format: text

text:
# HEATED COOLING FLOWS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Early results from the XMM and Chandra X-ray telescopes have confounded and intensified long-simmering controversies regarding cooling flows in elliptical galaxies and galaxy clusters. In the absence of detailed spectroscopic data, it had been assumed that the virialized hot gas in these systems cools over a large volume as the gas slowly flows inward, depositing several to many 100 $`M_{}`$ yr-1. Since optical evidence for normal star formation is limited, it is usually assumed that the cooled gas forms preferentially into stars of low mass. Indeed, there is some evidence for cooled gas in H$`\alpha `$ \+ \[NII\] emission in cooling flows (e.g. Heckman et al. 1989; Caon, Macchetto & Pastoriza 2000) and for populations of younger stars (McNamara 1997; Cardiel et al. 1998). Gas dynamical models with spatially distributed mass dropout (cooling) have been devised that agree with most observations. Many X-ray observers have claimed that cooling flows can be understood if mass drops out so that the remaining mass flow varies as $`\dot{M}(r)r`$ (e.g. Thomas, Fabian, & Nulsen 1987).

The unexpected result from the Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS) on XMM is that the multiphase spectral signature of gas cooling to low temperatures has not been seen in Abell 1835 (Peterson et al. 2001) or Abell 1795 (Tamura et al. 2000). XMM/EPIC spectra of M87/Virgo also fail to reveal evidence of cooling at the expected rate (Böhringer et al. 2001a, b, c; Molendi & Pizzolato 2001; Matsushita et al. 2002), in contradiction to the long-standing observation with Einstein FPCS by Canizares et al. (1982), recently confirmed by Buote (2001). High resolution XMM/RGS spectra of elliptical galaxy NGC 4636 show strong emission from the OVIII Ly$`\alpha `$ line at 0.654 keV characteristic of hot gas at $`T\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}6\times 10^6`$ K, but the OVII resonance line at 0.574 keV, expected from cooling gas at $`T2\times 10^6`$ K, is strangely absent (Xu et al. 2001). On the other hand, FUSE observations of NGC 4636 detect OVI emission from gas at $`T3\times 10^5`$ K indicating a mass cooling rate $`\dot{M}`$ near (but less than) that predicted by conventional multiphase cooling flow models (e.g. Bregman et al. 2001). Nevertheless, as a result of the XMM data, an increasing number of theorists and observers are doubting the reality of traditional cooling flows and radically modified alternative theoretical models have been proposed (Fabian et al. 2001; Morris & Fabian 2001).

One of the most consistent and (initially) appealing suggestions is that the gas in these so-called cooling flows is not cooling by radiation losses because it is continuously or intermittently heated by energy released near supermassive black holes in the cores of central E or cD galaxies. This seems reasonable since almost every giant E or cD galaxy is known to be a source of AGN activity at some level, ranging from the barely observable to the most powerful known radio galaxies. It has been suggested that the hot thermal plasma could be heated by AGN energy in the form of shock waves, Compton scattering or by dissipation of the energy in relativistic particles. Certainly some energy transfer to the gas must be occurring, and the AGN is likely to operate in a feedback mode, supplying energy whenever gas cools at the center of the cooling flow and fuels the black hole. Enough AGN energy is available to significantly influence the flow, provided it can be judiciously transfered to the gas.

Although the heating hypothesis is appealing, we show in the discussion below that unforeseen complications rule out many – and perhaps all – heating scenarios that affect the gas flow significantly. Our objective here is to study the time dependent evolution of cooling flows that are heated in a variety of different ways. We do not consider the detailed and uncertain microphysics of the heating process. Instead, we assume that heating occurs according to various space and time dependent recipes as described by a few adjustable parameters. For success, a heated flow must agree reasonably well with the density and temperature distributions observed in cooling flows. In addition, this agreement must be achieved with a wide range of heating parameters so that it is not necessary to “fine-tune” the heating process, which may be inherently stochastic. Furthermore, the mass of gas accumulated at or near the center of the flow must be consistent with the masses of central black holes and stellar mass to light determinations from central velocity dispersions. Finally, to be fully compatible with the lack of evidence for intrinsic multiphase gas in XMM X-ray spectra, heated cooling flows should have little or no distributed cooling.

We focus here on galactic or galaxy group scale cooling flows associated with a single central massive elliptical galaxy. Indeed, all giant E galaxies are thought to have formed by mergers of smaller galaxies in group environments. As a result, most luminous E galaxies are surrounded by extended X-ray halos confined by the group potential, containing more hot gas than can be accounted for by stellar mass loss in the central galaxy. Within the central galaxy, however, new gas is continuously supplied by stellar mass loss so the absence of observed cooling flow dropout is consequently more of a problem. Since larger cluster cooling flows invariably flow into a central E or cD galaxy, our arguments generally apply for these larger flows as well, although more central heating would be required to decelerate the inflow velocity in cooling in cluster flows.

We deliberately choose the simplest possible heating scenarios; if these do not give satisfactory results, it is unlikely that adding details will help. We warn readers that most or all of the heated cooling flow models described here are found to be unacceptable by the criteria that we have set.

It is particularly interesting that multiphase cooling over a large region of the flow is a frequent and natural consequence of heating or additional nonthermal pressure near the center of the galaxy. Centrally heated or pressurized gas decelerates (or reverses) the normal cooling inflow in the galactic core. At the radius where normally inward flowing gas from large radii encounters stagnant or outflowing gas in the core, a nonlinear compression develops, resulting in thermal instabilities. Since this cooling instability is inherently nonlinear, it was not found in linear studies (e.g. Balbus & Soker 1989). However, the expected multiphase spectral signature for such cooling gas is not yet reported by XMM observers.

AGN heating in cooling flows is not a new idea. Before we describe our own models, we review in the following section some of the heated models that have already been proposed.

## 2 A Brief History of Heated Cooling Flows

### 2.1 Possible Heating Mechanisms

#### 2.1.1 Thermal Conduction

The positive temperature gradient ($`dT/dr>0`$) in the central regions of cooling flows is due to radiative cooling and, on galactic scales, to mixing with cooler stellar mass loss. Since the heat flux opposes the thermal gradient, it has been suggested that heat could be conducted inward toward the center of the flow, balancing the radiative cooling there and arresting or retarding the global evolution of the cooling flow and its mass dropout (Stewart, Canizares, Fabian & Nulsen 1984; Bertschinger & Meiksin 1986; Meiksin 1988; Bregman & David 1988; Loewenstein, Zweibel & Begelman 1991; Brighenti & Mathews 2002). Unfortunately, these attempts to avoid radiative cooling have been generally unsuccessful because conductive heat flux and radiation losses are important in different flow regions. The Spitzer conductivity depends strongly on temperature ($`\kappa T^{5/2}`$) and is often very small at the centers of cooling flows where radiative losses ($`n^2`$) are greatest. Furthermore, when the temperature is low everywhere in the flow, $`T\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1`$ keV, as in galactic scale cooling flows, thermal conductivity is small at every radius. Thermal conduction can be reduced by tangled magnetic fields, which may explain the existence of “cold fronts” in some cluster cooling flows (Ettori & Fabian 2000, but also see Rosner & Tucker 1989; Narayan & Medvedev 2002). For galaxy clusters, the inward conduction of thermal energy can slow or stop the cooling flow, but the conductivity must be carefully adjusted to fit a particular observed flow. Generally the results are very sensitive to the conduction reduction factor and are cluster-dependent, a form of fine-tuning that invalidates most models.

#### 2.1.2 Heating by Cosmic Rays

Radiofrequency emission from cosmic ray electrons is observed in the galactic centers of most or all cooling flows. If the less visible proton cosmic ray component is scaled as in the Galaxy, Coloumb collisions could produce substantial heating (Rephaeli 1987; Rephaeli & Silk 1995). Hints that this type of heating could be important are just now emerging. By combining the most recent X-ray and radio data from the X-ray holes in NGC 1275 (Perseus cluster), Fabian et al. (2002) find evidence for an energy density of suprathermal particles that exceeds that of the fast electrons by $`(180500)f`$, where $`f`$ is the (unknown) volume filling factor of the electron component. In addition, the flattened gas cores at $`r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}700`$ pc in bright Virgo E galaxies strongly suggests the presence of an additional non-thermal pressure component which could be due to (non-radiating) cosmic rays or magnetic fields (Brighenti & Mathews 1997a). More commonly, cosmic ray heating is assumed to be due dissipation of Alfven waves excited by relativistic electrons or protons streaming along field lines. This possibility has been widely discussed in previous work with somewhat inconclusive results (Lerche 1967; Kulsrud & Pearce 1969; Wentzel 1969; Skilling 1971; Scott et al. 1980; Tucker & Rosner 1983; Rose et al. 1984; Rosner & Tucker 1989; Begelman & Zweibel 1994).

#### 2.1.3 Inverse Compton Heating by hard AGN Radiation

Compton heating by isotropic quasar radiation (Binney & Tabor 1995; Ciotti & Ostriker 2001) is effective if the Compton temperature $`T_Ch\nu /4`$ exceeds the virial temperature, typically $`T_{vir}1`$ keV ($`10^7`$ K) for galactic cooling flows. Gamma ray observations with EGRET since 1991 have discovered $`50`$ flat spectrum blazars (BL Lac AGN and OVV type QSOs) in which $`T_C10^810^9`$ K due to the dominance of gamma rays in the energy output (von Montigny et al. 1995;. Impey 1996; Hartman et al. 1999). If all normal elliptical galaxies emitted such radiation isotropically following short-lived accretion events, cooling flow gas near the AGN, when heated to $`T_CT_{vir}`$, would violently expand into the outer flow, producing strong shock waves. Outward propagating shocks could heat the entire cooling flow provided the gas density has a steep radial dependence, $`nr^s`$ with $`s2`$ as in the models of Ciotti & Ostriker (2001).

