text:
# Spherical Gravitational Collapse and Accretion - Exact General Relativistic Description

## I Introduction

A physically realistic gravitational collapse problem imagines matter, with regular initial data, collapsing under its self-gravity. The resultant compression of matter causes pressure to build-up in it. Further, matter compression generates heat and radiation because of either the onset of thermonuclear fusion reactions or other reasons. The radiation or heat then propagates through the space. The collapsing matter could stabilize to some size when its equation of state is such as to provide pressure support against gravity. If self-gravity dominates, the collapse continues to a spacetime singularity. The issue of Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis penrose69  relates to whether the singularity is visible to any observer or not, ie, whether it is naked or not.

Irrespective of whether a black hole or a matter condensate forms in the collapse, matter in the surroundings will accrete onto the central object. The accreting matter may, initially, be dust in the far away regions. However, it gets compressed as it moves closer to the central object and pressure must build up in it. In many such situations, heat and radiation partly escape the system and partly fall onto the central object together with the accreting matter.

Then, various stages of gravitational collapse can be distinguished on the basis of the properties of matter such as its equation of state that are different in different such stages. Therefore, any complete description of the collapse and accretion processes requires us to properly match spacetimes of various such stages to produce the final spacetime description. Note that the final spacetime will have to be a solution of the Einstein field equations. (Note that the equation of state at extremely high densities is not known.)

In any case, the final spacetime description of the gravitational collapse and/or the accretion process must admit a changing equation of state for collapsing/accreting matter. Further, such a spacetime must also admit an energy or heat flux during late collapse or accretion stages. To accomplish this process of matching different such spacetimes is a herculean, if not impossible, task.

Hence, another approach to this problem is essential. We could then demand that a spacetime describing the collapse and/or the process of accretion in its totality admits any equation of state and appropriate energy-momentum fluxes. In other words, the spacetime geometry should be obtainable from considerations that do not involve the equation of state for the matter in the spacetime. Furthermore, these considerations should result in a spacetime admitting energy-momentum fluxes. We now turn to precisely such considerations in General Relativity.

### Spatially Homothetic Spacetimes

The phenomenon of gravitation does not provide any length-scale or mass-scale for spatial distribution of matter properties. Note that the scale-independence of Newtonian gravity applies only to space and not to time. This is one of the fundamental, observational properties of gravitation. Therefore, General Relativity as a theory of gravitation must not provide any length-scale for matter distributions. This is essentially the spatial scale-invariance property of the spacetime.

The scale-independence of gravity means that we can construct a gravitating object of any size and of any mass. Further, matter within such an object can be distributed in any desirable manner since gravity does not provide for the spatial distribution of matter within any gravitating object. (It is a separate question as to whether every such object will be stable or not.)

There must therefore exist in General Relativity a spacetime that allows matter density to be an arbitrary function of each of the three spatial coordinates. We emphasize that such a spacetime metric and all other metric forms that are reducible to it under non-singular coordinate transformations are the only solutions of the field equations of General Relativity that are consistent with gravity not possessing a length-scale for matter properties.

All other spacetimes that are not reducible to the aforementioned spacetime by non-singular coordinate transformations then violate this basic property of gravity that it has no length-scale for matter properties. Hence, such spacetimes must possess a specific length-scale or mass-scale for matter properties. In short, not every solution of the Einstein field equations respects the principle, namely, its spatial scale-independence.

The field equations of General Relativity are based on Einstein’s equivalence principle which is, primarily, the principle of equality of the inertial and gravitational masses. It is the equivalence principle that leads to geometrization of gravity and, hence, from a variational principle, to the field equations of General Relativity. However, General Relativity does not automatically incorporate other basic properties of gravity, if any, for example that it does not specify any length-scale for matter properties. Therefore, we need to separately enforce the principle of “no length-scale for matter properties” on the solutions of the field equations of General Relativity.

In general, a homothetic Killing vector captures carrcoley  the notion of the scale-invariance. The principle that gravity does not specify any length-scale for matter properties then requires the spacetime to admit, in general, three independent spacelike Homothetic Killing vectors corresponding to the three spatial dimensions. A spacetime that conforms to the spatial scale-invariance, to be called a spatially homothetic spacetime, is then required to admit, corresponding to each spatial coordinate, an appropriate spatial homothetic Killing vector $`𝐗`$ satisfying

$$_𝐗g_{ab}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{\Phi }g_{ab}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an arbitrary constant. We then expect spatially homothetic spacetimes to possess arbitrary spatial characteristics for matter. This is also the broadest (Lie) sense of the scale-invariance of the spacetime leading not only to the reduction of the Einstein field equations as partial differential equations to ordinary differential equations but leading also to their separation.

There is another importance of the spatially homothetic spacetimes. We note that the field equations of General Relativity were arrived at by demanding only that these reduce to the Newton-Poisson equation in the weak gravity limit eg1913 ; subtle . But, the field equations of any theory of gravity should contain the entire weak gravity physics due to the applicability of the laws of weak gravity to any form of matter displaying any physical phenomena. The field equations are expected to be only the formal equality of the appropriate tensor from the geometry and the energy-momentum tensor of matter. Then, the field equations of General Relativity could have been obtained by imposing the requirement that these reduce to the single “equation of the entire weak gravity physics”.

However, there is no “single” equation for the “entire weak gravity physics” since we include different physical effects in an ad-hoc manner in the newtonian physics.

But, there can be a “single” spacetime containing the entire weak gravity physics. Therefore, we need a principle to identify such a solution of the field equations. In the weak field limit, the spatial scale-invariance is the freedom of specification of matter properties through three independent functions of the three spatial coordinates, in general.

The spatial scale-invariance is then the principle that could help us identify spacetimes containing the entire weak gravity physics. Indeed. the spatial scale invariance identifies a single such spacetime cch . It has appropriate energy-momentum fluxes, applicability to any form of matter and, hence, it contains the entire weak gravity physics. The newtonian law of gravitation then gets replaced by the single general relativistic spacetime cch  that contains all of the weak gravity physics. But, spatial scale-independence needs to be separately imposed on the field equations to obtain it.

Spatially homothetic spacetimes do not yield a naked singularity for initially non-singular, regular, spatial data for matter fields cch . Such spacetimes always produce a black hole in the unstoppable gravitational collapse of spatially non-singular matter of any spatial properties. Due to the freedom of the specification of spatial properties of matter in it, a spatially homothetic spacetime can describe the formation of some gravitating object, may that be a black hole, and accretion onto it in its entirety.

A general spatially homothetic spacetime, although known cch , is a complicated spacetime. The general problems of the formation of a gravitating object and accretion onto it are, therefore, highly involved problems to analyze in details. This is understandable since, in general, a collapsing newtonian object of arbitrary spatial characteristics will exhibit energy-momentum fluxes along all the cartesian coordinate directions. We will therefore have to deal with this complexity in all its generality. It is instructive, however, to begin with the simpler situation of spherical symmetry to gain insight into the physical nature of the gravitational collapse problem.

To fix ideas, we therefore begin in this paper with the simplest of such problems - a spherically symmetric problem - that considers the formation of a spherical gravitating object and accretion of matter onto it. To this end, we first recall from cqg1  the spherically symmetric, spatially homothetic spacetime and its properties. It will be seen that the temporal metric functions are determined by the properties of matter in it.

