text:
# Initial condition of a gravitating thick loop cosmic string and linear perturbations

## I Introduction

For the past few decades, gravity of cosmic strings and gravitational waves from them have been investigated by many researchers. There are two physical contexts to investigate gravity of cosmic strings. One is the cosmological context and another is in the technical problem in general relativity: the treatment of concentrated line sources.

In the cosmological context, cosmic strings are topological defects associated with the symmetry breaking in unified theories. In the simplest case, the dynamics of cosmic strings is governed by the Nambu-Goto action. If the self-gravity of strings is ignored (test string case), the Nambu-Goto action admits oscillatory solutions. It is considered that these oscillations lead the emission of gravitational waves and strings gradually lose their kinetic energy by this emission. Further, relic gravitational waves emitted by cosmic strings might be detectable by the gravitational wave detectors to be constructed in the near future. Though this is a quite fascinating prediction, it is not clear whether or not it can be taken seriously. Recently, by taking into account the self-gravity of the Nambu-Goto string, it is shown that the oscillatory behavior of a self-gravitating string coupled to gravitational wave is quite different from that of a test string. The dynamical degree of freedom concerning the perturbative oscillations of an infinite string is completely determined by that of gravitational waves and a self-gravitating infinite string does not oscillate spontaneously unlike an infinite test string.

To give a completely precise dynamics of gravitating cosmic strings, we must solve the Einstein equations and the evolution equations of the Higgs and gauge fields from generic initial data, which is impossible at present. So it will be instructive to replace a cosmic string by a concentrated line source and clarify its gravity at first. However, it is known that the mathematical description of a self-gravitating thin string is delicate because the support of a string is a surface of co-dimension two. In general relativity, there is no simple prescription of an arbitrary concentrated line source where the metric becomes singular.

In spite of these difficulties, a conical singularity, which appears in some exact solutions to the Einstein equations, is often regarded as a self-gravitating cosmic string. (For example, see Ref..) This is one of the idealizations of the concentrated matter sources. Since a spacetime containing a straight gauge string has the asymptotically conical structure, this idealization seems plausible when the string thickness is much smaller than the other physical scale of interests.

As an extension of this idealization, one might expect that an oscillating cosmic string can be also idealized by an oscillating conical singularity. However, as pointed out by Unruh et al., the worldsheet of a conical singularity is totally geodesic. This behavior is also seen in the time symmetric initial data of gravity of a loop conical singularity and similar results are also obtained in Refs.. The dynamics of conical singularities is completely determined without their equations of motion. This geodesic property of a conical singularity shows that the idealization of cosmic strings by conical singularities might gives the different dynamics from that of cosmic strings in the early universe which have their finite thickness. Further, this implies that the dynamics of cosmic strings is not idealized by that of conical singularities, though it seems natural to expect that loops of cosmic string can be regarded as conical singularities when the loop radius is much larger than the string thickness.

In this paper, we reconsider the above geodesic property pointed out in Ref. using a time symmetric initial data containing a thick loop string. We show that the zero thickness of strings is essential to this geodesic property. Because of the singular metric, gravity near the loop conical singularity is so strong that the loop itself is a geodesic on the initial surface. On the other hand, the core of the thick loop string is not a geodesic on the initial surface and the curvature of a test loop on a flat space is naturally reproduced in the limit $`G0`$ where $`G`$ is Newton’s gravitational constant. Then, the geodesic property in Ref. should not be taken seriously when we consider the dynamics of cosmic strings, since cosmic strings in the early universe have their own finite thickness. This also implies that we must take into account the effect of the string thickness when we discuss the dynamics of cosmic strings.

This behavior of the gravity of a thick string loop also suggests that there is a criterion in the string thickness at which the linear perturbation theory around a flat background spacetime fails to describe the gravity of cosmic strings. We call this thickness “critical thickness” and evaluate this criterion in this paper. The geodesic property in Ref. does not depend on the loop radius and its deficit angle. When the spacetime contains a sufficiently small loop conical singularity, this loop is a geodesic on this spacetime and the other geodesics on this spacetime are quite different from those on the flat spacetime, on which geodesics are straight lines. On the other hand, gravity of a thick loop string is not so strong as mentioned above. This suggests that the linear gravity is plausible if the string is sufficiently thick. Then, for a fixed loop radius and a fixed deficit angle, there exists a critical thickness and the linear gravity on a flat background spacetime is valid if the string thickness is much greater than this critical thickness.

To discuss the initial data of the gravity of a thick string loop and evaluate the above critical thickness, we first construct an example of the initial data in which the matter concentrates on the torus shell. Since the gravity of a cosmic string has asymptotically conical structure, we use the initial data derived by Frolov et al. as a solution outside the torus. Using this example, we explicitly show that the core of the loop string is not a geodesic if the string has its finite thickness, while the loop approaches to a geodesic in the zero-thickness limit. Though the matter distribution in this example is too artificial as a realistic cosmic string loop, our conclusion is also true even if the matter distribution is smooth. Our example also shows that the initial data derived by Frolov et al. may be regarded as the gravitational field produced by a smooth matter distribution. So, using this initial data as the geometry outside the matter field, we derive the above critical thickness of a string by comparing with a linear solution on the flat space background.

This paper is organized as follows: In Sec.II, we briefly review the ADM initial constraints and the treatment of the $`\delta `$-function distribution of the matter field on the initial surface to construct an example of the gravitational field produced by a loop matter distribution. In Sec.III, we construct an initial data of a thick loop string and discuss whether the string is a geodesic on the initial surface or not. We discuss the above critical thickness in Sec.IV. The final section (Sec.V) is devoted to summary and discussions.

Throughout this paper we work in relativistic units, so that the speed of light is equal to unity.

## II Initial value constraints and Junction conditions

In 4-dimensional spacetime $`(,g_{ab})`$, we consider a zero extrinsic curvature 3-dimensional spacelike submanifold $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$. We denote the unit normal vector of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $``$ by $`u^a`$. The induced metric $`q_{ab}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from the metric $`g_{ab}`$ on $``$ is given by $`q_{ab}:=g_{ab}+u_au_b`$. The zero extrinsic curvature means the spacetime is momentarily static at $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$. The ADM initial-value constraints for a momentarily static hypersurface $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ are reduced to

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}R=16\pi GT_{},$$
(1)
where $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}R`$ is the Ricci scalar curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`T_{}:=T_{ab}u^au^b`$ is the energy density of the matter field on the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In terms of a conformally transformed metric $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{ab}:=\varphi ^4q_{ab}`$, the constraint (1) is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{D}^a\stackrel{~}{D}_a\varphi \frac{1}{8}\varphi {}_{}{}^{(3)}\stackrel{~}{R}=2\pi G\varphi ^5T_{},$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{D}_a`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}\stackrel{~}{R}`$ are the covariant derivative and the scalar curvature associated with the metric $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{ab}`$, respectively. In this paper, we concentrate only on the geometry of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ using the constraint (2) (or (1)).

For simplicity, we consider $`\delta `$-function distribution of matter energy density at the 2-dimensional hypersurface $`𝒮`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to construct an example of solutions to Eq.(2). To treat $`\delta `$-function distribution of the matter energy, we apply Israel’s condition on the initial surface, which is derived from the constraint (2). To derive this condition, we first divide $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ into two manifolds $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm ,q_{ab\pm })`$ with the boundaries $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ and then identify $`𝒮=\mathrm{\Sigma }_+=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$. This identification implies $`n_{a+}=n_b`$, where $`n_{a\pm }`$ are the unit normal vector of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$, respectively. The induced metrics $`h_{ab\pm }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ from $`q_{ab\pm }`$ are given by $`h_{ab\pm }:=q_{ab\pm }n_{a\pm }n_{b\pm }`$, respectively. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ are diffeomorphic to each other, $`h_{ab\pm }`$ satisfy the condition

$$h_{ab+}=h_{ab}.$$
(3)
By virtue of the constraint (1), the $`\delta `$-function distribution of the matter energy density also gives the gap of the extrinsic curvatures $`\kappa _{ab\pm }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ facing to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$. $`\kappa _{ab\pm }`$ are defined by $`\kappa _{ab\pm }:=(h_a^ch_b^dD_cn_d)_\pm `$, where $`D_a`$ is the covariant derivative associated with the metric $`q_{ab}`$. Introducing the Gaussian normal coordinate $`\chi `$ in the neighborhood of $`𝒮`$ by $`n_{a\pm }=(d\chi )_a`$, the scalar curvature $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}R`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is decomposed as follows:

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}R={}_{}{}^{(2)}R(\kappa _a^a)^2+\kappa _a^b\kappa _b^a+2\frac{}{\chi }\kappa _a^a.$$
(4)
When $`T_{}`$ is given by

$$T_{}=\mu \delta (\chi ),$$
(5)
the integration of (1) over the infinitesimal interval of $`\chi `$ yields

$$\kappa _{a+}^a\kappa _a^a=8\pi G\mu .$$
(6)
Hence all conditions for the identification $`𝒮=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ on the momentarily static initial data are (3) and (6).

