text:
# A Magnetic Dynamo Origin For The Sub-mm Excess In Sgr A*

## 1 Introduction

The non-luminous matter concentrated within the inner 0.015 pc at the Galactic Center has a measured mass of $`2.6\pm 0.2\times 10^6M_{}`$ (Genzel et al. 1996; Eckart & Genzel 1996; Eckart & Genzel 1997; Ghez et al. 1998). Most of it appears to be associated with Sgr A\*, a bright, compact radio source (Balick & Brown 1974) that anchors the stars and gas locked in its vicinity, and provides possibly the most compelling evidence for the existence of supermassive black holes.

The spectrum of this unusual object can be described as a power-law with an index $`a`$ that varies within the range $`0.190.34`$ ($`S_\nu \nu ^a`$) from cm to mm wavelengths. However, one of the most interesting features currently under focus is the suggestion of a sub-millimeter (sub-mm) spectral bump (Zylka et al. 1992; Zylka et al. 1995), since the highest frequencies appear to correspond to the smallest spatial scales (e.g., Melia, Jokipii & Narayanan 1992; Melia 1994; Coker and Melia 2000). In the case of Sgr A\* one expects the sub-mm emission to come directly from the vicinity of the black hole. The existence of this bump (or “excess”) has been uncertain due to the variability of Sgr A\*, but is now well established following a set of simultaneous observations (from $`\lambda `$20cm to $`\lambda `$1mm) using the VLA, BIMA, Nobeyama 45 m, & IRAM 30 m telescopes (Falcke, et al. 1998).

The behavior of Sgr A\* is dictated by the manner with which plasma accretes onto it from the nearby environment. Three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of the gas dynamics at the location of Sgr A\* (Coker & Melia 1997) indicate that the accreted specific angular momentum $`\lambda `$ (in units of $`cr_S`$, where $`r_S2GM/c^2`$ is the Schwarzschild radius in terms of the black hole mass $`M`$) can vary by $`50\%`$ over $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 200 years with an average equilibrium value for $`\lambda `$ of $`40\pm 10`$. Thus, even with a possibly large amount of angular momentum present in the wind surrounding the nucleus, relatively little specific angular momentum is accreted. This is understandable since clumps of gas with a high specific angular momentum do not penetrate to within the capture radius, $`R_A2GM/v_{w}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, defined in terms of the wind velocity $`v_w`$ at infinity. The variability in the sign of the components of $`\lambda `$ suggests that if an accretion disk forms at all, it dissolves, and reforms (perhaps) with an opposite sense of spin on a time scale of $`100`$ years.

The captured gas is highly ionized and magnetized, so it radiates via bremsstrahlung, cyclo-synchrotron and inverse Compton processes. However, this emissivity appears to be inefficient in the case of Sgr A\*, so most of the dissipated energy within the large scale quasi-spherical inflow is carried inwards (Shapiro 1973; Ipser & Price 1977; Melia 1992). A viable explanation for Sgr A\*’s low radiating efficiency is that the advected magnetic field is well below its equipartition value. This may not be surprising in view of the fact that the actual value of $`B`$ depends strongly on the mechanism of field line annihilation, which is poorly understood. Two processes that have been proposed are (i) the Petschek (1964) mechanism, in which dissipation of the sheared magnetic field occurs in the form of shock waves surrounding special neutral points in the current sheets and thus, nearly all the dissipated magnetic energy is converted into the magnetic energy carried by the emergent shocks; and (ii) van Hoven’s (1979) tearing mode instability, which relies on resistive diffusion of the magnetic field and is very sensitive to the physical state of the gas. In either case, the magnetic field dissipation rate is a strong function of the gas temperature and density, so that assuming a fixed ratio of the magnetic field to its equipartition value may not be appropriate.

Kowalenko & Melia (1999) have used the van Hoven prescription to calculate the magnetic field annihilation rate in a cube of ionized gas being compressed at a rate commensurate with that expected for free-fall velocity onto the nucleus at the Galactic Center. Whereas the rate of increase $`B/t|_f`$ in $`B`$ due to flux conservation depends only on the rate $`\dot{r}`$ of the gas, the dissipation rate $`B/t|_d`$ is a function of the state variables and it is therefore not necessarily correlated with $`\dot{r}`$. Although these attempts at developing a physical model for magnetic field dissipation in converging flows is still rather simplistic, it is apparent from the test simulations that the equipartition assumption is not always a good approximation to the actual state of a magnetohydrodynamic flow, and very importantly, that the violation of equipartition can vary in degree from large to small radii, in either direction.

The first serious attempt at modeling the spectrum of Sgr A\* using a sub-equipartition profile for the magnetic field was made by Coker & Melia (2000), who adopted a spherical infall as a simplified version of the actual accretion picture. Of course, the real accretion flow will deviate from radial at small distances from the black hole, where the gas begins to circularize with its advected specific angular momentum. This deviation of the accreting gas away from a purely radial infall may provide a clue for the appearance of the bump in the spectrum at sub-mm wavelengths, which seems to hint at the existence of a distinct geometry for the emitter at this energy. We here suggest that the sub-mm “excess” in the spectrum of Sgr A\* may be the first indirect evidence for the anticipated circularization of the gas falling into the black hole at $`525r_S`$. Although the physical conditions within the quasi-spherical infall evidently suppress the magnetic field well below its equipartition value, this need not be the case once the gas circularizes and forms a Keplerian structure. Indeed, it is expected that a magnetic dynamo within the differentially rotating region may overwhelm the field annihilation rate and actually lead to a saturated field intensity.

It is our intention here to fully explore the magnetic properties of this inner circulating region, and to assess the likelihood of producing the sub-mm spectral bump with a magnetic dynamo. Given the wide latitude of possible configurations in the outer quasi-spherical infall for producing the longer wavelength radio emission, we will not here attempt to construct a complete picture for the whole accretion region. Rather, this task is better coupled to a hydrodynamic simulation that self-consistently merges the large scale flow to the circularized structure at smaller radii. These calculations are now in progress, and their results will be reported in the future.

We will first summarize the key physical principles underlying the dynamo process, and then examine what configuration the magnetic field should have in the Keplerian region surrounding Sgr A\*. We will then demonstrate that an excellent fit to the sub-mm data is possible with this picture, and discuss the implications of this model to our overall understanding of the environment surrounding the massive black hole at the Galactic Center.

## 2 The Magnetohydrodynamic Dynamo in a Rotational System

Since the discovery of the local shear instability in weakly magnetized disks (Balbus & Hawley 1991, hereafter BH1), several numerical simulations (Hawley & Balbus 1991, hereafter HB1; Hawley & Balbus 1992, hereafter HB2; Hawley, Gammie & Balbus 1995, hereafter HGB1; Stone, Hawley, Gammie & Balbus 1996, hereafter SHGB) have confirmed the fact that this instability plays a crucial role in rotational accretion systems. A linear analysis (Balbus & Hawley 1992, hereafter BH2) has demonstrated that the instability is extremely powerful. Its maximal growth rate is of the order of the angular velocity, provided that the latter decreases outward and that initially there exists a weak magnetic field. In the case of an axisymmetric perturbation with a weak $`B_z`$ component of the magnetic field (BH1), the maximal growth rate in a Keplerian disk reaches $`0.75\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at $`k_z\mathrm{\Omega }/v_{Az}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity, $`k_z`$ is the $`z`$-component of the perturbation wavenumber and $`v_{Az}=\sqrt{B_z^2/4\pi \rho }`$ is the Alfvén speed in the $`z`$-direction. The numerical simulations show that the instability saturates at a turbulent state, producing a significant angular momentum flux, which is dominated by the Maxwell stress rather than the Reynolds stress. This process has been invoked to account for the origin of the anomalous viscosity in these systems (SHGB).

Another important consequence of this instability, one that we explore at length in this paper, is the amplification of the magnetic field. It has been shown that this instability constitutes a magnetohydrodynamic dynamo (Hawley, Gammie & Balbus 1996, HGB2; Brandenburg, Nordlund, Stein & Torkelsson 1995, hereafter BNST). An external magnetic field, which is sometimes invoked to magnetize the disk, is not necessary for the instability to work. An internal turbulent magnetic field can also drive the instability. Once one introduces the complete magnetohydrodynamic equations to describe a shearing hydromagnetic structure, the system saturates at a turbulent state that includes a significant magnetic field energy density. Numerical difficulties with the simulations have thus far prevented the acquisition of quantitative results that may be used directly to describe a real astrophysical situation. However, based on what is now understood about the dynamo process, some very important qualitative results have been obtained, and these can provide a guide to the manner in which the magnetic field grows within the converging flow around a compact object.

### 2.1 The Basic Equations

For the sake of completeness, let us first analyze how the instability develops in a weakly magnetized Keplerian flow. The basic dynamical equations are (BH1):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\rho }{dt}}+\stackrel{}{}𝐯`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐯}{dt}}+\stackrel{}{}𝚽`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \rho }}(𝐁\stackrel{}{})𝐁{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\stackrel{}{}\left(P+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{8\pi }}\right),`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐁}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝐁\stackrel{}{})𝐯(\stackrel{}{}𝐯)𝐁(𝐯\stackrel{}{})𝐁,`$ (3)
where $`d/dt`$ is the Lagrangian derivative and $`𝚽`$ is the external gravitational potential. The other symbols have their usual meaning. We will adopt standard cylindrical coordinates $`(r,\varphi ,z)`$, where $`r`$ is the perpendicular distance from the $`z`$-axis.

Because the maximal growth rate is reached in the axisymmetric case with a weak vertical field, i.e., with $`𝐁=(0,0,B_z)`$, we will here consider perturbations for this specific situation. As such, the Eulerian perturbations, which we denote by $`\delta v`$, $`\delta B`$ etc., are modulated by the function $`e^{i(k_rr+k_zz\omega t)}`$, where $`k_r`$ and $`k_z`$ are, respectively, the radial and vertical components of the wavevector. The numerical simulations show that buoyancy is not a significant factor influencing the instability, nor is the compressibility of the fluid. By neglecting these terms and assuming incompressibility, so that $`\delta \rho =0`$ in all the equations other than the equation of motion and the equation of state (Balbus & Hawley 1991), and that $`\delta P=0`$ in the equation of state, one obtains the following linearized dynamical equations:

$`k_r\delta v_r+k_z\delta v_z`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_r}{t}}2\mathrm{\Omega }\delta v_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{k_zB_z}{4\pi \rho }}\delta B_rik_r\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta P}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_z\delta B_z}{4\pi \rho }}\right),`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_z}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`ik_z{\displaystyle \frac{\delta P}{\rho }},`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\varphi }{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\delta v_r`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{k_zB_z}{4\pi \rho }}\delta B_\varphi ,`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta B_r}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`ik_zB_z\delta v_r,`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta B_z}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`ik_zB_z\delta v_z,`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta B_\varphi }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{rd\mathrm{\Omega }}{dr}}\delta B_r+ik_zB_z\delta v_\varphi ,`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity in the circularized flow, and $`\kappa ^2=(2\mathrm{\Omega }/r)d(r^2\mathrm{\Omega })/dr`$ is the square of the epicyclic frequency.

Replacing the Lagrangian derivatives with respect to time $`t`$ by $`i\omega `$ in the linearized equations and eliminating the Eulerian perturbations, one obtains the dispersion relation

$$(\omega ^2k_z^2v_{Az}^2)^2\frac{k_z^2}{k^2}\kappa ^2(\omega ^2k_z^2v_{Az}^2)4\mathrm{\Omega }^2\frac{k_z^4v_{Az}^2}{k^2}=0,$$
(11)
where $`k^2=k_z^2+k_r^2`$. In the case of Keplerian flows, $`\kappa =\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This equation can easily be solved for $`\omega `$, which yields

$$\omega _0^2=k_{z0}^2+\frac{k_{z0}^2}{2k_0^2}2\sqrt{\frac{k_{z0}^4}{k_0^2}+\frac{k_{z0}^4}{16k_0^4}},$$
(12)
where $`\omega _0\omega /\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`k_0`$ and $`k_{z0}`$ are, respectively, $`k`$ and $`k_z`$ expressed in units of $`\mathrm{\Omega }/v_{Az}`$. It is noted that $`\omega ^2`$ reaches its minimum value of $`9\mathrm{\Omega }^2/16`$ when $`k^2=k_z^2=(15/16)(\mathrm{\Omega }/v_{Az})^2`$. For $`k_r=0`$, the modes become stable when $`k_z^2>3(\mathrm{\Omega }/v_{Az})^2`$, and in the long wavelength limit $`\omega ^23(v_{Az}k_z)^2`$.

