text:
# Comptonization of Infrared Radiation from Hot Dust by Relativistic Jets in Quasars

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Recent discovery that blazars are strong and variable $`\gamma `$–ray emitters (von Montigny et al., 1995) provided independent evidence that the blazar phenomenon (smooth continuum emission in all observable bands; large-amplitude, rapid variability; and high linear polarization) is produced by relativistic sub-parsec jets which are oriented at small angles to the line of sight (Dondi & Ghisellini 1995; for a recent review, see, e.g., Ulrich, Maraschi, & Urry 1997). Radio loud quasars with such an orientation of the jet are observed as optically-violent-variable (OVV) and highly polarized quasars, while the line-weak radio galaxies are seen as BL Lac objects.

Non-thermal spectra of blazars can be divided into two components, the low energy component, commonly interpreted in terms of the synchrotron radiation mechanism, and the high energy component, presumably produced by the inverse-Compton (IC) process (see, e.g., review by Sikora 1997). In BL Lac objects, the IC energy losses of relativistic electrons/positrons are likely to be dominated by the synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) process (Mastichiadis & Kirk, 1997; Ghisellini et al., 1998; Coppi & Aharonian, 1999), whereas in the OVV quasars, Comptonization of the diffuse ambient radiation field is probably more important (Sikora, Begelman, & Rees 1994 \[hereafter: SBR94\]; Blandford & Levinson 1995). The above, however, should be regarded as a trend rather than the rule, and, e.g., the case of BL Lacertae shows that Comptonization of external radiation can be important also in BL Lac objects (Madejski et al., 1999).

The models proposing that $`\gamma `$–rays in OVV quasars result from Comptonization of the diffuse ambient radiation field are commonly known as external radiation Compton (ERC) models. There are many variants of the ERC models. In some of them, radiation sources are approximated by homogeneous “blobs” propagating along the jet (SBR94; Ghisellini et al. 1998; Kusunose, Takahara, & Li 2000), while in others — by an inhomogeneous flow (Blandford & Levinson, 1995). They also differ regarding the dominant diffuse ambient radiation field. For small distances, $`<10^{1617}`$ cm, this can be provided directly by the accretion disc (Dermer & Schlickeiser, 1993), while at larger distances, the broad emission lines (BEL) and near-IR radiation from hot dust are likely to dominate (SBR94). In the “blob” model, the distance along the jet where most of the $`\gamma `$–ray flux is produced can be estimated from variability time scale and from the location of the spectral break where the luminosity of the Compton component peaks. The $`1÷3`$ day time scales of $`\gamma `$–ray outbursts and typical location of their spectral breaks in the $`1÷30`$ MeV range are consistent with production of $`\gamma `$–rays by Comptonization of light from BEL regions and dust at distances $`10^{17}10^{18}`$ cm (see Table 1 in SBR94).

The situation in the X–ray band is more complex. In part, the SSC process may be important in the soft/mid energy X–ray bands (Inoue & Takahara, 1996; Kubo et al., 1998). Furthermore, X–ray variability usually shows lower amplitude than variability in the $`\gamma `$–ray band (Sambruna, 1997; Wehrle et al., 1998). This suggests that X–rays produced co-spatially with $`\gamma `$–rays are contaminated by another source of X–rays, possibly located at larger distances along the jet and therefore varying on much longer time scales. Superposition of radiation components produced at lower and higher distances can also explain progressively weaker variability in the synchrotron component at lower frequencies (Brown et al., 1989; Edelson, 1992; Hartman et al., 1996; Ulrich, Maraschi & Urry, 1997). Since both sources located at smaller and larger distances are related to dissipation events presumably triggered by collisions between inhomogeneities propagating down the jet at different velocities, one can expect that location and strength of these collisions change with time. As a result, the relative amplitude of different spectral components may also be changing from epoch to epoch. The best studied example is the quasar 3C 279, which is usually very variable in the optical band (this is an OVV quasar), but during the high energy flare in 1996, the optical flux varied less than 20% (Wehrle et al., 1998).

As was demonstrated by Sikora & Madejski (2000), studies of X–ray radiation in OVV quasars allow a verification of the presence of low energy electrons in a jet. This, in turn, can be used to estimate the pair content of quasar jets. We conduct such studies in this paper by more detailed modeling of production of radiation. This is also the first work where the contribution of all three Compton components: SSC, C(BEL) and C(IR) is taken into account simultaneously.

This paper is organized as follows: in §2 we describe our model of non-thermal flare production in relativistic jets. In §3 we use the model to reproduce typical spectra observed in $`\gamma `$–ray detected OVV quasars and illustrate their dependence on the low energy break in the electron/positron injection function. We use two classes of models, one where the radiative output is dominated by Comptonization of IR radiation from hot dust, and another where $`\gamma `$–ray flux results from Comptonization of broad emission lines. In that section, we also discuss the model parameters and, in particular, calculate the pair content of the jet plasma, required to provide the observed spectra. We summarize our main conclusions in §4.

## 2 THE MODEL

### 2.1 Evolution of the Electron Energy Distribution

In our model, we assume that relativistic electrons/positrons are enclosed within a very thin shell which propagates along the jet with relativistic speed. With this, we can describe evolution of the electron energy distribution, $`N_\gamma `$, using the following continuity equation (see, e.g., Moderski, Sikora, & Bulik 2000)

$$\frac{N_\gamma }{r}=\frac{}{\gamma }\left(N_\gamma \frac{d\gamma }{dr}\right)+\frac{Q}{c\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(1)
where the rate of electron/positron energy losses is

$$\frac{d\gamma }{dr}=\frac{1}{\beta c\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left(\frac{d\gamma }{dt^{}}\right)_{rad}\frac{2}{3}\frac{\gamma }{r},$$
(2)
$`r`$ is the distance from the central engine, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the bulk Lorentz factor, $`\beta =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }^21}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\gamma `$ is the random Lorentz factor of an electron/positron, $`Q`$ is the rate of injection of relativistic electrons/positrons, and $`dr=\beta c\mathrm{\Gamma }dt^{}`$. The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (2) represents the adiabatic losses for two-dimensional expansion of the jet. Radiative energy losses are dominated by:

(1) synchrotron radiation,

$$\left(\frac{d\gamma }{dt^{}}\right)_S=\frac{4\sigma _T}{3m_ec}u_B^{}\gamma ^2,$$
(3)
(2) Comptonization of synchrotron radiation,

$$\left(\frac{d\gamma }{dt^{}}\right)_{SSC}=\frac{4\sigma _T}{3m_ec}u_S^{}\gamma ^2,$$
(4)
and (3) Comptonization of external radiation,

$$\left(\frac{d\gamma }{dt^{}}\right)_{ERC}=\frac{16\sigma _T}{9m_ec}(u_{diff(BEL)}+u_{diff(IR)})\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\gamma ^2,$$
(5)
where $`u_B^{}=B^2/8\pi `$ is the magnetic field energy density, $`u_S^{}`$ is the energy density of the synchrotron radiation field, $`u_{diff(BEL)}`$ $``$ $`\frac{L_{BEL}/\mathrm{ln}r}{4\pi r^2c}`$ is the energy density of the broad emission line field present at the actual distance of a source/shell propagating downstream a jet, $`u_{diff(IR)}\xi _{IR}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\sigma _{SB}T^4/c`$ is the energy density of the infrared radiation field, $`\xi _{IR}`$ is the fraction of the central radiation reprocessed into near infrared by hot dust, and $`T`$ is temperature of dust assumed to be located at $`r_{IR}>r`$ (see Eq. 17). Note that the expression for $`u_{diff(BEL)}`$ does not include the contribution from emission lines produced at much larger or smaller distances than $`r`$. This is because for any smooth radial distribution of external diffuse radiation field, as is likely to be the case of BELR in quasars (Peterson 1993), the lines produced over larger distances ($`>r`$) provide much lower energy densities, while the lines produced at smaller distances are very significantly redshifted in the shell frame. Here, as elsewhere in the paper, primed quantities denote measurements made in the source co-moving frame. Energy density of the synchrotron radiation is given by:

$$u_S^{}=\frac{1}{2\pi a^2c}_{\nu _{abs}^{}}^{\nu _{S,max}^{}}\nu ^{}L_{S,\nu ^{}}^{}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}\nu ^{}$$
(6)
where $`a`$ is the cross section radius of the jet at a distance where the outburst is produced, $`\nu _{abs}^{}`$ is the frequency at which the optical thickness due to synchrotron-self-absorption is equal to unity111We calculate $`\nu _{abs}^{}`$ using an approximate formula given by SBR94 and derived assuming spherical geometry of the source. For the shell geometry, $`\nu _{abs}^{}`$ is larger and angle dependent, but never exceeds the value for spherical case by more than $`(a/\lambda ^{})^{2/7}`$., $`h\nu _{S,max}^{}=(4/3)\gamma _{max}^2(B^{}/B_{cr})m_ec^2`$, $`B_{cr}4.4\times 10^{13}`$ Gauss, and

$$\nu ^{}L_{S,\nu ^{}}^{}\frac{1}{2}(\gamma N_\gamma )m_ec^2\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{\mathrm{d}t^{}}\right|_S.$$
(7)
It should be mentioned here that in the case of thin shell geometry, the synchrotron energy density, given by formula (6), is reached throughout the source on much shorter time scale than $`a/c`$, and, therefore, unlike the case of spherical sources, the SSC flares are not expected to lag significantly behind the synchrotron flares. We also note that our assumption about the comoving thinness of shells is well justified by the detailed studies of shocks produced by collisions of inhomogeneities moving with different velocities, provided their Lorentz factors differ by less than a factor 2 (see, e.g., Komissarov and Falle 1997).

