text:
# High-energy neutrino as observational signature of massive black hole formation

## 1 Introduction

The origin of massive black holes (MBHs) in the galactic nuclei is a long standing problem. In this paper we describe a ‘natural’ scenario of a seed MBH formation in the process of dynamical evolution of a central stellar cluster in the galactic nuclei. We demonstrate that high-energy neutrinos may be the observational signature of MBH formation.

High-energy (HE) neutrino radiation from astrophysical sources is accompanied by other types of radiation, most notably by the HE gamma-radiation. This HE gamma-radiation put an upper limit on the neutrino flux emitted by the neutrino-transparent astrophysical sources. For example, if neutrinos are generated by the interaction of HE protons with low energy photons in the extragalactic space or in gamma-transparent sources, the upper limit on diffuse neutrino flux $`I_\nu (E)`$ can be derived from electro-magnetic cascade radiation (Berezinsky and Smirnov, 1975). However, there can be the “hidden” neutrino sources where accompanying X-ray and gamma-radiations are absorbed. There are several known models of the hidden HE neutrino sources: The Young SN shells (Berezinsky and Prilutsky, 1987), opaque for all radiation except of neutrino during a time interval $`t_\nu 10^310^4`$s. The Thorne-Zytkow star (Thorne and Zytkow, 1977), which is a neutron star submerged into a red giant. The cocooned massive black hole in AGN (Berezinsky and Ginzburg, 1981) where the electromagnetic radiation is absorbed in a cocoon around the black hole. The AGN with a standing shock in the vicinity of MBH (Stecker et al., 1991) can produce large flux of HE neutrinos accompanied by the relatively small flux of X-ray radiation.

Recently we proposed the model for a powerful but short-lived hidden neutrino source which originates in a distant galactic nucleus prior to its collapse into the MBH (Berezinsky and Dokuchaev, 2001). In this model we assume that MBH is formed by the natural dynamical evolution of the central stellar cluster in the normal galactic nucleus. Dynamical evolution of dense central stellar clusters in the galactic nuclei is accompanied by the growth of a central gravitational potential $`\varphi v^2`$, where $`v`$ is a velocity dispersion of constituent stars. This evolution process is accompanied by the contraction of a central part of the galactic nucleus and terminated by formation of MBH (see for a review Rees (1984) and references therein). During this evolution a dense galactic nucleus inevitably proceeds through the stellar collision phase (Spitzer and Saslaw, 1966; Spitzer, 1971; Rees, 1984; Dokuchaev, 1991), when normal stars in the cluster are destroyed in mutual collisions. A direct collision of two stars ends with their complete destruction if their relative kinetic energy exceeds the gravitational bound energy of stars. This condition is realized in stellar clusters with a high enough velocity dispersion. Namely, $`vv_{\mathrm{esc}}=(2Gm_{}/r_{})^{1/2}`$ is fulfilled, where $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ is an escape velocity from the surface of star with mass $`m_{}`$ and radius $`r_{}`$. For a solar type star $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}620`$ km s<sup>-1</sup>. In a stellar cluster with $`v>v_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ the normal stars are eventually destroyed in mutual collisions or in collisions with the extremely compact stellar remnants: neutron stars (NSs) or stellar mass black holes. Only compact stellar remnants survive through the normal star-destruction stage of evolution at $`vv_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ and form the self-gravitating subsystem surrounded by a massive gas envelope. We shall refer to all compact stellar remnants as the NSs for brevity. The fireballs after numerous NS collisions in the contracting NS cluster result in the formation of a rarefied cavity in the massive gas envelope. Particles accelerated in this rarefied cavity interact with a dense envelope and produce secondary HE neutrinos. The accompanying gamma-radiation is fully absorbed in the case of thick enough envelope. The resulting hidden HE neutrino source is short-lived and very powerful: neutrino luminosity may exceed the Eddington limit for the electromagnetic radiation.

Berezinsky and Dokuchaev (2001) considered the case when a self-gravitating cluster of NSs in the evolving galactic nucleus is formed simultaneously with a formation of massive gas envelope. It is possible because the time of collision of self-destruction for normal stars appears to be of the same order as the time of NS cluster formation at a star-destruction stage of evolution of the galactic nucleus (see Section 3 for more details). In this case the newly formed NS cluster evolves much faster than a surrounding massive envelope. The corresponding parameters of massive envelope are fixed at the moment of NS cluster formation when $`vv_{\mathrm{esc}}`$. Here we will consider another and probably more natural case, when a self-destruction of normal stars and formation of a massive envelope in the evolving galactic nucleus proceeds faster than a formation of the self-gravitating subsystem of NSs in it. This case corresponds to the initial formation of a supermassive star (SMS) with the individual NSs submerged in it. Correspondingly, a formation of self-gravitating subsystem of NSs is delayed with respect to the formation of SMS, and the evolutionary contraction of SMS must be taken into account. We show that the hidden source of HE neutrino arises in this case also and even more powerful than in the first scenario (Berezinsky and Dokuchaev, 2001) of a simultaneous formation of a massive envelope and NS cluster in the evolving galactic nucleus.

## 2 Supermassive star formation

The SMS may be formed from the gas produced in the process of destructive collisions of stars in the evolved stellar cluster with a velocity dispersion $`vv_{\mathrm{esc}}`$. A characteristic time-scale for stellar cluster dynamical evolution is the (two-body) relaxation time

$$t_\mathrm{r}=\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{1/2}\frac{v^3}{4\pi G^2m^2n\mathrm{\Lambda }}4.6\times 10^8N_8^2\left(\frac{v}{v_{\mathrm{esc}}}\right)^3\text{ yr},$$
(1)
where $`N=10^8N_8`$ is the number of stars in the cluster, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{ln}(0.4N)`$ is the Coulomb logarithm, $`v`$ is a star velocity dispersion, $`n`$ is a star number density, $`m\mathrm{M}_{}`$ is a mass of constituent stars. The corresponding virial radius of the stellar cluster is $`R=GNm/2v^2`$. The first equality in (1) is valid for the local values of parameters, meanwhile, the second one is valid only for the mean (virial) parameters of a self-gravitating cluster. At $`v>v_{\mathrm{esc}}`$, where $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ is an escape velocity from the surface of constituent star, the time-scale for self-destruction of normal stars in mutual collisions is $`t_{\mathrm{coll}}=(v_{\mathrm{esc}}/v)^4\mathrm{\Lambda }t_\mathrm{r}`$ (e. g. Dokuchaev, 1991). Numerical modelling of catastrophic stellar collisions has been performed by e. g. Benz and Hills (1992); Lai et al. (1993). We choose $`vv_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ as a characteristic threshold value for a complete destruction of two stars and final production of unbound gas cloud. As a result, the stellar cluster in the evolved galactic nucleus with $`vv_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ transforms finally into the SMS due to catastrophic stellar collisions. At $`vv_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ the time-scale for the formation of SMS due to destructive collisions of stars is of the same order as the relaxation time, $`t_{\mathrm{coll}}(v_{\mathrm{esc}})t_\mathrm{r}(v_{\mathrm{esc}})`$. A total mass of the gas produced by destruction of normal stars composes the major part of a progenitor central stellar cluster in the galactic nucleus. Thus, the natural range of masses for the formed SMS is $`M_{\mathrm{SMS}}=10^710^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

A newly formed SMS with mass $`M_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$ and radius $`R_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$ gradually contracts due to radiation with the Eddington luminosity $`L_\mathrm{E}=4\pi GM_{\mathrm{SMS}}m_pc/\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$, where $`m_p`$ is the proton mass and $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thompson cross-section. A nonrotating SMS is a short-lived object that collapses due to post-Newtonian instability. Rotation provides the stabilization of SMS if the rotation energy is an appreciable part of its total energy $`E_{\mathrm{SMS}}(GM_{\mathrm{SMS}}^2/2R_{\mathrm{SMS}})`$. In general an evolution time of SMS is the Kelvin-Helmholtz time-scale $`t_{\mathrm{SMS}}=E_{\mathrm{SMS}}/L_\mathrm{E}R_{\mathrm{SMS}}^1`$. Stabilization of SMS by rotation (and additionally by internal magnetic field) ensures in principle its gradual contraction up to the gravitational radius (Zel’dovich and Novikov, 1971; Shapiro and Teukolsky, 1983; New and Shapiro, 2001). Thus, the maximum evolution time of SMS is of the order of the Eddington time $`t_\mathrm{E}=0.1M_{\mathrm{SMS}}c^2/L_\mathrm{E}4.5\times 10^7`$ yr. We approximate the distribution of gas in a SMS by polytropic model with an adiabatic index $`\gamma =4/3`$. For this value of adiabatic index the central gas density in SMS is $`\rho _c=k_\mathrm{c}n_{\mathrm{SMS}}m_\mathrm{p}`$ and central sound velocity $`c_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c}}=k_\mathrm{s}v_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$, where $`n_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$ is a SMS mean number density, $`v_{\mathrm{SMS}}=(GM_{\mathrm{SMS}}/2R_{\mathrm{SMS}})^{1/2}`$ is a SMS virial velocity and numerical constants $`k_\mathrm{c}54.2`$ and $`k_\mathrm{s}1.51`$ respectively.

