text:
# Electrovacuum Static Counter-Rotating Relativistic Dust Disks

## 1 Introduction

Stationary or static axially symmetric exact solutions of Einstein equations describing relativistic thin disks are of great astrophysical importance since can be used as models of certain stars, galaxies, accretion disk and universes. Theses were first studied by Bonnor and Sackfield , obtaining pressureless static disks, and then by Morgan and Morgan, obtaining static disks with and without radial pressure . In connection with gravitational collapse, disks were first studied by Chamorro, Gregory and Stewart . Disks with radial tension have been also recently studied . Several classes of exact solutions of the Einstein field equations corresponding to static and stationary thin disks have been obtained by different authors \[ReferencesReferences\], with or without radial pressure.

In the case of static disks without radial pressure, there are two common interpretations. The stability of these models can be explained by either assuming the existence of hoop stresses or that the particles on the disk plane move under the action of their own gravitational field in such a way that as many particles move clockwise as counterclockwise. This last interpretation, the “Counter-Rotating Model” (CRM), is frequently made since it can be invoked to mimic true rotational effects. Even though this interpretation can be seen as a device, there are observational evidence of disks made of streams of rotating and counter-rotating matter .

Disklike sources in presence of electrogmatic fields, specially magnetic fields, are also of astrophysical interest mainly in the study of neutron stars, white dwarfs and galaxy formation. In the context of general relativity models of disks for Kerr-Newman metrics , static axisymmetric spacetimes with magnetic fields  and corformastationary metrics , have been considered recently. Following the Ref.  the resultating disks can also be interpreted either as rings with internal pressure and currents or as two counter-rotating streams of freely moving charged particles, i.e. which move along electrogeodesics (solution to the geodesic equation in the presence of a Lorentz force).

The aim of this paper is to perform a detailed study of the CRM for generic electrostatic (magnetostatic) axially symmetric thin disks without radial pressure. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we present a summary of the procedure to obtain thin disks models as rings with a purely azimuthal pressure and currents using the well-known “displace, cut and reflect” method extended to solutions of Einstein-Maxwell equations. In particular, we obtain expressions for the surface energy-momentum tensor and the electrostatic (magnetostatic) current density of the disk. Next, in Sec. 3, the disks are interpreted in terms of the CRM. We find a general constraint over the counter-rotating tangential velocities needed to cast the surface energy-momentum tensor of the disk as the superposition of two counter-rotating charged dust fluids. We then show that this constraint is satisfied if we take the two counter-rotating streams as circulating along electrogeodesics with equal and opposite tangential velocities. We also find explicit expressions for the energy densities, electrostatic (magnetostatic) current densities and velocities of the counter-rotating fluids. In following section, Secs. 4, three specific examples are considered based in simple solutions to the Einstein-Maxwell equations. The considered solutions are Reissner-Nordström in the electrostatic case, its magnetostatic counterpart, and two solutions generated from Taub-NUT and Kerr solutions. In particular, we study the tangential velocities, mass densities and electrostatic (magnetostatic) charge densities of both streams. Also the stability against radial perturbation is considered. Finally, in Sec. 5, we summarize our main results.

## 2  Static Relativistic Thin Disks

In this section we present a summary of the procedure to obtain electrostatic (magnetostatic) axially symmetric thin disks. The simplest metric to describe a static axially symmetric spacetime is the Weyl’s line element

$$ds^2=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}[r^2d\phi ^2+e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}(dr^2+dz^2)]e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}dt^2,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are functions of $`r`$ and $`z`$ only. The Einstein-Maxwell field equations, in geometrized units such that $`8\pi G=c=\mu _0=\epsilon _0=1`$, are given by

$`R_{ab}=T_{ab},`$ (2a)
$`T_{ab}=F_{ac}F_b^c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{ab}F_{cd}F^{cd},`$ (2b)
$`F_{;b}^{ab}=0,`$ (2c)
$`F_{ab}=A_{a,b}A_{b,a},`$ (2d)
where all symbols are understood. For the metric (1), the Einstein-Maxwell equations in presense of purely electric field are equivalent to the system

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{,rr}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,zz}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}}{2}}(\psi _{,r}^2+\psi _{,z}^2)=0,`$ (3a)
$`\psi _{,rr}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\psi _{,r}+\psi _{,zz}2(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r}\psi _{,r}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,z}\psi _{,z})=0,`$ (3b)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,r}=r(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r}^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{,z}^2){\displaystyle \frac{re^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}}{2}}(\psi _{,r}^2\psi _{,z}^2),`$ (3c)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,z}=2r\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,z}re^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\psi _{,r}\psi _{,z},`$ (3d)
and in the magnetostatic case to

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{,rr}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,zz}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}}{2r^2}}(A_{,r}^2+A_{,z}^2)=0,`$ (4a)
$`A_{,rr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}A_{,r}+A_{,zz}+2(A_{,r}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r}+A_{,z}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,z})=0,`$ (4b)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,r}=r(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r}^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{,z}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}}{2r}}(A_{,r}^2A_{,z}^2),`$ (4c)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,z}=2r\mathrm{\Phi }_{,r}\mathrm{\Phi }_{,z}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}A_{,r}A_{,z},`$ (4d)
where $`\psi `$ and $`A`$ are the magnetostatic and electrostatic potencial, respectively, which are also functions of $`r`$ and $`z`$.

In order to obtain a solution of (4) - (3) representing a thin disc at $`z=0`$, we assume that the components of the metric tensor are continuous across the disk, but their discontinuous first derivates on plane $`z=0`$, with discontinuity functions

$$b_{ab}=g_{ab,z}|_{_{z=0^+}}g_{ab,z}|_{_{z=0^{}}}=2g_{ab,z}|_{_{z=0^+}}.$$

Thus, the Einstein-Maxwell equations yield an energy-momentum tensor $`T_a^b=Q_a^b\delta (z)`$ and a planar current density $`\mathrm{i}^a=2F^{az}\delta (z)`$ , where $`\delta (z)`$ is the usual Dirac function with support on the disk and

$$Q_b^a=\frac{1}{2}\{b^{az}\delta _b^zb^{zz}\delta _b^a+g^{az}b_b^zg^{zz}b_b^a+b_c^c(g^{zz}\delta _b^ag^{az}\delta _b^z)\}$$

is the distributional energy-momentum tensor. The “true” surface energy-momentum tensor (SEMT) of the disk, $`S_a^b`$, can be obtained through the relation

$$S_a^b=T_a^b𝑑s_n=e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }}Q_a^b,$$
(5)
where $`ds_n=\sqrt{g_{zz}}dz`$ is the “physical measure” of length in the direction normal to the disk, and the current density as $`\mathrm{j}^a=e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{i}^a`$. For the metric (1), the non-zero components of $`S_a^b`$ are

$`S_0^0`$ $`=2e^{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }}\{\mathrm{\Lambda },_z2\mathrm{\Phi },_z\},`$ (6a)
$`S_1^1`$ $`=2e^{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda },_z,`$ (6b)
and current density equal to

$`\mathrm{j}_t`$ $`=2e^{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }}\psi _{,z},`$ (7a)
$`\mathrm{j}_\phi `$ $`=2e^{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }}A_{,z},`$ (7b)
in the electrostatic and magnetostatic cases, respectively. All the quantities are evaluated at $`z=0^+`$.

With an orthonormal tetrad $`\mathrm{e}_{\widehat{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}=\{V^b,W^b,X^b,Y^b\}`$, where

$`V^a`$ $`=`$ $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }(1,0,0,0),`$ (8a)
$`W^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^\mathrm{\Phi }}{r}}(0,1,0,0),`$ (8b)
$`X^a`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(0,0,1,0),`$ (8c)
$`Y^a`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }}(0,0,0,1),`$ (8d)
we can write the metric and the SEMT in the canonical forms

$`g_{ab}=V_aV_b+W_aW_b+X_aX_b+Y_aY_b,`$ (9a)
$`S_{ab}=ϵV_aV_b+p_\phi W_aW_b,`$ (9b)
where

$$ϵ=S_0^0,p_\phi =S_1^1,$$
(10)
are, respectively, the energy density and the azimuthal pressure of the disk.

## 3 The Counter-Rotating Model

We now consider, based on references  and , the possibility that the SEMT $`S^{ab}`$ and the current density $`\mathrm{j}^a`$ can be written as the superposition of two counter-rotating fluids that circulate in opposite directions; that is, we assume

$`S^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`S_+^{ab}+S_{}^{ab},`$ (11a)
$`\mathrm{j}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{j}_+^a+\mathrm{j}_{}^a,`$ (11b)
where the quantities in the right-hand side are, respectively, the SEMT and the current density of the prograd and retrograd counter-rotating fluids.

Let $`U_\pm ^a=(U_\pm ^0,U_\pm ^1,0,0)`$ be the velocity vectors of the two counter-rotating fluids. In order to do the decomposition (11a) and (11b) we project the velocity vectors onto the tetrad $`\mathrm{e}_{\widehat{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}`$, using the relations

$$U_\pm ^{\widehat{a}}=\mathrm{e}_{}^{\widehat{a}}{}_{b}{}^{}U_\pm ^b,U_\pm ^a=U_\pm ^{\widehat{c}}\mathrm{e}_{\widehat{c}}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}.$$
(12)
With the tetrad (8) we can write

$$U_\pm ^a=\frac{V^a+\mathrm{U}_\pm W^a}{\sqrt{1\mathrm{U}_\pm ^2}},$$
(13)
and thus

$`V^a`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1\mathrm{U}_{}^2}\mathrm{U}_+U_{}^a\sqrt{1\mathrm{U}_+^2}\mathrm{U}_{}U_+^a}{\mathrm{U}_+\mathrm{U}_{}}},`$ (14a)
$`W^a`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1\mathrm{U}_+^2}U_+^a\sqrt{1\mathrm{U}_{}^2}U_{}^a}{\mathrm{U}_+\mathrm{U}_{}}},`$ (14b)
where $`\mathrm{U}_\pm =U_\pm ^{\widehat{1}}/U_\pm ^{\widehat{0}}`$ are the tangential velocities of the fluids with respect to the tetrad.

Using (14), we can write the SEMT as

$`S^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(\mathrm{U}_{},\mathrm{U}_{})(1\mathrm{U}_+^2)U_+^aU_+^b}{(\mathrm{U}_+\mathrm{U}_{})^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(\mathrm{U}_+,\mathrm{U}_+)(1\mathrm{U}_{}^2)U_{}^aU_{}^b}{(\mathrm{U}_+\mathrm{U}_{})^2}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(\mathrm{U}_+,\mathrm{U}_{})(1\mathrm{U}_+^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}(1\mathrm{U}_{}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}(U_+^aU_{}^b+U_{}^aU_+^b)}{(\mathrm{U}_+\mathrm{U}_{})^2}},`$
where

$$f(\mathrm{U}_1,\mathrm{U}_2)=ϵ\mathrm{U}_1\mathrm{U}_2+p_\phi .$$
(15)
Clearly, in order to cast the SEMT in the form (11a), the mixed term must be absent and therefore the counter-rotating tangential velocities must be related by

$$f(\mathrm{U}_+,\mathrm{U}_{})=0,$$
(16)
where we assume that $`|\mathrm{U}_\pm |1`$. Then, assuming a given choice for the counter-rotating velocities in agreement with the above relation, we can write the SEMT as (11a) with

$$S_\pm ^{ab}=ϵ_\pm U_\pm ^aU_\pm ^b,$$
(17)
so that we have two counter-rotating dust fluids with energy densities given by

$$ϵ_\pm =\left[\frac{1\mathrm{U}_\pm ^2}{\mathrm{U}_{}\mathrm{U}_\pm }\right]\mathrm{U}_{}ϵ.$$
(18)
Thus the SEMT $`S^{ab}`$ can be written as the superposition of two counter-rotating dust streams if, and only if, the constraint (16) admits a solution such that $`\mathrm{U}_+\mathrm{U}_{}`$. This result is completely equivalent to the necessary and sufficient condition obtained in reference .

