text:
# Dark Matter in Galaxies: Observational overview

## 1. Introduction

The WMAP results (Spergel et al. 2003) have given rather strict limits on the matter and energy content of the Universe, in agreement with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. Typically, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$total = 1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$$`_{\mathrm{dark}\mathrm{energy}}`$ = 0.73, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$matter = 0.27, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$baryon = 0.044, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$non-baryonic = 0.23. Some of these results depend on data from the 2dF galaxy redshift survey. Initial results from the SDSS redshift survey are not much different (Tegmark et al. 2003). The ratio of baryonic to non-baryonic matter is thus 1 to $``$ 5 - 6. The baryonic matter at z = 0 is mostly not in stars ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$stars = 0.005), and the matter budget in e.g. the Local Group is still not well known : there could be hot gas in substantial amounts (Nicastro et al. 2003).

These results further support the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model for structure formation in the Universe, and underscore the need to understand galaxies in the framework of this theory. However, at the scale of galaxies, the “predictions” of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model depend on numerical simulations, which, despite their sophistication, suffer from inadequate resolution, and may miss some of the physics. This meeting aims to see how well specific predictions from current cosmological simulations of dark matter halos fare on issues such as their central density profiles, the relation between dark to baryonic matter there, and their shape and extent.

## 2. Some issues concerning mass models of spiral galaxies

Over the last 30 years observations, in particular rotation curves derived from HI data, have clearly established that the “visible” parts of a spiral galaxy, i.e. the stellar bulge and disk, and the HI gas layer, cannot account for the observed high rotation speeds in the outer parts of spirals, if the stellar mass-to-light ratio is constant with radius. This discrepancy is attributed to unseen matter, often taken to be a (spherical) dark halo. Several issues complicate this picture :

Assumptions going into the derivation of the rotation curve. A large fraction of galaxies have a warped HI layer in the outer parts, which is modelled with a “tilted ring” model in which the orientation of the rings is gradually changed to allow for the peculiarities of the velocity field. Non-axisymmetric disturbances, such as bars or oval distortions, or peculiar velocities due to spiral structure, are in first instance ignored, and an azimuthally averaged rotation curve derived. Asymmetries, if small enough, are likewise ignored. All these assumptions may introduce systematic errors in the derived rotation curves at the 5 - 15% level.

Values of the mass-to-light ratio are not well determined. This leads to a degeneracy in the mass models. At one extreme, the maximum disk approach tries to fit as much of the mass into the disk as possible, without overshooting the rotation curve. For optical curves, most galaxies can then be fitted without a dark halo, due to the limited extent of the curve. In Figure 1 I plot, for a sample of galaxies studied by Palunas & Williams (2000), the M/LI-ratio they determined from maximum disk fits against the extinction corrected (B-I) colour I collected from the LEDA database. For large galaxies a trend exists: on average redder disks have higher M/L ratios, as expected e.g. in models from Bell & De Jong (2001). Yet there is a fair amount of scatter in each class of galaxies selected according to their maximum rotation velocity Vmax, in particular for smaller (bluer) galaxies. The required M/L values are too high compared to those predicted by Bell & De Jong’s “preferred” Initial Mass Function (IMF), the “scaled IMF” = 0.7 * Salpeter curve, based on maximum disk + halo fits for Ursa Major galaxies (Verheijen 1997). The extreme maximum disk models of the galaxies in the Palunas & Williams sample require a bottom heavier IMF.

This problem is aggravated for low surface brightness (LSB) disk galaxies, as is shown by the few points taken from models of such galaxies by De Blok & Bosma (2002). This clearly illustrates that the dark matter problem in these galaxies is much worse, and has lead to the assumption that even a “minimum disk” (M/L = 0) is a reasonable approximation to the real mass distribution.

Scaling the HI can produce a good fit instead of a halo. Bosma (1978) noticed that the surface density ratio of HI gas mass to total mass becomes constant with radius in the outer parts. Reversely, one can thus scale the curve for the HI gas with a certain factor to fit the rotation curve, instead of with a halo. Hoekstra et al. (2001) did this for a number of spirals, and Swaters (1999) for a number of dwarf galaxies. The scaling factor is not constant, and varies with the maximum velocity of a galaxy (cf. Figure 2). For a number of galaxies the fits may well break down at larger radii if more sensitive HI data become available.

## 3. The core/cusp problem in LSB galaxies

Cosmological numerical simulations invariably produce cuspy dark halos, but the precise value of the inner slope $`\alpha `$ of the radial density profile $`\rho \mathrm{r}^\alpha `$ is debated. Moore et al. (1999) and Fukushige & Makino (2001) advocate $`\alpha `$ = -1.5, and Navarro, Frenk & White (1996, 1997) an inner slope of -1.0. Both White and Navarro (this volume) report on work by Hayashi et al. (2003) : there is no real convergence towards a unique value of the inner slope, the resolution prohibits predictions to be made inside a radius of $``$ 1 kpc, but the profile remains cuspy, and there is some cosmic scatter (see also Fukushige, Kawai & Makino 2003).

This situation differs from an until recently widespread perception that the NFW profile, with inner slope -1.0, should be considered “universal”, and the yardstick against which the observations should be discussed. I will use the slope -1.0 here as a fiducial mark to see where the observations stand, and which is to be improved as the cosmological numerical simulations become more realistic (e.g. by having adequate resolution on the dwarf galaxy scale, and perhaps incorporating more relevant physics), and better understood theoretically (e.g. by demonstrating which physical process, or combination of processes, sets up the value of the inner slope in dark matter dominated galaxies).

### 3.1. Inner slope values : technical and selection issues

Most observers conclude that $`\alpha `$ in LSB galaxies is closer to 0.0 than to -1.0, and almost all find that the decomposition mass models work better if the dark halo is modelled with a (pseudo-) isothermal sphere, or a Burkert profile, rather than with the NFW profile. However, some authors maintain that the problem of determining the inner slope is fraught with systematic effects, which all magically contribute towards shallower slopes. The issue debated is not only about the best value for the inner slope, but also whether a slope of -1.0 can be reasonably excluded, so as to force a modification of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM picture at galaxy scales. See also the contributions by De Blok and by Swaters (this volume).

On the selection side, the debate is about the quality and relevance of the data. As more galaxies are observed, stricter selection criteria can be used to retain only galaxies with sufficiently “good” data. Thus one excludes 1) galaxies with poor angular resolution, thereby requiring in most cases supplementary H$`\alpha `$ data in addition to a HI rotation curve, so that the inner 1 kpc of a galaxy is well probed. This excludes far away galaxies or galaxies for which there is only low resolution HI data, and thus minimizes slit width effects; 2) edge-on galaxies, which are apparently too difficult to understand for some workers in the field, despite demonstrations by Bosma et al. (1992) and Matthews & Wood (2001) that small galaxies seen edge-on are transparent and have rotation curves which are slowly rising in the inner parts. The argument that somehow there is no emission at the tangent point leads to very peculiar H$`\alpha `$ distributions in more face-on galaxies which are yet to be seen; 3) galaxies with large asymmetries, faint emission, etc., which have low quality rotation curves.

De Blok, Bosma & McGaugh (2003) applied these criteria to data of McGaugh et al. (2001) and De Blok & Bosma (2002), and find for a restricted sample that the values of the inner slope are between 0.2 and -1.0 (see De Blok, this volume). Swaters et al. (2003a), in a similar study, come to a similar conclusion. De Blok et al. (2003) also report about deliberate slit offsets and misalignments for one galaxy, UGC 4325, and conclude that these effects could not magically bring the slope from about -0.2 to -1.0, although of course scatter is introduced if the major axis is not observed correctly.

Finally, for several galaxies there are more than one observation, done with different telescopes, and by different observers. Even though the error bars are sometimes unsatisfactory large, there is good agreement in general. The situation for UGC 4325, debated at the meeting, is shown in Figure 3. The HI position-velocity diagram prompts me to think that the peak velocity is indeed around $``$ 110 km/s as it is in the optical, after which the rotation curve declines.

### 3.2. Inner slope values : astrophysical issues

The determination of the kinematical center, and the influence of non-circular motions on the rotation curves are also debated.

The rather irregular nature of some of the dwarf or LSB galaxies studied, and the faintness of particularly the near-infrared images makes the determination of the center of such galaxies difficult. Interestingly, HST data on central star clusters in late type spirals is available for a number of the galaxies used in the core/cusp studies, and comparison of these positions and the centers of the inner disks show agreement to within 1 - 2 arcsec (Böker et al. 2002).

For the galaxy IC 2574, I reanalyzed the HI data obtained by Walter & Brinks (1999), and deliberately varied the position of the center. In some cases I also carved up the galaxy into annuli, and allowed the center of each annulus to vary with respect to the next one. Despite the variation of the center positions with an r.m.s. scatter of about 250 pc, the determined slopes still come out to be -0.15 $`\pm `$ 0.38, well away from the fiducial NFW slope of -1.0.

Bars could contribute to non-circular motions in the inner parts, and thus lead to a poor quality rotation curve when long slit data are used, or when a two-dimensional velocity field is not properly analyzed. Swaters et al. (2003a) assert that bars in their long slit data sample predominantly have shallow slopes, but inspection shows that UGC 2259, UGC 4499, and UGC 5721, as well as F568-3 are also barred, in addition to the galaxies they identify as such. For the remaining unbarred galaxies, there is a wide variety of slopes. Swaters et al. (2003b) observed the galaxy DDO 39 with an integral field spectrograph yielding a twodimensional velocity field, which shows that the inner parts of this galaxy are affected by non-circular motion caused by a bar-like distortion. Several other studies of twodimensional H$`\alpha `$ velocity fields are underway. Garrido et al. (2002) report on data obtained with a Fabry-Pérot instrument, and Bolatto (this meeting, see Simon et al. 2003) report on data obtained with an integral field spectrograph, combined with CO data obtained with BIMA. The results sofar for NGC 4605 and NGC 2976 are that the inner slopes are rather shallow, and that the non-circular motions are mainly in the inner parts.

One can look at bars in LSB galaxies in two ways: 1) they could be similar to bars in HSB galaxies, or 2) they could be just the response to the expected triaxiality of the dark halo. Since the reported non-circular motions are stronger in the inner parts for DDO 39 and NGC 2976, it seems likely that those galaxies behave like HSB’s, where the disk is dynamically important in the inner parts. Yet it cannot be excluded that whole disks are elongated due to the triaxial halo. One way to study this further is to look at results of a Fourier analysis of velocity fields of a number of galaxies, performed by Schoenmakers (1999). From his work, I have collected the results on disk elongation in Figure 4a, which shows that the scatter in $`ϵ`$pot sin $`\varphi `$ is larger for galaxies with smaller maximum rotation velocity. Thus disks in small galaxies could be globally elongated due to the forcing of a triaxial halo. Interestingly, the small galaxy with no elongation, NGC 247, was declared in Van den Bosch et al. (2000) “the only galaxy found \[sofar\] capable of limiting the slope of the dark matter profile”. True enough, its slope is -1.02, close the the NFW slope, but perusal of Schoenmakers’s results and a near infrared image show the presence of a bar, and a strong lopsidedness.

