# Interpretation of ∼35 Hz QPO in the Atoll Source 4U 1702-42 as a Low Branch of the Keplerian Oscillations Under the Influence of the Coriolis Force

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of kilohertz quasiperiodic oscillations (QPOs) in the low mass X-ray neutron star binaries (Strohmayer et al. 1996; Van der Klis et al. 1996) was followed by similar results for nineteen sources (Van der Klis et al. 1998, Strohmayer, Swank and Zhang 1998). For most of them, the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) mission showed the persistence of twin peaks in the spectrum ($`4001200`$ Hz). In the lower part of the spectrum of Sco X-1, van der Klis et al. (1997) found two branches $`45`$ and $`90`$ Hz which correlate with the frequencies of the above-mentioned twin peaks. The nature of the twin peaks has been discussed intensively. The apparent constancy of the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ for the twin peaks in some sources led to the beat-frequency interpretation (a concept originated by Alpar and Shaham 1985). Below, we describe difficulties of this model following the recent assessment by Mendez and van der Klis (1999). Within the beat-frequency model, the higher peak in the kHz range is identified with the Keplerian frequency (van der Klis et al. 1996). The lower twin peak in this model occurs as a result of beating between the high peak and the spin frequency of the neutron star $`\nu _{spin}`$ which is believed to be observed during type 1 X-ray bursts as $`\nu _{burst}`$ (or half that) (Strohmayer et al. 1996, Miller, Lamb & Psaltis 1998). Within the original beat-frequency model, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ and $`\nu _{spin}`$ should remain constant. The observed $`2030\%`$ variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ (Van der Klis et al. 1997, Mendez et al. 1998, Ford et al. 1998, Mendez & van der Klis 1999) undermined the beat-frequency interpretation. Convincingly, Mendez and van der Klis (1999) showed that for atoll source 4U 1728-34, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ is not equal to $`\nu _{burst}`$ even for the lowest inferred mass accretion rate. In their words, this seems to rule out the simple beat-frequency interpretation of the kHz QPOs in LMXBs and some of the modifications introduced to explain the results of a variable $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$.

A completely different paradigm has been proposed by Osherovich and Titarchuk (1999) and by Titarchuk and Osherovich (1999) (hereafter OT99 and TO99, respectively) to explain QPOs in neutron stars. The new model is based on the idea that the twin peaks occur as a result of the Coriolis force imposed on a one-dimensional Keplerian oscillator. The second section of our Letter contains the assumptions and predictions of the model. Verification of the predictions concerning the low frequency branch for the source 4U 1702-42 is presented in section 3. Discussion and summary follow in the last section.

## 2 Oscillations in the Disk and the Magnetosphere Surrounding the Neutron Star

The following assumptions constitute our model (OT99 and TO99):

a) The lower frequency of the twin kHz QPO is the Keplerian frequency

$$\nu _K=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left(\frac{GM}{R^3}\right)^{1/2}$$
(1)   
where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the neutron star and R is the radius of the corresponding Keplerian orbit.

b) There is a boundary layer: transition region between the NS surface and the first Keplerian orbit. Within this layer, the radial viscous oscillations $`\nu _\mathrm{v}`$ are maintained. There is also a diffusive propagation process of the perturbations generated in this layer and characterized by a break frequency $`\nu _b`$ related to $`\nu _\mathrm{v}`$. Outside of this layer, the disk has Keplerian radial oscillations with $`\nu _K`$ (see also Titarchuk, Lapidus & Muslimov 1998).

c) The magnetosphere which surrounds the neutron star has a rotational frequency $`𝛀`$ which is not perpendicular to the disk.

d) inhomogeneities (hot blobs) thrown into the vicinity of the disk participate in the radial Keplerian oscillations but simultaneously are subjected to the Coriolis force associated with the differential rotation of the magnetosphere.

