text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is useful to consider the possible impact on physics of upgrades to the LHC which would permit operation at a higher luminosity. For comparison purposes, the effect of an energy increase will also be considered. Four basic scenarios for high energy/luminosity $`pp`$ colliders are used in this note. The higher luminosity operation would correspond to a bunch spacing of 12.5 ns.

* A The approved LHC, i.e. $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV and luminosity of $`10^{34}`$ cm-2 sec-1
* B $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV and luminosity of $`10^{35}`$ cm-2 sec-1
* C $`\sqrt{s}=28`$ TeV and luminosity of $`10^{34}`$ cm-2 sec-1
* D $`\sqrt{s}=28`$ TeV and luminosity of $`10^{35}`$ cm-2 sec-1

Note that, while scenario B represents a realistic upgrade scenario for the LHC, scenarios C and D are much more speculative. The impact of the upgrades on detector performance has not been assessed in detail but a few general remarks are appropriate. The baseline performance is documented in . The higher luminosity has a severe impact. In the case of the ATLAS Inner Detector, the Transition Radiation Detector would need to be replaced due to the high occupancy. Radiation damage would imply replacement or removal of the pixels and some of the silicon layers. Removal would imply loss of tracking, electron identification and b-tagging capability. Calorimeter performance is not expected to be impacted significantly in the central region; some of the Tile Calorimeters’ scintillating fibers may need to be replaced. The forward calorimeter (FCAL) could suffer from space-charge effects. More shielding will be required for the forward muon system which will reduce the fiducial region. The reduced bunch spacing at very high luminosity could have a severe impact on the front-end electronics, trigger and DAQ components. For example, the front end pipeline buffers would be incompatible with the latency needed for the level-1 trigger. The level-1 muon trigger could also be compromised by increased occupancy in the Resistive Plate and Thin Gap Chambers.

The ATLAS B-physics programme  does not benefit significantly from the energy or luminosity upgrades. The programme is accomplished primarily at low luminosity and, as the total B cross section increases only slightly at the higher energy, the energy upgrade will have little impact. Similarly the top production rate is very large in the baseline LHC and, possibly apart from rare decay modes, the physics will be fully exploited at design energy/luminosity.

Physics processes involving the production of high-mass systems have cross-sections that rise rapidly with energy. While the luminosity upgrade has the capability to significantly enhance the LHC capability, one should expect therefore that, if the impact of upgrades is assessed in terms of mass reach for new particles, the energy upgrade will be more powerful. For cases involving somewhat smaller masses, the luminosity upgrade could be more powerful provided that the detector performance can be maintained. In subsequent sections, various high $`p_T`$ physics cases are studied ranging from QCD to extra-dimensions. Finally some conclusions are drawn.

## 2 QCD studies and searches for compositeness

For QCD studies at an upgraded LHC, a comparison of the reach in jet transverse momenta was carried out using a NLO calculation of the inclusive jet cross section . The expected number of events with a jet above a transverse energy threshold is shown in Figure 1. Requiring that there be 1000 events above a threshold, the accessible $`E_T`$ is shown in Table 1. This comparison clearly shows the advantage of increasing the center-of-mass energy to 28 TeV over a 10-fold increase in luminosity. In the former case, the reach extends by about 2 TeV, larger by a factor of four than in the latter case. As the measurements involve the calorimeters only and only jets in the TeV range are of interest, the detector performance is not expected to be degraded significantly at the highest luminosity.

Signals for quark compositeness should reveal themselves in deviations of the high energy part of the jet cross-section from the QCD expectation. The angular distribution of dijet pairs of large invariant mass provides an independent diagnostic and is less sensitive to possible non-linearities in the calorimeter response (see Section 21.5 of Ref  for more details on the methodology). It was therefore used in this study. Figure 2 shows the distribution for dijet events in the variable $`\chi =(1+\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|)/(1\left|\mathrm{cos}\theta \right|)`$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between a jet and the beam in the center-of-mass frame of the dijet system. The invariant mass of the dijet system is required to be more than 10.5 TeV. Shown is the deviation from the expected form in the Standard Model for various values of the compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=28`$ TeV. The effect of compositeness shows up as an increase in the event rate at small values of $`\chi `$. The compositeness scales that can be probed in this manner are shown in Table 2. As this comparison of the scenarios is based on the production of the very highest energy particles, the energy upgrade more sensitive.

## 3 Higgs Boson studies

The Higgs physics discovery program will largely be completed before any upgrade. Following the discovery, the measurement of the mass will have reached the systematic limit, whereas measurements of couplings will be limited by the available statistics and could benefit from an upgrade. The following final states are expected to be observable depending upon the mass: $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\tau \tau `$, $`ZZ\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, $`WW\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`b\overline{b}`$. The relevant production processes are $`qqqqH`$ (the vector boson fusion process) which depends upon the $`HWW`$ and $`HZZ`$ couplings, $`ggH`$ via a loop involving, in particular, top quarks, $`q\overline{q}HW`$, and $`ggt\overline{t}H`$ which is sensitive to the $`ttH`$ coupling. Studies of the expected precision for the benchmark LHC  have been extended for the upgrade scenarios. The expected precision on the production rates is shown in Figures 3 and 4. In these plots it is assumed that there is an error of 5% on the measurement of the absolute luminosity. In some cases this becomes the limiting factor. Figure 3 shows the measurements for final states containing gauge bosons produced by the gluon-gluon fusion process. Figure 4 shows that for the other processes. In the mass range below 200 GeV which is favored by fits to electroweak data , there are a large number of possible measurements. The factor of ten increase in luminosity over the standard LHC scenario improves the precision by approximately a factor of two and brings many of these measurements to the point where they are limited by the uncertainty on the measurement of the luminosity and other systematic effects. In particular, we have assumed that the measurement of $`tau\tau `$ final state does not improve at very high luminosity due to the difficulties of reconstructing these states. Also the $`WW`$ final state is compromised by the background as it has no mass peak and the uncertainty in the shape of this background contributes to the uncertainty.

Once these cross-section measurements are made, they can be used to extract information on the couplings of the Higgs boson. In the case where measurements of different final states are made from the same Higgs production mechanism, a direct measurement of the ratios of Higgs couplings is possible. Figure 5 shows the expected precision on the ratio of the Higgs partial widths to the $`WW`$ and $`ZZ`$ final states. For masses greater than approximately 160 GeV measurements of $`HZZ4\mathrm{}`$ and $`HWW\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}\nu `$ rates from the same production process enables a direct (model independent) measurement to be made. At smaller masses the process $`HWW\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}\nu `$ has too low a rate but an indirect measurement can be obtained by combining the measured rates for $`HZZ4\mathrm{}`$ and $`H\gamma \gamma `$ and making a theoretical assumption. The coupling $`H\gamma \gamma `$ is dominated by a loop graph with an intermediate $`W`$ and hence the rate $`H\gamma \gamma `$ can be related to the $`HWW`$ coupling.

Measurements of the fermion couplings shown in Figure 6 are more difficult. Events with $`H\tau \tau `$ and $`HWW\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}\nu `$ and tagged forward jets arise from the same production process ($`qqqqH`$) and hence can be combined to directly measure $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau `$ as shown in Figure 6. The coupling $`Ht\overline{t}`$ can be probed by comparing the $`WH\mathrm{}\nu \gamma \gamma `$ and $`H\gamma \gamma `$ rates. The latter production rate is determined by the coupling of Higgs to gluon pairs and the dominant contribution to this coupling is from a top quark loop which probes the $`Ht\overline{t}`$ coupling strength. An indirect measurement of the ratio of couplings $`HWW`$ and $`Ht\overline{t}`$ can therefore be made and is shown on Figure 6 Similarly the final states $`t\overline{t}H(\gamma \gamma )`$ and $`t\overline{t}H(b\overline{b})`$ can be combined to give the ratio of widths to $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`WW`$ shown as an indirect measurement in Figure 6. Again the increased luminosity improves the precision of the measurements by approximately a factor of two.

If the energy of the LHC were raised to 28 TeV, then for a Higgs boson of mass $`150`$ GeV ($`1`$ TeV), the Higgs production cross-section would rise by a factor of 2 (8). Therefore, in the case of Higgs masses at the lower end of the search range, the luminosity upgrade is much more powerful. However, it is important to emphasize that the full detector functionality and performance must be maintained at the upgraded luminosity if this advantage is to be exploited.

In the case of SUSY Higgs bosons there are regions of the MSSM parameter space where only the lightest Higgs state ($`h`$) will have been seen at LHC. In this case the sensitivity to the heavier Higgs states via for the decays $`A\tau \tau `$ and $`A\mu \mu `$ will be increased at an upgraded LHC. In the case of $`m_A=500`$ GeV the energy upgrade increases the H/A cross-section by approximately a factor of five thereby increasing the discovery potential for heavy Higgs bosons.

## 4 Supersymmetry studies

Perhaps the strongest argument for weak scale SUSY is that it allows light Higgs bosons without unnatural fine tuning in the presence of much heavier scales such as the Planck mass. While the concept of fine tuning is not precise, there is a general consensus that this requires SUSY particles to be lighter than about $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$; see, e.g., . Masses in this range are also consistent with grand unification, cold dark matter, an observable SUSY contribution to $`g_\mu 2`$ , and a variety of other constraints .

If $`R`$ parity is conserved, all SUSY particles decay to the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, which escapes the detector. Thus, the production of gluinos or squarks provides signatures with multiple jets, possibly leptons, and missing transverse energy $`\text{ / }E_T`$. In typical SUSY breaking scenarios such as minimal SUGRA , the LHC should discover evidence for gluinos or squarks up to $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$ in the $`\text{ / }E_T+\mathrm{jets}`$ channel with an integrated luminosity of $`1\mathrm{fb}^1`$ or less; the ultimate discovery reach for $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$ extends beyond $`2.5\mathrm{TeV}`$.

