text:
# Constraining the Quintessence equation of state with SnIa data and CMB peaks

## 1 Introduction

Observations of distant type Ia supernovae (Perlmutter et al. 1999; Riess et al. 1999) and small angular scale anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) (De Bernardis et al. 2000; Balbi et al. 2000; Netterfield et al. 2001; Pryke et al. 2001) suggest that the universe is dominated by a large amount of dark energy with a negative equation of state parameter $`w`$. One obvious explanation would be the presence for all time of a cosmological constant with $`w=1`$, although there is no satisfactory reason known why it should be so close to the critical energy density (for a general review see Sahni & Starobinsky 2000). An alternative proposal introduces a new type of matter and is called ’Quintessence’ (Caldwell et al. 1998). Assuming that some unknown mechanism cancels the true cosmological constant, this dark energy is associated with a light scalar field $`Q`$ evolving in a potential $`V(Q)`$. The equation of state parameter of the $`Q`$ component is given by

$$w_Q=\frac{\frac{\dot{Q}^2}{2}V(Q)}{\frac{\dot{Q}^2}{2}+V(Q)}$$
(1)
and it is a function of time. According to the form of $`V(Q)`$ the present value of $`w_Q`$ is in the range $`w_Q^01`$. The temporal dependence of $`w_Q`$ implies that high red-shift observations could in principle distinguish between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }CDM`$ and $`QCDM`$ models (Maor et al. 2000; Huterer & Turner 2000; Alcaniz & Lima 2001; Benabed & Bernardeau 2001; Cappi 2001; Weller & Albrecht 2001). Moreover, a number of authors have recently pointed out that the position of the CMB peaks could provide an efficient way to constrain Quintessence models (Kamionkowski & Buchalter 2000; Croocks et al. 2000; Doran et al. 2000).

In this paper we use the supernovae sample of Perlmutter et al. (1999) and the recent measurements of the location of the CMB peaks (De Bernardis et al. 2001) to determine new limits on the Quintessence equation of state. Our study is similar in approach to an earlier analysis by Efstathiou (2000). We consider a general class of potentials parametrized in such a way that we can control their shape, and apply a likelihood analysis to find the confidence regions for the parameters of the potential and the best value for the fractional Quintessence energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$. The constraints which emerge are different if we analyze the data separately. In particular the position of the first Doppler peak prefers a Quintessence model with $`w_Q^00.8`$ for the prior $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=0.7`$ in agreement with Baccigaluppi et al. (2001), while the analysis of all the CMB peaks and SnIa gives an upper value for the equation of state, $`w_Q^00.93`$ at $`2\sigma `$ for these class of models. This limit is stronger than those previously obtained (Perlmutter et al. 1999; Efstathiou 2000; Amendola 2001; Balbi et al. 2001), $`w_Q^00.6`$ at $`2\sigma `$, simply because we are making use of the new improved CMB data. An obvious consequence of this result is that in these class of models, for them to succeed the scalar field dynamics has to produce effects similar to pure vacuum energy and in this case it is unlikely that Quintessence can be distinguished from a cosmological constant (see also Maor et al. 2000).

## 2 Quintessence equation of state

The scalar field dynamics is described by the Klein-Gordon equation

$$\ddot{Q}+3H\dot{Q}+\frac{dV}{dQ}=0,$$
(2)
with

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\left[\rho _m+\rho _r+\frac{\dot{Q}^2}{2}+V(Q)\right],$$
(3)
where $`\rho _m`$ and $`\rho _r`$ are the matter and radiation energy densities respectively. It is well known that for a wide class of potentials, Eq. (2) possesses attractor solutions (Steinhardt et al. 1999). In this regime the kinetic energy of the field is subdominant allowing $`w_Q`$ to become negative. The present value of $`w_Q^0`$ depends on the slope of the potential in the region reached by the field. Actually if the Quintessence field rolls down a very flat region (Barreiro et al. 2000) or if it evolves close to a minimum (Albrecht & Skordis 1999, Brax & Martin 1999, Copeland et al. 2000) the equation of state parameter varies in the range $`1w_Q^0<0.8`$. On the other hand models like the inverse power law potential (Ratra & Peebles 1988; Zlatev et al. 1999) require larger values of $`w_Q^0`$. A general potential which can accomodate a large class of scenarios is:

$$V(Q)=\frac{M^{4+\alpha }}{Q^\alpha }e^{\frac{1}{2}(\kappa Q)^\beta },$$
(4)
where $`\kappa =\sqrt{8\pi G}`$ and $`M`$ is fixed in such a way that today $`\rho _Q=\rho _c\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$, where $`\rho _c`$ is the critical energy density. For $`\beta =0`$ Eq. (4) becomes an inverse power law, while for $`\beta =2`$ we have the SUGRA potential proposed by (Brax & Martin 1999). For $`\alpha =0`$, $`\beta =1`$ and starting with a large value of $`Q`$, the Quintessence field evolves in a pure exponential potential (Ferreira & Joyce 1998). We do not consider this case further since it is possible to have a dark energy dominated universe, but at the expense of fine tuning for the initial conditions of the scalar field. Larger values of $`\beta `$ mimic the model studied by Copeland et al. (2000). For $`\alpha ,\beta 0`$ the potential has a minimum, the dynamics can be summarized as the following. For small values of $`\beta `$ and for a large range of initial conditions, the field does not reach the minimum by the present time and hence $`w_Q^0>1`$. For example, if the Quintessence energy density initially dominates over the radiation, the $`Q`$ field quickly rolls down the inverse power law part of the potential eventually resting in the minimum with $`w_Q1`$ after a series of damped oscillations (Riazuelo & Uzan 2000). This behaviour however requires fine tuning the initial value of $`Q`$ to be small. On the other hand, this can be avoided if we consider large values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ (Fig.1a). In these models the fractional energy density of the Quintessence field, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$, is always negligible during both radiation and matter dominated eras. In fact, for small initial values of $`Q`$, $`V(Q)`$ acts like an inverse power law potential, hence as $`Q`$ enters the scaling regime its energy density is subdominant compared to that of the background component. Therefore nucleosynthesis constraints (Bean et al. 2001) are always satisfied and there are no physical effects on the evolution of the density perturbations. The main consequence is that for a different value of $`w_Q^0`$ the Universe starts to accelerate at a different red-shift (Fig.1b).

This implies that different values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ lead to a different luminosity distance and angular diameter distance. Consequently by making use of the observed distances we may in principle determine an upper limit on $`w_Q^0`$, potentially constraining the allowed shape of the Quintessence potential (Huterer & Turner 2000).

## 3 CMB peaks

The CMB power spectrum provides information on combinations of the fundamental cosmological quantities. The position of the Doppler peaks depends on the geometry of the Universe through the angular diameter distance, although the amplitude of the peaks are sensitive to many different parameters. The important point for us is that in general the Quintessence field can contribute to the shape of the spectrum through both the early integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) and the late one (Hu et al. 1997). The former is important if the dark energy contribution at the last scattering surface (LSS) is not negligible (Skordis & Albrecht 2000, Barreiro et al. 2000) or in non-minimally coupled models (Amendola 2000, Perrotta et al. 2000, Baccigalupi et al. 2000), whereas the late ISW is the only effect in models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q0`$ at LSS (Brax et al. 2000). However, as has recently been demonstrated an accurate determination of the position of the Doppler peaks is more sensitive to the actual amount of dark energy (Doran et al 2000). To be more precise, the multipole of the $`m`$-th peak is $`l_m=ml_{sh}`$, where $`l_{sh}`$ is proportional to the angular scale of the sound horizon at LSS. In a flat universe $`l_{sh}`$ is given by:

$$l_{sh}=\frac{\pi }{\overline{c}_s}\left(\frac{\tau _0}{\tau _{ls}}1\right),$$
(5)
where $`\overline{c}_s`$ is the mean sound velocity and $`\tau _0`$, $`\tau _{ls}`$ are the conformal time today and at last scattering respectively. However, physical effects before recombination can shift the scale of the sound horizon at different multipoles, resulting in a better estimate for the peak positions being given by:

$$l_m=l_{sh}(m\delta l\delta l_m),$$
(6)
where $`\delta l`$ is an overall shift (W. Hu et al. 2000) and $`\delta l_m`$ is the shift of the $`m`$-th peak. These corrections depend on the amount of baryons $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$, on the fractional quintessence energy density at last scattering ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q^{ls}`$) and today ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q^0`$), as well as on the scalar spectral index $`n`$. Recently, analytic formulae, valid over a large range of the cosmological parameters, have been provided to good accuracy for $`\delta l`$ and $`\delta l_m`$ (Doran & Lilley 2001). Of crucial importance is the observation that the position of the third peak appears to remain insensitive to other cosmological quantities, hence we can make use of this fact to test dark energy models (Doran et al. 2001).

## 4 Likelihood analysis and results

### 4.1 Constraints from supernovae

We want to constrain the set of parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ confined in the range: $`\alpha (1,10)`$, $`\beta (0,10)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q(0,1)`$, subject to the assumption of a flat universe. We use the SnIa data fit C of Perlmutter et al. (1999), that excludes 4 high redshift data points. The magnitude-redshift relation is given by:

$$m(z)=+5\mathrm{log}𝒟_L(z,\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{\Omega }_Q),$$
(7)
where $``$ is the ‘Hubble constant free’ absolute magnitude and $`𝒟_L=H_0d_L(z)`$ is the free-Hubble constant luminosity distance. In a flat universe

$$d_L(z)=(\tau _0\tau (z))(1+z),$$
(8)
where $`\tau _0`$ is the conformal time today and $`\tau (z)`$ is the conformal time at the red-shift $`z`$ of the observed supernova. Both of these quantities are calculated solving numerically Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) for each value of $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$. In $``$ we neglect the dependence on a fifth paramenter ($`\alpha `$ in Perlmutter et al. 1999) and assume it to be 0.6, the Perlmutter et al. (1999) best value. We then obtain a gaussian likelihood function $`^{Sn}(\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{\Omega }_Q)`$, by marginalizing over $``$. In Fig.2a we present the one-dimensional likelihood function normalized to its maximum value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$. There is a maximum at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=1`$, in agreement with Efstathiou (2000). In Fig.3a we present the likelihood contours in the $`\alpha \beta `$ parameter space, obtained after marginalizing over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$. Note that all values are allowed at the $`2\sigma `$ level. The confidence regions for the SnIa data correspond to Quintessence models with $`w_Q^0<0.4`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=0.6`$, an upper limit that agrees with both Perlmutter et al. (1999) and Efstathiou (2000).