The consequences of the model are straightforward. The problem of a linear oscillator in the frame of reference rotating with rotational frequency $`𝛀`$ is known to have an exact solution describing two branches of oscillations

$$\nu _h^2=\nu _K^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\pi }\right)^2$$
(2)   
$$\nu _L=(\mathrm{\Omega }/\pi )(\nu _K/\nu _h)\mathrm{sin}\delta $$
(3)   
where $`\delta `$ is the angle between $`𝛀`$ and the plane of the Keplerian oscillations. Formulas (2) and (3) are derived under the assumption of small $`\delta `$ (OT99 and references therein). Thus, the high frequency of the observed twin kHz peaks has been interpreted as the upper hybrid frequency $`\nu _h`$ or the frequency of the high branch of the Keplerian oscillator under the influence of the Coriolis force associated with magnetospheric rotation. The existence of the lower branch ($`\nu _L`$) is a prediction of the model. Oscillations $`45`$ Hz and 90 Hz in Sco X-1 reported by van der Klis et al. (1997) are found to fit formula (3) for $`\delta =5.5\pm 0.5^o`$ when interpreted as 1st and 2nd harmonics of $`\nu _L`$ (OT99, TO99). In the low part of QPO spectra according to TO99 there are two more frequencies (namely the break frequency $`\nu _b`$ and frequency of viscous oscillations $`\nu _\mathrm{v}`$) related to each other

$$\nu _b=0.041\nu _\mathrm{v}^{1.61}.$$
(4)   
We now consider the application of our model to source 4U 1702-42 studied in detail by Markwardt, Strohmayer & Swank (1999).

## 3 Determination of $`\delta `$ for the Source 4U 1702-42

For Sco X-1, we have shown that the solid body rotation $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0=const`$ is a reasonable first order approximation (OT99). Theoretically, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ depends on the magnetic structure of the neutron star’s magnetosphere. Within the second order approximation, the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ profile has a slow variation as a function of $`\nu _K`$, which we modeled for Sco X-1 and for the source 4U 1608-52 in OT99. For the source 4U 1702-42, there are not enough simultaneous measurements of $`\nu _h`$ and $`\nu _K`$ to reconstruct the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ profile. Thus, we restrict ourselves to the first order approximation and adopt $`\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi =\mathrm{\Omega }_0/2\pi =380\pm 7`$ Hz, found in OT99. The observed $`\nu _K`$ and $`\nu _h`$ used in OT99 for the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0/2\pi `$ according to formula (2) are presented in Table 1 which contains the data kindly provided by C. Markwardt. Then from formulas (2) and (3) we have the expression for $`\delta `$, namely

$$\delta =\mathrm{arcsin}\left[(\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }_0)(\nu _K^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2/\pi ^2)^{1/2}(\nu _L/\nu _K)\right]$$
(5)   
where $`\nu _K`$ is the observed Keplerian frequency (the second from the top kHz QPO) and $`\nu _L`$ is the alleged frequency of the low Keplerian branch. Within the first order approximation, the angle $`\delta `$ should stay the same for all $`\nu _K`$, since $`\delta `$ is effectively the angle between the equatorial plane of the disk and the plane of the magnetic equator. The first two columns of Table 2 present frequencies observed by Markwardt et al. (1999) for the source 4U 1702-42 with the corresponding date of the measurements. These two columns repeat the first two columns of the table in Markwardt et al. (1999) with the addition of data for July 30, 1997 taken from the text of the same paper. In the third column of our Table 2, we give our theoretical interpretation for the observed frequency peaks: K stands for the Keplerian frequency, L for the frequency of the lower branch of the Keplerian frequency, b for the break frequency. According to TO99, the relation between the frequency of viscous oscillations $`\nu _\mathrm{v}`$ (symbol v in our table) and frequency $`\nu _b`$ (Eq. 4) including equation (5) will serve as a tool for the identification of $`\nu _b`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{v}`$. The last column of Table 2 contains $`\nu _h`$ calculated according to formula (2) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0/2\pi =380`$ Hz and also the angle $`\delta `$ (calculated according to formula (5) for those cases when $`\nu _K`$ and $`\nu _L`$ are measured simultaneously). The resulting values of $`\delta `$ are shown in Figure 1. Indeed, the angle $`\delta `$ shows little variation with $`\nu _K`$ and as expected is rather small

