text:
# Atomic four-wave mixing: fermions versus bosons

The experimental realization of nonlinear atom optics  is one of many recent advances made possible by the achievement of atomic Bose-Einstein condensation. The demonstration of atomic four-wave mixing , the discovery of BEC superradiance , and the development of coherent matter-wave amplification  are all examples of nonlinear wave mixing involving atomic Bose-Einstein condensates. One proposed interpretation of these phenomena, in which the generation of a new atomic and/or optical side-modes  is attributed to ‘Bose-enhancement’, predicts that these effects would not be seen in Fermi systems. In contrast, a second interpretation which attributes the effect to Bragg scattering from atomic matter-wave gratings, predicts that four-wave mixing with fermions should, in fact, be possible.

In this letter we address this fundamental issue and compare the Bragg-scattering properties of quantum-degenerate bosonic and fermionic matter-wave gratings. Three issues need to be addressed: First, there is the question of whether it is indeed possible to create a high-quality matter-wave grating in a quantum degenerate Fermi gas. Second, one needs to determine the scattering properties from such a grating. Lastly, a precise quantum-mechanical interpretation of atomic four-wave mixing must be formulated. Our analysis shows that the establishment of a fermionic grating is indeed possible, and furthermore leads to scattering properties practically indistinguishable from those of a BEC with the same mean density profile. We then present a physical interpretation of this result, contrasting the Bose enhancement responsible for four-wave mixing in the boson case to a many-particle quantum interference effect in the fermion case.

We consider a system consisting of two scalar fields with annihilation operators denoted as $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(𝐫)`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(𝐫)`$. The first field contains $`N`$ identical bosonic or fermionic atoms from which a matter-wave grating will be formed. The second field contains a single test particle which will probe the scattering properties of the grating. This test particle might be an atom, in which case the scattering properties are related to atomic four-wave mixing experiments, or it could be a photon, in which case the results would be applicable to phenomena such as BEC superradiance and matter-wave amplification. The commutation relations for the two fields are therefore given by

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i(𝐫)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j^{}(𝐫^{})\mu _{ij}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j^{}(𝐫^{})\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}\delta ^3(𝐫𝐫^{})`$ (1)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i(𝐫)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j(𝐫^{})\mu _{ij}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_j(𝐫^{})\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2)
where the coefficients $`\mu _{ij}`$ vary depending on the quantum statistics of the two fields. If both fields are bosonic we have $`\mu _{ij}=1`$. If, however, the grating is fermionic then either the test particle is an atom of the same species in a different internal state, in which case $`\mu _{ij}=1`$, or it is a different type of bosonic (fermionic) particle, in which case $`\mu _{11}=1`$, $`\mu _{12}=\mu _{21}=1`$, and $`\mu _{22}=1(1)`$.

The two fields are subject to the free Hamiltonians $`\widehat{}_1`$ and $`\widehat{}_2`$, respectively, and are coupled via a two-body interaction of the form

$$\widehat{𝒱}=\lambda d^3r\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(𝐫)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(𝐫),$$
(3)
which describes equally well atom-atom collisions in the $`s`$-wave scattering approximation or the effective interaction between ground-state atoms and far off-resonant photons. For simplicity we neglect collisions between atoms in the grating.

At present, the primary technique for establishing density gratings in BEC is by use of a ’beam splitter’ based on two-photon Bragg transitions between center-of-mass states . Each atom is thereby transferred into a coherent superposition of its initial state and a copy of that state displaced in momentum space by the two-photon recoil kick. Quantum interference between these two momentum groups then results in a typical ‘standing wave’ density modulation.

