# Multiwavelength Observations of GX 339–4 in 1996. I. Daily Light Curves and X-ray and Gamma-Ray Spectroscopy

## 1 Introduction and Overview

Most Galactic black hole candidates exhibit at least two distinct spectral states (see Liang & Narayan 1997, Liang 1998, Poutanen 1998 for reviews). In the hard state (= soft X-ray low state) the spectrum from $``$ keV to a few hundred keV is a hard power law (photon index $`1.5\pm 0.5`$) with an exponential cutoff. This can be interpreted as inverse Comptonization of soft photons. In the soft state (often, but not always, accompanied by the soft X-ray high state), the spectrum above $`10`$ keV is a steep power law (photon index $`>2.2`$) with no detectable cutoff out to $``$ MeV. This multi-state behavior is seen in both persistent sources (e.g. Cygnus X-1) and transient black hole X-ray novae (e.g. GRS 1009–45). GX 339–4 is unusual in that it is a persistent source, being detected by X-ray telescopes most of the time, but it also has nova-like flaring states.

In 1996, we performed a series of multiwavelength observations of GX 339–4 when it was in a hard state (= soft X-ray low state). This paper is one of a series that describes the results of that campaign. In Paper II (Smith & Liang (1999)) we discuss the rapid X-ray timing variability in an observation made by the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) 1996 July 26 UT. In Paper III (Smith, Filippenko, & Leonard (1999)) we discuss our Keck spectroscopy performed on 1996 May 12 UT. These papers expand significantly on our preliminary analyses (Smith et al. 1997a ; Smith et al. 1997b ).

We start this paper by presenting in §2 the radio spectra from 1996 July taken when there was a possible radio jet (Fender et al. (1997)). We show that the radio spectrum is flat and significantly variable, and that the spectral shape and amplitude were not unusual for the source at that time.

In §3 we discuss the observing and data analysis details for our pointed observation 1996 July 9-23 using the Oriented Scintillation Spectrometer Experiment (OSSE) on the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO).

In §4 we show the daily X-ray and gamma-ray light curves from 1996 July. In addition to our OSSE results, we show the data obtained by the All Sky Monitor (ASM) on RXTE and by the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) on CGRO using the Earth occultation technique. The soft X-ray flux during our observations was very low, and the spectrum was very hard. However, unlike at the time of our Keck observation on 1996 May 12, the source was significantly detected during most of the month. Most importantly, there was no significant change in the higher energy emission during the time the radio jet-like feature was seen.

In §5, we present the OSSE spectrum and fit it with simple power law times exponential (PLE) and Sunyaev-Titarchuk (ST; Sunyaev & Titarchuk (1980)) functions. They both give equally good fits to the OSSE data alone.

In §6, we discuss the observing and data analysis details for the 1996 July 26 RXTE observation.

In §7, we present the X-ray spectroscopy from the RXTE observation. Both a PLE and a ST model can explain the RXTE data alone. An additional soft component is required, as well as a broad emission feature centered on $`6.4`$ keV. This may be an iron line that is broadened by orbital Doppler motions and/or scattering off a hot medium. Its equivalent width is $`600`$ eV.

Combining the RXTE and CGRO spectra, we show in §8 that the PLE model easily fits the joint spectrum, but that the ST model does not. In Böttcher, Liang, & Smith (1998) we use the GX 339–4 spectral data to test our detailed self-consistent accretion disk corona models.

## 2 Radio Observations

The radio counterpart to GX 339–4 was discovered in 1994 by the Molonglo Radio Observatory, Australia (MOST) at 843 MHz (Sood & Campbell-Wilson (1994)). Monitoring over the following years has found that the radio emission is variable, with a flux density $`10`$ mJy (Sood et al. (1997); Corbel et al. (1997); Hannikainen et al. (1998)).

High resolution 3.5 cm radio observations with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) detected a possible jet-like feature 1996 July 11–13 (MJD 50275–7; Fender et al. (1997)). An ATCA observation 1997 Feb 3 may have a small extension in the direction opposite this jet, but no strongly significant confirmation of the jets has been found (Corbel et al. (1997)).

Figure 1 shows the daily radio spectra in 1996 July. All the data points are from ATCA, except the one at 843 MHz from MOST (Hannikainen et al. (1998)). The ATCA observations are the ones made at the time that the possible jet-like feature was detected: see Fender et al. (1997) for the observing details.