The increase in mass reach for squarks and gluinos at higher LHC energy is evaluated approximately by comparing the squark and gluino production cross-sections at 14 and 28 TeV. The primary Standard Model backgrounds, $`t\overline{t}`$ production and W/Z+jets increase due to the larger center of mass energy. However, this effect will be more than compensated by the harder cuts on the transverse energy flow and missing $`E_T`$ in the events which can be applied compared to the analysis performed for a 14 TeV collider. The cross-section was evaluated at leading order using the program PROSPINO  with CTEQ4L  structure functions. Three scenarios were considered: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$. The total cross section for the production of squarks and gluinos is given in the Figures 7, 8 and 9 as a function of the mass of the lighter sparticle be it squark or gluino in these scenarios.

An approximation of the reach at 28 TeV is obtained by taking the masses for which the signal cross-section is equal to the one for the maximum reachable masses at 14 TeV , i.e. around $`10^2`$ pb for 100 fb-1. The approximate SUSY mass reach for an integrated luminosity of 100 fb-1 at 28 TeV is thus: 3.9 TeV for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, 2.7 TeV for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, and 2.9 TeV for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, which corresponds to an approximate doubling of the accessible mass range. An increase in the luminosity is somewhat less powerful as can be seen from Table 3, but it still provides a mass reach 20% higher than the standard LHC scenario reaching 2.7 TeV for the case $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$.

Given the naturalness arguments made above it is almost guaranteed that SUSY will be discovered at the baseline LHC if it is relevant to the problem of electroweak symmetry breaking. Thus, the role of an LHC upgrade in energy, luminosity, or both would be to complete the spectrum and make additional precise measurements. What measurements might be of interest many years after the first discovery of SUSY is of course model dependent and difficult to predict. It seems likely, however, that these measurements will require the full capability of ATLAS including good identification and measurements of $`e`$’s, $`\mu `$’s, $`\tau `$’s, jets, $`b`$-jets, and $`\text{ / }E_T`$.

While gauginos are likely to be lighter than $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$, sfermions might be heavier. In the “inverted hierarchy” scenario , all scalars are heavy at the GUT scale. With appropriate GUT boundary conditions the renormalization group equations drive the third generation sfermions below $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$ but leave the rest heavy, perhaps several TeV. In the “focus point” scenario , even the stops ($`\stackrel{~}{t}_{1,2}`$) can have multi-TeV masses. In scenarios like these, gluinos and their decay products would still be discovered quickly at the LHC, but some or all of the squarks and sleptons would be inaccessible. A search for very massive squarks might impose fewer constraints on the detector performance than precision measurements at very high luminosity, but no simulation has been done. Models with very massive sfermions often lead to many competing gluino decay modes, each with a small branching ratio. Precision measurements of gluino processes at the LHC could be rate limited and might also benefit by an upgrade.

SUGRA Point 2 from  was chosen as an example of the possible gains for SUSY studies from an energy or luminosity upgrade of the LHC. This point has $`m_0=m_{1/2}=400\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A_0=0`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, and $`sgn\mu =+`$, giving gluino and squark masses of about $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$. While discovery of a signal in the $`\text{ / }E_T+\mathrm{jets}`$ channel is straightforward, the precision measurements discussed in Ref.  were relatively difficult. The channel $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0Z`$, $`Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ was not used because of the small rate as can be seen in Fig. 20-25 of Ref  which shows an inclusive sample of 70 events for an integrated luminosity of $`30\mathrm{fb}^1`$. A luminosity upgrade would clearly result in an event sample large enough to do a detailed study provided the detector performance can be maintained. At $`28\mathrm{TeV}`$ the total SUSY production cross section is increased to $`37\mathrm{pb}`$ from $`3.2\mathrm{pb}`$ at 14 TeV showing that in this example the luminosity and energy upgrades are almost the same in their effect on the production rates. In an attempt to exploit the larger event rates, events were selected with cuts similar to those used in  using ISAJET 7.51 :

* At least 4 jets with $`p_T>100,50,50,50\mathrm{GeV}`$;
* $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}>1000\mathrm{GeV}`$;
* $`\text{ / }E_T>0.2M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$;
* $`S_T>0.2`$.

where

$$M_{\mathrm{eff}}=p_{T,1}+p_{T,2}+p_{T,3}+p_{T,4}+\text{ / }E_T.$$

and $`S_T>`$ is the transverse sphericity. Standard Model backgrounds were not generated, but they should be small after these cuts are made, as shown in . Leptons ($`e`$,$`\mu `$) were required to have $`p_T>10\mathrm{GeV}`$ and to be isolated with $`E_T<10\mathrm{GeV}`$ in a cone of $`R=0.4`$ around the lepton direction. The dilepton mass distribution with these cuts is shown in Fig. 10. The $`Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ peak now has more than 500 events for an integrated luminosity of $`30`$ $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$. Thus either the energy or luminosity upgrade produces an event sample large enough to perform further analyses.

For example, the main source of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ at Point 2 is $`\stackrel{~}{q}_L\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0q`$. The two hardest jets in SUSY events are expected to come from $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ decays. The $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}q`$ mass distribution formed by combining the two leptons in the $`Z`$ mass peak with each of the two hardest jets is shown in Fig. 11. The smaller of these masses should be less than the kinematic upper limit for $`\stackrel{~}{q}_L\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0q\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0Zq`$, while the larger should be greater than the kinematic lower limit. These distributions are shown in Fig. 12. In either upgrade scenario the statistics are sufficient to make measurements that significantly constrain the squark and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ masses in a manner that would not be possible with the baseline LHC.

## 5 Jet tagging/vetoing at higher luminosity

The presence of jets at large rapidity can be used to enhance the signal-to-background ratio in certain processes such as those involving $`WW`$ fusion where the $`W`$’s are emitted from quarks (see, for example, 19.2.10.1 of Ref ). Similarly the absence of jets at central rapidity can be used to enhance processes involving the production of particles with only electroweak charges relative to the production of strongly coupled particles (see, for example, section 19.2.10.2 of Ref ). As the luminosity increases both of these selections are expected to become less useful as the pile-up of additional events can cause jets to appear in these regions as well as degrading the measurements of the jets used for tagging/vetoing.

An estimate of the effects was obtained using a full simulation study of pileup in the ATLAS detector. Pileup from the appropriate number of minimum bias events in up to 25 beam crossings before and 3 beam crossings after $`t=0`$ was generated, taking into account the response of the different calorimeters. Jets were then found using a jet finder with cone size $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.4`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.2`$, and assigned to ranges of rapidity

* Forward: $`\eta >2.0`$
* Backward: $`\eta <2.0`$
* Central: $`\left|\eta \right|<2.`$

A single tag is defined as an event with either a forward or backward jet; a double tag has both. The probability of an event consisting only of minimum bias interactions having either a single or double jet tag is shown in Figure 13 as a function of the jet energy. The probability of an event having an additional central jet is shown in Figure 14 as a function of $`p_T`$. The values plotted in these figures are approximate, and depend sensitively on jet energy calibration and reconstruction conditions. At a luminosity of $`10^{35}`$ cm-2 sec-1 the pile up of minimum bias events renders forward jet tagging and central jet vetoing difficult. The performance that is assumed here may be too pessimistic as it may be possible to reduce the pile-up noise in the LAr calorimeter by using optimal filtering techniques at the upgraded luminosity  and optimizing the jet algorithm. At an energy of 28 TeV, the average number of minimum bias events increases by about 15% and the energies and multiplicities of particles in these events is higher. In this case, as a rough approximation, it will be assumed that the rates of fake forward jet tags and of extra central jets are twice as big as at nominal luminosity.

This tagging result has implications for strong $`WW`$ scattering signals as is now discussed.

## 6 Strongly coupled Vector Boson system

If there is no light Higgs boson, then general arguments  imply that scattering of electroweak gauge bosons at high energy will show structure beyond that expected in the Standard Model. In order to explore such signals it is necessary to measure final states of pairs of gauge bosons with large invariant mass.

### 6.1 $`W_LZ_LW_LZ_L`$

Estimates of the production of a $`\rho `$-like vector resonance of $`W_LZ_L`$ can be obtained from the Chiral Lagrangian model, with the inverse amplitude method of unitarization . The cross section depends, in next to leading order, on a linear combination $`a_42a_5`$ of two quadrilinear coupling parameters. The model was implemented in PYTHIA. Only the channel $`W_LZ_LW_LZ_L\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is here considered, although the resonance can be produced in the $`q\overline{q}`$ fusion channel at higher rate. Forward jet tagging is here an essential ingredient to reduce the background.

The irreducible Standard Model background $`qqqqWZ`$, with transverse gauge bosons in the final state was generated with COMPHEP  with cuts $`p_T(q,W,Z)>15`$ GeV, and $`m_{WZ}>500`$ GeV, with CTEQ5L structure functions and $`Q=M_Z`$. The process includes electroweak and QCD diagrams, as well as the quadrilinear gauge boson couplings. The Higgs mass was set at the low value of 100 GeV, and the signal is then defined, as in , as the enhancement of the SM prediction over the 100 GeV Higgs. Other background considered were $`Zb\overline{b}`$ and $`Zt\overline{t}`$, also generated with COMPHEP, with cuts $`p_T(b,t)>15`$ GeV and $`p_T(Z)>50`$ GeV, and SM production of $`WZ,ZZ`$, generated with PYTHIA. Table 4 gives the cross sections for the different backgrounds.