## III Initial condition of a thick loop string

Here, we consider a momentarily static initial data of gravity produced by a thick loop string. In this paper, we assume that the vacuum region outside the loop is given by the initial data for a loop conical singularity derived by Frolov et al. as mentioned in the Introduction (Sec.I). In this section, we first review the conformally flat version of the initial data for a loop conical singularity in Ref.. Second, replacing the conical singularity by a matter distribution, we construct an example of a gravitating thick loop string. Then we discuss whether the loop is a geodesic on the initial surface or not. Though we concentrate only on a conformally flat initial data, the similar behavior is also seen in the conformally non-flat version. (See Appendix A.)

### A Initial condition of a loop conical singularity

To discuss the initial condition for a loop conical singularity, we introduce the toroidal coordinate system. First, we consider the flat space metric

$$ds_E^2=d\rho ^2+dz^2+\rho ^2d\phi ^2.$$
(7)
Defining the functions $`\sigma `$ and $`\psi _{}`$ by

$$\rho =a\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\sigma }{N^2},z=a\frac{\mathrm{sin}\psi _{}}{N^2},N(\sigma ,\psi _{}):=\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}\sigma \mathrm{cos}\psi _{}},$$
(8)
where $`0\sigma \mathrm{}`$ and $`\pi \psi _{}\pi `$, the line element (7) becomes

$$ds_E^2=\frac{1}{N^4}ds_{}^2:=\frac{a^2}{N^4}\left(d\sigma ^2+d\psi _{}^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma d\phi ^2\right).$$
(9)
The geometrical meaning of the coordinates $`\sigma `$ and $`\psi _{}`$ is depicted in Fig.1. A $`\sigma `$=constant surface is a torus with circular cross sections of radius $`a\text{csch}\sigma `$; the central axis of the tube forms a circle of radius $`\rho =a\mathrm{coth}\sigma `$ in the plane $`z=0`$. The ring $`\rho =a`$, $`z=0`$ is the limit torus $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$.

To construct the initial data of a loop conical singularity at the limit torus $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$, we remove a pair of spherical caps spanning the loop as shown in Fig.2. First, we fix an arbitrary angular deficit $`2\pi \alpha <2\pi `$. We restrict $`\psi _{}`$ to the range $`\pi (1\alpha )<\psi _{}<\pi (1\alpha )`$, identify these end points of this interval. Applying a conformal factor $`(\varphi N)^4`$ to Eq.(9), the physical line element associated with the metric $`q_{ab}`$ is given by

$$ds^2=(\varphi N)^4ds_E^2=\varphi ^4ds_{}^2.$$
(10)
Second, we rescale the coordinate $`\psi _{}`$ by

$$\psi :=\eta \psi _{},\pi \psi \pi ,\eta :=\frac{1}{1\alpha }.$$
(11)
Then the conformally transformed metric $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{ab}`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{ab}=a^2\left((d\sigma )_a(d\sigma )_b+\frac{1}{\eta ^2}(d\psi )_a(d\psi )_b+\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma (d\phi )_a(d\phi )_b\right).$$
(12)
Though the exposed spherical faces have the same intrinsic geometry, their extrinsic curvatures have opposite sign in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },N^4\stackrel{~}{q}_{ab})`$. This discontinuity disappears in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ if the conformal factor $`\varphi (\sigma ,\psi )`$ satisfies the following boundary conditions:

1. $`\varphi (\sigma ,\psi )`$ is even in the inversion $`\psi \psi `$ and smooth at $`\psi =\pm \pi `$;
2. $`\varphi N1`$ at $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$;
3. $`\varphi N`$ constant at $`\sigma 0`$.

By virtue of the condition (i), the extrinsic curvature of the surface $`\psi =\pm \pi `$ in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ vanishes and no discontinuity is there. The condition (ii) guarantees that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ has the conical structure with the deficit angle $`\alpha `$ at the limit tours $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$. $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ is asymptotically flat by virtue of the final condition (iii).

Assuming $`\phi ^a:=(/\phi )^a`$ is a Killing vector on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$, Eq.(2) for the vacuum region $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ in the coordinate system $`(\sigma ,\psi ,\phi )`$ is given by

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}\sigma }_\sigma \left(\mathrm{sinh}\sigma _\sigma \varphi \right)+\eta ^2_\psi ^2\varphi +\frac{1}{4}\varphi =0.$$
(13)
The general solution to this equation with the boundary conditions (i) and (ii) has the form

$$\varphi =\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_nϵ_nQ_{\eta n\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma )\mathrm{cos}n\psi ,$$
(14)
where $`Q_\nu ()`$ is the second class Legendre function and $`ϵ_n:=2\delta _n^0`$ is the Neumann factor. By comparing this with the expansion

$$N^1(\sigma ,\psi _{})=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ϵ_nQ_{n\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma )\mathrm{cos}n\psi _{},$$
(15)
one can easily see that

$$\varphi =\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ϵ_nQ_{\eta n\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma )\mathrm{cos}n\psi ,$$
(16)
is one of the simplest choice which continuously reduces to Eq.(15) in the limit $`\alpha 0`$ and satisfies the boundary conditions (i) and (ii).

From the asymptotic behavior of Eq.(16) in the limit

$$r:=\sqrt{\rho ^2+z^2}=\frac{a}{N}\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}\sigma +\mathrm{cos}\psi }\mathrm{},$$
(17)
we can easily confirm that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ is asymptotically flat, i.e., Eq.(16) satisfies the boundary condition (iii). Since

$$\eta \varphi N1+\frac{2a}{\pi }\frac{I(\eta )}{\sqrt{\rho ^2+z^2}}=1+\frac{2a}{\pi }\frac{I(\eta )}{r},(r\mathrm{}),$$
(18)
where

$$I(\eta ):=_0^{\mathrm{}}\text{csch}x(\eta \mathrm{coth}\eta x\mathrm{coth}x)𝑑x,$$
(19)
the physical line element (10) is given by

$$ds^2=(\eta \varphi N)^4\frac{ds_E^2}{\eta ^4}\left(1+\frac{8a}{\pi }\frac{I(\eta )}{r}\right)\left\{\left(\frac{dr}{\eta ^2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{r}{\eta ^2}\right)^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right\}.$$
(20)
This shows that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ has asymptotically flat region with the ADM mass

$$M_{ADM}=\frac{4a}{\pi \eta ^2}I(\eta ).$$
(21)
### B Thick string initial data

Here, we replace the above conical singularity by a matter distribution. For simplicity, we consider an example in which the matter concentrates on the torus $`𝒮`$ ($`\sigma `$=constant) as Eq.(5), where $`\mu `$ may depend on $`\psi `$. We denote the outside the matter torus by $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{},q_{ab})`$ and the inside by $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_+,q_{ab+})`$.

$`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{},q_{ab})`$ includes asymptotically flat region and $`q_{ab}`$ is given by Eq.(10) with the conformal factor (16). Since we assume that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_+,q_{ab+})`$ is vacuum without conical singularities, the metric $`q_{ab+}`$ is given by

$$q_{ab+}=a^2\varphi ^4\left((d\sigma )_a(d\sigma )_b+(d\psi )_a(d\psi )_b+\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma (d\phi )_a(d\phi )_b\right),$$
(22)
where $`\varphi `$ is a solution to Eq.(13) with $`\eta =1`$. Imposing the boundary conditions (i), (ii) and $`\eta =1`$, the solution to Eq.(13) is given by

$$\varphi =\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_nϵ_nQ_{n\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma )\mathrm{cos}n\psi .$$
(23)
The coefficients $`a_n`$ in Eq.(23) are determined by the boundary condition (3) at $`𝒮`$.

Here, we consider the identification $`𝒮=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ at the torus shell. We assume that $`\phi ^a`$ is a Killing vector on the whole initial surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and identify the orbits of $`\phi ^a`$ at $`𝒮=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$. Since $`\psi `$ is a periodic coordinate with the period $`2\pi `$ on each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$, we also identify the orbits of $`\psi ^a=(/\psi )^a`$ at $`𝒮=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$. By these identifications, the functions $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are extended to smooth functions on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Finally, we choose the coordinate function $`\sigma `$ so that $`\sigma =\sigma _{1\pm }`$ represent $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$, respectively.

