text:
# Predictions of the High-Energy Emission from BL Lac objects: The Case of W Comae

## 1 Introduction

After the detection of 6 high-frequency peaked BL Lac objects (HBLs) with ground-based air Čerenkov telescope facilities, the field of extragalactic GeV – TeV astronomy is currently one of the most rapidly expanding research areas in astrophysics. The steadily improving flux sensitivities of the new generation of air Čerenkov telescope arrays (Konopelko, 1999; Weekes et al., 2002) and their decreasing energy thresholds, provides a growing potential to extend their extragalactic-source list towards intermediate and even low-frequency peaked BL Lac objects (LBLs) with lower $`\nu F_\nu `$ peak frequencies in their broadband spectral energy distributions (SEDs). Detection of such objects at energies $`40`$ – 100 GeV might provide an opportunity to probe the intrinsic high-energy cutoff of their SEDs since at those energies, $`\gamma \gamma `$ absorption due to the intergalactic infrared background is still expected to be negligible at redshifts of $`z0.2`$ (de Jager & Stecker, 2002).

Theoretical predictions of the high-energy emission of BL Lac objects on the basis of their emission at lower frequencies (Stecker et al., 1996; Costamante & Ghisellini, 2002) are essential for careful planning of future observations by ground-based VHE $`\gamma `$-ray observatories. Such studies have generally been restricted to considerations of the observed broadband spectral properties of potential candidate sources and have mostly been based on non-simultaneous spectral measurements alone. In this paper, we point out that such considerations can have very large uncertainties and ambiguities with respect to the predicted VHE emission. The importance and potential scientific return of including detailed variability information in the modeling of HBLs has been pointed out by Coppi & Aharonian (1999) who have shown the wide variety of correlated X-ray and VHE $`\gamma `$-ray variability patterns which can result in time-dependent synchrotron-self-Compton models for blazars. In particular, they have pointed out that combined X-ray spectral and variability information may be sufficient to predict the level of intrinsic TeV emission in HBLs, even if no direct measurements at GeV – TeV energies are available. Here, we will demonstrate that similar conclusions hold for LBLs, and investigate the example of the radio-selected BL Lac object W Comae (= ON 231 = 1219+285; z = 0.102), which is currently on the source list of the STACEE and CELESTE experiments. Its GeV – TeV source candidacy is based on the fact that W Comae has been detected by the EGRET instrument on board the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory at energies above 100 MeV, exhibiting a very hard spectrum (von Montigny et al., 1995; Sreekumar et al., 1996). A power-law extrapolation of the average EGRET 0.1 – 10 GeV flux into the multi-GeV – TeV range yields a VHE flux well above the current detection threshold of both STACEE and CELESTE (see Fig. 3). Dingus & Bertsch (2001) also report on the detection of a 27.3 GeV photon from this source by EGRET in April 1993. Furthermore, Mannheim (1996) has predicted a TeV flux near the detection limit of the Whipple air Čerenkov telescope at the time, based on a proton-blazar model fit to a non-simultaneous broadband spectrum of W Comae.

The source was observed in a multiwavelength campaign in February 1996, covering the electromagnetic spectrum from GHz radio frequencies to TeV energies (Maisack et al., 1997). No TeV emission was detected by either Whipple or HEGRA.

While W Comae is generally observed to exhibit a typical one-sided jet morphology in VLBI images, Massaro et al. (2001) report the detection of a weak apparent counter-jet component in 1999.13, if the brightest jet component with the flattest radio spectrum is identified with the core. Such a feature has not been found in any previous or later radio maps of the source. Massaro et al. (2001) demonstrate that it is implausible that this component is actually the emission from the counter-jet. Alternatively, they suggest, e.g., that it could be due to a small-angle displacement of the jet direction in a general configuration in which the jet is directed at a very small average angle with respect to the line of sight.

The most detailed currently available simultaneous broadband spectrum of W Comae has been measured in May 1998 (Tagliaferri et al., 2000) and is shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The X-ray spectrum has been measured by BeppoSAX and shows clear evidence for the intersection of the low-frequency (synchrotron) component and the high-frequency (Compton) component of the SED of W Comae at $`4`$ keV. There was clear evidence for variability on a $`10`$ hr time scale in the LECS count rate at photon energies of 0.1 – 4 keV, while no evidence for variability was found in the MECS count rate at 4 – 10 keV and the PDS count rate at 12 – 100 keV. A 3 $`\sigma `$ upper limit of 40 % on the short-term variability amplitude in the MECS count rate could be derived in the May 1998 observations (Tagliaferri et al., 2000). The 4 individual spectral points in the EGRET energy range have been measured in March 1998, and are not strictly simultaneous to the BeppoSAX observations. The EGRET detection was at low significance (2.7 $`\sigma `$), and allowed only a rather crude source localization to within 1.5o. We have calculated the spectrum of the source using 4 broad energy bins, as described more fully in §2.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: The re-analysis of the available EGRET data is presented in §2. In §3 we describe the leptonic jet model which we use to reproduce the broadband spectrum of W Comae. The modeling results and the model-dependent predictions for VHE emission from W Comae will be presented in §4. In §5 we discuss, how a detailed measurement and analysis of the photon-energy dependent fast X-ray variability of W Comae and other BL Lac objects might be used to break the degeneracy of model parameters still present in the pure spectral modeling using a leptonic jet model. A comparison to the modeling results and predictions of a hadronic jet model are presented in §6. We summarize in §7.

## 2 Gamma-Ray Observations

ON 231 is the suggested identification of the EGRET source 3EG J1222+2841, and the association of the EGRET source with this BL Lac object is based on probabilistic arguments. 3EG J1222+2841 was a weak EGRET source that was never detected at $`>6\sigma `$ in any individual viewing period (VPs). The locations of low-confidence EGRET sources are not well-determined owing to the wide point spread function (PSF) at photon energies $`>100`$ MeV (Thompson et al., 1993; Mattox, Hartman, & Reimer, 2001), and identification of EGRET sources with counterparts based on position alone is difficult. Analysis of EGRET data from 1991 – 1995 yielded a 7.7 $`\sigma `$ detection and a hard spectrum with photon index $`\alpha =1.73\pm 0.18`$ (Hartman et al., 1999), and 3EG J1222+2841 was identified with ON 231 with “high confidence”. However, this identification was based on the $`E>1`$ GeV position of Lamb & Macomb (1997) rather than the $`E>100`$ MeV position, as is standard practice for EGRET sources.

Mattox, Hartman, & Reimer (2001) have recently done a quantitative re-evaluation of potential radio identifications for the 3EG radio sources by calculating the probability of each identification. They note that based on its $`E>100`$ MeV position, 3EG J1222+2841 cannot be included in their list of high confidence identifications. Using the $`E>1`$ GeV position, Mattox, Hartman, & Reimer (2001) get the probability of identification to be 4 %, which is classified as “plausible”. Future observations with GLAST will be important in determining the source position with more accuracy, and securing a more confident identification. For the purpose of our analysis, we assume that W Comae is the counterpart of 3EG J1222+2841. However, the low significance of the $`2.7\sigma `$ detection in May 1998 and its non-simultaneity to the BeppoSAX observations prevents us from deriving any strong constraints from the EGRET flux or spectrum.

EGRET has observed 3EG J1222+2841 = W Comae several times since its launch in 1991. Table 1 lists the VPs during which the source was observed, and the corresponding integral fluxes for energies greater than 100 MeV. Only photons with inclination angles less than $`30^{}`$ were used for the analysis. For Phase 1 through Cycle 4 of the EGRET observations (1991 – 1995), Table 1 lists data from the 3EG catalog (Hartman et al., 1999). Three additional observations were made in Cycles 5, 7 and 9. We have analyzed these data using the standard EGRET data processing technique, as described in Mattox et al. (1996) and Hartman et al. (1999), and included them in the table. The light curve for 3EG J1222+2841 is shown in Fig. 1. The figure shows fluxes for all detections at a level greater than $`2\sigma `$; for detections below $`2\sigma `$, upper limits at the 95 % confidence level are shown.

We have computed the background-subtracted $`\gamma `$-ray spectra of 3EG J1222+2841 for the strongest detections, as well as for March 1998, close to the time of the BeppoSAX observations. The spectra were determined by dividing the EGRET energy band of 30 MeV – 10 GeV into 4 bins, and estimating the number of source photons in each interval, following the standard EGRET spectral analysis technique (Nolan et al., 1993). We have fitted a single power law of the form $`F(E)=k(E/E_0)^\alpha `$ photons cm-2 s-1 MeV-1 to the data, where $`F(E)`$ is the flux, $`E`$ is the energy, $`\alpha `$ is the photon spectral index. Table 1 includes the photon spectral indices for the source in the four VPs. Figures 3 and 4 show both the average EGRET spectrum (1991 – 1995) from the 3rd EGRET catalog (Hartman et al., 1999) — as dot-dashed bow-tie outline —, as well as the spectrum measured in March 1998.

In addition to the EGRET observations, W Comae was observed by Whipple in March – April 1993 and March 1994. The source was not detected, and 3 $`\sigma `$ upper limits of $`2.3\times 10^{11}`$ photons cm-2 s-1 and $`1.4\times 10^{11}`$ photons cm-2 s-1, respectively, at $`E>0.3`$ TeV were reported (Kerrick et al., 1995) for those two observing periods. Recently, the source has been of interest to the STACEE (Ong et al., 2001) and CELESTE (Smith, 2002) experiments, operating in the energy range 50 – 250 GeV. Figures 3 and 4 show the sensitivities of the two experiments. STACEE observed W Comae in 1998 with a prototype experiment, and reported a preliminary 2 $`\sigma `$ (95 % confidence) upper limit of $`2.4\times 10^{10}`$ photons cm-2 s-1 (Theoret, 2000), based on $`5`$ hr of data. Since these results are preliminary, we have not included them in the spectral fits shown in the figures.

## 3 Spectral modeling of W Comae using leptonic models

For the purpose of spectral modeling using a generic leptonic jet model, it is assumed that a population of ultrarelativistic, non-thermal electrons and positrons is injected instantaneously into a spherical emitting volume of co-moving radius $`R_b`$. The injected pair population is specified through a co-moving density $`n_e`$, low and high energy cutoffs $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$, respectively, and a spectral index $`p`$ so that $`n_e(\gamma )=K\gamma ^p`$ for $`\gamma _1\gamma \gamma _2`$ at the time of injection. The location of the injection site is characterized by its height $`z_i`$ above the plane of a central accretion disk for which we have assumed a bolometric luminosity of $`L_D=10^{45}`$ ergs s-1. A magnetic field $`B_0`$ at the point of injection is chosen in equipartition with the nonthermal pair distribution at the time of injection, and decreases as $`B=B_0(z/z_i)^1`$. The emitting region moves with relativistic speed $`v/c=\beta _\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{11/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}`$ along the jet which is directed at a small angle ($`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}=1^o`$) with respect to the line of sight. The choice of a very small observing angle implies that the observer is located within the beaming cone of relativistically beamed emission from the emitting region for all values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ considered here, and is consistent with the moderate superluminal motion of $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}2`$ and the Massaro et al. (2001) result concerning the occasional two-sidedness of the radio structure observed in W comae, as mentioned in §1. The Doppler boosting of emission from the co-moving to the observer’s frame is determined by the Doppler factor $`D=\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{obs}})\right]^1`$.

