text:
# Relativistic Outflow of Electron-Positron Pair Plasma from a Wien Equilibrium State

## 1 Introduction

The production and bulk acceleration of relativistic jets in active galactic nuclei is one of the most challenging problems in astrophysics. The basic properties to be explained are the highly relativistic velocity with the bulk Lorentz factor of around 10, the kinetic power almost comparable to the Eddington luminosity, and the collimation into a small opening angle (e.g., Ostrowski et al., 1997; Begelman, Blandford and Rees, 1984). Although many ideas have been proposed ranging from magnetic and radiative accelerations to Blandford-Znajek process, each model has its own difficulties and there is no general consensus on how jets are produced and accelerated (e.g., Begelman, 1995; Begelman, Blandford and Rees, 1984). In this paper, we explore a thermal acceleration mechanism of pure electron-positron plasma in view of the recent observational and theoretical developments.

Several important observational developments have been made in this decade. First of all, EGRET on board the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory has found that blazars are a strong $`\gamma `$-ray emitter (Mukherjee et al., 1997). The $`\gamma `$-ray emission is interpreted in terms of the inverse Compton scattering off relativistic electrons in the jets the direction of which is so close to the line of sight that the emission from jets is strongly beamed (e.g., Blandford & Königl, 1979; Maraschi, Ghisellini and Celotti, 1992; Sikora, Begelman and Rees, 1994). Combining the synchrotron emission at lower energies, we can estimate the physical states of the emission region in the jets. The results of multi-frequency spectral fitting indicate that the jets are particle dominated rather than magnetic field dominated (Inoue and Takahara, 1996; Kino, Takahara and Kusunose, 2001). The energy density of relativistic electrons is more than one order of magnitude larger than that of the magnetic field. The size of the emission region is estimated to be $`10^{16}10^{17}\mathrm{cm}`$ from time variabilities and visibility of $`\gamma `$-ray photons. Relativistic beaming factor of around 10 is required to assure the visibility of $`\gamma `$-ray photons. Since the distance of the emission region from the central black hole is reasonably estimated to be 10 times its size, it is around $`10^{17}10^{18}\mathrm{cm}`$, an order of magnitude shorter than that of superluminal knots observed at radio wavelengths. Thus, the bulk acceleration of jets must occur within such short distances. As for the matter content of jets, electron-positron pair dominance has been proposed based on several independent observations (Wardle et al., 1998; Reynolds et al., 1996; Hirotani et al., 1999, 2001), although the contribution of protons is not completely excluded.

Second important development is the estimation of the kinetic power of extended radio sources. Such studies have shown that large scale kinetic power is well correlated with radiative power and suggest that jets are produced by accretion process rather than they are two unrelated phenomena (Rawlings and Saunders, 1991). Related to this, Galactic superluminal sources GRO J1655+40 and GRS 1915+105 with the bulk Lorentz factor of a few were discovered (Hjellming & Rupen, 1995; Mirabel & Rodríguez, 1994). The jet ejection for these two sources seems to be correlated with X-ray behavior, which suggests that the jets are really produced by accretion (Feroci et al., 1999).

Finally, developments of observations and models of cosmic gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are quite fascinating. Confirmation of the afterglows of GRBs implies the basic correctness of the fireball model (Piran, Shemi and Narayan, 1993; Rees and Mészáros, 1992). In this model, GRBs are initiated by the production of a compact high entropy fireball, although no specific mechanism of the production process itself has been widely accepted. The fireball is relativistic thermal plasma, which consists of photons, electron-positron pairs and a small amount of baryons. As the fireball expands, it is thermally accelerated and the temperature drops. When the temperature drops below the electron mass, electron-positron pairs annihilate, but it is still optically thick to the electron scattering because of a small baryon load. Final outcome is that the initial thermal energy is converted to the bulk kinetic energy of baryons attaining the bulk Lorentz factor of $`E/M_\mathrm{b}c^2`$, where $`E`$ and $`M_\mathrm{b}`$ are the total energy and baryon mass of the fireball. Inhomogeneities in the fireball are expected to produce internal shocks which are supposed to correspond to GRBs themselves and an impact to ambient matter produces an external shock which corresponds to afterglows. The emission from shocks is ascribed to the particle acceleration by shocks. It is also mentioned that some GRBs are described by jets rather than spherical explosion with respect to the afterglow light curve and energetics.

We believe that the success of the fireball model for GRBs has strong implications for jets in blazars. For blazars, internal shocks correspond to the compact emission regions which are located relatively near the central black hole and external shocks produce large-scale radio sources (Carilli and Barthel, 1996; Begelman and Cioffi, 1989). But, one strong difference between blazars and GRBs is the size of the fireball. The initial size of GRB fireballs is $`10^610^7`$ cm and it is in a complete thermal equilibrium for the total energy of $`10^{52}`$erg. In contrast, the size of blazar fireballs should be around 3$`r_\mathrm{g}10^{14}`$cm with a similar total energy, where $`r_\mathrm{g}2GM/c^2`$ is the Schwarzshild radius for the black hole mass $`M`$; the typical value of $`M`$ is taken to be $`10^8M_{}`$. If the blazar fireball is in a complete equilibrium, the temperature is an order of $`10^5`$K which is far below the electron mass and no pair production is expected. Basically it describes an optical thick radiation pressure dominated standard accretion disk and no relativistic expansion is expected.

However, for an optically thin state, electron temperature can be relativistic and copious electron-positron pairs can exist in principle. Even for mildly relativistic temperatures, copious electron-positron pairs exist for a finite optical thickness to scattering (Svensson, 1984; Lightman, 1982; Kusunose and Takahara, 1985). It has been shown that the pair density is limited to a relatively small value in hot accretion disks when the pair production is balanced with pair annihilation (Kusunose and Takahara, 1988). However, effect of pair escape can increase the pair density as was exemplified by Yamasaki, Takahara, and Kusunose (1999). They have argued that pair outflow from hot accretion disks may account for major part of the dissipated energy from accretion. In such a state, photons and electron-positron pairs are not in a complete thermal equilibrium but they are coupled by electron scattering and pair production/annihilation process and the photon density is far below that of the equilibrium state for a given temperature. Thus, the escaping pairs just above the disk may act as the fireball to produce relativistic jets. Although the physical state of such escaping pairs has not been fully investigated by now, we believe that this is the most promising way of producing relativistic jets with electron-positron pairs.

In this paper, we consider the bulk acceleration of such fireballs starting from a range of the initial states in the simplest way. We treat steady and spherically symmetric outflows starting from pure electron-positron pairs with photons in a Wien equilibrium for which photon distribution function is given by a Boltzmann distribution with a finite chemical potential. The formulation is similar to that of Grimsrud & Wasserman (1998) (GW98), in which relativistic flows of pure electron-positron pairs starting from a complete thermal equilibrium were analyzed. The dynamics starting from a Wien equilibrium is expected to be similar to that given by GW98 when proper accounts for the difference are taken. This type of flows takes into account of the effects of pair production as well as pair annihilation. Then, we can examine to what extent we can avoid the pair annihilation problem pointed out by some authors arguing against electron-positron pair dominance in relativistic jets (Celotti and Fabian, 1993; Blandford and Levinson, 1995). If pairs eventually annihilate in the course of expansion, there would remain very little kinetic power. It is very important to quantitatively assess the surviving kinetic power of such a fireball.

In section 2, we give basic formulation, in section 3 we present approximate analytical solutions and in section 4 we present the results of numerical solutions.

## 2 Formulation

We assume that at the inner boundary the source of pure electron-positron pairs and high energy photons injects a steady outflow of pairs and radiation. The optical thickness of such a region to the electron scattering is large but that to the absorption is smaller than unity. Thus, the physical state of such a regime may be characterized by a Wien equilibrium in the simplest case. When we neglect the dynamical effects, physical state of such a plasma with a finite amount of protons is known to be strongly constrained by thermal balance and pair equilibrium owing to the inefficiency of pair annihilation at relativistic temperatures (Lightman, 1982; Svensson, 1984; Kusunose and Takahara, 1985). However, we should note that the time scale to reach such a steady state is fairly long. If the plasma is first put at a relativistic temperature without pairs, pair production proceeds very quickly and the subsequent photon production and Compton scattering strongly cool the plasma as the pair concentration still increases. Finally, pair annihilation leads to a pair equilibrium state. The time scale to reach the pair equilibrium state is controlled by the photon production and photon escape, the time scales of which are much longer than the dynamical time scale. Thus, the dynamical effects are essential to the behavior of such plasma and most probably lead to the expansion and outflow. The constraints on the electron temperature and optical thickness should be drastically changed from those for static confined plasma. In this paper, for simplicity, we assume that a Wien equilibrium state is already established from the outset and that the temperature and optical thickness can take a wider range than those of static cases. Since the properties of the initial states, where dynamical effects are critically important, are not well known, we here regard the temperature and optical thickness at the boundary as free parameters.

The flow is optically thick near the boundary and becomes optically thin beyond the photosphere. We treat separately optically thick and thin regimes as GW98. For optically thick regime in which the optical thickness to the electron scattering for radially outgoing photons is larger than unity, we treat as if electron-positron pairs and photons form a single fluid. Although, radiation field may be anisotropic, we simply assume isotropic photon distribution in the comoving frame. Note that as was explicitly shown in GW98, the isotropy of photon field is a surprisingly good assumption in a relativistic expanding flow. Although the assumption of a Wien equilibrium is of course a simplification to treat the dynamical problem in a simple way, we may regard this a reasonable choice for a relativitic expanding flow if the flow start from a Wien equilirium. This is seen in the behavior of the cosmic microwave background radiation in cosmology and the optically thick relativistic wind considered by GW98; the photon distribution remains a Planckian even after the optical thickness becomes much below unity. Anyhow, to obtain more exact photon spectrum, we need to solve the radiative transfer coupled with dynamics, a challenging problem which will be pursued in future. Then, the basic equations are the conservation laws of energy, momentum and numbers. For a steady and spherically symmetric flow, conservation laws of energy and momentum are given by

$$\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left[r^2(\rho +P)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\beta \right]=0$$
(1)
and

$$\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left[r^2(\rho +P)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\beta ^2\right]+\frac{dP}{dr}=0,$$
(2)
respectively. Here, $`\rho `$ and $`P`$ are the total energy density and pressure of electron-positron pairs and photons. Both components are described by ideal fluids and we use the units of $`c=1`$. The bulk flow velocity and its Lorentz factor are denoted by $`\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, respectively. Momentum conservation law is alternatively written by

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dr}+\frac{1}{\rho +P}\frac{dP}{dr}=0.$$
(3)
The energy density and pressure of electron-positron pairs are given by

$$\rho _{\mathrm{e}\pm }=2m_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{e}\gamma $$
(4)
and

$$P_{\mathrm{e}\pm }=2m_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{e}\theta ,$$
(5)
respectively. Here, $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ is the number density of electrons (=that of positrons) and the total number density of leptons are $`2n_\mathrm{e}`$, $`\theta `$ is the temperature normalized by the electron mass $`m_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\gamma =K_3(1/\theta )/K_2(1/\theta )\theta `$ is the average Lorentz factor of electron thermal velocity, where $`K_i`$ is the $`i`$-th order modified Bessel function of the second kind.