The intrinsic metrics $`h_{ab\pm }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}h_{ab}=a^2\varphi _{}^4(\psi )\left(\frac{1}{\eta ^2}(d\psi )_a(d\psi )_b+\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma _1(d\phi )_a(d\phi )_b\right),\hfill \\ h_{ab+}=a^2\varphi _+^4(\psi )\left((d\psi )_a(d\psi )_b+\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma _{1+}(d\phi )_a(d\phi )_b\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
where $`\varphi _\pm :=\varphi (\sigma =\sigma _{1\pm })`$, respectively. Then, Eq. (3) yields

$$\eta \mathrm{sinh}\sigma _1=\mathrm{sinh}\sigma _{1+},\varphi _+=\varphi _{}\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(25)
The first equation in Eqs.(25) determineds $`\sigma _{1+}`$ as a function of $`\sigma _1`$ and the deficit angle $`\alpha =11/\eta `$. The second one in Eqs.(25) determines the coefficients $`a_n`$ in $`\varphi _+`$:

$$a_n=\frac{\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}}Q_{n\eta \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma _1)}{Q_{n\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma _{1+})}.$$
(26)
Israel’s junction (6) determines the energy density $`\mu `$ as a function of $`\psi `$:

$$8\pi G\mu (\psi )=\frac{4}{a\varphi _+^3(\psi )}_\sigma \varphi _+(\psi )\frac{\mathrm{coth}\sigma _{1+}}{a\varphi _+^2(\psi )}+\frac{4}{a\varphi _{}^3(\psi )}_\sigma \varphi _{}(\psi )+\frac{\mathrm{coth}\sigma _1}{a\varphi _{}^2(\psi )}.$$
(27)
When the matter torus is sufficiently thin, i.e., $`\sigma _{1\pm }\mathrm{}`$, $`\varphi _\pm `$ behave

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \varphi _+& =& \sqrt{2}e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{1+}}\left(a_0+a_1e^{\sigma _{1+}}\mathrm{cos}\psi +O(e^{2\sigma _{1+}})\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi _{}& =& \sqrt{2}e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma _1}\left(1+\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\eta +1/2\right)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\eta +1\right)}e^{\eta \sigma _1}\mathrm{cos}\psi +O(e^{2\sigma _1})\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
From Eqs.(28) and Eq.(26), we easily see that

$`a\varphi _+^2(\sigma _{1+},\psi )\mu (\psi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta }}\right)+O(e^{2\sigma _{1\pm }})\right].`$ (29)
This shows that $`a\varphi _+^2\mu (\psi )`$ does not depend $`\psi `$ up to the order of $`O(e^{2\sigma _{1\pm }})`$. The leading term is just the relation of the proper line energy density of a straight string and the deficit angle.

### C Is a loop string is a geodesic?

If the solution (16) is extended to the limit torus $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$, $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ contains a loop conical singularity at the limit torus. This conical singularity is a geodesic on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ as pointed out by Unruh et al.. To see this from Eq.(16), we consider the orbit of the Killing vector $`\phi ^a`$ and pay attention to the magnitude of the “acceleration” of this Killing orbit. In the neighborhood of the limit torus $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$, the norm $`V`$ of $`\phi ^a`$ behaves

$$\frac{V^2}{a^2}=\varphi ^4\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma =1+\frac{8}{\sqrt{\pi }}e^{\eta \sigma }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +1)}\mathrm{cos}\psi +O(e^{2\sigma }).$$
(30)
Then the magnitude $`\kappa `$ of the “acceleration” is given by

$$\kappa =\frac{\sqrt{(D^aV)(D_aV)}}{V}\frac{2\eta }{\sqrt{\pi }a}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +1)}e^{(\eta 1)\sigma }\frac{2\eta }{\sqrt{\pi }a}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +1)}\left(\frac{d}{2a}\right)^{\eta 1},$$
(31)
where $`d2ae^\sigma `$ is the proper distance from the Killing orbits of $`\phi ^a`$ with a finite $`\sigma `$ to the limit torus $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$. Eq.(31) shows that $`\kappa `$ vanishes when $`d0`$. Then the loop conical singularity is a geodesic on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$. We note that this is also true in the initial data of the conformally non-flat version derived in Ref.. (See Appendix A.)

Here, we show that the core of a thick loop string (the limit torus $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$) is not a geodesic on the initial surface $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ containing a thick loop string in Sec.III B. In this initial data, the “acceleration” $`\kappa `$ of the Killing orbit of $`\phi ^a`$ behaves

$$\kappa =\frac{a_1}{aa_0^3}+O(e^\sigma )$$
(32)
in the limit $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$. $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$ are given by Eqs.(26) and are constants determined by the outside deficit angle $`\alpha `$ and the locus $`\sigma =\sigma _{1+}`$ (or $`\sigma _1`$) of the matter torus. Thus, the inside matter torus shell, the orbit of $`\phi ^a`$ is not a geodesic on the whole initial surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ if a string has its finite thickness.

When the torus shell of the matter field is sufficiently thin ($`\sigma _{1\pm }\mathrm{}`$), $`\kappa `$ behaves

$$\kappa =\frac{1}{a}\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +1)}\eta ^\eta e^{(\eta 1)\sigma _{1+}}+O(e^{\sigma _{1\pm }}).$$
(33)
This shows that the limit torus approaches to a geodesic on the initial surface $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ as the string thickness approaches to zero, which is the similar situation to Eq.(31). Eq.(33) also shows that $`\kappa =1/a`$ when the outside deficit angle vanishes ($`\eta =1`$). This is the “acceleration” of the loop with the radius $`a`$ on a flat space, i.e., a test string. Thus, only by introducing the string thickness, we have obtained the natural behavior of $`\kappa `$ which includes the case of a conical singularity and that of a test string. Hence, we may say that the zero thickness of a string is the essential reason of the geodesic properties obtained in Ref..

Though the matter distribution in Sec.(III B) is too artificial for a gauge string loop, we may say that a cosmic string loop is not a geodesic if the loop has its finite proper length and if its energy density does not diverge at the core of the string ($`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$). From the metric (10), the proper length of the Killing orbit of $`\phi ^a`$ is $`2\pi a\varphi ^2\mathrm{sinh}\sigma `$. The core $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$ has a finite proper length only when $`\varphi =O(e^{\sigma /2})`$. In this case, the right hand side of Eq.(2) behaves

$$2\pi G\varphi ^5T_{}=O(e^{\frac{5}{2}\sigma })\times T_{}.$$
(34)
Together with the Hamiltonian constraint (2), Eq.(34) yields that the energy density $`T_{}`$ of matter fields does not contribute to $`O(e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma })`$ nor $`O(e^{\frac{3}{2}\sigma })`$ of the conformal factor $`\varphi `$ unless $`T_{}`$ diverges at $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$. When we solve Eq.(2), we should impose the boundary conditions (i), (ii) and $`\eta =1`$ from the regularity at the limit torus. Then, the asymptotic form of $`\varphi _+`$ in Eq.(28) is true up to the order of $`O(e^{\frac{5}{2}\sigma })`$ even if we consider the smooth distribution of $`T_{}`$. Further, $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$ in Eq.(28) remain constants. These constants $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$ are determined by the boundary conditions at the surface of the matter distribution or the asymptotically flatness at the infinity as in our torus shell model. Then, we obtain Eq.(32), again. Thus, the limit torus $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$ must not be a geodesic even if the distribution of $`T_{}`$ is smooth and a loop string has its finite proper length.

## IV Loop cosmic string and linear perturbation

In the last section, we have seen a thick loop energy distribution is not a geodesic on the initial surface, while a loop conical singularity is. The example in the last section also shows that the initial data derived in Ref. may be regarded as the gravitational field produced a smooth matter distribution. Further, as mentioned in the Introduction (Sec.I), this also suggests that, for the fixed loop radius, there exists a criterion in the string thickness of the validity of a linear gravity. We call “critical thickness”. This critical thickness can be evaluated by the discrepancy of a linear gravity from the initial data in the previous section.

The solution to the linearized Hamiltonian constraint is derived by choosing the line element on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ so that

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{1}{2}\varphi _N\right)^4ds_E^2(12\varphi _N)ds_E^2.$$
(35)
The linearized Hamiltonian constraint (2) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _N=4\pi GT_{}$$
(36)
in the leading order of $`\varphi _N`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Laplacian on the flat space. This is just Newton’s equation of gravity. However, we should comment that cosmic string does not generate the usual Newton potential in the linearized Einstein gravity because of its huge tension. We must note that $`\varphi _N`$ in (36) does not have the usual meaning of the Newton potential.

