format: text

text:
# NMA CO (𝐽=1-0) OBSERVATIONS OF THE H𝛼/RADIO LOBE GALAXY NGC 3079: GAS DYNAMICS IN A WEAK BAR POTENTIAL AND CENTRAL MASSIVE CORE

## 1 INTRODUCTION

NGC 3079 is a nearly edge-on ($`i=77\mathrm{°}`$) SBc galaxy at a distance of $`15.6\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (1 arcsec corresponds to $`76\mathrm{pc}`$; Sofue et al., 1999).

Its nucleus is classified as LINER (Heckman, 1980) or Seyfert 2 (Ford et al., 1986; Ho, Fillipenko & Sargent, 1997; Sosa-Brito, Tacconi-Garman & Lehnert, 2001) from the optical emission spectrum, and shows strong $`\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}`$ maser emission (Henkel et al., 1984; Nakai et al., 1995; Trotter et al., 1998). The overall velocity distribution of $`\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}`$ masers suggests the presence of a binding mass of $`10^6M_{}`$ at the center (Trotter et al., 1998), possibly a central supermassive black hole, which has been found in many AGNs (Miyoshi et al., 1995; Wandel, Peterson & Malkan, 1999; Ishihara et al., 2001). Parsec-scale nuclear jets observed in the radio continuum may be outflow from the central compact object (Irwin & Seaquist, 1988; Sawada-Satoh et al., 2000).

Kiloparsec-scale significant outflow along the galaxy minor axis is observed as lobes in the radio continuum (Duric & Seaquist, 1988), $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$ emission (Ford et al., 1986; Veilleux et al., 1994; Cecil et al., 2001, see Figure 1), and X-ray emission (Fabbiano, Kim & Trinchieri, 1992; Pietcsh, Trinchieri & Vogler, 1998). Optical spectroscopy shows gas motions with a velocity range of $`2000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ across the lobes, and unusually high $`[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{II}]/\mathrm{H}\alpha `$ line ratios which indicate the presence of shocks (Veilleux et al., 1994). This type of large-scale outflow is often attributed to starburst activity (Heckman, Armus & Miley, 1990). However there are some arguments against this starburst model for NGC 3079 (Hawarden et al., 1995). Duric & Seaquist (1988) present an alternative model that a wind flow from the nucleus could be directed toward the galaxy minor axis by interaction with dense gas surrounding the nucleus. This interaction produces shocks which explain the observed strength of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ emission from lower vibration transitions by collisional excitation (Hawarden et al., 1995).

At the root of the kiloparsec-scale outflow, there is a dense molecular disk with a radius of a few kiloparsec (Young, Claussen & Scoville, 1988; Sofue & Irwin, 1992; Irwin & Sofue, 1992; Sofue et al., 2001). Based on their interferometry observations of CO ($`J=10`$) emission, Sofue & Irwin (1992) found an intense concentration of gas in the molecular disk, spiral arm features visible on a position-velocity diagram, and a central compact core which was unresolved at their resolution ($`4\mathrm{}`$). Recently Sofue et al. (2001) have confirmed these features, and further resolved and classified the innermost region into the nuclear molecular disk and ultra-high-density core, based on their appearance on intensity maps and position-velocity diagrams. \[In this paper, we will re-classify the features based on our new data (§3) and on theoretical considerations (§4).\] The molecular disk was also observed in HCN and HCO+ (Kohno et al., 2001), which measure the concentration of high density molecular clouds toward the nucleus.

The disk of NGC 3079 is rotating with the north-side approaching and south-side receding. A $`K^{}`$-band image shows spiral arms in the disk, forming an inverted S-shaped pattern on the sky (Veilleux, Bland-Hawthorn & Cecil, 1999). If trailing spiral arms are assumed, the west of NGC 3079 is near-side, which is consistent with the entire dust lane morphology. NGC 3079 is a far-infrared (FIR) luminous galaxy listed in the IRAS bright galaxy catalog (Soifer et al., 1989). An ISO $`90\mu m`$ map shows that most of the FIR emission is produced by dust heated by stars in the entire galaxy disk, rather than the nucleus (Pérez García, Rodríguez Espinosa & Fuensalida, 2000). The HI disk extends more widely than the optical disk and shows warps at the outskirts (Irwin & Seaquist, 1991). These warps may originate from an interaction with a nearby companion NGC 3073. The HI velocity field, however, shows a regular rotating-disk pattern. The radial emission profile is well fitted by an exponential function, while it shows a sharp drop in the central region ($`<50\mathrm{}`$; Irwin & Seaquist, 1991) which is produced by absorption against strong continuum emission (Duric & Seaquist, 1988). The CO disk is embedded in this region of the absorbed HI (Young, Claussen & Scoville, 1988; Sofue & Irwin, 1992; Sofue et al., 1999), and coincident with a void of $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$ line emission (Cecil et al., 2001).

Though NGC 3079 is classified as a barred galaxy (SBc), the stellar bar is hardly confirmed in optical/infrared photographs in this nearly edge-on galaxy. There is however some evidence for the presence of a bar. NGC 3079 has a stellar bulge which takes a so-called peanut-shape (Shaw, Wilkinson & Carter, 1993), whose possible origin is a vertical instability of rotating disk-stars in a bar potential (Combes et al., 1990). Veilleux, Bland-Hawthorn & Cecil (1999) fitted an oval orbit model to their $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$ velocity field, and concluded that bar streaming motions with moderately eccentric orbits ($`e=b/a0.7`$) aligned along $`\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}.=130\mathrm{°}`$ intrinsic to the disk ($`\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}.=163\mathrm{°}`$ on the sky 111 The bar position angle on the sky ($`\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}._{\mathrm{sky}}`$) is calculated from that intrinsic to the disk ($`\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}._{\mathrm{int}}`$), by “$`\mathrm{tan}(\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}._{\mathrm{gal}}\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}._{\mathrm{sky}})=\mathrm{tan}(\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}._{\mathrm{gal}}\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}._{\mathrm{int}})\mathrm{cos}i`$” using their adopted position angle and inclination of the disk.) are satisfactory to match the observations.