However, the (generally high redshift) EGRET sources exhibit large amplitude, random time variability. This variability is thought to occur because the radiation is beamed and Dopper boosted in a jet directed along our line of sight. This interpretation is supported by the association of gamma-dominant EGRET blazars with radio loud, flat spectrum central VLBI sources having large superluminal jet velocities. None of the EGRET sources are normal Seyfert galaxies, radio quiet QSOs or E galaxies except possibly Cen A (Hartman et al. 1999). Therefore, the assumptions that EGRET sources are isotropic gamma ray emitters and exist in all luminous elliptical galaxies are in doubt. A highly collimated beam of gamma radiation would heat the cooling flow much less efficiently. Nulsen & Fabian (2000) claim that the Compton temperature of more typical isotropic AGNs and QSOs is less than $`10^7`$ K, so cooling flow gas is more likely to be Compton cooled than heated. Nevertheless, it may not be possible to rule out isotropic bursts of gamma rays provided the duty cycle is sufficiently short. If so, the Compton heating would be quite localized, decreasing as $`r^2`$ from the AGN.

#### 2.1.4 Shock Waves from Expanding Radio Plasma

If the energy density in radio lobes is sufficiently large, they will expand supersonically, producing shocks that heat the cooling flow gas (Clarke, Harris, & Carilli 1997; Heinz, Reynolds, & Begelman 1998; Begelman & Cioffi 1989; Rizza et al. 2000; Reynolds, Heinz, & Begelman 2001; Soker, White, David & McNamara 2001). While such heating probably occurs at some level, recent Chandra and XMM observations show little evidence that the radio sources are actually heating the bulk of the gas or even gas just adjacent to the radio lobes (Fabian 2001; McNamara 2001).

### 2.2 Recent Cooling Flow Models with Heating

Loewenstein, Zweibel & Begelman (1991) discuss steady state cooling flows that are heated by cosmic rays in the center and by thermal conduction from larger radii. While their model is successful in producing central regions with $`dT/dr>0`$, the central gas density gradient $`dn/dr`$ is flatter than observed because the gas is both supported and heated by cosmic rays. They conclude that cosmic-ray heating cannot balance radiative cooling in intracluster cooling flows.

Citing the difficulties encountered in producing thermal instabilities in nearly hydrostatic cooling flows (Malagoli, Rosner & Bodo 1987; Balbus & Soker 1989; Hattori & Habe 1990; Malagoli, Rosner & Fryxell 1990), Tabor & Binney (1993) assume that gas cannot cool in a spatially distributed fashion, and devise steady state flows in which a convective core heated from the center is attached to an outer cooling inflow. Unfortunately, in the convective core the temperature gradient is determined by the gravitational potential, $`(k/\mu m_p)(dT/dr)=(2/5)(d\mathrm{\Phi }/dr)`$, and must always be negative, contrary to observation. Furthermore, the net gas velocity within the convective core is everywhere negative, causing all the gas shed from evolving stars to cool at the very center. After a Hubble time the mass of centrally cooled gas $`10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ is unacceptably large. Binney & Tabor (1995) discuss time dependent, centrally heated models in which distributed mass dropout is not permitted, except perhaps near the core. These models are heated by a large number of Type Ia supernovae at early times which can drive a galactic outflow throughout the evolution but which also enrich the hot gas with iron far in excess of observed abundances. Strong central supernova heating results in $`dT/dr<0`$ at every time in the flow evolution, unlike observed profiles. Their best-fitting models for NGC 4472, 4636 and 4649 agree with the observed gas density profiles only during a brief $`10^8`$ year period just before a cooling catastrophe when the central gas density increases rapidly due to radiative losses. In additional models, Binney & Tabor include intermittent AGN heating within $`1`$ kpc triggered by gas inflow into the center. As SNIa heating subsides and the flow evolves toward a central cooling catastrophe, the AGN heating is activated but the central gas density still continues to increase, and, as Binney & Tabor suggest, this may result in distributed cooling and star formation in the central 1-2 kpc. By the standards we set for success in our heated models, this flow would be regarded as a failure because cooling within a few kpcs would be visible as a multiphase component in XMM spectra.

Tucker & David (1997) study time dependent models of cluster scale heated flows without cooling dropout or mass supply from stars. Gas near a central AGN is intermittently heated by relativistic electrons when gas flows into the origin. For these models, the temperature and entropy gradients are both negative while the density gradient is positive; such flows are both convectively and Rayleigh-Taylor unstable. When Tucker & David include thermal conduction, the outward heat flux results in stable solutions having cores of nearly flat density, but which are nearly isothermal, in disagreement with observations. In solutions with thermal conduction the mass flow $`\dot{M}`$ into the central regions is lower, and $`\dot{M}(r)`$ slowly varies for many Gyrs as a long-lived transient.

If gas in isolated elliptical galaxies is locally Compton heated by powerful isotropic gamma rays ($`L_{bol}10^{46}10^{48}`$ erg s-1; $`T_C10^9`$ K) following mass accretion at the center, strong outward moving shocks can heat gas out to $`5`$ kpc and beyond (Ciotti & Ostriker 2001). The AGN-QSO continuum is only activated about $`10^3`$ of the time, so only one in $`1000`$ of known elliptical galaxies should be a gamma-dominant quasar at any time. For these models Ciotti & Ostriker assume a high Type Ia supernova rate and no supply of gas by secondary infall. Such cooling flows, which are less bound and have small inertial masses, can be significantly modified by the additional AGN heating. In these models gas is driven out of the galactic core by shocks, so distributed cooling dropout is not necessary nor do large masses of gas cool at the galactic core; these are desirable attributes. As with previous calculations with heating, however, $`dT/dr`$ is generally negative and the gas density is has a broad central core. The density and temperature profiles vary depending on the recent history of heating events during the previous sound-crossing time. In their preferred model 1 the central core in the X-ray surface brightness distribution $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x`$ varies in size from 1 to 40 kpc which is much larger than the $`0.6`$ kpc core in NGC 4649, an elliptical with an $`L_B`$ similar to that used in the Compton heated models. Because of radially propagating shock waves, the X-ray images of these models are considerably more irregular than $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x`$ profiles observed in elliptical galaxies. As in the models by Binney & Tabor (1995), the X-ray luminosity $`L_x`$ is expected to be large during those phases of the heating cycle when the X-ray size $`r_x`$ is small and the X-ray image is more concentrated. But observations show just the opposite: $`r_x`$ and $`L_x`$ are positively correlated (Mathews & Brighenti 1998). Finally, such large excursions in the $`L_x`$-$`r_x`$ plane following explosive heating events would be greatly reduced in more realistic cooling flows having larger masses of gas acquired from secondary infall, which extends far beyond the optical galaxy.

## 3 Criteria for a Successful Heated Flow

We seek computed solutions for heated cooling flows that satisfy three criteria.

(1) After evolving for $`13`$ Gyrs, the hot gas density and temperature profiles should resemble those observed in massive E galaxies. For this purpose we adopt NGC 4472 as a representative luminous E galaxy for which the density and temperature are well-determined from X-ray observations.

(2) When our models are computed to $`t=13`$ Gyrs, assumed to be the current time, the rate of cooling (mass dropout) should not exceed cooling rates $`\dot{M}`$ observed in typical bright E galaxies. Unfortunately at the present time only a few galactic scale cooling flows have been observed with XMM and the indicated values of $`\dot{M}`$ based on spectral features differ quantitatively. Nevertheless, X-ray observers all agree that $`\dot{M}`$ is much lower than predictions of standard cooling flow models. From their XMM-EPIC observations of M87 Molendi & Pizzolato (2001) find $`\dot{M}<0.5`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1 while $`40\pm 5`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1 and $`10`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1 were predicted by Peres et al. (1998) and Fabian et al. (1984) respectively. More recently Matsushita et al. (2002) claim to have detected a total cooling rate in M87 within 20 kpc of $`0.8`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1 while 8 $`M_{}`$ yr-1 was expected in their traditional cooling flow model inside the same radius, but the statistical likelihood of this solution is small. Recent XMM observations of the E galaxy NGC 5044 fail to find spectroscopic evidence of cooling below $`1`$ keV, implying an $`\dot{M}`$ consistent with zero (Buote et al. 2002). For NGC 4636, which more closely resembles our fiducial galaxy NGC 4472, the XMM-RGS observations of Xu et al. (2001) can only provide upper limits to the total mass cooling rate. Xu et al. find a complete absence of emission lines from gas cooling below 0.5 keV. For an upper limit they find $`\dot{M}<0.20.3`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1, which is 3-5 times less than cooling rates based on X-ray imaging, $`1`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1. However, FUSE observations of the OVI doublet by Bregman, Miller & Irwin (2001) indicate that gas in NGC 4636 is cooling through temperatures $`T3\times 10^5`$ K at a rate $`\dot{M}=0.43\pm 0.06`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1. In view of these inconsistencies in the current observations, we determine the success of a computed heated cooling flow in reducing $`\dot{M}`$ by comparing with the cooling rate of an identical galaxy flow model without heating. Guided by the X-ray observations, the $`\dot{M}`$ of a heated flow should be reduced by about an order of magnitude, $`\dot{M}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.1`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1, to be compatible with XMM observations.

(3) Finally, when our heated cooling flow models are computed to the current cosmic time, $`t13`$ Gyrs, the total mass of cooled gas within any radius must not exceed the combined mass of the stars and central black hole as determined from the stellar velocity dispersion. The black hole mass is $`2.6\times 10^9`$ $`M_{}`$ for NGC 4472 (Magorrian et al. 1998). The stellar mass within about 200 pc is equal to the black hole mass. At a radius of 100 pc, within which much of the gas cools in many of our galactic flow models, the combined stellar and black hole mass in NGC 4472 (as described below) is $`M(r<100\mathrm{pc})2.9\times 10^9`$ $`M_{}`$.

## 4 EQUATIONS

Our reference galaxy NGC 4472 has a stellar mass $`M_t=7.26\times 10^{11}`$ $`M_{}`$, assuming $`M/L_B=9.2`$ and a distance of 17 Mpc. If the X-ray luminosity of NGC 4472 $`L_x(0.52\mathrm{keV})=4.54\times 10^{41}`$ erg s-1 is assumed to have been constant over $`t_n=13`$ Gyrs and there had been no heating, the total mass of cooled interstellar gas would be $`M_{cool}t_nL_x/(5kT/2\mu m_p)4\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$. If there is no heating, the current rate of cooling in NGC 4472 is $`1.2`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1 (see below).

