text:
# The “proton spin crisis” - a quantum query

## Abstract

The “proton spin crisis” was introduced in the late 1980s, when the EMC-experiment revealed that little or nothing of a proton’s spin seemed to be carried by its quarks. The main objective of this paper is to point out that it is wrong to assume that the proton spin, measured by completely different experimental setups, should be the same in all circumstances.

The “proton spin crisis” essentially refers to the experimental finding that very little of the spin of a proton seems to be carried by the quarks from which it is supposedly built. This was a very curious and unexpected experimental result of the European Muon Collaboration, EMC  (later confirmed by other experiments), as the whole idea of the original quark model of Gell-Mann  and Zweig  was to account for 100 percent of the hadronic spins, solely in terms of quarks. This original, or “naive”, quark model also was very successful in explaining and predicting hadron spectroscopy data.

The purpose of this paper is to point out that the “proton spin crisis” may be due to a misinterpretation of the underlying, quantum mechanical theory. As spin is a fundamentally quantum mechanical entity, without any classical analog, special care must be taken to treat it in a correct quantum mechanical manner.

According to Niels Bohr, the whole experimental setup must be considered when we observe quantum mechanical systems. It means that a quantal object does not “really exist” independently of how it is observed. This notion was later quantified by Bell , and verified experimentally by Clauser and Freedman , Aspect, Dalibard and Roger  and others. These experimentally observed violations of Bell’s theorem  are in accordance with quantum mechanics, but incompatible with a locally realistic world view, meaning that quantum objects do not have objective properties unless and until they are actually measured111To be exact, also the possibility exists of non-local “hidden variable” theories, where objects do exist at all times. However, such theories manifestly break Lorentz-covariance.. The quantum states are not merely unknown, but completely undecided until measured. It is important to stress that this is not merely a philosophical question, but an experimentally verified prediction based upon the very foundations of quantum theory itself. To quote John Wheeler: “No elementary quantum phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon” . Unless a specific observable is actually measured, it really does not exist. This means that we should not a priori assume that different ways of probing the system will give the same results, as the system itself will change when we change the method of observation.

For the spin of the proton, let us compare two different experimental setups designed to measure it:

i) The Stern-Gerlach (S-G) experiment, which uses an inhomogeneous magnetic field to measure the proton spin.

ii) Deep inelastic scattering (DIS), which uses an elementary probe (electron or neutrino) that inelastically scatters off the “proton” (actually elastically off partons).

We should at once recognize i) and ii) as different, or complementary, physical setups. If one measures the first, the other cannot be measured simultaneously, and vice versa. DIS disintegrates the proton and produces “jets” of, often heavier, hadrons as the collision energy is much larger than the binding energy, so there is no proton left to measure. Also, the very fact that the hard reaction in DIS is describable in perturbation theory means that we are dealing with a different quantum mechanical object than an undisturbed proton.

In the case of using a S-G apparatus to measure the spin, the proton is intact both before and after the measurement, potential scattering being by definition elastic. S-G thus measures the total spin of the proton, but does not resolve any partons. It therefore seems natural to identify the spin of an undisturbed proton with the result from a Stern-Gerlach type of experiment.

As i) and ii) do not refer to the same physical system, the “spin sum-rule”, usually taken to be an equality, instead reads

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}+L_q+L_G+\mathrm{\Delta }G\frac{1}{2},$$
(1)
as the left hand side describes the measured spin of the partons, while the right hand side describes the spin of the proton. The quantities above stand for: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ = fraction of proton’s spin carried by the spin of quarks and anti-quarks, $`L_q`$ = quark orbital angular momentum contribution, $`L_G`$ = gluon orbital angular momentum contribution, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ = gluon spin contribution.

Now, we can try to disregard the fundamental insight from quantum mechanics described above, and “force” the proton to always be described in terms of “clothed” partons, the so-called constituent quarks of the naive quark model. The canonical “minimal coupling” substitution for including interactions

$$p_\mu p_\mu ^{}=p_\mu +gT_aA_\mu ^a,$$
(2)
implies that the quark and color fields become irrevocably admixed in an undisturbed proton. Here $`p_\mu `$ is the four-momentum of a hypothetical free quark, $`g`$ is the coupling constant of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and $`T_aA_\mu ^a`$ the combined contribution of the color (“gluon”) fields. If taken literally, it means that hadrons may be treated as being composed of “hybrid particles” with four-momentum $`p_\mu ^{}`$. An attempt to treat the spin of an undisturbed proton in terms of such quasi-particles is being investigated in .

An additional complication is the following: While in quantum electrodynamics (QED) an atomic wave function can approximately be separated into independent parts due to the weak interaction, and the spins of the constituents (nuclei and electrons) can be measured separately as they can be studied in isolation222Wigner’s classification of particles according to their mass and spin is given by irreducible representations of the Poincaré group, i.e. noninteracting fields., in QCD it fails as the interactions between fields in an undisturbed proton are much stronger than in the QED case, making even an approximate separation impossible. Even worse, in QCD at low momentum transfers333More precisely, the elementary quanta of QCD are defined only as the momentum transfer goes to infinity. , like in an undisturbed proton, the particles “quarks” and “gluons” cannot even be defined  and thus do not “exist” within the proton, even when disregarding the quantum mechanical measurement process described above.

Even if we assume that (“clothed”) partons within the proton are defined and approximately obey the Schrödinger equation, the proton spin wave function, $`|\chi `$, cannot be factorized into its separate quark spin wave functions ($`|\chi _1,|\chi _2,|\chi _3`$) as it would not be an eigenstate of the strongly spin-dependent Hamiltonian,

$$|\chi =|\chi _1,\chi _2,\chi _3|\chi _1|\chi _2|\chi _3.$$
(3)
In reality the particles are always correlated and the wave function can never be separated into product states, except as an approximation when the interaction is sufficiently small. Actually, the total proton wave function would be

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱_1,𝐱_2,𝐱_3,s_1,s_2,s_3)u(𝐱_1,𝐱_2,𝐱_3)|\chi _1|\chi _2|\chi _3,$$
(4)
where $`s_1,s_2,s_3`$ encodes its spin-dependence, and $`u(𝐱_1,𝐱_2,𝐱_3)`$ would be the space-part of a spin-independent system. There is an intrinsic, unavoidable interference effect between the fields (much like in the famous double-slit experiment for position) which is lost when DIS experiments measure spin structure functions of the “proton”. The structure functions are proportional to cross sections, which by necessity are classical quantities incapable of encoding quantum interference. As each individual experimental data point is a classical (non-quantum) result, structure functions are related to incoherent sums of individual probability distributions.

Thus, even if we (wrongly) assume the parton model to be applicable in both cases i) and ii), S-G would result from adding spin amplitudes (taking full account of quantum interference terms), while DIS would result from adding spin probabilities (absolute squares of amplitudes). However, we emphasize again that in the case of S-G the parton spins are not merely unknown, but actually undefined. An experiment like S-G probes the spin of the proton, while an experiment like DIS probes the spin of the partons and the final (=observed) state is not a proton at all but “jets” of hadrons. These two experiments are disjoint, or complementary in the words of Bohr, and do not describe the same physical object.

In conclusion, we have explained why the “proton” probed by different experimental setups in general cannot be considered as the same physical object. Rather, the whole experimental situation must be taken into account, as quantum mechanical “objects” and observables do not have an objective existence unless measured. We should thus not expect to get the same spin (1/2) for the “proton” when measured by DIS (which actually measures properties of the partons, not the undisturbed proton) as when it is directly measured on the proton as a whole, e.g. by S-G. The “proton” as measured by deep inelastic scattering is a different physical system than a (virtually) undisturbed proton. There is no reason why spin measurements on one should apply to the other. Especially, there is no need for parton spins, as measured by DIS, to add up to the spin of an undisturbed proton, just like the EMC-experiment  and its successors show. On a more pessimistic note, DIS spin data can never directly unravel the spin of the proton because the two are mutually incompatible. At best, it can only serve as an indirect test of QCD by supplying asymptotic boundary conditions to be used in future non-perturbative QCD calculations of the proton spin. If the result of those calculations does not come out spin-1/2, QCD is not the correct theory of strong interactions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The recent results from RHIC (see e.g. ) have attracted renewed interest in better understanding the dynamics of particle production, not only in nuclear collisions.

Quite different approaches  have been used to describe the particle spectra from the nuclear collisions . The thermal models do not make a direct link to nucleon-nucleon collisions. In contrast, in dual parton approaches (DPM) the nucleon-nucleon collisions are the basic ingredients of nuclear collisions. Somewhat extreme model in Ref. with an educated guess for unintegrated gluon distribution describes surprisingly well the whole charged particle rapidity distribution by means of gluonic mechanisms only. Such a gluonic mechanism would lead to the identical production of positively and negatively charged hadrons. The recent results of the BRAHMS experiment  put into question the successful description of Ref. and show that the DPM type approaches seems more correct. In the light of the BRAHMS experiment is becomes obvious that the large rapidity regions have more complicated flavour structure. The pure gluonic mechanisms, if at all, can be dominant only at midrapidities although the charged kaons  show that even this is doubtful. Similarly also the thermal models have difficulties to describe the (pseudo)rapidity dependence of particle to antiparticle ratios  and have to limit to the midrapidity only. In principle, the dynamics in nucleus-nucleus collision is fairly complicated and requires a separate analysis. In the following I concentrate only on nucleon-nucleon collisions – the basic ingredients of the nucleus-nucleus collisions.

On the microscopic level the approach of Kharzeev and Levin  is based on the gluon-gluon fusion. The gluon-gluon fusion is expected to be the dominant process at midrapidities and at asymptotically large energies. It is not clear how large the energy should be to validate this thesis. The physics in the fragmentation region is somewhat different. It was suggested long ago  that pions in the fragmentation region are correlated with the valence quark distributions in hadrons.

The standard hadronization approaches are based rather on the 2 $``$ 2 partonic subprocesses which constitute only a part of the dynamics. The perturbative component of these hybrid models has a flavour structure as dictated by the quark/antiquark distributions. On the other hand, the flavour structure of the remaining soft component is not so explicit. Furthermore the partition into ”soft” and ”hard” components is somewhat arbitrary, being to some extend rather an artifact of a natural failure in applying the (2 $``$ 2) pQCD at low transverse momenta of hadrons than a clear border of the two regions.

In this paper I discuss the relation between unintegrated gluon distributions in hadrons and the inclusive momentum distribution of particles produced in hadronic collisions. The results obtained with different unintegrated gluon distributions presented recently in the literature are shown and compared. In the present study I limit to the nucleon-nucleon collisions only and leave the nucleus-nucleus collisions for a separate analysis.

## 2 Photon-nucleon cross section at high energies

It became a standard in recent years to first describe the HERA data and only then to test the resulting gluon distributions in other processes. We try to follow this reasonable methodology also for jet and particle production.

It is known that the LO total $`\gamma ^{}N`$ cross section can be written in the form

$$\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}N}=\underset{q}{}𝑑zd^2\rho |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma ^{}q\overline{q}}(Q,z,\rho )|^2\sigma _{(q\overline{q})N}(x,\rho ).$$
(1)
In this paper we take the so-called quark-antiquark photon wave function of the perturbative form . As usual, in order to correct the photon wave function for large dipole sizes (nonperturbative region) we introduce an effective quark/antiquark mass ($`m_{eff}=m_0`$). The dipole-nucleon cross section can be parametrized or calculated from the unintegrated gluon distribution

$`\sigma _{(q\overline{q})N}(x,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\kappa _t}{\kappa _t^2}\left[1\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{\kappa _t}\stackrel{}{\rho })\right]\alpha _s(x,\kappa _t^2)}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa _t^2}{\kappa _t^2}\left[1J_0(\kappa _t\rho )\right]\alpha _s(x,\kappa _t^2)}.`$
In the equation above the running coupling constant is fixed constant or is frozen according to an analytic prescription . In the next section we shall compare the dipole-nucleon cross sections calculated from different unintegrated gluon distributions.