In future, the effort will thus shift towards evaluating the importance of the disc component in LSB galaxies, using near-infrared surface photometry, and twodimensional velocity fields at high spatial resolution. Meanwhile, some evaluation of the importance of non-circular motions can be had by studying bars in HSB galaxies. Disk elongation can be constrained using the Tully-Fisher relation (Franx & de Zeeuw 1992). Early work on the barred spiral NGC 5383 (Athanassoula 1984) shows that the viewing angle is important : some angles are more favourable than others. Neither the mean rotation curve, nor the position velocity cut along the major axis can be trusted as a good representation of the true rotation curve, but the deviations scale with the strength of the bar. For the weak bars in LSB galaxies, it is not obvious how strong these effects are.

## 4. The importance of disk self gravity in HSB spirals

This so-called “maximum disk” problem is related to the core/cusp problem, since in the current $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM picture the dark halo dominates the potential in the central parts also in high surface brightness spirals. Several ways have been explored to break the mass model degeneracy using other dynamical considerations concerning the importance of the disk in the inner parts of spiral galaxies.

Athanassoula et al. (1987, ABP) use swing amplifier criteria, which depend on the rotation curve shape and on a characteristic X parameter dependent on the epicyclic frequency $`\kappa `$, the number of arms m, and the active surface mass density of the disk. By requiring that the swing amplification of the m = 2 perturbations is possible, the range of mass-to-light ratios is limited to a factor of 2 : a lower limit set by requiring that the disk is massive enough to just allow amplification of the m = 2 perturbations, and an upper limit set by requiring that amplification of the m = 1 perturbations is just prohibited. Usually the latter condition holds for a model with maximum disk and a non-hollow halo.

Peculiar motions due to the spiral arms were clearly seen in the early M81 21-cm line data, and modeled with a spiral density wave response calculation by Visser (1980), who did not include a dark halo in his models. The presence of “wiggles” in position-velocity curves from long slit data are thus associated with the spiral arms. Kranz et al. (2001) use such data for NGC 4254 and try to reproduce the observed velocity perturbations with a stationary gas flow model using the K-band image of this galaxy as input to the evalution of the disk part of the galactic potential. They find that a maximum disk model produces too large velocity perturbations, and put an upper limit on the disk mass fraction (the mass ratio between a given disk model and the maximum disk model) of 0.8. However, this galaxy is lopsided in the HI, the spiral may be evolving, the small bar in the center of the galaxy might have a different pattern speed than the main spiral pattern, the inclination may be higher than the authors take it, and the adopted method may favour lower disk mass fractions (Slyz et al. 2003). Kranz et al. (2003) report on a similar analysis for four more cases, and find a trend that the brightest spirals (those with the highest rotational velocities), seem to have maximum disks, but that towards lower luminosity spirals the relative influence of the dark matter in the inner parts increases. Comparison with data from ABP shows good agreement with this trend (cf. Figure 4b).

Weiner et al. (2001) model the stationary gas flow in the barred spiral NGC 4123, using a potential derived from an optical image, and find that the best fit to the velocity data requires a maximum disk model for the mass distribution. Lindblad, Lindblad & Athanassoula (1996) find likewise a relatively good fit for the bright barred spiral NGC 1365 with a maximum disk model. Figure 4 suggests that faster rotators have rounder disks, which are more self-gravitating.

A view not necessarily in contradiction is voiced by Courteau et al. (2003), who contend that on average, disks with Vmax $`<`$ 200 km/s are sub-maximal. They argue this on the basis of velocity dispersion data from Bottema (1997) – which I deem having too large error bars –, work on disk stability by Fuchs – yes, but see Fuchs (2002) –, the absence of the expected correlated scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation (Courteau & Rix 1999) – but disk maximality seems to depend on Vmax – , and the result on the lens 2237+0305. Nevertheless, they find that Tully-Fisher relations for barred and un-barred galaxies are similar, in agreement with previous work, so barredness does not affect maximality.

Trott & Webster (2002) combine for 2237+0305 their lens model with HI rotation data further out. There is little need for a dark halo in the central parts, which are dominated by a bulge-bar system. Their statement that the disk is not maximal is partly influenced by their inclusion of the bar into the bulge, even though bars are thought to originate in the disk. For our own Galaxy, data on the microlensing towards the bulge-bar system likewise suggest that dark matter does not dominate in the central parts (Bissantz & Gerhard 2002).

## 5. Dwarf spheroidals and other satellites

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM simulations predict the presence of far more satellite galaxies than is observed around the Milky Way, and the concept of failed dwarfs has been advanced to rescue the “theory”. In this picture, studies of high velocity clouds are debated, but their individual distances are quite uncertain, and they don’t indeed seem to have stars (e.g. Simon & Blitz 2002).

The dwarf spheroidal companions of the Milky Way are very important in another way : the smallest ones are dark matter dominated. New data on the Draco system (Kleyna et al. 2002) show that this galaxy is more extended than previously thought; Stoehr et al. (2002) produce a good fit with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM. But for Ursa Minor there is a subpopulation of stars with low velocity dispersion. Such a cold clump will survive easily in a cored halo potential, but breaks up rather rapidly in a cusped halo potential (Kleyna et al. 2003).

Finally, modelling the trail of the Sagitarius dwarf galaxy (e.g. Ibata et al. 2001) suggests that the dark halo around the Milky Way is nearly spherical.

## 6. Elliptical galaxies

Stellar kinematics of elliptical galaxies have turned up only 3 unambiguous cases where dark matter is needed to fit the data : NGC 2434, NGC 7507 and NGC 7626 (Kronawitter et al. 2000), partly because the data is limited in radius to 1 - 2 Re. Planetary nebulae can now be used as a tracer further out, and is becoming an industry. Interestingly, constant M/L models can explain the new data, though M/L values are rather high (e.g. Romanovsky et al. 2003).

For field ellipticals, evidence for dark matter does come from HI studies, which show for several galaxies a flat rotation curve from $``$ 0.3 Re out to 5 - 6 Re (e.g. Oosterloo et al. 2002). This implies a global (M/L)B ratio $``$ 25. This value is in good apparent agreement with a similar value found based on X-ray studies. Yet the new Chandra and XMM data show a wealth of detail in the images of the X-ray gas of individual galaxies, so much so that one can question the validity of the hydrostatic equilibrium equation used to evaluate masses. A further complication is the contribution to the X-ray flux of low mass X-ray binaries, occuring presumably in globular clusters. Indeed, Paolillo et al. (2003) argue that the core of the X-ray emission is associated with the stellar distribution (gas from mass loss of evolving stars), and that the extended X-ray emission traces really the group or cluster potential rather than the potential of the elliptical galaxy itself. This agrees with studies using globular clusters as a tracer, e.g. for NGC 4472 and M87, which show that there is need for dark matter at larger radii there (see Kronawitter et al. 2000 and references therein).

A most interesting development is the use of lensing data, combined with more classical spectroscopy, to estimate the mass of ellipticals. A very good example of this is the study of the lens 0047-281 by Koopmans & Treu (2003), who find indications that 1) the total density follows a power law with slope -1.9, 2) a constant M/L model can be eliminated using velocity dispersion data, and 3) the inner dark matter slope can be as shallow as -1.1. For some lenses, the flux ratios cannot be matched with a smooth potential, and therefore substructure needs to be added to the models to produce a fit (e.g. Bradac et al. 2002). This is seen as consistent with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM prediction.

#### Acknowledgments.

I thank Lia Athanassoula for frequent discussions, and Erwin de Blok and Stacy McGaugh for fruitful joint work on LSB galaxies.

## References

Athanassoula, E. 1984, Physics Reports, 114, 319

Athanassoula, E., Bosma, A., & Papaioannou, S. 1987, A&A, 179, 23

Bell, E., & de Jong, R.S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212

Bissantz, N., & Gerhard, O. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 591

Böker, T., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 1389

Bosma, A. 1978, PhD Thesis, University of Groningen

Bosma, A., Byun, Y.I, Freeman, K.C., & Athanassoula, E. 1992, ApJ, 400, L21

Bottema, R. 1997, A&A, 328, 517

Bradac, M., Schneider, P., Steinmetz, M., Lombardi, M., King, L.J, & Porcas, R., 2002, A&A, 388, 373

Courteau, S., Andersen, D.R., Bershady, M.A., MacArthur, L.A., & Rix, H.-W. 2003, ApJ, 594, 208

Courteau, S., & Rix, H.-W. 1999, ApJ, 513, 561

de Blok, W.J.G., & Bosma, A. 2002, A&A, 285, 816

de Blok, W.J.G., Bosma, A., & McGaugh, S.S. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 657

Franx, M., & de Zeeuw, P.T. 1992, ApJ, 392, L47

Fuchs, B. 2002, astro-ph/0212485

Fukushige, T., & Makino, J. 2001, ApJ, 557, 533

Fukushige, T., Kawai, A., Makino, J. 2003, astro-ph/0306203

Garrido, O., Marcelin, M., Amram, P., & Boulesteix, J. 2002, A&A, 387, 821

Hayashi, E. et al. 2003, astro-ph/0310576

Hoekstra, H., van Albada, T.S., & Sancisi, R. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 453

Ibata, R., Lewis, G.F., Irwin, M., Totten, E., & Quinn, T. 2001 ApJ, 551, 294

Kleyna, J.T., Wilkinson, M.I., Evans, N.W., Gilmore, G., & Frayn, C. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 792

Kleyna, J.T., Wilkinson, M.I., Gilmore, G., & Evans, N.W. 2003, ApJ, 588, L21

Koopmans, L.V.E., & Treu, T. 2003, ApJ, 583, 606

Kranz, T., Slyz, A., & Rix, H.-W. 2001, ApJ, 562, 164

Kranz, T., Slyz, A., & Rix, H.-W. 2003, ApJ, 586, 143

Kronawitter, A., Saglia, R.P., Gerhard, O., & Bender, R. 2000, A&AS, 144, 53

Lindblad, P.A.B., Lindblad, P.O., & Athanassoula, E. 1996, A&A, 313, 65

Marchesini, D. et al. 2002, ApJ, 575, 801

Matthews, L.D., & Wood, K. 2001, ApJ, 548, 150

Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F., Stadel, J., & Lake, G. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1147

McGaugh, S.S., Rubin, V.C., & de Blok, W.J.G. 2001, AJ, 122, 2381

Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., & White, S.D.M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., & White, S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

Nicastro, F. et al. 2003, Nature, 421, 719

Oosterloo, T.A. Morganti, R., Sadler, E.M., Vergani, D., & Caldwell, N. 2002, AJ, 123, 729

Palunas, P.A., & Williams, T.E.B. 2000, AJ, 120, 2884

Paolillo, M., Fabbiano, G., Peres, G., & Kim, D.-W. 2003, ApJ, 586, 850

Romanowsky, A. et al. 2003, Science, 301, 1696

Schoenmakers, R.H.M, 1999, PhD Thesis, University of Groningen

Simon, J.D., & Blitz, L. 2002, ApJ 574, 726

Simon, J.D., Bolatto, A.D., Leroy, A., & Blitz, L. 2003, ApJ, 596, 957

Slyz, A., Kranz, T., Rix, H.-W. 2003, MNRAS (in press), astro-ph/0309597

Spergel, D. et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175

Stoehr, F., White, S.D.M., Tormen, G., & Springel, V. 2002, MNRAS 335, L84

Swaters, R.A. 1999, PhD Thesis, University of Groningen

Swaters, R.A., Madore, B., van den Bosch, F.C., & Balcells, M. 2003a, ApJ, 583, 732

Swaters, R.A., Verheijen, M.A.W., Bershady, M.A., & Andersen, D.R. 2003b, ApJ, 587, L19

Tegmark, M. et al. 2003, astro-ph/0310273

Trott, C.M., & Webster, R.A. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 621

van den Bosch, F.C., Robertson, B.E., Dalcanton, J.J, & de Blok, W.J.G. 2000, AJ, 119, 1579

Verheijen, M.A.W. 1997, PhD Thesis, University of Groningen

Visser, H.C.D. 1980, A&A, 88, 159

Walter, F., & Brinks, E. 1999, AJ, 118, 273

Weiner, B., Sellwood, J.A., & Williams, T.B. 2001, ApJ, 546, 931

## Appendix: 21-cm Line Interferometry and the Dark Matter Problem

\[Reprinted from the Magellanic Times, Day 7, 22 July 2003 - the newspaper edited during the 25th General Assembly of the IAU in Sydney\], minor editing afterwards in \[\].