For galactic scale cooling flows, the usual gas dynamical equations must include appropriate source and sink terms:

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\rho 𝐮=\alpha \rho _{}q\frac{\rho }{t_{cool}},$$
(1)
$$\rho \left[\frac{𝐮}{t}+(𝐮)𝐮\right]=P\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\alpha \rho _{}𝐮,$$
(2)
and

$$\rho \left[\frac{\epsilon }{t}+(𝐮)\epsilon \right]=\frac{P}{\rho }\left[\frac{\rho }{t}+(𝐮)\rho \right]\frac{\rho ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_p^2}$$

$$+\alpha \rho _{}\left[\epsilon _o\epsilon \frac{P}{\rho }+\frac{u^2}{2}\right]𝐅_{conv}𝐅_{cond}+H(r,t)\rho $$
(3)
where $`\epsilon =3kT/2\mu m_p`$ is the specific thermal energy, $`\mu =0.62`$ is the molecular weight and $`m_p`$ the proton mass. The terms involving $`\alpha =\alpha _{}+\alpha _{sn}`$ represent the addition of mass, momentum and energy to the hot gas by stellar mass loss and Type Ia supernova; usually $`\alpha _{sn}\alpha _{}`$. The stellar mass loss varies as $`\alpha _{}=\alpha _{}(t_n)(t/t_n)^{1.3}`$ s-1 where $`\alpha _{}(t_n)=4.7\times 10^{20}`$ s-1 (e.g. Mathews 1989).

The gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the momentum equation includes contributions from both stellar and dark mass. The de Vaucoulers stellar density $`\rho _{}(r)`$ and mass $`M_{}(r)`$ profiles are uniquely determined by the total mass $`M_t=7.26\times 10^{11}`$ $`M_{}`$ and effective radius $`r_e=8.57`$ kpc (e.g. Mellier & Mathez 1987). We assume a flat stellar core inside the break radius $`r_b=0.205`$ kpc (Faber et al. 1997), which contains less than one percent of the total stellar mass. The NFW halo in NGC 4472 has a current virial mass $`M_{h,vir}=4\times 10^{13}`$ $`M_{}`$ based on its extended X-ray image (Brighenti & Mathews 1997). For the simple $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ cosmology we consider with Hubble constant $`H_o=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, the current dark halo density distribution is

$$\frac{\rho _h}{\rho _c}=\frac{200}{3}\frac{c^3}{\mathrm{ln}(1+c)[c/(1+c)]}\frac{1}{cx(1+cx)^2}$$

where $`\rho _c=3H_o^2/8\pi G`$ is the critical density, $`c=498[M_{h,vir}/M_{}]^{0.1233}`$ is the concentration, $`x=r/r_{h,vir}`$, and $`r_{h,vir}=(3M_{h,vir}/4\pi 200\rho _c)^{1/3}`$ (Navarro, Frenk & White 1996). While the large halo mass $`M_{h,vir}`$ is appropriate for the galaxy group from which NGC 4472 formed, our results are surprisingly insensitive to the (uncertain) value of $`M_{h,vir}`$. For example, when the same flow is computed with a halo mass reduced by ten, $`M_{h,vir}=4\times 10^{12}`$ $`M_{}`$, we typically find that the gas temperature and density for $`r1050`$ kpc are reduced by only about 15 and 45 percent respectively. Since our assessment of the success of heated cooling flow models is weighted toward agreement with observations of NGC 4472 within the bright optical galaxy, $`r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}20`$ kpc, these relatively small changes in the flow models due to the uncertain value of $`M_{h,vir}`$ have no effect on our conclusions.

Guided by the relative sizes of the optical and X-ray images for E galaxies (Mathews & Brighenti 1998), we consider two types of evolutionary calculations for the hot galactic gas: “isolated” and cosmologically “accreting”. Accreting models have large halos of X-ray gas acquired from cosmic flow into the galaxy group potential in which the central E galaxy formed. Alternatively, in our isolated E galaxy models all of the interstellar gas is supplied only by stellar mass loss and supernovae. In isolated galaxies the X-ray and optical images are of comparable size. In spite of our designation “isolated,” (typically non-central) E galaxies with comparable X-ray and optical sizes probably lack hot circumgalactic gas either because of tidal stripping or because they never received their full allocation of cosmic gas. For simplicity, we assume that isolated E galaxies evolve from $`t=t_i=1`$ Gyr to the current time $`t_n=13`$ Gyrs with stellar and dark matter potentials fixed at their current values. In these models we begin the calculation by filling the galaxy with a very small gas density ($`n=10^6`$ cm-3) at or near the virial temperature ($`T=10^7`$ K). Shortly after the calculation begins the mass that flows from the stars overwhelms the initial gas and the final solution is independent of the initial gas. Accreting models are assumed to evolve from $`t_i`$ in a simple flat universe, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ with Hubble constant $`h=H/100=0.5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$, in which the dark halo grows from the inside out, beginning with a tophat cosmic perturbation (see Brighenti & Mathews 1999 for further details). In these models the continuing infall of cosmic gas creates hot gas distributions that extend far beyond the optical image. These flows approximate E galaxies at the center of groups.

The injection energy in Equation (3) is $`\epsilon _o=3kT_o/2\mu m_p`$ where $`T_o=(\alpha _{}T_{}+\alpha _{sn}T_{sn})/\alpha _{}`$ is the mean temperature of gas expelled by stellar mass loss and supernovae. The supernova term

$$\alpha _{sn}T_{sn}=2.13\times 10^8\mathrm{SNu}(t)\left(\frac{E_{sn}}{10^{51}\mathrm{ergs}}\right)h^{1.7}L_B^{0.35}\mathrm{K}\mathrm{s}^1$$

is proportional to the Type Ia rate in SNu units, SNu$`(t)=0.06(t/t_n)^1`$ supernovae in 100 years per $`10^{10}L_B`$. This value is consistent with the poorly known observed rate, $`0.08\pm 0.03`$ SNu from Cappellaro & Turato (2000). Since $`\alpha _{sn}T_{sn}`$ is generally much larger than $`\alpha _{}T_{}`$, we simply assume $`T_{}=(\mu m_p/k)\sigma _{}^2`$ with a constant stellar velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{}=230`$ km s-1; the $`\alpha _{}T_{}`$ term has essentially no effect on our computed flows. We evaluate $`\alpha _{sn}T_{sn}`$ using $`E_{sn}=10^{51}`$ ergs; further details concerning the expression above for $`\alpha _{sn}T_{sn}`$ can be found in Brighenti & Mathews (1999). Unless otherwise noted, $`\alpha _{}(t)`$, $`\alpha _{sn}(t)`$ and $`M_t`$ are the same for all models and conduction and convection are zero, $`𝐅_{cond}=𝐅_{conv}=0`$. If desired, we can include an additional heating source $`H(r,t)`$ in Equation (3) as described in more detail below.

The dimensionless coefficient $`q`$ in the sink term in Equation (1) can be used to remove hot gas from the flow over some large volume or to remove gas that has already cooled. In either case $`q\rho /t_{cool}q\rho ^2,`$ where $`t_{cool}=5m_pkT/2\mu \rho \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the time for gas to cool locally by radiative losses at constant pressure. For simplicity we evaluate the cooling coefficient $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)`$ using the results of Sutherland & Dopita (1993) assuming solar abundance. The cooling rate and the gas density within $`r_e`$ are slightly underestimated in central galaxies where $`z_{Fe}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}z_{Fe,}`$.

Ideally, if the gas in heated cooling flows does not cool, there would be no reason for this ad hoc sink term. However, in the heated cooling flows models discussed below we find that gas cools to low temperatures in localized regions (drips) where radial compression ($`𝐮<0`$) is sustained. To remove the accumulated cooled gas from the flow in a numerically satisfactory manner in spherical 1D flows we let

$$q(T)=q_{cool}\mathrm{exp}(T/T_{cool})^2$$
(4)
where $`q_{cool}=2`$ and $`T_{cool}=5\times 10^5`$ K; we shall discuss the sensitivity of the flow solutions to these two adjustable parameters. When $`TT_{cool}`$, as usually occurs, the cooling dropout term is negligible and has no influence on the flow. We use Equation (4) mainly to locate where gas is cooling; physically, it could represent the formation of stars or dense clouds that orbit near their radius of formation. Flows calculated with $`q=0`$ and a minimum temperature $`T_{min}=10^4`$ K are essentially identical to those using Equation (4); in this case gas that cools to $`T_{min}=10^4`$ K freefalls into the center of the galaxy. While our results are insensitive to the precise mathematical form of Equation (4), in our 2D calculations we prefer to remove cooled gas with a step function:

$$q(T)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\text{0}\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & T>T_{cool}\hfill \\ \text{5}\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & T<T_{cool}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where $`T_{cool}=5\times 10^4`$ K. This step function with its lower $`T_{cool}`$ and sudden onset better illustrates the geometrical complexity of of the cold gas distribution in 2D flows.

For 1D and 2D models we use a modified version of the ZEUS-2D code (Stone & Norman 1992). In 1D there are 300 zones within $`r_{max}=500`$ kpc that slowly increase in size from the smallest zone at 50 pc. To capture the complex small scale structures of out 2D calculations, we use a cylindrical grid with 600 zones along each axis out to $`z_{max}=R_{max}=190`$ kpc; the central zone has dimensions $`z_1=R_1=100`$ pc. 2D solutions with $`120\times 120`$ or $`300\times 300`$ zones (and $`z_1=R_1=100`$ pc) are qualitatively similar.

The ZEUS code has been widely tested and is known to accurately compute a variety of standard hydrodynamical problems (Stone & Norman 1992). Our detailed source term modifications of ZEUS (Equations 1 - 3) have been checked by comparing our galactic flow models with identical calculations using the independent cooling flow hydrocode developed by Annibale D’Ercole in Bologna (e.g. D’Ercole & Ciotti et al. 1998). Finally, we have successfully checked the 2D ZEUS code against analytic expressions for nonsteady inflow in hypothetical galaxies of uniform density (Appendix of Brighenti & Mathews 1996).

