text:
# Untitled Document

ON THE SUPER FIELD REALIZATION OF SUPER CASIMIR $`𝒲𝒜_n`$ ALGEBRAS

H. T. ÖZER $`^{^{_{}}}`$ e-mail : ozert @ itu.edu.tr

Physics Department, Faculty of Science and Letters, Istanbul Technical University ,

80626, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey

We give an explicit quantum super field construction of the $`𝒩`$=2 super- Casimir $`𝒲𝒜_n`$ algebras, which is obtained from supersymmetric Miura transformation for the Lie superalgebra $`𝒜_{n,n1}`$.And also we give an extension of this algebras including a super vertex operator which depends on simple root system of $`𝒜_{n,n1}`$.

1. Introduction

Superconformal symmetry has played an important role in the developments of the many branches of theoretical physics and mathematics. Extended superconformal symmetry is an extension of superconformal symmetry containing higher conformal spin generators in addition to the usual superconformal algebra generators . Many superconformal algebras are known (for review see Ref.1 and referances therein).It is well known that a usual and a fermionic ($`𝒩`$=1) Casimir algebra corresponding to a simple Lie algebra $``$n can be denoted by $`𝒲`$$`{}_{n}{}^{}_{}^{210}`$. Analogous, a ($`𝒩`$=2) super Casimir algebra associated with the Lie superalgebra $`𝒜`$ n,n-1 can be also shown by super-$`𝒲`$$`{}_{n}{}^{}_{}^{1113}`$. Therefore super-Casimir $`𝒲𝒜`$$`__n`$ algebras based on the Lie superalgebras $`𝒜_{n,n1}`$. With the above identification, one says that $`𝒲𝒜`$$`__2`$ algebra is the simplest ($`𝒩`$=2 ) superconformal algebra. This superconformal algebra coincides with Neveu- Schwarz algebra ($`𝒩`$=1 super Virasoro algebra). We must emphasize here that the ($`𝒩`$=1) super- Casimir algebra is a subalgebra of the ($`𝒩`$=2) super-Casimir algebra. L.J.Romans have proven that super- $`𝒲`$$`__3`$ algebras 11 are associative for all values of central charge c. Some realizations of this algebra in terms of the ($`𝒩`$=2) superfields has been constructed with ($`n`$=2) two scalar fields by using the supersymmetric Miura transformation 10,15,16

In this letter, we study a super Casimir algebra for a Lie superalgebras $`__𝒩=𝒜`$n,n-1 , which are called super-Casimir $`𝒜`$$`__n`$ algebras, for $`n=3`$ . We must emphasize here that all pure conformal fields depand on n, so this is the first pure spin field definitions for this algebra in the literature. We reserve a notation of our spin content as module-1 : $`\{1,+\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2},2\}`$ and module-2 : $`\{2,+\frac{5}{2},\frac{5}{2},3\}`$.

Let us now give outline of this paper. In Sec. 2, we give a basis for super-Casimir $`𝒜`$$`__n`$ algebra by using the well-known supersymmetric Miura transformation with $`2n`$ free massless bosonic fields and real fermion fields12-16. Then, we constructed a free field realization of the super-Casimir $`𝒜`$$`__n`$ algebra by calculating all primay fields explicitly in general n ,but we can not give all nontrivial OPEs among primary fields. since all OPEs exist in the literature with some normalizations. In Sec.3, we constructed, in the component language, a super- vertex operator extension of the super-Casimir $`𝒜`$$`__n`$ algebras by calculating explicitly nontrivial OPEs between primary fields and super-vertex operators which are of two forms. The calculations of OPEs have been done with the help of Mathematica Package OPEDefs.m of Thielemans 17 under the MathematicaTM in Ref.18.

2. Super- Miura Basis For Super Casimir $`𝒲𝒜_n`$ Algebras In the Component Formalism

In this section, we begin with the review of the supersymmetric Miura transformation based on a Lie superalgebra $`𝒜`$n,n-112-16. We use odd simple root system $`\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{2n}\}`$ satisfying Cartan matrix $`C_{ij}=\alpha _i.\alpha _j=\left(1\right)^{i1}\delta _{i+1,j}`$ and $`\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{2n}\}`$ are the fundamental weights of $`𝒜`$ n,n-1 , satisfying $`\alpha _i.\lambda _j=\delta _{ij}`$. We show ($`𝒩`$=1) super coordinate $`𝒵=(z,\theta )`$ ana a super derivative $`𝒟=\frac{}{\theta }+\theta \frac{}{z}`$.Then we introduce a primary basis for the the super-Casimir $`𝒲𝒜`$$`__n`$ algebras from $`2n`$ free massless bosonic fields $`\phi _i(z)(i=1,\mathrm{},2n)`$ and real fermion fields $`\psi _i(z)(i=1,\mathrm{},2n)`$ realization point of view, which are single-valued functions on the complex plane and its mode expansion are given by

$$i\phi (z)=\underset{nZ}{}a_nz^{n1},\psi (z)=\underset{nZ}{}\psi _nz^{n\frac{1}{2}}.$$
$`(2.1)`$
respectively. A scalar superfield can be defined by $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝒵\right)=\phi (z)+i\theta \psi (z)`$. Canonical quantization gives the commutator and anti-commutator relations

$$[a_m,a_n]=m\delta _{_{m+n,0}},\{\psi _m,\psi _n\}=\delta _{_{mn}},$$
$`(2.2)`$
and these relations are equivalent to the contractions, as $`z_{12}=z_1z_2`$

$$\phi (\underset{¯}{z_1)\phi (}z_2)=\frac{1}{z_{12}^2},\psi (\underset{¯}{z_1)\psi (}z_2)=\frac{1}{z_{12}}$$
$`(2.3)`$
respectively.

Let us consider the supersymmetric Miura transformation 12-16, which is defined as

$$_n(𝒵)=𝒟^{2n+1}+\underset{j=2}{\overset{2n+1}{}}𝒲_{\frac{i}{2}}(𝒵)\left(\alpha __0𝒟\right)^{2n+1i}$$

$$=:\underset{j=1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}(\alpha __0𝒟\mathrm{\Theta }__j(𝒵)):,$$
$`(2.4)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }__j\left(𝒵\right)=\left(1\right)^{i1}\left(\lambda _i\lambda _{i1}\right).𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝒵\right)\left(\lambda _0=\lambda _{2n+1}=0\right)`$ the symbol $`::`$ shows the normal ordering, and $`\alpha __0`$ is a free parameter.

The super- Casimir $`𝒲𝒜`$$`__n`$ algebra generated by a set of chiral currents $`𝒲_{\frac{i}{2}}(𝒵)`$ , of conformal dimension $`\frac{i}{2}`$ $`(i=2,\mathrm{},2n+1)`$˙We show first few examples of currents, under $`__i=\lambda _i.𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝒵\right)`$ definition :

$$𝒲__1(𝒵)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(__i_{_{i+1}})(𝒵)a_0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^i(__i)(𝒵)$$
$`(2.5)`$
$$𝒲_{_{\frac{3}{2}}}(𝒵)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(𝒟_{_{2i1}}_{_{2i}})(𝒵)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(_{_{2i}}𝒟_{_{2i+1}})(𝒵)a_0\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(𝒟^2__i)(𝒵)$$
$`(2.6)`$
In the component formalism all bosonic and fermionic currents are expressed as in module-(k-1) :

$$𝒲_{_{k1}}(𝒵)=𝒥_{_{k1}}(z)+i\theta \left[𝒢_{_{k\frac{1}{2}}}^+(z)+𝒢_{_{k\frac{1}{2}}}^{}(z)\right]$$

$$𝒲_{_{k\frac{1}{2}}}(𝒵)=\alpha __0\left[i𝒢_{_{k\frac{1}{2}}}^{}(z)+\theta 𝒯__k(z)\right]$$
$`(2.7)`$
For the module-2

$$𝒥__1(z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(\psi __i\psi _{_{i+1}})(z)a_0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^i\psi __i(z)$$

$$𝒢_{_{\frac{3}{2}}}^{}(z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n2}{}}(1t__i)(\psi __ih_{_{i+1}})(z)\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}t__i(h__i\psi _{_{i+1}})(z)a_0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^i(1t__i)\psi __i^{}(z)$$

$$𝒢_{_{\frac{3}{2}}}^+(z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n2}{}}(1t__i)(h__i\psi _{_{i+1}})(z)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}t__i(\psi __ih_{_{i+1}})(z)+a_0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^it__i\psi __i^{}(z)$$

and

$$𝒯__2(z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^i(h__ih_{_{i+1}})(z)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1t__i)(h__ih_{_{i+1}}^{})(z)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}t__i(h__i^{}h_{_{i+1}})(z)a_0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^i(1t__i)h__i^{}(z)$$
$`(2.8)`$
where $`h__i(z)=\lambda _i.\phi (z)`$ , $`t__i=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{odd  i}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{even  i}\hfill \end{array}`$ and also module-3 components including higher order $`𝒥__2(z)`$$`𝒢_{_{\frac{5}{2}}}^{}(z)`$$`𝒢_{_{\frac{5}{2}}}^+(z)`$ and $`𝒯__3(z)`$ currents are not given here since their formal complexity.$`h__i(z)`$’s and $`\psi __i(z)`$’s satisfy $`h__i(\underset{¯}{z_1)h__j(}z_2)=\frac{[C^1]_{ij}}{z_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$ and $`\psi __i(\underset{¯}{z_1)\psi __j(}z_2)=\frac{[C^1]_{ij}}{z_{12}}`$ OPE’s respectively, under (2.3) contractions , where $`[C^1]_{ij}`$ is inverse matrix of Cartan matrix $`C_{ij}`$ of Lie superalgebra $`𝒜`$n,n-1.

A definition $`(z)=𝒯__2(z)\frac{1}{2}𝒥__1^{}(z)`$ denotes the energy-momentum tensor of $`𝒩`$=2 model with the central charge $`c^{_{(𝒩=2)}}=3n\left(1(n+1)a__0^2\right)`$ . The OPE with itself is

$$(z_1)(z_2)=\frac{c^{_{(𝒩=2)}}/2}{z_{12}^4}+\frac{2(z_2)}{z_{12}^2}+\frac{(z_2)}{z_{12}}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(2.9)`$
Note that in the component definitions (2.7),all bosonic and fermionic currents are not primary fields with respect to the energy-momentum tensor $`(z)`$, except $`𝒥__1(z)`$, for bosonic currents, i.e.

$$(z_1)𝒥__k(z_2)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{s=2}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{(nk+s)!}{(nk)!}2^{s2}a__0^{2s2}\left(1+(n+1+2(ks))a__0^2\right)\frac{𝒥_{_{ks}}(z2)}{z_{12}^{s+2}}$$

$$+\frac{(nk+1)!}{(nk)!}2^{k2}a__0^2\frac{𝒥_{_{k1}}(z_2)}{z_{12}^3}+\frac{k𝒥__k(z_2)}{z_{12}^2}+\frac{𝒥__k(z_2)}{z_{12}}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(2.10)`$
and also fermionic currents, i.e.

