text:
# Nonthermal Emissions from Particles Accelerated by Turbulence in Clusters of Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

The intracluster medium (ICM), the largest detected baryonic component of clusters of galaxies, contains thermal gas characterized by temperatures in the range of $`210`$ keV and by central densities of $`10^3\mathrm{cm}^3`$. In addition to the thermal plasma, observations have showed that the ICM contains nonthermal elements. Diffuse synchrotron emission from the ICM has been observed in many clusters (e.g., Kim et al., 1990; Giovannini et al., 1993; Giovannini & Feretti, 2000; Kempner & Sarazin, 2001). Diffuse radio sources in clusters are often classified either as peripheral cluster radio relic sources, or central cluster radio halo sources. These radio halo and relic sources are not associated directly with individual galaxies, but appear to be produced by relativistic electrons in the intracluster space. The typical energy of the electrons that produce the radio emission depends on the observed frequency and on the intracluster magnetic field, but it is estimated to be several GeV. Moreover, hard X-ray emission has been detected as a nonthermal tail at energies $``$20 keV in at least two clusters. The Coma cluster was detected with both BeppoSAX (Fusco-Femiano et al., 1999) and the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE ; Rephaeli, Gruber, & Blanco, 1999). Possible weaker excesses may have been seen in Abell 2199 (Kaastra et al., 1999), Abell 2319 (Gruber & Rephaeli, 2002), and Abell 3667 (Fusco-Femiano et al., 2001). This radiation is often believed to be inverse Compton emission, in this case produced by relativistic electrons with the energy of $`5`$ GeV and Lorentz factors $`\gamma 10^4`$.

There are several possible origins for the relativistic electrons (Atoyan & Völk, 2000; Enßlin & Gopal-Krishna, 2001; Enßlin & Brüggen, 2002). Electron acceleration at shocks in the ICM has been the most popular idea (e.g., Colafrancesco & Blasi, 1998; Bykov et al., 2000; Totani & Kitayama, 2000; Waxman & Loeb, 2000; Ostrowski & Siemieniec-Oziȩbo, 2002). These shocks may be attributed to the interaction between jets originated from active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and ICM, to galactic winds, or to the accretion of intergalactic gas. Since most of the observed radio sources are very large and are often found in irregular clusters, they may be attributed to shocks formed by cluster mergers (Roettiger, Stone, & Burns, 1999; Blasi, 2001; Buote, 2001; Fujita & Sarazin, 2001). Takizawa & Naito (2000) calculated the nonthermal emission from relativistic electrons accelerated around the shocks produced during a merger of clusters with equal mass. They found that the hard X-ray and radio emission is luminous only while signatures of merging events are clearly seen in the ICM. For some clusters, observations suggest that electrons are actually accelerated by shocks. For example, Markevitch & Vikhlinin (2001) showed that a high-temperature shocked region is associated with diffuse radio emission in Abell 665 by analyzing data from the Chandra Observatory. Shock acceleration or re-acceleration seems one of the most promising candidates of the source of relativistic particles in the localized, peripheral radio relic sources.

On the other hand, some clusters have large diffuse radio emission that does not seem to be associated with shocks. Since the lifetimes of the particles which produce the radio emission in clusters are short, it is unlikely that radio emission will be found far from shocks if particles are only accelerated at shocks. Since the large radio sources are generally found in merging clusters, the simplest explanation would be an acceleration mechanism associated with mergers which is not directly related to shocks or which persists in the plasma for some period after the passage of a merger shock. For Abell 3667, a diffuse radio emission is detected in the northwest of the cluster center (Röttgering et al., 1997). Although this cluster has a rapidly moving substructure, the Mach number is estimated to be only $`1`$ (Vikhlinin, Markevitch, & Murray, 2001). Thus, even if there are shocks in the cluster, the efficiency of shock acceleration may be too small to produce the observed synchrotron spectrum within the standard theory of shock acceleration. Moreover, although Abell 2256, which is known as a merging cluster, also has a large diffuse radio emission (Röttgering et al., 1994), the X-ray temperature map does not show shock features (Sun et al., 2002). The viewing angle may prevent us from observing the shock. However, even if particles are accelerated at a bow shock, the size of the radio emission ($``$Mpc) seems to be too large for a cluster to cross within the lifetimes of the particles responsible for the emission. Recently, Gabici & Blasi (2002) investigated the effect of the low Mach numbers of merger-related shocks on particle acceleration at the shocks. They suggest that major mergers, which often invoked to be sites for the production of extended radio emissions, have shocks which are too weak to result in appreciable nonthermal activity.

Fluid turbulence in ICM is another possible origin of particle acceleration (Blasi, 2000; Brunetti et al., 2001a, b). Numerical simulations show that cluster mergers can generate strong turbulence in the ICM (Roettiger et al., 1999; Ricker & Sarazin, 2001). The fluid turbulence can induce MHD waves (Lighthill, 1952; Kulsrud, 1955; Kato, 1968; Eilek & Henriksen, 1984), which accelerate particles through wave-particle resonance (Jaffe, 1977; Roland, 1981; Schlickeiser, Sievers, & Thiemann, 1987). Contrary to shock acceleration, the turbulent resonant acceleration does not require strong shocks. Even if a subcluster is moving with a subsonic velocity in a host cluster, the induced turbulence may produce high energy particles and nonthermal emission. As the first step of this study, in this paper we consider particle acceleration by Alfvén waves, which are easily generated by fluid turbulence and do not damp easily. The effects of other MHD waves may also be important (Schlickeiser & Miller, 1998; Ragot & Schlickeiser, 1998). Recently, Ohno, Takizawa, & Shibata (2002) studied the resonant acceleration in the Coma cluster; we will study the turbulence and acceleration in clusters more generally. As will be shown in §3, turbulent resonant acceleration is not effective when two clusters collide with a large relative velocity because the lifetime of the induced fluid turbulence is shorter than the acceleration time of the particles. Thus, turbulent acceleration is most effective when two clusters approach from a relatively small initial separation because the relative velocity when they pass each other is then relatively small. Moreover, this mechanism is more likely to apply to peripheral relics rather than central halos because two clusters have the largest relative velocity at the point of closest approach of the cluster centers; this large velocity decreases the time-scale of the fluid turbulence and also makes ram-pressure stripping of the gas of the smaller cluster effective, which reduces the volume of the turbulent region. We will concentrate on models and parameters appropriate for the cases where this mechanism is likely to be most important.

This paper is organized as follows. In §2, we summarize our models. In §3 we give the results of our calculations and compare them with observations. Conclusions are given in §4.

## 2 Models

### 2.1 Fluid Turbulence, Lighthill Radiation, and Particle Acceleration

We use the turbulent resonant acceleration model studied by Eilek & Henriksen (1984); we summarize it in this subsection. We assume that fluid turbulence is induced by the motion of a smaller cluster in a larger cluster and its energy spectrum is described by a power law,

$$W_f(\kappa )=W_f^0\kappa ^m,$$
(1)
where $`\kappa =2\pi /l`$ is the wavenumber corresponding to the scale $`l`$, $`W_f(\kappa )d\kappa `$ is the energy per unit volume in turbulence with wavenumbers between $`\kappa `$ and $`\kappa +d\kappa `$, and $`W_f^0`$ and $`m`$ are the constants. If one expresses the turbulent spectrum in terms of eddy size, the spectrum is represented by $`W_f(l)l^{m2}`$. The cascade of the fluid turbulence extends from a largest eddy size $`l_0=2\pi /\kappa _0`$ down to a smallest scale determined by dissipation, $`l_Dl_0(Re)^{3/4}`$, where $`Re`$ is the Reynolds number. Since most of the energy of fluid turbulence resides in the largest scale, the total energy density of fluid turbulence is given by $`E_t\rho v_t^2`$, where $`\rho `$ is the fluid density and $`v_t`$ is the turbulent velocity of the largest scale $`l_0`$. The normalization $`W_f^0`$ can be derived from the relation $`E_t=W_f(\kappa )𝑑\kappa `$ and is

$$W_f^0=E_t\kappa _T^{m1}/R,$$
(2)
where

$$R=\frac{1}{m1}\frac{\kappa _0W_f(\kappa _0)}{\kappa _TW_f(\kappa _T)}.$$
(3)
In the above equations, $`\kappa _T=2\pi /l_T`$ and $`l_T`$ is the wavelength below which Alfvén waves are driven.

Fluid turbulence will generate Alfvén waves via Lighthill radiation (Lighthill, 1952; Kulsrud, 1955; Kato, 1968). The maximum wavelength of Alfvén waves driven by the turbulence cannot be larger than $`l_0`$. Instead, Alfvén waves are expected to be driven at the wavelength at which there is a transition from large-scale ordered turbulence to small-scale disordered motions. Unfortunately, there is no absolute definition of this transition. Following Eilek & Henriksen (1984), we adopt the Taylor length as an estimate of the transition scale. The Taylor length is given by

$$l_T\left[\overline{v_{f,x}^2}/\overline{\left(\frac{v_{f,x}}{x}\right)^2}\right]^{1/2}=l_0(15/Re)^{1/2},$$
(4)
where $`𝐯_𝐟`$ is the turbulent velocity vector, $`x`$ is the space coordinate, and $`v_{f,x}`$ is the $`x`$-component of the vector $`𝐯_𝐟`$ (Tennekes & Lumley, 1972; Eilek & Henriksen, 1984). The Taylor scale is determined by the ratio of the r.m.s. turbulent velocity ($`[\overline{v_{f,x}^2}]^{1/2}`$), which is determined by the large scale motions, to the r.m.s. velocity shear ($`[\overline{\left(v_{f,x}/x\right)^2}]^{1/2}`$), which is mainly due to small scale motions.

A fluid eddy of size $`l`$ has a velocity $`v_f=|𝐯_𝐟|`$,

$$v_f(l)\left[\frac{lW_f(l)}{\rho }\right]^{1/2}=\left[\frac{E_t}{\rho R}\left(\frac{\kappa }{\kappa _T}\right)^{1m}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(5)
Turbulence on a scale $`\kappa `$ will radiate Alfvén waves at the wavenumber

$$k=[v_f(l)/v_A]\kappa ,$$
(6)
where $`v_A=B/\sqrt{4\pi \rho }`$ is the Alfvén velocity in plasma with the magnetic field $`B`$ and the gas density $`\rho `$. Let $`v_f[\kappa (k)]`$ be the fluid velocity on the fluid scale $`\kappa (k)`$ which drives Alfvén waves of wavenumber $`k`$. From equations (5) and (6), we obtain

$$v_f[\kappa (k)]=v_A\left(\frac{E_t}{\rho v_A^2R}\right)^{1/(3m)}\left(\frac{k}{\kappa _T}\right)^{(1m)/(3m)}.$$
(7)
We assume that the energy going into Alfvén waves at wavenumber $`k`$ is given by a power law

$$I_A(k)=I_0(k/\kappa _T)^{s_t},$$
(8)
where $`I_A(k)dk`$ is the energy per unit volume per unit time going into Alfvén waves with wavenumbers in the range $`kk+dk`$, and $`I_0`$ and $`s_t`$ are the constants. In this case, the total power going into the Alfvén mode from fluid turbulence is

$$P_A=_{k_T}^{k_{\mathrm{max}}}I_A(k)𝑑k\frac{I_0k_T}{s_t1}\left(\frac{k_T}{\kappa _T}\right)^{s_t},$$
(9)
where $`k_T=[v_f(l_T)/v_A]\kappa _T`$. We have assumed that $`k_Tk_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`s_t>1`$. On the other hand, according to the Lighthill theory, $`P_A`$ is given by

$$P_A=\eta _A\frac{v_f(l_T)}{v_A}\times \rho v_f(l_T)^3\kappa _T,$$
(10)
where $`\eta _A`$ is an efficiency factor of order unity (Kato, 1968; Henriksen et al., 1982; Eilek & Henriksen, 1984). By comparing equations (9) and (10) and using equations (6) and (7), it can be shown that

$$s_t=\frac{3(m1)}{3m},$$
(11)
$$I_0=\eta _A(s_t1)\rho v_A^3\left(\frac{E_t}{\rho v_A^2R}\right)^{3/(3m)},$$
(12)
and

$$P_A=\eta _A\left(\frac{E_t}{\rho v_A^2R}\right)^2\rho v_A^3\kappa _T$$
(13)
(Eilek & Henriksen, 1984).

