text:
# One Hundred Years of Quantum Physics

## Quantum Mechanics

The clue that triggered the quantum revolution came not from the studies of matter, but from a problem in radiation. The specific challenge was to understand the spectrum of light emitted by hot bodies – blackbody radiation. The phenomenon is familiar to anyone who has stared at a fire. Hot matter glows and the hotter it becomes the brighter it glows. The spectrum of the light is broad with a peak that shifts from red to yellow and finally to blue (though we cannot see that) as the temperature is raised. It should have been possible to understand the shape of the spectrum by combining concepts from thermodynamics and electromagnetic theory, but all attempts failed. However, by assuming that the energies of the vibrating electrons that radiate the light are quantized, Planck obtained an expression that agreed beautifully with experiment. But as he recognized all too well, the theory was physically absurd, “an act of desperation” as he later described it.

Planck applied his quantum hypothesis to the energy of the vibrators in the walls of a radiating body. Quantum physics might have ended there if in 1905 a novice – Albert Einstein – had not reluctantly concluded that if a vibrator’s energy is quantized then the energy of the electromagnetic field that it radiates – light – must also be quantized. Einstein thus imbued light with particle-like behavior, notwithstanding that Maxwell’s theory, and over a century of definitive experiments, testified to light’s wave nature. Experiments on the photoelectric effect in the following decade revealed that when light is absorbed its energy actually arrives in discrete bundles, as if carried by a particle. The dual nature of light – particle-like or wave-like depending on what one looks for – was the first example of a vexing theme that would recur throughout quantum physics. The duality constituted a theoretical conundrum for the next twenty years.

The first step towards quantum theory had been precipitated by a dilemma about radiation. The second step was precipitated by a dilemma about matter. It was known that atoms contain positively and negatively charged particles. But oppositely charged particles attract. According to electromagnetic theory, therefore, they should spiral into each other, radiating light in a broad spectrum until they collapse. Once again, the door to progress was opened by a novice – Niels Bohr. In 1913 Bohr proposed the radical hypothesis that electrons in an atom exist only in certain stationary states, including a ground state. Electrons change their energy by “jumping” between the stationary states, emitting light whose wavelength depends on the energy difference. By combining known laws with bizarre assumptions about quantum behavior, Bohr swept away the problem of atomic stability. Bohr’s theory was full of contradictions but it provided a quantitative description of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom. He recognized both the success and the shortcomings of his model. With uncanny foresight, Bohr rallied physicists to create a new physics. His vision was eventually fulfilled, though it took twelve years and a new generation of young physicists.

At first, attempts to advance Bohr’s quantum ideas – the so-called old quantum theory – suffered one defeat after another. Then a series of developments totally changed the course of thinking.

In 1923 Louis deBroglie, in his PhD thesis, proposed that the particle behavior of light should have its counterpart in the wave behavior of particles. He associated a wavelength with the momentum of a particle – the higher the momentum the shorter the wavelength. The idea was intriguing, but no one knew what a particle’s wave nature might signify or how it related to atomic structure. Nevertheless, deBroglie’s hypothesis was an important precursor for events soon to come.

In the summer of 1924 there was yet another precursor. Setyendra N. Bose proposed a totally new way to explain the Planck radiation law. He treated light as if it were a gas of massless particles (now called photons) that do not obey the classical laws of Boltzmann statistics but a type of new statistics based on their indistinguishable nature. Einstein immediately applied Bose’s reasoning to a real gas of massive particles and obtained a new law – to become known as the Bose-Einstein distribution – for how energy is shared by the particles in a gas. However, under normal circumstances the new and old theories predicted the same behavior for atoms in a gas. Einstein took no further interest and the result lay undeveloped for more than a decade. Its key idea, however, the indistinguishability of particles, was about to become critically important.

Suddenly, a tumultuous series of events occurred that culminated in a scientific revolution. In the three-year period from January 1925 to January 1928:

* Wolfgang Pauli proposed the exclusion principle, providing a theoretical basis for the Periodic Table.
* Werner Heisenberg, with Max Born and Pascual Jordan, discovered matrix mechanics, the first version of quantum mechanics. The historical goal of understanding electron motion within atoms was abandoned in favor of a systematic method for organizing observable spectral lines.
* Erwin Schrödinger invented wave mechanics, a second form of quantum mechanics in which the state of a system is described by a wave function, the solution to Schrödinger’s equation. Matrix mechanics and wave mechanics, apparently incompatible, were shown to be equivalent.
* Electrons were shown to obey a new type of statistical law, Fermi-Dirac statistics. It was recognized that all particles obey either Fermi-Dirac statistics or Bose-Einstein statistics, and that the two classes have fundamentally different properties.
* Heisenberg enunciated the Uncertainty Principle.
* Paul A.M. Dirac developed a relativistic wave equation for the electron that explained electron spin and predicted anti-matter.
* Dirac laid the foundations of quantum field theory by providing a quantum description of the electromagnetic field.
* Bohr announced the complementary principle, a philosophical principle that helped to resolve apparent paradoxes of quantum theory, particularly the wave-particle duality.

The principal players in the creation of quantum theory were young. In 1925, Pauli was 25 years old, Heisenberg 24, Dirac 23, Jordan 23, Fermi 24. Schrödinger, at 36 years, was a late bloomer. Born and Bohr were older yet and it is significant that their contributions were largely interpretative. The profoundly radical nature of the intellectual achievement is revealed by Einstein’s reaction. Having invented some of the key concepts that led to quantum theory, Einstein rejected it. His paper on Bose-Einstein statistics was his last contribution to quantum physics and his last significant contribution to physics.

That a new generation of physicists was needed to create quantum mechanics is hardly surprising. Lord Kelvin described why in a letter to Bohr congratulating him on his 1913 paper on hydrogen. He said that there was much truth in Bohr’s paper, but he would never understand it himself. Kelvin recognized that radically new physics would need to come from unfettered minds.

In 1928 the revolution was finished and the foundations of quantum mechanics were essentially complete. The frenetic pace with which it occurred is revealed by an anecdote recounted by Abraham Pais111*Inward Bound*, Oxford University Press, 1986. In 1925 the concept of electron spin had been proposed by Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck. Bohr was deeply skeptical. In December he traveled to Leiden to attend the jubilee of Hendrik A. Lorentz’s doctorate. Pauli met the train at Hamburg to find out Bohr’s opinion about the possibility of electron spin. Bohr said the proposal was “very, very interesting,” his well-known put down phrase. Later at Leiden, Einstein and Paul Ehrenfest met Bohr’s train, also to discuss spin. There, Bohr explained his objection, but Einstein showed a way around it and converted Bohr into a supporter. On his return journey, Bohr met up with yet more discussants. When the train passed through Göttingen, Heisenberg and Jordan were waiting at the station to ask his opinion. And at the Berlin station, Pauli was waiting, having traveled specially from Hamburg. Bohr told them all that the discovery of the electron spin was a great advance.

The creation of quantum mechanics triggered a scientific gold rush. Among the early achievements were these: Heisenberg laid the foundations for atomic structure theory by obtaining an approximate solution to Schrödinger’s equation for the helium atom in 1927, and general techniques for calculating the structures of atoms were created soon after by John Slater, Douglas Rayner Hartree, and Vladimir Fock. The structure of the hydrogen molecule was solved by Fritz London and Walter Heitler; Linus Pauling built on their results to found theoretical chemistry. Arnold Sommerfeld and Pauli laid the foundations of the theory of electrons in metals and Felix Bloch created band-structure theory. Heisenberg explained the origin of ferromagnetism. The enigma of the random nature of radioactive decay by alpha-particle emission was explained in 1928 by George Gamow, who showed that it occurs by quantum mechanical tunneling. In the following years Hans Bethe laid the foundations for nuclear physics and explained the energy source of stars. With these developments atomic, molecular, solid state, and nuclear physics entered the modern age.

## Controversy and Confusion

Side by side with these advances, however, fierce debates were taking place on the interpretation and validity of quantum mechanics. Foremost among the protagonists were Bohr and Heisenberg, who embraced the new theory, and Einstein and Schrödinger, who were dissatisfied. To appreciate the reasons for such turmoil one needs to understand some of the key features of quantum theory, which we summarize here. For simplicity, we describe the Schrödinger version of quantum mechanics, sometimes called wave mechanics.

### Fundamental description: The wave function

The behavior of a system is described by Schrödinger’s equation. The solutions to Schrödinger’s equation are known as wave functions. The complete knowledge of a system is described by its wave function and from the wave function one can calculate the possible values of every observable quantity. The probability of finding an electron in a given volume of space is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the wave function. Consequently, the location of the particle is “spread out” over the volume of the wave function. The momentum of a particle depends on the slope of the wave function; the greater the slope, the higher the momentum. Because the slope varies from place to place, momentum is also “spread out.” The need to abandon a classical picture in which position and velocity can be determined with arbitrary accuracy in favor of a blurred picture of probabilities is at the heart of quantum mechanics.

