text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

At present there are three families of quarks and leptons :

$$\begin{array}{cc}u& \nu _e\\ d& e\end{array};\begin{array}{cc}c& \nu _\mu \\ s& \nu \end{array};\begin{array}{cc}t& \nu _\tau \\ b& \tau \end{array}.$$
$`\left(2.1\right)`$
It is supposed that all available experimental data agree well with the standard model of the electroweak interaction  proposed by Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam for three quark and lepton families. In the framework of electroweak interactions, i.e. at $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson exchanges the transitions between different families do not take place. These transitions are realized beyond the electroweak interactions .

In the weak interactions $`P`$-parity is violated, in contrast to the electromagnetic and strong interactions. It is a distinctive feature of the weak interactions which leads to some consequences. At first we give elements of the electroweak model and then come to consideration of concrete remarks concerning these consequences.

## 2 Elements of the Standard Model of Electroweak Interactions and Some Remarks to This Model

Consider elements of the electroweak interactions model and concrete remarks.

2.1. Elements of the Standard Model of Electroweak Interaction

The Lagrangian of the theory contains left and right doublets of leptons and quarks,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{lL}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _l\\ l\end{array}\right)_L,\mathrm{\Psi }_{lR},l=e,\mu ,\tau ;$$

$$i=1i=2i=3$$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{iL}=\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\end{array}\right)_L,\left(\begin{array}{c}c\\ s\end{array}\right)_L,\left(\begin{array}{c}t\\ b\end{array}\right)_L,$$
$`\left(2.1\right)`$
and right singlets of charged leptons and quarks:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{iR}=u_R,d_R;c_R,s_R;t_R,b_R.$$

The theory is based on the local group $`SU\left(2\right)\times U\left(1\right)`$ and contains two coupling constants $`g,g^{}`$. The covariant derivatives have the following form:

$$_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_{lL}D_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_{lL}=\left[_\alpha ig\frac{\tau ^i}{2}A_\alpha ^iig^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{lept}B_\alpha \right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{lL},$$

$$_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_{iL}\left[_\alpha ig\frac{\tau ^i}{2}A_\alpha ^iig^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{quark}B_\alpha \right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{iL},$$
$`\left(2.2\right)`$
$$_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_{lR}\left[_\alpha i\frac{g^{}}{2}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{lept}B_\alpha \right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{lR},$$

$$_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_{iR}\left[_\alpha i\frac{g^{}}{2}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{quark}B_\alpha \right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{iR},$$

where $`A_\alpha ^i,B_\alpha `$ are the gauge fields associated with the groups $`SU\left(2\right)_L`$ and $`U\left(1\right)`$; $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is a hypercharge of the leptons and quarks.

The analog of the Gell-Mann-Nishijima relation in the considered case is

$$Q=T_3^W+\frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{2},$$
$`\left(2.3\right)`$
where $`Q`$ is the electric charge, and $`T_3^W`$ is the third projection of the weak isospin.

For the lepton and quark hypercharges, we obtain the following expressions using (2.3)

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_L^{lept}=1,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_L^{quark}=\frac{1}{3},$$
$`\left(2.4\right)`$
$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_R^{lept}=2,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_R^{quark}=2e_q,$$

where $`e_q`$ is the electrical charge of the corresponding quarks.

Using the standard scheme, we can pass from (2.2) and (2.4) to the following expression for the interaction Lagrangian:

$$_I=igj^{K,\alpha }A_\alpha ^K+ig^{}\frac{1}{2}j^{\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\alpha }B_\alpha ,$$
$`\left(2.5\right)`$
where

$$j^{K,\alpha }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{i,L}\gamma ^\alpha \frac{\tau ^K}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{l,L}+$$

$$\underset{l=e,\mu ,\tau }{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{l,L}\gamma ^\alpha \frac{\tau ^K}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{l,L},$$
$`\left(2.6\right)`$
and

$$\frac{1}{2}j^{\mathrm{{\rm Y}},\alpha }=j^{em,\alpha }j^{3,\alpha },$$
$`\left(2.7\right)`$
$`(j^{em,\alpha }`$ are electromagnetic current of the quarks and leptons).

On the transition from the fields $`A_\alpha ^3,B_\alpha `$ to the fields $`Z_\alpha ,A_\alpha `$

$$Z_\alpha =A_\alpha ^3\mathrm{cos}\theta _WB_\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta _W,$$
$`\left(2.8\right)`$
$$A_\alpha =A_\alpha ^3\mathrm{sin}\theta _W+B_\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta _W,$$

the interaction Lagrangian for the fields $`Z_\alpha ,A_\alpha `$ acquires the following form:

$$_I^o=i\frac{g}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}j^{o,\alpha }Z_\alpha +iej^{em,\alpha }A_\alpha ,$$
$`\left(2.9\right)`$
where $`j^{o,\alpha }=2j^{3,\alpha }2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _Wj^{em,\alpha }`$ \- neutral current of the standard model.

Note that the Lagrangians (2.5) and (2.9) are obtained for Dirac (particles) leptons and quarks with charges $`g,g^{}`$ or $`e,g`$ using the principle of local gauge invariance. If $`SU\left(2\right)_L\times U\left(1\right)`$ gauge invariance is required, the masses of all the particles must be equal to zero (i.e., in this theory particles cannot have masses . To obtain masses of the particles, the standard theory of the electroweak interaction based on the assumption of $`SU\left(2\right)_L\times U\left(1\right)`$ gauge invariance is broken spontaneously down to $`U\left(1\right)`$ through the Higgs mechanism . We briefly consider this mechanism for three quark family (lepton masses can be obtained in the analogous manner).

Common remarks concerning the Standard Model are given in the conclusion part after the discussion of concrete questions.

2.2. Higgs Mechanism in the standard Model and Remarks

2.2.1. Higgs Mechanism in the Standard Model

A doublet of scalar Higgs fields

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+)}\\ \mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(o\right)}\end{array}\right),$$
$`\left(10\right)`$
with hypercharge equal to unity (2.3) is introduced. It is assumed that this doublet interacts with the vector and fermion fields in such a way that local gauge invariance is not broken. To the Lagrangian of the electroweak theory there we add the Higgs potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi }^+,\mathrm{\Phi })`$

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi }^+,\mathrm{\Phi })=k(\mathrm{\Phi }^+,\mathrm{\Phi })^2\mu ^2(\mathrm{\Phi }^+,\mathrm{\Phi }),$$
$`\left(2.11\right)`$
($`k,\mu ^2`$ are positive constants), which leads to vacuum degeneracy and to a nonvanishing vacuum expectation value $`<\mathrm{\Phi }^o>`$ of the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^o`$:

$$<\mathrm{\Phi }^o>=\sqrt{\frac{\mu ^2}{2k}}=\frac{\nu }{\sqrt{2}},\nu =\sqrt{\frac{\mu ^2}{k}},$$
$`\left(2.12\right)`$
this means that (fixing the vacuum state) we can generate a mass term of the fields of the intermediate bosons, fermions, and Higgs boson.

In the unitary gauge by using (2.12) we can rewrite $`V\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$ in the following form ($`\nu ^2=\frac{\mu ^2}{k}`$):

$$V\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=\frac{\mu ^4}{2}\left(\nu +\mathrm{\Phi }^o\right)^2+\frac{k}{4}\left(\nu +\mathrm{\Phi }^o\right)^4$$

$$=\frac{\mu ^4}{4k}+\mu ^2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^o\right)^2+\mathrm{}=\frac{\mu ^4}{4k}+\frac{m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^o\right)^2+\mathrm{},$$
$`\left(13\right)`$
hence, we see that Higgs boson $`\mathrm{\Phi }^o`$ has mass $`m_{\mathrm{\Phi }^o}^2=2\mu ^2`$.

The covariant derivative for Higgs fields is

$$D_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }=\left(_\alpha ig\frac{\tau ^iA_\alpha ^i}{2}i\frac{g^{}}{2}B_\alpha \right)\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
$`\left(14\right)`$
The kinetic energy term of Higgs bosons (in the unitary gauge) has the following form:

$$\left(D^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }\right)^+D_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }=M_W^2W^{\alpha +}W_\alpha ^{}+\frac{M_Z^2}{2}Z^\alpha Z_\alpha +\mathrm{},$$
$`\left(15\right)`$
where $`W_\alpha ^\pm =\left(A_\alpha ^1\pm A_\alpha ^2\right)/\sqrt{2}`$, and their masses are

$$M_W^2=g^2\frac{\nu ^2}{4},M_Z^2=\left(g^2+g^2\right)\frac{\nu ^2}{4}.$$

The quark masses are obtained by using a Lagrangian of Yukawa type which is $`SU\left(2\right)_L\times U\left(1\right)`$ invariant:

$$_1=\underset{i;q=d,s,b}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{iL}M_{iq}^1q_R\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+H.C.,$$
$`\left(2.16\right)`$
$$_2=\underset{i;q=u,c,t}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{iL}M_{iq}^2q_R\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+H.C.,$$

where $`M^1,M^2`$ \- complex $`3\times 3`$ matrix, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=i\tau _2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }^o\\ \mathrm{\Phi }^+\end{array}\right),$$
$`\left(2.17\right)`$
is a doublet of Higgs fields with hypercharge $`Y=1`$.

Taking into account (2.12) and using the gauge invariance of the Lagrangian (2.13), (2.17), we can choose (in the unitary gauge)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(x\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \frac{\nu +\mathrm{\Phi }^o\left(x\right)}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(x\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{\nu +\mathrm{\Phi }^o\left(x\right)}{\sqrt{2}}\\ 0\end{array}\right),$$
$`\left(2.18\right)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^o\left(x\right)`$ is the neutral scalar Higgs field.

Substituting (2.18) in (2.16), for the quark masses we obtain the expressions

$$_1=\overline{p}_LM_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}p_R+H.C.,$$
$`\left(2.19\right)`$
$$_2=\overline{n}_LM_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}n_R+H.C.,$$

where

$$p_{L,R}=\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{L,R}\\ c_{L,R}\\ t_{L,R}\end{array}\right),n_{L,R}=\left(\begin{array}{c}d_{L,R}\\ s_{L,R}\\ b_{L,R}\end{array}\right).$$

Thus, the elements $`M_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{},M_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ of the quark mass matrix are equal to the constants of the quark-Higgs-boson Yukawa coupling up to the factor $`\nu `$.

