text:
# Possible evidence from laboratory measurements for a latitude and longitude dependence of G

## 1 Introduction

Although the methods and techniques have been greatly improved since the late nineteenth century, the precision on the measurement of the gravitational constant, G, is still the less accurate in comparison with the other fundamental constants of nature . Moreover, given the relative uncertainties of most of the individual experiments (reaching about $`10^4`$ for the most precise measurements), they show an incompatibility which leads to an overall precision of only about 1 part in $`10^3`$ . Thus the current status of the $`G`$ terrestrial measurements (see ) implies either an unknown source of errors (not taken into account in the published uncertainties), or some new physics . In the latter spirit, many theories have been proposed as candidates for the unification of physics. As such, they involve a coupling between gravitation and electromagnetism (hereafter GE coupling), as well as with other fields present.

The Kaluza-Klein theories  have been among the first attempts to unify electromagnetism and gravitation. Although they are disqualified in their original form, they constitute the prototype for many present theories (in particular, those involving extra-dimensions). In the laboratory conditions for G-measurements, fundamental theories as well as KK theories are well described as an *effective* theory, under the form of the Einstein and Maxwell equations conveniently modified, as described below.

This paper explores the possibility that the discrepancy between the results of the G-measurements is the effect of the GE coupling, by comparing the available data to the predictions of such an effective theory. We do not pretend that the effective theory adopted here (KK$`\psi `$, see below) is the only possibility. Rather, we consider that it provides the simplest opportunity to confront the idea of a GE coupling with real data. The success of the fit suggests that this may be the real explanation.

The simplest theories accounting for a GE coupling are those of Kaluza-Klein , or slight modifications of them. Their use corresponds to the most economical way (the minimum of hypotheses) to test the hypothesis of GE coupling. As it is well known, such theories are effectively well described by Einstein equations (with their correct Newtonian limit), where the newtonian gravitational constant $`G`$ is replaced by $`G_{eff}`$, given below: this effective gravitational constant depends of the fifteenth degree of freedom, $`\widehat{g}_{44}`$, of the (5-dimensional) bulk metric, which plays the role of a (four dimensional) scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ($`\widehat{g}_{44}=\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ in the Jordan-Fierz frame).

The genuine five dimensional Kaluza-Klein theories being subject to instabilities (), various authors () have suggested a more acceptable version which includes an additional stabilizing external bulk field: here we adopt the minimal hypothesis of a scalar field $`\psi `$ minimally coupled to gravity. In this theory (hereafter KK$`\psi `$), $`G_{eff}`$ varies with the electromgnetic field, and thus in spacetime. However, only variations with respect to the cosmic distance or time have been investigated in the literature hitherto. But, since the geomagnetic field varies, with latitude and longitude, and thus at the different sites of the $`G`$ measurements, The GE coupling implies that the experiments in fact measure the distinct corresponding values of $`G_{eff}`$, rather than an unique value of $`G`$.

Note also that this theory predicts a variation of the effective fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ with the gravitational field, and thus with the cosmological time. In a companion paper (), we compare (with success) the predicted evolution with astrophysical data concerning the distant quasars ().

In section 2 we recall the definition of the effective coupling constants, and the effective Maxwell-Einstein equations, issued from the five dimensional compactified KK theory stabilized by a minimally coupled bulk scalar field. In section 3, we calculate the vacuum solutions on Earth, in the weak field limit, taking into account the geomagnetic field. In section 4, we confront the predicted values of $`G_{eff}`$ with the laboratory measurements. In section 5, we discuss the consistency of our results with respect to the orbital motion of the LAGEOS satellite, the Moon and planets of the solar system, as well as the binary pulsar PSR$`1913+16`$.

## 2 Theoretical background

An argument initially from Landau and Lifshitz  may be applied to the pure Kaluza-Klein (KK) action (): the negative sign of the kinetic term of the KK internal scalar field leads to inescapable instability. Stabilization may however be obtained if an external field is present (, , ), and we assume here a version KK$`\psi `$ of the KK theory which includes an external bulk scalar field minimally coupled to gravity. After dimensional reduction ($`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$), this bulk field reduces to a four dimensional scalar field $`\psi =\psi (x^\alpha )`$ and, in the Jordan-Fierz frame, the low energy effective action takes the form (up to a total divergence)

$$S=\sqrt{g}[\frac{c^4}{16\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{G}R+\frac{1}{4}\epsilon _0\mathrm{\Phi }^3F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{c^4}{4\pi G}\frac{_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}]d^4x$$

$$+\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Phi }[\frac{1}{2}_\alpha \psi ^\alpha \psi UJ\psi ]d^4x,$$
(1)
where $`A^\alpha `$ is the potential 4-vector of the electromagnetic field, $`F_{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha A_\beta _\beta A_\alpha `$ the electromagnetic field strength tensor, $`U`$ the self-interaction potential of $`\psi `$ and $`J`$ its source term. Following Lichnerowicz , we interpret the quantity

$$G_{eff}=\frac{G}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$$
(2)
of the Einstein-Hilbert term, and the factor

$$\epsilon _{0eff}=\epsilon _0\mathrm{\Phi }^3$$
(3)
of the Maxwell term respectively as the effective gravitational ”constant” and the effective vacuum dielectric permittivity. The effective vacuum magnetic permeability reads $`\mu _{0eff}=\mu _0/\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$, so that the velocity of light in vacuum remains a true universal constant. Both terms depend solely on the local (for local physics) or global (at cosmological scale) value of the KK scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, assumed to be positive defined.

The source term of the $`\psi `$-field, $`J`$, includes the contributions of the ordinary matter (other than the scalar fields $`\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$), of the electromagnetic field and of the internal scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. For each, the coupling is defined by a function (temperature dependent, as for the potential $`U`$) $`f_X=f_X(\psi ,\mathrm{\Phi })`$, where the subscript $`X`$ stands for ”matter”, ”EM” and ”$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$”. In order to recover the Einstein-Maxwell equations in the weak fields limit, these three functions are subject to the conditions: $`f_{EM}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})=f_{matter}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})=f_\mathrm{\Phi }(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})=0`$, where $`v`$ denotes the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the $`\psi `$-field.

The contributions of matter and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are proportional to the traces of their respective energy-momentum tensors. Since the energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field is traceless, a contribution of the form $`\epsilon _0f_{EM}F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }`$ accounts for the coupling with it. The fit of our model to the data (see below) shows that $`\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v4\pi G/c^4`$, as it can be expected near the vacuum at low temperature. Thus, we will not take the latter term into account. However, we may suspect that $`\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v4\pi G/c^4`$ at high temperature, which may have consequences in some astrophysical conditions (see below).