## 3 Neutron star cluster formation

The compact stellar remnants in the form of NSs and stellar mass black holes submerged into the newly formed SMS. This is a specific feature of SMS formed in the evolving stellar cluster. Let SMS contains a small fraction of identical NSs with a total mass $`M_{\mathrm{NS}}=f_{\mathrm{NS}}M_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$, $`f_{\mathrm{NS}}1`$ and a typical mass of individual NS is $`m_{\mathrm{NS}}=1.4\mathrm{M}_{}`$. In numerical estimations we will use $`f_{\mathrm{NS}}=10^2f_2`$ with $`f_21`$. An individual NS with a mass $`m`$ and local velocity $`V`$ is spiraling down the SMS center under influence of the dynamical friction force (Chandrasekhar, 1943; Ostriker, 1999) $`F_{\mathrm{df}}=4\pi I(Gm)^2\rho _{\mathrm{SMS}}/V^2`$, where $`\rho _{\mathrm{SMS}}`$ is a SMS gas density. The dimensionless factor here is $`I1`$ in the case of $`Vc_\mathrm{s}`$, where $`c_\mathrm{s}`$ is a sound velocity in SMS. Deep inside SMS the individual NSs are spiralling down and combine into a fast evolving self-gravitating subsystem (NS cluster). A corresponding time-scale for the NS dynamical friction drag toward the SMS center is $`t_{\mathrm{df}}=V/\dot{V}=mV/F_{\mathrm{df}}`$. At the moment of SMS formation, when $`Vc_\mathrm{s}v_{\mathrm{esc}}`$, a time-scale of NS friction drag is of the same order as the time-scale of SMS formation, $`t_{\mathrm{df}}(v_{\mathrm{esc}})t_{\mathrm{coll}}(v_{\mathrm{esc}})t_\mathrm{r}(v_{\mathrm{esc}})`$. Thus, in general it is possible either (i) a simultaneous formation of a self-gravitating cluster of NSs and the host SMS or (ii) a delayed formation of a self-gravitating cluster of NSs inside the host SMS. The case (i) was considered by Berezinsky and Dokuchaev (2001) and the case (ii) we describe below. In particular, in the case (ii) it must be taken into account a possibility of the SMS contraction prior to the formation of a central NS cluster.

The NS dynamical friction time-scale for a mean NS inside the host SMS is decreasing during contraction of SMS as $`t_{\mathrm{df}}R^{3/2}`$. On the contrary, the SMS evolution time-scale is increasing with SMS contraction as $`t_{\mathrm{SMS}}R^1`$. Thus, the subsystem of NSs begins evolving faster than the host SMS after reaching the stage when $`t_{\mathrm{df}}t_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$. At this stage all NSs sink deep to a central part of SMS and form there a self-gravitating cluster. From relation $`t_{\mathrm{df}}(R)t_{\mathrm{SMS}}(R)`$ we find the corresponding SMS radius at the moment of NS cluster formation inside it:

$$R_{\mathrm{SMS}}\left(\frac{9I^2}{8\pi ^2}\frac{Gm_{\mathrm{NS}}^2M_{\mathrm{SMS}}\sigma _\mathrm{T}^2}{c^2m_\mathrm{p}^2}\right)^{1/5}4.6\times 10^{15}M_8^{1/5}\text{ cm},$$
(2)
where $`M_8=M_{\mathrm{SMS}}/(10^8\mathrm{M}_{})`$. Respectively a mean gas density

$$n_{\mathrm{SMS}}\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{M_{\mathrm{SMS}}}{R_{\mathrm{SMS}}^3m_\mathrm{p}}2.9\times 10^{17}M_8^{2/5}\text{ cm}^3,$$
(3)
a mean column density

$$X_{\mathrm{SMS}}n_{\mathrm{SMS}}m_\mathrm{p}R_{\mathrm{SMS}}2.2\times 10^9M_8^{3/5}\text{ g cm}^2,$$
(4)
a virial velocity $`v_{\mathrm{SMS}}=(GM_{\mathrm{SMS}}/2R_{\mathrm{SMS}})^{1/2}0.04M_8^{2/5}c`$, a SMS evolution time $`t_{\mathrm{SMS}}=t_{\mathrm{SMS}}(R_{\mathrm{SMS}})7.3\times 10^5M_8^{4/5}`$ yr and a surface black-body temperature $`T_{\mathrm{SMS}}3\times 10^4M_8^{3/20}`$ K. Note that the only free parameter in these relations is $`M_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$. A self-gravitating NS cluster with a radius $`R_{\mathrm{NS}}R_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$ is formed when a total mass of NSs inside this radius becomes of order of an ambient gas mass, $`M_{\mathrm{NS}}(4\pi /3)R_{\mathrm{NS}}^3\rho _\mathrm{c}`$, where $`\rho _\mathrm{c}`$ is a central SMS density. From this relation the initial radius of NS cluster is $`R_{\mathrm{NS}}=f_{\mathrm{NS}}^{1/3}k_\mathrm{c}^{1/3}R_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$ and velocity dispersion $`v_{\mathrm{NS}}=f_{\mathrm{NS}}^{1/3}k_\mathrm{c}^{1/3}v_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$, respectively.

## 4 Neutron star cluster evolution

The formed NS cluster evolves much more faster than a host SMS and collapses finally into the MBH. A suitable approximation for the dynamical evolution of NS cluster in our case is the homologous “evaporation” model (e. g. Spitzer, 1987; Saslaw, 1987). This model describes the two-body interactions of stars in the cluster with an assumption that a fast star escapes (evaporates) from the cluster with a zero total energy. Accordingly, a total virial energy of the cluster remains constant $`E=Nmv^2/2=const`$ during evaporation of fast stars. The velocity dispersion in the evolving cluster is growing as $`vN^{1/2}`$ and cluster radius diminishes as $`RN^2`$ with a diminishing of number $`N`$ of remaining stars in the cluster. After reaching $`v0.3c`$, which is onset of the NS cluster global dynamical instability, the remaining NS cluster collapses to the MBH (e. g. Zel’dovich and Poduretz, 1965; Quinlan and Shapiro, 1987)). The rate of NS evaporation from the cluster is

$$\dot{N}_{\mathrm{ev}}\alpha Nt_\mathrm{r}^1,$$
(5)
where a relaxation time $`t_\mathrm{r}`$ is given by (1) and constant $`\alpha 10^310^2`$ according to the numerical calculations in the Fokker-Plank approximation (Spitzer, 1987; Saslaw, 1987; Cohn, 1980). Integration of (5) together with the relation $`E=const`$ results in the nondissipative evolution due to evaporation of fast stars:

$$N(t)=N_{\mathrm{NS}}\left(1\frac{t}{t_{\mathrm{ev}}}\right)^{2/7},$$
(6)
where the cluster evolution time $`t_{\mathrm{ev}}=a_{\mathrm{ev}}t_\mathrm{r}`$, numerical constant $`a_{\mathrm{ev}}=(2/7)\alpha ^1`$ and $`t_\mathrm{r}`$ is the relaxation time at the moment of NS cluster formation $`t=0`$. In numerical estimations we put $`a_{\mathrm{ev}}=10^2a_2`$ with $`a_21`$.

The random collisions of NSs and their evaporation from the cluster occur at the same time. A rate of NS collisions in the cluster with the gravitational radiation losses taken into account (Quinlan and Shapiro, 1987; Dokuchaev et al., 1998) is

$`\dot{N}_{\mathrm{cap}}36\sqrt{2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{c}}\right)^{31/7}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{r_\mathrm{g}}},`$ (7)
where $`r_\mathrm{g}=2Gm_{\mathrm{NS}}/c^2`$ is a gravitational radius of NS. According to (6) the collision rate (7) is gradually growing due to the evaporative dynamical evolution of cluster as $`\dot{N}_{\mathrm{cap}}v^{45/7}`$. The dissipative process of collisions is negligible for the dynamical evolution of a cluster in comparison with the nondissipative evaporation until $`\dot{N}_{\mathrm{cap}}<\dot{N}_{\mathrm{ev}}`$. This inequality is equivalent to the condition $`v<v_{\mathrm{cap}}`$, where

$$v_{\mathrm{cap}}=\left(\frac{4}{7\sqrt{3}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a_{\mathrm{ev}}}\right)^{7/10}c8.7\times 10^2a_2^{7/10}c.$$
(8)
At $`v>v_{\mathrm{cap}}`$ the NS collisions becomes a major evolution process in cluster. The contraction of cluster is accelerated and it finally collapses to MBH.

## 5 Fireballs and rarefied cavity inside the SMS

We assume that each NS collision is accompanied by the generation of relativistic fireball with a total energy $`E_0=10^{52}E_{52}`$ erg, where $`E_{52}1`$. The physics of fireballs is extensively elaborated in the recent years for the gamma-ray burst (GRB) models (for review see e. g. Piran, 2000, and references therein).

Although in our case at least the first fireball is born in SMS with large density $`n_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$ given by Eq. (3), the dynamics of the fireballs remains the same as in the standard theory. Consider the first fireball assuming it to be spherically symmetric, which in fact is not a necessary assumption.

The tremendous energy release $`E_010^{52}`$ erg occurs within the small volume with radius $`R_i10^7`$ cm and the radiation pressure $`p_iE_0/R_i^3`$ by many orders of magnitude exceeds the external pressure $`pn_{SMS}kT`$. The pressure in the fireball, which consists of relativistic $`\gamma e^+e^{}`$ gas with small admixture of the baryons, accelerates fireball to large Lorentz-factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$. The relativistic shock, with Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ propagates ahead of the fireball pushing the SMS gas. The shock becomes non-relativistic at the Sedov length

$$l_s=(3E_0/4\pi n_{\mathrm{SMS}}m_Hc^2)^{1/3}=1.7\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}.$$
(9)
This value gives an order of magnitude estimate for cavity radius (see below).

The second fireball propagates in the rarefied cavity produced by the first fireball, and it overtakes the first one at about Sedov length, when the first shock is non-relativistic. The shocks from the first and successive fireballs merge into one, hence the following scenario is plausible.

