text:
# Hard X-ray Emission Associated with White Dwarfs

## 1 Introduction

White dwarfs can be sources of soft ($`<`$ 0.4 keV) X-ray emission if their atmospheres have high temperatures and low opacities: $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ 23,000 K for DA white dwarfs with pure hydrogen atmospheres (Jordan et al., 1994), 23,000 K $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ 54,000 K for DA white dwarfs containing significant quantities of heavy elements in their atmospheres (Marsh et al., 1997), and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ 100,000 K for DO and PG 1159 white dwarfs with helium-rich atmospheres (Motch, Werner, & Pakull, 1993). $`ROSAT`$ observations of such X-ray sources show soft spectra rising toward $`ROSAT`$’s low-energy limit at 0.1 keV. The DO white dwarf KPD 0005+5106 (= WD 0005+511), with its spectrum peaking at 0.2 keV, appears to pose an exception and has been interpreted as having cool ($`23\times 10^5`$ K) coronal emission (Fleming, Werner, & Barstow, 1993). No hard X-ray ($`>`$ 0.5 keV) emission is expected from single white dwarfs.

It is thus puzzling that WD 2226$``$210111This white dwarf was cataloged with a sign error in declination as WD 2226$`+`$210 by McCook & Sion (1999)., the 103,600 K DAO white dwarf (Méndez et al., 1988; Napiwotzki, 1999) in the Helix Nebula, appears to be single (Ciardullo et al., 1999), but has hard X-ray emission. $`ROSAT`$ observations of WD 2226$``$210 have detected not only a soft spectral component as expected from the white dwarf’s photosphere, but also a hard spectral component peaking at 0.8 keV (Leahy, Zhang, & Kwok, 1994). Recent $`Chandra`$ observations have confirmed that the hard X-ray emission is unresolved and coincident with the white dwarf; however, the luminosity and variability of the hard X-ray emission is similar to that of a dMe star (Guerrero et al., 2001). Follow-up spectroscopic observations by Gruendl et al. (2001) detected variability in the H$`\alpha `$ line profile of WD 2226$``$210, suggesting the presence of a companion. It is thus possible that WD 2226$``$210 has an X-ray-emitting dMe companion which is too faint and close to the white dwarf to be detected at visible wavelengths. Based on the $`I`$ magnitude of WD 2226$``$210 reported by Ciardullo et al. (1999) and the $`J`$, $`H`$, and $`K`$ magnitudes from the 2MASS Survey (see Table 3 below), we estimate that the hypothetical companion must have a spectral type later than M5-6 V.

Hard X-ray emission from white dwarfs may be used to infer the presence of a binary companion. Indeed, Fleming et al. (1996) found 9 DA white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission using the $`ROSAT`$ All-Sky Survey, and all of these 9 white dwarfs have late-type (F, G, K, and M) companions. This has motivated us to search for other white dwarfs which exhibit hard X-ray emission. We have found that 94 white dwarfs cataloged by McCook & Sion (1999) appear coincident with $`ROSAT`$ X-ray point sources in the WGA catalog (White, Giommi, & Angelini, 2000, hereafter WGACAT). To confirm the positional coincidence, we have downloaded the $`ROSAT`$ data, and compared these X-ray images with optical images of the white dwarfs. We have further extracted the $`ROSAT`$ spectra to examine whether hard X-ray emission is present. For white dwarfs associated with hard X-ray emission, we have used the literature and near-IR photometry to assess the existence of binary companions, and further investigate the origin of hard X-ray emission from the apparently single white dwarfs. This paper reports the results of our study. The sample of white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission and our method of analysis are described in Section 2, the binarity status of the white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission is reported in Section 3, and the origin and implications of the hard X-ray emission associated with white dwarfs is discussed in Section 4. A summary is given in Section 5.

## 2 Search for Hard X-ray Sources Associated with White Dwarfs

To search for X-ray emission from white dwarfs, we have correlated the white dwarfs from the most recent catalog by McCook & Sion (1999) with the X-ray sources from the WGACAT, a point source catalog generated from all $`ROSAT`$ PSPC pointed observations made without the boron filter. For an initial identification of positional coincidence, we require better than 1 agreement between the cataloged positions of the white dwarf and X-ray point source. This is a conservative criterion because: (1) the on-axis point spread function (PSF) of the $`ROSAT`$ Position Sensitive Proportional Counter (PSPC) is $``$40′′ at 1 keV and much worse near 0.1 keV (Snowden et al., 1994; Chu, Kwitter, & Kaler, 1993), (2) the coordinates of the white dwarf might be uncertain by up to 30′′, and (3) the proper motions of the white dwarfs have not been considered and in some cases may be large enough for the star to move more than 1 between the epochs when the optical and X-ray observations were made.

We find 94 white dwarfs that appear to be associated with point X-ray sources. To confirm the positional coincidence and to examine further the X-ray spectra of these sources, we have retrieved the event files of their $`ROSAT`$ PSPC observations from the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC) at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. The PSPC event files are used to extract broad-band (0.1–2.4 keV) X-ray images. These X-ray images are smoothed with a Gaussian with $`\sigma `$ = 15′′ and the resulting X-ray contours at 10, 20, 50, 70, and 90% of the peak intensity are overplotted on the broad-band optical images retrieved from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS). To identify the white dwarfs, we have used the finding charts provided by J. Holberg at http://procyon.lpl.arizona.edu/WD/.

The results of our detailed comparison of the positions of X-ray sources and white dwarfs are presented in Table 1. Columns 1–3 give the identifications, common names, and spectral types of the white dwarfs; columns 4–6 list the corresponding X-ray sources in the WGACAT, the $`ROSAT`$ PSPC observations used for the detection, and the exposure times of the PSPC observations; column 7 describes the positional coincidence between the X-ray source and the white dwarf; and columns 8–10 present the counts detected in the soft (0.1–0.4 keV), medium (0.4–0.9 keV), and hard (0.9–2.0 keV) bands, as reported in the WGACAT.

Eighteen of the 94 coincidences we initially identified could not be confirmed, noted as U1–4 in column 7 of Table 1, because the X-ray sources are not convincingly centered on the white dwarf (U1), the positions of the X-ray sources are compromised by the occultation of the PSPC window support structure or the superposition of a bright background (U2), multiple candidates of optical counterparts are present within the PSPC PSF (U3), or the X-ray sources are too faint to be credible (U4).

One notable example of a U4 mis-identification is WD 1910+047, which was discovered and suggested by Margon, Bolte, & Anderson (1987) to be associated with an Einstein X-ray source. The weak WGACAT source J1912.5+0452 located within 1 from WD 1910+047 was detected in a 2.8 ks PSPC observation (rp400271n00) at a 44 off-axis position, but not confirmed in a 20 ks PSPC observation (rp400271a01) with identical pointing. We have examined this shallow PSPC observation and concluded that this source is spurious. Using a deep PSPC observation (rp500058a02, 20.6 ks) centered at 19 from WD 1910+047, we find an X-ray source near the white dwarf, but it is coincident with a star $``$80′′ SE of the white dwarf and the X-ray spectrum is typical for coronal emission from a late-type star (see Figure 1). This result explains the conclusion of the model atmosphere analysis by Vennes (1990) that the Einstein X-ray source is too luminous for the white dwarf.

There remain 76 coincidences that are confirmed with a high degree of confidence. We have further extracted X-ray spectra from the PSPC event files for these X-ray sources coincident with white dwarfs. We find 69 dominated by soft X-ray emission ($`<`$0.5 keV), as expected from white dwarfs; however, 10 of these also exhibit hard X-ray emission (0.5–2.4 keV). The spectra of the remaining 7 sources have characteristics consistent with coronal emission at temperatures of a few $`\times 10^6`$ K. These PSPC spectra appear “double-peaked” because of the carbon K$`\alpha `$ absorption of the PSPC entrance window at 0.24–0.4 keV; the hard component ($`>`$0.5 keV) is at least 25% as strong as the soft component ($`<`$0.5 keV).

The 17 white dwarfs associated with hard X-ray emission are listed in Table 2, and their images and X-ray spectra are presented in Figure 2. The left panels display DSS images centered on the white dwarfs and overlaid by X-ray contours to illustrate the positional coincidence of the white dwarf and the X-ray source. The white dwarf position is marked when several stars are projected in its vicinity. The right panels display the PSPC spectra of the X-ray sources. For objects overwhelmed by soft X-ray emission, we also plot the spectra with an expanded Y-scale to show the hard component. The PSPC observations listed in Table 1 have been used to extract these X-ray images and spectral information.

Note that Column 10 of Table 1 shows many more white dwarfs with 3$`\sigma `$ detections in the 0.9–2.4 keV band. However, all except the above 17 white dwarfs are rejected because their coincidences with X-ray source are not confirmed (U1-4 in Column 7) or the WGACAT source counts are contaminated/confused with background hard X-ray sources. For example, some white dwarfs are observed at such large off-axis angles ($`>40^{}`$) that the PSF contains background sources (e.g., WD 0037+312 and WD 1040+451), and some are blended with adjacent sources (e.g., WD 1821+643, WD 1844$``$654, and WD 0904+511). Under such circumstances, the source detection algorithm of WGACAT does not effectively exclude contaminating background sources within the PSF, resulting in the apparent detection of hard X-ray emission.

## 3 Binarity of White Dwarfs with Hard X-ray Emission

White dwarfs by themselves do not emit hard ($`>`$ 0.5 keV) X-rays. If a white dwarf accretes material from its surroundings, the gravitational energy released may power hard X-ray emission. In general, we can rule out the accretion of interstellar material because white dwarfs usually are not in a dense interstellar environment. We can also rule out the accretion of the planetary nebula produced by a white dwarf’s progenitor, as it either has dissipated already or is expanding away at a speed much greater than the escape velocity. Thus, the most likely source to provide material for accretion onto a white dwarf is a binary companion. Alternatively, if a white dwarf has a binary companion with coronal activity, the hard X-ray emission from the companion would appear to be associated with the white dwarf. We therefore suspect that white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission are in binary systems.

A literature search of the 17 white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission reveals that 12 of them are known binaries. Below we describe these 12 known binary systems in §3.1, and the 5 apparently single white dwarfs in §3.2.