The Alfvén waves respond to this energy input according to

$$\frac{dW_A(k)}{dt}=I_A(k)\gamma (k)W_A(k),$$
(14)
where $`W_A(k)dk`$ is the energy per unit volume in Alfvén waves with wavenumbers in the range $`kk+dk`$, and $`\gamma (k)`$ is the damping rate (Eilek, 1979; Eilek & Henriksen, 1984). We consider damping by the acceleration of relativistic particles. For a particle with momentum $`p`$, the resonance condition is given by

$$k\mathrm{\Omega }m_e/[p(\mu v_A/c)],$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=eB/m_ec`$ is the nonrelativistic cyclotron frequency, and $`\mu =v_{}/c`$ is the projected particle velocity along the magnetic field normalized by the light velocity $`c`$ (Eilek, 1979). Then, the damping rate due to accelerating particles is

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{acc}}(k)=\frac{4\pi ^3e^2v_A^2}{c^2}\frac{1}{k}_{p_{\mathrm{min}}(k)}^{p_{\mathrm{max}}}p^2\left[1\left(\frac{v_A}{c}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }m_e}{pk}\right)^2\right]\frac{f(p)}{p}𝑑p,$$
(16)
where $`e`$ and $`m_e`$ are the electron charge and mass, and $`p_{\mathrm{min}}(k)=\mathrm{\Omega }m_e/[k(1v_A/c)]`$ from the resonance condition (eq. ). The electron phase space distribution function is $`f(p)`$ (Eilek, 1979; Eilek & Henriksen, 1984). In general, $`p_{\mathrm{max}}p_{\mathrm{min}}`$ (see equation  below) and the electron phase space distribution function declines rapidly at large $`p`$, so the upper limit does not contribute significantly to the integral in equation (16). In fact, although the integral converges whenever $`f(p)`$ is steeper than $`p^3`$, we later consider only the case of $`4s5`$, where $`f(p)p^s`$.

We consider the case where the wave and particle spectra are represented by power-law functions, namely,

$$W_A(k)=W_A^0k^\nu ,$$
(17)
$$f(p)=f_0p^s,$$
(18)
where $`W_A^0`$ and $`f_0`$ are the constants. Since the characteristic wave response time is $`\gamma _{\mathrm{acc}}^1`$, which is short ($`10^4`$ yr) compared to other relevant time-scales in our model, we can assume that $`dW_A/dt=0`$. Thus, from equations (14) and (16), and assuming $`v_Ac`$, we obtain

$$W_A^0=\frac{I_0}{f_0}\kappa _T^{s_t}\frac{s2}{8\pi ^3}\frac{c^2}{e^2v_A^2}(\mathrm{\Omega }m_e)^{s2},$$
(19)
$$\nu =s+s_t3.$$
(20)
On the other hand, the electron distribution evolves according to the equation,

$$\frac{f}{t}=\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{}{p}\left[p^2D(p)\frac{f}{p}+Sp^4f\right].$$
(21)
Here, $`S=4(B^2+B_{\mathrm{CMB}}^2)e^4/(9m_e^4c^6)`$ is the inverse Compton and synchrotron loss coefficient, and $`B_{\mathrm{CMB}}=3.25(1+z)^2\mu \mathrm{G}`$. In this paper, we assume that the redshift of a model cluster is $`z=0`$. The diffusion coefficient owing to the resonant scattering off random Alfv́en waves is

$$D(p)=\frac{2\pi ^2e^2v_A^2}{c^3}_{k_{\mathrm{min}}(p)}^{k_{\mathrm{max}}}W_A(k)\frac{1}{k}\left[1\left(\frac{v_A}{c}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }m_e}{pk}\right)^2\right]𝑑k,$$
(22)
where $`k_{\mathrm{min}}(p)=\mathrm{\Omega }m_e/[p(1v_A/c)]`$. The value of the upper cutoff $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is not important as long as $`k_{\mathrm{max}}k_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`\nu >0`$. Using equations (17) and (18), equation (21) is rewritten as

$$\frac{f}{t}=\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{}{p}\left(Ap^{2+\nu }\frac{f}{p}+Sp^4f\right)$$
(23)
with

$$A=\frac{s2}{2\pi \nu (\nu +2)}\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }m_e)^{s2\nu }}{c}\frac{I_0}{f_0}\kappa _T^{s_t}.$$
(24)
Equation (23) can further be rewritten as

$$\frac{f}{t}=\frac{f(p)}{t_a(p)}\frac{f(p)}{t_e(p)}$$
(25)
with

$$t_a(p)=[s(s\nu 1)Ap^{\nu 2}]^1,$$
(26)
$$t_e(p)=[(s4)Sp]^1.$$
(27)
If $`\nu =3`$, equations (26) and (27) show that the ratio

$$\frac{t_a(p)}{t_e(p)}=\frac{1}{s}\frac{S}{A}$$
(28)
is independent of $`p`$. In other words, if and only if $`\nu =3`$, the form of $`f(p)`$ does not evolve (Eilek & Henriksen, 1984). Moreover, Eilek & Henriksen (1984) showed that even if $`\nu 3`$ initially, $`W_A`$ and $`f`$ evolve so that $`\nu `$ and $`S/(sA)`$ approach three and unity, respectively, on a timescale of approximately $`t_p\mathrm{min}[t_a,t_e]`$. Note that Eilek & Henriksen (1984) showed that equation (23) has another time-independent solution with $`f(p)p^4`$, in addition to the time-independent solution with $`f(p)p^s`$ ($`s=S/A`$) which we adopt here. However, the former solution requires externally supplied fluxes of particles in contrast with the latter. Since we do not consider external sources of particles in this paper, we ignore this other solution.

From equations (6) and (7), we obtain

$$k_T=\left(\frac{E_t}{\rho v_A^2R}\right)^{1/2}\kappa _T$$
(29)
Since the sum of synchrotron and inverse Compton emission rate is given by

$$P_{\mathrm{SI}}=_{p_1}^{p_{\mathrm{max}}}4\pi Sp^4cf(p)𝑑p,$$
(30)
it can be shown that

$$\frac{P_{\mathrm{SI}}}{P_A}=\frac{2s(s2)}{15}\left(\frac{k_Tp_{\mathrm{max}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }m_e}\right)^{5s}\frac{S}{sA}$$
(31)
from equations (13) and (29) when $`\nu =3`$ (Eilek & Henriksen, 1984). From the resonance condition (eq. ),

$$p_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Omega }m_e/k_T.$$
(32)
Moreover, as mentioned above, $`S/(sA)1`$ in a steady-state. Thus, in this case,

$$\frac{P_{\mathrm{SI}}}{P_A}=\frac{2s(s2)}{15}$$
(33)
(Eilek & Henriksen, 1984). We note that equations (10) and (33) indicate that the emission power, $`P_{\mathrm{SI}}`$, mainly depends on the energy injection at the scale of $`l_T`$; it does not much depend on the particle spectral index $`s`$, which is expected to be of the order of 4. This means that even if the fluid spectrum index $`m`$ for $`\kappa >\kappa _T`$ is different from that for $`\kappa <\kappa _T`$ because of the back reaction of particle acceleration (Ohno et al., 2002), the luminosity of nonthermal emission does not change significantly, although the emission spectrum may be affected.

### 2.2 Viscosity of the ICM

In order to apply the turbulence acceleration model in §2.1, we need to find the Reynolds number of the ICM, $`Re=l_0v_t/\nu _K`$, where $`\nu _K`$ is the kinetic viscosity. The viscosity in turn is represented by $`\nu _K=u_p\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}/3`$, where $`u_p`$ is the thermal velocity of protons and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective mean free path of protons. For the transverse drift of protons in magnetic fields, the mean free path is given by $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}=\lambda _g^2/\lambda _c`$ (Spitzer, 1962; Ruzmaikin, Sokolov, & Shukurov, 1989), where $`\lambda _g`$ is the proton gyroradius and $`\lambda _c`$ is the mean free path due to Coulomb collisions:

$$\lambda _g=\frac{m_pu_pc}{eB},$$
(34)
$$\lambda _c=\frac{3^{3/2}(k_BT_{\mathrm{gas}})^2}{4\pi ^{1/2}n_pe^2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(35)
(Sarazin, 1986). In the above equations, $`m_p`$ is the proton mass, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is the gas temperature, $`n_p`$ is the proton density, and $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Coulomb logarithm. Thus, we have

$$\nu _K=1.3\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\left(\frac{n_p}{10^3\mathrm{cm}^3}\right)\left(\frac{T_{\mathrm{gas}}}{10^8\mathrm{K}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}{40}\right)\left(\frac{B}{1\mu \mathrm{G}}\right)^2.$$
(36)
We use this viscosity in §3.

We would like to point out the relation between the viscosity and the electron maximum energy. As equation (32) shows, the maximum energy of accelerated electrons, $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$, is related to $`l_T`$. Thus, $`p_{\mathrm{max}}`$ should constrained by the viscosity $`\nu _K`$ or the Reynolds number $`Re`$ (eq. ). From equations (5), (6), and (32), one can show that

$$l_T\left[\frac{2\pi m_ec^2l_0^{(m1)/2}v_t\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}}{Bev_A}\right]^{2/(3m)},$$
(37)
where the maximum Lorentz factor is $`\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}=p_{\mathrm{max}}/(m_ec)`$ for $`p_{\mathrm{max}}m_ec`$. Using equation (4) and $`Re=v_tl_0/\nu _K`$, we obtain

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eB^2l_0}{4c^2m_e\pi ^{3/2}v_t\rho ^{1/2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{15\nu _K}{l_0v_t}}\right)^{(3m)/4}`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`1.2\times 10^5\left({\displaystyle \frac{l_0}{300\mathrm{kpc}}}\right)^{2/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_t}{200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)^{4/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{1\mu \mathrm{G}}}\right)^2`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{n_p}{10^3\mathrm{cm}^3}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _K}{1.3\times 10^5}}\right)^{1/3}`$
$`=`$ $`1.2\times 10^5\left({\displaystyle \frac{l_0}{300\mathrm{kpc}}}\right)^{2/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_t}{200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)^{4/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{1\mu \mathrm{G}}}\right)^{4/3}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{n_p}{10^3\mathrm{cm}^3}}\right)^{1/6}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{gas}}}{10^8\mathrm{K}}}\right)^{1/6}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}{40}}\right)^{1/3},`$
where the last two equations assume Kolmogorov turbulence ($`m=5/3`$). If nonthermal radio and hard X-ray emission from clusters is due to turbulent acceleration, this upper-limit may explain the discrepancy between the cluster magnetic fields derived from Faraday rotation (e.g., Lawler & Dennison, 1982; Kim et al., 1990; Goldshmidt & Rephaeli, 1993; Clarke, Kronberg, & Böhringer, 2001) and those derived from hard X-ray emission assuming a power law particle spectrum without an upper limit (Fusco-Femiano et al., 1999, 2000). Previous work indicated that a high-energy cutoff ($`\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}10^4`$) in the electron energy distribution could resolve this discrepancy (Brunetti et al., 2001a; Petrosian, 2001; Fujita & Sarazin, 2001). Our model prediction (eq. ) for the cutoff is close to that required, although this is a very rough estimate.

### 2.3 Cluster Merger

We consider a merger in which a smaller cluster falls into a larger cluster. The merger model is based on the galaxy infall model in Fujita (2001).

