text:
# Spherical Domain Wall formed by Field Dynamics of Hawking Radiation and Spontaneous Charging-up of Black Hole

## 1 Introduction

Black holes radiate particles thermally at the Hawking temperature . As Schwarzschild black holes are losing their mass by the radiation, their Hawking temperature is increasing because the temperature is inversely proportional to the mass. The temperature and the intensity of the radiation increase explosively at the final stage of the evaporation, therefore small black holes are very interesting to particle physicists .

Several authors discussed that heating-up by the Hawking radiation can thermalize the neighborhood and thermal phase-transitions around the black holes can arise. The QCD phase transition  and the electroweak (EW) phase transition  have been shown. The local phase-transition around the black hole makes the spherical domain wall which separates the symmetric-phase-region from the broken-phase background. Several mechanisms of the baryon-number-production by the black holes accompanied with the EW wall have been shown and the cosmological baryogenesis scenario by using one of the mechanisms has been proposed .

The thermal phase-transition on finite volume requires the local thermal equilibrium which is confirmed by an enough interaction rate in the considered volume. It is shown that the mean free paths of the radiated particles are much longer than the Schwarzschild radius. Hence the scale of the thermalized volume and the radius of the wall should be much larger than the Schwarzschild radius. The formation of the wall by the thermal phase transition needs much higher Hawking-temperature than the critical temperature of the transition . However, it is natural to ask if the Hawking radiation whose temperature is equal to or slightly greater than the critical temperature influences the Higgs vacuum-expectation-value (vev) locally.

In this paper we investigate the Hawking radiation of such a temperature in the gauge-Higgs-Yukawa theories, e.g., the Standard Model (SM) and the Grand Unified Theory (GUT). We show that a structure of the spherical domain wall around the black holes arises by the field dynamics of the system. The analysis seems to be difficult because the system is fully non-equilibrium, however, we find that properties of the system quite simplify the analysis.

The mean free paths of the radiated particles with gauge interactions are much longer than the radius of the black hole . The mean wavelength of the radiated particles is approximately given by the radius of the black hole and is shorter than the length-scale of the wall-structure which we will consider outside the black hole. These simplify the analysis. The Hawking-radiated particles can be regarded as ballistic because of their long mean-free-paths and their short wavelengths. Their masses are proportional to the Higgs vev $`|\varphi |`$. Our basic idea of the wall-formation-mechanism is schematically shown in the Figure 1. When once a radius-depending Higgs-vev-structure $`|\varphi (r)|`$, namely the spherical wall-structure, has been formed, the Hawking-radiated particles run rush up the slope of the structure and they push the structure outside. Concretely when a particle with momentum $`p(r_1)=\sqrt{E^2m(r_1)^2}`$ ascends a small part of the slope from the position $`r_1`$ to $`r_2`$, the momentum of the particle becomes $`p(r_2)=\sqrt{E^2m(r_2)^2}`$ with $`m(r_2)=m(r_1)+\mathrm{\Delta }m`$. The parameter $`E`$ means the conserved energy of the particle. The part of the slope receives momentum $`\mathrm{\Delta }p=p(r_1)p(r_2)(m/p)\mathrm{\Delta }m`$. Therefore there arises a pressure, named the Hawking pressure, which is acting on the structure to expand its radius. On the other hand the structure also feels its wall-tension and the Higgs-potential-force, which are acting on the structure to shrink its radius. A balance of these pressures seems to be able to keep the structure stationary. The relevant interaction in this mechanism is only the Yukawa interaction between a ballistic particle and the Higgs vev.

To realize the idea of the wall-formation systematically we propose the ballistic model as an effective description of the system. Our model consists from the action for the Higgs field and that for the relativistic point particles radiated from the black hole. We derive the effective potential which determines the configuration of the Higgs vev around the black hole. By considering the effective potential, formation of the spherical domain wall around the black hole is shown when the Hawking temperature is equal to or greater than the energy scale of the Higgs-Yukawa theory. We will call this mechanism the dynamical formation of the spherical wall in distinction from the thermal formation. In this paper the dynamical formation of the EW wall and that of the GUT wall are shown as concrete examples.

We also discuss a mechanism of the spontaneous charging-up of the black hole as an application of the spherical wall. The Hawking radiation is neutral for any charge, however, the following assumptions allow us to consider the charging-up mechanism. We assume (i) a CP-broken phase in the spherical wall and (ii) a chiral charge assignment of the fermions in the field theory, i.e., a C-violation of the theory. These assumptions induce a reflection-asymmetry for the charge on the wall. Therefore a charge-transport-mechanism from the wall into the black hole works and it charges-up the black hole. This mechanism is a variant application of the charge-transport-mechanism of the electroweak baryogenesis proposed by Cohen, Kaplan and Nelson . The assumptions are equivalent to two of the Sakharov’s conditions for the baryogenesis . When the Hawking temperature is on the EW scale, the mechanism strongly works and the hyper-charge is transported into the black hole. The black hole of the GUT temperature can also obtain several charge.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the formation mechanism of the spherical wall is discussed. In Section 3 a mechanism for the spontaneous charging-up of the black hole is discussed. In section 4 we provide a conclusion and discussions.

## 2 Dynamical Formation of Spherical Domain Wall

We consider a Hawking radiation in the gauge-Higgs-Yukawa theory like the Standard Model (SM). Especially we discuss dynamics of the Higgs field around the black hole whose Hawking temperature is similarly equal to or greater than the energy scale of the theory, e.g., the critical temperature. In the situation the mean free paths of the Hawking-radiated particles are much greater than the length scale of the black hole . Because the mean wavelength of the radiated particle is approximately given by the Schwarzschild radius, the mean wavelength is similar to or smaller than the length-scale of the domain wall which we will consider around the black hole. We can regard these radiated particles as ballistic. The particles are almost freely running away from the black hole except for the interaction with the Higgs vacuum-expectation-value (vev) as their background. Only the Yukawa interactions of the heavy fermions with the Higgs vev and the gauge interactions of the heavy gauge bosons with the Higgs vev are relevant. These particles obtain their mass from the Higgs vev through the interactions. Inversely we can expect the deformation of the Higgs vev, i.e., the symmetry restoration or the wall formation, by the particles with both high energy and high density around the black hole.

The deformation can be approximately treated by a combination of the relativistic kinematics of each radiated ballistic particle and the dynamics of the Higgs field with the relevant interactions. The approximated system should have Lorentz invariance and each ballistic particle should obtain its mass by the Higgs vev. To discuss the subject we propose the ballistic model which satisfies the required conditions. Our model is described by the action for a Higgs field $`\varphi (x)`$ with a Higgs potential $`V(\varphi )`$ and the action for trajectories $`\{y_i^\mu (s)\}`$ of relativistic point particles $`\{i\}`$ as the ballistic particles. We use a metric convention $`g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(+1,1,1,1)`$. The action is given by111 The action for the ordinary relativistic point particle with mass $`m`$ is given by $`𝑑sm\sqrt{|\dot{y}(s)|^2}`$. Our action describes point particles which obtain their mass by the Higgs vev.:

$`S[\varphi ,y]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left[(\varphi )^2V(\varphi )\right]}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑s_iY_i|\varphi \left(y_i(s_i)\right)|\sqrt{|\dot{y}_i(s_i)|^2}},`$ (1)
where $`\dot{y}_i^\mu dy_i^\mu /ds_i`$ and $`Y_i`$ is a “extended Yukawa coupling constant” for the point particle $`i`$. The summation in the action (1) is performed over all particles. The Higgs potential in the vacuum is given by the double-well form

$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{v^2}}\varphi ^4,`$ (2)
which has a minimum at $`|\varphi |=v/\sqrt{2}`$ and the constant $`\mu ^2>0`$ is the square of the Higgs mass. Mass of the particle $`i`$ is proportional to the Higgs vev:

$`m_i(x)`$ $`=`$ $`Y_i|\varphi (x)|`$ (3)
and which reproduces the relation in the ordinary gauge-Higgs-Yukawa theory. Mass of the particle in the vacuum is given by $`m_i=Y_iv/\sqrt{2}`$. Here we note that the summation in the action (1) is performed over not only the fermions but also the massive gauge bosons. Because mass of the massive gauge boson in the gauge-Higgs theory is also proportional to the Higgs vev, we have extended the concept of the Yukawa-coupling-constant $`Y_i`$ to the massive gauge boson in the action (1)222 In the simplest gauge-Higgs model with a gauge coupling constant $`g`$, we have $`W`$-boson mass $`m_W=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g|\varphi |`$. Then the extended Yukawa coupling constant is given by $`Y_W=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g`$.. Such a massive gauge boson as the ballistic particle also obeys the mass relation (3). The general relativistic (GR) effect is omitted. The reason will be discussed in section 4.

