text:
# Singular Centre in Quantum Mechanics as a Black Hole

## 1 Introduction

There are many reasons to be interested in studying singular potentials in quantum mechanics. The most important ones lie in that these are inherent to the theory and cannot be merely brushed aside referring to its physical nontreatability. For instance one cannot help considering the case of supercritical nuclei with the charge $`Z>137`$ that creates effective singularity in the Dirac equation (see Berestetsky $`et`$ $`al`$ ). When studying a charged massive vector boson in a magnetic field it is not consistent to confine oneself to considering only low fields below the threshhold $`B=m^2c^3/e\mathrm{}`$. Studying the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation in the region of purely imaginary angular momentum is important in the framework of the Regge theory, especially in proving the Mandelstam dispersion relations with respect to the scattering angle cosine (DeAlfaro and Regge ). The attractive singular centrifugal term that appears for imaginary angular momentum causes the fall down onto the centre already at the free (potentialless) level. The order-to-order growing divergencies that accompany the perturbation expansion in the Lippmann- Schwinger equations in singular attractive case are believed to model the nonrenormalizability in quantum field theory , especially the growing divergencies in the ladder Bethe-Salpeter equation. There are experimentally probed problems  of a charged straight wire with a magnetic field applied along it or with the Aharonov-Bohm potential, the both problems possessing  the $`\beta /r^2`$ singularity in the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation (see ). We have listed these cases to illustrate the simple idea that consideration of singular potential is inevitable.

The singular potential problem in quantum mechanics attracted essential efforts during, perhaps, half a century. In spite of a mathematical advancement achieved by applying the theory of a self-ajoint extension of the Hamiltonian  (see Audretsch $`et`$ $`al`$  for the most recent results in this direction), we cannot state that a satisfactory physical description and understanding of the situation is developed of the fall down onto the center phenomenon, peculiar to the singular potential problem. Nevertheless, at least one lesson should be tought from these studies: there appears an extra continuum of states, whose wave functions decrease at infinity. (These are sometimes inadequately called a continuum of bound states).

In the present paper we study the radial Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation and deal with the special case, mentioned above, when the singularity is caused by the centrifugal term $`\lambda ^2/r^2`$ with the value $`\lambda ^2=l(l+1)+1/4`$ (where $`l`$ is the angular momentum) taken negative. The external potential is sufficiently well behaving and real. We are going to fully exploit the appearance of extra degrees of freedom by giving a direct physical interpretation to the continuum of states, presented by the asymptotic behaviour of the wave function near the origin $`r=0`$

$`\psi (r)r^{\pm \mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda +{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}=\mathrm{exp}(\pm \mathrm{}r_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }{r_0}})r^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}r_0^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda }`$ (1)
where $`r_{}=r_0\mathrm{ln}(r/r_0)`$, and $`r_0`$ is a dimensional parameter. In our approach this continuum is in the end responsible for the waves that behave like (asymptotically) free particles near the origin, with Im$`\lambda /r_0`$ playing the role of their momentum. These waves are absorbed by the singular centre or emitted by it . For negative energy $`k^2<0`$ they form a standing wave in the vicinity of the origin, no overall probability being absorbed/emitted by the centre nor escaping to infinity. This is a regime, that can be thought of as confinement and is described as purely elastic process in the inner channel, when particles emitted from the centre are fully scattered back onto it. When $`k^2>0`$ a two-channel regime occurs, i.e. the particles, emitted by the center, not only are reflected back to the centre, but also partially escape to infinity. Correspondingly, particles, incoming from infinity, are partially reflected back into infinity and partially penetrate into the inner region to become asymptotically free in the vicinity of the centre (and be absorbed by it).

To the best of our knowledge the existing papers, including that of Alliluev  , where a set of waves, diverging from and converging to the centre were considered, deal with the universal measure $`r`$ that serves the scalar product both for $`r\mathrm{}`$ and $`r0`$. The key difference of our approach is that we show that another measure should be used, which is singular near the origin. Its use makes the norm of the oscillating in the origin wave function $`linearly`$ $`divergent`$. This fact is definitely necessary to make it possible to interpret such wave functions as corresponding to particles that are free in the origin and have at their disposal a sufficiently ample volume element in the centre to be such. This is analogous to the linear divergency of the norm of the wave function of an ordinary free particle, infinitely remote from the centre.

The above picture is similar to the behaviour of scalar, electromagnetic, spinor and gravitational waves in the gravitational field of a spinning and nonspinning black hole, with particles disappearing behind the event horizon (see the book by Chandrasekhar  and the references to original works by himself, Zel’dovich, Starobinsky, Teukolsky and others therein).

The analogy of the singular centre and a black hole is, perhaps, more profound than just the above two-channel similarity . In section 2 we discuss the classical motion in an attractive $`\beta /r^2`$ potential and argue that the character of the unbounded motion towards the singular centre proposes that the latter may be associated with a sort of preEinstein black hole, i.e. the one, not depending on the General Relativity Theory (GRT), but showing a relativity of time and two different time scales, one of which is singular.

In the rest of the paper we concentrate in the quantum mechanical case.

In section 3 the basic solutions of the radial Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation and the corresponding Jost functions are listed.

In section 4 various two-channel and one-channel regimes are described in four domains (called sectors) of the momentum and angular momentum values. This description is summarized in Table 1.

In subsections 4.1, 4.2 the ordinary bound states and elastic scattering sectors are briefly reviewed. In subsection 4.3 the confining sector is studied. The behaviour of the confined particle is described by a one-dimensional Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation obtained by mapping the origin $`r=0`$ to the negative infinity $`r_{}=\mathrm{}`$. The effective potential in the transformed Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation disappears at $`r_{}=\mathrm{}`$ and exponentially grows for $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$, thus providing the locking of the particle in the inner space (half-bounded motion to and from the centre). The exponential growth of the locking potential is the consequence of the singularity in the initial Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation .

The orthonormality condition for confined states is formulated referring to a scalar product with a new measure, singular in the origin: $`r/r^2`$. This measure appears naturally in the transformed Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation and provides the necessary divergency of the norm of the wave function near $`r=0`$.

In subsection 4.4 the two-channel regime is studied. To describe it a $`2\times 2`$ $`S`$matrix ( $`cf`$  for the black hole case) is obtained, whose unitarity $`SS^{}=1`$ follows from the properties of solutions of the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation , and reflects the overall probability conservation, as well as transformation laws of the Jost functions under the complex conjugation - the time reflection. The $`S`$-matrix contains three angles: two scattering phases and one extra angle, responsible for the mixing of the two channels - the inelasticity angle. The three angles are expressed in terms of three independent Jost functions.

It is instructive, perhaps, for axiomatic quantum field theory, that the $`S`$-matrix unitarity cannot be formulated in terms of states, free at infinity, alone. The states, free near the origin, should be included.

The orthogonality for the two-channel scattering states is established with a measure that tends to $`r`$ for large distances from the centre and to $`r_0^2r/r^2`$ for small. For properly arranged orthogonal enelastic scattering states the relation $`k=\mathrm{Im}\lambda /\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{o}`$ holds (Im$`k=`$Re$`\lambda =0`$), which looks like a quantum number conservation condition, if one understands $`r_0`$ as a conventional border between two channels. Finally, some prospects of future work are mentioned.

In concluding section 5 the general insight into results is sketched.

## 2 Fall down onto a centre as an unbounded motion in classical mechanics. PreEinstein black hole

In this section we confine ourselves to classical consideration of the central-symmetric motion in a potential that behaves in an attractive singular way near the origin $`r=0`$

$`U(r)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{r^2}}.`$ (2)
It dominates over the centrifugal barrier when

$`\beta >{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{2m}},`$ (3)
where $`m`$ is the mass and $`L`$ the angular momentum of a probe particle. When (2) is fulfilled, the origin becomes a classically admissible point, since the square root

$`R=[(EU(r)){\displaystyle \frac{2}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{m^2r^2}}]^{1/2}`$ (4)
where $`E>0`$ is the energy, is real at $`r=0`$ ( the perihelium point corresponds to a complex value of $`r`$). Then the motion is ”unbounded” near the origin in the sense that the particle turns around the centre infinite number of times before it reaches it following the logarithmic spiral. This is seen from the expression for the angle differential

$$\varphi =R^1\frac{r}{r^2}\frac{L}{m},$$
(5)
which leads to a logarithmic divergency in the origin $`\varphi =(\mathrm{ln}r)L(2\beta mL^2)^{1/2}`$. On the other hand, the time $`t`$, nesessary for the particle to reach the centre, and the distance $`s`$, which it passes before it does so, are both finite, since their differentials

$$t=rR^1,s=r\varphi $$
(6)
are integrable in the point $`r=0`$. (Note that in the bordering case $`\beta =L^2/2m`$ the angle $`\varphi `$ diverges like $`L/r\sqrt{2Em}`$, and $`s`$ also diverges like -ln$`r(L/\sqrt{2Em})`$, while the time remains finite). If a potential $`U_1(r)`$ behaves near the origin like (2) and is positive in some finite region, there is an apohelium $`r=r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ to be found from the equation $`U_1(r_{\mathrm{max}})=E`$, and the trajectory is half-bounded: the particle may fall down onto the centre but cannot escape to infinity. On the other hand, there is also a half-bounded motion outside, provided that $`U_1(r)0`$ when $`r\mathrm{}`$. The situation when the motion is unbounded both at zero and at infinity is also possible ( for instance, if $`U_1(r)<0`$ everywhere). The same character of motion is peculiar to the quantum case, as it will be demonstrated in the next section. The main difference is that in quantum mechanics the particle splits into reflected and transmitted parts.

Now we are going to discuss what the spiral motion with infinite wending around the centre may have to do with the black hole. The black hole in GRT is characterized by the fact that there exist different ideas of $`time`$ held by different observers. The stationary (external) observer finds that the time necessary for a particle attracted by a black hole to disappear behind the horizon is infinite, whereas a comoving (internal) observer would spend only a finite (proper) time to reach the black hole. The possibility that different $`times`$ may exist is the manifestation of the principle of relativity of time, that reads that the time appears no sooner than means are pointed of how to make counts of it. The relativity of $`time`$ is best pronounced within Einstein’s theory of relativity, especially after the limitation on the maximum speed of a signal is imposed. It is certain, however, that the relativity of $`time`$, understood as stated above, is less special and exists beyond Einstein’s relativity theory.

We advocate the theory that the famous Achilles-and-Tortoise paradox, invented by Zeno of Elea as early as the fifth century BC, may be understood as introducing the relativity and singularity of time. Let us imagine, that an observer number 1 does not have at his disposal another physical process for defining $`time`$ except the Achilles-Tortoise pursuit. So he makes $`time`$ count each time Achilles covers the distance that separated him from Tortoise at the moment of the previous count. Observer number 1 will make infinite number of counts before Achilles catches up with Tortoise. The clock of this observer will indicate an infinite $`time`$. On the other hand, an observer number 2 who may use other physical processes, like planet (bounded) motion, pendulums, atomic transitions $`etc`$. to define segments of $`time`$ taken as equal, would state that Achilles catches up with Tortoise after only finite $`time`$ passes. The time of observer number 1 turns into infinity, i.e. it posesses a singularity as a function of the time of observer number 2 in a finite point of the latter. In this respect we say that Zeno’s paradox introduces the situation of a sort of preEinstein black hole.

