text:
# I INTRODUCTION

## I INTRODUCTION

Quantum physics specifies probabilities of ideal observations at one instant of time or of a sequence of such observations at different instants1. How should one describe the limit of infinitely frequent measurements or continuous observation? One of the earliest approaches to continuous quantum measurements was already suggested by Feynman2 in his original work on the path integral. The Feynman propagator as modified by measurements is to be calculated by restricting the paths to cross (or not to cross) certain spacetime regions (where space can mean configuration space or phase space). An approximate way of doing this by incorporating Gaussian cut-offs in the phase space path integral was developed by Mensky3 who also showed its equivalence to the phenomenological master equation approach for open quantum systems using models of system-environment coupling developed by Joos and Zeh and others4.

On the other hand a completely different approach was initiated by Misra and Sudarshan5 who asked: what is the rigorous quantum description of ideal continuous measurement of a projector $`E`$ (time-independent in the Schrödinger representation) over a time interval $`[0,T]`$? Their original motivation5: “there does not seem to be any principle, internal to quantum theory, that forbids the duration of a single measurement or the dead time between successive measurements from being arbitrarily small”, led them to rigorous confirmation of a seemingly paradoxical conclusion noted earlier6. The conclusion “that an unstable particle which is continuously observed to see whether it decays will never be found to decay” or that a “watched pot never boils”7 was christened “Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory” by Misra and Sudarshan5. The paradox has been theoretically scrutinized questioning the consistency of infinitely frequent measurements with time-energy and position-momentum uncertainty principles8. Experimental tests9 and their different interpretations have been rigorously discussed.

In our recent letter10, we showed that in contrast to the continuous measurement of a time independent projection operator which prevents the quantum state from changing (the quantum Zeno paradox), the generic continuous measurement of a time-dependent projection operator $`E_s(t)`$ forces the quantum state to change with time (the quantum anti-Zeno paradox). We have emphasized that though the two effects (one inhibiting change of state and the other ensuring change of state) are physically opposite, they are mutually consistent as they refer to different experimental arrangements. We derived the anti-Zeno paradox in a very broad framework with arbitrary Hamiltonian, arbitrary density matrix states, and measurement of smooth time-dependent projection operators of arbitrary rank. Our results are generalisations to projectors of arbitrary rank of the earlier elegant results for rank one projectors obtained by Anandan and Aharonov and Facchi et. al.11 who considered quantum systems guided through a closed loop in Hilbert space by measurements represented by rank one projectors. They are also generalizations to arbitrary Hamiltonians of Von Neumann’s results on continuous measurements1 in the case of zero Hamiltonian, and analogous results of Aharonov and Vardi12. However our results for time-dependent projectors have a completely different physical origin from those of Kofman and Kurizki13 for time-independent measurements. They showed that when the frequency of measurements is smaller than a characteristic difference of eigenfrequencies of the system, an enhancement of decay can result.

We ask a question far more general than that of Misra and Sudarshan: what is the operator (the modified Feynman propagator) corresponding to an ideal continuous measurement of a projection operator $`E_s(t)`$ which has an arbitrary (but smooth) dependence on time in the Schrödinger representation? We obtain a differential equation for the operator and a series solution. We work out several applications. One of them leads us to a new watched-kettle paradox which is apparently quite the opposite of the Zeno paradox, but mathematically a far reaching generalization of it. Suppose we continuously measure from $`t=0`$ to $`T`$ the projector $`E_s(t)=U(t)EU^{}(t)`$ where $`U(t)`$ is a unitary operator obeying $`U(0)=1`$ and some smoothness conditions, and $`E`$ a projector obeying $`E\rho (0)E=\rho (0)`$, where $`\rho (0)`$ is the initial density operator. Then the probability of always finding $`E_s(t)=1`$ from $`t=0`$ to $`T`$ is unity. For the Misra-Sudarshan case, $`U(t)=1`$ and we recover the usual Zeno paradox that the watched kettle does not boil. Generically $`U(t)`$ does not commute with $`E`$. Hence, for most ways of watching, the watched kettle is sure to change its state, an anti-Zeno paradox. If the system is in an eigenstate of $`E`$ with eigenvalue unity at $`t=0`$, it will change its state with time so as to be in an eigenstate of $`E_s(t)`$ with eigenvalue unity at all future times.

Our computation of modified Feynman propagators corresponding to continuous measurements is in the framework of ordinary quantum mechanics. Exactly the same mathematical expressions for the propagators would arise in the ‘consistent histories’ or ‘sum over histories’ quantum mechanics of closed systems14,15, where there is no notion of measurement. Our computations can therefore be applied also to these history-extended quantum mechanics provided that probabilities of measurement outcomes are replaced by weights of histories; the probability interpretation is restored when the probability sum rules corresponding to consistency or decoherence conditions are obeyed.

## II BASIC PRINCIPLES

For a quantum system with a self-adjoint Hamiltonian $`H`$, an initial state vector $`|\psi (0)`$ evolves to a state vector $`|\psi (t)`$,

$$|\psi (t)=\mathrm{exp}(iHt)|\psi (0).$$
$`(2.1)`$
More generally, an initial state with density operator $`\rho (0)`$ has the Schrödinger time evolution

$$\rho (t)=\mathrm{exp}(iHt)\rho (0)\mathrm{exp}(iHt),$$
$`(2.2)`$
which preserves the normalization condition $`\mathrm{Tr}\rho (t)=1`$. In an ideal instantaneous measurement of a self-adjoint projection operator $`E`$, the probability of finding $`E=1`$ is $`\mathrm{Tr}(E\rho E)`$ and on finding the value $`1`$ for $`E`$, the state collapses according to

$$\rho \rho ^{}=E\rho E/\mathrm{Tr}(E\rho E).$$
$`(2.3)`$
If projectors $`E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_n`$ are measured at times $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_n`$ respectively, with Schrödinger evolution in between measurements, the probability $`p(h)`$ for the sequence of events $`h`$,

$$h:E_1=1\mathrm{at}t=t_1;E_2=1\mathrm{at}t=t_2;\mathrm{};E_n=1\mathrm{at}t=t_n$$
$`(2.4)`$
is1

$$p(h)=\psi _h(t^{})^2,\psi _h(t^{})=K_h(t^{})\psi (0),t^{}>t_n.$$
$`(2.5)`$
Here $`K_h(t^{})`$ is the Feynman propagator modified by the events $`h`$,

$$K_h(t^{})=\mathrm{exp}(iHt^{})A_h(t_n,t_1)$$
$`(2.6)`$
where,

$$A_h(t_n,t_1)=E_H(t_n)E_H(t_{n1})\mathrm{}E_H(t_1)=T\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}E_H(t_i),$$
$`(2.7)`$
with $`T`$ denoting ‘time-ordering’ and the Heisenberg operators $`E_H(t_i)`$ are related to the Schrödinger operators by the usual relation

$$E_H(t_i)=\mathrm{exp}(iHt_i)E_s(t_i)\mathrm{exp}(iHt_i),E_s(t_i)E_i.$$
$`(2.8)`$
The state vector of the system at a time $`t^{}`$ after the events $`h`$ is

$$\psi _h(t^{})/\psi _h(t^{}).$$
$`(2.9)`$
(We shall omit the ket symbol except when confusion can arise thereby). Correspondingly, if the initial state is a density operator $`\rho (0)`$, the probability $`p(h)`$ for the events $`h`$ is given by

$$p(h)=\mathrm{Tr}K_h(t^{})\rho (0)K_h^{}(t^{})=\mathrm{Tr}A_h(t_n,t_1)\rho (0)A_h^{}(t_n,t_1),$$
$`(2.10)`$
and the state at $`t^{}>t_n`$ is

$$K_h(t^{})\rho (0)K_h^{}(t^{})/\mathrm{Tr}(K_h(t^{})\rho (0)K_h^{}(t^{})).$$
$`(2.11)`$
In the history extended quantum mechanics of closed systems14,15, exactly the same expression (2.10) for $`p(h)`$ is adopted, with $`h`$ denoting the history (2.4) without any mention of measurements, and $`p(h)`$ being the weight of the history. The weight $`p(h)`$ is rechristened as probability when certain consistency conditions are obeyed.

## III REPEATED MEASUREMENTS WITH ZERO HAMILTONIAN

We recall first von Neumann’s1 fundamental work on the change of state due to measurements alone, ignoring the Hamiltonian evolution between measurements. A state vector $`|\varphi `$ has the density operator $`\rho _\varphi `$ obeying

$$\rho _\varphi =|\varphi \varphi |,\rho _\varphi ^2=\rho _\varphi .$$
$`(3.1)`$
Given any other pure state $`|\psi `$, von Neumann constructed a beautiful demonstration that repetition of a sufficiently large number of suitable measurements will change $`\rho _\varphi `$ to an ensemble whose density operator differs from $`\rho _\psi `$ by an arbitrarily small amount. Now since a good definition of entropy $`S(\rho )`$ of a state $`\rho `$ must (by hypothesis) have the property that measurements only increase it, we need that $`S(\rho _\psi )S(\rho _\varphi )0`$. Interchanging the roles of $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$, we obtain $`S(\rho _\varphi )S(\rho _\psi )0`$. Therefore,

$$S(\rho _\varphi )=S(\rho _\psi )$$
$`(3.2)`$
for any two pure states $`\varphi ,\psi `$. This led von Neumann to define the entropy corresponding to an arbitrary density operator $`\rho `$ as

$$S=\mathrm{Tr}\rho \mathrm{}n\rho ,$$
$`(3.3)`$
a complete set of which is zero for any pure state and positive for any mixture state. The von Neumann entropy now plays a fundamental role in providing a quantitative measure of decoherence, for example in quantum information processing.

We give von Neumann’s demonstration of changing an initial $`\rho _\varphi `$ into $`\rho _\psi `$ by infinitely repeated measurements in the case of $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ being orthogonal states. (This is enough. If they are not orthogonal we can find a state $`\chi `$ orthogonal to both $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$, change from $`\rho _\varphi `$ to $`\rho _\chi `$, and then from $`\rho _\chi `$ to $`\rho _\psi `$).