Similarly, we can write the current density in both cases as (11b) with

$$\mathrm{j}_\pm ^a=\sigma _\pm U_\pm ^a,$$
(19)
where $`\sigma _\pm `$ are the counter-rotating rest-charge densities of the fluids which are given by

$`\sigma _{e\pm }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{J}^0}{V^0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1\mathrm{U}_\pm ^2}}{\mathrm{U}\mathrm{U}\pm }}\right]\mathrm{U},`$ (20a)
$`\sigma _{m\pm }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{J}^1}{W^1}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1\mathrm{U}_\pm ^2}}{\mathrm{U}\pm \mathrm{U}}}\right],`$ (20b)
respectively. Note that the counter-rotating energy densities $`ϵ_\pm `$ and electrostatic (magnetostatic) charge densities $`\sigma _{e\pm }(\sigma _{m\pm })`$ are not uniquely defined by the above relations, also for definite values of $`\mathrm{U}_\pm `$.

Another quantity related with the counter-rotating motion is the specific angular momentum of a particle rotating at a radius $`r`$, defined as $`h_\pm =g_{\phi \phi }U_\pm ^\phi `$. We can write

$$h_\pm =\frac{re^\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{U}_\pm }{\sqrt{1\mathrm{U}_\pm ^2}}.$$
(21)
This quantity can be used to analyze the stability of the disks against radial perturbations. The condition of stability,

$$\frac{d(h^2)}{dr}>0,$$
(22)
is an extension of Rayleigh criteria of stability of a fluid in rest in a gravitational field .

We shall now analyze the possibility of a complete determination of the vectors $`U_\pm ^a`$. As we can see, the constraint (16) does not determine $`\mathrm{U}_\pm `$ uniquely, and so there is a freedom in the choice of $`U_\pm ^a`$. A possibility, commonly assumed, is to take the two counter-rotating fluids as circulating along electro-geodesics

$$\frac{1}{2}ϵ_\pm g_{ab,r}U_\pm ^aU_\pm ^b=\sigma _\pm F_{ra}U_\pm ^a.$$
(23)
Let $`\omega _\pm =U_\pm ^1/U_\pm ^0`$ be the angular velocities of the particles. Using (13), (18) and (20a), in electrostatic case (23) takes the form

$$g_{11,r}\omega ^2+g_{00,r}=\frac{2\mathrm{j}^0V_0^2}{ϵ}\psi _{,r},$$
(24)
so that

$$\omega _\pm =\pm \omega ,\omega ^2=\frac{g_{00,r}}{g_{11,r}}\frac{2\mathrm{j}^0V_0^2}{ϵg_{11,r}}\psi _{,r},$$
(25)
and similarly, using (20b) instead of (20a) in magnetostatic case we obtain

$$g_{11,r}\omega ^2+g_{00,r}=\frac{2\mathrm{j}^1V_0^2}{ϵ}A_{,r},$$
(26)
so that

$$\omega _\pm =\pm \omega ,\omega ^2=\frac{g_{00,r}}{g_{11,r}}\frac{2\mathrm{j}^1V_0^2}{ϵg_{11,r}}A_{,r}.$$
(27)
Note that in both cases, the two geodesic fluids circulate with equal and opposite velocities.

In order to see if the geodesic velocities agree with (16), we need to compute $`f(\mathrm{U}_+,\mathrm{U}_{})`$. In terms of $`\omega _\pm `$ we get

$$\mathrm{U}_\pm =\pm \mathrm{U}=\pm \left[\frac{V^0}{W^1}\right]\omega ,$$
(28)
and so, using the Einstein-Maxwell equations (3) and (4) and the expressions (6a) - (7b) for the SEMT and the current density we can show that $`f(\mathrm{U}_+,\mathrm{U}_{})`$ vanishes in both cases, so that the constraint (16) is equivalent to

$$\mathrm{U}^2=\frac{p_\phi }{ϵ},$$
(29)
as is commonly assumed in the works concerning counter-rotating disks. We now have two counter-rotating charged dust streams with equal energy densities

$$ϵ_\pm =\frac{ϵp_\phi }{2},$$
(30)
specific angular momenta

$$h_\pm =re^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{\frac{p_\phi }{ϵp_\phi }},$$
(31)
charge densities

$`\sigma _{e\pm }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{j}_0\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{p_\phi }{ϵ}}},`$ (32a)
$`\sigma _{m\pm }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}e^\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{j}_1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{p_\phi }}1},`$ (32b)
and velocities given by (29). As we can see, in this case we have a complete determination of all the quantities involved in the CRM.

## 4 Some Simple CRM Models

### 4.1 CRM for Reissner-Nordström like disks

The simplest electrostatic solution of the Einstein- Maxwell equations is the well-known Reissner-Nordström solution , which can be written as (1) with

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x^21}{(x+a)^2}}\right],`$ (33a)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x^21}{x^2y^2}}\right],`$ (33b)
$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}b}{x+a}},`$ (33c)
where $`a=m/k`$, $`b=e/k`$, with $`k^2=m^2e^2`$, so that $`a^2=1+b^2`$. Here $`m`$ and $`e`$ are the mass and the charge, respectively. $`x`$ and $`y`$ are the prolate spheroidal coordinates, related to the Weyl coordinates by

$`2kx`$ $`=\sqrt{r^2+(z+z_0+k)^2}+\sqrt{r^2+(z+z_0k)^2},`$ (34a)
$`2ky`$ $`=\sqrt{r^2+(z+z_0+k)^2}\sqrt{r^2+(z+z_0k)^2}.`$ (34b)
Note that we have displaced the origin of the $`z`$ axis in $`z_0`$. This solution can be generated, in these coordinates, using the well-known complex potencial formalism proposed by Ernst  from Schwarzschild solution . Indeed for $`b=0`$, it goes over into the Schwarzschild solution. Thus, $`b`$ is the parameter governing the electric field. One can obtain its magnetostatic counterpart cumputing the magnetostatic potencial via

$`A_{,x}`$ $`=kf^1(1y^2)\psi _{,y},`$ (35a)
$`A_{,y}`$ $`=kf^1(x^21)\psi _{,x}.`$ (35b)
Thus, we find

$$A=\sqrt{2}kby,$$
(36)
again with $`a^2b^2=1`$. From the above expressions we can compute the physical quantities associated with disk. We obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\frac{4\overline{y}(\overline{x}^21)(a\overline{x}+\overline{y}^2)}{(\overline{x}+a)^2(\overline{x}^2\overline{y}^2)^{3/2}},$$
(37)
$$\stackrel{~}{p}_\phi =\frac{4\overline{x}\overline{y}(1\overline{y}^2)}{(\overline{x}+a)(\overline{x}^2\overline{y}^2)^{3/2}},$$
(38)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{j}}_t=\frac{2\sqrt{2}b\overline{y}(\overline{x}^21)}{(\overline{x}^2\overline{y}^2)^{1/2}(\overline{x}+a)^3},$$
(39)
$$\mathrm{j}_\phi =\frac{2\sqrt{2}b\overline{x}(1\overline{y}^2)}{(\overline{x}^2\overline{y}^2)^{1/2}(\overline{x}+a)},$$
(40)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=kϵ`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\phi =kp_\phi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{j}}_t=k\mathrm{j}_t`$. $`\overline{x}`$ and $`\overline{y}`$ are given by

$`2\overline{x}`$ $`=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}^2+(\alpha +1)^2}+\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}^2+(\alpha 1)^2},`$ (41a)
$`2\overline{y}`$ $`=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}^2+(\alpha +1)^2}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}^2+(\alpha 1)^2},`$ (41b)
where $`\stackrel{~}{r}=r/k`$ and $`\alpha =z_0/k`$, with $`\alpha >1`$.

In order to study the behavior of these quantities we perform a graphical analisis of them for disks with $`\alpha =1.4`$ and $`b=0`$, $`0.5`$, $`1.0`$, and $`1.5`$. In Fig. 1$`(a)`$ we show the energy density $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ as a function of $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$. We see that the energy density present a maximum at $`\stackrel{~}{r}=0`$ and then decreases rapidly with $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$. We also see that the presence of electric (magnetic) field decreases the energy density in the central regions of the disks and later increases it. For other values of $`\alpha `$ and $`b`$ we obtain a similar behavior.

In Fig. 1$`(b)`$ we plot the azimuthal pressure $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\phi `$ as function of $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$. We can observe that the pressure increases rapidly as one moves away from the disk center, reaches a maximum and later rapidly decreases. Note that electric (magnetic) field decreases the pressure everywhere on the disk. For other values of $`\alpha `$ and $`b`$ we have a similar behavior.

The electrostatic current $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{j}}_t`$ is presented in Fig. 2$`(a)`$. Similarly to the energy density, it has a maximum at the disk center and then decreases rapidly with $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$. For other values of $`\alpha `$ and $`b`$ we observe a similar behavior. In addition, the magnetostatic current $`\mathrm{j}_\phi `$ is ploted in Fig. 2$`(b)`$ as function also of $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$. As we can observe it has a similar behavior to the pressure.

We now consider the CRM for the same value of the parameters. All the significant quantities can also be expresed in analytic form from above expressions but the results are so cumbersome that it is best just to analyze them graphically. In Fig. 3$`(a)`$ we show the velocity curves of counter-rotating streams $`\mathrm{U}^2`$ as functions of $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$. We observe that it increases rapidly in the central region of the disk, achieves a maximum and later decreases monotonly. We also see that the presence of electric (magnetic) field makes least relativistic the disks. In addition, in Fig. 3$`(b)`$, we plot $`\mathrm{U}^2`$ for disks with $`b=0.5`$ and $`\alpha =1.01`$, $`1.1`$, $`1.4`$, and $`2.0`$. We find that the disks become least relativistic with increasing $`\alpha `$. We also find that the disks with $`\alpha <1`$ cannot be built from CRM because $`\mathrm{U}^2>1`$ (not shown in the figure).

In Fig. 4$`(a)`$ we have drawn the specific angular momentum $`\stackrel{~}{h}^2`$ of counter-rotating fluids, where $`\stackrel{~}{h}=h_\pm /k`$. In the cases considered we obtain $`\stackrel{~}{h}^2`$ as increasing monotonic functions of $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ what correspond to stable CRM for the disks. However, the CRM cannot be applied for $`b=4.0`$ (dotted curve). Thus the presence of electric (magnetic) field can makes unstable the CRM against radial perturbations. Finally, in Figs. 4$`(b)`$ and 5 the plots of the mass densities $`ϵ_\pm `$ and electrostatic (magnetostatic) charge densities $`\sigma _{e\pm }(\sigma _{m\pm })`$ of both streams are shown. These present a maximun at the disks center and then decrease monotonly. Therefore, the CRM constructed from this value of the parameters are well behaved.

### 4.2 CRM for Taub-NUT like disks

A Taub-NUT like solution to the Einstein-Maxwell equations is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x^21}{x^2+2ax+1}}\right],`$ (42a)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x^21}{x^2y^2}}\right],`$ (42b)
$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}bx}{x^2+2ax+1}},`$ (42c)
with $`a^2b^2=1`$. $`x`$ and $`y`$ are, again, the prolate spheroidal coordinates, given by Eqs. (34a) and (34b). This solution can also be generated, in these coordinates, using the well-known complex potencial formalism proposed by Ernst  from Weyl 2-solution (Darmois ). Indeed for $`b=0`$, it goes over into the Darmois solution . Thus, again, $`b`$ is the electric parameter. One can also obtain its magnetostatic counterpart cumputing the magnetostatic potencial using (35), and we get

$$A=2\sqrt{2}kby,$$
(43)
again with $`a^2b^2=1`$. The physical quantities associated with the disk now can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\frac{8\overline{y}[\overline{x}(a\overline{x}^33a\overline{x}2)+\overline{y}^2(2\overline{x}^3+3a\overline{x}^2a)]}{(\overline{x}^21)(\overline{x}^2+2a\overline{x}+1)^2},$$
(44)
$$\stackrel{~}{p}_\phi =\frac{16\overline{x}\overline{y}(1\overline{y}^2)}{(\overline{x}^21)(\overline{x}^2+2a\overline{x}+1)},$$
(45)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{j}}_t=\frac{4\sqrt{2}b\overline{y}(\overline{x}^21)(\overline{x}^2\overline{y}^2)}{(\overline{x}^2+2a\overline{x}+1)^3},$$
(46)
$$\mathrm{j}_\phi =\frac{4\sqrt{2}b\overline{x}(1\overline{y}^2)(\overline{x}^2\overline{y}^2)}{(\overline{x}^21)(\overline{x}^2+2a\overline{x}+1)},$$
(47)
where $`\overline{x}`$ and $`\overline{y}`$ are given by Eqs. (41a) and (41b).

