text:
# A Rocket Model of Neutrino Jet for Pulsar Kick

## 1. Introduction

Ever since the discovery of pulsars in 1967, astronomers are very surprised to discover that the space velocities of the pulsars are generally rather too high. Except these recycle pulsars just mentioned, of the total 94 pulsars, the percentage of the number of Single-pulsars with velocities exceed 100 km s-1, 200 km s-1, 300 km s-1, 500 km s-1 and 1000 km s-1 are respectively $`79\%`$, $`67\%`$, $`40\%`$, $`16\%`$ and $`5.6\%`$. This means that the high-velocity pulsars are rather common phenomena in interstellar space and the cosmos. The space velocities of these pulsars are far above both their progenitor stars and normal stars (about 20-40 km s-1).

At the present stage, most of the theories conceived by astronomers to explain the unanticipated high velocities of the nascent pulsars have been established on the basis of certain spatially asymmetric cause due to fundamental physics or dynamical effect during the very short interval of supernovae explosion to form pulsars or neutron stars. Until now, four different kinds of mechanisms for the observed neutron star kicks have been proposed(Arras & Lai, 1999; Kusenko & Segre, 1999; Kusenko, 1999; Lai & Qian, 1998a and 1998b; Lai, 2001; Lai , Chernoff & Cordes, 2001).

It seems that none of the four different kinds of mechanisms could convincingly and successfully explains the observed huge pulsar kicks. We therefore will present the idea of a gradual acceleration due to neutrino jet rocker model for the pulsar kicks in the talk.

## 2. A Rocket Model of Neutrino Jet for the Pulsar Kick

In 1982, Peng and his collaborators (Peng, Huang & Huang, 1982) proposed that neutrino cyclotron emission from the superfluid vortex neutrons may be used as a possible mechanism for pulsar spin down. Starting from this theory and making use of the spatial asymmetry of neutrino spin due to parity nonconservation in weak interaction, we now propose a new mechanism for pulsar kicks based on a neutrino rocket model from the superfluid vortex neutrons. The main idea is as follows:

We note that neutrons in circular motion can emit a neutrino-antineutrino pair via the neutral current in the unified theory of electro-weak interaction. Similarly, the super fluid vortex neutrons can also emit neutrinos and antineutrinos (Peng, Huang & Huang, 1982). The neutrons in both of these processes will lose their energy $`E_n^{(rot)}`$ and angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{J}_n`$.

It is expected that the angular distributions of the neutrinos and antineutrinos are not asymmetrical due to the angular momentum loss from the neutrons, although we have $`N(\nu )=N(\overline{\nu })`$ according to lepton conservation. More specifically, if the angular momentum of the neutron is carried away primarily by the neutrinos, the direction of the emitted neutrinos with left hand helicity must be opposite to the original neutron angular momentum, while the neutron itself will receive a recoil along its angular momentum. Fortunately, it is shown by the very recent observational evidence that the kicks of the two youngest pulsars (the Crab pulsar and the Vela pulsar) are basically consistent with their spinning axes (Lai, Chernoff & Cordes, 2001). Hence, it is anticipated that the angular momentum of the superfluid vortex neutrons is mainly carried away by the neutrinos rather than by antineutrinos.

## 3. Pulsar Kick generated by Neutrino Rocket Propulsion

The neutrino luminosity due to the superfluid vortex neutrons in the neutron star interior has been derived by Peng et al. Making use of their result, we may study the acceleration of the nascent and determine the kick velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ of the neutron star with mass $`M`$ in terms of the rocket propulsion model. The recoil acceleration of the neutron star due to the effect of neutrino rocket propulsion as briefly discussed above may be written as $`M\frac{d\stackrel{}{v}}{dt}=\eta _\nu \frac{W_\nu }{c}`$, here $`W_\nu `$ is the power for neutrino emission from the superfluid vortex neutrons in the neutron star. $`M`$ is the mass of the neutron star. The effective asymmetry coefficient $`\eta _\nu `$ for the neutrino emission maybe estimated to be $`\eta _\nu 520`$$`\%`$. It is found (Peng, Huang & Huang, 1982) that $`W_\nu =bG(n)\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ represents the rotating angular velocity of the neutron star. $`b4.61\times 10^{22}R_6^3`$ ( in c.g.s. unit), $`R_6`$ is the radius of the neutron star in unit of $`10^6`$ km. $`G(n)=\frac{\overline{n^7}}{\overline{n}}`$, where $`n`$ denotes the quantum number of the neutron superfluid vortexes and it decreases when the pulsar period increases during the dynamical evolution of pulsars spin down. Making a working assumption $`G(n)=G(n_0)(P/P_0)^\beta `$ ($`\beta 3`$), the corresponding recoil velocity of the neutron star may then be obtained by using the spin down law for the pulsars in our hybrid model. The results for the neutron star kicks with different initial periods are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. In these figures, the pulsar velocity $`v`$ is shown as a function of $`x=P/P_0`$ (more precisely $`v(P/P_0)v_0`$ ).

We will now elaborate on some of the important and subtle points of our model. We note that the initial neutron superfluid vortex quantum number $`n_0`$ and the initial spinning period $`P_0`$ are the two most important parameters of our model. In order the neutron star to receive larger pulsar kicks of several hundred km s-1 or even exceed 100 km s-1 from the acceleration scenario predicated by our neutrino jet rocket mechanism, it is required that the initial vortex quantum number $`n_0`$ reach (500-700) for the model without magnetic field decay, or $`n_0=`$( 5-8)$`\times 10^3`$ for models with magnetic field decay. Such huge initial vortex quantum numbers are possible vis a vis the chaotic and violent process during which the neutron stars are born. This is because the spinning angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the neutron star becomes much faster after the collapse due to the conservation of the angular momentum of the entire star. We easily derive the result $`\mathrm{\Omega }_01.0\times 10^4`$s-1, $`P_0<1`$ ms. However, for a rapidly rotating stable neutron star, a considerable amount of the spinning angular momentum must have been converted into the highly chaotic and turbulent (classical) whirlpool vortexes. Moreover, it is also expected that the turbulent vortexes can be further converted into quantized superfluid vortexes with very high initial vortex quantum number $`n_0>10^4`$ or more provided that the temperature of the neutron star decreased down to $`T<T_{trans}=2\times 10^{10}`$ K.

## 4. Main Results in Our Model

It is shown that our theory predicts naturally the gradual acceleration of the nascent pulsars during the early stage from $`P_0`$ to $`10P_0`$ (about 200-300 years, where $`P_0`$ denotes the initial spinning period) and that huge natal kicks of neutron stars exceed 1000 km s-1 follows very nicely from our model. We have investigated the acceleration scenario during the early stage of pulsar evolution in terms of the initial periods and the initial magnetic fluid. In particular, (a) the observed alignment of the pulsar kicks with their spinning axes may be interpreted naturally. (b) All high velocity pulsars with spatial velocities higher than 100 km s-1 have initial periods shorter than (2-3) ms; moreover, the initial periods of these pulsar with huge kicks exceed 1000 km s-1 are shorter than 0.8 ms. (c) For the same magnetic fields, the initial periods of the high velocity pulsars are short. (d) For the same initial spinning pulsar periods, the high velocity pulsars have weaker magnetic field.

### Acknowledgments.

This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 10173005, 10273006 and 19935030) and a grant from the National Education Ministry of China for Ph.D candidate training(2000028417).

## References

Arras P. & Lai D., 1999, Phys.Rev.D, 60, 043001

Kusenko A. & Segre G., 1999, Phys.Rev.D, 59, 061302

Kusenko A., Talk presented at APS Division of Particles and Fields Conference (DPF’99), UCLA, January 5-9, 1999, also see astro-ph/9903167

Lai D. & Qian Y. Z., 1998, ApJ, 495, L103

Lai D. & Qian Y. Z., 1998, ApJ, 505, L844

Lai D., Physics of Neutron Star Interiors, ed. Blaschke, D. Glendenning, N. K. and Sedrakian, A. Springer, 2001, also see astro-ph/0012049

Lai D., Chernoff, D. F. & Cordes, J. M., 2001, ApJ, 549, L1111

Peng, Q. H., Huang K. L. & Huang, J. H., 1982, A&A, 107, 258


format: text

text:
# Variational derivation of density functional theory

## I Introduction

Hohenberg and Kohn proved, for nondegenerate states, that the ground-state total electronic density function determines the external potential function acting on an interacting N-electron system. This is easily extended to a spin-dependent density, so spin indices and summations are assumed here, but omitted from the notation. Implementation of the implied density-functional theory (DFT) followed only after introduction of the orbital model of Kohn and Sham, who applied the Hohenberg-Kohn theory of the universal ground-state functional $`F_s=EV`$ to the kinetic energy functional $`T_s`$, to which $`F_s`$ reduces for noninteracting electrons. For noninteracting electrons, the density function $`\rho (𝐫)`$ is a sum of orbital densities $`\rho _i=\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i`$, one for each occupied orbital function of the Kohn-Sham model state. DFT is developed in many review articles and monographs, exemplified by .

It is widely assumed that Hohenberg-Kohn theory implies the existence of an exact theory that can be represented by the Kohn-Sham model, using only multiplicative local potential functions. It is shown here that this assumption is based on a misconception of the implications of Hohenberg-Kohn theory. If the accepted interpretation were correct, an exact Thomas-Fermi theory (TFT) would exist, in conflict with Kohn-Sham DFT and with the exclusion principle for electrons. The assumed existence of exact local exchange-correlation potentials leads to several problems or paradoxes, resolved by the present analysis. Recent quantitative tests confirm a longstanding result of optimized effective potential (OEP) calculations, that the best possible local exchange potential does not reproduce unrestricted Hartree-Fock (UHF) ground-state energies and densities. The exchange-only limit of DFT linear response theory is inconsistent with the time-dependent Hartree-Fock theory of Dirac, due to failure of locality.

The present analysis has important practical implications for computational methodology relevant to the electronic structure of large molecules and solids. In a formally exact theory, deduced directly from N-electron theory, nonlocal exchange-correlation potentials can be constructed that are free of electronic self-interaction and not inherently restricted to weak electronic correlation or to short-range interactions. Progress beyond the local density approximation requires the timely development of computational methods appropriate to nonlocal potentials.

