Magnetic structure of our Galaxy: A review of observations

Abstract: The magnetic structure in the Galactic disk, the Galactic center and the Galactic halo can be delineated more clearly than ever before. In the Galactic disk, the magnetic structure has been revealed by starlight polarization within 2 or 3 kpc of the Solar vicinity, by the distribution of the Zeeman splitting of OH masers in two or three nearby spiral arms, and by pulsar dispersion measures and rotation measures in nearly half of the disk. The polarized thermal dust emission of clouds at infrared, mm and submm wavelengths and the diffuse synchrotron emission are also related to the large-scale magnetic field in the disk. The rotation measures of extragalactic radio sources at low Galactic latitudes can be modeled by electron distributions and large-scale magnetic fields. The statistical properties of the magnetized interstellar medium at various scales have been studied using rotation measure data and polarization data. In the Galactic center, the non-thermal filaments indicate poloidal fields. There is no consensus on the field strength, maybe mG, maybe tens of uG. The polarized dust emission and much enhanced rotation measures of background radio sources are probably related to toroidal fields. In the Galactic halo, the antisymmetric RM sky reveals large-scale toroidal fields with reversed directions above and below the Galactic plane. Magnetic fields from all parts of our Galaxy are connected to form a global field structure. More observations are needed to explore the untouched regions and delineate how fields in different parts are connected.

\section{Introduction}

Radio observations measure the total intensity, polarized intensity and
rotation measure (RM). Sky maps of these quantities are all related to the
magnetic fields in our Galaxy. Because the Milky Way is the largest edge-on
galaxy in the sky, the synchrotron emission from relativistic electrons
gyrating in the Galactic magnetic field is dominant in the radio sky. The
stronger radio emission is observed nearer the Galactic plane, and strongest
towards the Galactic central regions. The Galactic radio emission is
polarized (\cite{rei07}), if it is not depolarized, best shown at tens of
GHz (\cite{phk+07}). The polarized emission undergoes Faraday rotation due
to the Galactic magnetic fields and ionized electrons. The Faraday sky,
i.e. the RM sky, is strikingly antisymmetric to the Galactic coordinate
(\cite{hmbb97}, see Fig.~\ref{rmsky}).

The magnetic field of our Galaxy is more important in astrophysics and
astroparticle physics than the fields in other galaxies.
Magnetic fields are certainly one of key ingredients of the interstellar
medium.
Large-scale magnetic fields contribute to the hydrostatic balance and
stability of the interstellar medium (\cite{bc90}), and even disk dynamics
(\cite{bf07}).
Magnetic fields in molecular clouds, which are closely related to the
Galactic fields (\cite{hz07}), play an important role in the star
formation process (see a review by \cite{hc05}).
More important is that the magnetic fields of our Galaxy are the main
agent for transport of charged cosmic-rays (e.g. \cite{tt02,ps03}).  It is
impossible to understand the origin and propagation of cosmic rays without
adequate knowledge of Galactic magnetic fields.
The Galactic radio emission and its polarization, which result from the
Galactic magnetic fields, is found to heavily (up to 95\% in polarization)
``pollute'' the measurements of the cosmological microwave background (CMB,
e.g. \cite{phk+07}). Galactic magnetic fields have suddenly become very
important in the CMB studies of cosmology!

To understand magnetic fields, we have first to measure them and learn their
properties. The galactic scale is in the middle between the stellar scale
and the cosmological scale. It is on this scale that the magnetic fields can
be well {\it measured} at present, at least from our Galaxy.  Observations
of galactic-scale magnetic fields provide the most important hints for and
constraints on the origin and maintenance of the magnetic fields of Galactic
objects and the fields in the universe. In the following, I will review the
observed magnetic structures in the Galactic disk, the Galactic center and
the Galactic halo.

\section{Magnetic fields in the Galactic disk}

Magnetic fields pervade the diffuse interstellar medium, molecular clouds,
and very dense cloud cores or HII regions. When interstellar gas contracts
to form a cloud or a cloud core the field is enhanced. Therefore, the
observed field strength in clouds increases with gas density
(\cite{cru99}). Here, I review the observational results of large-scale
magnetic fields in the Galactic disk which are related to the diffuse medium
and spiral structure and have a scale greater than 1~kpc. Magnetic fields on
smaller scales will be mentioned only if they are related to the large-scale
fields.

There are five observational tracers of the Galactic magnetic fields:
polarization of starlight, polarized thermal dust emission from clouds,
Zeeman splitting of lines, diffuse synchrotron radio emission, and Faraday
rotation of polarized sources.

\noindent{\bf Polarization of starlight}

Starlight becomes polarized when it passes through the interstellar
medium and is absorbed or scattered by interstellar dust grains
preferentially aligned by magnetic fields. The observed polarization
is the integrated effect of scattering between the star and the Sun,
and the ``polarization vectors'' show the averaged field orientation
(weighted by the unknown local dust content). Starlight polarization
data have been obtained for about 10,000 stars, mostly within 2 or
3~kpc of the Sun (see \cite{mf70,hei00}). Analysis of these data show
that the local field is parallel to the Galactic plane and follows the
local spiral arms (\cite{hei96}). Starlight polarization data are
difficult to use for detection of Galactic magnetic fields in a much
larger region than 2 or 3 kpc. However, recent developments in
instruments help to get a lot of new starlight polarization data
for revealing magnetic fields in given objects (e.g. \cite{fvmo08}).

\noindent{\bf Polarized thermal dust emission from clouds}

In recent years, with development of instruments and backend
technology (e.g. \cite{hdd+00}), observations of polarized thermal
dust emission at mm, sub-mm and infrared bands have been used to detect the
transverse orientation of magnetic fields in molecular clouds (see
review by \cite{hc05}) on scales from 1 pc to tens of pc. The
observed magnetic fields always have an hourglass shape, which
indicates that the fields were enhanced when the clouds were formed by
compressing the diffuse interstellar medium.  Recently, Li et
al. (2006)\nocite{lgk+06} found that magnetic fields in molecular
clouds seem to be preferentially parallel to the Galactic plane,
indicating that the magnetic fields in the clouds preserve the fields
frozen into the diffuse medium.

\noindent{\bf Zeeman splitting of lines}

Zeeman splitting of spectral lines can measure {\it in situ} field
strength of the line-of-sight component in molecular clouds or maser spots
with a scale size $<1$ AU.
To date, Zeeman splitting of emission or absorption lines has been
detected from about 20 clouds (see a list in \cite{cru99,hz07}) and in
OH masers associated with 140 HII or star-formation regions using
single dishes (e.g. \cite{c03}) or interferometers
(e.g. \cite{fram03}).
From collected Zeeman splitting data of OH masers of HII regions and
OH or HI absorption or emission lines of molecular clouds themselves,
Han \& Zhang (2007)\nocite{hz07} found large-scale reversals in the
sign of the line-of-sight component of the median field, indicating
field reversals in a pattern similar to reversals revealed from pulsar
RM data (see below). Evidently, magnetic fields on such a small scale
are related to the large-scale Galactic magnetic fields to a very
surprising extent (\cite{rs90,fram03}). Interstellar magnetic fields
are apparently preserved as fossil fields through the cloud formation
and star formation process, and even in stars (see G. Wade's talk in
this volume). How can such coherent magnetic field directions be
preserved from the low density medium ($\sim1 {\rm cm}^{-3}$) to
higher density clouds ($\sim10^{3}{\rm cm}^{-3}$), even to the highest
density in maser regions ($\sim10^{7}{\rm cm}^{-3}$), with compression
of 3 or even 10 orders of magnitude? It is a puzzle. The turbulent and
violent processes in molecular clouds apparently cannot significantly
alter the mean magnetic field.

\noindent{\bf Diffuse synchrotron radio emission}

The total and polarized intensities of synchrotron emission are
usually used to estimate the total and {\it ordered} field
strength. For nearby galaxies, the strength of the {\it regular}
large-scale field is probably much overestimated from the polarization
percentage, because the so-called {\it ordered} fields consist of the
regular large-scale fields and anisotropic random fields
(\cite{hbe+99}) which both produce polarized emission.

We cannot have a face-on view of the global magnetic field structure
in our Galaxy through polarized synchrotron emission, as is possible
for nearby spiral galaxies (see R. Beck's talk in this volume).
Polarization surveys of the Galactic plane have been comprehensively
reviewed by Reich (2007)\nocite{rei07}. The observed polarized
emission from the Galactic plane is the sum of all contributions with
different polarization properties (i.e. polarization angles and
polarization percentages) coming from various regions at different
distances along a line of sight. Emission from more distant regions
suffers from more Faraday effect produced by the foreground
interstellar medium. Polarized emissions from different
regions should ``depolarize'' each other when they are summed, which
is more obvious at lower frequencies. Observations at higher
frequencies (e.g.  at 6~cm by \cite{shr+07}) show polarized structures
at larger distances because depolarization is less severe. The
polarized structures are closely related to the magnetic field
structure where the emission is generated. Some large-angular-scale
polarized features are seen emerging from the Galactic disk, for
example, the North Polar Spur (e.g. \cite{jfr87}).