In Figs. 6 and 7 the plots of the quantities $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\phi `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{j}}_t`$ and $`\mathrm{j}_\phi `$ are presented for disks with $`\alpha =2.5`$ and $`b=0`$, $`0.5`$, $`1.0`$, and $`1.5`$. We see that these disks have a similar behavior to the previous case. Equally, the relevant quantities of the CRM are shown in following figures for the same value of the parameters. Theses CRM are more relativistic than the ones built from Reissner-Nordström like solution (Fig. 8(a) ). Note that (Fig. 8(b) ) the disks with $`b=0.5`$ $`\alpha =1.5`$ (solid curve) cannot be constructed from the CRM because $`\mathrm{U}^2>1`$. We also note that the presence of electric (magnetic) field can makes unstable the CRM against radial perturbations (Fig. 9$`(a)`$). Thus the CRM cannot apply for $`b=3`$ (dotted curve) . The remaining functions are plotted for the value of the parameters representing a physically acceptable CRM (Fig. 9$`(b)`$ and 10). Also these have a similar behavior to the previous case.

### 4.3 CRM for Kerr like disks

A Kerr-like solution to the Einstein-Maxwell equations is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a^2x^2b^2y^21}{(ax+1)^2b^2y^2}}\right],`$ (48a)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a^2x^2b^2y^21}{a^2(x^2y^2)}}\right],`$ (48b)
$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}by}{(ax+1)^2b^2y^2}},`$ (48c)
with $`a^2b^2=1`$. $`x`$ and $`y`$ are, again, the prolate spheroidal coordinates, given by Eqs. (34a) and (34b). This solution can be generated, in these coordinates, using a well-know theorem proposed by Bonnor  from Kerr solution. The previous solution can also be obtained using this same theorem from Taub-NUT solution. For $`b=0`$, it also goes over into the Darmois solution. Thus, again, $`b`$ is the electric parameter. One can also obtain its magnetostatic counterpart cumputing the magnetostatic potencial using (35), and gives

$$A=\frac{\sqrt{2}kb(1y^2)(ax+1)}{a(a^2x^2b^2y^21)},$$
(49)
again with $`a^2b^2=1`$. This solution describes the field of a massive magnetic dipole. The physical quantities associated with disk now can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}& =& 8a^4\overline{y}\{(\overline{x}^2\overline{y}^2)[a(\overline{x}^21)[(a\overline{x}+1)^2+b^2\overline{y}^2]2b^2\overline{x}(a\overline{x}+1)(1\overline{y}^2)]\hfill \\ & & 2\overline{x}(\overline{x}^21)(1\overline{y}^2)[(a\overline{x}+1)^2b^2\overline{y}^2]\}\hfill \\ & & /(a^2\overline{x}^2b^2\overline{y}^21)^2[(a\overline{x}+1)^2b^2\overline{y}^2]^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
$$\stackrel{~}{p}_\phi =\frac{16a^4\overline{x}\overline{y}(\overline{x}^21)(1\overline{y}^2)}{(a^2\overline{x}^2b^2\overline{y}^21)^2[(a\overline{x}+1)^2b^2\overline{y}^2]},$$
(51)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{j}}_t=\frac{4\sqrt{2}a^4b(\overline{x}^2\overline{y}^2)\{\overline{x}(1\overline{y}^2)[(a\overline{x}+1)^2+b^2\overline{y}^2]2a\overline{y}^2(a\overline{x}+1)(\overline{x}^21)\}}{(a^2\overline{x}^2b^2\overline{y}^21)[(a\overline{x}+1)^2b^2\overline{y}^2]^3},$$
(52)
$$\mathrm{j}_\phi =\frac{2\sqrt{2}a^4b\overline{y}(\overline{x}^21)(1\overline{y}^2)(\overline{x}^2\overline{y}^2)[(a\overline{x}+1)(3a\overline{x}+1)+b^2\overline{y}^2]}{(a^2\overline{x}^2b^2\overline{y}^21)^3[(a\overline{x}+1)^2b^2\overline{y}^2]},$$
(53)
where $`\overline{x}`$ and $`\overline{y}`$ are given by Eqs. (41a) and (41b).

In figs. 11 and 12 the plots of the physical quantities describing the disks are shown for $`\alpha =1.8`$ and $`b=0`$, $`0.5`$, $`1.0`$, and $`1.5`$. The energy density behaves in the opposite way to the previous cases. That is, near to the disk center it increases when the electric (magnetic) field is applied and decreases later. The other quantities have a similar behavior to the precedent cases. However, the electrostatic current after some r takes negative values. Likewise, the quantities corresponding to the CRM are shown in following figures for the same value of the of the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`b`$. Theses CRM are more relativistic than the ones above considered (Fig. 13(a)). Note that (Fig. 13(b)) the disks with $`b=0.5`$ and $`\alpha =1.4`$ (solid curve) cannot be constructed from the CRM because $`\mathrm{U}^2>1`$. We also note that the presence of electric (magnetic) field can stabilize the CRM against radial perturbations (Fig. 14$`(a)`$). Therefore, only the CRM constructed with $`b=1.0`$, and $`1.5`$ are well behaved. Finally, the other functions are drawn for the same value of the parameters (Figs. 14$`(b)`$ and 15).

## 5 Discussion

A detailed study of the Counter-Rotating Model for generic electrostatic (magnetostatic) axially symmetric thin disks without radial pressure was presented. A general constraint over the counter-rotating tangential velocities was found, needed to cast the surface energy-momentum tensor of the disk in such a way that it can be interpreted as the superposition of two counter-rotating charged dust fluids. The constraint found is completely equivalent to the necessary and sufficient condition obtained in reference . We next showed that this constraint is satisfied if we take the two counter-rotating fluids as circulating along electrogeodesics with equal and opposite tangential velocities. We also have obtained explicit expressions for the energy densities, electrostatic (magnetostatic) current densities and velocities of the counter-rotating streams in terms of the energy density, azimuthal pressure and planar current density of the disk, that are also equivalent to the correspondig expressions in reference .

Three specific examples were considered in the present work based in simple solutions to the Einsteins-Maxwell equations generated by conventional solution-generating tecniques . We found that the CRM for Kerr-like disks are more relativistics than the ones obtained from Taub-NUT and Reissner-Nordström like solutions. We also saw that the presence of electric (magnetic) field can make unstable the CRM against radial perturbations in the case of Taub-NUT and Reissner-Nordström like disks, and conversely, stabilize the CRM in the case of Kerr-like disks. We also constructed some CRM with well defined counter-rotating tangential velocities and stable against radial perturbations.

On the other hand, the generalization of the Counter-Rotating Model presented here to the case with radial pressure is in consideration. Also, the generalization to rotating thin disks with or without radial pressure in presence of electromagnetic fields is being considered.

### Acknowledgments

Gonzalo García R. wants to thank a Fellowship from Vicerrectoría Académica, Universidad Industrial de Santander.


format: text

text:
# Electromagnetic cavities and Lorentz invariance violation

## I Introduction

Einstein’s special relativity and the underlying principle of Lorentz invariance are among the foundations of modern physics. In the past, they have been tested frequently, with increasing precision. Among others, optical means (e.g., MM ; KT ; BrilletHall ) are used for such tests. Today, space-borne instrumentation (SUMO SUMO  and OPTIS OPTIS , for example) as well as terrestrial experiments Braxmaier ; MuellerASTROD ; Wolf  using ultrahigh precision optical and microwave techniques are performed or proposed to explore the validity of this fundamental theory even further. One reason to continue testing SR is because it is one of the pillars of modern physics. Another reason is that most approaches towards a quantum theory of gravity such as string theory and loop gravity predict Lorentz violation at some level KosteleckySSB ; ellis ; gambini ; alfaro .

Electromagnetic radiation has provided the first glimpse of Lorentz invariance in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment MM ; MuellerASTROD , establishing the direction invariance of the speed of light $`c`$. Kennedy-Thorndike tests KT ; Braxmaier  establish the invariance of $`c`$ under observer Lorentz boosts. These experiments have been performed with increasing accuracy, today using electromagnetic cavities instead of interferometers. They are based on the modification of $`c`$ arising from Lorentz violation (depending on the observer frame, direction of propagation, and polarization), which in turn changes the resonance frequency $`\nu =nc/(2L)`$ of a cavity of the Fabry-Perot type, where $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ and $`L`$ is the cavity length. (This applies for cavities where the radiation propagates in vacuum, i.e., the index of refraction is 1.) A change of $`\nu `$ can be detected sensitively due to the potentially very high frequency stability $`\delta \nu /\nu 10^{15}`$ possible with cavities.

Tests of Lorentz invariance can be analyzed within an extension of the standard model developed by Kostelecký and co-workers KosteleckySME ; Kostelecky2002 . The classical test theories, such as the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl test theory Robertson ; MS ; Kintest  or the $`c^2`$ formalism Will93 , can be recovered as special cases of this model Kostelecky2002 . The standard model extension starts from a Lagrangian formulation of the standard model, adding all possible Lorentz violating terms that can be formed from the known particles together with Lorentz violation parameters that form Lorentz tensors. In the purely electromagnetic sector, these parameters are given by a tensor $`(k_F)_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }`$ which has 19 independent components Kostelecky2002 ; comment2 . These Lorentz violation parameters can be viewed as remnants of Planck-scale physics of an underlying fundamental theory, such as string theory, at an attainable energy scale. Cavity tests are interesting, since they can in principle access all 19 components of $`(k_F)_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }`$. The relative change of $`\nu `$ is calculated in Kostelecky2002  assuming $`L=`$const, so this can be interpreted as a modification of the phase velocity of light in vacuum $`c=c_0+\delta c`$ with comment1

$$\frac{\delta c}{c_0}=\frac{1}{2}[(\widehat{N}\times \widehat{E}^{})(\kappa _{HB})_{\mathrm{lab}}(\widehat{N}\times \widehat{E})\widehat{E}^{}(\kappa _{DE})_{\mathrm{lab}}\widehat{E}].$$
(1)
Here, $`\widehat{N}`$ is a unit vector pointing along the length of the cavity and $`\widehat{E}`$ is a unit vector vector perpendicular to $`\widehat{N}`$ that specifies the polarization (Fig. 1). The asterisk denotes complex conjugation. $`(\kappa _{HB})_{\mathrm{lab}}`$ and $`(\kappa _{DE})_{\mathrm{lab}}`$ are $`3\times 3`$ matrices resulting from a decomposition of $`(k_F)_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }`$ in the laboratory frame Kostelecky2002 . Comparison of Eq. (1) to the experiments leads to upper limits on some of the $`(k_F)_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }`$ in the range of $`10^{8\mathrm{}15}`$. Because these values are small, here and throughout the paper it is sufficient to work to lowest order in the components of $`(k_F)_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }`$.

However, a modification of the Coulomb potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$ arising from Lorentz violation in general affects the length $`L`$ of the cavity and thus the cavity resonance frequency. This has already been pointed out in the literature Will92 ; Will93 ; LaemmerzahlHaugan01 ; Kostelecky2002 . Since $`\delta \nu /\nu =\delta c/c\delta L/L`$, a length change $`\delta L`$ connected to $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$ might alter or even compensate the Lorentz-violating signal of the experiments. Owing to the different electromagnetic composition of different solids, $`\delta L`$ will depend on the material. Indeed, very early Michelson-Morley experiments have been repeated using exotic materials (pine wood and sandstone) for the interferometer to exclude that an accidental cancellation was responsible for the once puzzling null result MorleyMiller .

Within the standard model extension, modifications of $`c`$ as well as $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{x})=e^2/(4\pi |\stackrel{}{x}|)+V(\stackrel{}{x})`$ can be treated on a common basis. For many-particle systems, like solids,

$$V=\frac{1}{2}\frac{e^2}{8\pi }\underset{ab}{}^{}e_ae_b\frac{\stackrel{}{x}_{ab}\kappa _{DE}\stackrel{}{x}_{ab}}{|\stackrel{}{x}_{ab}|^3}.$$
(2)
Kostelecky2002 . Here, $`e`$ is the electron’s charge and $`e_a`$ an integer, so that $`ee_a`$ is the charge of the $`a`$th particle. The vector $`\stackrel{}{x}_{ab}`$ is the displacement between the $`a`$th and the $`b`$th charge. The factor $`1/2`$ corrects the double-counting of pairs, the prime denotes that $`a=b`$ is excluded from the summation. This equation shows that in the case of a modified $`c`$ as given by Eq. (1), modifications of the Coulomb potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$ necessarily arise. This is due to the covariance of the Maxwell equation, i.e., a modified wave equation implies a modified Poisson equation.