## II DFT practice versus DFT concepts

Practical applications of DFT use the Kohn-Sham Ansatz, $`\rho =_in_i\rho _i`$, as a postulate for the density. Occupation numbers $`n_i`$ are unity for occupied orbitals. Kinetic energy is defined (in the nonrelativistic limit) by the Schrödinger functional of occupied orbital functions, $`T=_in_i(i|\widehat{t}|i)`$, where $`\widehat{t}=\frac{1}{2}^2`$ in Hartree units. Given an external potential function $`v(𝐫)`$, the potential energy $`V=_in_i(i|v|i)`$ is an orbital functional, as is the Hartree energy $`E_h`$. By the Kohn-Sham Ansatz, any assumed $`E_{xc}[\rho ]`$ is a functional of the occupied orbital functions. Given $`F=T+E_h+E_{xc}`$ as an orbital functional, derivation of the orbital Euler-Lagrange (OEL) equations

$`\varphi _i=\{ϵ_iv(𝐫)\}\varphi _i`$ (1)
is elementary, using Lagrange multipliers $`ϵ_i`$ for independent orbital normalization $`(i|i)=1,iN`$. Linear operator $``$ is defined by the orbital functional derivative

$`\varphi _i={\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{n_i\delta \varphi _i^{}}}.`$ (2)
$`F`$ is assumed to be defined such that $``$ is hermitian. For noninteracting electrons, and also in the local-density approximation (LDA), when $`E_{xc}`$ is the integral of a local function of $`\rho `$, the OEL equations (1) reduce explicitly to Kohn-Sham equations with local potentials.

Eqs.(1) imply equivalent equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i}{\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i}}=v_{Fi}(𝐫)=ϵ_iv(𝐫),`$ (3)
to be solved for the orbital density functions $`\rho _i`$. The Lagrange multipliers $`ϵ_i`$ are to be determined so that independent normalization conditions $`(i|i)=\rho _id^3𝐫=1`$ are satisfied. These modified Thomas-Fermi equations are operationally equivalent to the Kohn-Sham or OEL equations, consistent with the exclusion principle.

This practical derivation makes no use of Hohenberg-Kohn theory except to justify particular approximations to $`E_{xc}`$. The density function is constructed after the fact from solutions of the variational equations. To define the model state, some rule $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must be postulated to supplement the Kohn-Sham Ansatz for the density. Examples are $`\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }=\rho _\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (Kohn-Sham), $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (unrestricted Hartree-Fock), and $`(\delta \mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Psi })=0`$, the Brueckner-Brenig condition that selects the model state of greatest weight in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. A derivation starting from Hohenberg-Kohn theory is more problematic, since a formal theory of allowable densities is required. In the orbital theory described above, this is avoided by recognizing that densities freely constructed from orbital functions in the usual Hilbert space suffice for a valid N-electron theory.

## III Incompleteness of Hohenberg-Kohn theory

The Hohenberg-Kohn ground-state functional $`F_s`$ is defined only for normalized total densities, $`\rho =N`$. Standard variational theory constrains normalization using the modified Lagrange functional $`F_s+V\mu [\rho N]`$, which is to made stationary by varying $`\rho `$ with unconstrained normalization. $`\mu `$ is adjusted to satisfy the normalization constraint. This requires the definition of $`F_s`$ to be extended into all infinitesimal neighborhoods of normalized densities consistent with the orbital Hilbert space. Without such an extended definition, Hohenberg-Kohn theory is incomplete: it cannot determine the variational Euler-Lagrange equations for $`\rho `$.

This point is evident in the rigorous derivation of Englisch and Englisch. In their Eq.(4.1) they propose to complete their derivation by inserting a single constant, which would play the role of the usual chemical potential $`\mu `$ if the implied Euler-Lagrange equations were valid. However, comparison with Eqs.(3), implied by physically correct Kohn-Sham equations, indicates that a single constant does not suffice to enforce the exclusion principle. Independent normalization of each orbital density is required. The derivation in, restricted to normalized total densities, cannot distinguish between one or several constants, all of which drop out of the variational integrals. As shown here, this is a crucial limitation of Hohenberg-Kohn theory.

If the functional differential

$`\delta F_s={\displaystyle d^3𝐫v_F(𝐫)\delta \rho (𝐫)},`$ (4)
is uniquely defined for unrestricted variations, it determines a total (Fréchet) density functional derivative

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F_s}{\delta \rho (𝐫)}}=v_F(𝐫).`$ (5)
This is stated as the unique definition of a density functional derivative in standard DFT literature. If such a Fréchet derivative exists, varying the Lagrange functional using standard variational theory implies the Euler-Lagrange equation

$`v_F(𝐫)=\mu v(𝐫).`$ (6)
This is a Thomas-Fermi equation, to be solved by varying a trial density for specified $`\mu `$, then adjusting $`\mu `$ to satisfy the normalization condition. It is inconsistent with Eqs.(3) unless all $`ϵ_i`$ are equal.

Because Thomas-Fermi theory (TFT) enforces only total density normalization, it can determine only a single Lagrange multiplier $`\mu `$. This does not exclude solutions that violate the exclusion principle. The example of the lowest $`1s2s^3S`$ state of an atom containing two noninteracting electrons is discussed below. In this example, two independent orbital energies $`ϵ_{1s}`$ and $`ϵ_{2s}`$ are required, not just the single parameter $`\mu `$. The conclusion is that the required Fréchet density functional derivative cannot exist in a physically correct theory for any compact system with more than one electron of each spin.

## IV The exclusion principle in DFT

In any independent-electron orbital model, the exclusion principle requires independent normalization of each orbital density. This is explicit in any physically correct theory of noninteracting electrons, implicit in the Kohn-Sham equations, and is a standard aspect of Hartree-Fock equations. If the Kohn-Sham density decomposition is added as a postulate to the analysis of Englisch and Englisch, the constraint of independent orbital normalization requires independent variation of the orbital partial densities. Such density variations, driven by free (unnormalized) variations of occupied orbital functions, determine Eqs.(3) as Euler-Lagrange equations for the orbital densities. These equations are expressed in terms of partial (Gâteaux) functional derivatives of the universal functional F=E-V. Independent normalization of each orbital density introduces independent Lagrange multipliers, which are the one-electron energies in the corresponding orbital Eqs.(1).

Eqs.(3) and (6) can be reconciled only if all orbital energy eigenvalues are equal. This is seen here to be a direct consequence of the different normalization constraints. That independent normalization of the orbital densities is physically correct, specifically enforcing the exclusion principle in Hartree-Fock theory and Kohn-Sham DFT, is obvious in the example of an atom with two noninteracting electrons of parallel spin. The ground state is $`1s2s^3S`$. The density constraints are:

$`DFT:{\displaystyle \rho _{1s}}=1,{\displaystyle \rho _{2s}}`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`TFT:{\displaystyle (\rho _{1s}+\rho _{2s})}`$ $`=`$ $`2.`$
This TFT constraint does not exclude the nonphysical solution

$`TFT:{\displaystyle \rho _{1s}}=2,{\displaystyle \rho _{2s}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
which violates the exclusion principle.

## V Gâteaux functional derivatives

Euler-Lagrange equations are implied for interacting and noninteracting electrons, respectively, only if the definitions of $`F_s`$ and $`T_s`$ can be extended to unnormalized densities generated by infinitesimal variations unconstrained in the orbital Hilbert space. Given $`F_s`$ as a functional of total density, it is also an orbital functional as a result of the Kohn-Sham Ansatz. The orbital functional derivative in the OEL Eqs.(1) exists if

$`\delta F_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i{\displaystyle d^3𝐫\{\delta \varphi _i^{}(𝐫)\varphi _i(𝐫)+cc\}}`$ (7)
defines a unique functional of the occupied orbital functions. For variations about a stationary state, Eqs.(1) imply that

$`\delta F_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i{\displaystyle d^3𝐫\{ϵ_iv(𝐫)\}\delta \rho _i(𝐫)},`$ (8)
since $`\delta \rho _i=\{\delta \varphi _i^{}\varphi _i+cc\}`$. This proves, by construction, the existence of a Gâteaux functional derivative whose value for such variations is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F_s}{n_i\delta \rho _i}}=ϵ_iv(𝐫),`$ (9)
for $`iN`$. A total (Fréchet) derivative is defined only if these partial functional derivatives are all equal, which requires all $`ϵ_i`$ to be equal.

Gâteaux functional derivatives exist in general throughout the orbital Hilbert space. They can be constructed from any well-defined density functional, using the Kohn-Sham orbital decomposition of the total model density function. They define local potentials indexed by orbital subshells, in general not a global local potential unless the orbital index drops out. For example, for any orbital functional $`F[\{\varphi _i\}]`$, the functional differential

$`\delta F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i{\displaystyle d^3𝐫\{\delta \varphi _i^{}\varphi _i+cc\}}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i{\displaystyle d^3𝐫\frac{\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i}{\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i}\delta \rho _i},`$ (11)
is uniquely defined for $`iN`$ throughout the orbital Hilbert space if the orbital functional derivative $`\varphi _i`$ exists. This determines the Gâteaux derivative

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{n_i\delta \rho _i}}={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i}{\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i}}=v_{Fi}(𝐫),`$ (12)
valid for arbitrary variations in the orbital Hilbert space. This logic validates Eqs.(3) in a density-based theory. Because this orbital-indexed multiplicative local potential is singular at any node of $`\varphi _i`$, these Gâteaux derivatives can only be equal for all index values if the nodes exactly cancel. A Fréchet derivative can occur only in such a special case, which is very difficult to construct unless the functional is defined as in the local density approximation.

Hence extending the definition of $`F_s[\rho ]`$ so as to determine TFT equations conflicts in general with the exclusion principle. In contrast, an extended functional $`F_s[\{\rho _i\}]`$ and its Gâteaux derivatives exist, implying Eqs.(3). The corresponding OEL equations reduce to Kohn-Sham equations in the LDA, but locality of kinetic, exchange, and correlation potentials is not implied for more general energy functionals. The mathematical statement of this situation is that the Hohenberg-Kohn argument does not imply the existence of a Fréchet functional derivative, equivalent to a multiplicative local potential function, for any system with more than one Fermi-Dirac electron of each spin. This conclusion does not conflict with the rigorous theory of Englisch and Englisch. Their argument, restricted to normalized ground-state total densities, cannot distinguish between Fréchet and Gâteaux functional derivatives.

## VI Orbital functionals in an exact theory

Formally exact orbital functionals for kinetic, exchange, and correlation energy can be deduced from standard N-electron theory. They can be incorporated into a formally exact mean-field theory in which the OEL equations extend Kohn-Sham theory to nonlocal potentials (orbital-indexed local potentials). Progress beyond the local-density approximation requires development of computational methodology for such nonlocal potentials.