$$(z_1)𝒢_{\frac{7}{2}}^+(z_2)=(2n5)a__0^2\left(1+(n+3)a__0^2\right)\frac{𝒢_{_{\frac{3}{2}}}^+(z_2)}{z_{12}^4}+(2n2)a__0^2\frac{𝒢_{_{\frac{5}{2}}}^+(z_2)}{z_{12}^3}+$$

$$\frac{\frac{7}{2}𝒢_{_{\frac{7}{2}}}^+(z_2)}{z_{12}^2}+\frac{𝒢_{_{\frac{7}{2}}}^+(z_2)}{z_{12}}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(2.11)`$
In order to construct all pure bosonic and fermionic currents for the $`𝒩`$=2 super- Casimir $`𝒲𝒜_n`$ algebras, one may calculate suitable coefficients for quasi-primary bosonic and fermionic fields ,which form a $`𝒩=2`$ super multiplet $`\kappa \{𝒥__2(z),`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}𝒢_{_{\frac{5}{2}}}^{}(z),𝒯__3(z)\}`$

$$\kappa \stackrel{~}{𝒥}__2(z)=𝒥__2(w)\frac{1}{2}(n1)a__0^2𝒥__1(z)\frac{(n1)\left(3+(2+3n)a__0^2\right)}{6n2+6n(n+1)a__0^2}(𝒥__1𝒥__1)(z)$$

$$+\frac{(n1)\left(1na__0^2\right)\left(1+(n+1)a__0^2\right)}{3n1+3n(n+1)a__0^2}(z)$$

$$\frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{2}}\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{_{\frac{5}{2}}}^+(z)=𝒢_{_{\frac{5}{2}}}^+(z)+\frac{(n1)\left(1na__0^2\right)\left(1+(n+1)a__0^2\right)}{3n1+3n(n+1)a__0^2}𝒢_{_{\frac{3}{2}}}^+(z)\frac{(n1)\left(3+(2+3n)a__0^2\right)}{3n1+3n(n+1)a__0^2}(𝒥__1𝒢_{_{\frac{3}{2}}}^+)(z)$$

$$\frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{2}}\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{_{\frac{5}{2}}}^{}(z)=𝒢_{_{\frac{5}{2}}}^{}(z)\frac{(n1)\left(1+3na__0^2+2n(n+1)a__0^4\right)}{3n1+3n(n+1)a__0^2}𝒢_{_{\frac{3}{2}}}^{}(z)\frac{(n1)\left(3+(2+3n)a__0^2\right)}{3n1+3n(n+1)a__0^2}(𝒥__1𝒢_{_{\frac{3}{2}}}^{})(z)$$

$$\kappa \stackrel{~}{𝒲}__3(z)=𝒯__3(z)\frac{1}{2}𝒥__2(z)\frac{(n1)\left(3+(2+3n)a__0^2\right)}{3n1+3n(n+1)a__0^2}\left[(𝒢_{_{\frac{3}{2}}}^+𝒢_{_{\frac{3}{2}}}^{})(z)(𝒥__1𝒲_2)(z)+\frac{1}{4}(𝒥__1𝒥__1)(z)\right]$$

$$\frac{(n1)\left(3+(6n+1)a__0^2+3n(n+1)a__0^4\right)}{6n2+6n(n+1)a__0^2}(z)\frac{(n1)\left(1+na__0^2\right)\left(2+(n+1)a__0^2\right)}{12n4+12n(n+1)a__0^2}^2𝒥_1(z)$$
$`(2.12)`$
where

$$\kappa =\sqrt{\frac{3n1+3n(n+1)a__0^2}{\left(1na__0^2\right)\left(2+(n+1)a__0^2\right)\left(1+(n+2)a__0^2\right)}}$$
$`(2.13)`$
From (2.12), we may compute the operator product expansions for the $`𝒩`$=2 super multiplet $`\kappa \{𝒥__2(z),`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}𝒢_{_{\frac{5}{2}}}^{}(z),𝒯__3(z)\}`$. It is easy to see that these OPE’s coincide with the results of the OPE method 11, under (2.12) normalization.

3. (OPEs) for Chiral Super-Vertex Operators

In this section we define a super- vertex operator$`𝒱_\beta (𝒵)`$ which corresponds to the root system $`\{\beta \}`$ of the Lie superalgebra $`𝒜_{n,n1}`$ and a super field $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝒵\right)=\phi (z)+i\theta \psi (z)`$,

$$𝒱__\beta (𝒵)=:e^{i\beta .\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝒵\right)}:$$
$`(3.1)`$
In the component formalism, one gets

$$𝒱__\beta (𝒵)=𝒱__\beta ^_b(z)+\theta 𝒱__\beta ^_f(z)$$
$`(3.2)`$
where the bosonic $`𝒱__\beta ^_b(z)`$ and fermionic $`𝒱__\beta ^_f(z)`$ components of $`𝒱__\beta (𝒵)`$ are

$$𝒱__\beta ^_b(z)=:e^{i\beta .\phi (z)}:$$
$`(3.3)`$
and

$$𝒱__\beta ^_f(z)=\beta .\mathrm{\Psi }(z):e^{i\beta .\phi (z)}:$$
$`(3.4)`$
respectively.We must emphasize here that we will concentrate over the bozonic vertex operator $`𝒱__\beta ^_b(z)`$, in our advanced calculations. By using conformal spin-0 contraction $`\phi (\underset{¯}{z_1)\phi (}z_2)=\mathrm{ln}z_{12}`$, The standard OPEs are of two forms:

$$𝒱__\beta ^b(z_1)𝒱_{_{\dot{\beta }}}^b(z_2)=(z_{12})^{_{\beta \dot{\beta }}}:𝒱__\beta ^b(z_1)𝒱_{_{\dot{\beta }}}^b(z_2):$$
$`(3.5)`$
and

$$𝒱__\beta ^f(z_1)𝒱_{_{\dot{\beta }}}^f(z_2)=\frac{\beta ^2}{z_{12}}𝒱__\beta ^b(z_1)𝒱_{_{\dot{\beta }}}^b(z_2)$$
$`(3.6)`$
One can say that the operators $`𝒱__\beta ^b(z)`$ and $`𝒱__\beta ^f(z)`$ carrie a root $`\beta `$ . From

$$h__j(z_1)𝒱_\beta ^b(z_2)=\frac{\theta __j}{z_{12}}𝒱__\beta ^b(z_2)+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.7)`$
and

$$h__j(z_1)𝒱_\beta ^f(z_2)=\frac{\theta __j}{z_{12}}𝒱__\beta ^f(z_2)+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.8)`$
where

$$\theta __j=\theta __j(\beta )(\beta ,\lambda __j)$$
$`(3.9)`$
The OPEs with the stress-energy tensor $`(z)`$ is

$$(z_1)𝒱_\beta ^b(z_2)=\frac{h^b(\beta )}{z_{12}^2}𝒱__\beta ^b(z_2)+\frac{(\eta _{_b}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }𝒱__\beta ^b)(z_2)}{z_{12}}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.10)`$
where $`h^b(\beta )`$ is given by

$$h^b(\beta )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^{i+1}\theta _i\theta _{i+1}+\frac{a__0}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\theta _i$$
$`(3.11)`$
this means that the bosonic vertex operator $`𝒱__\beta ^b(z)`$ is a conformal field with spin $`h^b(\beta )`$, and

$$(\eta _{_b}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }𝒱__\beta ^b)(z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^{i+1}\left(\theta _ih_{i+1}(z)+h_i(z)\theta _{i+1}\right)$$
$`(3.12)`$
similarly, for the fermionic vertex operator $`𝒱__\beta ^f(z)`$

$$(z_1)𝒱_\beta ^f(z_2)=\frac{(h_{_f}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }𝒱__\beta ^f)(z_2)}{z_{12}^2}+\frac{(\eta _{_f}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }𝒱__\beta ^b)(z_2)}{z_{12}}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.13)`$
where $`(h_{_f}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }𝒱__\beta ^f)(z)`$

$$(h_{_f}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }𝒱__\beta ^f)(z)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^{i+1}(\theta _i\psi _{i+1}(z_2)+\psi _i(z_2)\theta _{i+1})𝒱__\beta ^b(z_2)$$

$$+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^i\theta _i\theta _{i+1}𝒱__\beta ^f(z_2)+\frac{a__0}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\theta _i𝒱__\beta ^f(z_2)$$
$`(3.14)`$
and

$$(\eta _{_f}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }𝒱__\beta ^b)(z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^{i+1}(\theta _i\psi _{i+1}(z_2)+\psi _i(z_2)\theta _{i+1})𝒱__\beta ^b)(z_2)$$

$$+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^i(\theta _ih_{i+1}(z_2)+h_i(z_2)\theta _{i+1})𝒱__\beta ^f)(z_2)$$
$`(3.15)`$
From (3.13), we can not define $`h^f(\beta )`$ as the conformal spin of $`𝒱__\beta ^f(z)`$, under (3.9) definition, since $`𝒱__\beta ^f(z)`$ field does not seem in the r.h.s. of OPE (3.13).

Let us discuss the OPEs between the quasi-primary fields of the super-Casimir $`𝒲𝒜`$$`__n`$ algebra and the bosonic vertex operator $`𝒱__\beta ^b(z)`$ , instead of primary fields since they are very complicated, which are given as in equation (2.12). First we write down the OPEs between module-1 components $`𝒥__1(z)`$ and $`𝒢_{_{\frac{3}{2}}}^{}(z)`$ are given by :

$$𝒥_1(z_1)𝒱_\beta ^b(z_2)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^{i1}\theta _i\frac{𝒱__\beta ^b(z_2)}{z_{12}}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.16)`$
and, for fermionic curreents :

$$𝒢_{\frac{3}{2}}^_+(z_1)𝒱_\beta ^b(z_2)=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n2}{}}(1t_i)\theta _i\psi _{i+1}(z)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}t_i\theta _{i+1}\psi _i(z)\right)\frac{𝒱__\beta ^b(z_2)}{z_{12}}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.17)`$
$$𝒢_{\frac{3}{2}}^_+(z_1)𝒱_\beta ^b(z_2)=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n2}{}}(1t_i)\theta _{i+1}\psi _i(z)\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}t_i\theta _i\psi _{i+1}(z)\right)\frac{𝒱__\beta ^b(z_2)}{z_{12}}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.18)`$
Second the OPEs between module-2 components $`𝒥__2(z)`$$`𝒢_{_{\frac{5}{2}}}^{}(z)`$, $`𝒯__3(z)`$ and the bosonic vertex operator $`𝒱__\beta ^b(z)`$ are given by :

$$𝒥_2(z_1)𝒱_\beta ^b(z_2)=(a__0^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n3}{}}\underset{j=i+2}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^{i+j}t_i\theta _i\theta _j+a__0^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n2}{}}\underset{j=i+1}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^j(1t_i)\theta _i\theta _j$$

$$\frac{1}{2}a__0^3\underset{i=3}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^{i+1}\theta _i((i1)t_i+(i2)(1t_i)))\frac{𝒱__\beta ^b(z_2)}{z_{12}^2}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.19)`$
and, for fermionic curreents :

$$𝒢_{\frac{5}{2}}^_+(z_1)𝒱_\beta ^b(z_2)=(a__0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n3}{}}\underset{j=i+2}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^{j+1}t_i\psi _i(z_2)\theta _{i+1}\theta _j+a__0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n3}{}}\underset{j=i+1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^i(1t_i)\theta _i\theta _j\psi _{j+1}(z_2)$$

$$+a__0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n3}{}}\underset{j=i+2}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^{i+1}t_i\theta _i\psi _j(z_2)\theta _{j+1}+a__0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n4}{}}\underset{j=i+3}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^j(1t_i)\theta _i\psi _{j+1}(z_2)\theta _j$$

$$+\frac{1}{2}a__0^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n2}{}}i(1)^i(1t_i)\theta _i\psi _{i+1}(z_2)+\frac{1}{2}a__0^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(i1)(1)^it_i\psi _i(z_2)\theta _{i+1})\frac{𝒱__\beta ^b(z_2)}{z_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.20)`$
$$𝒢_{\frac{5}{2}}^{_{}}(z_1)𝒱_\beta ^b(z_2)=(a__0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n2}{}}\underset{j=i+2}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^j(1t_i)\psi _i(z_2)\theta _{i+1}\theta _j+a__0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n3}{}}\underset{j=i+3}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^jt_i\theta _i\psi _{i+1}(z_2)\theta _j$$

$$a__0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n4}{}}\underset{j=i+2}{\overset{2n2}{}}(1)^i(1t_i)\theta _i\psi _j(z_2)\theta _{j+1}+a__0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n2}{}}\underset{j=i+1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^it_i\theta _i\theta _j\psi _{j+1}(z_2)$$

$$\frac{1}{2}a__0^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}(i1)(1)^it_i\theta _i\psi _{i+1}(z_2)\frac{1}{2}a__0^2\underset{i=4}{\overset{2n2}{}}(i2)(1t_i)\psi _i(z_2)\theta _{i+1})\frac{𝒱__\beta ^b(z_2)}{z_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.21)`$
and also finally the last OPE is found to be :

$$𝒯_3(z_1)𝒱_\beta ^b(z_2)=(a__0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\underset{j=i+3}{\overset{2n}{}}(1)^{i+j}\theta _i\theta _{i+1}\theta _j+a__0\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n3}{}}\underset{j=i+2}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^{i+j}\theta _i\theta _j\theta _{j+1}$$

$$a__0^2\underset{k=3}{\overset{2n1}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2nk}{}}t_k\theta _i\theta _{i+k}+2a__0^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\underset{j=i+2}{\overset{2n}{}}(1t_i)(1t_j)\theta _i\theta _ja__0^2\underset{i=3}{\overset{2n1}{}}(1)^{i+1}t_i(i1)\theta _i\theta _{i+1}$$

$$a__0^2\underset{i=3}{\overset{2n2}{}}(1)^{i+1}(1t_i)(i2)\theta _i\theta _{i+1}+a__0^3\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}(1t_i)(i2)\theta _i)\frac{𝒱__\beta ^b(z_2)}{z_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(3.22)`$
Although the above advenced calculations was performed in the quasi-primary basis,this results can be carry on the primary basis.

