there is no computable radius of convergence certifying that a particular finite sequence is the starting sequence for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In that respect $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ resembles Specker’s sequence of rational numbers with non-recursive limit, or the Busy Beaver function .

So, is every electron a point particle capable of transfinite computations? While electrons do not seem to possess any capacity of universal computation at all, they appear just to be perfect random number generators. That is indeed amazing! Maybe we just have not listened carefully enough when crafting the computational models appropriate for physics. Is Turin’s universal computer model, appended with an additional “random oracle” plug-in, sufficient?

In another scenario, an electron might just be coded to carry the answer to a single question; e.g., related to its spin state in a particular direction. If requested to answer a different question, such as about its spin state in a different direction, it might just churn out random nonsense  according to Malus’ law . Or, it may need an interface, an environment or measurement apparatus translating the observer’s question to the language (or question) understandable by the object , thereby introducing stochastic noise by uncontrollable macroscopic processes. So far, these are all metaphysical speculations which need to be sorted out by operational means, i.e., by experiment.

### 2.4 Nonlocality & contextuality

Quantum nonlocality is a phenomenon which can be quite easily described, yet remains mysterious. Consider again the spin state measurements of electrons. Let us assume that it is possible to produce two particles in a singlet state, such that, when their spin is measured along an arbitrary but identical direction, their spin states are opposite. Now, consider the correlation of their spin states when measured along arbitrary but different directions. As it turns out, if the directions are different from $`0`$ and from integer multiples of $`\pi /2`$ or $`\pi `$, the quantum correlations are either weaker or stronger than the classical correlations. This is related to the difference of the aforementioned quantum probabilities versus the classical ones. In terms of elementary physical events, one obtains more or fewer joint clicks in the detectors measuring the spin states than would be conceivable classically for any such state. The doctrine of “peaceful coexistence” between relativity theory and quantum mechanics  assures that this feature cannot be used for faster than light quantum signalling .

Can CA with local neighbourhood cell evolution reproduce quantum-type nonlocality? That seems to be a hard problem, in particular if one clings to the idea of evolution functions which only depend on the neighbourhood, a property which surely seems to be a constituent element in the definition of CA. Indeed, with regards to nonlocality, little convincing evidence and comfort has been given so far by the CA community. Zuse mentions the chess metaphor of the bishop, a piece which can move in single-colour diagonal direction only, thereby exerting a nonlocal influence on the entire chessboard . But how could the entire chessboard know of the bishop’s motion if information can only propagate by one cell per time step? Considering quantized cells is no solution, because the quantum nonlocalities introduced by proper normalization of the entire ray wave function comes as no surprise : quantum behaviour of a quantized system is indeed to be expected.

Another, entirely different and radical possibility would be to give up the notion of “calculating space” and consider a computational substratum which is nonlocal from the very beginning. In this approach, the cellular space does not correspond to anything which is spatially extended from a physical point of view, such as the tesselated configuration space Zuse had in mind. Rather, it might be some kind of generalized phase space, in which physical states are discrete. This resembles the “old” quantum mechanics of Planck and Einstein 151515 As expressed by Planck \[73, p. 387\], “Again it is confirmed that the quantum hypothesis is not based on energy elements but on action elements, according to the fact that the volume of phase space has the dimension $`h^f`$.”  and known as Bohr-Sommerfeld “quantization.”

Contextuality is another controversial issue which is discussed in the quantum context . One may argue that as it cannot be operationalized anyway, contextuality is a property of almost pure theoretical value, such as counterfactuals or scholastic infuturabilities. In continuum theory, there are “exotic” ways to come by , but this is no option for a discrete model. At first sight, classical computers seem to be value definite and noncontextual, but a closer inspection reveals that there are subtleties to be kept in mind. Value definiteness need not imply that an agent is prepared to answer any experimental question. Indeed, in contradistinction to Kant’s transcendental ideal 161616 In the 3. Hauptstück, 3. Abschnitt. Von dem transzendentalen Ideal (Prototypon transscendentale), of “Kritik der reinen Vernunft,” , Kant states, “But again, everything, as regards its possibility, is also subject to the principle of complete determination, according to which one of all the possible contradictory predicates of things must belong to it.” The German original reads, “Ein jedes Ding aber, seiner Möglichkeit nach, steht noch unter dem Grundsatze der durchgängigen Bestimmung, nach welchem ihm von allen möglichen Prädikaten der Dinge, sofern sie mit ihren Gegenteilen verglichen werden, eines zukommen muß.” , and scholastic, theological speculations whether or not the omniscience of God extends to events which would have occurred if something had happened that did not happen, which have been so powerfully formalized into a finitistic proof (cf. \[78, p. 243\] and \[79, p. 179\]), some properties may not be properly definable for certain computational agents, and therefore may not be operational. For example, if an agent trained to wash dishes is confronted with the task to write a book on hiking trails in New Zealand’s Waitakere ranges, it will most certainly be at a complete loss. Or an agent advised to direct some parties to a path on the right hand side when asked for right or left, will most certainly be at a loss when asked whether to proceed up or down. The agent simply would not be programmed and thus not be prepared to answer any type of question, but rather only a small selection from among all conceivable ones.

## 3 Intrinsic, embedded observer mode

Computational complementarity and undecidability in general are good examples of how the science of systems may enter physics. Unless one accepts the concept of an “intrinsic embedded mode,” computational complementarity disappears into thin air. And since system science seems foreign to most physicists, it is hard to see if and when such concepts will be more broadly recognized.

As with all general concepts, it is hard to pinpoint when exactly the concept of an intrinsic embedded observer was formulated for the first time 171717 One is also tempted to mention Archimedes’ “points outside the world from which one could move the earth.” Mind that Archimedes’ use of “points outside the world” was in a mechanical rather than in a metatheoretical context: he claimed to be able to move any given weight by any given force, however small. . Boskovich  around 1755 referred to the fact that embedded observers cannot recognize an overall change (squeeze, dilatation and contraction) of the system size 181818 In , Boskovich states, $`\mathrm{}`$ And we would have the same impressions if, under conservation of distances, all directions would be rotated by the same angle, $`\mathrm{}`$ And even if the distances themselves would be decreased, whereby the angles and the proportions would be conserved, $`\mathrm{}`$: even then we \[\[the observers\]\] would have no changes in our impressions. $`\mathrm{}`$ A movement, which is common to us \[\[the observers\]\] and to the Universe, cannot be observed by us; not even if everything would be stretched or shrinked by an arbitrary amount.”  . More recently, Toffoli  discussed the role of the observer in uniform systems. Embedded observers are the big issue in relativity theory, because Einstein insisted on operational methods available within the system only in defining clocks, length scales, and when comparing them 191919 The author had some problem to publish a paper on embedded observers in relativity theory, apparently because of the rather unconventional nature of the subject. However, after an appeal, the paper became preprint # LBL-16097  and was later published in a revised version  (see also ). I write this to encourage young researchers not to give up in pursuing their own nonfashionable ideas . . Rössler  and the author , independently share similar concepts, although Rössler’s emphasis has been on the role of the interface between observer and observed object  rather than on concrete examples of automaton logic or space-time frames 202020 When I was invited to participate to a Linz Ars Electronica conference on “Endophysics” in 1992, I was almost shocked by the similarity between Rössler’s thoughts and the ones I had pursued. One follow-up meeting was organized by Atmanspacher in Germany . I later learned that for researchers trained in mathematical system science, like John Casti, embedded observers sounded like a very familiar, almost self-evident concept. . .