In the following we discuss a large number of 1D and 2D flows, both heated and unheated. Readers who wish to review a representative sample of each type of model may elect to skip §6.3 and 6.4. However, the 1D and 2D flows described in §6.3 and 6.4 are essential in establishing the generality of our conclusion that heating cannot substantially reduce the global cooling rate in the flows.

## 5 COOLING FLOWS WITHOUT HEATING

For comparison with heated models it is useful to first calculate traditional cooling flows without heating or other complications, i.e. $`H(r,t)=F_{cond}=F_{conv}=0`$.

### 5.1 No Cooling Dropout, q = 0

The left column of Figure 1 shows the gas density, temperature and velocity at $`t_n=13`$ Gyrs for single phase $`q=0`$ flows in both isolated and accreting galaxies. It is seen that the NGC 4472 data can be matched reasonably well with the isolated solution for $`1\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10`$ kpc, but the temperature is low and has the wrong gradient, i.e. $`dT/dr<0`$. In $`r\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10`$ kpc the gas density is also too low in the isolated galaxy. The outer density profiles are better fit with the accreting solution (dashed lines), indicating that not all of the hot gas in massive E galaxies comes from stellar mass loss (Brighenti & Mathews 1999). Of particular interest for the $`q=0`$ accreting solution in Figure 1 is its agreement with the positive temperature gradient observed beyond about 10 kpc. In all well-studied galactic cooling flows the gas temperature rises from a minimum at the origin to a maximum near $`(34)r_e`$ where the temperature is about 30 percent larger, then slowly decreases at larger radii beyond the optical image of the central galaxy (Brighenti & Mathews 1997). High gas temperatures at large radii are produced in the accretion shock when the gas first entered the massive dark halo of the galaxy group surrounding the luminous elliptical. The post-shock temperature of the accreting gas is close to the virial temperature of the entire galaxy group. The positive temperature gradient within several $`r_e`$ is produced as the temperature approaches the somewhat smaller $`1`$ keV virial temperature of the central galaxy. This temperature profile is consistent with that of NGC 4472 shown in Figure 1. Finally, we note that the temperature $`T(r)`$ plotted in Figure 1 and in subsequent figures is shown as a function of physical radius $`r`$, not the slightly different emission-averaged temperature along the line of sight at the projected radius. Although this latter temperature profile would be more appropriate to compare with the NGC 4472 observations, $`T`$ as a function of $`r`$ is necessary to facilitate comparisons with 1D heated cooling flows (§6 below).

The computed density $`n(r)`$ in $`0.1\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1`$ kpc for both $`q=0`$ solutions exceeds the observations; indeed, the hypothesis of distributed cooling (mass dropout) $`q>0`$ was first devised to correct this discrepancy (e.g. Thomas 1986; Vedder, Trester & Canizares 1988; Sarazin & Ashe 1989). However, the most obvious and fatal problem with $`q=0`$ models is that $`4\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ of cooled gas has accumulated in the central computational zone by time $`t_n`$. As a consequence of this mass, the hot gas density inside 100 pc rises sharply as seen in Figure 1. This central mass is $`20`$ times larger than the black hole mass observed in NGC 4472 and causes the gas temperature to peak unrealistically in $`r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}5`$ kpc, unlike any known bright elliptical galaxy.

As a historical point, in earlier steady state galactic cooling flow models the global temperature profiles were sensitive to the outer boundary conditions. White and Chevalier (1984) required that the gas density vanish with the flow velocity at some large stagnation radius $`r_{stag}`$. This constraint causes the temperature to rise with radius and become infinite at $`r_{stag}`$, assuming the gas pressure there is finite. This sensitivity of steady state flows to the outer boundary conditions was recognized by Vedder, Trester & Canizares (1988) whose solutions – unconstrained by the density at $`r_{stag}`$ – reveal a wide variety of global temperature profiles. They realized that steady state boundary conditions imposed at $`r_{stag}`$ are unrealistic since the flow time to the origin typically exceeds the Hubble time.

In summary, isolated flows without cooling dropout have too little density beyond $`10`$ kpc and have negative rather than positive gas temperature gradients. Accreting flows are in good agreement with the extended hot gas density structure and the positive temperature gradient within several $`r_e`$. But both $`q=0`$ solutions fail because the central mass of cooled gas is too large.

### 5.2 With Uniform Cooling Dropout, q = 1

Also shown in Figure 1 are traditional cooling flows with distributed (multiphase) cooling dropout at every radius, $`q=1`$ (e.g. Sarazin & Ashe 1989). Both the density and temperature are reasonably well matched, except in the central 1-2 kpc. The temperature derivative is positive for the accreting model in $`5\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}50`$ kpc in agreement with observations. The temperature is slightly lower than observed in NGC 4472, but this could be corrected by small adjustments in the parameters of the calculation (e.g. Brighenti & Mathews 1999). The NGC 4472 observations are included in the Figures only for reference and we have not attempted to fit them exactly.

The central density in both $`q=1`$ solutions is still too peaked, but a flat density core could be produced by adding magnetic or cosmic ray pressures not included in Figure 1. The mass that cools at the origin is only $`2.1\times 10^9`$ M and $`2.9\times 10^9`$ M for the isolated and accreting $`q=1`$ flows respectively, but the total mass of cooled gas is very similar to the $`q=0`$ flows. Additional details on models of this sort can be found in Brighenti & Mathews (2000).

While the $`q=1`$ dropout solutions are generally successful, the distributed dropout hypothesis has been criticized for several reasons: (1) there is as yet no XMM-Chandra spectral evidence for cooling to $`T=0`$, (2) linear perturbations do not result in localized cooling, (3) large masses of colder, cooled gas have not been observed, and (4) continuous star formation requires deviations from the Salpeter IMF.

## 6 HEATED COOLING FLOWS

### 6.1 When Heating Locally Balances Cooling

Some authors have noted that the observed mass of hot gas in large E galaxies is roughly equal to the total mass ejected from stars, $`M_{gas}M_t\alpha _{}(t_n)t_n10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$, and have concluded from this that there is no need for mass dropout as long as some hypothetical heating source balances radiative losses at every radius. In the left column of panels in Figure 2 we show idealized solutions of this sort without distributed cooling ($`q=0`$) and assuming

$$\rho H(r,t)=\frac{\rho ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_p^2}$$
(6)
so that radiative cooling is effectively zero. In these solutions $`u0`$ and no gas cools at any radius. However, the gas density is very large at time $`t_n=13`$ Gyrs and much too centrally peaked ($`\rho \rho _{}`$) due to the absence of an inward flow. As the mass of interstellar gas accumulates, a larger fraction of the pressure gradient required for virial equilibrium is taken by the density gradient so the temperature and its gradient are somewhat low. We have also computed flows for which the dissipation of stellar mass loss $`\alpha \rho _{}\epsilon _{o,}`$ is the only heating, i.e.

$$\rho H(r,t)=\frac{\rho ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_p^2}\alpha \rho _{}\left[\epsilon _{o,sn}\epsilon \frac{P}{\rho }+\frac{u^2}{2}\right]$$
(7)
where $`\epsilon _{o,sn}=(3k/2\mu m_p)(\alpha _{sn}T_{sn})/\alpha _{}`$, with results very similar to those shown in Figure 2. While this type of globally heated flow might seem to be the most perfect possible solution to the mass dropout problem, it fails miserably to fit the observed data.

### 6.2 A Dripping Flow with Distributed Heating

Before we discuss results of a large number of flow calculations with various assumed heating terms $`H(r,t)`$, it is useful to consider in detail a specific but representative flow with nonzero heating. For this purpose we adopt a Gaussian profile:

$$H(r,t)=G_h\mathrm{exp}[(r/r_h)^2]$$
(8)
with $`G_h=1`$ erg gm-1 s-1 and $`r_h=5`$ kpc. The heating is instantaneously applied whenever the gas velocity into the central zone is negative, otherwise $`H(r,t)=0`$. The heating feedback tends to inhibit gas from flowing into the center. This heating scenario is clearly a simplification, but if additional features were included – time delay for feedback, slower rise or decay time for $`H(r,t)`$, slower propagation of heating through the gas, etc. – these details would obscure but not significantly alter our main results. As noted earlier, we do not attempt here to justify $`H(r,t)`$ in terms of any particular physical model for heating, our approach is purely phenomenological.

In the right column of Figure 2 we show the flow variables for both isolated and accreting models at time $`t_n=13`$ Gyrs as influenced by the Gaussian heating of Equation (8). At earlier times, $`t<t_n`$, the flow velocity into the central zone is generally negative, so the heating $`H(r,t)`$ is almost continuous. The gas density is globally lower than observed in NGC 4472, but the shape is reasonably correct, particularly for the accreting flow. However, the gas temperature in the accretion flow is too large for $`r\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}5`$ kpc due to the central heating and the slope $`dT/dr<0`$, is wrong.

The striking new feature in this Gaussian-heated flow is a nearly stationary “drip” wave at $`r7`$ kpc visible in Figure 2 where the gas density has a sharp maximum and the temperature drops suddenly to very low values. (This is why we do not attempt to plot the average temperature along the line of sight.) This type of concentrated drip cooling is a standard attribute of 1D spherically symmetric heated models. The drip in the right column of panels in Figure 2 occurred because the heated gas within 7 kpc is slowly flowing out, while the negative velocity in $`r>7`$ kpc behaves much like a normal cooling flow. Just at $`r7`$ kpc the gas is locally compressed, $`𝐮<0`$, generating runaway radiative cooling.

The global velocity field has produced a spontaneous nonlinear thermal instability far from the center of the flow. We note that “drips” were first discovered in unheated cooling flows (Mathews 1997) where the differential (negative) flow velocity can occasionally produce a local compression. If cooled gas is not removed from the drip, the mass of locally cooled gas increases until, in 1D cooling flows, it goes into freefall and collapses supersonically toward the center of the flow, producing reflected shocks from the origin and altering the global density and temperature profiles in very unrealistic ways. Our drips move slower or even become approximately stationary since we remove cooled gas inside the drip by adopting $`q>0`$ (Equation 4).