To calculate the effective potential for the Higgs field, we fix gauge for the point particles as $`s_i=x^0=y_i^0(x^0)`$. Then we have $`\sqrt{|\dot{y}_i(x^0)|^2}=\sqrt{1|𝐯_i(x^0)|^2}1/\gamma _i(x^0)`$, where $`𝐯_i(x^0)`$ is 3-velocity for the particle $`i`$. The action becomes

$`S[\varphi ,𝐲]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left[(\varphi )^2V(\varphi )\underset{i}{}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲_i(x^0))Y_i\frac{|\varphi \left(x\right)|}{\gamma _i(x^0)}\right]}.`$ (4)
By using the definition of the 4-momentum for the particle $`i`$:

$`p_{i\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{y}_i^\mu }}=Y_i|\varphi (y_i)|{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{y}_{i\mu }}{\sqrt{|\dot{y_i}|^2}}}=Y_i|\varphi (y_i)|\gamma _i(x^0)(1,𝐯_i)`$ (5)
$``$ $`(E_i,𝐩_i),`$
the equation of the motion for the particle becomes

$`\dot{p}_{i\mu }+Y_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _i(x^0)}}_\mu |\varphi |(y_i)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6)
where $`L`$ is the integrand of the action (4), namely, the Lagrangian. The parameter $`E_i(x^0)`$ of the particle motion means a positive energy of the particle $`i`$. The equation of the motion for the Higgs field is derived from the gauge-fixed action (4) and it becomes

$`^2\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}\left[V(\varphi )+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲_i(x^0))Y_i{\displaystyle \frac{|\varphi \left(x\right)|}{\gamma _i(x^0)}}\right].`$ (7)
Here we find that the right hand side of the field-equation includes an absolute value $`|\varphi |`$ which is not a differentiable function. This fact looks unnatural but this difficulty is resolvable. By using the positive energy parameter (5), the field equation becomes a regular form of the field:

$`^2\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}\left[V(\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲_i(x^0))Y_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(x)}{E_i(x^0)}}\right].`$ (8)
If we perform the differentiation before substituting the energy parameter, we find a Heaviside theta function $`\theta (\varphi )=\pm 1`$ temporarily but we will obtain the same result: $`|\varphi |\frac{}{\varphi }|\varphi |=|\varphi |\theta (\varphi )=\varphi `$. We can consider that the non-differentiability of the absolute-value-function $`|\varphi |`$ in the action is relaxed by the effect of the particle motion $`\sqrt{|\dot{y}_i|^2}`$.

The Higgs field is decomposed into the time-independent vev part and the fluctuating part:

$`\varphi (x^0,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (𝐱)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\rho (x^0,𝐱).`$ (9)
The fluctuating part $`\rho (x^0,𝐱)`$ can be regarded as the Higgs particles which are propagating in the background of the position-depending Higgs vev $`\varphi (𝐱)`$. According to our concept of the ballistic model we consider that the propagating mode $`\rho (x^0,𝐱)`$ can be treated as the massive particles and be taken into the ballistic particles $`\{y_i\}`$. We will precisely discuss a treatment of the ballistic Higgs particle in the Appendix. Mass of the Higgs propagating mode does not obey the mass relation (3), however, we can show that the action (1) correctly describes the ballistic Higgs particles by choosing the Yukawa-coupling-constant $`Y_i=\sqrt{3}\mu /v`$ for the Higgs particles. Here we redefine $`\varphi (𝐱)`$ as the position-depending Higgs vev $`\varphi (𝐱)`$ and $`\{y_i\}`$ as the set of the ballistic particles including the ballistic Higgs particles. The redefined Higgs field satisfies $`_0\varphi =0`$. The equation of the field-motion (8) becomes an effective equation of the Higgs vev by the redefinition. The property $`_0\varphi =0`$ simplifies the equation of the particle-motion (6) as

$`E_i`$ $`=`$ $`Y_i|\varphi (𝐲_i(x^0))|\gamma _i(x^0),`$ (10)
where $`E_i`$ becomes a constant of the particle motion. The constant is the positive-definite energy of the particle $`i`$ at the rest frame.

When we put the trajectories $`\{𝐲_i(x^0)\}`$ for all particles with their energy-constants $`\{E_i\}`$ into the equation (8), we obtain an effective potential for the Higgs field

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`V(\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲_i(x^0))Y_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(𝐱)}{E_i}},`$ (11)
which determines the static structure of the Higgs vev by the field-equation $`\mathrm{}\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{\varphi }V_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Here we adopt a differential particle number-density $`dE\times 𝒩_f(E;𝐱)`$ for particle species $`f`$. The effective potential for the Higgs field can be written down as

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`V(\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^2{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}Y_f^2{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{E}𝒩_f(E;𝐱)},`$ (12)
where the summation in the equation (12) is performed over all particle-species in the theory. Then the effective potential should be

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi ,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(𝐱)\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{v^2}}\varphi ^4,`$ (13)
where we have defined the effective $`\mu ^2`$-parameter as

$`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}Y_f^2{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{E}𝒩_f(E;𝐱)}.`$ (14)
Next we consider that the particle distribution $`dE\times 𝒩_f(E;𝐱)`$ is produced by the Hawking radiation from the Schwarzschild black hole with mass $`m_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. By the Hawking process all kinds of the particles in the field theory are radiated from the horizon whose radius is given by the Schwarzschild radius $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}`$. The radiated particles have thermal spectrum at the Hawking temperature $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}{m_{\mathrm{BH}}}`$. The particle distribution around the black hole is approximately given by

$`dE𝒩_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_f}{(2\pi )^3}}f_{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}(E)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi E^2dE\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{\mathrm{BH}}}{r}}\right)^2,`$ (15)
where

$`f_{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}(E)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{E/T_{\mathrm{BH}}}\pm 1}}`$ (16)
is the Bose-Einstein or the Fermi-Dirac distribution function of the temperature $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and $`g_f`$ means a degree of freedom for the particle-species $`f`$. The leading contribution from the Hawking radiation is given by the distribution (15). Later we will discuss the formation of the wall by the Hawking-radiated particles. The wall influences the trajectories of the particles and slightly deforms the distribution of the particles. In the distribution (15) we have ignored this backreaction. The ignored contribution can be evaluated by solving the equation of the particle-motion $`|\dot{𝐲}_i|^2=1(Y_i\varphi (𝐲_i)/E_i)^2`$ derived from the equation (10) and it will be a future subject.

By substituting the distribution (15) into the effective Higgs mass (14) we obtain

$`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{r^2}},`$ (17)
where we have defined a dimensionless “wall-formation-constant”

$`A^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{768\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\stackrel{~}{g}_fY_f^2`$ (18)
which is depending on the field theory and we have defined an effective $`g_f`$ as

$`\stackrel{~}{g}_f`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}g_f& (f:\mathrm{boson})\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}g_f& (f:\mathrm{fermion})\hfill \end{array}.`$ (21)
Here we find that the sign of $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(r)`$ changes at the “characteristic wall-radius”

$`r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{\mu }}`$ (22)
as $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(r)`$ is negative for $`r>r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ and is positive for $`r<r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$. The distribution of the Higgs effective-potential $`V(\varphi ,r)`$ around the black hole is shown in the Figure 2. The effective potential is minimized at each position $`r`$ by

$`\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{\mathrm{DW}}}{r}}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}& (r>r_{\mathrm{DW}})\hfill \\ 0& (rr_{\mathrm{DW}})\hfill \end{array}.`$ (25)
Therefore there arises a local-vacuum depending on $`r`$ continuously and we can expect the formation of the spherical domain wall of the radius $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ when $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}>r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. The vacuum continuously varying with the dependence on the position is one of the distinctive features in the non-equilibrium system.

The form of the Higgs vev around a black hole, namely, the structure of the wall, is calculated as a spherically-symmetric stationary solution of the motion-equation for the Higgs field with the effective potential (13):

$`\mathrm{}\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi ,r),`$ (26)
where a boundary condition $`\varphi (r\mathrm{})=v/\sqrt{2}`$ is required. The equation (26) can be solved numerically and the result is shown in the Figure 3. The form of the Higgs vev is depending on the wall-formation-constant $`A^2`$ defined in (18). Generally speaking, the curve of the Higgs vev $`\varphi (r)`$ approaches $`\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}(r)`$ when $`A^2`$ becomes large. Here we find that the Hawking radiation can form the spherical wall or wall-like structure around the black hole for the non-zero $`A^2`$ and the radius of the spherical wall is characterized by the parameter $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$.

The condition for the wall-formation becomes

$`r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ $`<`$ $`r_{\mathrm{DW}},`$ (27)
because the Schwarzschild radius $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ should be smaller than the characteristic-wall-radius $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$. This condition can be rewrite as

$`T_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ $`>`$ $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}^{},`$ (28)
where we have defined the critical Hawking-temperature

$`T_{\mathrm{BH}}^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{4\pi A}}`$ (29)
for the dynamical wall-formation. It should be noticed that the characteristic-wall-radius $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ in (22) is not depending on the Hawking temperature. Once the wall is formed, the shape of the wall hardly changes in spite of the change of the Hawking temperature during the evaporation of the black hole. The integrated particle-number-flux from the black hole which is derived from (15) is proportional to the Hawking temperature $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. On the other hand, the effect of the ballistic particles upon the Higgs vev is inversely proportional to the Hawking temperature because of the form of the effective potential (11) with the relation $`ET_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. Therefore the influence of the Hawking radiation on the wall is not depending on the Hawking temperature.

Now we can discuss the formation of the wall in the realistic field theories, e.g., the electroweak (EW) theory or the grand unified theory (GUT). In the EW theory the heavy particles which contribute to create the wall are the top quarks, the weak bosons $`Z^0`$, $`W^\pm `$ and the Higgs bosons. Approximately we have the wall-formation-constant for the EW wall:

$`A_{\mathrm{EW}}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{768\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\stackrel{~}{g}_fY_f^2`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`10^3\times \left[0.979+0.065\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{\mathrm{EW}}}{100\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^2\right]\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/9601/800`$
which is depending on the Higgs mass $`\mu _{\mathrm{EW}}=100200\mathrm{GeV}`$. The critical Hawking-temperature for the dynamical formation of the EW wall becomes

$`T_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{EW}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{\mathrm{EW}}}{4\pi A_{\mathrm{EW}}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mu _{\mathrm{EW}}.`$ (31)
Consequently the Hawking radiation produces the spherical EW domain wall whose structure is given in the Figure 3 with $`A^2=A_{\mathrm{EW}}^20.001`$ when the Hawking temperature of the black hole is similar to or greater than the EW scale. The characteristic radius of the wall is given by

$`r_{\mathrm{DW}}^{\mathrm{EW}}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{\mathrm{EW}}/\mu _{\mathrm{EW}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.03}/\mu _{\mathrm{EW}}`$ (32)
In the $`SU(5)`$-GUT there are, at least, lepto-quarks $`X,Y`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}`$-Higgs $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as heavy particles of the GUT scale mass $`\mu _{\mathrm{GUT}}10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$. The same analysis results in

$`A_{\mathrm{GUT}}^2`$ $``$ $`1/200,`$ (33)
$`T_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ $``$ $`\mu _{\mathrm{GUT}},`$ (34)
$`r_{\mathrm{DW}}^{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ $``$ $`0.07/\mu _{\mathrm{GUT}}.`$ (35)
Then the spherical GUT wall is also formed when the Hawking temperature is greater than the GUT scale. Finally we can conclude that the spherical wall around a black hole is dynamically formed in most of the field theories which have a Higgs mechanism when the Hawking temperature is greater than the energy scale of the field theory.