## 4 Space time frames of intrinsic observers

Relativity theory has altered the way we think of space and time from a formal point of view, but the perception of space and time at large, and what meaning is ascribed to these notions, has not changed too much: while pre-relativistic “Galilean” type thinking considered space and time as absolute and immutable, nowadays this role is ascribed to the relativistic forms of space time coordinates and their transformation laws. It is almost as if the attitude of the protagonists remained the same, but their message changed slightly.

Relativity theory, as introduced by Einstein, at least in the first, kinematic, part of the seminal 1905 paper , is conceived as a strictly operational theory for embedded, intrinsic observers. Those observers are bound to use the methods and capabilities of the system of which they are an integral part; and they cannot resort to an extrinsic, “God’s eye” overview of it. But operationalism is not enough to create space-time frames. What is also needed (but seldom mentioned although implicitly assumed) are conventions for measuring time and space, and for comparing those scales at different locations and different times in co-moving and other experimental configurations. Indeed, the International System of units outrightly declares a previously experimental physical fact to be convention. The speed of light is assumed to be constant for all reference frames. With the mild side assumption of the one-to-oneness (invertibility) of space-time transformation, this convention declares the preservation of light cones, and thus, by the preservation of set theoretic intersections of light cones such as time- space- and lightlike onedimensional subspaces, results in affinity and linearity of the transformation laws. From this point of view, the Lorentz transformation is a geometric, not a physical entity. In geometry, this is known as Alexandrov’s theorem .

So, in a sense, this is the big picture. If one requires invariance of some “fundamental” speed and bijectivity of the transformation laws, then the Lorentz-type transformation laws containing that “fundamental” speed follow. Thereby, it makes no difference whether the associated observers are embedded in the “real” Universe, in a CA, or in a plum pudding; as long as these conditions and conventions are met, then Alexandrov’s theorem certifies that the geometry is a relativistic one. For discrete models, these results will always be only approximations which are valid down to scales where the discreteness becomes important.

Where is all the physics gone? The answer to this question is that the physics is in the invariance with respect to any such Lorentz-type transformations. For example, clocks governed by electromagnetic phenomena will be showing the “right” time in all frames if the “fundamental” speed is chosen to be the speed of light. Sound clocks tick invariantly in the respective system if the “fundamental” speed is the speed of sound. Scales are invariant if the forces stabilizing that scales are electromagnetic ones and the “fundamental” speed is again chosen to be the speed of light. So, with these new conventions, the invariance of certain length  and time scales, corresponding to the relativistic form invariance of the laws governing them, becomes a physical statement .

The following is an example  of an Einstein synchronisation by clocks generating radar coordinates in a one-dimensional CA with the following evolution rules.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\phi (>,\mathrm{\_},X)>,\hfill & \phi (X,\mathrm{\_},<)<,\hfill & \phi (\mathrm{\_},\mathrm{\_},\mathrm{\_})\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (X,\mathrm{\_},>)\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (<,\mathrm{\_},X)\mathrm{\_},\hfill \\ \phi (\mathrm{\_},>,\mathrm{\_})\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (\mathrm{\_},<,\mathrm{\_})\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (\mathrm{\_},>,I)<,\hfill & \phi (I,<,\mathrm{\_})>,\hfill & \phi (>,I,X),\hfill \\ \phi (<,,X)I,\hfill & \phi (X,<,)\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (,1,X)2,\hfill & \phi (,2,X)3,\hfill & \phi (,3,X)4,\hfill \\ \phi (,4,X)5,\hfill & \phi (,5,X)6,\hfill & \phi (,6,X)7,\hfill & \phi (,7,X)8,\hfill & \phi (,8,X)9,\hfill \\ \phi (,9,X)0,\hfill & \phi (,0,X)1,\hfill & \phi (0,\mathrm{\_},X)\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (1,\mathrm{\_},X)\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (2,\mathrm{\_},X)\mathrm{\_},\hfill \\ \phi (3,\mathrm{\_},X)\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (4,\mathrm{\_},X)\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (5,\mathrm{\_},X)\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (6,\mathrm{\_},X)\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (7,\mathrm{\_},X)\mathrm{\_},\hfill \\ \phi (8,\mathrm{\_},X)\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (9,\mathrm{\_},X)\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (X,,0),\hfill & \phi (X,,1),\hfill & \phi (X,,2),\hfill \\ \phi (X,,3),\hfill & \phi (X,,4),\hfill & \phi (X,,5),\hfill & \phi (X,,6),\hfill & \phi (X,,7),\hfill \\ \phi (X,,8),\hfill & \phi (X,,9),\hfill & \phi (X,1,X)1,\hfill & \phi (X,2,X)2,\hfill & \phi (X,3,X)3,\hfill \\ \phi (X,4,X)4,\hfill & \phi (X,5,X)5,\hfill & \phi (X,6,X)6,\hfill & \phi (X,7,X)7,\hfill & \phi (X,8,X)8,\hfill \\ \phi (X,9,X)9,\hfill & \phi (X,0,X)0,\hfill & \phi (X,I,0)I,\hfill & \phi (X,I,1)I,\hfill & \phi (X,I,2)I,\hfill \\ \phi (X,I,3)I,\hfill & \phi (X,I,4)I,\hfill & \phi (X,I,5)I,\hfill & \phi (X,I,6)I,\hfill & \phi (X,I,7)I,\hfill \\ \phi (X,I,8)I,\hfill & \phi (X,I,9)I,\hfill & \phi (X,I,0)I,\hfill & \phi (X,I,X)I,\hfill & \phi (,\mathrm{\_},X)\mathrm{\_},\hfill \\ \phi (\mathrm{\_},\mathrm{\_},I)\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (I,\mathrm{\_},\mathrm{\_})\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (I,>,\mathrm{\_})\mathrm{\_},\hfill & \phi (\mathrm{\_},<,I)\mathrm{\_}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Here, $`X`$ stands for any state except the ones already specified. These rules look a little bit “murky,” but they can be simulated by any universal CA and they serve their purpose to demonstrate clock synchronization procedures.

Assume two clocks at two arbitrary points $`A`$ and $`B`$ in the CA which are “of similar kind.” At some arbitrary $`A`$-time $`t_A`$ a ray goes from $`A`$ to $`B`$. At $`B`$ it is instantly (without delay) reflected at $`B`$-time $`t_B`$ and reaches $`A`$ again at $`A`$-time $`t_A^{}`$. The clocks in $`A`$ and $`B`$ are synchronized if $`t_Bt_A=t_A^{}t_B`$. The two-ways ray velocity is given by $`2|AB|/(t_A^{}t_A)=c`$, where $`|AB|`$ is the distance between $`A`$ and $`B`$. In Fig. 1(a), an example of synchronization between two clocks $`A`$ and $`B`$ is drawn.

What happens with the intrinsic synchronization and the space-time coordinates when observers are considered which are in motion with respect to the CA? For simplicity, suppose a constant motion of $`v`$ automaton cells per time cycle. With these units, the ray speed is $`c=1`$, and $`v1`$. There are numerous ways to simulate sub-ray motion on a CA. In what follows, the case $`v=1/3`$ will be studied in such a way that every three CA time cycles the walls, symbolised by $`𝙸`$, move one cell to the right.