The numerous fireballs after successive NS collisions in a dense cluster provide the central energy source in our model. The power of this source is not limited by the Eddington luminosity in contrast to the accretion sources. The radius of NS cluster is very small in comparison with the host SMS radius $`R_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$. The shocks produced by numerous fireballs dig out a rarefied cavity with a small radius in comparison with $`R_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$. Consider the merging shock in more details.

The early nonstationary stage of shock expansion can be described by the self-similar spherical shock solution for a central source with energy varying in time as $`E=At^k`$ with $`A=const`$ and $`k=const`$ (Ostriker & McKee, 1995; Dokuchaev, 2002). The particular case of $`k=0`$ corresponds to the Sedov *instant shock* solution (see e. g. Landau and Lifshitz, 1959). Meanwhile the nonstationary shock from multiple fireballs corresponds to a permanent energy injection into the shock, or *injection shock* with a central source of constant luminosity, $`k=1`$, $`L=A`$, $`E=Lt`$. The radius of a self-similar expanding shock grows with time as

$$R=R(t)=\beta \left(\frac{A}{\rho _\mathrm{c}}\right)^{1/5}t^{(2+k)/5},$$
(10)
where numerical constant $`\beta =\beta (\gamma ,k)`$ depends on the gas adiabatic index $`\gamma `$ and $`k`$, e. g. $`\beta (4/3,1)=0.793`$ (Dokuchaev, 2002). The velocity of shock expansion is

$$u=\frac{dR}{dt}=\frac{(2+k)R}{5t}.$$
(11)
The maximum radius of the expanding strong shock $`R_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ is obtained from the equality $`u(R_{\mathrm{sh}})=c_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c}}`$ by using (10) and (11):

$$R_{\mathrm{sh}}=\left[\left(\frac{2+k}{5c_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c}}}\right)^{2+k}\beta ^5\frac{A}{\rho _\mathrm{c}}\right]^{1/(3k)}.$$
(12)
Respectively the maximum time of a strong shock expansion is $`t_{\mathrm{sh}}=[(2+k)/5](R_{\mathrm{sh}}/c_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c}})`$. The expansion law for a $`k=1`$ injection shock corresponds to *constant energy flux* (or constant source luminosity) carried by the swept-out gas. This constant luminosity shock solution is applicable only to the early nonstationary stage of cavity formation at $`t<t_{\mathrm{sh}}`$.

At the late stationary stage at $`tt_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ the boundary of the cavity is supported in a dynamic equilibrium by the relativistic wind from successive fireballs. The radius of a stationary cavity $`R_{\mathrm{cav}}`$ is determined from the energy flux balance on its boundary. The central source power or luminosity is $`L=\dot{N}_{\mathrm{cap}}E_0`$, where $`\dot{N}_{\mathrm{cap}}`$ is from (7). After formation of cavity the energy generated in the central source is carried out by a relativistic wind. Just outside $`R_{\mathrm{cav}}`$ the energy flux is carried by a hydrodynamic flow $`L=4\pi R_{\mathrm{cav}}^2\rho v(w+v^2/2)`$ with a gas velocity $`vc_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c}}`$, where $`c_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c}}`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{c}`$ are respectively a sound velocity and gas density in the central part of SMS. The gas produces some work under expansion, so the energy flux $`L`$ contains an enthalpy density $`w=\epsilon +p/\rho =c_\mathrm{s}^2/(\gamma 1)`$, where $`\epsilon =c_\mathrm{s}^2/[\gamma (\gamma 1)]`$, $`p`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\gamma `$ are respectively a gas internal energy density, pressure, density and adiabatic index. From the energy flux balance relation we determine a stationary cavity radius for $`\gamma =4/3`$

$$R_{\mathrm{cav}}=\left(\frac{\dot{N}_{\mathrm{cap}}E_0}{14\pi \rho _\mathrm{c}c_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c}}^3}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(13)
For the stationary cavity existence the time interval between successive fireballs $`t_{\mathrm{cap}}=\dot{N}_{\mathrm{cap}}^1`$ must be less than that for cavity shrinking (or spreading) $`t_{\mathrm{cav}}=R_{\mathrm{cav}}/c_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c}}`$. This requirement, $`t_{\mathrm{cap}}<t_{\mathrm{cav}}`$, with a help of (7) and (13) can be written as condition $`v>v_{\mathrm{cav}}`$, where

$$v_{\mathrm{cav}}7.3\times 10^2f_2^{7/27}E_{52}^{7/135}M_8^{91/225}c,$$
(14)
with numerical values $`v_{\mathrm{cav}}4.3v_{\mathrm{NS}}`$. The corresponding minimal radius of a stationary cavity $`R_{\mathrm{min}}=R_{\mathrm{cav}}(v_{\mathrm{cav}})`$ is

$$R_{\mathrm{min}}\left(\frac{E_0}{4\pi \rho _\mathrm{c}c_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c}}^2}\right)^{1/3}2.1\times 10^{12}E_{52}^{1/3}M_8^{2/5}\text{ cm}.$$
(15)
It follows from (15) that $`R_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is independent of $`f_{\mathrm{NS}}`$. At the moment of a stationary cavity formation inside SMS, $`v=v_{\mathrm{cav}}`$, we have respectively a radius of the NS cluster $`R(v_{\mathrm{cav}})7.5\times 10^{11}f_2^{17/27}E_{52}^{28/135}M_8^{41/225}`$ cm, a number of NSs in the cluster at the moment of cavity formation $`N(v_{\mathrm{cav}})3.8\times 10^4f_2^{31/27}E_{52}^{14/135}M_8^{223/225}`$, a NS cluster evolution time $`t_{\mathrm{ev}}(v_{\mathrm{cav}})0.3a_2f_2^{41/27}E_{52}^{49/135}M_8^{173/225}`$ yr and central source luminosity inside a SMS $`L(v_{\mathrm{cav}})8.6\times 10^{48}E_{52}^{2/3}M_8^{4/5}`$ erg/s. After the formation of a stationary cavity inside the SMS we have a hierarchy of radii, $`R(v_{\mathrm{cav}})<R_{\mathrm{min}}R_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$, which justifies the using of central values for a gas density $`\rho _\mathrm{c}`$ and sound velocity $`v_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c}}`$.

The central source power and cavity radius are gradually growing due to the evolutionary grows of NS collision rate. The rate of NS collisions and the power of the central source reach the maximum value at $`vv_{\mathrm{cap}}`$ from (8). The corresponding maximum central source power $`L_{\mathrm{max}}=\dot{N}_{\mathrm{cap}}(v_{\mathrm{cap}})E_0`$ is

$$L_{\mathrm{max}}2.8\times 10^{49}a_2^{9/2}f_2^{5/3}E_{52}M_8^{9/5}\text{ erg s}^1.$$
(16)
By substituting this luminosity in (13) we find that the maximal cavity radius $`R_{\mathrm{max}}=R_{\mathrm{cav}}(v_{\mathrm{cap}})`$ is

$$R_{\mathrm{max}}3.8\times 10^{12}a_2^{9/4}f_2^{5/6}E_{52}^{1/2}M_8^{17/10}\text{ cm}.$$
(17)
Respectively at $`v=v_{\mathrm{cap}}`$ the NS cluster radius $`R(v_{\mathrm{cap}})3.6\times 10^{11}a_2^{14/5}f_2^{5/3}M_8^{9/5}`$ cm, number of NS in the cluster $`N(v_{\mathrm{cap}})2.7\times 10^4a_2^{7/5}f_2^{5/3}M_8^{9/5}`$ and NS cluster evolution time $`t_{\mathrm{ev}}(v_{\mathrm{cap}})31.3a_2^{59/10}f_2^{10/3}M_8^{18/5}`$ days.

Collisions of NSs during a cluster lifetime $`t_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ at $`v=v_{\mathrm{cap}}`$ supply the total energy $`_{\mathrm{max}}L_{\mathrm{max}}t_{\mathrm{ev}}7.6\times 10^{55}a_2^{7/5}f_2^{5/3}E_0M_8^{9/5}`$ erg into the cavity. This energy is far less than a SMS binding energy $`E_{\mathrm{SMS}}GM_{\mathrm{SMS}}^2/2R_{\mathrm{SMS}}2.9\times 10^{59}M_8^{9/5}`$ erg, and so the shocks after numerous fireballs do not influence the SMS internal structure.

## 6 Production and detection of high-energy neutrinos

We shall study here the acceleration of protons by relativistic fireballs produced by NS collisions and the high-energy neutrino radiation produced in $`p\gamma `$ and $`pp`$ collisions. We assume a standard GRB fireball which propagates at the baryon-dominated stage with the Lorentz-factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_21`$ and carries a baryonic mass $`M_0=E_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }c^25.6\times 10^5E_{52}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^1\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

The acceleration occurs due to internal shocks inside the fireball, Waxman (1995), and due to external shocks, Vietri (1995). We shall consider first the internal shock acceleration and high-energy neutrino production following Waxman (1995, 2001). This scenario we consider as the basic one for a prediction of neutrino flux in our model.

