text:
# A Doppler-like strong light-matter interaction.

## 1 Introduction

Twenty years ago, many astrophysicists thought that Doppler effect was unable to explain some observed redshifts. But they were unable to find a credible alternative because they introduced two restrictions:

\- They generally supposed that the electromagnetic field is sinusoidal. A consequence of this hypothesis is that if the received frequency is not equal to the emitted frequency, the number of wavelengths between the source and the receiver changes permanently, that is the distance between them changes, the frequency shift is a Doppler shift. Thus, looking for a non-Doppler frequency shift which would help the interpretation of some astrophysical data, Marmet  wrote that it is necessary to consider pulsed light; but the process he proposed is not convincing.

\- They considered that individual molecules were involved in the interactions, while the molecules must be packed into sets in the theory of many optical effects, refraction, amplification in a laser,…

Unaware of astrophysics, working in pure optics, it appeared to us that an interaction of ordinary incoherent light with gases induces redshifts which may be confused with Doppler redshifts ; this interaction, although strong, seemed unobservable in the labs, requiring extremely low pressure gases, thus very long optical paths. This effect appears now as an avatar of the ”Impulsive Stimulated Raman Scattering” (ISRS), commonly observed in the labs using ultrashort laser pulses.

This paper has two aims: - first, compared to the previous ones, it is a much more precise and, I hope, easier to read description of the new effect called ”Incoherent Light, Spatially Coherent Raman Scattering” (ILSCRS); a short summary of the sections, at their beginnings, allows the reader to have an overview sufficient to follow the paper without studying the following demonstrations. - second, it gives the correspondence between ISRS and ILSCRS, setting precisely what happens when the short, powerful laser pulses replace the longer, weaker pulses which make the natural incoherent light. We hope that this connection between ISRS and ILSCRS will convince the astrophysicists of the reality of ILSCRS, so that they take it into account in their models.

The properties of pulsed light have been extensively studied using ultrashort, femtosecond laser pulses; compared to laser pulses, the pulses of incoherent light are longer by a factor of the order of $`10^5`$; the definition of an ”ultrashort pulse” was given by G. L. Lamb as ”shorter than all relevant time constants”; in a gas, for a Raman effect, these time constants are the time between collisions which may be increased by a decrease of pressure , and the period corresponding to the Raman transition which may be chosen long enough. Thus, the nanosecond pulses whose ordinary incoherent light is made of, are “ultrashort”.

ISRS, described by Yan et al. , is mostly used to study fast evolutions of dense matter . The frequency shift is the result of an interference of the exciting beam with a Raman scattered beam. The emission of the scattered light is stimulated by the powerful exciting beam, so that the scattered amplitude is proportional to the square of the exciting field; thus the frequency shift depends on the intensity of the light; in ILSCRS the Raman scattered field is spontaneous, proportional to the exciting field, so that the frequency shift does not depend on the exciting field.

The summaries of the subsections are followed by more technical explanations and demonstrations, made as simple as possible using the semiclassical theory, following Bloembergen : “The subtle interplay between real and imaginary parts of the complex linear and nonlinear susceptibilities follows quite naturally from the semiclassical treatment. \[…\] The semiclassical theory which is used in this monograph will describe all situations correctly in a much simpler fashion”.

Section 2 recalls the general properties of ISRS and adapts them to ILSCRS.

Section 3 gives some spectroscopic properties of gases subject to ILSCRS.

Section 4 suggests possible applications of ILSCRS in astrophysics: we do not intend to give reliable interpretations of astrophysical observations.

## 2  Properties of ISRS and ILSCRS

This section presents the properties of ISRS and the conditions which must be fulfilled to preserve these properties replacing short powerful laser pulses by incoherent light, getting ILSCRS.

### 2.1 Space coherence

With space coherence, the output wave surfaces belong to the family of the input wave surfaces, so that the images are sharp, without any blur. To get the space coherence, nearly no collision must happen during a light pulse; in ILSCRS, only low pressure gases work.

In the Huygens’ construction of the wave surfaces, each point of a particular wave surface is considered as a source; the envelop of the wavelets produced by these sources after a short time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is new wave surface. This construction may be extended replacing the Huygens’ sources by scattering molecules, but some modifications and conditions appear:

\- the number of molecules, thus the number of scattered waves is not infinite, so that the building of a new wave surface is not perfect. The most important consequence is the incoherent Rayleigh scattering (blue of the sky) which perturbs the refraction; we will consider that the fluctuations of the molecular density are low, so that such effects may be neglected.

\- the phases of the waves scattered by all molecules lying on a particular wave surface must be the same; the classical and quantum computations of the scattered waves are identical for all molecules, unless collisions introduce phase changes.

To obtain the space coherence, during a light pulse it must be almost no collision between the molecules. The mean time between two collisions in a gas of identical spherical hard molecules is:

$$\tau =\frac{1}{2Nd^2}\sqrt{\frac{m}{4\pi kT}}$$
(1)
where $`N`$ is the number of molecules by unit of volume, $`d`$ their diameter, $`m`$ their mass and $`T`$ the temperature. This mean time gives only an order of magnitude because the molecules are not hard particles, so that it is difficult to define a length considered as the diameter of a molecule.

In conventional Raman spectroscopy, using regular sources, for instance mercury vapour lamps, the Raman intensity is so low that the pressure of a studied scattering gas must be of the order of magnitude of the atmospheric pressure; as the pressure in the source (made of heavy atoms) is lower than the pressure in the studied gas, the mean time between collisions is shorter than the duration of the pulses of light (about 10 nanoseconds), so that conventional Raman scattering is incoherent.

The incoherence is widely responsible of the weakness of the conventional Raman scattering: : Set $`a\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _j)`$ the complex amplitude scattered into a point by a molecule number $`j`$ ($`j=1\mathrm{}n`$, where n is the number of scattering molecules). The total scattered intensity is:

$$I=\left(\underset{j}{}a\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _j)\right)\left(\underset{k}{}a^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _k)\right).$$
(2)
In an incoherent scattering process, the $`\varphi _j`$ are stochastic so that the mean value of $`\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _j)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _k)`$ is zero if $`j`$ is not equal to $`k`$, else one; thus the total intensity is $`I_I=naa^{}`$. In a coherent scattering process, supposing that the wave surface converges into an usual diffraction figure, at the centre of this figure all $`\varphi _j`$ are equal, so that $`I`$ takes the large value $`I_C=n^2aa^{}`$; out of the diffraction figure, the scattered amplitudes cancel if the fluctuations in the repartition of the molecules are neglected. In conclusion, the incoherent process scatters a very low intensity in all directions; the coherent process scatters a strong intensity which produces, if the wavelength are nearly the same, the same diffraction pattern than the incident beam. As in astrophysics, we will always consider wide beams, so that diffraction may be neglected.

In many places of the universe, the pressure is so low that the pulses of ordinary light, long of 10 nanosecond or less, may be said “ultrashort”by a comparison with the mean time between collisions; in these places, Raman scattering is space coherent.

### 2.2 Interference of the incident and scattered waves into a single wave

Consider a single Raman transition. In conventional or coherent Raman scattering, the frequency of the scattered light gets a shift corresponding to a molecular transition; for ISRS or ILSCRS the period corresponding to the Raman transition must be larger than the length of the pulses, so that the two space- coherent beams interfere into a single monochromatic beam whose frequency is intermediate; the frequency shift is proportional to the regular Raman shift and to the scattered amplitude; the width of the exciting line is not increased.

With incoherent light, the Raman transition must correspond to a radio-frequency, the gas must have hyperfine (or equivalent) populated levels.

In the theory of refraction, the incident field induces in each molecule a dipole which radiates a wave dephased of $`\pi /2`$. The incident and scattered light interfere into a single wave, generally late in comparison with the incident wave.

