text:
# Simulational Study on Dimensionality-Dependence of Heat Conduction

## Abstract

Heat conduction phenomena are studied theoretically using computer simulation. The systems are crystal with nonlinear interaction, and fluid of hard-core particles. Quasi-one-dimensional system of the size of $`L_x\times L_y\times L_z(L_zL_x,L_y)`$ is simulated. Heat baths are put in both end: one has higher temperature than the other. In the crystal case, the interaction potential $`V`$ has fourth-order non-linear term in addition to the harmonic term, and Nose-Hoover method is used for the heat baths. In the fluid case, stochastic boundary condition is charged, which works as the heat baths. Fourier-type heat conduction is reproduced both in crystal and fluid models in three-dimensional system, but it is not observed in lower dimensional system. Autocorrelation function of heat flux is also observed and long-time tails of the form of $`t^{d/2}`$, where $`d`$ denotes the dimensionality of the system, are confirmed.

PACS number: 05.70.Ln 05.45.-a 05.20.Jj

The normal heat conduction, which is described by the Fourier heat law

$$J=\kappa \text{grad}(T)$$
(1)
where $`J`$ and $`T`$ denote the heat flux and the temperature respectively, is one of the most fundamental nonequilibrium phenomena. However the microscopic origin of it has not been clarified completely. Unlike the Debye’s theory for the specific heat in equilibrium solids, this phenomena cannot be modeled by the harmonic chain. In the harmonic chain, global internal temperature gradient is not formed, so that the thermal conductivity diverges. Disorder of mass of particles in the system does not give the saturated thermal conductivity in the thermodynamic limit. This behavior attributes to the lack of scattering process between modes in the system. On the other hand, some chaotic systems realize the Fourier heat law. Thus the nonintegrability of the system which causes scattering between modes is one of crucial elements for the Fourier heat law. It is worth stressing that all these chaotic models and the Lorentz-gas model, which is used as the model of the heat conduction in metals or diluted gas are characterized by the nature that the total momentum is not conserved in the bulk.

Recent studies for total momentum conserving system by Lepri et al. shed a light on another crucial aspect, that is, dimensionality. They first study the thermodynamic behavior of energy transport in the one-dimensional Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU) $`\beta `$ lattice numerically and analytically investigated the dimensionality-dependence. In the numerical investigation for the one-dimensional case, they found numerically that the thermal conductivity diverges as $`N^\alpha `$ where $`N`$ is the number of oscillators and $`\alpha `$ is estimated roughly to be $`1/2`$. They also calculated the power spectrum $`S(\omega )`$ of the global heat flux in the equilibrium and found its power-law divergence as $`\omega ^{0.37}`$ in the low-frequency region. It corresponds to a slow decay of autocorrelation function of globally averaged heat flux $`C_j(t)`$ as $`t^{0.63}`$. This power-low decay of the autocorrelation function implies the divergence of the thermal conductivity as $`\kappa N^{\alpha 0.37}`$ by applying the Green-Kubo formula

$$\kappa =\frac{1}{k_\mathrm{B}T^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}C_j(t)𝑑t,$$
(2)
because the upper limit of the time integration is expected to be proportional to the system size. Moreover they took an analogy with the hydrodynamical systems where the velocity autocorrelation function decays slowly as $`t^{d/2}`$ ($`d`$ is the dimensionality of the system) when the density is high. In those systems, the autocorrelation function of heat flux also has the long-time-tails of the same exponent. From this analogy, they conjectured the logarithmic divergence in two-dimensional system and the converging thermal conductivity in three-dimensional system. Following these studies, Hatano reported a diverging result in the one-dimensional diatomic Toda lattice and recently Lippi and Livi confirmed their prediction for the two-dimensional FPU-$`\beta `$ lattice and Lennard-Jones $`6/12`$ lattice.

Although the analogy with dense-fluids is plausible for one and two-dimensional system, there has been no direct study on either three dimensional lattices or dense fluids system. Thus in the following we investigate the dimensionality dependencies of heat conduction on three-dimensional nonlinear lattice and dense fluid of hard-core particle.

Our model for crystal is coupled three-dimensional FPU-$`\beta `$ lattice with Nosé-Hoover thermostats at both sides. Hamiltonian of this system is represented as follows,

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_i^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j;n.n}{}}V_{ij},`$ (3)
$`V_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(dq_{ij})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}(dq_{ij})^4(dq_{ij}=|𝒒_i𝒒_j|l_0),`$ (4)
where $`N,l_0,g`$ denote the number of particles, natural length of the bond and the coefficient of the fourth order nonlinear term respectively. Mass of the particles are uniformly 1. Here dynamical variables $`𝒑_i`$ $`=(p_i^x,p_i^y,p_i^z)`$ and $`𝒒_i`$ $`=(q_i^x,q_i^y,q_i^z)`$ are three-dimensional. The summation over $`V_{ij}`$ takes only for nearest neighbor pairs. In this system, the total momentum is conserved in the bulk since potential is simply the function of distance between two particles. We will study two kinds of lattices; one is one-dimensional-like $`(1\times 1\times N_z)`$ lattices, and the other is three-dimensional-like one $`(3\times 3\times N_z)`$ where $`N_z`$ is taken to be from $`8`$ to $`256`$. In the following we will call the former as 1D-lattice and the latter as 3D-lattice; although the 3D-lattice is actually quasi-one-dimensional, we will see this system maintains the three-dimensionality later. We take periodic boundary condition to the bonds vertical to $`N_Z`$-direction. Note that our model have no long-distance-correlations. Nosé-Hoover thermostats act on each particle in both ends of $`N_Z`$-direction to keep their temperature constant. One end is kept to be higher temperature($`T_L`$) than the other($`T_R`$). Therefore the equations of the motion of this system are

$$\begin{array}{c}\dot{𝒒}_i=𝒑_i,\hfill \\ \dot{𝒑}_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{_0}{𝒒_i}\hfill & \text{(in the bulk)}\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{_0}{𝒒_i}\zeta _i𝒑_i\hfill & \text{(at the both ends)}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
and thermostat variables move as follows;

$$\dot{\zeta _i}=\frac{1}{Q}(\frac{p_i^2}{3k_\mathrm{B}T}1).$$
(6)
Here $`T`$ is the temperature of the heat bath($`T_L`$ or $`T_R`$) and $`Q`$ is the parameter of coupling between the thermal bath and the system. In this study we set $`Q=1`$ in order that the response time of the thermostats($`1/\sqrt{Q}`$) becomes the same order as the original time scale of the lattice. The value of other parameters are chosen as follows;