Using the time-dependent radiation transfer code of Böttcher et al. (1997) and Böttcher & Bloom (2000), we follow the evolution of the electron population and the radiation spectra as the emission region moves outward along the jet. Radiation mechanisms included in our simulations are synchrotron emission, Compton upscattering of synchrotron photons (SSC = Synchrotron Self Compton scattering: Marscher & Gear (1985); Maraschi, Celotti, & Ghisellini (1992); Bloom & Marscher (1996)), and Compton upscattering of external photons (EC = External Compton scattering), including photons coming directly from the disk (Melia & Königl, 1989; Dermer, Schlickeiser, & Mastichiadis, 1992; Dermer & Schlickeiser, 1993),as well as re-processed photons from the broad line region (Sikora, Begelman, & Rees, 1994; Blandford & Levinson, 1995; Dermer, Sturner, & Schlickeiser, 1997). The broad line region is modelled as a spherical shell between $`r_{\mathrm{BLR},\mathrm{in}}=0.2`$ pc and $`r_{\mathrm{BLR},\mathrm{out}}=0.25`$ pc, and a radial Thomson depth $`\tau _{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{BLR}}`$ which is considered a free parameter.

The most rapid variability has been observed in soft X-rays, where approximately symmetric flare profiles on a time scale of $`10`$ hr have been seen (Tagliaferri et al., 2000). This constrains the size of the emission region to be $`R_bD\times 10^{15}`$ cm. For typical Doppler factors of $`D10`$, this motivates our choice of $`R_b=10^{16}`$ cm, which we adopt throughout this paper.

The assumption that the magnetic field is in approximate equipartition with the emitting electron/positron population allows an independent estimate of the co-moving magnetic field: A power-law population of electrons with spectral index $`p`$, emitting a synchrotron $`\nu F_\nu `$ peak flux of $`\nu F_\nu ^{\mathrm{pk}}=10^{10}f_{10}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 at a dimensionless photon energy $`ϵ_{\mathrm{pk}}=h\nu _{\mathrm{pk}}/(m_ec^2)=10^6ϵ_6`$ requires a magnetic field of

$$B=9\left(\frac{D}{10}\right)^1\frac{d_{27}^{4/7}f_{10}^{2/7}ϵ_B^{2/7}}{(1+z)^{4/7}ϵ_6^{1/7}R_{15}^{6/7}(p2)^{2/7}}\mathrm{G},$$
(1)
where $`d_{27}`$ is the luminosity distance in units of $`10^{27}`$ cm, $`ϵ_B`$ is the magnetic-field equipartition factor, and $`R_{15}`$ is $`R_B`$ in units of $`10^{15}`$ cm. For $`d_{27}=1.45`$, $`f_{10}1`$, $`ϵ_B1`$ (corresponding to equipartition), $`ϵ_61`$ (corresponding to a peak frequency in the near infrared), $`R_{15}=10`$, and $`p2.5`$, we find $`B_{\mathrm{ep}}1.8`$ G, which is within a factor of $`2`$ of the values quoted in Tab. 2. The above value of $`B_{\mathrm{ep}}`$ implies a synchrotron cooling time scale (in the observer’s frame) of electrons emitting synchrotron radiation at an observed energy $`E_{\mathrm{sy}}=1E_{\mathrm{keV}}`$ keV of

$$\tau _{\mathrm{sy}}0.12\left(\frac{B}{1.8\mathrm{G}}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{D}{10}\right)^{1/2}E_{\mathrm{keV}}^{1/2}\mathrm{hr}.$$
(2)
which, for X-ray photon energies, is shorter than the dynamical time scale $`R_B/(Dc)`$, in agreement with the approximately symmetric shape of the X-ray light curves. Since the optical – $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum constitutes a time-average over a time scale of $`\tau 20`$ hr, we expect to observe the time-averaged emission from a strongly cooled electron population down to synchrotron energies of

$$E_\mathrm{c}=3.5\times 10^2\tau _{20}^2\left(\frac{B}{1.8\mathrm{G}}\right)^3\left(\frac{D}{10}\right)^1\mathrm{eV},$$
(3)
which is in the infrared range. In Eq. (3), $`\tau _{20}=\tau /(20\mathrm{hr})`$. If additional electron cooling mechanisms play a significant role (see §5), the cooling time scale $`\tau _\mathrm{c}`$ will obviously be shorter than $`\tau _{\mathrm{sy}}`$, further strengthening the argument for time-averaged emission observed beyond infrared frequencies.

## 4 Spectral Modeling Results and Predictions for VHE emission

Since the EGRET detection of W Comae during May 1998 was of rather low significance (see §2) and not quite simultaneous to the BeppoSAX observation, and in view of the uncertainty of the source identification, we first focus on the simultaneous optical – X-ray spectrum. As the simplest possible variation of the leptonic jet model, we attempt to model this spectrum using a strongly SSC-dominated model in which we neglect any soft-photon input from the broad line region (i.e., we set $`\tau _{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{BLR}}=0`$). As a first guess, we fix a bulk Lorentz factor of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10`$, yielding $`D=19.41`$. We then start out by choosing an arbitrary value of $`\gamma _1`$, and try to adjust the model parameters $`\gamma _2`$, $`p`$, and $`n_e`$ so that a good fit to the optical – X-ray spectrum of W Comae is achieved. We find that this is possible for values of $`500\gamma _12000`$. The curves no. 1 – 5 in Fig. 3 illustrate the resulting model fits for a sequence of models with $`\gamma _1`$ in the above range. For substantially lower values of $`\gamma _1`$, our model spectra become too flat to join the optical and X-ray spectra. The model parameters for each simulation are listed in Table 2. The last column in Table 2 lists the integrated photon fluxes from those models at energies $`E>40`$ GeV. The table indicates that different SSC model fits to the optical – X-ray spectrum of W Comae predict levels of VHE emission which differ by a factor of more than 10.

In a second step, we investigate how much our results depend on the (rather arbitrary) choice of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10`$ adopted above. To this aim, we now fix an intermediate value of $`\gamma _1=1000`$ from the previous models, and attempt to find model fits for different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Specifically, we repeat the fitting procedure for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=15`$, corresponding to $`D=7.78`$, and $`D=28.05`$, respectively. Again, we do not encounter any fundamental problem in finding appropriate model parameters to provide a good fit to the optical – X-ray spectrum of W Comae. Similar to the previous series of fits, the two new model fits predict levels of VHE emission differing by about an order of magnitude. The fit results are shown as curves no. 6 and 7 in Fig. 3

Fig. 3 illustrates another very interesting result: Although the different SSC model fits predict very different levels of $`>40`$ GeV emission, they all cut off around 100 GeV. Thus, no $`>100`$ GeV emission is predicted by any of our model fits. This is related to the high-energy cut-off of the synchrotron component, which is very well constrained by the high-quality X-ray spectrum observed by BeppoSAX. Table 2 indicates that there is a certain degree of anti-correlation between $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$. As mentioned above, the minimum allowed value for $`\gamma _1`$ is rather well defined so that we do not have the freedom to choose very low values of $`\gamma _1`$ in order to attempt to find acceptable fits with very large values of $`\gamma _2`$ which would be able to produce substantially higher VHE cutoffs.

As pointed out by Tagliaferri et al. (2000), a pure SSC model fit to the 1998 SED of W Comae produces a $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum which is incompatible with the EGRET spectrum if the spectral index resulting from this low-significance detection is to be trusted. The fact that EGRET detections of the source during other viewing periods yielded similar spectral shapes in the 0.1 – 10 GeV regime (§2) provides some circumstantial evidence that there might indeed be a separate high-energy emission component producing a spectral bump centered at a peak energy of $`E_{\mathrm{pk},\mathrm{HE}}10`$ GeV. In the framework of our generic leptonic jet model, this can be plausibly related to an external Compton component. In Fig. 4, we illustrate, how the overall spectral shape of our model fit no. 1 (see Fig. 3 and Tab. 2) changes if an external Compton component due to soft photons reprocessed in the broad line region is included in the model. The radio – hard X-ray emission from the different models remains virtually invariant under the inclusion of the EC component. The EGRET spectrum can be very well accomodated assuming a radial Thomson depth of our model BLR of $`\tau _{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{BLR}}3\times 10^3`$. This would raise the predicted $`>40`$ GeV flux from the model by a factor of $`3`$ compared to the pure SSC model with otherwise identical parameters. The sharp cut-off of the VHE emission around $`100`$ GeV remains unchanged even with the inclusion of the EC component. The low-energy cut-off of the external-Compton component is caused by the sharp cut-off in the electron injection function at $`\gamma _1`$. This cut-off is maintained in the evolving electron distribution throughout the simulation because the radiative cooling time scale for electrons of energy $`\gamma \gamma _1`$ is much longer than the dynamical time scale for the parameters used here.

From this analysis, we can conclude that pure spectral modeling of the optical – X-ray emission of W Comae is insufficient to make reliable predictions about the expected level of VHE emission at $`>40`$ GeV from this object. In the next section, we illustrate, how the combination of spectral and X-ray variability information can be used to put significantly tighter constraints on the expected level of VHE emission — even without independent information about the $`\gamma `$-ray emission.

## 5 X-ray variability

Apart from the spectral information, the BeppoSAX X-ray observations of May 1998 revealed variability in the soft band (0.1 – 4 keV), dominated by a broad flare with a rise time of $`7`$ hr and a decay time of $`10`$ hr (see Fig. 2 of Tagliaferri et al. (2000)), corresponding to $`6`$ hr and $`9`$ hr in the cosmological rest-frame of the source. In the hard band (4 – 10 keV), no significant variability was detected. Because of the limited photon statistics, local spectral indices or hardness ratios within the soft and hard bands could not be extracted with useful temporal resolution. However, such information might become available through observations with the new generation of X-ray telescopes, in particular XMM-Newton and Chandra. For this reason, we are now investigating generic light curves and spectral variability signatures at X-rays resulting from the different model fits to W Comae presented in the previous section.

To do so, we use a code which is based on the jet radiation transfer code of Böttcher et al. (1997) and Böttcher & Bloom (2000), but accounts for time-dependent electron acceleration and/or injection throughout the evolution of the emitting region as it moves outward along the jet. A detailed code description as well as a parameter study for various generic model situations will be presented in Böttcher & Chiang (2002). The numerical approach is very similar to the one used by Li & Kusunose (2000) who had investigated the broadband spectral variability features in a pure SSC model for flaring blazars, but our code allows for the additional electron cooling and photon emission from external Compton scattering (both direct accretion-disk photons and accretion-disk emission reprocessed in the broad-line region) and takes into account $`\gamma \gamma `$ absorption intrinsic to the source, including the corresponding pair production.

In order to investigate a generic spectral-variability model for W Comae, we assume that the electron injection during a flare occurs at a constant rate over one dynamical time scale $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}=R_B/c`$ in the co-moving frame, and then proceeds at a lower rate, corresponding to the quiescent emission outside the flaring episode. Consequently, the parameters pertaining to the relativistic electron distributions quoted in Table 2 correspond to flaring injection luminosities of $`L_{\mathrm{inj}}^{\mathrm{fl}}=3\times 10^{41}`$ ergs s-1 (fit no. 1) to $`L_{\mathrm{inj}}^{\mathrm{fl}}=2.6\times 10^{42}`$ ergs s-1 (fit no. 5). We choose a quiescent injection luminosity of $`L_{\mathrm{inj}}^{\mathrm{qu}}=10^{40}`$ ergs s-1.