The standard explanation of the observed GRBs, Piran (2000), is given under an assumption that fireball consists of the mildly relativistic sub-shells. The inner sub-shells are moving faster than the outer ones, and their collisions produce mildly relativistic shocks. The protons are accelerated by these shocks with the standard spectrum $`E^2`$ and with a maximum acceleration energy $`E_{\mathrm{max}}1\times 10^{21}`$ eV, Waxman (1995). The specific feature of our case is a relatively short time of fireball existence in the cavity, $`tR_{\mathrm{cav}}/c`$. This time, however, is long enough for acceleration of protons up to the maximum energy $`E_{\mathrm{max}}10^{21}`$ eV. In the rest-frame $`𝒦^{}`$ the acceleration time is $`t_a^{}r_L^{}/c`$, where $`r_L^{}`$ is the Larmor radius. Following to Piran (2000), an equipartition magnetic field $`B_{\mathrm{eq}}^{}`$ in the relativistic wind can be estimated as

$$\frac{B_{\mathrm{eq}}^2}{8\pi }\xi _B\omega _\gamma ^{}2\xi _B\frac{L_\gamma }{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2r^2c},$$
(18)
where unprimed symbols correspond to quantities in the laboratory frame, $`\omega _\gamma ^{}`$ is photon energy density, $`\xi _B1`$ is an equipartition parameter and $`L`$ is a fireball luminosity. Using $`L_\gamma 10^{52}`$ erg/s and $`rR_{\mathrm{cav}}`$ we obtain the acceleration time as $`t_a50`$ s for particles with $`E_{\mathrm{max}}10^{21}`$ eV. With an equipartition magnetic field (18) the maximum acceleration energy is $`EeB_{\mathrm{eq}}^{}R_{\mathrm{cav}}10^{21}`$ eV in agreement with the Waxman (1995) model.

High-energy neutrinos are produced in $`p\gamma `$ collisions inside the fireball by the Waxman and Bahcall (1997) mechanism. Due to threshold of pion production in $`p\gamma `$ collisions the neutrino flux has a low-energy suppression. The low-energy part of neutrino spectrum is produced in $`pp`$ collisions of accelerated protons with a gas inside the cavity and in the SMS interiors. Reflecting from the fireball, the cavity gas penetrates into the fireball at the Larmor radius distance $`dr_L`$ for a particle with energy $`E^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }m_p`$. In this region accelerated protons interact with an accumulated gas, producing pions and neutrinos. However, below we shall consider more efficient mechanisms for production of low-energy neutrinos.

We assume, as it is usually used in the GRB calculations, the equipartition of total energy distribution in the form of UHE protons $`W_p`$, neutrinos $`W_\nu `$, GRB photons $`W_{\mathrm{GRB}}`$ and the energy transferred to the shock in SMS. Then for neutrino luminosity during the maximum activity of the considered central source we have $`L_\nu (1/4)L_{\mathrm{max}}`$ with $`L_{\mathrm{max}}`$ given by (16). Though neutrino spectrum is presented by two components, for simplicity of further estimates we assume the universal spectrum $`1/E^2`$. Normalizing this spectrum to $`L_\nu `$, we obtain for the neutrino generation rate

$$Q_\nu =\frac{1}{4}\frac{L_{\mathrm{max}}}{E^2\mathrm{ln}(E_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}/E_{\nu ,\mathrm{min}})}.$$
(19)
Taking into account the neutrino oscillation, one obtains $`\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ neutrino flux at a distance $`r`$ from the source $`F_{\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu }_\mu }(E)=(1/3)Q_\nu (E)/4\pi r^2`$.

We shall discuss here only the detection of TeV neutrinos from the considered hidden source by a future 1 km<sup>2</sup> ice or underwater detector. The fluxes of UHE neutrinos up $`10^{19}`$ eV are most probably also detectable, but they need the knowledge of the details of neutrino detection. This task is beyond the scope of this paper.

Crossing the Earth, neutrinos with energies $`E>0.11`$ TeV produce deep underground an equilibrium flux of HE muons, which can be calculated (Berezinsky, 1990) as

$$F_\mu (>E)=\frac{\sigma _0N_A}{b_\mu }Y_\mu (E_\mu )\frac{L_{\mathrm{max}}}{12\zeta E_\mu }\frac{1}{4\pi r^2},$$
(20)
where $`\sigma _0=1\times 10^{34}`$ cm<sup>2</sup> is the normalization cross-section, $`N_A=6\times 10^{23}`$ is the Avogadro number, $`b_\mu =4\times 10^6`$ cm<sup>2</sup>/g is the rate of muon energy losses, $`\zeta =\mathrm{ln}E_{\mathrm{max}}/E_{\mathrm{min}}`$, and $`Y_\mu (E)`$ is the integral muon moment of $`\nu _\mu N`$ interaction (Berezinsky et al., 1990; Berezinsky, 1990). The most effective energy of muon detection is $`E_\mu 0.11`$ TeV, because these muons cross the large part of 1 km<sup>3</sup> detector, and their directions can be reliably measured. The number of muons $`N(\nu _\mu )=F_\mu St_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ with $`E_\mu 1`$ TeV detected during the burst duration $`t_{\mathrm{ev}}=31.3`$ days by the underwater detector with an effective area $`S`$ at distance $`r`$ from the source is given by

$$N(\nu _\mu )56\frac{L_{\mathrm{max}}}{2.8\times 10^{49}\text{ erg s}^1}\frac{S}{1\text{ km}^2}(\frac{r}{10^3\text{ Mpc}})^2.$$
(21)
The detected muons with $`E_\mu 1`$ TeV show the direction to the source with an accuracy $`2^{}3^{}`$.

The other acceleration mechanism due to the external ultra-relativistic shocks, Vietri (1995), provides mostly $`pp`$ neutrino flux with energies below 1 TeV. Consider the shock which is produced when a fireball hits the inner surface of SMS. The shock propagates in ultra-relativistic regime at distance of order of the Sedov length, before it overtakes the slow main shock and merges with it. The gas density in this region rises from that of the cavity $`n_c4\times 10^{11}`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> to maximum density $`n_{\mathrm{max}}54.2n_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$, with $`n_{\mathrm{SMS}}3\times 10^{17}`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> given by (3). The high-energy proton initiates a nuclear cascade due to pion production. The energy dissipates from the cascade through cascade-pion decays. The decays of neutral pions initiate the electro-magnetic cascade and the released energy contributes to the shock and heating of SMS. The column density of SMS, $`X_{\mathrm{SMS}}2.3\times 10^9M_8^{3/5}`$ g cm<sup>-2</sup>, is large enough to absorb all produced particles except the secondary neutrinos. Neutrinos are produced in decays of the charged pions. The critical Lorentz factor of the decaying charged pion is determined by condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{c}(\sigma _{\pi N}\overline{n}\tau _\pi c)^15\times 10^4`$, where $`\sigma _{\pi N}25`$ mb is $`\pi N`$ cross-section and $`\tau _\pi =2.6\times 10^8`$ s is the charged pion lifetime, and for the mean gas density we used $`\overline{n}1\times 10^{18}`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>, larger than $`n_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$ and smaller than $`n_{\mathrm{max}}`$. As a result we obtain for the maximum energy of the secondary neutrinos $`E_{\nu ,\mathrm{max}}1`$ TeV.

Acceleration by ultra-relativistic shock at the inner boundary of SMS proceeds in a specific way because of the large density of matter there and large magnetic field. Consider one of the fireballs hitting the inner boundary of SMS. Propagating through the dense gas the shock, running ahead of the fireball, accelerates the protons. A proton from the SSM interior (upstream region), which makes its first downstream - upstream - downstream (d-u-d) cycle, i.e. crossing the shock and scattering upstream back to downstream, increases its energy by a factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}^2`$. In the consequent d-u-d cycles the energy gain is only about 2, Gallant and Achterberg (1999), (see also Lemoine and Revenu (2005) for a recent work). The maximum acceleration energy is determined by the number of completed d-u-d cycles and is given by $`t_at_{\mathrm{int}}`$ condition, where $`t_a`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{int}}`$ are acceleration and interaction time, respectively. They are given by $`t_aE/ecB\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}`$, Gallant and Achterberg (1999), and $`t_{\mathrm{int}}1/c\sigma _{pp}n_{\mathrm{SMS}}`$. Acceleration time is short because of very large magnetic field accumulated at the inner boundary of the shock. The magnetic field in a fireball, $`B_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, given by Eq. (18) reaches $`4\times 10^6`$ G, when it hits the SMS. The each successive fireball adds the magnetic flux, and though not being summed up coherently, magnetic field increases. For $`B4\times 10^6`$ G the maximum energy $`E_{\mathrm{max}}1\times 10^{17}`$ eV. Fortunately, this energy, being unreliably estimated, is not important for our calculations of neutrino flux, because all high-energy protons loose energy by producing nuclear-electromagnetic cascade.

The proton with an energy $`E_p`$ transfers fraction of energy $`f(E_p)`$ to neutrinos through decays of cascading charged pions, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }E_\nu =f(E_p)E_p`$. The fraction f=1/2 at $`E_p10^{13}`$ eV and correspondingly $`f0.05`$ at $`E_p10^{17}`$ eV, because in the cascading process all neutral pions decay. For the total energies of protons and neutrinos $`W_\nu =\overline{f}W_p`$, where $`\overline{f}`$ is the value averaged over spectrum of accelerated protons. We will assume $`\overline{f}0.1`$. It is easy to see that neutrino signal in the detector is determined by $`W_\nu `$. It occurs because the cross-section $`\nu N`$ at the energies of interest is $`\sigma (E)=\sigma _0E`$, with $`\sigma _0=0.8\times 10^{38}`$ cm<sup>2</sup>/GeV. The total number of neutrino events in 1 km<sup>3</sup> detector is given by

$$N_{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{N_N\sigma _0}{4\pi r^2}N_\nu (E)E𝑑E=\frac{N_N\sigma _0W_\nu }{4\pi r^2},$$
(22)
where the number of target nucleons is $`N_N=6\times 10^{38}`$ and $`W_\nu 0.1W_p`$. For $`r=1`$ Gpc and $`W_p=(1/4)W_{\mathrm{tot}}=1.9\times 10^{55}`$ erg, it results in $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}=47`$ of low-energy ($`E_\nu <1`$ TeV) neutrino events in 1 km<sup>3</sup> detector. The neutrinos produced in the SMS by high-energy protons, accelerated in the inner shocks, double this number of neutrino events.

