format: text

text:
# Calibrating the Cepheid Period-Luminosity relation with the VLTI

## 1 Introduction

Since the discovery of their Period-Luminosity (P-L) relation, at the beginning of the century (Leavitt ), Classical Cepheids have played a central role as primary distance indicators. The reliability of this relation, however, depends on the accuracy of its calibration. This is done by using a handful of nearby Cepheids, whose distances can be independently determined. Due to the low-density distribution of the Cepheids in our galaxy, however, this is a difficult task to accomplish. Large errors still affect direct parallax measurements done with the Hipparcos satellite (see e.g. Madore & Freedman ), and even future space-based surveys appear to suffer from the same limitations.

Recent progresses in ground-based, long baseline interferometry, however, have finally opened the possibility of direct measurements of nearby Cepheids distances by using the so-called *geometric* Baade-Wesselink (BW) method (Baade 1926, Wesselink 1946). A detailed description of this method and its implications for the accuracy of the zero-point calibration of the Cepheid P-L relation is given in Sasselov & Karovska  (SK94 hereafter).

The BW method relies on the accurate measurement of the Cepheid diameter as the star pulsates. As such, it can only be carried on with high angular resolution interferometric measurements. The VLTI will be the ideal instrument for such measurements, given the available long baselines, and the large apertures allowing to reach fainter sources. However, to convert the measured VLTI visibilities into accurate diameters, it is critical to use appropriate limb darkening models for different pulsational phases.

## 2 Limb darkening models for pulsating Cepheids

As described in SK94, the feasibility of the geometric BW method depends on the availability of accurate hydrodynamic models for the Cepheid atmospheres, which are required to compute reliable time-dependent limb darkening profiles. In Marengo et al.  (MM02 hereafter) we describe a new approach to compute detailed wavelength- and phase-dependent limb intensity profiles for pulsating Cepheids. Our profiles are based on time-dependent, non-LTE hydrodynamic computations which, starting from a model of the Cepheid pulsation, reproduce the dynamic structure of the stellar atmosphere as it pulsates (see Sasselov & Lester ). From these model atmospheres, we obtain the intensity emerging from the stellar photosphere (and thus the limb darkening), computed for each pulsational phase relevant to the interferometric observations. This procedure can be applied to all Cepheids for which a reliable pulsational model is available.

Figure 1 shows the effects of non-LTE hydrodynamics in the limb darkening of the Classical Cepheid $`\zeta `$ Gem. Limb darkening appears to change with the pulsational phase and wavelength. The change is not only in the amount of limb darkening, but also in the shape of the limb profile. This shows that a single parametrization of the limb profile is not adequate for all pulsational phases. Detailed time-dependent modeling is thus required for realistic limb darkening.

Our simulations show that the corrections introduced by the hydrodynamic effects and the wavelength dependence of the limb darkening in the diameter measurement, are of the order of a few percent at optical wavelengths. In the near-IR, which is the VLTI primary domain, the corrections are of the order of $``$2%, and are still sensitive to the effects of the pulsations.

## 3 Geometric BW method and the VLTI

The high accuracy of the VLTI visibilities, and the large spectral dispersion of the AMBER camera, will finally provide the high quality data necessary to apply the BW method. At the same time, VLTI will allow the first direct testing of the atmospheric model themselves, improving our knowledge of the stellar atmosphere dynamics. To reach the full potential of the VLTI, it is however necessary to take into account the corrections induced by limb darkening and its dependence from the pulsational hydrodynamics.

As the only long baseline interferometer below the equator, the VLTI offers a unique opportunity to apply the geometric BW method to southern sources. VLTI provides both the sensitivity and the angular resolution necessary to detect the radial variations of a sample of Classical Cepheids, to be used to calibrate the zero point of the P-L distance relation.

The sensitivity required is of the order of mag 2–4 in the K band, for stars which are of mag 5–7 in the optical. Such sensitivity can be easily achieved at the VLTI by the near-IR camera AMBER, using a setup with three Auxiliary Telescopes, and large spectral resolution to isolate individual spectral lines. The typical expected diameters are of the order of $`1`$ mas, with a variation due to the stellar pulsation of about 10% of the diameter. This angular resolution can be reached with the VLTI by using baselines of $``$100m, or longer.

To-date, the angular diameter variations of Classical Cepheids have been measured only for two sources ($`\zeta `$ Gem and $`\eta `$ Aql, see Lane et al. ; Lane et al. ). The VLTI will give a substantial contribution in extending this sample, providing the necessary statistical significance for the recalibration of the P-L relation zero point with the BW method.

M.K. is member of the Chandra Science Center, which is operated under contract NAS8-39073 and is partially supported by NASA


text:
# A ℏ-adic valuation property of universal 𝑅-matrices

## Abstract

We prove that if $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)`$ is a quasitriangular QUE algebra with universal $`R`$-matrix $`R`$, and $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})`$ is the quantized function algebra sitting inside $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)`$, then $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}(R)`$ belongs to the tensor square $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})\overline{}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})`$. This gives another proof of the results of Gavarini and Halbout, saying that $`R`$ normalizes $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})\overline{}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})`$ and therefore induces a braiding of the formal group $`G^{}`$ (in the sense of Weinstein and Xu, or Reshetikhin).

§ 0 Introduction

Let $`(𝔤,r)`$ be a finite-dimensional quasitriangular Lie bialgebra over a field $`k`$ of characteristic $`0`$, and let $`(U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤),R)`$ be a quasitriangular quantization of $`(𝔤,r)`$. Recall that this means that (see \[Dr\]):

$`(1)`$ $`(𝔤,[,],\delta )`$ is a Lie bialgebra, $`r𝔤𝔤`$ is a solution of the classical Yang-Baxter equation, and the cobracket $`\delta `$ : $`𝔤^2(𝔤)`$ of $`𝔤`$ is given by $`\delta (x)=[x1+1x,r]`$ for $`x𝔤`$;

$`(2)`$ $`(U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤),m,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a quantized universal enveloping (QUE) algebra ($`m`$ is the product of $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is its coproduct), $`RU_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}`$ satisfies the quasitriangular identities:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{id})(R)=R^{13}R^{23},(\text{id}\mathrm{\Delta })(R)=R^{13}R^{12},$$

$$(\text{id}\epsilon )(R)=(\epsilon \text{id})(R)=1,\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{op}}=\text{Ad}(R)\mathrm{\Delta },$$

where $`\text{Ad}(R)(x)=RxR^1`$ for $`xU_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}`$, and

$$\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(R1)\text{mod}\mathrm{}\right)=r;$$
(0.1)
here $`\widehat{}`$ denotes the $`\mathrm{}`$-adically completed tensor product, the map $`x(x\text{mod}\mathrm{})`$ is the canonical projection

$$U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}\underset{k[[\mathrm{}]]}{}k=U(𝔤)^2,$$

and $`r`$ is viewed as an element of $`U(𝔤)^2`$. For $`n0`$, let us denote by $`\delta _n`$ : $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}n}`$ the map

$$\delta _n=(\text{id}\eta \epsilon )^n\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}`$ : $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}n}`$ is the $`n`$-th fold coproduct and $`\eta `$, $`\epsilon `$ are the unit and counit maps of $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)`$. Set

$$𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})=\{xU_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)|n0,\delta _n(x)\mathrm{}^nU_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}n}\}.$$

Then a classical result (see \[Dr, Ga\]) says that $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})`$ is a quantization of the Hopf-Poisson algebra $`𝒪(G^{})`$ of functions on the formal group corresponding to $`𝔤^{}`$ (so $`𝒪(G^{})=U(𝔤^{})^{}`$).

According to $`(\text{0.1})`$, we have $`R1+\mathrm{}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}`$. So $`\mathrm{log}(R)=\underset{n1}{}(1)^n\frac{(R1)^n}{n}`$ is a well-defined element of $`\mathrm{}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}`$.

###### Theorem 0.1.

Set $`\rho =\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}(R)`$. Then $`\rho `$ belongs to $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})^{\overline{}2}`$ (this is a subalgebra of $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}`$). If $`𝔪_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the augmentation ideal of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})`$, we even have $`\rho (𝔪_{\mathrm{}})^{\overline{}2}`$.

Here $`\overline{}`$ denotes the completed tensor product of formal series algebras. As a corollary, we obtain a result of \[GH\].

###### Corollary 0.2.

(\[GH\]) The $`R`$-matrix $`R`$ normalizes $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})^{\overline{}2}`$, in other words, $`\text{Ad}(R)`$ : $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}`$ restricts to an automorphism of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})^{\overline{}2}`$.

Gavarini and one of us (see \[GH\]) derive from this result that $`\text{Ad}(R)_{|\mathrm{}=0}`$, the reduction $`\text{mod}\mathrm{}`$ of $`\text{Ad}(R)`$ is an automorphism of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})\overline{}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})`$, satisfying the braiding identities of \[WX\] or \[Re\]. In a forthcoming paper, we plan to prove that this braiding coincides with the braiding defined by Weinstein and Xu in \[WX\].

This paper is organized as follows: we prove Theorem 0.1 in Section 2.b. This proof uses a combinatorial result on universal Lie algebras $`F_{(n,p)}`$, which is stated and proved in Section 1. In Section 3, we prove Corollary 0.2 using Theorem 0.1.

§ 1 A theorem on the universal Lie algebra $`F_{(n,p)}`$

In this section, we introduce a Lie algebra $`F_{(n,p)}`$ (Section 1.a). This Lie algebra is universal for the following situation: $`A`$ is an algebra, $`\rho A^2`$, and we consider elements $`\rho ^{i,j}A^{(n+p)}`$, $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, $`j\{n+1,\mathrm{},n+p\}`$. We construct elements $`\delta _{(n,p)}`$ in a completion of $`F_{(n,p)}`$, using the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorff series (Section 1.b). The main result is Theorem 1.2 on the valuation (for the total degree) of $`\delta _{(n,p)}`$. It will be used in Section 2 to prove Theorem 0.1 on the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic valuation of universal $`R`$-matrices.

Let $`n,p`$ be integers $`1`$.

\- a - The Lie algebra $`F_{(n,p)}`$

Let us denote by $`\text{Free}_{(n,p)}`$ the free Lie algebra with generators $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{i,j}`$, where $`(i,j)\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$. Let us denote by $`F_{(n,p)}`$ the quotient of $`\text{Free}_{(n,p)}`$ by the relations

$$[\stackrel{~}{x}_{i,j},\stackrel{~}{x}_{i^{},j^{}}]=0\text{ when }ii^{}\text{ and }jj^{}.$$

We denote by $`x_{i,j}`$ the image of $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{i,j}`$ in $`\text{Free}_{(n,p)}`$. The Lie algebra $`\text{Free}_{(n,p)}`$ is graded by $`\underset{(i,j)\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},p\}}{}ϵ_{(i,j)}`$ where $`\text{deg}(\stackrel{~}{x}_{i,j})=ϵ_{(i,j)}`$. We call this grading the fine degree. $`\text{Free}_{(n,p)}`$ has also a $``$-grading which we call the total degree; the total degree of $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{i,j}`$ is $`1`$. These gradings induce gradings on $`F_{(n,p)}`$.
For $`A=\text{Free}_{(n,p)}`$ or $`F_{(n,p)}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{k}_{(i,j)}ϵ_{(i,j)}`$ (resp., $`k`$), we denote by $`A_{\underset{¯}{k}}`$ (resp., $`A_k`$) the fine degree $`\underset{¯}{k}`$ part (resp., total degree $`k`$ part) of $`A`$. We denote by $`\widehat{A}`$ the completion of $`A`$ with respect to the total degree. So

$$\widehat{A}=\underset{k0}{}A_k.$$

\- b - The Campbell-Baker-Hausdorff series

If $`N`$ is an integer, let us denote by $`\text{Free}_N`$ the free Lie algebra with generators $`\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_N`$ and by $`\widehat{\text{Free}}_N`$ its completion with respect to the total degree. There exists a series

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{x}_N\widehat{\text{Free}}_N,$$

such that the identity

$$\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{x}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{x}_N)=\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{x}_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{x}_N)$$

holds in the completion $`\widehat{\text{Freealg}}_N`$ of the free associative algebra $`\text{Freealg}_N`$ with generators $`\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_N`$, with respect to the total degree (see \[Bo\]).