$`k_\mathrm{B}=1,T_L=152/3,T_R=8,g=0.1,l_0=100.`$
Under this condition, system is fully chaotic. The 3D-lattice corresponds to the van-der-Waals solids since the natural length is enough long comparing with the displacement of particles which is usually smaller than $`10`$, in other words, nonlinearity comes from the presence of the natural length is negligible, however it changes the strongest coupling combination of the displacements. We used the fourth-order predictor-corrector method to integrate the differential equations. Time step we use$`(10^3)`$ for integration provides the total energy conservation with a relative accuracy $`10^7`$ in the isolated system for the time corresponds to the longest simulation.

We define the local temperature as

$$T(i)=<𝒑_i^2/3>,$$
(7)
where $`<>`$ means average over long time. The local heat flux $`j_{kl}`$ is defined as the energy transfer per unit time from the $`k`$th particle to the nearest particle $`j`$ as

$$j_{kl}=𝒑_k\frac{V_{kl}}{𝒒_l}.$$
(8)
For the 3D-lattice, we will treat only fluxes flow along the $`N_Z`$-direction bonds. Then we can represent the flux from the $`k`$th particle to the next particle in $`N`$-direction simply as $`j_k`$. The average of these heat flux $`j_k`$ over time and whole system is calculated as

$$<j>=<\frac{1}{N^{}}\underset{k}{\overset{N^{}}{}}j_k>$$
(9)
where $`N^{}`$ is equal to $`(N1)`$ for 1D-lattice and $`(N9)`$ for 3D-lattice.

It was confirmed that the temperature profile takes a linear form and the effect of boundary with thermostats was negligible in both ends. From this fact we reasonably define the global thermal conductivity as

$$\kappa =\frac{<j>N_z}{T_LT_R},$$
(10)
by substituting $`(T_LT_R)/N_z`$ for the temperature gradient in Eq.(1).

Size-dependence of the thermal conductivity $`\kappa `$ is shown in FIG.1. In the 1D-lattice, thermal conductivity diverges as $`N_z^{0.4}`$ showing a good agreement with the study by Lepri et al.. However, in the 3D-lattice, the result makes a sharp contrast with the 1D-lattice(FIG.1). The thermal conductivity converges although the systems are actually quite narrow especially for large $`N_z`$ and system become 1D-lattice like in the infinite size limit$`(N_z\mathrm{})`$.

In order to check the analogy with hydrodynamical system, we also calculate temporal autocorrelation functions of average heat flux in the isolated systems. In this case the boundary conditions are periodic for all directions. These systems have no contact with the heat bath and the energy density is chosen to the value corresponding to $`(T_L+T_R)/2=88/3`$. In FIG.2, we can see that the autocorrelation function of 1D-system decays as $`t^{0.65}`$ and the one of 3D-system decays $`t^{1.5}`$ asymptotically. Thus these results show the agreement with the Lepri et al.’s conjecture.

Next, to study the thermal conductivity of fluid, the system of hard-core particles is simulated. The particles, with the uniform radius($`\sigma =0.1`$) and mass($`m=1`$), collide elastically with each other. It is clear that this system also conserves the total momentum in the bulk. The dimension of the objective systems are two$`(L_y\times L_z)`$, and three$`(L_x\times L_y\times L_z)`$ where $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$ is fixed to 1 and $`L_z`$ is taken to be from 2 to 20. The fixed width of the system($`L_x,L_y`$) is chosen from following condition; it must be large enough comparing with the radius of the particles, and on the other hand, it should be small to eliminate the hydrodynamic flow since we are interested in the Fourier type heat conduction. The left and right sides of the system are the walls with temperature $`T_L=6`$ and $`T_R=2`$ (again $`T_L>T_R`$), and the boundary conditions for other directions are periodic. If a particle comes to the left or right end, where the stochastic heat bath is acting, velocity is randomly chosen according to the equilibrium distribution

$`f(𝒗)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}(2\pi T)^{\frac{d1}{2}}|v_z|\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒗^2}{2T}}\right),`$ (11)
being independent of incoming velocity. Here $`d`$ denotes the dimension of the system and the Boltzmann constant is chosen to be 1. In the steady state density of the particles has a finite gradient; low at the hot end and high at the cold end. The density all over the system is chosen so that it will be high to model the dense fluid and lower than solidified density at the densest position; that is, 0.52 for the two-dimensional systems and 0.36 for the three-dimensional systems relative to the close-packed density.

Under these conditions, the equipartition of energy and the absence of the hydrodynamic flow are simulationally confirmed. We define the local temperature as

$$T(z)=\frac{1}{d}<\underset{zϵ<r_i^z<z+ϵ}{}𝒗_i^2>/<\underset{zϵ<r_i^z<z+ϵ}{}1>,$$
(12)
in the same way as the lattice case(Eq.(7)). Both in the two and three dimensional systems, temperature profiles have linear forms except for the area nearby boundary. For this reason, we use the temperature gradient obtained by the fitting in the bulk for the $`\text{grad}(T)`$ in Eq.(1) to calculate the thermal conductivity of the system. The global heat flux is measured as the energy received by the cold bath per unit time in the steady state.