We consider the matter energy density distribution given by $`T_{}=\stackrel{~}{\mu }\delta (\rho a)\delta (z)`$. $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is the line energy density of the string and $`\delta (\rho a)\delta (z)`$ is the $`\delta `$-function whose support is on the loop with radius $`a`$ in the equatorial plane $`z=0`$. The solution to Eq.(36) is given by

$$\varphi _N=\frac{\alpha a}{\sqrt{(\rho +a)^2+z^2}}K(k),k^2=\frac{4\rho a}{(\rho +a)^2+z^2},$$
(37)
where $`K(k)`$ is the first class complete elliptic integral. To derive this solution (37), we identified the line energy density $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ with the Hiscock mass $`\alpha /4G`$.

Comparing with Eq.(20) and Eq.(35), we easily see that $`2(1\eta \varphi N)`$ coincides with $`\varphi _N`$ in the asymptotically flat region $`r\mathrm{}`$. As an example, $`2(1\eta \varphi N)`$ and $`\varphi _N`$ on the equatorial plane with $`\alpha =0.1`$ are shown in Fig.3. We evaluate the validity of the linear perturbation theory with the flat space background by

$$\delta :=\left|1\frac{\varphi _N}{2(1\eta \varphi N)}\right|$$
(38)
at the same circumference radius of the Killing orbit of $`\phi ^a`$. We evaluate $`\delta `$ on the equatorial plane ($`z=0`$ or $`\psi =0,\pi `$). The discrepancy $`\delta `$ diverges at the locus of the loop due to the divergence in $`\varphi _N`$:

$$\varphi _N\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{(\rho a)^2+z^2}}{2a},$$
(39)
while $`\delta 0`$ in the asymptotically flat region. This means that $`\delta `$ becomes order of unity at some points. These points give the “critical thickness”. If the string thickness is smaller than this critical thickness, we may regard that the linear perturbation theory on a flat space fails to describe gravity of a loop string.

Now, we evaluate this criterion. There are two circumference radii on the equatorial plane at which $`\delta =1`$. We denote these by $`r_{c\pm }`$. $`r_c`$ is in the region $`\rho <a`$ ($`\psi =\pi `$) and $`r_c`$ is in $`\rho >a`$ ($`\psi =0`$). We evaluate the critical thickness in the string thickness by $`D:=r_{c+}r_c`$. If a loop string has the larger thickness than $`D`$, we may regard that the linear perturbation with a flat space background is plausible. The critical thickness $`D`$ for each deficit angle are shown in Fig.4.

Fig.4 shows that the linear perturbation theory with a flat space background is plausible when its thickness is larger than $`5\times 10^3a`$ for $`\alpha =10^6`$ (GUT string case). This critical thickness is also roughly estimated as follows: The divergence in $`\delta `$ is due to the logarithmic one in $`\varphi _N(\eta 1)/(2\eta )\mathrm{ln}(D/4a)`$. Since $`\varphi _N<2(1\eta \varphi N)<0`$ and $`2(1\eta \varphi N)2(1\eta )`$ near the loop, we obtain $`D4ae^{8\eta }1.4\times 10^3a`$ for $`\alpha 10^6`$. Though this estimation is about one quarter of the result shown in Fig.4, it will be due to higher order corrections in $`\varphi _N`$ or $`2(1\eta \varphi N)`$.

## V Summary and Discussion

We have considered the initial data of gravity produced by a loop string and showed that the core of a thick string is not a geodesic on the initial surface, while a loop conical singularity is. To see this, we first consider an example in which the matter concentrates on the torus surface. This geodesic property is unchanged if a loop string has its finite proper length and the matter energy density does not diverge. Then, we may say that the geodesic property obtained in Ref. should not be taken seriously when we consider the dynamics of cosmic strings in the early universe, because realistic cosmic strings have their own finite thickness.

Further, using the above example, we have seen that the loop approaches to a geodesic on the initial surface in the zero thickness limit. This behavior in our example also suggests that the metric perturbation on a flat space background loses its validity when a string is sufficiently thin. We also considered the critical thickness which is the criterion of the validity of the linear gravity around a flat space background. We evaluate this criterion using the circumference radii at which the discrepancy $`\delta `$ defined by Eq.(38) becomes unity. Fig.4 shows that a linear perturbation is plausible when the string thickness is larger than $`5\times 10^3a`$ where $`a`$ is the string bending scale.

It is not clear from the arguments in this paper whether all behaviors of the “acceleration” $`\kappa `$ of the Killing orbit in our example are maintained in generic situations. To confirm this, we must solve the Hamiltonian constraint (2) with smooth matter energy distribution, numerically. However, we expect that these are also true even when the matter distribution is smooth because the coefficients $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$ in Eq.(32) are completely determined by the regularity at the limit torus and the asymptotically conical structure.

Fig.3(a) also shows that there is the discrepancy of $`\varphi _N`$ and $`2(1\eta \varphi N)`$ in the region near loop axis $`z=0`$. This will be due to the degree of freedom of gravitational waves on the initial surface. This speculation is also suggested the fact that the usual Newton potential does not generated by a cosmic string because of its huge tension as commented in the previous section. To confirm this speculation, we must solve the time evolution from this initial data. However, $`\delta `$ in this region is smaller than unity and this discrepancy will be described by the linear perturbation with the Minkowski spacetime background. So this discrepancy is not important for the above criterion.

In Ref., we discussed the dynamics of a fluctuating infinite string and showed that the displacement of a string vanishes for a zero thickness string. These results in Ref. is due to the same situation discussed here. From the viewpoint of the idealization problem of concentrated line sources in general relativity, we may say that the thickness should be remained finite when we investigate the dynamics of self-gravitating strings and their gravitational wave emission.

We must note that our conclusion here does not contradict to our conclusion in Ref.: there is no dynamical degree of freedom of the free oscillations of a Nambu-Goto string within the first order with respect to its oscillation amplitude. In Ref., we have carefully excluded the gauge freedom of perturbations. The result obtained here suggests that we may use the linear perturbation theory with Minkowski background if the string thickness is much larger than the above critical thickness, though we must bear in our mind that the effect of Higgs and gauge fields constructing cosmic string will dominate in a realistic cosmic string. In this case, we have to exclude gauge freedom of the perturbations carefully as in Ref.. This will be our future work.

Finally, we must also comment that our arguments here and in Ref. are those for a string in the situation where its bending scale is much larger than its thickness. So, from the conclusion here, we cannot say anything about the geometry of near cusps or kinks, which may arise in the complex dynamics of cosmic strings. When cusps or kinks appear by the dynamics from large loop, we will have to take into account the dynamics of Higgs and gauge fields. This will be not the problem in general relativity but the field theory itself.

## acknowledgements

The author thanks Prof. Minoru Omote, Prof. Takashi Mishima and Prof. Akio Hosoya for their continuous encouragement.

## A Conformally non-flat initial data

In this appendix, we consider the conformally non-flat version of the initial data discussed by Frolov et al and show that, even in this initial data, a thick loop energy distribution is not a geodesic on the initial surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ nevertheless a conical singurality is.

The conformally non-flat version of the initial data discussed by Frolov et al is characterized by the conformally transformed metric $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{ab}`$

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{ab}=a^2\left(e^{2\nu }(d\sigma )_a(d\sigma )_b+e^{2\nu }(d\psi )_a(d\psi )_b+\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma (d\phi )_a(d\phi )_b\right).$$
(A1)
In this initial data, there are two unknown functions $`\nu (\sigma ,\psi )`$ and the conformal factor $`\varphi (\sigma ,\psi )`$ and the Hamiltonian constraint (2) is given by

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}\sigma }_\sigma (\mathrm{sinh}\sigma _\sigma \varphi )+_\psi ^2\varphi +\frac{1}{4}\left(1+(_\sigma ^2+_\psi ^2)\nu \right)\varphi =2\pi Ga^2e^{2\nu }\varphi ^5T_{}.$$
(A2)
As a vacuum solution to Eq.(A2) with a loop conical singularity,

$`\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha (\sigma \sigma _0),& & (\sigma >\sigma _0),\\ 0,& & (\sigma <\sigma _0),\end{array}`$ (A5)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`N^1+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ϵ_nb_n}{4\alpha b_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{n1/2}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma _<)}{P_{n1/2}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma _0)}}Q_{n1/2}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma _>)\mathrm{cos}n\psi `$ (A6)
is derived in Ref., where $`\sigma _<`$ and $`\sigma _>`$ denote the lesser and greater of $`(\sigma ,\sigma _0)`$ and $`b_n`$ are given by

$$b_n=\mathrm{sinh}\sigma _0Q_{n1/2}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma _0)P_{n1/2}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma _0).$$
(A7)
Eq.(A5) guarantees that the limit torus $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$ is a conical singularity and the axis $`\sigma =0`$ is not.