## 3 Spontaneous Charging-up of the Black Hole

We discuss that the Hawking radiation can charge up the black hole by the effect of the spherical wall discussed in the previous section. We need two assumptions such that (i) the domain wall has a CP-broken phase and (ii) the field theory has fermions with chiral charge-assignment. The Standard Model (SM) satisfies the second assumption because the left-handed quark and the right-handed quark have different hyper-charges. The SM with the two Higgs extension (2HSM) or the Minimal Supersymmetric SM (MSSM) can satisfy the first assumption. When the first assumption is satisfied, the reflection-rate on the wall of the left-handed fermions is different from that of the right-handed fermions. The domain wall has a charge-reflection-asymmetry when both assumptions are satisfied. The Hawking radiation is charge-neutral, however, the black hole obtains net charge because the reflected particle-flux is not charge-neutral due to the asymmetry and a part of the reflected particles return into the black hole. Consequently the net charge is transported into the black hole. This process is similar to the “charge transport mechanism on the thin wall regime” in the electroweak baryogenesis proposed by Cohen, Kaplan and Nelson . In the charge-transport-mechanism of the electroweak baryogenesis, the hyper-charge is transported from the thin EW wall to the symmetric-phase-region and it boosts up the baryon-number-creation by the sphaleron process. On the other hand our mechanism of the charge-transportation charges up the black hole.

The rate for the charge-transportation into the black hole is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{dt}}=\sigma _{\mathrm{BH}}\times C_{\mathrm{fcs}}F_Q,`$ (36)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is the cross section for the absorption into the black hole, $`F_Q`$ is the reflected charge flux on the wall and the dimensionless parameter $`C_{\mathrm{fcs}}`$ is a focusing factor. We adopt the horizon area as the absorption-cross-section:

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{BH}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi r_{\mathrm{BH}}^2.`$ (37)
Strictly speaking, the absorption-cross-section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is slightly different from the horizon area (37) with a factor of $`O(1)`$ and is depending on the energy of the particle $`E`$ due to the general relativistic effect. The absorption-cross-section for the high-energy limit (the eikonal limit) is given by $`\sigma _{\mathrm{BH}}(E\mathrm{})=\frac{27\pi }{4}r_{\mathrm{BH}}^2`$. The spectrum of the Hawking radiation is slightly different from the thermal distribution because the flux of the Hawking radiation is proportional to the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{BH}}(E)`$, which is known as the gray-body effect. The absorption-cross-section (37) is consistent with the flux of the Hawking radiation given in the distribution (15).

In the spherical reflector any particles radiated from a neighborhood of the center of the reflector return into the same neighborhood when they are reflected. Then the incoming flux to the horizon from the spherical wall is greater than the reflected flux $`F_Q`$ on the wall. This is a focusing effect by the spherical reflector. The flux on the horizon can be written down as $`C_{\mathrm{fcs}}F_Q`$ by the focusing factor $`C_{\mathrm{fcs}}1`$. We have $`(r_{\mathrm{BH}}/r_{\mathrm{DW}})^2\times C_{\mathrm{fcs}}=1`$ when the effect maximally works and we have $`C_{\mathrm{fcs}}=1`$ in the absence of the effect.

The charge flux on the wall is given by

$`F_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f\chi }{}}{\displaystyle _{m_f}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E𝒩_f(E;r_{\mathrm{DW}})\mathrm{\Delta }Q_f\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(E).`$ (38)
The summation is performed over all species $`\chi `$ of the chiral-charged fermions, where the particle-species $`f\chi `$ does not distinguish both the chirality of the particle and the particle/anti-particle. The number $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_fQ_{f_L}Q_{f_R}`$ means the difference between the charge of the left-handed fermion $`f_L`$ and that of the right-handed fermion $`f_R`$. This number is related to the C-violation for the theory. The function

$`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(E)`$ $``$ $`R_{f_Rf_L}(E)R_{\overline{f}_R\overline{f}_L}(E)`$ (39)
describes the difference between the reflection-probabilities, where the reflection-probability $`R_{f_Rf_L}(E)`$ is a probability which the right-handed fermion $`f_R`$ is reflected to the left-handed fermion $`f_L`$ and the reflection-probability $`R_{\overline{f}_R\overline{f}_L}(E)`$ is that for the anti-fermion: $`\overline{f}_R\overline{f}_L`$. These probabilities are depending on the particle-energy $`E`$. The non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(E)`$ is related with the CP-violation of the wall. When we put the structure of the CP-broken phase in the wall, we can numerically evaluate $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(E)`$ according to the method proposed by Cohen, Kaplan and Nelson .

The wall-solution (see the Figure 3) shows the absolute value of the Higgs vev $`|\varphi (r)|`$, namely, the wall profile without a complex phase. To evaluate the reflection-asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(E)`$ we assume the structure of the CP-broken phase in the wall:

$`\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`f(r)\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{CP}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{f(r)}{v/\sqrt{2}}}\right)\right],`$ (40)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{CP}}`$ is the amount of the CP-broken phase in the wall and the function $`f(r)|\varphi (r)|`$ is a profile of the Higgs vev in the wall. The wall-structure (40) is defined for $`r>r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. The profile-function $`f(r)`$ should be a solution of the effective-field-equation (26). The complex-phased wall-structure (40) is the same as that in the EW baryogenesis  except for the profile function333 In the EW baryogenesis $`f(z)=[1+\mathrm{tanh}(z/z_{\mathrm{DW}})]/2`$ is assumed as the profile function of the wall formed by the first order phase transition, where $`z_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ is a thickness of the wall. . The reflection-asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(E)`$ of the wall is depending on the CP-broken phase $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{CP}}`$, the wall-formation-constant $`A^2`$, the energy scale of the field-theory $`\mu `$, the energy of the fermion $`E`$ and mass of the fermion $`m_f`$.

By substituting the particle-distribution (15), the charge flux (38) becomes

$`F_Q`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{\mathrm{BH}}}{r_{\mathrm{DW}}}}\right)^2C_{\mathrm{fcs}}\times {\displaystyle \underset{f\chi }{}}g_f\mathrm{\Delta }Q_fm_f^3\mathrm{\Delta }(m_f,T_{\mathrm{BH}}),`$ (41)
where we have defined a reflection-asymmetry integrated over the thermal distribution

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_f,T_{\mathrm{BH}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi \xi ^2f_{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}(m_f\xi )\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(m_f\xi ).`$ (42)
We have numerically calculated $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_f(E)`$ and we show the resultant reflection-asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f(m_f,T_{\mathrm{BH}})`$ in the Figure 4 and Figure 5. In these calculation we have assumed $`\mu =m_f`$ for simplicity.

The black hole of the Hawking temperature $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ has a finite lifetime $`\tau _{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{20}{\pi ^2g_{}}\frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}{T_{\mathrm{BH}}^3}`$, where $`g_{}`$ is the total degree of freedom with a fermion correction444 The definition is $`g_{}g_\mathrm{b}+(7/8)g_\mathrm{f}`$, where $`g_\mathrm{b}`$ is the total degree of the freedom of bosons and $`g_\mathrm{b}`$ is that of the fermions. In the SM with the gravity, we have $`g_{}=108.75`$.. The total charge transported into the black hole in its lifetime with assuming no mechanism of charge-loss works is useful for evaluating the strength of the mechanism. In section 4 we will discuss several mechanisms of the charge-loss. The total transported charge becomes

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle ^{\tau _{\mathrm{BH}}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{dt}}`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{15}{\pi ^3g_{}}}m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{f\chi }{}}g_f\mathrm{\Delta }Q_fm_f^3{\displaystyle _{T_{\mathrm{BH}}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dT}{T^6}}\mathrm{\Delta }(m_f,T),`$
where we have assumed the maximum focusing effect. The integration in the equation (43) can be performed by using the numerical form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_f,T)`$. According to the numerical results in the Figure 4 and the Figure 5, the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_f,T)`$ has meaningful value for $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}>\mu `$ and is exponentially dumping for $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}<\mu `$. Therefore we approximately obtain the total charge transported into the black hole whose initial Hawking temperature $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is similar to or smaller than $`\mu `$:

$`Q`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\pi ^3}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu ,\mu )\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}{\mu }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{f\mathrm{H}\chi }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_f}{g_{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }Q_f,`$ (44)
where we have put a simplification $`m_f=\mu `$ for all related fermions $`f`$, i.e., the summation is performed over only species of the heavy fermions $`\mathrm{H}\chi `$. Our numerical analysis results in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu ,\mu )10^4\times \mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{CP}}/\pi `$ for $`A^2=1/100`$ as the EW wall or as the GUT wall, then we obtain

$`Q`$ $``$ $`10^5\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{CP}}}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}{\mu }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{f\mathrm{H}\chi }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_f}{g_{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }Q_f.`$ (45)
Finally we conclude that the spherical wall can charge up the black hole non-trivially when the energy scale of the wall satisfies $`\mu \begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}10^3\times m_{\mathrm{pl}}10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

When we consider a black hole whose Hawking temperature is on the EW scale $`\mu 100\mathrm{GeV}`$, the spherical EW wall arises and the hyper-charge $`Q_Y`$ is transported into the black hole. Mainly the top quark, $`g_f=3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_f=1/2`$, carries the hyper-charge into the black hole. The total transported hyper-charge becomes $`Q_Y10^{25}\times \mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{CP}}`$. The transported hyper-charge can become meaningful number even if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{CP}}`$ is small, then we conclude that the spontaneous charging-up mechanism of the black hole works strongly. We expect that the mechanism also works by the CP-asymmetry of the wall derived by the Kobayashi-Maskawa phase of the SM. When a black hole of the GUT temperature is considered, several charge can be transported into the black hole. The amount of the charge is depending on the chiral charge assignment $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_f`$ of the GUT.