### 4.2 Constraints from Doppler peaks and SnIa

We now compute the position of the three Doppler peaks $`l_1,l_2`$ and $`l_3`$ using Eq. (6). In addition to the parameter space used in the supernovae analysis we consider the physical baryon density and the scalar spectral index varying respectively in the range $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2(0.018,0.026)`$ and $`n(0.9,1.1)`$. The Hubble constant is set to $`h=0.70`$ in agreement with the recent HST observations (Freedman et al. 2000). The predicted peak multipoles in the CMB are then compared with those mesured in the BOOMERANG and DASI spectra (De Bernardis et al. 2001). Note, that the third peak has been detected in the BOOMERANG data but not in the DASI data. Furthermore the authors of De Bernardis et al. (2001), with a model independent analysis, estimated the position of the peaks accurately at $`1\sigma `$. However because the errors associated with the data are non Gaussian, to be conservative we take our $`1\sigma `$ errors on the data to be larger than those reported in De Bernardis et al. (2001), so that our analysis is significant up to $`2\sigma `$. We then evaluate a gaussian likelihood function $`^{Peaks}(\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{\Omega }_Q,\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2,n)`$. The combined one-dimensional likelihood function for the peaks is shown in Fig.2b, where we find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=0.69\pm \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{0.13}{0.10}`$. The likelihood for all the data sets combined is shown in Fig.2c, where we find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=0.75\pm \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{0.09}{0.08}`$. These results are in agreement with the analysis of Efstathiou (2000), Netterfield et al. (2001) and Baccigalupi et al. (2001).

The likelihood functions, combining all the data for the CMB peaks, for the scalar spectral index and the physical baryon density are shown in Fig.4. Since the dependence of the peak multipoles on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ and $`n`$ is small, it is not possible to obtain some significant constraints on these cosmological parameters using the location of the Doppler peaks. In Fig.3b-3d we plot the two-dimensional likelihood function in the plane $`\alpha \beta `$ for each peak, obtained after having marginalized over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ and $`n`$. Their shape reflects the accuracy in the estimation of the position of the peaks. Actually the first one is very well resolved, while we are less confident with the location of the second and third peak. Therefore their likelihoods are more spread and flat in the $`\alpha \beta `$ plane. The $`1\sigma `$ confidence contour (Fig.3b) for the first acoustic peak constrains the slopes of our potential in the range: $`3\alpha 10`$ and $`1\beta 3`$. In particular the likelihood has a maximum at $`\alpha =9`$ and $`\beta =2`$, corresponding to an equation of state $`w_Q^0=0.8`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=0.7`$, in agreement with the recent analysis by Baccigalupi et al. (2001). However, the second and third peaks constrain a region where the equation of state is compatible with the cosmological constant value. Therefore the effect of including all the data in the likelihood analysis is to move the constraint from models with $`w_Q^00.8`$ to models with an equation of state $`w_Q^01`$. As we can see in Fig.6 the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, allowed by the likelihood including all the data (Fig.5), correspond to our models with values of $`w_Q^0`$ in the range $`1w_Q^00.93`$ at $`2\sigma `$ for our prior probability $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=0.75`$. The reason for such a strong constraint is due to the assumed accurate determination of the third peak, in that it is insensitive to pre-recombination effects. In particular peak multipoles are shifted toward larger values as $`w_Q^0`$ approaches the cosmological constant value. This is because, in models with $`w_Q^01`$ the universe starts to accelerate earlier than in those with $`w_Q^0>1`$, consequently the distance to the last scattering surface is further and hence the sound horizon at the decoupling is projected onto smaller angular scales. Since the location of the third peak inferred by De Bernardis et al. (2001) is at $`l_3=845\pm \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{12}{23}`$, values of $`w_Q^01`$ fit this multipole better than models with $`w_Q^0>1`$. However we want to point out that at $`1\sigma `$ the position of the first peak is inconsistent with the position of the other two. A possible explanation of this discrepancy is that the multipoles $`l_2`$ and $`l_3`$ are less sensitive to small shift induced by the dependence on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ and $`n`$. Therefore we can obtain a different constraint on the dark energy equation of state if we consider the peaks individually.

## 5 Conclusions

The location of the sound horizon is very sensitive to the dark energy contribution. Due to the strong degeneracy in the shape of the CMB spectrum, a certain class of Quintessence models can be better constrained using only the acoustic peaks. We have applied a likelihood analysis to constrain the shape of the Quintessence potential, based on both the supernovae type Ia data and the positions of the CMB peaks. Assuming a flat space-time and making use only of the position of the first Doppler peak we find the best fit for models $`w_Q^00.8`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=0.7`$ prior value. The combined analysis, including all three peaks and SnIa, gives the best fit for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=0.75\pm \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{0.08}{0.09}`$. We have found in particular that the determination of third peak in the BOOMERANG data limits the equation of state parameter at $`2\sigma `$ in the range $`1w_Q^00.93`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ with this prior value. This has an important implication for minimally coupled Quintessence models. Actually they must behave similarly to a cosmological constant, therefore inverse power law is disfavoured. In fact, an equation of state parameter $`w_Q^01`$ implies the Quintessence field is undergoing small damped oscillations around a minimum or evolving in a very flat region of the potential. For these reasons models like the double exponential potential (Barreiro et al. 2000) or the single modified exponential potential (Skordis & Albrecht 2000) pass this constraint, even though they are not included in our analysis. Another important caveat is that this study does not take into account Quintessence scenarios where the contribution of the dark energy density in radiation or early in matter dominated eras is not negligible. In such a case we would have to take into account physical effects not only on distance measurements, but also on the structure formation process itself. These models and the non-minimally coupled ones therefore could yet be distinguished from a pure $`\mathrm{\Lambda }CDM`$ model. We still require a more complete analysis to understand the nature of the dark energy, but this paper points out that it is possible to constrain certain classes of models far more than was previously realised.

We are very grateful to the referee for making a number of constructive comments and to L. Amendola, A. Liddle, N.J. Nunes and J. Weller for useful discussions and comments.


format: text

text:
# Line ratios for Helium-like ions: Applications to collision-dominated plasmas

## 1 Introduction

The new generation of X-ray satellites ( Chandra, XMM-Newton ) enables us to obtain unprecedented high spectral resolution and high S/N spectra. The wavelength ranges of the RGS222RGS: Reflection Grating Spectrometer on board XMM-Newton (den Herder et al. denHerder2001 (2001)). (6–35 Å), of the LETGS333LETGS: Low Energy Transmission Grating Spectrometer on board Chandra (Brinkman et al. Brinkman2000 (2000)). (2–175 Å), and of the HETGS444HETGS: High Energy Transmission Grating Spectrometer on board Chandra (Canizares et al. Canizares2000 (2000)). (MEG range: 2.5–31 Å; HEG range: 1.2–15 Å) contain the Helium-like line “triplets” from C v (or N vi for the RGS, and for the HETGS-HEG) to Si xiii. The triplet consists of three close lines: the resonance line, the intercombination line and the forbidden line. The Helium-like triplets provide electron density ($`n_\mathrm{e}`$ 108–1013 cm-3) as well as electron temperature ($`T1`$–10 MK) as first shown by Gabriel & Jordan (Gabriel69 (1969)). The line ratios of these He-like triplets enable also the determination of the ionization processes (photo-ionization and/or collisional ionization) which prevail in the plasma (Porquet & Dubau PorquetDubau2000 (2000), Liedahl Liedahl99 (1999)).
The ratios of these lines are already widely used for collisional solar plasma diagnostics (e.g., Gabriel & Jordan Gabriel69 (1969), Doyle Doyle80 (1980), Keenan et al. Keenan87 (1987), McKenzie & Landecker McKenzie82 (1982)).
Recently, also theoretical calculations for photo-ionized plasmas or “hybrid” plasmas (photo-ionization plus collisional ionization) have been given by Porquet & Dubau (PorquetDubau2000 (2000)) (hereafter referred to as Paper I). Their calculations have been already applied to spectra of Seyfert galaxies (e.g. NGC 5548, Kaastra et al. Kaastra2000 (2000); Mkn 3, Sako et al. Sako2000 (2000); NGC 4151, Ogle et al. Ogle2000 (2000); NGC 4051, Collinge et al. Collinge2001 (2001), etc…).
We present here calculations of these ratios, from C v to Si xiii, which could be applied directly for the first time to Chandra and XMM-Newton observations of extra-solar collisional plasmas such as stellar coronae. These calculations have been done to apply an improved model to the density analysis of the RGS, the LETGS and the HETGS spectra of various late-type stars such as Capella, Procyon, and $α$~Centauri (e.g., Audard et al. Audard2001 (2001), Ness et al. 2001a , Mewe et al. Mewe2001 (2001)) and also to O stars such as $ζ$ Puppis (Kahn et al. Kahn2001 (2001)). Our model is to be considered as an improvement of various previous calculations for solar plasmas such as done by e.g., Gabriel & Jordan (Gabriel69 (1969)), Blumenthal et al. (Blumenthal72 (1972)), Mewe (Mewe72 (1972)), Mewe & Schrijver (1978a , 1978b , 1978c ), Pradhan & Shull (Pradhan81 (1981)), Mewe & Gronenschild (Mewe81 (1981)), Mewe et al. (Mewe85 (1985)), and Pradhan (Pradhan82 (1982), Pradhan85 (1985)). The calculations are partly based on recent work by Porquet & Dubau (PorquetDubau2000 (2000)).
In the next three sections, we introduce the plasma diagnostics and the atomic processes and atomic data taken into account in the calculations. In sect. 5, we display the results for $`R`$ and $`G`$ calculated for four specific spectral resolutions (Full Width at Half Maximum: FWHM): RGS, LETGS, HETGS-MEG, HETGS-HEG, over a broad range of physical parameters: $`n_\mathrm{e}`$, $`T_\mathrm{e}`$, radiation temperature ($`T_{\mathrm{rad}}`$), and radiation dilution factor ($`W`$).

## 2 Plasma diagnostics

In the X-ray range, the three most intense lines of Helium-like ions (“triplet”) are: the resonance line ($`w`$, also called $`r`$: 1s2$`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ – 1s2p $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$), the intercombination lines ($`x+y`$, also called $`i`$: 1s2$`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ – 1s2p $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2,1}^{}`$) and the forbidden line ($`z`$, also called $`f`$: 1s2$`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ – 1s2s $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$). They correspond to transitions between the $`n`$=2 shell and the $`n`$=1 ground-state shell (see Figure 1). The wavelengths in Å of each line from C v (Z=6) to Si xiii (Z=14) are reported in Table 1.