Drips may have been missed or misinterpreted in previous discussions of heated cooling flows. They are particularly easy to capture in Lagrangian calculations (Mathews 1997), but can be missed in Eulerian calculations particularly if the grid is too coarse. One-dimensional drip waves, such as those shown in Figure 2, are clearly unphysical since they are unstable both to Rayleigh-Taylor disruption ($`\rho `$ opposes $`𝐠=\mathrm{\Phi }`$) and to convective motions (negative entropy gradient inside the drip structure). The true evolution of drips can be understood only with 2D or 3D calculations, discussed below, but the incidence of spatially distributed cooling, represented in 1D with a drip, as well as the total mass and approximate location of cooled gas, are determined reasonably well from 1D calculations.

We find for the isolated 1D galaxy (right column of Figure 2) that $`4.0\times 10^9`$ $`M_{}`$ has cooled for $`r<100`$ pc and an additional $`6.1\times 10^9`$ $`M_{}`$ has cooled in $`0.1<r<9.5`$ kpc due to inward propagating drips during $`t<3`$ Gyr. Figure 3 shows the mass distribution of cooled gas $`M_{cool}(r)`$ for the isolated heated flow at two times, 3 and 13 Gyrs, assuming that the cooled gas remains at its radius of origin. We cannot fully trust the astronomical accuracy of our flow solutions during the first 1-2 Gyrs of the calculation ($`t<3`$ Gyrs). Since the stellar mass loss is particularly copious at these early times, it is possible that relatively large masses of cooled gas combined and formed stars with a normal IMF. By the current time $`t_n`$ these stars would be almost as old at the original population and would contribute to the luminous stellar mass within several kpc. So the large mass $`4.0\times 10^9`$ $`M_{}`$ that flowed into the central grid zone before $`t=3`$ Gyrs in this calculation, which is larger than any known galactic black hole, cannot with confidence be used to disqualify this model. For this reason we distinguish in Figure 3 the mass that cooled before and after $`t=3`$ Gyrs.

After time $`t=3`$ Gyrs almost all of the cooling gas in the accretion or isolated flows is formed in the nearly stationary drip at 7 kpc. The concentration of cooling gas at this radius is an artifact of spherical symmetry; in an otherwise identical 2D flow (discussed below) we find more distributed cooling in $`r<10`$ kpc, but the total mass of cooled gas is unchanged. The cooling rate during the last 3 Gyrs is $`1`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1. This nearly continuous drip cooling would produce a multiphase spectrum in apparent disagreement with X-ray spectra observed with XMM in M87 and other similar large E galaxies. Ironically, therefore, the heating process that has been invoked to eliminate distributed cooling in cooling flows has instead stimulated widespread cooling just beyond the region of intense central heating.

Another undesirable characteristic of heated cooling flows is the negative temperature gradient within several tens of kpc from the galactic center, as indicated in the right column of Figure 2 for $`r\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}5`$ kpc. This variation is opposite to the thermal profile observed in all luminous, group-dominant elliptical galaxies.

Thermal conduction is likely to be important within the sharp 1D drip structure where the temperature gradients become large. Convection must also occur since the entropy gradient is locally negative. Both processes are expected to broaden the drip structure. But the question of most interest is whether the cooling dropout can be slowed or completely stopped by including conduction or convection. We show in the Appendix that the mass dropout is not significantly reduced by either conduction or convection.

#### 6.2.1 The Same Flow in Two Dimensions

Spherically symmetric 1D drip waves are inherently unrealistic because of local density and entropy inversions. We now describe the more realistic two dimensional evolution of the same Gaussian heated flow for the isolated galaxy assuming $`𝐅_{cond}=𝐅_{conv}=0`$. We use cylindrical coordinates since this geometry does not favor the spherical character of the initial drip evolution, i.e. if distributed drip cooling occurs in 2D cylindrical flow, it would certainly be expected in 2D spherical coordinates. Figure 4 shows the density and velocity structure at $`t_n`$ for the 2D version of the isolated galaxy flow in the right column of Figure 2 heated as described by Equation (8) with $`G_h=1`$ erg gm-1 s-1 and $`r_h=5`$ kpc. Since the flow is heated from below, subsonic turbulence is generated near the center, $`r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}25`$ kpc.

The most interesting result of the 2D flow is that strong spatially distributed mass dropout still occurs. Also shown in Figure 4 are contours of the cooled gas density generated with the step function $`q(T)`$ in Equation (5) with $`T_{cool}=5\times 10^4`$ K, again assuming that the cooled gas remains where it first appears in the flow. Because of Rayleigh-Taylor and convective instabilities, the distribution of cooled gas is no longer confined to a narrow drip region as in the corresponding 1D flow (Figure 2), but cooling still occurs in about the same region. The tendency for additional cooling to occur along the $`R`$ and $`z`$ axes is a numerical effect: when convective eddies flow toward the $`R=0`$ or $`z=0`$ boundaries, the reflection boundary conditions result in local compressions and subsequent cooling. However, widespread cooling clearly occurs throughout the 2D flow within radius $`r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10`$ kpc when convective eddies encounter each other, producing local nonlinear compressions. (A similar localized compressive cooling far from the galactic center also occurred in the calculations of gas flows in S0 galaxies by D’Ercole & Ciotti 1998). By time $`t_n`$ the total amount of cooled gas $`M_{cool}=3.8\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ is comparable with that found in the corresponding 1D flow. Azimuthally averaged hot and cooled gas densities, $`n(r)`$ and $`n_{cool}(r)`$, for this 2D flow are also shown in Figure 4.

The maximum radial extent of the cooled gas in 2D flows increases as the critical dropout temperature in Equation (5) $`T_{cool}`$ is increased above $`5\times 10^4`$ K. This can be understood in terms of our 1D solutions in which drips typically begin at larger radii and slowly migrate inward as their amplitude and mass increase. The temperature minimum in the drip structure deepens as the drip moves inward. Consequently, increasing $`T_{cool}`$ in 2D flows systematically removes gas at somewhat larger radii. Because of this sensitivity to the parameter $`T_{cool}`$ and to the grid resolution, we cannot be confident of the precise distribution of cooled gas shown in Figure 4, but the reality of spatially distributed cooling (dropout) in these heated flows is robust. The Gaussian heated cooling flow shown in Figure 4 would therefore have a multiphase spectrum (and temperature profile) unlike those observed with XMM.

In view of the overall similarity of 1D and 2D calculations of heated cooling flows such as those in Figures 2 and 4, we assume that if cooling drips occur in 1D, distributed cooling will also appear in a more realistic 2D flows having the same parameters. We have not proven this assumption, but it seems to hold true for the cases we have checked. As a result, we can explore a wide variety of heated cooling flows in 1D and assume that a comparable mass dropout would also appear in similar 2D calculations. The 1D heated flows are not only quicker to compute, they show more clearly where and why the initial cooling occurs; the corresponding 2D flows reveal more realistically the geometrical complexities of the subsequent cooling.

To illustrate the similarity of global cooling rates in similar 1D and 2D flows, we compare in Figure 5 the total mass of cooled gas as a function of time $`M_{cool}(t)`$ for the 1D and 2D Gaussian heated models. The agreement is very good. It is also remarkable that the total mass of gas that cools and the mean cooling rate during the last few Gyrs are insensitive to the presence of conduction or convection (see Appendix), the cooling dropout threshold $`T_{cool}`$, and the computational geometry, 1D or 2D. In 2D the distributed cooling is intermittent, occurring in bursts alternating with quiescent periods of several Gyrs without dropout.

Cooling intermittency in 2D calculations can be explained by a quasi-cyclical variation of the density profile. After each cooling episode, the hot gas density is lowered and turbulence-driven compressions are insufficient to produce local thermal instabilities. Later, after $`12`$ Gyrs when the hot gas density has increased due to stellar mass loss and inflow, post-compression radiative losses become more efficient in triggering cooling dropout. In Figure 6 we show the evolution of the hot gas density profile during a cooling episode for the 2D flow shown at time $`t_n`$ in Figure 4. During the cycle the ROSAT band X-ray luminosity varies from $`L_x=1.42\times 10^{42}`$ ergs s-1 at time $`t=8`$ Gyrs to a maximum of $`L_x=2.66\times 10^{42}`$ ergs s-1 at $`t=9.8`$ Gyrs and then back to $`L_x=8.76\times 10^{40}`$ ergs s-1 at $`t=11`$ Gyrs. Unfortunately, this variation of $`L_x`$ by about 30 is unlikely to be the source of the large scatter observed in the ($`L_x`$,$`L_B`$)-plane since cooling is not supported by XMM observations and the large excursions in the density (and X-ray surface brightness) profile shown in Figure 6 are not typically observed (e.g. Trinchieri, Fabbiano & Canizares 1986).

### 6.3 More Flows with Distributed Heating

In addition to the representative heated cooling flow that we just described, we have computed a large number of additional flows for both isolated and accreting galaxies with various heating scenarios $`H(r,t)`$. Most of these are 1D flows, but we assume that the corresponding 2D solutions are qualitatively similar. Our conclusion is that none of these flows is acceptable. Heated cooling flows typically fail one or (usually) more critical tests: (1) significant ongoing cooling occurs within $`1020`$ kpc which would be observed as a multiphase component in XMM spectra, (2) the temperature gradient in 1-10 kpc is negative or peaked in heated accretion flows, not positive as observed, (3) the density at 5-20 kpc is often too low in heated flows due to the redistribution of heated gas. While it is necessary and important to carefully document the shortcomings of each type of heated galactic flow, readers with a low tolerance for computational detail and who accept these general conclusions may wish to skip to §7.

We consider a wide variety of heating profiles beginning with the diffuse Gaussian profile in Equation (8) but with different parameters $`G_h`$ and $`r_h`$. A more concentrated inverse square heating is described with

$$H(r,t)=C_hT_Cr^2$$
(9)
where the time dependence arises because heating is turned off if there is no mass flow into the central grid zone. This one-parameter ($`C_hT_C`$) heating function is designed to simulate inverse Compton heating if $`T_CT_{vir}10^7`$ K, but it can represent any form of unspecified concentrated heating in the galactic core. To simulate Compton heating when $`T_C`$ is closer to $`T_{vir}`$, we have also performed calculations with

$$H(r,t)=C_hr^2(T_CT).$$
(10)
In this case $`C_h=(4\sigma _T/3m_ec^2)(3k/2\mu m_p)(L_{agn}/4\pi )`$ erg cm2 g-1 K-1 s-1 is an approximation to isotropic Compton heating using the Thompson crossection.

