text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Hybrid-Monte-Carlo algorithm  has become the standard algorithm to simulate lattice QCD with dynamical fermions. E.g. it has been used in the recent large scale study  of the spectrum of light hadrons.

At present, most simulations are performed for two flavours of mass-degenerate sea-quarks, where the mass is by far larger than the masses of the up and down quark. An elaborate extrapolation of the data towards the chiral limit is needed.

Therefore it is desirable to further reduce the mass of the sea-quarks. However, reducing the mass of the sea-quarks, i.e. approaching $`\kappa _c`$ in the case of Wilson fermions, the cost of the simulation increases for at least three reasons (see e.g. ref. ):

* The condition number of the Dirac-matrix increases. Hence the number of iterations that are needed for the inversion of the Dirac-matrix increases.
* The autocorrelation times in units of trajectories increase as $`\kappa _c`$ is approached.
* The step-size of the integration scheme has to be decreased as $`\kappa _c`$ is approached to maintain a constant acceptance rate. This means that for one trajectory more inversions of the Dirac matrix have to be performed. This effect can be nicely seen in table II of ref. .

While much work has been devoted to deal with the first two problems, little attention has been paid to the third. Recently it has been noticed that the step-size at a given acceptance rate depends on the precise form of the pseudo-fermion action . It was shown that preconditioning of the fermion matrix leads to larger step-sizes in the Hybrid-Monte-Carlo algorithm.

In this paper we propose a rather simple modification of the pseudo-fermion action that allows to increase the step-size at fixed acceptance rate. In particular, we split the pseudo-fermion action into two parts, separating (partially) the small and the large eigenvalues of the Dirac-matrix.

The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we introduce the modified pseudo-fermion action. We test our proposal at the example of the two-dimensional two-flavour Schwinger model. In particular, we show that our idea can be applied in addition to even-odd preconditioning that is discussed in section 3. In section 4 we present our numerical results. Finally we give our conclusions and an outlook.

## 2 The modified pseudo-fermion action

The following discussion is rather general and applies, e.g., to four-dimensional lattice QCD with Wilson fermions as well as the two-dimensional Schwinger model on the lattice. We start our discussion with the partition function for two degenerate flavours of Wilson fermions:

$$Z=\text{D}[U]\mathrm{exp}(S_G(U))\text{det}M(U)^{}M(U),$$
(1)
where $`U`$ is the gauge field, $`S_G(U)`$ the gauge action and

$$M(U)=1\kappa H(U)$$
(2)
the fermion matrix, where $`\kappa `$ is the hopping parameter.

In the Hybrid-Monte-Carlo algorithm, the determinant $`\text{det}M^{}M`$ is represented by the integral over an auxiliary field (pseudo-fermions) $`\varphi `$:

$$\text{det}M^{}M\text{D}[\varphi ]\text{D}[\varphi ^{}]\mathrm{exp}(|M^1\varphi |^2).$$
(3)
Hence the action, as a function of the gauge-field and the pseudo-fermion fields, is given by

$$S(U,\varphi )=S_G(U)+S_F(U,\varphi )$$
(4)
with

$$S_F(U,\varphi )=|M(U)^1\varphi |^2.$$
(5)
Our new idea is to split the fermion matrix into two factors. Each factor is represented by an integral over an auxiliary field:

$$\text{det}M^{}M\text{D}[\psi ]\text{D}[\psi ^{}]\text{D}[\varphi ]\text{D}[\varphi ^{}]\mathrm{exp}(|\stackrel{~}{M}^1\psi |^2)\mathrm{exp}(|\stackrel{~}{M}M^1\varphi |^2),$$
(6)
where the auxiliary fermion matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is chosen as

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=1\stackrel{~}{\kappa }H$$
(7)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }<\kappa `$. I.e. the pseudo-fermion action is now given by the sum of the two terms

$$S_{F1}(U,\psi )=|\stackrel{~}{M}(U)^1\psi |^2$$
(8)
and

$$S_{F2}(U,\varphi )=|\stackrel{~}{M}(U)M(U)^1\varphi |^2.$$
(9)
The condition number of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ as well as $`R=M\stackrel{~}{M}^1`$ is reduced compared with the original matrix $`M`$. This is the reason, why we expect, similar to preconditioning , that the step-size in the Hybrid-Monte-Carlo can be increased. In the case of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ the condition number is reduced for typical gauge-configurations since we have chosen $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }<\kappa `$. Next we consider $`R`$. Let us write

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=aM+b$$
(10)
with

$$a=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}{\kappa },b=1a.$$
(11)
Hence

$$R^1=a+bM^1.$$
(12)
For $`\kappa `$ close to $`\kappa _c`$, $`|\lambda _{min}|^11`$ and $`|\lambda _{max}|=O(1)`$, where $`\lambda _{min}`$ and $`\lambda _{max}`$ are the minimal and maximal eigenvalues of $`M`$. Hence the condition number of $`R`$ is essentially reduced by a factor of $`b`$ compared with the condition number of $`M`$.

In the Hybrid-Monte-Carlo, the variation of the action with respect to the gauge field has to be computed. In the case of the standard pseudo-fermion action (5) one obtains

$`\delta S_F`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{}\left[M^1M^1\delta MM^1+M^1\delta M^{}M^1M^1\right]\varphi `$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\left[Y^{}\delta MX+X^{}\delta M^{}Y\right],`$
where $`X=M^1\varphi `$ and $`Y=M^1X`$.

In the case of the split pseudo-fermion action $`\delta S_{F1}`$ can be computed exactly as in eq. (13). Also $`\delta S_{F2}`$ can easily be computed.

$`\delta S_{F2}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{}\left[R^1R^1\delta RR^1+R^1\delta R^{}R^1R^1\right]\varphi `$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\varphi ^{}\left[(a+bM^1)M^1\delta MM^1+M^1\delta M^{}M^1(a+bM^1)\right]\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`\left[Y^{}\delta MX+X^{}\delta M^{}Y\right],`$
where we have used $`R^1\delta RR^1=bM^1\delta MM^1`$ which follows from eq. (12). The auxiliary vectors $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are modified compared with eq. (13): $`X=M^1\varphi `$ and $`Y=M^1(a\varphi +bX)`$.

I.e. the computational cost to compute the variation of the second part of the modified pseudo-fermion action (9) is much the same as for the standard pseudo-fermion action (5). In both cases we have to apply $`M^1`$ and $`M^1`$ to a vector.

Computing the variation of the first part of the modified pseudo-fermion action (8) means an overhead compared with the standard case. However, since $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }<\kappa `$ fewer iterations are needed to compute $`\stackrel{~}{M}^1\psi `$ than $`M^1\varphi `$.

We also should note that the modification can be very easily implemented, given a standard Hybrid-Monte-Carlo program is at hand. One just has to add a second pseudo-fermion field for $`R`$ and implement the modified definition of the auxiliary vectors $`X`$ and $`Y`$.

In the following simulations we like to test whether the modified pseudo-fermion action indeed allows for a larger step-size at constant acceptance rate and whether this larger step-size outweighs the computational overhead discussed above.

## 3 The Schwinger model

We have tested our proposal to split the fermion matrix in the two dimensional Schwinger model with two degenerate flavours of Wilson fermions. It has been used frequently as a toy-model to study properties of Monte Carlo algorithms.

The gauge action of the Schwinger model is given by

$$S_G=\beta \underset{x}{}\text{Re}U_{plaq,x},$$
(15)
where

$$U_{plaq,x}=U_{x,0}U_{x+(1,0),1}U_{x+(0,1),0}^{}U_{x,1}^{},$$
(16)
where the link variables $`U_{x,\mu }`$ are elements of $`U(1)`$ and $`U_{x,\mu }^{}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`U_{x,\mu }`$. $`x`$ labels the points of the two-dimensional square lattice and $`\mu `$ gives the direction. The lattice constant is set to $`a=1`$. The fermion matrix can be written as

$$M=1\kappa H,$$
(17)
where the hopping part of the fermion matrix is given by

$$H=\underset{\mu }{}\left(\delta _{x\widehat{\mu },y}(1+\gamma _\mu )U_{x\widehat{\mu },\mu }+\delta _{x+\widehat{\mu },y}(1\gamma _\mu )U_{x,\mu }^{}\right),$$
(18)
where $`\widehat{\mu }`$ is unit vector in $`\mu `$ direction. The $`\gamma `$-matrices in two dimensions are given by the Pauli-matrices $`\sigma `$. In our simulations we applied even-odd preconditioning. See e.g. ref. . The sites of the lattice are decomposed in even and odd sites. Then the fermion matrix can be written in the form

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1_{ee}& \kappa H_{eo}\\ \kappa H_{oe}& 1_{oo}\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
where $`H_{eo}`$ connects odd with even sites and $`H_{oe}`$ vice versa. For the fermion determinant the identity

$$\text{det}M=\text{det}(1_{ee}\kappa ^2H_{eo}H_{oe})$$
(20)
holds. Hence the original problem is reduced by half in the dimension (of the fermion matrix). The pseudo-fermion field $`\varphi `$ which is used for the stochastic estimate of the fermion determinant lives only on even sites. The even-odd preconditioned fermion matrix is given by

$$M_{ee}=1_{ee}\kappa ^2H_{eo}H_{oe}.$$
(21)
In the following we shall apply our proposed splitting (6) to the even-odd preconditioned fermion matrix $`M_{ee}`$. We use

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_{ee}=1_{ee}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2H_{eo}H_{oe}.$$
(22)
I.e. in eq. (11) $`\kappa `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ have to be replaced by $`\kappa ^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2`$.

## 4 Numerical results

In our simulations with the Hybrid-Monte-Carlo algorithm we have used the standard leap-frog integration scheme. In order to separate the effects of the gauge action and the pseudo-fermion action we applied the two step-size method of Sexton and Weingarten . In particular, we have chosen $`n=4`$ as ratio of the step sizes. The length of the trajectory was chosen randomly between $`0.5`$ and $`1.5`$. We computed $`M_{ee}^1\varphi `$ with the BiCGstab algorithm. In the rare cases, where BiCGstab did not converge, we used the conjugate gradient algorithm. We started the iteration with $`\varphi `$. As stopping criterion, we required that the residue is less that $`10^{10}`$.

We simulated at parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$ that were recently used by Peardon  to study the effects of preconditioning on the performance of the algorithm.

We performed a first set of simulations for $`L=32`$, $`\beta =4.0`$ and $`\kappa =0.26`$. In table 1 we have summarised results of simulations using various values $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$. In all these simulations we generated 20000 trajectories. 1000 trajectories were discarded for thermalisation. In all our simulations we fixed the acceptance rate to about $`0.8`$. For this purpose we performed a few preliminary simulations for each $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ with smaller statistics.