In order to appreciate the physical implication of this instability, we examine the fastest growing mode, which occurs when $`k^2=k_z^2=(15/16)(\mathrm{\Omega }/v_{Az})^2`$ and $`\omega ^2=9\mathrm{\Omega }^2/16`$. Solving the linearized equations (4)–(10), we get

$`\delta v_r`$ $`=`$ $`\delta v_\varphi ,`$ (13)
$`\delta B_r`$ $`=`$ $`\delta B_\varphi ,`$ (14)
$`\delta B_r`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_zB_z}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\delta v_r,`$ (15)
$`\delta B_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \rho \mathrm{\Omega }}{k_zB_z}}\delta v_\varphi ,`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{|\delta B_r|^2}{8\pi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho |\delta v_r|^2}{2}}.`$ (17)
Keeping the time derivative terms in the linearized equations (4)–(10) and using this solution, we interpret the physics of this unstable mode as follows: The perturbation $`\delta v_r`$, which is generated by $`\delta v_\varphi `$ through the Coriolis force term $`2\mathrm{\Omega }\delta v_\varphi `$ in Equation (5), induces the perturbation $`\delta B_r`$ through Equation (8). Due to the shearing of the disk, the term $`rd\mathrm{\Omega }/dr\delta B_r`$ in Equation (10) then shows that $`\delta B_r`$ leads to the production of a perturbation $`\delta B_\varphi `$, which in turn enhances $`\delta v_\varphi `$ through the right hand side of Equation (7). Thus a positive feedback loop is established. Some of the other terms in the linearized equations act to stabilize the perturbation, but they are overwhelmed by the positive feedback in the unstable modes. However, for the modes with a large wavenumber, the term $`ik_zB_z\delta v_\varphi `$ in Equation (10) and the term $`ik_zB_z\delta B_r/4\pi \rho `$ in Equation (5) will overwhelm the positive feedback and make the mode stable.

### 2.2 The Dynamo in Sgr A\*

The solution represented by Equation (17) deserves special attention; it says that the turbulent kinetic energy density is approximately equal to the turbulent magnetic field energy density. That is, it points to an equipartition of kinetic and magnetic field energy densities in the final saturated state of the system. Several numerical simulations (BNST, HGB1, HGB2, SHGB) have largely confirmed this result. They show that the ratio of these energy densities in the final turbulent state of the system is only weakly dependent on the initial and subsequent physical conditions assumed in the calculations. We shall therefore here adopt the conclusion drawn from these studies, that in rotational flows

$$\frac{<\delta B^2>}{8\pi }=C_0\frac{1}{2}<\rho \delta v^2>,$$
(18)
where the constant $`C_0`$ has a value between $`1`$ and $`10`$, depending on the vertical profile of the Keplerian structure.

Although the above analysis is based on a very specific model, many numerical simulations (BNST, HGB2) have demonstrated that this instability exists more generally, and that even without an external magnetic field, it can produce a significant magnetic energy density, which therefore constitutes a hydromagnetic dynamo. We are here primarily interested in the final saturated state, whose existence has been shown to be inevitable by the numerical simulations. In the following, we will build a simple picture for the dynamo process in Sgr A\*, and show how the turbulence is sustained. From these simulations, we infer that the vertical component of the internal turbulent magnetic field can produce unstable wave modes similar to those produced by an external magnetic field and that the dynamo is driven by them. Since we adopt a zero value for the external magnetic field (a reasonable approximation consistent with the view that the turbulent magnetic field exterior to the Keplerian flow is greatly sub-equipartition, Kowalenko & Melia 1999), the turbulent magnetic field is in fact then the total field $`𝐁`$. Applying the above analysis to the situation in Sgr A\*, we replace the external vertical field with the mean-square root ($`\sqrt{<\delta B_z^2>}\sqrt{<B_z^2>}`$) of the turbulent magnetic field’s vertical component (hereafter the symbol $`<>`$ denotes the mean value of the particular physical quantity). However, because the final state is turbulent, it is expected that the growth rate will be smaller than that in the case where there exists an underlying ordered external field.

Before proceeding with the model, we need to examine whether or not this instability can be damped by Ohmic diffusion for the conditions expected in Sgr A\*. Jin (1996) first discussed the possible damping of the shear instability using linear analysis. More recently, this issue was addressed numerically by Fleming, Stone and Hawley (2000). The overall conclusion is that the instability is effectively damped when the diffusion length becomes comparable to the wavelength of the most unstable mode within the latter’s growth time scale, i.e., roughly one revolution period. As we have seen, the most unstable wave mode in the Keplerian flow is $`k^2=k_z^2=15\mathrm{\Omega }/16v_{Az}`$, where $`v_{Az}=\sqrt{<B_z^2>/4\pi <\rho >}`$ is the vertical Alfvén speed of the turbulent magnetic field. As the magnetic field is relatively weak, $`v_{Az}`$ is small, and all the modes with $`k_z<3\mathrm{\Omega }/v_{Az}`$ are unstable. These unstable modes lead to an increase in $`<B_z^2>`$, which in turn leads to an increase in the value of $`v_{Az}`$. So the wavelength $`\lambda _z=2\pi /k_z`$ of the most unstable mode increases. There does not appear to be any physical reason why the magnetic field should stop increasing before $`\lambda _z`$ has reached a value equal to the height $`H`$ of the Keplerian flow. So the length scale of the most unstable wave mode is expected to be $`H`$.

Let us now show that the diffusion length scale within one period in Sgr A\* is much smaller than this wavelength. Using the parameter values characterizing the accretion onto this object, we find that the angular velocity of a Keplerian flow near ten Schwarzschild radii ($`r_S2GM/c^2`$, where for Sgr A\*, $`M2.6\times 10^6M_{}`$) is $`\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{GM/(10r_S)^3}0.001`$ s<sup>-1</sup>. The temperature of the plasma in this region is expected to be around a few $`10^{10}`$ K (Melia 1994; Coker & Melia 2000), so this gas is fully ionized, and its resistivity is (Lyman 1961)

$$\eta =7.26\times 10^9\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}{T^{\frac{3}{2}}}(\text{c.g.s.}),$$
(19)
where the Coulomb logarithm $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a slowly varying function of the electron density and temperature; $`30`$ is a reasonable value for the conditions at the Galactic Center. Thus, for these parameter values, $`\eta 0.22\times 10^{21}`$ (c.g.s.). The diffusion length scale corresponding to this resistivity is

$$L=\sqrt{\frac{\eta c^2\tau }{4\pi }},$$
(20)
where $`\tau `$ is the diffusion time, which we set equal to the growth time scale of the most unstable wave mode, i.e., about $`1000`$ s here. Thus, we infer a diffusion length of about $`4`$ cm, which is clearly much smaller than any reasonable value of $`H`$, and therefore the characteristic wavelengths of the unstable modes. We conclude that the dynamo in Sgr A\* cannot be damped by Ohmic diffusion.

One of the important properties of the final turbulent magnetic field is that it is dominated by its azimuthal component. All the simulations show that the azimuthal component counts for about 80 percent of the total magnetic field energy. This result can be understood by examining the equations describing the evolution of the magnetic energy density (remembering still that the turbulent field generated by the dynamo constitutes the total field in this system):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_\varphi ^2}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`r{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dr}}B_\varphi B_r+B_\varphi [\stackrel{}{}\times (\delta 𝐯\times 𝐁)]_\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{\eta c^2}{4\pi }}B_\varphi |^2𝐁|_\varphi ,`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_r^2}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`B_r[\stackrel{}{}\times (\delta 𝐯\times 𝐁)]_r+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta c^2}{4\pi }}B_r|^2𝐁|_r,`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_z^2}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`B_z[\stackrel{}{}\times (\delta 𝐯\times 𝐁)]_z+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta c^2}{4\pi }}B_z|^2𝐁|_z,`$ (23)
where $`\eta `$ is again the resistivity of the plasma, and $`c`$ is the speed of light. A linear analysis shows that the amplitudes of the azimuthal and radial components of the magnetic field are equal when the perturbation is small, but that the final turbulent state is affected by the nonlinear character of the magnetohydrodynamic equations. As the amplitudes of the perturbation increase, nonlinear effects become more important. Due to the shearing of the Keplerian flow, the average value of $`rB_\varphi B_rd\mathrm{\Omega }/dr`$ is positive. The energy Equations (21)—(23) therefore show that $`rB_\varphi B_rd\mathrm{\Omega }/dr`$ contributes to a growing anisotropy of the turbulent magnetic field, in the sense that more and more magnetic field energy is generated in the azimuthal direction. For a Keplerian flow with $`rd\mathrm{\Omega }/dr=3\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$, the growth rate due to the shearing of this structure is larger than that associated with any other dynamo process. So the azimuthal component of the magnetic field dominates the final magnetic field energy density.

It is interesting to note that this simple scenario may also be used to interpret the anisotropic spectrum of the turbulent magnetic field energy density observed in the numerical simulations (HGB1). Because the radial magnetic field is stretched in the azimuthal direction, the magnetic energy carried by the modes with the largest wavelengths should be associated mostly with their azimuthal components. However the spectrum for the vertical and radial components should be similar to each other.

So the situation with regard to Sgr A\* is the following: as the gas flows inwards and spirals into an approximately Keplerian structure at a distance from the black hole corresponding to the circularization radius, a linear instability first stretches the magnetic field lines carried by the gas and produces a radial component of $`𝐁`$. The magnetic field generated during this step is approximately in equipartition with the turbulent kinetic energy and counts for a small fraction of its final intensity, but it nonetheless provides the seed for the next step. Second, the shearing in the Keplerian flow stretches the radial magnetic field in the azimuthal direction and it increases the magnetic field energy (as seen, e.g., in HB2). The energy comes from the rotational energy of the gas, and during this process a significant amount of angular momentum can be transported outward as a result of the Maxwell stress $`B_rB_\varphi /4\pi `$. Finally, some of the magnetic field energy is converted into kinetic energy, which is eventually dissipated into thermal energy as a result of the viscosity, through the Lorentz force term $`𝐁[\stackrel{}{}\times (\delta 𝐯\times 𝐁)]`$. In addition, the magnetic field energy may be dissipated through Ohmic resistivity. For example, with their assumed large numerical resistivity, BNST found that about half of the magnetic field energy is dissipated in this way. However, in the case of the Galactic Center, the actual resistivity is rather small and $`\eta c^2/4\pi r_S10^{13}`$ cm s<sup>-1</sup> is insignificant compared to any velocity scale within the plasma. The dissipation of the magnetic field in this fashion is therefore negligible.

So from the magnetic energy Equations (21)—(23), we infer the following proportionality based on dimensional analysis:

$$\frac{\sqrt{<\rho \delta v^2>}}{\sqrt{<\rho >}H}r\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dr},$$
(24)
where $`H`$ is the height of the flow and we have used $`\sqrt{<\rho \delta v^2>}/\sqrt{<\rho >}`$ to characterize the turbulent velocity. Combining Equations (18) and (24), we therefore obtain

$$\sqrt{<B^2>}\sqrt{<\rho >}Hr\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dr},$$
(25)
which is the main result we have been seeking. Note that for a Keplerian flow, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(GM/r^3)^{1/2}`$, for which $`rd\mathrm{\Omega }/dr=(3/2)\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Some support for the validity of this relationship has been provided by the simulations reported in BNST, which include an analysis of the magnetohydrodynamic dynamo at two different radii, one of which is five times smaller than the other. Since this Keplerian flow is characterized by the following equations,

$`(H\mathrm{\Omega })^2`$ $``$ $`P/\rho ,`$ (26)
$`\rho `$ $``$ $`r^{15/8},`$ (27)
$`H`$ $``$ $`r^{9/8},`$ (28)
the expression in (25) suggests that $`<B^2>P`$, the gas pressure. An inspection of the numerical results in BNST shows that the ratio of magnetic field energy density to thermal energy density at the two radii is 0.013 and 0.014. Given that the ratios of the densities, the heights and the angular velocities at the two radii are, respectively, $`25`$, $`5`$, and $`10`$, the constancy of the ratio of magnetic field energy density to thermal energy density is a strong indication that Equation (25) provides an adequate representation of the saturated magnetic field intensity under these conditions. The validity of this expression is also supported by the global simulations of Hawley (2000).