## 3 Unintegrated gluon distributions

Search for the unintegrated gluon distribution in the nucleon was a subject of active both theoretical and phenomenological research in recent years. Still at present the unintegrated gluon distributions are rather poorly known. The main reason of the difficulties is the fact that the unintegrated gluon distribution is a quantity which depends on at least two variables ($`x`$ and $`\kappa ^2`$) in a nontrivial and a priori unknown way. Another difficulty is in an unambiguous separation of perturbative and nonperturbative regions. In general different phenomena test the unintegrated gluon distribution in different corners of the phase space. Therefore it is not surprising that different gluon distributions found in the literature, extracted from the analyses of different phenomena, differ among themselves considerably . In this section I collect and briefly discuss gluon distributions used in the present calculation of the jet and particle production. There are two different conventions of introducing unintegrated gluon distributions in the literature. The resulting quantities are denoted as $`f`$ (dimenionless quantity) and $``$ (with dimension 1/GeV2). We shall keep this notation throughout the present paper.

### 3.1 BFKL gluon distribution

At very low $`x`$ the unintegrated gluon distributions are believed to fulfil BFKL equation  (see also ). After some simplifications  the BFKL equation reads

$$x\frac{f(x,q_t^2)}{x}=\frac{\alpha _sN_c}{\pi }q_t^2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dq_{1t}^2}{q_{1t}^2}\left[\frac{f(x,q_{1t}^2)f(x,q_t^2)}{|q_t^2q_{1t}^2|}+\frac{f(x,q_t^2)}{\sqrt{q_t^4+4q_{1t}^4}}\right].$$
(3)
The homogeneous BFKL equation can be solved numerically . Here in the practical applications we shall use a simple parametrization for the solution

$$f(x,\kappa _t^2)=\frac{C}{x^\lambda }\left(\frac{\kappa _t^2}{q_0^2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0}{\sqrt{2\pi \lambda ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{ln}(1/x)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(\kappa _t^2/\overline{q}^2)}{r2\lambda ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{ln}(1/x)}\right]$$
(4)
In the above expression $`\lambda =4\overline{\alpha }_s\mathrm{ln}2`$, $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ = 28 $`\overline{\alpha }_s\zeta (3)`$, $`\overline{\alpha }_s=3\alpha _s/\pi ,\zeta (3)`$ = 1.202. The remaining parameters were adjusted in  to reproduce with a satisfactory accuracy the gluon distribution which was obtained in  as the numerical solution of the BFKL equation. It was found that $`\overline{q}=q_0`$ = 1, $`C\overline{\varphi }_0`$ = 1.19 and $`r`$ = 0.15 .

### 3.2 Golec-Biernat-Wüsthoff gluon distribution

Another parametrization of gluon distribution in the proton can be obtained based on the Golec-Biernat-Wüsthoff parametrization of the dipole-nucleon cross section with parameters fitted to the HERA data . The resulting gluon distribution reads :

$$\alpha _s(x,\kappa _t^2)=\frac{3\sigma _0}{4\pi ^2}R_0^2(x)\kappa _t^2\mathrm{exp}(R_0^2(x)\kappa _t^2),$$
(5)
where

$$R_0(x)=\frac{1}{GeV}\left(\frac{x}{x_0}\right)^{\lambda /2}.$$
(6)
From their fit to the data: $`\sigma _0`$ = 29.12 mb, $`x_0`$ = 0.41 $``$ 10-4, $`\lambda `$ = 0.277 . In order to determine the gluon distribution needed in calculating jet and particle production we shall take $`\alpha _s`$ = 0.2.

### 3.3 Kharzeev-Levin gluon distribution

Another parametrization, also based on the idea of gluon saturation, was proposed recently in . In contrast to the GBW approach , where the dipole-nucleon cross section is parametrized, in the Karzeev-Levin approach it is the gluon distribution which is parametrized. In the following we shall consider the most simplified functional form:

$`(x,\kappa ^2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_0\hfill & \text{if}\kappa ^2<Q_s^2,\hfill \\ f_0\frac{Q_s^2}{\kappa ^2}\hfill & \text{if}\kappa ^2>Q_s^2.\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
The saturation momentum $`Q_s`$ is parametrized exactly as in the GBW model $`Q_s^2(x)=`$ 1 GeV2 $`\left(\frac{x_0}{x}\right)^\lambda `$. It was claimed in  that the gluon distribution like (7) leads to a good description of the recent RHIC rapidity distributions. It is interesting to check its performance for the deep inelastic scattering at low Bjorken $`x`$.

In the following the normalization constant $`f_0`$ is adjusted to roughly describe the HERA data. We find $`f_0`$ = 170 mb. The quality of the fit is shown in Fig. 1 for $`Q^2`$ = 0.25, 5, 10 GeV2.

In this fit the running coupling constant frozen according to  was used. The result at low photon virtuality ($`Q^2`$ = 0.25 GeV2) depends also on the value of the quark/antiquark effective mass. In the calculation in Fig. 1 $`m_0`$ = 0.15 GeV (solid) and $`m_0`$ = 0.10 GeV (dashed) was used. It can be inferred from the figure that the (virtual) photon-proton cross section at large virtuality ($`Q^2`$ = 5,10 GeV2) is in practice independent of the effective quark mass. This allows to fix the gluon normalization constant $`f_0`$.

In order to better visualize the difference to the GBW model, in Fig. 2 I compare the dipole-nucleon

cross sections in both parametrizations for $`x=10^2`$, 10-3, 10-4. In the GBW approach the dipole-nucleon cross section saturates at large dipole size. In contrast to the GBW parametrization, the dipole-nucleon cross section calculated according to Eq.(2) based on the KL gluon distribution (7) grows slowly with the dipole size $`\rho `$.

### 3.4 Kimber-Martin-Ryskin gluon distribution

The unintegrated gluon distribution can be obtained even when the integrated gluon distribution fulfils standard DGLAP evolution equation. At very small $`x`$

$$(x,\kappa ^2)=\frac{}{Q^2}\left[xg(x,Q^2)\right]|_{Q^2=\kappa ^2}.$$
(8)
This prescription breaks at larger values of $`x`$ when the derivative of the gluon distribution becomes negative. This may be somewhat improved by introducing a Sudakov form factor $`T_g(\kappa ^2,\mu ^2)`$. Then the unintegrated gluon distribution reads :

$$(x,\kappa ^2,\mu ^2)=\frac{}{Q^2}\left[T(Q^2,\mu ^2)xg(x,Q^2)\right]|_{Q^2=\kappa ^2}.$$
(9)
Resumming virtual contributions to DGLAP equation, the unintegrated parton distributions can be written as

$$f_a(x,\kappa ^2,\mu ^2)=T_a(\kappa ^2,\mu ^2)\frac{\alpha _s(\kappa ^2)}{2\pi }\underset{a^{}}{}_x^{1\delta }P_{aa^{}}(z)\left(\frac{x}{z}\right)a^{}(\frac{x}{z},\kappa ^2)𝑑z.$$
(10)
Specializing to the gluon distribution the Sudakov form factor reads as

$$T_g(\kappa ^2,\mu ^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(_{\kappa ^2}^{\mu ^2}\frac{dp^2}{p^2}\frac{\alpha _s(p^2)}{2\pi }_0^{1\delta }𝑑zz\left[P_{gg}(z)+\underset{q}{}P_{qg}(z)\right]\right).$$
(11)
The Sudakov form factor introduces a dependence on a second scale $`\mu ^2`$. It is reasonable to assume that the unintegrated gluon density given by (10) starts only for $`\kappa _t^2>\kappa _{t0}^2`$ . At lower $`\kappa _t^2`$ an extrapolation is needed. In our case of particle distributions the results are sensitive to rather low $`\kappa `$. Because of this, a use of the GRV integrated gluon distribution  in (10) seems more adequate than any other PDF. Following Ref. $`\kappa _{t0}^2`$ = 0.5 GeV2 is taken as the lowest value where the unintegrated gluon distribution is calculated from Eq.(10). Below it is assumed

$$(x,\kappa ^2)=f(x,\kappa ^2)/\kappa ^2=f(x,\kappa _0^2)/\kappa _0^2.$$
(12)
The choice of $`\mu ^2`$ in our case of jet (particle) production is not completely obvious. In the present analysis $`\mu ^2=p_t^2`$ is assumed, where $`p_t`$ is transverse momentum of the produced gluon ($``$ jet). In accord with the interpretation of the Sudakov form factor as a survival probability we assume that if transverse momentum of the produced gluon is smaller than the transverse momentum of the last gluon of the ladder ($`p_t<\kappa _1`$ or $`p_t<\kappa _2`$, see next section) then the corresponding Sudakov form factor is set to 1, i.e. we do not allow for any enhancement. If $`T_g`$ in Eq.(10) is ignored we shall denote the corresponding gluon distribution as $`f_{DGLAP}`$ or $`_{DGLAP}`$ and call it DGLAP gluon distribution for brevity.

### 3.5 Blümlein gluon distribution

In the approach of Blümlein  the $`\kappa _t^2`$ dependent gluon distribution satisfying the BFKL equation can be represented as the convolution of the integrated gluon density $`xg(x,\mu ^2)`$ and a universal function $``$

$$(x,\kappa _t^2,\mu ^2)=_x^1(z,\kappa _t^2,\mu ^2)\frac{x}{z}g(\frac{x}{z},\mu ^2)𝑑z.$$
(13)
The universal function $`(x,\kappa _t^2,\mu ^2)`$ can be represented as a series . The first term of the expansion describes BFKL dynamics in the double-logarithmic approximation:

$$(z,\kappa _t^2,\mu ^2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{z\kappa _t^2}J_0(2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_s\mathrm{log}(1/z)\mathrm{log}(\mu ^2/\kappa _t^2)})\hfill & \text{if}\kappa _t^2<\mu ^2\hfill \\ \frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{z\kappa _t^2}I_0(2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_s\mathrm{log}(1/z)\mathrm{log}(\kappa _t^2/\mu ^2)})\hfill & \text{if}\kappa _t^2>\mu ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where $`\overline{\alpha }_s=3\alpha _s/\pi `$.

In DIS there is a natural choice of the scale $`\mu ^2`$. The choice of the scale is not so obvious in the case considered in the present paper. I shall argue that in practice the dependence on that scale is very weak. In the following I shall use the integrated gluon distribution in Eq.(13) from Ref. .

## 4 Inclusive gluon production

Before we go to particle production in the next section, let us consider the first step of the process – production of partons. At high energies gluons are the most abundantly produced partons in hadron-hadron collisions. Also gluons are responsible for their production.