\noindent{\bf Faraday rotation of pulsars and radio sources}

Faraday rotation of linearly polarized radiation from pulsars and
extragalactic radio sources (EGRs) is the most powerful probe of the diffuse
magnetic field in the Galaxy (e.g. \cite{hml+06,bhg+07}). Magnetic fields in
a large part of the Galactic disk have been revealed by RM data of pulsars,
which gives a measure of the line-of-sight component of the field. EGRs have
the advantage of large numbers but pulsars have the advantage of being
spread through the Galaxy at approximately known distances, allowing direct
three-dimensional mapping of the magnetic fields. For a pulsar at distance
$D$ (in pc), the RM (in radians~m$^{-2}$) is given by
$
{\rm RM} = 0.810 \int_{0}^{D} n_e {\bf B} \cdot d{\bf l},
$
where $n_e$ is the electron density in cm$^{-3}$, ${\bf B}$ is the vector
magnetic field in $\mu$G and $d {\bf l}$ is an elemental vector along the
line of sight toward us (positive RMs correspond to fields directed toward
us) in pc. With the pulsar dispersion measure,
$
{\rm DM}=\int_{0}^{D} n_e d l,
$
we obtain a direct estimate of the field strength weighted by the local free
electron density
\begin{equation}\label{eq_B}
\langle B_{||} \rangle  = \frac{\int_{0}^{D} n_e {\bf B} \cdot d{\bf
l} }{\int_{0}^{D} n_e d l } = 1.232 \;  \frac{\rm RM}{\rm DM}.
\label{eq-B}
\end{equation}
where RM and DM are in their usual units of rad m$^{-2}$ and cm$^{-3}$ pc
and $B_{||}$ is in $\mu$G.

\begin{figure*}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=0.96\textwidth]{psr_egr.ps}
\caption{The RM distribution of 736 pulsars with $|b|<8^{\circ}$ projected
onto the Galactic plane, including new data of Han et al (2009, in
preparation). The linear sizes of the symbols are proportional to the square
root of the RM values with limits of $\pm$27 and $\pm$2700
rad~m$^{-2}$. Positive RMs are shown by plus signs and negative RMs by open
circles. The background shows the approximate locations of spiral arms used
in the NE2001 electron density model (\cite{cl02}). RMs of 1285 EGRs of
$|b|<8^{\circ}$ (data mainly from \cite{ccsk92,gdm+01,btj03,rrs05,bhg+07}
and other RM catalogs) are displayed in the outskirt ring according to their
$l$ and $b$, with the same convention of RM symbols and limits. The
large-scale structure of magnetic fields indicated by arrows was derived
from pulsar RMs and comparison of them with RMs of background EGRs (details
in Han et al. 2009). The averaged RM fluctuations with Galactic longitudes
of EGRs are consistent with magnetic field directions derived from pulsar
data, for example, in the 4th Galactic quadrant. \label{rm_psr_egr}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure*}

Previous analyses of pulsar RM data have often used the model-fitting method
(\cite{man74,tn80,rk89,hq94,id99,njkk08}), i.e., to model magnetic field structures in
all of the paths from the pulsars to us (observer) and fit them, together
with the electron density model, to the observed RM data. {\it Significant
improvement} can be obtained when both RM and DM data are available for many
pulsars in a given region with similar lines of sight. Measuring the
gradient of RM with distance or DM is the most powerful method of
determining both the direction and magnitude of the large-scale field local
to that particular region of the Galaxy
(\cite{ls89,hmq99,hmlq02,wck+04,hml+06}). Field strengths in the region can
be {\it directly derived} from the slope of trends in plots of RM versus
DM. Based on Eq.~(\ref{eq-B}), we get

\begin{equation}
\langle B_{||}\rangle_{d1-d0} = 1.232 \frac{\Delta{\rm RM}}{\Delta{\rm DM}}
\label{delta_rm_dm}
\end{equation}
where $\langle B_{||}\rangle_{d1-d0}$ is the mean line-of-sight field
component in $\mu$G for the region between distances $d0$ and $d1$,
$\Delta{\rm RM} = {\rm
RM}_{d1} - {\rm RM}_{d0}$ and $\Delta{\rm DM} ={\rm DM}_{d1} - {\rm
DM}_{d0}$.

\vspace{1mm}\noindent{\bf 1). Field structure:}

So far, RMs of 1021 pulsars have been observed
(\cite{hl87,rl94,qmlg95,hmq99,wck+04,hml+06,njkk08}), if new RMs of 477 pulsars
by Han, van Straten, Manchester \& Demorest (2009, in preparation) are
included (see Fig.~\ref{rm_psr_egr}). This enables us to investigate the
structure of the Galactic magnetic field over a larger region than that
previously possible. We have detected counterclockwise magnetic fields in
the innermost arm, the Norma arm (\cite{hmlq02}). A more complete analysis
for the fields of our Galaxy (\cite{hml+06} and Han et al. 2009, in
preparation) from both RMs of pulsars and EGRs gives a picture for the
coherent large-scale fields aligned with the spiral-arm structure, as shown
in Fig.1: magnetic fields in all inner spiral arms are counterclockwise when
viewed from the North Galactic pole. On the other hand, at least in the
local region and in the inner Galaxy in the fourth quadrant, there is good
evidence that the fields in interarm regions are similarly coherent, but
reversed to be clockwise. There are at least four or five reversals in the
fourth quadrant, probably occurring near the boundary of the spiral arms. In
the Galactic central region interior to the Norma arm, new RM data of
pulsars indicate that the fields are clockwise, reversed again from the
counterclockwise field in the Norma arm. In the first Galactic quadrant,
because the separations between spiral arms are so small, the RM data are
dominated by counterclockwise fields in the arm regions though some (not
many) negative pulsar RMs indicate clockwise fields in the interarm
regions. The magnetic field in the Perseus arm cannot be determined well.

The averaged RM of EGRs in a given sky region reflect the common foreground
Galactic RM contribution, which is the integration of $n_eB$ from the Sun to
the outskirts of the Galactic disk. Comparison of the mean of RMs of
background EGRs with RMs of foreground pulsars can reveal the magnetic
fields behind the pulsars (see Fig.~\ref{rm_psr_egr}). However, the dominant
contribution of RMs of EGRs behind the Galactic disk comes from the
interstellar medium mostly in tangential regions. The fluctuations in the RM
distribution of extragalactic radio sources
(\cite{ccsk92,gdm+01,btj03,rrs05,bhg+07}) with Galactic longitude,
especially these of the fourth Galactic quadrant, are consistent with
magnetic field directions derived from pulsar data (see Fig.~1). The
negative RMs of EGRs in the 2nd quadrant suggest that the interarm fields
both between the Sagittarius and Perseus arms and beyond the Perseus arm are
predominantly clockwise.

\begin{figure}[b]
  \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\linewidth}
    \centering \includegraphics[angle=270,width=62mm]{BR.ps}
    \caption{\small Variation of the large-scale regular field strength with
      Galactocentric radius derived from pulsar RM and DM data near the
      tangential regions (Han et al. 2006). Note that the ``error-bars'' are
      not caused by the uncertainty of the pulsar RM or DM data, but reflect
      the random magnetic fields in the regions.\label{br}}
  \end{minipage}%
  \hspace{0.02\textwidth}
  %
  \begin{minipage}[t]{0.51\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=48mm,height=68mm,angle=-90]{ebk_new.ps}

    \caption{\small Composite spatial magnetic-energy spectrum in our
      Galaxy.  See Han et al. (2004) for details.  The thin solid and
      dashed/dotted lines at smaller scales are the Kolmogorov and
      2D-turbulence spectra derived from Minter \& Spangler (1996), and the
      upper ones from new measurements of Minter (2004, private
      communication).\label{eb}}
  \end{minipage}%
  %
\end{figure}

Fitting various models to the new RM dataset shows different results
(e.g. \cite{njkk08}). The most important is to have a model consistent with
the detected field reversals. Looking at Table 2 of Men et
al. (2008)\nocite{mfh08}, one can see that any single-mode model is not
enough to fit RM data though the bisymmetrical spiral model with field
reversals is the best and gives the smallest $\chi^2$.

\vspace{1mm}\noindent{\bf 2). Field strength:}

With much more pulsar RM data, for the first time, Han et al. (2006)
\nocite{hml+06} were able to {\it measure} the regular azimuthal field
strength of near the tangential regions in the 1st and 4th Galactic
quadrants, and then plot the dependence of regular field strength as a
function of galactocentric radius (Fig.~\ref{br}). Although the
``uncertainties'', which in fact reflect the random fields, are large, the
tendency is clear that fields get stronger at smaller Galactocentric radius
and weaker in interarm regions. To parameterize the radial variation, an
exponential function was chosen to give the smallest $\chi^2$
value and to avoid a singularity at $R=0$ (for $1/R$) and unphysical values
at large R (for the linear gradient). That is, $ B_{\rm reg}(R) =
B_0 \; \exp \left[ \frac{-(R-R_{\odot})} {R_{\rm B}} \right] , $ with the
strength of the large-scale field at the Sun, $B_0=2.1\pm0.3$ $\mu$G, and
the scale radius $R_{\rm B}=8.5\pm4.7$ kpc.

In addition, the vertical field in the solar vicinity $B_z$ is estimated to
be $\sim 0.2 \mu$G (\cite{hq94,hmq99}). Using RMs of EGRs, Simard-Normandin
\& Kronberg (1980) and Han \& Qiao (1994) \nocite{sk80,hq94} estimated the
scale-height of Galactic magnetoionic disk about 1.4~kpc.

\vspace{2mm}\noindent{\bf 3). Field statistics on small scales and spatial
  B-energy spectrum:}

Magnetic fields in our Galaxy exist on all scales.  For the large-scale
field, we can determine the field structure and field strength. To study
small-scale magnetic fields, the only approach is to make statistics and
have a description of their statistical properties.

Pulsar RMs have been used to study the small-scale random magnetic fields in
the Galaxy. Some pairs of pulsars close in sky position have similar DMs but
very different RMs, indicating an irregular field structure on scales of about
100~pc (\cite{ls89}). Some of these irregularities may result from HII
regions in the line of sight to a pulsar (\cite{mwkj03}).  It has been found
from pulsar RMs that the random field has a strength of $B_r\sim 4-6\mu$G
independent of cell-size in the scale range of 10 -- 100~pc (\cite{rk89},
\cite{os93}). From pulsar RMs in a very large region of the Galactic disk,
Han et al. (2004)\nocite{hfm04} obtained a power law distribution for
magnetic field fluctuations of $E_B(k)= C \ (k / {\rm
kpc^{-1}})^{-0.37\pm0.10}$ at scales from $1/k=$ 0.5~kpc to 15~kpc, with $C=
(6.8\pm0.8)\ 10^{-13} {\rm erg \ cm^{-3} \ kpc}$, corresponding to an rms
field of $\sim6\mu$G in the scale range.