2.2.2. Remarks to the Higgs Mechanism in the Electroweak Model

We know that quarks, leptons and vector bosons have their masses in every point of the Universe. Then Higgs fields must fill the Universe and since the masses are real masses, then Higgs fields must also be real (here we have an analogy with the superconductivity). If Higgs field is real, then the energy density of this field is $`\rho _{Higgs}210^{49}GeV/cm^3`$  (see also references in ). It is a huge value. The measured energy density in the Universe is $`\rho _{Univ}10^4GeV/cm^3`$. Then the relation of the energy density of the Higgs fields to the measured energy value is

$$\rho _{Higgs}/\rho _{Univ}10^{53}.$$
$`\left(2.20\right)`$
It is obvious that the Higgs mechanism must be excluded. Besides, Higgs mechanism contains a contradiction . We see that the Higgs mechanism is used to construct a theory without singularity, however our object is to construct a realistic physical theory. Then arises question: what are mass sources? There is some arguments that mass sources must be a mechanism which is analogous to the strong interactions , i.e. interactions between subparticles of quarks and leptons, then the problem of singularity of the theory does not arise.

2.3. Running Couple Constant in the Standard Weak Interactions and Remarks

2.3.1. Running Couple Constant in the Standard Weak Interactions

It is supposed that in the electroweak model the couple constants $`g,g^{}`$ depend on transfer momenta  and the equation for $`g\left(Q^2\right)`$ has the following form:

$$\frac{dg^1}{dlnQ^2}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[\frac{22}{3}\frac{4F}{3}\right],$$
$`\left(2.21\right)`$
where $`F`$ is family numbers ($`F=3`$) and $`Q^2`$ is a transfer momentum squared (here we consider only a weak part of the electroweak model since in the electromagnetic interactions there is renormalization of the couple constant). It means that in the weak interactions the vacuum polarization takes place as in the strong and electromagnetic interactions. It is necessary to remember that in the weak interactions in contrast to these interactions only the left components of fermion participate in the weak interactions.

If the couple constant of the weak interaction is renormalized, then the effective masses of fermions in matter also will be changed, i.e. the standard weak interaction can generate effective masses. It means that the resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter  will take place at the weak interactions.

2.3.2. Remarks About the Couple Constant of the Standard Weak Interactions

As we have stressed above, the distinctive feature of the weak interactions is violation of $`P`$ parity in these interactions. Now we will consider consequences of the distinctive feature for the couple constant of the weak interactions.

The simplest method to prove the absence of polarization in vacuum and matter is:

If we put an electrical (or strong) charged particle in the vacuum, there arises polarization of vacuum. Since the field around the particle is spherically symmetrical, the polarization must also be spherically symmetrical. Then the particle will be left at rest and the law of energy and momentum conservation is fulfilled.

If we put a weakly interacting particle (a neutrino) in the vacuum, then, since the field around the particle has a left-right asymmetry (weak interactions are left interactions with respect to the spin direction), polarization of the vacuum must be nonsymmetrical, i.e. on the left side there arises maximal polarization and on the right-there is zero polarization. Since polarization of the vacuum is asymmetrical, there arises asymmetrical interaction of the particle (the neutrino) with vacuum and the particle cannot be at rest and will be accelerated. Then neutrino will get the energy-momentum from the vacuum and the law of energy momentum conservation will be violated. The only way to fulfil the law of energy-momentum conservation is to require that polarization of vacuum be absent at the weak interactions. The same situation will take place in matter (do not mix it up with particle acceleration at the weak interactions!) .

About a direct method for proving the absence of polarization in the weak interactions see in Section 2.5.

It is interesting to remark that in the gravitational interaction the polarization does not exist either .

2.4. Generation of Masses in the Standard Model and the Mechanism of Resonance Enhancement of Neutrino Oscillations in Matter and Remarks

2.4.1. Generation of Masses in the Standard Model and the Mechanism of Resonance Enhancement of Neutrino Oscillations in Matter

At present there is a number of papers published (see  and references there) where by using the Green’s function method it is shown that the weak interactions can generate the resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter (it means that the weak interaction can generate masses, i.e. the energy $`W`$ of matter polarization by neutrinos (or the energy of the matter response ) will be differ from zero $`W0`$ ). This result is a consequence of using the weak interaction term $`H_\mu ^{int}=V_\mu \frac{1}{2}\left(1\gamma _5\right)`$ in an incorrect manner, and in the result they have obtained that the right-handed components of the fermions participate in the weak interactions .

2.4.2. Remarks to the Problem of Generation of Masses in the Standard Model and the Mechanism of Resonance Enhancement of Neutrino Oscillations in Matter

In three different approaches: by using mass Lagrangian , by using the Dirac equation , and using the operator formalism , I considered the problem of the mass generation in the standard weak interactions. The result was: the standard weak interaction cannot generate masses of fermions since the right-handed components of fermions do not participate in these interactions. Then using this result in works  it has been shown that the effect of resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter cannot exist (existence of this effect means that the law of energy-momentum conservation is violated).

The experimental data on energy spectrum and day-night effect obtained in Super-Kamiokande  (energy spectrum of neutrinos is not distorted, day-night effect is within the experimental mistakes) and the results obtained in SNO  have not confirmed this effect. Besides, this effect can be realized only at the violation of the law of the energy-momentum conservation (see Ref. ).

2.5. Problem of Connected (Bounded) States in the Standard Model of Weak Interactions

Now consider the problem of eigenstates and eigenvalues in the weak interactions . Let $`\widehat{F}`$ be an operator and we divide it into two parts. The first part $`\widehat{A}`$ characterizes the free particle, and the second part $`\widehat{B}`$ is responsible for the weak interaction, then

$$\widehat{F}=\widehat{A}+\widehat{B},$$

$$\widehat{F}\mathrm{\Psi }=\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Psi }+\widehat{B}\mathrm{\Psi },$$
$`\left(2.22\right)`$
and the mean value of $`\widehat{F}`$ is

$$(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},\widehat{F}\mathrm{\Psi })=(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Psi })+(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R,\widehat{B}\mathrm{\Psi }_L)+(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L,\widehat{B}\mathrm{\Psi }_R)=$$

$$(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Psi })+\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R0\right)(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R,\widehat{B}\mathrm{\Psi }_L)+$$
$`\left(2.23\right)`$
$$+\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_R0\right)(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L,\widehat{B}\mathrm{\Psi }_R)=(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Psi }).$$

The obtained result means that in the weak interactions there cannot arise the connected states in contrast to the strong and electromagnetic interactions.

Besides, the average of the polarization operators is equal to zero, i.e. the polarization of the matter is absent. In the same way we can show that the equation for renormcharge for the weak interaction is equivalent to the equation for the free charge, i.e. renormcharge $`g\left(t\right)`$ in the weak interactions (where $`t=Q^2`$ is a transfer momentum squared) does not change and $`g\left(t\right)=const`$  in contrast to renormcharges $`\alpha \left(t\right),g_{str}\left(t\right)`$ of the electromagnetic and strong interactions  (it is necessary to remark that the neutral current of the weak interactions includes a left-right symmetrical part which is renormalized).

So, at the weak interaction the connected states cannot arise, but also as in the strong and electromagnetic interactions, in the weak interactions we can use the perturbative theory but in this case the propagators must be the propagators of free particles (without renormalization).

## 3 Conclusion

So, we have considered some remarks to the standard approach to the weak interactions. Higgs mechanism contains contradictions, therefore cannot be considered as a realistic mechanism of mass generations. The couple constant of the weak interactions cannot be changed in dependence on momenta transfer (it leads to violation of the law of energy-momenta conservation), i.e. there it must be constant. It means that there is no charge vacuum polarization or renormalization of the couple constant of the weak interactions. Then it is clear that the resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter cannot exist either. Masses are not generated and connected states cannot form in these interactions since $`P`$-parity is violated. Then also as in the strong and electromagnetic interactions, in the weak interactions we can use the perturbative theory but in this case the propagators must be the propagators of free particles without renormalization. Probably the standard weak interactions model with $`W,Z`$ exchanges is analogous to the strong interactions with $`\pi `$ or $`\rho `$ exchanges and it is necessary to find fundamental interactions which generate this picture of the weak interactions and generate masses.

It is also possible that in the weak interactions the couple constant renormalization absent for singularity compensations as it take place in the supersymmetric theories .

References

1. Review of Part. Prop., The European Phys. Journ. C,

2000, v.15, N1-4.

2. Glashow S.L. Nucl. Phys. 1961, vol.22, p.579 ;

Weinberg S., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1967, vol.19, p.1264 ;

Salam A., Proc. of the 8-th Nobel Symp., edited by N. Svarthholm

(Almgvist and Wiksell, Stockholm) 1968,p.367.

3. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-93-44, Dubna, 1993.

4. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-93-167, Dubna, 1993.

5. Beshtoev Kh. M., Hadronic Journ. 1999, vol.22, p.477.

6. Higgs P.W., Phys. Lett., 1964, Vol.12, p.132; Phys.Rev., 1966,

vol.145, p.1156;

Englert F., Brout R., Phys. Rev. Lett, 1964, vol.13,p.321;

Guralnik G.S. et al., Phys. Rew. Lett, 1964, vol.13,p.585.

7. Langacker p., Phys. Rep. 1981, v.72, N4.

8. Beshtoev Kh. M. and Toth L., JINR Commun. E2-90-475,

Dubna, 1990;

Beshtoev Kh. M., JINR Commun. E2-92-195, Dubna,1992.

9. Beshtoev Kh. M., JINR Commun. E2-99-137, Dubna,1999;

JINR Commun. E2-99-306, Dubna,1999.

10. D.J. Gross and F. Wilczec, Phys. Rev. D9, 1974, p.980;

H.D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett., 30, 1973, p.1346;

A. Zee, Phys. Rev. D7, 1973, 3630;

G. Kane, Modern Elementary Particle Physics,

Univ. Michigan, 1987.

11. Wolfenstein L., Phys. Rev.D, 1978, vol.17, p.2369;

Mikheyev S.P., Smirnov A.Ju., Nuovo Cimento, 1986, vol.9,p.17.