Notice that two clocks which are synchronized in a reference frame which is at rest with respect to the CA medium are not synchronized in their own co-moving reference frame. Consider, as an example, the CA drawn in Fig. 1(b). (Strictly speaking, the CA rule here depends on a two-neighbor interaction.) For $`t_A=1`$, $`t_B=4`$, $`t_A^{}=5`$, and $`4154`$, if the first clock is corrected to make up for the different time of ray flights as in Fig. 1(c), $`t_A=2`$, $`t_B=4`$, $`t_A^{}=6`$, and $`42=64`$. Then, this correction amounts to an asynchronicity of the two ray clocks with respect to the “original” CA medium.

## 5 Now what?

Despite all these efforts, including those of the author presented above, the computational approach to understanding universes has so far resulted in little or no phenomenological impact; not to speak of any “killer application” which would make the few critics and the many hesitant researchers listen to the subject. Large segments of theoretical physics appear to be in the very same position in other areas such as string theory or quantum gravity as well, but this is no big comfort. In search for applications of the idea of computational universes let us shortly discuss some of the predictions of the subject and their possible empirical validation or falsification.

### 5.1 New range of phenomena

With regards to the logical order of propositions, there may exist phenomena perceivable by intrinsic, embedded observers which cannot happen according to quantum mechanics but are realizable by finite automata. The simplest case is characterized by a Greechie hyperdiagram of triangle form, with three atoms per edge. Its automaton partition logic is given by

$$\{\{\{1\},\{2\},\{3,4\}\},\{\{1\},\{2,4\},\{3\}\},\{\{1,4\},\{2\},\{3\}\}\}.$$
(1)
A corresponding Mealy automaton is $`\{1,2,3,4\},\{1,2,3\},\{1,2,3\},\delta =1,\lambda `$, where $`\lambda (1,1)=\lambda (3,2)=\lambda (2,3)=1`$, $`\lambda (3,1)=\lambda (2,2)=\lambda (1,3)=2`$, and $`\lambda (2,1)=\lambda (4,1)=\lambda (1,2)=\lambda (4,2)=\lambda (3,3)=\lambda (4,3)=3`$.

Figure 2 depicts the Greechie and Hasse diagrams of this propositional structure.

The physical interpretation of Eq. (1) is the following: there exist six observables $`\{1\}`$, $`\{2\}`$, $`\{3\}`$, $`\{1,4\}`$, $`\{2,4\}`$, and $`\{3,4\}`$; i.e., $`\{3,4\}`$ corresponds to “ the system is in state $`3`$ or in state $`4`$.”

They are grouped into three partitions of $`\{1,2,3,4\}`$, such that within each group the observables are comeasurable. For instance, in the automaton example enumerated above, the experiment with the input of symbol 2 differentiates between $`\{1,4\}`$, $`\{2\}`$, $`\{3\}`$ and all properties obtained by forming the logical “or” operation, such as $`\{2,3\}`$. But the experiment does not reveal all conceivable propositions, such as $`\{1,2\}`$. Another experiment with the input of symbol $`3`$ does, but cannot reveal other properties, such as $`\{1,4\}`$. Because of this complementarity, the propositions are nonclassical, in particular they do not obey the distributive law: since $`\{1,3\}\{2,3\}=\{1,2,3,4\}`$,

$`\{1,2,4\}(\{1,3\}\{2,3\})=\{1,2,4\}\{1,2,3,4\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{1,2,4\}`$
$`=(\{1,2,4\}\{1,3\})(\{1,2,4\}\{2,3\})`$ $`=`$ $`\{1,2\}.`$
This humble propositional structure is thus non-classical, but quite remarkably it also cannot be realized by quantum mechanics. The complementary groups are interlocked in a triangle form, which is forbidden by the Hilbert space based algebraic structure of quantum mechanics: In analogy to Kochen and Specker , we denote by the symbol “$``$” the binary relation of comeasurability. Any sequencing of observables such as

$$\{1\}\{3,4\}\{2\}\{1,4\}\{3\}\{2,4\}\{1\}$$

(with $`\{1\}⟂̸\{1,4\}⟂̸\{2,4\}`$ and so on) cannot occur in quantum mechanics. Hence, if this propositional structure is experienced in some physical setup, then quantum mechanics is not an appropriate theoretical representation for it. Computational universes would be a natural candidate.

### 5.2 Coarse grained structure of digital space

Already Zuse mentioned that, if space is tesselated, then this tesselation will eventually show up; either by some anisotropy or by a fundamental length scale. No indication is given exactly when this granularity should show up; and problems abound . Yet, there is no guarantee that space and time will be organized as a regular lattice; it may rather resemble a huge pile of more or less randomly and densely packed sand and stabilized by whatever forces there are.

In view of the mild discreteness of quantum mechanics already mentioned earlier (only an integer number of quanta per field node), it might well be that we have already unravelled the fundamental discreteness; but not in the properties where we had expected them. So, maybe the field nodes or phase space are more fundamental than the frames of space and time that we use to define those fields. In this idealistic picture, space and time may be convenient constructions of our minds to sort out the evolution of field modes.

### 5.3 Exotic probabilities

One approach to the formalism is that anything which is not forbidden explicitly is realized 212121 Feynman’s rule of thumb states that whatever is not explicitly forbidden is mandatory. See also the “go-go” principle introduced in .. As Gleason’s theorem strongly ties quantum probabilities to Hilbert space, there may be non-classical and non-quantum probabilities which can be modelled with automaton or generalized urn models.

Let us consider again spin state measurements on electrons modelled by two-dimensional Hilbert space entities. The associated algebra of propositions consists of (the horizontal sum of) Boolean sublattices $`2^2`$ which are pasted together  at their extreme elements. In this case, Gleason’s theorem does not apply. By taking the algebraic structure and the set of dispersion free (two-valued) states alone, there exists the possibility of nongleason type probability measures. These measures have singular, separating distributions and thus can be embedded into “classical” Boolean algebras such as generalized urn und automaton partition logics. One particular example is represented in Figure 3.

Its probability measure is $`P(x_{}^i)=1`$ and $`P(x_+^i)=1P(x_{}^i)=0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. The associated automaton models are straightforward. Every such dispersion free state is obtained by associating with it a particular automaton state. Whether or not such probability distributions exist for fundamental processes is an open question. For spin state measurements of the electrons, this does not seem to be the case, but again the question of state preparation may be essential here.

Another more exotic example of a suborthoposet which is embeddable into the three-dimensional real Hilbert lattice $`(^3)`$ and can also be realized by generalized urn models and finite automata has been presented by Wright . Its Greechie diagram of the pentagonal form is drawn in Figure 4.

Wright showed that the probability measure $`P(a_i)=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`P(b_i)=0`$, for $`i=0,1,2,3,4`$, as depicted in Figure 4, is no convex combination of other pure states; and furthermore, that it does not correspond to any Gleason type measure allowed as quantum probability. In this sense, it is a “stranger-than-quantum probability.” And although automata and generalized urn models ass well as quantum system with this pentagonally interlocking algebraic structure of propositions exist, no realizable probability measure on it is of the form of Wright’s measure defined above. The reason for this is the impossibility to represent it as a convex combination of other dispersion free two-valued states.