#### 2.3.1 Mass Profile of a Cluster

In this subsection, we do not discriminate between the smaller and larger clusters unless otherwise mentioned. The virial radius of a cluster with the virial mass $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and the formation redshift $`z`$ is defined as

$$r_{\mathrm{vir}}=\left[\frac{3M_{\mathrm{vir}}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_c(z)\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}(z)}\right]^{1/3},$$
(41)
where $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}(z)`$ is the critical density of the universe and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(z)`$ is the ratio of the average density of the cluster to the critical density at redshift $`z`$. The former is given by

$$\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}(z)=\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{crit},0}\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)^3}{\mathrm{\Omega }(z)},$$
(42)
where $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit},0}`$ is the critical density at $`z=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$ is the cosmological density parameter. For the Einstein-de Sitter Universe, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(z)=18\pi ^2`$.

We assume that a cluster is spherically symmetric and ignore the gravity of ICM. The density distribution of dark matter is represented by a power-law,

$$\rho _\mathrm{m}(r)=\rho _{\mathrm{mv}}(r/r_{\mathrm{vir}})^\alpha ,$$
(43)
where $`\rho _{\mathrm{mv}}`$ and $`\alpha `$ are the constants, and $`r`$ is the distance from the cluster center. The normalization, $`\rho _{\mathrm{mv}}`$, is given by

$$\rho _{\mathrm{mv}}=\frac{3\alpha }{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_c\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}.$$
(44)
We choose $`\alpha =2.4`$, because the slope is consistent with observations (Horner, Mushotzky & Scharf, 1999). Moreover, the results of numerical simulations show that the mass distribution in the outer region of clusters is approximately given by equation (43) with $`\alpha 2.4`$ (Navarro, Frenk, & White, 1996, 1997). We adopt a power-law rather than the full NFW profile to avoid specifying a particular value for the concentration parameter and its variation with cluster mass and formation redshift. At present, there is no complete and consistent understanding of the variation of the concentration parameter based on numerical simulations (Navarro et al., 1997; Bullock et al., 2001). Moreover, the central cusp that is a characteristic of the NFW profile does not have a significant impact on the motion of a radially infalling object in the cluster (Fig. 2 in Fujita, 1998). For example, if we assume that the cluster mass within 0.5 Mpc from the center is $`2.5\times 10^{14}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and that a smaller cluster falls into the center from an initial radius of $`r=2`$ Mpc, the velocity difference at $`r=0.1`$ Mpc is less than 10% between an NFW profile with a scale radius of $`0.9`$ Mpc and our adopted profile with $`\alpha =2.4`$.

We consider two ICM mass distributions. One follows equation (43) except for the normalization and the core structure;

$$\rho _{\mathrm{ICM}}(r)=\rho _{\mathrm{ICM},\mathrm{vir}}\frac{[1+(r/r_\mathrm{c})^2]^{\alpha /2}}{[1+(r_{\mathrm{vir}}/r_\mathrm{c})^2]^{\alpha /2}}.$$
(45)
The ICM mass within the virial radius of a cluster is

$$M_{\mathrm{ICM}}=_0^{r_{\mathrm{vir}}}4\pi r^2\rho _{\mathrm{ICM}}(r)𝑑r.$$
(46)
The normalization $`\rho _{\mathrm{ICM},\mathrm{vir}}`$ is determined by the relation $`f_b=M_{\mathrm{ICM}}/M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, where $`f_b`$ is the gas or baryon fraction of the universe. This distribution corresponds to the case where the ICM is in pressure equilibrium with the gravity of the cluster and is not heated by anything other than the gravity. We call this distribution the ‘non-heated ICM distribution’. We introduce the core structure to avoid the divergence of gas density at $`r=0`$ and assume $`r_c=0.1r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$. For the larger cluster into which a smaller cluster falls, we will modify the core radius to take account of the finite size of the smaller cluster (see §2.3.2). We use $`f_b=0.25(h/0.5)^{3/2}`$, where the present value of the Hubble constant is written as $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. The value of $`f_b`$ is the observed ICM mass fraction of high-temperature clusters (Mohr, Mathiesen, & Evrard, 1999; Ettori & Fabian, 1999; Arnaud & Evrard, 1999), for which the effect of non-gravitational heating is expected to be small.

However, X-ray observations suggest that the ICM is also heated non-gravitationally at least for nearby clusters (e.g., David, Jones, & Forman, 1996; Ponman, Cannon, & Navarro, 1999; Lloyd-Davies, Ponman, & Cannon, 2000; Xue & Wu, 2000). Thus, we also model the distribution of the heated ICM using the observed parameters of nearby clusters as follows. In this paper, we assume that the ICM had been heated before being accreted by clusters. However, the distribution will qualitatively be the same even if the ICM is heated after accretion (see Loewenstein, 2000).

Following Balogh, Babul, & Patton (1999), we define the adiabat $`K_0=P/\rho ^{\gamma _{\mathrm{ad}}}`$, where $`P`$ is the gas pressure, $`\rho `$ is its density, and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{ad}}=5/3`$ is the constant adiabatic index. If ICM had already been heated before accreted by a cluster, the entropy prevents the gas from collapsing into the cluster with dark matter. In this case, the ICM fraction of the cluster is given by

$$f_{\mathrm{ICM}}=\mathrm{min}[0.040\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{vir}}}{10^{14}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}}\right)\left(\frac{K_0}{K_{34}}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{t(z)}{10^9\mathrm{yr}}\right),f_b],$$
(47)
where $`K_{34}=10^{34}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{g}^{5/3}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Balogh et al., 1999).

The virial temperature of a cluster is given by

$$\frac{k_BT_{\mathrm{vir}}}{\mu m_p}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{GM_{\mathrm{vir}}}{r_{\mathrm{vir}}},$$
(48)
where $`\mu =0.61`$ is the mean molecular weight, and $`G`$ is the gravitational constant. When the virial temperature of a cluster is much larger than that of the gas accreted by the cluster, a shock forms near the virial radius of the cluster (Takizawa & Mineshige, 1998; Cavaliere, Menci, & Tozzi, 1998). The temperature of the postshock gas ($`T_2`$) is related to that of the preshock gas ($`T_1`$) and is approximately given by

$$T_2=T_{\mathrm{vir}}+\frac{3}{2}T_1$$
(49)
(Cavaliere et al., 1998). We assume that the gas temperature does not change very much for $`r<r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ (see Takizawa & Mineshige, 1998). In this case, the ICM temperature of the cluster is given by $`T_{\mathrm{ICM}}=T_2`$. Since we assume that the density profile of gravitational matter is given by equation (43) with $`\alpha =2.4`$, the density profile of ICM is given by

$$\rho _{\mathrm{ICM}}(r)=\rho _{\mathrm{ICM},\mathrm{vir}}\frac{[1+(r/r_\mathrm{c})^2]^{3\beta /2}}{[1+(r_{\mathrm{vir}}/r_\mathrm{c})^2]^{3\beta /2}},$$
(50)
where $`\beta =(2.4/3)T_{\mathrm{vir}}/T_{\mathrm{ICM}}`$ (see Bahcall & Lubin, 1994). Observations suggest that $`T_10.51`$ keV although it depends on the distribution of the gravitational matter in a cluster (Cavaliere et al., 1998; Fujita & Takahara, 2000). We choose $`3T_1/2=0.8`$ keV hereafter. The normalization $`\rho _{\mathrm{ICM},\mathrm{vir}}`$ is determined by the relation $`f_{\mathrm{ICM}}=M_{\mathrm{ICM}}/M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$.

#### 2.3.2 Ram-Pressure Stripping

We first consider a radially infalling smaller cluster accreted by a larger cluster. Since we study the first infall of a smaller cluster before relaxation, we will ignore the influence of the smaller cluster on the gravitational potential of the larger cluster. (Nonthermal emission from a relaxing cluster will be studied in §3.4.) That is, we assume that the structure of the larger cluster remains intact during the infall of the smaller cluster. The exception is the central region of the larger cluster. Since the smaller cluster has a finite size, the gravitational effect of the central density peak in the larger cluster will be smoothed out on the scale of the smaller cluster’s size or the tidal radius when the smaller cluster reaches the center of the larger cluster. The tidal radius of the smaller cluster, $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{ti}}`$, at the distance $`r`$ from the larger cluster center is obtained by solving the equation,

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{ti}}}{r}=\left[\frac{M_S(\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{ti}})}{3M_L(r)}\right]^{1/3},$$
(51)
where $`M_S(r)`$ and $`M_L(r)`$ are the mass profiles of the smaller and the larger cluster, respectively (Binney & Tremaine, 1987). The internal velocity of the smaller cluster is

$$\stackrel{~}{v_{\mathrm{ti}}}=\sqrt{\frac{GM_S(\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{ti}})}{\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{ti}}}},$$
(52)
and the dynamical time scale is $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{\mathrm{dyn}}=\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{ti}}/\stackrel{~}{v_{\mathrm{ti}}}`$. As the smaller cluster approaches the larger cluster center, $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{ti}}`$ decreases and the infall velocity $`V`$ increases. However, when the infall time-scale $`r/V`$, is smaller than $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$, the tidal disruption virtually stops. We define the minimum radius of the smaller cluster $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ as the tidal radius when $`r/V=\stackrel{~}{t}_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ is satisfied first. We give the core radius of the larger cluster by $`r_{L,c}=\mathrm{max}(0.1r_{\mathrm{vir}},\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{min}})`$ in equations (45) and (50).

We investigate two cases for the initial position of the smaller cluster. One is that the smaller cluster starts to move at the turnaround radius of the larger cluster $`r_{\mathrm{ta}}`$. In this case, we give the initial velocity of the smaller cluster, $`v_i`$, at the virial radius of the larger cluster $`r=r_{L,\mathrm{vir}}`$, and it is

$$\frac{v_i^2}{2}=\frac{GM_{L,\mathrm{vir}}}{r_{L,\mathrm{vir}}}\frac{GM_{L,\mathrm{vir}}}{r_{\mathrm{ta}}},$$
(53)
where $`M_{L,\mathrm{vir}}`$ is the virial mass of the larger cluster. Assuming that $`r_{\mathrm{ta}}=2r_{L,\mathrm{vir}}`$ on the basis of the virial theorem, the initial velocity is

$$v_i=\sqrt{\frac{GM_{L,\mathrm{vir}}}{r_{L,\mathrm{vir}}}}.$$
(54)
The virial radius $`r_{L,\mathrm{vir}}`$ is given by equation (41).

For the second case, we assume that the smaller cluster was initially located near the center of the larger cluster, as expected for the merger of substructure within a large cluster (Fujita et al., 2002). The initial distance from the center of the larger cluster is given by $`r_i=x_ir_{L,\mathrm{vir}}`$, where $`x_i`$ is a parameter and $`0<x_i<1`$; the velocity at $`r=r_i`$ is zero. For both cases, the velocity of the smaller cluster is obtained by solving the equation of motion;

$$\frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{GM_L(r)}{r^2}.$$
(55)
for $`r>r_{L,c}`$. We assume that $`\rho _m(r)=\rho _m(r_{L,c})`$ in equation (55) for $`r<r_{L,c}`$.

As the velocity of a smaller cluster increases, the ram-pressure from the ICM of the larger cluster affects the gas distribution of the smaller cluster. Sarazin (2002) indicated that the ram pressure affects the gas distribution at radii which satisfy

$$P_{\mathrm{ram}}\rho _{L,\mathrm{ICM}}(r)v^2P_S(\stackrel{~}{r}),$$
(56)
where $`\rho _{L,\mathrm{ICM}}`$ is the ICM density of the larger cluster, $`P_S`$ is the static pressure of the smaller cluster, and $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ is the distance from the center of the smaller cluster. The static pressure is given by $`\rho _{S,\mathrm{ICM}}(\stackrel{~}{r})k_BT_{S,\mathrm{ICM}}/(\mu m_p)`$, where the index $`S`$ indicates the smaller cluster. We assume that the ICM of the smaller cluster is stripped outside the radius, $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{st}}`$, satisfying $`P_{\mathrm{ram}}=P_S(\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{st}})`$. However, if $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{ti}}`$ is smaller than $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{st}}`$, we reset the ICM radius to $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{st}}=\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{ti}}`$.