The variational theory of independent-electron models is most simply developed as an orbital functional theory (OFT). For an N-electron eigenstate such that $`(HE)\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ and any rule $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that determines a model or reference state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, unsymmetric normalization $`(\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Psi })=(\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Phi })=1`$ implies that $`E=(\mathrm{\Phi }|H|\mathrm{\Psi })=E_0+E_c`$, where $`E_0=(\mathrm{\Phi }|H|\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is an explicit orbital functional, and $`E_c=(\mathrm{\Phi }|H|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })`$ defines the correlation energy. Restricting the discussion to nondegenerate states, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a Slater determinant constructed from occupied orbital functions $`\{\varphi _i\}`$, with occupation numbers $`n_i=1`$. Spin indices and sums are assumed here but are suppressed in the notation. For orthonormal orbital functions, $`E_0=T+U+V`$, where

$`T={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i(i|\widehat{t}|i);V={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i(i|v|i),`$ (13)
for $`\widehat{t}=\frac{1}{2}^2`$. Two-electron functionals are defined for $`u=1/r_{12}`$ by $`U=E_h+E_x`$, where

$`E_h={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}n_in_j(ij|u|ij);E_x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}n_in_j(ij|u|ji).`$ (14)
If $`𝒬=I\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, $`E_c=(\mathrm{\Phi }|H|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })=(\mathrm{\Phi }|H|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi })`$. This implies an exact but implicit orbital functional

$`E_c=(\mathrm{\Phi }|H[𝒬(HE_0E_ci\eta )𝒬]^1H|\mathrm{\Phi }),`$ (15)
for $`\eta 0+`$. Because $`E_c`$ is determined by the antisymmetric model function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, its functional derivatives cannot introduce spurious electronic self-interaction.

Orbital Euler-Lagrange equations follow immediately from standard variational theory, in terms of the orbital functional derivatives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{n_i\delta \varphi _i^{}}}=\widehat{t}\varphi _i;{\displaystyle \frac{\delta U}{n_i\delta \varphi _i^{}}}=\widehat{u}\varphi _i;`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{n_i\delta \varphi _i^{}}}=v(𝐫)\varphi _i;{\displaystyle \frac{\delta E_c}{n_i\delta \varphi _i^{}}}=\widehat{v}_c\varphi _i,`$ (17)
using $`\widehat{u}=v_h(𝐫)+\widehat{v}_x`$, where $`v_h`$ is the classical Coulomb potential, and $`\widehat{v}_x`$ is the Fock exchange operator. Defining $`F=EV=T+U+E_c`$, its orbital functional derivative is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{n_i\delta \varphi _i^{}}}=\varphi _i=\{\widehat{t}+\widehat{u}+\widehat{v}_c\}\varphi _i.`$ (18)
For independent subshell normalization, Lagrange terms $`ϵ_i[(i|i)1]`$ are subtracted from the energy functional. The variational condition is

$`{\displaystyle d^3𝐫\underset{i}{}n_i(\delta \varphi _i^{}\{+vϵ_i\}\varphi _i+cc)}=0,`$ (19)
for unrestricted orbital variations in the usual Hilbert space. This implies the OEL equations

$`\varphi _i=\{ϵ_iv\}\varphi _i,i=1,\mathrm{},N.`$ (20)
This theory can be expressed in terms of orbital densities, using the modified Lagrange functional $`F+V_in_iϵ_i[\rho _i1]`$. Using Eq.(12), the stationary condition is expressed as a relationship between local potential functions,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i}{\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i}}=v_{Fi}(𝐫)=ϵ_iv(𝐫),i=1,\mathrm{},N.`$ (21)
These equations reproduce Eqs.(3), derived directly from the OEL equations. This derivation generalizes Eq.(6) of TFT to incorporate the exclusion principle. Orthogonality constraints consistent with independent variation of orbital densities follow from the operationally equivalent OEL equations.


text:
# On the origin of X-ray Flashes

## 1 Introduction and summary

By definition, XRFs are GRB-like bursts of photons whose “peak energy”, $`E_p`$, is below 40 keV (roughly speaking, $`E_p`$ is the maximum of the distribution $`\nu F_\nu =E^2dN_\gamma /dE`$). They are rich in X-rays but relatively poor in $`\gamma `$-rays, as implied by their name. They were discovered with the Wide-Field Camera of the Beppo-SAX satellite, but they were not seen above 40 keV with its GRB Monitor (Heise et al. 2001). They were detected by BeppoSAX at a rate of 4 per year, indicating a population not very much smaller than that of GRBs111GRBs were detected by BATSE at a rate of $`1`$ per day, but with much higher sky-coverage than BeppoSAX has.. Re-examining the BATSE data, Kippen et al. (2002) have found some 10 XRFs. A few more have been detected by HETE II. To date, about 30 XRFs have been reported. These bursts are distinguished from Galactic transient sources by their isotropic spatial distribution, analogous to that of GRBs. They are softer and dimmer than GRBs, but otherwise their properties are similar: they have similar durations and light curves, their spectrum is also well described by the “Band spectrum” (Band et al. 1993) and their spectral evolution is similar to that of GRBs.

To date, four XRFs (011030: Gandolfi et al. 2001; 020427: in ’t Zand et al. 2002; 020903: Ricker et al. 2002; 030723: Prigozhin et al. 2003) have been followed up sufficiently rapidly to allow for the detection of their afterglows (AGs), i.e. continued lower-energy emissions, and for their precise (sub-arcsecond) localization. The AGs of XRFs were first discovered by Taylor et al. (2001) in the radio band, by Harrison et al. (2001) in the X-ray band, and by Soderberg et al. (2002) in the optical band. A host galaxy of an XRF was discovered first by Fruchter et al. (2002). The early-time AGs of XRFs have spectral and temporal properties similar to those of the AGs of the “classical” long-duration GRBs, but they are dimmer. In three cases the precise localization afforded by the AG observations led to an identification of the putative host galaxies of the XRFs progenitors (Soderberg et al. 2002; Bloom et al. 2003a). The few available redshift and photometric informations on these host loci indicate that XRFs are cosmological in origin, and that their progenitors, like those of long-duration GRBs, permeate star-formation regions of their host galaxies. Not all measured XRF redshifts are high enough to explain their relatively low peak flux and low peak energy simply on grounds of distance and cosmological redshift.

In the CB model (Dar & De Rújula 2000, 2003; Dado, Dar & De Rújula 2002a, 2003a and references therein) long-duration GRBs and their AGs are produced in ordinary core-collapse SN explosions by jets of CBs, made of ordinary atomic matter. Each CB gives rise to a single $`\gamma `$-ray pulse of a GRB’s light curve. The CBs are initially travelling with high Lorentz factors, $`\gamma `$, which peak very narrowly around an initial $`\gamma 10^3`$ (Dado et al. 2002a, 2003a). The light CBs emit is collimated in a cone of opening angle $`1/\gamma 1`$ mrad. The “jet opening angle” $`\theta _v`$ (subtended by a CBs’ transverse radius as viewed from their point of emission) is smaller than $`1/\gamma `$ and its effects can be neglected: in this respect, it is as if CBs were point-like. The differences between the pulses of different GRBs are dominated by the different values of $`\theta `$, the observer’s viewing angle relative to the CB’s direction of motion (Dar & De Rújula 2000, 2003).

The properties of XRFs are similar to those of GRB 980425, which, in the CB model, was interpreted (Dar & De Rújula 2000, 2003; Dado et al. 2002a, 2003a) as an entirely normal GRB produced by the explosion of SN1998bw (Galama et al. 1998). Its jet of CBs was ejected at an angle $`\theta 3.9/\gamma 8`$ mrad, a large value which, combined with the progenitor’s unusually small redshift ($`z=0.0085`$) conspired to produce a rather typical GRB fluence (Dar & De Rújula 2000, 2003; Dado et al. 2002a, 2003a). GRB 980425 is by definition a GRB and not an XRF, as the central value of its peak energy, $`E_p=54.6\pm 20.9`$ keV (Yamazaki, Yonetoku & Nakamura 2003a), is just above the “official” borderline 40 keV. In the CB model, SN1998bw, associated with GRB 980425, is an ordinary core-collapse SN: its “peculiar” X-ray and radio emissions were not emitted by the SN, but were part of the GRB’s AG (Dado et al. 2002a, 2003a). The high velocity of its ejecta is attributed to the SN being viewed almost “on axis”

The CB-model interpretation of XRFs (Dar & De Rújula 2003) is entirely straightforward: XRFs are GRBs viewed further off axis222Subsequent to critiques (Dar 1998, 1999, 2003; Dar & Plaga 1999; Dado et al. 2002a; De Rújula 2002, 2003) of the on-axis viewing-angle anzatz, $`\theta =0`$, of the “collimated-fireball” or conical-jet models (e.g. Rhoads 1997, 1999; Sari, Piran & Halpern 1999; Piran 2000; Panaitescu and Kumar 2000; Frail et al. 2001; Berger et al. 2003; Bloom et al. 2003b), this assumption has recently been replaced by a $`\theta 0`$ of uniform or structured conical jets, e.g. Rossi, Lazzati & Rees 2002; Granot et al. 2002; Zhang & Mészáros 2002; Panaitescu & Kumar 2003; Jin & Wei 2003; Salmonson 2003. The jets’ opening angles are $`\theta _v>1/\gamma `$, but getting close to inverting the inequality (Waxman 2003, Lazzatti et al. 2003) to spouse the CB-model’s geometry.. Thus, all of the CB-model results (e.g. Dado et al. 2002a, 2003a) are applicable to XRFs.

In this paper we show that the CB model explains well all the observed properties of XRFs and their AGs. In particular, their large viewing angles result in much smaller Doppler factors, $`\delta `$, than those of GRBs. For the Lorentz factors and viewing angles relevant to our discussion, $`\gamma ^21`$ and $`\theta ^21`$, and

$$\delta =\frac{1}{\gamma (1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )}\frac{2\gamma }{1+\gamma ^2\theta ^2},$$
(1)
to an excellent approximation.

Relative to GRBs, XRFs have pulses that are dimmer in fluence by a factor $`\delta ^3`$ (or in photon number-count by a factor $`\delta ^2`$). The XRF pulses are wider and their peak energies are smaller than those of GRBs, both by a factor $`\delta `$. Their AGs are dimmer and less rapidly-evolving at early times, in a manner that we shall describe. On the other hand, both for XRFs and GRBs, the total duration of multi-pulse events is governed by the properties of the engine generating the CBs: the observed duration and the local duration at the progenitor’s position are related by a cosmological time-stretching factor, $`1+z`$, which does not involve $`\delta `$. The total duration of XRFs is therefore akin to that of GRBs, while their structure is —since they consist of similar numbers of wider pulses— smoother than that of GRBs. Finally, in the AGs of relatively nearby XRFs it should be possible to observe the contribution of a SN akin to SN1998bw, displaced to the XRF’s position and peaking about one month after the SN exploded and the XRF was emitted (Dar & De Rújula 2003). Such a shining-gun signature may already have been observed in the AG of XRF 030723 (Fynbo et al. 2003), see Fig. (6).

In the CB model, X-ray rich GRBs fall naturally in an intermediate domain between GRBs and XRFs: they do not require a separate discussion.

