text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There has been much interest in recent theory and experiment on superluminal light propagation in media . These articles appear not to violate relativistic causality, by which we mean the front velocity cannot travel faster–than–c. The front velocity is the speed at which the very first extremely small vibrations of the wave will occur . The front of the wave is composed of the highest uv frequency components (ie $`\omega \mathrm{}`$). Sommerfeld , predicted that the front velocity should travel at c. A brief history of events is given in Brillouin’s book . Later Voigt , gave a physical explanation for Sommerfelds result, stating that the modern theory of dispersion uses the assumption of point like electrons with a finite mass. Inertia prevents the electrons from oscillating at the very start of the wave. Electron oscillation needs time to build; only after the wave has been in motion for some time can the electrons react back on the wave. The very early oscillations of the wave therefore pass though the dispersive medium as if through vacuum. Also, electrons having a finite mass, cannot oscillate at infinite frequencies without amassing infinite energy in the process. We will restrict our material media to less than infinite energy. If $`n(\omega )\beta `$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ we take the front velocity to be $`v=c/\beta `$, it is required that $`\beta =1`$. In fact we will prove (via Titchmarsh’s theorem to be stated later) that in order that $`n(\omega )1`$ not violate causality it must obey the dispersion (Kramers Kronig) relations and as a consequence of this $`n(\omega )1`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$.

This may appear as obvious and well known to some readers. However several well known text book accounts  on the subject invoke a physical model for refractive index to require $`n(\omega )1`$ at high frequencies as we shall discuss later. It has not been made clear that the mathematical derivation of the dispersion relation for $`\left[n(\omega )1\right]`$ requires $`\left[n(\omega )1\right]0`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ as part of the proof. The precise physical model is irrelevant. This is an important point which this article will clarify.

It appears not all recent articles agree that $`n(\omega )1`$ for high frequency is a requirement for causality of $`n(\omega )1`$. It has been claimed that a signal can travel at $`v=c/n(\mathrm{})`$ where $`n(\mathrm{})1`$, . Furthermore, it was first suggested that the Scharnhorst effect , relating to the normal propagation of light between two parallel mirrors in a vacuum might allow a signal velocity (more precisely a front velocity) to exceed c. In the upcoming section we briefly discuss the Scharnhorst effect and give arguments which show that the original derivation may be flawed. Also we show that the effect is extremely small and in practice unmeasurable. We then concentrate on physical media (non–vacuum) where experimental verification is possible. Our purpose is to show that in general signals travel at c for material media despite experimental claims to the contrary in the literature. We give physical arguments to show why $`n(\omega )1`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ for these physical media.

## 2 Scharnhorst Effect

The Scharnhorst effect relates to light propagating in the vacuum between two parallel mirrors. The vacuum modes are changed by the boundaries (in much the same way as in the Casimir effect) and the light experiences the vacuum as a dispersive birefringent medium. The real part of the refractive index in a direction parallel to the mirror surface is unity. The refractive index in a direction perpendicular to the mirror surface is found to be less than unity. These calculations are done using perturbation theory valid only for small frequencies $`\omega <<m`$ where $`m`$ is the electron mass.

Scharnhorst , derived a refractive index (perpendicular to the mirror surface) for the vacuum based on low frequencies and showed $`n(0)<1`$. (Note that $`n(0)`$ implies the small frequency limit.) Combining this with the Kramers Kronig relations written for Re $`n(\omega )`$ Re $`n(\mathrm{})`$ (as opposed to Re \[$`n(\omega )1`$\]), and setting $`\omega =0`$, Barton and Scharnhorst  showed that either (real part) Re $`n(\mathrm{})<1`$, which would imply signals moving at faster–than–c speed, or (imaginary part) Im $`n(\omega )<0`$ for some frequency range, which would imply that the vacuum could amplify the light signal for some range of frequency. The paper , discusses both options but does not make a definite choice between the two.

The dispersion relations used by Barton and Scharnhorst  and later by Scharnhorst alone  are not complete in the sense that they have set a term Im $`n(\mathrm{})=0`$, which in principle might change their end result. (See Eq. (41) in this paper). Barton and Scharnhorst say ;

> “We have no conclusive proof that Re $`n`$ converges and Im $`n`$ vanishes as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ because \[$`\mathrm{}`$\] their asymptotics are quite likely to be governed by non–perturbative effects that we cannot calculate.”

The reasons for assuming Im $`n(\omega \mathrm{})=0`$ are given in their paper  and we refer the reader there for further discussion. A further objection to the Scharnhorst effect is that it violates special relativity (SR). Even if you cannot measure the effect, to be discussed below, the fact that it can exist even in principle is objectionable.

Consider the case of a light clock, a pair of mirrors with a light pulse bouncing between them. This type of clock has been used to derive effects like time dilation and Lorentz contraction in undergraduate text book accounts of SR. For time dilation the clock moves in a direction parallel to the surface of the mirrors. Since the Scharnhorst effect predicts that the vacuum refractive index is equal to unity in that direction then we would expect the light clock (in a Scharnhorst type arrangement) to give much the same prediction as in SR. It should be noted however that the speed of light in the moving frame of the clock has altered due to the Scharnhorst effect, so predictions are not exactly the same as with no Scharnhorst effect. In the Lorentz contraction arrangement, the light clock is tilted on its side. The direction of motion of the clock is the same as the light bouncing between the mirrors, (ie. perpendicular to the mirror surface). It appears that several light clocks in relative motion would not calculate the same length scales if the Scharnhorst effect were operating between the mirrors. Observers in relative motion would not know what to use for c in the SR velocity addition formula. The change in the velocity of light, as predicted by the Scharnhorst effect, is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance between the mirrors, see $`\delta c`$ below. The distance measured between the mirrors differs from one reference frame to another in relative motion due to Lorentz contraction. Hence, the measured value of the velocity of light, measured from one frame to another, must also change and this violates SR in a very fundamental way. The whole of SR is based on c being an invariant. Which invariant value of c do you use in this case? It appears SR does indeed break down if the Scharnhorst effect were real, even if you cannot measure the Scharnhorst change in c in practice.

Two papers have appeared both stating that measurement of faster–than–c signals between mirrors was impossible. The first was by Milonni and Svozil , which uses an argument based on the uncertainty relation for velocity and the uncertainty in time due to switching on a signal. Their argument can be summarized as follows; A measurement of velocity involves a distance and time measurement $`v=L/t`$. The time is limited by a signal turn on time $`\delta t1/\omega `$ where $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the signal. We assume the shortest possible delay. Then $`\delta v=L\delta t/t^2c^2\delta t/L`$. Using $`c/\omega \lambda `$ we obtain $`\delta v=c\lambda /L`$. The change in the velocity of light predicted by the Scharnhorst effect is $`\delta c=kc\alpha ^2(\lambda _c/L)^4`$ where $`\lambda _c=\mathrm{}/(mc)=3.9\times 10^{11}`$cm is the Compton wavelength, $`\alpha =1/137`$ and $`k10^2`$. Hence the ratio of

$$\frac{\delta v}{\delta c}\frac{1}{k\alpha ^2}\left(\frac{L}{\lambda _c}\right)^3=1.5\times 10^6\left(\frac{L}{\lambda _c}\right)^3$$
(1)
where we have used $`\lambda \lambda _c`$. Thus the measured uncertainty in velocity, $`\delta v`$, is much greater than the predicted change in the signal velocity of light, $`\delta c`$, by many orders of magnitude. Thus the Scharnhorst effect is not useful as an experimental verification that faster–than–c speeds for signals are possible. Milonni and Svozil also conclude ,

> “ … it is clear that the uncertainty in the measured propagation velocity will always be enormously larger than the correction to c associated with the Scharnhorst effect. We conclude, therefore, that no measurement of the faster–than–c velocity of light predicted by the Scharnhorst effect is possible.”

The second paper by Ben–Menahem , uses an argument based on the sharpness of the wavefront.

> “… in order to observe faster–than–c propagation of the wavefront, it is necessary to sharpen the falloff of the fields at the wavefront to a length scale less than $`1/m`$ \[where $`m`$ is the electron mass\]. This feat requires the inclusion in the packet of waves with $`\omega >m`$, for which eq. (3) \[the vacuum refractive index derived by Scharnhorst for $`\omega m`$\] is a bad approximation.”

In the following sections, we will concentrate on physical media (non–vacuum media which have only finite energies), in flat space–time, and we will derive the dispersion relations for $`n(\omega )1`$ and in the process prove that for causal propagation $`n(\omega )1`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$. We will state Titchmarsh’s theorem and use it to prove our result. We conclude with a discussion that for non–violation of causality it is a necessary condition that for physical media $`n(\omega )1`$ for $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ and thus signals must travel at c, the velocity of light in free space.

## 3 Pulse propagation through a medium

Consider an electric pulse $`E(z,t)`$ incident on a thin dielectric medium of thickness $`\delta `$. The following arguments can be found in the book by Nussenzveig . The pulse is normally incident on the medium and has a transmission coefficient given by $`2/(n(\omega )+1)`$ which we shall take to be approximately equal to unity. This turns out to have no influence on causality considerations. We assume that the medium has a complex refractive index $`n(\omega )=n_r(\omega )+in_i(\omega )`$. We define the absorption coefficient $`\alpha =2n_i(\omega )\omega /c`$.

$$E(z,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}E_{\text{in}}(z,\omega )e^{i\omega t}𝑑\omega $$
(2)
The pulse is made up of many Fourier components. The component of frequency $`\omega `$ can be written as

$$E_{\text{in}}(z,\omega )=E_{\text{in}}(0,\omega )e^{i\omega z/c}$$
(3)
If the pulse travels along the $`z`$ axis and we place the left face of the medium at position $`z=0`$ then the corresponding electric field component on the exit face of the medium is

$$E_{\text{out}}(\delta ,\omega )=E_{\text{in}}(0,\omega )e^{i\omega n(\omega )\delta /c}$$
(4)
We will assume that the output is a linear function of the input, so that the superposition principle applies. This shows that given input $`f(t)`$ the output $`x(t)`$ must satisfy

$$x(t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}g(t,t^{})f(t^{})𝑑t^{}$$
(5)
Furthermore we assume time translation invariance so that if the input is delayed (or advanced) by a time interval $`\tau `$ then the output will be delayed (or advanced) by the same time interval. It follows that the function $`g(t,t^{})`$ must depend only on the time difference between the input and output pulses, $`g(t,t^{})=g(tt^{})`$, so that

$$x(t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}g(tt^{})f(t^{})𝑑t^{}$$
(6)
This takes the form of a familiar convolution integral (“Faltung” integral in German, meaning folding integral). Equation (6) has the consequence that

$$X(\omega )=G(\omega )F(\omega )$$
(7)
where $`F(\omega ),X(\omega )`$ and $`G(\omega )`$ are the Fourier transforms of $`f(t),x(t)`$ and $`g(t)`$ respectively. Thus

$$G(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}g(\tau )e^{i\omega \tau }𝑑\tau $$
(8)
If we invoke a primitive causality condition; that the output cannot precede the input, so that if $`f(t)=0`$ for $`t<\tau `$ then the same is true for $`x(t)`$. Hence $`g(\tau )=0`$ for $`\tau <0`$ and we can replace the lower bound in the above integral by zero.