### 2.2 Modeling of the Radiation Spectra

Since we consider only the contribution to the overall spectra by the regions of the jet which are optically thin, the observed spectra can be computed using the following formula

$$\nu L_\nu (t)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_j}_{\mathrm{\Omega }_j}\nu ^{}L_\nu ^{}^{}[r;\theta ^{}]𝒟^4\mathrm{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{d}\varphi ,$$
(8)
where

$$r=\frac{c\beta t}{1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta },$$
(9)
$`𝒟=[\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )]^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})`$ is the Doppler factor, $`\theta `$ is the angle between velocity of the shell element and direction to the observer, $`\nu =𝒟\nu ^{}`$, and $`t`$ is the observed time (see Appendix A). The intrinsic synchrotron luminosity, $`\nu ^{}L_{S,\nu ^{}}^{}`$, is given by Eq. (7). The intrinsic SSC luminosity is (see, e.g., Chiang & Dermer 1999)

$$\nu ^{}L_{SSC,\nu ^{}}^{}=\frac{\sqrt{3}\sigma _T}{8\mathrm{\Omega }_jr^2}\nu _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/2}_{\nu _1^{}}^{\nu _2^{}}N_\gamma \left[\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{3\nu ^{}}{4\nu _S^{}}}\right]L_{S,\nu ^{}}^{}\nu _S^{3/2}d\nu _S^{},$$
(10)
where

$$\nu _1^{}=\mathrm{Max}[\nu _{abs}^{};\frac{3\nu ^{}}{4\gamma _{max}^2}],$$
(11)
and

$$\nu _2^{}=\mathrm{Min}[\nu _{S,max}^{};\frac{3\nu ^{}}{4\gamma _{min}^2}].$$
(12)
In contrast to the synchrotron and SSC emission which is isotropic in the co-moving frame, the radiation produced by Comptonization of external radiation is anisotropic, and thus

$$\nu ^{}L_{C(i),\nu ^{}}^{}[\theta ^{}]4\pi \frac{(\nu ^{}L_{C(i),\nu ^{}}^{})}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{}{n}_{obs}^{}}^{}}\frac{1}{2}\gamma N_\gamma m_ec^2\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{\mathrm{d}t^{}}\right|_{C(i)}[\theta ^{}],$$
(13)
where

$$\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{\mathrm{d}t^{}}\right|_{C(i)}[\theta ^{}]\frac{4\sigma _T}{3m_ec}\gamma ^2𝒟^2u_i,$$
(14)
and $`i`$: BEL or IR. The right-hand side of Eq. (13) is calculated for

$$\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{\nu ^{}}{𝒟\nu _i}}=\frac{1}{𝒟}\sqrt{\frac{\nu }{\nu _i}}.$$
(15)
Anisotropy of the ERC process (Eq. 14) and its astrophysical implications have been extensively discussed by Dermer (1995), and some general comments on the significance of this anisotropy can be found in Sikora (1997).

### 2.3 Application to Homogeneous ERC Models

Using the formalism given above, we consider homogeneous ERC models. Specifically, our goal is to compare two scenarios: in the first case, $`\gamma `$–rays are produced by Comptonization of near-IR radiation (which we subsequently denote as models A), while in the second case, it is due to Comptonization of broad emission line photons (hereafter models B). Our model assumptions are:

$``$ electron/positron injection function is a power-law, $`Q=K\gamma ^p`$, for $`\gamma _b<\gamma <\gamma _{max}`$, and has a low energy tail, $`Q\gamma ^1`$, for $`\gamma <\gamma _b`$;

$``$ $`\gamma _b`$ is lower than the energy of the break, $`\gamma _c`$, produced due to cooling effect (SBR94222Note that in SBR94 the cooling energy break is denoted by $`\gamma _b`$, while in our paper, it denotes the low energy break in the injection function.) and, therefore, it is the latter which determines the position of luminosity peaks of the spectral components C(BEL) and C(IR);

$``$ electrons/positrons are injected at a constant rate within a distance range $`(r_0;2r_0)`$ and uniformly fill the shell whose radial width is $`\lambda ^{}<r_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$;

$``$ the shell propagates down the conical jet with a constant Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The half-opening angle of the jet is $`\theta _j=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$;

$``$ the intensity of the magnetic field is $`B(r)=(r_0/r)B_0`$, the energy density of broad emission lines is $`u_{diff(BEL)}=(r_0/r)^2u_{BEL,0}`$, and the energy density of infrared radiation is $`u_{IR}=const`$;

$``$ the observer is located at an angle $`\theta _{obs}=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

With the above assumptions, the model approximates a situation where the shell containing relativistic plasma is formed due to collision of two perturbances moving down the jet with different velocities (see, e.g., SBR94 and Rees & Mészáros 1994). The low energy break in the electron/positron injection function, $`\gamma _b`$, corresponds to the characteristic energy of pre-heated electrons/positrons (see, e.g., Kirk, Rieger, & Mastichiadis 1998), and the low energy tail below this break is introduced to mimic a limited efficiency of the pre-heating process, nature of which is very uncertain (Hoshino et al., 1992; Levinson, 1996; McClements et al., 1997).

Input parameters of the models were chosen to reproduce typical features of OVV quasar flares: location of the $`\gamma `$–ray luminosity peak in the 1 – 30 MeV range; apparent $`\gamma `$–ray luminosity in the range $`10^{4748}`$ erg s-1; apparent synchrotron luminosity in the range $`10^{4647}`$ erg s-1; deficiency of radiation in the soft/mid X–ray bands; maximum synchrotron frequency, $`\nu _{S,max}10^{15}`$ Hz; and time scale of $`\gamma `$–ray flares on the order of days. For broadband spectra of blazars see, e.g., von Montigny et al. (1995) and Fossati et al. (1998); for time scales of rapid (daily) $`\gamma `$–ray variability see, e.g., Michelson et al. (1994), Mattox et al. (1997) and Wehrle et al. (1998).

## 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As it was shown by SBR94, the high energy $`\gamma `$–rays detected by EGRET on board CGRO from OVV quasars can be produced by Comptonization of broad emission line light as well as by Comptonization of infrared radiation (see Table 1 in SBR94). Whereas the broad emission line flux gained a lot of attention as a good candidate for the dominant source of seed photons for the inverse Compton process in a jet, the infrared radiation from dust was largely ignored in the literature (see, however, Wagner et al. 1995a and references therein). To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first where production of both spectral components, C(IR) and C(BEL), is treated simultaneously. We discuss the energy density of those components below.

Regarding the diffuse radiation field on sub-parsec scales provided by broad emission line clouds, the line luminosities in radio loud quasars are typically in the range $`10^{44}10^{46}`$ erg s-1 (Celotti, Padovani & Ghisellini, 1997; Cao & Jiang, 1999). Assuming that the scale of the broad emission line region is on the order of the distance at which non-thermal flares are produced in a jet, one can find that the corresponding energy density at a distance $`r=10^{18}r_{18}`$ cm is

$$u_{diff(BEL)}\frac{L_{BEL}}{4\pi r^2c}3\times 10^3\frac{L_{BEL,45}}{r_{18}^2}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(16)
where $`L_{BEL,45}=L_{BEL}/10^{45}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. For the diffuse IR radiation, just as in the cases of Seyfert galaxies and radio quiet quasars, the spectra of lobe-dominated radio loud quasars show very prominent near-IR bumps (Sanders et al., 1989; de Vries et al., 1998). These bumps are commonly interpreted as thermal radiation produced by hot dust. Such dust is expected to be heated by UV radiation of an accretion disc and located in the innermost parts of a geometrically thick molecular torus, at a distance

$$r_{IR}\sqrt{\frac{L_{UV}}{4\pi \sigma _{SB}T^4}}4\times 10^{18}\frac{L_{UV,46}^{1/2}}{T_3^2}\mathrm{cm},$$
(17)
where $`L_{UV}=10^{46}L_{UV,46}`$ erg s-1 is the luminosity of the accretion disc, and $`T=10^3T_3`$ K is the effective temperature of dust. The dust provides radiation field with energy density which at $`r<r_{IR}`$ is approximately constant and equal to

$$u_{IR}\xi _{IR}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\sigma _{SB}T^4/c2.3\times 10^3(\xi _{IR}/0.3)T_3^4\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(18)
The model parameters are given in Table 2, and illustrated in Figures AA, which show time-averaged broad-band spectra computed using the model equations and assumptions given in §2. Specifically, we consider three cases: (1) a pure C(IR) model (A, shown in Fig. A); (2) pure C(BEL) model (B, shown in Fig. A); and (3) a combination of the two (A+B, shown in Fig. A). In all three figures, a comparison of the four panels illustrates the dependence of the time averaged spectra on the low energy break in the injection function, $`\gamma _b`$.

To validate the models in greater detail, we also consider spectra obtained for the two well-studied objects. In Fig. A we present our model fits to the Jan-Feb 1996 outburst in 3C 279 (Wehrle et al., 1998) and to the March 1995 outburst in PKS 0528+134 (Błażejowski et al., 1997; Kubo et al., 1998), using a combination of models A and B. The model parameters for those fits are presented in Table 2.

### 3.1 Spectra

Figures AA clearly illustrate that the general features of spectra of $`\gamma `$–ray detected OVV quasars – in particular, the high ratio of Compton to synchrotron luminosities, and the comparative deficit of X–ray radiation – can be reproduced by both types of models, A (where C(IR) dominates) and B (where C(BEL) dominates). However, the details of the spectra are different. The models A yield X–ray spectra which are much smoother and closer to the observed ones than the spectra produced by models B. This results from the fact that in order to reproduce the observed spectra, in models A, the Lorentz factors of electrons/positrons $`\gamma _c`$ (where the cooling break occurs) need to be larger than in models B, causing the X–ray portion of the SSC component to be harder in models A as compared to B.

Another important difference between these two models is in the high energy $`\gamma `$–ray spectral band. The spectral components due to C(IR) have a break at $`1`$ GeV, whereas EGRET/CGRO observations show that blazar spectra extend at least up to 5 GeV. Therefore, the EGRET spectra can be reproduced only as a superposition of C(IR) and C(BEL) (see Fig. 3). This also provides an attractive explanation for $`\gamma `$–ray spectra being steeper than the X–ray spectra by more than the value predicted by cooling effect, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0.5`$. Examples of spectra of objects with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha >0.5`$, often called “MeV blazars,” can be found in McNaron-Brown et al. (1995), Blom et al. (1995), and Malizia et al. (1999).

### 3.2 Low Energy Injection Break and Pair Content

Total number of relativistic electrons plus positrons injected in the shell during the flare is

$$N_e=\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}_1^{\gamma _{max}}Q𝑑\gamma \frac{r_0}{c\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{K}{\gamma _b^{p1}}\left(\mathrm{ln}\gamma _b+\frac{1}{p1}\right),$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }r/c\mathrm{\Gamma }=r_0/c\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the injection time interval. The number of protons enclosed in the shell is on the order of

$$N_p\dot{N}_p\mathrm{\Delta }t_\lambda \frac{L_p}{m_pc^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{\lambda }{c},$$
(20)
where $`L_p`$ is the energy flux of cold protons in a jet and $`\lambda `$ is the width of the shell as measured in the external frame. We note here that because the energy dissipated in a jet in our model results from collisions between inhomogenities, one should not expect heating of protons to much larger average energies than mildly relativistic. Furthermore, this energy is quickly lost due to adiabatic expansion and/or converted back to the bulk energy. This is why jet energy flux is expected to be dominated by cold protons.