#### 2.3.3 Nonthermal Emission from Merging Clusters

The motion of the smaller cluster relative to the ICM of the larger cluster will induce turbulence behind the smaller cluster. The largest eddy size and velocity are respectively $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{st}}`$ and $`v`$, where $`v`$ is the relative velocity of the smaller cluster to the larger cluster. Thus, we define $`l_0=f_l\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{st}}`$ and $`v_t=f_vv`$, where $`0<f_l<1`$ and $`0<f_v<1`$. We expect that nonthermal emission comes from the turbulent region according to equation (33). The volume of the turbulent region is given approximately by

$$V_{\mathrm{turb}}=\pi \stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{st}}^2vt_{\mathrm{turb}},$$
(57)
where $`t_{\mathrm{turb}}=l_0/v_t`$ is the time-scale of the turbulence. Thus, the synchrotron luminosity and inverse Compton luminosity can be written as

$$L_{\mathrm{syn}}=\frac{B^2}{B^2+B_{\mathrm{CMB}}^2}P_{\mathrm{SI}}V_{\mathrm{turb}}$$
(58)
and

$$L_{\mathrm{IC}}=\frac{B_{\mathrm{CMB}}^2}{B^2+B_{\mathrm{CMB}}^2}P_{\mathrm{SI}}V_{\mathrm{turb}},$$
(59)
respectively. We assume that large-scale magnetic fields are given by

$$\frac{B^2}{8\pi }=b\times \frac{1}{2}\rho _{\mathrm{ICM}}v_t^2,$$
(60)
where $`b`$ is a parameter.

In our model, since the lifetimes of accelerated high-energy particles are equal to or less than the time-scale of fluid turbulence (see §3.1), the high-energy particles and the nonthermal emission from them are mostly confined in the turbulent region with the volume of $`V_{\mathrm{turb}}`$ behind a smaller cluster. Note that the local energy density of the high energy particles is smaller than the thermal energy density of ICM in the calculations in §3.

## 3 Results and Discussion

### 3.1 General Features

We calculate the nonthermal emission from a merging cluster using the model presented in §2. In this subsection, we study the dependence of the nonthermal emission on the cluster masses. The model parameters are shown in Table 1. First, we study the case where a smaller cluster falls from $`r_i=0.5r_{L,\mathrm{vir}}`$, and we adapt the non-heated ICM distribution (eq. ) and the Kolmogorov law ($`m=5/3`$) for the fluid turbulence (Model A). From now on, we assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ and $`h=0.5`$ for the sake of simplicity. A larger cluster forms at $`z=0`$, and a smaller cluster forms at $`z=0.5`$. We also assume that $`f_l=0.5`$ and $`b=1`$. Kato (1968) showed that in the case of equipartition of energy and eddy size between the velocity and magnetic fields on small scales, $`\eta _A=15.5/(2\pi )`$. We adopt that value for $`\eta _A`$.

Figure 1 shows the synchrotron luminosity of merging clusters when the smaller cluster is at the distance $`r`$ from the center of the larger cluster. The outer bends in the curves (e.g. at $`r=1.8`$ Mpc for the model of $`M_{L,\mathrm{vir}}=5\times 10^{15}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M_{S,\mathrm{vir}}=1.5\times 10^{15}M_{\mathrm{}}`$) correspond to the radii at which the ICM radius of the smaller cluster equals to its tidal radius. When $`M_{L,\mathrm{vir}}=5\times 10^{15}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M_{S,\mathrm{vir}}=1.5\times 10^{15}M_{\mathrm{}}`$, the maximum synchrotron luminosity is $`3\times 10^{40}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Since the masses of the clusters are close to the maximum observed so far, the synchrotron luminosity should be the maximum of any clusters for the parameters we have assumed. This maximum luminosity is close to that obtained from observations (e.g., Enßlin et al., 1998; Giovannini et al., 1999; Giovannini & Feretti, 2000; Kempner & Sarazin, 2001), which shows that particle acceleration originating from fluid turbulence is a promising candidate for the synchrotron radio emission from clusters.

The spectral index of the nonthermal emission is given by $`\alpha =(s3)/2`$. Since $`s=4.5`$ for $`m=5/3`$, the spectral index for the model cluster is $`\alpha =0.75`$. This is somewhat smaller than the observed values. For instance, for 18 clusters investigated by Kempner & Sarazin (2001), the average spectral index is $`\alpha =1.2`$ at 327 MHz. One possibility is that the upper cutoff of the energy distribution of particles steepens the observed radio spectrum (eq. ). On the other hand, the observed steep spectrum may be affected by the emission from the region where fluid turbulence has almost disappeared and higher energy particles have lost their energy. Although it is halo emission, Giovannini et al. (1993) showed that the spectral index of the radio halo in the Coma cluster is flat at the halo center ($`\alpha 0.5`$) compared with that in the peripheral region ($`\alpha 1.5`$). In the future, more observations of the spectral index of halo and relic radio emission will be useful to study the turbulent acceleration there.

Figure 1 also shows the inverse Compton luminosities. Compared to the synchrotron luminosities, they achieve their maxima when the smaller cluster is in the outer region of the larger cluster. This is because the magnetic fields in the clusters increase with the kinetic energy of turbulence (eq. ), and the fraction of the inverse Compton luminosity decreases as the magnetic fields increase (eqs.  and ). We present the magnetic fields produced by a smaller cluster at the distance $`r`$ from the center of a larger cluster in Figure 2. The absolute inverse Compton luminosity ($`3\times 10^{40}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) we predict in Figure 1 is much smaller than the hard X-ray luminosities observed in several clusters. For the Coma cluster, which is known as a merging cluster, the BeppoSAX detected hard X-ray flux of $`2.2\times 10^{11}`$ ergs cm<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup> in the $`2080`$ keV band. This corresponds to the luminosity of $`10^{43}`$ ergs s<sup>-1</sup> (Fusco-Femiano et al., 1999). For Abell 2256, which is also known as a merging cluster, the flux of hard X-ray emission is $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$ ergs cm<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup> in the $`2080`$ keV band range (Fusco-Femiano et al., 2000) and the corresponding luminosity is $`10^{44}`$ ergs s<sup>-1</sup>. This may suggest that the hard X-ray emission observed in clusters so far are not attributed to the particles accelerated by turbulence, although our turbulence model is favorable in the view of the maximum energy of electrons (§2.2). In the future, it will be useful to observe the spatial distributions of hard X-ray emission in a number of clusters with sensitive detectors. If hard X-ray emission is observed from the same region as synchrotron emission but there are no shock features such as temperature jumps in this region, it is likely that the emission is due to turbulent acceleration of electrons.

The fluid turbulence could be observed directly by detectors with high spectral resolution. Figure 3 shows the typical turbulent velocity of the turbulence, $`v_t`$, induced by a smaller cluster at the distance $`r`$ from the center of a larger cluster. The maximum velocity is $`300\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and it could marginally be detected by observing broadened X-ray emission lines with Astro-E2; the turbulence is likely to be observed at the regions where synchrotron radio emission is observed. Since it may be difficult to measure the absolute line widths, it may be better to compare the line widths in radio-emitting regions which are expected to be turbulent with those in other regions of the cluster. Moreover, although the typical turbulent velocity is $`v_t`$, there should be velocity components between $`v_t`$ and the velocity of the smaller cluster, $`v`$. These components would be observed as broad wings of the emission lines. The spatial scale of the turbulent nonthermal emission region ($`vt_{\mathrm{turb}}`$) when the smaller cluster is at a radius $`r`$ is shown in Figure 4.

One concern is whether our assumption of steady turbulence and particle acceleration can be justified or not. Figure 5 shows the life span of the turbulence, $`t_{\mathrm{turb}}l_0/v_t`$. As can be seen, $`t_{\mathrm{turb}}10^9`$ yr for the outer regions of clusters. On the other hand, we expect that the energy distribution of accelerated electrons reaches the steady solution of $`\nu =3`$ in the time-scale of $`t_p=\mathrm{min}[t_a,t_e]`$2.1). Since the emission cooling time-scale, $`t_e`$, does not depend on an electron energy spectrum, the relation $`t_e<t_{\mathrm{turb}}`$ is a sufficient condition for the assumption of steady-state. Figure 2 in Sarazin (1999) showed that the electrons with $`\gamma 300`$ have the maximum lifetime of several of $`10^9`$ yr, and that electrons with $`\gamma p/(m_ec)10^3`$ have the emission cooling times shorter than $`10^9`$ yr. Thus, we think that the assumption of steady-state is justified for electrons with $`\gamma 10^3`$ in the outer region of a cluster. Thus, if the radio and hard X-ray nonthermal emission from clusters is due to the electrons accelerated by turbulence up to $`\gamma 10^410^5`$, there must be a pool of source electrons with $`\gamma 10^3`$ to be accelerated by turbulence in clusters. These source electrons may be provided by the shock acceleration due to cluster mergers and/or gas accretion onto clusters that occurred $`10^9`$ yrs ago. In particular, the merger shock wave expected to form in front of the merging smaller cluster may provide those electrons. Alternatively, these electrons might come from AGNs in clusters, or might be secondary electrons produced by the interactions of cosmic-ray ions (Dolag & Enßlin, 2000; Blasi, 2001; Miniati et al., 2001).

As the smaller cluster reaches the center of the larger cluster, $`t_{\mathrm{turb}}`$ decreases rapidly. In this region, since the fluid turbulence has not developed fully to accelerate electrons with an energy of $`\gamma 10^3`$, the actual nonthermal luminosities of clusters may be smaller than those in Figures 1 even if there is a pool of electrons with the energy of $`\gamma 10^3`$. In other words, although electrons with higher energy (say $`10^4`$) can be accelerated by turbulence because of small $`t_e`$, the turbulent acceleration is not a main contributor to the observed nonthermal emission.

Note that all the gas contained in the smaller cluster was stripped before the smaller cluster reached the center of the larger cluster in our model. Thus, there is no nonthermal emission from the central region of the larger cluster (Figure 1). This and the small time-scale of the fluid turbulence in the central region suggest that our model favors peripheral radio relics rather than central radio halos. However, the ram-pressure stripping will depend on the central structure of the smaller cluster, although the detailed study is beyond the scope of this paper. If the smaller cluster has a distinct small scale potential at the center as suggested by the observation of Fornax cluster (Ikebe et al., 1996), the gas in it may not be removed easily. Also, if the stars of the central galaxy in the small cluster can supply enough gas, the gas may survive the ram pressure from the ICM of the larger cluster. Moreover, the radiative cooling of the gas in the central region of the smaller cluster may affects the ram-pressure stripping (Ritchie & Thomas, 2002). In fact, the cluster 1E 0657$``$56 has a rapidly moving small component that appears to have passed the cluster center without losing all of the gas (Markevitch et al., 2002).

### 3.2 Parameter Dependence

Since there are several uncertain parameters in our model, we investigate the dependence of the nonthermal emission from merging clusters on these uncertain parameters.

Figure 6 shows the nonthermal emission when $`f_v=0.1`$ and 0.5. The luminosities are small when $`f_v`$ is small. In particular, the synchrotron luminosity varies more than the inverse Compton luminosity. This is because the synchrotron luminosity is affected not only by the energy injection from fluid turbulence but also by magnetic fields. When $`f_v`$ or $`v_t`$ are small, the induced magnetic fields (eq. ) is also small. If $`B<B_{\mathrm{CMB}}`$, most of the nonthermal emission should be the inverse Compton emission rather than synchrotron emission (eqs.  and ). On the other hand, the results do not much depend on $`f_l`$.