If an observable $`R`$ with a complete set of nondegenerate orthonormal eigenvectors $`|\varphi _n`$ is measured on a state with density operator $`\rho `$, the states with density operators $`|\varphi _n\varphi _n|`$ are obtained with probabilities $`\varphi _n|\rho |\varphi _n`$. A mixed state $`\rho ^{}`$ results.

$$\rho \stackrel{R}{}\rho ^{}=\underset{n}{}E_n\rho E_n,E_n=|\varphi _n\varphi _n|.$$
$`(3.4)`$
This result will be used repeatedly to steer $`\rho _\varphi `$ into $`\rho _\psi `$. Let $`k`$ be a positive integer and $`|\psi ^{(\nu )}`$, with $`\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},k`$, be a set of normalized states $`(|\psi ^{(\nu )}=1)`$ which interpolate between $`|\varphi =|\psi ^{(0)}`$ and $`|\psi =|\psi ^{(k)}`$, e.g.

$$|\psi ^{(\nu )}=\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi \nu }{2k}\right)|\varphi +\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi \nu }{2k}\right)|\psi .$$
$`(3.5)`$
To $`|\psi ^{(\nu )}|\psi _1^{(\nu )}`$, adjoin a set of orthonormal vectors $`|\psi _2^{(\nu )}`$, $`|\psi _3^{(\nu )}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ to obtain a complete orthonormal set of eigenvectors of an observable $`R^{(\nu )}`$ with the respective eigenvalues $`\lambda _1^{(\nu )},\lambda _2^{(\nu )},\mathrm{}`$ which are all different. Starting with the initial density operator $`\rho ^{(0)}=|\varphi \varphi |`$, successively measure $`R^{(1)},R^{(2)},\mathrm{},R^{(k)}`$ to obtain a final density operator $`\rho ^{(k)}`$:

$$\rho ^0\stackrel{R^{\left(1\right)}}{}\rho _1\stackrel{R^{\left(2\right)}}{}\rho _2\mathrm{}\stackrel{R^{\left(k\right)}}{}\rho ^{(k)}.$$
$`(3.6)`$
Here $`\rho ^{(\nu )}`$ is obtained from $`\rho ^{(\nu 1)}`$ after measurement of $`R^{(\nu )}`$:

$$\rho ^{(\nu 1)}\stackrel{R^{\left(\nu \right)}}{}\rho ^{(\nu )}=\underset{n}{}E_n^{(\nu )}\rho ^{(\nu 1)}E_n^\nu ,$$
$`(3.7)`$
where

$$E_n^{(\nu )}=|\psi _n^{(\nu )}\psi _n^{(\nu )}|.$$
$`(3.8)`$
The crucial step in proving that $`\rho ^{(k)}\rho _\psi `$ for $`k\mathrm{}`$ will be a lower bound on

$$\psi |\rho ^{(k)}|\psi =\underset{n}{}\psi ^{(k)}|E_n^{(k)}\rho ^{(k1)}E_n^{(k)}|\psi ^{(k)}=\psi ^{(k)}|\rho ^{(k1)}|\psi ^{(k)}.$$
$`(3.9)`$
A lower bound can be obtained by repeated application of

$`\psi ^{(\nu +1)}|\rho ^{(\nu )}|\psi ^{(\nu +1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\psi ^{(\nu +1)}|E_n^{(\nu )}\rho ^{(\nu 1)}E_n^{(\nu )}|\psi ^{(\nu +1)}`$
$``$ $`|\psi ^{(\nu +1)}|\psi ^{(\nu )}|^2\psi ^{(\nu )}|\rho ^{(\nu 1)}|\psi ^{(\nu )},(3.10)`$
together with

$$\psi ^{(\nu +1)}|\psi ^{(\nu )}=\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi }{2k}\right),\psi ^{(1)}|\rho ^{(0)}|\psi ^{(1)}=\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{\pi }{2k}\right).$$
$`(3.11)`$
Hence,

$$\psi |\rho ^{(k)}|\psi \left[\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi }{2k}\right)\right]^{2k}\stackrel{}{_k\mathrm{}}1.$$
$`(3.12)`$
Since $`\mathrm{Tr}\rho ^{(k)}=1`$ and $`\rho ^{(k)}`$ is a nonnegative operator, we have

$$\rho _{nn}^{(k)}\stackrel{}{_k\mathrm{}}\delta _{n1}(\mathrm{no}\mathrm{sum}\mathrm{over}n),$$

and also, for $`mn`$,

$$|\rho _{mn}^{(k)}|^2(\rho ^k)_{mm}(\rho ^k)_{nn}\stackrel{}{_k\mathrm{}}0.$$

Hence,

$$\rho ^{(k)}\stackrel{}{_k\mathrm{}}|\psi \psi |.$$
$`(3.13)`$
This completes von Neumann’s demonstration.

## IV CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENTS WITH ARBITRARY HAMILTONIAN

The purpose now is to obtain an exact operator expression for the modified Feynman propagator $`K_h(t^{})`$ due to infinitely frequent measurements in some earlier interval of time allowing for arbitrary Hamiltonian evolution. We assume that the projection operators $`E_s(t_i)`$ measured at time $`t_i`$ are values at $`t_i`$ of a projection valued function $`E_s(t)`$. We make also the technical assumption that the corresponding Heisenberg operator $`E_H(t)`$ is weakly analytic. We therefore seek to calculate

$$K_h(t^{})=\mathrm{exp}(iHt^{})A_h(t,t_1),$$
$`(4.1)`$
where

$$A_h(t,t_1)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}T\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}E_H(t_1+(tt_1)(i1)/(n1))$$
$`(4.2)`$
which is the $`n\mathrm{}`$ limit of Eq. (2.7) with a specific choice of the $`t_i`$. Let us also introduce the projectors $`\overline{E_i}`$ which are the orthogonal complements of the projectors $`E_i`$,

$$\overline{E_i}=1E_i$$
$`(4.3)`$
and a sequence of events $`\overline{h}`$ complementary to the sequence $`h`$,

$$\overline{h}:\overline{E_1}=1\mathrm{at}t=t_1;\overline{E_2}=1\mathrm{at}t=t_2,\mathrm{},\overline{E_n}=1\mathrm{at}t=t_n.$$
$`(4.4)`$
Corresponding to Eqs. (2.6), (2.7), (4.1), (4.2), we have equations with $`E\overline{E}`$, $`h\overline{h}`$. Thus,

$$K_{\overline{h}}(t^{})=\mathrm{exp}(iHt^{})A_{\overline{h}}(t,t_1),$$
$`(4.5)`$
$$A_{\overline{h}}(t,t_1)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}T\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{E_H}(t_1+(tt_1)(i1)/(n1)).$$
$`(4.6)`$
The special interest in $`K_{\overline{h}}(t^{})`$ is that it is closely related to the propagator

$$K_h^{}(t^{})\mathrm{exp}(iHt^{})K_{\overline{h}}(t^{})=\mathrm{exp}(iHt^{})[1A_{\overline{h}}(t,t_1)],h^{}\stackrel{U}{i}E_i,$$
$`(4.7)`$
which represents the modified Feynman propagator corresponding to the union of the events $`E_i`$, i.e. to at least one of the events $`E_s(t_i)=1`$ occurring, with $`t_i`$ lying between $`t_1`$ and $`t`$. Though the $`E_H(t_i)`$ are in general not position projectors, we represent them in Fig. 1 by space regions and hence we represent $`A_h(t,t_1)`$ which is a product of the $`E_H(t_i)`$ at various $`t_i`$ by a spacetime region. This enables us to visualize the propagator $`K_h^{}`$ as corresponding to Feynman paths which intersect the spacetime region at least once, the propagator $`K_{\overline{h}}`$ as corresponding to paths which do not intersect the spacetime region at all and the propagator $`K_h`$ as corresponding to paths which stay inside the region $`A_h(t,t_1)`$ for all times between $`t_1`$ and $`t`$. Our object is to obtain exact operator expressions for the propagators $`K_h`$, $`K_{\overline{h}}`$ which are defined by equations (4.1), (4.5) with $`A_h(t,t_1)`$ and $`A_{\overline{h}}(t,t_1)`$ being given by the formal infinite products in Eqs. (4.2) and (4.6). The operator results we obtain will also provide evaluations of the path integral formulae for the propagators in history-extended quantum mechanics14,15.

## V DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION AND SERIES SOLUTION FOR OPERATORS REPRESENTING CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT

We see from Eqs. (4.1) and (4.5) that the modifications of the Feynman propagator due to the sequences of events $`h`$ and $`\overline{h}`$ consist respectively in multiplication by the operators $`A_h(t,t_1)`$ and $`A_{\overline{h}}(t,t_1)`$. Thus $`A_h(t,t_1)(A_{\overline{h}}(t,t_1))`$ represents the continuous measurement corresponding to the sequence of events $`h(\overline{h})`$. Consider first the operators $`A_h(t_i,t_1),A_{\overline{h}}(t_i,t_1)`$ before taking the $`n\mathrm{}`$ limit, and note the crucial identities

$$\overline{E_H}(t_i)A_h(t_i,t_1)=0,E_H(t_i)A_{\overline{h}}(t_i,t_1)=0$$
$`(5.1)`$
which follow from $`\overline{E}E=E\overline{E}=0`$ for any projection operator $`E`$. Note also that

$$A_h(t_i,t_1)=E_H(t_i)A_h(t_{i1},t_1),A_{\overline{h}}(t_i,t_1)=\overline{E_H}(t_i)A_{\overline{h}}(t_{i1},t_1).$$
$`(5.2)`$
The relation $`\left(\overline{E}_H(t_{i1})\right)^2=\overline{E}_H(t_{i1})`$ implies $`A_{\overline{h}}(t_{i1},t_1)=\overline{E}_H(t_{i1})A_{\overline{h}}(t_{i1},t_1)`$. Hence,

$$A_{\overline{h}}(t_i,t_1)A_{\overline{h}}(t_{i1},t_1)=(\overline{E_H}(t_i)\overline{E_H}(t_{i1}))A_{\overline{h}}(t_{i1},t_1).$$
$`(5.3)`$
Dividing by $`t_it_{i1}=\delta t`$, taking the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ (i.e., $`\delta t0`$) and assuming that $`E_H(t)`$ is weakly analytic at $`t=0`$ we obtain the differential eqn.