We conclude that the magnetic field intensity within the gas converging onto Sgr A\* approaches the functional form given in Equation (25) once the flow settles into a Keplerian structure at small radii. The fluctuations associated with the accreted angular momentum (Coker & Melia 1997) correspond to a circularization radius $`550r_S`$, so we anticipate that $`𝐁`$ will approach the distribution in Equation (25) within this region.

## 3 Calculation of the Spectrum

### 3.1 The Anomalous Viscosity

In a Keplerian flow with column density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(GM/r^3)^{1/2}`$, the radial velocity $`v_r`$ at (cylindrical) radius $`r`$ is given as (e.g., Stoeger 1980)

$$v_r=\frac{3}{r^{1/2}\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{}{r}\left(\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }r^{1/2}\right),$$
(29)
where $`\nu `$ is the kinematic viscosity,

$$\nu =\frac{2}{3}\frac{W_{r\varphi }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(30)
and $`W_{r\varphi }`$ is the vertically integrated sum of the Maxwell and Reynolds stresses (Balbus et al. 1994). For the problem at hand, the Maxwell stress dominates, and

$$W_{r\varphi }\beta _\nu 𝑑z\frac{B^2}{8\pi }$$
(31)
(the average inside the integral being taken over time). Even though this approximation is valid simply on the basis that the Reynolds stress is relatively small, its validity is enhanced by the fact that since the turbulent velocity (which accounts for this kinetic stress) and $`𝐁`$ are generated by the same process, both should be scalable by $`𝐁`$. Numerical simulations (e.g., by Brandenburg, et al. 1995) show that $`\beta _\nu `$ changes very slowly with $`r`$. In the particular cases considered by these authors, $`\beta _\nu `$ ranged in value from $`0.1`$ to $`0.2`$, which represents an increase by a factor of only $`2`$ as $`r`$ decreased by a factor of $`5`$. We will here find that a “mean” value of $`0.20.3`$ is required for this quantity.

To use the result of § 2.2, we first need to know the vertical structure of the Keplerian flow. For steady conditions, one can obtain the vertical profile by assuming that the gas is (on average) in local hydrostatic equilibrium. Balancing gravity and the pressure gradient in the vertical direction, we obtain the scale height

$$H=\sqrt{\frac{2R_gTr^3}{\mu GM}},$$
(32)
where $`T`$ is the gas temperature at radius r, $`R_g`$ is the gas constant, and $`\mu `$ is the molecular weight. As an approximation, we will assume that the Keplerian flow is axisymmetric and is independent of the vertical coordinate. Written another way, we have

$$(H\mathrm{\Omega })^2=2P/\rho .$$
(33)
Following the result of § 2.2, we will write

$$𝑑z\frac{B^2}{8\pi }\beta _pP𝑑z=\beta _p\frac{R_g\mathrm{\Sigma }T}{\mu },$$
(34)
where $`\beta _p`$ is roughly constant with a value of $`0.03`$. In our simulations, we will find that a value $`0.030.04`$ is required to match the observations. Thus, with

$$\dot{M}=2\pi r\mathrm{\Sigma }v_r,$$
(35)
we can integrate Equation (29) to obtain

$$v_r=\frac{rT(r)}{T_0r_0/v_{r0}+\mu (GM)^{1/2}(r_0^{1/2}r^{1/2})/\beta _\nu \beta _pR_g},$$
(36)
where the quantities with subscript $`0`$ are to be evaluated at the outer edge of the Keplerian flow (i.e., at radius $`r_0`$).

### 3.2 Energy Equations for the Keplerian Flow

In order to get the radial dependence of the flow, we need to solve the energy equation to determine the temperature. The gas is heated primarily by the viscous dissipation of turbulent energy and Ohmic dissipation (which converts magnetic field energy directly to thermal energy), and is cooled by synchrotron and bremsstrahlung emission. Equation (1) is always valid. By incorporating Ohmic diffusion and viscous dissipation, Equations (2) and (3) take the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\rho 𝐯)}{dt}}+\rho \stackrel{}{}𝚽+\rho 𝐯(\stackrel{}{}𝐯)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}(𝐁\stackrel{}{})𝐁\stackrel{}{}\left(P_{th}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{8\pi }}\right)+2\stackrel{}{}(𝐒\rho \nu ),`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐁}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\times (𝐯\times 𝐁){\displaystyle \frac{c^2\eta }{4\pi }}\stackrel{}{}\times (\stackrel{}{}\times 𝐁),`$ (38)
respectively, where $`S_{ij}=(1/2)[v_{i,j}+v_{j,i}(2/3)\delta _{ij}v_{k,k}]`$ and $`P_{th}=\rho R_gT/\mu +P_{rad}`$ is the non-magnetic pressure. For a Keplerian flow, $`S_{r\varphi }=(3/4)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The radiation pressure, $`P_{rad}`$, is given in the Rayleigh-Jeans approximation:

$$P_{rad}=\frac{8\pi }{9}kT\left(\frac{\nu _m}{c}\right)^3,$$
(39)
where $`\nu _m`$ is the frequency below which the radiative emission is highly absorbed, so that the optical depth from $`r`$ to infinity is unity (see Melia 1994).

Projecting Equation (37) onto the vector $`𝐯`$ and Equation (38) onto the vector $`𝐁`$, we eventually find that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left[\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\left[\rho 𝐯\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\right]𝐯\stackrel{}{}P_{th}+2𝐯\stackrel{}{}(𝐒\rho \nu )`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}𝐯[𝐁\times (\stackrel{}{}\times 𝐁)],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{8\pi }}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}𝐁[\stackrel{}{}\times (𝐯\times 𝐁)]+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2\eta }{16\pi ^2}}\stackrel{}{}[𝐁\times (\stackrel{}{}\times 𝐁)]\eta 𝐉^2,`$ (41)
where $`𝐉=(c/4\pi )\stackrel{}{}\times 𝐁`$ is the current density. Adding the two equations gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{8\pi }}+\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{}[2\nu \rho 𝐯𝐒+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}𝐁\times (𝐯\times 𝐁{\displaystyle \frac{c^2\eta }{4\pi }}\stackrel{}{}\times 𝐁)`$ (42)
$`+\rho 𝐯({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2+\mathrm{\Phi })]\eta 𝐉^22\nu \rho 𝐒^2𝐯\stackrel{}{}P_{th}.`$
In steady state, the heating term is therefore inferred to be

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $``$ $`\eta 𝐉^2+2\nu \rho 𝐒^2`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`\left[\rho 𝐯\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}𝐁\times (𝐯\times 𝐁{\displaystyle \frac{c^2\eta }{4\pi }}\stackrel{}{}\times 𝐁)2\nu \rho 𝐯𝐒\right]𝐯\stackrel{}{}P_{th}.`$
Following the argument by Balbus et al. (1994), we see that the divergence of the viscous flux and Ohmic flux is insignificant, and so we can neglect these terms in the following discussion.

In a Keplerian flow, the velocity fluctuations are small compared to the azimuthal component of the velocity and it is the correlated fluctuations in the velocity and magnetic field components that produces the anomalous viscosity (Balbus et al. 1994). So $`𝐯=v_\varphi 𝐞_\varphi +\delta 𝐯`$, with $`\delta v`$ much smaller than $`v_\varphi \sqrt{GM/r}`$. Introducing this into Equation (43) and neglecting the high order terms, we get the steady state heating rate

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`𝐯\stackrel{}{}P_{th}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Hr}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_rHr<B^2>}{4\pi }}\right)`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Hr}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left[Hr\rho v_r\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)+Hrv_\varphi \rho v_r\delta v_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{B_rB_\varphi }{4\pi }}\right],`$
where the correlated fluctuation on the right hand side is given by

$$\rho v_r\delta v_\varphi \frac{B_rB_\varphi }{4\pi }=\frac{W_{r\varphi }}{2H}.$$
(45)
Next, the temperature can be determined by solving the thermal energy conservation equation:

$$\frac{(\rho ϵ)}{t}=\stackrel{}{}(𝐯\rho ϵ)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }P_{th}\stackrel{}{}𝐯,$$
(46)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cooling rate, and $`\rho ϵ=\alpha nkT+3P_{rad}`$ is the thermal and radiation energy density. In the fully ionized but non-relativistic limit, $`\alpha =3`$, whereas in the relativistic electron limit, $`\alpha =9/2`$. Adding Equations (42) and (46), we have the complete energy conservation equation of the system

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{8\pi }}+\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2+\mathrm{\Phi }+ϵ\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\eta 𝐉^22\nu \rho 𝐒^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{}[\rho 𝐯({\displaystyle \frac{P_{th}}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2+\mathrm{\Phi }+ϵ)`$ (47)
$`2\nu \rho 𝐯𝐒+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}𝐁\times (𝐯\times 𝐁{\displaystyle \frac{c^2\eta }{4\pi }}\stackrel{}{}\times 𝐁)]+\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$
In steady state, the derivative with respect to time equals zero. So using the mass conservation Equation (35) for a Keplerian flow and Equations (44), (45), (31) and (34) , we have

$`\rho v_r{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }P_{th}\stackrel{}{}𝐯`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{}(𝐯P_{th})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Hr}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _pR_gT\dot{M}}{2\pi \mu }}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Hr}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{M}}{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(v_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+v_r^2)+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{M}\beta _\nu \beta _pR_gTv_\varphi }{4\pi v_r\mu }}\right].`$
The temperature equation follows from this once we substitute for $`H`$, $`ϵ`$, $`P_{th}`$ etc., whence

$$C_1\frac{T^{}}{T}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\rho v_r}+C_2,$$
(49)
where

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{P_{th}}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _pR_gT}{\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\beta _\nu \beta _pR_gTv_\varphi }{2\mu v_r}},`$
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2r}}v_r^2{\displaystyle \frac{GM}{2r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{}}{\rho }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{32\pi R_gT}{9n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _m}{c}}\right)^3+v_r^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _\nu \beta _pR_gTv_\varphi }{\mu v_r}}\right]`$ (50)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{32\pi R_gT}{3n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _m}{c}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _m^{}}{\nu _m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _\nu \beta _pR_gTv_\varphi }{\mu v_r}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}.`$
The s denote derivatives with respect to $`r`$.

Now, from Equations (32), (35) and (36), we find that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{2T}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H^{}}{H}},`$ (51)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v_r^{}}{v_r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{H^{}}{H}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{}}{\rho }}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (52)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{T}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \sqrt{GM}v_r}{2\beta _\nu \beta _pR_gr\sqrt{r}T}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_r^{}}{v_r}}.`$ (53)
Thus,

$$\frac{\rho ^{}}{\rho }=\frac{7}{2r}\frac{3T^{}}{2T}\frac{\mu \sqrt{GM}v_r}{2\beta _\nu \beta _pR_gr\sqrt{r}T}.$$
(54)
Therefore eliminating $`\rho ^{}`$ in Equation (49), we get a differential equation for the temperature:

$$E_1T^{}=E_2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\rho v_rR_g}\frac{32\pi T}{3n}\left(\frac{\nu _m}{c}\right)^3\frac{\nu _m^{}}{\nu _m},$$
(55)
where

$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha +2+{\displaystyle \frac{32\pi }{9n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _m}{c}}\right)^3+{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _p}{\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\beta _\nu \beta _pv_\varphi }{2\mu v_r}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_r^2}{2R_gT}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}E_3,`$
$`E_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2T}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _\nu \beta _pv_\varphi }{\mu v_r}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2r}}v_r^2{\displaystyle \frac{GM}{2r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_g}}E_3T\left({\displaystyle \frac{7}{2r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \sqrt{GM}v_r}{2\beta _\nu \beta _pR_gr\sqrt{r}T}}\right),`$
$`E_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_r^2}{R_gT}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _\nu \beta _pv_\varphi }{\mu v_r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{32\pi }{9n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _m}{c}}\right)^3.`$ (56)
Using the characteristic parameters for Sgr A\*, we find that the radiation energy density and pressure are always negligible compared to those for the gas within the Keplerian flow. So, in Equation (55) we will neglect those terms that depend on $`\nu _m`$. Thus this equation provides the temperature profile throughout the inner region once the outer boundary conditions are specified.