Size-dependence of the thermal conductivity $`\kappa `$ is again investigated. In the two-dimensional system, $`\kappa (L_z)`$ diverges as $`L_z^\alpha `$ where $`\alpha `$ is estimated less than $`0.2`$. This result is consistent with the logarithmic divergence in lattice system. On the other hand, as shown in FIG.3, $`\kappa (L_z)`$ saturates to a constant value in the three-dimensional system.

The autocorrelation function of heat flux in the two and three-dimensional isolated systems is also observed. In this observation we chose the global density to the same value as the one of nonequilibrium steady state and apply the periodic boundary condition to all direction. The function shows power-law decay as $`t^1`$ and $`t^{1.5}`$ asymptotically in the two and the three-dimensional system, respectively.

In summary, using non-linear lattice and hard-core fluid we have confirmed normal Fourier-type heat conduction in three-dimension. The 1D-lattice shows the power-law divergence of the thermal conductivity as same as other one-dimensional chains. In the two-dimensional fluid system, thermal conductivity slowly diverges in thermodynamic limit. In the three-dimensional systems, the thermal conductivity converges in both lattice and fluid. We have also investigated the autocorrelation function of the heat flux and confirmed the long time tails whose exponent is $`d/2`$. These results mean that the divergence behavior of thermal conductivity can be understood by the analogy with hydrodynamical system. It is remarkable that the quasi-one-dimensional total momentum conserving system shows the normal Fourier-type heat conduction.

The authors thank the Supercomputer Center, Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo for the use of the FUJITSU VPP 500. This work is partly supported by Grants-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (No. 11740222).


format: text

text:
# New hydrogen-like potentials11footnote 1Published in Lett. Math. Phys. 8, 337-343 (1984)

## 1 Introduction.

In almost all exactly soluble spectral problems of the energy operator, the possibility of obtaining an exact expression for the energy levels and the corresponding eigenstates stems from the group theoretical symmetries which lead to the algebraic factorization method -. This method, until quite recently, appeared to have been fully explored. Yet, from time to time, some new potential arises for which the factorization method can be applied in a new way . Recently, a variant of the factorization method proposed by Mielnik  has permitted a description of a new class of potentials whose spectra are identical to those of the harmonic oscillator -. Below we apply this method to show that there is a one-parameter class of radial potentials, different from a Coulomb field for which the sequence of energy eigenvalues for $`l=0`$ is exactly as for the hydrogen atom.

## 2 Hydrogen potential: standard and generalized factorizations.

As is well known, the hydrogen atom eigenproblem:

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\frac{e^2}{r}\right]\psi (𝐫)=E\psi (𝐫),$$
(2.1)
which, after the separation of the angular variables $`\psi (𝐫)=Y(\theta ,\phi )R(r)`$ leads to a sequence of radial problems:

$$\frac{1}{r}\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\frac{2}{r}\right]rR=\lambda R,$$
(2.2)
where $`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ labels the angular momentum eigenvalues, $`r`$ is a new dimensionless radial coordinate, and the functions $`R=\{R(r)\}(0r<+\mathrm{})`$ form a Hilbert space $`_r`$ with the scalar product defined by: $`(R,R^{})=4\pi _0^+\mathrm{}\overline{R(r)}R^{}(r)r^2𝑑r`$. It is also well known that the radial Hamiltonians

$$H_l=\frac{1}{r}\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\frac{2}{r}\right]r$$
(2.3)
admit a sequence of ‘factorized forms’ which allows us to find very simply the energy levels . These forms are

$`H_l=a_l^+a_l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}`$ (2.4)
$`H_l=a_{l+1}a_{l+1}^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(l+1)^2}}`$ (2.5)
where

$`a_l={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\right]r,`$ (2.6)
$`a_l^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\right]r.`$ (2.7)
Now, following the method in , we would like to ask two questions. Is this representation unique? Are $`a_l`$ and $`a_l^+`$ the only first-order differential operators for which (2.4)-(2.5) hold? It turns out that the answer is negative. Put:

$`A_l={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}+\beta _l(r)\right]r`$ (2.8)
$`A_l^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}+\beta _l(r)\right]r`$ (2.9)
and demand that the formula analogous to (2.4) should be again valid:

$$A_l^+A_l=H_l+\frac{1}{l^2}.$$
(2.10)
This leads to

$$\beta _l^{}(r)+\beta _l^2(r)=\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\frac{2}{r}+\frac{1}{l^2}.$$
(2.11)
Taking into account that we already have one particular solution, $`\beta _l=(l/r)(1/l)`$ the general solution of (2.11) can be easily obtained. Denote

$$\beta _l=\frac{l}{r}\frac{1}{l}+\varphi _l(r).$$
(2.12)
Then

$$\varphi _l^{}+\frac{2l}{r}\varphi _l\frac{2}{l}\varphi _l+\varphi _l^2=0.$$
(2.13)
After introducing a new function, $`X_l=1/\varphi _l`$, we obtain:

$$X_l^{}+\frac{2l}{r}X_l\frac{2}{l}X_l+1=0$$
(2.14)
with the general solution

$$X_l=\left(\gamma _l_0^ry^{2l}e^{2y/l}𝑑y\right)r^{2l}e^{2r/l};\gamma _lR$$
(2.15)
and, therefore,

$$\beta _l(r)=\frac{l}{r}\frac{1}{l}+\frac{r^{2l}e^{2r/l}}{\gamma _l_0^ry^{2l}e^{2y/l}𝑑y}.$$
(2.16)
The commutator of the new operators $`A_l`$ and $`A_l^+`$ is not a number:

$$[A_l,A_l^+]=2\beta _l^{}(r).$$
(2.17)
Thus, we can apply the factorization method in a new way.

