text:
# 𝑏𝑏̄𝑏𝑏̄ production in proton-nucleus collisions at the LHC

## I Introduction

The large rates of production of heavy quarks, expected at high energies, may lead to a sizable number of events, at the CERN-LHC, containing two or more pairs of $`b`$ quarks, generated contemporarily by independent partonic collisions. An inclusive cross section of the order of $`10`$ $`\mu `$b may in fact be foreseen for a double parton collision process, with two $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs produced in a $`pp`$ interactions at $`14`$TeV, while the cross section to produce two $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs by a single collision at the same c.m. energy may be one order of magnitude smaller. All production rates are significantly enhanced in proton-nucleus collisions, which may offer considerable advantages for studying multiparton collision processes. Given the large rates expected, the production of multiple pairs of $`b`$-quarks should hence represent a convenient process to study multiparton interactions in $`pA`$ collisions at the LHC. On the other hand the mechanism of heavy quarks production is not yet understood satisfactorily also in the simplest case of nucleon-nucleon collisions, the effects of higher order corrections in $`\alpha _s`$ being still a matter of debate. A comprehensive description, of the much more structured process of heavy quarks production in hadron-nucleus interactions, might hence be approached after gaining a deeper understanding of the short scale parton-level dynamics of the process. On the other hand a significant feature of higher order corrections in $`\alpha _s`$ is that, for a limited set of physical observables, the whole effect of higher orders reduces to an approximate rescaling of a lowest order calculation of heavy quarks production in perturbative QCD. Some of the features of the process are therefore effectively described by the simplest parton level dynamics at the lowest order in $`\alpha _s`$, which lets one speculate that a similar property might hold also for a much more complex process, as $`b\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$ production.

Taking this optimistic point of view we will attempt, in the present note, to obtain indications on some properties of $`b\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$ production in $`pA`$ interactions at the LHC, by considering the contributions of the two different interaction mechanisms, the connected $`24`$ and the disconnected $`(22)^2`$ parton processes, which will be effectively described by the lowest order diagrams in perturbative QCD, keeping higher order corrections into account by a simple overall rescaling. Obviously, following this philosophy, all considerations will be limited to the class of physical observables falling in the category mentioned above.

## II $`b\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$ production in proton-nucleus collisions

Quite in general, with the only assumption of factorization of the hard component of the interaction, the expression of the double parton scattering cross section to produce two $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs is given by

$$\sigma _{(p,A)}^D(b\overline{b},b\overline{b})=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_p(x_i,x_j;s_{ij})\widehat{\sigma }(x_i,x_i^{})\widehat{\sigma }(x_j,x_j^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(N,A)}(x_j^{},x_j^{};s_{ij})𝑑x_i𝑑x_i^{}𝑑x_j𝑑x_j^{}d^2s_{ij},$$
(1)
where the index $`N`$ refers to nucleon and $`A`$ to a nucleus, while the indices $`i,j`$ to the different kinds of partons that annihilate to produce a $`b\overline{b}`$ pair and the factor $`1/2`$ is a consequence of the symmetry of the expression for exchanging $`i`$ and $`j`$. The interaction region of a hard process is very small as compared to the hadron scale, so the two interactions are well localized in transverse space within the two overlapping hadrons. The rate of events where two hard collisions take place contemporarily, in a given inelastic hadron-hadron interaction, depends therefore on the typical transverse distance between the partons of the pairs undergoing the multiple collision processes. A main reason of interest is hence that double parton scatterings may provide information on the typical transverse separation between pairs of partons in the hadron structure. Indeed the non-perturbative input of a double parton collision is the two-body parton distribution function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_1,x_2,s_{1,2})`$, which depends not only on the fractional momenta $`x_{1,2}`$, but also on the relative distance in transverse space $`s_{1,2}`$, besides (although not written explicitly to simplify the notation) on the scales of the two interactions and on the different kinds of partons involved. As a consequence the double parton scattering cross section is characterized by a linear dependence on dimensional scale factors, which have a direct relation with the typical transverse distances between the partons of the various pairs, contributing to the double scattering process under consideration.

The cross section is simplest when the target is a nucleon and partons are not correlated in fractional momenta, which may be a sensible approximation in the limit of small $`x`$. In such a case the two-body parton distribution may be factorized as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p(x_i,x_j;s_{ij})=G(x_i)G(x_j)F(s_{ij})`$, where $`G(x)`$ are the usual one-body parton distributions and $`F(s)`$ a function normalized to 1 and representing the parton pair density in transverse space. The inclusive cross section to produce two pairs of $`b`$ quarks is then written as

$$\sigma _N^D(b\overline{b};b\overline{b})=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}\sigma _i(b\overline{b})\sigma _j(b\overline{b})$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _i(b\overline{b})`$ represents the inclusive cross sections to produce a $`b\overline{b}`$ pair in a hadronic collision, with the index $`i`$ labelling a definite parton process. The factors $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}`$ have dimension an inverse cross section and result from integrating the products of the two-body parton distributions in transverse space. In this simplified case the factors $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}`$ provide a direct measure of the different average transverse distances between different pairs of partons in the hadron structure  .

The cross section has a more elaborate structure in the case of a nuclear target. The most suitable conditions to study the phenomenon are those where the nuclear distributions are additive in the nucleon parton distributions. In such a case one may express the nuclear parton pair density, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A(x_j^{},x_j^{};s_{ij})`$, as the sum of two well defined contributions, where the two partons are originated by either one or by two different parent nucleons:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_A(x_i^{},x_j^{};s_{ij})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_A(x_i^{},x_j^{};s_{ij})|_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_A(x_i^{},x_j^{};s_{ij})|_2$$
(3)
and correspondingly $`\sigma _D^A=\sigma _D^A|_1+\sigma _D^A|_2`$. The two terms $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A|_{1,2}`$ are related to the nuclear nucleon’s density. Introducing the transverse parton coordinates $`B\pm \frac{s_{ij}}{2}`$, where $`B`$ is the impact parameter of the hadron-nucleus collision, one may write

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_A(x_i^{},x_j^{};s_{ij})|_{1,2}=d^2B\gamma _A(x_i^{},x_j^{};B+\frac{s_{ij}}{2},B\frac{s_{ij}}{2})|_{1,2}$$
(4)
where $`\gamma _A|_{1,2}`$ are given by

$`\gamma _A(x_i^{},x_j^{};B+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{ij}}{2}},B{\displaystyle \frac{s_{ij}}{2}})|_1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_N(x_i^{},x_j^{};s_{ij})T(B)`$ (5)
$`\gamma _A(x_i^{},x_j^{};B+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{ij}}{2}},B{\displaystyle \frac{s_{ij}}{2}})|_2=G_N(x_i^{})G_N(x_j^{})T\left(B+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{ij}}{2}}\right)T\left(B{\displaystyle \frac{s_{ij}}{2}}\right)`$ (6)
with $`T(B)`$ is the nuclear thickness function, normalized to the atomic mass number $`A`$ and $`G_N`$ nuclear parton distributions divided by the atomic mass number.

In the simplest additive case, the first term in Eq.(3) obviously gives a simple rescaling of the double parton distribution of an isolated nucleon

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_A(x_i^{},x_j^{};s_{ij})|_1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_N(x_i^{},x_j^{};s_{ij})d^2BT(B)$$
(7)
and the resulting contribution to the double parton scattering cross section is the same as in a nucleon-nucleon interaction, apart from an enhancement factor due to the nuclear flux, which is given by the value of the atomic mass number $`A`$:

$$\sigma _A^D|_1=A\sigma _N^D.$$
(8)
The $`\sigma _A^D|_2`$ term has more structure. In this case the integration on the relative transverse distance between the partons of the interacting pairs, $`s_{ij}`$, involves both the projectile and two different target nucleons:

$$𝑑s_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_p(x_i,x_j;s_{ij})T\left(B+\frac{s_{ij}}{2}\right)T\left(B\frac{s_{ij}}{2}\right).$$
(9)
As one may notice in this case two very different scales are compared, the hadron radius $`r_p`$ and the nuclear radius $`R_A`$. A usual approximation in $`pA`$ interactions is to consider the limit $`r_pR_A`$, where one may use the approximation

$$T\left(B\pm \frac{s_{ij}}{2}\right)T(B),$$
(10)
which allows one to decouple the integrations on $`s_{ij}`$ and on $`B`$. One hence obtains:

$$\sigma _A^D|_2=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}G_p(x_i,x_j)\widehat{\sigma }(x_i,x_i^{})\widehat{\sigma }(x_j,x_j^{})G_N(x_i^{})G_N(x_j^{})𝑑x_i𝑑x_i^{}𝑑x_j𝑑x_j^{}d^2BT^2(B),$$
(11)
where

$$G_p(x_i,x_j)=d^2s_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_p(x_i,x_j;s_{ij}).$$
(12)
Remarkably the two terms $`\sigma _A^D|_1`$ and $`\sigma _A^D|_2`$ have very different properties. In fact the correct dimensionality of $`\sigma _A^D|_1`$ is provided by transverse scale factors related to the nucleon scale, cfr. Eq.s(2),(8). The analogous dimensional factor in $`\sigma _A^D|_2`$ is provided by the nuclear thickness function, which is at the second power, being two the target nucleons involved in the interaction.