As was mentioned above, we assume that pairs and photons are in a Wien equilibrium in the initial state. In a Wien equilibrium, the energy density and pressure of photons are given by

$$\rho _\gamma =3m_\mathrm{e}n_\gamma \theta $$
(6)
and

$$P_\gamma =m_\mathrm{e}n_\gamma \theta ,$$
(7)
respectively, where $`n_\gamma `$ is the number density of photons. In a Wien equilibrium, $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`n_\gamma `$ are related by

$$\frac{n_e}{n_\gamma }=\frac{K_2(1/\theta )}{2\theta ^2}f(\theta ).$$
(8)
In numerical calculations of the flow we do not use eq.(8), but solve the following number conservation equations, assuming that pairs and photons take the same temperature,

$$\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left[r^2n_e\mathrm{\Gamma }\beta \right]=\dot{n}_\mathrm{e}$$
(9)
and

$$\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left[r^2n_\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\beta \right]=\dot{n}_\gamma ,$$
(10)
where $`\dot{n}_\mathrm{e}`$ is the pair creation rate minus annihilation rate. The pair annihilation rate is approximated by

$`\left(\dot{n}_\mathrm{e}\right)_{\mathrm{ann}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}vn_\mathrm{e}^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\sigma _Tn_{\mathrm{e}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\theta ^2}{\mathrm{ln}(1.12\theta +1.3)}}\right]^1,`$
where $`v`$ denotes the thermal velocity of pairs (Svensson, 1982). The pair creation rate is given by

$`\left(\dot{n}_\mathrm{e}\right)_{\mathrm{cre}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_\gamma }{n_\mathrm{e}}}\right)^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K_2(1/\theta )}{2\theta ^2}}\right]^2\left(\dot{n}_\mathrm{e}\right)_{\mathrm{ann}},`$ (12)
when the distribution function of photons is a Wien one (Svensson, 1984). Since we neglect other photon production processes such as bremsstrahlung, there is a simple relation $`2\dot{n}_\mathrm{e}=\dot{n}_\gamma `$.

Then, we can solve for the bulk velocity, temperature and electron number density from the energy, momentum and number conservation equations given above. As the boundary conditions, we give the bulk velocity, temperature, and electron number density at the inner radius at $`r=r_0=2r_g`$. The optical thick approximation is valid between the inner radius and the photosphere. The radial coordinate of the photosphere $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is defined by

$$\tau =_{r_{\mathrm{ph}}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r2n_e\sigma _T\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta )=1.$$
(13)
The optical thickness depends on the direction of the photon and for photons moving oblique to the radial direction the optical thickness is larger than that given above. But within the cone of $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ around the radial direction the difference is small. Outside the cone, the optical thickness becomes much larger. Since we are treating relativistic outflow, the most relevant is the radial optical thickness.

In the optically thin region we treat pairs and photons separately. For pairs, energy, momentum and number conservation laws are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left[r^2(\rho _{\mathrm{e}\pm }+P_{\mathrm{e}\pm })\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\beta \right]=F^0,`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left[r^2(\rho _{\mathrm{e}\pm }+P_{\mathrm{e}\pm })\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\beta ^2\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{dP_{\mathrm{e}\pm }}{dr}}=F^1`$ (15)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left[r^2n_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Gamma }\beta \right]`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{n}_\mathrm{e}.`$ (16)
The right-hand side of energy and momentum conservation laws denotes the so-called radiative force, which is given through the Lorentz transformation of the radiative force in the fluid frame. The latter for Compton cooling is given by Phinney (1982) and Sikora et al. (1996)

$$(F^0)_{\mathrm{rad}}=\frac{4}{3}(2n_\mathrm{e})\sigma _T(\gamma ^21ϵ_\gamma )T_\gamma ^{00}$$
(17)
and

$$(F^1)_{\mathrm{rad}}=(2n_\mathrm{e})\sigma _T\left\{\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2}{3}\gamma ^2\right\}T_\gamma ^{01},$$
(18)
where $`ϵ_\gamma `$ denotes the phenomenological Compton heating term described below and $`T_\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy momentum tensor of radiation field. The prime denotes the quantities in the fluid frame whereas those of the central black hole frame are represented without prime. Lorentz transformation between these frames is described as

$$F^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}F^\nu \mathrm{and}T^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\delta }{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\nu }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}T^{\delta \sigma },$$
(19)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }& \mathrm{\Gamma }\beta \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }\beta & \mathrm{\Gamma }\end{array}\right).$$
(20)
The Compton heating term is calculated as follows. First, the average energy of photons in the fluid frame $`ϵ`$ is calculated and the equivalent photon temperature $`\theta _\gamma =ϵ/3`$ is defined. Noting that $`\gamma ^21=3\theta K_3(1/\theta )/K_2(1/\theta )`$, we put

$$ϵ_\gamma =3\theta _\gamma \frac{K_3(1/\theta _\gamma )}{K_2(1/\theta _\gamma )}.$$
(21)
The radiation field is assumed to be given by the free streaming approximation in the optically thin regime. The photons are emitted from the photosphere and they are relativistically beamed with the Lorentz factor of the photosphere. Although we take account of effects of photons on the dynamics of electrons, we neglect the corresponding change of the photon field for simplicity. The equilibrium Lorentz factor of the radiation field is given by (Sikora et al., 1996)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eq}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\delta ^2}}\right)^{1/2},$$
(22)
where

$$\delta =\frac{2T_\gamma ^{01}}{T_\gamma ^{00}+T_\gamma ^{11}}.$$
(23)
For $`F^0`$, we also include annihilation cooling term as

$$(F^0)_{\mathrm{ann}}=2m_\mathrm{e}\dot{n_e}\gamma $$
(24)
in addition to the Compton cooling and heating term. We neglect other terms such as bremsstrahlung cooling, pair production from the photon field. Thus, our treatment is necessarily simplified to obtain detailed estimate of the final states of the flow, but we believe that the basic features of the flow are not much lost by these simplifications.

## 3 Analytical solution

In this section we describe analytic approximation, which help to understand the physical situation considered in this paper.

### 3.1 Dynamics of Wien equilibrium pair plasma

In the optically thick regime, adopting one fluid approximation and assuming that Wien equilibrium (eq.8) is maintained in the flow too, we have two integrals from energy and number conservation laws. The energy conservation is written in the one fluid approximation from eqs. (1),(4),(5),(6),(7)&(8)

$$4\pi r^2m_\mathrm{e}n_\gamma \left\{4\theta +2f(\theta )(\theta +\gamma )\right\}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\beta =\dot{E},$$
(25)
where $`\dot{E}`$ is the total luminosity. Since the sum of the number of photons and pairs is assumed to be conserved, we obtain from eqs. (9)&(10)

$$4\pi r^2n_\gamma \{1+2f(\theta )\}\mathrm{\Gamma }\beta =\dot{N},$$
(26)
where $`\dot{N}`$ is the total number flux of photons and leptons.

Dividing eq.(25) by eq.(26), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\dot{E}}{m_\mathrm{e}\dot{N}}\frac{1+2f(\theta )}{4\theta +2f(\theta )(\theta +\gamma )}.$$
(27)
In the limit of relativistic temperature, $`f(\theta )1`$ and $`\gamma 3\theta `$, then we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\dot{E}}{m_\mathrm{e}\dot{N}}\frac{1}{4\theta }.$$
(28)
In the limit of non-relativistic temperature, $`f(\theta )0`$ and $`\gamma 1`$, we have the same expression

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\dot{E}}{m_\mathrm{e}\dot{N}}\frac{1}{4\theta }.$$
(29)
It is to be noted that this expression is not an exact one at intermediate temperatures, in contrast to the case of complete thermal equilibrium(GW98). However, we use this as an approximate analytic solution in this section. This relation implies that the bulk Lorentz factor increases as the temperature decreases, i.e., that the plasma is accelerated thermally in compensation of the internal energy. The factor $`\dot{E}/m_\mathrm{e}\dot{N}`$ represents the mean energy of particles except for a numerical factor of order unity. Supposing that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at the boundary is order of unity, the bulk Lorentz factor attains an order of 10, if the plasma remains optically thick during an order of magnitude drop in the temperature. The temperature at the boundary needs not necessarily be highly relativistic as long as it is high enough to produce pairs. But, it is important to determine the ratio of pairs to photons at various radii. The actual kinetic power of pairs at infinity depends on the amount of surviving pairs too, which is considered in the following subsections.

The photon number density is also represented by the temperature as (for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$)

$$n_\gamma =\frac{\dot{N}^2}{\dot{E}}\frac{m_\mathrm{e}}{4\pi r^2}\frac{4\theta +2f(\theta )(\theta +\gamma )}{\left\{1+2f(\theta )\right\}^2}.$$
(30)
At the relativistic temperatures, it becomes

$$n_\gamma =\frac{\dot{N}^2}{\dot{E}}\frac{m_\mathrm{e}}{4\pi r^2}\frac{4\theta }{3},$$
(31)
while at non-relativistic temperature, it is

$$n_\gamma =\frac{\dot{N}^2}{\dot{E}}\frac{m_\mathrm{e}}{4\pi r^2}4\theta .$$
(32)
The difference of the factor 3 means that at non-relativistic temperatures all the pairs annihilate and are converted to photons. Anyway, the total number flux of photons and electron pairs is conserved and total number density is approximated by

$$n_\gamma +2n_\mathrm{e}=\frac{\dot{N}^2}{\dot{E}}\frac{m_\mathrm{e}}{4\pi r^2}4\theta .$$
(33)
Under the approximations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\dot{E}/4m_\mathrm{e}\theta \dot{N}`$ and the above expression for $`n_\gamma +2n_\mathrm{e}`$, the equation of motion (eq. 3) becomes

$$\frac{1}{\theta }\frac{d\theta }{dr}+\frac{(1+2f(\theta ))r^2}{\theta [4\theta +2f(\theta )(\theta +\gamma )]}\frac{d}{dr}(\frac{\theta ^2}{r^2})=0.$$
(34)
Thus, both for relativistic and non-relativistic temperatures, we obtain

$$\theta r^1.$$
(35)
Then, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }r`$ and $`n_\gamma +2n_\mathrm{e}r^3`$. Thus, thermal acceleration works for this Wien equilibrium pair outflows.

