text:
# Moyal Deformation, Seiberg-Witten-Map, and Integrable Models

## 1 Introduction

Field theory on noncommutative spaces has more and more attracted the attention of researchers during the last years. A major impulse came from the discovery that a noncommutative gauge field theory arises in a certain limit of string theory (see  and the references cited there). In  a (perturbative) equivalence between ordinary and noncommutative gauge fields was established via a change of variables to which the name Seiberg-Witten map was assigned in subsequent publications . More generally, models on noncommutative space-times obtained by replacing the ordinary product of functions by the noncommutative Moyal product  were explored in several recent publications. In particular, Moyal deformations of integrable models were constructed via deformation of an associated bicomplex .

Section 2 collects some notes on deformations of products and, in particular, recalls the definition of the Moyal $``$-product. Section 3 deals with a corresponding deformation of gauge theory, develops a covariant differentiation formalism with respect to deformation parameters, generalizes the Seiberg-Witten map  from infinitesimal to finite gauge transformations, and shows that this map describes a parallel transport along a curve in the deformation parameter space. Noncommutativity of covariant derivatives with respect to different deformation parameters is associated with a notion of curvature in section 4. In section 5 we show how the Seiberg-Witten map can be used to generate from solutions of a classical integrable model solutions of the corresponding deformed noncommutative model. As a specific example, we consider a noncommutative version of the principal chiral model. Section 6 contains some concluding remarks.

## 2 Deformations of products

We take the opportunity to make a few remarks about deformations of products and present some useful formulas and instructive examples. Much of it is not really needed in the following sections, however.

Let $`𝒜`$ be an associative unital algebra over a commutative ring $``$ and let $`m:𝒜𝒜𝒜`$ denote111Here and in what follows we simply write $``$ instead of $`_{}`$. the multiplication in $`𝒜`$. Given a map $`R:𝒜𝒜A𝒜`$, we define a deformed multiplication in $`𝒜`$ by

$`fg=\widehat{m}(fg),\widehat{m}=mR.`$ (2.1)
In general, this is not an associative deformation. If we assume that $`R`$ satisfies222These are duals of the relations which define quasitriangular Hopf algebras.

$`Rm_{12}=m_{12}R_{23}R_{13},Rm_{23}=m_{23}R_{12}R_{13},`$ (2.2)
then $``$ is associative if $`R`$ also satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation

$`R_{12}R_{13}R_{23}=R_{23}R_{13}R_{12}.`$ (2.3)
Indeed, it is easy to check associativity,333Actually, (2.4) shows that the weaker conditions $`mRm_{12}=mm_{12}R_{23}R_{13}`$, $`mRm_{23}=mm_{23}R_{12}R_{13}`$ and $`mm_{12}R_{12}R_{13}R_{23}=mm_{12}R_{23}R_{13}R_{12}`$ are sufficient to ensure associativity.

$`\widehat{m}\widehat{m}_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`mRm_{12}R_{12}=mm_{12}R_{23}R_{13}R_{12}=mm_{12}R_{12}R_{13}R_{23}`$ (2.4)
$`=`$ $`mm_{23}R_{12}R_{13}R_{23}=mRm_{23}R_{23}=\widehat{m}\widehat{m}_{23}`$
using the associativity condition $`mm_{12}=mm_{23}`$ for $`m`$.

Two $``$-products $`,^{}`$ will be considered to be equivalent, if there is an invertible linear map $`S:𝒜𝒜`$ such that

$`S\widehat{m}=\widehat{m}^{}SS`$ (2.5)
which is equivalent to

$`S(fg)=(Sf)^{}(Sg).`$ (2.6)
If $`S`$ is also an $`(𝒜,m)`$-automorphism, i.e., $`Sm=m(SS)`$, the above condition reads $`m(SS)R=SmR=mR(SS)`$ which is satisfied if $`(SS)R=R^{}(SS)`$.

As an example, let us define

$`P=\theta ^{ij}_i_j,R=e^{P/2}=I+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P+\mathrm{}`$ (2.7)
where $`_i:𝒜𝒜`$ are commuting derivations of $`𝒜`$, $`\theta ^{ij}`$, and $`I:𝒜𝒜`$ is the identity operator. Using the derivation property

$`_im=m(_iI+I_i)`$ (2.8)
we get

$`Pm_{12}=\theta ^{ij}_im_{12}_j=\theta ^{ij}m_{12}(_iI+I_i)_j=m_{12}(P_{13}+P_{23})`$ (2.9)
and in the same way

$`Pm_{23}=m_{23}(P_{12}+P_{13}).`$ (2.10)
It follows that (2.2) and (2.3) are satisfied. Note that $`_i`$ are also derivations of $`𝒜`$ with respect to the product $`\widehat{m}`$. $`𝒜`$ need not be commutative.

If $`𝒜`$ is the algebra of smooth functions on $`^{2n}`$ and $`\theta ^{ij}=ihϵ^{ij}`$ with real $`ϵ^{ij}`$ is antisymmetric and nondegenerate, then $`\widehat{m}`$ is the well-known Moyal product .

If $`𝒜`$ is the Heisenberg algebra with $`[x^i,x^j]=ihϵ^{ij}I`$, then $`\mathrm{ad}(x^i)y=[x^i,y]`$ defines commuting derivations. Let

$`P={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ih}}ϵ_{ij}\mathrm{ad}(x^i)\mathrm{ad}(x^j)`$ (2.11)
where $`ϵ_{ij}`$ is antisymmetric and satisfies $`ϵ_{ik}ϵ^{jk}=\delta _i^j`$. Then one easily verifies that $`x^ix^j=x^jx^i`$ and $`\widehat{m}`$ is commutative.

As a further example, consider the algebra $`𝒜=M(3,)`$ of $`3\times 3`$-matrices with complex coefficients. Let $`E_{ij}`$ denote the matrix with entry $`1`$ in the $`i`$th row and $`j`$th column and otherwise $`0`$. Setting $`H_1=E_{11}E_{22}`$ and $`H_2=E_{22}E_{33}`$, the derivations $`\mathrm{ad}(H_i)`$, $`i=1,2`$, of $`𝒜`$ commute with each other. With $`P=\vartheta [\mathrm{ad}(H_1)\mathrm{ad}(H_2)\mathrm{ad}(H_2)\mathrm{ad}(H_1)]`$ we get the following associative deformation of the ordinary matrix multiplication,

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}E_{12}E_{23}=qE_{13},& & E_{23}E_{31}=qE_{21}& & E_{31}E_{12}=qE_{32}\\ E_{13}E_{32}=q^1E_{12}& & E_{21}E_{13}=q^1E_{23}& & E_{32}E_{21}=q^1E_{31}\end{array}`$ (2.14)
where $`q=e^{3\vartheta /2}`$, and $`E_{ij}E_{kl}=\delta _{jk}E_{il}`$ for all other combinations. This product is equivalent to the usual product of matrices in the sense of (2.6). A corresponding transformation map $`S`$ is determined by $`S(E_{ii})=E_{ii}`$ and $`S(E_{ij})=q^1E_{ij}`$, $`S(E_{ji})=qE_{ji}`$ for $`i<j`$. Obviously, the above construction can be applied to the universal enveloping algebra of every simple Lie algebra with a symplectic structure on its root space.

## 3 Moyal deformation of gauge theory and Seiberg–Witten map

In this section $`𝒜`$ denotes the algebra of smooth functions on $`^{2n}`$. Let $`x^i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},2n`$, be coordinate functions and $`_i`$ the corresponding partial derivatives. The Moyal product is defined as in the previous section with

$`P=\theta ^{ij}(\vartheta )_i_j`$ (3.1)
where $`\theta ^{ij}`$ depends on a deformation parameter $`\vartheta `$, but not on the coordinates $`x^i`$. Hence $`[x^i,x^j]_{}=x^ix^jx^jx^i=\theta ^{ij}`$. Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜),\mathrm{d})`$ be the differential calculus over $`(𝒜,)`$ such that

$`[\mathrm{d}x^i,x^j]_{}=\mathrm{d}x^ix^jx^j\mathrm{d}x^i=0.`$ (3.2)
Using the Leibniz rule and $`\mathrm{d}^2=0`$, this implies

$`\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j+\mathrm{d}x^j\mathrm{d}x^i=0.`$ (3.3)
In the limit $`\vartheta 0`$ we recover the ordinary differential calculus on $`𝒜`$ with the usual product.

Let $`\psi `$ transform according to

$`\psi \psi ^{}=g\psi `$ (3.4)
where $`g`$ is a map from $`^{2n}`$ into a representation of a Lie group $`G`$. The exterior covariant derivative of $`\psi `$ is

$`\mathrm{D}\psi =\mathrm{d}\psi +A\psi `$ (3.5)
where $`A=A_i\mathrm{d}x^i`$ is a matrix of 1-forms. It transforms in the same way as $`\psi `$, i.e., $`D^{}\psi ^{}=gD\psi `$, if the gauge potential transforms as follows,

$`\mathrm{d}g=gAA^{}g.`$ (3.6)
One finds that

$`\mathrm{D}^2\psi =F\psi `$ (3.7)
with the field strength (or curvature)

$`F=\mathrm{d}A+AA={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j,F_{ij}=_iA_j_jA_i+[A_i,A_j]_{}`$ (3.8)
which transforms as $`FF^{}=gFg_{}^1`$ where $`g_{}^1`$ is the $``$-inverse of $`g`$.

If a field $`\phi `$ transforms as $`\phi \phi ^{}=\phi g_{}^1`$, its covariant derivative is $`\mathrm{D}\phi =\mathrm{d}\phi \phi A`$ and we have $`\mathrm{D}^2\phi =\phi F`$. Furthermore, if $`B`$ transforms as $`BB^{}=gBg_{}^1`$, then $`\mathrm{D}B=\mathrm{d}B+ABBA`$ and $`\mathrm{D}^2B=FBBF`$. Using (3.8) and the Leibniz rule for $`\mathrm{d}`$, we obtain the Bianchi identity $`\mathrm{D}F=0`$.

In the following we explore the $`\vartheta `$-dependence of the above gauge theoretical formulas. In particular, we are looking for a way to construct a noncommutative gauge transformation from an ordinary (commutative) one. First we note that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\vartheta }}(fh)={\displaystyle \frac{f}{\vartheta }}h+f{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\vartheta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}f_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}h.`$ (3.9)
In particular, this shows that $`/\vartheta `$ is not a derivation of the $``$-product. Here we introduced, as an auxiliary structure which greatly helps to simplify the following calculations, a differential calculus $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}})`$ over the algebra $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}`$ is defined by444The ordinary differentials $`\mathrm{d}f`$ and, moreover, all elements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜)`$ are 0-forms in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜))`$.

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}f=_if\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}x^i,[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}x^i,x^j]_{}=0,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}(\mathrm{d}x^i)=0.`$ (3.10)
Furthermore, we define an antisymmetric bilinear form on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^1`$ by555This should not be confused with the wedge product in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜))`$, which is not needed in this work.