Let $`𝔤`$ be a $``$-graded Lie algebra, so $`𝔤=\underset{n0}{}𝔤_n`$ and let $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ be its completion; so $`\widehat{𝔤}=\underset{n0}{}𝔤_n`$. If $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ are elements of $`𝔤`$, with valuation $`>0`$, then there is a unique continuous Lie algebra morphism $`\pi `$ : $`\widehat{\text{Free}}_N\widehat{𝔤}`$, taking each $`\stackrel{~}{x}_i`$ to $`x_i`$. We then define

$$x_1\mathrm{}x_N:=\pi (\stackrel{~}{x}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{x}_N).$$

\- c - The elements $`\delta _{(n,p)}`$ of $`\widehat{F}_{(n,p)}`$

###### Definition 1.1.

We set

$$\delta _{(n,p)}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{\begin{array}{cc}& 1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_kn,\hfill \\ & 1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_kp\hfill \end{array}}{}(1)^{n+pkl}$$

$$(x_{i_1,j_1}x_{i_1,j_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_1,j_l})(x_{i_2,j_l}\mathrm{}x_{i_2,j_l})\mathrm{}(x_{i_k,j_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_k,j_l}).$$

According to Section 1-b, the element $`\delta _{(n,p)}`$ belongs to $`\widehat{F}_{(n,p)}`$.

###### Theorem 1.2.

The valuation of $`\delta _{(n,p)}`$ for the total degree of $`\widehat{F}_{(n,p)}`$ is $`n+p1`$.

Proof. For $`\underset{¯}{k}\underset{(i,j)\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},p\}}{}ϵ_{(i,j)}`$, we denote by $`\delta _{(n,p),\underset{¯}{k}}`$ the fine degree $`\underset{¯}{k}`$ component of $`\delta _{(n,p)}`$. Define the support of $`\underset{¯}{k}`$, $`\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ as the set of all pairs $`(i,j)`$ such that $`(i,j)0`$. If $`S`$ is a subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$, we call the $`i`$-th column of $`S`$ the intersection of $`S`$ with the $`i`$-th column $`\{i\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$, and the $`j`$-th line of $`S`$ its intersection with the $`j`$-th line $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{j\}.`$ If $`S_1`$ is a subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, we denote by $`\overline{S}_1`$ its complement $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}S_1`$; if $`S_2`$ is a subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$, we denote by $`\overline{S}_2`$ its complement $`\{1,\mathrm{},p\}S_2`$. We will show:

###### Proposition 1.3.

For each $`\underset{¯}{k}_{(i,j)}ϵ_{(i,j)}`$, we have $`\delta _{(n,p),\underset{¯}{k}}=0`$ unless $`S=\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ satisfies the following conditions:

(1) each column of $`S`$ is nonempty;

(2) each line of $`S`$ is nonempty;

(3) if $`S_1\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`S_2\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$ are proper subsets (i.e., they are non-empty as well as their complements) then $`S(S_1\times S_2)(\overline{S}_1\times \overline{S}_2).`$

###### Proposition 1.4.

If $`S`$ is a subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$ satisfying conditions $`(1)`$, $`(2)`$ and $`(3)`$ of Proposition 1.3, then $`\text{card}(S)n+p1`$.

Theorem 1.2 now follows from these propositions and the fact that the total degree of an element of $`\text{Free}_{(n,p)}`$ of degree $`\underset{¯}{k}`$ is $`\text{card}(\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k}))`$.

\- d - Proof of Proposition 1.3.

For $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, there is a unique continuous Lie algebra morphism

$$\lambda _i:\widehat{F}_{n,p}\widehat{F}_{n1,p}$$

$$x_{i^{},j^{}}\{\begin{array}{cc}x_{i^{},j^{}}& \text{if }i^{}<i\hfill \\ 0& \text{if }i^{}=i\hfill \\ x_{i^{}1,j^{}}& \text{if }i^{}>i.\hfill \end{array}$$

Similarly, for $`j\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$, there is a unique continuous Lie algebra morphism

$$\rho _j:\widehat{F}_{n,p}\widehat{F}_{n,p1}$$

$$x_{i^{},j^{}}\{\begin{array}{cc}x_{i^{},j^{}}& \text{if }j^{}<j\hfill \\ 0& \text{if }j^{}=j\hfill \\ x_{i^{},j^{}1}& \text{if }j^{}>j.\hfill \end{array}$$

The proof will essentially consist in the following Lemmas 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7.

###### Lemma 1.5.

For each $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, we have $`\lambda _i(\delta _{(n,p)})=0`$.

For each $`j\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$, we have $`\rho _j(\delta _{(n,p)})=0`$.

###### Lemma 1.6.

If $`\alpha \widehat{F}_{(n,p)}`$ is such that $`\lambda _i(\alpha )=0`$, then the homogeneous component $`\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}}`$ of $`\alpha `$ satisfies $`\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}}=0`$, unless the $`i`$-th line of $`\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ is nonempty.

In the same way, if $`\rho _j(\alpha )=0`$, then $`\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}}=0`$ unless the $`j`$-th line of $`\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ is nonempty.

After Lemmas 1.5 and 1.6 are proved, we know that $`\delta _{(n,p),\underset{¯}{k}}=0`$ unless each line and each column of $`S=\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ is nonempty. This proves that $`S`$ should satisfy conditions $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$. The fact that $`S`$ satisfies condition $`(3)`$ will follow from:

###### Lemma 1.7.

Let $`\alpha \widehat{F}_{(n,p)}`$ be homogeneous of degree $`\underset{¯}{k}`$. Assume that each line and each column of $`\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ is nonempty. Then $`\alpha =0`$ unless $`\underset{¯}{k}`$ satisfies conditions $`(3)`$ of Proposition 1.3.

So Lemmas 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 imply Proposition 1.3.

We now prove Lemmas 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7:

Proof of Lemma 1.5. If $`I\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`J\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$, let us set $`k=\text{card}(I)`$, $`l=\text{card}(J)`$, and $`I=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k\}`$, $`J=\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_l\}`$ where $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_kn`$ and $`1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_lp`$. Let us then set

$$\delta _{(n,p)}^{I,J}=(1)^{n+pkl}x_{i_1,j_1}x_{i_1,j_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_k,j_l}.$$

Then we have:

$$\delta _{(n,p)}=\underset{\begin{array}{cc}& I\{1,\mathrm{},n\},\hfill \\ & J\{1,\mathrm{},p\}\hfill \end{array}}{}\delta _{(n,p)}^{I,J}.$$

Let $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and let us prove that $`\lambda _i(\delta _{(n,p)})=0`$: we write

$$\delta _{(n,p)}=\underset{\begin{array}{cc}& I^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\{i\},\hfill \\ & J\{1,\mathrm{},p\}\hfill \end{array}}{}\delta _{(n,p)}^{I^{},J}+\delta _{(n,p)}^{I^{}\{i\},J},$$

and we now show that for any $`(I^{},J)`$,

$$\lambda _i\left(\delta _{(n,p)}^{I^{},J}+\delta _{(n,p)}^{I^{}\{i\},J}\right)=0.$$

This follows from the following facts:

* if $`\phi `$ : $`\widehat{𝔤}\widehat{𝔤}^{}`$ is a morphism of complete graded Lie algebras, and $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_N`$ are elements of $`\widehat{𝔤}^{}`$ of positive valuation, then

$$\phi (x_1)\mathrm{}\phi (x_N)=\phi (x_1\mathrm{}x_n);$$
* we have the identity $`x_1\mathrm{}x_k0x_{k+1}\mathrm{}x_N=x_1\mathrm{}x_N`$.

The proof of $`\rho _j(\delta _{(n,p)})=0`$ is similar: we write

$$\delta _{(n,p)}=\underset{\begin{array}{cc}& I\{1,\mathrm{},n\},\hfill \\ & J^{}\{1,\mathrm{},p\}\{j\}\hfill \end{array}}{}\delta _{(n,p)}^{I,J^{}\{j\}}+\delta _{(n,p)}^{I,J^{}},$$

and then show that

$$\rho _j\left(\delta _{(n,p)}^{I,J^{}\{j\}}+\delta _{(n,p)}^{I,J^{}}\right)=0$$

for any pair $`(I,J^{})`$ using the same arguments.

Proof of Lemma 1.6. It will be enough to prove Lemma 1.6 when $`i=n`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be an element of $`F_{n,p}`$. Set

$$\alpha =\underset{\underset{¯}{k}\underset{(i,j)}{}ϵ_{(i,j)}}{}\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}},$$

where $`\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}}`$ has degree $`\underset{¯}{k}`$. Assume that $`\lambda _n(\alpha )=0`$, we want to show that $`\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}}=0`$ unless the $`n`$-th column of $`\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ is nonempty. We will now write:

$$\alpha =\underset{\underset{¯}{k}|n\text{-}\mathrm{th}\mathrm{column}(\mathrm{supp}(\underset{¯}{k}))\mathrm{}}{}\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}}+\underset{\underset{¯}{k}|n\text{-}\mathrm{th}\mathrm{column}(\mathrm{supp}(\underset{¯}{k}))=\mathrm{}}{}\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}}.$$

Now $`\lambda _n(\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}})=0`$ as soon as the $`n`$-th column of $`\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ is nonempty, so we get

$$\underset{\underset{¯}{k}|n\text{-}\mathrm{th}\mathrm{column}(\mathrm{supp}(\underset{¯}{k}))=\mathrm{}}{}\lambda _n(\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}})=0(\text{identity in }F_{(n1,p)}).$$
(1.2)
There is a unique Lie algebra morphism $`\iota `$ : $`F_{n1,p}F_{n,p}`$, taking each $`x_{i,j}`$ to $`x_{i,j}`$. We have

$$\lambda _n\iota =\text{id}_{F_{n1,p}},$$

therefore $`\iota `$ is injective. Moreover, let $``$ be the Lie subalgebra of $`F_{n,p}`$ generated by the $`x_{i,j}`$, $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, $`j\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$. $``$ is the image of the Lie subalgebra $`\stackrel{~}{}\text{Free}_{(n,p)}`$ generated by the $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{i,j}`$, $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, $`j\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$ under the canonical projection $`\text{Free}_{(n,p)}F_{(n,p)}`$. Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{\iota }`$ : $`\text{Free}_{(n1,p)}\text{Free}_{(n,p)}`$ the morphism taking each $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{i,j}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{i,j}`$, then the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\text{Free}_{(n1,p)}& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\iota }}{}& \stackrel{~}{}& & \text{Free}_{(n,p)}\\ & & & & \\ F_{(n1,p)}& \stackrel{\iota }{}& & & F_{(n,p)}\end{array}$$

commutes. Since the vertical arrows are onto and $`\stackrel{~}{\iota }`$ : $`\text{Free}_{(n1,p)}\stackrel{~}{}`$ is onto, $`\iota `$ : $`\text{Free}_{(n1,p)}`$ is onto. So $`\iota `$ : $`\text{Free}_{(n1,p)}`$ is an isomorphism. Now if the $`n`$-th column of $`\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ is empty, we have $`\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}}`$. Apply $`\iota `$ to identity (1.2), we get

$$\underset{\underset{¯}{k}|n\text{-}\mathrm{th}\mathrm{column}(\mathrm{supp}(\underset{¯}{k}))=\mathrm{}}{}\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}}=0(\text{identity in }F_{(n1,p)}).$$

Separating homogeneous components, we get $`\alpha _{\underset{¯}{k}}=0`$ for each $`\underset{¯}{k}`$, such that $`n`$-th column$`(\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k}))=\mathrm{}`$.