The selection criteria required leptonic cuts:

$`p_T(\mathrm{}_1)>150\text{GeV},p_T(\mathrm{}_2)>100\text{GeV},p_T(\mathrm{}_3)>50\text{GeV}`$
$`|m(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2)m(Z)|<10\text{GeV}`$
$`\text{}E_T>75\text{GeV}`$
and forward jet tagging, i.e. the presence of one forward and one backward jets ($`|\eta |>2`$) with energy greater than 300 (400) GeV at nominal (very high) luminosities, as well as a veto if a jet with transverse momentum greater than 50 (70) GeV at nominal (very high) luminosity was present in the central region ($`|\eta |<2`$).

Fig. 15 shows the expected signal for a 1.5 TeV resonance, corresponding to a choice of Chiral Lagrangian parameters $`a_42a_5=0.006`$, at nominal LHC and at an upgraded LHC with tenfold luminosity, taking into account the effects of pileup according to Figs. 13 and 14, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.4`$. The resonance is at the limit of observation at LHC, with 6.6 events expected over a background of about 2.2 around the region of the peak, but at very high luminosity the signal has an approximate significance $`S/\sqrt{B}=48/\sqrt{16}=12`$.

### 6.2 $`Z_LZ_L`$ scalar resonance

Production of a scalar $`Z_LZ_L`$ resonance decaying by the golden channel $`ZZ4\mathrm{}`$ is a rare process, well suited to an upgraded LHC. As for the $`WZ`$ resonance above, the Chiral Lagrangian model, with regularization by the inverse amplitude method  was used. The cross section depends on a linear combination, $`7a_4+11a_5`$, of the same parameters as those of the vector resonance and therefore observation of the scalar resonance will help resolve $`a_4`$ and $`a_5`$ unambiguously. The $`ZZ`$ production signal occurs through the scattering processes $`W_L^+W_L^{}Z_LZ_L`$ and $`Z_LZ_LZ_LZ_L`$. Standard Model background, leading to $`qqZZ`$ in the final state have been generated with COMPHEP, with cuts $`p_T(q,Z)>15`$ GeV, $`m_{ZZ}>500`$ GeV, $`m_{qq}>200`$ GeV, with CTEQ5L as parton distribution function and $`Q=m_Z`$. The process was implemented in PYTHIA as an external process.

The Higgs mass was set at 100 GeV so that the contribution from longitudinal vector boson scattering was negligible in this background. With these conditions, the SM cross section is 69.4 fb. Other backgrounds considered were $`qqZZ`$, with cuts $`m_{ZZ}>500`$ GeV, and cross section 8.66 fb. The background $`ggZZ`$ was not included, but is expected to contribute about one third of the $`q\overline{q}`$ fusion process .

The analysis requires the presence of four isolated leptons having a transverse momentum greater than 30 GeV, and leading to the reconstruction of two $`Z`$’s. The identification efficiency of electrons was taken to be 80% and those of muons 90%. Forward jet tagging was applied by requiring the presence of one forward and one backward jet ($`|\eta |>2`$) with energies greater than 400 GeV. No central jet veto was imposed, as the main backgrounds do not justify it. Fake tagging by pileup was taken into account, according to the results in Fig. 13, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.4`$. With an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb, for a 14 TeV collider, the expected signal and background for a resonance at 750 GeV, corresponding to $`7a_4+11a_5=0.063`$ is shown in Fig. 16. Such a process would not be observable at the nominal LHC.

### 6.3 $`W_L^+W_L^+`$

Non-resonant production of vector boson pair at high mass presents a challenge at LHC because the level of background needs to be very well understood.

Production of $`W^+W^+`$ pairs has no contribution from $`q\overline{q}`$ fusion. Two models have been considered:

* A Higgs boson of mass 1 TeV (as a reference point).
* WW production with K-matrix unitarization.

Backgrounds arise from gauge boson pairs produced by electroweak and gluon exchange diagrams . Here the promising $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^+\nu \nu `$ final state arising from $`W^+W^+`$ production is studied. The analysis cuts are essentially the same as in , consisting of leptonic cuts

* two leptons ($`e`$ or $`\mu `$) reconstructed in the central region, $`|\eta |<1.75`$, of positive charge and having $`p_T>40`$ GeV
* The difference in azimuthal angle of the two leptons, $`cos(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (\mathrm{}\mathrm{}))<0.5(0.8)`$ for 14 (28) TeV collisions
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_t(ll)=|\stackrel{}{p}_T(\mathrm{}_1)\stackrel{}{p}_T(\mathrm{}_2)|>100`$ GeV for the 28 GeV case.
* missing transverse energy $`E_T^{miss}>40(50)`$ GeV for 14 (28) TeV collisions

The jet tagging and vetoing cuts were varied as a function of the energy and luminosity as shown in Table 5. Two forward tagging jets with energies above the amount shown in the table were required and events were vetoed if there was a central jet with transverse momentum greater than the indicated amount. Table 6 shows the number of events expected and their significances for a typical set of cuts, for 300 fb-1 at nominal luminosity and 3000 fb-1 at very high luminosity at 14 and 28 TeV. In the case of ultra high luminosity electron identification efficiency is assumed to be 80%. It may be possible to reduce the effects of pile up by improving filtering and optimising the jet tagging.

The increase in energy to 28 TeV would enhance considerably the sensitivity to high mass vector boson pair production, even in a non-resonant scenario. The study of the signal could be pushed from a limit of about 1 TeV in the invariant mass of the $`WW`$ system to around 1.5 TeV. Fig. 17 shows the signal and background distributions as a function of the invariant mass formed from the two leptons and the missing transverse momentum (c.f. Figure 19-110 of ). In spite of the apparent increase in statistical significance, the systematic errors are likely to be very high since the shapes of the backgrounds and signal are similar. The extraction of signals should be done with many different choices of cuts so as to verify the dependence on the cuts and constrain the systematics. This analysis can only be an estimate of the reach. At high luminosities a good understanding of jet reconstruction and backgrounds will be needed.

## 7 Extra dimensions

One of the possible signals expected from large extra dimensions is the production of jets or photons in association with missing transverse energy. The former channel is more sensitive so will be considered here. The background is dominated by the final state $`Z(\nu \nu )+jets`$ .

In order to assess the impact of the possible upgrades a study using ATLFAST  was made. The signal is characterized by two parameters, the number of extra dimensions $`\delta `$ and the scale $`M_D`$ characterizing the scale of gravity. Table 7 shows the maximum value of $`M_D`$ that can be detected for a given value of $`\delta `$ in the four scenarios.

It can be seen from the table that doubling the LHC energy to 28 TeV approximately doubles the reach in $`M_D`$ for any value of $`\delta `$. An increase in the integrated luminosity by a factor of 10 raises the reach by approximately 30%. If a signal is observed at 14 TeV, the energy increase is such that model dependent signals can be expected to be observed at 28 TeV. Such observations would therefore provide valuable insight into the dynamics of the underlying theory. Detector performance is not expected to be critical as events with jets and missing energy in the TeV range are relevant for this search.

## 8 Searches for New Gauge Bosons

As an example of the impact of the possible upgrades, Figure 18 shows the production rate for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final states arising from the decay of a $`Z^{}`$ gauge boson with the same couplings to quarks and leptons as the Standard Model $`Z`$ as a function of the mass of the $`Z^{}`$. The final state $`e^+e^{}`$ is not considered, because it is more difficult to exploit at the highest luminosity particularly if the tracker is not upgraded. The calorimeter can still be used to detect this channel but the signs of the electrons cannot be determined and measurements of asymmetries cannot be undertaken. If this channel were included and had the same acceptance as the muon channel, the mass reach would increase by approximately 20%.

The discovery limit for $`Z^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ is given in Table 8 from which it can be seen that the combination of energy and luminosity upgrade doubles the mass reach.

The decay $`Z^{}WW\mathrm{}\nu jj`$ (see Section 21.6.1.4 of ) has also been studied. This channel is not competitive for discovery but can provide important information on the couplings of the $`Z^{}`$. This study uses the final state where the lepton is a muon, as electron detection will be more difficult at higher luminosity. The mass reachable in this final state is shown in Table 9.

The ability to measure muons and jets of high transverse momenta is needed for these channels which is therefore not very sensitive to performance degradations at higher luminosity.

## 9 Searches for excited quarks

Section 21.3 of Ref  and Ref.  discuss signals for new exotic quarks. Some of these studies have been repeated for the upgrade scenarios. The decays $`q^{}qg`$ and $`q^{}q\gamma `$ have been simulated. Figures 19 and 20 show the statistical significance of the signal in these channels as a function of the excited quark mass in the $`jetjet`$ and $`jet\gamma `$ final states. The mass reach increases by about 4 TeV for the highest energy/luminosity configuration. As only jets and photons of the very highest transverse energy are needed in the analysis, this process is rather robust even at the very highest luminosity.