Fig. 5 illustrates the time-dependent photon spectra resulting from these simulations corresponding to the spectral fits no. 1 (SSC model with the lowest SSC flux of the fits shown in Fig. 3), 5 (SSC model with the highest SSC flux of the fits shown in Fig. 3), and 10 (complete SSC + EC model with the largest EC contribution of the fits shown in Fig. 4). Fig. 6 shows the light curves in the R-band and at 4 different X-ray energies resulting from the same time-dependent simulations. The figure illustrates that the light curves corresponding to the fits no. 1 and 5 are qualitatively very different. The almost symmetric shape of the observed light curve is clearly not reproduced by the SSC dominated case no. 5. However, no significant difference in the optical and X-ray light curves results from the inclusion of an EC component, even in the most extreme case of spectral fit no. 10 (with $`\tau _{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{BLR}}=10^2`$). Note, however, that even in this case the bolometric luminosity (and, consequently, the electron cooling) is still dominated by the synchrotron component, which may explain the fact that it has only a negligible impact on the low-frequency light curves.

In Fig. 7, we show tracks in the hardness-intensity diagrams (monoenergetic flux, normalized to the peak flux, vs. energy spectral index $`\alpha `$), produced in the different model situations. As with the light curves shown in Fig. 6, the synchrotron dominated case no. 1 should be clearly distinguishable from the SSC dominated case no. 5, while the inclusion of an EC component leaves the hardness-intensity tracks virtually unchanged.

In the simulations above, we have assumed the simplest possible time-dependence of the electron acceleration, namely a step function. Li & Kusunose (2000) have also touched on the issue of different intrinsic injection functions, and found the effect on the light curves is only of minor importance, if the total duration of the flare injection event is of the same order of magnitude as the dynamic time scale, and the total injected energy remains unchanged. From this, we may conclude that our results do not strongly depend on the detailed shape of the injection profile, at least to the degree of accuracy with which the soft X-ray variability could be measured by BeppoSAX.

In summary, our modeling results indicate that cooling of the ultrarelativistic electron and/or pair plasma in the jet is synchrotron and/or EC dominated. The most realistic model parameters therefore seem to be close to the simulations no. 1 or 2, with a possible moderate contribution due to external Compton scattering, depending on whether the observed EGRET flux from 3EG J1222+2841 is indeed related to W Comae. Consequently, we predict a $`>40`$ GeV flux from W Comae of $``$ (0.4 – 1) $`\times 10^{10}`$ photons cm-2 s-1 with no significant emission at $`E100`$ GeV. Note, however, that our conclusions about the X-ray variability have so far only been based on the soft X-ray light curve measured by BeppoSAX. We strongly suggest that our predictions about the energy-dependent hardness-intensity variability illustrated in Fig. 7 should be tested with future observations by XMM-Newton or Chandra.

## 6 Comparison to hadronic models

An alternative to leptonic models are the so-called ”hadronic models” proposed to explain $`\gamma `$-ray emission from blazars. While leptonic models deal with a relativistic e± plasma in the jet, in hadronic models the relativistic jet consists of a relativistic proton ($`p`$) and electron ($`e^{}`$) component. Here we use the hadronic Synchrotron-Proton Blazar (SPB-) model of Mücke et al. (2002) to model the spectral energy distribution (SED) of W Comae in May 1998.

Like in the leptonic model the emission region, or “blob”, in an AGN jet moves relativistically along the jet axis which is closely aligned with our line-of-sight. Relativistic (accelerated) protons, whose particle density $`n_p`$ follows a power law spectrum $`\gamma _p^{\alpha _p}`$ in the range $`2\gamma _p\gamma _{\mathrm{p},\mathrm{max}}`$, are injected instantaneously into a highly magnetized environment ($`B=const`$ within the emission region), and suffer energy losses due to proton–photon interactions (meson production and Bethe-Heitler pair production), synchrotron radiation and adiabatic expansion. The mesons produced in photonmeson interactions always decay in astrophysical environments, however, they may suffer synchrotron losses before the decay, which is taken into account in this model.

The relativistic primary $`e^{}`$ radiate synchrotron photons that manifest themselves in the blazar SED as the synchrotron hump, and serve as the target radiation field for proton-photon interactions and the pair-synchrotron cascade which subsequently develops. The SPB-model is designed for objects with a negligible external target photon component, and hence suitable for BL Lac Objects. The cascade redistributes the photon power to lower energies where the photons eventually escape from the emission region. The cascades can be initiated by photons from $`\pi ^0`$-decay (“$`\pi ^0`$ cascade”), electrons from the $`\pi ^\pm \mu ^\pm e^\pm `$ decay (“$`\pi ^\pm `$ cascade”), $`p`$-synchrotron photons (“$`p`$-synchrotron cascade”), charged $`\mu `$-, $`\pi `$\- and $`K`$-synchrotron photons (“$`\mu ^\pm `$-synchrotron cascade”) and $`e^\pm `$ from the proton-photon Bethe-Heitler pair production (“Bethe-Heitler cascade”).

Mücke & Protheroe (2001) and Mücke et al. (2002) have shown that the “$`\pi ^0`$ cascades” and “$`\pi ^\pm `$ cascades” generate rather featureless photon spectra, in contrast to “$`p`$-synchrotron cascades” and “$`\mu ^\pm `$-synchrotron cascades” that produce a double-humped SED as typically observed for $`\gamma `$-ray blazars. The contribution from the Bethe-Heitler cascades is mostly negligible. In general direct proton and muon synchrotron radiation is mainly responsible for the high energy hump in blazars whereas the low energy hump is dominanted by synchrotron radiation from the primary $`e^{}`$, with a contribution of synchrotron radiation from secondary electrons (produced by the $`p`$\- and $`\mu ^\pm `$-synchrotron cascade). A detailed description of the model itself, and its implementation as a (time-independent) Monte-Carlo/numerical code, has been given in Mücke & Protheroe (2001).

For the modeling of the 1998 SED of W Comae we have fixed the effective size scale of the emission region to $`R_b=\frac{1}{2}ct_{\mathrm{var}}D`$ where $`t_{\mathrm{var}}10`$h is the measured soft X-ray variability time scale. We consider bulk Doppler factors in the range $`D=5`$ – 20 for the fitting procedure, which is consistent with the moderate superluminal motion detected by Massaro et al. (2001). The primary relativistic electrons emit synchrotron photons, which serve as the target photon field for photon-proton interactions and cascading. The synchrotron spectrum from these electrons shows a break at around $`10^{13}`$ Hz where the synchrotron cooling time scale $`t_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{syn}}8\times 10^8(B/1\mathrm{G})^2\gamma ^1`$ sec equals the adiabatic loss time scale $`t_{\mathrm{ad}}\xi R_b/c`$ for a relativistic jet with $`\xi 1`$, taking into account a possible non-spherical geometry, effects of a possible accelerating (i.e. non-constant speed) jet, etc. In the soft X-ray regime, the spectrum turns over steeply when the cooling time scale becomes shorter than the acceleration time scale $`t_{\mathrm{acc}}=r_L/(\eta c)`$ ($`r_L`$ = Larmor radius, $`\eta 1`$ = acceleration efficiency). Note that the theory of plasma turbulence predicts significantly lower $`\eta `$ values for electrons than for protons.

Fig. 8 shows a summary of SPB-models best representing the March/May 1998 data. Similar to the leptonic SSC model, the SPB-model seems to be not compatible with the March 1998 EGRET data if the May 1998 LECS + MECS + PDS data from BeppoSAX are modeled (see models 3 – 5). On the other hand, the BeppoSAX LECS + MECS data together with the EGRET spectrum can be explained by hadronic models (see models 1 + 2), which however underestimate the flux in the PDS energy band by about a factor of 3. The non-compatibility of the EGRET- with the BeppoSAX-data in the modeling procedure might be caused by their non-simultaneity and the poor significance of the EGRET-detection. Note also that during the May 1998 BeppoSAX observing run some technical problems occured which might have affected the PDS data (Tagliaferri et al., 2000).

In the framework of the hadronic SPB-model the hard X-ray spectrum can naturally be explained by strong synchrotron emission from the relativistic protons provided strong magnetic fields $`B`$ of several tens of Gauss exist in the emission region. For the modeling (models 3 – 5) we use $`B=30`$ – 40 G, $`\alpha _p=1.5`$, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{p},\mathrm{max}}=5`$$`10\times 10^8`$, a number density ratio of primary, relativistic electrons to protons, $`e/p0.1`$, and a proton energy density $`u_p60`$ – 150 ergs cm-3, somewhat above the equipartition value, which is not surprising during activity in the source. With Doppler factors $`D=12`$ – 15 the target photon energy density in the jet frame is $`10^{10}`$$`10^{11}`$ eV cm-3. Because proton synchrotron losses dominate in the high energy region over pion production losses (see Fig. 11), the model predicts the main power output at several 100 MeV due to proton synchrotron radiation, with a strong steepening by about 2 orders of magnitude in the GeV range, and $`\gamma `$-ray emission from the $`\pi `$-cascades extending up to about 100 TeV with a break at about 10 TeV at the source. Photons above $`100`$ GeV (in the co-moving frame) will be subject to $`\gamma \gamma `$ absorption within the emission region, and initiate electromagnetic cascades in the jet (see Fig. 12). Absorption of multi-GeV/TeV-photons in the cosmic background radiation field will further alter the observed spectrum: the optical depth exceeds unity above 300 – 700 GeV for W Comae. The predicted photon flux above 40 GeV (see Tab. 3) is therefore similar to the corresponding predictions from the leptonic models (see Tab. 2).

If the intrinsic target photon density increases to $`10^{11}`$$`10^{12}`$ eV cm-3, muon and pion production, and therefore also muon and pion synchrotron radiation, dominates over proton synchrotron radiation (see Fig. 11). This might have been the case during the EGRET-observations (see Fig. 8: model 1 + 2, and Fig. 10). Because pions and muons possess a lower rest mass with respect to protons, their synchrotron emission peaks at higher photon energies than the protons’ synchrotron radiation for the same particle Lorentz factors and magnetic fields. The parameters used for the models representing the EGRET data (models 1 + 2) are: $`D=8`$ – 10, $`B=40`$ G, $`\alpha _p=1.5`$ – 2, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{p},\mathrm{max}}=(13)\times 10^9`$, $`e/p0.2`$ – 1.6 and a proton energy density $`u_p250`$ – 300 ergs cm-3. The main power output in the high-energy regime for models 1 + 2 lies therefore at $`10`$ GeV, and is somewhat higher at IR-energies. For these parameters, photons beyond a few tens of GeV (in the co-moving frame) will be subject to $`\gamma \gamma `$ absorption, and initiate electromagnetic cascades (see Fig. 12). Also here, the model predicts TeV-emission from the $`\pi `$-cascades (however not extending above 1 TeV), which however will partly be absorbed in the cosmic photon background.

Models involving meson production inevitably predict neutrino emission due to the decay of charged mesons. The SPB-model for W Comae in 1998 predict a $`\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ output of about $`10^7`$ GeV s-1 cm-2 peaking at around $`10^{8.59}`$ GeV. The neutrino power at $`10^6`$ GeV is about $`10^{11\mathrm{}10}`$ GeV cm-2 s-1. No neutrino flavor oscillations are assumed here.