$$G(\omega )=_0^{\mathrm{}}g(\tau )e^{i\omega \tau }𝑑\tau $$
(9)
This implies that $`G(\omega )`$ has a regular analytic continuation over the upper half of the complex plane, $`I_+`$. If we write $`\omega =x+iy`$ for $`y0`$ then

$$G(\omega )=_0^{\mathrm{}}g(\tau )e^{ix\tau }e^{y\tau }𝑑\tau $$
(10)
the decay factor $`\mathrm{exp}(y\tau )`$ can only help convergence when $`\tau 0`$. We still do not have sufficient conditions to derive the dispersion relations for $`G(\omega )`$. We need information regarding the limiting form of $`G(\omega )`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$. In particular, we need to prove that it decreases rapidly at infinity, otherwise the Re $`G(\omega )`$ and Im $`G(\omega )`$ may be totally unrelated as in the case of a complex constant a+ib, . We take $`G(\omega )`$ to be square integrable along the real axis, (in mathematical notation, $`G(\omega )L^2(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$), so that

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|G(\omega )|^2𝑑\omega <K$$
(11)
where $`K`$ is a finite constant. If $`F(\omega )`$ and $`G(\omega )`$ are Fourier Transforms of $`f(t)`$ and $`g(t)`$ defined in a similar fashion to $`E_{\text{in}}(t)`$ then according to Parseval’s theorem

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(t)g^{}(t)𝑑t=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}F(\omega )G^{}(\omega )𝑑\omega .$$
(12)
Since both $`f(t)`$ and $`g(t)=0`$ for $`t<0`$, when we set $`f(t)=g(t)`$ in the above integral equation we get,

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|g(t)|^2𝑑t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}|G(\omega )|^2𝑑\omega `$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2\pi }}`$
Also, since $`G(x+iy)`$ is the Fourier Transform of $`\mathrm{exp}(yt)g(t)`$ from Eq.(10), then by Parseval’s theorem

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}|G(x+iy)|^2𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{2yt}|g(t)|^2𝑑t`$ (14)
$``$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|g(t)|^2𝑑t\text{ (}y0\text{)}`$
$``$ $`K\text{ (}y0\text{)}`$
where Eq.(13) has been used in the last step. Equation (14), expresses the property that if a causal transform is square integrable along the real axis, then once it is analytically continued into $`I_+`$, it is also square integrable along any line parallel to the real axis for $`0y\mathrm{}`$. This is a very important result and leads to another condition that $`|G(x+iy)|0`$ for $`y0`$ when $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$. This also forms part of Titchmarsh’s Theorem 93, Lemma , which we shall define in the upcoming section.

Now to apply these results to our situation, first we note that we are dealing with electric fields whose intensity must be finite, hence both the input and output can be taken to be square integrable. Mathematically,

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|E(\omega )|^2𝑑\omega <\mathrm{}$$
(15)
which holds for both the input $`E_{\text{in}}`$ and output $`E_{\text{out}}`$. Considering the frequency dependent terms, we note that, Eq.(4) is of the same form as Eq.(7). Here $`X(\omega )E_{\text{out}}(\delta ,\omega )`$, $`F(\omega )E_{\text{in}}(0,\omega )`$ and

$$G(\omega )e^{i\omega n(\omega )\delta /c}$$
(16)
Hence

$$g(\delta ,\tau )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\omega n(\omega )\delta /c}e^{i\omega \tau }𝑑\omega $$
(17)
where $`\tau =tt^{}`$ and

$$E_{\text{out}}(\delta ,t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}g(\delta ,tt^{})E_{\text{in}}(0,t^{})𝑑t^{}$$
(18)
The integral for $`G(\omega )`$ is defined for negative and well as positive frequency. The refractive index is usually defined for positive frequency only. Since $`E_{\text{in}}`$ and $`E_{\text{out}}`$ are both real, $`g`$ must be real hence

$$n(\omega )=n^{}(\omega )$$
(19)
for real $`\omega `$ which extends the definition of $`n(\omega )`$ for the negative frequencies. Due to the spatial separation $`\delta `$ between input and output we need to invoke the relativistic causality condition rather than the “primitive” causality condition quoted earlier. We need to restrict out output signal so that no signal can propagate with velocity greater than the velocity of light, $`c`$. This implies that $`E_{\text{out}}(\delta ,t)`$ can only depend on $`E_{\text{in}}(0,t^{})`$ when $`t^{}<t\delta /c`$, since the output time $`t=t^{}+\delta /c`$. The signal takes a time $`\delta /c`$ to traverse the medium. Hence $`g(\delta ,\tau )=0`$ when $`\tau <\delta /c`$. Furthermore, from Eq.(16),

$$G(\omega )=e^{i\omega n(\omega )\delta /c}=_{\delta /c}^{\mathrm{}}g(\delta ,\tau )e^{i\omega \tau }𝑑\tau $$
(20)
Note that usually $`|G(\omega )|1`$ even without the transmission coefficient since the complex refractive index results in exponential decay. It is usually the case that the output signal intensity is less than or equal to the input signal intensity. The above equation can be written as,

$$G(\omega )=e^{i\omega \left[n(\omega )1\right]\delta /c}=_0^{\mathrm{}}g(\delta ,t^{}+\delta /c)e^{i\omega t^{}}𝑑t^{}$$
(21)
The right hand side of this equation has a regular analytic continuation in $`I_+`$ (the upper half of the complex plane), this implies that the left hand side of the equation does also . Titchmarsh , gives a very clear criterion for analytic continuation of a function which is zero for all negative values of its argument. His theorem 93 has been restated by Toll  as;

> “A function of integrable square is zero for all negative values of its argument if and only if its Fourier transform is a causal transform”.

Thus the causality condition that $`g(\delta ,t^{}+\delta /c)=0`$ for negative $`t^{}`$ is equivalent to the requirement that $`G(\omega )`$ be a causal transform.

## 4 Titchmarsh’s Theorem

Theorems 93–95 of Titchmarsh can be restated as follows:

Let $`𝒢(\omega )`$ be an analytic and square integrable function along the real axis. (ie. $`𝒢(\omega )L^2(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$). Then if $`𝒢(\omega )`$ obeys one of the three conditions below, it obeys all three of them.

(i) No output before the input, causality condition: If $`g(\tau )`$ is the inverse Fourier transform of $`𝒢(\omega )`$, then

$$g(\tau )=0\text{ (}\tau <0\text{}$$
(22)
this means $`𝒢(\omega )`$ is a causal transform.

(ii) $`𝒢(x)`$ is, for “almost all” $`x`$, the limit as $`y0`$ of an analytic function $`𝒢(x+iy)`$ that is regular (holomorphic) in $`I_+`$ (the upper half of the complex plane) and square integrable over any line parallel to the real axis. Mathematically this means,

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|𝒢(x+iy)|^2𝑑y<K\text{ }(y0)$$
(23)
where $`K`$ is a finite real constant. See our derivation of Eq.(14) above. It follows that

$$\underset{x\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}𝒢(x+iy)=0\text{ }(y0)$$
(24)
The above limiting result comes from the following consideration; Cauchy’s theorem for $`y0`$ gives,

$`𝒢(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒢(\nu )d\nu }{\nu \omega }}\text{ (}\omega ,\nu \text{ complex)}`$ (25)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒢(\nu )d\nu }{\nu \omega }}`$
Knowing only that $`𝒢(\omega )`$ is square integrable is not sufficient to imply causality. (Nussenzveig , gives a counter example in his book page 28.) A causal transform which is square integrable along the real axis is also square integrable about any line parallel to the real axis in the upper half of the complex plane. Consider a square contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the use of Cauchy’s theorem above, see Titchmarsh pp 125–128  Theorem 93, Lemma. (See also the treatment by Nussenzveig pages 22–24 ). The integrals along the vertical sides must tend to zero as $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$. This calculation is repeated in the Appendix for completeness.

(iii) Re $`𝒢`$($`\omega `$) and Im $`𝒢`$($`\omega `$) are conjugate functions and as such are Hilbert transforms of each other. ie. $`𝒢(\omega _r)=𝒢_r(\omega _r)+i𝒢_i(\omega _r)`$ is a causal transform if and only if its real and imaginary parts satisfy;

$`𝒢_r(\omega _r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒢_i(\nu )d\nu }{\nu \omega _r}},`$
$`𝒢_i(\omega _r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒢_r(\nu )d\nu }{\nu \omega _r}}.`$
where the frequency is treated as real $`\omega =\omega _r`$. Each of the above expressions implies the other. Here $`P`$ indicates the principal part of the integral, (sometimes denoted by a bar through the integral sign) to be evaluated at $`\nu =\omega _r`$. These relations between the real and imaginary parts of $`𝒢(\omega )`$ are the dispersion relations also known as Plemelj formulas.

## 5 Dispersion Relations

Returning to our specific example, and Eq.(21), since $`\delta `$ is very small, but otherwise arbitrary, $`\omega \left[n(\omega )1\right]`$ must have the same property (as $`G(\omega )`$) of analytic continuation in $`I_+`$ . Nussenzveig also shows that the refractive index is regular in the upper half of the complex plane. However, this does not exclude the possibility of singularities on the real axis. This condition is also not sufficient to show that the real and imaginary parts of $`\left[n(\omega )1\right]`$ must be conjugate functions, or equivalently, that they obey dispersion relations and hence imply causality. We must also show that $`\left[n(\omega )1\right]0`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$, which is part of condition (ii) in Titchmarsh’s theorem above. This is in general not easy to do without resorting to a physical model for the refractive index.