Some results of magnetic field statistics were also obtained from RMs of EGRs.
Armstrong et al. (1995)\nocite{ars95} showed that the spatial power spectrum
of electron density fluctuations from small scales up to a few pc could be
approximated by a single power law with a 3D spectral index $-$3.7, very
close to the Kolmogorov spectrum. Magnetic fields on such small scales
should follow the same power-law, since magnetic fields are frozen into
the ionized interstellar medium.
Minter \& Spangler (1996)\nocite{ms96} found that structure functions of
rotation measure and emission measure were consistent with a 3D-turbulence
Kolmogorov spectrum of magnetic fields up to 4~pc, but with a 2D turbulence
between 4~pc and 80 pc.
Haverkorn et al. (2006)\nocite{hgb+06} found that the structure
functions of RMs in the directions tangential to the arms have much
larger slopes than those in the interarm directions, indicating that
the arm regions are more turbulent.
Sun \& Han (2004)\nocite{sh04} found that the structure function for RMs at
the two Galactic poles is flat, but at lower latitudes it becomes inclined
with different slopes at different Galactic longitudes.

Combining the above information, one can get the spatial energy
spectrum of Galactic magnetic fields (see \cite{hfm04}) which should
constrain the theoretical simulations (e.g. \cite{bk05}) of the
generation and maintenance of Galactic magnetic fields. Evidently, on
small scales, the distribution follows the Kolmogorov power-law
spectrum, but at larger scales, it becomes flat and probably has
two breaks at a scale of few pc and several tens of pc
(Fig.~\ref{eb}). The interstellar magnetic fields probably become
strongest at the scales of energy injection by supernova explosions
and stellar winds (e.g. 1 to 10~pc).

\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=135mm]{gc.ps}
\caption{Non-thermal radio filaments discovered in the Galactic center
($\lambda$90cm data from \cite{lnlk04}) and the polarized thermal dust
emission detected in the molecular cloud zone (bars in the right panel,
see details in \cite{ncr+03}).
\label{gc}}
\end{figure}

\vspace{-2mm}
\section{Magnetic fields in the Galactic center}

Within a few hundred pc of the Galactic center, both poloidal and toroidal
magnetic fields have been observed.
The non-thermal radio filaments (Fig.~\ref{gc}) discovered within
$1^{\circ}$ from the Galactic center (\cite{ymc84}, \cite{lme99},
\cite{yhc04}, \cite{nlk+04}, \cite{lnlk04}) indicate poloidal magnetic
fields in the region within a few hundred parsecs of the center of the
Galaxy. These filaments are highly polarized (\cite{lme99}) and almost
perpendicular to the Galactic plane, although some newly found
examples are not so perpendicular to the Galactic plane
(\cite{lnlk04}). RM studies show that the magnetic field is aligned
along the filaments (\cite{lme99}). The filaments are probably
illuminated flux tubes, with a field strength of about 1~mG
(\cite{ms96a}). LaRosa et al. (2005)\nocite{lbs+05} detected diffuse
radio emission of extent 400~pc and on this basis argued for a weak
pervasive field of tens of $\mu$G in the central region. However, this
is the volume-averaged field strength in such a large region. The
poloidal fields are possibly limited to a smaller central region.  The
newly discovered ``double helix'' nebula (\cite{mud06}), with an
estimated field strength of order 100~$\mu$G, reinforces the presence
of strong poloidal magnetic fields in tube format merging from the
rotating circumnuclear gas disk near the Galactic Center.

Polarized thermal dust emission has been detected in the molecular cloud
zone at sub-mm wavelength (see Fig.~\ref{gc}, \cite{ncr+03,cdd+03}), which
is probably related to the toroidal fields parallel to the Galactic plane
and complements the poloidal fields shown by the vertical filaments.  The
observed molecular cloud zone has a size of a few hundred pc, and is
possibly a ring-like cloud outside the central region with poloidal field
(see Fig.1 of \cite{cha01}). The sub-mm polarization observations of the
cloud zone offer information only about the field orientations. Zeeman
splitting measurements of HI absorption against Sgr~A (e.g. \cite{plc95}) or
of the OH maser in the Sgr A region (\cite{yrg+99}) give a line-of-sight
field strength of a few mG in the clouds. It is possible that toroidal
fields in the clouds are sheared from the poloidal fields, so that the RM
distribution of radio sources in this very central region could be
antisymmetric (\cite{ncr+03}).

Outside the central region of a few hundred pc to a few kpc, the
structure in the stellar and gas distributions and the magnetic
structure are all mysterious.  There probably is a bar. The
large-scale magnetic fields should be closely related to the material
structure but have not been revealed yet. The large positive RMs of
background radio sources within $|l|<6^{\circ}$ of the Galactic Center
(\cite{rrs05}) are probably related to magnetic fields following the
bar (\cite{rrs08}). Comparison of the RMs of these background radio
sources with RMs of foreground pulsars (see Fig.~\ref{rm_psr_egr})
should be helpful in delineating the field structure.

\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.6\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=45mm,angle=270]{ers.ps}
\end{minipage}%
\hspace{0.01\textwidth}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=45mm,angle=0]{halob.ps}
\end{minipage}%
\caption{The antisymmetric rotation measure sky, derived from RMs of
extragalactic radio sources after filtering out the outliers with anomalous RM
values. The distribution corresponds to magnetic structure in the
Galactic halo as illustrated on the right. See Han et al. (1997, 1999).
\label{rmsky}}
\end{figure}

\vspace{-3mm}
\section{Magnetic fields in the Galactic halo}

Magnetic field structure in the Galactic halo can be revealed from RMs of
EGRs if allowance can be made for sources with outstanding intrinsic
RMs. The foreground Galactic RM is the common contribution to the observed
RMs of all EGRs within a small patch of sky. After ``anomalous'' RMs are
eliminated, the pattern for the Galactic RM can be obtained. Han et
al. (1997) \nocite{hmbb97} discarded any source if its RM deviated from the
average RM of neighbouring sources by more than 3$\sigma$, and obtained a
``cleaned'' RM sky.

A striking antisymmetry in the inner Galaxy with respect to Galactic
coordinates (see Fig.~\ref{rmsky}) has been identified from the cleaned RM
sky (\cite{hmbb97,hmq99}). The antisymmetry must result from azimuthal
magnetic fields in the Galactic halo with reversed field directions below
and above the Galactic plane. Such a field can be produced by an `A0' dynamo
mode. The observed filaments near the Galactic Center should result from the
dipole field in this dynamo scenario. The local vertical field component $B_z
\sim 0.2 \mu$G (\cite{hq94,hmq99}) may be a part of this dipole field in the
solar vicinity.

Han (2004) has shown that the RM amplitudes of extragalactic radio
sources in the mid-latitudes of the inner Galaxy are systematically
larger than those of pulsars, indicating that the antisymmetric
magnetic fields are not local but are extended towards the Galactic
center, far beyond the pulsars.  Model-fitting by Sun et
al. (2008)\nocite{srwe08} has confirmed this conclusion. The
antisymmetry has been shown more clearly after adding newly observed RMs of
more mid- or high latitude EGRs.

\vspace{-4mm}
\section{Concluding remarks}

Only after the magnetic field, $\vec{B}(r,\theta,z)$, is known at all
positions in our Galaxy will we have a complete picture of the
magnetic structure of the Milky Way. With only a small number of
measurements we must rely on fitting models to the data. ``Partial''
measurements in a greater number of regions, including quite large
regions, are now available and we are able to ``connect'' the
available measurements (pulsar RMs, maps of the RM sky) and outline
some basic features of the Galactic magnetic field.

However, as seen from the above observational review, many regions of our
Galaxy have not been observed very well for magnetic fields. For example,
the farther half of the Galactic disk and the RM sky are not well
known. Data in these regions are still scarce, either because of lack of
field probes or limited capability of current instruments. In addition, when
we try to get the large-scale field structure, the small-scale ``random''
fields, which are equally strong or even stronger, ``interfere'' with our
measurements to a large extent. In the first Galactic quadrant, we obtained
a large sample of pulsar RMs recently for the Galactic magnetic fields, but
the spiral structure and pulsar distances are very uncertain. Statistical
properties of fields on the energy-injection scales are not yet available,
but are crucial for theoretical studies of magnetic field origin and
maintenance. Magnetic fields in the disk-halo interface regions are
certainly complex but few observations are available. To fully observe and
understand the Galactic magnetic fields, there is a long way to go.

\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{acknowledgments}
Thanks to Drs. Tom Landecker and A. Nelson for reading the manuscript.
I am very grateful to colleagues who have collaborated with me for a long time
on work on Galactic magnetic fields:
Dr. R.N. Manchester from the Australia Telescope National Facility, CSIRO,
Prof. G.J. Qiao from Peking University (China),
Dr. Willem van Straten from Swinburne University (AU).
The author is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation (NNSF) of
China (10521001, 10773016 and 10833003) and the National Key Basic Research
Science Foundation of China (2007CB815403).
\end{acknowledgments}

\vspace{-4mm}


Why entanglement?

Abstract: In this piece, written for a general audience, we propose a mechanism for quantum entanglement. The key ingredient is collider bias. In the language of causal models, a collider is a variable causally influenced by two or more other variables. Conditioning on a collider typically produces non-causal correlations between its contributing causes. This phenomenon can produce associations analogous to Bell correlations, in suitable post-selected ensembles. Such collider artefacts may become real connections, resembling causality, if a collider is 'constrained' (e.g., by a future boundary condition). We consider the time-reversed analogues of these points in the context of retrocausal models of QM. Retrocausality yields a collider at the source of an EPR-Bell particle pair, and in this case constraint of the collider is possible by normal methods of experimental preparation. It follows that connections resembling causality may emerge across such colliders, from one branch of the experiment to the other. Our hypothesis is that this constrained retrocausal collider bias is the origin of entanglement. This piece is based on a suggestion first made inarXiv:2101.05370v4[quant-ph], and is an ancestor of an essay now published online in Aeon magazine [Price & Wharton 2023a]. In an updated version of the argument inarXiv:2309.10969[quant-ph] we (i) demonstrate its application in a real Bell experiment; and (ii) show that we can do without an explicit postulate of retrocausality

\section{Introduction}
Quantum entanglement has been in the news recently. The physicists Alain
Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger won the 2022 Nobel Prize for,
as the citation puts it, `experiments with entangled photons,
establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum
information science.'

Within the foundations of physics community, the prize has also been
welcomed as a tribute to John Stewart Bell (1928--1990), the Irish
physicist who argued in the 1960s that quantum mechanics implies that
the world is unavoidably `non-local' -- that Einstein's `spooky action
at a distance' is unavoidable, if quantum theory is correct. Clauser and
Aspect won their Nobel Prizes for pioneering work in the 1970s and 1980s
to test the relevant predictions of quantum mechanics. Such tests are
now called \emph{Bell experiments.} Many increasingly sophisticated
versions, including Zeilinger's 'loophole-free' experiments, have confirmed that the world does
indeed behave as quantum theory predicts.