As shown by Gabriel & Jordan (Gabriel69 (1969)), the ratios defined below are sensitive to the electron density and to the electron temperature:

$$R(n_\mathrm{e})=\frac{z}{x+y}\left(\mathrm{also}\frac{f}{i}\right)$$
(1)
$$G(T_\mathrm{e})=\frac{z+(x+y)}{w}\left(\mathrm{also}\frac{f+i}{r}\right)$$
(2)
### 2.1 Density diagnostic

In the low-density limit, all $`n`$=2 states are populated directly or via upper-level radiative cascades by electron impact from the He-like ground state and/or by (radiative and dielectronic) recombination of H-like ions (see Figure 2). These states decay radiatively directly or by cascades to the ground level. The relative intensities of the three intense lines are then independent of density. As $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ increases from the low-density limit, some of these states (1s2s 3S1 and 1S0) are depleted by collisions to the nearby states where $`n_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ C $``$A, with C being the collisional coefficient rate, A being the radiative transition probability from $`n`$=2 to $`n`$=1 (ground state), and $`n_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ being the critical density. Collisional excitation depopulates first the 1s2s $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{S}_{}^{}`$1 level (upper level of the forbidden line) to the 1s2p $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{}^{}`$0,1,2 levels (upper levels of the intercombination lines). The intensity of the forbidden line decreases while those of the intercombination lines increase, hence implying a reduction of the ratio $`R`$ (according to Eq. 1), over approximately two or three decades of density (see Fig. 8 in Paper I). For much higher densities, 1s2s 1S0 is also depopulated to 1s2p1P1, and the resonance line becomes sensitive to the density (this has been nicely illustrated by Gabriel & Jordan (GabrielJordan72 (1972)) in their Fig. 4-6-9).
However caution should be taken for low-Z ions (i.e. C v, N vi, O vii) since in case of an intense UV radiation field, the photo-excitation between the 3S term and the 3P term is not negligible. This process has the same effect on the forbidden line and on the intercombination line as the collisional coupling, i.e. lowering of the ratio $`R`$, and thus could mimic a high-density plasma. It should be taken into account to avoid any misunderstanding between a high-density plasma and a high radiation field (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$4.4 for more details).

### 2.2 Temperature and ionization process diagnostics

The ratio $`G`$ (see Eq. 2) is sensitive to the electron temperature since the collisional excitation rates have not the same dependence with temperature for the resonance line as for the forbidden and intercombination lines.
In addition, as detailed in Paper I (see also Mewe Mewe99 (1999), and Liedahl Liedahl99 (1999)), the relative intensity of the resonance $`w`$ (or $`r`$) line, compared to the forbidden $`z`$ (or $`f`$) and the intercombination  $`x+y`$ (or $`i`$) lines, contains information about the ionization processes that occur: a strong resonance line compared to the forbidden or the intercombination lines corresponds to collision-dominated plasmas. It leads to a ratio of $`G=(z+(x+y))/w`$1 (or $`(f+i)/r`$1). On the contrary, a weak resonance line corresponds to plasmas dominated by the photo-ionization ($`G=(z+(x+y))/w>`$4, or $`(f+i)/r>`$4).

## 3 Schematic model

We illustrate the relevant processes in the formation of the resonance, intercombination, and forbidden lines with a simplified level scheme (cf. Mewe & Schrijver 1978a ) consisting of the following levels denoted by short labels: g: ground level 1$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{S}_{0}^{}`$; m: upper metastable level 2$`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ of the two-photon transition; 1: upper level 2$`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ of the resonance line; m: upper metastable level 2$`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ of the forbidden ($`f`$) line; pk ($`k=1,2,3`$: levels 2$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{k}^{}`$ (2$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{1}^{}`$ is the upper level of the by far the strongest component ($`y`$) of the intercombination line $`i`$, and 2$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{2}^{}`$ is the upper level of the weaker component ($`x`$)); c: continuum level which lumps together all higher levels to represent the cascades from excitation and recombination processes.

The electron collisional rate coefficient (in cm3 s-1) for transition $`jk`$ is written as:

$$C_{jk}=\mathrm{8.63\; 10}^6\frac{\gamma _{jk}}{w_j\sqrt{T_\mathrm{e}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E_{jk}}{kT_\mathrm{e}}\right),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{jk}`$ is the excitation energy, $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ is the electron temperature in K, $`\gamma _{jk}`$ the collision strength averaged over a Maxwellian electron energy distribution, and $`w_j`$ the statistical weight of the initial level $`j`$.

The total rate coefficients for the formation of the forbidden ($`f`$ or $`z`$ notation) and intercombination ($`i`$ or $`x+y`$) line can be written as (e.g., Mewe & Schrijver 1978a , Eqs. 18–30):

$$I_f=BR_{mg}\left[C_{gm}+\underset{k=0}{\overset{2}{}}BR_{p_km}C_{gp_k}\right],$$
(4)
$$I_i=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}BR_{p_kg}\left[C_{gp_k}+BR_{mp_k}C_{gm}\right],$$
(5)
with the various branching ratios:

$$BR_{mg}=\frac{A_{mg}}{A_{mg}+n_\mathrm{e}S_{mp}^{}},$$
(6)
$$S_{mp}^{}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}C_{mp_k}BR_{p_kg}^{},$$
(7)
$$BR_{p_km}=\frac{A_{p_km}}{A_{p_km}+A_{p_kg}}(BR_{p_0m}1),$$
(8)
$$BR_{p_kg}^{}=\frac{A_{p_kg}}{A_{p_kg}+A_{p_km}}(BR_{p_0g}^{}0),$$
(9)
$$BR_{p_kg}=\frac{A_{p_kg}}{A_{p_kg}+A_{p_km}BR_{mg}}(BR_{p_0g}0),$$
(10)
$$BR_{mg}=\frac{A_{mg}}{A_{mg}+n_\mathrm{e}S_{mp}},$$
(11)
$$BR_{mp_k}=\frac{n_\mathrm{e}C_{mp_k}}{A_{mg}+n_\mathrm{e}S_{mp}},$$
(12)
$$S_{mp}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{2}{}}C_{mp_k}.$$
(13)
Analogously we can derive the total rate coefficients for the formation of the resonance ($`r`$ or $`w`$) line or two-photon radiation (2ph) by substituting $`mm^{}`$, $`p,p_k1^{}`$ and performing no summation:

$$I_r=BR_{1^{}g}\left[C_{g1^{}}+BR_{m^{}1^{}}C_{gm^{}}\right],$$
(14)
$$I_{2ph}=BR_{m^{}g}\left[C_{gm^{}}+BR_{1^{}m}C_{g1^{}}\right],$$
(15)
and changing all $`BR`$’s etc. appropriately.

We note that the collision coefficients $`C_{jk}`$ include also the $`n>2`$ cascades. The radiative transition probabilities are tabulated in the Table 2 of Paper I and the effective collision strengths $`\gamma `$ in their Tables 9–13 and in their Fig. 4. We assume in this section that the electron density is so low that the collision de-excitation rate $`n_\mathrm{e}C_{p_km}`$ can be neglected with respect to the spontaneous radiative rate $`A_{p_km}`$ (e.g., for C V $`n_\mathrm{e}C_{p_km}<A_{p_km}`$ for $`n_\mathrm{e}<10^{15}`$ cm-3). This can be easily taken into account by the substitution

$$A_{p_km}A_{p_km}+n_\mathrm{e}C_{p_km}.$$
(16)
Further, all collision processes that couple the singlet and triplet system are neglected in this schematic model. It turns out that at high density the coupling $`m,p_km^{},1^{}`$ cannot be neglected.

In the full calculations used in this work (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$5), the coupling between the singlet and triplet system has been taken into account, as well as the collisional de-excitation.

If we take also into account the contribution from radiative and dielectronic recombinations of the Hydrogen-like ion we substitute

$$C_{gk}C_{gk}+\alpha _{ck}^{},$$
(17)
where $`k=m`$ or $`k=p_k`$, respectively, and

$$\alpha _{ck}^{}=(N_H/N_{He})\alpha _{ck},$$
(18)
where $`\alpha _{ck}`$ is the total radiative and dielectronic recombination rate coefficient including cascades and $`N_H/N_{He}`$ is the abundance ratio of Hydrogen-like to Helium-like ions (e.g. taken from Arnaud & Rothenflug Arnaud85 (1985), Mazzotta et al. Mazzotta98 (1998)). The recombination coefficients are given in Tables 3–8 in Paper I. However, for a collision-dominated plasma, the recombination generally gives only a minor effect (i.e. far less than few percents), but are nevertheless introduced in the full calculations in section 5.

Mewe & Schrijver (1978a ) took also into account the effect of a stellar radiation field (also called photo-excitation) with effective radiation temperature $`T_{\mathrm{rad}}`$. This can be done by substituting in the above equations:

$$n_\mathrm{e}C_{mp_k}n_\mathrm{e}C_{mp_k}+B_{mp_k},$$
(19)
$$n_\mathrm{e}S_{mp}n_\mathrm{e}S_{mp}+B_{mp},$$
(20)
where $`B_{mp}=_{k=0}^2B_{mp_k}`$ and

$$B_{mp_k}=\frac{WA_{p_km}(w_{p_k}/w_m)}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E_{mp_k}}{kT_{\mathrm{r}ad}}\right)1},$$
(21)
is the rate (in s-1) of absorption $`mp_k`$ and $`W`$ is the dilution factor of the radiation field (as a special case we take $`W=\frac{1}{2}`$ close to the stellar surface). We have checked that the radiation field is so low that the induced emission rate $`B_{p_km}`$=$`(w_m/w_{p_k})B_{mp_k}`$ is negligible respect to the spontaneous radiative rate $`A_{p_km}`$. Nevertheless, in the full calculations used in this work (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$5), we have taken into account induced emission as well as photo-excitation.

Mewe & Schrijver (1978a ) considered also inner-shell ionization of the Lithium-like ion which can give an important contribution to the forbidden line in a transient plasma (Mewe & Schrijver 1978b ) such as a supernova remnant. However, in the present calculations we neglect this because we consider plasmas in ionization equilibrium.

Finally, Mewe & Schrijver (1978a ,1978c ) have considered also excitation 23S$``$ 23P by proton collisions using approximations of Coulomb-Born results from Blaha (Blaha71 (1971)). In a new version (SPEX90) of our spectral code SPEX (Kaastra et al. Kaastra96 (1996)), which contains for the H- and He-like ions an improvement of the known MEKAL code (Mewe et al. Mewe85 (1985), 1995a ), proton collisions are taken into account based on Blaha’s results. Test calculations with SPEX90 show that for an equilibrium plasma in all practical cases proton excitation is negligible compared to electron excitation.

In the case where $`N_H/N_{He}1`$, recombination is dominant e.g., for photo-ionized plasmas it turns out that the ratios $`Rf/i`$ are for collisional and photo-ionized plasmas comparable in the same density range (cf. also Mewe Mewe99 (1999)), but the ratios $`G(i+f)/r`$ are very different, e.g., $`G1`$ for a collisional plasma and a factor $``$2-4 larger for a photo-ionized plasma where the resonance line is relatively much weaker.