In this work, the influence of this modified Coulomb potential to the length of the cavity is derived. As a result, we find a somewhat increased sensitivity of experiments to some of the parameters $`(k_F)_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }`$. That increase is not more than a few percent for materials commonly used (quartz and sapphire), but more pronounced for ionic materials. As a main conclusion, we thus confirm that it is possible to neglect effects due to Lorentz violation in the Coulomb potential in the interpretation of present cavity tests of SR.

In Sec. II.1, we derive the length change $`\delta L`$ for ionic crystals, giving explicit numbers for cubic crystals in Sec. II.2. The case of covalent bonds is discussed in Sec. II.3. The result is discussed in III. In the Appendix, we show that in our model, the repulsive potential between the atoms in the lattice is almost not changed due to Lorentz violation, so we need to consider only the modification of the Coulomb potential.

## II Length change of crystals

### II.1 General considerations

The hypothetical Lorentz violating length change of a cavity depends on the material it is made of. As a first model, we will treat ionic crystals; we discuss the generalization of the result to covalent bonds later.

A lattice is formed so that equilibrium between the attractive and repulsive forces between the atoms is reached. In ionic crystals, attraction is caused by Coulomb interactions between the ions. The repulsive potential is due to the overlap of their orbitals. Both the attractive and the repulsive potential may be changed due to Lorentz violation. In the appendix, we will find that the modification of the repulsive potential is negligible compared to the modification of the attractive potential, so that it is possible to assume non modified repulsive forces for the rest of this paper.

For this analysis we consider a cube, which is small compared to the dimensions of the solid under consideration, but large compared to the lattice, so that boundary terms can be neglected. Without Lorentz violation, the cube’s side-length is $`L`$; Lorentz violation changes this to $`L+\delta L^i`$ (the superscript $`i=1,2,3`$ denotes the spatial components in the laboratory frame), thus distorting the cube. The solid consists of a number of these cubes, and the fractional change $`\delta L^i/L`$ of the solid’s length are the same as the fractional change for a single cube. It is thus sufficient to consider a cube of side-length $`L`$. The total energy of the lattice depending on $`\delta L^i`$ can be written as

$$E(L+\delta L^i)=\text{const}+\frac{1}{2}E_\mathrm{Y}L(\delta L^i)^2+\frac{V}{L^i}\delta L^i$$
(3)
where $`E_\mathrm{Y}`$ is the Young modulus Woan . The term proportional to $`E_\mathrm{Y}`$ is Hooke’s law (for simplicity, we restrict ourselves to isotropic elasticity). Whereas $`L`$ minimizes $`E(L)`$ without Lorentz violation, $`L+\delta L^i`$ is obtained by minimizing the total energy including $`V`$ as given by Eq. (2). In that equation, the summation $`_{ab}`$ can be replaced by summing over $`a`$ only and multiplying with the total number of interacting charges $`N`$, i.e. the number of ions in an ionic lattice. Denoting $`(x^i)_{ab}`$ the $`i`$-th spatial component of $`\stackrel{}{x}_{ab}`$, and $`l_j^i`$ the vector components of the primitive translations $`\stackrel{}{l}_j`$, we have $`(x^i)_{ab}=n^jl_j^i`$ with a vector $`\stackrel{}{n}=(n^1,n^2,n^3)^3`$; thus

$$V=\frac{1}{2}\frac{e^2}{8\pi }N(\kappa _{DE})_{ij}l_k^il_l^j\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}^{}e_\stackrel{}{n}\frac{n^kn^l}{(n^ql_q^nn^pl_p^n)^{3/2}}.$$
(4)
The summation is carried out over all ions. For computing the length change, we need the derivative

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{l_m^n}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Ne^2}{8\pi }}[(\kappa _{DE})_{nj}l_l^js^{ml}+(\kappa _{DE})_{in}l_k^is^{km}`$ (5)
$`3(\kappa _{DE})_{ij}l_k^il_l^jl_o^mt^{klno}],`$
where

$$s^{km}=\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}^{}e_\stackrel{}{n}\frac{n^kn^m}{(n^pl_p^in^ql_q^i)^{3/2}}$$
(6)
and

$$t^{klno}=\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}^{}e_\stackrel{}{n}\frac{n^kn^ln^nn^o}{(n^pl_p^in^ql_q^i)^{5/2}}.$$
(7)
We have $`s^{nl}=s^{ln}`$ and $`t^{klno}`$ is invariant under permutations of all indices.

The length $`L`$ of the sample is a linear combination of the primitive translations $`l_j^i`$. Thus, the derivatives $`l_m^n/L_i`$ can be obtained. We express

$$\frac{V}{L_i}=\frac{V}{l_m^n}\frac{l_m^n}{L_i}.$$
(8)
and insert this into Eq. (3). From that, $`\delta L_i`$ can be obtained by minimizing the energy $`E`$ given by Eq. (3). We will do that explicitly for a cubic crystal in the next section.

### II.2 Cubic symmetry

To give an explicit result we consider a crystal that without Lorentz violation has cubic symmetry (NaCl structure). Lorentz violation will in general break this symmetry. For the crystal without Lorentz violation, $`(l_i^j)=a\delta _i^j`$ with a lattice constant $`a`$. Since next neighbors have opposite charges, $`e_\stackrel{}{n}=(1)^{n^1+n^2+n^3}`$, we find

$$s^{ab}=\frac{1}{a^3}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\frac{(1)^{n_1+n_2+n_3}n_1^2}{(n^kn^k)^{3/2}}\delta ^{ab}=:\sigma \frac{1}{a^3}\delta ^{ab}.$$
(9)
The summation is carried out over $`\{^3\backslash 0\}`$. $`t^{abcd}`$ is only nonzero if the indices are two pairs of equal indices. Thus, $`t^{aabb}=t^{abab}=t^{abba}=:t^{ab}`$ with

$$t^{ab}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{a^5}_\stackrel{}{n}\frac{(1)^{n_1+n_2+n_3}n_1^2n_2^2}{(n^kn^k)^{5/2}}=:\tau _{}\frac{1}{a^5},\hfill & \hfill ab,\\ & \\ \frac{1}{a^5}_\stackrel{}{n}\frac{(1)^{n_1+n_2+n_3}n_1^4}{(n^kn^k)^{5/2}}=:\tau _{}\frac{1}{a^5},\hfill & \hfill a=b.\end{array}$$
(10)
Numerical summation (summing from $`50\mathrm{}50`$) gives $`\sigma 0.58,\tau _{}0.23`$, and $`\tau _{}=1.04`$. Using these equations, we obtain (no summation over $`n`$)

$$\frac{V}{l_n^n}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{Ne^2}{8\pi }[2a\sigma (\kappa _{DE})_{nn}3a^3(\kappa _{DE})_{aa}t^{an}]$$
(11)
Let the $`z`$ axis be parallel to $`\widehat{N}`$ \[as it was defined below Eq. (1)\]. Thus, we have

$$\frac{V}{L_z}=\frac{V}{l_z^z}\frac{l_z^z}{L_z}=\frac{V}{l_z^z}\frac{1}{\eta _z}$$
(12)
where the (constant) $`\eta _z=L/a`$ is the number of unit cells making up $`L`$ with the lattice parameter $`a`$. Setting to zero the derivative of Eq. (3) we obtain the fractional length change in $`z`$ direction. Substituting

$$N=N_m\frac{N_AV\rho }{M},$$
(13)
where $`N_A`$ is Avogadro’s constant, $`V`$ the crystal’s volume, $`\rho `$ its density, $`M`$ its molecular weight, and the factor $`N_m`$ is the number of atoms (ions, in an ionic crystal) per molecule, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L_z}{L}}`$ $`=`$ $`A\left[(2\sigma 3\tau _{})(\kappa _{DE})_{}3\tau _{}(\kappa _{DE})_{}\right]`$ (14)
with $`(\kappa _{DE})_{}=(\kappa _{DE})_{zz}`$, $`(\kappa _{DE})_{}=(\kappa _{DE})_{xx}+(\kappa _{DE})_{yy}`$ and

$$A=\frac{1}{2}\frac{e^2\iota ^2v_1v_2}{8\pi E_\mathrm{Y}}\frac{N_mN_A\rho }{Ma}.$$
(15)
Here, we included a dimensionless factor $`\iota ^2`$, which measures the effective charge of the ions. For most crystals, $`\iota =1`$, for non ionic materials, $`0<\iota <1`$ (see Sec. II.3). We also included factors $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$, the number of valence charges for the atoms. Using the dreibein $`\widehat{N},\widehat{E},\widehat{N}\times \widehat{E}`$, this gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L}{L}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{}\widehat{N}(\kappa _{DE})_{\mathrm{lab}}\widehat{N}`$
$`+a_{}[\widehat{E}^{}(\kappa _{DE})_{\mathrm{lab}}\widehat{E}+(\widehat{N}\times \widehat{E}^{})(\kappa _{DE})_{\mathrm{lab}}(\widehat{N}\times \widehat{E})].`$
Here, $`a_{}=A(2\sigma 3\tau _{})`$ and $`a_{}=3A\tau _{}`$. This is now a vector equation which will hold in any coordinates (this does not mean that the cavity length depends on the polarization). For this equation, it is not necessary to make some assumption about the orientation of the cavity axis relative to the lattice, since cubical lattices are isotropic. For lattices of lower symmetry, the parameters in Eq. (II.2) would, however, become dependent on the angle between the crystal axes and the cavity orientation $`\widehat{N}`$.

In practical experiments, the material might not be a single crystal, but a non crystalline material. These consist of a large number of microscopic crystals that are randomly oriented. If these microscopic crystals are cubical, however, Eq. (II.2) will hold for any of them as well as for the macroscopic body, since in this case the equation makes no reference to the orientation of the lattice.

The coefficients $`a_{},a_{}`$, and $`A`$ for some materials are given in Table 1. Without Lorentz violation, the ionic model predicts the correct distance of ions within a few percent error. Thus, we can expect a similar precision for the Lorentz-violating length change of ionic materials. At present, such materials are uncommon for cavities in high precision physics, but their use has been proposed BraxmaierPRD  because of the availability of ultra-pure specimens.

Materials of other than cubic structure will show a length change of similar magnitude: The structure enters this computation via the constants $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$. These are in analogy to the Madelung-constants $`\alpha `$ of solid-state physics, which are of order unity and do not depend very much on the actual crystal structure (see e.g. Ashcroft  for some values). This also holds for $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$. However, lattices with lower symmetry will lead to a more complicated expression than Eq. (14), in which also non diagonal terms of $`(\kappa _{DE})_{ij}`$ enter.

#### Length change for microwave resonators

Sometimes, especially in microwave experiments, cavities are used where the electromagnetic radiation of the cavity mode goes along the circumference of an annulus or a sphere. For cubic crystals, it is straightforward to generalize our result to a cavity of any geometry. Therefore, we parametrize the closed path of the mode by means of a parameter $`s`$. We denote the length of the resonator mode path $`L_m`$. Its relative change is given by integrating Eq. (II.2) along the closed path of the mode:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L_m}{L_m}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S}}{\displaystyle }[a_{}\widehat{N}(\kappa _{DE})_{\mathrm{lab}}\widehat{N}+a_{}\widehat{E}^{}(\kappa _{DE})_{\mathrm{lab}}\widehat{E}`$ (17)
$`+a_{}(\widehat{N}\times \widehat{E}^{})(\kappa _{DE})_{\mathrm{lab}}(\widehat{N}\times \widehat{E})]ds`$
with $`S=𝑑s`$. Here, the dreibein $`\widehat{N},\widehat{E}`$, and $`\widehat{N}\times \widehat{E}`$ is used, where $`\widehat{N}`$ gives the local orientation of the wave vector at each value of $`s`$ and $`\widehat{E}\widehat{N}`$ gives the polarization. This equation holds for cubic lattices (that have no preferred axis); it also holds for uniaxial crystals (such as sapphire, for example), as long as the mode is orthogonal to the crystal axis for all values of the parameter $`s`$. In this case, however, the values of $`a_{}`$ and $`a_{}`$ have to be computed specifically for the uniaxial crystal.

