text:
# The CORALIE survey for southern extra-solar planets

## 1 Introduction

Radial-velocity techniques have brought to light more than 100 planetary candidates around solar-type stars111See e.g. http://obswww.unige.ch/Exoplanets. The odd properties of many of the exoplanet candidates raised some scepticism from the community. The first exoplanet discovered, orbiting the solar-type star 51 Peg (Mayor & Queloz 1995), is itself a good example. Its particularly short-period orbit ($``$4.23 days) led some astronomers to cast doubts about its existence: e.g. Gray (1997) suggested that the radial-velocity variations were due to non-radial pulsations rather than to the presence of a planetary mass companion. Later on, this result was withdrawn (Gray 1998) and the presence of the planet around 51 Peg confirmed.

Other similar examples exist in the literature. Exploring the fact that the radial-velocity technique only gives us the minimum mass for the companion, Han et al. (2001) suggested that the planetary candidates were in fact low mass stars on orbits seen edge-on. This result was easily refuted by statistical arguments in the case of random orbital-plane inclinations (Halbwachs et al. 2000; Jorissen et al. 2001; Pourbaix 2001; Pourbaix & Arenou 2001). Again, the “planetary origin” of the radial-velocity variations was then considered to be the best one.

It is known that the radial-velocity technique is not sensitive only to the motion of a star around the center of mass of a star/planet system. Intrinsic variations, such as non-radial pulsation (Brown et al. 1998), inhomogeneous convection or spots, are expected to induce radial-velocity variations (e.g. Saar & Donahue 1997; Saar et al. 1998; Santos et al. 2000b; Paulson et al. 2002; Tinney et al. 2002). These situations can prevent us from finding planets (if the perturbation is larger than the orbital radial-velocity variation) or give us false candidates (if they produce a periodic signal over a few rotational periods). A good example of this effect is given by the periodic radial-velocity variation observed for the dwarf HD 166435, that was shown to be due to a spot rather than to the presence of a planetary companion (Queloz et al. 2001).

The presence of unknown stellar blends can also induce spurious radial-velocity signals, which can “simulate” the presence of a planetary companion in the case of triple systems. An example is given by HD 41004 in which the moving spectrum of a faint spectroscopic binary companion induces a planetary-type signature on the primary star (Santos et al. 2002; Zucker et al. 2003).

In this context, another planetary companion that was recently called back into question is the case of HD 192263. The star was announced to harbor a Jupiter-mass planetary companion on a $``$24-day period orbit (Santos et al. 2000a; Vogt et al. 2000). Recently however, Henry et al. (2002) have detected a photometric variation with a period compatible with the period observed in the radial-velocity data. The authors have then concluded that the planet around this star was no longer needed to explain the radial-velocity signal, and that the case of HD 192263 was similar to the one observed in HD 166435.

In this study, we analyze in more details the situation concerning HD 192263. Long term and simultaneous radial-velocity, bisector, and photometric measurements are presented222The radial-velocity and photometry measurements will be available in electronic form at the CDS. The results show that the presence of a planet is still needed to explain the observed radial-velocity signal. The sporadic observed photometric variations can eventually be explained as the result of interactions between the planet and the host star. In Sect. 2 we review the stellar parameters of HD 192263, and in Sect. 3 we present the available radial-velocity data. In Sect. 4 we analyze the combined radial-velocities, bisector, and photometric data, exploring the different possibilities to explain the observations. We conclude in Sect. 5.

## 2 Stellar Parameters

The basic stellar parameters of HD192263 (HIP 99711, BD $``$01 3925, ADS 13547 A) have been discussed in detail in Santos et al. (2000a). These are recalled and updated in Table 1, where we have included new spectroscopic determinations of the atmospheric parameters (Santos et al. 2003) and of $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ (Santos et al. 2002). A new $`\mathrm{log}R_{\mathrm{HK}}^{}`$ value is also quoted from Henry et al. (2002).

## 3 Radial velocities

HD 192263 is part of the Geneva extra-solar planet search programme with the CORALIE spectrograph (on the 1.2-Swiss telescope, La Silla, ESO, Chile; Udry et al. 2000). In this context, it was found to present a periodic radial-velocity signal, interpreted as an indication of the presence of a planetary mass companion orbiting this K dwarf star (Santos et al. 2000a). Before discussing in the next sections the origin of the observed radial-velocity variations, let us first simply consider the planetary explanation.

Since the planet discovery paper, we have been continuously adding radial velocities of this star, using the CORALIE spectrograph, gathering so a total of 182 observations. The velocities were computed using a weighted cross-correlation mask (Pepe et al. 2002b), which permitted to effectively reduce the rms of our measurements.

As before, an analysis of the radial velocities shows the presence of a signal with a period of about 24 days and an amplitude of 61 m s-1. In Fig 1 we plot a phase-folded diagram as well as a Fourier transform (FT) of the radial velocities. In Fig. 2 we show a time series of the observed radial velocities for the whole period of our measurements. The two plots clearly show the presence of a very stable periodic radial-velocity signal that can be interpreted as the signature of a 0.72 MJup planetary companion orbiting HD 192263 every 24.348 days, on a (quasi-)circular orbit. The separation is about 0.15 AU. The inferred planetary orbital parameters and minimum mass are listed in Table 2.

Considering the stellar rotational period of 24.5 days found by Henry et al. (2002)333A value compatible with the measured activity level of the star, that implyes a Prot$``$21 days (Noyes et al. 1984); however, and as we will see in Sect. 4.4, it is not completely clear if the 24.5-day photometric period is really related with the rotation period of the star., and knowing that the $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ of HD 192263 is 1.99 km s-1, we can estimate the orbital inclination angle. Taking the radius of this K dwarf to be 0.8 R, the rotational period implies a $`v_{eq}`$$``$ 1.65 km s-1, very close to the observed (minimum) value of 1.99 km s-1; both numbers are compatible within the errors. In other words, this star is probably seen almost equator-on, and if the stellar rotation axis is perpendicular to the planetary orbital plane, the measured minimum mass of the planet is probably not far from the real mass.

As already discussed in Santos et al. (2000a), the residuals around the fit are a bit higher than usual. For an average 8 m s-1 precision for the individual measurements, the measured 12.5 m s-1 represent an excess of about 10 m s-1. The high activity level observed for this K dwarf could explain at least part of this noise (e.g. Saar et al. 1998; Santos et al. 2000b). Using Eq. (1) in Saar & Donahue (1997), and considering the stellar $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ of 1.99 km s-1 and a spot filling factor of about 1% (as found by Henry et al. 2002), we estimate that the observed radial-velocity variation should have a semi-amplitude of about 12 m s-1. We note, however, that this result is some sort of a maximum value, since it is computed for an equatorial spot in a star seen equator-on.