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}x^i_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}x^j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{ij},ϵ^{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{ij}}{\vartheta }}`$ (3.11)
which means

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}f_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}f^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{ij}_if_jf^{}`$ (3.12)
for $`f,f^{}𝒜`$. The map $`\mathrm{d}`$ extends to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒜))`$ as a linear map if we require $`\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{d}`$.

Differentiation of (3.4) with respect to $`\vartheta `$ leads to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{\vartheta }}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{\vartheta }}\psi +g{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\vartheta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}g_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\psi .`$ (3.13)
This can be rewritten as follows,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{\vartheta }}+\stackrel{~}{A}^{}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\psi ^{}=g({\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\vartheta }}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\psi )+({\displaystyle \frac{g}{\vartheta }}+\stackrel{~}{A}^{}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}g)\psi `$ (3.14)
where we used

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}g=g\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}^{}g,\stackrel{~}{A}=A_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}x^i`$ (3.15)
(which follows from (3.6)), the Leibniz rule for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}`$, and (3.4). Introducing a matrix field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the transformation law

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\vartheta }}+\stackrel{~}{A}^{}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}g=g\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}g,`$ (3.16)
(3.14) becomes

$`_\vartheta ^{}\psi ^{}=g_\vartheta \psi `$ (3.17)
with the covariant derivative

$`_\vartheta \psi ={\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\vartheta }}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\psi +\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi .`$ (3.18)
For a field $`\phi `$ with $`\phi ^{}=\phi g_{}^1`$, an analogous calculation leads to the covariant derivative

$`_\vartheta \phi ={\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{\vartheta }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\phi _{}\stackrel{~}{A}\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (3.19)
with a matrix field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which transforms as follows,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\vartheta }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}g_{}\stackrel{~}{A}^{}=g\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}g.`$ (3.20)
Together with (3.15) and (3.16), the last equation leads to

$`g(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{A})=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\stackrel{~}{A}^{}_{}\stackrel{~}{A}^{})g.`$ (3.21)
Since $`Q=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{A}`$ can be absorbed via a redefinition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in (3.20), we are allowed to set $`Q=0`$ and get the following relation between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{A}.`$ (3.22)
Inserting this expression for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in (3.19), we find

$`_\vartheta \phi ={\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{\vartheta }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}\phi _{}\stackrel{~}{A}\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ (3.23)
A more symmetric form for the covariant derivatives of $`\psi `$ and $`\phi `$ is achieved by setting

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{A}+\gamma ,\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{A}+\gamma `$ (3.24)
with a matrix field $`\gamma `$. Then

$`_\vartheta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\vartheta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}_{}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\psi +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}\psi )+\gamma \psi `$ (3.25)
$`_\vartheta \phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{\vartheta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\phi +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}\phi )_{}\stackrel{~}{A}\phi \gamma .`$ (3.26)
For a field $`B`$ with $`B^{}=gBg_{}^1`$, similar calculations lead to the covariant derivative

$`_\vartheta B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\vartheta }}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}B_{}\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}B_{}\stackrel{~}{A}+\mathrm{\Gamma }BB\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (3.27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\vartheta }}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}B_{}\stackrel{~}{A}+\mathrm{\Gamma }BB\mathrm{\Gamma }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\vartheta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}_{}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}B+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}B){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}B+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}B)_{}\stackrel{~}{A}+\gamma BB\gamma .`$
Furthermore, we have

$`_\vartheta (B\psi )=(_\vartheta B)\psi +B_\vartheta \psi +\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}B_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}\psi ,`$ (3.28)
for example, which is a covariant version of (3.9). The last term destroys the familiar “derivation” property of covariant derivatives.

Differentiation of (3.6) with respect to $`\vartheta `$ and use of (3.15) and (3.16) leads to

$`_\vartheta ^{}A^{}=g(_\vartheta A)g_{}^1`$ (3.29)
where

$`_\vartheta A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{\vartheta }}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A\stackrel{~}{F}_{}\stackrel{~}{A}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (3.30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{\vartheta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}_{}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A+\stackrel{~}{F}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A+\stackrel{~}{F})_{}\stackrel{~}{A}\mathrm{D}\gamma `$
with $`\mathrm{D}\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }+A\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }A`$, a corresponding definition for $`\mathrm{D}\gamma `$, and

$`\stackrel{~}{F}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{A}AA\stackrel{~}{A}.`$ (3.31)
Moreover, we have

$`_\vartheta (\mathrm{D}B)\mathrm{D}_\vartheta B=\stackrel{~}{F}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}B\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}B_{}\stackrel{~}{F}+(_\vartheta A)BB_\vartheta A`$ (3.32)
from which the corresponding formulas for $`_\vartheta (\mathrm{D}\psi )`$ and $`_\vartheta (\mathrm{D}\phi )`$, for example, are evident. In particular,

$`_\vartheta (\mathrm{D}^2\psi )=\mathrm{D}(_\vartheta \mathrm{D}\psi )+\stackrel{~}{F}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}\mathrm{D}\psi +(_\vartheta A)\mathrm{D}\psi .`$ (3.33)
Using $`_\vartheta \mathrm{D}\psi =\mathrm{D}_\vartheta \psi +\stackrel{~}{F}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}\psi +(_\vartheta A)\psi `$ and the Leibniz rule for $`\mathrm{D}`$, we obtain

$`_\vartheta F=\mathrm{D}(_\vartheta A)+\stackrel{~}{F}_{}\stackrel{~}{F}.`$ (3.34)
If we require $`_\vartheta A=0`$, which means

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{\vartheta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\stackrel{~}{A}_{}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A+\stackrel{~}{F})(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A+\stackrel{~}{F})_{}\stackrel{~}{A}]+\mathrm{D}\gamma ,`$ (3.35)
then we have also $`_\vartheta ^{}A^{}=0`$ and thus

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{\vartheta }}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\stackrel{~}{A}^{}_{}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A^{}+\stackrel{~}{F}^{})(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A^{}+\stackrel{~}{F}^{})_{}\stackrel{~}{A}^{}]+\mathrm{D}^{}\gamma ^{}.`$ (3.36)
Together with (3.16) which reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\vartheta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}g_{}\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}^{}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}g)+g\gamma \gamma ^{}g,`$ (3.37)
this forms a system of first order differential equations which determines $`g(\vartheta ),A(\vartheta )`$ and $`A^{}(\vartheta )`$ (here we suppress the dependence on the coordinates $`x^i`$, for simplicity) from $`g(0),A(0)`$ and $`A^{}(0)`$ and a choice of $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$.666We may discard the equation for $`A^{}`$ and eliminate $`A^{}`$ in (3.37) using (3.6). This means that, given a classical gauge transformation, the above equations determine a corresponding noncommutative gauge transformation. This is a Seiberg-Witten map . In particular, expanding $`g`$, $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ in powers of $`\vartheta `$, the coefficients of the $`(n+1)`$th power are determined via (3.35), (3.36) and (3.37) by the $`n`$th order coefficients and thus recursively by the 0th order.

Using $`_\vartheta A=0`$ and (3.27) in (3.34) yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{\vartheta }}=\stackrel{~}{F}_{}\stackrel{~}{F}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\stackrel{~}{A}_{}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}F+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}F)(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}F+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{D}}F)_{}\stackrel{~}{A}]\gamma F+F\gamma .`$ (3.38)
This first order differential equation determines the curvature of the noncommutative connection from that of the commutative connection $`A`$ at $`\vartheta =0`$. In particular, $`F(0)=0`$ implies $`F(\vartheta )=0`$ for all $`\vartheta `$.

Expressed in components, the equations (3.37), (3.35) and (3.38) with $`\gamma =0=\gamma ^{}`$ take the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\vartheta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{ij}(_igA_j+A_j^{}_ig)`$ (3.39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A_i}{\vartheta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{kl}[A_k,_lA_i+F_{li}]_{,+}`$ (3.40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_{ij}}{\vartheta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{kl}(2[F_{ik},F_{jl}]_{,+}[A_k,D_lF_{ij}+_lF_{ij}]_{,+})`$ (3.41)
where $`[f,h]_{,+}=fh+hf`$. From these equations one recovers equations (3.8) in  for an infinitesimal gauge transformation.

We can extend the Seiberg-Witten map to matter fields like $`\psi ,\phi ,B`$ by setting their covariant $`\vartheta `$-derivatives to zero. For example, $`_\vartheta \psi =0`$ with $`\gamma =0`$ leads to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\vartheta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{ij}A_i(_j\psi +_j\psi ).`$ (3.42)
## 4 Parallel transport in deformation space and curvature

In general, $`\theta ^{ij}`$ may depend on several deformation parameters $`\vartheta _i`$. The deformation elaborated in section 3 can then be performed along any curve in the deformation space $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on which $`\theta ^{ij}`$ are functions. We learned that a Seiberg-Witten map has the geometric interpretation of a parallel transport along a curve in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. In general, such a parallel transport is path-dependent due to the presence of a curvature associated with the covariant derivatives (see also ).

Instead of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (and other quantities) which refer to a deformation parameter $`\vartheta `$, we write $`\mathrm{d}_1`$, $`A_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{d}_2`$, $`A_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, refering to deformation parameters $`\vartheta _1`$ and $`\vartheta _2`$, respectively. Correspondingly, there are two different antisymmetric bilinear forms replacing (3.11) with $`ϵ_1^{ij}=\theta ^{ij}/\vartheta _1`$ and $`ϵ_2^{ij}=\theta ^{ij}/\vartheta _2`$. In particular,

$`_{\vartheta _1}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\vartheta _1}}+A_1_{}\mathrm{d}_1\psi +\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\psi ,`$ (4.1)
$`_{\vartheta _2}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\vartheta _2}}+A_2_{}\mathrm{d}_2\psi +\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\psi `$ (4.2)
replace (3.18). Now

$`[_{\vartheta _1},_{\vartheta _2}]\psi `$ $`=`$ $`F_{12}_{}\mathrm{d}_1\mathrm{d}_2\psi +(F_{12}_{}A_2_{\vartheta _2}A_1)_{}\mathrm{d}_1\psi `$ (4.3)
$`+(F_{12}_{}A_1+_{\vartheta _1}A_2)_{}\mathrm{d}_2\psi `$
$`+(K_{12}+A_1_{}\mathrm{d}_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2A_2_{}\mathrm{d}_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)\psi `$
where

$`F_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{d}_1A_2\mathrm{d}_2A_1+A_1A_2A_2A_1,`$ (4.4)
$`K_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\vartheta _1}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\vartheta _2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1.`$ (4.5)
After several manipulations, one arrives at the following generalized Ricci identity,

$`[_{\vartheta _1},_{\vartheta _2}]\psi `$ $`=`$ $`_{12}\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{12}_{}(\mathrm{D}_1\mathrm{D}_2+\mathrm{D}_2\mathrm{D}_1)\psi `$ (4.6)
$`+(_{\vartheta _1}A_2)_{}\mathrm{D}_2\psi (_{\vartheta _2}A_1)_{}\mathrm{D}_1\psi `$
which is evidently covariant since the generalized curvature