Let us return to the singular centre ( 2), ( 3). Define observer number 1 as the one who does not have at his disposal any bounded motion to be used to produce $`time`$ intervals, taken as equal, only the (unbounded) process of the fall down onto the centre. By definition, the only way for him to measure $`time`$ is by counting revolutions around the centre. These are infinite in number. Therefore, this observer would state that infinite time passes before the centre is reached, whereas the time obtained by integrating d$`t`$ in (6) is finite.

The contents of the next sections do not depend directly on the consideration of the present section . What is remarkable is that in our classical consideration time and angle change their roles in the falling down onto the centre process: time is finite, whereas angle is infinite. On the contrary, for the motion, unbounded at infinity, the (scattering ) angle is finite and the time, necessary to reach infinity , is infinite. In quantum case we shall see in the next sections that the quantities, canonically conjugated to time and angle, i.e. the energy and the angular momentum (squared) also change their roles near the origin, leading to the change of the volume elements (the metrics).

## 3 Basic definitions

In the rest of the paper we study the radial Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation corresponding to spherically symmetric case

$`H\psi (r)=k^2\psi (r)`$ (7)
$`H={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}}{r^2}}+V(r),0r<\mathrm{},`$ (8)
where $`k^2=E`$ is the energy, and $`\lambda `$ is related to the angular momentum quantum number as $`\lambda =l+\frac{1}{2}`$. The radial part of the full 3D Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation is connected with the solution of (7) as $`R(r)=\psi /r`$. The potential $`V(r)`$ is real and good enough as not to essentially affect the character of the solutions, as compared with the free case of $`V(r)0`$. Namely:

1) $`V(r)`$ decreases at $`r\mathrm{}`$ sufficiently fast so that the integral

$`{\displaystyle _c^{\mathrm{}}}|V(r)|r<\mathrm{}`$ (9)
might converge at the upper limit

2) $`V(r)`$ is less singular in zero $`r=0`$ than the centrifugal term in (7), so that the integral

$`{\displaystyle _0^c^{}}r|V(r)|r<\mathrm{}`$ (10)
converge at the lower limit, $`c,c^{}>0`$.

We shall give the parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`k`$ in (7), (8) real or purely imaginary values. Together with the reality of the potential $`V(r)`$ this keeps coefficient functions in (8) real, so that if $`\psi (r)`$ is a solution to equation (7) the complex conjugate $`\psi ^{}(r)`$ is a solution of the same equation, too.

The singular character of the problem under consideration is only due to the imagionarity of $`\lambda `$ and not to the potential, that does not cause singularity according to (10). For this reason in treating our case many formal results may be borrowed from the so-called Regge pole theory, dealing with analytical continuation in the complex angular momentum plane, that was popular in the sixtieth- seventieth, although no special emphasis was made at that time on the fact that there is a singular dynamics, underlying the formalism. The case of $`V(r)0`$ will be referred to as $`free`$, although this seemingly kinematic case is already far from being trivial and contains all the features we are interested in.

In introducing basic definitions below we follow the book by DeAlfaro and Regge  . Consider two fundamental pairs of solutions of the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation .

The functions $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ and $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ satisfy equation (7) and have each a single-term asymptotic behaviour at infinity

$`f_{\lambda ,\pm k}(r)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}kr),r\mathrm{}.`$ (11)
The form (11) is the leading term of a solution to equation (7) in the asymptotic region $`r\mathrm{}`$. The functions $`\varphi _{\pm \lambda ,k}(r)`$ satisfy (7) and have each a single-term asymptotic behaviour near the origin

$`\varphi _{\pm \lambda ,k}(r)r^{\pm \lambda +{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}},r0.`$ (12)
The solution $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ is even with respect to the change of sign of $`\lambda `$, since neither the differential operator (8), nor the boundary condition (11) depends on this sign: $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)=f_{\lambda ,k}(r).`$ Analogously, $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)=\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$.

There are linear relations between the solutions:

$`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)=A\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)+B\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r),`$ (13a)
$`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)=C\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)+D\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r),`$ (13b)
$`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)=Ef_{\lambda ,k}(r)+Gf_{\lambda ,k}(r),`$ (13c)
$`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)=Hf_{\lambda ,k}(r)+Kf_{\lambda ,k}(r).`$ (13d)
Here the coefficients $`A,B,C,D,E,G,H,K`$ depend on the parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`k`$, and are expressed in terms of the four Jost functions $`f(\pm \lambda ,\pm k)`$ , defined as

$`f(\lambda ,k)=W(f_{\lambda ,k}(r),\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r))=f_{\lambda ,k}(r){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\lambda ,k}(r)}{r}}\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r),`$ (13n)
where $`W(f,\varphi )`$ is the Wronsky determinant of the two independent solutions, as follows

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A=f(\lambda ,k)/2\lambda ,& K=\mathrm{}(\lambda /k)A,\hfill \\ \hfill E=\mathrm{}f(\lambda ,k)/2k,& D=\mathrm{}(k/\lambda )E,\hfill \\ \hfill G=\mathrm{}f(\lambda ,k)/2k,& B=\mathrm{}(k/\lambda )G,\hfill \\ \hfill C=f(\lambda ,k)/2\lambda ,& H=\mathrm{}(\lambda /k)C.\hfill \end{array}`$ (13s)
In obtaining (13s) the use was made of (13n) and the other two, trivial Wronskians

$$W(\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r),\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r))=2\lambda ,W(f_{\lambda ,k}(r),f_{\lambda ,k}(r))=2\mathrm{}k,$$
(13t)
as well as of the evenness of $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ with respect to $`\lambda `$, and of $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ with respect to $`k`$. From the Volterra integral equations for $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r),\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$, equivalent to the differential equation (7) with the boundary conditions (11), (12), resp., one can get the complex conjugation properties for the solutions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (f_{\lambda ,k}(r))^{}=f_{\lambda ^{},k}(k),(\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r))^{}=\varphi _{\lambda ^{},k^{}}(r).& \end{array}$$
(13u)
The Jost function satisfies the relation

$$f^{}(\lambda ,k)=f(\lambda ^{},k^{}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\pi )).$$
(13v)
In the free case , $`V(r)0`$, the above solutions and the Jost function are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi _{\lambda ,k}^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +1)\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)^\lambda r^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}J_\lambda (kr),f_{\lambda ,k}^{(0)}=\left(\frac{\pi kr}{2}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\frac{\pi }{2}(\lambda +\frac{1}{2}))H_\lambda ^{(2)}(kr),f^{(0)}(k,\lambda )=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}k}{2}\right)^{\lambda +{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}(2/\sqrt{\pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +1).& \end{array}$$
(13w)
Here $`J_\lambda (kr)`$ and $`H_\lambda ^{(2)}(kr)`$ are cylindric functions in the standard notations, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Euler gamma-function. The free solutions $`f_{\lambda ,k}^{(0)}(r),\varphi _{\lambda ,k}^{(0)}(r)`$ posess the same asymptotic forms (11), (12), resp., as $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r),\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ owing to the properties (9), (10) of the potential.

## 4 Four kinematic sectors

We are now in a position to describe four different sectors of the problem: sector I (imaginary $`k`$, real $`\lambda `$), sector II (real $`k`$, real $`\lambda `$), sector III (imaginary $`\lambda `$, imaginary $`k`$), and sector IV (imaginary $`\lambda `$, real $`k`$). This consideration is summarized in Table 1.

Sectors I and II are quite ordinary, whereas sectors III and IV reveal the fall down onto the centre features. For the sake of completeness and comparability we describe sectors I and II in the words that will be appropriate for describing sectors III and IV as well (see subsections 4.3 and 4.4).

### 4.1 Bound states

In sector I a discrete manifold of states may appear as usual.

For Re$`\lambda \frac{1}{2}`$, Im$`\lambda =0`$ we face repulsion in the vicinity of the origin, the wave function $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ according to (12) decreases fast enough to keep the radial part of the wave function of the 3D Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation $`R(r)=\psi (r)/r`$ finite (see Landau’s and Lifshits’ Quantum Mechanics ). Simultaneously, for Re$`k=0`$, Im$`k>0`$ the wave function $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ is according to (11) decreasing and square-integrable near infinity $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}`$, where

$$\psi _{\mathrm{}}=_0^{\mathrm{}}|\psi (r)|^2r,$$
(13x)
while the function $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ is not. Correspondingly, the physically acceptable states are given by zeros of the coefficient $`E`$ in (13c), $`i.e.`$ satisfy the equation $`f(\lambda ,k)=0`$ according to (13s). Its solutions, if any, make a discrete manifold of trajectories Im$`k_{n_r}(\mathrm{Re}\lambda )`$, labelled by an integer, $`n_r=0,1\mathrm{}`$ (For half-integral $`\lambda _l=l+\frac{1}{2},`$ $`l=0,1\mathrm{}`$ these are physical bound states, labelled by a couple of discrete quantum numbers, $`n_r`$ and $`l`$.) Finally, the wave function of the acceptable states is $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)=f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$. As for the function $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$, it cannot provide the finiteness of $`R(r)`$ for any Im$`\lambda =0`$, Re$`\lambda \frac{1}{2}`$, and is not to be used.

We are left with the interval $`0\mathrm{Re}\lambda <\frac{1}{2}`$, Im$`\lambda =0`$, not considered yet. In this interval the interaction in (7, 8) is already attractive, but not strong enough to give rise to the fall down onto the centre , since (12) does not oscillate. The criterion of the finiteness of $`R(r)`$, used above, is no longer applicable to select solutions: this function is infinite in $`r=0`$ for the both functions $`\varphi _{\pm \lambda ,k}(r)`$. Generally the requirement that $`R(r)`$ should be finite in the origin lies beyond the context of the equation (7,8) under study, is not natural from the formal point of view and should not be used at all. As for the norm (13x), it is not indicative within the interval $`0\mathrm{Re}\lambda <\frac{1}{2}`$, since it converges for the both functions $`\varphi _{\pm \lambda ,k}(r)`$ there.

As a matter of fact ( see the next subsections 4.3, 4.4), a special measure, which behaves like d$`r/r^2`$ near the origin, appears naturally in the problem, to be used when calculating norms and scalar products. Appealing to this measure we state that the norm

$$\psi _0=_0^{\mathrm{}}|\psi (r)|^2\frac{r}{r^2}$$
(13y)
converges at the lower limit in sector I, for $`\psi =\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$, Re$`\lambda 0`$, while the same integral (13y) for $`\psi =\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ diverges for Re$`\lambda 0`$.