In the lower panel of Fig. 1 we present the residuals of the $``$24.4-day Keplerian fit. As it can be seen from the plot, there seems to exist a long term trend in the data, with a significant slope of about 4.8$`\pm `$0.8 m s-1 yr-1. The source of this trend is still not clear, and might be due e.g. to the presence of another planetary or stellar companion, or to some long-term activity-induced radial velocity variation connected to a possible stellar magnetic activity cycle (e.g. Kürster et al. 2003). In any case, it is in part responsible for the residuals of the short period fit.

Finally, we have correlated the CORALIE spectra using a Cross-Correlation mask specially constructed for the radial-velocity determination of M4 dwarfs (Delfosse et al. 1998). As seen for HD 41004 (Santos et al. 2002), if the companion to HD 192263 was a low mass star (e.g. an M dwarf) the amplitude of the radial-velocity signal would be dependent of the mask used. The results of our analysis reveal, however, that the fitted orbital parameters always remain unchanged. This confirms that HD 192263 has really a very low mass companion.

## 4 Planet or spurious activity signal?

As seen in the previous section, the radial-velocity periodic signal presented by HD 192263 has remained perfectly constant for the last few years, showing no significant phase or amplitude variations. Although this strongly supports the planetary explanation, a quite similar situation was also found for HD 166435 by Queloz et al. (2001). This latter case and the one presented here are, however, quite different. First, the two stars have different spectral types: late-F and K dwarf, respectively. Secondly, the rotational velocities are very different; $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$=7.6 km s-1 for HD 166435 against $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$=1.99 km s-1 for HD 192263. Furthermore, in our case the fitted “orbit” is perfectly compatible with circular, contrarily to the situation for HD 166435. Finally, in the case of HD 166435, there was a clear correlation between the radial velocity and bisector measurements, not found by Santos et al. (2000a) for HD 192263.

### 4.1 Bisector analysis

The use of the bisector analysis has been shown to be crucial in disentangling planetary signatures from spurious radial-velocity signals (e.g. Queloz et al. 2001; Santos et al. 2002). For HD 192263 this analysis has already been presented in Santos et al. (2000a), revealing no traces of bisector variations related with the radial velocity. This result was considered as a strong evidence for the planetary origin of the radial-velocity signal. However, given the doubts raised by the recent work of Henry et al. (2002), and the much larger number of points available now, it is worth repeating the test.

Using the procedure presented in Queloz et al. (2001) we have computed the Bisector Inverse Slope (BIS) for each of the measured CORALIE cross-correlation functions (CCF’s). In Fig. 3 we show the results, plotting the derived values of BIS against the observed radial-velocities (upper panel). The plot shows that there is no evident correlation between the two variables. A Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.18 is obtained. Thus, BIS does not significantly correlate with the radial velocities.

It is important to further note that the observed slope has the opposite sign than in the case of HD 166435, for which an anti-correlation was found. HD 166435 is the only clear published example of activity-induced planetary-like signature. Other cases from the CORALIE planet-search programme are under study (see e.g. Santos et al. 2000c).

In the two lower panels of Fig. 3 we plot a phase-folded diagram of the BIS, constructed using the same period as observed in the radial velocity, as well as the FT of the data. No periodic variation seems present. In particular, we see no sign of variations of BIS with the period of $``$24.4-days, as seen in the radial-velocity data. These results strongly support the planetary explanation proposed by Santos et al. (2000a) and Vogt et al. (2000) as the source for the radial-velocity signal.

#### 4.1.1 Efficiency of the bisector diagnostic for low rotators?

Using a simple model, we have checked the sensitivity of the bisector analysis to discriminate activity-related radial-velocity variations from real planetary signatures. Our model consists in a stellar disk divided in a grid of 200$`\times `$200 cells. Considering that the stellar-template CCF (i.e. a spectral line) in the center of the stellar disk is well approximated by a Gaussian function with given depth and width444values of 0.25 and 4.30 km s-1 are respectively chosen as typical values for CORALIE spectra., we have computed the CCF for each cell. In this process we took into account the cell positions on the disk, to account for the limb-darkening effect (a factor of 0.6 was taken – Gray 1992), and the projected radial velocity. The different CCF’s were then added. This procedure was repeated for several “stars” with different $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ values (from 0 to 10.0 km s-1).

From the resulting stellar-disk CCF’s, we have subtracted a CCF corresponding to the light that is masked by an equatorial stellar spot positioned at an angle of 65 degrees from the center of the disk (the star is seen equator-on). This value was taken to coincide with the approximate maximum perturbation in radial velocity that a spot might produce (see e.g. Fig. 1 in Saar & Donahue 1997). Spots with different filling factors were considered as well.

The results of this simple model are presented in Fig. 4 where we plot the radial velocities, bisector “span” (in this case the Bisector Invese Slope, BIS, as defined in Queloz et al. 2001), and the ratio of the BIS-to-radial-velocity amplitudes, as a function of $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$. We observe that, for low $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ values, the influence of a spot on the measured velocity is much larger than the effect observed on the CCF bisector. In the case of HD 192263, with $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$=1.99 km s-1, this ratio is around 1-2%. The radial-velocity (semi-)amplitude induced in this low $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ model for a spot with a filling factor of 5% (larger than the one observed in photometry for HD 192263) is around 50 m s-1 i.e. similar to the actually observed value. For the same model we find, however, a BIS with an amplitude of only $``$1 m s-1. Both values are in good agreement with the results obtained from Eqs. (1) and (2) in Saar & Donahue (1997), attesting the reality of this effect. However, some differences exist since the bisector span definition used by these authors is not the same as the one used here, and probably also due to the simplification of our model.

As it was also shown by Saar & Donahue (1997), for higher $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ models this ratio is higher. The effect is of the order of $``$50% for a $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$=10.0 km s-1, and thus clearly detectable. This is mostly due to the higher sensitivity on $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ of the effect the spot has onto the bisector when compared with the effect induced on the velocity itself (Saar & Donahue 1997). As shown by Santos et al. (2000c), this qualitative effect is indeed observed, as there seems to exist a clear correlation between the observed BIS-to-radial-velocity amplitude ratios and the stellar projected rotational velocity.

The model described above is, however, far from being perfect. For example, we would obtain a value for the BIS-to-radial-velocity ratio of only $``$0.2 in the case of HD 166435 (a late-F dwarf with $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$=7.60 km s-1), while the observed value is close to 1 (Queloz et al. 2001). The difference is probably due to effects not taken into account, connected e.g. to the geometry of the system or even to the presence of inhomogeneous convection effects – see discussion in Saar & Donahue (1997). The results obtained here thus probably represent lower limits for the bisector variations. Finally, changes in the spot filling factor do not seem to strongly influence the BIS-to-radial-velocity amplitude ratio.

