# Multiple ejections during the 1975 outburst of A0620-00

## 1 Introduction

A0620$``$00, a low-mass X-ray binary black-hole transient, was discovered in outburst almost 25 years ago. It was detected by the Sky Survey Experiment onboard Ariel V on August 3rd 1975 (Elvis et al. 1975), and subsequently at various other wavelengths (see Kuulkers 1998 for a recent review). The radio source associated with the (soft) X-ray transient was detected almost two weeks after the start of the outburst and was visible for about a fortnight (e.g. Davis et al. 1975; Owen et al. 1976). The initial model to explain the radio outburst light curve was the synchrotron ‘bubble’ model (homogeneous adiabatically expanding sphere of relativistic electrons; e.g. van der Laan 1966; Hjellming & Han 1995). However, this model often does not describe those radio transient light curves which have sufficient coverage (see e.g. Ball 1994), and the reality of relativistic ejections from X-ray binaries is in all likelihood considerably more complex.

Since we have now a bigger sample of (black-hole) radio transients, in several of which the radio emission following X-ray outburst has been clearly resolved into relativistic outflows (e.g. Mirabel & Rodriguez 1994; Tingay et al. 1995; Hjellming & Rupen 1995; Mioduszewski et al. 1998), we decided to re-investigate the radio outburst of A0620$``$00. We report here on the outburst light curves, spectral evolution, and a comparison with its X-ray outburst. We find some evidence from single-baseline interferometry for expansion of the source to an angular size of a several arcsec. We also discuss the radio observations in the framework of the radio transient sample for the black-hole X-ray transients which have similar X-ray properties to A0620$``$00 and have been reasonably well covered in the radio, i.e. GS 1124$``$68 and GS 2000+25.

## 2 Radio emission from A0620$``$00

### 2.1 Observations

We have collected all available radio observations of A0620-00 during its 1975 outburst as reported in the literature. For convenience we give these observations in chronological order in Table 1. Note that for some of the radio observations no exact times were available in the literature; these have been updated by us from private communications. The measurements by Davis et al. (1975) were used after a reassessment of errors.

In the text we will refer to time as given by JD$``$2442000.

We note that, apart from an account of the radio observations of A0620$``$00, Lequeux (1975) mentions that ‘there is a 0.33 Jy radio source following by 27 s’. At the declination of A0620-00 this implies an angular separation of $``$6.8 arcmin; as such this second, bright radio source is unlikely to be related to A0620-00. Inspection of the NRAO VLA Sky Survey archive (NVSS; Condon et al. 1998) reveals several sources at about the correct location and flux densities; Lequeux’s following source is in all likelihood then this group of relatively unvarying field objects.

### 2.2 Light curves and spectral evolution

In Fig. 1 we present the radio outburst light curves of A0620$``$00 at frequencies of 962 MHz, 1400–1420 MHz and at 2380/2695 MHz. This is an update of figure 2 of Hjellming et al. (1988; see also Hjellming & Han 1995). Together with the data points we also show synchrotron bubble model light curves as given by them at the various frequencies<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1An error is present in the equation (2) of Hjellming et al. (1988); however, the model light curve plots are good. For the correct equation we refer to e.g. Hjellming & Johnston (1988) and Ball et al. (1995). Note also that the frequencies labeling the model light curves in Hjellming et al. (1988) are wrong; they should read from top to bottom: 2.7 GHz, 1.4 GHz and 0.96 GHz..

The light curves show that the decline is not a smooth power-law or exponential decay. It seems that there are various local maxima. Especially the ‘newly’ added measurement at 2380 MHz near day 640 obtained by Craft (1975) is far from that expected. It is substantially lower than Owen et al.’s (1976) measurement near day 641 at 2695 MHz. This cannot be due to the slight difference in frequency. So, a maximum was reached in the 2380/2695 MHz band near Owen et al.’s (1976) measurement (whether this is the main peak of the radio outburst or an intermediate maximum we cannot say). This is the first time that it has been shown that there are multiple maxima in the A0620$``$00 radio light curves.