For $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.0`$ we obtained an acceptance rate of about $`0.8`$ with a step-size of $`\mathrm{d}\tau =0.035`$. Here $`\mathrm{d}\tau `$ is the step-size used for the pseudo-fermion action. The step-size for the gauge-action is $`\mathrm{d}\tau /4`$. Increasing $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ the step-size can be increased up to about $`\mathrm{d}\tau =0.07`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.22`$. Increasing $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ to $`0.255`$ leads to a smaller step-size again. This increase is not surprising, since in the limit $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\kappa `$ we recover the standard algorithm again.

The number of iterations $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and $`m`$ needed to compute $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{ee}^1\psi `$ and $`M_{ee}^1\varphi `$, respectively, refer to the inversions performed for the accept/reject step at the end of the trajectory. I.e. they are not performed for equilibrium configurations. Therefore it is not surprising that $`m`$ depends slightly on $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$.

For $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.22`$ the numerical overhead to compute the modified fermion action compared with the standard one is rather moderate. The number of iterations needed to compute $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{ee}^1\psi `$ is only a small fraction of the iterations needed to compute $`M_{ee}^1\varphi `$.

We have measured square Wilson-loops up to size of $`5\times 5`$ and the topological charge, using the geometric definition. The estimates of the expectation values were consistent among the simulations that we have performed. Also, the results for the Wilson-loops of size $`1\times 1`$ and $`4\times 4`$ are consistent with those quoted by Peardon  in his table 2. It turned out that the auto-correlation times (in units of trajectories) of the various observables are, within statistical errors, independent of $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$. Therefore, the runs can be compared solely on the ground of the numerical cost per trajectory.

The numerical costs are dominated by applications of $`M_{ee}`$ and $`M_{ee}^{}`$. Therefore, as a measure of the computational cost we took the number of applications of $`M_{ee}`$ and $`M_{ee}^{}`$ per trajectory. The minimum of costs is rather shallow and is located around $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.22`$. Compared with the standard simulation ($`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0`$) we see a reduction of the cost by a factor of $`24788/148981.66`$.

Finally we performed simulations for $`L=64`$, $`\beta =4.0`$ at $`\kappa =0.257`$ and $`\kappa =0.2605`$. Following Peardon , the pseudo-meson masses at these values of $`\kappa `$ are $`am_P=0.210(3)`$ and $`am_P=0.124(5)`$, respectively.

Here we performed only simulations for the standard case $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0`$ and for one non-trivial value of $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$. We have chosen $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.22`$ for $`\kappa =0.257`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.23`$ for $`\kappa =0.2605`$. The simulations for the $`L=32`$ lattice have shown that the minimum in the computational cost is rather shallow in $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$. Therefore, we expect that the computational cost at our values of $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ is rather close to the optimum.

First of all we notice that for $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0`$ the step-size $`\mathrm{d}\tau `$ has to be decreased when $`\kappa `$ is increased. For $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }0`$ the decrease of the step-size with increasing $`\kappa `$ is much smaller. I.e. the performance gain that we achieve with the modified pseudo-fermion action increases as $`\kappa _c`$ is approached. For $`\kappa =0.2605`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.23`$ we get an improvement of a factor $`74550/370382`$.

## 5 Conclusions and Outlook

We have proposed to use a modified pseudo-fermion action in the Hybrid Monte Carlo simulation. This modification is based on a factorisation of the fermion matrix. The modification can be easily implemented, given a code for the standard Hybrid-Monte-Carlo algorithm is at hand. We have tested our proposal at the example of the two-dimensional two-flavour Schwinger model with Wilson fermions. The numerical tests have shown that the modification of the fermion action indeed allows for a larger step-size of the leap-frog integration scheme at a fixed acceptance rate. Moreover, the increased step size outweighs the numerical overhead due to the modified action. For our largest value of $`\kappa `$ we found a net gain in performance of a factor of two.

There remain a number of open problems. First of all we would like to test our proposal for lattice QCD. We would like to study more systematically the dependence of the improvement on the parameters $`\beta `$, $`\kappa `$ and the lattice size. Also a better theoretical understanding of how the performance of the Hybrid-Monte-Carlo depends on the form of the pseudo-fermion action would be helpful. It would be interesting to test how higher-order integration schemes  perform in combination with the modified pseudo-fermion action. Also, one might incorporate our new idea in the Polynomial-Hybrid-Monte-Carlo algorithm .

## 6 Acknowledgements

I like to thank K. Jansen, R. Sommer and U. Wolff for discussions.


format: text

text:
# Standardizing distance and time

## 1. INTRODUCTION

In $`Speculations`$ $`in`$ $`Science`$ $`and`$ $`Technology`$ 21, $`213225(1999),`$ “Time, gravity and the exterior angle of parallelism,” (available on-line from http://www.wkap.nl) the author, Russell Clark Eskew, set out to standardize distance and time with the electromagnetic spectrum \[5, p. 220\]. The number of seconds to a light year illustrated how an infinite number of seconds derive a mathematically convenient scale for the physical angle of parallelism, $`2\mathrm{tan}^1e^{a/s}=2\mathrm{tan}^1e^1.`$ In this paper, we follow up by showing how the wavespeed of light, 299792458 meters per second, with wavelengths in meters and radians per cycle, apply to a frequency $`f`$ in cycles per second to create a wavespeed in $`radians`$ per second

(1.1)
$$\lambda =\mathrm{tan}\frac{\psi }{2}=\mathrm{tanh}\frac{a}{2},$$

where $`\psi =\mathrm{tan}^1\mathrm{sinh}a`$ \[1, pp. 312–313\] \[5, p. 215\], $`0<\psi <\frac{\pi }{2},`$ $`a=\mathrm{ln}f,`$ and $`s`$ is the hyperbolic $`radius`$ $`of`$ $`curvature.`$ The significance of $`\lambda =\mathrm{tan}\frac{\psi }{2},`$ as Roger Penrose points out \[14, pp. 74–75\], is that the stereographic projection of a line drawn with an angle $`\frac{\psi }{2}`$ from the west pole of a sphere, $`P,`$ and an angle $`\psi `$ from the origin, maps the point $`Q`$ onto the plane $`x=1`$ at $`\mathrm{tan}\frac{\psi }{2}.`$ This preserves measuring great circles and angles with a partial metric \[2, pp. 92–95\].

## 2. A UNIQUE GEOMETRIC RELATIONSHIP

The geometric relationship is unique in this scheme. With $`\lambda `$ we know that the hypotenuse line from the unit circle to the horizontal unit hyperbola, $`x^2y^2=1,`$ is

(2.1)
$$(x^2+y^2)^{1/2}=((\mathrm{cosh}\frac{a}{2})^2+(\mathrm{sinh}\frac{a}{2})^2)^{1/2}=(\frac{(e^a+1)^2+(e^a1)^2}{4e^a})^{1/2}=(\frac{1+\lambda ^2}{1\lambda ^2})^{1/2}.$$

We use the ratio of both hypotenuses to multiply the circular coordinates

(2.2) $`\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{2}}`$ $`=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\lambda ^2}})^{1/2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{sinh}^1\lambda }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\mathrm{sinh}^1\lambda }\lambda }}=e^{i\psi /2}i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{2}}`$
$`\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{2}}`$ $`=({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{1+\lambda ^2}})^{1/2}=\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{sinh}^1\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{e^{\mathrm{sinh}^1\lambda }\lambda }}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\psi /2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\psi }{2}}{i}}`$
by (2.1) to derive the hyperbolic coordinates

(2.3) $`\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}`$ $`=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\lambda ^2}})^{1/2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{sin}^1\lambda }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{i\mathrm{sin}^1\lambda }i\lambda }}=e^{a/2}\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}`$
$`\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}`$ $`=({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{1\lambda ^2}})^{1/2}=\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{sin}^1\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{e^{i\mathrm{sin}^1\lambda }i\lambda }}=e^{a/2}\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}.`$
## 3. A NEW TRANSFORMATION OF VELOCITIES

This paper’s transformation of velocities is different from that of Galileo Galilei (1564–1642)

(3.1)
$$u=u^{}+v.$$

The quantities are the “absolute velocity” $`u,`$ $`i.e.,`$ a moving particle’s velocity with respect to a fixed reference frame, its “relative velocity” $`u^{},`$ $`i.e.,`$ the particle’s velocity with respect to a moving reference frame, and the “transport velocity” $`v,`$ $`i.e.,`$ the velocity of the moving reference frame. Albert Einstein (1879–1955) believes when $`u^{}=c,`$ $`c`$ being the speed of light, that $`u=c`$ rather than $`u=c+v`$ \[7, pp. 161, 173, 203–212\]  . The transformation of velocities of Einstein and H. A. Lorentz (1853–1928) replaced (3.1) with

(3.2)
$$u=\frac{u^{}+v}{1+u^{}v/c^2}.$$

This paper’s transformation of velocities is different from that of Einstein, too.

For the derivatives of the wavespeed $`\lambda `$

(3.3) $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{d\psi }}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\psi }}\mathrm{tan}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sec}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{da}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d}{da}}\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sech}^2{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2f}{(f+1)^2}}`$
make this paper’s transformation of velocities

(3.4) $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{d\psi }}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{da}}+\lambda ^2`$
$`\mathrm{acceleration}_{\mathrm{absolute}}`$ $`=\mathrm{acceleration}_{\mathrm{relative}}+\mathrm{acceleration}_{\mathrm{transport}}.`$
If the wavespeed in meters, $`c,`$ is a constant, then $`dc=0.`$ But since the wavespeed in radians, $`\lambda ,`$ is a variable, then we might have $`d\lambda 0.`$ This is why we hereby replace $`c`$ with $`\lambda ,`$ and $`v`$ with $`\lambda ^2,`$ which is also known as the $`\mathrm{acceleration}_{\mathrm{frame}}`$ of the gravitational frame force $`F_{\mathrm{frame}}=\mathrm{mass}\times \mathrm{acceleration}_{\mathrm{frame}},`$ in a rotating frame of reference

(3.5) $`F_\psi `$ $`=F_aF_{\mathrm{frame}}`$
$`m{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{d\psi }}`$ $`=m{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{da}}+m{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{r}}.`$
## 4. CHANGING THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION

With the concept of $`proper`$ $`time,`$ a moving particle with instantaneous velocity ($`i.e.,`$ “transport acceleration” of a moving reference frame) $`v(t)=\lambda ^2(t)`$ relative to some inertial system $`K`$ ($`i.e.,`$ with “absolute acceleration” $`d\lambda /d\psi `$ with respect to a fixed reference frame) changes its position in a time interval $`dt`$ by $`dx=vdt=\lambda ^2dt.`$ The space and time coordinates in $`K^{},`$ $`(t^{},z^{},x^{},y^{})=(x_0^{^{}},x_1^{^{}},x_2^{^{}},x_3^{^{}})=(ct^{},z^{},x^{},y^{}),`$ where the system is instantaneously at rest ($`i.e.,`$ with the particle’s “relative acceleration” $`d\lambda /da`$ with respect to the moving reference frame), are related to those in $`K,`$ $`(t,z,x,y)=(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)=(ct,z,x,y),`$ by the inverse $`Lorentz`$ $`transformation`$