In order that optical thick condition is satisfied, the optical thickness at the boundary should be at least larger than unity. We suppose that the boundary temperature $`\theta _0`$ is at least mildly relativistic and the number densities of photons and electrons are comparable ($`f(\theta _0)1`$). Thus, we have

$`n_{\gamma ,0}n_{\mathrm{e},0}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(n_{\gamma ,0}+2n_{\mathrm{e},0})`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{e}}{\pi r_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{N}^2}{\dot{E}}}\theta _0`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48\pi m_\mathrm{e}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{E}}{r_0^2\theta _0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}.`$
From eq.(13), the optical thickness at the boundary is estimated as

$$\tau _0\frac{n_{\mathrm{e},0}\sigma _Tr_0}{3\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\frac{1}{72}\frac{r_g}{r_0}\frac{m_\mathrm{p}}{m_\mathrm{e}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\theta _0}\frac{\dot{E}}{L_{\mathrm{Edd}}},$$
(37)
where the Eddington luminosity is defined by

$$L_{\mathrm{Edd}}2\pi \frac{m_\mathrm{p}r_\mathrm{g}}{\sigma _T}$$
(38)
and $`r_\mathrm{g}`$ is the gravitational radius. Thus, in order to realize $`\tau _01`$, the total luminosity should be at least an order of the Eddington luminosity for reasonable ranges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\theta _0`$ at the boundary $`r_0=2r_\mathrm{g}`$.

The optical thick solution obtained in this subsection is summarized as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\frac{r}{r_0},$$
(39)
$$\theta =\theta _0\frac{r_0}{r}$$
(40)
and

$$n_\gamma +2n_\mathrm{e}=3n_{\mathrm{e},0}(\frac{r_0}{r})^3.$$
(41)
### 3.2 Photosphere and freeze-out radius

The optical thickness decreases with radius and the flow eventually becomes optically thin. For relativistic temperatures, the optical thickness is given by

$$\tau \frac{n_\mathrm{e}\sigma _Tr}{3\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{n_{\mathrm{e},0}\sigma _Tr_0}{3\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^3\tau _0\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^3.$$
(42)
Defining the radius of the photosphere $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ as the radius where $`\tau =1`$, we obtain

$$r_{\mathrm{ph}}\tau _0^{1/3}r_0.$$
(43)
The temperature at the photosphere $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is

$$\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}\theta _0\tau _0^{1/3}.$$
(44)
If $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is smaller than unity, the real photospheric radius is smaller than $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ given above because $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ becomes smaller than $`n_\gamma `$.

On the other hand, equating annihilation time scale with dynamical time scale, we obtain the freeze-out radius $`r_{\mathrm{fr}}`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_\mathrm{e}}{(\dot{n_\mathrm{e}})_{\mathrm{ann}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{\mathrm{fr}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$
$``$ $`r_{\mathrm{fr}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}\tau _0\right)^{1/3}r_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}\right)^{1/3}r_{\mathrm{ph}}.`$ (45)
These two radii are almost the same. Although the above expression for $`r_{\mathrm{fr}}`$ is correct for $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}>1`$, the coincidence of the two radii itself is valid even if $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}<1`$. Thus, copious pairs exist in the optically thick regime because of the photon photon pair production counterbalancing the pair annihilation, unless the temperature becomes too low at $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$. In the optically thin regime, a large fraction of pairs can survive because the annihilation time scale becomes longer than the dynamical time scale.

The behavior of the freeze-out depends on the temperature at the photosphere $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}`$. For $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}<1`$, the number density of pairs becomes small compared to the photon density but pairs can still carry a significant amount of kinetic power in the rest mass energy. For $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}>1`$, the number density of pairs is comparable to the photon density and the kinetic power of pairs accounts for more than half of the total power. Surviving kinetic power, however, is affected by interactions with radiation in the optically thin regime. We call the former and latter non-relativistic freeze-out and relativistic freeze-out, respectively. The condition for relativistic freeze-out is given by

$$\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}=\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{ph}}}{r_0}\right)^1\theta _0>1\theta _0>\tau _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/3}.$$
(46)
In Figure 1 are shown these regimes in the $`\theta _0\dot{E}`$ plane, where we assume $`r_0=2r_g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\sqrt{3/2}`$. Thus, $`\dot{E}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=0.144\tau _0\theta _0`$ holds.

### 3.3 Relativistic freeze-out

When $`\theta _0>\tau _0^{1/3}`$ is satisfied, the photospheric temperature is relativistic and we approximate $`f(\theta _{\mathrm{ph}})=1`$ and neglect pair annihilation in the optically thin regime. Thus, the number flux of pairs $`\dot{N}_\mathrm{e}`$ is constant from the boundary to infinity; it is given by

$$\dot{N}_{\mathrm{e}\pm ,\mathrm{}}\dot{N}_{\mathrm{e}\pm ,0}\frac{2}{3}\dot{N}$$
(47)
The kinetic power of pairs at the photosphere is also estimated as

$$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{e}\pm ,\mathrm{ph}}\frac{2}{3}\dot{E}.$$
(48)
The bulk Lorentz factor at the photosphere is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ph}}\tau _0^{1/3}.$$
(49)
After freeze-out, these pairs still interact with radiation in the optically thin regime. Since in the regime of relativistic temperature, the pair temperature and equivalent photon temperature seen in the comoving frame of pairs behave in the same way, the Compton cooling/heating effects may not be large and the internal energy is further converted to the bulk acceleration. If the internal energy at the boundary is converted to the bulk acceleration, we expect $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}4\theta _0`$. After the pair temperature becomes non-relativistic, the pair temperature becomes lower than the equivalent photon temperature seen in the comoving frame of pairs. Then, we expect Compton heating rather than the Compton cooling there. In addition, since the photons are strongly beamed, some amount of radiative acceleration is also expected. Thus, we expect that interaction with photons transfers energy from photons to pairs, although the details should be investigated by numerical calculations.

To summarize, we expect that the terminal state of the pair outflow for relativistic freeze-out is characterized by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}4\theta _0$$
(50)
and

$$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{e}\pm ,\mathrm{}}\frac{2}{3}\dot{E}.$$
(51)
Thus, a Wien fireball turns out to be a very efficient mechanism for the production of relativistic outflows of electron-positron pairs at least for relativistic freeze-out.

### 3.4 Non-relativistic freeze-out

When $`\theta _0<\tau _0^{1/3}`$ is satisfied, the photospheric temperature $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}=\theta _0\tau _0^{1/3}`$ becomes non-relativistic. For $`\theta 1`$, $`f(\theta )`$ behaves as (Svensson, 1984)

$$f(\theta )\sqrt{\frac{\pi g(\theta )}{8\theta ^3}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{\theta }),$$
(52)
where $`g(\theta )`$ is approximated as

$$g(\theta )1+3.7622\theta +5.1054\theta ^2+\frac{8}{\pi }\theta ^3.$$
(53)
Thus, the equilibrium number density of electrons at $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ decreases with decreasing $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}`$. In this rough approximation, the kinetic power of pairs at the photosphere is given by

$$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{e}\pm ,\mathrm{ph}}\dot{E}\frac{f(\theta _{\mathrm{ph}})}{2\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}}\dot{E}\sqrt{\frac{\pi g(\theta _{\mathrm{ph}})}{32\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}^5}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}}).$$
(54)
It is seen that the kinetic power of pairs can still be a fair fraction of the total luminosity when the photospheric temperature is mildly relativistic. For example, $`\dot{E}_{\mathrm{e}\pm ,\mathrm{ph}}=0.16\dot{E}`$ even for $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}=0.2`$.

In reality, the pairs may not keep a Wien equilibrium since the pair creation becomes ineffective at non-relativistic temperatures. Thus, the pair annihilation process proceeds in a non-equilibrium way and the actual pair density is higher than the equilibrium value. This process can be treated in the same way as GW98. Let us first assume that the deviation from equilibrium is small and expand the electron number density as

$$\delta n_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{e}n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{eq}}n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{eq}}$$
(55)
and

$$n_\mathrm{e}^2n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{eq}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{eq}}\delta n_\mathrm{e}.$$
(56)
Since the electron number density follows the equation

$$\dot{n}_\mathrm{e}=\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}v\left[n_{\mathrm{e}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{eq}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right]=\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left[n_\mathrm{e}r^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\beta \right],$$
(57)
we obtain

$$\delta n_\mathrm{e}\frac{1}{2n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{eq}}}\frac{1}{\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}v}\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left[n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{eq}}r^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\beta \right].$$
(58)
Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }r`$ as long as the equilibrium is maintained, we obtain

$$\delta n_\mathrm{e}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2r\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}v}\left[3+\frac{d\mathrm{ln}n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{eq}}}{d\mathrm{ln}r}\right]$$
(59)
to the leading order. From equation (33), equilibrium number density of electrons is estimated as

$`n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{eq}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta m_\mathrm{e}\dot{N}^2}{\pi r^2\dot{E}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(\theta )}{2f(\theta )+1}}`$ (60)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{e}\dot{N}^2}{\pi r^2\dot{E}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi g(\theta )}{8\theta }}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta }}).`$
Then, equation (59) can be approximated as

$$\delta n_\mathrm{e}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2r\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}v}\left[\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{\theta }\right]\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2r\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}v}\frac{1}{\theta }$$
(61)
for $`\theta 1`$.