### 5.1 Using a Model for refractive index

The usual approach in the literature, taken by both Nussenzveig  and several text books , is to assume that for very high driving frequency, the frequency will be much higher than any binding frequency of the electrons in the medium, and so the electrons will behave as though they are free. The Lorentz equation of motion becomes

$$m\ddot{x}=eE(\omega )e^{i\omega t}$$
(27)
which would involve a trial solution of the form $`x(t)=x(\omega )\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$ and hence a result $`x(\omega )=eE(\omega )/(m\omega ^2)`$. Now since the polarization of the medium is given by

$$𝒫(\omega )=Nex(\omega )=\chi (\omega )E(\omega )$$
(28)
where $`N`$ is the number density of the electrons, $`m`$ is the electron mass, and in Gaussian units, the electric susceptibility $`\chi (\omega )`$ is,

$$\chi (\omega )=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[n^2(\omega )1\right]=\frac{Ne^2}{m\omega ^2}\text{ }(\omega \mathrm{})$$
(29)
Hence, $`n(\omega )1`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ from physical considerations. This shows that $`\left[n^2(\omega )1\right]L^2(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$, is square integrable along the real axis. Here, $`\chi (\omega )`$ plays the role of $`G(\omega )`$. The causality condition, that you get no polarization before the electric field is applied, implies that $`\chi (\omega )=0`$ for $`t<0`$, so that condition (i) of Titchmarsh’s theorem is satisfied. Hence,

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|n^2(x+iy)1|^2𝑑y<K\text{ }(y0)$$
(30)
where $`K`$ is a finite real constant. Thus, from physical considerations, $`\left[n(x+iy)1\right]`$, which is analytic in $`I_+`$, from the above discussion, must approach zero as $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$ when $`y0`$. This implies,

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|n(x+iy)1|^2𝑑y<K^{}\text{ }(y0)$$
(31)
where $`K^{}`$ is a real, finite constant. Since this inequality satisfies condition (ii), then $`\left[n(\omega )1\right]`$ must also satisfy the dispersion relations and be a causal transform.

### 5.2 No physical model for refractive index

We have yet to make clear that the physical model is not essential to the derivation of the dispersion relations. We shall now obtain the same results as in section 5.1 without invoking the physical model for refractive index. We begin by considering the polarization Eq. (28). This is clearly of the form Eq. (7), where the polarization $`𝒫(\omega )X(\omega )`$, $`E(\omega )F(\omega )`$ and $`\chi (\omega )G(\omega )`$. The intensities of the electric fields must remain finite so it is reasonable to assume these quantities are square integrable along the real axis. $`\chi (\omega )`$ may also by square integrable or it may satisfy the weaker restriction of being bounded $`|\chi (\omega )|^2K_0`$, where $`K_0`$ is a constant. In this case it is possible to form a new function by the method of subtraction (see discussions section 6.) which is square integrable. For physical media (of finite energy) it is reasonable to assume that the function $`\chi (\omega )`$ is decreasing and that it tends to zero for high frequency in all physically realizable situations. Electrons in a real media cannot oscillate at infinite frequency which requires infinite energy and thus the medium cannot become polarized at infinite frequency. Furthermore, the causality condition, that you get no polarization before the electric field impinges on the medium, requires that $`\chi (\omega )`$ is also causal. Since $`\chi (\omega )`$ is proportional to $`n^2(\omega )1`$ (see Eq. (29) ) then $`n^2(\omega )1`$ is causal, and also square integrable. Now it appears that $`n^2(\omega )1`$ satisfies Titchmarsh’s condition (i), so that implies it satisfies all conditions. We can therefore write down a dispersion relation for $`n^2(\omega )1`$ and in doing so we assume that (by condition (ii) of Tichmarsh’s theorem) $`n^2(\omega )10`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$. This in turn implies that $`n(\omega )1`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ note without having invoked any physical model for refractive index.

Returning to our earlier discussion, in section 3. and at the beginning of section 5., we had found that $`n(\omega )1`$ could be extended into $`I_+`$. We may assume that $`n(\omega )1`$ would be at least bounded. The remaining requirement was that $`n(\omega )10`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ in order to satisfy Titchmarsh’s condition (ii). In considering $`n^2(\omega )1`$ we have found that indeed $`n(\omega )1`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$. Now we have satisfied condition (ii) of Titchmarsh’s theorem for $`n(\omega )1`$ and thus we may write down the dispersion relations for $`n(\omega )1`$.

### 5.3 Calculation of the Dispersion Relations

Now that we have established that $`n(\omega )1`$ satisfies Titchmarsh’s theorem, whether we invoke a physical model for refractive index or not, we may calculate the dispersion relation. Cauchy’s theorem expresses $`\left[n(\omega )1\right]`$ at any point in $`I_+`$, in terms of a contour integral, for example a large semi–circle in the upper half plane. Here we define frequency as a complex quantity $`\omega =\omega _r+i\omega _i`$. Since we have shown that the refractive index (for real frequency) $`n(\omega _r)1`$ as $`\omega _r\mathrm{}`$ the contour integral reduces to an integral over the real axis, as indicated by condition (ii) in Titchmarsh’s theorem above, and derived for a rectangular integral in the Appendix. Hence we have,

$$\left[n(\omega )1\right]=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\left[n(\nu )1\right]d\nu }{\nu \omega }\text{ (Im }\omega 0\text{ )}.$$
(32)
Taking the limit as $`\omega `$ approaches the real axis, we set complex $`\omega \omega _r+iϵ`$ where $`ϵ`$ is a small term, the radius of a small semi–circle in the upper half plane about the real frequency $`\omega _r`$. We shall assume that $`\omega _r`$ represents a pole on the real axis. We obtain,

$$\left[n(\omega )1\right]=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\left[n(\nu )1\right]d\nu }{\nu \omega _riϵ}$$
(33)
The denominator can be written as

$$\frac{1}{\nu \omega _riϵ}=P\left(\frac{1}{\nu \omega _r}\right)+i\pi \delta (\nu \omega _r)$$
(34)
hence, in the limit where $`ϵ0`$ we have,

$`2\left[n(\omega _r)1\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[n(\nu )1\right]d\nu }{\nu \omega _r}}+\left[n(\omega _r)1\right]`$
$`\left[n(\omega _r)1\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{i\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[n(\nu )1\right](\nu +\omega _r)}{(\nu \omega _r)(\nu +\omega _r)}}𝑑\nu `$ (35)
Using our symmetry relation Eq.(19) we find $`n_r(\omega )`$ is an even function and $`n_i(\omega )`$ is an odd function. We ignore the odd integrands which give zero upon integration. Thus we can write the real and imaginary parts of $`n(\omega )`$ where the frequency $`\omega _r=\omega `$ is now purely real, as

$`\text{Re}\left[n(\omega )\right]`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2P}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu \text{Im}\left[n(\nu )\right]d\nu }{\nu ^2\omega ^2}}`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{cP}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\nu )d\nu }{\nu ^2\omega ^2}}`$
$`\text{Im}\left[n(\omega )\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2P}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \text{Re}\left[n(\nu )1\right]d\nu }{\nu ^2\omega ^2}}`$ (37)
where $`\alpha `$ is the absorption coefficient defined earlier. These results are consistent with the findings of the text books  and also Nussenzveig , Toll , Landau and Lifshitz  and Rauch and Rohrlich .

## 6 Discussion and Conclusions

We have shown in section 2, that although the Scharnhorst effect suggested that faster–than–c signals were in principle possible, in practice it would be impossible to detect any such increase in c. We further suggested that the original calculations of the effect may be flawed, and that the effect implies a violation of SR. Later sections of this paper relate to the case of physical media, by which we mean non–vacuum, finite energy media in non–curved spacetime. We show that physically a result $`n(\omega )1`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ is the only reliable result based on electron energies being less than infinity.

Historically, the result of Eq.(36) was first derived by Kronig (1926)  and the equivalent result for the dielectric constant was treated by Kramers in (1927) . Kronig was interested in the physical model behind the derivation of the refractive index and how many atoms are required before you can sensibly use the refractive index idea for a bulk material. Kramers first employed Cauchy integrals to derive the above dispersion relations. However, neither paper puts any emphasis on causality. This comes in much later by Kronig (1942) . More recent tutorial accounts of the dispersion relations which include a discussion on causality can be found, for example see . Text book accounts , will mention that $`n(\omega )1`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ but will only argue based on the physical model for the refractive index. We have shown above that if $`\left[n(\omega )1\right]`$ satisfies the dispersion relations then, regardless of how it was derived, Titchmarsh’s theorem proves that $`\left[n(\omega )1\right]`$ obeys causality and must also therefore have the limiting result that $`n(\omega )1`$ for $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ by condition (ii) of Titchmarsh’s theorem. This, to the authors knowledge, has not been stressed in the literature. No formal proof of $`n(\omega )1`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ has been previously given, it has always been tacitly assumed from a physical model. I would like to stress that the causality condition (or the dispersion relations) requires this to be true regardless of the model in use. No model for refractive index can claim to have a different limiting value on $`n(\omega )`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ without violating causality for $`n(\omega )1`$.

Landau and Lifshitz , have a footnote in their book relating to the dispersion relation for the dielectric contant $`ϵ`$.

> “The property $`ϵ1`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ is not important: if the limit $`ϵ(\mathrm{})`$ were other than unity, we should simply take $`ϵ(\omega )ϵ(\mathrm{})`$ in place of $`ϵ(\omega )1`$ …”

The same argument would apply to $`n(\omega )1`$, since it is $`n(\omega )10`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ which is implied by Titchmarsh’s theorem to be a condition for the dispersion relation to hold. If in a case when $`n(\mathrm{})1`$ we used instead $`n(\omega )n(\mathrm{})`$ then you would regain a valid dispersion relation in a sense that effect would not precede cause. It would be necessary to replace $`n(\omega )1`$ by $`n(\omega )n(\mathrm{})`$ everywhere in the dispersion relations, which is equivalent to a dispersion relation with one subtraction at $`n(\mathrm{})`$, to be discussed below. Landau and Lifshitz were clearly not conserned with relativistic causality. The dispersion relations require primitive causality only, effect cannot precede cause. The author believes the above footnote to be somewhat misleading, especially now when physicists are conserned with signals traveling at faster–than–c velocity. The value $`n(\mathrm{})=1`$ is certainly important. It is required that $`n(\mathrm{})=1`$ to show that a front velocity of a signal propagates at $`c/1`$ and not $`c/n(\mathrm{})`$. Pulse propagation is governed by Maxwell’s equations which are certainly relativistically causal. Recent articles , on superluminal signal propagation based on unphysical models which allow $`n(\omega )\beta `$ when $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ where $`\beta <1`$ must therefore be dismissed as a violation of relativistically causal behavior.