## 4 Atomic data and improvements

The intensities of the three lines (resonance, forbidden and intercombination) are calculated mainly from atomic data presented in Paper I (Porquet & Dubau PorquetDubau2000 (2000)). In this work (as well as in Paper I) for all temperatures (low and high), radiative recombination contributions (direct + upper–level radiative cascades), and collisional excitations inside the $`n`$=2 shell were included in the line ratio calculations. For high temperatures, the collisional excitation contribution (direct + near-threshold resonance + cascades) from the ground level ($`n`$=1 shell, 1s2) are important as well as dielectronic recombination (direct + cascades).

Excitation collisional data are also taken from Paper I, which are based on the calculations from Zhang & Sampson (Zhang87 (1987)) plus the contribution of the upper-level ($`n>`$2) radiative cascades calculated in Paper I (see Paper I for more details).
The ionization balance is from Mazzotta et al. (Mazzotta98 (1998)) and the data for radiative and dielectronic recombinations are from Paper I. Various new data for the transition probabilities (e.g., forbidden and intercombination lines) have been selected (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 4.1).

In the following paragraphs we describe the several differences between Paper I and this work: $`A_{ki}`$, optical depth, contribution of the blended dielectronic satellite lines, and radiation field.

### 4.1 Update of the Aki for the forbidden and the intercombination lines

We have updated the transition probabilities Aki reported in Paper I for the intercombination ($`y`$, A1→4) and the forbidden ($`z`$, A1→2) line by published experimental values (see Table 2, and references therein). In some cases, no published experimental values has been found and then we used the theoretical values from Lin et al. (Lin77 (1977)). Indeed, comparisons of their theoretical values with the experimental values reported in Table 2 seem to show good agreement in other cases.
For C v, the ratio $`R`$ is reduced by about 20$`\%`$ comparing the calculations using the values of Aki reported in Paper I, while for N vi the reduction is less than 10$`\%`$. For O vii, Ne ix, Mg xi, and Si xiii, the differences between the current calculations using these new values of Aki and those reported in Paper I are negligible.

### 4.2 Influence of the optical depth (resonant scattering)

Schrijver et al. (Schrijver95 (1995)) and Mewe et al. (1995b ) have investigated the possibility that resonance photons are scattered out of the line of sight in late-type stellar coronae (see also Acton Acton78 (1978)). Indeed, in this process, a resonance line photon is absorbed by an ion in the ground state and then re-emitted, generally in a different direction. So, the total photon intensity integrated over 4$`\pi `$ remains unchanged but the photon distribution with respect to given direction is altered. This absorption and re-emission is indistinguishable from scattering and depends on the geometry of the region being observed. In general, photons would be scattered preferentially out of the line of sight for active regions (relatively dense areas) and into the line of sight for the surrounding quiet Sun (less dense area), see Schmelz et al. (Schmelz97 (1997)) and Mewe et al. (Mewe2001 (2001)). The effect is smaller for instruments with a larger field of view.
This could have an impact on the temperature diagnostic, the so-called $`G=(z+x+y)/w`$ or $`(f+i)/r`$ ratio. If the optical depth of the line is not taken into account, the calculated intensity ratio $`G`$ can be overestimated and the inferred temperature from the $`G`$ ratio is underestimated.

As detailed in Mewe et al. (Mewe2001 (2001)), branching ratios can be used to check the assumption of the optical thin model because effects of resonance scattering would affect the measured branching ratio. From the fact that the intensities of e.g., the strong resonance lines Fe xviii$`\lambda `$93.92 and Fe xix$`\lambda `$108.307 are in good agreement with the intensities of other lines sharing the same upper level, one can derive a constraint on the optical depth taking into account the systematic uncertainties of the theoretical transition probabilities A (typical 25$`\%`$ for each A, hence 35$`\%`$ for the branching ratio) which dominate over the statistical errors (typically 10$`\%`$). If we rule out a reduction in the resonance line intensity larger than about 30$`\%`$, then on the basis of a simple “escape-factor” model with

$$P(\tau )\frac{1}{[1+0.43\tau ]},$$
(22)
the escape factor for a homogeneous mixture of emitters and absorbers in a slab geometry (e.g., Kaastra $`\&`$ Mewe KaastraMewe95 (1995)), one can put a constraint on the optical depth. The optical depth $`\tau `$ for a Doppler-broadened resonance line can be written as (Mewe et al. 1995b )555 the forefactor in the first part of Eq. (23) was in Mewe et al. (1995b ,Mewe2001 (2001)) erroneously taken a factor of 103 too large, but the 2nd part of Eq. (23) is still correct.:

$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{1.16\hspace{0.17em}10}^{17}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_i}{n_{el}}}\right)A_Z\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_\mathrm{H}}{n_\mathrm{e}}}\right)\lambda f\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{M}{T_\mathrm{e}}}}n_\mathrm{e}l`$ (23)
$``$ $`10^{19}C_d\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_Z}{A_Z_{}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_\mathrm{e}l}{\sqrt{T_6}}}\right),`$
where ($`n_i/n_{el}`$) is the ion fraction (e.g. from Arnaud & Rothenflug Arnaud85 (1985), from Arnaud & Raymond Arnaud92 (1992) for iron, or from Mazzotta et al. Mazzotta98 (1998)), AZ is the elemental abundance relative to hydrogen, $`A_Z_{}`$ the corresponding value for the solar photosphere as given by Anders & Grevesse (Anders89 (1989)), $`N_\mathrm{H}/n_\mathrm{e}`$0.85 the ratio of hydrogen to electron density, $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength in Å, $`f`$ the absorption oscillator strength, $`M`$ is the atomic weight, $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ is the electron temperature (in K or $`T_6`$ in MK), $`l`$ a characteristic plasma dimension (in cm) and

$`C_d98.5\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_i}{n_{el}}}\right)A_Z_{}\lambda f\sqrt{M}.`$ (24)
According to Equation (23), Ness et al. (2001a ) estimated the optical depth, adopting a value of unity for the fractional ionization and using solar abundances. One further assumes $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ at the peak line formation, but note that $`\tau `$ is rather insensitive to the precise value of $`T_\mathrm{e}`$. One can determine – for each resonance line – that value of $`n_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{}`$ which yields an optical depth of unity. According to the values of ne inferred from the ratio $`R=z/(x+y)`$ or $`R=f/i`$ (from C v to Si xiii the $`intercombination`$ and the $`forbidden`$ lines are not sensitive to resonant scattering below a column density of $`𝒩_\mathrm{H}10^{2526}`$ cm-2 and $`𝒩_\mathrm{H}10^{3031}`$ cm-2, respectively, while the resonance line becomes sensitive to the resonant scattering above $`𝒩_\mathrm{H}10^{2123}`$ cm-2), one can determine the corresponding values of $`\mathrm{}`$. One can compute the respective emission measures of $`n_\mathrm{e}^2\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$ respectively, and can compare these emission measures with those derived from the measured line fluxes $`f_\lambda `$ according to

$$EM=\frac{4\pi d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}f__\lambda }{P__\lambda (T_\mathrm{e})}$$
(25)
with the line emissivity $`P_\lambda (T_\mathrm{e})`$ and the distance $`d`$ of the star. If the former is larger, this inconsistency shows that the assumption of a non-negligible optical depth is invalid and we conclude that optical depth effects are irrelevant for the analysis of He-like triplets. On the contrary the effect of resonant scattering should be taken into account when comparing the theoretical values with the observational ones.

Since $`\tau __r>>\tau __i`$ ($`\tau __r`$ and $`\tau __i`$ corresponding respectively to the optical depth of the resonance and the intercombination lines), we can write $`G_\tau \frac{G}{P__r}`$, where $`G_\tau `$ is the value of the ratio taken into account the optical depth of the resonance line, $`G`$ is the value without resonant scattering (such as in Paper I and $`\mathrm{\S }`$5), and $`P__r`$ is the escape probability for the resonance line (Eq. 22). One should note that $`G_\tau `$ is not strictly exact when the contribution of the blended dielectronic satellite lines are introduced in the calculations (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$4.3).

### 4.3 Blended dielectronic satellite lines

The intensity of a dielectronic satellite line arising from a doubly excited state with principal quantum number $`n`$ in a Lithium-like ion produced by dielectronic recombination of a He-like ion is given by:

$$I_s=N_{\mathrm{He}}n_\mathrm{e}C_s,$$
(26)
where $`N_{\mathrm{He}}`$ is the population density of the considered He-like ion in the ground state 1s2 with statistical weight $`g_1`$ (for He-like ions $`g_1=1`$).
The rate coefficient (in cm3 s-1) for dielectronic recombination is given by (Bely-Dubau et al. Bely-Dubau79 (1979)):

$$C_s=\mathrm{2.0706\; 10}^{16}\frac{e^{E_s/kT_\mathrm{e}}}{g_1T_\mathrm{e}^{3/2}}F_2(s),$$
(27)
where $`E_s`$ is the energy of the satellite level $`s`$ with statistical weight $`g_s`$ above the ground state of the He-like ion, $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ is the electron temperature in K, and $`F_2(s)`$ is the so-called line strength factor (often of the order of about 1013 s-1 for the stronger lines) given by

$$F_2(s)=\frac{g_sA_aA_r}{(A_a+A_r)},$$
(28)
where $`A_a`$ and $`A_r`$ are transition probabilities (s-1) by autoionization and radiation, and the summation is over all possible radiative transitions from the satellite level $`s`$.
For a group of satellites with the same principal quantum number $`n`$, $`E_s`$ can be approximated by

$$E_s[\mathrm{eV}]=\mathrm{1.239842\; 10}^4\frac{\mathrm{a}_{\mathrm{DR}}}{\lambda },$$
(29)
where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength (Å) of the satellite line and $`a_{DR}`$ 0.7, 0.86, 0.92, and 0.96 for $`n`$ = 2, 3, 4, and $`>`$ 4, respectively (Mewe & Gronenschild Mewe81 (1981)). For $`\lambda `$ in Å and $`T`$ in K we can write:

$$\frac{E_s}{kT}=\frac{a_{DR}hc}{\lambda kT}=\mathrm{1.439\; 10}^8\frac{a_{DR}}{\lambda T}.$$
(30)
The influence of the blending of dielectronic satellite lines for the resonance, the intercombination and the forbidden lines has been taken into account where their contribution is not negligible in the calculation of $`R`$ and $`G`$, affecting the inferred electron temperature and density. This is the case for the high-Z ions, i.e. Ne ix, Mg xi, and Si xiii (Z=10, 12, and 14, respectively). Since the contribution of the blended dielectronic satellite lines depends on the spectral resolution considered, we have estimated the ratios $`R`$ and $`G`$ for four specific spectral resolutions (FWHM): RGS-1 at the first order (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$=0.073, 0.075 and 0.078Å for Ne ix, Mg xi and Si xiii respectively), LETGS (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$=0.05Å), HETGS-MEG (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$=0.023Å), and HETGS-HEG (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$=0.012Å).