12. Beshtoev Kh. M., JINR Commun. P2-2000-137, Dubna,2000;

Phys. Essays, 2000, v.13, p.593.

13. C.Y. Cardall, D.J. Chung, Phys. Rev.D 1999, v.60, p.073012.

14. Kh. M. Beshtoev, HEP-PH/9912532, 1999;

Hadronic Journal, 1999, v.22, p.235.

15. Beshtoev Kh. M., JINR Commun. E2-2000-30, Dubna, 2000.

16. Beshtoev Kh. M., JINR Commun. E2-2001-65, Dubna, 2001.

17. Kh.M. Beshtoev, Fiz. Elem. Chastitz At. Yadra (Phys.

Part. Nucl.), 1996, v.27, p.53.

18. Kajita T., Report on Intern. Conf. ”Neutrino98” Japan,

June, 1998;

Fukuda S. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 2001, v.86, p.5651.

19. Ahmad Q. R. et al., Internet Pub. nucl-ex/0106015, June 2001.

20. Kh. M. Beshtoev, JINR Commun. D2-2001-292, Dubna, 2001.

21. Kh. M. Beshtoev, JINR Commun. E2-94-221, Dubna, 1994.

22. P. Howe et al., Nucl. Phys. B214, 1983, p.519;

S. Mandelstam, Nucl. Phys. B213, 1983, p.149;

P. Howe et al., Phys. Lett. 124B, 1983, p.55;

A. V. Ermushin et al., Nucl. Phys. B281, 1987, p.72.


format: text

text:
# Surfaces in 𝕊^𝟑 and ℍ^𝟑 via Spinors

## 1. Introduction

It is well known that a description of a conformal immersion of an arbitrary surface $`M^2^3`$ by a spinor field $`\phi `$ on $`M^2`$ satisfying the inhomogenous Dirac equation

$$D\phi =H\phi ,$$
(1)
(where $`D`$ stands for the Dirac operator and $`H`$ for the mean curvature of the surface), is possible. Recently, many authors investigated such a description (see for example ,).

In fact, it is clear that any oriented immersed surface $`M^2^3`$ inherits from $`^3`$ a solution of Equation (1), the surface $`M`$ being endowed with the induced metric and the induced spin structure. Moreover, the solution has constant length. This solution is obtained by the restriction to the surface of a parallel spinor field on $`^3`$. In , T. Friedrich clarifies the above-mentioned representation of surfaces in $`^3`$ in a geometrically invariant way by proving the following:

###### Theorem 1.1 (Friedrich ).

Let $`(M^2,g)`$ be an oriented, $`2`$-dimensional manifold and $`H:M`$ a smooth function. Then the following data are equivalent:

1. An isometric immersion $`(\stackrel{~}{M}^2,g)^3`$ of the universal covering $`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ into the Euclidean space $`^3`$ with mean curvature $`H`$.
2. A solution $`\phi `$ of the Dirac equation

$$D\phi =H\phi ,$$

with constant length $`|\phi |1`$.
3. A pair $`(\phi ,T)`$ consisting of a symmetric endomorphism $`T`$ of the tangent bundle $`TM`$ such that $`\mathrm{tr}(T)=H`$ and a spinor field $`\phi `$ satisfying, for any $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$, the equation

$$_X\phi +T(X)\phi =0.$$

In this paper, we prove the analoguous characterizations for surfaces in $`𝕊^3`$ and $`^3`$ (Theorems 4.1 and 4.2). They are obtained by studying the equation of restrictions to a surface of real and imaginary Killing spinor fields (compare with ).

We note that the involved symmetric endomorphism $`T`$ is the energy-momentum tensor associated with the restricted Killing spinor which describes the immersion.

Finally, the case of the hypersurfaces of $`^4`$ is treated (Theorem 5.3).

## 2. Restricting Killing spinor fields to a surface

Let $`N^3`$ be a $`3`$-dimensional oriented Riemannian manifold, with a fixed spin structure. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ the spinor bundle associated with this spin structure. If $`M^2`$ is an oriented surface isometrically immersed into $`N^3`$, denote by $`\nu `$ its unit normal vector field. Then $`M^2`$ is endowed with a spin structure, canonically induced by that of $`N^3`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ the corresponding spinor bundle. The following proposition is essential for what follows (see for example ,,,):

###### Proposition 2.1.

There exists an identification of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{|M}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$, which after restriction to $`M`$, sends every spinor field $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }N)`$ to the spinor field denoted by $`\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$. Moreover, if $`\underset{𝑁}{}`$ (resp. $``$) stands for Clifford multiplication on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$), then one has

$$(X\underset{𝑁}{}\nu \underset{𝑁}{}\psi )^{}=X\psi ^{},$$
(2)
for any vector field $`X`$ tangent to $`M`$.

Another important formula is the well-known spinorial Gauss formula: if $`^N`$ and $``$ stand for the covariant derivatives on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }N)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$ respectively, then, for all $`XTM`$ and $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }N)`$

$$(_X^N\psi )^{}=_X\psi ^{}+\frac{1}{2}h(X)\psi ^{},$$
(3)
where $`h`$ is the second fundamental form of the immersion $`MN`$ viewed as a symmetric endomorphism of the tangent bundle of $`M`$.

Assume now that $`N^3`$ admits a non-trivial Killing spinor field of Killing constant $`\eta `$, i.e., a spinor field $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }N)`$ satisfying

$$_Y^N\mathrm{\Phi }=\eta Y\underset{𝑁}{}\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(4)
for all vector field $`Y`$ on $`N`$. Recall that $`\eta `$ has to be real or pure imaginary and that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ never vanishes on $`N`$, as a non-trivial parallel section for a modified connection (see ,). In what follows, we will consider the model spaces, with their standard metrics, $`^3`$ with $`\eta =0`$, $`𝕊^3`$ with $`\eta =1/2`$, and $`^3`$ with $`\eta =i/2`$ which are characterized by the fact that they admit a maximal number of linearly independant Killing spinor fields with constant $`\eta `$.

Let $`(e_1,e_2)`$ be a positively oriented local orthonormal basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$ such that $`(e_1,e_2,\nu )`$ is a positively oriented local orthonormal basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(TN)_{|M}`$. Denote by

$$\omega _3=e_1\underset{𝑁}{}e_2\underset{𝑁}{}\nu $$

the complex volume form on the complex Clifford bundle $`lN`$ and $`\omega =e_1e_2`$ the real volume form on $`lM`$. Recall that $`\omega _3`$ acts by Clifford multiplication as the identity on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$. Therefore, denoting $`\phi :=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, formula (2) yields

$$(e_1\underset{𝑁}{}\mathrm{\Phi })^{}=(e_1\underset{𝑁}{}e_1\underset{𝑁}{}e_2\underset{𝑁}{}\nu \underset{𝑁}{}\mathrm{\Phi })^{}=e_2\phi =e_1\omega \phi $$

$$(e_2\underset{𝑁}{}\mathrm{\Phi })^{}=(e_2\underset{𝑁}{}e_1\underset{𝑁}{}e_2\underset{𝑁}{}\nu \underset{𝑁}{}\mathrm{\Phi })^{}=e_1\phi =e_2\omega \phi $$

and

$$(\nu \underset{𝑁}{}\mathrm{\Phi })^{}=(\nu \underset{𝑁}{}e_1\underset{𝑁}{}e_2\underset{𝑁}{}\nu \underset{𝑁}{}\mathrm{\Phi })^{}=\omega \phi .$$

Then, these last relations with Equations (3) and (4) show that

$$XTM,_X\phi +\frac{1}{2}h(X)\phi +\eta X\omega \phi =0$$
(5)
Recall that the spinor bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ splits into

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }M=\mathrm{\Sigma }^+M\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}M$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm M`$ is the $`\pm 1`$-eigenspace for the action of the complex volume forme $`\omega _2=i\omega `$. Under this decomposition, we will denote $`\phi =\phi ^++\phi ^{}`$, and define $`\overline{\phi }:=\phi ^+\phi ^{}`$. Therefore Equation (5) is equivalent to

$$_X\phi +\frac{1}{2}h(X)\phi i\eta X\overline{\phi }=0.$$

The ambient spinor bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ can be endowed with a Hermitian inner product $`(,)_N`$ for which Clifford multiplication by any vector tangent to $`N`$ is skew-symmetric. This product induces another Hermitian inner product on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$, denoted by $`(,)`$ making the identification of Proposition 2.1 an isometry. Now, relation (2) shows that Clifford multiplication by any vector tangent to $`M`$ is skew-symmetric with respect to $`(,)`$.

###### Proposition 2.2.

If $`\eta `$, then $`\phi `$ has constant length. If $`\eta i^{}`$, then for all vector $`X`$ tangent to $`M`$,

$$X|\phi |^2=2\mathrm{}(i\eta X\overline{\phi },\phi ).$$

###### Proof.

Since Clifford multiplication by any vector tangent to $`M`$ is skew-symmetric with respect to $`(,)`$, we have $`\mathrm{}(Y\phi ,\phi )=0`$ for all $`YTM`$. Taking this fact into account and computing

$$X|\phi |^2=2\mathrm{}(_X\phi ,\phi )$$

with the help of formula (5), completes the proof. ∎

Recalling that the Dirac operator $`D`$ is defined on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$ by

$$D=e_1_{e_1}+e_2_{e_2},$$

we compute directly that

$$D\phi =H\phi +2\eta \omega \phi =H\phi 2i\eta \overline{\phi }$$

where $`H`$ is the mean curvature of the immersion $`MN`$. It is well known that the action of the Dirac operator satisfies $`(D\phi )^\pm =D\phi ^{}`$ (see ,). Therefore, we note that

$$D(\phi ^\pm )=(H\pm 2i\eta )\phi ^{}.$$
(6)
We have as in  the following

###### Proposition 2.3.

Let $`M^2`$ be a minimal surface in $`N^3`$. Then the restriction of any Killing spinor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with constant $`\eta `$ on $`N^3`$ restricts to an eigenspinor $`\phi ^{}`$ on the surface $`M`$:

$$D\phi ^{}=2\eta \phi ^{}$$

Moreover, if $`\eta `$ is real, then $`\phi ^{}`$ has constant length.