But \emph{why} does the world behave this way? Bell experiments rely on
quantum entanglement, which was first identified
by Erwin Schr\"odinger in 1935. He called it `not \emph{one} but rather
\emph{the} characteristic trait of quantum mechanics.' \cite{Sch35}
More recently, it
has been described as `the essential fact of quantum mechanics' \cite{Suss14}, and `perhaps its weirdest feature' \cite{Weinberg13}. The
work of Clauser, Aspect, Zeilinger and others confirms the reality of
entanglement -- as Aspect himself put it, in his
\href{https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/aspect/speech/}{{speech}}
at the Nobel Prize banquet, `entanglement is confirmed in its strangest
aspects' -- but it doesn't tell us what it is, or where it comes from.

Our \href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.05370}{{research}} \cite{{PriceWharton21}}
suggests a surprisingly simple answer. Entanglement may rest on a
familiar statistical phenomenon known as \emph{collider bias.} In the
light of collider bias, we think, entanglement is not really mysterious
at all. It is what we might have expected, if we'd taken seriously the
time-symmetry of the microworld.

Our proposal needs just three other ingredients, as well as collider
bias -- as we said, it is a simple recipe. All these ingredients are
available off the shelf (though admittedly, in one case, from a niche
corner of the shelf). But as far as we know, it has not been noticed
that they can be combined in this way, to throw new light on the central
puzzle of the quantum world.

\section{What is collider bias?}

Let's start with the main ingredient. Collider bias was first described
by Joseph Berkson (1899--1982), a Mayo Clinic physicist, physician and
statistician. In the 1940s Berkson noted an important source of error in
statistical reasoning used in medicine. In some circumstances, the
selection of a sample of patients produces misleading correlations
between their medical conditions. Taken at face value, these
correlations can suggest that one condition prevents another. Berkson
pointed out that these apparent causal connections may not be real. They
may be artefacts of the way the sample has been selected \cite{Berkson46}.

Simplifying Berkson's own example, imagine that all the patients
admitted to Ward C have similar symptoms, caused by one of two rare
infections, Virus A or Virus B. Ward C specialises in treating those
symptoms, so all its patients have at least one of these diseases. Some
may have both, but everyone on the ward who doesn't have Virus A is
certain to have Virus B, and vice versa.\\

\begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=10cm]{image1.png}\\
Figure 1. A simple collider
\end{center}

Berkson's point was that this isn't evidence that avoiding one virus
leads to infection with the other one. The patients on Ward C are a very
biased sample. In the general population, having a vaccine for Virus A
won't make you more likely to catch Virus B.

This means that if a patient on Ward C with Virus A says to himself,
``I'm on Ward C, so if I hadn't caught Virus A I would have caught Virus
B'', then he's making a mistake. If he hadn't caught Virus A then (most
likely) he wouldn't have either virus, and he wouldn't have been
admitted to the ward.

This statistical effect is now called Berkson's bias, or \emph{collider
bias.} The term `collider' comes
from causal modelling, the science of
inferring causes from statistical data. Causal modellers use diagrams
called Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), made up of nodes linked by
arrows. The nodes represent events or states of affairs, and the arrows
represent causal connections between those events. When an event has two
independent contributing causes, like being a patient on Ward C, it is
shown in a DAG as a node where two arrows `collide' -- see Figure 1.

If we just look at a sample of cases in which the event at a collider
happens, we'll often see a correlation between the two independent
causes. It may look like these causes are influencing one another, but
they are not. It is a selection artefact, as causal modellers say.
That's collider bias. The correlation stems from the way in which the
event at the collider depends on the two causes -- in our simple example
it needed one cause or the other.

\section{Rock-paper-scissors}

We want to take collider bias in the direction of physics -- ultimately,
in the direction of the kind of Bell experiments for which Clauser,
Aspect and Zeilinger won their Nobel Prizes. We want to propose an
explanation for what may be going on in those experiments, and other
cases of quantum entanglement.

We'll get there via a series of toy examples. For the first of them,
imagine that two physicists Alice and Bob play rock-paper-scissors,
sending their calls to a third observer, Charlie. Charlie makes a list
of the results: Alice wins, Bob wins, or it's a draw.

Suppose that Charlie likes Alice and dislikes Bob. He throws away most
of the results when Bob wins. In the remaining `official' results Alice
wins a lot more often than Bob. The correlation looks the way it would
if Alice actually had some influence over Bob's choice -- as though
Alice choosing scissors makes it a lot less likely that Bob will choose
rock, and so on. If Alice and Bob are far apart, this could look like
spooky action at a distance. But there's no real Alice-to-Bob causation
involved. It is just collider bias at work. The event at the collider --
whether Charlie retains or throws away the result -- is influenced both
by Alice's choice and by Bob's choice, giving us the same kind of
converging arrows as in Figure 1.

Suppose that in a particular round of the game Alice chooses paper and
Bob chooses rock. As in the medical case, Alice would be making a
mistake if she says, ``If I had chosen scissors instead, Bob would
probably not have chosen rock.'' The right thing for her to say is, ``If
I had chosen scissors, then Charlie would probably have discarded the
result -- so my choice didn't make any difference to Bob's choice.''

\section{Constrained colliders}

Now to our second ingredient. It is the least familiar of all, though
it, too, is already on the shelf, if you know where to look. In the game
just described, Charlie could only favour Alice by discarding some
results. Let's see what happens if we rig the game in Alice's favour,
\emph{without throwing any results away.}

In our world this isn't going to happen naturally, so for now, let's
imagine it happening supernaturally. Suppose God also likes Alice more
than Bob, so he tweaks reality to give her an advantage. Perhaps he
arranges things so she never loses when she plays the game on Sundays.
How does God do it? It doesn't matter for our story, which doesn't need
to be realistic at this point, but here's one possibility. In a
deterministic universe everything that happens is determined by the
initial conditions at the very beginning of time. If God gets to choose
the initial conditions, and -- relying on a Laplacian calculation or
simply Divine foreknowledge -- knows exactly what follows from them,
then he can simply choose the initial conditions so that Alice never
loses on Sundays.

Readers who prefer a God-free version could imagine that Alice and Bob
live in a simulation, and that the superintelligence (AGI) that runs the simulation favours
Alice on Sundays. Some serious thinkers have suggested that we ourselves
may live in a simulation, so it would be hasty to say that this version
is inconceivable. But again, our example doesn't need to be realistic at
this point. Later in our argument, when realism matters, we won't have
to rely on God or simulations.

To invent some terminology, let's say that God (or the AGI)
\emph{constrains the collider} -- just on Sundays, in this version of
the story. To see what difference this makes, think again about a round
of the game where Alice chooses paper and Bob chooses rock. Is Alice
still making a mistake if she says, ``If I had chosen scissors instead,
Bob would not have chosen rock''? It now depends what day of the week it
is. This is still a mistake Monday through Saturday. On those days, the
right thing for Alice to say is, ``If I had chosen scissors, Bob would
still have chosen rock (and I would have lost).'' But Sunday is
different. On Sunday Alice never loses, so if she had chosen scissors,
Bob could not have chosen rock.

Let's suppose that Alice knows that the game works this way. Perhaps she
figured it out after years of experiments, and now makes a comfortable
living as a gambler, working one day a week. From her point of view, it
looks like she can \emph{control} Bob's choices, to some extent (and
only on Sundays). By choosing scissors she can \emph{prevent} Bob from
choosing rock, and so on.

With a \emph{constrained} collider, then, we would have something that
looks a lot like real causality across the collider, from one of the
pair of incoming causes to the other. True, it would be a very strange
kind of causality. For one thing, it would work the other way, too, from
Bob to Alice (though less happily, from his point of view). By choosing
rock on a Sunday Bob could prevent Alice from choosing scissors, and so
on.

For our purposes, it isn't going to matter whether this would be real
causality, or even whether the question makes sense, in this case. If we
press too hard on a toy example like this, it is liable to fall apart at
the seams. Could we still speak of both Alice and Bob as making free
choices, for example, if the choices are linked in this way?

All we need from the example is the following lesson. If there were
cases in nature in which something restricted the options at a collider,
we should expect to find a new kind of dependence between the normally
independent causes that feed into that collider. To keep our terminology
non-committal on the question whether it would count as causality, we'll
call this new kind of relation \emph{connection across a constrained
collider} (CCC).

CCC is our second ingredient, and certainly the least familiar one, for
most readers. But it, too, is already on the shelf, in the sense that
there's at least one place in physics where it has actually been
proposed. It is the key to a suggestion by Maldacena and Horowitz
\cite{HorowitzMaldacena04} for
solving the so-called black hole information paradox (made famous by
Stephen Hawking's
\href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn
with Kip Thorne and John Preskill).

The Maldacena-Horowitz hypothesis relies on the proposal that special
`future boundary conditions' inside black holes constrain a collider (in
our terminology) at that point. Maldacena and Horowitz suggest that this
creates a zigzag causal path through time, along which information can
escape from a black hole.

Discussing the Maldacena-Horowitz hypothesis recently, the Cambridge
physicist Malcolm Perry says

\begin{quote}
{[}t{]}he interior of the black hole is therefore a strange place where
one's classical notions of causality \ldots{} are violated. This does
not matter as long as outside the black hole such pathologies do not
bother us. \cite[9]{Perry21}
\end{quote}
As we'll explain, our proposal is going to be that such pathologies are
actually extremely common, if you know where to look. In the other
direction of time, they are the basis of quantum entanglement -- and
they don't need black holes.

So far, then, we have two ingredients on the table: collider bias
itself, and CCC -- connection across a constrained collider. Before we
introduce the two remaining ingredients, let's get a bit closer to the
physics of the quantum world.

\section{From rock-paper-scissors to Bell experiments}

As we noted at the beginning, the recent Nobel Prizes were awarded for
Bell experiments. These confirmed the strange correlations, predicted by
quantum theory, which Bell took to show that the quantum world is
unavoidably non-local. Given that these so-called Bell correlations were
important enough to win Nobel Prizes, readers may be surprised to learn
that they can easily be reproduced in a version of our
rock-paper-scissors game. The only change we need is to have Alice and
Bob each flip a coin before they make their choice.