At sufficiently high energy the cross section for inclusive gluon production in $`h_1+h_2g`$ can be written in terms of the unintegrated gluon distributions “in” both colliding hadrons:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dyd^2p_t}=\frac{16N_c}{N_c^21}\frac{1}{p_t^2}\alpha _s(\mathrm{\Omega }^2)_1(x_1,\kappa _1^2)_2(x_2,\kappa _2^2)\delta (\stackrel{}{\kappa }_1+\stackrel{}{\kappa }_2\stackrel{}{p}_t)d^2\kappa _1d^2\kappa _2.$$
(15)
In the equation above $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are unintegrated gluon distributions in hadron $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$, respectively. The longitudinal momentum fractions are fixed by kinematics: $`x_{1/2}=\frac{p_t}{\sqrt{s}}\mathrm{exp}(\pm y)`$. Generally the smaller jet (parton) momenta $`p_t`$, the smaller $`x_{1/2}`$ come into play. The argument of the running coupling constant is taken as $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=\mathrm{max}(\kappa _1^2,\kappa _2^2,p_t^2)`$. The formula (15) above was first written by Gribov, Levin and Ryskin  (see also ) and used later e.g. in . As discussed in Ref. the normalization of the cross section in some previous works was not always correct. Making use of the $`\delta `$ function (momentum conservation) one can simplify (15) to the integral

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dyd^2p_t}=\frac{16N_c}{N_c^21}\frac{1}{p_t^2}\frac{1}{4}\alpha _s(\mathrm{\Omega }^2)_1(x_1,\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_t+\stackrel{}{q}_t}{2}\right))_2(x_2,\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_t\stackrel{}{q}_t}{2}\right))d^2q_t,$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{}{q}_t=\stackrel{}{\kappa }_1\stackrel{}{\kappa }_2`$ was introduced. The factor 1/4 is the jacobian of transformation from ($`\stackrel{}{\kappa }_1`$, $`\stackrel{}{\kappa }_2`$) to ($`\stackrel{}{p}_t`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}_t`$). The integral above is a two-dimensional integral over $`d^2q_t`$, i.e. over $`q_tdq_td\varphi `$, where $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle between $`q_t`$ and $`p_t`$. The original integral (16) can be written as

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dyd^2p_t}=I(\varphi )𝑑\varphi ,$$
(17)
where

$$I(\varphi )=\frac{4N_c}{N_c^21}\frac{1}{p_t^2}\alpha _s(\mathrm{\Omega }^2)_1(x_1,\kappa _1^2)_2(x_2,\kappa _2^2)q_t𝑑q_t.$$
(18)
In Fig. 3, I show the intrinsic angular correlation function $`I(\varphi )`$ for different models of unintegrated gluon distributions for a RHIC energy $`W`$ = 200 GeV. In this calculation y=0 and $`p_t`$ = 1 GeV was taken. Quite a different pattern is obtained for different unintegrated gluon distributions. The $`\varphi `$-distribution is flat for the KL, BFKL, DGLAP and KMR gluon distributions. The most pronounced structure is obtained with the Blümlein gluon distribution (GRV95, $`\mu ^2`$ = 10 GeV2). It was checked that the Blümlein (GRV95) gluon distribution is not very sensitive to the choice of the second scale $`\mu ^2`$. The $`\varphi `$ dependence at $`y`$ 0 also strongly depends on the unintegrated gluon distribution.

It was suggested in  that the integral (16) may be approximated by the formula

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dyd^2p_t}=\frac{4N_c\alpha _s}{N_c^21}\frac{1}{p_t^2}\left[_1(x_1,p_t^2)_2(x_2,q_t^2)+_1(x_1,q_t^2)_2(x_2,p_t^2)\right]𝑑q_t^2.$$
(19)
In Fig.4 (rapidity distribution) and Fig.5 (transverse momentum distribution) I compare the results using the exact Eq.(16) and the approximate Eq.(19) formulae for different models of unintegrated gluon distributions. In Fig.4 the integration over $`p_t>`$ 0.5 GeV is performed while in Fig.5 -1 $`<y<`$ 1. In both cases $`\alpha _s`$ was fixed at 0.2. As can be seen by inspection of the figures the use of the approximate formula is quantitatively justified for the KL, BFKL gluon distributions and not justified for the GBW one.

In Fig.6 I compare the cross section $`\frac{d\sigma }{dy}(y)`$ for different models of unintegrated gluon distributions. In this calculation $`p_t<`$ 0.5 was assumed. The rapidity distribution of gluons are rather different for different gluon PDF. Average values of $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ obtained with different gluon distribution with the $`p_t`$ interval chosen are shown in Fig.7. The following general observations can be made. Average value $`<x_1>`$ and $`<x_2>`$ only weakly depend on the model of unintegrated gluon distribution. For $`y`$ 0 at the RHIC energy W = 200 GeV one tests unintegrated gluon distributions at $`x_g`$ = 10-3 \- 10-2. This is the region known already from the HERA kinematics. When $`|y|`$ grows one tests more and more asymmetric (in $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$) configurations. For large $`|y|`$ either $`x_1`$ is extremely small ($`x_1<`$ 10-4) and $`x_2`$ 1 or $`x_1`$ 1 and $`x_2`$ is extremely small ($`x_2<`$ 10-4). These are regions of gluon momentum fraction where the unintegrated gluon PDF is rather poorly known. The approximation used in obtaining unintegrated gluon distributions are valid certainly only for $`x<`$ 0.1. In order to extrapolate the gluon distribution to $`x_g`$ 1 I multiply the gluon distributions from the previous section by a factor $`(1x_g)^n`$, where n = 5-7.

In the approach considered in the present paper (for details see next section) the production of particles is sensitive to rather small gluon (called equivalently jet despite of the small transverse momentum) transverse momenta.

In Fig.8 I plot $`\frac{d\sigma }{dp_t}(p_t)`$ in the low $`p_t`$ region. In these calculations the gluon rapidity was integrated in the interval -1 $`<y<`$ 1. The results obtained with different models for unintegrated gluon distributions differ considerably. The transverse momentum distribution obtained with the GBW gluon density is much steeper than the distribution for any other gluon density. The inclusion of DGLAP evolution as in  would probably change the situation. In the case of the Blümlein gluon distribution the transverse momentum spectrum has a natural low-$`p_t`$ cut-off if the scale $`\mu ^2=p_t^2`$ is chosen. If similar prescription of the scale is used for calculating gluon transverse momentum distribution with KMR method the DGLAP and KMR results are almost identical. Contrary to the claim in  the result obtained with the GBW and KL gluon distributions differ considerably.

The rapidity and pseudorapidity distributions of partons (massless particles) are identical. The situation changes when massive particles are produced in the final state via fragmentation. Below we discuss how to take into account the unknown hadronization process with the help of phenomenological fragmentation functions.

## 5 From gluon to particle distributions

In Ref. it was assumed, based on the concept of local parton-hadron duality, that the rapidity distribution of particles is identical to the rapidity distribution of gluons. This seems to be a very severe assumption and for massive particles this idea must lead to incorrect results, especially in the fragmentation region. This approach leads to e.g. (massive) particles with rapidities ($`y_h`$) beyond the allowed kinematical region ($`y_{h,min},y_{h,max}`$). Furthermore in  the normalization of rapidity distributions was fitted to the experimental charged particle rapidity distributions. In our opinion, the good description of the charged particle distribution in the full range of rapidity in Ref.  is due to these simplifications rather than due to the underlying dynamics.

In the present approach I follow a different, yet simple, approach which makes use of phenomenological fragmentation functions (see e.g.). For our present exploratory study it seems sufficient to assume that the emitted hadron, mostly pion, is collinear to the gluon direction ($`\theta _h=\theta _g`$). This is equivalent to $`\eta _h=\eta _g=y_g`$, where $`\eta _h`$ and $`\eta _g`$ are hadron and gluon pseudorapitity, respectively.

In experiments a good identification of particles is not always achieved which makes impossible to determine the rapidity of a particle. The practice then is to measure pseudorapidity. The rapidity of a given type of hadrons ($`y_h`$) with a mass $`m_h`$ can be obtained from the pseudorapidity as

$$y_h=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\frac{m_h^2+p_{t,h}^2}{p_{t,h}^2}+\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta _h}+\mathrm{sinh}\eta _h}{\sqrt{\frac{m_h^2+p_{t,h}^2}{p_{t,h}^2}+\mathrm{sinh}^2\eta _h}\mathrm{sinh}\eta _h}\right].$$
(20)
The collinearity of partons and particles leads to the following relation between rapidity of the gluon and hadron

$$y_g=\mathrm{arsinh}\left(\frac{m_{t,h}}{p_{t,h}}\mathrm{sinh}y_h\right),$$
(21)
where the transverse mass $`m_{t,h}=\sqrt{m_h^2+p_{t,h}^2}`$. In order to introduce phenomenological fragmentation functions one has to define a new kinematical variable. In accord with $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`ep`$ collisions I define a standard auxiliary quantity $`z`$ by the equation $`E_h=zE_g`$. This leads to the following relation between transverse momenta of the gluon and hadron

$$p_{t,g}=\frac{p_{t,h}}{z}J(m_{t,h},y_h),$$
(22)
where

$$J(m_{t,h},y_h)=\left(1\frac{m_h^2}{m_{t,h}^2\mathrm{cosh}^2y_h}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(23)
Now we can write the single particle distribution in terms of the gluon distribution from the last section as follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (\eta _h,p_{t,h})}{d\eta _hd^2p_{t,h}}}={\displaystyle 𝑑y_gd^2p_{t,g}𝑑zD_{gh}(z,\mu _D^2)}`$ (24)
$`\delta (y_g\eta _h)\delta ^2\left(\stackrel{}{p}_{t,h}{\displaystyle \frac{z\stackrel{}{p}_{t,g}}{J}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (y_g,p_{t,g})}{dy_gd^2p_{t,g}}}.`$
Making use of the $`\delta `$ functions we can write the single particle spectrum as

$$\frac{d\sigma (\eta _h,p_{t,h})}{d\eta _hd^2p_{t,h}}=_{z_{min}}^{z_{max}}𝑑z\frac{J^2D_{gh}(z,\mu _D^2)}{z^2}\frac{d\sigma (y_g,p_{t,g})}{dy_gd^2p_{t,g}}|_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y_g=\eta _h}{p_{t,g}=Jp_{t,h}/z}}.$$
(25)
Experimentally instead of the two-dimensional spectrum (25) one determines rather one-dimensional spectra in either $`\eta _h`$ or $`p_{t,h}`$.

The one-dimensional pseudorapidity distribution can be obtained by integration over hadron transverse momenta

$$\frac{d\sigma (\eta _h)}{d\eta _h}=d^2p_{t,h}\frac{d\sigma (\eta _h,p_{t,h})}{d\eta _hd^2p_{t,h}}.$$
(26)
Stable particles 222Here by stable particles we mean the particles registered in detectors are produced directly in the fragmentation process or are decay products of other unstable particles. There are a few global analyses of fragmentation function in the literature up to next-to-leading order . In the present calculation I shall use only leading order fragmentation functions from . One should remember, however, that both $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`ep`$ collisions do not allow to uniquely determine $`D_{gh}`$ fragmentation functions. In order to test sensitivity of our results to these, in my opinion, not quite well known objects I shall use also simple functional forms: $`D_{gh}(z)=2\frac{1z}{z}`$ (model I) or $`D_{gh}(z)=3\frac{(1z)^2}{z}`$ (model II) with the factors in front adjusted to conserve momentum sum rule. When charged particles are measured only, then to a good approximation it is sufficient to multiply the fragmentation functions above by a factor 2/3.

In Fig.9 I compare pseudorapidity distribution of charged pions at W = 200 GeV calculated with the KL gluon distribution and different parametrizations of fragmentation functions. For the BKK1995  and for the KKP2000  fragmentation functions the factorization scale was set to $`\mu _D^2=p_{t,g}^2`$, except for $`p_{t,g}<`$ 1 GeV, where it was frozen at $`\mu _D^2=`$ 1 GeV2. For reference shown are also experimental data for charged particles measured by the UA5 collaboration at CERN . The results only weakly depend on the choice of the $`g\pi `$ fragmentation function. It is worth stressing that the theoretical cross section at $`\eta _h`$ 0 is almost consistent with the experimental one. However, the shapes of theoretical and experimental pseudorapidity distributions differ significantly. It seems there is a room for different mechanisms typical for fragmentation regions. The specificity of these regions will be discussed elsewhere.