Proof of Lemma 1.7. Let $`\alpha F_{(n,p)}`$ be of fine degree $`\underset{¯}{k}`$, and assume that $`\underset{¯}{k}`$ satisfies $`(1)`$, $`(2)`$ but not $`(3)`$. So we have proper subsets $`S_1\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`S_2\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$ such that

$$\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})(S_1\times S_2)(\overline{S}_1\times \overline{S}_2).$$

The rectangles $`R=S_1\times S_2`$ and $`R^{}=\overline{S}_1\times \overline{S}_2`$ are disjoint. Moreover, condition $`(1)`$ (or condition $`(2)`$) implies that $`\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})R`$ and $`\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})R^{}`$ are both nonempty. Let $`(k_{(i,j)})_{(i,j)}`$ be the component of $`\underset{¯}{k}`$ in the basis $`(ϵ_{(i,j)})_{(i,j)\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},p\}}`$. Then $`k_{(i,j)}0`$ if and only if $`(i,j)\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})`$, so

$$\underset{¯}{k}=\underset{(i,j)\mathrm{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})}{}k_{(i,j)}ϵ_{(i,j)}.$$

Now there exists $`\beta \text{Free}_{(n,p)}`$ of fine degree $`\underset{¯}{k}`$, whose image under $`\text{Free}_{(n,p)}F_{(n,p)}`$ is $`\alpha `$. Moreover, standard results on free Lie algebra (see \[Bo\]) imply that $`\beta `$ has the following form: set $`|\underset{¯}{k}|=_{(i,j)\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},p\}}k_{(i,j)}`$, and say that a map $`\mu `$ : $`\{1,\mathrm{},|\underset{¯}{k}|\}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$ is a $`\underset{¯}{k}`$-map if for any $`(i,j)\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$, $`\text{card}(\mu ^1(i,j))=k_{(i,j)}`$. If $`\mu `$ is a $`\underset{¯}{k}`$-map, let us define $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu `$ as the iterated Lie bracket

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu =[\mathrm{}[[\stackrel{~}{x}_{\mu (1)},\stackrel{~}{x}_{\mu (2)}],\stackrel{~}{x}_{\mu (3)}],\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_{\mu (|\underset{¯}{k}|)}].$$

Then $`\beta `$ is a linear combination

$$\beta =\underset{\mu \{\underset{¯}{k}\text{-}\mathrm{maps}\}}{}\beta _\mu \stackrel{~}{x}_\mu ,$$

where the $`\beta _\mu `$ are scalars. Define $`x_\mu `$ as the image of $`\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu `$ under the map $`\text{Free}_{(n,p)}F_{(n,p)}`$. Then $`\alpha =_{\mu \{\underset{¯}{k}\text{-}\mathrm{maps}\}}\beta _\mu x_\mu `$. On the other hand, $`x_\mu =0`$ if $`\mu `$ is any $`\underset{¯}{k}`$-map. Indeed

$$x_\mu =[\mathrm{}[[x_{\mu (1)},x_{\mu (2)}],x_{\mu (3)}],\mathrm{},x_{\mu (|\underset{¯}{k}|)}].$$

Then, since $`RR^{}=\mathrm{}`$, $`\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})R\mathrm{}`$ and $`\text{supp}(\underset{¯}{k})R^{}\mathrm{}`$, there exists an integer $`\nu \{1,\mathrm{},|\underset{¯}{k}|1\}`$, such that one of the following possibilities occurs:

* either $`\mu (1),\mathrm{},\mu (\nu )R`$ and $`\mu (\nu +1)R^{}`$
* or $`\mu (1),\mathrm{},\mu (\nu )R^{}`$ and $`\mu (\nu +1)R`$.

Now the bracket $`[x_\alpha ,x_\beta ]`$ vanishes when $`\alpha R`$ and $`\beta R^{}`$. It follows that in both cases, the bracket

$$[\mathrm{}[[x_{\mu (1)},x_{\mu (2)}],x_{\mu (3)}],\mathrm{},x_{\mu (\nu +1)}]$$

vanishes. Therefore $`x_\mu =0`$, which implies $`\alpha =0`$.

\- e - Proof of Proposition 1.4.

The argument will be an induction over $`n+p`$. Assume that the proposition is proved when $`n+pN`$ and let us prove it when $`n+p=N+1`$. Let $`(n,p)`$ be such that $`n+p=N+1`$ and let $`S`$ be as in the proposition. We may assume $`np`$. If each column of $`S`$ has $`2`$ elements, then

$$\text{card}(S)n.2n+p1.$$

Each column of $`S`$ has $`1`$ element by assumption $`(1)`$, so we can assume that $`S`$ has a column with exactly $`1`$ element. We may assume that this element is $`(n,p)`$. Let us now set $`S^{}=S(\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},p\})`$ and prove that $`S^{}`$ satisfies the analogues (1’), (2’) and (3’) of the assumptions of the proposition, where $`(n,p)`$ is replaced by $`(n1,p)`$:

(1’) for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, the $`i`$-th lines of $`S`$ and of $`S^{}`$ coincide so the $`i`$-th line of $`S^{}`$ is nonempty;

(2’) for $`j=1,\mathrm{},p1`$, the $`j`$-th lines of $`S`$ and of $`S^{}`$ coincide, so the $`j`$-th line of $`S^{}`$ is nonempty. Let us prove that the $`p`$-th line of $`S^{}`$ is also nonempty. If not, we would have $`(n`$-th column of $`S)(p`$-th line of $`S)=\{(n,p)\}`$, contradicting assumption $`(3)`$ on $`S`$ with $`S_1=\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ and $`S_2=\{1,\mathrm{},p1\}`$. Therefore all the lines of $`S^{}`$ are nonempty;

(3’) assume that there exist proper subsets $`S_1^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n1\},S_2\{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$, (i.e., nonempty and with nonempty complement), such that

$$S^{}(S_1^{}\times S_2)\left((\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}S_1^{})\times (\{1,\mathrm{},p\}S_2)\right).$$

Then if $`pS_2`$, let us set $`S_1=S_1\{n\}`$, and if $`p\{1,\mathrm{},p\}S_2`$, let us set $`S_1=S_1^{}`$. Then in each case, since $`S=S^{}\{(n,p)\}`$, we get

$$S(S_1\times S_2)\left((\{1,\mathrm{},n\}S_1)\times (\{1,\mathrm{},p\}S_2)\right),$$

thus contradiction the fact that $`S`$ satisfies assumption $`(3)`$. Therefore $`S^{}`$ satisfies assumption (3’).

Now $`S^{}`$ satisfies the assumptions of the proposition, with $`(n,p)`$ replaced with $`(n1,p)`$. Since $`(n1)+p=N`$, we may apply the induction hypothesis. So $`\text{card}(S^{})(n1)+p1`$. Now $`\text{card}(S)=\text{card}(S^{})+1`$, so $`\text{card}(S)n+p1`$. This proves the induction step.

§ 2 $`\mathrm{}`$-adic valuation properties of universal $`R`$-matrices

In this section, we first identify a tensor product of QFSH (quantized formal series Hopf) algebras as a subspace of the tensor product of the corresponding QUE algebras (Proposition 2.1).

\- a - Tensor product of QFSH algebras

Let $`H`$ be a QUE algebra. The corresponding QFSH algebra is:

$$H^{}=\{xH|n,\delta _H^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{}^nH^{\widehat{}n}\}$$

(where $`\delta _H^{(n)}=\left(\text{id}\eta \epsilon \right)^n\mathrm{\Delta }_H^{(n)}`$). We express this condition as follows: set

$$\delta _H^{(\mathrm{tot})}=\underset{n0}{}\delta _H^{(n)}:H\underset{n0}{}H^{\widehat{}n}.$$

Then

$$H^{}=\left(\delta _H^{(\mathrm{tot})}\right)^1\left(\underset{n0}{}\mathrm{}^nH^{\widehat{}n}\right).$$

In the same way, if $`K`$ is another QUE algebra, we define

$$K^{}=\left(\delta _K^{(\mathrm{tot})}\right)^1\left(\underset{n0}{}\mathrm{}^nK^{\widehat{}n}\right).$$

Then $`\delta _H^{(\mathrm{tot})}\delta _K^{(\mathrm{tot})}`$ is a linear map $`H\widehat{}K\underset{n,p0}{}H^{\widehat{}n}\widehat{}K^{\widehat{}p}.`$

###### Proposition 2.1.

The tensor product of QFSH algebras $`H^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ is

$$H^{}\overline{}K^{}=\left(\delta _H^{(\mathrm{tot})}\delta _K^{(\mathrm{tot})}\right)^1\left(\underset{n,p0}{}\mathrm{}^{n+p}H^{\widehat{}n}\widehat{}K^{\widehat{}p}\right).$$

Proof. We will need the following lemma:

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`V_1,V_2,T_1,T_2`$ be vector spaces and let $`\delta _1`$ : $`V_1T_1`$, $`\delta _2`$ : $`V_2T_2`$ be injections. Let $`S_1,S_2`$ be vector subspaces of $`T_1,T_2`$, and set $`U_i=\delta _i^1(S_i)`$. Then

$$U_1U_2=(\delta _1\delta _2)^1(S_1S_2).$$

The proposition then follows because the maps $`\delta _K^{(\mathrm{tot})}`$ and $`\delta _H^{(\mathrm{tot})}`$ are injective. Indeed, $`x`$ can be obtained from $`\delta _H^{(\mathrm{tot})}(x)`$ by the formula:

$$x=\left(\delta _H^{(\mathrm{tot})}(x)\right)_1+\eta \left(\left(\delta _H^{(\mathrm{tot})}(x)\right)_0\right).$$

Proof of Lemma 2.2. Let $`W_1=\text{Im}(\delta _1)`$, $`W_2=\text{Im}(\delta _2)`$. Then $`W_1W_2=\text{Im}(\delta _1\delta _2)`$. So

$$W_1T_1,W_2T_2,W_1W_2T_1T_2.$$

We should prove that if $`W_1T_1`$, $`W_2T_2`$, then the subspace $`\left(W_1S_1\right)\left(W_2S_2\right)`$ $`W_1W_2`$ is equal to $`(W_1W_2)(S_1S_2)`$. Identifying the spaces $`V_i`$ with their images $`W_i=\text{Im}(\delta _i)`$ through the maps $`\delta _i`$, we should prove the following statement:

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`T_1,T_2`$ be vector spaces, and let for each $`i=1,2`$, $`W_i`$ and $`S_i`$ be vector subspaces of $`T_i`$. Then

$$(W_1S_1)(W_2S_2)=(W_1W_2)(S_1S_2).$$

Indeed, $`U_1U_2`$ can be identified with $`(W_1S_1)(W_2S_2)`$ through $`\delta _1\delta _2`$, whereas $`(\delta _1\delta _2)^1(S_1S_2)`$ can be identified with $`(W_1W_2)(S_1S_2)`$ through the same map.