Combining Eqs. (19) and (20), we find

$$\frac{N_+}{N_p}\frac{N_e}{2N_p}\frac{m_pc^2}{2L_p}\frac{r_0}{\lambda }\frac{K}{\gamma _b^{p1}}\left(\mathrm{ln}\gamma _b+\frac{1}{p1}\right).$$
(21)
(We defined $`N_e`$ as a sum of numbers of both relativistic electrons and positrons, and thus for $`N_+>`$ a few $`\times N_p`$ the charge conservation gives $`N_e2N_+`$.) Assuming the kinetic luminosity of the jet to be $`L_j=10^{47}L_{j,47}`$ $`10^{47}`$ erg s-1 (see, e.g., Rawlings & Saunders 1991; Celotti & Fabian 1993) and noting that $`\lambda <r_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ (see assumption about the shell width in §2), we obtain results presented in Table 3.

The pair content implied by our fits to the time averaged spectrum of the outburst in 3C 279 is $`n_+/n_p4`$, and for the outburst in PKS 0528+134 — $`n_+/n_p17`$. Note, however, that our fits are not unique, since such parameters as time scales of flares, energy densities of external radiation fields, and jet powers are not very well constrained by observations.

As we can see from Table 3, the pair content ranges from a few for $`\gamma _b100`$ up to more than hundred for $`\gamma _b1`$. The recent detection of circular polarization in several compact radio sources (Wardle et al., 1998; Homan & Wardle, 1999) and its interpretation in terms of the Faraday conversion process favor low values of $`\gamma _b`$, and therefore a large pair content. However, there are some objects with such hard X–ray spectra (Malizia et al., 1999; Fabian et al., 1998), that they can only be explained if $`\gamma _b1`$. But even in these cases, as long as $`\gamma _b<100`$, at least some pair content is required. Such pairs can be produced via interaction of a cold proto-jet with radiation of the hot accretion disc corona (Sikora & Madejski, 2000).

### 3.3 External Radiation Fields

As we can see from Table 1, in the models A and A+B, $`u_{IR}10^4`$erg s-1, i.e. about 20 times less than energy density of radiation produced by silicate grains with its maximum temperature $`1000`$ K, and about 100 times less than energy density of radiation produced by graphite grains with its maximum temperature $`1500`$ K. This implies the value of $`u_{IR}`$ to be lower than expected, in order to avoid overproduction of X–rays. In either model, the corresponding dust temperature is $`500`$ K, i.e. 2-3 times lower than maximum, and the distance of dust from the central source is $`5\sqrt{L_{UV,46}}`$ pc. Alternatively, overproduction of X–rays by Comptonization of IR radiation can be avoided by postulating that the $`\gamma `$–ray luminosity peak is not defined by the value of the cooling break $`\gamma _c`$ as assumed above, but rather, by the injection break $`\gamma _b`$ (see Ghisellini et al. 1999; Mukherjee et al. 1999).

In the model A+B, $`u_{diff(BEL)}u_{diff(IR)}10^4`$ erg cm-3 (see Table 1), which is 30 times lower than the average in radio loud quasars. However, as recent reverberation campaigns show, broad emission lines have peak luminosities at distances $`3\times 10^{17}\sqrt{L_{UV,46}}`$ cm (see review by Peterson 1993), and therefore the amount of the diffuse line radiation at distances where flares are produced ($`r_0÷2r_010^{18}`$ cm) is likely to be a small fraction of the total $`L_{BEL}`$. In case of models B, $`u_{diff(BEL)}`$ is much closer to the observed values and there is no need for significant reduction of $`L_{BEL}`$ at distances corresponding to $`r_0`$.

### 3.4 Bulk Compton Radiation

The models presented above don’t take into account the so-called bulk-Compton process – the Comptonization of ambient diffuse radiation by cold electrons/positrons in a jet (Begelman & Sikora, 1996; Sikora et al., 1997). This process should lead to the production of narrow bumps at energies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2h\nu _{ext}`$, i.e., $`2\times (\mathrm{\Gamma }/15)^2`$ keV and $`0.3\times (\mathrm{\Gamma }/15)^2`$ keV for $`\nu _{ext}=\nu _{UV}`$ and $`\nu _{ext}=\nu _{IR}`$, respectively. The largest contribution should come from very small distances, where the jet just starts to be relativistic and collimated. The absence of soft X–ray bumps in the observed spectra of OVV quasars (see, e.g., Lawson & McHardy 1998) suggests that the region of jet formation is very extended, possibly reaching distances not very much smaller than those where most of blazar radiation is produced, or else, the number of pairs in a jet is very small (cf. Sikora et al. 1997). Noting that the number flux of cold pairs at $`r<r_0`$ should at least be equal to the number flux of relativistic pairs accelerated at $`rr_0`$, the latter condition corresponds to $`\gamma _b1`$.

### 3.5 Variability

Fig. A shows the time evolution of the broad-band spectrum presented in Fig. A, binned in the time intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_0r_0/2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c`$. As one can see from those Figures, the flares decay at different rates in different spectral bands. Despite the transverse size of the source and related light travel effects, the dependence of energy losses on electron/positron energy is manifested very strongly, causing the synchrotron and Compton spectra above the luminosity peak to steepen with time. Additional steepening of the $`\gamma `$–ray spectrum is caused by the fact that C(BEL) drops faster with distance than C(IR). This is because the energy density of broad emission line light decreases with distance, while energy density of IR radiation is roughly constant. Such a steepening of $`\gamma `$–ray spectra is observationally confirmed both by direct observations of the slope changes during individual flares (Mücke et al., 1996; Mukherjee et al., 1996; Mattox et al., 1997), and statistically, by comparison of time averaged spectra as measured during different epochs (Pohl et al., 1997).

Steepening of the synchrotron spectrum is also consistent with observations, which show that the amplitude of variability increases with the increasing energy of the observing band. However, in many OVV quasars, the amplitude of the variability of the synchrotron component, even at the highest frequencies, is much smaller than amplitude of variability in $`\gamma `$–rays. A particularly clear example of such behavior is provided by the simultaneous multi-band observations of the Jan-Feb 1996 flare in 3C 279 (Wehrle et al., 1998). This can be explained by assuming that the synchrotron component is heavily contaminated by radiation produced at larger distances and/or by stationary shocks.

The situation at the keV energies is quite complex, but very interesting, as it provides important constraints on models. If the spectra measured in this range are entirely dominated by ERC components, then the drop of flux is predicted to be achromatic (with constant slope). This is because the low energy tails of ERC components are produced by electrons/positrons whose energy losses are dominated by adiabatic expansion. However, as suggested by Inoue & Takahara (1996) and Kubo et al. (1998) and confirmed by our models, the low energy X–rays are likely to be dominated by the SSC component. Then the whole X–ray spectrum is a superposition of a softer SSC component and harder ERC component, which should result in a concave shape. Such spectra are in fact in a few cases observed directly, and are also implied by the fact that two-point slopes between the X–ray and $`\gamma `$–ray bands are harder than the X–ray spectra measured in the soft/mid X–ray bands alone (Comastri et al., 1997). As we can see from Fig. A, such X–ray spectra – formed by a superposition of SSC and ERC components – harden as the source fades. This is caused by the SSC component, with luminosity which is proportional to the square of synchrotron luminosity, decaying faster than the low energy tail of ERC components. Hardening of X–ray spectra during the decay of the flare was in fact observed in some objects (see Ghisellini et al. 1999; Malizia et al. 1999). In most cases, however, the X–ray spectrum softens as the flare fades (Lawson, McHardy & Marscher, 1999; Comastri et al., 1997). This discrepancy can be resolved by postulating that the X–ray spectra, particularly at the lowest energies, are contaminated by radiation produced either at larger distances (see, e.g., Unwin et al. 1997), or in stationary shocks which may form if jet is reconfined and/or bent (see Komissarov & Falle 1997 and references therein). Furthermore, the light curves of outbursts can be further modified by a change of shell velocity (see, e.g., Dermer & Chiang 1998), or by a change of direction of propagation. The latter case seems to be favored by VLBI observations, which often show strong curvature of jets in OVV quasars on parsec scales (Appl, Sol & Vicente, 1996; Bower et al., 1997; Rantakyrö et al., 1998; Tingay, Murphy & Edwards, 1998). Finally we emphasize that even very high amplitude flares are never isolated: observations show that they smoothly join with lower amplitude neighboring flares, forming with them longer lasting high states. In order to explain the continuously flaring high state light curves in terms of propagating shells of relativistic plasma, one must assume that number of shells per a distance range $`r_02r_0`$ is on the order of $`N_{sh}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. For this particular number, the number of shells contributing to the observed radiation at a given instant is $`N_{sh,obs}N_{sh}/\mathrm{\Gamma }^21`$ (see Appendix in Sikora et al. 1997). For a much lower number of shells, the observer would see very isolated flares, while for much larger number of shells the resultant fluctuation (amplitude of the smaller flares superposed on the “high state”) would be smaller than is commonly observed.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

$``$ Comptonization of infrared radiation produced by hot dust should be taken into account in all radiation models of blazars. Such radiation, likely to be present in quasar cores on parsec scales, is sufficiently dense to compete with broad emission line flux as the source of Compton cooling of relativistic electrons/positrons in parsec/sub-parsec jets;

$``$ Both types of ERC models, either those where the $`\gamma `$–ray luminosity is dominated by C(IR) (models A) or those where the $`\gamma `$–ray luminosity is dominated by C(BEL) (models B), are able to reproduce all basic broadband spectral features of OVV quasars during their outbursts;

$``$ If the blazar radiation is produced at distances larger than the distance at which the energy density of the broad emission line light peaks, the C(IR) component is expected to dominate over the C(BEL) component;

$``$ The ERC models predict the general steepening of the $`\gamma `$–ray and synchrotron spectra with energy, in a qualitative agreement with observations. However, the lower observed variability amplitude of the synchrotron flux as compared with the $`\gamma `$–ray flux suggests a strong contamination of synchrotron radiation produced in the process of a flare by synchrotron radiation produced at larger distances or in stationary shocks;

$``$ X–ray spectra in OVV quasars consist of SSC and ERC components, and the latter can be either C(IR) or C(BEL). Just as in the case of synchrotron radiation, additional contribution to the soft/mid energy X–rays is expected from quasi-steady component produced by distant and/or stationary shocks. This can explain why the amplitude of variability in the X–ray bands is smaller than in $`\gamma `$–rays;

$``$ The ERC models of $`\gamma `$–ray production predict the pair content of the jet plasma, $`n_+/n_p`$, to be in the range from a few $`\times `$ $`L_{j,47}`$ for $`\gamma _b100`$ up to hundred $`\times `$ $`L_{j,47}`$ for $`\gamma _b1`$. Low values of $`\gamma _b`$ (and therefore a large e+/e- pair content) are favored by observations of circular polarization, assuming its interpretation in terms of the Faraday conversion process is correct.