The radio spectrum is approximately flat, and shows a significant variability. The spectral shape and amplitude were not anomalous for this source during the time of the possible radio jet.

The radio emission suggests the continual presence of an outflow in this state. The approximately flat spectrum is not consistent with optically thin emission (unless the electron distribution is exceptionally hard) and is indicative of some absorption in the radio-emitting regions. One possible geometry would be a conical jet such as discussed in Hjellming & Johnston (1988).

## 3 OSSE Observations and Reductions

OSSE observed GX 339–4 as a ToO during an outburst for 1 week beginning 1991 September 5. The OSSE flux was $`300`$ mCrab between 50 and 400 keV (Grabelsky et al. (1995)). A second 1 week observation was carried out beginning 1991 November 7, when the source was $`40`$ times weaker (Grabelsky et al. (1995)). Our observation was made 1996 July 9-23 (MJD 50273–287). The flux is a factor of $`2`$ lower than that found in the (brighter) 1991 September observation.

The OSSE instrument consists of four separate, nearly identical NaI-CsI phoswich detectors with a field of view $`3.8\times 11.4`$ degrees FWHM (see Johnson et al. (1993) and Grabelsky et al. (1995) for instrumental details and observing techniques). Our observations consist of a series of alternating on- and off-source pointings with 2.048 minutes spent on each pointing. The on-source pointings (at $`l=339.0\mathrm{°}`$, $`b=3.7\mathrm{°}`$) were centered close to GX 339–4 ($`l=338.9\mathrm{°}`$, $`b=4.3\mathrm{°}`$), with the long dimension of the collimator oriented perpendicular to the Galactic plane. The total on-source observing time (per detector) was $`1.59\times 10^5`$ seconds. The off-source pointings were located along the galactic plane at $`\pm 12\mathrm{°}`$ from the on-source pointing (they were centered at $`l=351.0\mathrm{°}`$, $`b=3.2\mathrm{°}`$ and $`l=327.0\mathrm{°}`$, $`b=4.1\mathrm{°}`$). Both backgrounds gave the same results, indicating there were no bright sources in either one.

Version 7.4 of the IGORE OSSE data analysis package was used to subtract the background and to generate the daily light curves and spectra in the standard way (Johnson et al. (1993)). To perform joint fits with the RXTE spectrum, we used IGORE to generate a spectrum and response matrix that could be read by XSPEC.

Grabelsky et al. (1995) estimated the contribution from the diffuse component from the Galactic plane. They found that this is a negligible effect when the source is bright, as in our observation. The spectrum of the diffuse component also has a similar shape to that of GX 339–4. We have therefore not subtracted an estimate for the diffuse component.

We checked all of our results for the individual detectors separately, and found no discrepancies. We have therefore combined all four detectors in all the results presented here.

## 4 Daily Light Curves

Figure 2 shows the daily light curves for our OSSE data in the 50–70 and 70–270 keV bands, as well as the hardness ratio of these two bands. These are combined with the data from the RXTE ASM and BATSE Earth occultation. The BATSE light curve assumes an optically thin thermal bremsstrahlung (OTTB) model with a fixed $`kT=60`$ keV (Rubin et al. (1998)).

The soft X-ray flux in 1996 July was low, and the spectrum was very hard. However, unlike at the time of our Keck observation on 1996 May 12, the source was significantly detected during most of the month. During the month, the fluxes at all energies were generally rising. Figure 1 of Smith et al. (1997a) and Figure 1 of Rubin et al. (1998) show that the X-ray and gamma-ray fluxes peaked on $``$ TJD 50290.

A constant does not fit the OSSE 50–70 keV light curve. The reduced $`\chi _\nu ^2`$= 3.86 for $`\nu =14`$ degrees of freedom: the probability that a random set of data points would give a value of $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ as large or larger than this is $`Q=1.3\times 10^6`$. Similarly, a constant does not fit the OSSE 70–270 keV light curve with $`\chi _\nu ^2`$= 2.88, $`\nu =14`$, $`Q=2.2\times 10^4`$. For both bands, the linear relationships shown in Figure 2 give good fits ($`Q=0.35,0.44`$ respectively).