$`_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`K_{12}+A_1_{}\mathrm{d}_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2A_2_{}\mathrm{d}_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+(_{\vartheta _2}A_1)_{}A_1(_{\vartheta _1}A_2)_{}A_2`$ (4.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{12}_{}(\mathrm{d}_1A_2+\mathrm{d}_2A_1+A_1A_2+A_2A_1)`$
$`=`$ $`K_{12}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{ij}}{\vartheta _1}}A_i_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{ij}}{\vartheta _2}}A_i_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{ij}}{\vartheta _1}}(_{\vartheta _2}A_i)A_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{ij}}{\vartheta _2}}(_{\vartheta _1}A_i)A_j`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{ij}}{\vartheta _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{kl}}{\vartheta _2}}F_{ik}(_jA_l+_lA_j+A_jA_l+A_lA_j)`$
transforms as follows,

$`_{12}^{}=g_{12}g_{}^1.`$ (4.8)
This result is obtained by a lengthy calculation starting with

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{\vartheta _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\vartheta _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\vartheta _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\vartheta _1}}\right)g=0,`$ (4.9)
using (3.16) in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\vartheta }}+A_1^{}g_{}A_1=g\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{}g`$ (4.10)
and correspondingly with the index 1 replaced by 2, and noting that the generalized curvature also has the following expression,

$`_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\vartheta _1}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\vartheta _2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{d}_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2_{}A_1+\mathrm{d}_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1_{}A_2`$ (4.11)
$`A_1_{}_{\vartheta _2}A_1+A_2_{}_{\vartheta _1}A_2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{d}_1A_2+\mathrm{d}_2A_1A_1A_2A_2A_1)_{}F_{12}.`$
Besides the generalized curvature, there are additional terms on the rhs of the Ricci identity (4.6). Their origin lies in the deviation of the covariant derivative $`_\vartheta `$ from a “derivation” (cf (3.28)).

The formula which replaces (4.6) for the field $`\phi `$ is

$`[_{\vartheta _1},_{\vartheta _2}]\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{12}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(\mathrm{D}_1\mathrm{D}_2+\mathrm{D}_2\mathrm{D}_1)\phi ]_{}F_{12}`$ (4.12)
$`+\mathrm{D}_1\phi _{}_{\vartheta _2}A_1\mathrm{D}_2\phi _{}_{\vartheta _1}A_2.`$
The path-dependence of Seiberg-Witten maps leads to the following idea. Consider a closed path through $`\vartheta =0`$ in the deformation parameter space. We could imagine that, as a consequence of the nonvanishing Ricci identity, parallel transport from $`\vartheta =0`$ along the path back to $`\vartheta =0`$ maps a solution of some commutative model to another solution. This may lead to a solution generating method.

## 5 Moyal deformations of integrable models and Seiberg-Witten map

Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{d},\delta )`$ be a bi-differential calculus  over $`(𝒜,)`$ such that the bicomplex conditions $`\mathrm{d}^2=\delta ^2=\mathrm{d}\delta +\delta \mathrm{d}=0`$ are identically satisfied. Replacing $`\mathrm{d}`$ with $`\mathrm{D}`$ defined by

$`\mathrm{D}\psi =g_{}^1\mathrm{d}(g\psi )=\mathrm{d}\psi +A\psi ,A=g_{}^1\mathrm{d}g`$ (5.1)
for some $``$-invertible matrix-valued function $`g`$, the new bicomplex conditions are equivalent to

$`\delta A=0.`$ (5.2)
Note that, as a consequence of the definition of $`A`$, the curvature of $`A`$ vanishes, i.e.,

$`F=\mathrm{d}A+AA=0.`$ (5.3)
For $`\vartheta =0`$, such a bicomplex can be associated with many integrable models, including the self-dual Yang-Mills equations, in such a way that (5.2) is equivalent to the integrable model equation .

Is it possible to obtain solutions of the noncommutative version from those of a classical integrable model via the Seiberg-Witten map? Indeed, we already know that the Seiberg-Witten map preserves the zero curvature condition.777Most integrable models admit a zero curvature formulation with a parameter ($`\lambda `$) dependent connection. Since the Seiberg-Witten map is quadratic in the connection, it does not, in general, respect the concrete $`\lambda `$-dependence of a flat connection. This results in constraints and thus obstructions to construct solutions of the deformed model from the commutative one. It remains to investigate with the help of the formalism of section 3 whether this map also preserves (5.2). $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}`$ extends to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with the additional rules $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\delta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\delta x^i=0`$. Applying $`\delta `$ to (3.35), using $`F=0`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\delta `$, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\vartheta }}\delta A=\delta {\displaystyle \frac{A}{\vartheta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A+\stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\delta A\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\delta A_{}\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A_{}\delta \stackrel{~}{A}].`$ (5.4)
If the additional condition

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A_{}\delta \stackrel{~}{A}=0`$ (5.5)
holds, then the last equation indeed implies $`\delta A(\vartheta )=0`$ if $`\delta A(0)=0`$. As a consequence, each solution of the classical integrable model generates a solution of the noncommutative version, if the latter solution satisfies (5.5).

As an example, let us start with the trivial bi-differential calculus determined by

$`\mathrm{d}\psi =\psi _t\mathrm{d}t+\psi _x\mathrm{d}x,\delta \psi =\psi _x\mathrm{d}t+\psi _t\mathrm{d}x`$ (5.6)
with coordinates $`t`$ and $`x`$, and “dress” the first operator according to (5.1) so that

$`\mathrm{D}\psi =(\psi _t+U\psi )\mathrm{d}t+(\psi _x+V\psi )\mathrm{d}x`$ (5.7)
where

$`U=g_{}^1g_t,V=g_{}^1g_x.`$ (5.8)
The bicomplex conditions are satisfied if and only if

$`(g_{}^1g_t)_t(g_{}^1g_x)_x=0`$ (5.9)
which is the noncommutative version of the principal chiral field equation (see also ). The condition (5.5) becomes

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}A_{}\delta \stackrel{~}{A}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[U_xV_t,V_xU_t]_{,+}\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}x`$ (5.10)
which vanishes as a consequence of the field equation (5.9). Hence, every solution of the classical principal chiral model generates a solution of the noncommutative model. In practice, this allows at least the recursive calculation of the coefficients of a power series expansion of the field $`g(\vartheta )`$ in the deformation parameter $`\vartheta `$ from a given classical solution $`g(0)`$. Convergence of the resulting formal power series has still to be investigated.

Using (3.6) and $`txxt=\vartheta `$, (3.37) leads to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\vartheta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(g_x_tg_{}^1g_t_xg_{}^1)g={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}g_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}g_{}^1)g`$ (5.11)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}f=f_t\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}t+f_x\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}x`$. A special class of classical chiral models is defined by $`g_0=I2\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ is a projection, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^2=\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$. Let us try to find a deformation of this particular class. If we assume that $`g=I2\mathrm{\Pi }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }`$, then we have $`g_{}^1=I2\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Substituting this in (5.11), we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{\vartheta }}=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{\Pi })(I2\mathrm{\Pi }).`$ (5.12)
With the help of the equation derived from $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }`$ by differentiation with respect to $`\vartheta `$, and using the Leibniz rule for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}`$, we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{\Pi }=0`$ (5.13)
which is an additional condition for $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ if $`\vartheta 0`$. This shows that the Seiberg-Witten map is not necessarily consistent with reductions of the principal chiral model.

## 6 Final remarks

Let ncEQS stand for a (noncommutative) deformation of a system EQS of field equations. If we can find a system of first order differential equations in the deformation parameter $`\vartheta `$, as a consequence of which $`(ncEQS)/\vartheta =0`$, then (under certain technical conditions) solutions of ncEQS are obtained from solutions of EQS. The Seiberg-Witten map for gauge fields provides us with an example. It allows us, in particular, to construct solutions of the noncommutative zero curvature condition from solutions of the classical zero curvature condition. Moreover, we have shown that this map also works in case of the two-dimensional principal chiral model and its noncommutative version. Another example which fits into the above scheme is the noncommutative KdV equation treated in .


format: text

text:
# The broad band spectrum and variability of Seyfert 1

## 1. Introduction

With Chandra just launched, and XMM and ASTRO-E due to follow suit soon, it is the right time to review what we have learned on Seyfert 1 galaxies from previous generation satellites like ASCA and BeppoSAX, and point out the still open questions, hopefully to be answered or at least addressed by the new generation missions. In particular, I will concentrate here on BeppoSAX results, not only because I worked myself on them but also because it is only now that a general picture from these observations is emerging. Before discussing the BeppoSAX observations, however, let me at least mention briefly the recent results from ASCA and XTE which I consider most significant.

## 2. Recent results on Seyfert 1

### 2.1. Variability

The most exciting result in recent years on variability in Seyfert Galaxies is probably the discovery of periodicity in the flux of the Compton–thin Seyfert 2 galaxy IRAS 18325-5925 (Iwasawa et al. 1998). The discovery has been obtained with an imaging satellite, ASCA; when the field is observed with a better spatial resolution instrument (ROSAT), no evidence for a confusing source is found. The chance of the periodicity being due to a cataclysmic variable (like in the infamous case of NGC 6814, Madejski et al. 1993) or some other confusing source is therefore very low. As periodicity has been observed so far only in one (or two, see below) sources, it is possible that it is a transient event, e.g. a flaring region orbiting around the black hole with a lifetime longer than usual (or being so strong to outshine all other flares simultaneously present). IRAS 18325-5925 has many characteristics typical of the subclass of Narrow Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies (see Boller, 1999, for a review): large amplitude variation, steep spectrum, possibly ionized disc. One can then argue that periodicities are better to be searched for in NLS1s rather than in ‘classical’ Seyferts. However, a recent claim of a 33 h periodicity in MCG–6-30-15 by Lee et al. (2000) could indicate that periodicity may be a not so rare phenomenon, after all, and that it has been generally missed so far due to lack of long enough observations.

Thanks mostly to RXTE, long monitoring campaigns in X–rays simultaneously with optical and UV have been performed on a few selected objects, with quite surprising and important results. In NGC 7469 (Nandra et al. 1998), NGC 5548 (Chiang et al. 1999) and NGC 3516 (Maoz et al. 2000), optical/UV and X–ray emissions seem to be uncorrelated or, if any correlation exists, is the optical/UV that leads X–rays, opposite to what expected in the reprocessing scenario. This scenario (Collin–Souffrin 1991), in which optical and UV emissions arises as reprocessing in the accretion disc of the hard X–rays, was suggested to explain the too tight correlation (and lack of delays) between optical and UV fluxes (Courvoisier & Clavel 1991) in some Seyfert 1s (NGC 5548 being one of the best examples). So, the situation is rather confused and puzzling, as in the same source both the viscous dissipation and the reprocessing scenario appear to be unviable.

Regarding even longer term variability, the most spectacular result recently has been the switching off of the “swan’s song” galaxy, NGC 4051 (Guainazzi et al. 1998). When observed by BeppoSAX in May 1998, only the Compton reflection component and the iron line were visible, while the primary radiation had disappeared. When put in the context (Uttley et al. 1999), this observation demonstrated that the observed reflected emission occurred in matter distant at least a few light–months from the nucleus. So far, this is the most convincing evidence for the presence of large amount of cold circumnuclear matter in Seyfert 1 galaxies.