For the $`n`$=2, 3, 4 blended dielectronic satellite lines we use the atomic data reported in the appendix. For the higher-n blended dielectronic satellite lines we use the results from Karim and co-workers. For Z=10 (Ne ix) we use the data from Karim (Karim93 (1993)) who gives the intensity factor $`F_2^{}F_2/g_1`$ for the strongest ($`F_2^{}>10^{12}`$ s-1) dielectronic satellite lines with $`n`$=5-8. For Z=14 (Si xiii), we take the calculations from Karim & Bhalla (Karim92 (1992)) who report the intensity factor $`F_2^{}`$ for the strongest ($`F_2^{}>10^{12}`$ s-1) dielectronic satellite lines with $`n`$=5-8. For Z=12 (Mg xi) we have interpolated between the calculations from Karim (Karim93 (1993)) for Z=10, and from Karim & Bhalla (Karim92 (1992)) for Z=14.
Including the contribution of the blended dielectronic satellite lines, we write for the ratios $`R`$ and $`G`$:

$$R=\frac{z+satz}{(x+y)+satxy}$$
(31)
$$G=\frac{(z+satz)+((x+y)+satxy)}{(w+satw)},$$
(32)
where $`satz`$, $`satxy`$ and $`satz`$ are respectively the contribution of blended dielectronic satellite lines to the forbidden line, to the intercombination lines, and to the resonance line, respectively. One can note that at very high density the 3P levels are depleted to the 1P level, and in that case x+y decreases and $`R`$ tends to $`satz`$/$`satxy`$.

At the temperature at which the ion fraction is maximum for the He-like ion (see e.g. Arnaud & Rothenflug Arnaud85 (1985), Mazzotta et al. Mazzotta98 (1998)), the differences between the calculations for $`R`$ (for $`G`$) with or without taking into account the blended dielectronic satellite lines are only of about 1$`\%`$ (9$`\%`$), $`2\%`$ (5$`\%`$), and 5$`\%`$ (3$`\%`$) for Ne ix, Mg xi, and Si xiii at the low-density limit and for $`T_{\mathrm{r}ad}`$=0 K, respectively. On the other hand, for much lower electron temperatures, the effect is bigger since the intensity of the dielectronic satellite lines is proportional to T$`{}_{}{}^{3/2}{}_{e}{}^{}`$. As well, for high values of density ($`n_\mathrm{e}`$) at which the intensity of the forbidden line is very weak (i.e. tends to zero), the contribution of the blended dielectronic satellite lines to the forbidden line leads to a ratio $`R`$ which decreases much slower with $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ than in the case where the contribution of the blended dielectronic satellite lines is not taken into account.

### 4.4 Influence of a radiation field

Recently, Kahn et al. (Kahn2001 (2001)) have found with the RGS on XMM-Newton that for $`\zeta `$ Puppis, the $`forbidden`$ to $`intercombination`$ line ratios within the Helium-like triplets are abnormally low for N vi, O vii, and Ne ix. While this is sometimes indicative of a high electron density, they have shown that in the case of $`\zeta `$ Puppis, it is instead caused by the intense radiation field of this star. This constrains the location of the X-ray emitting shocks relative to the star, since the emitting regions should be close enough to the star in order that the UV radiation is not too much diluted.
A strong radiation field can mimic a high density if the upper (3S) level of the forbidden line is significantly depopulated via photo-excitation to the upper (3P) levels of the intercombination lines, analogously to the effect of electronic collisional excitation (fig. 1). The result is an increase of the intercombination lines and a decrease of the forbidden line.
Eq. (21) gives the expression for photo-excitation from level $`m`$ to level $`p_k`$ in a radiation field with effective blackbody temperature $`T_{\mathrm{r}ad}`$ from a hot star underlying the X-ray line emitting plasma. As pointed out by Mewe & Schrijver (1978a ) the radiation is diluted by a factor $`W`$ given by

$$W=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\left(1\left(\frac{r_{}}{r}\right)\right)^{1/2}\right],$$
(33)
where $`r`$ is the distance from the center of the stellar source of radius $`r_{}`$. Close to the stellar surface the dilution factor $`W=\frac{1}{2}`$. For stars such as Capella or Procyon, we can take $`W=\frac{1}{2}`$, because the stellar surface which is the origin of the radiation irradiates coronal structures that are close to the stellar surface (Ness et al. 2001a ). In a star such as Algol the radiation originates from another star, and $`W`$ is much lower (i.e. $`W0.01`$, cf. Ness et al. 2001b ), but due to the strong radiation field the radiation effect can still be important.

In their Table 8, Mewe & Schrijver (1978a ) give for information the radiation temperature for a solar photospheric field for Z=6, 7, and 8. In Table 3, we report the wavelengths at which the radiation temperature should be estimated for Z=6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14. These wavelengths correspond to the transitions between the 3S and 3P levels ($`\lambda _{fi}`$) and the 1S and 1P levels ($`\lambda _{6r}`$).

The photo-excitation from the 3S level and 3P levels is very important for low-Z ions C v, N vi, O vii. For higher-Z ions, this process is only important for very high radiation temperature ( $``$few 10 000 K).

One can note that the photo-excitation between the levels 1S0 and 1P1 is negligible compared to the photo-excitation between the 3S1 and 3P0,1,2 levels. For example, for a very high value of Trad=30 000 K the difference between the calculations taken or not taken into account the photo-excitation between 1S0 and 1P1 is smaller than 20$`\%`$ for C v, where this effect is expected to be maximum.

## 5 Results from extended calculations

Using the above-mentioned atomic data, we have calculated the line intensity ratios $`R`$ and $`G`$ for C v, N vi, O vii, Ne ix, Mg xi, and Si xiii666Tables 4 to 69 are only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/. The wavelengths of these three (four) lines for each He-like ion treated in this paper are reported in Table 1.
All the relevant processes detailed in sections 3 and 4 between the seven levels are taken into account (full resolution): radiative de-excitation, collisional electronic excitation and de-excitation, radiative and dielectronic recombination, photo-excitation and induced emission (between 3S1 and 3P levels).
We considered a broad range of densities ($`n_\mathrm{e}`$) and radiation temperatures ($`T_{\mathrm{r}ad}`$) calculated for photo-excitation between the 3S level and the 3P levels and a number of electron temperatures ($`T_\mathrm{e}`$). As well, we considered different values of the dilution factor of the radiation field ($`W`$) which could be used either for hot late-type stars or O, B stars.

We display the $`G(T_\mathrm{e})`$ line intensity ratios, from Tables 4 to 9, for the six ions, for five values of electron temperature ($`T_\mathrm{e}`$) including the temperature of maximum line formation for the He-like lines (cf. Mewe et al. Mewe85 (1985)); and for two or more values of the radiation temperature ($`T_{\mathrm{r}ad}`$), and several values of $`n_\mathrm{e}`$. As one can note the ratio $`G`$ is as expected sensitive to $`T_\mathrm{e}`$, while it is almost insensitive to the exact values of $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{r}ad}`$. The resonance line becomes sensitive at high density due to the depopulation of the 1s2s1S0 level to the 1s2p1P1 level (see Gabriel & Jordan GabrielJordan72 (1972)). Since the sum $`z+(x+y)`$ is a constant or almost constant, the value of $`G`$ is independent of the exact value of the dilution factor ($`W`$). Here the calculations were done for dilution factor $`W`$=1/2.

Finally, we display the $`R(n_\mathrm{e})`$ line intensity ratios for the six ions, in Tables 10 to 69, for the same values of electron temperature ($`T_\mathrm{e}`$) and much more values of radiation temperature ($`T_{\mathrm{r}ad}`$), and for three values of the dilution factor of the radiation field $`W`$=0.5, 0.1, 0.01.

Since as said previously in $`\mathrm{\S }`$4.3, the contribution of the blended dielectronic satellite lines depends on the spectral resolution, we give the values of $`R`$ and $`G`$ for Ne ix, Mg xi, and Si xiii, for four specific values of spectral resolutions (FWHM): RGS-1 at the first order (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$=0.073, 0.075 and 0.078Å for Ne ix, Mg xi and Si xiii respectively), LETGS (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$=0.05Å), HETGS-MEG (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$=0.023Å), and HETGS-HEG (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$=0.012Å). In the cases where the differences ($`<`$1$`\%`$) are negligible between two or more spectral resolutions, we display the results together (e.g. RGS and LETGS).

## 6 Conclusions

For the first time, thanks to the new generation of X-ray satellites, Chandra and XMM-Newton the diagnostics based on the line ratios of He-like ions could be used for powerful extra-solar plasma diagnostics (Warm Absorber in AGNs, stellar coronae, …). These diagnostics are one of the keys for a better understanding of the solar-stellar connection: heating of the coronae, magnetic activity, etc. In this work, we have calculated the line ratio $`R`$ and $`G`$ which allow, respectively electron density and temperature diagnostics. These calculations are based partly on the previous work of Porquet & Dubau (PorquetDubau2000 (2000)) and on different improvements of atomic data (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$4).
We have tabulated the results adapted for the different spectral resolutions of the spectrometers on board of Chandra and XMM-Newton for parameter ranges which correspond as much as possible to most cases of stellar coronae (hot-late type star, O B stars…).

###### Acknowledgements.

The Space Research Organization Netherlands (SRON) is supported financially by NWO.

## Appendix A Atomic data for the blended dielectronic satellite lines with $`n`$=2, 3, 4.

We report in this appendix the atomic data related to the dielectronic satellite lines, calculated in this work for Z=10, 12, and 14, blended with one of their parent lines: forbidden, intercombination, and resonance.
The satellite line wavelengths and intensities have been obtained using a set of computer codes developed partly in University-College-London (SUPERSTRUCTURE: Eissner, Jones, Nussbaumer Eissner74 (1974)) and in Meudon Observatory (AUTOLSJ: TFR group, Dubau J., Loulergue M. TFR81 (1981)). Multiconfigurational-wavefunctions are calculated in a ”scaled” Thomas-Fermi-Dirac-Amaldi potentials, depending on linear scaling parameters ($`\lambda _s`$, $`\lambda _p`$,$`\lambda _d`$ …) different for $`l`$-orbitals, which are obtained through a self-consistent variational procedure on the energy sum of the first lowest (SL) terms. In SUPERSTRUCTURE, the level energies and the radiative probabilities are calculated in the relativistic Breit-Paul hamiltonian approach, which gives fine-structure bound and autoionizing levels. In the AUTOLSJ code, the autoionization probabilities are derived in the Distorted-wave approximation, using the same wavefunctions as in SUPERSTRUCTURE. For the present calculations, the following configuration were used : $`1s^2nl`$, $`1s2snl`$, and $`1s2pnl`$ for $`n=2,\mathrm{},5`$ and $`0ln1`$.