The interpretation of XRFs as GRBs viewed off axis has also been advocated by other authors (e.g. Yamazaki, Ioka & Nakamura 2002, 2003b; Jin & Wei, 2003). One main difference between our CB-model and theirs is the jet geometry: effectively point-like CBs, versus conical shells. Another one is the underlying GRB and XRF production mechanism: inverse Compton scattering by the CBs’ electrons of the “ambient light” that permeates the wind-fed surroundings of the parent star, versus synchrotron radiation emitted in collisions of conical shells of a delicately baryon-loaded $`e^+e^{}`$ plasma, produced by “collapsars” (Woosley & MacFadyen 1999) or “hypernovae” (Iwamoto et al. 1998). Finally, the AGs are in both models generated by synchrotron radiation, but in the CB model the process does not involve shocks (Dar & De Rújula 2003) and results in a description of AG light-curves and wide-band spectra simpler and more successful than that of the fireball or firecone models (Dado et al. 2002a, 2003a and, for a direct comparison, 2003d).

## 2 The engine

In the CB model, long-duration GRBs are produced in the explosions of ordinary core-collapse SNe. Following the collapse of the stellar core into a neutron star or a black hole, and given the characteristically large specific angular momentum of stars, an accretion disk or torus is hypothesized to be produced around the newly formed compact object, either by stellar material originally close to the surface of the imploding core and left behind by the explosion-generating outgoing shock, or by more distant stellar matter falling back after its passage (De Rújula 1987). A CB is emitted, as observed in microquasars, when part of the accretion disk falls abruptly onto the compact object (e.g. Mirabel & Rodrigez 1999; Rodriguez & Mirabel 1999 and references therein). The high-energy photons of a single pulse in a GRB or an XRF are produced as a CB coasts through the “ambient light” permeating the surroundings of the parent SN. The electrons enclosed in the CB Compton up-scatter photons to energies that, close to the CBs direction of motion, correspond to the $`\gamma `$-rays of a GRB and less close to it, to the X-rays of an XRF. Each pulse of a GRB or an XRF corresponds to one CB. The timing sequence of emission of the successive individual pulses (or CBs) reflects the chaotic accretion process and its properties are not predictable, but those of the single pulses are (Dar & De Rújula 2003 and references therein).

The observational evidence prior to GRB 030329 for the claim that core-collapse SNe are the engines generating GRBs, (e.g. Dar & Plaga 1999; Dar & De Rújula 2000), is discussed in Dado et al. 2002a; 2003c. The spectroscopic discovery of SN2003dh in the AG of GRB 030329 (Garnavich et al. 2003; Stanek et al. 2003; Hjorth et al. 2003) with a luminosity and spectrum remarkably similar to those of SN1998bw, as predicted by Dado et al. (2003c), has provided the most convincing evidence for the GRB-SN association after GRB980425/SN1998bw.

## 3 Properties of the X-rays of XRFs

Since, in the CB model, XRFs are GRBs viewed from a larger angle $`\theta `$, all we have to do to study or predict the properties of the former is to paraphrase, for larger $`\theta `$, the properties of the latter, for which the CB model offers a general, simple and predictive description (Dar & De Rújula 2003).

If core collapse SNe and their environments were all identical, and if their ejected CBs were also universal in number, mass, Lorentz factor and velocity of expansion, all GRBs would be standard candles and the observed differences between them would only be due to the observer’s position, determined by $`z`$ and the angle of observation, $`\theta `$. The distribution of Lorentz factors inferred within the CB model can be inferred both from the study of GRB AGs (Dado et al. 2002a, 2003a), and from that of the GRBs themselves (Dar & De Rújula 2003). This distribution is very narrowly peaked around $`\gamma 10^3`$, so that the dependence of the various observables on the wider distribution of $`\theta `$-values directly translates into their dependence on $`\delta (\theta ,\gamma )`$ at an approximately constant $`\theta `$. This dependence is strong in various observables, such that it might overwhelm much of the case-by-case variability induced by the distributions of the other parameters.

### 3.1 The viewing angle of XRFs

The mean peak energy of ordinary GRBs is $`E_p(GRB)250`$ keV (e.g. Preece et al. 2000; Amati et al. 2002). It is convenient to introduce the quantity:

$$\sigma \frac{\gamma \delta }{10^6}\frac{2}{1+z},$$
(2)
to which the peak energy of GRBs and XRFs is proportional, since $`\gamma \delta /(1+z)`$ is the factor by which, on average, electrons with a Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ boost the energy of a “target photon” of an isotropic distribution into a final photon observed at an angle $`\theta `$ (Dar & De Rújula 2003). The mean $`\sigma (GRB)`$ of GRBs of known $`z`$ is $`\sigma (GRB)1`$.

The ratio between the peak energy $`E_p(XRF)`$ of an XRF and the mean peak energy of GRBs is:

$$E_p(XRF)=\frac{\sigma (XRF)}{\sigma (GRB)}E_p(GRB).$$
(3)
The defining condition of an XRF, $`E_p(XRF)<40`$ keV, implies that $`\sigma (XRF)`$ must be smaller by a factor $`6.25`$ than $`\sigma (GRB)1`$. The mean redshift of GRBs, as inferred from the current sample of 32 GRBs with known redshift, is $`z1.`$ By use of Eq. (1), and adopting the characteristic value $`\gamma 10^3`$, we learn that the typical viewing angles of XRFs satisfy $`\theta _{XRF}3.4`$ mrad. For GRBs the result is $`\theta _{GRB}1`$ mrad (Dar & De Rújula 2003).

The dependence of many other GRB observables on the viewing angle or the Doppler factor (Dar & De Rújula 2000, 2003; Plaga 2001) has direct testable consequences.

### 3.2 Polarization

Inverse Compton scattering of the ambient light by the CBs’ electrons linearly polarizes it. The degree of polarization $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta ,\gamma )`$ is a function of only the product $`\theta \gamma `$ and has the universal shape: (Shaviv & Dar 1995; Dar & De Rújula 2003):

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta ,\gamma )\frac{2\theta ^2\gamma ^2}{1+\theta ^4\gamma ^4}.$$
(4)
For XRFs $`\theta \gamma 3.4`$ and Eq. (4) yields a polarization level, $`\mathrm{\Pi }17\%`$. Thus, the CB model predicts a much smaller linear polarization in XRFs than in GRBs, which reach $`\mathrm{\Pi }100\%`$ for $`\theta 1/\gamma `$.

### 3.3 Duration of single pulses of XRFs

The times, $`t^{}`$ in the CB’s rest frame, $`t_{_{SN}}`$ in the SN rest frame, and $`t`$ as measured by a distant observer, are related via $`dt=(1+z)dt^{}/\delta =(1+z)dt_{_{SN}}/\gamma \delta `$. Hence, any time measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ in a single pulse in a XRF, such as its full width at half maximum, its rise time, its fall time, or its “lag time” (the difference between the pulse peak times in two different energy intervals), is proportional to $`(1+z)/\delta `$. In a “standard candle” approximation, it can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t(XRF)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }tE_p_{_{GRB}}}{E_p(XRF)}6.25\frac{40\mathrm{keV}}{E_p(XRF)}\mathrm{\Delta }t_{_{GRB}}.$$
(5)
The durations of single pulses in XRFs, for which $`\theta 3.4/\gamma `$, should be, on average, longer than in GRBs by a factor $`6.25`$. The median duration of the single pulses of GRBs is $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }t}(GRB)0.92`$ s full width at half-maximum (Lee, Bloom & Petrosian 2000; McBreen et al. 2002). The prediction for XRFs is, therefore, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }t}(XRF)5.75`$ s.

### 3.4 The total duration of XRFs

The duration of a multi-pulse GRB or XRF is the total duration of the CBs’ emission-times by the CB-emitting engine, which is independent of the viewing angle, plus the duration of the last pulse. On average, there are 6 significant pulses in a single GRB (Quilligan et al. 2002) and the interval between pulses is, on average, roughly twice a pulse’s duration. Thus, it is a fair approximation (on average) to neglect a pulse’s duration relative to the total duration of a GRB or an XRF. In that approximation, their total durations should be approximately the same. This agrees with the observations (Heise et al. 2000; in ’t Zand et al. 2002; Kippen et al. 2002).

In contrast with the above, the duration of individual pulses is, on average, $`6.25`$ times longer in XRFs than in GRBs, as discussed in the previous subsection. The $`1+z`$ redshift dependence of the total- and pulse durations is the same, and it is common to XRFs and GRBs. Hence, XRFs should have a much less pronounced temporal structure and a much smaller “variability” than GRBs.

### 3.5 XRF Fluences

The total energy emitted by a CB in its rest system, $`_{_{CB}}^{}0.8\times 10^{44}`$ erg on average, is found to be very narrowly peaked around its central value333In the CB model GRBs (and, more so, their individual pulses) are much better standard candles than in the FB models (Frail et al. 2001; Berger et al. 2003; Bloom et al. 2003b).: its dispersion is a factor $`2`$ either way (Dado et al. 2002a, Dar & De Rújula 2003). Let $`D_L(z)`$ be the luminosity distance (7.12 Gpc at $`z=1`$, for the current cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1). Let $`G(\theta )2(1+\theta ^4\gamma ^4)/(1+\theta ^2\gamma ^2)^2`$ be the angular dependence of the low-energy Klein-Nishina cross section for Compton scattering, corresponding —in the large $`\gamma `$, small $`\theta `$ limit— to $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ^{}`$ in a CB’s rest system.

In the fairly good standard-candle approximation, the observed energy fluence of a single CB is given by:

$$F_{_{CB}}=\frac{(1+z)G(\theta )\delta ^3}{4\pi D_L^2}_{_{CB}}^{}.$$
(6)
To a good approximation, $`G=2`$ for $`\theta \gamma 3.4.`$ Because of the strong $`\delta `$-dependence, the energy fluence of XRFs is a factor $`6.25^3/2122`$ smaller than that of GRBs, for which $`G(\theta )1`$.

In a sample of 35 XRFs and GRBs well localized with HETE II (Barraud et al. 2003), the mean energy fluence in the 7–400 keV band of 19 GRBs whose peak energy was well constrained by the observations, was $`264\times 10^7\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. This is to be compared with $`3\times 10^7\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for the 7 XRFs in the sample. The corresponding GRB–to–XRF fluence ratio is $`83`$, in satisfactory agreement with the expectation, particularly in view of the fact that the truncation of the contribution from $`E_\gamma 400`$ keV subtracts a larger fraction from the GRBs’ fluence than from the XRFs’ fluence.