We regard that the freeze-out occurs when $`\delta n_\mathrm{e}=n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{eq}}`$ is satisfied. We define the annihilation radius $`r_{\mathrm{ann}}`$ as the radius where $`\delta n_\mathrm{e}=n_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{eq}}`$ is satisfied to discriminate it from $`r_{\mathrm{fr}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$. The temperature at $`r_{\mathrm{ann}}`$ is denoted by $`\theta _{\mathrm{ann}}`$. The equation to determine $`r_{\mathrm{ann}}`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{ann}}`$ is given by

$$\frac{m_\mathrm{e}\dot{N}^2}{\pi r_{\mathrm{ann}}^2\dot{E}}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{8\theta _{\mathrm{ann}}}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{\theta _{\mathrm{ann}}})=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ann}}}{2r_{\mathrm{ann}}\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}v}\frac{1}{\theta _{\mathrm{ann}}}.$$
(62)
Recalling that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ann}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(r_{\mathrm{ann}}/r_0)`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{ann}}=r_0(\theta _0/\theta _{\mathrm{ann}})`$ and using equations (36) and (37), we obtain the equation to determine $`\theta _{\mathrm{ann}}`$ as

$$\theta _{\mathrm{ann}}^{5/2}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{\theta _{\mathrm{ann}}})=\frac{16}{27\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{\theta _0^3}{\tau _0}=\frac{16}{27\sqrt{2\pi }}\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}^3.$$
(63)
In Figure 2 the relation between $`\theta _{\mathrm{ann}}`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is shown and we see that the former is slightly higher than the latter for $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}<0.6`$. The kinetic power of pairs estimated at the annihilation radius is given by

$$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{e}\pm ,\mathrm{ann}}\dot{E}\frac{f(\theta _{\mathrm{ann}})}{\theta _{\mathrm{ann}}}\frac{4}{27}\dot{E}(\frac{\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}}{\theta _{\mathrm{ann}}})^3\frac{1}{\theta _{\mathrm{ann}}^2}.$$
(64)
This simple estimate gives a somewhat higher value than that by equation (54). Thus, the kinetic power of pairs is shown to be still fairly high and is comparable to the radiative power even for non-relativistic freeze-out. As for the Lorentz factor at the photosphere, we expect that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ph}}\frac{\theta _0}{\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}}.$$
(65)
The terminal Lorentz factor may be higher by a factor of a few owing to the additional thermal and radiative acceleration in the optically thin regime.

## 4 Numerical Results

In this section, we present the numerical results which are compared with analytic predictions made in the previous section. Numerical calculations are performed for a wide range of values of the total luminosity $`\dot{E}`$ and the boundary temperature $`\theta _0`$ at $`r=r_0=2r_\mathrm{g}`$. We fix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\sqrt{3/2}`$; other boundary values $`\tau _0`$, $`n_{\gamma ,0}`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{e},0}`$ and the total number flux $`\dot{N}`$ are easily obtained through several relations described in the previous section. We solve eqs. (1),(3),(9)&(10) for optically thick regime and eqs. (14),(15)&(16) for optically thin regime. The radiation field in the optically thin regime is calculated in the free streaming approximation as was described in section 2. The photospheric radius which marks the boundary between these two regimes is determined iteratively.

As a typical example of non-relativistic freeze-out, we show in Figure 3 the numerical results for $`\dot{E}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=24.9`$ and $`\theta _0=2`$ with $`\tau _0=82.4`$. Figure 3(a) shows the behavior of the bulk velocity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\beta `$ and temperature $`\theta `$. It is seen that the photosphere is located at $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}=7.45r_\mathrm{g}`$ and that the temperature decreases rapidly with radius and becomes $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}=0.41`$ at the photosphere. The bulk Lorentz factor at the photosphere turns out to be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ph}}\beta _{\mathrm{ph}}=5.06`$. These numerical values reasonably agree with the analytic predictions of $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}=8.7r_g`$, $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}=0.46`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ph}}=5.3`$. In particular, it is seen that a factor of 5 decrease in temperature matches very well a factor of 5 increase of the bulk Lorentz factor, which confirms the basic feature of the thermal acceleration of the pair plasma in the optically thick regime. The differences between analytic and numerical results may be due to some simplifications made in the analytic estimates such as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ and pair annihilation process.

It is particularly important that pair outflow is further accelerated outside the photosphere. The numerical result shows that the terminal Lorentz factor attains $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}=15.9`$, more than three times that at the photosphere. Most of this factor is accounted for by the internal energy of pairs at the photosphere with an additional effect of radiative acceleration. It should be noted that since even at $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}=0.41`$, $`\theta +\gamma =2.3`$, pure thermal acceleration can attain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}12`$. Moreover, beamed photons from the photosphere heat the pairs by Compton interaction since the effective temperature of photons is larger than electron temperature outside the photosphere as is seen in this figure. So the thermal acceleration works efficiently while radiative acceleration also makes a small contribution to bulk acceleration at larger distances. This additional bulk acceleration by a factor of 3 is an important element in comparison with observations.

Figure 3(b) shows the relative number fraction of pairs and photons as a function of the radial coordinate. As is seen, the pair fraction decreases steadily according to the decrease of temperature and annihilation continues to $`2r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$. Thus, the analytic estimate of $`r_{\mathrm{fr}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{ann}}`$ may be uncertain within a factor of 2. But, the degree of the decrease is modest and about 20% of pairs annihilate outside the photosphere. To sum up, about 60% of the initial pairs survive in this case. This confirms our prediction that the pair annihilation problem can be avoided when we consider an initial Wien equilibrium state.

Figure 3(c) shows the luminosity of pairs and radiation as a function of the radial coordinate. The total luminosity turns out to remain constant as a function of radius as it should be. Inside the photosphere, the kinetic power of pairs slightly decreases with radius, which is because pairs are converted to photons as the temperature decreases keeping a Wien equilibrium. The kinetic power of pairs is kept almost constant outside the photosphere as it should be for bulk acceleration by their own thermal energy. A small change is due to the interaction with photons. But, it is seen that the energy gained from Compton interaction almost cancels out with a small but finite amount of annihilation cooling. The terminal kinetic power of pairs turns out to be 61% of the total luminosity, while remaining 39% is carried away by photons emitted from the photosphere. Since the matter at the photosphere is moving at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5`$, distant observers see the radiation peaked at an energy of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}2`$, i.e., around 1MeV. Thus, this model predicts that strong MeV emission should accompany the relativistic jet formation.

We have also calculated for various boundary values and the results are tabulated in Table 1. As is seen, the terminal Lorentz factor proves to be $`860`$ and the terminal kinetic power of pairs accounts for $`5080\%`$ of the total luminosity for $`1<\theta _0<5`$ and $`0.8<\dot{E}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}<80`$. Thus, the Wien fireball turns out to be quite an efficient mechanism for the production and bulk acceleration of relativistic jets. As for the dependence of the physical quantities at the photosphere, they reasonably agree with the analytic predictions of $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}\tau _0^{1/3}\dot{E}^{1/3}\theta _0^{1/3}`$, $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}\dot{E}^{1/3}\theta _0^{4/3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ph}}\dot{E}^{1/3}\theta _0^{1/3}`$. Figure 4 shows $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ as a function of $`\tau _0`$ and figure 5 does $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ as a function of $`\tau _0`$ and then, we see that the analytic prediction agrees with numerical results, although the analytic prediction is slightly larger than the numerical result.

Since the enthalpy of pairs at the photosphere is large, pairs are thermally accelerated outside the photosphere. The terminal Lorentz factor is thus basically determined by the boundary temperature for relativistic freeze-out. For non-relativistic freeze-out, additional effect by radiation works to further increase the terminal Lorentz factor. This behavior is clearly seen in Figure 6. The terminal Lorentz factor is above the naive estimate $`4\theta `$ to a varying degree according to a varying degree of importance of additional thermal and radiative acceleration. It is to be noted that fairly large Lorentz factor can be obtained even for the initial temperature as low as 0.5.

Finally, in Figure 7 is shown the efficiency of the outflow production, i.e., the ratio of the terminal kinetic power of pairs to the total luminosity. It is basically determined by the photospheric temperature. For relativistic freeze-out, the efficiency is about 10% larger than the canonical value of 2/3. This excess is due to additional radiative acceleration. For non-relativistic freeze-out, the efficiency becomes small because pair density decreases owing to pair annihilation. At $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}=0.2`$ the efficiency is about 30% and it will be very small for lower $`\theta _{\mathrm{ph}}`$.

Summarizing these results, we have found that electron-positron pairs can be thermally accelerated up to the bulk Lorentz factor of more than 10 and that their kinetic power becomes comparable to the total power, provided that Wien equilibrium states of pure electron-positron pairs are prepared at the inner boundary with a temperature of a few times electron mass and the optical thickness to the scattering of more than around 5. The corresponding total luminosity exceeds the Eddington luminosity by a factor of more than unity in the spherical symmetry. If we assume that the outflow is conical and that the opening angle of the outflow covers $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ steradian, the total power is smaller by a factor of $`4\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is typically as small as $`10^2`$, the required total luminosity can be as small as 1% of the Eddington luminosity. The mechanisms of the realization of pure electron-positron pairs and initial collimation of the outflow remain to be a theoretical challenge. However, we believe that this is the most successful specific mechanism of the bulk acceleration of relativistic outflow up to the Lorentz factor of 10 with high efficiency. This Wien fireball model predicts that radiation from the photosphere should appear as a strong emission around a few MeV with a comparable luminosity to the jet kinetic power.

## 5 Discussion

Finally, we discuss several issues related to the Wien fireball model. The first problem is the realization of the initial state. Most probably such a state is prepared in relation to the hot accretion disks or hot accretion disk corona. Previous studies on pair concentration in accretion disks have shown that the pair concentration in the disk is not so large under the steady state condition and that the steady state solution does not exist when the luminosity is higher than about a few percent of the Eddington luminosity (Kusunose and Takahara, 1988). This is due to the inefficiency of the pair annihilation and suggests that pair runaway occurs for such high luminosity. Instead of the pair equilibrium condition, if we allow free escape of pairs from the disk, Yamasaki, Takahara, and Kusunose (1999) have shown that much higher pair concentration is obtained and that outflow luminosity of pairs can be very large based on a simple analysis. This seems to be a promising way to produce the initial state of the present outflow model, since Yamasaki, Takahara, and Kusunose (1999) predicts the optical thickness of pairs is around a few and the temperature of a few. Although pure pair escape was assumed in Yamasaki, Takahara, and Kusunose (1999), in reality baryon load should be carefully examined. If the baryon density is more than 1% of the pair density, the terminal Lorentz factor will be significantly decreased. This is a common problem with the thermal fireball for GRBs.