In other words, it is possible that the bisector test is less sensitive for slow rotators, although a small effect should still be visible555Although not the case with the CORALIE spectra (R=50 000), we should add that the spectral resolution might also impose limits to the validity of the bisector test. In fact, given that the broadening factors essentially sum up in quadrature, it is very difficult to put in evidence intrinsic line asymmetries when the instrumental profile is significantly broader than the intrinsic line profile.. But we further caution that this very simple model has its own limitations, and the effects discussed above should thus be seen as a qualitative but not quantitative result. The derived BIS-to-radial-velocity amplitude ratios should not be taken as established values. Finally, these facts do not exclude the planetary explanation for the case of HD 192263, but rather show that for this particular star the bisector test may not be as efficient as we could eventually imagine. Another diagnostic is needed.

### 4.2 Photometry

The results presented in Henry et al. (2002), calling into question the planetary nature of the observed radial-velocity variations, are mostly based on the discovery that HD 192263 has a periodic photometric signal with a period similar to the one observed in radial-velocity. However, Henry et al. (2002) could not directly compare the photometry and the radial-velocities obtained at the same moment in time. This comparison should be done to completely establish a relation between the origin of these two quantities (photometry and radial velocities).

In order to address this problem, while monitoring the radial velocities of HD 192263 with CORALIE, we have started a simultaneous photometric campaign on this star. From May 30 to November 5, 2002, HD 192263 has been measured 187 times in the Geneva photometric system (Golay 1980) with the photoelectric photometer P7 (Burnet & Rufener 1979), completely refurbished in 2001 and mounted on the 120-cm Belgian Mercator telescope in La Palma (IAC, Canary Islands, Spain). The global photometric reduction procedure is described in Rufener (Rufener 1964, 1985). However, in this particular case, two additional comparison stars, HD 194953 (G8 III) and HD 196712 (B7 III) have been systematically measured together with HD 192263, in order to improve the final data set. The photometric data in the Geneva system are collected in the General Catalogue (Rufener 1988) and its up-to-date database (Burki et al. 2002). An analysis of the standard stars shows that the final precision of the data is between 0.002 and 0.004 mag666Besides this photometric campaign, C. Nitschelm (private communication) has furnished us a series of photometric measurements of HD 192263 obtained during the last three years at the Danish 0.5-m telescope (La Silla, ESO, Chile). The data show no special photometric variations for this star over the whole period. However, given the obtained precision of only about 0.01 mag, these observations cannot be used to strongly constrain our results, and in particular to check for the presence of short period photometric variations..

Finally, we have also used the photometric measurements published in Henry et al. (2002), as we have radial-velocity measurements that coincide (in time) with these data.

A look at the Geneva data reveals that, indeed, there are clear photometric variation as observed by Henry et al. (2002). However, these variations do not seem to be stable. We shall discuss the different aspects of the question in the following subsections.

### 4.3 Correlating the various parameters

In Fig. 5 we can see a plot of the photometric measurements listed by Henry et al. (2002). These data were used by the authors to show that HD 192263 presents a periodic photometric variation with the same period as the one observed in radial velocity. In the diagram, we have drawn a sinusoidal curve with the same phase and period as the one observed in radial-velocity (same as seen in Fig. 2). The amplitude of this curve was visually set to reproduce the amplitude of the last group of points.

A look at the figure reveals two interesting features. First, for the last measurements, there is a clear superposition of the “radial-velocity” curve and the photometry; the phase and period seems to be about the same. However, for the earlier cycles (two upper panels) this fact is not present. Although the precision of the measurements is the same (as can be seen from the very small dispersion), the amplitude is much smaller. This is, of course, in complete disagreement with the stability of both phase and amplitude observed in the radial velocities. For example, in the period between JD=2 452 160 and 2 452 200, for which both RV and photometry exist, the latter looks almost stable while the radial velocities vary with the usual ($``$60 m s-1) amplitude, period, and phase (see Fig. 2). Furthermore, in the upper panel of Fig. 5, it seems that for the region around JD=2 452 040 the phase of the photometric variations has changed.

These considerations already strongly suggest that, during the time of the photometric measurements, either there has been a phase shift in the position of the spot group (eventually disappearing an re-appearing at another location) or else that the stellar rotational period (responsible for the photometric variation) is not exactly the same as the one found in radial velocity. In any case, these observations seem to be contradictory with the idea that the observed radial-velocity variation is being induced (only) by the presence of the spots responsible for the photometric variations.

To further investigate this fact, we plot in Fig. 6 the simultaneous temporal sequencies of Geneva-photometry observations, CORALIE radial velocities, residuals to the Keplerian 24.4-day fit, and BIS values. In the three upper panels, we have drawn a sinusoidal curve corresponding to the best Keplerian solution derived from the radial-velocity data (see Sect. 3). As previously, for the photometry, the amplitude of this curve was adjusted in order to better fit the data.

The comparison of these plots shows that while the radial velocities follow a very stable (in period, amplitude, and phase) periodic variation, the photometry presents a strange behaviour. At first, we see a clear variation with the same period and phase as the radial velocities. However, from a given moment on, the photometric variations become quite random, and no clear periodicity exists any more. There is even the impression that the relative phase of the photometric and radial-velocity variations is changing slowly, something that could imply e.g. that the rotational period of the star and the radial-velocity periodic signal do not have the very same length. During the whole period, both BIS and residuals are reasonably constant in time. A look at the residuals (mostly for the first group of points) shows, however, what seems to be a small amplitude (about 20 m s-1) coherent radial-velocity signal left777The quality of the data does not permit to precisely access the phase of this periodic signal.. The same marginal trend is seen for the BIS during this particular time interval for which the photometry shows a clear periodic variation. These trends might be related to the radial-velocity variation induced by the spot group. But the fact that in the global residuals (see Sect. 3) no similar period appears in the Fourier Transform, suggests that this variation is sporadic, as expected since the photometric variations are not stable888We have tried to verify if there was any relation between the radial-velocity residuals and the BIS. Nothing is seen, maybe because of the large errors in the individual measurements, when compared to the magnitude of the effect..

This simultaneous analysis brings many doubts onto the conclusions of Henry et al. (2002). If the presence of spots (and other stellar surface features) were the source for the radial-velocity variations, we should definitely see a correlation between the photometry and the radial-velocity data for the period of our simultaneous measurements. Nothing is seen. Except if we imagine that there are other stellar features not observable in photometry but on the other hand able to induce radial-velocity variations, it is very difficult to accept that the observed stable radial-velocity signal is being caused by activity-related phenomena999In this context, note also that for K dwarfs the convective velocities are not very high (smaller than for F dwarfs), reducing the probability of radial-velocity variations induced by convective inhomogeneities (Saar & Donahue 1997; Saar et al. 1998; Santos et al. 2000b)..