### 3.1 Known Binaries

WD 0216$``$032 (VZ Cet) is a detached companion of Mira, a pulsating, cool giant (M2-7 III). Karovska et al. (1997) measured a separation and position angle $`\rho `$ = 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$578, $`\theta `$ = 108.3 (Ep. 1995.9424). Baize (1980) estimated an orbital period of 400 yr for this system (separation $`a`$ = 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$85), but this result is extremely uncertain (Mason et al., 2001). The white dwarf flickers (Warner, 1972), and $`IUE`$ observations suggest that it may possess an accretion disk (Reimers & Cassatella, 1985). The PSPC spectrum shows X-ray emission peaking at 1 keV. This hard X-ray emission probably originates from the accretion, since no single cool giants similar to Mira are known X-ray sources.

WD 0347+171 (V471 Tau) is in the eclipsing binary system V471 Tau with a period of 0.521 days (Nelson & Young, 1970; Guinan & Sion, 1984). The K2 V companion is known for its coronal activity, and coronal mass ejections have been implied from the observations of transient absorption features in the Si III $`\lambda `$1206 resonance line (Bond et al., 2001). Using X-ray and EUV eclipses of V471 Tau, Barstow et al. (1992) have demonstrated that the hard X-ray emission indeed originates from the K2 V star.

WD 0429+176 (HZ 9) is in a spectroscopic binary system with a dM4.5e companion and a period of 0.564 days (Lanning & Pesch, 1981; Guinan & Sion, 1984). Late-type main sequence M stars, particularly the ones with Balmer lines in emission (i.e., dMe stars), have been shown to be X-ray emitters (Rucinski, 1984). The dM4.5e companion of WD 0429+176 is most likely responsible for the hard X-ray emission detected.

WD 0736+053 (Procyon B) is a visual binary companion of Procyon A, an F5 IV-V star, with a period of 40.8 yr (Girard et al., 2000). The coronal activity of Procyon A is responsible for the hard X-ray emission (Lemen et al., 1989). In Figure 2, the wavy line shows the motion (proper and orbital) of the white dwarf between the epochs of DSS and $`ROSAT`$ PSPC observations.

WD 1213+528 (EG UMa) was observed at a large off-axis angle. The PSPC PSF extends over almost 2, but the white dwarf appears to be the most likely optical counterpart of the X-ray source. WD 1213+528 has a dM2e binary companion in a 0.668 day period (Lanning, 1982).

WD 1255+258J (HD 112313B) is the central star of the planetary nebula LoTr 5, and has a G5 III companion with a rotational period of 5.9 days (Jasniewicz et al., 1996). The orbital period of this binary is unknown, but probably in excess of one year; the binary is unresolved. The strong Ca II H & K emission lines and broad variable H$`\alpha `$ line of the G5 III companion suggest coronal activity. Thus the G5 III companion is probably responsible for the observed hard X-ray emission.

WD 1314+293 (HZ 43A) has a dM3.5e companion (Napiwotzki et al., 1993), resolved at $`\rho `$ = 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2, $`\theta `$ = 263 (Ep. 1996; Mason et al., 2001). This companion is likely responsible for the hard X-ray emission detected.

WD 1631+781 (1ES 1631+78.1) has an unresolved dM4e companion (Catalan et al., 1995). From the lack of detectable radial velocity variations (Sion et al., 1995), we conclude that the orbital period probably exceeds one year. Fluctuations in H$`\beta `$ emission from the dM4e companion mark it as the probable site of hard X-ray emission.

WD 1633+572 (GJ 630.1B) is the common proper motion companion ($`\rho `$ = 26$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$19, $`\theta `$ = 22.46 at Ep. 2000.0 from an astrometric fit to six DSS plates) of the variable star CM Dra (Greenstein, 1986). CM Dra is itself an eclipsing binary containing two dM3-4e stars with a period of 1.26 days (Lacy, 1977). The proper motion of CM Dra is so large that it must be considered when comparing the DSS and $`ROSAT`$ PSPC images. In Figure 2, we have drawn an arrow to show the proper motion of CM Dra between the optical and X-ray epochs. The X-ray source is centered on CM Dra, rather than the white dwarf; therefore, the hard X-ray emission clearly originates from the dM3-4e binary.

WD 1634$``$573 (HD 149499B) is in a wide binary system ($`\rho `$ = 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$319, $`\theta `$ = 51.71 at Ep. 1991.25, from Hipparcos) with a K2 Ve companion (Wegner, 1979, 1981). The emission lines in the companion’s spectrum are indicative of coronal activity, which may be responsible for the hard X-ray emission.

WD 1944$``$421 (V3885 Sgr) is a cataclysmic variable with orbital period 0.216 days (Downes et al., 2001). Among our sample of 17 white dwarfs with hard X-rays, this is the only one whose hard X-ray component is stronger than the soft X-ray component, indicating a different emission mechanism. The X-ray emission from WD 1944$``$421 must originate from the accretion of material from a binary companion onto the surface of the white dwarf (Patterson, 1994).

WD 2154$``$512 (GJ 841B) is a visual companion of GJ 841A ($`\rho `$ = 27$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$93, $`\theta `$ = 251.5, Ep. 1987.23, from measurements on 2 DSS plates), which consists of two chromospherically active dM3–5e stars with an orbital period of 1.124 days (Jeffries & Bromage, 1993). The dMe stars in GJ 841A are most likely responsible for the hard X-ray emission detected.

### 3.2 The Apparently Single White Dwarfs

WD 0339$``$451 has an X-ray spectrum similar to those associated with stellar coronal emission. The temperature of this DA white dwarf is unknown, but its photospheric emission probably does not contribute much to the X-ray emission detected since the spectrum below 0.5 keV does not rise toward 0.1 keV as expected.

WD 1134+300 (GJ 433.1) is a DA2 white dwarf that has been used as a spectrophotometric standard star (Massey & Gronwall, 1990; Hawarden et al., 2001). Its PSPC spectrum shows a distinct peak at 0.8–0.9 keV. Detailed inspection shows that the soft X-ray emission is centered at the white dwarf, but the hard X-ray emission is centered at a position $``$41′′ northwest of the white dwarf, where an AGN has been identified by Mason et al. (2000). This background AGN must be responsible for the hard X-ray emission.

WD 1159$``$034 (GW Vir), the prototype of PG 1159 white dwarfs, is a well-known pulsating variable (Winget, Hansen, & van Horn, 1983). The faint hard X-ray emission is centered on the white dwarf, but the spectrum is too noisy for detailed spectral analysis.

WD 1234+481 (PG 1234+481) does not have X-ray emission peaking at $``$0.9 keV as the other white dwarfs associated with hard X-ray emission do. However, the spectrum of WD 1234+481 appears to show excess emission at 0.4–0.6 keV.

WD 1333+510 (PG 1333+510) is detected at a large off-axis angle, but it is the closest source, among three, to the peak of the X-ray emission. The X-ray spectrum is similar to those of stellar coronae.

## 4 Discussion

X-ray emission from white dwarfs is expected to be soft, but roughly 20% of X-ray sources associated with white dwarfs exhibit a hard X-ray component ($`>`$0.5 keV). What is the origin of hard X-ray emission associated with white dwarfs? We initially speculated that all white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission possess binary companions, but our literature search reveals that 12 of the 17 white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission are known to be in binary or multiple systems, one is superposed by chance near a background AGN, and the remaining four are apparently single white dwarfs. Below we argue that the binary companions are indeed directly or indirectly responsible for the hard X-ray emission associated with white dwarfs in binary systems, use 2MASS photometry to assess the existence of late-type companions, and discuss the hard X-ray emission from the hottest apparently single white dwarfs.

### 4.1 Hard X-ray Emission Associated with White Dwarfs in Binary Systems

Two of our 12 white dwarfs in binary systems are known to accrete material from their companions: Mira and the cataclysmic variable V3885 Sgr. The accretion of the companion’s material onto the surface of the white dwarf produces hard X-ray emission (Patterson, 1994). Of the ten non-accreting systems, six have one or two dMe companions, two have a K2 V companion, one has an F5 IV-V companion, and one has a G5 III companion. These late-type companions either are known for their active coronae or have emission lines indicating coronal activity; therefore, these companions are most likely responsible for the observed hard X-ray emission. In some cases, the origin of the hard X-ray emission has been unambiguously established to be the late-type companions by either positional coincidence (e.g., WD 1633+572) or observations of eclipses (e.g., WD 0347+171).

To confirm that these late-type companions are the source of the hard X-ray emission, we compare the hard X-ray luminosities and plasma temperatures of the binary systems with those expected from single late-type stars. We have fitted thin plasma emission models (Raymond & Smith, 1977) to the 0.5–2.4 keV portion of the spectra for the objects with sufficient counts in this energy band. The resultant plasma temperature $`kT`$ and X-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ in the 0.5–2.4 keV band are given in Table 2. The $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ of white dwarfs with late-type companions are completely consistent with those seen in dM and K stars, 1027–1029 ergs s-1 (Schmitt, Fleming, & Giampapa, 1995; Marino, Micela, & Peres, 2000). The best-fit plasma temperatures are also in the range for stellar coronae. We further assess whether coronal activities of the late-type companions may be induced by binary interaction by correlating the projected binary separation, $`a`$, with the X-ray luminosity (see Table 2). No clear correlation is seen. This lack of correlation may be caused by the small number of binary systems in our sample and the wide range of physical parameters involved. The cataclysmic variable WD 1944$``$421 (V3885 Sgr) has the highest hard X-ray luminosity, which is also in accord with the expectation of accretion from a Roche-lobe-filled companion. Thus, the hard X-ray emission from white dwarfs in known binary systems can be explained by the presence of their companions.

### 4.2 Apparently Single White Dwarfs

The remaining four white dwarfs associated with hard X-ray emission appear to be single. If these white dwarfs contain previously-unknown, late-type companions, near-IR photometry may reveal these companions (e.g., Green, Ali, & Napiwotzki, 2000). We have obtained $`JHK`$ photometric measurements of white dwarfs with hard X-rays available in the second incremental data release of the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), and listed them in Table 3, along with optical photometry from McCook & Sion (1999). In the case of WD 1633+572 where the white dwarf and the binary dMe companions are resolved by 2MASS, separate entries are given. To enlarge the sample for comparison, we have added two additional white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission that are not from our survey: WD 0005+511 (= KPD 0005+5106; its hard X-ray emission will be discussed in §4.3) and WD 2226$``$210 (= the central star of the Helix Nebula; its hard X-ray emission is described in §1).