While there is an indication from the OSSE (70–270 keV)/(50–70 keV) hardness ratio that the spectrum may be softening during the two week observation, this is not statistically significant. A constant fit to the hardness ratio gives acceptable results, $`\chi _\nu ^2`$= 1.11, $`\nu =14`$, $`Q=0.34`$. This fact and the linear rise in the flux are important in §8, when we combine the non-simultaneous RXTE and OSSE spectra.

Most importantly, there was no significant change in the higher energy emission during the time the possible radio jet-like feature was seen. One might have expected that the physics behind the jet formation could have led to a significant change in the higher energy emission. But since the radio flux was not unusually bright during this time, it is possible that the energy release in this case was relatively small. Further multiwavelength observations during radio jet or radio flaring events will be very important to understanding whether the synchrotron emitting electrons are involved in the Compton scattering that produces the hard X-rays. In other black hole candidates, violent changes in the high energy emission may or may not be associated with large radio flares, e.g. GRO J1655–40 (Harmon et al. (1995); Tavani et al. (1996)).

## 5 OSSE Spectra

The OSSE spectrum was extracted by averaging over the whole two week observation. Since the hardness ratio did not change significantly over this time, this gives a reliable measure of the spectral shape during these two weeks, though Figure 2 shows that the normalization on any given day will be different from the average presented here.

The OSSE spectrum was fit over the 0.05–10 MeV energy range using a forward folding technique. Concerns about the OSSE instrumental response and the precision of the cross calibration of the detectors (Grabelsky et al. (1995)) are mitigated by looking at the results for the individual detectors separately. We found that the results were consistent in all four detectors, and thus we present the results for the four detectors combined.

Throughout this paper we will only consider simple phenomenological models for the spectral fitting: see Böttcher, Liang, & Smith (1998) for detailed self-consistent accretion disk corona model fits to all the GX 339–4 data. In the OSSE range, the spectrum has a power law shape with a cut-off. We found that it is only necessary to use one model component to explain the OSSE spectrum, and we consider two simple functional forms:

1) Power law times exponential (PLE). In this model, the flux has the form $`F(E)E^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(E/kT)`$. An optically thin Compton spectrum can be roughly described using this model (Haardt et al. (1993)).

(2) Sunyaev-Titarchuk function (ST; Sunyaev & Titarchuk (1980)). In this thermal Comptonization model with a spherical geometry, for energies below $`kT`$ of the scattering medium, the spectrum is a power law with photon index $`\alpha =(1/2)+[(9/4)+\gamma ]^{1/2}`$, where $`\gamma =\pi ^2mc^2/3kT(\tau +2/3)^2`$, and $`\tau `$ is the optical depth.

Figure 3 shows the best PLE and ST model fits to the OSSE data. Both functional forms give equally good fits to the OSSE data alone. See §8 for the effect of doing joint fits with the RXTE spectrum.

The best fit PLE model has $`\alpha =1.15\pm 0.07`$, $`kT=97\pm 6`$ keV, and flux $`0.094\pm 0.001\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1`$ at 100 keV. (The errors are $`1\sigma `$). This has $`\chi _\nu ^2`$= 1.01, $`Q=0.37`$. The flux normalization at 100 keV is a factor of 2.0 lower than that found by Grabelsky et al. (1995) in the 1991 September observation, while our power law index is slightly steeper (theirs was $`0.88\pm 0.05`$), and our $`kT`$ is higher (they had $`68\pm 2`$).

The best fit ST model has $`\tau =2.5\pm 0.1`$, $`kT=47\pm 1`$ keV, and flux $`0.093\pm 0.001\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{MeV}^1`$ at 100 keV. This has $`\chi _\nu ^2`$= 1.00, $`Q=0.45`$. The flux normalization at 100 keV is a factor of 2.0 lower than that found by Grabelsky et al. (1995) in the 1991 September observation, while our $`\tau `$ is smaller (theirs was $`3.0\pm 0.1`$), and our $`kT`$ is higher (they had $`37\pm 1`$). However, the value we derive for $`\alpha =1.9`$ is the same as theirs.

Grabelsky et al. (1995) noted that their ST fit was marginal at best. They found that the model dropped off much more rapidly than the data at higher energies. As we have shown, this disagrees with our results where we get good fits to the OSSE data alone. However, in §8 we will show that this is no longer the case when the OSSE data is combined with the RXTE spectrum.