The project was partially supported by Polish KBN grant 2P03D 00415, ITP/NSF grant PHY94-07194, NASA grants NAG-6337 and NASA observing/ADP grants to the University of Maryland and USRA.

## Appendix A RELATIVISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF OBSERVED LUMINOSITY

(1) The case of a point source of radiation

Observed monochromatic luminosity of a point source at the moment $`t`$ is

$$\delta L_\nu [t]4\pi \frac{dP_\nu }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}[t]=4\pi 𝒟^3\frac{dP_\nu ^{}^{}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}[t^{}]𝒟^3\delta L_\nu ^{}^{}[r;\stackrel{}{n}_{obs}^{}],$$
(A1)
(Rybicki & Lightman, 1979), where

$$r=\frac{c\beta t}{1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta },$$
(A2)
$$𝒟=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}),$$
(A3)
$`\nu ^{}=\nu /𝒟`$, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the direction of the source motion and the direction to the observer, $`\stackrel{}{n}_{obs}`$.

(2) The case of an extended source of radiation

Since we are only interested in the optically thin radiation, the observed luminosity of an extended source can be computed by summing contribution from its small pieces, treated as point sources. Of course, because of light travel effects, for pieces moving along different $`\theta `$’s, contribution must be taken from different distances (see Eq. A2). Using approximation of infinitely thin shell ($`\lambda r_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$), we divide the source into $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_j=\mathrm{\Omega }_j/N`$ pieces, where N must be enough large to allow treat individual pieces as point sources (i.e., with negligible light travel effects). The observed luminosity is then given by

$$(\nu L_\nu )[t]=\mathrm{\Sigma }_N(\nu \delta L_\nu )[\theta ;t]=\mathrm{\Sigma }_N𝒟^4(\nu ^{}\delta L_\nu ^{}^{})[r;\stackrel{}{n}_{obs}^{}].$$
(A4)
For uniform shells, one can introduce the formal quantity, “intrinsic luminosity” $`L_\nu ^{}[\theta ;t]=\delta L_\nu ^{}[\theta ;t]\times N=\delta L_\nu ^{}[\theta ;t]\times (\mathrm{\Omega }_j/\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_j)`$, and with this and $`N\mathrm{}`$, Eq. (A4) can be converted into Eq. (8).

FIGURE CAPTIONS


format: text

text:
# Twisting Lightlike Solutions of the Kerr-Schild Class

(gr-qc/0008055, August 2000)

## Abstract

Using a complex representation of the Debney–Kerr–Schild (DKS) solutions and the Kerr theorem we give a method to construct boosted Kerr geometries. In the ultrarelativistic case this method yelds twisting solutions having, contrary to the known pp-wave limiting solutions, a non-zero value of the total angular momentum. The solutions show that twist plays a crucial role in removing singularity and smoothing shock wave in the ultrarelativistic limit. Two different physical situations are discussed.

The problem of boosting of the black hole solutions received considerable attention in connection with different problems, like interaction between black holes and estimation of the gravitational interparticle interaction at very high energies.

First results in this field were obtained by Aichelburg and Sexl , who considered the boosting of the Schwarzschild solution. Due to the singular character of Lorentz transformations at $`v=c`$, many difficulties appear when the ultrarelativistic limit is involved. This singularity can, a priori, lead to different limiting results depending on the performed limiting procedure. Nevertheless, investigations of many authors led to a general conclusion that black hole solutions turn, in the ultrarelativistic limits, into singular pp-waves (for references see ).

In the case of the boosting of the rotating Kerr BH, the pp-wave ultrarelativistic solution looses one of the main properties of the original solution, namely twist of the principal null congruence. In the same time, it is known that the Kerr-Schild class contains twisting lightlike solutions. The aim of this work is to show that there exist twisting lightlike solutions which can be considered as ultrarelativistic limits of the Kerr BH.

The approach used here is based on the DKS formalism  and on the Kerr theorem. It gives a possibility of obtaining exact and explicit expressions for the boosted Kerr geometry by arbitrary values and orientations of the boost with respect to the angular momentum.

The general Kerr-Schild metric is $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+2he_\mu ^3e_\nu ^3`$, where $`h`$ is a scalar function and $`e^3`$ the principal null direction, given in null coordinates $`(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta },u,v)`$ by $`e^3=du+\overline{Y}d\zeta +Yd\overline{\zeta }Y\overline{Y}dv`$ , where $`Y(x)`$ is a complex function. The Kerr theorem gives a rule to construct all geodesic, shear free congruences: the general geodesic, shear-free null congruence in Minkowski space is defined by a function $`Y`$ which is a solution of the equation

$$F(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,Y)=0,$$
(1)
where $`F`$ is an arbitrary analytic function of the projective twistor coordinates $`\lambda _1=\zeta Yv,\lambda _2=u+Y\overline{\zeta },Y`$. The quantity $`\stackrel{~}{r}:=dF/dY`$ is a complex radial distance, and singularities of the metric can be defined as the caustics of the congruence given by the system of equations

$$F=0,dF/dY=0.$$
(2)
The Kerr solution belongs to the sub–class of solutions having singularities contained in a bounded region. In this case the function $`F`$ must be at most quadratic in $`Y`$. The solutions of the equations (8) can be found in this case in explicit form, and correspond to the Kerr solution up to a Lorentz boost and a shift of the origin. Newman  constructed a complex representation which allows to represent the Kerr solution as a retarded-time field, generated by a complex source propagating along a complex world-line. In the complex version of the Kerr theorem  the function $`F`$ depends on the coordinates of the complex world-line $`x_0(\tau )=(\zeta _0,\overline{\zeta }_0,u_0,v_0)CM^4`$. parameterized by a complex time parameter $`\tau =t+i\sigma `$.

The one-to-one correspondence between straight lines in complex Minkowski space and the class of the DKS solutions having singularities contained in a bounded region allows us to boost the Kerr solution via the DKS formalism. The general case of a solution with a boost corresponds to a straight, complex world line with 3-velocity $`\stackrel{}{V}`$ in $`CM^4`$

$$x_0^\mu (\tau )=x_0^\mu (0)+\xi ^\mu \tau ;\xi ^\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{V}).$$
(3)
It allows one to perform DKS-machinery and obtain solutions corresponding to parameters of the complex world line. On this way all the versions of the boosting of the Kerr BH can be considered in explicit form.

In particular, the most interesting case is that a boost collinear to the angular momentum. In this case, the Kerr singular ring grows as $`a/\sqrt{1v^2}`$ and tends to infinity in the ultrarelativistic limit. In this limit, the function $`F`$ acquires the form $`F=x+iyY(ziat)`$. It follows that the complex radial distance is

$$\stackrel{~}{r}=dF/dY=ziat,$$
(4)
and therefore the metric has no singularity if $`a`$ is non-zero. Two different physical situations must be considered in this case:

i) The field of a lightlike particle with a non-zero helicity $`J=m_0a_0=ma`$. The rest mass $`m_0`$ must be put equal to zero in the limit, so that $`a_0\mathrm{}`$. The relativistic parameters $`m`$ and $`a`$ are kept constant, $`h=m\frac{zt}{(zt)^2+a^2}`$, so that the singularity on the front is absent.

ii) Relativistic boost of a particle with a finite rest mass $`m_0`$. In this case $`m=m_0/\sqrt{1v^2}`$ grows under the effect of the boost, and consequently, $`a=J/m=(J/m_0)\sqrt{1v^2}`$ is going to zero. It follows that $`h`$ grows with the boost forming a wave with amplitude of order $`\frac{m_0}{a_0(1v^2)}`$. However, $`m_0/a_0`$ is of order $`10^{44}`$ for an electron, so that this effect can be observed only at $`1v^2m_0/a_010^{44}`$.

In conclusion, in this approach twist plays a crucial role in removing singularity and smoothing shock wave in the ultrarelativistic limit.


text:
# 1 Mean Cross Sections (Power of ten shown in parentheses)

CALCULATIONS AT SERIES LIMITS IN ONE-ELECTRON SYSTEMS

Charles R. Cowley

Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan

Introduction

The behavior of atoms in high quantum levels is generally well understood—in principle. For sufficiently large values of the principle quantum number, discrete levels that would exist for an isolated atom, do not. They are said to be dissolved, or quenched by perturbations from surrounding atoms and ions. In practice, the calculation of relevant atomic properties can become quite involved, especially if one strives for accuracy. Detailed references may be found in the papers by Stehlé and Jacquemot1, Hummer and Mihalas2, or the book by Griem3.

We draw attention here to a general principle that should be of practical value in the calculation of opacity near the series limits. We show that as soon as the Lyman or Balmer lines overlap and the individual profiles wash out, the net absorption cross section rapidly approaches the value at the series limit. It has been known for more than seventy years that the line and continuous opacities merge smoothly. We are unaware of a discussion of the rapidity of this convergence, which has a practical value for the calculation of opacity.

Independent of the difficult question of the relative contributions of line and continuous opacity, we can get a good estimate of their sum. The accuracies of estimates for two series are discussed below. We offer the following thoughts as a computational aid. They may also be of heuristic value.