In summary, the hadronic SPB-model predicts TeV-emission on a flux level near the detectability capabilities of CELESTE and STACEE for W Comae, but clearly above the sensitivity limit of future instruments like VERITAS. While leptonic models predict integral fluxes at $`>40`$ GeV for W Comae on a similar level than hadronic models do, TeV-emission detectable with very high-sensitivity instruments is only predicted for the hadronic emission processes. This is in contrast to leptonic models, and may therefore be useful as a diagnostic to distinguish between the hadronic and leptonic nature of the high-energy emission from W Comae, in addition to its possible neutrino emission.

## 7 Summary

We have presented detailed modeling of the best currently available simultaneous broadband SED of the radio-selected BL Lac object W Comae, comparing state-of-the-art leptonic and hadronic jet models. The richest and most detailed portion of the SED consists of the BeppoSAX LECS + MECS \+ PDS spectrum from $`0.1`$ – 100 keV, measured in May 1998 (Tagliaferri et al., 2000). It showed the low-energy (synchrotron) component extending out to $`4`$ keV, exhibiting significant variability on time scales of $`10`$ hr, and the onset of the high-energy component beyond $`4`$ keV, with no evidence for short-term variability. The SED was supplemented by simultaneous radio and optical flux measurements as well as a weak EGRET detection in March 1998, i. e. about 2 months before the BeppoSAX spectrum was taken. We have done a careful re-analysis of all available EGRET pointings on W Comae, and confirmed that the source exhibited an unusually hard GeV spectrum during the March 1998 observation, with a photon spectral index of $`\alpha =1.27\pm 0.58`$.

Our fits using leptonic jet models yielded the following main results:

(1) Acceptable fits to the optical to hard X-ray spectrum of W Comae are possible with a rather wide range of parameters in a synchrotron-self-Compton (SSC) dominated model. In agreement with earlier results of Tagliaferri et al. (2000), we find that such fits are generally inconsistent with the (not quite simultaneous) EGRET spectrum of March 1998 as well as the average spectrum over the entire lifetime of EGRET.

(2) The different SSC fits to the optical – hard X-ray spectrum of W Comae in May 1998 result in $`>40`$ GeV fluxes of $`(0.44)\times 10^{10}`$ photons cm-2 s-1, but virtually no emission beyond $`100`$ GeV.

(3) Including the information contained in the X-ray variability measured by BeppoSAX, we can narrow down the range of possible leptonic model parameters to predict $`>40`$ GeV fluxes of $`(0.41)\times 10^{10}`$ photons cm-2 s-1.

(4) In order to reproduce the March 1998 EGRET spectrum together with the May 1998 BeppoSAX spectrum, an external Compton component is required. Such fits result in $`>40`$ GeV fluxes of $`(0.51)\times 10^{10}`$ photons cm-2 s-1, and a strong cutoff at $`100`$ GeV, as in the case of SSC dominated models.

Successful fits to the SED of W Comae were also possible using the hadronic Synchrotron-Proton Blazar model, yielding the following main results:

(5) A model with proton-synchrotron dominated hard X-ray to GeV $`\gamma `$-ray emission is well suited to reproduce the entire radio – hard X-ray spectrum of W Comae in May 1998. Just as the SSC-dominated leptonic models, it is inconsistent with both the March 1998 and the average EGRET spectrum from the source.

(6) The hadronic fit to the radio – hard X-ray spectrum of W Comae predicts a $`>40`$ GeV flux of $`(0.71.4)\times 10^{10}`$ photons cm-2 s-1, i.e. of the same order as the predictions of the leptonic jet models. However, in contrast to the leptonic models, the high-energy emission is expected to extend beyond 1 TeV at a flux level of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{>1\mathrm{TeV}}(318)\times 10^{14}`$ photons cm-2 s-1. Such a flux level is well within the reach of future high-sensitivity instruments like VERITAS.

(7) SPB models consistent with the March 1998 EGRET spectrum under-predict the May 1998 BeppoSAX PDS hard X-ray spectrum. They result in higher $`>40`$ GeV fluxes of $`(513)\times 10^{10}`$ photons cm-2 s-1, but weaker TeV fluxes of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{>1\mathrm{TeV}}(0.79)\times 10^{14}`$ photons cm-2 s-1. In this case, STACEE and CELESTE may be able to get a weak detection of the source, and it would still be a promising candidate for detection by the future VERITAS array.

In conclusion, leptonic and hadronic jet model fits to W Comae make drastically different predictions with respect to the expected very-high energy emission beyond $`100`$ GeV. A detection of W Comae at those photon energies with future, high-sensitivity air Čerenkov detector arrays would pose a serious challenge to leptonic jet models, and might favor hadronic models instead.

We thank D. Smith for inspiring discussions, and G. Ghisellini for making the data on the May 1998 SED of W Comae available to us. We are also grateful to J. Chiang for careful reading of the manuscript and helpful comments. The work of MB was supported by NASA through Chandra Postdoctoral Fellowship grant PF 9-10007 awarded by the Chandra X-ray Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for NASA under contract NAS 8-39073. RM acknowledges support from NSF grant PHY-9983836. AR thanks the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung for financial support through DESY grant Verbundforschung 05CH1PCA6.


format: text

text:
# Magnetization of ultrathin (Ga,Mn)As layers

## I Introduction

The discovery of ferromagnetism in (Ga,Mn)As is rather recentohno1  and the exact mechanisms of the magnetic interaction are still under discussion. The appearance of ferromagnetism in (Ga,Mn)As is usually related to the magnetic exchange interaction between charge carriers (holes) and localized magnetic momentsdietl  of the MnGa atoms. The most popular theories include hole mediated ordering of the local Mn spins via a Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) interactiondietl , or the competition between indirect exchange mechanisms such as double and super exchangeakai .

Due to the limited solubility of Mn in bulk GaAs, (Ga,Mn)As is grown as thin layers, by means of low temperature molecular beam epitaxyohno1b ; jan1  (LTMBE). It is observed that the total magnetic moment, the Curie temperature ($`T_c`$) associated to the paramagnetic-to-ferromagnetic transition, and the electrical properties of such (Ga,Mn)As layers are crucially dependent on the amount of Mnohno2  and its distribution over the different positions in the crystal lattice of the GaAs hostyu ; blino , as well as on the concentration of other defects compensating Mn acceptorsmunekata ; masek . The hole concentration of the layers is only a fraction of the expected one, and the degradation of the magnetic and electrical properties is often related to presence of compensating donor defects, such as As or Mn interstitials, Ga vacancies, or AsGa antisitesgrandi ; pavel  in the structure.

Ohno et al. reportedohno2  a $`T_c`$ of 110 K for 5.3 % Mn doped (Ga,Mn)As. This value of 110 K could be refered to as the “110 K limit”, as many research groups - until recently, as we will discuss in the following - could reach this value, without overcoming it. In order to increase $`T_c`$ toward room temperature, it is necessary to increase the number of free charge carriers mediating the ferromagnetic interaction. It is difficult to increase the Mn concentration above 10 % jan2 . One can instead improve the magnetic properties of (Ga,Mn)As by reducing the amount of compensating defects. For example, it has been predicted theoretically that AsGa antisites could be transformed in \[As intersticial - Ga vacancy\] pair upon illuminationsanvito , reducing the hole compensation. It was also demonstrated that post-growth annealing could displace interstitial Mn atoms, breaking the passivating \[Mn interstitial - MnGa\] pairsyu .

Several groups have indeed been successful in increasing $`T_c`$ by annealing the layers after growth. Hayashi et al. hayashi  could increase the $`T_c`$ of their 2000 Å thick (Ga0.95Mn0.05)As layer from 45 K to 95 K by annealing it 50C above its growth temperature. Later, Potashnik et al.potashnik  obtained a $`T_c`$ of 110 K in a 1100 Å thick (Ga0.92Mn0.08)As layer shortly annealed at a temperature just above the growth temperature. They also observed that, above 5 % of Mn, the $`T_c`$ of optimally annealed layers became independent of the Mn contentpotashnik2 , saturating at 110 K. Edmonds et al.gallagher  reported similar results in thinner layers, as well as an increase of the hole concentration by a factor of 5 in a (Ga0.92Mn0.08)As layer upon annealing. It has also been found recentlybrian ; brianapl ; ku ; newedm  that the post growth annealing of (Ga,Mn)As is the most effective in a very specific thickness range.

In the present article, we report low temperature annealing studies on thin layers of (Ga0.95Mn0.05)As, with thicknesses ranging from 250 Å to 50 Å. The effects of annealing depend on the (Ga,Mn)As layer thickness, inducing the largest changes in the magnetization curves and Curie temperatures of the thinnest layers. $`T_c`$ gradually increases after each annealing and the highest Curie temperature of 107 K is reached for the 150 Å thick layer. To our knowledge, we present the first direct magnetization measurements for (Ga,Mn)As layers with thicknesses in the range of 70 - 150 Å. We hope that similar measurements appear in the literature, helping to disclose the microscopic origin of the unusual shape of the magnetization curves of such thin layers.

## II Experimental

Six (Ga0.95Mn0.05)As layers with thicknesses of 50, 70, 100, 150, 200, and 250 Å were epitaxially grown by LTMBE on epi-ready GaAs(100) wafersbrian , and covered by a 30 Å thick low temperature GaAs layer. This capping layer is necessary to prevent oxidation of the (Ga,Mn)As surface when the samples are taken out of the vacuum system. All layers were prepared under the same conditions, at a growth temperature of 230 C. The Kerr rotation was measured as a function of temperature, employing a He-Ne laser beam as a probe. Details on the experimental setup can be found in Ref. kerr, . The field-cooled (FC) magnetization of the layers was recorded using a Quantum Design MPMS5 Superconducting QUantum Interference Device (SQUID) in a small in-plane applied magnetic field ($`H`$ = 20 or 50 Oe). The temperature dependence of the magnetization $`M`$($`T`$) of the “as grown” layers, as well as after 1, 2, and even 3 post-growth annealings was collected. Each post-growth annealing was performed at 240C for one hour in a nitrogen atmospherenote . Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS) experiments were performed using a CAMECA IMS-6F instrument on a 1.2 $`\mu `$m (Ga0.93Mn0.07)As layer. The (Ga,Mn)As was covered with a 100 Å thick low temperature GaAs capping layer. After growth, the sample was divided into separate pieces, which were annealed in high vacuum at 280C for 1 and 4 hours respectively. The two pieces were analyzed in depth profiling mode after and before annealing. The primary ion beam was created by accelerating positive oxygen ions, O$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$, with a voltage of 6.5 kV, corresponding to a net impact energy of 2 keV. The diameter of the ion beam was 50 $`\mu `$m and it was scanned over an area of 250 $`\times `$ 250 $`\mu `$m2. The current intensity was circa 25 nA giving a sputter rate of $``$ 0.1 nm/s. The positive secondary ions of 55Mn,71Ga and 75As were analyzed. Only ions from the central area of sputtering with a diameter of 50 $`\mu `$m were analyzed. Molecular mass discrimination was applied by using an energy offset of 100 V.