Taking the product $`A_lA_l^+`$, instead of $`A_l^+A_l`$ in (2.10), one has

$$A_lA_l^+=A_l^+A_l+[A_l,A_l^+]=H_l+\frac{1}{l^2}+2\beta _l^{}(r)=\stackrel{~}{H}_{l1}+\frac{1}{l^2}$$
(2.18)
where $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{l1}`$ is a new Hamiltonian:

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{l1}=H_l+2\beta _l^{}(r)=\frac{1}{r}\left[\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\stackrel{~}{V}_{l1}(r)\right]r,$$
(2.19)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_{l1}(r)=\frac{2}{r}+\frac{l(l1)}{r}+\frac{d}{dr}\left[\frac{2r^{2l}e^{2r/l}}{\gamma _l_0^ry^{2l}e^{2y/l}𝑑y}\right],l=1,2,3,\mathrm{}$$
(2.20)
If

$$\gamma _l>(2l)!\left(\frac{l}{2}\right)^{2l+1}$$

or $`\gamma _l<0`$ for a fixed $`l`$, the third term has no singularities. Furthermore, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{l1}(r)0`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$, and so we obtain a one-parameter family of new self-adjoint Hamiltonians. To find the spectra of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{l1}`$ note that:

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{l1}A_l=\left(A_lA_l^+\frac{1}{l^2}\right)A_l=A_l\left(A_l^+A_l\frac{1}{l^2}\right)=A_lH_l.$$
(2.21)
This implies that if $`\{R_{nl}\}`$ are eigenvectors of $`H_l`$ with eigenvalues $`\lambda _n`$, $`\{A_lR_{nl}\}`$ are eigenfunctions of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{l1}`$ with the same eigenvalues. Furthermore

$$A_lR_{nl}=a_lR_{nl}+\frac{r^{2l}e^{2r/l}}{\gamma _l_0^ry^{2l}e^{2y/l}𝑑y}R_{nl}$$
(2.22)
are square-integrable functions. They are orthogonal due to

$$(A_lR_{nl},A_lR_{n^{}l})=(A_l^+A_lR_{nl},R_{n^{}l})=\left(\lambda _n+\frac{1}{l^2}\right)\delta _{nn^{}}.$$
(2.23)
As one can also check, the operator $`A_l`$ maps the continuous spectrum subspace of $`H_l`$ into the corresponding continuous spectrum space of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{l1}`$. However, the operator $`A_l`$ does not map the Hilbert space $`_r`$ of radial wave functions into the whole of $`_r`$. What remains to be examined, similarly like in , is the ‘missing vector’ $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ll1}`$ orthogonal to all vectors of form $`A_lR(R_r)`$:

$$(\stackrel{~}{R}_{ll1},A_lR)=(A_l^+\stackrel{~}{R}_{ll1},R)\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ ^R\end{array}0.$$
(2.24)
This means that $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ll1}`$ is obtained form the first-order differential equation

$$A_l^+\stackrel{~}{R}_{ll1}=\frac{1}{r}\left[\frac{d}{dr}+\beta _l(r)\right]r\stackrel{~}{R}_{ll1}=0$$
(2.25)
whose solution is

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{ll1}=\frac{c_lr^{l1}e^{r/l}}{\gamma _l_0^ry^{2l}e^{2y/l}𝑑y}.$$
(2.26)
One immediately checks that $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ll1}`$ is an eigenvector of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{l1}`$ with the eigenvalue $`(1/l^2)`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{l1}\stackrel{~}{R}_{ll1}=\left(A_lA_l^+\frac{1}{l^2}\right)\stackrel{~}{R}_{ll1}=\frac{1}{l^2}\stackrel{~}{R}_{ll1}.$$
(2.27)
For any

$$\gamma _l>(2l)!\left(\frac{l}{2}\right)^{2l+1}\mathrm{or}\gamma _l<0,$$

equation (2.26) is a square-integrable function defining the new ground state of the modified potential. Hence, one can see that when

$$\gamma _l>(2l)!\left(\frac{l}{2}\right)^{2l+1}\mathrm{or}\gamma _l<0,$$

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{l1}`$ is a new family of self-adjoint radial Hamiltonians with the same discrete spectrum as $`H_{l1}`$.

The limiting case $`\gamma _l=(2l)!(l/2)^{2l+1}`$ is worth attention. When $`\gamma _l=(2l)!(l/2)^{2l+1}`$ the third term in (2.16) tends to a constant when $`r`$ tends to $`\mathrm{}`$. Hence, $`A_lR_{nl}`$ is remaining square-integrable and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{l1}(r)`$ tends to zero when $`r`$ tends to $`\mathrm{}`$. However, the function defining the new ground state is no longer square-integrable. Therefore, in this case we obtain a new potential in which the lowest energy level is missing comparing with $`H_{l1}`$.

## 3 The case $`l=1`$.

By taking $`l=1`$ (i.e., starting our procedure from the conventional Coulomb potential with the simplest centrifugal term) we pass to new radial functions different from the Coulomb potential but for which the sequence of energy levels corresponding to the vanishing angular momentum is exactly the same as for the Hydrogen atom. Our new potentials still depend of one arbitrary parameter:

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_0(r)=\frac{2}{r}+\frac{d}{dr}\left[\frac{2r^2e^{2r}}{\gamma _11/4+(r^2/2+r/2+1/4)e^{2r}}\right].$$
(3.1)
It is interesting to notice that for $`\gamma _1>1/4`$ the potentials (3.1) have the same singularity at $`r=0`$ and the same asymptotic behaviour at $`r\mathrm{}`$ as the Coulomb field (see Figure 1). The corresponding ground states are plotted on Figure 2.

The critical value of $`\gamma _11/4`$ is of interest. Our potential (3.1) then tends to:

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_0(r)=\frac{2}{r}+\frac{16r(r+1)}{(2r^2+2r+1)^2}.$$
(3.2)
All the eigenvectors for $`\gamma _11/4`$ converge to some square-integrable function, except the first one (2.26) (missing vector) which then becomes non-normalizable. Therefore, the potential (3.2) is missing the lowest energy level comparing to the hydrogen atom. As immediately seen, this case reproduces the one previously found by Abraham and Moses by applying the Gelfand-Levitan method (see ). For $`\gamma 1/4`$, the radial potentials (3.1), as far as we know, have not been known before.

Acknowledgements.