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank K.Ito for helpful informations via e-mail communications.

References

1. P. Bouwknegt and K. Schoutens, Phys. Rep. 223 (1993) 183 (hep-th/9210010)

2. F. Bais, P. Bouwknegt, M. Surridge and K. Schoutens, Nucl. Phys. B304 (1988) 348; 371.

3. V.A. Fateev and S.L. Luk’yanov, Sov. Sci. Rev. A Phys.15/2 (1990)

4. A. B. Zamolodchikov, Theor. Math. Phys. 65, 1205 (1986).

5. R. Blumenhagen, W. Eholzer, A. Honecker R. Hubel and K. Hornfeck, Int. J. Mod. Phys.A10, 2367 (1995).

6. F. Bais, P. Bouwknegt, M. Surridge and K. Schoutens, Nucl. Phys. B304 (1988) 348; 371.

7. J.M. Figueroa-O’Farrill, S. Schrans and K. Thielemans, ”On the Casimir algebra of $`B_2`$”, Phys. Lett. 263B (1991) 378.

8. C. ”Ahn c=5/2 Free Fermion Model of $`WB__2`$ Algebra”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 6 (1991) 3467.

9. G.M.T. Watts, ”$`𝒲`$ Algebra Representation Theory”, Nucl. Phys. B339 (1990) 177; ”$`𝒲`$\- Algebras and Coset Models”, Phys. Lett. 245B (1990)65, DAMTP-90-37.

10. H.T. Ozer, Int. J. Mod. Phys.A14, 469 (1999).

11. L.J.Romans, ” The $`𝒩`$=2 Super $`W__3`$\- Algebra ” Nucl. Phys.. 369B (1992) 403.

12. D.Nemeschansky and S.Yankielowicz, ” The $`𝒩`$=2 $`W`$ -Algebras, Kazama-Suzuki models and Drinfel‘d- Sokolov reduction,” USC Preprint USC-91/005(1991).

13. K.Ito, ” $`𝒩`$=2 Superconformal $`CP__n`$ Model ” Nucl. Phys.. 370B (1992) 123.

14. K.Ito, ” Free Field Realization of $`𝒩`$=2 Super $`W__3`$ -Algebra ” Phys. Lett. 304B (1993) 271.

15. K.Ito, Nucl. Phys. 370B (1992) 123.

16. K.Ito, Phys. Lett. 304B (1993) 271.

17. K. Thielemans,”A $`Mathematica^{TM}`$ package for computing operator product expansions (OPEdefs 3.1)”, Theoretical Phys.Group, Imperial College, London(UK).

18. S. Wolfram, $`Mathematica^{TM}`$, (Addison-Wesley,1990).


format: text

text:
# X-ray spectra of accretion discs with dynamic coronae

## 1 Introduction

The hard X-ray spectra of galactic black holes (GBHs) and active galactic nuclei (AGN) indicate the presence of hot plasmas with temperature $`kT_e100`$ keV and scattering optical depth $`\tau _\mathrm{T}1`$ in the vicinity of accreting black holes (see reviews by Zdziarski et al. 1997; Poutanen 1998). The plasma can be identified with a corona of a black hole accretion disc (e.g. Bisnovatyi-Kogan & Blinnikov 1977; Liang 1979; Galeev, Rosner & Vaiana 1979; see Beloborodov 1999a for a recent review, hereafter B99a). The corona is likely to form as a result of magnetorotational instabilities in the disc and the buoyancy of the generated magnetic field (Tout & Pringle 1992; Miller & Stone 2000). The corona is probably heated in flare-like events of magnetic dissipation producing the variable X-ray emission.

00footnotetext:  E-mail: malzac@brera.mi.astro.it (JM); andrei@astro.su.se (AMB); juri@astro.su.se (JP)

The dominant cooling mechanism of the flaring plasma is Compton cooling. The observed hard X-rays are generated by the Comptonization process, i.e. by multiple upscattering of seed soft photons by the hot electrons in the corona. The Comptonization generally produces power-law X-ray spectra. In addition to the direct power-law radiation from the corona, one also observes the X-rays reflected by the underlying (relatively cold) accretion disc (e.g. George & Fabian 1991). The arising reflection features in the spectrum, in particular, the Compton bump and the fluorescent iron line provide diagnostics for accretion models.

The cold accretion disc partly reemits the incident X-rays in the form of soft thermal radiation. This radiation cools the corona, providing the feedback loop which regulates the temperature of the corona (Haardt & Maraschi 1993, hereafter HM93). The geometry of the corona can hardly be derived from first principles. It might be a large cloud covering the whole inner region of the disc. It may also be a number of small-scale blobs with short life-times, with the energy release concentrated in space and time. The resulting X-ray spectrum is however not sensitive to the exact shape of the cloud, its density distribution, and other details. The only important parameter is the effective feedback factor (HM93; Stern et al. 1995b; PS96; Svensson 1996) that is the fraction of the X-ray luminosity which reenters the source after reprocessing.

Previous computations of the disc-corona models all assumed that the corona is static (e.g. HM93; Stern et al. 1995b; Poutanen & Svensson 1996, hereafter PS96; see Svensson 1996, Poutanen 1998 for a review). The model was successfully applied to Seyfert 1 AGN, however, it was found to disagree with observations of some black-hole sources in the hard state, for instance, Cyg X-1 (see e.g. Gierliński et al. 1997 and Section 3). Three alternatives have been suggested: (i) the cold disc is disrupted in the inner region (e.g. Poutanen, Krolik & Ryde 1997; Esin et al. 1998), (ii) the disc is highly ionised (Ross, Fabian & Young 1999; Nayakshin, Kazanas & Kallman 2000), and (iii) the coronal plasma is moving away from the disc and emits beamed X-rays (Beloborodov 1999b, hereafter B99b). We here study the third scenario.

B99b showed that the static model is not self-consistent for $`e^\pm `$-dominated flares and argued that the hot plasma should be ejected with a mildly relativistic bulk velocity $`\beta =v/c0.5`$. The bulk acceleration is also efficient in flares dominated by normal $`ep`$ plasma if the compactness parameter of the flare exceeds $`100`$ (B99a). The likely pattern of ejection resembles that of solar flares (scaled to higher velocities because of higher compactness). The ejection velocity may be directed away or towards the disc (and it may change) with the preferential direction away from the disc.

Mildly relativistic bulk motion causes aberration of the X-ray emission and strongly affects both the amplitude of reflection $`R`$ and the spectrum slope $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Using a simple analytical model, B99b estimated the dependence of $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`\beta `$ and found that the low amplitude of reflection $`R0.3`$ and the spectrum hardness $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.6`$ observed in the hard state of Cyg X-1 can be explained with $`\beta 0.3`$. The model also explains the observed correlation between $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (B99a; Zdziarski, Lubiński & Smith 1999; Gilfanov, Churazov & Revnivtsev 2000).

In the present paper, we perform exact computations of the X-ray spectra produced by dynamic coronae. We use a non-linear Monte-Carlo code (Malzac & Jourdain 2000) which is based on the large-particle method (Stern 1985; Stern et al. 1995a). The formulation of the problem and details of simulations are described in Section 2. In Section 3, we compute the spectra in the static case which was well studied previously and illuminate the problem of static models. In Section 4, we present spectra from dynamic coronae. The results are compared with observations in Section 5.

## 2 Setup

### 2.1 A heated cylinder

Consider a cylinder of radius $`r`$ and height $`h`$ located atop the accretion disc (Fig. 1). The cylinder may be associated with a hot outflow covering the disc or a heated magnetic tube in a compact flare. In the limit $`rh`$ we get a slab geometry of the corona, which has the largest feedback. In the opposite case, $`rh`$, the feedback tends to zero (most of the reprocessed radiation goes away from the cylinder). We study the sequence of geometries parametrized with the ratio $`h/r`$. The plasma in the cylinder is assumed to have a constant density and it is heated homogeneously with a constant rate.

The plasma moves through the cylinder with a velocity $`\beta `$ directed normally to the disc. We assume that the heated cylindrical volume is static with respect to the disc. The plasma motion then implies a flux of particles through the cylinder. If $`\beta <0`$ then the particle flux is absorbed by the disc at the bottom. If $`\beta >0`$ then the particles escape through the top of the cylinder. Outside the heated region, the particles are immediately (on a time-scale $`h/c`$) cooled down to the Compton temperature of the radiation field, $`kT_\mathrm{C}110`$ keV. In our simulations, we do not take into account the scattering on the escaped cold particles. Their density is likely to be reduced if the plasma flows out along diverging magnetic lines.

In this paper, we restrict our consideration to thermal coronae and assume that the heated electrons have a Maxwellian distribution with a temperature $`T_e`$ in the plasma rest frame. The cylinder is divided into nine cells of equal volumes (see Fig. 1) and the temperature $`T_e`$ is calculated from the local heating=cooling balance in each of the cells separately. Note that the resulting equilibrium temperature is not homogeneous.

### 2.2 Feedback

The X-rays from the corona strike the underlying disc and get reprocessed. We assume that reprocessed radiation is the main cooler of the coronal plasma and neglect soft radiation generated viscously inside the accretion disc. This should be a good approximation if the corona releases energy in the form of strong concentrated flares; then, locally, the soft flux from inside the disc is much smaller than the reprocessed flux111Yet, the total surface-integrated intrinsic luminosity of the cold disc does not need to be much smaller than the coronal luminosity since the covering factor of the corona may be small (Haardt, Maraschi & Ghisellini 1994).. We also neglect additional photon sources such as bremsstrahlung and cyclo-synchrotron emission in the corona (see e.g. Wardziński & Zdziarski 2000). An independent argument in favour of the reprocessed radiation as the main cooler comes from the observed $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation (Zdziarski et al. 1999; Gilfanov, Churazov & Revnivtsev 1999; see Section 5).

We assume that the reflecting material of the disc is sufficiently dense so that the ionisation parameter $`\xi <10^3`$ and the ionisation effects are weak (e.g. Życki et al. 1994). Then the albedo is small, $`a0.2`$, and most of the X-rays impinging the disc are reprocessed. We assume that the reprocessed flux has a quasi-blackbody spectrum (possibly diluted) with a constant temperature $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$. In the simulations, we consider two cases: $`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}=150`$ eV and $`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}=5`$ eV, representing the typical blackbody temperatures in GBHs and AGN, respectively.

The feedback factor $`D`$ is defined as the ratio of the soft blackbody luminosity entering the cylinder, $`L_s`$, to the total luminosity outgoing from the cylinder, $`L`$. The Comptonization time-scale is quite short, $`t_{}(h/c)\mathrm{log}(m_ec^2/3kT_{\mathrm{bb}})`$, and we assume the heating rate to be steady on time-scales $`tt_{}`$. Then the X-rays are generated in a quasi-stationary regime and the feedback factor determines the Compton amplification factor of the hot plasma $`A=L/L_s`$ through the relation

$$DA=1.$$
(1)
The amplification factor in its turn is the main magnitude controlling the spectral slope $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the Comptonized radiation (see B99a and Section 4.3).

### 2.3 Radiative transfer and energy balance

We compute the plasma temperature simultaneously with the radiative transfer. Our code is based on the non-linear Large Particle Monte-Carlo method (Stern 1985; Stern et al. 1995a). In contrast to the standard Monte-Carlo technique, this method allows one to follow the path and successive interactions of photons and particles in parallel. The code is described and tested in Malzac & Jourdain (2000).

We start a simulation from an initial (non-equilibrium) state and follow the evolution of the system plasma plus radiation until a steady state is achieved. The time step is about $`10^2h/c`$. We compute the evolution of the temperature distribution in the cylinder from the local energy balance. The plasma gains energy owing to constant heating and loses energy via Compton cooling. The difference between heating and cooling determines the change of the temperature during each time step.