“Write me a piece, Albert. I’d really appreciate it, I won’t have time to do it myself.” I am sitting opposite Seth Shostak, editor of the Magellanic Times, whom I have known for a long time, and known of for even longer. He and I owe a lot of intellectual indebtness and gratitude to a quiet man who patiently taught us the principles of 21-cm HI interferometry, David Rogstad. Rogstad was one of the first to use a two element radio aperture synthesis interferometer to study the 21-cm line emission of nearby galaxies (he was LOC co-chair John Whiteoak’s first student.)

Seth did his thesis on detailed synthesis observations of 5 late type galaxies with the Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO) twin element interferometer. Dave Rogstad moved for a few years to the Kapteyn Laboratorium in Groningen in the late sixties, where he guided a couple of students in various projects - Henk Olthof on warps, Arnold Rots on data of NGC 6946 and IC 342, and me. He himself worked on his OVRO data of M101.

For me, it was my first research project. I had to read reams of charts to mark off phase zero measurements of fringes from the just completed Westerbork telescope. Rogstad taught me computing and offered valuable advice (“beware, if you start computing, you stop thinking.”) After this, he gave me his 21-cm line data of M82 to reduce, along with all his programs - on punched cards. I was enthusiastic about this, looked up the literature on this “exploding galaxy”, and learned about the galaxy rotation work of Burbidge, Burbidge and Prendergast. The M82 HI data were interesting, and Dave encouraged me to speak about them at a YERAC (Young European Radio Astronomy Conference) in Dwingeloo.

Dave’s work on M101 stimulated the young staff members in Groningen, led by Ron Allen, to push for a temporary receiver to do 21-cm line work on nearby galaxies with the Westerbork telescope - which was not explicitly constructed for this purpose. By the time this project was completed, I was fortunate enough to use it for my thesis work on a pilot HI study of spiral galaxies of various morphological types. That was more or less \[considered\] a backwater project, the main attention for 21-cm line work being the study of spiral structure of M51, M81 and M101 (“testing the density wave theory.”)

Even so, I witnessed the debate about rotation curves in the outskirts of galaxies using HI data. I vividly remember a seminar by Mort Roberts, arguing that M31’s rotation curve was flat, and all the young Turks of the Kapteyn lab arguing that he picked up signal of the main disk through the sidelobes of his single dish antenna (Ed Salpeter was subjected to a similar treatment a few years later \[at the IAU Symposium 77 in Bad Münstereiffel\] when he reported on his Arecibo data, which had some after-effects if his Annual Reviews autobiography is any guide). So 21-cm line interferometry was the creed.

My thesis work, with its basic result that the rotation curves of spiral galaxies of all morphological types stayed flat (or were even still rising) beyond the optical image, helped settle the debate of the presence of dark matter in the outer parts of spirals. I also was fortunate to be able to go to Palomar with Piet van der Kruit, to get H$`\alpha `$ rotation data in the inner parts, and to obtain plates for surface photometry to determine the luminosity profile and the mass-to-light ratio as function of radius.

But the questions remain - how was the dark matter debate conducted, who said what when and why, and who had the “correct” (i.e. present day accepted) picture first? This is not so easy as some people would have it. In Historical Development of Modern Cosmology (ASP conference series Vol. CS-252), I read two articles - one by Sidney van den Bergh and one by Jaan Einasto - and there seems to be little overlap. So there could be different stories, and different people were convinced at different times of the presence of the dark matter in spirals - just like the various events and characters which made up the French Revolution. In any case, as far as the HI line rotation curves is concerned, I can only cite Vera Rubin et al.’s (1978) paper where she writes that “Mort Roberts and his collaborators deserve credit for first calling attention to flat rotation curves”, credit he got only sparingly. What is clear now is that there is little need for a dark halo to fit the optical rotation curve data, a conclusion \[again\] reached in an ApJ paper as recently as 2000. Mort Roberts himself confided to me once that he thought that my thesis work vindicated his contention that rotation curves of giant spirals are flat. Ostriker and Peebles, who pushed the idea for dark halos, first in a 1973 paper on disk stability (a paper which nowadays cannot withstand close scrutiny), and then, with Yahil, in their classic 1974 paper on various indicators pointing to a linear increase of the mass of a giant galaxy with radius, cite for the rotation data the papers by Roberts and Rots (1973) and Rogstad and Shostak (1972).

Which brings me back to Seth Shostak. Contrary to my thesis, which I had printed in 500 copies, and with its handy format became quite in demand (my thesis advisor had his copy stolen from his office somewhere in the 1980s, he told me recently), Shostak’s thesis (1971) is not widely available. I found a copy of it in the VLA library, so I started reading it carefully, and yes, it contained the flat rotation curve of NGC 2403, and its implication that the volume density of matter drops off as r-2 (mass rises linearly with radius, therefore). So he had it! Okay, only for one case, but even so; and it was a clean observation with an interferometer, so unlike Roberts’ observation of M31 (the primary piece of evidence in the Roberts and Rots (1973) paper). Oh well, it is unclear to me sometimes how scientific evidence is accepted in certain circles. Sometimes one has a result, correct after all, but at a time too far ahead of the pack, which is not yet ready to absorb it.

In any case, the amusing part of Seth’s thesis is in the very end. A brief acknowledgement to Gordon Stanley, then director of OVRO. A warm thanks to David Rogstad for his patient advice. And then this fantastic flight of fancy - “this thesis is dedicated to NGC 2403 and its inhabitants, to whom copies can be furnished at cost”. No wonder this man is now working on SETI! He just wants to know why nobody came along thus far to claim a copy. If somebody from that galaxy had come along, Seth would have been the most famous man on earth, offered an autographed copy of his thesis for free, and arranged for a public lecture at the current General Assembly. John Whiteoak would have been happy to schedule that, and the Harbourside Auditorium would have been way too small!


format: text

text:
# Large-scale magnetic fields in GRB outflows: acceleration, collimation, and neutron decoupling

## 1 Ideal Magnetohydrodynamics

There is growing evidence in favor of magnetic driving in outflows associated with gamma-ray burst (GRB) sources (e.g., Vlahakis & Königl, 2003a, hereafter VK03a; see also Königl’s contribution in these Proceedings). The dynamics of these outflows may be described to zeroth order by the ideal, axisymmetric, hydromagnetic equations, consisting of the Maxwell and momentum equations together with the conservations of baryonic mass and specific entropy. VK03a demonstrated that, under the assumptions of a quasi-steady poloidal magnetic field and of a highly relativistic poloidal velocity, these equations become effectively time-independent and the motion can be described as a frozen pulse, generalizing the so-called “frozen pulse” approximation already known in purely hydrodynamic models of GRB outflows (Piran et al., 1993). Introducing the magnetic flux function $`A`$, the arclength along a poloidal streamline $`\mathrm{}`$, and the operator $`_s`$ that acts while keeping $`sct\mathrm{}`$ constant, the momentum equation can be written as (see VK03a for details)

$$\gamma \rho _0\left(𝐕_s\right)\left(\xi \gamma 𝐕\right)=\frac{\left(_s𝐄\right)𝐄+\left(_s\times 𝐁\right)\times 𝐁}{4\pi }P.$$
(1)
The large-scale electromagnetic field ($`𝐄`$, $`𝐁`$), the bulk flow speed ($`𝐕`$), and the total ($`e^\pm +`$ radiation) pressure can be written as functions of $`A`$ and the rest baryon density $`\rho _0`$111$`(z,\varpi ,\varphi )`$, and $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ denote cylindrical and spherical coordinates, whereas subscripts $`p`$ and $`\varphi `$ denote poloidal and azimuthal components, respectively.

$`𝐁={\displaystyle \frac{_sA\times \widehat{\varphi }}{\varpi }}+𝐁_\varphi ,𝐄={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{c}}_sA,𝐕={\displaystyle \frac{A\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{4\pi \gamma \rho _0c^3\sigma _\mathrm{M}}}𝐁+\varpi \mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{\varphi },P=Q\rho _0^{4/3}.`$ (2)
Faraday’s law and the conservations of specific entropy and mass imply that the functions $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`Q`$, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{M}`$ are constants of motion, i.e., functions of $`A`$. By integrating equation (1) along $`𝐕_p`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ one gets two additional constants of motion,

$`\mu c^2=\xi \gamma c^2{\displaystyle \frac{c^3\sigma _\mathrm{M}}{A\mathrm{\Omega }}}\varpi B_\varphi ,{\displaystyle \frac{\mu c^2x_\mathrm{A}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}=\xi \gamma \varpi V_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{c^3\sigma _\mathrm{M}}{A\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\varpi B_\varphi ,`$ (3)
describing the conservation of the ratio (total energy flux)/(mass flux) and of the total specific angular momentum, respectively. The remaining unknowns are the functions $`A(r,\theta )`$ and $`\rho _0(r,\theta )`$. The latter is the solution of Bernoulli’s equation \[which is obtained after substituting all quantities in the identity $`\gamma ^2=1+\gamma ^2V_p^2/c^2+\gamma ^2V_\varphi ^2/c^2`$ using eqs. (2) and (3)\], whereas the former controls the shape of the poloidal streamlines and is the solution of the highly nonlinear transfield component of the momentum equation (1).

VK03a integrated the last two equations under the $`r`$ self-similarity assumption $`A=r^Ff(\theta )`$, which makes it possible (with $`\mathrm{\Omega }A^{1/F}`$, $`QA^{(42F)/3F}`$, and constant $`F`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{M}`$, $`\mu `$, and $`x_\mathrm{A}`$) to separate the ($`r`$, $`\theta `$) coordinates. The resulting simplified set of ordinary differential equations can be easily integrated. Two types of boundary conditions at the base of the flow were considered: (1) The case of a strong poloidal magnetic field $`(B_p>B_\varphi )`$, which corresponds to a trans-Alfvénic outflow (since the azimuthal field dominates asymptotically and the flow becomes super-fast). (2) The case of a strong azimuthal field $`(B_pB_\varphi )`$, which corresponds to a super-Alfvénic flow.

### 1.1 Trans-Alfvénic flows

A representative solution is shown in Fig. 1. Looking at panel ($`a`$), which shows the acceleration, one can distinguish three different regimes:

1) $`\varpi _1<\varpi <\varpi _6`$ is the fireball phase. The specific enthalpy $`\xi `$ decreases, resulting in increasing $`\gamma \varpi `$ ($`\xi \gamma `$ const, a characteristic of hydrodynamic acceleration), while the specific Poynting flux remains constant (the field is force free). The electromagnetic field only guides the flow, with the bulk of the collimation occurring in this regime.