###### Proof.

Since $`H=0`$, we have

$$D(\phi ^\pm )=\pm 2i\eta \phi ^{}.$$

Therefore, it suffices to define $`\phi ^{}=\phi ^++i\phi ^{}`$. ∎

## 3. Solutions of the restricted Killing spinor equation

Let $`(M^2,g)`$ be an oriented, 2-dimensional Riemannian manifold with a spin structure. We endow the spinor bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ with a Hermitian inner product $`(,)`$ for which Clifford multiplication by any vector tangent to $`M`$ is skew-symmetric.

We study now some properties of a given solution $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$ of the following equation

$$_X\phi +T(X)\phi i\eta X\overline{\phi }=0,$$
(7)
or equivalently

$$_X\phi +T(X)\phi +\eta X\omega \phi =0,$$
(8)
where $`T`$ stand for a symmetric endomorphism of the tangent bundle of $`M`$, and $`\eta i`$.

In view of the preceding section and for reasons which will become clearer later, we will call this equation the restricted Killing spinor equation . The following proposition shows the role of solutions of the restricted Killing spinor equation in the theory of surfaces in $`^3`$, $`𝕊^3`$ and $`^3`$. In fact, we see that the integrability conditions for such sections of the spinor bundle are exactly the Gauß and Codazzi-Mainardi equations.

In the following, $`(e_1,e_2)`$ denotes a positively oriented local orthonormal basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Assume that $`(M^2,g)`$ admits a non trivial solution of Equation (7) and let $`S=2T`$, then

$$(_XS)(Y)=(_YS)(X)\text{(Codazzi-Mainardi Equation),}$$

and

$$R_{1212}det(S)=4\eta ^2\text{(Gauß Equation),}$$

where $`R_{1212}=g(R(e_1,e_2)e_2,e_1)`$, and $`R`$ is the Riemann tensor of $`M`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\phi `$ a non-trivial solution of (7). We compute the action of the spinorial curvature tensor $``$ on $`\phi `$ defined for all $`X,YTM`$ by

$$(X,Y)\phi =_X_Y\phi _Y_X\phi _{[X,Y]}\phi .$$

Since it is skew-symmetric and $`dimM=2`$, with the help of formula (8), we only compute

$`_{e_1}_{e_2}\phi `$ $`=`$ $`_{e_1}(T(e_2)\phi \eta e_2\omega \phi )`$
$`=`$ $`_{e_1}(T(e_2)\phi \eta e_1\phi )`$
$`=`$ $`_{e_1}T(e_2)\phi T(e_2)_{e_1}\phi \eta _{e_1}e_1\phi \eta e_1_{e_1}\phi `$
$`=`$ $`_{e_1}T(e_2)\phi +T(e_2)T(e_1)\phi \eta T(e_2)e_2\phi `$
$`\eta _{e_1}e_1\phi +\eta e_1T(e_1)\phi \eta ^2e_1e_2\phi `$
as well as

$`_{e_2}_{e_1}\phi `$ $`=`$ $`_{e_2}T(e_1)\phi +T(e_1)T(e_2)\phi +\eta T(e_1)e_1\phi `$
$`+\eta _{e_2}e_2\phi \eta e_2T(e_2)\phi +\eta ^2e_1e_2\phi .`$
So, taking into account that $`[e_1,e_2]=_{e_1}e_2_{e_2}e_1`$, a straightforward computation gives

$`(e_1,e_2)\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\left((_{e_2}T)(e_1)(_{e_1}T)(e_2)\right)\phi `$ (9)
$`\left(T(e_1)T(e_2)T(e_2)T(e_1)\right)\phi `$
$`2\eta ^2e_1e_2\phi `$
On the other hand, it is well known that this spinorial curvature tensor corresponds to the Riemann tensor $`R`$ of $`M`$ via the relation

$$(e_1,e_2)\phi =\frac{1}{2}R_{1212}e_1e_2\phi .$$
(10)
Now, it is easy to see that

$$T(e_1)T(e_2)T(e_2)T(e_1)=2det(T)e_1e_2$$

and therefore, if we put $`S=2T`$ and define the function

$$G:=R_{1212}det(S)4\eta ^2$$

and the vector field

$$C:=(_{e_1}S)(e_2)(_{e_2}S)(e_1),$$

Equations (9) and (10) yield

$$C\phi =Ge_1e_2\phi .$$

Note that $`e_1e_2\phi =i\overline{\phi }`$, hence

$$C\phi ^\pm =\pm iG\phi ^{}.$$

Applying two times this relation, it suffices to note that

$$C^2\phi ^\pm =G^2\phi ^\pm ,$$

and so $`C=0`$ and $`G=0`$. ∎

Note that up to rescaling, we can take $`\eta =0`$, $`1/2`$, or $`i/2`$. The case $`\eta =0`$ is treated in  and is the starting point of the proof of Theorem 1.1. We will discuss the cases $`\eta =1/2`$ and $`\eta =i/2`$ separately. We begin by

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`\phi `$ be a non trivial solution of the restricted Killing spinor equation (7). Then

* if $`\eta =1/2`$, $`\phi `$ has constant norm and the symmetric endomorphism $`T`$, viewed as a covariant symmetric $`2`$-tensor, is given by

$$T(X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}(X_Y\phi +Y_X\phi ,\phi /|\phi |^2)$$
* if $`\eta =i/2`$, $`\phi `$ satisfies $`X|\phi |^2=\mathrm{}(X\overline{\phi },\phi )`$ and one has

$$T(X,Y)|\phi |^2=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}(X_Y\phi +Y_X\phi ,\phi )+\frac{1}{2}\left(|\phi ^{}|^2|\phi ^+|^2\right)g(X,Y)$$

###### Proof.

The first claim of each case is proved in Proposition 2.2. Let $`T_{jk}=g(T(e_j),e_k)`$, then, for $`j=1,2`$,

$$_{e_j}\phi =\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}T_{jk}e_k\phi +i\eta e_j\overline{\phi }.$$

Taking Clifford multiplication by $`e_l`$ and the scalar product with $`\phi `$, we get

$$\mathrm{}(e_l_{e_j}\phi ,\phi )=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}T_{jk}\mathrm{}(e_le_k\phi ,\phi )+\mathrm{}(i\eta e_le_j\overline{\phi },\phi ).$$

Since $`\mathrm{}(e_le_k\phi ,\phi )=\delta _{lk}|\phi |^2`$, it follows, by symmetry of $`T`$

$$\mathrm{}(e_l_{e_j}\phi +e_j_{e_l}\phi ,\phi )=2T_{lj}|\phi |^22\mathrm{}(i\eta \overline{\phi },\phi )\delta _{lj}.$$

This completes the proof by taking $`\eta =1/2`$ or $`\eta =i/2`$. ∎

Now, we prove that the necessary conditions on a spinor field $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$ obtained in the previous section (i.e. Proposition 2.2 and Equation (6)) are enough to prove that $`\psi `$ is a solution of the restricted Killing spinor equation.

The case $`\eta \mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$: Consider a non-trivial spinor field $`\psi `$ of constant length, which satisfies $`D\psi ^\pm =(H\pm i)\psi ^{}`$. Define the following $`2`$-tensors on $`(M^2,g)`$

$$T^\pm (X,Y)=\mathrm{}(_X\psi ^\pm ,Y\psi ^{}).$$

First note that

$$\mathrm{tr}T^\pm =\mathrm{}(D\psi ^\pm ,\psi ^{})=\mathrm{}((H\pm i)\psi ^{},\psi ^{})=H|\psi ^{}|^2.$$
(11)
We have the following relations

$`T^\pm (e_1,e_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}(_{e_1}\psi ^\pm ,e_2\psi ^{})=\mathrm{}(e_1_{e_1}\psi ^\pm ,e_1e_2\psi ^{})`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}(D\psi ^\pm ,e_1e_2\psi ^{})\mathrm{}(e_2_{e_2}\psi ^\pm ,e_1e_2\psi ^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}((H\pm i)\psi ^{},e_1e_2\psi ^{})+\mathrm{}(_{e_2}\psi ^\pm ,e_1\psi ^{})`$
$`=`$ $`|\psi ^{}|^2+T^\pm (e_2,e_1).`$
###### Lemma 3.3.

The $`2`$-tensors $`T^\pm `$ are related by the equation

$$|\psi ^+|^2T^+=|\psi ^{}|^2T^{}$$

###### Proof.

This relation is trivial at any point $`pM`$ where $`|\psi ^+|^2`$ or $`|\psi ^{}|^2`$ vanishes. Therefore we can assume in the following that both spinors $`\psi ^+`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ are not zero in the neighbourhood of a point in $`M`$.

With respect to the scalar product $`\mathrm{}(,)`$, the spinors

$$e_1\frac{\psi ^{}}{|\psi ^{}|}\text{ and }e_2\frac{\psi ^{}}{|\psi ^{}|}$$

form a local orthonormal basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+M)`$. Hence, in this basis, we can write

$`_X\psi ^+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}(_X\psi ^+,e_1{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{|\psi ^{}|}})e_1{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{|\psi ^{}|}}+\mathrm{}(_X\psi ^+,e_2{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{|\psi ^{}|}})e_2{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{|\psi ^{}|}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T^+(X)}{|\psi ^{}|^2}}\psi ^{}`$
where the vector field $`T^+(X)`$ is defined by

$$g(T^+(X),Y)=T^+(X,Y),YTM.$$

In the same manner, we can show that

$$_X\psi ^{}=\frac{T^{}(X)}{|\psi ^+|^2}\psi ^+.$$

Since $`\psi `$ has constant length, for all vector $`X`$ tangent to $`M`$, we have

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`X|\psi |^2=X(|\psi ^+|^2+|\psi ^{}|^2)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{}(_X\psi ^+,\psi ^+)+2\mathrm{}(_X\psi ^{},\psi ^{})`$
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{}(W(X)\psi ^{},\psi ^+)`$
with

$$W(X)=\frac{T^+(X)}{|\psi ^{}|^2}\frac{T^{}(X)}{|\psi ^+|^2}.$$

To conclude, it suffices to note that Equations (11) and (12) imply $`W`$ is traceless and symmetric, and that Equation (13) implies that $`W`$ has rank less or equal to $`1`$. This obviously implies $`W=0`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.4.