### 2.2. Warm absorbers

Warm absorbers are detected in at least half of Seyfert 1s (Reynolds 1997, George et al. 1998), indicating that the covering factor of the ionized material is fairly large. The reason why warm absorbers are not observed in all Seyferts is not clear. It may be due either to a spread in column density and/or ionization structure, or to a covering factor of the ionized matter less than unity. In the first case, an improved sensitivity, as for instance that provided by XMM, is necessary to search for small edges due either to small columns of oxygen or to less abundant elements (e.g. Neon). In the second case, the ionized material may be observed via emission lines (e.g. Netzer 1993), and high resolution detectors (gratings, Chandra and XMM, or calorimeters, ASTRO-E) are needed.

The most interesting recent discovery possibly related to warm absorbers is the 1 keV absorption feature observed in some NLS1s (Vaughan et al., 1999a; Leighly 1999 and references therein). When interpreted as a blend of several resonant lines, mainly from iron L (Nicastro, Fiore & Matt 1999), this implies that the ionization structure of narrow and broad lines Seyferts is rather different, not surprisingly given the different ionizing continuum, especially in soft X–rays. Other possible explanations include blueshifted absorption edges (Leighly et al. 1997) and oxygen smeared edge from ionized discs (Fabian, private communication; see also Vaughan et al. 1999b). XMM should easily distinguish between competing models.

### 2.3. The iron line

The iron line in Seyfert 1 galaxies is usually broad (Nandra et al. 1997), likely originating in a relativistic disc (e.g. Fabian et al. 1995). In the two best studied sources, MCG–6-30-15 (Tanaka et al. 1995; Guainazzi et al. 1999) and NGC 3516 (Nandra et al. 1999), the observation of a double–horned and asymmetric line profile, expected in presence of fast orbital motion and strong gravity effects (e.g. Fabian et al. 1989; Matt et al. 1992), makes this interpretation quite strong.

In principle, from the line profile and short term variability in response to variations of the continuum (i.e. the so–called reverberation mapping), it is possible to determine the spin of the black hole and the geometry of the accretion disc and the illuminating source (e.g. Martocchia, Karas & Matt 1999 and references therein). Large sensitivity, coupled with good energy resolution, it is required for these goals. It is possible that even the next missions will not sufficient for this purpose, and we have probably to wait for Constellation–X (e.g. Young & Reynolds 2000) and XEUS. It is worth noting, however, that already with ASCA it has been possible to start studying variations of the iron line in MCG–6-30-15 (Iwasawa et al. 1996; 1999). Even if the results are not yet conclusive, these works demonstrated the potentiality of the method.

While most of the iron lines observed in Seyfert 1s can be explained in terms of relativistic discs, it is not clear whether emission from more distant matter (let us call it the “torus”) is also present. Evidence for this component is scanty, and the only unambiguous cases so far are those of NGC 4151 (e.g. Piro et al. 1999) and of NGC 4051 discussed in Sec.2.1. In the latter case, the discovery was due more to a stroke of luck rather than to systematic searches, and the probability to find other sources switched off seems not very high. More promising, in view of missions like XMM and expecially ASTRO–E with large sensitivity coupled with good energy resolution, is to search for narrow iron lines (as the torus should be at a distance such that relativistic effects are negligible).

### 2.4. The continuum

While there is wide consensus on the fact that the power law index (assuming that a power law is actually a good enough description of the primary continuum: see Petrucci et al., 1999) is typically around 1.8–2 (Nandra & Pounds 1994) and that the Compton reflection is a common ingredient, there are still several open questions: is there a correlation between the photon index and the amount of Compton reflection, as suggested by Zdziarski et al (1999)? How common is the soft excess in Broad Lines Seyfert 1s (there is actually no doubt that it is common in Narrow Lines Seyfert 1s)? What is the typical (if any) cut–off energy in the hard X–ray spectra? To address these questions, let me discuss the BeppoSAX observations of a dozen of moderately bright Seyfert 1s.

## 3. A BeppoSAX spectral survey of Seyfert 1

In Table 1, the observed sources and the main spectral parameters are listed. When the sources have been observed more than once, the results refer to the combined spectrum if there is not spectral variability, or otherwise to the observation when the source was brightest.

For all sources, the spectral model includes: a power law with exponential cut–off; a gaussian line (or a relativistic line, when it provides a significantly better fit); the Compton reflection continuum. A warm absorber and/or a soft excess have been added if required by the data. The spectral parameters reported in the Table refer to the best fit model, whatever its complexity.

In Fig. 1 the distributions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`R`$ (the solid angle, in units of 2$`\pi `$, subtended by the reflecting matter, assumed to be observed face–on) and of the equivalent width of the iron line, are given. The results are in agreement with those found by Nandra & Pounds (1994) and Nandra et al. (1997) and based on Ginga and ASCA observations, respectively.

### 3.1. The high energy cut–off

Before the launch of BeppoSAX, a high energy cut–off was unambiguously detected only in one source, NGC 4151 (Jourdain et al., 1992). From the analysis of the spectrum obtained summing several sources observed with OSSE, Gondek et al. suggested an average cut–off energy of a few hundreds keV.

From Table 1, it can be seen that a high energy cut–off is positively detected in about half of the sample. The detected values range from 70 keV (NGC 4151) to 270 keV (IC4329A). When only a lower limit can be obtained, the values are generally consistent with the measured ones. The plot of the $`e`$-folding energies vs. the power law index is shown in Fig. 2. While there is no obvious correlation between the two parameters, there is a tendency for flat sources to avoid high values of the cut–off energy. Whether this reflects something intrinsic to the spectra, or simply the fact that it is easier to determine high energy cut–offs in flat sources, cannot be said with the present data.

### 3.2. The soft excess

Only two out of 13 sources (namely Mkn 509 and Mkn 841) in the BeppoSAX sample discussed here present evidence for a soft excess. Even if for three sources (NGC 5506 and NGC 4151, which have a large intrinsic absorption, and Fairall 9, for which the LECS instrument was switched off, for technical problems, for almost all the observation) we cannot say anything, the soft excess appears to be the exception rather than the rule.

For Mkn 509, the inclusion of a soft excess (in the form of a steeper power law dominating below about 1 keV) improves significantly the goodness of the fit and provides a more astrophysically sound global solution (Perola et al. 2000). For Mkn 841, a warm absorber fits the spectrum almost as well as a black body soft excess, but from ASCA it seems that the warm absorber is not very relevant in this object (see e.g. Reynolds 1997). In both sources, the shape and luminosity of the soft component remains rather undetermined, and what can be said is that a steepening of the spectrum occurs below 1 keV or so. Whether there is a curvature in the primary X–ray emission, or there are two different components, it is impossible to establish.

### 3.3. The iron line and Compton Reflection

In Fig. 3 the iron line EW is plotted against $`R`$. In the reprocessing scenario, the two quantities are expected to be strongly correlated (George & Fabian 1991; Matt, Perola & Piro 1991). The error bars, however, are too large to really check this hypothesis. The relatively small probability (3.4%) that they are not correlated is mainly due one point, i.e. Mkn 841 (but see next paragraph).

More interesting and instructive is the comparison between the average values of the two quantities (Fig. 1), as it can be used to estimate the iron abundance, which turns out to be consistent (say, within a factor of 2 or so) with the cosmic value.

### 3.4. Are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`R`$ correlated?

In Fig. 4 $`R`$ is shown against the photon index. A correlation between the two quantities is evident, the probability that they are not correlated being only 1.3% if Mkn 841 is excluded, and less than 0.1% when it is included. However, a word of caution is necessary here. The two parameters are strongly correlated in the fit procedure (see also the discussion in Nandra et al. 2000). If, for some reason, the photon index is miscalculated, and e.g. a value steeper than real is found, a larger $`R`$ is immediately obtained. Let me use the case of Mkn 841 as an example. If the soft excess is modeled with a black body, the results for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`R`$ and the iron EW listed in Table 1 and presented in the figures are obtained. An even steeper spectrum ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=2.27) and, correspondingly, larger $`R`$ (4.6) is obtained with the warm absorber model. Conversely, if the soft excess is modeled by a power law, the photon index is significantly flatter (($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=1.75) and $`R`$ reduces to 1.5 (but the line EW remains fairly large, e.e. 350 eV).

Therefore, I believe that the issue of the reality of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$$`R`$ correlation is still open, and can be further addressed only by much more sensitive missions like XMM (but the energy band may be not broad enough) or Constellation–X.

## 4. Conclusions

The main results from the BeppoSAX observations of a sample of Seyfert 1 Galaxies can be summarized as follows:

* In most sources there is no evidence for a soft excess. In only two sources, Mkn 509 and Mkn 841, a steepening of the spectrum below about 1 keV seems required by the data. Whether it is due to a curvature of the primary emission, or to an altogether distinct component, is impossible to say.
* A high energy cut–off with $`e`$–folding energy typically in the range $``$100–200 keV is observed, when the quality of the data is good enough.
* The power law index, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and the amount of reflection component are clearly correlated, confirming the findings of Zdziarski et al. (1999). However, it is possible that such a correlation is not real, but partly or entirely due to the fact that the two parameters are strongly correlated in the fit procedure. Let us suppose that some values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are miscalculated, either because there are other components not taken into account, or because a power law is a too simple model (e.g. Petrucci et al. 1999). In this case, a correlation between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`R`$ would be immediately found, as the quality of present (and of course past) data is not sufficient to measure the amount of Compton reflection independently of the shape of the primary continuum.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The BeppoSAX results have been presented on behalf of large teams led by G.C. Perola and L. Piro. I thank E. Costantini, A. De Rosa, F. Nicastro, L. Piro and especially G.C. Perola for many useful discussions, and for kindly providing the results of their analysis before publication. I acknowledge financial support from the Italian Space Agency, and from MURST (grant cofin98–02–32).