In this variant -- call it \emph{quantum} rock-paper-scissors
(QRPS) -- Alice and Bob each send two pieces of information to Charlie:
their choice of rock-paper-scissors, and the result of their coin flip.
So Charlie gets four values, two choices and two coin outcomes. This is
precisely the same amount of information generated in each run of a Bell
experiment. In that context, these values are called the two
\emph{measurement settings} and the two \emph{measurement outcomes.} The
Bell correlations are particular relationships between these four
values, in long lists of experimental results. (In one kind of Bell
experiment, for example, they specify among other things that whenever
the two settings are the same, the two outcomes must be different.)

In QRPS it is very easy for Charlie to set up a
filter, keeping some results and throwing away others, to make sure that
the set of results he keeps satisfies the Bell correlations. By using
the right filter, Charlie can ensure that the selected results look
\emph{exactly} like the data generated in the familiar kind of Bell
experiment of Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger.\footnote{See \cite{Guido21} for the same point in the real QM context.}

Of course, this doesn't mean that there is any strange
non-locality in QRPS. As in the earlier version, the correlations are
a selection artefact, a result of collider bias. But since the
results are now a perfect copy of real Bell experiments, it is worth
paying careful attention to differences between the two.

The most obvious difference is that quantum rock-paper-scissors and real
Bell experiments look like time-reversed versions of each other. In QRPS
Alice and Bob send their choices \emph{to} Charlie, later in time. In a
spacetime diagram with time running up the vertical axis, the structure
looks like an upside-down `V' -- see the left hand side of Figure 2.
We'll say that cases like this are `$\wedge$-shaped'. In real Bell experiments,
Alice and Bob receive their particles \emph{fro}m the source, which is
earlier in time. So the structure looks like $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$, as in the right hand
side of Figure 2 -- we'll say that they are `$\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped'.

In a moment we're going to introduce a $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped version of QRPS, to
eliminate this difference. But first let's summarise what we learned
from the $\wedge$-shaped case. We saw that it is easy for Charlie to set up a
filter, to make sure that the results he keeps satisfy the Bell
correlations. But we don't need any non-locality between Alice and Bob,
to explain what's going on. The correlations are simply collider bias.
As in the original rock-paper-scissors case (without constraint at the
collider) they are simply a selection artefact.

\begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=10.5cm]{image2.png}\\
Figure 2. $\wedge$-shaped and $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped experiments
\end{center}

We could reintroduce God or an AGI at this point, to add a constrained
collider to QRPS. There would be one interesting difference from the
original game. In that case, we saw that the effect of the constraint
was to give Alice and Bob control over each other's choices, making it
hard to maintain that they both had freedom to choose. In QRPS, as in
the analogous real Bell experiments, that problem goes away: Alice and
Bob each get some influence over the result of the other's coin toss,
but we can still treat both of their own choices as completely free.

That difference aside, a constrained version of QRPS would be as
unrealistic as for the original game, and wouldn't tell us anything new.
So let's turn instead to a $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped version of QRPS, where realistic
constrained colliders will be much easier to find.

\section{Flipping the game}

As we said, QRPS looks like a time-reversed version of a Bell
experiment, $\wedge$-shaped rather than $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped. Instead of two particles
\emph{leaving} a common source and \emph{going to} separate observers,
it's the other way round. The information travels \emph{from} Alice and
Bob, \emph{to} Charlie at the common point in the future.

Can we flip this quantum rock-paper-scissors, to make it $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped not
$\wedge$-shaped? It might look easy. We can have Charlie toss the two coins and
send them to Alice and Bob, so that the results (heads or tails) become
Alice and Bob's measurement outcomes. But if that's all we do, Charlie
won't know what choices Alice and Bob are going to make when he sends
out the coins. That means there's no way for him to put bias into the
results, in the way that he could in the $\wedge$-shaped case. There's no way
that Charlie can produce the Bell correlations, in other words.

But suppose we let Charlie \emph{know in advance} what choices Alice and
Bob are going to make -- we give him a crystal ball, say. Then it is
very easy for him to manage the coins so that the net results, gathered
over many plays of the game, satisfy the Bell correlations. The trick is
for Charlie to toss one coin, and then choose the result for the other
coin based on a rule that takes into account Alice and Bob's future
choices.

So this game, too, generates the same kind of Bell correlations as the
famous experiments of Clauser, Aspect, and Zeilinger. Let's ask the same
question we did about $\wedge$-shaped QRPS. Does the new $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped version
involve some kind of spooky action at a distance from Alice to Bob, and
vice versa?

\begin{center}
  \includegraphics[width=9cm]{image3.png}\\
Figure 3. A past collider
\end{center}

We hope that readers will be inclined to say `No' to this question.
After all, the basic causal structure of the new $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped version is
something like Figure 3. Thanks to Charlie's crystal ball, and the rule
he uses for selecting outcomes, Alice's and Bob's choices both influence
what outcomes Charlie produces, in every case. This means that Charlie's
selection procedure is a collider, and we have to be on our guard for
collider bias.

For this reason, attentive readers might suspect that collider bias
plays the same role in explaining the results the new $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped QRPS as
it did in the $\wedge$-shaped case. But there's one very big difference between
these two cases -- which brings us to our third ingredient.

\section{Initial control}

In the $\wedge$-shaped version of QRPS, Charlie had to apply a filter, and
throw away results he didn't want. But in the $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped case, he gets to
\emph{choose} the results, in the light of what he learns from the
crystal ball and his (single) coin toss. \emph{He doesn't have to throw
anything away.} In this case, then, Charlie himself can constrain the
collider. All he needs is an ordinary ability we take for granted, to
control the initial conditions of an experiment.

Perhaps we shouldn't take this for granted. It is actually a remarkable
ability, one that depends on the fact that we live in a place in which
abundant low-entropy energy can be harnessed by creatures like us. But
by ordinary standards, there's nothing surprising about it. We have much
more control over the \emph{initial} conditions of experiments than over
their \emph{final} conditions. It's easy to arrange the balls on a pool
table into precise positions \emph{before} the initial break, but
virtually impossible to play the game so that they all \emph{end up} in
those positions.

Let's call this familiar fact \emph{initial control.} It is the third
ingredient in our recipe.
Looking ahead a bit (so to speak), the final ingredient is going to be
something that does the job of the crystal balls, in giving Charlie
access to information about future choices by Alice and Bob. We're going
to find that on the shelf already in the quantum world, under the name
\emph{retrocausality.} But before we go there, let's summarise what we
learn from the new $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped QRPS.

Thanks to the crystal balls, we have the causal structure shown in
Figure 3, with a collider in the past, where Charlie chooses the
outputs. Thanks to initial control, it is easy to make it a constrained
collider, so that Charlie doesn't need to throw any results away. And
this means that there can be connection across the constrained collider
(CCC), from Alice to Bob, and vice versa.

In other words, the combination of the collider structure in Figure 3
and the constraint provided by initial control gives us CCC. If we are
happy to use causal language, we can say that it gives us the kind of
zigzag causal connection shown in Figure 4. There's also a zigzag path
from Bob's choice to Alice's outcome, of course. (Why do we call it a
Parisian Zigzag? More on that in a moment.)

\begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=9cm]{image4.png} \\
   Figure 4. The Parisian Zigzag
\end{center}

In the light of this, let's go back to this question. Does $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped QRPS
involve some kind of spooky action at a distance from Alice to Bob, and
vice versa? At this point we need to be careful about what we mean by
action at a distance. As we have just seen, there is indeed some
influence, or connection, from Alice to Bob, and vice versa. Since they
are at a distance from each other, and a direct connection might need to
be faster than light, we might still want to call it action at a
distance, or nonlocality. (One of the recent Nobel laureates once told
us that he thought such a zigzag should still count as a nonlocal
effect.)

However, the connection between Alice and Bob is indirect, and depends
entirely on processes which don't themselves require anything faster
than light. So whatever we call it, it doesn't have the
relativity-challenging character normally associated with so-called
spooky action at a distance in QM. And it is not very mysterious: we
know exactly what it is, namely, connection across a constrained
collider.

The crystal balls were pretty mysterious, of course, but once we gave
ourselves those, the explanation of the connection between Alice and Bob
is straightforward. Imagine if something like this could explain the
results of real Bell experiments -- that would be a nail in the coffin
of the quantum spooks!

\section{Retrocausality}

Well, let's see. We need our final ingredient. In $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped QRPS, we gave
Charlie a crystal ball, to allow causation to work backwards -- in other
words, to allow Alice and Bob's choices to feed into the algorithm
Charlie uses to select the measurement outcomes. In the real world, of
course, we don't find magical crystal balls on any actual shelf.

In the quantum world, however, retrocausality is a familiar hypothesis.
In that sense, it is certainly available off the shelf. It was first
proposed in the late 1940s by the Parisian physicist Olivier Costa de
Beauregard \cite{Costa53}, who suggested that in the quantum world causal influence
might follow a zigzag path, as in Figure 4 -- that's why we called it
the Parisian Zigzag.

Retrocausality remained a niche idea for many years, though it has long
had some distinguished proponents. In the 1950s one of them, at least
briefly, was the British physicist Dennis Sciama \cite{Sciama58}, who taught an
astonishing generation of physicists, including Stephen Hawking. Sir
Roger Penrose, himself a recent Nobel laureate, has long been
sympathetic to the idea. There's a story from the 1990s of Penrose
drawing a zigzag at a quantum workshop at the Royal Society in London,
and joking `I can get away with proposing this kind of thing, because
I'm already a Fellow here.' (Now that he has a Nobel Prize it is even
easier, presumably!)\footnote{For a recent version of Penrose's views on this topic, see \cite{Penrose23}.} Another famous long-term proponent is the Israeli physicist Yakir Aharonov, whose interest dates from a well-known 1964 paper \cite{Aha64}.

More recently, we ourselves have written in
\href{https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance}{\emph{{Aeon}}}
and
\href{https://nautil.us/to-understand-your-past-look-to-your-future-235937/?_sp=e4739d6b-26e8-49bc-9403-92c611107706.1668570992307}{{elsewhere}}
about the advantages of retrocausal approaches to QM, both in avoiding
action at a distance, and in respecting time-symmetry. We argued that
quantum theory provides new reasons to think that microscopic
time-symmetry requires retrocausality \cite{PriceWharton16, WhartonPrice16}.