The magnetic fields shown in Figure 2 are roughly consistent with the large values implied by Faraday rotation measurements (e.g., Lawler & Dennison, 1982; Kim et al., 1990; Goldshmidt & Rephaeli, 1993; Clarke, Kronberg, & Böhringer, 2001). However, the magnetic fields must be much smaller than the values implied by the Faraday rotation measurements if both nonthermal radio and hard X-ray emission are attributed to the same electron population with a power-law energy distribution without an upper cutoff (Fusco-Femiano et al., 1999, 2000). Thus, we also consider the case where the magnetic fields are small. Figure 7 shows the nonthermal emission when $`b=0.001`$. In this case, $`B`$ is about 30 times smaller than that in Figure 2. Although the synchrotron luminosity is not much different from that in Figure 1, the inverse Compton luminosity is much larger. This is because the total nonthermal luminosity becomes larger (eqs.  and ) and the fraction of Compton luminosity also becomes larger (eq. ). Since the maximum inverse Compton luminosity is relatively large ($`10^{4243}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$), the observations of both nonthermal radio and hard X-ray emission may be explained by this turbulence resonant acceleration model. If these small magnetic fields are correct, then the turbulent region must be different from the region where the Faraday rotation is measured.

In §3.1, we assumed that the fluid turbulence follows the Kolmogorov law ($`m=5/3`$). However, for fully developed MHD turbulence, Iroshnikov (1963) and Kraichnan (1965) suggested that the spectral index should be $`m=3/2`$, although this is controversial (Goldreich & Sridhar, 1997). On the other hand, if turbulence has not had time to establish a Kolmogorov cascade, the index may be $`m>5/3`$. Thus, we discuss the $`m`$-dependence of the nonthermal emission. In Figure 8, we present the nonthermal emission when $`m=1.55`$ and 1.75. It shows that the emission is very sensitive to $`m`$. When $`m=1.55`$, the inverse Compton emission reaches $`10^{4344}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which is consistent with the observed hard X-ray luminosities (Fusco-Femiano et al., 1999, 2000) even though the magnetic field is strong ($`b=1`$). (Note that if we take $`m=1.5`$, the inverse Compton luminosity is much larger than the observed luminosities.) On the other hand, the synchrotron luminosity exceeds the observed values of $`10^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. However, if the maximum energy of electrons is set by fluid viscosity at $`\gamma 10^4`$ (eq. ), the observed synchrotron luminosity at $`1`$ GHz may be smaller than that shown in Figure 8 while the inverse Compton luminosity is almost the same (Brunetti et al., 2001a; Petrosian, 2001; Fujita & Sarazin, 2001). Thus, the model with $`m<5/3`$ can explain both the nonthermal radio and inverse Compton emission as a result of particle acceleration by turbulence.

Although the possibility is small (Fujita et al., 2002), a smaller cluster may fall from the turnaround radius of a larger cluster ($`x_i=2`$). In this case, the smaller cluster has a large velocity near the center of the larger cluster compared to the case in §3.1. Figure 9 shows the nonthermal emission from the merging clusters. After the smaller cluster enters the virial radius of the larger cluster, it produces nonthermal emission. The maximum luminosities are not much different from those in Figure 1. Although the smaller cluster has a larger velocity, the radius is smaller owing to the larger ram-pressure. However, as shown in Figure 10, the time-scale of the fluid turbulence is small ($`t_{\mathrm{turb}}10^9`$ yr). This means that the turbulence cannot accelerate electrons at $`\gamma 10^3`$ up to $`10^4`$, where the observed nonthermal emission is produced. Thus, the actual luminosities may even smaller than those shown in Figure 9. On the other hand, since the turbulent velocity is large ($`10^3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$; Figure 11), it would be easily observable by high spectral resolution X-ray detectors (e.g., Astro-E2).

### 3.3 Preheating

If the gas distribution of the small cluster has been flattened and the central gas density had been decreased by non-gravitational heating before cluster formation (preheating), the gas is more easily removed by the ram-pressure when the smaller cluster plunges into the larger cluster. Figure 9 shows how the nonthermal emission from merging clusters is affected by preheating. Compared with the case of no preheating (Figure 1), the maximum luminosities of the nonthermal emission is small especially when the mass of the smaller cluster is small. This is because preheating affects less massive clusters significantly and the gas is stripped earlier especially when the virial temperature of the smaller of the merging clusters approaches $`T_1`$ (eqs.  and ).

Radio observations have shown that the luminosity of diffuse radio emission from clusters is a steep function of cluster X-ray temperature or luminosity (Feretti, 2000; Liang et al., 2000). Since the sample of radio emission is small and less luminous radio clusters may not have been observed, this correlation may actually show that the maximum radio luminosity for a given X-ray temperature or luminosity is a steep function of cluster X-ray temperature or luminosity. This suggests that the steep correlation may apply only to clusters undergoing a major merger (small $`M_{L,\mathrm{vir}}/M_{S,\mathrm{vir}}`$).

Since the preheating reduces the nonthermal emission from less massive clusters, it may help to explain the observed steep correlation. We assume that $`\mathrm{min}(M_{L,\mathrm{vir}}/M_{S,\mathrm{vir}})3`$ and it does not depend on $`M_{L,\mathrm{vir}}`$. For the no preheating model (Figure 1), the synchrotron luminosity from merging clusters of $`M_{L,\mathrm{vir}}=5\times 10^{14}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M_{S,\mathrm{vir}}=1.5\times 10^{14}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is about 50 times smaller than that from merging clusters of $`M_{L,\mathrm{vir}}=5\times 10^{15}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M_{S,\mathrm{vir}}=1.5\times 10^{15}M_{\mathrm{}}`$. If the temperature of the larger clusters are represented by $`T_{\mathrm{ICM}}M_{L,\mathrm{vir}}^{2/3}`$ (e.g., Evrard, Metzler, & Navarro, 1996), the ratio of the temperature between the two cases is 4.6. Thus, the synchrotron luminosity from merging clusters roughly follows $`L_{\mathrm{syn}}T_{\mathrm{ICM}}^{2.6}`$. Similarly, for the preheating model (Figure 9) we obtain $`L_{\mathrm{syn}}T_{\mathrm{ICM}}^{3.0}`$. Since the virial temperature of the smaller cluster of $`M_{S,\mathrm{vir}}=1.5\times 10^{14}M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`T_1`$, its merger with the larger cluster is significantly affected by the preheating. However, although preheating steepens the relation, the power-law index is still smaller than that observed ($`6`$; Feretti, 2000).

### 3.4 Turbulence Developed in the Whole Cluster

Numerical simulation done by Roettiger et al. (1999) showed that the fluid turbulence in ICM is also developed after a smaller cluster passes the center of a larger cluster. This turbulence is pumped by dark matter-driven oscillations in the gravitational potential; the merger-induced large scale bulk flows breakdown into turbulent gas motions. In this case, we expect the turbulence prevails on a cluster scale, and we can roughly estimate the nonthermal emission from the cluster. If we assume that $`v_t=1000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`l_0=1`$ Mpc, $`\rho _{\mathrm{ICM}}=7\times 10^{28}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`T_{\mathrm{ICM}}=10^8`$ K, $`b=1`$, and $`m=5/3`$, we obtain $`L_{\mathrm{syn}}=8\times 10^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{IC}}=1\times 10^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ using the model in §2. Thus, turbulence is strong enough to produce the observed synchrotron emission ($`10^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$), but cannot produce the observed hard X-ray emission ($`10^{4344}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) as long as $`m=5/3`$ and the magnetic fields are strong ($`b=1`$). However, for the same parameters but with weak magnetic fields ($`b=0.001`$), we obtain $`L_{\mathrm{syn}}=8\times 10^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{IC}}=9\times 10^{43}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The luminosities are comparable to the observations. Observed central radio halos may be this kind of nonthermal emission from the whole cluster. The turbulent velocity, $`v_t`$, would be large enough to be detected by Astro-E2.

## 4 Conclusions

We have investigated nonthermal emission from electrons accelerated by resonant Alfvén waves in clusters of galaxies. We assume that the Alfvén waves are driven by fluid turbulence generated by cluster mergers. We find that the resonant Alfvén waves can accelerate electrons up to $`\gamma 10^5`$; this value is limited by fluid viscosity. Our calculations show that the turbulent resonant acceleration can give enough energy to electrons to produce the observed diffuse radio emission from clusters if there is a pool of electrons of $`\gamma 10^3`$ in clusters.. On the other hand, the observed hard X-ray emission from clusters is explained by the turbulent resonant acceleration only when magnetic fields are small ($`\mu G`$) or the fluid turbulence spectrum is flatter than the Kolmogorov law. The fluid turbulence responsible for the particle acceleration would be observed by Astro-E2 in the regions where diffuse radio emission is observed. Although non-gravitational heating before cluster formation (preheating) makes the relation between radio luminosity and X-ray temperature steeper, our predicted relation is still flatter than the observed one.

We thank H. Ohno, H. Matsumoto, and T. N. Kato for useful discussions. Y. F. and M. T. were each supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan (Y. F.: 14740175; M. T.: 13440061). C. L. S. was supported in part by $`Chandra`$ Award Number GO1-2123X, issued by the $`Chandra`$ X-ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of NASA under contract NAS8-39073, and by NASA XMM Grant NAG5-10075.


format: text

text:
# A Keck Adaptive Optics Search for Young Extrasolar Planets

## 1. Introduction

Direct detection is a crucial next step in our understanding of extrasolar planets. Although the radial velocity technique continues to generate valuable discoveries (Marcy & Butler 2000), the composition, origins, and essential natures of exoplanets will likely remain hidden unless we can study them directly.

To date, we know of over 100 exoplanets, all with semimajor axes $`<`$ 6 AU. Using the radial velocity technique, detection of exoplanets with orbital radii similar to those of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune would require timelines on the order of decades. However, the existence of these outer planets, theories of planetary dynamics (e.g. Rasio & Ford, 1996), and the shaping of dusty debris disks (Holland et al 1998; Greaves et al. 1998; Liou & Zook 1999, Ozernoy et al. 2000) all lend credence to the idea of planets with semimajor axes of tens to hundreds of AU.

## 2. Strategies for Heightened Sensitivity

The primary requisites of a workable strategy for detection of extrasolar planets are high-contrast imaging and subarcsecond resolution. These capabilities are available via the use of ground-based adaptive optics (AO) systems or direct imaging from space. A choice of AO in turn mandates the use of large telescopes, since the time required to achieve a given S/N ratio varies as the inverse fourth power of mirror diameter (Olivier et al. 1997). Yet even with Keck AO, planets with semi-major axes of order tens of AU can be spatially resolved only around stars within $``$ 60 pc of Earth. Current AO sensitivities also rule out the detection of solar-age planets in reflected light, however, young ($`<`$ 60 Myr), warm planets may be seen via their near-infrared emission.

Selection of young targets is effected chiefly through the study of galactic space motions (U,V,W) in conjunction with excess emissions of stars. These may appear as X-rays, H$`\alpha `$ and Ca II H & K emission, or far-infrared excesses (e.g. Spangler et al. 2001). Lithium absorption may also be an important youth indicator. Techniques for identifying young stars are further described in Zuckerman et al. (2001).

Once targets have been identified and observed, registration of long-exposure images and a process called unsharp-masking increase our sensitivity to point sources. Unsharp-masking is a process in which a smoothed version of an image is subtracted from the original so as to improve the contrast between the background noise and small-scale structure. As can be seen in the next section, unsharp-masking improves our sensitivity to point sources by as much as two magnitudes within 2” of a target star.