Another interesting detail also deserves some attention. If a spot is responsible for a significant radial-velocity signal, there should be a phase shift between the photometry and the radial-velocity signal. This shift, observed by Queloz et al. (2001) for HD 166435, may be justified by simple considerations. When a (single) spot is at the center of the disk, the photometric “variation” should be the highest. At the same time, the spot will cause no radial-velocity shift. On the other hand, the maximum effect in radial velocity should happen when the spot is located in an intermediate position between the center of the disk and the limb (e.g. Saar & Donahue 1997). According to this simple view, the fact that in the first group of points in Fig. 6 we see a clear phase-alignment between the radial-velocity and the photometric measurements, suggests that these two quantities cannot be directly related.

### 4.4 Star-planet interactions?

As seen in the previous sections, the idea that the observed radial-velocity periodic variations are being induced by the presence of photospheric features (e.g. spots) is not satisfying as a whole. In other words, the planetary model, as first discussed in Santos et al. (2000a) and Vogt et al. (2000) should again be considered as the best explanation. Still, the fact that the rotational period of the star seems, according to the photometry, to be similar to the planetary orbital period is intriguing.

One simple way of explaining this is to say that this is pure coincidence, i.e. that the rotational period of the star is by chance similar (but not necessarily equal) to the planetary orbital period. This is not so unrealistic. Known exoplanets have periods from a few days to several years. Most of the stellar low rotators (as e.g. the Sun) have rotational periods of the order of 20 days. They, moreover, form the sample bulk of the programmes searching for planets with the radial-velocity technique. The probability that a 24-d period planet fall in this subsample of low rotating star is large. Of course, the closer the photometric and orbital periods, the lower this probability.

Another possibility can also be explored. In the last couple of years a few studies have been published regarding the interaction between the exoplanets and their host stars. As discussed by Cuntz et al. (2000) and Saar & Cuntz (2001), this interaction might be the result of tidal or/and magnetic effects. These can thus be responsible for observable features such as chromospheric/coronal heating, or chromospheric activity phenomena, possibly inducing changes in the measured radial velocities. A star suffering strong magnetic interactions with the planet could e.g. have a hot spot rotating with the same period as the planet. On the other hand, tidal interactions could induce variations with half the orbital period. In this context, Rubenstein & Schaefer (2000) have proposed that the observation of “superflares” might be related to the presence of close-in giant planets. Recently, Shkolnik et al. (2002, 2003) have found evidences that a few stars known to harbour close-in planetary companions present important activity induced effects, observable as variations in the Ca ii H & K line reversals. Based on this discovery, we suggest that the photometric variability observed for HD 192263 might very well be the result of such kind of star-planet interactions.

As discussed in Sect. 4.3, there is no offset in phase between the radial-velocity and the photometric variations (over the period of time during which the two persist). This shift means that the spot is at the “center” of the disk (and unable to induce radial-velocity variations) when the planet is producing the maximum radial-velocity variation (i.e. when it is located at phase 0.0). In other words, the spot is not located at the sub-planetary point, but rather at an angle of about 90 degrees. This fact could be seen a signature that the spot (or spot group) is due to tidal friction effects, and that the delay is due to a process similar to the ones producing the phase shift between the position of the moon and the maximum tidal height on earth101010It should be noted, however, that the timescales of the tidal motions in the low-density stellar atmosphere are short (Cuntz et al. 2000). (or to some other physical process causing a delay in the reaction of the stellar photosphere/chromosphere to the perturbations). Such an offset was also possibly found by Shkolnik et al. (2002) for $`\upsilon `$ And. If true, this could also mean that the system is not synchronized; as we have seen in the previous sections, this would not be a surprise, since there might be a continuous phase variation between the radial-velocity and photometric signals. It is further interesting to note that a period half of the orbital one is seen in the Mount Wilson S index (Henry et al. 2002), a possible value if the effects observed are of tidal origin (Cuntz et al. 2000).

However, the current data do not give us the possibility to exclude any of the possibilities (tidal, magnetic, or others). In the case of a magnetic origin for the interaction, this would give us the possibility to access the magnetic field of the planet, which would be, of course, an interesting result.

## 5 Conclusions

We have presented the case of HD 192263, a star that shows very stable periodic radial-velocity variations. While these were first considered as the signature of a planetary companion, this interpretation was recently called back into question by the detection of periodic photometric variations with a period very close to the orbital period (Henry et al. 2002). In order to understand the true source of the observed radial-velocity signal, we have gathered precise photometry, radial-velocity, and bisector measurements for this star, part of them taken simultaneously. Our results are the followings:

– The radial-velocity variations show a striking long-term stability in period, phase, and amplitude. A very different scenario is found for the photometry that alternates moments of “stability” with periods of variability. Cross-correlation BIS (Bisector Inverse Slope) measurements do not correlate either with radial velocities. These observations very strongly supports the idea that photometry and radial-velocity variations do not share the same origin. Except if some unknown photospheric phenomenon is being responsible for the observed radial-velocity variation without influencing the stellar photometric behaviour in the same manner, the $``$24.4-day period in the radial-velocity data remains best interpreted by the presence of a low-mass planet around HD 192263.

– The similarity of the measured radial-velocity and photometric periods can be interpreted in several ways. On the one hand, it can be a simple coincidence. On the other hand, it can be the result of interactions (magnetic or tidal) between the planet and the star, and able to induce activity-related phenomena.

– The radial-velocity data also show the possible signature of a long-term trend. The nature of this trend is not known. Possible explanations might involve the presence of another planetary (or stellar) companion, or even long term activity-induced radial velocity variations. A clear followup of this result will be possible with instruments like HARPS (Pepe et al. 2002a).

This paper shows that the use of photometry as a tool to confirm (or not) the presence of the planetary mass companions to solar-type stars, detected by radial-velocity technique, should be taken cautiously. The results should always be analyzed carefully, and whenever possible, the various data (radial-velocities, photometry, bisector) should be obtained simultaneously in time.

###### Acknowledgements.

Nuno Santos dedicates this work to the memory of Gustavo Camejo Rodrigues, who will always be dearly remembered. We would like to thank Tim Brown for fruitful discussions, C. Nitschelm, A. Vidal-Madjar, and A. Lecavelier for having provided us with photometric measurements of HD 192263, and the numerous observers at the Mercator telescope, from Leuven and Geneva, for the successful photometric monitoring. We wish to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation (Swiss NSF) for the continuous support to this project. Support from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal, to N.C.S., in the form of a scholarship, is gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Comment on “Testing integrability with a single bit of quantum information”

## Abstract

In quant-ph/0303042, Poulin, Laflamme, Milburn and Paz consider the problem of distinguishing quantum chaos from quantum integrability for dynamics in an $`N`$-dimensional Hilbert space. They claim that this can be done by deterministic quantum computing with a single bit using $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ physical resources, compared to $`O(N)`$ physical resources classically. I point out what seems to be a fatal flaw with their proposal.