As pointed out in ref., while on general grounds $`\sigma _{(p,A)}^D`$ depends both on the longitudinal and transverse parton correlations, the $`\sigma _A^D|_2`$ term depends solely on the longitudinal momentum fractions $`x_i,x_j`$ so that, when the $`\sigma _A^D|_2`$ term is isolated, one has the capability of measuring the longitudinal and, a fortiori, also the transverse parton correlations of the hadron structure in a model independent way.

Although the two contributions may be defined also in a more general case, the separation of the cross section in the two terms $`\sigma _A^D|_1`$ and $`\sigma _A^D|_2`$ is most useful in the regime of additivity of the nuclear structure functions, which may not be a bad approximation for a sizable part of the kinelatical regime of bottom quarks production at the LHC. In the case of a central calorimeter with the acceptance of the ALICE detector ($`|\eta |<0.9`$), the average value of momentum fraction of the initial state partons, in a $`ppb\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$ process, is $`x6\times 10^3`$. By introducing a cut in the transverse momenta of the $`b`$ quarks of $`5`$ GeV one obtains $`x10^2`$, while a cut of $`20`$ GeV in $`p_t`$, within the same pseudorapidity range, gives $`x2\times 10^2`$. If considering a more forward detector, as LHCb ($`1.8<\eta <4.9`$), the average value of momentum fraction is $`x5\times 10^2`$. Deviations from additivity at low $`x`$ are less than $`10\%`$ for $`x2\times 10^2`$ and, although increasing with the atomic mass number, non additive corrections are at most a $`20\%`$ effect, on the kinematical regime above.

As already mentioned, heavy quarks production is characterized by a non trivial dynamics, in such a way that also next-to-leading corrections to the lowest order term in perturbative QCD are not sufficient for an exhaustive description of the inclusive spectra, which most likely need an infinite resummation to be evaluated. By comparing the results of different approaches to heavy quarks production (as NLO QCD and $`k_t`$-factorization) one nevertheless finds that, in a few cases, the whole effect of higher orders is to a large extent just an approximate rescaling of the results obtained by a lowest order evaluation in perturbative QCD. When limiting the discussion to an accordingly restricted set of physical observables, the whole effect of higher order corrections to heavy quark production is hence summarized by a single number, the value of the so-called $`K`$-factor. By evaluating, with the $`k_t`$-factorization approach, rapidity and pseudorapidity distributions of $`b\overline{b}`$ production, in $`pp`$ collisions at the center-of-mass energy of $`\sqrt{s}=5.5`$ TeV, within $`|\eta |<0.9`$ and $`1.8<\eta <4.9`$, with different cuts in the transverse momenta of the produced $`b`$ quarks, one finds a result not incompatible with a lowest order calculation in perturbative QCD rescaled by factor $`K=5.5`$.

To discuss the production of $`b\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$ in $`pA`$ collisions, while remaining in a kinematical regime where non additive corrections to the nuclear structure functions are not a major effect, we have limited all considerations to physical observables, where higher orders may be taken into account by the simple rescaling of the lowest order calculation. For $`b\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$ production, where only results of three level calculations are up to now available, we have further assumed that the value of the $`K`$-factor in the $`24`$ parton process is the same as in the $`22`$ process. We have hence evaluated the various contributions to the cross section in the case of a central calorimeter with the acceptance of the ALICE detector, $`|\eta |<0.9`$, and of a more forward detector as LHCb, $`1.8<\eta <4.9`$. In both cases the typical values of $`x`$ are rather small, so the factorization of the cross section in Eq.(2) may not be unreasonable. Since the process is dominated by gluon fusion, the expression of the cross section in Eq.(2) may be limited to a single term only. For the corresponding dimensional scale factor we have used the value reported by the CDF measurement of double parton collisions. To obtain the cross section at the lowest order in pQCD we have used the MRS99 parton distributions, with factorization and renormalization scale equal to the transverse mass of the $`b`$-quark. The cross sections of the $`24`$ processes have been evaluated by generating the matrix elements of the partonic amplitudes with MadGraph  and HELAS . For the mass of the bottom quark we have used the value $`m_b=4.6`$ GeV. The multi-dimensional integrations have been performed by VEGAS  and all lowest order pQCD cross section have been finally multiplied by a factor $`K=5.5`$.

## III Results

A major result of the present analysis is that the effects induced by the presence of the nucleonic degrees of freedom, in double parton scatterings with a nuclear target, cannot be reduced to the simple shadowing corrections of the nuclear parton structure functions, whose effect is to decrease the cross section as a function of $`A`$. In the case of double parton collisions, the main effect of the nuclear structure is represented by the presence of the $`\sigma _A^D|_2`$ term in the cross section, which scales with a different power of $`A`$ as compared to the single scattering contribution, producing an additive correction to the cross section.

To emphasize the resulting “anomalous” dependence of the double parton scattering cross section, as a function of the atomic mass number, we have plotted in fig.1 the ratio $`\sigma _2^D/(\sigma _1^D+\sigma ^S)`$, as a function of $`A`$. The ratio represents the contribution to the cross section of the processes where two different nuclear target nucleons are involved in the interaction, scaled to the contribution where only a single target nucleon is involved. The dependence on the atomic mass number of the latter terms of the cross section, namely the single ($`\sigma ^S`$) and the double ($`\sigma _1^D`$) parton scattering terms against a single nucleon in the nucleus, is the same of all hard processes usually considered, where nuclear effects may be wholly absorbed in the shadowing corrections to the nuclear structure functions. The contribution to the cross section of the $`\sigma _2^D`$ term is, on the contrary, “anomalous”, involving two different target nucleons in the interaction process. The ratio above hence represents the relative weights of the “anomalous” to the “usual” contributions to the double parton scattering cross section on a nuclear target. The plots in fig.1 refer to the case of a forward calorimeter ($`1.8\eta 4.9`$) and of a central calorimeter ($`|\eta |.9`$) with different cuts on the transverse momenta of the produced $`b`$-quarks ($`p_{cut}=0,5,10`$ GeV/c).

The different contributions to the cross section for $`b\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$ production, due to interactions with a single or with two different target nucleons, are shown in fig.2 in the case of a central calorimeter. The left figure shows the cross section as a function of the atomic mass number of the one-nucleon (dashed line) and of the two nucleons (continuous line) contributions to the cross section. The dotted line is the sum of the two terms. The right figure shows the two contributions to the rapidity distribution of a $`b`$-quark produced in an event with two $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs: one-nucleon (dashed histograms) and two-nucleon contributions (continuous histograms) in the case of a heavy, Au, (higher histograms) and of a light nucleus, O, (lower histograms). The dependence on $`\eta `$ of the two histograms is essentially the same, showing that the effect of the single parton scattering term (the $`24`$ parton process) is negligible in this kinematical regime.

The $`A`$-dependence of the two different contributions, as a function of $`A`$, are shown in fig.3 in the case of a central calorimeter, after applying a cut of $`5`$ GeV/c (left figure) and of $`10`$ GeV/c (right figure) in the transverse momenta of each produced $`b`$-quark. Dashed, continuous and dotted lines have the same meaning as in fig.2.

The case of a forward calorimeter, $`1.8\eta 4.9`$, is shown in fig.4, where the dashed, continuous and dotted lines have the same meaning as before.

Summarizing the large size of the cross section of $`b\overline{b}b\overline{b}`$ production in hadron-nucleus collisions at the LHC (the values are of the order of one hundreds of $`\mu `$b,) suggests that the production of multiple pairs of $`b`$-quarks is fairly typical at high energies, hence representing a convenient channel to study multiple parton interactions. A rather direct feature, which is a simplest prediction and then a test of the interaction mechanism described above, is the “anomalous” dependence on $`A`$. The effects induced by the presence of the nucleonic degrees of freedom in the nuclear structure are in fact not limited, in this case, to the shadowing corrections to the nuclear structure functions usually considered, which cause a limited decrease (not larger than $`20\%`$, in the kinematical regime considered here) of the cross section for a hard interaction in hadron-nucleus collisions. When considering double parton scatterings, all nuclear effects can be exhausted in the shadowing corrections to the nuclear structure functions only in the $`\sigma _A^D|_1`$ term. The dominant effect of the nuclear structure is however due to the presence of the $`\sigma _A^D|_2`$ term in the cross section, which scales with a different power of $`A`$ as compared to single scattering term, giving rise to a sizably larger correction, with opposite sign as compared to the shadowing correction, namely to an increase of the cross section, which may become larger than $`100\%`$ for a heavy nucleus.