For the purpose of this letter we specialize to the case of gratings formed from harmonically confined gases at zero temperature. We first introduce the 3-dimensional harmonic oscillator states

$$\phi _m(𝐫)=\varphi _{\alpha (m)}(x/\xi _x)\varphi _{\beta (m)}(y/\xi _y)\varphi _{\gamma (m)}(z/\xi _z),$$
(4)
where $`\xi _j`$ is the oscillator length along the $`j`$-axis, $`\alpha (m)`$, $`\beta (m)`$, and $`\gamma (m)`$ are the quantum numbers of the $`m`$th 3-d oscillator energy level, and $`\varphi _n`$ is the normalized $`n`$th 1-d harmonic oscillator energy level. We further define the creation operators $`\widehat{a}_m^{}(𝐤)`$ for the momentum side-modes of the $`m`$th oscillator state as

$$\widehat{a}_m^{}(𝐤)=d^3r\phi _m(𝐫)e^{i𝐤𝐫}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^{}(𝐫).$$
(5)
At $`T=0`$ the states of $`N`$-atom Bose and Fermi gases are $`[\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)]^N|0/\sqrt{N!}`$ and $`_{m=0}^{N1}\widehat{a}_m^{}(0)|0`$, respectively. Thus immediately after the Bragg pulse is applied, the state of the matter-wave grating is given for bosons by

$$|\psi _B=[2^NN!]^{1/2}\left[\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)+e^{i\theta }\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)\right]^N|0$$
(6)
and for fermions by

$$|\psi _F=[2^N]^{1/2}\underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\left[\widehat{a}_m^{}(0)+e^{i\theta }\widehat{a}_m^{}(𝐊)\right]|0,$$
(7)
where $`\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{}𝐊`$ are the relative phase and momentum transfer imparted on the atoms by the Bragg splitter. Henceforth we assume $`\theta =0`$ for simplicity. We note that these states are only normalized in the limit that $`\mathrm{}𝐊`$ is much larger than the rms spread in momentum of the initial Bose and Fermi clouds, a condition which we assume to hold. It is this condition, in fact, which is sufficient to guarantee a high-quality grating at wavelength $`2\pi /K`$.

To compare the Bragg-induced gratings in degenerate Bose and Fermi gases we compare mean atomic densities $`\rho (𝐫)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(𝐫)`$ for the two states (6) and (7). By making use of the commutation relations (2) we find

$$\rho _B(𝐫)=N|\phi _0(𝐫)|^2[1+\mathrm{cos}(𝐊𝐫)],$$
(8)
and

$$\rho _F(𝐫)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}|\phi _m(𝐫)|^2[1+\mathrm{cos}(𝐊𝐫)].$$
(9)
which shows that in both cases, the effect of the Bragg splitter is to superpose a density modulation $`[1+\mathrm{cos}(𝐊𝐫)]`$ to the mean density of the initial atomic cloud. Fig. 1 shows the integrated density $`\rho (x,z)=𝑑y\rho (𝐫)`$ for the case of spherically symmetric harmonic traps with oscillator lengths $`\xi `$ for the Fermi gas and $`\xi _b=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }x_f`$ for the Bose gas, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_f`$ is the rms spread of the initial Fermi cloud. This choice of $`\xi _b`$ guarantees that the rms widths of the two clouds are equal in $`𝐫`$-space. The parameters for Fig.1 are $`𝐊=(20/\xi )\widehat{z}`$ and $`N=86`$, and $`x`$ and $`z`$ are given in units of $`\xi `$. Figure 1a shows the result for the BEC, while Fig. 1b shows the result for the degenerate Fermi gas.

This example establishes that it is possible to construct very similar matter-wave gratings from degenerate Bose and Fermi gases. It should be noted that while their mean densities are nearly identical in coordinate space, they are very different in momentum space. As the phase-space density of the BEC is much higher than that of the degenerate Fermi gas, the bosonic grating is significantly more localized in momentum space.

The next step is to compare the scattering properties of these two gratings. Of particular interest here is the issue of Bose enhancement, which is oftentimes invoked as the cause of stimulated scattering in bosons. In order to address this question, we consider the case where a single test particle is incident on the matter-wave with some wave-vector $`𝐤_0`$ and use perturbation theory to compute the probability $`P(𝐤,t)`$ that it is scattered into a given state $`𝐤`$ after some time $`t`$. The initial state of the system is therefore taken as