$$\frac{dA_{\overline{h}}(t,t_1)}{dt}=\frac{d\overline{E}_H(t)}{dt}A_{\overline{h}}(t_{},t_1)$$
$`(5.4)`$
where the argument $`t_{}`$ on the right-hand side indicates that in case of any ambiguity in defining the operator product on the right, the argument of $`A_{\overline{h}}`$ has to be taken as $`tϵ`$ with $`ϵ0`$ from positive values. We obtain similarly,

$$\frac{dA_h(t,t_1)}{dt}=\frac{dE_H(t)}{dt}A_h(t_{},t_1),$$
$`(5.5)`$
with

$$\frac{dE_H(t)}{dt}=i[H,E_H(t)]+\mathrm{exp}(iHt)\frac{dE_s(t)}{dt}\mathrm{exp}(iHt).$$
$`(5.6)`$
Further $`A_{\overline{h}}(t,t_1),A_h(t,t_1)`$ must obey the initial conditions

$$A_{\overline{h}}(t_1,t_1)=\overline{E_H}(t_1),A_h(t_1,t_1)=E_H(t_1).$$
$`(5.7)`$
The measurement differential equations (5.4) and (5.5) are reminiscent of Schrödinger equation for the time evolution operator except for the fact that the operators $`d\overline{E}_H/dt`$, $`dE_H/dt`$ are hermitean whereas in Schrödinger theory the antihermitean operator $`H/i`$ would occur. Using the initial conditions (5.7), we obtain the explicit solutions,

$$A_{\overline{h}}(t,t_1)=T\mathrm{exp}\left(_{t_1}^t𝑑t^{}\frac{d\overline{E_H}(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right)\overline{E_H}(t_1),$$
$`(5.8)`$
$$A_h(t,t_1)=T\mathrm{exp}\left(_{t_1}^t𝑑t^{}\frac{dE_H(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right)E_H(t_1),$$
$`(5.9)`$
where the time-ordered exponential in (5.8) for example has the series expansion

$$T\mathrm{exp}\left(_{t_1}^t𝑑t^{}\frac{d\overline{E}_H(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right)=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{t_1}^t𝑑t_1^{}_{t_1}^{t_1^{}}𝑑t_2^{}\mathrm{}_{t_1}^{t_{n1}^{}}𝑑t_n^{}T\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d\overline{E}_H(t_i^{})}{dt_i^{}}.$$
$`(5.10)`$
We assume that the time-ordered operator products appearing on the right-hand side exist at least as distributions. The distributional character occurs naturally for operators with continuous spectrum even when the $`\overline{E}_H(t)`$ (or $`E_H(t)`$) at different times commute, and implies that the series on the right-hand side must be taken as the definition of the exponential on the left-hand side; we may not do the integral of $`d\overline{E}_H(t^{})/dt^{}`$ on the left-hand side. (This will be clarified in examples.) Multiplying the expressions (5.8) and (5.9) for $`A_{\overline{h}}(t,t_1)`$ and $`A_h(t,t_1)`$ on the left by $`\mathrm{exp}(iHt^{})`$ then completes the evaluation of the modified Feynman propagators $`K_{\overline{h}}(t^{})`$ and $`K_h(t)`$.

## VI EXAMPLES

1. Operator With Continuous Spectrum Commuting with Hamiltonian

For a one-dimensional free particle, $`H=p^2/(2m)`$, consider measuring

$$E_s(t^{})=_{\lambda _L(t^{})}^{\lambda _R(t^{})}𝑑p|p><p|$$
$`(6.1)`$
continuously for $`t^{}ϵ[t_1,t]`$. Since $`E_s(t^{})`$ commutes with $`H`$, $`E_H(t^{})=E_s(t^{})`$, and

$$\overline{E}_H(t^{})=\overline{E}_L(t^{})+\overline{E}_R(t^{}),$$
$`(6.2)`$
where

$$\overline{E}_L(t^{})=_{\mathrm{}}^{\lambda _L(t^{})}𝑑p|p>
<p|.$$
$`(6.3)`$
We assume that $`\lambda _L(t^{})<\lambda _R(t^{\prime \prime })`$ for all $`t^{},t^{\prime \prime }ϵ[t_1,t]`$, and $`<p|q>=\delta (pq)`$. Hence, $`\overline{E}_L(t^{})\overline{E}_R(t^{\prime \prime })=0`$ and Eq. (5.10) yields

$$A_{\overline{h}}(t,t_1)=A_L(t,t_1)+A_R(t,t_1),$$
$`(6.4)`$
where

$$A_L(t,t_1)=\left[1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{t>t_n^{}>t_{n1}^{}\mathrm{}t_1^{}>t_1}𝑑t_1^{}𝑑t_2^{}\mathrm{}𝑑t_n^{}T\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d\overline{E}_L(t_i^{})}{dt_i^{}}\right]\overline{E}_L(t_1)$$
$`(6.5)`$
and $`A_R`$ is given by a similar expression with $`LR`$. The orthogonality relations between states $`|p>`$ imply that the integrand is a product of $`\delta `$-functions,

$$T\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d\overline{E}_L(t_i^{})}{dt_i^{}}\overline{E}_L(t_1)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\lambda _L(t_1)}𝑑p|p><p|\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\dot{\lambda }_L(t_i^{})\delta (\lambda _L(t_i^{})p).$$
$`(6.6)`$
The integrals over $`t_1^{},\mathrm{},t_n^{}`$ are now easily done. The $`\delta `$-functions vanish for $`p<\mathrm{min}\lambda _L`$, where $`\mathrm{min}\lambda _L`$ denotes the minimum value of $`\lambda _L(t^{})`$ for $`t^{}ϵ[t_1,t]`$. Hence,

$$A_L(t,t_1)=\overline{E}_L(t_1)+_{\mathrm{min}\lambda _L}^{\lambda _L(t_1)}𝑑p|p><p|\underset{n=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}\underset{\{t_1^{},\mathrm{}t_n^{}\}}{}sgn\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\dot{\lambda }_L(t_i^{})\right),$$
$`(6.7)`$
where $`N_p`$ is the number of values of $`t^{}`$ in the interval $`[t_1,t]`$ for which $`\lambda _L(t^{})=p`$, and for each $`n`$ we sum over all $`n`$-tuples $`\{t_1^{},\mathrm{}t_n^{}\}\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}\lambda _L(t_1^{})=\mathrm{}=\lambda _L(t_n^{})=p`$ with $`t>t_n^{}>t_{n1}^{}\mathrm{}t_1^{}>t_1`$. Hence

$$A_L(t,t_1)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{min}\lambda _L}𝑑p|p>
<p|\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}\left(1+sgn\left(\dot{\lambda }_L(t_i^{})\right)\right).$$
$`(6.8)`$
Note that for $`N_p=1`$, $`\dot{\lambda }_L(t_1^{})<0`$, and that for $`N_p2`$, $`\dot{\lambda }_L(t_i^{})`$ must have opposite signs for consecutive integers $`i`$. Hence,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}\left(1+sgn(\dot{\lambda }_L(t_i^{}))\right)=0,\mathrm{for}N_p1.$$
$`(6.9)`$
An entirely similar evaluation gives $`A_R(t,t_1)`$. Finally, we get

$$A_{\overline{h}}(t,t_1)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{min}\lambda _L}𝑑p|p>
<p|,$$
$`(6.10)`$
where $`\mathrm{max}\lambda _R`$ is the maximum value of $`\lambda _R(t^{})`$ for $`t^{}ϵ[t_1,t]`$. Of course this answer is correct, and it can easily be deduced directly from the product of projectors in Eq. (4.6). But we have obtained here a non-trivial test of the contribution of terms of arbitrary order in the expansion of the time-ordered exponential in Eq. (5.8).

1. Continuous Measurement of Spin Component along Time-Varying Direction $`\stackrel{}{n}(t)`$

For a spin 1/2 particle with Hamiltonian $`H=(1/2)\sigma _y\alpha `$, let the projector

$$E_s(t)=\frac{1+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{n}(t)}{2},$$
$`(6.11)`$
be measured continuously, where

$$\stackrel{}{n}(t)=(\mathrm{sin}\theta (t),0,\mathrm{cos}\theta (t))$$
$`(6.12)`$
with $`\theta (0)=0`$. Defining $`ϵ(t)=\theta (t)+\alpha t`$, we deduce that

$$E_H(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}\sigma _yϵ(t)\right]\frac{1+\sigma _z}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}\sigma _yϵ(t)\right],$$
$`(6.13)`$
and that the first five terms in the expansion of the time-ordered exponential in Eq. (5.8) are (for $`t_1=0`$) given by

$`T\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}𝑑\overline{E}_H(t^{})/𝑑t^{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\sigma _z(\mathrm{cos}ϵ1)+\sigma _x\mathrm{sin}ϵ\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[1\mathrm{cos}ϵi\sigma _y(ϵ\mathrm{sin}ϵ)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[\sigma _z\{ϵ\mathrm{sin}ϵ+2\mathrm{cos}ϵ2\}`$
$`+\sigma _x\{2\mathrm{sin}ϵϵ(\mathrm{cos}ϵ+1)\}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^2+ϵ\mathrm{sin}ϵ+3(\mathrm{cos}ϵ1)`$
$`+i\sigma _y\{2ϵ+ϵ\mathrm{cos}ϵ3\mathrm{sin}ϵ\}]+0(ϵ^5).(6.14)`$
Note that for $`t0`$, $`ϵ(t)ϵ`$ is of order $`t`$ and that the successive square brackets are of orders $`ϵ,ϵ^2,ϵ^3,ϵ^4`$ respectively for $`ϵ0`$. An analogous result has been obtained by Facchi et. al.11 for a specific time dependence of $`ϵ(t)`$. Eq. (5.8) then gives $`A_{\overline{h}}`$ and the formula (2.10) the probability $`p(\overline{h})`$ which can be tested experimentally.

## VII QUANTUM ANTI-ZENO PARADOX

We recall first the usual Zeno paradox. Let the initial state be $`|\psi _0>`$ and let the projection operator $`|\psi _0><\psi _0|`$ be measured at times $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{}t_n`$ with $`t_jt_{j1}=(t_nt_1)/(n1)`$ and $`t_n=t`$, and let $`n\mathrm{}`$. Then, the definition (2.7) yields,

$`A_h(t,t_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{iHt}|\psi _0><\psi _0|\mathrm{exp}(iH(tt_1)/(n1))|\psi _0>^{n1}<\psi _0|e^{iHt_1}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i(H\overline{H})t)|\psi _0><\psi _0|\mathrm{exp}(i(H\overline{H})t_1),(7.1)`$
where $`\overline{H}`$ denotes $`<\psi _0|H|\psi _0>`$ and we assume that13 $`<\psi _0|\mathrm{exp}(iH\tau )|\psi _0>`$ is analytic at $`\tau =0`$. Our differential equation also yields exactly this solution for $`A_h(t,t_1)`$. Taking $`t_1=0`$, we deduce that the probability $`p(h)`$ of finding the system in the initial state at all times upto $`t`$ is given by

$$p(h)=K_h(t)|\psi _0>^2=\overline{e}^{i\overline{H}t}|\psi _0>^2=1,$$
$`(7.2)`$
which is the Zeno paradox. (The result can also be generalized to the case of an initial state described by a density operator, and a measured projection operator of arbitrary rank leaving the initial state unaltered, see below.)