The radiative transfer (photon tracking) is dealt in the lab frame in the same way as for static coronae (Malzac & Jourdain 2000). The only difference is that the velocity of the scattering electron is generated from an isotropic Maxwellian distribution in the plasma rest frame and then it is Lorentz transformed to the lab frame.

In all simulations in this paper, we assume a constant density throughout the cylinder and parametrize our models by Thomson optical depth $`\tau _\mathrm{T}=n_e\sigma _\mathrm{T}h`$ rather than a dissipation rate $`L_{\mathrm{diss}}`$ or compactness $`l_{\mathrm{diss}}(L_{\mathrm{diss}}/h)(\sigma _\mathrm{T}/m_ec^3)`$. Strictly speaking, the model is self-consistent for low temperatures or low compactnesses, when pair production is not important. In pair dominated blobs, the density cannot be assumed homogeneous: the density distribution is then determined by the local pair balance. Yet, models with pair production give similar results if they have same $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$.

The model has four parameters: (i) Thomson optical depth $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ (defined along the height of the cylinder), (ii) height to radius ratio of the cylinder $`h/r`$, (iii) bulk velocity $`\beta `$, and (iv) blackbody temperature $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$. Given these parameters the code computes the emitted spectrum as a function of the inclination angle $`i`$ (the angle between the disc normal and the line of sight). We consider 10 angular bins of equal width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}i=0.1`$. The spectra are averaged within each bin.

### 2.4 The intrinsic and reflected components

For each inclination we compute two components of the observed emission:

1. The ‘intrinsic’ Comptonised X-rays, i.e. the photons coming to the observer directly after the upscattering in the hot blob. The slope of the intrinsic X-ray spectrum (the photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) is evaluated from a least-square fit in the 2 – 10 keV range.
2. The reflected/reprocessed radiation from the underlying disc. We count only those reflected photons that are not scattered in the blob, thus accounting for the attenuation of reflection by the blob.

We model the reflector as an infinite slab and compute the reflection component assuming neutral reflecting material with standard abundances (Anders & Ebihara 1982). The amplitude of reflection is defined as the ratio of an observed reflected component to that expected from an isotropic point source illuminating the slab,

$$R(i)=\frac{L_{\mathrm{refl}}(i)}{L_{\mathrm{refl}}^{\mathrm{iso}}(i)}.$$
(2)
The simulations yield the intrinsic Comptonized spectrum emitted at an inclination $`i`$ and the reflected luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{refl}}(i)`$. We then compute the reflected luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{refl}}^{\mathrm{iso}}(i)`$ for an isotropic point source with the same intrinsic spectrum and find $`R(i)`$ from equation (2). We fitted some of our simulated spectra with the pexrav model (Magdziarz & Zdziarski 1995) under XSPEC. The best fit values we found for $`R`$ are very close to those derived using equation (2).

## 3 Static coronae

We have computed a set of static models ($`\beta =0`$) with different $`h/r`$, $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$, and $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$, and determined $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the calculated spectra. The results are shown in Fig. 2. For simplicity, the presented amplitude of reflection is averaged over inclinations, $`R=_0^1R(i)\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{cos}i)`$.

### 3.1 Feedback, amplification, and the spectral index

In the static case, the feedback factor $`D_{\mathrm{static}}`$ is determined mainly by the geometry of the cloud, i.e. by $`h/r`$ in our parametrization. We express the feedback factor as

$$D_{\mathrm{static}}=A_{\mathrm{static}}^1=\frac{1}{2}(1a)(1\mu _\mathrm{s}),$$
(3)
where $`a`$ is the energy-integrated albedo of the disc. This equation defines the effective geometrical parameter $`\mu _\mathrm{s}`$ for a static cloud (B99a,b). The difference $`1\mu _\mathrm{s}`$ is the fraction of reprocessed radiation that returns to the hot cloud. To the first approximation, $`\mu _\mathrm{s}`$ can be associated with $`\mu _0h/(4r^2+h^2)^{1/2}`$, where $`1\mu _0`$ corresponds to the angular size of the cylinder base measured from its centre. Numerically, we find $`\mu _\mathrm{s}(4/5)\mu _0`$ (see Fig. 3b).

As one can see from Fig. 3, the effective $`\mu _\mathrm{s}`$ is not fully determined by $`h/r`$ but also depends on $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$. The strongest dependence on $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ is observed for flat geometries ($`h/r1`$): $`\mu _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`A`$ substantially decrease as $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ increases. This effect can be understood analytically. Consider a slab corona and denote the radiation fluxes outgoing from the slab at the bottom and the top as $`F_{}`$ and $`F_+`$, respectively. The reprocessed flux entering the slab from below is $`F_s=(1a)F_{}`$. The amplification factor is, by definition,

$$A=\frac{F_{}+F_+}{F_s}=\frac{1+F_+/F_{}}{1a}.$$
(4)
One can estimate the ratio $`F_+/F_{}`$ by solving the radiative transfer equation in the Eddington approximation (see Rybicki & Lightman 1979, ch. 1) and assuming isotropic scattering. Taking into account that the energy sources are homogeneously distributed in the slab, we get

$$\frac{F_+}{F_{}}=\frac{1+2/\sqrt{3}}{1+\sqrt{3}\tau _\mathrm{T}/2},\mu _\mathrm{s}=\frac{43\tau _\mathrm{T}}{4(1+\sqrt{3})+3\tau _\mathrm{T}}.$$
(5)
These expressions are in good agreement with the results of simulations (see Fig. 3, $`h/r=0`$). If $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ is large, the radiation is trapped at the bottom, near the reflector. In the limiting case $`\tau _\mathrm{T}1`$, one has $`F_+F_{}`$, $`A(1a)^1`$ and $`\mu _\mathrm{s}1`$. Then almost all the X-rays are reprocessed because the source emits most of them towards the reflector. The bottom layers of the slab are cold and emit a soft spectrum for which the disc albedo $`a`$ is close to zero (see Fig. 4b) and $`A1`$. Such a small $`A`$ results in the high $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (see Fig. 2c).

At small $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$, the emitted spectrum hardens (Fig. 2c). This is caused by the fact that the number of photons scattered in an optically thin blob is small. When the Comptonized spectrum is made of fewer photons, the same luminosity can be emitted only if the average photon energy is high. This leads to a hard spectrum (Fig. 2c) with a break at high energies. The optically thin models have high temperatures (Fig. 2a): at fixed geometry and $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ the product $`\tau _\mathrm{T}T_e`$ stays approximately constant (HM93; Stern et al. 1995b; Svensson 1996; see also Fig. 10) and hence an optically thin blob must be hotter.

Blobs with high $`h/r`$ (‘elongated cylinders’) have low feedback and the resulting spectrum is hard (Fig. 2c). This behaviour is known from previous simulations (see Svensson 1996 for a review; the previously computed spectra of detached spheres are similar to those of elongated cylinders). The product $`\tau _\mathrm{T}T_e`$ increases with $`h/r`$; for fixed $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ it implies a growth of the plasma temperature with $`h/r`$ (Fig. 2a).

The emitted spectrum depends on $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$. For this reason, we perform computations for GBHs ($`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}=150`$ eV) and AGN ($`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}=5`$ eV) separately. For the same $`h/r`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$, we get a harder spectrum for GBHs than for AGN (despite the fact that the feedback factor and $`A`$ are not sensitive to $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$). The hardening is caused by two reasons: (i) The energy range in which the Comptonized luminosity is liberated is narrower in GBHs. Therefore, in order to radiate a given amount of luminosity, the spectrum has to harden and cut off at higher energy. (ii) Low-$`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ models are hot and have an anisotropy break in the spectrum (Stern et al. 1995b). In GBHs, this break is in the 2-10 keV band and affects the measured $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

### 3.2 The amplitude of reflection

The reflection component produced beneath the blob is partly scattered and attenuated when passing through the blob. To the first approximation, the attenuation effect can be described analytically,

$$R=\mu _0+(1\mu _0)\mathrm{e}^{\tau _\mathrm{T}(1\mu _0)},\mu _0=\frac{h/2}{\sqrt{r^2+(h/2)^2}}.$$
(6)
Here it is assumed that the fraction $`\mu _0`$ of the reflected luminosity goes directly to the observer. The remaining fraction, $`1\mu _0`$, is reflected at the base of the cylinder and attenuated when transmitted through the hot plasma. The cylinder optical depth seen by soft photons emitted at the base depends on $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`h/r`$; it equals $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ for $`h/r=0`$ and vanishes at $`h/r1`$. We interpolate between the two extremes as $`\tau _\mathrm{T}(1\mu _0)`$ and put this effective optical depth into the exponential in equation (6).

The attenuation formula (6) assumes that the scattered reflection component is completely destroyed. Indeed, the ‘Comptonised reflection’ component has a power-law spectrum where the reflection features (the Fe lines and the edge) disappear.

Equation (6) is in good agreement with the simulation results (see Fig. 2b). The attenuation effect is strong if $`h/r`$ is small (so that a large fraction of the reflected radiation has to pass through the cylinder) and if $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ is large. In the optically thick regime, $`\tau _\mathrm{T}3`$, almost all reflected photons reentering the cloud are Compton scattered and the attenuation effect saturates: further increase in $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ does not reduce $`R`$.

For elongated cylinders, the attenuation affects only a small fraction of the reflected luminosity and $`R`$ approaches unity at high $`h/r`$. The reflection amplitude is higher in GBHs, especially in the high-temperature models (with small $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ and large $`h/r`$) where $`R`$ substantially exceeds unity (see Fig. 2b). The explanation is as follows. The radiation scattered once is strongly anisotropic and collimated towards the reflector (HM93). In GBHs, because of relatively large temperature of seed soft photons, the first scattering order peaks above 1 keV and contributes significantly to the reflected flux. As a result, $`R`$ increases. By contrast, in AGN, the Comptonized emission above 1 keV is made of multiply scattered photons and the anisotropy effects are small.

### 3.3 $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ anticorrelation

Models with small $`h/r`$ have soft spectra because of large feedback. These models also have lower reflection amplitudes because of stronger attenuation (see Section 3.2). Therefore, variations in $`h/r`$ produce an anticorrelation between $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (Fig. 2d). The anticorrelation disagrees with the data (see Section 5). A static model with a neutral reflector never predicts a small $`R`$ simultaneously with a hard spectrum. In particular, the parameters $`R0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.6`$ observed in Cyg X-1 and similar hard-state objects cannot be reproduced.

## 4 Dynamic coronae

### 4.1 Example spectra

In the dynamic case, $`\beta 0`$, the corona spectrum is strongly affected by the bulk motion of the hot plasma. This is illustrated in Fig. 5 where we compare the cases $`\beta =0.3`$ and $`\beta =0.2`$ with the static case. The spectra are computed for the same optical depth, $`\tau _\mathrm{T}=3`$, and geometry, $`h/r=2`$.

In the case of $`\beta =0.3`$ (plasma moves away from the disc), the observed Comptonized luminosity is enhanced as a result of relativistic aberration. The X-rays are beamed away from the disc, and the reprocessed and reflected luminosities are reduced. The low feedback leads to a hard intrinsic spectrum.

In the case of $`\beta =0.2`$ (plasma moves towards the disc), the Comptonized luminosity is beamed towards the disc and the reprocessed and reflected components are enhanced. The high feedback leads to a soft intrinsic spectrum.

Since $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ is fixed in Fig. 5, a high (low) feedback leads to a low (high) coronal temperature. This causes the shift of the spectral break to lower energies with decreasing $`\beta `$.

The moderate changes in the amplitude and direction of the bulk velocity thus induce crucial changes in the emitted spectra. Note that in most of our simulations, the bulk velocity is smaller than the thermal electron velocity $`\beta _{\mathrm{th}}`$ (e.g. $`\beta _{\mathrm{th}}0.5`$ for $`kT_e=100`$ keV).