## 6 RXTE Observations and Reductions

The RXTE pointed observation was made as a Target of Opportunity on 1996 July 26 (MJD 50290), just after the OSSE run ended. We generated the RXTE spectrum using two of its instruments, the Proportional Counter Array (PCA), and the High Energy X-ray Timing Experiment (HEXTE).

The PCA consists of five Xe proportional counters with a total effective area of about 6500 cm<sup>2</sup> (Jahoda et al. (1996)). These cover a scientifically validated energy range of 2 – 60 keV with an energy resolution $`<18`$% at 6 keV.

The HEXTE consists of two independent clusters each containing four phoswich scintillation detectors (Rothschild et al. (1998)). These have a total effective area of about 1600 cm<sup>2</sup>, and cover an energy range of 15 – 250 keV with an energy resolution of 15% at 60 keV. Each cluster can “rock” (beam switch) along mutually orthogonal directions to provide background measurements. In our observation, the background offset was $`1.5\mathrm{°}`$ with a switching time of 16 seconds.

Both instruments have a $`1\mathrm{°}`$ field of view. No other X-ray sources were in the GX 339–4 field of view, or in the HEXTE background regions. For both instruments, the background dominates at higher energies. For GX 339–4 this is at $`70`$ keV for the PCA and $`130`$ keV for HEXTE. The PCA does not make separate background measurements. Instead we used version 1.5 of the background estimator program. The HEXTE background was determined from the off source pointings in both chopping directions. For both instruments, we found that beyond the energies where the background dominated, the model (PCA) and observed (HEXTE) background measurements were the same as what was observed in the on-source observation. This gives us confidence that the background measurements are valid. The backgrounds have been subtracted from all the spectra shown here.

For both instruments, data were only used when the spacecraft was not passing through the South Atlantic Anomaly and when the source was observed at elevations $`>10\mathrm{°}`$ above the Earth’s limb and the pointing was offset $`<0.02\mathrm{°}`$ from the source. The observation was short, with good data starting 18:20:32.625 and ending 20:14:48.497 UT. Because of the above constraints, valid data was only available in four segments: see Smith & Liang (1999) for the light curve. We combined all this data to make one spectrum, although it should be cautioned that the source was extremely variable during this observation (Smith & Liang (1999)). For the PCA, the total on-source exposure time was 3424 sec. After correcting for dead time, this gave an effective exposure of 3337 sec. The dead time correction was more important for the HEXTE data, where the time taken to rock also has to be accounted for in the background exposures. For HEXTE, the adjusted on-source exposure time was 1085 sec for cluster A, and 1070 sec for cluster B.

For the PCA, we used the Standard 2 production data set to generate the spectrum with 129 spectral channels. We used the RXTE tasks in FTOOLS version 4.0 to extract the data. We performed the extraction twice, once using all five Proportional Counter Units (PCU), and once using just the top PCU layer. The top layer is responsible for $`80`$% of the detected counts, so has the best S/N. Using all the layers gives a higher count rate, and thus a better sensitivity at higher energies, but with a lower S/N. The background contributes $`13`$% of the on-source count rate when using all the layers, and $`8`$% using just the top layer. We found that the spectral results made little difference which of these two methods was used, and we chose to retain both of them for our fitting. For both cases, we used version 2.1.2 of the PCA response matrices. We ignored the PCA data below 2 keV that are not scientifically valid. We also ignored the PCA data above 60 keV, well below where the background dominated: we found that making this upper limit to the energy range smaller had no effect on the spectral fitting. We simply dropped the data around 4.78 keV where there is a problem with the response matrix due to the xenon L edge.

For the HEXTE, we used the E\_8us\_256\_DX1F event list data. These record each individual event with $`8\mu `$sec timing and 256 energy channel resolution. As with the PCA, the RXTE tasks in FTOOLS version 4.0 were used to extract the two HEXTE spectra, one for each cluster. For both clusters, we used the 1997 March 20 versions of the HEXTE response matrices. We ignored the HEXTE data above 120 keV, well below where the background dominated. We found that changing this upper limit to the energy range had no effect on the spectral fitting. Given the short exposure time, the HEXTE error bars are large, and the spectra do not extend far enough beyond the break energy to be constraining. We also ignored the HEXTE data below 20 keV. Again, this choice of energy cut-off had no effect on the fitting results.