2) $`\varpi _6<\varpi <\varpi _8`$ is the magnetic acceleration regime. The fluid is cold ($`\xi 1`$), but $`\gamma `$ continues to increase (roughly as $`\gamma \varpi `$) due to the decreasing specific Poynting flux.

3) $`\varpi =\varpi _8`$ is the asymptotic cylindrical regime. The final Lorentz factor is of the order of the final specific Poynting flux, meaning that $`1/2`$ of the total energy (which was mostly electromagnetic initially) is transformed into baryonic kinetic energy ($`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}\mu /2`$).

The solution presented in Fig. 1 describes one shell, corresponding to a particular value of $`s`$. By specifying the $`s`$ dependence in the initial conditions one can examine a multiple-shell outflow and the time dependence of the pulse. For example, the $`s`$ dependence of the (total energy)/mass flux ratio $`\mu (s)c^2`$ translates into different final Lorentz factors for distinct shells: $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(s)\mu (s)/2`$. In contrast with Michel’s solution (Michel,, 1969), in which the classical fast magnetosonic point is located at infinity and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}\mu ^{1/3}`$, here this point is encountered at a finite height and most of the magnetic acceleration occurs further out, leading asymptotically to $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(s)\mu (s)/2\mu (s)^{1/3}`$. Thus, not only is the magnetic acceleration highly efficient, but the stronger dependence of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(s)`$ on the initial conditions \[through $`\mu (s)`$\] can lead to a larger contrast in $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$ between successive shells and hence to a higher efficiency of internal shocks (e.g., Piran, 1999).

### 1.2 Super-Alfvénic flows

A representative super-Alfvénic solution, corresponding to a base magnetic field ($`B_\varphi 10^{14}\mathrm{G}`$, $`B_p10^2B_\varphi `$), is shown in Fig. 2. The super-Alfvénic solutions are distinguished from the trans-Alfvénic ones in two main respects: (1) During the initial thermal-acceleration phase, some of the internal energy is transformed into electromagnetic energy even as another part is used to increase $`V_p`$. (2) During the subsequent magnetic-acceleration phase, the rate of increase of the Lorentz factor with $`z`$ can be significantly lower than in the trans-Alfvénic case; the rate of increase of the jet radius with $`z`$ is correspondingly higher. The overall magnetic-to-kinetic energy conversion efficiency is higher. See (Vlahakis & Königl, 2003b) for further details and analytic scaling relations.

Another potentially important aspect of super-Alfvénic outflows, namely, the possibility that their initial composition is highly neutron-rich, could significantly alleviate the GRB baryon-loading problem. In (Vlahakis at al., 2003) (see also Königl’s contribution) it is shown that, in contrast to the purely hydrodynamic case, the neutrons can decouple at a Lorentz factor that is over an order of magnitude smaller than $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$ for the protons.


text:
# Motion of a charged particle in the magnetic dipole field†footnote ††footnote †Since the mathematical procedure in this note is trivial, it will be submitted nowhere else for publication, just uploaded at the e-print archives.

## Abstract

This note discusses the motion of a charged particle in the magnetic dipole field and a modified Barut’s lepton mass formula. It is shown that a charged particle in the magnetic dipole filed has no bound states, which means that Barut’s lepton mass formula may have no physical basis.

Historically, the subquark theories (including the topics such as the symmetries and structures in leptons and quarks) captured particular attention of many researchers. The occurrence of the leptonic fermion chain (e, $`\mu `$, $`\tau `$, …) is a novel phenomenon for which we have so far no theory to interpret the origin of the generation of leptons. Regarding this subject, the fundamental problems are as follows: why does the generation phenomenon exist? what causes the generation number is not up to three? Studying the mass formula for leptons may provide clue to the physicists on how the fundamental mechanism involved works in the above-mentioned problems. For this aim, several authors probed the lepton and quark mass spectra.

Of all the above investigations, the most important work that deserves emphasis here is that of Barut, who proposed a mass formula for muon on the basis of magnetic self-interaction of the electron. He believed that the radiative effects give an anomalous magnetic moment to the electron which implies an extra magnetic energy. By using the quantization formulation according to Bohr-Sommerfeld procedure, Barut obtained the magnetic energy of a system consisting of a charge and a magnetic moment as $`E_n=\lambda n^4`$ with $`n`$ being a principal quantum number. Here the coefficient $`\lambda =\frac{3}{2\alpha }`$ with $`\alpha `$ denoting the electromagnetic fine structure constant. The lepton mass formula suggested by Barut is

$$m_n=\left(1+\frac{3}{2\alpha }\underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}l^4\right)m_\mathrm{e},$$
(1)
where $`m_\mathrm{e}`$ stands for the electron mass and the integer $`n`$ represents the generation label of charged leptons (for instance, $`n=0,1,2`$ corresponds to the electron, muon ($`\mu `$) and tau ($`\tau `$) particle, respectively). It should be noted that, as far as the known fermion chain (e, $`\mu `$, $`\tau `$) is concerned, this mass formula of charged leptons agrees with experimental values extremely well.

Barut argued that although the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization is approximative, the final result might be exact as was the case in Bohr-Sommerfeld derivation of the Balmer formula. Here, however, I will show that this viewpoint may be not the true case. In this note, by considering the motion of a charged particle in the field of a magnetic dipole, it will be shown that the charged particle near a magnetic dipole may have no bound states. This, therefore, implies that Barut’s magnetic energy formula $`E_n=\lambda n^4`$ may be not valid.

In history, Dirac investigated the motion of an electron in the field of a magnetic monopole and showed that the electron cannot be bound to the monopole field. Even though Dirac did not take into account the electron spin (which will give rise to a magnetic moment) in his analysis, the above conclusion is still valid if one treats the same problem by taking into consideration the electron spin (and hence its spinning magnetic moment). In what follows I will deal with the problem of the stationary Klein-Gordon equation governing the motion of a scalar particle (or an electron without taking account of its spin and spinning magnetic moment) in the presence of a magnetic dipole field.

It is well known that the three-dimensional magnetic vector potential of a magnetic dipole field written in a polar coordinate system ($`r,\theta ,\phi `$) is $`A_\phi =\lambda \frac{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\left(r^2+a^2\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}`$, where the coefficient is $`\lambda =\frac{\mu _0Ia^2}{4}`$. Here, $`\mu _0`$, $`a`$ and $`I`$ denote the vacuum permeability, ring radius and electric current of the magnetic dipole. Note that here it is assumed that a circular ring carrying a current $`I`$ forms a magnetic dipole. If the radius $`a`$ is much less than the spatial scale, then the above-mentioned magnetic vector potential can be reduced to $`A_\phi =\lambda \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{r^2}`$. For convenience, in this note we consider only the 2D case (i.e., $`\theta =\frac{\pi }{2}`$) of the stationary Klein-Gordon equation, which is of the form

$$\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }\left(\rho \frac{\psi }{\rho }\right)+\frac{1}{\rho ^2}\left(\frac{}{\phi }\frac{ie}{\mathrm{}}\rho A_\phi \right)^2\psi =\left[\frac{E^2}{\mathrm{}^2c^2}+\left(\frac{mc}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2\right]\psi $$
(2)
in the 2D polar coordinate system ($`\rho ,\phi `$). Substitution of $`\psi =R(\rho )\mathrm{exp}[im\phi ]`$ into (2) yields

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}\rho ^2}+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\rho }\frac{m^2}{\rho ^2}\right)R+\frac{\eta }{\rho ^3}R+\frac{\sigma }{\rho ^4}R+R=0$$
(3)
with $`=\frac{E^2}{\mathrm{}^2c^2}\left(\frac{mc}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2`$, $`\eta =\frac{2em\lambda }{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\sigma =\frac{e^2\lambda ^2}{\mathrm{}^2}`$. Similar to the discussion of 2D hydrogen atom, we insert

$$R(\rho )=\rho ^{|m|}\mathrm{exp}(\beta \rho )u(\rho )\mathrm{with}\beta =\sqrt{}$$
(4)
into Eq.(3), and obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2u}{\mathrm{d}\rho ^2}+\left[2\left(\frac{|m|}{\rho }\beta \right)\frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}\rho }+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}\rho }\right]+\left[\frac{\eta }{\rho ^3}\frac{\beta }{\rho }\left(2|m|+1\right)+\frac{\sigma }{\rho ^4}\right]u=0.$$
(5)
On substituting $`u=_{\nu =0}^{\mathrm{}}b_\nu \rho ^{s+\nu }`$ into Eq.(5), making use of $`\frac{\mathrm{d}^2u}{\mathrm{d}\rho ^2}=_{\nu =0}^{\mathrm{}}b_\nu (s+\nu )(s+\nu 1)\rho ^{s+\nu 2}`$, $`\frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}\rho }=_{\nu =0}^{\mathrm{}}b_\nu (s+\nu )\rho ^{s+\nu 1}`$, $`\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}\rho }=_{\nu =0}^{\mathrm{}}b_\nu (s+\nu )\rho ^{s+\nu 2}`$ and equating the coefficients of the various powers of $`r`$ to zero we get the recurrence relation

$$b_{\nu +1}(s+\nu +1)(s+\nu )2\beta b_\nu (s+\nu )+(2|m|+1)b_{\nu +1}(s+\nu +1)\beta (2|m|+1)b_\nu +\eta b_{\nu +2}+\sigma b_{\nu +3}=0.$$
(6)
For simplicity, we assume that in Eq.(6) the $`\sigma `$\- term is much less than the $`\eta `$\- term, so the former one can be ignored in what follows. Thus the recurrence relation (6) without the $`\sigma `$\- term is rewritten as

$$b_{\nu +1}(s+\nu +1)(s+\nu +2|m|+1)=\beta (2s+2\nu +2|m|+1)b_\nu \eta b_{\nu +2}.$$
(7)
When $`\nu `$ tends to $`+\mathrm{}`$, $`b_{\nu +1}\frac{2\beta b_\nu }{\nu +1}\frac{\eta b_{\nu +2}}{(\nu +1)^2}`$. This, therefore, implies that $`b_{\nu +1}\frac{1}{(\nu +1)!}`$ and the behavior of $`u`$ converges like $`\mathrm{exp}(2\beta \rho )`$ for $`\nu \mathrm{}`$, which is divergent at $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. So, the maximal $`\nu `$ in the series of the function $`u`$ should be a finite integer rather than an infinite one. In the following we will discuss the recurrence relation from the various aspects:

A.

We set $`q_\nu =(s+\nu +1)(s+\nu +2|m|+1)`$, $`p_\nu =2s+2\nu +2|m|+1`$, and from Eq.(7) we can obtain

$`q_\nu b_{\nu +1}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta p_\nu b_\nu \eta b_{\nu +2},`$ (8)
$`q_{\nu +1}b_{\nu +2}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta p_{\nu +1}b_{\nu +1}\eta b_{\nu +3}.`$ (9)
It follows from Eqs.(9) that

$$\left(q_\nu +\eta \frac{p_{\nu +1}}{q_{\nu +1}}\right)b_{\nu +1}=\beta p_\nu b_\nu +\frac{\eta ^2}{q_{\nu +2}}b_{\nu +3}.$$
(10)
If it is required that $`b_{\nu +1}=0`$ (and hence $`b_{\nu +n}=0`$, $`n>1`$), then only the case of $`\beta p_\nu =0`$ satisfies this requirement, since $`b_{\nu +3}=0`$. This, therefore, means that $`\beta =0`$. Thus $`=0`$. But unfortunately the solution corresponding to such an $``$ is not a bound one.