Recent popular discussions of the retrocausal approach to QM may be
found
\href{https://www.templeton.org/news/the-sudoku-universe}{{here}},
\href{https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23731652-800-quantum-time-machine-how-the-future-can-change-what-happens-now/}{{here}}
and
\href{https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html}{{here}},
for example.\footnote{See \cite{Merali22, Becker18, Zyga17}. For specialist audiences, recent discussions include the following: \cite{PriceWharton15, LeiferPusey17, Leifer17,
FriedrichEvans19, WhartonArgaman20, NorsenPrice21, Adlam22}.} It is now a sufficiently familiar proposal that no adequate
survey of the puzzles of quantum theory can afford to ignore it.
Some
commentators on the recent Nobel Prize announcement got themselves into
trouble
for doing so \cite{Hance22}.

So retrocausality in QM is a well-known idea, and has well-known points
in its favour. However, an additional striking advantage seems to have
been overlooked. Retrocausality suggests a simple mechanism for
`\emph{the} characteristic trait of quantum mechanics' (Schr\"odinger),
`its weirdest feature' (Weinberg) -- in other words, for the strange
connections between separated systems called quantum entanglement.

Starting with retrocausality, our proposal goes like this, in four easy
steps. We've highlighted the use of our four ingredients.

\begin{enumerate}
\def\arabic{enumi}.{\arabic{enumi}.}
\item \textbf{Retrocausality} automatically introduces colliders into Bell
  experiments, at the point where the two particles are produced.

\item That's interesting because colliders produce \textbf{collider bias}
  and causal artefacts -- correlations that look like they involve
  causation, but really don't.
\item But \textbf{constraining a collider} can turn a causal artefact into a
  real connection across the collider.

\item In the case of colliders in the past, as in Figure 3, constraint is
  easy. It just follows from normal \textbf{initial control} of
  experiments.
\end{enumerate}

Taken together, these steps suggest a simple explanation for the
Parisian Zigzag, and the strange kind of non-local connections in the
quantum world, revealed by Bell's arguments. It is \emph{connection
across constrained colliders,} where the colliders result from
retrocausality and the constraints from ordinary initial control of
experimental setups.

Of course, more work is needed to show that this simple mechanism can
actually explain quantum entanglement. We don't mean to claim that it is
a trivial step from $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped QRPS to real Bell experiments. What we do
claim, and what we take to be demonstrated by $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped QRPS, is that the
combination of retrocausality and initial control can give rise to a
connection between separated systems that looks very similar to
entanglement. In our view, this is such a striking fact -- and
entanglement is otherwise such a strange and mysterious beast -- that we
propose the following hypothesis:

\begin{quote}
    \textbf{Hypothesis (E=CCC)}: Quantum entanglement is retrocausal collider bias,
constrained   by initial control.
\end{quote}

\noindent If this hypothesis turns out to be true, then in place of spooky action
at a distance, we'll get Costa de Beauregard's zigzag connections
-- which, as he always emphasised, are much easier to reconcile with
relativity -- but now explained as CCC.  It will still be true that quantum theory gives us a new
kind of connection between the properties of distant systems. The
experiments of Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger provide very convincing
evidence that quantum entanglement is a real phenomenon. But it would no
longer look mysterious. On the contrary, any world that combines
retrocausality and initial control would be expected to look like this.

In earlier work, as we noted above,
\href{https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance}{{we}}
and
\href{https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html}{{others}}
have argued that time-symmetry requires retrocausality, once the world
becomes quantised \cite{PriceWharton16, Zyga17}.\footnote{See also \cite{Price12, PriceWharton15, LeiferPusey17, Leifer17}.} The same line of argument now seems to lead to
entanglement, once initial control is added to the picture. That's what
we meant at the beginning, when we said that entanglement is what we
might have expected, if we'd taken seriously the time-symmetry of the
microworld.

\section{Avoiding causal loops and signalling}

Finally, a note for readers who are worried that the cure is worse than
the disease -- that retrocausality opens the door to a menagerie of
paradoxes and problems. The note says: Well spotted! As we described
$\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped QRPS, with the crystal balls, you are absolutely right. For one
thing, the crystal balls give Charlie options much like those of the
famous time-traveller, encountering his own grandfather long before his
parents met. What's to stop Charlie interfering with the course of history,
say by bribing Bob to make a different choice than the one shown in the
crystal ball? (In the causal loop literature, this is called `bilking'.)

Also -- less dramatic, maybe, but especially interesting in comparison
to QM -- the crystal balls allow Alice and Bob to send messages to
Charlie, and hence potentially, with his help, to signal to each other.
This isn't possible in real Bell experiments, where Alice and Bob can't
signal to each other, despite having some influence on each other's
measurement outcomes. So isn't this bad news for retrocausality?

These are good objections, but it is easy to modify the $\lor$}%{\larger${{\mathsf{v}}}$\smaller}%{$\lor$-shaped QRPS
game to avoid them. What we need to do is to split Charlie's functions
into two parts. Most of what he does gets replaced by a simple
algorithm, inside a black box, that takes in information about the two
future measurement settings, and spits out the two measurement outcomes.
Charlie himself can't see inside the black box, and doesn't have access
to the future settings. But he still has a vital job to do. The box has
a knob on the front, with a small number of options. Charlie controls
that knob, and if he wants the device to produce the Bell correlations,
he needs to choose the right option. In the terminology of QM, that's
called `preparing the initial state'. If that's all that Charlie does,
and the quantum black box takes care of the rest, the door to the
menagerie is closed. Alice and Bob can no longer signal to Charlie, or
to each other. Everything works as in orthdox QM, except that we now
have the prospect of an explanation of entanglement.

This means that if nature wants retrocausality without retrosignalling
(and without the paradoxes that retrosignalling would lead to), it is
going to need black boxes -- places in nature where observers like
Charlie can't see the whole story. In normal circumstances, such black
boxes would seem like another kind of magic. Charlie is a clever guy,
after all. What's to stop him taking a peek inside any kind of box?

But in the quantum case, many readers will already know the answer to
this question. What's to stop Charlie taking a peek is Werner
Heisenberg, or more precisely his famous Uncertainty Principle. Ever
since Heisenberg, quantum theory has been built on the idea that there
are new limits to what it is possible to know about physical reality.
One of the central questions is whether this is just a restriction on
our knowledge of reality, or whether reality itself is somehow fuzzy. As
Schr\"odinger put it in 1935, after describing his famous Cat Experiment:
`There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a
snapshot of clouds and fog banks.' \cite{Sch35b}

The Cat Experiment was supposed to support the out-of-focus photograph
option, the view that the Uncertainty Principle is just a restriction on
our \emph{knowledge} of reality. Schr\"odinger thought it was obvious that
the cat couldn't actually be somehow neither alive nor dead. Like
Einstein, Schr\"odinger favoured the view that the quantum description is
incomplete, and that reality contains further details, hidden behind
Heisenberg's veil.

In the decades since 1935, most physicists who care about these issues
have concluded that Einstein and Schr\"odinger were wrong. Bell's Theorem,
together with the quantum predictions being confirmed by Clauser,
Aspect, Zeilinger and many others, has often been interpreted as showing
that the spooky action at a distance which Einstein hoped to avoid with
additional `hidden variables', is an inevitable part of the quantum
world.

Retrocausality is already the most interesting challenge to that view.
By taking the first option on Schr\"odinger's list -- by treating QM as an
unavoidably fuzzy picture of a sharper reality -- it can allow the kind
of quantum black boxes needed to avoid retrosignalling and paradoxes.
How satisfying, then, if it also explains the other thing that
Schr\"odinger put his finger on in 1935, when he invented the term
`entanglement', and called it `\emph{the} characteristic trait of
quantum mechanics.'\footnote{We are grateful to Emily Adlam, Guido Bacciagaluppi and Nathan Argaman for comments
  on previous versions.}

Quantum Physics (quant-ph); History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph)

Why entanglement?


Winds in ultraluminous X-ray sources: new challenges

Abstract: Ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) are extreme X-ray binaries shining above 10^39 erg/s, in most cases as a consequence of super-Eddington accretion onto neutron stars and stellar-mass black holes accreting above their Eddington limit. This was understood after the discovery of coherent pulsations, cyclotron lines and powerful winds. The latter was possible thanks to the high-resolution X-ray spectrometers aboard XMM-Newton. ULX winds carry a huge amount of power owing to their relativistic speeds (0.1-0.3 c) and are able to significantly affect the surrounding medium, likely producing the observed 100 pc ULX superbubbles, and limit the amount of matter that can reach the central accretor. The study of ULX winds is therefore quintessential to understand 1) how much and how fast can matter be accreted by compact objects and 2) how strong is their feedback onto the surrounding medium. This is also relevant to understand supermassive black holes growth. Here we provide an overview on this phenomenology, highlight some recent, exciting results and show how future missions such as XRISM, eXTP and ATHENA will improve our understanding.

\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}

Ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) are the most extreme among X-ray binaries (XRBs) with
X-ray luminosities in excess of the Eddington limit for a standard {10\,\ifmmode {\rm M}_{\odot} \else M$_{\odot}$\fi} black hole (BH), or $10^{39}$\,erg/s.
Despite being discovered already 40 years ago with the \textit{Einstein} observatory,
it was only after the launch of powerful telescopes such as
\textit{Chandra}, \textit{XMM-Newton} and \textit{NUSTAR} that we began to understand their nature.

In the early 2000s, ULX extreme luminosities were thought to be mainly produced by
intermediate-mass $(10^{2-4} M_{\odot})$ black holes (IMBHs)
accreting well below their Eddington limit (e.g., \citealt{Kaaret2001}).
Two alternative scenarios invoked either extreme geometrical beaming in
Eddington-limited stellar-mass
black holes (BHs, e.g., \citealt{King2001})
or super-Eddington accretion onto compact objects like BHs and neutron stars (NS),
\textcolor{black}{a common interpretation for the Galactic microquasar SS 433 UV emission} (e.g., \citealt{Begelman2006}).
Both the IMBH and super-Eddington scenarios would be important to understand how it was possible
to find fully-formed supermassive black holes (SMBHs) at high redshifts
when the universe was young (e.g., \citealt{Fan2003, Volonteri2003}).