## 10 Triple gauge-boson couplings

The final state $`W\gamma \mathrm{}\nu \gamma `$ ($`WZ\mathrm{}\nu \mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$) has been used to probe the couplings $`\lambda _\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa _\gamma `$ ( $`\lambda _Z`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa _Z`$ and $`g_1^Z`$) that describe the $`WW\gamma `$ ($`WWZ`$) interaction vertex. More details of the methodology can be found in Section 16.2 of . For a luminosity of $`10^{35}`$ cm-2 sec-1, the analysis reported here uses only muons and photons. This represents a loss of 50% (75%) of the $`W\gamma `$ ($`WZ`$) effective rate. The constraints on the $`\kappa `$ couplings arise primarily from the angular distributions whereas those on the $`\lambda `$ couplings arise from the transverse momentum distributions. As only the latter are used here, the results are pessimistic in the case of the $`\kappa `$ couplings. The expected sensitivity is shown in Table 10 and the correlations in Fig. 21. Note that both the energy or luminosity upgrades extend the sensitivity for $`\lambda _\gamma `$ into the range ($``$ 0.001) expected from radiative corrections in the Standard Model and should allow a meaningful test of these corrections and others that arise for example in supersymmetric models.

In contrast to most of the other examples discussed, the luminosity increase is more powerful than the energy increase in this case.

## 11 Comments and conclusion

Although there are other processes where some impact from the upgrades can be expected and which have not been studied, this survey of physics processes at an upgraded LHC enables one to draw certain conclusions.

Without major detector upgrades, i.e. by using only final states of high $`p_T`$ jets, photons and muons, a luminosity upgrade is expected to provide a $`20`$% improvement in the mass reach for new physics as SUSY and extra-dimensions. This increase is significant for signals at the limit of the LHC sensitivity. However, the failure of the Inner Detector will compromise electron identification as well as b and hadronic $`\tau `$ tagging. For many new physics processes, statistical samples are improved by combining channels with electrons and muons. In addition valuable information about new physics can be obtained by looking for violation of $`e/\mu /\tau `$ universality. Therefore major detector upgrades would be needed to exploit fully the factor of ten increase in luminosity. Pile-up of minimum bias events has severe impact on the ability to use forward jet tagging and central jet vetoing as a tool to enhance signal to background ratios at luminosities significantly higher than $`10^{34}`$ cm-2 sec-1.

The energy upgrade would be much easier to exploit. It could significantly enhance the physics reach of the LHC by almost a factor of two in mass. In addition, if new physics is discovered, then the energy upgrade would allow significant further study of the new physics. However, this scenario remains speculative.


format: text

text:
# Where is the Inner Edge of an Accretion Disk Around a Black Hole?

## 1 Introduction

Accretion disks around a star end at the star’s surface; the inner radius of a disk around a black hole is less well determined. Because black holes have no hard surface, more complicated dynamical processes define what is meant by a disk’s “inner edge.” The best-known of these arises from general relativity itself, which forbids stable circular orbits inside the critical radius of the marginally stable orbit, $`r_{ms}`$, not far outside the event horizon.

In a standard thin accretion disk, gas follows very nearly circular orbits and drifts inward because a nonzero stress removes angular momentum from fluid elements and transfers it outward. Inside $`r_{ms}`$, fluid elements can spiral into the hole on free-fall orbits, i.e., without further loss of angular momentum or energy. In many treatments of black hole accretion disks, it is therefore explicitly (or tacitly) assumed that the inner edge of the disk is at, or at least very close to, $`r_{ms}`$. Although there is clearly a dynamical transition from rotational support to free-fall that must occur in the vicinity of $`r_{ms}`$, whether this constitutes the disk inner boundary depends on precisely what one means by that term. The location of the inner edge relative to $`r_{ms}`$ depends on which property one is examining, and departures from $`r_{ms}`$ can, in many instances, be significant. Dynamical issues require a different definition from observational characteristics.

For example, one definition of inner boundary is the innermost radius from which significant luminosity emerges to the outside world, the radiation edge. The inner regions of disks may grow dim for a variety of reasons: a decrease in the radiative efficiency due to flow dynamics, gravitational redshift and other general relativistic effects, cessation of dissipative heating (as in Page & Thorne 1974), or photon trapping (an effect particularly strong in “slim disks”, Abramowicz et al. 1988). All of these effects taken together determine precisely where the disk ceases to radiate.

As another example, even if little radiation originates from gas near the hole, there may still be enough material inside $`r_{ms}`$ to reflect and reprocess incident X-ray photons. Reynolds & Begelman (1997) suggested that this effect may explain the shape of the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line in MCG–6-30-15. To what extent this is possible depends on details of the accretion flow (e.g., Young, Ross & Fabian 1998). Thus, for any particular accretion state, one may define a reflection edge that may be well separated from the marginally stable orbit—or from the radiation inner edge. This distinction is an important one: for example, the assumption that the reflection edge is identical to $`r_{ms}`$ has been used as the basis for determining the spin parameter of a black hole (Wilms et al. 2002).

Other inner edge definitions are based not on radiative properties, but on the underlying dynamics. The stress edge can be defined as the point where accreting matter loses dynamical contact with the disk it left behind. In a purely hydrodynamic model using the traditional Shakura-Sunyaev $`\alpha `$ stress proportional to the pressure, this edge would be quite close to $`r_{ms}`$ because of the rapid drop in pressure as the gas accelerates inward (e.g., Abramowicz & Kato 1989). Our growing confidence that magnetic stresses account for angular momentum transfer within disks (Balbus & Hawley 1998), however, has modified this view. Magnetic stress can continue well inside $`r_{ms}`$ (Krolik 1999a; Gammie 1999; Hawley & Krolik 2001, 2002, hereafter HK01, HK02; Reynolds & Armitage 2001), so $`r_{ms}`$ may not be a good estimate of the stress edge.

Yet another inner edge, which should generally be outside the stress edge, is the turbulence edge. This is the place where the magnetic field switches from being controlled by the mechanics of saturated magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence to simple flux-freezing. Here the internal disk structure begins to change, as the gas prepares for its final plunge.

Although we speak of these as edges, we emphasize that none of them is sharp. At any given instant the scale lengths of the transitions in question can be comparable to the radius. Further, because the flows are very strongly time-variable, instantaneous edge positions can change substantially from time to time. Consequently, all of them should be thought of in terms of zones within which the relevant transition can occur.

In this paper we use data from recent black hole accretion simulations for a dual purpose. On the one hand, we examine and clarify the quantitative relations between the different inner edge definitions. Our aim is to create a conceptual framework and an associated language for discussing these issues. As our understanding of accretion dynamics deepens, we expect these distinctions to become more prominent.

On the other hand, we also develop several observational consequences of these distinctions. As we enter an era in which detailed models are fit to a variety of relativistically-shifted and broadened features, it is important to clearly define the radial emissivity distributions governing these features. Precision on these issues is vital when observations are to be used as direct tests of specific general relativistic properties of black holes. Although the numerical values we present for some of these quantities are uncertain because of the approximations made in current simulations, data from future simulations, when employed in the framework defined here, should enable finer definition of these edges and therefore more reliable inferences.

## 2 The Turbulence Edge

We begin with the disk edges that are defined in terms of dynamical properties. Disk dynamics are governed by MHD turbulence and the resulting Maxwell stresses. Within the disk, the intensity and structure of the magnetic field are determined by a balance between the underlying magneto-rotational instability, or MRI (Balbus & Hawley 1991), which generates the field, and the field loss terms, including local resistive dissipation of short length-scale fluctuations, and upward motion of buoyant magnetic flux (as studied, e.g., by Miller & Stone 2000). At large radius the timescales for these processes are short compared to the inflow time, but close to $`r_{ms}`$ the time required for energy to travel down the turbulent cascade becomes longer than the inflow time, and the magnetic field instead evolves by flux-freezing. We define the turbulence edge as the boundary between the region where the magnetic field dynamics are dominated by the turbulent cascade and the region controlled by flux-freezing.

The location of this edge may be estimated in any of several ways. We can compare the timescales for the competing processes, or we can look for a change in the field structure due to this transition, or we can compare the magnitude of the turbulent velocities to the magnitude of the inflow speed. We will take up each of these in turn.

### 2.1 Timescales

Consider the timescale approach first. In a time-steady disk with accretion rate $`\dot{M}`$, the azimuthally- and vertically-integrated energy per unit area available for dissipation at (cylindrical) radius $`r`$ is the difference between the net deposition of potential energy by accretion and the net work done by inter-ring torques:

$$Q=\frac{\dot{M}}{2\pi r}\frac{d}{dr}\left[E_B+\mathrm{\Omega }\left(jj_{in}\right)\right],$$
(1)
where $`E_B`$ is the binding energy per unit mass, $`j=r^2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular momentum per unit mass, $`j_{in}`$ is the specific angular momentum of matter accreted by the black hole, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the orbital frequency. To be precise, relativistic corrections should be applied to these quantities (Novikov & Thorne 1973, Page & Thorne 1974), but the Newtonian formalism expresses the physics more transparently.

If the torque is largely due to MHD turbulence in which the radial and azimuthal magnetic field components are correlated, this energy is initially given primarily to the field and secondarily to turbulent motions of the matter. In the simulations of HK02, for example, within the disk proper (i.e., well outside $`r_{ms}`$) the local ratio of magnetic field to random motion energy density varies from $`1`$ to $`100`$. This energy is then transferred from relatively long lengthscale motions to shorter lengthscale motions in a turbulent cascade whose eddy turnover time (in the same simulations just cited) is typically comparable to an orbital period. By definition, the lengthscale at which the cascade cuts off is the lengthscale on which the dissipation rate becomes as fast as the nonlinear energy transfer rate. Under ordinary conditions, this may be many orders of magnitude smaller than the stirring scale. Consequently, the total time required to traverse the cascade would then be a logarithmic factor, perhaps $`O(10)`$, times larger than the orbital period. However, when radiation pressure dominates gas pressure, photon diffusion may cut in at relatively large scales, particularly in regard to compressive modes (Agol & Krolik 1998). When that is the case, the multiplicative factor might be rather smaller. At the same time, not all of the energy has to be thermalized by the turbulent cascade; other losses may occur. Buoyancy, for example, causes magnetic flux to rise to the surface of the disk and escape. Because the underlying force is gravitational, the characteristic timescale for this motion is the orbital period, but fluid drag and the necessity of draining some of the attached matter can slow this process. Thus, we write $`t_{turb}=\tau _{turb}P_{orb}`$ and expect that $`\tau _{turb}`$ will be between a few and $`10`$.