## III Results and discussion

The magnetization of the thin layers was first investigated using the magneto-optical Kerr-effect. The main frame of Fig. 1 shows the temperature dependence of the Kerr rotation for the layers with 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 Å. As seen on the figure, magnetic ordering occurs at higher temperatures for the thinner layers. The temperature onset of ordering is similar for the thin layers, but this ordering is more pronounced for the 150 Å thin layer. For the thicker (250 Å) layer, the coercivity decreases rapidly with increasing temperature (see inset), while it remains constant over a relatively large temperature range in the case of the thinner layers. This indicates some magnetic inhomogeneity in the thinner samples. The random distribution of the Mn acceptors and the donor defects of (Ga,Mn)As affect the magnetic interaction locally, depending on the local hole-electron compensation (see below for more details). The shape of the magnetization curves of the layers is studied in more details using SQUID magnetometry. Figure 2 shows the temperature dependence of the FC magnetization for the different layer thicknesses. The magnetization curve of the as-grown 250 Å thick layer is typical for ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As samplesjan2 , with a $`T_c`$ of 63 K; $`T_c`$ is here determined by the onset of magnetic ordering in the $`M`$($`T`$) curves. In the case of thinner layers, the magnetization curves are broader, which again indicates some degree of magnetic inhomogeneityjan2 . The shape of the $`M`$($`T`$) curves is very similar to that predicted by Berciu and Bhatt in case of segregation of the Mn in “Mn-rich” and “Mn-poor” regionsberciu . In that case, the regions with larger Mn concentration have a larger density of holes, which in turn locally enhances the hole-spin interaction. $`T_c`$ is larger for the 150 Å thick layer. The onset of ferromagnetism increases up to 83 K for this layer, but decreases for lower thicknesses. The magnetization of the as-grown 50 and 70 Å thick layers was too small to be detected on the SQUID.

Successive low temperature annealings are performed on the layers. The $`T_c`$ of the thicker layers (250 and 200 Å) is not significantly affected by a first annealing, showing an increase of only 0.4 and 2.3 K respectively. For the thinner layers, a large increase of $`T_c`$ is observed, and the $`T_c`$ of the 150 and 100 Å thick layers increases by 11.3 and 15.7 K respectively. A significant magnetic signal appeared after heat treatment in the 70 Å thick layer, and a $`T_c`$ of 92 K could be observednote2 . The values of $`T_c`$ obtained after this first annealing coincide with the values previously obtained by Hall measurementsbrian  on the same samples (also annealed once). The effects of a second annealing are similar, and further increases in $`T_c`$ are observed: The $`T_c`$ of the thicker layers increases by 1.3 and 3.6 K respectively, while a larger increase is obtained for the thinner layers. For (Ga,Mn)As thicknesses of 150, 100 and 70 Å, an onset of ferromagnetism appears in the $`M`$($`T`$) curves at 107, 101, and 99.7 K respectively.

These results are summarized in Fig. 3, which shows the temperature dependence of the fied-cooled magnetization for all layers after two annealings. As seen in the insert, and as mentioned above, the effect of the annealings are larger for the smaller thicknesses. As seen in the main frame of Fig. 3, the magnetization reaches a value of $``$ 2.5 $`\mu _B`$ at low temperatures for all layers. This indicates an increase of the total magnetic moment for all thicknesses, as well as possible changes in the coercivity of the layers, as observed by Kuryliszyn et al.kury . In their study, the coercive field of $``$ 1000 - 3000 Å thick (Ga,Mn)As layers was found to decrease by a factor of 2 after short annealings close to the growth temperature.

A third annealing is performed on the 150 Å thick layer. As seen in Fig 2, $`T_c`$ and the total magnetic moment are only marginally affected, indicating that the optimal annealing time for these layers is thus close to 3 hours. After three annealings, the shape of the magnetization curve of this layer was greatly affected, becoming similar to those obtained for thicker layersjan2 . Interestingly, we here reach the “110 K limit”, which may be related to the largest amount of free holesyu ; seong  accessible in such (Ga,Mn)As layers. This limit could be, as pointed out recently by Edmonds et al.newedm , fixed by the details of the growth conditions, and the amount of defects already present before the post-growth annealings. It was recently demonstrated using the present set of samples that the number of carriers available, and thus the amount of defects, was the main factor determining $`T_c`$brianapl . By performing longer annealings, Edmonds et al. could increase $`T_c`$ up to 140 K. Post-growth annealings allowed Ku et al. ku  to reach 150 K. They also observed that the larger $`T_c`$ were obtained for the thinner layers, with a maximum for a thickness of 150 Å. The different annealings rearrange the structure of the layers, displacing both the donor defects and the acceptor Mn ions. AsGa antisites are easily formed during the growth of the (Ga,Mn)As layers. Sanvito et al.sanvito2  have shown that the magnetic interaction in (Ga,Mn)As was influenced by the amount of antisites, as well as by the position of this antisites with respect to the Mn ions. Mn interstitials are as well present in a non-negligible amountnewgrandi . Yu et al.yu  could relate the enhancement of the magnetic properties of (Ga,Mn)As upon annealing to the displacement of interstitial Mn atoms.

Our present results may indicate a segregation of the Mn on the surface of the layersnewcamp . Erwin and Petukhoverwin  have shown that the initial accommodation of Mn atoms should occur preferentially in interstitial sites, implying that such sites should be more abundant in the surface region. Experimentskoeder  have indeed revealed a gradient in the concentration of holes across the thickness of (Ga,Mn)As layers. Although contrary to what one might expect from the just mentioned theoretical considerations, the density of holes is found to be highest in the surface region. These apparently contradicting results may be reconciled if one assumes that the Mn interstitials are mobile under the prevailing growth conditions, and that the surface region is gradually depleted of Mn interstitials by diffusion and surface segregation. Assuming further that the diffusion is slower than the typical growth rate, it is natural to expect that without post-growth annealing, the depletion process should be most efficient for relatively thin layers. Above a certain thickness, determined by the detailed growth/post-growth process, an equilibrium concentration profile of interstitials should be ”frozen in”. Such a scenario is consistent with our results, as well as the results obtained by Ku et al. ku , showing that there is an optimum thickness of (Ga,Mn)As layers, above which the magnetic and transport properties degrade. It is also consistent with the observed efficiency of extremely long annealings demonstrated by Edmonds et al.gallagher  . Although the various experimental results are strongly suggestive, the assumption of Mn diffusion must be verified experimentally. For this purpose we have carried out studies of the Mn concentration profile using Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy (SIMS). The SIMS Mn distribution profiles from an as-grown (Ga,Mn)As layernote3 , and from its pieces annealed for 1 hour and 4 hours are displayed in Fig. 4. The data clearly confirm our assumption that Mn atoms are displaced in the annealing process, not only within the (Ga,Mn)As layer, but also across the GaAs/(Ga,Mn)As interface. More detailed studiesnewjan  show that Mn diffuses to the capping layers, probably in the form of Mn interstitials. Since these interstitials act as double donorsblino ; lars , they tend to compensate the acceptor-type Mn atoms in substitutional sites. The unusual shape of the magnetization curves is related to the inhomogeneity of the thin layers. Varying concentration of Mn interstitials thus implies varying magnetic properties through the (Ga,Mn)As layer.

## IV Conclusion

The magnetic properties of thin layers of (Ga0.95Mn0.05)As are investigated using the Kerr effect and SQUID magnetometry. The effects of low temperature annealings are more pronounced for the thinner layers of (Ga,Mn)As. The results can be understood considering that the surface of (Ga,Mn)As layers host a larger number of interstitial Mn atoms, and is more sensitive to low temperature annealings than the volume of the layers. SIMS measurement do confirm the displacement of the Mn atoms during the annealing process.

While for thick layers, the latter dominates the magnetic response, for the thinner layers, the improvements of the surface upon annealing are unmasked. We believe that the optimization of the growth and post-growth (annealings) conditions of such thin layers could yield very large $`T_c`$ values. Since the present layers are sandwiched between two low temperature GaAs layers, having a lower density of defects, the magnetic properties of the (Ga,Mn)As layers could also be affected by interface effects. It is also important to note that such ultrathin layers certainly exhibit a complex magnetic domain structurefuku , which is rearranged during the different heat treatments.

###### Acknowledgements.

Financial support from the Swedish Research Council (VR) is acknowledged. This work was supported by the Danish Research Council of Engineering Sciences (STVF framework programme “Nanomagnetism”), and the Danish Science Research Council (SNF framework programme “Mesoscopic Physics”). The LTMBE growth of the samples was performed at MAX-Lab, Lund University. J. Sundqvist is acknowledged for his expert help.


text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The de Broglie–Bohm (dBB) interpretation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (QM) and relativistic quantum field theory (QFT)  offers a clear answer (see, e.g., Refs. ) to notoriously difficult ontological questions that arise from the conventional interpretation of QM and QFT. Yet, the current form of the dBB theory of motion is still not completely satisfactory. Relativistic wave equations of bosonic particles lead to superluminal velocities and motions backwards in time . Similarly, the particle density of relativistic bosonic fields may be negative . There exist formal ways to overcome these problems by linearizing the Klein-Gordon equation  or by using the energy-momentum tensor to define timelike particle trajectories , but the resulting particle densities are not in correspondence with the conventional notion of particle in QFT . This led to a conclusion that bosons do not have particle trajectories, i.e., that bosons are causally evolving fields . Thus, in contrast with the conventional QFT, according to the current version of the dBB theory of motion there is a great asymmetry between bosons and fermions because relativistic fermions do have particle trajectories and are not described by quantum fields .

One of the arguments in favor of the nonexistence of particle trajectories for bosons is a difficulty with a causal description of trajectories for particles that are created or destroyed or for states with an indefinite number of particles . However, the same problem remains for fermion trajectories as well, so the current version of the dBB theory of fermions cannot describe observed effects of fermion creation and destruction. There is also an alternative version of the dBB theory of fermions that describes creation and destruction of fermions , but this version does not incorporate particle trajectories. It has been argued that processes of particle creation and destruction cannot be described in a deterministic way . There is an attempt to describe that in a deterministic way by introducing a direct particle interaction , but it does not seem that it leads to the same statistical predictions as the conventional QFT. A recent version of the dBB theory of fermions , based on earlier work , describes creation and destruction of fermions and incorporates particle trajectories.

In this paper we propose a solution of the problems with the dBB interpretation of relativistic bosons discussed above. We argue that superluminal velocities, motions backwards in time and negative densities do not lead to any inconsistencies. Moreover, it seems that these properties are desirable for a causal description of some QFT effects. After that, we propose a causal interpretation of multiparticle wave functions that result from QFT. In this interpretation, all particles that may exist in a state with an indefinite number of particles do actually exist for all time. Particles are never really created or destructed. However, to each particle, we attribute a new deterministic continuously evolving nonlocal hidden variable - the effectivity $`e`$ of a particle. A particle with $`e=0`$ has the effects as if it did not exist, while that with $`e=1`$ has the effects as a particle in the usual sense. We explain how in the process of measurement all effectivities take values equal to either 0 or 1, which has the same effect as if the wave functional had “collapsed” to a state with a definite number of particles.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we study the Bohmian particle trajectories in “one-particle” relativistic QM. In Sec. 3 we study many-particle wave functions in interacting QFT and give a causal interpretation of them in terms of Bohmian particle trajectories. A critical discussion of our results is given in Sec. 4. In the Appendix, we present a short review of the general theory of quantum measurements in the dBB interpretation.