The wavelengths of the dielectronic satellite lines calculated here should be compared to the “reference” wavelengths used in the Jacques Dubau’s calculations respectively for Ne ix, Mg xi, and Si xiii, $`\lambda _w`$=13.4658, 9.1740, 6.6482 Å, $`\lambda _y`$=13.5774, 9.2395, 6.6903 Å, $`\lambda _x`$=13.5774, 9.2358, 6.6865 Å, $`\lambda _z`$=13.7216, 9.3219, 6.7420 Å. One can notice that these wavelengths are not identical to the wavelengths of Vainshtein & Safronova (Vainshtein78 (1978)) used in the calculation of the line ratios $`R`$ and $`G`$, tabulated in Table 1. Then in order to determine which dielectronic satellite lines are blended with one of the parent lines (forbidden, intercombination, and resonance), one should take into account the shift of the satellite line compared to the wavelengths chosen for the parent lines in the calculation of $`R`$ and $`G`$.
The values of Es, which is the energy of the satellite level $`s`$, used in this calculation are well reproduced using formula (29).

In tables777Tables A.1 to A.6 are only available in electronic form. A.1, A.2, and A.3, the dielectronic satellite lines $`n`$=2, for Z=10, 12, and 14, respectively are reported. In tables A.4, A.5, and A.6, the dielectronic satellite lines $`n`$=3, and 4, for Z=10, 12, and 14, respectively are reported.


text:
# Observational Evidence for Galaxy Evolution in the Local Group

## 1 Introduction

How do galaxies form and then evolve over time? This is one of the most fundamental questions in astronomy, and the answer has far reaching implications for the accurate interpretation of any observations of galaxies throughout the Universe. Galaxies are the end products of all the star formation in their entire lifetimes, and the ratios of chemical elements and remaining stellar population provide evidence for this past star formation. Only if we understand how galaxies change with time and especially how they may look when they are young can we use them to accurately understand what we see in galaxy surveys at high-redshift, because otherwise we don’t know which type of galaxies we may be viewing. There are currently numerous techniques available to uncover information buried in the properties of individual stars. It will make a significant difference in the interpretation of galaxy surveys if they preferentially detect populations of star-bursting dwarf galaxies - which do not trace the mass distribution in the universe - or if the galaxies we detect are massive spirals or ellipticals which do. We thus have to understand how different types of galaxies evolve so we are able to distinguish their progenitors in redshift surveys.

It must be fair to assume that all the galaxies we see today in and around our Local Group are broadly representative; our region of space is neither over-dense (a cluster environoment) nor under-dense (in a void). All nearby galaxies have doubtless been forming and evolving for a significant fraction of the age of the Universe. If this were not true it would mean that our local region of space is in some way peculiar, and there is no evidence for this. Thus, as new techniques and instruments enable us to determine more and more accurate star formation histories for nearby galaxies over 90% of the lifetime of the Universe we can hope to obtain a representative picture of galaxy evolution from our local neighbourhood, and with it the ability to predict what galaxies look like at all redshifts. Detailed studies of nearby galaxies will thus provide an independent method to compare with redshift survey predictions.

It is apparent that some galaxies have a more or less constant global star formation rate through time (e.g. spirals) and some appear to be subject to sudden, intense bursts of star formation (e.g. irregulars) and then some stopped forming stars entirely at some point in the past (e.g. ellipticals). Filling in the crucial details of this basic scenario requires the detailed analysis of the fossil record of ancient star formation.

## 2 Imaging: Star-Formation Rate Evolution

The most detailed information on how a galaxy has evolved in time comes from measuring the star-formation rate as a function of time, or the star formation history (SFH), and the most direct and unambiguous method of doing this comes from interpreting CMDs of a significant fraction of the individual stars in a galaxy. This is a plot of the temperature versus the luminosity of all the stars bright enough to be detected in a galaxy in the observed quantities of colour and magnitude (see Figure 1). Because of our detailed understanding of stellar properties these measurements can be converted into physical parameters such as age (or SFH), chemical composition and enrichment history, initial mass function, environment, and dynamical history of a system. Some of these parameters are strongly correlated, such as chemical composition and age, since successive generations of stars may be progressively enriched in the heavier elements. Thus, detailed numerical simulations of CMD morphology are necessary to disentangle the complex effects of different stellar populations overlying each other and make an effective quantitative analysis of possible SFHs. To this end There have been numerous recent developments in crowded field photometry techniques and advanced methods of interpreting highly populous and detailed CMDs from nearby galaxies (e.g., Tosi et al. 1991; Tolstoy & Saha 1996; Aparicio et al. 1996; Dolphin 1997; Dohm-Palmer et al. 1997; Hernandez et al. 1999; Harris & Zaritsky 2001).

The exquisite stable high spatial resolution combined with photometric accuracy of images from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) have allowed us to probe further back into the history of star formation of a large variety of different galaxy types with widely differing star formation properties, and extend our studies out to the edges of the Local Group and beyond with greater accuracy than ever before. We have learnt several important things about dwarf galaxy evolution from these studies. Firstly we have found that no two galaxies have identical star formation histories; some galaxies may superficially look the same today, but they have invariably followed a different paths to this point. Now that we have managed to probe deep into the star formation history of dwarf irregular galaxies in the Local Group it is obvious that there are a number of similarities in their global properties with those of dwarf elliptical/spheroidal type galaxies, which were previously thought to be quite distinct. However, the elliptical/speheroidals tend to have one or more discrete episodes of star formation through-out their history and dwarf irregulars are characterised by quasi-continuous star-formation. The previous strong dichotomy between these two classes has been weakened by these new results and may stem from the differences in the environment in which these similar mass galaxies were born into or have inhabited for most of their lives.

## 3 Spectroscopy: Metallicity Evolution

If we want to understand the detailed chemical enrichment of galaxies by their constituent stars, we need to accurately measure the relative abundances of a range of different elements in high resolution spectra. To date most metallicity determinations for stars in nearby galaxies (and there aren’t many) have been derived either from single chemical element studies from low resolution spectra (see Figure 2) or from broad-band photometry, and these are at best simple estimates. Thus in spite of considerable efforts with 4m class telescopes, many of the most basic questions remain unanswered for most of the Local Group galaxies: What is the total range in \[Fe/H\] for stars within a galaxy? Does the \[Fe/H\] match that of the Milky Way halo populations (Globular clusters or field stars)? Do the elemental ratios (particularly \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\] and \[r- and s- process/Fe\] ratios) in nearby systems track those seen in the metal poor field or in the globular clusters?

Results from high resolution spectra taken with HIRES at the Keck Observatory, have started to answer these detailed questions about the enrichment history of a variety of different elements within galaxies other than our own (e.g. Shetrone et al. 1998; Shetrone et al. 2001; Venn et al. 2001). The new ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) observatory on Paranal in Chile consists of four 8m diameter mirror telescopes and a slew of modern instrumentation. The large collecting area and the high resolution spectrograph (UVES) allows us, amongst other things, to spectroscopically determine the abundances of a large variety of elements for individual stars (e.g., Hill et al. 2000; Primas et al. 2000). Recent results of UVES spectroscopy of stars of known age in a dwarf galaxy CMD are shown in Figure 3. By looking at galaxies outside our own we gain the advantages of perspective and thus we have a better chance to build up a complete picture of metallicity variations over time. The most interesting stars, to get a large range in age, are faint enough in external galaxies to require an 8m telescope. Including chemical evolution history in CMD analysis will result in a significant improvement in our understanding of how galaxies evolve.

For example, rather than just measuring a single present day end-product abundance of an element, we can select individual stars of different ages from imaging data and measure how the enrichment of many different elements has varied with time. This means we can measure how the chemical composition of the interstellar medium, the basic building material for future stellar populations, is altered by successive generations of stars. Deep, precision, multi-colour photometry in combination with spectroscopic metallicity measurements of the individual stars in external galaxies can uniquely determine the star formation histories of nearby galaxies going back many giga-years. These studies make clear the potential of deeper data, from VLT and new HST instruments, for a range of galaxy types.

## 4 Prospects for the future

We are currently (apparently) in the embarrassing situation of, at least claiming to, understand the properties of distant high-redshift galaxies better than those in the nearby Universe. It is only with the arrival of large telescopes with excellent image quality and high through-put spectrographs that we can start to make really detailed comparisons between the properties of distant and nearby galaxies. This is because the individual low mass (old) stars in the nearby universe which formed when the Universe was young (at high redshift) are faint. Thus to see them in galaxies external to our own requires at least an 8m class telescope.

There are a number of ways in which the current interpretation of CMDs can be dramatically improved. One is more and deeper CMDs of a larger sample of nearby galaxies. It is still most efficient to use HST to obtain deep CMDs to study the old main sequence turnoffs, but large scale surveys, down the magnitude of the Horizontal Branch can better be carried out with ground-based telescopes such as the VLT (see Figure 1). When galaxies are satellites of our own Milky Way, they are typically close enough that excellent results can best be achieved using wide field imagers on 2m class telescopes (e.g. MPA/ESO/2.2m WFI on La Silla or the INT/WFC on La Palma), of which there have been some nice results shown at this conference. I believe that the most important contributions will come from continuing the effort to improve our ability to interpret the details in CMDs. There will be significant progress when we have measured abundances of a large variety of elements for stars of known age for individual stars in a CMD.

The observed redshift distribution of faint galaxies detected in deep UV/optical imaging surveys has been assumed to trace the star formation history of the Universe (e.g., Madau et al. 1996; Lilly et al. 1996). The majority of these galaxies are at intermediate redshift ($`z<1`$), late type, intrinsically small, and undergoing a strong “burst” of star formation. This means that the nearby Universe (the Local Group) must contain clearly identifiable remnants from this relatively recent epoch $`58`$ Gyr before present (i.e. corresponding to $`z`$ 0.5$``$1) when the peak in the universal star formation rate is predicted to occur. Initial comparisons suggest that studies of nearby galaxies do not yield the same SFH as is inferred from optical redshift surveys (e.g., Tolstoy 1998). However, the best present day candidates for this intermediate redshift galaxy population are the extremely numerous but presently faint (dwarf) irregular galaxies which have not yet been studied in sufficient detail. It is also true to say that although we know that nearby spirals and especially ellipticals have very large old stellar populations it is difficult to be very precise beyond about $`810`$ Gyr ago (corresponding to a redshift range z$`>12`$) with current data. This is all going to change dramatically with large telescopes and more sensitive instruments. Sub-mm/radio wavelength surveys are also pointing to SFHs very different from those implied by optical data (e.g., Blain et al. 1999), and these surveys suggest a much larger type of galaxy (e.g., ellipticals) which are typically at higher redshift ($`z>2`$).