We also consider a heating term proportional to the stellar density. This type of heating was performed by simply increasing the current Type Ia supernova rate SNu$`(t_n)`$ above the value $`0.06`$ SNu that agrees with currently observed iron abundances (see Figure A1 in Boute 2000). This type of heating $`H\rho \rho _{}(r)`$ is continuous, independent of inflow into the central grid, but $`H`$ can also share the Type Ia time dependence, SNu $`t^s`$, so that SNu$`(t_n)`$ and $`s`$ are the two adjustable parameters for this heating scenario. While solutions with $`s=1`$ and SNu$`(t_n)>0.06`$ clearly produce too much iron, our intention is to explore the possibility of some type of hypothetical star-related or extended heating possibly unrelated to supernovae. Finally, we computed flows in which mass dropout is accompanied with simultaneous local heating feedback, $`\rho H(r,t)\dot{\rho }=q(r)\rho /t_{cool}`$.

#### 6.3.1 Additional Gaussian Heated Profiles

In the first two columns of Figure 7 we illustrate Gaussian-heated flows with $`r_h=5`$ kpc as before but with larger and smaller heating coefficients $`G_h`$. Solid and dashed lines represent isolated and accretion flows respectively. For $`G_h=0.5`$, half as large as that in Figure 2 (right column), the heating is insufficient to induce significant large scale drip cooling so most of the gas cools within the central 100 pc. For the isolated flow this mass is $`M_{cool}(r<100\mathrm{pc})`$, is $`1.0\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ and $`3.0\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ at 3 and 13 Gyrs and for the accretion model the masses cooled within 100 pc are $`0.74\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ at 3 Gyrs and $`3.9\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ at 13 Gyrs. These high central masses are clearly unsatisfactory. For the isolated flow the hot gas density is generally too low and for the accretion flow the gas density gradient is too steep, although the density profiles are somewhat time-variable. For both flows the gas temperature becomes large near the center due to the cooled mass there; as a result $`dT/dr`$ is negative within 5 or 10 kpc, not positive as observed.

For $`G_h=2`$, twice as large as that in Figure 2 (right column), the larger heating causes the gas density to become much lower than the NGC 4472 density, but a large amount of gas still cools within 100 pc in both isolated and accretion flows, about $`2\times 10^9`$ $`M_{}`$, comparable to the black hole mass in NGC 4472. The gas temperature in the inner galaxy $`r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10`$ kpc is far larger than observed and $`dT/dr<0`$ for $`r\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}5`$ kpc. Continuous drip cooling near 10-12 kpc would produce observable multiphase spectra for either accretion or isolated flows. In a more realistic 2D version of these $`G_h=2`$ calculations we expect that this cooling would be distributed within $`15`$ kpc, not concentrated in the 1D drip as shown in Figure 7 (second column). Clearly, the $`G_h`$ parameter must be fine-tuned even to achieve a poor fit to the observations.

Next we vary the spatial scale $`r_h`$ of the heating, then increase $`G_h`$ until the heating begins to affect the flow. The accretion and isolated flows have similar problems as before. For $`G_h=0.5`$ and $`r_h=20`$ kpc (third column of Figure 7), subsonic outflow occurs at $`r>1`$ kpc, but the gas interior to this radius flows to the origin most of the time, and the central mass is still much too large, $`610\times 10^9`$ $`M_{}`$. Drip cooling occurs at $`r60100`$ kpc, which would produce a multiphase spectrum. The gas temperature is too high beyond 5 kpc for both the isolated and the accretion flow. For both types of flow the density is too low at all radii $`r\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1`$ kpc. Increasing $`G_h`$ further lowers the density even more without appreciably reducing the central cooled mass. As expected, values of $`G_h`$ less than $`0.5`$ (keeping $`r_h=20`$ kpc) result in strong central cooling and even larger central masses.

When the Gaussian heating is more concentrated, $`r_h=1`$ kpc then $`G_h`$ must be $`20`$ to influence the flow (right column of Figure 7). For these heating parameters, a central subsonic outflow is present at $`t_n`$ within $`r_h`$, resulting in sustained drip cooling at $`r1.52`$ kpc. Interior to the drip the gas temperature is much too high, $`T24`$ keV. This same pattern occurs in both accretion and isolated flows. While $`3.7\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ cools in $`1.5\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2`$ kpc, very little gas cools within 100 pc in these models. The central density is flattened with a rather good fit to NGC 4472 at all relevant radii $`r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10`$ kpc, but is about three times too large for $`2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}6`$ kpc in both accretion and isolated flows. Overall, models with more centrally concentrated heating are in better agreement with observations on large scales, but the deposition of extremely large masses of cooled gas within a few kpc and the associated multiphase XMM spectra are the same undesired consequences encountered in other flows with hypothetical heating.

#### 6.3.2 Concentrated Heating with $`Hr^2`$

In this series of flows the heating is described by Equation (9). For either isolated or accretion flows with $`C_hT_C=1.6\times 10^{43}`$ erg cm2 g-1 s-1 (where for example $`L_{agn}10^{46}`$ erg s-1 and $`T_C=10^8`$ K) the density gradient at time $`t_n`$ is too steep (as shown in the left column of Figure 8). About $`4\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ cools in $`r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.5`$ kpc, which results in a high temperature core within $`1`$ kpc that is rarely if ever observed. If $`C_hT_C`$ is increased to $`1.6\times 10^{44}`$ to reduce the mass that cools near the origin, the central gas density is too low and the flat density core is unacceptably large (right column of Figure 8). The central temperature is also too high and multiphase cooling is expected at about 1.5-3 kpc. As before, results are similar for either accretion or isolated models. If thermal conduction is added to distribute the thermal energy to larger radii, neither the density or temperature profiles are substantially improved and drip cooling still occurs but at a somewhat larger radius. In summary, as the cooling parameter $`C_hT_C`$ increases by a factor of 10, the solutions shift from ones in which too much gas accumulates near the origin to flows in which the gas density is unrealistically lowered by strong heating. It is possible that an intermediate value of $`C_hT_C`$ would produce a satisfactory density profile, but the temperature would still be too high and multiphase gas near the center seems unavoidable. The fine-tuning required, moreover, seems very implausible.

#### 6.3.3 Distributed Heating with $`H\rho \rho _{}`$

It has often been suggested that some source of stellar heating, such as with Type Ia supernovae, could balance radiative losses in cooling flows, arresting the cooling process. Therefore, we briefly consider 1D isolated and accretion flows in which $`H(r)\rho \rho _{}(r)`$. This can be accomplished by artificially increasing the supernova rate SNu$`(t)=`$SNu$`(t_n)(t/t_n)^s`$ by increasing SNu$`(t_n)`$ or adjusting its time dependence. We describe several solutions for isolated and accreting flows in which SNu$`(t_n)`$ is increased while keeping $`s=1`$. The transition from cooling concentrated near the galactic center to galactic winds is very sensitive to SNu$`(t_n)`$. Three isolated solutions are shown in the left column of Figure 9. For SNu$`(t_n)=0.20`$ there is a cooling inflow and $`M_{cool}=2.3\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ cools within the central 100 pc; with SNu$`(t_n)=0.23`$ there is a partial outflow with cooling dropout near 3 kpc; with SNu$`(t_n)=0.25`$ there is a complete wind and no gas cools at any radius. The accreting flows shown in the right hand column of Figure 9 exhibit the same sensitivity to SNu$`(t_n)`$ with inflow at SNu$`(t_n)=0.25`$, partial outflow at SNu$`(t_n)=0.28`$ and a full wind at SNu$`(t_n)=0.30`$. For either type of flow, the temperature gradient is negative everywhere and the hot gas density suddenly drops to unacceptably low values as SNu$`(t_n)`$ exceeds a sharp threshold for wind solutions. In addition to its inability to reproduce the observed temperature and density profiles, this type of heating with $`H(r)\rho _{}`$ cannot be due to Type Ia supernova – if it were, the iron abundance $`z_{Fe}`$ would be extremely high; for example in the accreting SNu$`(t_n)=0.25`$ solution $`z_{Fe}`$ would be more than 6 times solar within about 60 kpc.

### 6.4 Additional 2D Heated Cooling Flows

While the initiation of nonlinear thermal instabilities that appear in heated cooling flows are clearly revealed in the 1D flows, the later evolution of these instabilities is inherently multidimensional because of Rayleigh-Taylor and convective instabilities. For this reason we discuss 2D versions of several heated cooling flows already described with spherically symmetric models. For simplicity, we consider only 2D isolated flows. To implement the feedback in 2D, heating is applied only when the mass flux at radius $`r=300`$ pc is negative, otherwise we set $`H=0`$ (models with continuous heating give qualitatively similar results). Cooled gas is removed using the step function procedure (Equation 5) with $`T_{cool}=5\times 10^4`$ K.

The left column of panels in Figure 10 shows the 2D version of the Gaussian-heated flow with $`G_h=20`$ and $`r_h=1`$ kpc corresponding to the solid line 1D solution in the right column of Figure 7. The upper panel shows the hot gas density and velocity and the second panel shows contours of the density of cooled gas, both at time $`t_n`$. The lower two panels show the azimuthally averaged hot and cooled gas densities respectively. While most of the cooling along the vertical ($`z`$) axis is a numerical artifact, as explained earlier, there is genuine small-scale cooling away from both axes at $`r12`$ kpc. This cooling is visible as a peak in the azimuthally averaged cooled gas density at $`r1.5`$ kpc in the bottom panel. Cooling in this region is expected from the 1D isolated flow illustrated in the right column of Figure 7. The total mass of cooled gas is $`3.0\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$. The azimuthally averaged hot gas density distribution at time $`t_n`$ shown in Figure 10 is much too steep relative to NGC 4472 and is steeper than the corresponding density profile in Figure 7. We believe that this latter difference can be explained by the quasi-cyclic variation in the density profile associated with episodic cooling as shown in Figure 6; i.e. the 1D and 2D flows are captured at different phases of this cycle at time $`t_n`$. Like the corresponding 1D flow, the 2D gas temperature (not shown) is also somewhat too high in the central kpc, $`T1.5`$ keV. This 2D heated cooling flow suffers from the usual astronomical problems: the mass of cooled gas within a few kpc is very large, radiatively cooling gas in this region should produce a multiphase XMM spectrum, and the variable excursions in the hot gas density profile are larger than the narrow range of density profiles consistent with X-ray observations (e.g. Fabbiano, Trichieri & Canizares 1986).