## 2 PARTICLE TRAJECTORIES IN RELATIVISTIC QM

### 2.1 Basic Equations

Consider a real scalar field $`\varphi (x)`$ satisfying the Klein-Gordon equation (in a Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$)

$$(_0^2^2+m^2)\varphi =0.$$
(1)
Let $`\psi =\varphi ^+`$ ($`\psi ^{}=\varphi ^{}`$) be the positive (negative) frequency part of the field $`\varphi =\varphi ^++\varphi ^{}`$. The particle current is

$$j_\mu =i\psi ^{}\stackrel{}{_\mu }\psi ,$$
(2)
where $`A\stackrel{}{_\mu }BA_\mu BB_\mu A`$. The quantity

$$N=d^3xj_0$$
(3)
represents the positive-definite number of particles (not the charge!). This is most easily seen from the plane-wave expansion $`\varphi ^+(x)=d^3ka(𝐤)e^{ikx}/\sqrt{(2\pi )^32k_0}`$, because then $`N=d^3ka^{}(𝐤)a(𝐤)`$. (For more details, see Refs. , where it is shown that the particle current and the decomposition $`\varphi =\varphi ^++\varphi ^{}`$ makes sense even when a background gravitational field or some other potential is present.) The particle density $`j_0`$ can also be written as $`j_0=i(\varphi ^{}\pi ^+\varphi ^+\pi ^{})`$ (where $`\pi =\pi ^++\pi ^{}`$ is the canonical momentum), which is the form used in Refs. .

Alternatively, $`\varphi `$ may be interpreted not as a field containing an arbitrary number of particles, but rather as a one-particle wave function. Historically, this later interpretation was attempted before the former one. Contrary to a field, a wave function is not an observable. In this later interpretation, which we employ in the rest of this section, it is convenient to normalize the wave function $`\varphi `$ such that $`N=1`$.

The current (2) is conserved:

$$_\mu j^\mu =0,$$
(4)
which implies that (3) is also conserved: $`dN/dt=0`$. In the causal interpretation, we postulate that the particle has the trajectory determined by

$$\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{j^\mu }{2m\psi ^{}\psi }.$$
(5)
The affine parameter $`\tau `$ may be eliminated by writing the equation for the trajectory as

$$\frac{d𝐱}{dt}=\frac{𝐣(t,𝐱)}{j_0(t,𝐱)},$$
(6)
where $`t=x^0`$, $`𝐱=(x^1,x^2,x^3)`$, $`𝐣=(j^1,j^2,j^3)`$.

By writing $`\psi =Re^{iS}`$, where $`R`$ and $`S`$ are real functions, we can also write all the equations above in the Hamilton–Jacobi form. Eq. (5) can be written as

$$\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{1}{m}^\mu S.$$
(7)
The Klein-Gordon equation (1) is equivalent to a set of two equations

$$^\mu (R^2_\mu S)=0,$$
(8)
$$\frac{(^\mu S)(_\mu S)}{2m}+\frac{m}{2}+Q=0,$$
(9)
where (8) is the conservation equation (4), (9) is the Hamilton–Jacobi equation, and

$$Q=\frac{1}{2m}\frac{^\mu _\mu R}{R}$$
(10)
is the quantum potential. From (7), (9), and the identity

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }=\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }_\mu ,$$
(11)
we find the equation of motion

$$m\frac{d^2x^\mu }{d\tau ^2}=^\mu Q.$$
(12)
It is easy to show that all the equations above have the correct nonrelativistic limit. In particular, by writing

$$\psi =\frac{e^{imt}}{\sqrt{2m}}\chi $$
(13)
and using $`|_t\chi |m|\chi |`$, $`|_t^2\chi |m|_t\chi |`$, from (2) and (1) we find the approximate equations

$$j_0=\chi ^{}\chi ,$$
(14)
$$\frac{^2}{2m}\chi =i_t\chi ,$$
(15)
which are the usual nonrelativistic equations for the conserved probability density and for the evolution of the wave function $`\chi `$, respectively.

When the nonrelativistic limit cannot be applied, then the quantity $`j_0`$ is not positive definite, so in that case it cannot be interpreted as a probability density. For such a general situation, we give the interpretation of $`j_0`$ in the following subsection.

### 2.2 Physical Interpretation

A typical trajectory that may arise as a solution of (6) is sketched in Fig. 1. The velocity of a particle may be superluminal. Moreover, the particle may move backwards in time, which occurs at the points where $`j_0<0`$. Of course, superluminal velocities and negative densities are closely related, because any vector $`u_\mu `$ with $`u_0>0`$ may be transformed by a Lorentz transformation to $`u_\mu ^{}`$ with $`u_0^{}<0`$, if and only if $`u_\mu `$ is spacelike. The 3-velocity is infinite at the points where $`j_0=0`$ and $`𝐣0`$.

The motion backwards in time does not lead to causal paradoxes when one realizes that it is physically indistinguishable from a motion forwards in time but with negative energy . Therefore, it is natural to reinterpret the negative densities by introducing the physical number of particles

$$N_{\mathrm{phys}}=d^3x|j_0|,$$
(16)
where the physical particle density $`|j_0|`$ is nonnegative. Contrary to (3), the physical number of particles is not conserved. A pair of particles, one with positive and the other with negative energy, may be created at one point and annihilated at another point. (Recall that this is not a particle-antiparticle pair because we are studying a real field $`\varphi `$). Needless to say, this creation and annihilation of highly off-shell particles resembles the behavior of “virtual” particles in the conventional QFT.

Note that superluminal velocities do not contradict existing experiments because, according to the general theory of quantum measurements  (see also the Appendix), the outcome of an ideal measurement of the 4-momentum may only be an on-shell eigenvalue $`p_\mu `$ attributed to the eigenfunction $`\psi _p(x)=\mathrm{exp}(ip_\mu x^\mu )`$ that solves (1). This is because the total final wave function that describes the entanglement between the measured particle and the measuring apparatus during an ideal quantum measurement can be written as

$$\psi (x,y)=d^3pc_p\psi _p(x)\chi _p(y),$$
(17)
where $`y`$ denotes the coordinates of the measuring apparatus. The wave functions $`\chi _p(y)`$ do not overlap, in the sense that $`\chi _p(y)\chi _p^{}(y)=0`$ for $`pp^{}`$. Therefore, as explained in Refs.  and the Appendix, the wave functions $`\psi _p(x)\chi _p(y)`$ constitute a set of nonoverlaping “channels”, so a particle in a “channel” behaves as if the other “channels” did not exist.

The creation and annihilation of free particles described above does not occur during an ideal measurement of a particle momentum because the trajectories are straight lines when $`\psi (x)=\psi _p(x)`$. Similarly, when a position of a particle is measured with good accuracy, then $`\psi _p(x)`$ are replaced by wave functions well localized in space, so multiple particles created during the measurement are confined inside a volume too small to allow the experimental distinction between the particles at different positions. This explains why the creation and annihilation of free particles is not seen in experiments. However, in principle, it would not be impossible to see such creations and annihilations if we knew how to perform measurements radically different from the ideal ones. Thus, our theory leads to predictions that differ from those of the conventional approach and might be observable in future.

There are also no causal paradoxes because the trajectories of particles, including those that are created or annihilated, are uniquely and self-consistently determined by specifying the fields $`\varphi (𝐱)`$ and $`\pi (𝐱)`$ at an initial spacelike Cauchy hypersurface and one initial position of the particle at that hypersurface. It may appear, as in Fig. 1, that the specification of one particle position implies the simultaneous existence of other particles at different positions, but this nonlocal feature does not contradict the causality in the sense above.

Finally, note that the existence of motions backwards in time, which may be reinterpreted as motions with negative energy, may be regarded as a desirable property, because the black-hole evaporation is often viewed as a process in which a pair of particles is produced at the horizon, so that the particle with positive energy escapes from the horizon, while the particle with negative energy is absorbed by the black hole . However, in this paper, we do not further explore the causal description of a specific process of particle creation such as the black-hole evaporation. Instead, we give a general formalism that describes the particle creation in the dBB interpretation of interacting QFT.

## 3 PARTICLE TRAJECTORIES IN RELATIVISTIC QFT

### 3.1 Wave Functionals and Many-Particle Wave Functions

In the Heisenberg picture, the hermitian field operator $`\widehat{\varphi }(x)`$ satisfies the equation of motion

$$(_0^2^2+m^2)\widehat{\varphi }=J(\widehat{\varphi }),$$
(18)
where $`J(\widehat{\varphi })`$ is a nonlinear function that describes the interaction. In a more general case, $`J`$ may also be a function of other quantum fields or a function of background classical fields. In the Schrödinger picture, the time evolution is determined by the Schrödinger equation

$$H[\varphi ,i\delta /\delta \varphi ]\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ,t]=i_t\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ,t],$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ,t]`$ is a functional with respect to $`\varphi (𝐱)`$ and a function with respect to $`t`$. A normalized solution of (19) can be expanded as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ,t]=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n[\varphi ,t],$$
(20)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$ are unnormalized $`n`$-particle wave functionals. Since any (well-behaved) function $`\varphi (𝐱)`$ can be Fourier expanded, the functionals $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$ can be further expanded as

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n[\varphi ,t]=d^3k_1\mathrm{}d^3k_nc_n(\stackrel{}{𝐤}^{(n)},t)\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,\stackrel{}{𝐤}^{(n)}}[\varphi ],$$
(21)
where $`\stackrel{}{𝐤}^{(n)}=\{𝐤_1,\mathrm{},𝐤_n\}`$. The functionals $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,\stackrel{}{𝐤}^{(n)}}[\varphi ]`$ constitute a complete orthonormal basis for the expansion of an arbitrary functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ]`$. (This basis generalizes the complete orthonormal basis consisting of the Hermite functions $`h_n(x)=(\sqrt{\pi }2^nn!)^{1/2}e^{x^2/2}H_n(x),`$ where $`H_n(x)`$ are the Hermite polynomials. For more details, see Ref. ). They have a property

$$𝒟\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}[\varphi ]\varphi (𝐱_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (𝐱_n^{})\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,\stackrel{}{𝐤}^{(n)}}[\varphi ]=0\mathrm{for}n^{}n.$$
(22)
For free fields, i.e., when $`J=0`$ in (18), the coefficients $`c_n(\stackrel{}{𝐤}^{(n)},t)`$ have a simple oscillating behavior of the form

$$c_n(\stackrel{}{𝐤}^{(n)},t)=c_n(\stackrel{}{𝐤}^{(n)})e^{i\omega _n(\stackrel{}{𝐤}^{(n)})t},$$
(23)
where

$$\omega _n(\stackrel{}{𝐤}^{(n)})=E_0+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\sqrt{𝐤_j^2+m^2}$$
(24)
and $`E_0`$ is the vacuum energy. In this case, the quantities $`|c_n(\stackrel{}{𝐤}^{(n)},t)|^2`$ do not depend on time, which means that the number of particles (corresponding to the quantized version of (3)) is conserved. In a general case with interactions, the Schrödinger equation (19) leads to a more complicated time dependence of the coefficients $`c_n(\stackrel{}{𝐤}^{(n)},t)`$, so the number of particles is not conserved.