We conclude that physically accepted solutions $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)=f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ in sector I, that make - provided they exist - a dicrete set specified by trajectories Im$`k_{n_r}(\mathrm{Re}\lambda ),`$ are selected by the requirement that the norm (13x) for them converges at the upper limit, and the norm (13y) at the lower. (The convergences of (13x) at the lower, and of (13y) at the upper limit are then automatically guaranteed). We shall add more concerning the orthonormality relations among the acceptable solutions of sector I in subsection 4.4.2.

### 4.2 Elastic scattering states

In sector II (real $`k`$, real $`\lambda `$) usual continuum of states that are free at infinity lies. Again, out of the two solutions $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$, $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ according to (12) only $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ has the norm (13y) converging at the lower limit for Re$`\lambda 0`$. According to (13c), (11) the wave function $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ has two nondecreasing oscillating asymptotic forms at infinity, an incoming and outgoing waves, of which none is better than the other. For the both of them the norm (13x) $`f_{\lambda ,\pm k}(r)_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$ diverges linearly with respect to the upper cutoff $`R`$, if the latter is introduced. The normalization of scalar products by dividing over $`R`$ is used and ensures that the particles stay mostly at an infinite distance from the centre.

The Wronsky determinant of two mutually complex conjugate solutions is (up to a factor of i) the probability flux density to or from the centre.

$$P(\psi )=\mathrm{}\left(\psi \frac{\psi ^{}}{r}\psi ^{}\frac{\psi }{r}\right).$$
(13z)
The normalization of the probability flux density remains at this stage nonfixed and depends upon normalization of the appropriate wave function. Since there is no singularity between the points $`r=0,\mathrm{}`$, the probability flux density is independent of $`r`$. In sector II the probability flux carried by the wave function $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ disappears: $`P(\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r))=0`$ already because this function is real near the origin in accord with (12). Thus, this function is responsible for elastic scattering of the incoming wave by turning it into outcoming wave, with no probability being transferred to the centre. The incoming and outgoing waves form a standing wave at infinity with equal amplitudes and a phase difference, which is the scattering phase. The elastic scattering reduces to pure reflection with no transmission of the wave towards the centre. The absence of penetration is due to the singular repulsive (locking out) barrier (of kinematical nature) provided by the centrifugal term $`(\lambda ^21/4)/r^2`$ in (8). The probability flux densities (13z) associated with the two functions $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ and $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ forming $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ in view of (13c) are equal in absolute value but differ in sign, the crossing terms being zero. The overall probability, transferred to or from the infinity is also zero in virtue of the constancy of the Wronsky determinant. ”The infinity absorbs all it emits”.

All these well known facts will find their close analogy in the situation characteristic of sector III, to be described in the next subsection 4.3.

### 4.3 Continuum of confined states

In sector III of Table 1, wherein Re$`\lambda =0`$, Re$`k=0`$ consider the wave function $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ in (13b). For Im$`k>0`$ owing to (11) this function is exponentially decreasing, as $`r\mathrm{}`$, and real. It hasthe norm (13x) convergent at the upper limit $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}`$, and carries to/from the infinity a zero probability flux (13z) $`P(f_{\lambda ,k}(r))=0`$. As for its two asymptotic forms near the origin (12), they both oscillate, none of them being any worse or better than the other. These states make a continuum, since there is no reason to require that any of the coefficients $`C`$ or $`D`$ in (13b) should turn to zero. We insist that the equality in rights of the two asymptotically oscillating solutions (12) in sector III leads to analogous interpretation as the same circumstance in sector II, $`i.e.`$ they are responsible for free particles, this time incoming from or outgoing to the centre.

#### 4.3.1 Transformed Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation .

To make this interpretation explicit let us perform the transformation of the variable in the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation (7), (8)

$$r_{}=r_0\mathrm{ln}\frac{r}{r_0},$$
(13aa)
where $`r_0`$ is an arbitrary dimensional parameter, accompanied with the transformation of the wave function

$$\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\psi (r)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }(r_{})$$
(13ab)
or

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }(r_{})=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{r_{}}{2r_0})\psi (r_0\mathrm{exp}\frac{r_{}}{r_0})$$
(13ac)
The transformation (13aa) maps the origin $`r=0`$ to the minus infinity $`r_{}=\mathrm{}`$. The transformation (13ab) is intended to annihilate the first-order derivative term in the resulting differential equation. With (13aa), (13ab) the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation (7), (8) turns into

$$H_{\mathrm{cent}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(r_{})=\frac{(\mathrm{Im}\lambda )^2}{r_0^2}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(r_{}),\mathrm{}<r_{}<\mathrm{},$$
(13ad)
$$H_{\mathrm{cent}}=\frac{^2}{r_{}^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2r_{}}{r_0}\right)\left(k^2V(r_0\mathrm{exp}\frac{r_{}}{r_0})\right).$$
(13ae)
In what follows we use the tilde sign to denote the transform (13ab), (13ac) of any solution of equation (7), (8).

The probability flux density (13z) - like any other Wronsky determinant - remains form-invariant under the transformation (13ab), (13aa)

$$\mathrm{}\left(\psi (r)\frac{\psi ^{}(r)}{r}\psi ^{}(r)\frac{\psi (r)}{r}\right)=\mathrm{}\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }(r_{})\frac{\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(r_{})}{r_{}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(r_{})\frac{\stackrel{~}{\psi }(r_{})}{r_{}}\right).$$

This invariance would be violated if we have chosen different scales in the $`r`$ and $`r_{}`$ coordinates by using the transformation $`r_{}=r_{}^0\mathrm{ln}(r/r_0)`$ with $`r_{}^0r_0`$ in place of (13aa).

Bearing in mind the property (10) of the potential one sees that in the limit $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$ the potential-containing term in (13ae) may be omitted (as well as the kinematic term $`k^2`$). This is the property of asymptotic freedom near the singular centre. The asymptotic form of (13ad) is the free equation, with Im$`\lambda /r_0`$ playing the role of asymptotic momentum in the inner channel,

$$\frac{^2}{r_{}^2}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\mathrm{}}(r_{})=\frac{(\mathrm{Im}\lambda )^2}{r_0^2}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\mathrm{}}(r_{}).$$
(13af)
Its solutions are

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\mathrm{}}(r_{})=c_\pm \mathrm{exp}\left(\pm \mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }{r_0}r_{}\right),$$
(13ag)
where $`c_\pm `$ are arbitrary constants, and Im$`\lambda \sqrt{(\mathrm{Im}\lambda )^2}>0`$. This is in agreement with (12).

Consider

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{r_{}}{2r_0})f_{\lambda ,k}\left(r_0\mathrm{exp}\frac{r_{}}{r_0}\right).$$
(13ah)
This function is a combination of two waves: the one incoming from the negative infinity of $`r_{}`$, and the other outgoing to the negative infinity of $`r_{}`$ (the waves, emitted and absorbed by the center $`r=0`$). This is seen from (13b) when written as follows

$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{2r_0}})\left[C\varphi _{\lambda ,k}\left(r_0\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{r_0}}\right)+D\varphi _{\lambda ,k}\left(r_0\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}}{r_0}}\right)\right]`$
$`=C\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})+D\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})`$
$`C\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }{r_0}}r_{}\right)r_0^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda +\frac{1}{2}}+D\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }{r_0}}r_{}\right)r_0^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda +\frac{1}{2}},`$ (13ai)
$`r_{}\mathrm{}`$
which agrees with(13ag).

The norm $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\mathrm{}}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }(r_{})|^2r_{}`$, associated with (13ad)), is just the norm (13y) (and not (13x)). Taken for the transform of $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$, it diverges linearly with the lower cutoff $`L`$

$$\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}_L^{\mathrm{}}|\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})|^2r_{}=L(|C|^2+|D|^2),$$

as it should for the continuum of asyptotically free particles ($`cf`$ sector II). This implies that the particle is located mostly at negative infinity of the variable $`r_{}`$. Such is the meaning to be given to the phrase: fall down onto the centre.

At the positive infinity of $`r`$ also $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$ and $`V\left(r_0\mathrm{exp}(r_{}/r_0)\right)`$ may be as usual neglected as compared to $`k^2`$ in (13ae) due to the property (9). Equation (13ad), (13ae) becomes

$$\frac{^2}{r_{}^2}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\mathrm{}}(r_{})k^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2r_{}}{r_0}\right)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\mathrm{}}(r_{})=\frac{(\mathrm{Im}\lambda )^2}{r_0^2}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\mathrm{}}(r_{})$$
(13aj)
In agreement with (11), (13aa), (13ab) the asymptotic behaviour of (4.3.1) for $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})\mathrm{exp}\left(r_0\mathrm{Im}k\mathrm{exp}\frac{r_{}}{r_0}\right)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{r_{}}{2r_0}).$$
(13ak)
This is the leading asymptotic term in the solution of (13aj). Remind that in sector III $`k^2<0`$, and we are considering Im$`k>0`$. Hence the second term in the l.-h. side of (13aj) is an infinitely growing positive (repulsive) potential, locking the particle away from the outer world. It is just $`k^2r^2`$ and originates from the $`1/r^2`$ singularity in the initial equation (7,8). It prevents the particle from escaping to the positive infinity $`r\mathrm{}`$ in the same way, as the infinite repulsive centrifugal term in sector II prevented it from approaching the origin ($`cf`$ subsection 4.2). Again, the locking potential in sector III is a purely kinematic (kinetic energy) term that originates from the r.-h. side of (7), whereas in sector II it was the centrifugal potential, forming the r.-h. side of (13ad). The function (13ak) for Im$`k>0`$ decreases, as it should.

Thus, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})`$ represents the process of elastic scattering of particles incoming from the negative infinity of $`r_{}`$ ($`i.e.`$ from the origin of $`r`$) with all the probability reflected inwards (towards $`r=0`$), nothing escaping to positive infinity. In other words, one has purely elastic scattering process in sector III, similar to the one in sector II, with the only difference that the asymptotically free particles income and outgo from/to the origin $`r=0`$, $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$.

In the asymptotic domain $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$ the solution (4.3.1) may be presented as

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})(S_{\mathrm{cent}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }{r_0}r_{}\right)+\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }{r_0}r_{})]Dr_0^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda +\frac{1}{2}},$$
(13al)
where the scattering 1$`\times 1`$ matrix (just a complex number) in sector III for the elastic scattering from the centre back to the centre is

$$S_{\mathrm{cent}}=\frac{C}{D}r_0^{2\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda }=\frac{f(\lambda ,k)}{f(\lambda ,k)}r_0^{2\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda }.$$
(13am)
We have used (13s) in deriving the last equality in (13am).

Since in sector III the equaity $`S_{\mathrm{cent}}S_{\mathrm{cent}}^{}=1`$ holds true due to (13s), (13v), the scattering matrix (13am) can be presented in the form, analogous to the well-known elastic scattering matrix in sector II

$$S_{\mathrm{cent}}=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\delta ).$$

In the free case, $`V0`$, using (13w) one obtains for the scattering phase $`\delta =\delta _0`$, where

$`\delta _0(\lambda ,k)=\pi +2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\lambda \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_0\mathrm{Im}k}{2}}\right)+\mathrm{arg}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda )}}`$
$`=\pi +2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\lambda \left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_0\mathrm{Im}k}{2}}\right)+C_\mathrm{E}\right]`$
$`+2\mathrm{arctan}(\mathrm{Im}\lambda )+2{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }{s+1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }{s}}\right],`$ (13an)
where $`C_\mathrm{E}=0.577\mathrm{}`$ is the Euler constant, and the series in the r.-h.side converges.