Proof of Lemma 2.3. Introducing supplementary vector spaces $`\stackrel{~}{W}_i`$ of $`W_iS_i`$ in $`W_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}_i`$ of $`W_iS_i`$ in $`S_i`$, we get

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}W_i=& (W_iS_i)\stackrel{~}{W}_i\hfill \\ S_i=& (W_1S_i)\stackrel{~}{S}_i\hfill \end{array}$$

$`W_i+S_i=(W_iS_i)\stackrel{~}{W}_i\stackrel{~}{S}_1`$ so $`(W_1+S_1)(W_2+S_2)`$ is the direct sum of nine summands. The subspaces $`W_1W_2`$ and $`S_1S_2`$ are the sums

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill W_1W_2=& \left((W_1S_1)(W_2S_2)\right)\left((W_1S_1)\stackrel{~}{W}_2\right)\hfill \\ & \left(\stackrel{~}{W}_1(W_2S_2)\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{W}_1\stackrel{~}{W}_2\right)\hfill \\ \hfill S_1S_2=& \left((W_1S_1)(W_2S_2)\right)\left((W_1S_1)\stackrel{~}{S}_2\right)\hfill \\ & \left(\stackrel{~}{S}_1(W_2S_2)\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{S}_1\stackrel{~}{S}_2\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

the intersection of which is $`(W_1S_1)(W_2S_2)`$.

\- b - Proof of Theorem 0.1.

Let $`(U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤),R)`$ be a quasitriangular QUE algebra. Set $`\rho =\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}(R)`$. Then $`\rho \mathrm{}^2U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}`$. For $`x,yU_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}n}[\mathrm{}^1]`$, let us set

$$\{x,y\}_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}[x,y].$$

Then $`\{,\}`$ restricts to a Lie bracket

$$\{,\}:^2\left(\mathrm{}^2U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}k}\right)\mathrm{}^2U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}k}.$$

Its image is actually contained in $`\mathrm{}^3U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}k}`$. According to Proposition 2.1, the statement $`\rho 𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})^{\overline{}2}`$ is equivalent to

$$\left(\delta _{U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)}^{(n)}\delta _{U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)}^{(p)}\right)(\rho )\mathrm{}^{n+p}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}(n+p)}$$
(2.3)
for any $`n,p0`$. Let us therefore prove this statement: for $`a,b\mathrm{}^2U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}k}`$, let us set

$$a_kb=a+b+\frac{1}{2}\{a,b\}_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{};$$
(2.4)
the series (2.4) makes sense because of the following fact: if $`m\text{Free}_2`$ is a Lie monomial of degree $`p`$ in two free variables $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`m(\{,\}_{\mathrm{}},a,b)`$ is the image of $`m`$ by the Lie algebra morphism $`\text{Free}_2\mathrm{}^2U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}k}`$ defined by $`Aa`$, $`Bb`$, then

$$m(\{,\}_{\mathrm{}},a,b)\mathrm{}^{p+1}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}k}.$$

Recall that $`\rho \mathrm{}^2U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}3}`$. The quasitriangular identities then imply that $`\rho `$ satisfies

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)}\text{id}\right)(\rho )=\rho ^{1,3}_3\rho ^{2,3},\left(\text{id}\mathrm{\Delta }_{U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)}\right)(\rho )=\rho ^{1,3}_3\rho ^{1,2}.$$
(2.5)
There is a unique Lie algebra morphism

$$\varphi _{(n,p)}:\widehat{F}_{(n,p)}(\mathrm{}^2U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}(n+p)},\{,\}_{\mathrm{}}),$$

$$x_{i,j}\rho ^{i,n+j}$$

for each $`(i,j)\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times \{1,\mathrm{},p\}`$ (here $`\rho ^{i,n+j}`$ is the image of $`\rho `$ by the map

$$U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}(n+p)},$$

taking the first component of $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}`$ to the $`i`$-th component, and the second component to the $`(n+j)`$-th component). Then the identities $`(\text{2.5})`$ imply

$$\left(\delta _{U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)}^{(n)}\delta _{U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)}^{(p)}\right)(\rho )=\varphi _{(n,p)}\left(\delta _{(n,p)}\right).$$
(2.6)
Let $`\alpha \text{Free}_{(n,p)}`$ be an element of total degree $`d`$. Then we have seen that $`\varphi _{(n,p)}(\alpha )\mathrm{}^{d+1}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}(n+p)}`$. Since $`\delta _{(n,p)}`$ has valuation $`n+p1`$, we get $`\varphi _{(n,p)}(\delta _{(n,p)})\mathrm{}^{n+p}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}(n+p)}`$. According to $`(\text{2.6})`$, this implies identity $`(\text{2.3})`$. So we get $`\rho 𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})^{\overline{}2}`$. Since we have $`(\epsilon \text{id})(R)=(\text{id}\epsilon )(R)=1`$, we get $`(\epsilon \text{id})(\rho )=(\text{id}\epsilon )(\rho )=0`$, therefore $`\rho (𝔪_{\mathrm{}})^{\overline{}2}`$.

§ 3 Proof of Corollary 0.2.

The space $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}`$ is a quantization of $`𝔤\times 𝔤`$ and $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})^{\overline{}2}`$ is the corresponding QFSH algebra. Set $`𝔡=𝔤\times 𝔤`$, let $`D^{}`$ be the corresponding formal group, and set $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)=U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)^{\widehat{}2}`$, $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})=𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(G^{})^{\overline{}2}`$. Denote by $`𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$ the augmentation ideal of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$. Then $`𝔪_{\mathrm{}}\overline{}1`$ and $`1\overline{}𝔪_{\mathrm{}}`$ are subspaces of $`𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$, so $`\rho 𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})^2`$. Corollary 0.2 will follow from the following proposition:

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`𝔡`$ be an arbitrary finite-dimensional Lie bialgebra, let $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)`$ be a quantization of $`𝔡`$, let $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$ be the QFSH subalgebra of $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)`$, and let $`𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$ be the augmentation ideal of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$. Let $`\rho `$ be an arbitrary element of $`𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})^2`$.

(1) the operation $`\{,\}_{\mathrm{}}`$ : $`^2\left(U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)[\mathrm{}^1]\right)U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)[\mathrm{}^1]`$ restricts to

$$\{,\}_{\mathrm{}}:^2\left(𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})\right)𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{});$$

(2) for any $`k,l0`$, we have

$$\{𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})^k,𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})^l\}_{\mathrm{}}𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})^{k+l1};$$

(3) $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})=\underset{\underset{k}{}}{lim}\left(𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})/\left(𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})+\mathrm{}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})\right)^k\right)`$ ; let us set

$$\text{ad}_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )(x):=\{\rho ,x\}_{\mathrm{}},$$

then the exponential $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\text{ad}_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )\right)`$ is a well-defined continuous algebra automorphism of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$;

(4) We have $`\rho \mathrm{}^2U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)`$, so $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ is a well-defined element of $`1+\mathrm{}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)`$. Let $`\text{Ad}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{}}\right)\right)`$ be the inner automorphism $`x\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{}}\right)x\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{}}\right)^1`$ of $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)`$. Then $`\text{Ad}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{}}\right)\right)`$ restricts to an automorphism of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$, which coincides with $`\mathrm{exp}(\text{ad}_{\mathrm{}}(\rho ))`$.

Proof.

(1) $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$ is a subalgebra of $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)`$, and its reduction modulo $`\mathrm{}`$ is commutative, so for $`x,y𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$, $`[x,y]\mathrm{}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$, i.e., $`\{x,y\}_{\mathrm{}}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$.

(2) Let $`\epsilon `$ : $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})k[[\mathrm{}]]`$ be the augmentation map. If $`x,y𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$, then $`\epsilon ([x,y])=0`$. So $`\mathrm{}\epsilon (\{x,y\}_{\mathrm{}})=0`$, i.e., $`\epsilon (\{x,y\}_{\mathrm{}})=0`$, so $`\{x,y\}_{\mathrm{}}𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$. Therefore $`\{𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{}),𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})\}𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$. Applying the Leibniz rule, we get (2).

(3) The first part is contained in \[Ga\]. The second part follows from (2): $`\rho 𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})^2`$, therefore $`\text{ad}_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )((𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})^k)𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})^{k+1}`$ for any $`k`$.

(4) If $`x𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$, then $`x\epsilon (x)\mathrm{}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)`$. If, in addition, $`x𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$, then $`\epsilon (x)=0`$ so $`x\mathrm{}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)`$. So $`𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})\mathrm{}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)`$ and $`𝔪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})^2\mathrm{}^2U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)`$. Let us now show that the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)& \stackrel{\mathrm{Ad}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{}}\right)\right)}{}& U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)\\ & & \\ 𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})& \stackrel{\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{ad}_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )\right)}{}& 𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})\end{array}$$
(3.7)
commutes. This means that we have the identity (in $`U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔡)`$):

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\text{ad}_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )\right)(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{}}\right)x\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{}}\right)^1,$$

for any $`x𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$. To show this identity, let us introduce a parameter $`t`$ and show the same identity, where $`\rho `$ is replaced by $`t\rho `$. This means that we have the identity

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\text{ad}_{\mathrm{}}(t\rho )\right)(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{t\rho }{\mathrm{}}\right)x\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{t\rho }{\mathrm{}}\right)^1.$$

This last identity follows from the fact that its two sides coincide when $`t=0`$, and that they both satisfy the differential equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}x(t)=\text{ad}_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )(x(t)).$$

It follows that the diagram (3.7) commutes. Therefore the map $`\text{Ad}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{}}\right)\right)`$ restricts to an automorphism of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(D^{})`$, which coincides with $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\text{ad}_{\mathrm{}}(\rho )\right)`$.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank F. Gavarini for discussions on the subject of this work. We also would like to thank P. Cartier for suggesting that Theorem 0.1 is formally analogous to the oscillatory integrals formalism.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Study of representations of super $`𝒲`$ algebras is one of fundamental problems in two-dimensional conformal field theories. The super $`𝒲`$ algebras would have their applications to provide an exact treatment of the superstring compactifications. Then we need a systematic understanding of the representations. At present such study is quite difficult to overcome, but Gepner and Noyvert  studied a construction of the unitary representations of the simplest $`N=1`$ super $`𝒲`$ algebra, $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ . This super $`𝒲`$ algebra was expected to play a fundamental role in the string compactifications on $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy manifolds . Meanwhile, there was much progress on the study of the string compactifications on exceptional holonomy manifolds .

It is well known that topological aspects of $`N=2`$ superconformal models are often relevant to geometrical information on Calabi-Yau manifolds. Shatashvili and Vafa  suggested a construction of the topological twisting of the $`c=12`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ algebra, and its implication to the conjectured mirror symmetry for $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy manifolds. Their proposal is quite intriguing by itself because it hints generic structure of the topological counterparts of the $`N=1`$ superconformal field theories based on the super $`𝒲`$ algebras. However, nobody has succeeded to provide an exact proof on the topological twisting. Motivated by this problem, we arrived at an observation on the $`N=1`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ algebras with the central charges different from $`c=12`$. The result arose from following two facts.

Let us begin with the result in  motivated by . The $`N=1`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ algebra consists of the two commuting Virasoro algebras, and the fermionic spin $`3/2,5/2`$ currents. Then, we impose that one of the stress tensors should yield the $`N=0`$ minimal model. This tightly restricts possible central charges of the algebra. The allowed values of the central charge are summarized in two discrete series:

$`c_p^{(1)}=6{\displaystyle \frac{18}{p+1}},c_p^{(2)}=6+{\displaystyle \frac{18}{p}},`$
where $`p`$ is an integer such that $`p3`$. I.e., $`3/2c_p^{(1)}6`$ and $`6c_p^{(2)}12`$. At these values, we have the unitary minimal model which contain the representation of the $`N=0`$ minimal model of $`c=16/p(p+1)`$ as the subrepresentation of that of the $`N=1`$ algebra. Then, the unitary model of $`c_p^{(1)}`$ has the spin $`3/2`$ supercurrent which is primary with the conformal weight $`h_{1,2}`$ under the Virasoro current of the $`N=0`$ minimal model. The conformal weights of the $`N=0`$ minimal model are given by $`h_{r,s}=(\left[rps(1+p)\right]^21)/4p(1+p),(r=1\mathrm{}p,s=1\mathrm{}p1)`$. Here, the point is that the fermionic spin $`5/2`$ current of the $`N=1`$ algebra is descendant with respect to the spin $`3/2`$ supercurrent under the stress tensor of the $`N=0`$ minimal model. Furthermore, it is possible to reconstruct the whole $`N=1`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ algebra from these facts in the $`N=0`$ minimal model. Closure of the operator product expansions of the $`N=1`$ algebra determines the value of the central charge of the $`N=1`$ algebra. Subsequently, the unitary representations of the $`N=1`$ algebra were determined.