## 3. Project Status

Our study utilizes the AO system on Keck II (Wizinowich et al. 2000). Over the past two years, we have observed $``$ 100 nearby, young stars using KCAM, NIRSPEC’s slit-view camera (SCAM), and most recently NIRC2, the first camera optimized for Keck AO. We estimate that more than half of our target stars are $`<`$ 100 Myr old.

Figure 1 shows sensitivity calculations for representative targets from the SCAM and NIRC2 datasets. As expected, sensitivity improves both for NIRC2 data and for images which have been unsharp-masked.

Using the age of GJ 803, we derived orbital separations at which this study would detect planets of 2, 5, and 10 Jupiter masses. By scaling with respect to star age and data quality (measured by Strehl ratio), we may extend this result to other target stars (Table 1).

Our sensitivity to planets of a given mass varies with such factors as age, distance, and magnitude of the host star, as well as conditions under which the data were taken. However, for the best stars in our sample, of which GJ 803 is an example, this survey is able to detect 1 MJ planets with orbital radii of only 19 AU.

### Acknowledgments.

Portions of this work were performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48. This work was also supported by the National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center for Adaptive Optics, managed by the University of California at Santa Cruz under cooperative agreement No. AST - 9876783. Additional funding was provided by a NASA grant to UCLA.

## References

Burrows A., Marley, M., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., Guillot, T., Saumon, D., Freedman, R., Sudarsky, D., Sharp, C. 1997 ApJ, 491, 856

Greaves, J. S., Holland, W. S., Moriarty-Schieven, G., Jenness, T., Dent, W. R. F., Zuckerman, B., McCarthy, C., Webb, R. A., Butner, H. M., Gear, W. K., Walker, H. J. 1998 ApJLetters, 506, 133

Holland, W. S., Greaves, J. S., Zuckerman, B., Webb, R. A., McCarthy, C., Coulson, I. M., Walther, D. M., Dent, W. R. F., Gear, W. K., Robson, I. 1998 Nature, 392, 788

Liou, J., Zook, H.A. 1999, AJ, 118, 580

McLean, I.S. et al. 1998, SPIE, 3354, 566

Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P. 2000, PASP, 112, 137

Olivier, S. S., Max, C. E., Brase, J. M., Gavel, D. T., Macintosh, B., Carrano, C. 1998, in ASP Conference Series 134: Brown Dwarfs and Extrasolar Planets, eds. Rebolo, R., Martin, E.L., Zapatero Osorio, M.R., (San Francisco: ASP), 262.

Ozernoy L.M., Gorkavyi N.N., Mather J.C., Taidakova T.A. 2000, ApJLetters, 537, 147

Spangler, C., Sargent, A. I., Silverstone, M. D., Becklin, E. E., Zuckerman, B. 2001, ApJ, 555, 932

Rasio, F. A., Ford, E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954

Wizinowich, P., et al. 2000, Proc. SPIE, 4007, 64.

Zuckerman, B., Song, I., Bessell, M. S., Webb, R. A. 2001 ApJ, 562, 87


text:
# Black Hole Thermodynamics in Carathéodory’s Approach

## 1 Introduction

We consider black hole thermodynamics in the framework of Carathéodory’s approach to thermodynamics, which postulates the integrability of the Pfaffian form $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ representing the infinitesimal heat exchanged reversibly . The integrability of $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ means that there exist an integrating factor $`\mu `$ and a function $`\sigma `$ (called “empirical entropy” ) such that $`\delta Q_{rev}=\mu d\sigma `$. In standard thermodynamics, the integrability of $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ is a consequence of Clausius inequality, which ensures that the absolute temperature $`T`$ is an integrating factor for $`\delta Q_{rev}`$, in such a way that $`\delta Q_{rev}=TdS`$, where $`S`$ is the entropy (“metrical entropy” ). The existence of the entropy function is part of the second law (the principle of entropy increase for thermodynamic processes of closed and thermally insulated systems is the other part ; it is related to the strict inequality, which holds in irreversible processes, in Clausius inequality). If the integrable Pfaffian form $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ displays a symmetry, in a sense to be described in the following, it is also possible to calculate explicitly and readily an integrating factor by means of elementary tools of differential geometry . As a consequence, an explicit construction of the foliation of the thermodynamic manifold into disconnected adiabatic hypersurfaces satisfying $`\delta Q_{rev}=0`$ is readily calculated.
By postulating a natural form for $`\delta Q_{rev}`$in the case of black holes of the Kerr-Newman family, we can introduce a notion of temperature and of entropy for black holes without referring a priori to the laws of black hole mechanics, thanks to the integrability of $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ and to the presence of a quasi-homogeneity symmetry of the Pfaffian form $`\delta Q_{rev}`$. Particularly, we can generate a potential which is then related to the entropy of the black hole. Both the entropy and the temperature appear as derived quantities. We point out also that the following construction for black holes, being made an explicit use both of the integrability condition and of the symmetry of $`\delta Q_{rev}`$, is of interest also for thermodynamicists.

## 2 Pfaffian form and symmetry

We recall that, for a Kerr-Newman black hole, due to the no-hair theorem, the only parameters available are $`M,Q,J`$ (mass, charge and angular momentum); for an insulated black hole they play the role of conserved charges, and are chosen as independent variables in the thermodynamic domain, which is assumed to be the non-extremal manifold $`M^4M^2Q^2J^2>0`$ (the extremal sub-manifold $`M^4M^2Q^2J^2=0`$ is a boundary of the former, and is temporarily not taken into account. Some more discussion on this topic is found in sect. 4). We look for a natural infinitesimal reversible form for the first law. Then, we have to find out a Pfaffian form such that the first law in its infinitesimal form is implemented, and moreover, such that it is integrable (thus, the first part of the second law is ensured). In the case of a charged rotating system, it would be natural to define $`\delta Q_{rev}=dU+pdV\varphi dq\omega dl\mu dN`$, where $`q`$ is the electric charge, $`l`$ is the angular momentum, $`\varphi `$ is the electrostatic potential and $`\omega `$ is the angular velocity. We introduce then the angular velocity

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{J}{M}\frac{1}{2M^2Q^2+2M\sqrt{M^2Q^2J^2/M^2}}$$
(1)
and the electric potential

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{Q(M+\sqrt{M^2Q^2J^2/M^2})}{2M^2Q^2+2M\sqrt{M^2Q^2J^2/M^2}}$$
(2)
of the black hole. Both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be assigned on a purely geometrical footing, without any a priori knowledge of black hole thermodynamics. Analogy with standard thermodynamics leads us to associate infinitesimal variations of $`Q,J`$ with work terms $`\mathrm{\Phi }dQ`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }dJ`$; infinitesimal variations of $`M`$ can naturally play the role of $`dU`$ in standard thermodynamics, where $`U`$ is the internal energy. We then define

$$\delta Q_{rev}dM\mathrm{\Phi }dQ\mathrm{\Omega }dJ.$$
(3)
Definition (3) is natural, in fact the (rest) mass can be identified with (a term of) the internal energy (the rest mass of a fluid can be considered as a term of the internal energy in standard thermodynamics; see e.g. ); moreover, as seen, the work terms appear as standard work terms. The most evident difference with the case of a standard system consists in the absence, for the black hole case, of the $`pdV`$ term. This lack is associated with the lack of a notion of volume in the black hole case, as well known. Even a pressure cannot be defined, and the same is true for the particle number $`N`$.
It is stressed that the infinitesimal variation $`dM\mathrm{\Phi }dQ\mathrm{\Omega }dJ`$ is taken along stationary black hole solutions of the Kerr-Newman family, because of (1), (2); this means that the Einstein equations are satisfied for each state involved in the aforementioned variation. Moreover, these solutions of the Einstein equations are considered as black hole equilibrium states, to be compared with equilibrium states of standard thermodynamics.
The Pfaffian form $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ is everywhere non-singular, i.e., there is no point of the thermodynamic domain where all the coefficients of the differential form vanish (this property holds also for points of the extremal boundary). It is easy to show that $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ is smooth on the non-extremal manifold and is completely integrable, that is, it satisfies the condition $`\delta Q_{rev}d(\delta Q_{rev})=0`$, i.e.

$$_J\mathrm{\Phi }+_Q\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Phi }_M\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_M\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(4)
Being $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ a one-form in three variables, this integrability condition is surely non-trivial (it would be trivial in the case of two variables). Notice that a different choice for the sign of the work terms in (3) would lead to a non-integrable Pfaffian form, as it is easy to verify. In the appendix, we extend the present considerations to the case where a magnetic monopole charge $`P`$ is allowed. It is remarkable that integrability is not postulated, but it simply follows from considering infinitesimal “on shell” variations, i.e. variations along the aforementioned solutions.
We can also find an integrating factor by using the quasi-homogeneity symmetry of the Pfaffian form (3).111A Pfaffian form $`\omega =_{i=1}^n\omega _i(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)dx^i`$ is quasi-homogeneous of degree $`r\text{I}\text{R}`$ and weights $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)\text{I}\text{R}^n`$ if, under the scaling $`x^1,\mathrm{},x^n\lambda ^{\alpha _1}x^1,\mathrm{},\lambda ^{\alpha _n}x^n`$ one finds $`\omega \lambda ^r\omega `$. This happens if and only if $`\omega _i(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)`$ is quasi-homogeneous of degree $`\beta _i=r\alpha _i`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, which means that $`\omega _i(\lambda ^{\alpha _1}x^1,\mathrm{},\lambda ^{\alpha _n}x^n)=\lambda ^{r\alpha _i}\omega _i(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)`$. In fact, under the quasi-homogeneous transformation  (also called “similarity transformation” and “stretching transformation” ) $`M\lambda ^\alpha M;Q\lambda ^\alpha Q;J\lambda ^{2\alpha }J`$, one obtains $`\delta Q_{rev}\lambda ^\alpha \delta Q_{rev}`$, i.e., $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ is quasi-homogeneous of degree $`\alpha `$. $`(\alpha ,\alpha ,2\alpha )`$ are defined to be the weights of $`M,Q,J`$ respectively and they have to be determined. Let us define the so-called Euler vector field , which is infinitesimal generator of the transformation

$$D_\alpha \alpha M\frac{}{M}+\alpha Q\frac{}{Q}+2\alpha J\frac{}{J};$$
(5)
we have introduced above a label $`\alpha `$ which underlines that $`\alpha `$ is not yet fixed ($`\{D_\alpha \}_\alpha `$ is a one-parameter family of Euler vector fields); let the corresponding Lie derivative be $`L_{D_\alpha }`$; then, the quasi-homogeneous transformation is a symmetry for $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ (see e.g. ), in the sense that

$$(L_{D_\alpha }\delta Q_{rev})\delta Q_{rev}=0.$$
(6)
In fact, $`L_{D_\alpha }\delta Q_{rev}=\alpha \delta Q_{rev}`$. An integrating factor $`f_\alpha `$ such that the form $`\delta Q_{rev}/f_\alpha `$ is exact is $`f_\alpha i_{D_\alpha }\delta Q_{rev}=\delta Q_{rev}(D_\alpha )`$. For a proof that $`f_\alpha `$ is an integrating factor see Ref.  and, for the homogeneous case, see e.g. Ref.  and also Ref. , where an application to ordinary thermodynamics can be found. In our case, one obtains $`f_\alpha =\alpha (M\mathrm{\Phi }Q2\mathrm{\Omega }J)`$, explicitly $`f_\alpha =\alpha \sqrt{M^2Q^2J^2/M^2}`$, which is not identically vanishing, thus $`D_\alpha `$ is associated with a transversal (or non-trivial) symmetry  (i.e., $`D_\alpha `$ does not belong to the distribution of codimension one associated with the kernel of $`\delta Q_{rev}`$). We remark that the integrating factor $`f_\alpha `$ is proportional to the horizon coordinate $`c`$ introduced by B.Carter in . Then, $`f_\alpha `$ is constant on the horizon.