B.

If we assume that $`b_\nu =0`$, $`b_{\nu +3}=0`$, then it follows from Eqs.(9) that

$`q_\nu b_{\nu +1}+\eta b_{\nu +2}=0,`$ (11)
$`\beta p_{\nu +1}b_{\nu +1}q_{\nu +1}b_{\nu +2}=0.`$ (12)
If one requires Eqs.(12) to possess nonvanishing $`b_{\nu +1}`$, $`b_{\nu +2}`$, then he can arrive at

$$q_\nu q_{\nu +1}+\eta \beta p_{\nu +1}=0,$$
(13)
namely, the determinant of the coefficient matrix of Eqs.(12) is vanishing. This, however, means that $`\beta 0`$ and that it will cause the function $`u`$ to be divergent at large spatial scale ($`r\mathrm{}`$).

C.

According to Eqs.(9), we can obtain

$`q_\nu b_{\nu +1}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta p_\nu b_\nu \eta b_{\nu +2},`$ (14)
$`q_{\nu +1}b_{\nu +2}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta p_{\nu +1}b_{\nu +1}\eta b_{\nu +3},`$ (15)
$`q_{\nu +2}b_{\nu +3}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta p_{\nu +2}b_{\nu +2}\eta b_{\nu +4}.`$ (16)
If, for example, $`b_{\nu +3}=0`$, $`p_{\nu +2}=0`$, it follows that $`b_{\nu +4}=0`$, and consequently $`b_{\nu +5}=0`$, $`b_{\nu +6}=0`$. So, we have

$$q_\nu b_{\nu +1}=\beta p_\nu b_\nu \eta b_{\nu +2},q_{\nu +1}b_{\nu +2}=\beta p_{\nu +1}b_{\nu +1}.$$
(17)
Under the condition $`b_\nu 0`$, it follows that

$$\left(q_\nu +\frac{\eta p_{\nu +1}}{q_{\nu +1}}\right)b_{\nu +1}=\beta p_\nu b_\nu .$$
(18)
So, we have the following recurrence relations

$$b_{\nu +1}=\frac{\beta p_\nu }{q_\nu +\frac{\eta p_{\nu +1}}{q_{\nu +1}}}b_\nu ,b_{\nu +2}=\frac{\beta ^2p_{\nu +1}p_\nu }{q_\nu q_{\nu +1}+\eta p_{\nu +1}}b_\nu ,\mathrm{}$$
(19)
It is apparently seen that all the coefficients $`b_{\nu +n}`$ can be expressed in terms of $`b_\nu `$ and $`\beta `$. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to obtain $`\beta `$.

In view of the above discussions, it can be easily seen that the series $`u`$ cannot terminate for a positive $`\beta `$. Thus a charged particle is never bound to the magnetic dipole filed. This, therefore, means that Barut’s lepton mass formula lacks a power physical basis. Even though my result is obtained only by considering the motion of a charged scalar particle in a magnetic field of a magnetic doublet, it may be concluded that this result may also hold for a charged spinning particle (e.g., electron) in the presence of the magnetic dipole field, by analogy with Dirac and Chandra’s work.

A great majority of the lepton mass formulae have two disadvantages: (i) they cannot agree with experimental results very well; (ii) the generation number of fermions in these mass formulae are often infinite and/or they cannot interpret the finite-generation-number phenomenon. Although Barut’s formula is in good agreement with experiments (agreeing to the experimental results about one part in $`10^3`$), it cannot explain that why the generation number is finite \[This can be seen from Eq.(1), where the generation label $`n`$ can take the arbitrary integers\]. In this note, I will put forward a potential mass formula for the charged leptons, which may overcome the two above-mentioned disadvantages. Such a mass formula is written as followsThis lepton mass formula was suggested in Nov.1999 - Mar.2000. In fact, such an expression for the leptonic mass spectrum may be considered the modified version of Barut’s lepton mass formula (1).

$$m_n=\left(1+\frac{1}{2\alpha }\underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}C_3^ll^4\right)m_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{with}C_3^l=\frac{3!}{l!(3l)!}.$$
(20)
Here $`n`$ denotes the generation label of various charged leptons. It should be emphasized that the complete agreement exists between this lepton mass spectrum (20) and experiments to an incredibly high degree of accuracy (i.e., agreeing to the experiments about one part in $`10^3`$).

Another interesting lepton mass formula suggested by us is written in the following form

$$m_n=C_3^n\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{n^2}\left(\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)^nm_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{with}C_3^n=\frac{3!}{n!(3n)!},$$
(21)
which also agrees reasonably well with experimental values for the masses of e, $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$.

Apparently, both the above two lepton mass spectra (20) and (21) accommodate four generations of fermions, since the generation label $`n`$ can take only 0, 1, 2 and 3, which correspond to electron, muon, tau and f particle§§§The mass of the charged lepton corresponding to $`n=3`$, which we call, for brevity, f lepton, is respectively $`3.4`$ and $`2.6`$ Gev in Eq.(20) and (21). Note that here the name of the f lepton (should such exist) is inspired by considering that the f lepton may be the fourth (and even the final) generation of leptons in accordance with the mass spectra (20) and (21)..

Additionally, I can also suggest an other mass formula for charged leptonsThis mass formula was proposed in the spring of 2000. It has not yet been published elsewhere.

$$m_n=C_3^nC_2^n\left(\frac{1}{4\alpha }\right)^nm_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{with}C_2^n=\frac{2!}{n!(2n)!},$$
(22)
which accommodates only three generations of fermions. This formula agrees with experimental values to less than $`1\%`$.

All the above mass spectra (20)-(22) for the charged leptons are established based on both the experimental values and the mathematical structures of the so-called supersymmetric Pegg-Barnett oscillator. It is believed that the investigation of the leptonic mass spectra may provide us with an insight into the generation problem (generation phenomenon, generation origin and generation structures) of leptons and quarks. We hold that these leptonic mass spectra presented in this note deserve further investigation both theoretically and experimentally.

Acknowledgements This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Project No. $`90101024`$.


text:
# Simple proof of Chebotarëv’s theorem on roots of unity11footnote 1Keywords and phrases: roots of unity, non-zero minors 22footnote 22000 Mathematics Subject classification: 11T22 (primary), 42A99, 11C20 (secondary)

## Acknowledgements

The author is partially supported by OTKA grants T 042769 and T 046365. The author wishes to thank András Biró for calling his attention to the subject and for useful discussions.

Address. Mathematics Institute, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Egry J. u. 1., Budapest, 1111 Hungary. E-mail: frenkelp@renyi.hu


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The holographic principle is perhaps one of most fundamental principles of nature . This principle relates a theory including gravity in $`D`$ dimensions to a theory without gravity in lower dimensions. The AdS/CFT correspondence  is a beautiful example of the realization of the holographic principle in an anti-de Sitter (AdS) space. Two years ago, Strominger  argued that a similar correspondence (dS/CFT correspondence) may also exist in a de Sitter space, which is a maximally symmetric curved space of positive constant curvature.

Needless to say, the de Sitter space plays an important role in modern cosmology. In the inflation model the universe is in a quasi-de Sitter phase. Furthermore, a lot of astronomical observations  indicate that the expansion of our universe is now accelerating, rather than decelerating. A most simple explanation of the observed accelerating is that our universe has a positive cosmological constant with the value ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(10^3ev)^4`$. In that case, out universe will approach again to a de Sitter phase in the far future.

The inflation model , which says that our universe has undergone an accelerating epoch in the early time, is now a popular paradigm, in which some fundamental difficulties in the hot big bang cosmology can be solved, for example, the problems of the spatial flatness, the large-scale smoothness, the small-scale inhomogeneity, and the unwanted relics, etc.. A remarkable series of observations support the inflation model (for example, see ). It is then natural to ask whether the holography principle has any consequence to the inflation model. In Ref.  Albrecht, Kaloper and Song have argued that the holography could lead to a nontrivial energy scale (UV cutoff) above which the description of the effective field theory for perturbations during the inflation losses its validness. However, it results in a series of controversies : the D-bound could not give us a nontrivial UV cutoff; instead it is satisfied naturally. The so-called D-bound  says that there is a maximal entropy bound of a system in a de Sitter space; the bound is given by the difference between the cosmological horizon areas of pure de Sitter space and asymptotically de Sitter space containing the system.

On the other hand, it is well known that in order to solve the spatial flatness problem and the horizon puzzle, there is a low limit of the number of e-foldings of inflation . Quite interestingly it has been shown robustly that there is also an upper limit for the number ($`\stackrel{~}{N}`$) of e-foldings before the end of inflation at which observable perturbations were generated . However, it says nothing about the total number ($`N`$) of e-foldings of inflation, which is usually a much large number than $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$. If the current acceleration is due to a cosmological constant, very recently Banks and Fischler  have argued that there exists an upper limit of the total number ($`N`$) of e-foldings of inflation, $`e^N=a_e/a_i`$. Here $`a_e`$ and $`a_i`$ denote the scale factors of the universe at the end of inflation and at the beginning of inflation, respectively. Obviously both the numbers ($`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`N`$) of e-foldings of inflation play a crucial role in building a successful inflation model, which is still lacking, and in understanding the evolution of the universe. In the brane world scenario, a similar upper limit has been discussed in Ref. .

In this note we would like to discuss further the upper limit of the total number of e-foldings of inflation. In the next section, we first review the Banks-Fischler’s limit briefly. With a simple assumption of evolution of the universe, we then obtain an expression of the upper limit in terms of the cosmological constant, the initial energy density and end energy density during inflation, and the reheating temperature, and discuss some subtleties of the upper limit. In Sec. 3 we use the D-bound to give the upper limit of the total number of e-foldings and discuss some related points. The conclusion is included in Sec. 4.

## 2 Banks-Fischler’s Limit

The key point of inflation to solve the spatial flatness problem and the horizon puzzle is the production of a big amount of entropy during reheating after the end of inflation . The starting point to get the upper limit of the total number of e-foldings is also the entropy in the universe.

For a fluid with an equation of state, $`p=\kappa \rho `$, contained in a finite cavity with radius $`R`$, the authors of Ref.  have shown that there is an upper bound of entropy stored in the fluid, beyond which black holes will form. The upper bound has the scaling relation to the radius

$$S_RR^{32/(1+\kappa )}.$$
(2.1)
This relation holds in four dimensions111In $`(n+1)`$-dimensions we find that the upper bound of entropy should have the form $`S_RR^{n(n1)/(1+\kappa )}`$.. On the other hand, a static observer in a de Sitter space with cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, cannot see the whole space, the boundary of the region which can be causally accessible to the observer is called the cosmological horizon with size $`R_c1/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$. Banks and Fischler  argued that the cosmological horizon could be the natural boundary of the cavity with radius $`R_c`$. Then the threshold of entropy of the fluid that is accessible to the static observer in the de Sitter space is222In some expressions concerning entropy throughout the paper, a numerical factor of order $`𝒪(1)`$ has been omitted. Such a factor has a negligible effect to the upper limit since it appears as $`\mathrm{ln}𝒪(1)`$ in the expressions of the upper limit. See also .

$$S_C\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{\frac{1+3\kappa }{2(1+\kappa )}}.$$
(2.2)
It is interesting to note that in order to avoid the big crush for a closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe with a positive cosmological constant, the upper bound of the entropy of the fluid in the universe is also given by (2.2) . Of course, it should be reminded that for a flat or open FRW universe with a positive cosmological constant, one cannot reach this conclusion.