## 4 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSIONS

In this paper the Hawking radiation in the gauge-Higgs-Yukawa theory is investigated by the effective model based on the ballistic property of the Hawking-radiated particles. The dynamical formation of the spherical domain wall around the black hole is shown. Our model, named the ballistic model, is described by the ordinary Higgs action with a double well potential and the action for the many relativistic point particles coupled to the Higgs field. The ballistic model quite simplifies the analysis of the Higgs vev structure around the black hole as compared with directly analyzing the field-equations for the gauge-Higgs-Yukawa theory.

The ballistic model is valid when (i) the mean free path of the Hawking-radiated particle is greater than the wall radius $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ and (ii) the mean wavelength $`\lambda `$ of the particle is smaller than $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$. The mean wavelength $`\lambda `$ is approximately given by the Schwarzschild radius $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. The radius of the wall we have concluded in (27) satisfies $`r_{\mathrm{DW}}>\lambda r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, then our analysis is consistent with the second condition. If the background of the black hole is not thermalized, the first condition is always satisfied. When the Hawking temperature $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is so much high that the Hawking radiation thermalizes its neighborhood and the plasma-temperature in the neighborhood locally exceeds the critical temperature of the phase transition, the thermal formation of the spherical wall arises  instead of the dynamical formation. The transition from the dynamical wall to the thermal wall may be interesting subject.

Transitional time-evolutions of the vev, like the process of the initial wall-formation, are computed by (26) with adding a kinetic term $`_t^2\varphi `$ in a sense of the time-depending mean-field. The time-scale of the wall-formation is estimated to be $`\tau _{\mathrm{DW}}\mu ^1`$ because both the wall-radius (22) and the effective potential (13) have the same energy scale $`\mu `$. The lifetime of the black hole is $`\tau _{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{20}{\pi ^2g_{}}\frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}{T_{\mathrm{BH}}^3}`$. When we consider a black hole of $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}\mu `$, the ratio becomes $`\tau _{\mathrm{DW}}/\tau _{\mathrm{BH}}g_{}^1(m_{\mathrm{pl}}/T_{\mathrm{BH}})^2`$. The ratio for the GUT wall is $`10^310^4`$. Therefore there is enough lifetime of the black hole for the wall-formation when energy-scale of the phase-transition is equal to or lower than the GUT scale.

General relativistic (GR) effects are omitted in our analysis. The black hole has been assumed as an particle-source with a thermal spectrum of the Hawking temperature. No reliable treatment for the GR corrections to the Hawking-radiated particles has been known. For example, a blue-shift effect near the horizon arises when we consider that the trajectory of the radiated particles obeys the Schwarzschild metric. The effect implies that the energy of the radiated particles near horizon is much higher than the Hawking temperature. No matter how low the Hawking-temperature is, the effect allows us to consider the formation of the spherical wall near the horizon dynamically or thermally. This effect is interesting, however, has difficulties to treat properly. The problem of the GR-effect will be the future subject.

We have evaluated the influence from the radiated particles into the Higgs vev and have found the formation of the wall. On the other hand, there should arise the backreaction from the wall into the motion of the particles. The largest backreaction is the reflection of the low-energy particles by the wall. When $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}m_f`$, the backreaction is ignored because most of the radiated particle pass through the wall. In the case the form of the wall is insignificantly deformed by the backreaction and the Higgs vev in the wall becomes slightly smaller. When $`T_{\mathrm{BH}}m_f`$, the backreaction cannot be ignored because many of the radiated particles are reflected on the wall. We will subsequently develop the argument of the backreaction.

One may consider that our solution for the Higgs field shown in the Figure 3 is not a domain wall according to the usual terminology — a domain wall is a region of a false vacuum which separates into different real vacua. However our terminology “domain wall” is suitable because of the following reasons. The local vacuum $`\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}(r)`$ in (25) is continuously varying (see the Figure 2) because the effective potential $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi ,𝐱)`$ in (13) is apparently depending on the position $`𝐱`$. The continuous vacuum is roughly divided into two vacua, namely, the symmetry-restored local-vacuum $`\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}=0`$ for the neighborhood of the black hole as $`r<r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ and the symmetry-broken vacuum $`\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}=v/\sqrt{2}`$ for $`rr_{\mathrm{DW}}`$. Our solution separates these vacua. Our solution $`\varphi (r)`$ does not correspond to the continuous vacuum $`\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}(r)`$ for $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}<r\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}r_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ (see the Figure 3), i.e., the region can be considered as a false vacuum. Consequently the properties of our solution agree with the ordinary definition of the domain wall.

We have also discussed the mechanism of the spontaneous charging up of the black hole by the effect of the spherical domain wall. The mechanism works when a C-violation of the field theory and a CP-broken phase in the wall are assumed. Our analysis results that the mechanism works when the initial Hawking temperature of the black hole is smaller than about $`10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$. The black hole of EW size strongly drives the mechanism and the hyper-charge is transported into the black hole by the EW wall. The black hole of the GUT size can obtain several charge by the GUT wall.

On the other hand, a mechanism for the spontaneous charge-loss of the black hole has been discussed. Gibbons first proposed this subject by the semi-classical method  and recently Gabriel discussed that this result can be confirmed by the functional method . Their works were briefly as follows. The strong electric field around the black hole induces the pair creation of the charged particles. One of the pair-created particles falls into the black hole and the other runs away from the black hole. The outgoing particles carry away the charges from the black hole. Consequently they concluded that a kind of Schwinger process could work for discharging the black hole. These calculation are reliable when the radius of the black hole is greater than the Compton wave length of the electron, i.e., $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}>1/m_e`$. Because the radius of the black hole discussed in this paper is smaller than the EW length-scale, we can not directly apply their process of the charge-loss to our system. Several authors discussed the subject for the charge loss of the smaller black hole $`r_{\mathrm{BH}}<1/m_e`$ , however, we do not know a relevant treatment in this case.

There is not only the quantum process of the charge-loss but also the classical mechanism preventing the black hole charging-up. The radiated particles whose charge is opposite to the black hole are attracted to the black hole. When the electric charge is transported and the charge of the black hole becomes $`Q`$, the particles of charge $`q`$ feel the electrostatic potential as $`V(r)=\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}Qq/r`$. If we assume that the black hole is only a particle-source of energy $`ET_{\mathrm{BH}}1/r_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, the charging-up by our mechanism stops when the charge of the black hole becomes $`Q=1/\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}137`$ because the radiated particle of the opposite charge can not across the potential barrier. In this paper we have used the same assumption, then this charge-bound may be natural.

The subjects of the charge-up and the charge-loss are related to the problem of the remnant; “after the completion of the Hawking radiation, whether something is left or not?” and “if something is left, what is it?”. One of the candidates for the remnant is the extremal-charged black, which is quantum-mechanically stable. If the process of the charge-loss does not work, the extremal-charged black hole is left as the remnant because the black hole looses its mass by the Hawking radiation and approaches the extremal-charged hole. Zel’dovich discussed that a black hole leaves a remnant with a Planck mass scale . If the charge-loss process works and later the process stops as the charge becomes small, a Planck-massive remnant with several (hyper-)charges is left after the end of the Hawking radiation. There arises no singularity in the solution of the Dirac equation around a electric point charge $`Q`$ if $`Q<1/\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}137`$. The solution with a singularity indicates the fall of the charged particle into the center, then we may expect the stop of the charge-loss.

Such a remnant can be applicable to explain the dark matter of the universe . The scenario is as follows. Primordial black holes are created by the density-fluctuation in the very early universe and are later made to dominate over the universe by the universe expansion. The Hawking radiation of the black hole reheats up the universe and the spherical EW wall thermally formed around the black hole provides the baryon number for the universe. The black hole obtains some charge by our charge-up process and becomes the Planck-massive remnant as the main constituent of the dark matter. Finally we expect that the formation of the spherical wall around the black hole plays crucial roles in the cosmology.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Ofer Aharony, Micha Berkooz, Alex Buchel, Hikaru Kawai, Kazunori Kohri, Barak Kol, Masao Ninomiya, Mihoko Nojiri and Joan Simon for useful discussions. I am grateful to Kei Shigetomi for helpful advice and also for careful reading of the manuscript. The work has been supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (JSPS-1999-03665) and also has been supported by the Koshland Postdoctoral Fellowship of the Weizmann Institute of Science.