I am very much indebted to Dr. Bogdan Mielnik for lending me the manuscript of his work. Thanks are also due to all my Colleagues at the Departamento de Física del CINVESTAV for their interest in this work and stimulating discussions.


text:
# The profile of an emission line from relativistic outflows around a black hole

## 1. Introduction

Recently, the ASCA observations of two radio-loud quasars, PKS 0637-752 (at $`z`$=0.654) and PKS 2149-306 (at $`z`$=2.345), revealed evidence for the presence of Doppler-shifted emission lines in the X-ray spectra of these objects (Yaqoob et al. 1998, 1999). For PKS 0637-752, the line observed at $``$1 keV (or $``$1.6 keV in the rest-frame of the source) was interpreted as the blue-shifted OVII line; for PKS 2149-306, the line observed at $``$5.1 keV (or $``$17 keV in the rest-frame of the source) was thought to be the blue-shifted iron K emission line. If the interpretation is valid, the inferred Doppler-shift of the lines would be quite similar for both quasars; such emission lines would be likely to originate in the relativistic jets (Yaqoob et al. 1999). This is in contrast to the case of Seyfert galaxy MCG 6-30-15, where iron K$`\alpha `$line is detected and its profile has a strong wing toward low energies (Tanaka et al 1995). Such a profile is characteristic of emission lines from the inner region of the accretion disk (Fabian et al. 1989, 1995). Although the disk origin of the line seems secure for MCG 6-15-30 (see Misra 1999 and Reynolds 1999 for more evidence), the observed iron K$`\alpha `$line is too broader to be accounted for by this scenario for 3C 120 and 3C 382 (both are radio-loud; Reynolds 1997). Perhaps, the latter can also be attributed to relativistic jets.

For stellar-mass black hole candidates, Margon et al (1979) found the large, periodic Doppler drift in the optical lines of SS 433. This has been explained remarkably well by a kinematic model (Fabian & Rees 1979) which invokes two processing jets with velocity of $`0.26`$ light speed (see review by Margon 1984). More recently, Cui et al. (1999) reported the detection of two emission lines at $``$ 5.7 keV and 7.7 keV in black hole candidate 4U 1630-47. They proposed that the lines might arise from a single emission line due to highly ionized ions of Fe that is Doppler red- and blue-shifted either in a Keplerian accretion disk or in a bi-polar outflow (or even both). The quality of the data does not allow them to distinguish between the two possibilities.

In this paper, we make an attempt to deriving the profile of an emission line from relativistic jets around a black hole, taking into account of both general and special relativistic effects. We present the predictions of the model and discuss potential applications of the results.

## 2. The Model

Since we are primarily interested in studying relativistic effects on the profile of emission lines, we chose to neglect the details of the outflow (or jet) dynamics and the emission processes of the lines. In the model, a jet is treated as a pencil beam along the spin axis of a Kerr black hole. We consider a twin-jet scenario where two jets run in the opposite direction away from the black hole. Recent numerical simulations of jets or outflows from an accretion disk show that the jets may form very close to the black hole (Koide et al 1999). Since the accretion disk cannot extend toward the black hole beyond the marginally stable orbit (of radius $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$), for simplicity, we assume that the jets start at a distance, $`r_{\mathrm{ms}}`$, away from the black hole.

A Kerr black hole is fully characterized by its mass ($`M`$) and dimentionless specific angular momentum ($`a[0,1]`$). The spacetime around such a black hole is described by a metric that is appropriate to a stationary axial symmetry case in the usual form (Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973). We adopt the Boyer-Lindquist coordinates and natural units in which $`G=c=M=1`$, where $`G`$ and $`c`$ are the gravitational constant and the speed of light, respectively. The propagation of photons can be described by the distribution of photon in phase space defined as $`N(x_\mu ,k_\mu )=dn/d^3xd^3k`$, where $`x_\mu `$ and $`k_\mu `$ are space and momentum coordinates, respectively. $`N(x_\mu ,k_\mu )`$ satisfies the general form of Liouville’s theorem, $`dN(x_\mu ,k_\mu )/d\lambda =0`$, which conserves the total number of photons along a trajectory (Thorne 1967, Ames & Thorne 1968, Gerlach 1971). The Liouville’s equation can be rewritten as

$$k^\alpha \frac{N}{x^\alpha }\frac{1}{2}\frac{g^{\sigma \nu }}{x^\alpha }k_\sigma k_\nu \frac{N}{k_\alpha }=0.$$
(1)
$`N(x_\mu ,k_\mu )`$ is determined by three constants of motion, total energy $`k_0`$, angular momentum component along the symmetry axis $`k_\varphi `$, and Carter’s constant $`Q`$ (Carter 1968), as well as by the initial photon locations. The solution to eq.(1) is given by

$$N(x_\mu ,k_\mu )=\epsilon (r)\delta (u^\mu k_\mu ϵ_0),$$
(2)
where $`\epsilon (r)`$ is the emissivity function of the jets (at energy $`ϵ_0`$) and $`u^\mu `$ the four-velocity. Note that we take the intrinsic profile of the emission line to be a $`\delta `$ function, although it is probably of a Lorentz shape in reality. A photon trajectory is determined by two dimensionless variables: $`p=k_\varphi /k_0`$ and $`q=Q^{1/2}/k_0`$.

For the approaching jet, we have

$$N(x_\mu ,k_\mu )=\epsilon (r)\delta (k_0xϵ_0),$$
(3)
where $`x`$ is defined by

$$x=u^tu^r\left(\frac{R^{1/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right).$$
(4)
In this case, the equation of null geodesic can be simplified to (Carter 1968, Bardeen et al 1972)

$$_{r_j}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dr}{R^{1/2}}=\frac{F(k,\theta _{\mathrm{obs}})}{\sqrt{q^2+a^2}},$$
(5)
where

$$R=\frac{V_r}{E^2}=(r^2+a^2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(a^2+q^2),$$
(6)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=r^2+a^22r`$, and $`F(k,\theta _{\mathrm{obs}})`$ is the usual elliptical integral defined as $`F(k,\theta _{\mathrm{obs}})=_0^{\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}}𝑑\varphi /(1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )^{1/2}`$ with $`k^2=a^2/(a^2+q^2)`$. The left-hand side of eq.(5) can be expressed analytically by elliptical integrals (Cadez, Fanton & Calvani 1998). We note that $`k_\varphi =0`$ for our case because the jets are assumed to be coincide with the spin axis of the black hole. The equation of motion gives $`k_r=k_0R^{1/2}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (Bardeen et al. 1972).

