text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The radiation from a black hole known as the Hawking radiation has a thermal spectrum . In the case of a Schwarzschild black hole, its temperature, namely, the Hawking temperature is inversely proportional to mass of the black hole. The black hole is losing its mass by the Hawking radiation and it is increasing its Hawking temperature. At the final stage of the radiation, its temperature and its intensity explosively increase, therefore the final stage of the black hole is very interesting to particle physicists .

Several authors discussed that the heating-up by the Hawking radiation can thermalize the neighborhood of the black hole and thermal phase transition around the black hole can arise. The QCD phase transition  and the electroweak (EW) phase transition  have been discussed. The local phase-transition around the black hole means the formation of the spherical domain wall which separates region of the symmetric-phase and that of the broken-phase. The baryon number production and the electroweak baryogenesis scenario have been proposed as an application of the spherical wall .

The Hawking temperature should be much greater than the critical temperature of the phase transition to consider the formation of the wall with the thermal phase transition. The mean free paths for the radiated particles are much longer than the Schwarzschild radius and we should confirm the local thermal equilibrium around the black hole to consider the thermal phase transition. Therefore the Hawking temperature should be much higher than the critical temperature to guarantee the local thermal equilibrium with the critical temperature. However, it is natural to ask if the Hawking radiation whose temperature is equal to or greater than the critical temperature influences the Higgs vacuum expectation value (vev) locally.

In this paper, we discuss a Hawking radiation in the gauge-Higgs-Yukawa systems, e.g., the Standard Model (SM) and the Grand Unified Theory (GUT), and we show that a structure of the spherical domain wall around the black hole arises by the field dynamics of the system. It seems that we need to consider the full dynamics of the field theory to discuss the phenomenon around the black hole and it will be technically difficult, however, only a part of interaction is relevant to the subject because the mean free paths for the gauge interaction is much longer than the radius of the black hole and it simplifies the analysis. The relevants are interactions between the Hawking-radiated particles and the Higgs vev. The radiated particles can be regard as ballistic because of their long mean-free-paths. By founding on these properties, we propose a effective model with a ballistic approximation. Our model consists from the action for the Higgs field and that for the relativistic point particles radiated from the black hole. We derive an effective action for the Higgs field which determines the structure of the Higgs vev around the black hole. By considering the effective action, the formation of the spherical domain wall around the black hole is shown when the Hawking temperature is equal or greater than the energy scale of the Higgs-Yukawa system. We will call this mechanism the dynamical formation of the spherical wall in distinction from the thermal formation of the spherical wall. As realistic cases, the formation of the EW wall and that of the GUT wall are discussed.

We also discuss a mechanism of the spontaneous charging-up of the black hole as one of applications of the spherical wall. We assume the following two conditions: (i) a CP-broken phase in the spherical wall and (ii) a chiral charge assignment of fermions in the field theory, namely, a C-violation of the theory. The Hawking radiation is neutral for the charge, however the spherical wall has a reflection-asymmetry for the charge on the assumptions. Therefore a charge-transport-mechanism from the wall to the black hole works and it charges-up the black hole. This mechanism is a variant application of the charge transport scenario in the electroweak baryogenesis model proposed by Cohen, Kaplan and Nelson . The two assumptions are equivalent to two of the Sakharov’s three conditions for the baryogenesis . In the case of the black hole whose Hawking temperature is EW scale, the black hole can obtain a large amount of the hyper charge. The black hole with GUT temperature can also obtain several charge.

The paper is organized as follows; In Section 2, the formation mechanism of the spherical wall is discussed. In Section 3, a mechanism for the spontaneous charging-up of the black hole is discussed. In section 4 we provide a conclusion and discussions.

## 2 Dynamical Formation of Spherical Domain Wall

We will consider a Hawking radiation in the gauge-Higgs-Yukawa system like the Standard Model (SM). Especially, we will discuss dynamics of the Higgs field around the black hole whose Hawking temperature is the same energy scale of the system, e.g., the critical temperature. In the situation, the mean free paths from the gauge interactions are much greater than the length scale for the black hole , therefore, most of the gauge interactions are not important. The relevants are the Yukawa interactions for the heavy fermions and the gauge interactions between the Higgs and heavy gauge bosons. These particles obtain their heavy mass from the Higgs vacuum expectation value (vev) through the interactions. Inversely we can expect that the particles radiated from the black hole with high energy and with high density deform the Higgs vev around the black hole. It seems that we need full calculation for the field dynamics to consider the deformation of the Higgs vev exactly. However we can employ the ballistic approximation for the radiated particles because the mean free paths are enough long and the only yukawa-type interactions are relevant. Namely, the deformation of the Higgs vev can be discussed by the relativistic semi-classical kinematics of the each radiated ballistic particles through the relevant interactions. The approximated system should have Lorentz invariance and any ballistic particles obtain their mass by the Higgs vev. To discuss the deformation in the ballistic approximation, we propose a kind of Higgs-Yukawa model with relativistic point particles which satisfies the required conditions and describes the relevant interactions efficiently. Our system is described by the action for a Higgs field $`\varphi (x)`$ with a Higgs potential $`V(\varphi )`$ and the action for relativistic point particles $`\{y_i^\mu (s)\}`$. We will use metric convention $`g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(+1,1,1,1)`$ and the action is given by a Nambu-Goto type action The action for the ordinary relativistic point particle with mass $`m`$ is given by $`𝑑sm\sqrt{|\dot{y(s)}|^2}`$. Our action describes point particles which obtain their mass by the Higgs vev.:

$`S[\varphi ,y]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left[(\varphi )^2V(\varphi )\right]}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑s_iY_i|\varphi \left(y_i(s_i)\right)|\sqrt{|\dot{y}_i(s_i)|^2}},`$ (1)
where $`\dot{y}_i^\mu dy_i^\mu /ds_i`$ and $`Y_i`$ is a Yukawa coupling constant for the point particle $`i`$. The summation in equation (1) takes over all particles. The Higgs potential in the vacuum is given by the double-well form:

$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{v^2}}\varphi ^4,`$ (2)
which has a minimum at $`|\varphi |=v/\sqrt{2}`$ and the constant $`\mu ^2>0`$ is the Higgs mass, therefore mass of the particle $`i`$ is given by $`m_i=Y_i\varphi =Y_iv/\sqrt{2}`$ in the vacuum.

To calculate effective action for the Higgs field, we will fix gauge for the point particles as $`s_i=x^0=y_i^0(x^0)`$. Then we have $`\sqrt{|\dot{y}_i(x^0)|^2}=\sqrt{1|𝐯_i(x^0)|^2}1/\gamma _i(x^0)`$, where $`𝐯_i(x^0)`$ is 3-velocity for the particle $`i`$. The action becomes

$`S[\varphi ,𝐲]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left[(\varphi )^2V(\varphi )\underset{i}{}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲_i(x^0))Y_i\frac{|\varphi \left(x\right)|}{\gamma _i(x^0)}\right]}.`$ (3)
By using the definition of the 4-momentum for the particle $`i`$:

$`p_{i\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{y}_i^\mu }}=Y_i\varphi (y_i){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{y}_{i\mu }}{\sqrt{|\dot{y_i}|^2}}}=Y_i\varphi (y_i)\gamma _i(1,𝐯_i)(E_i,𝐩_i),`$ (4)
the equation of motion for the particle becomes

$`\dot{p}_{i\mu }+Y_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _i}}_\mu \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (5)
The propagating modes for the Higgs can be regarded as being taken into the ballistic particles due to the ballistic approximation, therefore the Higgs field $`\varphi (x)`$ can be considered as the Higgs expectation value and it is independent of time $`x^0`$, namely, $`_0\varphi =0`$. This assumption simplifies the equation of the motion in equation (5) and

$`E_i`$ $`=`$ $`Y_i\varphi \gamma _i`$ (6)
becomes a constant of the motion. The constant $`E_i`$ is the energy of the particle $`i`$ at the rest frame. When we put the trajectories for all particles $`\{𝐲_i(x^0)\}`$ with their energy-constants $`\{E_i\}`$, we obtain the effective action for the Higgs field

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left[(\varphi )^2V(\varphi )\underset{i}{}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲_i(x^0))Y_i^2\frac{\varphi ^2(x)}{E_i}\right]}.`$ (7)
Here we adopt the differential particle number-density $`dE\times 𝒩_f(x;E)`$ for particle species $`f`$. The effective action for the Higgs field can be written down as

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left[(\varphi )^2V(\varphi )\varphi ^2\underset{f}{}Y_f^2\frac{dE}{E}𝒩_f(E;x)\right]},`$ (8)
where the summation in the equation (8) takes over all particle-species in the theory. Then the effective potential should be

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi ,x)`$ $`=`$ $`+\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(x)\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{v^2}}\varphi ^4,`$ (9)
where we have defined the effective $`\mu ^2`$ as

$`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}Y_f^2{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{E}𝒩_f(E;x)}.`$ (10)
Next we consider that the particle distribution $`𝒩_f(E;x)`$ is produced by the Hawking radiation form the Schwarzschild black hole with mass $`m_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. By the Hawking process, the black hole radiates all particles in the field theory with Hawking temperature $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}{m_{\mathrm{BH}}}`$ from the horizon whose radius is given by the Schwarzschild radius $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}`$. The particle distribution near the black hole is approximately given by

$`dE𝒩_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_f}{(2\pi )^3}}f_{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}(E)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi E^2dE\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{\mathrm{BH}}}{r}}\right)^2,`$ (11)
where

$`f_{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}(E)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{E/T_{\mathrm{BH}}}\pm 1}}`$ (12)
is Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac distribution function with temperature $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. The leading contribution from the Hawking radiation is given by the equation (11). We have ignored the backreaction from the produced wall into the distribution of the particles, namely, we have ignored the contribution from the non-uniform configuration of the Higgs field which is depending on the distance from the black hole. We note that the ignored contribution to the particle trajectories can be evaluated by solving the equation $`|\dot{𝐲}_i|^2=1(Y_i\varphi (𝐲_i)/E_i)^2`$ derived from equation (6) and it will be a future subject.