In the solution given by Eqs.(A5)-(A7), we easily see that the conical singularity at $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$ is a geodesic on the initial surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. To see this, we consider the region $`\sigma >\sigma _0`$. In this region, Eq.(A5) yields $`\nu =\alpha (\sigma \sigma _0)`$ and Eq.(A6) is given by

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4ϵ_n}{4\alpha b_n}}Q_{n1/2}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma )\mathrm{cos}n\psi `$ (A8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}e^{\frac{\sigma }{2}}}{4\alpha b_0}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha b_0}{4\alpha b_1}}e^\sigma \mathrm{cos}\psi +O(e^{2\sigma })\right).`$ (A9)
The “acceleration” of the Killing orbit of $`\phi ^a`$ behaves

$$\kappa \frac{1}{a}e^{\alpha \sigma _0}\frac{(4\alpha b_0)^3}{4\alpha b_1}e^{\alpha \sigma }\left(\frac{d}{a}\right)^{\frac{\alpha }{1\alpha }},$$
(A10)
where the proper distance $`dae^{(1\alpha )\sigma }`$ from the Killing orbit with a finite $`\sigma `$ to the conical singularity ($`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$). This shows that the loop conical singularity is a geodesic on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Here, we show that the limit torus $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$ is not a geodesic when we replace the above conical singularity by the matter distribution with the finite energy. For simplicity, we consider a $`\delta `$-function distribution of a matter energy density at the torus $`\sigma =\text{constant}`$, denoted by $`𝒮`$, as in the main text. The metric $`q_{ab}=\varphi ^4\stackrel{~}{q}_{ab}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ (outside the torus) is given by Eqs.(A1), (A5), and (A6). On $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$, we assume that the metric $`q_{ab}`$ is given by $`\nu =0`$ and Eq.(23).

The normal vectors $`n_{a\pm }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ are given by

$$n_{a\pm }=a\varphi _\pm ^2(\psi )e^{\nu _\pm }(d\sigma _\pm )_a,$$
(A11)
where $`\varphi _\pm `$ and $`\nu _\pm `$ are metric functions $`\varphi `$ and $`\nu `$ on the boundaries $`\sigma =\sigma _{1\pm }`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$, respectively. The induced metrics $`h_{ab\pm }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ are given by

$$h_{ab\pm }=a^2\varphi _\pm ^4\left(e^{2\nu _\pm }(d\psi )_a(d\psi )_b+\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma _{1\pm }(d\phi )_a(d\phi )_b\right).$$
(A12)
The trace of the extrinsic curvatures $`\kappa _{c\pm }^c`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$ are given by

$$\kappa _{c\pm }^c=\frac{_\sigma (\varphi ^2e^\nu )}{a\varphi ^4e^{2\nu }}\frac{1}{a\varphi ^4e^\nu \mathrm{sinh}\sigma }_\sigma (\varphi ^2\mathrm{sinh}\sigma ).|_{\sigma =\sigma _{1\pm }}.$$
(A13)
We only consider the case $`\sigma _1>\sigma _0`$. Then we may use $`\nu _+=0`$, $`\nu _{}=\alpha (\sigma _1\sigma _0)`$. $`\varphi _{}`$ is given by Eq.(A8) with $`\sigma =\sigma _1`$ and $`\varphi _+`$ is given by Eq.(23) with $`\sigma =\sigma _{1+}`$. The junction condition (3) for the intrinsic metric yields

$$e^\nu _{}\mathrm{sinh}\sigma _1=\mathrm{sinh}\sigma _{1+},\varphi _+=\varphi _{}e^{\frac{\nu _{}}{2}}.$$
(A14)
As in the conformally flat version, the first condition gives the relation of $`\sigma _{1\pm }`$. The second condition determines the coefficients $`a_n`$ in Eq.(23):

$$a_n=\frac{4e^{\frac{\nu _{}}{2}}}{4\alpha b_n}\frac{Q_{n\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma _1)}{Q_{n\frac{1}{2}}(\sqrt{1+e^{2\nu _{}}\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma _1})}=\frac{4e^{\frac{\nu _{}}{2}}}{4\alpha b_n}\frac{Q_{n\frac{1}{2}}(\sqrt{1+e^{2\nu _{}}\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma _{1+}})}{Q_{n\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{cosh}\sigma _{1+})}.$$
(A15)
The junction condition (6) for the extrinsic curvature $`\kappa _{c\pm }^c`$ gives the energy density on the torus shell as in the conformally flat version in the main text.

In this initial data, we easily see that the limit torus $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$ in this model is not a geodesic on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$ (on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_+,q_{ab+})`$). Since the metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ is also given by Eq.(22) and Eq.(23), the “acceleration” $`\kappa `$ of the Killing orbit of $`\phi ^a`$ at $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$ is given by Eq.(32), again. Since the coefficients $`a_n`$ in Eq.(A15) are constants determined by the locus of the torus matter shell, we conclude that the limit torus $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$ is not a geodesic on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$. As in the case in Sec.III C, when the matter torus shell is sufficiently thin ($`\sigma _{1\pm }\mathrm{}`$), $`\kappa `$ behaves

$$\kappa \left(\frac{d_{1+}}{a}\right)^{\frac{\alpha }{1\alpha }},$$
(A16)
where $`d_{1+}=a_{\sigma _{1+}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma \varphi ^2`$ is the proper distance from $`\sigma =\sigma _{1+}`$ to the limit torus $`\sigma =\mathrm{}`$. Eq.(A16) shows that when the thickness of the string is sufficiently smaller than its curvature radius ($`d_{1+}/a0`$), the loop approaches to a geodesic on $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },q_{ab})`$. These behaviors are same as that obtained in Sec.III C.


format: text

text:
# X-Ray Line Profiles from Parameterized Emission within an Accelerating Stellar Wind

## 1 Introduction

Over the past two decades, orbiting X-ray observatories from Einstein to ASCA have shown that both hot and cool stars are moderately strong sources of soft X-rays at energies betweenm 0.1 and 2 keV. For cooler, late-type stars, the scaling of X-ray luminosity with, e.g., stellar rotation, suggests a solar-type origin, with surface magnetic loops confining hot, X-ray-emitting material within nearly static circumstellar coronae. For hotter, early-type stars, the X-ray luminosity has no discernible dependence on rotation, but instead scales nearly linearly with bolometric luminosity, $`L_\mathrm{x}10^7L_{\mathrm{Bol}}`$ (Long & White, 1980; Pallavicini et al., 1981; Chlebowski, Harnden, & Sciortino, 1989), suggesting a different emission mechanism, perhaps related to the high-density, radiatively driven stellar wind observed from such stars.

Nonetheless, an ongoing question has remained whether such hot-star X-ray emission originates from coronal-like processes occuring in nearly static regions near the stellar surface (Cassinelli & Olson, 1979; Waldron, 1984; Cohen, Cassinelli, & MacFarlane, 1997), or rather in the highly supersonic wind outflow, perhaps from shocks arising from intrinsic instabilities in the radiative driving mechanism (Lucy & White, 1980; Lucy, 1982; Owocki, Castor, & Rybicki, 1988; Feldmeier et al., 1997; Feldmeier, Puls, & Pauldrach, 1997; Owocki & Cohen, 1999). Based on the observed strong winds in hot stars (e.g., Snow & Morton, 1976), a key discriminant has been the apparent general lack of soft X-ray absorption, which, along with optical and UV spectral constraints, implies limits to the extent, temperature, and fractional contribution of the total X-ray output from a base corona (Cassinelli, Olson, & Stalio, 1978; Nordsieck, Cassinelli, & Anderson, 1981; Cassinelli & Swank, 1983; Baade & Lucy, 1987; MacFarlane et al., 1993; Cohen et al., 1996). This limited inferred absorption is thus generally seen as evidence for emission arising from lower-density regions at large radii, in general agreement with a wind-shock model.

In the context of extreme ultraviolet spectroscopy, MacFarlane et al. (1991) presented models of emission line profiles, from both a coronal source and from an expanding shell, affected by transfer through a stellar wind. These authors demonstrated that emission line profiles are a key discriminant of the source location. However, due to the small throughput and modest resolution of the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE) spectrometers, combined with the extreme opacity of the interstellar medium in this bandpass, emission lines from only one hot star ($`ϵ`$ CMa) were observed with EUVE. The only high signal-to-noise line seen in this EUV spectrum was the He II Ly$`\alpha `$ line, which was observed to be broadened by several hundred km s<sup>-1</sup>, lending credence to models that postulate a wind-origin for the hot plasma in OB stars (Cassinelli et al., 1995).