## REFERENCES

Boller, T., 1999, this conference

Chiang J., et al., 1999, ApJ, in press (astro–ph/9907114)

Collin–Souffrin S., 1991, A&A, 249, 344

Costantini E., et al., 2000, ApJ, submitted

Courvoisier T.J.L., Clavel J., 1991, A&A, 248, 389

De Rosa A., et al., 1999, this conference

Fabian A.C., Rees M.J., Stella L., White N.E., 1989, MNRAS, 238, 729

Fabian A.C., et al., 1995, MNRAS, 277, L11

George I.M., Fabian A.C., 1991, MNRAS, 249, 352

George I.M., Turner T.J., Netzer H., et al., 1998, ApJSS 114, 73

Gondek D., et al., 1996, MNRAS 282, 646

Guainazzi M., et al., 1998, MNRAS, 301, L1

Guainazzi M., et al., 1999, A&A, 341, L27

Iwasawa K. et al., 1996, MNRAS 282, 1038

Iwasawa K., et al., 1998, MNRAS, 295, L20

Iwasawa K., et al., 1999, MNRAS, 306, L19

Jourdain E., et al. 1992, 256, L38

Lee J., et al., 2000, MNRAS, submitted (astro–ph/9909239)

Leighly K., Mushotzky R.F., Nandra K., Forster K., 1997, ApJ, 489, L25

Leighly K., 1999, ApJS, 125, 317

Madejski G.M., et al., 1993, Nature, 365, 626

Maoz D., Edelson R., Nandra K., 2000, AJ, 119, 199

Martocchia A., Karas V., Matt G., 1999, MNRAS, 312, 817

Matt G., Perola G.C., Piro L., 1991, A&A, 245, 25

Matt G., Perola G.C., Piro L., Stella L., 1992, A&A, 257, 63

Nandra K., Pounds K. A., 1994, MNRAS 268, 405

Nandra K., George I. M., Mushotzky R. F., Turner T. J., Yaqoob T., 1997, ApJ 477, 602

Nandra K., et al., 1998, ApJ, 505, 594

Nandra K., et al., 1999, ApJ, 523, 17

Nandra K., et al., 2000, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0006339)

Netzer H., 1993, ApJ, 411, 594

Nicastro F., Fiore F., Matt G., 1999, ApJ, 517, 108

Nicastro F., et al., 2000, ApJ, 536, 718

Perola G.C., et al., 1999, A&A, 351, 937

Perola G.C., et al., 2000, A&A, 358, 117

Petrucci P.O., et al., 1999, this conference

Piro L., 1999, Astron. Nach., in press

Reynolds C. S., 1997, MNRAS 286, 513

Tanaka Y., et al., 1995, Nature, 375, 659

Uttley M., et al., 1999, MNRAS, 307, L6

Vaughan S., Reeves J., Warwick R., Edelson R., 1999a, MNRAS, 309, 113

Vaughan S., Pounds K.A., Reeves J., Warwick R., Edelson R., 1999b, MNRAS, 308, L34

Young A.J., Reynolds C.S., 2000, ApJ, 529, 101

Zdziarski A.A., Lubinski P., Smith D.A., 1999, MNRAS, 303, L11


text:
# Interpreting the Mg II h and k Line Profiles of Mira Variables

## 1 Introduction

Mira variables are an important class of pulsating variable stars representing the final stages in the life of a solar-type star. The stellar pulsation of these stars drives periodic shock waves through their atmospheres. These shocks waves determine the atmospheric structure of Miras to a large extent, and they assist in producing very high mass loss rates. The Mg II h & k lines of Mira variables at 2802.705 Å and 2795.528 Å, respectively, are useful diagnostics for the shocks, since they are produced within the heated plasma just behind the outwardly-propagating shocks.

Wood & Karovska (2000, hereafter Paper 1) analyzed IUE observations of several extensively observed Mira variables in order to study the properties of their UV emission lines, especially Mg II h & k. Figure 1 shows a sequence of IUE spectra of the Mira variable R Car, illustrating how the Mg II h line profile typically varies during the course of a pulsation cycle. The Mg II flux rises well after optical maximum ($`\varphi =0.0`$), peaking near $`\varphi =0.20.5`$ and then decreasing (see also Brugel, Willson, & Bowen, 1990; Luttermoser, 1996). Although this pattern is observed for every pulsation cycle, the amount of Mg II flux produced during a pulsation cycle can vary greatly from one cycle to the next.

The Mg II k lines are almost always contaminated with absorption lines of Fe I and Mn I, indicating the existence of overlying cool material above the Mg II emission region. The Mg II h line, however, is not greatly contaminated by such absorption. Thus, most of this paper (and Paper 1) focuses on the more pristine h line profile.

The centroid of the Mg II h line is always highly blueshifted by at least 30 km s-1 from the rest frame of the star, and the magnitude of the blueshift is clearly observed to decrease with pulsation phase, as seen in Figure 1. The blueshifts vary somewhat from star to star and cycle to cycle, but typical centroid changes are from $`70`$ km s-1 to $`40`$ km s-1 from $`\varphi =0.2`$ to $`\varphi =0.6`$ (see Paper 1). This behavior is very similar to that of the optical Ca II H & K lines (Merrill, 1960). The width of the Mg II h line is also phase-dependent, decreasing from about 70 km s-1 to about 40 km s-1 between $`\varphi =0.2`$ and $`\varphi =0.6`$ (see Fig. 1).

In addition to Mg II h & k, many multiplets of Fe II lines are observed in the UV spectra of Miras. Another useful line detected in these data is the Al II\] $`\lambda `$2669 line. The fluxes of the Fe II and Al II\] lines exhibit the same phase-dependent behavior as the Mg II lines, but their widths and centroid velocities are of a different character. The Fe II and Al II\] lines have very narrow widths which are not phase-dependent. Except for Fe II $`\lambda `$2599 (see below), the Fe II and Al II\] lines of most of the Miras show modest blueshifts of $`515`$ km s-1, which are not variable within the error bars. In this paper, we use simple radiative transfer calculations of Mg II line profiles to try to explain why the Mg II lines are broader and have much larger blueshifts than the less optically thick Fe II and Al II\] lines.

## 2 Possible Explanations for the Mg II Line Shifts

The Fe II and Al II\] lines will have significantly lower opacities than the much stronger Mg II h & k lines, and some may even be optically thin (Carpenter, Robinson, & Judge, 1995). This opacity difference is presumably the primary reason for the behavioral differences of these lines. Evidence for this is provided by the most optically thick Fe II line at 2599.394 Å, which behaves differently from the other Fe II lines and in fact exhibits some of the characteristics of Mg II h & k, with larger line widths and large blueshifts (Paper 1).

Because of their low opacity, the Fe II and Al II\] line centroids should be more indicative of the true outflow velocities of the shocked material, and the line widths should be more indicative of turbulent velocities within the shocked material. In the following, we explore possible reasons why the Mg II lines are broader and more blueshifted.

Models and observations of various stellar sources demonstrate that as the opacity in an emission line is increased, the line typically broadens and separates into two peaks (e.g. Robinson, Carpenter, & Brown, 1998). This is why solar Lyman-$`\alpha `$, Mg II h & k, and Ca II H & K lines are observed to be double-peaked (Feldman & Doschek, 1977). Many Mg II lines of red giant and supergiant stars are also double-peaked, although the blue peak is often affected by wind absorption (Robinson & Carpenter, 1995). For Miras, perhaps we are seeing only the blue peak of the Mg II emission, with the red peak being suppressed by overlying material.

One possible reason why only the blue peak is visible is that circumstellar neutral material is completely absorbing the red peak. The observed Mg II k lines of Miras are clearly affected by this overlying neutral material (see Paper 1). However, this interpretation requires far more neutral absorption on the red side of the line than on the blue side for both the h and k lines. This would also have to be the case for the Ca II H & K lines, which behave similarly to Mg II h & k; and also for the Fe II $`\lambda `$2599 line to explain its larger blueshift. It seems very unlikely that neutral absorption features would blanket predominantly the red sides of all these lines. The suppression of the red peak must therefore be due to radiative transfer processes within the lines themselves.

The simplest explanation is that there is downflowing Mg II material suppressing the emission produced by outflowing Mg II material. Hydrodynamic models of pulsating Miras suggest that after material is accelerated outwards by shocks it will gravitationally decelerate and fall back towards the star, meaning there should be downflowing material present above the pulsation-induced shocks (Bowen, 1988; Bessell, Scholz, & Wood, 1996; Höfner et al., 1998).

Kraft (1957) used such a scenario to try to explain the behavior of Ca II H & K lines observed from Cepheids and Miras. He assumed that an overlying absorption layer of downflowing Ca II material obliterates the red side of the Ca II lines. One problem with this simple model is that unless densities in the downflowing material are many orders of magnitude higher than one would expect based on the hydrodynamic models, the layer should be a scattering layer and not an absorption layer. At the relatively low densities that are expected to exist in this region of the atmosphere, there is no immediately apparent way to destroy/absorb Mg II photons. In principle, a highly opaque scattering layer might also work, but in a scattering environment it is harder to completely suppress the entire red side of a line since photons can frequency scatter far enough into the red wing of the line to escape the layer. In order to test whether a reasonable downflowing scattering layer can in fact suppress the red peaks of the Mg II lines, we perform the following radiative transfer simulation.

## 3 Radiative Transfer Calculations

### 3.1 Methodology

The hydrodynamic models of pulsating Miras show that the pulsation produces a series of outwardly-propagating shocks within the outer atmosphere of these stars. In Figure 2a-c, we show schematic density, temperature, and velocity profiles that represent the innermost shock of a pulsating Mira and the region overlying it, which extends nearly to the next shock. These curves are meant to be crudely similar to the model results of Bowen (1988) and Willson & Bowen (1988) at a pulsation phase of about $`\varphi =0.5`$. In practice, we experimented with minor adjustments to all these curves in order to find a model that adequately reproduced the observations. The density, temperature, and velocity structure of the atmosphere all play a role in determining the properties of the Mg II profiles.

We computed the ionization state of the model atmosphere in Figure 2 using collisional ionization rates from Voronov (1997) and recombination rates from Shull & Van Steenberg (1982). In computing the electron density we consider all abundant elements whose ionization might contribute significant numbers of electrons. We assume the solar abundances of Anders & Grevesse (1989) for these calculations. Magnesium, hydrogen, silicon, and iron turn out to be the dominant electron contributors.

The thin lines in Figure 2d show the electron density and Mg II density computed assuming ionization equilibrium. However, ionization equilibrium is not a good approximation for this dynamic atmosphere. Typical atomic recombination rates are $`\alpha 10^{12}`$ cm3 s-1 for the temperatures within the model atmosphere. The recombination timescale is $`t_r=(n_e\alpha )^1`$. For electron densities below $`n_e=3\times 10^4`$ cm-3, $`t_r`$ is longer than most Mira pulsation periods. Recombination will not have time to occur when the electron density approaches this value, so the plasma outside the shocks will be frozen in a much higher ionization state than suggested by the ionization equilibrium calculations (see Fig. 2d).

In order to estimate more reasonable electron and Mg II densities, we performed the following simulation. Ignoring the velocity structure implied by Figure 2c, we followed the ionization state of a static parcel of gas as we repeatedly ran the density and temperature profiles of Figures 2a-b over the parcel with a period of 300 days, a typical Mira pulsation period. The electron density of the parcel was initially set to some arbitrary value. At the temperatures with which we are concerned, we can assume each atom is either neutral or singly-ionized. Collisional ionization and radiative recombination are the two processes responsible for establishing the ionization state of each element, and the equation

$$\frac{dn_2}{dt}=n_e\left(n_1C_{12}n_2\alpha _{21}\right)$$
(1)
shows how the density of the ionized state of the element in question ($`n_2`$) changes due to these processes, where $`n_1`$ is the density of the neutral state of the element, and $`C_{12}`$ and $`\alpha _{21}`$ are the temperature dependent ionization and recombination rates to and from the singly ionized state, respectively. By solving this simple differential equation, we can express the time dependent density of the singly-ionized state of a given element after a time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ as

$$n_2(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\frac{n_{tot}C_{12}}{C_{12}+\alpha _{21}}+\left(n_2(t)\frac{n_{tot}C_{12}}{C_{12}+\alpha _{21}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(n_e(t)\left(C_{12}+\alpha _{21}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }t\right),$$
(2)
where $`n_{tot}`$ is the total number density of the element ($`n_{tot}=n_1+n_2`$).