Measurements made on identical systems that are identically prepared will not yield identical results. Rather, the results will be scattered over a range described by the wave function. Consequently, the concept of an electron having a particular location and a particular momentum looses its foundation. The uncertainty principle quantifies this: To locate a particle precisely the wave function must be sharply peaked (that is, not spread out). However a sharp peak requires a steep slope, and so the spread in momentum will be great. Conversely, if the momentum has a small spread, the slope of the wave function must be small, which means that it must spread out over a large volume.

### Waves can interfere

Their heights add or subtract depending on their relative phase. Where the amplitudes are in phase, they add; where they are out of phase, they subtract. If a wave can follow several paths from source to receiver, as a light wave undergoing two-slit interference, then the illumination will generally display interference fringes. Particles, obeying a wave equation will do likewise, as in electron diffraction. The analogy seems reasonable until one inquires about the nature of the wave. A wave is generally thought of as a disturbance in a medium. In quantum mechanics there is no medium, and in a sense there is no wave since the wave function is fundamentally a statement of our knowledge of a system.

### Symmetry and identity

A helium atom consists of a nucleus surrounded by two electrons. The wave function of helium describes the position of each electron. However, there is no way of distinguishing which electron is which. Consequently, if the electrons are switched the system must look the same, which is to say the probability of finding the electrons in given positions is unchanged. Because the probability depends on the square of the magnitude of the wave function, the wave function for the system with the interchanged particles must be related to the original wave function in one of two ways: Either it is identical to the original wave function, or it’s sign is simply reversed, i.e., it is multiplied by a factor $`1`$. Which one is it?

One of the astonishing discoveries in quantum mechanics is that for electrons the wave function always changes sign. The consequences are dramatic, for if two electrons were in the same quantum state, then the wave function would have to be its negative opposite. Consequently, the wave function must vanish. Thus, the probability of finding two electrons in the same state is zero. This is the Pauli exclusion principle. All particles with half-integral spin, including electrons, behave this way and are called fermions. For particles with integer spin, including photons, the wave function does not change sign. Such particles are called bosons. Electrons in an atom arrange themselves in shells because they are fermions but light from a laser emerges in a single super intense beam – essentially a single quantum state – because light is composed of bosons. Recently, atoms in a gas have been cooled to the quantum regime where they form a Bose-Einstein condensate in which the system can emit a super intense matter beam – forming an atom laser.

These ideas apply only to identical particles since if different particles are interchanged the wave function will certainly be different. Consequently, particles behave like fermions or like bosons only if they are totally identical. The absolute identity of like particles is among the most mysterious aspects of quantum mechanics. Among the achievements of quantum field theory is that it can explain this mystery.

### What does it mean?

Questions such as what a wave function “really is” and what is meant by “making a measurement” were intensely debated in the early years. By 1930, however, a more or less standard interpretation of quantum mechanics had been developed by Bohr and his colleagues, the so-called Copenhagen interpretation. The key elements are the probabilistic description of matter and events, and reconciliation of the wave-like and particle-like natures of things through Bohr’s principle of complementarity. Einstein never accepted quantum theory. He and Bohr debated its principles until Einstein’s death in 1955.

A central issue in the debates on quantum mechanics was whether the wave function contains all possible information about a system or if there might be underlying factors – hidden variables – that determine the outcome of a particular measurement. In the mid-1960s John S. Bell showed that if hidden variables existed, experimentally observed probabilities would have to fall below certain limits, dubbed “Bell’s inequalities.” Experiments were carried out by a number of groups, which found that the inequalities were violated. Their collective data came down decisively against the possibility of hidden variables. For most scientists this resolved any doubt about the validity of quantum mechanics.

Nevertheless, the nature of quantum theory continues to attract attention because of the fascination with what is sometimes described as “quantum weirdness.” The weird properties of quantum systems arise from what is known as entanglement. Briefly, a quantum system, such as an atom, can exist in any one of a number of stationary states but also in a superposition – or sum – of such states. If one measures some property such as the energy of an atom in a superposition state, in general the result is sometimes one value, sometimes another. So far, nothing is weird.

It is also possible, however, to construct a two-atom system in an entangled state in which the properties of both atoms are shared with each other. If the atoms are separated, information about one is shared, or entangled, in the state of the other. The behavior is unexplainable except in the language of quantum mechanics. The effects are so surprising that they are the focus of study by a small but active theoretical and experimental community. The issues are not limited to questions of principle, since entanglement can be useful. Entangled states already have been employed in quantum communication systems, and entanglement underlies all proposals for quantum computation.

## The Second Revolution

During the frenetic years in the mid-1920s when quantum mechanics was being invented, another revolution was underway. The foundations were being laid for the second branch of quantum physics – quantum field theory. Unlike quantum mechanics, which was created in a short flurry of activity and emerged essentially complete, quantum field theory has a tortuous history that continues today. In spite of the difficulties, however, the predictions of quantum field theory are the most precise in all of physics, and quantum field theory constitutes a paradigm for some of the most crucial areas of theoretical inquiry.

The problem that motivated quantum field theory was the question of how an atom radiates light as its electrons “jump” from an excited states to its ground state. Einstein proposed such a process, called spontaneous emission, in 1916, but he had no way to calculate its rate. Solving the problem required developing a fully relativistic quantum theory of electromagnetic fields, a quantum theory of light. Quantum mechanics is the theory of matter. Quantum field theory, as its name suggests, is the theory of fields, not only electromagnetic fields but other fields that were subsequently discovered.

In 1925 Born, Heisenberg, and Jordan published some initial ideas for a theory of light, but the seminal steps were due to Dirac – a young and essentially unknown physicist working in isolation – who presented his field theory 1926. The theory was full of pitfalls: formidable calculational complexity, predictions of infinite quantities, and apparent violations of the correspondence principle. In the late 1940s a new approach to the quantum theory of fields, QED (for quantum electrodynamics) was developed by Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger, and Sin-itiro Tomonaga. They sidestepped the infinities by a procedure, called renormalization, which essentially subtracts infinite quantities so as to leave finite results. Because there is no exact solution to the complicated equations of the theory, an approximate answer is presented as a series of terms that become more and more difficult to calculate. Although the terms become successively smaller, at some point they should start to grow, indicating the breakdown of the approximation. In spite of these perils, QED ranks among the most brilliant successes in the history of physics. Its prediction of the interaction strength between an electron and a magnetic field has been experimentally confirmed to a precision of two parts in 1,000,000,000,000.

Notwithstanding its fantastic successes, QED harbors enigmas. The view of empty space – the vacuum – that the theory provides initially seems preposterous. It turns out that empty space is not really empty. Rather, space is filled with small fluctuating electromagnetic fields. These vacuum fluctuations are essential for explaining spontaneous emission. Furthermore, they produce small but measurable shifts in the energies of atoms and certain properties of particles such as the electron. Strange as they seem, these effects have been confirmed by some of the most precise experiments ever carried out.

At the low energies of the world around us, quantum mechanics is fantastically accurate. But at high energies where relativistic effects come into play, a more general approach is needed. Quantum field theory was invented to reconcile quantum mechanics with special relativity.

The towering role that quantum field theory plays in physics arises from the answers it provides to some of the most profound questions about the nature of matter. Quantum field theory explains why there are two fundamental classes of particles – fermions and bosons – and how their properties are related to their intrinsic spin. It describes how particles are created and annihilated, not only photons, but electrons and positrons (antielectrons). It explains the mysterious nature of identity in quantum mechanics – how identical particles are absolutely identical because they are created by the same underlying field. QED describes not only the electron but the class of particles called leptons that includes the muon, the tau meson, and their antiparticles. Because QED is a theory for leptons it cannot describe more complex particles called hadrons. These include protons, neutrons, and a wealth of mesons. For hadrons, a new theory had to be invented, a generalization of QED called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD. Analogies abound between QED and QCD. Electrons are the constituents of atoms; quarks are the constituents of hadrons. In QED the force between charged particles is mediated by the photon; in QCD the force between quarks is mediated by the gluon. In spite of the parallels, however, there is a crucial difference between QED and QCD. Unlike leptons and photons, quarks and gluons are forever confined within the hadron. They cannot be liberated and studied in isolation.

QED and QCD are the cornerstones for a grand synthesis known as the standard model. The standard model has successfully accounted for every particle experiment carried out to date. However, for many physicists the standard model is inadequate because data on the masses, charges and other properties of the fundamental particles need to be found from experiments. An ideal theory would predict all of these.

Today, the quest to understand the ultimate nature of matter is at the focus of an intense scientific study that is reminiscent of the frenzied and miraculous days in which quantum mechanics was created, and whose outcome may be even more far reaching. The effort is inextricably bound to the quest for a quantum description of gravity. The procedure for quantizing the electromagnetic field that worked so brilliantly in QED has failed to work for gravity, in spite of a half century of effort. The problem is critical, for if general relativity and quantum mechanics are both correct, then they must ultimately provide a consistent description for the same events. There is no contradiction in the normal world around us because gravity is so fantastically weak compared to the electrical forces in atoms that quantum effects are negligible and a classical description works beautifully. But for a system such as a black hole where gravity is incredibly strong we have no reliable way to predict quantum behavior.