Acknowledgment

This work was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of University and of Scientific and Technological Researches (MIUR) by the Grant COFIN2001.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the context of the recently reported experimental result on double beta decay, together with the earlier experimental data on the atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations, it is important to construct theoretical models which predict the degenerate and inverted hierarchical patterns of the Majorana neutrino mass matrices within the framework of the grand unified theories(GUTs) with or without supersymmetry. In this short paper we attempt to generate the degenerate as well as the inverted hierarchical pattern of the left-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrices using the see-saw formula in a model independent way. This is, in fact, a continuation of our earlier work where the neutrino mixings are provided from the texture of the right-handed Majorana mass matrix $`M_{RR}`$, while keeping the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $`m_{LR}`$ in the diagonal form. We had taken the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $`m_{LR}`$ as either the charged lepton mass matrix ( $`m_{LR}`$ =$`tan\beta `$ $`m_l`$ referred to as case(i)) or the up-quark mass matrix ( $`m_{LR}=m_{up}`$ referred to as case(ii)). While referring to the earlier paper for details, the model successfully generated both the hierarchical and the inverted hierarchical (having opposite sign mass eigenvalues) neutrino mass matrices as a result of the proper choice of the parameters in texture of $`M_{RR}`$. In section 2 we present the generation of the degenerate as well as inverted hierarchical neutrino mass matrices using the see-saw formula, and their predictions on mass eigenvalues and mixing angles. Section 3 is devoted to summary and conclusion.

## 2 Neutrino mass matrices from see-saw formula

The left-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix $`m_{LL}`$ is given by the celebrated see-saw formula,

$$m_{LL}=m_{LR}M_{RR}^1m_{LR}^T$$
(1)
where $`m_{LR}`$ is the Dirac neutrino mass matrix in the left-right (LR) convention. The leptonic (MNS) mixing matrix is now given by $`V_{MNS}=V_{\nu L}^{}`$ where $`m_{LL}^{diag}`$ = $`V_{\nu L}`$ $`m_{LL}`$ $`V_{\nu L}^T`$. Here both $`m_{LR}`$ and the charged lepton mass matrix $`m_l`$ are taken as diagonal, whereas the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix $`M_{RR}`$ as non-diagonal. Using the see-saw formula (1) we generate both patterns of $`m_{LL}`$ viz., (I) nearly degenerate and (II) inverted hierarchical neutrino mass models. We conentrate here only on the cases which have bimaximal mixings listed in Table-I.

Table-I: Zeroth order neutrino mass matrices with texture zeros corresponding to the LMA MSW solution with bimaximal mixings .

| Type | $`m_{LL}`$ | $`m_{LL}^{diag}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| I(A) | $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right)m_0`$ | $`Diag(1,1,1)m_0`$ |
| I(B) | $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)m_0`$ | $`Diag(1,1,1)m_0`$ |
| I(C) | $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)m_0`$ | $`Diag(1,1,1)m_0`$ |
| II(A) | $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right)m_0`$ | $`Diag(1,1,0)m_0`$ |
| II(B) | $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)m_0`$ | $`Diag(1,1,0)m_0`$ |

The Dirac neutrino mass matrix $`m_{LR}`$ involved in the see-saw formula Eq.(1), can be either the charged lepton mass matrix $`m_l`$ (case (i))or the up-quark mass matrix $`m_{up}`$ (case (ii)) depending on the particular SUSY SO(10) GUT model and the contents of the Higgs fields employed:

$$m_{LR}=tan\beta \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^6& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda ^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)m_\tau ,$$
(2)
and

$$m_{LR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^8& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda ^4& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)m_t,$$
(3)
respectively. The above two forms of $`m_{LR}`$ may be written together as

$$m_{LR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^m& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda ^n& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)m_f,$$
(4)
where $`m_f`$ corresponds to $`(m_\tau \mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ in SUSY models for charged lepton mass matrix in case (i), and $`m_t`$ for up-quark mass matrix in case (ii). The pair of the exponents $`(m,n)`$ are $`(6,2)`$ for charged lepton and $`(8,4)`$ for up-quark mass matrices respectively. The value of the Wolfenstein parameter is taken as $`\lambda =0.22`$. Using the diagonal form of $`m_{LR}`$ in Eq.(4) and a suitable choice of the non-diagonal texture of $`M_{RR}`$, the following four types of neutrino mass matrices $`m_{LL}`$ are calculated.

I(A). Nearly degenerate mass matrix with opposite sign mass eigenvalues
The degenerate mass matrix $`m_{LL}`$ having opposite sign mass eigenvalues is now generated through see-saw formula in Eq.(1) for the choices of $`m_{LR}`$ in Eq.(4) and

$$M_{RR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2\delta _2\lambda ^{2m}& (\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\delta _1)\lambda ^{m+n}& (\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\delta _1)\lambda ^m\\ (\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\delta _1)\lambda ^{m+n}& (\frac{1}{2}+\delta _1\delta _2)\lambda ^{2n}& (\frac{1}{2}+\delta _1\delta _2)\lambda ^n\\ (\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\delta _1)\lambda ^m& (\frac{1}{2}+\delta _1\delta _2)\lambda ^n& (\frac{1}{2}+\delta _1\delta _2)\end{array}\right)v_R$$
(5)
leading to a simple form,

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2\delta _1+2\delta _2& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\delta _1& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\delta _1\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\delta _1& \frac{1}{2}+\delta _2& \frac{1}{2}+\delta _2\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\delta _1& \frac{1}{2}+\delta _2& \frac{1}{2}+\delta _2\end{array}\right)m_0$$
(6)
where $`m_0`$ controls the overall magnitude of the masses of the neutrinos whereas $`\delta _1`$ and $`\delta _2`$ give the desired splittings for solar and atmospheric data. When $`\delta _1=\delta _2=0`$, Eq.(6) reduces to the zeroth order mass matrix of the Type I(A) in Table-I, with no splittings. The diagonalisation of $`m_{LL}`$ in Eq.(6) leads to the following eigenvalues and mixings:
$`m_{\nu _1}=[1+2\delta _2\delta _1(1+\sqrt{2})]m_0,`$
$`m_{\nu _2}=[1+2\delta _2\delta _1(1\sqrt{2})]m_0,`$
$`m_{\nu _3}=m_0`$,
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}(1\delta _1^2/8)`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0`$
For the choice of the values of the parameters $`m_0=0.4`$ eV, $`\delta _1=0.0061875`$, $`\delta _2=0.0030625`$, Eq.(6) leads to the following numerical predictions
Mixing angles:
$`sin^22\theta _{12}=0.999`$, $`sin^22\theta _{23}1.0`$, $`|V_{e3}|=6.124\times 10^9`$,
Mass eigenvalues:
$`m_{\nu _i}=(0.396484,0.396532,0.4)`$ eV, $`i=1,2,3`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=3.806\times 10^5eV^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=2.76\times 10^3eV^2`$.
The prediction on solar mixing angle is maximal and larger than the LMA MSW solution. The expression for $`m_0`$ in Eq.(6) for case (i) is worked out as $`m_0=m_\tau ^2tan^2\beta /v_R`$. For input values of $`m_0=0.4eV`$, $`tan\beta =40`$, $`m_\tau =1.7`$ GeV, the see-saw scale is calculated as $`v_R10^{13}`$ GeV. This in turn gives the masses of the three right-handed Majorana neutrinos after the diagonalisation of $`M_{RR}`$:
$`|M_{RR}^{diag}|=(5.0427\times 10^{12},3.0981\times 10^8,1.9613\times 10^7)`$ GeV.
Similarly, in case(ii) we have $`m_0=m_t^2/v_R`$ in Eq.(6), and with the input values $`m_0=0.4`$ eV, $`m_t=200`$ GeV, we obtain $`v_R=10^{14}`$ GeV and the mass eigenvalues of the right-handed Majorana neutrinos: $`|M_{RR}^{diag}|=(4.5932\times 10^{15},7.2731\times 10^6,5.005\times 10^{13})`$ GeV.

I(B). Nearly degenerate mass matrix with the same sign mass eigenvalues
The mass matrix $`m_{LL}`$ of this type can be realised in the see-saw mechanism(1) using the general texture of $`m_{LR}`$ in Eq.(4) and

$$M_{RR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(1+2\delta _1+2\delta _2)\lambda ^{2m}& \delta _1\lambda ^{m+n}& \delta _1\lambda ^m\\ \delta _1\lambda ^{m+n}& (1+\delta _2)\lambda ^{2n}& \delta _2\lambda ^n\\ \delta _1\lambda ^m& \delta _2\lambda ^n& (1+\delta _2)\end{array}\right)v_R$$
(7)
leading to the nearly degenerate mass matrix,

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(12\delta _12\delta _2)& \delta _1& \delta _1\\ \delta _1& (1\delta _2)& \delta _2\\ \delta _1& \delta _2& (1\delta _2)\end{array}\right)m_0$$
(8)
The diagonalisation of $`m_{LL}`$ in Eq.(8) leads to
$`m_{\nu _1}(12\delta _2(\sqrt{3}+1)\delta _1)m_0,`$
$`m_{\nu _2}(12\delta _2+(\sqrt{3}1)\delta _1)m_0,`$
$`m_{\nu _3}m_0`$,
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=\frac{2}{3}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0`$.
For the choice of the values of the parameters $`m_0=0.4`$ eV, $`\delta _1=3.6\times 10^5`$, $`\delta _2=3.9\times 10^3`$, Eq.(8) leads to the following numerical predictions:
Mixing angles:
$`sin^22\theta _{12}=0.67`$, $`sin^22\theta _{23}1.0`$, $`|V_{e3}|=1.5\times 10^{14}`$,
Mass eigenvalues:
$`m_{\nu _i}=(0.39684,0.396892,0.4)`$ eV, $`i=1,2,3`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=4.13\times 10^5eV^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=2.48\times 10^3eV^2`$.
The prediction on solar mixing angle is consistent with the LMA MSW solution.
For case(i), the expression for $`m_0`$ in Eq.(8) is again worked out as $`m_0=m_\tau ^2tan^2\beta /v_R`$, and for input values of $`m_0=0.4eV`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, $`m_\tau =1.7`$GeV, we obtain $`v_R=1.156\times 10^{13}`$GeV which leads to $`|M_R^{diag}|=(1.15\times 10^{13},2.71\times 10^{10},1.498\times 10^5)`$GeV. Similarly for case (ii), we have $`m_0=m_t^2/v_R`$ and for input values of $`m_0=0.4eV`$ and $`m_t=200`$GeV, we have $`v_R=1.0\times 10^{14}`$GeV and $`|M_{RR}^{diag}|=(1.0039\times 10^{14},5.5089\times 10^8,3.035\times 10^4)`$GeV.