### 3.6 Correlations

The $`\delta `$-dependence is also strong in observables other than the fluence. To give a few examples, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t1/\delta `$; $`E_p\delta `$; the photon-number fluence, $`f`$, is $`\delta ^2`$; the peak photon flux, $`f_p`$, and the “isotropic” energy of a pulse, $`^{iso}`$, are $`\delta ^3`$; and the peak luminosity $`L_p`$ (energy fluence per unit time) is $`\delta ^4`$ (Dar & De Rújula 2000, 2003). The powers of $`\delta `$ involved in these proportionality factors imply, among others, the following correlations:

$$E_p[f]^{1/2};\mathrm{\Delta }t[f_p]^{1/2},$$
(7)
$$E_p[f_p]^{1/3};\mathrm{\Delta }t[f_p]^{1/3},$$
(8)
$$E_pF^{1/3};\mathrm{\Delta }t[F]^{1/3},$$
(9)
$$E_p[^{iso}]^{1/3};\mathrm{\Delta }t[^{iso}]^{1/3},$$
(10)
$$E_p[L_p]^{1/4};\mathrm{\Delta }t[L_p]^{1/4}.$$
(11)
The correlations in Eqs. (7) to (11) apply to individual pulses and pulse averages over a GRB or an XRF. The relations not involving time measures $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (which behave differently for pulses and inter-pulse delays) also apply to global XRF or GRB properties. All these correlations, are well satisfied for ordinary GRBs in particular for pulses of GRBs with known redshift, after correction for the $`z`$-dependence (Dar & De Rújula 2003). At present, the low photon counting-levels in XRFs prevent a reliable resolution of XRFs into individual pulses, and the ensuing tests of most of the above correlations for single pulses.

### 3.7 The shape of single pulses

In the CB model, to a rather good approximation, single GRB and XRF pulses have shapes that can be approximated by the simple expression:

$$\frac{dN}{dt}=exp\left[\left(\frac{t_1}{t}\right)^m\right]\left\{1exp\left[\left(\frac{t_2}{t}\right)^n\right]\right\},$$
(12)
where $`t`$ is the time from the beginning of the pulse (not of the GRB or XRF), $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are the characteristic rise and fall times, ($`t_i=𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ in Eq. (5) for XRFs), and $`n`$ and $`m`$ are power indices whose median values are near 2. This pulse shape describes well the observed shape of single GRB pulses (Dar & De Rújula 2003). At present, low statistics prevents a reliable resolution of XRFs into individual pulses and a test of this prediction.

### 3.8 Spectral shape and spectral evolution

In the CB model, the $`\gamma `$ rays of a GRB and the X-rays of an XRF are generated by inverse Compton scattering of “ambient light”. This light permeates the semi-transparent, previously wind-fed surroundings of the parent star and results from their illumination by the early SN luminosity. The ambient light, as befits a semi-transparent, externally-energized medium, has a thin thermal-bremsstrahlung spectrum $`dN/dE_iexp(E/T_i)/E`$, with $`T_i=𝒪(1)`$ eV. The ambient light is Compton up-scattered by the CBs’ electrons, some of which are simply comoving with it, while others have been accelerated and Compton-cooled to a power-law distribution of index $`\stackrel{~}{p}3.2`$, by a “shockless acceleration” process studied in Frederiksen et al. (2003) and discussed in Dar & De Rújula (2003). The result of the convolution —with an inverse Compton scattering kernel— of the electron and ambient light distributions is, to a very good approximation, given by the simple expression:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dE}}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{E}}\right)^\alpha e^{E/T}+b(1e^{E/T})\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{E}}\right)^\beta `$
$`\alpha `$ $``$ $`1;\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}+1}{2}}2.1.`$ (13)
Here $`b`$ is a parameter reflecting the different normalizations of the comoving and accelerated electrons and

$$T\frac{4}{3}T_i\frac{\gamma \delta }{1+z}1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _i,$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$ is the mean angle of the ambient light photons relative to the radial direction towards the progenitor, reflecting the fact that, for a semitransparent wind, the ambient light may not be perfectly isotropic.

The spectrum of Eq. (13) is independent of the CB’s expansion rate, its baryon number, its geometry and its density profile. Moreover, its derivation rested only on observations of the properties of the surroundings of exploding stars, Coulomb scattering, and an input electron-distribution extracted from numerical studies also based only on “first principles”. The spectrum predicted in the CB model bears a striking resemblance to the phenomenological Band spectrum traditionally used to describe GRB energy spectra (e.g. Band et al. 1993: Preece et al. 2000 for an analysis of BATSE data, Amati et al. 2002 for BeppoSAX data, and Barraud et al. 2003 for HETE II data). This spectrum also fits well the spectrum observed in XRFs as shown in Figs. (1), (2) and (3). The parameters of the fits are, respectively, $`T=20`$, 50, 30 keV, $`b=0.2`$, 0.7, $`0.01`$, and $`\beta =2.6`$, 2.3, 2.7. The fits, in particular the last one, are quite insensitive to $`b`$.

### 3.9 The time–energy correlations

Such as we have treated it so far, the distribution $`dN/dtdE`$ of the X-rays in an XRF pulse —as a function of both time and energy— is a product of a function of only time, Eq. (12), and a function of only energy, Eq. (13). One reason for this is that we have not yet taken into account the fact that the cooling time of the accelerated electrons in a CB —by Compton scattering— is of the same order of magnitude as the (Compton-scattering) transparency time of the CB, which is the time characterizing a pulse’s width (Dar & De Rújula 2003). Consequently, the index $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ of the power-law electron energy distribution ought to evolve during a pulse from $`\stackrel{~}{p}2.2`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{p}3.2`$. Equivalently, the index $`\beta `$ in Eq. (13) is expected to vary from $`\beta =\beta _11.6`$ to $`\beta =\beta _22.1`$.

There is another fact contributing to a non-trivial correlation between energy and time within a GRB pulse. The relation between the “temperature” $`T_i`$ characterizing the initial ambient-light thermal-bremsstrahlung distribution and that of the resulting GRB or XRF photons, $`T`$, is that of Eq. (14). As the CB reaches the more transparent outskirts of the wind, its ambient light distribution is bound to become increasingly radial, meaning that the average $`1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$ in Eq. (14) will depart from $`1`$ and tend to $`0`$ as $`1/r^2`$: the point-source long-distance limit. Since this transition depends on the integrated absorption by a wind with $`\rho 1/r^21/t^2`$, it can be characterized by a simple time-dependence of the effective temperature in Eq. (13):

$$TT(t)T\{1exp[(t_T/t)^2]\},$$
(15)
with $`t_T`$ of the same order as a pulse’s width, or is somewhat smaller (Dar & De Rújula 2003).

The two time-energy correlations we just discussed make pulses decrease in duration and peak earlier in time as the energy interval in which they are measured increases. They also imply that a pulse’s spectrum gets softer as time elapses during a pulse. This behaviour is observed in GRBs (e.g. Fenimore et al. 1995; Norris et al. 1996; Ramirez-Ruiz & Fenimore 2000; Wu & Fenimore 2000; Golenetskii et al. 1983; Bhat et al. 1994). We expect XRFs to display precisely the same trends. The spectral evolution in a GRB and XRF pulse is mainly due to the decline of the effective temperature described by Eq. (15). This implies that the width of a GRB on an XRF pulse, dominated by its late-time behaviour, changes as it is measured in different energy bands approximately as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }tE^\kappa ,\kappa \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.5},$$
(16)
where $`\kappa =0.5`$ is the limiting value for an exact $`T1/t^2`$. This result is in agreement with the observationally inferred relation $`t_{_{\mathrm{FWHM}}}E^{0.43\pm 0.10}`$ for the average full width at half-maximum of GRB pulses as a function of the energies of the four BATSE channels (Fenimore et al. 1995, Norris et al. 1996). We expect this result to be valid for XRF pulses as well.

## 4 The afterglow of XRFs

In the CB model, the AGs of GRBs and XRFs consist of three contributions, from the CBs themselves, the concomitant SN, and the host galaxy:

$$F_{AG}=F_{CBs}+F_{SN}+F_{HG},$$
(17)
the latter contribution being usually determined by late-time observations, when the CB and SN contributions become negligible.

Let the unattenuated energy flux density of SN1998bw at redshift $`z_{bw}=0.0085`$ (Galama et al. 1998) be $`F_{bw}[\nu ,t]`$. For a similar SN placed at a redshift $`z`$ (Dar 1999; Dar & De Rújula 2000):

$$F_{SN}[\nu ,t]=\frac{1+z}{1+z_{bw}}\frac{D_L^2(z_{bw})}{D_L^2(z)}A(\nu ,z)F_{bw}[\nu ^{},t^{}],$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{z})`$ is the luminosity distance, $`A(\nu ,z)`$ is the attenuation along the line of sight, $`\nu ^{}=\nu (1+z)/(1+z_{bw}),`$ and $`t^{}=t(1+z_{bw})/(1+z)`$.

The evolution of $`F_{_{CBs}}`$ with time is due to the deceleration of the CBs in the ISM. In an approximately hydrogenic ISM of constant number density $`n_p`$, the function $`\gamma (t)`$ is determined by energy-momentum conservation to be the real root of the cubic:

$$\frac{1}{\gamma ^3}\frac{1}{\gamma _0^3}+3\theta ^2\left[\frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{1}{\gamma _0}\right]=\frac{2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}}{3(1+\mathrm{z})\mathrm{x}_{\mathrm{}}},$$
(19)
where $`\gamma _0`$ —previously called simply $`\gamma `$— is the initial Lorentz factor of a CB (very close to being constant during the GRB or XRF emission), $`t`$ is the observer’s time and

$$x_{\mathrm{}}\frac{N__B}{\pi R_{\mathrm{}}^2n_p},$$
(20)
with $`N__B`$ being the baryon number of the CB and $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ the calculable asymptotic radius of a CB, reached within minutes of observer’s time (Dado et al. 2002a). It takes a distance $`x_{\mathrm{}}/\gamma _0`$, typically a fraction of a kpc, for the CB to half its original Lorentz factor.

The AG of the CBs is mainly due to synchrotron radiation from accelerated electrons in the CB’s chaotic magnetic field. It has the approximate form (Dado et al. 2003e):

$$F_{_{CB}}[\nu ,t]n^{(1+\widehat{\alpha })/2}R_{\mathrm{}}^2\gamma ^{3\widehat{\alpha }1}\delta ^{3+\widehat{\alpha }}A(\nu ,t)\nu ^{\widehat{\alpha }},$$
(21)
with $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ changing from $`0.5`$ to $`1.1`$ as the emitted frequency444In the CB model, the spectral evolution as $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ changes from $`0.5`$ to $`1.1`$ is interpolated by $`(\nu /\nu _b(t))^{0.5}/\sqrt{1+[\nu /\nu _b(t)]^{1.1}}`$ (Dado et al. 2003a). crosses the “injection bend”,

$$\nu _b(t)1.87\times 10^3[\gamma (t)]^3\left[\frac{n_p}{10^3cm^3}\right]^{1/2}\mathrm{Hz}.$$
(22)
By the time $`\gamma (t)=\gamma _0/2`$, $`F_{_{CB}}[\nu ,t]`$ is orders of magnitude smaller than $`F_{_{CB}}[\nu ,0]`$.