Ref. Pou03  is concerned with the problem of determining whether the dynamics of a quantum system in an $`N`$-dimensional Hilbert space exhibit quantum chaos or quantum integrability. That is, whether the classical limit of the system is chaotic or integrable. This is a question of the properties of the distribution of the eigenvalue-spacing of the $`N\times N`$ Hamiltonian matrix $`H`$. They claim that this problem be solved using deterministic quantum computing with a single pseudo-pure qubit (DCQ1) KniLaf98  using $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ physical resources. For example, repeating the experiment $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ times, or using $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ computers in parallel, as in NMR quantum computing (QC) Cor00 . This represents a quadratic speed up over a classical computer, which requires $`O(N)`$ resources to find the $`N`$ eigenvalues of $`H`$.

The crucial point of their proposal is at the end of their Sec. III. For the quantum algorithm to work, it is necessary to distinguish a signal difference of order $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ for a single computer. At this point they simply say “… which can be achieved using $`O(\sqrt{N})`$ physical resources.” Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case.

In a single qubit, if the signal (the mean value of $`\sigma _z`$, say) is small (of order $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ here), then the noise in a measurement of $`\sigma _z`$ (“projectiion noise”) is of order unity. That is, the results $`+1`$ and $`1`$ occur with almost equal probability so the variance in $`\sigma _z`$ is almost 1. Now the fundamental signal to noise ratio (SNR) for an ensemble of such computers is proportional to $`\sqrt{M}`$, where $`M`$ is the size of the ensemble. This is true whether $`M`$ is the number of computers running in parallel, or the number of repetitions for a single computer. This is an elementary result in statistics: the signal rises as $`M`$ but the noise rises as $`\sqrt{M}`$. Now to see the signal requires that the SNR be of order unity. Therefore one requires $`M`$ of order $`N`$. That is, the resources scale the same as they do classically.

For relatively small $`M`$, the practical SNR in NMR QC may scale as $`M`$. This is because the noise may be limited by technical noise rather than fundamental projection noise, so the SNR rises with the signal. But that makes no difference to my proof because this argument is true only while technical noise is greater than projection noise. Thus the resources required can never be smaller than that required by projection noise, namely $`O(N)`$.


text:
# Self-Similar Hot Accretion onto a Spinning Neutron Star: Matching the Outer Boundary Conditions

## 1 Introduction

Accretion flows around compact objects frequently radiate significant levels of hard X-rays. This has provided strong motivation for the study of hot accretion flows. Zeldovich & Shakura (1969) and Alme & Wilson (1973) considered spherically free-falling plasma impinging on the surface of a neutron star (NS). They calculated the penetration depth of the falling protons and made preliminary estimates of the radiated spectrum. Their ideas were followed up by a number of later authors (e.g., Turolla et al. 1994; Zampieri et al. 1995; Zane et al. 1998), who computed detailed spectra. Deufel, Dullemond, & Spruit (2001) modified the model of Zeldovich & Shakura (1969) by considering a rotating advection-dominated accretion flow around a NS. Their model represents an improvement on the earlier work since it includes angular momentum and viscosity.

A fluid approach to hot accretion onto a NS was pioneered by Shapiro & Salpeter (1975), who worked out the structure of the standing shock in a spherical flow, and computed the two-temperature structure and the resulting radiation spectrum of the post-shock gas. The equivalent problem for an accreting white dwarf was analyzed by Kylafis & Lamb (1982). In related work, Chakrabarti & Sahu (1997) described the hydrodynamics of spherical accretion onto black holes and NSs, but without including radiation processes.

The above studies involve flows in which the accreting matter crashes on the surface of the star, forming a discontinuity or a shock of some kind. Recently, Medvedev & Narayan (2001, hereafter MN01) discovered a rotating solution of the viscous fluid equations that corresponds to hot quasi-spherical accretion onto a spinning NS. Their solution is closely related to the two-temperature flow described by Shapiro, Lightman, & Eardley (1976). A feature of the MN01 solution is that the gas moves subsonically in the radial direction and merges with the accreting star without a shock. The flow essentially “settles” onto the rotating star; the solution may thus be referred to as a “hot settling flow” (hot because the gas is at the virial temperature and has a quasi-spherical morphology). MN01 showed that the accreting gas removes angular momentum from the central star and that this braking action dominates the energy equation of the accreting gas. The flow could thus also be called a “hot brake.” The hot settling flow should not be confused with the boundary layer which forms close the stellar surface (e.g., Narayan & Popham 1993), where the gas density is high and steep spatial gradients are present. The hot settling flow forms outside the boundary layer and extends radially to a large distance, typically thousands of stellar radii or more (see MN01). Ikhsanov (2001, 2003), following up on earlier work by Davies & Pringle (1981), has recently described a subsonic hot accretion flow around a magnetized neutron star in the propeller state. The relation between his solution and our hot settling flow is discussed in §4.

The relevance of the hot settling flow to real systems is presently unclear, though several accreting white dwarf and black hole systems have been suggested as candidates for such a rotation-powered flow (Medvedev & Menou 2002; Medvedev & Murray 2002). While MN01 described the properties of the self-similar region of the flow, they did not discuss how to match the solution to realistic boundary conditions. The matching to an external medium at large radii is particularly problematic, since the self-similar settling flow solution has the remarkable property that the density, temperature and angular velocity of the gas at given radius depend only on the dimensionless spin of the central star, and are completely independent of the properties of the external medium. This leads to an apparently serious problem. If one tries to match the solution to the external medium by selecting the radius at which the pressure of the solution matches that of the medium, then neither the density nor the temperature will agree. Does this mean that the solution is physically inconsistent? We argue otherwise in this paper.

We show that there exists a second self-similar solution at radii outside the MN01 hot settling flow, which acts as a bridge between the MN01 solution and the external medium. This bridging solution has an extra degree of freedom which allows it to match a general density and temperature in the external medium. Apart from the additional degree of freedom, the solution retains many of the features of the MN01 settling flow: (i) it is pressure supported, (ii) it resembles a static atmosphere at low mass accretion rates, and (iii) the angular momentum flux associated with the viscous braking of the central star dominates most of the physics.

The paper is organized as follows. In §2 we derive analytical expressions for various self-similar solutions. In §3 we present full numerical solutions and compare them with the analytical solutions. Finally, in §4 we conclude with a brief discussion.

## 2 Analytical Self-Similar Solutions

We consider gas accreting viscously onto a compact spinning object. The central object has a radius $`R_{}`$, a mass $`M_{}=mM_{\mathrm{}}`$, and an angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=s\mathrm{\Omega }_K(R_{})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K(R)=(GM/R^3)^{1/2}`$ is the Keplerian angular velocity at radius $`R`$. We measure the accretion rate in Eddington units, $`\dot{m}=\dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, and the radius in Schwarzchild units, $`r=R/R_g`$, where $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}=1.39\times 10^{18}m`$ g s<sup>-1</sup> (corresponding to a radiative efficiency of 10%) and $`R_g=2GM/c^2`$.