Clear near-IR excess is observed in the four known binary systems, but not in the apparently single white dwarfs. The lack of near-IR excess, in conjunction with known distances, places constraints on the possible companions of the white dwarfs. The constraint is more stringent for white dwarfs at smaller distances because it would be harder to hide a companion. The nearest apparently single white dwarf with hard X-ray emission is WD 1134+300 at 15.3 pc. We estimate that its near-IR magnitudes can hide only a brown dwarf companion more than 3 mag fainter than an M7 V star. Therefore, WD 1134+300 has no stellar-mass companions, and the AGN projected within the PSPC PSF (Mason et al., 2000) is solely responsible for the hard X-ray emission observed.

Two other white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission have known distances, WD 1234+481 and WD 2226$``$210. Their lack of near-IR excess indicates that WD 1234+481 can hide a companion of spectral type M7 V or later, and WD 2226$``$210 later than M5-6 V. If these two apparently single white dwarfs indeed have faint, late-type companions, then the hard X-ray emission detected by $`ROSAT`$ is more effective than the near-IR excess detected by 2MASS in diagnosing the existence of a faint late-type companion.

### 4.3 Hard X-ray Emission from the Hottest Apparently Single White Dwarfs

Two of the apparently single white dwarfs associated with hard X-rays from our survey are among the hottest known: WD 1159$``$034 and WD 2226$``$210. To compare these two hot white dwarfs to the one that has been suggested to possess a corona, KPD 0005+5106, we have retrieved an archival $`ROSAT`$ PSPC pointed observation (rf200428n00) that was made with the boron filter for an exposure time of 5 ks. As shown in Figure 3, the PSPC spectrum of KPD 0005+5106 shows not only the soft atmospheric emission below 0.5 keV, but also hard X-ray emission near 1 keV. This hard X-ray emission was not detected previously by Fleming, Werner, & Barstow (1993) using the $`ROSAT`$ All-Sky Survey observation of exposure time 504 s. As the 5 ks pointed observation detected only 24$`\pm `$6 counts in the 0.5–2.4 keV band, if the hard X-ray flux is constant, we expect only 2.4$`\pm `$1.5 hard X-ray counts in a 504 s exposure. The non-detection of the hard component by Fleming, Werner, & Barstow (1993) thus does not imply a temporal variation. The presence of hard X-ray emission from KPD 0005+5106 requires a plasma temperature at least 106 K, much higher than that suggested by Fleming, Werner, & Barstow (1993), and may be responsible for photoionizing O VIII and producing the recombination lines observed (Werner & Heber, 1992; Sion & Downes, 1992). We have examined the 2MASS $`JHK`$ photometric data for KPD 0005+5106 (see Table 3), and find no evidence for a near-IR excess. Thus, KPD 0005+5106 is another apparently single hot white dwarf with hard X-ray emission.

While our statistical sample is extremely limited, it is intriguing that $``$50% of the apparently single white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission are among the hottest known white dwarfs: 120,000 K for WD 0005+511 (=KPD 0005+5106; Werner, Heber, & Fleming, 1994), 140,000 K for WD 1159$``$034 (= PG 1159$``$034; Dreizler & Heber, 1998), and 103,600 K for WD 2226$``$210 (= CSPN of the Helix; Napiwotzki, 1999). Is it possible that the hard X-ray emission is the high-energy Wien tail of the blackbody emission from deep in the stellar atmosphere? It is beyond the scope of this paper to model the atmospheres of these white dwarfs and answer this question theoretically. Instead, we will examine X-ray observations of the hottest white dwarfs to search for trends in their hard X-ray properties in order to gain insight into the origin of their hard X-ray emission.

We first examine X-ray properties of PG 1159 stars. Many pointed $`ROSAT`$ PSPC observations of PG 1159 stars were made with the boron filter. These X-ray sources will be absent in the WGACAT, and it is necessary to search the $`ROSAT`$ archive for pointed and serendipitous observations of PG 1159 stars. PG 1159 stars are divided into two groups: with and without planetary nebulae (PNs). $`ROSAT`$ observations of cataloged PNs have been analyzed and reported by Guerrero, Chu, & Gruendl (2000); PSPC observations of five PNs with PG 1159 central stars are available. Of these five, WD 0726+133 (in Abell 21; PG 1159) and WD 2333+301 (in Jn 1; DOZ.3) are not detected; WD 2117+342J (in MWP 1; DO) is detected at a 40 off-axis position in the PSPC field-of-view (this paper), but the poor PSF does not allow us to assess accurately whether faint hard X-ray emission exists; WD 0044$``$121 (in NGC 246; PG 1159) and WD 1821+643 (in K 1-16; DOZ.4) are centered in pointed PSPC observations, but only soft ($`<`$0.5 keV) X-ray emission from the white dwarf is detected. Four PG 1159 stars without PNs have pointed PSPC observations: WD 0122$``$753J (= RX J0122$``$7521; DO), WD 1144+004 (= PG 1144+005; DQZO1), WD 1159$``$034 (= PG 1159$``$034; DQZO.4), and WD 1501+664 (= PG 1501+661; DZ1); all four have been included in our survey listed in Table 1. Soft X-ray emission is detected in these four PG 1159 stars without PNs, but 3-$`\sigma `$ detection of hard X-rays is obtained only for PG 1159 itself.

We have further combed Table 1 for hot white dwarfs similar to WD 0005+511 or WD 2226$``$210, and find a hot DO white dwarf, WD 1522+662, and a hot DAO white dwarf, WD 1957+225 at the center of the Dumbbell Nebula. These four hot DO and DAO white dwarfs and the above nine PG 1159 white dwarfs will be discuss below in more detail. The spectral type, stellar effective temperature, visual magnitude, and $`ROSAT`$ observations of these 13 hot white dwarfs are summarized in Table 4. To illustrate the spectral properties of the 11 hot white dwarfs whose X-ray emission has been detected by $`ROSAT`$ PSPC observations, in Figure 4 we present their soft X-ray images in the 0.1–0.4 keV band and the hard X-ray images in the 0.6–2.4 keV band. It is evident that hard X-ray emission is clearly detected only from WD 0005+511, WD 1159$``$034, and WD 2226$``$210, as we have concluded earlier, and possibly detected at a 2$`\sigma `$ level from WD 0122$``$753J. The spectral types of these four white dwarfs are DO, DQZO.4, DAO, and DO, respectively.

Below we divide the 11 hot white dwarfs detected in X-rays according to their spectral types, discuss the implications of their hard X-ray properties, and speculate on the possibility of a photospheric origin of the hard X-ray emission.

* DAO (WD 1957+225 and WD 2226$``$210):
Hard X-ray emission is detected from WD 2226$``$210 in the Helix Nebula, but not from WD 1957+225 in the Dumbbell Nebula. As these two DAO white dwarfs have similar effective temperatures, and as WD 1957+225 is only 0.8 mag fainter but has a four times longer exposure time, the lack of hard X-ray emission from WD 1957+225 signifies a real difference from WD 2226$``$210. Furthermore, WD 2226$``$210 shows temporal variations of its hard X-ray emission and H$`\alpha `$ line profile, suggesting the existence of a late dMe companion (Guerrero et al., 2001; Gruendl et al., 2001). Therefore, there is no evidence indicating that deep photospheric emission is the origin of hard X-rays associated with DAO white dwarfs.
* DO (WD 0005+511, WD 0122$``$753J, WD 1522+662, and WD 2117+342J):
Among these four DO white dwarfs, WD 0005+511 has an unambiguous detection of hard X-rays, and WD 0122$``$753J has a possible detection of hard X-rays. WD 1522+662 does not show hard X-ray emission, but the $`ROSAT`$ observation has only 4.7 ks exposure time and WD 1522+662 is faint with $`B`$ = 16.4 mag. WD 2117+342J is observed at a 40 from the center of the PSPC field-of-view and the poor PSF prohibits a conclusive assessment of the existence of faint hard X-ray emission. It may be possible that faint hard X-ray emission can emerge from the hot, deep layer of the photospheres of DO white dwarfs, but more detections are needed to confirm it.
* DQZO (WD 1144+044, WD 1159$``$034, and WD 1821+643):
WD 1159$``$034 has hard X-ray emission. WD 1144+044 has a non-detection, but it is slightly fainter than WD 1159$``$034 and its exposure time is only half as long. WD 1821+643 in the PN K 1-16 is projected near a bright hard X-ray source, a cluster of galaxies surrounding the QSO E1821+643 (Saxton et al., 1997), so it is difficult to determine its hard X-ray properties accurately from Figure 4. We have examined an archival $`Chandra`$ HETG observation of QSO E1821+643 (PI: C. R. Canizares; 101 ks); in this observation WD 1821+643 is detected and clearly resolved from QSO E1821+643, but no hard X-ray emission from WD 1821+643 is seen. WD 1159$``$034 and WD 1821+643 are well-known pulsators (Ciardullo & Bond, 1996), while WD 1144+044 is not. It is thus unlikely that the hard X-ray emission is related to the stellar pulsation.
* PG 1159 and DZ1 (WD 0044$``$121 and WD 1501+664):
WD 0044$``$121 is a PG 1159 star in the PN NGC 246; WD 1501+664 is classified as DZ1 and is the hottest white dwarf (Werner & Wolff, 1999). Neither of these two hot white dwarfs show hard X-ray emission; the high opacity of the H- and He-free atmosphere of WD 1501+664 may be the culprit of its non-detection (Nousek et al., 1986; Werner, 1991).

The above sample of hot white dwarfs is very limited, but allows us to eliminate improbable origins of hard X-ray emission. For example, stellar pulsation is not likely to produce hard X-ray emission, as WD 1159$``$034 is the only pulsator with hard X-ray emission. Stellar winds are not likely to be the origin of hard X-ray emission either, as WD 1159$``$034 has hard X-rays but no measurable past or ongoing mass loss (Fritz, Leckenby, & Sion, 1990), while appreciable mass loss but no hard X-ray emission has been detected from WD 0044$``$121 and WD 1821+643 (Koesterke & Werner, 1998). There leaves the tantalizing suggestion that hard X-rays may be emitted by hot DO and DQZO white dwarfs. While it is necessary to model their atmospheres to understand theoretically whether hard X-rays from beneath the atmosphere may leak through, it is also necessary to obtain better high-resolution X-ray images to confirm that the hard X-ray emission is indeed associated with the white dwarfs (as opposed to background objects projected in their vicinity) and high-quality X-ray spectra for detailed spectral analysis.