The attenuation $`A(\nu ,t)`$ is a product of the attenuation in the host galaxy, in the intergalactic medium, and in our Galaxy. The attenuation in our galaxy in the direction of the GRB or XRF is usually estimated from the Galactic maps of selective extinction, $`E(BV)`$, of Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis (1998), using the extinction functions of Cardelli et al. (1986). The extinction in the host galaxy and the intergalactic medium, $`\mathrm{A}(\nu ,\mathrm{t})`$ in Eq. (18), can be estimated from the difference between the observed spectral index at very early time when the CBs are still near the SN and that expected in the absence of extinction. Indeed, the CB model predicts —and the data confirm with precision— the gradual evolution of the effective optical spectral index towards the constant value $`1.1`$ observed in all “late” AGs (Dado et al. 2002a, 2003a). The “late” index is independent of the attenuation in the host galaxy, since at $`\mathrm{t}>1`$ (observer’s) days after the explosion, the CBs are typically already moving in the low-column-density, optically-transparent halo of the host galaxy.

The comparison of the predictions of Eq. (21) with the observations of optical and X-ray AG light curves and of broad-band spectra is discussed in Dado et al. 2002a and 2003a, respectively. The results —for all GRBs of known redshift— are very satisfactory and involve a total of only five parameters (two of which, $`z`$ and $`\theta `$ are not “intrinsic” to the model).

The initial value of $`\delta `$ of XRFs is, on the average, smaller by a factor $`6.25`$ than its mean value in GRBs. According to Eq. (21), this implies that the early-time optical AG of XRFs should be flatter than that of long-duration GRBs, dimmer by a factor of a few hundred, and stretched in time by a factor of a few. At late time, when $`[\gamma (t)\theta ]^21`$, Eq. (1) implies that $`\delta (t)2\gamma (t)`$, while Eq. (19) implies that when $`3[\gamma (t)\theta ]^21`$, $`\gamma (t)`$ approaches its asymptotic behaviour, $`\gamma (t)[2ct/3(1+z)x_{\mathrm{}}]^{1/3}`$. Consequently, the late time AGs of GRBs and XRFs are similar and have the asymptotic behaviour $`F_\nu \nu ^{1.1\pm 0.1}t^{2.13\pm 0.1}`$ (Dado et al. 2002a). Because of the initially small Doppler factor, the optical AGs of XRFs may already be above the injection bend at early time, yielding a $`\nu ^{1.1}`$ optical spectrum (before extinction).

The thresholds of GRB of XRF detectors and the strong decline of the peak luminosity with viewing angle imply that most observed XRFs should have relatively low redshifts. This may partly compensate for the initial low flux of their AGs and, combined with their relatively slow decline, make it easier to follow their late-time AGs, particularly at radio frequencies. Because of their relative proximity, we expect the AGs of the relatively-nearby XRFs to include a detectable SN1998bw-like contribution, if not overshined by the CBs’ AG and/or by the host galaxy. Such a SN contribution would add evidence to our claim that XRFs and GRBs are one and the same. A signature even more specific to the CB model would be an observed superluminal motion of their CBs (Dar & De Rújula 2000a).

So far, only the light curves of the AGs of XRFs 020903 and 030723 have been measured and reported in sufficient detail to allow comparisons with the CB model. We describe them next.

## 5 XRF 020903

This XRF was detected and localized with HETE II (Ricker et al. 2002). Its AG was discovered and followed by Soderberg et al. (2002b). Subsequent photometric observations were reported by Covino et al. (2002) and Gorosabel et al. (2002). Spectroscopic observations by Hamuy and Shectman obtained with the Magellan 6.5m telescope 25 days after burst revealed narrow emission lines from an underlying host galaxy at a mean redshift, $`z=0.25`$ (Soderberg 2002). Subtraction of the emission lines revealed a continuum that is consistent with a SN akin to 1998bw at $`z=0.25`$ (Soderberg: http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ ams/XrF.html).

The lightcurve of XRF 020903 showed a double peak structure (Sakamoto et al. 2003 to be published), which implies, in the CB model, that it was dominated by two CBs. Due to sparse observational data, a CB model fit with two independent CBs does not constrain enough the fitted parameters. Therefore, we have fitted the observations assuming a single CB, which should be a good approximation if the two CBs had similar properties. Our CB-model fit to the broadband optical AG of this XRF is shown in Fig. (4) and the separate contributions of the CB, the host galaxy and a 1998bw-like SN at $`z=0.25`$ are shown in Fig. (5). Extinction in our Galaxy in the direction of XRF 020903 was included, using $`E(BV)=0.032`$ Schlegel et al. (1998), and the phenomenological relations of Cardelli et al. (1998), which result in the attenuation coefficients, $`A(I)=0.89`$, $`A(R)=0.83`$, $`A(V)=0.78`$, and $`A(B)=0.72`$. Because of lack of spectral information on the early AG, the extinction of the SN in the host galaxy was taken to be equal to the typical extinction in our Galaxy, i.e. $`E(BV)=0.06`$ with the extinction relations of Cardelli et al. (1998). The host galaxy was assumed to have the spectrum of a template star burst galaxy, as measured e.g. by Gorosabel et al. (2003) for GRB 000210, with a spectral break around $`4000(1+z)`$ Å, and $`F_\nu `$ approximately constant at longer wavelengths. The fitted values of the CB model parameters are, $`\gamma =1693`$, $`\theta =3.66`$ mrad, $`n_p=3.5\times 10^2`$ cm-3 and $`x_{\mathrm{}}=87`$ kpc. These parameters are all in the corresponding ranges characteristic of GRBs, but for $`\theta `$ which, as expected, is larger than for all of the 32 GRBs we have analyzed, but GRB 980425.

The fact that GRB 980425 —which, as we discussed, is marginally an XRF— had an even larger observer’s angle than XRF 020903 is what explains the greater luminosity of the radio AG of the XRF. The direct comparison of optical AGs is not an issue because that of XRF 020903 is due to the CBs, while the very large observation angle of GRB 980425 implied that its optical AG was dominated by the SN (Dar and De Rujula 2000).

The poorly measured light curve of the AG of XRF 020903 does not provide a convincing evidence for an underlying SN in XRF 020903, which dominates its late time behaviour in the CB model, as can be seen from Fig. (5). However, precise new measurements of the spectrum of the host galaxy are highly desirable. When subtracted from the spectrum of the AG measured by Hamuy and Shectman on day 25 after the burst, they may provide the decisive spectroscopic evidence for an underlying SN akin to 1998bw in the AG of XRF 020903 (Soderberg et al. 2002).

The equivalent isotropic $`\gamma `$-ray energy of XRF 020903 was estimated to be $`E_{iso}^\gamma 12\times 10^{50}`$ erg (Soderberg: http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ ams/XrF.html). The quoted CB-model fitted parameters result in $`\delta (t=0)87`$. The light curve of XRF 020903 appears to be dominated by two CBs (Sakamoto et al. 2003, to be published). Thus, the CB-model prediction for its equivalent $`\gamma `$-ray energy is, $`E_{iso}^\gamma =2\delta ^3_{_{CB}}^{}2.1\times 10^{50}`$ erg, in good agreement with its observationally-inferred value.

## 6 XRF 030723

This XRF was detected and localized with HETE II (Prigozhin et al. 2003). Its AG was discovered by Fox et al. (2003b). Later measurements were reported by Dullighan et al. (2003a,b), Smith et al. (2003), Bond et al. (2003) and Fynbo et al. (2003) who reported a “rebrightening” in the optical AG 14 days after the XRF, which may be due to the contribution of a SN. This rebrightening can be seen in Fig. (6), in which we also present the CB model fit to the AG. The normalization of the 1998bw-like SN contribution has been adjusted: without extinction corrections in the host galaxy or ours, it corresponds to a redshift of $`z0.75`$ (the redshift of this XRF has not been measured so far). The fitted values of the CB-model parameters are $`\gamma =776`$, $`\theta =2.79`$ mrad, $`n_p=0.121`$ cm-3 and $`x_{\mathrm{}}=29.5`$ kpc. Once again, only $`\theta `$ is outside the characteristic range of GRB parameters in the CB model. Late-time measurements of the spectrum of the host galaxy and its redshift, as well as colour photometry and precise spectroscopy of the late-time AG are needed to verify whether or not the rebrightening is due to a SN akin to SN1998bw at the XRF position.

## 7 Conclusions

In Dar and De Rújula (2000) we argued that long-duration GRBs may all be associated with core-collapse SNe akin to SN1998bw when viewed near axis, and that GRB 980425 (nearly an XRF) was a normal GRB viewed at a much larger angle than ordinary GRBs. In a series of papers (Dado et al. 2002a,b,c, 2003a,b,c) we presented supporting evidence for the GRB/SN association from a CB-model analysis of the AGs of all GRBs of known redshift. The recent spectroscopic evidence for a GRB/SN association in the AGs of GRBs 030329 (Stanek et al. 2003; Hjorth et al. 2003; Matheson et al. 2003) and GRB 021211 (Della Valle et al. 2003) is perhaps the most convincing evidence.

In Dar & De Rújula (2003) we argued that short-duration GRBs may be associated with SNe of Type Ia, and that XRFs are ordinary GRBs, which —like GRB 980425— are viewed from much larger angles. In this paper we have demonstrated that all the currently-known properties of XRFs, including the XRF/SN association, support this interpretation. If our contentions are correct, it follows that short XRFs –unobserved to date– should have properties that scale relative to those of short GRBs with the same scaling laws which relate XRFs to long GRBs. The association of short XRFs and GRBs with SNe —allegedly of Type Ia and akin to SN1997cy— is, so far, purely conjectural (Dar & De Rújula, 2003).

At the moment, the best proof of our alleged XRF/SN association may be provided by obtaining accurate spectra of the host galaxies of XRFs 020903 and 030723, now that the putative SN and the AG have faded away. These spectra may be subtracted, respectively, from the spectrum of XRF 020903 taken with the Magellan 6.5m telescope on September 28.1 UT 2002 (Hamuy and Shectman 2002 to be published) near the expected SN maximum, and from the spectrum of the AG of XRF 030723, which was measured with the VLT around the SN maximum (Fynbo et al. to be published). After subtraction of the galaxies’ contributions, the spectra may expose the underlying SNe.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported in part by the Helen Asher Space Research Fund at the Technion. Observational informations communicated to us by J. Fynbo, M. Hamuy and A. Soderberg prior to their publication are gratefully acknowledged. One of us, Arnon Dar, is grateful for the hospitality extended to him at the CERN Theory Division.