### 3.3 Calculation of the Spectrum

The flux density (at earth) produced by the Keplerian portion of the flow is given by

$$F_{\nu _0}=\frac{1}{D^2}I_\nu ^{}\left(1\frac{r_S}{r}\right)^{3/2}𝑑A,$$
(57)
where $`D=8.5`$ kpc is the distance to the Galactic Center, $`\nu _0`$ is the observed frequency at infinity and $`\nu ^{}`$ is the frequency measured by a stationary observer in the Schwarzschild frame. (For simplicity, we here assume the metric for a non-spinning black hole. A more thorough exploration of the parameter values, including the black hole spin, will be discussed elsewhere.) The frequency transformations are given by

$$\nu _0=\nu ^{}\sqrt{1r_S/r},$$
(58)
$$\nu ^{}=\nu \frac{\sqrt{1v_\varphi ^2/c^2}}{1(v_\varphi /c)\mathrm{cos}\theta },$$
(59)
where $`\nu `$ is the frequency measured in the co-moving frame, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}_\varphi `$ and the line of sight. Since the radial velocity is always much smaller than $`v_\varphi `$, we ignore this component in the transformation equations. So $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\mathrm{sin}i\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, where $`i`$ is the inclination angle of the axis perpendicular to the Keplerian flow, and $`\varphi `$ is the azimuth of the emitting element. When the Doppler shift is included, the blue shifted region is located primarily near $`\varphi =0`$ while the red shifted region is at $`\varphi =\pi `$. The other quantities that are necessary for an evaluation of the flux density are the area element

$$dA=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1r_S/r}}\mathrm{cos}irdrd\varphi ,$$
(60)
and the specific intensity

$$I_\nu ^{}=B_\nu ^{}^{}(1e^\tau ),$$
(61)
where

$$B_\nu ^{}^{}=\left(\frac{\sqrt{1v_\varphi ^2/c^2}}{1(v_\varphi /c)\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)^3B_\nu ,$$
(62)
and the optical depth is

$$\tau =\kappa _\nu ^{}^{}𝑑s=\kappa _\nu \frac{2H}{\mathrm{cos}i}\frac{1(v_\varphi /c)\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{1v_\varphi ^2/c^2}},$$
(63)
where $`\kappa _\nu `$ is the absorption coefficient. In the case where the optical depth $`\tau 1`$, Kirchoff’s law allows us to write

$$I_\nu ^{}B_\nu ^{}^{}\tau =ϵ_\nu \frac{2H}{\mathrm{cos}i}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1v_\varphi ^2/c^2}}{1(v_\varphi /c)\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)^2,$$
(64)
where $`ϵ_\nu =B_\nu \kappa _\nu `$ is the emissivity. The presence of a substantial azimuthal component of the magnetic field makes it convenient to calculate the observed flux directly from the Extraordinary and Ordinary components of the intensity. The most convenient approach is to select the symmetry axis of the Keplerian flow as the reference direction. The observed flux densities in the azimuthal and the reference directions are given by

$`F_{1\nu _0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D^2}}{\displaystyle (I_\nu ^{}^e\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi ^{}+I_\nu ^{}^o\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi ^{})\left(1\frac{r_S}{r}\right)^{3/2}𝑑A},`$ (65)
$`F_{2\nu _0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D^2}}{\displaystyle (I_\nu ^{}^e\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi ^{}+I_\nu ^{}^o\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi ^{})\left(1\frac{r_S}{r}\right)^{3/2}𝑑A},`$ (66)
respectively, where $`\varphi ^{}+\pi /2`$ is the position angle of the magnetic field vector within the emitting element that has an azimuth of $`\varphi `$, so that $`\mathrm{cot}\varphi ^{}=\mathrm{cot}\varphi \mathrm{cos}i`$. $`I_\nu ^{}^e`$ and $`I_\nu ^{}^o`$ are the specific intensities for the Extraordinary and Ordinary waves, respectively. For thermal synchrotron radiation, the emissivities are given by (Pacholczyk 1970)

$`ϵ^e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}e^3}{8\pi m_ec^2}}B\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}N(E)[F(x)+G(x)]𝑑E,`$ (67)
$`ϵ^o`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}e^3}{8\pi m_ec^2}}B\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}N(E)[F(x)G(x)]𝑑E,`$ (68)
where $`N(E)`$ is the electron distribution function at energy $`E`$, and

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta v_\varphi /c}{1(v_\varphi /c)\mathrm{cos}\theta }},`$ (69)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \nu m_e^3c^5}{3eB\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}E^2}},`$ (70)
$`F(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}K_{5/3}(z)𝑑z,`$ (71)
$`G(x)`$ $`=`$ $`xK_{2/3}(x).`$ (72)
$`K_{5/3}`$ and $`K_{2/3}`$ are the corresponding modified Bessel functions. The total flux density produced by the Keplerian portion of the flow is the sum of these two.

Given the temperature profile indicated in Figure 2, a non-negligible fraction of the radiation with frequency higher than $`3\times 10^{11}`$ Hz is self-Comptonized by the hot plasma into the X-ray band. We note that for the conditions prevalent in this region (notably the temperature of the electrons and the characteristic energy of the seed photons), the electron-photon scattering occurs in the Thomson limit. Since in addition the electron thermal energy ($`kT`$) greatly exceeds the kinetic energy associated with the radial and Keplerian motion of the gas, the electrons can be treated as locally isotropic. In turn, the upscattered radiation will also be emitted isotropically. Without loss of generality, we can therefore calculate the photon number density function $`n_ϵ`$ from the angle-integrated intensity (where $`n_ϵdϵ`$ represents the number density of photons with energies between $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ+dϵ`$ and depends primarily on the radius $`r`$). Under these conditions, a single electron with Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ emits photons with energies between $`ϵ_s`$ and $`ϵ_s+dϵ_s`$ at a rate (e.g., Melia & Fatuzzo 1989)

$$\frac{dN}{dtdϵ_s}(ϵ_s,\gamma )=\frac{3c\sigma _T}{16}\frac{ϵ_s}{\beta \gamma ^2}_1^1𝑑\mu _s_{ϵ_l}^{ϵ_u}𝑑ϵ\frac{n_ϵ}{ϵ^2}g(\mu ^{},\mu _s^{}),$$
(73)
where $`\mu =\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ and $`\mu _s=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _s)`$ represent the lab-frame (unprimed) propagation angles (with respect to the electron’s direction of motion) of the incident and scattered photons, respectively. Here, we have made use of the transformations $`ϵ_u=ϵ_s\gamma ^2(1\beta \mu _s)(1+\beta )`$, and $`ϵ_l=ϵ_s(1\beta \mu _s)/(1+\beta )`$. The function $`g(\mu ^{},\mu _s^{})`$ takes into account the angular dependence of the cross-section, and is given in terms of the rest-frame (primed) angles by the expression $`g(\mu ^{},\mu _s^{})=\left(1\mu ^2\right)\left(1\mu _s^2\right)+(1/2)\left(1+\mu ^2\right)\left(1+\mu _s^2\right)`$. The rest frame and lab frame angles are related through the transformation $`\mu ^{}=(\mu \beta )/(1\beta \mu )`$. Conservation of energy requires that $`\mu =\left\{1(ϵ_s/ϵ)\left[1\beta \mu _s\right]\right\}/\beta `$.

With the upscattered photons emitted isotropically, the total photon production rate is then found by integrating over all of the electrons within the emission region, yielding

$$\frac{dN_{TOT}}{dtdϵ_s}=_{gas}𝑑V_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑En_ef(E)\left[\frac{dN}{dtdϵ_s}\right],$$
(74)
where $`n_e`$ is the (radially dependent) number density of electrons and $`f(E)`$ is the relativistic Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB) distribution function normalized to unity. Note that the temperature (and therefore the MB distribution function) is also radially dependent.

### 3.4 Results

Not all the solutions to Equation (55) are physically acceptable. Equation (36) shows that for given parameters $`\beta _p`$ and $`\beta _\nu `$, some boundary values of $`T_0`$, $`r_0`$ and $`v_{r0}`$ will make the denominator vanish at a critical radius $`r_{crit}`$. For a physically meaningful flow, we therefore need $`r_{crit}r_i`$, where $`r_i`$ is the inner boundary of the Keplerian flow ( $`r_i=r_S`$ in the following discussion ). For simplicity, we shall set $`r_{crit}=r_i`$, for which

$$\frac{T_0r_0}{v_{r0}}+\frac{\mu (GM)^{1/2}(r_0^{1/2}r_i^{1/2})}{\beta _\nu \beta _pR_g}=0.$$
(75)
This fixes $`T_0`$ in terms of $`r_0`$ and $`v_{r0}`$.

A second constraint is provided directly by the current IR and UV observations of Sgr A\*, which rule out the possible presence of an optically thick disk. Working within these constraints, the best fit model for the sub-millimeter bump is that shown in Figures 1-7. The latest Chandra observation (indicating a luminosity for Sgr A\* of no more than $`2.66\times 10^{33}`$ ergs s<sup>-1</sup> between $`2`$ and $`10`$ keV) restricts the possible range of $`\dot{M}`$ near the black hole. The reason for this can be understood qualitatively as follows.

The requirement that the flow remains optically thin in the Keplerian region (i.e., within the nominal $`5r_S`$ we are considering here) means that $`n\sigma _TH\mathrm{cos}i`$, where $`\sigma _T=6.65\times 10^{25}`$ cm<sup>2</sup> is the Thomson scattering cross section. By using Equation (35) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=2Hnm_p`$, we therefore have

$$\dot{M}4\pi m_prv_r\mathrm{cos}i/\sigma _T.$$
(76)
But Equations (75) and (36) show that

$$v_r=\frac{Tr\beta _\nu \beta _pR_g}{\mu (GM)^{1/2}(r^{1/2}r_i^{1/2})}.$$
(77)
Combining these two relations, we get

$$\dot{M}1.8\times 10^{20}\frac{\mathrm{cos}i}{\sqrt{r/r_i}1}\left(\frac{r}{r_i}\right)^2\left(\frac{T}{10^{11}\text{K}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta _\nu }{0.27}\right)\left(\frac{\beta _p}{0.036}\right)\text{g}\text{s}^1.$$
(78)
Since the factor $`(r/r_i)^2/(\sqrt{r/r_i}1)`$ has a minimum value of $`4^4/3^3`$ at $`r=16/9r_S`$, and the Keplerian flow must be optically thin everywhere

$$\dot{M}1.7\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cos}i\left(\frac{T_m}{10^{11}\text{K}}\right)\left(\frac{\beta _\nu }{0.27}\right)\left(\frac{\beta _p}{0.036}\right)\text{g}\text{s}^1.$$
(79)
where $`T_m`$ is the maximal temperature. In itself, this value is consistent with the Bondi-Hoyle rate inferred from the simulations by Coker & Melia (1997).