We assume that the flow is hot and quasi-spherical, which generally requires a low mass accretion rate (see Narayan et al. 1997). The accreting gas has nearly the virial temperature, i.e., $`c_s^2GM/R(\mathrm{\Omega }_KR)^2`$, and the local vertical scale height $`H=c_s/\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$ is comparable to the local radius $`R`$. We may then use the height integrated hydrodynamic equations for a steady, rotating, axisymmetric flow, and for simplicity we may set $`H=R`$ (see MN01). (Note that, even when $`HR`$, the stability properties of the flow may depend on whether we use $`H`$ or $`R`$ in the equations; this is briefly discussed in §4). In the following, we closely follow the analysis of MN01, with a few changes.

For simplicity, we set $`\dot{m}=0`$ and omit the continuity equation. Thus, the gas configuration corresponds to a radially static “atmosphere.” The motivation for this approximation follows from the observation that the density $`\rho `$, temperature $`T`$ and the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the gas in the MN01 self-similar solution are completely independent of $`\dot{m}`$. Only the radial velocity $`v`$ depends on $`\dot{m}`$, and it is given trivially by the spherical continuity equation

$$v=\frac{\dot{M}}{4\pi R^2\rho }.$$
(1)
Because of this, we do not lose any generality by setting $`\dot{m}=v=0`$ in the analysis; we may always introduce a finite $`\dot{m}`$ and finite $`v`$ after the fact.

We assume that the flow is highly sub-Keplerian, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(R)\mathrm{\Omega }_K(R)`$, so that the centrifugal support is negligible compared to the pressure support. The radial momentum equation then takes the following simple form,

$$\frac{GM}{R^2}=\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{d(\rho c_s^2)}{dR},$$
(2)
where we have used the fact that $`v0`$ and written the pressure as $`p=\rho c_s^2`$ where $`c_s`$ is the isothermal sound speed. MN01 present a more complete analysis in which they do not assume that the rotation is slow. They then obtain an extra factor of $`(1s^2)`$ in their equation, which propagates through to all the results. Since we ignore the factor, our analysis corresponds to the case of a slowly-spinning star: $`s^21`$. This approximation is made only to simplify the analysis, and all the results may be generalized for arbitrary $`s`$.

From the analysis in MN01, we know that the accreting gas in our problem acts as a brake on the central spinning star and transports angular momentum outward through the action of viscosity. We therefore write the angular momentum conservation equation for the gas as follows,

$$\dot{J}=4\pi \nu \rho R^4\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dR}=\mathrm{constant},$$
(3)
where $`\dot{J}`$ is the outward angular momentum flux, and $`\nu `$ is the kinematic coefficient of viscosity. This equation is exactly valid in steady state if $`\dot{m}=0`$. When $`\dot{m}`$ is non-zero, there is an additional term, $`\dot{M}\mathrm{\Omega }R^2`$, due to the flux of angular momentum carried in by the accreting gas. The key feature of the MN01 hot brake solution is that the latter flux is negligible compared to the outward flux from the star. Equation (3) is, therefore, valid even when $`\dot{m}0`$, so long as $`\dot{m}`$ is small enough for the term $`\dot{M}\mathrm{\Omega }R^2`$ to be negligible.

We employ the usual $`\alpha `$ prescription for the kinematic coefficient of viscosity, which we write as

$$\nu =\alpha c_sH\alpha c_sR.$$
(4)
Often, in accretion problems, one makes use of the relation $`H=c_s/\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$ and writes $`\nu =\alpha c_s^2/\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$. This prescription is equivalent to equation (4) in the regime of the MN01 hot settling flow. However, in the outer regions of the flow, where the two new solutions described in §§2.2,2.3 apear, $`H`$ is much less than $`c_s/\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$, and $`\nu =\alpha c_s^2/\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$ is not a good approximation. Equation (4) is a superior prescription and is physically better motivated over a wide range of conditions (so long as the flow is quasi-spherical).

For simplicity, we assume that the gas is one-temperature; it is straightforward to generalize to the two-temperature regime, as done in MN01, but the one-temperature analysis suffices for the present paper. Hence do not need to treat electrons and protons separately.

Viscous braking heats the accreting gas, and we assume a steady state in which this heating is balanced by cooling. The energy conservation equation thus becomes

$$q^+=q^{},$$
(5)
where the viscous heating rate per unit volume $`q^+`$ and the radiative cooling per unit volume via bremsstrahlung $`q^{}`$ are given by (MN01)

$`q^+`$ $`=`$ $`\nu \rho R^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dR}}\right)^2,`$
$`q^{}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{\mathrm{ff},\mathrm{NR}}\rho ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{kT}{m_ec^2}}\right)^{1/2},Q_{\mathrm{ff},\mathrm{NR}}=5\sqrt{2}\pi ^{3/2}\alpha _f\sigma _T{\displaystyle \frac{m_ec^3}{m_p^2}},`$
where $`\alpha _f`$ is the fine structure constant, $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson cross-section, and $`m_e`$ and $`m_p`$ are the mass of the electron and the proton. Equation (5) is exactly valid for a steady state flow with $`\dot{m}=v=0`$. When $`v0`$, the energy equation has another term corresponding to the advection of energy. In advection-dominated accretion flows, for instance, this term dominates over the cooling term $`q^{}`$ (Narayan et al. 1997). In the present case, however, we consider a situation in which the advection term is negligible (which corresponds to low $`\dot{m}`$).

Finally, we assume that the spinning star is immersed in a uniform external medium with a density $`\rho _{\mathrm{ext}}`$, temperature $`T_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ and pressure $`p_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. We seek an accretion flow solution that extends from the spinning star on the inside to the external medium on the outside. As we show below, the solution consists of two distinct self-similar regimes, plus a third asymptotic regime inside the external medium.

### 2.1 Inner self-similar solution

We first consider the inner regions of the flow, where the pressure $`pp_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. This is the regime of the MN01 solution, where the variables have the following radial dependences:

$$\rho =\rho _1r^2,T=T_1r^1,\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_1r^{3/2}.$$
(6)
The subscript “1” in the coefficients is to indicate that this is the first solution, to distinguish it from the second and third solutions described below. By substituting the above solution in equations (2), (3) and (5), we see that it satisfies the basic conservation laws. We may also solve for the numerical constants:

$`\rho _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha s^2}{R_g}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2^{5/2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_p}}\right)^{1/2}c^3Q_{\mathrm{ff},\mathrm{NR}},`$
$`kT_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_pc^2}{12}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{sc}{\sqrt{2}R_g}}=s\mathrm{\Omega }_K(R_g).`$
We note that if $`\dot{m}0`$ then the flow has a small constant radial velocity:

$$vr^0,$$
(7)
as follows from equation (1).

