text:
# Generalised hyperbolicity: hypersurface singularities

## 1. Introduction

A desirable property of any space-time used to model a physically plausible scenario is that the evolution of the Einstein’s equations is well posed; that is the initial value problem admits a unique solution. Space-times whose metrics are at least $`C^2`$, which guarantees the existence of unique geodesics, fall within the context of the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis of Penrose (1979). This hypothesis states that that the space-time will be globally hyperbolic, i.e. strong causality is satisfied and $`J^+(p)J^{}(q)`$ is compact $`p,qM`$, and hence the evolution of Einstein’s equations is well defined.

There are however a number of space-times which violate cosmic censorship in this sense, but for which there may be a well posed initial value theorem for test fields. This suggests that a weaker notion of hyperbolicity should be defined (Clarke, 1996). Space times which may fall into this category include those with weak singularities such as as thin cosmic strings (Vickers, 1987), impulsive gravitational waves (Penrose, 1972) and dust caustic space-times (Clarke and O’Donnell, 1992), all of which model physically plausible scenarios. Such space-times typically admit a locally bounded metric whose differentiability level is lower than $`C^2`$ and a curvature tensor that is well defined as a distribution, often with its support on a proper submanifold.

A concept of hyperbolicity for such space-times was proposed by Clarke (1998). This was based on the extent to which singularities disrupted the local evolution of the initial value problem for the scalar wave equation.

$`\mathrm{}\varphi `$ $`=f`$
$`\varphi _{|S}`$ $`=\varphi _0`$
$`n^a\varphi _{,a}^{}{}_{|S}{}^{}`$ $`=\varphi _1`$
Clarke reformulated the initial value problem, on an open region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with a compact closure admitting a space-like hypersurface $`S`$, which partitions $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into two disjoint sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, in a distributional form, obtained by multiplying by a test field $`\omega `$ and integrating by parts once to give

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}}\varphi _{,a}\omega _{,b}g^{ab}(g)^{1/2}d^4x={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}}f\omega (g)^{1/2}d^4x{\displaystyle _S}\varphi _1\omega 𝑑S\omega 𝒟(\mathrm{\Omega })`$
$`\varphi _{|S}=\varphi _0`$
and then defined a point $`pM`$ as being $`\mathrm{}`$-regular if it admitted such a neighbourhood $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for which the above equation had a unique solution for each set of Cauchy data $`(\varphi _0,\varphi _1)H^1(S)\times H^0(S)`$. A space-time which was $`\mathrm{}`$-regular everywhere could then be said to be $`\mathrm{}`$-globally hyperbolic. It was shown if a space-time satisfied the following curve integrability conditions at a given point $`pM`$, then that point was $`\mathrm{}`$-regular:

The proof involved the construction of a congruence of time-like geodesics, whose tangent admitted an essentially bounded weak derivative, and a suitable energy inequality from which uniqueness and existence could be deduced. In particular it was shown that these results were applicable to the dust caustic space-times.

There is an important class of space-times with weak singularities that do not satisfy these curve integrability conditions; space-times whose curvature has support on a proper submanifold. This class includes both impulsive gravitational waves (Co-dimension 1) and thin cosmic strings (Co-dimension 2).

This paper will consider the question of hyperbolicity in space-times with a singular hypersurface. For hyperbolicity in conical space-times see Wilson (2000) and also Vickers and Wilson (2000).

## 2. Existence and uniqueness

In order to prove hyperbolicity, we must show that in each open region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with a compact boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, that a unique solution $`\varphi H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ exists to the initial value problem;

$`\mathrm{}\varphi `$ $`=f`$ $`1`$
$`\varphi _{|S}`$ $`=\varphi _0`$
$`n^a\varphi _{,a}^{}{}_{|S}{}^{}`$ $`=\varphi _1`$
where $`fH^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and the initial data $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ lie in suitable function spaces. We shall assume that $`(\varphi _0,\varphi _1)H^1(S)\times H^0(S)`$ at least; this is what was required for hyperbolicity in curve integrable space-times (Clarke, 1998). However we shall see that, in the given circumstances, that one requires some what stronger conditions on $`(\varphi _0,\varphi _1)`$.

In an open region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with a closed boundary, we shall assume that we have the following scenario

We shall also assume without loss of generality that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is generated by a foliation of space-like hypersurfaces $`(S_\tau )_{a<\tau <b}`$ (with $`a<0<b`$) having a common boundary, with $`S_0`$ coinciding with the initial surface $`S`$ (see figure 1).

Figure 1. The foliation of region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

### 2.1 The energy inequality

We shall follow the approach of Hawking and Ellis (1973), Clarke (1998) and Wilson (2000) in discussing existence and uniqueness of solutions to (1) in terms of an energy inequality. The energy inequality gives a bound to the solution $`\varphi `$ at a given time in terms of the initial data $`(\varphi _0,\varphi _1)`$ and the source term $`f`$.

We define the following energy integral

$$E(\tau )=_{S_\tau }S^{ab}T_an_b𝑑S$$

where $`n^a`$ is the future pointing normal vector to the surface $`S_\tau `$ and

$$S^{ab}=(g^{ac}g^{bd}\frac{1}{2}g^{ab}g^{cd})\varphi _{,c}\varphi _{,d}\frac{1}{2}g^{ab}\varphi ^2$$

It will turn out that estimating this energy integral easier than working directly with the classical Sobolev norm $`\varphi _{S_\tau }^1`$. However $`E(\tau )`$ and $`(\varphi _{S_\tau }^1)^2`$ are equivalent in the sense that there exist positive constants $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ such that for $`a\tau b`$

$$B_1(\varphi _{S_\tau }^1)^2E(\tau )B_2(\varphi _{S_\tau }^1)^2$$
$`2`$
See Wilson (2000) for a proof of this result.

###### Lemma \procnum

Solutions $`\varphi H^1(\mathrm{\Omega }^+)`$ of the initial value problem (1) satisfy an energy inequality

###### Demonstration Proof

In order to obtain an energy inequality we must apply Stokes’ theorem to the vector $`S^{ab}T_b`$ on the region

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau =\underset{0<\tau ^{}<\tau }{}S_\tau ^{}$$

however caution must be exercised because of the possible lack of differentiability of $`g_{ab}`$ and $`\varphi `$ in a neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We shall therefore apply Stokes’ theorem to a sequence of regions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau ^\epsilon `$ which converges to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau `$. Without loss of generality we shall illustrate the procedure for the case where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ intersects each $`S_\tau `$ exactly once, partitioning $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ exactly into two regions (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Applying Stokes’ theorem to the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

On applying Stokes’ theorem to both regions we have

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau ^{1,\epsilon }\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau ^{2,\epsilon }}}(S^{ab}T_a)_{;b}𝑑V`$ $`={\displaystyle _{S_\tau ^{1,\epsilon }S_\tau ^{2,\epsilon }}}S^{ab}T_an_b𝑑S{\displaystyle _{S_0^{1,\epsilon }S_0^{2,\epsilon }}}S^{ab}T_an_b𝑑S`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau ^{2,\epsilon }}}S^{ab}T_a\lambda _b𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau ^{1,\epsilon }}}S^{ab}T_a\lambda _b𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
The integrand on the left hand side may be written as

$$(S^{ab}T_b)_{;a}=T^a\varphi _{,a}(f\varphi )+T^{c;d}\varphi _{,c}\varphi _{,d}\frac{1}{2}T^a{}_{;a}{}^{}(g^{cd}\varphi _c\varphi _d+\varphi ^2)$$

Now $`\varphi H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ implies that

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau ^{1,\epsilon }\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau ^{2,\epsilon }}(S^{ab}T_a)_{;b}=_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau }T^a\varphi _{,a}(f\varphi )dV+_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau }(T^{c;d}\varphi _{,c}\varphi _{,d}\frac{1}{2}T^a{}_{;a}{}^{}(g^{cd}\varphi _c\varphi _d+\varphi ^2))dV$$

and similarly $`\varphi _{|S_\tau }H^1(S_\tau )`$ implies

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}_{S_\tau ^{1,\epsilon }S_\tau ^{2,\epsilon }}S^{ab}T_an_b𝑑S=E(\tau )$$

Finally we define the energy flux across $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which will exist for $`\varphi H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$;

$$F(\tau )=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\left(_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau ^{2,\epsilon }}S^{ab}T_an_b𝑑S_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau ^{1,\epsilon }}S^{ab}T_an_b𝑑S\right)$$

The energy equation, in the limit is therefore

$$E(\tau )=E(0)F(\tau )+_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau }\varphi _{,t}(f\varphi )dV+_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau }(T^{c;d}\varphi _{,c}\varphi _{,d}\frac{1}{2}T^a{}_{;a}{}^{}(g^{cd}\varphi _c\varphi _d+\varphi ^2))dV$$

The fact that $`g_{ab}C^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`T^a{}_{;b}{}^{}L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`\varphi H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ implies that for all $`0<\tau <b`$, there exist constants $`C_1,C_2>0`$ such that

$$E(\tau )E(0)+\left|F(\tau )\right|+C_1_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau }|\varphi _{,t}|(|f|+|\varphi |)d^4x+C_2_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau }(\underset{a,b=0}{\overset{4}{}}|\varphi _{,a}||\varphi _{,b}|+|\varphi |^2)d^4x$$

On applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality

$$E(\tau )E(0)+\left|F(\tau )\right|+\frac{1}{2}C_1(f_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau }^0)^2+(C_1+4C_2)(\varphi _{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau }^1)^2$$

By applying (2)

$$E(\tau )E(0)+\left|F(\tau )\right|+\frac{1}{2}C_1(f_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau }^0)^2+\frac{1}{B_1}(C_1+4C_2)_{\tau ^{}=0}^\tau E(\tau ^{})d\tau ^{}$$

Finally Gronwall’s inequality gives

$$E(\tau )(E(0)+\left|F(\tau )\right|+\frac{1}{2}C_1(f_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau }^0)^2)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{C_1+4C_2}{B_1}\tau \right)$$
$`3`$
Equivalently (3) may be written in terms of the Sobolev norms as

$$(\varphi _{S_\tau }^1)^2\frac{1}{B_1}(B_2(\varphi _{S_0}^1)^2+\left|F(\tau )\right|+\frac{1}{2}C_1(f_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau }^0)^2)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{C_1+4C_2}{B_1}b\right)$$
$`4`$
This differs from the standard energy inequality by the presence of an additional flux term $`F(\tau )`$. However if $`F(\tau )`$ vanishes then we are able to establish that a solution is unique.

###### Proposition \procnum

Solutions with a vanishing flux $`F(\tau )`$ are unique.

###### Demonstration Proof

Suppose that $`\gamma `$ is the difference of two such solutions of (1), then it must be a solution of the initial value problem

$`\mathrm{}\gamma `$ $`=0`$
$`\gamma _{|S}`$ $`=0`$
$`n^a\gamma _{,a}^{}{}_{|S}{}^{}`$ $`=0`$
and so the corresponding energy inequality is

$$(\gamma _{S_\tau }^1)^2\frac{1}{B_1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{C_1+4C_2}{B_1}b\right)|F(\tau )|$$

Therefore it follows that if $`F(\tau )=0`$ then $`\gamma =0`$. ∎

A sufficient, but not necessary condition for $`F(\tau )`$ to vanish is that the solution $`\varphi `$ is $`C^1`$.

### 2.2 Existence of solutions in $`H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$

In order to prove that an $`H^1`$ solution $`\varphi `$ to (1) exists, we shall prove the existence of $`\psi H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to the following initial value problem with zero initial data

$`\mathrm{}\psi `$ $`=f\mathrm{}q`$ $`5`$
$`\psi _{|S}`$ $`=0`$
$`n^a\psi _{,a}^{}{}_{|S}{}^{}`$ $`=0`$
where

$$q(t,x^\alpha )=\varphi _0(x^\alpha )+t\varphi _1(x^\alpha )$$

The choice of $`q`$ ensures that it satisfies the conditions

$`q_{|S}`$ $`=\varphi _0`$
$`n^aq_{,a|S}`$ $`=\varphi _1`$
so that $`\varphi =\psi +q`$ will be a solution of (1).