## II Spacetime of Accreting, Non-Rotating, Spherical Object

A general spherically symmetric spacetime admits a metric of the form

$$ds^2=A^2(r,t)dt^2+B^2(r,t)dr^2+C^2(r,t)\left[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right]$$
(2)
A spherically symmetric spacetime has only one spatial scale associated with it - the radial distance scale. The scale-independence of gravity then means that a spherically symmetric spacetime allows arbitrary radial properties for matter. The corresponding spatial homothetic Killing vector must then possess only a radial component in appropriate coordinates. Therefore, we impose cqg2  a spatial homothetic Killing vector

$$(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},f(r,t),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})$$
(3)
on the general spherically symmetric metric (2). This uniquely determines the spherically symmetric metric to that obtained in cqg1 , namely

$$ds^2=y^2(r)dt^2+\gamma ^2\left(y^{}\right)^2B^2(t)dr^2+y^2(r)Y^2(t)\left[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right]$$
(4)
with $`f(r,t)=y/(\gamma y^{})`$, a prime indicating a derivative with respect to $`r`$ and $`\gamma `$ being a constant. (We shall always absorb the temporal function in $`g_{tt}`$ by suitable redefinition of the time coordinate.)

The coordinates are co-moving with the geometry. We can therefore define

$$D_tU^a\frac{}{x^a}=\frac{1}{y}\frac{}{t}$$
(5)
where $`U^a`$ is the four-velocity of the co-moving observer. Further, differentiation along an outward radial unit vector orthogonal to $`U^a`$ is given by

$$D_r\frac{1}{\gamma (y^{})B}\frac{}{r}$$
(6)
Then, the velocity of the fluid with respect to the co-moving observer is

$$V_r=D_t\left(yY\right)=\dot{Y}$$
(7)
The metric function $`B(t)`$ determines or gets determined by the energy flux in the spacetime. These characteristics of the temporal metric functions are important to the analysis of the physics of the gravitational collapse implied by (4).

The Einstein tensor for (4) has the following components in the chosen coordinate frame

$`G_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Y^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2B^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Y}^2}{Y^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}\dot{Y}}{BY}}`$ (8)
$`G_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^2B^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^{}}{y}}\right)^2\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{Y}}{Y}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Y}^2}{Y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\gamma ^2B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Y^2}}\right]`$ (9)
$`G_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`Y\ddot{Y}Y^2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{B}}{B}}Y{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Y}\dot{B}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y^2}{\gamma ^2B^2}}`$ (10)
$`G_{\varphi \varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta G_{\theta \theta }`$ (11)
$`G_{tr}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}y^{}}{By}}`$ (12)
where an overhead dot denotes a time derivative.

Notice that the $`t`$$`r`$ component of the Einstein tensor is non-vanishing. Hence, the matter in the spacetime could be imperfect or anisotropic indicating that the energy-momentum tensor could be either of the following

$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{I}}T_{ab}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(p+\rho )U_aU_b+pg_{ab}+q_aU_b+q_bU_a\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\eta \sigma _{ab}`$ (13)
$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{A}}T_{ab}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho U_aU_b+p_{||}n_an_b+p_{}P_{ab}`$ (14)
where $`U^a`$ is the matter four-velocity, $`q^a`$ is the heat-flux four-vector relative to $`U^a`$, $`\eta `$ is the shear-viscosity coefficient, $`\sigma _{ab}`$ is the shear tensor, $`n^a`$ is a unit spacelike four-vector orthogonal to $`U^a`$, $`P_{ab}`$ is the projection tensor onto the two-plane orthogonal to $`U^a`$ and $`n^a`$, $`p_{||}`$ denotes pressure parallel to and $`p_{}`$ denotes pressure perpendicular to $`n^a`$. Also, $`p`$ is the isotropic pressure and $`\rho `$ is the energy density.

For the observer co-moving with geometry with four-velocity

$$U^a=\frac{1}{y}\delta _{}^{a}{}_{t}{}^{}$$
(15)
the kinematical quantities for the line element (4) are given by

$$\dot{U}_a=U_{a}^{}{}_{;b}{}^{}U^b=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\frac{y^{}}{y},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})$$
(16)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Y}}{Y}}\right)`$ (17)
$`\sigma `$ $``$ $`\sigma _{}^{3}{}_{3}{}^{}=\sigma _{}^{2}{}_{2}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _{}^{1}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3y(2\eta )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Y}}{Y}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}\right)`$
where $`\dot{U}_a`$ denotes the four-acceleration of matter, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_M`$ represents expansion of matter. Note that the shear tensor is trace-free and $`\sigma `$ represents the shear-scalar that is given by $`\sqrt{6}\sigma `$.

For $`\mathrm{\Theta }_M>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, the spacetime under consideration is expanding and, for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_M<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, the spacetime is contracting.

Now, the Einstein field equations with imperfect matter yield for (4)

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Y}^2}{Y^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Y}}{Y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Y^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2B^2}}\right)`$ (19)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{Y}}{Y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{B}}{B}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma ^2B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{2}}\left(\rho +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}p\right)`$ (20)
$`3(2\eta )\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{B}}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{Y}}{Y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}\dot{Y}}{BY}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Y}^2}{Y^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma ^2B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Y^2}}\right)`$ (21)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\dot{B}}{y^2\gamma ^2y^{}B^3}}`$ (22)
where $`q^a=(0,q,0,0)`$ is the radial heat-flux vector.

Clearly, the radial function $`y(r)`$ is not determined by the field equations. Therefore, radial attributes of matter are arbitrary, meaning, unspecified, for the metric (4). This is in the manner of concentric spheres with each sphere allowed to possess any value of density, for example. This is the maximal freedom compatible with the assumption of spherical symmetry, we may note.

It also follows that the temporal metric functions $`B(t)`$ and $`Y(t)`$ get determined by the properties of matter such as an equation of state.

The point $`r=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ will possess a locally flat neighborhood when $`y^{}|_{r\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/\gamma `$. This condition must be imposed on any $`y(r)`$. Apart from this condition, the function $`y(r)`$ is arbitrary. Other physical considerations, such as those arising from the equation of heat transfer in the spacetime, could constrain the function $`y(r)`$.

The density is, for $`y^{}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, a decreasing function of $`r`$ corresponding to a region over-dense at its center. Therefore, for our purposes here, we will assume that there is only one over-dense region and, hence, $`y^{}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ throughout the spacetime. Then, we have that there is a “single” collapsing and accreting spherically symmetric object.

The spatial or radial nature of the heat flux is determined primarily by the sign of the quantity $`\dot{B}/y^{}`$. The heat flux is positive, that is, heat flows from lower values of $`r`$ to higher values of $`r`$, when $`y^{}`$ and $`\dot{B}`$ have opposite signs. Then, with $`y^{}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, we require $`\dot{B}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for the whole of the spacetime. Heat then flows from smaller values of $`r`$ to larger values of $`r`$. That is to say, heat flows from the central over-dense region to under-dense region surrounding it. This is then the general gravitational model with radially outward heat flux. A specific model is obtained for a specific choice of the radial function $`y(r)`$ with above conditions.

We remind the reader that additional conditions arising from the considerations of the stability of the stellar object etc. will constrain the radial metric function $`y(r)`$ in a manner similar to those obtainable for the Newtonian model of a star.

In general, we may define the mass function by

$$m(r,t)=\frac{yY}{2}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{Y^2}{\gamma ^2B^2}+\dot{Y}^2\right)$$
(23)
The field equations then imply

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \rho y^2Y^3y^{}`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi py^3Y^2\dot{Y}`$ (25)
For positive pressure $`p`$ in the spacetime and for $`\dot{Y}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, the mass accretes to the center and it is increasing in time in a collapsing situation. We may also define the luminosity of the central star as seen by a co-moving observer at location $`r`$ by

$$=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi y^2Y^2q$$
(26)
### Semi-stable, radiating object

Recall that $`\dot{Y}`$ is the radial velocity of matter with respect to the observer co-moving with the geometry. It can be positive for out-flowing matter, negative for in-flowing matter and zero for stable matter. Also, the mass accretion rate (25) will vanish for $`\dot{Y}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$. Then, the temporal dependence of the mass function in (23) corresponding to $`\dot{Y}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$ is purely due to the conversion of mass to radiation or heat. In this case, we also obtain

$$(2\eta )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\sigma =\gamma ^2B^2yy^{}q$$
(27)
for $`\dot{Y}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$.