In the semi-classical theory of the Raman effect, the dipole induced by the incident field is coupled with the dipole which radiates the Raman wave; at the beginning of a light pulse, the dipoles are dephased of $`\pi /2`$, so that the phases of the incident and scattered fields are the same, modulo $`\pi `$. During the pulse, the phase changes because the dipoles have different frequencies.

The interferences of two different frequencies is often observed, for instance between the two beams of a Michelson interferometer, when one of the mirrors moves, producing a Doppler frequency shift. Show by an elementary computation that, if this phaseshift is lower enough than $`\pi `$, the sum of the incident and scattered fields is a single field having an intermediate frequency

The electric field in a pulse of light is the product of a slow varying electric field $`E(t)`$ giving the pulse shape by a sine function; for an exciting field of frequency $`\nu _e`$ the field may be written $`E(t)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _et)`$ and a field scattered at a frequency $`\nu _s`$ by a thin layer of thickness $`L`$ of gas, with the same polarisation and the same phase at the beginning of the pulse ($`t=0`$) : $`E(t)Lq\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _st)`$ , where the product $`Lq`$ is a small dimensionless coefficient including the thickness $`L`$; $`Lq`$ will be a first order quantity; the sum of the two emerging fields is:

$$\begin{array}{c}D=E(t)(1Lq)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _et)+E(t)Lq\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _st)=\hfill \\ =E(t)(1Lq)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _et)+\hfill \\ +E(t)Lq(\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _et)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi (\nu _s\nu _e)t)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \nu _et)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi (\nu _s\nu _e)t)).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
Writing the Raman frequency $`\nu _i=\nu _s\nu _e`$ and the length of the pulse $`t_0`$, suppose

$$|\nu _it_0|<<\pi ,$$
(4)
that is the Raman period is much larger than the length of the pulses; we may develop the corresponding trigonometric functions:

$$\begin{array}{c}DE(t)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _et)2E(t)Lq\pi (\nu _s\nu _e)t\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \nu _et)\hfill \\ +2E(t)Lq(\pi (\nu _s\nu _e)t)^2\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _et)+(4/3)E(t)Lq(\pi (\nu _s\nu _e)t)^3\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \nu _et).\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
set:

$$\mathrm{tan}(\varphi t)=2Lq\pi (\nu _s\nu _e)t=2Lq\pi \nu _it;(\pi /2<\varphi \pi /2);$$
(6)
$$\varphi 2Lq\pi \nu _i$$
(7)
is a first order quantity.

$$\begin{array}{c}DE(t)(\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _et)\mathrm{cos}(\varphi t)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \nu _et)\mathrm{sin}(\varphi t))/\mathrm{cos}(\varphi t)+\hfill \\ +2E(t)Lq(\pi (\nu _s\nu _e)t)^2\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _et)+(4/3)E(t)Lq(\pi (\nu _s\nu _e)t)^3\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \nu _et).\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
In a first order approximation :

$$DE(t)\mathrm{cos}((2\pi \nu _e+\varphi )t).$$
(9)
The waves interfere into a single wave within the pulse. Thus, in place of the emergence of a new line shifted of $`\nu _i`$ , the whole incident flux gets the slight frequency shift

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =\varphi /2\pi =Lq\nu _i.$$
(10)
Using wide beams to neglect the diffraction, the intensity of the conventional coherent Raman effect is limited because the difference of the indices of refraction for the incident and scattered frequencies introduces a phase-shift of the beams scattered on two different wave surfaces: the beams scattered by far wave surfaces have various phases, their interference is partly destructive. As in ISRS there is a single frequency, a single beam, there is no limitation of the effect by the dispersion of the refraction.

With ordinary incoherent light, the period corresponding to the Raman transition must be longer than 10 nanoseconds: the molecule must have Raman transitions in the radio-frequencies domain, in practice the molecule must have an hyperfine structure.

Heavy molecules and atoms have a convenient hyperfine structure, but they are probably not abundant in the gaseous part of the universe. The nuclear spin hyperfine structures, for instance in $`H_2`$, are not efficient; on the contrary, light polyatomic molecules having an odd number of electrons have hyperfine structures whose interactions with light are strong.

Hyperfine structures are induced in all molecules by Stark and Zeeman effects; the width of the structure, is often proportional to the field; if it is not too large, so that condition (4) remains true, the frequency shift is proportional to the square of the field.

### 2.3 Linearity of ILSCRS

In ISRS, the scattered amplitude is proportional to the square of the incident amplitude because it is stimulated by the exciting laser beam, so that the redshift is proportional to the intensity of the light beam and a complex spectrum is distorted. In ILSCRS, the spontaneously scattered amplitude is proportional to the incident amplitude, so that the frequency shift does not depend on the intensity, the spectra are shifted without distorsion.

It seems to be a discrepancy for the amplitudes scattered in ISRS and ILSCRS. But in quantum electrodynamics, and in the correct semi-classical theory, a spontaneous emission is an amplification of the corresponding mode of the zero point field. Thus the electric field of the exciting beam is the sum of a zero point field $`𝐄_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and the field $`𝐄`$ of the old classical theory. The computation of ISRS shows that the scattered amplitude is proportional to $`(𝐄_\mathrm{𝟎}+𝐄)^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ that is to $`(E_0+E)^2`$ because the amplification does not change the polarisation. As the power is large in ISRS, $`E_0`$ may be neglected, the scattered amplitude is proportional to the square of the field defined either in the old or in the recent theories. On the contrary, in natural light $`E`$ is much smaller than $`E_0`$ so that $`E^2`$ may be neglected; $`E_0`$, the intensity of the zero point field is always cancelled; it remains $`2E_0E`$ , proportional to $`E`$ because, in the average, $`E_0`$ is constant.

There is no threshold, a well known property of ISRS. To obtain a redshift independent of the intensity in the laboratory, using short laser pulses, the beams must be enlarged and the peak intensity decreased to get an electric field only a little larger than the zero point field.

### 2.4 Elementary computation of the ILSCRS redshift.

A complete computation of the ILSCRS redshift requires the knowledge of the traces of the tensors of polarizability for all radio-frequency Raman transitions, for all exciting frequencies. For the molecules having an odd number of electrons, chemically reactive, these data are difficult to measure or compute. In a classical representation of the Raman excitation of a molecule, we assume that the excited dipole is strongly coupled to the radiating dipole, so that the ILSCRS scattering has the same order of magnitude than the scattering which produces the refraction.

An exciting electromagnetic field induces for each Raman transition $`i`$ a scattered field proportional to an element of the tensor of polarizability; averaging this result for all orientations of the gaseous molecules, the scattered field is proportional to the trace $`\beta _i`$ of the tensor of polarizability and has the same polarisation than the exciting field; thus, the electric field may be considered as a scalar.

The amplitude $`p_i`$ of the dipole induced in an unit volume for a transition $`i`$ is proportional to the incident electrical field and to the number $`N_i`$ of molecules per unit of volume in the convenient state: $`p_i=N_i\beta _iE`$. The field scattered at the exciting frequency $`\nu _e`$ produces the refraction through $`P,N`$ and $`\alpha `$ similar to $`p_i,N_i`$ and $`\beta _i`$ .