Note added:

After this article was posted in the astro-ph archives (Dado, Dar & De Rújula, astro-ph/0309294), Lamb, Donaghy & Grazini reported there (astro-ph/0309456) the peak energy, $`E_p`$, of 14 XRFs localized by HETE II. Out of these 14 cases, 6 have $`E_p`$ values smaller than those observed by BeppoSAX and BATSE by about an order of magnitude. Their fluence and isotropic equivalent energies are much larger than those implied by Eqs. (9) and (10). We contend that the correct $`E_p`$ values for these XRFs are larger, and are similar to those observed by BeppoSax (Heise et al. 2001) and BATSE (Kippen et al. 2002). The very low photon fluences detected in these XRFs by HETE II above 25 keV —as well as the unknown column density of absorbing material along the line of sight— must have prevented a correct determination of the true values of $`E_p`$. Moreover, Lamb et al. (2003) did not include GRB 980425 in their plot (Fig. 1.2) of $`E_p`$ as a function of $`^{iso}`$. The result for this GRB badly violates their advocated relation, $`E_p[^{iso}]^{1/2}`$, but is consistent with the CB model relation: $`E_p[^{iso}]^{1/3}`$.


text:
# The relationship between the S rsic law profiles measured along the major and minor axes of elliptical galaxiesPartially financed by CNPq

## 1 Introduction

It is now recognized that the de Vaucouleurs (1948) $`R^{1/4}`$ law does not fit the observed light distribution of elliptical galaxies (e.g. Schombert 1986). A much better representation of the light distribution in bright and dwarf elliptical galaxies and the bulges of spiral galaxies is provided by the Sérsic (1968) law:

$`\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{I(R)}{I_\mathrm{n}}}\right)=b_n\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{R_\mathrm{n}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}1\right]`$ (1)
where $`R_\mathrm{n}`$ is the radius encircling half the total galaxy luminosity and $`I_\mathrm{n}`$ is the intensity at $`R_\mathrm{n}`$. The coefficient $`b_n`$ is a function of $`n`$, which can be approximated by the relation $`b_n2n0.327`$ (Ciotti 1991).

The shape index $`n`$, which parametrizes the curvature of the Sérsic model has been shown to correlate with the luminosity and size of the galaxy – brighter and larger galaxies having larger values of $`n`$ (Caon, Capaccioli & D’Onofrio 1993; subsequently cited as CCD93) – and also, notably, with the central velocity dispersion $`\sigma _0`$ and the mass of the central supermassive black hole (Graham, Trujillo & Caon 2001; Graham et al. 2001).

An important source of uncertainty affecting the determination of parameters of the Sérsic model that best describes the light distribution of a galaxy, is on which axis (major, minor or equivalent) the light profile should be fitted.

CCD93 extensively studied the light profiles of many Virgo cluster E and S0 galaxies by independently fitting Sérsic models to their major and minor axes, finding that in $`40\%`$ of the galaxies there were large discrepancies between the Sérsic parameters determined along the major and the minor axes. Such discrepancies were found not only among S0 galaxies which could be misclassified as E galaxies but also among genuine elliptical galaxies such as the E4 galaxy NGC 4621 and E3 galaxy NGC 4406.

Eccentricity gradients imply that both the major and minor axes cannot be, for example, described by the $`R^{1/4}`$ model. The long observed ellipticity gradients in elliptical galaxies implies that the $`R^{1/4}`$ model cannot be universal, but this obvious fact has been largely ignored in the literature.

In this paper we demonstrate that the discrepancy between major and minor axes Sérsic models in elliptical galaxies can be accounted for by radial variations of the eccentricity of the isophotes. We also present a mathematical formula that, coupled with the eccentricity profile, permits transformation of the major axis Sérsic model into the minor axis model, provided that the galaxy has well-behaved isophotes whose eccentricity varies with radius but which have the same center and position angle.

In section 2 we describe the proposed mathematical transformation, whose applicability and validity is tested by using a sample of galaxies selected from those studied by CCD93, as described in section 3. In section 4 we present the fitting method and in section 5 we analyze and discuss our results.

## 2 The link between major and minor axes S rsic profiles

A simpler and more convenient representation of the Sérsic law is the form given in CCD93:

$$\mu (R)=A+BR^{\frac{1}{n}},$$
(2)
where, according to equation (1), $`A=2.5(b_n+\mathrm{log}I_\mathrm{n})`$, $`B=2.5b_n/R_\mathrm{n}^{1/n}`$. $`R`$ may represent the radial variable along the semi major axis $`a`$, the semi minor axis $`b`$, or the equivalent radius $`\sqrt{ab}`$. The differential of the surface brightness profile can then be written as:

$$d\mu (R)=\frac{B}{n}R^{\frac{1}{n}1}dR.$$
(3)
Consider two nearby isophotes whose major and minor axes are respectively $`a`$ and $`b`$ for the inner isophote, and $`a^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ for the outer one, as sketched in Fig. 1. The surface brightness gradient along the major axis may be written as:

$$\frac{d\mu }{da}=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }a0}{lim}\frac{\mu (a^{})\mu (a)}{\mathrm{\Delta }a}$$
(4)
with a similar expression holding true for the minor axis ($`b`$).

From the definition of an isophote, we know that $`\mu (a)=\mu (b)`$ and $`\mu (a^{})=\mu (b^{})`$, so the numerators in the right hand side of expression (4) and in the equivalent expression for $`b`$ are equal, while the denominators $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }b`$ will differ according to the radial behavior of the eccentricity111For analytical simplicity, we use the eccentricity $`eb/a`$ instead of ellipticity $`\epsilon 1e`$. $`e(a)b/a`$. In general we have:

$$\frac{d\mu (b)}{db}=\frac{1}{(a)}\frac{d\mu (a)}{da}$$
(5)
where $`(a)`$ will depend on the eccentricity function $`e(a)`$. We discuss the case of constant and variable eccentricity functions in the following sections.

### 2.1 Constant eccentricity

The simplest case is that of concentric isophotes having constant eccentricity. If the eccentricity $`eb/a=e_\mathrm{c}`$ is constant, then we have $`b=e_\mathrm{c}a`$ and $`db=e_\mathrm{c}da`$, thus:

$$\frac{d\mu (b)}{db}=\frac{1}{e_\mathrm{c}}\frac{d\mu (a)}{da}.$$
(6)
By direct integration of equations (2) and (6), we see that in this case the Sérsic index $`n`$ will be the same along the major ($`a`$) and the minor ($`b`$) axes, $`n_\mathrm{a}=n_\mathrm{b}`$, and that the $`B`$ coefficients on the major and minor axes are related by: $`B_\mathrm{b}=B_\mathrm{a}/e_\mathrm{c}`$. Equation (6) shows that the values of $`B`$ obtained from the fits along the major and minor axes should not be considered as independent of each other, as was implicitly assumed by CCD93 (see Section 4). By analyzing the relationship between $`B`$ and $`b_n`$ in equations (1) and (2), it can be seen that the effect of $`e_\mathrm{c}`$ is to stretch out the relationship between $`B_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`B_\mathrm{b}`$ (figure 2).

Theoretically, the integration constants should be equal, i.e. $`A_\mathrm{a}=A_\mathrm{b}`$, since $`\mu (a=0)=\mu (b=0)`$. However, in real cases (e.g. CCD93) this equality is broken by a variety of observational uncertainties and practical constraints (for instance, light profiles are fitted within a surface brightness interval whose limits in general differ on the major and minor axes). As a consequence, different values for $`A_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`A_\mathrm{b}`$ are obtained when the fitted profile is extrapolated to $`R=0`$.

The Sérsic model along the minor axis is related to the Sérsic model along the major axis by the equation:

$$\mu (b)=A_\mathrm{a}+\frac{B_\mathrm{a}}{e_\mathrm{c}}b^{1/n_\mathrm{a}}$$
(7)
where $`n_\mathrm{a}`$ is the major axis Sérsic index.

### 2.2 Variable eccentricity

In most galaxies, eccentricity is neither constant, nor is it a simple function of the radius. Indeed, no general rules seem to govern the radial variation of $`e`$, and it is not clear what the physical significance of this variation is (Binney & Merriefield 1998). In cD galaxies, $`e`$ generally decreases from the center outwards, while in other galaxies $`e(R)`$ may increase, and sometimes it is found to vary non-monotonically with the radius.

Now, if the eccentricity is a differentiable function $`e=e(a)`$, then $`db=e(a)da+ade`$ or, equivalently,

$$db=\left[e(a)+a\frac{de}{da}\right]da(a)da.$$
(8)
In this case, the minor axis profile may have a shape very different from that of the major axis, depending on the form of function $`e(a)`$. We have integrated equation (5) for a general case in which $`e(a)`$ can be expressed as a function of the form

$$e(a)=e_0+(e_1e_0)\left(\frac{a}{a_\mathrm{M}}\right)^l,$$
(9)
where $`a_\mathrm{M}`$ is the scale length where the eccentricity equals $`e_1`$. Depending on $`l`$, $`e_0`$ and $`e_1`$, equation (9) may describe radial increasing ($`e_0<e_1`$) or decreasing ($`e_0>e_1`$) eccentricities, with different slopes. From equations (8) and (9) we can derive:

$$\frac{db}{da}=e_0+(1+l)(e_1e_0)\left(\frac{a}{a_\mathrm{M}}\right)^l,$$
(10)
from which it follows

$$\frac{d\mu }{db}=\left[e_0+(1+l)(e_1e_0)\left(\frac{a}{a_\mathrm{M}}\right)^l\right]^1\frac{d\mu }{da}.$$
(11)
By comparing equations (5) and (11) we obtain $`(a)`$,

$`(a)=e_0+(1+l)(e_1e_0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_\mathrm{M}}}\right)^l`$ (12)
We can integrate equation (11) in terms of the transcendental function Lerch $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (Gradshteyn & Ryzhik 2000, see appendix A), obtaining:

$$\mu _\mathrm{L}(b)=A_\mathrm{a}+\frac{B_\mathrm{a}}{e_0n_\mathrm{a}l}a^{1/n_\mathrm{a}}\mathrm{\Phi }(1\frac{(a)}{e_0};\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1};\frac{1}{n_\mathrm{a}l})$$
(13)
The variable $`b`$ does not appear explicitly on the right-hand side of this equation; in order to compute $`\mu `$ at a given distance $`b^{}`$ on the minor axis, we should set the variable $`a`$ on the right-hand side to that value of $`a^{}`$ for which $`b^{}=e(a^{})a^{}`$.

Equation (13) shows how the major axis Sérsic law is modulated by the Lerch $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ function to give the minor axis light profile. By comparing it with the Sérsic law for the minor axis: $`\mu (b)=A_\mathrm{b}+B_\mathrm{b}b^{1/n_\mathrm{b}}`$ (equation 2), we can write:

$`A_\mathrm{b}`$ $``$ $`A_\mathrm{a}`$
$`B_\mathrm{b}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_\mathrm{a}}{e_0n_\mathrm{a}l}}`$
$`b^{1/n_\mathrm{b}}`$ $``$ $`a^{1/n_\mathrm{a}}\mathrm{\Phi }(1{\displaystyle \frac{(a)}{e_0}};\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1};{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_\mathrm{a}l}})`$ (14)
### 2.3 The equivalent-axis S rsic profile

The Sérsic law can also be expressed as a function of the equivalent radius, defined as $`R_{\mathrm{eq}}=\sqrt{ab}`$. In the case of constant eccentricity, $`e(a)=e_\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{const}.`$, equation (6) can be written as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu }{dR_{\mathrm{eq}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{e_\mathrm{c}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu (a)}{da}},`$ (15)
while, for variable eccentricity, equation (11) can be expressed as:

$$\frac{d\mu }{dR_{\mathrm{eq}}}=\frac{2\sqrt{e(a)}}{e(a)+(a)}\frac{d\mu }{da},$$
(16)
where $`e(a)`$ is given by equation (9) and $`(a)`$ by equation (12). We were not able to integrate equation (16).