### 4.2 The amplification factor

The low feedback at $`\beta >0`$ implies a high Compton amplification factor of the X-ray source (eq. 1). The main effect can be estimated analytically assuming that the source is isotropic in the plasma rest frame (see eq. 7 in B99b),

$$A(\beta )=A_{\mathrm{static}}\frac{\gamma ^2(1+\beta )^2(1+\beta \mu _\mathrm{s})^2}{1\beta ^2(1+\mu _\mathrm{s})^2/4}.$$
(7)
Here, $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1\beta ^2}`$ and $`\mu _\mathrm{s}`$ is the effective geometrical parameter which we take from the static model (see eq. 3 and Fig. 3b); a more exact definition of $`\mu _\mathrm{s}`$ is given in B99b. $`A=A_{\mathrm{static}}`$ at $`\beta =0`$ and monotonically increases with $`\beta `$; at $`\beta <0`$ equation (7) gives $`A<A_{\mathrm{static}}`$.

In Fig. 6 we compare the results of simulations with the analytical estimate (7). In the optically thin models ($`\tau _\mathrm{T}=0.5`$), we observe the reduction in $`A`$ for large positive $`\beta `$ compared to equation (7). This is caused by the anisotropy of scattering in the plasma rest frame (optically thin models have very high temperature, see Fig. 8a, and scatter preferentially downwards). At $`\beta <0`$, $`T_e`$ is small and the agreement is good.

In the optically thick models ($`\tau _\mathrm{T}=3`$), we see that the actual value of $`A`$ at $`\beta <0`$ is smaller than that given by equation (7). This is caused by the trapping of radiation and its advection downwards by the moving plasma. The advection enhances the anisotropy of the blob radiation compared to the optically thin case. In the limiting case of large optical depths, the velocity of photon diffusion $`\beta _{\mathrm{diff}}1/\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ is smaller than the advection velocity, $`\beta `$, so that almost no radiation can escape through the upper boundary. When viewed from the plasma rest frame, the effect can be understood by noting that both the bottom and top boundaries of the cylinder move upwards; as a result, the escape probability is larger for photons emitted towards the bottom boundary.

For the similar reason, equation (7) underestimates $`A`$ for high-$`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ models at $`\beta >0`$. In this case, the radiation is advected towards the upper boundary, and it is strongly beamed away from the disc, more than in the optically thin case.

### 4.3 The spectral index

A simple functional shape $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ suggested in B99a fits the results of the simulations,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=C(A1)^\delta .$$
(8)
The fitting parameters are $`C=2.19`$, $`\delta =2/15`$ for GBHs ($`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}=150`$ eV) and $`C=2.15`$, $`\delta =1/14`$ for AGN ($`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}=5`$ eV). These parameters are not far from those found by B99a in the case of a spherical blob: $`C=2.33`$ for both GBHs and AGN and $`\delta =1/6`$ and $`1/10`$ for GBHs and AGN, respectively. Equation (8) is a good approximation for models with $`kT_e`$ in the range between 50 keV and 300 keV (Fig. 7).

Equation (8) combined with equation (7) yields the analytical dependence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )`$ which we find to be in good agreement with the results of simulations (see Fig. 8c). Only for GBHs models with very high electron temperatures ($`kT_e300`$ keV) the deviations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ exceed 0.1. The reasons of these deviations are the same as in the static case discussed in the end of Section 3.1.

### 4.4 The amplitude of reflection

Following the analysis of B99a,b, but accounting for the attenuation effect (see Section 3.2), we get an analytical formula for the reflection amplitude,

$`R(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1\beta \mu )^3}{(1+\beta \mu _0)^2}}\{\mu _0(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mu _0}{2}})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1\mu _0)\left[1+\beta (1+\mu _0)/2\right]}{(1+\beta )^2}}\mathrm{e}^{\tau _\mathrm{T}(1\mu _0)}\},`$
where, $`\mu =\mathrm{cos}i`$, and $`i`$ is the disc inclination. Here, the reflected luminosity is represented as a sum of two parts: the first one is reflected outside the cylinder base and does not experience any attenuation and the second one is reflected from the base and it is partially attenuated, depending on $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$. When $`\mu _0`$ approaches unity (or $`\tau _\mathrm{T}0`$), the attenuation is not important and equation (4.4) becomes equation (3) in B99b:

$$R(\mu )=\frac{(1+\beta /2)(1\beta \mu )^3}{(1+\beta )^2}.$$
(10)
Equation (4.4) is in good agreement with the simulations (see Fig. 8b). Substantial differences appear only in the case of low-$`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ GBH models. The differences are caused mainly by the anisotropy of scattering in the rest frame of the hot plasma. The similar effect was observed in the static GBH models (Fig. 2b) and discussed in Section 3.2.

The left panel of Fig. 9 shows the dependence of reflection on the disc inclination. Note that $`R`$ is less sensitive to $`\beta `$ at large inclinations. The overall angular dependence of $`R`$ is quite well represented by equation (4.4).

### 4.5 $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation

Fig. 8d shows $`R`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Again we see that the analytical formulae are in quite good agreement with the results of simulations. The $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation is steeper in AGN than in GBHs. This is caused by the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ is a flat function at small $`T_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ (see Section 4.3; the index $`\delta `$ in eq. 8 is smaller for AGN than that for GBHs).

The shape of the $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation also depends on the disc inclination: the reflection amplitude is very sensitive to $`\beta `$ at small inclinations and the correlation gets stretched in the vertical direction (see Fig. 9b).

### 4.6 Pair dominated coronae

A compact and energetic blob emitting hard X-rays may be mainly composed of $`e^\pm `$ pairs produced in $`\gamma \gamma `$ reactions. In this case, the blob optical depth and temperature are determined by the compactness parameter $`l_{\mathrm{diss}}=L_{\mathrm{diss}}\sigma _\mathrm{T}/hm_ec^3`$, where $`L_{\mathrm{diss}}`$ is the power dissipated in the blob (see e.g. Stern et al. 1995a,b). The equilibrium $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ is controlled by the balance between pair production and annihilation and $`T_e`$ is controlled by the energy balance.

We have calculated a set of pair-dominated dynamic models with the $`h/r=2`$ geometry. For simplification, we compute a global pair balance assuming a uniform pair distribution in the cylinder. The results are shown in Fig. 10.

At fixed $`\beta `$, the model follows an equilibrium $`T_e\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ curve. We emphasize that the $`T_e\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ relation for $`e^\pm `$ plasma is the same as for normal $`ep`$ plasma, since it is determined by the energy balance only (see HM93; Stern et al. 1995b; PS96) and the annihilation radiation does not contribute much to the total energy budget.

With increasing $`\beta `$, the $`T_e\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ curve moves to the right. An increase in $`\beta `$ at fixed $`l_{\mathrm{diss}}`$ leads to an increase in the $`e^\pm `$ optical depth while the temperature does not change much. This is the ‘thermostat’ effect of pairs discussed previously in the static models (see Figs 2 and 3 in Svensson 1996). The typical values $`kT_e100`$ keV and $`\tau _\mathrm{T}12`$ inferred from observations (Zdziarski et al. 1997; Poutanen 1998) are obtained for large but possible values of the dissipation compactness, $`l_{\mathrm{diss}}>100`$.

We now briefly discuss the $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation expected at fixed $`l_{\mathrm{diss}}`$ and varying $`\beta `$. The correlation will be steeper compared to the $`\tau _\mathrm{T}=\mathrm{const}`$ case shown in Fig. 8d. At large $`\beta `$, the equilibrium $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ is large and here the $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ track is close to that with $`\tau _\mathrm{T}=3`$. At $`\beta <0`$, $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ drops and the $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ track approaches the $`\tau _\mathrm{T}=0.5`$ curve.

## 5 Comparison to Observations

### 5.1 Broad-band spectra of individual sources

Fig. 11 shows the spectra of one GBH source, Cyg X-1, and one bright Seyfert 1 galaxy, IC 4329A, together with model spectra. We did not use a real fitting procedure (since each simulation takes a few hours on a modern workstation), instead, we used unfolded spectra and searched for similar spectra in our sample of models. We find that the spectrum of Cyg X-1 is well reproduced by the model with a bulk velocity $`\beta =0.3`$, an optical depth $`\tau _\mathrm{T}=3`$, and $`h/r=1.25`$. The inclination that gives the best agreement with the data, $`i=50\mathrm{°}`$, is compatible with the current estimates $`25\mathrm{°}i67\mathrm{°}`$ (see Gierliński et al. 1999 and references therein).

For IC 4329A, we find $`\beta =0.1`$, $`\tau _\mathrm{T}=3`$, and $`h/r=2`$. The inclination, $`i=40\mathrm{°}`$, is consistent with the Seyfert unification scheme stating that Seyfert 1s should be seen rather face-on (Antonucci 1993). Note that $`h/r`$ is smaller in the case of Cyg X-1.

### 5.2 $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation

Fig. 12 gives the observed $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation for Seyferts and GBHs (Zdziarski et al. 1999; Gilfanov et al. 1999). The correlation exists in individual objects observed at different periods as well as in a sample of sources. Such a correlation supports the hypothesis that it is the reprocessed/reflected radiation that cools the X-ray source via Comptonization.

The $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation expected in the dynamic corona model is similar in shape to the observed one, and we now try to fit the data with the model. As we showed in Section 4, the analytical model is a sufficiently good approximation to the results of exact simulations and it is reasonable to use this simple model in a fitting procedure instead of the exact transfer model (especially taking into account the uncertainties in the validity of assumptions such as homogeneous density and uniform heating of the blob).

The analytical model yields explicit expressions for $`R(\beta )`$ (eq. 4.4) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )`$ (eqs. 7 and 8) for given parameters $`\mu _\mathrm{s}`$, $`\mu _0`$, $`a`$, and $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$. For simplicity, we assume $`\mu _\mathrm{s}=\mu _0`$ and fix the albedo at a reasonable value $`a=0.15`$. The fit to $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation is shown in Fig. 12 for AGN and GBHs.

It is interesting to note that the correlations for AGN and GBHs cannot be fitted with the same value of $`\mu _\mathrm{s}`$. We find $`\mu _\mathrm{s}`$ being lower for GBHs ($`\mu _\mathrm{s}=0.45`$ or equivalently $`h/r=1`$) than for AGN ($`\mu _\mathrm{s}=0.6`$ or $`h/r=1.5`$). This might indicate different geometries of emission regions in GBHs and AGN.

### 5.3 The beaming effects

The observed flux $`F_h`$ of the hard X-rays beamed away from the disc can dominate over the blackbody component $`F_{\mathrm{bb}}`$ when the disc is observed at small inclinations. The hard X-rays can dominate even if only a modest fraction $`f`$ of the accretion energy is dissipated in the corona. In the case of a patchy corona, the model predicts

$$\frac{F_{\mathrm{bb}}}{F_h}R(i)2\mathrm{cos}i\left(1+\frac{1f}{f}\frac{1+d}{d}\right).$$
(11)
Here $`d=L_{}/L_+`$ is the ratio of the Comptonized luminosities emitted towards and away from the disc,

$$d=\frac{1+\beta /2}{1\beta /2}\frac{(1\beta )^2}{(1+\beta )^2}.$$
(12)
For example, in the case of Cyg X-1, taking $`i=50\mathrm{°}`$ and $`\beta =0.3`$, one gets $`F_{\mathrm{bb}}/F_h0.4`$ for $`f=3/4`$ or $`F_{\mathrm{bb}}/F_h0.85`$ for $`f=1/2`$, in agreement with the data (e.g. Di Salvo et al. 2000).

The beaming of the coronal X-rays may be tested in a sample of hard-state objects with known inclinations: $`R`$ should increase with $`i`$. Also, the shape of $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation varies with $`i`$ (Fig. 9), which may be checked in the data on GBHs. Unfortunately, in the case of AGN, the high inclination objects are obscured by the large-scale molecular torus which dominates the reflection component.

The ejection model with $`\beta <0`$ predicts very soft spectra and large ratios $`F_{\mathrm{bb}}/F_h`$. This situation might take place in some soft objects, e.g. Narrow Line Seyfert 1 galaxies (see Brandt 1999 for a review).

## 6 Discussion

### 6.1 Variability

The coronal emission should be variable, with a temporal pattern governed by the complicated processes of the magnetic field buoyancy and its dissipation in the corona. The ejection velocity can vary from flare to flare and the fit parameters of the observed spectrum should be taken with caution since they give only effective/average values.