By substituting the equation (11) into the equation (10), we obtain

$`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{r^2}},`$ (13)
where

$`\alpha ^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{768\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}Y_f^2\stackrel{~}{g}_f`$ (14)
is a constant depending on the field theory and we have defined the effective $`g_f`$ as

$`\stackrel{~}{g}_f`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}g_f& (f:\mathrm{boson})\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}g_f& (f:\mathrm{fermion})\hfill \end{array}`$ (17)
Here we find that the sign of $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ is reversed at $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}\alpha /\mu `$, namely, $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ is negative for $`r>r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$ is positive for $`r<r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$. Therefore, the local-vacuum for the Higgs field is depending of the distance form the black hole and we can expect the existence of the spherical domain wall with radius $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ when $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}<r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$. The distribution of the Higgs potential $`V(\varphi ,r)`$ around the black hole is shown in Figure 1. The value of the Higgs field which minimizes the effective potential is

$`\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{\mathrm{DW}}}{r}}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}& (r>r_{\mathrm{DW}})\hfill \\ 0& (rr_{\mathrm{DW}})\hfill \end{array}.`$ (20)
The (continuous varying) vacuum depending of the position is one of the distinctive feature in the non-equilibrium system. Such situations and the relation to the formation of the domain wall had been discussed by several authors .

The form of the Higgs vev around a black hole, namely, the structure of the domain wall can be calculated as a spherically-symmetric stationary solution of the motion equation of the Higgs field with the effective potential:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (r)={\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi ,r),`$ (21)
where the boundary condition $`\varphi (r\mathrm{})=v/\sqrt{2}`$ is required. The equation (21) can be solved numerically and the result is shown in the Figure 2. The form of the Higgs vev is depending on the parameter $`\alpha `$ which is defined in equation (14). Generally speaking, the curve of the Higgs vev $`\varphi (r)`$ approaches the $`\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}(r)`$ when the parameter $`\alpha `$ becomes large. Here we find that the Hawking radiation can form the spherical wall or wall-like structure around the black hole for the non-zero $`\alpha `$ and the radius of the spherical wall is characterized by the parameter $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$.

The characteristic radius for the wall is given by $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}=\alpha /\mu `$ as discussed previously. It should be noticed that the characteristic radius $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ is not depending on the Hawking temperature then the form of the wall is not so changing after the formation of the wall to the evaporation of the black hole. The Schwarzschild radius of the black hole $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ should be smaller than the characteristic radius of the wall $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ for the formation of the wall then the condition for the wall-existence is

$`1`$ $`<`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{\mathrm{DW}}}{r_{\mathrm{BH}}}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}{\mu }}.`$ (22)
Now we can discuss the formation of the domain wall in the realistic field theories, e.g., the electroweak (EW) theory and the grand unified theory (GUT). In the case of the EW domain wall, the heavy particles which contribute to create the wall are the top quarks, the weak bosons $`Z^0`$, $`W^\pm `$ and the Higgs bosons, and approximately we have

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{EW}}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{768\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}Y_f^2\stackrel{~}{g}_f\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/200.`$ (23)
The critical Hawking-temperature for the dynamical formation of the spherical EW wall becomes

$`T_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{EW}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{4\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{EW}}}}\mu .`$ (24)
Therefore the Hawking radiation produces the spherical EW domain wall whose structure is given in the Figure 2 with $`\alpha ^2=\alpha _{\mathrm{EW}}^20.005`$ when the Hawking temperature of the black hole is similar to or greater than the EW scale. The characteristic radius of the wall is given by

$`r_{\mathrm{DW}}^{\mathrm{EW}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{\mathrm{EW}}/\mu \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.07}/\mu `$ (25)
In the case of the $`SU(5)`$-GUT, there are, at least, lepto-quarks $`X,Y`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}`$-Higgs $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as heavy particles with the GUT scale mass $`\mu _{\mathrm{GUT}}10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$. The same analysis results

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{GUT}}^2`$ $``$ $`1/70,`$ (26)
$`T_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ $``$ $`0.7\mu _{\mathrm{GUT}},`$ (27)
$`r_{\mathrm{DW}}^{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ $``$ $`0.1/\mu _{\mathrm{GUT}}.`$ (28)
Then the spherical GUT wall around the black hole is also formed when the Hawking temperature is greater than the GUT scale. Finally we can discuss that the dynamical spherical wall around a black hole may be formed in most of the field theory which has a Higgs mechanism when the Hawking temperature is greater than the energy scale of the field theory.

## 3 Spontaneous Charging-up of the Black Hole

We will discuss that the Hawking radiation can charge up the black hole by the effect of the spherical domain wall which has been discussed. We need two assumptions such that (i) the domain wall has CP-broken phase and (ii) the field theory has fermions with chiral charge assignment. The Standard Model satisfies the second assumptions because the left-handed quark and the right-handed quark have different hyper charges. When the first assumption is satisfied, the reflection rate on the wall of the left-handed fermions is different from that of the right-handed fermions. Therefore the domain wall has a charge-reflection-asymmetry when both assumptions are satisfied. The Hawking radiation is charge-neutral, however, the black hole obtains net charge by the effect of the domain wall because a part of the reflected particles return into the black hole, namely the net charge is transported to the black hole. This process is similar to the “charge transport mechanism/scenario by the thin wall” in the electroweak baryogenesis proposed by Cohen, Kaplan and Nelson . In the charge transport scenario of the electroweak baryogenesis, the hyper charge is transported from the thin EW wall to the region of the symmetric phase and it boosts up the baryon number creation by the sphaleron process. On the other hands, our charge-transportation charges up the black hole.

The charging-up-rate for the black hole is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{dt}}=\sigma _{\mathrm{BH}}\times C_{\mathrm{fcs}}F_Q,`$ (29)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is the cross section for the absorption to the black hole, $`F_Q`$ is the reflected charge flux at the wall and the dimensionless parameter $`C_{\mathrm{fcs}}`$ is a focusing factor. The absorption-cross-section for the Schwarzschild black hole is given by

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{BH}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}4\pi r_{\mathrm{BH}}^2\hfill & (r_{\mathrm{BH}}\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}r_{\mathrm{DW}})\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \frac{27\pi }{4}}r_{\mathrm{BH}}^2\hfill & (r_{\mathrm{BH}}r_{\mathrm{DW}})\hfill \end{array}.`$ (34)
The cross section is given by the horizon area when the radius of the black hole $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is similar to or a little smaller than the characteristic radius of the domain wall $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$. In the case of $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$, the reflected particles at the wall are regarded as the incoming particles from the infinite distance to the black hole, therefore we should adopt the absorption-cross-section as $`\sigma _{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{27\pi }{4}r_{\mathrm{BH}}^2`$ rather than the horizon area. The difference among these cross sections is only factor one and the spontaneous charging-up mechanism mainly works for $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$, then we will use the horizon area as the cross section.

In the spherical reflector, any particles radiated from neighborhood of the center of the reflector return to neighborhood of the center when they are reflected. Then the reflected flux at the horizon is different from the reflected flux at the spherical wall. This is a focusing effect by the spherical reflector. The effect increases the flux at the horizon compared with the flux at the wall $`F_Q`$. The flux at the horizon can be written down as $`C_{\mathrm{fcs}}F_Q`$ by the focusing factor $`C_{\mathrm{fcs}}1`$. We have $`(r_{\mathrm{BH}}/r_{\mathrm{DW}})^2\times C_{\mathrm{fcs}}=1`$ when the effect maximally works and we have $`C_{\mathrm{fcs}}=1`$ in the absence of the effect.