A Mean Line Absorption Cross Section

Let us begin by considering the line opacity in a series. We take the Lyman series for simplicity. For lines with wavenumbers greater than that of Lα, we may define a mean cross section for the line Ln in the following way. Associate an interval, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\nu }_n`$ cm-1, with each line that extends halfway to the neighbors on either side. With the Rydberg formula, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\nu }_n=\frac{1}{2}[\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{n+1}+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_n]\frac{1}{2}[\stackrel{~}{\nu }_n+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{n1}]=\left[\frac{2nRy}{(n1)^2(n+1)^2}\right].$$
(1)
Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\nu }_n`$ represents the interval most logically associated with an individual line in the series. We can use it to define a mean line photoabsorption cross section $`<\sigma _n>`$, such that

$$<\sigma _n>\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\nu }_n=\frac{\pi e^2}{\mu c^2}f_{mn}.$$
(2)
The symbols $`e`$ and $`c`$ have their usual meanings. Here, $`\mu =m_e/(1+m_e/m_p)`$ is the reduced mass, which we must use to obtain the desired accuracy below. Values of the physical constants were taken from the NIST website4. We use $`e(\mathrm{esu})=e(\mathrm{SI})c/10`$, $`a_H=a_0/(1+m_e/m_p)`$, and $`Ry=e^2/(2a_Hhc)`$.

There would be a factor of $`\lambda ^2`$ on the right of Equation (2) had we used wavelengths rather than wavenumbers to define the interval associated with the $`n^{th}`$ series member.

Oscillator strengths for the Lyman lines have a simple closed form (cf. Bethe and Salpeter5 p. 263):

$$f_{1s,np}=\frac{2^8n^5(n1)^{2n4}}{3(n+1)^{2n+4}},$$
(3)
which was used to derive the entries in column 2, of Table 1, which extend somewhat beyond the tabulation of Green, Rush, and Chandler6. The last two figures given in this reference and in our Table 1 are of heuristic and illustrative value only, since relativistic effects are of the order of $`(1/137)^2`$ and apply to the real atom. We have used non-relativistic formulae throughout. The last entry gives the continuous absorption cross section calculated at the Lyman series limit. The corresponding gaunt factor is 0.797301. Karzas and Latter7 gave 0.7973.

Even for L10, $`<\sigma _{10}>`$ differs from the cross section at the series limit by less than one per cent. Calculations for the Balmer series show a similar convergence to the series limit, $`1.38710^{17}`$ cm2 though less rapid. The error at H10 is nearly 10%. This is entirely consistent with the beautiful experimental work of Wiese and coworkers8 which shows a drop in the intensity of about 10% between $`\lambda `$3700 (essentially, H10) and the Balmer limit.

By H20, the difference is only 2%. This line ($`\lambda _{\mathrm{air}}`$3682.81) is still 36.83Å from the series limit, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{air}}3645.98`$, and anyone who analyzes lines in this region needs to have the H I opacity accurately calculated. For conditions in the mean solar photosphere, the Balmer lines overlap and flatten near the position of H20, so the total opacity should be within 2% of that at the series limit from this point to the Balmer head.

Calculations of the opacity near the Balmer and Lyman limits are therefore not sensitive to the difficult questions involving the “existence” of high upper levels. Whatever the relative proportions of line and continuous opacity, the sum must approach the value at the head of the series.

The rigorous approach to calculations in this region is described for example, by Stehlé and Jacquemot1 and in elegant detail, by Seaton9, who also treats the non-hydrogenic case. At each wavelength, some fraction of the opacity is calculated as line opacity, and the complement is calculated as continuous absorption. The recipe for the division follows from the probability that a given level $`n`$ will exist. This probability is given in the references already cited, and can be somewhat tedious. It is therefore well for anyone coding this problem anew to be aware that the total opacity must merge rapidly to that at the series limit. We have shown that this must be so for the Lyman and Balmer series. Higher series should be investigated. If the convergence to the series limit is not rapid, the ideas outlined here will require modification to be useful computationally.

A Proof

We sketch a proof of the result that the quotient $`f_{mn}/\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\nu }_n`$ reaches a limit for large $`n`$ that is independent of $`n`$, and which converges to the continuous absorption cross section at the series limit. It is only necessary to divide the f-value given by Equation (3) by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$, which appears on the right of Equation (1), and take the limit as $`n`$ approaches infinity. We can then readily show that

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{lim}}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\pi e^2}{\mu c^2}\frac{f_{1s,np}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\nu }}=\frac{\pi e^2}{\mu c^2}2^7\mathrm{exp}(4)\frac{1}{3Ry}.$$
(4)
If we work out the cross section from first principles, we have

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{lim}}=\frac{8\pi ^3}{3}\frac{\nu }{c}a_H^3|<1,s|𝐫|E=0,p>|^2.$$
(5)
The dimensionless matrix element for a freed electron with zero energy has the absolute numerical value 2.165364. Both Equations (4) and (5) agree for the cross section for the series limit given in Table 1, as they must.

We omit details of a corresponding proof that we have carried out for the Balmer series. It is necessary to convert the closed-form expressions for the relevant radial integrals (cf. Bethe and Salpeter, Eqs. 63.4) to $`f`$-values, and perform an average for the $`2snp`$, $`2pnd`$, and $`2pns`$ series:

$$<\sigma _{2n}>=\frac{1}{4}[\sigma _{2snp}+3\sigma _{2pnd}+3\sigma _{2pns}].$$
(6)
We thank Drs. D. J. Bord, L. L. Lohr, P. J. Mohr, and W. L. Wiese for useful comments.

References

(1) C. Stehlé & S. Jacquemot, A&A, 271, 348, 1993.

(2) D. G. Hummer & D. Mihalas, ApJ, 331, 794, 1988.

(3) H. R. Griem, Principles of Plasma Spectroscopy, (Cambridge: University Press), 1997.

(4) http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html. See also P. J. Mohr & B. N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys., 72, No. 2, 2000.

(5) H. R. Bethe & E. E. Salpeter, Quantum Mechanics of One- and Two-Electron Atoms, (New York: Academic Press), 1957.

(6) L. C. Green, P. P. Rush & C. C. Chandler, ApJS, 3, 37, 1957.

(7) W. J. Karzas & R. Latter, ApJS, 6, 167, 1961.

(8) W. L. Wiese, D. E. Kelleher & D. R. Paquette, Phys. Rev., A6, 1132, 1972.

(9) M. J. Seaton, J. Phys. B, 23, 3255, 1990.


text:
# Spectroscopic evidence for unconventional superconductivity in UBe13

In a recent letter , we reported the observation of giant zero-bias conductance peaks (ZBCPs) for contacts between Au wires and bulk UBe13, which we ascribed to the existence of low-energy Andreev surface bound-states in superconducting UBe13. In the comment  preceding this reply, Gloos proposes an alternative interpretation of the ZBCPs observed in Ref.  which is based on Wexler’s formula . Below, we first show that the criticism of our interpretation by Gloos is not relevant for the experimental situation discussed in Ref.  and second, we argue that the observed ZBCPs in the UBe13–Au contacts are not compatible with the interpretation given in Ref. .

In Ref. , Gloos discusses the properties of normal metal–normal metal (NN) contacts by means of Wexler’s formula, from which he derives a condition claiming that the UBe13–Au contacts discussed in Ref.  are not in the limit where pure Andreev reflection (AR)  may occur. Pure AR, or electron-hole reflection, at the interface between a normal conductor and a superconductor (NS) may cause an enhancement of the differential conductivity $`G(E)`$ for $`|E|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes the amplitude of the superconducting energy gap, but only in the limit of a low potential-barrier at the interface . The mean free path $`l`$ in the contact, which is discussed in Ref. , is large, if the potential-barrier is small and vice versa. However, in our discussion of the observed ZBCPs we do not claim to observe an enhancement of the differential conductivity of the contact due to pure AR. Instead we claim to observe a surface resonance phenomenon, which is caused by the presence of subgap Andreev bound-states. These two AR-type phenomena are simply not the same.

Wexler’s formula, in the form used in Ref. , is, apart from other criteria, based on the assumption that the Fermi-liquid parameters and hence the resistivity $`\rho `$ of both metals on either side of the contact are at least similar. Since in Ref.  one of the metals of the contact is the heavy-electron metal UBe13, this assumption is certainly not valid, and Wexler’s formula in the form as employed by Gloos  needs to be revised. In addition, the application of Wexler’s formula for estimating the contact radius $`a`$ using the contact resistance $`R`$ and $`\rho `$ of bulk UBe13 is, in our opinion, an invalid step.

The interpretation of our experiments  which is proposed in Ref.  is based on the assumption that the loss of the electrical resistance of UBe13 in its superconducting state is responsible for the huge enhancement of the differential conductivity at zero energy. The discussion given in Ref.  only embraces the temperature dependence of the conductivity of NN contacts. Discussing the energy-dependent differential conductivity $`G(E)`$ of, e.g., UBe13–Au contacts, however, would require a model including its energy dependence. This important issue is not contained in the discussion presented in Ref. .

It is well known that superconductivity of UBe13 with zero electrical resistance is fully established within a few ten mK below $`T_c`$. Therefore, in the context of Gloos’ model, one would expect, for $`|E|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the differential conductivity of the UBe13–Au contact to increase sharply at $`T_c`$, reaching its maximum just below $`T_c`$. In that case there would be no obvious reason why the differential conductivity at zero energy, $`G(0)`$, should further increase substantially with decreasing temperature, as it is observed for the data discussed in Ref. .

The shape of the $`G(E)`$ curve of the UBe13–Au contact (see Fig. 3 of Ref. ) does also not match the predictions of the model proposed by Gloos. The electrical resistance of UBe13 at $`T<T_c`$ is zero for $`|E|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The model discussed in Ref.  does not offer an explanation, why $`G(E)`$ of the UBe13–Au contact is only strongly enhanced in a narrow region around zero bias, but substantially reduced compared to the normal state of the contact at intermediate energies $`|E|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

We acknowledge helpful discussions with M. Sigrist.


text:
# Two Large-Area Anode-Pad MICROMEGAS Chambers as the basic elements of a Pre-Shower Detector

## I Introduction

The main goal of experiments at relativistic heavy-ion colliders, like RHIC at Brookhaven and LHC at CERN, is to produce and study, in the laboratory, the primordial matter of the universe which is predicted to consist of a plasma of deconfined quarks and gluons (QGP). Among the various considered probes and related observables (strange hadrons, heavy mesons, di-electrons, etc.), direct photons will explore the partonic phase during the equilibration process, as well as the QGP phase itself . In the ALICE (A Large Ion Collider Experiment) experiment at CERN , direct photons will be detected and identified with PHOS (PHOton Spectrometer) . PHOS is a highly segmented electromagnetic calorimeter (EMCA) which will consist of 17280 lead-tungstate (PbWO4) crystals, associated to a charged particle veto detector (CPV). Each crystal (2.2$`\times `$2.2$`\times `$18 cm3, 20 radiation lengths) is coupled to a PIN-diode associated to a low noise pre-amplifier. The PHOS spectrometer will be positioned at the bottom of the ALICE magnet, 4.6 meters away from the interaction point. It will cover the pseudo-rapidity range from -0.12 to 0.12 and the azimuthal-angle domain from 45 to 135. Rejection of charged hadronic showers will be performed with the CPV detector, positioned in front of the PHOS crystals.