One century ago our understanding of the physical world was empirical. Quantum physics gave us a theory of matter and fields, and that knowledge transformed our world. Looking to the next century, quantum mechanics will continue to provide fundamental concepts and essential tools for all of the sciences. We can make such a prediction confidently because for the world around us quantum physics provides an exact and complete theory. However, physics today has this in common with physics in 1900: Physics remains ultimately empirical – we cannot fully predict the properties of the elementary constituents of matter, we must measure them. Perhaps string theory – a generalization of quantum field theory that eliminates all infinities by replacing point-like objects such as the electron with extended objects – or some theory only now being conceived, will solve the riddle. Whatever the outcome, the dream for ultimate understanding will continue to be a driving force for new knowledge, as it has been since the dawn of science. One century from now, the consequences of pursuing that dream will belie our imagination.


format: text

text:
# Spectroscopy of the candidate luminous blue variable at the center of the ring nebula G79.29+0.46

## 1 Introduction

Many gaps exist in the understanding of the post-main sequence evolution of the most massive ($`>`$ 40 M) stars, due in large part to the small number of such stars identified as being in this evolutionary phase. It is known that during part of the post-main sequence phase, identified as the Luminous Blue Variable (LBV) stage (Conti 1984), these stars lose a large amount of mass in a short time interval (e.g. Chiosi & Maeder 1986). The identifying characteristics of an LBV in addition to its blue colors are (1) a mass loss rate of ($`10^5`$ M yr-1), (2) a low wind velocity of no more than a few hundred km s-1, (3) photometric variations of up to 2 magnitudes on time-scales ranging from months to decades, and (4) the presence of a circumstellar (and sometimes bipolar) nebula (Nota & Clampin 1997).

Less than a dozen confirmed LBVs are known in our Galaxy. However, in recent years a number of LBV candidates (LBVc’s) have been found. Candidates generally have both of the first two characteristics listed above and one of the other two (for reviews see Nota & Lamers 1997). One recently discovered LBVc is the central star of the radio shell G79.29+0.46 (Higgs et al. 1994, hereafter HWL; and Waters et al. 1996, hereafter Paper I). The principal evidence for its candidacy are its high luminosity and mass loss rate (estimated as $``$$`\times `$ 10-6 M yr-1 in Paper I) and the presence of a slightly bipolar ring nebula. Few spectra have been reported and the only spectral features in them thought to be associated with the star are several recombination lines of hydrogen and helium, most notably H$`\alpha `$ (HWL) and Br$`\alpha `$ (Paper I). HWL also reported the presence of diffuse interstellar lines and bands.

In this paper we present and discuss additional optical and near-infrared spectra of the central star of G79.29+0.46 (hereafter G79\*). The resolution of the optical spectrum is considerably higher than the spectrum published by HWL and the infrared spectra provide considerably more wavelength coverage than the spectrum in Paper I. The new spectra allow us to estimate the excitation, luminosity and current activity of the star. We conclude that although G79\* may have gone through a more intense mass loss episode in the recent past, it probably still is in the luminous blue variable stage of evolution.

## 2 Observations and data reduction

### 2.1 Optical

A log of observations is provided in Table 1. High resolution optical spectra of G79\* were obtained in 1995 with the Utrecht Echelle Spectrograph (UES) mounted on the William Herschel Telescope on La Palma. The TEK 5 detector (1024$`\times `$1024 pixels) was used. The slit length was 15 arcsec, allowing a portion of the nebula to be observed simultaneously. Insufficient time was available to obtain the blue part of the spectrum, which is very faint due to the high extinction. Two overlapping settings were chosen to cover the red part of the spectrum, with three exposures obtained at each setting. A spectrum of a ThAr lamp combined with telluric lines in the spectrum of the G79\* allowed the wavelength calibration to be determined to an accuracy of 1 km s-1 and provided an estimate of $`44,000`$ for the resolving power.

Data reduction used the Midas echelle package. Because of the faintness of the object ($`V`$ 16 mag is about the limiting magnitude for the UES) and because the position of the orders on the CCD was not constant during the night, considerable care had to be taken (for details see Voors 1999). The signal-to-noise ratio of the continuum in the final spectrum (not shown) increases from $``$ 5 around 6000 Å to $``$ 50 around 8000 Å.

### 2.2 Infrared

Spectra covering portions of the 1.0-2.5 $`\mu `$m band were obtained at the 3.8m United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) on Mauna Kea in 1996 and 1997. The facility cold grating spectrometer CGS4 (Mountain et al. 1990) was used for all observations, with its 80$`\mathrm{}`$ slit of width of 1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$2 oriented east-west. In 1996 a 150 l/mm grating was used, providing a relatively narrow wavelength coverage and high spectral resolution; in 1997 a 75 l/mm grating was employed to provide wider spectral coverage at lower resolution. The resolving powers, $`\lambda `$/$`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$, given in Table 1 increase with wavelength in each spectral interval and are those of the original (unreduced) spectra. Observations were made in the standard stare/nod-along-slit mode, with a nod of $`15\mathrm{}`$; thus any constant extended emission (from the nebula or background) along the slit was subtracted away.

The spectra were wavelength-calibrated using observations of Kr and Ar arc lamps made nearly simultaneously with the measurements of G79\*, were flux-calibrated and corrected for telluric absorption features using observations of nearby bright dwarf stars with spectral types from mid to late F, and then were slightly smoothed (reducing the resolving powers by $`20\%`$ from those given in Table 1). Brackett and Paschen series absorption lines in clear parts of the spectrum were edited out of the dwarf star spectra prior to ratioing; the uncertainties in this procedure lead to significant uncertainties in the strengths of the weak Brackett series lines in G79\* in the $`H`$ band and to slight uncertainty in the details of the wings of its Br $`\gamma `$ line. The noise level at most wavelengths can be estimated from the (small) fluctuations in flat portions of the spectrum. Near 1.9 $`\mu `$m, strong telluric water vapor absorption is responsible for large systematic fluctuations. The rms wavelength accuracy is typically $`\pm `$0.0002 $`\mu `$m.

The $`J`$ band spectrum obtained in 1996 with the 150 l/mm grating in third order was contaminated shortward of 1.105 $`\mu `$m by continuum emission near 1.6 $`\mu `$m in second order; this was corrected assuming no strong emission lines were present near 1.6 $`\mu `$m and that the slope of the $`J`$ band continuum longward of 1.105 $`\mu `$m extrapolated shortward of 1.105 $`\mu `$m. These assumptions are borne out by the uncontaminated spectrum obtained in 1997 with the 75 l/mm grating in second order.

## 3 The spectrum of the star and its wind

### 3.1 Optical

The optical spectrum of G79\* contains a number of lines originating in the stellar photosphere and wind, extended line emission from \[N ii\] and H$`\alpha `$, and diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs). Table 2 lists the identified stellar lines, their measured central wavelengths, type of profile, and total equivalent width. Figures 1-4 show many of these lines. Both pure emission and absorption profiles are observed as well as hybrids. Some of these lines appear to be formed entirely in the wind, whereas others show photospheric contributions. Because of their wind origins, the hydrogen and helium lines are unsuitable for determination of the radial velocity of the star. Instead we use the weak emission lines of metals, whose profiles appear similar (e.g., Fig. 3) to derive Vhel = -10 $`\pm `$ 2 km s-1 (corresponding to VLSR = -27 km s-1), a result intermediate between those of HWL and Paper I.

#### 3.1.1 Hydrogen lines

The H$`\alpha `$ line (Fig. 1), which dominates the optical spectrum, has a strong central emission peak, a blueshifted absorption component, and broad and shallow wings. Contributions by nebular emission to each of these are negligible. The overall profile is similar to that seen in other luminous blue supergiants. In P Cygni the broad and shallow wings to H$`\alpha `$ are believed to be caused by the scattering of photons by electrons (Münch 1948, Bernat & Lambert 1978). We make the same interpretation for G79\*, as suggested in Paper I, concurring that the wind velocity of 1400 km s-1 derived by HWL is erroneous. The wings in G79\* and P Cygni are approximately the same width, but those in G79\* are about twice as strong. Scattering wings are not evident in the Br$`\alpha `$ profile in Paper I.