On may wonder about the influence of adiabatic energy losses of accelerated protons on neutrino fluxes, estimated above. The role of adiabatic energy losses has been critically discussed by Rachen and Meszaros (1998) (see also reply by Waxman (2004). For the calculations above, the adiabatic energy losses are irrelevant, because in all cases neutrinos are produced in situ with the acceleration of particles.

How many these hidden sources are expected? A further (after neutrino burst) evolution of SMS with a mass $`M10^8M_{}`$ inevitably results in formation of a massive black hole and the AGN activity. Considering the described hidden source as a “pre-AGN” stage one can estimate an expected number of hidden sources inside the cosmological horizon. Since a hidden source and AGN are considered as the different stages of the same evolving galactic nucleus, the probability to have a hidden source in the set of AGN is given by the ratio of durations of the corresponding evolution phases, $`t_{\mathrm{ev}}/t_{\mathrm{AGN}}`$, where $`t_{\mathrm{AGN}}`$ is a duration of AGN phase. Then the number of hidden sources within the horizon is given by

$$N_{\mathrm{HS}}\frac{4}{3}\pi (3ct_0)^3n_{\mathrm{AGN}}t_\mathrm{s}/t_{\mathrm{AGN}},$$
(23)
where $`(4\pi /3)(3ct_0)^3`$ is the cosmological volume inside the horizon $`ct_0`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{AGN}}`$ is the number density of AGN. The estimates for $`n_{\mathrm{AGN}}`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{AGN}}`$ taken for different populations of AGN results in $`N_{\mathrm{HS}}110`$.

Can the hidden sources be observed in electromagnetic radiations? X-ray and gamma-ray radiations are fully absorbed due to tremendous thickness of SMS, $`X_{\mathrm{SMS}}2\times 10^9`$ gcm<sup>-2</sup>. However the thermaized radiation can propagate diffusively and reach the the outer surface of SMS. This process has been considered in Berezinsky and Dokuchaev (2001) for the case of a massive shell. In case of SMS, the diffusion is much slower and the thermalized radiation reach the outer surface much later, and thus will be emitted with a lower luminosity. The diffusion coefficient $`Dcl_\mathrm{d}`$, where a diffusion length is $`l_\mathrm{d}=1/(\sigma _\mathrm{T}n_{\mathrm{SMS}})`$, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thompson cross-section. A mean time of the radiation diffusion through SMS is very long, $`t_dR_{\mathrm{SMS}}^2/D4\times 10^6M_8^{4/5}`$ yrs, in comparison with a lifetime of the NS cluster inside the SMS. Since the dispersion of the diffusion time distribution $`\sigma t_d`$, the surface luminosity of the central source is $`L_{\mathrm{bb}}E_{\mathrm{tot}}/\sigma L_{\mathrm{max}}t_{\mathrm{ev}}/t_d5\times 10^{41}`$ erg/s and hence is negligible in comparison with the Eddington luminosity of the host SMS.

## 7 Conclusions

In this paper we studied the natural scenario for massive black hole formation in the process of dynamical evolution of a compact stellar cluster. Our contribution to this scenario is based on the observation that an intermediate SMS can be formed with a subsystem of neutron stars submerged in it. The evolution of neutron star cluster results in its contraction and merging of neutron stars at their collisions. Both these processes have been studied before and rather well known. The merging of neutron stars can produce quasi-spherical fireballs, where protons are accelerated to high energies, and neutrinos are produced.

Described in a more detailed way our scenario looks as follows. The dynamical evolution of a central stellar cluster in the galactic nucleus results in the collision destruction of normal stars and formation of massive gas envelope (Berezinsky and Dokuchaev, 2001) or SMS (this paper). The neutron stars and stellar mass black holes survive through this stage and form self-gravitating subsystem deep inside the SMS. The lifetime of this compact neutron star cluster is very short. The multiple fireballs after neutron star collisions in this cluster dig out a rarefied cavity inside the SMS. The protons are accelerated in the fireballs and in the cavity and produce neutrinos in collisions with an ambient photons and gas. The active phase of high luminosity of the central source has a duration $`t0.11`$ yr. During the neutrino burst the energy of the same order as a total neutrino energy $`_\nu `$ is released also in the form of high-energy electrons and photons. All high-energy particles, except neutrinos, are completely absorbed in the SMS, which column density can reach $`X10^9`$ g/cm<sup>2</sup>. Thus the considered object is a very powerful hidden neutrino source. It is demonstrated that that shocks after numerous fireballs are absorbed inside the SMS and cannot destroy it. The system remains gravitationally bound and gravitational collapse of the compact neutron star cluster produces a seed massive black hole inside a host SMS. Long after the neutrino burst, the described hidden neutrino source is to be seen as a bright AGN. As precursors of most powerful AGN, these hidden sources are expected to be at the same redshifts as AGNs. The number of the hidden neutrino sources can be estimated as $`110`$ in the visible universe.

The hidden neutrino source is detectable by future 1 km<sup>3</sup> detector with a number of TeV muons up to $`50100`$ per source. The predicted number of low-energy ($`E_\nu <1`$ TeV) neutrino interactions is $`100`$. The highest energy neutrinos with $`E>10^{15}`$ eV are probably also detectable.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge the useful discussions with Bohdan Hnatyk and Yury Eroshenko. We are grateful to anonymous referee for valuable comments. This work was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research grants 04-02-16757 and 06-02-16342, and the Russian Ministry of Science grant 1782.2003.2.


format: text

text:
# Molecular Gas in Candidate Double Barred Galaxies III. A Lack of Molecular Gas?

## 1 Introduction

Double-barred galaxies have been proposed as a means of transporting molecular gas interior to inner Lindblad resonances (ILRs) where it may fuel starbursts or other forms of nuclear activity (Shlosman, Frank, & Begelman, 1989). Thus far, double-barred galaxies have been identified predominantly through the analysis of near infrared (NIR) images (e.g. Mulchaey, Regan, & Kundu, 1997) and manifest themselves as variations in the position angles and ellipticity with galactic radius. A variety of models have been proposed to explain the nature of these nuclear bars, with origins varying from kinematically distinct nuclear bars to nuclear agglomerations that co-rotate at the same speed as the large scale bar (Friedli & Martinet, 1993; Shaw et al., 1993). To allow long-lived nuclear bars, these models usually require substantial amounts of dissipative gas to prevent the nuclear stellar populations from suffering rapid kinematic heating and subsequent bar destruction.

There is another class of models that attempt to explain nuclear bars using purely stellar orbits. It is known that there are different classes of orbits in a barred potential. The two important ones are the $`x_1`$ family that runs parallel to the bar major axis, and the $`x_2`$ family that runs perpendicular to it (e.g., Athanassoula, 1992). It was thought that the $`x_2`$ orbits of the large scale bar near the nucleus could form the $`x_1`$ orbits of the smaller nuclear bar and the corotation radius of the nuclear bar could correspond to the ILR of the large scale bar. In this picture, the nuclear bar must always be aligned perpendicular to the main bar. Friedli & Martinet (1993) rule out this model by studying a large sample of double-barred galaxies, since they found that not all the observed offset angles between the nuclear bar and the main bar can be explained by inclination effects. Recently, Maciejewski & Sparke (2000) find that there exist orbits in which particles in a double-barred potential (where the inner bar rotates faster than the large scale bar) remain on closed orbits and may form the building blocks of long-lived double-barred galaxies without the need for a gaseous component.

High resolution observations of the dynamics of these galaxies will allow us to test these competing models and learn the true nature of nuclear bars. Of the currently known double-barred galaxies, only a few have been studied in detail using high resolution observations of the molecular gas (e.g. Petitpas & Wilson, 2002; Jogee, Kenney, & Smith, 1999). In Petitpas & Wilson (2002; hereafter Paper I) we used high resolution CO observations to compare the molecular gas distributions of two candidate double-barred galaxies to the models of Friedli & Martinet (1993) and Shaw et al. (1993). We found that in NGC 2273 the molecular gas emission takes the appearance of a bar-like feature that is aligned with the NIR isophote twists. In NGC 5728, we observed a rather disorderly molecular gas morphology that did not align with the NIR morphology, nor did it align with any features seen at other wavelengths in the nuclei of this galaxy.

The similarity in the NIR images of these galaxies suggests that the galactic potentials may be similar. The variety of molecular gas morphologies suggests that the molecular gas may have different properties in each galaxy allowing it to respond differently to these similar potentials. In Petitpas & Wilson (2003; hereafter Paper II) we performed a multi-transition CO survey of the nuclei of double barred galaxies for which high resolution CO maps exist. We found that the molecular gas was cooler (and less dense) in galaxies with more centrally concentrated gas distributions and warmer and denser in galaxies with CO emission scattered about the nucleus. The star formation rates in the galaxies with non-centrally concentrated gas distributions tended to be higher than in the galaxies with strong central concentrations. This result suggests that either the gas distribution is influencing the star formation activity, or that the star formation may be affecting the gas properties.