Let us analyze now how the results for pseudorapidity distributions depend on the choice of the unintegrated gluon distribution. In Fig.10 I compare pseudorapidity distribution of charged pions for different models of unintegrated gluon distributions. In this calculation the Binnewies-Kniehl-Kramer fragmentation function  has been used. The conclusions inferred above stay true also here. Having in view a dramatically steep $`p_{t,g}`$ distribution in Fig.8 it is rather surprising that the normalization of the spectra at midrapidities comes roughly correct, although very is a tendency to an overestimation for some gluon distributions. This can be due to the fit to DIS data, where the resolved photon component has been neglected. If the resolved photon component is explicitly included  then the normalization of the dipole-nucleon component (dipole-nucleon cross section or unintegrated gluon distribution) must be reduced.

What are typical transverse momenta of gluons involved in the calculations is shown in Fig.11. In this calculation we have used the KL unintegrated gluon distribution and the BKK $`g\pi `$ fragmentation functions . We observe a maximum of the transverse momentum squared of the produced gluon at $`\eta _h`$ 0. In our implementation of fragmentation ($`p_{t,h}^2p_{t,g}^2`$) one tests relatively large $`p_{t,g}^2`$. While at midrapidities $`p_t^2>\kappa _1^2,\kappa _2^2`$, when going to the fragmentation regions the relation reverses. In the whole range of pseudorapidity one tests on average $`\kappa _1^2,\kappa _2^2`$ 1 GeV2. One should remember, however, that at the same time $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ change dramatically when going from midrapidities to the fragmentation region.

In contrast to Ref., where the whole pseudorapidity distribution, including fragmentation regions, has been well described in an approach similar to the one presented here, in the present paper pions produced from the fragmentation of gluons in the $`ggg`$ mechanism populate only midrapidity region, leaving room for other mechanisms in the fragmentation regions. These mechanisms involve quark/antiquark degrees of freedom or leading protons among others. In Fig.12 I show the pseudorapidity spectra of protons, antiprotons and the difference $`d\sigma /d\eta _{\pi ^+}d\sigma /d\eta _\pi ^{}`$ obtained with the code HIJING  (see also ). The difference of the proton-antiproton spectra gives an idea of leading particle contribution. Both protons from deeply inelastic events as well as protons from diffraction dissociation (single diffraction) have been included. The difference of the positively and negatively charged pions gives the lower limit on the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ asymmetric mechanisms not taken into account in the Kharzeev-Levin approach. The sum of the three contributions (thick solid) gives then lower limit on the missing contributions. It is of the similar size as the missing contributions in Fig.9 and Fig.10. This strongly suggests that the agreement of the result of the $`ggg`$ approach with the PHOBOS distributions  in Ref. in the true fragmentation region is rather due to approximations made in  than due to correctness of the reaction mechanism. In principle, this can be verified experimentally at RHIC by measuring the $`\pi ^+/\pi ^{}`$ ratio in proton-proton scattering as a function of (pseudo)rapidity in possibly broad range. It seems that the BRAHMS experiment, for instance, can do it even with the existing apparatus.

The transverse momentum distribution of charged hadrons is shown in Fig.13 together with experimental data of the UA1 collaboration at CERN from Ref.. In this calculation the KL gluon distribution has been used. It is not completely clear to me how the experimental data in  should be interpreted. 333The notion of the invariant cross section in  is contradictory to the lack of particle identification there. I assume that the experimental data should be interpreted as:

$$X=\frac{d\sigma }{d\eta _hd^2p_t}𝑑\eta _h/𝑑\eta _h.$$
(27)
We have taken $`\eta _h`$ (-2.5,2.5). The simple hadronization functions, called model I and II above, correctly fit low $`p_{t,h}`$ data and fail in the large $`p_{t,h}`$ region. This is due to lack of QCD evolution . The results obtained with fragmentation functions from  which include DGLAP evolution, extremely well describe the large $`p_{t,h}`$ data. Having in mind the ambiguity of the experimental data interpretation, the KL gluon distribution does a fairly good job.

In Fig.14 I compare the theoretical transverse momentum distributions of charged pions obtained with different gluon distributions with the UA1 collaboration data . The best agreement is obtained with the Karzeev-Levin gluon distribution. The distribution with the GBW model is much too steep in comparison to experimental data. This is probably due to neglecting QCD evolution.

## 6 Conclusions

I have calculated the inclusive distributions of gluons and associated charged pions in the nucleon-nucleon collisions through the $`ggg`$ mechanism in the $`k_t`$-factorization approach. The results for several unintegrated gluon distributions proposed recently in the literature have been compared. The results, especially transverse momentum distributions, obtained with different models of unintegrated gluon distributions differ considerably.

A special attention has been devoted to the gluon distribution proposed recently by Kharzeev and Levin to describe charged particle production in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. In the first step I have tested the gluon distribution in electron deep-inelastic scattering at small Bjorken $`x`$. A rather good description of the HERA data can be obtained by adjusting a normalization constant. In the next step so-fixed gluon distribution has been used to calculate (pseudo)rapidity and transverse momentum distribution of gluonic jets and charged particles.

Huge differences in both rapidity and transverse momentum distributions of gluons and pions for different models of unintegrated gluon distributions have been found.

Some approximations used recently in the literature have been discussed. Contrary to a recent claim in Ref., we have found that the gluonic mechanism discussed does not describe the inclusive spectra of charged particles in the fragmentation region, i.e. in the region of large (pseudo)rapidities for any unintegrated gluon distribution from the literature. Clearly the gluonic mechanism is not the only one and other mechanisms (see e.g. ) neglected in  must be added. Some of them have been estimated with the help of the HIJING code, giving a right order of magnitude for the missing strength.

Since the mechanism considered is not complete, it is not possible at present to precisely verify different models of unintegrated gluon distributions. The existing gluon distributions lead to the contributions which almost exhaust the strength at midrapidities and leave room for other mechanisms in the fragmentation regions. It seems that a measurement of transverse momentum distributions of particles at RHIC should be helpful to test better different unintegrated gluon distributions. A good identification of particles is required to verify the other mechanisms.

In contrast to standard integrated gluon distributions, the extraction of unintegrated gluon distribution from experimental data seems a rather difficult task. At present, one can rather test different unintegrated gluon distributions based on different models existing in the literature. In the present analysis I have discussed whether the production of particles can provide some information on unintegrated gluon distributions in the nucleon. There are many other reactions where this is possible, to mention here only heavy quark or jet production in $`ep`$ and $`pp`$ collisions. Going to more exclusive measurements seems indispensable. An example is a careful study of jet correlation in photon-proton  and nucleon-nucleon  collisions. In my opinion, we are at the beginning of the long way to extract gluon or more generally parton unintegrated distributions.

Acknowledgements I am indebted to Jan Kwieciński for several discussions on different subjects concerning high-energy physics, for his willingness to share his knowledge, for his optimism and friendly attitude. The discussion with Andrzej Budzanowski is kindly acknowledged. The pseudorapidity distributions of particles from the code HIJING have been obtained from Piotr Pawłowski. I thank Leszek Motyka for providing me with some FORTRAN routines.


text:
# Quantum Mechanics in Infinite Symplectic Volume

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Notations

Throughout this article, $`𝒞`$ will denote a complex $`n`$–dimensional, connected, classical phase space, endowed with a symplectic form $`\omega `$ and a complex structure $`𝒥`$. We will assume that $`\omega `$ and $`𝒥`$ are compatible, so holomorphic coordinate charts on $`𝒞`$ will also be Darboux charts. Upon quantisation, $``$ will denote a complex, separable Hilbert space of quantum states. We will assume $`𝒞`$ to have an infinite symplectic volume,

$$_𝒞\omega ^n=\mathrm{},$$
(1)
so $``$ will be infinite–dimensional. Vector bundles over $`𝒞`$ with fibre $``$ will be called quantum Hilbert–space bundles, or $`𝒬`$–bundles for short, and denoted $`𝒬(𝒞)`$.

### 1.2 Summary of results

Classical phase space is the space of all solutions to the classical equations of motion (modulo gauge transformations that may eventually exist). As such it provides a natural starting point for quantisation. Although quantisation is a well–established procedure, recent developments in string and M–theory call for a revision of our understanding of classical vs. quantum . With this aim in mind we have analysed the quantisation of a complex, compact $`𝒞`$ in ref. . Compactness ensures that the symplectic volume of $`𝒞`$ is finite and, therefore, the Hilbert space of quantum states is finite–dimensional. Based on the example when $`𝒞=\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^n`$ we have analysed the different equivalence classes of (finite–dimensional) Hilbert–space bundles over $`𝒞`$.

It remains to study the case when $`𝒞`$ has an infinite symplectic volume, which we do in the present article extending the technique presented in ref. . This corresponds, e.g., to phase spaces such as $`𝒞=T^{}𝒬`$, the cotangent bundle to some configuration space $`𝒬`$. The latter may well be compact, but its cotangent bundle is definitely noncompact. (Noncompactness of $`𝒞`$ is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for its symplectic volume to be infinite). Of course, the quantisation of $`T^{}𝒬`$ has been known for long; there is a Hilbert space $``$ where quantum states are square–integrable functions on $`𝒬`$. We do not intend to alter this picture. Rather, our aim is to generalise it using the language fibre bundles over $`𝒞`$. In this language, the picture described above usually corresponds to the trivial bundle $`\times T^{}𝒬`$. The notion of quantum–mechanical duality, as elaborated in ref. , suggests considering nonflat (and therefore nontrivial) Hilbert–space bundles over $`𝒞`$. This is what we do here.

Our approach may be summarised as follows. We first quantise a particular example of a complex, noncompact $`𝒞`$, the infinite–dimensional complex projective space $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. Being infinite–dimensional, it cannot be the phase space of a finite number of degrees of freedom. However $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ is easily quantised following ref. . For this we consider a holomorphic atlas on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. Over each coordinate chart we erect a certain vector–space fibre; fibres are patched together across overlapping charts according to a set of transition functions. In this way a fibre bundle is constructed whose fibre is a Hilbert space of quantum states. The latter fall into two categories. One is the vacuum, the other its excitations. It turns out that all quantum states (except the vacuum) are holomorphic tangent vectors to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. This identifies the transition functions as jacobian matrices, and the corresponding subbundle as the holomorphic tangent bundle $`T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())`$. The vacuum $`|0_l`$ appears as the fibrewise generator of a holomorphic line bundle $`N_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())`$, one for each $`l𝐙`$. The latter is the Picard group of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. The complete quantum Hilbert–space bundle $`𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())`$ is

$$𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())=T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())N_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()),l𝐙.$$
(2)
Next an $`n`$–dimensional, complex phase space $`𝒞`$ with infinite symplectic volume is quantised by holomorphically embedding it into $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. The embedding $`\iota :𝒞\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ is univocally determined by the condition that it be an isometry between the Bergman metric on $`𝒞`$ and the Fubini–Study metric on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. Then the bundle $`𝒬_l(𝒞)`$ is the pullback by $`\iota `$ of the bundle $`𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())`$. In particular, $`𝒬_l(𝒞)`$ is infinite–dimensional as required by the infinite symplectic volume of $`𝒞`$.

The differential geometry of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ was studied long ago in ref. , and its deformation quantisation more recently in the nice paper . We have addressed duality in quantum mechanics from different perspectives in previous publications . For background material see, e.g., refs. . Finally we would also like to mention refs. .