Applying the least action principle to the action (1) yields :

* the generalized Einstein equations

$$R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{8\pi G_{eff}}{c^4}[T_{\alpha \beta }^{(EM)}+T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{\Phi })}+T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\psi )}],$$
(4)
where

$$T_{\alpha \beta }^{(EM)}=\epsilon _{0eff}(F_\alpha ^\gamma F_{\beta \gamma }+\frac{1}{4}F_{\gamma \delta }F^{\gamma \delta }g_{\alpha \beta }),$$
(5)
$$T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{\Phi })}=\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}(_\alpha _\beta \mathrm{\Phi }g_{\alpha \beta }_\nu ^\nu \mathrm{\Phi })$$
(6)
and

$$T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\psi )}:=\mathrm{\Phi }[_\alpha \psi _\beta \psi (\frac{1}{2}_\gamma \psi ^\gamma \psi UJ\psi )g_{\alpha \beta }]$$
(7)
* the generalized Maxwell equations

$$_\gamma F_{\alpha \beta }+_\beta F_{\gamma \alpha }+_\alpha F_{\beta \gamma }=0$$
(8)
and

$$^\alpha (\epsilon _{0eff}F_{\alpha \beta })=0,$$
(9)
* and the scalar fields equations

$$_\nu ^\nu \psi =J\frac{J}{\psi }\psi \frac{U}{\psi }$$
(10)
and

$$_\nu ^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{4\pi G}{c^4}\epsilon _0F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Phi }^3+U\mathrm{\Phi }+J\psi \mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{J}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }^2\psi \frac{1}{2}(_\alpha \psi ^\alpha \psi )\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(11)
where the symbol $`_\nu `$ stands for the Riemannian covariant derivative. Clearly, $`T_{\alpha \beta }^{(EM)}`$ and $`T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{\Phi })}`$ define respectively an effective energy-momentum tensor for the electromagnetic field in the presence of the KK scalar field and an effective energy-momentum tensor for the latter itself. Relations (4-9) are formally the same as the Einstein-Maxwell ones, but with the additional contribution of the KK scalar as a matter source and the replacement of $`G`$ and $`\epsilon _0`$ by their respective effective values.

## 3 Vacuum solutions in the presence of a dipolar magnetic field

Since we are in weak field conditions (we look for small deviations from Newtonian physics), we only keep first order terms. Thus, we neglect the excitations of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\psi `$ with respect to their respective VEV’s 1 and $`v`$. Also, the energy density of the $`\psi `$-field must be lower than that of the magnetic field.
Let us study the spatial variation of $`\psi `$ out of the fields’ source, but in presence of a static dipolar magnetic field, $`\stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{B}(r,\phi ,\theta )`$. We denote $`r`$, $`\phi `$ and $`\theta `$ respectively the radius from the centre, the azimuth angle and the colatitude. Thus, writing $`\psi =\psi (r,\phi ,\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\phi ,\theta )`$, and taking into account that $`\frac{U}{\psi }(v)=0`$ (definition of the VEV), equations (10) and (11) simplify respectively as

$$\frac{1}{r^2}[\frac{}{r}(r^2\frac{\psi }{r})+\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{}{\theta }(\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{\psi }{\theta })+\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\frac{^2\psi }{\phi ^2}]=2\frac{f_{EM}}{\psi }(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v\frac{B^2}{\mu _0}$$
(12)
and

$$\frac{1}{r^2}[\frac{}{r}(r^2\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{r})+\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{}{\theta }(\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\theta })+\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{\phi ^2}]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v\frac{B^2}{\mu _0},$$
(13)
where we have dropped the pure gravitational constant $`4\pi G/c^4`$ with respect to $`vf_{EM}/\mathrm{\Phi }`$, as indicated above.

We consider a dipolar magnetic field: $`\stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{}V`$. For our purpose, it is sufficient to limit the expansion of the scalar potential, $`V`$, to the terms of the Legendre function of degree one ($`n=1`$) and order one ($`m=1`$). Hence $`V=(a^3/r^2)[g_1^0\mathrm{cos}\theta +g_1^1\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi +h_1^1\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi ]`$, where $`g_1^0`$, $`g_1^1`$ and $`h_1^1`$ are the relevant Gauss coefficients, $`a`$ is the Earth’s radius and $`M=\frac{4\pi }{\mu _0}a^3\sqrt{(g_1^0)^2+(g_1^1)^2+(h_1^1)^2}`$ denotes its magnetic moment (see ). Setting $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _1=g_1^1/\sqrt{(g_1^1)^2+(h_1^1)^2}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _1=h_1^1/\sqrt{(g_1^1)^2+(h_1^1)^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\lambda =g_1^0/\sqrt{(g_1^1)^2+(h_1^1)^2}`$, the solutions of equation (13) then reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=1k(r)x(\theta ,\phi ),$$
(14)
where we have set

$$k(r)=\frac{1}{\mu _0}\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v(\frac{\mu _0M}{4\pi r^2})^2$$
(15)
and

$$x(\theta ,\phi )=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +ϵ(\theta ,\phi )$$

$$=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{cot}^2\lambda \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2(\phi +\phi _1)\mathrm{cot}\lambda \mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{cos}(\phi +\phi _1)$$
(16)
and similarly for $`\psi `$ by making the substitution $`\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{f_{EM}}{\psi }`$ in relation (15). Thence, one derives the expression of $`G_{eff}(r,\theta ,\phi )`$ by inserting the solution (14) above in relation (2). Thus, since $`\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v>0`$ and the variable $`x`$ turns out to be positive at any position in space, it follows that the effective gravitational constant $`G_{eff}`$ will always be greater than the true gravitational constant, $`G`$. Whence the prediction of an upward bias in the laboratory measurements of G.

## 4 Comparison with laboratory measurements

Because of various uncontrolled systematic errors, the data published by the different laboratories have different precisions. In the following, we test two hypotheses with respect to these results: H0 = Hypothesis of a constant G ($`\nu =n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$) and H1 = Hypothesis of an effective G ($`\nu =n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$). Here $`\nu `$ denotes the number of degrees of freedom, $`n`$ is the number of data points, and we have 1 or 2 parameters in the fit.

There are presently almost 45 results of measurements G published since 1942 (see e.g., , Table 2, pp. 168 and 169). We exclude from the present study the mine measurements because of the too numerous uncontrolled systematic biases involved. The ” accepted ” values are presently $`G=6.67259\pm 0.0008510^{11}`$ (CODATA 86, ) and $`G=6.670\pm 0.01010^{11}`$ (CODATA 2000, ) in MKS unit. A fitting of the 45 data with these values give respectively $`\chi _\nu ^2=145.17`$ and $`\chi _\nu ^2=213.25`$ ($`\chi _\nu ^2=\chi ^2/\nu `$, where $`\nu `$ denotes the degrees of freedom). If we forget the accepted value and try a best fit, assuming an arbitrary constant value of $`G`$, we obtain $`G=6.674110^{11}`$ SI with $`\chi _\nu ^2=127.04`$.