The central and right hand columns of Figure 10 show 2D flows at time $`t_n`$ corresponding to the isolated 1D flows illustrated in Figure 8 for which the feedback heating is Compton-like, $`Hr^2`$. The 2D solutions confirm our previous conclusions for these flows: for weak heating, $`C_hT_C=1.6\times 10^{43}`$, all the gas ($`4\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$) cools at the center of the flow (central column Figure 10) and the gas density profile is too steep. If the heating is stronger, $`C_hT_C=1.6\times 10^{44}`$, (right column Figure 10) widely distributed cooling occurs that is not seen in XMM spectra. Even with this larger $`C_hT_C`$, an excessively large mass $`2.2\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ still cools throughout the galaxy. The central gas density is unrealistically low within about 2 kpc and too high beyond. The temperature is too high ($`T1.52\times 10^7`$ K) inside $`10`$ kpc, similar to the 1D solutions in Figure 8. Extended periods during which there is very little radiative cooling at large $`r`$ are punctuated by short episodes of intense cooling, but the average cooling rate history is similar to the other models shown in Figure 5. Nevertheless, it is obvious that neither of these models with $`Hr^2`$ is acceptable, nor is it plausible that any value of $`C_hT_C`$ could give acceptable results.

Finally, we have computed 1D and 2D versions of cooling flows in which the cooled gas is rapidly heated at the cooling site, as if by Type II supernovae. In this idealized immediate feedback heating scenario $`\rho H(r,t)`$ is proportional to $`q(r)\rho /t_{cool}`$ so $`q`$ is no longer merely a means of removing cooled gas, but is directly related to the heating. In the 2D version of this heating model, in which $`q`$ is a step function described by Equation (5), we find that the convective turbulence is sufficiently strong to generate spontaneous and widely distributed radiative cooling within 10 - 20 kpc. The azimuthally averaged gas density shows a cyclical variation similar to that described in section 6.2.1. Again, the central temperature is generally too high.

When $`q`$ is assumed constant (e.g. $`q=1`$), these models have some positive features, such as naturally producing the observed core in the hot gas density. However, they cannot be accepted since multiphase X-ray spectra would be expected from the cooling gas and the central masses often exceed several $`10^9`$ $`M_{}`$. Type II supernovae have never been observed in early type galaxies, so the physical origin of the heating process is obscure.

In summary, by our rigorous standards for success – no multiphase gas, agreement with observed profiles, no large masses cooling close to the center, etc. – all of the flow models we have discussed, as well as many others that we have calculated, have failed to match the observations.

## 7 Models with Non-thermal Pressure

As we discussed in the Introduction, spatially extended non-linear thermal instabilities arise in cooling flows whenever the thermal gas is globally compressed, $`𝐮<0`$, or $`^2(r^2u)/^2r<0`$ in 1D. For a variety of centrally heated flows we have shown that runaway radiative cooling is expected whenever the normally inflowing gas is decelerated and compressed by heated gas closer to center of the flow. A similar deceleration can be produced in the absence of heating by an additional non-thermal pressure (gradient) which is dynamically important within some radius in the flow. The non-thermal pressure $`P_{nt}`$ could be due to cosmic rays or magnetic energy density perhaps associated with a central AGN. For simplicity, and in keeping with our purely phenomenological approach, we consider two pressurized flows in which the non-thermal pressure is assumed to scale with the thermal pressure $`P`$:

$$P_{nt}=P(r/r_{nt})^1.$$
(11)
The coefficient of $`P`$ is designed so that $`dP_{nt}/dr`$ is steeper than $`dP/dr`$.

The two columns in Figure 11 illustrate the flow patterns at time $`t_n`$ in isolated 1D galactic flows with $`r_{nt}=1`$ and 2 kpc respectively. With $`r_{nt}=1`$ kpc the non-thermal pressure flattens the inner density profile somewhat like the NGC 4472 observations. Because the central flow is partially supported by the additional non-thermal pressure, both the thermal pressure and temperature are also lower at small $`r`$. But when $`r_{nt}=1`$ kpc the non-thermal pressure gradient is insufficient to keep large masses of gas from cooling within 100 pc, $`M_{cool}(r<100\mathrm{pc},t_n)=1.7\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$. However, if the non-thermal pressure is larger, $`r_{nt}=2`$ kpc, gas slowly flows out from the core and a 1D drip forms at $`r=0.6`$ kpc. In this 1D flow all the gas cools at or near the drip, $`r=0.52.5`$ kpc, not at the origin. Note that $`P_{nt}/P`$ must be quite large in this model before gas is forced to cool away from the origin. Nevertheless, neither central or extended cooling is supported by XMM observations.

## 8 CONCLUSIONS

For many years it has been assumed that cooling flows are inherently inhomogeneous (multiphase), so that thermal instabilities develop throughout extended regions of the flow. While there is little or no support for localized cooling from linear perturbation studies, by assuming distributed cooling dropout it has been possible to consume hot gas in a large volume that would otherwise have flowed to the very center and cooled there, generating undesirable central mass concentrations and unrealistically peaked X-ray emission and thermal temperatures. If this multiphase hypothesis is correct, some spectral signature of gas cooling to low temperatures is expected, such as a broadened FeL emission feature.

It is noteworthy therefore that the first XMM observations of elliptical galaxies and clusters have failed to find spectral evidence for locally multiphase flows, even in the bright cores of galaxies like M87 (Molendi & Pizzolato 2001) and NGC 4636 (Xu et al. 2001). These observations conflict with FUSE detections of OVI emission from gas at $`T3\times 10^5`$ K observed in several bright elliptical galaxies. The OVI emission is a clear indication that gas is cooling, although at a somewhat lower rate than expected (Bregman, Miller & Irwin 2001). Nevertheless, the null XMM observations have revived interest in heating mechanisms that have been proposed to keep gas from cooling to low temperatures. If some form of continuous or intermittent heating were present, it is claimed, our failure to observe cooling and cooled gas with XMM could be easily understood. The limited temperature variations that are observed at any projected radius could be explained simply by single-phase temperature variations viewed along the line of sight.

To explore this suggestion in more detail we have computed a large number of cooling flows that are heated by feedback when gas flows into the center. This kind of feedback is ideally suited to keep gas from cooling near the center of the flow where the gas is densest and radiative losses are maximal. The heating scenarios we adopt are deliberately kept as simple as possible with a minimum number of free parameters, even though they are unphysical in some respects. Our approach is phenomenological, with little or no attention to specific (poorly understood) microphysical heating processes. We have also investigated how thermal conduction and convection can share this heating with larger galactic volumes.

The criteria that we impose for successfully heated models are exacting: (1) the density and temperature profiles, $`n(r)`$ and $`T(r)`$, at time $`t_n=13`$ Gyrs must not differ greatly from those observed in typical massive elliptical galaxies such as NGC 4472, (2) little or no gas must be currently cooling to low temperatures (i.e. $`1`$ keV) anywhere in the flow, $`\dot{M}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.1`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1 for NGC 4472, and (3) the total mass of gas that has cooled near the galactic center in the last $`10`$ Gyrs must not exceed the total mass typically indicated by observed stellar velocity dispersions.

After examining a large number of heated cooling flows, much larger than we have described here, we conclude that it is very difficult to devise any combination of ad hoc heating, thermal conduction or convection that produces reasonable density and temperature profiles and keeps gas from cooling at rates much less than that implied by the radiative emission of X-rays,

$$\dot{M}\left(\frac{2\mu m_p}{5kT}\right)L_{x,bol}2.5M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1,$$

which is evaluated for the temperature and bolometric luminosity of NGC 4472, $`T1.3\times 10^7`$ K and $`L_{x,bol}7.2\times 10^{41}`$ erg s-1. This result is illustrated most clearly in Figure 5, showing that neither the total mass of cooled gas nor the present cooling rate $`\dot{M}(t_n)=dM_{cool}/dt1.2`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1 is appreciably reduced in any of the heated cooling flows we consider, many of which are extreme in unphysical ways. Even continuous heating that exactly balances radiative cooling fails spectacularly to agree with observations. The central temperatures in heated flows is typically too large and the central temperature derivative $`dT/dr`$ is often negative, unlike all well-observed flows. As a consequence of these high temperatures, the gas densities are too low in the center and (often) throughout the entire flow. When heating lowers the gas density, we find that Type Ia supernova raise the hot gas iron abundance far beyond observed values; thus unrealistically high iron abundances are an additional serious difficulty with heated cooling flows that we have not emphasized here. Even when the heating parameters are adjusted for the best (but nevertheless unacceptable) fit to the observations, the solutions are found to be very sensitive to the heating parameters. An undesirable degree of fine-tuning appears to be essential for any flow influenced by heating.

We conclude that the failure of XMM to detect cooling gas at the expected rate cannot be easily understood in terms of some as yet unspecified heating mechanism that balances or exceeds the X-ray luminosity.

While the XMM results are inconsistent with multiphase flows that cool, optical (H$`\alpha `$ \+ \[NII\]) and UV line emission have been used to support radiative cooling. We estimate from the FUSE flux for the OVI doublet in NGC 4636 (Bregman, Miller & Irwin 2001) that the OVII 21.6Å(0.574 keV) line should be about 10 percent as luminous as the strong OVIII Ly$`\alpha `$ line detected by Xu et al. (2001) using XMM/RGS. Yet Xu et al. were unable to detect the OVII line expected from gas cooling near $`T2\times 10^6`$ K and we have no explanation for this. Nevertheless, our conclusion here remains: if emission from low or intermediate temperature ions is absent, this is unlikely to be explained by some hypothetical source of heating from the galactic center. If the heating is insufficient to drive a global galactic wind, our heated flow calculations show convincingly that the heating actually stimulates gas to cool in a large volume of the galaxy. If the heating rate is large enough to drive a wind, the gas density (and $`L_x`$) will be too low everywhere, typically by several orders of magnitude.