$$|\psi (0)=\widehat{c}^{}(𝐤_0)|\psi _{B,F},$$
(10)
where

$$\widehat{c}^{}(𝐤_0)=V^{1/2}d^3re^{i𝐤_0𝐫}\widehat{\psi }_2^{}(𝐫)$$
(11)
creates a plane-wave test particle of momentum $`𝐤_0`$ in the quantization volume $`V`$. The probability at time $`t`$ of finding the test particle in the plane-wave state $`𝐤`$ is therefore

$$P(𝐤,t)=\psi (t)|\widehat{c}^{}(𝐤)\widehat{𝒫}_N\widehat{c}(𝐤)|\psi (t),$$
(12)
where $`|\psi (t)`$ is the solution of the Schrödinger equation

$$|\psi (t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[i(\widehat{}_1+\widehat{}_2+\widehat{𝒱})t/\mathrm{}\right]|\psi (0)$$
(13)
and $`\widehat{𝒫}_N`$ is the $`N`$-atom projection operator

$`\widehat{𝒫}_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3r_1\mathrm{}d^3r_N\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^{}(𝐫_N)\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^{}(𝐫_1)|0}`$ (14)
$`\times `$ $`0|\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(𝐫_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(𝐫_N).`$ (15)
This scattering problem can be solved analytically by expanding the solution (13) to first order in the parameter $`\lambda `$ of Eq. (3). This yields the scattering probabilities after the test particle as been scattered once by the grating. In order to proceed we first specify the free Hamiltonians $`\widehat{}_1`$ and $`\widehat{}_2`$. Our approach is to assume that the states $`\phi _m(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}[i𝐤𝐫]`$ are approximate eigenstates of the first-quantized version of $`\widehat{}_1`$, with energy $`E_m(𝐤)=\mathrm{}\omega _m+\mathrm{}^2k^2/2M`$ where $`\mathrm{}\omega _m`$ is the energy of the $`m`$th trap eigenstate and $`M`$ is the atomic mass. These states are essentially low lying levels of the the harmonic trap shifted in momentum space by $`\mathrm{}𝐤`$. For ultracold atoms it is reasonable to neglect the evolution of the wavepackets for times small compared to the oscillator length divided by the velocity $`\mathrm{}k/m`$. For these short times the overlap between the initial wavepacket and the state it evolves into remains approximately unity. In addition, we take the plane-waves $`(1/\sqrt{V})\mathrm{exp}[i𝐤𝐫]`$ to be eigenstates of the first-quantized version of $`\widehat{}_2`$ with energy $`\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$.

An analytic expression for $`P(𝐤,t)`$ can be derived in a relatively straightforward manner. For $`𝐤𝐤_0`$ and $`|𝐊𝐤_0|K`$ we find that the leading order (in $`\lambda `$) contribution to Eq. (12) is given for the boson case by

$`P_B(𝐤,t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2N}{2\mathrm{}^2V^2}}[|F_1(𝐤,t)|^2+|F_2(𝐤,t)|^2`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`(N1)|F_1(𝐤,t)+F_2(𝐤,t)|^2|G_{00}(𝐤𝐤_0)|^2`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`(N1)|F_2(𝐤,t)|^2|G_{00}(𝐤𝐤_0𝐊)|^2],`$ (18)
and for the fermion case by

$`P_F(𝐤,t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2N}{2\mathrm{}^2V^2}}[|F_1(𝐤,t)|^2+|F_2(𝐤,t)|^2`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`|F_1(𝐤,t)+F_2(𝐤,t)|^2𝒢(𝐤𝐤_0)`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`|F_2(𝐤,t)|^2𝒢(𝐤𝐤_0𝐊)],`$ (21)
where the time-dependent functions

$$F_1(𝐤,t)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}(𝐤𝐤_0)𝐤t\right]}{\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}(𝐤𝐤_0)𝐤\right]}e^{i\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}(𝐤𝐤_0)𝐤t}$$
(22)
and

$$F_2(𝐤,t)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}(𝐤𝐤_0)(𝐤𝐊)t\right]}{\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}(𝐤𝐤_0)(𝐤𝐊)\right]}e^{i\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}(𝐤𝐤_0)(𝐤𝐊)t}$$
(23)
give the effects of energy conservation, and the functions

$$G_{mn}(𝐤)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}d^3r\phi _m^{}(𝐫)e^{i𝐤𝐫)}\phi _n(𝐫)$$
(24)
and

$$𝒢(𝐤)=\frac{1}{N}\left[\left|\underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}G_{mm}(𝐤)\right|^2\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\left|G_{mn}(𝐤)\right|^2\right]$$
(25)
describe the shapes of the Bragg resonances. The approximation indicates that we have dropped several (negligible) terms from the exact expression.