At the thermal equilibrium, $`N_i`$ is deduced from a Boltzman factor $`B_i`$, so that the ratio of a Raman dipole, with respect to the refracting dipole is:

$$\frac{p_i}{P}=\frac{N_i\beta _i}{N\alpha }=\frac{B_i\beta _i}{\alpha };$$
(11)
The ratios of scattered amplitudes are the same for a single molecule to any direction, or for a large set of identical molecules on an exciting wave surface to the initial direction of propagation222The relation between the coefficients in the two configurations requires the addition of Huygens’ wavelets by a simple but tedious integration called “the optical theorem”..

$$\frac{q_i}{Q}=\frac{p_i}{P}=\frac{B_i\beta _i}{\alpha }.$$
(12)
Recall the elementary theory of the refraction index $`n`$ with our notations: Set $`E\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu t)`$ the electric field of a wave of frequency $`\nu `$ as it reaches a thin sheet of gas whose thickness $`L`$ is a first order small quantity; the absorption through this sheet is neglected so that the output field is $`E\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu (tL/c))`$; the Rayleigh scattered field being late of $`\pi /2`$, the total output field is:

$$E[\mathrm{cos}2\pi \nu (tL/c)+LQ\mathrm{sin}2\pi \nu (tL/c)]E\mathrm{cos}[2\pi \nu (tL/c)LQ]$$
(13)
The refraction index $`n`$ is obtained by an identification of this field with $`E\mathrm{cos}2\pi \nu (tnL/c)`$, giving $`n1=cQ/(2\pi \nu )`$.

The dynamical dielectric constant $`ϵ`$ which equals $`1+4\pi N\alpha `$ is nearly 1 in a dilute gas, so that its square root $`n`$ equals $`1+2\pi N\alpha `$; thus:

$$n1=2\pi N\alpha =cQ/(2\pi \nu ).$$
(14)
By equations 12 and 14:

$$Lq_i=LQB_i\beta _i/\alpha =4\pi ^2NB_i\beta _i\nu L/c.$$
(15)
From equation 10, we get the shift:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =\underset{i}{}[\nu _iLq_i]=4\pi ^2N\underset{i}{}[B_i\beta _i\nu _i]\nu L/c.$$
(16)
In a first order development $`B_i`$ is proportional to $`\nu _i`$, so that the contribution of transition $`i`$ to the lineshift is proportional to $`\nu _i^2`$.

Consider  a model molecule having a high energy level and two low lying levels of energies $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, close enough to allow a series development of the exponent in the Boltzman factor, so that the difference of the populations in the low states is:

$$N_1N_2=N(B_1B_2)=N\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E_1}{2kT}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E_2}{2kT}\right)\right]N\frac{E_2E_1}{2kT}=N\frac{h\nu _i}{2kT}.$$
(17)
$`\beta _i`$ is different from $`\alpha `$ because it requires a transfer of energy from the excited oscillator to the radiating one; but this transfer is generally fast, so that generally $`\beta _i`$ and $`\alpha `$ have the same order of magnitude; thus, assume the rough approximation $`\alpha =2\beta _1=2\beta _2`$. Equation 12 becomes $`q_i=B_iQ/2=QE_i/(4kT)`$ for $`i=`$ 1 or 2. From equations 10, then 14 the frequency shift is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =L(q_1q_2)\frac{E_1E_2}{h}=\frac{L}{4hkT}(E_1E_2)^2\frac{\pi \nu }{c}(n1)=\frac{Lh\nu _i^2}{2kT}\frac{\pi \nu }{c}(n1).$$
(18)
Replace the index of refraction using the classical dispersion formula for a single spinless electron resonating at the high frequency $`F`$ which correspond to a transition between a low and the upper molecular states :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }{\nu }=\frac{\pi L(E_1E_2)^2}{2hckT}\frac{Ne^2}{8\pi ^2mϵ_0F^2}=\frac{Lh}{2ckT}\frac{Ne^2}{8\pi mϵ_0}\left(\frac{\nu _i}{F}\right)^2$$
(19)
where $`\nu _i=\nu _1=(E_1E_2)/h`$ is the regular Raman frequency shift, $`e`$ and $`m`$ are the charge and the mass of the electron.

### 2.5 To an experimental measure of the parameters of ILSCRS

As the hyperfine structures are generally complex, it seems difficult to compute the parameters of ILSCRS, except, maybe for simple but important molecules such as $`H_2^+`$. Is an experimental measure possible ?

The Raman transitions which produce ILSCRS or ISRS are selected by the length of the pulses; thus, to get the parameters of ILSCRS redshift by a single experiment, it is necessary to use either incoherent light, or laser pulses whose lengths reproduce the lengths of the pulses in natural light.

Some active molecules, such as NO are stable, but it seems difficult to build a low pressure multiple path cell long enough to obtain a measurable ILSCRS redshift. It appears much easier to measure ISRS redshifts, even using long pulses. The correlation between ILSCRS and ISRS which was shown in subsection 2.3 gives the parameters of ILSCRS from those of ISRS, using long pulses.

### 2.6 Dispersion

In a first approximation, the dispersion of the tensor of polarisability is neglected, so that the relative frequency shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /\nu `$ does not depend on the frequency. Introducing the dispersion, it may be possible, but uneasy, to distinguish an ILSCRS redshift from a Doppler redshift.

The $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta _i`$ in equation 16 are computed from tensors of polarizability which, in a first approximation, do not depend on the frequency of the exciting light. If the frequency of an exciting beam is nearly the frequency of a dipolar absorption, Raman scattering is said “resonant”, the scattered amplitude is large. A polyatomic molecule has a large number of relatively weak absorption lines, thus a large number of relatively weak ILSCRS resonances: it will be difficult to observe them. On the contrary, the atomic lines are strong and well separated in the spectrum: the detection of ILSCRS resonances will be easier on light atoms perturbed by a Zeeman or Stark effect.

Using natural light, a low pressure gas, the de-excitation of the gas pumped by a redshifting ILSCRS process cannot result from collisions; but, in radio-frequencies, the spontaneous emissions of light are weak. Thus, the ILSCRS redshifting process is limited by the molecular de-excitation processes which may be an amplification of low frequency electromagnetic field (which includes the spontaneous emission, considering the zero-point field), an ILSCRS blueshift of a low temperature333The temperature of an optical mode is defined from the Planck’s laws. optical mode …

These simultaneous processes must be bound into a parametric interaction444ILSCRS and ISRS describe only a part of the parametric process; a good acronym would be too long !: the active molecule appears as a sort of catalyst which helps a flood of energy from the hot modes which are redshifted to the cold modes. As the intensity of the parametric interaction is limited by its weakest component, that is the transfer of energy to the cold modes which does not depend on the frequency of the hot modes, the dispersion of the redshift is reduced.

## 3 Applications of ILSCRS in low pressure gases

This section presents consequences of ILSCRS interactions in low pressure gases.

### 3.1 Visibility of lines absorbed by an ILSCRS active gas

The linewidth of an absorption or emission line of a red-shifting gas equals the redshift: thus the line is weak, wide, it cannot be observed individually; the absorption by a set of lines may be confused with an absorption by dust.

The absorption of the gas, supposed homogenous, is generally represented by an absorption coefficient $`k(\nu )`$ verifying:

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,x)/\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,x)=k(\nu )\mathrm{d}x$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,x)`$ is the flux of energy of a light beam of frequency $`\nu `$ propagating along an $`Ox`$ axis.

Consider a light flux initially in a small spectral range near a frequency $`\nu _0`$. If there is, along the light path, a redshift having any origin, expansion of the universe or ILSCRS, the frequency of this flux scans the whole redshift; its local absorption is a function of its local frequency $`\nu _x`$; the total absorption from $`x=0`$ to $`x=X`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=_0^Xk(\nu _x)dx$$
(21)
As $`\nu _x`$ varies continuously in the range of the redshift, the function $`k(\nu _x)`$ scans the spectrum; the sharpest lines get a width larger than the redshift : they cannot be observed individually; as they generally obscure the high frequencies more than the low frequencies, in a partial observation of a spectrum, their absorption may be confused with an absorption by dust. In a region where the density of electromagnetic energy is large, the correlated increase of thermal radiation by ILSCRS may seem due to an increase of the temperature of the dust.