For example, for a cavity where the mode has the geometry of a ring with the $`z`$ axis being the symmetry axis, we identify the parameter $`s`$ as the angle $`0\varphi <2\pi `$ (Fig. 1); we have $`\widehat{N}=(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,0)`$. Choosing $`\widehat{E}=(0,0,1)`$ parallel to the $`z`$ direction,

$$\frac{\delta L_m}{L_m}=\frac{a_{}+a_{}}{2}[(\kappa _{DE})_{xx}+(\kappa _{DE})_{yy}]+a_{}(\kappa _{DE})_{zz}$$
(18)
for the path length of a microwave cavity mode like it is shown in Fig. 1. This result is valid for a cavity made from a cubic crystal; for a uniaxial crystal, it is valid as long as the crystal $`c`$ axis is parallel to the $`z`$ axis (provided that $`a_{}`$ and $`a_{}`$ are computed for the particular material).

In whispering gallery resonators, a dependency of the index of refraction on Lorentz violation would also have to be taken into account. Compared to the length change, this probably is a small correction, since in whispering gallery resonators only a part of the electromagnetic field energy travels within the material.

### II.3 Covalent bonds

The materials quartz (used, for example, in BrilletHall ; HilsHall ) and sapphire (e.g., Braxmaier ; COREs ; MuellerASTROD ) are based on covalent bonds. These bonds have a partial ionic character, i.e., the effective charges of the atoms are $`\iota ev`$ (as before, $`v`$ denotes the number of valence charges), where $`\iota <1`$ can be determined roughly from the difference of the electronegativities of the atoms (see, e.g., Mortimer ). From Eq. (15), we thus obtain length-change coefficients in the per cent range (Table 1). Since the concept of partial ionic character is not an exact concept, these values have limited accuracy. They suggest, however, that the relative length change $`\delta L/L`$ of a cavity made from quartz or sapphire is negligible compared to the relative change $`\delta c/c`$ of the speed of light.

Here, we give some arguments indicating that the length change of a covalent crystal may be derived in analogy to ionic crystals. Covalent bonds are given by Coulomb interactions between delocalized electrons, and between the electrons and the atom cores. For our calculation, the main difference to ionic bonds is that the electrons are not localized; instead, they are described by a symmetrized $`n`$-electron state $`\psi ^n(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2,\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{x}_n)`$. This state is formed from the single-electron states $`\psi _i`$ as the Slater determinant $`(1/\sqrt{N!})`$Det$`(\psi _i(\stackrel{}{x}_j))`$. The covalent potential $`V_C=V_{EC}+V_{EE}+V_{CC}`$ is then the sum of the core-core interactions $`V_{CC}`$

$$V_{CC}=\underset{a}{}\underset{b}{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(ab)}(\stackrel{}{x}_a\stackrel{}{x}_b)$$
(19)
\[where $`a`$ and $`b`$ enumerate the cores, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(ab)}(\stackrel{}{x}_a\stackrel{}{x}_b)`$ is the Coulomb potential between the cores $`a`$ and $`b`$ at the locations $`\stackrel{}{x}_a`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x}_b`$\], the electron-core interactions

$$V_{EC}=\underset{i}{}\underset{a}{}(\psi ^n)^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(ia)}(\stackrel{}{x}_i\stackrel{}{x}_a)\psi ^nd^3x_1\mathrm{}d^3x_n$$
(20)
(where $`i`$ numerates the electrons and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(ia)}`$ is the Coulomb potential between the core $`a`$ and the electron $`i`$) and the electron-electron interactions

$$V_{EE}=\underset{i}{}\underset{j}{}(\psi ^n)^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(ij)}(\stackrel{}{x}_i\stackrel{}{x}_j)\psi ^nd^3x_1\mathrm{}d^3x_n$$
(21)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(ij)}`$, the Coulomb potential between the electrons $`i`$ and $`j`$. Since $`\psi ^n`$ is symmetrized, these expressions contain all the terms usually found in the treatment of covalent systems, like the hydrogen molecule. Although the electron wave-functions are spread over the whole crystal volume, their centers of mass are localized at some point within a distance $`\overline{a}`$ from the cores, where $`\overline{a}`$ is of atomic dimensions kohn , smaller than the typical distance of atoms in a lattice. As a toy model, we thus assume centers of charge at points $`\stackrel{}{x}_{\overline{a}}`$ at some distance $`\overline{a}`$ from the locations of the nearest cores. Coulomb forces between these centers of charge and the cores make up an important part of the covalent binding force. The model reduces $`V_{EC}`$ and $`V_{EE}`$ to a sum over Coulomb interactions, i.e., we have

$`V_{EC}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{a}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\overline{a}a)}(\stackrel{}{x}_{\overline{a}}\stackrel{}{x}_a)`$ (22)
$`V_{EE}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{a}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{b}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\overline{a}\overline{b})}(\stackrel{}{x}_{\overline{a}}\stackrel{}{x}_{\overline{b}}).`$ (23)
The distance $`\overline{a}`$ between the centers of mass of the delocalized electrons and the cores gives rise to an effective charge of the cores. A calculation of the Lorentz-violating length change could now start from these sums and proceed as for ionic crystals. While this is a simplified model, it indicates that the effect of a Lorentz violating Coulomb potential for covalent bonds will be in analogy to ionic crystals. Thus, estimates for covalent crystals made above should at least give the correct order of magnitude.

## III Conclusion and Summary

The contributions from Eq. (1) and Eq. (II.2) give

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \nu }{\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{}\widehat{N}(\kappa _{DE})_{\mathrm{lab}}\widehat{N}`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+a_{})[\widehat{E}^{}(\kappa _{DE})_{\mathrm{lab}}\widehat{E}`$
$`+(\widehat{N}\times \widehat{E}^{})(\kappa _{DE})_{\mathrm{lab}}(\widehat{N}\times \widehat{E})].`$
This has been simplified by noting that astrophysical tests lead to $`(\kappa _{HB})=(\kappa _{DE})`$ with an accuracy many orders of magnitude higher than attainable in cavity experiments Kostelecky2002 . The second part of Eq. (III) is equivalent to the speed of light change Eq. (1) times $`1+2a_{}`$, $`a_{}0.01\mathrm{}0.4`$ for the materials in table 1. Additionally, the frequency is sensitive to a term proportional to $`a_{}0.03\mathrm{}1`$. For both coefficients, the small coefficients in the per-cent range are for covalent materials (quartz and sapphire); although they are based on a simplified model, they should be accurate enough to conclude that the relative length change of a cavity made from quartz or sapphire is negligible against the change of the speed of light. Since present experiments use these materials, it is indeed possible to analyze them as if the cavity length would not be affected by Lorentz violation. This holds for cavities of any structure, including (microwave) cavities using radial or whispering gallery modes. Their length change is given by Eq. (17). However, future experiments using resonators out of ionic materials, as proposed in BraxmaierPRD  will be affected more strongly by the Lorentz violating Coulomb forces (see Table 1); here, it is necessary to analyze them using Eq. (III) rather than Eq. (1).

We note that a cavity experiment is mainly sensitive to the parity odd coefficients Kostelecky2002  of the standard model extension, since both the change of the phase velocity of light, Eq. (1), as well as the cavity length change Eq. (II.2) are dominated by these coefficients. Parity even coefficients that are not tightly constrained by astrophysical birefringence measurements Kostelecky2002  enter cavity experiments only suppressed by $`\beta _{\mathrm{lab}}`$, the velocity of the laboratory with respect to the frame in which one defines the parameters $`\kappa _{DE}`$ and $`\kappa _{HB}`$. For experiments on Earth and using a sun centered frame, $`\beta _{\mathrm{lab}}10^4`$.

We have calculated the length change of electromagnetic cavities due to a modified Coulomb potential arising necessarily from a Lorentz violating velocity of light, as it follows from an extension of the standard model. As a first model, we have assumed that the cavity is made of an ionic crystal. We then extended the model to the covalent bonds of practical materials using the approximate concept of partial charges. Taking this into account for the interpretation of cavity tests of Lorentz invariance, we have shown that the length change effect adds to the hypothetical Lorentz-violating signal derived from a change of the speed of light and increases somewhat the sensitivity of experiments. However, for materials used in present experiments, the increase is at the percent level and thus negligible, as all the Lorentz invariance tests are null tests. As a result, the classical interpretation that neglects the length change is justified (this also holds for microwave cavities and for the classic interferometer tests). For future experiments using ionic crystals as a resonator material, however, the effects derived here are larger and must be taken into account.

As an outlook, we note that the properties of matter and thus the dimensions of cavities also depend on Lorentz-violating terms in the fermionic equations of motion, i.e., a modified Dirac equation KosteleckySME ; Laemmerzahl98 . Strong upper limits on some of these terms have been placed by, e.g., comparisons between atomic clocks Kostelecky99 . In this work, we have focused on the purely electromagnetic sector; the effect of the fermionic terms in cavity experiments will be treated elsewhere. It might be possible to access Lorentz violating fermionic terms in cavity experiments due to the length change they cause. One would compare cavities made from different materials, in order to separate the electromagnetic from the fermionic terms.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to V.A. Kostelecký for discussions. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the ongoing cooperation with S. Schiller.

## Appendix: The repulsive force of the ionic bond

Here, we calculate the modification of the repulsive force due to Lorentz violation. It is caused by the modified wave functions of the ions arising from the modified Coulomb potential between the nucleus and the outer electrons. The repulsive force is a short-range force, so it is sufficient to consider next neighbors only.

Since in ionic crystals, the positive ions are usually small compared to the negative ones Mortimer , we assume as a model that the positive ions are pointlike. The repulsive potential

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{BM}(\stackrel{}{R})=\text{const}|\psi ^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{R})|^2$$
(25)
is then proportional to the probability density of the outer electrons of the negative ions. $`\psi ^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{R})`$ is the unperturbed wave function at the location $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ of the positive ion without Lorentz violation (we assume that the ion-ion interaction does not change appreciably the wave function, which should be satisfied to reasonable accuracy in ionic crystals). The wave function $`\psi ^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{R})`$ is proportional to $`e^{\zeta |\stackrel{}{R}|}`$ for large $`|\stackrel{}{R}|`$ with a constant $`\zeta 1/a_0`$ with the Bohr radius $`a_0`$; the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{BM}`$ is thus a Born-Mayer potential $`Be^{2\zeta |\stackrel{}{r}|}`$ ($`B`$ as well as $`\zeta `$ are phenomenological parameters that are determined by fitting the model to the measurements), which is frequently used as a model of the repulsive force Ashcroft . In the case of Lorentz violation, $`\psi (\stackrel{}{r})=\psi ^{(0)}+\psi ^{(1)}`$ with a correction $`\psi ^{(1)}`$ that is proportional to $`\kappa _{DE}`$, which will be calculated for hydrogenlike atoms.

For this calculation, we denote the unperturbed state of hydrogen $`|nlm>^{(0)}`$ with a principal quantum number $`n`$, angular momentum $`l`$ and magnetic quantum number $`m`$. The corresponding wave function $`\psi _{nlm}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ can be factorized into a radial function $`R_{nl}(r)`$ that depends solely on the radius coordinate $`r`$, and spherical harmonics $`Y_l^m(\theta ,\varphi )`$. Only the ground state $`n=1`$ is not degenerate; for the $`n=2`$ states, the use of the perturbation theory of nondegenerate states is still possible since, due to the nature of the matrix elements calculated below, the degenerate $`n=2`$ states do not mix. For $`n=1,2`$, the state $`|nlm>=|nlm>^{(0)}+|nlm>^{(1)}`$ in first order perturbation theory is given by

$$|nlm>^{(1)}=\underset{n^{}l^{}m^{}}{}^{}\frac{<nlm|V|n^{}l^{}m^{}>}{E_nE_n^{}}|n^{}l^{}m^{}>$$
(26)
with $`V`$ given by Eq. (2). Inserted into Eq. (25), this leads to a correction to the Born-Mayer potential

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_{BM}(\stackrel{}{R})=2\text{const}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}l^{}m^{}}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{<nlm|V|n^{}l^{}m^{}>}{E_nE_n^{}}}`$ (27)
$`\times |\psi _{nlm}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{R})\psi _{n^{}l^{}m^{}}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{R})|.`$
We apply coordinates in which $`\kappa _{DE}`$ is diagonal with the diagonal elements $`\kappa _{xx},\kappa _{yy},`$ and $`\kappa _{zz}`$. Applying polar coordinates with the $`\theta =0`$ axis parallel to the $`z`$ axis, the Lorentz violating correction to the Coulomb potential $`V`$ can be written as

$$V=\frac{e^2}{8\pi r}[(\kappa _{xx}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi +\kappa _{yy}\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\kappa _{zz}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ].$$
(28)
Since in first order perturbation theory, the change of the wave function $`|nlm>^{(1)}`$ for a sum of perturbations $`_iV_i`$ is a linear combination of the changes for each single perturbation $`V_i`$, it is sufficient to consider the term proportional to $`\kappa _{zz}`$. In configuration space,