(4.1) $`x_0`$ $`=\gamma (x_0^{^{}}+x_1^{^{}}\beta )=(\mathrm{cosh}a)(x_0^{^{}}+x_1^{^{}}\mathrm{tanh}a)`$
$`x_1`$ $`=\gamma (x_1^{^{}}+x_0^{^{}}\beta )=(\mathrm{cosh}a)(x_1^{^{}}+x_0^{^{}}\mathrm{tanh}a)`$
$`x_2`$ $`=x_2^{^{}}`$
$`x_3`$ $`=x_3^{^{}}.`$
With the $`boost`$ $`parameter`$ $`\xi `$ it said that

(4.2) $`\beta `$ $`=\mathrm{tanh}\xi `$
$`\gamma `$ $`=\mathrm{cosh}\xi `$
$`\gamma \beta `$ $`=\mathrm{sinh}\xi `$
applies to

(4.3) $`x_0^{^{}}`$ $`=x_0\mathrm{cosh}\xi x_1\mathrm{sinh}\xi `$
$`x_1^{^{}}`$ $`=x_0\mathrm{sinh}\xi +x_1\mathrm{cosh}\xi .`$
It is Einstein’s thought that $`c=1`$ with the velocity $`v`$ in $`\mathrm{tanh}\xi =\frac{v}{c}.`$ However, the wavespeed $`\lambda =\frac{f1}{f+1}=\frac{1}{t}`$ and frequency $`f=\frac{t+1}{t1}`$ relate differing wavespeeds with a differing number of seconds $`t.`$ Rather than using the boost parameter $`\xi `$ in (4.3), the hyperbolic coordinates are equated with the circular coordinates by $`\lambda =\mathrm{tan}\frac{\psi }{2}=\mathrm{tanh}\frac{a}{2}.`$ The Lorentz time $`t`$ equalling the distance over $`c`$ of the $`x_0^{^{}}`$ observer becomes

(4.4) $`x_0^{^{}}`$ $`=x_0\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}x_1\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}=(\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}})(x_0x_1\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}})=(1\lambda ^2)^{1/2}(x_0x_1\lambda )`$
$`x_1^{^{}}`$ $`=x_0\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}+x_1\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}=(\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}})(x_1x_0\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}})=(1\lambda ^2)^{1/2}(x_1x_0\lambda ).`$
The moving particle has advanced a distance $`vdt=\lambda ^2dt=dx_0^{^{}}.`$ Time is measured with twice the distance $`L`$ of the hypotenuse, vs. twice the height $`D`$ of the side of the triangle. The $`proper`$ $`time`$ observer sees $`x_0=2D/\lambda .`$ The $`x_0^{^{}}`$ observer, however, sees $`x_0^{^{}}=2L/\lambda ,`$ where $`L=((\lambda ^2x_0^{^{}}/2)^2+D^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`D=\lambda x_0/2,`$ by which

(4.5)
$$x_0^{^{}}=(1\lambda ^2)^{1/2}x_0$$

is derivable when $`x_1=0`$ occurs simultaneously. Moving clocks run slow. Events will be separated by the time interval

(4.6)
$$x_0^{^{}}=(1\lambda ^2)^{1/2}\lambda x_1$$

since $`x_0=0,`$ although the events are simultaneous in time.

The element of arc length $`ds`$ of the particle’s path has $`ds^2=c^2dt^2|dx|^2`$ when $`dx_1=r\mathrm{sin}\psi ds,`$ $`dx_2=\mathrm{cos}\psi ds,`$ $`dx_3=\mathrm{sin}\psi ds`$ are “increments” of $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$ having the angle $`\psi .`$ The direction of the path curve’s polar-equation-tangent determined by the angle $`\varphi `$ which this tangent makes with the radius $`r`$ or by the angle $`\psi =\theta +\varphi `$ which it makes with the x-axis thereby constructs $`dr=\mathrm{cos}\varphi ds,`$ $`rd\phi =\mathrm{sin}\varphi ds,`$ and $`r\mathrm{sin}\phi d\theta `$ \[2, pp. 120–121\]. A motionless particle has $`ds^2=dt^2.`$ The new distance $`s`$ is called $`proper`$ $`time`$ $`\tau ,`$ and the $`Lorentz`$ $`metric`$ is $`d\tau ^2=c^2dt^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\phi d\theta ^2dr^2r^2d\phi ^2.`$

The square of the corresponding infinitesimal invariant interval $`ds`$ is

(4.7) $`ds^2`$ $`=c^2dt^2|dx|^2`$
$`=c^2dt^2(1\beta ^2)`$
$`=\lambda ^2dt^2(1\lambda ^2)`$
where $`\beta =\frac{v}{c}=\mathrm{tanh}a`$ or where $`c`$ is replaced by $`\lambda =\mathrm{tanh}\frac{a}{2}`$ and $`v`$ by $`\lambda ^2`$. In the coordinate system $`K^{}`$ where the system is instantaneously at rest, the space-time increments are $`dt^{}=d\tau ,`$ $`dx^{}=0.`$ Thus the invariant interval is $`ds=cd\tau `$ or $`ds=\lambda d\tau `$. The increment of time $`d\tau `$ in the instantaneous rest frame of the system is an invariant quantity that takes the form

(4.8) $`d\tau `$ $`=dt(1\beta ^2(t))^{1/2}={\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\gamma (t)}}`$
$`d\tau `$ $`=dt(1\lambda ^2(t))^{1/2}`$
where $`\gamma =\mathrm{cosh}a=(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{cosh}\frac{a}{2}=(1\lambda ^2)^{1/2}.`$ That is the time as seen in the rest frame of the system \[8, pp. 524–528\].

## 5. FROM THE METRIC TO THE ANGLE OF PARALLELISM

Further definition of the metric toward the $`physical`$ $`angle`$ $`of`$ $`parallelism,`$ $`2\mathrm{tan}^1e^{a/s},`$ uses the arc length

(5.1)
$$s=𝑑s=_{x1}^{x2}(1+(\frac{dy}{dx})^2)^{1/2}𝑑x=_{t1}^{t2}((\frac{dx}{dt})^2+(\frac{dy}{dt})^2)^{1/2}𝑑t.$$

Using the Gudermann

(5.2) $`\psi `$ $`=\mathrm{sin}^1\mathrm{tanh}a=\mathrm{cos}^1\mathrm{sech}a=\mathrm{tan}^1\mathrm{sinh}a`$
$`=\mathrm{csc}^1\mathrm{coth}a=\mathrm{sec}^1\mathrm{cosh}a=\mathrm{cot}^1\mathrm{csch}a`$
to solve the arc length of a unit circle from $`(0,1)`$ to $`(\mathrm{cos}\psi ,\mathrm{sin}\psi ),`$ that is, $`(\mathrm{sech}a,\mathrm{tanh}a),`$ becomes

(5.3) $`s`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{sech}a}}(1+({\displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx}})^2)^{1/2}𝑑x={\displaystyle _0^a}(({\displaystyle \frac{dx}{dt}})^2+({\displaystyle \frac{dy}{dt}})^2)^{1/2}𝑑t`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^a}((\mathrm{sech}t\mathrm{tanh}t)^2+(\mathrm{sech}^2t)^2)^{1/2}𝑑t={\displaystyle _0^a}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{e^t+e^t}}𝑑t`$
$`={\displaystyle _1^{e^a}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{u+\frac{1}{u}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u}}=2\mathrm{tan}^1e^a{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}=\psi .`$
Solving the $`s`$ arclength of a horizontal unit hyperbola $`x^2y^2=1`$ from $`(1,0)`$ to $`(\mathrm{cosh}a,\mathrm{sinh}a)`$ becomes

(5.4)
$$s=_1^{\mathrm{cosh}a}(1+(\frac{dy}{dx})^2)^{1/2}𝑑x=_0^a((\frac{dx}{dt})^2+(\frac{dy}{dt})^2)^{1/2}𝑑t=_0^a(\mathrm{sinh}^2t+\mathrm{cosh}^2t)^{1/2}𝑑t,$$

also known as the hyperbolic $`radius`$ $`of`$ $`curvature.`$

Lobacevskii’s simpler angle of parallelism \[9, pp. 11–45\] \[2, pp. 376–377\] is

(5.5)
$$2\mathrm{tan}^1e^a=2\mathrm{tan}^1\frac{1}{f}=\frac{\pi }{2}\psi =\frac{\pi }{2}2\mathrm{tan}^1\lambda =\theta ,$$

where $`0<\theta <\frac{\pi }{2},`$

(5.6) $`\theta `$ $`=\mathrm{sin}^1\mathrm{sech}a=\mathrm{cos}^1\mathrm{tanh}a=\mathrm{tan}^1\mathrm{csch}a`$
$`=\mathrm{csc}^1\mathrm{cosh}a=\mathrm{sec}^1\mathrm{coth}a=\mathrm{cot}^1\mathrm{sinh}a`$
is of a vertical unit hyperbola $`y^2x^2=1.`$ As $`\lambda `$ approaches $`1`$, $`2\mathrm{tan}^1e^a`$ approaches $`0`$. With the hyperbolic radius of curvature $`s,`$ however, $`2\mathrm{tan}^1e^{a/s}`$ approaches $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ radians, implying parallelism \[11, pp. 414, 434\] \[5, p. 217\] \[2, p. 315\]. The $`metric`$ is further defined to involve the physical angle of parallelism, the main conclusion of hyperbolic geometry \[5, pp. 216–218\] \[13, p. 77\] \[12, p. 210\]. In the case of infinite seconds, the physical angle of parallelism is $`2\mathrm{tan}^1e^1=0.705026844\mathrm{}`$ radians, in agreement with the physical evidence cited by Martin \[11, p. 300\] \[5, p. 220\]. The base $`a=\mathrm{ln}f`$ of such astronomical asymptotic triangles is an important new kind of curve which is orthogonal to all parallels.