The charge flux at the wall is given by

$`F_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f\mathrm{Fermions}}{}}{\displaystyle _{E>m_f}}𝑑E𝒩_f(E;r_{\mathrm{DW}})\mathrm{\Delta }Q_f\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(E).`$ (35)
The summation in the equation is taking over all species of the chiral-charged fermions and the particle-species $`f`$ does not distinguish both the chirality of the particle and the particle/anti-particle. The number $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_fQ_{f_L}Q_{f_R}`$ means the difference between the charge of left-handed fermion $`f_L`$ and that of right-handed fermion $`f_R`$. These numbers are related to the C-violation for the theory. The value

$`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(E)`$ $``$ $`R_{f_Rf_L}(E)R_{\overline{f}_R\overline{f}_L}(E)`$ (36)
describes the difference of the reflection-probabilities, where the reflection-probability $`R_{f_Rf_L}(E)`$ means a probability of that the left-handed fermion $`f_R`$ with energy $`E`$ is reflected to the right-handed fermion $`f_L`$ and the reflection-probability $`R_{\overline{f}_R\overline{f}_L}(E)`$ means the same for the anti-fermions $`\overline{f}_R\overline{f}_L`$. These probabilities are functions for the energy of the particles $`E`$. The non-zero value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(E)`$ is related with the CP-broken phase assumed in the wall and can be calculated in the way discussed by the Cohen Kaplan and Nelson  when we put the profile of the CP-broken phase in the wall.

To evaluate the reflection asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(E)`$ of the wall around the black hole, we assume the profile of the CP-broken phase in the wall:

$`\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`f(r)\times \mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{CP}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{f(r)}{v/\sqrt{2}}}\right)\right],`$ (37)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{CP}}`$ is the amount of the CP-broken phase in the wall and the function $`f(r)`$ is the profile of the Higgs field in the wall. The profile function $`f(r)`$ is solution of the motion equation of the Higgs field with effective potential in the equation (21) and it is depending of the parameter $`\alpha `$ defined in equation (14). The wall given in equation (37) is defined for $`r>r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. By substituting equation (11) into equation (35), the charge flux becomes

$`F_Q`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{\mathrm{BH}}}{r_{\mathrm{DW}}}}\right)^2C_{\mathrm{fcs}}\times {\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}g_f\mathrm{\Delta }Q_fm_f^3\mathrm{\Delta }(m_f,T_{\mathrm{BH}}),`$ (38)
where we have defined dimensionless function depending on the wall profile

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_f,T_{\mathrm{BH}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi \xi ^2f_{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}(m_f\xi )\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(m_f\xi ).`$ (39)
We have numerically evaluated $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f(m_f,T_{\mathrm{BH}})`$ for the wall in equation (37) according to the method proposed by Cohen Kaplan and Nelson . In the case of maximum CP-violated wall $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{CP}}=\pi `$, we obtain the dependence of the dimensionless coefficient $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f(m_f,T_{\mathrm{BH}})`$ in Figure 3. In this calculation we have assumed $`\mu =m_f`$ for the simplicity.

The black hole with the Hawking temperature $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ has a finite lifetime $`\tau _{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{20}{\pi ^2g_{}}\frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}{T_{\mathrm{BH}}^3}`$, where $`g_{}`$ is the total degree of freedom with a fermion correction. The total charge transported to the black hole in his lifetime by the effect of the wall is

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle ^{\tau _{\mathrm{BH}}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{dt}}`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{15}{\pi ^3g_{}}}m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}g_f\mathrm{\Delta }Q_fm_f^3{\displaystyle _{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dT}{T^6}}\mathrm{\Delta }(m_f,T),`$
where we have assumed the maximum focusing effect. The integration in the equation (40) can be performed by using the numerical form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The numerical results $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\mu =m_f`$ in Figure 3 have meaningful value for $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}>\mu `$ and they are exponentially dumping for $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}<\mu `$. Therefore we have approximately

$`Q`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\pi ^3}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu ,\mu )\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}{\mu }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_f}{g_{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }Q_f,`$ (41)
where we have assumed a simplification $`m_f=\mu `$ for all related fermions $`f`$ and we have assumed the initial Hawking temperature $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is similar to or smaller than the energy scale of the field theory $`\mu `$. Our numerical analysis results $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu ,\mu )10^4`$ for $`\alpha ^2=1/100`$ as the realistic field theories, then we have

$`Q`$ $``$ $`10^5\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}{\mu }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_f\mathrm{\Delta }Q_f}{g_{}}}.`$ (42)
Finally we conclude that the spherical wall can charge up the black hole non-trivially when the energy scale of the wall satisfies $`\mu \begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}10^3\times m_{\mathrm{pl}}10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

In the case of a black hole whose Hawking temperature is the EW scale $`\mu 100\mathrm{GeV}`$, the spherical EW wall arises and the hyper charge $`Y`$ is transported to the black hole by assuming CP-broken phase in the wall. Mainly the top quarks, $`g_f=3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_f=1/2`$, carry the charge to the black hole. The total transported hyper charge is given by $`Q10^{27}`$, then we consider the spontaneous charging up mechanism of the black hole can work strongly. In the case of a black hole with GUT temperature, several charge can be transported to the black hole. The amount of the charge is depending on the chiral charge assignment $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_f`$ of the GUT.

## 4 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSIONS

In this paper the Hawking radiation in a kind of Higgs-Yukawa system is discussed and a dynamical formation of the spherical domain wall is shown. An action for the many relativistic point particles (Nambu-Goto like action) with Higgs coupling and the ordinary Higgs action with double well potential are adopted to describe the system. We expect that the system approximately describes the Higgs-Yukawa system which is consist from the ordinary Dirac action and the bosonic actions. Our action simplifies the analysis the Higgs vev structure around a black hole as compared with solving the Dirac/Weyl equations.

The black hole has been assumed as an heat source with Hawking temperature in our analysis, namely, the general relativistic effects are omitted. Reliable treatments for general relativistic corrections for the Hawking-radiated particles do not have been known. For example, the blue-shift effect near the horizon for the radiated particles is arise when we consider that the radiated particles obeys the Schwarzschild metric. The blue-shift effect implies that the energy of the radiated particles near horizon is much higher than the Hawking temperature and we can discuss that any low Hawking-temperature black hole produces the domain wall dynamically or thermally, therefore, the effect is not acceptable widely.

In our calculation, we have evaluated the influence from the radiated particles into the effective potential for the Higgs field, however, the influence from the wall into the motion of the radiated particle, namely, the backreaction is neglected for simplicity. The form of the spherical wall may be slightly deformed by the backreaction. The issue of the backreaction will be future subject.

We have also discussed the mechanism of the spontaneous charging up of the black hole by the effect of the spherical domain wall. The mechanism can work when C-violation of the field theory and CP-broken phase in the wall are assumed. Our analysis results that the mechanism can work when the initial Hawking temperature of the black hole is smaller than about $`10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$. The spherical EW domain wall by the black hole with EW temperature can transport a large amount of hyper charge to the black hole. The black hole with GUT temperature can obtain several charge.

We have discussed the spontaneous charging up of the black hole. On the other hand, a mechanism for the charge loss of the black hole has been discussed. Gibbons first proposed this subject by the semi-classical method  and Gabriel discussed that this result can be confirmed recently by the functional method . They discussed that the charged black hole loses its charge by the pair creation of the charged particles because of the strong electric field around the black hole, namely, a kind of Schwinger process works to discharge the black hole. These calculation are reliable only for $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}>1/m_e`$ where $`m_e`$ is mass of electron, namely the radius of the black hole should be greater than the Compton wave length of the electron. Several authors discuss the subject for the charge loss of the smaller black hole $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}<1/m_e`$ , however we do not have common understanding for this subject. We have discussed the spontaneous charging-up of the black hole whose radius is smaller than the EW scale, therefore we can not apply these results of the charge-loss directly to our system. This subject may be related to the remnant of the black hole. Zel’dovich discussed that a black hole leaves a remnant with a Planck mass scale after the end of its Hawking radiation . Both our mechanism for spontaneous charging-up and some mechanism for the charge-loss may be working at the final stage of the black hole evaporation. We may expect that a remnant with several (hyper) charge will be left after the end of the Hawking radiation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank M. Nojiri, M. Ninomiya, K. Kohri and K. Shigetomi for their useful discussions and suggestions. YN is indebted to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for its financial support. The work is supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (No. 199903665).


format: text

text:
# Beyond the Bulge: A Fundamental Relation Between Supermassive Black Holes and Dark Matter Halos

## 1. Introduction

Never has the study of supermassive black holes (SBHs) been greeted with such attentiveness as in the past few years. Although by the mid 1960s it was generally recognized that the energy source of the newly discovered quasars must be gravitational (e.g. Robinson 1965), for the following three decades the existence of SBHs was destined to be surrounded by skepticism. By the mid 1990s, a few years after the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope, it was widely accepted (Kormendy & Richstone 1995). Today, SBHs feature prominently in models for the formation and evolution of their host galaxies (e.g. Silk & Rees 1998). Freed from the burden of having to demonstrate the very existence of SBHs, we can now begin asking cardinal questions: how did SBHs form, how do they accrete, how do they evolve, and what role do they play in the formation of cosmic structure?