Finally, we would like to mention a paper by Weaver and Pao, . They derive dispersion relations (for the wavenumber k($`\omega `$)) for a general class of linear homogeneous or inhomogeneous media. The proof proceeds without a priori knowledge of the dispersion equation for the medium, or rather without knowledge of the phase velocity $`c_{\mathrm{}}=\text{lim }(\omega /k(\omega ))`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$. They represent $`k(\omega )`$ as a Herglotz function. A Herglotz function $`k(\omega )`$ has the following properties; $`k(\omega )`$ is regular in $`I_+`$ and Im $`k(\omega )0`$, (see Appendix C page 393 in Nussenzveig’s book ). The Herglotz function has the desirable feature that its imaginary part is non–negative. The medium is assumed to be passive, no energy can be given to the wave ($`|G(\omega )|1`$) which unfortunately negates the possibility of an amplifying medium, which may also be causal although its square integrability may be harder to ascertain. The author finds the use of Herglotz functions unnecessary (although mathematically valid). The required proof stems from Titchmarsh’s theorem 93, Lemma, which Weaver and Pao seem aware of. Weaver and Pao have also gone to great lengths to explain the use of subtractions in the dispersion relations, also explained in detail by Nussenzveig . For example, if the square integrability condition on $`G(\omega )`$ cannot be satisfied, but the weaker condition that $`G(\omega )`$ is bounded, $`|G(\omega )|^2K_0`$, can be satisfied, then we may construct a new function

$$H(\omega )=\frac{G(\omega )G(\omega _0)}{\omega \omega _0}\text{ Im }\omega _00$$
(38)
where $`H(\omega )`$ is square integrable and has no poles in $`I_+`$ and hence satisfies the dispersion relations.

$`H(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{i\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H(\nu )}{\nu \omega }}𝑑\nu \text{ real }\omega `$
$`G(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`G(\omega _0)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega _0}{i\pi }}P{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G(\nu )G(\omega _0)}{\nu \omega _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{\nu \omega }}`$ (39)
where $`G(\omega _0)`$ is called the subtraction constant. Taking the real part we find,

$$\text{Re }G(\omega )=\text{ Re }G(\omega _0)+\frac{\omega \omega _0}{\pi }P_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\text{Im }\left[\frac{G(\nu )G(\omega _0)}{\nu \omega _0}\right]\frac{d\nu }{\nu \omega }$$
(40)
This is known as a dispersion relation for $`G(\omega )`$ with one subtraction. Often, subtractions will occur at $`\omega _0=0`$ or $`\omega _0=\mathrm{}`$. More than one subtraction is allowed. Using the $`\omega _0=\mathrm{}`$ subtraction for $`n(\omega )1`$ we find,

$`\text{Re }n(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re }n(\mathrm{})+\underset{\omega _0\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \omega _0}{\pi }}P{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\text{ Im }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{n(\nu )n(\omega _0)}{\nu \omega _0}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{\nu \omega }}\right]`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`\text{Re }n(\mathrm{})+{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\text{ Im }\left[n(\nu )n(\mathrm{})\right]{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{\nu \omega }}`$
$`=`$ $`\text{Re }n(\mathrm{})+{\displaystyle \frac{2P}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left[\nu \text{ Im }n(\nu )\omega \text{ Im }n(\mathrm{})\right]{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{\nu ^2\omega ^2}}`$
where we have used the fact that Im $`n(\nu )`$ is odd. This is the same as the result implied by Landau and Lifshitz , but it only requires primitive causality. For relativistic causality we also require that $`n(\mathrm{})=1`$ so that the front velocity of a signal travels at $`c/1`$ and not some arbitrary $`c/n(\mathrm{})`$.

We have not commented on situations which relate to highly curved spacetime. These extreme cases of general relativity may allow for faster–than–c signals, but we have not studied those situations here and will not confirm or deny any claims made in the literature.

## Appendix

In this section we would like to show that a causal transform of the form

$$G(\omega )=_0^{\mathrm{}}g(\tau )e^{i\omega \tau }𝑑\tau \text{ ( }g(\tau )=0\text{ when }\tau <0\text{ )}$$
(42)
which is square integrable along the real axis is square integrable along any line parallel to the real axis in the upper half of the complex plane, $`I_+`$. This condition further implies that

$$\underset{x\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}G(x+iy)=0\text{ }(y0)$$
(43)
The following mathematical appendix is a summary from Titchmarsh’s book , Theorem’s 93 with Lemma and Theorem 95 which is related. These arguments can also be found in the book by Nussenzveig , page 22.

Consider the analytic continuation of $`G(\omega )`$ into $`I_+`$. Let $`\nu =x+iy`$ and let $`\omega =x_0+iy_0`$ and consider the following Cauchy integral,

$$G(\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{G(\nu )d\nu }{\nu \omega }$$
(44)
We take the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be a rectangle with corners at $`\pm R`$ and $`\pm R+iS`$, where both $`R`$ and $`S`$ shall tend to infinity. As we shall show, the integrals of the vertical sides of the contour are both positive and finite and do not cancel out. They must therefore both be zero. The magnitude of the line integral along the right hand side of the contour is given by,

$`\left|{\displaystyle _0^S}{\displaystyle \frac{G(R+iy)dy}{R+iyx_0iy_0}}\right|`$ $``$ $`\underset{0yS}{\mathrm{max}}|G(R+iy)|{\displaystyle _0^S}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{\left[(Rx_0)^2+(yy_0)^2\right]^{1/2}}}`$
$``$ $`\underset{0yS}{\mathrm{max}}|G(R+iy)|\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(Sy_0)+\left[(Rx_0)^2+(Sy_0)^2\right]^{1/2}}{\left[(Rx_0)^2+y_0^2\right]^{1/2}y_0}}\right|`$
As $`R\mathrm{}`$ and $`S\mathrm{}`$ this implies that

$$\underset{0yS}{\mathrm{max}}|G(R+iy)|0$$
(46)
since the natural log term tends to $`\mathrm{ln}(1+\sqrt{2})`$ as both $`R`$ and $`S`$ tend to infinity. Similarly the magnitude of the integral on the left hand side of the contour is,

$`\left|{\displaystyle _0^S}{\displaystyle \frac{G(R+iy)dy}{R+iyx_0iy_0}}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _0^S}{\displaystyle \frac{G(R+iy)dy}{(R+x_0)i(yy_0)}}\right|`$
$``$ $`\underset{0yS}{\mathrm{max}}|G(R+iy)|{\displaystyle _0^S}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{\left[(R+x_0)^2+(yy_0)^2\right]^{1/2}}}`$
$``$ $`\underset{0yS}{\mathrm{max}}|G(R+iy)|\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(Sy_0)+\left[(R+x_0)^2+(Sy_0)^2\right]^{1/2}}{\left[(R+x_0)^2+y_0^2\right]^{1/2}y_0}}\right|`$
The natural log has the same limit as above in the case when $`R`$ and $`S\mathrm{}`$. This leads to the same result as Eq.(46), now written for the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$. Hence,

$$\underset{R\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}|G(R+iy)|0\text{ (}y0\text{}$$
(48)
What remains of the contour integral are the bottom and top line integrals which can be written, for $`R\mathrm{}`$, as;

$$G(\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\left[_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{G(x)dx}{xx_0iy_0}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{G(x+iS)dx}{x+iSx_0iy_0}\right].$$
(49)
According to Schwarz’s inequality,

$`\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G(x+iS)dx}{x+iSx_0iy_0}}\right|^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}|G(x+iS)|^2𝑑x{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{(xx_0)^2+(yy_0)^2}}`$ (50)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi K}{Sy_0}}`$
where we have used Titchmarsh’s theorem, condition (ii) in the last step. As $`S\mathrm{}`$ we see that the above expression tends to zero. Hence,

$$G(\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{G(\nu )d\nu }{\nu \omega }\text{ (Im }\omega 0\text{)}$$
(51)
which expresses the value of $`G(\omega )`$ at any point in the upper half of the complex plane in terms of values on the real axis.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the members of T4 theoretical division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, for their support during a difference–in–pay leave from California State University Fullerton, during which time this work was completed. In particular I would like to thank Dr Peter Milonni who suggested the problem and for helpful discussions and Dr. Daniel James for financial support during my leave. An extended version of this work has been written by Mr. Robert H. Gibb for his Masters thesis at CSUF physics department August 2003.


format: text

text:
# Acknowledgment

## Acknowledgment

I thank my collaborators Cyrille Barbot, Francis Halzen and Dan Hooper for the collaborations that allowed me to attend this interesting workshop. This work was supported by the SFB 375 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


text:
# The structure of the NGC 1333-IRAS2 protostellar system on 500 AU scales

## 1 Introduction

Our understanding of the cloud cores that form stars has benefited significantly from the advent over the last years of (sub)millimeter-continuum bolometer cameras. Sensitive, spatially resolved measurements have allowed quantitative testing of models of starless/pre-stellar cores and envelopes around young stars (e.g. Shirley et al., 2000, 2002; Hogerheijde & Sandell, 2000; Motte & André, 2001; Jørgensen et al., 2002; Schöier et al., 2002; Belloche et al., 2002). Not only do these models sketch the evolution of the matter distribution during star formation, they also can serve as ‘baselines’ for interpreting higher resolution observations obtained with millimeter interferometry. Such data address the presence and properties of circumstellar disks during the early, embedded phase (e.g. Hogerheijde et al., 1998, 1999; Looney et al., 2000). This Paper presents millimeter aperture-synthesis observations of continuum and line emission of the young protobinary system NGC~1333-IRAS2, and uses modeling results based on single-dish submillimeter continuum imaging from Jørgensen et al. (2002; Paper I hereafter) to interpret the data in terms of a collapsing envelope, a disk, and (multiple) outflows on 500 AU scales.