## 6. AN IMPROVED ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM

The electromagnetic spectrum is illustrated with the Table, to be read with all eight columns viewed on both facing pages. The eight related categories, along with the electromagnetic nomenclature, are formulated

$`\mathrm{wavespeedmeters}`$ $`=\mathrm{wavelengthmeters}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{meters}}{\mathrm{cycle}}}\times \mathrm{frequency}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cycles}}{\mathrm{second}}}=299792458{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{meters}}{\mathrm{second}}}`$
$`\mathrm{wavespeedradians}`$ $`=\lambda =\mathrm{wavelengthr}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{radians}}{\mathrm{cycle}}}\times \mathrm{frequency}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cycles}}{\mathrm{second}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{f}1}{\mathrm{f}+1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{radians}}{\mathrm{second}}}`$
$`=\mathrm{wavelengthradians}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{radians}}{\mathrm{cycle}}}\times \mathrm{frequency}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{299792458}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cycles}}{\mathrm{meter}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{radians}}{\mathrm{meter}}}`$
$`\mathrm{frequency}f`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cycles}}{\mathrm{second}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{299792458}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cycles}}{\mathrm{meter}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{seconds}+1}{\mathrm{seconds}1}}`$
$`\mathrm{wavelengthradians}`$ $`=\mathrm{wavespeedradians}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{radians}}{\mathrm{second}}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{frequency}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{seconds}}{\mathrm{cycle}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{radians}}{\mathrm{cycle}}}`$
$`=\mathrm{wavespeedradians}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{radians}}{\mathrm{meter}}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{frequency}}}299792458{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{meters}}{\mathrm{cycle}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{radians}}{\mathrm{cycle}}}`$
$`\mathrm{wavelengthmeters}`$ $`=299792458{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{meters}}{\mathrm{second}}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{frequency}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{seconds}}{\mathrm{cycle}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{meters}}{\mathrm{cycle}}}`$
$`\mathrm{absoluteacceleration}`$ $`=(1/2)\mathrm{sec}^2(\psi /2)`$
$`\mathrm{relativeacceleration}`$ $`=(1/2)\mathrm{sech}^2(a/2)=2f/(f+1)^2`$
$`\mathrm{instantaneousvelocityv}`$ $`=\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{radians}}{\mathrm{second}}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }({\displaystyle \frac{a}{s}})`$ $`=2\mathrm{tan}^1e^{a/s},a=\mathrm{ln}f,s={\displaystyle _0^a}((\mathrm{sinh}t)^2+(\mathrm{cosh}t)^2)^{1/2}𝑑t.`$
A second with meters is singular, while seconds with radians increase from one to infinity. You see an infinite number of cycles apply to 1 second per radian, a smaller 3 cycles apply to 2 seconds, 2 cycles apply to 3 seconds, and 1 cycle applies to an infinite number of seconds. Thus an astronomer might observe a star to have a wavelength of 1.67 meters per cycle, with a frequency of $`e^{19}`$ cycles per second. Reading the equivalent radian values on the same row of the Table, he could also know that there are $`1.0+(1.12\times 10^8)`$ seconds per radian, a wavelength of $`5.60\times 10^9`$ radians per cycle, a wavespeed of $`\lambda =1.0(1.12\times 10^8)`$ radians per second, absolute acceleration of $`0.999999989,`$ relative acceleration of $`0.000000011,`$ and instantaneous velocity of $`1.0(2.24\times 10^8)`$ radians per second, and an angle of parallelism of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\frac{a}{s})=\frac{\pi }{2}(1.50\times 10^7)`$ radians per second .

The additional radian information constructs a theory of time and geometry to the universe. All of the values are fixed throughout the Table. The Equivalence Principle is refined with values of the variable $`\lambda `$ based upon the speed of light, $`c`$ \[14, pp. 22–25\]. In this manner, the universe may be measured mathematically .

## 7. CONCLUSION

George Martin (1932– ) asks an interesting question \[11, pp. 300–302\],

> “A $`meter`$ was originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the earth’s equator to a pole measured along a meridian. . . . \[It\] turns out to be mathematically convenient to pick a \[distance\] scale such that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(1)`$ is $`2\mathrm{arctan}e^1.`$ In applying this to the physical world, there is little difficulty in determining A, B, C such that \[angle\] ABC has measure quite close to $`2\mathrm{arctan}e^1.`$ However, how $`long`$ is a segment of $`length`$ 1? That is, how many $`meters`$ $`long`$ is it? Since a meter has nothing to do with the axioms of our geometry, the question is a valid one. Although it may be really neat to have a geometry that provides for a standard angle determining a standard length, all physical experiments indicate that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$ could noticeably differ from $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ only for very large astromical distances $`x`$. So a physical segment of length 1 would be very, very $`long`$ indeed.”

The answer is 299792458 meters long. Fewer meters apply to larger angles of parallelism. Martin continues,

> “The largest physical triangles that can be accurately measured are astronomical. Let $`E`$ stand for the Earth, $`S`$ for the Sun, and $`V`$ for the brilliant blue star Vega. $`\mathrm{}SEV`$ can be measured from the Earth when $`\mathrm{}ESV`$ is right. Using this measurement and the fact that \[the defect of the triangle\] $`SEV`$ is less than $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ \- $`\mathrm{}SEV,`$ one obtains \[the defect of the triangle\] $`SEV<0.0000004.`$

In our Table, that agrees closely to a Short-wave radio (blue) angle of parallelism. By comparison, one $`parsec`$ is defined as the distance of the Earth to the Sun (1 astronomical unit) that subtends an angle of 1 second of arc, equivalent to 206265 astronomical units. The comparable $`ES`$ base of the asymptotic triangle is about $`a=\mathrm{ln}e^{19}=19`$ radial units. With the angle of parallelism and electromagnetic spectrum, meters and seconds can hereby be exchanged with radians and seconds. We can geometrically measure the universe.

| seconds/radian | frequency | wavelength r | wavelength m | absolute acceleration |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`1/\lambda `$ | $`cycles/second`$ | $`radians/cycle`$ | $`meters/cycle`$ | $`d\lambda /d\psi `$ |
| $`1.0`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`1.0`$ |
| $`1.0+(1.92\times 10^{23})`$ | $`e^{53}=1.04\times 10^{23}`$ | $`9.60\times 10^{24}`$ | $`2.87\times 10^{15}`$ | $`1.0(1.92\times 10^{23})`$ |
| $`1.0+(1.41\times 10^{22})`$ | $`e^{51}=1.40\times 10^{22}`$ | $`7.09\times 10^{23}`$ | $`2.12\times 10^{14}`$ | $`1.0(1.41\times 10^{22})`$ |
| $`1.0+(1.04\times 10^{21})`$ | $`e^{49}=1.90\times 10^{21}`$ | $`5.24\times 10^{22}`$ | $`1.57\times 10^{13}`$ | $`1.0(1.04\times 10^{21})`$ |
| $`1.0+(7.74\times 10^{21})`$ | $`e^{47}=2.58\times 10^{20}`$ | $`3.87\times 10^{21}`$ | $`1.16\times 10^{12}`$ | $`1.0(7.74\times 10^{21})`$ |
| $`1.0+(5.72\times 10^{20})`$ | $`e^{45}=3.49\times 10^{19}`$ | $`2.86\times 10^{20}`$ | $`5.74\times 10^{12}`$ | $`1.0(5.72\times 10^{20})`$ |
| $`1.0+(4.23\times 10^{19})`$ | $`e^{43}=4.72\times 10^{18}`$ | $`2.11\times 10^{19}`$ | $`6.34\times 10^{11}`$ | $`1.0(4.23\times 10^{19})`$ |
| $`1.0+(3.12\times 10^{18})`$ | $`e^{41}=6.39\times 10^{17}`$ | $`1.56\times 10^{18}`$ | $`4.68\times 10^{10}`$ | $`1.0(3.12\times 10^{18})`$ |
| $`1.0+(2.30\times 10^{17})`$ | $`e^{39}=8.65\times 10^{16}`$ | $`2.30\times 10^{17}`$ | $`3.46\times 10^9`$ | $`1.0(2.30\times 10^{17})`$ |
| $`1.0+(1.70\times 10^{16})`$ | $`e^{37}=1.17\times 10^{16}`$ | $`8.53\times 10^{17}`$ | $`1.71\times 10^8`$ | $`1.0(1.70\times 10^{16})`$ |
| $`1.0+(1.26\times 10^{15})`$ | $`e^{35}=1.58\times 10^{15}`$ | $`6.30\times 10^{16}`$ | $`1.89\times 10^7`$ | $`1.0(1.26\times 10^{15})`$ |
| $`1.0+(9.31\times 10^{15})`$ | $`e^{33}=2.14\times 10^{14}`$ | $`4.65\times 10^{15}`$ | $`1.39\times 10^6`$ | $`1.0(9.31\times 10^{15})`$ |
| $`1.0+(6.88\times 10^{14})`$ | $`e^{31}=2.90\times 10^{13}`$ | $`3.44\times 10^{14}`$ | $`0.0000103`$ | $`1.0(6.88\times 10^{14})`$ |
| $`1.0+(5.08\times 10^{13})`$ | $`e^{29}=3.93\times 10^{12}`$ | $`2.54\times 10^{13}`$ | $`0.0000762`$ | $`1.0(5.08\times 10^{13})`$ |
| $`1.0+(3.75\times 10^{12})`$ | $`e^{27}=5.32\times 10^{11}`$ | $`1.87\times 10^{12}`$ | $`0.0005634`$ | $`1.0(3.75\times 10^{12})`$ |
| $`1.0+(2.77\times 10^{11})`$ | $`e^{25}=7.20\times 10^{10}`$ | $`1.38\times 10^{11}`$ | $`0.0041635`$ | $`1.0(2.77\times 10^{11})`$ |
| $`1.0+(2.05\times 10^{10})`$ | $`e^{23}=9.74\times 10^9`$ | $`1.02\times 10^{10}`$ | $`0.0307643`$ | $`1.0(2.05\times 10^{10})`$ |
| $`1.0+(1.51\times 10^9)`$ | $`e^{21}=1.31\times 10^9`$ | $`7.58\times 10^{10}`$ | $`0.2273194`$ | $`0.999999998`$ |
| $`1.0+(6.67\times 10^9)`$ | $`299792458`$ | $`3.33\times 10^9`$ | $`1.0`$ | $`0.999999993`$ |
| $`1.0+(1.12\times 10^8)`$ | $`e^{19}=1.78\times 10^8`$ | $`5.60\times 10^9`$ | $`1.6796761`$ | $`0.999999989`$ |
| $`1.0+(8.27\times 10^8)`$ | $`e^{17}=2.41\times 10^7`$ | $`4.13\times 10^8`$ | $`12.411221`$ | $`0.999999917`$ |
| $`1.0+(6.11\times 10^7)`$ | $`e^{15}=3.26\times 10^6`$ | $`3.05\times 10^7`$ | $`91.707208`$ | $`0.999999388`$ |
| $`1.0+(4.52\times 10^6)`$ | $`e^{13}=442413.39`$ | $`2.26\times 10^6`$ | $`677.62970`$ | $`0.999995479`$ |
| $`1.000033403`$ | $`e^{11}=59874.141`$ | $`0.00001670`$ | $`5007.0439`$ | $`0.999966598`$ |
| $`1.000256850`$ | $`e^9=8103.0839`$ | $`0.00012337`$ | $`36997.328`$ | $`0.999753241`$ |
| $`1.001825428`$ | $`e^7=1096.6331`$ | $`0.00091022`$ | $`273375.33`$ | $`0.998179558`$ |
| $`1.013567309`$ | $`e^5=148.41315`$ | $`0.00664775`$ | $`2.01\times 10^6`$ | $`0.986703887`$ |
| $`1.104791392`$ | $`e^3=20.085536`$ | $`0.04506467`$ | $`1.49\times 10^7`$ | $`0.909646681`$ |
| $`1.313035285`$ | $`e^2=7.3890560`$ | $`0.10307056`$ | $`4.05\times 10^7`$ | $`0.790012829`$ |
| $`2`$ | $`3/1`$ | $`1/(2\times 3)`$ | $`9.99\times 10^7`$ | $`5/8`$ |
| $`2.163953413`$ | $`e^1=2.7182818`$ | $`0.17000340`$ | $`1.10\times 10^8`$ | $`0.606776134`$ |
| $`3`$ | $`4/2`$ | $`2/(3\times 4)`$ | $`1.49\times 10^8`$ | $`5/9`$ |
| $`4`$ | $`5/3`$ | $`3/(4\times 5)`$ | $`1.79\times 10^8`$ | $`17/32`$ |
| $`5`$ | $`6/4`$ | $`4/(5\times 6)`$ | $`1.99\times 10^8`$ | $`13/25`$ |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`1.0`$ | $`1/\mathrm{}`$ | $`299792458`$ | $`1/2`$ |