On the positive side, we have demonstrated here how gas can cool many kpcs from the galactic center when there is some central heating or non-thermal pressure. Non-linear thermal instabilities develop naturally and spontaneously in the compressed region of the flow where the normal cooling inflow from large radii confronts slowed or outflowing gas in the heated or pressurized core. Strong local cooling occurs even when the flow velocities are subsonic. The 1D representations of this instability, which we refer to as “drips”, are unphysical since they are Rayleigh-Taylor and convectively unstable. If the cooled gas is removed, spherically symmetric 1D drips usually become quasi-stationary at late stages of evolution. If the cooled gas is not removed, drips can evolve into massive, high density shells of cooled gas that ultimately freefall supersonically into the center of the flow, causing unphysical heating and shock reflection.

It is gratifying therefore that cooling instabilities form at nearly the same radius in 1D and more realistic 2D flows. In 2D flows random, subsonic (convective and turbulent) velocities induce cooling over a large galactic volume. When convective eddies collide, nonlinear compressions lead to runaway thermal instabilities. The cooling is more chaotic in 2D and coherent inward-moving drip waves do not form. In principle, gas can also cool at intermediate radii in unheated galactic cooling flows provided the galaxy is rotating (Brighenti & Mathews 1997b, 2000b; D’Ercole, & Ciotti 1998), in this case an extended disk of cooling gas is formed, but there is no observational evidence for this in the X-ray images. We have shown that cooling disks can be avoided if the flow is turbulent or convective (Brighenti & Mathews 1900) and there is considerable observational evidence for this (e.g. Caon et al. 2000).

Nonlinear cooling can also be stimulated by an additional non-thermal pressure near the center of the cooling flow. This pressure could be due to magnetic field stresses, cosmic rays or both. Seed magnetic fields ejected from mass-losing stars can be amplified by the subsonic turbulence that results from Type Ia supernovae or by the random motions observed in cooling flows (Caon et al. 2000). The field amplification due to this turbulent dynamo saturates when the magnetic energy density becomes comparable with that of the subsonic turbulence, which is generally less than the thermal energy density (pressure) in the hot gas. However, as the field is advected toward the center of the cooling flow, $`B^2/8\pi `$ grows by adiabatic compression and may exceed the gas pressure at the center (Soker & Sarazin 1990; Mathews & Brighenti 1997). Therefore, a large non-thermal magnetic pressure could be a natural consequence of cooling flows even in the absence of AGN. Alternatively, large non-thermal cosmic ray and magnetic pressures may be produced by AGN activity associated with central black holes.

Our main conclusions are:

(1) Cooling flows that are assumed to be centrally heated develop nonlinear thermal instabilities on spatial scales comparable to that of the hypothetical heating. Thus heating from an active nucleus cannot explain the apparent absence of multiphase cooling gas in XMM spectra. This is particularly true if the heating is large enough to keep unrealistic masses of gas from cooling within the central kpc.

(2) Central regions of high nonthermal pressure can also stimulate nonlinear thermal instabilities.

(3) In most or all well-observed cooling flows in galaxy groups or clusters the gas temperature has a minimum at the center and increases to a maximum typically at several stellar effective radii in the group-central E galaxy. The higher temperatures in the more distant gas can be simply understood in terms of the cosmic accretion of gas onto the group dark halo which has a higher virial temperature than the central galaxy. As this gas flows inward, its temperature adapts to the lower virial temperature of the stars in the central galaxy, resulting in a positive temperature gradient. None of our computed cooling flows with central heating has a monotonically increasing temperature profile as observed in this central region.

(4) If the central heating is strong enough to keep unrealistically large masses of gas from cooling in the central few kpc, the global hot gas density profile is usually radically altered, and made time dependent.

(5) Flows heated by central feedback often result in eposidic cooling that is associated with quasi-cyclic changes in the hot gas density profile; at present there is no observational evidence for this.

We thank referee Peter Thomas for his thoughtful commentary on the first draft of this long paper and for his many useful suggestions. Studies of the evolution of hot gas in elliptical galaxies at UC Santa Cruz are supported by NASA grant NAG 5-8049 and NSF grants AST-9802994 and AST-0098351 for which we are very grateful. FB is supported in part by grants MURST-Cofin 00 and ASI-ARS99-74.

## Appendix A Appendix

We describe how the 1D Gaussian heated flows with $`G_h=1`$ erg gm-1 s-1 and $`r_h=5`$ kpc are influenced by thermal conduction and convection.

### A.1 Influence of Thermal Conduction

The conductive heat flux is

$$F_{cond}=\frac{(\kappa T)}{r}$$

where $`\kappa =f1.84\times 10^5T^{5/2}/\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the thermal conductivity, which can be reduced by a factor $`f1`$ to approximate the inhibiting effect of tangled magnetic fields. When the conduction becomes saturated, the flux is replaced with

$$F_{cond,sat}=0.4fnkT(2kT/\pi m_e)^{1/2}.$$

Because $`\kappa `$ is very small at low temperatures, thermal conduction can usually be ignored for cooling flows in galaxies and galaxy groups where $`T\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1`$ keV. However, in the flow near and inside drips the temperature gradients are very large, increasing the likelihood that $`F_{cond}`$ may alter the solution and possibly the mass dropout stimulated by heating at the galactic center.

The left column of Figure A1 shows the flow variables at $`t_n=13`$ Gyr for isolated and accreting flows with the conductivity set at the full Spitzer value, $`f=1`$. The drip that formerly appeared at 7 kpc (right column of Figure 2) has (temporarily) disappeared at time $`t_n`$ when there are no thermally unstable compression regions. While the flows with conduction are smoother overall, there is again an undesirable negative temperature gradient in the central region.

A closer look at these thermally conducting gas flows reveals that many drips occurred at $`t<t_n`$ and a large amount of gas cooled (dropped out) at large radii. A large mass of gas, $`2.0\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$, also cools in $`r<100`$ pc, where we assume $`q=1`$ to absorb the cooled gas. Cooling dropout that occurred before $`t=3`$ Gyrs, when $`M_{cool}10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$, may have formed into a second generation of old stars. By time $`t_n`$, $`M_{cool}=3.7\times 10^{10}`$ ($`7.9\times 10^{10}`$) $`M_{}`$ has cooled in the isolated (accretion) flow. Most of the cooled gas is concentrated near $`r7`$ kpc where the drip appeared without conduction.

At late times, episodic drips occur in these flows separated by $`2`$ Gyr periods of relative quiescence, resulting in a quasi-cyclic variation in the global gas density as discussed in §6.2.1. Just following a period of intense spatially distributed mass dropout in drip waves, the hot gas density is lower and the drip cooling shuts down temporarily. During the quiescent period that follows, the gas density slowly increases due to stellar mass loss until it becomes high enough to stimulate another episode of drip cooling. The high gas density in $`r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10`$ kpc visible in the accretion flow with conduction occurs at a moment just prior to a period of more intense cooling. Two flows that appear to be quite different at time $`t_n`$, such as the isolated and accretion flows with conduction in Figure A1 differ largely because they are momentarily at different phases of the cooling cycle.

Since neither of the flows with thermal conduction shown in Figure A1 is currently undergoing drip cooling, they would show no spectral evidence for multiphase gas at the present time. Nevertheless, at any particular time about half of all E galaxies with this type of flow should be actively cooling and exhibit multiphase spectra. In addition, the negative temperature gradients would also disqualify both solutions with full Spitzer ($`f=1`$) conduction. When these calculations were repeated with a reduced conductivity, $`f=0.1`$, which may be more astrophysically plausible, the drip structure and cooling dropout become almost identical to that of the $`f=0`$ case shown in the right column of panels in Figure 2. We conclude that thermal conduction is unable to significantly reduce the distributed cooling and total mass of cooled gas in flows heated by the Gaussian $`H(r,t)`$.

### A.2 Influence of Convection

Since the entropy gradient is negative near drip waves, convection is expected. In 1D flow the convective flux is

$$F_{conv}=2^{5/2}c_Pg^{1/2}\rho T\mathrm{}^2H_P^{3/2}\left[\left(\frac{d\mathrm{log}T}{d\mathrm{log}P}\right)\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }\right]^{3/2}$$

where $`c_P=\gamma /k/[(\gamma 1)\mu m_p]`$, $`g`$ is the local acceleration of gravity, and $`H_P=P/\rho g`$ is the pressure scale height (Kippenhahn & Weigert 1990). This stellar expression for $`F_{conv}`$ is appropriate since cooling flows are very nearly in hydrostatic equilibrium. We have explored various values of the mixing length $`\mathrm{}`$ with similar results. In the right column of Figure A1 we illustrate the same Gaussian heated flow at time $`t_n`$ as in the right column of Figure 2 but with convective heat flux (and $`F_{cond}=0`$) using $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{max}(2r/3,3H_P/4)`$, chosen to maximize the effect of convection. The results are very similar to the conductive case. Frequent episodic drips still occur, producing a maximum in the density of cooled gas at $`r5`$ kpc at $`t_n`$. The total mass of cooled gas does not change appreciably when convection is included.

In the right columns of Figures 2 and A1 we also show the entropy profiles $`S(r)=(c_P/\gamma )\mathrm{ln}(T/n^{2/3})`$ at time $`t_n`$ for Gaussian heated flows with and without convection ($`G_h=1`$ erg gm-1 s-1 and $`r_h=5`$ kpc). As expected, the effect of convection is to flatten the steep entropy profile in the drip structure. However, for the mixing length parameters we consider the entropy gradient is still mildly negative (in $`4\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}20`$ kpc) even in the presence of convection.

The convective flows shown in Figures A1 – with its unrealistically peaked temperature profile and expected multiphase spectrum – underscore our conclusion: spherically symmetric heated cooling flows cannot be brought into agreement with XMM observations by including convection.