It is only recently, however, that orbiting X-ray observatories like XMM and Chandra have been able to provide the first detections of spectrally resolved X-ray emission lines from hot, luminous stars (Kahn et al., 2001; Schulz et al., 2001; Waldron & Cassinelli, 2001; Cassinelli et al., 2001). Through the broadened profiles of these resolved X-ray emission lines, these data provide a new, key diagnostic for inferring whether the X-ray emission originates from a nearly static corona, or from an expanding stellar wind outflow. A key goal of the present paper is to provide a firm basis for interpreting such X-ray emission line spectra.

Specifically, we describe below the method (§2) and results (§3) for computations of synthetic line profiles arising from parameterized forms of X-ray emission in an expanding stellar wind. In comparison to recent work by Ignace (2001), who derived analytic forms for X-ray emission profiles for the case of constant expansion velocity, our analysis takes into account a variation of velocity $`v(r)`$ in radius $`r`$, as parameterized by the so-called ‘beta-law’ form $`v(r)=v_{\mathrm{}}(1R_{}/r)^\beta `$, where $`R_{}`$ is the stellar radius and $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the wind terminal speed. As in Ignace (2001), the overall level of attenuation is characterized by an integral optical depth $`\tau _{}`$, and the X-ray emission filling factor is assumed to decline outward as a power law in radius, $`f(r)r^q`$. However, we also allow for this emission to begin at a specified onset radius $`R_o`$ that can be set at or above the surface radius $`R_{}`$. We first present scaled emission profiles for various combinations of the four parameters $`\beta `$, $`\tau _{}`$, $`q`$, and $`R_o/R_{}`$ (§3.1). For selected cases intended to represent roughly the competing models of a “base coronal” emission vs. instability-generated “wind-shock” emission, we next compute synthetic profiles that are broadened by the estimated instrumental resolution for emission lines observed by XMM and Chandra (§3.2). Finally, we discuss (§4) how various features of the synthetic profiles are influenced by properties of the emitting material, and outline prospects for future work in interpreting hot-star X-ray spectra.

## 2 Computing X-Ray Line Emission from a Spherical Stellar Wind

Extended monitoring observations by X-ray missions like ROSAT  (Berghöfer & Schmitt, 1994) have shown that for most early-type stars the X-ray emission is remarkably constant, with little or no evidence of rotational modulation, and with overall variations at or below the 1% level. This suggests that the hot, X-ray emitting material must be well-distributed within the circumstellar volume, whether in a narrow, near-surface corona, or as numerous ($`n>(1/0.01)^2=10^4`$), small elements of shock-heated gas embedded in the much cooler, UV-line-driven, ambient stellar wind. Here we model any such complex structure in terms of a spherically symmetric, smooth distribution of X-ray line emission, with emissivity $`\eta _\lambda (r,\mu )`$ at an observer’s wavelength $`\lambda `$ along direction cosine $`\mu `$ from a radius $`r`$. The resulting X-ray luminosity spectrum $`L_\lambda `$ is given by integrals of the emission over direction and radius, attenuated by continuum absorption within the medium,

$$L_\lambda =8\pi ^2_1^1𝑑\mu _R_{}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^2\eta _\lambda (\mu ,r)e^{\tau [\mu ,r]}.$$
(1)
### 2.1 Optical Depth Integration

The absorption optical depth $`\tau [\mu ,r]`$ can be most easily evaluated by converting to ray coordinates $`z\mu r`$ and $`pr\sqrt{1\mu ^2}`$, and then integrating over distance $`z`$ for each ray with impact parameter $`p`$,

$$t[p,z]=_z^{\mathrm{}}\kappa \rho [r^{}]𝑑z^{},$$
(2)
where $`\rho [r^{}]`$ is the mass density at radius $`r^{}\sqrt{p^2+z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$. We assume here that the X-ray absorption cross-section-per-unit-mass, $`\kappa `$, is a fixed constant that is independent of wavelength $`\lambda `$ within the line and radius $`r`$ within the wind. For emission at a given $`r`$ along direction cosine $`\mu `$, the optical depth attenuation in eqn. (1) can then be obtained through the simple substitution,

$$\tau [\mu ,r]=t[\sqrt{1\mu ^2}r,\mu r].$$
(3)
For simplicity, we consider here a steady-state wind with velocity given by the ‘beta-law’ form $`w(r)v(r)/v_{\mathrm{}}=(1R_{}/r)^\beta `$. Taking account also of the occultation by the stellar core of radius $`R_{}`$, we then write

$`t[p,z]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{};pR_{}\&z\sqrt{R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}p^2}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\tau _{}{\displaystyle _z^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{}dz^{}}{r^2(1R_{}/r^{})^\beta }};\mathrm{otherwise}.`$
Here we have used the mass loss rate, $`\dot{M}4\pi \rho vr^2`$, to define a characteristic wind optical depth, $`\tau _{}\kappa \dot{M}/4\pi v_{\mathrm{}}R_{}`$. Note that in a wind with $`\beta =0`$ and thus a constant velocity $`v=v_{\mathrm{}}`$, the radial ($`p=0`$) optical depth at radius $`r`$ would be given simply by $`t[0,r]=\tau _{}R_{}/r`$. Thus in such a contant-velocity wind, $`\tau _{}`$ would be the radial optical depth at the surface radius $`R_{}`$, while $`R_1=\tau _{}R_{}`$ would be the radius of unit radial optical depth.

For non-integer $`\beta `$, the optical depth integral (4) must generally be done by numerical quadrature. But for general integer values, e.g. $`\beta =`$ 0, 1, 2, or 3, it is still possible to obtain closed-form analytic expressions for this optical depth, though the expressions can be quite cumbersome to write down explicitly (see also Ignace (2001)). In the present work, these analytic forms are derived and evaluated using the mathematical analysis software, Mathematica. To provide a specific example, we cite here the analytic result for the canonical case of $`\beta =1`$, for which the integral in eqn. (4) becomes

$$\frac{t[p,z]}{\tau _{}}=\left[\frac{\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{z^{}/r^{}}{\sqrt{p^21}}\right)+\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{z}{\sqrt{p^21}}\right)}{\sqrt{p^21}}\right]_{z^{}=z}^z^{}\mathrm{}.$$
(5)
This expression actually applies under the full general conditions cited in eqn. (4), though some care must be taken in its evaluation for the cases with $`p1`$.

### 2.2 Line-Emission Integration

Let us next consider the line emissivity, which we take here to be of the form

$$\eta _\lambda (r,\mu )=C\rho ^2(r)f(r)\delta \left[\lambda \lambda _o(1\mu v(r)/c)\right],$$
(6)
where $`C`$ is an emission normalization constant, $`\lambda _o`$ is the rest wavelength for the line-emission, and $`f(r)`$ represents a volume filling-factor for X-ray emission. Note that the radial dependence of this filling factor may reflect variations in the temperature distribution of the plasma, as well as variations in the total emission measure.

The form (6) simply assumes the emission is an arbitrarily sharp function centered on the local, Doppler-shifted, comoving-frame wavelength $`\lambda _o(1\mu v(r)/c)`$, and so ignores all broadening (e.g., natural, Stark, thermal, turbulent). For Doppler shifts associated with either thermal or small-scale “micro-turbulent” motions, the delta-function should be replaced with a finite-width emission profile. But generally, such microscopic motions can be expected to be no greater than the gas sound speed, which for X-ray emitting plasma of temperature $`T_x10^7`$ K is of order a few times 100 km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$. As such, the associated broadening should be relatively small compared to that expected from the directed motion of the wind outflow, which has a much larger characteristic speed $`v_{\mathrm{}}>1000`$ km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$. Moreover, as discussed in §3.2, for larger-scale, “macro-turbulent” motions, the effects can be taken into account a postori by incorporating them with the general smearing of the observed line profiles expected from the limited spectral resolution of the X-ray detector.

For convenience, let us define a scaled wavelength measured from line center in units of the wind terminal speed $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e. $`x(\lambda /\lambda _o1)c/v_{\mathrm{}}`$. In terms of this scaled wavelength, the integrals (1) for the luminosity spectrum then become

$$L_x=8\pi ^2C_1^1𝑑\mu _R_{}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^2f(r)\rho ^2(r)e^{\tau [\mu ,r]}\delta (x+\mu w(r)),$$
(7)
where we have used the convention $`L_xdx=L_\lambda d\lambda `$. Integrating the Dirac $`\delta `$-function over direction cosine $`\mu `$, we then find that the wavelength-dependent X-ray luminosity can be evaluated from the single radial integral,

$$L_x=\frac{C\dot{M}^2}{2v_{\mathrm{}}^2}_R_{}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rH\left[w(r)|x|\right]\frac{f(r)}{r^2w^3(r)}e^{\tau [x/w(r),r]},$$
(8)
where $`H`$ is the Heaviside (a.k.a. unit-step) function, with $`H(s)=1`$ if $`s0`$, and zero otherwise.