It will be assumed that $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ are at least in $`H^1(S)`$, which guarantees that $`qH^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$; however the energy inequality (3) will only be applicable to (5) if the source term $`f\mathrm{}q`$ of (5) is also in $`H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. As the connection is essentially bounded, sufficient conditions to achieve $`\mathrm{}qH^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are $`\varphi _0,\varphi _1H^3(S)`$.

Our construction of a solution $`\psi H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to (5) will follow the methods of Egorov and Shubin (1992) and Clarke (1998). We shall work exclusively in the space $`H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ as a Hilbert space with the inner product

$$\psi ,\omega =_\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{ab}\psi _{;a}\omega _{;b}+\psi \omega )𝑑V$$

where $`e^{ab}=g^{ab}+2T^aT^b`$ is a positive definite metric. It should be noted that in general we do not have $`e^{ab}{}_{;c}{}^{}=0`$.

The induced norm is equivalent to the Sobolev norm $`\psi _\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$ in that there exist constants $`B_3,B_4>0`$ such that for all $`\psi ,\omega H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$

$$B_3(\psi _\mathrm{\Omega }^1)^2\psi ,\psi B_4(\psi _\mathrm{\Omega }^1)^2$$
$`6`$
We shall define two subspaces of $`H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$

$`V_0`$ $`=\{\psi H^3(\mathrm{\Omega })C^2(\mathrm{\Omega })|\psi _{|S}=n^a\psi _{,a}^{}{}_{|S}{}^{}=\psi _{,b|S}=n^a\psi _{,ab}^{}{}_{|S}{}^{}=0\}`$
$`V_1`$ $`=\{\omega H^3(\mathrm{\Omega })C^2(\mathrm{\Omega })|\omega _{|S_{\tau _2}}=n^a\omega _{,a}^{}{}_{|S_{\tau _2}}{}^{}=\omega _{,b|S}=n^a\omega _{,ab}^{}{}_{|S}{}^{}=0\}`$
The condition that $`V_0,V_1H^3(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ ensures that $`\mathrm{}V_0,\mathrm{}V_1H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ whereas the $`C^2`$ differentiability is sufficient to force the flux term for both $`\psi `$ and $`\psi _{;a}`$ in the energy inequality (3) to vanish. The energy inequality for $`\psi V_0`$ then becomes

$$(\psi _{S_\tau }^1)^2\frac{A}{2B_1}e^{A\tau _2/B_1}(\mathrm{}\psi _{\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau }^0)^2$$

In particular we apply this to the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+`$, integrate over the time variable $`\tau `$ and apply (6) to give a bound for $`\psi ,\psi `$

$$\psi ,\psi C_3(\mathrm{}\psi _\mathrm{\Omega }^1)^2\psi V_0C_3>0\text{ constant}$$

We may obtain a similar inequality for $`\omega V_1`$, by regarding $`S_{\tau _2}`$ as an initial surface, with zero initial data, evolving back in time and constructing an analogous energy inequality; thus we obtain

$$\omega ,\omega C_4(\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{\Omega }^1)^2\omega V_1C_4>0\text{ constant}$$
$`7`$
The construction of $`V_0`$, $`V_1`$ and $`\psi ,\omega `$ are motivated by the need to have $`\mathrm{}`$ behaving as a self-adjoint operator, however in general this cannot be guaranteed and extra conditions on the space-time are needed to achieve this.

###### Lemma \procnum

If the following conditions are satisfied

then

$$\mathrm{}\psi ,\omega =\psi ,\mathrm{}\omega \psi V_0,\omega V_1$$

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`\psi V_0`$ and $`\omega V_1`$. We apply Stokes’ theorem to the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b^{1,\epsilon }\mathrm{\Omega }_b^{2,\epsilon }`$ and take the limit $`\epsilon 0`$

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}}(\psi ^{;c}\omega _{;c}+(\mathrm{}\psi )\omega )𝑑V`$ $`={\displaystyle _{S_b}}\psi _{;c}\omega n^c𝑑S{\displaystyle _S}\psi _{;c}\omega n^c𝑑S`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\psi _{;c}\omega \lambda ^c𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^1}}\psi _{;c}\omega \lambda ^c𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}}(\psi ^{;c}\omega _{;c}+\psi \mathrm{}\omega )𝑑V`$ $`={\displaystyle _{S_b}}\psi \omega _{;c}n^c𝑑S{\displaystyle _S}\psi \omega _{;c}n^c𝑑S`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\psi \omega _{;c}\lambda ^c𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^1}}\psi \omega _{;c}\lambda ^c𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}}(e^{ab}\psi _{;a}{}_{}{}^{;c}+e^{ab;c}\psi _{;a}\omega _{;bc}+e^{ab}\psi _{;a}\mathrm{}(\omega _{;b}))dV`$ $`={\displaystyle _{S_b}}e^{ab}\psi _{;a}\omega _{;bc}n^c𝑑S{\displaystyle _S}e^{ab}\psi _{;a}\omega _{;bc}n^c𝑑S`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}e^{ab}\psi _{;a}\omega _{;bc}\lambda ^c𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^1}}\psi _{;a}\omega _{;bc}\lambda ^c𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}}(e^{ab}\psi _{;a}{}_{}{}^{;c}+e^{ab;c}\psi _{;a}\omega _{;bc}+e^{ab}\psi _{;a}\mathrm{}(\omega _{;b}))dV`$ $`={\displaystyle _{S_b}}e^{ab}\psi _{;a}\omega _{;bc}n^c𝑑S{\displaystyle _S}e^{ab}\psi _{;a}\omega _{;bc}n^c𝑑S`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}e^{ab}\psi _{;a}\omega _{;bc}\lambda ^c𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^1}}\psi _{;a}\omega _{;bc}\lambda ^c𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
It will be noted that the contributions from the surfaces $`S_0`$ and $`S_b`$ vanish. With $`\psi ,\omega C^2`$ the flux terms will also vanish.

On combining the above equations

$$\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}\left((\mathrm{}\psi )\omega +e^{ab}\mathrm{}(\psi _{;a})\omega _{;b}\right)𝑑V+_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}e^{ab;c}\psi _{;ac}\omega _{;b}𝑑V\hfill \\ \hfill =_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}\left(\psi \mathrm{}\omega +e^{ab}\psi _{;a}\mathrm{}(\omega _{;b})\right)𝑑V+_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}e^{ab;c}\psi _{;a}\omega _{;bc}𝑑V\end{array}$$

and on applying the contracted Ricci identity

$$\mathrm{}(\psi _{;a})=(\mathrm{}\psi )_{;a}+R^b{}_{a}{}^{}\psi _{;b}^{}$$

we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}\left((\mathrm{}\psi )\omega +e^{ab}(\mathrm{}\psi )_{;a}\omega _{;b}\right)𝑑V& =_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}\left(\psi \mathrm{}\omega +e^{ab}\psi _{;a}(\mathrm{}\omega )_{;b}\right)𝑑V\hfill \\ & +2_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}T^aR^{bc}T_c(\psi _{;a}\omega _{;b}\psi _{;b}\omega _{;a})𝑑V\hfill \\ & +_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}e^{ab;c}(\psi _{;a}\omega _{;bc}\psi _{;ac}\omega _{;b})𝑑V\hfill \end{array}$$

Using the fact that $`e^{ab}=g^{ab}+2T^aT^b`$ and applying the hypotheses to this equation, it is now evident that

$$\mathrm{}\psi ,\omega =\psi ,\mathrm{}\omega .$$

As a consequence we may define a linear functional $`k:\mathrm{}V_1`$ by

$$k(\mathrm{}\omega )=f\mathrm{}q,\omega $$

###### Proposition \procnum

$`k`$ defines an function $`\psi H^1(\mathrm{\Omega }^+)`$ with $`\psi `$ and $`\psi _{,t}`$ vanishing on $`S`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

This result is a consequence of the Hahn-Banach theorem, in conjunction with the Riesz representation theorem. In order to apply these theorems, we must show that

A bound for $`k`$ may be constructed by applying (7);

$`\left|k(\mathrm{}\omega )\right|`$ $`=|f\mathrm{}q,\omega |`$
$`f\mathrm{}q,f\mathrm{}q^{1/2}\omega ,\omega ^{1/2}`$
$`C_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}B_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}f\mathrm{}q_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}^1\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}^1`$
To prove that $`\mathrm{}V_1`$ is dense in $`H^1(\mathrm{\Omega }^+)`$, It is sufficient to show that any function in $`(\mathrm{}V_1)^{}`$ is necessarily zero. Suppose that $`\lambda (\mathrm{}V_1)^{}`$ then, because $`V_0`$ is dense, there exists a sequence $`(\psi _n)`$ in $`V_0`$ converging to $`\lambda `$. By using Lemma 7 and taking the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$, we have for all $`\omega V_1`$

$$\mathrm{}\psi _n,\omega =\psi _n,\mathrm{}\omega \lambda ,\mathrm{}\omega =0$$

Since $`V_1`$ is dense, this implies that $`\mathrm{}\psi _n0`$ almost everywhere and, by (7), we have $`\psi _n0`$ almost everywhere. Therefore $`\lambda =0`$ in $`H^1(\mathrm{\Omega }^+)`$. ∎

We have therefore proved the following

###### Theorem \procnum\xlabel{final}

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a space-time containing a singular hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`g_{ab}`$ being $`C^1`$ across $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Moreover suppose there exists a congruence of time-like geodesics with a tangent field $`T^a`$ satisfying

then solution $`\varphi H^1(\mathrm{\Omega }^+)`$ exists to the initial value problem

$`\mathrm{}\varphi `$ $`=f`$
$`\varphi _{|S}`$ $`=\varphi _0`$
$`n^a\varphi _{,a}^{}{}_{|S}{}^{}`$ $`=\varphi _1`$
where

$$\begin{array}{c}fH^1(\mathrm{\Omega }^+)\\ \varphi _0,\varphi _1H^3(S)\end{array}$$

Moreover if a solution $`\varphi `$ satisfies the vanishing flux condition $`F(\tau )=0`$, then it is unique.

If we replace conditions (1) and (2) by the weaker condition that $`T^a_{;b}`$ is essentially bounded then $`\mathrm{}`$ is only a self adjoint operator in $`H^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ with the usual $`L^2`$ inner product. This is sufficient to prove existence of solutions in $`H^0(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

## 3. Examples

### Thin shells of matter

An elementary example of a space-time containing a hypersurface singularity may be constructed using the following metric

$$ds^2=dt^2+F(z)^2dx^2+G(z)^2dy^2+dz^2$$

where

$`F(z)`$ $`=1azH(z)`$
$`G(z)`$ $`=1+az\left(1H(z)\right)`$
It may be shown that the non zero components of the curvature tensor are

$`R_{xzxz}`$ $`=a\delta (z)`$
$`R_{yzyz}`$ $`=a\delta (z)`$
and the non-zero components of the energy-momentum tensor are

$`T_{tt}`$ $`=2a\delta (z)`$
$`T_{xx}`$ $`=a\delta (z)`$
$`T_{yy}`$ $`=a\delta (z)`$
and with $`a>0`$ this space-time represents a positive energy matter distribution whose support is the hypersurface $`z=0`$.

This space-time possesses a metric which is $`C^1`$ across the singular hypersurface and moreover the integral curves of $`/t`$ forms a congruence of time-like geodesics whose tangent satisfies the conditions $`T^a{}_{;b}{}^{}=0`$ and $`R_{ab}T^b=0`$. Therefore Theorem is applicable and we are able to establish that hyperbolicity is applicable

### Impulsive gravitational waves

Another example of a space-time with a singular hypersurface that satisfies similar differentiability conditions is one which contains impulsive gravitational waves. In double null coordinates

$$u=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(tz),v=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(t+z)$$

the metric may be written as

$$ds^2=2dudv+F(u)^2dx^2+G(u)^2dy^2$$

where

$`F(z)`$ $`=1+auH(u)`$
$`G(z)`$ $`=1auH(u)`$
The space-time is vacuum, but has a Weyl tensor with delta function components

$`C_{uxux}`$ $`=a\delta (u)`$
$`C_{uyuy}`$ $`=a\delta (u)`$
A congruence of time-like geodesics whose tangent field is

$$T^a=(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},0,0)$$

may be constructed; however $`T_{;b}^a`$ is essentially bounded but not vanishing, so theorem 00 is not applicable to this space-time in its current form.