We used the two PCA and two HEXTE spectra jointly in our spectral fitting. This was performed using XSPEC version 10.0. The relative overall normalization of the PCA and HEXTE spectra was left as a free parameter in the fitting, while all the other model parameters were the same for both instruments. We found that the relative normalization was $`0.71\pm 0.01`$ in all of the results presented here. We did not find it necessary to include separate overall normalizations between the two PCA spectra or between the two HEXTE spectra. The fitting was performed using the complete spectral resolution of both instruments, though the data have been rebinned in the figures so that each bin is at least $`5\sigma `$.

## 7 RXTE Spectra

As in §5, in this paper we only consider two simplistic phenomenological models for the higher energy emission. A detailed fitting of this data using a more self-consistent model is presented elsewhere (Böttcher, Liang, & Smith (1998)).

### 7.1 Power Law Times Exponential Fit

A PLE model fits the RXTE data (alone) above 15 keV. The cut-off energy is very poorly determined by the RXTE data because the HEXTE error bars are large in this short observation, and the RXTE data does not sample far beyond the cut-off energy. We therefore chose to fix $`kT=96.9`$ keV at the value found for the best OSSE fit.

Figure 4 shows the results of fitting the PLE model to the data above 15 keV. This uses $`\alpha =1.26\pm 0.01`$, and flux $`0.130\pm 0.005\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{keV}^1`$ at 1 keV. (The errors are 90% confidence regions for varying one parameter). This has $`\chi _\nu ^2`$= 0.93, $`Q=0.79`$ (for fitting above 15 keV).

It is apparent from Figure 4 that two extra components are required to fit the spectrum at lower energies:

(1) A soft component that peaks at $`2.5`$ keV. Such a soft component has been seen in previous GX 339–4 observations, eg. by Tenma (Makishima et al. (1986)), EXOSAT (Ilovaisky et al. (1986); Méndez & Van der Klis (1997)), and Ginga (Miyamoto et al. (1991); Ueda et al. (1994)). It is present in all states, and dominates during the soft state.

(2) A broad emission centered on $`6.4`$ keV. A similar feature was seen in Ginga observations of GX 339–4 in the low (=hard) state, and was modeled using a reflection model (Ueda et al. (1994)). Using a broad iron line improved the fits in the EXOSAT observations of GX 339–4 made in the high (=soft) state (Ilovaisky et al. (1986)). A broad line was seen in RXTE-ASCA observations of Cygnus X-1 in the soft (=high) state (Cui et al. (1998)). A very similar effect was seen in RXTE observations of Cygnus X-1 in the low (=hard) state by Dove et al. (1998), though they chose to force the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line to be narrow (with a line width of 100 eV giving an equivalent width of 60 eV) which resulted in obvious residuals. RXTE observations of the Seyfert galaxy MCG –5-23-16 also found this feature, confirming previous ASCA observations (Weaver, Krolik, & Pier (1998)): they interpreted it as being a broad iron line.

As we show in the next sub-section, the exact form of the soft components is poorly determined by the RXTE data. Although we showed a data point below 2 keV in Figure 4, the PCA response matrix is currently not reliable below 2 keV, and this data point was dropped from our fitting. We therefore do not get a good measurement of the roll-over, and hence cannot determine $`N_H`$ reliably. Thus for all our spectra it has been fixed at $`N_H=5\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, as was found in the EXOSAT observations that more reliably measured the lower energy spectrum (Ilovaisky et al. (1986); Méndez & Van der Klis (1997)).

An extra broad emission feature around $`6.4`$ keV is always required to get a good fit. Here we assume it is an iron line feature, that may have been broadened by orbital Doppler motions and/or scattering off a hot medium. Detailed Compton scattering line profiles have been generated using our Monte Carlo codes and are presented elsewhere (Böttcher, Liang, & Smith (1998)). Here we simply use a broad Gaussian and an iron edge. We caution that it is possible that the broad RXTE feature seen in the sources listed above is due to a currently unidentified systematic flaw in the PCA response matrices, although the observations of MCG –5-23-16 make this unlikely.