The ionization states of each element, and the electron density, are recomputed after each time step. After just a few pulsation cycles, the electron density and ionization states settle into a repeatable pattern, from which we can extract the electron and Mg II density profiles shown as thick lines in Figure 2d. As expected, these densities are very different from the equilibrium values.

We now have all the information we need to compute theoretical Mg II h & k line profiles. Since the observed k line is usually contaminated with neutral absorption features (see Paper 1), we focus on the h line. We use a simple two-level atom approximation for our calculations. At each level of the atmosphere the number of h line photons generated by collisional excitation per unit volume per unit time is then given (in cgs units) by (e.g., Brown et al., 1984)

$$L=\frac{8.6\times 10^6\mathrm{\Omega }n_en}{gT^{0.5}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1.44\times 10^8}{\lambda T}\right),$$
(3)
where $`n`$ is the Mg II number density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the collision strength, $`g`$ is the statistical weight of the lower level, and $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength of the transition in Ångstroms. For the h line, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=5.6`$ and $`g=2`$ (Mendoza, 1981).

The wavelength dependent optical depth for each level of the atmosphere is (e.g., Spitzer, 1978)

$$\tau _\lambda (h)=0.02654f_h^{h_{top}}n(h)\varphi _\lambda (h)𝑑h,$$
(4)
where $`f`$ is the oscillator absorption strength, $`n(h)`$ is the height dependent Mg II density, $`h_{top}`$ is the height at the top of the atmosphere, and $`\varphi _\lambda `$ is the line profile function. For the Mg II h line, $`f=0.3054`$ (Morton, 1991). The assumed line profile is a Voigt profile with a centroid defined by the velocity profile in Figure 2c, and a width defined by a height-dependent microturbulence function, $`b(h)`$, also shown in Figure 2c. As the figure shows, we assume a microturbulence of 5 km s-1 inside the shock and 3 km s-1 outside, although in practice we experiment with different values (see below).

Because the critical density where the collisional deexcitation rate equals that of radiative deexcitation ($`n_{crit}5\times 10^{14}`$ cm-3) is at least $`10^9`$ times higher than the densities in our model atmosphere, we neglect collisional deexcitation in our calculations, making this truly a pure scattering atmosphere. We assume complete angular redistribution for each scattering event, but for the frequency redistribution we experiment with both complete redistribution (CRD) and partial redistribution (PRD). In the PRD treatment, the redistribution function defining the probability of a photon absorbed with frequency $`\nu `$ being reemitted with frequency $`\nu ^{}`$ in a comoving rest frame can be expressed as (e.g. Milkey & Mihalas, 1973; Basri, 1980)

$$R(\nu ,\nu ^{})=(1\mathrm{\Lambda })R_{II}(\nu ,\nu ^{})+\mathrm{\Lambda }R_{III}(\nu ,\nu ^{}),$$
(5)
where $`R_{II}`$ and $`R_{III}`$ are the integral functions first defined by Hummer (1962). The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ paramenter is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{col}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{col}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rad}},$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{col}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rad}`$ are the collisional and radiative damping parameters, respectively. However, for our model atmosphere collision rates are very low because densities are very low. As a consequence, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{col}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are both very small; we estimate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^8`$ at most. Thus, for our purposes, $`R(\nu ,\nu ^{})R_{II}(\nu ,\nu ^{})`$ is a very good approximation.

Several techniques have been used in the past to evaluate the complex $`R_{II}`$ integral. Adams, Hummer, & Rybicki (1971) presented a method of simplifying the integral using polynomial series expansions. Kneer (1975) proposed an even simpler technique, which is still widely used (e.g. Vernazza, Avrett, & Loeser, 1981; Luttermoser et al., 1989). However, Basri (1980) questions the accuracy of the Kneer approximation for supergiant atmospheres, so in our calculations we evaluate $`R_{II}`$ by direct numerical integration.

We adopt a simple Monte Carlo approach for the radiative transfer calculations. Individual photons created by collisional excitation are followed from one scattering event to the next until they escape the scattering layer. For each scattering event, we shift to the rest frame of the scattering layer in order to ensure the frequency redistribution is done correctly. For a layer as opaque as the one modeled here, each photon scatters an average of roughly 10,000 times before escaping. By keeping track of where the photons scatter, we gradually build up a wavelength and height dependent source function, $`S_\lambda `$. We also keep track of the trajectory angle $`\theta `$ of escaping photons relative to the normal of our plane-parallel atmosphere. Combining this information and the source function, we compute line profiles for various values of $`\mu =\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ using the familiar radiative transfer equation

$$I_\lambda (\tau =0,\mu )=\frac{1}{\mu }_0^{\tau _\lambda }S_\lambda (t)e^{t/\mu }𝑑t.$$
(7)
We then compute a final disk-integrated line profile using a routine from Valenti & Piskunov (1996). The disk integration procedure is really only valid for thin atmospheres, which will not be the case here. However, we are only interested in the gross appearance of the line profile rather than its exact flux or center-to-limb behavior, so our plane-parallel treatment and the disk integration procedure just described should be good enough for our purposes.

### 3.2 Results

After experimenting with many modest modifications to the assumed density, temperature, velocity, and microturbulence structure of our model atmosphere, we settled on the curves shown in Figures 2a-c. An optically thin Mg II line produced by the model atmosphere in Figure 2 has a centroid velocity of about $`15`$ km s-1, which is a bit large but is still within the range of centroid velocities observed for the Fe II and Al II\] lines (see §1). The wavelength integrated surface flux derived for our best-fit model profile is 147 ergs cm-2 s-1. If we convert this into an observed flux assuming a stellar radius of 2 AU and a stellar distance of 100 pc, which are typical values for the Miras studied in Paper 1 (see also Karovska et al., 1991, 1997; Burns et al., 1998), we find a predicted flux at Earth of $`1.4\times 10^{12}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1. This flux is nicely within the range of observed values at $`\varphi =0.5`$ (see Paper 1).

Figure 3a shows the model Mg II h line profile after convolution with IUE’s instrumental profile, which has a width of 0.2 Å. Two observed Mg II h lines are also shown in Figure 3a for the sake of comparison, one from R Car (dotted line) and one from T Cep (dashed line). Both are observations near $`\varphi =0.5`$. The originally computed model profile was significantly narrower than the observed profiles, so we had to broaden it by assuming a macroturbulence of 10 km s-1 in order to obtain the profile shown in the figure, which is a reasonably good match to the observations. The model profile still has a weak red peak, but this is not grossly inconsistent with observations since the observed R Car profile appears to have a similar feature. The centroid of the model profile is at about $`33`$ km s-1, consistent with the velocities typically observed around $`\varphi =0.5`$ (see Paper 1).

It was not an easy matter to find a combination of density, temperature, velocity, and microturbulence profiles which would suppress the red peak to the required degree while still maintaining a velocity structure consistent with the velocities of the optically thin Fe II and Al II\] lines and also producing roughly the correct amount of Mg II flux. Increasing or decreasing the assumed densities by a factor of 2, for example, is enough to significantly increase the flux in the red peak of the model Mg II line, degrading the agreement with the observations. It is not clear at all why the atmospheric structure of Miras should be so finely tuned, so it is quite possible that our models are still lacking some characteristic that is important for determining the observed line profiles. Nevertheless, the identification of at least one model that adequately fits the data is enough to demonstrate that scattering in an atmospheric structure like that shown in Figure 2, with downflowing material above the shock, can in principle produce the observed Mg II profiles without any need for absorption from overlying material. We have found we can best reproduce the observed profiles if the microturbulence of the downflowing material is assumed to be lower than that of the shocked material responsible for the emission, although models with $`b=6`$ km s-1 or $`b=1`$ km s-1 outside the shock are not dramatically worse than the best models with $`b=3`$ km s-1 outside the shock.

In Figure 3b, our best-fit profile is compared with two other model profiles: a profile computed using CRD rather than PRD (dotted line), and a profile computed using the ionization equilibrium densities in Figure 2d (dashed line) instead of our preferred estimates of non-equilibrium densities. A more substantial red peak is prominent in each of these profiles, so they do not agree with the observations as well as our best model.

The computations assuming ionization equilibrium do not do as well simply because there is no Mg II in the downflowing material above the shock that can scatter red peak photons (see Fig. 2d). All the magnesium is in its neutral state due to the low temperatures present there. It is interesting to note, however, that a strong blue peak asymmetry results even in the absence of scattering from downflowing material. Much of the suppression of the red peak is therefore due to scattering within the shock itself. Most of the emergent photons naturally scatter last in the near side of the shock, suggesting that the positive velocity gradient at that location helps suppress the red peak all by itself, although adding scattering from the downflowing material (i.e., switching to the non-equilibrium model in Fig. 3) does suppress the red peak even further.

The CRD calculations fail to reproduce the observations because it is too easy for photons to scatter into the far wings of the line, past the spectral region where the downflowing material can scatter the photons and prevent their escape. Thus, CRD computations do not dramatically suppress the red peak of the line and the resulting profile is extremely broad. Previous work has demonstrated that CRD is a very poor approximation for red giant and supergiant atmospheres and generally produces unrealistically broad Mg II lines (Basri, 1980; Drake & Linsky, 1983; Luttermoser et al., 1989).

Although we have succeeded in roughly reproducing the Mg II line profiles, there is one possible problem with the model, and that is that it produces an h line profile that is too narrow. As mentioned above, we corrected this by adding macroturbulent line broadening, but the presence of such macroturbulence may also broaden less opaque lines to a similar extent, depending on whether the macroturbulence exists where the Mg II lines are originally formed or in higher layers of the atmosphere where the emission is scattered. In any case, this model may not be able to reproduce the narrow profiles of the Fe II and Al II\] lines, which are much less opaque than Mg II h & k if not actually optically thin. It is possible that the narrow model profile reflects inaccuracies introduced into the calculation by the various assumptions that have been made (i.e., the plane-parallel approximation and crude disk integration technique) rather than the existence of macroturbulent flow fields.

Despite the potential difficulty just described, we conclude that it is possible in principle for atmospheric structures like those predicted by hydrodynamic models of Miras to account for the lack of red peaks in observed Mg II profiles from these pulsating stars. Further modeling is needed to confirm these results, and to find a model which accurately reproduces the profiles of both Mg II h & k and of the less optically thick Fe II and Al II\] lines. In addition, future modeling could combine hydrodynamic modeling and a more sophisticated treatment of the radiative transfer in a self-consistent manner.