### 5.4 “Tuning” reality

If the physical phenomena are the intrinsic view of a mathematical or computational universe, then any attempt to render, manipulate and change certain phenomena could be interpreted as “reprogramming.” In fact, reprogramming or “tuning” 222222 The term “tuning” is borrowed from the movie Dark City by Alex Proyas, where similar motives have been casted. reality may be a powerful new metaphor hitherto foreign to theoretical physics. Again, one should keep in mind that this is highly speculative.

### 5.5 Against odds

Let me again emphasise that discrete or algorithmic physics may be utterly non mainstream and off-topic, as competing with ”traditional” continuum physics is hard. For instance, note the fabulous coincidence between the theoretical and the experimental values of the anomalous magnetic moment of the Muon $`a_{\mu ,t}=11659177(7)\times 10^{10}`$ and $`a_{\mu ,e}=11659204(7)(5)\times 10^{10}`$ . Or take the neutron double slit experiments  which show a wonderful agreement of theory and experiment.

Yet, despite all these difficulties, discrete computational physics certainly represents an interesting, speculative and challenging research area. Many ideas from system science, interface design, to dualism (e.g., the Eccles Telegraph) enter. The issue has metaphysical connotations. It is for instance not totally unlikely that a demiurge would create an ”atomistic” world such as ours, in which an immense (to us) number of discrete gaming pieces come together to form a universe and which are constantly rearranged to form rich and varied and seemingly complex patterns. Or there is just one consistent Universe of Mathematics, and this is the physical Universe we are living in.

## Acknowledgements

Many thanks go to Tim Boykett for inviting me to a Time’s Up workshop, giving me the feeling that somewhere out there are people still interested and listening. Garry J. Tee from the University of Auckland has provided reference , and Peter Mittelstaedt referred to the beautiful quotation of Kant. I am particularly thankful to Ross Rhodes for his continuing encouragement; also for reading an earlier version of the manuscript and for many suggestions to improve the text.


format: text

text:
# Peculiar spectral and power spectral behaviour of the LMXB GX 13+1

## 1 Introduction

Low mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) containing a neutron star can be divided into two subclasses, atoll and Z sources, based on their correlated X-ray timing and spectral properties (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989). In the colour-colour diagram (CD) LMXBs tend to trace out a well-defined, fully connected 1-dimensional track on a time scale of hours to days for Z sources and days to weeks for atoll sources.

Z sources trace out a Z-shaped track in the CD, where the three branches of the Z from top left to bottom right are called the horizontal branch (HB), the normal branch (NB) and the flaring branch (FB). The (sharp) turns in the track separating these branches are called vertices. The power spectral features found in Z sources are very low frequency noise (VLFN), which has an approximately power law shape and is observed up to a few Hz, a band limited noise (BLN) component with a characteristic frequency of 2 to 20 Hz and various different quasi periodic oscillations (QPOs) with a Lorentzian shape and frequencies that range from a few Hz to more than a kHz (van der Klis 1995; van der Klis 2000).

These power spectral features occur correlated to the position of the source in the Z track (see Fig. 1). QPOs with frequencies of 13-55 Hz are found on the HB (HBOs), and with frequencies of 4-7 Hz on the NB (NBOs); in some sources the latter continue onto the FB where the frequency increases up to $``$20 Hz. BLN with a fractional root-mean-square amplitude (rms) of up to $``$8% is found along the HB and disappears as the source moves onto the NB. There is a strong tendency of the amplitude of the VLFN to increase from less then 1% to $``$10% along the whole track from the HB to the FB. The flux increases from left to right along the HB, stays approximately constant or slightly decreases along the NB, and usually increases again on the FB. The mass accretion rate ($`\dot{M}`$) is thought to increase along the HB via the NB to the FB on time scales of hours to days (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989), although on longer time scales the relation with $`\dot{M}`$ may be more complicated (e.g. Kuulkers et al. 1994; Homan et al. 2002).

Atoll sources trace out a track that generally has a C or U-shape, consisting of an island branch, which often takes the shape of one or more isolated patches because of observational windowing (usually in the upper left region of the CD), and a banana branch (extending from the lower banana (LB) –lower left– to the upper banana (UB) –upper right). VLFN, BLN and QPOs similar to those in Z sources also occur in atoll sources (see Fig. 1; Wijnands 2001). Along an atoll-source track from the island to the lower, middle and then to the upper banana, the rms amplitude of the VLFN increases from $``$2 to 5%, the characteristic frequency of the BLN, which sometimes consists of several components (van Straaten et al. 2002), first increases and then decreases within a range of $``$2 to $``$70 Hz, and its rms decreases from $``$20% to less than 1%. The count rate increases by a factor of $``$2-10 (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989) going from the island state to the banana state (except for the transient sources, see below). The frequencies of the various QPOs increase in the same sense along the track in Z and atoll sources.

GX 13+1 is a LMXB containing a neutron star, since X-ray bursts have been found from this source (Fleischman 1985; Matsuba et al. 1995). Together with GX 3+1, GX 9+1 and GX 9+9, GX 13+1 forms the subclass of persistently bright atoll-sources (the “GX atoll sources”) which were observed to be in the banana state by Hasinger & van der Klis (1989). In GX 13+1 and GX 3+1, two branched structures have been observed in the CD and hardness-intensity diagram (HID) (Stella et al. 1985; Lewin et al. 1987; Schulz et al. 1989; Homan et al. 1998; Muno et al. 2002). In luminosity, these sources are intermediate between the very luminous Z sources and the weaker remaining atoll sources (Ford et al. 2000). Contrary to the other atoll sources and the Z sources, these GX atoll sources have so far not shown kHz QPOs. Although GX 13+1 has been classified as an atoll source based on upper-banana branch phenomenology (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989), among the atoll sources it is the source that shows X-ray properties closest to those of the Z sources (VLFN amplitude: Hasinger & van der Klis 1989, CD track: Muno et al. 2002, $``$65 Hz QPOs: Homan et al. 1998). The radio luminosity of GX 13+1 is similar to that of the Z sources, whereas the other atoll sources are weaker (Garcia et al. 1988; Fender & Hendry 2000). From infra-red spectroscopy Bandyopadhyay et al. (1999) conclude GX 13+1 might be a Z source, based on the nature of its companion suggesting a long orbital period.

High resolution spectroscopic observations of GX 13+1 with ASCA (Ueda et al. 2001) and XMM-Newton (Sidoli et al. 2002), have revealed the presence of narrow absorption lines, similar to those in the strong galactic jet sources GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655-40 and the dippers MXB 1659-29 and X 1624-49.