The proof of Theorem 00 breaks down at Lemma 7 in that self-adjointness of $`\mathrm{}`$ cannot be established in $`H^1`$. At most we are able to show existence in $`H^0`$ by defining the subspaces $`V_0`$ and $`V_1`$ to be in $`H^0`$ and work with the $`H^0`$ inner product, with which $`\mathrm{}`$ will be self-adjoint without the need for $`T^a_{;b}`$ to vanish completely.

## 4. Conclusion

Theorem 00 gives us sufficient conditions on the initial data for the existence of an $`H^1`$ solution in space-times with a singular hypersurface; provided certain conditions on the existence of a certain time-like geodesic congruence have been met.

It was found that stronger conditions on the initial data are required, than what is required in Minkowski space. However the fact that the connection components were essentially bounded avoided the need for imposing extra conditions involving the rate at which spatial derivatives vanished as were needed for the conical case (Wilson 2000).

The behaviour of $`T^a_{;b}`$ was found to be more of an issue here as although $`T^a_{;b}`$ being essentially bounded is sufficient for establishing energy inequalities, it was found that the vanishing of $`T^a_{;b}`$ was required $`\mathrm{}`$ to be self adjoint in $`H^1`$ and therefore to enable existence to be proved in this space. The conical space-time (Wilson, 2000) has vanishing $`T^a_{;b}`$


format: text

text:
# Chandra Reveals the X-ray Glint in the Cat’s Eye

## 1 Introduction

Optical emission-line images of planetary nebulae (PNs) reveal a fascinating range of morphologies (e.g., the Hubble Space Telescope gallery of PNs111URL: http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/97/pn/), indicating complex internal structures in the nebulae. Among these PNs, NGC 6543, also known as the Cat’s Eye Nebula, has perhaps the most interesting morphology. As reported by Reed et al. (1999), the H$`\alpha `$ and \[O III\] $`\lambda `$5007 line images of NGC 6543 are similar, showing an inner shell surrounded by an envelope with multiple, interlocking, semi-circular features. The \[N II\] $`\lambda `$6584 line image, on the other hand, shows bright clumps strung along arcs that appear to wrap around the envelope. In addition, the \[N II\] image shows two small curly features along the major axis and two linear jet-like features at 18 from the major axis. (See Figure 1 of Reed et al. (1999) for the \[O III\] and \[N II\] images of NGC 6543.)

What is the formation mechanism that has produced the complex nebular morphology of NGC 6543? It has been suggested that PNs are formed by the current fast stellar wind sweeping up the circumstellar material lost previously via the slow AGB wind (e.g., Kwok, 1983; Frank, Balick, & Riley, 1990). In this interacting-stellar-winds model, the physical structure of a PN is similar to that of a wind-blown bubble, as modeled by Weaver et al. (1977). The PN will comprise a central cavity filled with shocked fast wind at temperatures of 10$`{}_{}{}^{6}10^8`$ K, a dense shell of swept-up AGB wind at 104 K, and an outer envelope of unperturbed expanding AGB wind. This morphology is obviously too simple compared to the observed morphology of NGC 6543.

NGC 6543 is a known X-ray source and was marginally resolved by ROSAT observations (Kreysing et al., 1992; Guerrero, Chu, & Gruendl, 2000). Diffuse X-ray emission implies the existence of hot gas. It is thus important to resolve the diffuse X-ray emission and compare the distribution of hot gas to the location of the dense, cooler, nebular shell in order to understand the physical structure and formation mechanism of this nebula.

We have obtained Chandra observations of NGC 6543. Its diffuse X-ray emission is clearly resolved into several components and shows excellent correspondence with some of the optical features. In addition, a previously unknown point X-ray source is detected at the central star. We have extracted and modeled the spectra of the diffuse X-ray emission to derive the physical conditions of the hot gas. The results and their implications are reported in this Letter. The analysis of the point source will be reported in a future paper.

## 2 Observations

NGC 6543 was observed with the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) on board the Chandra X-ray Observatory on 2000 May 10–11 for a total exposure time of 46.0 ks. The nebula was placed at the nominal aim point for the ACIS-S array on the back-illuminated (BI) CCD chip S3. The BI chip has a moderately higher sensitivity than the front-illuminated (FI) chips at energies below 1 keV. Furthermore, the BI chip is not affected by the inadvertent radiation damage (occurred immediately after the deployment of Chandra) as were the FI chips. The point spread function of the ACIS observation has a half power radius (the radius encircling 50% of the energy) $``$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 at $``$ 1 keV. The energy resolution, $`E/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, of the BI chip is $`4.3`$ at 0.5 keV and $`9`$ at 1.0 keV.

The observations were carried out at a CCD operating temperature of $`120^{}`$ C. The background count rate is consistent with the quiescent background (ACIS Background Report, 2000); therefore, no background “flares” affected the observations and no time intervals needed to be removed. A total of 1,950$`\pm `$40 counts (background-subtracted) are detected from NGC 6543.

We received Level 1 and Level 2 processed data from the Chandra Data Center. The data reduction and analysis were performed using the Chandra X-ray Center software CIAO V1.1.5 and HEASARC FTOOLS and XSPEC V11.0.1 routines (Arnaud, 1996).

## 3 X-ray Emission from NGC 6543

### 3.1 Spatial Distribution

The X-ray emission from NGC 6543 is clearly resolved into a point source and a diffuse component, as shown in Figure 1. To describe the distribution of the X-ray emission, it is convenient to use optical features as points of reference; therefore, we plot the X-ray emission as contours over an archival HST H$`\alpha `$ image. The initial overlay showed an offset of $``$1′′ between the point X-ray source and the central star. As this offset is within the range of combined pointing errors of HST and Chandra, we have shifted the X-ray image to register the point source at the central star. The resultant X-ray contours overlaid on the H$`\alpha `$ image are presented in Figure 1d. The diffuse X-ray emission is well bounded by sharp, bright H$`\alpha `$ filaments. This tight morphological correlation supports our choice of alignment between the X-ray and H$`\alpha `$ images.

The X-ray-bounding H$`\alpha `$ filaments outline a 10$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 8^{\prime \prime }`$ elliptical shell with two $`3^{\prime \prime }`$ outward extensions along the major axis (Figure 1c). The northern extension appears to be comprised of two closed lobes, while the southern extension appears to consist of an incomplete lobe that is open toward the east. The diffuse X-ray emission from the central elliptical shell is limb-brightened and follows closely the inner wall of the nebular shell in the H$`\alpha `$ image. Diffuse X-ray emission is also present in the extensions. In the northern extension, diffuse X-ray emission fills each nebular lobe. In the southern extension, diffuse X-ray emission appears to be bounded even though the nebular lobe appears incomplete.

It is interesting to note that the western lobe in the northern extension and the eastern side of the southern extension appear to be radially aligned with the two linear, jet-like features best seen in Reed et al.’s (1999) \[N II\] image at 17$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }23^{\prime \prime }`$ from the central star. This alignment may be naively used to suggest a physical connection between the diffuse X-ray emission along this direction and the jet-like features; however, as we show in §3.2, there is no spectral evidence supporting this hypothesis.

### 3.2 Spectral Properties

We have extracted spectra from the entire nebula and from three regions corresponding to the central elliptical shell, the northern extension, and the southern extension, respectively. The X-ray spectrum of the central elliptical shell was extracted with the central star excised. These spectra can be used to constrain the temperature, density, and abundances of the hot, X-ray-emitting gas, and to search for spatial variations in these physical conditions. The extracted spectra are plotted in Figure 2. In all cases the emission peaks at 0.55 keV, and then drops abruptly to a faint plateau between 0.7 and 0.9 keV. No significant emission is detected at energies greater than 1.0 keV. Below 0.5 keV, the spectra of the central shell and the southern extension drop off to nearly zero at 0.3 keV, while the spectrum of the northern extension levels and stays high at 0.3 keV.

The observed spectral shape depends on many physical parameters, including the temperature and chemical abundances of the X-ray-emitting gas, the intervening absorption, and the detector response. We adopt the thin plasma emission model of Raymond & Smith (1977). It is expected that the X-ray-emitting gas should have a chemical composition consistent with either the fast stellar wind itself or a mixture of the fast wind and the nebular material. The nebular abundances of He, C, N, O, and Ne have been reported to be 0.11, 2.3$`\times `$10-4, 5.9$`\times `$10-5, 5.6$`\times `$10-4, and 1.4$`\times `$10-4 relative to hydrogen by number, respectively (Aller & Czyzak, 1983; Pwa et al., 1984; Manchado & Pottasch, 1989). Accordingly, we have adopted nebular abundances, relative to the solar values (Anders & Grevesse, 1989), of 1.13, 0.63, 0.53, 0.66, and 1.14 for He, C, N, O, and Ne, respectively, and 1.0 for the other elements. For the abundances of the fast stellar wind, we have adopted He and N abundances 60 and 3 times the solar values, respectively, but kept the abundances of the other elements solar (de Koter et al., 1996). For the intervening absorption, we have assumed solar abundances and adopted absorption cross-sections from Balucinska-Church & McCammon (1992).

We first fit the observed spectrum of the diffuse X-rays from the entire nebula with models using the aforementioned nebular abundances, but with temperature, absorption column density, and the normalization factor as free parameters in the model. No models with nebular abundances can match the observed spectral shape. More specifically, the models produce either too strong O VII lines at $``$0.56 keV or too weak N VI lines at $``$0.43 keV. The spectral fits can be improved only if the N/O ratio is raised above the nebular value. The stellar wind has an enhanced N/O ratio, roughly three times the nebular value; consequently, models using stellar wind abundances fit the observed spectral shape much more satisfactorily.

The best-fit model with stellar wind abundances has a plasma temperature of $`T`$ = 1.7$`\times `$106 K, an absorption column density of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ = 8$`\times `$1020 cm-2, and a normalization factor of 7$`\times `$10-5 cm-5. This best-fit model is overplotted on the spectrum of the entire nebula in Figure 2. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ of the fits as a function of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`kT`$ is plotted in Figure 3. The 99% confidence contour spans $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ = 5.5–12$`\times `$1020 cm-2 and $`T`$ = 1.6–1.8$`\times `$106 K (or $`kT`$ = 0.135–0.155 keV). The observed (absorbed) X-ray flux is 8$`\times `$10-14 ergs cm-2 s-1; the unabsorbed X-ray flux is 8$`\times `$10-13 ergs cm-2 s-1, and the X-ray luminosity is 1.0$`\times `$1032 ergs s-1 for a distance of 1 kpc (Cahn, Kaler, & Stanghellini, 1992; Reed et al., 1999).

We have also fit the spectra extracted from the central shell, and the northern and southern extensions. In these spectral fits we used the same stellar wind abundances as those adopted in the fits for the entire nebula. These three spectra have fewer counts, so the best-fit plasma temperature and absorption column are not as well constrained as those for the entire nebula. As indicated by the $`\chi ^2`$ grid plots in Figure 3, the northern and southern extensions have very similar temperatures, but the northern extension has a smaller absorption column. The temperature and absorption column of the central shell are the least well constrained. Its $`\chi ^2`$ grid plot indicates that the gas in the central shell may be cooler, more absorbed, or both.

The spectral fits suggest appreciable variation of absorption column across the 16′′ extent of the X-ray emission region of NGC 6543. NGC 6543 is at a high Galactic latitude, $`b=+29^{}`$, so the foreground interstellar absorption column is not likely to vary rapidly over the 16′′ nebular extent. The absorption column density through the nebular envelope of NGC 6543, on the other hand, is expected to increase from the north to the south because the major axis of the nebula is tilted with its north end toward us (Miranda & Solf, 1992). Furthermore, the nebular envelope is brighter and denser near the equatorial plane of the central shell, thus would produce higher absorption columns toward the central shell and the southern extension. Therefore, the intervening absorption of the X-ray emission from NGC 6543 occurs mostly within its cool nebular shell.