The first two terms in Eqs. (18) and (21) correspond to spontaneous scattering, whereas the third and fourth terms correspond to $`0`$th order (small angle) and $`1`$st order Bragg resonances. In Figure 2 we plot the scattering probabilities in the $`k_x`$-$`k_z`$ plane for the case $`𝐤_0=K\widehat{x}`$. Figure 2a shows the relative probabilities for the boson matter-wave grating of Fig. 1a and Fig. 2b shows those of the fermion grating of Fig. 1b. We have chosen $`t=.025(2m\xi ^2/\mathrm{})`$ so that the Bragg resonance is slightly sharper than the energy conservation envelope. The large spot at $`k_z=0`$ corresponds to small-angle ($`0`$th order) scattering, while the smaller spot at $`k_z=20`$ to the $`1`$st order Bragg resonance. The inset figures show close-ups of the $`1`$st order resonances, i.e. the four-wave mixing signal. We see, perhaps surprisingly, that these two microscopically very different gratings produce almost identical scattering cross-sections. This strongly suggests that (at least for large N) it is the mean atomic density alone which determines the efficiency of four-wave mixing processes. We note that for $`N=1`$ there is no Bragg-resonance, only spontaneous scattering. This shows that the Bragg resonance is a many particle effect, simply having a modulated mean density is not sufficient in the case of a single-atom grating.

While both types of matter-wave gratings result in practically identical scattering distributions, the underlying physical processes which produce the Bragg resonances seem at first glance to be quite different. We can gain considerable physical intuition about them by considering the simple case $`N=2`$ in more detail. In this case, the states of the Bose and Fermi gratings are

$`|\psi _B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}[\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)\right]^2|0+2\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)|0`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)\right]^2|0],`$ (27)
and

$`|\psi _F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)\widehat{a}_1^{}(0)|0+\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)\widehat{a}_1^{}(𝐊)|0`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)\widehat{a}_1^{}(0)|0+\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)\widehat{a}_1^{}(𝐊)|0],`$ (29)
where we have written each term as an amplitude times a normalized state. In this representation the gratings can be thought of as quantum superpositions of different initial states. If the test particle is scattered into state $`𝐤`$, then one of the atoms in the grating must absorb a recoil momentum kick of $`\mathrm{}(𝐤_0𝐤)`$. This is accomplished by acting on the states (27) and (29) with the operator $`d^3r\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1^{}(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}[i(𝐤_0𝐤)𝐫]\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(𝐫)`$. When the Bragg condition $`𝐤=𝐤_0+𝐊`$ is satisfied, the resulting final states of the gratings are

$`|\psi _B^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)|0+\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)|0`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)\right]^2|0+\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)|0],`$ (31)
where the factor $`\sqrt{2}`$ on the third term can be identified with ‘Bose enhancement’, and

$`|\psi _F^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)\widehat{a}_1^{}(0)|0+\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)\widehat{a}_1^{}(𝐊)|0`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)\widehat{a}_1^{}(𝐊)|0+\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)\widehat{a}_1^{}(0)|0`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)\widehat{a}_1^{}(0)|0+\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)\widehat{a}_1^{}(𝐊)|0`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{a}_0^{}(0)\widehat{a}_1^{}(𝐊)|0+\widehat{a}_0^{}(𝐊)\widehat{a}_1^{}(0)|0].`$ (35)
In either case, the total transition probability is the sum of the squares of the amplitudes for all distinguishable “paths”. If two final states are indistinguishable (e.g., the fourth and fifth terms of (35)) then the amplitudes must be added before taking the square modulus and adding to the other paths.