The deeply embedded (‘class 0’; Lada, 1987; André et al., 1993) young stellar system NGC~1333-IRAS2 (IRAS 03258+3104; hereafter IRAS2) has been the subject of several detailed studies. It is located in the NGC~1333 molecular cloud, well known for harboring several class 0 and I objects, and was first identified from IRAS data by Jennings et al. (1987). Quoted distances to NGC~1333 range from 220 pc (Černis, 1990) to 350 pc (Herbig & Jones, 1983); here we adopt 220 pc in accordance with Paper I. At this distance the bolometric luminosity of IRAS2 is $`16L_{}`$. Submillimeter-continuum imaging (Sandell & Knee, 2001, and Fig. 1 below) and high-resolution millimeter interferometry (Blake, 1996; Looney et al., 2000) have shown that IRAS2 consists of at least three components: two young stellar sources 2A and, 30″ to the south-east, 2B; and one starless condensation 2C, 30″ north-west of 2A. The sources 2A and 2B are also detected at cm wavelengths (Rodríguez et al., 1999; Reipurth et al., 2002).

Maps of CO emission of the IRAS2 region show two outflows, directed north-south and east-west (Liseau et al., 1988; Sandell et al., 1994; Knee & Sandell, 2000; Engargiola & Plambeck, 1999). Both flows appear to originate to within a few arcseconds from 2A (Engargiola & Plambeck, 1999), indicating this source is a binary itself although it has not been resolved so-far. The different dynamical time scales of both flows suggests different evolutionary stages for the binary members, which lead Knee & Sandell (2000) to instead propose 2C (30″ from 2A) as driving source of the north-south flow. It is unclear how well dynamic time scales can be estimated for outflows that propagate through dense and inhomogeneous clouds such as NGC~1333. Single-dish CS and HCO+ maps also show contributions by the outflow, especially for CS (Ward-Thompson & Buckley, 2001). The north-south outflow may connect to an observed gradient in centroid velocities near 2A, but the authors cannot rule out rotation in an envelope perpendicular to the east-west flow.

Paper I determined the physical properties of the IRAS2 envelope using one-dimensional radiative transfer modeling of Submillimeter Common User Bolometer Array (SCUBA) maps and the long-wavelength spectral energy distribution (SED). Assuming a single radial power-law density distribution, $`\rho r^p`$, an index $`p=1.8`$ and a mass of 1.7 $`M_{}`$ within 12,000 AU was found (see Table 1 and Fig. 1). Monte-Carlo modeling of the molecular excitation and line formation of C18O and C17O observations yield a CO abundance of $`2.6\times 10^5`$ with respect to H2, a factor 4-10 lower than what is found in local dark clouds (e.g. Frerking et al., 1982; Lacy et al., 1994).

This Paper presents $`\lambda =3`$ mm interferometric observations of IRAS2 in a range of molecular emission lines probing dense gas and continuum emission tracing cold dust. It builds on the modeling of Paper I by using it as a framework to interpret the small-scale structure revealed by the aperture-synthesis data. Section 2 describes the observations and reduction methods. Section 3 analyzes the continuum emission, and compares it to the previously derived models. Section 4 presents the molecular-line maps and discusses the physical and chemical properties of the gas in the proximity of IRAS2. Section 5 reports a pronounced north-south velocity gradient around IRAS2A and explores rotation or outflow as possible explanations. Section 6 concludes the Paper by summarizing the main findings. A companion paper (Jørgensen et al., 2003a) presents a detailed study of the bow shock at the tip of the east-west jet from IRAS2 based on single-dish and interferometric (sub)millimeter observations.

## 2 Observations

### 2.1 Interferometer data

IRAS2 ($`\alpha (2000)=03^\mathrm{h}28^\mathrm{m}56\stackrel{s}{.}29`$; $`\delta (2000)=31^{}14\mathrm{}33\stackrel{}{.}93`$) was observed with the Millimeter Array of the Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO)111The Owens Valley Millimeter Array is operated by the California Institute of Technology under funding from the US National Science Foundation. between October 5, 1994 and January 1, 1995 in the six-antenna L- and H-configurations. Tracks were obtained in two frequency settings at 86 and 97 GHz, and each track observed alternatingly two fields: the source positions discussed in this Paper and the bow shock at the end of the eastern jet (Jørgensen et al., 2003a). The observed tracks cover projected baselines of 3.1-70 k$`\lambda `$ at 86 GHz. The observed lines are listed in Table 2, and were recorded in spectral bands with widths of 32 MHz ($`100`$ km s-1). H13CO+ $`10`$ and CS $`21`$ were observed in 128 spectral channels and the remaining lines in 64 spectral channels. The complex gain variations were calibrated by observing the nearby quasars 0234+285 and 3C84 approximately every 20 minutes. Fluxes were calibrated by observations of Uranus and Neptune. Calibration and flagging of visbilities with clearly deviating amplitudes and/or phases was performed with the MMA reduction package (Scoville et al., 1993).

The millimeter interferometer of the Berkeley-Illinois-Maryland Association (BIMA)222The BIMA array is operated by the Universities of California (Berkeley), Illinois, and Maryland, with support from the National Science Foundation. observed IRAS2 on November 4-5, 2000, and January 20-21, February 20, and June 5-6, 2001. The array B-, C-, and D-configurations provided projected baselines of 1.7–68 k$`\lambda `$. The lines of HCO+ $`J`$=1–0, HCN 1–0, N2H+ 1–0, and C34S 2–1 were recorded in 256-channel spectral bands with a total width of 6.25 MHz ($`20`$ km s-1). The complex gain of the interferometer was calibrated by observing the bright quasars 3C84 (4.2 Jy) and 0237+288 (2.3 Jy) approximately every 20 minutes. The absolute flux scale was bootstrapped from observations of Uranus. The rms noise levels are 0.14 Jy beam-1 in the 24 kHz channels, with a synthesized beam size of $`8.2^{\prime \prime }\times 7.5^{\prime \prime }`$ FWHM. The data were calibrated with routines from the MIRIAD software package (Sault et al., 1995).

In the reduction, data points with clearly deviating phases or amplitudes were flagged. The maps were cleaned down to 3 times the rms noise using the MIRIAD ‘clean’ routine. The strong continuum of the two central point sources allowed self-calibration, which was applied and used to correct the spectral line data. The naturally weighted continuum observations typically had rms noise better than 1$`\times 10^3`$ Jy beam-1 with half power beam widths (HPBW) of $``$ 3″ for the OVRO observations and $``$ 8″ for the BIMA data (see Table 3). Table 2 lists the details of the line observations.

### 2.2 Single-dish data

Using the Onsala 20 m telescope (OSO)333The Onsala 20 m telescope is operated by the Swedish National Facility for Radio Astronomy, Onsala Space Observatory at Chalmers University of Technology. a number of molecules were observed towards IRAS2A in March 2002. These are listed in Table 2. We also include line data from Jørgensen et al. (2002, 2003b) obtained with the IRAM 30m444The IRAM 30 m telescope is operated by the Institut de Radio Astronomie Millimétrique, which is supported by the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (France), the Max Planck Gesellschaft (Germany) and the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (Spain). and James Clerk Maxwell (JCMT)555The JCMT is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre in Hilo, Hawaii on behalf of the parent organizations PPARC in the United Kingdom, the National Research Council of Canada and The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research telescopes, and spectra taken from the JCMT archive666The JCMT archive at the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre is operated by the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory for the National Research Council of Canada’s Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics.. The lines were converted to the main beam antenna temperature scales using the appropriate efficiencies, and low-order polynomial baselines were fitted and subtracted.

## 3 The continuum emission

The 3 mm continuum images clearly show the two components 2A at ($`9^{\prime \prime }`$, $`+3^{\prime \prime }`$) and 2B at ($`+14^{\prime \prime }`$, $`18^{\prime \prime }`$) (Fig. 2). Table 3 lists the results of fits of two circular Gaussians to the visibility data. Consistent with Looney et al. (2000), 2A is the stronger of the two. Differences in detected fluxes between the OVRO and BIMA data sets indicate that the emission is extended, and varying amounts are picked up by the respective $`(u,v)`$ coverages of the arrays. Emission from the third source 2C, north-west of 2A, is not detected, supporting the suggestion that it has not yet formed a star and lacks a strong central concentration.

### 3.1 A model for the continuum emission

The different detected fluxes from OVRO and BIMA in Table 3 and comparison of the interferometer images of Fig. 2 and the SCUBA images of Fig. 1 clearly show that the arrays have resolved out significant amounts of extended emission because of their limited $`(u,v)`$ coverage. The envelope model (density, temperature, dust emissivity as function of wavelength) by Paper I predicts sky-brightness distributions at 3 mm, and fluxes in the interferometer beams after sampling at the actual $`(u,v)`$ positions and subtracting the contribution from 2B. This latter subtraction of the Gaussian fit to 2B only affects the results minimally, indicating that 2B is well separated from and much weaker than 2A. Fig. 3 compares the predicted flux as function of projected baseline length with the data. In addition to the model envelopes, we have included as free parameter the flux of an unresolved point source ($`<3\mathrm{}`$). Because a point source contributes equally on all baselines, this addition corresponds to a vertical offset of the model curve in the plots. Such offsets are apparent in both OVRO and BIMA data, and a point source flux of 22 mJy at 3 mm provides an adequate fit to the data when added to the model envelopes.

The inferred point source flux is consistent with Looney et al. (2003), who find a 20 mJy source at 2.7 mm associated with IRAS2A. For reasonable assumptions about the spectral index of the point source ($`\alpha `$=2–4 if thermal) this component does not contribute significantly to the flux in the much larger SCUBA beams, and therefore does not invalidate the SCUBA-based envelope models. The thermal nature of the point source is supported by detection of 2A at a flux of 0.22 mJy at 3.6 cm and a resolution of 0.3″ with the VLA (Reipurth et al., 2002). This yields a spectral index of 1.9 between 3.6 cm and 3.3 mm, consistent with optically thick thermal emission. A similar conclusion was reached by Rodríguez et al. (1999) based on the spectral index from VLA observations of IRAS2A at 3.6 and 6 cm.