The main X-ray emitting region probably extends through a decade in radius, and $`\beta `$ is likely to be different at different radii. Recent temporal studies (e.g. Gilfanov et al. 2000; Revnivtsev et al. 2000) suggest that harder spectra with lower reflection come from the inner radii. In the context of the dynamic corona model it would correspond to an increase of $`\beta `$ in the innermost region. The analysis of Cyg X-1 and GX 339-4 at different periods of the hard state showed that the typical variability time-scales grow when the spectrum hardens. This behaviour may indicate that the accretion is slower in the hardest periods (Beloborodov 2001).

### 6.2 Pair envelopes in quasars

In this paper, we neglected scattering on the particles escaped or created in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions outside the heated region. In the brightest sources, with luminosities comparable to the Eddington limit, the hard X-rays from the flares will interact with each other and create an optically thick $`e^\pm `$ outflow covering the whole inner region of the accretion disc (Beloborodov 1999c). Such an outflow is relatively cold (at the Compton temperature, $`kT_\mathrm{C}110`$ keV) and it has an equilibrium bulk velocity such that the radiative pressure from the disc is balanced by the Compton drag. The velocity is mildly relativistic ($`\beta `$ increases from 0.3 at the base to 0.7 at the photosphere of the outflow) and the scattering of the disc/corona radiation in the outflow strongly affects the angular distribution of the observed luminosity. The reflection amplitude will then be suppressed whatever dynamics takes place in the compact flares hidden in the $`e^\pm `$ outflow.

### 6.3 Optical and UV polarization of Seyferts and quasars

The scattering of soft radiation in a dynamic corona is accompanied by a strong effect that can be tested in optical/UV observations: the polarization of scattered radiation is sensitive to $`\beta `$. The polarization is perpendicular to the disc if $`0.12<\beta <0.78`$ and parallel otherwise (Beloborodov 1998). The observed optical polarization in non-blazar AGN is parallel to the radio jet that is presumably perpendicular to the accretion disc (Stockman, Moore & Angel 1984); it is consistent with the scattering in a mildly relativistic outflow.

In three of ten quasars with measured UV polarization, a steep rise in polarization was observed blueward of the Lyman limit (see Koratkar & Blaes 1999 for a review). The outflowing corona model may provide a natural explanation for this mysterious rise (Beloborodov & Poutanen 1999).

## 7 Conclusions

We performed detailed Monte-Carlo simulations of X-ray production by hot coronae atop accretion discs, and tested the model against the data. The main results are as follows.

1. A static corona atop a neutral reflector is not able to produce the observed hard spectra with low reflection. Furthermore, changes in the coronal geometry produce an anticorrelation between the hard X-ray spectral slope $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the amplitude of reflection $`R`$. This anticorrelation is opposite to what is observed.
2. The disc-corona model becomes consistent with the data if the hot plasma is dynamic, i.e. moves with a mildly relativistic bulk velocity, $`\beta =v/c`$, with respect to the accretion disc. In particular, the spectrum of Cyg X-1 is reproduced by the model with $`\beta =0.3`$, confirming the estimate of B99b.
3. The observed $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation is well explained by varying $`\beta `$. It suggests that $`\beta `$ may be the main parameter controlling the X-ray spectrum.
4. The results of the simulations are in good agreement with the analytical description of B99a,b. We improved the analytical model by accounting for the attenuation of the reflection component by the hot plasma atop the disc (eq. 4.4).
5. The optical and UV polarization properties of AGN are sensitive to the dynamics of the corona. The polarization data provide an independent indication for the mildly relativistic bulk motion.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the Italian MURST grant COFIN98-02-15-41 (JM), the Swedish Natural Science Research Council (AMB, JP), the Anna-Greta and Holger Crafoord Fund (JP), and RFBR grant 00-02-16135 (AMB). We thank Andrzej Zdziarski and Marat Gilfanov for providing the $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ correlation data, and Andrei F. Illarionov for comments on the manuscript.


text:
# The Center of Our Galaxy: Activity and High-Energy Emission of the Closest Massive Black Hole

## 1 Introduction: the Nuclear Bulge

Already in the decade 1920-1930 it was observed that the globular clusters are distributed with spherical symmetry around a point located in the Sagittarius constellation and also that stars were rotating around the same point of the sky. We now know that the dynamical center of the Galaxy is indeed located in Sagittarius, at about 8 kpc from the Sun, right in the middle of the Milky Way. The Sun also lies on the galactic plane and the Galactic Center (GC) is highly absorbed by all the galactic disk dust which intercepts the line of sight. Optical, UV and soft X-rays are therefore totally masked by an absorption of AV $``$ 31 mag corresponding to a column density NH $``$ 6 1022 cm-2, and the study of the central regions can be carried out only from radio to near infrared (NIR) frequencies or at energies $`>`$ 1 keV.
The recently published VLA pictures at 90 cm (La Rosa et al., 2000) (Fig. 1) show the richness and complexity of the Galactic Center region. In the central 600 pc $``$ 4 (at 8 kpc 1′′ $``$ 0.04 pc), a sky area often referred as the Nuclear Bulge, the interstellar matter (ISM) is concentrated in a narrow layer (50 pc) of molecular gas for a total mass of $``$ 108 M. Half of this gas forms dense, cold Giant Molecular Clouds (GMC), the denser of which are Sgr B, Sgr C, Sgr D and those in the Sgr A complex. They have typical densities of $``$ 104 -105 cm-3 and temperatures of 30$``$200 K. Several Supernova Remnants (SNR) are visible in the picture along with other filaments and structures of non-thermal emission, like the prominent Radio Arc, a filamentary source crossing the galactic plane.
A number of thermal radio structures are also present, like the Bridge, which is connecting the Arc to the Sgr A complex. Some are identified with HII regions, like the features named Pistol and Seiklo, whose gas is ionized by young hot stellar clusters, like Quintuplet and Arches. Magnetic fields are strong ($``$ 2 mG) compared to typical values of the galactic disk ($``$ 10 $`\mu `$G) and lines are perpendicular to the galactic plane in the intercloud gas and parallel to the plane in the GMCs. Cloud kinematics indicates large velocity fields and a general inflow towards the center with rate of $``$ $`10^2`$ M yr-1. Stellar content of the Nuclear Bulge is basically an extension of the Galactic Bulge population. It is dominated by a central nearly-isothermal cluster of low-intermediate mass stars, of metallicity $``$ 2, with density increasing towards the GC with decreasing radius as R-1.8, from R $``$ 100 pc down to a core radius Rc $``$ 0.1 pc where the star density reaches a constant value of $``$ 107 M pc-3 and the mass a core value of M$`{}_{c}{}^{}`$ 105 M. However, unlike the Galactic Bulge, this old-middle age (1-10 Gyr) population coexists with a young (107-108 yr) population of massive stars whose total fraction increases towards the center and whose presence indicates recent star formation.
In the following I will describe results obtained for the inner 50 pc and from high energy observations of the central degree. For extensive reviews see Mezger et al. (1996) and Morris $`\&`$ Serabyn (1996), while for recent results see Vol. 186 of ASP Conf. Series (eds. Falke et al. 1999) and Yusef-Zadeh et al. (2000).

## 2 The Sgr A Radio and Molecular Complex

The central 50 pc (20) are dominated by the Sgr A radio complex (Fig. 2, from Yusef-Zadeh et al. 2000). Relevant components of the Sgr A complex are, listing from the outside to the inner regions: several dense molecular clouds, the non-thermal Sgr A East source, the CircumNuclear Disk (CND), the thermal source Sgr A West and the compact source Sgr A. A recent study of molecular gas velocities of the region (Coil & Ho, 2000) describes the morphology and distribution of matter of the complex. Two dense molecular clouds account for most of the ISM of the region, interact with, and probably supply matter to the inner central region. M-0.02-0.07, also known as the 50 km s-1 cloud, lies on the north-east side of the GC and includes the Sgr A East Core very dense MC (15 pc size and 2 105 M mass) observed to surround Sgr A East from behind the GC. It is connected by a molecular ridge to the North side of the other cloud, M-0.13-0.08 (the 20 km s-1 cloud), which is located South-East of the GC, about 10 pc in front of it and which seems to supply the CND of molecular gas through the so called “southern streamer”. M-0.02-0.07 and its molecular ridge are compressed by the expanding shell of Sgr A East. Sgr A East is a non-thermal source composed by a diffuse halo of triangular shape (7 $`\times `$ 10) and an oval shell (7 pc $`\times `$ 9 pc i.e. 3$`{}_{}{}^{}\times `$ 4) with major axis parallel to the galactic plane and centered about 50′′ ($``$ 2 pc) west of Sgr A. The shell appears in expansion, compressing the cloud and probably creating the string of 4 HII regions at the border with M-0.02-0.07 and the OH masers also observed around the shell.

A life time of 5 104 \- 105 yr and a total explosion energy of 4 1052 ergs were derived from the source radio brightness and expansion velocity. 40 nearly simultaneous SN are needed to account for this energy and other scenarios have been proposed to explain Sgr A East energetics, including the explosive tidal disruption of a 1 M star by the central massive black hole. Between 1.7$``$7 pc (40′′-175′′) from the center lies the CND a clumsy, asymmetrical torus of neutral molecular gas and dust rotating (V$`{}_{R}{}^{}`$ 100 km s-1) around Sgr A West. The CND mass is 104 M, the gas temperature $``$100 K and it is observed in molecular transition lines (e.g. HCN) and also in infrared wavelengths, emitted by the dust heated by radiation coming from the central cavity. Its inner part has the shape of a ring whose edges bound the central cavity and the thermal source Sgr A West. The HII region Sgr A West was unambiguously separated by the non-thermal emission of Sgr A East in 1975, while the inner minispiral pattern was discovered in 1983 with the VLA. The bulk of the ionized gas (250 M) appears as extended emission of size 2.1 pc $`\times `$ 2.9 pc with average density ne $``$ 103 cm-3, in which is embedded the denser minispiral, a 3 armed spiral structure (Fig. 3) orbiting around the GC, composed by northern and eastern arms, a central bar and a western arc. The radio spectrum resembles that of a typical optically thin HII region with Te $``$ 6000 K, emission measure $``$ 2 103 pc cm-6 and ionization temperature T $``$ 3 104 K. These parameters imply the presence of a ionizing source of UV luminosity LUV $``$ 7.5 1037 erg s-1 and total flux of Lyman continum photons NLyc $``$ 1.2 1050 ph s-1. Recombination emission lines allowed detailed kinematic studies of the gas, which show that Sgr A West is rotating from north-east to south-west and then towards north-west. This seems to imply that the western arc is the ionized edge of the CND, the N and E arms are tidally stretched streams of infalling gas and the bar is an extension of the N arm. Sgr A West is seen in front of Sgr A East and Sgr A East Core cloud but is behind the 20 km s-1 molecular cloud. Little north of the minispiral central bar and visible as a white point in Fig. 3 lies the compact source Sgr A which must be seen in front of the minispiral bar even if embedded in the diffuse ionized cloud.

## 3 The Compact Radio Source Sgr A

Sgr A was discovered by Balick $`\&`$ Brown (1974), 3 years after Lynden-Bell $`\&`$ Rees (1971) had predicted that a compact synchrotron radio source should reveal the presence of a massive black hole (MBH) in the Galactic Nucleus. Sgr A is indeed a compact, bright, non-thermal radio source, which coincides (within 50 mas) Ghez et al. (2000) with the dynamical center of the Galaxy. The radio spectrum (Fig. 4) is an inverted power-law ($`S_\nu ÷\nu ^\alpha `$) with spectral index $`\alpha 0.33`$ between 1 GHz and 800 GHz, and with low and high frequency cut-offs. Flux variability of 30-100$`\%`$, around a value of $``$ 1 Jy, on timescales of few months is observed, and the average radio luminosity is estimated to $``$ 300 L. The source is also very static, an upper limit of 20 km s-1 has been set to its proper motion. Considering the high velocities of the stars of the region (500-1000 km s-1) this unusual low value indicates that Sgr A must be massive. A lower limit of 1000 M to its mass was indeed derived, excluding the possibility of a stellar object. The apparent radio size of Sgr A increases with wavelength as $`\lambda ^2`$, which is the sign of source broadening due to ISM electron scattering. However at low enough $`\lambda `$ ($`<`$ 7 mm) the relation seems to flatten and the source is probably resolved by the VLBI. The most recent VLBI data at 1.4 mm provide a size of $``$ 0.1 mas (Krichbaum et al., 1998) which at 8 kpc corresponds to only 1.2 1013 cm = 0.8 AU or, in terms of a 3 M BH Schwarzschild radius (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 6), of only $``$ 14 RS. Moreover the source appears elongated with the intrinsic major axis $``$ 3 times greater than the minor axis and oriented in the North-South direction (Lo et al., 1998). This result, if confirmed, could indicate the presence of a weak radio-jet. Circular polarization is observed at several radio frequencies but until recently only upper limits ($`<`$ few $`\%`$) were set for linear polarization. Aitken et al. (2000) have now discovered linear polarization at level of 10-20 $`\%`$ at sub-mm frequencies ($``$ 100 GHz). The sub-mm part of the Sgr A spectrum seems peculiar also because it shows a bump of emission with respect to the extrapolation of the radio power-law. Indeed, using simultaneous observations at different frequencies from 10 cm to 1 mm, Falke et al. (1998) found at $`>`$ 100GHz an excess which implies a change in the spectral slope.