Finally, we note that the temperature appears uniform, no variations greater than 50% are detected. We have extracted spatially-resolved spectra for the two lobes in the northern extension (not shown here). As described in §3.1, the western lobe is radially aligned with a jet-like \[N II\] feature, but both the eastern and western lobes display similar spectral shape, showing no evidence of additional dynamical heating in the western lobe. Therefore, either the jet-like \[N II\] feature is not a physically energetic phenomenon or the alignment is fortuitous.

## 4 Discussion

The physical properties of the hot gas in NGC 6543 can be compared with those expected in the wind-blown bubble model of Weaver et al. (1977). In this model, the bubble interior is filled by the adiabatically shocked fast stellar wind; however, the heat conduction and mass evaporation across the interface between the hot interior and the cool nebular shell raise the density, lower the temperature, and alter the abundances of the hot gas near the interface. The limb-brightened X-ray morphology of NGC 6543 indicates that the hot gas near the interface is responsible for the X-ray emission. Furthermore, the temperature derived from X-ray spectral fits, $``$1.7$`\times `$106 K, is 100 times lower than the post-shock temperature of NGC 6543’s 1,750 km s-1 wind (Perinotto et al., 1989), but may be consistent with that expected near the interface. The location and temperature of NGC 6543’s X-ray-emitting gas require that this hot gas contains a significant fraction of nebular material. In fact, if the mixing is adiabatic, the observed low temperature requires the X-ray-emitting gas to be dominated by nebular material. This is contrary to the results of our spectral fits, which indicate stellar wind abundances!

As an independent test to the origin of NGC 6543’s X-ray-emitting gas, we compare the mass of the hot gas to the amount of fast stellar wind supplied during the lifetime of the nebula. The electron density of the X-ray-emitting gas can be derived from the normalization factor of the spectral fit and distance. For a normalization factor of 7$`\times `$10-5 cm-5, a distance of 1 kpc, and a He/H number ratio of 6, the rms electron density is 50 $`ϵ^{1/2}`$ cm-3, where $`ϵ`$ is the volume filling factor. The emitting volume, including the central shell and the extensions and taking into account of the 35 inclination of the major axis (Miranda & Solf, 1992), is 2.5$`\times `$1051 $`ϵ`$ cm3. The total mass of the X-ray-emitting gas is thus 2.5$`\times `$10-4 $`ϵ^{1/2}`$ M.

The dynamical age of the Cat’s Eye’s central shell is $``$1,000 yr (Miranda & Solf, 1992; Reed et al., 1999). The stellar wind mass loss rate of the Cat’s Eye’s central star is uncertain, and ranges from 4$`\times `$10-8 M yr-1 (Perinotto et al., 1989) to 3.2$`\times `$10-7 M yr-1 (Bianchi et al., 1986). Within the dynamical age of the central shell, the total mass supplied by the stellar wind is 4$`\times `$10-5 M to 3.2$`\times `$10-4 M. Comparisons between these values to the value derived from X-ray observations indicate that the fast stellar wind can supply most or all of the hot gas only if the high mass loss rate is adopted.

If the X-ray-emitting gas is comprised of largely shocked fast stellar wind, the low temperature of the X-ray-emitting gas is puzzling. How does the hot shocked wind cool from 1.4$`\times `$108 K to 1.7$`\times `$106 K within 1,000 yr? It is possible that the fast stellar wind is not steady and its velocity was lower in the past, as suggested by Arnaud, Borkowski, & Harrington (1996) for BD +303639, another PN whose diffuse X-ray emission has been unambiguously resolved (Kastner et al., 2000). Future observations of more PNs with diffuse X-ray emission may help us solve this puzzle.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Chandra image of NGC 6543 shows the hot, X-ray-emitting gas to be confined within the central shell and the two extensions along its major axis, but not associated with any of the intriguing optical features in the outer envelope. The thermal pressure of the hot interior is about twice as high as the pressure in the nebular shell, for a nebular electron density of 4,000 cm-3 and temperature of 7,000 K (Manchado & Pottasch, 1989). Clearly, the hot gas drives the expansion of the central shell, and governs the ongoing evolution of NGC 6543, but is not responsible for the complex optical features in the outer shell.

We thank the referee, Joel Kastner, for useful and constructive suggestions to improve this paper. This work is supported by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory Center Grant Number GO0-1004X. MAG is supported partially by the DGESIC of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture.


text:
# Glueball States in a Constituent Gluon Model

## I Introduction

During the last 20 years there has been much effort in trying to obtain a nonperturbative form for the gluon propagator. Perhaps one of the most interesting result is that the gluon may have a dynamically generated mass . The existence of a mass scale, or the absence of a pole at $`k^2=0`$, is natural if one assumes that gluons do not propagate to infinity, i.e. these propagators describe confined gluons. The concept of massive gluon has been widely used in independent field theoretic studies, and examples about the consequences of massive gluons can be found in the literature . The infrared behavior of the gluon propagator has also been studied numerically , and recent lattice computations give strong evidence for an infrared finite gluon propagator .

The gluon self-coupling in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) implies the existence of bound states of gauge fields known as glueballs. Numerous technical difficulties have so far hampered our understanding of their properties in experiments, largely because glueball states can mix strongly with nearby $`q\overline{q}`$ resonances. However, recent experimental and lattice studies of $`0^{++}`$, $`2^{++}`$ and $`0^+`$ glueballs seem to be converging. All simulations agree that the lightest scalar glueball mass is in the range of $`15001750`$ MeV, while the tensor and pseudoscalar masses are in the range of $`20002400`$ MeV . It has been suggested  that improved action lattice predictions  agree well with the mass ratios of $`f_0(1500)`$, $`\eta (2190)`$, and $`f_2(1980)`$, which have exotic features that make them natural candidates for glueballs. All these states are seen in $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation, central production in $`pp`$ collisions, or $`J/\psi \gamma +X`$ transitions .

In this paper, we reopen the case of the potential model with massive constituent gluons, namely, the model of Cornwall and Soni . It is not our purpose to pursue the detailed theoretical bearings for gluon mass. But rather, we wish to explore how recent results in this field affect the potential model, and how the potential model can provide more insight on glueball properties. While the potential model has its limitations, it gives bound state solutions that have the advantage of providing information such as the size of glueballs, an aspect which is rarely  mentioned in the literature. In Sect. 2, we give the details of model description for low-lying bound states of 2-gluon and 3-gluon glueballs. We then use the variational method to estimate their masses and sizes in Sect. 3, where some smearing of gluon field is developed for the $`0^{++}`$ case. Finally, we analyze our results and make some conclusions in Sect. 4.

## II Model Description

Although the dynamically generated mass $`m^2(q^2)`$ should be scale dependent, phenomenologically we shall treat $`m^2(q^2)`$ as constant for simplicity. The Lagrangian for the massive vector fields $`A_\mu ^a`$ is

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}m^2A_\mu ^aA^{a\mu },$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the effective gluon mass defined by Cornwall  and others, and

$$F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+gf^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c.$$
(2)
The propagator for $`A_\mu ^a`$ is

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(k)=\frac{i\delta ^{ab}(g^{\mu \nu }\frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{m^2})}{k^2m^2+iϵ}.$$
(3)
In the nonrelativisic limit, we expand the massive gluon momentum and polarization vector to order $`|𝐤|^2`$,

$`k^\mu `$ $``$ $`(m+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤^2}{2m}},𝐤),`$ (4)
$`ϵ^\mu (k)`$ $``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐞}{m}},𝐞+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐞}{2m^2}}𝐤).`$ (5)
Let us consider the system of a 2-gluon glueball. There are four diagrams contributing at tree level in the gluon-gluon interaction shown as in Fig. 1, corresponding to $`s`$-, $`t`$-, $`u`$-channel gluon exchange and the seagull. In the non-relativistic limit, it turns out that all matrix elements are zeroth order in momentum except the contribution from $`s`$-channel, which can be removed both because of color and its second order nature in momentum. The short distance potential can be extracted from the tree-level Feynman amplitude of Fig. 1,

$$V(𝐫)=\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{ie^{i𝐪𝐫}}{4\sqrt{E_{1f}E_{2f}E_{1i}E_{2i}}}i_{fi},$$
(6)
where $`𝐪`$ is the momentum transfer of the system.

When extracting the potential, the “exchange” or “symmetric” diagrams are automatically taken care of by the properly symmetrized wave function for identical particle systems. Hence the relavent contributions are

$$i_{fi}^t=ig^2f^{ace}f^{bde}3|J_\rho |1\frac{1}{tm^2}4|J^\rho |2,$$
(7)
where

$`3|J_\rho |1=ϵ_3^{}ϵ_1(p_1+p_3)_\rho 2ϵ_{3\rho }^{}p_3ϵ_12ϵ_{1\rho }p_1ϵ_3^{},`$

and

$`i_{fi}^{s.g.}`$ $`=`$ $`ig^2[f^{abe}f^{cde}(ϵ_1ϵ_3^{}ϵ_2ϵ_4^{})`$ (9)
$`+f^{ace}f^{bde}(ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3^{}ϵ_4^{}ϵ_1ϵ_4^{}ϵ_2ϵ_3^{})].`$
We define the spin operator $`𝐒=(S^1,S^2,S^3)`$ as $`(S^k)_{ij}=iϵ^{ijk}`$, which satisfy

$$[S^i,S^j]=iϵ^{ijk}S^k,$$
(10)
i.e. $`S^1`$, $`S^2`$ and $`S^3`$ are $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ group generators as desired. The spin operator can then be extracted via the relation

$$A_iB_j=\left[𝐀𝐁(𝐒𝐁)(𝐒𝐀)\right]_{ij},$$
(11)
and placing the polarization vectors into the wavefunction. We calculate the matrix elements in the center of mass frame, namely, $`𝐩_i𝐩_1=𝐩_2`$, $`𝐩_f𝐩_3=𝐩_4`$, and the momentum transfer $`𝐪𝐩_3𝐩_1=𝐩_f𝐩_i`$. After some simplifications, we obtain

$`i_{fi}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2f^{ace}f^{bde}}{𝐪^2+m^2}}[4m^2+3𝐪^22𝐒^2𝐪^2+2(𝐒𝐪)^2`$ (13)
$`+6i𝐒(𝐪\times 𝐩_i)],`$
$`i_{fi}^{s.g.}`$ $`=`$ $`ig^2\left[f^{abe}f^{cde}f^{ace}f^{bde}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝐒^22\right)\right],`$ (14)
where $`𝐒𝐒_1+𝐒_2`$ is the total spin of the 2-gluon glueball. As stated, we have transfered the spin content of gluons to the wavefunction, and hence view $`i_{fi}`$ as an operator acting on spin space. Note also that $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ acts on $`𝐞_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐞_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ while $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ acts on $`𝐞_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐞_\mathrm{𝟒}`$.

Using Eq. (6), we arrive at the short distance potential

$`V_{\mathrm{sd}}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2f^{ace}f^{bde}}{4\pi }}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝐒^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2m^2}}(𝐋𝐒){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}..`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}.((𝐒)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝐒^2^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{e^{mr}}{r}}`$
$`+(1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}𝐒^2).{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m^2}}\delta ^3(𝐫)\}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2f^{abe}f^{cde}}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m^2}}\delta ^3(𝐫),`$
where $`\mathrm{sd}`$ stands for “short distance.”

The gluon-gluon interaction potential $`V_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ in Eq. (17) is the Fourier transform of the tree level second order scattering diagrams of Fig. 1, but it cannot account for gluon confinement since it is of short distance nature. We must add a term to take into account such long distance effects. We add to $`V_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ a string potential $`V_{\mathrm{str}}`$ which is assumed to be spin independent,

$$V_{\mathrm{str}}=2m(1e^{\beta mr}),$$
(18)
where $`\beta `$ is related to the adjoint string tension $`K_A`$ via

$$\beta =\frac{K_A}{2m^2}.$$
(19)
In the potential $`V_{\mathrm{str}}`$, the color screening of gluons is brought about by a breakable string, that is, the adjoint string breaks when sufficient energy has been stored in it to materialize a gluon pair. This form of the string potential simulates the intergluonic potential as seen in lattice calculations .