#### 4.3.2 Orthonormality of confined states.

Now we follow the common procedure, applicable irrespective of whether sector III or II is concerned, to demonstrate that the confined wave functions $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})`$, normalized as

$$\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})=\frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda \sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{r_0}|f(\lambda ,k)|}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\lambda ,k}(r_{}),$$
(13ao)
satisfy the orthnormality condition, taken for coinciding $`k`$’s and different or equal $`\lambda `$’s. The orthogonality for different $`\lambda `$’s is independently and straightforwardly demonstrated in subsection 4.4.2.

Consider the function

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L(\lambda ,\lambda ^{},k)_L^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\lambda ^{},k}^{}(r_{})r_{}$$
(13ap)
and its integral with a test function $`T(\mathrm{Im}\lambda ^{}/r_0)`$

$$\tau \left(\frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }{r_0}\right)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda ,\lambda ^{},k)T\left(\frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda ^{}}{r_0}\right)\frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda ^{}}{r_0}$$
(13aq)
as a limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, where $`L`$ is the size of the box $`(L,\mathrm{}),`$ into which the system is placed. The solution (13ao) in the box is subject to two homogeneous boundary conditions. The first one

$`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\lambda ,k}(\mathrm{})=0`$ (13ar)
is fulfilled due to (11) or (13ak). The second boundary condition imposed at the other end of the interval

$`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\lambda ,k}(L)=0`$ (13as)
is satisfied for dicrete values of Im$`\lambda `$. For large $`L`$ these values are found from the equation that follows from (13al), (13ao)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda _n}{r_0}}L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta (\lambda _n,k)=n\pi +{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}`$ (13at)
to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda _n}{r_0}}={\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{L}}`$ (13au)
with $`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ unless $`\delta `$ grows too fast when $`\lambda 0`$. With (13au) in mind the integral (13aq) is presented as the limit at $`L\mathrm{}`$ of the Darboux sum (we take d$`(`$Im$`\lambda ^{}/r_0)=\pi /L)`$

$`\tau \left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi n}{r_0}}\right)=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_L(\lambda _n,\lambda _n^{},k){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{L}}T\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi n^{}}{L}}\right)`$ (13av)
In calculating the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L/L`$ we take into account that only the diverging part of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ may give a finite contribution into it, and hence the integrand in (13ap) should be replaced by its asymptotic form at $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$ according to (4.3.1) (integral (13ap) converges at the upper limit $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$ in sector III due to (11)). With the use of (13b), (4.3.1) one obtains

$`\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}{L}}=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle _L^{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\lambda ^{},k}^{}(r_{})r_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|f(\lambda ,k)f(\lambda ^{},k)|}}`$
$`\times \underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle _L^c}[f(\lambda ,k)f^{}(\lambda ^{},k)r_0^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}(\lambda \lambda ^{})}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}(\lambda \lambda ^{})}{r_0}}r_{}\right)`$
$`+f(\lambda ,k)f^{}(\lambda ^{},k)r_0^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}(\lambda ^{}\lambda )}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}(\lambda ^{}\lambda )}{r_0}}r_{}\right)]r_{},`$ (13aw)
where $`c`$ is any finite number. The difference between the integrals in the first and second lines in (4.3.2) is finite and gives vanishing contribution into the limiting value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L/L`$. Also for this reason we omitted the crossing terms $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm \mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}(\lambda +\lambda ^{})r_{}/r_0)`$, since $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ are of the same sign and the sum $`\lambda +\lambda ^{}`$ is nonzero. As long as $`\lambda \lambda ^{}`$ the integral in (4.3.2) is finite and the limit (4.3.2) disappears as $`L\mathrm{}`$. For $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}`$ expression (4.3.2) is unity in virtue of (13v). We conclude, that

$`\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}{L}}=\delta _{n,n^{}}.`$ (13ax)
Hence, (13av) becomes $`\tau (\mathrm{Im}\lambda /r_0)=\pi T(\mathrm{Im}\lambda /r_0)`$, which implies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}`$ in (13aq) is $`\pi `$ times the Dirac $`\delta `$-function. Referring to (13ap) we finally get the orthnormality relation in sector III (Re$`\lambda `$, Re$`\lambda ^{}=0`$, Im$`\lambda `$, Im$`\lambda ^{}>0`$, Im$`k>0`$, Re$`k=0`$)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda ,\lambda ^{},k)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\lambda ,k}(r_{})\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\lambda ^{},k}^{}(r_{})r_{}=\pi \delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }{r_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda ^{}}{r_0}}\right)`$ (13ay)
Note, that as long as the parameter Im$`\lambda `$ can be viewed upon as a strength of the singular attraction, the orthonormality relation (13ay) expresses spectral properties with respect to a ”coupling constant”. This may be interesting when singular potentials other than $`1/r^2`$ are concerned.

To conclude this subsection let us transform the integral (13ay) to the primary variable. Using (13aa), (13ab), (13ao) we obtain from (13ay)

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{\lambda ,k}(r)\rho _{\lambda ^{},k}^{}(r){\displaystyle \frac{r}{r^2}}=\pi \delta (\mathrm{Im}\lambda \mathrm{Im}\lambda ^{}),`$ (13az)
where

$`\rho _{\lambda ,k}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda \sqrt{2}}{|f(\lambda ,k)|}}f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ (13ba)
Relation (13az) does not contain $`r_0`$. Note the singular measure $`r^2`$d$`r`$ that appears in (13az).

For the free case, $`V(r)0`$, it follows from the first line of (4.3.1) that (13au) is indeed the solution to equation (13at). After substituting (13w) into (13ba) we find the normalized wave function of a confined state

$`\rho _{\lambda ,k}^{(0)}(r)=r^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}K_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda }(r\mathrm{Im}k)[\mathrm{Im}\lambda \mathrm{sinh}(\pi \mathrm{Im}\lambda )]^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}`$ (13bb)
and (13az) takes the form of a relation for McDonald functions with imaginary indices $`K_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda }(r)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{Im}\lambda \mathrm{sinh}(\pi \mathrm{Im}\lambda ){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}K_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda }(r)K_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda ^{}}(r){\displaystyle \frac{r}{r}}=\pi \delta (\mathrm{Im}\lambda \mathrm{Im}\lambda ^{})`$ (13bc)
Here, the orthogonality for Im$`\lambda \mathrm{Im}\lambda ^{}`$ may be directly seen from the formula 6.576.4 of Gradshteyn and Ryzhik  after one makes the power $`\lambda `$ tend to 1 in it and puts $`a=b`$. The $`\delta `$-function is given rise to by the divergency of (13bc) near $`r=0`$. The normalization may be checked using the asymptotic behaviour of McDonald function near $`r=0`$ following the example  of one-dimensional Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation with the barrier reflection.

### 4.4 Two-channel sector

In sector II the (elastic) scattering states were described by one function $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ out of the set of two fundamental solutions $`\varphi _{\pm \lambda ,k}`$, while the other, $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ was physically useless. In sector III, again, only one function, $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ was responsible for elastic scattering, while its partner from the fundamental couple, $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ was meaningless. Correspondingly, the scattering matrices in these sectors were unitary $`1\times 1`$ matrices, $`i.e.`$ just complex numbers with their absolute values equal to unity. One had a single scattering phase in each sector.

In sector IV, where $`\lambda `$ is imaginary and $`k`$ real, both solutions from each fundamental couple are meaningful and represent waves incoming from and outgoing to infinity, as (11), and incoming from and outgoing to the origin, as (12) ( or from/to the negative infinity of $`r_{}`$ (13aa), as (13ag)). Any linear combination (13) of two meaningful fundamental solutions is again a meaningful solution. Two $`2\times 2`$ mutually inverse matrices transform two fundamental sets of two solutions according to (13).

#### 4.4.1 $`2\times 2`$ scattering matrix.

To calculate the probability flux density $`P(\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r))`$ brought from the centre $`r=0`$ in the physical state described by the wave function $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ it is sufficient to substitute (12) into (13z). This gives $`P(\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r))=\mathrm{Im}\lambda `$. The same quantity (mind the probability conservation, $`i.`$$`e.`$ the Wronskian (13z) independence of $`r`$) is to be obtained, provided we use the r.-h.side of (13c) in the asymptotic form near $`r\mathrm{}`$

$`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)=E\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}kr)+G\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}kr)`$ (13bd)
and substitute this into (13z). The crossing term $`EG`$ vanishes, while the first term gives the contribution $`k|E|^2`$ responsible for the influx of probability from infinity, and the second term contributes as $`k|G|^2`$, which is the probability carried away to infinity. Therefore

$`{\displaystyle \frac{|G|^2}{|E|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }{k|E|^2}}=1.`$ (13be)
For $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda <0,\mathrm{k}>0`$ the flux density $`P(\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r))`$ is negative and the wave $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ is absorbed by the centre. Then relation (13be) states that the sum of reflection and transmission coefficients is unity. For Im$`\lambda >0,k>0`$ the centre emits, and the reflection coefficient $`|G|^2/|E|^2`$ in (13be) is greater than unity ($`cf`$ the superradiation of the Kerr black hole ).

Analogously, in the state respresented by the wave function $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r),`$ $`k>0`$ the probability flux density (13z) emitted outwards is $`P(f_{\lambda ,k}(r))=k`$. By equating this to the same quantity calculated using (13b) and (12) we obtain the probability conservation relation

$`k=\mathrm{Im}\lambda |C|^2\mathrm{Im}\lambda |D|^2,`$ (13bf)
where the first term in the r.-h.side describes the probability flux emitted by the centre, when Im$`\lambda >0`$, or absorbed by it, when Im$`\lambda <0`$, while the second term $`vice`$ $`versa`$. Thus, for Im$`\lambda `$ negative, after normalizing to the wave incoming from the centre, we obtain from (13bf)

$`1={\displaystyle \frac{|C|^2}{|D|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\mathrm{Im}\lambda |D|^2}}.`$ (13bg)
This reads: the coefficient of reflection of the wave emitted from the origin back into the origin plus the coefficient of transmission of the emitted wave to infinity is unity. For positive Im$`\lambda `$ the relation that expresses the same physical statement is obtained from (13bf) by dividing it over Im$`\lambda |C|^2`$, which is again the normalization to the emitted wave. This relation is

$`1={\displaystyle \frac{|D|^2}{|C|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\mathrm{Im}\lambda |C|^2}}.`$ (13bh)
If we assume $`k<0`$ in (13bg), (13bh) we obtain that the reflection coefficient in the inner channel is greater than unity, which means the internal superradiation due to the fact that there is the overall incoming probability flux from the infinity.

In what follows we consider only negative Im$`\lambda `$ and positive $`k`$ for definiteness.