The angular momentum flux in the solution is given by

$$\dot{J}=\alpha ^2s^3R_g^2\frac{3^{5/2}}{2^{5/2}}\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)^{1/2}\frac{c^5}{Q_{\mathrm{ff},\mathrm{NR}}}.$$
(8)
By assumption, this flux is much greater than the angular momentum flux due to accretion, which sets an upper limit on the mass accretion rate for the solution to be valid (see MN01). The pressure is given by

$$p=\rho c_s^2=\rho _1c_{s1}^2r^3p_1r^3,$$
(9)
where $`c_{s1}^2=2kT_1/m_p`$.

The above self-similar solution describes the flow at radii $`r(p_1/p_{\mathrm{ext}})^{1/3}`$, where the pressure $`pp_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. As mentioned in §1, the solution has the remarkable property that all the quantities are uniquely determined by a single parameter $`s`$ — the dimensionless spin of the central object — specified on the inner boundary. The fact that the solution does not depend on the outer boundary condition in any way means that there is no simple way to match it to the external medium. Clearly, there has to be a second solution to bridge the gap between this solution and the external medium. We derive the bridging solution in the next subsection.

### 2.2 A second self-similar solution

We consider next the gas that lies just outside the region of validity of the first self-similar solution described above. In this zone, the pressure is expected to be approximately equal to the external pressure $`p_{\mathrm{ext}}`$:

$$\rho c_s^2=p_{\mathrm{ext}}=\mathrm{constant}.$$
(10)
This condition replaces the hydrostatic equilibrium equation (2), while equations (3) and (5) continue to be valid. In this region, we find that there is a second self-similar solution of the form

$$\rho =\rho _2r^{7/2},T=T_2r^{7/2},\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_2r^{9/4},$$
(11)
where the label “2” refers to the fact that this is our second solution.

To match the second and first solutions, we require that the fluxes of angular momentum in the two solutions must be equal; this yields the constraint $`(3/2)\rho _1\mathrm{\Omega }_1T_1^{1/2}=(9/4)\rho _2\mathrm{\Omega }_2T_2^{1/2}`$. Making use of this and the other equations, we solve for the numerical coefficients in equation (11):

$`\rho _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{3/2}s^3}{p_{\mathrm{ext}}^{1/2}R_g^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3^{5/2}}{2^{9/4}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_p}}\right)^{3/4}{\displaystyle \frac{c^4}{Q_{\mathrm{ff},\mathrm{NR}}^{3/2}}},`$
$`kT_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_{\mathrm{ext}}^{3/2}R_g^{3/2}}{\alpha ^{3/2}s^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{5/4}}{3^{5/2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_p}{m_e}}\right)^{3/4}{\displaystyle \frac{m_pQ_{\mathrm{ff},\mathrm{NR}}^{3/2}}{c^4}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{1/4}s^{3/2}}{p_{\mathrm{ext}}^{1/4}R_g^{5/4}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{3/8}3^{3/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_p}}\right)^{1/8}{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{Q_{\mathrm{ff},\mathrm{NR}}^{1/4}}}.`$
The pressure in this solution is constant and equal to the external pressure, $`p_{\mathrm{ext}}`$, and the angular momentum flux is also constant and is equal to $`\dot{J}`$ in equation (8). If the flow has a small but nonzero accretion rate, $`\dot{m}0`$, then its radial velocity varies as \[see eq. (1)\]

$$vr^{3/2}.$$
(12)
Whereas the original MN01 self-similar solution has a unique profile for a given choice of $`s`$, we see that the second solution derived here has an extra degree of freedom, namely the external pressure $`p_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. This extra degree of freedom solves the problem discussed in §1. Thus, the full solution consists of two zones: an inner zone described by the first (MN01) solution (6) and an outer zone described by the second solution (11). The radius $`r_{\mathrm{match}}`$ at which the two solutions match is obtained by equating the pressures:

$$r_{\mathrm{match}}=\frac{\alpha ^{1/3}s^{2/3}}{p_{\mathrm{ext}}^{1/3}R_g^{1/3}}\frac{3^{1/3}}{2^{7/6}}\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)^{1/6}c^{5/3}Q_{\mathrm{ff},\mathrm{NR}}^{1/3}.$$
(13)
The second solution matches the external medium at the radius $`r_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ at which its temperature matches that of the medium. This gives

$$r_{\mathrm{ext}}=\frac{\alpha ^{3/7}s^{6/7}}{p_{\mathrm{ext}}^{3/7}(kT_{\mathrm{ext}})^{2/7}R_g^{3/7}}\frac{3^{5/7}}{2^{5/14}}\left(\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)^{3/14}\frac{c^{8/7}}{m_pQ_{\mathrm{ff},\mathrm{NR}}^{3/7}}.$$
(14)
If we wish we could also write this in terms of the external density by making the substitution $`kT_{\mathrm{ext}}=m_pp_{\mathrm{ext}}/2\rho _{\mathrm{ext}}`$.

### 2.3 Asymptotic solution in the external medium

For completeness, we present here the solution inside the external medium. By assumption, the external medium has a uniform temperature and density, and a uniform rate of cooling. To maintain equilibrium, there has to be some constant source of heat that exactly compensates for the cooling. We assume that such a source of heat exists (e.g., cosmic rays). The rotation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is non-zero, but it decays rapidly outward. The small amount of rotation helps to transport the angular momentum flux from the star out into the external medium. Solving the angular momentum conservation law (3), we obtain the following solution

$$\rho =\rho _{\mathrm{ext}},T=T_{\mathrm{ext}},\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_3r^4,$$
(15)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_3=\alpha s^3\frac{3^{5/2}}{2^7\pi }\frac{m_e^{1/2}c^5}{R_g^2Q_{\mathrm{ff},\mathrm{NR}}}\rho _{\mathrm{ext}}^1\left(kT_{\mathrm{ext}}\right)^{1/2},$$
(16)
and $`p_{\mathrm{ext}}=2kT_{\mathrm{ext}}\rho _{\mathrm{ext}}/m_p`$. For $`\dot{m}0`$, the velocity scales as $`r^2`$.