## 5 Summary

We have correlated the recent white dwarf catalog by McCook & Sion (1999) with the $`ROSAT`$ PSPC point source catalog (WGACAT), and found 76 white dwarfs coincident with X-ray sources at a high level of confidence. We have further found that 17 of these sources show hard X-ray emission ($`>`$ 0.5 keV). Two of these white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission accrete material from their companions, while the other ten have late-type companions that are known to have active coronae and emit hard X-rays. One white dwarf has an AGN projected within the PSPC PSF contributing to the hard X-ray emission. The remaining four white dwarfs (WD 0339$``$451, WD 1159$``$034, WD 1234+481, and WD 1333+510) and two additional white dwarfs (WD 0005+511 and WD 2226$``$210) with hard X-ray emission appear single. The lack of near-IR excess for WD 1234+481 and WD 2226$``$210 at known distances constrains the possible spectral types of the hidden companions to later than M7 V and M5-6 V, respectively. We suggest that hard X-ray emission may be more effective than near-IR photometry in diagnosing faint, late-type companions of white dwarfs, if the hard X-ray emission associated with the six apparently single white dwarfs indeed originates from hidden companions.

It is intriguing that three of the six apparently single white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission have high stellar effective temperatures. We have searched the $`ROSAT`$ archive for observations of PG 1159 stars and examined the X-ray properties of a sample of 13 hot white dwarfs with different spectral types. Comparisons among these hot white dwarfs lead to the following conclusions: (1) DAO WD 2226$``$210 most likely possesses a late dMe companion which emits hard X-rays, (2) stellar pulsation cannot be connected to the hard X-ray emission, (3) fast stellar winds are not likely to be the origin of hard X-ray emission, and (4) the high-energy Wien tail of emission deep in the atmospheres of hot DO and DQZO white dwarfs remains a tantalizing explanation for the hard X-ray emission observed.

Our statistics are limited by the incompleteness of the WGACAT, which has been derived solely from pointed $`ROSAT`$ PSPC observations made without filters, while many PSPC observations of white dwarfs were made with a boron filter. A complete survey for white dwarfs with hard X-ray emission using the entire $`ROSAT`$ archive is needed to enlarge the sample. Follow-up high-resolution deep X-ray observations with $`Chandra`$ or XMM-Newton are needed to confirm the positional coincidence of the white dwarfs and the X-ray sources, and to study the spectral properties in order to investigate the origin and nature of hard X-ray emission associated with white dwarfs.

We thank the anonymous referee for making critical comments which helped improve our paper. We also thank J. Liebert, R. Napiwotzki, R. Petre, and K. Werner for reading the manuscript and making useful suggestions. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, and the Digital Sky Survey produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166. We have also used data product from the 2MASS, which is a joint project of the University Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by NASA and NSF.


format: text

text:
# Radio/X-ray Offsets of Large Scale Jets Caused by Synchrotron Time Lags

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Since 1999, the Chandra X-ray Observatory has detected tens of X-ray jets in radio-loud AGNs. While the radio (and probably the optical) emission of the jets is certain to be synchrotron, the radiation mechanisms responsible for large scale X-ray jets have not been well understood yet (for a recent review, see Harris & Krawczynski 2002). Although it seems clear that thermal models can be ruled out, both synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission models are possible. For some sources, different models have been proposed by different research groups. For example, the X-ray jet in 3C 273 can be interpreted as synchrotron emission, or synchrotron self-Compton emission or inverse-Compton scattering of the cosmic microwave background (CMB, Marshall et al. 2001; Sambruna et al. 2001; Röser et al. 2000).

Up to now, six large scale jets have been observed to have obvious offsets between X-ray knots and the corresponding radio/optical knots, with the centroids of X-ray knots being closer to the core. They are M87 (Marshall et al. 2002; Wilson & Young 2002), Cen A (Kraft et al. 2002), 3C 273 (Marshall et al. 2001), PKS $`1127145`$ (Siemiginowska et al. 2002), 3C 66B (Hardcastle et al. 2001), and 3C 31 (Hardcastle et al. 2002). In M87 (Sparks et al. 1996) and 3C 273 (Thomson et al. 1993), the centroids of optical knots are also closer to the core than their radio counterparts. The X-ray jets in M87, Cen A, 3C 31, and 3C 66B are interpreted as synchrotron emission of extremely high energy relativistic electrons, while the X-ray jet in PKS $`1127145`$ is interpreted as inverse-Compton scattering of extremely low energy relativistic electrons with the CMB. But why in all these sources are knots at higher frequencies closer to the core than their counterparts at lower frequencies? Could offsets between X-ray knots and radio/optical knots constrain the emission mechanisms of X-ray jets?

In blazars, similar phenomena have been observed among flares which are generally believed to originate from the inner jets (pc and subpc scales, see e.g., Blandford & Königl 1979). Multiwavelength monitoring of blazars shows that flares usually begin at high frequencies, then propagate to lower frequencies, implying that high frequency synchrotron emission arises closer to the core than low frequency emission does (see e.g., Ulrich, Maraschi, & Urry 1997; Marscher 1993, 2000). For example, light curves of PKS $`2155304`$ obtained in 1994 show that an X-ray flare led a broader, lower amplitude extreme-ultraviolet flare by $`1`$ day, and a broad, low-amplitude UV flare by $`2`$ days (Urry et al. 1997). Correlation analysis shows that a strong correlation appears between optical and radio (37 GHz) light curves, with leading time of months or less (Tornikoski et al. 1994). These leading flares are all due to synchrotron emission. The similarity of offsets of knots on large scales to the time lags of flares on small scales thus may imply that the large scale X-ray jets in the above six sources are due to synchrotron emission.

In an earlier paper (Bai & Lee 2001), based on the knowledge of emission from the inner jets of blazars, we predicted detectable synchrotron X-ray emission from most radio jets on kpc and a few 10 kpc scales (de-projected distance from the core). In this Letter, we argue that the radio/X-ray and optical/X-ray offsets of the above six jets are caused by synchrotron time lags, and that X-ray emission in these large scale jets is synchrotron emission. We adopt $`H_0=50`$kms-1Mpc-1, and $`q_0=0`$ throughout this study.

## 2. High Energy Electrons in inner jets and large scale jets

In radio lobes, the energies of radio-emitting electrons are $`\gamma 10^3`$ to $`10^4`$. In inner jets, electrons of these energies should emit at optical/UV frequencies and cannot travel to lobes during their radiative cooling time. They must be re-accelerated after leaving the inner jet.

It is widely accepted that electrons are accelerated by internal shocks in the jet. In the frame work of diffusive shock acceleration (e.g., Drury 1983; Blandford & Eichler 1987), the time needed to accelerate electrons to energy $`\gamma `$ in the jet comoving frame is (Inoue & Takahara 1996; Kusunose et al. 2000)

$$t_{acc}(\gamma )=\frac{20\lambda (\gamma )c}{3u_s^2}=\frac{20cm_e}{3e}\xi \gamma B^1,$$
(1)
where $`u_sc`$ is the shock speed, $`B`$ is the magnetic field strength, and $`\lambda (\gamma )=\xi \gamma m_ec^2/(eB)`$ is the mean free path of electrons assumed to be proportional to the electron Larmor radius, with $`\xi `$ being a parameter ($`\xi 1`$, $`\xi =1`$ corresponds to the Böhm limit), $`m_e`$ the electron mass, and $`e`$ the electron charge. The radiative cooling time $`t_{cool}(\gamma )`$ of relativistic electrons through synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission is

$$t_{cool}(\gamma )=\frac{3m_ec}{4\sigma _T}(U_B+U_r)^1\gamma ^1,$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson cross-section, and $`U_B=B^2/(8\pi )`$ and $`U_r`$ are the energy densities of magnetic field and radiation (produced in or outside the jet), respectively. Since $`t_{acc}(\gamma )`$ is proportional to $`\gamma `$ while $`t_{cool}(\gamma )`$ is inversely proportional to $`\gamma `$, at $`t_{acc}(\gamma )=t_{cool}(\gamma )`$, electrons are accelerated to the maximum energy, $`\gamma _{max}`$ (Kirk et al. 1998; Kusunose et al. 2000).

Combining equations (1) and (2) yields

$$\frac{t_{acc}(\gamma )}{t_{cool}(\gamma )}=\frac{10\sigma _T(1+D)}{9\pi e}\xi B\gamma ^2,$$
(3)
where $`DU_r/U_B`$ is the “Compton dominance” (e.g., Ghisellini et al. 1998). In the jet comoving frame, the typical synchrotron emission frequency of relativistic electrons of $`\gamma `$, averaged over pitch angles, is

$$\nu _s=\frac{4}{3}\nu _B\gamma ^2=\frac{2e}{3\pi m_ec}B\gamma ^2,$$
(4)
where $`\nu _B=eB/(2\pi m_ec)`$ is Larmor frequency. In terms of $`\nu _s`$, equation (3) can be expressed as

$$\frac{t_{acc}(\gamma )}{t_{cool}(\gamma )}=\frac{5\sigma _Tm_ec(1+D)}{3e^2}\xi \nu _s.$$
(5)
Setting $`t_{acc}(\gamma )/t_{cool}(\gamma )=1`$ in equation (5), the maximum synchrotron frequency $`\nu _{max}`$ of $`\gamma _{max}`$ in the observer’s frame is

$$\nu _{max}=\frac{3e^2(1+D)^1}{5\sigma _Tm_ec}\xi ^1\frac{\delta }{1+z}(1+D)^1\xi ^1\delta ,$$
(6)
where $`z`$ is the redshift of the source, $`\delta `$ is the Doppler factor $`\delta =[\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )]^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the bulk Lorentz factor, and $`\theta `$ is the viewing angle of the jet.