We thus get the gluon-gluon potential relevant to two-gluon glueballs

$`V_{2g}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \{[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝐒^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2m^2}}(𝐋𝐒){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}..`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}.((𝐒)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝐒^2^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{e^{mr}}{r}}`$
$`+.(1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}𝐒^2){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m^2}}\delta ^3(𝐫)\}+2m(1e^{\beta mr}),`$
where $`\lambda `$ is defined as

$$\lambda \frac{3g^2}{4\pi },$$
(23)
and is related to the strong coupling strength of the process. Note that the $`f`$-type constant in the last term of Eq. (17) does not contribute when contracted with the normalized color wavefunction

$$\psi _{\mathrm{color}}(a,b)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}\delta ^{ab}.$$
(24)
We are left with three parameters: effective gluon mass $`m`$, string breaking parameter $`\beta `$ and adjoint strong coupling constant $`\lambda `$. We take  the conservative range $`\beta (1\pm 0.7)`$, while $`\lambda `$ is determined by

$$\lambda =\frac{N}{4\pi }\left[\frac{11N}{48\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{4m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\right]^1,$$
(25)
for $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ group. For $`N=3`$, taking $`m`$ 600 MeV, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ 350 MeV, one gets $`\lambda 1.4`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ varying from $`250400`$ MeV, $`\lambda `$ varies in the range $`1.11.6`$.

For the case of 3-gluon glueballs, we assume that the constituent gluons interact pair-wise . Thus

$$V_{3g}=\underset{i<j}{}\left[V_{\mathrm{sd}}(r_{ij})+\frac{1}{2}V_{\mathrm{str}}(r_{ij})\right].$$
(26)
We note that the contribution from $`s`$-channel gluon exchange can still be ignored because of its second order nature in momentum. The factor of one-half for the string potential is because one needs to pull three (and not six) gluons from the vacuum to screen the three gluons that are originally there in the glueball.

For the low-lying bound states with relative angular momentum $`l_{ij}=0`$ for each pair of gluons in the 3-gluon system, the normalized color singlet wavefunction is either symmetric or antisymmetric:

$$\psi _{\mathrm{color}}^{d\mathrm{type}}(a,b,c)=\sqrt{\frac{3}{40}}d^{abc},$$
(27)
$$\psi _{\mathrm{color}}^{f\mathrm{type}}(a,b,c)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{24}}f^{abc}.$$
(28)
After contracting these color wavefunctions with the short distance potential of Eq. (17), we get the pair-wise potential for 3-gluon glueball case

$`V_{d,f}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝐒^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2m^2}}(𝐋𝐒){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}..`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}.((𝐒)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝐒^2^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{e^{mr}}{r}}`$
$`+.(\pm 1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}𝐒^2){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m^2}}\delta ^3(𝐫)\}+m(1e^{\beta mr}),`$
for $`d`$\- and $`f`$-type, respectively.

## III Glueball masses and sizes

In this paper, we consider only the case of $`L=0`$, hence ignore the spin-orbit and tensor terms in Eqs. (22) and (31). The 2-gluon and 3-gluon glueball systems are discussed separately.

### A Two-gluon Glueballs

For 2-gluon glueballs with $`L=0`$, we have only $`J^{PC}=0^{++},2^{++}`$ states. The Hamiltonian is

$$H=2m\frac{1}{m}^2+V_{2g},$$
(32)
where

$`V_{2g}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝐒^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{mr}}{r}}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}𝐒^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m^2}}\delta ^3(𝐫)\right]`$ (34)
$`+2m(1e^{\beta mr}).`$
We immediately notice one serious problem: when $`S=0`$, one has an attractive $`\delta `$-function term and the Hamiltonian is unbounded from below. This “maximum attraction channel” in $`0^{++}`$ could be related to the gluon condensation that triggers confinement.

In Ref. , the $`\delta `$-function term was treated as a perturbation. For our study, we propose a physical solution by smearing the gluon fields, that is, we replace the $`\delta `$-function by the smearing function

$$D(r)=\frac{k^3m^3}{\pi ^{\frac{3}{2}}}e^{k^2m^2r^2}$$
(35)
which approaches $`\delta ^3(𝐫)`$ for $`k\mathrm{}`$. Using the variational method with trial wavefunction $`\psi (r)e^{a^2m^2r^2}`$, we illustrate in Fig. 2 the smearing dependence of 2-gluon glueball masses for $`\lambda =2`$ and $`\beta =0.3`$.

We see from Fig. 2 that the mass of the $`2^{++}`$ glueball converges rapidly to $`3.2m`$ for $`k>1`$, illustrating good behavior since the $`\delta `$-function term is repulsive, but the $`0^{++}`$ mass decreases monotonically until it becomes negative for $`k3.8`$. To illustrate what is happening when the attractive $`\delta `$ becomes operative for larger $`k`$ (less smearing), we plot in Fig. 3 the root-mean-squared radius $`r_{\mathrm{rms}}=\sqrt{r^2}`$ of $`0^{++}`$ and $`2^{++}`$ glueballs as a function of $`k`$ for the same values of $`\lambda `$ and $`\beta `$. It is clear that, while the size of $`2^{++}`$ glueball stabilizes for $`k1`$, the radius for $`0^{++}`$ glueball drops monotonically with its mass, which in turn drops monotonically with increase of $`k`$.

One may be tempted to use Fig. 2 and argue that, since for $`1<k<3`$, both $`2^{++}`$ and $`0^{++}`$ glueball masses are relatively stable, hence they have approximately of the same mass. However, this is not what is observed on the lattice nor as suggested by experiment. Since we cannot claim to know how to determine the value of $`k`$ in Eq. (35), we use the converging experimental and lattice results to fit for $`k`$. We take $`M_{0^{++}}=1730`$ MeV, and $`M_{2^{++}}=2400`$ MeV , hence the mass ratio

$$\frac{M_{2^{++}}}{M_{0^{++}}}=1.39.$$
(36)
Using Eq. (36) to determine $`k`$, we find that it depends mainly on $`\lambda `$, but is almost independent of $`\beta `$. This is to be expected since the need for smearing comes from the short distance potential. With the mass ratio fixed, we find a smaller $`\lambda `$ (and a greater $`\beta `$ in general) can accommodate a larger $`k`$ value, which is reasonable. The typical value of $`k`$ falls in the range of 2.3 to 4.3, which ensures that the $`2^{++}`$ mass is stable.

With $`k`$ determined for given $`\lambda `$ and $`\beta `$, the mass and size of 2-gluon glueballs can be calculated. Since $`M_{0^{++}}`$ is lighter than $`M_{2^{++}}`$ from experiment/lattice input, the $`0^{++}`$ glueball is rather small in size compared to the $`2^{++}`$ glueball. This is reasonable because of the attractive (repulsive) $`\delta `$ function potential for $`0^{++}`$ ($`2^{++}`$). Except for this smallness in size of $`0^{++}`$ glueball, which is dominated by $`\lambda `$ part of potential, the $`0^{++}`$ mass, and the mass and size of the $`2^{++}`$ glueball are all more dependent on $`\beta `$, the string part of potential. We plot the masses (in units of $`m`$) and sizes (in units of $`1/m)`$ vs. $`\beta `$ for three different values of $`\lambda `$ in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. These figures illustrate the range of uncertainties within the model. We find that the masses increase with increasing $`\beta `$ or decreasing $`\lambda `$; however, increasing $`\beta `$ or decreasing $`\lambda `$ will increase the size of $`2^{++}`$ glueball but decrease the size of $`0^{++}`$ glueball. We will give a more detailed discussion on this later.

As mentioned already, the $`2^{++}`$ glueball mass is stable and almost independent of $`k`$ for $`k>2`$, which holds for all solvable ($`\lambda `$, $`\beta `$) parameter space. Hence, taking the $`2^{++}`$ glueball mass range of $`3.4m`$ to $`3.9m`$ from Fig. 4 and the lattice result of $`M_{2^{++}}`$=2400 MeV, we estimate the effective gluon mass to be $`0.60.7`$ GeV, which agrees well with the gluon mass $``$ 0.66 GeV needed  to explain the photon spectrum in radiative $`J/\psi `$ decay. With gluon mass $`m`$ determined, the typical size of $`2^{++}`$ and $`0^{++}`$ glueballs can be read off from Fig. 5, which are in the ranges of $`0.81.1`$ fm and $`0.10.2`$ fm, respectively, which is in good agreement with the results  obtained on a lattice using the source method. For a more direct calculation of the $`0^{++}`$ glueball mass on the lattice, one would need relatively fine lattice spacings . It would be interesting to see if our result of small $`0^{++}`$ size could be further replicated on the lattice.

### B Three-gluon Glueballs

For 3-gluon glueballs, we introduce the center-of-mass and relative coordinates: $`𝐑=(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}+𝐫_\mathrm{𝟑})/\sqrt{3}`$, $`𝐫_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}=(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`𝐫=\sqrt{2/3}(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}2𝐫_\mathrm{𝟑})`$. Since we consider only pure $`s`$-states, one has the pair potential

$`V_{d,f}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝐒_{\mathrm{pair}}^2){\displaystyle \frac{e^{mr}}{r}}+(\pm 1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}𝐒_{\mathrm{pair}}^2).`$ (38)
$`.{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m^2}}\delta ^3(𝐫)]+m(1e^{\beta mr}),`$
where $`𝐒_{\mathrm{pair}}`$ is the spin of any pair of gluons in a 3-gluon glueball system. The Hamiltonian for this system is then

$`H_{d,f}`$ $`=`$ $`3m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}_𝐫^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}_{𝐫_{12}}^2`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`V_{d,f}(r_{12})+V_{d,f}(r_{23})+V_{d,f}(r_{31}).`$ (40)
Since the glueball wavefunction must be symmetric with respect to $`𝐫_1`$, $`𝐫_2`$, and $`𝐫_3`$, the contributions of the three pair potentials are the same. Hence the spin and spatial parts of the glueball wavefunction are independent and

$`{\displaystyle 𝐒_{\mathrm{pair}}^2}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝐒_1+𝐒_2)^2+(𝐒_2+𝐒_3)^2+(𝐒_3+𝐒_1)^2`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`(𝐒_1^2+𝐒_2^2+𝐒_3^2)+(𝐒_1+𝐒_2+𝐒_3)^2.`$ (42)
The Hamiltonian above can then be simplified as

$$H_{d,f}=3m\frac{1}{2m}_𝐫^2\frac{1}{2m}_{𝐫_{12}}^2+V_{d,f}^T(r_{12})$$
(43)
where

$`V_{d,f}^T(r_{12})=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(6+𝐒_{\mathrm{total}}^2)){\displaystyle \frac{e^{mr_{12}}}{r_{12}}}.`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`.(\pm 1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}(6+𝐒_{\mathrm{total}}^2)){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m^2}}\delta ^3(𝐫_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}})]`$ (45)
$`+`$ $`m(1e^{\beta mr_{12}}).`$ (46)
where $`𝐒_{\mathrm{total}}`$ is now the total spin of the system, i.e. $`J`$. In Ref. , one introduced an additional quantum number called $`S_{\mathrm{pair}}`$ in $`J^{PC}(S_{\mathrm{pair}})`$ which is clearly not adequate, resulting in a spurious $`1^{}`$ state.

There are three possible pure $`s`$-states, with quantum numbers $`J^{PC}=0^+`$, $`1^{}`$, and $`3^{}`$. For these glueballs, all the $`\delta `$ terms are repulsive, hence their masses are automatically bounded from below, and there is no need to smear the $`\delta `$ function. We estimate the masses and sizes of these glueballs using the variational method with the wavefunction $`\psi (r)e^{a^2m^2(𝐫^2+𝐫_{12}^2)}`$, which is symmetric with respect to $`𝐫_1`$, $`𝐫_2`$, and $`𝐫_3`$. We find that the masses and sizes are almost $`\lambda `$ independent, hence we plot them only vs. $`\beta `$ in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. Note that for the $`0^+`$ quantum number there is also a 2-gluon glueball in $`L=1`$ state, which is expected to have mass lower than the 3-gluon state discussed here . Mixing between the 2-gluon and 3-gluon states should lead to level repulsion and raise the $`0^+`$ 3-gluon state above the two other states.