Despite the strong similarity of the H$`\alpha `$ profiles in G79\* and P Cygni, direct comparison of the profiles does not give a useful estimate of the mass loss rate from G79\*. The strength of scattering wings depends on the relative strengths of the line and continuum radiation fields and the electron scattering optical depth in the region where the line forms. These in turn are determined by the rate of mass loss, the velocity field, and the effective temperature of the star. The uncertainty in the distance to G79\* (1 to 4kpc, see below) implies a factor of 8 uncertainty in the mass loss rate. This uncertainty is further increased if the two stars have different velocity fields. Moreover, even if the same radius and velocity structure are assumed for both objects a direct comparison would still fail due to the remarkably different ionizations of P Cygni and G79\*. The weakness of the He I lines as well as the presence of N I and O I lines in the G79\* spectrum denote a lower effective temperature for this object than P Cygni. A difference in the effective temperature is translated not only into a difference in the radiation field in the line (which affect the electron scattering wings), but also into a difference in the run of the departure coefficients which control the overall line emission. Although the strength of H$`\alpha `$ in G79\* indicates the presence of a very dense stellar wind, an accurate estimate of the mass loss rate can be achieved only through detailed quantitative analysis.

Although the H$`\alpha `$ line profile is unsuitable for determining the stellar radial velocity, the blueshifted absorption feature allows an accurate determination of the terminal wind speed (Fig. 4). The short wavelength edge of this absorption occurs at Vhel = -120 km s-1, implying a wind speed of 110 km s-1 (if turbulence in the wind is small). This compares with the value of 94 km s-1 obtained in Paper I based on the FWZI of the lower signal-to-noise ratio Br$`\alpha `$ line profile, which has only a weak blueshifted absorption feature. On the positive velocity side of the profile, a change in slope is evident at Vhel = +100 km s-1, beyond which the scattering wing dominates, in good agreement with the newly derived wind speed.

The Pa 14 profile, which also is shown in Fig. 4, is considerably different from H$`\alpha `$. The emission component, seen near line center is formed in the wind, where non-LTE effects tend to overpopulate the high levels. The absorption wings are formed in the photosphere.

#### 3.1.2 Helium lines

Four helium lines were detected in the UES spectrum and are shown in Fig. 2. The He i 7065 profile shows two peaks, centered at $`12`$ km s-1 and $`+37`$ km s-1 (hel.). The profile shown is corrected for telluric H2O lines, and the dip near $`v=+10`$ km s-1 is real. The blue peak at $`12`$ km s-1 coincides with the system velocity, suggesting that it is formed near the star, where the outflow velocity is low. If the second peak at +37 km s-1 is formed in a rotating disk, in matter ejected by the star, or in a companion star, it is not clear why this feature would not be present in lines of other elements. In contrast, the He i 6678 line has a P Cygni profile. Assuming G79\* to be spherically symmetric, the presence of some absorption redshifted from the stellar velocity of -10 km s-1 indicates a substantial photospheric contribution. However, it is not clear why He i 6678, which has a larger oscillator strength than He i 7065 shows the larger photospheric contribution.

The He i 5876 line peak occurs at $`+40`$ km s-1, coinciding with one of the two peaks seen in the $`\lambda `$ 7065 and $`\lambda `$ 6678 profiles. However, the stronger component at $`12`$ km s-1 is not seen. In summary, the helium lines in G79\* show large differences from one another, most likely due to non-LTE effects and optical depth effects in the photosphere and wind, but we do not have detailed explanations for their specific disparate behaviors.

#### 3.1.3 Metal lines

Among the metallic lines in the optical spectrum of G79\* the N ii lines, the C ii lines and the Ne i 6402 line are in absorption; all others are in emission. A number of emission line profiles are shown in Fig. 3; these and others have been used to estimate the radial velocity of G79\*, as discussed previously. Those of metals have FWHMs of approximately 50 km s-1 and FWZIs of 90 to 100 km s-1. The excitations of the metal lines are low and are typical for mid to late-B type supergiants.

### 3.2 Infrared

The $`J`$ and the $`K`$ band spectra of G79\* are shown in Fig. 5, with identifications and equivalent widths given in Tables 3 and 4. Most of the strong lines are standard recombination lines of hydrogen and helium, but there are a few unidentified lines of surprising strength. Where a line was observed more than once, the variation in its equivalent width was less than 10 percent. Furthermore, after convolving the 1996 spectra to the resolution of the 1997 spectra, no significant differences in line shape or width were found.

#### 3.2.1 Identified lines

Several of the prominent infrared lines have profiles worthy of note. The He i 1.083 and 2.058 $`\mu `$m lines possess broad wings, which extend approximately 1,000 km s-1 to either side of line center. The wings are somewhat broader in the 1.083 $`\mu `$m line profile. As in the case of H$`\alpha `$, these wings are the result of electron scattering. The weak absorption feature just shortward of Br $`\gamma `$ (2.166 $`\mu `$m) is due to absorption by He i 7-4, whose strongest transitions are at 2.165 $`\mu `$m and 2.161 $`\mu `$m (e.g., see Najarro et al. 1994). The equivalent width of this absorption is consistent with the much stronger He i 4-3 absorption at 2.112 $`\mu `$m. The O i line at 1.128 $`\mu `$m displays a long wavelength shoulder, but this may be due to blending with lines of Si iii.

Prominent in the $`K`$ band are two Mg ii lines near 2.14 $`\mu `$m. This pair is excited by UV fluorescence. Whether this is continuum or Ly $`\beta `$ fluorescence (Bowen 1947) cannot be determined from the present data. The Na i emission lines at 2.206 $`\mu `$m and 2.209 $`\mu `$m also may be excited by fluorescence (Thompson & Boroson 1977) via 3303 Å (continuum) photons. Both the Mg and Na doublets are present in the spectra of LBV and B\[e\] stars (McGregor et al. 1988). In G79\* and Wra 751 the Mg ii lines are much stronger than the Na i lines; however, in AG Car the doublets are similar in strength (Morris et al. 1996).

The $`J`$ band lines of O i at 1.129 $`\mu `$m and 1.317 $`\mu `$m form a third diagnostic infrared pair. The 1.129 $`\mu `$m line is pumped by Ly $`\beta `$, and is only strong relative to the 1.317 $`\mu `$m line if Lyman fluorescence is the dominant source of excitation (Grandi et al. 1975). In G79\* this ratio is 8.8 $`\pm `$ 0.8, implying a strong Ly $`\beta `$ flux, as expected.

Pfund series lines are detected in G79\* from n=18 to n=37. Observations of higher n lines are made difficult by blending and by the presence of an unidentified line at 2.317 $`\mu `$m. High Pfund series lines also are found in Be stars (e.g. $`\gamma `$ Cas; Hamann & Simon 1987).

#### 3.2.2 Unidentified Lines

A number of unidentified infrared lines are observed in G79\* and listed in Table 4. The most prominent of these are at 1.0916 and 1.0953 $`\mu `$m. To our knowledge, neither has been seen previously in any other objects. A possible identification for the 1.0916 $`\mu `$m line is the He i 3D-3Fo transition. Also possible are two Mg ii 2D-2Po transitions, but they have much lower log $`gf`$ values than lines of the same element not seen in the spectrum. A forbidden \[Fe ii\] transition at 1.0957 $`\mu `$m is shifted slightly too far from the 1.0953 $`\mu `$m line to be a serious possibility; moreover a second \[Fe ii\] line at 1.1068 $`\mu `$m would be present. The line at 1.2769 $`\mu `$m, just on the blue side of Pa $`\beta `$, is possibly due to \[Fe ii\]. However, the 1.3098 $`\mu `$m line of the same multiplet should also be present, but is not observed.

### 3.3 Comparison of G79\* with massive supergiants

The optical–infrared spectrum of G79\* most closely resembles those of mid to late type B supergiants. The excitation of the metal lines is typical of such stars. Note, however, that few B-type supergiants have N i emission lines in their optical spectra. Those that do, e.g. HD 326823 (early B), CPD$`52\mathrm{°}`$9243 (B3), HD 316285 (P Cygni type) (Lopes et al. 1992), are classified as B\[e\] supergiants. The existences of disks in these sources are inferred from double-peaked line profiles (e.g. HD 326823) or from thermal dust emission (e.g. CPD$`52\mathrm{°}`$9243). Clearly G79\* cannot be such a star, as not only are no forbidden lines detected in its optical spectrum, but also virtually all of its lines lack double-peaked profiles. The narrow hydrogen emission lines seen by us and in Paper I imply massive low velocity winds, similar to those seen in LBVs. This, plus the presence of a circumstellar, dusty nebula suggest that the star is indeed an LBV, even if it is currently not variable.

In Fig. 6 the $`K`$ band spectra of G79\* and three massive supergiants, SGR 1806$``$20 (van Kerkwijk et al. 1995), Wra 751 and AG Car (Morris et al. 1996), are compared. Wra 751 and AG Car are well studied LBVs. The $`K`$ band spectrum of SGR 1806$``$20 is thought to be dominated by a B supergiant whose optical position is close to that of the soft gamma repeater source; note that there is some doubt as to the physical association between the gamma ray source and the B supergiant (Fuchs et al. 1999). The similarity between the spectra of G79\* and this star is striking, the main difference being the strength of the (permitted) Fe ii 2.089 $`\mu `$m line. As noted by Morris et al. (1996), the near-infrared spectra of many types of massive evolved stars, are similar; thus one cannot conclude based on their similarity that G79\* and the B supergiant in SGR 1806-20 are similar objects.