The more discordant laboratory measurement (high PTB value ) is controversial. If we discard it, the previous fits lead to $`\chi _\nu ^2=11.128`$ (CODATA 86), $`\chi _\nu ^2=62.498`$ (CODATA 2000) and $`\chi _\nu ^2=2.341`$ (free value). Since it seems now certain that this high PTB value  suffers from some systematic error (see , for more details), we remove it for our analysis (if we keep it, our model is still more favored). Note that the strongest contributions to the $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ then come from the BIPM 2001  and the HUST  measurements. Thus, unless there are some experimental systematic errors presently not understood, these experiments do not measure the same quantity. In the framework of the theory proposed here, they measure $`G_{eff}`$. Because of the GE coupling, $`G_{eff}`$ should depend on the geomagnetic field at the laboratory position.

First, we select a subset of results with a good precision and which does not suffer any significant systematic error: we include only those points with relative uncertainty $`\delta G_{lab}/G_{lab}10^3`$. Also, we demand a short measuring time ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t<200`$ s), to minimize the possible biases due to the time variations of the geomagnetic field. This gives the sample S1, with 17 points, shown in figure 1. We fit these data using the IGRF 2000 Gauss coefficients111The IGRF coefficients are given for time intervals of five years. Hence, for a more precise fitting, one should use the most suitable IGRF coefficients for a given laboratory value according to the years the measurements were carried out. Of course, the necessity of doing so depends on the precision reached in the laboratory G measurements. Nevertheless, we have also computed the variable $`x(L,l)`$ using the IGRF 1965 Gauss coefficients ($`g_1^0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.30339}`$, $`g_1^1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.02123}`$ and $`h_1^1=0.05758`$ in Gauss). However, no significant changes to our conclusions were found. ($`g_1^0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.31543}`$, $`g_1^1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.02298}`$ and $`h_1^1=0.05922`$ in Gauss). We obtain (Figure 1, Table 2)

$$\frac{1}{10^{11}G_{eff}}=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.149933}\pm 0.000017)(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.0001514}\pm 0.0000262)x(L,l),$$
(17)
in MKS units, with $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.327`$. This gives

$$G=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6.6696}\pm 0.0008)10^{11}m^3kg^1s^2,$$
(18)
that we retain as a true gravitational constant. The relative uncertainty is only 1 part in $`10^4`$: the major part of the differences between the laboratory measurements was generated by the predicted variation of $`G_{eff}`$ with the magnetic field. Further, adjusting to the same set the mean value $`M=7.8710^{22}`$ A m2 (in the time interval spanning from $`1942`$ to $`2001`$), it follows

$$\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5.44}\pm 0.66)10^6fmTev^1,$$
(19)
that we retain too. We observe also that the HUST value (the lowest most precise measured value of $`G`$) is perfectly fitted: it differs from other values because of the proximity of this laboratory to the equator.

Then, we fit the whole sample (excluding the PTB value, as stated above). We obtain the set of the 44 measurements given in figure 2: the best fit leads to

$$\frac{1}{10^{11}G_{eff}}=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.149929}\pm 0.000017)(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.0001509}\pm 0.0000252)x(L,l)$$
(20)
in MKS units. It gives $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.669`$, to be compared to $`\chi _\nu ^2=2.255`$ for the best fit assuming a constant $`G`$. These results are summarized in Table 2. In order to check the relevance of our result (which involves two free parameters rather than one), we apply the F test (Fisher law). This yields $`F_\chi =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2}{\chi _\nu ^2}=16.09`$, which indicates that, independently of the number of parameters, our fit is better with a significance level greater than $`99.9\%`$ .

| *Location \[reference\]* | *Latitude ()* | *Longitude ()* | *Glab ($`10^{11}m^3kg^1s^2`$)* |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Lower Hutt (MSL)  | -41.2 | 174.9 | 6.6742 $`\pm `$ 0.0007 |
|  |  |  | 6.6746 $`\pm `$ 0.0010 |
| Wuhan (HUST)  | 30.6 | 106.88 | 6.6699 $`\pm `$ 0.0007 |
| Los Alamos  | 35.88 | -106.38 | 6.6740 $`\pm `$ 0.0007 |
| Gaithersburg (NBS)  | 38.9 | -77.02 | 6.6726 $`\pm `$ 0.0005 |
|  |  |  | 6.6720 $`\pm `$ 0.0041 |
| Boulder (JILA)  | 40 | -105.27 | 6.6873 $`\pm `$ 0.0094 |
| Gigerwald lake  | 46.917 | 9.4 | 6.669 $`\pm `$ 0.005 (at 112 m) |
|  |  |  | 6.678 $`\pm `$ 0.007 (at 88 m) |
|  |  |  | 6.6700 $`\pm `$ 0.0054 |
| Zurich  | 47.4 | 8.53 | 6.6754 $`\pm `$ 0.0005 $`\pm `$ 0.0015 |
|  |  |  | 6.6749 $`\pm `$ 0.0014 |
| Budapest  | 47.5 | 19.07 | 6.670 $`\pm `$ 0.008 |
| Seattle  | 47.63 | \- 122.33 | 6.674215 $`\pm `$ 0.000092 |
| Sevres (BIPM)  | 48.8 | 2.13 | 6.67559 $`\pm `$ 0.00027 |
|  |  |  | 6.683 $`\pm `$ 0.011 |
| Fribourg  | 46.8 | 7.15 | 6.6704 $`\pm `$ 0.0048 (Oct. 84) |
|  |  |  | 6.6735 $`\pm `$ 0.0068 (Nov. 84) |
|  |  |  | 6.6740 $`\pm `$ 0.0053 (Dec. 84) |
|  |  |  | 6.6722 $`\pm `$ 0.0051 (Feb. 85) |
| Magny-les-Hameaux  | 49 | 2 | 6.673 $`\pm `$ 0.003 |
| Wuppertal  | 51.27 | 7.15 | 6.6735 $`\pm `$ 0.0011 $`\pm `$ 0.0026 |
| Braunschweig (PTB)  | 52.28 | 10.53 | 6.71540 $`\pm `$ 0.00056 |
|  |  |  | 6.667 $`\pm `$ 0.005 |
| Moscow  | 55.1 | 38.85 | 6.6729 $`\pm `$ 0.0005 |
|  |  |  | 6.6745 $`\pm `$ 0.0008 |
| Dye 3, Greenland  | 65.19 | -43.82 | 6.6726 $`\pm `$ 0.0027 |
| Lake Brasimone  | 43.75 | 11.58 | 6.688 $`\pm `$ 0.011 |