## 3 Foliation of the thermodynamic manifold

Frobenius theorem for the Pfaffian form $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ on the non-extremal manifold can be invoked and a foliation of the non-extremal manifold can be generated thanks to the integrability property (4). The non-extremal thermodynamic space is foliated by the submanifolds (of codimension one) which are solutions of the Pfaffian equation $`\delta Q_{rev}=0`$. The leaves of the foliation of codimension one are surfaces where the potential associated with $`\delta Q_{rev}/f_\alpha `$ is constant. Let $`(M_0,Q_0,J_0)`$ be a reference state and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be any path connecting the reference state to the state $`(M,Q,J)`$ of interest. By choosing e.g. a rectangular path $`(M_0,Q_0,J_0)(M,Q_0,J_0)(M,Q,J_0)(M,Q,J)`$ contained in the non-extremal manifold, one finds

$`\widehat{S}_\alpha (M,Q,J)\widehat{S}_\alpha (M_0,Q_0,J_0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Q_{rev}}{f_\alpha }}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2b^2(M,Q,J)+J^2/M^2}{M_0^2b^2(M_0,Q_0,J_0)+J_0^2/M_0^2}}\right),`$ (8)
where $`b(M,Q,J)(1+\sqrt{1Q^2/M^2J^2/M^4})`$. The argument of the logarithm is proportional to the black hole area $`A=4\pi (M^2b^2(M,Q,J)+J^2/M^2)`$. We have generated a foliation of the parameter space of Kerr-Newman black holes. The leaves are the surfaces $`A=`$ const., as expected, but we cannot yet determine the so-called metrical entropy  in the case of black holes.
We now introduce an assumption which requires some discussion. The above procedure is a generalization, discussed in Ref. , of the procedure one can develop for standard thermodynamics . In the case of standard thermodynamics of homogeneous systems, the Pfaffian form $`\delta Q_{rev}=dU+pdV\mu dN`$ in Gibbsian variables $`(U,V,N)`$ is homogeneous (for the definition of homogeneous differential form see e.g. Ref. ). The generator of the symmetry is the “Liouville” operator $`Y=U_U+V_V+N_N`$ and the integrating factor is $`\delta Q_{rev}(Y)=U+pV\mu N`$. For a standard thermodynamic system one finds that $`d\widehat{S}\delta Q_{rev}/f=dS/S`$, where $`S`$ is an extensive function which coincides with the metrical entropy of the system and corresponds to the fundamental relation in the entropy representation . This deduction is corroborated by appealing to the homogeneity of $`S`$ in Gibbs’ approach, which allows to find $`TS=U+pV\mu N=\delta Q_{rev}(Y)`$, i.e., the integrating factor coincides with $`TS`$. We proceed by analogy with the formalism of thermodynamics just sketched, which means that we assume that the metrical entropy is the unique 222Uniqueness holds within a multiplicative constant. See . quasi-homogeneous function $`S`$ of degree one which satisfies $`d\widehat{S}\delta Q_{rev}/f=dS/S`$. We refer to  for a proof that such an $`S`$ exists and is unique. This assumption about the role of $`S`$ such that $`\delta Q_{rev}/f=dS/S`$ is correct both in the case of standard thermodynamics in the Gibbs space  and in the case of black hole thermodynamics, and the latter case is analyzed in the following.
The potential $`S_\alpha `$ such that $`d\widehat{S}_\alpha =dS_\alpha /S_\alpha `$ for the black hole case is

$$S_\alpha =c_\alpha A^{1/2\alpha }$$
(9)
where $`c_\alpha `$ is an undetermined constant. We have a one-parameter family of possible metrical entropies (and also fundamental relations in the entropy representation) which satisfy $`D_\alpha S_\alpha =S_\alpha `$, in analogy with $`YS=S`$ of standard thermodynamics. Our result (9) agrees with the result contained in Ref.  but we work in a more general framework where no reference to the laws of black hole mechanics is made \[notice also that in our expression for $`S`$ no additive constant appears, due to quasi-homogeneity symmetry\]. There is still an ambiguity due to the undetermined value of $`\alpha `$, which means that we know the ratio between the weights of $`M,Q,J`$ but not yet the weights themselves. Notice that this ambiguity does not occur in the case of standard thermodynamics, where the weights of $`(U,V,N)`$ are known and they are all equal to one. We recall that the metrical entropy is assumed to belong to the one-parameter family $`\{S_\alpha \}_\alpha `$. For each $`\alpha `$ the temperature is $`T_\alpha =(S_\alpha /M)^1`$ and it is a quasi-homogeneous function of degree $`\alpha 1`$ and weights $`(\alpha ,\alpha ,2\alpha )`$. It is useful to realize that

$`S_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_\alpha }{(c_{1/2})^{1/2\alpha }}}(c_{1/2}A)^{1/2\alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{c_\alpha }{(c_{1/2})^{1/2\alpha }}}(S_{1/2})^{1/2\alpha }`$ (10)
$`T_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{(c_{1/2})^{1/2\alpha }}{c_\alpha }}(S_{1/2})^{11/2\alpha }T_{1/2}.`$ (11)
For any $`\alpha `$ one gets $`T_\alpha dS_\alpha =dM\mathrm{\Phi }dQ\mathrm{\Omega }dJ`$. The black hole area is known to be a superadditive function of $`M,Q,J`$. Superadditivity of the entropy, which plays a fundamental role when one considers the merging of two black holes, does not fix $`\alpha `$. 333$`0<\alpha 1/2`$ is a sufficient condition for preserving superadditivity. Cf. also  for a discussion concerning an analogous ambiguity (our $`1/2\alpha `$ is $`\gamma `$ therein). The Hawking effect is necessary in order to give us an actual thermodynamic meaning to our calculation; it also fixes $`\alpha `$, in fact, in order to identify the temperature of the black hole with the Hawking one it is mandatory to choose $`\alpha =1/2`$. There is also a multiplicative constant (namely, $`c_{1/2}`$) which has to be determined. By comparison with the Hawking effect, one finds that $`c_{1/2}=1/4`$. The above ambiguity can also be resolved phenomenologically, in perfect agreement with the phenomenological nature of a thermodynamic approach ; one should determine $`M,Q,J`$ and then plot $`T(M,Q,J)`$ from measurements of the temperature. $`\alpha =1/2`$ (and also $`c_{1/2}=1/4`$) should come out again.

It is remarkable that, as a consequence of the quasi-homogeneity of black hole entropy, one gets the following generalized Gibbs-Duhem equation, which is analogous to the Gibbs-Duhem equation of standard thermodynamics:

$$M^2d\left(\frac{1}{2MT}\right)Q^2d\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{2QT}\right)Jd\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{T}\right)=0.$$
(12)
This follows from $`S=i_D(\delta Q_{rev}/T)`$ and from $`dS=\delta Q_{rev}/T`$, where $`DD_{1/2}`$. It is easy to show that this generalized Gibbs-Duhem equation corresponds to

$$i_Dd(\frac{\delta Q_{rev}}{T})=0.$$
(13)
In fact, $`dS=i_Dd(\delta Q_{rev}/T)+L_D(\delta Q_{rev}/T)=i_Dd(\delta Q_{rev}/T)+\delta Q_{rev}/T`$; from the latter equality and from $`dS=\delta Q_{rev}/T`$ equation (13) follows. A simple rearrangement of the terms one obtains by making explicit (13) gives then (12). See  for a general setting and  for the case of standard thermodynamics.

Contrarily to the naive expectation, the laws of black hole mechanics give no unique hints about the value of $`\alpha `$, they don’t fix uniquely the metrical entropy and the absolute temperature of the black hole. For any $`\alpha `$ one gets $`T_\alpha dS_\alpha =dM\mathrm{\Phi }dQ\mathrm{\Omega }dJ`$, to be compared with the differential form of the first law. Moreover, one finds that $`f_\alpha =T_\alpha S_\alpha `$, which implies $`\alpha (M\mathrm{\Phi }Q2\mathrm{\Omega }J)=T_\alpha S_\alpha =2\alpha T_{1/2}S_{1/2}`$. By comparison with the first law in the finite form one realizes that $`T_{1/2}=k/(8\pi c_{1/2})`$. The choice of a generic $`\alpha `$ is equivalent to the the substitutions $`A\overline{A}_\alpha `$ and $`k\overline{k}_\alpha `$, where $`\overline{A}_\alpha =A^{1/2\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{k}_\alpha =2\alpha k/A^{1/2\alpha 1}`$, which implement both the differential form and the finite form of the first law (the latter appears as $`\overline{k}_\alpha \overline{A}_\alpha =8\pi \alpha (M\mathrm{\Phi }Q2\mathrm{\Omega }J)`$ which is equivalent to the well-known one). Notice that $`\overline{k}_\alpha `$ is constant on the horizon, thus the zeroth law of black hole mechanics is not sufficient in order to select $`\alpha =1/2`$.

## 4 The extremal boundary

The extremal submanifold is very problematic. It is easy to show that $`\delta Q_{rev}=0`$ on the extremal submanifold, i.e. the extremal submanifold is still an integral submanifold of the Pfaffian form . Nevertheless, there is an important property which fails in the case of states belonging to the extremal submanifold. In fact, given a point of the extremal submanifold, there exist two kinds of adiabatic paths having the given state as initial point. One is a path lying on the extremal submanifold, the other is an “isoareal” path, i.e. a path starting from the extremal submanifold and reaching non-extremal states each of which has the same area as the initial extremal state . In absence of the latter class of solutions, the extremal states would represent a leaf of a foliation, thus they would be adiabatically disconnected from the non-extremal states. Instead, their presence can jeopardize the second law of thermodynamics. A detailed discussion of this topic and of the third law in black hole thermodynamics is the subject of Ref. . See also  for the case of standard thermodynamics.

## 5 Conclusions

The approach to black hole thermodynamics by means of Pfaffian forms we have discussed (Carathéodory’s formalism) represents a further corroboration of the fact that black hole thermodynamics is a form of thermodynamics, even if to large extent exceptional. Quasi-homogeneity symmetry of $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ plays an important role in allowing to calculate an integrating factor and, then, to generate a thermodynamic potential depending on a undetermined parameter $`\alpha `$ which can nevertheless be fixed phenomenologically, as seen. Notice that our approach can be extended in a straightforward way to KN-AdS black holes . Also in this case, there is a quasi-homogeneity structure in the Pfaffian form, as it can be easily realized. It is remarkable that quasi-homogeneity is a symmetry occurring also in the thermodynamics of other self-gravitating systems, like non-relativistic fermionic matter and self-gravitating radiation. Independent thermodynamic variables and their weights change 444One has $`(U,V,N)`$ as independent variables in the fermionic matter case, and $`(U,V)`$ in the self-gravitating radiation case., but a quasi-homogeneous symmetry appears again. See  on the latter topic. The corresponding lack of homogeneity can be related to the purely attractive nature of gravity.

This kind of thermodynamic approach can be insightful also from the point of view of a more general discussion concerning horizon thermodynamics. The availability of a meaningful $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ allows to discriminate between cases where there is a complete thermodynamic structure at hand, which can be associated with the Einstein equations (e.g. because $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ is integrable “on shell”) and cases where Hawking temperature seems to be related simply to kinematics. Cf. . The case of black holes belongs to the former class, a full thermodynamic structure exists and the role of the equations of General Relativity in ensuring the laws of thermodynamics, enhanced e.g. in Ref. , is corroborated in this framework. Notice that, from this point of view, the behavior of General Relativity is, to some extent, intermediate with respect to a macroscopic phenomenological approach, like classical thermodynamics, and a microscopic approach, like statistical mechanics. A macroscopic (“thermodynamic”) point of view is adopted in treating variables like $`M,Q,J`$; on the other hand, field equations furnish $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and ensure an integrability condition which, for standard systems, should be an outcome of statistical mechanics \[statistical mechanics should calculate the analytic form of the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (they are phenomenological interpolations for thermodynamics); moreover, it should justify an integrability condition which is only a postulate in standard thermodynamics; statistical mechanics should allow to determine both the metrical entropy and the weights of the variables $`M,Q,J`$ \]. As far as a “cosmological horizon” like De Sitter (one parameter) is concerned, it corresponds to a solution of General Relativity and $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ can be given (but a too tight thermodynamic space does not allow a non-trivial integrability condition). On the other hand, in the “acceleration horizon” case (like e.g. Rindler case) there is a too poor thermodynamic structure, in the sense that there is no first law. The same comment holds true in the case of “acoustic horizons” (no first law is known).