A complete survey of the resolved stellar populations in the local Universe will accurately trace star formation variations within both large and small galaxies, and determine if and when bursts of star formation occur and how long they last. It might well be that optical redshift surveys are strongly biased towards low mass dwarf irregular galaxies undergoing short bursts of star formation, and that they are thus not accurate indicators of the dominant mode (by mass) of star formation in the Universe which occurs in much larger galaxies.

The more detailed is our understanding of star formation processes and their effect on galaxy evolution in the nearby Universe the better we will understand the results from studies of the integrated light of galaxies in the high-redshift Universe.

References

Aparicio, A., Gallart, C., Chiosi, C. & Bertelli, G. 1996, ApJL, 469, 97

Blain, A. W., Smail, I., Ivison, R. J. & Kneib, J.-P. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 632

Dohm-Palmer, R. C., Skillman, E. D., Saha, A., Tolstoy, E., Gallagher, J. S., Hoessel, J. G., Mateo, M., & Chiosi, C. 1997, AJ, 114, 2527

Dolphin, A. 1997, New Astron. 2, 397

Harris, J. & Zaritsky, D. 2001, ApJS, in press

Hernandez, X., Valls-Gabaud, D. & Gilmore, G. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 705

Hill, V., François, P., Spite, M., Primas, F. & Spite, F. 2000, A&A, 364, 19L

Lilly, S. J., Le Fèvre, O., Hammer, F., & Crampton, D. 1996, ApJL, 460, 1

Madau, P., Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C. C., & Fruchter, A. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388

Primas, F., Molaro, P., Bonifacio, P. & Hill, V. 2000, A&A, 362, 666

Shetrone, M. D., Bolte, M. & Stetson, P. B. 1998, AJ, 115, 1888

Shetrone, M. D., Côté, P. & Sargent, W. L. W. 2001, ApJ, 548, 592

Tolstoy, E. 1998, in “Dwarf Galaxies & Cosmology”, eds T.X. Thuan et al., p. 171

Tolstoy, E. & Saha, A. 1996, ApJ,

Tolstoy, E., Gallagher, J.S., Greggio, L., Tosi, M., De Marchi, G., Romaniello M., Minniti D. & Zijlstra A. 2000, “ESO Messenger”, 99, 16

Tolstoy, E., Irwin, M. J., Cole A. A., Pasquini L., Gilmozzi R. & Gallagher J.S. 2001, submitted to MNRAS.

Tosi, M. M., Greggio, L., Marconi, G. & Focardi, P. 1991, AJ, 102, 951

Venn, K. A., Lennon, D. J., Kaufer, A., McCarthy, J. K., Przybilla, N., Kudritzki, R. P., Lemke, M., Skillman, E. D. & Smartt, S. J. 2001, ApJ, 547, 765


text:
# Violation of Quasineutrality in Semiconductor Transport: The Dember Effect

\[

## Abstract

Exact solution of the linearized equations for steady-state transport in semiconductors yields two modes that vary exponentially in space, one involving screening (without entropy production) and one involving diffusion and recombination (with entropy production). Neither mode is quasineutral. For constant surface photoexcitation with generation of electrons and holes, the steady-state response is a linear combination of these modes, subject to global electroneutrality. The resultant charge separation produces a voltage difference across the sample (the Dember effect).

\]

The Dember effect is the voltage difference that develops across the bulk of a material that steadily absorbs light at one surface. It has been observed in insulators, high resistivity semiconductors, and $`C_{60}`$ thin films. An extensive discussion of photovoltages, both at surfaces and in the bulk, is given in Ref..

An intuitive physical picture of the Dember effect is as follows. Incident light produces equal numbers of electrons and holes at the surface. The higher mobility electrons travel further than the lower mobility holes. The resultant charge separation amounts to a dipole layer. As a consequence the illuminated surface is at the higher voltage, in agreement with experiment. However, conventional theories of the Dember effect, which assume quasineutrality (local electroneutrality), yield no dipole layer; moreover, they yield a non-zero net charge.

The present work obtains exact solutions for the surface modes of the linearized macroscopic transport equations. It differs from previous analytic work in that: (1) It explicitly satisfies the principles of irreversible thermodynamics, which constrain the form for the charge-carrier fluxes and recombination rates by the condition that the rate of entropy production be non-negative; (2) In solving the transport equations, it employs both electron and hole densities $`n`$ and $`p`$ as variables, rather than assuming deviations from equilibrium satisfy quasineutrality ($`\delta n\delta p`$); (3) Using the resultant two steady-state surface modes, it explicitly enforces overall electroneutrality.

One surface mode corresponds to ordinary screening by a multi-charge-carrier system (i.e. Debye-Hückel screening), without fluxes or entropy production: the screening mode. The other surface mode has both electron and hole flux as well as entropy production: the diffusion-recombination mode. The characteristic length $`l`$ of the screening mode typically is shorter than the characteristic length $`L`$ for the diffusion-recombination mode. Neither mode is locally electroneutral. Applied to the Dember effect, the light generates a diffusion-recombination mode with a relatively extended negative charge and a screening mode with a relatively compact positive charge, in agreement with the physical picture given above.

Irreversible thermodynamics. Consider a uniform semiconductor with an ideal surface having no extrinsic surface states and no charged intrinsic states. The recombination rate $`r`$ is the same for both electrons and holes. With $`u`$ the energy density, $`T`$ the temperature, $`s`$ the entropy density, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_e`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h`$ the electron and hole electrochemical potentials, the fundamental thermodynamic differential for this system is

$$du=Tds+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_edn+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_hdp.$$
(1)
With $`\mu _e`$ and $`\mu _h`$ the chemical potentials (to be distinguished from the diffusivities $`\mu _n`$ and $`\mu _p`$),

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_e\mu _ee\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h\mu _h+e\varphi .$$
(2)
Here the electrical potential $`\varphi `$ satisfies Poisson’s equation

$$^2\varphi =\frac{\rho }{ϵ_0ϵ}=\frac{e}{ϵ_0ϵ}(pn+N_d^+N_a^{}),$$
(3)
where $`ϵ`$ is the semiconductor dielectric constant, $`ϵ_0`$ is the permittivity of free space, and the charge density $`\rho =e(pn+N_d^+N_a^{})`$. $`N_d^+`$ and $`N_a^{}`$ are the respective densities of ionized donors and acceptors, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_e`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h`$ are often called quasi-Fermi energies.

The conservation laws for this system are

$$_tu+_ij_i^u=0,_ts+_ij_i^s=\frac{𝒫}{T}0,$$
(4)
$$_tn+_ij_i^n=r,_tp+_ij_i^p=r.$$
(5)
Here $`j_i^u`$ is the energy flux density, $`j_i^s`$ is the entropy flux density, $`𝒫`$ is the local rate of heat production ($`𝒫/T`$ is local rate of entropy production), $`j_i^n`$ is the electron number flux density, and $`j_i^p`$ is the hole number flux density. The fluxes, $`r`$, and $`𝒫`$ are to be determined.

The time-derivatives of (1) and (4)–(5) lead to

$`0𝒫`$ $`=`$ $`_ij_i^u+T_ij_i^s\stackrel{~}{\mu }_e(r_ij_i^n)\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h(r_ij_i^p)`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`_i(j_i^uTj_i^s\stackrel{~}{\mu }_ej_i^n\stackrel{~}{\mu }_hj_i^p)`$ (8)
$`j_i^s_iTj_i^n_i\stackrel{~}{\mu }_ej_i^p_i\stackrel{~}{\mu }_hr(\stackrel{~}{\mu }_e+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h).`$
Expressing $`𝒫`$ as a non-negative quadratic form requires that $`j_i^u=Tj_i^s+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_ej_i^n+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_hj_i^p`$; that

$$j_i^s=\alpha _T_iT=\frac{\kappa }{T}_iT,$$
(9)
where $`\kappa 0`$ is the thermal conductivity; that

$`j_i^n=\alpha _{nn}_i\stackrel{~}{\mu }_e\alpha _{np}_i\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h,`$ (10)
$`j_i^p=\alpha _{pn}_i\stackrel{~}{\mu }_e\alpha _{pp}_i\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h,`$ (11)
where $`\alpha _{nn}0,\alpha _{pp}0`$, and $`\alpha _{nn}\alpha _{pp}\alpha _{np}\alpha _{pn}`$ (the $`\alpha `$’s are related to the diffusivities, and $`\alpha _{np}=\alpha _{pn}`$ by the Onsager symmetry principle); and that

$$r=\lambda (\stackrel{~}{\mu }_e+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h)=\lambda (\mu _e+\mu _h).$$
(12)
where $`\lambda 0`$ is related to the electron and hole lifetimes $`\tau _n`$ and $`\tau _p`$. In equilibrium $`r=0`$, so (12) implies the well-known results that $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_e=\stackrel{~}{\mu }_h`$ and $`\mu _e=\mu _h`$ in equilibrium. We now express $`r`$, $`j_i^n`$, and $`j_i^p`$ in more conventional form.

Linearizing (12) about equilibrium with $`\delta \mu _e=(\mu _e/n)\delta n`$ and $`\delta \mu _h=(\mu _h/p)\delta p`$ yields

$$r=\frac{\delta n}{\tau _n}\frac{\delta p}{\tau _p},\tau _n^1\lambda \frac{\mu _e}{n},\tau _p^1\lambda \frac{\mu _h}{p}.$$
(13)
For a dilute semiconductor, as considered here, $`(\mu _e/n)k_BT/n_0`$ and $`(\mu _h/p)k_BT/p_0`$, so $`\tau _n=(n_0/k_BT\lambda )`$ and $`\tau _p=(p_0/k_BT\lambda )`$.