Table 1 : Results of the most precise laboratory measurements of G published during the last sixty years and location of the laboratories.

| Sample | H0 | H1 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| S1 |  |  |
| 17 points | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 3.607 (best fit) |  |
|  | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 21.523 (mean of CODATA 86) | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 1.327 |
| (Fig.1) | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 141.46 (mean of CODATA 2000) |  |
| Whole | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 2.255 (best fit) |  |
|  \-  | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 11.128 (mean of CODATA 86) |  |
| 44 points | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 62.498 (mean of CODATA 2000) | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 1.669 |
| (Fig.2) |  |  |

Table 2 : Reduced $`\chi ^2`$ for the two different hypothesis H0 (Hypothesis of a constant $`G`$) and H1 ((Hypothesis of an effective G), and different samples S1 and whole (except the high PTB value , see text).

## 5 Discussion and conclusion

We have not taken into account the temporal variation of the geomagnetic field. All the data considered in this paper are averaged on time. Nevertheless, for those which would not be averaged on time, one may expect small time variations of $`G_{eff}`$ both with the Sq and with the L field disturbances of the geomagnetic field. Now, periodic variations of the gravitational ”constant” with the lunar or diurnal period have yet been pointed out in the literature (see ). Although it is presently believed that they are related to tides, the explanation could be this temporal variation. We notice that the G measurements of  are consistent with an annual variation.

Besides, a recent study  shows that  *helioseismology* seems to favor a low value of $`G`$, close to the HUST value. This is in accordance with our predictions (see section 3 and relations (17) and (18)), since one expects the effective coupling of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-field to the EM field to decrease towards its lowest value as the temperature increases. Hence, one gets a good agreement between our prediction (18) and the helioseismic data, on account of the high temperature met in the core of the Sun.

To test our proposal of a spatial dependence of $`G_{eff}`$, we call for a complete covering of the Earth (in particular in the south hemisphere) and at different latitudes. On the basis the current available data, the present study allows to make some predictions. First, according to the authors , the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO: $`L=46^{}`$ 29’ N and $`l=80^{}`$ 59’ O)  should constitute a promising means of determining G with a quite good accuracy. Hence, since the measured quantity is actually the effective gravitational constant, the value predicted at SNO by the relation (17) is $`G_{SNO}=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6.6742}\pm 0.0009)10^{11}`$ m3 kg-1 s-2, that is practically the same as at the MSL . In addition, it would be of interest to test also our predicted value at the surface of the poles, that is: $`G_{poles}=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6.6763}\pm 0.0010)10^{11}`$ in MKS units. At the equator, one should get a dependence with respect to the longitude (since the magnetic and geographic poles do not coincide).

At the orbit of the Moon, the relative deviation, $`(G_{eff}G)/G`$, to the true gravitational constant is predicted to be as small as $`1.710^{13}`$ which is consistent with lunar laser ranging (see, ). In the Solar System, the relevant magnetic field is the dipolar field of the quiet Sun. Since the coupling constant of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-field to the EM field is much weaker within the Sun than on Earth, one finds at the orbital radius of Mercury $`(G_{eff}G)/G<10^6`$ and much smaller beyond, decreasing as $`1/r^4`$. Thus, at the orbital radius of Neptune $`(G_{eff}G)/G`$ drops to less than $`10^{12}`$. Taking into account the overall planetary constraints on $`GM_{}`$ , the accord between the proposed model and observation is still acceptable.

For artificial satellites in quasi-circular orbits, the appropriate quantity for comparison with observational data is $`(G_{eff}G^{})/G^{}`$ when the analysis is based only on the satellite data (see appendices A and B), where we have set $`G^{}=G[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{k(r)}{3}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}13}+\frac{3}{2}(\frac{a}{r})^2J_2)]`$ and $`J_2`$ is the true Earth quadrupole moment coefficient. Referring to the orbital motion of the LAGEOS satellite, with semimajor axis equal to $`12270`$km, inclination $`i=109.94^{}`$ and eccentricity $`e=0.004`$, one finds the maximum deviations $`(G_{eff}G^{})/G^{}1.910^8`$ (whereas $`(G_{eff}G)/G(G^{}G)/G210^5`$), consistent with the constraint $`\alpha <10^5510^8`$ on the Yukawa coupling constant $`\alpha `$ (see , figure 3.2a, p. 99 and section 6.7).
We also looked for a possible relative deviation to the true gravitational constant induced by the strong magnetic fields of *pulsars*. We found this effect quite negligible, of the order $`10^7`$ in the case of the binary pulsar PSR$`1913+16`$, for which observation yields $`G_{eff}=G_N(1.00_{0.11}^{+0.14})`$ . The deviation is tiny because of the small radius of the pulsar and of its companion as compared to their respective orbital radius around the center of mass.

Thus we conclude that, apart from systematic errors that need to be corrected (e.g., by applying some prescriptions like that pointed out by Kuroda  for the swinging pendulum method), the only possibility to reconcile the published values of $`G`$ is to consider a dependence on the latitude and longitude, of the type proposed here. In particular, if all present systematic errors could be removed in the future, we predict $`G_{lab}=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6.6742}\pm 0.0009)10^{11}`$ m3 kg-1 at the PTB laboratory, that is the same value as that predicted at SNO and the current MSL.

Up to now, a lot of attention had been paid to the dependence of $`G`$ on cosmic time or radial distance only. But the dependence on latitude and longitude, that we examine here, has not been taken into account. More precise measurements (e.g., the SEE project ) and further analyses taking into account higher harmonics and the various kind of changes of the geomagnetic field should bring more support to our claim.