Anti-Zeno Paradox

The above result may suggest that continuous observation inhibits change of state. Now we prove a far more general result which shows that a generic continuous observation actually ensures change of state. Suppose that the initial state is described by a density operator $`\rho (0)`$, and we measure the projection operator

$$E_s(t^{})=U(t^{})EU^{}(t^{})$$
$`(7.3)`$
continuously for $`t^{}ϵ[0,t]`$. Here $`E`$ is an arbitrary projection operator (which need not even be of finite rank) which leaves the initial state unaltered,

$$E\rho (0)E=\rho (0),$$
$`(7.4)`$
and $`U(t^{})`$ is a unitary operator which coincides with the identity operator at $`t^{}=0`$,

$$U^{}(t^{})U(t^{})=U(t^{})U^{}(t^{})=11,U(0)=11.$$
$`(7.5)`$
The Heisenberg operator $`E_H(t^{})`$ is then

$$E_H(t^{})=V(t^{})EV^{}(t^{}),V(t^{})=e^{iHt^{}}U(t^{}).$$
$`(7.6)`$
Clearly $`V(t^{})`$ is also a unitary operator. The definition (2.7) yields, for $`t_10`$,

$$A_h(t_n,t_1)=V(t_n)(T\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}X(t_i))V^{}(t_i),n2$$
$`(7.7)`$
where

$$X(t_i)EV^{}(t_{i+1})V(t_i)E,$$
$`(7.8)`$
and $`A_h(t_1,t_1)=V(t_1)EV^{}(t_1)`$. Denoting

$$Y(t_j)=T\underset{i=1}{\overset{j1}{}}X(t_i),j2;Y(t_1)=E,$$
$`(7.9)`$
and noting that $`EY(t_{j1})=Y(t_{j1})`$, we have

$$Y(t_j)Y(t_{j1})=E(V^{}(t_j)V(t_{j1})1)EY(t_{j1}).$$
$`(7.10)`$
Taking $`t_{j1}=t^{},t_j=t^{}+\delta t,n\mathrm{}`$, we have $`\delta t=0(1/n)`$, and

$$E(V^{}(t^{}+\delta t)V(t^{})1)E=\delta tE\frac{dV^{}(t^{})}{dt^{}}V(t^{})E+0(\delta t)^2.$$
$`(7.11)`$
To derive that the last term on the right-hand side is $`0(\delta t)^2`$ in the weak sense (i.e., for matrix elements between any two arbitrary state vectors in the Hilbert space), we make the smoothness assumption that $`E(V^{}(t^{}+\tau )V(t^{})1)E`$ is analytic in $`\tau `$ at $`\tau =0`$ in the weak sense. (It may be seen that this reduces to analyticity of $`<\psi _0|\mathrm{exp}(iH\tau )|\psi _0>`$ in the usual Zeno case16). Hence the $`n\mathrm{}`$ limit yields,

$$A_h(t,t_1)=V(t)Y(t)V^{}(t_1),$$
$`(7.12)`$
where

$$\frac{dY(t^{})}{dt^{}}=E\frac{dV^{}(t^{})}{dt^{}}V(t^{})EY(t^{}).$$
$`(7.13)`$
Solving the differential equation, we obtain,

$$A_h(t,t_1)=V(t)T\mathrm{exp}(_{t_1}^t𝑑t^{}E\frac{dV^{}(t^{})}{dt^{}}V(t^{})E)EV^{}(t_1).$$
$`(7.14)`$
It is satisfying to note that this expression indeed solves our basic differential equation (5.5) as can be verified very easily by direct substitution.

The most crucial point for deriving the anti-Zeno paradox is that the operator

$$T\mathrm{exp}(_{t_1}^t𝑑t^{}E\frac{dV^{}(t^{})}{dt^{}}V(t^{})E)W(t,t_1)$$

is unitary, because $`(dV^{}(t^{})/dt^{})V(t^{})`$ is anti-hermitian as a simple consequence of the unitarity of $`V(t^{})`$. Taking $`t_1=0`$, Eq. (2.10) gives the probability of finding $`E_s(t^{})=1`$ for all $`t^{}`$ from $`t^{}=0`$ to $`t`$ as

$$p(h)=\mathrm{Tr}\left(V(t)W(t,0)EV^{}(0)\rho (0)V(0)EW^{}(t,0)V^{}(t)\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\rho (0)=1,$$
$`(7.15)`$
where we have used $`V(0)=1`$, $`E\rho (0)E=\rho (0)`$, the unitarity of $`V(t)`$ and the unitarity of $`W(t,0)`$. This completes the demonstration of the anti-Zeno paradox: continuous observation of $`E_s(t)=U(t)EU^{}(t)`$ with $`U(t)11`$ ensures that the initial state must change with time such that the probability of finding $`E_s(t)=1`$ at all times during the duration of the measurement is unity.

This remarkable result means that during continuous observation the quantum state (whether pure or represented by a density matrix) has an effectively unitary evolution! Explicitly, for initially pure states

$$\psi _h(t)=K_h(t)\psi (0),\psi _h(t)=1,$$
$`(7.16)`$
and for initial density matrix states,

$$\rho _h(t)=K_h(t)\rho (0)K_h^{}(t),\mathrm{Tr}\rho _h(t)=1.$$
$`(7.17)`$
Our explicit expressions for $`K_h(t)`$ yield,

$$E_s(t)\psi _h(t)=\psi _h(t)$$
$`(7.18)`$
and the “effective” unitary evolution17

$$i\frac{\psi _h(t)}{t}=\left\{E_s(t)HE_s(t)+i[\frac{dE_s(t)}{dt},E_s(t)]\right\}\psi _h(t),$$
$`(7.19)`$
the operator in the parenthesis on the right-hand side being Hermitean.

## VIII MEASUREMENTS REPRESENTED BY PROJECTORS OF FINITE RANK AND COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS WORK

In order to compare with previous work11 and also to bring out the simplicity of our explicit formulae consider projectors $`E`$ (and therefore $`E_s(t)`$) of finite rank.

Rank one. If $`E`$ is of rank one, then

$$E=|\psi (0)\psi (0)|,E_s(t)=|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t)|,$$
$`(8.1)`$
where

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t)=U(t)|\psi (0).$$

Our formulae yield, taking $`t_1=0`$,

$$K_h(t)=U(t)|\psi (0)\psi (0)|\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^t𝑑t^{}\varphi (t^{})\right),$$
$`(8.2)`$
and

$$|\psi _h(t)=|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t)\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^t𝑑t^{}\varphi (t^{})\right),$$
$`(8.3)`$
where

$$\varphi (t^{})=\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t^{})|\left(i\frac{}{t^{}}H\right)|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(t^{}),$$
$`(8.4)`$
which is exactly the result obtained by Anandan and Aharonov11.

Rank n. If $`E`$ is of rank $`n`$, then

$$E=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}|\alpha \alpha |,E_s(t)=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha (t)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha (t)|,$$
$`(8.5)`$
where,

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha (t)=U(t)|\alpha .$$
$`(8.6)`$
We find that

$$|\psi _h(t)=U(t)T\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^t𝑑t^{}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{n}{}}|\alpha f_{\alpha \beta }(t^{})\beta |\right)|\psi (0)$$
$`(8.7)`$
where $`f_{\alpha \beta }(t^{})`$ is the anti-Hermitian matrix,

$$f_{\alpha \beta }(t^{})=i\alpha |U^{}(t^{})\left(i\frac{}{t^{}}H\right)U(t^{})|\beta $$

$$=i\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha (t^{})|\left(i\frac{}{t^{}}H\right)|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\beta (t^{}).$$
$`(8.8)`$
Note that the time-ordering instruction is now essential as the matrices $`f(t^{})`$, and $`f(t^{\prime \prime })`$ with $`t^{}t^{\prime \prime }`$ do not commute. Eq. (8.7) is thus a non-trivial generalisation of the Anandan-Aharonov result (8.3).

## IX MATHEMATICAL REMARKS

The great generality of the present results with respect to the ordinary Zeno paradox5 derives from the fact that the unitary operator $`V(t)`$ need not even obey the semigroup law5 $`V(t)V(s)=V(t+s)`$ which played a crucial role in the Misra-Sudarshan proof. Further, the following remarks about the set of pairs $`(E,\rho )`$ \[with $`\rho `$ a density operator\] fulfilling $`E\rho E=\rho `$ can be made. The first is that as $`E`$ and $`\rho `$ are self-adjoint, this condition is equivalent to either of the requirements $`E\rho =\rho `$, or $`\rho E=\rho `$. They mean just that $`\rho `$ is zero on the range of $`(11E)`$. The properties of the pairs $`(E,\rho )`$ in a finite-dimensional quantum theory are simple. In that case, the density operators, being a convex set, are connected and contractible while the connected components of projectors $`E`$ consist of all the projectors of the same rank. Thus for fixed rank $`n`$ of projectors, the allowed pairs $`(E,\rho )`$ form a connected space with the structure of a fibre bundle, with projectors forming the base and a fibre being a convex set. This bundle is trivial, the fibres being contractible. If the quantum Hilbert space $`_{n+k}`$ is of dimension $`n+k`$, its unitary group $`U(n+k)=\{U\}`$ acts on $`(E,\rho )`$ by conjugation: $`EUEU^1,\rho U\rho U^1`$. This action is an automorphism of the bundle. Since any two projectors of the same rank are unitarily related, it is also transitive on the base. The nature of the base follows from this remark. The stability group of $`E`$ is $`U(n)\times U(k)`$ where $`U(n)`$ and $`U(k)`$ act as identities on the range of $`(11E)`$ and $`E`$ respectively. Thus the base, as is well-known, is the Grassmannian18 $`G_{n,k}(C)=U(n+k)/[U(n)\times U(k)]`$. When we pass to quantum physics in infinite dimensions, the space of connected projectors are determined by orbits of infinite-dimensional unitary groups, and, in addition, a projector can itself be of infinite rank. In this manner, general applications of our results will involve infinite-dimensional Grassmannians (on which there are excellent reviews19).