## 4 Summary

The large blueshifts of the centroids of Mira Mg II lines are unlikely to be indicative of mass motions this rapid, because less optically thick lines suggest more modest flow velocities. The Mg II k line is clearly contaminated by absorption from overlying material, but this contamination does not explain the large blueshifts, since the blueshifts are seen not only for the Mg II h & k lines but also for the Ca II H & K lines, and the probability of overlying absorption producing similar blueshifts in all four very opaque lines is very small. We have used radiative transfer calculations to determine if shock structures such as those suggested by published hydrodynamic models of Miras (e.g. Bowen, 1988) can generate Mg II h line profiles like those observed by IUE. In particular, we test whether downflowing material above the shocks, such as that predicted by the models, can suppress the red side of the emission lines, thereby producing highly blueshifted profiles like those that are observed. We find that scattering in such an atmosphere can reproduce the observed Mg II profiles and fluxes under the following conditions:

Calculations assuming complete redistribution cannot reproduce the observed profiles. The effects of partial redistribution must be taken into account.

Simple estimates of recombination timescales suggest the plasma outside the shocks is out of ionization equilibrium, and our attempt to correct for these effects improves the agreement between the observed and modeled Mg II profiles. However, a strong blue peak asymmetry results even when equilibrium densities are assumed and there is no scattering from the overlying downflowing material. This suggests that scattering within the shock accounts for much of the suppression of the red side of the line.

Although the velocity predicted for optically thin lines in our model is consistent with observed velocities of Fe II and Al II\] lines, there may be a problem with the line widths. We had to assume a macroturbulence of 10 km s-1 to broaden our model Mg II profile enough to be consistent with observations, but the existence of such macroturbulence would possibly broaden the Fe II and Al II\] lines more than is observed. More sophisticated modeling in the future could resolve this issue.

Understanding the gross properties of the observed Mg II lines is a necessary first step before trying to understand the phase-dependent behavior described in Paper 1. Phase-dependent changes in density, temperature, velocity, microturbulence, and macroturbulence may all play a role in producing this behavior.

We wish to thank the referee, R. Robinson, for comments which improved the paper. MK is a member of the Chandra Science Center, which is operated under contract NAS-839073, and is partially supported by NASA.


text:
# Power law fluctuation generator based on analog electrical circuit

## 1 Introduction

Random multiplicative process (RMP) is attracting much interest recently as a new mechanism of generating power law fluctuations. The process is described by a Langevin system with both multiplicative and additive noises. It was proved that a PDF for its amplitude has power law tails when the noises are independent. The continuous time version of RMP is described by a stochastic differential equation with both multiplicative and additive noises. It was shown that a stationary probability density function for its amplitude has power law tails when the noises are Gaussian white noise. This type of equations has been studied in chaos on-off intermittency, motions of a polymer in turbulent fluid, nonlinear coupled oscillators and price changes in economics.

In this paper we propose an electrical generator of random fluctuations based on the theory of RMP for the power law fluctuations by introducing an analog electrical circuit consisted of operational amplifiers and an analog multiplier.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we make a brief explanation of the theory of the continuous time RMP. In Sec. 3 we show the circuit diagram of the proposed generator having power law fluctuations and explain its mechanism. In Sec. 4 we show the data of sequential outputs, their probability distribution function (PDF) and their autocorrelation coefficients with discussion. Sec. 5 is devoted for concluding remarks.

## 2 Theory of RMP

We here review a brief outline of the stochastic differential equation with both multiplicative and additive noises. The stochastic differential equation is given by

$$\frac{dv}{dt}=\nu (t)v(t)+\xi (t),$$
(1)
where $`v(t)`$ is a dynamical variable, and $`\nu (t)`$ and $`\xi (t)`$ represent a multiplicative noise and an additive noise, respectively. Representing ensemble average by $`\mathrm{}`$ we require $`\nu (t)=\overline{\nu }`$, and $`\xi (t)=0`$. When $`\nu (t)`$ and $`\xi (t)`$ follow Gaussian white noises with their strengths characterized by $`D_\nu `$ and $`D_\xi `$, respectively,

$`[\nu (t_1)\overline{\nu }][\nu (t_2)\overline{\nu }]`$ $`=`$ $`2D_\nu \delta (t_1t_2),`$ (2)
$`\xi (t_1)\xi (t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`2D_\xi \delta (t_1t_2),`$ (3)
the PDF for the dynamical variable $`v`$ in eq. (1), $`p(v,t)`$, is known to follow the generalized Fokker-Planck equation,

$$\frac{}{t}p(v,t)=\frac{}{v}\left[(\overline{\nu }+D_\nu )v+\frac{}{v}(D_\nu v^2+D_\xi )\right]p(v,t).$$
(4)
A steady state solution corresponding to a zero-current state can be obtained by putting the term of $`\frac{}{v}`$ to 0. By solving eq. (4) we get a stationary distribution,

$$p(v)(D_\xi +D_\nu v^2)^{\frac{\overline{\nu }}{2D_\nu }\frac{1}{2}},$$
(5)
which has power law tails for large $`v`$,

$$p(v)|v|^{\overline{\nu }/D_\nu 1}.$$
(6)
For convenience of notation we define an exponent of the power law tail as

$$p(v)|v|^{\beta 1}.$$
(7)
Comparing eq. (6) with eq. (7) yields

$$\beta =\frac{\overline{\nu }}{D_\nu }.$$
(8)
It is useful to introduce a cumulative distribution function (CDF) defined as

$$P(|v|)=_{\mathrm{}}^{|v|}p(v^{})𝑑v^{}+_{|v|}^{\mathrm{}}p(v^{})𝑑v^{}.$$
(9)
Then the CDF of $`v`$ in eq. (1) is given as

$$P(|v|)|v|^\beta ,$$
(10)
namely, the slope in log-log plots directly gives the power law exponent $`\beta `$. The corresponding PDF of eq. (5) is given as

$$p(v)\left(1+\frac{v^2}{s^2}\right)^{\beta /21/2},$$
(11)
where $`s=\sqrt{\frac{D_\xi }{D_\nu }}`$. Namely $`p(v)`$ has power law tails for $`v>s`$.

## 3 The circuit

From the assumption for the multiplicative noise in the above theory it is important that $`\nu (t)`$ takes both positive and negative values to realize the power law tails. In an electrical circuit this means that it is necessary for the circuit to include both positive and negative feedbacks. We solve this problem by using an analog multiplier. A block diagram of our circuit and an implemented noise generator are shown in fig.1. In the figures $`v_o`$ represents the output voltage, and $`\mu (t)`$ is the output directly from the noise generator. As seen from this figure the circuit contains the noise generator, an analog multiplier (Analog devices, 10MHz, 4-quadrant) and an operational amplifier (National Semiconductor, LF157) for integrator.

The output of the noise generator plays a role of the multiplicative noise in eq. (1). In the noise generator a shot noise between the zener diode in fig. 1 is amplified by an operational amplifier, it passes through a high pass filter to be taken out from the circuit. LF157 has the 20M product of a voltage gain (G) and a bandwidth (B). The bandwidth is given by B=200kHz in the noise generator because we put G=100. Thus we expect a frequency characteristics of the noise generator to be up to 200kHz . We perform the positive and negative feedback by multiplying $`v_o`$ with the output of the noise generator $`\mu (t)`$ in the analog multiplier and by connecting the product to the negative input with the operational amplifier for integrator. Although the additive noise term is not explicitly added in the circuit, it derives from either thermal noises of the operational amplifier or from an external electro-magnetic noises.

An equation equivalent to the circuit diagram of fig. 1 is given as

$$\frac{dv_o}{dt}=\left(\frac{1}{R_fC}+\frac{k}{R_vC}\mu (t)\right)v_o+\xi (t),$$
(12)
where $`k`$ is a factor of the multiplier with $`k=1/10`$, and $`\xi (t)`$ represents the additive noise effect. The strength of multiplicative noise $`\mu (t)`$ depends on the value of a variable resistor $`R_v`$ in fig. 1 because $`R_v`$ is a factor of $`\mu (t)`$ in eq. (12). Therefore, we expect that the power law exponent for the output is a function of $`R_v`$ like eq. (8). For the output of the noise generator $`\mu (t)`$ we show a PDF and an autocorrelation coefficient in figs. 2 and 3, respectively. The autocorrelation coefficient is defined as

$$K_1(\tau )=\frac{\mu (t+\tau )\mu (t)\mu (t+\tau )\mu (t)}{\mu (t)^2\mu (t)^2},$$
(13)
We sampled outputs of the noise generator through 12bit AD-converter (Microscience, ADM-652AT) and processed them in a computer. A sampling frequency is 125kHz. We find that the PDF can be approximated by the Gaussian distribution and that the autocorrelation coefficient decays quickly. This result means that the frequency characteristics of the noise generator is up to around 200kHz. Therefore we consider $`\mu (t)`$ as a Gaussian white noise under 200kHz.

## 4 Results and Discussions

We observe the output of the circuit $`v_o`$ in respect of $`R_v`$ since we expect that the power law exponent $`\beta `$ is a function of $`R_v`$ from the theory. We detected the output through a 12-bit AD converter and processed it as digital data. A sampling frequency is 125kHz throughout the observations. Here, we explain the method of adjusting an offset of the operational amplifier for integrator. We adjust the variable resistor added to the operational amplifier for a temporal average of output $`v`$ to be almost likely zero when the value of $`R_v`$ is the smallest. As shown in fig. 4 the reason is that the temporal average shows exponential decay for $`R_v`$. We keep the zero-average of $`v(t)`$ throughout all observations in this way.

We show examples of temporal output at $`R_v=5`$ and $`R_v=150`$ in fig. 5. We find that amplitude of the output $`v(t)`$ depends on the value of $`R_v`$. The PDF for the temporal output on $`R_v=5\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`R_v=150\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are shown in fig.6. The tail’s form of the PDF depends on the value of $`R_v`$. To see the difference between the positive and negative tails in detail we show log-log plots of the PDF in the positive and negative domains in fig. 7. It is obvious that the slope of the tail in the positive domain looks different from that in the negative domain. There are tow possible reasons on this effect. One is that an average of the additive noise is not completely zero. The other is that a distribution of the additive noise is asymmetrical.

To roughly estimate the dependence of the exponent $`\beta `$ on $`R_v`$ we show log-log plots of CDF of $`v(t)`$ at $`R_v=5`$,$`25`$,$`50`$,$`100`$,$`150\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in fig. 8. Log-log plots of CDF have a liner part for about a decade. We clearly find that the exponent $`\beta `$ depends on $`R_v`$ as expected qualitatively. However, we can not apply eq. (8) directly to these experimental results because the multiplicative noise generated by the noise generator is not an ideal white noise but is correlated at some frequencies. The authors have proved a relation to the power law exponent of RMP with correlated multiplicative noise in a discrete time version, yet, in the continuous time version the theoretical relation between the exponent and the correlated multiplicative noise is an interesting open problem.

From the bending points of CDFs in fig.8 we can estimate $`s0.1`$ for eq. (11). Namely, the strength of the additive noise is $`10^2`$ times as large as that of the multiplicative noise.