### 3.2 Detection of a red-shifting gas

Resonances in a red-shifting gas introduce slight variations of the relative frequency shift of the lines of a spectrum; if the spectrum is rich, the positions of the resonances may be found with a precision sufficient to characterise the red-shifting gas.

Discrepancies observed in spectra of quasars may be ILSCRS signatures, rather than a consequence of a variation of the fine structure constant.

The frequency shift may be written:

$$\mathrm{d}\nu =\frac{\rho \nu }{q}\mathrm{d}x$$
(22)
where $`\rho `$ is the density of the gas and $`q`$ a parameter depending on the gas. Supposing that the composition of the gas is constant, the equation is integrated from the frequencies $`\nu _i`$ of lines emitted or absorbed at $`x=0`$ to the frequencies $`\nu _{io}`$ observed at $`x=X`$ :

$$_0^X\rho dx=_{\nu _i}^{\nu _{io}}q\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu }{\nu }=_{\nu _j}^{\nu _{jo}}q\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu }{\nu }=\mathrm{}$$
(23)
To explicit that q depends slightly on $`\nu `$, set $`q=q_0+r(\nu )`$ where $`q_0`$ is a constant, and the average of the small function $`r(\nu )`$ is zero. From equation 23:

$$q_0\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _i}{\nu _{io}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _j}{\nu _{jo}}\right)\right]=_{\nu _i}^{\nu _{io}}r(\nu )\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu }{\nu }_{\nu _j}^{\nu _{jo}}r(\nu )\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu }{\nu }=_{\nu _i}^{\nu _j}r(\nu )\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu }{\nu }_{\nu _{io}}^{\nu _{jo}}r(\nu )\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu }{\nu }$$
(24)
Supposing that $`\nu _i\nu _j`$ is small, $`r(\nu )`$ may be replaced by its mean value $`m(\nu _i,\nu _j)`$ between $`\nu _i`$ and $`\nu _j`$, so that equation 24 becomes:

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _i}{\nu _{io}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _j}{\nu _{jo}}\right)=\frac{2(\nu _j\nu _i)m(\nu _i,\nu _j)}{q_0(\nu _i+\nu _j)}\frac{2(\nu _{jo}\nu _{io})m(\nu _{io},\nu _{jo})}{q_0(\nu _{io}+\nu _{jo})}$$
(25)
Supposing that the frequency shift is purely Doppler, the first member of equation 25 is zero; Webb et al.  observed that it is non-zero and wrote that it is due to a variation of the fine structure constant. ILSCRS seems a simpler explanation. As all frequencies are known, equation 25 gives a relation between $`m(\nu _i,\nu _j)/q_0`$ and $`m(\nu _{io},\nu _{jo})/q_0`$.

To study the resonances which appear if absorption lines lie on the intervals $`(\nu _i,\nu _j)`$ or $`(\nu _{io},\nu _{jo})`$, it is necessary to distinguish what comes from one or the other interval. This seems possible by a statistical study if lots of lines are measured. The quasars spectroscopy seem particularly favourable because:

\- observing similar quasars, sharp absorption lines are observed with many different redshift, so that the averages $`m(\nu _i,\nu _j)`$ and $`m(\nu _{io},\nu _{jo})`$ are local and significant.

\- the active gases are made of atoms, so that there are few absorption lines, thus few, separated resonances;

\- these resonances are near known dipolar absorption lines, so that their observation will be a test of the appropriateness of the theory for the quasars. Unhappily, up to now, we could not get the good spectra which show discrepancies in the hypothesis of pure Doppler effect.

### 3.3 Multiplication of absorption lines in a variable magnetic field

Light atoms do not have strong hyperfine transitions: they do not redshift the light, so that their absorption lines are visible; but if there is an electric or magnetic field, the redshift appears, the absorption disappears. Thus, for a light ray propagating in a variable magnetic field, lines are written as pseudo-lines into the light where the field is nearly zero, shifted when the field appears, written into an other place for another zero of the field, …Each pseudo-line is sharp, although it has strong feet.

Consider a plasma of atoms at a temperature of 10 000K, with low enough a pressure to produce ILSCRS redshifts.

The ratio of the populations in two levels defining a low energy Raman transition, $`\mathrm{exp}(h\nu _i/kT)`$ at the equilibrium, may be developed, because the temperature is high; thus, the difference of $`B_i`$ for a Stokes and its antiStokes interaction is proportional to $`h\nu _i/kT`$, so that, by eq.16, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /\nu `$ is proportional to $`_i[\beta _i\nu _i^2]`$.

Usually, the $`\nu _i`$ are proportional to a field $`H`$ ; define a variable $`x`$ proportional to the mass of gas passed by the light beam through a unit of surface. As the frequency shift is proportional to the squares of the $`\nu _i`$, thus to the square of the magnetic field, we may write:

$$\mathrm{d}\nu =AH^2(x)\mathrm{d}x,$$
(26)
where $`A`$ depends on the nature and the physical state of the gas. The variation of flux by unit of surface $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,x)`$ is related to an absorption coefficient $`K(\nu ,x)`$ :

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,x)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,x)K(\nu ,x)\mathrm{d}x.$$
(27)
Equation 26 may be integrated numerically to get $`\nu `$ as a function of $`x`$, then equation 27 is integrated. Set $`\nu _a`$ the absolute frequency of a studied absorption line, $`x_n`$ a value of $`x`$ for which $`H=0`$ and $`X=xx_n`$; mark a spectral element of the light by its frequency $`f`$ for $`X=0`$. Suppose now that the absorption is low and that the linewidth is purely Doppler, so that without a field we would have the absorption at a frequency $`\nu `$:

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu )=\mathrm{exp}(a(\nu \nu _a))^2\mathrm{d}x$$
(28)
equation 26 , written with a convenient coefficient $`b`$ becomes, for $`X`$ small:

$$\mathrm{d}\nu /\mathrm{d}X=bX^2.$$
(29)
Integrating

$$\nu =bX^3/3+f.$$
(30)
From equations 28 and 30 the variation if the intensity of the spectral element is:

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }(f)=\mathrm{exp}(a(bX^3/3+f\nu _a)^2)\mathrm{d}X$$
(31)
A numerical computation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ shows  that the half intensity width is nearly constant, so that, taking into account in the spectrum only the fast changing intensities, that is neglecting the feet of the lines, the pseudo lines appear as sharp as an ordinary line for the same temperature.

## 4 Tentative applications to astrophysics.

### 4.1 Order of magnitude of the redshifts.

The evaluation of a redshift requires a measure or a computation of parameters which are unknown, difficult to measure or compute. A rough evaluation is made demonstrative, computing the density of molecules which would produce a shift equal to the cosmological redshift.

In previous papers, we had computed an order of magnitude of the redshift using equation 19; this computation required an hypothesis about the ratio of frequencies $`\nu _i/F`$, whose evaluation is arbitrary. We prefer now to use equation 18 because it uses the index of refraction of a gas which has the same order of magnitude ($`5.10^4`$ in the normal conditions) for all gases, and the Raman frequencies $`\nu _i`$, more variable, but which have often many possible values, up to the limit frequency, about 100 MHz; the highest frequencies have the largest contribution.

We will consider that all ILSCRS active scatterings have nearly the same amplitude than the coherent Rayleigh scattering which produces the refraction; this hypothesis leads probably to an under-evaluation because, as the pulses are short, the numerous Raman oscillators are resonant with the excited oscillator, quickly excited.