Unlike for the Ginga–OSSE observation of GX 339–4 in 1991 (Zdziarski et al. (1998)) our simplistic continuum fitting of the 1996 data does not require a significant reflection component. Dove et al. (1998) found that no reflection component was needed to explain their RXTE observations of Cygnus X-1. They noted that the broad spectral range covered by RXTE is an important improvement over previous observations for accurately modeling the continuum. However, we caution that we are only using simple phenomenological models in this paper; for a more self-consistent modeling of this data, see Böttcher et al. (1998), which also concludes that there is no need for a strong reflection component because most of the incident flux from the corona goes into heating of the disk surface layer and is not reflected.

Figure 5 shows an example of a complete fit to the RXTE data where we have used a simple power law for the soft component. The PLE component has $`\alpha =1.22\pm 0.01`$, consistent with the OSSE best fit value. The iron emission line is very broad. Its equivalent width (EW) is 640 eV.

### 7.2 Sunyaev-Titarchuk Function Fit

A ST model can also be used to give a good fit to the RXTE data alone. (In the next section we show that the ST model does not give a good fit to the combined RXTE-OSSE data.)

Figures 6–8 show three sample fits. We show three different models for the soft component (power law, black body, and thermal bremsstrahlung) to illustrate how this affects the relative contributions of the soft components. In all cases, a broad iron emission line is required. Its EW = 475, 700, and 570 eV in Figures 6–8 respectively. Note that in the unfolded spectra shown, we have not normalized the PCA and HEXTE spectra: this is discussed in the next section.

It is important to note that the spectra are very hard. The ST component dominates the entire RXTE spectrum, even down to 2 keV. (The PLE and soft power law components cross at 4 keV in Figure 5.) This is particularly important in our variability study using this data (Smith & Liang (1999)) where we divide the PCA data into three bands 2–5, 5–10, and 10–40 keV to try to highlight the separate components. There we show that it is the soft 2–5 keV band that is the most variable.

## 8 Joint RXTE-OSSE Spectra

We now combine the RXTE and OSSE data to generate the joint spectrum. The results presented in this section should be treated with care, because the two data sets are not quite simultaneous. The fact that the OSSE hardness ratio did not change significantly over our two week observation makes it reasonable to assume that the average gamma-ray spectral shape was the same at the time of the RXTE observation, but this remains an assumption.

In our rapid variability study of this RXTE data we show that the hardness ratios do not change dramatically with time or brightness (Smith & Liang (1999)). Thus while the source is extremely variable, with the 2–5 keV band showing the greatest variability, the average spectra are representative of the spectral shape throughout the RXTE observation. However, it should be remembered that the spectrum presented here is a representative average, and the actual spectrum at any given instant will have an overall normalization that can differ by a factor $`3`$.

### 8.1 Power Law Times Exponential Fit

The PLE best fits to the separate OSSE (Figure 3(a)) and RXTE (Figure 5) data used the same $`kT=96.9`$ keV and had consistent values of $`\alpha `$. We therefore will get a good joint RXTE–OSSE fit provided the relative normalizations between the different instruments can be matched. This depends on the absolute calibrations of the OSSE, PCA, and HEXTE instruments. We could simply shift the unfolded OSSE, PCA, and HEXTE spectra arbitrarily to make them match. But instead we have used the RXTE ASM and BATSE data to try to be more rigorous.

The uncorrected PCA data gives a 2–10 keV flux of 77 mCrab. However, the ASM gave a 2–10 keV flux of only 60 mCrab for this day. This suggests that the unfolded PCA spectrum needs to be normalized by $`\times 0.78`$ to get the correct value.

The uncorrected HEXTE data gives a 20–100 keV flux of $`3.6\times 10^2\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. This is close to the BATSE measured flux of $`4.0\times 10^2\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. This suggests that the unfolded HEXTE spectrum needs to be normalized by $`\times 1.1`$ to get the correct value.

We therefore infer that the relative normalization of the HEXTE and PCA spectra should be 0.71, which is exactly what was found independently in the joint fitting.