## 4 DIBs, interstellar reddening, and luminosity

Table 5 lists the diffuse interstellar absorption bands present in the spectrum of G79\*. By comparing the colors of G79\* with those of Kurucz (1979) models, HWL derived $`A_V`$ = 16 mag. We use a different technique, adopting the extinction law for the Cygnus OB2 association (Torres-Dodgen et al. 1991), since that region is probably most representative of the interstellar medium towards G79.29+0.46. Dereddening the $`JHK`$ spectra as well as the optical spectra published by HWL, and assuming a blackbody temperature for G79\* of 18,000 K, results in a derived $`E(BV)`$ of 4.9 $`\pm `$ 0.4. With an $`R_V`$ of 3.04 this gives an $`A_V`$ of 14.9 $`\pm `$ 1.2, which is slightly less than HWL. A lower blackbody temperature for the star, which may be more realistic, would result in a lower derived extinction. In a recent study of the infrared properties of G79.29+0.46 and its star Trams et al. (1999) have derived an $`E(BV)`$ of 3.9, corresponding to $`A_V`$ = 11.9 mag.

The strength of the DIBs are a good measure of the interstellar extinction due to diffuse matter. In several OB associations in Cygnus a tight relation exists between the strength of the $`\lambda `$5797 DIB and $`E(BV)`$, (Chlewicki et al., 1986). Assuming this relation for G79.29+0.46, which is very close in the sky to Cyg OB2, we obtain $`E(BV)`$ = 2.1 $`\pm `$ 0.3. This is much less than the values derived above. The discrepancy may be resolved if additional reddening is present in the form of molecular clouds. G79.29+0.46 is only 9’ distant from the center of the obscured star-forming region DR 15, which is thought to contain a few hot stars (Odenwald et al., 1990). An IR spectrum obtained with ISO-SWS Morris et al. (in preparation) shows bands of H2O and CO2 ice. It remains to be determined whether the extinction derived from the ISO spectrum accounts for the difference between the two values of $`E(BV)`$, but it seems safe to conclude that the extinction to G79.29+0.46 contains both diffuse and molecular contributions.

From the radial velocity of G79\* and after allowing for peculiar motions of up to 10 km s-1, we derive a kinematic distance of 2 kpc from the galactic rotation curve with an uncertainty of approximately a factor of two (see, e.g., HWL Fig. 14). Trams et al. use their best fitting model atmosphere, with a luminosity of 3$`\times `$105 L and mass loss rate of 1.3$`\times `$10$`^5`$M (considerably higher than the estimate of Paper I) to derive a distance of 1.8 kpc. It is virtually certain that the distance exceeds 0.7 kpc since no interstellar clouds closer than that distance are known which could cause the large observed extinction. The DR 15 complex, which we have suggested is responsible for some of the extinction to G79.29+0.46, is 1 kpc distant. We conclude that the distance to G79.29+0.46 is in the range 1-4 kpc, with a most likely value of $``$2 kpc.

## 5 Extended line emission

Line profiles, averaged along the 15$`\mathrm{}`$ slit, excluding the regions influenced by stellar radiation, are shown in Fig. 7. The profile of H$`\alpha `$ was averaged over a slightly smaller region along the slit than \[N ii\] $`\lambda `$6583, because of contamination by the bright central peak of stellar H$`\alpha `$. The widths and the shapes of the broad components of the \[N ii\] and the H$`\alpha `$ nebular profiles agree very well, H$`\alpha `$ being 2.3 times stronger. However, the narrow nebular component seen in H$`\alpha `$ is missing in \[N ii\]. Clearly the narrow and broad components originate from different regions.

The broad profiles of both lines are well fitted by a gaussian with FWHM 45$`\pm `$3 km s-1. The FWZI is about 70 km s-1. The central wavelength of the gaussian is $`14\pm `$ 2 km s-1 and agrees very well with the radial velocity of the central star, $`10`$ km s-1. More recent observations (Voors 1999) show that both the broad and narrow components extend well beyond the ring nebula, implying that they are interstellar in origin and probably associated with emission from the Cygnus-X region.

## 6 Conclusion: the nature of G79\*

Even at the minimum distance of 1 kpc the luminosity of G79\* is 1$`\times `$105 L; at the maximum distance of 4 kpc it approaches that of some of the most luminous stars known. Its temperature and spectral type are not well defined, but the presence of neutral species in emission and absorption as well as N II lines in absorption suggests it is similar to a mid B supergiant. The high luminosity, high mass loss rate, moderate wind velocity of 110 km s-1, and presence of a circumstellar nebula all are hallmarks of an LBV. The massive dusty ring nebula surrounding G79\* indicates a period of much higher mass loss in the recent past (Paper I), possibly during a red supergiant phase. The star may evolve into a Wolf-Rayet star. Variability has not been demonstrated, but given the paucity of observations this is not surprising. More detailed spectra, such as those recently obtained for the Pistol Star (Najarro et al. 1998) and FMM362 (Geballe et al. 2000), are needed for G79\* in order to allow quantitative analysis, including a direct estimate of the mass loss rate, and more careful comparison with other LBVc’s and LBV’s.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank P. W. Morris for permission to reproduce the $`K`$ band spectra of AG Car and Wra 751, M. van Kerkwijk for the spectrum of SGR 1806-20, and B. Wolf for helpful comments. We also thank the $`\dot{M}`$ group in Utrecht for useful discussions and the referee for helpful comments. LBFMW acknowledges financial support from a NWO “Pionier” grant. F. N. acknowledges DGYCIT grants PB96-0883 and ESP98-1351 UKIRT is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the U.K. Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. We have made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at the Centre de Données Astronomiques, Strasbourg, France.


text:
# False Vacuum Black Holes and Universes

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy under grants DE-FG02-87ER40328 and DE-FG02-94ER-40823.


text:
# Kinetics of Coalescence, Annihilation, and the q-State Potts Model in One Dimension

## Abstract

Abstract: The kinetics of the q-state Potts model in the zero temperature limit in one dimension is analyzed exactly through a generalization of the method of empty intervals, previously used for the analysis of diffusion-limited coalescence, $`A+AA`$. In this new approach, the q-state Potts model, coalescence, and annihilation ($`A+A0`$) all satisfy the same diffusion equation, and differ only in the imposed initial condition.

The kinetics of the $`q`$-state Potts model has drawn much recent attention, in particular regarding its persistence probabilities \[1-10\]. An understanding has emerged that, as far as persistence is concerned, the kinetics of the $`q`$-state Potts model in the zero temperature limit, with Glauber dynamics and in one dimension, is equivalent to that of the Ising model, when a fraction $`1/q`$ of the spins are initially up . It is also understood that if one regards the boundaries between domains as particles (kinks), then $`q=2`$ (the Ising model) corresponds to the diffusion-limited annihilation process $`A+A0`$, while the limit $`q\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to coalescence, $`A+AA`$. Here we extend the formalism of empty intervals, previously used for the exact analysis of $`A+AA`$ , to annihilation, by considering the probability that an interval contains an even number of particles, and we apply this new approach also to the $`q`$-state Potts model. This results in one simple diffusion equation describing all three models (annihilation, Potts model, and coalescence): they differ only in the initial conditions they impose.

Consider diffusion-limited annihilation, $`A+A0`$, in a one-dimensional lattice of lattice spacing $`a`$. The particles hop randomly to the nearest site to their right or left, at equal rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and annihilate immediately upon encounter. Let $`G_n(t)`$ be the probability that an arbitrary segment of $`n`$ consecutive sites contains an even number of particles, at time $`t`$. (We assume that the system is infinite and homogeneous.) A site can be either empty or occupied by a single particle, so the particle concentration is

$$c(t)=\frac{1G_1(t)}{a}.$$
$`(1)`$
Because the reaction $`A+A0`$ conserves the number of particles modulo 2, the only way that the parity within an $`n`$-segment is changed is when particles at the edge of the segment hop out, or when particles outside of the segment hop in. To describe these events, we require $`F_n(t)`$ — the probability that an $`n`$-segment containing an even number of particles is followed by the presence of a particle at the $`(n+1)`$-th site. This can be expressed in terms of the $`G_n`$ (Fig. 1):

$$2F_n(t)=(1G_1)+(G_nG_{n+1}).$$
$`(2a)`$
Likewise, $`H_n(t)`$ — the probability that an $`n`$-segment containing an odd number of particles is followed by a particle at the $`(n+1)`$-th site — is

$$2H_n(t)=(1G_1)(G_nG_{n+1}).$$
$`(2b)`$
The evolution equation for $`G_n`$ is now readily obtained:

$$\frac{}{t}G_n(t)=2\mathrm{\Gamma }(F_{n1}H_{n1}+H_nF_n),$$

where the first term on the r.h.s expresses the event that a particle at site $`n`$ jumps out of the segment, leaving an even number of particles in the remaining $`n1`$ sites (and hence in the $`n`$-segment); the second term denotes the same case, but when there are initially an even number of particles in the $`n`$-segment (that is, an odd number in the $`(n1)`$-segment); and the last two terms pertain to a particle just outside of the $`n`$-segment, at site $`n+1`$, jumping in. The factor of $`2`$ accounts for the fact that each event may occur at the left or right edge of the segment, with equal probability. Using eqs. (2), this becomes

$$\frac{}{t}G_n(t)=2\mathrm{\Gamma }(G_{n1}2G_n+G_{n+1}).$$
$`(3)`$
The case of $`n=1`$ requires a special equation, since $`G_0`$ is undefined. Taking into account all the ways $`G_1`$ might change, one finds

$$\frac{}{t}G_1(t)=2\mathrm{\Gamma }(12G_1+G_2).$$

Thus, eq. (3) may be understood to be valid for all $`n1`$, provided that one uses the boundary condition

$$G_0(t)=1.$$
$`(4a)`$
Additionally, since the $`G_n`$ are probabilities, we have

$$0G_n(t)1.$$
$`(4b)`$
We now turn our attention to the $`q`$-state Potts model in one dimension, at the zero temperature limit and with Glauber dynamics. (This is also known as the voters model, with $`q`$ opinions.) Each site can assume one of $`q`$ states, $`s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_q`$. The model possesses $`q`$ equivalent ground states, where all the sites are in the same state. If the system is started away from equilibrium, then neighboring sites of differing states react according to the scheme:

$$s_is_j\{\begin{array}{cc}s_is_i\hfill & \text{rate }\mathrm{\Gamma },\hfill \\ s_js_j\hfill & \text{rate }\mathrm{\Gamma }.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5)`$
Hence the interface between domains of different states may be regarded as particles (kinks) that perform regular random walks. Let the kinks between a domain of state $`s_i`$ on the left, and a domain of state $`s_j`$ on the right, be denoted by $`A_{ij}`$. The dynamics (5) implies the following immediate reactions between colliding kinks:

$$A_{ij}+A_{jk}A_{ik},$$
$`(6a)`$
$$A_{ij}+A_{ji}0.$$
$`(6b)`$
Notice that the inner indices ($`j`$, in the cases above) must be the same for kinks to meet.

Focusing now on the kinks, and assuming an infinite homogeneous system, let $`G_n(t)`$ be the probability that an arbitrary $`n`$-segment contains kinks such that their total number of indices of each of the q kinds is even, at time $`t`$. Because the reactions (6) conserve the parity of the numbers of indices, reactions within an $`n`$-segment do not affect $`G_n`$. Thus, $`G_n`$ changes only through kinks that hop into or out of the segment, exactly as in the case of the annihilation process. (Note that a kink must have different indices, so the parity is always affected by such transitions.) It follows that the $`G_n`$ obey eq. (3), with the boundary conditions (4). Finally, if one merely counts the kinks, ignoring their indices, then their concentration is given once again by eq. (1).

For $`q=2`$ the process (6a) never takes place (it requires at least three states) and the problem reduces to that of the annihilation process, $`A+A0`$. On the other hand, the probability that the sites to the left and right of the two kinks are in the same state $`s_i`$ tends to zero as $`q\mathrm{}`$. In that case process (6b) never takes place and the model is then analogous to coalescence, $`A+AA`$. For $`2<q<\mathrm{}`$ kinks may either coalesce or annihilate, and we have a mixture of the two processes. Annihilation, coalescence, and the $`q`$-state Potts model are all described by the same (discrete) diffusion equation, eq. (3), and the same boundary conditions, eqs. (4).

The difference between the three models is in their implied initial condition. Assume, for example, initial conditions where each site is randomly in one of its $`q`$ possible states. The probability that an $`n`$-segment contains even numbers of indices equals the probability that the first and last site in the segment are in the same state. For the case of initially random states this yields

$$G_n(0)=\frac{1}{q}.$$
$`(7)`$
While the initial state above is natural, it is by no means unique. Consider, for example, the initial state of Fig. 2a, for which

$$G_n(0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{mn}{m}\hfill & 0<nm,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & kqm<n(kq+1)m\text{}k=1,2,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(8)`$
This corresponds to kinks that are initially evenly spaced, $`m`$ sites apart from each other. Notice, however, that the initial states in between the kinks could be chosen differently (Fig. 2b), thus dictating a different form of $`G_n(0)`$ and different kinetics!

Eq. (3) may be solved by standard techniques, for example, by Laplace-transforming with respect to time, fitting an exponential solution to the resulting difference equation, and finally inverting the Laplace-transformed solution . With the boundary conditions (4) and the natural initial condition (7), one obtains:

$$G_n(\tau )=\frac{1}{q}+\frac{q1}{q}_0^\tau ne^{2\tau ^{}}I_n(2\tau ^{})\frac{d\tau ^{}}{2\tau ^{}},$$

where $`\tau =2\mathrm{\Gamma }t`$ and $`I_n()`$ is the modified Bessel function of order $`n`$ . In particular, the probability that a site contains a kink, is

$$1G_1(\tau )=\frac{q1}{q}\left(1_0^\tau e^{2\tau ^{}}I_1(2\tau ^{})\frac{d\tau ^{}}{2\tau ^{}}\right).$$
$`(9)`$
Thus, with natural initial conditions, the density of kinks in the $`q`$-state Potts model has a simple dependence on $`q`$: it is exactly equal to the density of particles in the coalescence model, $`A+AA`$, times $`(q1)/q`$.

For completeness, we note that for low initial concentrations of kinks, passage to the continuum limit is justified. Putting $`x=na`$, $`G_n(t)G(x,t)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=D/a^2`$ in eq. (3), and taking the limit $`a0`$, one obtains the diffusion equation

$$\frac{}{t}G(x,t)=2D\frac{^2}{x^2}G(x,t).$$
$`(10)`$
The boundary condition (4a) becomes $`G(0,t)=1`$, and the concentration is obtained from the continuum limit of eq. (1); $`c(t)=G/x|_{x=0}`$. Consider, for example, an initial concentration $`c_0`$ of randomly placed kinks, where the states of the domains in between are random (but do not repeat). Following simple combinatorial arguments, it can be shown that this corresponds to the initial condition

$$G(x,0)=\frac{1}{q}+\frac{q1}{q}e^{\frac{q}{q1}c_0x}.$$

Solving for the concentration, we obtain

$$c(t)=c_0e^{z^2}\mathrm{erfc}(z),z=\frac{q}{q1}c_0\sqrt{2Dt},$$

which has the expected long-time asymptotic behavior

$$c(t)\frac{q1}{q}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi Dt}},t\mathrm{}.$$

We have introduced a new method for the analysis of dynamic lattice models in one dimension. This approach brings to light the connection between diffusion-limited coalescence, $`A+AA`$, diffusion-limited annihilation, $`A+A0`$, and the $`q`$-state Potts model with Glauber dynamics in the zero-temperature limit. All three models are described by the same diffusion equation; the reaction between particles (or kinks) is manifested in the boundary condition (4a), again, shared by all three models; and the only differences arise from the different initial conditions implied in each case.

For random initial conditions we obtain results which are in agreement with what is known from studies of persistence, but the new formalism can also handle correlated initial conditions, where the three models might differ in nontrivial ways. Moreover, the new approach can be extended to inhomogeneous situations, along the same lines as the method of empty intervals (IPDF) .

We thank L. Glasser and D. Kessler for edifying discussions, and we gratefully acknowledge NSF support of this work (PHY-9820569).


text:
# A Lax Pair for the 2D Euler Equation

## 1. A Lax Pair for the 2D Euler Equation

This is to report that a Lax pair for the 2D Euler equation is found. We write the 2D Euler equation in the vorticity form,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{t}+\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Omega }\}=0,$$
(1.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the vorticity, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the stream function, and the bracket $`\{\}`$ is defined as

$$\{f,g\}=(_xf)(_yg)(_yf)(_xg).$$

Let us denote the $`x`$-directional and the $`y`$-directional velocities by $`u`$ and $`v`$ respectively. Then

$$u=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{y},v=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{x},\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{v}{x}\frac{u}{y},\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

The Lax pair is given as

$$\{\begin{array}{c}L\phi =\lambda \phi ,\hfill \\ _t\phi +A\phi =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.2)
where

$$L\phi =\{\mathrm{\Omega },\phi \},A\phi =\{\mathrm{\Psi },\phi \},$$

and $`\lambda `$ is a complex constant, and $`\phi `$ is a complex-valued function. The compatibility condition of the Lax pair (1.2) gives the 2D Euler equation (1.1), i.e.

$$_tL=[L,A],$$

where $`[L,A]=LAAL`$, gives the Lax representation of the 2D Euler equation (1.1).