This is the “semi-stable” spherically symmetric, radiating object. The expressions for its density etc. follow from (19) - (22). In particular, we can write

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}{\displaystyle \frac{(y^{})y^2B}{2|\dot{B}|}}q\right)`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{B}}{B}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma ^2B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{2}}\left(\rho +3p\right)`$ (29)
by noting that the positivity of shear and heat flux, both, requires $`\dot{B}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for $`y^{}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$.

Note that the stability of such an object is not for all of the co-moving time. The properties of matter determine whether the object remains stable in this manner or not. Considerations such as those leading to the Chandrasekhar or the Oppenheimer-Volkov limits stars  are then possible. However, these require more details of the matter properties than are considered here.

### No collapse without heat generation

We may note that the heat generation at some stage during the gravitational collapse is expected on the basis of very general physical considerations of thermodynamic origin. Therefore, we must not obtain the situation of gravitational collapse without heat generation when we use the metric (4).

This is easily seen by taking $`\dot{B}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ so that the heat flux vanishes in the spacetime for all co-moving time since there is no heat generation. But, (18) implies that $`\dot{Y}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for the shear-scalar to be positive. Then, (17) implies that matter in the spacetime of (4) is expanding and not contracting.

Consequently, we do not obtain the situation of gravitational collapse in the absence of heat generation in the spacetime of (4).

### Shell-crossing and Shell-focussing singularities

The singularities at locations for which $`y^{}=0`$ are of shell-crossing type. These are however weak singularities since the curvature invariants do not blow up at locations for which $`y^{}=0`$ cqg1 . Such locations have physical meaning in terms of the heat flow caustics.

The genuine spacetime singularities of the strong curvature, shell-focussing type exist when either $`y(r)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for some $`r`$ or when the temporal functions vanish for some $`t`$. The possibility of $`y(r)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for some $`r`$, however, means that we already have a spacetime singularity at that $`r`$. Therefore, we have, for spherically symmetric, spatially homothetic spacetimes, that $`y(r)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ at all $`r`$ for the non-singular initial data for matter fields.

(In general, for spatially homothetic spacetimes, the non-singularity of initial data for matter fields will be seen cch  to require the non-vanishing of the corresponding arbitrary functions of the spatial coordinates.)

Further, we note that the “physical” radial distance corresponding to the “coordinate” radial distance $`\delta r`$ is

$$\mathrm{}=\gamma (y^{})B\delta r$$
(30)
Then, a collapsing shell of matter forms the spacetime singularity in the present spacetime when $`B(t)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ is reached for it at some $`t=t_s`$. The temporal function $`Y(t)`$ determines the shear and the expansion in the spacetime together with the temporal function $`B(t)`$.

### Light Trapping Surface

A radially outgoing null vector of (4) is

$$\mathrm{}^a_a=\frac{1}{y}\frac{}{t}+\frac{1}{\gamma y^{}B}\frac{}{r}=D_t+D_r$$
(31)
Light gets trapped inside a particular radial coordinate $`r`$ when the expansion of the above principle null vector vanishes. The formation of the outermost light-trapping surface (LTS) during any unstoppable collapse is then obtained by setting the expansion of (31) to zero.

The zero-expansion of (31) yields a condition only on the temporal metric functions as

$$y\mathrm{\Theta }_M\frac{\dot{B}}{B}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\frac{\dot{Y}}{Y}=\frac{3}{\gamma B}$$
(32)
When this condition is reached during the gravitational collapse light and, with it, matter trapping occurs. Note however that we are dealing here with the picture of the co-moving observer. For the co-moving observer $`\dot{Y}`$ is the radial velocity of matter and $`\dot{B}`$ determines the heat flux.

### No null hyper-surface or horizon

Note that (32) is not the condition for the formation of a null hyper-surface or the horizon in the spacetime. The formation of horizon or a null hyper-surface requires the normal of a hyper-surface to become null.

The existence of a spherical null hyper-surface requires that the norm of its normal vanishes at some $`r`$. If $`n_a=(0,1,0,0)`$ is the normal to $`r=`$ constant hyper-surface, then we have $`n^an_a=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/(\gamma ^2(y^{})^2B^2)`$ which, obviously, cannot vanish except for $`y^{}\mathrm{}`$ for some $`r`$ \- an evidently degenerate-metric situation.

Moreover, we may, in terms of the mass function of (23), write

$$g_{rr}=\frac{Y^2(y^{})^2}{1+V_r^2\left(2m/yY\right)}$$
(33)
Then, $`g_{rr}\mathrm{}`$ implies $`Y(t)0`$. Importantly, therefore, there cannot form a spherical null hyper-surface at any radial location in (4).

Also, the coordinate speed of light in the spacetime of (4) is

$$\frac{dr}{dt}=\pm \frac{y}{\gamma (y^{})B}$$
(34)
This speed cannot vanish for any $`r`$ except in the case of an initially singular density distribution at $`r`$ which we do not consider to be any serious, astrophysically meaningful, initial condition here.

Therefore, a null hyper-surface or horizon does not form in (4) for any non-singular initial data for matter fields.

### But, “Black Hole” forms

However, the light-trapping properties of gravity exist in the sense that gravity becomes strong enough to trap light in a spacetime region when the condition (32) is satisfied. (See also next section.)

We recall again that $`\dot{Y}`$ is the velocity of the fluid relative to the co-moving observer and that the temporal function $`B(t)`$ determines or is determined by the heat generation in the spacetime. The properties of matter then determine the temporal metric functions in the spacetime of (4). Therefore, depending on the properties of matter in the spacetime, trapping of light and matter occurs for (4).

The above is understandable as follows. A spherical star begins to collapse and the velocity of its matter increases as its collapse continues in the frame of the co-moving observer. It is only at some “instant” of the co-moving time that the curvature becomes strong enough to trap light and matter. The condition (32) determines this instant of the co-moving time.

This is the formation of a black hole at an instant of the co-moving time at which the light and, with it, matter get trapped in a strong gravitational field. This is the conception of a black hole that applies here and not that of a null hyper-surface, we may then note.

## III Spherical collapse, accretion and black hole formation

In the usual analysis of accretion onto a gravitating object, we generally consider a “central” object (that has already formed) and the surrounding matter (which is accreting onto it). However, this picture gets replaced by the problem of the formation of the central object and continued pile up of matter to the central region when we use the spatially homothetic spacetimes. This is primarily because these spacetimes have no spatial length scale and hence contain matter everywhere.

With the above feature of the spatially homothetic spacetimes in mind, we now turn to the problem of the continued accretion of matter onto a central object in the spherical collapse.

An observer co-moving with the geometry evaluates “various” quantities and interprets the observations of the star “as an asymptotic observer” for large $`r`$. On the other hand, an observer in the rest frame of the accreting matter is also important to the physical analysis of the problem under consideration. We therefore analyze the problem at hand by considering the observer in the rest frame of matter.

### In the rest frame of matter

The four-velocity of the matter fluid with respect to the co-moving observer is:

$$U^a=(U^t,U^r,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})$$
(35)
Defining then the radial velocity of matter with respect to the co-moving observer as

$$V_rU^r/U^t$$
(36)
we then obtain from the metric (4):

$`U^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},V_r,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\gamma ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^{}}{y}}\right)^2B^2V_r^2`$ (38)
Now, if $`d\tau _{CM}`$ is a small time duration for the co-moving observer and if $`d\tau _{RF}`$ is the corresponding time duration for the observer in the rest frame of matter, then we have

$$d\tau _{CM}=\frac{d\tau _{RF}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}$$
(39)
Therefore, the co-moving observer waits for an infinite period of its time to receive a signal from the rest-frame observer when $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Equation (39) is also the red-shift formula. Clearly, therefore, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$ is the infinite red-shift surface.