For some Z sources it is known that the position of the track they trace out in the CD drifts on a time scale of weeks, with shifts in the colours of up to $``$10% (Kuulkers et al. 1994, 1996); this effect is called secular motion. It is also seen in the atoll source 4U 1636-53 (Prins & van der Klis 1997; Di Salvo et al. 2003), but in the CD it is not as strong as in some Z-sources. In GX 13+1, Muno et al. (2002) also detected secular motion (see also Homan et al. 1998). These shifts are usually larger in the HIDs compared to the CDs due to the shift of the track being strongly correlated with X-ray luminosity ($`L_\mathrm{x}`$). The power spectral properties of all LMXBs seem to depend primarily on the position ($`S`$, Hasinger et al. 1990) of the source in the atoll or Z track and not on $`L_\mathrm{x}`$. $`L_\mathrm{x}`$ shows a strong correlation (usually positive, sometimes negative) with this $`S`$ on short time scales (hours to days), but this correlation can be completely absent on long time scales. It has long been assumed that this is because $`S`$ is a measure of the accretion rate $`\dot{M}`$, with $`L_\mathrm{x}`$ not proportional to $`\dot{M}`$ due to uncertain causes such as, e.g., beaming, but more recently a scenario has been suggested in which the inner radius of the accretion disc ($`r_{\mathrm{inner}}`$) determines the power spectral properties, while at the same time $`L_\mathrm{x}`$ is determined by the total mass accretion plus perhaps nuclear burning (van der Klis 2001). The decorrelation of $`L_\mathrm{x}`$ from the power spectral properties occurs in this scenario through energy release that does not originate from accretion through the inner disc, but does respond to inner disc count rate changes in a time-averaged sense.

Recently, Muno et al. (2002) and Gierliński & Done (2002) suggested that the distinction between atoll and Z sources might be an artifact of incomplete sampling, because the atoll sources that cover a wide enough range in count rate (the transient sources Aql X-1, 4U 1608-52 and 4U 1705-44, each with a flux range of more than a factor of 10, see also Barret & Olive 2002) also exhibit roughly Z-shaped tracks with at the lowest luminosities a ’horizontal branch’. However, the differences in flux ranges and time scales on which these tracks are traced out in the CDs (as also noted by Muno et al. 2002) as well as their topology and power spectral behaviour (van Straaten et al. 2003), argue against any simple unification of these two classes. Being a persistently bright source with a flux range of a factor of $``$2, GX 13+1 is not among the sources that has been observed to show such an atoll source ’horizontal branch’.

In this paper we discuss the X-ray colour, flux and timing properties of GX 13+1 and their mutual dependence. We find highly unusual power spectral – colour-colour diagram behaviour, which does not fit in with either Z or atoll behaviour as well as very unusual secular motion. In Sect. 4.4 we suggest a possible explanation for the unusual properties we find in GX 13+1.

## 2 Observations

We used all publicly available Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE, Bradt et al. 1993) Proportional Counter Array (PCA, Jahoda et al. 1996) data of GX 13+1 in the third RXTE gain epoch, a total of 44 observations (listed in Table 1) ranging from May 17 to October 10, 1998 and lasting about 480 ksec in total. Individual observations typically last $``$10 ksec, interrupted several times by South Atlantic Anomaly passages and Earth occultations. The uninterrupted parts of observations are normally $``$3 ksec in duration. In 33 observations the five Proportional Counter Units (PCUs) 0–4 were all active, but in 11 observations PCU 3 and/or 4 were inactive for part or for the entire observation. The 2-60 keV count rate for 5 PCUs varied between $``$3300–5500 cnts $`\mathrm{s}^1`$. For all observations Standard 2 data are available which have a time resolution of 16 s in 129 energy channels (covering the 2-60 keV PCA range), as well as high time resolution Single Bit and Event data with a time resolution of 1/4096 s or better, also covering the 2-60 keV PCA range.

Standard 2 data of PCUs 0, 1 and 2 (which were always active) were used to create CDs and HIDs with 16 s data points. The data were background corrected using the Bright Source Model for the RXTE PCA111http://rxte.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/whatsnew/calibration.html. The soft colour (SC) was defined as the count rate ratio between PCA Standard 2 spectral channels 7-14 and 3-6 (3.6-6.5 and 2.2-3.6 keV respectively) and the hard colour (HC) as the ratio between channels 21-40 and 15-20 (8.7-16.0 and 6.5-8.7 keV). The intensity was taken to be the 2-60 keV (channel 1-129) count rate.

We checked the colours for instrumental drifts caused by changes in the response of the RXTE PCA by analysing 4 Crab observations covering the entire observation period of the data we used. We created CDs of the Crab observations using the same bands as we used for the GX 13+1 data and calculated the average colours. The shifts of Crab in the CD are below 1% in SC and below 0.5% in HC. Dead time effects result in shifts of the data points in the CD relative to one another of less than $``$0.1% in both HC and SC. Both the effect of instrumental drifts and of dead time are negligible compared to the effects reported below.

## 3 Analysis and results

### 3.1 The colour-colour and hardness-intensity diagrams

On cursory examination, the CD of our data appears to exhibit the lower part of an atoll track or perhaps the NB/FB part of a Z track, traced out on a time scale of hours to days (Fig. 2) with a rather sharp vertex. This track shifts on longer time scales, resulting in a CD with overlapping tracks. Similar shifts are also observed in the HIDs. We divided the data into 15 different tracks by adding observations together in chronological order for at most one week, unless the track shifted before then (see Table 1). A shift in this context was defined as motion of the track over a colour-colour interval more or less perpendicular to the track, significant compared to the track width. Clearly, a shift parallel to the tracks can be overlooked in this way. For that reason data from our 15 tracks could still be to some extent mixed up. However, it is not likely that this happened very often. The reason for this is, that, as shown below, the shifts tend to occur along one particular diagonal in the CD. The tracks do not usually run parallel to that diagonal.

Tracks 3, 10a,b,c and 11a,b were excluded from further analysis, because they do not show a vertex. Because of this lack of a vertex we cannot with confidence compare the positions of these tracks in the CD with those of the others.

For each of the remaining 9 tracks we defined a parameter $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ that indicates the position along the track, in a similar way as e.g. Dieters & van der Klis (2000) for the Z source Sco X-1. This was done by approximating the track with a spline onto which the data points are projected along a vector defined by their errors in HC and SC (see Fig. 3). Different from e.g Sco X-1, GX 13+1 only shows one vertex in the CDs instead of two. We chose the value of $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ at this vertex to be equal to 2, and fixed the arc length along the track by setting $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ =1 at a point on the top branch at a fixed HC and SC interval ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$HC=0.3, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$SC=0.2) above and to the right of the vertex. The locations of the vertices (the middle of the sharp turn) were estimated by eye. To quantify the shift of each track in the CD we defined a parameter $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$ as the distance of the track’s vertex to the point HC=0.46 and SC=3.07 (the vertex of track 1): $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }HC^2+\mathrm{\Delta }SC^2)}`$.

In Fig. 2 we show the CDs of all 15 tracks in black superimposed on track 6 (in grey) for reference. As mentioned above GX 13+1 shows a pattern very reminiscent of a standard atoll track, with, however, a rather sharp vertex. The tracks are shifted relative to each other; the vertex locations are presented in Fig. 4 and Table 1. The shifts are consistent ($`\chi ^2/dof=8.3/7`$) with being on a diagonal line in the CD.

Representative HIDs of track 1 are shown in Fig. 5, together with the CD. The colour-colour points have different symbols based on their location in the CD to simplify tracking the differences in the shape of the track between the diagrams. Contrary to what is seen in other sources the track is flipped in the HIDs compared to the CD.