Recent analyses of the direct photon production in heavy-ion collisions at SPS energies  have pointed out the limits of the photon identification power resulting from two kinds of contaminations: i) the showers induced by neutral hadrons (mainly $`n`$ and $`\overline{n}`$), and ii) the overlap of showers in high multiplicity events. These contaminations are expected to become much more severe at LHC energies. In order to properly minimize these effects, we have designed a pre-shower detector to be associated with PHOS. This detector noticeably improves the photon identification power and allows for a direct measurement of the electromagnetic shower vertex. The PPSD (PHOS Pre-Shower Detector, Fig. 1) consists of two distinct MICROMEGAS (MICRO MEsh GAseous Structure) gas counters: the Charged Particle Veto (CPV) and the Photon Conversion (PC) chambers, sandwiching a passive Pb converter.

Among the new micro-pattern detectors exploiting avalanche multiplication in narrow gaps , MICROMEGAS technology  appears as a very promising option in terms of performances, robustness, reduced amount of material, and cost (see e.g. ). For our specific needs, we justify the choice of the MICROMEGAS technology with the following considerations:

1. It provides the modularity well suited to cover areas of a few squared meters.
2. It is mechanically robust and resistant to electrical discharges.
3. The small lateral development of the electron cloud in the amplification gap, prevents from significant overlaps in high multiplicity events.
4. The small amount of material minimizes photon-conversion and nuclear interactions within the detector.

Using our PPSD design, the identification capabilities of PHOS will be improved as follows:

1. Muons will be identified as minimum ionizing particles (MIPs) in the CPV, PC and EMCA detectors.
2. About half of the charged hadrons ($`\pi ^+`$, $`\pi ^{}`$, K+, K-, etc.) will be detected as MIPs in the CPV, the PC, and the calorimeter. The other half of charged hadrons will develop a hadronic shower in the calorimeter.
3. Photons will be unambiguously identified by three features: the absence of a hit in the CPV, a hit in the PC detector, when the photon is converted into an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair within the absorber, and an electromagnetic shower in the calorimeter. The identification efficiency will depend on the thickness of the passive converter. The optimal thickness results from a compromise between the photon identification efficiency of the PPSD and the photon energy resolution of the spectrometer. From simulations , we deduced that the best trade-off is achieved for a thickness equivalent to one radiation length. Additionally, from the hit position in the PC detector, the shower vertex will be directly measured, providing information to resolve the overlapping showers expected in high multiplicity events.
4. Neutral hadrons will trigger most of the time nor the CPV, neither the PC detector (the intermediate Pb passive converter represents only 5% of the nuclear interaction length).
5. Electrons and positrons will be identified by a hit in the CPV and PC and by an electromagnetic shower developing in the EMCA. Additional improvement of the electron and positron identification power could be achieved by considering the deposited energy in the PC detector.

In the present report, the performances of large-area anode-pad MICROMEGAS detectors, irradiated with a 2 GeV/c pion and electron beam, are presented in terms of pad response to MIP, gain in the amplification gap and detector efficiency. In addition, we have studied the electrical discharge probability per ionizing particle as a function of the detector gain, in order to probe the reliability of this technology in large multiplicity experiments. Finally, we have studied the electron and pion response functions of a pre-shower detector prototype.

## II Description of a Large-Area Anode-Pad MICROMEGAS Chambers

The MICROMEGAS technology  consists of an asymmetric two-stage parallel-plate gas-detector. The first stage, a 3 mm thick conversion gap, is separated from the 100 $`\mu `$m thick amplification gap, by a micro-mesh foil resting on insulating spacers. The amplification gap is closed at the bottom by the pad anode surface. Such a configuration allows to establish simultaneously a very high electric field in the amplification region ($``$ 50 kV/cm) together with a low electric field in the drift region ($``$ 2 kV/cm), by applying suitable voltages between the three electrodes (cathode-mesh-anode). When a charged particle traverses the conversion gap, it generates primary electrons which are subsequently multiplied in the small amplification gap. The associated ion cloud is quickly collected on the micro-mesh layer generating a relatively fast signal, whereas only a small part of the ion cloud penetrates into the conversion region. The amplified electron cloud is collected on the anode providing a fast electric signal.

Based on this principle, we have developed several large-area prototypes with pad read-out (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). The characteristics of the chambers are the following:

1. Anode: The total area of the anode plane is $`480\times 300`$ mm2, providing an active area of $`398\times 281`$ mm2. The anode electrode consists of a 1.0 mm thick printed circuit board. Its inner surface is segmented in rectangular 20 $`\times `$ 22 mm2 gilded copper pads, and the signal is collected on the other side through strips to the connectors. The inter-pad width is 100 $`\mu `$m and the total number of pads is 256. Each pad is pierced by a conductive pine hole of 300$`\mu `$m in diameter to allow for readout through the board. The rigidity of the board is obtained by sticking an additional 3 mm thick board made of low $`X_0`$ composite material (EPOXY glass and ROHACELL). To keep the small amplification gap as uniform as possible, well-calibrated micro-spacers (100 $`\mu `$m high and 200 $`\mu `$m in diameter) are deposited on the pads with a pitch of 2 mm in both directions.
2. Cathode: The cathode consists of a 9 $`\mu `$m gilded copper layer, glued on a 3 mm thick plate made of composite material and sandwiched between two 300 $`\mu `$m thick GI180 boards. The top cathode plane is glued to a 6 mm thick Plexiglas frame of $`410\times 294`$ mm2.
3. Mesh: The original electro-formed micro-mesh*** BMC Industries, 278 East 7th Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, USA. consists of a 3 $`\mu `$m thick grid of 22”$`\times `$22” made of pure Ni. The 39 $`\mu `$m squared holes grid are outlined by a 11 $`\mu `$m thick border of Ni in steps of 50 $`\mu `$m, i.e. 500 LPI (“Lines Per Inch”). The optical transparency reaches 59%. The micro-mesh is stretched on the Plexiglas frame which defines the 3 mm thick conversion gap between the micro-mesh and the cathode plane.
4. The micro-mesh and cathode assembly is placed on top of the micro-spacers of the anode plane. A 2 mm thick composite-material top-lid covers the whole system to ensure the gas tightness of the chamber.
5. The gas mixture flows through the detector at a pressure slightly above atmospheric pressure.
6. The signals of the individual pads are collected, through the metallic hole, at the backplane of the anode plane by individual strips and transported to the front-end electronics located on the two opposite sides of the detector.
7. The total thickness of the detector throughout the active detection area, is 13 mm corresponding to 1.76% of $`X_0`$.

## III Experimental setup for the beam tests

Our prototype of the PPSD detector was tested in the T10 hall at CERN (Fig. 4) The choice of the gas mixture during the experiment was Ar + 10% $`iC_4H_{10}`$ (isobutane). The voltage of the drift zone was fixed to $`HV_{drift}`$ = -1000 V. The basic elements of this test experiment were:

1. Beam. The PS accelerator at CERN delivered a secondary beam of 2 GeV/c momentum. This beam consisted of hadrons ($``$ 60%, mainly charged pions) and leptons ($``$ 40%, mainly electrons). The size of the beam ”spot” was about 10 cm in diameter and the spill duration was 1 s with an inter-spill time of 9 s. The beam intensity stayed in the range of $`10^3`$ to $`10^5`$ particles per spill.
2. Beam identification. Two Cherenkov detectors C1 and C2 were placed upstream of the detector to identify the impinging particles. However, only C2 (filled with CO2 at atmospheric pressure) allowed a discrimination between hadrons and leptons.
3. Trigger. Two plastic scintillators (Pl1 and Pl2) with a square shape of 10$`\times `$10 cm2 were inserted along the beam line (Fig. 4) to define the main trigger of the acquisition. Coincidences between Pl1 and Pl2 defined a wide beam trigger. A small plastic scintillator Pl3 (1$`\times `$1 cm2) was also included in the trigger electronics during some runs to define a narrow beam trigger. It was used to measure the MICROMEGAS detector efficiency and the background induced by the passive converter.
4. MICROMEGAS detectors. Two MICROMEGAS detector prototypes were placed upstream and downstream with respect to the passive converter. Amplification of the pad signal was performed by GASSIPLEX based electronics . The elemental electronics card consisted of 3 GASSIPLEX chips serving 16 channels each. These cards (6 cards per detector) were directly attached to the detector board. The GASSIPLEX sequential signal was digitized by the CAEN V550 VME ADC (up to 1024 channels). Operations on the GASSIPLEX and the V550 module were synchronized via a CAEN V551A VME sequencer.
5. Passive Converter. During a few runs, a passive lead converter, 6 mm thick, covering an area of 10$`\times `$10 cm2 was placed in between the two MICROMEGAS chambers.
6. PHOS array. An array of 8$`\times `$8 PHOS type crystals was also placed at the end of the beam line but not used in our investigation. It is mentioned here for the sake of completeness.

## IV Detector performances

The charge distribution collected by a single pad (Fig. 5) of the MICROMEGAS chamber when considering the wide beam trigger, exhibits two components:

* For low amplitudes (50 mV) the intrinsic electronic noise of the pad exhibits a peaked Gaussian distribution. This corresponds to events in which beam particles fire the wide beam trigger and hit one of the neighboring pads. The mean of the Gaussian distribution, $`M_G`$, results from the intrinsic noise or pedestal. The width expressed as the standard deviation of the distribution, $`\sigma _G`$, results from the pad intrinsic electronic noise, which depends on the capacitance of the pad and on the electromagnetic environment.
* At larger amplitudes, one observes the detector response to ionizing particles which exhibits the usual Landau distribution reflecting the fluctuations in the number of primary electrons created in the thin drift region. For a 3 mm gap filled with Ar+10% isobutane at atmospheric pressure, on average, about 34 electrons per MIP are created. The maximum of the Landau distribution, $`M_L`$, reflects the gain achieved in the amplification zone and its width the average number of primary electrons (a smaller average number of primary electrons leading to larger fluctuations).