$`<nlm|r^1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta |n^{}l^{}m^{}>={\displaystyle R_{nl}(r)\frac{1}{r}R_{n^{}l^{}}(r)r^2𝑑r}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }Y_l^m(\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{cos}^2\theta Y_l^{}^m^{}(\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi `$ (29)
with the normalized radial functions

$$R_{nl}=\frac{2}{n^2}\sqrt{\frac{\zeta ^3(nl1)!}{(n+1)!}}\left(2\frac{\zeta r}{n}\right)^le^{\zeta r/n}L_{nl1}^{2l+1}\left(2\frac{\zeta r}{n}\right)$$
(30)
where $`L_p^k(z)`$ are associated Laguerre polynomials as defined in Gradstein . For the treatment of hydrogenlike atoms, $`\zeta =Z/a_0`$ is given by the core charge number $`Z`$. Here, we take $`\zeta =1/a_0`$. Using

$$Y_l^m(\theta ,\varphi )=\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{4\pi }\frac{(lm)!}{(l+m)!}}P_l^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta )e^{im\varphi },$$
(31)
\[where $`P_l^m(x)`$ are the associated Legendre functions\], it is easy to verify that the $`\varphi `$ integration gives $`\pi \delta _{m,m^{}}`$. For the $`\theta `$ integration, we substitute $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. Applying the relation Gradstein

$$x(2l+1)P_l^m(x)=(lm+1)P_{l+1}^m(x)+(l+m)P_{l1}^m(x)$$
(32)
two times and using the normalization

$$_1^1P_l^m(x)P_l^{}^m(x)𝑑x=\frac{2}{2l+1}\frac{(l+m)!}{(lm)!}\delta _{ll^{}},$$
(33)
it can be shown that

$`{\displaystyle _1^1}P_l^m(x)P_l^{}^m(x)x^2𝑑x`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{4l^21+(l+m)(4l^2+4m3)}{(2l1)(2l+1)^2(2l+3)}\frac{2(l+m)!}{(lm)!},\hfill & \hfill l^{}=l\\ & \\ \frac{2}{(2l^{}1)(2l^{}+1)(2l^{}+3)}\frac{(l+m+1\pm 1)!}{(lm1\pm 1)!},\hfill & \hfill l^{}=l\pm 2\end{array}`$ (37)
and zero otherwise. That means, the matrix element is nonzero only for $`l=l^{}`$ or $`l=l^{}\pm 2`$. However, for $`l=l^{}`$, the radial integral is nonzero only for $`n=n^{}`$; that term is not needed for this calculation. Combining these results leads to the more simple expression for the correction of the Born-Mayer potential

$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_{BM}(\stackrel{}{R})`$ $`=`$ $`2\text{const}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{<nlm|V|n^{}l+2m>}{E_nE_n^{}}}`$ (38)
$`\times |\psi _{nlm}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{R})\psi _{n^{}l+2m}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{R})|`$
(for $`n=1,2`$, $`0l<n`$, and $`|m|l`$). Formally, the series should be summed up to infinity. However, the terms decay rapidly with increasing $`n^{}`$. The correction of the Born-Mayer potential due to Lorentz violation can thus be obtained and compared to the correction of the Coulomb potential due to the same Lorentz violation (Fig. 2). Here, $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ was assumed parallel to the $`z`$ direction. If $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ is not perpendicular to the $`z`$ direction, the correction to the Born-Mayer potential is smaller. From this calculation, it can be concluded that the Lorentz-violating modification of the repulsive potential $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_{BM}`$ is negligible compared to the modification of the Coulomb potential, at least for the $`n=1`$ and 2 states that have been considered in this simple model. This is due to the small magnitude of the matrix elements $`<nlm|V|n^{}l^{}m^{}>`$, which are also small for high $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ (they even decrease with increasing $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$). So, although for $`n3`$, the perturbation theory for degenerate states should be applied, this will not dramatically change the magnitude of $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_{BM}`$ and thus our conclusion that $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_{BM}`$ is negligible remains valid.


text:
# The impact of HH2 on local dust and gas

## 1 Introduction

The Herbig-Haro objects HH1 and HH2 are two of the brightest optical shocks associated with outflows from young stars. Separated by 140$`^{\prime \prime }`$ or 0.3 pc at the distance of 460 pc, both their proper motions and the detection of a faint jet indicate they are driven by the embedded 32$`\mathrm{L}_{}`$ Class I young star known as VLA1 (Herbig & Jones, 1981; Pravdo et al., 1985). Because of their brightness, HH1 and 2 have been the subject of intense study, particularly in optical and near-infrared lines used to tracing shocked gas (eg Hester et al., 1998). The images show complex and sometimes bewildering structures which, in the case of HH1, are often interpreted as multiple overlapping bow shocks. HH2, however, shows an apparently more random set of knots, although it too has a number of mini-bow shocks identified through infrared images (eg Davis et al., 1994). In order to aid orientation in the region, in Figure 1 we show a near-IR H2 image of the cluster of shock fronts that comprise HH2 (from Davis et al. 1994). Individual features and knots are labelled.

In addition to HH1 and 2, a pair of much larger, more diffuse HH objects HH401/402 can be seen almost $`20\mathrm{}`$ (2.6 pc) further from VLA1 at the same position angle (Ogura, 1995). Thus HH1 and 2 may actually be inner knots in a “parcsec-scale” outflow.

Single-dish HCO+ observations in the immediate vicinity of HH2 have shown an emission peak downwind of the optical knots, and it was suggested that this could be due to enhancement in the HCO+ abundance in the ambient gas (Davis et al., 1990; Dent 1997). Similar HCO+ peaks have been found in several other outflows (eg Rudolph & Welch, 1992). A common feature is that the emission lies close to ambient velocity, and the peak appears ahead of the HH shocks. It was proposed that these clumps are caused by UV photons from the HH shock inducing non-equilibrium chemistry in ambient material in either purely the gas phase (eg Wolfire & Königl, 1993), or after the release of icey grain mantles (eg Taylor & Williams, 1996; Viti & Williams, 1999). It is also possible for HCO+ in entrained shocked gas to be chemically enhanced by the shock itself (eg Taylor & Raga, 1995). Further imaging of HH1 and 2 showed compact clumps of NH3 in the vicinity (Torrelles et al., 1992), again thought to be due to changes in the molecular abundance. A more extensive survey of other species towards the HCO+ peak has shown abundances consistent with the effect of UV photons from the nearby HH shock (Girart et al., 2002).

The molecular outflow associated with HH1-2 is not prominent, but line wings have been detected in CO towards HH2, albeit at relatively low velocities (eg Correia et al., 1997; Dent, 1997). Maps of the line wing emission over the whole region show a bipolar outflow at certain velocity ranges, which appears to terminate near HH1 and HH2; it was suggested that the flow axis is inclined only 5-10from the plane of the sky (Moro-Martín et al., 1999).

In order to investigate the relationship between the ambient clump and high-velocity gas, we have mapped the region in the sub-mm continuum and J=3-2 CO line, and also obtained higher-resolution J=1-0 HCO+ images.

## 2 Observations

The continuum observations were made using SCUBA on the JCMT in June 1998. Imaging was carried out at 850$`\mu `$m using a standard 64-position fully-sampled jiggle map, and data were calibrated using Mars, resulting in a calibration accuracy of $`10\%`$. A fully-sampled map of the J=3-2 12CO line was also obtained using the JCMT; additional J=3-2 spectra of the isotopomers 13CO and C18O were extracted from the JCMT Archive. These data were taken in 1994, using the receiver RxB3i and the DAS spectrometer with a spectral resolution of $`0.3kms^1`$. The beamsize of the JCMT in both these continuum and spectral line observations was 14$`^{\prime \prime }`$, and estimated pointing uncertainties were less than 2$`^{\prime \prime }`$.

We conducted interferometric imaging of HCO+ J=1-0 line emission (rest frequency 89.18852 GHz) using the 6-element Nobeyama Millimeter Array (NMA) in 1999 March and May. The primary beam size (field of view) is 83$`^{\prime \prime }`$ (fwhm) at 89 GHz. Observations were performed with the C and D configurations, and the resulting synthesized beam size was $`6.9\mathrm{}\times 4.6\mathrm{}`$ at P.A.$`=20^{}`$. Since the minimum projected baseline length was 3.9 k$`\lambda `$, our observations were insensitive to structure extended by more than $`52^{\prime \prime }`$. The phase tracking center was set on the position of the peak of J=3-2 HCO+ ($`5^h36^m26.91^s,6^{}47{}_{}{}^{}31.9^{\prime \prime }`$; 2000.0). We employed SIS receivers which had double sideband system noise temperatures of 200-300 K toward zenith. We used the high spectral resolution FX correlator for the HCO+ emission and the Ultra-Wideband Correlator for calibration using continuum emission. The FX correlator provides a velocity resolution of 0.1 km s-1 and total velocity coverage of 108 km s-1 at this frequency. We used 3C273 as the bandpass calibrator and 0528+134 as a phase and gain calibrator. By comparing with Uranus through 3C84 and 3C454.3, we estimated the flux density of 0528+134 to be 2.5Jy during both observing periods, with an estimated 10% uncertainty. Imaging was performed using the AIPS package to make clean maps. The typical resulting rms noise levels were 75 mJy beam-1 with a resolution of $`0.1kms^1`$.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Dust continuum

The emission from HH2 observed at 850$`\mu `$m is shown by the contour map in Figure 2. For comparison purposes, the shocked H2 image from Davis et al. (1994) is superimposed as a greyscale. These H2 knots lie towards the end of the Southeast lobe of the outflow; the flow origin (VLA 1) is situated some $`90^{\prime \prime }`$ to the Northwest. An extended region of sub-mm continuum emission, of dimensions $`60{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 40^{\prime \prime }`$ (0.13$`\times `$0.09 pc, fwhm) is clearly seen downstream from most of the HH objects. The peak in sub-mm emission lies at $`5^h36^m27.0^s,6^{}47{}_{}{}^{}21^{\prime \prime }`$ (2000.0), and could be either due to a local maximum in the dust temperature or density. The J=4-3 HCO+ line observed with the same spatial resolution peaks $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ to the south (Dent, 1997), and so the positions are consistent within the estimated errors. Girart et al. (2002) also found that the SO $`3_22_1`$ line reaches a peak at this position. Although there are at least 3 bright sub-mm continuum clumps within 2 arcmin of VLA 1 (Chini et al., 2001), most of these have evidence of an embedded young star. The dust clump near HH2 has no such known object, even though the extinction through the cloud is relatively low (see Girart et al., 2002). The close association with the optical, infrared and HCO+ emission suggests that the sub-mm continuum is tracing a cloud closely related to the HH objects. Furthermore Fig. 2 shows that at least two faint HH knots are apparently embedded within the sub-mm cloud; the significance of this will be discussed later. Also it is clear that the cloud has a much sharper edge facing VLA1, suggesting that the stellar jet has eroded away one side of the cloud.

The total integrated 850$`\mu `$m flux from the extended cloud associated with HH2 is estimated at 2.1$`\pm `$0.4 Jy (this is measured over a region of $`80{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 60`$ arcsec at $`PA=30^{}`$ centred on the peak). The peak flux is 0.20$`\pm `$0.04 Jy, consistent with an earlier single point photometric observation at 800$`\mu `$m (Dent, 1997). By comparison, the exciting star VLA 1 has a peak flux of 3.3 Jy (Chini et al., 2001). Both HH2 and VLA 1 show a compact central source superimposed on an extended low-level plateau; in both cases the latter may be heated by the ambient interstellar radiation field rather than the central source (see Chini et al., 2001).