The autocorrelation coefficient of outputs, defined in eq. (13), are shown in fig. 9. A correlated time of the autocorrelation coefficient $`K_1(\tau )`$ on $`R_v=5\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is longer than the case of $`R_v=150\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This implies that the correlation time depends on the value of $`R_v`$. In economics it is often more interesting to observe the autocorrelation coefficient of squared outputs than the standard autocorrelation coefficient. The autocorrelation coefficient of squared outputs called the volatility correlation is defined as

$$K_2(\tau )=\frac{v(t+\tau )^2v(t)^2v(t+\tau )^2v(t)^2}{v(t)^4v(t)^2^2}.$$
(14)
As shown in fig. 10 the correlation time of the autocorrelation coefficient $`K_2(\tau )`$ also depend on the power law exponent. The reason why $`K_1(\tau )`$ or $`K_2(\tau )`$ have longer correlation time for smaller value of $`R_v`$ can be simply answered in the following way. Comparing the time series in fig. 5 a and b we find that the motions are basically characterized by repeating the processes of starting from nearby zero, reaching the peak voltage and returning to zero again. As the maximum peak levels for $`R_v=5\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are roughly several times larger than the case of $`R_v=150\mathrm{\Omega }`$, each process of going up and down roughly takes several times longer time leading the longer correlation time.

## 5 Conclusion

We proposed an electrical analog circuit generating the fluctuation of which a probability density function has the power law tails. The circuit includes a noise generator, an analog multiplier and an operational amplifier for integrator. In our proposal circuit fluctuations with an arbitrary exponent of the power law can be obtained by tuning the value of resistance. We observed temporal outputs of the circuit and calculated the probability density function, the autocorrelation coefficient and the autocorrelation coefficient of the squared outputs. We show the probability density function with power law tails. The probability density function has different tails in positive and negative domains because the average of the additive noise is non-zero or its distribution function is asymmetrical. We conclude that the correlation time of the autocorrelation coefficient and that of the squared outputs depend on the value of resistance in the circuit. We expect that the proposed circuit is applicable to generate fluctuations having power law distribution in a much cheaper way than any digital computing methods. Moreover fluctuations of our circuit may be of use for risk estimation in foreign exchange or stock market in the near future.

## 6 Acknowledgment

One of the authors (A.-H. Sato) wishes to thank Yoshihiro Hayakawa for his stimulative discussion and his lecture on electrical circuits.


text:
# Measurements of Tidal Tail Populations Designed to Optimize Their Use as Potential Probes

## 1. Introduction

Stars lost from a satellite galaxy in orbit around the Milky Way will gradually drift ahead or behind their parent system to form streams of debris along its orbit (Tremaine 1993; Johnston 1998). Assuming we know the phase-space coordinates of the parent satellite, the unique properties of tidal debris streams can be exploited to measure the potential of the Milky Way in two ways:
MD Algorithm: Integrate the satellite’s orbit backwards and forwards and try to fit any available observations to the orbit, with the “best” potential corresponding to the closest fit (e.g., Murali & Dubinski 1999).
JZSH Algorithm: Integrate the stars and satellite backwards and choose the “best” potential to be the one in which most stars recombine with the satellite (e.g., Johnston et al. 1999, hereafter JZSH99).
The MD algorithm can be applied with limited observations (e.g., just angular positions and line-of-sight velocities) of any accuracy. However, in reality debris in trailing/leading streamers are not on exactly the same orbit as their parent satellite, but rather in orbits offset in energy from the satellite’s orbit by $`\pm ϵ`$ where

$$ϵ=r_{\mathrm{tide}}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{r}sv_{\mathrm{circ}}^2.$$
(1)
Here, $`r_{\mathrm{tide}}=rs`$ is the tidal radius of the satellite, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$ is the Galactic potential, $`v_{\mathrm{circ}}`$ is the circular velocity of the Milky Way and $`s`$ is the tidal scale

$$s=\left(\frac{m_{\mathrm{sat}}}{M_{\mathrm{Gal}}}\right)^{1/3},$$
(2)
where $`m_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ is the satellite’s mass and $`M_{\mathrm{Gal}}`$ is the mass of the Galaxy enclosed within the satellite’s orbit. Hence, once the observational errors are small enough to detect the offset of the particles from the satellite’s orbit the MD algorithm will be biased by this systematic offset, rather than limited by the errors themselves. In contrast, the JZSH algorithm exploits the fact that debris stars are on orbits with different time periods than the satellite’s own and hence will only work with observations of five of the phase-space coordinates of sufficient accuracy that the offset from the orbit can be detected (the sixth coordinate, if poorly known, can always be found by applying the principle of energy conservation). The dividing line between useful application of these two approaches will therefore occur where the velocity measurement errors $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ satisfy

$$v_{\mathrm{circ}}\mathrm{\Delta }vϵ\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }v}{v_{\mathrm{circ}}}s.$$
(3)
Once measurements of proper motions and velocities of debris can be made with accuracies of order 3-30 km/s the second approach will be more accurate for all Milky Way satellites (depending on the mass and orbit of the satellite — see Table 1) Such accuracies will become possible with the next generation astrometric missions: NASA’s Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) and ESA’s Global Astrometric Imager for Astrophysics (GAIA).

JZSH99 have already demonstrated that the JZSH algorithm can in principle recover both the mass and geometry of the Milky Way with few percent accuracies using just 100 stars. In this paper, we examine how these uncertainties grow with the limitations likely to be present in a real data set.

## 2. Methods

We test how well we can recover the Milky Way potential by “observing” debris populations at the end of simulations of satellite destruction and then applying the JZSH algorithm to our data sets. We illustrate our results in this paper with tests on simulations referred to as Models 1/2/3/4, which had satellite masses 5.1e6/2.9e7/6.9e7/1.0e8 $`M_{}`$, on orbits with pericenters at 43/43/26/30 kpc and radial time periods of 2.5/2.5/2.0/1.0 Gyears. These parameters corresponded to tidal scales $`s=0.026/0.046/0.075/0.081`$ (see equation ). The simulation technique and Galactic model are described in Johnston, Spergel & Hernquist (1995).

We restrict ourselves to asking how well we can recover the circular velocity of the halo component that was used in the simulations, assuming we know the other parameters in the potential. As an an indication of the error, we attempt to recover $`v_{\mathrm{circ}}`$ from ten data sets, each containing a different group of particles or a different error realization. We take the “error” to be the dispersion in the recovered $`v_{\mathrm{circ}}`$ in units of the true circular velocity ($`=\sigma _{v_{\mathrm{circ}}}/v_{\mathrm{circ}}`$).

## 3. Results

Measurement Errors of Debris Stars As noted in §1, we expect the JZSH algorithm to require knowledge of velocities such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }v/v_{\mathrm{circ}}<s`$. To test this, we observed 128 stars in Models 1-4. We then added errors chosen from gaussians of mean zero and dispersions $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v/d`$ to each line of sight velocity and each component of proper motion respectively, and ran the JZSH algorithm to recover $`v_{\mathrm{circ}}`$. This was repeated 10 times with the same sample of stars (but different error realizations) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=1,5,10,15,20,25,30`$km/s and the dispersion among the results from the 10 realizations calculated. The errors found, shown in the left hand panel of Figure 1, confirm the intuition outlined in §1.

Length of Tidal Streamers A typical debris star will drift by
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }=ϵ(d\mathrm{\Omega }/dϵ)(2\pi /\mathrm{\Omega })r_{\mathrm{tide}}(d\mathrm{\Omega }/dr)(2\pi /\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in angle away from the satellite in one orbit (where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity of the satellite), so a star with separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ from the satellite, was most likely lost $`N_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ orbits ago, where

$$N_{\mathrm{orb}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{r_{\mathrm{tide}}}\frac{dR}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }}{2\pi }\frac{1}{s}.$$
(4)
To test how the length of the tidal streamer sample might affect the accuracy of the recovered potential we observed 10 random samples of 128 particles in each simulation, with the samples chosen to be within $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }=10,20,45,90,135`$ and 180 degrees of the satellite. The right hand panel of Figure 1 plots the results for each simulation as a function of $`N_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ defined from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ via equation (4). The plot suggests that if we find $`100`$ stars in a streamer we would like to observe them at sufficiently large angle from the satellite to be sensitive to 1-2 orbits.

Knowledge of Satellite Distance We anticipate knowing the line-of-sight velocity and proper motion of the satellite with a precision at least comparable to those of the debris stars. However, the satellite’s distance $`r_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ may be poorly known (or unknown). This means that though we can expect to place strong limits on the mass distribution in the Galaxy, $`M_{\mathrm{Gal}}(\mathrm{r}/r_{\mathrm{sat}})`$, the physical scale of that distribution will be dependent on our measurement of $`r_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ and uncertain at the same level.

Dynamical Friction Binney & Tremaine (1987) show that the frictional force on a satellite on a circular orbit in an isothermal sphere is given by (see their equation \[7.23\]) $`F=0.428ln\mathrm{\Lambda }Gm_{\mathrm{sat}}^2/R^2,`$ where $`ln\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Coulomb Logarithm. The change in orbital energy per orbit will be $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{orb}}^{\mathrm{df}}=F(2\pi R)/m_{\mathrm{sat}}`$, so

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{orb}}^{\mathrm{df}}}{ϵ}=0.428ln\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{Gm_{\mathrm{sat}}}{R^2}2\pi R\frac{1}{v_{\mathrm{circ}}^2s}2.69ln\mathrm{\Lambda }s^2$$
(5)
Evolution of the Galactic Potential The properties of debris trails will also be affected by the time-dependence of the Milky Way’s potential (e.g., Zhao et al. 1999). However, the existence of the $`>7`$Gyear old thin disk suggests that potential evolution has not been significant within the the last $`N_{\mathrm{orb}}=1`$ orbit of any of the Galactic satellites.

## 4. Conclusion

Table 1 lists the required accuracy of line-of-sight velocity and proper motion measurements of tidal stream stars (columns 6 and 7), length of tidal stream population (column 8) and effect of dynamical friction (column 9) for a sample of Galactic satellites. The numbers demonstrate that the necessary measurement accuracies are within the capabilities of SIM and GAIA and that samples extending tens of degrees along a streamer to select targets will be sufficient. Dynamical friction needs only to be modeled carefully for the innermost satellites. We conclude that the JZSH algorithm, combined with data from SIM or GAIA will significantly improve our knowledge of the Galactic potential.

### Acknowledgments.

I thank David Spergel for helpful comments on this manuscript. This work was supported in part by NASA grant NAG5-9064.

## References

Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton Uni. Press)

Johnston, K.V. 1998, ApJ, 495, 297

Johnston, K. V., Spergel, D. N. & Hernquist, L. 1995, ApJ, 451, 598

Johnston, K. V., Zhao, H.S., Spergel, D. N. & Hernquist, L. 1999 (JZSH)

Murali, C. & Dubinski, J. 1999, AJ, 118, 921

Tremaine, S. 1993 in Back to the Galaxy eds. S. S. Holt & F. Verter, (AIP Conf. Proc. : New York), p. 599

Zhao, H.S., Johnston, K.V., Spergel, D.N. & Hernquist, L., 1999,