The other ingredient is the result in . We noticed that the central charge $`c_p^{(1)}`$ coincides with the central charge of the level one coset model based on the Wolf space $`G/\left(H\times SU(2)\right)`$ :

$`c=6{\displaystyle \frac{18}{g+1}},`$
where $`g`$ is the dual Coxeter number of the Lie group $`G`$ *** The other series of the central charge $`c_p^{(2)}`$ may be obtained by substituting the level of the current algebra into negative values formally. We will not discuss this case in this note.. In fact, we found out that the construction of the two Virasoro currents and the $`N=1`$ spin $`3/2`$ superconformal current of the coset model is the same as that of the $`N=1`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ algebra in . This observation enabled us to write down the remaining fermionic spin $`5/2`$ current of the $`N=1`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ algebra through the coset realization. We will provide the explicit expression in the case with $`G=SU(n)`$, but it should be straightforward to do with the other choices of $`G`$. Furthermore, we arrived at topological conformal field theories of the $`N=1`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ algebra in the same way as . The BRST-exact expression of the twisted stress energy tensor of the topological theories follows from the $`c=0`$ coset models of $`\left(G\times G\right)/G`$. The BRST charge is given by the double contour integral of the two spin $`3/2`$ supercurrents. We expect that the structure of the topological twisting might shed some light on the suggestion in .

Along these lines, we found out that the coset realization of the $`N=1`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ algebras via the Wolf spaces $`SU(n)/(SU(n2)\times SU(2))`$. Then, we were led to the topological conformal field theories. We will state these observations in section 2. We will also include a relation of the $`N=1`$ coset models to the $`N=2`$ coset models. Section 3 will include conclusions and future problems arising from this note.

## 2 Construction of the $`N=1`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ Algebras

We begin with the level one $`SU(n)`$ WZW theory using the Coulomb gas representation with the $`n1`$ free scalar fields $`\varphi =(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _{n1})`$, and choose its Coulomb gas parameters as:

$`\alpha _+=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{n}}},\alpha _{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _+}},\alpha _0=\alpha _++\alpha _{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n\alpha _+}}.`$
We also introduce the highest root and the Weyl vector of $`SU(n)`$ :

$`\theta =\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1},\rho _{SU(n)}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{i(ni)}{2}}\alpha _i,`$
where $`\alpha _i(i=1,\mathrm{},n1)`$ are the simple roots of the $`SU(n)`$.

Let us define the $`SU(2)`$ subgroup of $`SU(n)`$ by $`E_\theta ,E_\theta `$ and $`[E_\theta ,E_\theta ]`$ where $`E_\theta ,E_\theta `$ are the lowering, raising operators. This gives the subgroup $`SU(n2)`$ whose root vectors span the orthogonal subspace to $`\theta `$ in the root space of $`SU(n)`$. Then, we obtain the Wolf space $`SU(n)/(SU(n2)\times SU(2))`$ which is a symmetric space with a quaternionic structure . Let us decompose the Weyl vector according to the Wolf space:

$`\rho _{SU(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}},\rho _{SU(n)}=\rho _{SU(n2)}+(1n)\rho _{SU(2)},`$
which leads to the $`N=1`$ superconformal model of $`c=618/(n+1)`$ . Now, we will arrive at the $`N=1`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ algebra. Let us recall that the generating currents of the algebra consist of the following four currents : the two bosonic spin $`2`$ stress tensors $`T_{N=1},T_{SU(2)}`$, and the fermionic spin $`3/2,5/2`$ currents $`G,U`$. The stress tensors are written down as

$`T_{N=1}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi )^2(z)+i\alpha _0\left(\rho _{SU(n2)}+\rho _{SU(2)}\right)^2\varphi (z),`$
$`T_{SU(2)}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{2}\rho _{SU(2)}\varphi \right)^2(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\alpha _0\left(\sqrt{2}\rho _{SU(2)}^2\varphi \right)(z).`$
Comparing with the construction in , $`T_{N=1}`$ (resp. $`T_{SU(2)}`$) is the stress tensor of the whole $`N=1`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ algebra (resp. the $`N=0`$ minimal model). The fermionic currents $`G,U`$ turn out to be

$`G(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{SU(2)}\left(\psi _{SU(n2),1}+\psi _{SU(n2),2}\right)(z),`$
$`=`$ $`e^{i\alpha _+\alpha _1\varphi (z)}+e^{i\alpha _+\alpha _{n1}\varphi (z)},`$
$`U(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}h_{1,2}\psi _{SU(2)}(\psi _{SU(n2),1}+\psi _{SU(n2),2})(z)`$
$`+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}h_{1,2}\right)\left(\psi _{SU(2)}\right)\left(\psi _{SU(n2),1}+\psi _{SU(n2),2}\right)(z),`$
where $`h_{1,2}=(n+3)/4n`$ is the conformal weight in the Kac’s table of the $`N=0`$ minimal model. Here, we have introduced the following vertex operators

$`\psi _{SU(2)}=e^{i\alpha _+\rho _{SU(2)}\varphi },`$
$`\psi _{SU(n2),1}=e^{i\alpha _+\frac{\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}}{2}\varphi },\psi _{SU(n2),2}=e^{i\alpha _+\frac{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{n2}+\alpha _{n1}}{2}\varphi }.`$
The complete expression of the currents of the $`N=1`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ algebra of $`c_n^{(1)}=618/(n+1)`$ through the Coulomb gas representation based on the Wolf space $`SU(n)/(SU(n2)\times SU(2))`$ is the main result in this note.

In fact, the coset models have their topological counterparts . The topological stress tensor is defined as

$`T_{c=0}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{N=1}(z)i\alpha _0n\rho _{SU(2)}^2\varphi (z),`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi )^2(z)+i\alpha _0\rho _{SU(n)}^2\varphi (z).`$
This topological stress tensor can be written in the BRST-exact form

$`T_{c=0}(z)=\{Q_{BRST},e^{i\alpha _+\theta \varphi }(z)\}.`$
Here, the BRST charge $`Q_{BRST}`$ is defined as the double contour integral of the two spin $`3/2`$ superconformal currents $`G`$ using a suitable path of the integration

$`Q_{BRST}={\displaystyle 𝑑z𝑑wG(z)G(w)},`$
and satisfies the nilpotency: $`Q_{BRST}^2=0`$. It is possible to prove this nilpotency by checking poles in the integral. The BRST-exactness of the topological stress tensor is also proven by inserting the screening charge $`𝑑ze^{i\alpha _+\alpha _i\varphi (z)}`$ in the integral. The conformal weight $`h_{c=0}`$ of the fermionic current $`G`$ (resp. $`U`$) under the topological stress tensor $`T_{c=0}`$ is an integer, i.e., one (resp. two). In , the fermionic spin $`5/2`$ current $`U(z)`$ is suggested to be BRST-equivalent to the anti-ghost field $`e^{i\alpha _+\theta \varphi (z)}`$: $`U(z)=e^{i\alpha _+\theta \varphi (z)}+\{Q_{BRST},\}`$. We do not understand a role of the current $`U(z)`$ in the present topological model.

Finally, we discuss that the $`N=1`$ superconformal coset models have a relation to the standard $`N=2`$ superconformal coset models  (The same argument was given in .). Let us explain it with the Wolf space $`SU(4)/(SU(2)\times SU(2))`$. There is the cyclic $`𝐙_4`$ symmetry in the root system of the affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{su}(4)`$: $`(\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)(\alpha _3,\alpha _0,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ (The reader should not confuse the root $`\alpha _0`$ with the Coulomb gas parameter.). Then, the $`N=1`$ superconformal currents $`T^{N=1},G^{N=1}`$ are mapped into the $`N=2`$ superconformal currents $`T^{N=2},G^{\pm ,N=2}`$ of the coset model of the symmetric space $`SU(4)/(SU(2)^2\times U(1))`$:

$`T_{SU(4)/(SU(2)\times SU(2))}^{N=1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi )^2+i\alpha _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0+\alpha _2}{2}}\right)^2\varphi ,`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi )^2+i\alpha _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _3}{2}}\right)^2\varphi ,`$
$`:=`$ $`T_{SU(4)/(SU(2)^2\times U(1))}^{N=2},`$
$`G_{SU(4)/(SU(2)\times SU(2))}^{N=1}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\alpha _+\alpha _0\varphi }+e^{i\alpha _+\alpha _2\varphi },`$
$`=`$ $`e^{i\alpha _+\theta \varphi }+e^{i\alpha _+\alpha _2\varphi },`$
$`:=`$ $`G_{SU(4)/(SU(2)^2\times U(1))}^{,N=2}+G_{SU(4)/(SU(2)^2\times U(1))}^{+,N=2}.`$
Here, the part of the vertex operators with the imaginary root $`\delta =_{i=0}^{n1}\alpha _i`$ can be ignored in the operator product expansions of these currents due to the orthogonality: $`(\delta ,\alpha _i)=0`$. Further, it is possible to write down the $`U(1)`$ current of the $`N=2`$ model

$`J^{N=2}=2i\alpha _0\left(\rho _{SU(4)}\rho _{SU(2)^2}\right)\varphi .`$
In this way, we arrive at the relation of the $`N=1`$ coset models to the $`N=2`$ coset models of the $`SU(n)`$ group with the $`SU(2)`$ factor in the denominator. Here, we do not have a role of the fermionic current $`U`$ in the $`N=2`$ coset models. Alternatively, it is straightforward to obtain another class of the $`N=2`$ coset models. For example, to obtain the coset model of the symmetric space $`SU(4)/(SU(3)\times U(1))`$, we delete the simple roots $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ of $`SU(4)`$ in the construction of .

## 3 Conclusion and Outlook

We pointed out that the $`N=1`$ superconformal $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,2)`$ algebras with the specific central charge are realized by the Wolf spaces $`SU(n)/(SU(n2)\times SU(2))`$. Then, we discussed some consequences of this observation: the existence of the topological conformal field theories and the relation to the $`N=2`$ superconformal coset models. Through the realization, we confirmed the existence of the topological conformal field theories based on the $`N=1`$ super $`𝒲`$ algebras.

Based on the result in this note, a lot of things should be considered:

(1) It is desirable to analyze in detail the spectrum in the $`N=1`$ superconformal coset models. We will dwell only on the states in the NS sector of the $`c=3/2(p=n=3)`$ model. The primary fields in the NS sector are labelled by the conformal weights $`h,a`$ under the stress tensors $`T_{N=1},T_{SU(2)}`$. Then, we arrive at the vertex operators $`1,e^{i\alpha _0\alpha _1\varphi },e^{i\alpha _0(2\alpha _1+2\alpha _2)\varphi }`$. Here, we have imposed that the conformal weight $`a`$ should exist in the Kac’s table of the Ising model of the stress tensor $`T_{SU(2)}`$. We write these states as $`|0,0,|1/16,1/16,|1/2,0`$ in the way that the state with the conformal weights $`h,a`$ is denoted by $`|a,ha`$ (In fact, these states coincide with those of the minimal model of $`c_{p=3}^{(1)}=3/2`$ in .). Meanwhile, when we move into the topological conformal field theory, these states turn out to be the BRST invariant states in the sense that $`Q_{BRST}|\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the state corresponding to the vertex operator. Subsequently, we should proceed to the highest weight states in the Ramond sector of the $`N=1`$ coset model. Then, it would be very interesting to consider a geometrical interpretation of the spectrum through the Wolf space. It also might be of use to visit the gauged WZW model on the Wolf space .