In this paper, we present our recent 12CO ($`J=10`$) observations of the central $`1\mathrm{}`$ of NGC 3079 using the Nobeyama Millimeter Array (NMA). We describe the observations and data analysis in §2. A part of the data has been published in Sofue et al. (2001), but this paper presents our new analyses including new observations. The main features in the molecular disk of NGC 3079 are presented in §3. Gas dynamics in the molecular disk are discussed in §4. A weak bar and central massive core explain all the observed features. The central rotation curve and mass are derived in §5. We summarize our conclusions in §6.

## 2 OBSERVATIONAL DATA

### 2.1 NMA 12CO ($`J=10`$) Observations

Our aperture synthesis observations of the 12CO ($`J=10`$) emission from NGC 3079 were obtained with the Nobeyama Millimeter Array (NMA) at the Nobeyama Radio Observatory (NRO) 222Nobeyama Radio Observatory is a branch of the National Astronomical Observatory, operated by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan., between 2000 January and 2001 April for a single pointing center at ($`\alpha _{1950}`$, $`\delta _{1950}`$) = ($`9^\mathrm{h}58^\mathrm{m}35^\mathrm{s}.02`$, $`+55\mathrm{°}55\mathrm{}15\mathrm{}.40`$). We made the observations with three available configurations (AB, C, and D); when combined, the visibility data cover projected baselines from 10 to 351 m. The NMA consists of six 10 m antennas, providing a FWHP of about $`65^{\prime \prime }`$ at 115 GHz. The antenna size limits the minimum projected baseline, restricting the largest detectable size of objects to about $`54\mathrm{}`$. Tunerless SIS receivers have receiver noise temperatures of about $`30\mathrm{K}`$ in double sideband, and typical system noise temperatures of about $`400\mathrm{K}`$ in single sideband. Digital spectro-correlators (Okumura et al., 2000) have two spectroscopic modes; we used a mode covering 512 MHz ($`1331\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) with 2 MHz ($`5.2\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) resolution. We observed the quasar 0954+556 every 20 minutes for gain calibration, and 3C279 (or 3C273) for bandpass calibration. Absolute flux scales (0.68 Jy at 115 GHz for 0954+556, uncertain to $`20\%`$) were measured three times in 2000 and once in 2001; no significant flux variation was observed.

The raw visibility data were calibrated for complex gain and passband with the UVPROC-II package developed at NRO, and mapped with the NRAO/AIPS package. We applied the CLEAN procedure with natural weighting for each velocity channel, and obtained a three-dimensional (RA, DEC, $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$) data cube. Parameters of the cube are listed in Table 2.

Figure 2 displays zeroth- and first-moment maps in the central $`20^{\prime \prime }\times 48^{\prime \prime }`$ region ($`1.5\mathrm{kpc}\times 3.7\mathrm{kpc}`$) of NGC 3079, while Figure 3 shows channel maps with an interval of $`10.4\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the same region. The significant emission ($`>3\sigma `$; $`1\sigma =12\mathrm{mJy}\mathrm{beam}^1`$) is detected in 63 adjacent channels within the velocity range of $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=8211467\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }V=646\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). No primary beam correction has been applied in these maps. Figure 4 displays a position-velocity diagram (PV diagram) along the optically defined major axis (P.A.$`=165\mathrm{°}`$), integrated along the minor axis. The almost entire CO emission in Figure 2 (left) falls in the slit-width ($`12\mathrm{}`$). The axes are labeled relative to the dynamical center, and systemic recession velocity of the galaxy (derived in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 3.1.2; see Table 3).

Compared with single-dish observations from IRAM 30 m and FCRAO 14 m telescopes (Braine et al., 1993; Young et al., 1995), our NMA cube recovers about 87% of the total CO line flux in the central $`23^{\prime \prime }`$ and 67% in $`45^{\prime \prime }`$, which means that the CO emission is concentrated in the central region. We made no correction for the missing flux in the following discussion. Figure 5 compares a spectrum from our NMA cube with that from the IRAM observations (Braine et al., 1993). In order to obtain the fluxes and spectrum comparable to the single-dish ones, the NMA cube was corrected for the primary beam response of antennas, convolved with the single-dish beam ($`23^{\prime \prime }`$ for IRAM and $`45^{\prime \prime }`$ for FCRAO), and sampled at the pointing center of the single-dish observations.

### 2.2 Supplied HST Data

We obtained images from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) archive (P.I. G. Cecil; see Cecil et al., 2001). The images were taken with WFPC2 and two filters, F814W and F658N, which correspond to the $`I`$-band and $`\mathrm{H}\alpha +[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{II}]`$ filters in ground telescopes. The central part of NGC 3079 lies on a WFC chip rather than the PC chip. Cosmic-ray hits were removed and images are combined with the IRAF/STSDAS package. The absolute position of the $`HST`$ images is calibrated using the USNO-A2.0 catalog (Zacharias et al., 2000), and is accurate to about $`0^{\prime \prime }.5`$. The derived images are presented in the right-hand panel of Figure 1.

## 3 RESULTS

Our maps and PV diagram show four distinct components: a main disk, spiral arms (or offset ridges), a nuclear disk, and a nuclear core. Figure 6 shows a schematic illustration of these four components on a PV diagram. We describe each of the four in order of decreasing radius in §3.1-3.4, and compare them with previous results in §3.5.