The seven galaxies discussed in Papers I and II represent a small fraction of the total number of galaxies known to have nuclear bars (as indicated by NIR isophote twists). In order to strengthen the hypotheses of those papers, we need to study a larger sample of galaxies. Of the 93 galaxies studied to date (Jarvis et al., 1988; Shaw et al., 1993; Wozniak et al., 1995; Elmegreen et al., 1996; Mulchaey, Regan, & Kundu, 1997) only 23 contain isophote twists with size scales and position angle offsets large enough to be resolved by the Caltech Millimeter and BIMA Arrays. Since the larger NIR surveys mentioned above were performed using southern observatories, most of the candidates are located in the southern hemisphere. Of those 23 galaxies with resolvable bars, only 13 are at a declination $`>`$30. Six of these (NGC 470, NGC 2273, NGC 4736, NGC 5850, NGC 5728, and NGC 6951111More recent studies suggest that NGC 6951 does not currently contain a nuclear bar, but may have had one in the past (Pérez et al., 2000). See §3 for more details.) have high resolution CO maps published (Paper I; Jogee, 1998; Wong & Blitz, 2000; Leon, Combes, & Friedli, 2000; Kohno, Kawabe, & Vila-Vilaró, 1999). Only NGC 3945 was not included in our sample due to time and source availability constraints.

We have performed a CO survey of the nuclei of 10 galaxies known to have strong NIR isophote twists in an attempt to find CO-bright double barred galaxies that would make good candidates for high resolution mapping. Five of these galaxies (NGC 2273, NGC 3081, NGC 4736, NGC 5728, and NGC 6951) are discussed in detail in Papers I and II. In §2 we discuss the observations and data reduction techniques. In §3 we discuss our detections (and non-detections) in more detail, and compare our observations to previous studies of these galaxies. We also determine the molecular gas masses, and discuss the implications of these masses to the double barred galaxy models. This work is summarized in §4.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

### 2.1 NRAO Spectra

The nuclei of nine double barred galaxies were observed in 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1 using the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)222The National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. 12-m Telescope. Observations were taken in remote observing mode over a 14 hour period on 15 February, 2000. The half-power beam width of the NRAO 12-m was 29″ at 230 GHz (12CO $`J`$=2$``$1). All observations were taken in 2IF mode with the Millimeter AutoCorrelator (MAC). The pointing was found to be accurate to 6″ for the first half of the evening when we observed our galaxies with NGC $`<`$ 4736. This is poorer than the normal value for the NRAO 12-m, likely due to the high winds. In the second half of the evening the winds diminished, and the pointing improved to the more normal value of 5″ for observations of galaxies with NGC $``$ 4736. The calibration was also monitored by observing spectral line calibrators and planets and the spectral line calibrators agreed with the published values. Thus, we adopt the nominal main beam efficiency from the NRAO Users Guide of 0.29 at 230 GHz.

### 2.2 JCMT Spectra

Previous CO studies of double barred galaxies show CO $`J`$=3$``$2/$`J`$=2$``$1 line ratios $`1`$ (Paper II) so for galaxies that were not detected with the NRAO Telescope, we obtained higher resolution 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1 and 12CO $`J`$=3$``$2 spectra using the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT)333The JCMT is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre in Hilo, Hawaii on behalf of the parent organizations Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council in the United Kingdom, the National Research Council of Canada and The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.. These observations were taken over the period of 1999 - 2000, mostly as part of a bad weather backup project. The half-power beam width of the JCMT is 21″ at 230 GHz (12CO $`J`$=2$``$1) and 14″ at 345 GHz (12CO $`J`$=3$``$2). All observations were obtained using the Digital Autocorrelation Spectrometer. The calibration was monitored by frequently observing spectral line calibrators. The spectral line calibrators showed very little scatter from the published values with individual measurements differing by typically $`<15`$% from standard spectra. Thus, we adopt the nominal main beam efficiencies from the JCMT Users Guide of 0.69 at 230/220 GHz and 0.63 at 345 GHz. A detailed observing summary for the JCMT and NRAO observations is given in Table 2.

### 2.3 Reduction

Similar data sets were averaged together using the software package SPECX for the JCMT data and the Bell Labs data reduction package COMB for the NRAO data. The data were binned to 10 km s-1 resolution (7.7 and 11.5 MHz at 230 and 345 GHz, respectively) and zeroth or first order baselines were removed. The emitting regions we detected were quite wide ($`>`$ 300 km s-1) but the spectrometer bandwidth was 800, 800, and 1200 km s-1 for the NRAO and JCMT $`J`$=3$``$2 and $`J`$=2$``$1data, respectively, which allowed for accurate baseline determination. For the galaxies where we have no detections, the baseline levels were set using the region of the spectrometer outside a 400 km s-1 range centered on the rest velocity of the galaxies (i.e. $`V_{lsr}\pm 200`$ km s-1) in order to maximize our chances of detecting any weak signal. The NRAO spectra for each galaxy are shown in Figure Molecular Gas in Candidate Double Barred Galaxies III. A Lack of Molecular Gas? and the JCMT spectra are shown in Figure Molecular Gas in Candidate Double Barred Galaxies III. A Lack of Molecular Gas?. In the cases where the NRAO spectra show no convincing detections, we have included when available the 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1 spectra taken at the JCMT and published in Paper II (Figure Molecular Gas in Candidate Double Barred Galaxies III. A Lack of Molecular Gas?). The spectral line intensities are summarized in Table 3.

Using the $`T_\mathrm{R}^{}`$ temperature scale would ensure that our observed line strengths are as close to the true radiation temperatures as possible (Kutner & Ulich, 1981). However, conversion to $`T_\mathrm{R}^{}`$ from $`T_\mathrm{A}^{}`$ requires knowledge of the forward scattering and spillover ($`\eta _{\mathrm{FSS}}`$), which is difficult to measure and was not attempted during the JCMT observing runs. On the other hand, we do have good values for the main beam efficiencies and so an accurate conversion to main beam temperature ($`T_{\mathrm{MB}}`$= $`T_\mathrm{A}^{}`$/$`\eta _{\mathrm{MB}}`$) is possible. Therefore, we will display our spectra using the main beam temperature scale. We report our fluxes in Table 3.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 Individual Galaxies

NGC 2273: The NRAO 12-m detection of this galaxy is not strong. Given the velocity width of the emission and the fact that all the emission is located in the central few arcseconds (Petitpas & Wilson, 2002) the large beam of the 12-m dilutes the emission substantially.

We have JCMT CO $`J`$=2$``$1 and $`J`$=3$``$2 spectra with strong detections (Figure Molecular Gas in Candidate Double Barred Galaxies III. A Lack of Molecular Gas? Paper II) so despite the weak emission in the NRAO spectrum for this region we expect to see emission over the velocity range from 1600 to 2000 km s-1. For completeness we include the 12CO $`J`$=3$``$2 spectrum of this galaxy from Petitpas & Wilson (2003) in Figure Molecular Gas in Candidate Double Barred Galaxies III. A Lack of Molecular Gas?.

NGC 2859: Despite our rather high sensitivity, this galaxy was not detected in 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1 with the NRAO 12-m, nor in 12CO $`J`$=3$``$2 with the JCMT. A literature search shows that it was detected with the 3.5′ beam of Arecibo and contains $`2.1\times 10^8`$ M of H I (Bieging & Biermann, 1977; Wardle & Knapp, 1986).

NGC 2950: Due to the similarity in LST with NGC 2859, we were unable to attempt an NRAO 12-m observation of this galaxy. It was observed with the JCMT but was not detected in 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1. A literature search shows that H I was not detected in the galaxy (Wardle & Knapp, 1986).

NGC 3081: We have JCMT CO $`J`$=2$``$1 spectra for NGC 3081 (Figure Molecular Gas in Candidate Double Barred Galaxies III. A Lack of Molecular Gas?) that show emission over a region from 2200 to 2500 km s-1, while in the NRAO spectrum, we see no detectable line. This is likely due to the high noise level in the NRAO spectra of NGC 3081 due to its low declination.

NGC 4340: No emission was detected in 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1 with the NRAO 12-m, so followup observations were taken at the JCMT in 12CO $`J`$=3$``$2 with the same result. This galaxy was not detected in H I with Arecibo (Giovanardi, Krumm, & Salpeter, 1983).

NGC 4371: This galaxy is also not detected with the NRAO 12-m in 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1, JCMT in 12CO $`J`$=3$``$2, or Arecibo in H I (Giovanardi, Krumm, & Salpeter, 1983).

NGC 4736: This nearby galaxy was easily detected with the NRAO 12-m in 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1. The line profiles and peak strength for NGC 4736 agree well with those published in Paper II.

NGC 5728: The emission in NGC 5728 is known to cover a wide range of velocities from less than 2600 km s-1 to greater than 3050 km s-1 and is very clumpy (Petitpas & Wilson, 2002; Schommer et al., 1988). The line would nearly cover the entire spectrometer which makes it difficult to determine the baseline for the spectra of NGC 5728 shown in Figure Molecular Gas in Candidate Double Barred Galaxies III. A Lack of Molecular Gas?. We have used the very ends of the spectrometer to determine the baseline level, and the result is a lumpy spectra with no strong noticeable peaks, but a general tendency for the noise to remain slightly greater than zero. NGC 5728 is clearly detected in the JCMT spectrum shown in Figure Molecular Gas in Candidate Double Barred Galaxies III. A Lack of Molecular Gas?.

NGC 5850: This galaxy is clearly detected in the NRAO 12-m spectrum. There are no published single dish CO spectra for NGC 5850 so we cannot compare line profiles. Single dish fluxes and interferometric maps are published in Leon, Combes, & Friedli (2000), and they find single dish gas masses comparable to ours, suggesting that our pointing and calibration are correct.