## 2 The space of rays in Hilbert space

Realise $``$ as the space of infinite sequences of complex numbers $`Z^1,Z^2,\mathrm{}`$ that are square–summable, $`_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}|Z^j|^2<\mathrm{}`$. The $`Z^j`$ provide a set of holomorphic coordinates on $``$. The space of rays $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ is

$$\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()=(\{0\})/(𝐑^+\times U(1)).$$
(3)
The $`Z^j`$ provide a set of projective coordinates on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. Now assume that $`Z^k0`$, and define $`z_{(k)}^j=Z^j/Z^k`$ for $`jk`$. Then $`_{jk}^{\mathrm{}}|z_{(k)}^j|^2<\mathrm{}`$ for every fixed value of $`k`$. As $`jk`$ varies, these $`z_{(k)}^j`$ cover one copy of $``$ that we denote by $`𝒰_k`$. The open set $`𝒰_k`$, endowed with the coordinate functions $`z_{(k)}^j`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}\stackrel{ˇ}{k},\mathrm{}`$, where a check over an index indicates omission, provides a holomorphic coordinate chart on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ for every fixed $`k`$. A holomorphic atlas is obtained as the collection of all pairs $`(𝒰_k,z_{(k)})`$, for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ There are nonempty $`f`$–fold overlaps $`_{m=1}^f𝒰_m`$ for all values of $`f=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ Holomorphic tangent vectors and holomorphic 1–forms on $`𝒰_k`$ are spanned by $`/z_{(k)}^j`$ and $`\mathrm{d}z_{(k)}^j`$. When $`f=2`$ above, these vectors and covectors transform according to an (infinite–dimensional) jacobian matrix and its transpose.

$`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ is a Kähler manifold. On the coordinate chart $`(𝒰_k,z_{(k)})`$, the Kähler potential reads

$$K(z_{(k)},\overline{z}_{(k)})=\mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{jk}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z_{(k)}^j\overline{z}_{(k)}^j\right),$$
(4)
and the corresponding metric $`\mathrm{d}s_K^2`$ reads on this chart

$$\mathrm{d}s_K^2=\underset{m,nk}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{^2K(z_{(k)},\overline{z}_{(k)})}{z_{(k)}^m\overline{z}_{(k)}^n}\mathrm{d}z_{(k)}^m\mathrm{d}\overline{z}_{(k)}^n.$$
(5)
Being infinite–dimensional, $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ is noncompact. It is simply connected:

$$\pi _1\left(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()\right)=0.$$
(6)
Its Picard group is the group of integers:

$$\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())=𝐙.$$
(7)
It has trivial homology in odd real dimension,

$$H_{2k+1}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(),𝐙)=0,k=0,1,\mathrm{},$$
(8)
while it is nontrivial in even dimension,

$$H_{2k}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}(),𝐙)=𝐙,k=0,1,\mathrm{}$$
(9)
## 3 Quantisation of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$

By eqn. (7), for each integer $`l𝐙`$ there exists one equivalence class of holomorphic lines bundles over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$; using the notations of ref.  let us denote it by $`N_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())`$. For $`l0`$ this bundle is nontrivial; its fibre $`𝐂`$ is generated by the vacuum state $`|0_l`$. Let $`A_j^{}(k)`$, $`A_j(k)`$, $`jk`$, be creation and annihilation operators on the chart $`𝒰_k`$, for $`k`$ fixed. We can now construct the $`𝒬_l`$–bundle over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. To this end we will describe the fibre over each coordinate chart $`𝒰_k`$, plus the transition functions on the 2–fold overlaps $`𝒰_k𝒰_m`$, for all $`km`$.

The Hilbert–space fibre over $`𝒰_k`$ is $``$ itself, the latter being the $`𝐂`$–linear span of the infinite set of linearly independent vectors

$$|0(k)_l,A_j^{}(k)|0(k)_l,j=1,2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{k},\mathrm{}$$
(10)
Reasoning as in ref.  one proves that, on the 2–fold overlaps $`𝒰_k𝒰_m`$, the fibre $``$ can be chosen in either of two equivalent ways. $``$ is either the $`𝐂`$–linear span of the vectors $`|0(k)_l`$, $`A_j^{}(k)|0(k)_l`$, for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{k},\mathrm{}`$, or the $`𝐂`$–linear span of the vectors $`|0(m)_l`$, $`A_j^{}(m)|0(m)_l`$, for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{m},\mathrm{}`$

Arguments identical to those of ref.  prove that all the states of eqn. (10), except the vacuum $`|0(k)_l`$, are (co)tangent vectors to $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ on the chart $`𝒰_k`$, and thus transition functions are the sum of two parts. One is a phase factor accounting for the transformation of $`|0(k)_l`$; the other one is a jacobian matrix. Identifying the tangent and cotangent bundles we can write

$$𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())=N_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())T(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()).$$
(11)
## 4 Quantisation of $`𝒞`$

Sections 4.1, 4.2 present a summary, drawn from ref. , on how to embed $`𝒞`$ holomorphically within $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. This procedure is applied in section 4.3 in order to quantise $`𝒞`$. For background material see, e.g., ref. .

### 4.1 The Bergman metric on $`𝒞`$

Denote by $``$ the set of holomorphic, square–integrable $`n`$–forms on $`𝒞`$. $``$ is a separable, complex Hilbert space (finite–dimensional when $`𝒞`$ is compact). Let $`h_1,h_2,\mathrm{}`$ denote a complete orthonormal basis for $``$, and let $`z`$ be (local) holomorphic coordinates on $`𝒞`$. Then

$$𝒦(z,\overline{w})=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h_j(z)\overline{h}_j(\overline{w})$$
(12)
is a holomorphic $`2n`$–form on $`𝒞\times \overline{𝒞}`$, where $`\overline{𝒞}`$ is complex manifold conjugate to $`𝒞`$. The form $`𝒦(z,\overline{w})`$ is independent of the choice of an orthonormal basis for $``$; it is called the kernel form of $`𝒞`$. If $`\overline{z}`$ is the point of $`\overline{𝒞}`$ corresponding to a point $`z𝒞`$, the set of pairs $`(z,\overline{z})𝒞\times \overline{𝒞}`$ is naturally identified with $``$. In this way $`𝒦(z,\overline{z})`$ can be considered as a $`2n`$–form on $`𝒞`$. One can prove that $`𝒦(z,\overline{z})`$ is invariant under the group of holomorphic transformations of $`𝒞`$.

Next assume that, given any point $`z𝒞`$, there exists an $`f`$ such that $`f(z)0`$. That is, the kernel form $`𝒦(z,\overline{z})`$ of $`𝒞`$ is everywhere nonzero on $`𝒞`$:

$$𝒦(z,\overline{z})0,z𝒞.$$
(13)
Let us write, in local holomorphic coordinates $`z^j`$ on $`𝒞`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$,

$$𝒦(z,\overline{z})=𝐤(z,\overline{z})\mathrm{d}z^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}z^n\mathrm{d}\overline{z}^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}\overline{z}^n,$$
(14)
for a certain everywhere nonzero function $`𝐤(z,\overline{z})`$. Define a hermitean form $`\mathrm{d}s_B^2`$

$$\mathrm{d}s_B^2=\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{^2\mathrm{log}𝐤}{z^j\overline{z}^k}\mathrm{d}z^j\mathrm{d}\overline{z}^k.$$
(15)
One can prove that $`\mathrm{d}s_B^2`$ is independent of the choice of coordinates on $`𝒞`$. Moreover, it is positive semidefinite and invariant under the holomorphic transformations of $`𝒞`$.

Let us make the additional assumption that $`𝒞`$ is such that $`\mathrm{d}s_B^2`$ is positive definite,

$$\mathrm{d}s_B^2>0.$$
(16)
Then $`\mathrm{d}s_B^2`$ defines a (Kähler) metric called the Bergman metric on $`𝒞`$.

### 4.2 Embedding $`𝒞`$ within $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$

Let $``$ be the Hilbert space dual to $``$. Given $`f`$, let its expansion in local coordinates be

$$f=𝐟\mathrm{d}z^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}z^n,$$
(17)
for a certain function $`𝐟`$. Let $`\iota ^{}`$ denote the mapping that sends $`z𝒞`$ into $`\iota ^{}(z)`$ defined by

$$\iota ^{}(z)|f=𝐟(z).$$
(18)
Then $`\iota ^{}(z)0`$ for all $`z𝒞`$ if and only if property (13) holds. Assuming that the latter is satisfied, and denoting by $`p^{}`$ the natural projection from $`\{0\}`$ onto $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$, the composite map $`\iota =p^{}\iota ^{}`$

$$\iota :𝒞\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()$$
(19)
is well defined on $`𝒞`$, independent of the coordinates, and holomorphic.

One can prove the following results. When property (13) is true, the quadratic differential form $`\mathrm{d}s_B^2`$ of eqn. (15) is the pullback, by $`\iota `$, of the canonical Kähler metric $`\mathrm{d}s_K^2`$ of eqn. (5):

$$\mathrm{d}s_B^2=\iota ^{}(\mathrm{d}s_K^2).$$
(20)
Moreover, the differential of $`\iota `$ is nonsingular at every point of $`𝒞`$ if and only if property (16) is satisfied. These two results give us a geometric interpretation of the Bergman metric. Namely, if properties (13) and (16) hold, then $`\iota `$ is an isometric immersion of $`𝒞`$ into $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$.

The map $`\iota `$ is locally one–to–one in the sense that every point of $`𝒞`$ has a neighbourhood that is mapped injectively into $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. However, $`\iota `$ is not necessarily injective in the large. Conditions can be found that ensure injectivity of $`\iota `$ in the large. Assume that, if $`z`$, $`z^{}`$ are any two distinct points of $`𝒞`$, an $`f`$ can be found such that

$$f(z)0,f(z^{})=0.$$
(21)
Then $`\iota `$ is injective. Therefore, if $`𝒞`$ satisfies assumptions (13), (16) and (21), it can be holomorphically and isometrically embedded into $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$.

### 4.3 Quantisation of $`𝒞`$ as a submanifold of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$

Finally we quantise a noncompact $`𝒞`$ with infinite symplectic volume. At any point of $`𝒞`$ there are only $`n`$ linearly independent, holomorphic tangent vectors. Applied to $`𝒞`$, the construction of ref.  provides a finite–dimensional $``$, contrary to eqn. (1). Therefore we try an alternative route.

We need an infinite–dimensional $`𝒬`$–bundle over $`𝒞`$. For this purpose we assume embedding $`𝒞`$ holomorphically and injectively within $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$ as in eqn. (19). Then the bundle $`𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())`$ of eqn. (11) can be pulled back to $`𝒞`$ by the embedding $`\iota `$. We take this to define the bundle $`𝒬_l(𝒞)`$:

$$𝒬_l(𝒞)=\iota ^{}𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()).$$
(22)
Even if $`𝒬_l(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}())`$ were trivial (which it is not for $`l0`$), it might contain nonflat (hence nontrivial) subbundles, thus allowing for nontrivial dualities.

A detailed analysis of $`𝒬_l(𝒞)`$ requires specifying $`𝒞`$ explicitly. However some properties can be stated in general. Thus, e.g., the kernel form is the quantum–mechanical propagator. On $`𝐂^n`$ it reads

$$𝒦_{𝐂^n}(z,\overline{z})=N\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{i}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{z}^jz^j\right)\mathrm{d}z^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}z^n\mathrm{d}\overline{z}^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}\overline{z}^n,$$
(23)
where $`N`$ is some normalisation. The Bergman metric (15) derived from this kernel is the standard Hermitean metric on $`𝐂^n`$. The embedding $`\iota `$ naturally relates physical information (the propagator) and geometric information (the metric on $`𝒞`$). In retrospective, this justifies our quantisation of $`𝒞`$ by embedding it within $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}()`$. An important physical input is the relation between the symplectic volume of $`𝒞`$ and the number of linearly independent quantum states. It would be interesting to enquire into a possible geometric origin for this fact.