We also plotted the radio spectral evolution as a function of time (Fig. 2). The spectra are drawn from data which were obtained within a time span of maximum 0.36 days. At first, around day 640 the data are consistent with optically thin synchrotron emission, at least between 1.4–2.6 GHz, with a spectral index ($`\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}S_\nu /\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}\nu `$) around $``$1. By the following day, i.e. day 641, the radio spectrum has inverted. Over the following three days, up until day 644, the spectrum slowly reverts towards an optically thin state. On day 645 another inversion of the spectrum occurs. Possibly a third spectral inversion also occurs on day 648. We have indicated the times of the spectral inversions at the top of Fig. 1 as T2, T3, and T4?, respectively. T1 corresponds to the start of the radio outburst which is not exactly known.

Such spectral changes, corresponding to local maxima in the light curve which peak first at higher frequencies, are indicative of repeated superposition of flares which are initially optically thick. This effect is well observed in a sequence of five major radio flares from Cyg X-3 in 1994 (Fender et al. 1997). Given that much evidence points to the ejection of bright radio-emitting clumps from Cyg X-3 which correspond to these flares (e.g. Geldzahler et al. 1983; Mioduszewski et al. 1998), it seems natural to infer that the secondary maxima and associated spectral changes that we see in the radio light curve of A0620$``$00 correspond to multiple ejections of synchrotron-emitting components from the source.

### 2.3 Single baseline interferometry

Based on the suggestion that A0620$``$00 might exhibit jet ejections we decided to re-examine the radio observations by Davis et al. (1975). These observations were done with the MkII-MkIII interferometer (baseline 24 km) at Jodrell Bank at 962 MHz, where the resolution is 2.5 arcsec. At that time no significant variation with hour angle was detected during the observations. The original raw data were recorded on paper tape, now lost, but luckily various hand drawn plots were found. A reassesment of the errors by us show, however, that the measured fringe visibility varied systematically with hour angle on 23rd August over 0800–1200 (UT), i.e. day 647.8–648.0, in a way which suggested the presence of a slightly extended source. The locus of interferometer baseline with hour angle forms part of an ellipse in the resolution plane. The visibility curve (Fig. 3), though only sampled by taking 1 hour long integrations, was similar to that of SS433, also measured by a single baseline interferometer (Spencer 1979). The maximum amplitude occured at an hour angle which corresponds to a position angle of 45$`\pm `$15 degrees of a slightly extended source. The angular size of a source with simple structure can be found by projecting the observed fringe amplitude onto a line through the origin of the resolution plane at the position angle of the source. The figure shows the visibility along this projected baseline which falls on both sides of the origin. This simple method of model fitting relies on the source being unresolved in a direction perpendicular to the extension, which since the source is only slightly resolved anyway, is a reasonable assumption. We found that A0620$``$00 was extended by 3–4 arcsec by fitting a double source or gaussian to the visibility curve. We note that if the source was a point then there would not be any significant variation of amplitude with baseline length. The effective field of view of such an interferometer is only a few times the resolution and so the effects seen cannot be caused by confusion. Further inspection of the NVSS does not reveal any obvious radio sources within 5 arcmin which may have been responsible for this apparent extension.

This observation was done on a date $``$20 days after the start of the X-ray outburst. If we assume that the extended source is a result from the primary jet ejection and that this originated at the start of the X-ray outburst, the data imply an apparent expansion velocity of the jet of $``$0.9–1.2 c, assuming a distance of 1050 pc (Shahbaz, Naylor & Charles 1994). The apparent jet velocity, however, is $``$0.45–0.6 c, if there was two-sided ejection in a pair of jets. Association of the extended structure with later ejections we infer to have occurred (Section 2.2) only increases this velocity.

## 3 A comparison with similar X-ray transients

### 3.1 X-ray and radio light curves

In Fig. 4 we show the X-ray light curves and radio light curves of A0620$``$00 and two other black-hole X-ray transients with similar X-ray light curves (see e.g. Chen et al. 1997), i.e. GS 1124$``$68 and GS 2000+25. For the radio we show the data at two frequencies in order to get the longest and best coverage. We have also indicated the simple single synchrotron bubble model light curves as derived by Hjellming et al. (1988) and Ball et al. (1995).