From Fig. 6, we find that the masses of the three lowest lying 3-gluon glueballs are within $`0.1m`$ (or 100 MeV) of each other, which holds for any $`\beta `$ value. In other words, they are nearly degenerate, which we will discuss further in the next section. We note that the ratio with $`2^{++}`$ mass is around 1.53, almost independent of $`\beta `$ and $`\lambda `$, and agrees with naive constituent counting. Scaling from the lattice result of $`M_{2^{++}}=20002400`$ MeV the mass range of these glueballs is $`3.13.7`$ GeV, right in the ballpark of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ masses. Their sizes are only slightly larger than the $`2^{++}`$ 2-gluon glueball, and fall into the range of $`0.91.3`$ fm.

## IV Discussion and Conclusion

We approximated the attractive $`\delta `$-function by a smearing function $`D(r)`$ in Eq. (35). This is physically reasonable since the gluons in a glueball can not have very large relative momentum that corresponds to very short distance separation. Through the variational method, besides the constituent terms $`2m`$ and $`3m`$, one can check four sources for the glueball mass: kinetic energy, Yukawa and delta function potential, and string energy. It is clear that smaller glueball size implies a greater kinetic energy contribution to its mass. The Yukawa term is always attractive and contributes negatively to the glueball mass. It is proportional to the adjoint strong coupling constant $`\lambda `$, Eq. (23), and becomes more negative for smaller glueball size. The delta-function term, replaced by the smearing function $`D(r)`$ of Eq. (35), is also proportional to $`\lambda `$, and becomes stronger for smaller glueball size. As for string energy term, a bigger glueball can store more energy hence a larger glueball mass. A greater string tension $`\beta `$ also stores more energy in the string. Knowing about these four sources, we can see how the mass and size of a glueball comes about.

Let us first consider masses. For the $`2^{++}`$ glueball, the kinetic energy is relatively small due to its rather large size compared to the $`0^{++}`$ glueball. On the other hand, there is a cancellation between $`\lambda `$-dependent attractive Yukawa potential and repulsive delta-function terms. The resulting value is always negative, and will further cancel against the kinetic energy term. Hence the main contribution to the mass comes from the string energy, and the stronger the string tension $`\beta `$, the heavier the mass. For fixed string tension, a larger $`\lambda `$ value gives a stronger cancellation between the remnant of short distance potential and the kinetic energy, resulting in a smaller contribution to the glueball mass. In other words, the $`2^{++}`$ glueball mass increases with increasing $`\beta `$ or decreasing $`\lambda `$, as can be seen in Fig. 4.

For the $`0^{++}`$ glueball, the kinetic enengy term is relatively large because of the small size, which in turn is brought about by the attractive $`\delta `$ function, and there is strong cancellation between these two terms. Since we have fixed the mass ratio with $`2^{++}`$, it turns out that the kinetic energy overcomes the attractive $`\delta `$ function, and subsequently cancels against the attractive Yukawa term. The net result could be positive or negative depending on smaller or larger $`\lambda `$ value. The main contribution still comes from the string term but it cannot be as strong as in the case of $`2^{++}`$ because of the small size. We stress again that in Fig. 4 we have held the $`2^{++}`$ and $`0^{++}`$ ratios fixed according to Eq. (36).

We turn to the consideration of sizes, i.e. understanding Fig. 5. We find that the glueball size increases with mass for $`2^{++}`$ glueball. This is easily understood in terms of a repulsive $`\delta `$ and the dominance of string energy. For $`0^{++}`$ glueball, its size is sensitive to $`\lambda `$, which can be understood as coming indirectly from smearing. As a consequence of imposing Eq. (36), the value for $`k`$ depends mainly on $`\lambda `$ and can become larger for lower $`\lambda `$. For larger $`k`$, the smearing function $`D(r)`$ approaches the delta function and is more attractive. Thus, paradoxially, a smaller $`\lambda `$ (“less attractive”) is more able to “pull in” the glueball, leading to decrease in size. However, the size of the $`0^{++}`$ glueball is almost $`\beta `$ independent precisely because of its small size, hence insensitive to the string energy. We note that the smallness of the $`0^{++}`$ glueball stretches the applicability of our relativistic expansion. It is therefore amusing that Figs. 4 and 5 are in rather good agreement with the findings of Ref. .

For three-gluon glueballs, there are three possible pure $`S`$ states, namely $`J^{PC}`$=$`0^+`$, $`1^{}`$, and $`3^{}`$. For these glueballs, all the $`\delta `$ terms in the potential are repulsive, hence no smearing is needed. There is a $`\lambda `$-dependent cancellation between the Yukawa and delta-function terms. Interestingly, both terms become stronger for larger total spin (or $`J`$), and the cancellation hides the spin effect, resulting in the masses being nearly degenerate. In other words, their masses and sizes are almost $`\lambda `$-independent and depend basically on $`\beta `$, just like $`2^{++}`$ case. It is rather intriguing that the mass difference of the three glueballs are within 100 MeV of each other. But as we have mentioned earlier, the $`0^+`$ state would become heavier via mixing with the $`L=1`$ two-gluon state.

Comparing Figs. 4 and 6, we note that the 3-gluon glueball masses are about 1.5 times larger than $`2^{++}`$, largely independent of $`\beta `$ and $`\lambda `$. Taking $`M_{2^{++}}`$ between $`=2267\pm 104`$ MeV  and $`2400\pm 25\pm 120`$ MeV , one finds $`M_1^{}`$ in the range of $`3.53.7`$ GeV, close to the $`\psi ^{}`$ mass of 3686 MeV. We note that the proximity of the $`1^{}`$ glueball to $`\psi ^{}`$ may be called for from comparsion of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ two body hadronic decays . However, if the $`f_2(1980)`$ state is the $`2^{++}`$ glueball , then we find $`M_1^{}`$ is of order 3 GeV or closer to the $`J/\psi `$, where an older proposal  of $`1^{}`$ glueball (called $`O`$) could be behind the rather sizable strength of $`J/\psi \rho \pi 1\%`$. At the moment, improved action lattice results  find $`1^{}`$ glueball masses heavier than those discussed here. We urge further refined, dedicated studies to help clarify the phenomenology. Direct search methods for the lowest lying 3-gluon glueballs were discussed in Ref. , which should also be brought up to date.

In conclusion, we investigate the bound states of two and three massive gluons with a Schrödinger equation. We calculate the short distance potential from one gluon exchange, and give arguments for the long distance confining potential. We calculate glueball masses and sizes using variational method. By considering the effect of smearing of the gluon fields, we find that the size of $`0^{++}`$ glueball could be rather small compared with others. The other glueball masses are stable with respect to such smearing. Using the converging experimental and lattice results for $`0^{++}`$ and $`2^{++}`$ glueballs, we estimate the effective gluon mass to be 0.6 to 0.7 GeV, in agreement with phenomenological results. The typical size of $`2^{++}`$ and $`0^{++}`$ are of order 1 fm and 0.1 to 0.2 fm, respectively. This means that to extract the $`0^{++}`$ glueball size on a lattice, one would need rather fine lattice spacings. It would be of interest to see if our result would be replicated on the lattice. For 3-gluon glueballs, their sizes are also estimated to be in the range of 0.9-1.3 fm, similar to that of the $`2^{++}`$ state. We find that the three lowest lying 3-gluon glueballs to be largely degenerate. In particular, the mass of the $`1^{}`$ glueball is in the range of 3 to 3.7 GeV, which is consistent with arguments from phenomenological point of view.

Acknowledgement. This work is supported in part by the National Science Council of R.O.C. under Grant NSC-89-2112-M-002-063.


text:
# The early X-ray emission from V382 Velorum (=Nova Vel 1999): An internal shock model

## 1 Early X-ray Emission from Classical Novae

Classical novae (or simply, novae) are explosions caused by thermonuclear runaways on accreting white dwarfs (see, e.g., Chapter 5 of Warner (1995) for a review). In common with many other astrophysical explosions, a significant fraction of the energy goes into the kinetic energy of the ejecta: for an ejecta mass of 10-4M and an ejecta velocity of 1,000 km s-1, one obtains $``$1045 ergs as the ejecta kinetic energy; these may be taken as typical values. Of course, not all novae are identical; “fast” novae are visually brighter at maximum, its visual light decays faster, and ejecta velocities are higher, than the “slow” novae. The fastness can be characterised by the time it takes the nova to decline by 2 (t2) or 3 (t3) visual magnitudes; there is a well-known correlation between the peak absolute magnitude and the rate of decline, which makes novae useful as distance indicators. The white dwarf mass and other factors are known to influence the fastness of a nova, although full details are still being worked out. Another important distinction can be discerned from the abundances of the nova ejecta: roughly a third of recent novae are neon novae, those believed to occur on O-Ne-Mg white dwarfs, while the remainder are believed to occur on C-O white dwarfs.

The underlying binary is a cataclysmic variable (CV), that is, a white dwarf accreting from a late type companion, usually a Roche-lobe filling dwarf on or near the main sequence. Under certain conditions, the accreted material becomes degenerate; a sufficient accumulation of this fresh fuel causes a thermonuclear runaway. A nova typically reaches its peak visual brightness within a few days after the onset of brightening. In the early decay phase, the intense wind from the still nuclear-burning white dwarf creates a huge pseudo-photosphere, completely obscuring the underlying binary. The declining mass-loss rate shrinks the photosphere, during which the bolometric luminosity remains roughly constant, at about the Eddington limit, and the effective temperature increases. Finally, when the photosphere has shrunk to the original radius of the white dwarf, the nova may become a super-soft source, exhibiting an intense, optically thick radiation from the white dwarf surface, with an effective temperature of the order 50 eV. Such super-soft emission is observed 6 months to several years after the visual peak of the nova. Recently, Starrfield et al (2000) performed Chandra grating observations of V382 Vel and V1494 Aql and discovered line-rich X-ray spectra, superimposed on a super-soft continuum in the case of the latter but not the former. These cast some doubt on the reliability of the parameters derived from lower resolution X-ray observations (such as with ROSAT PSPC), although the gross characterization of the super-soft component is probably secure in many cases.

In addition, an early, hard X-ray component has been observed in several recent novae. V838 Herculis (=Nova Herculis 1991, V$`{}_{\mathrm{peak}}{}^{}5.0`$) was detected 5 days past optical maximum at 0.16 ct s-1 in ROSAT PSPC (Lloyd et al, 1992). V1974 Cygni (=Nova Cygni 1992, V$`{}_{\mathrm{peak}}{}^{}4.2`$) was detected 60 days past maximum at 0.02 ct s-1 in ROSAT PSPC (Balman et al, 1998). Nova Scorpii 1997 (V$`{}_{\mathrm{peak}}{}^{}9`$) was detected $``$100 days past maximum at 0.07 and 0.02 ct s-1 respectively in BeppoSAX LECS and MECS (Orio et al, 1997). Finally, the ROSAT PSPC detection of V351 Puppis (=Nova Puppis 1991) 16 months after the visual maximum, at 0.223 ct s-1 may also be due to the same component (Orio et al, 1996).

Early X-ray emissions have also been detected from the recurrent nova, RS Ophiuchi, following its January 1985 outburst, using EXOSAT LE and ME instruments (Mason et al, 1986). The mass donor in this system is a red giant, unlike in the short-period classical nova systems. The early X-ray data for this system have been interpreted in terms of the nova ejecta colliding with the red giant wind. In the classical nova systems with Roche-lobe filling dwarf companions, any wind from the secondary would be too weak for this mechanism to work.

In this paper, we report on the results of an ASCA Target-of-opportunity (TOO) observation and an RXTE monitoring campaign of the early, hard X-ray emission from V382 Vel. Observations are described in §2, results are presented in §3 and interpreted in §4.

## 2 Observations

V382 Velorum (=Nova Velorum 1999) was discovered on 1999 May 22 at V $``$3. The pre-discovery photographs extend the detection back to May 20.923 UT at magnitude 7.0–7.25; the nova was undetected at May 20.57 to a limiting magnitude of $``$13. We estimate that peak of thermonuclear runaway, initial ejection of mass, and the beginning of visual brightening all occurred around 1999 May 20.5 (=JD 2451319.0); we will refer to this as time 0 of this nova in this paper. Given the rapid rise, this estimate is probably accurate to better than a day, which is adequate for our purposes.