Pravdo & Chester (1987) detected emission in the region of HH2 at 12 and 25$`\mu `$m using IRAS, which they tentatively ascribed to the HH object. However, their maps indicated the mid-infrared peak may be $`1^{}`$ west of HH2; this is supported by more recent ISO data (Cernicharo et al., 1999), suggesting the mid-infrared continuum is concident with the Hα rim noted by Reipurth et al. (1993) to lie 50$`^{\prime \prime }`$ west of HH2. However, far-infrared ISO results did show continuum emission from the region of HH2 itself (Molinari & Noriega-Crespo, 2002); the estimated contamination from the bright source VLA 1 was $``$10%. Figure 3 shows the integrated continuum fluxes. A grey body fit to the long-wavelength data gives a temperature of 22$`\pm `$2 K and dust opacity index, $`\beta `$=1.5$`\pm `$0.2; this would imply a total cloud luminosity of 13$`\pm 5\mathrm{L}_{}`$. The mid-IR points are consistent with T=220K, but these are ignored in this and subsequent analysis for reasons given above. Furthermore the temperature of this component is sufficiently high that emission is unlikely to significantly affect the far-infrared fluxes and hence the fit (see Fig. 3). However, further high-resolution imaging in both the far and mid-infrared is required to confirm this result.

The NH3 observations of Torrelles et al. (1992) indicated kinetic temperatures in the region of the HH2 clump of $``$20K. Girart et al. (2002) derive CO excitation temperatures of $``$13K. The peak brightness temperature in 13CO and 12CO is $``$10K (see below), which is a lower limit to the kinetic temperature assuming the line to be optically thick and in LTE.

If we adopt a temperature of 22K, the total mass of the HH2 cloud is 3.8$`\pm 0.4M_{}`$, assuming a gas:dust ratio of 100, and an 850$`\mu `$m dust mass opacity of $`10^3m^2kg^1`$ (eg Henning et al., 1995). This gives a mean gas column density of $`1.8\pm 0.2\times 10^{22}cm^2`$ and mean space density of $`5\pm 0.5\times 10^4cm^3`$ (assuming a symmetrical cloud). Note that the errors on these derived parameters may be larger \- perhaps up to a factor of 2 - because of the uncertainty in the mm-wavelength dust emissivity (eg Henning et al.).

The contours in Figure 2 show a clear emission peak near HH2; assuming the temperature and dust opacity here is the same as that of the whole cloud, then the luminosity of this component is estimated as $`1.2\pm 0.3\mathrm{L}_{}`$. Its mass is $`0.3\pm 0.08\mathrm{M}_{}`$, peak column density $`2.3\pm 0.6\times 10^{22}cm^2`$ and peak space density is $`2\pm 0.5\times 10^5cm^3`$. These densities are very similar to those found from recent observations of several molecular species towards HH2 (Girart et al., 2002), although the derived temperature is somewhat higher. This general agreement confirms that the dust and molecular gas lie in the same warm clump, and also suggests that the sub-mm dust emission characteristics are not significantly affected by the nearby shock.

### 3.2 Single-dish CO

The outflow axis from VLA1 lies close to the plane of the sky, resulting in relatively faint CO line wings. Nevertheless a collimated molecular outflow has been observed close to VLA1 (Correia et al., 1997; Choi & Zhou, 1997), and fainter red-shifted CO extends as far as HH2 (Moro-Martín et al., 1999). In an attempt to understand this termination region, we observed HH2 itself using the J=3-2 transition of CO and its isotopomers; the higher energy level of this transition compared with earlier observations means it is more sensitive to the warmer gas. Figure 4 compares spectra at the location of the continuum dust peak. The C18O line can be fit by a single Gaussian component at $`7.25\pm 0.2kms^1`$, close to that of the HCO+ (7.0$`kms^1`$; Davis et al., 1990), CI (Dent, 1997), and other species such as SO (Girart et al., 2002). This velocity is significantly different from the gas around VLA1, which has a radial velocity of 10.5 $`kms^1`$ (Choi & Zhou 1997).

The ratio of peak brightness temperature of 13CO to C18O is $``$5 which, assuming a similar emitting area and LTE conditions, indicates that the C18O line is optically thin. The integrated C18O intensity is $`2.6Kkms^1`$; with an excitation temperature of 22K (see above) and a C18O abundance of $`10^7`$, this gives a total gas column density of $`1.4\times 10^{22}cm^2`$. This is consistent with the value estimated above from the sub-mm dust emission.

The 12CO line in Figure 4 shows distinct high-velocity wings at relative velocities $`|v_{rel}|3kms^1`$. The spatial distribution of this high-velocity gas in the vicinity of HH2 is illustrated in Figure 5; both the red and blue-shifted emission peak within 10$`^{\prime \prime }`$ of the brightest H2 knot HH2E. A second component of blue-shifted gas lies south of HH2L. It was shown by Moro-Martín et al. that red-shifted CO around HH1-2 traces a large collimated flow centred on VLA1; high-resolution observations of blue-shifted HCO+ (to be described below) show that it too lies in a collimated jet pointing back towards VLA1. It is thought unlikely that the dust clump in Fig. 2 harbours a young outflow source, as the low extinction through the cloud would render it detectable in the infrared. So the abrupt termination of the outflow near HH2E (Fig. 5), suggests this is the dominant interaction region of the jet and ambient clump. However the spatial resolution of these single-dish data is insufficient to compare accurately with the infrared image.

### 3.3 Interferometric HCO+

The HCO+ J=1-0 emission from the vicinity of HH2 is bright and complex, but the spectra have two distinct velocity components. Firstly, bright and relatively narrow ambient-velocity emission with a profile similar to that of 13CO; this is illustrated in Figure 6a which shows the line towards the continuum peak. Secondly a high-velocity wing component, with a full width of 20 $`kms^1`$ (to the noise level). This dominates in the region of HH2E (see Figure 6b).

Both HCO+ spectra show an absorption dip at $`v_{lsr}10kms^1`$, similar to the velocity of the molecular gas near VLA 1 and in much of the Orion region (Davis et al., 1990; Choi & Zhou, 1997). It is likely that a cool region of this cloud along the line of sight is absorbing the emission from HH2. However, a second dip in the HCO+ spectrum at $`v_{lsr}7kms^1`$ is likely to be cool foreground gas associated with the HH2 clump itself, as seen in the CO spectra in Fig. 4.

The map of ambient velocity HCO+ (Figure 7) shows a main peak of size $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ (fwhm), consistent with the lower-resolution observations of Davis et al. (1990). Fig. 7 compares the data with the sub-mm continuum emission and the locations of some of the prominent HH knots (c.f. Fig. 1). The gas and dust distributions are similar but not identical; notably the HCO+ shows two compact peaks within $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ (0.01pc) of HH2L and Knot 8, whereas the dust is seen in a broader North-South ridge extending over $`50^{\prime \prime }`$. It is possible that some of the large-scale HCO+ emission ($`52^{\prime \prime }`$) has been resolved out by the lack of short-baseline data from the interferometer. Additional instrumental effects due to incomplete UV coverage can be seen as negative contours in Figure 7, although these are at a relatively low level compared with the peak intensity. The map may also be affected by the self-absorption near the line centre, although this is relatively narrow compared with the main emission profile. Despite these potential difficulties, it does appear that the ambient-velocity HCO+ emission closely traces the dust continuum; however, it appears relatively brighter within 0.01pc of the HH shocks HH2L and Knot 8. This enhancement will be discussed further in Section 4.1.

### 3.4 High-velocity HCO+

Maps of the integrated high-velocity HCO+ emission are shown in Figure 8, with the near-infrared H2 image (Davis et al., 1994) superimposed. The distribution of high-velocity gas appears similar to that of CO shown above, after accounting for the differing resolution and relative insensitivity of the interferometric observations to the large scale structure ($`52^{\prime \prime }`$). High-velocity red and blue-shifted HCO+ is found within 5$`^{\prime \prime }`$ of the HH objects HH2K, E, F and also Knot 8. Notably, these knots are relatively bright in shocked H2 compared with optical lines such as Hα, whereas HH2A and HH2H, which dominate optical images, are relatively faint in H2 (eg Noriego-Crespo & Garnavich, 1994). Multi-level line analysis shows that they also have lower excitation temperatures (Eislöffel et al., 2000). There is weak evidence of high-velocity red-shifted gas near the western HH clump HH2A.

The images of high-velocity HCO+ (particularly the blue-shifted gas) show that the northern section of HH2, rather than being a jumble of shocks, actually forms a rather coherent well-collimated jet. This includes HH2K, E, and F, terminating in Knot 8 (and thus confirming that the latter object, which is only detected in H2, is part of the flow). The Position Angle of this jet measured from VLA1 is 139 \- significantly different from the $`PA`$ of the optical peak HH2A measured from VLA1 (150). By comparison, the apex of the large-scale outer bow shock HH402 lies at $`PA138^{}`$ (Ogura et al., 1995). Assuming a constant flow direction, these results suggest that the dominant outflow position angle is 138. This is further confirmed by the fact that the sub-mm continuum peaks at $`PA140^{}`$ from VLA1; if we assume it is heated by the jet, this traces where most of the outflow energy is being deposited.

Giarart et al. (1999) suggested that HCO+ may be used to identify shocked gas in sections of outflows that are no longer visible in optical or infrared lines. Note that the cooling times associated with the optical/IR lines are very short - of the order of a few years - so these emission lines can rapidly fade. The HCO+ lines, on the other hand, emit from molecular material that is already relatively cool, where steady depletion via dissociative recombination with electrons may take $`10^2`$ years (Nejad & Wagenblast 1999), although this is dependent on the electron abundance. Indeed, the apparent HCO+ abundance enhancement evident in our data may be limited by the lifetime of the clump in HH2 which, if we assume is destroyed by the passage of the shock front, will be of the order of a few thousand years.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 The ambient clump

Although the sub-mm results show an extended cloud downwind of the bright optical HH objects, the central sub-mm peak coincides with a number of low-excitation HH knots. The cloud has no evidence of an internal young star, so how is the dust heated? Either it could be through the interstellar radiation field in the young cluster, by UV radiation from optically-bright knots such as HH2A, or by shock heating. The fact that the submm continuum peaks so close to HH2 suggests the heating - at least of this central peak - is local, rather than from the external interstellar radiation field. One possible local energy source is UV from the HH shocks, as used to explain the HCO+ overabundance in the clump (eg Wolfire & Königl, 1993; Taylor & Williams, 1996; Viti & Williams, 1999). Böhm-Vitense et al. (1982) found the dominant UV source in HH2 lies within $`6^{\prime \prime }`$ of the optically bright high-excitation knots HH2H and A. Thus the main UV source is $`25^{\prime \prime }`$ Northwest of the sub-mm peak, and the fraction of UV radiation intercepted by the dust clump would be $`5`$%. The total de-reddened UV luminosity of HH2A, estimated from Fig. 2 of Böhm-Vitense et al. is $`0.3\mathrm{L}_{}`$, which would result in an intercepted luminosity at the sub-mm peak of $`0.015\mathrm{L}_{}`$, considerably less than that observed ($`1.2\mathrm{L}_{}`$). Clearly the UV flux from HH2H/A is inadequate to heat the dust peak.

Alternatively the clump may be warmed by local shocks from the outflow jet. Moro-Martín et al. give the total outflowing mass from VLA1 as 0.2$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$; with a mean flow velocity of $`30kms^1`$ (deprojected assuming an inclination of 10) and age of $`10^4yrs`$, this results in a total flow mechanical luminosity of $`1.0\mathrm{L}_{}`$. This is adequate to explain the local heating of the sub-mm peak, although not of the whole cloud shown in Fig. 2.

Both the sub-mm continuum and the ambient-velocity HCO+ reach a maximum within $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ (0.01 pc) of HH2L and Knot 8. To estimate the HCO+ enhancement in this region, we can compare the molecular abundance with a potentially more “benign” region of the cloud $`25^{\prime \prime }`$ to the South. Data are smoothed to the same spatial resolution ($`14^{\prime \prime }`$ fwhm), and we make an initial assumption of an excitation temperature of 22K (see above), LTE conditions and optically thin emission. Towards the dust peak and southern region, the HCO+ column densities ($`N_L(HCO^+)`$) are $`3.6\times 10^{13}`$ and $`1.1\times 10^{13}cm^2`$ respectively. This compares with estimates derived from the dust of $`N_L(H_2)=2.3\times 10^{22}`$ and $`1.8\times 10^{22}`$, giving abundances, $`\chi _{HCO^+}`$ of $`1.6\times 10^9`$ and $`6.5\times 10^{10}`$. Girart et al. (2002) used multi-transition modelling to show that the HCO+ excitation temperature may be somewhat less than 22K, possibly because the mean cloud density is less than the critical density of $`10^6cm^3`$. Furthermore they suggest the line may be optically thick towards the bright peak, which is supported by the self-absorbed profile in Fig. 6a. But if we assume similar conditions apply in the two regions, it indicates $`\chi _{HCO^+}`$ in the ambient gas is a factor of $``$2.5 higher within $``$ 0.01 pc of HH2L, compared with that 0.05 pc to the South. Furthermore, the abundance in the Southern region is similar to that in many other quiescent molecular clouds (eg Nejad & Wagenblast, 1999).