An even stricter upper limit for the accretion rate can be obtained if we assume that the sub-millimeter bump in the radio is produced by a hot Keplerian flow through synchrotron emission. This plasma will also produce X-radiation via bremsstrahlung emission. The bremsstrahlung emissivity is given by

$$ϵ_b=6.8\times 10^{38}n^2T^{0.5}e^{h\nu /kT}\text{ergs}\text{cm}^3\text{s}^1\text{Hz}^1.$$
(80)
In the Keplerian flow, $`h\nu kT`$ within the $`210`$ keV energy range. Thus, with $`\mathrm{exp}(h\nu /kT)1`$, we have

$$L=_{2\text{keV}}^{10\text{keV}}\frac{d(h\nu )}{h}_{r_i}^{r_0}𝑑r\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi rHϵ_b=2.66\times 10^{33}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(81)
and using Equation (35), this gives

$$\dot{M}^2_{r_i}^{r_0}\frac{dr}{v_r^2Hr\sqrt{T}}0.69\times 10^6(\text{c.g.s.}).$$
(82)
But from Equations (77) and (32) we have (again in c.g.s. units)

$`{\displaystyle _{r_i}^{r_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{v_r^2Hr\sqrt{T}}}`$ $`8.3\times 10^{30}{\displaystyle _1^{r_0/r_i}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^{11}\text{K}}{T}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{0.27}{\beta _\nu }}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{0.036}{\beta _p}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{x}1)^2}{x^{4.5}}}𝑑x`$
$`1.7\times 10^{29}`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^{11}\text{K}}{T_m}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{0.27}{\beta _\nu }}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{0.036}{\beta _p}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{105}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5x_0^{2.5}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3x_0^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7x_0^{3.5}}}\right),`$ (83)
where $`x_0=r_0/r_i`$. So

$$\dot{M}2.1\times 10^{17}\left(\frac{T_m}{10^{11}\text{K}}\right)^{1.5}\left(\frac{\beta _\nu }{0.27}\right)\left(\frac{\beta _p}{0.036}\right)\left(\frac{1}{105}\frac{1}{5x_0^{2.5}}+\frac{1}{3x_0^3}\frac{1}{7x_0^{3.5}}\right)^{0.5}\text{g}\text{s}^1.$$
(84)
We point out here that the range of values giving reasonable fits to the sub-mm data (e.g., Fig. 1) falls below this limit, though close to it. Thus, the current high-energy observations of Sgr A\* do not appear to be in conflict with this model. Indeed, as one can see from this figure, the self-Comptonized spectrum fits the Chandra data rather well (Baganoff et al. 2000).

To sample the dependence of our fit on the boundary conditions, we show in Figure 8 the spectrum resulting from a Keplerian flow forming with a higher radial velocity at its outer boundary. Equation (75) shows the outer boundary temperature inceases by the same order. The implied higher viscosity results in a higher temperature over a more extended range in radii, producing a much flatter “hump” that does not adequately fit the data. This also produces too many X-rays, violating the Chandra limit. However, increasing the accretion rate through this Keplerian region will raise the cooling rate so the gas temperature decreases. But the increased column density results in a spectral bump peaking at higher frequencies than what is observed. In addition, these conditions lead to a lower X-ray flux than is observed, though this might still be consistent if the Chandra source is not the actual counterpart to Sgr A\*.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

Our calculations have shown that under the right conditions, the thermal synchrotron emission from a compact, Keplerian flow around Sgr A\* can account for the spectral (sub-mm) bump. Clearly, the peak frequency of this component is correlated to the gas temperature and column density, which characterize several key ingredients, such as the accretion rate and the advected specific angular momentum. The latter appears to be consistent with the values inferred from the large scale Bondi-Hoyle accretion (Coker & Melia 2000), but the required $`\dot{M}`$ within the circularized region is significantly lower than that expected further out. This contrast probably indicates the need for a gradual mass loss, perhaps in the form of a wind, toward smaller radii. In other words, compared to the value of $`\dot{M}`$ inferred from the hydrodynamic simulations, the maximum accretion rate permitted by the sub-mm data is several orders of magnitude smaller. Yet the specific angular momentum with which the gas circularizes is not noticeably different from that prescribed by the numerical simulations.

We note that this model would not pass the Chandra test (of a very low X-ray luminosity) if the physical conditions required to produce the sub-mm emission were more extreme than those sampled in this paper. Specifically, the sub-mm and X-ray data would not be mutually consistent within the context of this model if the accretion rate through the Keplerian region was at the Bondi-Hoyle value.

At this point, we can only speculate about what the overall accretion pattern might be like, and we target a future coupling between this analysis and a hydrodynamic simulation of the Keplerian flow merged with the larger scale accretion to address the issue of self-consistency. We anticipate that when the quasi-spherical infall begins to circularize (presumably around $`1001000r_S`$), the turbulent mixing of gas elements with high eccentricity readily dissipates the gravitational and kinetic energy densities, raising the internal energy of the gas and possibly leading to a rapid evaporation away from the rotation plane. This expulsion of a wind may cease when the eccentricity reaches a value close to zero, which should occur at a radius $`510r_S`$. At this point, the flow is very nearly Keplerian, and the dynamo process may become active and efficient, along the lines we have developed in this paper. The spectrum of Sgr A\* longward of $`12`$ mm is presumably generated within the turbulent mixing (i.e., transition) region.

The first generation of hydrodynamic simulations to address these questions are currently underway and we hope to report the results of this analysis in the very near future.

Acknowledgments We are very grateful to Fred Baganoff for sending us the early results of his X-ray analysis of the Chandra data, and to Marco Fatuzzo for his helpful discussions. This work was supported by a Sir Thomas Lyle Fellowship and a Miegunyah Fellowship for distinguished overseas visitors at the University of Melbourne, and by NASA grants NAG5-8239 and NAG5-9205 at the University of Arizona.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

KOEBE DOMAIN OF STARLIKE FUNCTIONS OF COMPLEX

ORDER WITH MONTEL NORMALIZATION

YAŞAR POLATOĞLU ,METİN BOLCAL ∗∗ AND ARZU ŞEN ∗∗∗

ABSTRACT: Let $`S^{}(1b)`$($`b0`$ complex) denote the class of functions $`f(z)=z+\alpha _2z^2+\mathrm{}`$ analytic in $`D=z|z|<1`$ which satisfies,for $`z=e^{i\theta }D`$,$`(f(z)/z)0`$ in $`D`$,and

$$Re[1+\frac{1}{b}(z\frac{f^{^{}}(z)}{f(z)}1)]>0.$$

The aim of this paper is to give the Koebe domain of the above mentioned class.

Keywords and phrases:Univalent functions,Starlike functions,Starlike functions of complex order,Montel normalization,Koebe domain.

INTRODUCTION: Let F denote the class of function $`f(z)=z+\alpha _2z^2+\mathrm{}`$ which are analytic in $`D`$ .We shall need the following definitions.

DEFINITIONS.1.1:A function $`f(z)`$ F is said to be starlike function of complex order $`(1b)`$,($`b0`$ complex) ,that is $`f(z)S^{}(1b)`$ if and only if $`(f(z)/z)0`$ in $`D`$,and

$$Re[1+\frac{1}{b}(z\frac{f^{^{}}(z)}{f(z)}1)]>0,zD$$
$`(1.1)`$
It should be noticed that by giving specific values to $`b`$ we obtain the following important subclasses.

I)$`b=1,S^{}(1b)=S(0)=S^{}`$ is the well known classes of starlike functions.

II)$`b=1\alpha ,(0\alpha <1),S^{}(1b)=S(\alpha )`$ is the class of starlike functions of order $`\alpha `$.

III)$`b=\mathrm{cos}\lambda .e^{i\lambda },S^{}(1b)=S^{}(1\mathrm{cos}\lambda .e^{i\lambda })=S_\lambda ^{},|\lambda |<\frac{\pi }{2}`$ is the class of spirallike functions.

IV)$`b=1\alpha \mathrm{cos}\lambda .e^{i\lambda },|\lambda |<\frac{\pi }{2},0\alpha <1,S^{}(1b)=S^{}(1(1\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\lambda .e^{i\lambda })=S_{\lambda ,\alpha }^{}`$ is the class of spirallike functions of order $`\alpha `$.

DEFINITIONS 1.2:The Koebe domain for the family $`F`$ is denoted by $`K(F)`$ and by the definition this is largest domain is contained in $`f(D)`$ for every function $`f(z)`$ in $`F`$.From this definition the Koebe domain has the following properties.

I) $`K(F)`$ is the collection of points $`w`$ such that $`w`$ is in $`f(D)`$for every function $`f(z)`$ in $`F`$,symbols

$$K(F)=\underset{f(z)F}{}f(D)$$
$`(1.2)`$
II)Supposing the set $`F`$ is invariant under the rotation,so $`e^{i\alpha }.f(e^{i\alpha }.z)`$ is whenever $`f(z)`$ in $`F`$.

Then the Koebe Domain will be either the single point $`w=0`$ or an open disc.$`|w|<R`$.In the second case $`R`$ is often easy to find indeed, supposing that we have a sharp lover bound $`M(r)`$ for $`f(re^{i\theta })`$for all functions in $`F`$,and $`F`$ contains only

$$R=\underset{r1^{}}{lim}M(r)$$
$`(1.3)`$
,

gives the disc $`|w|<R`$ as the Koebe Domain for the set $`F`$.\[see1.2\]

MONTEL TYPE NORMALIZATION: We can also impose a Montel type normalization. This means that for some fixed $`r_0`$with $`0<r_0<1`$,we consider the family of functions $`f(z)`$ regular and univalent in $`D`$ with $`f(0)=0,f(0)=1,f(r_0)=r_0`$. We note that: If the class of starlike functions is normalized by the Montel type normalization,then the class is denoted by.

$$S_{montel}^{}(1b)$$

II.KOEBE DOMAIN FOR THE CLASS OF STARLIKE FUNCTIONS OF COMPLEX ORDER WITH MONTEL NORMALIZATION.

In this section we shall give the Koebe Domain for the class of starlike functions of complex order with Montel normalization.

THEOREM:Let $`f(z)S^{}(1b)`$,then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{2|u|\left(1|v|^2\right)^{2b}}{(1+|b|)|v||1u\overline{v}|^{2b2}\left[|1u\overline{v}|+|uv|\right]^2}& \left|\frac{f(u)}{f(v)}\right|\hfill \\ & \\ & \frac{2|u|\left(1|v|^2\right)^{2b}}{(1+|b|)|v||1u\overline{v}|^{2b2}\left[|1u\overline{v}||uv|\right]^2}\hfill \end{array}$$

holds for $`u,vD,uv`$.This bound is sharp,because the extremal function is $`w=f(z)`$ defined for $`|z|<1`$ by

$$w=f_{}(z)=\frac{z}{(1z)^{2b}}$$

Proof: We consider the M bius transformation

$$u=\frac{z+v}{1+\overline{v}z}z=\frac{uv}{1u\overline{v}}$$
$`(2.1)`$
which is analytic and univalent in $`D`$ ,and this M bius transformation maps the unit disc on to the itself.Now we define the function:

$$F(z)=\frac{\alpha zf\left(\frac{z+\alpha }{1+\overline{\alpha }z}\right)}{f(z)(z+\alpha )(1+\overline{\alpha }z)^{2b1}}F(z)=\frac{v(1u\overline{v})^{2b1}(uv)f(u)}{u(1|v|^2)^{2b}f(v)},\alpha =v$$
$`(2.2)`$
This functions starlike function of complex order in the unit disc$`D`$.On the other hand if $`g(z)`$ is starlike f nction of complex order,then

$$\frac{2|z|}{(1+|b|).(1+|z|)^2}F(z)\frac{2|z|}{(1+|b|).(1|z|)^2}$$
$`(2.3)`$
holds.Therefore applying the inequality(2.3) to the function $`F(z)`$ which is defined by (2.2) and using the relation (2.1) we get

$$\frac{2\left|\frac{uv}{1u\overline{v}}\right|}{(1+|b|).\left(1+\left|\frac{uv}{1u\overline{v}}\right|\right)^2}\left|\frac{v(1u\overline{v})^{2b1}(uv)f(u)}{u(1|v|^2)^{2b}f(v)}\right|\frac{2\left|\frac{uv}{1u\overline{v}}\right|}{(1+|b|).\left(1\left|\frac{uv}{1u\overline{v}}\right|\right)^2}$$
$`(2.4)`$
Simple calculations from (2.4) show that this theorem is true.