Now let us consider thermodynamics of the universe. The Friedmann equation describing the evolution of a flat FRW universe with a positive cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, is

$$H^2=\rho +\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}.$$
(2.3)
Using the thermodynamic relation, that relates the energy density to the entropy density of a thermodynamic system,

$$\sigma \rho ^{1/(1+\kappa )},$$
(2.4)
one can write the entropy of the fluid in the FRW universe with scale factor $`a`$ as

$$Sa^3\rho ^{1/(1+\kappa )}.$$
(2.5)
Consider the moment at which the inflation ends, and denote the energy density of the universe by $`\rho _e`$. Suppose that the initial size of the causal patch is given by the Hubble radius at the beginning of inflation, $`H_i^1`$. During inflation this patch grows by a factor of $`e^N`$; the scale factor at the end of inflation is then $`a\mathrm{exp}(N)H_i^1`$. Using (2.5), the total entropy in that patch therefore is

$$S\mathrm{exp}(3N)H_i^3\rho _e^{1/(1+\kappa )}.$$
(2.6)
Having considered that the change of the Hubble radius is small during inflation, one can take

$$\rho _eH_i^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_I,$$
(2.7)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ is the value of the energy density during inflation. The entropy (2.6) of fluid should be less than the one (2.2), which leads to the Banks-Fischler’s limit of the total number of e-foldings

$$N<\frac{1+3\kappa }{6(1+\kappa )}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_I}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}.$$
(2.8)
It should be stressed that the universe has been assumed to be asymptotically de Sitter here. Note that the dark energy density has the same order as the critical density, so $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(10^3ev)^4`$. Suppose that the energy density of inflation is at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I(10^{16}Gev)^4`$, one then has

$$N<85,$$
(2.9)
in the case of $`\kappa =1`$, for the stiff matter. Such an equation of state appears when the universe is filled with a kinetic energy dominated scalar field. On the other hand, one has

$$N<65,$$
(2.10)
in the case of $`\kappa =1/3`$, for the radiation matter. It is interesting to note that these values for the total number of e-foldings of inflation are close to the value necessary to solve the horizon problem and flatness problem . However, we find that in the matter dominated phase with $`\kappa =0`$, for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ given above,

$$N<43.$$
(2.11)
Note that in the usual inflation model, the inflation is followed by a matter dominated phase where the inflaton is rapidly oscillating about a minimum of its potential . The value (2.11) seems too small and is seemingly excluded according to the current astronomical observations .

Of course the above estimation is very rough. In this section we are interested in what the maximal and minimal upper limits of the total number of e-foldings are within possible inflation models, if one insists that the entropy threshold in the asymptotically de Sitter space is given by (2.2). For this end, it seems worth to recall the main evolution processes of the universe , in particular, the processes before the radiation dominated phase. In a simple inflation model, for example, the single field model, suppose that the inflation starts with the size $`H_i^1`$ of the causal patch and the energy density $`\rho _i`$, in which the potential of the inflaton dominates, and ends with energy density $`\rho _e`$. During inflation, the causal path expands to $`\mathrm{exp}(N)H_i^1`$. After inflation, the universe goes into a coherent oscillation phase, in which the inflaton is rapidly oscillating around a minimum of its potential. After some time, the inflaton decays rapidly to particles in the standard model and the universe is “reheated”. Following the reheating is just the ordinary adiabatic, radiation-dominated phase of the hot big bang cosmology. During the reheating, the universe grows by a factor of $`a_{re}/a_e(\rho _e/T_{re}^4)^{1/3}`$, where $`\rho _e`$ is the energy density at the end of inflation and $`T_{re}`$ denotes the reheating temperature, which is the initial temperature of the radiation epoch. When the energy density of radiation matter equals to that of nonrelativistic matter, the universe enters into the matter dominated phase. As is well known, the total entropy within a casual patch is conserved in the standard cosmology model. In other words, the current total entropy mainly from the radiation matter of our observable universe is in the same order as that during the radiation dominated phase.

With the above consideration, the total entropy of our universe at the beginning of the radiation dominated phase (at that moment the radiation temperature is just the reheating temperature), is333It is the entropy of radiation matter. Note that the number of particle species is cancelled here.

$$S\mathrm{exp}(3N)H_i^3(\rho _e/T_{re}^4)T_{re}^3.$$
(2.12)
In this case, the entropy bound $`S<S_C`$ yields

$$N<\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho _i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}+\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho _i^{1/4}}{T_{re}}+\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_{re}}{\rho _e^{1/4}}.$$
(2.13)
Comparing (2.8) (take $`\kappa =1/3`$) with our result (2.13), it is easy to see that they give the same value only when $`\rho _i\rho _eT_{re}^4`$. Further we note that the right hand side of (2.13) can be rewritten as

$$N<\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho _i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho _i}{\rho _e}+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_{re}^4}{\rho _e}.$$
(2.14)
Obviously it is not an easy matter to determine the upper limit of the number of e-foldings of inflation since we are still not yet very clear for many events during evolution of the universe, in particular, for events which happened before nucleosynthesis. In other words, there are a lot of uncertainties to determine the upper limit. So following , we now consider how the upper limits of the number of e-foldings is modified as one changes the properties of inflation model within the range allowed by theories and observations.

(1) The extremal case. In the chaotic inflation model , the initial energy density could be as high as the Planck scale, $`\rho _i(10^{19}Gev)^4`$. On the other hand, the most extremal assumption could be that the reheating continues almost to the nucleosynthesis, which happens at the energy scale $`(10^3Gev)^4`$, though the electroweak scale $`(10^2Gev)^4`$ is regarded usually as the practical limit at the end of inflation . In addition, in supersymmetric theories in order to avoid the overproduction of gravitinos, the energy density should be below $`(10^{11}Gev)^4`$. Due to the red shift of energy during reheating, the reheating temperature is usually less than the energy density at the end of inflation (that is, the third term of the right hand side of equation (2.14) gives a negative contribution to the total number), so the extremal assumption is that the most high reheating temperature is of the order of $`\rho _e^{1/4}`$. Consider the three energy scales given above as $`\rho _e`$, we find from (2.14) that

$`N122,\mathrm{for}\rho _e(10^3Gev)^4;N110,\mathrm{for}\rho _e(10^2Gev)^4;`$
$`\mathrm{and}N90,\mathrm{for}\rho _e(10^{11}Gev)^4,`$ (2.15)
respectively. Although the differences among the three energy scales are large, the differences of total numbers of e-foldings are not so large as expected.

(2) A plausible upper limit. A plausible energy scale at which the inflation starts is the GUT scale with $`\rho _i(10^{16}Gev)^4`$. It is well known that during inflation, the potential goes down very slowly. Suppose that the inflation ends at $`\rho _e(10^{14}Gev)^4`$. Although there are still considerable uncertainties for the reheating temperature, the total number of e-foldings is not very sensitive to the third term on the right hand side of equation (2.14) since there is a suppressing factor of $`(1/12)`$ in this term. For example, we have

$`N68,\mathrm{for}T_{re}10^{12}Gev;N62,\mathrm{for}T_{re}10^5Gev;`$
$`\mathrm{and}N56,\mathrm{for}T_{re}10^3Gev,`$ (2.16)
respectively. With the given $`\rho _i`$ and $`T_{re}`$, a more high energy density $`\rho _e`$ at the end of inflation will lead to a lower upper limits than those given by (2). An inflation model with more low energy scale is that the inflation begins with $`\rho _i(10^{14}Gev)^4`$, which satisfies the constraint of gravity wave amplitude from the observation of CMB anisotropy . Suppose the inflation ends with $`\rho _e(10^{12}Gev)^4`$, we then have

$`N65,\mathrm{for}T_{re}10^{12}Gev;N61,\mathrm{for}T_{re}10^8Gev;`$
$`\mathrm{and}N58,\mathrm{for}T_{re}1Tev.`$ (2.17)
These values are obviously close to the minimal value necessary to solve the spatial flatness problem and horizon problem .

(3) The model of $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$. This model is special in the sense that reheating in this model has an unusual feature. Usually the universe is in a matter dominated phase during the scalar field oscillation. For the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ model, however, the expansion of the universe is as radiation dominated . In this case, the duration of the epoch of reheating no longer matters and one can take the universe as radiation dominated beginning at the end of inflation . As a result, the factor $`\rho _e/T_{re}^4`$ in (2.12) is absent. Then we have

$$N<\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho _i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho _i}{T_{re}^4}.$$
(2.18)
During the coherent oscillation phase in the usual inflation models, much of the initial vacuum energy is red shifted away, by a factor of $`\rho _e/T_{re}^4`$. In general $`T_{re}^4`$ therefore is always less than $`\rho _e`$. In the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ model, due to the absence of the factor $`\rho _e/T_{re}^4`$, we have the conclusion that within the same other conditions (the same initial potential of inflation and the same reheating temperature), the upper limit of the number of e-foldings in the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ model is larger than the usual inflation models, for example, the scalar field model with a quadratic potential.

(4) The stiff matter case. In the literature there are proposals to end inflation by making the inflation field a transition from a potential dominated phase to a kinetic energy dominated phase (see  and references therein). The equation of state of a kinetic dominated inflation field is the one of stiff matter with $`\kappa =1`$. In this era, the universe expands with $`at^{1/3}`$ and $`\rho 1/a^6`$. During this epoch, the universe grows by a factor $`(\rho _e/T_{re}^4)^{1/6}`$. Here we have assumed that the stiff matter dominates from the end of inflation to the beginning of radiation dominated phase in the big bang cosmology. In this case, the expression (2.12) should be replaced by

$$S\mathrm{exp}(3N)H_i^3(\rho _e/T_{re}^4)^{1/2}T_{re}^3.$$
(2.19)
As a result, we get the upper limit of the total number of e-foldings

$$N<\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho _i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho _i}{\rho _e}+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho _e}{T_{re}^4}.$$
(2.20)
Because $`\rho _e>T_{re}^4`$, comparing (2.20) with (2.14), we see that the upper limit is raised in this evolution model of the universe. In contrast to the simplest cosmology described above, the upper limit in this stiff matter case increases by $`1/6\mathrm{ln}(\rho _e/T_{re}^4)`$. This value is not large, compared to the first two terms on the side of right hand of (2.20). For example, it is only $`1.53`$ if $`\rho _e(10^{16}Gev)^4`$ and $`T_{re}10^{12}Gev`$.

## 3 Holographic Limit

Bekenstein  was the first to consider the issue of maximal entropy for a macroscopic system contained in a given region. For a closed system with total energy $`E`$, which fits in a sphere with radius $`R`$ in three spatial dimensions, He argued that there exists an upper bound on the entropy of the system, $`S_B2\pi ER`$. This bound is often referred to as the Bekenstein bound. This bound is believed to be valid for a system with negligible self-gravity in a flat spacetime. In an asymptotically de Sitter space, based on the fact that the cosmological horizon of any asymptotically de Sitter spaces is always less than the one of a pure de Sitter space, Bousso  argued that the maximal entropy of a system embedded in a de Sitter space is limited by

$$S_D=\frac{1}{4G}(A_0A),$$
(3.1)
by applying the generalized second law  of black hole thermodynamics to the cosmological horizon. Here $`A_0`$ denotes the cosmological horizon area of the pure de Sitter space, while $`A`$ for the asymptotically de Sitter space. This bound (3.1) is often called the D-bound. Although the D-bound is the counterpart of the Bekenstein bound in de Sitter space , it is applicable to a strongly self-gravity system, even including black holes, in de Sitter space.