Assume that there exists on $`(M^2,g)`$ a non-trivial solution $`\psi `$ of the equation $`D\psi =H\psi i\overline{\psi }`$ with constant length. Then such a solution satisfies the restricted Killing spinor equation with $`\eta =1/2`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`F:=T^++T^{}`$. Lemma 3.3 and the begining of its proof imply

$$\frac{F}{|\psi |^2}=\frac{T^+}{|\psi ^{}|^2}=\frac{T^{}}{|\psi ^+|^2}.$$

Hence $`F/|\psi |^2`$ is well defined on the whole surface $`M`$, and

$$_X\psi =_X\psi ^++_X\psi ^{}=\frac{F(X)}{|\psi |^2}\psi $$
(14)
where the vector field $`F(X)`$ is defined by $`g(F(X),Y)=F(X,Y)`$, $`YTM.`$ Note that by Equation (12), the $`2`$-tensor $`F`$ is not symmetric. Define now the symmetric $`2`$-tensor

$$T(X,Y)=\frac{1}{2|\psi |^2}\left(F(X,Y)+F(Y,X)\right).$$

Observe that $`T`$ is defined as in Lemma 3.2. It is straigthforward to show that

$$T(e_1,e_1)=F(e_1,e_1)/|\psi |^2,T(e_2,e_2)=F(e_2,e_2)/|\psi |^2,$$

$$T(e_1,e_2)=F(e_1,e_2)/|\psi |^2+\frac{1}{2}\text{and}T(e_2,e_1)=F(e_2,e_1)/|\psi |^2\frac{1}{2}$$

once more by Equation (12). Taking into account these last relations in Equation (14), we conclude

$$_X\psi =T(X)\psi \frac{1}{2}X\omega \psi .$$

The case $`\eta \mathbf{=}i\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$:

###### Proposition 3.5.

Assume that there exists on $`(M^2,g)`$ a nowhere vanishing solution $`\psi `$ of the equation $`D\psi =H\psi +\overline{\psi }`$. Then, if this solution satisfies

$$X|\psi |^2=\mathrm{}(X\overline{\psi },\psi ),X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM),$$

then it is solution of the restricted Killing spinor equation with $`\eta =i/2`$.

###### Proof.

Defining the $`2`$-tensors $`T^\pm `$ as in the previous case, we get

$$\mathrm{tr}T^\pm =(H1)|\psi ^{}|^2,$$
(15)
and

$$T^\pm (e_1,e_2)=T^\pm (e_2,e_1).$$
(16)
First note that

$$\mathrm{}(X\overline{\psi },\psi )=\mathrm{}(X\psi ^+,\psi ^{})+\mathrm{}(X\psi ^{},\psi ^+)=2\mathrm{}(X\psi ^{},\psi ^+).$$

Therefore, following the proof of Lemma 3.3, we get

$$\mathrm{}(X\psi ^{},\psi ^+)=\mathrm{}(W(X)\psi ^{},\psi ^+)$$
(17)
with

$$W(X)=\frac{T^+(X)}{|\psi ^{}|^2}\frac{T^{}(X)}{|\psi ^+|^2}.$$

As in the previous case, Equations (15), (16) and (17) imply that $`W\mathrm{Id}_{TM}`$ is a symmetric, traceless endomorphism of rank not greater than $`1`$, hence $`W=\mathrm{Id}_{TM}`$ and we have the relation

$$|\psi ^+|^2T^+|\psi ^{}|^2T^{}=|\psi ^+|^2|\psi ^{}|^2g.$$

Therefore, if we define the symmetric $`2`$-tensor $`F=T^++T^{}+\frac{1}{2}(|\psi ^+|^2|\psi ^{}|^2)g`$, we have on the whole surface $`M`$

$$\frac{F}{|\psi |^2}=\frac{T^++T^{}+(|\psi ^+|^2|\psi ^{}|^2)g}{|\psi ^+|^2+|\psi ^{}|^2}=\frac{T^{}}{|\psi ^+|^2}+\frac{1}{2}g=\frac{T^+}{|\psi ^{}|^2}\frac{1}{2}g.$$

On the other hand, we get

$$_X\psi =_X\psi ^++_X\psi ^{}=\frac{T^+(X)}{|\psi ^{}|^2}\psi ^{}+\frac{T^{}(X)}{|\psi ^+|^2}\psi ^+.$$

These two last equations imply

$$_X\psi =\frac{F(X)}{|\psi |^2}(\psi ^++\psi ^{})+\frac{1}{2}X\psi ^{}\frac{1}{2}X\psi ^+,$$

which is equivalent to

$$_X\psi =T(X)\psi \frac{1}{2}X\overline{\psi }.$$

Naturally, we put $`T=\frac{F}{|\psi |^2}`$ and note that $`T`$ is defined as in Lemma 3.2. ∎

## 4. Surfaces in $`𝕊^3`$ or $`^3`$

We are now able to generalize Theorem 1.1 to surfaces in $`𝕊^3`$ or $`^3`$. In section 2, we saw that an oriented, immersed surface $`M^2𝕊^3`$ (resp. $`^3`$) inherits an induced metric $`g`$, a spin structure, and a solution $`\phi `$ of

$$D\phi =H\phi i\overline{\phi }\text{(resp. }D\phi =H\phi +\overline{\phi }\text{)}$$
(18)
with constant length (resp. with $`X|\phi |^2=\mathrm{}(X\overline{\phi },\phi )`$ for all vector $`X`$ tangent to $`M`$). This spinor field $`\phi `$ on $`M^2`$ is the restriction of a real (resp. imaginary) Killing spinor field in $`𝕊^3`$ (resp. $`^3`$). Section 3 shows that at least locally the converse is true. Assume that there exists a solution of Equation (18) on an oriented, $`2`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold $`(M^2,g)`$ endowed with a spin structure, for a given function $`H:M`$. Then this solution satisfies the restricted Killing spinor equation with a well defined endomorphism $`T:TMTM`$ with $`\mathrm{tr}T=H`$. Moreover, there exists an isometric immersion $`(M^2,g)𝕊^3`$ (resp. $`^3`$) with second fundamental form $`S=2T`$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`(M^2,g)`$ be an oriented, $`2`$-dimensional manifold and $`H:M`$ a smooth function. Then the following data are equivalent:

1. An isometric immersion $`(\stackrel{~}{M}^2,g)𝕊^3`$ of the universal covering $`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ into the $`3`$-dimensional round sphere $`𝕊^3`$ with mean curvature $`H`$.
2. A solution $`\phi `$ of the Dirac equation

$$D\phi =H\phi i\overline{\phi }$$

with constant length.
3. A pair $`(\phi ,T)`$ consisting of a symmetric endomorphism $`T`$ such that $`\mathrm{tr}(T)=H`$ and a spinor field $`\phi `$ satisfying the equation

$$_X\phi +T(X)\phi \frac{i}{2}X\overline{\phi }=0.$$

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`(M^2,g)`$ be an oriented, $`2`$-dimensional manifold and $`H:M`$ a smooth function. Then the following data are equivalent:

1. An isometric immersion $`(\stackrel{~}{M}^2,g)^3`$ of the universal covering $`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ into the $`3`$-dimensional hyperbolic space $`^3`$ with mean curvature $`H`$.
2. A nowhere vanishing solution $`\phi `$ of the Dirac equation

$$D\phi =H\phi +\overline{\phi }$$

satisfying

$$X|\phi |^2=\mathrm{}(X\overline{\phi },\phi )X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM).$$
3. A pair $`(\phi ,T)`$ consisting of a symmetric endomorphism $`T`$ such that $`\mathrm{tr}(T)=H`$ and a spinor field $`\phi `$ satisfying the equation

$$_X\phi +T(X)\phi +\frac{1}{2}X\overline{\phi }=0X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)..$$

###### Remark 4.3.

It has been pointed out to us that the case of surfaces in $`𝕊^3`$ has already been treated by Leonard Voss (Diplomarbeit, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, unpublished).

## 5. Hypersurfaces in $`^4`$

We conclude by giving a characterization of hypersurfaces in the Euclidean $`4`$-space in terms of a special section of the intrinsic spinor bundle of the hypersurface, in a very similar way to that of Theorem 1.1.

Let $`M^3`$ be an oriented hypersurface isometrically immersed into $`^4`$, denote by $`\nu `$ its unit normal vector field. Then $`M^3`$ is endowed with a spin structure, canonically induced by that of $`^4`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ the corresponding spinor bundle and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+^4`$ the bundle of positive spinors in $`^4`$. We then have the anologous result of Proposition 2.1:

###### Proposition 5.1.

There exists an identification of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+^4`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$, which after restriction to $`M`$, sends every spinor field $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+^4)`$ to the spinor field denoted by $`\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$. Moreover, if $`\underset{^4}{}`$ (resp. $``$) stands for Clifford multiplication on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+^4`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$), then one has

$$(X\underset{^4}{}\nu \underset{^4}{}\psi )^{}=X\psi ^{},$$
(19)
for any vector field $`X`$ tangent to $`M`$.

Recall the following definition

###### Definition 5.2.

A symmetric $`2`$-tensor $`TS^2(M)`$ is called a *Codazzi tensor* if it satisfies the Codazzi-Mainardi equation, i.e.

$$(_XT)(Y)=(_YT)(X)X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM),$$

($`T`$ being viewed in this formula via the metric $`g`$ as a symmetric endomorphism of the tangent bundle).

We now prove the following

###### Theorem 5.3.

Let $`(M^3,g)`$ be an oriented, $`3`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold. Then the following data are equivalent:

1. An isometric immersion $`(\stackrel{~}{M}^3,g)^4`$ of the universal covering $`\stackrel{~}{M}^3`$ into the Euclidean space $`^4`$ with second fundamental form $`h`$.
2. A pair $`(\phi ,T)`$ consisting of a Codazzi tensor $`T`$ such that $`2T=h`$ and a non trivial spinor field $`\phi `$ satisfying, for any $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$, the equation

$$_X\phi +T(X)\phi =0.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`(M^3,g)`$ be an oriented hypersurface isometrically immersed into $`^4`$ with second fundamental form $`h`$. Let $`\psi `$ be any parallel positive spinor field on $`^4`$. Denote by $`\phi :=\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$ the restriction of $`\psi `$ given by Proposition 5.1. Then Gauß formula (3) yields

$$_X\phi +\frac{1}{2}h(X)\phi =0.$$

Since $`h`$ is a second fundamental form, it is clear that $`T=\frac{1}{2}h`$ is a Codazzi tensor and that $`(\phi ,T)`$ give the desired pair.