For free fields, the (unnormalized) $`n`$-particle wave function is

$$\psi _n(\stackrel{}{𝐱}^{(n)},t)=0|\widehat{\varphi }(t,𝐱_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\varphi }(t,𝐱_n)|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(25)
where $`\stackrel{}{𝐱}^{(n)}=\{𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n\}`$. (The multiplication of the right-hand side of (25) by $`(n!)^{1/2}`$ would lead to a normalized wave function only if $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$ in (20).) The generalization of (25) to the interacting case is not trivial because, in systems with an unstable vacuum, it is not obvious what the analog of the state $`0|`$ in (25) is. To treat this problem correctly, we find the Schrödinger picture more convenient. Using the Schrödinger picture, (25) becomes

$$\psi _n(\stackrel{}{𝐱}^{(n)},t)=𝒟\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}[\varphi ]e^{i\phi _0(t)}\varphi (𝐱_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (𝐱_n)\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ,t],$$
(26)
where $`\phi _0(t)=E_0t`$. For the interacting case, we define the wave function to be given by (26), but with a different phase $`\phi _0(t)`$. This phase is defined by an expansion of the form of (20):

$$\widehat{U}(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_0[\varphi ]=r_0(t)e^{i\phi _0(t)}\mathrm{\Psi }_0[\varphi ]+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{},$$
(27)
where $`r_0(t)0`$ and $`\widehat{U}(t)=U[\varphi ,i\delta /\delta \varphi ,t]`$ is the unitary time-evolution operator. From (20), (21), and (22) we see that, even in the interacting case, only the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$-part of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ contributes to (26), which justifies to call $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$ the $`n`$-particle wave functional.

The wave function (25) can also be generalized to a nonequal-time wave function

$$\psi _n(\stackrel{}{x}^{(n)})=S_{\{x_j\}}0|\widehat{\varphi }(x_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\varphi }(x_n)|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(28)
Here $`S_{\{x_j\}}`$ denotes symmetrization over all $`x_j`$, which is needed because the field operators do not commute for nonequal times. For the interacting case, the nonequal-time wave function is defined as a generalization of (26) with the replacements

$`\varphi (𝐱_j)\widehat{U}^{}(t_j)\varphi (𝐱_j)\widehat{U}(t_j),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ,t]\widehat{U}^{}(t)\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ,t]=\mathrm{\Psi }[\varphi ],`$
$`e^{i\phi _0(t)}e^{i\phi _0(t_1)}\widehat{U}(t_1),`$ (29)
followed by symmetrization.

For free fields, the wave function (28) satisfies the equation

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}[(^\mu _\mu )_j+m^2]\psi _n(\stackrel{}{x}^{(n)})=0.$$
(30)
Taking the nonrelativistic limit first and then putting $`t_1=\mathrm{}=t_n=t`$ in (30), we find the multiparticle generalization of (15)

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{_j^2}{2m}\chi _n(\stackrel{}{𝐱}^{(n)},t)=i_t\chi _n(\stackrel{}{𝐱}^{(n)},t).$$
(31)
This is the standard nonrelativistic multiparticle Schrödinger equation, usually postulated without reference to QFT.

### 3.2 Causal Interpretation

In the dBB interpretation, the field $`\varphi (x)`$ has a causal evolution determined by

$$(_0^2^2+m^2)\varphi (x)=J(\varphi (x))\left(\frac{\delta Q[\varphi ,t]}{\delta \varphi (𝐱)}\right)_{\varphi (𝐱)=\varphi (x)},$$
(32)
where

$$Q=\frac{1}{2|\mathrm{\Psi }|}d^3x\frac{\delta ^2|\mathrm{\Psi }|}{\delta \varphi ^2(𝐱)}$$
(33)
is the quantum potential. However, the $`n`$ particles attributed to the wave function $`\psi _n`$ also have causal trajectories. They are determined by a generalization of (6) as

$$\frac{d𝐱_{n,j}}{dt}=\left(\frac{\psi _n^{}(\stackrel{}{x}^{(n)})\stackrel{}{_j}\psi _n(\stackrel{}{x}^{(n)})}{\psi _n^{}(\stackrel{}{x}^{(n)})\stackrel{}{_{t_j}}\psi _n(\stackrel{}{x}^{(n)})}\right)_{t_1=\mathrm{}=t_n=t},$$
(34)
for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. The norms of the wave functions $`\psi _n`$ change with time because the coefficients $`|c_n|`$ change with time. However, in (34), the norms are irrelevant. Even when $`c_n0`$ (for some, but not all $`n`$) during the evolution (for example, this may occur for $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$ in a scattering process), the ratio on the right-hand side of (34) is well defined. Of course, there may exist isolated points at which the ratio diverges, but we already know how to physically interpret these points as points at which the velocity is infinite. This means that these $`n`$-particles have well-defined trajectories even when the probability (in the conventional interpretation of QFT) of their experimental detection is equal to zero. In the dBB interpretation of QFT, we can introduce a new causally evolving parameter $`e_n[\varphi ,t]`$ defined as

$$e_n[\varphi ,t]=\frac{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n[\varphi ,t]|^2}{{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n^{}[\varphi ,t]|^2}.$$
(35)
The evolution of this parameter is determined by the evolution of $`\varphi `$ given by (32) and by the solution (20) of (19), so one does not need a separate evolution equation for $`e_n[\varphi ,t]`$. This parameter might be interpreted as a probability that there are $`n`$ particles in the system at the time $`t`$ if the field is equal (but not measured!) to $`\varphi (𝐱)`$ at that time. However, in the dBB interpretation, we do not want an intrinsically stochastic interpretation. Therefore, we postulate that $`e_n`$ is an actual property of the particles guided by the wave function $`\psi _n`$. We call this property the effectivity of these $`n`$ particles. From the point of view of the conventional interpretation of QFT, this is a nonlocal hidden variable attributed to the particles. We introduce this parameter in order to provide a deterministic description of the creation and destruction of particles. We postulate that the effective mass of a particle guided by $`\psi _n`$ is $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}=e_nm`$, and similarly for the energy, momentum, charge, and other measurable quantities that are proportional to the number of particles. This is achieved by postulating that the mass density $`\rho _{\mathrm{mass}}`$ is given by

$$\rho _{\mathrm{mass}}(𝐱,t)=m\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e_n\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱_{n,j}(t)),$$
(36)
and similarly for the other quantities. Therefore, if $`e_n=0`$, then these $`n`$ particles are ineffective, i.e., their effect is as if they did not exist. Similarly, if $`e_n=1`$, then their effect is as they exist in the usual sense. However, since the trajectories are defined even for the particles for which $`e_n=0`$, the initial condition for particle positions contains one initial condition for the particle guided by $`\psi _1`$, two initial conditions for the particles guided by $`\psi _2`$, and so on, which leads to an infinite number of initial positions. In this way, QFT is really a theory of an infinite number of particles, although some of them may be ineffective. (This resembles the conventional picture of QFT as a theory of an infinite number of particles, although some of them may be “virtual”.)

The formalism may also be generalized to a case with many different particle species described by various bosonic fields. The wave functional $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$ generalizes to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{n\}}`$, where $`\{n\}=\{n_1,\mathrm{},n_{N_s}\}`$ and $`N_s`$ is the number of different particle species. Equation (35) generalizes to

$$e_{\{n\}}[\{\varphi \},t]=\frac{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{n\}}[\{\varphi \},t]|^2}{{\displaystyle \underset{\{n^{}\}}{}}|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{n^{}\}}[\{\varphi \},t]|^2},$$
(37)
where $`\{\varphi \}=\{\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _{N_s}\}`$.

In experiments in which the number of particles is measured, one finds that a particle either exists or does not exist. In other words, the measured effectivity is either 0 or 1. At first sight, this is in contradiction with our theory that allows effectivities to take any value from the compact interval $`[0,1]`$. However, there is no contradiction! If different $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$’s in the expansion (20) do not overlap in the $`\varphi `$ space, then these $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$’s constitute a set of nonoverlapping “channels” for the causally evolving field $`\varphi `$. The field necessarily enters one and only one of the “channels”. From (35) we see that $`e_n=1`$ for the “channel” $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$ that is not empty, while $`e_n^{}=0`$ for all other empty “channels” $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n^{}`$. (This is because, owing to the assumption that different $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$’s do not overlap, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n^{}=0`$ at the configuration $`\varphi `$ which is from the support of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$.) The effect is the same as if the wave functional $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ “collapsed” into one of the states $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$ with a definite number of particles.

In a more general situation, different $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$’s of the measured particles may overlap. However, the general theory of ideal quantum measurements  provides that the total wave functional can be written again as a sum of nonoverlapping wave functionals in the $`\{\varphi \}`$ space, where one of the fields represents the measured field, while the others represent the fields of the measuring apparatus. In this general case, one and only one of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\{n\}}`$’s in (37) becomes nonempty, so the corresponding $`e_{\{n\}}`$ becomes equal to 1, while all other $`e_{\{n^{}\}}`$’s become equal to 0.

The essential point is that, from the point of view of an observer who does not know the actual field configurations, the probability for such an effective “collaps” of the wave functional is exactly equal to the usual quantum mechanical probability for such a “collaps”. This is why our theory has the same statistical predictions as the usual theory. In the case in which all the effectivities are smaller than 1, which corresponds to a situation in which the wave functional has not “collapsed” into a state with a definite number of particles, our theory is neither in agreement nor in contradiction with the standard theory. This is why the effectivity is a hidden variable. This is completely analogous to the Bohmian particle positions, which agree with the standard quantum mechanical predictions only when the wave function effectively “collapses” into a state with a definite particle position, while in other cases it is neither in agreement nor in contradiction with standard QM.

Thus our approach explains why detectors detect integer number of bosonic particles. There are also other attempts to explain this in the framework of causal interpretation of QFT , but these attempts do not incorporate particle trajectories. Here we repeat that there are also stochastic approaches to explain this for all fields  and a deterministic approach for fermions .

Finally, it is fair to note that our approach explains why detectors detect integer number of particles only if an ideal measurement, based on nonoverlaping wave functionals, is assumed. One might consider this as a serious problem and conclude that a stochastic approach  better explains integer numbers of bosonic particles. However, we note that this problem is analogous to a problem with the Bohmian interpretation of a nonrelativistic particle in a harmonic potential, which will be found to have energy equal to a Hamiltonian eigenvalue $`\omega (n+1/2)`$ (with $`n`$ being an integer) only if the energy is measured through an ideal measurement (see the Appendix for a general argument). If a theory of quantum measurements is not taken into account, then Bohmian mechanics leads to statistical predictions that agree with the conventional quantum-mechanical predictions only when the statistical predictions refer to the preferred observables. The preferred Bohmian observables are particle positions in the case of nonrelativistic QM and field configurations in the case of bosonic QFT. Particle momenta and energy in nonrelativistic QM and number of particles in bosonic QFT are not preferred observables in Bohmian mechanics, so the explanation of the conventional quantum-mechanical rules for statistical distributions of these observables requires a theory of quantum measurements.