Represent (13c), (13b) in the form

$`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{G}{E}}f_{\lambda ,k}(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma E}}\sigma \varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r),`$ (13bi)
$`\sigma \varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{D}}f_{\lambda ,k}(r){\displaystyle \frac{C}{D}}\sigma \varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r),`$ (13bj)
where the parameter $`\sigma `$ is introduced to appropriately normalize the wave function $`\varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$

$$\sigma =\left(\frac{k}{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}.$$

Define a $`2\times 2`$ scattering matrix $`S_{ij},i,j=1,2`$. Let $`S_{11}=G/E`$ be the coefficient that relates the wave, reflected to infinity, contained in the asymptotic behaviour of $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ in (13bi), to the wave incoming from infinity, contained in $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$. Let, further, $`S_{12}=(1/\sigma E)`$ be the coefficient that relates the wave transmitted to the origin, contained in $`\sigma \varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ in (13bi), to the wave incoming from infinity, contained in $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$. Also $`S_{22}=C/D`$ relates the wave reflected to the origin, contained in $`\sigma \varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ in (13bj), to the wave incoming from the origin, contained in $`\sigma \varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$, while $`S_{21}=(\sigma /D)`$ relates the wave transmitted to infinity, contained in $`f_{\lambda ,k}(r)`$ in (13bj), to the wave incoming from the origin $`\sigma \varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)`$. Using (13s) we can write (13bi), (13bj) with the help of the $`S`$-matrix defined above:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}f_{\lambda ,k}(r)\\ \sigma \varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{f(\lambda ,k)}{f(\lambda ,k)}& \frac{2\mathrm{}\sqrt{k\mathrm{Im}\lambda }}{f(\lambda ,k)}\\ \frac{2\mathrm{}\sqrt{k\mathrm{Im}\lambda }}{f(\lambda ,k)}& \frac{f(\lambda ,k)}{f(\lambda ,k)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}f_{\lambda ,k}(r)\\ \sigma \varphi _{\lambda ,k}(r)\end{array}\right)`$ (13bq)
The nondiagonal part of the $`S`$-matrix in (13bq) is antisymmetric: $`S_{ij}=S_{ji}`$ for $`ij`$. The unitarity of the $`S`$-matrix is

$`SS^{}=1,`$ (13br)
where $`S^{}`$ is Hermitean conjugate to $`S`$. The two diagonal equations in (13br) are just the relations (13be) and (13bg), that follow from the probability conservation. The two off-diagonal equations in (13br) follow from the complex conjugation rules (13v) for the Jost functions.

Note, that the $`S`$-matrix in (13bq) contains only three out of the four Jost functions $`f(\pm \lambda ,\pm k)`$. On the other hand, the Hermitean conjugate matrix $`S^{}`$ contains via (13v) another triple of the Jost functions, so that the unitarity property (13br) implies a relation between the four Jost functions in sector IV. Such a relation is known

$`\left|\begin{array}{cc}f(\lambda ,k)& f(\lambda ,k)\\ f(\lambda ,k)& f(\lambda ,k)\end{array}\right|=4k\mathrm{Im}\lambda `$ (13bu)
and equivalent to (13be), (13bg).

The most general form of a unitary matrix with antisymmetric nondiagonal part is

$`S=\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}\delta _2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\delta _1)\mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{sin}\alpha \\ \mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\delta _1)\mathrm{cos}\alpha \end{array}\right)`$ (13bx)
By comparing this with (13bq) we find

$`\delta _1=\mathrm{arg}f(\lambda ,k),\delta _2=\mathrm{arg}f(\lambda ,k)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},`$
$`\mathrm{tan}\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{k\mathrm{Im}\lambda }}{|f(\lambda ,k)|}}.`$ (13by)
The two scattering phases $`\delta _1,\delta _2`$ and the channel-mixing nonelasticity angle $`\alpha `$ are real in sector IV, Im$`\lambda <0,k>0`$. The element $`S_{11}`$ in (13bq) is the usual form of the $`S`$-matrix in sector II, where the scattering of the particles incoming from infinity is elastic: $`|S_{11}|=1`$ due to the relation$`f(\lambda ,k)=f^{}(\lambda ,k)`$, valid for real $`\lambda `$, real $`k`$ (see (13v)). The element $`S_{22}`$ in (13bq) should be compared with the $`S_{\mathrm{cent}}`$-matrix in sector III (13am), where the scattering of particles emitted by the centre back to the centre is elastic: $`|S_{22}|=1`$ owing to the relation $`f(\lambda ,k)=f^{}(\lambda ,k)`$, valid for imaginary $`\lambda `$, imaginary $`k`$, (see (13v)).

The above definition of the $`S`$matrix is subject to an arbitrariness. Without affecting the unitarity and the meaning of the $`S`$matrix elements we can change the normalization in (13bi), (13bj) by multiplying $`\sigma `$ by a unit length complex number, say $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\delta _3)`$. Correspondingly, the nondiagonal elements $`S_{12}`$ and $`S_{21}`$ in (13bx), (13bq) are multiplied by $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\delta _3)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\delta _3)`$, resp. with the phase $`\delta _3`$ arbitrary. This tells us that the antisymmetricity of the $`S`$matrix we used for a particular choice of $`\delta _3`$ is not an invariant property.

The partial transmission of the wave incoming from infinity to the centre is considered as a transition from the outer channel, formed by the environment of the infinitely remote point, to the inner channel, formed by the environment of the origin. $`Vice`$ $`versa`$, the partial escaping of the wave, emitted by the centre to infinity is considered as the reciprocal transition between the two channels. Each interchannel transition means absorption in the sense that the probability partially leaves the initial channel and is lost for it. For this reason in sector IV the $`S`$-matrix elements $`S_{11}`$ and $`S_{22}`$ are no longer unit length complex numbers, and the unitarity can only be formulated with the inclusion of the elements $`S_{12},S_{21}`$ responsible for transitions between the two channels as it was done above.

It would not be appropriate to try to take into account the nonelasticity of the scattering process in sector IV by analytic continuation with respect to $`k`$ or $`\lambda `$ from any of the elastic sectors II or III. The analytic continuation makes the corresponding scattering phase complex but is unable to create the lacking phase and the nonelasticity angle: a description of the system with a greater number of degrees of freedom cannot be achieved by mere analytic continuation.

For the free case, $`V(r)0`$, one readily gets from (4.4.1), (13w)

$`\delta _1^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\mathrm{Im}\lambda \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{arg}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mathrm{}\mathrm{Im}\lambda )}},\delta _2^{(0)}=\delta _1^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},`$ (13bz)
$`\mathrm{tan}\alpha ^{(0)}=\left(\mathrm{}^{2\pi \mathrm{Im}\lambda }1\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (13ca)
The transmission coefficient in (13be) is

$`T^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda }{k|E^{(0)}|^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\lambda }{|f^{(0)}(\lambda ,k)|^2}}=1\mathrm{}^{2\pi \mathrm{Im}\lambda }.`$ (13cb)
The transmission vanishes, $`\alpha ^{(0)}=0`$, $`T^{(0)}=0`$ for Im$`\lambda =0`$, and is a maximum, $`\alpha ^{(0)}=\pi /2`$, $`T^{(0)}=1`$ for Im$`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$. Expression (13cb) is in agreement with the absorption cross section of .

#### 4.4.2 Orthogonality and measure.

By combining any two solutions $`\psi _{1,2}`$ of different Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equations (7), corresponding to different values of $`k^2`$ and $`\lambda ^2`$, and integrating by parts we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2}{r^2}}(k_1^2k_2^2)\right]\psi _1^{}(r)\psi _2(r)r`$
$`=\left(\psi _1^{}(r){\displaystyle \frac{\psi _2}{r}}\psi _2(r){\displaystyle \frac{\psi _1^{}(r)}{r}}\right)|_0^{\mathrm{}}.`$ (13cc)
This holds true both with and without the complex conjugation sign over $`\psi _1(r)`$. To avoid a possible misunderstanding, stress that the Wronskian-like form in the r.-h.side of (4.4.2) is not $`r`$-independent, since $`\psi _{1,2}(r)`$ are solutions of differential equations with different coefficients in them.

We were/are interested in the functions $`\psi _{1,2}(r)`$ that:

* decrease at the both ends of the interval $`0r<\mathrm{}`$. These make the discrete set of functions $`\psi _1(r)=\varphi _{\lambda _1,k_1}(r)=f_{\lambda _1,k_1}(r)`$ and $`\psi _2(r)=\varphi _{\lambda _2,k_2}(r)=f_{\lambda _2,k_2}(r)`$ of sector I (see subsection 4.1)
* decrease at the upper end , $`r=\mathrm{}`$, and turn to zero at the lower end when the latter is understood as the limit of the left box end coordinate $`r_{}=L`$, when $`L\mathrm{}`$ $`(r=r_0\mathrm{exp}(L/r_0)0)`$. These are the functions $`\psi _{1,2}(r)=f_{\lambda _{1,2},k}(r)`$, $`k_1=k_2=k`$, corresponding to the continuum of confined states of sector III (see subsection 4.3)
* turn to zero at the lower end, $`r=0`$, and at the upper end, provided that the latter is understood as the limit of the right box wall coordinate $`r=R`$, when $`R\mathrm{}`$. These are the wave functions $`\psi _{1,2}(r)=\varphi _{\lambda ,k_{1,2}}(r)`$, $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda `$ of the continuum of states of sector II (see subsection 4.2)
* turn to zero at the both ends of the interval when these are both understood as limits of the left and right box wall coordinates $`L,R`$ tending to infinity ($`r_{}=L\mathrm{}`$, $`r=R\mathrm{}`$). These are the functions $`\psi _{1,2}(r)`$ formed by linear combinations of the functions $`\varphi _{\lambda _1,k_1}(r),\varphi _{\lambda _2,k_2}(r)`$ and $`f_{\lambda _1,k_1}(r),f_{\lambda _2,k_2}(r)`$ that belong to the continuum of the two-channel scattering states of sector IV, we are discussing in the present subsection.

In all these cases the r.-h.side of (4.4.2) vanishes, provided that the integration limits in the l.-h.side are understood as stated above. Now, the orthogonality relations that follow from (4.4.2) are different in different cases and sectors. In sector I for bound states and in sector II for elastic scattering states we are interested in orthogonality of states with different energies $`k_1^2k_2^2`$ and coinciding angular momenta. So we put $`\lambda _1^2=\lambda _2^2`$ in (4.4.2) and see that such states are orthogonal with the measure $`r`$ taken in the scalar product. The states with equal momenta squared $`k_1^2=k_2^2`$ but different angular momenta $`\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2`$ belonging to the discrete specrtum of sector I or to the continuum of confined states of sector III are orthogonal with the measure $`r/r^2`$ like in (13az).