## Appendix A Magnetically charged black holes

An extension is represented by a rotating charged black hole:

$$\delta Q_{rev}=dM\mathrm{\Phi }dQ\mathrm{\Psi }dP\mathrm{\Omega }dJ,$$
(14)
where $`P`$ is the magnetic monopole charge and

$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \frac{J}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M^2Q^2P^2+2M\sqrt{M^2Q^2P^2J^2/M^2}}},`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{Q(M+\sqrt{M^2Q^2P^2J^2/M^2})}{2M^2Q^2P^2+2M\sqrt{M^2Q^2P^2J^2/M^2}}},`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{P(M+\sqrt{M^2Q^2P^2J^2/M^2})}{2M^2Q^2P^2+2M\sqrt{M^2Q^2P^2J^2/M^2}}}.`$ (17)
Notice that $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ is “on shell”, i.e., it is taken along (stationary) solutions of General Relativity. $`\delta Q_{rev}d(\delta Q_{rev})=0`$ corresponds to four integrability conditions:

$`l_{MQP}_P\mathrm{\Phi }+_Q\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi }_M\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_M\mathrm{\Phi }=0,`$ (18)
$`l_{MQJ}_J\mathrm{\Phi }+_Q\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Phi }_M\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_M\mathrm{\Phi }=0,`$ (19)
$`l_{MPJ}_J\mathrm{\Psi }+_P\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Psi }_M\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_M\mathrm{\Psi }=0,`$ (20)
$`l_{QPJ}\mathrm{\Phi }(_J\mathrm{\Psi }_P\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Psi }(_J\mathrm{\Phi }_Q\mathrm{\Omega })+\mathrm{\Omega }(_P\mathrm{\Phi }_Q\mathrm{\Psi })=0.`$ (21)
Even in this case, the integrability is verified and $`\delta Q_{rev}`$ is a quasi-homogeneous Pfaffian form. The Euler vector field is given by

$$F=\frac{1}{2}M\frac{}{M}+\frac{1}{2}Q\frac{}{Q}+\frac{1}{2}P\frac{}{P}+J\frac{}{J}.$$
(22)
The integrating factor is easily found, and, again the area law can be obtained.


text:
# Epitaxial growth and transport properties of Sr2CrWO6 thin films

(received, August 21, 2002)

## Abstract

We report on the preparation and characterization of epitaxial thin films of the double-perovskite Sr2CrWO6 by Pulsed Laser Deposition (PLD). On substrates with low lattice mismatch like SrTiO3, epitaxial Sr2CrWO6 films with high crystalline quality can be grown in a molecular layer-by-layer growth mode. Due to the similar ionic radii of Cr and W, these elements show no sublattice order. Nevertheless, the measured Curie temperature is well above 400 K. Due to the reducing growth atmosphere required for double perovskites, the SrTiO3 substrate surface undergoes an insulator-metal transition impeding the separation of thin film and substrate electric transport properties.

Double-perovskites of the form $`A_2BB^{}`$O6 are interesting materials both due to their rich physics and their interesting properties with respect to applications in spin electronics. They are half metallic, i.e. have a high effective spin polarization at the Fermi level Kobayashi:98 , and some compounds have a high Curie temperature $`T_C`$, e.g. $`T_C=635`$ K in Sr2CrReO6 Kato:02 . Large low field magnetoresistance effects are found in Sr2FeMoO6 Kobayashi:98 ; Garcia:01 , Sr2FeReO6 Kobayashi:99  and Sr2CrWO6 Philipp:02 . Thin films of the well studied system Sr2FeMoO6 have been fabricated by pulsed-laser deposition (PLD) at relatively high temperatures of about 900C Manako:99 . However, epitaxial growth was found to be complicated and difficult to control. There are indications that high structural quality of films grown on SrTiO3 is associated with semiconducting behavior Asano:99 ; Westerburg:00 . Here, we report on the epitaxial growth of Sr2CrWO6. Due to the good lattice match, epitaxial films of this material can be grown on SrTiO3 substrates in a molecular layer-by-layer growth mode resulting in high crystalline quality.

Sr2CrWO6 thin films were deposited from stoichiometric targets Philipp:02  on atomically flat, HF etched and annealed (001) SrTiO3 substrates by PLD using a 248 nm KrF excimer laser Gross:2000a . Fig. 1 shows the RHEED (Reflection High Energy Electron Diffraction) Klein:99  intensity oscillations of the $`(0,0)`$ diffraction spot recorded during the PLD growth of a $`c`$-axis oriented Sr2CrWO6 film. The molecular layer-by-layer or Frank-van der Merwe growth mode Terashima:90  is achieved for a substrate temperature of 740C, an argon pressure of $`2\times 10^4`$ Torr, a laser repetition rate of 2 Hz, and a laser energy density on the target of $`1.2`$ J/cm2. RHEED was performed with 15 keV electrons at an incident angle of about $`2^{}`$. To obtain the number of RHEED oscillations per unit cell, the film thickness has been determined precisely by X-ray reflectometry (Fig. 4) and then divided by the number of observed RHEED oscillations. The derived molecular layer or block thickness corresponds to half a unit cell ($`c/2=4.004`$Å). Note that the intensity oscillations of the (0,0) and (0,1) spot are out of phase, since for the (0,1) spot the electrons reflected from different growth planes interfere constructively (in-Bragg condition). In this case no RHEED oscillations are expected. The fact that we do observe RHEED oscillations is caused by multiple and diffuse, incoherent scattering which results in an increasing (decreasing) intensity with increasing (decreasing) step density Korte:97 ; Reisinger:pre .

Figure 2 shows an in situ AFM picture of a 42 nm thick film. Clearly, a terrace structure due to the nonvanishing substrate miscut with about 4 Å high steps corresponding to half a unit cell of Sr2CrWO6 can be seen. The AFM analysis shows that Sr2CrWO6 grows as an epitaxial film with a similar crystalline perfection and very smooth surface as the doped manganites Gross:2000a ; Klein:02 .

As shown in the inset of Fig. 3, within the resolution of our four circle x-ray diffractometer only (00$`\mathrm{}`$) peaks ($`\mathrm{}=2,4,6\mathrm{}`$) could be detected. Rocking curves of the (004) peak had a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of only 0.025 which is very close to the FWHM of the substrate peak. The fact that Laue oscillations were detected around the film diffraction peaks (Fig. 3) indicates that the strain due to lattice mismatch between film and substrate ($`0.1`$% for SrTiO3) is not relaxed, i.e. the films grow coherently strained. The unit cell of the high quality strained films has a tetragonal distortion and is slightly larger than the bulk unit cell ($`a_{\mathrm{bulk}}=c_{\mathrm{bulk}}=7.813`$ Å, $`a_{\mathrm{film}}=2\times a_{\mathrm{SrTiO}_3}=7.810`$ Å and $`c_{\mathrm{film}}=8.005`$Å). Fig. 4 shows X-ray reflectometry data of a 52 nm thick Sr2CrWO6 film on a SrTiO3 substrate. Fitting the data refsim  gives a film thickness that agrees to that obtained from counting the RHEED oscillations to within less than $`\pm `$3%. Note that the quality of the fit is extraordinary good.

We have also grown epitaxial Sr2CrWO6 thin films on other substrates such as NdGaO3, MgAlO4 and LaAlO3. On these substrates a much rougher surface and a more distorted crystal structure is obtained. This is caused by the larger lattice mismatch of these substrates to Sr2CrWO6 as compared to SrTiO3.

An important parameter of the double perovskites is the sublattice order of the $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ ions (in our case Cr and W). It is evident that for perfect order a superstructure is obtained resulting in a (111) peak in the x-ray diffraction. The intensity of the (111) peak can therefore be used as a quantitative measure of the sublattice order of the $`B`$, $`B^{}`$ ions. In our Sr2CrWO6 thin films no such peak is found within the experimental resolution for films grown on (001) or (111) SrTiO3, (110) NdGaO3, (001) MgAlO4 and (001) LaAlO3. This gives strong evidence that for our epitaxial Sr2CrWO6 films with high crystalline quality no Cr,W sublattice order is established. It is likely that this is caused by the very similar ionic radii of Cr and W resulting in a very small gain of structural energy by ionic order. We note, however, that despite the complete disorder of the $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ ions a Curie temperature well above 400 K is obtained. This raises questions about theoretical models requiring sublattice order for high $`T_C`$. The saturation magnetization $`M_S`$ was found to strongly depend on the growth conditions and the substrate material. A maximum value of $`M_S=1.9\mu _B`$/f.u at 5 K was obtained for a 48 nm thick film grown on (111) SrTiO3 at $`780^{}`$C.

Resistance vs. temperature was measured with a standard four probe configuration. All films not grown on SrTiO3 substrates show semiconducting behavior what might be attributed to the large lattice mismatch. We note however, the double perovskite films like Sr2CrWO6 or Sr2FeMo6 are grown under very low oxygen partial pressure Manako:99 ; Westerburg:00 , vacuum Asano:99  or Argon atmosphere Yin:99 ; Westerburg:00 ; Philipp:02  in a temperature range between 700 and 900C. Under these conditions (e.g. $`T=800^{}`$C, $`p_{\mathrm{O}_2}=1\times 10^8`$ Torr) the surface of the SrTiO3 substrates becomes oxygen deficient within a few minutes. That is, a few $`\mu `$m thick, oxygen deficient surface layer (SrTiO3-δ) is obtained resulting in a conducting substrate surface Szot:02 . This process is further supported by the reducing plasma during the PLD process. We found that the resistance of the SrTiO3 substrate depends strongly on temperature, reducing atmosphere and time. In Fig. 5, the $`R(T)`$ curve of a SrTiO3 substrate annealed at 820 in Ar is shown as a reference. After the treatment the substrate turns black and shows metallic behavior.

Fig. 5 also shows the $`R(T)`$ curve of a Sr2CrWO6 film grown at a low substrate temperature of only 740C. Evidently, whether or not the metallic behavior results from the film or the substrate, we have etched trenches into the film (see inset in Fig. 5) interrupting the film and forcing the measurement current to flow in parts through the SrTiO3 substrate. As can be seen in Fig. 5 the resistance is still metallic above 50 K but has been increased significantly by roughly one order of magnitude. However, this difference cannot be unambiguously attributed to the interruption of the Sr2CrWO6 film alone because the trenches are deeper than the film thickness, i.e. the outermost layers of the SrTiO3 which may be well conducting are also cut from the current path. Hence, for the Sr2CrWO6 films on SrTiO3 we only have some indication that these films are metallic, however, we cannot definitely prove it at present. Due to the problems of conducting substrate surfaces, in Fig. 5 we plot the resistance of the sample configuration given in the inset and do not plot the resistivity.

In summary, we have grown epitaxial Sr2CrWO6 thin films with very high crystalline quality on SrTiO3 by PLD. Since the ionic radii of Cr and W are almost identical, no sublattice order of these elements is achieved. Nevertheless, we observe Curie temperatures well above 400 K for these disordered films. The transport properties of the Sr2CrWO6 films on SrTiO3 could not unambiguously be separated from those of the substrate, since the SrTiO3 substrate is turned metallic under the reducing deposition conditions.

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (project Al/560) and the BMBF (project 13N8279).