## 3 Numerical Results

The three self-similar solutions written above are special solutions of the basic differential equations (2), (3) and (5), which are valid under specific conditions. To check the validity of these analytical solutions, we have computed numerical solutions of the basic differential equations. We use the same code as in MN01, with two changes. First, we switched to the viscosity prescription given in equation (4), rather than the prescription $`\nu =\alpha c_s^2/\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$ used in MN01. Second, in addition to viscous heating, we included a constant heating rate which we adjusted so as to balance the radiative cooling in the homogeneous external medium (see §2.3). The code uses a relaxation method to solve the one-dimensional hydrodynamic equations with specified inner and outer boundary conditions. Although it employs the full equations of a two-temperature plasma, the results are essentially equivalent to those of a one-temperature plasma in the region of interest for this paper, namely the region at large radius where the flow matches onto the external medium

In the calculations, the flow was taken to extend from an inner radius $`R_{\mathrm{in}}=3R_g`$ to $`R_{\mathrm{out}}=10^7R_g`$. The mass accretion rate was taken to be low, $`\dot{m}=2\times 10^5`$, in order that the flow should correspond to the regime of the hot settling flow solution. We took the viscosity parameter to be $`\alpha =0.1`$ and set the spin of the star to be $`s=0.3`$ (i.e., 30% of the Keplerian rotation at the stellar surface). We took the other inner boundary conditions to be the same as in MN01. At the outer boundary, we specified the temperature and density of the external medium. Figure 1 shows four solutions. The external temperature is kept fixed at $`T(R_{\mathrm{ext}})=10^8`$ K in all the solutions, but the external density varies by a decade and a half: $`\rho (R_{\mathrm{ext}})=2.5\times 10^9,8.1\times 10^8,2.5\times 10^8,8.1\times 10^7`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>. We have also done other calculations in which we kept $`\rho _{\mathrm{ext}}`$ fixed and varied $`T_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. These give very similar results.

Fig. 1 shows that, right next to the star, there is a boundary layer, where the density rises sharply as one goes into the star and the temperature drops suddenly. We do not analyze this region. Once we are outside the boundary layer, the gas behaves very much according to the analytical solutions discussed in §2. Starting just outside the boundary layer and extending over a wide range of radius, the numerical solution exhibits a self-similar behavior with power-law dependences of the density, temperature and angular velocity. This region corresponds to the self-similar solution of MN01. There are, in fact, two zones, an inner two-temperature zone, and an outer one-temperature zone (MN01). The latter corresponds to solution 1 (eq. 6) discussed in §2.1. The most notable feature of this region is that the density, temperature and angular velocity of the numerical solutions are completely independent of the outer temperature and density, as predicted by the analytical solution. The slopes of the numerical curves also agree well with the analytical scalings.

At a radius $`R_{\mathrm{match}}5\times 10^4\mathrm{}2\times 10^5R_g`$ 9depending on the outer pressure, see eq. 13), solution 1 merges with solution 2 (eq. 11) described in §2.2. Here, the solution does depend on the outer boundary conditions, and it scales roughly according to the slopes derived analytically. At even larger radii $`R>R_{\mathrm{ext}}3\times 10^5\mathrm{}2\times 10^6R_g`$ (see eq. 14), the flow matches onto the ambient external medium. In this region we have solution 3 (eq. 15) described in §2.3. As expected, out here only the angular velocity and the radial velocity vary with radius. Both have the scalings predicted for solution 3.

## 4 Discussion

In this paper, we have removed one piece of mystery surrounding the self-similar “hot settling flow” or “hot brake” solution discovered by MN01. Specifically, we have shown that the remarkable insensitivity of the MN01 solution to external boundary conditions is a consequence of the fact that the solution is insulated from the outer boundary by the presence of a second solution, which bridges the gap between the first solution and the external medium. We derived the form of the second solution analytically in §2.2 and showed via numerical computations (§3, Fig. 1) that the two solutions together are able to match a wide range of outer boundary conditions. This solves one of the mysteries associated with the hot settling flow solution.

There are, however, two other problems that still need to be addressed. First, the solution we have derived treats the mass accretion rate $`\dot{m}`$ as a free parameter. (Indeed, the analytical solutions were obtained for the limit $`\dot{m}0`$, i.e. for a hot atmosphere.) What determines $`\dot{m}`$? It is certainly not the outer boundary, since we have obtained the complete outer solution. The accretion rate must therefore be determined by an inner boundary condition. This is not unexpected. In the case of spherical accretion, one recalls that, while the accretion rate for the transonic solution is determined by the outer boundary conditions, the accretion rate for the subsonic settling solution is determined by an inner boundary condition. In that problem, a whole family of settling solutions exists. Each member of the family has a different mass accretion rate, and it is the manner in which the gas cools and condenses on the accreting star that determines which particular solution, i.e., which $`\dot{m}`$, is selected. We expect the same situation to apply to our problem. Unfortunately, this means that in order to estimate $`\dot{m}`$ we have to solve the full coupled hydrodynamic and radiative transfer equations in the boundary layer region next to the neutron star, with proper boundary conditions. We have not yet succeeded in this difficult exercise.

The second problem that needs to be addressed is the stability of the hot settling flow solution. Because the solution is hot, optically thin and satisfies the energy balance condition (5), it is similar in many respects to the hot solution discovered by Shapiro et al. (1976). The latter is known to be thermally very unstable (e.g., Piran 1978), and so one wonders whether the hot settling flow might also be unstable. The thermal stability depends, in particular, on the viscosity prescription chosen, as illustrated below (we thank the referee for this simple argument). With the prescription $`\nu =\alpha c_s^2/\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$ the flow is unstable because $`q^+T`$ while $`q^{}\sqrt{T}`$. Hence, a local increase of temperature results in an increase of the net heating rate $`q^+q^{}`$ which leads to a further temperature increase. However, for the viscosity prescription given in equation (4), we have $`q^+\sqrt{T}q^{}`$, so that the flow is marginally stable. A more detailed analysis of the problem is beyond the scope of the present paper.

We finally comment on the relationship of the hot settling flow discussed in this paper to the subsonic propeller flow described by Ikhsanov (2001, 2003). Both flows describe the braking action of hot gas on a spinning neutron star. The propeller flow has been discussed in connection with a strongly magnetized neutron star, while the hot settling flow was developed to model accretion onto an unmagnetized neutron star, but this is not a large distinction. The main difference between the two solutions is in the treatment of the energy equation. In Ikhsanov’s subsonic propeller flow, the heating rate of the accreting gas through viscous dissipation is much larger than the radiative cooling rate. The gas becomes convective and isentropic, with density falling as $`r^{3/2}`$. The solution is in some sense related to an advection-dominated accretion flow (Narayan et al. 1997) or a convection-dominated accretion flow (Narayan, Igumenshchev & Abramowicz 2000; Quataert & Gruzinov 2000). In contrast, the hot settling flow, as well as the two other solutions described in this paper, satisfy detailed energy balance at each radius. The viscous heating at each point is exactly balanced by local radiative cooling via optically thin bremsstrahlung, as indicated in equation (5) of the present paper. Furthermore, the density falls off as $`r^2`$ and $`r^{7/2}`$ for solutions 1 and 2 rather than $`r^{3/2}`$, the entropy of the gas increases outward, and the gas is convectively stable (MN01).

The authors are grateful to the referee for helpful suggestions, and RN thanks Lars Hernquist for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by NASA grant NAG5-10780.