###### Remark 1.1

With the recent development on chaos in partial differential equations   , I am interested in building a dynamical system theory for 2D Euler equation under periodic boundary condition  . In particular, I am investigating the existence v.s. nonexistence of homoclinic structure. For such studies, it will be fundamentally important to find a Lax pair (if it exists) for the 2D Euler equation. Then I started with Vladimir Zakharov’s paper . Zakharov proposed the Lax pair

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\lambda D_1\phi +\{\mathrm{\Omega },\phi \}=0,\hfill \\ _t\phi +\lambda D_2\phi +\{S,\phi \}=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$D_1=\alpha \frac{}{x}+\beta \frac{}{y},D_2=\gamma \frac{}{x}+\delta \frac{}{y},$$

$`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\text{and}\delta `$ are real constants, $`\lambda `$ is a complex constant, $`S`$ is a real-valued function, and $`\phi `$ is a complex-valued function. The compatibility condition of this Lax pair gives the following equation instead of the 2D Euler equation,

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{t}+\{S,\mathrm{\Omega }\}=0,\hfill \\ \\ D_1S=D_2\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}$$

(Notice the misprints in the English translation of the article .)

###### Remark 1.2

The author is also aware of the Lax pair in the inverse Cauchy-Green tensor variable of the Lagrangian formulations of both 2D and 3D Euler equations found by Susan Friedlander and Misha Vishik  .


text:
# Polarized mm And sub-mm Emission From Sgr A* At The Galactic Center

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Discovered over 25 years ago (Balick & Brown 1974), Sgr A is a bright, compact radio source coincident with the dynamical center of the Galaxy, and now provides possibly the most compelling evidence for the existence of supermassive black holes. The suggested central dark mass concentration within the inner 0.015 pc of the Galactic center is $`2.6\pm 0.2\times 10^6M_{}`$ (Genzel et al. 1996; Eckart & Genzel 1996; Eckart & Genzel 1997; Ghez et al. 1998). (0.1<sup>′′</sup> corresponds to 800 Astronomical Units, or roughly $`1.2\times 10^{16}`$ cm at a distance of 8.5 kpc.) Most of this mass is probably associated with Sgr A\*.

The spectrum of this unusual object is seen to be bumpy, but can be described as a power-law with a spectral index $`a`$ that varies between roughly $`0.190.34`$ ($`S_\nu \nu ^a`$) between GHz and mm wavelengths. However, one of the most interesting features currently under focus is the suggestion of a sub-millimeter (sub-mm) bump in the spectrum (Zylka et al. 1992; Zylka et al. 1995), since in all emission models the highest frequencies correspond to the smallest spatial scales, so that the sub-millimeter emission comes directly from the vicinity of the black hole (Melia 1992, 1994; Melia, Jokipii & Narayanan 1992; Coker and Melia 2000). The existence of this bump (or “excess”) has been uncertain due to the variability of Sgr A\*, but is now well established following a set of simultaneous observations (from $`\lambda `$20cm to $`\lambda `$1mm) using the VLA, BIMA, Nobeyama 45 m, & IRAM 30 m telescopes (Falcke, et al. 1998).

More recently, radio observations of Sgr A\* have focused on the detection of polarization from this source. Although the upper limits to the linear polarization in Sgr A\* are found to be quite low (less than $`1\%`$) below 86 GHz (Bower et al. 1999), this is not the case at 750, 850, 1350, and 2000 $`\mu `$m, where a surprisingly large intrinsic polarization of over $`10\%`$ has now been reported (Aitken, et al. 2000). ¿From the lack of polarization at longer wavelengths, Aitken et al. conclude that their measured values at higher frequencies must arise in the mm/sub-mm “excess”. These observations also point to the tantalizing result that the position angle changes considerably (by about $`80^o`$) between the mm and the sub-mm portions of the spectrum, which one would think must surely have something to do with the fact that the emitting gas becomes transparent at sub-mm wavelengths (Melia 1992, 1994).

In a companion paper (Melia, Liu & Coker 2001) we suggested that the mm and sub-mm “excess” in the spectrum of Sgr A\* may be the first indirect evidence for the anticipated circularization of the gas falling into the black hole at $`525r_S`$, where $`r_S2GM/c^2`$ is the Schwarzschild radius. The abundance of gas in the environment surrounding Sgr A\* clearly points to accretion as the incipient cause of the ensuing energetic behavior of this source (Melia 1994)—whether or not it eventually leads to expulsion of some plasma at smaller radii (see, e.g., Falcke et al. 1993). In their simulation of the Bondi-Hoyle accretion onto Sgr A\* from the surrounding winds, Coker & Melia (1997) concluded the accreted specific angular momentum $`l\lambda r_Sc`$ can vary by $`50\%`$ over $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 200 years with an average equilibrium value in $`\lambda `$ of about $`30`$ or less. Although this shows that relatively little specific angular momentum is accreted—so that large disks (such as those required in ADAF models; Narayan et al. 1996) probably do not form around Sgr A\*—it does nonetheless lead to the expectation that the plasma must circularize toward smaller radii before flowing through the event horizon. However, given the fluctuations in the accreted value of $`\lambda `$ (both in magnitude and sign!), this Keplerian flow is variable, and it probably dissolves and reforms (possibly with a different sense of spin) on a time scale of $`100`$ years or less.

Melia et al. (2001) demonstrated how this dichotomy comprising a quasi-spherical flow at radii beyond $`50r_S`$ or so, and a Keplerian structure toward smaller radii, may be the explanation for Sgr A\*’s spectrum, including the appearance of the “excess”, which is viewed as arising primarily within the circularized component. It is our intention in this Letter to demonstrate how the linear polarization data may now be taken as direct evidence for the existence of this accretion profile.

## 2 METHODOLOGY

The structure of the flow within the circularization radius (at $`550r_S`$) is developed fully in Melia et al. (2001). For the sake of completeness, we highlight the key elements of this calculation below. Central to the modeling of the sub-mm “excess” is the supposition that within the Keplerian flow, a magnetohydrodynamic dynamo produces an enhanced (though still sub-equipartition) magnetic field, dominated by its azimuthal component (Hawley, Gammie & Balbus 1996). Although the process of magnetic field dissipation suppresses the field intensity well below its equipartition value in the quasi-spherical region (Kowalenko & Melia 2000), the magnetic dynamo evidently overwhelms the rate of field destruction in the differentially rotating portion of the inflow, and the field reaches a saturated intensity. The sub-mm “excess” in Sgr A\* may be the thermal synchrotron radiation produced in this inner region.

At a (cylindrical) radius $`r`$ in the Keplerian flow where the column density is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the angular velocity is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(GM/r^3)^{1/2}`$, the radial velocity is given as (e.g., Stoeger 1980)

$$v_r=\frac{3}{r^{1/2}\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{}{r}\left(\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }r^{1/2}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\nu =(2/3)W_{r\varphi }/\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the kinematic viscosity, and $`W_{r\varphi }`$ is the vertically integrated sum of the Maxwell and Reynolds stresses (Balbus et al. 1994). For the problem at hand, the Maxwell stress dominates, and

$$W_{r\varphi }\beta _\nu 𝑑z\frac{B^2}{8\pi },$$
(2)
where $`B`$ is the turbulent magnetic field (the average inside the integral being taken over time). Numerical simulations (e.g., by Brandenburg et al. 1995) show that $`\beta _\nu `$ changes very slowly with $`r`$. In the particular cases considered by these authors, $`\beta _\nu `$ ranged in value from $`0.1`$ to $`0.2`$, while $`r`$ decreased by a factor of $`5`$. For simplicity, we will here adopt a “mean” value of $`0.15`$ for this quantity.

For steady conditions, one can obtain the vertical profile by assuming that the gas is in local hydrostatic equilibrium. Balancing gravity and the pressure gradient in the vertical direction, we obtain the scale height $`H=\sqrt{2R_gTr^3/\mu GM}`$, where $`T`$ is the gas temperature at radius r, $`R_g`$ is the gas constant, and $`\mu `$ is the molecular weight. For simplicity, we will assume that the Keplerian flow is axisymmetric and is independent of the vertical coordinate. Written another way, we have $`(H\mathrm{\Omega })^2=2P/\rho `$, where $`P`$ is the gas pressure and $`\rho `$ is the mass density of the gas. The numerical simulations of the magnetohydrodynamic dynamo effect indicate that the field intensity is somewhat below its equipartition value, so that

$$𝑑z\frac{B^2}{8\pi }\beta _pP𝑑z=\beta _p\frac{R_g\mathrm{\Sigma }T}{\mu },$$
(3)
where $`\beta _p`$ is roughly constant with a value of $`0.02`$. Thus, with $`\dot{M}=2\pi r\mathrm{\Sigma }v_r`$, we can integrate Equation (1) to obtain $`v_r`$, and $`T`$ follows directly from the energy conservation equation (Melia et al 2001).