In sector IV, let us rearrange the set of solutions of the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation labelled by two parameters $`k`$ and Im$`\lambda `$ into another two-parametric set labelled by $`r_0`$ and $`k`$, so that

$`\mathrm{Im}\lambda =r_0k.`$ (13cd)
Then (4.4.2) takes the form ( we assume the zero boundary conditions imposed as discussed above)

$`(k_1^2k_2^2){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\psi _1^{}(r)\psi _2(r)\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_0^2}{r^2}}+1\right)r=0.`$ (13ce)
Here $`\psi _1(r)`$ refers to the set of quantum numbers $`k=k_1,\lambda =\mathrm{}r_0k_1`$, whereas $`\psi _2(r)`$ to the set $`k=k_2,\lambda =\mathrm{}r_0k_2`$. Hence (13ce) implies the orthogonality of solutions with different $`k^2`$’s (simultaneously, with different $`\lambda ^2`$’s) with the measure

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_0^2}{r^2}}+1\right)r`$ (13cf)
that tends to $`r`$ for $`r\mathrm{}`$ to provide the possibility of free life of particles at infinity, like in sector II, and tends to $`(r_0^2/r^2)r`$ for $`r0`$ to provide the freedom in the vicinity of the centre, like in sector III.

Relation (13cd) should be substituted into (13bq), (4.4.1) and other equations of subsection 4.4.

From (13cf) the meaning of the dimensional parameter $`r_0`$ becomes clear. It characterizes the separation between the outer and inner worlds in the sense that: the greater $`r_0`$, the greater the weight of the first term in the measure (13cf), in other words, the farther the inner world spreads. So $`r_0`$ may be thought of as the size of the singular centre. The parameter $`r_0`$ represents the barrier that reflects particles inwards and outwards. Relation (13cd) is a sort of quantum number conservation law at the ”border”: the angular momentum, labelling the states in the inner world, is equal to the momentum, labelling the states in the outer world, multiplied by the radius of the border.

Remarkably, with the parametrization (13cd) the eigenvalues in the r.-h.sides of equations (7) and (26) coincide.

The final remark is in order. Let us represent the radial Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation (7, 8) in the form of a special eigenvalue problem

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r^2}}+V(r)\right)\psi (r)=\kappa (r)\psi (r)`$ (13cg)
where $`\kappa (r)`$ is not a constant eigevalue, but a function:

$`\kappa (r)=k^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}}{r^2}}.`$ (13ch)
According to the standard reference book  if $`\kappa (r)`$ is continuous and preserves its sign inside an interval ($`r_1,r_2`$), and the potential $`V(r)`$ is smooth enough, equation (13cg) creates a self-ajoint eigenvalue problem, provided that the boundary conditions at $`r=r_1,r_2`$ belong to the so-called regular class. Then a complete orthonormal set of functions is associated to the problem (13cg), the function $`\kappa (r)r`$ acting as a measure in the orthonormality relations and the generalized Fourier expansions.

The zero boundary conditions at the box walls $`(r_1=r_0\mathrm{exp}(L/r_0)`$, $`r_2=R)`$ proposed above in this subsection, are regular, besides the measure (13ch) has in sector IV a definite sign. So, the conditions for the complete set to exist are fulfilled. We are going to explicitely accomplish their construction, as well as build the matrix Green functions and the set of Lippmann-Schwinger equations in the forthcoming paper.

## 5 Concluding remarks

We presented a new physical approach to the singular potential problem, using the $`1/r^2`$ attractive potential as an example. A great deal of symmetricity in handling the two singular points $`r=0`$ and $`r=\mathrm{}`$ of the radial Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation is peculiar for this approach. The singular centre is analogous to the remote infinity in the sense that it also produces incoming and outgoing waves to form the scattering process. The waves, incoming from and outgoing to the centre contribute into the unitarity in the same way as the ones incoming from and outgoing to infinity. The interaction at short distances disappears, the same as it does at large distances. This was seen after a transformation of the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation (13ab), (13ac), that maps the origin to minus infinity, had been performed. This transformation turns the initial singularity into a growing potential, that locks the particle away from the outer world, but leaves it free in the origin and supplies it with a sufficiently ample volume element - a singular measure $`r/r^2`$ \- to be living in. The strength of the singular potential Im$`\lambda `$ becomes a momentum-like quantum number in the inner world. As long as the above confinement regime is maintained, the centre absorbs all what it emits and hence remains stable. On the contrary, there is a two-channel regime, where exchanges between the inner and outer worlds take place. There a deconfinement - we called it escaping to infinity in the body of the paper - may occur, as well as its inverse - the absorption. We believe that this unstable regime may be responsible for transitional processes in the course of life of a system, described by the singular potential. During the deconfinement/absorption the particle changes its quantum number following the conservation law (13cd): that what was the momentum in the outer world becomes the strength-of-the-singular-potential quantum number in the inner. The overall measure (13cf) serving the two-channel regime corresponds to two different volume elements (metrics) - its limits into the inner and outer worlds. An arbitrary dimensional parameter $`r_0`$, introduced by the transformation (13ab), (13ac) or, alternatively, by (13cd) viewed upon as reparametrization of states, is intrinsic in the system. It characterizes the size of the system, or the spread border between the outer and inner worlds.

The above pattern contains many features, customary in quantum chromodynamics, such as asymptotic freedom and confinement. It is notable that these phenomena are reproduced basing on a very simple and also very fundamental model, proposed by nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, which makes the primary basis of elementary particle theory. The singular case considered also reveals many features of a black hole beyond GRT. To use a black hole as an elementary particle prototype is sometimes considered a tempting possibility. We believe that the features under discussion should be laid into the foundation of QFT at the level of first and second quantization and might also modify its basic axioms, especially in what concerns the completeness of asymptotic states.

The author is idebted to Professor B.L.Voronov for helpful discussion.

## References


format: text

text:
# A 15-Kiloparsec X-Ray Disk in the Elliptical Galaxy NGC 1700

## 1 Introduction

Much of what we know about the mass distributions in the outer parts of giant elliptical galaxies comes from X-ray observations of their hot interstellar media (ISM). Since the initial studies of M87 (Mathews, 1978; Fabricant et al., 1980), mass profiles of several dozen systems have been derived from X-ray data (Loewenstein & White, 1999, and references therein, for example), strengthening the case for the ubiquity of dark halos. All these results rely on the assumption that the gas is in hydrostatic equilibrium, an assumption that is difficult to validate. If hydrostatic equilibrium holds, the X-ray surface brightness must trace the projected potential. Conversely, if there is no plausible potential consistent with the morphology, then the gas cannot be in equilibrium. But the distinction between an implausible potential and one that is merely strange is not clear-cut. The quintessential example is NGC 720, whose X-ray isophotes, while rounder than the optical isophotes, are flatter than the projected stellar potential. Buote & Canizares (1994) were able to account for this difference by postulating a dark halo that was alarmingly flat, though not altogether implausible. Later studies making use of ASCA (Buote & Canizares, 1998) and Chandra (Buote et al., 2002) data have shown that removing the contribution from stellar sources makes the remaining diffuse emission rounder, relaxing the constraints somewhat, but still implying a substantial halo flattening.

In the Chandra era of high resolution, luminous ellipticals continue to appear round in X-rays, even at small radii. This comes as some surprise in light of arguments by Mathews and collaborators that at least some of the gas should be rapidly rotating, and thus not in true hydrostatic equilibrium. Kley & Mathews (1995) pointed out that, since stellar evolution is a primary source of gas, the gas should retain the specific angular momentum of the stars, which is typically only a factor of a few below that required for rotational support. Cooling gas would therefore need to sink by only a modest factor in radius before becoming rotationally supported and forming a disk. These ideas were subsequently fleshed out in detailed simulations by Brighenti & Mathews (1996, 1997, collectively BM). However, a careful examination of archival ROSAT data by Hanlan & Bregman (2000) showed no indication of central X-ray disks, and in fact no significant difference between the distribution of X-ray and optical ellipticities, leading Brighenti & Mathews (2000) to propose a combination of heat conduction and mass dropout to explain the absence of the predicted structures.

In this paper we report on Chandra observations of the young elliptical NGC 1700. We find that this galaxy’s X-ray isophotes are not merely flatter than the stellar potential, but flatter than the starlight—so flat, in fact, that the gas cannot be in hydrostatic equilibrium in any plausible potential. We describe the observations and reductions in § 2 below and the basic results in § 3. We then argue in § 4 that the gas is settling into a rotationally flattened cooling disk, similar to those predicted by BM, but much larger in scale. The high angular momentum and the long cooling time suggest that the gas was accreted in the last major merger. These points are reiterated, and their implications briefly discussed, in § 5.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

NGC 1700 is a relatively isolated elliptical in a loose group with the nearest companion, the spiral NGC 1699, at a projected distance of $`100\mathrm{kpc}`$. An age of $`3\pm 1\mathrm{Gyr}`$ (Brown et al., 2000, hereafter B00) is inferred from photometric fine structure (Schweizer & Setizer, 1992), stellar dynamics (Statler et al., 1996, hereafter SSC), globular cluster colors (Whitmore et al., 1997, B00), and absorption line indices (B00). The galaxy is photometrically ordinary inside 2 effective radii ($`r_e=14\mathrm{}=3.5\mathrm{kpc}`$ at $`51.4\mathrm{Mpc}`$) but becomes very boxy farther out, the parallelogram-shaped outer isophotes accompanied by faint shells. Detailed stellar kinematics (SSC) show that the galaxy rotates nearly about its apparent minor axis, with a mean velocity that rises outward into the boxy region. Dynamical models imply a weakly triaxial oblate potential that is dark-matter dominated outside $`r_e`$ (Statler et al., 1999, hereafter SDS).

NGC 1700 was observed on 2000 November 3–4 with the ACIS instrument on Chandra. The galaxy was imaged on the S3 detector, offset from the nominal aimpoint by 1 arcminute in order to center it on Node 1. The spacecraft roll angle of $`59\mathrm{°}`$ placed NGC 1699 on S2; however, no emission was detected from NGC 1699, and no other bright or extended sources were seen by any of the active detectors. We confine this discussion to the data from S3, for which the total corrected exposure time was 42,798 s.

The data were reduced and calibrated using CIAO 2.1.3 and CALDB 2.7, as follows: The level 1 event file was first reprocessed with the CALDB 2.7 gain map and PHA randomization turned on. The level 2 event file was rebuilt and the ‘acis\_detect\_afterglow’ correction removed, then filtered to retain S3 events between $`0.3`$ and $`10.0\mathrm{keV}`$. The resulting lightcurve showed no strong background flares, but substantial weak flaring and a gradual increase in the background level. We chose not to use ‘lc\_clean’ and ‘make\_acisbg’ to determine the background because these procedures would have discarded 60–70% of the data. Since the galaxy is small, we opted to keep the full exposure and derive backgrounds from source-free regions on the same node of S3. Thus only the GTI filters from the pipeline “flt1” file were applied to the data and used to calculate the aspect histogram.