For a moderate redshift, Hubble’s law is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }{\nu L}=\frac{1}{L}\sqrt{\frac{cLH_0}{c+LH_0}}\frac{1}{L}\frac{H_0}{c}$$
(32)
Combining it with equation 18:

$$\frac{c\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }{\nu L}=H_0=(n1)\frac{\pi h\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\nu _i^2}{2kT}$$
(33)
$`n1`$ is proportional to the density of molecules $`N`$, so that, using an index 0 for the normal conditions, $`R`$ being the constant of the perfect gases:

$$N=N_0\frac{n1}{n_01}=\frac{10^3}{22.4}\frac{2H_0RT}{\pi h(n_01)\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\nu _i^2}=3,58.10^{35}\frac{H_0T}{(n_01)\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\nu _i^2}$$
(34)
With $`H_0=2,5.10^{18},T=2,7K,n_01=5.10^4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\nu _i^2=10^{16}`$, the number of molecules required to get the whole cosmological redshift from ILSCRS would be $`5.10^5`$ molecules per cubic meter, in the average.

The detection of the 0,21 m forbidden line shows that there is some $`H_2`$ molecules in the cold regions of the space; the UV radiation of the stars photoionizes $`H_2`$ into $`H_2^+`$ which is ILSCRS active; where the pressure is low so that the time between collisions is large, $`H_2^+`$ is stable, the proportion of $`H_2`$ molecules transformed into $`H_2^+`$ should be large.

### 4.2 The spectra of quasars

The flexibility of ILSCRS interactions allows a lot of hypothesis …

In the spectra of the quasars, the most shifted lines are emission lines whose shifts decreases with the frequency; this decrease could be explained supposing that the hardest X rays, then UV, have a longer path in a redshifting gas. The broad absorption lines are absorbed in a colder, more external gas, thus their shift is lower. The emission lines may be sharp, coming from a relatively high pressure gas in which the redshifting is low, while the absorption is perturbed by a simultaneous frequency shift.

The Lyman absorption forest seems to be produced along the light path by intergalactic clouds generally close to galaxies ; the dynamical or magnetic proposals to get these clouds thin enough to obtain a low Hubble line stretching do not seem to work, so that the clouds seem to be stressed by sheets of dark matter .

ILSCRS allows to consider that the clouds are thick, but that absorption leaves a visible pattern only where a magnetic field is nearly zero. The absorption by the remainder of the clouds is spread in the spectrum, it may produce a part of the absorption attributed to dust failing a better explanation  and in despite of the difficult survival of dust .

## 5 Conclusion

The “incoherent light impulsive stimulated Raman scattering”plays surely a role in the redshift of the astrophysical spectra; it is difficult to evaluate this role precisely, but it seems able to help the interpretation of observations.

Other interactions of very low pressure gases with light should be studied too, for instance the cooling of the gases or the decrease the coefficients of absorption of the spectral lines by loss of coherence, leading to an under-evaluation of the gas density.

I hope that some astrophysicists will find this paper useful, allowing the introduction of interesting topics for their research.

Acknowledgements

I thank Evry Schatzman and V ronique Bommier (Paris-Meudon observatory) very much, for long and useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Testing the Unified Model with an Infrared Selected Sample of Seyfert Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

The Unified Scheme is based on the idea that the nuclear engine is surrounded by a dusty molecular torus, with orientation angle being the parameter which determines whether an AGN is perceived by observers as a Seyfert 1 or as a Seyfert 2 (Antonucci 1993; Urry & Padovani 1995, Wills 1999). This scenario is supported by several lines of evidence, like the detection of polarized broad emission lines in Seyfert 2’s (Antonucci & Miller 1985; Miller & Goodrich 1990; Tran 1995; Kay 1994), or a deficit of ionizing photon in Seyfert 2 galaxies, which indicates that the ionizing source is hidden from direct view (Neugebauer et al. 1980; Wilson, Ward & Haniff 1988; Kinney et al. 1991, Storchi-Bergmann, Wilson & Baldwin 1992; Schmitt, Storchi-Bergmann & Baldwin 1994). Another strong argument for the Unified Model is the collimated escape of radiation from the nuclear region, detected as Narrow Line Regions with conical shapes in Seyfert 2 galaxies and halo-like shapes in Seyfert 1’s (Pogge 1988a,b,1989; Schmitt & Kinney 1996; Mulchaey, Wilson & Tsvetanov 1996a,b; Ferruit, Wilson & Mulchaey 2000; Haniff, Wilson & Ward 1988; Capetti et al. 1995, 1996), as well as linear extended, jet like radio emission (Ulvestad & Wilson 1984a,b, 1989; Nagar et al. 1999; Schmitt et al. 2000).

It is now accepted that the Unified Model is correct to zeroth order, i.e. that it applies qualitatively to at least some large fraction of the objects being studied. However, there have been some observational results claiming intrinsic statistical differences between Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s considered as populations, which have been used as arguments against the Unified Model. For example, Malkan, Gorjian & Tam (1998) found that Seyfert 1’s usually reside in earlier type host galaxies compared to Seyfert 2’s. They also found that Seyfert 2’s have a higher incidence of dust lanes than Seyfert 1’s. Older papers, like Meurs & Wilson (1984) reported that in their sample Seyfert 2’s have higher radio luminosities than Seyfert 1’s, and Heckman et al. (1989) found that Seyfert 2’s have higher molecular gas masses (from CO(1-0)) than Seyfert 1’s.

Historically, the main stumbling block in testing and developing Unified Models has been the tendency to compare samples of AGN being unified which were not preselected by some isotropic property. A spectacular example of this effect can be seen in the case of samples selected by their ultraviolet excess. According to the model, we see perhaps 1% of the nuclear featureless continuum by reflection in Seyfert 2’s, whereas we see the whole thing in Seyfert 1’s. Many famous Seyferts were selected by UV excess, like the Markarian objects, and thus by this hypothesis the Seyfert 2’s were selected from two orders of magnitude higher on the luminosity function than the Seyfert 1’s. Another possibility is that these Seyfert 2’s have something else around their nuclei, like star formation, which would increase their ultraviolet emission.

We believe that the reason why some papers have been finding differences in some apparently isotropic properties of Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s is mostly due to the samples they use and not to intrinsic differences between these two populations. For example, a study done by Maiolino et al. (1997), using a larger and well defined sample than that of Heckman et al. (1989), shows that both Seyfert types have similar CO masses. Also, Rush, Malkan & Edelson (1996) showed that both types have similar radio luminosities when improved selection criteria are used.

This paper presents a series of statistical tests done to a sample of Seyfert galaxies selected from a mostly isotropic property, their far infrared flux and color. We use these tests to address several problem related to the Unified Model. The sample and data used for these tests are presented in Section 2. Section 3 presents the comparison between the inclinations of the host galaxies of Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s and their morphological types. Section 4 shows the comparison of their radio luminosities and extensions of the radio emission. Section 5 presents the study the percentage of Seyferts galaxies with companions, while Section 6 deals with the analysis of previous suggestions that the inclination of the torus relative to the host galaxy disk depends on the host galaxy morphological type. A summary is given in Section 7.

## 2 Sample and data

As pointed out above, in order to be able to make a fair comparison between Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s and correctly address problems related to the Unified Model, it is necessary to use a sample selected from an isotropic property, believed to be independent of the orientation of the putative torus relative to the line of sight. One of the best ways to select such a sample is based on the far infrared properties of the galaxies. According to the Pier & Krolik (1992) torus models, the circumnuclear torus radiates nearly isotropically at 60$`\mu `$m, so a sample selected in this way should be relatively free from selection effects. Any starlight energy reprocessed to 60$`\mu `$m should not cause a big bias as long as that 60$`\mu `$m component is optically thin and thus isotropic.

Given these facts, one of the best samples available for our purposes is that of warm Seyfert galaxies defined by de Grijp et al. (1987, 1992). Their sample was selected based on the strength of their IRAS 25$`\mu `$m and 60$`\mu `$m fluxes, warm infrared colors ($`1.5<\alpha (25/60)<0`$) to exclude starbursts as much as possible, and high galactic latitude ($`|b|>20^{}`$). There has been extensive followup spectroscopy of this sample and their spectral classifications are very secure. Also, Keel et al. (1994) showed that the \[OIII\] and 60$`\mu `$m luminosities of this sample have similar distributions. Since \[OIII\] is believed to be an isotropic quantity, because it originates outside the torus, this result indicates that the 60$`\mu `$m luminosity is an isotropic property, and consequently this sample should be relatively unbiased.