As noted before (see Kuulkers 1998, and references therein), the X-ray light curve of A0620$``$00 shows an enhancement for a brief time just after the outburst peak. In the hard X-rays (6–15 keV) this X-ray flare might be even more pronounced (see Kuulkers 1998). Interestingly, the Ginga hard X-ray (9.3–37 keV) light curve of GS 1124$``$68 shows such a pronounced reflare just after the peak of the X-ray outburst (Ebisawa et al. 1994; see also Takizawa et al. 1997 and Fig. 6). A similar conclusion was drawn by Brandt et al. (1992) using Watch data. Note that GRS 1009$``$45 displays a similar hard X-ray feature (see Kuulkers 1998). We suggest that this (hard) X-ray reflare is similar to the one seen in A0620$``$00.

So, although the X-ray light curves are very similar in the three cases, the radio light curves differ considerably. In particular, while we have shown that there is evidence for multiple small ejections comprising the A0620-00 light curve, it shows nothing like the major secondary radio flare observed from GS 1124-68 (see also below). The radio light curve of GS 2000+25 can not really be compared quantitatively with those of A0620$``$00 and GS 1124$``$68 since the parts of the X-ray outbursts covered are different. However, it is interesting to note that GS 2000+25 could have experienced radio outbursts like GS 1124$``$68, since the covered parts of the X-ray outbursts complement each other. Similarly, if GS 1124$``$68 had been covered longer it might have shown a similar decay as GS 2000+25.

Fig. 4 shows that it is difficult to compare observed radio light curves in order to infer similar characteristics, especially if the coverage is different. This applies even more when modeling such light curves. Also, the start of the radio outbursts can not be determined, since the very first rise has not been covered. The radio data are all consistent with the start of the outburst being around the time of the start of the X-ray outburst. Although modeling the radio light curves with a synchrotron bubble model gives a start which lags the X-rays by about ten days, it has been shown that such models do not describe the data very well (see above).

The similar X-ray but dissimilar radio light curves for the three X-ray transients are a strong indication that the radio emission for all these sources arises in relativistic outflows. In this case the X-ray emission is more or less isotropic and similar behaviour is observed regardless of the inclination of the binary. On the other hand, the radio emission, if it arises in relativistic outflows, will be strongly beamed, with both brightness and morphology of light curve affected by the angle to the line of sight. Our inferred jet velocities in the case of A0620$``$00 point to relativistic outflows.

Fig. 5 shows simulated light curves for intrinsically identical radio ejections viewed at differing angles to the line of sight. The model is not meant to be a fit to the data but merely an indication of the angle-dependence of the observed radio light curves. We assume a major ejection at time $`t=0`$ followed by a secondary ejection of half the initial amplitude, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=4000`$ later. The light curves are superpositions of emission from approaching and receding components from a symmetric ejection with a bulk velocity of 0.9 c. Velocities of this order have been inferred from observations of apparent superluminal motions from GRS 1915+105 (Mirabel & Rodriguez 1994; Fender et al. 1999) and GRO J1655$``$40 (Tingay et al. 1995; Hjellming & Rupen 1995). The individual ejections are modeled as simple synchrotron bubbles using the formulation of Hjellming & Johnston (1988) in their rest frame. We show the results for ejections at angles of 40, 60 and 75 degrees to the line of sight (i.e. equally distributed in $`\mathrm{cos}i`$). For an angle of 40 degrees to the line of sight the emission is dominated by the emission from the two approaching components and twin peaks are seen relatively close together in time. As the angle increases the radio outburst is weaker, broader and smoother.