Now set $`\alpha _{np}=\alpha _{pn}0`$, $`\alpha _{nn}=D_n(n/\mu _e)`$, and $`\alpha _{pp}=D_p(p/\mu _h)`$, where $`D_n`$ and $`D_p`$ are the electron and hole diffusivities. Next, define the electron and hole mobilities $`\mu _n`$ and $`\mu _p`$, which satisfy the Einstein relations:

$$\mu _n=\frac{eD_n}{n}\frac{n}{\mu _e}\frac{eD_n}{k_BT},\mu _p=\frac{eD_p}{p}\frac{p}{\mu _h}\frac{eD_p}{k_BT},$$
(14)
Then in one-dimension $`j_i^n`$ and $`j_i^p`$ become

$`j_x^n=D_n_xn+\mu _nn_x\varphi ,`$ (15)
$`j_x^p=D_p_xp\mu _pp_x\varphi .`$ (16)
Note that Poisson’s equation linearizes to

$`^2\delta \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{ϵ_0ϵ}}(\delta p\delta n)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{ϵ_0ϵ}}({\displaystyle \frac{n}{\mu _e}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\mu _h}})\delta \varphi `$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{ϵ_0ϵ}}({\displaystyle \frac{p}{\mu _h}}\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_h{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\mu _e}}\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_e).`$
Static surface solutions in one-dimension. One steady-state solution that automatically satisfies (5), (11), and (12) has $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_e=\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_h=0`$ and $`j_i^n=j_i^p=0`$. Thus the system is in local equilibrium, with no entropy production. This corresponds to ordinary screening, and thus we call it the screening mode, with subscript $`S`$. From (18), its potential $`\delta \varphi _S`$ satisfies

$$^2\delta \varphi _S=\frac{e^2}{ϵ_0ϵ}(\frac{p}{\mu _h}+\frac{n}{\mu _e})\delta \varphi _S=q_S^2\delta \varphi _S,$$
(19)
where

$$q_S^2=q_{Sn}^2+q_{Sh}^2,q_{Sn}^2\frac{e^2}{ϵ_0ϵ}\frac{n}{\mu _e},q_{Sp}^2\frac{e^2}{ϵ_0ϵ}\frac{p}{\mu _h}.$$
(20)
For the present system, $`q_{Sn}^2=(e^2n_0/ϵ_0ϵk_BT)`$, $`q_{Sp}^2=(e^2p_0/ϵ_0ϵk_BT)`$, so $`q_S^2=(e^2/ϵ_0ϵk_BT)(n_0+p_0)`$. The solution to (19) that goes to zero as $`x\mathrm{}`$ is

$$\delta \varphi _S=A_S\mathrm{exp}(q_Sx).$$
(21)
$`lq_S^1`$ is the screening length. From (21) and (18), the screening mode has charge density

$$\delta \rho _S=ϵ_0ϵ^2\varphi _S=(ϵ_0ϵ)q_S^2A_S\mathrm{exp}(q_Sx).$$
(22)
Here $`\delta n_S=(n/\mu _e)\delta \mu _e=(en_0/k_BT)\delta \varphi _S`$ and $`\delta p_S=(n/\mu _h)\delta \mu _h=(en_0/k_BT)\delta \varphi _S`$, so $`\delta n_S/\delta p_S=n_0/p_0`$.

The second steady-state solution to (5), (11), (12) and (18) has $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_e`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_h`$ non-zero, so the fluxes $`j_i^n`$ and $`j_i^p`$ are non-zero. With $`\alpha _{np}=\alpha _{pn}=0`$, combining (5), (11) and (12) yields

$`\alpha _{nn}_x^2\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_e=\lambda (\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_e+\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_h),`$ (23)
$`\alpha _{pp}_x^2\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_h=\lambda (\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_e+\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_h).`$ (24)
Let us denote properties of this diffusion-recombination mode by the subscript $`D`$. Now set

$$q_{Dn}^2\frac{\lambda }{\alpha _{nn}}=\frac{1}{D_n\tau _n},q_{Dp}^2\frac{\lambda }{\alpha _{pp}}=\frac{1}{D_p\tau _p}.$$
(25)
Then, with

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_e=A_{Dn}\mathrm{exp}(q_Dx),\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_h=A_{Dp}\mathrm{exp}(q_Dx),$$
(26)
(24) yields

$$q_D^2=q_{Dn}^2+q_{Dp}^2$$
(27)
and $`A_{Dp}/q_{Dp}^2=A_{Dn}/q_{Dn}^2`$.

The corresponding electrostatic potential $`\delta \varphi _D`$ takes the form

$$\delta \varphi _D=A_D\mathrm{exp}(q_Dx),$$
(28)
where

$$\frac{A_{Dp}}{q_{Dp}^2}=\frac{A_{Dn}}{q_{Dn}^2}=\frac{q_S^2q_D^2}{q_{Sp}^2q_{Dp}^2q_{Sn}^2q_{Dn}^2}eA_D.$$
(29)
$`Lq_D^1`$ is the diffusion-recombination length, normally called the diffusion length. By (22) and (3), the diffusion-recombination mode possesses charge density

$$\delta \rho _D=(ϵ_0ϵ)q_D^2A_D\mathrm{exp}(q_Dx).$$
(30)
Moreover, $`\delta n_D/\delta p_D=(n_0/p_0)(q_{Sp}^2q_{Dn}^2)/(q_{Sn}^2q_{Dp}^2)`$. This is independent of $`n_0`$ for fixed $`n_0p_0=n_i^2`$.

Surface mode amplitudes. Let light incident at the surface $`x=0`$ produce equal electron and hole fluxes $`G`$, so $`j_i^n=j_i^p=G`$ at $`x=0`$. On setting $`\alpha _{np}=\alpha _{pn}=0`$, (11) and (26) yield the diffusion-recombination mode amplitudes

$$A_{Dn}=\frac{G}{q_D\alpha _{nn}},A_{Dp}=\frac{G}{q_D\alpha _{pp}}.$$
(31)
Overall electroneutrality, or $`0=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x(\delta \rho _S(x)+\delta \rho _D(x))`$, implies that

$$A_S=\frac{q_D}{q_S}A_D.$$
(32)
From (22) and (32), and from (29-31), the total charge density is

$$\delta \rho (x)=\frac{Ge^2}{k_BT}\frac{(\mu _n\mu _p)}{\mu _n\mu _p}\frac{q_Se^{q_Sx}q_De^{q_Dx}}{q_S^2q_D^2},$$
(33)
where the mobilities have been employed. Typically $`\mu _n>\mu _p`$, so $`\rho (x=0)`$ is positive, as expected if the higher mobility charge-carrier preferentially leaves the vicinity of the surface. Note that $`\delta \rho (x)`$ changes in sign as $`x`$ increases, as needed to produce a dipole layer.

From (22) and (30), the total electrostatic potential is

$$\delta \varphi (x)=\frac{Ge^2}{ϵ_0ϵk_BT}\frac{(\mu _n\mu _p)}{\mu _n\mu _p}\frac{q_D^1e^{q_Dx}q_S^1e^{q_Sx}}{q_S^2q_D^2}.$$
(34)
To compare with experiment, (34) gives the Dember voltage $`\varphi _{Dem}\delta \varphi (x=0)`$ as

$$\varphi _{Dem}=\frac{Ge^2}{ϵ_0ϵk_BT}\frac{(\mu _n\mu _p)}{\mu _n\mu _p}\frac{1}{q_Sq_D}\frac{1}{q_S+q_D}.$$
(35)
Discussion. Eq.(29) makes numerous predictions. First, since typically $`\mu _n>\mu _p`$, $`\varphi _{Dem}`$ is positive, as expected for a dipole layer with positive charge closer to the surface. Further, since typically $`q_Dq_S`$, the term $`q_Sq_D(q_S+q_D)q_S^2q_D`$. The dependences of $`q_S`$ on $`n`$ and $`ϵ`$, and of $`q_D`$ on $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$, show that $`\varphi _{Dem}`$ varies inversely with carrier density $`n`$, as the square root of the characteristic recombination time $`\tau `$, as the inverse square root of the characteristic mobility $`\mu `$, and is independent of $`ϵ`$.

The dependence on $`n`$ explains why $`\varphi _{Dem}`$ is observed in materials with relatively low carrier densities. The dependence on $`\tau `$ indicates that $`\varphi _{Dem}`$ is larger for longer recombination times; the dependence on $`\mu `$ indicates that $`\varphi _{Dem}`$ is larger for lower mobilities.

Figures 1-4 are computed for an intrinsic semiconductor with equilibrium carrier number density $`n_0=p_0=n_i=10^{16}`$ m-3, recombination time $`\tau =10^5`$ s, electron mobility $`\mu _n=1000`$ cm2/(V-s), hole mobility $`\mu _p=200`$ cm2/(V-s), room temperature $`k_BT=0.0253`$ eV, and dielectric constant $`ϵ=10`$. These values give $`l=26.4\mu `$m and $`L=64.8\mu `$m. From (28), the ratio of the contributions of the diffusion mode and the screening mode to the Dember voltages is $`q_D^1/q_S^1=L/l`$. Taking $`G=10^{17}`$ m-2s-1 gives $`\varphi _{Dem}=9.22`$ mV, of which the diffusion mode is responsible for 15.56 mV and the screening mode $`6.34`$ mV. The theory, which is valid for $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_e`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\mu }_h`$ small relative to $`k_BT`$, becomes invalid for significantly larger $`G`$.

Fig.1 presents $`\delta \varphi `$ and $`\delta \rho `$. Note that $`\delta \varphi `$ is monotonic, whereas $`\delta \rho `$ changes sign, so that the system can be overall neutral. Fig.2 presents the number densities $`n`$ and $`p`$ associated with $`\delta \rho `$ of Fig.1. The curves sketched (but not computed) in Ref. (Fig.V.3) agree qualitatively with Figs.1 and 2.

The individual charge densities $`\rho `$ due to the diffusion-recombination and screening modes are presented in Fig.3. Note that $`\delta n_S/\delta p_S=1`$ and $`\delta n_D/\delta p_D=1.306`$ for the present parameters. (Increasing both mobilities by a factor of ten would give $`\delta n_D/\delta p_D=1.022`$.) Hence quasineutrality is not a good approximation for either mode. The charge density for the screening mode is positive and concentrated near the surface, whereas the charge density for the diffusion-recombination mode is negative and more extended. Note that numerical solutions of the macroscopic transport equations for semiconductors normally do not assume quasineutrality, so they retain the full physics. However, they do not permit extensive physical interpretation.

Fig.4 presents the bulk charge density $`\delta \rho `$ for $`\mu _n`$ and $`\mu _p`$ as above ($`\mu _p/\mu _n=0.2`$), and for three additional values of $`\mu _p/\mu _n`$. $`\delta \rho `$ and $`\varphi _{Dem}`$ increase with the difference in the electron and hole mobilities.

Surface solutions also are relevant to current flow across interfaces. Already in the nineteenth century, Maxwell noted that for current flow between two single-carrier materials charge builds up at the interface; however, without a more microscopic theory it is not possible to determine how much charge is associated with each material. A similar effect must occur at a semiconductor-metal interface, even without the complexities associated with modification of the Schottky barrier. Surface solutions likely are present in recent numerical studies showing that spin injection in a semiconductor (e.g., by preferential absorption of polarized light) persists across a $`pn`$ junction. Such a system, with up and down electrons and with unpolarized holes, should have three surface modes: one screening mode and two diffusion-recombination modes. The rapid falloff of spin polarization at one end of the system is evidence for surface solutions induced by what the authors of Ref.  consider to be an artificial boundary condition.

The present multi-carrier system, with a finite diffusion-recombination length $`L`$, is non-neutral only over a finite distance from the disturbance. On the other hand, a multi-carrier system with no recombination (and thus $`L\mathrm{}`$) can be non-neutral in the bulk, far from a disturbance.

We would like to thank A. Zangwill for a critical reading of the manuscript. WMS would like to acknowledge the Department of Energy for its support from DOE Grant No. DE-FG03-96ER45598.