(2) It would be very interesting to clarify a relation between the present result and the result in . The unitary spectrum in  has the continuous parts. The $`N=1`$ coset model and the $`𝐙_2`$ orbifold of the coset model of the $`N=2`$ super $`W_3`$ algebra  should provide the special realization of the continuous spectra. Then, this might suggest a new kind of mirror symmetry because it is likely that the Wolf spaces and the orbifolds of the hermitian symmetric spaces are geometrically different even if the corresponding $`N=1`$ superconformal field theories are the same.

(3) Extension of the result into the Lie groups other than $`G=SU(n)`$ is of interest (see ). Along the quaternionic structure of the Wolf spaces, it would be interesting to consider the extension with $`G=Sp(n)`$. Then, it is natural to ask how to obtain the coset realization of the $`N=1`$ super $`𝒲`$ algebra through a Hamiltonian reduction along the well-known story in the $`N=2`$ coset model . In a related direction, the $`N=1`$ $`𝒮𝒲(3/2,3/2,2)`$ algebra was studied using the $`\left(SU(2)\times SU(2)\right)/SU(2)`$ coset model motivated by an application to the string compactifications on $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds . The result might be understood through a Hamiltonian reduction as in .

We hope to report further developments on these problems elsewhere.

## Acknowledgements

We thank T. Eguchi, T. Kawai, Y. Koga, K. Ito and A. Yamaguchi for helpful conservations. We are also grateful to D. Gepner and B. Noyvert for comments. Especially, we wish to thank H. Kanno for collaborative discussions and comments on the manuscript. Present research is supported by Japanese Society of the Promotion of Science under Post-doctorial Research Program (No. 0206911).


text:
# Hot Settling Accretion Flow onto a Spinning Black Hole

## 1. Introduction

Black holes (BHs) are identified both spectroscopically, by the spectra of radiation emitted from an ambient accreting gas, and via direct dynamical determination of their mass functions. So far no measurement of the BH specific angular momentum, $`j`$, which describes the shape of the surrounding space-time, has been possible. The general relativistic effects associated with the Kerr metrics of a spinning BH are significant only within few gravitational radii from the horizon; when observed from a large distance, Kerr and Schwarzchild space times look identical. This fact suggests that the BH spin can only be determined by studying the dynamics of the gas in the vicinity of the horizon.

Most spectroscopic BH candidates radiate significant levels of hard X-rays, indicating the presence of hot, optically-thin gas, which forms an advection-dominated, a convection-dominated accretion flow, or an advection-dominated inflow-outflow solution (ADAF, CDAF, or ADIOS) (Narayan & Yi 1994, 1995; Narayan et al. 2000; Quataert & Gruzinov 2000; Begelman & Blandford 1999). The properties of such global, purely hydrodynamical flows are completely independent of $`j`$, because the flow and a BH are dynamically decoupled: viscous stresses vanish below the last stable orbit. In contrast, MHD flows can communicate via magnetic stresses as well, so that the situation is more subtle.

In this paper we demonstrate that the global structure and observational properties of an MHD accretion flow around a rapidly spinning BH are determined by $`j`$ in some cases. Therefore it may be possible to identify rapidly spinning BHs simply from their broad-band spectra.

Accretion flows are likely to contain rather strong magnetic fields produced via instabilities and/or MHD turbulence. At any instant as the gas falls into a BH, some magnetic field lines anchored at the inner part of the flow thread the horizon. A rapidly rotating BH in such an external magnetic field looses angular momentum and energy via a Blandford-Znajek-type (BZ) process (Blandford & Znajek 1977; Macdonald & Thorne 1982). The energy and angular momentum fluxes are transported along the field lines and damped in the inner part of an accretion flow. For the accretion to proceed, this extra angular momentum must be transported further away, to the outer boundary of the flow. Neither an ADAF nor a CDAF are suitable, therefore. One type of flow which supports such outward flux of angular momentum was discovered recently by Medvedev & Narayan (2001a), as a model of accretion onto a spinning neutron star. The flow is referred to as the “hot settling flow”. (A second type of flow which could extract angular momentum is a jet or ADIOS; see Begelman & Blandford 1999.)

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We begin by describing some relevant properties of the hot settling flow in §2. Formal derivation of the magnetically torqued flow is presented in §3. In §4 we present observational predictions of the model and identify the objects for which the model may be applicable. §5 presents discussion and conclusions.

## 2. Viscous Hot Settling Flow

We briefly recall some basic properties of a hydrodynamical hot settling flow onto a neutron star following the original work by Medvedev & Narayan (2001a); the effects of thermal conduction are discussed by Medvedev & Narayan (2001b).

The hot settling flow solution describes an optically thin two-temperature accretion flow onto a rotating neutron star. The flow extracts the rotational energy of the star and radiates it via free-free emission. The flow is geometrically thick with the vertical thickness being comparable to the local radius of the flow, $`HR`$. The flow is hot, with the protons being at nearly the virial temperature. The flow is optically thin; energetically, it is cooling-dominated. The flow rotates with a sub-Keplerian angular velocity. The settling flow is powered by the rotational energy of the central star; hence, except for the radial velocity, none of the parameters of the flow depend of the mass accretion rate $`\dot{M}`$. As in the case of an ADAF, this accretion rate must not exceed a critical value which is of order a few percent of the Eddington value; otherwise, the cooling is too strong and a thin Shakura-Sunyaev disk forms.

The settling flow consists of two zones: an inner two-temperature zone for $`r10^{2.5}`$ ($`r=R/R_S`$, where $`R_S=2GM/c^2`$ is the Schwarzchild radius), and an outer one-temperature zone for $`r10^{2.5}`$. Each zone is described by a self-similar solution. The two- and one-temperature solutions read:

$`\rho =\widehat{\rho }r^2,\theta _p=\widehat{\theta }_pr^1,\theta _e=\widehat{\theta }_er^p,`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}r^{3/2},v=\widehat{v}r^0,`$
where $`\theta _p=k_BT_p/m_pc^2`$ and similarly for the electrons, $`\widehat{\rho },\widehat{\theta }_p,\widehat{\theta }_e,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }},\widehat{v}`$ are the density, temperatures, angular and radial velocities at the BH horizon, and the exponent $`p=1/2`$ in the two-temperature zone and $`p=1`$ in the one-temperature zone. Note that the ratio of the radial infall velocity to the free-fall velocity, $`v_{\mathrm{ff}}=(GM/R)^{1/2}`$, decreases with $`R`$ as $`v/v_{\mathrm{ff}}R^{1/2}`$, hence the term “settling”. It is convenient here to normalize $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to the local Keplerian angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K=(GM/R^3)^{1/2}`$, that is

$$s=\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }_K\text{ const.}$$
(2)
is the spin parameter. It is determined by the inner boundary condition, e.g., in the neutron star case, $`s`$ should match the spin of the star. In equation (1),

$`\widehat{\rho }m^1\alpha s^2,\widehat{\theta }_p\text{ const.},\widehat{\theta }_e\text{ const.},`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}m^1s,\widehat{v}\dot{m}\alpha ^1s^2,`$ (3)
where $`m=M/M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the mass of a central object in units of the solar mass, $`\dot{m}=\dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ is the mass accretion rate in Eddington units, $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}=1.4\times 10^{18}m\text{ g s}^1`$, and $`\alpha `$ is the Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity parameter. As noted above, none of the quantities (except for $`v`$) depend on the accretion rate $`\dot{m}`$. The one-temperature self-similar solution is valid from $`r10^{2.5}`$ to approximately

$$r_{ss}\left(74\alpha ^2s^2/\dot{m}\right)^26\times 10^3\alpha _1^4s_1^4\dot{m}_4^2,$$
(4)
where $`\alpha _1=\alpha /10^1`$ and similarly for other quantities. (Numerical solutions show that $`r_{ss}`$ is generally larger than the above estimate by a factor of ten or slightly less.) Beyond this radius the solution is not self-similar.

The hot settling flow extracts rotational energy and angular momentum from the central object. The angular momentum flux is outward; it is constant through the entire accretion flow and is equal to

$$\dot{J}_{\mathrm{flow}}=6\pi c^2R_S^3\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\theta }_p\alpha s\alpha ^2s^3.$$
(5)
The luminosity of the hot settling flow is due to both the gravitational energy of the infalling gas (the term $`\dot{m}`$) and the rotational energy that is released as the central star is braked by viscosity (the term independent of $`\dot{m}`$):

$`L_{\mathrm{flow}}`$ $``$ $`3.2\times 10^{34}mr^1\dot{m}_2s_1^2`$ (6)
$`+2.7\times 10^{34}mr^1\alpha _1^2s_1^4\text{ erg s}^1.`$
Note that the rotational luminosity is a strong function of $`s`$. The radiative efficiency of the flow, $`\eta =L_{\mathrm{flow}}/\dot{M}c^2`$ may be arbitrarily large for low $`\dot{M}`$ – a result of the fact that there are two energy sources. Also, the radiative efficiency of a hot settling flow for a given $`\dot{M}`$ is larger than the efficiency of a hot flow onto a non-spinning object. Another feature of the settling flow (as a result of large density) is that optically thin Bremsstrahlung cooling (which is sensitive to $`\rho `$) dominates over self-absorbed synchrotron cooling; this is the result of larger $`\rho `$ in the flow. Thus, the spectrum $`L_\nu `$ is flat, with a high energy cutoff. At a typical X-ray energy, $`h\nu 10`$ keV, the observed luminosity per decade is

$$\nu L_\nu 5.6\times 10^3L_{\mathrm{flow}}(h\nu /10\mathrm{keV}).$$
(7)
The spectrum has a cutoff in the range of $``$ few hundred keV to few MeV. The above estimate of the shape of the spectrum is rather crude. It does not include synchrotron emission and Comptonization, the latter should be very strong in the very hot inner part of the flow. We do not attempt to calculate accurate spectral models of the hot settling flow.

For reasonable values of the adiabatic index $`\gamma 1.5`$, the Bernoulli number of the flow is negative; therefore, in the absence of the dynamically important magnetic fields, a strong outflow or a wind is not expected. The hot settling flow is also convectively stable if $`\gamma 1.5`$ (Medvedev & Narayan 2001a). The flow is cooling-dominated and, hence, might be thermally unstable. However, Medvedev & Narayan (2001b) demonstrated that thermal conduction in the flow is strong enough to make the flow marginally stable.

Numerical simulations (see Medvedev & Narayan 2001a) indicate that the above scalings are accurate for the values of spin $`s0.5`$. However, as the spin is decreased below $`s0.1`$, the hot settling solution smoothly transforms to an ADAF-type solution, which becomes well-established for $`s0.01`$. The transition is not sharp, so that the value of $`s_t`$ at which the transition occurs is difficult to identify. Numerical experiments indicate that the value of $`s_t`$ is not sensitive to the outer and inner radii of the flow, $`\gamma `$, and $`\dot{M}`$ and is, roughly, $`s_t0.040.06`$. Below we relate the spin parameter $`s`$ to the dimensionless angular velocity of a black hole, $`j`$.

## 3. BZ Powered Settling Accretion Flow

### 3.1. Preliminary considerations

The crucial difference between accretion onto a neutron star and onto a black hole is the existence of the hard surface in the former case. As the gas falls onto a spinning star, it piles up and settles onto its surface, forming a narrow boundary layer. The viscous torque in this layer brakes the star and imposes a no-slip boundary condition for the accretion flow. In contrast, in a BH case, the viscous torque vanishes identically at the horizon and the viscous stress must be very small below the last stable orbit (see e.g., Bardeen 1970; Thorne 1974; Abramowicz & Kato 1989). Therefore, a spinning BH cannot communicate to an accretion flow by viscosity alone. This imposes a no-torque boundary condition. Hence, a purely viscous hot settling flow onto a BH is not possible.