In both cases, therefore, the peak relative probability is $`5/2`$, but in one case, it is attributed to Bose enhancement and in the other to constructive quantum interference. We observe that if the Bragg condition strongly violated, the Bose-enhancement factor disappears from $`|\psi _B^{}`$, and that term is replaced by two distinguishable states with weights equal to the other states. In the fermionic case, on the other hand, the two indistinguishable states become distinguishable. In both cases, however, the resulting relative probability is reduced to $`2`$.

This example illustrates that the Bragg resonance in the case of a BEC can be attributed to Bose enhancement, whereas in the fermionic case it can be attributed to quantum interference between “paths” which lead to indistinguishable final states. That both mechanisms lead to precisely the same enhancement, a fact which is readily verified for $`N=3`$ and illustrated for $`N=86`$ by Fig. 2, is due to the fact that Bose enhancement, when viewed in first-quantized many-particle quantum mechanics, is simply a constructive quantum interference where many initial states (the different terms under exchange of particle labels) lead to a single final state (when all atoms are in same state there is only one term even after symmetrization). Hence, effects which can be interpreted as Bragg-scattering from atomic-matter wave gratings, such as atomic four-wave mixing, BEC superradiance, and matter-wave amplification, can work as efficiently in principle in both Bose and Fermi systems. Because of the connection between Bose enhancement and quantum interference we find that, remarkably, it is possible to set up $`N`$-atom superposition states in Fermi systems which mimic the effects of Bose stimulation.

This work is supported in part by the U.S. Office of Naval Research under Contract No. 14-91-J1205, by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY98-01099, by the U.S. Army Research Office, and by the Joint Services Optics Program.


format: text

text:
# An X-ray Binary Model for the Galactic Center Source IRS 13E

## 1 Introduction

It is probable that Sgr A\*, the compact, nonthermal radio source at the Galactic Center (GC) is a 2–3$`\times 10^6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ black hole (see, e.g., Ghez et al. 1998). Deep in the potential well of Sgr A\* and pervading the central parsec of the Milky Way, there exists a cluster of HeI and late-type stars (see, e.g. Sellgren et al. 1990 and Genzel et al. 1996). In order to understand the evolution and dynamics of this unique stellar cluster, it is necessary to investigate individual stellar sources in detail. IRS 13, identified as a Pa-$`\alpha `$, \[FeIII\], HeI, and HeII line source (Stolovy et al. 1999; Lutz, Krabbe, & Genzel 1993; Libonate et al. 1995; Krabbe et al. 1995), is a compact HII region, dominated by the source IRS 13E.

Motivated by the Chandra results we speculate on the nature of IRS 13 and conclude that it is most likely an early-type binary system. This interpretation also supports the other observations.

## 2 Source Identification

Due to the $`30`$ magnitudes of visual extinction towards the GC (Wade et al 1987; Blum, Sellgren, & Depoy, 1996), the only observations of IRS 13 are at radio, infrared and X-ray wavelengths. At $`\lambda =2`$ cm, the IRS 13 complex is one of the brightest sources in the central $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ of the Galaxy (Yusef-Zadeh, Roberts, & Biretta 1997). Observations at 7mm and 13mm, where interstellar scatter-broadening is less significant, resolve IRS 13 into two sources. Infrared K-band photometry also resolves IRS 13E into two sources (IRS 13E1 and IRS 13E2), the former being identified with a Wolf-Rayet star of type WN9-10 (Najarro et al. 1997, hereafter N97). The two sources are separated by $`0.16^{\prime \prime }1000`$ AU in projection (assuming a GC distance of 8 kpc) with positional uncertainties of $`0.1^{\prime \prime }`$ (Ott, Eckart & Genzel 1999). This compares to a separation of $`500`$ AU for the mm sources although the positional uncertainties are consistent with these mm sources111Zhao & Goss (1999) label these source as IRS 13E and IRS 13W; here, we will identify them as IRS 13E1 and IRS 13E2, respectively. being the same as the infrared sources identified by Ott, Eckart & Genzel (1999). Fig. 1 presents a schematic of the region, showing the mini-spiral and various wind sources in the central 10 arcseconds.