| relative accel | transport acceleration | angle of parallelism |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`d\lambda /da`$ | instant velocity $`\lambda ^2`$ | $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\frac{a}{s})=2\mathrm{tan}^1e^{a/s}`$ | Nomenclature |
| $`0`$ | $`1.0`$ | $`\pi /2`$ |  |
| $`1.92\times 10^{23}`$ | $`1.0(3.84\times 10^{23})`$ | $`\pi /2(7.19\times 10^{22})`$ | Cosmic photons |
| $`1.41\times 10^{22}`$ | $`1.0(2.83\times 10^{22})`$ | $`\pi /2(5.11\times 10^{21})`$ | $`\gamma `$ \- rays |
| $`1.04\times 10^{21}`$ | $`1.0(2.09\times 10^{21})`$ | $`\pi /2(3.63\times 10^{20})`$ | X-rays |
| $`7.74\times 10^{21}`$ | $`1.0(1.54\times 10^{20})`$ | $`\pi /2(2.57\times 10^{19})`$ |  |
| $`5.72\times 10^{20}`$ | $`1.0(1.14\times 10^{19})`$ | $`\pi /2(1.82\times 10^{18})`$ |  |
| $`4.23\times 10^{19}`$ | $`1.0(8.46\times 10^{19})`$ | $`\pi /2(1.28\times 10^{17})`$ | Soft x-rays |
| $`3.12\times 10^{18}`$ | $`1.0(6.25\times 10^{18})`$ | $`\pi /2(9.06\times 10^{17})`$ | Ultraviolet |
| $`2.30\times 10^{17}`$ | $`1.0(4.61\times 10^{17})`$ | $`\pi /2(6.36\times 10^{16})`$ |  |
| $`1.70\times 10^{16}`$ | $`1.0(3.41\times 10^{16})`$ | $`\pi /2(4.46\times 10^{15})`$ | Visible spectrum |
| $`1.26\times 10^{15}`$ | $`1.0(2.52\times 10^{15})`$ | $`\pi /2(3.12\times 10^{14})`$ | Infrared |
| $`9.31\times 10^{15}`$ | $`1.0(1.86\times 10^{14})`$ | $`\pi /2(2.17\times 10^{13})`$ |  |
| $`6.88\times 10^{14}`$ | $`1.0(1.37\times 10^{13})`$ | $`\pi /2(1.50\times 10^{12})`$ |  |
| $`5.08\times 10^{13}`$ | $`1.0(1.01\times 10^{12})`$ | $`\pi /2(1.04\times 10^{11})`$ | Far-infrared |
| $`3.75\times 10^{12}`$ | $`1.0(7.51\times 10^{12})`$ | $`\pi /2(7.17\times 10^{11})`$ | Microwaves |
| $`2.77\times 10^{11}`$ | $`1.0(5.55\times 10^{11})`$ | $`\pi /2(4.19\times 10^{10})`$ |  |
| $`2.05\times 10^{10}`$ | $`1.0(4.10\times 10^{10})`$ | $`\pi /2(3.33\times 10^9)`$ |  |
| $`0.000000002`$ | $`1.0(3.03\times 10^9)`$ | $`\pi /2(2.25\times 10^8)`$ | Television |
| $`0.000000007`$ | $`1.0(1.33\times 10^8)`$ | $`\pi /2(9.20\times 10^8)`$ | FM radio |
| $`0.000000011`$ | $`1.0(2.24\times 10^8)`$ | $`\pi /2(1.50\times 10^7)`$ | Short-wave radio |
| $`0.000000083`$ | $`1.0(1.65\times 10^7)`$ | $`\pi /2(9.95\times 10^7)`$ | AM radio |
| $`0.000000612`$ | $`1.0(1.22\times 10^6)`$ | $`\pi /2(6.48\times 10^6)`$ | Long-wave radio |
| $`0.000004521`$ | $`1.0(9.04\times 10^6)`$ | $`1.57075477`$ | Induction heating |
| $`0.000033402`$ | $`0.99993319`$ | $`1.57053650`$ |  |
| $`0.000246759`$ | $`0.99950648`$ | $`1.56922541`$ |  |
| $`0.001820442`$ | $`0.99635911`$ | $`1.56176230`$ | Power |
| $`0.013296113`$ | $`0.97340777`$ | $`1.52289663`$ |  |
| $`0.090353319`$ | $`0.81929336`$ | $`1.35203152`$ |  |
| $`0.209987171`$ | $`0.58002565`$ | $`1.15128526`$ |  |
| $`3/8`$ | $`1/4`$ | $`0.90301878`$ |  |
| $`0.393223866`$ | $`0.21355226`$ | $`0.87551570`$ |  |
| $`4/9`$ | $`1/9`$ | $`0.79641144`$ |  |
| $`15/32`$ | $`1/16`$ | $`0.75740822`$ |  |
| $`12/25`$ | $`1/25`$ | $`0.73888970`$ |  |
| $`1/2`$ | $`1/\mathrm{}`$ | $`0.70502684`$ |  |

<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1In the January 2001 Notices of the AMS, Irving Ezra Segal believed that a static universe recessional velocity of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\rho }{2},`$ $`\rho `$ radians, fit the evidence better than Hubble’s linear proportionality.


text:
# Hubble Space Telescope Observations of the CfA Seyfert 2s: Near-infrared Surface Photometry and Nuclear BarsBased on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope obtained at the the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555.

## 1 Introduction

Bars and mergers have been the most commonly proposed fueling mechanisms for low-luminosity active galactic nuclei (AGN). While both of these methods can remove angular momentum from gas and dust, neither of these processes have been proven to be the sole arbiter of the AGN fueling process. Large-scale bars occur with equal frequency in normal and active galaxies (McLeod & Rieke, 1995; Mulchaey & Regan, 1997; Ho et al., 1997a, though see Knapen et al. 2000) and most low-luminosity AGN do not show any evidence of a recent major merger event (Fuentes-Williams & Stocke, 1988). Recent, careful searches for evidence of minor mergers have also not found a clear excess of faint companions around these AGN (De Robertis et al., 1998).

This lack of success in finding a definitive fueling mechanism for all low-luminosity AGN has driven observers to search at ever higher spatial resolution for signatures of the mechanisms that could remove sufficient angular momentum from gas and dust within the central few hundred parsecs. One small-scale feature that could fuel AGN activity (Shlosman et al., 1989; Pfenniger & Norman, 1990) is a nuclear bar, which were first observed in nearby, large galaxies as enhancements in the surface brightness distribution (de Vaucouleurs, 1975; Kormendy, 1979; Buta, 1986a, b). The nuclear bars first proposed to fuel AGN activity by Shlosman et al. (1989) were purely gaseous nuclear bars. In their model a large-scale bar leads to the transport of gas into the central region of the galaxy where it forms a circumnuclear gaseous disk. This disk could then become unstable to the formation of a purely gaseous, nuclear bar nested inside the larger bar and this gaseous nuclear bar could drive sufficient material inwards to fuel an AGN. Potentially the best method to detect gaseous nuclear bars is to observe their dust content in absorption against the background stellar light of the far side of the host galaxy. Gaseous nuclear bars may take the form of a bar-shaped dust lane and recently Maiolino et al. (2000) found a straight, or bar-shaped dust lane in Circinus (a Seyfert 2), where the gas kinematics were consistent with this interpretation.

Most of the nuclear bars observed to date have been stellar, rather than gaseous, nuclear bars as they correspond to clear enhancements in the visible or NIR surface brightness distribution. Stellar nuclear bars could also fuel AGN activity by removing angular momentum from circumnuclear material on small scales (Pfenniger & Norman, 1990; Friedli & Martinet, 1993). As stellar nuclear bars appear to be randomly oriented with respect to host galaxy bars (Buta & Crocker, 1993), fairly complex orbits are required to enhance the stellar density and create a stellar nuclear bar composed of old stars (Pfenniger & Norman, 1990; Maciejewski & Sparke, 1997; Erwin & Sparke, 1999a; Maciejewski & Sparke, 2000). Stellar nuclear bars selected by their enhancement of the surface density have been found in several AGN hosts, including NGC 2681 and NGC 3945 (Erwin & Sparke, 1999a). A recent, kinematic study of four nuclear bar candidates selected on the basis of NIR surface brightness by Emsellem et al. (2001) found that the velocity fields of three of these galaxies were well-fit by a bar model. The fourth galaxy with a nuclear bar candidate instead hosts a kinematically decoupled gaseous disk and spiral structure within the inner Linblad resonance.

Stellar nuclear bars could also form straight dust lanes similar to those observed in many strongly barred galaxies (e.g. NGC 7479 & NGC 1530, Quillen et al., 1995; Regan et al., 1997). A strong triaxial potential can lead to significant gas inflow in large-scale bars (Athanassoula, 1992) and if similar gas flow occurs in nuclear stellar bars, they may have associated dust lanes. Regan & Mulchaey (1999) argued that stellar nuclear bars could be more readily detected by searching for their influence on the ISM as the stellar surface density contrast may be quite weak due to the high velocity dispersion in galactic bulges. They searched for such straight dust lanes in color maps of 12 Seyfert galaxies constructed from visible and NIR HST images and found straight dust lanes extending into the nuclear region in NGC 3081, NGC 5347, and NGC 7743. Martini & Pogge (1999) performed a similar search with $`VH`$ and $`JH`$ HST color maps and found straight dust lanes in Mrk 573, Mrk 270, and Mrk 471 in the sample of 24 Seyfert 2s we describe in this paper. Recently, Maciejewski et al. (2001) have argued that in dynamically stable configurations the nuclear bar does not extend to its corotation radius and thus it will not form the strong shocks and corresponding dust lanes seen in large-scale bars sought by Regan & Mulchaey (1999) and Martini & Pogge (1999).