NGC 6951: The NRAO 12-m line profile of NGC 6951 (Figure Molecular Gas in Candidate Double Barred Galaxies III. A Lack of Molecular Gas?) is single peaked which is noticeably different than the JCMT 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1 spectrum for this galaxy (see Paper II). The profile of the NRAO spectrum more closely resembles the CO $`J`$=3$``$2 spectrum taken with the JCMT at an offset of (0″,$``$7″) as part of our 5-point mapping procedure discussed in Paper II. In addition to this, the peak line strength in the NRAO spectrum is much lower than the JCMT 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1 spectrum, suggesting that pointing inaccuracies may have resulted in pointing the telescope too far south, missing the strongest emission in the northern part of the nucleus (Kohno, Kawabe, & Vila-Vilaró, 1999) with the most sensitive part of the beam.

We also point out here that after the inclusion of this galaxy in our sample, more recent studies have suggested that it does not contain a double bar as indicated by the earlier NIR surveys. Pérez et al. (2000) find evidence that NGC 6951 may have contained a nuclear bar at one point, but gas accumulation into the nucleus may have resulted in its dissolution. We choose to keep it in our sample since its presence does not affect any of our conclusions.

### 3.2 Cumulative Results

Despite our rather high sensitivity ($`T_{\mathrm{MB}}`$(rms) $``$ 14 mK) we have failed to detect CO $`J`$=2$``$1 lines in NGC 2859, NGC 4340, or NGC 4371. We do not detect any galaxies that have not been previously detected in the CO surveys of Braine & Combes (1992), Mauersberger et al. (1999), and Young et al. (1995). Looking at Table 1 suggests that we are predominantly detecting CO in later type galaxies, which is a result known from previous studies (Young et al., 1995), but there is also an apparent trend with nuclear activity.

Beside the galaxy names in Figures Molecular Gas in Candidate Double Barred Galaxies III. A Lack of Molecular Gas? and Molecular Gas in Candidate Double Barred Galaxies III. A Lack of Molecular Gas? are codes (in parentheses) that indicate the types of nuclear activity found in these galaxies. Seyfert 2s are marked as “S2” and LINERs are flagged with “L” (Ho, Filippenko, & Sargent, 1997). Galaxies without any detected nuclear activity are not flagged and show no signs of Seyfert, LINER, or starburst activity. All of the galaxies that we have detected show signs of nuclear activity. Of the four galaxies that we have not detected in CO emission, none of them show any signs of nuclear activity444Ho, Filippenko, & Sargent (1997) gave NGC 2859 the uncertain classification of a “transition object”, that is, a galaxy showing signs of both an H II and LINER nucleus. However, the lines are weak and the spectra are noisy.. We note that in performing a literature search, the galaxies that we have not detected are quite a bit less studied than NGC 4736 and NGC 6951, for example, and may harbor as yet undetected nuclear activity which could change our small number statistics noticeably.

### 3.3 Molecular Gas Mass

The double barred galaxy models of Friedli & Martinet (1993) and Shaw et al. (1993) suggest that there needs to be substantial amounts of molecular gas in double barred galaxies. In fact, the molecular gas inflow in these double barred galaxies may accumulate enough mass so that the nuclear bar can become kinematically distinct (Friedli & Martinet, 1993; Pfenniger & Norman, 1990). Thus, we may expect to see high molecular gas masses in the centers of these double barred galaxies.

The intensity of the CO emission can be related to the molecular mass using the equation

$$M_{\mathrm{mol}}=1.61\times 10^4\left(\frac{\alpha }{\alpha _{\mathrm{Gal}}}\right)\left(\frac{115\mathrm{GHz}}{\nu }\right)^2d_{\mathrm{Mpc}}^2\frac{S_{\mathrm{CO}}}{R}\mathrm{M}_{}$$
(1)
(Wilson & Scoville, 1990; Wilson, 1995) where $`S_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ is the 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1 flux in Jy km s-1, $`R`$ is the 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1/$`J`$=1$``$0 line ratio, $`\nu `$ is the frequency of the emission (230 GHz for the $`J`$=2$``$1 transition), $`d_{\mathrm{Mpc}}`$ is the distance to the galaxy in Mpc, $`\alpha `$ is the CO-to-H2 conversion factor for that galaxy, and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Gal}}`$ is the Galactic value ($`3\pm 1\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2(K km s-1)-1, Strong et al. 1988; Scoville & Sanders 1987). We use 24.7 Jy K-1, 27.8 Jy K-1 ($`\eta _{\mathrm{ap}}`$= 0.63, 0.56) and 70.6 Jy K-1 ($`\eta _{\mathrm{ap}}`$= 0.35) to convert our JCMT ($`J`$=2$``$1, $`J`$=3$``$2) and NRAO $`J`$=2$``$1 data (respectively) from Kelvins ($`T_\mathrm{A}^{}`$) to Janskys (Kraus 1986; JCMT Users Guide; NRAO 12-m Users Manual). We assume a coupling efficiency ($`\eta _\mathrm{c}`$) of 0.7 to correct our observed fluxes to true fluxes. The CO-to-H2 conversion factor ($`\alpha `$) is a globally averaged property of the galaxy and hence there are uncertainties involved in its use in one specific region of the galaxy and it is only accurate to within $``$ 30%. Our fluxes are typically accurate to about 10%. The distances for these relatively nearby galaxies are likely uncertain by at least 30%. We therefore adopt a total uncertainty of 50% in our mass estimates.

For the galaxies where we have CO detections with other telescopes or at other frequencies, we integrate over the velocity range where the emission line was seen. For galaxies with no previous detections, we integrate over a 400 km s-1 range centered on the rest velocity of the galaxy (this region was excluded from the baseline subtraction). In the cases where the integrated intensity is greater than the rms noise, we give both the integrated intensity and the noise regardless of how insignificant. We are not claiming these as detections, but are simply using them as a more realistic value for the detection cut-off limit. If the integrated intensity is less than or equal to the rms noise, the noise value is given as an upper limit. The results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 shows that there is a wide variety of molecular gas masses in the inner regions of these galaxies. For the galaxies in our sample that have also been detected with the JCMT, we find that the masses determined here typically are lower or agree with the masses determined with CO $`J`$=2$``$1 data in Paper II within a factor of two. The exceptions are NGC 6951 which is lower here by more than a factor three and NGC 4736 which is higher by almost a factor of two. The discrepancy in NGC 6951 can likely be attributed to the pointing offset discussed in §3. The discrepancy in NGC 4736 can likely be attributed to the strong CO emission in the spiral arms falling in the larger beam of the NRAO telescope (Wong & Blitz, 2000). In any case, the similarities between the masses obtained with the weaker NRAO 12-m spectra (even in the cases where no obvious lines are visible such as NGC 3081 and NGC 5728) and the masses obtained with the JCMT $`J`$=2$``$1 spectra gives us confidence that our mass estimates and upper limits are accurate to at least a factor of two.

Of particular interest is the galaxy NGC 5850, whose spectrum indicates that there is more than $`10^9`$ M of molecular gas in the inner 29″. This mass is comparable to the amount of molecular gas in the entire Milky Way, but now contained in its inner 2.5 kpc radius (Dame et al., 1993). The optical size of this galaxy is 4$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$3$`\times `$3$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7 ($`D_{25}\times d_{25}`$), which corresponds to 43$`\times `$37 kpc at its distance of 34 Mpc. This clearly makes it the largest galaxy in our sample (the second runner up is NGC 5728 at 33$`\times `$19 kpc). Given its rather strong primary bar, it is possible that the large quantity of gas in the inner regions of this galaxy may have been transported inward by the inflow mechanisms known to be associated with bar perturbations. The high resolution CO maps of this galaxy (Leon, Combes, & Friedli, 2000) detect only $`6.7\times 10^7`$ M of molecular gas, mostly concentrated in a small off-center peak of emission approximately 8″ north of the galactic center. On the other hand, their single dish IRAM 30-m CO $`J`$=1$``$0 map of the entire primary bar detects $`3.4\times 10^9`$ M. Leon, Combes, & Friedli (2000) point out that this galaxy is surprisingly quiescent given the large amounts of molecular gas, and propose that the reason for this is that the molecular gas is below the critical surface density for gravitational instabilities (Kennicutt, 1989).

The large size of NGC 5850 and the fact that it is the only quiescent galaxy with a strong detection lead us to wonder if we are detecting emission lines in predominantly the largest galaxies (with possibly the largest molecular gas reservoirs). All the other galaxies are in the 15 to 20 kpc (major axis) size range with the exception of NGC 2859, NGC 5728, and NGC 5850 who have major axes of 28, 33, and 43 kpc respectively. The strongest line occurs in the closest galaxy, NGC 4736, which is incidentally one of the smallest in our sample with major axis of $``$14 kpc. So it seems that we are not detecting CO emission preferentially in larger galaxies. Since NGC 5850 is the second most distant galaxy in our sample, it also appears that we are not preferentially detecting emission from the closest galaxies.

Since we are searching for emission with the CO $`J`$=2$``$1 line, our lack of success in finding bright candidates may not be the result of a lack of molecular gas, but that the gas in these galaxies is very cool and possibly at a low density. Is it possible that all of the molecular emission is dominated by $`J`$=1$``$0 emission and it is not excited into the $`J`$=2$``$1 levels enough to be detected? In our mass calculation, we assume a $`J`$=2$``$1/$`J`$=1$``$0 line ratio of 0.7. In the Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium approximation, in order to achieve this line ratio, the gas must be at a temperature of only 7 K. This temperature is low enough that it can be maintained by cosmic ray heating (Goldsmith & Langer, 1978). Higher values of the $`J`$=2$``$1/$`J`$=1$``$0 line ratio will act to decrease our molecular gas mass, meaning that the mass values quoted here are likely upper limits.

Another possible explanation for the low molecular gas mass may be that the gas is just not located in the inner 29″. There are observations of other galaxies that contain large molecular rings that seem to have prevented any of the molecular gas from reaching the nucleus (e.g. NGC 7331; Sheth, 2000). We will need spectra covering a wider field of view to verify if this is happening in any of these galaxies.