Dedicated observations with \textit{XMM-Newton} and, later on, \textit{NUSTAR} have shown that
ULXs are characterised by very soft spectra with a strong curvature below 10 keV,
which would rule out highly sub-Eddington accretion and, therefore, IMBHs as compact objects
(e.g., \citealt{Gladstone2009,Bachetti2013}).
The so-called \textit{ultraluminous state} is classified according to three main regimes depending
on the spectral slope, $\Gamma$:
soft (SUL, $\Gamma>2$) or hard (HUL, $\Gamma<2$) ultraluminous. In the latter,
if the X-ray spectrum has a single peak and a blackbody-like shape, it is called broadened disc
regime (BD, \citealt{Sutton2013}).

The first masses inferred dynamically from optical data revealed two ULXs
to be powered by compact objects with masses in the stellar-mass range
(e.g., \citealt{Liu2013,Motch2014}).
This research field was significantly shaken after the first discoveries of pulsations in high-quality
time series of ULXs (e.g., \citealt{Bachetti2014,Fuerst2016,Israel2017a})
\textcolor{black}{and cyclotron lines in a few ULX spectra (\citealt{Brightman2018,Walton2018b}).}
This showed that in many ULXs the compact object is actually a magnetised
neutron star rather than a black hole.

Another ground-breaking discovery was the detection of ULX winds in the form of resolved
rest-frame emission and blueshifted (0.1-0.3\,$c$) absorption lines in deep ($>$100\,ks) high-resolution X-ray
spectra taken with the Reflection Grating Spectrometers (RGS) aboard \textit{XMM-Newton}
(e.g, \citealt{Pinto2016nature,Pinto2017,Kosec2018a,Kosec2018b}).
These detections resolved and identified the nature of the spectral features previously spotted
in low-resolution CCD spectra (e.g, \citealt{Stobbart2006}), which were attributed
to the ULX rather than the host galaxy owing to their shape and variability
(e.g, \citealt{Sutton2015,Middleton2015b}).
\textit{Chandra} gratings confirmed similar outflows in a Galactic transient ULX
(\textcolor{black}{Swift J0243.6+6124,} \citealt{vdEijnden2019}). Further CCD work confirmed the presence of blueshifted absorption
features \citep{Walton2016a,Wang2019}.
These discoveries confirmed a major prediction of theoretical simulations of super-Eddington
accretion discs in which radiation pressure is expected to launch mildly-relativistic winds
(e.g., \citealt{Kobayashi2018}).

Despite important discoveries and progress in the last decade,
several questions remained unanswered. \textit{Are the spectral transitions
triggered by orbital variations in the accretion rate or by stochastic variations
in the wind? What are the disc-wind geometry and thermal structure?
Does the wind regulate the growth of the compact object and inflate the interstellar cavities?}
To solve these issues a combination of accurate plasma modelling and
spectral-timing studies is required.

\section{Winds: recent developments}\label{sec:developments}

Spectral lines are often searched for in high-resolution spectra
focusing on well-known He- / H-like ionic transitions.
Winds are expected to be photoionised by the source X-ray emission and,
therefore, strong lines are to be found from the dominant ionic
species such as {O\,{\sc vii-viii}}, {Ne\,{\sc ix-x}} and {N\,{\sc vii}} in the soft X-ray band
(0.3-2 keV) where RGS operates (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:rgs}).

\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig01_ngc1313_rgs.pdf}}
\caption{\;NGC 1313 ULX-1 {\it XMM-Newton}/RGS spectra of \textcolor{black}{two fainter (HUL, top-middle)  and
              one brighter (BD, bottom) epochs}
              with overlaid the best-fit photoionised wind  (red line) and the continuum models
              (black line, \citealt{Pinto2020b}).\label{fig:rgs}}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure}

Doppler shifts from plasma motions complicate the line detection and identification.
The spectral scan with a moving gaussian line is a common procedure which indeed
identified many lines in ULX RGS spectra (see Sect.\,\ref{sec:intro}).
However, the issue of finding spurious features,
the so-called \textit{look-elsewhere effect}, requires thorough Monte
Carlo (MC) simulations in order to estimate the false-alarm probability
as F-test is no longer valid \citep{Protassov2002}.
MC method consists of simulating a large number ($\sim$10,000) of featureless continuum
spectra, which are then all searched with a gaussian line scan identical to the one used for the real data.
This has been used extensively, providing robust significance estimates, but at a
substantial computational cost (e.g., \citealt{Pinto2020b,Kosec2018b}).

It is possible to speed up the procedure by switching from a line scan (fit) to a cross-correlation
(calculation) that compares a moving gaussian line (models) to the spectral residuals
(both real and simulated data).
This was successfully achieved in \citet{Kosec2021} who managed to decrease the computing time by four
orders of magnitude.
This enabled them to perform an accurate study for a sample of 19 ULXs with high-statistics
RGS spectra and confirm the
 detection of narrow ($\lesssim1000$\,km/s) lines in the majority  of the sample
 ($>60$\%, see Fig.\,{\ref{fig:sample}}).

\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig02_catalog_rgs.pdf}}
\caption{\;Histograms of the emission (green) and absorption (red) lines detected in a ULX sample.
Labels show the identification of frequent emission lines. The absorption lines are most
likely blueshifted (adapted from \citealt{Kosec2021}).\label{fig:sample}}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Physical models: parameter-space scan}

Owing to their distance (typically above 2 Mpc) and limited fluence ($\lesssim$10$^{-12}$\,erg/s/cm$^{2}$),
ULXs can be difficult targets for current high-spectral-resolution detectors,
due to their limited effective area.
They are also commonly found in low-metallicity environments, which further implies weak lines.
Each one is therefore detected at low significance ($\lesssim$\,3\,$\sigma$) except for nearby ULXs
with exposure times above 300\,ks.
This is why lines were not detected in early observations.

Recent, more sophisticated, techniques perform a full and uniform search
of the parameter space using physical models of winds that fit multiple lines simultaneously.
The simplest case adopts gas in collisional ionisation equilibrium (CIE) and implies searching through
line of sight velocity ($v_{\rm LOS}$), velocity dispersion ($v_{\sigma}$) and electron temperature
(kT$_{\rm e}$). The normalisation or emission measure ($n_{\rm H} n_{\rm e} V$) can be a free parameter.
This makes sense when shocks between the wind and the surrounding medium or
a thermal contribution from the jet are expected as in SS 433 \citep{Marshall2002}.
Metallicity is kept to Solar to decrease the computing time.
Besides, ULX lines are rather weak and metallicity might be unconstrained.
This was successfully applied to NGC 5204 ULX-1 and SS 433
\citep{Kosec2018a,Pinto2021}.

Winds are most likely to be photoionised due to the strong radiation field,
at least before impacting the surrounding medium or the companion star. The variability of
the spectral features and the underlying continuum suggests that these wind
components come from the inner disc ($10^{2-5}$\,R$_{\rm G}$, see e.g.
\citealt{Alston2021,Kara2020}). Here accurate modelling of the spectral energy distribution (SED)
is necessary in order to calculate the photoionisation equilibrium (PIE) and the ionisation parameter,
$\xi=L_{\rm ion}/nR^2$. Then $\xi$, $v_{\rm LOS}$ and $v_{\sigma}$ constitute the
backbone of the parameter space. The column density, $N_{\rm H}$, is a free parameter.
PIE scans unveiled winds in almost all ULXs with deep observations (each one lasting
$t_{\rm exp}\gtrsim$\,100\,ks or a full {{\it XMM-Newton}} orbit, \citealt{Pinto2017,Pinto2020b};
\citealt{Kosec2018b}). In {Fig.\,\ref{fig:ngc247_xabs}} we show the remarkable example
of the detection of a photoionised absorber in the supersoft NGC 247 ULX-1 (\citealt{Pinto2021}),
blowing at 17\% of the speed of light ($c$).
The comparison between the best-fit $\xi$ solution and the stability curves (kT or $\xi$ versus
the ratio between thermal and radiation pressure) has showed that ULX winds are likely
stable to thermal perturbations (\citealt{Pinto2020a}).

\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig03_ngc247_xabs.pdf}}
\vspace{-0.15cm}
   \caption{\;Photoionisation absorption model grids for NGC 247 ULX-1 {{\it XMM-Newton}} spectrum.
                The black contours show the (2.0, 2.5, ... 5.0)\,$\sigma$ confidence levels from
                MC simulations.\label{fig:ngc247_xabs}}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure}

As expected, the simultaneous modelling of multiple lines by means of physically-motivated models,
significantly improves the significance, reaching peaks of 5\,$\sigma$ in the deepest observations
of ULXs with soft X-ray spectra ($\Gamma>2$).
In HUL spectral lines are significantly fainter and more difficult to detect
(\citealt{Kosec2021}) although deep ($\gtrsim$\,100\,ks) observations
of nearby targets have confirmed strong detections
in the HUL spectra of NGC 1313 ULX-1 and the pulsating NS NGC 300 ULX-1
(\citealt{Pinto2020b,Kosec2018b}).

The velocities of the winds (0.1-0.3\,$c$) and the ionic species ({O\,{\sc vii-viii}} and {Ne\,{\sc ix-x}})
are compatible with the predictions
from theoretical simulations \citep{Kobayashi2018}.

\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}

\subsection{Super-Eddington disc-wind structure}

Super-Eddington accretion predicts the \textcolor{black}{disc} to thicken and launch powerful winds
which give the system the shape of a funnel. We therefore expect at low inclinations
(i.e. face on) to see the innermost, very bright, disc region and a hard spectrum
(HUL or $\Gamma<2$). Along this LOS the wind should be highly ionised and have
a low density. At progressively higher inclinations the wind scatters more photons out of the LOS
and the source appears softer. The outer wind portions are expected to be cooler as a consequence
of a softer SED and slower if their speed is associated to the escape velocity
$v_{\rm esc}=\sqrt{2GM/R}$. This was confirmed, albeit with a limited source sample, by
\citet{Pinto2020a} in the form of a positive correlation between the wind velocity, the
ionisation parameter and the ULX spectral hardness (see {Fig.\,\ref{fig:trends_v_HR}}).
This is also validated by the spectra taken at different epochs for a few ULXs.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig04_trends_v_HRred.pdf}}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
   \caption{\;Correlation between LOS velocity, ionisation parameter (colour) and
   hardness ratio (1-10 keV flux / 0.3-10 keV flux) for wind detections in different
   sources and epochs.\label{fig:trends_v_HR}}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure}

The scenario is likely more complex as the opening angle of the funnel depends
on the mass accretion rate. Thus, the observed wind properties depend on a combination
of the inclination angle and the Eddington ratio.