As for the photon field, we assumed that Wien equilibrium photons are prepared at the boundary and subsequent photon production process is neglected except for pair annihilation. If the initial optical thickness is so large, this seems to be a fair assumption but for optically thickness of a few to 10, this is not true and photon spectrum will not be a Wien one but near the Comptonized bremsstrahlung. Moreover, in order to have a large pair concentration, the amount of soft photons must be small because they will decrease the electron temperature and pair production. In any case, radiative transfer including such as bremsstrahlung and Compton scattering should be examined in a future work. This is also important to predict the accompanying photon spectrum with jet production. It is to be noted that whole process should be treated dynamically, since the pair escape is the most critical assumption for this mechanism.

Our calculation indicates that super Eddington luminosity is needed for an relativistic jet production provided that the flow is spherically symmetric. As was mentioned in the previous section, if some collimation mechanisms exist near the boundary, the required luminosity will be smaller and the real luminosity can be sub-Eddington.

For many years, radiative bulk acceleration mechanism has been regarded ineffective in producing relativistic jets. But most of them treat optically thin case (Phinney, 1982; Inoue and Takahara, 1996). Since the equilibrium Lorentz factor of photons emitted from typical accretion disks is not large enough near the accretion disk, radiative force acts as radiation drag rather than as acceleration. So the attainable Lorentz factor of bulk flow is at most about 3. This is because radiation field is not collimated enough to the jet direction. Further, for optically thin plasma, only a small fraction of the radiation power is converted to plasma kinetic power. Thus, the optically thin radiative acceleration is ineffective in general. In contrast, our present model assumes that the pair plasma starts to flow out with optically thick condition. This means that photons move at the same speed with pairs since they are strongly coupled and that they can be thermally accelerated. Although the pair outflow becomes optically thin outside the photosphere, radiative acceleration acts effectively because radiation has been collimated at the photosphere and the equilibrium Lorentz factor becomes large enough. Of course, the radiation drag from ambient photons will somewhat decrease the bulk velocity of the jets, but the effect will be small since the beamed radiation field dominates over ambient photons for typical cases.

Another argument against pair jets has been the annihilation problem (Celotti and Fabian, 1993; Blandford and Levinson, 1995). When a large amount of cold pairs exist in a compact region, they will inevitably annihilate before they escape. Since in our model pairs are hot and accompanied with high energy photons, pair production works as well. Inside the photosphere, pair annihilation is balanced with pair production and outside the photosphere annihilation time scale becomes longer than the dynamical time scale. Thus, the most pairs can survive to infinity and can avoid the annihilation problem with pair jets.

This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the Ministry of Education and Science No.11640236 and by Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


format: text

text:
# Spin accumulation in ferromagnetic single-electron transistors in the cotunneling regime

## Abstract

We propose a new method of direct detection of spin accumulation, which overcomes problems of previous measurement schemes. A spin dependent current in a single-electron transistor with ferromagnetic electrodes leads to spin accumulation on the metallic island. The resulting spin-splitting of the electrochemical potentials of the island, because of an additional shift by the charging energy, can be detected from the spacing between two resonances in the current-voltage characteristics. The results were obtained in the framework of a real-time diagrammatic approach which allows to study higher order (co-)tunneling processes in the strong nonequlibrium situation.

The discovery of materials and devices with spin dependent electronic transport properties opens new perspectives for research and applications. As examples we mention exchange-coupled metallic magnetic multi-layers, heterostructures with ferromagnetic semiconductors, hybrid structures based on magnetic metals and nonmagnetic semiconductors, as well as perovskite oxides. The field has developed into a new branch of mesoscopic electronics – called magneto- or spin electronics . The balance of spin injection and spin diffusion in spin-polarized heterostructures in general leads to a non-equilibrium spin accumulation , which in turn produces a difference in the local electrochemical potentials for spin-up and -down electrons. The predicted spin polarization was probed in experiments, either by measuring the resistance of metallic devices  or in semiconducting systems  by studying the circular polarized photoluminescence.

In spite of the reported successes in the indirect detection of spin accumulation, there remain controversies about the results . In these methods one usually measures the resistance and for a typical experimental configuration some other effects related to interface scattering, anisotropic magnetoresistance, etc, can occur. Even the question whether in principle it is possible to observe the spin splitting of the electrochemical potential by spectroscopic methods (analogous to the tunneling spectroscopy for the superconducting gap) remains open. The reason is the fact that the spin accumulation is a nonequilibrium effect, and the splitting of electrochemical potential is always smaller than the applied bias (in contrast to the superconducting energy gap which does not depend on the applied voltage).

In this article, we propose a method of direct detecting the nonequilibrium spin splitting of the electrochemical potentials in ferromagnetic single-electron transistors (FM SETs), which is free of the difficulties met in the methods used previously. We show that the splitting can be read from the spacing between two resonances in the current-voltage characteristics. The resonances are separated due to the spin dependence of the electrochemical potentials, but in addition they are shifted by the charging energy due to Coulomb blockade effects.

Spin-dependent transport in ferromagnetic double-barrier tunnel junctions has been studied before, both experimentally  and theoretically in the sequential , cotunneling  and strong tunneling  regimes. The previous work covering the cotunneling regime is based on the approach developed by Averin and Nazarov  for nonmagnetic SETs, which, however, is valid only away from the resonance. On the other hand, exactly the resonance is crucial for the effects considered in this paper. Therefore, we extend the previous descriptions by using the diagrammatic real-time technique, developed for normal-metal SETs , and extend it to FM SETs with spin-dependent tunneling. We take into account single-barrier cotunneling processes , vertex correction and propagator renormalization.

The system under study consists of a small nonmagnetic metallic grain (island) connected to two ferromagnetic leads (electrodes) via tunnel barriers . Its Hamiltonian takes the form

$$H=\underset{\mathrm{r}=\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}{}H_\mathrm{r}+H_\mathrm{I}+H_{\mathrm{ch}}+H_\mathrm{T}H_0+H_\mathrm{T}.$$
(1)
Here $`H_\mathrm{r}=_{k\nu \sigma }ϵ_{k\nu \sigma }^\mathrm{r}a_{\mathrm{r}k\nu \sigma }^{}a_{\mathrm{r}k\nu \sigma }`$ (for $`r=L,R`$) and $`H_\mathrm{I}=_{q\nu \sigma }ϵ_{q\nu \sigma }c_{q\nu \sigma }^{}c_{q\nu \sigma }`$ describe noninteracting electrons in the two leads and island, respectively. The eigenstates of the leads and island are described by the wave-vectors $`k`$ and $`q`$, transverse channel index $`\nu `$, and spin $`\sigma `$. The Coulomb interaction on the island is accounted for by $`H_{\mathrm{ch}}=E_\mathrm{C}(\widehat{n}n_x)^2`$, where $`E_\mathrm{C}=e^2/2C`$ is the scale for the charging energy, and $`C=C_\mathrm{L}+C_\mathrm{R}+C_\mathrm{g}`$ is the total capacitance of the island, which is the sum of the left and right junction capacitances and the gate capacitance. The ‘external charge’ $`en_xC_\mathrm{L}V_\mathrm{L}+C_\mathrm{R}V_\mathrm{R}+C_\mathrm{g}V_\mathrm{g}`$ accounts for the effect of the applied voltages, $`V_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{R}`$ in the left and right electrodes and the gate voltage $`V_\mathrm{g}`$. The last part of the Hamiltonian, $`H_\mathrm{T}`$, describes tunneling processes and may be written as

$$H_\mathrm{T}=\underset{\mathrm{r}=\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}{}\underset{kq}{}\underset{\nu \sigma }{}T_{kq\nu }^{\mathrm{r}\sigma }a_{\mathrm{r}k\nu \sigma }^{}c_{q\nu \sigma }\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{\phi }}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(2)
The phase operator $`\widehat{\phi }`$ is the conjugate to the charge $`e\widehat{n}`$ on the island, and the operator $`e^{\pm i\widehat{\phi }}`$ describes changes of the island charge by $`\pm e`$.

When writing Eq. (2) we assumed that the electron spin and transverse channel index are conserved during tunneling. We further will assume for simplicity that the transfer matrix elements $`T_{kq\nu }^{\mathrm{r}\sigma }`$ are only dependent on the junction $`r`$ and the spin orientation $`\sigma `$, $`T_{kq\nu }^{\mathrm{r}\sigma }=T_\sigma ^\mathrm{r}`$. They can be related to the spin dependent tunneling resistance of the barriers via the relation $`1/R_{\mathrm{r}\sigma }=(2\pi e^2/\mathrm{})N\left|T_\sigma ^\mathrm{r}\right|^2D_{\mathrm{r}\sigma }D_\mathrm{I}`$, where $`D_{\mathrm{r}\sigma }`$ is the spin-dependent density of electron states at the Fermi level in the electrode $`\mathrm{r}`$, $`D_\mathrm{I}`$ the density of states per spin in the island, and $`N`$ the number of transverse channels.

We first ignore intrinsic spin-flip processes in the island, since usually the spin flip time $`\tau _{\mathrm{sf}}`$ is much longer than the time scale for the variation of the charge on the island and the energy relaxation time. Thus, we treat the two spin components of the electrons on the island as two independent electron reservoirs. They are characterized by Fermi distributions $`f_{\mathrm{I}\sigma }(E)=1/\{\mathrm{exp}[\beta (E\mu _{\mathrm{I}\sigma })]+1\}`$, where $`\mu _{\mathrm{I}\sigma }`$ are the corresponding spin dependent electrochemical potentials which are different in a general case, $`\mu _\mathrm{I}\mu _\mathrm{I}`$ . Without loss of generality we can choose the reference energy such that they satisfy $`\mu _\mathrm{I}=\mu _\mathrm{I}`$. Spin current conservation, as described later, fixes these values.