To determine the turbulence edge, we compare this cascade timescale to the inflow time. Well outside $`r_{ms}`$ in a thin disk, the inflow time is always much longer than the turbulent cascade time. Indeed, this contrast is part of the separation of scales that makes it reasonable to parameterize the stress by $`\alpha `$. However, the inflow time diminishes rapidly as the region of the marginally stable orbit is approached from the outside. One way to estimate the mean inflow time in that regime is via the equation of angular momentum conservation as applied to a statistically time-steady disk

$$𝑑\varphi 𝑑zT_{r\varphi }=\dot{M}\mathrm{\Omega }\left[1j_{in}/j\right],$$
(2)
where $`T_{r\varphi }`$ is the $`r`$$`\varphi `$ component of the stress tensor. This equation may be rearranged to yield an estimate of the inflow time:

$$t_{in}=\frac{r^2𝑑\varphi 𝑑z\rho }{𝑑\varphi 𝑑z\rho v_rr}=\frac{r^2\mathrm{\Omega }\left[1j_{in}/j\right]𝑑\varphi 𝑑z\rho }{𝑑\varphi 𝑑zB_rB_\varphi /4\pi },$$
(3)
where $`\rho `$ is the volume density, and we have assumed that all the angular momentum transfer is due to magnetic stress. Note that this estimate is actually the inverse of the density-weighted mean infall rate, rather than the density-weighted infall time. It also assumes that infall is limited solely by the rate at which angular momentum can be removed. It is most appropriate in the rotationally supported part of the disk, and is wholly inapplicable inside $`r_{ms}`$ where, by definition, rotation cannot prevent infall.

In the conventional treatment (e.g. Abramowicz & Kato 1989), the stress is assumed to be $`\alpha p`$ for a constant $`\alpha <1`$ and pressure $`p`$. Because the pressure decreases sharply as the flow accelerates inward near the marginally stable orbit, the stress falls equally sharply. The factor in square brackets in the numerator of the right-hand-side of equation (3), which approaches zero near the inner edge, is then nearly cancelled by the diminishing stress in the denominator. However, when the stress is due to MHD turbulence, it does not decline near $`r_{ms}`$, the ratio of stress to pressure is not a constant, and the inflow time as estimated by equation (3) becomes steadily shorter as the flow moves toward the marginally stable region from the outside (see fig. 1). The inflow time as estimated by the torque condition does not approach zero even at $`r_{ms}`$ because $`j_{in}j(r_{ms})`$ in the simulation.

Comparison of this estimate with one derived by computing a density-weighted mean of $`r/v_r`$ shows that angular momentum removal by magnetic stress is, indeed, the primary determinant of inflow in the disk body, but infall no longer becomes angular momentum-limited at radii inside $`4r_g`$ (we define the gravitational radius $`r_g2GM/c^2`$). Inside $`r_{ms}`$, continued inflow can occur on the dynamical timescale without any change in angular momentum; even in the region not far outside $`r_{ms}`$, little torque is required, and other forces, even if small, can help push matter inward. Primarily because of the approach of $`j`$ to $`j_{in}`$ , the ratio of the infall time to the orbital period falls sharply inside $`r=10r_g`$, dropping below 10 inside $`r7r_g`$.111 Even in statistically steady disks, local fluctuations are so large that individual fluid elements can spend very different lengths of time traversing a given radial span. A more complete treatment would therefore consider the probability distribution for the infall time of matter at a given radius. Because the turbulent cascade time is perhaps $`O(10)`$ orbital periods, this line of reasoning would suggest that the turbulence edge (in this simulation) is near $`7r_g`$.

### 2.2 Magnetic Field Structure

Another approach to determining the turbulence edge is to look for a change in magnetic field structure that might result from the turbulence-dominated to flux-freezing transition. In the disk body, where turbulence dominates, the magnetic field structure is determined by a balance between stirring by the MRI and nonlinear processes that transfer energy to smaller scales, where the energy is ultimately dissipated. Although these nonlinear processes do not intrinsically lead to correlations between different field components, the linear properties of the MRI and the consistent sense of orbital shear impose a correlation between $`B_r`$ and $`B_\varphi `$ such that $`\alpha _{mag}B_rB_\varphi /B^20.25`$ (Hawley, Gammie & Balbus 1996; HK01). Indeed, it is these correlated magnetic fluctuations that enable the MHD turbulence to serve as an angular momentum transport mechanism. On the other hand, where the flow is dominated by infall, so that the field evolution is best described by simple flux-freezing, orbital motion is the dominant factor and one would expect the shear to create a larger $`B_r`$$`B_\varphi `$ correlation. Thus, the radius inside which $`\alpha _{mag}`$ begins to grow above its characteristic turbulent value can mark the place where transfer of energy to small lengthscales becomes slower than infall.

To examine this in detail in the initially-poloidal simulation of HK02, we compute the density-weighted mean value of $`\alpha _{mag}`$ in a single late-time snapshot as a function of radius (Fig. 2). As the figure shows, $`\alpha _{mag}`$ begins to rise at radii less than $`6r_g`$. The position of this rise fluctuates substantially from time to time. However, wherever the change begins, $`\alpha _{mag}`$ rises steadily inward until reaching a value near unity deep in the plunging region. In the initially-toroidal simulation of HK02, this transition occurs at rather smaller radius, always close to 3$`r_g`$, but the rise inward of this point is, if anything, sharper.

### 2.3 Infall and turbulent velocities

In the heart of the accretion disk, fully developed MHD turbulence produces velocity fluctuations relative to the mean velocity that are substantially larger than the mean accretion velocity itself. As the flow approaches the inner edge, however, the accretion velocity increases relative to the fluctuations. Thus, another measure of the transition from the turbulence-dominated regime to the smooth infall regime is the ratio of the random velocity to the mean. As Figure 3 shows, this ratio is $`5`$ – 10 in the disk body, but begins diminishing near $`r=8r_g`$ and falls $`r^2`$ all the way into the plunging region. Near the inner edge of the simulation, the turbulent fluctuations are only $`0.1\times `$ the mean radial velocity.

### 2.4 Summary

Based on these estimates, we conclude that the turbulence edge in initially-poloidal simulations is in the neighborhood of 6 – $`8r_g`$, but may be closer to $`r_{ms}`$ when the field is initially toroidal. For reasons discussed in HK02, it is likely that the initially-poloidal case is closer to reality than the initially-toroidal one, so one might expect the larger radius to be more representative of real disks.

If so, we may calibrate the factor $`\tau _{turb}`$ post hoc. Assuming that the turbulence edge is at $`r7r_g`$, we see from Fig. 1 that $`t_{in}7P_{orb}`$ at that point. By definition, $`t_{in}t_{turb}`$ at that radius, so we conclude that $`\tau _{turb}7`$, in line with our expectations.

The position of the turbulence edge may be a function of disk thickness $`h`$, and/or the accretion rate. The infall time $`t_{in}`$ is always $`P_{orb}`$ in the inner disk, but it increases to $`\alpha ^1(r/h)^2P_{orb}`$ in the disk body. Therefore, the infall time must rise more rapidly near $`r10r_g`$ in cold, thin disks than in the simulated disks, which have $`h/r0.1`$–0.2. On this basis one would expect the turbulence edge to move to smaller radius for smaller $`h/r`$. Similarly, inward-directed pressure gradients can be significant within a distance $`h`$ of $`r_{ms}`$, causing the final plunge to begin at a larger radius for hotter disks. However, there is little room for the turbulence edge to move too much closer to $`r_{ms}`$, so the dependence on $`h/r`$ might be relatively weak.

## 3 The Stress Edge

### 3.1 General considerations

When matter crosses the event horizon of the black hole, it loses all ability to communicate with the outside world, even with signals traveling at $`c`$. If the accretion flow were time-steady and spherically symmetric, it would be easy to define an analogous surface, the stress edge, where a more restricted loss of communication takes place: the surface where dynamical communication ceases. That is the surface on which the inflow speed (as measured, for example, by a distant observer) exceeds the magnetosonic speed (measured relative to the same observer).

In real accretion flows, which are thoroughly non-steady and non-symmetric, it becomes much harder to define such a surface. Even in steady flows, asymmetry significantly complicates the issue. Imagine, for example, a steady flow in which the magnetosonic surface has a dimple. It would be entirely possible for signals to travel diagonally inward within the super-magnetosonic region, cross the boundary into the sub-magnetosonic region, and travel outward from there. When that happens, the magnetosonic surface is no longer a final boundary beyond which the flow loses causal contact with the outside world. The surface on which that takes place lies somewhere closer to the black hole; its exact location depends on details of the flow structure.

If the flow is non-steady, which is the realistic case, individual asymmetric structures like the one described in the previous paragraph are the norm, but with the additional complication that they are transient. Causal paths need exist only for the time the signal travels through them. Time-variation might be so violent that time-averages would erase any indication that such paths exist. The only way to determine these causal trapping surfaces for certain is to trace all characteristics through spacetime to their end, either in the black hole or back to the outside. For all these reasons, the concept of an average stress edge is perhaps the least well-determined of all the edges discussed here.