A recent Chandra observation of the GC (Baganoff et al. 1999) shows a compact spherical X-ray source apparently coincident with IRS 13, located $`3^{\prime \prime }`$ ESE from Sgr A\*. With $`100`$ counts after a 50 ksec observation, it is nearly as bright as Sgr A\*. The only other point source in the central $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ is a more asymmetrical object, with no obvious radio or infrared counterpart, that is located $`9^{\prime \prime }`$ NNE of Sgr A\*.

## 3 Radio, sub-mm and IR observations

(Zhao & Goss 1999) determined a spectral index of $`0.9\pm 0.2`$ for IRS 13E1, similar to that expected from a fully ionized stellar wind (Wright & Barlow 1975; Nugis, Crowther, & Willis 1998). Conversely IRS 13E2 has a flat mm spectrum which may be nebular (Whiteoak 1994). Such a mixture of compact and extended emission is similar to the Luminous Blue Variable (LBV) $`\eta `$ Car (see, e.g., Cox et al 1995), which may have a binary companion (Damineli et al. 2000).

A major feature of IRS 13 is the strength of some of its IR emission lines. IRS 13 has stronger $`2.19\mu `$m HeII (N97) and Pa-$`\alpha `$ (Stolovy et al. 1999) lines than its nearby IRS 16 brethren and is one of the strongest Br-$`\gamma `$ sources in the central parsec of the Galaxy (Libonate et al. 1995; Roberts, Yusef-Zadeh, & Goss 1996; Herbst et al. 1993). However, IRS 13 has a rather weak H$`92\alpha `$ line; Roberts et al (1996) thus suggest that the H$`92\alpha `$ source is hotter, denser and more compact than the Br$`\gamma `$ source (Roberts, Yusef-Zadeh, & Goss 1996). Although its \[FeII\] emission is weak (Stolovy et al. 1999), IRS 13 is located at the local peak of \[FeIII\] emission (Lutz, Krabbe, & Genzel 1993), suggesting a local ionizing source. It should be noted, however, that for some of the above observations, line blending (e.g. HeI(4-3) with Pa-$`\alpha `$ and HI(12-4) with the 1.644 $`\mu `$m \[FeII\] line) can be a significant problem.

From observations of the K-band HeI and Br$`\gamma `$ emission lines, N97 constructed non-LTE atmospheric models of IRS 13E1 and determined the parameters given in Table 1. At first glance this mass loss rate is substantially more than the canonical upper limit of $`1\times 10^4\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 for WR stars (Nugis 1999). However, a number of arguments exist against such a high estimate. First N97 did not include wind clumping or line-blanketing and as a result probably over estimated the mass loss rate by at least a factor of 2 (Morris et al. 2000). Second, assuming the parameters in Table 1, the classical stellar wind theory of Wright & Barlow (1975) predicts a 13 mm flux of $`30`$ mJy, considerably higher than the observed $`10`$ mJy for the combined IRS 13E complex, again suggesting an overestimate of $`\dot{\mathrm{M}}/v_{\mathrm{}}`$ by at least a factor of 2. Third, if the other GC wind sources have similarly overestimated mass loss rates, hydrodynamical accretion simulations (e.g. Coker & Melia 1997), which predict a large mass accretion rate onto Sgr A\*, are brought more into agreement with other accretion models (Coker & Melia, 2000; Narayan et al. 1998), which require a much lower accretion rate. For completeness, we also note that if the metallicity of IRS 13E is more than twice solar (see, e.g., Shields & Ferland 1994; Simpson et al. 1995), the maximum possible WR mass loss rate could be higher (Maeder & Maynet 1987).