Tackling such questions has been made possible by the discovery that SBHs are tightly related to the large-scale properties of their host galaxies. Black holes masses, $`M_{}`$, correlate with the blue luminosity $`L_B`$ of the host bulge (Kormendy & Richstone 1995). Even more compelling is the correlation between $`M_{}`$ and the bulge velocity dispersion, $`M_{}\sigma ^\alpha `$ (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000). Using the most up-to-date set of SBH mass measurements such a correlation can be written as:

$$M_{}=(1.66\pm 0.32)\times 10^8(\sigma _c/200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)^{4.58\pm 0.52}M_{}$$
(1)
(Ferrarese 2002), where $`\sigma _c`$ is normalized to an aperture of size one eighth the bulge effective radius. The $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation has supplanted the $`M_{}L_B`$ relation as the tool of choice for the study of SBH demographics (Ferrarese 2002; Yu & Tremaine 2002), for the following reasons. The $`M_{}L_B`$ relation suffers from a large scatter (a factor of several in $`M_{}`$, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000), most (but not all) of which is ascribable to lenticular and spiral galaxies (McLure & Dunlop 2002). The $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation, on the other hand, appears to be intrinsically perfect (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Merritt & Ferrarese 2001a; Ferrarese 2002). It holds true for galaxies of disparate Hubble types (from SBs to compact ellipticals to cDs) belonging to wildly different environments (from rich clusters to the field), showing perfectly smooth (e.g. NGC 6251) or highly disturbed (e.g. NGC 5128) morphologies. Furthermore, $`\sigma `$ is a more faithful gauge of mass than $`L_B`$: the $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation thus betrays the existence of a tight connection between the masses of SBHs and those of the hot stellar component surrounding them (Merritt & Ferrarese 2001b).

Have we indeed found, in the $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation, the fossil record that links the formation and evolution of SBHs to those of their host galaxies? The $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation, and the equally tight relation recently discovered by Graham et al. (2001) between $`M_{}`$ and the central concentration of bulge light, probe the connection between SBHs and the baryonic component of galactic bulges. Measurements of $`\sigma `$ typically do not extend far enough to penetrate the region dominated by the dark matter (DM) component (Faber & Gallagher 1979). And yet, it is not the mass of the bulge but rather, the total mass $`M_{tot}`$ of the galaxy or the mass $`M_{DM}`$ of the DM halo, which is the key ingredient in most theoretical models proposed for the formation of SBHs (Adams, Graff & Richstone 2000; Monaco et al. 2000; Haehnelt, Natarajan & Rees 1998; Silk & Rees 1998; Haehnelt & Kauffmann 2000; Cattaneo, Haehnelt & Rees 1999; Loeb & Rasio 1994). Once a correlation with $`M_{tot}`$ (or $`M_{DM}`$) is recovered by the models, the correlation with bulge mass is implicit because, in standard CDM scenarios, the bulge mass is loosely determined by the halo properties (e.g. van den Bosch 2000; Haehnelt, Natarajan & Rees 1998; Zhang & Wyse 2000).

This paper pursues, from an observational standpoint, the possibility of a link between $`M_{}`$, $`M_{tot}`$ and $`M_{DM}`$. A tight correlation is indeed found in the form of a relation between $`M_{}`$ and the circular velocity of the SBH host galaxy, measured well beyond the optical radius.

## 2. Database

Measuring the total gravitational mass of a galaxy is a formidable challenge. In bright ellipticals, the temperature and density distribution of the thermal X-ray gas can lead to a measure of $`M_{tot}`$ under the minimal condition of hydrostatic equilibrium (e.g. Fabricant, Rybicki & Gorenstein 1984). However, while much progress is expected as Chandra data are collected,

previous generations of X-ray satellites lacked the necessary combination of spectral response and sensitivity to allow an accurate measurement of all required observables (e.g. Biermann et al. 1989; Awaki et al. 1994; Matsushita et al. 1998). Stars, globular cluster and planetary nebulae (PNe) are good tracers of the gravitational potential (e.g. Saglia et al. 2000; Côté et al. 2001; Arnaboldi et al. 1998). However, the derived masses suffer large uncertainties due to the unknown velocity anisotropy of the system and, in particular for the case of PNe, the small sample size of the tracers (Napolitano et al. 2001; Merritt & Tremblay 1993).

In spiral galaxies, however, the rotation curves of the cold disk component bear the direct imprint of the mass distribution. Indeed, the lack of a decline in the circular velocity $`\text{v}_c`$ at radii of order and beyond the optical radius of spirals was one of the first indications of the existence of a significant dark matter component (Rubin, Ford & Thonnard 1978, 1980; Rubin, Thonnard & Ford 1977; Krumm & Salpeter 1979). To first order, therefore, a relation between $`M_{}`$ and $`M_{tot}`$ would be reflected in a relation between $`M_{}`$ and $`\text{v}_c`$.

Of the four spiral galaxies with a secure measurement of $`M_{}`$ (see the compilation by Merritt & Ferrarese 2002) only two, the Milky Way and NGC 4258, have published rotation curves, both derived from 21-cm studies (Olling & Merrifield 1998; van Albada 1980). However, the sample can be augmented if one is willing to exchange $`M_{}`$ for the bulge velocity dispersion $`\sigma _c`$, following equation (1). Of all spirals for which $`\sigma `$ has been measured, 46 have rotation curves, either in HI (21 objects) or optical (25 objects). For six of the galaxies with an HI rotation curve, warnings are found in the original papers as to the use of the published circular velocities for mass measurements. Reasons include warps in the HI disk preventing one from deprojecting the observed rotation curve (NGC 4565, Rupen 1991; NGC 891, Rogstad & Shostak 1972; NGC 1808, Saika et al.

1980, Koribalski et al. 1993) and/or the presence of significant non-circular motion in the HI gas (NGC 3079, Irwin & Seaquist 1991; NGC 3031, Rots & Shane 1975; NGC 4736, van der Kruit 1974). For two of the galaxies with an optical rotation curve (NGC 3200 and NGC 7171), two values of $`\sigma `$ discrepant at the $`>99.9`$% level exist in the literature (McElroy 1995; Whitmore et al. 1984; Dressler 1984); these galaxies have also been excluded from the sample.

Data and references for the remaining 38 galaxies are given in Table 1. To allow for the application of equation (1), the bulge velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ is corrected to the equivalent of an aperture of radius $`r_e/8`$ following the prescriptions of Jorgensen, Franx & Kjaergaard (1995). The bulge effective radius $`r_e`$ is taken from Baggett et al. (1998, but see notes to Table 1).

## 3. The $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ Relation

Fig. 1 shows the circular velocity versus the bulge velocity dispersion within $`r_e/8`$ for all galaxies in Table 1. The correlation is immediately apparent, but a few observations are in order.

First, a glance at Table 1 will reveal that the most noticeable difference between the two samples of optical and HI rotation curves is, not surprisingly, that while only two of the optical rotation curves extend beyond $`R_{25}`$, the galaxy radius at the $`B=25`$ mag arcsec-2 isophote, all but one of the HI rotation curves do. Inspection of the original papers shows that the HI rotation curves all exhibit a common pattern. It is well known (e.g. Sofue & Rubin 2001 and references therein) that as one moves away from the center, $`\text{v}_c`$ rises rapidly, peaks somewhere between 3 and 15 kpc, and then remains flat (sometimes after a modest initial decline) until the last measured point, typically $`R(\text{v}_c)=3040`$ kpc. Optical rotation curves rarely extend beyond 10 kpc; at this distance $`\text{v}_c`$ has not yet settled into a flat rotation curve. In Fig. 1, galaxies with rotation curves not extending beyond $`R_{25}`$ (shown as errorbars only) appear to display larger scatter, relative to the mean correlation defined by all galaxies, than the galaxies with a more extended rotation curve.

Second, a simple visual inspection of Fig. 1 shows that among the galaxies with $`R(\text{v}_c)/R_{25}>1`$, NGC 598 (= M33, the galaxy with the lowest value of $`\sigma _c`$ in the plot) is a clear outlier. Furthermore, the two galaxies with $`\sigma _c<70`$ km s-1 seem to have a significantly larger circular velocity that would be inferred if a linear fit (in $`\mathrm{log}\sigma _c\mathrm{log}\text{v}_c`$) were to be performed to the rest of the sample.

To quantify the above statements, we performed a regression analysis (Akritas & Bershady 1996) to all galaxies except NGC 598 (Table 2 and dotted line in Fig. 1). Fig. 2 shows the residuals from the best fit as a function of $`R(\text{v}_c)/R_{25}`$, confirming the larger scatter for galaxies with rotation curves not extending beyond $`R_{25}`$. For the scope of this paper, the usefulness of $`\text{v}_c`$ is directly related to how confidently $`\text{v}_c`$ can be used as an estimator of the total galactic mass, which in turns depends critically on the radial extent of the rotation curve. Therefore, after dutifully noting that the regression analysis produces consistent fits whether the entire sample, or just the galaxies for which $`R(\text{v}_c)/R_{25}>1`$ are used (Table 2), we will only retain the latter sample in the remainder of this paper.