Acknowledgements

It is a great pleasure to thank J. de Azcárraga, U. Bruzzo and M. Schlichenmaier for encouragement and discussions. This work has been partially supported by research grant BFM2002–03681 from Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología and EU FEDER funds.


text:
# XMM-Newton observations of Broad FeK𝛼 emission from a Seyfert 1.9 galaxy MCG-5-23-16

## 1 Introduction

The Seyfert-type active galactic nuclei (AGNs) appear to be intrinsically X-ray loud and the variation in their X-ray emission is largely due to different absorbing columns along the respective lines of sight. The type 1 and type 2 Seyferts and the intermediate Seyferts (types 1.5,1.8, and 1.9), all show a similar form in their intrinsic X-ray emission – a power law with photon index of $`1.9`$ which can extend up to a few$`\times 100\mathrm{keV}`$, an FeK$`\alpha `$ line at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$, and a reflection hump in the $`10100\mathrm{keV}`$ region. However, the obscured Seyferts show a low-energy cut-off of the intrinsic power law due to photoelectric absorption. The exact energy of the cut-off depends on the depth of the absorption column. The obscured Seyferts also show unabsorbed soft X-ray emission composed of a number of photo-excited emission lines (Kinkhabwala et al., 2002; Schurch et al., 2003). This component is often extended, non-variable and cannot be the emission from the accretion disk. X-ray emission arising from the accretion disks of obscured Seyfert galaxies (e.g., the broad iron K$`\alpha `$ emission) provide us with the opportunity to study the geometry and physical conditions in the inner regions surrounding a super massive black hole (SMBH), thus helping us in understanding the diversity in the AGN characteristics.

The iron K$`\alpha `$ emission is the most prominent ubiquitous feature in the $`210\mathrm{keV}`$ region of the X-ray spectra of AGNs. This emission appears to be a general characteristic of AGNs. Complex iron K$`\alpha `$ emission consisting of multiple components and/or asymmetric profiles arising from neutral and/or ionized iron have been observed from many Seyfert 1 galaxies and provide the strongest evidence for the existence of cold material in the central regions of AGNs. The broad iron K$`\alpha `$ emission is the key feature in studies of the geometry and nature of the accretion disks around black holes. The line profile can also be used to infer the Schwarzschild or Kerr nature of black holes. While some Seyfert 1 galaxies show broad iron K-shell emission, there are only a few Seyfert 2 galaxies with broad iron K$`\alpha `$ emission. This is likely due to the difficulty in detecting the broad wings in the presence of large absorbing columns along our line of sight to a type 2 nucleus. The narrow-emission line galaxies (NELGs) are good targets for study of the iron K$`\alpha `$ emission from the obscured AGNs. Optically, NELGs are the same as Seyfert 2s and show narrow optical emission lines, often with broad wings of H$`\alpha `$ and P$`\beta `$ which makes them Seyfert 1.9 nuclei. NELGs are bright and variable X-ray sources which were discovered in early X-ray surveys (Marshall et al., 1979; Griffiths et al., 1978). In this paper, we present a detailed study of the iron K$`\alpha `$ emission from an obscured Seyfert galaxy MCG-5-23-16 using XMM-Newton observations.

MCG-5-23-16 is an S0 galaxy (Ferruit, Wilson, & Mulchaey, 2000) first discovered in X-rays by Schnopper et al. (1978) who also found its’ optical spectrum to be that of a narrow emission-line galaxy at a redshift of $`0.0083`$. Veron et al. (1980) classified this galaxy as a Seyfert 1.9 based on the possible presence of a broad component in H$`\alpha `$. MCG-5-23-16 with a V-magnitude of $`13.7`$ is one of the brightest Seyfert galaxies in hard X-rays and is also one of the few Seyferts detected at $`\gamma `$-ray energies (Bignami et al., 1979; Pollock et al., 1981). Its $`210\mathrm{keV}`$ flux, measured to be $`8\times 10^{11}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ in 1978 (Tennant, 1983), decreased by a factor of four in 1989 (Nandra & Pounds, 1994), and then increased to $`9\times 10^{11}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ in 1996 (Weaver, Krolik, & Pier, 1998) before decreasing again to $`7\times 10^{11}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ in 2001 (this work). Previous X-ray observations of MCG -5-23-16 showed a highly absorbed X-ray spectrum ($`N_\mathrm{H}10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$,Turner & Pounds 1989) and a strong iron K$`\alpha `$ fluorescence line with equivalent width of $`300400\mathrm{eV}`$ (Singh, Rao, & Vahia, 1992; Nandra & Pounds, 1994; Weaver et al., 1997; Weaver, Krolik, & Pier, 1998). Weaver et al. (1997) reported a complex iron K-shell line profile in an ASCA observation of this source. These authors discovered a narrow core at the systemic velocity of the galaxy and wings to the red and blue sides of this core. They modeled the line profile with three Gaussian having central energies $`5.37`$, $`6.37`$, and $`6.58\mathrm{keV}`$. Alternatively, the data could also be modeled with a line profile from an accretion disk, superimposed upon a narrow Gaussian profile. These data have provided some of the best evidence to date for contributions from two distinct regions to the observed iron line profile.

In this paper we present the first results from the XMM-Newton observations of MCG-5-23-16. The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we describe the XMM-Newton observations and the data selection. In Sect. 3, we present the detailed spectral analysis of the FeK$`\alpha `$ region. We discuss our results in Sect. 4 followed by conclusions in Sect. 5.

## 2 Observations and Data selection

XMM-Newton observatory (Jansen et al., 2001) has three Wolter type 1 X-ray telescopes with three European Photon Imaging Cameras (EPICs) – one PN (Strüder et al., 2001) and two MOS CCD (Turner et al., 2001) cameras as the imaging spectrometers. All XMM-Newton instruments operate simultaneously. XMM-Newton observed MCG-5-23-16 twice on 13 May 2001 and 1 December 2001 for 38ks and 25ks, respectively. The EPIC PN and MOS observations were carried out in the full frame mode using the medium filter. Here we present the data from the PN and MOS cameras.

The raw PN and MOS events were processed and filtered using the most recent updated calibration database and analysis software (SAS v5.3.3) available in December 2002. Events in the bad pixels file and those adjacent pixels were discarded. Events with pattern 0-4 (single and double) for the PN and 0-12 (similar to ASCA event grades 0-4) for the MOS cameras were selected for both the observations of 2001. Examination of background light curves extracted from source-free regions showed that both the observations were affected by particle induced flares. These flares are characterized by strong and rapid variability in the background light curve. The particle induced events were filtered out by excluding the time periods where the count rate increased by $`3\sigma `$ from the quiescent state background rate. This resulted in net exposure times of 8.5ks and 13.1ks for the PN and MOS, respectively for the observation of May 2001. The observation of December 2001 was not affected severely by the particle induced flares: the net exposure times are 19.7ks for the PN and MOS cameras.

The source spectra were extracted from the final filtered event lists using a circular region of radius $`90\mathrm{}`$ centered on the observed position of MCG-5-23-16 for both the PN and MOS cameras. Background spectra were extracted using appropriate annular regions around the observed position of MCG-5-23-16. Any source in the background region was masked out. Appropriate response and effective area files for both the PN and MOS cameras were created using the SAS.

## 3 Spectral Analysis

The PN and MOS spectra of MCG-5-23-16 were analyzed using the spectral fitting package XSPEC v11.2.0. In order to check for consistency in the spectral calibration of PN and MOS cameras, to check for spectral variability and to derive time averaged spectral characteristics of MCG-5-23-16, we have carried out spectral model fitting (i) to the individual PN and MOS data sets extracted from each observation, (ii) jointly to the PN and MOS data sets for each observation, and (iii) to the time averaged PN data obtained by combining the two PN data sets from the two observations. Thus, for spectral fitting, we formed nine data sets from the two observations carried out using the three imaging cameras: PN, MOS1, and MOS2. The nine data sets were first fitted by a simple absorbed power-law model over the entire $`0.212\mathrm{keV}`$ bandpass. None of the fits was acceptable e.g., the power-law fit to the combined PN spectrum resulted in a minimum $`\chi ^2`$ ($`\chi _{min}^2`$) of $`2503.7`$ for $`504`$ degrees of freedom (dof). To show the significant deviations from a best-fit power law and to determine the true continuum shape, we refitted the absorbed power-law model after excluding the significant features. For these fits we used the data in the $`2.55\mathrm{keV}`$ and $`7.510\mathrm{keV}`$ bands. In these bands, AGNs usually do not show any significant localized feature. Figure 1 shows the combined PN data fitted with the absorbed power-law model and the ratio of data to the best-fit model extrapolated to lower and higher energies. As can be seen in Fig. 1, the poor fit is due to the significant features: a soft excess component below $`1\mathrm{keV}`$, a strong iron K$`\alpha `$ emission line at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$, and likely excess emission above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$. This paper concentrates on the $`2.512\mathrm{keV}`$ band and the soft X-ray spectrum will be studied in a separate paper using RGS data also.

### 3.1 The $`2.510\mathrm{keV}`$ continuum

To characterize the X-ray continuum, simple red-shifted power-law models modified by absorption due to an intervening medium at $`z=0`$ were fitted to the six spectra derived from the two observations with the three EPIC cameras: PN, MOS1, and MOS2. These fits were carried out over the $`2.510\mathrm{keV}`$ band excluding the FeK$`\alpha `$ region ($`57.5\mathrm{keV}`$). All the fits resulted in acceptable $`\chi ^2`$; however, the best-fit values of equivalent hydrogen column ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$) were much higher ($`N_\mathrm{H}1.7\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for the PN data of December 2001) than the Galactic column of $`8.82\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Elvis, Wilkes, & Lockman, 1989). Setting the $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ parameter to the Galactic value resulted in unacceptable fits for all the data sets, thus implying heavy obscuration. The excess absorption column was then determined by introducing an additional absorption component at the source redshift and by refitting the power-law model to individual data sets. Table 1 lists the best-fit parameters: excess NH, the photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$, and the fit-statistic $`\chi _{min}^2`$. All the errors quoted, here and below, are at the $`90\%`$ confidence level. Also listed in Table 1 are the observed flux in the $`2.510\mathrm{keV}`$ band and the absorption corrected (intrinsic) flux in the same band. As can be seen in Table 1, the best-fit parameters NHand $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$, derived from the data obtained simultaneously with different instruments, are consistent within the errors. However, the observed flux is found to differ by $`20\%`$ between EPIC PN and MOS cameras. This discrepancy is not unusual for X-ray instruments in their early phase of calibration.

In order to further constrain the spectral shape, the absorbed power-law model was fitted to the PN and MOS spectra jointly. The relative normalizations for the different instruments were kept free allowing for the small difference in the calibrated absolute flux, and any differences in the fraction of encircled counts contained in the PN and MOS extraction cells. The results of these fits are also listed in Table 1. There are small variations in the best-fit spectral parameters between the two observations: $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\mathrm{H}=(4.4\pm 2.7)\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_X=0.13\pm 0.06`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{int}=7\times 10^{12}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The source became harder and fainter in Dec. 2001.

To determine the average continuum shape, we fitted the absorbed and red-shifted power-law model to the time averaged PN data obtained by combining the two PN data sets from the two observations. The time averaged photon index is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X=1.69\pm 0.03`$ and the observed flux in the $`2.510\mathrm{keV}`$ band is $`7\times 10^{11}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$.