## 6 Appendix A

The generalized Einstein equations (4) rewrite (including the contribution of the ordinary matter, $`T_{\alpha \beta }^{(m)}`$)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }_\nu ^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha _\beta \mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}[T_{\alpha \beta }^{(EM)}+(T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\psi )}\frac{1}{2}T^{(\psi )}g_{\alpha \beta })$$

$$+(T_{\alpha \beta }^{(m)}\frac{1}{2}T^{(m)}g_{\alpha \beta })].$$
(21)
Now in the weak fields and slow motion approximation, only the $`00`$ components are relevant. Hence, the above equations reduce to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }g_{00})=\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }.\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{g}+\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}[T_{00}^{(EM)}+(T_{00}^{(\psi )}\frac{1}{2}T^{(\psi )}g_{00})+(T_{00}^{(m)}\frac{1}{2}T^{(m)}g_{00})].$$
(22)
The first term of the right hand side of the above equation is second order. Hence, neglecting the energy densities of the EM field and the $`\psi `$-field with respect to the (ordinary) matter density, one gets

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi }g_{00})=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}(T_{00}^{(m)}\frac{1}{2}T^{(m)}g_{00}).$$
(23)
Clearly, this yields the Newtonian potential divided by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, that is an effective potential where $`G_N`$ is replaced by $`G_{eff}=G/\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

## 7 Appendix B

As a consequence, the equation of motion of a satellite should be sensitive to the effect of the effective G if present. Indeed, in the static gravitational field of a rotating body of mass $`M`$ with angular velocity $`\omega `$ and for $`r2a`$ or more, one may merely replace in the first approximation $`G_N`$ by $`G_{eff}`$ in the Newtonian potential. Thus, $`d^2\stackrel{}{r}/dt^2=\stackrel{}{}V=(g_r\stackrel{}{u}_r+g_\theta \stackrel{}{u}_\theta )`$, where $`\stackrel{}{u}_r=\stackrel{}{r}/r`$, $`\stackrel{}{u}_\theta =d\stackrel{}{u}_r/d\theta `$ and

$$V=\frac{G_{eff}M}{r^2}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}(\frac{a}{r})^2J_2(\frac{3}{2}cos^2\theta \frac{1}{2})]\omega ^2r(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}cos^2\theta ).$$
(24)
Hence, inserting relations (14 \- 16) in equation (25) above and expanding, one gets

$$g_r=\frac{G^{}(r)M}{r^2}\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(\frac{a}{r})^2J_2^{}(\frac{3}{2}cos^2\theta \frac{1}{2})+k(r)ϵ(\theta ,\phi )[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(\frac{a}{r})^2J_2(\frac{3}{2}cos^2\theta \frac{1}{2})]$$

$$\frac{9}{2}k(r)(\frac{a}{r})^2J_2cos^4\theta \}\omega ^2r(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}cos^2\theta )$$
(25)
and analogously for $`g_\theta `$, where

$$J_2^{}=\frac{J_2(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{13}{3}k(r))\frac{2}{9}k(r)(\frac{r}{a})^2}{1+\frac{k(r)}{3}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}13}+\frac{3}{2}(\frac{a}{r})^2J_2]}$$
(26)
appears as the effective quadrupole moment coefficient of the central body at radius $`r`$. The quadratic cosine term provides an additional term to the effective zonal harmonic coefficient of order $`4`$. Clearly, by interpreting the data from a single satellite in circular orbit, $`J_2^{}`$ will appears as a constant parameter.


format: text

text:
# The BeppoSAX spectrum of the composite galaxy Mrk609

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Moran, Halpern $`\&`$ Helfand (1996), after careful spectroscopy of a sample based on the cross-correlation of the IRAS PSC and ROSAT All Sky Survey, reported the discovery of an “anomalous” class of objects. The optical spectra of these sources are dominated by the features of starburst galaxies, based on the emission line diagnostic diagrams (Veilleux $`\&`$ Osterbrock 1987), yet their X-ray luminosities are typical of Seyfert 2 galaxies. Close examination of their optical spectra reveals some weak Seyfert-like features: \[OIII\] significantly broader than all other narrow lines in the spectrum and in some cases a weak broad Hα component. The authors designated these objects “starburst/Seyfert composite” galaxies and presented them as a new class of X-ray luminous source. Similar ”composite” objects have also been noticed by Veron et al. (1997). Indeed, they presented observations of 15 objects with transition spectra ie showing the simultaneous presence of a strong star-forming component and an active nucleus and they showed that fall either on the starburst region or on the borderlines between the different classes. Hereafter, we will refer to these objects as composite galaxies and we will distinguish them from the Sy2/Starburst galaxies that show emission from both components at all wavelengths.

The composite galaxies bear close resemblance to the narrow-line X-ray galaxies (NLXGs) detected in large numbers in deep ROSAT surveys (eg Boyle et al. 1995, Griffiths et al. 1996). These NLXGs again have spectra composite of Seyfert and starburst galaxies (Boyle et al. 1995) with luminosities L$`{}_{210keV}{}^{}10^{4243}`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Unfortunately the faint fluxes of these NLXGs do not allow their detailed study in either optical or X-ray wavelengths. Although it is unclear whether these nearby “composites” are the same class of objects as those found in ROSAT deep field NLXGs, their high luminosities need to be explained. It is unclear how their intense X-ray emission can be reconciled with weak or absent Seyfert characteristics.

### 1.1 Composite galaxies in X-rays

Only a few composite galaxies have been studied so far in X-rays. Specifically, IRAS00317-2142 (Georgantopoulos 2000) has been observed with ASCA and is the most luminous object (L$`{}_{x}{}^{}=10^{43}`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$in the 0.1-2 keV band) in the Moran et al. (1996) sample. The spectrum is represented by a power-law with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.76`$ and there is no evidence for absorption above the Galactic value. Strong variability in the 1-2 keV band (by a factor of three) is detected between the ROSAT and ASCA observations. These characteristics indicate an AGN origin for the X-ray emission. However no iron line is detected and the 90 per cent upper limit on the equivalent width is 0.9 keV. The ratio $`f_{HX}/f_{[OIII]}`$ $``$ 2.5 rule out the Compton thick interpretation for IRAS00317-2142. However, the precise nature of this object and the relative contribution of the starburst and AGN components could not be determined.

A further composite object studied in X-rays with ROSAT and ASCA is AXJ1749+684 (Iwasawa et al. 1997). AXJ1749+684 was serendipitously detected with the ASCA GIS. Its X-ray spectrum is flat ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.23_{0.27}^{+0.21}`$). The flatness is attributed by the authors to absorption mainly because of the: (a) large Balmer decrement in the narrow line region, $`H_\alpha /H_\beta `$=7.32 and (b) lack of significant X-ray detection at $`<`$0.4 keV. On the other hand, the optical counterpart of AXJ1749+684 is detected in the Kiso Schmidt Survey of UV-excess galaxies. Iwasawa et al. (1997) claimed that the UV emission is due to large-scale starburst activity, however in this case strong far infrared emission should be expected, which is inconsistent with the non-detection of this source by IRAS. They concluded that the X-ray spectrum of AXJ1749+684 is well fitted by an obscured (N$`{}_{H}{}^{}=2.1_{2.1}^{+6.2}\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2) Seyfert nucleus embedded within a star-forming galaxy.