V382 Vel appeared to have peaked near $`m_v2.8`$ at about day 2.0, making this the brightest nova since V1500 Cygni (=Nova Cygni 1975), and declined rapidly. In Fig. 1, we have plotted the visual magnitude estimates of V382 Vel as published in various IAU Circulars (nos. 7176, 7177, 7179, 7184, 7193, 7203, 7209, 7236, and 7238), since they provide the best overall coverage throughout the first 3 months of the nova. We have supplemented these with magnitude estimates from pre-discovery photographic plates, and with photometry at Mt. John University observatory (Kilmartin (1999) and Gilmore (1999)) between Jun 26 and Jul 14 (a period for which no visual magnitude estimates are available in IAUCs), although there could be an offset between visual magnitudes and photographic or photoelectric measurements. V382 Vel is a very fast nova: Della Valle et al (1999) have measured the rate of decline of the nova to be t2=6 days and t3=10 days, and hence estimated a peak absolute visual magnitude MV of $`8.7\pm 0.2`$; this implies a distance to the nova of about 2 kpc. It is also a neon nova (Woodward et al, 1999), as evidenced by the detection of strong \[NeII\] 12.81$`\mu `$ line.

The rare brightness of the nova (the brightest since the advent of imaging X-ray astronomy) has made V382 Vel a prime target for X-ray observations. Accordingly, by the end of 1999, V382 Vel has been observed with RXTE (5 times), BeppoSAX (twice), ASCA (once) and Chandra (once, with three more pointings during 2000; Starrfield et al (2000)). Here we concentrate on the RXTE and ASCA data (summarized in Table 1; see also Fig. 1). We also cite the preliminary results of the BeppoSAX observations (Orio et al (1999a) and Orio et al (1999b)).

The ASCA observation (see also the preliminary report by Mukai & Ishida (1999)) was performed between 1999 June 9 13:09 UT and June 10 16:01 UT, for approximately 40 ksec on-source. We have performed standard data screening and extraction, and combined the data from 2 pairs of similar instruments for spectroscopic analysis (i.e., producing one SIS spectrum and one GIS spectrum, each with an associated response and a background file). For our light curve analysis, we have combined the data from all 4 instruments.

There have been 5 public TOO observations of V382 Vel with RXTE, from which we have only analyzed the PCA data (a simple extrapolation of PCA spectral model would argue against a HEXTE detection; even if a hard X-ray source was to be detected, we cannot be confident of its true origin). All were performed with Epoch 4 gain setting, with varying number of Proportional Counter Units (PCUs) on (see Table 1), obtaining usable data of V382 Vel for 0.7–2.4 ksec per visit. In addition, during the middle of observation 2, a raster scan was performed to confirm that V382 Vel is the only source of hard X-rays in this area of the sky. We have used the faint source model for background subtraction (specifically, pca\_bkgd\_faintl7\_e04v03.mdl and pca\_bgd\_faint240\_e04e03.mdl in addition to pca\_saa\_history). We have used responses created by pcarmf v7.01 for spectral fitting.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 First RXTE observation

This observation was performed at day 5.7 in our convention, or only about 3 days past the visual maximum. Had a secure detection been obtained, this would have been the earliest hard X-ray detection of a classical nova. However, this was not the case, as has been reported earlier (Mukai & Swank, 1999). Even though there is a statistically significant count excess over the background model in the 2.5–10 keV band (our refined value is 0.11$`\pm `$0.03 ct s-1 per PCU), this cannot be considered a secure detection, given the point-to-point fluctuation in the cosmic X-ray background, particularly at such a low Galactic latitude ($`b^{II}=5.8^{}`$). A 0.2 ct s-1 per PCU source cannot be excluded, roughly corresponding to 2.5$`\times 10^{12}`$ ergs cm-2s-1 in the 2–10 keV band.

### 3.2 ASCA data

The imaging capability of ASCA leaves no doubt that V382 Vel was strongly detected on day 20.5 (see also Orio et al (1999a) for the slightly earlier, and equally secure, detection by BeppoSAX).

The combined 64-s bin light curve was analyzed for variability. The best straight-line fit has a positive slope (combined count rates increasing from 0.564 ct s-1 to 0.583 ct s-1 during our $``$1 day observation), i.e., increasing with a timescale of $``$30 days at day 20.5. This fit has a $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ of 1.15 for 626 degrees of freedom, implying that the source was variable on a shorter timescale formally at a 99.4% confidence level. However, a Fourier analysis reveals no significant periodicity, to a limiting amplitude of $``$5%, and the apparent variability at this level may well be due to imperfect background subtraction and other instrumental effects.

We have fitted the GIS and SIS spectra of V382 Vel with a Bremsstrahlung continuum model (Fig. 2). The choice of this model was dictated by a combination of physical considerations and the quality of the fits, not only of this observation but of the later RXTE data as well. We find that a single-component Bremsstrahlung model with a uniform absorber gives a poor fit, with excesses at low energies. A partial-covering absorber model results in a marked improvement to the fit: the absorbing column is found to be 1.01$`\pm 0.05\times 10^{23}`$ cm-2, with a covering fraction of 99.5%. The bremsstrahlung model has a temperature of kT=10.2$`{}_{1.7}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+2.0}`$ keV. There is a weak detection a Fe K line at 6.63$`\pm `$0.11 keV with an equivalent width of 130$`{}_{70}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+30}`$eV. We have also attempted fitting the ASCA spectra with the mekal plasma emission model (Mewe et al (1985); Mewe et al (1986); Liedahl et al (1995)). Since the continuum temperature is such that strong 6.7 and 6.97 keV Fe K lines are expected, the fit fails unless the abundances are allowed to vary; in this case, the abundance of Fe (the only element the ASCA data are sensitive to) of less than 10% Solar is indicated. The observed flux is 2.13$`\times 10^{11}`$ ergs s-1cm-2 and inferred luminosity (corrected for absorption and for an assumed distance of 2 kpc) is 4.5$`\times 10^{34}`$ ergs s-1. The inferred emission measure (EM) is 1.7$`\times 10^{57}`$ cm-3.

### 3.3 Follow-up RXTE observations: Spectral Evolution

During the subsequent RXTE campaign, V382 Vel was strongly detected, and showed a marked softening from the ASCA observation (day 20.5) to the last RXTE observation (day 59). The spectra are shown in Fig. 3.

For these RXTE spectra, we have used a simple absorber model, since RXTE PCA is not sensitive to the type of soft excess seen in the ASCA spectrum. The column densities deduced from the fits decrease to an almost undetectable (to RXTE) level, accompanied by a decrease in the temperature of the bremsstrahlung model; either change in itself is not sufficient to explain the observed spectral softening. The Fe K line is securely detected above the bremsstrahlung continuum model in observations 2 & 3. However, even then, the lines are weaker than the plasma models would suggest.

These results are summarized in Table 2 and in Fig. 4.

## 4 Discussion

CVs long after a nova eruption are often seen as X-ray sources with luminosities in the 1030–1034 ergs s-1 range. However, it is unlikely that accretion can explain the X-rays we observed in V382 Vel, given that the underlying binary was buried deep within the optically thick wind at the epochs of these observations, quite apart from the question of whether accretion could have been reestablished within several weeks of the onset of the nova eruption.

Three nova-specific mechanisms for hard X-ray emission have been proposed: radioactive decays, super-soft emission, and shock emission. Radioactive decays of 22Na produces 1.275 MeV $`\gamma `$-ray line, which could produce X-rays via Compton-degradation (Livio et al, 1992). However, resulting X-rays predominantly originate from a surface with Compton optical depth $``$1, i.e., NH $`10^{24}`$ cm-2; this is far in excess of even the highest column density seen in V382 Vel, $``$1.0$`\times 10^{23}`$ cm-2 measured with ASCA, hence we exclude radioactive decays from further considerations. The super-soft emission is the optically thick radiation from the white dwarf surface, with an effective temperature of the order 50 eV, thus clearly of the wrong shape to explain our observations. This component was, however, observed with BeppoSAX in November, 1999 in V382 Vel (Orio et al (1999b)).

This leaves shock emission as the only viable candidate as the origin of X-rays from V382 Vel observed with ASCA and RXTE between day 20.5 and 59.

In one version of the shock model (see, e.g., Lloyd et al (1992)), the nova ejecta interact with pre-existing, circumstellar material. There is a severe problem with such an external shock model: as Lloyd et al (1992) point out, the presence of an unevolved secondary in most classical nova makes the likelihood of extensive pre-outburst circumstellar material low. The amount of interstellar medium that the nova ejecta can encounter during the first year is obviously too small, and there is no evidence for a dense circum-binary material in classical novae before an eruption. As previously mentioned, in a system with a red giant mass donor (such as RS Oph), the external shock model works well (Mason et al (1986); see also Lloyd et al (1992)). There is no indication to date that V382 Vel has a giant mass donor, however.

We therefore discard the external shock explanation for the early X-ray emissions in classical (non-recurrent) novae.

### 4.1 Internal Shock Model

The ASCA and RXTE observations reported here provide three valuable clues as to the nature of the putative shock: the NH history, the kT history, and the behavior of the Fe K line.

The observed NH cannot be interstellar, because it is variable. Moreover, the UV observations (Shore et al, 1999) indicate a reddening EB-V of perhaps 0.2, or NH $``$3$`\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2. This is also consistent with the November, 1999, BeppoSAX observation, from which an X-ray column of NH = 2$`\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 has been determined (Orio et al, 1999b).

A simple model consisting of a discrete shell of mass 5$`\times 10^5`$ M expanding at 1000 km s-1, ejected at time 0 (the presumed peak of the thermonuclear runaway), is successful in describing the time history of NH as measured with RXTE if one assumes a point-like X-ray source at its center. For an extended source, photons from near the limb has longer path lengths through the cold outer shell, thus the above shell mass is an overestimate, particularly for a limb-brightened X-ray source. The point-source model that fits the RXTE observation overpredicts the ASCA NH by 50%. This may be due, in part, to the simplistic treatment of the complex geometry; or the outer shell may have been partially ionized at early stages, allowing low energy photons to escape and hence complicating our spectral fits (a similar mechanism may have allowed the very early detection of V838 Her with ROSAT (Lloyd et al, 1992)). Extrapolation of this model back to day 5.7, the epoch of the initial RXTE observation, implies that the column would have been $`2\times 10^{24}`$ cm-2, too high to allow X-rays escape even allowing for some overprediction. That is, the NH history is suggestive of an origin in an expanding shell, the ejecta from the 1999 nova eruption itself. The mass in this shell is probably somewhat less than 5$`\times 10^5`$ M if, as seems likely, the X-ray emission is from a limb-brightened inner shell.

This model of the NH history leads naturally to an internal shock model. An expanding outer shell provides the observed NH, with the X-ray producing shock residing inside. The simplest model, then, consists of two distinct shells of nova ejecta. The initial ejecta provide the absorbing column; a layer of later, and faster-moving, ejecta plough into the initial ejecta. The high shock temperature of kT$``$10 keV requires a strong shock with velocity differential of $``$3000 km s-1. Later observations show a softer spectrum, in kT as well as in NH, which suggests that the two sets of ejecta are merging to form a single layer. This is a scenario first proposed by Friedjung (1987), which was motivated by the vast literature on the optical spectra of classical novae in eruption.

Quantitative models of optical spectra of classical novae are generally based on a single-component, optically thick wind approximation (Bath & Shaviv, 1976). However useful this formalism may be, it is clear from the rich taxonomy of optical spectra of novae (summarized most notably by Payne-Gaposchkin (1957)) that nova ejecta are far more complex than this. Several distinct systems are often recognized. In time order, these are called pre-maximum, principal, diffuse enhanced, and Orion components. As the name implies, the pre-maximum component is the first absorption features seen, before the visual light curve reaches its maximum; their typical velocities are in the 100–1000 km s-1 range. This component therefore is associated with the initial ejecta from the nova eruption, which presumably carries the pseudo-photosphere with it as it expands. The principal system follows next, with a higher velocity and a higher ionization; this is the system that persists decades after the eruptions and can be identified with the expansion velocity of the nova shells. Diffuse enhanced and Orion systems are yet of higher ionizations and higher velocities (1000 km s-1 in slow nova to as high as 4000 km s-1 in very fast novae).