The grand-canonical density matrix of the system depends on the electrochemical potentials of the two spin components. Following the standard procedure  we expand it in $`H_\mathrm{T}(t)`$ and perform the trace over the reservoir degrees of freedom using Wick’s theorem. The electric current is given in the lowest order perturbation expansion by $`I^{(1)}=_\sigma I_{\mathrm{L}\sigma }^{(1)}=_\sigma I_{\mathrm{R}\sigma }^{(1)}`$, with

$`I_{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2e}{h}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[p_n^{(0)}+p_{n+1}^{(0)}\right]`$ (4)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)\alpha _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^+(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)\alpha ^+(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)\alpha _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)}{\alpha (\mathrm{\Delta }_n)}}.`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=E_{\mathrm{ch}}(n+1)E_{\mathrm{ch}}(n)`$ , and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^\pm (ϵ)`$ are the forward and backward propagators on the Keldysh contour in Fourier space,

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^\pm (ϵ)=\pm \alpha _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^0{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }}{\mathrm{exp}[\pm \beta (ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{\mathrm{r}\sigma })]1}}.`$ (5)
The dimensionless conductance of the junction $`r`$ for spin $`\sigma `$ is $`\alpha _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^0=h/(4\pi ^2e^2R_{\mathrm{r}\sigma })`$, $`ϵ`$ is the energy of the tunneling electron, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }=\mu _\mathrm{r}\mu _{\mathrm{I}\sigma }`$. Apart from this, $`\alpha ^\pm (ϵ)=_{\mathrm{r}\sigma }\alpha _{\mathrm{r},\sigma }^\pm (ϵ)`$, $`\alpha (ϵ)=\alpha ^+(ϵ)+\alpha ^{}(ϵ)`$, and the probabilities $`p_n^{(0)}`$ obey the equation $`p_n^{(0)}\alpha ^+(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)p_{n+1}^{(0)}\alpha ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)=0`$ with $`_np_n^{(0)}=1`$.

The dominant second order (cotunneling) contribution to the electric current can be divided into three parts, $`I^{(2)}=_{i=1}^3I_i^{(2)}`$, with $`I_i^{(2)}=_\sigma I_{i\mathrm{L}\sigma }^{(2)}=_\sigma I_{i\mathrm{R}\sigma }^{(2)}`$. These terms are given by the following equations:

$`I_{1\mathrm{r}\sigma }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2e}{h}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}p_n^{(0)}{\displaystyle }d\omega [\alpha ^{}(\omega )\alpha _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^+(\omega )`$ (7)
$`\alpha ^+(\omega )\alpha _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^{}(\omega )]\mathrm{Re}R_n(\omega )^2,`$
$`I_{2\mathrm{r}\sigma }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2e}{h}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(p_n^{(0)}+p_{n+1}^{(0)}\right)`$ (10)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)\alpha _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^+(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)\alpha ^+(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)\alpha _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)}{\alpha (\mathrm{\Delta }_n)}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }d\omega \alpha (\omega )\mathrm{Re}[R_n(\omega )^2+R_{n+1}(\omega )^2],`$
$`I_{3\mathrm{r}\sigma }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2e}{h}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(p_n^{(0)}+p_{n+1}^{(0)}\right)`$ (13)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Delta }_n}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)\alpha _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^+(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)\alpha ^+(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)\alpha _{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)}{\alpha (\mathrm{\Delta }_n)}}\right]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }d\omega \alpha (\omega )\mathrm{Re}[R_n(\omega )R_{n+1}(\omega )],`$
where $`R_n(\omega )=1/(\omega \mathrm{\Delta }_n+i0^+)1/(\omega \mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}+i0^+)`$. The terms $`I_2^{(2)}`$ and $`I_3^{(2)}`$ describe renormalization of the tunneling conductance and energy gap, respectively, and become important at resonance.

We have numerically evaluated the current for parallel (P) and antiparallel (AP) alignment of the electrode magnetizations. We assumed symmetric junctions such that for parallel alignment $`R_\mathrm{R}=R_\mathrm{L}=aR_\mathrm{Q}`$ and $`R_\mathrm{R}=R_\mathrm{L}=(1P)/(1+P)R_\mathrm{R}`$, where $`R_\mathrm{Q}=h/e^2`$ and we assume $`a=5`$. The parameter $`P`$ denotes the spin polarization of the electrodes - $`P=0.23`$ and $`0.40`$ for $`\mathrm{Ni}`$ and $`\mathrm{Fe}`$, respectively. For the antiparallel alignment one then finds $`R_\mathrm{R}=R_\mathrm{L}=aR_\mathrm{Q}`$, $`R_\mathrm{R}=R_\mathrm{L}=(1P)/(1+P)R_\mathrm{R}`$.

The spin accumulation on the island (or equivalently spin splitting of the electrochemical potential) is determined from the condition of spin current conservation

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{r}}{}}(I_{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^{(1)}+I_{\mathrm{r}\sigma }^{(2)})e\mu _\sigma D_\mathrm{I}/\tau _{\mathrm{sf}}=0.`$ (14)
Here the spin flip processes in the island are taken into account, and characterized by the relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{sf}}`$.

Equation (7) includes the components, which describe single-barrier cotunneling processes which transport spin but do not transport charge. They cancel after summation over the spin orientation and do not enter the current formula. On the other hand, they enter Eq. (14) and, by modifying the magnetic state of the island, have an indirect influence on the transport current.

In Fig. 1 we show the differential conductance for $`\mathrm{Ni}`$ and $`\mathrm{Fe}`$ electrodes in both parallel and antiparallel magnetic configurations, calculated for $`T/E_\mathrm{C}=0.02`$ in the absence of spin-flip processes. The corresponding value of tunnel magnetoresistance, $`\mathrm{TMR}(R_{\mathrm{AP}}R_\mathrm{P})/R_\mathrm{P}`$ where $`R_\mathrm{P}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{AP}}`$ are total resistances for parallel and antiparallel configuration respectively, is shown in Fig. 2(a). In the AP configuration the splitting of the conductance peak, resulting from the spin splitting of the electrochemical potential of the island, is well resolved (see Fig. 1(b)). Different splitting for Fe and Ni is due to different magnetic polarizations $`P`$ of these metals.

The magnitude of the associated spin accumulation is shown in Fig. 2(b). It is interesting to note that no spin accumulation, and consequently no splitting of the resonance, occurs in the P configuration (see Fig. 1(a)).

The cotunneling component of the current shows resonances when the bias voltage $`V`$ approaches the - effective - electrochemical potential of either spin component. The pure spin splitting of the electrochemical potentials is always smaller then the bias voltage. However, Coulomb blockade effects effectively shift the electrochemical potentials further by the charging energy (as illustrated in the diagram of Fig. 3). Due to this additional shift the resonances in the current should be resolvable. A direct observation of the resonances in the current may still be difficult because even at resonance cotunneling yields only a small fraction of the total current. The resonances are easier to detect in the differential conductance, which is shown in Fig. 1. For the interpretation of these results it should be noted that a resonance in the current corresponds to a maximum negative slope of the conductance.

Such an effect may also arise in the sequential tunneling limit  (high resistance junctions), but in that case it is not so evident and pronounced as in the cotunneling limit (see Fig. 1). The role of the cotunneling current is twofold: (i) the cotunneling current has a sharp maximum at resonance (described above), which can be easily detected on the conductance characteristics (see comparison of cotunneling and sequential limit in Fig. 1), and (ii) in the Coulomb blockade regime sequential tunneling is suppressed, so only the cotunneling processes contribute to spin accumulation (as can be concluded from Fig. 2(b) for $`eV/2E_\mathrm{C}<1`$).

In Fig. 4 we show the differential conductance versus gate $`V_\mathrm{g}`$ and transport $`V`$ voltages in a gray-scale plot for both P and AP magnetic configurations. The splitting of the resonance (shown in Fig. 1(b) for $`V_\mathrm{g}=0`$) is clearly visible in Fig. 4(b). From this figure one can read out the dependence of the electrochemical potential splitting on the transport voltage $`V`$. Figure 4(b) also shows that the splitting of the conductance peaks can be observed when the gate voltage $`V_\mathrm{g}`$ is varied and the bias voltage $`V`$ is fixed.

Generally, spin-flip relaxation processes suppress spin accumulation. Figure 5 shows the values of the voltage corresponding to the upper and lower resonances from Fig. 1(b) (maximum negative slopes of the conductance curves) as a function of the intrinsic spin relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{sf}}`$ on the island. Generally, the spin-relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{sf}}`$ depends on sample properties. For instance, in $`\mathrm{Al}`$ one finds $`\tau _{\mathrm{sf}}10^8s`$. For small islands, $`D_\mathrm{I}10^3/eV`$, and for the other parameters as in Fig. 1, one finds $`\tau _{\mathrm{sf}}R_\mathrm{Q}/h(R_\mathrm{L}+R_\mathrm{R})D_\mathrm{I}10^3`$. This means that the spin relaxation process is relatively slow and the value of the spin accumulation is close to its maximum value for $`\tau _{\mathrm{sf}}\mathrm{}`$. It is known that spin accumulation can be suppressed by a small perpendicular magnetic field (‘Hanle effect’) . In principle, this effect can be measured in the system under consideration and may be used to determine the spin relaxation time as well.

There are several experimental works  on ferromagnetic SETs both in the sequential and cotunneling regime with all electrodes (including island) ferromagnetic. The corresponding data, as well as the data obtained on ferromagnetic granular systems suggest that spin accumulation may occur in such systems, but there was no clear experimental evidence on this. But the range of the parameters indicates a possibility of a direct detection by the method proposed in this paper.

In conclusion, we have analyzed electron tunneling in ferromagnetic SETs in the cotunneling regime. We showed that the spin accumulation on the island can be observed directly in the current-voltage characteristics as a splitting of the resonance. The distance between two resonances arises due to the spin-splitting of the electrochemical potential due to spin accumulation. This effect should be observable experimentally, and could give clear evidence of the spin accumulation, overcoming the objections to the previous measurements .

The paper is supported by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under the Project No. 5 P03B 091 20 and the EU-COST program action P5. One of us (J.M.) would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the University and Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, where part of this work was performed.


text:
# Isoperimetric inequality for higher-dimensional black holes

## I Introduction

There is much interest in higher dimensional space-times in the context of the unified theory of elementary particles. It is exciting if the existence of extra dimensions is confirmed in high energy experiments. In this aspect, the notion of the brane world  is an attractive idea. This phenomelogical model provides us with a new way of thinking about our universe, in which a size of the extra dimensions can be large because the standard model particles and gauge interactions are confined to the boundary of the higher-dimensional space-time. According to this scenario, the gravitational interaction at the short distance determined by the size of the extra dimensions is modified effectively on the brane, so that we might be able to see the extra dimensions by the gravitational experiments below 1mm. If the extra dimensions are large, the higher dimensional Planck scale may be given by rather low energy. The possibility of TeV gravity, in which the fundamental Planck scale is set around TeV, has been much disscussed.