Recently Levenson et al. 2001, examined NGC6221 as a further example of a composite galaxy. They proposed that the X-ray spectrum of this object is characterised by a Seyfert 1 like spectrum. They detect an iron line and continuum variability on short- and long-term timescales. The source has a column density of NH=1022 $`\mathrm{cm}^2`$. They proposed that the central region is obscured by a surrounding starburst. Thus the optical spectrum has the characteristics of the starburst component alone.

### 1.2 Mrk609

Mrk609 is at a redshift of 0.034. The optical position of the object is 03 25 25.3, -06 08 39 (J2000) and the Galactic absorption is $`N_H`$=4.41$`\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2. The Hβ profile is $``$ 110 km sec-1 wide, while the \[OIII\] lines are $``$ 4 times wider. In addition, the broad blueshifted wings seen on the \[OIII\] lines are completely missing in Hβ (Heckman et al. 1981). The UV spectrum show strong contribution from hot stars (Rudy et al. 1988) indicating the presence of an intense starburst component in Mrk609.

The broad $`H_\alpha /H_\beta `$ value is 7.8 (Osterbrock 1981). In a later observation, Rudy et al. (1988) obtained a value for the broad $`H_\alpha /H_\beta `$=5. The discrepancy was attributed to continuum variability. The high broad $`H_\alpha /H_\beta `$ value was attributed by Osterbrock 1981 to reddening of the broad line region. However the broad $`Ly_\alpha /H_\beta `$ value is 16, which is large for Seyfert 1 galaxies, ruling out obscuration (see Rudy et al. 1988 for a detailed discussion).

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

Mrk609 was observed by BeppoSAX three times. The first observation was carried out on 20/01/2000 for $``$18 ksec (LECS exposure 7.13 ksec), the second one on 14/02/2000 for $``$ 2.5 ksec (LECS exposure 1.4 ksec ) and the third one on 4/03/2000 for $``$ 28 ksec (LECS exposure 6668 ksec). It should be reminded here, that the exposure time for the LECS is lower than the MECS because it is limited by stronger operational constraints to avoid UV light contamination, thus it is operated during Earth dark time only. Spectra and light curves of Mrk609 have been extracted from circular regions centered on the source. We used a circular extraction cell of 4 and 6 arcminutes in radius for MECS and LECS data respectively. The background spectra were extracted from blank deep field exposures, using the same region of the detector in each case.

In order to check whether there is any flux or spectral variability in the soft band, an unpublished ROSAT PSPC observation of Mrk609 was analysed. Mrk609 was observed by ROSAT on the 29th of January 1997 for 5801 seconds. A source spectrum has been extracted from a circular region of $``$ 1.5 arcmin radius around the centroid of the source, while the background spectrum was extracted from an annulus of internal and external radii of 3 and 9 arcmin respectively.

## 3 Variability

In order to investigate the nature of the X-ray source, we constructed the long term light curves of Mrk609. Then the variability was tested by means of a $`\chi ^2`$ test against the hypothesis that the flux was constant. The $`\chi ^2`$ values are quoted in Table 1 for four light curves: LECS 0.1-2 keV, MECS 2-10 keV, MECS 2-5 keV, MECS 5-10 keV. The MECS data were split in three different bands in order to check whether there are different components contributing to the variability of the source. Fig. 1 shows the light curves in the four energy bands. The points are in chronological order; The errors are based on counting statistics only.

It is evident that Mrk609 is variable in both soft and hard energies. In the LECS the flux is decreasing and the difference in flux between the first and third observations is about a factor of 2. Significant variability at the $`>`$99.9 per cent confidence level is detected in the 2-10 keV and 2-5 keV energy bands, whereas the variability in the 5-10 keV band is significant only at the 57 per cent confidence level. In the three hard bands the variability follows the same trend; the first and third observations have comparable fluxes, whereas during the second observation the flux drops by up to a factor of 3. This suggests that the whole hard X-ray emission is produced by the same mechanism and in the same region. However, the variability in the soft band follows a different trend from the hard band, suggesting that emission in the two bands is produced by different mechanisms and or in different regions.

We also checked for short time variability. Mrk609 does not show evidence for short time variability at a significant level. This is probably due to the low statistics.

## 4 SPECTRAL ANALYSIS

The spectral fitting was performed in the 0.12-10 keV band. The appropriate redistributions matrix file and the ancillary response file for the observation date were obtained from the BeppoSAX Science Data Center archive. A summary of the spectral fitting results is given in Table 2. In the following analysis all three BeppoSAX observations are fitted together.

Throughout this paper values of Ho=75 km s-1 Mpc-1 and qo=0.5 are assumed.

### 4.1 The AGN models

We first fit the data with a single power-law model (PL). We obtain an acceptable fit ($`\chi ^2`$=98.89 for 82 dof) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.57_{0.10}^{+0.10}`$, and N$`{}_{H}{}^{}`$ 1.32$`\times `$ 1021$`\mathrm{cm}^2`$. This model together with the data points and the data to model ratio are plotted in Figure 2. The observed flux in the 2-10 keV band for this model is 2.86$`\times 10^{12}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$, which corresponds to a luminosity of 6.3$`\times 10^{42}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$in the same band. If the slope of the power-law model is fixed at the 1.9 value, the nominal value for the Seyfert 1 galaxies ( Nandra $`\&`$ Pounds 1994), the model yields an unacceptable fit ($`\chi ^2`$=119.26 for 83 dof) with $`N_H=2.03_{1.8}^{+1.5}\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2.

Although Seyfert galaxies show strong narrow iron Kα emission lines, no such line is detected in Mrk609. However an upper limit of $`283`$ eV is obtained, consistent with values seen in Seyfert galaxies.

In the context of the unified models we expect to see some faction of the primary emission through the torus, with a component superimposed upon this that represents a fraction of emission scattered back into our line of sight by material lying above the torus. This model is representing by two power-laws with the same photon index but different normalisations and absorptions - the scattering model. When this model is applied to the data, the normalisations of the two power-laws are comparable, whereas no excess absorption above the Galactic is required and thus this model effectively is the same as the single power-law model. Therefore it is evident that the scattering model does not provide a good representation of the data.

Finally, an ionised warm absorber model in addition to the Galactic column density was fitted to the data (PL+warm). The temperature of the absorber is fixed at T=105 K (Brandt et al. 1999). The model provides an acceptable fit ($`\chi ^2`$=98.84 for 81 dof) but does not represent a statistically significant improvement to the single power-law model. The best fit parameters are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.60_{0.12}^{+0.16}`$ and warm column density $`N_{H_w}=6.73_{6.73}^{+25.47}\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2, while the ionisation parameter is practically unconstrained, possibly because of the poor statistics of the data.