## 4 Evidences for a Massive Black Hole at the GC

High gas velocities in the vicinity of the putative MBH of the galaxy were also predicted by Lynden-Bell $`\&`$ Rees in 1971 as a consequence of the gravitational pull exerted by the BH. These authors suggested to search for radio recombination lines of the thermal gas close to the BH to measure gas velocities and then to estimate the BH mass. High velocities of the Sgr A West ionized gas have been indeed observed, since 1974, using the H recombination lines (H109$`\alpha `$, H91$`\alpha `$, H92$`\alpha `$) the forbidden line $`\lambda `$12.8 $`\mu `$m of \[NeII\] and the $`\lambda `$2.17 $`\mu `$m Br$`\gamma `$ line (Mezger et al., 1996; Yusef-Zadeh et al., 2000). These measures could show that the dynamics at radii R $`>`$ 1.5-2 pc (i.e. outside the CND inner ring) is dominated by the nearly-isothermal central star cluster, while within 1.5 pc from the center the dynamics is due to a central mass of $``$ 3 106 M enclosed within $``$ 0.17 pc. However gas motion measures cannot constrain further the volume of the central mass and also non-gravitational forces (magnetic fields, turbulence, etc.) may play a role making the interpretation of the recorded velocities not obvious.
Star kinematic studies, based on both stellar dispersion and rotation velocities, started in 1978, with the aim of evaluating the central mass M(R) enclosed within the radius R down to distances $`<`$ 0.1 pc. The most convincing results have been obtained in the last 8 years thank to high resolution NIR observations performed with speckle/adaptive optics in the K band (2.2$`\mu `$m), which allowed to provide independent determination of star velocities using measures of star proper motions. The recent paper by Genzel (2000) summarizes the results obtained both with the SHARP CCD camera mounted on the 3.5m ESO NTT telescope (Genzel et al. 1997) and with the NIRC camera at the 10 m Keck telescope (Ghez et al. 1998). About 1000 star with m(K) $`<`$ 16 (= 0.25 mJy) were imaged between 1992-1999 within the central 1 pc (25′′) with angular resolutions in the range 0.15-0.05′′. Proper motions for 100 stars could be determined along with 200 high quality spectra. The important improvement provided by proper motion measures is that they allow measurements of stellar velocities of the very faint stars which are very close (R $`<`$ 0.6′′) to Sgr A and which show motions at $`>`$ 1000 km s-1 (1470 km s-1 for the closest star in projection, at 0.1′′ = 800 AU from the radio source). The simultaneous measure of proper motion and radial velocity for 32 stars between 1′′-5′′ from Sgr A also allowed to test the fundamental hypothesis of velocity isotropy assumed by most of the mass estimators. Combining radial and proper motions data and using various projected mass estimators Genzel et al. (2000) derived the mass distribution reported in Fig. 5. The enclosed mass for R $`>`$ 1-2 pc can be accounted for by the isothermal star cluster (broken line in Fig. 5) but at lower radii, in particular to fit data at 0.015 pc ($``$ 3000 AU), it is necessary either to assume a point mass of 2.9 106 M (full line) or to invoke the presence of a dark cluster of objects with central density of 4 1012 M pc-3 (dotted line). Even composed of stellar BHs, such a cluster would not be stable for more than 107 yr and the hypothesis of a massive black hole at the Galactic Nucleus is now extremely strong. The very recent discovery with the Keck of curvature in the trajectories of 3 of the closest stars to Sgr A (Ghez et al., 2000), confirms that stars are orbiting around the GC, increases by a factor 10 the density required for an alternative dark cluster and proves that the radio source is at less than 0.05′′ from the dynamical center of the stars.
NIR observations have also led to the discovery of a cluster of about 25 bright, young, hot stars most of them belonging to the complex IRS 16 centered $``$ 2′′ east of the GC. These very luminous stars show broadened and P-Cyg type HeI/HI emission lines which indicate that their helium rich surfaces are expanding as powerful stellar winds with velocities of V$`__W`$$``$ 500-1000 km s-1 and mass loss rates $`\dot{M}__W`$ 1-80 10-5 M yr-1 (Najarro et al., 1997). These outflows produce a hypersonic wind of density n$`__W`$$``$ 10$`{}_{}{}^{3}`$104 cm-3 which pervades the central pc. These stars also emit $``$ 1038 erg s-1 in UV and can therefore totally account for the entire UV luminosity required to excite Sgr A West and to heat the dust of the central cavity and of the CND ($`\mathrm{\S }`$ 2). To conclude with IR observations we have to mention the important upper limits set by Menten et al. (1997) on the NIR flux from Sgr A which imply an LNIR $`<`$ 1035 erg s-1 for the compact radio source.

## 5 High Energy Observations of Sgr A

After the first detections of high energy emission from the general direction of the GC made with non-imaging instruments in the decade 1970-1980, the first real X-ray images with arcmin resolution were obtained with the Einstein Observatory (Watson et al., 1981). In addition to diffuse emission, 12 point sources were detected within the central 20, one of which, 1E 1742.5$``$2859, observed at $`<`$ 1 from Sgr A with L$`_{14keV}`$ = 1.5 1035 erg s-1. Between 1980-1990 several observations were carried out in the standard and hard X-ray bands and a number of transient sources were detected. The most remarkable observations were certainly those performed with the coded mask XRT instrument on SpaceLab2, which provided the first ever images (3 resolution) of the GC in hard X-rays (3-30 keV) (Skinner et al., 1987). Sgr A appeared again rather faint (L$`_{330keV}`$ = 5 1035 erg s-1), in spite of the high expectations for an hard spectrum of the type of Cyg X-1. However in 1991 the Rosat telescope with 25′′ resolution in the band 0.1-2.5 keV, could separate 1E 1742.5$``$285 in 3 sources one of which, RXJ 1745.6$``$2900, was found within 10′′ from Sgr A (Predehl & Truemper, 1994). Rosat luminosity (L$`_{0.82.5keV}`$ = 3 1034 erg s-1) however falls below 2 orders of magnitude from extrapolation of the NH-corrected XRT luminosity. The possibility of strong variability or additional NH were considered but ASCA 1993-1994 observations in the range 0.1-10 keV, revealed presence of 2 point sources, a soft and stable one close to the Nucleus and another harder and transient about 1 away (Koyama et al., 1996). The authors concluded then that the flux observed by the hard X-ray instrument on SL2 (also confirmed by ART-P/GRANAT, Pavlinsky et al. 1994) was due to the transient source and not to Sgr A.
ASCA also confirmed and improved the results of EXOSAT, Tenma and Ginga on the presence of hard X-ray diffuse emission. A large part of the Nuclear Bulge seems permeated by hot plasma emitting X-ray diffuse emission with thermal spectrum of T $``$ 10 keV and numerous K emission lines of He-like and H-like ions. The diffuse source has an elliptical shape 1 $`\times `$ 1.8 elongated on the galactic plane. The emission peaks around the center where a hot spot with an oval 2$`{}_{}{}^{}\times `$ 3 shape (= 4.8 pc $`\times `$ 7.2pc) and luminosity of $``$ 1036 erg s-1 was also imaged with ASCA. This emission is puzzling because at this temperatures the gas would not be bound by the GC gravitational potential. The estimated expansion of the large shell at sound speed provides an age of $``$ 50000 yr and input energy of $``$ 1054 erg for the gas, and continuous heating is required with power of $``$ 1041-42 erg s-1. Tanaka et al. (2000) have recently argued against thermal origin of this emission and proposed that charge-exchange interaction of low-energy cosmic-rays with ISM contribute to it. ASCA also detected 6.4 keV neutral iron line diffuse emission in the Nuclear Bulge, and more precisely from Sgr B2 the most massive of the GMC. This fluoroscence line can be produced by high energy emission which is scattered in the neutral environment of a GMC. Murakami et al. (2000) estimated, comparing data to simulations, that an external source at a distance d, should have emitted about L$`_{210keV}`$ = 3 1039 (d/100 pc)2 erg s-1 over 100 yr. This excludes binary transient sources but leaves open the possibility for a flare of Sgr A. If emitted from Sgr A, radiation should have been travelling through $``$ 300 l.y. to reach SGR B2. These data could then probe 300 yr ago flaring activity from Sgr A. Similar conclusions were reached by Sunyaev $`\&`$ Churazov (1998) who investigated also dependence of the line characteristics and variability with position and time behavior of primary source, while Fromerth et al. (2001) found that data are also compatible with location of primary source inside the GCM.
To a be a faint source in X-rays does not prevent to be strong emitters in gamma rays, in particular for such extreme objects like BH, which are known to emit very hard radiation and suspected to generate e+-e- annihilation line. The GC has been a priority target of the first satellite imager of soft $`\gamma `$-rays (30 keV - 1300 keV) SIGMA. SIGMA with its 13-15 resolution and large field of view performed deep surveys of the galactic bulge between 1990-1997 cumulating nearly 107 s of data. SIGMA found that in this band the 1 region around the GC is dominated by the otherwise anodyne X-ray source 1E 1740.7-2942, which follow up observations revealed to be associated to radio-jets and which is now one of the 4 persistent galactic BH candidates X-ray sources. Sgr A appeared instead silent. The only weak flare observed by SIGMA from the vicinity of the GC in 1991 (see Fig. 6), was attributed to a point source $`>`$ 9 away from Sgr A\* (Goldwurm et al., 1994; Vargas et al., 1996). A recent re-analysis of the whole SIGMA data by Goldoni et al. (1999) have provided the best low-energy $`\gamma `$-ray upper limits for this source (see also Fig. 7 and Goldwurm et al. 2000). The results imply L$`_{30300keV}`$ $`<`$ 1.2 1036 erg s-1, and an upper limit (3 $`\sigma `$) of 3.3 10-4 ph cm-2 s-1 for narrow 511 keV line point source at the GC was also obtained with SIGMA (Malet et al., 1995). OSSE/GRO mapped the galactic diffuse 511 keV emission and could identify a bulge component of about the same value in flux than the above quoted SIGMA upper limit, with a positronium fraction of 0.89 (Purcell et al., 1997). Due to the limited angular resolution ($`>`$ 4), however it was not possible to estimate if any of this emission is from a central point source.
A source (2EG J1746-2852) in the Galactic Center was also detected by EGRET/GRO (Mayer-Hasselwander et al., 1998) at $`>`$ 30 MeV. The poor angular resolution of the instrument ($``$1) does not exclude it is actually diffuse. The spectrum is a broken power-law with photon indexes of 1.3 and 3.1 below and above 1900 MeV, which seems against pure $`\pi _0`$ decay origin, with total luminosity of L\>100MeV = 2.2 1037 erg s-1. SAX (NFC/MEC) monitoring of GC has not provided new results on the Nucleus itself, however it was found that the soft component (T $``$ 0.6 keV) of the local diffuse emission seems related to Sgr A East and it is well interpreted as thermal emission from a SNR (Sidoli et al., 1999). The hard component (T $``$ 8 keV) instead lies along the plane as shown previously by ART-P and ASCA.
Chandra observations with the unprecedent angular resolution of 0.5′′, carried out in fall 1999, have instead resolved the Rosat source in few components, one of which could be point-like and lies within 0.35′′ from Sgr A (Baganoff et al., 2001). The source, which may well be the real X-ray counterpart of the radio source, has a power-law spectrum rather steep ($`2.7`$) and luminosity L$`_{210keV}`$ $``$ 2 1033 erg s-1. Althought the 0.5-2 keV flux is very uncertain due to the low accuracy of NH estimation it seems clear that Sgr A soft X-ray luminosity is well below the Rosat value.