COROLLARY.2.1.The Koebe Domain of starlike function of complex order with Montel type nornalization is:

$$R=\frac{(1r_0^2)^{2b}}{2(1+|b|)(12r_0\mathrm{cos}\theta +r_0^2)^{2b}},0\theta 2\pi $$

Indeed;If we take $`v=f(r_0)=r_0,0<r_0<1,u=z=re^{i\theta }`$ in theorem (2.1) we obtain.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \frac{2|re^{i\theta }|(1r_0^2)^{2b}}{(1+|b|).|1r_0re^{i\theta }|^{2b2}\left[|1r_0re^{i\theta }|+|re^{i\theta }r_0|\right]^2}\hfill & \\ & & \\ & |f(z)|\hfill & \\ & & \\ & \frac{2|re^{i\theta }|(1r_0^2)^{2b}}{(1+|b|).|1r_0re^{i\theta }|^{2b2}\left[|1r_0re^{i\theta }||re^{i\theta }r_0|\right]^2}\hfill & (2.5)\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore we have

$$M(r)=\frac{2|re^{i\theta }|(1r_0^2)^{2b}}{(1+|b|).|1r_0re^{i\theta }|^{2b2}\left[|1r_0re^{i\theta }|+|re^{i\theta }r_0|\right]^2}$$

if we take $`\underset{r1^{}}{lim}M(r)`$ we get

$$R=K(S_{montel}^{}(1b))=\frac{(1r_0^2)^{2b}}{2(1+|b|).(12r_0\mathrm{cos}\theta +r_0^2)^b}$$
$`(2.6)`$
Giving the specific values to $`b`$ we obtain the following results.

(I) For $`b=1`$

$$R=K\left(S_{montel}^{}\right)=\frac{(1r_0^2)^2}{4(12r_0\mathrm{cos}\theta +r_0^2)}$$

(II) For $`b=1\alpha ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}0}\alpha <1`$

$$R=K\left(S_{montel}^{}(\alpha )\right)=\frac{(1r_0^2)^{2(1\alpha )}}{2\alpha (12r_0\mathrm{cos}\theta +r_0^2)^{1\alpha }}$$

(III) For $`b=\mathrm{cos}\lambda e^{i\lambda },(|\lambda |<\pi /2)`$

$$R=K\left(S_{montel}^{}(1\mathrm{cos}\lambda .e^{i\lambda })\right)=\frac{(1r_0^2)^{2\mathrm{cos}\lambda .e^{i\lambda }}}{2(1+\mathrm{cos}\lambda )(12r_0\mathrm{cos}\theta +r_0^2)^{\mathrm{cos}\lambda .e^{i\lambda }}}$$

(IV) For $`b=(1\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\lambda .e^{i\lambda },(|\lambda |<\pi /2),\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}0}\alpha <1`$

$$R=K\left(S_{montel}^{}(1(1\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\lambda .e^{i\lambda })\right)=\frac{(1r_0^2)^{(1\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\lambda .e^{i\lambda }}}{(1+(1\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\lambda )(12r_0\mathrm{cos}\theta +r_0^2)^{(1\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\lambda .e^{i\lambda }}}$$

R E F E R E N C E S

\[1.\]P.L.Duren,Univalent functions,Springer Verlag,New York 1981

\[2.\]A.W.Goodman,Univalent functions,Volume I and Volume II,Mariner Publ.Co.Inc.Tampa

Florida 1983

\[3.\]J.Krzyz,On a problem of P.Montel,Ann.Polon.Math.,12.(1962) 55-60

\[4.\]Ky Fan,Distortion of Univalent functions,J.Math.Anal.Appl.66(1979)p:626-631

\[5.\]Polato lu Y,Koebe Domain for convex functions of complex order,The Punjab University Journal of Mathematics.Vol.XXX(1979)(To appear)

\[.\]YA AR POLATO LU:Department of Mathematics,Faculty of Science,University of K lt r.

\[∗∗.\]MET N BOLCAL:Department of Mathematics,Faculty of Science,University of K lt r.

\[∗∗∗.\]ARZU EN:Department of Mathematics,Faculty of Science,University of K lt r.


text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In this letter we examine the derivation of the uncertainty relations for a pair of entangled particles motivated by the recent experiment of Kim and Shih , a realization of Popper’s experiment , which can be considered an extension of the EPR argument .

Let us begin with a brief review of Popper’s experiment, as done by Kim and Shih: The entangled pair of photons are produced by Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion (SPDC). Kim and Shih’s measurements are conditional in the sense that the detection of photon 2 by a y-scanning detector $`D_2`$ is coincidental with the detection, in detector $`D_1`$, of photon 1 after its passage through slit A. (See figure 1). Two cases are considered:

1. Slit A and slit B (placed along the trajectory of photon 2) have the same width.
2. Slit B is left wide open.

The first case does not present any challenge to our understanding as the Heisenberg uncertainty relation applies to both branches. The interesting situation comes from the second set-up, where Kim and Shih’s experiment suggests that $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_2\mathrm{\Delta }p_{y_2}<\mathrm{}`$ in an apparent violation of Heisenberg relation. They explain the result invoking the necessity of working with the entangled wave function of the pair (biphoton wavefunction).

Two recent papers  have discussed this problem from yet two different points of view. The paper by Short  claims that there is no violation of the uncertainty principle and justifies this claim by affirming that the two photons:

> do not interact with each other after their initial creation and must evolve independently between measurements when they are space-like separated.

We do not agree with this assumption because we think an entangled pair of photons need not obey this. Short’s main argument is that the observed coincident patterns are dominated by a blurring of the photons’ path which he considers intrinsic to the experimental set-up of Kim and Shih. However, we could expand the pump beam diameter and invalidate Short’s analysis.

The second paper, by Unnikrishnan , approaches the problem in what seems to us the right but still incomplete way. Looking at the wave function of the entangled pair, without showing any of the actual calculations, Unnikrishnan claims that the constraint of momentum conservation explains Kim and Shih results. In the following we give a complete treatment of the problem calling attention to points that have passed unnoticed in the above mentioned papers.

## 2 OUR RESULTS

In agreement with  we recognize that when dealing with entangled systems we should not use wave functions that describe the isolated evolution of a member of the system, but rather we should use the entangled wave function of the system. These entangled wave functions have to obey the symmetrization rules of Quantum Mechanics: (anti-) symmetric wave functions for (fermions) bosons.

It is however less known, despite appearing in some text books , the fact that for a correlated system (entangled system) we must deal with what is called physical observables, which have to obey symmetry requirements as well. As shown by Cohen-Tannoudji , physical observables must commute with all the permutation operators that appear in the system.

We restrict ourselves to the case of a pair of correlated particles, but a generalization to a system of N entangled particles is straightforward.

Let us define the following operator:

$$𝒪(1,2)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}A_i(1)B_i(2),$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is an integer greater than zero, not necessarily equal to the number of entangled particles (an example is the total angular momentum of two particles $`J(1,2)=L(1)_2+S(1)_2+_1L(2)+_1S(2)`$, where $`L(i)`$, $`S(i)`$ and $`_i`$ are the orbital, spin angular momentum and the identity operator of particle $`i`$). $`A_i(1)`$ and $`B_i(2)`$ can be any observables initially defined in the state spaces $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$ of particles 1 and 2, and then extended into $`(1,2)`$, the state space of the two-particle system. The state space $`(1,2)`$ is the tensor product of the state spaces of particles 1 and 2, $`(1,2)=(1)(2)`$.

The operator $`𝒪(1,2)`$ is called a physical observable if it satisfies the following commutation relation:

$$[𝒪(1,2),P_{21}]=0,$$
(2)
where $`P_{21}`$ is the permutation operator in the state space $`(1,2)`$. It can be shown  that $`P_{21}`$ is hermitian and obeys the following relation:

$$P_{21}𝒪(1,2)P_{21}^{}=𝒪(2,1).$$
(3)
Using Eq. (3) and defining the extended position and momentum operators, in a given direction, $`Q(1,2)=Q(1)_2+_1Q(2)`$ and $`P(1,2)=P(1)_2+_1P(2)`$, where $`_i`$ is the identity operator in the state space of particle i, we can show that:

$$[Q(1,2),P_{21}]=[P(1,2),P_{21}]=0.$$
(4)
Therefore, $`Q(1,2)`$ and $`P(1,2)`$ are physical observables.

Experimentally, in a coincidence measurement, $`Q(1,2)`$ is the sum of the positions of both particles and $`P(1,2)`$ gives the total momentum of the system in a given direction. We now require that when deducing the uncertainty relation for a correlated system we should use only physical observables as follows:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }Q(1,2))^2(\mathrm{\Delta }P(1,2))^2\frac{[Q(1,2),P(1,2)]^2}{4}.$$
(5)
We cannot have the traditional relations

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }Q(i))^2(\mathrm{\Delta }P(i))^2\frac{[Q(i),P(i)]^2}{4},$$
(6)
because $`Q(i)`$ and $`P(i)`$, where $`i=1`$ or $`i=2`$, are not physical observables (they do not commute with the permutation operator). Manipulating Eq. (5) we have (from now on we write $`Q(i)=Q_i`$ and $`P(i)=P_i`$ to simplify notation):

$$[(\mathrm{\Delta }Q_1)^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }Q_2)^2+2(Q_1Q_2Q_1Q_2)]\times $$

$$[(\mathrm{\Delta }P_1)^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }P_2)^2+2(P_1P_2P_1P_2)]\mathrm{}^2.$$
(7)
Assuming, as done by Popper and implictly by Kim and Shih, that $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_1=\mathrm{\Delta }Q_2`$ we get:

$$[(\mathrm{\Delta }Q_2)^2+(Q_1Q_2Q_1Q_2)]\times $$

$$\left[\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }P_1)^2}{2}+\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }P_2)^2}{2}+(P_1P_2P_1P_2)\right]\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}.$$
(8)
This last expression should be the correct uncertainty relation when treating a correlated pair of particles and not the naive Heisenberg uncertainty relation:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }Q_2)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }P_2)^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}.$$
(9)
We suggest that Kim and Shih’s experimental results should be analyzed using Eq. (8) instead of Eq. (9). We should mention that A. C. de la Torre, P. Catuogno and, S. Ferrando  had already obtained the functions $`P_1P_2P_1P_2`$ and $`Q_1Q_2Q_1Q_2`$, which they call Quantum Covariance Functions (QCF), in a quite different context. They had proved that the QCF vanishes if and only if the system is separable. This means that, as entanglement of a pair of identical particles means non-separability, the QCF does not vanish in Eq. (8) and we do have an uncertainty relation that is different from Heisenberg’s.

In order to illustrate what we have discussed up to this point we now study Eq. (8) for a particular 1-dimensional wave function:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2,t)=f(k_1,k_2)\mathrm{exp}[i(k_1x_1+k_2x_2+\omega t)]𝑑k_1𝑑k_2,$$
(10)
where $`\omega =\frac{E}{\mathrm{}}`$, $`E`$ is the energy of the system, $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are the wave numbers of particles 1 and 2 respectively and

$$f(k_1,k_2)=\frac{a}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{a^2}{4}(k_1k_0)^2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{a^2}{4}(k_2+k_0)^2\right)\right]+$$

$$\frac{a}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{a^2}{4}(k_1+k_0)^2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{a^2}{4}(k_2k_0)^2\right)\right].$$
(11)
Eq. (11) represents a symmetric correlated pair of particles where $`k_1+k_2=0`$, that is, $`k_1=k_2=k_0`$ or $`k_1=k_2=k_0`$. Setting $`t=0`$ in Eq. (10) we show that for $`k_0x_11`$ and $`k_0x_21`$ that:

$$x_1=x_2=p_1=p_2=0,$$
(12)
$$x_1x_2=\frac{k_0^2a^4}{2};p_1p_2=2\mathrm{}^2k_0^2.$$
(13)
Eq. (13) shows that Eq. (8) should not be equal to the usual Heisenberg uncertainty relation.