## X CONCLUSION

It should be stressed that within standard quantum mechanics and its measurement postulates, both the usual Zeno paradox and the anti-Zeno paradox derived here are theorems. The two paradoxes appear ‘paradoxical’ and ‘mutually contradictory’ only when we forget Bohr’s insistence that quantum results depend not only on the quantum state, but also on the entire disposition of the experimental apparatus. Indeed the apparatus to measure $`E`$ and $`U(t)EU^{}(t)`$ are different. It would be interesting to analyse how these results appear in a quantum theory of closed systems (including the apparatus) in which there is no notion of measurements. It will also be interesting to devise experimental tests of the anti-Zeno effect along lines used to test the ordinary Zeno effect9.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Guy Auberson, Virendra Singh and Rafael Sorkin for discussions.We were also greatly helped by Lajos Diósi who gave us an alternative proof of (7.19) and by Jeeva Anandan who drew our attention to the first paper of ref 11. Part of this work was supported by the U.S. DOE under contract no. DE-FG02-85ER40231, and by the Indo-French Centre For Promotion of Advanced Research (IFCPAR/CEFIPRA), project 1501-2.


format: text

text:
# Evidence For Intrinsic Magnetic Moments in Black Hole Candidates

## 1. Introduction

It has recently been claimed that the very low, but nonzero, quiescent luminosity levels of galactic black hole candidates (GBHC) in low mass x-ray binary systems (LMXB) constitutes evidence of event horizons (Garcia et al. 2001). This interpretation of the observations relies on an advection dominated accretion flow (ADAF) model (Narayan, Garcia & McClintock 1997) in which the energy released by accretion is stored as heat in a radiatively inefficient flow which eventually disappears through an event horizon. Garcia et al. (2001) state their belief that any straightforward explanation of the differences of quiescent luminosities of GBHC and neutron star (NS) systems, whether based on ADAFs or not, will require postulating an event horizon in GBHC. In this work we will show that their quiescent luminosities may have a rather mundane explanation as magnetospheric emissions.

This surprising assessment arises from the strong broad band similarities of NS and GBHC, particularly in quiescence (e.g., Tanaka & Shibazaki 1996, van der Klis 1994). These similarities include power law emissions of both NS and GBHC. Photon indexes of $`2`$ are found in both types of object, extending into quiescence. As shown below, spins of a few hundred Hz, combined with magnetic moments of a few $`10^{27}`$ G cm3 lead to magnetospheric power law emissions of $`10^{3233}`$ erg/s for NS. This spin-down luminosity is as inevitable in the magnetic NS of LMXB as it is in ordinary pulsars. But given the similarities with GBHC, this significantly sharpens the question of how the latter produce their quiescent emissions. It will be made clear that spins of a few tens of Hz and magnetic moments of order $`10^{29}`$ G cm3 would produce their quiescent luminosities of $`10^{3032}`$ erg/s. Although the existence of objects compact enough to qualify as black hole candidates is beyond question and the existence of black holes is accepted by most astrophysicists, it is still observationally unclear whether event horizons can be physically realized in the collapse of stellar mass objects. Hence it is still necessary that we be able to exclude the possibility that GBHC might be intrinsically magnetized objects before we can say that they truly are black holes. It has recently been suggested (Mitra 2000) that, within the framework of General Relativity, trapped surfaces cannot be formed by collapse of physical matter and radiation. Such a view was also held by Einstein (1939).

In this paper, we observationally test whether event horizons are necessary for the explanation of the low quiescent x-ray luminosities of GBHC. Using only the most rudimentary generic features of strong-field gravity, we consider a model of GBHC with intrinsic magnetic moments. We assume the magnetic fields to be intrinsic because we require them to be anchored and co-rotating with the central object. We find that they also need to be stronger than those that can be generated via disk dynamos (Livio, Ogilvie & Pringle 1999) and more persistent than can be expected with intense accretion onto charged Kerr-Newman black holes (Punsly 1998). Field strengths of magnitude similar to those we consider have been implied by the kinetic power of the jets and synchrotron emissions of the GBHC, GRS 1915+105 (Gliozzi, Bodo & Ghisellini 1999, Vadawale, Rao & Chakrabarti 2001). We assume that the magnetic field mediates the spectral state switches of NS and also drives the power law part of the quiescent emissions. We find that the magnetospheric model accords with many other observed features.

Even the weakly magnetic ($`10^8`$ G) atoll class NS produce significant magnetic stresses on accreting plasma. At the co-rotation radius (where the Keplerian orbit frequency matches the magnetosphere spin rate) the magnetic pressure is $`10^7`$ bar. When the inner radius of the accretion disk expands beyond the co-rotation radius, the magnetosphere acts as a propeller, cutting off the flow to the NS surface. This causes a spectral state transition as surface impacts and soft surface thermal emissions abate (Campana et al. 1998, Zhang, Yu & Zhang, 1998, Cui 1997, Stella, White & Rosner 1986). The magnetic propeller effect has been invoked (Menou et al. 1999) to explain how an ADAF might be prevented from reaching the surface of a quiescent NS and producing high NS luminosity. It is widely believed that ADAFs for NS are stopped by the propeller effect, otherwise a typical, optically implied, ADAF mass flow rate of $`5\times 10^{15}`$ g/s would produce a very non-quiescent luminosity of $`7\times 10^{35}`$ erg/s upon reaching the surface of a NS. But such a flow rate would at least reach the light cylinder radius of $`100`$ km for an atoll spinning at 500 Hz. If reversed there, it should then radiate $`5\times 10^{34}`$ erg/s, which is between one and two orders of magnitude larger than the observed quiescent luminosities of NS. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and Lovelace (2000) also find that electron heating of an ADAF plasma may lead to luminosities about 25% as large as those of a conventional thin disk with the same accretion rate, which is far beyond quiescent NS luminosity. These quantitative difficulties with the ADAF model, the similar spectral state switches of GBHC, and the need to test the claimed detection of event horizons have provided the motivation for considering a magnetospheric alternative.

## 2. Analysis

Quiescent x-ray emissions of NS show soft surface thermal and power law components of roughly the same luminosity (Campana et al.2000, Rutledge et al. 2001). The magnetospherically driven power law emissions that we consider here would be the minimum quiescent luminosities for NS. As we are not accounting for surface thermal emissions, factor of two disagreements between measured and calculated quiescent luminosities would be acceptable; indeed even larger variances could occur as a result of the stochastic nature of the magnetospheric emissions. As this is being written, no soft thermal emissions have been reported for quiescent GBHC. Garcia et al. (2001) report that their quiescent emissions are consistent with single power laws with photon index $`2`$, similar to those of NS. We shall assume that the power law emissions are magnetospheric for both NS and GBHC. These emissions can be calculated as magnetospheric spin-down luminosities using Becker & Trümper’s (1997) correlation of x-ray luminosity with rate of loss of rotational energy, $`\dot{E}=4\pi ^2I\nu \dot{\nu }`$, where $`I`$ is the moment of inertia of the star and $`\nu `$ its rate of spin. We assume that the energy loss derives from the magnetic torque on an axially aligned rotating magnetic dipole, which gives $`\dot{E}=32\pi ^4\mu ^2\nu ^4/3c^3`$, (Bhattacharya & Srinivasan 1995) where $`\mu `$ is the magnetic moment and $`c`$ the speed of light. (Equating these energy loss rates and taking $`I=10^45`$ g cm2 provides the standard equation for determining magnetic moments from pulsar spin-down data $`B=3.2\times 10^{19}(P\dot{P})^{1/2}`$ G, with $`P=\nu ^1`$.) Becker & Trümper found the x-ray luminosity to be about $`10^3\times 4\pi ^210^{45}\nu \dot{\nu }`$ erg/s. Thus the quiescent x-ray luminosity would then be given by :

$$L_q=10^3\times 10^{45}\frac{32\pi ^4\mu ^2\nu ^4}{3c^3I}=(4.8\times 10^{30}erg/s)\frac{\mu _{27}^2\nu _2^4}{mR_6^2}$$
(1)
Here we have taken the magnetic moment to be $`\mu _{27}\times 10^{27}`$ G cm3, the spin frequency to be $`100\times \nu _2`$ Hz, the mass of the star as $`m`$ in M, and the radius as $`10^6\times R_6`$ cm.

We assume that accretion flow takes place in a geometrically thin, optically thick accretion disk. Except in quiescence, the inner disk radius is assumed to be the same as the magnetospheric radius, $`r_m`$. This radius is the location at which the magnetosphere is capable of the appropriate rate of removal of angular momentum from the inner disk. Mathematically, the result is similar to that obtained by equating the impact pressure of accreting plasma to the magnetic pressure. For spherically symmetric accretion (e.g. Campana et al. 1998, Equation 1):

$$r_m=K(\frac{\mu _{27}^4}{m\dot{m}_{15}^2})^{1/7}$$
(2)
where $`\dot{m}_{15}`$ is the mass accretion rate in units of $`10^{15}`$ g/s and K is a scale factor. For spherical accretion, $`K=233`$ km, however, as noted by Campana et al. (1998), this needs to be corrected by a factor of $`3`$ to account for the difference between disk accretion and spherically symmetric accretion. For this reason, we will take $`K=80`$ km. This brings the magnetospheric radii into close agreement with those of an elaborate model of a gas pressure dominated disk (Ghosh & Lamb 1992). (For the present purposes of calculating luminosities, the extent to which the disk is threaded by the magnetic field of the central object is unimportant because it does not directly have a large effect on the accretion energy released for a given inner disk radius.) $`K=80`$ km, is a poorly known parameter and the calculations to follow are fairly sensitive to its value. Errors in $`K`$ are reflected in errors of determination of $`\mu _{27}`$ and then in calculations of $`L_q`$.