We have to point out, however, that this sample is not complete, since any Seyfert galaxy with infrared colors cooler than our criteria or for which there is no good quality IRAS data, are missed. Aside from any possible stellar contribution, any wavelength dependent far-IR anisotropy could make an object look too cool to be selected. In fact, according to Krolik & Lepp (1989) the torus may be optically thick up to 50$`\mu `$m, which means that the 25$`\mu `$m flux, used in the sample selection, is not completely isotropic. This is not unlikely, with X-ray columns typically N(H)$`10^{24}`$cm-2 or higher (Maiolino et al. 1998; Risaliti, Maiolino & Salvati 1999). Some encouragement here comes from evidence of a low absorption per unit column density in AGN (see Maiolino et al. 2001a,b).

The sample used here corresponds to all Seyfert galaxies with z$``$0.031 in the de Grijp et al. (1987, 1992) catalogs, giving a total of 88 galaxies, 29 Seyfert 1’s and 59 Seyfert 2’s. It was primarily selected to study the orientation of radio jets relative to their host galaxies disks by Kinney et al. (2000), who showed that these Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s have similar 60$`\mu `$m luminosity distributions. This indicates that neither of the Seyfert types is biased towards higher luminosities.

From the relative number of Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s in our sample we can calculate that the torus half opening angle is $`\theta =48^{}`$. This is done assuming that the galaxy is recognized as a Seyfert 1 if the observer see inside the torus, or as a Seyfert 2 otherwise. We discuss some possible complications to this scenario in Section 3. This value is between the ones obtained by Osterbrock & Martél (1993) from the relative number of Seyfert 1’s and 1.5’s ($`\theta =38^{}`$) and Seyfert 1.8’s and 1.9’s ($`\theta =56^{}`$) in the CfA sample. Values similar to these can be obtain using the Palomar survey (Ho, Filippenko & Sargent 1997). The de Grijp et al. (1992) classification separated the galaxies only in Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s. It is possible that Seyfert 1.8’s and 1.9’s were divided among these two classes, which would explain the fact that our torus half opening angle is in the middle of the two values obtained when using samples split into finer details.

Another important point in this study is the use of high quality radio and broad-band optical images obtained and measured in a homogeneous way. Data collected from the literature can also influence the results, since it usually is inhomogeneous, involves data of different quality, besides the fact that different authors are likely to measure the same thing using different techniques. Tables 1 and 2, for Seyfert 1’s and 2’s, respectively, present the data used in our analysis.

Using the galaxies radial velocities from Tables 1 and 2, and assuming H$`{}_{0}{}^{}=75`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 (which will be used throughout this paper), we found that Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s have indistinguishable distance distributions. A KS test shows that two samples drawn from the same parent population would differ this much 99.99% of the time.

We also compared if Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s have the same space distribution using the V/Vmax technique (Schmidt 1968), based on the 25$`\mu `$m and 60$`\mu `$m fluxes given by de Grijp et al. (1992), and the detection limits 0.1 Jy at 25$`\mu `$m and 0.45 Jy at 60$`\mu `$m. The average and standard deviation of V/Vmax for the 25$`\mu `$m data is 0.146$`\pm `$0.154 for Seyfert 1’s and 0.111$`\pm `$0.144 for Seyfert 2’s, while for the 60$`\mu `$m data it is 0.327$`\pm `$0.273 and 0.251$`\pm `$0.214, for Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s, respectively. Applying a KS test to the V/Vmax distributions obtained from the 25$`\mu `$m data shows that Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s have similar distributions. Two samples drawn from the same parent population would differ this much 52% of the time. A similar result is obtained for the V/Vmax distributions obtained from the 60$`\mu `$m data, with the KS test giving a 63% probability. These results show that both Seyfert types have similar space distributions, and are not biased towards one type of Seyfert being more distant than the other. One important result from this analysis is the fact that the V/Vmax distribution have values smaller than 0.5, which shows that the space distributions are skewed towards nearby objects. This result is expected, since the sample includes only galaxies with z$`0.031`$.

The broad-band imaging data used here were presented by Schmitt & Kinney (2000). The host galaxy ellipticities ($`e=1b/a`$) and major axis position angles (PAMA) were obtained by fitting ellipses to the images of the galaxies. Further details about these measurements are given by Kinney et al. (2000) and Schmitt & Kinney (2000). The Morphological Types used here were obtained mostly from de Vaucouleurs et al. (1993) and Malkan et al. (1998). Since these large compilations have already classified the galaxies rather homogeneously, we gave preference to them and avoided reclassifying the galaxies. The exceptions were the galaxies for which we could not find a previous classification, in which case we classified them ourselves. We also checked the galaxies smaller than 30′′, since older lower resolution images could have resulted in their misclassification as earlier type systems, but none of the previous classifications changed.

High resolution VLA A-configuration 3.6cm radio images were available for 75 galaxies in our sample, and PKS2048–57 had 3.6cm data from ATCA. Data for 36 of these galaxies was obtained by us in a snapshot survey, while for 19 other galaxies we retrieved and reduced data from the VLA archive (Schmitt et al. 2001). Only TOL1238–364 was not detected. Data for the remaining 20 galaxies were obtained from Nagar et al. (1999), who reduced and measured their data in a way similar to ours. For those galaxies with extended radio structures, their emission was decomposed into individual components by fitting gaussians to them. The position angle of the extended emission (PARAD) and the extension of the radio emission was measured between the central position of these Gaussians. For more details about the measurements, see Schmitt et al. (2001), Kinney et al. (2000) and Nagar et al. (1999).

## 3 Host galaxies inclinations and morphological types

Figure 1 shows the observed distribution of the ratio between the host galaxies minor to major axis lengths (b/a). The observed distribution has a deficit of Seyfert 1 galaxies with b/a$`<`$0.5, while in Seyfert 2’s this does not seem to happen. The lack of galaxies with b/a$`<`$0.2 is due to the thickness of the disk, which accounts for the fact that even when seen edge-on a galaxy has b/a$`>`$0 (Hubble 1926). Comparing the b/a distribution for Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS test) we find that they are significantly different, giving the probability that two samples drawn from the same parent population would differ this much only 4.7% of the time.

This result is similar to the one found by Keel (1980), who was the first to discover a deficiency of edge-on Seyfert 1 galaxies (see also Lawrence & Elvis 1982). This has been confirmed by more recent results from Maiolino & Rieke (1995) and Simcoe et al. (1997), based on larger samples. Also Kinney et al. (2000) showed from the modeling of the 3-dimensional distribution of jets relative to their galaxies disk, based on the observed distribution of host galaxy disk inclinations and $`\delta `$’s (the difference between the position angles of the radio jet and the host galaxy major axis), that there is an inconsistency in the model. This inconsistency can only be solved if one assume that Seyfert 1’s whose host galaxies are highly inclined are seen as Seyfert 2’s, regardless of the orientation of any nuclear torus. We do not expect to see ionization cones in this case.

Although this result is in principle not expected from the Unified Model, it does not necessarily contradict it. The papers cited above suggested that, in the case of edge-on Seyfert galaxies, the gas and dust along the host galaxy disk can act in the same way as a circumnuclear torus, blocking the direct view of the Broad Line Region, thus leading to a classification as a Seyfert 2 galaxy.

The comparison between the Morphological Types (T) of the host galaxies of Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s is presented in Figure 2, which shows that the two distributions are very similar. In fact, the KS test shows that two samples selected from the same parent population would differ this much 80% of the time. This result is in contrast to the result from Malkan et al. (1998). However, as explained in the Introduction, their result is most likely due to selection effects, since their galaxies were not selected following an isotropic criterion (Antonucci 1999).