## 6 The Problem of Sgr A Low-Luminosity

In spite of the very compelling evidences for a MBH at the Galactic Nucleus, Sgr A does not behave like a simple mass scaled-down AGN. Summing measured luminosities and considering the quoted upper limits, Sgr A bolometric luminosity is

$$L_{SgrA^{}}<510^{36}ergs^1$$

The UV luminosity is uncertain due to the high extinction but the fact that Sgr A West ionization can be provided by the IRS 16 cluster of hot stars implies that there is not an additional strong source of UV, whose emission would also be re-emitted by the heated dust and observed in IR. The EGRET source can rise this value by a factor 5 but in any case the Nucleus remains sub-luminous.
For a BH at the GC with mass M = 3.0 106 M, the Schwarzshild radius RS and Eddington luminosity LE are

$$R_S=\frac{2GM}{c^2}=9.010^{11}cm=0.060AU7.5\mu as$$

$$L_E=\frac{4GMm_p}{\sigma _T}=3.910{}_{}{}^{44}ergs^1$$

In spherical accretion, matter with density n$`__W`$ flowing with relative velocity V$`__W`$ within a distance RA (accretion radius) from the BH is captured, undergoes a shock which dissipates the kinetic energy in thermal energy and then is accreted radially with free-fall velocity and mass accretion rate $`\dot{M}_A`$ providing a power LA (accretion luminosity) given by

$$R_A=\frac{2GM}{V__W^2}=1.610^{17}cm=0.05pc1.3^{\prime \prime }$$

$$\dot{M}_A=R_A^2\rho __WV__W=5.510^{22}gs^1=8.710^4M_{}yr^1$$

$$L_A=\frac{GM\dot{M}_A}{R_S}=2.410^{43}ergs^1=0.061L_E$$

where wind parameters quoted in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 4 where used, i.e. V$`__W`$ = 700 km s-1, n$`__W`$ = 5.5 103 cm-3. 3D simulations of the stellar winds from the IRS 16 cluster flowing into the GC black hole have been performed by Cocker and Melia (1997) using results of Najarro et al. (1997) and they obtained a mass accretion $``$ 1-2 times the value of $`\dot{M}_A`$. So the accretion luminosity is 106-107 times higher than the measured bolometric luminosity and efficiency of conversion of available energy in radiation must be lower than 10-6. The final efficiency depends actually on how the matter, once captured at RA is accreted, how reaches the BH event horizon, which are the characteristics of the flow and whether a disk forms. Cocker and Melia (1997) in their simulations also found that the accreted specific angular momentum l in units of cRS ($`\lambda `$ = l/cRS) varies around an average of $`\lambda `$ = 40 $`\pm `$ 10 with the sign swapping on time-scales of $``$ 100 years. This implies that the circularization radius R$`{}_{c}{}^{}2\lambda ^2R_S`$ (distance at which angular momentum equals the Keplerian value) is $`<`$ 3000 RS and a large accretion disk probably does not form.

## 7 Accretion Models for the GC Black Hole

An optically thick and geometrically thin accretion disk has efficiency of the order of 0.1 and, if present around Sgr A, would originate a bright spectral peak in the UV band similar to the blue bump of AGNs, followed by a steep Wien tail which may contribute little to X-rays. The low energy tail would extend to NIR and such component would violate the Menten et al. (1997) upper limits.
The first attempt to fit the entire spectrum of Sgr A modeling the accretion into the massive BH was done by Melia (1992, 1994), who computed emission produced in pure spherical Bondi-Hoyle geometry. Without the viscous dissipation which occurs in disks, matter would fall into the hole heated up by simple adiabatic compression, and efficiency of conversion of gravitational energy in radiation would be very small. However it is usually assumed that matter carries, in the fall, the magnetic field, maintained in equipartition with the gas, and magnetic dissipation by turbulence or field lines reconnection can heat efficiently the particles which then emit synchrotron, free-free and inverse Compton radiation. With this model Melia (1992) could fit the available data for a black hole mass of 106 M, a value smaller than recent estimates. In its 1994 model, Melia also included an optically thick disk at small radii, to account for the effects of the accreted angular momentum, but the Menten et al. (1997) IR upper limits are not compatible even with such small disk. Recently, Cocker and Melia (2000) revisited the model improving computation of the emitted spectrum and assuming magnetic field B in sub-equipartition by letting its value to be free parameter. Considering variability the model luminosities seem marginally compatible with the data and imply that B, which is of few mG at RA ($``$ 105 RS), does not reach the equipartition value at intermediate radii. Only in the inner region of $``$ 5-25 RS, where gas circularizes and a small Keplerian disk is formed, the magnetic dynamo can rise the field to values of the order of 200 G. The emission from this inner region could then account for the sub-mm excess and for its polarization. However this variant of the model fits the data only for an effective accretion rate $`<`$ 10-4 $`\dot{M}_A`$.
In 1995, Narayan et al. proposed that accretion flows for sub-Eddington rates ($`\dot{M}<\dot{M}_E`$) in systems with BHs be dominated by advection. These models (ADAF) assume a very weak coupling between protons and electrons in the flow and the energy carried by protons is not transmitted efficiently to the radiating electrons but rather advected into the hole.
The plasma gets very hot (optically thin), flows with 2 temperatures (kT$`{}_{p}{}^{}`$ 109 K, kT$`{}_{e}{}^{}`$ 107 K), with nearly spherical geometry (geometrically thick disks), but with viscous dissipation and momentum transport. The radio spectrum is generated by optically thick self-absorbed synchrotron emission from hot nearly-relativistic thermal electrons at different temperatures. Each disk ring at radius R gives rise to a spectrum peaked at the critical frequency above which radiation becomes optically thin. A total flat spectrum is then produced by the superposition of these ring spectra. Highest radio frequencies are generated by the hottest electrons of the inner regions close to the BH while inverse Compton produces a weak tail in IR, optical and UV, and X-rays are produced by thin thermal bremsstrahlung from electrons at all radii till RA. The best ADAF model for Sgr A (Narayan et al., 1998) fits the radio data, the Rosat X-ray flux and the IR and hard X-rays upper limits (see Fig. 7) for the correct BH mass but for an accretion rate $`\dot{M}`$ 10-5 M yr-1. This is more than a factor 10 lower than estimated from the IRS 16 stellar winds. Since in ADAF L $`÷`$ $`\dot{M}^2`$ the luminosity for 10 times the rate would be 100 times greater and the discrepancy is not easily explained (Quataert et al., 1999). To account for the EGRET $`\gamma `$-ray source Narayan et al. (1998) computed the contribution of decay of pions produced by proton-proton collisions in the very hot inner region of the ADAF. The spectrum could reproduce the EGRET spectral shape but not the flux normalization. On the other hands electrons produced by the muons seem able to naturally account for the cm part of the spectrum not well explained by the thermal electrons (Mahadevan, 1998).
The spectrum of Narayan et al. 1998 fitted the Rosat flux and the new value of X-ray luminosity obtained with Chandra certainly makes more acute the problem of accretion rate (see Fig. 7). Blandford $`\&`$ Begelman (1999) argued that ADAFs must have outflows in form of winds and, more recently, it was also found that convection in the disk may reduce outward transport of angular momentum reducing the net flow of matter into the hole (Quataert & Gruzinov, 2000). Both these new variants of ADAF (known as ADIOS and CDAF) could reduce effective mass accretion. However Quataert $`\&`$ Narayan (1999) discussed the spectral shape of ADAF with winds and found that since soft X-rays are produce far from the hole (between 104-105 RS), outflows, expected in the inner regions, will not reduce the expected X-ray emission and discrepancy with the accretion rates is not resolved. Moreover the Chandra steep spectrum does not seem compatible with thermal bremsstrahlung. Another important difficulty for ADAF models is the recent discovery of linear polarization in the sub-mm band. In both ADAF and Bondi-Hoyle models this excess is produced in the inner regions of the flow and therefore even if radiation can be initially polarized, the accreting plasma encountered on the way out would depolarize the emission by Faraday effect (Agol, 2000), unless very peculiar geometries are invoked. Observed values of polarization seem to imply accretion rates as low as 10-8 M yr-1 making of course need for low-efficiency models much less important.
All these factors certainly revive the non-thermal models of Sgr A. The flat (index $``$ 0.3) radio spectrum could indeed be interpreted as due to thin synchrotron radiation from a quasi mono-energetic distribution of electrons, e.g. accelerated by shocks inside the accretion flow. The low frequency cut-off is due to self absorption while the high frequency one to the cut off in the truncated power-law electron distribution. Such model was investigate by Beckert et al. (1996) and refined by Beckert $`\&`$ Duschl (1997). X-rays can then be produced by self synchrotron Compton (SSC) emission. The main difficulty was to correctly account for the X-ray flux and to explain the “ad-hoc” cut off in the electron distribution. Another non-thermal model for Sgr A is the jet/nozzle model, recently re-discussed by Falcke $`\&`$ Markoff (2000) (see references therein). The authors propose that radio emission is generated in a compact radio jet, similar to those seen in AGNs, but less powerful. This model could explain the possible asymmetry in the radio and sub-mm shape of the source (Lo et al., 1998) which, if confirmed, would indeed favor the presence of a jet. The base of the jet where the acceleration of the magnetized plasma takes place, the nozzle, is a compact region where the sub-mm radiation is originated. The nozzle is close to the BH and to the inner part of the accretion flow. The jet mechanism is not known but the authors invoke a coupling between jet and accretion disk. As for the mono-energetic electron model the X-rays are produced by SSC and the expected spectrum seems to fit well the recent Chandra results. However the accretion flow must not provide relevant X-ray emission and the problems of low-efficiency accretion or of a much lower effective accretion rate than the one estimated from data on stellar winds remain.
Finally, the Sgr B2 6.4 keV line could indicate that Sgr A is flaring, may be cyclically like the X-ray Novae. However if the accreted material is stored between the flares, in a large low-viscosity disk, the latter should be visible in IR.

## 8 Perspectives and Conclusions

ADAFs have become popular in recent yeas because they seemed able to explain, in the frame of BH accretion disk thermal models, the low efficiencies observed in the nucleus of our Galaxy and of other close normal galaxies. However these models are now encountering serious difficulties, and non-thermal models become again competitive. All models however fail to explain why the closest known massive black hole to us radiates so little, unless we admit that it does not accrete the available matter as expected. Major advances in understanding of the physics of the Galactic Center will be provided in the next years by new and more accurate observations, in particular at high energies. The Chandra and XMM-Newton observatories will probably address the question of the X-ray (0.1-15 keV) luminosity, variability and spectrum of Sgr A and of the characteristics and origin of the local X-ray diffuse emission. The next ESA $`\gamma `$-ray (3 keV - 10 MeV) mission INTEGRAL will allow to study, if present, the ADAF hard X-ray component predicted by Narayan et al. (1998). Fig. 7 reports the expected sensitivity of the medium energy (20 keV - 10 MeV) instrument (IBIS) onboard INTEGRAL compared with the ADAF model. Detailed simulations (Goldwurm et al., 2000) show that IBIS will be able to detect the expected thermal bremsstrahlung hard component of Sgr A in 4 106 s. With INTEGRAL it will be possible to search for a compact source of 511 keV line at the GC. In spite most models do not predict a strong e--e+ annihilation line contribution from the MBH itself, Fatuzzo et al. (2000) argued that part of the 511 keV bulge component may be due to cumulative effect of pair production in the expanding shells of repeated Sgr A East type events. High energy observations with GLAST at $`>`$ 100 MeV will resolve the standing problem of the EGRET source, possibly linked to the Sgr A or to the non-thermal Sgr A East shell. The latter is also expected to provide detectable flux in the TeV range, making the GC an interesting target also for next generation of ground VHE/UHE $`\gamma `$-ray and neutrino experiments. Moreover the Galactic Center has been recognized as possible site of large cold dark matter concentration and annihilation (Gondolo & Silk, 1999).
Sgr A is probably the closest massive black hole, and in spite presently in low state of activity, remains a highly privileged target for astronomical multi-$`\lambda `$ observations and for future astroparticle experiments.

## Acknowledgments

I thank Fulvio Melia for very useful discussions and Frederick K. Baganoff for providing information about Chandra observations before publication.