It is important to notice that optical spectroscopy reveals the presence of strong lines
from H- and He- transitions in many ULXs. The lines are very similar to those observed
in SS 433 and have been associated with the cool, outer, photosphere of the super-Eddington disc wind
($10^{5-6}$\,R$_{\rm G}$, see e.g. \citealt{Vinokurov2018, Fabrika2021})
and further confirm that SS 433 is most likely a highly obscured ULX
that is being seen almost edge-on as shown by Fe K time lags \citep{Middleton2021}.

\subsection{Feedback and growth rate}

Owing to their extreme velocities, ULX winds are expected to have a significant impact
on their environments. Many ULXs, including NGC 1313 ULX-1,
are indeed surrounded by huge interstellar cavities or bubbles
with supersonic expansion \citep[80-250 km/s,][]{Gurpide2022}.
The bubbles are young ($10^{5-6}$ yr) and their H\,$\alpha$ luminosities
require a mechanical power of $10^{39-40}$\,erg/s \citep{Pakull2002}.

The kinetic power of the winds can be written as follows:
$L_w = 0.5 \, \dot{M}_w \, v_w^2 =  2 \, \pi \, m_p \, \mu \, \Omega \, C \, L_{\rm ion} \, v_w^3 \, / \, \xi$
\textcolor{black}{where $\dot{M}_w = 4 \, \pi \, R^2 \, \rho \, v_w \, \Omega \, C$ is the outflow rate,} $\Omega$
and $C$ are the solid angle and the volume filling factor (or \textit{clumpiness}), respectively,
$\rho=n_{\rm H}  \, m_p \, \mu$ is the density and $R$ is the distance from the ionising source.
The fraction of ULXs with wind detections is $>60\%$ (\citealt{Kosec2021}) which implies
a solid angle $\Omega/4\pi\gtrsim0.3$ in agreement with theoretical simulations.
The typical ionisation parameters found in ULX winds (log $\xi\sim$ 2-4) would correspond to
a clumping factor between 0.01-0.1 \citep{Kobayashi2018}.
This yields a kinetic power $L_w = 10^{39-40} \, {\rm erg/s}$,
which is likely enough to inflate the superbubbles.

ULX winds also take away of lot of momentum and matter from the system.
Comparing their kinetic power with the bolometric luminosity we estimate that about
50\% of the energetic budget is lost to launch the winds.
The maximum outflow rate $\dot{M}_w$ is $\sim$\,90\% (assuming standard accretion efficiency,
i.e. $\eta=0.1$). However accounting for advection and photon trapping we estimate a more
realistic mass loss rate of 10-50\% \citep{Mushtukov2019a}.
The compact object would still grow fast but at a milder super-Eddington rate.

\subsection{Current limitations and prospects}

There are some limitations in the current facilities that hamper a full understanding of the
ULX phenomenology. We know that spectral lines vary over the time and in response to the
variability of the underlying continuum, showing higher fluxes and significance in softer spectra
(\citealt{Pinto2020b,Kosec2021}).
Accurate physical modelling has shown that the wind is cooler and slower in softer spectra perhaps
due to a larger launching radius at higher accretion rates (\citealt{Pinto2021}).
The picture is more complex as the emission lines become stronger and require multiple components
likely from different regions (\citealt{Pinto2020b}).
\textcolor{black}{It is difficult to} distinguish among different processes (variable accretion rate, precession,
stochastic variability, etc.) because current facilities require to integrate well over 100 ks of exposure
thereby preventing us from resolving the variability timescales which can be as short as
$100$\,s (e.g. \citealt{Alston2021,Kara2020,Kobayashi2018}).
Another issue is the lack of sensitivity and resolution in the Fe K band (6-9 keV) which limits
our capability of detecting hot wind components from the inner disc expected
for ULXs with hard spectra (HUL). Presently, the only Fe K detections
are those for NGC 1313 ULX-1, NGC 300 ULX-1 and NGC 4045 HLX-1
\citep{Walton2016a, Kosec2018b, Brightman2022}.
\textcolor{black}{Of course, deep observations of other ULXs would help to increase the Fe K line sample.}

The enhanced X-ray Timing and Polarimetry ({{\it eXTP}}) mission (2027-, \citealt{Zhang2019}) will
provide a high effective area in the hard X-ray band ($>$\,2\,keV) which together with a low
background due to the low Earth orbit \textcolor{black}{could significantly} improve the detection of the
Fe K wind component with respect to {{\it XMM-Newton}}. This is showcased in Fig.\,\ref{fig:eXTPsim} with \textcolor{black}{our} 80\,ks simulation of NGC 300 ULX-1 using the Spectroscopic Focusing Array (SFA).
\textcolor{black}{We estimate that the} {Fe\,{\sc xxv}} absorption line may be detected at $5\,\sigma$.
Physical models gathering multiple lines will achieve this at much shorter exposure times.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig05_NGC300_sfa_80ks.pdf}}
   \caption{\;Pulsating NGC 300 ULX-1 eXTP/SFA simulation (80\,ks, top panel)
                adopting the best-fit continuum
                 plus wind model from \citet{Kosec2018b}.
                 \textcolor{black}{For the residuals plot (bottom panel)
                  the wind component was removed from the model.} \label{fig:eXTPsim}}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure}

Microcalorimeter spectrometers will boost our sensitivity to weak lines. This can be defined as
the product between \textcolor{black}{effective area and resolving power} or $A_{\rm eff} / \Delta E$.
The X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission ({{\it XRISM}}, 2023-, \citealt{Guainazzi2018})
will bear the Resolve microcalorimeter ($\Delta E \sim5$eV and PSF $\sim1'$)
which, similarly to \textit{Hitomi}/SXS, is
10 times more sensitive than the gratings aboard {{\it XMM-Newton}} and {{\it Chandra}}
above 4 keV, and even more above 7 keV.
In Fig.\,\ref{fig:microsim} (bottom panel) we show a physical model scan of a 100\,ks
{{\it XRISM}}/Resolve spectrum \textcolor{black}{that we have} simulated for NGC 1313 ULX-1 using the best-fit continuum model
plus multiphase photoionised wind.
Both cold/slow and warm/fast components are detected at very high significance.
For the brightest, nearby, ULXs exposures of a few 10\,ks should be sufficient to
achieve $3\sigma$ detections and enable studies of line variability within half a day,
which is currently impossible.

A groundbreaking improvement \textcolor{black}{would} be provided by the X-ray Integral Field Unit (X-IFU)
aboard the Advanced Telescope for High-ENergy Astrophysics ({{\it ATHENA}}, 2035-, \citealt{Barret2022}).
\textcolor{black}{At the time of writing, X-IFU is designed to achieve an} exquisite combination of high effective area (1m$^{2}$) and spectral resolution ($\lesssim2.5$eV),
small PSF (5-10"), and low background. \textcolor{black}{This would}
provide a 2-orders-of-magnitude improvement
with respect to the current instruments, about 10 times better than {{\it XRISM}}/Resolve
or above given that ULXs are often found in crowded areas.
In Fig.\,\ref{fig:microsim} (top panel) we show a similar simulation for the bright state
of  NGC 1313 ULX-1 using {{\it ATHENA}}/X-IFU and adopting an exposure time of just 1\,ks.
This snapshot would be sufficient to detect the wind components at very high significance
\textit{de-facto} enabling, for the first time, the simultaneous study of the variability in the wind
and the underlying spectral continuum.
\textcolor{black}{This can be extended to other ULXs and}
is the key to answer the main question regarding the nature of the ULX regime transitions
(SUL $\leftrightarrow$ BD $\leftrightarrow$ HUL), the role of the wind, its location and
launching radius.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig06_ngc1313_athena.pdf}}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig06_ngc1313_xrism.pdf}}
   \caption{\;NGC 1313 ULX-1 simulations with Athena/X-IFU and XRISM/Resolve microcalorimeters.
                 Adopted is the best-fit continuum plus wind model from \citet{Pinto2020b}
                 for the bright regime (see also Fig.\,\ref{fig:rgs} bottom panel).\label{fig:microsim}}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure}

The codes will have to be adapted to the size and complexity of the response matrices
of future detectors and parameter space. The use of cross-correlation and machine learning may
provide a viable solution. Recently, it was also shown that the slope of the histogram of the
$\Delta C$-stat or $\Delta \chi^2$ remains constant above a certain number of simulations
(\citealt{Pinto2021}), which \textcolor{black}{may} therefore
be extrapolated and used to estimate higher values of significance at low computational costs.

\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}

We have provided a brief overview on the properties of winds in ULXs.
As the most valuable candidates of super-Eddington accreting systems, ULXs
are predicted to blow powerful winds that slow down the accretion onto the compact object
and affect the surrounding medium.
Current instruments, primarily {{\it XMM-Newton}}/RGS, enabled to obtain highly significant detections
and a qualitative view of the wind structure and general properties.
An intimate connection between the wind and the source state is suggested, potentially
unveiling the detailed accretion and variability mechanism. However,
a larger statistical sample of ULX winds and more observations per target are
required to place more quantitative constraints.
Our understanding is also limited by the variability timescales that are
too short to be sampled with the current instruments.
Future missions such as \textit{XRISM}, \textit{eXTP} and {{\it ATHENA}} will \textcolor{black}{
boost our sensitivity to such timescales and to different thermal phases of the wind,
providing a better coverage of its parameter space.}

\section*{Acknowledgments}

We acknowledge support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Programme under the
AHEAD2020 project (grant agreement n. 871158), ESA Research Proposals programme
and NASA grants 80NSSC21K0872 and DD0-21125X.

High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena (astro-ph.HE); Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics (astro-ph.IM)