## 3 Data set used

We applied the algorithm developed in the previous section to 28 galaxies selected from those studied by CCD93. Surface brightness and ellipticity profiles for these objects were published by Caon, Capaccioli & Rampazzo (1990), and Caon, Capaccioli & D’Onofrio (1994). The sample we use covered a wide interval of absolute magnitudes ($`22.43<M_B<17.29`$) and included at least one object for each morphological type (E0 to E7, dS0 and S0).

The correspondence between the Sérsic model index $`n`$ for the major ($`a`$) and minor ($`b`$) axis also varied: $`n_\mathrm{a}>n_\mathrm{b}`$ for 8 galaxies; $`n_\mathrm{a}<n_\mathrm{b}`$ for 17, and $`n_\mathrm{a}n_\mathrm{b}`$ for 3. The eccentricity (Figures 4 and 5) increased with radius for 12 objects, decreased for another 12 and remained approximately constant for 4. The central parts of the light profiles, affected by seeing convolution, were excluded when fitting our eccentricity model (equation 9) to the observed profiles.

### 3.1 Errors

The photometric uncertainties on the CCD93 $`B`$-band surface brightness measurements were estimated by Caon et al. (1990), and are shown in Figure 3 of their paper. They can be approximated by the power-law function:

$$\delta \mu =\alpha \mu ^\beta $$
(17)
where $`\delta \mu `$ is the error, $`\mu `$ the surface brightness in magnitudes, $`\alpha \mathrm{3.25\hspace{0.17em}10}^{15}`$ and $`\beta 9.7`$.

The error in the eccentricity can be estimated by approximating the differentials in equation (3) by small variations, i.e., $`d\mu \delta \mu `$ and $`dR\delta R`$, thus obtaining $`\delta \mu =(B/n)R^{\frac{1}{n}1}\delta R`$. Rearranging the terms with the help of equation (17) we can write the fractional error $`\delta R/R`$ as:

$$\frac{\delta R}{R}=\frac{n\alpha \mu ^\beta }{BR^{\frac{1}{n}}}=\frac{n\alpha (A+BR^{\frac{1}{n}})^\beta }{BR^{\frac{1}{n}}}.$$
(18)
Here $`R`$ may be the $`a`$ or $`b`$ variable and the coefficients $`A,B,n`$ may refer to the major or minor axis accordingly. Since the eccentricity is calculated as the quotient $`b/a`$, the fractional uncertainties add to give:

$$\frac{\delta e}{e}\frac{\delta a}{a}+\frac{\delta b}{b}.$$
(19)
For example, in the outer parts ($`a=296^{\prime \prime },b=180^{\prime \prime }`$) of NGC 4473 we have $`\delta \mu (a)0.31\mathrm{mag}/\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$, $`\delta \mu (b)0.43\mathrm{mag}/\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$, $`\delta a/a0.08`$ and $`\delta b/b0.15`$, which yields $`\delta e/e0.23`$. For NGC 4406 ($`a=510^{\prime \prime },b=330^{\prime \prime }`$), $`\delta \mu (a)=0.17\mathrm{mag}/\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$, $`\delta \mu (b)=0.28\mathrm{mag}/\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$, $`\delta a/a0.06`$ and $`\delta b/b0.11`$, thus $`\delta e/e0.17`$.

## 4 Fitting method

For each of the 28 galaxies of the sample, a Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm was used to fit the minor axis surface brightness profile using the transformed major axis S rsic law. The data for the major and minor axes light profiles are those analyzed by CCD93.

The fit was done for both the approximation of constant eccentricity, and for the more general case of variable eccentricity. We use the following notation:

$$\mu _\mathrm{c}=A_\mathrm{c}+\frac{B_\mathrm{c}}{e_\mathrm{c}}a^{1/n_\mathrm{a}}$$
(20)
and

$$\mu _\mathrm{L}=A_\mathrm{L}+\frac{B_L}{e_0n_\mathrm{a}l}a^{1/n_\mathrm{a}}\mathrm{\Phi }(1\frac{(a)}{e_0};\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1};\frac{1}{n_\mathrm{a}l}).$$
(21)
Equation (20) is for constant eccentricity and equation (21) is for variable eccentricity.

We decided to leave the parameters $`A`$ and $`B`$ completely free. The parameters $`n_\mathrm{a}`$ is the major axis Sérsic index measured by CCD93, while the parameters $`e_0`$ and $`l`$ and the function $`(a)`$ are set by our fit to the eccentricity profiles. We noticed that, ideally, the values we obtained for $`A_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`A_\mathrm{L}`$ should equal $`A_\mathrm{a}`$while the values for $`B_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`B_\mathrm{L}`$ should be equal to $`B_\mathrm{a}`$ (where $`A_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`B_\mathrm{a}`$ are the values measured by CCD93.) Thus, the validity of our results, and hence of our proposed method, is determined by how close the above parameters are to their expected values.

The parameters obtained by fitting equations (20) and (21) to the CCD93 minor axis profiles are listed in Table 2, where for comparison we include the parameters found by CCD93.

In appendix B we present the results of Table 2 in graphical format; these figures also show the major axis profile. The bottom panel shows the residuals between the CCD93 data and our best-fitting model.

In appendix A we present the fits to the eccentricity profiles (Figures 4 and 5) derived from CCD93 data, the solid lines showing the least-squares fit of the function given by equation (9) to the data points. For some galaxies, we could not use the parameters obtained by this fit and had to determine them interactively. In fact, the Lerch $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ critical radius $`a_\mathrm{c}`$ (Appendix C) must be larger than the largest observed radius for the Lerch $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ function to converge in the radial interval covered by CCD93 observations. The eccentricity profile parameters are shown in Table 1.

## 5 The results

The analysis of the results shown in Table 2 reveals an overall good agreement between the computed and the expected values.

For 14 of the galaxies, both $`A_\mathrm{c}`$ (the zero point in the constant eccentricity model) and $`A_\mathrm{L}`$ (the zero point in the variable eccentricity model) differ by less than 0.5 mag from the best fit $`A_\mathrm{a}`$ values determined by CCD93. For further 8 galaxies the difference for both coefficients is less than 1 mag. The most discrepant galaxies are NGC 4406, NGC 4374 and NGC 4552 for which $`|A_\mathrm{L}Aa|>1.5`$ mag.

As for scale lengths (the $`B`$ parameters in Table 2), 15 galaxies have $`B_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`B_\mathrm{L}`$ values which both differ by less than 20% from $`B_\mathrm{a}`$, while for 8 galaxies the difference is less than 30%, the most discrepant object being NGC 4564 for which $`|B_\mathrm{c}B_\mathrm{a}|/B_\mathrm{a}=0.38`$.

Figure 3 shows how the minor axis Sérsic parameters derived using our method correlates well with the major axis parameters, this new correlation being a remarkable improvement over that shown in Figure 2. The fact that the values of $`A_\mathrm{c}`$, $`A_\mathrm{L}`$, $`B_\mathrm{c}`$, $`B_\mathrm{L}`$ are close to their expected values ($`A_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`B_\mathrm{a}`$) indicates that our transformed major axis Sérsic models can fit the minor axis light profiles quite well.

These results support our proposal that the differences in the Sérsic model of the major and minor axes can be accounted for by radial variations of the isophotes eccentricity, indeed our model seems to be able to provide a valid mathematical description of the links between major and minor axes light profiles and the eccentricity profile.

There is increasing interest in using the $`R^{\frac{1}{n}}`$ law to address some issues related to the fundamental plane (FP) of elliptical galaxies (Ciotti, Lanzoni & Renzini 1996; Graham & Colless 1997; Ciotti & Lanzoni 1997), thus an extension of the work presented in our current paper would be to investigate how fitting the Sérsic model on different axes may affect the distribution of galaxies on the fundamental plane. This is because two galaxies with the same major axis light profile, but different eccentricity profiles, can give different values for the index $`n`$ when the Sérsic model is fitted to their equivalent axis profile. This is because $`R_{\mathrm{eq}}=\sqrt{ab}=a\sqrt{e(a)}`$, which may account for some of the scatter observed in the fundamental plane. A full study of this topic is, however, outside the scope of the present paper.

## Appendix A Eccentricity profiles

## Appendix B Brightness profiles

## Appendix C Lerch $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ function

The Lerch $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ function (named after Mathias Lerch, 1860-1922) is defined as an infinite series (Gradshteyn & Ryzhik 2000)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z,a,v)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^i}{(v+i)^a}$$
(22)
where $`v+i0`$. In the case studied in equation (13) we have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }\{1\frac{(a)}{e_0};1;\frac{1}{nl}\}={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{nl}{1+nli}}\left[(1+l)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{e_1}{e_0}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_\mathrm{M}}}\right)^l\right]^i.`$ (23)
In this case ($`a=1`$), one of the constraints for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be finite is that we must have $`|z|=|1(a)/e_0|<1`$, which corresponds to a critical radius $`a_\mathrm{c}`$ beyond which $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is finite, given by

$$a_\mathrm{c}\frac{a_\mathrm{M}}{\left|(1+l)(1e_0/e_1)\right|^{1/l}}.$$
(24)
We now may write eq. (23) in terms of $`a_\mathrm{c}`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\{1\frac{(a)}{e_0};1;\frac{1}{nl}\}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{nl}{1+nli}\left(\frac{a}{a_\mathrm{c}}\right)^{l+i}$$
(25)
The other constraint is that $`1+inl0`$ in equation (25) above, thus $`nl\mathrm{},2,1,0`$. When fitting the galaxy eccentricity profiles to equation (9) we must take these constraints into account.

The dependence of the Lerch $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ function on the $`n`$ and $`l`$ parameters is shown in Figures 13 and 14. Figure 13 shows how $`\mathrm{\Phi }_L`$ changes for values of $`n=1,3,5,7,9`$, $`n`$ raising in the direction indicated by the arrow. The solid curves have $`l=0.3`$ and the dotted curves have $`l=0.7`$. The same is true for Figure 14, for which we plot the values $`l=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/5,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/7,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/9`$, the solid curves having $`n=3`$ and the dotted curves having $`n=9`$. For all cases, $`e_0=0.9`$ and $`e_1=0.1`$. The critical radius $`a_\mathrm{c}`$ beyond which the function diverges should be noted. For example, in Figure 13 the solid line has $`a_\mathrm{c}/a_\mathrm{M}=0.62`$ and the dotted lines $`a_\mathrm{c}/a_\mathrm{M}=0.55`$, cf. equation (25) and since $`a_\mathrm{c}`$ does not depend on $`n`$ all the curves in Figure 13 have the same critical radius.