Because of its apparently negligible intrinsic scatter (a reduced $`\chi _r^2`$ of 0.70, Table 2) and the fact that it does not follow directly from simple dynamical arguments (see §3.1), the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation is of obvious interest. However, by targeting only spiral galaxies it lacks generality; furthermore, it samples a narrow range in $`\sigma _c`$, $`90`$ to $`180`$ km s-1. It is interesting to compare the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation observed for the spirals with the one derived recently by Kronawitter et al. (2000) and Gerhard et al. (2001) for a sample of 21 elliptical galaxies. For this sample, circular velocity curves are derived by applying non-parametric spherical models to the observed stellar absorption line profiles, velocity dispersion and surface brightness profiles. Kronawitter et al. conclude that the rotation curves resulting from the models are very likely nearly self-similar: all rotation curves are consistent with being flat outside 0.3$`r_e`$, with $`r_e`$ the galaxy’s effective radius111NGC4486B is the only galaxy for which the models are deemed unreliable, and will not be considered further.. As pointed out by Gerhard et al. (2001), $`\text{v}_c`$ is expected to be linearly related to any other velocity scale, for instance $`\sigma _c`$, as a consequence of the near dynamical homology. The constant of proportionality is likely to depend slightly on the details of the models; Kronawitter et al. (2000) and Gerhard et al. (2001) do not discuss this point explicitely, but by comparing their results to the those obtained by van der Marel (1991) and Lauer (1985) for the same galaxies, variations of the order of a few tens of a percent are possible if different dynamical models are used.

Fig. 3 shows the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation for the combined samples of 16 spirals with $`R(\text{v}_c)/R_{25}>1`$ (solid circles) plus the 20 ellipticals from Kronawitter et al. (2000, open circles). Values of $`\sigma `$ for the ellipticals are taken from Davies et al. (1987), and corrected to a common aperture size as detailed for the bulges. As expected, we recover the correlation between $`\text{v}_c`$ and $`\sigma _c`$ already reported by Gerhard et al. (2001).

The fact that the spiral and elliptical samples follow the same relation is unexpected (see §3.1) and points to a common cause connecting galaxy dynamics at small and large scales across the entire Hubble sequence. A regression analysis to the ellipticals produces a fit consistent with the one obtained for the spirals once the two galaxies with $`\sigma _c<70`$ km s-1 are excluded (fits 3 and 4 in Table 2). If a linear fit is forced, $`\sigma _c=(0.65\pm 0.02)\text{v}_c`$ for the ellipticals and $`\sigma _c=(0.61\pm 0.01)\text{v}_c`$ for the spirals. However, because the correlation between $`\text{v}_{vir}`$ and $`\sigma _c`$ for the ellipticals is partly due to the scale-free nature of the models, we use only the sample of 13 spirals with $`R(\text{v}_c)/R_{25}>1`$ and $`\sigma _c>70`$ km s-1 in deriving the best fit to the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation:

$$\mathrm{log}\text{v}_c=(0.84\pm 0.09)\mathrm{log}\sigma _c+(0.55\pm 0.19)$$
(2)
While this fit is strictly derived in the $`70<\sigma _c<180`$ km s-1 range, it can also be considered valid in the $`120<\sigma _c<350`$ km s-1 range populated by the ellipticals (Fig. 3 and Table 2). As is the case for the $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation, the reduced $`\chi _r^2=0.38`$ of the fit points to a relation with negligible intrinsic scatter.

### 3.1. Is the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ Relation a Tautology?

The tightness of the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation is suprising to the point of arising suspicions that we might be dealing with a tautology.

The most trivial case to consider is the following: a strict proportionality between $`\sigma _c`$ and $`\text{v}_c`$ would result if both responded to the same mass distribution. For instance, if the region within which $`\sigma _c`$ is measured extends to radii where the rotation curve is flat, $`\sigma _c`$ would naturally be linearly related to $`\text{v}_c`$ simply by virtue of the virial theorem. This is not the case for any of the galaxies considered here: even for the bulges with the largest effective radius, $`\sigma _c`$ only samples the innermost 0.5 kpc, while the rotation curve does not settle to a constant velocity until much farther out, typically 4 to 20 kpc. Fig. 4 plots the ratio of bulge central velocity dispersion to disk circular velocity against the ratio of the radii at which the two are measured (the radius at which $`\text{v}_c`$ peaks is taken as a lower limit to the radius at which the circular velocity first settles onto a flat curve). As can be seen, $`R(v_{max})/R(\sigma _c)`$ ranges from values of a few to over 100.

Even so, if rotation curves of spiral galaxies formed a nearly homologous family, as is the case for the elliptical galaxies of Gerhard et al. (2001), $`\text{v}_c`$ or $`\sigma _c`$ would be linearly related

(however, the constant of proportionality would depend on the details of the mass density profile, and there would be no reason for the elliptical and spiral samples to define a common relation). Unlike Gerhard’s ellipticals, however, spiral galaxies show a strong dynamical non-homology: both the profile shape and the amplitude of the rotation curves depend on the galaxy luminosity (Casertano & van Gorkom 1991; Persic, Salucci & Stel 1996). Therefore, a linear relation, or a relation at all, between $`\text{v}_c`$ and $`\sigma _c`$ is not expected a priori.

The two arguments presented above also explain why the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation is not a direct result of the so called “disk-halo conspiracy”. Most rotation curves are characterized by a reasonably flat rotation curve in the outer parts. This implies that the mass density profiles of the luminous and dark matter must be coupled, thereby “conspiring” to produce a flat rotation curve and the absence of conspicuous features marking the edge of the luminous component (Casertano & van Gorkom 1991). However the conspiracy breaks down in the inner, bulge dominated region, which is always characterized by a steeply increasing rotation curve whose detailed shape and overall slope depends strongly on the galaxy luminosity and morphological type (Persic, Salucci & Stel 1996; Sofue et al. 1999). For the galaxies in our sample, only for NGC 2841 the case could be made of a bulge-disk conspiracy: the rotation curve is approximatively flat all the way to the innermost point, $`2`$ kpc (Begeman 1987). In all other cases, the bulge contribution is insignificant by the time the flat part of the rotation curve is reached (Broeils 1992; Kent 1987). In other words there is no direct evidence in these galaxies of a coupling between bulge and halo. At most, a connection between the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation and the disk-halo conspiracy can be thought of in the following terms. A rough correlation exists between maximum rotational velocity and Hubble type (e.g. Casertano & van Gorkom 1991); coupled with the correlation between Hubble type and bulge luminosity and between the latter and the bulge velocity dispersion (Kormendy & Illingworth 1983), a correlation between $`\text{v}_c`$ and $`\sigma _c`$ ensues. However, as in the case for the $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation, which is “expected” given the $`M_{}L_B`$ and the Faber-Jackson relation, the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation is tighter, and therefore more fundamental, than any of the correlations mentioned above.

One last possibility to explore is whether the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation could be nothing but the Tully-Fisher relation in disguise. Verheijen (2001) finds negligible intrinsic scatter for the $`K`$-band Tully-Fisher relation when the circular velocity in the flat part of the rotation curve is substituted to the maximum rotational velocity. The tightness of the relation implies a fundamental connection between DM halo mass and the total baryonic mass. The connection with bulge mass (and hence $`\sigma _c`$) is however not immediate (Norman, Sellwood & Hasan 1996). For instance, the bulge to disk fraction could conceivably depend on the detailed form of the halo angular momentum profile (Bullock et al. 2001) and the details of the angular momentum exchange between gas clouds during dissipation (van den Bosch et al. 2002). It should be further noticed that Verheijen (2001) finds that the Tully-Fisher relation holds with negligible intrinsic scatter down to $`\text{v}_c80`$ km s-1, while the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation shown in Figure 3 seems to break down below $`\text{v}_c150`$ km s-1.

## 4. A Relation Between SBHs and DM Halos

Not being the result of a dynamical tautology, the near invariance of $`\sigma _c/\text{v}_c`$ over two orders of magnitude in $`R(\text{v}_c)/R(\sigma _c)`$ seems to indicate a remarkable uniformity in the (luminous + dark) mass density profile along the Hubble sequence. In particular, characterizing the slope and normalization of the relation might help in constraining theoretical models and numerical simulation (e.g. Steinmetz & Muller 1995) following the formation and evolution of galaxies.

Furthermore, as discussed in §2, the existence of the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation is strongly suggestive of a tight correlation between $`M_{}`$ and the total gravitational mass of the SBH host galaxy. If the rotation curves for all galaxies plotted in Fig. 3 are flat at a distance $`R`$ from the center, i.e. $`\text{v}(R)=\text{v}_c`$, the virial theorem ensures that $`M(R)\text{v}_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. Equations (1) and (2) then imply $`M_{}M(R)^{2.7}`$.

Several proposed scenarios trace the origin of SBHs to the very early stages of structure formation (Cattaneo, Haehnelt & Rees 1999; Silk & Rees 1998; Haehnelt & Rees 1993; Umemura, Loeb & Turner 1993). By defining the depth of the potential well, the mass and distribution of the DM halo control not only the formation of SBHs, but also their relationship to the luminous matter. Relating $`\text{v}_c`$ to $`M_{DM}`$ is no trivial task, but at least a rough attempt can be made as follows. In a CDM-dominated universe, $`M_{DM}`$ is uniquely determined by the halo velocity $`\text{v}_{vir}`$ measured at the virial radius, $`R_{vir}`$. The latter is defined as the radius at which the mean density exceeds the mean universal density by a constant factor, generally referred to as the “virial overdensity” $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}`$. Based on this definition, and in virtue of the virial theorem, it immediately follows that $`M_{DM}`$ must be proportional to the third power of $`\text{v}_{vir}`$. Being a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}`$, the constant of proportionality depends on the adopted cosmology and may vary with time (e.g. Bryan & Norman 1998; Navarro & Steinmetz 2000). For the purpose of this paper, we will adopt the same $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmological model used by Bullock et al. (2001)222$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`h=0.7`$. Under these assumptions:

$$M_{DM}=2.7\times 10^{12}(\text{v}_{vir}/200\text{km s}\text{-1})^3M_{}$$
(3)
(Bullock et al. 2001).