## 4 Radio luminosities and extensions

Figure 3 presents the comparison between the distributions of the radio 3.6 cm luminosities of Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s. The two groups of galaxies have similar distributions, as expected from the Unified Model. The KS test shows that two samples selected from the same parent population would differ this much 11% of the time.

Figure 4 shows the distributions of the logarithm of the extension of the 3.6cm radio emission in Seyfert 1’s (top) and Seyfert 2’s (bottom). Only 9 out of 26 Seyfert 1’s (35%) show extended emission, and the rest are unresolved, as indicated by arrows in the figure. In the case of Seyfert 2’s, 28 out of 48 galaxies (58%) have extended radio emission.

Given the fact that 50% of the galaxies in our sample are unresolved, we had to use survival analysis techniques to compare the two distributions. We used the IRAF package “statistics” inside STSDAS, which contains a series of statistical tests for censored data, created based on the package ASURV (Isobe & Feigelson 1990, LaValley, Isobe & Feigelson 1992).

The mean and standard deviations of the extension of the radio emission were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator, which gave 148$`\pm `$65 pc and 348$`\pm `$97 pc for Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s, respectively. We should point out that the Kaplan-Meier estimator only works if the censoring is random, meaning that the probability of a measurement being censored does not depend on the value of the variable. In principle this requirement seems to rule out the possibility of using this estimator, since we cannot detect emission less extended than $`0.25^{\prime \prime }`$. However, since the galaxies are at different distances, this angular size corresponds to different physical sizes for different galaxies, thus randomizing the censoring.

We also compared whether Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s have similar distributions of the extension of the radio emission, using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test. This test assumes that the censoring patterns are the same in the two samples, which is our case. We obtain a probability of 4.2% that the two samples are drawn from the same parent population.

The results obtained from these tests confirm what a visual inspection of Figure 4 suggests, that the extension of the radio emission in Seyfert 1 galaxies is smaller than that of Seyfert 2’s. The fact that Seyfert 1’s have smaller extended radio emission is not due to a distance effect, since we showed that both Seyfert types have similar distance and space distributions. We extend this analysis by applying the V/Vmax test to the extension of the radio emission. Excluding the galaxies with upper limits from the sample and applying a KS test to the V/Vmax distributions of Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s, we find that they do not differ significantly. Two samples drawn from the same parent population would differ this much 72% of the time. In the case when we consider all galaxies, assuming those with size upper limits have V/V$`{}_{max}{}^{}=1`$, the two samples still have similar distributions. The KS test gives an 11% probability that two samples drawn from the same parent population would differ this much. These results confirm one of the predictions from the Unified Model, that, since the jets are seen end-on in Seyfert 1 galaxies, projection effects should make their jets look smaller than those of Seyfert 2’s which are seen more edge-on.

## 5 Number of companion galaxies

Two of the major concerns in the study of AGN’s are the origin of the gas which fuels the nuclear black hole and the mechanisms that make this gas move from galactic scales down to the inner $``$1 pc region of the galaxy. In the case of spiral galaxies, gas in their disks can be a natural source to fuel the AGN, while in ellipticals an external source seems to be necessary. Several mechanisms have been suggested to explain how it is possible to transport gas from the disk of a spiral galaxy to its nucleus, like interactions (Gunn 1979; Hernquist 1989; Hernquist & Mihos 1995), or bars (Schwartz 1981; Norman 1987; Shlosman, Frank & Begelman 1990). A review about this subject is given by Combes (2001).

The influence of interactions on the fueling of AGN has been the topic of several papers, but so far there is no consensus about this subject. Dahari (1984) was the first one to make a large compilation of possible companions around Seyferts, finding that these galaxies have an excess of companions relative to normal galaxies. The same result was obtained by Rafanelli, Violato & Baruffolo (1995), Laurikainen et al. (1994) and MacKenty (1989, 1990). On the other hand, Fuentes-Williams & Stocke (1988), Bushouse (1986) and De Robertis, Yee & Hayhoe (1998) found that there is no detectable difference in the environments of their samples of Seyfert and normal galaxies. Yet another intriguing result was obtained by Laurikainen & Salo (1995) and Dultzin-Hacyan et al. (1999), who showed that Seyfert 2’s have a larger number of companions when compared to normal galaxies, while Seyfert 1’s do not. Part of these conflicting results may be due to the way these papers selected their samples and control samples (Heckman 1990; Osterbrock 1993).

We used our broad band images, NED and the Digitized Sky Survey plates (DSS) to search for companions around the galaxies in our sample. Although we cannot do a proper comparison between the frequency of companions in these galaxies compared to normal ones, because we did not observe a control sample and cannot apply the same kind of statistical analysis done by Dahari (1984), we can at least put an upper and a lower limit on the number of galaxies with companions in our sample for each Seyfert type.

Several parameters have been used to determine if a galaxy has a possible companion or not. We adopt here the ones used by Rafanelli et al. (1995), which was determined based on catalogs of interacting and pair galaxies. A galaxy is considered a possible companion if its distance to the galaxy of interest is smaller than 3 times the diameter of that galaxy (3D) and the difference in brightness between them is smaller than 3 magnitudes ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }m|`$ 3 mag). These criteria alone are not enough to determine whether two galaxies actually are companions, but they can be used to at least put an upper limit on this number. The definitive criterion to consider two galaxies as companions, according to Rafanelli et al. (1995) is the difference between the radial velocities of the two components, which has to be smaller than $`|c\mathrm{\Delta }z|`$1000 km s-1.

Following the Rafanelli et al. (1995) criteria, we searched our images for possible companion galaxies around our Seyferts. Most of the search was conducted on the I band images of Schmitt & Kinney (2000), which were deeper than their B band images. These images are sensitive enough to ensure that all galaxies with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|3`$ mag were detected. The faintest galaxy in our sample has I$`=`$14.46 mag, while the typical detection limit of the images is $``$22 mag arcsec-2, about 7 magnitudes fainter. In the case of two Seyfert 1 galaxies (MRK705 and MCG+08-11-011) we allowed the brightness difference between the two galaxies to be slightly larger than 3 mag, since they have bright nuclei, which increases their integrated magnitudes.

A small percentage of the galaxies, usually the closest ones, were large enough that the 3D region exceeded the sides of our images. In these cases we searched for companions on NED and DSS images. For the cases in which we found companions on NED, they were also confirmed on the DSS images. In these cases we had to use a $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|3`$ mag brightness criteria rather than $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|3`$ mag, because there was no I band information available for these galaxies. That should not affect our results, since, according to Héraudeau, Simien & Mamon (1996), spiral galaxies have a mean color B–I$`2`$, with a spread of $`0.5`$ mag around this value. All the galaxies for which we used the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|3`$ mag criteria have $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|`$ 2 mag or smaller.

Although the search for possible companions involved more than one data source and was not perfectly homogeneous, all the galaxies with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|3`$ mag or $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|3`$ mag were detected. Our images allowed to search for magnitude differences much fainter than $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|3`$ mag. The searches based on NED and DSS images also allowed the detection of magnitude differences fainter than $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|3`$ mag, since they involved only the nearest galaxies, the brightest ones (B$`<13`$ mag).

We also used NED to search for the radial velocities of the possible companion galaxies. Some of the galaxies which satisfied the distance and brightness criteria were excluded from the list of possible interacting galaxies because their radial velocities differed by more than 1000 km s-1. Nevertheless, we could not find radial velocity information for all the galaxies.