### 3.2 Dependence of the count rate on $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$

In Fig. 6 we show the 2-60 keV count rate plotted versus $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ for each track. Contrary to what is normally seen in atoll sources on these timescales (Hasinger & van der Klis 1989; Di Salvo et al. 2001, 2003), the count rate depends non-monotonically on $`S_\mathrm{a}`$, with usually a minimum somewhere in the range $`S_\mathrm{a}`$=2–3.4. Such a minimum is seen at the NB-FB vertex ($`S_\mathrm{a}`$=2) in some Z sources (see, e.g, Dieters & van der Klis 2000; Jonker et al. 2000; Homan et al. 2002), but there the minimum always occurs at the vertex, while in GX 13+1 its position drifts between $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ values of 2 and 3 depending on observation. In Fig. 7 we have plotted the average count rate for $`S_\mathrm{a}=2.1\pm 0.1`$ versus $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$. From Figs. 6 and 7 a correlation between count rate and $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$ is observable: the two tracks with the lowest $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$, tracks 1 and 8, have lower count rates for a given $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ than the other tracks, except for the lowest three $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ intervals of track 1. Tracks 9 and 5 which have the highest $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$ show the highest count rates above $`S_\mathrm{a}2.5`$.

### 3.3 The power spectra

Power spectra with a Nyquist frequency of 2048 Hz were calculated using 16 s segments of high time resolution data and all energy channels, i.e., covering the 2-60 keV PCA band. Each of the 9 tracks separately was divided into (typically 8) $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ intervals and the power spectra corresponding to the selected colour-colour points were averaged. A constant Poisson level determined by using the 1024 to 2048 Hz range (where no kHz QPOs were detected) was subtracted. Three representative power spectra from track 7 are presented in power$`\times `$frequency vs. frequency representation in Fig. 8. The VLFN, BLN and a QPO are clearly visible.

The power spectra were fitted with 2–4 Lorentzians. We chose to fit the VLFN with two zero-centered Lorentzians instead of a power law, because it has a “bumpy” structure, which can not be fitted well with a single power law (to obtain a good fit one has to add additional components to fit the bumps in any case) and is too broad a feature to be well fitted by a single Lorentzian. We will call these two components the low and high VLFN. This approach has the additional advantage that it avoids the common problem that the VLFN power law attempts to also fit power at high frequencies, which is probably unrelated to the VLFN, and can bias the power law to ill represent the data at low frequencies. Two more Lorentzians fit the BLN and a QPO, when present. The Lorentzians are reported in the $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$, $`Q`$, r representation used by Belloni et al. (2002), where $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the frequency at which the Lorentzian reaches its maximum in a power$`\times `$frequency vs. frequency power spectral representation, $`Q`$ the quality factor (for which we use the standard definition of centroid frequency divided by full width at half maximum) and r the fractional rms amplitude. We will regard $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ to be the characteristic frequency of a Lorentzian component. The rms powers were calculated in the 0–$`\mathrm{}`$ Hz range, except for the two components fitting the VLFN where we used the 0.125–$`\mathrm{}`$ Hz range because for these components the unmeasured power below our lowest Fourier frequency provides a significant contribution (which is not the case for the other components). The rms amplitudes were calculated assuming an average background of 140 cnts $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ (2-60 keV, 5 PCUs); the $``$20 cnts $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ deviations from this average are negligible in view of the high source count rates.

In all of the tracks we have found VLFN and BLN and in 5 of the 9 tracks we detected the 57-69 Hz QPO first reported by Homan et al. (1998). For all $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ intervals we found VLFN; the BLN usually disappeared in the highest $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ intervals and QPOs were only detected in the lowest $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ intervals. The power spectral components and their dependence on $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$ is discussed in more detail in Sect. 3.4.

### 3.4 Dependence of the power spectral properties on $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$

#### 3.4.1 The very low frequency noise

As described in Sect. 3.3, the VLFN was fitted with two zero-centered ($`Q=0`$) Lorentzians. The power of both these Lorentzians was added to calculate the total rms amplitude of the VLFN. For all 9 tracks the rms of the total VLFN generally decreases with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ (see Fig. 9), from $``$4.5–5.5% to $``$3–3.5%. An anti-correlation with $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$ is visible: tracks 5 and 9, which have a high $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$, have a VLFN rms that is significantly lower than that of the other tracks. To quantify this we fitted a straight line to the VLFN amplitude - $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ relation, and determined the value of the VLFN amplitude at $`S_\mathrm{a}=2`$ from this fit. In Fig. 11 we show this amplitude as a function of $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$. As $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$ increases from 0 to $``$0.3 the VLFN rms at $`S_\mathrm{a}=2`$ decreases from $``$4.8% to $``$3%.

The absolute rms of the VLFN as a function of $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ of all tracks combined is shown in Fig. 11. Up to $`S_\mathrm{a}=2`$ the absolute rms decreases from $``$50 to 30 cnts $`\mathrm{s}^1`$, and for $`S_\mathrm{a}>2`$ it stays approximately constant at $``$30 cnts $`\mathrm{s}^1`$. So for $`S_\mathrm{a}<2`$ the decreasing absolute rms is correlated to the decreasing count rate; however, for $`S_\mathrm{a}>2`$ the count rate in some tracks increases, but this does not affect the absolute rms, which stays approximately constant.

The characteristic frequency ($`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$) of the low and high VLFN does not show a clear correlation with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$, but varies between 0.1–0.3 Hz for the low and between 0.5–1.5 Hz for the high VLFN (with a few exceptions up to 2 Hz when no BLN was fitted, and for low $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ in track 9 where the BLN also shows an extremely high $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$).

#### 3.4.2 The band limited noise

The BLN characteristic frequency, shown in Fig. 12, and rms, shown in Fig. 13, both decrease with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$. For most tracks the frequencies decrease from $``$10 to $``$4–5 Hz, except for track 9 which has a BLN frequency of $``$30 Hz for its lowest two $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ intervals ($`S_\mathrm{a}`$1.5–1.7). The highest BLN rms is $``$4–6% and is found for low $`S_\mathrm{a}`$; when $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ increases the BLN rms decreases until it becomes undetectable around $`S_\mathrm{a}`$2.5–3. Typical 95% confidence upper limits for the BLN for the $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ intervals where it was not detected are $``$2%, with $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}=5`$ Hz and $`Q=0`$.5. For tracks 9 and 4 the rms increases again with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ above $`S_\mathrm{a}3`$.

The characteristics of the BLN do not show a clear correlation with $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$, although the BLN in track 9 has a higher rms for a given $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ than in the other tracks and also shows extremely high frequencies for low $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ (see above). The $`Q`$ of the BLN is also not significantly correlated with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$. It varies between 0 and 1, with the exception of the last interval of track 2 ($`S_\mathrm{a}=3.13\pm 0.23`$, $`Q=2.6_{1.7}^{+22.1}`$) and $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ interval 7 of track 9 ($`S_\mathrm{a}=2.94\pm 0.05`$, $`Q=4_2^{+4}`$), where the BLN also shows a very high frequency of $`12.1_{0.8}^{+0.7}`$ Hz; in these two cases (only) this component is sufficiently narrow to be called a QPO.

#### 3.4.3 Quasi-periodic oscillations

QPOs were detected with frequencies ranging from $``$60–75 Hz and $`Q`$ values of $``$2–5 (detailed properties are shown in Table 2). They are only detected at low $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ values, with the highest rms at the lowest $`S_\mathrm{a}`$, and in too small a range of $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ to say anything about the dependence of their frequency and $`Q`$ on $`S_\mathrm{a}`$. The fact that QPOs were detected in tracks 1 and 8 and not in tracks 5 and 9 could be related to the high $`S_{\mathrm{shift}}`$ values of tracks 5 and 9, but this could also be due to the fact that these tracks do not reach the upper-left most part of the track, where the QPOs are found. The frequencies of the detected QPOs are all consistent with being in the range of those previously found by Homan et al. (1998).