Assuming that the point source emission is optically thin and thermal, the inferred flux of 22 mJy corresponds to a dust mass of $`3.3\times 10^3`$ $`M_{}`$ if we adopt an average temperature of 30 K and a emissivity per unit (dust) mass at 3.5 mm of $`\kappa =0.24`$ cm2 g-1 from extrapolation of the opacities by Ossenkopf & Henning (1994) for grains with thin ice mantles as was assumed in the envelope models in Paper I. With a standard gas-to-dust ratio of 100, the total mass is 0.33 $`M_{}`$. If the emission is optically thick as the spectral index indicates, this is in fact a lower limit to the mass. The favored explanation for this compact mass distribution is a circumstellar disk.

### 3.2 Parameter dependency of the continuum model

To test the validity of the envelope model a number of parameters were varied within the constraints set by the modeling of the SCUBA observations (Fig. 4). The uncertainty in the power-law index from the SCUBA model of Paper I is $`\pm 0.2`$. Over this range of density slopes we find central point source fluxes of $`22\pm 4`$ mJy, with a clear degeneracy between the slope of the density profile and the flux of the central point source. This is similar to what Harvey et al. (2003) find in a detailed analysis of high-resolution millimeter continuum observations of the class 0 object B335. Both BIMA and OVRO data sets are fitted well within the uncertainties using the density profile slope from the SCUBA data, although the actual best fit model to the OVRO data has a slightly steeper density slope ($`p=1.9`$) and a lower point source flux. The interferometry data cannot constrain the slope of the density profile further than its uncertainty from the SCUBA model. So although the data can be fitted with a single power-law density envelope from the scales probed by the SCUBA observations down to the scales probed by the interferometry observations, a steepening or flattening of the density profile at small scales cannot be ruled out.

Harvey et al. (2003) find that the uncertainty in the central point source flux dominates over uncertainties in other model parameters such as external heating by the interstellar radiation field (ISRF), wavelength dependence of the dust emissivity, outer radius of the envelope, and deviations from spherical symmetry (e.g., an evacuated outflow cavity). Because our interferometer data only sample the inner regions, they are not sensitive to variations in the outer radius or inclusion of heating by the ISRF. The latter hardly affects the temperature structure because the source is relatively luminous and dominates the heating as is seen in Fig. 5.

In similar studies to that presented in Paper I, Shirley et al. (2002) and Young et al. (2003) modeled the SEDs and brightness profiles from SCUBA observations of protostellar sources using 1D radiative transfer, assuming power-law density profiles and solving for the temperature structure. Two differences exist, however, in the approaches taken in these two papers and our Paper I: Shirley et al. and Young et al. included contributions to the heating of the envelope by the external interstellar radiation field and adopted outer envelope radii significantly larger than those set by the 10 K boundary used in Paper I. For the sources common to the two samples, Shirley et al. found on average steeper density profiles than ours for the class 0 objects whereas Young et al. found similar density profiles to ours for the class I objects. Young et al. suggested that the disagreement for the class 0 objects and agreement for the class I objects was due to a combination of neglect of the ISRF and an underestimate of the sizes of the envelopes in Paper I: while inclusion of the ISRF will indeed tend to steepen the derived density profile, an overestimate of the outer radius (by factors of 2 or more) will tend to flatten the derived profile. As illustrated above, however, these parameters have negligible impact on the IRAS2 envelope structure. It is therefore interesting to note the agreement in slope between the interferometer and SCUBA continuum observations, in contrast to the discussion of B335 by Harvey et al. (2003). Comparing to the results of Shirley et al. (2002), Harvey et al. found a slightly flatter density profile when modeling the interferometer observations. While uncertainty in the outer radius and ISRF may lead to only small departures for the interferometry data, it can lead to systematic changes in the slope of derived power-law density profile from the SCUBA observations of $`0.2`$. This could explain the differences between the density profiles from the interferometry and SCUBA data for B335.

Our envelope model is entirely based on SCUBA data, and the interferometer fluxes serve only to constrain any point source flux. The robustness of that constraint depends on the assumption that the envelope model can be extrapolated down to scales much smaller than the SCUBA resolution (4″= 900 AU). In Paper I the inner radius is fixed at a temperature of 250 K which occurs at $`R=22`$ AU, but it was argued that this is not determined by the data. The size of any inner cavity is expected to affect the interferometer data since these sample small scales: a larger adopted cavity would result in a higher inferred point source flux to compensate for the reduced small-scale emission. Fig. 6 plots this ‘required’ point source flux against inner cavity size. The point source flux increases from 22 mJy for cavities $`<25`$ AU to $`27`$ mJy for cavities $`200`$ AU (1″). The interferometer data would resolve cavities larger than this and a point source could no longer compensate for the removed emission.

Turning this reasoning around, the inferred point source could be due to an increase in envelope density on small scales, as opposed to a circumstellar disk in an envelope cavity. Assuming a temperature of 150 K appropriate for the envelope scales unresolved by the interferometers instead of the 30 K assumed for the disk, one derives a mass of 0.06 $`M_{}`$. For comparison the mass of the single power-law density model within 150 AU is only 0.008 $`M_{}`$. So to explain the detected flux an increase in density by almost an order of magnitude is needed, which seems unlikely.

The model from Paper I assumes that the envelope is heated by a stellar blackbody of 5000 K at the center. If, as is argued above, the star is surrounded by a disk that reprocesses a significant fraction of the stellar light, the input spectrum shifts to longer wavelengths. To investigate the effect on the envelope’s temperature structure, Fig. 7 compares the SEDs of the original model and a model where the central star is surrounded by a 200 AU outer radius, 0.33 $`M_{}`$ disk. The disk follows the descriptions of Chiang & Goldreich (1997) and Dullemond et al. (2001), and the envelope’s inner cavity has been increased to 200 AU in radius so that it encompasses the disk. As a result, the temperature at the inner edge of the envelope drops from the original 250 K (at 22 AU) to 75 K (at 200 AU). The radiative transfer code DUSTY produces the envelope’s temperature distribution and emergent SED using the star+disk spectrum as heating input, similar to the calculations of Paper I for the star-only spectrum. The comparison in Fig. 7 shows that the SEDs between 60 $`\mu `$m and 1.3 mm are unchanged. Our derived envelope parameters are therefore unaffected by the exact form of the input spectrum. The departures grow larger at the shorter wavelengths (2–20 $`\mu `$m) and may be observable with, e.g., SIRTF. It is not surprising that the SEDs are most different at these wavelengths. Flared disk models such as those of Chiang & Goldreich (1997) are specifically invoked to explain so-called ‘flat-spectrum’ sources. Their superheated surface layers ‘flatten’ the SED of these star+disk systems by boosting the 2–20 $`\mu `$m emission. It is not obvious that such a description of the disk is valid for early, deeply embedded objects, such as IRAS2A. Still, the important point here is that the influence of the disk on the observed SED is likely to be negligible at the wavelengths where the envelope model is constrained.

### 3.3 A collapse model for the continuum emission

As demonstrated by Hogerheijde & Sandell (2000), Shirley et al. (2002), and Schöier et al. (2002) models other than a density power law can also fit continuum observations, in particular the inside-out collapse model of Shu (1977). These authors conclude that a collapse model can provide an equally good fit as power-law models, with the caveat by Shirley et al. (2002) that collapse models only fit their class 0 objects for sufficiently low ages where this model is well approximated by a single power law on the scales resolved by SCUBA. Schöier et al. (2002) and Shirley et al. (2002) find that continuum and line data sets sometimes give discrepant collapse model fits to the same sources, with line data favoring higher ages than continuum data.

Fitting the Shu (1977) inside-out collapse model to the SCUBA data for IRAS2 gives best fit values of $`a=0.3`$ km s-1 and $`t=1.7\times 10^4`$ years (see Fig. 8) with the quality of the fits essentially identical to those of the single power-law models. This collapse model also fits the BIMA and OVRO data if a point source of 25 mJy is introduced.

The integrated CS and C34S line intensities were fitted independently with the collapse model using detailed radiative transfer as in Schöier et al. (2002) for a constant fractional abundance with radius. The uncertainties in the line fluxes are assumed to be 20% and for each model the $`\chi ^2`$-estimator is used to pick out the best model and estimate confidence levels for the derived parameters. Interestingly, the fits to the CS and C34S lines (Fig. 9) give identical parameters to those derived from the dust modeling, in contrast with the other sources (e.g. Shirley et al., 2002; Schöier et al., 2002).

The identical fits to the line intensities and continuum observations and success of both collapse and power-law density models illustrates the low age inferred for IRAS2: the collapse expansion radius in the inside-out collapse model is for the envelope parameters located at $`4\mathrm{}`$ and therefore not directly probed by the SCUBA continuum maps. Likewise the CS lines predominantly probe the outer regions of the envelopes where the density profile in the collapse model for the low age of IRAS2 essentially is a power-law. This also explains why a slightly higher point source flux is obtained with the collapse model than the power-law density model: inside the collapse expansion radius the density profile flattens in the collapse model, lowering the mass and thereby the flux towards the unresolved center of the envelope. This is compensated by increasing the point source flux when modeling the interferometer observations.

In summary, the interferometer continuum data are well described by the same 1.7 $`M_{}`$ envelope models that fit the SCUBA data. Power-law descriptions for the density and inside-out collapse model fit the data equally well. They indicate the presence of a $`F_{3\mathrm{mm}}`$ 22 mJy point source, presumably a $``$ 0.33 $`M_{}`$ circumstellar disk. Uncertainties associated with the envelope model are reflected in the accuracy of the point source flux, which may vary by up to 25% from the quoted value. The next section describes the line emission in this context.

## 4 Line emission

### 4.1 Morphology

Fig. 10-11 shows the integrated intensity maps of all lines detected with BIMA (HCN, HCO+, N2H+, C34S) and OVRO (CS, H13CO+, SO, and CH3OH). Velocity centroid images are shown for CS, HCN and HCO+ in Fig. 12. Emission of SiO and SO2 was not detected toward the source position. The images from BIMA show more extended structure than those from OVRO because of the different $`(u,v)`$ coverage of the two arrays. All detected lines have a peak near the object 2A, and most show a peak near 2B. The non-detections of SO and CH3OH near 2B are likely due to limited sensitivity given the low signal-to-noise of these lines toward 2A. Only the non-detection of N2H+ toward 2B is highly significant: emission in this line appears to avoid 2B. The extended emission picked up by BIMA shows three components. A roughly north-south ridge seen in HCN, HCO+, and N2H+; emission along the east-west outflow in HCO+ and, at the tip of the eastern jet at the edge of the image, in HCN; and an extended peak in N2H+ around the continuum position 2C. Interestingly, N2H+ also seems to avoid the east-west outflow and appears almost anti-correlated with HCO+.