Figure 1 plots the optical depth $`\tau [x/w(r),r]`$ versus scaled wavelength $`x`$ at selected radii $`r`$ in models with various $`\beta `$. For each radius, there is a critical, positive wavelength $`x`$ where the optical depth increases steeply, representing the strong attenuation of the red-wing emission by the dense inner wind and stellar core. Such core occultation makes the integrand in eqn. (9) effectively zero for all $`u`$ where $`(1u)^\beta \sqrt{1u^2}<x`$. For blue-wing wavelengths $`x<0`$, the termination of the curves indicates the maximum blue-shift allowed by the velocity at the relevant radius.

Ignace (2001) has recently derived completely analytic results for the X-ray profiles assuming a power-law emission factor $`f(r)r^q`$ and constant outflow velocity, $`\beta =0`$ (implying $`w(r)=1`$). As noted above, for the somewhat more general case of nonzero, but integer values of $`\beta `$, the optical depth integral (4) can still be done analytically; but in general the radial integral (8) must be evaluated by numerical quadrature. For this numerical integration, it is convenient (following Ignace (2001)) to define an inverse radius coordinate $`uR_{}/r`$, yielding

$$L_x=\frac{C\dot{M}^2}{2v_{\mathrm{}}^2R_{}}_0^{u_x}𝑑u\frac{f(R_{}/u)}{(1u)^{3\beta }}e^{\tau [x/(1u)^\beta ,R_{}/u]},$$
(9)
where $`u_x1|x|^{1/\beta }`$.

## 3 Results for Normalized Line Profiles from Power Law X-ray Emission

For any chosen model for the spatial variation of emission $`f(r)`$, eqn. (9) can be readily evaluated through a single numerical integration. As a specific illustration, we now present results for the example case of an emission factor with the power-law form $`f(r)=f_{}u^q`$ for radii $`rR_{}/u>R_oR_{}/u_o`$, and zero otherwise. This cutoff implies a slight redefinition to the upper integral bound in eqn.(9),

$$u_x\mathrm{min}[u_o,1|x|^{1/\beta }].$$
(10)
To focus on the general form of X-ray line emission, let us define a normalized emission profile,

$$l_x\frac{L_x}{\mathrm{max}_x[L_x]},$$
(11)
which simply sets the profile maximum to have a value of unity. This effectively removes the dependence on the several free parameters (e.g. $`f_{}`$, $`\dot{M}`$, $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$, etc.) that affect the overall emission normalization. The form of the resulting X-ray line-profile $`l_x`$ versus scaled wavelength $`x`$ thus depends on four free parameters, viz. $`\beta `$, $`\tau _{}`$, $`q`$, and $`R_o/R_{}`$. The effects of wind attenuation and other model parameters on the overall X-ray emission level have been addressed in a broad-band context by Owocki & Cohen (1999), but in focussing here on line profile shapes, we defer to future work any analysis of the overall emission line strength.

### 3.1 Synthetic Emission Line Profiles for Various Model Parameters

Figure 2 presents synthetic emission profiles for various combinations of these parameters, all plotted vs. the scaled wavelength $`x`$ over the range $`1<x<1`$. For comparison, figure 3 shows the flat-topped profiles for corresponding cases with optically thin emission, $`\tau _{}=0.01`$. Some notable general properties and trends are as follows:

* The profiles seem most sensitive to $`\tau _{}`$ and $`R_o`$, with $`\beta `$ and $`q`$ having a comparatively modest influence.
* The emission peaks are always blueward of line center (i.e., at $`x<0`$), with increasing blueshift for increasing $`\tau _{}`$ and/or increasing $`R_o`$.
* The overall line-width likewise increases with increasing $`\tau _{}`$ and/or $`R_o`$. The narrowest lines occur when both $`\tau _{}`$ and $`R_o`$ are near unity. Large $`\tau _{}`$ with low $`R_o`$ tend to give blue-shifted “peaked” forms, while large $`R_o`$ tend to be blue-tilted “flat-top” forms.
* The blue-to-red slope near line center is always negative. For low $`\tau _{}`$ it varies from very steep for low $`R_o`$ to nearly flat for large $`R_o`$. For large $`\tau _{}`$ it has a more intermediate steepness for all $`R_o`$.

### 3.2 Broadened Profiles for Coronal vs. Wind-Shock Scenarios

For this simple parameterized model, the profiles presented above represent the expected intrinsic line emission, with the only broadening associated with the directed, large-scale wind outflow. In practice, observed line profiles can be further broadened, both by the limited spectral resolution of the detector, as well as by Doppler shifting from additional, random motions of the emitting gas. As already noted in §2.2, for small-scale thermal or “micro-turbulent” motions, the associated broadening can be expected to be no larger than the gas sound speed, which for $`T_x10^7`$ K plasma is order a few 100 km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$. Since this is much less than the $`v_{\mathrm{}}>1000`$ km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ characteristic of the directed wind outflow, it should have comparitatively minor effect on line-profiles arising from the outer wind. For the inner wind or a more static “coronal” models, larger-scale turbulent broadening, which might in principle have a larger characeristic speed, can still be accounted for a postori, together with instrumental broadening arising from the limited spectral resolution of the detectors used in the XMM and Chandra satellites. For simplicity, we assume here that both macro-turbulent and instrumental broadening can be characterized by convolving a simple Gaussian kernel function over the intrinsic line-profile. As such, a single parameterized width $`\sigma `$, defined here in units of the wind terminal speed $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$, represents the combined effects of both any macroturbulent motion and intrumental broadening, with $`\sigma \sqrt{\sigma _{turb}^2+\sigma _{instr}^2}`$.

Let us now consider examples of such broadened line-profiles. To keep the parameter range tractable, we identify specific parameter subsets to represent general conditions in the two distinct scenarios that have often been invoked in modeling hot-star X-ray emission, namely the “coronal” (e.g., Waldron, 1984) vs. “wind-shock” scenarios (e.g., Feldmeier, Puls, & Pauldrach, 1997; Owocki & Cohen, 1999). The coronal scenario envisions X-ray emission as coming mostly from a relatively narrow, nearly static layer near the stellar surface; we represent this here with the parameter values $`q=5`$, $`\beta =3`$, and $`R_o=R_{}`$. The wind-shock scenario generally envisions X-ray production arising from instability-generated shocks that form in the acceleration region $`r=13R_{}`$ of the star’s line-driven wind, with eventual slow decay of the shocks in the outer wind; we represent this here with the parameter values $`R_o=1.5R_{}`$, $`\beta =1`$, and $`q=0.5`$. For both scenarios we again consider the effect of various optical depth parameters, $`\tau _{}`$.

Figure 4 compares results for the coronal (left) vs. wind-shock (right) scenario. In characterizing results, we shall refer to profiles with small vs. large $`\sigma `$ as representing good/high vs. coarse/low resolution. Here some notable general properties and trends include:

* At the best resolution ($`\sigma =0.1`$), the coronal models are, as expected, notably narrower than the wind models.
* The wind-shock models are generally more blue-shifted than the coronal models.
* At the coarsest resolution, ($`\sigma =0.5`$), all profiles have similar width, but still generally differ in overall blue-shift.
* For the optically thin case, the emission is nearly symmetric about line center. For other cases, the emission peaks become more blue-shifted with increasing optical depth $`\tau _{}`$. (The coronal models with larger $`\tau _{}`$ may not be relevant, however, since wind absorption would greatly reduce the overall strength of any observable emission.)

The typical spectral resolution for Chandra is around $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda 10001500`$. For characteristic wind terminal speed of $`v_{\mathrm{}}20003000`$, this implies a typical broadening parameter of $`\sigma 0.1`$. For XMM, the spectral broadening is comparable, though slightly larger. Clearly, at such high resolutions, it should be possible to place strong constraints on the site of X-ray emission and the degree of wind attenuation, as well as on the characteristic speeds of directed vs. turbulent motions of the emitting plasma.

## 4 Discussion

The parameterized emission models here provide a good basis for interpreting X-ray line-profile observations made possible by the new generation of orbiting X-ray telescopes. While detailed, quantitative analyses must await the general availability of specific datasets, it is already clear from the few hot-star X-ray spectra published thus far that there are some noteworthy challenges for modeling the associated X-ray emission.