### 4.2 The composite model

Given the composite classification of this object, it is natural to investigate a model in which X-ray emission originates from both a starburst and an AGN. A power-law plus a Raymond-Smith model (PL+RS) with the temperature fixed at 0.8 keV is adopted. The power-law component is allowed to have additional absorption over and above that of the thermal component. This model yields an acceptable fit ($`\chi ^2`$=99.81 for 81 dof) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.57_{0.11}^{+0.09}`$, whereas no excess absorption above the Galactic is required. When the temperature of the thermal component is a free parameter, we find kT $`>`$18 keV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.81_{0.96}^{+2.59}`$ ($`\chi ^2`$=95.00 for 80 dof). However, the temperature of the thermal component is far too high for a starburst and thus this model cannot provide a physical description of the data.

### 4.3 The pure starburst model

For completeness we have also investigated pure starburst models. Firstly a single Raymond-Smith model (RS) was fitted to the data. An acceptable fit was obtained ($`\chi ^2`$=108.94 for 83 dof) with kT1=18.92$`{}_{}{}^{+10.15}{}_{6.02}{}^{}`$ keV. No starbursts with such a high temperature have been found as yet.

Then a two Raymond-Smith model representing thermal emission from a pure starburst galaxy following Zezas et al. (1998) was utilised. The soft emission is parameterised by a thermal component with kT$`{}_{1}{}^{}`$ 1 keV and the emission in the hard band by kT2=21.8$`{}_{}{}^{+14.33}{}_{7.69}{}^{}`$ keV, again too high for a starburst. Therefore it is obvious that this model cannot provide a physical description of the data.

From the above it is evident that the pure starburst model is ruled out, whereas the composite model does not provide a physically accepted model.

## 5 Spectral variability

Mrk609 was observed three times with BeppoSAX , allowing us to examine whether there is spectral variability. In particular it is interesting to see whether the drop in the flux during the second observation is related to a change in the spectrum of Mrk609 and examine whether the X-ray behaviour is similar to that of black hole candidates (BHC) in our galaxy during their high and low states. For this analysis only the single power-law is applied to the MECS data.

In addition any spectral variability at soft energies will be examined by comparing the ROSAT PSPC and LECS data. For that reason we analysed an unpublished observation of Mrk609 with ROSAT as explained in section 2.

### 5.1 Observation 1

The power-law model yields a fit ($`\chi ^2`$=55.75 for 38 dof) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.63_{0.16}^{+0.16}`$ and Galactic absorption. The observed flux in the 2-10 keV band for this model is 2.85$`\times 10^{12}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$, which corresponds to a luminosity of 6.32$`\times 10^{42}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$in the same band. We do not detect an iron line at 6.4 keV but we obtain an upper limit of 540 eV.

### 5.2 Observation 2

During the second observation Mrk609 was observed for $``$ 2.5 ksec only, and no reliable spectrum could be extracted. However clues for the spectral shape of the spectrum of Mrk609 during this short observation come from the hardness ratio (HR) of the source. Here the HR is defined as h-s/h+s, where h and s are the total number of counts, in the 2-10 keV and 1-2 keV respectively. Only MECS data were used since Mrk609 is not detected in the LECS. The HR is 0.31$`\pm `$0.18, which corresponds to a power-law of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.2\pm 0.70`$ assuming Galactic absorption. Unfortunately the uncertainty in the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is too high for any firm conclusion about spectral changes to be derived.

### 5.3 Observation 3

The power-law model yields a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.64_{0.14}^{+0.14}`$ and Galactic absorption ($`\chi ^2`$=61.16 for 48 dof). The observed flux in the 2-10 keV band for this model is 2.72$`\times 10^{12}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$, which corresponds to a luminosity of 6.02$`\times 10^{42}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$in the same band. In the energy range 6-7 keV there is some evidence for residuals. So a Gaussian line was added to the model. The best fit energy for the line is 6.72$`{}_{}{}^{+0.22}{}_{0.24}{}^{}`$ keV, clearly inconsistent with the line originating from cold iron. The model is acceptable ($`\chi ^2`$=56.31 for 46 dof) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.70_{0.15}^{+0.16}`$ and an equivalent width for the iron line 394$`{}_{}{}^{+391}{}_{286}{}^{}`$ eV.

### 5.4 LECS/PSPC spectra comparison

The ROSAT spectrum is well represented by a single power-law with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.02_{0.25}^{+0.24}`$, steeper than the BeppoSAX spectrum ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.6`$). However due to the poor statistics of the LECS data compared to the MECS, the spectral slope of the former is probably driven by the latter and thus the discrepancy might not be real. Therefore, in order to check whether the PSPC and LECS slopes are inconsistent, we fit the LECS data alone with a single power-law model in the 0.12-2.0 keV energy range. The best fit parameters are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.97_{0.53}^{+0.51}`$ and Galactic absorption ($`\chi ^2`$=3.22 for 6 dof). Due to error uncertainties the slope is consistent with both the PSPC and MECS slopes, and thus any variability between the ROSAT and BeppoSAX observations as well as any spectral upturn within the BeppoSAX observations cannot be examined.

## 6 Discussion

Mrk609 displays an X-ray continuum, which is somewhat at odds with its optically composite nature. A simple power-law is a good description of the data over the whole 0.1-10 keV energy range, with a rather flat index ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.57_{0.10}^{+0.10}`$). Still, this value is not inconsistent with those encountered in Seyfert-1 spectra (Nandra & Pounds 1994). Moreover no iron emission line was detected when all three observations are fitted together and the upper limit of the equivalent width of the line is $``$ 283 eV. For the third observation, where the data-to-model ratio shows line like residuals in the 6-7 keV band, the inclusion of the iron line improves the fit significantly. The best fit line is 6.72$`{}_{}{}^{+0.22}{}_{0.24}{}^{}`$ keV with an equivalent width of 394$`{}_{}{}^{+391}{}_{286}{}^{}`$ eV. Nevertheless the detection of significant X-ray variability confirms that a super-massive black hole resides in Mrk609 and powers the X-ray emission, and rules out significant contribution from a starburst component to the X-ray emission.

The data do not allow us to constrain the X-ray column density and we obtain a 90 per cent upper limit of $`1.3\times 10^{22}`$$`\mathrm{cm}^2`$. However, optical and ultraviolet observations are in favour of low obscuration towards the central engine. Indeed, Rudy et al. (1988) find a high $`Ly_\alpha /H_\alpha `$ ratio, implying that the optical redenning is negligible.