The correlated noise, a noise level common to all pad signals, adds to the intrinsic noise of a pad. It can be removed on an event-by-event basis. We defined this noise as

$$C_n=\frac{1}{N_{pad}}\underset{|S_i|<3\sigma _{Gi}}{\overset{N_{pad}}{}}S_i$$
(1)
where $`N_{pad}`$ is the number of pads with a collected charge lower than 3 times the width of the noise. After removal of this correlated noise (Fig. 5b), the charge distribution exhibits a much narrower noise peak, offering an improved discrimination of MIP particles from noise, and leading to an increase of the detector efficiency.

### A Gain in the amplification gap

We have studied the evolution of the Landau distribution as a function of the micro-mesh voltage and for a constant cathode voltage. We observe that the position of the maximum increases with the micro-mesh voltage: an increase of 20 V changes the position of the Landau maximum by a factor 2. The total number of electrons collected at the anode pad is calculated as:

$$N_e^{pad}=\frac{f_L\times (M_LM_G)}{f_g\times e}$$
(2)
where $`M_L`$ and $`M_G`$ are the position of the maximum of the Landau and Gaussian distributions respectively, $`f_g`$ = 10 mV/fC is the gain of the GASSIPLEX (pre-amplifier and shaper) electronics , $`f_L`$ is the factor to convert the average charge from the maximum value (GEANT simulations of the energy loss fluctuations give $`f_L`$ = 2.5) and $`e`$ is the charge of the electron. The gain, $`G`$, is calculated as:

$$G=\frac{N_e^{pad}}{N_e^{prim}}$$
(3)
where $`N_e^{prim}`$ is the number of primary electrons generated in the conversion gap. The gain ranges from several hundreds to several thousands for a voltage variation between 380 and 450 V (Fig. 6). The maximum achieved gain in the amplification gap, while staying below the spark threshold, is of the order of 104.

### B Detector efficiency

The detector efficiency for MIPs was studied as a function of the detector gain (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). The efficiency, $`ϵ`$, has been therefore defined as the ratio between the integrated area of the Landau distribution, $`L(c)`$ starting from $`n\sigma _G`$ (where $`n\sigma _G`$ corresponds to $`n`$ times the noise width), and of the total integrated Landau distribution:

$$ϵ=\frac{_{n\sigma _G}L(c)𝑑c}{_0L(c)𝑑c}$$
(4)
where $`c`$ is the induced charge in a pad. A direct measurement of the detector efficiency deduced from the events registered with the small beam trigger is in good agreement with the value deduced using the above method. For micromesh voltages larger than 420 V (i.e. $`G>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.0}10^3`$), the measured detector efficiency is larger than 95%. The steep drop of the detector efficiency for voltages below 410 V results from the fact that the gain is too low to induce a signal larger than the nominal noise dispersion. Subtraction of the correlated noise considerably improves the efficiency, and a 95% efficiency is already reached for a gain of $`210^3`$.

### C Discharges in the amplification gap

The fundamental limitation of micro-pattern gas detectors results from the discharges induced by high particle fluxes or highly ionizing particles. Several mechanisms have been put forward to explain this breakdown process . In the particular environment expected in ALICE (mainly dominated by a hadron background at low flux, below 1 Hz/mm2), the transition to a streamer regime followed by a electrical discharge occurs when the avalanche starts to contain a critical quantity of a few $`10^710^8`$ electrons (Raether criterion) . Highly ionizing particles like alpha particles loose around 500 keV of their kinetic energy in the drift gap releasing about $`N_e^{prim}`$ = $`310^4`$ primary electrons, whereas MIPs loose only around 1 keV (generating around 30 primary electrons). Alpha particles will, therefore, induce a discharge in the MICROMEGAS for gains above several $`10^3`$ (leading to $`N_{pad}`$ larger than $`10^7`$). The same effect is observed when the MICROMEGAS detector is irradiated with hadron MIPs, like charged pions. In this case, nuclear interactions with nuclei of the gas mixture in the drift gap could be at the origin of the induced discharges, since a strong dependence with the average atomic number of the gas mixture has been observed . Although MICROMEGAS detectors are very resistant to sparks, a discharge will induce a non-negligible dead time over the whole detector active area, leading to a reduction of the effective efficiency.

We have measured (Fig. 9) the discharge probability per ionizing particle as a function of the detector gain. We obtain discharge probabilities roughly between $`10^6`$ and $`10^5`$ for different prototypes. The discharge probability does not depend on the beam intensity, as it could be expected. However, since the beam intensity was measured by Pl1 and Pl2 coincidences, impinging-particle trajectories outside of the plastic active area and passing through the MICROMEGAS detector, were not counted. This induces an asymmetric systematic error which would tend to slightly decrease the measured discharge probability.

Central heavy ion collisions at LHC will induce a flow of charged particles of the order of 50 charged particles per m2 in PHOS . Taking a conservative value of 8000 central collisions per second, the charged particle rate will be of the order of 50 KHz per chamber. If the detector operates at gains of 2000 (leading to efficiencies larger than 95%), we expect a spark probability of $`310^6`$ (Fig. 9), i.e. a spark rate of 0.15 spark/chamber/second. Taking into account the fact that the dead time induced by a spark is less than 10 ms , the dead-time induced by sparks will be as low as 0.15%. In this respect, the particle induced discharges are not a handicap of the MICROMEGAS detectors, when the chambers operate at modest gains.

In addition, recent measurements , exhibit a strong dependence of the spark probability per ionizing particle on the average atomic number of the gas mixture, following a $`Z^4`$ dependence. Therefore, selecting a gas mixture with Ne gas should lead to an additional reduction of the spark probability by more than one order of magnitude.

### D Background induced by the passive converter

The background induced by the lead passive converter in the MICROMEGAS pad chambers has also been studied. Using the narrow beam trigger (see Fig. 10 where almost no noise peak is apparent) we have measured the charge distribution in the neighboring pads without and with the lead passive converter. We observe the following (Fig. 11):

* without converter, 2% of MIPs induce a signal larger than the nominal noise in a neighboring pad;
* with converter, only 6% of MIP particles induce a signal in a neighboring pad.

We conclude that the passive converter induced background is relatively small, and the detector occupancy of the MICROMEGAS pad chambers is hardly increased.

### E Pre-shower response function to electrons and hadrons

In this last section, we present the response function of the pre-shower detector to hadrons and electrons of 2 GeV/c momentum. The discrimination between the hadron and electron beam was done by means of the Cherenkov counter C2 (Fig. 4). Comparisons of the experimental response functions with the results of GEANT3.21 simulations of the pre-shower detector were also performed .

* Hadron beam (Fig. 12): The PC detector exhibits almost the same Landau-like distribution with and without the converter. Fluctuations of the deposited energy in the thin conversion gas gap were calculated using the PAI model implemented in GEANT. This simulation reproduces relatively well the shape of the Landau-like distribution, although GEANT underestimates the tail of the measured distribution.
* Electron beam (Fig. 13): Without converter, the PC detector exhibits the same Landau-like distribution observed with the hadron beam. However, by including the converter (1.07 X0) in the setup, a wider distribution is observed: on average 65% of the impinging electrons develop an electromagnetic shower inside the converter. The secondary particles produced in the shower will result, on average, in a higher energy deposit in the gas cell associated to the anode-pad leading to a broader charge distribution. GEANT3.21 simulations of the deposited energy by 2 GeV/c electrons describe rather well the observed distribution.

We conclude that the hadron response function is not significantly modified by the passive converter. However, electrons exhibit a very different response function in the presence of the passive converter, due to the initial development of electromagnetic showers. The deposited energy distribution in PC detector is wider, and this observation could be exploited to improve the electron and positron identification power of the PHOS detector.

## V Conclusions and perspectives

We have developed a large-area MICROMEGAS detector with anode pads read-out. Prototypes have been irradiated with a 2 GeV/c momentum beam of electrons and hadrons. We have studied the pad response function, the gain in the amplification gap and the detector efficiency as a function of the electric field. The measured performances are in good agreement with those obtained in other MICROMEGAS developments. We have investigated the discharge probability per incident MIP particle, concluding that the induced discharges do not represent a real handicap to operate MICROMEGAS chambers in the environment expected in central heavy-ion collisions at LHC energies. A pre-shower detector design based on a sandwich of two MICROMEGAS chambers with a passive Pb converter in between, has been proven to be a promising option for the improvement of PHOS detection capabilities. The measured background induced by the converter in the MICROMEGAS chambers is very small. The pre-shower response function of hadrons and electrons presents various facets worth exploiting further. We observe that the hadron beam induces, in both gas detectors, the typical Landau-like distribution of the collected charge. The electron beam not only induces the typical Landau-like distribution in the CPV detector of the pre-shower but also exhibits a much wider charge distribution in the PC detector, signing the initial development of the electromagnetic shower.

Following the results of the tests discussed in the present article, an improved version of a PPSD has been designed. The new detector has a larger active area (380$`\times `$380 mm2), a thicker conversion gap (6 mm) better suited for the use of a gas mixture like Ne with 5-10% of CO2 and a 200 $`\mu `$m amplification gap . These improvements (larger amplification gap and lighter gas mixture), will lead to allow for a reduction of the spark probability by a factor 20 to 50, and therefore lead to a spark rate of 10 sparks/chamber/hour for the ALICE hadronic environment. In addition, the size of the pad has been reduced to 11$`\times `$11 mm2 in order to reach the spatial resolution needed to determine the shower vertex.