But, the above infinite red-shift surface is not a one-way membrane or a null hyper-surface since $`U^aU_a=1`$ always. This is an important point of distinction for the spatially homothetic spacetime of (4) from the spacetimes violating the spatial scale-invariance of gravity eg, the Schwarzschild spacetime for which a null hyper-surface exists and the infinite red-shift surface is also a null hyper-surface.

Of course, the infinite red-shift surface separates the spacetime of (4) into two regions - one that can communicate to the far away zone and the black hole region that cannot. The inside and outside of the infinite red-shift surface are then causally disconnected regions of the spacetime of (4).

We have then the following possibilities

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})|\gamma (y^{})BV_r|<y`$ (40)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})|\gamma (y^{})BV_r|=y`$ (41)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})|\gamma (y^{})BV_r|>y`$ (42)
Matter with an initial density distribution determined by $`y(r)`$ begins to collapse under the condition (40) with initial velocity $`V_{r,ini}`$ and initial heat flux, determined by $`B`$, being small. The in-fall velocity of matter and heat flux grow as matter collapse progresses. Matter properties decide whether the collapse becomes unstoppable or not. Then, regions satisfying (41) and (42) form when condition (32) is reached.

In the case of accretion process, matter with inwardly directed radial velocity $`V_r=|\dot{Y}|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ accretes onto the central object, may that be any, under suitable conditions such as the radiation pressure not reversing its radial velocity etc. (This is how the properties of matter play an important role in the collapse or accretion processes.) The radial in-fall velocity of matter increases with the time of the co-moving observer in any unstoppable collapse. The condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ is then reached for some part of matter in the spacetime of (4) when the temporal metric function $`B(t)`$ satisfies (32).

To continue with the analysis of the light trapping surface, we note that conditions (40) - (42) possess an immediate interpretation. Noticing that the “physical” radial distance is $`\gamma (y^{})B`$, these conditions imply that the physical distance covered per unit co-moving time with velocity $`V_r`$ is less than, equal to or greater than the distance measured by $`y`$. That is, if we use $`y`$ as the radial coordinate (with $`y(r=0)=y_c\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$), the conditions (40) - (42) have the above interpretation. In particular, at the outermost Light Trapping Surface, we expect the in-fall velocity $`V_r=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and, hence, the condition (41) implies that the “coordinate” distance $`y`$ equal the light-travel time from this surface to the singularity at $`B(t_s)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ at this surface. We note that this is a very natural interpretation of the condition (41). (See, also, (34).)

Then, matter shells, in their rest frame, cross the Light Trapping Surface in successions when the shell-labelling radial coordinate, $`y`$, corresponds to the light-crossing time between the LTS and the singularity at $`B(t_s)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Therefore, matter within the region $`y\gamma (y^{})B`$ gets trapped inside the outmost light-trapping surface when the collapse advances to satisfy the condition (32) on the temporal metric function $`B`$.

### Initial conditions

We note that the initial conditions for the spacetime of (4) consist of conditions at the “initial co-moving time” and not for large radial distances. Primarily, the ‘initial’ temporal functions are to be chosen on the basis of the choice of the radial function $`y(r)`$. If the ‘initial’ radial density distribution is such as to result to immediate heat generation then the temporal metric function $`B`$ is not initially constant. So, is the case with ‘initial’ value of shear in the spacetime. Therefore, the nature of ‘initial’ temporal and spatial metric functions is to be decided on the basis of the ‘astrophysical’ nature of the problem under consideration.

When we consider the gravitational collapse of matter from some initial density distribution corresponding to a “small” over-density, the initial heat or radiation flow in the spacetime could be very small. Then, in the absence of any ionizing radiation, matter in the spacetime could be expected to be “dusty” ie, approximately pressureless with negligible heat flow at initial co-moving time.

Moreover, matter may, at initial co-moving time, be assumed to be non-relativistic throughout the spacetime and, hence, we have

$$V_rV_{ini}<<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}(\mathrm{early}\mathrm{time})$$
(43)
We may also expect negligible radiation in the spacetime at initial co-moving time, indicating that $`B`$ constant initially. Then, initially,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }1\gamma ^2\left(\frac{y^{}}{y}\right)^2B^2V_{ini}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}$$
(44)
However, heat flow eventually grows. In this connection, we emphasize that a star forms at some suitable co-moving time and emits radiation that flows through the medium surrounding it. For large distances from the star, the radiation flux is weak and, hence, non-ionizing. It is then understandable that the spacetime of (4) does not admit a collapsing dust solution without heat flux since radiation must flow in the spacetime at large $`r`$.

It may be noted that the large $`r`$ condition of matter is to be inferred on the basis of only the astrophysical expectation that matter will be non-relativistic and dusty far away from a source of intense radiation. This is the sort of situation that is commonly observed with accreting objects.

We emphasize here that this expectation is, automatically, borne out by the spacetime of (4) on the basis of the radial dependence of various physical quantities. The condition of matter for large $`r`$ is, however, not essential to the physics of the gravitational collapse beyond specifying the properties of matter in the far-away zone. Then, close to the central object the equation of state of matter is expected to be different. This is precisely the situation with the spacetime of (4).

Further, describing the fluid by its local thermodynamical properties maartens , the energy conservation principle implies the first law of thermodynamics in the form

$$I_{,a}U^a=𝒞p\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)_{,a}U^a$$
(45)
where we have used $`\rho =n(1+I)`$ with $`I`$ as the specific internal energy, $`𝒞(T,n)`$ as the rate of decrease of internal energy per unit amount of matter and $`n`$ as the number density of particles of matter. The function $`𝒞`$ is related to the heat flux $`q`$.

Note also that, in general, we can write

$$V_r=\frac{yY}{2}\left[(2\eta )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\sigma \gamma ^2B^2(yy^{})q\right]$$
(46)
Some of the standard analysis book1  of the accretion process can then be followed for the spacetime of (4) by considering appropriate initial conditions.

However, our purpose here is limited only to showing that a black hole forms in the gravitational collapse only as an infinite red-shift surface that is not a null hyper-surface. Therefore, we do not consider here the details of this analysis which will, however, be the subject of our future works. But, we have presented here all the details which are essential to consider the problem of spherical accretion in its totality.

## IV Concluding remarks

In nonaked  we showed that naked singularities do not form in spherically symmetric, spatially homothetic spacetimes for non-singular, initial data for matter fields. In sscollapse , we considered the shear-free gravitational collapse and its implications for the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis. In cqg1 , we showed that the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis is equivalent to the statement that gravity has no length-scale for matter properties. Further to all of the above, we showed in this paper that the spatially homothetic, spherically symmetric spacetime of (4) leads to a very general description of the formation of a spherical object in General Relativity. In particular, we showed that the spacetime of (4) admits a black hole only as an infinite red-shift surface and not as a null hyper-surface.

Further, considering that the spacetime of (4) admits any equation of state for matter in the spacetime and that it is the only spherically symmetric spacetime satisfying the spatial scale-invariance of gravity, we emphasize that black holes obtained in spherical gravitational collapse in Nature must necessarily be of the type considered here.

The description of spherical gravitational collapse, presented in this paper, is also applicable to the problem of spherical accretion onto a central gravitating object. We have displayed all the equations necessary for any detailed analysis of this important astrophysical problem that will be dealt with in future subsequent works.

As a final remark, we note that many features of spherical gravitational collapse and accretion processes considered here will be obtainable for general spatially homothetic spacetime cch . In particular, the initial conditions will be in terms of the temporal metric functions and the spatial density distribution. The light trapping property of gravity in terms of the formation of the light trapping surface will also correspond to some “instant” of the co-moving time. A general spatially homothetic spacetime will not admit a null hyper-surface but a black hole can form in it only as an infinite red-shift surface.