### 4.2 High-velocity molecular gas

High-velocity HCO+ and CO emission is closely associated with a line of H2 knots terminating at Knot 8 (Fig. 8). This suggests a single coherent jet impacting the dust clump, rather than a broad wind with multiple shocks as might be suggested by the complex optical images. A similar spatial association of high-velocity HCO+ with H2 peaks was found in NGC2071 (Girart et al., 1999) and DR21 (Garden & Carlstrom, 1992), and it was proposed that the HCO+ enhancement is due to ion-chemistry reactions in the low-velocity C-shocks.

After accounting for the differing resolution of the data, there appears to be no significant difference in the spatial distribution of high-velocity CO and HCO+. However, there is a clear difference in the line brightness ratio as a function of velocity, illustrated in Figure 9. We find this ratio changes from $``$0.1 at the lowest relative velocities likely to be uncontaminated by ambient emission ($`|v_{rel}|3kms^1`$), up to $``$2-3 at the highest velocities ($`|v_{rel}|12kms^1`$). Here we use $`v_{rel}=v_{lsr}v_{sys}`$, where $`v_{sys}`$, the systemic clump velocity, is taken to be $`7.0kms^1`$. Note that the inclination of the HH1-2 flow is only $`10^{}`$ to the plane of the sky (eg Moro-Martín et al., 1999), so the absolute velocities may be considerably higher. However, the near coincidence of red and blue-shifted gas (Fig. 8) suggests that random turbulent or tranverse velocities in the entrained gas dominate the measured velocity. As the line wings of both species are thought to be optically thin, Fig. 9 suggests a factor of 30 variation in the relative abundance. However, there are other possible explanations: Girart et al. (1999) observed a similar factor of 10 variation in the HCO+ to 12CO J=2-1 ratio across the NGC2071 outflow spectra. They discussed several possible explanations, for example changing excitation conditions, but concluded that an increase in HCO+ abundance was the most likely cause.

If we assume a constant excitation temperature of 30K and the gas is in LTE, then the results indicate $`\chi _{HCO^+}`$ varies from $`2\times 10^8`$ up to $`6.8\times 10^7`$ at the extreme velocities. This assumes the canonical value for $`\chi _{CO}=5\times 10^5`$ applies throughout the gas. It represents a factor of up to $`10^3`$ increase in the abundance compared with the ambient gas in the HH2 dust clump (see previous section). If the excitation temperature is 100K, this enhancement may be as high as $`10^4`$. The optical extinction through dust mixed with the high-velocity gas is likely to be negligible, so external UV irradiation cannot easily explain the velocity-dependence of the HCO+ enhancement. However, Taylor & Raga (1995) predicted HCO+ abundances of up to $`10^6`$ in turbulent mixing layers associated with relatively low-velocity ($`40kms^1`$) shocks. This could explain both these enhancements, as well as the close association of the high-velocity regions with the low-excitation, H2-dominant knots.

The brightness ratio in Fig. 9 shows a monotonic increase with velocity, consistent with $`\chi _{HCO^+}v_{rel}^2`$. HCO+ line wings in several outflows are found to have a relatively constant or even increasing brightness temperature out to the highest velocities (eg HH7-11 - Lizano et al., 1988; L1551 - Rudolph, 1992; NGC2071 - Girart et al., 1999; OH231.8 - Sánchez-Contreras et al, 2000). By contrast, the intensity of CO line wings are generally found to decrease with $`v_{rel}^{1.8}`$ (eg Richer et al., 2000), suggesting that the $`v^2`$ dependence of $`\chi _{HCO^+}`$ may be a common feature of shocked and entrained gas in such outflows. As depletion of HCO+ occurs on a timescale significantly longer than the age of the flow, then the velocity-dependent abundance suggests either that: (1) a range of shock velocities exists, with the HCO+ enhancement depending on the shock kinetic energy, or (2) HCO+ is formed at the higher shock velocities, and this gas gradually mixes with ambient un-enhanced material. The latter might take place in a steady-state turbulent boundary layer (eg Taylor & Raga, 1995). We can use the results to estimate $`ϵ(v)`$, the mixing fraction in the turbulent boundary, ie the ratio of masses of initially shocked gas, $`m_s(v)`$, to ambient gas, $`m_a(v)`$, in this turbulent boundary. The HCO+ results above indicate that $`m_a(v)`$ is approximately constant, whereas CO data show approximately that $`m_sv^2`$. This would imply $`ϵ(v)(v/v_j)^2`$, where $`v_j`$ is the maximum HCO+ velocity. Further modelling of such low-velocity turbulent layers would be of interest.

### 4.3 HCO+ enhancement and shocks in the clump

The relatively modest enhancement of the HCO+ abundance towards the ambient velocity HH2 clump has been ascribed to a radiative precursor from the optically-bright HH knots HH2A/H (eg Wolfire & Königl, 1993; Raga & Williams, 2000). However, the current results (Fig. 7) do not show the limb-brightened morphology in HCO+ predicted by Raga & Williams, even though the flow axis lies close to the plane of the sky. Instead the results suggest a closer association with the low-excitation shocks, found by H2 and high-velocity HCO+ within $``$ 0.01pc of the clump. Luminosity arguments suggest the dust clump is heated by the flow itself. Furthermore, the dust morphology indicates that one side of the clump has been truncated by the flow impact (Fig. 2). Clearly, then, at least some parts of the clump have been dynamically affected by the outflow. It is perhaps worth noting that low-velocity HCO+ clumps in the outflow from NGC2264G are also closely associated with low-energy H2 shocks and accelerated gas (Girart et al., 2000). So could the enhancement of HCO+ at velocities close to ambient be due to low-velocity shocks within the dust clump, in a similar mechanism as evoked to explain the high-velocity enhancement?

The HCO+ linewidth in the HH2 clump is similar to that of the bright cores associated with VLA1 and VLA3 (eg Choi & Zhou, 1997), even though the mass is 10-100 times lower. We can estimate the ratio $`2K/P`$ in the HH2 and VLA1 clumps, where $`K`$ and $`P`$ are the kinetic energy (assumed due to turbulence) and the gravitational potential energy. Using the masses and core sizes from section 3.1 above, and from Choi & Zhou, we find ratios of $`65`$ and 0.6 for HH2 and VLA1, showing that, unlike VLA1, the clump near HH2 is clearly not gravitationally bound. One possible mechanism for the line broadening is disruption by the HH2 jet. In which case the bright ambient-velocity HCO+ could also be caused by enhanced abundance in the lowest velocities of the turbulent mixing layer. Extrapolating the $`v^2`$ enhancement seen in the high-velocity gas down to $`v_{rel}1kms^1`$ we would predict abundances a factor of $`10`$ above normal, similar to that observed.

## 5 Conclusions

A sub-mm continuum clump is found at the end of the molecular outflow and 0.05pc downwind of the optically-bright knots in HH2. Warming of the dust appears to be caused by the impact of the jet, and the derived luminosity of the central peak ($`1.2\mathrm{L}_{}`$) is similar to that of the outflow mechanical luminosity.

The emission from HCO+ can be divided into an ambient velocity component, approximately correlated with the dust emission, and a high-velocity component, closely associated with the H2 knots. The high-velocity HCO+ appears to form a single coherent flow linking the lower-excitation HH knots; this is North of the optically-bright regions, and we suggest it represents the main collimated jet from VLA1. In the highest velocity line wings, HCO+ is enhanced by a factor of up to $`10^3`$, compared with a factor of a few in the ambient-velocity gas. The enhancement is found to increase as $`v_{rel}^2`$.

Enhancement of ambient-velocity HCO+ abundance is most prominent within 0.01 pc of the low-excitation shocks at the tip of the outflow jet. It is suggested that enhancement in this gas could be caused by the same shock mechanism and turbulent mixing as used to explain the high-velocity HCO+. Thus a UV precursor may therefore not be necessary.

## Acknowledgments

The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the United Kingdom Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, and the National Research Council of Canada. The Nobeyama Radio Observatory is a branch of the National Astronomical Observatory, operated by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. The authors thank S. Sakamoto for the support of our NMA observations, and the referee for helpful comments.

## 6 References

Böhm-Vitense, E., Böhm, K.H., Cardelli, J.A., Nemec, J.M., 1982, ApJ, 262, 224

Cernicharo, J., Cesarsky, D., Noriego-Crespo, A., Lefloch, B., Moro-Martín, A., 1999, in “H2 in Space”, ed., F. Combes, & G. Pineau des Forêts, (Cambridge Univ. Press), 23

Chini, R., Ward-Thompson, D., Kirk, J.M., Nielbock, M., Reipurth, B., Sievers, A., 2001, A&A, 369, 155

Choi, M. & Zhou, S., 1997, ApJ, 477, 754

Correia, J.C., Griffin, M., Saraceno, P., 1997, A&A, 322, L25

Davis, C.J. & Eislöffel, J., Ray, T.P., 1994, ApJ, 426, L93

Davis, C.J., Dent, W.R.F., Bell Burnell, S.J., 1990, MNRAS, 224, 173

Dent, W.R.F., 1997, in Malbet F., Castets A., eds., Poster Proc. IAU Symp. 182, Herbig Haro Objects and the Birth of Low Mass Stars, p. 88

Eislöffel, J., Smith, M.., Davis, C.J., 2000, A&A, 359, 1147

Garden R.P., Carlstrom, J.E., 1992, ApJ, 392, 602

Girart, J.M., Ho, P.T.P., Rudolph, A.L., Estalella, R., Wilner, D.J., Chernin, L.M., 1999, ApJ, 522, 921

Girart, J.M., Estalella, R., Ho, P.T.P., Rudolph, A.L., 2000, ApJ, 539, 763

Girart, J.M., Viti, S., Williams, D.A., Estalella, R., Ho, P.T.P, 2002, A&A, 388, 1004

Henning, Th., Michel, B., Stognienko, R., 1995, P & SS, 43, 1333

Herbig G., Jones, B.F., 1981 AJ, 86, 1232

Hester, J.J., Stapelfeldt, K.R., Scowen, P.A., 1998, AJ, 116, 372

Lizano, S., Heiles, C., Rodríguez, L.F., Koo, C.-C., Shu, F.H., Hasegawa, T., Hayashi, S., Mirabel, I.F., 1988, ApJ, 328, 763

Molinari, S. & Noriego-Crespo, A., 2002, AJ, 123, 2010

Moro-Martín, A., Cernicharo, J., Noriego-Crespo, A., Martín-Pintado, J., 1999, ApJ, 520, L111

Noriego-Crespo, A., Garnavich, P.M., 1994, AJ, 108, 1432

Nejad, L.A.M., Wagenblast, R., 1999, A&A, 350, 204

Ogura, K., 1995, ApJ, 450, L23

Pravdo, S.H., Rodriguéz, L.F., Curiel, S., Canto, J., Torrelles, J.M., Becker, R.H., Sellgren, K., 1985, ApJ, 293, L35

Pravdo, S.H., Chester, T.J., 1987, ApJ, 314, 307

Raga, A.C., Williams, D.A., 2000, A&A, 358, 701

Reipurth, B., Heathcote, S., Roth, M., Noriega-Crespo, A., Raga, A.C., 1993, ApJ, 408, L49

Richer, J.S., Shepherd, D.S., Cabrit, S., Bachiller, R., Churchwell, E., 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, eds. Mannings, V., Boss, A.P., Russell, S. S., 867, Univ. of Arizona Press

Rudolph, A., 1992, ApJ, 397, L111

Rudolph, A., & Welch, W.J., 1992, ApJ, 395, 488

Sánchez-Contreras, C., Bujarrabal, V., Neri, R., Alcolea, J., 2000, A&A, 357, 651

Taylor, S.D., Raga, A.C., 1995, A&A, 296, 823

Taylor, S.D., Williams, D.A., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1343

Torrelles, J.M., Rodríguez, L.F., Cantó, J., Anglada, G., Gómez, J.F., Curiel, S., Ho, P.T.P., 1992, ApJ, 396, L95

Viti, S., Williams, D.A., 1999, MNRAS, 310, 517

Wolfire M.G., Königl, A., 1993, ApJ, 415, 204