### 3.1 The Main Disk

#### 3.1.1 Smooth Gas Distribution on the Main Disk

The zeroth-moment map of Figure 2 displays a disk with an extent of $`45\mathrm{}\times 15\mathrm{}`$ ($`3.4\mathrm{kpc}\times 1.1\mathrm{kpc}`$), elongated along the optically-defined major axis of the galaxy ($`\text{P.A.}=165\mathrm{°}`$). Since our synthesis observations have an intrinsic maximum limit of detectable scale ($`54\mathrm{}`$), larger components detected in single-dish observations 333Recently, NRO 45 m telescope observations found that the full extent of CO emission in NGC 3079 is about $`80\mathrm{}`$ in radius (Yamauchi, private communication). are not covered in this map, and result in the missing flux (our total flux recovery is about 67% in $`45\mathrm{}`$). The inclination of the galaxy ($`77\mathrm{°}`$) is large, but enough to show the emission distribution on the disk, because the vertical sizes of molecular disks are usually thin ($`150\mathrm{pc}`$ for the Galaxy from Clemens, Sanders & Scoville 1988; $`230\mathrm{pc}`$ for NGC 891 from Handa et al. 1992) in comparison with the full extents of molecular disks ($`3.4\mathrm{kpc}`$ or $`45\mathrm{}`$ for NGC 3079 from the zeroth-moment map). The CO emission is smoothly distributed on the full disk, showing no emission deficient regions often found in molecular disks (see Sakamoto et al., 1999a; Regan et al., 2001). The emission distribution is nearly axisymmetric, except for slight enhancements owing to spiral arms (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 3.2). The main disk coincides with the void of HII regions (Cecil et al., 2001, see also Figure 7 left), and with the region where the HI gas is observed in absorption (Irwin & Seaquist, 1991) against strong radio continuum emission (Duric & Seaquist, 1988). The center of the main disk coincides with the root of the $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$-lobe.

#### 3.1.2 Kinematics of The Main Disk

The first-moment map (Figure 2 right) shows a rotating disk with the northside approaching and southside receding. The $`S`$-shaped twists of isovelocity contours should be attributed to spiral arms ($`\mathrm{\S }`$ 3.2). The entire velocity field is almost perfectly bisymmetric, indicating regular motions in the molecular disk.

We obtained kinematical parameters from the first-moment map using the AIPS/GAL package. The dynamical center, position angle and inclination are first determined using the Brandt rotation curve model (Brandt, 1965). Then we fixed the above parameters, fitted tilted ring models with constant velocities to the first-moment map, and obtained the systemic recession velocity (LSR velocity). The results are listed in Table 3. The dynamical center coincides spatially with the emission centroid: ($`\alpha _{1950}`$, $`\delta _{1950}`$) = ($`09^\mathrm{h}58^\mathrm{m}35^\mathrm{s}.00`$, $`+55^\mathrm{d}55^\mathrm{m}15^\mathrm{s}.80`$). The position angle and inclination are in good agreement with the results from optical isophotes (Sandage & Tamman, 1981; Veilleux, Bland-Hawthorn & Cecil, 1999) and from kinematics of the HI gas (Irwin & Seaquist, 1991). The systemic recession velocity is consistent with estimates from optical spectroscopic data (e.g. $`1150\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ from Veilleux, Bland-Hawthorn & Cecil, 1999), but slightly exceeds the value from $`\mathrm{HI}`$ data ($`1124\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ from Irwin & Seaquist, 1991). This difference might come from a warp of the HI disk (Irwin & Seaquist, 1991). We adopt the values from large-scale isophotes for position angle and inclination, and the derived values for galaxy center and systemic recession velocity in the rest of our analysis. These choices do not affect the following discussion.

The PV diagram (Figure 4) shows the main disk as two ridges, symmetrically extending southeast and northwest from the velocity peaks around the center (see also Figure 6). The near-perfect symmetry in the diagram again indicates regular motions of the molecular gas in the disk. The velocity of $`220\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at the radius of $`26\mathrm{}`$ ($`2.0\mathrm{kpc}`$) indicates the dynamical mass of $`M_{\mathrm{dyn}}=2.2\times 10^{10}M_{}`$. The disk is also confirmed in the channel maps (Figure 3); the approaching (NW) side appears in the channels of $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=8211029\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, while the receding (SE) side is found in $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=12581467\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

#### 3.1.3 Mass and Surface Densities of the Molecular Gas

Masses of molecular gas $`M_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ are estimated from total CO-line flux $`S_{\mathrm{CO}}`$, CO-to-$`\mathrm{H}_2`$ conversion factor $`X_{\mathrm{CO}}`$, and galaxy distance $`D`$ by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{H}_2}}{M_{}}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`7.2\times 10^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{\mathrm{Mpc}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_{\mathrm{CO}}}{\mathrm{Jy}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)`$ (1)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{X_{\mathrm{CO}}}{1.8\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2[\mathrm{K}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1]^1}}\right).`$
Assuming the hydrogen mass fraction (0.707 from Cox et al., 2000), the total gas mass, including He and other elements, becomes $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}=1.41M_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$. Face-on surface densities of molecular gas are calculated from the integrated CO line intensity $`I_{\mathrm{CO}}\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, galaxy inclination $`i`$, and conversion factor $`X_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{H}_2}}{M_{}\mathrm{pc}^2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`3.0\times 10^2\mathrm{cos}i\left({\displaystyle \frac{I_{\mathrm{CO}}\mathrm{\Delta }V}{\mathrm{Jy}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{arcsec}^2}}\right)`$ (2)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{X_{\mathrm{CO}}}{1.8\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2[\mathrm{K}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1]^1}}\right).`$
The surface density of total gas also becomes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gas}}=1.41\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$. The surface density estimation is independent of galaxy distance. We adopt the conversion factor of $`X_{\mathrm{CO}}=1.8\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2[\mathrm{K}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1]^1`$ from observations in the Galaxy (Dame, Hartmann and Thaddeus, 2001), while $`X_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ could be smaller in galactic center regions (Arimoto, Sofue and Tsujimoto, 1996).