The kpc scale jet is an extension of the inner jet, and is still relativistic, as indicated by the observed jet$``$counterjet intensity asymmetry. Therefore, $`\xi `$ and $`\delta `$ do not change much along the jet from small scales to kpc scales, unlike $`B`$ which decreases quickly along the jet. On large scales, from subkpc to tens of kpc, the dominant cooling process in the jets is synchrotron emission (Celotti et al. 2001), i.e., $`1+D_{kpc}1`$. Thus, according to equation (6), $`\nu _{max}(\mathrm{kpc})(1+D_{pc})\nu _{max}(\mathrm{pc})`$. In the inner jets of some sources, such as Mrk 501, X-rays are due to synchrotron emission, and the dominant cooling process is synchrotron cooling, i.e., $`1+D_{pc}1`$, so $`\nu _{max}`$ is roughly constant along the jet (though $`\gamma _{max}`$ is much higher on kpc scales), and electrons can be re-accelerated to energies high enough to emit synchrotron X-rays on kpc or even larger scales if shocks exist on these scales.

In the inner jets of OVV quasars and probably FR II radio galaxies, the synchrotron peak frequencies are in the IR/optical bands, and the dominant cooling process is inverse-Compton emission. In these sources, $`D_{pc}`$ is typically in the range of 10 – 100, and as much as 1000 in some luminous quasars (Urry 1999). It is obvious that in some sources, the maximum synchrotron frequencies and hence the peak frequencies in the kpc scale jets are more than 100 times larger than those in the inner jets, and that X-rays are dominated by synchrotron emission. That is to say, electrons in kpc scale jets of these sources can be accelerated to energies high enough to produce synchrotron X-ray jets if shocks exist on these scales.

Therefore, shocks in most large scale jets can re-accelerate electrons to energies high enough to emit synchrotron X-rays. It is not strange that electrons in large scale jets can be accelerated to energies higher than the maximum energy in inner jets. Even the optical-emitting electrons in some large scale optical knots have higher energies than the maximum energy in the inner jets. For example, in 3C 273, the energies of optical electrons in knot D and H are $`\gamma >10^5`$ (Röser & Meisenheimer 1991), much larger than the maximum energy of $`\gamma 10^4`$ in the inner jet (Ghisellini et al. 1998).

## 3. Offsets of knots in large scale jets

It can be seen in equation (4) that high energy electrons emit synchrotron radiation at high frequencies and cool, emitting at progressively lower frequencies and resulting in time lags between high ($`\nu _1`$) and low ($`\nu _2`$) frequencies. The time lag of emission at $`\nu _2`$ ($`\gamma _2`$) to emission at $`\nu _1`$ ($`\gamma _1`$) is the time for electrons to lose energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma =\gamma _1\gamma _2`$, i.e.,

$$t_{lag}=_{\gamma _1}^{\gamma _2}\frac{d\gamma }{\dot{\gamma }}=\frac{3m_ec}{4\sigma _T(U_B+U_r)}_{\gamma _1}^{\gamma _2}\frac{d\gamma }{\gamma ^2},$$
(7)
where $`\dot{\gamma }=4\sigma _T(U_B+U_r)\gamma ^2/(3m_ec)`$ is the cooling rate at $`\gamma `$, and $`t_{lag}`$ is in the jet comoving frame. Integration yields

$$t_{lag}=\frac{3m_ec(\gamma _2^1\gamma _1^1)}{4\sigma _T(U_B+U_r)}=t_{cool}(\gamma _2)t_{cool}(\gamma _1).$$
(8)
That is to say, the time lag of synchrotron emission at $`\nu _2`$ to that at $`\nu _1`$ is equal to the difference between the cooling time of electrons of energies of $`\gamma _2`$ and $`\gamma _1`$. In terms of $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$, $`t_{lag}`$ is

$$t_{lag}=\frac{2\sqrt{6\pi em_ec}}{\sigma _T(1+D)}B^{\frac{3}{2}}(\nu _2^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu _1^{\frac{1}{2}}).$$
(9)
This is also the time lag between the peaks (not the beginnings) of synchrotron flares at $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _1`$, provided that the light-crossing time is unimportant relative to the electron injecting time, and that $`\gamma \gamma _{max}`$ (e.g., Zhang et al. 2002; Chiappetti et al. 1999; Chiaberge & Ghisellini 1999; Georganopoulos & Marscher 1998). If $`\nu _1\nu _2`$, then $`t_{cool}(\nu _2)t_{cool}(\nu _1)`$, and $`t_{lag}t_{cool}(\nu _2)`$, i.e., the time lag of a flare at low frequency to its corresponding synchrotron flare at high frequency is roughly the radiative cooling time of relativistic electrons at lower frequency (Urry et al. 1997, 1999).

In the case that X-rays are due to synchrotron emission, synchrotron cooling is the dominant cooling process of electrons, i.e., $`1+D1`$. Thus, in the jet comoving frame

$$t_{lag}t_{cool}(\nu _2)=2\times 10^4[(1+z)/\delta ]^{\frac{1}{2}}B^{\frac{3}{2}}\nu _{15}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{s},$$
(10)
where $`B`$ is in gauss, $`\nu _{15}\nu _2/(10^{15}\mathrm{Hz})`$ is in the observer’s frame, and $`t_{lag}`$ is in units of second. The time lags of optical (V band, observer’s frame) emission to synchrotron X-ray emission in the jet comoving frame are

$$t_{o/x}1.477\times 10^4[(1+z)/\delta ]^{\frac{1}{2}}B^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{s},$$
(11)
and the time lags of radio (1 GHz, observer’s frame) emission to X-ray emission in the jet comoving frame are

$$t_{r/x}t_{r/o}2\times 10^7[(1+z)/\delta ]^{\frac{1}{2}}B^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{s}.$$
(12)
As the emitting plasma propagates downstream along the jet, $`t_{o/x}`$ and $`t_{r/x}`$ result in offsets between the centroids of optical and X-ray knots, and between the centroids of radio and X-ray knots, respectively, with the X-ray knot being earlier and closer to the core than radio and optical knots, and optical knot than radio knot. The radio/X-ray or optical/X-ray knot pairs observed at the same time are thus actually produced by two different populations of electrons, as pointed out by Siemiginowska et al. (2002). However, bright knots on large scales are sites continuously generating shocks and re-accelerating electrons, as indicated by proper motion at knots of M87 jet (Biretta et al. 1995, 1999). The magnetic field strength in bright knots and the jet speed $`v_j`$ are roughly constant (on time scale of years). Offsets produced by a series of populations of electrons at a bright knot are approximately the same. That is to say, the observed radio/X-ray and optical/X-ray offsets at a bright knot still reflect the synchrotron time lags, as if they were produced by a single population of electrons at the same time.

Assuming $`v_j=0.42c`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.1`$, Celotti et al. 2001) on large scales, the observed offset between optical (V band) and X-ray knots caused by $`t_{o/x}`$ simply is

$$D_{o/x}59.77B_4^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }[(1+z)/\delta ]^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{pc},$$
(13)
where $`B_4B/(10^4\mathrm{gauss})`$. Similarly, the observed offsets between radio (1 GHz) and X-ray knots caused by $`t_{r/x}`$ is

$$D_{r/x}D_{r/o}80.95B_4^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }[(1+z)/\delta ]^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{kpc}.$$
(14)
The typical magnetic strength in large scale jets is $`B10^4`$ gauss (Harris & Karwczynski 2002). According to equations (13) and (14), the de-projected optical/X-ray and radio/X-ray offsets of large scale jets are $`65.7`$ pc and $`89`$kpc, respectively. However, jet expansion on large scales may shorten the synchrotron time lags and hence the offsets, especially radio/optical offsets. Lower energy electrons cool slower, hence at lower frequencies, jets have longer time to expand sideways and thus are wider. Multiband imaging of jets in Pictor A (Wilson et al. 2001), Cen A (Kraft et al. 2002), M87 (Marshall et al. 2002; Sparks et al. 1996), and 3C 273 (Thomson et al. 1993) shows that radio jets are much wider, indicating that jet expansion on large scales is significant. It is reasonable that the magnetic field farther away from the jet axis is weaker. When the jet expands, some electrons move sideways to region with weaker magnetic field, emitting at lower frequencies earlier than they should. In other words, jet expansion reduces the time lags for these electrons, as well as the jet emission at some frequencies. On large scales, the magnetic field is very weak, and only at frequencies close to $`\nu _{max}`$, is the jet expansion negligible. At low frequencies (in some cases may be as high as optical), the jet may expand so greatly that the emission of the jet is mainly contributed by electrons in the expanded region of the jet, and consequently the centroids of emission at these frequencies shift upstream, i.e., the offsets to high frequency knots are shortened.

In equation (9), it can be seen that at a given frequency, synchrotron time lags and thus offsets between two emission frequencies are inversely proportional to the magnetic field strength $`B`$. Because $`B`$ decreases along the jet, offsets due to synchrotron time lags should increase along the jet provided that jet expansion is unimportant. In M87, Cen A, 3C 273 and PKS $`1127145`$ more than two knots have been detected. The offsets in M87, Cen A and 3C 273 indeed get larger along the jet, suggesting that these offsets are due to synchrotron time lags. In M87, from knot A to Knot B, the optical/X-ray offsets increase from $`0.09\pm 0.02\mathrm{}`$ to $`0.29\pm 0.06\mathrm{}`$, and from the core to knot A, the optical/X-ray offsets are too small to be measured at current accuracy of 0.03$`\mathrm{}`$ (Marshall et al. 2002). The radio/optical offsets in M87 also get larger along the jet, from $`0.24\pm 0.01\mathrm{}`$ at knot HST-1 to $`0.3\pm 0.01\mathrm{}`$ at knot D. In Cen A, the radio/X-ray offsets increase from $`<0.5\mathrm{}`$ at A1/AX1 knots and $`2.5\mathrm{}`$ at A2/AX2 knots to $`5\mathrm{}`$ at knot B (Kraft et al. 2002). In 3C 273, the optical/X-ray offsets increase from $`0.22\mathrm{}`$ at knot A to $`0.5\mathrm{}`$ at knot B (see Fig. 3 in Marshall et al. 2001). The radio/X-ray offsets in PKS $`1127145`$ and the radio/optical offsets beyond knot D in M87 decrease along the jet, but this may be due to strong expansion of the jet.