The spectral state switch takes place when the disk inner radius matches the co-rotation radius, $`r_c`$. This can be expressed in terms of the Keplerian orbit frequency, which is also the spin rate of the star, as:

$$r_c=(70km)(\frac{m}{\nu _2^2})^{1/3}$$
(3)
The light cylinder radius is given by $`r_{lc}=(480km)/\nu _2`$. When the disk inner radius lies inside the light cylinder, we assume that the disk luminosity is given by

$$L=\frac{GM\dot{m}}{2r_m}$$
(4)
Here G is the Newtonian gravitational force law constant, and $`\dot{m}`$ the accretion rate. This corresponds to conversion of half the accretion potential energy to luminosity via viscous dissipation. This cannot be entirely accurate as some energy extracted from the rotation of the central object drives the propeller outflow and may contribute to the luminosity. In addition, relativistic corrections are needed near the innermost marginally stable orbit, however, these are unimportant for radii as large as most co-rotation radii for the objects considered here. When all of the accreting matter actually strikes the star, we take the luminosity to be

$$L=\eta \dot{m}c^2$$
(5)
where $`\eta `$ is the efficiency of conversion of mass-energy to luminosity, which should be determined from models of gravitating objects in strong-field limits. For NS, $`\eta =GM/(c^2R)0.14`$ is both customary and adequate. For GBHC, $`\eta `$ is a parameter to be determined from observational data. Three additional characteristic luminosity levels (Campana et al. 1998) are used here. $`L_{min}`$ corresponds to the accretion disk having penetrated inside the co-rotation radius; enough to allow essentially all of the accreting matter to reach the central object. At this point spectral softening ends. $`L_c`$ is the luminosity when the disk inner radius is only a little beyond the co-rotation radius, the propeller reverses the inflow and a hard spectrum is produced. $`L_{q,max}`$ is the luminosity with disk radius at the light cylinder. Using $`r_c=r_m`$ to eliminate $`\dot{m}`$ and setting $`r=r_c`$ in Equations 4 and 5 there follows:

$$L_{min}=(1.4\times 10^{36}erg/s)\eta \mu _{27}^2\nu _2^{7/3}m^{5/3}$$
(6)
and with $`r=r_c=r_m`$

$$L_c=(1.5\times 10^{34}erg/s)\mu _{27}^2\nu _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}m^1$$
(7)
Similarly, using $`r_m=r_{lc}=r`$ yields

$$L_{q,max}=(2.6\times 10^{30}erg/s)\mu _{27}^2\nu _2^{9/2}m^{1/2}$$
(8)
For NS we shall assume that $`m=1.4`$, $`R_6=1.5`$ and $`\eta =0.14`$ unless otherwise noted. For GBHC we have used literature values for mass.

As the magnetic moment, $`\mu _{27}`$, enters each of Equations 1, 6, 7, 8, it can be eliminated from ratios of these luminosities, leaving relations involving only masses and spins. With mass values given, the ratios then yield the spins. Here we will use Equation 6 or 7 to find $`\mu _{27}`$, after which Equation 1 yields $`L_q`$. Alternatively, if the spin is known from burst oscillations, pulses or spectral fit determinations of $`r_c`$, one only needs one measured luminosity to enable calculation of the remaining $`\mu _{27}`$ and $`L_q`$.

## 3. Calculations

Observational data and calculations leading to luminosities shown in Table 1 are detailed in the appendix.

Neutron Stars—
Sax J1808.4-3658 is the only NS LMXB to show x-ray pulses. Observed spins of five other NS were determined from burst oscillations (Strohmayer 2000). For Aql X-1, 4U 1608-52, and Sax J1808.4-3658, the values of spin and $`L_c`$ or $`L_{min}`$ were used to calculate the values of $`\mu _{27}`$ shown in Table 1. Spins and magnetic moments were then used to obtain their calculated quiescent luminosities. The agreement is very good, however the identification of $`L_{min}`$ for Sax J1808.4-3658 is somewhat uncertain (see appendix). On the other hand, Sax J1808.4-3658 is a millisecond pulsar for which we can be reasonably certain that Equation 1 would yield its quiescent power-law luminosity. In this case, we can invert the process and use $`\mu `$ determined from Equation 1 to verify our choices of $`L_{min}`$ and $`L_c`$.

An important step in this analysis consists of testing the validity of the use of luminosity ratios to determine both spins and magnetic moments. For the first two NS of Table 1, we have used the ratio $`L_{min}/L_c`$ to determine spins shown as calculated values in the table. Both agree with observed values within 20%. We used these spins and observed $`L_c`$ to re-evaluate $`\mu _{27}`$ and then recalculated values of log($`L_q`$) of 32.5 and 33.5 for them. If small errors of spin arise from the use of ratios and the values of $`L_{min}`$ or $`L_c`$ are not seriously in error, then compensating shifts of calculated magnetic moments seem to leave the calculated quiescent luminosities relatively unchanged.

As no burst oscillations have yet been reported for Cen X-4, we used the ratio $`L_{min}/L_q=4`$ to obtain a spin of 430 Hz and magnetic moment $`\mu _{27}=1.1`$. The calculated quiescent luminosity is $`6\times 10^{32}`$ erg/s (log($`L_q`$) = 32.8), compared to $`2.5\times 10^{32}`$ erg/s (log($`L_q`$) = 32.4) observed. The agreement between luminosities calculated via the ratio method and those observed for three NS is good, especially when one considers that the calculated values were based on information obtained from luminosities that were more than $`10^3`$ larger. This strongly suggests that the spectral state switch for NS is a magnetospheric effect and that magnetospheric spin-down accounts for much of the quiescent luminosity.

Quiescent luminosities for 4U 1916-053, KS 1731-26 and 4U 1730-335 were determined using observed spins and values of $`L_c`$ or $`L_{min}`$ estimated at the endpoints of the spectral state transitions. Their calculated quiescent luminosities are included here as predicted values. We note that the magnetic moments that we find here are comparable to those found for millisecond pulsars with similar rates of spin.

Two entries have been included for Cir X-1. Observed luminosities have been corrected for a distance of 5.5 kpc rather than the 10 kpc originally reported (Dower, Bradt & Morgan 1982). This also brings its magnetic field ($`B=\mu R^3`$) into agreement with a value of $`4\times 10^{10}`$ G based (Iaria et al. 2001) on an accretion disk inner radius that was obtained from fitting spectral data. Cir X-1 is, in many respects, the NS that behaves most like a GBHC. It was thought to be a GBHC for a long time, until it displayed Type 1 bursts. It has been clearly identified as a Z source (Shirey, Bradt & Levine 1999). It seems to have a spin and magnetic moment more like those of the GBHCs shown further down in Table 1. The lower spin rate is commensurate with its ‘khz’ QPOs, which have an onset around 20 Hz. The GBHC properties that Cir X-1 seems to possess may simply be due to a stronger magnetic field, but it seems plausible that it may also have the larger mass of a GBHC. If it has the larger mass, then as a burster it clearly has no event horizon. If not, then it demonstrates that the magnetic moments may be involved in the production of the high frequency QPO. It is of interest, that only its calculated magnetic moment changes significantly if we suppose it to have different mass. This is also the case for the GBHC.

Black Hole Candidates—
For the GBHC, we have three unknown parameters, $`\mu _{27}`$, $`\eta `$, and $`R_6`$ to determine. We use estimates of the inner disk radius at co-rotation and Equation 3 to determine the spin frequencies. We use Equation 7 to obtain $`\mu _{27}`$ and then Equation 6 to evaluate $`\eta `$. For GRS 1124-68, GS 2023+338, XTE J1550-564 and GS2000+25, inner disk radii obtained from spectral fits (see appendix) are 400 km, 224 km, 228 km and 500 km, respectively. The corresponding values of $`\nu _2`$ and $`\mu _{27}`$ are shown in Table 1. For the first three objects, for which reliable values of $`L_{min}`$ have been found, the values of $`\eta `$ were, 0.34, 0.48 and 0.49, respectively. For the remainder of this work we shall use $`\eta =0.4`$ as our best guess. This choice was used for the second tabular entry for Cir X-1. We note that this choice is consistent with interpreting the ‘ultrasoft’ radiations of the GBHC as redshifted surface radiations. If z is the redshift, it is given by $`z=\eta /(1\eta )=0.7`$, for $`\eta =0.4`$. The surface thermal emissions would then be shifted to 1.7X lower than rest frame energies and they would appear unusually soft.

At this point, we must also estimate the radii of GBHC before we can calculate the quiescent luminosity. This choice must be consistent with our choice of $`\eta `$. In metric gravity theories, $`\eta =1\sqrt{g_{tt}}`$, where $`g_{tt}`$ is the time component of the spacetime metric. In standard Schwarzschild coordinates, $`g_{tt}=(12GM/c^2R)`$. For $`\eta =0.4`$, the radius of a 7 M object would be 32 km. In isotropic coordinates, however, R = 21 km would result. Since the applicability of either number is in question, we will take R = 20 km for use here. R enters here as part of the expression of rotational inertia for a GBHC. Quiescent luminosities are only moderately sensitive to the value used, but any choice for GBHC is clearly a guess.

Using $`R_6=2.0`$ in Equation 1, we calculate the quiescent luminosities of GRS 1124-68, GS 2023+338, XTE J1550-564 and GS 2000+25 shown in Table 1. We use the ratio method with $`\eta =0.4`$ and $`R_6=2`$ to obtain quiescent luminosities for GRO J1655-40 and A0620-00. For the six for which comparisons can be made, the agreement with observed values is excellent. The remaining entries in the table, which lack observed values for comparison are to be understood as predictions. If we use the ratio method for XTE J1550-564 rather than the spectrum fit value for $`r_c`$, we would find log($`L_q`$) = 32.1 for $`\eta =0.4`$. An estimated co-rotation radius of 400 km was used to determine the spin for Cygnus X-1 (see appendix). We identify a QPO frequency of GRS 1915+105 as its spin frequency. We predict values of $`L_{min}`$ to be $`1.6\times 10^{38}`$ erg/s for GRS 1915+105 and $`6.4\times 10^{38}`$ erg/s for Cyg X-1.

## 4. Discussion

The luminosity at the arrest of decline in the light curves of Aql X-1 (Campana et al. 1998, Fig. 1) and Sax J1808.4-3658 (Gilfanov et al. 1998) near the end of an outburst is a factor of $`5`$ higher than the final quiescent luminosity. The luminosity at the arrest for Aql X-1, $`1.2\times 10^{33}`$ erg/s, agrees within 25% of $`L_{q,max}`$ calculated using Equation 8 and the spins and magnetic moments obtained from spectral state switches. Similar factors of 5 to 10 are found for GBHC. This indicates that during the decline to quiescence, the inner radius of the accretion disk continues to expand beyond the light cylinder. If the inner disk remains optically thick, as little as $`10^{30}`$ erg/s emanating from the central star would be capable of heating it to the instability point and/or ablating it if nearer than $`10^5`$ km. For NS, it seems clear that the quiescent inner disk must be essentially empty to this radius. Even if the flow in the inner disk is an ADAF, the flow rate would be so low that it could contribute little to the luminosity. It would also be most peculiar for the ADAF luminosity to depend, as we have shown, on the spin and magnetic moment of the NS. It is difficult to accept that high flow rate ADAFs exist for GBHC, but not for NS of similar orbital period. A more circumspect view is that the similar quiescent behaviors of GBHC are due to similar magnetospheric causes.