Conversely, if $`(M^3,g)`$ is an oriented, $`3`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold admitting such a pair $`(\phi ,T)`$, then obviously Codazzi-Mainardi equation holds for $`h=2T`$.

Therefore, the action of the spinorial curvature tensor on the spinor $`\phi `$ is given by

$$(X,Y)\phi =\left(T(Y)T(X)T(X)T(Y)\right)\phi $$
(20)
Let $`(e_1,e_2,e_3)`$ be a positively oriented local orthonormal basis of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$. Then Equation (20) yields

$$\underset{kl}{}\left(_{ijkl}+4T_{il}T_{jk}4T_{ik}T_{jl}\right)e_ke_l\phi =0$$

which imply in dimension $`3`$ that each componant

$$_{ijkl}+4T_{il}T_{jk}4T_{ik}T_{jl}$$

is zero, since for $`1k<l3`$ and $`1k^{}<l^{}3`$,

$$\mathrm{}(e_ke_l\phi ,e_k^{}e_l^{}\phi )=\pm \delta _{kk^{}}\delta _{ll^{}}|\phi |^2.$$

Therefore $`h=2T`$ satisfies the Gauß equation. ∎

###### Remark 5.4.

Let $`(\phi ,T)`$ be a pair as in Theorem 5.3 ($`2`$). Then necessarily the Codazzi tensor $`T`$ has to be defined as the energy-momentum tensor associated with the spinor field $`\phi `$ (see for example ,  or ). Such a special spinor field is then called a *Codazzi Energy-Momentum spinor*, and generalizes the notion of Killing spinors (see  for a study of these particular spinor fields).


text:
# X-ray spectra produced by a hot plasma containing cold clouds

## 1 Introduction

The physical conditions in the inner parts of the accretion flow surrounding a black hole are likely to be very chaotic. A situation that has been often considered in the literature is that of the so-called ’cauldron’, where a soup formed by a hot plasma contains small grains constituted by small dense clouds of much colder matter (e.g. Guilbert & Rees 1988). Several works were devoted to explain how such a configuration could be physically realized and compute the spectrum emitted by the clouds for different cloud optical depths (see e.g. Rees 1987; Ferland & Rees 1988; Rees, Netzer & Ferland 1989; Celotti, Fabian & Rees 1992; Kuncic, Blackman & Rees 1996; Collin-Souffrin et al. 1996; Kuncic, Celotti & Rees 1997; Krolik 1998). In particular the main observable effect of optically thick cold clouds is the reprocessing into soft UV photons of the hard X-ray radiation produced in the hot phase by the Comptonisation process. This reprocessed emission is likely to contribute, at least partly, to the big blue bump observed in AGN. In addition, the presence of such clumps inside the hot plasma may also contribute to the formation of a reflection component (see e.g. Nandra & George 1994), responsible for the bump in the hard X-ray domain, commonly observed in Seyfert galaxies and galactic black hole candidates.

Most of the previous works on cloud models focused on the physics and radiative processes in the clouds themselves, without taking into account the possible effects of the clouds on the characteristics of the hot phase. Indeed the soft radiation re–emitted by the cold material can constitute the main radiation field responsible for the Compton cooling of the hot gas. This in turn affects the temperature of the hot plasma, and thus the emitted X-ray Comptonised spectrum.

This feedback loop is identical to that found in accretion disc corona models (Haardt & Maraschi 1993). Similarly, the conditions at radiative equilibrium depend mainly on the cold matter distribution relative to the hot plasma. In this context, Malzac (2001) (hereafter M01) studied a geometry where the clouds are external to the hot Comptonising plasma and spherically distributed around it. The aim of the present work is to study the effects of the presence of cold optically thick clouds distributed *inside* the hot phase. As demonstrated below, the cooling by the cold clouds is then more efficient than in the case of an external reprocessor.

Under assumptions detailed in section 2, we use a numerical approach based on non-linear Monte-Carlo simulations, described in section 3, to compute the emitted spectra. These numerical results are found to be in agreement with analytical formulae, derived in section 4, giving the slope of the primary X-ray Comptonised spectrum $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the reflection amplitude $`R`$. The predictions of the model are then discussed and compared with the data in section 5.

## 2 Model assumptions and parameters

The physical characteristics of the clouds are of prime importance for the emitted spectrum. If they are optically (Thomson) thin, and with a large covering fraction, partial transmission of the X-ray radiation across a cloud is likely to produce strong absorption features in the X-ray spectrum (e.g. Kuncic, Celotti & Rees 1997). On the other hand, if the clouds are optically thick and highly absorbing they do not produce, independent of their covering fraction, strong apparent absorption features, as indeed observed (Nandra & George 1994).

For this reason in this analysis we will consider the case of optically thick clouds with zero transmission, which corresponds to typical column densities $`>10^{25}`$ cm-2. We assume that the individual cold clouds are much smaller than the characteristic size of the region occupied by the hot plasma: if the emitting region has a typical dimension $`H`$, the typical cloud size is of order $`ϵH`$ with $`ϵ<10^2`$ 111 For simplicity we will assume spherical clumps, although filamentary or sheet-like geometries might be also appropriate.. This constrains the cloud hydrogen density to be large, larger than $`(\sigma _\mathrm{T}ϵH)^1`$. This limit writes $`n_H>10^{12}`$ cm-3 in the case of Seyfert galaxies (AGN, with $`H10^{15}`$ $`H_{15}`$ cm), and $`n_H>10^{20}`$ cm-3 in the case of galactic black holes (GBH, where $`H10^7`$ $`H_7`$ cm). Such large densities in turn constrain the ionization parameter to be relatively low ($`\xi `$$`<`$103 for a $`10^{45}`$ erg s-1 luminosity AGN, and $`\xi `$$`<`$102 for a $`10^{36}`$ erg s-1 GBH) and thus the possible effects of ionization are likely to be weak (Życki et al. 1994). In our calculations we will then assume that the clouds are neutral.

We will consider a system in radiative equilibrium. The effective temperature of the clouds $`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ can be simply estimated. Assuming that the flux is uniform inside a spherical hot phase of bolometric luminosity $`L`$, a cloud surface element will receive a flux $`F=L/(4\pi H^2)`$. If the clouds are dense enough this flux is fully absorbed and re–radiated as a quasi-blackbody (e.g. Ferland & Rees 1988) and the Stefan–Boltzmann’s law gives well known characteristic energies:

$$kT_{\mathrm{bb}}2.97\frac{L_{45}^{1/4}}{H_{15}^{1/2}}\mathrm{eV}167\frac{L_{36}^{1/4}}{H_7^{1/2}}\mathrm{eV},$$
(1)
where $`L_{45}`$ and $`L_{36}`$ are the bolometric luminosity expressed respectively in $`10^{45}`$ and $`10^{36}`$ erg s-1 units. We will assume that the radiation reprocessed by the clouds is the only source of soft seed photons.

As we are focusing on the spectral signatures of this two phase medium and as they do not constrain – as already mentioned – the physical status of the clouds (as long as they are optically thick and dense enough to maintain a low temperature), the clumps might exist with a large range of conditions. Nonetheless the range of parameters considered (in dimension and density) are consistent with assuming that the gas reaches radiative equilibrium (i.e. the cooling timescales are shorter than the dynamical one) and pressure equilibrium (with a size $`ϵH`$ small enough to reach it in a dynamical timescale).

In general if neutral clouds are confined by a hot ionized environment the thermal pressure balance can be written in terms of the cloud Thomson optical depth $`\tau =n_H\sigma _TϵH`$:

$$\tau 2ϵ\tau _\mathrm{T}T_\mathrm{e}/T_{\mathrm{bb}}.$$
(2)
For typical observationally inferred values of $`\tau _\mathrm{T}=1`$ and $`kT_e`$=100 keV, and using the expressions (1) for the temperature of the cold clouds, equation (2) reads:

$$\tau 64ϵ_2\frac{H_{15}^{1/2}}{L_{45}^{1/4}}12ϵ_2\frac{H_7^{1/2}}{L_{36}^{1/4}},$$
(3)
where $`ϵ=10^2ϵ_2`$. We note however that this simple estimate does not consider the possibility of a two temperature plasma and the consequent effects of hot ions on the thermal balance (see Zdziarski 1998; Spruit & Haardt 2000; Deufel & Spruit 2000).

Thus the thick clouds considered here can be confined by the hot phase, but in any case thicker clouds may exist and be e.g. magnetically confined (for more details see e.g. Kuncic, Blackman & Rees 1996). Note that the clumps do not need to survive for longer that their cooling time provided they can be continuously replaced.

Let us now consider the spectrum produced in these environment. The three main parameters controlling the resulting X-/$`\gamma `$-ray spectral shape are the following:

1. The amount of cold clouds pervading the hot plasma. Since we consider small scale clumps we can quantify the amount of cold matter by using an effective “cloud” optical depth $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$, such that a photon crossing the hot plasma has a probability $`1\mathrm{exp}(\tau _\mathrm{B})`$ of intercepting a cloud. $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ may be thus defined using a cross section formalism, considering an individual cloud as a particle:

$$\tau _\mathrm{B}=\frac{N}{V}AH$$
(4)
where $`V`$ is the plasma volume, $`N`$ is the total number of cold clouds, $`A`$ is the average geometric cross section of each cloud. For spherical clouds pervading a spherical plasma, $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ can be written explicitly in term of the number and size of the clouds:

$$\tau _\mathrm{B}=\frac{3Nϵ^2}{4}$$
(5)
2. The Thomson optical depth $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ of the hot plasma.
3. The characteristic energy of the soft photons emitted by the clouds. We assume a blackbody spectrum with a fixed temperature $`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}`$. As the radiative equilibrium is not extremely sensitive to the value of $`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}`$, we will fix $`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}`$=5 eV and $`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}`$=150 eV as typical values for Seyfert galaxies and GBH sources, respectively, as from equation (1).

As said before, the amount of cold matter and its distribution with respect to the hot plasma are of prime importance. On the other hand, the actual geometry of the emitting region has little effects on the emitted spectrum. We studied both the spherical and infinite slab geometries illustrated in Fig. 1. As the results were qualitatively similar for both geometries, in the following we consider the spherical case only.