In a zeroth order approximation, we might assume that $`\text{v}_{vir}\text{v}_c`$. Combining equations (1), (2) and (3) gives:

$$\frac{M_{}}{10^8M_{}}0.027\left(\frac{M_{DM}}{10^{12}M_{}}\right)^{1.82}$$
(4)
However, for any reasonable shape of the DM density profile, the circular velocity will decrease towards $`R_{vir}`$, in other words, $`\text{v}_c`$ as listed in Table 1 is most certainly an upper limit to $`\text{v}_{vir}`$. The shape of the rotation curve, and therefore the $`\text{v}_c/\text{v}_{vir}`$ ratio is of course strongly dependent on the assumed DM density profile. We will again follow Bullock et al. (2001) in adopting an NFW profile (Navarro, Frenk & White 1995) characterized by an “inner” radius $`r_s`$. In this specific application, $`\text{v}_{vir}/\text{v}_c(R)`$ is a function of two variables, the concentration parameter $`C_{vir}=R_{vir}/r_s`$ and the ratio $`R/r_s`$ (Bullock et al. 2001). N-body simulations (Bullock et al. 2001) show that for present day halos in the $`10^{11}10^{14}`$ $`M_{}`$ range, $`C_{vir}`$ depends weakly on $`M_{DM}`$: $`C_{vir}5\times 10^2M_{vir}^{0.13}`$, where $`M_{vir}`$ is in units of $`M_{}`$. Therefore, for $`R_{vir}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}\times 10^2`$ kpc (Klypin et al. 2001), $`r_s=R_{vir}/C_{vir}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}\mathrm{to}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}\times 10`$ kpc, i.e. $`r_s`$ is likely sampled by the flat HI rotation curves used in deriving the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation. This is a reasonable conclusion: in the region of space dominated by DM, the turnover in the rotation curve can be roughly expected to coincide with the turnover in the DM density profile. Therefore, by assuming $`R=r_s`$, $`\text{v}_{vir}/\text{v}_c(R)`$ is a function of $`M_{DM}`$ only. By using equation (3) to express $`\text{v}_{vir}`$ as a function of $`M_{DM}`$, Bullock’s et al. results can be approximated as:

$$\frac{M_{DM}}{10^{12}M_{}}1.40\left(\frac{\text{v}_c}{200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^{3.32}.$$
(5)
By using equation (5) to transform $`\text{v}_c`$ to $`M_{DM}`$, and equation (1) to transform $`\sigma _c`$ to $`M_{}`$, equation (2) can be written as (Fig. 5):

$$\frac{M_{}}{10^8M_{}}0.10\left(\frac{M_{DM}}{10^{12}M_{}}\right)^{1.65}$$
(6)
A third, completely independent way of converting the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation into a relation between SBH and DM halo masses is the following. Observational constraints on the mass density profiles of DM halos have been recently derived (Seljak 2002) by combining observations of galaxy-galaxy lensing with the Tully-Fisher and fundamental plane relations. For $`L_{}`$ galaxies, the circular velocity at the virial radius decreases by a factor 1.8 from its peak value at the optical radius. This decline is steeper than predicted by Bullock’s et al. (2001) numerical simulations, possibly due to the neglect, in the latter work, of the baryonic contribution to the rotation curves at optical radii (Seljak 2002).

By assuming $`\text{v}_{vir}/\text{v}_c(R)0.56`$333This is likely a lower limit to $`\text{v}_{vir}/\text{v}_c(R)`$, since the peak circular velocity is $`\text{v}_c(R)`$., the relation between $`M_{DM}`$ and $`M_{}`$ becomes:

$$\frac{M_{}}{10^8M_{}}0.67\left(\frac{M_{DM}}{10^{12}M_{}}\right)^{1.82}$$
(7)
Comparing equations (4), (6) and (7) can give a rough idea of how the functional dependence of $`M_{DM}`$ on $`M_{}`$ depends on the assumptions made for the DM density profile and the resulting rotation curve.

### 4.1. The Significance and Scatter of the $`M_{}M_{DM}`$ Relation

The $`M_{}M_{DM}`$ relation implies that the formation of SBHs is controlled, perhaps indirectly, by the properties of the DM halos in which they reside. Whether the connection between SBHs and DM halos is of a more fundamental nature than the one between SBHs and bulges, reflected in the $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation, is unclear at this time. The $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation implies a scatter of the order of $`2025`$% in $`M_{}`$ for $`\sigma _c=70300`$ km s-1. The scatter in the $`M_{}M_{DM}`$ relation is difficult to determine, since the uncertainty in the transformation between $`\text{v}_c`$ and $`M_{DM}`$ is largely unknown. Bullock et al. (2001) estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}(C_{vir})=0.18`$. In the range $`\text{v}_c=50400`$ km s-1, this translates into a 5% to 7% error in $`M_{DM}`$ in equation (5), and a 9% to 12% error on $`M_{}`$ in equation (6). This indicates that, at least formally, the scatter in the $`M_{}M_{DM}`$ relation could be a factor two smaller than the scatter in the $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation for any given choice of DM density profile and cosmological parameters. Secure conclusions, however, will have to await an empirical characterization of the $`M_{}M_{DM}`$ relation, with both $`M_{}`$ and $`M_{DM}`$ determined directly from observations.

Additional clues on how bulges and DM halos influence the formation of SBHs can be derived by studying bulgeless spirals. Such galaxies have been forcefully neglected in the present study, where we required the existence of a bulge velocity dispersion in order to derive $`M_{}`$. Of the galaxies in Table 1, NGC598 is the one with the least conspicuous bulge444The existence of a rarefied bulge in this galaxy is supported by both spectroscopic and photometric data (e.g. Minniti, Olszewki, & Rieke 1993; Regan & Vogel 1994; Mighell & Rich 1995; Minniti 1996).. IC342 and NGC 6503 are late type spirals with minimal bulges; like NGC598, they deviate significantly from the $`\text{v}_c`$ relation defined by the more massive systems. All of the galaxies with no or minimal bulge for which a rotation curve exists, including both dwarf systems and low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies, have circular velocities below 150 km s-1(e.g. Blais-Oulette, Amram & Carignan 2001; de Blok & Bosma 2002). In particular, in the LSB compilation of van den Bosch et al. (2001) the only two galaxies with maximum circular velocity in excess of 150 km s-1 are also the only galaxies with a significant bulge component. Therefore, it does seem that bulges, as well as SBHs, are always formed in halos with circular velocity in excess of $`150`$ km s-1. In less massive halos, the interplay between halo, bulge and the central SBH remains to be investigated. For this purpose attempts to directly measure the mass of a putative SBH in bulgeless galaxies is of primary importance.

Whether equation (4), (6) or (7) is adopted, $`M_{}`$ does not depend linearly on $`M_{DM}`$. According to equation (6), the ratio between SBH and halo mass decreases from $`2\times 10^4`$ at $`M_{DM}=10^{14}`$ $`M_{}`$ to $`10^5`$ at $`M_{DM}=10^{12}`$ $`M_{}`$, i.e. less massive halos are less efficient in forming SBHs. This tendency becomes more pronounced for halos with $`M_{DM}<5\times 10^{11}`$ $`M_{}`$: as mentioned above, NGC 6503, NGC 3198 and NGC 598 lie above the relation defined by the more massive galaxies. It must be pointed out, however, that the $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation is not defined for $`M_{}<10^6`$ $`M_{}`$, indeed we have no direct evidence of the existence of nuclear black holes in this mass range. If such SBHs exist, the recent report of an upper limit of only a few $`10^3`$ $`M_{}`$ for the BH in NGC 598 (Merritt, Ferrarese & Joseph 2001; Gebhardt et al. 2001), indicates that they are not more massive than would be inferred by extrapolating the $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation to the $`\sigma _c20`$ km s-1 range. This excludes the possibility that NGC 6503 and NGC 3198 could be reconciled with the $`M_{}M_{DM}`$ relation defined by the more massive galaxies.

These findings are in qualitative agreement with the formation scenario envisioned by Haehnelt, Natarajan & Rees (1998) and Silk & Rees (1998). In an attempt to match the DM halo mass function to the luminosity function of quasars, Haehnelt et al. noted that as the quasar lifetime is increased, a match can be obtained only at the expense of steepening the slope of the relation between $`M_{}`$ and $`M_{DM}`$. In their model, a linear relation between $`M_{}`$ and $`M_{DM}`$ implies a quasar lifetime $`t_{QSO}3\times 10^5`$ yr, about a factor 100 shorter than favored by current observational constraints (e.g. Martini & Weinberg 2001; Ferrarese 2002). If $`t_{QSO}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}\times 10^7`$ yr, the slope of the $`M_{}M_{DM}`$ relation must be increased to $`1.7`$, in rather remarkable agreement with the results derived in this paper.