## APPENDIX: Ballistic Model for Higgs Particle

In this appendix we discuss a treatment of the Higgs particle as the ballistic particle. The action for the Higgs field $`\varphi `$ is given by

$`S[\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left[(\varphi )^2V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi )\right]}`$ (46)
with the effective potential

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(𝐱)\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{v^2}}\varphi ^4.`$ (47)
The Higgs field is decomposed into

$`\varphi (x^0,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _s(𝐱)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\rho (x^0,𝐱),`$ (48)
where $`\varphi _s(𝐱)\varphi (𝐱)`$ is a time-independent Higgs vev and $`\rho (x^0,𝐱)`$ is a massive Higgs propagating mode in the background of the Higgs vev. When we consider the ordinary vacuum given by the potential with $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(x)=\mu ^2>0`$, we obtain a constant Higgs vev $`\varphi _s(𝐱)=v/\sqrt{2}`$ and a Higgs mass $`m_\rho =\mu `$.

The Higgs vev $`\varphi _s(𝐱)`$ is determined by the solution of the field equation with $`_0\varphi _s=0`$:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\varphi _s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\varphi }}|_{\varphi =\varphi _s}.`$ (49)
The equation of the motion for the Higgs propagating mode $`\rho (x^0,𝐱)`$ becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[_0^2\rho \mathrm{}\rho \right]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\varphi _s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\varphi }}|_{\varphi =\varphi _s+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho }`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\varphi _s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\varphi }}|_{\varphi =\varphi _s}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\varphi ^2}}|_{\varphi =\varphi _s}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\sqrt{2}}}+\mathrm{}.`$
In the last deformation in (50) we have expanded the right hand side by $`\rho /\sqrt{2}`$ around $`\varphi _s`$. By substituting (49) into (50) we obtain

$`_0^2\rho \mathrm{}\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\varphi ^2}}|_{\varphi =\varphi _s}\rho +\mathrm{},`$ (51)
therefore, we find that mass of the Higgs propagating mode is given by

$`m_\rho ^2(\mu ^2,\varphi _s^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\varphi ^2}}|_{\varphi =\varphi _s}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2+3{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{v^2}}\varphi _s^2`$ (52)
and is not proportional to the Higgs vev.

The mass relation for the Higgs particle becomes (52) rather than the linear relation (3) derived from the action (1). We should consider a new ballistic model which includes the Higgs particles as the ballistic particles and derives the mass relation (52). Our concept of the ballistic Higgs particle is schematically shown in the Figure 6. The model is described by the action for the Higgs vev $`\varphi _s(𝐱)`$ and the action for the trajectories $`\{y_i\}`$ of the ballistic Higgs particles $`\{i\}`$:

$`S[\varphi _s,y]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left[(\varphi _s)^2V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi _s)\right]}`$ (53)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑s_im_\rho (\mu ^2(𝐲_i),\varphi _s^2(𝐲_i))\sqrt{|\dot{y}_i(s_i)|^2}},`$
where the summation is performed over all Higgs particles around the black hole. The action (53) is obtained by changing the factor $`Y_i|\varphi (y_i)|`$ in the action (1) into $`m_\rho (\mu ^2(𝐲_i),\varphi _s^2(𝐲_i))`$. The field $`\varphi _s(𝐱)`$ does not include the propagating mode, then the condition $`_0\varphi _s=0`$ on the field equation is required. The parameter $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}^2(𝐱)`$ in the effective potential $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi _s)`$ has been determined by evaluating the effect of all the ballistic particles around the black hole except for the Higgs particles. We will consider the additional effect on $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi _s)`$ by the ballistic Higgs particles. The equation of the motion for the ballistic Higgs particle becomes

$`E_i=m_\rho (\mu ^2(𝐲_i),\varphi _s^2(𝐲_i))\gamma _i(x^0).`$ (54)
The equation for Higgs vev $`\varphi _s`$ becomes

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\varphi _s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\varphi _s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲_i){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho }{\varphi _s}}.`$ (55)
The factor in (55) is computed by using (54):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho }{\varphi _s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho }{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho }{\varphi _s}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi _s}}m_\rho ^2={\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi _s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{v^2}}\varphi _s^2\right).`$ (56)
The (55) becomes

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\varphi _s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi _s}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi _s),`$ (57)
where we have defined a new effective potential

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi _s)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi _s)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲_i(x^0))\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _s^2(𝐱)}{E_i}}`$ (58)
including the effect of the ballistic Higgs particles. By comparing the effective potential (11) and (58), the difference between the ordinary ballistic particle and the ballistic Higgs particle is only constant factor. These effective potentials are identical by defining the Yukawa-coupling-constant for the ballistic Higgs particle as

$`Y_\rho =\sqrt{3}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{v}}.`$ (59)
Both the action (1) with the Yukawa-coupling-constant (59) for the Higgs particles and the action (53) for the ballistic Higgs particles result the same effective potential for the wall-formation. Finally we conclude that the action (1) also describes the ballistic Higgs particles by choosing the Yukawa-coupling-constant (59) for the Higgs particles.


format: text

text:
# A note on non-repetitive colourings of planar graphs

## 1 Introduction

A sequence $`a`$ is called *non-repetitive* if $`a`$ contains no identical adjacent blocks. A vertex (resp. edge) colouring of a graph $`G`$ is called *non-repetitive* if for any open path $`P`$ in $`G`$, the sequence of vertex (resp. edge) colours along $`P`$ is non-repetitive. If $`G`$ is a planar map, then a colouring of the faces of $`G`$ is called non-repetitive if for any sequence of distinct faces such that each consecutive pair of faces shares an edge, the sequence of corresponding colours is non-repetitive.

Grytczuk  asked the following question: is there a natural number $`k`$ such that the faces of *any* planar map can be non-repetitively coloured using at most $`k`$ colours? We answer this question in the affirmative for all *outerplanar* maps.

Alon *et al.*  asked a similar question: is there a natural number $`k`$ such that the vertices of *any* planar graph can be non-repetitively coloured using at most $`k`$ colours? Here we give lower bounds for $`k`$ for both *outerplanar* and *planar* graphs.

## 2 Main results

###### Theorem 1.

If $`G`$ is an outerplanar map, then the faces of $`G`$ can be non-repetitively coloured using at most five colours.

###### Proof.

We assume that we have an outerplanar embedding of $`G`$. It suffices to show that the vertices of the dual graph $`G^{}`$ can be coloured non-repetitively using at most five colours. Consider the weak dual $`G^w`$ formed by deleting the vertex of $`G^{}`$ corresponding to the outer face of $`G`$. It is well known  that if $`G`$ is outerplanar, then $`G^w`$ is a forest of trees. Alon *et al.*  mention that the vertices of any tree can be non-repetitively coloured using at most four colours. Hence, the weak dual $`G^w`$ can be non-repetitively coloured with at most four colours. Finally, add back the vertex initially deleted from $`G^{}`$ and colour it using a fifth colour. The resulting 5-colouring of the dual graph $`G^{}`$ induces a non-repetitive colouring of the faces of the outerplanar map $`G`$. ∎

###### Theorem 2.

There exists an outerplanar graph $`G`$ such that the vertices of $`G`$ cannot be non-repetitively coloured using fewer than five colours.

###### Proof.

We will construct such a graph $`G`$. We begin with the graph $`P_4`$, *i.e.* the graph consisting of a simple path on four vertices. Since there are no non-repetitive binary sequences of length four, we require at least three colours to non-repetitively colour $`P_4`$. Next we add a vertex $`v`$, connecting it with an edge to each of the vertices of $`P_4`$, thus forming the so-called *fan graph* $`F_4`$. Let us call the vertex $`v`$ the *rivet* of the fan. Since $`v`$ is connected to vertices of three different colours, it is evident that $`v`$ must be coloured a fourth colour. The graph $`G`$ then consists of *five* disjoint copies of $`F_4`$, with an additional vertex $`r`$ connected to the rivet of each fan (see Figure 1). Clearly $`G`$ is an outerplanar graph. If we assume that we only have four colours with which to work, then by the pigeonhole principle, two rivets, say $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$, must be coloured the same colour, say $`x`$. The vertex $`r`$ cannot be coloured $`x`$, so $`r`$ must be coloured with one of the three remaining colours, say $`y`$. However, the subgraph $`P_4`$ connected to the rivet $`v`$ contains vertices coloured with three distinct colours different from $`x`$. Hence, we can always find a vertex $`w`$ such that the path $`wvrv^{}`$ has colouring $`yxyx`$. This is clearly a repetition, and so we see that we need at least five colours to non-repetitively colour $`G`$. ∎

###### Theorem 3.

There exists a planar graph $`G`$ such that the vertices of $`G`$ cannot be non-repetitively coloured using fewer than seven colours.

###### Proof.

The construction of $`G`$ is readily apparent from Figure 2. Let us label the two vertices of $`G`$ with degree eight $`r`$ and $`s`$. Let us call each of the connected components of the subgraph formed by deleting $`r`$ and $`s`$ from $`G`$ a *diamond*. By reasoning similar to that used in the proof of Theorem 2, we may conclude that each diamond requires at least five colours for a non-repetitive colouring. Assume that we have a non-repetitive 6-colouring of $`G`$. Now consider the seven vertices of $`G`$ with degree seven. By the pigeonhole principle, two of these vertices must have the same colour. Let us call these two vertices $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$, and let us assume that they are each coloured $`x`$. Let us call each of the two diamonds containing $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ respectively. Suppose that $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ are each coloured using exactly five colours, but the five colours used are not the same for each diamond. In this case, between $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ all six colours are used, and so for all choices $`y`$, $`yx`$, for the colour of $`r`$ we can always find a vertex $`w`$ in one of $`D`$ or $`D^{}`$ such that the path $`wvrv^{}`$ has colouring $`yxyx`$. Hence, it must be the case that $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ are each coloured using exactly the same colours. If $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ are each coloured using all six colours, then again we can always find a vertex $`w`$ in one of $`D`$ or $`D^{}`$ such that the path $`wvrv^{}`$ has colouring $`yxyx`$. It is therefore the case that $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ are each coloured using exactly the same five colours. Thus we may colour $`r`$ using the colour that does not appear in $`D`$ or $`D^{}`$; any other choice $`y`$, $`yx`$, will allow us to find a vertex $`w`$ in one of $`D`$ or $`D^{}`$ such that the path $`wvrv^{}`$ has colouring $`yxyx`$. However, by this same argument we find that $`s`$ must be coloured the same colour as $`r`$. Since $`r`$ and $`s`$ are adjacent, this is a contradiction, and so we have that $`G`$ cannot be non-repetitively coloured using fewer than seven colours. ∎


text:
# Magnetic Field Morphology of Orion-IRc2 from 86 GHz SiO Maser Polarization Images

## 1 Introduction

As an interstellar cloud collapses to form a star, the magnetic field lines threading the cloud are expected to be dragged along with the infalling gas, producing an hourglass-shaped field pattern centered on the star (e.g., Galli & Shu 1993). In many theoretical models the field is then wound up by rotation in a circumstellar disk, producing a toroidal field component which collimates the outflow from the star into two oppositely directed lobes; the outflow carries away angular momentum, allowing further accretion onto the star (Uchida & Shibata, 1985; Pudritz & Norman, 1986; Newman, Newman, & Lovelace, 1992).