In fact, from pc and subpc scales to large scales, offsets also increase along the jet. The typical time lag of optical flares to X-rays flares is of day scale, such as in PKS $`2155304`$ (Urry et al. 1997) and Mrk 421 (Buckley et al. 1996). The corresponding optical/X-ray offsets on pc and subpc scales are of the order of lightday, i.e. thousandths of pc. On large scales, the observed optical/X-ray offsets in large scale jets are of the order of tens (M87, assuming $`\theta 30\mathrm{°}`$) to hundreds (3C 273 and 3C 66B) of pc. The typical time lag of radio flares to optical flares is of the scale of months (e.g., Tornikoski et al. 1994), corresponding to radio/optical and radio/X-ray offsets of the order of 0.1 pc on pc and subpc scales, while the observed radio/X-ray offsets on large scales are of the order of tens and hundreds of pc (Cen A, M87 and 3C 31) to tens of kpc (PKS $`1127145`$). These also suggest that the observed radio/X-ray and optical/X-ray offsets in the six large scale jets are due to synchrotron time lags.

According to equations (13) and (14), the optical/X-ray offset at a knot should be $`10^3`$ times smaller than the radio/optical offset at the same knot. In M87, though shortened due to jet expansion, the radio/optical offsets of $`0.24\pm 0.01\mathrm{}`$ at knot HST-1 and $`0.3\pm 0.01\mathrm{}`$ at knot D are larger than the corresponding optical/X-ray offsets which are too small to be measured at current accuracy of 0.03$`\mathrm{}`$ (Marshall et al. 2002). This confirms that offsets in M87 are due to synchrotron time lags. Among the six sources, M87 is the only one that has data for both optical/X-ray and radio/optical offsets. Probably, the optical/X-ray offsets in the rest five sources were also smaller than the corresponding radio/optical offsets, if they could be measured.

## 4. Discussion and Conclusions

It should be pointed out that, unlike bright knots, a weak knot may be caused by a single shock. Weak X-ray knots thus may not have corresponding optical or radio knots before disappearing. The faint knots, A4/AX4, A5/AX5 and A6/AX6 in Cen A, and Dx and F in M87 are probably a single shock wave, and the offsets at these knots may not be caused by synchrotron time lags.

In some sources, the large scale X-ray jets may be dominated by inverse-Compton scattering of radio-emitting or even lower energy electrons (Schwartz et al. 2000, Schwartz 2002; Tavecchio et al. 2000; Celotti et al. 2001). In these sources, X-ray knots cannot be closer to the core than the corresponding radio knots, as indicated by multiband monitoring of flares in PKS $`151010`$ in which X-rays are due to inverse-Compton scattering and the X-ray flare in 1997 lagged behind the radio flare $`16`$ days (Marscher 2000). In the six sources, because the bright X-ray knots precede their radio (and optical) counterparts, the X-ray jets cannot be due to inverse-Compton emission.

In conclusion, shocks in most large scale jets can re-accelerate electrons to energies high enough to emit synchrotron X-rays; The observed radio/X-ray and optical/X-ray offsets at bright knots in M87, Cen A, 3C 66B, 3C 31, 3C 273, and PKS $`1127145`$ are probably caused by synchrotron time lags, suggesting that the large scale X-ray and optical jets in these sources are dominated by synchrotron emission.

We thank the anonymous referee and D.E. Harris for constructive suggestions, comments and discussions. This work was financially supported by the BK21 Project of the Korean government.


text:
# Constraints on background contributions from 𝐾⁺Λ electroproduction

## Abstract

Results for response functions for kaon electroproduction on the proton are presented. A tree-level hadrodynamical model is adopted and it is shown that some of the electroproduction response functions are particularly powerful with the eye on gaining control over the parameterization of the background diagrams. The existing data set for the $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reaction appears to rule out the use of a $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ coupling constant beyond the boundaries of softly broken SU(3) flavor symmetry. Also the use of soft hadronic form factors, which has been proposed as a valid alternative for a hadrodynamical description of the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data in the resonance region, seems to be disfavored by the magnitude of the measured $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cross sections.

In studies of the baryon resonance spectrum, the electromagnetic production of mesons is a privileged reaction. Traditionally, most of the efforts have been directed towards the pion production channels. Sparked by major experimental efforts at accelerator facilities like Jlab, ELSA, SPring-8 and GRAAL there is growing interest in other meson production reactions like $`\eta N`$, $`\omega N`$, $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Amongst them, the strangeness production channels constitute a special class of reactions. Indeed, the involvement of the strange $`s\overline{s}`$ quark anti-quark pair in the reaction dynamics opens an additional window to study nucleon resonances. The SAPHIR collaboration at ELSA M.Q. Tran et al. (1998) has measured $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ differential cross sections and recoil polarizations from threshold up to photon energies of 2 GeV. At present, the published $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data set is rather sparse with a few results from measurements in the seventies at Orsay C.N. Brown et al. (1972), Cornell C.J. Bebek et al. (1974, 1977) and DESY T. Azemoon et al. (1975) and recent data from Hall C at Jlab G. Niculescu et al. (1998); R.M. Mohring et al. (2002). In the near future, however, concerted efforts at the Jlab facility will greatly improve on this situation.

In Ref.Janssen et al. (2002), we have shown that an important fraction of the $`p+\gamma K^++\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reaction dynamics in the resonance region stems from background contributions. In the same work, we have discussed results obtained with three different schemes to deal with the background Feynman diagrams. We concluded that with the existing amount of $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data, one is not able to put one of these schemes forward as most adequate. The extracted resonance information, however, turns out to be rather sensitive to the model choices with respect to the parameterizations of these background diagrams. In this work, our hadrodynamical model for $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ photoproduction will be applied to the corresponding electroproduction process. The cross section for the virtual photon induced reaction can be decomposed as:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{d\sigma _T}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}+ϵ\frac{d\sigma _L}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}+ϵ\frac{d\sigma _{TT}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{cos}2\varphi +\sqrt{ϵ\left(ϵ+1\right)}\frac{d\sigma _{TL}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{cos}\varphi $$

We wish to demonstrate that some of the four $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ response functions offer good prospects to constrain the ambiguities in the description of the background which emerge from analyzing the real-photon data.

The different ingredients in the reaction dynamics implemented in our $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ calculations are essentially identical to the ones adopted for the description of the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ process reported in Ref. Janssen et al. (2002). This implies that we start from a given set of interaction Lagrangians with each term having its characteristic coupling constant. From there, we derive both the longitudinal and transverse electromagnetic amplitudes. We wish to stress that also the resonances are described in the Lagrangian formalism and that no multipole decomposition gets introduced as is commonly done in calculations for $`\pi `$ and $`\eta `$ electroproduction. The tree-level Feynman diagrams implemented in the calculations include the usual Born terms and the $`K^{}(892)`$ and $`K_1(1270)`$ mesons in the $`t`$-channel. As will be pointed out below, at some point two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ resonances ($`S_{01}(1800)`$ and $`P_{01}(1810)`$) will be introduced in the $`u`$-channel. All those terms constitute the so-called background. In the $`s`$-channel, the nucleon resonances $`S_{11}(1650)`$, $`P_{11}(1710)`$, $`P_{13}(1720)`$ and $`D_{13}(1895)`$ are retained. Note that the $`D_{13}(1895)`$ resonance is not listed in the Particle Data Group booklet Particle Data Group, D.E. Groom et al. (2000) but is a candidate for a “new” resonance. A substantial improvement in the quality of the description of the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data was reached after including this resonance Mart and Bennhold (2000); Janssen et al. (2001).

In electroproduction processes, an additional form factor gets introduced at the electromagnetic vertices. For the Pauli and Dirac form factors of the proton, the parameterization of Lomon Lomon (2001) is adopted. For the (transition) form factors of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`K`$ and the $`N^{}`$, $`K^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ resonances, no well established parameterizations are currently available. Therefore, we rely on the predictions of a relativistic constituent-quark model calculation by the Bonn group Münz et al. (1995); Merten et al. (2002) for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ form factors. For the $`N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ transition form factors, we use a dipole form with one universal cutoff mass of 0.84 GeV. For the $`K_1`$, a monopole form with cutoff mass of 0.6 GeV was used. These electromagnetic cutoff masses are the only extra numbers entering our electroproduction calculations. All other parameters are fixed by constraining the model against the SAPHIR data at the real photon point. The sensitivity of the observables to the values of the cutoff masses in the electromagnetic form factors will be discussed below. In order to preserve gauge invariance at the level of the Born terms after introducing electromagnetic form factors, the gauge restoration procedure of Gross and Riska is adopted Gross and Riska (1987). Results with alternative schemes will be discussed below.

The magnitude of the Born contributions to the computed $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ strength is essentially determined by an effective coupling of the type Feuster and Mosel (1999):

$$G_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}F_h(x,\mathrm{\Lambda }_h),$$
(1)
where $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ can be related to the pion strength $`g_{\pi NN}`$ through SU(3) flavor symmetry. Further, $`F_h(x,\mathrm{\Lambda }_h)`$ denotes the hadronic form factor, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ the cutoff parameter and $`x(s,t,u)`$ is the Mandelstam variable at the hadronic vertex. We use a dipole parameterization for $`F_h(x,\mathrm{\Lambda }_h)`$ Haberzettl (1997); Davidson and Workman (2001). Hard cutoff masses (typically, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ 1.5 GeV) correspond with $`F_h(x,\mathrm{\Lambda }_h)`$ 1 over the entire resonance region. The background terms on their own overpredict the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data dramatically when the effective coupling $`G_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ goes out from a modest SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking, at the same time keeping the impact of the hadronic form factor temperate by fixing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ 1.5 GeV. This situation can be rectified through decreasing the coupling constant $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ by several factors, thereby putting forward strong SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking Hsiao et al. (2000). Alternatively, the hadronic form factor can be adjusted in such a manner so as to sufficiently reduce $`G_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$. In practice, this amounts to adopting smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$, thereby amplifying the dependence of the results on the hadronic form factors Haberzettl et al. (1998). In practice, acceptable levels of the computed Born strength, which we define as being of the same order of magnitude as the measured cross sections, require cutoff masses $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ which approach the kaon mass, leading to a very unsatisfactory situation from the field-theoretic point of view. Both above mentioned manipulations amount to effectively reducing $`G_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$, either through adjusting the coupling constant or the hadronic form factor or a combination of both, thereby making assumptions which are rather questionable. Therefore, instead of adjusting the effective coupling $`G_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$, we have suggested an alternative procedure consisting of introducing hyperon resonances as a more natural mechanism to counterbalance the Born strength Janssen et al. (2001). Those $`u`$-channel diagrams are observed to interfere destructively with the other background terms. In this way, a qualitatively good description of the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data can be reached, without the need of introducing rather questionable values for the $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ coupling and/or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$.