We have searched for kHz QPOs up to 2048 Hz, but none were detected above the 3$`\sigma `$ confidence level. The strongest narrow features ($`Q10`$) above 300 Hz were between 2 and 3$`\sigma `$ and resulted in 3$`\sigma `$ upper limits of up to 3% rms. A broad, 3.1$`\sigma `$, high frequency feature ($`2.6\pm 0.5`$ % rms, $`Q=0.9_{0.6}^{+0.9}`$, $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}=858_{137}^{+225}`$ Hz) is found in track 7 ($`S_\mathrm{a}=1.50\pm 0.08`$), but when the number of trials is taken into account this is not a significant detection.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Extreme secular motion in CD and HIDs

We have studied the secular motion both in the CD and in the HIDs of GX 13+1. The largest shifts are observed in the direction of HC ($``$40%) and not in SC ($``$7%). In other atoll and Z sources which show secular motion, shifts of less than 3% in HC and $``$4% in SC (4U 1636-53, Di Salvo et al. 2003) and 6% in HC and 8% in SC (GX 5-1, Kuulkers et al. 1994) are observed; in Cyg X–2 the shifts in both HC and SC are up to $``$10% (Kuulkers et al. 1996). This is not strongly dependent on the choice of bands. The shifts in the CD of GX 13+1 are remarkably large, particularly in HC, even when compared to Z sources, where the shifts are larger than in atoll sources. As is also seen in other sources (references above), the shift of the track shows a correlation with average count rate resulting in shifted tracks in the HIDs. We find that in GX 13+1 the amplitude of the VLFN also shows a correlation with this shift; it decreases when the track is shifted towards higher HC and SC. Such a correlation is not observed in the Z source GX 5-1, but in the atoll source 4U 1636-53 the part of the track that shifted to higher SC and intensity also has a lower VLFN rms. The VLFN rms in Cyg X–2 shows the same dependence on the shift of the track, but the overall intensity level of a track decreases with this shift (Kuulkers et al. 1999). In GX 13+1, track 9, which has the largest shift also has unusual BLN properties (Sect. 3.4.2); in 4U 1636-53 an extra, broad component ($`Q=0.8`$) is detected next to the BLN in the high intensity part of the track at $`1.1\%`$ rms, but not in the low intensity part (with $`1\sigma `$ upper limits of $``$0.6%).

### 4.2 The flipping effect

In the HIDs with the HC or SC on the vertical, and count rate on the horizontal axis the arc-shape found in the CD is reversed, i.e., the source moves through the arc in the opposite sense in the HIDs as compared to the CD. This is different from what is usually observed in atoll sources (Wijnands et al. 1999; van Straaten et al. 2000; Muno et al. 2002; Di Salvo et al. 2003), where, on short timescales, the same basic pattern is traced out in both the CD and the HIDs and the sense of motion is always the same. On longer timescales secular shifts in the HIDs are sometimes observed (van Straaten et al. 2003). In most Z sources the observed basic pattern in the CD and HIDs is also similar (Schulz et al. 1989; Kuulkers & van der Klis 1996; Jonker et al. 2002; Homan et al. 2002), although for some sources the count rate decreases along (a part of) the FB, causing this branch to be in the opposite direction in the HIDs compared to the CD (Kuulkers et al. 1996). The cause for this unusual behaviour of GX 13+1 in the HIDs is that the count rate depends on $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ in a different way than in most other sources (see Sect. 3.2). A possible explanation for this will be discussed in Sect. 4.4.

### 4.3 GX 13+1 in the Z/atoll scheme

The tracks that GX 13+1 traces out in the CD are, at first sight, very reminiscent of a classic island/banana in an atoll source, or a normal-branch/flaring-branch in a Z source. However, from the results presented in Sect. 3 we find that the power spectral properties of this source as a function of $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ resemble neither those of a classic atoll, nor of a Z source.

In a given track the count rate of GX 13+1 decreases along the track up to $`S_\mathrm{a}`$=2–3 after which (in some tracks) it increases again with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$, while in atoll sources on short timescales the count rate generally increases monotonically with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ along the whole track (see Sect. 3.2; for references on atoll source behaviour see van Straaten et al. 2002; Di Salvo et al. 2003; Hasinger & van der Klis 1989). This is also different from what is observed in Z sources, where the count rate can slightly decrease along the NB, but increases immediately after the NB/FB vertex so that the minimum in count rate is at the vertex (see Sect. 3.2; for references on Z source behaviour see Dieters & van der Klis 2000; Jonker et al. 2000; O’Neill et al. 2001; Jonker et al. 2002; Homan et al. 2002). The VLFN of GX 13+1 is very strong (usually $``$4–5.5% rms for $`S_\mathrm{a}`$2) compared to atoll sources in the island state or lower banana branch and Z sources in the NB (the VLFN frequency range is similar). The VLFN rms of GX 13+1 generally decreases with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$. This is the opposite of what is normally seen in both atoll and Z sources, where the VLFN increases with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ along the whole track (see, however, Wijnands et al. 1999, on the atoll source 4U 1820-30). The BLN is quite weak ($``$2–5%) compared to that in atoll sources in the island state and lower banana and its rms decreases with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ as is usual in atoll and Z sources, but in tracks 4 and 9 it increases again in the highest $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ intervals. The characteristic frequency of the BLN also decreases with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$, which, in either atoll sources in the island state and lower banana branch or Z sources, has so far only been observed in the atoll source 4U 1820-30, where a BLN-like component that evolves into or is replaced by a $``$7 Hz QPO (Wijnands et al. 1999) is seen. In the Z source GX 349+2, a similar noise component is seen of which the centroid frequency decreases with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$, but the $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ of this component shows a more complicated dependence on $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ (O’Neill et al. 2002). Generally, in atoll sources the $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ of the BLN increases with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ up to the upper banana, where it starts to decrease again, whereas in Z sources it increases monotonically.

We find the QPO properties of GX 13+1 to be unlike either Z or atoll sources. At the lowest $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ intervals the 57-69 Hz QPO found by Homan et al. (1998) is detected. In atoll sources a low frequency QPO is usually detected in the island state with a frequency of 10-15 Hz (see, however, Wijnands et al. 1999) ,increasing up to 40-47 Hz towards the upper banana, where it becomes undetectable (although a second low frequency QPO is sometimes also seen at similar frequencies, but for higher $`S_\mathrm{a}`$, see van Straaten et al. 2002). If the QPO would remain detectable, one would expect to find such a 57-69 Hz QPO at higher $`S_\mathrm{a}`$, in the middle banana branch. The HBO in Z sources has a frequency up to $``$55 Hz in the upper NB; if the QPO in GX13+1 is interpreted as this QPO one would also expect to find a $``$6 Hz NBO on this branch; in the Z source GX 349+2 no NBO is found, but a very broad noise component is seen instead (Kuulkers & van der Klis 1998; O’Neill et al. 2001), and of this GX 13+1 shows no evidence either. The fact that no kHz QPOs are detected anywhere along the branch (see Sect. 3.4.3) is uncharacteristic for both atoll and Z sources.