Both of these studies of relatively large numbers of AGN concluded that stellar nuclear bars were present in only a minority of AGN based on selection by the presence of straight dust lanes, rather than enhancements in the stellar surface density. Martini & Pogge (1999) also searched by visual inspection for stellar nuclear bars in the NIR surface brightness contours and found most of the galaxies with straight dust lanes also showed evidence for nuclear bars in the stellar distribution, yet they did not employ a quantitative set of selection criteria. In addition, the results of Maciejewski et al. (2001) suggest that many nuclear bars would be missed in selection based on the presence of straight dust lanes. For the remainder of this paper we will concentrate on stellar nuclear bars selected by their associated starlight and refer to them as simply nuclear bars; we will explicity refer to stellar nuclear bars selected by dust morphology or purely gaseous nuclear bars when appropriate. Nuclear bars are also commonly referred to as secondary bars when they are found in galaxies with large-scale bars, although we will not use this terminology as our sample was not previously selected to only contain galaxies with large-scale bars.

The recent visible and near-infrared (NIR) studies of the circumnuclear regions of low-luminosity AGN with HST described above also found that most contain dusty “nuclear” spiral structure on 100s of parsec scales that is distinct from the main disk spiral arms. These studies found that many AGN have dusty nuclear spiral structure (Quillen et al., 1999; Regan & Mulchaey, 1999; Martini & Pogge, 1999). Similar nuclear spiral structure has also been observed in a number of quiescent galaxies (Phillips et al., 1996; Carollo et al., 1998; Elmegreen et al., 1998; Laine et al., 1999). Martini & Pogge (1999) estimated that the gaseous disks were not self-gravitating based on a measure of the total extinction in the nuclear spiral arms. They concluded that these spiral structures could be due to shocks propagating in circumnuclear gaseous disks, a mechanism proposed by Elmegreen et al. (1998) and Montenegro et al. (1999). Such shocks could dissipate sufficient angular momentum to fuel these low-luminosity AGN, which only require mass accretion rates of $`0.010.1M_{}`$ yr-1. Nuclear spiral structure is a tempting signature of the AGN fueling process because, unlike nuclear bars and interactions, it appears to be present in all AGN that do not have morphologically disturbed circumnuclear regions. While there has not yet been a systematic control study to assess the relative frequency of nuclear spiral structure in a control sample of quiescent galaxies, recent HST studies of nearby spirals have not found that nuclear spiral structure is similarly ubiquitous in normal galaxies (e.g. Carollo et al., 1998).

In this paper we present a detailed study of the NIR surface photometry from Martini & Pogge (1999), which include 24 of the 25 Seyferts classified as type 1.8, 1.9, or 2 by Osterbrock & Martel (1993) from the CfA Redshift Survey (Huchra & Burg, 1992) and listed in Table 1. The main goal of the present paper is to reanalyze the nuclear bar fraction in this sample using a quantitative bar detection algorithm based on the NIR surface brightness distribution in order to test the hypothesis that nuclear bars are responsible for fueling all low-luminosity AGN activity. Given the recent theoretical investigation of Maciejewski et al. (2001), dynamically stable nuclear bars may not form the straight dust lanes used to select previous nuclear bar samples and therefore nuclear bars selected by the NIR surface brightness distribution may provide a stronger constraint on the importance of nuclear bars to the AGN fueling process. In addition to our search for nuclear bars, we also measure the surface brightness profiles for all of these galaxies and derive the best-fit profile parameters and nuclear luminosities for a subset of galaxies that are sufficiently bright and not in edge-on or morphologically disturbed systems.

## 2 Image Processing

These images were all obtained with the NICMOS Camera 1 (NIC1) on HST , which has a plate scale of $`0.043^{\prime \prime }`$ pixel-1. With the exception of NGC 1068 (Thompson & Corbin, 1999), all of these galaxies were observed as part of GO-7867. We observed them through the F110W and F160W filters for 1024s per filter, split into four dither positions (SPIRAL-DITH) of 256s and offset one arcsecond to aid bad pixel rejection. The F110W and F160W filters (F110M and F170M for NGC 1068) are roughly equivalent to the ground-based $`J`$ and $`H`$ filters, respectively.

The images were processed through the standard CALNICA data reduction pipeline from STScI. As noted by Martini & Pogge (1999), we did not use the CALNICB part of the STScI pipeline to combine our four dithered images. CALNICB attempts to subtract the sky level from an image sequence when it shifts and adds the individual dither positions. In our images, however, even the faintest objects fill nearly half of the field, and so a sky subtraction is impossible. In any event, the sky background for these images through the $`J`$ and $`H`$ filters is negligible based on measurements of both the more compact galaxies in our sample and archival, blank fields with the same instrument configuration. Instead of CALNICB, we used simple integer shifts to align and stack the four dither positions.

The photometric calibration of HST data is in general nontrivial due to differences between HST filters and their nearest ground-based analogs. The F110W and F160W filters in NICMOS are broader than the standard, ground-based $`J`$ and $`H`$ filters and include spectral regions in these galaxies that are unobservable from the ground due to telluric water absorption. To transform our images to the ground-based CTIO/CIT photometric system (Elias et al., 1982; Persson et al., 1998), we used the photometric zeropoints established by the NICMOS photometric calibration program and the color terms calculated by Stephens et al. (2000). Stephens et al. (2000) calculated a complete photometric solution for NICMOS Camera 2 (NIC2) based on observations of red standards, in addition to the bluer standards observed as part of the NICMOS photometric calibration program. To calibrate our NIC1 data, we used the STScI zeropoint calibration and supplemented it with the color terms from Stephens et al. (2000). While these color terms were derived for a different camera, they should be dominated by the wavelength dependence of the filter transformation and array quantum efficiency and these quantities are nearly identical for NIC1 and NIC2. For NGC 1068 we used the standard NICMOS photometric calibration.

## 3 Surface Photometry and Nuclear Bars

Figures 14 show $`J`$ and $`H`$ images (top panels) for this sample. These grayscale images show the wealth of different morphologies present in the central regions of Seyferts. One qualitative trend is the strength of the nuclear point source with Seyfert type. The Seyfert 2 galaxies have on average weaker nuclear point sources than the 1.9s and 1.8s. This agrees with the trend observed in previous visible-wavelength HST observations of Seyferts, where Seyfert 1s tend to have extremely bright nuclear sources and Seyfert 2s have a significantly weaker nuclear contribution (Nelson et al., 1996; Malkan et al., 1998). Two interesting exceptions are the extremely strong nuclear point sources in the Seyfert 2s NGC 1068 and NGC 7674 (Figures 3 and 4), which harbor polarized broad line regions (Miller & Antonucci, 1983; Miller & Goodrich, 1990). To a lesser extent Mrk 573 and NGC 5347 (Figures 3 and 4) appear to have stronger nuclear point sources than the other Seyfert 2s.

We used the ELLIPSE task in IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. STSDAS to fit elliptical isophotes to these galaxies and measure the surface brightness, ellipticity ($`ϵ=1b/a`$), and position angle of the semimajor axis (PA, in degrees measured north through east). ELLIPSE fits elliptical isophotes according to the formalism outlined by Jedrzejewski (1987) and includes measurement of higher order Fourier coefficients that characterize the deviation of the isophotes from perfect ellipses. The lower panels in Figure 14 (top to bottom) show the $`J`$ and $`H`$ surface brightness profile, ellipticity, and position angle as a function of semimajor axis. The quality of the flat field and instrumental background subtraction can affect the elliptical isophotes on large scales. The nuclei of nearly all of these galaxies fall on one of the lower two quadrants of the NIC1 array, which have higher quantum efficiency than the upper-left quadrant. The low quantum efficiency of the upper-left quadrant requires a large flatfield correction and uncertainties in the bias level and the flatfield could systematically distort the elliptical isophote fits. In order to verify that we were not affected by this systematic source of error, we constructed a data quality file for the ELLIPSE package that masked out the lowest quantum efficiency regions in the upper-left quadrant of the NIC1 array. We also visually inspected the ellipse fits to each galaxy to insure that the position angle at large semimajor axis was not artificially twisted by any errors in the flatfield.

On smaller angular scales, the structure in the NICMOS point spread function (PSF) can significantly affect the quality of the fits to some of these galaxies. This is particularly striking in the Seyfert 1.8 galaxies (e.g. Mrk 334 or UGC 12138, Figure 1) where the “bump” clearly visible in the surface brightness profile is due to the first Airy ring of the PSF at $`r_J0.15^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`r_H0.23^{\prime \prime }`$. The ellipse fits for strong nuclear point sources also tend to include a strong fourth-order Fourier coefficient due to the nonaxisymmetric, “boxy” diffraction pattern in the PSF. These cause the ellipticity and position angle distributions to have large errors and scatter until the influence of the first Airy ring falls off at $`0.3^{\prime \prime }`$, or even until higher order diffraction patterns diminish at $`0.7^{\prime \prime }`$, such as in Mrk 334, UGC 12138, or NGC 1068. For galaxies with little or no nuclear contribution, the ellipticity and position angle distributions are reliable for $`r_J0.15^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`r_H0.23^{\prime \prime }`$. The vertical, dashed lines in Figures 14 correspond to these lower limits in the sensitivity of the measured ellipticity and position angle distributions to nuclear bar candidates.

To quantify the sensitivity of our NIR surface photometry to the presence of nuclear bars, we adopt the criteria used by Mulchaey et al. (1997) to identify host galaxy bars: an increase in ellipticity at constant position angle followed by a drop in ellipticity to the inclination of the disk. As the $`11^{\prime \prime }`$x$`11^{\prime \prime }`$ NIC1 FOV does not always include much of the host galaxy disk, the final position angle and ellipticity may reflect the presence of a host galaxy bar; we therefore relax the latter criterion. By examination of the ellipticity and position angle profiles in the figures, we find nuclear bar candidates in Mrk 471, Mrk 573, Mrk 270, and NGC 5929. Figure 5 shows the color maps from Martini & Pogge (1999) along with the $`H`$band surface brightness contours for these four galaxies. All of these galaxies were suggested to have nuclear bars by Martini & Pogge (1999) based on the appearance of the nuclear surface brightness isophotes, and all but NGC 5929 exhibit straight dust lanes in their visible-NIR color maps. NGC 5347, which was suggested by Regan & Mulchaey (1999) to have the straight dust lanes indicative of a nuclear bar, does not show strong evidence of a nuclear bar in the NIR surface brightness distribution. The lack of NIR morphological evidence precludes the presence of a significant old stellar population associated with a nuclear bar. However, as demonstrated by Regan & Mulchaey (1999), a small contrast in the stellar density may excite an order of magnitude larger contrast in the ISM.