The three aforementioned ways of treating the background diagrams are labeled as model A, B and C. Model A adopts soft hadronic form factors with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_h`$ approaching the kaon mass. Model C uses $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}/\sqrt{4\pi }0.4`$, which is almost ten times smaller than the prediction based on SU(3) flavor symmetry. Whereas models A and C lower $`G_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$, model B introduces hyperon resonances in the $`u`$-channel and attributes a secondary role to the hadronic form factors, at the same time respecting the constraints on $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ imposed by SU(3) flavor symmetry. As pointed out in Ref. Janssen et al. (2002), all three models lead to a similar quality of agreement between the calculations and the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data and none of the three schemes could be put forward as favorable. In the electroproduction calculations, however, large differences emerge between the predictions of the three different background models. This is made clear in Fig. 1 showing model predictions for the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the longitudinal and transverse $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ response functions at a particular value for the invariant mass $`W`$ and the kaon cm angle $`\theta `$. The background models A and C are discerned to severely underestimate the longitudinal and the transverse response. Model B, on the other hand, provides a prediction of the magnitude and $`Q^2`$ dependence of both observables which is far superior to what is obtained with models A and C. The large variations between the predictions of the background models can be better understood by decomposing the response functions in contributions from the Born terms, the total background and $`s`$-channel resonances. Then, it becomes apparent that a necessary condition for arriving at a reasonable prediction of the data is that the combined background diagrams already lead to response functions which are of the order of the measured strength. As such, the $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ observables appear to provide direct access to the background contributions and may eventually allow us to gain further control over the value of $`G_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$. Similar trends are observed in Fig. 2 where the model calculations are compared with the available $`d\sigma _T+ϵd\sigma _L`$ data for the $`\varphi `$-averaged cross section at forward $`\theta `$. On the basis of the comparisons displayed in Figs. 1 and 2, we are tempted to conclude that the physical assumptions underlying models A and C, which are compatible with the existing $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data set, are not supported by the $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data. This suggests that calculations based on the introduction of soft hadronic form factors and/or a $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ coupling constant strongly deviating from SU(3) predictions are completely off when it comes to predicting the cross sections for the corresponding electroinduced process.

It is worth stressing that the results contained in Figs. 1 and 2 refer to kinematics whereby the kaon is emitted in a small cone about the direction of the three-momentum transfer. In Fig. 3 we display the corresponding $`\theta `$-averaged $`d\sigma _L`$, $`d\sigma _T`$, $`d\sigma _{TL}`$ and $`d\sigma _{TT}`$ response functions. In the angle-averaged responses, the strength directly related to the $`s`$-channel resonances is at best of the same order as the one stemming from the background diagrams and tends to decrease with increasing $`Q^2`$. In that respect, the ratio of the background to resonance strength in the $`\theta `$-averaged responses is rather similar to what is observed at forward $`\theta `$ angles.

All results mentioned so far were obtained with a dipole electromagnetic form factor for the $`N^{}`$ resonances with a realistic cutoff of 0.84 GeV. We now wish to investigate the sensitivity of our results to this choice. Therefore, we have varied the $`N^{}`$ dipole cutoff mass between values which appear as upper and lower limits for a physically realistic range. It seems that the results were rather insensitive to those variations. This is shown in Fig. 4 where the shaded region indicates the variation in the predictions when modifying the cutoffs in the range $`0.4\mathrm{\Lambda }_N^{}1.0`$ GeV. All other electromagnetic form factors in the dynamics of the background are kept fixed. From this figure, we can conclude that reasonable changes in the functional $`Q^2`$ dependence of the resonance couplings does not alter the marked dominance of the background contributions.

Up to this point, all results are obtained with the gauge restoring procedure of Ref. Gross and Riska (1987). Within this scheme, one can use different form factors for the proton and the kaon. Alternatively, gauge invariance can be restored by using the same functional $`Q^2`$ dependence for the $`F_1^p`$ proton and $`F_K`$ kaon form factor. We have investigated this option through averaging $`F_p^1(Q^2)`$ and $`F_K(Q^2)`$ and display some results in Fig. 5. As was already mentioned in e.g. Ref. David et al. (1996), the choices with respect to the gauge restoring procedure and form factor parameterization have a sizable impact on the results but are similar in size for the three adopted background models.

We wish to stress again that the values of the coupling constants and the hadronic cutoff parameters which enter our $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ calculations are those which optimize the agreement between the predictions and the data at $`Q^2`$ = 0. In order to exclude the possibility that rather modest modifications in these parameterizations of the coupling constants alter our findings, we have refitted all the coupling constants of the three presented models to a data set which includes both the photo- and electroproduction data. The results of those fits barely deviate from the predictions presented in Figs. 1 and 2. Once again we had to conclude that the background models A and C are intrinsically incapable of reproducing the $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data.

Summarizing, we have extended our tree-level hadrodynamical analysis of kaon photoproduction in the resonance region to $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ processes. Except for the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the electromagnetic form factors, no new ingredients are introduced in the model. In line with our findings for the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reaction, also in the corresponding electroproduction process a leading role is played by the background diagrams. It was pointed out that a hadrodynamical analysis of the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data at tree level faces difficulties in pinning down those terms. As a matter of fact, we propose that the longitudinal and transverse $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ responses can serve as a reliable and powerful means of constraining the parameters which enter the background diagrams. The recent Jlab and older Cornell and Orsay $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data appear incompatible with a hadrodynamical description based on a $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Lambda }p}`$ coupling which is beyond the boundaries imposed by SU(3) flavor symmetry. In addition, the use of soft hadronic form factors, which after all provide an alternative for accounting for the $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data, leads to $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ predictions far below the level of the measurements. The introduction of hyperon resonances in the $`u`$-channel, on the other hand, emerges as a valid alternative for providing a consistent description of both $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`p(\gamma ,K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data, thereby respecting the constraints imposed by SU(3) flavor symmetry. More data on the separated response functions would help in further shedding light on the issue of the background terms, and will eventually result in reduced uncertainties in the extraction of the resonance parameters from both the real and virtual photon kaon production data.


text:
# Observation of soft magnetorotons in bilayer quantum Hall ferromagnets

## Abstract

Inelastic light scattering measurements of low-lying collective excitations of electron double layers in the quantum Hall state at total filling $`\nu _T`$=1 reveal a deep magnetoroton in the dispersion of charge-density excitations across the tunneling gap. The roton softens and sharpens markedly when the phase boundary for transitions to highly correlated compressible states is approached. The findings are interpreted with Hartree-Fock evaluations that link soft magnetorotons to enhanced excitonic Coulomb interactions and to quantum phase transitions in the ferromagnetic bilayers.

The quantum Hall states of the two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) occur in high perpendicular magnetic fields that quantize the kinetic energy into discrete, highly-degenerate Landau levels (LLs). The energy scale for Coulomb interactions is here $`e^2/ϵl_B`$, where $`l_B`$=$`\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/eB}`$ is the magnetic length and B the perpendicular magnetic field. The neutral quasiparticle-quasihole excitations carry the fingerprints of electron interactions Prange and Girvin (1987); Das Sarma and Pinczuk (1997). Low-lying collective modes of energies $`\omega \left(𝐪\right)`$ and in-plane wave vector $`𝐪`$ are linked to the condensation into highly correlated states that emerge in the presence of strong electron interactions. Theoretical dispersions $`\omega \left(𝐪\right)`$ display characteristic magnetoroton (MR) minima at finite wave-vectors ($`ql_B^1`$) that are due to excitonic binding terms of the Coulomb interactions in the neutral pairs Kallin and Halperin (1984); Girvin et al. (1986). It has been predicted that MRs can soften and create instabilities leading to quantum phase transitions that transform the ground-states into highly correlated electron phases Girvin et al. (1986); Fertig (1989); Brey (1990); MacDonald et al. (1990); Kamilla and Jain (1997); Joglekar and MacDonald (2002).

Coupled electron bilayers at total Landau level filling factor $`\nu _T`$=1 exhibit a rich quantum phase diagram due to the interplay of transition energies $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}`$ across the tunneling gap with intra- and inter-layer interactions MacDonald et al. (1990); Brey (1990); Boebinger et al. (1990); Brey (1993); Murphy et al. (1994); Kun Yang et al. (1996). Interactions drive quantum phase transitions from the incompressible ferromagnetic quantized Hall phase, stable at low inter-layer spacing $`d`$ or large $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}`$, to a compressible phase that results from the collapse of the many-body tunneling gap. In current theories the phase transitions are linked to soft roton instabilities in the charge-density-excitations (CDE) across the tunneling gap MacDonald et al. (1990); Brey (1990). Within the Hartree-Fock framework the magnetoroton instability is related to intra-layer interactions that lead to large excitonic bindings between quasiparticles and quasiholes.

Recent experimental studies of coupled electron double layers in $`\nu _T`$=1 ferromagnetic states focus on the very low $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}`$ region of the phase diagram, where inter-layer Coulomb correlations are important. These studies have displayed enhanced zero-bias inter-layer tunneling characteristics and anomalous quantized Hall drag Spielman et al. (2000, 2001); Kellogg et al. (2002). These remarkable results are interpreted as evidence of a Goldstone mode in the incompressible phase and of condensation of the bilayers into many-body exciton phases. Experiments that probe dispersive collective excitations and their softening as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}`$ and $`d`$ could provide direct evidence of the impact of excitonic terms of interactions in the quantum phase transitions of the ferromagnetic bilayers.

Resonant inelastic light scattering methods have been employed in studies of very low-energy $`q0`$ tunneling excitations with spin reversal in electron bilayers at even integer values of $`\nu _T`$ Pellegrini et al. (1997). These studies have revealed that excitonic interactions can drive changes in the quantum ground state and finite temperature transitions Das Sarma et al. (1997); Pellegrini et al. (1998). We report here light scattering experiments that offer direct evidence of soft magnetorotons in the CDE modes across the tunneling gap of coupled electron bi-layers at $`\nu _T`$=1. MR modes at wavevectors $`ql_B^1`$ and modes with larger wave vectors can be accessed in the resonant light scattering experiments due to breakdown of wave vector conservation. The light scattering spectra with breakdown of wave vector conservation show maxima at the critical points in the mode dispersion Marmorkos and Das Sarma (1992).