The total flux within the radius of $`26\mathrm{}`$ is $`S_{\mathrm{CO}}=1.9\times 10^3\mathrm{Jy}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which corresponds to $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}=4.6\times 10^9M_{}`$ for the galaxy distance $`D=15.6\mathrm{Mpc}`$. The ratio of dynamical mass ($`2.2\times 10^{10}M_{}`$ from §3.1.2) to the total molecular gas mass $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}/M_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ is about 21% within the radius of $`2\mathrm{kpc}`$. The peak integrated intensity is $`I_{\mathrm{CO}}\mathrm{\Delta }V=1.3\times 10^2\mathrm{Jy}\mathrm{beam}^1\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (or $`3.8\times 10^3\mathrm{K}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) at ($`\alpha _{1950}`$, $`\delta _{1950}`$) = ($`09^\mathrm{h}58^\mathrm{m}35^\mathrm{s}.00`$, $`+55\mathrm{°}55\mathrm{}15\mathrm{}.80`$); the corresponding face-on surface density becomes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gas}}=2.5\times 10^3M_{}\mathrm{pc}^2`$. No correction for missing flux is applied.

Figure 8 shows the radial profile of the CO emission. Integrated intensities are azimuthally averaged in each annulus ($`\mathrm{\Delta }r=0.5\mathrm{}`$) with corrections for inclination ($`77\mathrm{°}`$) and primary beam attenuation. The outskirts of the profile ($`r>5\mathrm{}`$) is well fitted by an exponential (dotted line). At the innermost region, the CO emission exceeds this exponential curve, indicating a high CO concentration at the central region. Surface densities of molecular gas are labeled at the right-hand axis. The observed value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{H}_2}=1000\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{pc}^2`$ at $`r5\mathrm{}`$ ($`380\mathrm{pc}`$) is an order of magnitude higher than the typical value for the central regions of nearby galaxies (Sakamoto et al., 1999b).

The $`\mathrm{HI}`$ gas surface density also follows an exponential profile $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{HI}}^0e^{r/h_{\mathrm{HI}}}`$ where $`h_{\mathrm{HI}}=118\mathrm{}`$ ($`9.0\mathrm{kpc}`$) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{HI}}^0=8.8\times 10M_{}\mathrm{pc}^2`$ (Irwin & Seaquist, 1991, from their Table 4). In comparison with this HI profile, our $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ profile (dotted line) takes the same surface density at nearly the edge of our detected molecular disk ($`r23\mathrm{}`$ or $`1.7\mathrm{kpc}`$), rising more steeply toward the galaxy center ($`h_{\mathrm{CO}}7.2\mathrm{}`$ or $`550\mathrm{pc}`$). This indicates that the gas in NGC 3079 is highly concentrated in the central molecular disk.

### 3.2 The Spiral Arms/Offset Ridges

The zeroth-moment map (Figure 2 left) shows arm-like enhancements of emission, superimposed on the main disk; two ridges bisymmetrically run northwest and southeast from the galaxy center (most obvious within the central $`10\mathrm{}`$ radius), forming an inverted $`S`$-shaped pattern. These features resemble (trailing) spiral arms, or offset ridges often found at the leading edge of stellar bars. \[Note though these enhancements do arise from the spiral arms, they are slightly offset from the actual spiral arms (see Figure 7), because this projected map is contaminated by emission from other components.\] The $`S`$-shaped twists of isovelocity contours on the first-moment map (Figure 2 left) coincide with the two arms, indicating non-circular motions around the spiral arms. Similar inverted $`S`$-shaped spiral arms have been found in a $`K^{}`$-band image (Veilleux, Bland-Hawthorn & Cecil, 1999).

Figure 9 shows line-profiles of CO emission at $`5\times 7`$ points on a $`3\mathrm{}`$-spacing grid (crosses on the left-hand panel), centered at the dynamical center (Table 3). Remarkable double-peaked features appear along the spiral arms: arrows point to examples of the double-peaks. The northwest arm corresponds to peaks with higher velocities, while the southeast arm corresponds to peaks with lower velocities. The other peaks come from the main disk. These distinct velocities between the main disk and spiral arms (typically $`\mathrm{\Delta }V200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) produce the $`S`$-shaped twists in the first-moment map. Similar double-peaked features have been noticed from $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$-spectroscopic data (Filippenko & Sargent, 1992; Veilleux, Bland-Hawthorn & Cecil, 1999), though their low velocity resolution did not allow them to distinguish between the main disk and spiral arms.

The spiral arms are also confirmed on the PV diagram (Figure 4; see also Figure 6). Two ridges run northwest and southeast with lower velocities than those of the main disk. These two ridges and a central ridge of the nuclear disk (§3.3) show a so-called “figure-of-eight” pattern (or “tilted X” pattern). Similar patterns are often found in edge-on barred galaxies (Handa et al., 1990; Laine et al., 1990; García-Burillo & Guélin, 1995; Merrifield & Kuijken, 1999). In the velocity range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=\pm 150\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ ($`V_{\mathrm{sys}}=1147\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$), the spiral arms are more dominant in emission than the main disk.

This is also evident in the channel maps (Figure 3). The spiral arms are confirmed at $`V=10101280\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$; emission from the northwest and southeast arms appear at the northwest and southeast edges of maps at $`1010`$ and $`1280\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, approaching the innermost core with increasing and decreasing velocities, respectively. Figure 7 (right-hand panel) shows contours of a zeroth-moment map made in the velocity range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=\pm 100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ centered at the systemic recession velocity (superimposed on the $`\mathrm{H}\alpha +[\mathrm{N}\mathrm{II}]`$ map). The spiral arms are rooted to the nucleus, forming an inverted $`S`$-shaped pattern on the sky.