Knapen et al. (2000) define a galaxy as barred if the ellipticity varies by $`ϵ0.1`$ over a region of constant position angle or if the position angle changes by $`75`$° over a range where the ellipticity is greater than $`0.1`$. All four of the galaxies classified as barred according to the Mulchaey et al. (1997) classification scheme would also be barred under these similar criteria. Mrk 573 and Mrk 270 meet the first set of criteria as they change in ellipticity at constant position angle, while the remaining two galaxies have changes in position angle corresponding to their ellipticity variations.

The properties of the nuclear bar candidates are summarized in Table 2 and a description of the results for individual galaxies are given in the Appendix. Both Mrk 573 and Mrk 471 have prominent, large-scale bars and therefore could also be termed secondary bars. The remaining two nuclear bars candidates, Mrk 270 and NGC 5929, do not have known large-scale bars. Given their small-scale, they are clearly nuclear bars, but they are not also secondary bars. Mrk 270 was one of the few CfA Seyferts not observed by McLeod & Rieke (1995) in their $`K`$band survey, and it is only typed as ”SO?” in the RC3 catalog. NGC 5929 is classified as unbarred in the RC3 and by McLeod & Rieke (1995). However, this galaxy is in the midst of an interaction which could have obscured or destroyed the large-scale bar. Another possibility is that the interaction may have sufficiently disturbed the small-scale morphology to artificially produce the nuclear bar candidate in the NIR isophotes.

As discussed above, the complex NICMOS PSF can introduce significant scatter into the ellipticity and position angle distributions used to identify nuclear bar candidates. Our sensitivity to candidates of a given physical length is therefore sensitive to the distance of a galaxy and the strength of its nuclear point source. This issue is discussed in section 5. For galaxies with sufficient signal-to-noise we have constructed two-dimensional models of the galaxy surface brightness distribution and nuclear point source in an attempt to improve our sensitivity to nuclear bars and parameterize the central light distribution of these Seyferts. This technique is described in the next section.

## 4 Analysis

The high angular resolution of HST that has made it possible to systematically search for nuclear bars and spiral structure in nearby AGN has also revolutionized the study of the central stellar light distribution in galaxies (e.g. Lauer et al., 1995; Faber et al., 1997). Nearly all early-type galaxies with dust in their central regions have compact nuclear sources (Lauer et al., 1995; van Dokkum & Franx, 1995; Rest et al., 2001; Ravindranath et al., 2001). While all later-type galaxies usually have significant dust in their nuclear regions, irrespective of whether or not they host an AGN or nuclear star formation, Carollo & Stiavelli (1998) suggested that compact nuclear sources are more common in galaxies with exponential rather than $`R^{1/4}`$ bulges and that exponential bulges likely have lower stellar densities. Márquez et al. (1999) explored the circumnuclear properties of isolated spirals with and without AGN based on ground-based NIR observations and found no differences in the profile shapes of their AGN host and normal galaxy samples, although they did find that the central colors of AGN are redder than normal spirals (Márquez et al., 2000).

A two-dimensional analysis of the surface brightness distribution was performed in order to quantify the contributions from the galaxy bulge and the nuclear point source. The 2-D decomposition of the components was done using the least–squares fitting program GALFIT (Peng et al., 2001), which models the galaxy light with a combination of various analytic functions (e.g. Sérsic, de Vaucouleurs, Nuker, exponential, Gaussian, Moffat). GALFIT can also simultaneously fit an additional point source (AGN or compact star cluster) and provide a good measurement of the nuclear magnitude.

One of the main concerns while trying to obtain information at the highest spatial resolution is to account for the effects of the PSF. Our images do not have the high signal-to-noise ratios required for using deconvolution techniques. Instead, the 2-D modeling routine used here convolves the galaxy model with high-quality synthetic PSFs produced by the TINYTIM software (Krist & Hook, 1999). The TINYTIM PSFs are adequate for these applications even though there may be uncertainties due to temporal variations like thermal changes in the instrument and shifts in the pupil mask alignment (Krist & Hook, 1997).

We fit the galaxy bulge using either a “Nuker” law (Lauer et al., 1995), which has the form:

$$I(r)=2^{(\beta \gamma )/\alpha }I_b\left(\frac{r}{r_b}\right)^\gamma \left[1+\left(\frac{r}{r_b}\right)^\alpha \right]^{(\gamma \beta )/\alpha },$$
(1)
or a Sérsic profile (Sérsic, 1968) of the form:

$$I(r)=I_e\mathrm{exp}\left(b\left[\left(\frac{r}{r_s}\right)^{1/n}1\right]\right)$$
(2)
and the nucleus was modeled with a Gaussian function. The details of the fitting procedure are described by Ravindranath et al. (2001).

A major difficulty in trying to decouple the galaxy contribution from the point source arises from the relatively small field of view of the NIC1 images. In a few cases the nucleus is very bright and the diffraction rings are prominent out to $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ semi-major axis, leaving only a small region for sampling the contribution from the galaxy (e.g., NGC 5674 and NGC 7674, see Figures 2 and 4). We could obtain reasonably good 2-D fits for eleven galaxies in the sample. In most cases, we were able to parametrize the surface brightness using a Nuker function, although for two galaxies we were only able to fit Sérsic profile as it has fewer parameters. The inner slope ($`\gamma `$) values for all the galaxies fall in the range 0.45-0.7 and imply steeper central surface brightness profiles than seen in many earlier-type galaxies (Ravindranath et al., 2001).

The nuclear apparent magnitudes of these AGN are a measure of the luminosity of the accretion onto the central black hole. Combined with observations at other wavelengths, these measurements probe the spectral energy distribution for the accretion process (e.g. Ho, 1999). The apparent brightness of many of these nuclear point sources were previously measured by Quillen et al. (2001) and the measurements are in good agreement within the uncertainties. The best-fit galaxy profile parameters along with the apparent magnitude for the nuclear point source are given in Table 3.

The 2-D models are generated for a fixed ellipticity and position angle determined from the isophotal contours in the outer region. Therefore the residual image formed from the difference of the galaxy and model fit enables us to identify features (e.g. dust lanes and bars) that cause significant changes in the ellipticity and position angle. Since the 2-D analysis includes a fit to the nuclear point source as an additional component, the fit residuals provide a more sensitive probe of underlying nuclear bars at small semi-major axis length in galaxies with a bright nucleus than the simple elliptical isophote fits discussed in section 3. The nuclear bars in Mrk 270, Mrk 573 and NGC 5929 are clearly visible in the residual images, but no additional nuclear bar candidates were recovered with this technique.

The remaining galaxies could not be fit with 2-D models due to either insufficient signal-to-noise in the galaxy component or irregular/peculiar morphology. For example, Mrk 334 or NGC 4388 are obviously too irregular or dusty to fit with smooth elliptical isophotes. More regular galaxies such as NGC 3362 or UM 146 are sufficiently faint that the galaxy is undetected over much of even the small NIC1 field-of-view. Finally, while Seyferts like NGC 5347 and UGC 12138 are bright, the nuclear PSF dominates the signal from the galaxy out to nearly $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ and at larger radii the galaxy is too faint for an acceptable fit. As it is not possible to accurately model the galaxy light distribution for these remaining objects in our sample, we cannot reliably measure the apparent magnitude of the nuclear point source.

## 5 Discussion

There are now a large number of galaxies with nuclear bars (Buta & Crocker, 1993; Friedli, 1996; Jungwiert et al., 1997) and no evidence for any preferred position angle of the nuclear bar with respect to the host galaxy bar. The apparently random orientation between the host and nuclear bars is consistent with models that do not predict the nuclear and host galaxy bar to be kinematically coupled (e.g. Friedli, 1999).

Of the 24 galaxies in our sample, five (Mrk 266, Mrk 334, Mrk 744, NGC 4388, and NGC 5033) are sufficiently disturbed or high inclination systems in which we would not expect to see a nuclear bar if one were present. In the remaining 19 galaxies, our sensitivity to nuclear bars of a given semimajor axis length is a function of distance, galaxy inclination, and the brightness of the nuclear point source. The gaseous nuclear bar in Circinus studied by Maiolino et al. (2000) has a semimajor axis length of approximately 100pc and is one of the shortest known nuclear bars. We would have detected nuclear bars 100pc or longer in 13 of these galaxies and in fact do detect a bar in four, with projected semimajor axes ranging in size from nearly 300 to 900pc (see Table 2). For the remaining six, more distant galaxies, the average minimum projected semimajor axis length we are sensitive to is $`160`$pc. While in many cases the NIC1 field of view is not large enough to be sensitive to nuclear bars that extend to a kiloparsec, ground-based NIR imaging of these galaxies by McLeod & Rieke (1995) and Mulchaey et al. (1997) were sensitive to nuclear bars at these scales.

All four of our nuclear bar candidates meet the bar selection criteria used by Mulchaey et al. (1997) and Knapen et al. (2000) to select host galaxy bars. Mrk 573 and Mrk 270 have dust lanes along one edge of the nuclear bar in the visible–NIR colormaps (see Figure 5) which then turn sharply inwards to the nucleus, forming the straight dust lanes across the nucleus observed by Martini & Pogge (1999). This dust morphology is similar to what is observed in host galaxy bars (Quillen et al., 1995; Regan et al., 1997). If these dust lanes do trace shocks along the leading edge of the nuclear bar, they must extend to their corotation radius to produce such strong shocks (Maciejewski et al., 2001). The dust morphology associated with the nuclear bars in Mrk 471 and NGC 5929 appears more irregular. Mrk 471 does also show evidence for a straight dust lane crossing the nucleus perpendicular to the nuclear bar position angle, similar to what is seen in Mrk 573 and Mrk 270, but there is no evidence for dust along the nuclear bar at larger radii. The circumnuclear region of NGC 5929 is quite irregular. There is some clumpy dust perpendicular to the nuclear bar position angle, but no evidence for coherent structures on larger scales that are associated with the nuclear bar.

Because the nuclear bars discovered in nearby galaxies have small angular sizes, only a small fraction of the $`40`$ known nuclear bars (Friedli, 1999) have kinematic data available. Maiolino et al. (2000) obtained kinematic information for the gaseous nuclear bar in Circinus that supported their nuclear bar interpretation, while Emsellem et al. (2001) obtained spectra of four nuclear bars in nearby galaxies and found that three of them were well-fit by a nuclear bar model. These studies suggest that there are true nuclear bars and, from the study of Emsellem et al. (2001), that they can be made up of old stars. Kinematic information for the four nuclear bar candidates in these Seyferts could confirm that they follow the dynamics expected for nuclear bars.