So far the observational evidence for pinched or twisted fields near young stars is scant, although there are possible detections toward W3 (Greaves, Murray, & Holland, 1994), Mon R2 (Greaves, Holland, & Murray, 1995), and a number of other cloud cores (Greaves & Holland, 1998). These observations used the linearly polarized emission from circumstellar dust to probe the magnetic field morphology. Spinning dust grains tend to align their long axes perpendicular to the magnetic field, so thermal emission from the grains is polarized perpendicular to the field.

Toward the Orion molecular cloud, Schleuning (1998) found evidence for a large scale hourglass distortion of the magnetic field from dust polarization observations at 100 and 350 $`\mu `$m. The pinched region has a radius of $``$0.5 pc (200″) and is centered 0.1 pc southwest of the Kleinmann-Low nebula, a site of high mass star formation. On smaller scales, within the Orion-KL complex, Chrysostomou, et al. (1994) found evidence for a twisted field within roughly 1500 AU (3″) of the star IRc2, based on imaging polarimetry of the 2 $`\mu `$m S(1) line of H2. The line emission, assumed unpolarized, originates from shock-excited H2 in the bipolar outflow from IRc2. Absorption by aligned grains in front of the outflow produces the polarization. Aitken et al. (1997) also found evidence for a twisted field near IRc2 from 1.5″ resolution polarization maps at 12.5 $`\mu `$m and 17 $`\mu `$m. Spectropolarimetry of the 8–13 and 16–22 $`\mu `$m bands was used to separate the effects of absorption and emission, which lead to polarizations parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field, respectively. Rao, et al. (1998) obtained 4″ resolution interferometric maps of Orion-KL at wavelengths of 1.3 and 3.5 mm, where the dust emission is certainly optically thin. These maps showed an abrupt 90° change in the polarization angle southeast of IRc2, in agreement with the infrared data. But because the region of anomalous polarization was suspiciously coincident with the redshifted lobe of the bipolar outflow from IRc2, Rao et al. suggested that dust grains in this zone might be aligned by a wind from the star, rather than by the usual Davis-Greenstein mechanism. If the grains are mechanically aligned then thermal emission can be polarized parallel to the magnetic field, so there is no need to conclude that the field is kinked.

Unfortunately, polarized dust emission from IRc2 may not be a reliable probe of the magnetic field near the central star because of confusion by dust emission from the surrounding molecular cloud. The stellar position is coincident with radio source ‘I’ (Menten & Reid, 1995). The IRc2 infrared peak is offset $``$1″ northwest of source I, while the millimeter-wavelength peak is offset $``$1″ southeast of source I, toward the ‘hot core’ clump. The radio spectrum of source I itself from 8 GHz to 86 GHz is consistent with free-free emission from ionized gas in a circumstellar shell; there is no evidence for excess flux at 86 GHz which would be the signature of circumstellar dust (Plambeck et al., 1995).

By contrast, SiO masers do unambiguously originate in gas very close to source I. Intense masers in the v=1 vibrational level are confined to a zone approximately 40 AU from the star (Plambeck, Wright, & Carlstrom, 1990; Menten & Reid, 1995; Greenhill et al., 1998; Doeleman, Lonsdale, & Pelkey, 1999), while weaker masers in the ground vibrational state are found 100–700 AU from the star, in an elongated, bowtie-shaped region (Wright et al., 1995; Chandler & de Pree, 1995). Both the v=1 and v=0 masers are linearly polarized (Barvainis, 1984; Tsuboi et al., 1996). Since the maser polarization direction is expected, under many circumstances, to be parallel or perpendicular to the magnetic field direction (Goldreich, Keeley, & Kwan, 1973), SiO masers may provide the best probe of the magnetic field morphology within 700 AU of source I. Indeed, from early measurements showing a symmetric rotation of the polarization angle across the double-peaked v=1 maser spectrum, Barvainis (1984) concluded that the magnetic field direction rotated with azimuth in a disk around the star.

Here we discuss polarization measurements of both the v=0 and v=1 SiO masers toward Orion-IRc2 obtained with 0.5″ angular resolution, $``$250 AU at the distance of Orion. We find that the polarization of the v=1 maser is time variable, casting doubt upon its usefulness as a probe of the magnetic field. However, the v=0 maser polarization appears to be a good probe of the field morphology. It provides little evidence for pinched or twisted fields near the star.

## 2 Observations

Observations were made between 1996 June and 2001 March with the BIMA array.111Operated by the Berkeley-Illinois-Maryland Association with support from the National Science Foundation. Orion-KL was observed using the A, B, and C antenna configurations, providing antenna separations from 6.3 m to 1.8 km. The correlator was configured to allow simultaneous observations of the J=2–1 SiO transitions in both the v=1 and v=0 vibrational states, at frequencies of 86.243 and 86.847 GHz. The velocity resolution was 0.34 km s-1. Single sideband system temperatures, scaled to outside the atmosphere, ranged from 170 K to 350 K. The data were calibrated and analysed using the MIRIAD software package (Sault, Teuben, & Wright, 1995).

The receivers are sensitive to a single linear polarization, but are equipped with movable quarter wave plates to observe right or left circular polarization. As described by Rao, et al. (1998), each receiver was switched between LCP and RCP with a Walsh function pattern in order to sample all possible crosscorrelations (RR, RL, LR, LL) on each baseline as rapidly as possible. The integration time for each observation was 11.5 seconds. The data were self-calibrated on the strongest v=1 maser feature, using the LL and RR crosscorrelations, then averaged in 5 minute blocks to produce quasi-simultaneous dual polarization observations.

The quarter wave plates are designed for a frequency of 89 GHz, where they have a leakage to the unwanted polarization of around 1%. At 86 GHz the leakage is about 3%. We calibrate the leakage by observing a point source over a wide range of hour angle. For altitude-azimuth antennas the phase of a linearly polarized source rotates with the parallactic angle, whereas the leakage terms are constant. We used observations of 3c273, 3c279, and the SiO v=1 maser itself to calibrate the leakage. The measured polarizations of both the v=1 and v=0 masers are quite insensitive to the leakage correction: for the weakly polarized v=1 line, the source is unresolved and the leakage averages out over the wide range of parallactic angles observed, while for the v=0 line the source polarization is much larger than the leakage.

Images were made for a range of weightings of the uv-data. With uniform weighting the synthesised beam is $`0.8^{\prime \prime }\times 0.3^{\prime \prime }`$ FWHM. For the final images we used robust weighting, deconvolved using the CLEAN algorithm, and convolved with a circular $`0.5^{\prime \prime }`$ FWHM Gaussian beam.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 The v=1 Masers

Figure 1 summarizes the observational results for the v=1 masers over a 3.5 year period. For each of 6 epochs, we plot the total intensity, fractional polarization, and polarization position angle across the double-peaked spectrum. All 3 quantities vary on time scales of years. The fractional polarization usually is less than 10%, and tends to be anticorrelated with maser intensity – that is, the strongest maser features typically have the lowest fractional polarization. The weak maser feature near VLSR 7 km s-1 which appeared in 1999 has an anomalously high fractional polarization of 30%. The polarization position angles vary considerably across the line profiles, although a crude median value is P.A. $``$ 80°, shown by the dashed line in Figure 1. Often the position angle “kinks” at the peak of a maser feature. The symmetric pattern of polarization position angles seen in the 1996 August data is similar in character to that measured by Barvainis & Predmore (1985) in 1981 June.

The v=1 masers are unresolved in 0.5″ resolution images. Nevertheless, the high signal to noise ratio of the maps, in excess of 5000:1 on the strongest maser features, allows us to fit the centroid of the maser position in each velocity channel to an accuracy of $`\pm 0.01`$″. The centroids are arranged in an 0.15″ diameter ring with a stable, systematic velocity pattern (Plambeck, Wright, & Carlstrom, 1990; Wright et al., 1995; Baudry, Herpin, & Lucas, 1998). In Figure 2, the polarization vectors for individual 1 km s-1 velocity channels are plotted on the corresponding centroid positions for 3 different epochs. Variations in the polarization angle do not appear to correlate with movements of spots. Below we argue that the polarization angles of the v=1 masers may be determined by the maser beaming direction, rather than the magnetic field, accounting for the time variability.