### 3.3 The Nuclear Disk

The nuclear disk shows a sign of an existence on the PV diagram (Figure 4): remarkable velocity-peaks appear symmetrically at ($`7\mathrm{}`$, $`+250\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) and ($`+7\mathrm{}`$, $`250\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). Figure 10 shows PV diagrams with $`1\mathrm{}`$-width and offsets of $`+2\mathrm{}`$, $`0\mathrm{}`$ and $`2\mathrm{}`$ along the galaxy minor axis. The cuts are along the galaxy major axis. These diagrams reveal that the two peaks are on a single kinematical sequence: ridges are running and connecting the two peaks through three panels (see also Figure 6). This sequence seems to be rotating in this innermost region and forming a nuclear disk. The nuclear disk is obviously distinct from other velocity-peaks in the innermost region (at $`\pm 1\mathrm{}`$ in Figure 4), because their corresponding peaks appear only in the diagram with $`0\mathrm{}`$-offset; we thus think that they are consequences of the nuclear core (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 3.4). The very high CO concentration within the nuclear disk ($`r<7\mathrm{}`$; Figure 4 and 8) indicates its distinct nature from the main disk. We conclude that the component which appears as the peaks and ridges in the PV diagrams is the nuclear disk. This component is rotating around the galaxy center with the northside approaching and southside receding.

In the three panels of Figure 10, the ridges corresponding to the nuclear disk are not on a straight line connecting their two velocity peaks: the ridges are bent downward and upward in the $`+2\mathrm{}`$ and $`2\mathrm{}`$ offset diagrams respectively, while the ridge twists upward (at the left-hand side) and downward (right-hand side) in the $`0\mathrm{}`$-offset diagram. The deviations from the straight line amount up to $`50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. These symmetrical bends and twist indicate that the gas in the nuclear disk takes oval orbits rather than circular (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 4).

The nuclear disk is also seen in the channel maps (Figure 3). The two velocity-peaks on the PV diagrams appears in the channels of $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=822926\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ as an emission peak at around $`7\mathrm{}`$-north from the center, and in $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=13841467\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at around $`7\mathrm{}`$-south. In other channels, strong emission from the main disk and nuclear core contaminates the nuclear disk emission.

### 3.4 The Nuclear Core

The nuclear core is most clearly seen in the PV diagram (Figure 4), which appears as two velocity-peaks at ($`1\mathrm{}`$, $`+240\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) and ($`+1\mathrm{}`$, $`240\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). The distinct kinematics of this core from the other components is evident in a series of PV diagrams which have positional offsets along the galaxy minor axis (Figure 10). Among the three diagrams with $`+2\mathrm{}`$, $`0\mathrm{}`$ and $`2\mathrm{}`$-offsets, the nuclear core appears only in the central one. The high velocities indicate a large dynamical mass in this nuclear region if the gas is pure-circularly rotating; we will discuss this in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 4.4.

The zeroth-moment map (Figure 2) shows the nuclear core as an intense CO concentration at the very center of the galaxy. It is also confirmed in channel maps (Figure 3) in almost all the velocities ($`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=8631436\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). The central gas density of the nuclear core is as high as $`2.5\times 10^3M_{}\mathrm{pc}^2`$, which is about an order of magnitude higher than is typical for nearby normal galaxies (Sakamoto et al., 1999a). This value is however a lower limit, because the core is unresolved even in our high resolution observations ($`1.9\mathrm{}\times 1.6\mathrm{}`$), The total flux within the radius of $`2\mathrm{}`$ ($`152\mathrm{pc}`$) is $`S_{\mathrm{CO}}=1.2\times 10^2\mathrm{Jy}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$; the corresponding gas mass is $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}=3.0\times 10^8M_{}`$.

### 3.5 Comparison with Previous Results

On the molecular disk of NGC 3079, Sofue & Irwin (1992) identified three main components: an outer disk, spiral arms, and a central compact core. Recently Sofue et al. (2001) further resolved the central compact core, and classified it into two distinct components, a nuclear molecular disk and ultra-high-density molecular core, based on their appearance on maps and PV diagrams. In this paper, we re-classified the observed features into four distinct components, based on our new observations and analyses, and partly on theoretical considerations in §4. The outer disk and spiral arms in Sofue & Irwin (1992) correspond to our main disk and spiral arms respectively, and the ultra-high-density molecular core in Sofue et al. (2001) corresponds to our nuclear core. The nuclear molecular disk in Sofue et al. (2001) is different from our nuclear disk, and includes both our nuclear disk and main disk in part.

We confirmed two peaks on a PV diagram in the central region, reported by Sofue & Irwin (1992), in Figure 10. This feature however cannot be confidently attributed to the nuclear ring (Sofue & Irwin, 1992) because the two peaks may arise from our nuclear disk (see Figure 10 top and bottom) superposed on our nuclear core. Our central surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gas}}=2.5\times 10^3M_{}\mathrm{pc}^2`$ is consistent with the value ($`2.2\times 10^4M_{}\mathrm{pc}^2`$) of Sofue & Irwin (1992) by considering the difference of the adopted conversion factors and applying the correction for inclination to the value of Sofue & Irwin (1992). We could not find unambiguous evidence for molecular outflow (Irwin & Sofue, 1992) in our data.

## 4 GAS DYNAMICS IN NGC 3079

The near-perfect bisymmetric structures of the molecular disk are striking. These kinds of bisymmetry are often thought to be consequences of gas motions in a bar. Though a stellar bar is not seen in optical/infrared photographs in this nearly edge-on galaxy, there is some indirect evidence for the presence of a bar: the peanut-shaped bulge (Combes et al., 1990; Shaw, Wilkinson & Carter, 1993); the “figure-of-eight” pattern on the PV diagram (Kuijken & Merrifield, 1995); the high central concentration of the molecular gas (Sakamoto et al., 1999b); the $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$ velocity field well-fitted by an oval-orbit model in a weak bar (Veilleux, Bland-Hawthorn & Cecil, 1999). We thus propose a model that NGC 3079 contains a weak bar. This model naturally explains the features in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 3: the main disk and spiral arms (or offset ridges) may result from gaseous $`x_1`$-orbits and associated crowding respectively. The nuclear disk may arise from gaseous $`x_2`$-orbits. This model however cannot interpret the nuclear core, which necessitates a massive component besides the bar at the galaxy center. Figure 11 shows schematic views of our interpretation, drawn on our model orbits (see a description in §4.1). We present below our detailed case for the existence of the weak bar, and discuss the origin of the main disk, spiral arms, nuclear disk and core.