As shown in the previous section, the Banks-Fischler’s limit is obtained on the basis that there exists an entropy threshold for a fluid in a cavity, beyond which black holes will form in the cavity; and that the de Sitter horizon is viewed as the boundary of the cavity. On the one hand, the de Sitter space is certainly different from the cavity. On the other hand, considerable series of evidence indicate that a lot of black holes exist in our universe. As a result the assumption of Banks and Fischler may be too stringent. In this section we use the D-bound to give an upper limit of total number of e-foldings of inflation.

Applying the D-bound to the current universe, one has

$$S_D(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^1H_0^2)\frac{0.3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}.$$
(3.2)
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is the cosmological constant as before, $`H_0`$ is the current Hubble constant, and the $`0.3`$ is obtained by the current observations: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$. If one uses the D-bound at the beginning of the radiation dominated phase, the D-bound gives

$$S_D\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^1,$$
(3.3)
since at that moment $`H^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^1`$. Therefore during evolution of the universe, the D-bound gives us the almost same entropy threshold of matter in the universe.

Within the simple evolution process of inflation described in the previous section, the entropy (2.12) of radiation matter is limited by the D-bound (3.3), which leads to

$$N<\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho _i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}+\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho _i}{\rho _e}+\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_{pl}^2T_{re}^2}{\rho _e},$$
(3.4)
where $`m_{pl}10^{19}Gev`$ is the Planck mass. Note that the main contribution to the upper limit comes from the term $`\mathrm{ln}(\rho _i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$. Therefore, in general the holographic limit (3.4) is larger than the Banks-Fischler limit. For instance, in the extremal case, namely the case (1) discussed in the previous section, we have

$`N146,\mathrm{for}\rho _e(10^3Gev)^4;N134,\mathrm{for}\rho _e(10^2Gev)^4;`$
$`\mathrm{and}N114,\mathrm{for}\rho _e(10^{11}Gev)^4.`$ (3.5)
Further, for comparison, we calculate the upper limits in the case of $`\rho _i(10^{16}Gev)^4`$ and $`\rho _e(10^{14}Gev)^4`$. They are

$`N91,\mathrm{for}T_{re}10^{12}Gev;N86,\mathrm{for}T_{re}10^5Gev;`$
$`\mathrm{and}N80,\mathrm{for}T_{re}10^3Gev,`$ (3.6)
respectively. Obviously, as the case of Banks-Fischler’s limit, the holographic limit also depends on properties of inflation models and evolution process of the universe.

## 4 Conclusion

The current dark energy scale is $`\rho (10^3ev)^4`$, which is much low than the inflation energy scale, which is generally believed to be around the GUT scale $`(10^{16}Gev)^4`$. Therefore people might think that the dark energy, which enforces the universe to accelerating expand now, has nothing to do with the inflation happened at the very early time. However, if the accelerating expansion is attributed to a positive cosmological constant, it does have something to do with the inflation model and with the fate of the universe. Banks and Fischler argued that there exists an upper limit of the total number of e-foldings of inflation in terms of the energy scale of inflation and the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, if one views the universe as a cavity with radius $`1/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$. Although there are a lot of uncertainties to determine the upper limit definitely, we further elaborate on and detail the upper limit: within a simple assumption of evolution of the universe, we obtain an expression of the upper limit of the total number of e-foldings of inflation in terms of the cosmological constant, the initial energy density and end energy density during inflation, and the reheating temperature. In the extremal case, where inflation is assumed to happen at the Planck scale and the reheating continues to the energy scale of nucleosynthesis, the cavity model gives us a value about $`122`$ for the upper limit, while the D-bound leads to a more large value $`146`$. Within a reasonable assumption for energy scales of inflation, the upper limit is around $`65`$, which is close to the value necessary to solve the spatial flatness problem and horizon problem in the hot big bang cosmology. We also discuss how the upper limit is modified when one changes the properties of inflation models.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Miao Li, Bin Wang, Dehai Zhang and Xinmin Zhang for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by a grant from Chinese Academy of Sciences, a grant from NSFC, a grant from the Ministry of Education of China, and by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China under grant No. TG1999075401.


text:
# Some Comments related to AGN Radio Loudness

## 1. Introduction

This is an expanded version of comments made during the recent meeting on “AGN Physics with the SDSS” (Princeton, July 2003), concerning the AGN radio loudness bimodality and the relation of radio loudness and black hole mass. These comments are not based on my earlier or ongoing work, and rely only on the existing literature. They are presented here with the hope of stimulating further work on these subjects.

## 2. The Radio Loudness Bimodality of AGN

The existence of a bimodality in the radio to optical flux ratio ($`R`$) distribution in AGN was long thought to be a well established “textbook” result (e.g. Peterson 1997; Krolik 1999; Kembhavi & Narlikar 1999). However, the recent FIRST survey, a large area, deep, high resolution radio survey revealed no $`R`$ bimodality (White et al. 2000), but rather a smooth distribution with a peak, instead of a dip, at intermediate $`R`$ values. This surprising result prompted various attempts to explain the sharp disagreement with earlier studies of radio and optical emission in AGN (Ivezić et al. 2002; Cirasuolo et al. 2003).

The FIRST survey differs from most earlier surveys in its significantly higher sensitivity and angular resolution (Becker, White, & Helfand 1995). Blundell (2003) has recently shown a dramatic (but possibly anecdotal) example of the insensitivity of the FIRST survey images to extended radio emission, when compared to the lower resolution images of the NVSS survey. Below I point out existing evidence that the lack of sensitivity to extended emission may be related to the lack of $`R`$ bimodality in the FIRST survey.

Xu, Livio & Baum (1999) compiled 5 GHz and \[O III\] luminosities for a large and heterogeneous sample of 409 AGN, covering 7 orders of magnitude in $`L_{[\mathrm{OIII}]}`$, and 9 orders of magnitude in $`L_{5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}`$. In low luminosity AGN the optical continuum can be obscured, or heavily contaminated by the host starlight, and thus $`L_{[\mathrm{OIII}]}`$ serves as a useful proxy for the AGN optical continuum luminosity. Figure 1 in Xu et al. reveals a clearly bimodal distribution of AGN in the $`L_{5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}`$ vs. $`L_{[\mathrm{OIII}]}`$ plane. Radio loud (RL) AGN are on average about $`10^4`$ times more radio luminous than radio quiet (RQ) AGN at a given $`L_{[\mathrm{OIII}]}`$. However, a different distribution is seen in their Figure 3 where they show a plot of the core 5 GHz luminosity vs. $`L_{[\mathrm{OIII}]}`$ for the same sample. This plot shows no bimodality, but rather a smooth distribution of $`L_{5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}`$ values at a given $`L_{[\mathrm{OIII}]}`$. Thus, the bimodality of the $`R`$ values distribution in AGN may be true only for the total, rather than just core radio emission. The lack of bimodality in the FIRST survey may then simply reflect its lack of sensitivity to extended radio flux, and it may not necessarily contradict the notion of $`R`$ bimodality in AGN.

The core radio emission is susceptible to beaming effects, and may not provide a reliable estimate of the true jet power, unlike the extended radio emission, which is most likely isotropic and should provide a better estimate of the jet power. Thus, the bimodality revealed when the extended radio emission is included is likely to reflect a true bimodality in the fraction of AGN power emitted in the radio.

## 3. The Nature of low $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ Radio Loud AGN

Various studies of AGN suggested there is a relation between the black hole mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and radio power (e.g. Franceschini, Vercellone, & Fabian 1998), or $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and radio loudness (e.g. Laor 2000), such that AGN with $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}>10^9M_{}`$ are all RL, and AGN with $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$ are all RQ. However, other studies (Ho 2002; Oshlack, Webster, & Whiting 2002; Woo & Urry 2002) found contradicting results. In particular, they found a significant number of low $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ radio loud AGN. As shown below, a closer inspection of the available data reveals that the published low $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ RL AGN can be classified under three categories: 1. Wrong $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ determinations. 2. Objects where beaming is likely (and may therfore be intrinsically radio quiet). 3. Very low luminosity AGN. In addition, there is evidence in the literature that the $`R`$ parameter which separates RL and RQ AGN does not have a fixed value, but rather increases with decreasing luminosity. This implies that the apparently RL, low $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, low luminosity AGN may belong to the RQ population. Overall, the results presented below indicate that there is no robust case of a luminous RL AGN at $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$, and there may be no low $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ “true” RL AGN at lower luminosities as well.

### 3.1. The Woo & Urry sample

Woo & Urry (2002) compiled data from various earlier studies and find a number of RLQ at $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$. In their Table 3 they compiled $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ estimates based on the size of the Broad Line Region ($`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$) and the H$`\beta `$ FWHM, where the $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ determination is based on reverberation mappings. They find two RL AGN with $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$, 3C120, and PG 1226+230 (3C273). In 3C120 the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=2.6\times 10^7M_{}`$ determination appears quite robust (rather well determined $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ from reverberation mapping + high quality H$`\beta `$ optical spectra). However, this object has a compact and flat spectrum radio source, it shows superluminal motion, rapid variability and a high polarization, all of which indicate the radio emission is strongly beamed. In 3C273 the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=1.7\times 10^7M_{}`$ value cited from Kaspi et al. (2000) is erroneous. The actual value in Kaspi et al. is $`(2.45.5)\times 10^8M_{}`$.

In Table 4 of Woo & Urry they list $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ determinations where $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ is estimated based on the continuum luminosity. Practically all of the RLQ at $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$ in this table come from two studies, Gu, Cao, & Jiang (2001), and Oshlack, Webster, & Whiting (2002) which is discussed in the following section. Gu et al. find 7 RLQ at $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$, based on spectra published and measured by Stickel & Kuhr (1993a,b), Stickel, Kuhr, & Fried (1993), and Lawrence et al. (1996). The spectra from these studies are enclosed in the Appendix. In all cases the H$`\beta `$ line is very narrow, and its FWHM is similar to the FWHM of the forbidden lines. In addition, the \[O III\]$`\lambda 5007`$/H$`\beta `$ flux ratio is $`10`$ (see tables in the above Stickel et al. and Lawrence et al. papers). These two properties of the measured H$`\beta `$ component indicate that it originates purely from the NLR, and not from the BLR, as assumed by Gu et al. Since the NLR velocity dispersion is typically $`10`$ smaller than in the BLR, the BH mass estimate in these objects is a factor of $`100`$ too low.

Some of these 7 objects are not pure type 2 AGN, as they show some evidence for a BLR component underlying the NLR component. In 1045$``$188 a broad base of H$`\beta `$ appears to be partly hidden by atmospheric absorption, in 1945+726 a very broad component is clearly seen in H$`\alpha `$, and in 2218+395 a weak broad base is seen in H$`\beta `$. However, only the NLR H$`\beta `$ component was measured in these objects in the papers mentioned above.

### 3.2. The Oshlack et al. sample

The Oshlack et al. sample is drawn from the Parkes Half-Jansky Flat-Spectrum sample (PHFS). As Oshlack et al. comment, the flat radio spectrum criterion should favor selection of beamed core dominated objects, and evidence that this indeed happens is provided by the significant contribution of a steep power law component, apparently synchrotron emission, to the optical IR emission in a large fraction of their objects. Apart from the beaming correction which may significantly reduce the implied intrinsic radio power (Jarvis & McLure 2002), there may also be some inaccurate deductions from the optical spectra, as detailed below.