## VI Acknowledgments

We thank M. Ippolitov and PHOS collaborators for their help during the beam test at PS (CERN). The technology for manufacturing the circuit board has been efficiently developed by A. Gandi and R. de Oliveira (CERN-EST-MT). We would like to acknowledge here the fruitful discussions with Y. Giomataris and Ph. Rebourgeard at DAPNIA (Saclay), and with P. Lautridou, L. Luquin and M. Labalme of Subatech (Nantes) during the development of the MICROMEGAS prototypes. This work was supported in part by the “Conseil Régional de la Région des Pays de la Loire”, France.


text:
# Quantum string field theory and psychophysics

## I. Interactive phenomena: experimental detection and analysis

### 1.1. Experimental detection of interactive phenomena

Let us consider a natural, behavioral, social or economical system $`𝒮`$. It will be described by a set $`\{\phi \}`$ of quntities, which characterize it at any moment of time $`t`$ (so that $`\phi =\phi _t`$). One may suppose that the evolution of the system is described by a differential equation

$$\dot{\phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )$$

and look for the explicit form of the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from the experimental data on the system $`𝒮`$. However, the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ may depend on time, it means that there are some hidden parameters, which control the system $`𝒮`$ and its evolution is of the form

$$\dot{\phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi ,u),$$

where $`u`$ are such parameters of unknown nature. One may suspect that such parameters are chosen in a way to minimize some goal function $`K`$, which may be an integrodifferential functional of $`\phi _t`$:

$$K=K(\left[\phi _\tau \right]_{\tau t})$$

(such integrodifferential dependence will be briefly notated as $`K=K([\phi ])`$ below). More generally, the parameters $`u`$ may be divided on parts $`u=(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)`$ and each part $`u_i`$ has its own goal function $`K_i`$. However, this hypothesis may be confirmed by the experiment very rarely. In the most cases the choice of parameters $`u`$ will seem accidental or even random. Nevertheless, one may suspect that the controls $`u_i`$ are interactive, it means that they are the couplings of the pure controls $`u_i^{}`$ with the unknown or incompletely known feedbacks:

$$u_i=u_i(u_i^{},[\phi ])$$

and each pure control has its own goal function $`K_i`$. Thus, it is suspected that the system $`𝒮`$ realizes an interactive game. There are several ways to define the pure controls $`u_i^{}`$. One of them is the integrodifferential filtration of the controls $`u_i`$:

$$u_i^{}=F_i([u_i],[\phi ]).$$

To verify the formulated hypothesis and to find the explicit form of the convenient filtrations $`F_i`$ and goal functions $`K_i`$ one should use the theory of interactive games, which supplies us by the predictions of the game, and compare the predictions with the real history of the game for any considered $`F_i`$ and $`K_i`$ and choose such filtrations and goal functions, which describe the reality better. One may suspect that the dependence of $`u_i`$ on $`\phi `$ is purely differential for simplicity or to introduce the so-called intention fields, which allow to consider any interactive game as differential. Moreover, one may suppose that

$$u_i=u_i(u_i^{},\phi )$$

and apply the elaborated procedures of a posteriori analysis and predictions to the system.

In many cases this simple algorithm effectively unravels the hidden interactivity of a complex system. However, more sophisticated procedures exist .

Below we shall consider the complex systems $`𝒮`$, which have been yet represented as the $`n`$-person interactive games by the procedure described above.

### 1.2. Functional analysis of interactive phenomena

To perform an analysis of the interactive control let us note that often for the $`n`$-person interactive game the interactive controls $`u_i=u_i(u_i^{},[\phi ])`$ may be represented in the form

$$u_i=u_i(u_i^{},[\phi ];\epsilon _i),$$

where the dependence of the interactive controls on the arguments $`u_i^{}`$, $`[\phi ]`$ and $`\epsilon _i`$ is known but the $`\epsilon `$-parameters $`\epsilon _i`$ are the unknown or incompletely known functions of $`u_i^{}`$, $`[\epsilon ]`$. Such representation is very useful in the theory of interactive games and is called the $`\epsilon `$-representation.

One may regard $`\epsilon `$-parameters as new magnitudes, which characterize the system, and apply the algorithm of the unraveling of interactivity to them. Note that $`\epsilon `$-parameters are of an existential nature depending as on the states $`\phi `$ of the system $`𝒮`$ as on the controls.

The $`\epsilon `$-parameters are useful for the functional analysis of the interactive controls described below.

First of all, let us consider new integrodifferential filtrations $`V_\alpha `$:

$$v_\alpha ^{}=V_\alpha ([\epsilon ],[\phi ]),$$

where $`\epsilon =(\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n)`$. Second, we shall suppose that the $`\epsilon `$-parameters are expressed via the new controls $`v_\alpha ^{}`$, which will be called desires:

$$\epsilon _i=\epsilon (v_1^{},\mathrm{},v_m^{},[\phi ])$$

and the least have the goal functions $`L_\alpha `$. The procedure of unraveling of interactivity specifies as the filtrations $`V_\alpha `$ as the goal functions $`L_\alpha `$.

### 1.3. SD-transform and SD-pairs

The interesting feature of the proposed description (which will be called the S-picture) of an interactive system $`𝒮`$ is that it contains as the real (usually personal) subjects with the pure controls $`u_i`$ as the impersonal desires $`v_\alpha `$. The least are interpreted as certain perturbations of the first so the subjects act in the system by the interactive controls $`u_i`$ whereas the desires are hidden in their actions.

One is able to construct the dual picture (the D-picture), where the desires act in the system $`𝒮`$ interactively and the pure controls of the real subjects are hidden in their actions. Precisely, the evolution of the system is governed by the equations

$$\dot{\phi }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\phi ,v),$$

where $`v=(v_1,\mathrm{},v_m)`$ are the $`\epsilon `$-represented interactive desires:

$$v_\alpha =v_\alpha (v_\alpha ^{},[\phi ];\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_\alpha )$$

and the $`\epsilon `$-parameters $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }`$ are the unknown or incompletely known functions of the states $`[\phi ]`$ and the pure controls $`u_i^{}`$.

D-picture is convenient for a description of systems $`𝒮`$ with a variable number of acting persons. Addition of a new person does not make any influence on the evolution equations, a subsidiary term to the $`\epsilon `$-parameters should be added only.

The transition from the S-picture to the D-picture is called the SD-transform. The SD-pair is defined by the evolution equations in the system $`𝒮`$ of the form

$$\dot{\phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi ,u)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\phi ,v),$$

where $`u=(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)`$, $`v=(v_1,\mathrm{},v_m)`$,

$`u_i=`$ $`u_i(u_i^{},[\phi ];\epsilon _i)`$
$`v_\alpha =`$ $`v_\alpha (v_\alpha ^{},[\phi ];\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_\alpha )`$
and the $`\epsilon `$-parameters $`\epsilon =(\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }=(\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_m)`$ are the unknown or incompletely known functions of $`[\phi ]`$ and $`v^{}=(v_1^{},\mathrm{},v_m^{})`$ or $`u^{}=(u_1^{},\mathrm{},u_n^{})`$, respectively.

Note that the S-picture and the D-picture may be regarded as complementary in the N.Bohr sense. Both descriptions of the system $`𝒮`$ can not be applied to it simultaneously during its analysis, however, they are compatible and the structure of SD-pair is a manifestation of their compatibility.

## II. Quantum string field theoretic structure of interactive phenomena

### 2.1. The second quantization of desires

Intuitively it is reasonable to consider systems with a variable number of desires. It can be done via the second quantization.

To perform the second quantization of desires let us mention that they are defined as the integrodifferential functionals of $`\phi `$ and $`\epsilon `$ via the integrodifferential filtrations. So one is able to define the linear space $`H`$ of all filtrations (regarded as classical fields) and a submanifold $`M`$ of the dual $`H^{}`$ so that $`H`$ is naturally identified with a subspace of the linear space $`𝒪(M)`$ of smooth functions on $`M`$. The quantized fields of desires are certain operators in the space $`𝒪(M)`$ (one is able to regard them as unbounded operators in its certain Hilbert completion). The creation/annihilation operators are constructed from the operators of multiplication on an element of $`H𝒪(M)`$ and their conjugates.

To define the quantum dynamics one should separate the quick and slow time. Quick time is used to make a filtration and the dynamics is realized in slow time. Such dynamics may have a Hamiltonian form being governed by a quantum Hamiltonian, which is usually differential operator in $`𝒪(M)`$.

If $`M`$ coincides with the whole $`H^{}`$ then the quadratic part of a Hamiltonian describes a propagator of the quantum desire whereas the highest terms correspond to the vertex structure of self-interaction of the quantum field. If the submanifold $`M`$ is nonlinear the extraction of propagators and interaction vertices is not straightforward.

### 2.2. Quantum string field theoretic structure of the second quantization of desires

First of all, let us mark that the functions $`\phi (\tau )`$ and $`\epsilon (\tau )`$ may be regarded formally as an open string. The target space is a product of the spaces of states and $`\epsilon `$-parameters.

Second, let us consider a classical counterpart of the evolution of the integrodifferential filtration. It is natural to suspect that such evolution is local in time, i.e. filtrations do not enlarge their support (as a time interval) during their evolution. For instance, if the integradifferential filtration depends on the values of $`\phi (\tau )`$, $`\epsilon (\tau )`$ for $`\tau [t_0t_1,t_0t_2]`$ at the fixed moment $`t_0`$ it will depend on the same values for $`\tau [tt_1,tt_2]`$ at other moments $`t>t_0`$. This supposition provides the reparametrization invariance of the classical evolution. Hence, it is reasonable to think that the quantum evolution is also reparametrization invariant.

Reparametrization invariance allows to apply the quantum string field theoretic models to the second quantization of desires. For instance, one may use the string field actions constructed from the closed string vertices (note that the phase space for an open string coincides with the configuration space of a closed string) or string field theoretic nonperturbative actions. In the least case the theoretic presence of additional ”vacua” (minimums of the string field action) is very interesting.

### 2.3. Additional fields and virtual subjects

Often quantum string field theory claims an introduction of additional fields (such as bosonised ghosts). Let us consider such fields in the D-picture.

In D-picture desires have their own $`\epsilon `$-parameters and depend on the pure controls of subjects. These pure controls may be obtained from the $`\epsilon `$-parameters of desires via integrodifferential filtrations. One is able to apply such filtrations to the additional fields. There are two possibilities. First, the result is expressed via the known pure controls. Second, the result is a new pure control of a virtual subject. Certainly, any experimental detection of virtual subjects is extremely interesting.

## III. Conclusions

Thus, the quantum string field theoretic structure of interactive phenomena is described. Possible qualitative effects, which are produced by this structure and confirm its presence, are emphasized. Perspectives are briefly specified.