If we assume the metallicity of the GC is twice solar then based on the estimated bolometric luminosity of IRS 13E1 the present mass and zero-age main-sequence (ZAMS) mass of IRS 13E1 are $`60\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and more than 120 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, respectively (Schaller et al 1992). However, updated evolutionary models (e.g., Mowlavi et al 1998) show that a high metallicity star with ZAMS mass of $`\stackrel{>}{}60\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ will shed so much mass while on the main sequence that it would never reach the WR stage. The canonical assumption that the metallicity of the GC is twice solar, however, is based on gas phase abundances. Carr, Sellgren, & Balachandran (2000) further argue that GC stellar abundances may in turn be overestimated due to higher stellar rotation rates. For example, high-resolution near-infrared spectra of IRS 7, a red supergiant located in the central parsec, show solar metallicity.

## 4 What is IRS 13E?

It is certain that IRS 13E is a luminous object embedded in a hot, dense medium, but more than this is not clear. However, it is possible to explore a few options which best fit the observations. First, the estimated luminosity and mass loss rate of IRS 13E1 are too large for a single evolved WR star; they are more like that of an LBV. In addition Libonate et al. (1995) noted that the K-band spectrum of IRS 13 resembles that of the LBV, P Cyg. Similarly, the FWHM of the Br-$`\gamma `$ line ($`350`$ km sec-1) as well as the extent of the emission region ($`\stackrel{<}{}0.12`$ pc) (Herbst et al. 1993) is consistent with the idea that IRS 13E has recently undergone an LBV-like mass ejection, and also ties in well with the radio and sub-mm observations. However, in spite of this agreement its temperature and wind velocity are larger than a typical LBV. As has been suggested for IRS 16NE, IRS 16C, and IRS 16SW (N97), it could therefore be a transition object just coming out of the LBV phase. This would be consistent with the $`v`$ and $`\dot{\mathrm{M}}`$ profiles of Garcia-Segura, Mac Low & Langer (1996). Humphreys & Davidson (1994) point out that a WN9/Ofpe star appears very much like an LBV at minimum brightness and thus the distinction between the two types is often blurred. However, the large He/H of IRS 13E1, compared to a He/H of $`1`$ for the IRS 16 sources (N97), makes an LBV/WNL determination problematic. Observational and theoretical counterarguments include the fact that the identity of WR 122, the calibrating WNL source used by N97, has been called into doubt (Crowther & Smith 1999) and recent work (e.g., Langer et al. 1999) suggests mixing in massive stars is more efficient than previously thought, resulting in a larger He/H at the start of the WNL phase. Hence an LBV/WNL classification is certainly within reason (although see below).

Second, we note that there are $`\stackrel{>}{}27`$ massive HeI stars in the GC (Blum, Ramírez, & Sellgren 1999). Given the observed frequency, $`f`$, of WR binary systems ($`12\%\stackrel{<}{}f\stackrel{<}{}50\%`$; van der Hucht et al. 1981), it is likely that some of the GC HeI stars are binaries as well. In fact, IRS 16SW is thought to be an eclipsing binary with a period of $`10`$ days (Ott, Eckart & Genzel 1999). Thus it is possible that IRS 13E is also a binary system, containing for example a WN10 primary with a ZAMS mass of $`100\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and a somewhat less massive companion that is either an O star or another WR star, or, possibly, a massive compact object.

## 5 Consequences

Of the single and binary scenarios, the latter is preferred. As previously mentioned, the model of N97 underpredicts the K-band HeII emission for IRS 13E1 by a factor of $`3`$; the colliding winds of a binary will produce more He+ (Marchenko et al. 1997), potentially explaining this deficiency. Also, the ionizing flux from a massive O star would explain why IRS 13E stands out in Pa-$`\alpha `$ and \[FeIII\].

An early-type binary system will also have strong shocks as a result of colliding stellar winds. The X-ray luminosity of a binary system will be brighter than that from a solitary star so that in order of increasing X-ray luminosity one qualitatively has (with everything else equal) WR, O, O/O, WR/O, WR/WR. However, this is modified by the binary separation: if the binaries are too close, absorption will suppress the observed X-ray emission but if they are too far apart the shocks are largely adiabatic and do not produce significant additional X-ray luminosity (Pittard & Stevens 1997).