For example, temperature-sensitive line-ratio diagnostics provide constraints on the magnitude of shocks in dynamical models. Generally instability generated wind-shock models tend to be dominated by moderate shock-strengths $`\mathrm{\Delta }v100400`$ km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ that can only heat material up to a maximum of $`10^7`$ K (Feldmeier et al., 1997). In those stars with much higher inferred temperatures, for example $`\theta ^1`$ Ori C with $`T>5\times 10^7`$ K (Schulz et al., 2001), there is a need to produce stronger shocks. One possibilty is for wind outflow to be channeled by magnetic loops (Babel & Montmerle, 1997). In this case, wind material accelerated up opposite footpoints of a closed loop can be forced to collide near the loop top, in principle yielding shocks with velocity jumps of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }v1000`$ km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$, a substantial fraction of the wind terminal speed.

Another key diagnostic stems from the forbidden-to-intercombination (f/i) ratios of helium-like emission lines, which can provide a strong constraint on the location of the X-ray emission. In the case of the solar corona, such ratios are nominally interpreted as density diagnostics (Gabriel & Jordan, 1969). But because the strong UV radiation of hot-stars can generally dominate over electron collisions in the destruction of forbidden line upper levels, in such stars the f/i provides instead a constraint on the strength of the UV intensity (Blumenthal, Drake, & Tucker, 1972; Mewe & Schrijver, 1978). With appropriate atmospheric modeling of the relevant part of UV continuum, any inferred dilution of the radiation thus provides a diagnostic of the proximity of the X-ray emission to the stellar surface. For XMM observations of $`\zeta `$ Pup (Kahn et al., 2001), initial interpretations suggest formation well away from the stellar surface ($`r>2R_{}`$), consistent with a wind-shock origin, with moreover a general trend toward larger radii for lower-energy lines, as would be expected from the larger optical depths and thus larger unit-optical-depth radii for such lines. For Chandra observations of $`\zeta `$ Ori Waldron & Cassinelli (2001), the inferred formation radii are also generally away from the star ($`r210R_{}`$), but with one stage (Si XIII) suggesting a formation very close to the surface ($`r<1.1R_{}`$). However, in this latter case, the relevant UV flux for destruction of the forbidden upper levels lies at energies above the Lyman-edge, and so any error in atmospheric modeling of the Lyman jump could still alter this inferred formation radius. Chandra observations of $`\zeta `$ Pup (Cassinelli et al., 2001) show similar results, with most inferred formation radii in the range $`r1.510R_{}`$, with trends again consistent with inferred unit-optical-depth radii, but again with one stage (in this case S XV) implying formation quite close to the surface ($`r<1.25R_{}`$). Of course, such fir constraints on source location must eventually be considered in conjunction with additional constraints, such as those provided by analysis of line profiles.

Indeed, in the context of this paper, the most notable new diagnostic provided by recent X-ray observations lies in the form of the line profiles. For some initial results, these have some quite puzzling characteristics. For example, in the XMM spectrum of $`\zeta `$ Pup (Kahn et al., 2001), the lines all exhibit a similar, significant broadening, but with half-widths $`10001500`$ km s<sup>-1</sup> that are still somewhat lower than the inferred wind terminal speed $`v_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}>2000`$ km s<sup>-1</sup>. The typical profiles have a rounded, Gaussian form that is quite distinct from, e.g., the flat-topped profiles expected for optically thin emission from a nearly constant velocity expansion. Moreover, the profiles show only modest asymmetry, with the peak intensity only slightly blue-shifted, by $`0400`$ km s<sup>-1</sup> relative to line-center, and the red-wing only slightly flatter and more extended than the blue-wing. Recent somewhat higher spectral resolution observations by Chandra do show the greater shift and asymmetry expected from optically thick wind emission for $`\zeta `$ Pup (Cassinelli et al., 2001). But in Chandra observations of the O9.7 Ib star $`\zeta `$ Ori, the profiles are again very broad (half-widths of $``$ 1000 km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$), but nearly symmetric (Waldron & Cassinelli, 2001).

Such profiles with substantial broadening, but little asymmetry and blueshift are difficult to reconcile with a simple wind-outflow model that includes attenuation by the wind and stellar core, both of which should preferentially attenuate X-rays from the back-side hemisphere, and thus in a wind or a corona with some outflow, preferentially reduce the red-side emission. In fact, from detailed modeling constrained by ROSAT  observations, Hillier et al. (1993) have argued that that the wind of $`\zeta `$ Pup should be optically thick to 1 keV X-rays at 10 $`R_{}`$, with the radius of optical depth unity being even greater for softer X-rays (20 $`R_{}`$ at 0.6 keV; and still 2 $`R_{}`$ at 2 keV).

Even for a base corona with some overall outflow velocity and no overlying wind attenuation, occultation by the stellar core should still produce line profiles that are skewed toward the blue. A coronal model with little or no net outflow could explain the observed profile symmetry, but matching the observed line-widths would then require the coronal material to have extremely large “turbulent” motions. For example, line widths in the Chandra observations of $`\zeta `$ Ori (Waldron & Cassinelli, 2001) require velocity dispersions of order 1000 km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$, and some of the lines observed by Chandra in $`\theta ^1`$ Ori C (Schulz et al., 2001) are even broader than this, yet apparently still nearly symmetric. If the lack of red-wing attenuation is interpreted to mean that red-shifted emission does not arise from wind outflow from the backside hemisphere, then this suggest that material in front of the star must be flowing downward at velocities of 1000 km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$. Since this is greater than the surface escape speed, it cannot be the result of gravitational infall, but instead would imply that some mechanism, e.g., perhaps magnetic reconnection (Waldron & Cassinelli, 2001), must actively accelerate roughly equally strong upflow and downflow with speeds of 1000 km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$! Moreover, such random motions should inevitably lead to high-speed gas collisions and their associated shock heating. For shocks with velocity jumps of order 1000 km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ the associated post-shock temperature should be of order $`10^8`$ K, implying generally harder X-rays and higher ionization stages than are typically observed. In this context, these broad but symmetric profiles would indeed seem to represent a strong challenge for theoretical models.

On the other hand, our synthesized line profiles from wind models do seem capable of producing relatively broad, yet symmetric and unshifted profiles, but only in the nearly complete absence of wind attenuation, and with emission originating far from the occultation of the stellar core. To test the viabilty of this alternative, observed line-profiles should be interpreted in conjunction with other diagnostics, like the f/i ratio, that can constrain the radii of X-ray emission, and with an accurate account of wind absorption, as computed through opacity calculations for the observationally inferred wind mass loss rate.

Any wind shock model with significant wind attenuation is expected to be strongly blueshifted and quite asymmetric (see figure 4). Of all the line profiles discussed in the first group of XMM and Chandra papers, the observations of $`\zeta `$ Pup provide the best evidence for the blue-shifts and asymmetry expected for optically thick wind emission (Kahn et al., 2001; Cassinelli et al., 2001). For example, figure 3 of Cassinelli et al. (2001) shows 5 out of 6 lines with blueward shifts and asymmetry similar to profiles calculated here for wind-shock models with substantial optical depth, e.g. $`\tau _{}5`$. At least for this canonical O-type star, these profiles seems to provide strong evidence of a wind origin for most of the observed X-rays.

In summary, systematic fitting of the line-profiles will be necessary to place more quantitative constraints on the spatial distribution of hot plasma and the degree of wind attenuation in the observed O stars; but some initial qualitative inferences are already possible. For some cases, the implied minimal wind attenuation combined with some significant bulk motion are puzzling, both in the context of coronal X-ray emission and in the context of the strong radiation-driven winds that are known to exist on these stars from UV, optical, IR, and radio observations. One possible solution to the wind attenuation problem might be found in clumping. A “porous” wind might allow many of the X-rays to stream through unattenuated, yet also lead to significant UV absorption if the interclump wind medium still has sufficient column density to produce optically thick UV lines. (The UV line transition probabilities are significantly larger than the bound-free X-ray cross sections.) An alternative is that the mass-loss rates of O stars may have been overestimated. It does not seem likely, however, that the winds are dense and smooth but transparent to X-rays, as that would require levels of ionization in the wind that would not allow for efficient radiation-driving. And, if the winds are indeed optically thin, then to discriminate between coronal and wind models will require a careful analysis of the shifts and asymmetries observed in the X-ray line profiles.

Finally, although we developed our analysis with hot stars in mind, it could be extended to other X-ray sources in which lines are emitted within a nearly symmetric expanding medium that may also have substantial continuum opacity. This could include nova winds, planetary nebulae, active galactic nuclei, and X-ray binaries.

We thank R. Ignace for providing a preprint of his paper on analytic X-ray profiles and also for his detailed comments on this manuscript. We also thank K. Gayley and A. Ud-Doula for helpful comments on our analysis, and J. Cassinelli and J. MacFarlane for many useful insights regarding the X-ray spectra of O stars. Finally, we thank the referee, M. Corcoran, for helpful comments and suggestions on the submitted manuscript. This research was supported in part by NASA grant NAG5-3530 to the Bartol Research Institute at the University of Delaware.