Based on the 50–70 keV OSSE daily light curve in Figure 2, we would expect to have to multiply our average OSSE spectrum by a factor of $`(110/94)=1.17`$ to get the correct normalization on 1996 July 26. This agrees with doing a joint RXTE-OSSE fit in XSPEC, where we get a relative normalization between OSSE and the PCA of 1.5 (which is 1.17/0.78).

Figure 9 shows the effect of shifting the unfolded spectra from Figures 3(a) and 5 by these amounts. As expected, the data sets join smoothly. The model curve is the same as in Figure 5, but with an overall normalizing factor of $`\times 0.78`$ that from before (the RXTE fits assumed the PCA was perfectly calibrated).

Figure 9 highlights that it is extremely important that future observations of GX 339–4 should make simultaneous X-ray and gamma-ray observations to accurately measure the spectrum both above and below the cut-off energy.

### 8.2 Sunyaev-Titarchuk Function Fit

The ST best fits to the separate OSSE (Figure 3(b)) and RXTE (Figures 6–8) data do not give consistent ST fit parameters. We therefore do not expect to get a good joint RXTE–OSSE fit.

Figure 10 shows the results of adding the OSSE data to Figure 6. We have fixed all the model parameters to those given in Figure 6, except for the relative normalization of the OSSE and RXTE instruments. It is clear that the model fit to the RXTE data does not explain the shape of the joint RXTE-OSSE spectrum: the model drops off too rapidly with increasing energies to give an acceptable joint fit. This now agrees with Grabelsky et al. (1995).

In §5 we showed that an ST model could fit the OSSE data alone. However, we find that these model parameters do not give a good fit to the RXTE data. Even if we ignore all the soft components and just try to use a ST model alone to simultaneously fit the OSSE data and the RXTE data above 15 keV, we are unable to get an acceptable fit (the best $`\chi _\nu ^2`$= 1.5, $`Q=4\times 10^9`$, for $`kT=35`$ keV, and $`\tau =3.8`$).

It is clear that the correct shape cannot be generated by the ST model when a larger energy range is available. We cannot rule out that the gamma-ray spectrum changed dramatically between the end of our OSSE observation and our RXTE observation, though the prior evolution of the source makes this unlikely. Again this highlights the need for future observations of GX 339–4 to make simultaneous X-ray and gamma-ray observations.

More realistic and self-consistent Compton scattering models can explain the harder spectrum presented here. A full study is beyond the scope of this paper, but in Böttcher, Liang, & Smith (1998) we develop such a detailed simulation, and illustrate that it can fit the joint GX 339–4 spectrum.

## 9 Summary

As part of our multiwavelength campaign of observations of GX 339–4 in 1996 we presented our radio, X-ray, and gamma-ray observations made in July, when the source was in a hard state (= soft X-ray low state).

The radio observations were made at the time when there was a possible radio jet. We showed that the radio spectrum was flat and significantly variable, and that the radio spectral shape and amplitude were not anomalous for the source at this time. Daily light curves from our pointed OSSE observation July 9–23, from BATSE, and from the ASM on RXTE also showed that there was no significant change in the X- and gamma-ray flux or hardness during the time the radio jet-like feature was seen.

The higher energy portion of our pointed RXTE observation made July 26 is equally well fit using simple PLE and ST functions. An additional soft component is required, as well as a broad emission feature centered on $`6.4`$ keV. This may be an iron line that is broadened by orbital Doppler motions and/or scattering off a hot medium. Its equivalent width is $`600`$ eV. Both a PLE and a ST model also fit our OSSE spectrum on its own. Although the observations are not quite simultaneous, combining the RXTE and CGRO spectra we find that the PLE model easily fits the joint spectrum. However, the ST model drops off too rapidly with increasing energies to give an acceptable joint fit.

Our results show that it is extremely important that future studies of GX 339–4 should make truly simultaneous multiwavelength observations, particularly given the variability of the source. It is essential to accurately measure the spectrum both above and below the gamma-ray cut-off energy. It will also be extremely interesting to combine future unusual radio activity with the behavior at high energies.

We thank the referee for carefully reading the manuscript and providing useful suggestions and clarifications. This work was supported by NASA grants NAG 5-1547 and 5-3824 at Rice University. This work made use of the RXTE ASM data products provided by the ASM/RXTE teams at MIT and at the RXTE SOF and GOF at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. The BATSE daily light curves were provided by the Compton Observatory Science Support Center at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.