## 3 CALCULATION OF THE SPECTRUM

The flux density (at earth) produced by the Keplerian portion of the flow is given by

$$F_{\nu _0}=\frac{1}{D^2}I_\nu ^{}\sqrt{1r_S/r}𝑑A,$$
(4)
where $`D=8.5`$ kpc is the distance to the Galactic Center, $`\nu _0`$ is the observed frequency at infinity and $`\nu ^{}`$ is the frequency measured by a stationary observer in the Schwarzschild frame. (For simplicity, we here assume the metric for a non-spinning black hole. A more thorough exploration of the parameter values, including the black hole spin, will be discussed elsewhere.) The frequency transformations are given by

$$\nu _0=\nu ^{}\sqrt{1r_S/r},\nu ^{}=\nu \frac{\sqrt{1v_\varphi ^2/c^2}}{1(v_\varphi /c)\mathrm{cos}\theta },$$
(5)
where $`\nu `$ is the frequency measured in the co-moving frame, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}_\varphi `$ and the line of sight. Since the radial velocity is always much smaller than $`v_\varphi `$, we ignore this component in the transformation equations. So $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\mathrm{sin}i\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, where $`i`$ is the inclination angle of the axis perpendicular to the Keplerian flow, and $`\varphi `$ is the azimuth of the emitting element. When the Doppler shift is included, the blue shifted region is located primarily near $`\varphi =0`$ while the red shifted region is at $`\varphi =\pi `$. The other quantities that are necessary for an evaluation of the flux density are the area element $`dA=\sqrt{1r_S/r}^1\mathrm{cos}irdrd\varphi `$, and the specific intensity $`I_\nu ^{}=B_\nu ^{}^{}(1e^\tau )`$, where

$$B_\nu ^{}^{}=\left(\frac{\sqrt{1v_\varphi ^2/c^2}}{1(v_\varphi /c)\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)^3B_\nu ,$$
(6)
and the optical depth is

$$\tau =\kappa _\nu ^{}^{}𝑑s=\kappa _\nu \frac{2H}{\mathrm{cos}i}\frac{1(v_\varphi /c)\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{1v_\varphi ^2/c^2}},$$
(7)
where $`\kappa _\nu `$ is the absorption coefficient. When $`\tau 1`$, Kirchoff’s law allows us to write

$$I_\nu ^{}B_\nu ^{}^{}\tau =ϵ_\nu \frac{2H}{\mathrm{cos}i}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1v_\varphi ^2/c^2}}{1(v_\varphi /c)\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)^2,$$
(8)
where $`ϵ_\nu =B_\nu \kappa _\nu `$ is the emissivity.

The presence of a substantial azimuthal component of the magnetic field makes it convenient to calculate the observed flux directly from the Extraordinary and Ordinary components of the intensity. The most convenient approach is to select the symmetry axis of the Keplerian flow as the reference direction. The observed flux densities in the azimuthal and the reference directions are given by

$`F_{1\nu _0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D^2}}{\displaystyle (I_\nu ^{}^e\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi ^{}+I_\nu ^{}^o\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi ^{})\sqrt{1r_S/r}𝑑A},`$ (9)
$`F_{2\nu _0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D^2}}{\displaystyle (I_\nu ^{}^e\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi ^{}+I_\nu ^{}^o\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi ^{})\sqrt{1r_S/r}𝑑A},`$ (10)
respectively, where $`\varphi ^{}+\pi /2`$ is the position angle of the magnetic field vector within the emitting element that has an azimuth of $`\varphi `$, so that $`\mathrm{cot}\varphi ^{}=\mathrm{cot}\varphi \mathrm{cos}i`$. $`I_\nu ^{}^e`$ and $`I_\nu ^{}^o`$ are the specific intensities for the Extraordinary and Ordinary waves, respectively. For thermal synchrotron radiation, the emissivities are

$`ϵ^e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}e^3}{8\pi m_ec^2}}B\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}N(E)[F(x)+G(x)]𝑑E,`$ (11)
$`ϵ^o`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}e^3}{8\pi m_ec^2}}B\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}N(E)[F(x)G(x)]𝑑E,`$ (12)
where $`N(E)`$ is the electron distribution function at energy $`E`$, and

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta v_\varphi /c}{1(v_\varphi /c)\mathrm{cos}\theta }},`$ $`x={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \nu m_e^3c^5}{3eB\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}E^2}},`$ (13)
$`F(x)=x{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}K_{5/3}(z)𝑑z,`$ $`G(x)=xK_{2/3}(x).`$ (14)
$`K_{5/3}`$ and $`K_{2/3}`$ are the corresponding modified Bessel functions (Pacholczyk 1970). The total flux density produced by the Keplerian portion of the flow is the sum of these two. The expected fractional polarization is then given by $`P_{\nu _0}=(F_{1\nu _0}F_{2\nu _0})/(F_{1\nu _0}+F_{2\nu _0})`$.

The temperature in this region reaches $`10^{11}`$ K, for which inverse Compton processes must be taken into account. The self-Comptonization of the sub-mm radiation is calculated according to the prescription in Melia et al. (2001), based on the algorithm described in Melia & Fatuzzo (1989).

## 4 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The best-fit model for the polarized mm and sub-mm emission from Sgr A\* (Aitken et al. 2000) is shown in Figures 1 (the inset) and (the solid curve of) 2. The peak frequency of the flux density is $`2.4\times 10^{11}`$ Hz, and the flip frequency (at which the position angle changes by $`90^o`$) is $`2.8\times 10^{11}`$ Hz. Below this frequency, the first component is smaller than the second, and the corresponding percentage polarization is therefore (by definition) negative. Above the flip frequency, the first component is larger. Although the fit is not optimized, both the spectrum and the percentage polarization appear to be consistent with the data. It is to be noted that the peak frequency is actually smaller than the flip frequency, which is distinct from other models that may also produce a rotation of the position angle (see Aitken et al. 2000).

It is rather straightforward to understand the polarization characteristics in this model. In the optically thick region (below about $`1.6\times 10^{11}`$ Hz), the specific intensity of the Extraordinary and Ordinary waves is almost isotropic in the co-moving frame because the optical depth $`\tau `$ is very large. Even with the inclusion of the Doppler effect, the emissivity of the source is relatively independent of position angle. But the optical depths are different for the two waves, as indicated by Equation (7), and the specific intensity of the Extraordinary wave is slightly larger than that of the Ordinary wave. From Equations (11) and (12), we see that the second component is larger than the first, and the percentage polarization is therefore negative according to the definition of $`P_{\nu _0}`$. With an increase in frequency, the Extraordinary amplitude becomes even larger (relative to that of the Ordinary wave) and so the percentage polarization increases.

However, in the optically thin region, the specific intensity is given by Equation (8). The synchrotron emissivity is very sensitive to the angle between the line of sight and the magnetic field vector B; synchrotron radiation is beamed into a plane perpendicular to B in the co-moving frame. With the inclusion of the Doppler effect, the radiation is beamed into a cone, and the dominant contribution comes from the blue shifted region which has an azimuth of about zero. Therefore, since the Extraordinary wave is more intense than the Ordinary wave and the integrals (11) and (12) are dominated by radiation from the emitting element with an azimuth of about zero, the first component is larger than the second. In this case, the fractional polarization becomes positive.

In other words, the optically thick emission is dominated by emitting elements on the near and far sides of the black hole, for which the Extraordinary wave has a polarization direction parallel to the reference axis. In contrast, the dominant contribution in the thin region comes from the blue shifted emitter to the side of the black hole, where the Extraordinary wave has a polarization direction mostly perpendicular to this axis. The sharp decrease in polarization at still higher frequencies is due to the diluting effects of Comptonization emission which begins to dominate over Synchrotron emission at that point. The inclination angle dependence of the fractional polarization associated with emission by the Keplerian portion of the inflow is shown in Figure 2.

Several issues remain to be investigated. An important result of our analysis is that only modest accretion rates appear to be consistent with the polarization characteristics of Sgr A\* at mm and sub-mm wavelengths. The emitting region is compact—evidently no larger than a handful of Schwarzschild radii. Yet hydrodynamical simulations (Coker & Melia 1997) suggest that the rate at which plasma is captured at larger radii (of order $`10^4r_S`$ or so) is several orders of magnitude higher. If our modeling is correct, this would seem to suggest that $`\dot{M}`$ is variable, perhaps due to a gradual loss of mass with decreasing radius (see, e.g., Blandford & Begelman 1999). It is essential to self-consistently match the conditions within the Keplerian region of the flow with the quasi-spherical infall further out. These calculations are currently under way, and the results will be reported elsewhere. In addition, if the Chandra source is indeed the counterpart to Sgr A\* (Baganoff et al 2000), then the spectrum shown in Figure 1 suggests a correlated variability between the sub-mm and X-ray fluxes, which can be tested with the next round of coordinated observations.

## 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are very grateful to Marco Fatuzzo for helpful discussions. This work was supported by a Sir Thomas Lyle Fellowship and a Miegunyah Fellowship for distinguished overseas visitors at the University of Melbourne, and by NASA grants NAG5-8239 and NAG5-9205.