Flux calibrated images were derived by computing instrument and exposure maps at single energies spaced by $`100\mathrm{eV}`$, then extracting $`10\mathrm{eV}`$-wide energy slices from the event file, calibrating each slice with the nearest maps, and summing the results. We produced flux and counts images in three energy bands, soft ($`0.3`$$`0.8\mathrm{keV}`$), hard ($`0.8`$$`2.7\mathrm{keV}`$), and full ($`0.3`$$`2.7\mathrm{keV}`$). Visual inspection of images with different energy cuts showed no noticeable emission from the galaxy above $`2.7\mathrm{keV}`$. The division at $`0.8\mathrm{keV}`$ was chosen to put approximately equal numbers of counts in the soft and hard bands. We also produced a $`0.5`$$`2.0\mathrm{keV}`$ image to compare with ROSAT and ASCA data on other systems. Adaptively smoothed images from the inner 512$`\times `$512 pixel region were derived using the ‘csmooth’ task. The smoothing map was determined by running the task on the counts image, with the minimum and maximum $`S/N`$ per smoothing element set to 4 and 5 respectively. The task was then rerun on the flux image using this map.

Profiles of surface brightness and isophotal ellipticity were extracted from the counts images by three different methods. In the first, the full-resolution images were further binned at scales of 2$`\times `$2, 4$`\times `$4, 8$`\times `$8, and 16$`\times `$16 pixels, and elliptical isophotes were fitted using the ‘ellipse’ task in STSDAS. The center was held fixed at the centroid of the 4 brightest pixels in the full band image, and the ellipticity was a free parameter. The major axis position angle (PA) was taken to be either freely variable or fixed at $`90\mathrm{°}`$, the two choices giving similar results; we show below the results for fixed PA. At each binning scale, converged fits were found over a range of semimajor axis ($`a`$). The results agreed to within the statistical errors where the ranges overlapped. The final ellipticity and PA profiles were pieced together so as to sample the profiles as densely as possible while ensuring that the data points remain statistically independent. In the second approach, the ‘ellipse’ task was run on the adaptively smoothed images. We consider this a dangerous alternative because the smoothing scale can vary along a fitted isophote, and consecutive points in the profiles are not independent. In the third approach, we applied an iterative algorithm that diagonalizes the spatial second-moment tensor of the photon counts in a thin elliptical ring and manipulates the axis ratio until the eigenvalues match those for a constant density ring of the same shape. This algorithm was applied to the unbinned, unsmoothed, full-resolution image. Its disadvantage is that errors in the fitted parameters can be determined only by Monte Carlo simulation. All three approaches gave results that are consistent within the Poisson noise, and so we have chosen to present the results from the first approach, where the statistical errors are best understood.

Spectra were extracted from various regions in the galaxy and from two square background regions near the ends of Node 1 on S3. Because the galaxy is faint—about 3400 counts in the full band image—spectra from different subregions are not distinguishable, and so we discuss only the total spectrum extracted in a $`90\mathrm{}`$ circle, excluding three point sources. Single response matrix and auxiliary response files were computed at the center of the galaxy image and used for both galaxy and background spectra.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Flux and Luminosity

The total flux in the full band is $`F_{0.32.7}=(2.64\pm 0.10)\times 10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ ($`1\sigma `$ errors). At a distance of $`51.4\mathrm{Mpc}`$ \[$`H_0=75\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$; Whitmore et al. (1997)\], this corresponds to a luminosity $`L_{0.32.7}=(8.37\pm 0.32)\times 10^{40}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. These results include a correction for Galactic absorption computed from the best-fit spectral model described in § 3.3 below.

To compare with existing data, we use a bandpass of $`0.5`$$`2.0\mathrm{keV}`$, to agree with Brown & Bregman (1998). Since there is virtually no flux above $`2.0\mathrm{keV}`$, this choice also matches the $`0.5`$$`10.0\mathrm{keV}`$ ASCA bandpass (Matsushita et al., 2000). We find $`F_{0.52.0}=(1.94\pm 0.06)\times 10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, implying $`L_{0.52.0}=(6.12\pm 0.19)\times 10^{40}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. At this distance, the blue luminosity is $`L_B=6.5\times 10^{10}L_{\mathrm{}}`$. This puts NGC 1700 (with a correction for different assumed $`H_0`$) less than $`1\sigma `$ below the mean $`L_\mathrm{X}`$-$`L_B`$ relation of Brown & Bregman (1998).

### 3.2 Morphology

Figure 1a shows contours of the adaptively smoothed, full-band image, plotted on the optical image from the Digital Sky Survey. The optical image shows the transition from the elliptical, slightly disky, inner region to the parallelogram-shaped outer region, beginning roughly $`30\mathrm{}`$ from the center. Deeper imaging (Brown et al., 2000) shows the boxiness reaching a maximum and apparent tidal fine structure appearing at radii near $`100\mathrm{}`$. The overlaid contours show the striking X-ray morphology of this system: between an elliptical inner zone and a somewhat boxy outer zone, the X-ray isophotes are highly flattened—far flatter than the starlight—over a factor of 2 in radius. The flattening is most prominent in the soft emission, as can be seen by comparing the smoothed soft-band and hard-band images in Figure 1b and 1c. The ratio of the hard to the soft image is shown in Figure 1d. The ratio image reinforces the basic result that the softest emission is the flattest emission; the most flattened regions coincide with the lowest hardness ratios.

The photometric profiles are shown in figure 2. The surface brightnesses in the soft, hard, and full bands are plotted in the upper panel, along with the $`R`$ band profile (Franx et al., 1989) for comparison. The bottom panel shows the isophotal ellipticities in the X-ray (full band) and optical. The profiles show a natural division at a mean radius $`a(1ϵ)^{1/2}20\mathrm{}`$ separating an inner region, in which the X-ray surface brightness falls off slightly more steeply than the starlight and the X-ray and optical ellipticities are nearly equal, from an intermediate-radius region where the X-ray surface brightness levels out and the ellipticity increases to $`ϵ_X0.65`$. One can also delineate an outer region at mean radii beyond $`50\mathrm{}`$, where the surface brightness again falls and the ellipticity returns approximately to that of the starlight. In the inner region, the soft, hard, and full profiles can be fitted by $`\beta `$ models with $`\beta =0.45`$, $`0.49`$, and $`0.47`$, respectively. The difference is statistically significant; the hardness ratio increases inward, with $`d\mathrm{ln}(SB_{0.82.7}/SB_{0.30.8})/d\mathrm{ln}a=0.23\pm 0.03`$. At the center, there is no indication of an unresolved nuclear source, as can be seen by comparing the galaxy profiles with the point source profile in the top of figure 2.

The four point sources in Figure 1a may or may not be associated with NGC 1700. The source nearest the center falls within $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$ of one of the globular cluster candidates (#22) identified by Whitmore et al. (1997), if we assume that the X-ray and optical centers coincide. However, this source is invisible in the soft band, indicating that it is probably highly absorbed. Since the upper limit on NGC 1700’s H I mass is $`3.5\times 10^9M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Huchtmeier, 1994), we surmise that this source is more likely a background AGN. The remaining sources, at the distance of NGC 1700, would have luminosities between $`5\times 10^{38}`$ and $`5\times 10^{39}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, comparable with the brightest sources resolved in NGC 4697 (Sarazin, Irwin, & Bregman, 2001). On the other hand, the density of sources is similar to that in the rest of the field, so there is no compelling reason to conclude that they cannot be background objects.

### 3.3 Spectrum

We use a variety of models in XSPEC to fit the total spectrum. Satisfactory fits ($`0.98<\chi ^2/\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}.<1.1`$) are obtained with absorbed MEKAL models, while both power-law and cooling flow models fail. In the absorbed MEKAL fits, the Galactic H I column is fixed at $`N_\mathrm{H}=4.8\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Dickey & Lockman, 1990). Because the ACIS-S calibration is still somewhat uncertain at low energies (M. Wise and C. Sarazin, private communications), we apply cutoffs to the spectrum at either $`0.3`$ or $`0.5\mathrm{keV}`$. The free parameters are the gas temperature $`T`$ and metallicity $`Z`$; in some fits the redshift is also allowed to vary to correct for residual energy calibration errors. We find that the systematic uncertainties are on the order of the statistical errors. The grid of models results in temperatures in the range $`0.44`$$`0.49\mathrm{keV}`$ and metallicities in the range $`0.47`$$`0.55Z_{\mathrm{}}`$, with statistical errors of $`0.02`$ and $`0.2`$ respectively. We conservatively estimate $`T=(0.47\pm 0.03)\mathrm{keV}`$ and $`Z=(0.5\pm 0.3)Z_{\mathrm{}}`$.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Can the Gas be in Hydrostatic Equilibrium?

The X-ray emission from elliptical galaxies comes from a mixture of stellar sources and diffuse gas, in varying proportions. Inside $`r_e`$, NGC 1700’s X-ray isophotes have the same ellipticity as the starlight, hinting that stellar sources may dominate. But we do not see the hard spectral component characteristic of low-mass X-ray binaries. We therefore cannot determine whether stellar sources are important in the inner regions. Farther out, the situation is different. The X-ray isophotes reach ellipticities $`ϵ_X0.65`$ at a major axis distance of approximately $`60\mathrm{}`$ ($`15\mathrm{kpc}`$). At these radii, the optical isophotes have $`ϵ_{\mathrm{opt}}0.3`$, and the X-ray surface brightness falls off much less steeply than the starlight. There is little doubt that this emission is coming from a diffuse ISM.

All studies using X-ray emission to constrain galaxy mass profiles rely on the assumption that the diffuse ISM is in hydrostatic equilibrium. Regardless of the equation of state, this condition requires that the surfaces of constant density, pressure, temperature, and consequently X-ray emissivity all coincide with the equipotentials, and therefore that the X-ray surface brightness traces the shape of the projected potential.111Because there is only one plane normal to a given line through a given point, the level surfaces of two functions must coincide if and only if their gradients are everywhere parallel (or antiparallel) to each other. The hydrostatic equation, $`P+\rho \mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, implies that the level surfaces of $`P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ coincide. Taking the curl gives $`\rho \times \mathrm{\Phi }=0`$; thus the $`\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ level surfaces also coincide. $`P`$ must therefore be expressible as $`P(\rho )`$, and any equation of state $`P=P(\rho ,T)`$ then implies that $`T=T(\rho )`$. (We thank the referee for this demonstration.)

We can test the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium in NGC 1700 using axisymmetric models, since the galaxy’s stellar velocity field implies a nearly oblate potential (SDS). First, we estimate the stellar potential using the approach of Binney et al. (1990, see § 3.1.1 of SDS for details). The stellar potential has $`ϵ0.1`$ for lines of sight near the equatorial plane, and we calculate only the edge-on case, since at lower inclinations the gas would need to be even flatter than it appears. We then ask whether any plausible dark matter distribution can be added so as to give the total potential a flattening $`ϵ_\mathrm{\Phi }>0.6`$ at mean radii of $`35\mathrm{}`$. Intuition argues that this will require a dark mass at least as large as the stellar mass, highly flattened and not too centrally concentrated lest its monopole term be too large.