It is clear from these model light curves that if, as seems likely, the radio emission from most, if not all, X-ray transients arises in relativistic, collimated outflows, then we can expect a variety of radio light curves depending on the angle the outflow makes to the line of sight. In general, broad, weak radio light curves will indicate an outflow near to the plane of the sky suffering Doppler de-boosting, as a result of the radiation being beamed away from the line of sight. Sharper, brighter radio light curves will indicate an outflow closer to the line of sight. In addition, Fig. 5 shows that, for a given radio sensitivity limit we might expect jets nearer to the plane of the sky to appear to rise later and last (slightly) longer than those inclined nearer the line of sight.

Although our model light curves seem to match those observed at face value, we note that the determined inclination of the three sources from optical/IR observations (e.g. Charles 1998) does not fully match from what we would infer from the radio light curves. Ellipsoidal light curve modeling of the orbital light curves indicate that GS 1124$``$68 has a larger inclination ($``$54 degrees) than A0620$``$00 ($``$37 degrees), whereas the radio light curve is more peaked in the case of GS 1124$``$68 and thus one would infer a smaller inclination than compared to A0620$``$00. Although we recognize this problem we note that other factors may complicate the light curves, such as the time between two ejections and their relative strength and their speed. At least we have shown that qualitatively radio light curves change as a function of inclination when jets move near the speed of light, which may explain the observed radio behaviour.

### 3.2 A closer look at GS 1124$``$68

Brandt et al. (1992) concluded that the hard X-ray peaks in the outburst light curve of GS 1124$``$68 were $``$13 days apart, i.e. very similar to the time span between the first radio measurement and the peak of the radio reflare. However, according to Brandt et al. (1992) the radio was delayed by $``$7 days with respect to the X-rays. In Fig. 5 we plot the Ginga hard X-ray (9.3–37 keV) light curve and the radio light curve near the start of the outburst. Indeed the correlation between the X-rays and radio is striking, but a detailed look reveals that a $``$7 day delay does not fit both light curves. We conclude that the first rapid decline in the radio follows the rapid decline in the hard X-rays by about $``$3 days, whereas the peak of the second radio flare is $``$10 days after the second hard X-ray flare. Such radio delays with respect to hard X-rays are not uncommon in X-ray transients; an example is GRO J1655$``$40 which has shown similar hard X-ray and radio light curves near the beginning of its outburst (e.g. Harmon et al. 1995).

## 4 conclusions

We have shown that the radio outburst of A0620$``$00 in 1975 is consistent with multiple ejection events, with the jets most probably moving at near the speed of light, as has been inferred for GRO J1655$``$40 and GRS 1915+105. This strengthens the suggestion (e.g. Hjellming & Rupen 1995) that most, maybe all, (soft) X-ray transients undergo radio outbursts at the time of their X-ray and optical outbursts, and that they generally consist of multiple ejections, presumably of a significant fraction of the accretion disc.

We note that recently it has been reported that sources showing similar X-ray (spectral) behaviour as A0620$``$00 (e.g. GS 1124$``$68 and GS 2000+25) do not contain a rapidly spinning black hole and it has been suggested that such systems can not form relativistic jets (Zhang, Cui & Chen 1997; see also Cui, Zhang & Chen 1998). Our single baseline interferometry suggests, however, relativistic jet speeds in the case of A0620$``$00, which is in contradiction with their suggestion. Determining whether black-holes spin or not from fairly simplistic X-ray modelling may therefore be rather uncertain.

By comparing (soft) X-ray transients with similar X-ray behaviour we find that the radio emission displays different light-curve shapes and strengths. This strongly supports isotropic X-ray emission, whereas the radio emission is beamed (i.e. in the form of jets). A first qualitative modeling of such a geometry seems to match the observed variety of radio light curves, and seems to strengthen the hypothesis that the jets are moving at considerable speed.

## acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the use of the processed SAS-3 data of A0620$``$00 from Kenneth Plaks, Jonathan Woo and George Clark. We thank Lewis Ball for providing the radio measurements of GS 1124$``$68, Wan Chen for the Ariel V ASM data and part of the Ariel V SSE data of A0620$``$00, Ken Ebisawa for the Ginga LAC measurements of GS 1124$``$68 and Shunji Kitamoto for the Ginga ASM measurements of GS 1124$``$68 and part of GS 2000+25.