Oshlack et al. deduce $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ based on the H$`\beta `$ FWHM and continuum luminosity. They find 16 RL AGN with $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$ (Table 1 there). The optical spectra of four of these objects appear in Wilkes et al. (1983). In PKS 1509+022 the spectrum is very red, the S/N is low, and H$`\beta `$ appears to be significantly broader than estimated (FWHM$`>10000`$ km s-1, rather than 6550 km s-1), implying $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}>10^8M_{}`$ (rather than $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=9.8\times 10^7M_{}`$). In PKS 1555$``$140 the spectrum is also very red, there is no detectable H$`\beta `$, and H$`\alpha `$ width is used instead. The \[S II\]$`\lambda \lambda 6716,6731`$ doublet just redward of H$`\alpha `$ is remarkably strong and of comparable strength and width to H$`\alpha `$, which suggests H$`\alpha `$ is mostly from the NLR. In PKS 1725+044 the S/N is rather low, and H$`\beta `$ appears to be significantly broader than estimated (FWHM$`8000`$ km s-1, rather than 2400 km s-1, implying $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}8\times 10^8M_{}`$, rather than $`7\times 10^7M_{}`$). In PKS 2143$``$156/R the FWHM estimate of 836 km s-1 is based on a low S/N Mg II profile. This object was later observed by Jackson & Browne (1991a), who measured a FWHM of 4700 km s-1 directly for H$`\beta `$ (Jackson & Browne 1991b), implying $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=1.5\times 10^9M_{}`$, rather than $`4.8\times 10^7M_{}`$. Thus in all four objects the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$ determinations do not appear robust.

Of the remaining 12 $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$ objects in Oshlack et al., four have $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^7M_{}`$. These four objects also have the lowest luminosities, $`\lambda L_\lambda (5100)<1.2\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1, i.e. $`M_B>19`$. These very low luminosity AGN are further discussed below. Of the remaining 8, only the spectrum of PKS 2004$``$447 is published in Oshlack, Webster, & Whiting (2001). This object clearly has very narrow Balmer lines from the BLR, although its SED is quite red. No published optical spectra are available for the remaining 8 objects, and the accuracy of the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ estimate could not be assessed.

### 3.3. The Ho sample

Ho (2002) studied the radio loudness vs. $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation in a heterogeneous sample of galaxies ranging over 12 orders of magnitudes in $`L_{H\beta }`$. There are 16 RL AGN in this sample with $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$. Three of these are relatively luminous having $`M_B<20.8`$. The first (in Table 2 there) is 3C 120, already discussed above; the second is PG 1211+143, which is actually a RQQ (see corrected radio flux in Kellermann et al. 1994); and the third is PG 1704+608, where the value of $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=3.7\times 10^7M_{}`$ is taken from Kaspi et al., who used H$`\beta `$ FWHM=890 km s-1 which contrasts with the FWHM=6560 km s-1 obtained by Boroson & Green (1992). This large discrepancy results from an inaccurate subtraction of the strong NLR H$`\beta `$ component, and the Boroson & Green value appears to be the correct one (T. Boroson and S. Kaspi, private communications). Thus, the only luminous ($`M_B<20.8`$ mag) RL AGN in the Ho sample at $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$ is 3C 120, which is most likely beamed.

The remaining 13 RL AGN with $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$ in the Ho sample all have $`M_B>17.4`$ mag. There are indications that low luminosity AGN have a different distribution of $`R`$ parameters, compared to luminous AGN. In particular, Ho & Peng (2001) find that most of the very low luminosity AGN ($`M_B>16`$ mag, their Fig.4) are RL, and their $`R`$ value distribution extends to higher values ($`10^5`$) than observed in high luminosity optically selected AGN ($`R10^210^3`$). Are all low luminosity AGN RL? Does the radio loudness bimodality disappears at low luminosities? The following section suggests it does not disappear.

### 3.4. The luminosity dependence of $`R`$

The Xu et al. study shows another remarkable and apparently overlooked result. Their Fig.1 shows that the bimodal distribution of AGN in the $`L_{5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}`$ vs. $`L_{[\mathrm{OIII}]}`$ plane extends from the luminous AGN level down by 4-5 orders of magnitude in $`L_{[\mathrm{OIII}]}`$. However, the dividing line which separates the two populations follows $`L_{5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}L_{[\mathrm{OIII}]}^{0.5}`$, indicating that $`R(L_{5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}/L_{[\mathrm{OIII}]})`$ along this line does not have a fixed value, but rather increases towards low luminosity. Thus, the $`R=10`$ value commonly used to separate RL from RQ AGN at high luminosities ($`M_B26`$, e.g. Kellermann et al. 1989), is not the correct value to use at low luminosity. The data of Xu et al. suggests that one should use $`RL^{0.5}`$ to separate “true” RL from “true” RQ AGN as a function of $`L`$. E.g., at $`M_B16`$ one should use $`R10^3`$ to separate the group of $`R1100`$ RQ AGN from the group of $`R10^410^5`$ RL AGN.

## 4. Discussion

### 4.1. Common sources of error

One major pitfall in existing $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ estimates based on the H$`\beta `$ FWHM is proper subtraction of the NLR contribution to H$`\beta `$. This problem tends to be significant in RLQ compared to RQQ, since RLQ generally have a stronger NLR component than RQQ at the same luminosity (e.g. Boroson & Green 1992). In some cases (mentioned above) the BLR H$`\beta `$ component is either very weak or nonexistent, and only the NLR H$`\beta `$ component was measured (but attributed to the BLR). To properly subtract the NLR H$`\beta `$ component one should typically assume $`f_{\mathrm{H}\beta }0.1f_{[\mathrm{O}\mathrm{III}]\lambda 5007}`$, the average ratio seen in NLR dominated AGN (e.g. Osterbrock 1989).

Another common source of error is very low S/N spectra, which can result in highly inaccurate H$`\beta `$ FWHM values and $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ estimates. Another thing to watch for is objects with a very red continuum and an H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ flux ratio $`>3`$. In such objects the H$`\alpha `$ line sometimes shows a dramatically different profile from H$`\beta `$. In particular, H$`\alpha `$ may show a strong broad component, which is either very weak or undetectable in H$`\beta `$ (e.g. 1945+726, Stickel & Kuhr 1993a).

### 4.2. The apparently robust cases

The apparently robust cases of RL AGN with $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$ are found in two populations of objects. First, compact flat spectrum sources, such as PKS 2004-447 (Oshlack et al. 2001, 2002) and 3C 120. As discussed by Jarvis & McLure (2002), their radio flux is most likely enhanced by beaming, and their observed H$`\beta `$ line width may be biased to low values if the BLR is in a face on disk. However, it is difficult to make an accurate quantitative correction to both effects, especially if large corrections are expected. Independent estimates of $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ in compact flat spectrum sources can be obtained from measurements of the host galaxy luminosity and the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ \- bulge luminosity relation. Preliminary results based on this method suggest luminous host galaxies and thus large $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ in the Oshlack et al. objects (Jarvis & McLure 2003).

Apparently, the only robust case of low $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ RL AGN consists of low luminosity AGN (Ho 2002). However, here we may be missled by using $`R=10`$ to separate RL from RQ AGN, which applies for luminous AGN. The large compilation of Xu et al. suggests that $`R1000`$ may be a more relevant number when going down from $`L10^{46}`$ erg s-1 AGN to $`L10^{42}`$ erg s-1 AGN. With this revised, luminosity dependent radio loudness $`R`$ threshold, practically all of the $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$ AGN in the sample of Ho belong to the “true” RQ AGN population.

### 4.3. The $`R`$-$`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation

The various literature results pointed out in this comment suggest that the radio loudness vs. $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation extends to low luminosity AGN . Specifically, that all true RL AGN have $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}>10^8M_{}`$, and all AGN with $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}<10^8M_{}`$ are true RQ AGN. An additional interesting hint supporting this suggestion can be seen in Figure 5 of Xu et al., which shows the distribution of host galaxies of the AGN in the $`L_{5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}`$ vs. $`L_{[\mathrm{OIII}]}`$ plane. Spiral hosts populate only the lower “true” RQ AGN branch, and only Elliptical and S0 hosts appear in the upper RL AGN branch.

### 4.4. The $`R`$ bimodality

Finally, the lack of radio loudness bimodality in the FIRST survey appears to be consistent with a similar lack of bimodality in known samples when one uses the core, rather than total, radio emission. Since the extended radio emission probably provides a better estimate of the intrinsic radio power, the radio emission in AGN is likely to be intrinsically bimodal.

## References

Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559

Blundell, K. M. 2003, New Astronomy Review, 47, 593

Boroson, T. A. & Green, R. F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109

Cirasuolo, M., Celotti, A., Magliocchetti, M., & Danese, L. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 447

Franceschini, A., Vercellone, S., & Fabian, A. C. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 817

Gu, M., Cao, X., & Jiang, D. R. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1111

Ho, L. C. 2002, ApJ, 564, 120

Ho, L. C. & Peng, C. Y. 2001, ApJ, 555, 650

Ivezić, Ž. et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 2364

Jackson, N. & Browne, I. W. A. 1991a, MNRAS, 250, 414

Jackson, N. & Browne, I. W. A. 1991b, MNRAS, 250, 422

Jarvis, M. J. & McLure, R. J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, L38

Jarvis, M. J. & McLure, R. J. 2003, New Astronomy Review, 47, 183

Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., & Green, R. 1989, AJ, 98, 1195

Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R. A., Schmidt, M., Green, R. F., & Shaffer, D. B. 1994, AJ, 108, 1163

Kembhavi, A. K. & Narlikar, J. V. 1999, Quasars and active galactic nuclei : an introduction, Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge University Press

Krolik, J. H. 1999, Active galactic nuclei : from the central black hole to the galactic environment, Princeton, N. J. : Princeton University Press

Laor, A. 2000, ApJ, 543, L111

Lawrence, C. R., Zucker, J. R., Readhead, A. C. S., Unwin, S. C., Pearson, T. J., & Xu, W. 1996, ApJS, 107, 541

Oshlack, A. Y. K. N., Webster, R. L., & Whiting, M. T. 2001, ApJ, 558, 578

Oshlack, A. Y. K. N., Webster, R. L., & Whiting, M. T. 2002, ApJ, 576, 81

Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei, Mill Valley, CA, University Science Books

Peterson, B. M. 1997, An introduction to active galactic nuclei, Cambridge, New York Cambridge University Press

Stickel, M. & Kuehr, H. 1993a, A&AS, 100, 395

Stickel, M. & Kuhr, H. 1993b, A&AS, 101, 521

Stickel, M., Kuehr, H., & Fried, J. W. 1993, A&AS, 97, 483

White, R. L. et al. 2000, ApJS, 126, 133

Wilkes, B. J., Wright, A. E., Jauncey, D. L., & Peterson, B. A. 1983, Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 5, 2

Woo, J. & Urry, C. M. 2002, ApJ, 579, 530

Xu, C., Livio, M., & Baum, S. 1999, AJ, 118, 1169

## 5. Appendix

For the sake of convenience we reproduce here some of the relevant figures mentioned in this paper. Higher quality versions are available in the original publications.