### 3.2 The iron K$`\alpha `$ emission

Figure 2 shows the ratio of the PN spectrum extracted from the December 2001 observation to the best-fit power law derived by using the data in the $`2.55\mathrm{keV}`$ and $`7.510\mathrm{keV}`$ bands as described in the preceding section (see Table 1). This plot clearly reveals a broad emission feature in the $`57\mathrm{keV}`$ band and peaking at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$. This feature is common among Seyfert galaxies and is attributed to the fluorescence emission from the iron K-shell (e.g., Nandra et al., 1997). The FeK$`\alpha `$ emission of MCG-5-23-16 appears to be nearly symmetric in its red and blue wings and is clearly different in shape from the red-shifted and asymmetric FeK$`\alpha `$ profiles generally observed from Seyfert 1 galaxies. Fig. 2 also suggests the likely presence of an iron K-edge at $`7.1\mathrm{keV}`$. To measure the strength and shape of the FeK$`\alpha `$ emission, we parameterize the observed profile in terms of simple Gaussian models. For this analysis, the co-added PN data were used, as the PN has the largest effective area among the three EPIC cameras. Hence the derived parameters characterize the time averaged FeK$`\alpha `$ profile. Initially, a narrow unresolved Gaussian ($`\sigma =0.01\mathrm{keV}`$) was used for the FeK$`\alpha `$ emission and the absorbed and red-shifted power-law model was used for the continuum as described in section 3.1 (Table 1). This model resulted in a poor fit with $`\chi _{min}^2`$ of 262 for 235 dof. The ratio of the data to the best-fit narrow Gaussian model is plotted in Figure 3 (second panel from the top) which shows a dip at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$ and excess counts on the red and blue sides of the dip. This suggests a strong core at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$ and broad wings on both sides of the core. Varying the width of the Gaussian improved the fit significantly ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=49`$ for 1 additional parameter). This suggests that the line may be broad. Addition of a narrow Gaussian component ($`\sigma =0.01\mathrm{keV}`$) at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$ improves the fit significantly (($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=26.3`$ for two additional parameters). The best-fit parameters describing the observed FeK$`\alpha `$ profile are listed in Table 2. The peak energies of both the narrow and broad components are consistent with neutral iron. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the broad component is $`42000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Addition of an absorption edge at $`7.1\mathrm{keV}`$ results in marginal improvement in the fit ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=2.7`$ for one additional parameter) at a significance level of $`93\%`$ based on an F-test (Bevington, 1969).

The width of the broad iron K$`\alpha `$ line observed from MCG-5-23-16 is too large to be produced in regions other than the accretion disk around a super-massive black hole (SMBH). Therefore we checked whether the observed profile is consistent with a relativistic disk-line model (Fabian et al., 1989). This model assumes a Schwarzschild geometry and the disk emissivity is a power-law function of disk radius r i.e. $`r^q`$. We fixed the inner disk radius at $`6r_g`$ and the outer disk radius at $`500r_g`$, where $`r_g=GM/c^2`$. First we fitted the disk-line model without a narrow Gaussian component. The continuum was the absorbed power-law model as before. The free parameters were the disk inclination angle ($`i`$) between our line of sight and the disk normal, the disk emissivity $`q`$, and the normalization of the disk line. This fit resulted in an acceptable fit statistic ($`\chi _{min}^2=229.8`$ for 236 dof). The ratio of the data and the best-fit model is plotted in Figure f4 (top panel). The dip seen at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$ is due to the characteristic shape of the line profile from a face-on disk – namely a strong core and a red wing. The disk inclination angle was found to be in the range $`0^{}11^{}`$. This is physically inconsistent with a Seyfert 1.9 galaxy according to the standard unification scheme of Seyfert galaxies (Antonucci, 1993). In view of the fact that the observed FeK$`\alpha `$ profile can be described by a combination of narrow and broad Gaussian and a narrow component is expected due to reflection from cold matter away from the disk, we added a narrow Gaussian component to our disk-line model. The energy of the narrow component was fixed at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$. This fit resulted in significant improvement over that without a narrow component ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=32.4`$ for one additional parameter). This is an improvement at a significance level of $`>99.99\%`$. The ratio of the data to the best-fit model is shown in Figure 4 (second panel from the top). The best-fit inclination angle now is $`i=46.3_{3.8}^{+3.4}`$. The equivalent width of the disk-line is $`129_{23}^{+31}\mathrm{eV}`$ and the line energy is consistent with neutral iron. Addition of an absorption edge at $`7.1\mathrm{keV}`$ does not lead to a significant improvement in the fit, and the upper limit to the optical depth is found to be $`\tau <0.03`$.

We have also tested the observed iron K$`\alpha `$ emission profile of MCG-5-23-16 against that expected from an accretion disk around a rotating (Kerr) black hole (Laor, 1991). We fixed the inner radius at $`1.23r_g`$, the minimum radius allowed for a Kerr black hole, and outer radius at $`400r_g`$ which is the maximum radius allowed by the model. As before, the disk emissivity is a power-law in radius ($`r^q`$). The variable parameters were $`E_{FeK\alpha }`$, $`i`$, $`q`$, and the line normalization. We used an absorbed and red-shifted power-law model for the continuum. The bottom two panels in Fig. 4 show the ratio of the data and best-fit disk-line models for a Kerr black hole. Without a narrow Gaussian component, the fit is acceptable ($`\chi ^2=251.7`$ for 235) dof) but the best-fit inclination angle is $`18\mathrm{deg}`$. Inclusion of a narrow Gaussian component ($`\sigma =0.01\mathrm{keV}`$) resulted in a significant improvement ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=60.5`$ for one additional parameter) and in the best-fit inclination angle of $`47.4\mathrm{deg}`$ (see Table 2). Addition of an absorption edge at $`7.1\mathrm{keV}`$ does not improve the fit significantly ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=0.9`$ for one additional dof).

In Figure 5, we have plotted the final best-fit models for the observed iron K$`\alpha `$ line profile of MCG-5-23-16. The three models – (i) a combination of a narrow Gaussian and broad Gaussian, (ii) a disk line for a Schwarzschild or (iii) a Kerr black hole all describe the observed data equally well.

In order to look for any variations in the strength of the FeK$`\alpha `$ emission, we have also analyzed the observed FeK$`\alpha `$ profiles from the two XMM-Newton observations. We used both PN and MOS data for this purpose. We fitted a combination of a broad and a narrow Gaussian profile to the PN and MOS data jointly for each observation. The $`2.510\mathrm{keV}`$ continuum was fixed as determined earlier (see Table 1). The rest-frame line energies of both the narrow and broad components were fixed at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$. The results of these fits are listed in Table 3 for both the observations. It appears that the strength of the broad component of the FeK$`\alpha `$ line decreased by about a factor of two between the two observations taken six months apart, while the narrow component did not vary significantly.

### 3.3 The Compton reflection model

Under certain conditions, the Compton reflection emission can be important even below $`10\mathrm{keV}`$ (see section 4.2). If the onset of the reflection component is at $`5\mathrm{keV}`$, the presence of a strong Fe K-shell edge at $`7.1\mathrm{keV}`$ may artificially mimic a broad emission line feature at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$. This artificial “broad line” is likely to arise if the observed continuum is flatter and is dominated by the reflection component. The $`2.510\mathrm{keV}`$ photon index of MCG-5-23-16 derived from the combined PN data ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X1.7`$) is flatter than the average $`210\mathrm{keV}`$ photon index of Seyfert galaxies ($`<\mathrm{\Gamma }_X>1.9`$; Mushotzky 1997). This flatter spectrum and strong iron K$`\alpha `$ line of MCG-5-23-16 could then be partly due to the contribution of a Compton reflection process in a geometry where the primary X-ray source is partially covered by cold matter e.g. a torus. The reflection emission has been detected from MCG-5-23-16 with RXTE observations in 1995 (Weaver, Krolik, & Pier, 1998). To test whether the broad feature near $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$ could be due to reflection and iron K-edge absorption of the primary emission, we have fitted a Compton reflection model to the combined PN data in the $`2.512\mathrm{keV}`$ band. We used the reflection model “pexrav(Magdziarz & Zdziarski, 1995) available with XSPEC. This model calculates the reflected spectrum from a neutral disk exposed to an exponentially cut-off power-law spectrum (Magdziarz & Zdziarski, 1995). Since XMM-Newton does not cover the expected peak ($`3040\mathrm{keV}`$) of the reflection component, it is not possible to constrain all the parameters of the reflection model using XMM-Newton data alone. Instead we fix the cut-off energy of the primary power-law at $`200\mathrm{keV}`$, disk inclination at $`50\mathrm{deg}`$, and the abundance of heavy elements at the solar value. The free parameters are the photon index of the primary power-law, the power-law normalization, and the relative amount of reflection compared to the directly viewed primary spectrum ($`R`$). We also included a narrow Gaussian line model to describe the FeK$`\alpha `$ emission. The results of this fit are listed in Table 4. The best-fit photon index of the incident power-law continuum is $`1.8`$ and is consistent with the mean photon index for Seyfert 1 galaxies. The ratio of the observed data to the best-fit model is shown in Figure 6. Although the fit is acceptable ($`\chi _{min}^2=224.4`$ for $`269`$ dof), there is weak excess emission near $`6\mathrm{keV}`$ suggestive of the possible presence of a weak broad emission line. To investigate further, we included an additional Gaussian component in our reflection model and carried out the fitting. This resulted in an improvement in the fit ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=20.1`$ at the cost of 2 dof). This is an improvement at a significance level of $`99\%`$ according to the maximum likelihood test. The best-fit parameters are listed in Table 4. The relative normalization of the reflection emission derived from the PN data is much higher than the value of $`R=0.54_{0.17}^{+0.26}`$ inferred from the BeppoSAX observations of MCG-5-23-16 (Risaliti, 2002). This is due to the excess emission above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$ which amounts $`20\%`$ above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$ (see Fig. 1). Such a large discrepancy in the reflection emission inferred from the PN and Bepposax data could be due to calibration uncertainties. This view is supported by MOS data, albeit lower signal-to-noise, which do not show a clear excess emission above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$.

To test the reliability of the excess emission above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$ in the XMM-Newton PN data, we have analyzed the EPIC PN spectrum of a well known BL Lac, Mkn 421. The BL Lac type AGNs do not show the Compton reflection component, just a smooth continuum. Therefore, they are good targets to check the reliability of spectral features in other AGN X-ray spectra. We retrieved the data corresponding to the XMM-Newton observation of Mkn 421 on 4 May 2002 for an exposure time of $`40\mathrm{ks}`$ from the public archive maintained at HEASARC. The data were processed in a similar way as described above for MCG-5-23-16. The source spectrum was extracted from an annular region with inner and outer radii of $`10\mathrm{}`$ and $`80\mathrm{}`$, respectively and centered at the observed source position. Due to the high flux of Mkn 421, the events from the core of the point spread function were excluded to avoid possible pile-up which results in artificial hardening of the spectrum. The background spectrum was extracted from the source free regions near the position of Mkn 421. New response files were created for Mkn 421. The PN spectrum was then grouped appropriately and fitted by an absorbed power law model in the $`2.510\mathrm{keV}`$ band. Figure 7 shows the PN spectrum of Mkn 421 fitted with a power-law and the ratio of data and the best-fit power-law model. An excess over the best-fit power-law is seen above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$. This excess is $`2030\%`$ above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$ which is similar to that seen in the PN spectrum of MCG-5-23-16 (Fig. 1). Since Mkn 421, being a blazar, is not expected to show any excess emission, we conclude that the excess emission over the power-law seen above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$ in the spectra of Mkn 421 and MCG-5-23-16 is likely an artifact and reflects poor spectral calibration of the PN above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$. Lack of any significant feature in the $`2.510\mathrm{keV}`$ band of the Mkn 421 PN spectrum suggests that the spectral calibration of PN in that energy band is indeed good and the presence of a broad iron K$`\alpha `$ emission is not an artifact.

We refitted the Compton reflection model to the combined PN data after excluding the data above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$. We utilized the best-fit parameters for the reflection component derived from the BeppoSAX observations by Risaliti (2002) and fixed the cut-off energy $`E_C`$ at $`157\mathrm{keV}`$ and relative normalization $`R`$ at $`0.54`$. The best-fit parameters are listed in Table 4. It is clear that a narrow Gaussian and reflection emission cannot account for the strength of the broad feature at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$ which implies the presence of a broad FeK$`\alpha `$ line.