We investigate two cases: (1) jets of constant Lorentz factor ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$) and (2) jets of an accelerating velocity profile

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=1+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_01)\mathrm{tanh}\left[\gamma (rr_{\mathrm{ms}})\right].$$
(7)
The parameter $`\gamma `$ sets a scale for jet acceleration; the Lorentz factor of the jets approaches the final value ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$) about $`3/\gamma `$. The symmetry of the problem requires $`u^\theta =0`$ and $`u^\varphi =0`$, so we have

$$u^t=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1(v^r)^2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{tt}}};u^r=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{rr}}}\frac{v^r}{\sqrt{1(v^r)^2}},$$
(8)
where $`v^r`$ is the physical radial velocity of the jets, $`v^r=\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }^21}`$, and the metric parameters $`g_{tt}=2r/\mathrm{\Sigma }1`$ and $`g_{rr}=\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are given by the Kerr solutions with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=r^22r+a^2`$. Finally, we assume a simple power law for the emissivity of the jets, i.e., $`\epsilon (r)=Kr^m`$, which may or may not be reasonable for real systems.

The observed profile of an emission line from the approaching jet can then be obtained by integrating over the entire length of the jet,

$$I(ϵ)=Kϵ^3_{r_1}^{r_2}𝑑r\left(\frac{d\beta }{dr}\right)r^m\delta (ϵxϵ_0),$$
(9)
where $`\beta =(q^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{obs}})^{1/2}`$ is the impact parameter, indicating the apparent displacement parallel to the axis of symmetry in the sense of the angular momentum of the black hole (Cunningham & Bardeen 1973); $`ϵ`$ is the energy of photons as measured by a distant observer; and $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is the viewing angle with respect to the axis of the jet. We have

$$I(ϵ_{},\theta _{\mathrm{obs}})=\left(\frac{K}{ϵ_0}\right)\left(\frac{d\beta }{dr}\right)\frac{ϵ_{}^2r^m}{(U_1+U_2+U_3)}|_{x=1/ϵ_{}}.$$
(10)
where $`ϵ_{}=ϵ/ϵ_0`$,

$$U_1=\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dr}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{tt}}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}(a^2r^2),$$
(11)
$$U_2=\frac{u^r}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2R^{1/2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }R_1R\mathrm{\Delta }_1),$$
(12)
and

$$U_3=\left(\frac{R^{1/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\left(\frac{du^r}{dr}\right),$$
(13)
with

$$R_1=4r^3+2(r+1)a^22\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{dr}{dq}\right)^1q^2\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_1=2(r1).$$
(14)
We caution that care must be taken in the derivation since $`x`$ may be a double-valued function.

For the receding jet, there are two types of photon trajectories: (1) there are no turning points in $`\theta `$-direction (but possibly in $`r`$-direction), and (2) there is a turning point in $`\theta `$-direction. For Case 1, the trajectory equation becomes

$$\pm _{r_0}^{r_j}\frac{dr}{R^{1/2}}+_{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dr}{R^{1/2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q^2+a^2}}_{\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}}^\pi \frac{d\varphi }{(1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )^{1/2}},$$
(15)
where $`r_0`$ is the turning point, which can be determined by setting $`R=0`$ for a given $`q`$. For Case 2, the trajectory equation is

$`\pm {\displaystyle _{r_0}^{r_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{R^{1/2}}}+{\displaystyle _{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{R^{1/2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{q^2+a^2}}}`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{(1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )^{1/2}}}\pm {\displaystyle _{\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}}^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{(1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )^{1/2}}}\right],`$ (16)
where the $`\theta `$-turning point is at $`\theta =0`$ for photons with zero angular momentum.

Also for the receding jet, after the turning point in $`r`$ direction, $`x`$ should be replaced by

$$x=u^t+u^r\left(\frac{R^{1/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right),$$
(17)
for eq. (10). The line profile can then be derived following the same procedure as for the approaching jet.

## 3. Numerical results

To summarize, there are five free parameters in the model: $`m`$, $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$, $`\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, and $`a`$. In our calculations, we allowed $`m`$ to vary in the range of 0.1 to 3, $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ in the range of 5° to 75° , and $`\gamma `$ in the range of 0.01 to 1; we fixed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ at 5 and examined two extreme cases for black hole spin, 0 and 0.998.

For better understanding the numerical results, we began by deriving approximate analytic solutions to the photon trajectory equations. We divided a jet into two distinct zones, the inner and outer regions, depending on the importance of the gravitational effects. One of such effects is that the photons emitted around a black hole are “scattered” into a larger angle. In other words, a distant observer cannot see the innnermost portion of the jet (to within a critical radius $`r_c`$). Physically, photons are of $`qa`$ ($`k1`$) for $`r<r_c`$. Under these conditions eq. (5) can be solved analytically for approaching jets. Substituting $`r`$ with $`1/y`$ in the equation, we have

$$_0^{y_j}\frac{dy}{\sqrt{1+a^2y^2+2a^2y^3}}\frac{1}{r_c}=\frac{1}{a}\mathrm{ln}\left|\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}}{2}+\frac{\pi }{4}\right)\right|$$
(18)
for Kerr black holes, and $`r_c=1/\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ for Schwarzschild black holes, where $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ defines a critical viewing angle (with respect to the jet axis). Fig 1. shows the results graphically. It is interesting to note that since we are probably looking down the jet in a BL Lac object we would not be able to probe its inner most region. For $`q0`$, it follows from eqs (5) and (6) that

$$ϵ_{}=\frac{1}{u^tu^rR_0^{1/2}/\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(19)
where $`R_0=(r_c^2+a^2)^2a^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`r_c`$ is given by eq (18). This is the cutoff photon energy for the inner region.