Recently Levenson et al. 2001, proposed an ’obscuring starburst model’ to explain the multiwavelength properties of the composite galaxy NGC6221. According to their model NGC6221 is a Seyfert 1 galaxy which is surrounded by a starburst component. The starburst accounts for the X-ray obscuration (N$`{}_{H}{}^{}`$ 1022) $`\mathrm{cm}^2`$and its characteristics dominate the optical spectrum. Although in principal this model can explain qualitatively the optical appearance of the composite galaxies it doesn’t seem to fit the X-ray observations of Mrk609. Our object does not show concrete evidence for significant X-ray absorption. In addition the soft X-ray variability and the high luminosity at low energies (L$`{}_{0.52keV}{}^{}`$2$`\times 10^{42}`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) probably rule out a dusty obscuring circumnuclear starburst. We note here that the spectral X-ray properties of Mrk609 are similar to the composite IRAS00317-2142 (Georgantopoulos et al. 2000). Again this galaxy has a low column density, consistent with the Galactic, and thus the obscuring starburst model cannot explain the properties of IRAS00317-2142.

Although the single power-law model yields a good representation of the Mrk609 spectrum the X-ray long term variability indicates that the spectrum of Mrk609 consists of more than one components. An AGN covered by a warm absorbing screen could provide an explanation for the observed long term variability. In this case changes in the X-ray continuum flux, will be followed by changes in the ionisation state of the warm absorber resulting in changes in the emission in the soft band. However, the quality of the data does not allow to examine the viability of the model to Mrk609.

Given the composite nature of Mrk609 it is natural to investigate whether emission from starburst regions contribute to the X-ray wavelengths. In principle, in a composite starburst-AGN model, the power-law component is heavily absorbed, and thus the star-forming component, which is located outside the obscuring screen, dominates the soft emission. However, when this model is applied to Mrk609 data, no excess absorption above the Galactic is required by the data for the power-law component. In addition the poor quality of the data at energies below $``$2 keV do not allow us to constrain the temperature of the thermal emission and make an unambiguous estimate of the starburst contribution to the X-ray emission. The strength of the star-forming component can be indirectly estimated from the observed IR flux. The expected X-ray contribution from stars was calculated using the empirical relationship between infrared and X-ray luminosity (equation  David, Jones $`\&`$ Forman 1992) found in a sample of IRAS galaxies. However, note that some of the infrared (IR) flux could arise from nuclear reprocessed emission from the obscuring medium. Thus any starburst contribution to the X-ray flux derived using the above relation may be overestimated and the derived flux should only be treated as an upper limit. First we calculated the IR luminosities using the fluxes IRAS fluxes at 60$`\mu m`$ and 100$`\mu m`$ and equation  from David, Jones et al. 1992. We find that the upper limit of the expected contribution of a starburst in the 0.5-4 keV band is 2.75$`\times 10^{42}`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The luminosity in the same band derived by the spectral fitting is $``$4.7$`\times 10^{42}`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, indicating that about half of the soft emission may be due to an intense starburst component. However, the variable soft X-ray emission clearly argues that any starburst contribution in soft energy band should be low.

To further test the AGN interpretation of Mrk609 the broad Hα line and the 2-10 keV flux were compared. Ward et al. (1988) found a strong correlation between the two quantities in a sample of IRAS selected Seyfert 1 galaxies. The observed luminosity of the broad Hα is L(Hα)=8.4$`\times 10^{39}`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, whereas the 2-10 keV luminosity is $``$7.5$`\times 10^{42}`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. According to the above relation the predicted broad Hα luminosity should be $``$40 times higher. The above discrepancy between the optical and X-ray spectrum could be explained by variability. Possibly the AGN was weaker during the optical observation (1984), but brightened over the $``$15 years timescale between the optical and X-ray observations. Alternatively the source may have unusually low UV emission. Then the photoionised emission lines would have lower fluxes than those typical for AGNs. To examine this possibility the Mrk609 spectral energy distribution (SED) was computed. This is shown in Figure 3. It is indeed clear that Mrk609 lacks a big blue bump (BBB). This feature is characteristic of high luminosity unobscured AGNs and is thought to be a signature of the presence of a cold accretion disk around the black hole (see Koratkar $`\&`$ Blaes 1999). We note here that lack of ultraviolet excess has also been observed in a sample of low-luminosity AGN (Ho 1999). Low accretion rate models have been employed to account for the absence of the BBB feature. Note that Mrk609 has a very strong $`Ly_\alpha `$ line (Rudy et al. 1988). The abnormally strong $`Ly_\alpha `$ line and anomalous emission line strengths in Mrk609 could be explained if the optical depth and ionisation parameter in the region where the lines form is significantly less than believed typical for Seyfert-1 galaxies. In this scenario the discrepancy between the optical and X-ray spectrum could be explained. Using Pa$`\beta `$ spectroscopy Goodrich (1990) and Rix et al. (1990) showed that Mrk609 line properties are indeed well explained by the optical depth/ionisation parameter theory.

As mentioned in the introduction the optical spectrum of the composite objects like Mrk609 bear close resemblance to the narrow line X-ray galaxies detected in ROSAT surveys. The X-ray spectrum of these sources is flat (Almaini et al. 1996) but it is unclear whether the flatness of the spectrum is intrinsic or due to obscuration. On the other hand, our observations show that Mrk609 has a relatively steep X-ray spectrum and no significant X-ray absorption. If the narrow line X-ray galaxies detected in ROSAT surveys have X-ray spectra similar to Mrk609 then they should not contribute significantly to the XRB.

## 7 summary

We have analysed BeppoSAX data of the composite galaxy Mrk609. The spectrum is described by a power-law $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.6`$ with negligible absorption. The absence of absorption is consistent with the small Balmer decrement and the large $`Ly_a`$ flux observed (Rudy et al. 1988). The absence of an obscuring column clearly does not fit the absorbed starburst model proposed by Levenson et al. 2001 to explain the multiwavelength properties of the composite galaxy NGC6221. The detection of significant soft and hard X-ray variability, clearly suggests that the AGN emission dominates the X-ray spectrum. Any starburst contribution to the X-ray emission should be small. In addition Mrk609 does not follow the $`L_{H_\alpha }L_x`$ correlation of bright AGN (Ward et al. 1988), showing a weak broad Hα component ($``$40 times less than predicted by the X-ray flux). The discrepancy between the optical and X-ray spectrum can be explained as a deficit of UV ionising photons. This is supported by the SED, which shows no upturn of the spectrum below $`3000A`$, implying the absence of a UV bump. Alternatively, as the optical and the X-ray observations were taken 15 years apart, dramatic variability in the X-ray flux could result in a low $`L_{H_\alpha }L_x`$ ratio. Finally the above discrepancy and anomalous line properties could be explained by small optical depth and ionisation parameter in the line emitting regions.

## 8 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the referee Dr. J. Halpern for useful comments and suggestions and A. Burston for producing the SED of Mrk609.