Clearly, GX 13+1 is a peculiar source in which the properties correlate to $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ in a very unusual way when compared both to atoll and Z sources. In the final section we explore a possible explanation for this unusual behaviour.

### 4.4 A jet scenario

If the behaviour of GX 13+1 is interpreted within the framework of atoll source behaviour, then clearly for high $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ the source is in the upper banana. Based on the CD, at low $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ one would expect the source to be in the lower left banana and island state. However, the fact that for low $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ 57-69 Hz QPOs, and weak BLN with a characteristic frequency that decreases with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ are found, suggests that, contrary to what one would expect based on the CD, the “true” state of the source there is the middle part of the banana branch, because that is where other atoll sources can be expected to show this kind of power spectral behaviour. This is supported by the fact that so far no kHz QPOs have been found in this source, consistent with their absence in other atoll sources in the middle and upper parts of the banana branch.

In GX 13+1 the count rate decreases as $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ increases up to $`S_\mathrm{a}`$=2–3, and only for higher $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ increases, which is what in a regular atoll source one would expect along the whole track (see Sect. 3.2). One interpretation for this unusual behaviour would be that there is something adding extra flux at low $`S_\mathrm{a}`$, which becomes weaker towards higher $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ resulting in a count rate that first decreases, and then increases as the standard atoll upper banana behaviour takes over. From the two branched structure in the CDs one can conclude that this extra flux would have to be hard, because for low $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ the source spectrum gets harder when the count rate increases. This scenario would also explain why the BLN is so weak and shows a decreasing $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ along the track, and why no kHz QPOs are detected at low $`S_\mathrm{a}`$: these properties are normal for the middle and upper parts of the banana branch, which is, by hypothesis, the true state of the source. In most atoll sources the low frequency QPO disappears at the same $`S_\mathrm{a}`$, or a slightly lower value, as the kHz QPO (van Straaten et al. 2002; Di Salvo et al. 2003); the fact that in GX 13+1 we still see the low frequency QPO while the kHz QPO is absent is unusual, but in line with the relatively high frequency of the low frequency QPO. So the hypothesis we are exploring is that the hard extra flux creates an anomalous second branch in the CD reminiscent of a lower banana and island branch, while the source remains in the “middle” banana state.

A possible source for this extra, hard flux could be a relativistic jet. In general in atoll and Z sources radio emission, ascribed to the presence of a relativistic jet (Fender 2002), tends to increase towards lower $`S_\mathrm{a}`$. If this more intense jet is associated with the extra hard flux, this could cause a second branch in the CD, while the source is still in the upper banana state. We further hypothesize that the unusually strong VLFN would occur in the hard jet flux. Consequently, when the jet becomes weaker towards higher $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ this causes the VLFN to decrease in amplitude. This is in accordance with the fact that up to $`S_\mathrm{a}`$=2 the absolute rms amplitude of the VLFN decreases, from which it can be concluded that it is the flux, that also decreases in this part of the track, that shows relatively strong VLFN that disappears. For $`S_\mathrm{a}>`$2 the absolute rms amplitude of the VLFN stays approximately constant, while in some tracks the flux increases for $`S_\mathrm{a}>`$3. The extra flux in these tracks does lead to a significant increase of the absolute rms amplitude.

The question of course is: why would a jet in GX 13+1 cause this peculiar behaviour and not in other atoll sources? The radio emission of GX 13+1 is unusually strong for an atoll source (Fender & Hendry 2000), so perhaps for a reason unknown the jet is unusually strong in this source. A more attractive possibility is that it is not the jet that is unusual, but the system’s orientation. If the jet is pointing directly towards us Doppler boosting could significantly increase its radio flux (e.g. Fender & Hendry 2000); a strongly relativistic jet (which has already been directly imaged for the Z source Sco X-1, Fomalont et al. 2001a, b) could easily Doppler boost the radio emission by more than an order of magnitude, putting the radio emission of GX 13+1 in accordance with measurements and upper limits of other atoll sources (Fender & Hendry 2000). The unusual X-ray phenomena could then for example be the consequence of a better view of the X-ray emitting regions associated with the base of the jet, offered by the unusual orientation of the disk, possibly assisted by Doppler boosting as well. A similar possibility of Doppler-boosted jet X-ray emission causing hard flaring (“microblazar”) was recently explored for Cyg X-1 by Romero et al. (2002).

The large shifts of the track in the CD of GX 13+1 compared to other atoll and Z sources might be related to this better view of the X-ray emitting base of the jet region as well. This would require this region to contribute different baseline levels of hard flux at different epochs in order to produce the secular motion (which, consistent with this, takes place mostly in the HC), VLFN whose amplitude anticorrelates, as well as extra flux at $`S_\mathrm{a}>3`$ which correlates, with this baseline flux level. This could for example be related to secular geometry changes (e.g. precession) modulating our view of the base of the jet, or to variations in the jet activity itself.

One can also attempt to explain the peculiar behaviour of GX 13+1 with a similar relativistic jet scenario assuming the source is a Z source. The QPO observed in GX 13+1 would then be interpreted as the HBO, occurring at the top of the NB, leading to the conclusion that the CD shows both a NB and a FB. The strong VLFN that decreases along the whole track might be related to a jet similarly to the atoll scenario. This jet could be related to the high radio over X-ray luminosity ratio compared to other Z sources. However, this model leaves unexplained the decreasing frequency of the BLN with $`S_\mathrm{a}`$ and the absence of an NBO.

So, when a choice is made between an atoll or a Z classification for GX 13+1 (in either case modified by an unusual jet geometry) the overall phenomenology favours the former option. An alternative would be that GX 13+1 combines some properties of atoll and Z sources (as noted in Sect. 1, GX 13+1 has been described as the atoll source closest to the Z sources). This possibility will be further explored in a forthcoming paper (Homan et al. 2003).

It has been suggested that narrow absorption features, as found in GX 13+1 (Ueda et al. 2001), are related to a high inclination of the source, contrary to the low inclination predicted by the scenario discussed above. However, it is also possible that the absorption features are not related to the inclination of the source, but, as previously suggested by Ueda et al. (1998), to a highly ionized plasma associated with their relativistic jets, causing absorption from the flux from the hot inner accretion region.

Several predictions can be made based on the atoll source+jet hypothesis. Since the unusually strong VLFN occurs in the jet flux, one expects the VLFN, at low $`S_\mathrm{a}`$, to be the strongest in the hard flux. Also, as the jet is the main source of radio emission in LMXBs, we expect the radio emission to be strongest in the upper part of the second branch in the CD (at low $`S_\mathrm{a}`$), decreasing as the source moves towards the vertex. This can be tested with simultaneous radio and X-ray observations. One would have to account for a delay factor in the radio emission of perhaps up to half an hour (Klein-Wolt et al. 2002) associated with the expansion of the synchrotron clouds. Such observations have been done by Garcia et al. (1988), but with a small time range ($``$5 hours of overlapping X-ray and radio observations) and no CD analysis was performed, and by Berendsen et al. (2000), also with a short period of overlapping X-ray and radio observations. Recent simultaneous radio and X-ray observations also exist (to be reported in Homan et al. 2003), and preliminary results of this work that became available after the current analysis and interpretation were completed, appear to confirm our suggestion.

###### Acknowledgements.

RS and MK acknowledge support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).