We find that the light scattering spectra of low-lying modes typically display three bands of CDE. One is the $`q0`$ excitation. The other two are assigned to the CDE modes at critical points in the dispersion. The lowest of these two is the critical point at the magnetoroton minimum with $`ql_B^1`$, and the higher energy band is the large density of states of modes with $`ql_B^1`$. The MR mode softens markedly when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}`$ is reduced and the double-layer system approaches the incompressible-compressible phase boundary. Close to this boundary the MR occurs at an energy significantly lower than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}`$. Magnetoroton spectral lineshapes and temperature dependences display striking differences with those of the long-wavelength modes. Close to the phase boundary the MR band shows extreme narrowing to a width of less than 70 $`\mu eV`$ at temperatures $`T60mK`$.

We have interpreted these results within the framework of a time-dependent Hartree-Fock approximation (TDHFA) that includes breakdown of wave vector conservation in light scattering. The calculations reproduce the MR energies and indicate that the sharpening of the MR band reflects significant changes in the mode dispersion and matrix element near the incompressible-compressible phase boundary. These results uncover significant evidence that softening of the rotons play major roles in the phase transitions of bilayers at $`\nu _T`$=1 and suggest a leading role for excitonic Coulomb interactions in transitions between highly correlated phases.

Results obtained in two modulation doped double quantum wells (DQWs) grown by molecular beam epitaxy are presented. Samples consist of two $`18`$nm GaAs wells separated by an undoped Al0.1Ga0.9As barrier ($`7.5`$nm for sample A and $`6.23`$nm for sample B). Figure 1(a) shows the schematic profile of the bottom of the conduction band in the DQWs. Dotted lines represent the energy of lowest symmetric and antisymmetric states. By design the samples have the relatively high $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}`$ of $`0.32`$meV in sample A and $`0.58`$meV in sample B. Magneto-transport confirms that both samples are in the quantum Hall side of the phase diagram as shown in Fig. 1(b). Total sheet densities are $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$cm-2 in sample A and $`1.1\times 10^{11}`$cm-2 in sample B with mobilities larger than $`10^6`$cm2/V s. Inelastic light scattering spectra are obtained in a back-scattering geometry with light propagating along the magnetic field. Samples are mounted in a 3He/4He dilution cryo-magnetic system with optical windows, at a small tilt angle ($`20`$degrees) with respect to the incoming laser light. Accessible temperatures are in the range $`50`$mK–$`1.4`$K. For these measurements the optical emission of a dye laser is tuned to a frequency $`\omega _I`$ close to the fundamental interband transitions of the DQW. Incident power densities are kept below $`10^4`$W/cm2, and spectra are recorded using a double monochromator, CCD multichannel detection and spectral resolution of $`15\mu `$eV.

The C0 bands shown in Fig. 1(c) have similar energies and widths in the two samples, and also occur in spectra obtained at B=0. On this basis they are assigned to $`q0`$ CDE modes Plaut et al. (1997). The structures labelled MR are remarkably different in the two samples. They appear as a weak shoulder with a cutoff at $`0.65`$meV in sample B, and as a sharp low-energy peak at $`0.22`$meV in sample A. The spin wave (SW) at the Zeeman energy $`E_Z=0.11`$meV also occurs in the low-energy spectra of sample A. Figure 2(a) shows a resonant enhancement profile measured in sample B that reveals a characteristic outgoing resonance with the higher optical interband transition of the luminescence peak labelled L. The spectra from sample A display similar outgoing resonances.

Figures 2(b) and (c) show the calculated dispersion $`\omega _C\left(q\right)`$ obtained within TDHFA and the $`\left|M\left(q\right)\right|^2`$ factor that enters in the expression of the dynamic structure factor $`S(q,\omega )`$

$$S(q,\omega )\frac{\left|M\left(q\right)\right|^2\omega _C\left(q\right)\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\left[\omega ^2\omega _C^2\left(q\right)\right]^2+\omega ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the homogeneous broadening Brey (1993); Marmorkos and Das Sarma (1992). This TDHFA model defines a phase boundary for the instability at values of $`d/l_B`$ lower than the experimental ones by a factor of two. To correct for this discrepancy the $`d/l_B`$ parameters used in the calculations have been consistently adjusted to match the parameters in our two samples. The matrix element $`\left|M\left(q\right)\right|^2`$ acts as an oscillator strength for inelastic light scattering by the collective excitations. At the lowest order, the light-scattering cross section is proportional to the product of $`S(q,\omega )`$ and a factor that incorporates resonant enhancements and optical matrix elements. $`S(q,\omega )`$ is used to evaluate the intensities of inelastic light scattering by CDE modes of different wave vectors. In this evaluation the extent of breakdown of wavevector conservation is treated as in Ref. Marmorkos and Das Sarma (1992).

The comparison of spectra of sample B in Fig. 2 with the TDHFA calculation confirms the assignment of the band labelled C0 at $`1.13`$meV as the long wavelength CDE shifted above $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}`$ by dynamical many-body contributions. This peak is observed at temperatures of up to $`1.4`$K and over a relatively broad range of $`\omega _I`$ and explored magnetic fields ($`0.7<\nu _T<1.2`$). The low-energy shoulder with a cutoff at MR is observed only in a very narrow range of $`\omega _I`$ and for B values very close to $`\nu _T`$=1. This structure is assigned to resonant inelastic light scattering processes with breakdown of wave vector conservation. The lowest measured energy in this relatively broad structure represents the magnetoroton in the dispersion of CDE modes.

The marked softening of the MR mode in sample A seen in Fig. 1(c) suggests links between soft magnetorotons and the incompressible-compressible quantum phase transition at $`\nu _T=1`$. Figure 3(a) shows resonant inelastic light spectra of CDE modes in sample A with conventional substraction of the background due to the laser and to the main magneto-luminescence. The results display clearly the three bands of CDE collective modes. In addition to the CDE at $`q0`$ (C0, dash-dotted line at $`1.08`$meV) two lower-energy excitations are clearly seen. The lowest energy mode at $`0.22`$meV is assigned to the MR critical point in the dispersion. Its energy is much lower than the MR in sample B. The MR in Fig. 3(a) is extremely narrow, with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of $`0.06`$meV, which is a factor of three smaller than the FWHM of the C0 band. The peak at $`0.75`$meV, labelled $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$, is the large wavevector CDE excitation. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ and MR modes display a marked sensitivity on deviations of magnetic field values from $`\nu _T`$=1 in a manner that is similar to the QH states. The assignments of the C0 and MR bands in Fig. 3(a) are also supported by the calculated dispersions shown in Fig. 3(b).

Significant insights are gained from a study of the q-dependence of $`\left|M\left(q\right)\right|^2`$. Comparison of the calculation for sample A in Fig. 3(c) with that for sample B in Fig. 2(c) indicates that on reduction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}`$, approaching the phase transition, $`\left|M\left(q\right)\right|^2`$ tends to peak sharply at the MR wavevector. These results suggest that, by predicting the softening and sharpening of the magnetoroton, the TDHFA, a leading-order many body calculation, provides a framework to analyze manifestations of interactions that eventually lead to the soft-mode driven quantum phase transition Daw-Wei Wang et al. (2002).

The interactions that interpret the softening and narrowing of the MR mode in sample A would eventually drive the incompressible-compressible transition upon further reduction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}`$. These interactions are related to the excitonic Coulomb term that creates the roton in the CDE mode dispersion. It is conceivable that such excitonic binding increases at lower values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}`$ due to enhanced overlap between the single-particle wavefunctions of symmetric and antisymmetric states.

The TDHFA interprets the energies, linewidths and intensities of MRs in the light-scattering spectra. The results support the picture that the ground state of the bilayers at $`\nu _T`$=1 evolves towards a broken-symmetry state caused by the collapse of the energy of tunneling excitations Brey (1990); MacDonald et al. (1990); Brey (1993). The marked narrowing of the MR band and its interpretation within the TDHFA suggest that the transition might be characterized by a roton wave vector $`q_Rl_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$. Our results also support a scenario in which the instability is associated with the condensation of neutral excitons Spielman et al. (2000, 2001); Kellogg et al. (2002); Fogler and Wilczek (2001). The exciton fluid would be linked to large densities of extremely low energy magnetoroton modes of the incompressible phase.

The MR temperature dependence measured in sample A suggests that a highly correlated QH state may occur near the phase boundary. Figure 4 shows two representative spectra in which both SW and MR modes are observed. The linewidth of the two excitations have the very different temperature dependence shown in the inset to Fig. 4. The FWHM’s are obtained from Lorentzian fits (solid lines in Fig. 4). For temperatures above 0.8K the MR mode can no longer be observed and minor changes occur in the SW peak. Similar temperature dependences characterize the $`q\mathrm{}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$) mode and the magneto-transport data. The characteristic temperature is here much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ and more than a factor of three below the MR energy in sample A. The $`q0`$ (C0) mode is temperature-independent up to $`1.4`$K. A similar anomalous behavior observed in activated magneto-transport was interpreted as evidence for a finite-temperature transition towards an uncorrelated state Lay et al. (1994); Abolfath et al. (2000). The evolution of MR linewidth shown in the inset of Fig. 4 supports this conclusion. From the smooth increase of the linewidth as a function of temperature, it can be argued that thermal fluctuations destroy the incompressible state and trigger a continuous transition at finite temperature. Thermal excitation of long wavelength SW modes, fixed by Larmor theorem at the Zeeman energy, could play roles in such transition.

In conclusion, we observed magnetorotons in the dispersions of low-lying charge-density excitations in ferromagnetic electron bilayers at $`\nu _T`$=1. Soft and sharp magnetorotons exist in close proximity to the incompressible-to-compressible quantum phase transition. The key features of the experiments have been interpreted within time-dependent Hartree-Fock approximation. These results suggest direct links between transitions in the electron quantum ground-state and the low-lying dispersive collective modes.

We are grateful to S. Das Sarma, E. Demler, S. M. Girvin, S.H. Simon and D.W. Wang for critical reading of the manuscript and significant suggestions. Partial support from CNR (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche), INFM/E (Istituto Nazionale per la Fisica della Materia, section E) and MIUR is also acknowledged.