I(C). Nearly degenerate mass matrix with opposite sign mass eigenvalues
We consider another texture for the nearly degenerate mass matrix $`m_{LL}`$ with opposite mass eigenvalues. We take $`m_{LR}`$ given in Eq.(4) and the following right-handed neutrino mass matrix

$$M_{RR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(1+2\delta _1+2\delta _2)\lambda ^{2m}& \delta _1\lambda ^{m+n}& \delta _1\lambda ^m\\ \delta _1\lambda ^{m+n}& \delta _2\lambda ^{2n}& (1+\delta _2)\lambda ^n\\ \delta _1\lambda ^m& (1+\delta _2)\lambda ^n& \delta _2\end{array}\right)v_R$$
(9)
The resulting $`m_{LL}`$ is calculated as

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(12\delta _12\delta _2)& \delta _1& \delta _1\\ \delta _1& \delta _2& (1\delta _2)\\ \delta _1& (1\delta _2)& \delta _2\end{array}\right)m_0$$
(10)
where $`m_0`$ controls the overall magnitude of the masses of the neutrinos whereas $`\delta _1`$ and $`\delta _2`$ give the desired splittings for solar and atmospheric data. When $`\delta _1=\delta _2=0`$, Eq.(10) reduces to the zeroth order mass matrix of the Type I(C) in Table-I, with no splittings. The diagonalisation of $`m_{LL}`$ in Eq.(10) leads to the following eigenvalues and mixing angles:
$`m_{\nu _1}(12\delta _2(\sqrt{3}+1)\delta _1)m_0,`$
$`m_{\nu _2}(12\delta _2+(\sqrt{3}1)\delta _1)m_0,`$
$`m_{\nu _3}m_0,`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=\frac{2}{3}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0.`$
The numerical solution leads to $`m_{\nu _i}=(0.39684,0.396892,0.4)`$ eV, $`i=1,2,3`$ for the same choices of the input values of $`\delta _{1,2}`$ and $`m_0`$ as in Eq.(8). Further, the predictions on the three mixing angles are the same as in Eq.(8). When $`\delta _1=\delta _2=0`$, it reduces to the Type I(C) in the Table-I. In case (i), for input values of $`m_0=0.4eV`$, $`tan\beta =40`$, $`m_\tau =1.7`$ GeV, the see-saw scale is calculated as $`v_R10^{13}`$ GeV. This in turn gives the masses of the three right-handed Majorana neutrinos after the diagonalisation of $`M_{RR}`$: $`|M_{RR}^{diag}|=(4.67\times 10^{11},1.296\times 10^5,5.06\times 10^4)`$ GeV. Similarly for case (ii), we have $`m_0=m_t^2/v_R`$ in Eq.(10), and with the input values $`m_0=0.4`$ eV, $`m_t=200`$ GeV, we obtain $`v_R=10^{14}`$ GeV and the mass eigenvalues of the right-handed Majorana neutrinos: $`|M_{RR}^{diag}|=(1.105\times 10^{11},3.035\times 10^3,5.005\times 10^{11})`$ GeV.

II(A). Inverted hierarchical mass matrix with same sign mass eigenvalues
The most general form of the inverted hierarchical mass matrix $`m_{LL}`$ with the same sign mass eigenvalues, can be calculated with the choice of $`m_{LR}`$ given in Eq.(4) and $`M_{RR}`$ of the following form

$$M_{RR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2a\eta (1+2ϵ)\lambda ^{2m}& \eta ϵ\lambda ^{m+n}& \eta ϵ\lambda ^m\\ \eta ϵ\lambda ^{m+n}& a\lambda ^{2n}& (a\eta )\lambda ^n\\ \eta ϵ\lambda ^m& (a\eta )\lambda ^n& a\end{array}\right)\frac{v_R}{2a\eta }$$
(11)
leading to

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(12ϵ)& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& a& (a\eta )\\ ϵ& (a\eta )& a\end{array}\right)m_0$$
(12)
where $`a=0.5`$ and $`m_0`$ is the overall factor for the masses of the neutrinos. The parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ give the desired splittings for solar and atmospheric data. The diagonalisation of $`m_{LL}`$ in Eq.(12) leads to the following eigenvalues and mixing angles:
$`m_{\nu _1}(1(\sqrt{3}+1)ϵ\frac{\eta }{2}+\frac{\sqrt{\eta ϵ}}{6})m_0,`$
$`m_{\nu _2}(1+(\sqrt{3}1)ϵ\frac{\eta }{2}\frac{\sqrt{\eta ϵ}}{6})m_0,`$
$`m_{\nu _3}`$$``$ $`\eta `$ $`m_0,`$
and mixing angles:
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=\frac{2}{3}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0.`$
When $`ϵ=\eta =0`$, Eq.(12) reduces to the zeroth order mass matrix of the type II(A) in Table-I, with no solar splitting. For solution of the LMA MSW solar data and atmospheric neutrino oscillation, we have the choice of the parameters $`m_0=0.05`$ eV, $`ϵ=0.002`$ and $`\eta =0.0001`$ leading to the following predictions:
Mixing angles:
$`sin^22\theta _{12}=0.67`$, $`sin^22\theta _{23}1.0`$, $`|V_{e3}|=3.04\times 10^{13}`$,
Mass eigenvalues:
$`m_{\nu _i}=(0.05007,0.04973,0.000005)`$ eV, $`i=1,2,3`$; leading to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=3.393\times 10^5eV^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=2.47\times 10^3eV^2`$.

The expression for $`m_0`$ in Eq.(12) for case (i)) is given by $`m_0=m_\tau ^2tan^2\beta /v_R`$. For input values of $`m_0=0.05`$ eV, $`tan\beta =5`$, $`m_\tau =1.7`$ GeV, we obtain $`v_R=1.445\times 10^{12}`$ GeV which leads to $`|M_{RR}^{diag}|=(9.742\times 10^3,2.831\times 10^4,7.24\times 10^{15})`$ GeV. Again for case(ii) $`m_0=m_t^2/v_R`$ in Eq.(12). Using the input values $`m_0=0.05eV`$, $`m_t=200`$GeV, we have $`v_R=8\times 10^{14}`$ GeV and $`|M_{RR}^{diag}|=(2.4\times 10^4,4\times 10^{18},2.4\times 10^9)`$ GeV where the mass of the heaviest right-handed Majorana neutrino lies above the GUT scale but below the Planck scale.

II(B). Inverted hierarchical mass matrix with opposite sign mass eigenvalues

Here the first two neutrino mass eigenvalues are of opposite sign and this inverted hierarchical mass matrix has the following form,

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ& 1& 1\\ 1& \delta _1& \delta _2\\ 1& \delta _2& \delta _1\end{array}\right)m_0,ϵ,\delta _1,\delta _2<<1$$
(13)
For $`\delta _1`$, $`\delta _2`$, $`ϵ`$ = 0, it leads to the type II(B) in Table-I. This structure has been successfully generated within this model in our earlier paper, and without much details we outline one case only. As an example, for case (ii) where $`m_{LR}=m_{up}`$, we have

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& \lambda ^3& 0\\ 1& 0& \lambda ^3\end{array}\right)m_0$$
(14)
for the texture of $`M_{RR}`$:

$$M_{RR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{22}& \lambda ^{15}& \lambda ^{11}\\ \lambda ^{15}& \lambda ^8& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^{11}& \lambda ^4& 1\end{array}\right)v_R$$
(15)
The predictions are
$`m_i=(1.4195,1.4089,0.0105)m_0`$, $`i=1,2,3`$
$`sin^22\theta _{12}=0.9999`$, $`sin^22\theta _{23}1.0`$, $`|V_{e3}|=1.11\times 10^{16}`$,
For input $`m_0=0.05eV`$ we get the correct mass eigenvalues and $`v_R=4.0\times 10^{16}GeV`$. This gives
$`|M_{RR}^{diag}|=(3.055\times 10^{12},2.44\times 10^8,1.0)v_R`$ GeV.