Furthermore, Haehnelt et al. propose that SBH formation takes place during the very early stages of galaxy formation. Gas gravitating in a DM halo is deposited at the center of the halo at a rate which is proportional to the third power of the halo circular velocity $`\text{v}_{vir}`$. Stars more massive than $`10^6`$ $`M_{}`$ undergo post-Newtonian instabilities – and therefore collapse – before they can ignite hydrogen; for $`\text{v}_{vir}`$ larger than $`200`$ km s-1, such stars can be formed on short enough timescales that the collapse will take place before the star has had a chance to burn all of its fuel. Only halos with $`\text{v}_{vir}>200`$ km s-1 (or masses $`>10^{12}`$ $`M_{}`$) would therefore host SBHs, and only SBHs with $`M_{}>10^6`$ $`M_{}`$ can be formed in such halos. It is therefore possible that galaxies such as NGC 6503 and NGC 3198 do not contain SBHs.

## 5. Conclusions

The results in this paper can be summarized as follows:

* We have considered a sample of 15 spiral galaxies with published measurements of both the bulge velocity dispersion $`\sigma _c`$ and the disk circular velocity $`\text{v}_c`$, measured beyond the optical radius. The sample displays a tight correlation between the two quantities. Furthermore, in a $`\mathrm{log}(\sigma )\mathrm{log}(\text{v}_c)`$ plane, the narrow strip occupied by the spirals blends smoothly with that occupied by a sample of 20 elliptical galaxies (from Kronawitter et al. 2001 and Gerhard et al. 2001). This is an interesting result, in view of the different methods used to derive $`\text{v}_c`$ for the two samples, and of the dissimilarities between the shapes of the rotation curves observed in spirals and modelled in elliptical galaxies.
* The ellipticals and spirals define a common, linear (in a log-log plane) $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation for $`70<\sigma _c<350`$ km s-1. Three galaxies have $`\sigma _c`$ below this range; all three deviate from the relation in the sense of having smaller than expected values of $`\sigma _c`$. The discrepancy is largest – a factor 7 larger than the standard deviation on $`\sigma _c`$ – for the galaxy with the smallest value of $`\sigma _c`$, NGC 598.
* Rotation curves for all of the galaxies appear to be flat in the outer parts. In virtue of the $`M_{}\sigma _c`$ relation and the virial theorem, the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation must therefore imply that the masses of supermassive black holes correlate with the gravitational mass of their host galaxy, measured within a given radius $`R>R_{25}`$.
* If the further concession is made that, in CDM scenarios of structure formation, the virial mass of the DM halo is uniquely determined by $`\text{v}_c`$ (Navarro & Steinmetz 2000, Bullock et al. 2001), the $`\text{v}_c\sigma _c`$ relation is the observational evidence that SBH masses correlate tightly with the mass of the DM halos in which, presumably, they are formed. The relation between $`M_{}`$ and $`M_{DM}`$ is nonlinear: the ratio between $`M_{}`$ and $`M_{DM}`$ decreases with decreasing halo mass. This trend becomes more severe for $`M_{DM}<5\times 10^{11}`$ $`M_{}`$. It is possible that less massive halos might indeed be unable to form SBHs, in qualitative agreement with the theoretical arguments proposed by Haehnelt, Natarajan & Rees (1998) and Silk & Rees (1998).

I wish to thank Pat Côté, David Merritt, Milos Milosavljevic and Jerry Sellwood for providing the answers to many questions. Comments from Uros Seljak, James Bullock and the anonymous referee have also been of great help. This work is partly supported by NASA/LTSA grant NAG5-8693, and has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

BL Lacertae, historically the protypical BL Lac object, has been the target of many radio, optical, X-ray, and $`\gamma `$-ray observations in the past, and has been studied intensively during various intensive multiwavelength campaigns (e.g., Sambruna et al. 1999, Bloom et al. 1997, Madejski et al. 1999, Ravasio et al. 2002a). It is a particularly interesting object for detailed X-ray studies since it has been repeatedly observed that this is where the two broad components of the multiwavelength SEDs of blazars are overlapping and intersecting: While the low-frequency component, from radio to soft X-ray frequencies, is generally believed to be synchrotron emission from relativistic electrons in a relativistic jet, the high-energy component, at hard X-rays and $`\gamma `$-rays, is consistent with Compton emission from the same population of electrons, scattering their own synchrotron emission and/or soft photons originating external to the jet. In agreement with this hypothesis, the X-ray spectrum of BL Lacertae has repeatedly shown a concave shape (e.g., Madejski et al. 1999), with rapid variability, restricted to the low-energy excess portion of the spectrum (Ravasio et al. 2002a).

Whereas BL Lac objects are generally characterized by lineless, nonthermal optical spectra, BL Lacertae has occasionally shown strong, broad emission lines (Vermeulen et al. 1995) and is thus no longer considered a typical BL Lac object. The existence of emission lines reveals the presence of a non-negligible amount of scattering material in the broad line region (BLR), which is consistent with recent spectral modeling results of Madejski et al. (1999) and Böttcher & Bloom (2000), requiring a non-negligible external soft photon energy density to reproduce the simultaneous broadband spectrum of BL Lacertae during its giant outburst in 1997.

While simultaneous broadband spectra are very useful to constrain blazar jet models, there still remain severe ambiguities in their interpretation w.r.t. the dominant electron cooling, injection, and acceleration mechanisms. The combination of broadband spectra with timing and spectral variability information can help to break some of these degeneracies. For this reason, we have organized an intensive multiwavelength campaign to observe BL Lacertae in the second half of 2000 at as many frequencies as possible. We have put special emphasis on good timing information, which we have obtained, in particular, at optical and X-ray frequencies. In Section 2, we briefly review the observations carried out during the campaign. The diverse variability patterns are presented and analyzed in Section 3. The most detailed simultaneous broadband spectrum obtained during the campaign is discussed in Section 4.

## 2 Observations

The broadband campaign on BL Lacertae in 2000 encompassed observations at radio, optical, X-ray, and VHE $`\gamma `$-ray energies during the period July 17, 2000, until the end of 2000. At radio frequencies, the object was monitored using the University of Michigan Radio Astronomy Observatory (UMRAO) 26 m telescope, at 4.8, 8, and 14.5 GHz, and with the 14 m Metsähovi Radio Telescope of Helsinki University, at 22 and 37 GHz.

Focusing on a core campaign period July 17 – Aug. 11, BL Lacertae was the target of an intensive optical campaign by the Whole Earth Blazar Telescope (WEBT, Villata et al. 2000), in which 24 optical telescopes throughout the northern hemisphere participated. For more details of the WEBT campaign and its results, see Villata et al. (2002; see also Raiteri et al. 2002 and http://www.to.astro.it/Groups/Extragal/2200.htm). The radio and optical R-band light curves, along with the overall timeline of the campaign, are shown in Fig. 1a. The figure illustrates that BL Lacertae underwent a transition from a rather quiescent state in July and August 2000 to an extended high state in mid-September 2000. For this reason, the WEBT campaign was extended until the end of 2000, although with less dense time coverage than during the core campaign.

At X-ray energies, BL Lacertae was observed with the BeppoSAX Narrow Field Instruments (NFI) in the energy range 0.1 – 300 keV in two 25 ksec pointings on July 26 – 27 and Nov. 1 – 2, 2000 (Ravasio et al. 2002b). In addition, the source was monitored by the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) in 3 short pointings per week (Marscher et al. 2002); however, the results of those observations were not yet available at the time of this workshop, and will be included in the final analysis of this campaign later.

BL Lacertae has been observed by the HEGRA system of imaging Cherenkov telescopes, accumulating a total of 10.5 h of on-source time in Sept. – Nov. 2000. The source was not detected above a 99 % CL upper limit of 25 % of the Crab flux at photon energies above 0.7 TeV (Mang et al. 2001). The Cherenkov Array at Thémis (CAT) had also observed BL Lacertae during 4 nights between July 26 and Aug. 8 for a total of $`2`$ hr. However, due to poor weather conditions, those observations did not yield useful flux constraints. We had also been awarded observations with OSSE and COMPTEL on board the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO); however, unfortunately, the CGRO was de-orbited just around the time of our scheduled observations.

## 3 Radio, Optical and X-ray Variability

The radio and optical light curves of BL Lacertae over the entire campaign period are shown in Fig. 1a. We have calculated the discrete cross-correlation functions between the optical and radio bands as well as between the light curves at different radio frequencies. We found delays between different radio frequencies with the lower-frequency variability lagging behind the higher-frequency light curves by up to $`25`$ days, with the lags generally increasing with increasing frequency separation. The frequency dependence of the lags is not well described by power-law fits, but rather shows a gradual flattening towards the lowest frequencies. We found evidence for a positive correlation between the optical and radio light curves, indicating a delay of the radio light curves with respect to the R band of $`45`$ – 50 d. However, our data are spanning only a few months. Bregman et al. (1990) had found typical radio – optical correlations in BL Lacertae with delays of $`1`$ – 4.5 years, so that we will have to combine our intermediate-term light curves with long-term, historical light curves before drawing firm conclusions from these delays.