It is suggested that small black holes might be produced at LHC. This argument follows from the hoop conjecture; a black hole with horizon forms if and only if the typical length (hoop length) $`C`$ and the mass $`M`$ satisfies $`C4\pi GM`$. Note that this statement might be valid only for four space-time dimensions. The property of the higher-dimensional black holes have not so far been fully explored, though there is much attention to this issue . We need reliable knowledge about such black holes to predict phenomelogical results. We here consider black holes with small size compared with the extra dimensions, such that they are well described by the asymptotically flat black hole solutions (treatment of Planck size black holes is beyond the scope of this paper). The purpose of this paper is to consider the higher-dimensional generalization of the hoop conjecture.

In four dimensions, the hoop conjecture is believed to be valid. Though it is loosely formulated, it seems to have at least following three meanings: (i) If the massive object is compactified into a small region, there must be a black hole; (ii) A black hole is small; (iii) Highly deformed black hole does not form. The first one (i) has been proved by Schoen and Yau  (see also Ref. ), which can be regarded as the if part of the hoop conjecture. A precise statement concerning the second proposition (ii) is for example given by the Penrose inequality , which states that the square-root of the area of the apparent horizon $`A`$ is bounded above by the (ADM) mass: $`\sqrt{A}4\pi GM_{ADM}`$. Thus the Penrose inequality may serve as a part of the only if part of the hoop conjecture. For the last statement (iii), which is also the only if part of the conjecture, we rely on the numerical works (e.g. Refs. ). There is also a problem concerning the precise formulation of the conjecture, such as the definition of the hoop length $`C`$.

At first glance, the hoop conjecture is not valid for higher-dimensional space-times, since there is black string solutions. In four dimensions, the length scale of the horizon cannot be so much larger than the Schwarzschild radius, while this is not the case in higher dimensions. The simplest example is the four-dimensional Schwarzschild space-time times the real line, which is the five-dimensional vacuum solution representing the gravitational field of the infinitely long $`S^2\times 𝐑`$ black hole.

Nevertheless, we expect that higher dimensional black holes are also governed by some isoperimetric inequality. In what follows, we investigate initial data set for the five-dimensional Einstein equation and estimate the size of the black holes. Then we show the existence of such an isoperimetric inequality and give its physical reasoning.

## II Momentarily Static Initial Data Set for the Five-Dimensional Einstein Equation

Let us consider the initial data set $`(g_{\mu \nu },K_{\mu \nu })`$ on a four-dimensional Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^4`$, where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the induced metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^4`$ and $`K_{\mu \nu }=g_\mu {}_{}{}^{\lambda }{}_{}{}^{5}_{\lambda }^{}n_\nu `$ ($`n_\nu `$ denotes the unit normal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^4`$) is the extrinsic curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^4`$. The Hamiltonian and the momentum constraints are given by

$$RK_{\mu \nu }K^{\mu \nu }+K^2=16\pi G\varrho $$
(1)
and

$$_\nu (K^{\mu \nu }Kg^{\mu \nu })=8\pi GJ^\mu ,$$
(2)
respectively, where $`\varrho :={}_{}{}^{5}G(n,n)`$ denotes the energy density and $`J^\mu :=g^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{5}G_{\nu }^{}(n)`$ is the energy flux. Let us consider the momentarily static initial data set

$$K_{\mu \nu }=0$$
(3)
and assume the conformally flat metric

$$g=f^2\delta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,$$
(4)
Then the momentum constraint (2) is solved with $`J^\mu =0`$ and the Hamiltonian constraint (1) becomes

$`_0^2f={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}f^3\varrho ,`$ (5)
where $`_0`$ denotes the flat connection. We consider the vacuum case $`\varrho =0`$ so that an initial data is described by a harmonic function $`f`$ on $`E^4`$.

We are interested in the possibility of the formation of highly non-spherical black holes in higher dimensions. As typical cases in five dimensions, we shall consider the initial data sets for spindle, disk and ring shaped black holes.

### A Spherical Black Holes

A spherically symmetric black hole gives reference values of the volume, area and circumference of the horizon to the other cases discuessed below. We consider the metric with spherical symmetry of the form

$$g=f^2(r)\left[dr^2+r^2d\chi ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\chi (d\vartheta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta ^2d\phi ^2)\right],$$
(6)
and consider a point source at the origin,

$$f^3\varrho =\frac{M_{ADM}}{2\pi ^2r^2}\delta (r),$$
(7)
where $`M_{ADM}`$ is the ADM mass, that is, total gravitational mass of the system. Then the solution of Eq. (5) becomes

$$f=1+\frac{2GM_{ADM}}{3\pi r^2}.$$
(8)
This gives just an initial data for the Schwarzschild space-time.

The location of the black hole in the sense of the apparent horizon is given by the minimal surface for the momentarily static initial data set $`(K_{\mu \nu }=0)`$ A spherical minimal surface centered at the origin satisfies

$$\left(rf\right)_{,r}=0.$$
(9)
The solution of the above equation is given by

$$r=r_\mathrm{s}:=\left(\frac{2GM_{ADM}}{3\pi }\right)^{1/2}.$$
(10)
The volume of the minimal surface $`H_\mathrm{s}`$, area of its $`S^2`$-section $`S_\mathrm{s}`$ and the length of the circumference $`C_\mathrm{s}`$ of $`S`$ are given by

$`\mathrm{Vol}(H_\mathrm{s})`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi ^2\left[r_\mathrm{s}f(r_\mathrm{s})\right]^3=2\pi ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{8GM_{ADM}}{3\pi }}\right)^{3/2},`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{Area}(S_\mathrm{s})`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \left[r_\mathrm{s}f(r_\mathrm{s})\right]^2={\displaystyle \frac{32GM_{ADM}}{3}},`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{Length}(C_\mathrm{s})`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi r_\mathrm{s}f(r_\mathrm{s})=2\pi \left({\displaystyle \frac{8GM_{ADM}}{3\pi }}\right)^{1/2},`$ (14)
respectively.

### B Spindle Black Holes

Let us consider the metric with axial and spherical symmetry of the form

$$g=f^2(\rho ,z)\left[dz^2+d\rho ^2+\rho ^2(d\vartheta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta ^2d\phi ^2)\right],$$
(15)
and consider the uniform line source of the length $`L`$ located at $`z`$-axis,

$$f^3\varrho =\frac{M_{ADM}}{4\pi L\rho ^2}\delta (\rho )\theta \left(L/2|z|\right),$$
(16)
where $`\theta `$ is the Heaviside’s step function.

The solution of the Hamiltonian constraint (5) is given by

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2GM_{ADM}}{3\pi L}}{\displaystyle _{L/2}^{L/2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{\rho ^2+(z^{}z)^2}}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2GM_{ADM}}{3\pi L\rho }}\left(\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{z+L/2}{\rho }}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{zL/2}{\rho }}\right).`$ (18)
Note that this massive segment corresponds to another asymptotic end rather than the singularity. One may anyway fill up the segment with some spatially extended gravitational source.

Due to the geometric symmetry imposed, we have only to consider the minimal surface equation for the three-surface: $`\rho =r(\xi )\mathrm{sin}\xi `$, $`z=r(\xi )\mathrm{cos}\xi `$, given by

$`r_{,\xi \xi }4{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{,\xi })^2}{r}}3r+{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{,\xi })^2+r^2}{r}}[{\displaystyle \frac{r_{,\xi }}{r}}\mathrm{cot}\xi `$ (20)
$`3(r_{,\xi }\mathrm{sin}\xi +r\mathrm{cos}\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{f_{,z}}{f}}+3(r_{,\xi }\mathrm{cos}\xi r\mathrm{sin}\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{f_{,\rho }}{f}}]`$ (21)
$`=0,`$ (22)
with the boundary condition: $`r_{,\xi }=0`$ $`(\xi =0,\pi /2)`$, required from the regularity of the surface. The results are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

It seems that there always forms a black hole, however long the massive segment is. When $`L`$ is sufficently large, the conformal factor near the origin behaves as that of the infinite line source,

$$f1+\frac{2GM_{ADM}}{3L\rho }.$$
(23)
In the region where the conformal factor behaves as the above, the horizon is almost cylindrically symmetric and then is determined by

$$\left[\rho ^2\left(1+\frac{2GM_{ADM}}{3L\rho }\right)^3\right]_{,\rho }=0.$$
(24)
The root of the above equation is given by

$$\rho =\rho _\mathrm{c}:=\frac{GM_{ADM}}{3L}.$$
(25)
The length scale of circumference $`C_\mathrm{c}`$ of $`S_\mathrm{C}`$, the area of a section $`S_\mathrm{c}`$ ($`\theta =\pi /2`$), and the volume of a cylindrical horizon $`H_\mathrm{c}`$ of the black string ($`L/2<z<L/2`$) are given by

$`\mathrm{Length}(C_\mathrm{c})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3L}{2\pi r_\mathrm{s}}}\mathrm{Length}(C_\mathrm{s}),`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{Area}(S_\mathrm{c})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9\pi }{16}}\mathrm{Area}(S_\mathrm{s}),`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{Vol}(H_\mathrm{c})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{27\pi r_\mathrm{s}}{16L}}\mathrm{Vol}(H_\mathrm{s}).`$ (28)
These quantities are also depicted in Fig.2. From this figure, we can see that length scale, area and the volume of a spindle black hole approach to corresponding black string values in the limit of $`L\mathrm{}`$.

The area of the $`S^2`$-section $`S`$ of the horizon is always bounded above by the total mass:

$$\frac{\mathrm{Area}(S)}{32GM_{ADM}/3}<O(1).$$
(29)
### C Disk Black Holes

The result of the previous subsection shows that a horizon of arbitrarily large linear size can form in five dimensions. We here consider the possibility of disk shaped black holes. The following metric is appropriate for this problem.

$$g=f^2(x,y)(dx^2+dy^2+x^2d\psi ^2+y^2d\phi ^2).$$
(30)
This admits two orthogonal commuting Killing vector fields $`_\psi `$, $`_\phi `$ and $`\psi \psi +2\pi `$, $`\phi \phi +2\pi `$ are regarded as the coordinates on $`T^2`$.