Plambeck, Wright, & Carlstrom (1990) were able to fit the v=1 maser spectrum and centroid positions with a model of maser emission from a rotating, expanding disk. Higher resolution, VLBA observations (Greenhill et al., 1998; Doeleman, Lonsdale, & Pelkey, 1999) show, however, that the strongest maser features are clustered into four groups, plausibly in the walls of the bipolar outflow from source I. Although Doeleman et al. emphasize the differences between the disk and outflow models, the distinctions are in part semantic – the disk modeled by Plambeck et al. had a sharp inner radius of 40 AU and a thickness of 40 AU, and the maser pump rate and SiO density were fitted to obtain particularly strong maser emission from the inner walls of this cylinder, not so different from the outflow model. Nevertheless, it is clear that the velocity field hypothesized by Plambeck et al. is an oversimplification.

### 3.2 The v=0 Masers

The bulk of the v=0 J=2–1 SiO emission from the Orion-KL core is thermal. Much of it originates from high velocity gas in the bipolar outflow from IRc2 (Wright et al., 1983). With arcsecond angular resolution, most of this extended emission is resolved out, revealing a bright “bowtie” centered on source I. The peak brightness temperatures in the bowtie are $`>2000`$ K, almost certainly indicating maser emission (Wright et al., 1995). Figure 3 compares total intensity and polarized spectra of Orion-IRc2 generated from high and low resolution maps. The polarized flux densities integrated over $`3^{\prime \prime }\times 3^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`30^{\prime \prime }\times 30^{\prime \prime }`$ boxes are nearly identical, indicating that most of the polarized emission originates from the masers.

SiO channel maps with $`0.5^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution are shown in Figure 4. The r.m.s. noise in the $`Q`$ and $`U`$ Stokes intensity maps is $``$0.05 Jy/beam. Polarization vectors are overlaid wherever the linearly polarized flux $`P=(U^2+Q^2)^{1/2}`$ is detected with $`4\sigma `$ or greater significance; hence the polarization position angles shown are uncertain by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\mathrm{\Delta }P/(2P)<7`$°. Apart from a slight twist of the polarization vectors at the northern edge of the VLSR 12.5 km s-1 map, there are no obvious systematic changes in polarization angle with velocity or position. The polarization direction, P.A. $``$ 80°, is offset by 30° from the long axis of the bowtie. The fractional polarization is as high as 50% in the channels near the upper and lower edges of the line profile, near VLSR $`5`$ and $`+15`$ km s-1.

The SiO linewidths in the bowtie are too large for this gas to be gravitationally bound to source I. The “shell” H2O masers in Orion-IRc2 overlie the inner regions of the bowtie. Proper motion measurements show that these masers are moving outward from source I at $``$20 km s-1, perpendicular to the axis of the high velocity outflow (Greenhill et al., 1998). Probably the v=0 SiO masers and H2O masers are part of a low velocity outflow which is pushing into, or around, dense gas in the equatorial plane of the star, plausibly the remnants of the “pseudodisk” which formed in the intial collapse of the cloud (Galli & Shu, 1993).

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Maser Polarization Mechanisms

It is remarkable that a magnetic field with a strength of a few milligauss can affect an SiO maser in any observable way, given that the Zeeman splitting $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$ induced by the field is orders of magnitude smaller than the maser linewidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$. For SiO, $`g\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi 0.2`$ Hz/milligauss (Nedoluha & Watson, 1990), while individual J=2–1 maser features have linewidths of order 0.5 km s-1, or $`1.4\times 10^5`$ Hz. Nevertheless, polarization arises because of the selection rules which govern dipole transitions between energy levels. Radiation polarized parallel to the field cannot change the component of molecular angular momentum $`m`$ along the field direction, hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=0`$; conversely, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=\pm 1`$ for radiation polarized perpendicular to the field (Townes & Schawlow, 1975). These rules cause the maser gain to differ for polarizations parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field.

A simple example given by Goldreich, Keeley, & Kwan (1973) illustrates this mechanism. Consider a maser in the J=1–0 transition. In the presence of a magnetic field, the J=1 state is split into 3 sublevels ($`m=+1,0,1`$). If a maser beam propagates at right angles to the field, radiation polarized parallel to the field induces transitions only from the $`(J,m)=(1,0)`$ state to the $`(0,0)`$ state, while radiation polarized perpendicular to the field induces transitions from both the $`(1,+1)`$ and $`(1,1)`$ states to the $`(0,0)`$ state. If the pumping rates into the 3 upper sublevels are equal, and if the maser is saturated – that is, every excitation to the upper state leads to the emission of a maser photon – then two photons polarized perpendicular to the field are emitted for every one photon polarized parallel to the field. Hence the net fractional linear polarization is 1/3, perpendicular to the field.

In the more general situation where the maser propagates at angle $`0<\theta <\pi /2`$ with respect to the field, radiation polarized parallel to the projected field direction couples to all 3 magnetic sublevels, while that polarized perpendicular to the field couples only to the $`m=\pm 1`$ sublevels. Hence, as $`\theta `$ decreases from $`\pi /2`$ toward 0, the gain of the parallel component increases while the gain of the perpendicular component decreases. In the limit $`g\mathrm{\Omega }R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`R`$ is the stimulated emission rate and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the decay rate from collisions or spontaneous emission, Goldreich, Keeley, & Kwan (1973) show that the net linear polarization for a J=1–0 maser is perpendicular to the projected field for $`\theta >54.7`$° ($`sin^2\theta >2/3`$), and parallel to the projected field for $`\theta <54.7`$°.

Western & Watson (1984) found that these same asymptotic limits applied to the J=2–1 rotational transition. In addition, they considered the case where the magnetic sublevels were pumped unequally, which can easily occur if the vibrational energy levels are excited by an anisotropic radiation field, for example by infrared photons from a nearby star. Small differences in the absolute populations of these sublevels correspond to large fractional differences in the population inversion, and hence the maser gain. Therefore, anisotropic pumping tends to enhance the fractional polarization, and also changes the angle $`\theta `$ at which the polarization flips from perpendicular to parallel. Nonetheless, as long as $`g\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the net linear polarization is either parallel or perpendicular to the projected field direction.

Unhappily, the requirement $`g\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ is likely to be violated for intense masers, for which the stimulated emission rate $`R`$ becomes large. As $`R`$ increases, the “good” quantum axis shifts from the magnetic field direction to the propagation direction of the maser beam. Calculations by Nedoluha & Watson (1990) show that the position angle of the linear polarization is neither parallel nor perpendicular to the projected magnetic field in this case, over a broad range of maser intensities. For example, Figure 3 of Nedoluha & Watson shows that the polarization position angle for a J=2–1 SiO maser propagating at 15° to the magnetic field direction shifts from 20° for $`R=g\mathrm{\Omega }`$, to 80° for $`R=100g\mathrm{\Omega }`$. As the maser intensity increases and $`R`$ exceeds $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the calculations also show that the fractional polarization decreases.

### 4.2 The v=1 Masers

The v=1 SiO masers near IRc2 are sufficiently intense that the stimulated emission rate $`R`$ almost certainly is larger than the Zeeman splitting $`g\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The brighter J=1–0 maser spots in the VLBA map of Doeleman, Lonsdale, & Pelkey (1999) have flux densities of 1 Jy in an 0.2 milliarcsecond beam, corresponding to brightness temperatures of $`2\times 10^{10}`$ K. To estimate the stimulated emission rate $`R`$ for an SiO molecule near the surface of such a maser, one must guess the solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into which the maser radiation is beamed. Taking $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=10^2`$ steradians,

$$R=BU=\frac{8\pi ^3\mu ^2}{3h^2}\frac{(J+1)}{(2J+3)}I\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{c}30s^1$$
(1)
where $`B`$ is the Einstein B coefficient for the $`J+1J`$ transition, $`U`$ is the radiation energy density in ergs cm-3 Hz-1, $`\mu =3.1\times 10^{18}`$ esu-cm is the dipole moment for SiO, and $`I=2kT/\lambda ^2`$ is the maser’s specific intensity. For comparison, the spontaneous radiative decay rate from the v=1 to the v=0 vibrational level is 5 s-1 (Hedelund & Lambert, 1972) and the SiO–H2 collision rate in 1000 K gas with density $`10^9`$ cm-3 is $``$1 s-1, using the total rate coefficient $`k=1.4\times 10^9(T/T_0)^{0.39}`$ cm3 s-1 ($`T_0=2000`$ K) given by Bieniek & Green (1983). Since $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the maser is saturated.

In order to fulfill the requirement $`g\mathrm{\Omega }R`$, magnetic fields $``$300 mG would be required. For a 300 mG field the magnetic pressure $`B^2/8\pi `$ is 25 times greater than the thermal pressure $`nkT`$, which seems unlikely. Thus, we reach the unwelcome conclusion that the polarization direction of the v=1 masers is a poor indicator of the magnetic field direction near IRc2. The model calculations of Nedoluha & Watson (1990) show that the polarization position angle is a function of $`R/g\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and hence of the maser flux density. Thus, one can understand both (1) the variations in polarization angle which occur across the maser line profile, and (2) the changes in polarization direction which occur on time scales of years as the maser intensities change. For $`R/g\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$ the models also suggest that the most intense masers will have the lowest fractional polarization, as observed.

An observational result of note is the maser feature with 30% fractional polarization which appeared at VLSR$`7`$ km s-1 in 1999 June. Such high fractional polarization is difficult to achieve unless the masers are anisotropically pumped by infrared radiation from the central star (Western & Watson, 1984). Anisotropic pumping also can change the critical angle at which the polarization becomes parallel or perpendicular to the field, perhaps explaining the anomalous position angle observed for this feature. Anisotropic pumping can produce strongly polarized masers even in the absence of a magnetic field (Western & Watson, 1983); this mechanism is thought to explain the tangential polarization pattern seen the VLBA maps of SiO masers around evolved stars (Desmurs, et al., 2000).