The nature of the black hole that we obtain for spatially homothetic spacetimes is very similar to that obtainable laplace  in the newtonian theory of gravity except that our considerations here are fully general relativistic. The black hole of (4) is only an infinite red-shift surface and not a null hyper-surface. In general, the black hole of the general spatially homothetic spacetime cch  can be expected to be only an infinite red-shift surface. It is then to be noted that these results will have important implications for observational astrophysics and for other considerations in General Relativity bhthermo1  \- bhthermo4  that have been based on the conception of a black hole as a null hyper-surface.


format: text

text:
# Modeling the interaction between ICM and relativistic plasma in cooling flows: the case of the Perseus Cluster

## 1 Introduction

The intracluster medium (ICM) consists of a hot gas emitting thermal X–ray, of large scale magnetic fields and of relativistic plasma. It is well known that due to synchrotron and inverse Compton (IC) losses, the typical ageing time–scale of the relativistic electrons in the ICM is relatively short ($`10^7÷10^8`$ yr) so that the electrons should already have lost most of their energy. Nevertheless, diffuse synchrotron emission from clusters of galaxies has been detected by radio observations in a number of cases (e.g. Feretti 2000). Thus one can suppose that relativistic electrons may be reaccelerated by some mechanisms acting with an efficiency comparable to the energy loss processes (e.g. Petrosian 2001 and references therein) or, alternatively, one should turn to secondary electrons models (Dennison 1980, Blasi & Colafrancesco 1999, Dolag & Enßlin 2000).
Large–scale radio halos in clusters of galaxies appear as diffuse radio sources of low surface brightness, steep radio spectrum and typical Mpc–size, not directly associated with the galaxies but rather diffused into the ICM at the center of the clusters (Feretti & Giovannini 1996 and references therein). Liang et al. (2000) have shown the presence of a correlation between radio power and cluster temperature for radio halos with good radio and X–ray data available. This correlation, together with the morphological similarity of thermal X–rays and radio emission (Govoni et al. 2001), suggests a physical relationship between the properties of thermal ICM and the presence of radio halos. It is also well known that there exists an anti–correlation between the presence of a cooling flow and of a radio halo at the cluster center: radio halos are rarely found in clusters of galaxies with cooling flow and, when they are, they appear quite different from canonical halos such as that in the Coma cluster (Tribble 1993). However, there are a few cooling flow clusters where the relativistic particles can be traced out quite far, forming what is called a “mini–halo”: a radio source smaller in extent, of low surface brightness and steep spectral index, around a powerful radiogalaxy at the center of a cluster (e.g. Virgo: Owen et al. 2000; Perseus: Burns et al. 1992; PKS 0745 - 191: Baum & O’Dea 1991).
On the basis of the above considerations, it is clear that the persistent diffuse radio emission, and hence the need for reacceleration of the relativistic plasma, may be found in the interaction between the thermal and the relativistic component in the ICM. Indeed, Brunetti et al. (2001) have proposed that the relativistic electrons injected in the cluster volume by AGN and/or galactic winds in the course of the cluster evolution may form a relic electron population and that an extended radio halo is originated if the relic, but still relativistic, electrons are reaccelerated to higher energies by shocks and/or turbulence in the ICM. In this model, as suggested by observations, the merger events may supply the necessary energy for the reacceleration. In this paper we argue that a similar model holds for the relativistic electrons in the mini–halos too, and that the necessary energetics is supplied by the cooling flows, as suggested by Tribble (1993) and Sijbring (1993). Unlike the case of the extended radio halos, the energy can not arise from the merger events, since observations in general show no mergers acting in clusters with cooling flows (Edge et al. 1992).
The main aim of the present work is to investigate whether the reacceleration of relic electrons and the increased intensity of the cluster magnetic field due to the compression in the turbulent cooling flow can produce radio mini–halos. The model expectations are then compared with the observational properties of the radio emission from the mini–halo in the Perseus cluster, where a massive cooling flow is present (Ettori et al. 1998).

In Section 2 we consider the effect of a cooling flow on the intracluster magnetic field and calculate the electron energy distribution subject to reacceleration and losses. In Section 3 we present the results concerning the radio properties of the radio mini–halo in the Perseus cluster. Our conclusions are given in Section 4.
$`\text{H}_0=50\text{ km s}^1\text{ Mpc}^1`$ is assumed in this paper and, where not specified, all the formulae are in cgs system.

## 2 The models for electron reacceleration

### 2.1 Magnetic fields and relativistic electrons in cooling flows

X-ray and optical observations indicate that large amounts of gas are cooling and flowing into the centers of clusters of galaxies; the observations and theory of “cooling flows” are reviewed in Fabian (1994). For thermal bremsstrahlung models, the decrease of the temperature with the distance $`r`$ from the center is $`T(r)r^{1.2}`$, whereas the gas density increases towards the center with the same behaviour (Fabian et al. 1984). The compression of the gas is expected to produce a sensible increase of the strength of the frozen–in intracluster magnetic field. Depending on the physical conditions prevailing in a cooling flow, in particular on the values of the turbulent velocity $`v_T`$ and of the mean inflow velocity $`v_F`$, there are two possibilities:

* if $`v_Tv_F`$, the inward cooling flow is homogeneous and the turbulence does not distort the field geometry during the infall. In this case we can follow Soker & Sarazin’s model (1990). They have presented numerical solutions showing that the frozen–in magnetic field is greatly increased by the compression of the ICM and its lines become predominantly radial as the gas flows inward. Under the assumption that the field is not dynamically important, one has that

$$B(x)=\frac{B_c}{\sqrt{3}}x^2\left(1+2x^{\frac{18}{5}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}x^2$$
(1)
where $`r_c`$ is the cooling radius, $`x=r/r_c`$ is the adimensional distance from the center and $`B_c`$ is the field strength at $`r_c`$.
* if $`v_Tv_F`$, as pointed out by Tribble (1993), an individual element of gas in the flow is in constant motion relative to the mean flow and its mean position falls slowly inwards. The overall effect is an isotropic compression of the field. In this case the variation of the field with the gas density $`n`$ within the central cooling region is $`Bn^{\frac{2}{3}}`$, so that being $`n(x)x^{1.2}`$, it results

$$B(x)=B_cx^{0.8}$$
(2)

The resulting intensity profile of the magnetic field in these two different cases is plotted in Fig. 1. In both cases the field strength grows towards the center, but with quite different behaviours. In Soker & Sarazin’s model the field strength grows faster than in Tribble’s one and in the central region the field reaches values which are at least one order of magnitude larger than those reached by the isotropic compression. It should be mentioned that intense fields of the order of some tens of $`\mu `$G have been derived by detections of extremely high Faraday rotation measures throughout radio galaxies in the center of cooling flow clusters (Taylor & Perley 1993; Ge & Owen 1993; Taylor et. al. 1990; Perley & Taylor 1991). This has important consequences on the evolution of the relativistic electron energy and spectrum. Indeed, the radiative life–time of an ensemble of relativistic electrons losing energy by synchrotron emission and IC scattering off the cosmic microwave background photons (CMB) is given by

$$\tau _{sin+IC}=\frac{16.2}{\left[B_{}^2+\frac{2}{3}B_{CMB}^2\right]\gamma }\text{ yr}$$
(3)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Lorentz factor and $`B_{CMB}=3.18(1+z)^2\mu `$G denotes the magnitude of the magnetic field equivalent to the CMB from the standpoint of the losses. Without any reacceleration mechanism at work, the emission of these electrons in the radio band should not be observable for more than $`10^8`$ yr. This short lifetime contrasts with the diffuse radio emission observed, for example, in the Perseus cluster: whatever the model for the origin and presence of the relativistic electrons in the mini–halo region is, this characteristic lifetime is both shorter than the crossing time (both assuming the Alfvén velocity or the diffusion coefficient as in Sarazin 2001), and shorter than the cooling time (if one assumes that the radio–emitting region is filled with electrons carried by the cooling flow). Hence, it seems plausible that the electrons have been reaccelerated.
A reaccelerated relic electron population in cluster radio halos would naturally produce radio synchrotron spectra which steepen with increasing distance from the center (as observed in the Coma radio halo), whereas it can not be produced in the case of models involving a secondary electron population (Brunetti et al. 2001). Here we stress that the radio spectral index map of the mini–halo in the Perseus cluster shows a progressive steepening of the spectral index with increasing distance (Sijbring 1993), thus providing an additional indication for the presence of an effective mechanism for electron reacceleration operating in the ICM in the cooling flow region.