## 3 CONCLUSION

We have suggested here that when dealing with entangled systems of identical particles we should use physical observables (those that commute with all the permutation operators of the system) in whatever calculations we perform using the (anti-) symmetric wave function of the system.

Applying the above assumption in the deduction of the uncertainty relation for a pair of entangled particles we have got (see Eq. (8)) a relation which is more general than Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation.

This new relation should not reduce to Heisenberg’s relation when the particles are correlated.

This generalized uncertainty relation suggests that, in conditional measurements, we can have states where $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_1\mathrm{\Delta }P_1<\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$. An example is the photon at the virtual slit in the experiment of Kim and Shih. We can even get, at least theoretically, for example, a minimum dispersion for position without a divergence in the momentum dispersion. These possibilities we intend to explore further in the future.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author acknowledges important suggestions, encouragement and useful discussions from C. O. Escobar and L. F. Santos. This research was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo.

## REFERENCES

* Y. H. Kim and Y. Shih, “Experimental realization of Popper’s experiment: Violation of the uncertainty principle?,” Found. Phys. 29, 1849 (1999).
* K. R. Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (Hutchinson, London, 1982).
* A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?,” Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
* A. J. Short, “Popper’s experiment and conditional uncertainty relations,” Found. Phys. 14, 275 (2001), quant-ph/0005063.
* C. S. Unnikrishnan, “Popper’s experiment, uncertainty principle, signal locality and momentum conservation,” Found. Phys. Lett. 13, 197 (2000).
* C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Bernard Diu, and Franck Laloë, Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 2 (Hermann and John Wiley & Sons, Paris, 1977).
* A. C. de la Torre, P. Catuogno, and S. Ferrando, “Uncertainty and nonseparability,” Found. Phys. Lett. 2, 235 (1989).


text:
# Testing Neutrino Properties at Long Baseline Experiments and Neutrino Factories*footnote **footnote *Presented at the NuFACT’00, Monterey, May 22-26, 2000, to be published in the proceedings.

## I Introduction

In this talk I would like to (a) review some non-oscillatory explanations for the atmospheric neutrino data, and how they can be distinguished from the conventional oscillatory explanations in future neutrino experiments; and (b) describe briefly the strong limits that can be placed on CPT violation both from existing data as well as future experiments especially at neutrino factories.

## II Neutrino Decay, Decoherence and Extra Dimensions

Decay

If neutrinos do have masses and mixings; then in general, in addition to oscillating, the heavier neutrinos will decay to lighter ones via flavor changing processes. The only questions are (a) whether the lifetimes are short enough to be interesting and (b) what are the dominant decay modes. To be specific, let us assume that neutrino masses are at most of order eV.

For eV neutrinos, the only radiative mode possible is $`\nu _i\nu _j+\gamma `$. From the existing bounds on neutrino magnetic moments, indirect (but model independent) bounds on the decay rates for this mode can be derived: $`10^{11}s^1,10^{17}s^1`$ and $`10^{19}s^1`$ for $`\nu _\tau ,\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _e`$ respectively.

The decay rate for the invisible three body decay $`\nu _i\nu _j\nu \overline{\nu }`$ can be written (for $`m_im_j)`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{ϵ_i^2G_F^2m_i^5}{192\pi ^3}$$
(1)
The current experimental bound on $`ϵ_\mu `$ is of 0(100) (the one loop result in SM is $`ϵ^2\stackrel{}{<}3.10^{12})`$ and thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for $`m_i0(eV)`$ has to be less than $`10^{30}`$ s<sup>-1</sup>.

The possible existence of a $`I_w=0`$, $`J=0`$ and $`L=0`$ massless particle, $`\chi `$ (such as a Nambu-Goldstone boson of broken family symmetry) leads to a flavor changing decay mode:

$$\nu {}_{\alpha _L}{}^{}\nu {}_{\beta _L}{}^{}+\chi $$
(2)
By $`SU(2)_L`$ symmetry decays $`\mathrm{}_\alpha \mathrm{}_\beta +\chi `$ will occur with the same strength. Current bounds on $`BR(\mu e\chi )`$ and on $`BR(\tau \mu \chi )`$ of $`2.10^6`$ and $`7.10^6`$ respectively are sufficient to constrain $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ lifetimes to be longer than $`10^{29}`$ s and $`10^{20}`$ s.

The only possibility for fast invisible decays of neutrinos seems to lie with majoron models. There are two classes of models; the I=1 Gelmini-Roncadelli majoron and the I=0 Chikasige-Mohapatra-Peccei majoron. In general, one can choose the majoron to be a mixture of the two; furthermore the coupling can be to flavor as well as sterile neutrinos. The effective interaction is of the form:

$$g_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta ^c\nu _\alpha J$$
(3)
giving rise to decay:

$$\nu _\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta +J$$
(4)
where $`J`$ is a massless $`J=0L=2`$ particle; $`\nu _\alpha `$ and $`\nu _\beta `$ are mass eigenstates which may be mixtures of flavor and sterile neutrinos. Models of this kind which can give rise to fast neutrino decays and satisfy the bounds below have been discussed by Valle, Joshipura and others. These models are unconstrained by $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ decays which do not arise due to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ nature of the coupling. The I=I coupling is constrained by the bound on the invisible $`Z`$ width; and requires that the Majoron be a mixture of I=1 and I=0. The couplings of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _e(g_\mu `$ and $`g_e)`$ are constrained by the limits on multi-body $`\pi ,K`$ decays $`\pi \mu \nu \nu \nu `$ and $`K\mu \nu \nu \nu `$ and on $`\mu e`$ university violation in $`\pi `$ and K decays.

Granting that models with fast, invisible decays of neutrinos can be constructed, can such decay modes be responsible for any observed neutrino anomaly?

We assume a component of $`\nu _\alpha ,`$ i.e., $`\nu _2`$, to be the only unstable state, with a rest-frame lifetime $`\tau _0`$, and we assume two flavor mixing, for simplicity:

$$\nu _\alpha =cos\theta \nu _2+sin\theta \nu _1$$
(5)
with $`m_2>m_1`$. From Eq. (2) with an unstable $`\nu _2`$, the $`\nu _\alpha `$ survival probability is

$`P_{\alpha \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`sin^4\theta +cos^4\theta \mathrm{exp}(\alpha L/E)`$
$`+`$ $`2sin^2\theta cos^2\theta \mathrm{exp}(\alpha L/2E)cos(\delta m^2L/2E),`$
where $`\delta m^2=m_2^2m_1^2`$ and $`\alpha =m_2/\tau _0`$. Since we are attempting to explain neutrino data without oscillations there are two appropriate limits of interest. One is when the $`\delta m^2`$ is so large that the cosine term averages to 0. Then the survival probability becomes

$$P_{\mu \mu }=sin^4\theta +cos^4\theta \mathrm{exp}(\alpha L/E)$$
(7)
Let this be called decay scenario A. The other possibility is when $`\delta m^2`$ is so small that the cosine term is 1, leading to a survival probability of

$$P_{\mu \mu }=(sin^2\theta +cos^2\theta \mathrm{exp}(\alpha L/2E))^2$$
(8)
We note in passing that scenario A does not provide an acceptable fit to atmospheric neutrino data . Turning to decay scenario B, consider the following possibility. The three states $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau ,\nu _s`$ (where $`\nu _s`$ is a sterile neutrino) are related to the mass eigenstates $`\nu _2,\nu _3,\nu _4`$ by the approximate mixing matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \\ \nu _s\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta & 0\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta & 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _2\\ \nu _3\\ \nu _4\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
and the decay is $`\nu _2\overline{\nu }_4+J`$. The electron neutrino, which we identify with $`\nu _1`$, cannot mix very much with the other three because of the more stringent bounds on its couplingsbarger1 , and thus our preferred solution for solar neutrinos would be small angle matter oscillations.

In this case the $`\delta m_{23}^2`$ in Eq. (6) is not related to the $`\delta m_{24}^2`$ in the decay, and can be very small, say $`<10^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$ (to ensure that oscillations play no role in the atmospheric neutrinos). Then the oscillating term is 1 and $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ is given by Eq. (8).

The decay model of Equation (8) above gives a very good fit to the Super-K data  with a minimum $`\chi ^2=33.7`$ (32 d.o.f.) for the choice of parameters

$$\tau _\nu /m_\nu =63\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{cos}^2\theta =0.30$$
(10)
and normalization $`\beta =1.17`$.

The fits (as shown in Fig. 1 in Ref. 10) show the ratios between the Super-K data and the Monte Carlo predictions calculated in the absence of oscillations or other form of ‘new physics’ beyond the standard model. The best fits of the two models (viz. $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations and decay) are of comparable quality. The reason for the similarity of the results obtained in the two models can be understood by looking at Fig. 1, where I show the survival probability $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ of muon neutrinos as a function of $`L/E_\nu `$ for the two models using the best fit parameters. In the case of the neutrino decay model (thick curve) the probability $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ monotonically decreases from unity to an asymptotic value $`\mathrm{sin}^4\theta 0.49`$. In the case of oscillations the probability has a sinusoidal behaviour in $`L/E_\nu `$. The two functional forms seem very different; however, taking into account the resolution in $`L/E_\nu `$, the two forms are hardly distinguishable. In fact, in the large $`L/E_\nu `$ region, the oscillations are averaged out and the survival probability there can be well approximated with 0.5 (for maximal mixing). In the region of small $`L/E_\nu `$ both probabilities approach unity. In the region $`L/E_\nu `$ around 400 km/GeV, where the probability for the neutrino oscillation model has the first minimum, the two curves are most easily distinguishable, at least in principle.

For the atmospheric neutrinos in Super-K, two kinds of tests have been proposed to distinguish between $`\nu _\mu `$$`\nu _\tau `$ oscillations and $`\nu _\mu `$$`\nu _s`$ oscillations. One is based on the fact that matter effects are present for $`\nu _\mu `$$`\nu _s`$ oscillations  but are nearly absent for $`\nu _\mu `$$`\nu _\tau `$ oscillations  leading to differences in the zenith angle distributions due to matter effects on upgoing neutrinos . In our case since the mixing is $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ no matter effect is expected; and hence the recent Super-K results are in accord with expectations of this decay model. The other test is based on the neutral current rate (as measured via production or multi-ring events) which is unaffected in $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations but reduced in $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ oscillations. In our case of the decay model, the neutral current rate is affected and the expectation is closer to $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ mixing.

Long-Baseline Experiments

The survival probability of $`\nu _\mu `$ as a function of $`L/E`$ is given in Eq. (1). The conversion probability into $`\nu _\tau `$ is given by

$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta (1e^{\alpha L/2E})^2.$$
(11)
This result differs from $`1P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ and hence is different from $`\nu _\mu `$$`\nu _\tau `$ oscillations. Furthermore, $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )+P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )`$ is not 1 but is given by

$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )+P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )=1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (1e^{\alpha L/E})$$
(12)
and determines the amount by which the predicted neutral-current rates are affected compared to the no oscillations (or the $`\nu _\mu `$$`\nu _\tau `$ oscillations) case. Fig. 2 shows the results for $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$, $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )`$ and $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )+P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )`$ for the decay model and compare them to the $`\nu _\mu `$$`\nu _\tau `$ oscillations, for both the K2Kand MINOS(or the corresponding European project)long-baseline experiments, with the oscillation and decay parameters as determined in the fits above.

The K2K experiment, already underway, has a low energy beam $`E_\nu 1\text{}2`$ GeV and a baseline $`L=250`$ km. The MINOS experiment will have 3 different beams, with average energies $`E_\nu =3,`$ 6 and 12 GeV and a baseline $`L=732`$ km. The approximate $`L/E_\nu `$ ranges are thus 125–250 km/GeV for K2K and 50–250 km/GeV for MINOS. The comparisons in Figure 2 show that the energy dependence of $`\nu _\mu `$ survival probability and the neutral current rate can both distinguish between the decay and the oscillation models. ICANOE and especially MONOLITH can also test for the oscillation dip.