Magnetic fields, which are commonly present in accretion flows, change the situation drastically. Turbulent magnetic fields create an average Maxwell stress which does not vanish at the last stable orbit (Gammie 1999; Krolik 2001). More interestingly, these turbulent magnetic loops, advected with the material and continuously crossing the horizon, provide magnetic coupling between the flow and a BH, as sketched in Figure Hot Settling Accretion Flow onto a Spinning Black Hole. The energy and angular momentum are extracted from a BH via a Blandford-Znajek-like mechanism (Blandford & Znajek 1977; Macdonald & Thorne 1982) and transported along field lines to the accretion flow in the form of the Poynting flux. The continuity of the angular momentum flux replaces the no-torque inner boundary condition for the flow. As in the neutron star case we will parameterize this boundary condition with an effective spin of the central object, $`s_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

### 3.2. Quantitative analysis

A spinning (Kerr) black hole interacting with an external magnetic field behaves as an imperfect rotating conductor. It generates currents flowing along magnetic field lines which constitute a force-free magnetosphere around the BH. The energy and angular momentum fluxes are directed away from the BH horizon, what indicates that the BH is spun down. The geometry of the magnetic field far from the horizon determines where this energy and angular momentum are ultimately deposited. Open field lines allow them to, practically, escape to infinity. The energy then powers a jet outflow and the angular momentum is carried away by the outflowing gas. In contrast, if magnetic field lines are anchored at the inner accretion flow, the energy and angular momentum extracted from the hole are deposited into the accreting gas. This latter case is of interest to us.

We now briefly sketch the derivation of the BZ angular momentum losses. We consider a Kerr BH in the Boyer-Lindquist coordinates $`x^\mu =(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2Mr}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right)dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4Mar}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta dtd\varphi `$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}dr^2\mathrm{\Sigma }d\theta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Xi }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2,`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`r^22Mr+a^2=(rr_+)(rr_{}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(r^2+a^2\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$
$`a=J_H/M`$ is the BH angular momentum per unit mass, $`r_+=M+\sqrt{M^2a^2}`$ is the radius of the event horizon, and we use natural units, $`c=G=1`$. We assume steady state and axisymmetry, hence $`_t=_\varphi =0`$. As in any axially symmetric system, the flux vector for angular momentum about the axis of symmetry is conserved, i.e., there is a corresponding axial Killing vector $`\xi ^\mu =(0,0,0,1)`$. The total energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field is defined as

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{16\pi }g^{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{4\pi }g^{\mu \alpha }F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\nu \beta },$$
(9)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=A_{\nu ,\mu }A_{\mu ,\nu }`$ is the electromagnetic tensor, $`A_\mu `$ is a 4-vector potential, and the comma denotes the partial derivative with respect to $`x^\mu `$. From the conservation law

$$T_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0$$
(10)
and the Killing equation $`\xi _{\mu ;\nu }+\xi _{\nu ;\mu }=0`$, one has the following conservation law

$$(T^{\mu \nu }\xi _\mu )_{;\nu }=0$$
(11)
(the semicolon denotes the covariant derivative). This equation represents a conservation of flux $`T^{\mu \nu }\xi _\mu `$. Substituting $`\xi ^\mu `$ from above, we see that the conserved angular momentum flux is the $`\varphi `$-component of the energy-momentum tensor

$$^\mu =T^{\mu \nu }\xi ^\alpha g_{\alpha \nu }=T_\alpha ^\mu \xi ^\alpha =T_\varphi ^\mu .$$
(12)
The outgoing flux is given by the $`r`$-component of $`^\mu `$ as

$`\dot{𝒥}T_\varphi ^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\left(F_\alpha ^rF_\varphi ^\alpha \right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}A_{\varphi ,\theta }B_\varphi g^{rr}g^{\theta \theta }`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}A_{\varphi ,\theta }B_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}},`$
where $`B_\varphi =F_{r\theta }=A_{\theta ,r}A_{r,\theta }`$, is the toroidal covariant component of the magnetic field which arises because of frame dragging near the BH horizon. At the horizon, the stream function $`A_\varphi `$ must be finite (Znajek 1977; Macdonald & Thorne 1982) and, hence,

$$B_\varphi =\mathrm{\Delta }^1\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_F\left(r_+^2+a^2\right)a\right]A_{\varphi ,\theta },$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_F(r,\theta )=A_{0,r}/A_{\varphi ,r}=A_{0,\theta }/A_{\varphi ,\theta }`$ measures the angular velocity of magnetic field lines which is also due to the effect of relativistic dragging of inertial frames. Equation (14) relates at the horizon the components of the magnetic field which are normal, $`B_rA_{\varphi ,\theta }`$, and tangential, $`B_\varphi `$, to the BH horizon. Equations (13), (14) now yield

$$\dot{𝒥}=A_{\varphi ,\theta }^2\frac{\left(r_+^2+a^2\right)\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_F\right)}{4\pi \left(r_+^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)^2},$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Ha/(r_+^2+a^2)`$ is the BH angular velocity and $`\left(r_+^2+a^2\right)=2Mr_+`$. This equation represents the angular momentum flux coming from a BH per the unit area of the horizon. The total angular momentum extraction rate is obtained integrating $`\dot{𝒥}`$ over the horizon area, and scales approximately as

$$\dot{J}_{\mathrm{BZ}}=_{}\dot{𝒥}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi CB_{}^2r_+^4\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_F\right),$$
(16)
where we use $`B_{}(\theta )=\left[\mathrm{\Xi }^{1/2}(r_+)\mathrm{sin}\theta \right]^1A_{\varphi ,\theta }=\left[(r_+^2+a^2)\mathrm{sin}\theta \right]^1A_{\varphi ,\theta }`$, we denoted $`B_{}`$ as an average strength of the magnetic field normal to the BH horizon (Lee et al 2001; Thorne et al. 1986), and $`C`$ is a constant which value depends on the magnetic field geometry in the force-free region. Moderski & Sikora (1996) estimated this constant (see also Macdonald & Thorne 1982) to be $`C1/8`$.

The rate of the angular momentum extraction in the BZ process is given by equation (16). This equation may be written in a more convenient form. First of all, we restore dimensional $`c`$ and $`G`$. Next, by analogy with equation (2) we define the dimensionless BH spin and angular velocity of the field as

$$\omega _H=\mathrm{\Omega }_H/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{max}},\omega _F=\mathrm{\Omega }_F/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{max}},$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{max}}=c^3/GM`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H=ac^3/2GMr_+`$. The dimensionless horizon radius of a BH is

$$r_H=\frac{r_+}{R_S}=\frac{r_+c^2}{2GM}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+(1j^2)^{1/2}\right],$$
(18)
where $`j=J_H/J_{\mathrm{max}}=J_Hc/GM^2`$ is the dimensionless angular momentum of a BH (i.e., $`j=a/M`$ in $`c=G=1`$ units); note that $`j=4r_H\omega _H`$. We also introduce $`C_{1/8}=C/(1/8)`$ for convenience. With all these definitions, the rate of loss of angular momentum by a BH, which is $`\dot{J}_{\mathrm{BH}}=\dot{J}_{\mathrm{BZ}}`$, becomes

$$\dot{J}_{\mathrm{BH}}(1/4)C_{1/8}B_{}^2R_S^3r_H^4(\omega _H\omega _F).$$
(19)
The magnetic field strength near the BH horizon is not generally known. However, if the field is produced in an accretion flow, e.g., via the magneto-rotational instability, it will likely be nearly in equipartition with the gas energy. Hence, we parameterize it as follows

$$\frac{B_{}^2}{8\pi \rho c_s^2}=\frac{B_{}^2}{8\pi c^2\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\theta }_pr_{\mathrm{in}}^3}b^21,$$
(20)
where we have used the self-similar solution for the hot settling flow (1), $`\widehat{\rho }`$ and $`\widehat{\theta }_p`$ are constants and the inner boundary of the accretion flow is at $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$. Then equation (19) becomes

$$\dot{J}_{\mathrm{BH}}\frac{\pi }{2}C_{1/8}b^2R_S^3c^2\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\theta }_pj\left(\frac{r_H}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^3\left(1\frac{\omega _F}{\omega _H}\right).$$
(21)
To account for a general geometry of the magnetic field in the system BH + accretion flow, we assume that there are both open field lines which extend to infinity and form a jet and that there are field lines which thread the inner boundary of an accretion flow (a well-defined inner boundary is an idealization, of course). Then only a fraction $`ϵ1`$ of the extracted angular momentum goes into the flow and $`(1ϵ)`$ is “lost” through the open field lines and powers the jet. In steady-state, the angular momentum flux from the hole to the flow, $`ϵ\dot{J}_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, must be equal to the flux through the viscous flow itself given by equation (5), that is $`\dot{J}_{\mathrm{flow}}=ϵ\dot{J}_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. This condition yields

$$\alpha s_{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{C_{1/8}}{12}ϵb^2j\left(\frac{r_H}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^3\left(1\frac{\omega _F}{\omega _H}\right).$$
(22)
The rotation velocity of field lines $`\omega _F`$, entering equation (22), is determined by the conditions in the force-free region and in the accretion flow. Macdonald & Thorne (1982) argued that the field in the force-free region will adjust itself so as to maximize the power output, that is $`\omega _F\omega _H/2`$.

Finally, it is instructive to estimate $`s_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for a nearly extremal Kerr BH, $`j1`$. The inner radius of the accretion flow, which is comparable to the radius of the last stable orbit, is $`r_{\mathrm{in}}r_{\mathrm{lso}}r_H`$ in that case. We assume “violent” MHD turbulence with equipartition between the kinetic and magnetic energy, $`b1`$, and a $`100\%`$ efficiency of the BZ torque, $`ϵ1`$. The Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity parameter $`\alpha `$ in an accretion flow typically ranges from $`0.1`$ to 0.3; we assume $`\alpha 0.1`$. Then, the effective spin parameter of the hot settling flow around a maximally rotating BH is

$$s_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{max}}0.4.$$
(23)
This value is large enough to be confident that the hot settling flow can exist in a BH system. However, because of the strong dependence of the magnetic BZ-like torque on $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`b`$, one can expect that fluctuations of these quantities in the accretion flow can change the type of flow, i.e., switch between the settling flow and an ADAF/CDAF. This will result in strong variability of the system.

## 4. Observational predictions

A hot settling flow and an ADAF/CDAF form a single sequence of solutions in which the spin parameter, $`s_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, plays a pivotal role of a control parameter. These types of flow are quite similar: both have very hot (nearly virial), optically-thin gas, forming a quasi-spherical accretion flow with very low mass accretion rate. The observational properties are also expected to not be drastically different: both flows have hard, power-law spectra extending to at least few hundred keV, cf. equation (7), and relatively low (sub-Eddington) luminosities. These radiation properties suggest that the BH candidates in the low/hard state, e.g., low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) with radiatively inefficient (well below Eddington) accretion, may be good candidates for a hot settling flow type accretion too.