The predictions of the solar mixing angle in all types except in types I(A) and II(B), agree with the LMA MSW solution. The solar mixings predicted from $`m_{LL}`$ in Eqs.(6) and (14) (Types I(A) and II(B)) are above the upper experimental limit $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}0.988`$ with the best fit value $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=0.8163`$. Any fine tuning can hardly improve $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$. One may expect some spectacular changes if the contribution from the diagonalisation of the charged lepton mass matrix having special entries in the 1-2 block, is taken into consideration in the MNS mixing matrix $`V_{MNS}=V_{eL}V_{\nu L}^{}`$. For example, such a charged lepton mass matrix may have the following structure

$$m_l=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.00256& 0.01058& 0\\ 0.01058& 0.04596& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)m_\tau $$
(16)
and its diagonalisation leads to the following diagonalisation matrix and eigenvalues:

$$V_{eL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.97439& 0.22488& 0\\ 0.22488& 0.97439& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(17)
and $`m_l^{diag}=(1.182\times 10^4,4.840\times 10^2,1.0)m_\tau `$. With the contribution from charged lepton to the MNS matrix $`V_{MNS}=V_{eL}V_{\nu L}^{}`$, the mixings angles are calculated as
$`sin^22\theta _{12}=0.8517`$, $`sin^22\theta _{23}=0.9494`$, and $`|V_{e3}|=0.159`$ for Type II(B) in Eq.(14), and $`sin^22\theta _{12}=0.8576`$, $`sin^22\theta _{23}=0.9495`$, and $`|V_{e3}|=0.159`$ for Type I(A) in Eq.(6). These results are now consistent with the LMA MSW solution for solar neutrino anomaly and maximal mixing for the atmospheric neutrino oscillation, along with the CHOOZ constraint $`|V_{e3}|0.16`$. The corresponding left-handed neutrino mass matrix in the diagonal basis of the charged lepton mass matrix, is given by relation $`m_{LL}^{}=V_{eL}m_{LL}V_{eL}^{}`$. For Type II(B) in Eq.(14) we obtain

$$m_{LL}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.437972& 0.897698& 0.9773193\\ 0.897698& 0.443296& 0.230068\\ 0.9773193& 0.230068& 0.005324\end{array}\right)m_0$$
(18)
and for Type I(A) in Eq.(6) we have

$$m_{LL}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.32668& 0.74163& 0.57122\\ 0.74163& 0.17014& 0.64185\\ 0.57122& 0.64185& 0.50306\end{array}\right)m_0$$
(19)
It is interesting to note that both $`m_{LL}^{}`$ in the above Eqs.(18) and (19) have now acquired relatively larger $`|m_{ee}|`$ consistent with the double beta decay result.

A few comments on the stability condition under radiative corrections are in order. The nearly degenerate mass matrices $`m_{LL}`$ in Eqs.(6),(8) and (10) are found to be unstable under radiative correction in minimal supersymmetric standard model(MSSM). The inverted hierarchical mass matrix with the same mass eigenvalues given in Eq.(12) is also found to be unstable under radiative correction. However, the inverted hierarchical mass matrix given in Eq.(14) with opposite sign mass eigenvalues, is stable under radiative correction . The radiative stability of neutrino mass texture for nearly degenerate eigenvalues remains an outstanding problem at the moment.

## 3 Summary

In summary, we generate the textures of the nearly degenerate as well as the inverted hierarchical left-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrices from the see-saw formula using the diagonal form of the Dirac mass matrix and non-diagonal form of the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix. This is a continuation of our earlier work where bimaximal mixings are generated from the texture of $`M_{RR}`$ in case of hierarchical and inverted hierarchical models. The predictions on lepton mixing angles $`sin^22\theta _{12}0.67`$, $`sin^22\theta _{23}1.0`$ and $`|V_{e3}|0`$ are in excellent agreement with the experimental values in all cases except for types I(A) and II(B). We also get good predictions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ which are necessary for the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decays, LMA MSW solar oscillation and atmospheric oscillation data. In all cases the masses of the right-handed Majorana neutrinos are above the weak scale. With the inclusion of the contribution from the diagonalisation of the charged lepton matrix having a special structure in 1-2 block, we improve the prediction on solar mixings to the right order for types I(A) and II(B).
Though the present work is a model independent analysis without using any underlying symmetry, it would serve as a useful guide to building models under the framework of grand unified theories with extended flavour symmetry. In short the present analysis explores the possible origin of the bimaximal neutrino mixings from the texture of right-handed Majorana mass matrices.


text:
# Nonequilibrium thermodynamics versus model grain growth: derivation and some physical implications

## I Introduction

Nucleation and growth (NG) phenomena appear to be ubiquitous in materials processing, nanotechnology, metallurgy and biotechnology. Without loosing generality they can verbally be taken under common denominator termed most frequently recrystallization and grain growth though such an overall notion implicitly assumes that some ordering is present in the system shvind . Certainly, if the underlying ordered physical microstructure is not present, one may quite generally think about bubbles-containing systems, like soap froths, foams or certain sponge-resembling assemblies hweaire .

The main signatures of such phenomena as model systems are as follows mweaire :
(i) They take mostly place under certain constraints concerning the constancy or non-constancy of the overall system volume; (ii) The process relies on evolution of grains constituting a specimen in such a way that the mean radius of the grains (bubbles) has to grow in time whereas their total number has to decrease; (iii) An observed physical tendency while going over sufficient number of time intervals is a drop of the grain (bubble) surface free energy in such a way that a low surface free energy microstructure is eventually reached.

As expected, there are very many quite important details that can be taken into account to provide a successful description of NG-processes, especially of their kinetics. They have thoroughly been presented in novikov , chap. 3. They either emphasize a pronounced role of topology, dealing with such NG-systems as composed of convex polyhedra, or they offer a similar metric and combined approach, in two-dimensional systems represented mostly by Mullins–Von Neumann evolution formula valid for mean area of $`n`$-sided grains mullins . (A Monte Carlo model for three-dimensional case has also been proposed recently liu .) The latter is also proposed to split into three groups: (i) NG phenomenon, here of the so-called normal type mullins ; novikov , as a deterministic process governed by a continuity equation; (ii) NG of normal type as standard diffusion along grain size axis; (iii) NG of normal type as a stochastic process, considered in terms of grain (bubble) boundary motion, with a Gaussian noisy source, exclusively, pande  and refs. therein.

While listed above the basic signatures of NG-processes we have right now to add an important missing point. Namely, that at least within a statistical-mechanical framework, they are most successfully considered when a local conservation law is applied. It is mostly so on the so-called mesoscopic level of description, in which the system is in principle treated as macroscopic but where some prevalence of quantum-oriented effects, viz correlations, appears. No doubt that such a description leads to the well-known Fokker–Planck–Kolmogorov (FPK) formalism, with some possibilities of getting useful solutions, mostly after applying suitable, physically justified, boundary conditions and comfortably assuming the phase space to be semi-infinite. (Some visible difficulties in providing the solutions may emerge when a finite phase space is taken, an assumption provoked mostly by experimental situations agluczka .) Moreover, such a mescoscopic description has proved to be useful in nanoscale, that means, in a physical scale in which emergence of new materials is nowadays very desirable because of possible applications in medicine, microelectronics, pharmacy to mention but a few.

A crucial point, however, in proposing a FPK-type description, with suitable initial and boundary conditions (IBCs), is to construct the flux in the space of grain (bubble) sizes.

In a series of papers niemiec ; agad1 ; agad2 , the corresponding matter flux has been contructed in a phenomenological way, in which to a standard diffusion (1st Fick’s law) term a drift curvature - (capillarity) dependent term has arbitrarily been added just for reflecting properly the essential physics staying behind it novikov ; mullins ; pande .

Recently, another more fundamental way of constructing the flux has been offered. It is based on dealing with a NG-system as an open thermodynamic system, and on applying the principles of nonequilibrium thermodynamics in the space of grain (bubbles) sizes. This immediately leads to express the entropy production by the above mentioned flux as well as by the corresponding chemical potential gradient. The gradient, in turn, has to be defined by the chemical activity (not equal to one for non-ideal systems) and by the presumed, but physically very accepted under concrete circumstances, physical potential that can be chosen being either of power- or of non-power form in the grain (bubble) size. The procedure just described can be found elsewhere rubi1 ; rubi2 ; rubi3 .

The paper’s contents is distributed as follows. In Section 2, we sketch the Louat–Mulheran–Harding (LMH) model describing a NG-process of uniform boudnaries (or, of normal type mullins ). In Sections 3 and 4, respectively, we propose a derivation of the flux of grainy (bubbles-containing) matter based on the nonequilibrium thermodynamics formalism (Sec. 3) whereas in the next section (Sec. 4) we discuss some important implications that may be considered in the new proposed physical context near thermodynamic equilibrium, mostly. Section 5 serves for concluding remarks preferentially within the framework of NG polycrystalline evolutions nov ; shvind .