### 2.2 Evolution of electron energy spectrum into the cooling flow

In our model we assume that the relativistic electrons are continuosly reaccelerated by Fermi type mechanisms. Given an initial monoenergetic electron distribution, the electrons are systematically accelerated with an efficiency $`\alpha _2`$ and, at the same time, their energy is stocastically changed with an efficiency $`\alpha _1`$. These two combined effects result in a relatively wide distribution of the energy of the electrons around a mean value determined by systematic processes. In particular, it is well known that MHD turbulence can efficiently accelerate electrons via Fermi–like processes. In order to allow relativistic electrons to still be emitting in the radio band, the reacceleration mechanism has to act with an efficiency comparable to the energy loss processes. Due to the competition of these two effects, at any distance $`x`$ the time evolution of the energy of a relativistic electron is given by:

$$\frac{d\gamma (x)}{dt}=\beta (x)\gamma ^2(x)+\alpha _2(x)\gamma (x)\chi (x)$$
(4)
where $`\beta (x)`$ is the coefficient of synchrotron and IC losses, $`\alpha _2(x)`$ the acceleration coefficient and $`\chi (x)`$ the Coulomb losses term. The Coulomb losses depend on the ICM density as (e.g Sarazin 1999):

$$\chi (x)1.4\times 10^{12}n(x)\text{ s}^1$$
(5)
where $`n(x)=n_cx^{1.2}`$, $`n_c`$ being the electron density at the cooling radius.
The coefficient of the radiative losses is:

$$\beta (\vartheta ,x)=1.9\times 10^9\left[B^2(x)\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta +\frac{2}{3}B_{CMB}^2\right]\text{ s}^1$$
(6)
where $`\vartheta `$ is the pitch angle and where we have neglected the dependence on the redshift, not important in our model. If the pitch angle scattering is an efficient process, then the electrons will be continuosly isotropized and the term $`B^2(x)\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta `$ should be replaced by $`2/3B^2(x)`$, where $`B(x)`$ is obtained from Eq. 1 or 2.
According to the usual Fermi acceleration theory (e.g. Melrose 1980), it is $`\alpha _2=2\alpha _1`$ and the coefficient of systematic Fermi acceleration due to MHD turbulence is given by:

$$\alpha _2(x)\frac{v_A^2(x)}{l(x)c}\left(\frac{\delta B(x)}{B(x)}\right)^2$$
(7)
where $`v_A(x)2.2\times 10^{11}n_c^{0.5}x^{0.6}B(x)\text{ cm s}^1`$, and $`l(x)`$ is the characteristic distance between two subsequent peaks of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence.
We assume the existence of an energetic turbulence such that $`\delta B(x)/B(x)1`$ constant through the whole cooling flow region. Since the characteristic time of radiative losses depend on $`\gamma `$, while that of Fermi acceleration is independent of $`\gamma `$, the losses dominate the time evolution of the electrons for energies higher than $`\gamma _b`$, the break energy. It is worth noticing that MHD turbulence can efficiently accelerate electrons via Fermi–like processes when their velocity parallel to the magnetic field is $`v_{}>(m_p/(m_e\mu ))^{1/2}\times v_A`$, where $`v_{}=v\mu `$ (Eilek & Hughes 1991; Hamilton & Petrosian 1992). The fact that in our model we deal with a seed population of relativistic electrons guarantees the efficiency of this process. Under the simple assumption that the total number of turbulent elements is conserved during the infall, $`l(x)`$ is roughly proportional to $`n(x)^{\frac{1}{3}}`$, so that $`l(x)=l_cx^{0.4}`$, $`l_c`$ denoting the characteristic length at the cooling radius. The underlying assumption is that the turbulence does not decay on a time scale shorter than the acceleration time scale.
By solving Eq. 4 at any time $`t`$, one can calculate the break energy $`\gamma _b(t)`$, corresponding to the energy at the time $`t`$ of the electrons having a near infinite energy at the initial time $`t=0`$. By omitting for simplicity of notation the dependence on the distance from the cluster center, it results (Brunetti et al. 2001):

$$\gamma _b(t)=\frac{1}{2\beta }\left(\alpha _2+\frac{\sqrt{\alpha _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4\beta \chi }}{\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{t}{2}\sqrt{\alpha _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4\beta \chi }\right)}\right)$$
(8)
The break energy of the stationary spectrum, which corresponds to the energy at which the losses are balanced by the reacceleration, is obtained by evaluating Eq. 8 in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$:

$$\gamma _b=\frac{1}{2\beta }\left(\alpha _2+\sqrt{\alpha _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4\beta \chi }\right)$$
(9)
Because of the distance dependence of the coefficients, the break energy in the electron spectrum is not the same throughout the whole cooling flow region, but it (weakly) depends on the radial distance.
The time evolution of the electron energy distribution is obtained by solving the continuity equation (Kardashev 1962) taking into account the acceleration by the Fermi mechanism and the losses.
Since the acceleration time scale (Eq. 7)

$$\tau _{acc}=\alpha _2^16\times 10^7l(\text{pc})\left(\frac{n}{10^3}\right)B^2(\mu \text{G})\text{ yr}$$
(10)
is much shorter (e.g. $`\tau _{acc}8\times 10^8`$ yr for the values of parameters obtained for the Perseus cluster at the cooling radius, Section 3) than the time it takes for a volume element to be convected by the flow from $`r_c`$ into the center, we can solve the continuity equation under stationary conditions, obtaining (for $`\gamma 1`$)

$$N(\gamma )=N(\gamma _b)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Phi })\left(\frac{\gamma }{\gamma _b}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}\left[f\left(\frac{\gamma }{\gamma _b}\right)\right]$$
(11)
where $`N(\gamma _b)`$ is the number of electrons at $`\gamma _b`$,
$`\mathrm{\Phi }=2\frac{4}{1+\frac{\chi }{\beta \gamma _{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}`$ and

$$f\left(\frac{\gamma }{\gamma _b}\right)=\frac{\frac{2\chi }{\gamma _{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}2\beta \left(\frac{\gamma }{\gamma _b}\right)^2}{\left(\beta +\frac{\chi }{\gamma _{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)\left(\frac{\gamma }{\gamma _b}\right)}$$
(12)
Since in our case it is $`\chi /(\beta \gamma _b^2)1`$ and $`\chi /(\beta \gamma _b^2)(\gamma /\gamma _b)^2`$, Eq. 11 can be approximated as $`N(\gamma )\left(\gamma /\gamma _b\right)^2\mathrm{exp}\left(2\gamma /\gamma _b\right)`$, in agreement with the result of Borovsky and Eilek’s (1986), that indeed have not considered the Coulomb losses.
Note that the spectral distribution of the electrons $`N(\gamma )`$ (Eq. 11) depends on $`\gamma /\gamma _b`$ only, while the values of the coefficients simply produce a “normalisation” of the spectrum which depends on the radial distance.
In principle, in order to correctly derive the energy density of the relativistic electrons as a function of $`x`$ one should solve the spatial diffusion equation for the relativistic electrons starting from some initial distribution of the number density and spectrum of the electrons which, however, are basically unknown. As a consequence, in this paper we prefer to parameterize the electron energy density, essentially peaked at $`\gamma \gamma _b`$, as:

$$m_ec^2_1^{\mathrm{}}N(\gamma )\gamma 𝑑\gamma m_ec^2N(\gamma _b)\gamma _{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}x^s$$
(13)
where $`s`$ is a free parameter which will be constrained and discussed in Section 3.