The picture of LMXB that emerges from this work is that of magnetized central objects surrounded by accretion disks that have inner radii dictated either by stability considerations in quiescence or magnetic stresses at much higher luminosities. Only at very high accretion rates does the disk push in to the marginally stable orbit. Since many spectral and timing characteristics observed for GBHC and NS fit well within this broad picture, we will consider a few of them. These considerations have gained impetus from the recent discoveries of hard spectral tails for NS extending beyond 200 keV (e.g., Di Salvo et al. 2001). This removes one of the last of the qualitative spectral differences thought to differentiate NS and GBHC. This is not to say that there are no spectral differences of NS and GBHC. There are clear differences that can be attributed to greater mass for GBHC. For example, Eddington limits are higher and Keplerian frequencies at the marginally stable orbit would be much smaller for GBHC. Another major difference is that a prograde angular momentum at the $`500`$ Hz spins of NS in LMXB might cause the marginally stable orbit radius to be less than that of the star. Thus the boundary region at the inner disk could differ between most NS and GBHC, but there are no presently known differences that can be attributed to an event horizon.

Cyg X-1 is a persistent source that is usually found in a low, hard state, but occasionally enters a high, soft state with only a factor of 2 or 3 change of bolometric luminosity. With the inner disk radius at $`400`$ km in the hard state, the disk efficiency ($`GM/2c^2r`$) is 0.018, compared to the 0.4 efficiency for accretion to the surface. Hard disk and ultrasoft surface radiations can contribute equally to the luminosity if only 0.045 of the accreting matter actually crosses the co-rotation radius. Thus a spectral state change can occur for very little change of accretion rate and small change of overall luminosity. Here the propeller effect provides a clear and simple explanation of the mysterious spectral pivoting shown by many GBHC. Clearly one cannot take the ratio of luminosities here as an indicator of spin. Only if there is some broader measure of spectral hardness that can be measured over the entire interval from $`L_c`$ to $`L_{min}`$ can reliable results be obtained. Since a substantial increase of radiation pressure on the inner disk results from small change of accretion rate, it appears that Cyg X-1 usually stays relatively well balanced in a relatively low state. If the accretion rate is highly variable with the inner disk near co-rotation oscillations can result.

Pulsars such as V0332+53, atoll NS, and GBHC all exhibit flickering in low states. This has a natural explanation as Rayleigh-Taylor instability shot leakage across the magnetopause. The larger amplitude flickering for GBHC and pulsars with large magnetic moments is a result of infall from larger radii. Long time lags at low Fourier frequencies (Nowak et al. 1999) imply very slow propagation speeds ($`<0.01`$c) for the luminous plasma disturbances. Such slow speeds are to be expected for plasma in a magnetosphere.

When well below the Eddington limit, GBHC are much like the atoll NS examined here. One of the reasons for this might be that the magnetic stresses at the co-rotation radius are of the same order, $`10^7`$ bar for both. Z class NS have only slightly larger co-rotation radii than atolls, but have magnetic fields about 10X larger. The magnetic stresses at their co-rotation radii are much larger, $`10^{89}`$ bar. Accretion rates near the Eddington limit are needed to push the magnetopause inside the co-rotation radius. An optically thick boundary layer eventually blankets the magnetosphere and obscures the radiation from the star. In this way the luminosity can decline while the accretion rate actually increases, producing the familiar ‘Z’ track in the hardness vs. luminosity diagram. The track is also seen in color-color diagrams. Portions of such tracks are occasionally seen in GBHC such as GX 339-4 (Miyamoto et al. 1991) or GS 2023+338) ($`\dot{Z}`$ycki, Done & Smith 1999a, 1999b). Typical normal branch oscillations $`410`$ Hz are observed for them. In addition to Z sources being infrequent bursters that have shown no burst oscillations, we have generally omitted Z sources in this work because the radiation pressure materially affects the inner disk in the spectral switch region and changes the manner in which radius scales with accretion rate.

A superluminal jet was produced by GRS 1915+105 contemporaneous with the oscillations described for it in the appendix. Chou & Tajima (1999) devised a promising model for such pulsed ejections in which a poloidal magnetic field of unspecified origin is toroidally wound by the inner disk until it becomes buoyantly unstable and is ejected from the inner disk. In their model, they artificially stopped the flow through the event horizon using a pressure of unspecified origin. It is widely believed that magnetic fields generated in the accretion disks of black holes can produce strong poloidal fields threading the event horizon. This seems unlikely, (Livio, Ogilvie & Pringle 1999, Punsly 1998) however, because the same field threads the disk where magnetic pressures can at most be comparable to the gas pressure. GBHC that possessed intrinsic magnetic moments could provide the necessary conditions for applicability of the Chou & Tajima model. In any event, disk generated magnetic fields cannot provide a propeller effect that cuts off the flow into the interior for long times. After the flow cuts off, the field would decay in about the light crossing time for the original region of field. The disk would then refill on a slower viscous time scale. It is also not obvious that cutting off the flow to an event horizon could produce a spectral state switch. Considering the high accretion rates involved in the jet production of GRS 1915+105, it seems unlikely that the inner charge ring of a charged, rapidly spinning Kerr-Newman black hole (Punsly 1998) could be the source of the strong magnetic field at the base of its jet.

In our analyses, we have generally used luminosities obtained in the declining phase of outbursts. During rising phases, there is a transition through an intermediate state, complete with onset of several QPO, when the co-rotation radius is traversed. There may be some hysteresis in luminosities of the spectral state transitions of rising and declining phases. This sometimes appears in temporal shifting of the position of Z tracks in hardness vs. luminosity diagrams. Substantial changes in luminosity for the tracks over weeks are relatively common. Such behavior may be due to screening of the magnetic fields by accumulations of accreted matter on the surface. If the field weakens, it would permit matter to go deeper into the gravitational well and thus change the luminosity at which some phenomena such as QPO are observed.

The inner disk radius and the outer point of disengagement of disk and magnetosphere would be natural boundaries for the generation of QPO. Except near the co-rotation radius the disk material would be subjected to either braking or accelerating torques. These would produce a shear across the co-rotation region, depending on the extent of magnetic field threading of the disk. It would not be surprising to have oscillations generated by the shear. Most of the current models (beat frequency, relativistic precession and magnetospheric coriolis oscillators) of high frequency QPO rely on variations of the inner disk radius to generate the variation of at least one of the high frequency QPO seen in LMXB. Recent simulations (Kato et al. 2001) have shown that another high frequency QPO is generated by reconnection of magnetic field lines at the inner disk radius. The field lines are toroidally wound by the inner disk until they break. For both NS and GBHC, the high frequency QPO begin near the spin frequency and increase to values nearly commensurate with that of the marginally stable orbit. The onset near the spin frequency is consistent with our interpretation of mass beginning to reach the central object when the corotation radius is traversed. This consistency adds confidence to our use of disk co-rotation radii determined from spectral fitting as these co-rotation radii have provided some of our spins.

The hypothesis that GBHC possess magnetic fields can be tested. Searches should be undertaken for coherent pulses in the vicinity of the calculated spin frequencies of Table 1. Unusual GBHC burst events should be examined for burst oscillations. It might also be possible to find cyclotron resonance features in the range 0.01 - 1 keV in the spectra of the GBHC. Dynamic mass determinations for Cir X-1 and XTE J1550-564 are definitely needed. The properties of XTE J1550-564 and Cir X-1, including their high frequency QPOs, are strikingly similar. It is highly unlikely that Cir X-1 possesses a strong magnetic field while XTE J1550-564 does not. If XTE J1550-564 possesses a similar magnetic field, it should display a ‘Z’ track in a color-color diagram similar to that of Cir X-1. The onset of ‘khz’ QPO at frequencies typically within $``$ 50% of the spin frequency would seem to confirm the spins found here for Cir X-1 and XTE J1550-564.

## 5. Conclusions

We have shown that the luminosities of the spectral state switches of NS in LMXB can be used to accurately predict luminosities that are $`10^{34}`$ fainter at the light cylinder and in quiescence. Spin rates and magnetic moments that we have found for NS are comparable to those found for known millisecond pulsars. The magnetospheric model on which these calculations rely depends strongly ($`\mu ^2\nu ^4`$) on magnetic moment and spin of the NS and is therefore incompatible with ADAF models. This significantly sharpens the question of how GBHC produce their quiescent spectra. We have shown that their quiescent luminosities can be accurately calculated for the magnetospheric model from spectral state switch luminosities that are $`10^4`$ brighter. In the process, we have found a reasonably consistent set of GBHC magnetic moments and spins for eight GBHC and Cir X-1. We acknowledge that the parameters, K, $`\eta `$ and R6 are poorly constrained, but the values used here certainly seem plausible. Both $`\eta `$ and R6 are expected to be mass dependent quantities.

The soft spectral state in this model arises from the surface of the central object. This requires a paradigm shift away from supposing that all soft spectral components arise in the disk. We attribute the ‘ultrasoft’ radiations of GBHC to greater surface redshifts. It is well known that power law emissions and hard spectra are generated by accreting pulsars but there is no agreement on how they do it. Magnetohydrodynamic simulations of the propeller regime have not yet provided the details.

We have included predictions and suggested tests of our model. We expect that all GBHC and NS properties can eventually be understood in terms of a unified magnetospheric model. If it can be conclusively shown that GBHC have magnetic moments, then some way will need to be found, within the framework of General Relativity to prevent the physical realization of the event horizon. It is the horizon that disconnects external magnetic fields from generator currents in the interior. The changes of theoretical interpretation necessary to eliminate physical occurrences of the horizon might very well leave the landscape of compact objects, frame dragging, marginally stable orbits and curved spacetime little changed.

We thank Rudy Wijnands for pointing out significant errors in an earlier draft. We are indebted to John Tomsick for sharing information prior to its publication and we thank Jeroen Homan for useful information. Appendix

## Appendix A Observational Data

Aql X-1:Campana et al. (1998) reported spectral hardening beginning at $`L_{min}=1.2\times 10^{36}`$ erg/s, $`L_c=4\times 10^{35}`$ erg/s and complete cessation of the rapid decline at about $`1.2\times 10^{33}`$ erg/s, which we identify as $`L_{q,max}`$.