We have found nuclear bar candidates in four of the 24 Seyferts in this sample using a well-defined, quantitative selection technique based on the NIR surface brightness distribution. Our observations were sensitive to nuclear bars with a semimajor axis length as small as $`100`$pc for 13 of these galaxies and to approximately twice this length for six additional galaxies. Previous studies of the frequency of nuclear bars in spirals generally found them in 20 – 30% of galaxies (Buta & Crocker, 1993; Friedli, 1996; Regan & Mulchaey, 1999; Erwin & Sparke, 1999b; Márquez et al., 2000), in good agreement with the fraction we report here, although the selection techniques and spatial resolution vary considerably between these different investigations. Our result that nuclear bars are present in only a minority of AGN strongly suggests that they are not responsible for removing angular momentum and transporting fuel from the host galaxy to the nuclear ($`10`$ pc) region in most Seyferts. As we have used a well-defined and quantitative method of selecting nuclear bars, the relative frequency of nuclear bars in AGN and non-active galaxies could be studied with a future control sample.

We would like to thank Chien Peng for providing us with a copy of the GALFIT code and both referees for some helpful comments. Witold Maciejewski also provided us with many useful comments that helped to clarify the discussion of the different types of nuclear bars. Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant number GO-07867.01-96A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

## Appendix A Notes on Individual Objects

For each galaxy we briefly summarize the NIR morphology and discuss the quality of the elliptical isophote and 2-D fits. We also mention any previous observations which may affect our interpretation.

Mrk 334 – This interacting system has a tidal arm visible in both the $`J`$ and $`H`$ images. The nuclear point source is particularly bright: both the first Airy ring and a second diffraction ring is visible at $`0.7^{\prime \prime }`$ in the $`H`$ image. The presence of the PSF features results in limited sensitivity to any potential nuclear bar with semimajor axis $`<310`$ pc. Because this is an interacting system, a nuclear bar is probably not required to remove angular momentum from gas in the host galaxy to transport it inwards.

Mrk 471 – The nuclear bar candidate in this galaxy is apparent in grayscale images, as is the break in the ellipticity and position angle at $`1.3^{\prime \prime }`$, which corresponds to a projected $`860`$ pc semimajor axis length. This projected semimajor axis length is comparable to some host galaxy bars (e.g. NGC 1068), yet this galaxy also has a clear host galaxy bar, which is apparent on larger scales in the grayscale. The straight dust lanes noticed by Martini & Pogge (1999) are nearly perpendicular to the position angle of the nuclear bar within the bar semiminor axis, although they do not appear to trace the edge of the bar at larger radii, as seen in Mrk 270.

Mrk 744 – Keel (1980) first noticed that Seyfert 1s are found much less frequently in edge-on systems compared Seyfert 2s. Dust obscuration from the host galaxy was suggested to be particularly important in this high-inclination system by Goodrich & Osterbrock (1983) and the bright, NIR nuclear point source is further evidence that it only appears as a weak broad-line system due to host galaxy dust. The elliptical isophotes only poorly fit the morphology of this inclined and interacting system.

UGC 12138 – Interpretation of the circumnuclear structure in this galaxy is complicated by the strong nuclear point source. As in Mrk 334, the first Airy ring and a second ring at $`0.7^{\prime \prime }`$ are visible in the $`H`$ surface brightness profile. These features limit the sensitivity to a nuclear bar with semimajor axis $`<350`$ pc. At larger radii, the ellipticity starts to increase again at the position angle of the host galaxy bar.

NGC 5033 – This nearly edge-on galaxy hosts a Seyfert 1.9 nucleus and is conspicuously brighter in the NIR than at visible wavelengths, suggesting that host galaxy dust contributes to the obscuration of the nuclear region. The position angle of $`160`$ degrees measured in the (poor) elliptical isophote fits is in good agreement with the value measured by Thean et al. (1997).

NGC 5252 – The nuclear point source in this Seyfert 1.9 is relatively weak and only slightly affects the ellipticity distribution for $`<0.2^{\prime \prime }`$. This galaxy is well-fit by a Nuker profile.

NGC 5273 – There is a “spike” in the ellipticity distribution at $`r_J0.5^{\prime \prime }`$ or $`r_H0.6^{\prime \prime }`$ (corresponding to a projected semimajor axis length of $`40`$ pc). While this spike is of sufficient amplitude to meet our nuclear bar selection criteria, the fact that the variation in ellipticity occurs at a larger semimajor axis in the longer wavelength filter suggests that this is probably an artifact of the strong nuclear point source. Dust may also be a factor as the ellipticity variation is greater at $`J`$ than at $`H`$. For these reasons we do not classify this spike as a nuclear bar candidate.

NGC 5674 – While there is a large ellipticity variation at $`J`$, it is not present at $`H`$. There is a significant amount of amorphous dust perpendicular to the position angle of this ellipticity, thus the ellipticity change is very likely due to dust. The nuclear point source is also bright in this galaxy and it clearly compromises the elliptical isophote fits to the inner region. We therefore do not consider this to be a nuclear bar candidate. The underlying galaxy was otherwise sufficiently bright and regular for GALFIT to model the surface brightness distribution.

UM 146 – There is a clear jump in the $`H`$ surface brightness profile due to the first Airy ring of the nuclear PSF. The galaxy appears otherwise quite faint and compact; the elliptical isophotes only extend to $`2^{\prime \prime }`$.

Mrk 461 – This galaxy has a relatively smooth surface brightness profile, but there was not sufficient signal-to-noise over a large enough range in radius to fit the underlying galaxy profile shape.

Mrk 266 – Mrk 266SW is in the midst of a merger and exhibits a very chaotic appearance which precludes a reliable elliptical isophote fit. The NIR peak shown in Figure 2 is actually offset from the peak in the visible-wavelength F606W image. The extremely irregular morphology and red nucleus of this galaxy strongly suggests that host galaxy material is obscuring the line of sight to the active nucleus.

Mrk 270 – There is a good nuclear bar candidate visible in the $`J`$ and $`H`$ images that corresponds to the drop in the ellipticity at $`1.9^{\prime \prime }`$, corresponding to a projected physical semimajor axis length of $`350`$ pc. There are two dust lanes in the nuclear region that trace the edges of the nuclear bar and then turn abruptly to cross the nucleus as a straight dust lane. Outside $`2^{\prime \prime }`$ the position angle changes to match that of the host galaxy bar.

Mrk 573 – This is the best example of a double-barred galaxy in the sample. The nuclear bar candidate previously noticed by Pogge & DeRobertis (1993) and Capetti et al. (1996) is readily apparent in the NIR surface brightness. The dust lane morphology is similar to Mrk 471, where the dust lanes trace the edge of the nuclear bar and then turn abruptly to cross the nucleus perpendicular to the bar position angle as a straight dust lane.

NGC 1068 – The elliptical isophote fits to this galaxy were compromised by significant circumnuclear dust and the bright nuclear point source. The nuclear point source is particularly prominent at $`H`$, which supports the interpretation that this galaxy harbors a dust-obscured broad line region, first suggested by the polarization study by Miller & Antonucci (1983). While this nearly face-on galaxy shows significant radial ellipticity variations in $`J`$ and $`H`$, these variations are clearly uncorrelated as they reach a peak at $`1.5^{\prime \prime }`$ in $`J`$, but $`0.7^{\prime \prime }`$ in $`H`$. The much larger variation in $`J`$ is likely due to dust. The ellipticity variation at $`0.7^{\prime \prime }`$ in $`H`$ is coincident with a variation in the surface brightness profile and is due to the PSF diffraction pattern.

NGC 1144 – This interacting system has relatively smooth NIR surface brightness distribution in its central few arcseconds, although the dust lane visible in the $`J`$ and $`H`$ grayscale images illustrates the more disturbed morphology at larger scales.

NGC 3362 – Elliptical isophotes are a relatively poor fit to this galaxy outside of $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ as the galaxy is extremely faint.

NGC 3982 – McLeod & Rieke (1995) did not find evidence of the host galaxy bar in their $`K`$ image of this “SAB” galaxy. While our ellipse fits and GALFIT model do recover a larger ellipticity than that suggested by the axis ratio of $`b/a0.9`$ they measured, our images are not sufficiently sensitive on the large scales necessary to detect a host galaxy bar.

NGC 4388 – This edge-on galaxy has an extremely chaotic appearance at small scales, at least partially due to a host galaxy dust lane passing to the immediate north of the nucleus and significantly attenuating even the $`H`$band light. This galaxy cannot be well fit with elliptical isophotes.

NGC 5347 – Regan & Mulchaey (1999) noticed a straight dust lane crossing the nucleus in this galaxy and suggested that it contains a nuclear bar, although Martini & Pogge (1999) did not find this structure in their color maps. There is a slight jump in the ellipticity at $`0.5^{\prime \prime }`$, corresponding to a projected semimajor axis length of $`80`$ pc, but the strength of the ellipticity variation is much greater at $`J`$ than at $`H`$, suggesting that dust is responsible. Dust is clearly present to the immediate south of the nucleus in Figure 2 of Martini & Pogge (1999), nearly perpendicular to the position angle of the nuclear bar and this dust is likely responsible for the distortion in the surface brightness distribution. This dust also corresponds to the curved dust lane observed by Regan & Mulchaey (1999) on which they base their identification of a gaseous nuclear bar.

NGC 5695 – This Seyfert 2 is quite bright and well fit by a Nuker profile. The nuclear point source is sufficiently faint that GALFIT did not need to include a nuclear point source in the 2-D model. At large radii the ellipticity starts to increase at the position angle of the host galaxy bar.

NGC 5929 – The nuclear bar candidate in this interacting system has a semimajor axis of $`1.7^{\prime \prime }`$, corresponding to a projected semimajor axis length of $`280`$ pc. The ellipticity variation is stronger in the $`J`$ elliptical isophote fits than at $`H`$ and there is dust nearly perpendicular to the nuclear bar candidate in the Martini & Pogge (1999) color map. The inner region of this galaxy is sufficiently regular to be well-fit by GALFIT and the fit residuals show the signature of the nuclear bar.

NGC 7674 – Polarized, broad emission lines were first detected in this object by Miller & Goodrich (1990). The extremely bright nuclear point source compared to the other Seyfert 2s (with the exception of NGC 1068) reinforce its interpretation as an obscured Seyfert 1. The elliptical isophotes are a reasonable match to the surface brightness distribution of this galaxy outside the immediate influence of the nuclear source.

NGC 7682 – This Seyfert 2 was not well fit by a Nuker profile and instead was fit with a Sérsic profile. The nuclear point source is sufficiently faint that GALFIT did not need to include it in the 2-D fit to the surface brightness distribution.