The intensity ratio of 1.5:2.7:4.7 of the N2H+ hyperfine lines suggest that the emission is optically thin and close to LTE, where the ratio would be 1:3:5. Relative to the 450 $`\mu `$m emission from SCUBA that traces cool dust, the N2H+ emission is strongest around 2C, lower around 2A, and absent toward 2B as illustrated in Fig. 13. In a study of dark cloud cores, Bergin et al. (2001, 2002) find that N2H+ has a large abundance deep inside the clouds and a lower abundance in the exterior regions. This trend is opposite to that of CO, which is often highly depleted deep inside cores. Bergin et al. argue that N2H+ is effectively destroyed through reactions with CO, and therefore is only present at high abundance where CO is depleted. This scenario can also explain the relative distribution of N2H+ in 2C, 2A, and 2B: in the starless core 2C temperatures are low and CO is highly depleted, resulting in strong N2H+ emission; in 2A the star has already heated the material and some CO has been released, reducing the N2H+ abundance and emission; the evolved core 2B has been thoroughly heated by the star, and most N2H+ has been effectively destroyed by the released CO. This hints at triggered star formation with the sources lining up from southeast to northwest in evolutionary order, with 2B older than 2A, and 2A older than 2C.

Several molecules only show emission in a very narrow velocity range around the systemic velocity of the cloud of $`8`$ km s-1: H13CO+, SO, CH3OH, N2H+, and C34S. Others show pronounced gradients in a north-south direction within $``$ 20″ from IRAS2A (HCN, HCO+, CS) and along the east-west outflow (most clearly in HCO+). Whether the north-south gradient around 2A is rotation in a circumstellar envelope or is related to the north-south outflow seen on larger scales is addressed in Section 5. To asses the amount of recovered flux as function of velocity, Fig. 14 compares single-dish spectra with interferometer spectra averaged over the single-dish beam size and converted to the antenna-temperature intensity scale. The interferometer recovers at most 17% of the emission, and much less in many cases. Apart from a scaling factor, the line shapes of C34S, N2H+, and H13CO+ are similar in the interferometer and single-dish spectra, implying that although the interferometers picked up only the more compact emitting structures, only small velocity gradients can be present within the envelope itself. Deep self-absorption apparent in HCO+, HCN, and CS near the systemic velocity indicates that surrounding cloud material is optically thick and entirely resolved out. The velocity structure seen in these lines therefore only reflects material at relatively extreme red- and blue-shifts.

### 4.2 Envelope contributions to the line emission

The available envelope model can help explain the interferometric line data, by separating the expected emission of the envelope from other components. We adopt the power-law envelope model of Sect. 3, and fix the molecular abundances from fitting the integrated intensities of single-dish observations of optically thin isotopes. Table 4 lists the derived abundances. Jørgensen et al. (2003b) discuss this method in greater detail and compare the results for a larger sample. With these abundances, the molecular excitation is solved using the code of Hogerheijde & van der Tak (2000) and the emergent sky-brightness distribution calculated. For comparison with the interferometer data the sky-brightness distribution was sampled at the $`(u,v)`$ positions of the data. The resulting visibilities were then inverted, cleaned, and restored in a similar way as the data.

Fig. 15 compares the observed and modeled line emission for C34S. The upper panel shows a comparison between the model and the single-dish observations (upper spectrum) and the interferometry data convolved with the single-dish beam (lower spectrum). In the lower panel the visibilities are plotted as a function of projected baseline length. Both comparisons show that the model works very well in describing the interferometry and single-dish line observations simultaneously and reproduces the emission distribution at the observed scales. This has two implications. First, that optically thin species such as C34S trace material in the envelope and are well described by the model derived from the continuum observations. Second, for species such as C34S the chemistry is homogeneous at the observed radial scales in the envelope, so that a constant fractional abundance is sufficient to describe the chemistry within the assumptions and uncertainties in the modeling.

For H13CO+ the situation is a bit more complex. The modeling of the single-dish lines reveal a picture similar to that of the CO isotopic species in Paper I; while a constant fractional abundance can describe the line intensities of higher $`J`$ lines, the intensity of the $`J=10`$ line is underestimated by the model. In Paper I it was suggested that this was due to ambient cloud material being picked up by the larger single-dish beam. The same problem may be an issue for H13CO+. Fitting the H13CO+ $`J=10`$ single-dish line alone gives an abundance of 8.0$`\times 10^{11}`$. With this abundance, the model can describe the intensity of a spectrum convolved with a beam equivalent to the single-dish observations as illustrated in the upper panel of Fig. 16. The model, however, cannot fit the line profiles simultaneously for the single-dish and interferometry spectra when a constant turbulent broadening is adopted. This is likely caused by the larger single-dish beam picking up the more extended cloud where the velocity distribution may be different. We emphasize, however, that this is a significantly smaller effect than what is seen for, e.g., CS, HCN and HCO+ (Fig. 14). It is also seen that the model cannot describe the emission on smaller scales when plotting the visibilities vs. projected baseline length, as illustrated in the lower panel of Fig. 16. If the lower H13CO+ abundance found from fitting the higher $`J`$ lines is adopted, the model perfectly reproduces the observed H13CO+ emission distribution. This discrepancy suggests that the single-dish beam of 44″ picks up the ambient cloud and the envelope around IRAS2B as it also is seen in the H13CO+ 1–0 interferometry maps. This will contribute to the spectrum extracted from the interferometry cube when convolved with the single-dish beam (e.g. the upper panel of Fig. 16). The good fit to the visibility curve in the lower panel of Fig. 16 indicates that the abundance constrained by the higher excitation single-dish line observations of H13CO+ is representative of the actual envelope abundance.

It is not possible to account for the observed CS, HCN and HCO+ emission within the envelope models. As can be seen in Fig. 17, the CS line intensity is, for example reproduced only at intermediate baselines where also the single-dish line observations are sensitive. On longer baselines the model clearly breaks down and underestimates the observed emission. It is also evident that the pronounced double peak structure seen in interferometry spectra cannot be explained with a simple collapse model alone. This problem will be further explored in the next section.

## 5 Velocity structure beyond the envelope

Fig. 18 shows position-velocity diagrams of HCO+, HCN, and CS along the north-south velocity gradient apparent in the material within $`20`$″ from IRAS2A as seen in Fig. 10-12. The previous section found that the velocity structure in these lines could not be explained by the envelope model with infall. Fitting a linear gradient to the velocity centroid at each offset yields values as given in Table 5 for the three species. It is seen that the fitted velocity gradients agree well and correspond to a weighted average of $`1.10\pm 0.23`$ km s-1 arcsec-1. This gradient may be an overestimate of the actual gradient, because the interferometer predominantly recovers extreme velocities due to resolving out. On the other hand, velocity gradients inferred from single dish observations only are biased toward velocities closer to the rest velocity of the cloud due to the larger beam.

The inferred north-south velocity gradient of 1.10 km s-1 arcsec-1, or 1.03$`\times 10^3`$ km s-1 pc-1, is two orders of magnitude larger than that inferred by Ward-Thompson & Buckley (2001) from single-dish CS and HCO+ observations. This increase in velocity gradient from the spatial scales of the single-dish to the interferometer data is too large to be explained by differential rotation in either a Keplerian structure (expected increase of a factor $`\sqrt{10}`$) or a magnetically braked core (Basu, 1998) (expected increase of a factor 10). Even if the gradients on single-dish and interferometer scales are unrelated, Keplerian rotation cannot explain our observed velocities since it requires an unrealistically large central mass of 31 $`M_{}`$.

An alternative explanation for the north-south velocity gradient around IRAS2A is that it is part of the north-south outflow detected on larger scales in CO (Liseau et al., 1988; Engargiola & Plambeck, 1999; Knee & Sandell, 2000). Engargiola & Plambeck (1999) concluded that the origin of this flow lies within a few arcsec from 2A, while Hodapp & Ladd (1995) infer a north-south jet that passes within a few arcsec from 2A from H2 images. Neither this Paper nor Looney et al. (2000) find evidence for continuum emission from a second source, although it could be below the detection limit or be unresolved ($`<0.3\mathrm{}=65`$ AU). The different levels to which HCO+, HCN, and CS trace the east-west and north-south flows may reflect differences in shock chemistry as the flows progress through the inhomogeneous cloud environment of IRAS2. This also serves as caution in interpreting differences in the spatial extent of, e.g., CO line wing emission as differences in ‘dynamic time scales’; this presupposes similar environments in which the flows propagate.

Instead of two perpendicular outflows, a single, wide-angle ($`90^{}`$), northwest–southeast flow could also explain the observed gradients. In this interpretation, what appear to be two independent flows actually trace the interaction of the wide-angle flow with the surrounding material along the sides of the cavity. This scenario is reminiscent of the wide-angle outflow of B5-IRS1 (Velusamy & Langer, 1998). However, in this scenario the jet-like morphology of the shocked region east of IRAS2 (Blake, 1996; Bachiller et al., 1998; Jørgensen et al., 2003a) is difficult to explain.

## 6 Conclusion

This Paper has shown that the envelope model derived from submillimeter continuum imaging with SCUBA provides a useful framework to interpret interferometric measurements of continuum and line emission. It allows separation of small-scale structures associated with the envelope from small-scale structure in additional elements of the protostellar environment, such as outflows and disks. Our main findings are as follows.

1. Compact 3 mm continuum emission is associated with the two protostellar sources NGC 1333-IRAS2A and 2B; the starless core 2C is not detected, indicating it lacks sufficient central concentration.
2. The 3 mm continuum emission around 2A in the interferometer data is consistent with the extrapolation of the envelope density and temperature distribution to small scales. Changes in the extent of the envelope and inclusion of the interstellar radiation field do not change this conclusion. A density structure as predicted from an inside-out collapse (Shu, 1977) fits the data equally well.
3. The 3 mm continuum data show the presence of a 22 mJy unresolved source, presumably a circumstellar disk of total mass $`0.3`$ $`M_{}`$.
4. Line emission in the optically thin tracers H13CO+ and C34S is also consistent with the extrapolated envelope model. Since these tracers are optically thin, this suggest that the bulk of the material is well described by the envelope model.
5. Optically thick emission lines of CS, HCO+, and HCN only trace a small fraction of the material at velocities red- and blue-shifted by several km s-1. Emission closer to systemic is obscured by resolved-out large-scale material. The detected emission is closely associated with two perpendicular outflows directed east-west and north-south. This suggests that the source 2A is an unresolved ($`<65`$ AU) binary.
6. The morphology of the line emission in the maps shows that chemical effects are present. An example is the emission of N2H+ that traces cold material around 2A and that is especially strong toward the starless core 2C. The emission avoids the region around 2B and the outflows. We suggest that the dearth of N2H+ emission is due to destruction through reaction with CO released from ice mantles in warmed-up regions. This indicates an evolutionary ordering 2C–2A–2B, in order of increasing thermal processing of the material.