Giving up hope of defining this edge exactly, instead we attempt to locate it approximately using two crude indicators: the ratio of infall speed to magnetosonic speed, and gradients in the matter’s angular momentum and energy.

### 3.2 Comparing the magnetosonic and infall speeds

As was just discussed, the point where the infall speed becomes equal to the magnetosonic speed clearly demarks the stress edge only in spherically-symmetric, time-steady flows. Nonetheless, we might look to this ratio as giving at least a crude estimate of this edge’s position. Fig. 4 shows an azimuthal average of this ratio at a particular late-time instant in the initially-poloidal simulation of HK02. In this snapshot, the surface within which the infall speed is generally greater than the magnetosonic speed falls roughly between 2.5 and $`3r_g`$ between the midplane and $`z+r_g`$, but slants radially inward below the equatorial plane. Thus, from this sort of data, one might imagine the stress edge as occurring at a variety of radii between 2 and $`3r_g`$, depending on altitude. The asymmetry between regions above and below the midplane is, of course, time-variable. Inside the disk body (i.e., $`r3.5r_g`$ and $`|z|<0.1r`$), the mean infall speed is a tiny fraction of the magnetosonic speed.

Next, we consider this ratio in the equatorial plane as a function of time. After $`t=1000`$, when the accretion flow has established a quasi-steady state, the location where $`v_r`$ becomes super-magnetosonic remains inside $`r_{ms}`$, but varies rapidly, from a minimum at $`r=2.3r_g`$ out to a maximum near $`r=2.9r_g`$. We expect that there are also similarly large fluctuations in the location of the magnetosonic surface away from the equatorial plane.

### 3.3 Specific angular momentum

A contrasting perspective is given by the variation in specific angular momentum across the accretion flow (fig. 5). As this figure shows, $`j/r>0`$ all the way to the inner edge of the simulation problem area at $`r=1.25r_g`$. In the equatorial plane, the specific angular momentum continues to fall at least as far inward as $`r1.5r_g`$. Away from the midplane, the azimuthally-averaged poloidal velocity field angles toward the equatorial plane, but not as steeply as the angular momentum contours; hence, the angular momentum of individual fluid elements falls as they flow inward. If this figure were our only diagnostic of the stress edge, we might conclude that this edge lies inside the smallest radius treated in this simulation, i.e. at less than $`1.25r_g`$.

### 3.4 Relation to turbulence edge

For a third estimate of the stress edge’s location, we examine its relation to the turbulence edge. The stress edge must be inside the turbulence edge for it must occur where the net inflow velocity dominates over the velocity fluctuations. Moreover, because conditions at the turbulence edge provide a sort of boundary condition for the relatively predictable behavior in the flux-freezing region, we can use a simple analytic argument to estimate how far inside the turbulence edge the stress edge occurs. In essence, this argument is the same as the one employed in Krolik (1999a).

Our reasoning begins with equation (2), evaluated at the turbulence edge and assuming that all the stress is magnetic. This condition fixes the magnetic field intensity at the turbulence edge. Extrapolating the field strength to smaller radii with the assumption of flux-freezing then gives an estimate of the Alfvén speed. Writing all quantities evaluated at the turbulence edge with a subscript $``$ and introducing mass-conservation in the form $`2\pi rh\rho v_r=\dot{M}`$, we find

$$\frac{v_A}{v_r}=\left\{\frac{2}{\alpha _{mag}}\frac{B^2}{B^2_{}}\frac{rh}{r_{}h_{}}\frac{v_\varphi }{v_r}\left[1j_{in}/j_{}\right]\right\}^{1/2},$$
(4)
where $`v_\varphi `$ is the azimuthal speed. To verify equation (4), we plot (in fig. 6), the left hand and right hand sides of this equation for the inner region of the initially poloidal simulation from HK02. The values are averaged over height, angle, and time from $`t=1000`$ to 1830 (the endtime). If we set $`\alpha _{mag}=0.3`$, we find that the simulation data give a very close match to this analytic prediction for $`r_{}`$ between $`6`$ and $`8r_g`$; The figure uses $`r_{}=6.3r_g`$, a number well within the range previously estimated for the turbulence edge.

Supported by this check, we may then use equation (4) to estimate the position of the magnetosonic surface based on conditions at the turbulence edge, once again using that surface as a rough guide to the location of the stress edge. Because the simulations also suggest that the height-integrated magnetic energy doesn’t change much as a function of radius in this region, the definition of the stress edge $`r_s`$ based on equation (4) simplifies to

$$r_s\left[\alpha _{mag}\frac{j_{in}/j_{}}{1j_{in}/j_{}}\frac{v_r(r_s)}{v_\varphi (r_s)}\right]^{1/2}\left[\frac{v_r(r_s)}{v_\varphi (r_s)}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(5)
The simplified form reflects the simulational results that $`\alpha _{mag}0.3`$ and $`j_{in}/j_{}0.8`$. This form demonstrates that $`r_s<r_{ms}`$ because $`v_r/v_\varphi `$ is generally still a small number until well inside $`r_{ms}`$. For example, for the data shown in Figure 1 the mass-weighted mean $`v_r/v_\varphi 0.1`$ at $`r_{ms}`$, so that $`r_sr_{}/3(2`$$`2.5)r_g`$. We emphasize, however, that the location of the turbulence edge fluctuates with time, causing movement of the stress edge. A relation such as equation (4) holds in an approximate and time-averaged sense.

## 4 The Reflection Edge

The edges discussed above are dynamical. Other interesting edges have to do with the innermost places from which observable photons may emerge.

Many accreting black holes exhibit Compton reflection features. These are broad bumps in the spectrum from $`10`$ to $`50`$ keV. All photons can be reflected by Compton scattering from ionized material, but those with energy below $`10`$ keV are more likely to be absorbed by a variety of photoelectric processes, while those with energy $`100`$ keV or more lose energy to Compton recoil in the very process of reflection (Lightman & White 1988). To produce a Compton reflection feature, accretion disks must satisfy two criteria: they must be optically thick to Compton scattering, and their matter must not be too ionized.

Two very similar criteria regulate Fe K$`\alpha `$ production in disks. This emission line can be generated when hard X-rays illuminate matter containing unstripped Fe atoms and ions. When the Fe is less ionized than H-like or He-like, the line is produced by fluorescence; in the higher ionization stages, the process is actually recombination, but it scales in identical fashion with illuminating flux until most Fe atoms are fully stripped of their electrons.

Because the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line and the Fe K-edge that dominates the low-energy end of the Compton reflection feature can be shifted in energy by general relativistic effects, their location in X-ray spectra can provide direct diagnostics of orbital properties deep in the relativistic potential. It is therefore very important to correctly identify their origin.

Although it is common to assume that this reflection edge is identical to the marginally stable orbit, Reynolds & Begelman (1997) pointed out that this is not necessarily the case because material farther in could be illuminated by hard X-rays generated elsewhere. On the other hand, Young et al. (1998) questioned whether there would be enough unstripped Fe in the lower-density material in the plunging region to efficiently produce fluorescence photons. The fractional abundance of unstripped Fe is controlled by the ratio $`J_x/\rho `$, where $`J_x`$ is the mean intensity of X-rays with energy $`>7`$ keV. When $`J_x/\rho `$ is too great, the efficiency of K$`\alpha `$ production falls because an increase in the illuminating flux no longer produces any increase in line photon emission. In addition, because the Fe K-edge photoionization opacity of matter with a solar abundance of Fe is approximately the same as the Thomson opacity, illuminating photons are only fully used when the column density is great enough to make the matter Compton thick. Thus, the falling density in the plunging region reduces the K$`\alpha `$ emission efficiency for both these reasons.

One of the most noteworthy results of the MHD simulations is to show that, particularly in the plunging region, accreting matter fluctuates widely in density, in both space and time. Regions separated by less than the azimuthally-averaged scale height can differ in density by factors of 10–30. As a result, the optical depth at fixed radius can vary in azimuth by factors of 2–3. A treatment that assumes all the accreting matter has the same mean density and optical depth could therefore miss important effects.

In our simulations, we have no way of estimating the hard X-ray intensity, and, because we have no definite unit of density, we can measure the gas density and column density only in relative terms. However, by normalizing the mass inflow rate to the Eddington rate, we can make a correspondence between the density in the simulation and a physical density. In physical units, $`\dot{M}=1.7\times 10^{17}(\dot{m}/\eta )M/M_{}\mathrm{gm}\mathrm{s}^1,`$ where $`\dot{m}`$ is the mass inflow rate in Eddington units and $`\eta `$ is the “efficiency” factor, i.e., the fraction of the rest-mass energy available for radiation.

Figure 7 shows the value of the surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a function of radius for the inner region of the poloidal field simulation of HK02. The solid line is the azimuthally-averaged value and the dashed lines are the minimum and maximum values. The inflow stream has a prominent $`m=1`$ spiral pattern, and the minima and maxima provide a measure of the variation with angle. The values are normalized to the average value at $`r_{ms}`$.

The surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and with it the optical depth, decline smoothly inward, dropping by a factor of $`10`$ from $`r_{ms}`$ to the inner boundary and increasing roughly proportional to $`r^{3/2}`$ out to $`r=10r_g`$. The drop in the plunging region is less severe than in Figure 1 of Reynolds & Begelman (1997) because they make the artificial assumption that the infall velocity goes to zero at $`r_{ms}`$. In contrast, we observe no sharp change because our infall velocity varies smoothly across $`r_{ms}`$.

The initially toroidal simulation from HK02 shows a steeper inward decline in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which is roughly proportional to $`r^3`$ out to $`r=10`$. Even here, however, there is no sudden break or change in character at $`r=r_{ms}`$.