## II  Louat–Mulheran–Harding (LMH) model: A sketch

The LMH model mulheranh  is a bit aside or slightly forgotten statistical-mechanical model that was originally invented by Louat for describing evolutions of polycrystalline NG-agglomerates in dimension one louat . Inspite prescribed boundary conditions, it was thought of to be equivalent to the standard Einstein Random Walk (RW) though realized not in a position space but in the space of grain (crystallite) sizes. As in the precursor model, the diffusion coefficient was assumed to be a constant since an incorporation of the grain surface magnitude, proposed later by Mulheran and Harding in higher dimensions, is certainly not possible in the one-dimensional space.

Although the limitations of those statistical-mechanical (ordered) agglomeration models are obvious presently (the specialists often argue that the LMH-model becomes partly useful while describing some evolutions in nanoscale what seems likely to be its biggest advantage), it is still worth facing its main ideas.

The clue idea is that the original LMH-model louat ; mulheranh  is a conservative model in which a flux of grainy matter is supposed to be of the form

$`J(v,t)=\sigma v^{\alpha 1}f(v,t)Dv^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{}{v}}f(v,t),`$ (1)
which means that it is decomposed into two parts. Here $`\sigma `$ and $`D`$ are surface tension as well as diffusion reference constants, respectively, and generally $`\sigma D`$ holds; the independent variables $`v`$ and $`t`$ will be defined below. $`\alpha `$ stands for a dimensionality $`d`$ (where $`d=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$) dependent quantity, namely

$`\alpha =1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}.`$ (2)
The first part of the right-hand side (r.h.s.) of Eq. (1) is a drift term, whereas the second part of the r.h.s. of Eq. (1) stands for a diffusion term. The former is a capillarity term, proportional to the grain curvature, and strictly related with the well-known Laplace-Kelvin-Young law, so much explored for bubbles-containing systems hweaire ; agluczka ; agad3  in which a pressure difference appears to be a main driving force. The latter is simply the first Fick’s law, and emphasizes a proportionality of the flux to the grain surface magnitude. (Such a term, as it stands, may constitute the overall flux alone: This observation has extensively been explored to describe certain agglomerations under negligible surface or line tension regime, i.e. explicitly without the curvature-containing drift term. The system becomes, however, unconstrained as far as its total volume is concerned mniemiec .) Both the terms incorporated in (1) are based on phenomenological laws, so is also the construction of the mixed convection-diffusion flux (1).

After constructing the flux, we have to plug it in the well-known continuity equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}f(v,t)={\displaystyle \frac{}{v}}J(v,t),`$ (3)
where $`v`$ is the volume of a grain, $`f(v,t)`$ is the distribution function of the grains at time $`t`$ (being of the meaning of the number density), that means, $`f(v,t)dv`$ is a relative number of grains of size in the volume range $`[v,v+dv]`$.

The overall conceptual and mathematical construction is to be completed by the ICS. The suitable IC looks like

$`f(v,t=0)=F_0(v),`$ (4)
where $`F_0(v)`$ is a given initial distribution of grains; in many studies mulheranh ; louat ; agad2 ; agad3  $`F_0(v)`$ was assumed to be of delta–Dirac form but some other realizations are also possible niemiec . A general conclusion is, however, that the process in question does not depend upon an IC, cf. niemiec , and refs. therein. After a sufficient time spane being overcome it completely forgets its initial state which is a case quite often met in many open thermodynamic systems.

This is not the case of the BCs, in turn. The process substantially depends upon BCs chosen. A choice that remains as most explored is the choice of zero Dirichlet BCs, namely

$`f(v=0,t)=f(v=\mathrm{},t)=0.`$ (5)
(Notice that the LMH-model does work in a semi-infinite phase space, $`v[0,\mathrm{}]`$; it may lead to some inconsistency, because volume of the individual grain can be arbitrary large and can even be distinctly larger than the overall volume of the system as a whole, cf. discussion in agluczka ; agad3 .)

There is some physics staying behind the BC: The grains of zero as well as of infinite size have zero account for the process studied. This physical constraint is sometimes called a normality condition, and the NG-process is supposed to be normal when the above is true. Otherwise, one may term the agglomeration abnormal.

For the LMH model, which is formally the case of $`\sigma =\alpha `$ in Eq. (1) the average total volume of the whole system remains constant in time and takes on a finite value. This is another constraint of the LMH-agglomeration, namely, that it takes place under constant total volume condition. This is, by the way, not the case of other evolutions with negligible surface tension effect, where capillary forces do not drive the evolving assembly mniemiec . In such a system, as is ascertained above, we have to get rid of the curvature dependent first term of the r.h.s. of Eq. (1). Moreover, realize that we practically may discard the curvature-dependent term if we enter sufficiently mature growth stage, presumed that the grain radii take then on quite large values so that their curvatures become very small, cf. niemiec ; mniemiec .

What remains to be done when the problem is formulated (see the above equations) is just to solve it. It was recently done by means of variables’ separation method not only for original LMH-system but also for its physically interesting variations (modifications) both in finie as well as infinite phase spaces, and can be found elsewhere mulheranh ; agad1 ; agad2 ; agad3 ; niemiec . Some important physical quantities of the evolving agglomerate have been calculated based on the first three statistical moments of the process. Then zeroth moment has always been related to the average number of grains in the system (it mostly suffers from an algebraic drop with time for $`t>>1`$), and the first to its overall volume which is a constant value. From them the mean grain radius can be obtained agad2 ; agad1 ; mulheranh : It behaves powerly with time $`t`$ in an asymptotic time limit, and the growth exponent is $`1/(d+1)`$. These compose the main characteristics of the model LMH-process just described. (From the second and first moments a useful information about volume fluctuations can additionaly be taken mniemiec ; agad2 .)

In the subsequent section, we will be still interested in a construction procedure of the flux $`J(v,t)`$, hopefully arriving at a form resembling that of Eq. (1). But another clearly non-phenomenological method will be applied therein though we will be not capable of avoiding phenomenology completely, see the discussion concerning the physical potential $`\varphi `$ below. We will, however, be able of speculate firmly and in a physically reasonable way on the basic mechanism of the agglomeration in the spirit of incorporating (or, having not incorporated) the suitable entropic barrier as geometrical one rubipre , here inevitably associated with the grain curvature.

## III Nonequilibrium thermodynamics derivation of LMH–like grain growth model

Assume as above that the continuity equation (3) is the evolution equation for the agglomerating system but the flux $`J(v,t)`$ remains unspecified. Assume, additionaly, that there is a method of constructing it. The method is called mesoscopic nonequilibrium thermodynamics rubi1 ; rubi2 ; rubi3 , and starts with the Gibbs equation which represents the entropy virtual change, namely rubi1 ; rubi3

$`\delta S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle \mu (v,t)\delta f𝑑v},`$ (6)
where $`ff(v,t)`$, $`T`$ is the temperature, and $`\mu (v,t)`$ is the generally time-dependent chemical potential in $`v`$-space. The latter is given by ($`\mu \mu (v,t)`$ for brevity is taken)

$`\mu =k_BTln(af),`$ (7)
where $`aa(v)`$ is an activity coefficient expressing the fact that the system is not ideal; for $`a=1`$ it would be ideal. (Notice that the $`ln`$-form of the chemical potential suggests the system were ideal but, fortunately, the condition $`a1`$ also violates this ideality.) $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant. Next, $`a`$ is given in terms of a potential that for the reason of differentiation against the chemical potential $`\mu `$ let us call the physical potential, $`\varphi `$. $`a`$ reads now rubi1 ; rubi3

$`a=e^{\varphi /k_BT}.`$ (8)
Taking the temporal derivative in Eq. (6) and performing a partial integration (assuming, however, that $`JJ(v,t)`$ vanishes at the ends of the phase space), one arrives at the entropy production, $`\sigma `$, in $`v`$-space

$`\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}J{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{v}}`$ (9)
from which we infer the expression for the current

$`J={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}L(v){\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{v}}.`$ (10)
We have assumed that the process is local in $`v`$. In view of Eqs (10), (7) and (8) we obtain

$`J={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Tf}}L(v)\left[k_BT{\displaystyle \frac{f}{v}}+f{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{v}}\right].`$ (11)
Let us define the mobility $`b(v)`$ as $`b(v)=\frac{1}{Tf}L(v)=\frac{D}{k_BT}v^\alpha `$, where $`D`$ and $`\alpha `$ may have their role played in accordance with what has been stated in the preceding section, where they have been specified; this will somehow suggest us the mechanism for the entropic barrier mentioned above (a trial toward self-similarity will also be considered), and its connection with the physical potential $`\varphi `$. The obtained flux $`J`$ reads finally

$`J=Dv^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{}{v}}fb(v)f{\displaystyle \frac{}{v}}\varphi .`$ (12)
The expression derived, Eq. (12), is quite general (inspite of the power-law form assumed in the Onsager coefficient $`L(v)`$). The main physics to play now is to propose a valuable expresion for the physical potential $`\varphi =\varphi (v)`$. This is, however, a matter of proposing a basic agglomeration mechanism for the system to evolve. It will be thoroughly discussed in the next section by considering power- as well as non-power forms in $`v`$.