The WEBT campaign returned optical (R-band) light curves of unprecedented time coverage and resolution. Two examples of the observed rapid microvariability are shown in Fig. 1b. Brightness variations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R0.35`$, corresponding to flux variations of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }F)/F0.4`$, within $`1.5`$ hr have been found, which is not exceptional for this source, and might indicate that BL Lacertae was in a rather quiescent state. However, this does place a constraint on the size of the emitting region of $`R\stackrel{<}{}1.6\times 10^{14}D`$ cm, where $`D=\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }[1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}]\right)^1`$ is the Doppler beaming factor.

From the BeppoSAX X-ray data, we have extracted light curves with 10-minute sampling, in the energy bands (0.6 – 2) keV (LECS), (2 – 4) keV (MECS), and (4 – 7) keV (MECS). We also calculated the hardness ratios HR1 $``$ (LECS \[2 - 4 keV\])/(LECS \[0.6 - 2 keV\]) and HR2 $``$ (MECS \[4 - 7 keV\])/(MECS \[2 - 4 keV\]) with the same 10-minute sampling (see Ravasio et al. 2002b). During our first pointing on July 26 – 27, no evidence for short-term variability was found. The spectrum was hard (energy index $`\alpha =0.76\pm 0.14`$), consistent with the hypothesis that the entire BeppoSAX spectrum was dominated by the SSC emission from low-energy electrons in the jet.

The results of our second BeppoSAX pointing on Nov. 1 – 2 were quite different. The light curves in all three LECS and MECS energy bands exhibited significant variability. Flux variations by a factor of $`2`$ within $`30`$ minutes were detected. The LECS + MECS spectrum was well fitted with a steep power-law with energy index $`\alpha =1.6`$ up to $`10`$ keV; the PDS spectrum above $`20`$ keV indicated a significant spectral upturn, consistent with the onset of the SSC component around $`20`$ keV. The following discussion of the X-ray variability and the broadband spectrum of BL Lacertae during our campaign will focus on the results of this second observation on Nov. 1 – 2.

From the measured fluxes and hardness ratios, we have constructed hardness-intensity correlations (HICs). As an example, we show in Fig. 2a the various HICs for an individual flare, spanning a total of $`3.5`$ hr. Whereas in the HICs at soft X-ray energies, there is some indication of the typical clockwise rotation patterns which have also been observed in the X-ray spectral variability of high-frequency peaked BL Lac objects (HBLs, e.g., Mrk 421: Takahashi et al. 1996), we also find some correlations indicating the opposite behavior (i.e. counter-clockwise rotation patterns) as well as straight hardness-intensity anti-correlations in some of our soft X-ray HICs. Interestingly, such diverse HIC patterns have been predicted through numerical simulations of HBL flaring behaviour in a pure SSC model by Li & Kusunose (2000) under certain conditions: As long as the electron energy losses are dominated by synchrotron cooling, the synchrotron part of the spectrum was predicted to exhibit clockwise HIC rotation patterns; when SSC cooling becomes important, the synchrotron HICs turn into straight anti-correlations.

Our currently available BeppoSAX data have too large error bars due to limited photon statistics to draw firm conclusions on the basis of the measured HICs. However, if those results can be confirmed by future observations with Chandra or XMM-Newton, they may provide a new tool to constrain the dominant cooling mechanism of the electrons responsible for the synchrotron emission of BL Lacertae at soft X-ray energies.

Additional constraints on the physical parameters of the emitting region and on the dominant electron cooling mechanism can be obtained if one can determine the photon energy dependence of the decay time scale of individual flares. In the two extreme cases in which either synchrotron or SSC emission is dominating the electron cooling, the cooling time scale $`\tau _c`$ (in the observer’s frame) of electrons emitting synchrotron radiation at a photon energy $`E_{\mathrm{sy}}=1E_{\mathrm{keV}}`$ keV, is

$$\tau _c=\{\begin{array}{cc}\tau _1(p,\tau _\mathrm{T},\gamma _1)B_G^{p/2}D^{(2p)/2}E_{\mathrm{keV}}^{(p4)/2}\hfill & \text{for SSC cooling}\hfill \\ & \\ 3.22\times 10^3B_G^{3/2}D^{1/2}E_{\mathrm{keV}}^{1/2}\mathrm{s}\hfill & \text{for sy. cooling}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
(Chiang & Böttcher 2002), where $`\tau _1`$ is a normalization factor depending on the spectral index $`p`$ and the low-energy cutoff $`\gamma _1`$ of the injected electron distribution as well as the Thomson depth $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ of the emitting region. The available data do not have sufficient photon statistics to allow us to exploit these relations for individual flares. However, an alternative route to extract information about the average physical conditions responsible for the observed X-ray flares, is to compute the autocorrelation functions of the X-ray variability in the three LECS + MECS energy bands and represent the widths of those autocorrelation functions as $`\tau _{\mathrm{ACF}}(E)=\tau _0+\tau _c(E)`$, where $`\tau _0`$ corresponds to a minimum width given primarily by the light-travel time through the source and the electron injection time scale. The result of this procedure is illustrated in Fig. 2b. Obviously, we can not distinguish between the two extreme cases of synchrotron vs. SSC cooling on the basis of the quality of the fit. However, important insight can be gained by deriving an estimate of the magnetic field $`B`$ from the normalizations of the two fits. For the case of pure synchrotron cooling, we find $`B=(51.2\pm 5.4)(D/10)^{1/2}`$ G, while for dominant SSC cooling, we find $`B=(106\pm 12)(\tau _\mathrm{T}/10^6)^{0.69}(\gamma _1/100)^{1.31}(D/10)^{0.31}`$ G. This is at least an order of magnitude larger than the magnetic-field values found in earlier analyses of broadband spectra of BL Lacertae (e.g., Madejski et al. 1999, Böttcher & Bloom 2000).

One can derive an independent estimate of the magnetic field based on the optical synchrotron flux at the time of the X-ray observations. Assuming that the $`\nu F_\nu `$ peak of the synchrotron spectrum is in the optical domain during this period (see section 4), and that the magnetic field is in approximate equipartition with the electrons in the jet, we find $`B_{\mathrm{ep}}8.7(D/10)^1`$ G. Again, this is about an order of magnitude lower than the two estimates derived from the X-ray variability in the extreme cases of pure synchrotron or pure SSC cooling. This might be another indication that the electron cooling is probably not dominated by one single mechanism, and that possibly additional electron cooling due to Compton scattering of external soft photons could be required in order to reconcile the variability and spectral properties found in our observations.

## 4 Broadband spectrum

The simultaneous broadband spectrum of BL Lacertae during the second BeppoSAX pointing on Nov. 1 – 2, 2000, is shown in Fig. 3. For comparison, we also show the spectrum measured during the source’s major outburst in July 1997 (Bloom et al. 1997). The optical (UBVRI) photometric data have been de-reddened using the de-reddening law of Cardelli et al. (1989) with $`A_V=1.2`$ (Sambruna et al. 1999) and $`R_V=3.1`$. The error bars on the optical data points represent the range of variability measured during those two days in the respective optical bands.

The HEGRA upper limit on the integrated $`>0.7`$ TeV photon flux was converted to a $`\nu F_\nu `$ flux limit by assuming a power-law shape of the spectrum with photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ph}}`$, which leads to $`\nu F_\nu <(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ph}}1)\times 8.65\times 10^{11}`$ Jy Hz at 0.7 TeV. The resulting limiting spectrum is shown for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ph}}=2.5`$ in Fig. 3.

The comparison between the two spectra of BL Lacertae illustrates the dramatic spectral change at soft to medium-energy X-rays, and clearly demonstrates that we are observing the high-energy end of the low-frequency (synchrotron) component in the LECS + MECS spectrum. It is particularly interesting to note that the best-fit spectral index of $`\alpha =1.6`$ measured at soft X-rays is very close to the canonical value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{SSC}\mathrm{c}}`$ expected for the time-averaged synchrotron spectrum of strongly cooling electrons if the energy losses are dominated by SSC cooling (Chiang & Böttcher 2002).

The spectrum has been modeled with the time-dependent jet radiation transfer code described in Böttcher & Bloom (2000). The most relevant changes of the best-fit model parameters with respect to the fit to the 1997 flare spectrum correspond to an extension of the injected electron spectrum towards both lower and higher energies (i.e. decreasing $`\gamma _1`$ and increasing $`\gamma _2`$). Our spectral modeling results are consistent with the tentative result from our timing analysis that synchrotron, SSC, and external-Compton cooling all contribute significantly to the bolometric luminosity of the source and, consequently, to the electron cooling.

## Acknowledgements

The work of M.B. is supported by NASA through Chandra Postdoctoral Fellowship Award no. 9-10007, issued by the Chandra X-ray Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of NASA under contract NAS 8-39073.