$$\delta =3.9^o\pm 0.2^o$$
(6)   
With knowledge of $`\delta `$ for the source 4U 1702-42, we attempted to interpret the remaining observed frequencies in Table 2. For July 26.60-26.93, $`\nu _K`$ and $`\nu _h`$ are not present. Three frequencies 10.8, 32.5 and 80.1 Hz were observed on this day. If 32.5 Hz should be the $`\nu _L`$ then the second harmonic $`2\nu _L=65`$ Hz. But instead we have 80.1 Hz, which is significantly higher than the expected $`2\nu _L`$. On the other hand, from the classification Figure 4 presented in TO99, we know that in the vicinity of $`\nu _K=800900`$ Hz, the two frequencies $`\nu _L`$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{v}`$ may come close to one another. Thus assuming that $`\nu _\mathrm{v}=32.5`$ Hz, we find that $`\nu _b=10.8`$ Hz satisfies the theoretical relation (4) within the observational errors. We identify $`2\nu _L=80.1`$ Hz and also $`2\nu _L=85.5`$ Hz for July 21 and $`\nu _b=12`$ Hz for the same day. From formula (3) we derive $`\nu _K`$ for both cases assuming the fixed $`\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi =380`$ Hz. This identification holds best for $`\delta =4.3^o\pm 0.1^o`$ which is the angle derived for $`\nu _K=769`$ Hz and $`\nu _L=40.1`$ Hz on July 30 (see the last line of Table 2). The consistency of our identification is shown in Figure 2 where $`\nu _h`$, $`\nu _L`$, $`2\nu _L`$ and $`\nu _b`$ are plotted as functions of $`\nu _K`$ (solid lines are theoretical). Figure 2 shows that as expected $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =\nu _h\nu _K`$ decreases as $`\nu _K`$ increases. With the small number of observational points, the theoretical curves in Figure 2 are, in fact, a prediction of our model which can be viewed as a challenge for those observers who choose to extend the observational base for the source 4U 1702-42 to verify our model. It is possible that the difference between $`\delta =3.8^o`$ and observed $`\delta =4.3^o`$ is attributed to $`\mathrm{\Omega }=const`$assumption. Further measurement of $`\nu _h`$ and $`\nu _K`$ shall allow to reconstruct the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$profile and improve our predicative capability.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

Our model (OT99 and TO99) reveals the physical nature of $`35`$ Hz oscillations in the source 4U 1702-42. As a low Keplerian branch of oscillations in the rotating frame of reference, this phenomenon should have an observational invariant - namely the angle $`\delta `$. Within the first order approximation this angle can be viewed as a global parameter describing the inclination of the magnetospheric equator to the equatorial plane of the disk. Measured locally for different radial distances (therefore different $`\nu _K`$), $`\delta `$ may vary considerably unless indeed the observed oscillations correspond to the predicted low Keplerian branch. The constancy of $`\delta `$ shown in Figure 1 allows us to interpret the $`35`$ Hz oscillations as the low branch described by equation (3). Knowledge of the angle $`\delta `$ is essential for the classification of the QPO resonances and the understanding of the physical nature of this phenomenon. The parameter $`\delta `$ is critical in evaluating the differences between the spectra of different sources. For Sco X-1, oscillations with frequency $`45`$ Hz are identified as belonging to the $`\nu _L`$ branch (OT99). The higher observed frequencies of the $`\nu _L`$ for Sco X-1 are mainly a result of a larger angle $`\delta =5.5^o\pm 0.5^o`$.

We believe that the angle $`\delta `$ as a fundamental geometric parameter of the neutron star magnetosphere will be found eventually for other sources with kHz QPO. The source 4U 1702-42 is the second source for which $`\delta `$ has been inferred.

The authors are grateful to J. Fainberg and R.G. Stone for discussions and suggestions. The comments of the referee which led to an essential improvement of the paper are appreciated.