### 3.4 Implications for Double Barred Galaxy Models

All the galaxies in this survey are known to contain the NIR isophote twists believed to be the signature of a double barred galaxy. As mentioned in §1, the models of double barred galaxies by Shaw et al. (1993) and Friedli & Martinet (1993) require large amounts of molecular gas in the nuclear regions of these galaxies in order to sustain long-lived double bars. The gas requirements vary from 4 to 6% globally (Shaw et al., 1993; Friedli & Martinet, 1993) to as little as 2% in the nucleus (Friedli & Martinet, 1993). This gas is required to provide the dissipation needed to prevent the stellar component from dynamically heating so much that the nuclear bar is destroyed. We point out that we are studying the molecular gas properties in only the nuclear region so we expect to see gas mass fractions on the order of 2% or more.

The molecular gas content of the galaxies for which we have detections are in agreement with the model requirements and are discussed elsewhere (Petitpas & Wilson, 2002; Leon, Combes, & Friedli, 2000; Sakamoto et al., 1999). We will focus our attention here on the galaxies where we have failed to detect a strong molecular gas component. These are the galaxies that are difficult to explain in light of the current models of double barred galaxies.

As mentioned in §3, the galaxies where we have not detected any CO emission are in general less well studied. As such, we are not able to find direct measurements of the masses of all the galaxies in our sample in the literature. We have estimated the mass for these galaxies from their blue magnitude ($`m_{B(T)}`$ in de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991). Table 4 shows the apparent blue magnitudes for our sample of galaxies, the absolute magnitude, and the luminosity in solar luminosities. Independent measurements for the masses of some galaxies in our sample exists in the literature. Rubin (1980) determined the dynamical mass of the disk (the dominant source of the blue light) of NGC 5728 to be $`8\times 10^{10}`$ M; Marquez & Moles (1993) find the mass of NGC 6951 to be $`1.3\times 10^{11}`$ M; Smith et al. (1991) determine the mass of NGC 4736 to be $`4\times 10^{10}`$ M. These masses are in acceptable agreement with our estimates considering the uncertainties associated with our technique. It seems, though, that our method is underestimating the galaxy mass by a factor of 2 to 4, which is likely the result of the blue light missing much of the older, redder stellar population of stars in these galaxies. Our estimate therefore provides a lower limit to the true galaxy mass and thus an upper limit to the gas mass fraction.

The limits on the molecular gas masses for the undetected galaxies in our sample range from as high as $`3\times 10^7`$ M(for NGC 2859) down to $`7\times 10^6`$ M for NGC 4371. Using the galaxy masses shown in Table 4, this corresponds to a molecular gas mass fraction of 0.07% and 0.05% for NGC 2859 and NGC 4371, respectively. These low gas mass fractions suggest that some of these galaxies do not contain enough molecular gas to be able to support the nuclear bars observed in the models of Friedli & Martinet (1993) and Shaw et al. (1993).

There are four possible explanations that can bypass this potential problem. The first possibility is that the molecular gas is not confined to the nuclei of these galaxies. A circumnuclear CO morphology is seen in other galaxies (e.g., NGC 7331; Sheth, 2000), so it is possible that the molecular gas is outside of the inner 29″ covered by the NRAO beam for the seemingly gas deficient galaxies in our sample. We will need CO observations over a larger area in order to determine if this is the case, but the models of Friedli & Martinet (1993) still require that the inner kpc contain at least 2% gas. If we assume similar disk and bulge profiles for NGC 2859 as those adopted for NGC 5728 by Rubin (1980), we estimate that roughly one tenth of the stellar mass (bulge + disk) is contained in the inner 29″ of NGC 2859. This translates into a gas to mass ratio of 0.7% for the inner 3 kpc of NGC 2859, so the lack of CO in this galaxy is still a problem for the Friedli & Martinet (1993) model. Even if the gas is located in a large ring beyond our NRAO 12-m beam, it will be part of the main disk and will not have much of an impact on the cooling of the nuclear regions. The failure of the large beams of the H I studies to detect any gas in NGC 2950, NGC 4340, or NGC 4371 suggests that the entire disks of these galaxies are very gas poor.

Another possibility is that the gas in our galaxies is not in molecular form. The gaseous components of the models are basically a dissipation mechanism that acts to prevent the stellar components from being dynamically heated. Models of these galaxies generally treat this gas as being primarily molecular, contained in regions of high density and low filling factor (e.g., Combes & Gerin, 1985). Molecular gas also has a higher cooling capacity, since it contains many more emission lines available to it compared to atomic gas. It would take much more H I gas to dissipate as much energy as molecular gas. We have searched the literature for H I observations of these four galaxies that are undetected in CO. Only NGC 2859 has been detected in H I by various authors (Bieging & Biermann, 1977; Giovanardi, Krumm, & Salpeter, 1983; Wardle & Knapp, 1986; Eskridge & Pogge, 1991). An H I mass of $`2\times 10^8`$ M was determined by Bieging & Biermann (1977) for the entire disk of NGC 2859, which corresponds to a gas mass ratio of 0.5% globally, which is still less that required by the models of Friedli & Martinet (1993) and Shaw et al. (1993). Additionally, 60 $`\mu `$m and 100 $`\mu `$m fluxes suggest global star formation rates less than 0.1 M/year (Eskridge & Pogge, 1991; Kennicutt, 1998), supporting the claim that these galaxies are gas deficient.

The third possibility is that the NIR isophote twists are not correlated with the gas properties at all. It is possible that the NIR isophote twists are caused by a triaxial stellar bulge, as originally proposed by Kormendy (1979). In this scenario, the lack of molecular gas is not a problem, because there is not much molecular gas in the bulges of galaxies anyway. Evidence against the triaxial bulge model is discussed in Paper I where the existence of a nuclear molecular feature that aligns with the isophote twists supports the existence of a true nuclear bar in the disk of NGC 2273. In addition, detailed analysis of the NIR isophotes indicates that the variations in position angle and bar ellipticity observed in some galaxies cannot be the result of triaxial stellar bulges, but must be produced by nuclear stellar bars (Jungwiert, Combes, & Axon, 1997). Observations of deprojected nuclear bar/primary bar offset angles have also ruled out the possibility that the isophote twists are the result of collections of stars trapped in $`x_2`$ orbits (Friedli & Martinet, 1993).

Finally, if the NIR isophote twists are caused by nuclear stellar bars, but we do not see a significant gas mass fraction in the nucleus, our observations thus favor models that can produce nuclear stellar bars without a molecular gas counterpart. Recently, Maciejewski & Sparke (2000) have discovered a small family of orbits that are capable of sustaining nuclear stellar bars. In light of the lack of gas in some of the galaxies discussed here, we believe that of all models so far, this is the most promising explanation for these instances of double barred galaxies.

It is possible that different mechanisms are at work in different galaxies, and they need to be studied on a case by case basis to determine if the isophote twists are the result of a nuclear bar or a triaxial stellar bulge. In either case, we will need either more sensitive arrays or a sub-millimeter interferometer in the southern hemisphere in order to obtain high resolution CO maps for a larger number of these galaxies. Additionally, high resolution studies of the star formation histories of these galaxies will help determine which stage these galaxies occupy in the evolution of double-barred galaxies.

## 4 Summary

In an attempt to find double barred galaxies that are bright in CO emission, we have obtained 12CO $`J`$=2$``$1 spectra for nine galaxies with the NRAO 12-m Telescope. In the cases where no emission was found with the NRAO 12-m, we obtained higher resolution 12CO $`J`$=3$``$2 and $`J`$=2$``$1 spectra with the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope. There is only one additional detection in the JCMT spectra of these galaxies despite reaching sensitivities of 4 mK ($`T_\mathrm{A}^{}`$). We detect emission in five of these galaxies. All five galaxies detected exhibit some form of nuclear activity, while the galaxies that were not detected are quiescent and show no signs of any nuclear activity. Thus, within our small sample, the CO emission seems to be detected predominantly in galaxies that harbor some form of nuclear activity (e.g. Seyfert, LINER). We note that the quiescent galaxies are less well studied than the active galaxies in our sample, so it may be that they harbor some form of nuclear activity that has yet to be discovered.

Some models of double barred galaxies suggest that they should be gas rich in order provide a means of dissipating energy that would otherwise heat the stellar population and subsequently destroy the nuclear bars. We use the CO fluxes to estimate the amount of molecular gas in the centers of these galaxies and we find gas masses that range from $`7\times 10^6`$ M to more than $`10^9`$ M.

The lack of CO and H I detections places very strict limits on the amounts of gas in these galaxies. For some galaxies, there must be less than a few $`\times 10^6`$ M of molecular gas, which (assuming these galaxies are typical disk galaxies) corresponds to gas mass fractions of 0.05 to 0.8% (depending on the assumed mass distribution). These very low gas mass fractions suggest that, contrary to many models, large amounts of molecular gas are not required to sustain double-bars in the nuclei of some galaxies.

G. R. P. is supported by NSF grant AST 99-81289 and by the State of Maryland via support of the Laboratory for Millimeter-Wave Astronomy. This research has also been supported by a research grant to C. D. W. from NSERC (Canada). This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We wish to thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments that greatly improved the quality of this paper. We also wish to thank Rob Ivison, Susie Scott, Tracy Webb, and the staff of the JCMT for their help with the observations taken remotely during non-cosmology weather. GRP wishes to thank the extremely helpful staff at the NRAO 12-m for all their assistance in the remote observing run in February 2000, which went more smoothly than many observing runs for which he himself was present.