### 4.3 The v=0 Masers

In contrast to the situation for the v=1 masers, the SiO masers in the ground vibrational state almost certainly do fulfill the requirement that $`g\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, hence their polarization angles should be perpendicular or parallel to the magnetic field.

The v=0 maser emission region is extended with respect to our synthesised beam, with peak brightness temperatures of about $`2000`$ K. To compute an upper limit for the stimulated emission rate, we assume that the masers radiate isotropically, so the radiation energy density $`U=(4\pi /c)(2kT/\lambda ^2)`$. Then $`R=BU=1.4\times 10^2`$ s-1. The spontaneous radiative rate $`A_{21}=2.9\times 10^5`$ s-1 is relatively slow, so the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the J=2 level is set by the SiO-H2 collision rate. Modeling by Zeng, Lou, & Sun (1987) predicts that v=0 SiO masers originate in gas with density $`10^7`$ cm-3. If the gas kinetic temperature is $``$300 K, the rate coefficient given by Bieniek & Green (1983) implies a collision rate of $`6\times 10^3`$ s-1. For a 1 mG field the Zeeman frequency $`g\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi 0.2`$ s-1. Since $`g\mathrm{\Omega }R>\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the v=0 masers should be excellent tracers of the magnetic field direction. Reassuringly, the position angle of the SiO v=0 polarization appears to be stable with time. The maps in Figure 4 were made from data taken in 2000 December and 2001 February; the position angle is the same, P.A. $``$80°, in lower quality images from 1996, 1997, and 1999. We note that this is close to the median position angle of the v=1 masers.

One glaring discrepancy complicates the analysis: from observations made in 1994, Tsuboi et al. (1996) measured polarization position angles P.A. $``$150° for the J=1–0 masers in the v=0, 1, and 2 vibrational levels. As shown in Figure 5, these position angles differ by roughly 70° from the values we measure for the J=2–1 line. Given that the position angle we measured for the v=0 J=2–1 line was stable for 4 years, we doubt that this discrepancy can be attributed to time variability. It’s also unlikely that the 39″ beam used for the J=1–0 measurements picked up a halo of emission polarized almost perpendicular to the core, since we find that virtually all of the polarized J=2–1 flux originates in the central $`3^{\prime \prime }`$ region. This leaves two possibilities: either (1) the J=2–1 and J=1–0 masers have intrinsically different polarizations; or (2) the intrinsic polarizations are identical, but the observed position angles are twisted by Faraday rotation. Possibility (1) is hard to rule out. However, in the grid of theoretical calculations done by Nedoluha & Watson (1990) there appear to be no cases where the the J=2–1 and J=1–0 polarization position angles differ by more than 20°. And, if the J=2–1 position angle we measure is parallel or perpendicular to the magnetic field, then the field is aligned neither with the bipolar outflow from IRc2 (P.A.$``$145°, as defined by the VLBA observations of the SiO masers), nor with the axis of the v=0 disk (P.A. $``$50°).

### 4.4 Faraday rotation

We now explore the possibility that Faraday rotation causes the discrepancy between the J=2–1 and J=1–0 polarization position angles. Faraday rotation occurs when linearly polarized emission propagates through an ionized plasma with a magnetic field component along the line of sight. The plane of polarization is rotated by $`\theta =\lambda ^2RM`$, where the rotation measure is given by $`RM=8.1\times 10^5n_eB_{}𝑑l`$ rad m-2. Here $`n_e`$ is the electron density in cm-3, $`B_{}`$ is the component of the magnetic field along the line of sight in gauss; and $`dl`$ is in parsecs. If the propagation vector is along the magnetic field direction, then the plane of polarization rotates in a clockwise direction, following the right hand rule. The minimum rotation measure which can bring the J=1–0 and J=2–1 position angles into agreement is $`RM=3.3\times 10^4`$ rad m-2, which rotates the J=2–1 ($`\lambda `$3.5 mm) position angle by 23°, and the J=1–0 ($`\lambda `$7 mm) position angle by 92°.

Because the Faraday rotation must be reasonably uniform across the $``$3″ maser emission region, we presume that it occurs in the foreground Orion A H II region (M42), not in ionized gas local to IRc2 – e.g., on the surface of a circumstellar disk. What is the plausible rotation measure through Orion A? We estimate the electron column density from the work of Wilson & Jäger (1987), who modeled the H II region as a series of 9 concentric cylindrical slabs in order to fit radio continuum and recombination line data. The line of sight to IRc2 passes through slabs 3–9, for which the model column density $`n_e𝑑l650`$ cm-3 pc. We take the line of sight component of the magnetic field from the work of Troland, Heiles, & Goss (1989), who measured the 21 cm Zeeman effect in the sheet of neutral absorbing gas in front of Orion A. The inferred field is reasonably uniform, with no reversals of direction; the value toward IRc2 is approximately $`50\mu `$G. The negative sign indicates that the field lines point toward us. Then the rotation measure is positive, meaning that the observed position angle increases with wavelength (Heiles, 1987), which is what we are hoping to find. If the magnetic field is the same inside the H II region, then $`RM=2.6\times 10^4`$ rad m-2, within 20% of the value which brings the position angles into concordance.

The estimated rotation measure is comparable with the the upper limit $`RM<2.8\times 10^4`$ rad m-2 deduced by Rao, et al. (1998) from the agreement of the polarization position angles for dust emission at wavelengths of 1.3 mm and 3.5 mm. We note that the majority of these dust polarization detections were made west and north of IRc2, farther from the center of the H II region.

### 4.5 Magnetic Field Direction

Suppose we accept the hypothesis that Faraday rotation has twisted the J=2–1 position angle by $`+23`$°. As shown in Figure 6, this means that the intrinsic polarization angle is 57°, roughly parallel with the plane of the SiO “disk,” and perpendicular to the axis of the high velocity outflow from source I. The inclination angle of the disk is uncertain, but the 3:1 axial ratio of both the SiO and H2O maser distributions suggest that its axis is tilted by $`20`$° from the plane of the sky, that is, that the disk is seen nearly edge-on.

The magnetic field can be parallel or perpendicular to the SiO polarization vectors – but which is more likely? If the maser radiation travels more or less parallel to the magnetic field, then it should be polarized parallel to the projected field direction. Thus, our measurements are consistent with a magnetic field in the plane of the disk, as long as the field is oriented roughly along the line of sight. Obviously, such a field cannot be azimuthally symmetric (e.g., ring-shaped or spiral) around IRc2. If it were, the field would become perpendicular to the line of sight in the outer parts of the bowtie, and the polarization direction would flip by 90°.

Our data are more easily reconciled with a field that is everywhere perpendicular to the plane of the disk. In this case the maser radiation propagates at an angle of 70° to the field, so the polarization should be perpendicular to the field. Then the field, at P.A. 145°, is parallel to the axis of the high velocity outflow and to the large scale Orion field mapped by far infrared observations (Schleuning, 1998). The infrared measurements of Chrysostomou, et al. (1994) and Aitken et al. (1997) give a similar magnetic field direction toward source I, along the SE edge of the IRc2 infrared peak. Our data provide no convincing evidence that the field has been pinched or twisted within $`700`$ AU of source I. The twist seen in the infrared data occurs on slightly larger scales.

## 5 Conclusions

We attempted to infer the magnetic field morphology toward Orion-IRc2 from polarization measurements of the v=0 and v=1 J=2–1 SiO masers associated with this star. The polarization vectors are expected to be perpendicular or parallel to the projected magnetic field direction provided that the Zeeman splitting $`g\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the stimulated emission and decay rates from the maser’s upper rotational level.

We find that the polarization position angles of the v=1 masers vary on time scales of years. These intense masers, which originate only $``$40 AU from the star, probably are not suitable indicators of the magnetic field direction because the stimulated emission rate exceeds the Zeeman splitting. Typically their fractional polarization is a few percent, although in 1999 a weak feature with 30% polarization appeared.

The v=0 masers are much weaker and should be good probes of the magnetic field direction. These masers originate 100–700 AU from the star in an elongated, bowtie shaped region, possibly along the top and bottom surfaces of an underlying flared disk. Maps of the v=0 emission with 0.5″ (250 AU) angular resolution show that, contrary to our expectations: (1) the polarization vectors within $``$700 AU of the star are straight, with no evidence of a twist or hourglass morphology; (2) the measured polarization position angle of 80° is neither parallel nor perpendicular to the high velocity outflow from IRc2; and (3) the J=2–1 polarization position angle differs by 70° from the J=1–0 position angle previously measured by Tsuboi et al. (1996).

The discrepancy between the J=2–1 and J=1–0 position angles may be attributable to Faraday rotation by plasma in the foreground Orion A H II region. A rather high, but not implausible, rotation measure $`RM=3.3\times 10^4`$ rad m-2 is required to bring the two position angles into agreement. Then the intrinsic polarization direction is parallel to the plane of the disk and perpendicular to the axis of the high velocity outflow from source I. Probably the polarization vectors are perpendicular to the field in this case, so the field threads the disk poloidally, parallel to the outflow and to the large scale magnetic field in Orion. The absence of a discernable pinch or twist in the field near IRc2 may indicate that as the molecular cloud collapsed the gas density in the pseudodisk exceeded $`10^{11}`$ cm-3, at which point the magnetic field decouples from the infalling gas (Nakano & Umebayashi, 1986). Alternatively, the outflow or subsequent evolution of the disk has erased all traces of the pinched field.

The high fractional polarizations observed for the v=0 masers – up to 50% in our J=2–1 data and up to 80% in the J=1–0 observations of Tsuboi et al. (1996) – suggest that anisotropic excitation by infrared photons play an essential role in pumping these masers.

This work was partially supported by NSF grant AST-9981308 to the University of California.