### 2.3 The synchrotron spectrum

The synchrotron emissivity of a population of relativistic electrons with energy distribution per unit solid angle $`N(\gamma ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is given by:

$$J_\nu =_\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{\mathrm{}}p(\nu ,\vartheta )N(\gamma ,\mathrm{\Omega })𝑑\gamma 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(14)
where $`p(\nu ,\theta )=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^3B\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }{m_ec^2}F\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _c}\right)`$ is the emitted power per unit frequency and per unit solid angle from each electron, $`F\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _c}\right)`$ being the Kernel function and $`\nu _c=\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{eB\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }{m_ec}\gamma ^2`$ the critical frequency (Ginzburg & Syrovatskii 1965). Under the assumption of an isotropic distribution of electron momenta and of the magnetic field lines we can assume the synchrotron emissivity to be isotropic, if averaged over a sufficiently large volume.
With the energy distribution of the relativistic electrons given by Eq. 11, the synchrotron emissivity per unit solid angle is:

$`J_\nu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`K(x){\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta F\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{\nu _b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\gamma ^2\mathrm{sin}\vartheta }}\right)\gamma ^2`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\gamma _b}}\right)\right]d\vartheta d\gamma `$ (15)
where

$$K(x)=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^3}{m_ec^2}B(x)N(\gamma _b)_c\frac{\gamma _{b,c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\gamma _{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Phi })x^s$$
(16)
$`\nu _b`$ being the critical frequency for $`\gamma =\gamma _b(\vartheta =90^{})`$. The shape of the synchrotron spectrum is plotted in Fig. 2:

at low frequencies the synchrotron spectrum is approximately proportional to $`\nu ^{1/3}`$, as in the case of the emission by a single electron, it becomes roughly flat just below the break frequency (contributed by the electrons at the break energy $`\gamma _b`$) and then it falls down exponentially.

## 3 Model results for the Perseus cluster

The Perseus cluster (Abell426), at a redshift $`z=0.0183`$, is one of the brightest clusters in the sky in X–ray band and hosts the nearest large cooling flow. X–ray deprojection analysis of ROSAT PSPC surface brightness profiles indicates that the mass deposition rate is about 500 $`\text{M}_{}\text{ yr}^1`$ and the cooling radius is about 210 kpc (Ettori et al. 1998); with these values of $`\dot{\text{M}}`$ and $`r_c`$, one estimates $`n_c1.2\times 10^3\text{ cm}^3`$. The dominant galaxy in the cluster core is the active galaxy NGC 1275. The associated radio source (Perseus A or 3C 84) is one of the brightest radio sources (the total flux density at 327 MHz is 40.66 Jy), with a complex structure and a mini–halo whose extension $`(15^{})`$ is comparable with that of the cooling flow region. The radio mini–halo has a steep spectrum with spectral index $`\alpha =1.4`$ (between 327 MHz and 609 MHz, $`F_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$) and its total flux is 17.57 Jy at 327 MHz; in addition there is evidence for a spectral steepening in the outer regions (Sijbring 1993).
Because of the simultaneous presence of the radio mini–halo and of the cooling flow, we can apply to the Perseus cluster the model for electron reacceleration presented in the previous Section. For comparison with the model expectations we have considered the 92 cm (327 MHz) radio image shown in Fig. 3. In this map the bright radio core of 3C 84 can be very well approximated by a point–like source and we have estimated that the diffuse mini–halo emission is affected by this intense central emission only within $`1^{}`$ from the cluster center, in agreement with ROSAT and Chandra imaging which show an interaction between the radio lobes of 3C 84 and the ICM only on this scale (Böringer et al. 1993; Fabian et al. 2000). For this reason, our model should be applicable for $`r`$ $`>`$ $``$$`30`$ kpc.

Fig. 3 shows that the diffuse mini–halo is rather asymmetric so that, because of the spherical symmetry assumed in our model, in order to compare the expected and observed radio emission we have considered a particular direction across the apparently more regular region deprived of field radio sources. However, it is worth noticing that a strong morphological correlation has been shown to hold between the cooling flow X-ray map and the radio mini–halo (Ettori et al. 1998; Sijbring 1993). This means that our choice of a specific direction does not appear as an effective restriction to the conclusions we are led to by the application of our spherically symmmetric model to such an asymmetric object. On the contrary, our results could reasonably be applied to any other direction, once the correct values for the physical parameters of the cooling flow in that particular direction are taken into account (Ettori et al. 1998). Moreover, this strong morphological correlation can be taken as a hint to the influence of the cooling flow over the relativistic plasma behaviour, hence supporting the idea of the electron reaccleration being powered by the cooling flow itself.
In order to compare the model with the observations, the observational constraints are:
brightness profile: we have calculated the surface brightness profile expected by our model by integrating the synchrotron emissivity (Eq. 2.3) along the line of sight;
total spectrum: the total synchrotron spectrum is obtained by integrating the synchrotron emissivity over the cluster volume taking into account the $`x`$–dependence of the parameters involved in the calculation;
radial spectral steepening: at each distance $`x`$ we obtain from Eq. 2.3 the synchrotron emissivity as a function of the frequency measured in terms of the break frequency and then compute the spectral index between 327 MHz and 609 MHz.
We have separately considered the two cases of field compression previously discussed (see Sec. 2.1).
The free parameters of our model are the energy density distribution of the relativistic electrons, i.e. the parameter $`s`$ of Eq. 13, and the values at the cooling radius of the magnetic field intensity, $`B_c`$, and of the characteristic distance between two subsequent peaks of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence, $`l_c`$. In order to investigate the range of parameters required by the model to match the observations, the calculation has been performed as follows: for each case of field compression we have fixed $`s`$ and we have allowed the other two parameters $`B_c`$ and $`l_c`$ to vary; then, for a given set of parameters, we have calculated the brightness profile, the total spectrum and the radial spectral steepening and compared them with the observations.
Tribble’s case of isotropic compression of the field appears to be very promising. The best results are obtained for $`1.5`$ $`<`$ $``$$`s`$ $`<`$ $``$$`2.5`$. The parameter space which well reproduces the surface brightness profile and the total synchrotron spectrum is in good agreement with that producing an acceptable radial spectral steepening. In particular, at the $`90\%`$ confidence level the values of the parameters are: $`s=2\pm 0.25`$, $`B_c0.9÷1.2\mu `$G, $`l_c15÷25`$ pc, $`l_c`$ increasing with increasing the strength of the magnetic field $`B_c`$. For these parameters, from Eq. 9, one obtains that the break energy at the cooling radius is $`\gamma _b1500`$. For one set of the parameters which best reproduces all the observational contraints we show in Fig. 4, 5 and 6 the fits to the surface brightness profile, total spectrum and radial spectral steepening.
For $`0`$ $`<`$ $``$$`s`$ $`<`$ $``$$`1.5`$ the space of the parameters reproducing the surface brightness profile is partially consistent with that producing an acceptable total synchrotron spectrum, but the derived spectral steepening is too strong. It is worth noticing that for $`s`$ approaching $`0`$ the parameter limits obtained for the surface brightness profile and total synchrotron spectrum are not compatible, and, therefore, a constant relativistic energy density inside the cooling flow does not appear to agree with the observations. This means that the radial distribution of the number density of the electrons before reacceleration may not be constant. For $`s`$ $`<`$ $``$$`0\text{ and }s`$ $`>`$ $``$$`2.5`$ all the observational constraints can not be reproduced by the same set of parameters.
On the other hand, our model results, assuming Soker & Sarazin’s case of radial field, are not compatible with the observations. In fact, we can not reproduce the spectral steepening for the same values of the parameters which produce the observed radio surface brightness profile and total synchrotron spectrum (Fig. 6). The rapid decrease of the magnetic field towards the outer regions in Soker & Sarazin’s case selects the relativistic electrons emitting between 327-609 MHz at progressively higher energies, causing a too rapid steepening of the synchrotron spectrum.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