Despite similarities, a hot settling flow is not identical to other hot flows. First, the hot settling flow is more radiatively efficient and, hence, more luminous than an ADAF, because it is powered by rotation of the central object. The maximum luminosity, estimated from (6) for a nearly extremal BH with $`r_{\mathrm{in}}r_H1/2`$, is

$`L_{\mathrm{max}}`$ $``$ $`1.6\times 10^{37}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{1/8}^4m}{\alpha _1^2r_{\mathrm{in},1/2}}}ϵ^4j^4b^8\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_H}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}}\right)^{12}\text{erg s}^1`$ (24)
$``$ $`0.13L_{\mathrm{Edd}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{1/8}^4ϵ^4j^4b^8}{\alpha _1^2r_{\mathrm{in},1/2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_H}{r_{\mathrm{in}}}}\right)^{12}`$
where $`b1`$$`ϵ1`$$`r_{\mathrm{in},1/2}=r_{\mathrm{in}}/(1/2)`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=1.25\times 10^{38}m\text{erg s}^1`$ is the Eddington luminosity. Second, $`L`$ is a very strong function of the effective spin, which, in turn, is sensitive to $`b`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$. Even a mild fluctuation of either of the two will result in a huge variation of the radiation flux. We should emphasize that the luminosity of the flow is practically independent of the mass accretion rate (especially for high $`s_{\mathrm{eff}}`$); $`\dot{M}`$ should not exceed few percent of the Eddington accretion rate in a settling flow. It is interesting that the variability of the source is associated not with varying $`\dot{M}`$, but with the level of turbulence and the geometry of the flow close to a BH. Third, the hot settling flow can occur around rapidly rotating BHs only. Such BHs may be responsible for the production of collimated relativistic outflows (jets), observed in some systems. Thus, higher luminosity and variability of an object and the existence of jets allow us to identify two classes of BH candidates which may accrete via the hot settling flow, namely microquasars and active galactic nuclei.

### 4.1. The Galactic microquasars

The Galactic microquasars are relatively bright, often highly variable objects with resolved jets, some of which show superluminal motion of their sub-components (see the review by Mirabel & Rodriguez 1999). Some of these systems exhibit quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs), the high-frequency QPOs usually correlate with the hard power-law spectral component emerging in the very high and/or high state (see, e.g., Remillard et al. 1999; Homan et al. 2001).

GRO J1655-40 is the most interesting object in the context of settling flows. It is a highly variable LMXB with $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}7M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Shahbaz et al. 1999), the X-ray luminosity changes from $`L_X0.2L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ with a strong power-law component in a very high state to $`L_X0.01L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ in quiescence (Remillard et al. 1999). Several QPOs have been detected in the system. Cui et al. (1998) interpreted the high-frequency QPO at $`\nu =300`$ Hz as due to precession of an accretion disk caused by the inertial frame dragging; this suggests a nearly maximally rotating central BH. Zhang et al. (1997) obtained a similar result considering X-ray properties of the inner accretion disk. However, Sobczak et al. (1999) considered uncertainties of the model and put an alternative constraint on the BH angular momentum $`j<0.7`$. The recent discovery of a second high-frequency QPO at 450 Hz (Strohmayer 2001) indeed implies a spinning BH. Assuming that the QPO frequency is set by the orbital frequency at the last stable orbit, one obtains $`0.15<j<0.5`$ for a range of BH masses $`5.57.9M_{\mathrm{}}`$, which are the $`95\%`$ confidence limits from Shahbaz et al. (1999). The existence of a central, rapidly spinning BH is, thus, almost certain. Therefore, the object seems to be the best candidate for a hot settling accretion flow.

The following three objects are also good candidates for the hot settling flow accretion; all are highly variable X-ray binaries and may have rapidly spinning BHs as primaries.

GRS 1915+105 is similar to GRO J1655-40. It is a recurrent X-ray transient, possibly LMXB (Greiner et al. 2001b). The mass of the BH is $`14\pm 4M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Greiner et al. 2001a). The highest-frequency QPO has $`\nu `$=67 Hz. If one interprets this QPO as an X-ray modulation at the precession frequency of an accretion disk because of relativistic frame dragging by a spinning BH, the angular momentum of the central BH would be $`j0.65`$ and $`j0.95`$ for a $`3M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`30M_{\mathrm{}}`$ BH, respectively (Cui et al. 1998).

XTE J1748-288 is another transient X-ray source. This is a binary with a low-mass companion (Liu et al. 2001) and the primary of mass $`>4.5M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Miller et al. 2001a). Several QPOs (the highest frequency is 30 Hz) were observed when this source was in the very high and high states and none were observed in the low state (Revnivtsev et al. 2000). An Fe K$`\alpha `$ fluorescence line observed in the very high state appears broad and strongly redshifted, consistent with the emission from the last stable orbit around a maximally rotating BH (Miller et al. 2001a).

XTE J1550-564 is an X-ray transient with a BH primary of mass $`8.4M_{\mathrm{}}M_{BH}11.6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Orosz et al. 2001). It is a highly variable source; the X-ray luminosity varies by a factor of 1000 (Homan et al. 2001). The detection of high-frequency QPOs with $`\nu `$ up to 284 Hz (Homan et al. 2001; Miller et al. 2001b) may indicate a spinning central BH.

There are also several persistent X-ray sources with typical BH low/hard spectra and radio jets which are worthwhile mentioning, namely Cyg X-1, GRS 1758-258, and 1E 1740.7-2942. Cygnus X-1 (also known as (HDE 226868 and V1357 Cygni) is a strong BH candidate with a primary mass between $`515M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Herrero et al. 1995) and a supergiant secondary with mass between $`2033M_{\mathrm{}}`$. For most of the time it is observed in the low/hard X-ray state. Recently a relativistic radio jet has been detected (Stirling, et al. 2001). The sources GRS 1758-258 and 1E 1740.7-2942 are located in the bulge; their companions are unknown because of high Galactic extinction in the optical, though high mass companions are unlikely (Mereghetti et al. 1997; Marti et al. 1998, 2000). Both systems have radio jets but do not reveal superluminal motion. Both sources are variable in X-rays with the maximum luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{max}}3\times 10^{37}\text{erg s}^1`$ (Main et al. 1999). The X-ray spectra of these sources are typical of BH systems in the low/hard state. At large energies, they are dominated by a hard power-law component extending up to $`300`$ keV (Main et al. 1999; Lin et al. 2000). Only low-frequency QPOs with $`\nu 1`$ Hz have been detected in GRS 1758-258. This, however, cannot exclude a spinning central BH with very “laminar” accretion and/or weak magnetic coupling between the BH and the accretion flow at the present time.

### 4.2. Active galactic nuclei

There is strong dynamical evidence that galactic nuclei contain supermassive BHs with masses in the range from few times $`10^6`$ to few times $`10^9M_{\mathrm{}}`$. From the analysis of the contribution of quasars to the X-ray background in the universe, Elvis et al. (2002) demonstrate that the accretion efficiency must be greater than $`15\%`$, which is well above the maximum efficiency of a flow around a non-spinning BH. This result implies that most supermassive BHs might be spinning. Galactic collimated outflows, the best example being the optical jet of M87, may be indicative of a spinning BH too.

We speculate that some AGNs can be candidates for the hot settling flows. In this case, the high observed luminosities must be attributed to the strong BH–accretion flow coupling, rather than the high mass accretion rate. Clearly, not all AGNs will fall into this category. Moreover, even if the hot settling flow forms near a central BH, its radiation may be strongly contaminated by radiation from an outer accretion disk/torus. Whether AGNs contain rapidly rotating BHs is not clear. However, the jet activity and temporal variability may indicate this. The most convincing case, presented to date for having measured the BH spin has been given for the Seyfert 1 galaxy MCG –6-30-15 (Tanaka et al. 1985; Ballantyne & Fabian 2001; Wilms et al. 2001) where the measured very broad and highly redshifted shape of the Fe K$`\alpha `$ fluorescent line profile suggests that it may be produced in an accretion disk at the last stable orbit around a nearly maximally spinning BH. However, this is not the only possible interpretation (Reynolds & Begelman 1997). Recently (Pariev et al. 2001) presented a much more detailed analysis of iron line emission from an inner accretion disk in the Kerr geometry. They have found that the data for MCG –6-30-15 are consistent with a thick (and, hence, hot) accretion disk, whereas the thin Shakura-Sunyaev disk is ruled out at $`3\sigma `$, and that the central BH must spin with $`j0.26`$.

Another class of candidates are central BHs in low-ionization nuclear emission line region (LINER) galaxies (Alonso-Herrero et al. 2000; Komossa et al. 1999). These galaxies often have a compact X-ray nucleus and their luminosities range from $`5\times 10^{39}`$ to $`5\times 10^{41}`$ erg s<sup>-1</sup>, which is $`1`$ to 3 orders of magnitude smaller than typical Seyferts. These facts together indicate the presence of a central supermassive BH accreting at low (highly sub-Eddington) rates via some sort of a hot accretion flow. A good candidate is, for instance, NGC 4579 which has a power-law spectrum with the photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.2`$, consistent with Bremsstrahlung emission (Eracleous et al. 2002) but steeper than what an ADAF model predicts (Narayan et al. 1996).

## 5. Discussion and conclusion

The conventional folklore of accretion onto a BH dictates that the properties and structure of an accretion flow do not depend on whether the BH is rotating or not. If so, then at low $`\dot{M}`$ only the ADAF, CDAF or ADIOS are the relevant solutions of the BH accretion problem. In this paper we demonstrated that the folklore is, in general, wrong. The magnetic coupling between a spinning BH and a low $`\dot{M}`$ hot accretion flow can cause a different type of flow to form, namely a hot settling flow. This flow can be distinguished from other hot flows by its kinematic and broad-band spectral properties, which depend on the spin of the central object and the strength of the magnetic coupling, but which are quite insensitive to the mass accretion rate. We should note here an interesting model of a thin disk torqued by a BH (Li & Paczynski 2000; Li 2002). Unlike our model, however, this coupling affects the flow near the last stable orbit only, whereas the global structure of the Shakura-Sunyaev disk remains unchanged. More recently, Li has generalized the model to allow the magnetic field to couple to the disk over a range of radii. However, these models all assume that the flow is radiatively efficient, in contrast to the hot flows considered here.

There are two issues which we did not discuss in the paper. First, one can imagine that strong shearing motion inside the last stable orbit could result in tight winding of magnetic field lines and their further reconnection (Blandford 2000). Indeed, in the thin disk case considered by Li, the magnetic field is localized in the plane of the disk, so that reconnection can easily take place. In contrast, the hot settling flow is geometrically thick; thus different field lines are threading the horizon at various latitudes. This geometry makes the field more difficult to reconnect. Second, the flow is continuously advecting the field. The infall velocity in hot flows is usually larger than the radial velocity of the gas in the Shakura-Sunyaev disk (in the settling flow $`v`$ is set by $`\dot{M}`$ which, therefore, should not be too small). Because of shorter infall time, magnetic reconnection in hot flows should be less likely. Third, along with angular momentum flux from a hole, there is an energy flux, $`\dot{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_F\dot{𝒥}`$. This extra energy is deposited at the inner edge of the flow. The structure of this very hot inner “boundary layer” may be quite complicated because it is likely affected by Compton cooling, thermal conduction, etc.. This problem is beyond the scope of our paper.

The hot settling flow around a Kerr hole is observationally similar to other hot flows (ADAFs, CDAFs, and ADIOS) in that all they have hard, power-law spectra, extending to, at least, a few hundred keV and relatively low (sub-Eddington) luminosities. This suggests that most BH candidates in the low/hard X-ray state may potentially accrete via the hot settling flow. However, the sources accreting via the settling flow must be (i) more luminous on average (as there is an extra source of energy), (ii) highly variable in X-rays, and (iii) may have relativistic jets. (There is a possible caveat here that jets may be launched by the inner accretion disk and not by a spinning BH.) Based on these predictions we have identified two classes of objects which could be good candidates for hot settling flows, namely galactic microquasars and low luminosity active galactic nuclei.

The authors are grateful to Ramesh Narayan, Roger Blandford, and Peter Goldreich for discussions and valuable comments. This work was supported by the CITA fellowship.