## IV Physical implications: Power and non-power laws applied

In rubi1  it was shown that diffusion as well as mobility functions are very related to each other. They are also related with the Onsager coefficient $`L(v)`$ via the density function $`f`$, or also via an inclusion of the temperature $`T`$ as is in the case of mobility, and does not apply for the diffusion coefficient.

The diffusion coefficient (in its full form denoted by $`D(v,t)`$) is generally assumed to be defined by the Green-Kubo correlation formula, in which, as integrands, the random parts, $`J^r(v,t)`$, of the flux (12) of grainy matter, in two suitable time instants, are involved. It reads

$`D(v,t)={\displaystyle \frac{k_B}{f}}L(v)=Dv^\alpha ,`$ (13)
that means that algebraic correlations are assumed in the correlator based on $`J^r(v,t)`$ rubi2 ; rubi3 .

Since it has been argued mullins  (see, literature therein), and experimentally proved kurz , that the NG-processes, namely recrystallization as well as grain growth are self-similar in many respects and when based on many versatile measures of self-similarity both in space (grain size) and time, it would be useful to test this assertion.

Our first proposal is to assume, inspite of the algebraic (self-similar-in-time) correlations of the flux $`J^r(v,t)`$ also that the physical potential is of a power form

$`\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _o}{v^ϵ}},`$ (14)
where $`\varphi _o`$ is a constant (it may depend upon temperature, and as suggests the construction of the Lennard-Jones (LJ) potential, it should be nonpositive at least, or negative even; note that the attractive part of the LJ-potential has to be taken with minus sign, and we need the Van der Waals-like attraction for preserving agglomeration), and $`ϵ`$ is a positive exponent.

We have now to put $`\frac{}{v}\varphi =\frac{\varphi _oϵ}{v^{ϵ+1}}`$ into Eq. (12), and the result is as follows

$`J=Dv^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{}{v}}f\sigma v^\chi f,`$ (15)
where $`\chi =\alpha ϵ1`$ and $`\sigma =\varphi _oϵ\frac{D}{k_BT}`$. This way, we get the grainy flux (1), or strictly speaking (12), in a very satisfactory form. A direct comparison with (1) from Sec. 2 suggests to let $`ϵ0`$ ($`\chi \alpha 1`$) which yields $`\varphi const`$ (very weak forces as the Van der Waals typically are!). Thus, the flux (15) is really in the form we await very much except that the very fact that the surface tension reference constant $`\sigma `$ unfortunately goes to zero, see above. This way, the drift term is completely washed out, and we get no drift effect on the agglomeration. Thus, an entropic barrier due to curvature (bear in mind that $`v^{\alpha 1}\frac{1}{R}`$, where $`R`$ is a grain radius, and when $`\alpha `$ is taken from Eq. (2)) cannot be proposed based on the power-like form of the physical potential $`\varphi `$. This is, qualitatively speaking, the case considered in mniemiec  and mentioned before.

In contrast to the above, there is a possibility of including such a geometrical barrier when a non-power (here, logarithmic) form of the potential is presumed. The way of doing that is worth exploring since no one can exaggerate the role of curvature in physics, especially in agglomeration processes bedo ; agad3 . The first correction in curvature, e.g. due to the surface tension and named usually twice the mean curvature, is realized to be the main driving force (the whole thermodynamic context assumes the Gibbs-Thomson or capillary length to be a characteristic length of surface tension shrinking action) of some oversimplified grain growth mechanism hillert  whereas the so-called second correction, frequently related with the Tolman length tolman ; bedo ; agad3  and named the Gaussian curvature, shows up certain elastic (bending, and insistance to bending termed often rigidity) properties of an agglomerate in a time instant chosen, and when going over its evolution stages, in which such characteristics can certainly change.

Thus, the proposed non-power form of the physical potential is of a logarithmic form, namely

$`\varphi =\varphi _oln(v/v_o),`$ (16)
where $`v_o>0`$ stands for the initial grain volume. Amazingly, exactly this form suits very well to what we want to get. The entire rationale we try to reveal thoroughly throughout the present section is that we wish to have in the drift term, present in either Eq. (1) or Eq. (12), a factor of $`v^{\alpha 1}`$ which is explicitely a clear signature of the curvature, being a reciprocal of the grain radius $`R`$. Thus, after simple algebra $`\frac{}{v}\varphi =\frac{\varphi _o}{v}`$, mutatis mutandis, we are able to recover the desired form of the drift term in flux (1), and this way both the fluxes, (1) and (12) take firmly on the same form, presumed that $`\alpha `$ is that dimensionality- dependent fractional number taken from (2). To have a really entropic barrier an additional presumption on explicit dependence of the prefactor $`\varphi _o`$ upon the thermal energy $`k_BT`$ is needed, as applied for star polymer complex solutions, for example waclaw , carrying however less about that their logarithmic part of the potential is distance-dependent, whereas ours explicitely not, cf. Eq. (16). (We may have some excuse here by realizing that $`vR^d`$, where d is the space dimension, and $`R`$ can likely better mimic a distance, or implicitly a position measure than $`v`$ does.)

Another issue that can be addressed is of more fundamental nature. It concerns our analogy between the RW in a position space and the walk along the grain size axis, see beginning of Sec. 2. There are some experimental evidences kurtz  as well as theoretical predictions pande ; agad3  (look at refs. therein) that the walk in grain-size space would belong to a broad class of geometric Brownian motion, the probability distribution of which is a logarithmic Gaussian paulb . Thus, instead of $`v`$ in the mathematical form of Gaussian distribution a $`ln(v)`$ must appear. Therefore such a potential seems legitimate too.

Accepting that the key problem, because of the RW-analogy in both the spaces mentioned, does not totally rely on whether we have $`v`$ or $`R`$ in potential function argument, i.e. a distance measure in (16), we may at least for a two-dimensional case, invoke another experimental study with a logarithmic potential. The study is on a confined mesoscopic system in which the so-called Wigner islands appear. These are charged balls interacting via an electrostatic potential wigner . They represent the vortices in type-I superconducting systems. It turns out that just the logarithmic interaction potential causes maximum compaction of the charged balls of milimeter (macroscopic) size, typically moving and agglomerating on a conductor plane wigner . This is then probably no surprise that the $`ln`$-potential (16) but not that power-like (14) gives more chances for the system to evolve in a constant total volume regime as the above mentioned LMH-system does mulheranh ; novikov ; agluczka  but another one does not mniemiec . This is, as is stated in Sec. 2, the case when the governing mechanism based on curvature driving dominates, and in which a surface (line) tension effect cannot be avoided.

## V Concluding remarks

The concluding remarks are juxtaposed in the following way:

1. We have applied the nonequilibrium mesoscopic thermodynamics in order to justify a phenomenological construction of the grainy matter flux given in Sec. 3 by Eq. (12) whereas in Sec. 2 by Eq. (1). The fundamental procedure offered by nonequilibrium theromodynamics method stresses mostly the role of correlations or grainy matter fluctuations in the random part of the flux, as well as emphasizes a choice of the physical potential applied rubi1 ; rubi2 ; rubi3 . Since we know that, inspite of many additional sub-mechanisms manifesting in the course of agglomeration (misorientation effects; pinning of grain boundaries; dislocation density gradients’ action, segregation of molecules, and alike novikov ; shvind ), capillary forces are those governing the system, and we may be glad because of finding a ”compaction” $`ln`$-potential which recovers perfectly the basic form of the flux (1). Such a proposal is to our knowledge original and new. (It is worth noticing that the compaction effect, mostly forcing the system to exist under constant volume circumstances, where however the overall grains’ evolution scenario proceeds in a random manner, would quite closely resemble the close-packing effect so well pronounced in amorphous as well as polycrystalline materials under evolution agluczka . A signature thereof is realized to be the value of the growth exponent which is $`1/(d+1)`$, as is mentioned in Sec. 2, and what is characteristic of the LMH-like systems mulheranh ; agad2 ; agad3 ; niemiec .) This could be anticipated as another success of the theory that before described quite exhaustively homogeneous rubi1 ; rubi3  as well as heterogeneous complex nucleations rubi2 , se also Fig. 1 for sketch of the conception of random close-packing.
2. As was stated in Sec. 2, the LMH-system always evolves under a constant volume condition, therefore a pivotal role of surface tension in it is absolutely no surprise (the parameter $`\sigma `$ in (1) or in (12) must clearly be nonzero). Therefore also the mentioned involvement of the curvature term is needed just in order to have a visible nonzero effect in the drift term what ist quite important when $`t>>1`$, that means, for a mature stage of evolution when the grain radii are typically big but curvatures are rather small.
3. Applying the nonequilibrium thermodynamics method to a relatively simple and soluble agad1 ; agad2 ; agluczka  LMH- or alike agad2 ; agad3 ; pande ; mullins  systems opens up new possibilities to understand that the geometrical-physical ”object”, which the curvature is, may very likely stand as a solely picked up entropic barrier, though a task remains to find the form of the prefactor in (16) in exact form and being temperature-dependent rubipre ; waclaw .
4. The forms of the proposed physical potentials are offered neither in unique nor in a systematic ways: A choice of potentials known in physics is very broad stauffer . But we have proposed two of them which reveals some physics of the NG-processes with non-negligible (LMH) as well as negligible (interacting clusters formation mniemiec ) surface tension effects.
5. The RW-analogy emphasized so much could be an advantage; it may, however, yield also some ’uncertaintes’, questionmarks, as for example the exact form of the physical potential and how to go out from the position or distance space to the grain volume or size space. Another drawback appears to be that even the form of the evolution equation (3), no matter whether with or without the curvature-dependent term, is not unique: Van Kampen, for example, proposes a third form, in which the diffusion function is placed in front of the Laplace operator on the r.h.s of Eq. (3) kampen . Therefore, generally speaking, the local conservation law may also be questioned.
6. Except the agglomeration in polycrystalline model materials very often mentioned throughout the paper, one can expect a certain appreciable application of the offered modeling in another phenomenon, termed dropwise coalescence, in which the Laplace-Kelvin-Young law (see, Sec. 2), containing the capillarity-dependent drift term but with another $`\sigma `$, modified by the ratio of the satured vapor as well as liquid densities, respectively, is to be taken into account to describe readily the droplets’ agglomeration landau , presumably with constantly increasing agglomerate’s total volume mniemiec .