The various WR sources of IRS 16 (including IRS 16SW) do not appear as point sources in the Chandra observations. A solitary WR or even a WR with a B or later companion may not be visible with Chandra due to the large column density between here and the GC. Using XSPEC222Distributed and maintained by HEASARC and a Raymond-Smith thermal plasma model (which assumes optically thin X-ray line and continuum emission; Raymond & Smith 1977) in ionization equilibrium one can simulate the Chandra spectrum of a solitary O-star placed at the GC. Assuming an ISM-corrected X-ray luminosity (0.5-10.0 keV) $`\mathrm{L}_\mathrm{x}0.25\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (from $`L_x/L_{bol}10^7`$, see e.g. Waldron, et al. 1998), a characteristic temperature $`\mathrm{kT}0.5`$ keV (representative of typical solitary O-stars, see Chlebowski, et al. 1989), an intervening column density N$`{}_{\mathrm{H}}{}^{}5\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 (typical for the GC, see e.g., Zylka et al. 1995), and solar abundances throughout, a 50 ksec Chandra observation, spanning the 0.5-10 keV band, would detect $`\stackrel{<}{}3`$ photons, and the O-star would not stand out above the background. Thus the IRS 16 sources blend into the diffuse background seen in the central $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ of the image in Baganoff et al. (1999). Note that this hints that either the unseen IRS 16SW companion does not have a significant stellar wind and thus is of type B or later (and therefore implies a lower system mass than estimated by Ott et al. 1999), or that the circumstellar absorption and/or binary separation were unfavorable.

In contrast, Fig. 2 shows a theoretical Chandra spectrum for a hypothetical $`0.5\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{}}`$ GC X-ray source similar to the WR/O binary $`\gamma ^2`$ Vel, which has a 78.5 day period. The number of photons detected by a 50 ksec observation of such a source is $`100`$, consistent with the supposed IRS 13 source seen by Baganoff (1999). Note that the mm observations of IRS 13E2 probably do not correspond to the WR’s companion but rather to the extended emission due to the the ejected nebula from the WR’s LBV phase. Thus the binary separation is not constrained to match that of the resolved mm sources.

Another possible interpretation of IRS 13 which would explain the Chandra observation follows from the suggestion by Gerhard (2000) that the GC HeI cluster is the remains of a disrupted cluster that formed tens of parsecs from Sgr A\*. If true, a massive binary system may not have survived the infall. This raises the possibility that IRS 13E2 hides a compact object, such as a $`10\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ black-hole, which is accreting the wind from IRS 13E1. That is, IRS 13E may be an extended X-ray system. This is particularly applicable in GC since dynamical friction over the lifetime of the Galaxy is likely to result in a high density of $`10\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ black-holes in the central parsec (see, e.g., Morris 1993). One can estimate the X-ray luminosity of such a system using

$$L_x=ϵ\dot{\mathrm{M}}c^2\left(\frac{GM}{2Dv^2}\right)^2,$$
(1)
where $`ϵ`$ is the accretion efficiency (taken as 0.1), $`M`$ is the mass of the black-hole, $`v`$ is the relative velocity of the black-hole to the wind, and $`D`$ is the distance between the WR star and the black-hole. If $`M=10\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`v=1000`$ km sec-1, and $`D=500`$ AU, then $`L_x0.1\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{}}`$. The spectrum, as shown in Fig. 3, would be shifted to slightly higher energy, the flux would be less attenuated by the high column and thus the $`45`$ detected photons would be consistent with the IRS 13 detection of Baganoff (1999). Note that, if the $`10`$ mas yr-1 relative mm proper motions (Zhao & Goss 1999) are any indication, the system may be unbound, making IRS 13E a unique transient X-ray source.

In summary, whilst a single massive star of unusually high X-ray luminosity cannot be discounted, we believe a colliding winds binary system best fits the various observations. A BH system also has some difficulties with reconciling the resolved mm sources (unless the second source is unassociated). Long term monitoring at mm wavelengths as well as a long-integration Chandra observation would help determine precisely what type of object lurks in IRS 13E.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by PPARC and has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service. We thank Fred Baganoff for early discussions of his work and Angela Cotera for an inciteful review of the manuscript.