This work suggests that successful interpretation of the small-scale structure around embedded protostars requires a solid framework for the structure of the surrounding envelope on larger scales. In this framework one can effectively fill in the larger-scale emission that is resolved out by interferometer observations. The submillimeter-continuum imaging by instruments like SCUBA has proved particularly powerful because it does not suffer from chemical effects that make line emission measurements so complex. On the other hand, this very chemistry reflects which physical processes are occurring: e.g., the N2H+ emission that shows the thermal history of the material.

The success of the envelope model in describing the optically thin species, such as C34S and H13CO+ makes IRAS2 a promising candidate in order to study the relation between the envelope chemistry and the spatial distribution of molecular species. In particular, studies of a larger sample of optically thin molecular lines at arcsecond scale resolution may probe differences in the radial distributions of molecules reflecting the chemistry. IRAS2A is for this purpose a promising target due to the relative simplicity of the central envelope component. High angular resolution, high sensitivity maps may also allow for a more detailed comparison to models for the protostellar collapse in order to possibly address the evolution of low-mass protostars in the earliest stages.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank Kees Dullemond for use of the CGPLUS program and discussions of disk models. The research of JKJ is funded by the Netherlands Research School for Astronomy (NOVA) through a network 2 Ph.D. stipend and research in astrochemistry in Leiden is supported by a Spinoza grant. This paper made use of data from a range of telescopes among them the Owens Valley Radio Observatory and Berkeley-Illinois-Maryland-Association millimeter arrays, Onsala Space Observatory 20 m telescope and the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope. The authors are grateful to the staff at all these facilities and their host institutions for technical support, discussions, and hospitality during numerous visits.


text:
# Angular Dependence of Switching Properties in Single Fe Nanopillars

Also at\] CSIT, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA

## Abstract

The continued increase in areal densities in magnetic recording makes it crucial to understand magnetization reversal in nanoparticles. We present finite-temperature micromagnetic simulations of hysteresis in Fe nanopillars with the long axis tilted at angles from 0 degrees to 90 degrees to the applied sinusoidal field. The field period is 15 ns, and the particle size is $`9\times 9\times 150`$ nm. The system is discretized into a rectangular pillar of $`7\times 7\times 101`$ spins each with uniform magnetization. At low angles, reversal begins at the endcaps and proceeds toward the center of the particle. At ninety degrees, reversal proceeds along the entire length of the particle (save at the ends). The switching field was observed to increase over the entire range of angles, consistent with recent experimental observations. A second, lower-resolution micromagnetic simulation with $`1\times 1\times 17`$ spins, does not agree with experiment, but shows behavior very similar to that of the Stoner-Wohlfarth model of coherent rotation.

Hysteresis, Micromagnetics

Hysteresis in magnetic particles has been studied for nearly a century. However, the increasing areal densities currently being pursued in magnetic recording technologies are pushing bit sizes to length scales where the atomic nature of materials is important. In addition, large data-transfer rates require switching times not much longer than the precession times of atomic moments. Taken together, further technological advances require a better understanding of hysteresis in nanoscale magnets at nanosecond time scales. Since these nanomagnets are often single-domain, the cooperative effects among the atomic spins determine the switching behavior. This cooperative behavior can be studied with simulations of realistic model systems, and can be directly compared to high-resolution experimental results,WIRTH ; WIRTH99 ; LI2 ; LI  possibly for individual nanomagnets. LI  In the present paper we present such dynamic simulations of hysteresis in nanometer-sized Fe nanopillars exposed to a magnetic field that is aligned at an angle with the pillars’ long axis.

The general method in micromagnetics simulations is to divide a model magnetic system into coarse-grained regions, each with a uniform magnetization density $`\stackrel{}{M}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$ of a constant magnitude, $`M_S`$. Here $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ is the position of the $`i`$th spin in the system. The time evolution of each spin is given by the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert (LLG) equation,brown ; gregbrown1 ; Nowak

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{M}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)}{dt}=\frac{\gamma _0}{1+\alpha ^2}(\stackrel{}{M}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)\times [\stackrel{}{H}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)\frac{\alpha }{M_S}(\stackrel{}{M}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)\times \stackrel{}{H}(\stackrel{}{r}_i))])$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{H}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$ is the total local field at the $`i`$th position, $`\gamma _0`$ is the gyromagnetic ratio ($`1.76\times 10^7`$ rad/Oe s), and $`\alpha =0.1`$ is a dimensionless damping parameter which determines the rate of energy dissipation. For the sign of the precession term, we follow the convention of Brown.brown

The total local field, $`\stackrel{}{H}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$, includes contributions from the applied field, dipole-dipole fields, and exchange interactions; gregbrown1  here the small crystalline anisotropy of Fe is ignored. At nonzero temperatures, thermal fluctuations also contribute a term in the form of a stochastic thermal field which fluctuates independently for each spin. The thermal fluctuations are Gaussian with a mean of zero and covariance given by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem.gregbrown1

We have used two different models to simulate hysteresis in single Fe nanopillars, as have been synthesized and studied by Wirth, et al. WIRTH ; WIRTH99 ; LI2 ; LI  The first model is a 9 nm$`\times `$9 nm$`\times `$150 nm pillar, discretized into a cubic lattice with $`4949`$ sites (7$`\times `$7$`\times `$101). For such a large number of sites, direct calculation of the dipole-dipole interactions is impractical, and the Fast Multipole Method was employed, as described elsewhere.gregbrown1  The second model is a 5.2 nm$`\times `$5.2 nm$`\times `$88 nm Fe pillar discretized into a one-dimensional chain of 17 spins. This model assumes that deviations of the magnetization from uniformity over the cross-section of the pillar are negligible, as has been observed in Monte Carlo simulations. Nowak  For both models, the material properties were chosen to correspond to bulk Fe, with saturation magnetization $`M_\mathrm{S}`$$`=`$$`1700`$ emu/cm3 and exchange length 2.6 nm.

Figure 1 shows hysteresis loops at $`T=100`$ K for the first model with the field misaligned at $`0^{}`$, $`45^{}`$, and $`90^{}`$ to the long axis of the pillar. The loops were calculated using a sinusoidal field with a period of 15 ns, which started at a maximum value of 10,000 Oe. In all the loops shown here, the reported magnetization is the component along the long axis ($`z`$-axis) of the pillar. With the field and pillar aligned ($`0^{}`$), reversal initiates at the ends, as previously reported. gregbrown1  At $`45^{}`$ misalignment between pillar and field, the magnetization is initially pulled away from the long (easy) axis by the large magnetic field. As the field is swept toward zero, the magnetization relaxes until it essentially reaches saturation at zero applied field.

Figure 2 shows the $`z`$-component of the magnetization at selected times during the reversal process for the $`45^{}`$ hysteresis loop in Fig. 1. As with $`0^{}`$, regions of reversed magnetization nucleate at the ends of the pillar, and it is the growth of these reversed regions that leads to magnetic reversal of the particle. It is important to note that the particles do not have a uniform magnetization, even though they are single-domain particles and would be in equilibrium under quiescent conditions.

For $`90^{}`$ misalignment, the reversal mechanism is quite different. The hysteresis loop in Fig. 1 shows that the magnetization is essentially perpendicular to the easy direction until the field reaches a particular value. As the field is decreased further, the magnetization relaxes toward the easy axis. Since nothing breaks the up/down symmetry of the system when the applied field has no component along the easy axis, the relaxed magnetization can be directed toward either the positive or negative $`z`$-axis. Figure 3 shows the $`z`$-component of the magnetization for the $`90^{}`$ misalignment at selected times during the hysteresis loop. For this case, the relaxation occurs along the entire length of the pillar, except at the ends. The pole-avoidance effect present at the ends, and involved in nucleation at smaller angles, retards relaxation along the easy axis.

The hysteresis loops for the second, smaller model shown in Fig. 4 are qualitatively similar to those of Fig. 1. Again loops at $`0^{}`$, $`80^{}`$, and $`90^{}`$ misalignment are shown. There are important differences between the two models, however. First, without lateral resolution of the magnetization across the cross-section, these pillars exhibit ringing due to the processional dynamics. Evidently, the precession of individual moments in the $`4949`$-spin model does not lead to precession of the end-cap moment; possibly the spin waves rapidly damp out the gyromagnetic motion. A second, and more prominent, difference between the models is observed in the angular dependence of the switching field, $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}`$, shown in Fig. 5. Here $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ is defined as the applied field at which $`M_z=0`$ (or in the case of $`90^{}`$ misalignment, where $`M_z0`$). The second model (circles) shows a shape qualitatively similar to what is expected from Stoner-Wohlfarth (SW) theory, with a minimum $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ at $`45^{}.`$ The dashed curve is the SW theory with $`H_k`$$`=`$$`1600`$ Oe, much smaller than the $`10^4`$ Oe assumed for ellipsoids. The first model (diamonds), on the other hand, has minimum $`H_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ at $`0^{},`$ and increases as the misalignment angle is increased. This behavior is consistent with recent experimental observations of Fe nanopillars.WIRTH ; LI ; LI2

In summary, we have presented results from large-scale, finite-temperature micromagnetics simulations of hysteresis in models of nanometer-sized Fe pillars in magnetic fields inclined with respect to the long axis of the pillars. In a model in which the magnetization is constant across the short dimension of the pillar, the angular dependence of the switching field is similar to that expected from Stoner-Wohlfarth theory. However, in a model with spatial resolution across the short dimension, the switching field has a monotonically increasing angular behavior consistent with recent experimental results.

We acknowledge support from NSF grant No. DMR-0120310 and the DOE Office of Science through the Computational Material Science Network of BES-DMSE.