We have shown that the main properties of the radio mini–halo in the Perseus cluster can be accounted for by the synchrotron radiation from relic relativistic electrons in the cluster, which are efficiently reaccelerated by MHD Fermi type mechanisms due to the compression of the cluster magnetic field in the cooling flow region (see Sec. 3). Under the assumption of an efficient MHD turbulence with $`\delta B/B1`$ and spherical symmetry, our model has only 3 free parameters, namely the magnetic field intensity $`B_c`$ and the turbulence scale $`l_c`$ at the cooling radius and the radial dependence of the relativistic electron energy density (parameterized as a power law of exponent $`s`$). One important conclusion we have reached is that, in our model, an isotropic field compression appears to well reproduce the observed surface brightness profile and total synchrotron spectrum along with the radial spectral steepening. The values of the parameters derived by fitting all the observational constraints are: $`s=2\pm 0.25`$, $`B_c0.9÷1.2\mu `$G, $`l_c15÷25`$ pc, $`l_c`$ increasing with increasing the strength of the magnetic field.
The fact that we can fit the spectral steepening for the same values of the parameters which provide a radio surface brightness profile and a total synchrotron spectrum in agreement with the observations (see Fig. 6) demonstrates the internal consistency of the model.
On the other hand, Soker & Sarazin’s arguments leading to a prevailing radial field in the cooling flow do not appear applicable to the mini–halo in the Perseus cluster, as it is not possible to reproduce the radial spectral steepening for the same set of parameters reproducing the brightness profile and total radio spectrum.
Our results showing the goodness of Tribble’s model in reproducing all the observational constraints are consistent with the physical conditions prevailing in the cooling flow region of the Perseus cluster: the turbulent velocity ($`v_T=v_A60\text{ km s}^1`$ at the cooling radius) is greater than the mean inflow velocity ($`v_F20\text{ km s}^1`$ at the cooling radius), and so we expect an isotropic compression of the field (see Sec 2.1). Evidence in favour of Tribble’s model in a number of cooling flows is also provided by Faraday rotation measurements (Taylor & Perley 1993; Ge & Owen 1993; Taylor et. al. 1990; Perley & Taylor 1991).
The range of values obtained for $`B_c`$ is consistent with the measurements of magnetic fields diffused in the ICM (see Carilli & Taylor 2002 and references therein).
The energetics associated with the reaccelerated electron population in the cooling flow region, $`10^{59}`$ erg, is smaller but not far from that required by detailed modeling for the electrons in the Coma radio halo ($`5\times 10^{59}`$ erg, case $`c`$ with $`f=0.02`$ in Brunetti et al. 2001). The number of relativistic electrons in the cooling flow region is $`10^{62}`$. This is comparable to the number of the electrons in a typical radiogalaxy and may suggest an important role of the AGNs (and possibly of the central AGN) in the injecton of the electron relic population.
Concerning the characteristic turbulence distance scale, a possible check for our model is whether or not the obtained values of $`l_c`$ could be expected by some physical considerations on the turbulence in the ICM. In particular, assuming that the energy spectrum of Alfvén waves is a power law of the frequency $`\omega `$, ($`\omega ^\nu `$, $`\nu >1`$, Lacombe 1977), we examine the possible value of the minimum frequency $`\omega _{min}`$, i.e. the wavelength $`L=2\pi v_A/\omega _{min}=2\pi /k_{min}`$ which carries most of the turbulent energy. Tsytovich (1972) suggests that the minimum frequency of an Alfvén wave spectrum is the collisional frequency of thermal protons, so that $`k_{min}k_{pp}2\pi \nu _{pp}/v_A`$, where $`\nu _{pp}=3n_p/T_p^{3/2}`$. For typical values of $`n_p`$ and $`T_p`$ in clusters of galaxies $`(n_p10^3\text{ cm}^3,T_p10^7÷10^8\text{ K})`$, we obtain $`L2\times 10^{1÷2}`$ pc, consistent with the value of $`l_c`$ obtained by our model.
In the framework of our model, the possibility of giving rise to an observable radio mini–halo in a cooling flow region is related to several physical parameters. We have found that the electron spectrum near the cooling radius has a break energy which, for the values of parameters derived by fitting all the observational constraints, is approximately $`\gamma _b1500`$. This value corresponds to the break energy of the relativistic electrons outside the cooling flow region, where no significant diffuse radio emission is detected. As the typical life–time of $`\gamma 1500`$ electrons is $`1.6\times 10^9`$ yr, much less than the Hubble time, to balance the radiative losses of these electrons large–scale turbulence in the cluster volume is required. This scenario is similar to that of the classical cluster radio halos where, however, as the average magnetic field strength is considerably smaller than that in the cooling flow, higher energy electrons ($`\gamma _b10^4`$) are required to emit in the radio band so that the turbulence efficiency would have to be correspondingly greater. In addition, in Perseus the turbulence can not be too high in order to avoid the disruption of the cooling flow. Based on these considerations, we suggest that the physical conditions of the ICM in a cooling flow cluster, which also shows a radio mini–halo, are intermediate between those which lead to the formation of “standard” extended cluster radio halos and those holding in cooling flows without radio halos. This could explain — at least qualitatively — the rarity of radio mini–halos found in cooling flow clusters. The energetics of the turbulence plays the main part in discriminating between these two opposite situations. A turbulence with a high enough energy density will be efficient at reaccelerating the relativistic electrons: depending on the length scale of the turbulence, these electrons can produce a diffuse synchrotron emission either in the form of extended radio halo or radio mini–halo. On the other hand, if the energy density of the turbulence is too low, there will be no efficient reacceleration of the electrons and consequently no formation of diffuse radio emission, independently of the turbulence scale. Here we stress that the Perseus cluster may represent a borderline case: in fact there is evidence for a relatively recent merger event (Schwarz et al. 1992; Sijbring 1993; Dupke & Bregman 2001), which may have left a fossil turbulence still quite energetic, with a typical scale just above the limit for activating a radio halo, but not so irrelevant to produce no reacceleration at all.
As a further step, we can set a quantitative constraint on the large–scale turbulence imposing that the reacceleration time scale well outside the cooling radius be more than $`4÷5\times 10^8`$ yr, as derived by models on the formation of extended radio halos in clusters (Brunetti et al. 2001). If this condition is verified then an extended radio halo will not be formed. Assuming MHD Alfvénic acceleration, we obtain $`l_c(\text{pc})`$ $`>`$ $``$$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}B_c^2(\mu \text{G})/(n_c/10^3)`$, which represents the lower limit on the large–scale turbulence in order to avoid the formation of a radio halo. We notice that the value of the parameters obtained by our model for the Perseus cluster are relatively close (within a factor $`2`$) to this limit.
High resolution X–ray studies with XMM–Newton have recently shown that the soft X–ray spectra of several cooling flow clusters of galaxies are inconsistent with standard cooling flow models as the gas cools down to about 2–3 KeV, but not at lower temperatures (Peterson et al. 2001, Kaastra et al. 2001, Tamura et al. 2001, Molendi & Pizzolato 2001). How to reconcile cooling flow models with these observations is still a matter of debate (e.g. Fabian et al. 2001 and references therein), but it should be stressed that the compression of the thermal plasma and of the magnetic field within the cooling region is well ascertained. As a consequence, even if the cooling flow is somewhere close to the central galaxy stopped, the basic results of our model remain unchanged: once the turbulence has been energized by the flow, it takes a time of order of a few Gyr for it to be dissipated. During this time, turbulence continues to reaccelerate the electrons and determines the radio properties of the mini–halo.

###### Acknowledgements.

We woud like to thank Luigina Feretti for useful discussion. In particular, we would like to thank the referee Vahé Petrosian for very helpful suggestions which improved the presentation of this paper. This work is partially supported by the Italian Ministry for University and Research (MURST) under grant 99GITTPGR Prog.Giov.Ricerc. E.F.1999.