We see ever deeper into the optically thick wind as time goes by, due to the decrease in the mass loss rate, hence the optical depth at a given physical location. This does explain the increasing trend in ionization; however, we should observe less accelerated material as time goes on in a one-zone wind model. The fact that the observed velocities increase with time probably requires at least two distinct components. For example, Friedjung (1987) explains the principal component as due to the result of a collision between the slow-moving pre-maximum system with the faster-moving diffuse enhanced/Orion system. Applied to a fast nova, this model predicts a collision between pre-maximum component moving typically at 1000 km s-1 and the fast wind with a typical velocity of 4000 km s-1, with the resulting shock of kT$``$10 keV. This is just the X-ray temperature we observe in V382 Vel. Since we are unaware of any pre-maximum spectroscopy, we simply adopt the “typical” value of 1000 km s-1; as for the fast wind, (Shore et al, 1999) report a terminal velocity of 5000 km s-1for Al III $`\lambda `$1860 and Si IV $`\lambda `$1400 lines. Thus the shock in V382 Vel may have been capable of producing an even higher X-ray temperature, but is consistent with the observed value.

In more theoretical terms, the pre-maximum system can be associated with the dynamical ejection of the white dwarf envelop at near the peak of the thermonuclear runaway; the faster materials can then be associated with radiation-driven wind due to the continued shell hydrogen burning, whose other manifestation is the super-soft X-ray emission from the hot photosphere to be observed several month later.

Assuming that the shock is due to the collision between the pre-maximum system and a fast-moving wind, what are the likely physical conditions? First, the density of the pre-maximum ejecta can be estimated as follows. Let us assume an ejecta mass of 2$`\times 10^5`$ M (as we have argued that the 5$`\times 10^5`$ M figure from NH history was likely a slight overestimate). The ejecta are expanding as a shell with radius $`v_{\mathrm{pm}}T`$, where $`v_{\mathrm{pm}}`$ is the ejection velocity $``$1000 km s-1 and $`T`$ the time since explosion. There is likely to be a velocity dispersion $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ (say, 200 km s-1) in the ejecta; taking the increasing radial spread into account, the volume of the pre-maximum system at 20 days after eruption is $`1.6\times 10^{43}`$ cm3 and the density is estimated to be 7.5 $`\times 10^8`$ cm-3.

For the fast wind, since we assume this to be a continuous (and slowly changing) phenomenon, velocity dispersions would not affect the density. For a wind mass loss rate of 2$`\times 10^{22}`$ g s-1 (or $`10^4`$ M in 100 days) at a wind velocity of 4000 km s-1, the wind density at the pre-maximum shell would be 7.5$`\times 10^7`$ cm-3. It appears likely that the fast wind will be initially assimilated into the pre-maximum shell, after undergoing a shock, with a post-shock density of the order 3$`\times 10^8`$ cm-3.

If our interpretation is correct, the physical conditions of the early X-ray emission source in V382 Vel is orders of magnitudes denser than in supernova remnants, and orders of magnitudes more rarified than in accretion shocks in CVs, two well-studied classes of shock heated, X-ray emitting, plasmas. Although it may be comparable to stellar coronae in density alone, the heating mechanism and the environment are different. Applications of existing spectral models (widely tested in supernova remnants and stellar coronae) must therefore proceed with caution.

### 4.2 Comparison with the Interacting Winds Model of O’Brien et al (1994)

Such an internal shock model has already been suggested as a possibile explanation of the early ROSAT detection of V838 Her (Lloyd et al, 1992). O’Brien et al (1994) has developed this into a detailed numerical model assuming a constant mass loss rate, with ejection velocity of 1000 km s-1 for the 1st day, increasing linearly to 3600 km s-1 by day 5, and remaining constant thereafter. Our model and theirs are similar in that X-rays are generated from an internal shock. However, O’Brien et al (1994) and we have chosen different sets of simplyfing assumptions. O’Brien et al (1994) assume a constant mass loss rate, with a smoothly changing ejection velocity; in contrast, we have assumed a two distinct phases of mass loss with a discontinuous change in velocity. Are the differences significant, and if so, which is the better framework on which to build future, more detailed, models?

Let us first examine how the specific predictions of the O’Brien et al (1994) numelical model compare with our data on V382 Vel: we find two significant differences.

First difference concerns the predicted temperature of the X-ray emitting region. The O’Brien et al (1994) model predicts 2$`\times 10^6`$ to 2$`\times 10^7`$K (or kT$``$0.2–2 keV) X-ray emitting plasma, matching one of the two thermal plasma model parameters that fit the ROSAT PSPC spectrum of V838 Her (model RS2 in Table 2 of O’Brien et al (1994)), whereas we observe KT$``$10 keV on Day 20.5 in V382 Vel. Secondly, O’Brien et al (1994) claims that “for these parameter values the consequent reduction in low-energy X-rays is small,” whereas low-energy photons are decimated by intrinsic absorption in the ASCA spectrum of V382 Vel.

Note that, while the O’Brien et al (1994) model does predict a high temperature region (T$`10^8`$K) 10 days after eruption, the density predicted in this region is orders of magnitude too low to result in significant X-ray emission (from their Figure 1, we estimate emission measure of order 1046 cm-3, compared to $`>10^{57}`$ cm-3 estimated from ASCA and RXTE spectra). Moreover, since this high temperature is seen at the outermost edge of the ejecta, little absorption is predicted (to be precise, half the emission should have interstellar NH, while the other half could suffer relatively high intrinsic absorption).

Thus, the specific numerical model presented in O’Brien et al (1994) cannot explain our data on V382 Vel; however, this is not surprising. We now ask the more reasonable question: what changes in model parameters might bring the predictions of the O’Brien et al (1994) model into line with our observations of V382 Vel?

The penultimate paragraph of §3.2 of O’Brien et al (1994) makes it clear that their model parameters are reasonably constrained by observations. The mass loss rate is determined by the observed X-ray luminosity: Given the similar X-ray luminosities inferred for V838 Her and V382 Vel, we cannot siginificantly increase the mass loss rate adopted for the former by O’Brien et al (1994). Without adjusting the mass loss rate, it does not appear possible to match the NH we observe in V382 Vel. The temperature of the X-ray emitting region in their model is determined by the velocity contrast, $`u_2u_1`$; because the line velocities measured in V382 Vel is similar to those in V838 Her (Vanlandingham et al (1996) reports a terminal velocity of 3000 km s-1 and O’Brien et al (1994) assumed 3600 km s-1), we cannot arbitrarily increase the velocity contrast, hence are unable to match the high temperature (kT$``$10 keV) in V382 Vel.

It appears that there is not much room to adjust the parameters, from their own analysis of their numerical model. Given this, we conclude that we probably need to abandon some of the simplifying assumptions adopted by O’Brien et al (1994). We suggest that the simple arguments we presented in §4.1 may serve as a starting framework on which to construct detailed models, without the difficulties encountered by the O’Brien et al (1994) version.

Finally, we note that any model that can succesfully explain V382 Vel may apply, with minor modifications, to V838 Her. This is because the ROSAT PSPC data on V838 Her can be fitted with a thermal model with kT$`>`$4 keV (model RS1 in Table 1 of O’Brien et al (1994)).

### 4.3 Weak Fe K Lines: Underabundant or Underionized?

The weakness of the Fe K line is consistent with the shock model, provided either that the Fe abundance is low in the ejecta, or that the shocked plasma is not in ionization equilibrium.

There is no theoretical objection to a low Fe abundance in nova ejecta. This could arise either because the white dwarf accretes low Fe abundance material from the secondary, or because the heavy elements have settled down to deeper layers of the primary in before the nova eruption. However, V382 Vel has been classified as a Fe II nova, because its optical spectra include strong and broad Fe II lines (Steiner et al (1999), Della Valle et al (1999)). In addition, the X-ray continuum shape in the 5–10 keV region measured with ASCA suggest the presence of an Fe edge at a level consistent with a Solar composition absorber with N$`{}_{\mathrm{H}}{}^{}10^{23}`$ cm-2 (NB this is not a secure result on its own, as the Fe edge depth is linked with the Fe emission line strength and the continuum shape in our fit). Clearly, Fe is present in the ejecta of V382 Vel. Therefore, we prefer to discount a low abundance as the explanation for the weak Fe K features in the X-ray spectra.

Instead, we consider it likely that the Fe in the nova ejecta is underionized. Studies of supernova remnants typically find that the ionization equilibrium is archived with a timescale $`t`$ such that $`nt10^{12}`$ cm-3s (e.g., Masai (1994)). In young supernova remnants with $`nt<10^{12}`$ cm-3s, the iron atoms are in the process of being ionized and this can result in weaker Fe K$`\alpha `$ line at an energy somewhat lower than at equilibrium. We do not have a detailed model of how this might apply to V382 Vel, and it may not be wise to apply the existing non-equilibrium models of supernova remnants without carefully considering the different conditions.

One observational constraint we have on the density is the emission measure, which can be derived from the normalization of the bremsstrahlung model: they are 1.7$`\times 10^{57}`$ cm-3 for the ASCA data and $`6\times 10^{57}`$ cm-3 for the subsequent RXTE spectra. If the emission region of volume $`V`$ has a uniform density $`n`$, emission measure simply equals $`n^2V`$. We can calculate the minimum density consistent with the observed X-ray spectrum by taking the volume of the sphere within the 1000 km s-1 pre-maximum ejecta front at day 20 ($`2\times 10^{43}`$ cm3), and assuming a filling factor of 1/4 (since a strong shock compresses by a factor of 4): it is $`2\times 10^7`$ cm-3 (for the assumed 2 kpc distance). Such a plasma will stay in nonequilibrium for $``$half a day. This short timescale for reaching ionization equilibrium is a problem for this interpretation: perhaps the observed X-ray emissions are dominated by recently shocked materials. On the positive side, there is a hint that the detected lines were at lower energies than those predicted by the ionization-equilibrium plasma models (Table 2 and Fig. 4), which is predicted by the non-equilibrium models. Clearly, we need higher quality observations of future bright novae, as well as further modelling of nova ejecta, to discover for certain the cause of weak Fe K$`\alpha `$ lines in V382 Vel.

## 5 Conclusions

We have observed early X-ray emission from a bright classical nova, V382 Vel. The X-ray spectrum was hard with kT$``$10 keV and NH = 1$`\times 10^{23}`$ cm-2 3 weeks after the onset of the eruption, declining to 2.5 keV and $`2\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 2 months after the peak in the optical. Given an assumed distance of 2 kpc, V382 Vel maintained an X-ray luminosity of $`7.5\times 10^{34}`$ ergs s-1 for at least 20, perhaps as long as 40, days. The fluence in the X-ray component during this interval was about $`2\times 10^{41}`$ ergs, a small fraction of the estimated total kinetic energy of the ejecta.

This evolving hard X-ray emission can be best modelled as due to an internal shock within the nova ejecta. Such a shock was originally postulated by Friedjung (1987) to explain the taxonomy of optical lines. We have argued that a detailed model developed by O’Brien et al (1994) to explain the ROSAT PSPC data on V838 Her cannot be adopted to explain our data on V382 Vel; we have outlined our own model, broadly of the same type but with different assumptions, that may serve as a starting point for future modelling works.

Sensitive X-ray observations of other bright novae are necessary to clarify the dependence of hard X-ray properties on the speed class. However, slower novae will almost certainly have a lower peak temperature and remain obscured for a longer period. Frequent optical spectroscopy is also necessary to obtain the velocities of various ejecta components, to be compared with the X-ray temperature evolution. Perhaps most importantly, the field of early X-ray emissions from classical novae is still in its infancy such that a single bright and well-observed system can significantly improve our level of knowledge, as we hope we have demonstrated in this paper. Given the presence of X-ray observatories of unprecedented capabilities during the first decade of the 21st century, we can only hope to see a dramatic increase in our knowledge.

We thank Prof. Nagase and others of the ASCA operation team, and Dr. Swank and others at the RXTE project, for generous allocation of target-of-opportunity times. We also thank the supernova remnant aficionados at the Laboratory of High Energy Astrophysics for useful discussion concerining the effects of non-equilbrium ionization.