4U1608-52: Spectral hardening began in decline at $`L_{min}=10^{37}`$ erg/s (Mitsuda et al. 1989). We take $`L_c=2.9\times 10^{36}`$ for the March 1990 hard spectral state (Yoshida et al. 1993). Garcia et al. (2001) have reported a quiescent luminosity of $`L_q=2\times 10^{33}`$ erg/s.

Sax J1808.4-3658 reached a luminosity level of $`2.5\times 10^{36}`$ erg/s, (d = 2.5 kpc) declined slowly to about $`8\times 10^{35}`$ erg/s and then began a rapid decline. (Gilfanov et al. 1998, Heindl & Smith 1998). Very similar decline characteristics were shown for Aql X-1, for which we identified the luminosity at the start of rapid decline and spectral hardening as $`L_{min}`$. Sax J1808.4-3658 never displayed a soft spectral component. It is conceivable that it never reached $`L_c`$, but if so then the 401 Hz pulses would have to have originated in interaction between the magnetic field and disk rather than on polar caps. We think it more likely that $`L_c`$ was exceeded as surface bursts have been observed for it. A recent analysis of its 1996 outburst (in’t Zand et al. 2001) has also confirmed that burst oscillations occur at the 401 Hz spin frequency. By analogy with the light curve of Aql X-1, we take $`L_{min}=8\times 10^{35}`$ erg/s (d=2.5 kpc), as the luminosity at the start of rapid decline. With this choice, we obtain $`\mu _{27}=0.53`$ and calculate a quiescent luminosity of $`10^{32}`$ erg/s, in reasonable agreement with observation. We also calculate $`L_c=1.9\times 10^{35}`$ erg/s (for d = 2.5 kpc). There may be a change of trend of the decline at this luminosity similar to that of Aql X-1, however there is only one luminosity data point to suggest this. But there is also a change of trend of pulse amplitude fraction at this level. Pulsations continued to be observed during the entire decline phase (Cui, Morgan & Titarchuk 1998) and well below the luminosity that we calculate as $`L_c`$. These observations may be consistent with having a magnetic axis with significant inclination relative to the the rotation axis. Whatever the case, it should be clear that Sax J1808.4-3658 is a pulsar of known spin. Therefore we use Equation 1 to determine its magnetic moment, we obtain $`\mu _{27}=0.440.62`$ (d = 2.5 kpc). Equation 6 then yields $`L_{min}=0.551.1\times 10^{36}`$ erg/s compared to $`8\times 10^{35}`$ erg/s at the start of its rapid decline. Although our identifications of $`L_{min}`$ and $`L_c`$ appear to be consistent with the observed spin and quiescent luminosity, we reiterate that these identifications are based only upon the analogy with Aql X-1. Sax J1808.4-3658 did not show a soft spectrum. If we are correct that it exceeded $`L_{min}`$ without producing a soft spectrum, then we would not expect it to ever become soft if observed at higher luminosities in subsequent outbursts.

Cen X-4: For Cen X-4, the values of $`L_{min}`$ and $`L_c`$ shown in Table 1 were estimated from the start of rapid decline on May 23, 1979 and the arrest of decline of the light curve on May 28, 1979 (Kaluzienski, Holt & Swank 1980).

4U 1916-053: Boirin et al. (2000) report $`L_c=3.2\times 10^{36}`$ erg/s and a soft state luminosity of $`L_{min}=1.4\times 10^{37}`$ erg/s. The 370 Hz spin calculated for it is an upper limit, as it is not certain that spectral softening was complete.

4U 1730-335:Campana et al. (1998) report $`L_c=10^{37}`$ erg/s at the start of spectral hardening. Fox et al. (2000) have found a burst oscillation frequency of 307 Hz.

KS 1731-26We take the reported hard state luminosity (Sunyaev 1990) to be $`L_c=1.8\times 10^{36}`$ erg/s.

Cir X-1: Neither spin rate nor mass are available for the enigmatic Cir X-1. $`L_{\mathrm{min}}=6.3\times 10^{38}`$ erg/s and $`L_c=3\times 10^{37}`$ erg/s can be determined from observations just before and two hours after a spectral hardening transition on Sept 20-21, 1977 (Dower, Bradt & E Morgan 1982).

GRS 1124-68 Misra & Melia (1997) showed that its inner disk radius increased to about $`27R_s`$ (here $`R_s=2GM/c^2`$, 400 km for 5 M) after the spectral state transition. Ebisawa, et al (1994) give a luminosity of $`L_c=6.6\times 10^{36}`$ erg/s for the low state for the period June 13 - July 23, 1991. $`L_{min}=2.4\times 10^{38}`$ erg/s is the average of the period March 10 - April 2, 1991. The assumption of $`r_c=400`$ km yields $`\nu _S=16`$ Hz.

GS 2023 + 338 never displayed an ultrasoft spectral component, but on May 30, 1989 it changed luminosity by a factor of 21 in 10 s, from $`10^{39}`$ erg/s to $`4.8\times 10^{37}`$ erg/s (Tanaka & Lewin 1995). When the luminosity diminished, the reduction in the 1 - 10 keV band was greater than for higher energies, which hints of a weak spectral state transition. Thus we take these luminosities to be $`L_{min}`$ and $`L_c`$, respectively. From spectral analysis $`\dot{Z}`$ycki, Done and Smith (1997b) found $`r_{in}=25R_G`$ (here $`R_G=GM/c^2`$, 263 km for $`7M_{}`$) and $`35R_G`$ (368 km), respectively, for June 20, 1989 and July 19-20, 1989. Luminosities (0.1 - 300 keV) for these dates based on spectra of Tanaka (1992) are $`1.9\times 10^{37}`$ erg/s and $`6.3\times 10^{36}`$ erg/s, respectively. The radii scaled as $`L^{2/9}`$ yield values of the co-rotation radius of 214 km and 234 km. We take the mean of 224 km as the co-rotation radius and find $`\nu =46`$ Hz. Quiescent luminosities of $`6.9\times 10^{33}`$ erg/s (Chen, Shrader & Livio 1997), $`8\times 10^{33}`$ erg/s (Tanaka & Shibazaki 1996), and $`1.6\times 10^{33}`$ erg/s (Garcia et al. 1997) have been reported.

XTE J1550-564—Spectral data reported (Sobczak et al. 2000) for this GBHC showed rapid decrease of luminosity from $`L_{min}=2\times 10^{38}`$ erg/s (d = 6 kpc) and large changes of spectral hardness on Oct. 24, 1998 and again on Mar. 12, 1999. A lower average luminosity level of $`L_c=9.2\times 10^{36}`$ erg/s was reached for the period April 15 - 25, 1999. High frequency QPO’s of 285 Hz have been reported for XTE J1550-564 (Homan et al. 2000). Assuming these to originate with the accretion disk radius near the marginally stable orbit, a mass of $`7M_{}`$ is implied. Wilson & Done (2001) have found an inner disk radius of $`22GM/c^2`$ (228 km for 7 M), from which we obtain a spin of 45 Hz. The inner disk radius for disk blackbody spectral fits (Sobczak et al. 2000) also show a dramatic increase for the April 15 - 25 period in accord with our identification of $`L_c`$. Quiescent luminosity of $`7\times 10^{32}`$ erg/s (0.5 - 7 keV, d = 4 kpc) has been reported by Tomsick & Kaaret (2001), however this was soon after the outburst ended.

GRO J1655-40: $`L_{min}`$ was reached at $`3.1\times 10^{37}`$ erg/s approximately July 29, 1996 (Mendez, Belloni and van der Klis 1998, Fig. 1). The rapid decline was arrested at about $`10^{36}`$ erg/s, which can be taken to be $`L_C`$.

A0620 00: Spectral hardening began about 100 days after the start of the 1975 outburst and continued until interrupted by a reflare. At the start of spectral hardening we find $`L_{min}=4.5\times 10^{36}`$ erg/s (Kuulkers 1998, see Figs 1 & 2). At the start of the reflare we find $`L_c1.4\times 10^{35}`$ erg/s, though it is not clear that spectral hardening was complete.

Cygnus X-1 exhibits spectral state switches with very little change of bolometric luminosity at about $`L_c=3\times 10^{37}`$ erg/s. Done & $`\dot{Z}`$ycki (1999) find an average inner disk radius of $`27GM/c^2`$ (400 km for 10 M) that changes very little as the spectrum pivots. We find a corresponding spin frequency of 23 Hz.

GRS 1915 + 105 displays oscillations with peaks above the Eddington limit followed by hard states that are lower in luminosity by a factor of 3 - 6. Belloni et al. (1997) have attributed the intervals between flares to the time required for the inner disk to refill on a viscous time scale, which is likely correct. Disk blackbody spectral fits (Belloni et al. 1997) show that $`r_{in}`$ oscillates between about 20 km and 80 km, but occasionally reaches only 55 km, followed immediately by another burst. 55 km would be the innermost marginally stable orbit radius for $`7M_{}`$, which is therefore adopted as the mass. A 67 Hz QPO has been observed (Remillard et al. 1997, Remillard & Morgan 1998) that is sharp ($`Q>20`$) and stable for factors of 5 luminosity change over six months time. If this is the spin frequency, a co-rotation radius of 174 km is implied. The low state between flares reached about $`4\times 10^{38}`$ erg/s for a radius of about 80 km. Scaling the luminosity ($`r^{9/2}`$) for 174 km, we find $`L_c=1.2\times 10^{37}`$ erg/s, $`\mu _{27}=128`$ and we predict $`L_{min}=1.6\times 10^{38}`$ erg/s.

GS 2000 + 25: $`\dot{Z}`$ycki, Done and Smith (1997a) have found a spectral state switch for GS 2000 + 25. When a strong soft component is present the disk is highly ionized and iron flourescence strongly relativistically smeared. The disappearance of the soft component is accompanied by hardening of the power-law and a decrease of ionization. Little change of inner disk radius occurs at the transition, but the subsequent decline of luminosity is accompanied by an increase of inner disk radius. We identify $`L_c=1.5\times 10^{35}`$ erg/s for the hard state of Dec. 16, 1989. If we use an inner radius of (50 - 100) $`R_g`$ (500 - 1000 km with $`R_g=GM/c^2`$) as the co-rotation radius (Done, C. personal communication) we obtain $`\nu _S=14`$ Hz for the smaller radius.