### 4.1 Damped Orbit Model

We adopt a damped orbit model by Wada (1994) and Sakamoto, Barker & Scoville (2000) to describe gas motions in a weak bar potential. This model solves the equation of motion which includes a damping-force term to emulate the collisional nature of the gas, and obtains closed orbits for gas in a bar. This model has been applied to a galaxy NGC 5005 (Sakamoto, Barker & Scoville, 2000), and similar models have been successfully used to infer the presence of bars in edge-on galaxies which show characteristic patterns on PV diagrams (Binney et al., 1991; Achtermann & Lacy, 1995; García-Burillo & Guélin, 1995; Kuijken & Merrifield, 1995).

Figure 12 displays our model of gas orbits in a bar potential that reproduces the main features in the zeroth-, first-moment maps, and PV diagram of NGC 3079. We here took the same potential model as Sakamoto, Barker & Scoville (2000) of

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\theta )=(1ϵ\mathrm{cos}2\theta )\frac{v_0^2}{2}\mathrm{log}(1+(r/a)^2),$$
(3)
where the first and second terms stand for disk and bar potentials respectively, and $`\theta `$ is the azimuthal angle from the bar major axis. For this particular case we adopted the characteristic radius $`a=6\mathrm{}`$ (456 pc), rotation velocity $`v_0=240\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and bar strength $`ϵ=0.04`$ to match the observations. We chose the pattern speed of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}=55\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{kpc}^1`$ based on consideration given in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 4.2. The inner and outer ILRs and corotation occur at the radii of $`7.7\mathrm{}`$ ($`582\mathrm{pc}`$), $`10.5\mathrm{}`$ ($`798\mathrm{pc}`$) and $`57.1\mathrm{}`$ ($`4.34\mathrm{kpc}`$) respectively. We assumed that the position angle of the bar (dashed line) from the north is $`\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}._{\mathrm{int}}=135\mathrm{°}`$ intrinsic to the disk, and $`\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}._{\mathrm{sky}}=158\mathrm{°}`$ on the sky. On the galaxy disk, this position angle of the bar differs by $`30\mathrm{°}`$ from that of the galaxy major axis which runs horizontally in Figure 12 (top).

Our parameters of the bar chosen to match the CO observations are in good agreement with the values that Veilleux, Bland-Hawthorn & Cecil (1999) have derived by fitting an oval-orbit model to their $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$ velocity field of NGC 3079 ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}60\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{kpc}^1`$; $`\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}._{\mathrm{bar}}=130\pm 10\mathrm{°}`$; axes ratio of oval orbits 0.7). Beyond our particular choices of the parameters, the features of gaseous closed orbits described below are general (Wada, 1994; Lindblad & Lindblad, 1994), and have been established in numerical simulations (Wada, 1994; Wada & Koda, 2001; Koda & Wada, 2002).

Closed orbits in a bar have an elongation in general; the position angle of the elongation $`\psi `$ is measured clockwise from the bar major axis (dashed line in Figure 12 top), in the rest of the discussion. For collisionless star-like particles, two families of closed orbits are dominant: $`x_1`$-orbits have an elongation with $`\psi =0\mathrm{°}`$ and dominate outside of the outer ILR and inside of the inner ILR, while $`x_2`$-orbits elongate with $`\psi =90\mathrm{°}`$ and are dominant between the ILRs. Orbits for gaseous particles show similar families at the same loci (Figure 12 top), while gaseous $`x_1`$-orbits have an elongation toward the leading edge of the bar ($`\psi >0\mathrm{°}`$), and gaseous $`x_2`$-orbits elongate opposite ($`\psi <90\mathrm{°}`$), owing to the damping force.

### 4.2 The Origin of The Main Disk and Spiral Arms

The main disk and spiral arms may originate from gaseous $`x_1`$-orbits. The position angle $`\psi `$ of orbits changes with radius owing to the damping force, producing crowded regions of the orbits (Figure 12). The crowding of the gaseous $`x_1`$-orbits which appear at the leading edge of the bar result in the spiral arms (or so-called offset ridges), which are similar to those on the molecular disk of NGC 3079. The slightly enhanced CO emission in the zeroth-moment map of NGC 3079 (Figure 2) may arise from the high gas densities in the crowded regions. The streamlines belonging to the $`x_1`$-orbits extend entirely to the disk, producing the main disk.

Our model streamlines have sharp turns at the spiral arms. Such features, accompanied by shocks, have been observed by other authors (Athanassoula, 1992; Athanassoula & Bureau, 1999) in full hydrodynamical simulations. These turns can produce double-peaked features in line-profiles observed along the spiral arms (Figure 9), and agree spatially with the $`S`$-shaped twists on the first-moment map of NGC 3079 (Figure 2). Figure 13 shows a comparison between the observed and model PV diagrams; contours are from the observed one, while the symbols show the model one, where different symbols are used for gaseous particles on the spiral arms (squares) and on the main disk (dots). On this diagram again, the main disk and spiral arms of NGC 3079 agree well with the gaseous $`x_1`$-orbits and their crowding respectively. This match between the observations and the model suggests that the main disk and spiral arms result from gaseous $`x_1`$-orbits and their associated crowding, respectively.