We consider a uniform massive disk as a source,

$$f^3\varrho =\frac{M_{ADM}}{2\pi ^2D^2y}\delta (y)\theta (Dx).$$
(31)
The gravitational field outside the above source is given by

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2GM_{ADM}}{3\pi ^2D^2}}{\displaystyle _0^D}x^{}𝑑x^{}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\psi ^{}`$ (33)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(xx^{}\mathrm{cos}\psi ^{})^2+x^2\mathrm{sin}^2\psi ^{}+y^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2GM_{ADM}}{3\pi D^2}}\mathrm{ln}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y^2}}[D^2x^2+y^2`$ (35)
$`+\sqrt{(x^2+y^2)^22D^2(x^2y^2)+D^4}]|.`$
Let us search for the apparent horizon of the form $`x=r(\xi )\mathrm{cos}\xi `$, $`y=r(\xi )\mathrm{sin}\xi `$, determined by the differential equation

$`r_{,\xi \xi }4{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{,\xi })^2}{r}}3r+{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{,\xi })^2+r^2}{r}}[2{\displaystyle \frac{r_{,\xi }}{r}}\mathrm{cot}(2\xi )`$ (36)
$`3(r_{,\xi }\mathrm{sin}\xi +r\mathrm{cos}\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{f_{,x}}{f}}+3(r_{,\xi }\mathrm{cos}\xi r\mathrm{sin}\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{f_{,y}}{f}}]`$ (37)
$`=0,`$ (38)
subject to the boundary condition: $`r_{,\xi }=0`$ $`(\xi =0,\pi /2)`$.

The results are shown in Figs.3$``$6. We evaluate typical hoop length scales

$`\mathrm{Length}(C_1)`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}f\sqrt{(r_{,\xi })^2+r^2}𝑑\xi ,`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{Length}(C_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{2\pi fr\mathrm{cos}\xi ;\xi [0,\pi /2]\},`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{Length}(C_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{2\pi fr\mathrm{sin}\xi ;\xi [0,\pi /2]\},`$ (41)
typical area scales

$`\mathrm{Area}(S_1)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}f^2\sqrt{(r_\xi )^2+r^2}r\mathrm{sin}\xi d\xi ,`$ (42)
$`\mathrm{Area}(S_2)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}f^2\sqrt{(r_\xi )^2+r^2}r\mathrm{cos}\xi d\xi ,`$ (43)
$`\mathrm{Area}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{4\pi ^2f^2r^2\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\xi ;\xi [0,\pi /2]\},`$ (44)
and the volume of the horizon

$$\mathrm{Vol}(H)=2\pi ^2_0^{\pi /2}r^2f^3\sqrt{(r_{,\xi })^2+r^2}\mathrm{sin}2\xi d\xi .$$
(45)
It can be seen that the inequality (29) still holds in this case. Remarkably, a horizon does not form for large disks; we have not found a minimal surface for $`D>1.34`$.

### D Black Rings

In five-dimensional space-time, a black hole may have non-trivial topology , while in four dimensions, the apparent horizon must be homeomorphic to sphere . In particular, black rings homeomorphic to $`S^2\times S^1`$ are possible; Emparan and Reall have found explicitly a stationary black ring solution . We here show the validity of the inequality (29) for this black ring case. The metric used here is same as the disk case Eq. (30). The black ring will form if we put simply a uniform massive circle,

$$f^3\varrho =\frac{M_{ADM}}{4\pi ^2Cy}\delta (xC)\delta (y).$$
(46)
The conformal factor is then given by

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{GM_{ADM}}{3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi ^{}}{(xC\mathrm{cos}\psi ^{})^2+C^2\mathrm{sin}^2\psi ^{}+y^2}}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2GM_{ADM}}{3\pi \sqrt{(x+C)^2+y^2}\sqrt{(xC)^2+y^2}}}.`$ (48)
Let us search for the apparent horizon in the form: $`x=C+r(\xi )\mathrm{cos}\xi `$, $`y=r(\xi )\mathrm{sin}\xi `$. This surface is governed by the differential equation

$`r_{,\xi \xi }3{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{,\xi })^2}{r}}2r`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{,\xi })^2+r^2}{r}}[{\displaystyle \frac{r_{,\xi }\mathrm{sin}\xi +r\mathrm{cos}\xi }{r\mathrm{cos}\xi +C}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{,\xi }}{r}}\mathrm{cot}\xi `$ (50)
$`+3(r_{,\xi }\mathrm{sin}\xi +r\mathrm{cos}\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{f_{,x}}{f}}3(r_{,\xi }\mathrm{cos}\xi r\mathrm{sin}\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{f_{,y}}{f}}]`$ (51)
$`=0,`$ (52)
subject to the boundary condition $`r_{,\xi }=0`$ $`(\xi =0,\pi )`$.

The results are shown in Figs. (7), (8) and (9). We evaluate the typical hoop length scales

$`\mathrm{Length}(C_1)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^\pi }f\sqrt{(r_{,\xi })^2+r^2}𝑑\xi ,`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{Length}(C_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{2\pi fr\mathrm{cos}\xi ;\xi [0,\pi ]\},`$ (54)
$`\mathrm{Length}(C_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{2\pi fr\mathrm{sin}\xi ;\xi [0,\pi ]\},`$ (55)
typical area scales

$`\mathrm{Area}(S)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _0^\pi }f^2\sqrt{(r_\xi )^2+r^2}r\mathrm{sin}\xi d\xi ,`$ (56)
$`\mathrm{Area}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{4\pi ^2f^2r^2\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\xi ;\xi [0,\pi ]\},`$ (57)
and the volume of the black ring

$$\mathrm{Vol}(H)=4\pi ^2_0^\pi f^3\sqrt{(r_{,\xi })^2+r^2}r\mathrm{sin}\xi (r\mathrm{cos}\xi +C)𝑑\xi .$$
(58)
For large radius of the massive circle, there always exists a black ring. This can be expected from the result for the spindle case, since the local geometry around a large circle resembles that around a line source. On the other hand, a small circle makes a black hole homeomorphic to $`S^3`$ (See Figs. 101112 and 13). A new aspect found here is that both a black hole and a black ring form for a cirtain range of the radius of the circle. The inequality (29) is anyway satisfied, where the two-section of the horizon can be characteristic sphere or torus.

## III Conclusion

We have investigated the momentarily static, conformally flat initial data sets for the five-dimensional Einstein equation. We consider various configurations of the gravitational source and search for the apparent horizons.

For the line source of the Euclidean length $`L`$, a black hole can be found for arbitrary $`L`$, which can be contrasted with the corresponding four-dimensional situations. In four dimensions, a black hole does not form when $`L`$ is much larger than the Schwarzschild radius. The result here shows that the hoop length is not a good indicator of the horizon formation in higher dimensions. This can be interpreted as follows. For the line source of the mass $`M`$ and the length $`L(GM)^{1/(n2)}`$ in $`n`$-dimensional space, the effective gravitational field at the symmetric hyperplane will have $`(n1)`$-dimensional nature. For the line source in four dimensional space-time, the effective gravity on the hyperplane will be that of the $`(2+1)`$ dimensions, so that there does not form a black hole . In $`(n+1)`$-dimensional space-time, there will be a black hole of the radius $`R(GM/L)^{1/(n3)}`$.

From the above considerations, one can expect that the condition of horizon formation is determined by the effective number of codimensions of the gravitational source. The horizon will not form if the effective number of codimensions is less than three. We have confirmed this expectation by studying the horizon formation due to the disk source. Since the effective gravity produced by the disk with the radius $`D(GM)^{1/2}`$ is that of $`(2+1)`$-gravity, the horizon will not form for large disk sources. In fact, the apparent horizon can be found only when $`D`$ is less than or of order the Schwarzschild radius. We found that the good indicator of the horizon formation is the typical area scale of the system. In five-dimensional space-time, the condition for the horizon formation will be given by the inequality

$$\mathrm{Area}GM,$$
(59)
which can be regarded as the generalization of hoop conjecture for four-dimensional space-times. In other words, the scale of typical codimension-two submanifold of the horizon should be less than or of order the scale determined by the mass scale. This argument is independent of the space-time dimensions. The corresponding isoperimetric inequality for black holes in $`(n+1)`$-dimensional space-times will be

$$V_{n2}GM,$$
(60)
where $`V_{n2}`$ is the volume scale of characteristic codimension-two submanifold of the horizon.

An interesting feature of higher-dimensional black holes is that the horizon can have non-trivial topology. In five-dimensional space-times, the horizon can be a black hole ($`S^3`$), a black ring ($`S^2\times S^1`$) or their connected sums. For this reason, we have also investigated the condition for the black ring formation due to the circle source. The inequality (59) still holds in this case. For large (small) circles, they form a black ring (hole). However, for appropriate ranges of the circle radius, both the black ring and the black hole can be found such that the black hole encloses the black ring. Thus we can expect that at the final stage of the gravitational collapse of the black ring, new spherical black hole formes outside the black ring.

For large circle sources, the effective local gravity around the source will be that of $`(3+1)`$ dimensions. This is the physical reasoning of the possibility of the black ring in $`(4+1)`$ dimensions. While in $`(4+1)`$-dimensions, the torus horizon $`(T^3)`$ is forbidden. If all radiuses of $`S^1`$ of a torus source are large, then the effective gravity will be $`(2+1)`$-dimensional, while if one of $`S^1`$ is small, then the horizon will not be the torus anymore even if it forms. Though there is no topology theorem for six or higher-dimensional black holes, the torus topology might be forbidden.

For all examples studied here, the volume of the horizon is less than the spherical value:

$$\mathrm{Vol}(H)\mathrm{Vol}(H_\mathrm{s})=2\pi ^2\left(\frac{8GM_{ADM}}{3\pi }\right)^{3/2}.$$
(61)
This inequality resembles the Penrose inequality for black holes in (3+1) dimensions. Though the higher-dimensional generalization of the Penrose inequality is not known, similar inequality might exist.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank H. Ishihara, T. Mishima, K. Nakamura, T. Shiromizu, M. Siino, M. Yamaguchi, for useful discussion and comments.