## 3 Numerical approach

In order to estimate the resulting physical parameters and spectra we use the Monte-Carlo code of Malzac & Jourdain (2000) which is based on the Non-Linear Monte-Carlo method (NLMC) proposed by Stern (Stern 1985; Stern et al. 1995). We consider a spherical geometry. The sphere is divided in 5 shells with equal thicknesses and is assumed to have a uniform density. Both $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ are defined along the radius $`H`$ of the sphere.

In the hot phase, the simulations are fully non-linear: both photons and electrons are followed using the Large Particles (LP) formalism described in Stern et al. (1995). This enables the equilibrium temperature to be computed in each zone according to the local energy balance heating = Compton cooling.

The interaction between a photon and a cloud is dealt as a regular Monte-Carlo interaction between two particles. However, as the cold clouds structure is assumed to be unaffected by the radiation field, the clouds themselves are not followed. As the clouds are small and homogeneously distributed, $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ is simply the reaction rate for 1 photon, with time expressed in units of the light crossing time $`H/c`$ of the medium. When a LP photon interacts with a cloud, it is assumed to enter a semi-infinite slab medium with standard abundances and neutral matter (Morrison & Mc Cammon 1983). The linear Monte-Carlo code of Malzac et al. (1998), is then used to track the path and the energy changes of the LP photon in this medium, until it is either absorbed or escapes from the cold matter slab. As long as the clouds are optically thick, the reflection spectrum on a cloud does not differ much from slab reflection (Nandra & George 1994). A more detailed modeling of the reflection component would rely on a specific cloud geometry which is essentially unknown.

The energy deposited in the cloud is re-injected in the hot phase in the form of thermal soft photons LP. Both the reflected and reprocessed LP have a direction of propagation drawn from an isotropic distribution.

## 4 Analytical estimates of $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

There are two parameters generally used to phenomenologically describe the X-ray spectral properties of accreting black hole sources, namely the amplitude $`R`$ of the reflection component with respect to the primary continuum and the photon spectral index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the power-law shaped primary component (see Malzac, Beloborodov & Poutanen 2001, MBP hereafter).

These parameters were determined from the numerical simulations in a way similar to that described in MBP. The reflection was estimated by computing the flux ratio between our simulated reflection, and the angle-averaged slab-reflection produced by a source having the same primary spectrum as the simulated one.

However, using the simple escape probability formalism described in the following, it is also possible to independently derive analytical estimates for $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as follows.

A power $`L_\mathrm{h}`$ is deposited in the plasma as heating and escapes the system as three different kinds of radiation:

$$L_\mathrm{h}=L_{\mathrm{uv}}+L_\mathrm{x}+L_R,$$
(6)
respectively the UV/soft X-ray reprocessed luminosity, the X-ray (Comptonized) luminosity, and the reflected luminosity. Let $`U_\mathrm{h}`$ be the total radiative energy inside the hot plasma. With similar notations as in equation (6) we have:

$$U_\mathrm{h}=U_{\mathrm{uv}}+U_\mathrm{x}+U_R.$$
(7)
The escaping luminosity is related to the internal energy through the escape probability (Lightman & Zdziarski 1987):

$$\dot{P_\mathrm{h}}=(L_\mathrm{h}/U_\mathrm{h})(H/c),$$
(8)
which depends on the geometry, sources distribution, optical depth and energy. We consistently indicate as $`\dot{P_\mathrm{x}}`$, $`\dot{P_\mathrm{s}}`$,$`\dot{P_R}`$ the escape probability for Comptonised, soft and reflected radiation and will use the analytical approximation to $`\dot{P}`$ given in the Appendix (equation (20)).

Let us now estimate the three different luminosities.

The soft luminosity in the hot phase is produced by the clouds through absorption and reprocessing of the Comptonized and reflected radiation and disappears through escape or Comptonisation. Thus, the radiative equilibrium balance for $`U_{\mathrm{uv}}`$ reads:

$$(\dot{P_\mathrm{s}}+\tau _\mathrm{T})U_{\mathrm{uv}}=\tau _\mathrm{B}(1a)U_\mathrm{x}+\tau _\mathrm{B}(1a_R)U_R,$$
(9)
where $`a`$ and $`a_R`$ are the clouds energy and angle integrated albedo for a Comptonised and a reflection spectrum, respectively. For neutral matter the typical values are $`a0.1`$ (Magdziarz & Zdziarski 1995; MBP) and $`a_R0.4`$ (Malzac 2001).

Similarly, the reflected radiation is formed through reflection of the Comptonised and reflected radiation on the clouds, and disappears via escape, Comptonisation in the hot plasma and absorption by the clouds:

$$(\dot{P_R}+\tau _\mathrm{T}+\tau _\mathrm{B}(1a_R))U_R=\tau _\mathrm{B}aU_\mathrm{x}.$$
(10)
The fraction of the internal energy in the form of Comptonised radiation has as main source the power dissipated in the hot plasma but also the Comptonised soft and reflected radiation; the sink term is due to escape, absorption and reflection by the clouds:

$$(\dot{P_\mathrm{x}}+\tau _\mathrm{B})U_\mathrm{x}=L_\mathrm{h}H/c+\tau _\mathrm{T}U_{\mathrm{uv}}+\tau _\mathrm{T}U_R.$$
(11)
Excluding the reflection component, the total luminosity sinking out of the hot phase either through escape or interaction with the clouds is:

$$L=(\dot{P_\mathrm{s}}+\tau _\mathrm{B})U_\mathrm{x}+(\dot{P_\mathrm{s}}+\tau _\mathrm{B})U_{\mathrm{uv}},$$
(12)
while the soft luminosity entering the hot phase (coming from the clouds) is given by equation (9):

$$L_\mathrm{s}=(\dot{P_\mathrm{x}}+\tau _\mathrm{T}+\tau _\mathrm{B})U_{\mathrm{uv}}.$$
(13)
Therefore combining equations (12) and (13) with equations (9) and (10) provides an estimate for the amplification factor $`AL/L_\mathrm{s}`$:

$$A=\frac{(\dot{P_\mathrm{s}}+\tau _\mathrm{B})\tau _\mathrm{B}+(\dot{P_\mathrm{x}}+\tau _\mathrm{B})(\dot{P_\mathrm{s}}+\tau _\mathrm{T})g}{\tau _\mathrm{B}(\dot{P_\mathrm{s}}+\tau _\mathrm{T}+\tau _\mathrm{B})},$$
(14)
where the factor $`g`$ is given by:

$$g=\frac{\dot{P_R}+\tau _\mathrm{T}+\tau _\mathrm{B}(1a_R)}{(\dot{P_R}+\tau _\mathrm{T})(1a)+\tau _\mathrm{B}(1a_R)}.$$
(15)
Note that at first order $`g1`$ and $`\dot{P_\mathrm{x}}\dot{P_\mathrm{s}}`$ and thus:

$$A1+\dot{P_\mathrm{x}}/\tau _\mathrm{B}.$$
(16)
Finally the amplification factor is clearly directly related to the photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which can therefore be expressed – using the phenomenological formula given by Beloborodov (1999) – as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.33(A1)^{1/\delta },$$
(17)
where the parameter $`\delta =1/10`$ for AGN and $`1/6`$ for GBHs.

In addition equation (10) provides an estimate for the second parameter, the reflection coefficient:

$$R\frac{L_R}{aL_\mathrm{x}}\frac{\dot{P_R}}{\dot{P_\mathrm{x}}}\frac{\tau _\mathrm{B}}{\dot{P_R}+\tau _\mathrm{T}+\tau _\mathrm{B}(1a_R)}.$$
(18)
This formula corresponds to an angle averaged reference slab-reflection spectrum. Actually, the reflection coefficient also depends on the assumed inclination angle for the infinite slab model (see e.g. pexrav model in XSPEC, Magdziarz & Zdziarski 1995). Equation (18) could be corrected for this, for example by dividing it by the angular factor given by equation 2 of Ghisellini, Haardt & Matt (1994). However, for the relatively low inclination angles usually assumed in spectral fits, the correction is small and, for simplicity, we will neglect it.

## 5 Results

Figure 2 shows some of the simulated spectra for different values of $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$. The radiative cooling from the clouds appears to be extremely efficient and starts being effective for values of $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ as low as a few $`\times 10^2`$. At fixed $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$, increasing $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ increases the cooling of the plasma (because of the enhancement of the reprocessing and the subsequent increase of the soft radiation field) and therefore decreases its temperature (see below). This affects the shape of the emitted spectrum which becomes softer and cuts off at lower energies. Note that for the same set of parameters the spectra of GBHs (right panel of the figure) are harder than the AGNs ones (left panel) due to the larger energy domain where the luminosity can be released in the latter objects (see e.g. MBP). The spectra shown are rather similar to what is observed in Seyfert galaxies and Galactic black hole candidates in their hard state (see e.g. Zdziarski et al. 1997, Poutanen 1998).

The dependence of the hot plasma temperature on $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ is illustrated more precisely by Fig. 3. As just said the temperature is generally lower in AGNs (for the same $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$) and it is higher for lower Thomson optically depths. While these are general features (see e.g. MBP) of the self-regulated Compton emission generally invoked by the two-phase models (Haardt & Maraschi 1993), note that in our case the product $`T_\mathrm{e}\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ is $`not`$ expected to be constant at fixed $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ since here the Compton parameter depends also slightly on $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ (see Section 4).

The observed range of temperatures – say 50-200 keV – inferred from observations of the high energy cut off in Seyfert galaxies and GBHs can be reproduced for $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ in the range $`10^2`$$`1`$, depending also widely on $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$. In the optically thick case larger values of $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ may induce very low temperatures.

A second observable parameter is the index of the (primary) X-ray spectrum. Fig. 4 shows the evolution of the 2–10 keV spectral slope for increasing $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$: as expected the spectrum softens very quickly for larger $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$. One can see that the range of spectral slopes observed in Seyfert galaxies and GBH in the hard state (approximately the range 1.4–2.2) can be achieved for $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ roughly in the interval 10-3$`1`$ (larger $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ clearly lead to a too soft spectrum). Note that although such interval is rather large, the dependence on $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ is quite steep especially in the GBH case.