The information about the distances and difference in radial velocities and magnitudes between the Seyfert galaxies and their possible companions is presented in Table 3. A total of 25 out of the 88 Seyfert galaxies in our sample have galaxies with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B|3`$ mag and closer than 3D from them, which puts an upper limit of $`<28\pm `$6% of possible interacting galaxies in this sample (the uncertainty is given by Poisson statistics). Of these 25 galaxies, 9 are Seyfert 1’s and 16 are Seyfert 2’s, which gives an upper limit of possible companions of $`<31\pm `$10% and $`<27\pm `$7% among Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s, respectively. When we consider only the galaxies which satisfy the brightness, distance and velocity criteria, we find a total of 17 Seyferts with confirmed companions in the sample. Since there is no information on the radial velocities for 8 of the possible companion galaxies, we can only assume that 17 is a lower limit, which gives that the percentage of Seyferts with companions is $`>19\pm 5`$%. Of these 17 galaxies, 7 are Seyfert 1’s and 10 are Seyfert 2’s, which gives a lower limit on the number of companions of $`>24\pm 9`$% and $`>17\pm 5`$%, respectively.

The number of confirmed companions in our sample is similar to the one found by Rafanelli et al. (1995) for the CfA sample. We should also notice that there is no apparent difference in the upper and lower percentage of companion galaxies in Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s, contradicting the results obtained by Laurikainen & Salo (1995) and Dultzin-Hacyan et al. (1999). A possible explanation for the larger percentage of Seyfert 2 galaxies with companions found by these two papers may be their samples. Both papers selected their galaxies mostly from ultraviolet surveys. As discussed above, this is not a good selection criterion, given the fact that the nuclear source is hidden in Seyfert 2’s and the ultraviolet emission we see is either nuclear light reflected in our direction, or originates from a source other than the AGN, like a Starburst for example. If the ultraviolet excess observed in some Seyfert 2’s is in fact due to Starbursts, as several recent papers suggest (González-Delgado, Heckman & Leitherer 2001; Storchi-Bergmann et al. 2001; Schmitt, Storchi-Bergmann & Cid Fernandes 1999; Cid Fernandes, Storchi-Bergmann & Schmitt 1998) this would in fact explain their larger number of Seyfert 2’s with companions, since galaxy interaction can enhance star formation (Kennicutt et al. 1987; Bushouse 1987; Telesco et al. 1993).

## 6 Torus and host galaxy disk alignment as a function of morphological type

Based on the assumption that the extended \[OIII\] emission observed in some Seyfert galaxies, is a tracer of the torus axis, Wilson & Tsvetanov (1994) compared the orientation of the torus relative to the host galaxy disk major axis in 11 of these objects. Their result suggested that the torus axis could be aligned closer to the host galaxy rotation axis in late type galaxies, since these galaxies presented \[OIII\] emission extended preferentially perpendicular to the major axis, along the minor axis. On the other hand, their results showed that the extended \[OIII\] emission can have any orientation relative to the host galaxy major axis in early type systems. According to these authors, these results suggested that the gas feeding the nucleus could originate from the host galaxy disk in late type galaxies, but have an external origin in early type systems. However, as they pointed out, their results were just speculative, since their sample was too small to draw significant conclusions.

Schmitt et al. (1997) repeated the comparison done by Wilson & Tsvetanov (1994), but instead of using extended \[OIII\] emission to trace the torus axis, did it using extended radio emission. Their results showed that it was not possible to distinguish the observed distribution from a uniform one, implying that Wilson & Tsvetanov (1994) results were due to the small size of their sample. However, an analysis presented by Nagar & Wilson (1999), also based on the orientation of radio jets, claimed the opposite, that Seyfert galaxies in late type hosts actually have torus and accretion disk axis aligned close to the galaxy rotation axis.

Figure 5 shows the observed distribution of $`\delta `$’s, the difference between the position angles of the jets and the host galaxies major axis, and morphological types for the sample described in Sec. 2. This Figure is just a scatter plot, with no particular correlation between the two quantities. A KS test shows that the null hypothesis that the observed data is represented by a uniform distribution, is confirmed at the 97% significance level. In the case we consider only those galaxies with T$`2`$, the KS test still gives a 76% probability that the observed distribution can be represented by a uniform distribution.

We believe that the Nagar & Wilson (1999) results may be due to a selection effect. They found that there is a tendency for Seyferts in types later than Sab (T$``$2) to avoid close alignment of the jets with the minor axis. However, their primary sample was composed only of Seyferts with hosts earlier than Sab (T$``$2), to which they added some later type galaxies obtained from the literature. In this way, they ended up having a very good representation of galaxies with T$`2`$, but lacked galaxies with later types, which most likely influenced their results.

In order to increase the number of galaxies in this comparison, we repeated this test including all Seyfert galaxies with extended radio emission presented by Kinney et al. (2000), which were not in our sample described in Sec. 2. The $`\delta `$ versus T distribution is presented in Figure 6, which shows the same behavior as Figure 5. A KS test also gives similar results, showing that the null hypothesis that the observed data can be represented by a uniform distribution is confirmed at the 84% level, or 23% when we consider only those galaxies with T$`2`$. These results are expected, since Clarke et al. (1998), Nagar & Wilson (1999) and Kinney et al. (2000) showed that there is no correlation between the orientation of the jet axis and host galaxy disk. The possible implications of this result for the structure of the accretion disk and feeding of the black hole are discussed by Kinney et al. (2000).

## 7 Summary

In this paper, we used high resolution radio 3.6cm and optical B and I images of a sample of Seyfert galaxies selected from their far infrared properties, which are believed to be relatively isotropic properties of these galaxies, since they are relatively unbiased. Our sample selection makes it one of the best ones to study the Unified Model, since it is unbiased towards the orientation of the accretion torus.

From the relative number of Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s we calculate that the torus half opening angle is $`\theta =48^{}`$. This value is similar to the one found by Osterbrock & Martél (1993) for the CfA sample.

Our results showed that there is a deficiency of Seyfert 1’s in edge-on galaxies. The comparison between the distribution of the ratio between the host galaxy minor to major axis lengths shows that Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s are statistically different, with the Seyfert 2’s having more edge-on galaxies. This result is in line with previous results, which suggest that dust and gas along the host galaxy disk can play an important role in hiding the nucleus from direct view in edge-on Seyferts.

The comparison of the morphological types of the host galaxies does not show a statistically significant difference between Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s. Previous results showing the opposite may have been due to selection effects. We also find that there is no significant difference in the radio 3.6cm luminosities of these two groups.

Using survival analysis techniques, we showed that the extension of the radio emission in Seyfert 1’s is smaller than that of Seyfert 2’s by a factor of 2–3. This result is in accordance with the Unified Model, which predicts that the jets are seen end-on in Seyfert 1 galaxies and therefore should be shortened by projection.

We used our images to search for possible companions around our galaxies, following the criteria described by Rafanelli et al. (1995). Although we could not compare the number we obtained with that of normal galaxies, because we did not observe a control sample, we were able to determine limits to the percentage of galaxies with companions in our sample and compare their frequency in Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s. We found that between 19% and 28% of the galaxies in our sample have companions, with no significant difference between Seyfert 1’s and Seyfert 2’s. Previous results showing that there is a higher percentage of Seyfert 2’s with companions than Seyfert 1’s, may have been due to the samples used to perform those studies.

We also showed that there is no preference for the torus axis of Seyferts in late type galaxies to be aligned preferentially close to their host galaxy rotation axis (minor axis) as shown by previous works. The observed distribution suggests that there is no correlation between the jet and the disk direction, as shown by Kinney et al. (2000).

We would like to acknowledge the hospitality and help from the staff at CTIO, KPNO and Lick Observatories during the observations. We also would like to thank the anonymous referee for usefull comments. This work was supported by NASA grant AR-8383.01-97A. This research made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech, under contract with NASA. We also used the Digitized Sky Survey, which was produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAGW-2166. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.