## 4 Discussion

We have presented the results from the two observations of MCG-5-23-16 using XMM-Newton. The $`210\mathrm{keV}`$ flux is found to be $`6.5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$ during December 2001 and $`7\times 10^{11}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$ during the June 2001 observation, comparable with the $`7.3\times 10^{11}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$ measured during the ASCA observations of 1994 (Weaver et al., 1997). The $`2.510\mathrm{keV}`$ photon index appears to have flattened slightly from $`1.77_{0.05}^{+0.04}`$ (May 2001) to $`1.64_{0.03}^{+0.03}`$ (December 2001). Both these photon indices are steeper than the index of $`1.41.5`$ observed with Gingawhen the source was in a lower flux state (Nandra & Pounds, 1994; Smith & Done, 1996). The X-ray spectrum of December 2001 is slight flatter than the ASCA spectrum of 1994 when the source flux was slightly higher. These observations suggest that the X-ray spectrum flattens at lower flux levels – a general trend well established for Seyfert galaxies (Singh, Rao, & Vahia, 1991; Done, Madejski, & Zdotycki, 2000; Zdziarski & Grandi, 2001; Vaughan & Edelson, 2001; Nandra, 2001; Dewangan et al., 2002).

### 4.1 FeK$`\alpha `$ emission and its variability

XMM-Newton observations of MCG-5-23-16 have reaffirmed the presence of a complex iron K$`\alpha `$ emission earlier observed with ASCA (Weaver et al., 1997; Weaver & Reynolds, 1998; Turner, George, Nandra, & Mushotzky, 1998) and RXTE (Weaver, Krolik, & Pier, 1998). Our spectral fits imply that the line is broad, superimposed with a narrow unresolved component, and possibly affected by an absorption edge of iron at $`7.1\mathrm{keV}`$. The width of the broad line derived by fitting a Gaussian profile suggests that this component could only be formed in an accretion disk around a black hole. Indeed the broad component is consistent with that expected from a relativistic accretion disk around a Schwarzschild or a Kerr black hole. Our results also confirm the ASCA result that it is difficult to explain the entire line profile as originating entirely in an accretion disk. The Gaussian and relativistic line model fits to the iron K$`\alpha `$ line imply two distinct components. The narrow component is unresolved (FWHM $`1000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) and has an equivalent width of $`40\mathrm{eV}`$. Similar narrow unresolved components have been observed with Chandra and XMM-Newton from a number of AGNs (e.g., Kaspi et al., 2001; Pounds et al., 2001; Turner et al., 2002), and are found to have their peak energy at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$ with equivalent widths of $`50\mathrm{eV}`$ . Such narrow components are naturally expected from the torus and/or the broad line region in the framework of the unification model of Seyfert galaxies. The maximum equivalent width of an FeK$`\alpha `$ line produced by fluorescence in a cold reflector far from the disk with $`N_\mathrm{H}10^{23}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ is $`65\mathrm{eV}`$ in the case of NGC 4258 (Reynolds, Nowak, & Maloney, 2000). Thus the observed equivalent width of the narrow iron F$`\alpha `$ line of MCG-5-23-16 is consistent with that expected from the torus.

The broad component has an FWHM of $`4\times 10^4\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and an equivalent width of $`110\mathrm{eV}`$. This component is described by a broad Gaussian or relativistic disk-line arising from an accretion disk around a Schwarzschild or Kerr black hole suggesting that the line profile is not strongly modified by gravitational effects but broadened by the Doppler effect in a rotating disk. The disk-line fits imply that the disk is neutral and the disk-normal is inclined at an angle of $`50\mathrm{deg}`$. The likely presence of an absorption edge at $`7.1\mathrm{keV}`$ (see Fig. 2) also suggests that the disk is neutral. The best-fit values of the emissivity indices inferred from the disk-line fits (in Schwarzschild and Kerr geometry) are similar but lower than the average value of $`2.5`$ obtained for Seyfert 1 galaxies (Nandra et al., 1997). It should be noted that Nandra et al. had also fixed the inner radii to $`6r_g`$ (Schwarzschild black hole) and $`1.23r_g`$ (Kerr black hole). Weaver et al. (1997) inferred $`q`$ to be in the range of $`510`$ but allowed $`r_i`$ to vary with the best-fit values in the range $`922`$. These results imply that if the emissivity law for MCG-5-23-16 is the same as that of an average Seyfert 1 galaxy, then the inner radius of the accretion disk is larger for MCG-5-23-16.

Our spectral fits suggest that the $`2.510\mathrm{keV}`$ continuum has flattened from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X1.77`$ (May 2001) to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X1.67`$ (December 2001) and the broad component of the iron K$`\alpha `$ line has weakened from an equivalent width of $`180\mathrm{eV}`$ (May 2001) to $`90\mathrm{eV}`$ (December 2001). In the ASCA observations of May 1991, the photon index and the equivalent width of the broad component of the iron K$`\alpha `$ line were found to be $`1.79\pm 0.08`$ and $`254_{77}^{+55}`$, respectively. These results suggest weakening of the broad iron K$`\alpha `$ line with flattening of the X-ray continuum. Higher equivalent widths of the iron K$`\alpha `$ emission could be produced by an increased abundance of iron or by increasing the reflection component. It is unlikely that the change in the equivalent width of iron K$`\alpha `$ is due to a change in the iron abundance due to the following reasons: ($`i`$) it is very unlikely that iron abundance changes by a factor of about two in just six months, and ($`ii`$) it is difficult to explain the variation in the shape of the non-thermal X-ray continuum by changing the iron abundance. Increasing the reflection emission from a neutral disk may flatten the continuum. This will require a change in the geometry of the accretion disk-corona system (e.g. increasing the covering factor at the corona will result in more reflection emission). However, this will increase the equivalent width of the iron K$`\alpha `$ line with flattening of the continuum. Large equivalent widths of FeK$`\alpha `$ can be produced if the accretion disk is ionized (Weaver et al., 1997). Dewangan (2002) reported a correlation between the shape of the X-ray spectrum and the energy of the FeK$`\alpha `$ line among radio-quiet type 1 AGNs and suggested that the accretion disks of AGNs with steeper continua are more ionized. The trend in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ and the equivalent width of iron K$`\alpha `$ emission from MCG-5-23-16 could be understood if the shape of the X-ray continuum is coupled with the ionization stage of the disk material in MCG-5-23-16 in a similar way to that observed among the radio-quiet AGNs.

### 4.2 Is the broad feature at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$ really an iron K$`\alpha `$ line from an accretion disk?

As shown in section 3, the broad feature at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$ can be modeled as a broad Gaussian (FWHM$`40000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) or a line profile arising from an accretion disk around a Schwarzschild or a Kerr black hole. Alternatively, most of the flux in the broad component can also be accounted by reflection emission . However, the derived reflection fraction ($`R3`$) is much larger than that inferred from the BeppoSAX observations of MCG-5-23-16 ($`R0.5`$; Risaliti (2002)) and the average value for Seyfert 1 galaxies ($`R1`$; Perola et al. 2002). This is not entirely impossible if the reflector is a putative torus far away from the central continuum source. The reflection fraction can be large if the central source was brighter before a time period which is equal to the time delay between the reflected and primary X-ray emission. However, such a large reflection fraction for MCG-5-23-16 is unlikely due to the following reasons – (i) the calibration of the EPIC PN above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$ is reliable at a level of $`20\%`$ (Snowden, private communication). MOS data do not show clear excess emission above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$ as is the case for PN. (ii) The broad feature at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$ weakens with flattening of the continuum. This is not expected if the broad feature were the reflection emission. Simultaneous observations with XMM-Newton and Integral would be crucial to characterize both the FeK$`\alpha `$ emission and reflection component.

### 4.3 The Iron K-shell Edge

XMM-Newton observations of December 2001 have revealed the presence of an Iron K-shell absorption edge near $`7.1\mathrm{keV}`$. However, the edge is not well constrained and is detected only at a significance level of $`93\%`$. The edge energy is not well determined but it appears to be $`7.1\mathrm{keV}`$ (see Fig. 2). The optical depth is found to be $`0.03_{0.02}^{+0.04}`$. Assuming that the edge arises due to the K-shell absorption of neutral iron and the corresponding photoionization cross section ($`2.6\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$; Donnelly, Bell, Scott, & Keenan 2000), we determine the column density of neutral iron to be $`N_{\mathrm{Fe}}1.1\times 10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. This corresponds to an effective Hydrogen column density of $`N_\mathrm{H}4\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, which is a factor of two higher than the hydrogen column density derived by fitting an absorbed power-law model to the observed data. Given the uncertainty in the derived value of the optical depth, it cannot be ruled out that the Fe K-edge arises entirely in the absorbing material along our line of sight in the form of a putative torus. It is interesting to investigate whether both the absorption K-edge and the narrow component of the K$`\alpha `$ line due to iron could be produced in the the putative torus around an accretion disk. In the case of isotropic emission, the equivalent width of the emission line should be $`64f_cN_\mathrm{H}A_{Fe}\times 10^{23}`$. For a typical covering factor $`f_c0.7`$ for the torus and solar abundances ($`A_{fe}=1`$), the absorption column required to produce an equivalent width of $`40\mathrm{eV}`$ for the narrow iron K$`\alpha `$ line is $`10^{23}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. This column is larger by a factor of five than the absorption column derived from the power-law fit. It is also larger by about a factor of three than the absorption column derived from the iron K-edge, since the absorption features are produced only by a column along our line of sight while the emission features are spatially integrated in the case of a source which is unresolved. The above results imply that we are viewing the outer edge of a putative torus where the column density is lower than the inner regions of the torus. This is consistent with that expected for a Seyfert 1.9 galaxy from the unification scheme (Antonucci, 1993).

## 5 Conclusions

We studied the $`2.510\mathrm{keV}`$ spectrum of MCG-5-23-16 which was observed twice with XMM-Newton in May and December 2001. Our main results are as follows.

1. The iron K$`\alpha `$ line profile of MCG-5-23-16 is broad and nearly symmetric. The observed profile could be modeled by a combination of a narrow (unresolved) and a broad Gaussian component. The broad component is also consistent with that expected from an accretion disk around a Schwarzschild or a Kerr black hole.
2. The disk inclination angle of $`46^{}`$, inferred from the disk-line fits, is consistent with that expected for a Seyfert 1.9 galaxy according to the Seyfert unification picture.
3. Alternatively, most of the flux of the broad feature at $`6.4\mathrm{keV}`$ can also be modeled as the reflection emission, however, the reflection fraction ($`3`$) is much larger than that derived from the BeppoSAX observations ($`R0.5`$). This is likely to be due to uncertainty in the calibration of EPIC PN above $`10\mathrm{keV}`$.
4. We have derived three values of absorption column ($`i`$) $`N_\mathrm{H}10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ from the best-fit absorbed and red shifted power-law model, ($`ii`$) $`N_\mathrm{H}4\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ from the absorption edge, and ($`iii`$) $`N_\mathrm{H}10^{23}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ required to produce the narrow iron K$`\alpha `$ line emission. The above three values are consistent with a geometrical picture in which our line of sight passes through the outer edges of a putative cold torus obscuring the nuclear X-ray source as expected for a Seyfert 1.9 galaxy from the unification scheme.
5. The broad iron K$`\alpha `$ emission appears to weaken with the flattening of the X-ray continuum. This can be understood if the degree of ionization of iron in the accretion disk decreases with flattening in the X-ray spectrum. However, in any case the disk does not appear to be highly ionized (i.e. Hydrogen or Helium-like iron).

This work is based on observations obtained with XMM-Newton, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA member states and the USA (NASA). The authors thank the referee of this paper, Dr. Kim Weaver, for her comments and suggestions. REG acknowledges NASA award NAG5-9902 in support of his Mission Scientist position on XMM-Newton.