The largest flattening for a given dark mass would be produced by a dark halo that is a disk. A good example is the Kuzmin (1956) disk, whose surface density is given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0[1+(R^2/r_0^2)]^{3/2}.$$
(1)
The constant $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is the central density and $`r_0`$ is the radius within which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{constant}`$. Since the Kuzmin disk has both a very low central concentration and a steep outer cutoff, one would expect it to be best able to produce a substantial flattening over a limited range of radii. We find that the minimum mass able to generate the correct flattening is $`2\times 10^{12}(M/L_B)_{}M_{\mathrm{}}`$, where stellar mass-to-light ratios $`(M/L_B)_{}4`$ are needed to fit the kinematics at small radii (Bender et al., 1992). However, this case requires $`r_090\mathrm{}`$, which implies a circular velocity curve rising to $`250(M/L_B)_{}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at $`R=50\mathrm{}`$. This is inconsistent with the observed kinematics (SSC). No Kuzmin disk of any mass can yield $`ϵ_\mathrm{\Phi }0.6`$ if $`r_0<50\mathrm{}`$, and all Kuzmin disks with $`r_0>50\mathrm{}`$ massive enough to flatten the potential produce rotation curves inconsistent with the stellar kinematics.

To try to preserve the rotation curve, we replace the Kuzmin disk with Schwarzschild (1993) logarithmic potentials of various flattenings. These potentials have a constant circular velocity at all radii, and are generated by strictly positive mass densities down to quite large flattenings. We find, however, that no Schwarzschild density of any flattening has a potential with $`ϵ_\mathrm{\Phi }>0.35`$, simply because they are too centrally concentrated. Other popular halo models, such as the NFW (Navarro et al., 1995) and Hernquist (1990) models, are more centrally concentrated than the Schwarzschild model and fail in the same way. Finally, a linear combination of Schwarzschild and Kuzmin models suffers from the same problem as the pure Kuzmin disks, since the disk potential must be dominant to provide the bulk of the flattening.

We conclude that there is no plausible potential in which the gas can be in hydrostatic equilibrium and be as flattened as the X-ray isophotes indicate. Either the gas is well out of equilibrium, or the equilibrium is hydrodynamical rather than hydrostatic, with angular momentum—i.e., bulk rotation of the gas—playing an important role.

### 4.2 An Accreted Disk

At large radii, NGC 1700 shows clear optical signatures of a past merger, including shells and prominent boxiness (Franx et al., 1989; Whitmore et al., 1997; Brown et al., 2000). In deep exposures the galaxy becomes parallelogram-shaped. Franx et al. (1989) conjectured that the long diagonal of the parallelogram marks an inclined outer disk or ring, while Brown et al. (2000) interpreted the brightness enhancement along this direction as a pair of symmetric tidal tails. SSC argued that the entire parallelogram could be produced by a broad, differentially precessing ring seen in projection. By requiring that this structure be prominent at large radii but phase-mixed beyond visibility at smaller radii, SSC estimated a dynamical age of $`2`$$`4h^1\mathrm{Gyr}`$, consistent with other techniques (Brown et al., 2000).

Since both absorption line indices and globular cluster colors also indicate few-Gyr ages, NGC 1700’s most recent merger probably involved a substantial amount of cold gas and star formation. Brown et al. (2000) suggest that the merger involved two spirals, but there is no reason to exclude a merger of a spiral and a pre-existing elliptical with a hot ISM. Such a merger would dump a load of already-hot gas into the common potential well, at an angular momentum characteristic of the galaxy-galaxy encounter. At sufficiently low densities, this gas would not be channeled to the center as the cold gas would, but would instead settle into a rotationally flattened cooling disk. We propose that the flattened X-ray structure in NGC 1700 is exactly such a disk, acquired in the same merger that created the optical boxiness and tidal features.

We can demonstrate the plausibility of this scenario with a simple model. First, imagine a population of collisionless particles dumped into the galactic potential at a fixed kinetic temperature, distributed about a finite angular momentum $`L_0`$. After phase mixing, this population would take on a phase space distribution function (DF) given by

$$fe^{\beta E}e^{\alpha (L_zL_0)^2},$$
(2)
where $`E`$ and $`L_z`$ are the energy and $`z`$ component of angular momentum (both per unit mass), and $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constants. The first factor gives an isothermal distribution in energy, while the second applies a Gaussian bias around $`L_0`$. We adopt an axisymmetric model potential,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(R,z)=\frac{V_c^2}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{R^2+(z/q)^2}{R_c^2}\right],$$
(3)
where $`(R,\varphi ,z)`$ are cylindrical coordinates, $`V_c`$ is the asymptotic circular velocity, and $`R_c`$ and $`q`$ are the core radius and flattening. This potential gives a flat circular velocity curve for $`RR_c`$. The actual rotation velocity of the material follows from the DF:

$$v_\varphi =\frac{L_0R}{R^2+R_0^2},$$
(4)
where $`R_0(\beta /2\alpha )^{1/2}`$. We could calculate the density by integrating over velocities, but there is no need because the collisionless model is unrealistic. Its velocity distribution becomes strongly anisotropic for $`RR_0`$, while in reality collisions should isotropize the pressure in, at most, a dynamical time.

In the simplest rotating equilibrium, the gas pressure $`P`$ and density $`\rho `$ should obey the hydrostatic equations with an extra term for the bulk velocity:

$$\frac{P}{R}+\rho \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{R}\frac{v_\varphi ^2}{R}\right)=0,\frac{P}{z}+\rho \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{z}=0,$$
(5)
Here we are again assuming axisymmetry, and also neglecting shear viscosity. Notice that the hydrostatic equations do not tell us how to choose the mean velocity $`v_\varphi `$. But if we adopt the rotation curve from the collisionless model \[equation (4)\] with the potential of equation (3), and assume an isothermal equation of state, then equations (5) can be integrated analytically to obtain the density. Letting the volume emissivity $`\nu `$ then be proportional to $`\rho ^2`$, we find

$$\nu =\nu _0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{A}{1+R_0^2/R^2}\right)\left(1+\frac{R^2+z^2/q^2}{R_c^2}\right)^B.$$
(6)
In equation (6), $`\nu _0`$ is the central emissivity, $`R_0`$ is the radius of the peak of the rotation curve, $`A(\mu m_\mathrm{H}/kT)(L_0/R_0)^2`$ measures the angular momentum bias, and $`B(\mu m_\mathrm{H}/kT)V_c^2`$ (with $`\mu `$ and $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ the mean molecular weight and hydrogen mass) describes the depth of the potential relative to the temperature.

We project the emissivity of equation (6) for a line of sight in the equatorial plane, and fit elliptical isophotes. The dashed curves in Figure 2 show the isophotal profiles in the relevant range of radii for a model with $`A=8.0`$, $`B=2.3`$, and $`R_0=50\mathrm{}`$. The potential is spherical ($`q=1`$), with $`R_c`$ set small enough that it does not influence the results. The model does a credible job of reproducing both profiles, over nearly a decade in mean radius, despite its extreme simplicity. As a check, we can use the value of $`B`$ and the gas temperature to predict the circular velocity. Assuming $`\mu =0.6`$, we obtain $`V_c=420\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Treating the dark halo as a singular isothermal sphere, this implies a velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{halo}}=2^{1/2}V_c=290\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The stellar component, having formed dissipationally, is dynamically colder than the halo and should have a lower dispersion. If we model both stars and halo as constant-dispersion systems with power-law density profiles having logarithmic slopes of $`3.5`$ and $`2`$ respectively, we predict $`\sigma _{\mathrm{stars}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{halo}}=2/7^{1/2}`$ (Carlberg, 1994). This implies $`\sigma _{\mathrm{stars}}=220\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which compares favorably with the measured peak dispersion (outside the cold counterrotating core) of $`230\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (SSC).

At the radius of maximum flattening ($`56\mathrm{}`$), the gas in the model has a mean rotation velocity of $`270\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, about two-thirds of the circular velocity. This gives it a specific angular momentum twice as large as that of the stars at the same radius. The stellar rotation velocity $`V_{}150\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at the outermost measured point ($`65\mathrm{}`$). If we assume that $`V_{}`$ remains approximately constant to larger radii, then the stars carrying the same specific $`z`$ angular momentum as the gas would be found at $`R90\mathrm{}`$, coinciding with the maximum distortions of the optical isophotes. We would naturally expect such a concordance if the stars making up the stellar ring and the X-ray gas were accreted together.

Finally, in order to settle into a disk, the gas must have had time to cool. At $`T0.5\mathrm{keV}`$ and $`ZZ_{\mathrm{}}/2`$, the cooling function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }6\times 10^{15}\mathrm{keV}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Böhringer & Hensler, 1989). Normalizing to the observed surface brightness at $`56\mathrm{}`$, we find the electron density in the model at $`R=14\mathrm{kpc}`$ to be $`3\times 10^3\mathrm{cm}^3`$ in the midplane of the disk. The cooling time is therefore $`t_{\mathrm{cool}}3\mathrm{Gyr}`$, which is equal to the dynamical age of the merger debris. Thus, enough time has elapsed since the merger for the gas to have partially cooled and settled, but not so much that it would have sunk completely to the bottom of the potential well.

## 5 Conclusions

Chandra observations of NGC 1700 show extended X-ray emission that is dominated by a hot ISM. The gas is distributed in a flattened structure that is inconsistent with hydrostatic equilibrium in any plausible potential. A simple model in which gas at a single temperature, centered around a particular angular momentum, is dispersed in a logarithmic potential can account for the gross X-ray morphology and be consistent with stellar kinematics. The angular momentum of the gas matches that of the stars in the isophotally distorted outer part of the galaxy, and its cooling time matches the dynamical age of the last merger. We infer that the gas was acquired in that merger, carrying the angular momentum of the encounter, and is settling into a rotationally flattened, cooling disk.

The presence of a rotationally supported disk in this object, and the growing evidence for shocks and bubbles in the ISM of elliptical galaxies (Jones et al., 2002; Finoguenov & Jones, 2001) casts doubt on the assumption that elliptical galaxies are simple, hydrostatic systems. Mass profiles derived from X-ray data and hydrostatic models may therefore be in error, even in those systems that appear symmetric. A modest degree of rotational support in the gas may significantly affect the shape of the inferred mass distribution, depending on how the angular momentum is distributed. In the models of § 4.2, rotational support increases outward interior to $`R_0`$ and decreases outward beyond this radius. Applying a hydrostatic model would therefore lead to a mass profile that is too centrally concentrated. Interestingly, galaxy cluster mass profiles are found, in some cases (David et al., 2001; Nevalainen et al., 2001), to be unusually concentrated compared to the expected NFW (Navarro et al., 1995) profile. Whether this discrepancy could also stem from gas rotation remains to be seen.

The authors are grateful to Yousaf Butt, Pat Slane, and the staff of the CXC for their skillful operation of Chandra, and to Mike Wise, Craig Sarazin, Duncan Forbes, Joe Shields, and Steven Diehl for helpful suggestions and comments. Support for this work was provided by grant GO1-2094X from the CXC.


text:
# Comment on “Nonadiabatic Conditional Geometric Phase Shift with NMR”

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by the Postdoctoral Science Foundation, the special funds for Major State Basic Research Project No. G001CB3095 of China, and the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Government.