In the outer region, the gravitational effects are weak and the special relativistic effects are dominant in determining line profiles. Ignoring the general relativistic effects, $`R`$ becomes $`R=r^4r^2q^2`$ in eq (6) and eq (5) can be solved analytically

$$\frac{q}{r_j}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{obs}},\mathrm{and}ϵ_{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1v^r\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{obs}})}𝒟,$$
(20)
where $`v^r`$ is the radial velocity of the jets. This is the well-known Doppler shift formula.

For receding jets, on the other hand, there is no $`q`$ cutoff (see Figs 4 and 5) with exception of the event horizon. Therefore, the receding jets might allow us to probe deeper into the vicinity of a black hole. For both stellar-mass black holes and AGN, however, the innermost region of a receding jet is likely obscured by the accretion disk, unless the system is viewed nearly edge on. Besides, Doppler de-boosting makes the receding jet much fainter than the approaching jet.

### 3.1. Photon Trajectories

We then derived numerically photon trajectories around a maximally rotating black hole. For approaching jets, the results are shown in Figures 2 and 3 for two jet velocity profiles. The two cases are quite similar. Specifically, the results clearly show a cutoff in $`q`$; the critical radius ($`r_c`$ derived is in rough agreement with our crude estimation (see eq. 18). In the outer region, we see that $`qr_j`$, which again agrees with our analytic results \[see eq. (20)\]. Fig. 2b shows that that $`x`$ is a single-valued function of $`r`$ for small viewing angles but becomes double-valued for large viewing angles. This is very important for evaluating the integral in eq. 9.

For receding jets, the photon trajectories are more complicated. In this case, there are actually two possible trajectories for a given photon (see Figures 4 and 5). In other words, the photons emitted with the same energy from the same location could be observed at different times because of the different trajectories they take. This is purely a general relativistic effect. We believe that the effect might become observable if the detectors have high enough timing resolution (Yuan & Wang 2000, in preparation). We also note that the intersection points in figures 4a and 5a indicate that the photons with the same $`q`$ at the same location $`r_j`$ may even be observed at two different viewing angles.

### 3.2. Emission Line Profiles

The profile of an emission line is clearly affected both by the general and special relativistic effects, which include light bending, gravitational redshift, and Doppler effects. Moreover, it also depends on the emissivity law and velocity distribution of the jet.

3.2.1 Dependence on Viewing Angles

We computed line profiles for different viewing angles, and the results are shown in the Figures 6, 7 and 8. In general, the profiles are quite different from those of the emission lines originating in the accretion disk (Fabian et al 1989, Laor 1991, Kojima 1991, Matt et al 1993, Cadez, Fanton & Calvani 1998, Pariel & Bromley 1998, Hartnoll & Blackman 1999).

For approaching jets around a maximally rotating hole ($`a=0.998`$), the line profile is singly peaked for small viewing angles. The position of the peak (Peak I) is simply determined by Doppler blueshift. Toward lower energies, the line is broadened to form a red tail due to gravitational redshift. As the viewing angle increases, the line profile becomes more complicated. It is in general similar to that of emission lines from a single ring surrounding the black hole (Gerbal & Pelat 1981, Fang & Deng 1982, Zhang, Xiang & Lu 1985), but the two cases are different in nature. The profile is now doubly peaked, with the second peak (Peak II) caused by the combination of gravitational light bending and Doppler effects in the inner region of the jet. More specifically, the photons emitted with a viewing angle $`\theta _0`$ less than $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ would not arrive at a distant observer in the absence of light bending but would if they are scattered into a larger angle $`\theta _0+\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, which is equal to $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$. Now, the energy of the photons are $`𝒟_0\nu _0/(1+z)`$, which is greater than $`𝒟_{\mathrm{obs}}\nu _0/(1+z)`$ (without light bending), where $`z`$ is the gravitational redshift, and $`𝒟_0=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _0)`$. This is the origin of a doubly-peaked line profile. Given that the gravitational effects become weaker along the jet farther away from the black hole, it is clear that Peak I (pure Doppler peak) is mostly associated with the photons emitted in the outer region while Peak II with the inner region. Quantitatively, the position of Peak II is derived from $`dx/dr=0`$ (see eq. (4)), it follows from equation (9),

$$\frac{du^t}{dr}\left(\frac{R^{1/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\frac{du^r}{dr}=\mathrm{\Xi },$$
(21)
where

$$\mathrm{\Xi }=\frac{u^rR^{1/2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left\{\frac{2r(r^2+a^2)}{R}(r1)\left[\frac{a^2+q^2}{R}+\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right]\right\}.$$
(22)
Note that the equations can be much simplified for the case of jets with constant velocity. Combining equations (3) and (21), we can quantify the dividing line ($`r_{\mathrm{II}}`$) between the inner and outer regions. As an example, we show the results in Fig. 9 for the case of $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}=30^o`$. The position of Peak II is then given by $`ϵ_{}^{\mathrm{II}}=1/\left[u^tu^rR^{1/2}/\mathrm{\Delta }\right]`$, which is computed at $`r_{\mathrm{II}}`$.

Because $`x`$ is a double-valued function of $`r`$ for large viewing angles, the observed photons with the same energy may originate from different physical locations. We computed the time-averaged flux for each component. The individual components are also shown in figures 6, 7, and 8 in dotted lines. A more detailed study of the relationship between the two components, such as time lags, is beyond the scope of this investigation.

For receding jets, the line profile is also composed of two components due to two different photon trajectories. At small viewing angles, because the two trajectories are similar, as shown in figures 4 and 5, the line profile is singly peaked. As the viewing angle increases, the difference in the photon trajectories becomes more prominent, which results in a very complicated line profile, as shown in the bottom panels of Fig. 6. The profile now contains four distinct peaks!