## Acknowledgement

One of us (A.G.) would like to take very much the opportunity of thanking Dr. Andrej Jamnik from the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, for reminding a useful notion of the random close-packing ( rcp) phase in condensed-matter physics which helps to understand many properties of random matter agglomerations. J. M. R. wants to thank Dr. David Reguera for fruitful discussions.


text:
# Emission line studies of young radio sources

## 1 Introduction

Gigahertz-Peaked Spectrum Radio Sources (GPS: D $`<`$ 1 kpc) and the larger Compact Steep Spectrum Radio Sources (CSS: D $`<`$ 15 kpc) account for a significant fraction of the radio source population ($``$ 40%) though their nature is not fully understood (see O’Dea 1998 and references therein). Currently, we believe they are young radio sources (Fanti et al. 1995) supported by estimates of dynamical ages: tdyn $``$ 102 \- 103 years (Owsianik et al. 1998); and radio spectral ages: tsp $`<`$ 104 years (Murgia et al. 1999). This is in preference to the frustration scenario where the ISM is so dense, the radio jets cannot escape and the radio source remains confined and frustrated for its entire lifetime (van Breugel 1984).

If compact radio sources are young radio sources, we will observe them relatively recently after the event(s) which triggered the activity (e.g. a merger; Heckman et al. 1986). Indeed, many compact radio sources exhibit features attributed to mergers such as double nuclei, tidal tails, arcs of emission and distorted isophotes (e.g. Stanghellini et al. 1993). Hence, the host galaxy will still retain the dense ISM injected by the merger. The young radio jets will also be relatively small and so will readily interact with the dense ISM.

In these proceedings we demonstrate the efficiency of high quality optical spectroscopic observations as a probe of the kinematics and physical conditions of the ISM in the host galaxies of radio sources, particularly in the early stages of radio source evolution. We discuss observations of two compact radio sources, the flat spectrum radio source PKS 1549-79 and the GPS source PKS 1345+12, and outline a schematic model for PKS 1345+12. For detailed discussions see Tadhunter et al. (2001) and Holt et al. (2002, 2003).

## 2 PKS 1549-79

From low resolution spectra of the compact flat-spectrum radio source PKS 1549-79, Tadhunter et al. (2001) report:

* highly broadened forbidden emission lines (FWHM $``$ 1350 km s-1).
* 2 distinct redshift systems: the high ionisation forbidden lines (e.g. \[O III\]) are blueshifted by $``$ 600 km s-1 with respect to the low ionisation lines (e.g. \[O II\]) and HI 21 cm absorption.

Tadhunter et al. (2001) interpret the blueshifted emission lines as material in outflow. Due to the small scale radio source ($``$ 300 pc), the radio morphology (core-jet) and the flat radio spectrum, they proposed a schematic model in which the young radio source is enshrouded by a cocoon of dense gas and dust completely obscuring the central QSO nucleus. The young radio jets are expanding and sweeping material out of the nuclear regions with the direction of propagation close to the observer’s line-of-sight (see Fig 1).

## 3 PKS 1345+12

We present here a summary of results from intermediate resolution ($``$ 4Å) spectra over a wide spectral range ($``$ 4500Å) from ISIS on the 4.2m WHT on La Palma. For a detailed discussion see Holt et al. (2003).

From modelling of the highly extended \[O II\]$`\lambda \lambda `$3726,3729 emission line ($``$ 20 kpc) using between 1 and 3 Gaussian components, we believe that the narrowest of these represents the galaxy rest frame:

* It is the only component observed across the entire spatial range;
* It is consistent with the deep HI absorption (Mirabel 1989; Morganti et al. 2002) (see Fig 2) and the stellar absorption lines (Grandi 1977);
* It is the least kinematically disturbed component (FWHM $``$ 340 km s-1);
* It has a small velocity amplitude ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vel}`$ $`<`$ 250 km s-1; see Fig 2) consistent with gravitational motions (Tadhunter et al. 1989);
* It is the only component consistently observed in all emission lines, irrespective of the model required to reproduce the emission line profile.

In the nuclear aperture, the emission lines are broad with strong blue asymmetries. It is essential to model all emission lines with 3 Gaussian components (see Fig 2, also Holt et al. 2003). The narrowest of these is consistent with the narrow component of \[O II\] and the rest frame of the galaxy. The intermediate and broad components are blueshifted by up to $``$ 2000 km s-1 with respect to this narrow component. Due to large reddening in the nucleus (see below), we interpret this as material in outflow. However, one model does not reproduce all emission lines – different velocity widths and shifts for the broad and intermediate components are required for \[O I\]$`\lambda \lambda `$6300,6363 and \[S II\]$`\lambda \lambda `$6716,6731 (see Holt et al. 2003).

We estimated the density in the nucleus using the density diagnostic, the \[S II\]$`\lambda \lambda `$6716,6731 doublet. The intermediate and broad components have densities consistent with the high density limit. By varying the fit parameters, we obtained lower limits on on the density of ne $`>`$ 5300 cm-3 and ne $`>`$ 4200 cm-3 for the intermediate and broad components respectively. The narrow component is consistent with the low density limit (ne $`<`$ 150 cm-3).

We have investigated reddening in the nucleus of PKS 1345+12 using three independent techniques, each assuming a simple foreground screen for interstellar extinction and the Seaton (1979) extinction law.

* Balmer line ratios. The H$`\alpha `$/\[N II\] blend is highly complex. We measure H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ ratios of 3.32 $`\pm `$ 0.33, 5.25 $`\pm `$ 0.28 and 18.81 $`\pm `$ 4.74 corresponding to E(B-V) values of 0.06 $`\pm `$ 0.05, 0.42 $`\pm `$ 0.10 and 1.44 $`\pm `$ 0.50 for the narrow, intermediate and broad components respectively. By varying the model fitting parameters, we estimate a lower limit on the reddening in the broadest component of E(B-V) $`>`$ 0.92.
* Comparison with the infra-red. Veilleux et al. (1997) present measurements of Pa$`\alpha `$. The broadest component is consistent in velocity width and shift with the broadest component in \[O III\]. By varying the quoted flux of Pa$`\alpha `$ by a factor of 2, to account for possible slit loss differences between the observations, Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ gives a range of E(B-V) values: 1.60 $`<`$ E(B-V) $`<`$ 2.00. This is consistent, within the errors, with the measured value for H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$.
* The nebular continuum. Before modelling the faint lines in the nucleus, we subtracted both the nebular (see Dickson et al. 1995) and stellar continuum. If zero reddening is assumed for all components, a large discontinuity, corresponding to the Balmer edge at $``$ 3645 Å, remains when subtracting the nebular continuum from the spectrum (see Fig 7 in Holt et al. 2003). However, if the measured E(B-V) values are assumed, the discontinuity disappears. The strength of this discontinuity is particularly sensitive to the amount of flux in the intermediate component and we estimate a lower limit of E(B-V) $`>`$ 0.3 for the intermediate component.

The nucleus of PKS 1345+12 is highly reddened, with reddening increasing with broadness of component.

We estimate an upper limit on the mass of line emitting gas of $`<`$ 106 M (from the density and reddening-corrected H$`\beta `$ luminosity) which is consistent with the radio source being young.

## 4 The model

Combining these results, we have developed the model from Tadhunter et al. (2001). Fig 3 shows the schematic model which retains the small scale radio jets expanding out through an enshrouding cocoon giving rise to emission line outflows. New features include stratification of the ISM - all emission lines in the nucleus require 3 Gaussian components though the velocity width and shift of the intermediate and broad components varies between emission lines. However, gradients (e.g. density, velocity, ionisation potential) must exist across the regions emitting the intermediate and broad components. The narrow component remains consistent in all emission lines and represents the relatively quiescent halo. ‘Strata’ positioning is determined by the reddening - the reddening increases with broadness of component and so the broadest component must originate from the region closest to the nucleus.

## 5 Acknowledgements

JH acknowledges a PPARC PhD studentship and a Marie Curie Fellowship. The William Herschel Telescope is operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.