## 4 DISCUSSION

The results of this paper offer a solution to the problems of the current version of the dBB interpretation of relativistic bosonic QM and QFT. We believe that they provide a deterministic interpretation of all physical effects of the conventional bosonic QFT, including a deterministic interpretation of the processes of creation and destruction of particles. We have explicitly presented equations for real spin-0 fields, but the generalization to complex fields and other integer spins is straightforward. In particular, particles and antiparticles resulting from a complex field $`\varphi `$ possess the separate particle currents $`j_\mu ^{(P)}`$ and $`j_\mu ^{(A)}`$, respectively, such that the usual charge current is $`j_\mu =i\varphi ^{}\stackrel{}{_\mu }\varphi =j_\mu ^{(P)}j_\mu ^{(A)}`$ . This means that particles and antiparticles should be treated as different particle species, even when electromagnetic interactions are present . Refs.  also contain the generalization of (2) to spin-$`1/2`$ fields, so it is also straightforward to generalize the results of Sec. 2 to fermionic particles and antiparticles. However, it is not trivial to generalize the results of Sec. 3 to anticommuting fermionic fields, so this will be discussed in a separate paper.

It is also fair to note that the theory proposed in this paper may not be the only consistent solution to the problems of the current version of the dBB interpretation of relativistic bosonic QM and QFT. Moreover, it is possible that some parts of the theory will turn out to be inconsistent, which will require further modifications of the theory.

For example, we propose that both particles and fields objectively exist and that the macroscopic objects are made of both, but the question of consistency of such a picture requires further research. It is still possible that only particles or only fields should be fundamental objects in a dBB-type theory.

Also, although (34) seems to us to be the most natural generalization of (6), other generalizations are also possible. In general, particles moving according to (34) do not need to be distributed according to $`j_0`$ even if they were distributed so initially. However, this is not in contradiction with the conventional QFT simply because the conventional relativistic QFT, in general, does not make clear probability predictions for distributions of particle positions. Therefore, our theory is able to give testable predictions on phenomena on which the conventional theory is not able to do that.

The remark above on nonexistence of predictions for distributions of particle positions in QFT requires additional explanations. In Refs. , the operator of fermion-number density $`\psi ^{}\psi `$ is defined, which, in turn, leads to predictions for distributions of particle positions in fermionic QFT. These predictions do not need to agree with the predictions that result from our theory, which might be considered as a problem for our theory. However, we do not consider this as a serious problem because, contrary to the claim in Refs. , we do not consider the interpretation of the operator $`\psi ^{}\psi `$ above as a part of the conventional interpretation of fermionic QFT. Instead, by the conventional interpretation (see, e.g., Ref. ) we understand the interpretation based on taking the normal ordering of the product $`\psi ^{}\psi `$. This, owing to the anticommutative nature of fermionic fields, leads to an operator with both positive and negative eigenvalues. Such normal-ordered operator is interpreted as the operator of charge density, which, in turn, leads to predictions for distributions of charge, not of particles. For example, if the probability of finding charge at some point is equal to zero, it tells us nothing about the probability of finding particle-antiparticle pairs at that point. Similarly, for complex bosonic fields, the operator $`i\varphi ^{}\stackrel{}{_0}\varphi `$ defines the charge density, not the particle density. For more details on the difference and similarities between the charge density and the particle density in QFT, see Refs. .

The conventional QFT has definite predictions on angular distributions of particles produced in a scattering process, assuming that the particles are found in states with definite momenta. This assumption corresponds to wave functions of the form of (17). In such a case, our theory predicts that particles move according to classical trajectories (straight lines) determined by their momenta, so the predictions on angular distributions are identical to those of the conventional QFT. Similarly, in the nonrelativistic limit without quantum field interactions, our theory of particle trajectories reduces to the usual dBB interpretation of QM, for which it is already known that it is in agreement with the predictions of the conventional nonrelativistic QM. Therefore, as far as we can see, all definite predictions of the conventional theory are also the predictions of our theory, provided that measurements are based on ideal quantum measurements (see the Appendix).

Note also that different definitions of the effectivity, replacing the definition (35), are conceivable. However, as already mentioned, the definition (35) corresponds to a theory in which the probability of the particle existence in a stochastic interpretation is equal to the effectivity of particles in a deterministic interpretation. This leads to an appealing ontological picture in which the probability of existence is reinterpreted as a kind of “degree of existence” (called effectivity) which is not a probabilistic quantity.

Finally, note that if all physical meaning of the quantity $`e_n`$ is given by Eq. (36), then this equation explains precisely enough the physical meaning of this quantity, so in this case it is not really necessary to use a funny name for it, such as “effectivity”. However, we view Eq. (36) only as the simplest example of a possible precise meaning of $`e_n`$. Different realizations of the general idea that (in some way) the effective mass is equal to the product $`e_nm`$ are conceivable. Therefore, to keep in mind the possibility of different realizations of the general abstract idea of a notion of effectivity, we retain the name “effectivity” for the quantity $`e_n`$.

The theory presented in this paper is certainly opened for further modifications, refinements, and reinterpretations. We hope that new ideas introduced in this paper, such as the abstract (and perhaps still somewhat vague) notion of effectivity, will motivate further research.

Acknowledgements. The author is grateful to S. Goldstein and R. Tumulka for their critical remarks and suggestions. In particular, the basic idea for Eq. (36) arose from a suggestion of S. Goldstein. The author is also grateful to anonymous referees for their constructive critical objections that stimulated a more clear presentation. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia under Contract No. 0098002.

## APPENDIX: <br>THE GENERAL THEORY OF QUANTUM MEASUREMENTS

In our experience, many physicists familiar with the dBB interpretation of QM are not familiar with the corresponding general theory of quantum measurements, despite the fact that this theory is explained in often cited works on the dBB interpretation, such as Refs. . More abstract presentations of this theory can also be found in Refs. . Since this theory of quantum measurements is also important for understanding of the present paper, in this Appendix we present a short review of this theory. For simplicity, we present this theory for the case of nonrelativistic QM with only one measured degree of freedom, but the same ideas can be easily adjusted to other quantum theories as well. Although this Appendix is intended to be self-contained, we note that an interested reader can find more details in the references cited above.

Let $`x`$ denote the coordinate of particle position in the configuration space. Let $`\psi (x,t)`$ be the corresponding wave function. The dBB theory of particle motion is based on the postulate that the velocity $`v`$ of the particle is given by

$$v=\frac{1}{m}_xS,$$
(38)
where $`S(x,t)`$ is the phase of the wave function. This postulate provides that the statistical distribution of particle positions is given by $`|\psi (x,t)|^2`$ for any time $`t`$, provided that this distribution is given by $`|\psi (x,t_0)|^2`$ for some initial time $`t_0`$. However, this fact by itself is not sufficient to provide the agreement of the dBB interpretation with the standard interpretation of QM. A simple way to see this is to consider the statistical distribution of momenta, which, according to the dBB interpretation, is

$$\rho (p,t)=𝑑x|\psi (x,t)|^2\delta (p_xS(x,t)).$$
(39)
In general, this distribution is not equal to the quantum mechanical distribution $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p,t)|^2`$ \[where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p,t)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\psi (x,t)`$\]. In order to see how the dBB interpretation recovers all the statistical results of standard QM, it is necessary to understand the general theory of quantum measurements.

Any measurement eventually reduces to an observation of some macroscopic quantity of the measuring apparatus, such as the position of a needle. In fact, this macroscopic observation can allways be eventually reduced to an observation of the position (in the configuration space) of something. Let us idealize and simplify the analysis by introducing only one configuration-space variable $`y`$ corresponding to the measuring apparatus. (Introducing a larger number of such variables does not change the conclusions.) Assume that we want to construct a measuring apparatus that measures an observable represented by a hermitian operator $`\widehat{A}`$ that acts on the $`x`$ space. The wave function $`\psi (x,t)`$ can be expanded as

$$\psi (x,t)=\underset{a}{}c_a(t)\psi _a(x),$$
(40)
where $`\psi _a(x)`$ are complete normalized eigenfunctions of the operator $`\widehat{A}`$:

$$\widehat{A}\psi _a(x)=a\psi _a(x).$$
(41)
For simplicity, we assume that the spectrum of the eigenvalues $`a`$ is not degenerate. According to standard QM, the probability of finding the state to have the value $`a`$ of the observable $`\widehat{A}`$ is equal to $`|c_a(t)|^2`$. On the other hand, Eq. (39) suggests that this may not be the case in the dBB interpretation, unless $`\widehat{A}`$ is equal to $`x`$. To see how this problem resolves, it is essential to realize that, when the system consisting of the variables $`x`$ and $`y`$ can be considered as a configuration suitable for measurement of the $`x`$ subsystem, the total wave function is not of the form $`\psi (x,t)\chi (y,t)`$. Instead, the interaction between the $`x`$ subsystem and the $`y`$ subsystem should be such that the total wave function takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)=\underset{a}{}c_a(t)\psi _a(x)\chi _a(y),$$
(42)
where the normalized wave functions $`\chi _a(y)`$ with different labels $`a`$ do not overlap in the $`y`$ space. Therefore, if the position $`y`$ is found to have the value in the support of a wave function $`\chi _a(y)`$, then this value is not in the support of any other wave function $`\chi _a^{}(y)`$. In other words, if the position $`y`$ is found to have the value in the support of $`\chi _a(y)`$, then, according to the usual rules of QM, we know that the total wave function is, effectively, equal to $`\psi _a(x)\chi _a(y)`$. The probability for this to happen is, according to (42), equal to $`|c_a(t)|^2`$, just as it should be without taking into account any theory of quantum measurements.

The discussion of the preceding paragraph is valid without taking into account the dBB interpretation of QM. However, without the dBB interpretation, it is not clear why and how the variable $`y`$ takes a definite value. On the other hand, if the variable $`y`$ is also described by the dBB interpretation, then it becomes clear why and how it takes a definite value. From the Bohmian mechanics of composed systems and the fact that the wave functions $`\chi _a(y)`$ do not overlap, it is easy to show that if the particle describing the measuring apparatus has the position $`y`$ in the support of $`\chi _a(y)`$, then the measured particle with the position $`x`$ moves in the same way as it was described by the wave function $`\psi _a(x)\chi _a(y)`$. In such a case, the value of the observable $`\widehat{A}`$ is a constant of motion equal to $`a`$. In this way, the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)`$ effectively “collapses” into a wave function $`\psi _a(x)\chi _a(y)`$, by $`y`$ taking a definite value from the support of $`\chi _a(y)`$. In the same sense, the wave function $`\psi (x,t)`$ effectively “collapses” into a wave function $`\psi _a(x)`$. It only remains to see that the probability for this to happen is equal to $`|c_a(t)|^2`$. We know that, in the dBB interpretation, the probability density in the configuration space is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y,t)|^2=\underset{a}{}|c_a(t)|^2|\psi _a(x)|^2|\chi _a(y)|^2,$$
(43)
where the fact that different $`\chi _a(y)`$ do not overlap has been used, which has eliminated the nondiagonal terms proportional to $`\chi _a\chi _a^{}=0`$ for $`aa^{}`$. By averaging over $`x`$, we find the probability distribution in the $`y`$ space to be

$$\rho (y,t)=\underset{a}{}|c_a(t)|^2|\chi _a(y)|^2=|\chi (y,t)|^2,$$
(44)
where

$$\chi (y,t)\underset{a}{}c_a(t)\chi _a(y).$$
(45)
This shows that the dBB interpretation predicts that the probability for $`y`$ to take a value from the support of $`\chi _a(y)`$ is equal to $`|c_a(t)|^2`$.


text:
# References

## Acknowledgements

We thank M. Ojima and Teikoku Databank, Ltd. for kindly providing high-quality data. This work was supported by grants from the Telecommunications Advancement Organization in Japan.