In the context of our model, gas streamlines on the downstream side of the sharp turns are nearly perpendicular to our line-of-sight. Thus the line-of-sight velocity of the gas indicates the pattern speed of the bar. We estimate the pattern speed from the gradient of the spiral arms on the observed PV diagram, which appears to be $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}=55\pm 10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{kpc}^1`$; this is our adopted value to describe gas orbits, and is consistent with the result of other authors ($`60\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{kpc}^1`$ from Veilleux, Bland-Hawthorn & Cecil, 1999, where the coincidence of corotation and the bar-end was assumed).

### 4.3 The Origin of The Nuclear Disk

The nuclear disk may result from gaseous $`x_2`$-orbits. In Figure 13, the model PV diagram shows that the gaseous $`x_2`$-orbits (crosses) are in good agreement with the nuclear disk of NGC 3079. Figure 14 displays PV diagrams along the galaxy major axis for the orbits within the outer ILR. The three panels show PV cuts with $`10\mathrm{}`$-width (intrinsic to the galaxy) and positional offsets for the east, central and west sides of the model galaxy respectively. These panels reveal that the bends and twist of the ridges discussed in §3.3 (see Figure 10) are also reproduced in our model: the top and bottom panels show bends downward and upward respectively, while the middle panel shows a twist upward (at the left-hand side) and downward (right-hand). Since a purely rotating disk cannot produce this type of symmetric bends and twist, the gas on the nuclear disk must take oval orbits. Our gaseous $`x_2`$-orbits naturally reproduce the observed properties of the nuclear disk.

For later discussion in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 4.4, we mention the position angle of the $`x_2`$-orbits on the nuclear disk here in advance. The major axis of the orbits are inclined counterclockwise to the south from our line-of-sight in our current configuration (Figure 11). On the other hand, orbits inclined in the opposite direction can also reproduce the nuclear disk on the PV diagram (Figure 4). These orbits however make the ridges on the eastern and western PV diagrams (Figure 14) bend in the opposite directions, and thus cannot match the observations (Figure 10). Therefore the orbits on the nuclear disk must have an inclination southward (counterclockwise) on the sky from our line-of-sight, like our gaseous $`x_2`$-orbits.

Many barred galaxies show an intense concentration of CO emission in their central parts (Sakamoto et al., 1999b; Sakamoto, Barker & Scoville, 2000). NGC 3079 also has such concentration in the nuclear disk region (see Figure 8). This feature is well explained in the scenario of gas motions in bar: gas flow on $`x_1`$-orbits like ours leads to offset shocks at the leading edge of a bar, and results in an inflow of gas toward the nuclear region. Then the inflowing gas on the $`x_1`$-orbits collides with gaseous $`x_2`$-orbits near the pericenter of the $`x_1`$-orbits, entering onto the gaseous $`x_2`$-orbits, thus increasing mass densities in the nuclear disk. This scenario has been confirmed in hydrodynamical simulations (Piner, Stone & Teuben, 1995; Athanassoula & Bureau, 1999).

### 4.4 The Origin of The Nuclear Core

Our current model naturally explains the main features of the molecular disk of NGC 3079, which are the consequences of gas motions in a weak bar. However the model does not explain the nuclear core which appears in the PV diagram as high velocity-peaks near the galaxy center (Figure 4). Owing to our ability to match the observations with our model for a bar, we attribute the high velocities to another origin, a massive central component, besides the bar. There still is a small possibility that the high velocities may arise from gaseous $`x_1`$-orbits within the inner ILR which could elongate along our line-of-sight. However the gaseous $`x_1`$-orbits are not the likely origin for two reasons.

(1) Our gaseous $`x_1`$-orbits within the inner ILR ($`7.7\mathrm{}`$) look near circular, thus cannot show high velocities at their pericenter. Numerical experiments have also shown similar features: circular orbits in the innermost regions (Piner, Stone & Teuben, 1995; Athanassoula & Bureau, 1999). In the intensive study of PV diagrams for galaxies with bars by Bureau & Athanassoula (1999) and Athanassoula & Bureau (1999), the $`x_1`$-orbits within the inner ILR do not produce any remarkable features (and velocity-peaks) on the PV diagrams. These all imply no significant contribution of the $`x_1`$-orbits within the inner ILR to our PV diagram. (2) Even if the gaseous $`x_1`$-orbits are elongated, they must be near perpendicular to our line-of-sight, and cannot show us high velocities which occur at their pericenter, because the position angles $`\psi `$ of $`x_1`$\- and $`x_2`$-orbits, measured clockwise from the bar to the north (Figure 12 top), are intrinsically $`\psi _{x_1}=0\mathrm{°}`$ and $`\psi _{x_2}=90\mathrm{°}`$ respectively for collisionless stars. Owing to the damping force (working as viscosity), the two orbits drag each other and make $`\psi _{x_1}>0\mathrm{°}`$ and $`\psi _{x_2}<90\mathrm{°}`$ for collisional gas. This mechanism does not allow $`\psi _{x_1}`$ to become larger than $`\psi _{x_2}`$. In addition to $`\psi _{x_1}<\psi _{x_2}`$, our gaseous $`x_2`$-orbits (nuclear disk) of NGC 3079 have to be inclined southward (counterclockwise) on the sky from our line-of-sight for the reason discussed in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 4.3. Thus the elongated gaseous $`x_1`$-orbits (if they exist) must be near perpendicular to our line-of-sight, and cannot show the observed high-velocity features.

There are many disk galaxies which exhibit double bars, i.e. global and nuclear bars (e.g. Shaw et al., 1995; Friedli et al., 1996; Erwin & Sparke, 1999). If NGC 3079 has a nuclear bar other than our global bar, it may result in the observed high-velocity features. This however is not the likely origin because such a nuclear bar is also thought to be a consequence of the $`x_1`$\- and $`x_2`$-orbits in our global bar, whose orientations cannot be aligned with our line-of-sight. Recently Heller, Shlosman & Englmaier (2001) discussed that a nuclear bar could be dynamically decoupled with a global bar in an evolutional phase, having a random orientation from the global bar. In that phase the $`x_1`$\- and $`x_2`$-orbits have dissapeared (Heller, Shlosman & Englmaier, 2001), which is not the case for NGC 3079.