Finally let us examine the results on the intensity of the reflection component, shown in Fig. 4 (left-hand panel). This immediately reveals that the inferred values of $`R`$ are rather low, even when $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ approaches unity, and in general significantly lower than observed. According to equation (18), $`R`$ values of order of unity can be achieved in the limit of large $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$. However, this corresponds to very large (and unobserved) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as discussed in the next section.

As shown in the same Fig. 4, we also stress here that there is good agreement between the numerical results and the analytical estimates of $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ derived in section 4. Concerning $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,we note however a significant discrepancy for the GBH optically thin case, for which the simulations give a much harder spectrum than the analytical estimates. Indeed, in this case the first Compton scattering order falls in the 2–10 keV range. This forms a bump making the spectrum locally harder in the energy range used to estimate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and with a break at higher energy. This (unobserved) radiative transfer effect is due to the low optical depth ($`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$=0.5) considered. A part from this the main discrepancies appear in the optically thick case and at large $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$ (corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ outside the observed range) arising because in this interval of parameters associated with low temperatures, equation (17), which is formally valid for a spherical plasma with temperature in the range 50–100 keV, does not provide a good approximation to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vs $`A`$ relation anymore.

## 6 CONCLUSIONS

From the computation of the spectra expected in a scenario where cold reflecting and reprocessing gas is embedded in a coronal hot plasma we have inferred constraints on the distribution of such cold gas. In fact, having assumed that the gas can be described as small optically thick clouds, the main parameter regulating the amount of reprocessing (in turn responsible for the Compton cooling) and reflection is the cloud optical depth $`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$, which quantifies the covering factor of the cold component.

This has to be relatively low. In fact, the observed range of spectral slopes constrains $`\tau _\mathrm{B}<1`$. This limit however forbids to produce simultaneously a reflection amplitude larger than $`0.3`$. The situation is even more critical since $`R0.3`$ is predicted only for the softest sources which observationally appear to show the largest reflection amplitude ($`R>1`$), as shown in Fig. 5.

Thus, in order to reproduce the spectral characteristics of numerous objects (both Seyfert galaxies and GBH sources) with significant reflection the model requires an additional reflecting medium which does not contribute to the soft photon field, such as e.g. a cold outer accretion disc, reflection on a torus in the case of Seyfert galaxies or on the companion star in the case of X-ray binaries.

The reported correlation between $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (shown in Fig. 5) is generally interpreted as being due to plasma cooling on soft photons emitted by the same medium that gives rise to the reflection component (see Zdziarski et al. 1999; Gilfanov et al. 2000). If the $`R`$-$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation were indicative of a common medium for soft photon creation and reflection, such a medium cannot be provided by cold matter mixed together with the hot phase, and another reflector should contribute to, and even dominate the radiative cooling of the hot plasma.

A related problem is the observed correlation between the degree of relativistic broadening of the Fe line with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (Gilfanov et al. 2000 for black hole binaries, Lubiński & Zdziarski 2001 for Seyferts, see however Yaqoob et al. 2002). In the context of the present model this correlation would suggest that the overall cloud distribution is not homogeneous. The changes in the amount of cold material pervading the hot plasma should be stronger in the innermost parts of the accretion flow where the relativistic broadening is important. However, since the reflection amplitude produced by the cold clump is weaker than observed, this requires that the bulk of the line would be emitted by the cold clouds while the reflection would come mainly from an external reflector.

Thus, the origin of both soft photons and reflection are unlikely to be matter mixed inside the hot Comptonising plasma. In the framework of the cloud models this suggests that the cold clouds should be essentially external to the hot Comptonising plasma. Then the radiative cooling is much less efficient and the reflection component may be larger. Variations in the covering factor and the distribution of the clouds may even produce a correlation between $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (as e.g. in the spherical case considered by M01).

These conclusions should be however tempered by the fact that, in Seyfert galaxies, the $`R`$-$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation is still a controversial matter on several grounds. Indeed, the measurment of the reflection amplitude $`R`$ suffers from large uncertainties. In particular, it appears that the $`R`$ values derived from spectral fits are very sensitive to the modelling of the primary spectrum (see e.g. Petrucci et al. 2001; Perola et al. 2002; Malzac & Petrucci 2002) as well as to the eventual presence of a secondary components such as a soft excess (Matt 2001). Possible effects such as ionization of the reflecting material, eventual relativistic smearing, Comptonisation of the reflected component may all affect the $`R`$ values derived from the neutral slab reflection model generally used (pexrav). We also note that in NGC 5506, Lamer, Uttley & McHardy (2000) find an anti-correlation between $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Also, even if the correlation is real, its interpretation could be different. Indeed, following Nandra et al. (2000), Malzac & Petrucci (2001, 2002) show that at least part of the observed correlation could be understood in term of the effects of time-delays between the fluctuations of the primary emission and the response of a large-scale distant reflector (e.g a torus). Obviously, because of the time-scales involved, this interpretation cannot be valid for black-hole binaries. On the other hand, in Seyfert galaxies, it is supported by spectral and variability studies indicating that, in several sources, an important fraction of the reflected features is produced at large distances from the central engine (e.g. Chiang et al. 2000 for NGC 5548; Matt et al. 2001 and Lamer et al. 2000, for NGC 5506; Done, Madejski & Życki 2000 for IC4329a, Papadakis et al. 2002, for a sample of sources). In a context where the reflection features would be produced mainly on distant material, the “cauldron” scenario considered here would remain a viable possibility.

Future observational studies of the $`R`$-$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ relation in samples of sources as well as in individual objects should clarify this point.

## Acknowledgments

JM acknowledges grants from the Italian MURST (COFIN98-02-15-41) and the European Commission (contract number ERBFMRX-CT98-0195, TMR network ”Accretion onto black holes, compact stars and protostars”). AC acknowledges the MUIR for fundings. We thank Andrzej Zdziarski and Marat Gilfanov who provided the data used in this work.

## APPENDIX: Fitting formulae for the escape probability

Let us consider a medium where both scattering and absorption of radiation are effective, with $`\tau _\mathrm{d}`$ the total optical depth of the medium for the scattering process and $`\tau _\mathrm{a}`$ for absorption. Assume one injects instantaneously in the volume a number of photons according to a given spatial distribution. The photons can disappear from the medium either by real escape (i.e. by crossing the volume boundaries) or by absorption. Let $`f`$ be the distribution of the photons at their disappearance time, and $`E`$ the fraction of photons that truly escape the medium (i.e. not absorbed). Then, from the definition of the escape probability given by equation (8), it is straightforward to show that:

$$\frac{1}{\dot{P}}=\frac{1}{E}_0^+\mathrm{}dt\left(1_0^tf(t^{})𝑑t^{}\right)$$
(19)
Using a standard Monte-Carlo method, we estimated $`E`$ and the $`f`$ function for different geometries and source distributions. In these calculations the scattering process was assumed isotropic and the distribution of scatterers and absorbers was homogeneous. We then computed numerically $`\dot{P}`$ and searched for analytical formulae giving a reasonable representation of the numerical results in the range $`\tau _\mathrm{d}<10`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{a}<10`$. The expressions given below agree within 5$`\%`$ with our numerical results. For slab and sphere geometries, the optical depths $`\tau _\mathrm{a}`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{d}`$ are defined along the full height of the slab and the radius of the sphere, respectively.

For a spherical geometry and uniform isotropic injection:

$$\frac{1}{\dot{P}}=0.75\left[1+\frac{0.25\tau _\mathrm{d}}{1+0.49\tau _\mathrm{a}(1+0.1\tau _\mathrm{d})}\right](1+2.28\tau _\mathrm{a})^{0.16}.$$
(20)
In the limit $`\tau _\mathrm{a}`$=0 this formula reduces to that proposed by Stern et al. (1995).

For a spherical geometry and central isotropic injection:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\dot{P}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{1.+0.45\tau _\mathrm{d}[1.+\mathrm{3.384\hspace{0.17em}10}^3\tau _\mathrm{a}^{1.168}`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{exp}\{3.3(1.090.10887\tau _\mathrm{a})(10.\tau _\mathrm{d})^{\mathrm{8.5\hspace{0.17em}10}^3}`$
$`+0.2999\tau _\mathrm{a}+(0.346+0.1\tau _\mathrm{d})\tau _\mathrm{d}^{0.681}\}]\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(0.944\tau _\mathrm{a}+\mathrm{1.32\hspace{0.17em}10}^3\tau _\mathrm{a}^2)}{1+0.56\tau _\mathrm{a}}}.`$
For an infinite slab geometry and homogeneous and isotropic source function:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\dot{P}}}=1`$ $`+`$ $`0.392\left({\displaystyle \frac{183.7\tau _\mathrm{a}}{1+183.6\tau _\mathrm{a}}}\right)^{533}`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _\mathrm{d}/3}{(1+0.08\tau _\mathrm{d}^{0.57})(1+0.393\tau _\mathrm{a}^{1.045})}}.`$
For an infinite slab geometry and photons injected isotropically at midplane:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\dot{P}}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.992{\displaystyle \frac{1+123.2\tau _\mathrm{a}}{1+124.9\tau _\mathrm{a}}}\mathrm{exp}[0.250\tau _\mathrm{a}^{1.211}`$ (23)
$`+0.401\tau _\mathrm{d}^{0.602+(0.748\tau _\mathrm{a}0.0464\tau _\mathrm{a}^2)^{0.813}}].`$
These expressions are general and can be applied to any situation where both absorption and scattering are important. For the situation considered in this work, the scattering $`\tau _\mathrm{d}`$ and absorption $`\tau _\mathrm{a}`$ optical depths depend on the type of radiation considered (see section 4):

* For the Comptonised component: $`\tau _\mathrm{d}`$=$`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{a}`$=$`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$
* For the reflected component: $`\tau _\mathrm{d}`$=$`a_R\tau _\mathrm{B}`$, $`\tau _\mathrm{a}`$=$`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$+$`(`$1-$`a_R`$)$`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$
* For the soft component: $`\tau _\mathrm{d}`$=$`\tau _\mathrm{B}`$, $`\tau _\mathrm{a}`$=$`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$

Note that we neglect the relativistic effects due to the reduction of the Klein-Nishina cross section at high energies.