3.2.2 Dependence on Black Hole Spin

We illustrate the dependence of line profiles on black hole spin by comparing figures 6 and 7, which show the results for the cases of an extreme Kerr black hole and a Schwarzschild black hole, respectively. In the latter case, the profile of an emission line from approaching jets is always singly peaked for any viewing angles. The difference between the two cases can be attributed to our explicit assumption about the starting position of the jets, i.e., at the marginally stable orbit $`r_{_{\mathrm{ms}}}`$. In this context, the inner region of the jets extends closer to a more rapidly rotating black hole, and thus the gravitational effects are stronger. To quantify the discussion, we plotted three important quantities, $`r_{_{\mathrm{ms}}}`$, $`r_c`$, and $`r_{\mathrm{II}}`$, as a function of black hole spin in Fig. 9, Since the critical radius $`r_c`$ is strongly dependent of the viewing angle, we only show a case where the viewing angle is $`30^o`$. It is clear that for Schwarzschild black holes $`r_{\mathrm{II}}`$ is always less than $`r_{_{\mathrm{ms}}}`$ and thus Peak II never forms.

For receding jets, however, the line profile for the case of Schwarzschild black holes is quite similar to that for the case of extreme Kerr black holes. The reason is simple: there is no critical radius ($`r_{\mathrm{II}}`$) involved here. The rotation of black holes only strengthens the gravitational effects.

3.2.3 Dependence on Jet Velocity Profile

We also investigated the dependence of line profiles on jet velocity profile. Comparing the two cases shown in figures 6 and 8, we see quite similar results. There are, however, some differences worth noting. First, there is a discontinuity in the line profiles for cases where a jet has a constant velocity, but none where the jet has an accelerating velocity profile. This is caused by the boundary conditions imposed at the starting point of the jet. The reason is simple: the Doppler effect (dominates over redshift) bluesfits the line at the starting point if the jet has constant velocity. Second, the line profiles are steeper on the red side for cases where a jet has a constant velocity, while they are steeper on the blue side where the jet has an accelerating velocity profile. In the latter cases, continuous acceleration leads to a continuous superimposition of different Doppler shifts, which makes the blue side steeper.

We further explored the parameter space to investigate in detail how the line profiles depend on the accelerating factor $`\gamma `$. In Fig. 10, we summarize the results for different $`\gamma `$ values and for both approaching and receding jets. It is clear that the line profiles become markedly different at large $`\gamma `$ for approaching jets and they are not nearly as sensitive to $`\gamma `$ for receding jets.

3.2.4 Dependence on Emissivity Law

Similarly, we studied the dependence of the line profiles on the power-law index ($`m`$) of the assumed emissivity law for the jets. The results are shown in Fig. 11. As $`m`$ increases, the inner region of the jets contributes more and more to the line emission. Therefore, we expect that Peak I becomes weaker and weaker and eventually disappear at very large $`m`$; this is indeed the case. Given that we know little about the emissivity law of astrophysical jets, we chose to cover a large enough parameter space for completeness.

## 4. Concluding remarks

In this work, we conducted a detailed study of the profile of an emission line from both approaching and receding jets. The combinations of strong gravitational effects (including gravitational redshift and gravitational light bending) and Doppler effects can significantly alter the intrinsic profile of the line. We found that the observed line profiles are also dependent of such factors as the viewing angle, the velocity profile of the jets, and the emissivity law of the jets. We summarize our main results as follows:

* For approaching jets, the emission line is predominantly Doppler blueshifted at small viewing angles. The line profile is singly peaked and is broadened toward lower energies due to gravitational redshift. At sufficiently large viewing angles, however, the line profile becomes doubly peaked, with the second (higher) peak caused by gravitational light bending. For receding jets, the line profile is even more complicated due to different possible photon trajectories. It can have four peaks.
* We quantified the boundary between the inner and outer regions of a jet with which the two peaks in the line profiles are associated for approaching jets.
* We derived a critical radius within which approaching jets become unobservable. This radius increases as the viewing angle decreases. Therefore, it might be difficult to probe the innermost region of the jets in a BL Lac object. Such a constraint does not exist for receding jets.
* We found that the line profile is sensitive to the intrinsic properties of a black hole jet system, such as the spin of the black hole, the Lorentz factor of the jets, the velocity profile of the jets, and the emissivity law of the jets, as well as to external factors such as the viewing angle.

Observationally, although evidence exists for the presence of emission lines from jets both in Galactic black hole systems and AGN, the quality of data is not sufficient for obtaining the line profiles. Therefore, applying our results to observational data is still difficult. Besides, our study makes several critical assumptions about the properties of jets, such as their velocity profile and emissivity law, which are not understood. This makes direct comparisons with observations even harder. Fortunately, new X-ray missions, such as Chandra and XMM, now carry instruments that provide unprecedended spectral resolution and sensitivity. Hopefully, the new data is of sufficiently good quality that allows us to identify emission lines from jets in Galactic black hole systems and AGN, based on this work. A detailed characterization of such lines might lead to a determination of such fundamental properties as the angular momentum of the black holes and perhaps shed significant light on the properties of the jets themselves.

The authors are very grateful to Wei Cui, the referee, for his a large number of very detail and helpful comments to clarify several points of this paper. Especially on the generalities of the present calculations, and the emissivity law assumption. We also thank his suggestions supplementing the calculations for the receding jet. We thank F.J. Lu for his careful reading of the manuscript. J.M.W. is grateful to Durouchuox for his useful comments and discussions during his visiting IHEP. The useful suggestions from M. Calvani are greatly acknowledged. The authors would like to thank T.P. Li, J.F. Lu and T.G. Wang, S.J. Xue, and J.L. Qu for the interesting discussions. J.M.W. is supported by ’Hundred Talents Program of CAS’. This research is partially supported by NSFC.