Decoherence

There are several different possibilities that can give rise to decoherence of the neutrino beam. An obvious one is violation of quantum mechanics, others are unknown (flavor specific) new interactions with environment etc. Quantum gravity effects are also expected to lead to effective decoherence.

The density matrix describing the neutrinos no longer satisfies the usual equation of motion:

$$\dot{\rho }=i[H,\rho ]$$
(13)
but rather is modified to

$$\dot{\rho }=i[H,\rho ]+D(\rho )$$
(14)
Imposing reasonable conditions on $`D(\rho )`$ it was shown by Lisi et al. that the $`\nu _\mu `$ survival probability $`P_{\mu \mu }`$ has the form:

$$P_{\mu \mu }=cos^22\theta +sin^22\theta e^{\gamma L}cos\left(\frac{\delta m^2L}{2E}\right).$$
(15)
where $`\gamma `$ is the decoherence parameter. If $`\delta m^2`$ is very small $`(\delta m^2L/2E1)`$, this reduces to

$$P_{\mu \mu }=cos^22\theta +sin^22\theta e^{\gamma L}$$
(16)
If $`\gamma =\alpha /E`$ with $`\alpha `$ constant, then an excellent fit to the Super-K data can be obtained with $`\theta =\pi /4`$ and $`\alpha 7.10^3`$ GeV/Km. (If gamma is a constant, no fit is possible and gamma can be bounded by $`10^{22}`$ GeV). The fits to Super-K data are shown in ref. 20. and they are as good as the decay or $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations. The shape of $`P_{\mu \mu }`$ as a function of L/E is very similar to the decay case as shown in Fig. 1.

Large Extra Dimensions

Recently the possibility that SM singlets propagate in extra dimensions with relatively large radii has received some attention. In addition to the graviton, right handed neutrino is an obvious candidate to propagate in some extra dimensions. The smallness of neutrino mass (for a Dirac neutrino) can be linked to this property of the right handed singlet neutrino. The implications for neutrino masses and oscillations in various scenarios have been discussed extensively . I focus on one particularly interesting possibility for atmospheric neutrinos raised by Barbieri et al . The survival probability $`P_{\mu \mu }`$ is given by

$$P_{\mu \mu }(L)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ı=1}^3V_{\alpha i}V_{\alpha i}^{}A_i(L)^2.$$
(17)
where

$$A_i(L)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}U_{on}{}_{}{}^{(i)^2}exp(i\lambda _n{}_{}{}^{(i)^2}L/2ER^2)$$
(18)
where $`n`$ runs over the tower of Kaluza-Klein states, $`\lambda ^{(i)}{}_{n}{}^{}/R^2`$ are the eigenvalues of the mass-squared matrix and $`U_{on}^{(i)}(1/\pi ^2\xi ^2)`$ are the matrix elements of the diagonalizing unitary matrix.

An excellent fit to the atmospheric neutrino data can be obtained with the following choice of parameters:

$$\xi _3=m_3R3,1/R10^3eV,V_{\mu 3}^20.4.$$
(19)
The fit to Super-K data is shown in Ref.27 and obviously it is as good as oscillations. This case corresponds to $`\nu _\mu `$ oscillating into $`\nu _\tau `$ and a large number(about 25) of Kaluza-Klein states. Because of the mixing with a large number of closely spaced states, the dip in oscillations gets washed out and $`P_{\mu \mu }`$ looks very much like the decay model as shown in the Fig. 1.

## III CPT Violation in Neutrino Oscillations

Consequences of $`CP`$, $`T`$ and $`CPT`$ violation for neutrino oscillations have been written down beforeK . We summarize them briefly for the $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta `$ flavor oscillation probabilities $`P_{\alpha \beta }`$ at a distance $`L`$ from the source. If

$$P_{\alpha \beta }(L)P_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}(L),\beta \alpha ,$$
(20)
then $`CP`$ is not conserved. If

$$P_{\alpha \beta }(L)P_{\beta \alpha }(L),\beta \alpha ,$$
(21)
then $`T`$-invariance is violated. If

$`P_{\alpha \beta }(L)`$ $``$ $`P_{\overline{\beta }\overline{\alpha }}(L),\beta \alpha ,`$ (22)
or
$`P_{\alpha \alpha }(L)`$ $``$ $`P_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\alpha }}(L),`$ (23)
then $`CPT`$ is violated. When neutrinos propagate in matter, matter effects give rise to apparent $`CP`$ and $`CPT`$ violation even if the mass matrix is $`CP`$ conserving.

The $`CPT`$ violating terms can be Lorentz-invariance violating (LV) or Lorentz invariant. The Lorentz-invariance violating, $`CPT`$ violating case has been discussed by Colladay and KosteleckyB  and by Coleman and GlashowA .

The effective LV $`CPT`$ violating interaction for neutrinos is of the form

$$\overline{\nu }_L^\alpha b_\mu ^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _\mu \nu _L^\beta ,$$
(24)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are flavor indices. We assume rotational invariance in the “preferred” frame, in which the cosmic microwave background radiation is isotropic (following Coleman and Glashow A ).

$$m^2/2p+b_0,$$
(25)
where $`b_0`$ is a hermitian matrix, hereafter labeled $`b`$.

In the two-flavor case the neutrino phases may be chosen such that $`b`$ is real, in which case the interaction in Eq. (24) is $`CPT`$ odd. The survival probabilities for flavors $`\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\alpha }`$ produced at $`t=0`$ are given byA

$`P_{\alpha \alpha }(L)`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }L/4),`$ (26)
and
$`P_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\alpha }}(L)`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{sin}^22\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{sin}^2(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}L/4),`$ (27)
where
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`\left|(\delta m^2/E)\mathrm{sin}2\theta _m+2\delta be^{i\eta }\mathrm{sin}2\theta _b\right|,`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta m^2/E)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _m+2\delta b\mathrm{cos}2\theta _b.`$ (29)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ are defined by similar equations with $`\delta b\delta b`$. Here $`\theta _m`$ and $`\theta _b`$ define the rotation angles that diagonalize $`m^2`$ and $`b`$, respectively, $`\delta m^2=m_2^2m_1^2`$ and $`\delta b=b_2b_1`$, where $`m_i^2`$ and $`b_i`$ are the respective eigenvalues. We use the convention that $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _m`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _b`$ are positive and that $`\delta m^2`$ and $`\delta b`$ can have either sign. The phase $`\eta `$ in Eq. (28) is the difference of the phases in the unitary matrices that diagonalize $`\delta m^2`$ and $`\delta b`$; only one of these two phases can be absorbed by a redefinition of the neutrino states.

Observable $`CPT`$-violation in the two-flavor case is a consequence of the interference of the $`\delta m^2`$ terms (which are $`CPT`$-even) and the LV terms in Eq. (24) (which are $`CPT`$-odd); if $`\delta m^2=0`$ or $`\delta b=0`$, then there is no observable $`CPT`$-violating effect in neutrino oscillations. If $`\delta m^2/E2\delta b`$ then $`\mathrm{\Theta }\theta _m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta m^2/E`$, whereas if $`\delta m^2/E2\delta b`$ then $`\mathrm{\Theta }\theta _b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }2\delta b`$. Hence the effective mixing angle and oscillation wavelength can vary dramatically with $`E`$ for appropriate values of $`\delta b`$.

We note that a $`CPT`$-odd resonance for neutrinos ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }=1`$) occurs whenever $`\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ or

$$(\delta m^2/E)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _m+2\delta b\mathrm{cos}2\theta _b=0;$$
(30)
similar to the resonance due to matter effects F ; G . The condition for antineutrinos is the same except $`\delta b`$ is replaced by $`\delta b`$. The resonance occurs for neutrinos if $`\delta m^2`$ and $`\delta b`$ have the opposite sign, and for antineutrinos if they have the same sign. A resonance can occur even when $`\theta _m`$ and $`\theta _b`$ are both small, and for all values of $`\eta `$; if $`\theta _m=\theta _b`$, a resonance can occur only if $`\eta 0`$. If one of $`\nu _\alpha `$ or $`\nu _\beta `$ is $`\nu _e`$, then matter effects have to be included.

If $`\eta =0`$, then

$`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ,`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta m^2/E)+2\delta b.`$ (32)
In this case a resonance is not possible. The oscillation probabilities become

$`P_{\alpha \alpha }(L)`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{4E}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta b}{2}}\right)L\right\},`$ (33)
$`P_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\alpha }}(L)`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{4E}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta b}{2}}\right)L\right\}.`$ (34)
For fixed $`E`$, the $`\delta b`$ terms act as a phase shift in the oscillation argument; for fixed $`L`$, the $`\delta b`$ terms act as a modification of the oscillation wavelength.

An approximate direct limit on $`\delta b`$ when $`\alpha =\mu `$ can be obtained by noting that in atmospheric neutrino data the flux of downward going $`\nu _\mu `$ is not depleted whereas that of upward going $`\nu _\mu `$ is. Hence, the oscillation arguments in Eqs. (33) and (34) cannot have fully developed for downward neutrinos. Taking $`|\delta bL/2|<\pi /2`$ with $`L20`$ km for downward events leads to the upper bound $`|\delta b|<3\times 10^{20}`$ GeV; upward going events could in principle test $`|\delta b|`$ as low as $`5\times 10^{23}`$ GeV. Since the $`CPT`$-odd oscillation argument depends on $`L`$ and the ordinary oscillation argument on $`L/E`$, improved direct limits could be obtained by a dedicated study of the energy and zenith angle dependence of the atmospheric neutrino data.

The difference between $`P_{\alpha \alpha }`$ and $`P_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\alpha }}`$

$$P_{\alpha \alpha }(L)P_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\alpha }}(L)=2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\delta m^2L}{2E}\right)\mathrm{sin}(\delta bL),$$
(35)
can be used to test for $`CPT`$-violation. In a neutrino factory, the ratio of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ to $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ events will differ from the standard model (or any local quantum field theory model) value if $`CPT`$ is violated. Fig. 3 shows the event ratios $`N(\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu )/N(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ versus $`\delta b`$ for a neutrino factory with 10<sup>19</sup> stored muons and a 10 kt detector at several values of stored muon energy, assuming $`\delta m^2=3.5\times 10^3`$ eV<sup>2</sup> and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta =1.0`$, as indicated by the atmospheric neutrino data. The error bars in Fig. 3 are representative statistical uncertainties. The node near $`\delta b=8\times 10^{22}`$ GeV is a consequence of the fact that $`P_{\alpha \alpha }=P_{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\alpha }}`$, independent of $`E`$, whenever $`\delta bL=n\pi `$, where $`n`$ is any integer; the node in Fig. 3 is for $`n=1`$. A $`3\sigma `$ $`CPT`$ violation effect is possible in such an experiment for $`\delta b`$ as low as $`3\times 10^{23}`$ GeV for stored muon energies of 20 GeV. Although matter effects also induce an apparent $`CPT`$-violating effect, the dominant oscillation here is $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$, which has no matter corrections in the two-neutrino limit; in any event, the matter effect is in general small for distances much shorter than the Earth’s radius.

We have also checked the observability of $`CPT`$ violation at other distances, assuming the same neutrino factory parameters used above. For $`L=250`$ km, the $`\delta bL`$ oscillation argument in Eq. (35) has not fully developed and the ratio of $`\overline{\nu }`$ to $`\nu `$ events is still relatively close to the standard model value. For $`L=2900`$ km, a $`\delta b`$ as low as $`10^{23}`$ GeV may be observable at the $`3\sigma `$ level. However, longer distances may also have matter effects that simulate $`CPT`$ violation.

## IV Summary

At Long Baseline Experiments and Neutrino Factories true signatures of oscillations (dips) can be established and decay like scenarios can be excluded with confidence. Furthermore these facilities can test CPT conservation at levels better than $`10^{23}`$ GeV.

Acknowledgments

I thank Vernon Barger, John Learned, Eligio Lisi, Paolo Lipari, Maurizio Lusignoli, Tom Weiler and Kerry Whisnant for extensive discussions and collaboration. This work was supported in part by U.S.D.O.E under grant DE-FG 03-94ER40833.