Employing the conversion factor defined above, we find that the average $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at $`r_{ms}`$ in the poloidal simulation is $`14(\dot{m}/\eta )`$ gm cm-2. The corresponding mean Thomson optical depth is $`\tau _T5(\dot{m}/\eta )`$. In other words, at high accretion rate, all of the stably-orbiting part of the disk and some of the plunging region are Thomson thick, but at low accretion rate, even the inner part of the stable disk may be optically thin. The reflection edge may therefore lie on either side of $`r_{ms}`$, depending on the accretion rate. This conclusion is at variance with standard analytic models for accretion disk equilibria because, unlike them, we allow for the smooth acceleration in the radial inflow speed that begins outside the marginally stable orbit.

Although the mean column density does decrease inward, the maximum volume density in the inflow spiral remains roughly constant until $`2r_g`$, before dropping. Of course, the maximum fills an increasingly small volume, but assuming a constant incident X-ray flux, the persistence of local high-density regions means that there can be some material deep in the plunging region that is no more highly-ionized than it was at the marginally stable orbit.

Finally, we comment that the reflection edge is, in some respects, the nearest analog to what one might ordinarily define as the disk’s inner edge. It is the place where the integrated surface density has declined enough that the disk becomes effectively transparent.

## 5 The Radiation Edge

The previous section discussed photon reflection; no reflection can happen, of course, unless photons are generated to be reflected. Thus, we are led to the last edge we consider, the radiation edge, the innermost radius from which significant radiation emerges. There are two main considerations in establishing this edge: the heating that takes place in the plasma, and the rate at which that heat can be radiated away.

### 5.1 The dissipation distribution

Outside the stress edge in a time-steady disk, the amount of energy available for local dissipation is the difference between the net rate of change in the matter’s binding energy and the energy that it loses by doing work through stresses on adjacent matter (eqn. 1). Conventional Novikov-Thorne models assume a boundary condition on the stress that forces dissipative heating to end at the marginally stable orbit (Novikov & Thorne 1973, Page & Thorne 1974). As first suggested by Krolik (1999a) and confirmed in the simulations of HK01 and HK02, stress due to MHD turbulence continues right through the marginally stable region and well into the plunging region. Consequently, it cannot be assumed that dissipation—and therefore radiation—end abruptly at $`r_{ms}`$.

One way that the dissipation distribution may be altered from the Novikov-Thorne prediction is for the extra stresses in the inner part of the accretion flow to convey energy coherently from plunging matter back to the disk proper, where it can then be dissipated. Agol & Krolik (2000) showed how a stress expressed at $`r_{ms}`$ translates into an extended dissipation distribution at more distant radii. Close outside $`r_{ms}`$ the dissipation per unit area drops very rapidly with increasing radius; at somewhat larger radii, it scales $`r^{7/2}`$.

The Agol & Krolik solution refers to the vertically-integrated dissipation rate. Because it is based only on energy conservation, it has nothing to say about the vertical distribution of that dissipation within the disk. For the purpose of making more specific spectral predictions, that distinction is important. In particular, the radial emissivity of reflection features (as discussed in the previous section) depends on the coronal dissipation rate. We will return to this point in §6.

A second alteration to the classical dissipation distribution may occur in the plunging region itself. Independent of how much energy may be transferred from there to the disk body, there can be very large local energy exchange between adjacent fluid elements. For example, in the initially-toroidal simulation of HK02, there are places in the plunging region where material with binding energy twice the mean finds itself a small fraction of a radius from material that has very nearly zero binding energy. Some of the energy involved may find itself dissipated. In addition, stripes of oppositely-directed magnetic field can be brought very close together, offering opportunities for rapid reconnection. Because the field energy is large compared to the pressure in this region, the heating associated with reconnection could be quite important.

### 5.2 Photon generation and escape

The stress distribution in the inner region of an accretion disk also cannot automatically be transformed into a radiation distribution. Any of several effects could cause inefficiency in the transformation of energy into heat and thus into escaping photons. One possibility, which has been the focus of a great deal of attention in recent years, is that the primary dissipation mechanism heats the ions, but not the electrons (Rees et al. 1982; Narayan & Yi 1995). In the present discussion, we will not consider that possibility, except to note that to answer the question of which species receives the majority of the heat will require detailed consideration of the small-scale processes that terminate the nonlinear cascade of the MHD turbulence. Here we will assume that $`T_{ion}=T_e`$. Another plausible alternative channel for energy loss is mechanical work. This channel has two branches: organized outflows such as winds and jets, and simple $`pdV`$ work within the accretion flow. A third possibility is that the inflow may be so rapid that there is not enough time for the matter to generate photons, and for the photons to diffuse out, before the fluid reaches the black hole (Abramowicz et al. 1988). Here we will concentrate on the latter three issues: adiabatic cooling, photon generation, and photon diffusion.

One might expect adiabatic cooling to become more important than dissipative heating when the inflow time becomes shorter than the time to dissipate the MHD turbulence, i.e., inside the turbulence edge, but there are two loopholes in this line of reasoning. The first is whether the gas actually falls in density as it plunges inward. If all that happened were an increase inward of $`|v_r|`$, a sharp density drop would be inevitable. However, as seen in the simulations of HK01 and HK02, and as discussed above in §4, the density in the spiral inflow can remain higher than what might be predicted. Convergence to the equator and into a nonaxisymmetric spiral can compensate for inward acceleration.

The second loophole is that the turbulence edge is defined specifically in terms of the turbulent cascade of magnetic energy to short lengthscales. Other, more rapid, forms of dissipation can also occur, such as shocks and magnetic reconnection. In particular, in the simulations of HK02 there are enough weak shocks that the specific entropy (defined as $`p/\rho ^{5/3}`$) rises by roughly a factor of 5 from $`r=6r_g`$ to $`r=1.25r_g`$ in the equatorial plane. As a result, the temperature actually rises slightly with decreasing radius in this region. Because this simulation does not capture several other sources of heating (notably numerical magnetic reconnection), the heating recorded is probably an underestimate.

In most—but not all—circumstances, the photon generation time is shorter than the photon diffusion time. To illustrate the range of possibilities, we consider two cases, one in which the primary radiation mechanism is bremsstrahlung, the other in which the primary mechanism is inverse Compton scattering.

First consider bremsstrahlung. It is slowest relative to the infall time if the gas is essentially in free-fall. When that is a good description,

$$\frac{t_{brems}}{P_{orb}}=\frac{1}{9\alpha _{fs}[\mathrm{ln}(kT/m_ec^2)+1.5]}\frac{\eta }{L/L_E}\frac{h}{r}\frac{v_r}{v_{ff}},$$
(6)
where $`t_{brems}`$ is the characteristic time to radiate the gas’s thermal energy by bremsstrahlung, the numerical factors incorporate an approximation to the relativistic bremsstrahlung Gaunt factor, $`\alpha _{fs}`$ is the fine-structure constant, and $`v_{ff}`$ is the radial free-fall speed (see, e.g., Krolik 1999b for the bremsstrahlung radiation coefficient written in this notation; note, too, that this expression assumes a pure electron-proton plasma). Thus, when the accretion flow is geometrically thick and close to free-fall, the bremsstrahlung photon generation time is longer than an infall time in the plunging region, particularly for low accretion rate relative to Eddington. However, when the flow is slower, the photon generation time can easily be shorter than $`t_{in}`$.

In the initially-poloidal simulation of HK02, $`h/r0.1`$ throughout the plunging region. The time- and mass-averaged mean inflow velocity $`v_r`$ varied from $`0.01v_{ff}`$ at $`r=7r_g`$ to $`0.35v_{ff}`$ at $`r=2r_g`$. At late time, the mass-averaged temperature ($`kTp/\rho `$) rises inward from $`0.001c^2`$ at $`r=10r_g`$ to $`0.004c^2`$ at $`r=2r_g`$. Using equation (6), we would then predict that the time required to radiate the gas’s thermal content by bremsstrahlung is $`0.008\eta (L/L_E)^1P_{orb}`$. Thus, bremsstrahlung cooling is rapid compared to the dynamical time so long as the accretion rate is greater than $`10^2\times `$ the Eddington rate.

Bremsstrahlung is not the only plausible cooling mechanism; Compton cooling generally dominates when the electron temperature is substantially greater than the Compton temperature, 1/4 the intensity-weighted photon energy, and the electron density is relatively low. Compton cooling is especially likely to be important when dissipation occurs within the plunging region. The characteristic energy loss time for this mechanism is

$$\frac{t_{Compt}}{P_{orb}}=\frac{9}{32\pi }\frac{m_e}{\mu _e}\frac{(r/r_g)^{1/2}}{L(x)/L_E},$$
(7)
where $`\mu _e`$ is the mass per electron (generally $`m_p`$) and $`L(x)/L_E`$ is the luminosity produced inside radius $`x`$, relative to Eddington. Unless $`L/L_E1`$, the Compton time remains much shorter than an orbital period throughout the (inner) portion of the disk that radiates nearly all the light.

On the other hand, depending on location, the diffusion time can be either much longer than an orbital period or rather shorter. In the disk body, the diffusion time is generally $`\alpha ^1P_{orb}`$. However, as we have already estimated, the surface density, and hence vertical optical depth of the disk, diminishes smoothly through the inner part of the accretion flow, and, depending on parameters, the flow may become optically thin to Compton scattering either inside or outside $`r_{ms}`$. Where the disk is optically thin, photon scattering is unimportant; where it is optically thick, the diffusion time is $`\tau _T^2(h/r)(r/r_g)^{1/2}P_{orb}`$.

On the basis of these estimates, we conclude that the radiation edge of sub-Eddington disks is primarily determined by the total (i.e. turbulent plus shock plus reconnection) dissipation distribution. Where inflow is slow enough that the optical depth is large, $`t_{in}`$ is longer than the radiation time; where inflow is faster, the optical depth falls sufficiently to permit efficient photon escape. Thus, if the flow inside the turbulence edge is laminar, the radiation edge will be located at most a short distance inside the point where most dissipation ceases. If there is dissipation at small radii, the disk could remain bright close to the black hole.

## 6 An observational application: Fe K$`\alpha `$ profiles

The emissivity of reflection features—both the “Compton bump” and Fe fluorescence—is determined by a combination of the different mechanisms that set the locations of the radiation and the reflection edges. Most efforts to infer the reflection emissivity have concentrated on Fe K$`\alpha `$, so we will focus on that feature here.

Almost all phenomenological inferences of the K$`\alpha `$ emissivity have assumed that the inner edge of emission is identical with $`r_{ms}`$. For example, Nandra et al. (1998), fit their ASCA data from a number of Seyfert galaxies to a model for which the emissivity $`j_{K\alpha }r^{}\beta `$ for $`r6GM/c^2`$ ($`r_{ms}`$ for $`a/M=0`$) and zero inside that radius. For their sample, they found a mean value of $`\beta 2.5`$. Wilms et al. (2002) fit their K$`\alpha `$ profile from MCG –6-30-15 to a similar model, but with the inner radius and $`a/M`$ variable. They found that $`4.3<\beta <5`$, and, by arguing that the inner edge of emission could be identified with $`r_{ms}`$, placed a lower bound on $`a/M`$.

Now that we can begin to distinguish between the radiation and reflection edges and the marginally stable radius, it is necessary to approach these inferences more circumspectly. As has already been discussed in §5, the coronal radiation edge—the version of the radiation edge relevant to driving X-ray fluorescence—could fall on either side of $`r_{ms}`$.

Whether reflection ceases inside or outside $`r_{ms}`$ depends largely on the accretion rate. Thus, one could interpret extremely broad and red-shifted Fe K$`\alpha `$ profiles in either of two generic ways:

High accretion rate: If $`\dot{m}/\eta 1`$, the reflection edge can be well inside $`r_{ms}`$. In this case, the lower bound on $`a/M`$ suggested by Wilms et al. (2002) would not apply because many of the observed line photons could be created at $`r<r_{ms}`$. Reflection requires irradiation, and to have sufficiently strong irradiation in the plunging region, there must be either violent reconnection in that zone or strong coronal emission just outside $`r_{ms}`$. As shown by Agol & Krolik (2000), when extra torque is applied to the disk at some radius $`r_tr_{ms}`$, the associated supplemental dissipation is concentrated very tightly at radii just outside $`r_t`$. In terms of Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, the dissipation rate falls especially steeply outside $`r_t`$ when $`a/M`$ approaches unity.

Low accretion rate: If $`\dot{m}/\eta 1`$, the reflection edge is likely to move well outside $`r_{ms}`$. In the picture of accretion disks commonly adopted for line profile-modeling, the column density of matter rises so sharply near $`r_{ms}`$ that disks are all optically thick at any radius $`rr_{ms}`$. However, as Figure 7 shows, this is not so; the rise of optical depth with radius is relatively smooth, so that disks can easily be optically thin well outside $`r_{ms}`$, especially when $`\dot{m}/\eta `$ is small. In this case, the lower bound on $`a/M`$ posed by the prerequisites for creating this sort of profile become quite stringent, and might become impossible to satisfy.

Both interpretations share one conclusion: in order to excite enough K$`\alpha `$ emission at small enough radius to replicate the observed broad profiles, it is necessary to extend the range of disk (coronal) radiation well inward from the point where the Novikov-Thorne model predicts that dissipation becomes weak. If the K$`\alpha `$ photons were excited by hard photons produced locally whose emissivity followed the Novikov-Thorne dissipation distribution, $`j_{K\alpha }`$ would be very small near $`r_{ms}`$, rise to a peak at significantly larger radius—in terms of Boyer-Lindquist radii, $`r_{peak}1.6r_{ms}`$ for $`a/M=0`$, and $`1.2r_{ms}`$ for $`a/M=0.998`$—roll over gradually, and then ultimately fall $`r^3`$. The sorts of crude fits already in hand make it clear that this sort of pattern for K$`\alpha `$ emissivity will not do—there must be additional emissivity at small radii.

## 7 Conclusions

The arguments presented here have shown how the simple term “disk inner edge” fragments into multiple meanings when accretion flows around black holes are examined carefully and quantitatively. At least four different definitions might be interesting, two referring to dynamical properties and two to observational ones. Moreover, even when one searches for an inner edge that is clearly defined conceptually, in a real disk what one is likely to find is a fuzzy, asymmetric border that varies in time.

The outermost inner edge is likely to be the turbulence edge, the place where the magnetic field ceases to be described by a balanced turbulent cascade and is better thought of as evolving through flux-freezing as the plasma that carries it flows inward. If the initially-poloidal simulation of HK02 is any guide, this occurs at 6–$`8r_g`$ from the center of the black hole. This edge marks an important transition in the character of disk dynamics, from the familiar regime in which $`t_{in}t_{th}P_{orb}`$ ($`t_{th}\alpha ^1P_{orb}`$ is the thermal time) to a quite different one in which all three timescales are comparable.

The other inner edge relevant to dynamics is the stress edge: matter inside this edge cannot communicate energy or angular momentum to matter outside. We demonstrated that the stress edge should, in general, lie well inside the turbulence edge, but it is difficult to locate unambiguously, as it is particularly strongly affected by time-variability and departures from symmetry. The position of this edge is central to accretion studies because it regulates what are arguably the two most important parameters of the system: the total energy and angular momentum removed from the accreted material before it enters the central black hole. Note that because the stress edge is well inside the turbulence edge, much of the energy released by accretion occurs in circumstances quite different from those in the disk body.

The reflection edge is the innermost material capable of producing a significant Compton reflection feature or Fe K$`\alpha `$ fluorescence. Because of the large fluctuations in gas volume and column density that occur in the plunging region, this edge may not even be a clean surface; rather, it may be that reflecting material breaks up into “islands” which become smaller and less common toward smaller radii. Normalizing the column density of matter in the simulations of HK02 in terms of the accretion rate in Eddington units, we find that, on average, the radius where the matter becomes thin to Thomson scattering could lie either inside or outside $`r_{ms}`$; higher accretion rates lead to reflection edges at smaller radii.

The last of the four inner edges is the radiation edge, the smallest radius from which significant luminosity originates. This is difficult to locate on the basis of current simulations because they do not include either explicit dissipation or radiation. This edge is the most dependent on the detailed energetics of the accretion flow, both with respect to dissipation and photon escape. Estimates based on current work indicate that, like the reflection edge, it could lie on either side of $`r_{ms}`$, depending on circumstances. It is entirely possible that the disk can remain bright quite close to the black hole.

Although the simulations done so far are not ideally suited to determination of the inner edges relevant to observations, the dynamical features of the simulations should be more robust. One concern with the present simulations is that the accretion flow originates in an initial torus centered only $`10r_g`$ from the black hole. Although the dynamical disk edges occur well within the inflow region of the subsequent evolution, it is possible that specific details are influenced by the finite torus size.

The simulations done to date have also been restricted to relatively thick flows, with $`h/r0.1`$. The specific locations of the various edges depend only weakly on disk thickness. The turbulence edge likely moves inward slightly for smaller $`h/r`$. The location of the stress edge probably does not depend directly on $`h/r`$. Similarly, because surface density is independent of $`h`$, the location of the reflection edge depends more on factors such as the net accretion rate. Decreasing $`h`$ tends to move the radiation edge inward, we expect, because, for fixed surface density, the diffusion time is $`h`$. Future simulations should be able to refine these estimates.

In any case, while it is clear that any definition of a disk inner edge will lie in the vicinity of the marginally stable orbit, there is no reason why any of these inner edges should coincide precisely with $`r_{ms}`$. Depending on which physical concept is under consideration, any particular inner edge might be a factor of 2–3 inside or outside $`r_{ms}`$—and its position relative to $`r_{ms}`$ can easily change as a function of time.

These facts have important implications with regard to the use of disk models as the basis for interpreting observations as probes of accretion in strong gravity. In virtually all previous efforts to interpret Fe K$`\alpha `$ profiles, the line shape was fit to a model that assumed the emissivity was a power-law in radius cut off abruptly at $`r_{ms}`$. However, as Reynolds & Begelman (1997) first pointed out, the reflection edge is not necessarily tied to the marginally stable orbit; as we have argued, it could as easily lie outside as inside that radius. Similarly, fits to the thermal portion of black hole accretion disk radiation are nearly always made with respect to models (such as the “multi-color disk”: Ebisawa et al. 1994, Shimura & Takahara 1995) that assume surface brightnesses following the Novikov-Thorne prescription or its Newtonian simplification. As we have shown here, this is unlikely to be a good description of the radiation edge. There is then little basis for the frequently-performed further step of using these model fits, in which the radiation edge is assumed to lie at exactly $`r_{ms}`$ to infer a black hole’s mass and spin.

This work was supported by NASA grant NAG5-9187 to JHK, and NSF grant AST-0070979 and NASA grant NAG5-9266 to JFH. Computational support was provided by the San Diego Supercomputer Center of the National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure, funded by the NSF, and by the Legion project at the University of Virginia.