Central components with high velocities are often found in rotation-curve studies of external galaxies (Sofue et al., 1999). They are attributed to central massive components (Sofue et al., 1999; Takamiya & Sofue, 2000) while gas streaming motions in a bar could be another possible origin (Sakamoto et al., 1999a). In this section, we clarified detailed kinematics and the effect of a bar on the gas disk of NGC 3079, and discussed that the high velocity should be attributed to a massive component at the galaxy center.

## 5 CENTRAL ROTATION CURVE AND MASSIVE CORE

We discussed in §4.4 that the high velocity peaks at the radius of $`1\mathrm{}`$ in the PV diagram are not likely to result from noncircular motions driven by a bar, but are a consequence of circular rotation around the nuclear core. We here estimate the central dynamical mass using a rotation curve.

### 5.1 Central Rotation Curve

The observed PV diagram in the galaxy center suffers from large intrinsic velocity dispersions, and spill-in of emission from outer low velocity components owing to the finite spatial resolution and slit width. Thus the central rotation curve is not straightforwardly obtained from an observed PV diagram. We adopt the Takamiya & Sofue method (TS method; Takamiya & Sofue in private communication, and see Sofue & Rubin, 2001) to obtain the rotation curve of the nuclear core. This method is designed to iteratively determine a rotation curve in an innermost region of a galaxy so that a model PV diagram calculated from the rotation curve and the galaxy’s emission profile could reproduce the original diagram.

Figure 15 displays PV diagrams and rotation curves of the nuclear core: the left-hand panel shows the observed one along the galaxy major axis with $`1\mathrm{}`$ slit-width, while the middle and right-hand panels show the calculated ones in the TS method and in the peak-tracing method respectively. The emission profile at the center ($`1\mathrm{}`$) cannot be derived directly from our data owing to our spatial resolution ($`2\mathrm{}`$). But the observations are indicative of its very sharp gradient, because even a point source can reproduce our observed profile through a convolution with the synthesized beam. Thus we assumed the emission profile as an analytic function of an exponential with the scale length of $`1\mathrm{}`$, which well reproduces observed features on the PV diagram. We assumed intrinsic velocity dispersions of $`60\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (e.g. $`1550\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the Galactic center from Bally, Stark & Wilson, 1988, which is less active than NGC 3079).

The PV diagram and rotation curve from the TS method show that the envelope of the observed PV diagram requires a sharp rise of the rotation curve at the central region. The observed emission at around $`0\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which is not well reproduced in the TS method, may be contaminated by the emission from the nuclear disk surrounding the nuclear core. For a comparison, the right-hand panel displays the PV diagram using the rotation curve derived by tracing peak-intensity velocities of the observed PV diagram (the peak-tracing method); this method is often used to obtain rotation curves, but fails in reproducing the observed high velocity at the central part.

### 5.2 Mass Estimation and Central Massive Core

The dynamical mass within a radius $`r`$ is estimated by

$$M_{\mathrm{dyn}}=2.3\times 10^5\left(\frac{r}{\mathrm{kpc}}\right)\left(\frac{v(r)}{\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^2M_{}.$$
(4)
Our spatial resolution is about $`2\mathrm{}`$ ($`152\mathrm{pc}`$), and the rotation velocity at this radius is $`220\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ from the rotation curve in the TS method (Figure 15 middle). Thus the dynamical mass within the central $`152\mathrm{pc}`$ of NGC 3079 is estimated to be $`M_{\mathrm{dyn}}=1.7\times 10^9M_{}`$. The ratio of dynamical mass to the total molecular gas mass ($`3.0\times 10^8M_{}`$ from §3.4) in the nuclear core is $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}/M_{\mathrm{dyn}}=18\%`$.

The rotation curve is meaningful at the radius less than $`2\mathrm{}`$, even though the spatial resolution is only $`2\mathrm{}`$: We can distinguish two emission peaks only if their spatial separation is larger than $`2\mathrm{}`$ on a single channel map or zeroth-moment map. However on the PV diagram and rotation curve, the additional parameter, velocity, provides a finer spatial resolution, because two emission peaks with different velocities can be resolved in the PV diagram even if their separation is less than $`2\mathrm{}`$. Then the spatial resolution will be determined by the typical error of a gaussian fit to a point source, which depends on the signal-to-noise ratio, and in our case is $`1\mathrm{}`$ (see Condon, 1997). Therefore the velocity of $`200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at the radius of $`1\mathrm{}`$ ($`76\mathrm{pc}`$) is meaningful, and implies a dynamical mass of $`M_{\mathrm{dyn}}=7.0\times 10^8M_{}`$ within the radius of $`76\mathrm{pc}`$. The derived masses are listed in Table 4.

Recently central supermassive black holes with mass $`10^{78}M_{}`$ have been found in many AGNs (Miyoshi et al., 1995; Wandel, Peterson & Malkan, 1999; Ishihara et al., 2001). In the case of NGC 3079, VLBI observations of $`\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}`$ maser emission indicate that its central mass within $`0.5\mathrm{pc}`$ is $`10^6M_{}`$ (Trotter et al., 1998). Thus our mass $`10^9M_{}`$ within $`100\mathrm{pc}`$ cannot be attributed to this central supermassive black hole. The connection between this large dynamical mass and the nuclear outflow in parsec-scale (Henkel et al., 1984; Irwin & Seaquist, 1988; Trotter et al., 1998) and kiloparsec-scale (Duric & Seaquist, 1988; Ford et al., 1986) in this galaxy will be an interesting issue for future investigations.

## 6 CONCLUSIONS

We have made CO (1-0) observations of the $`\mathrm{H}\alpha `$/Radio lobe galaxy NGC 3079 with the Nobeyama Millimeter Array, and reported characteristic features and gas dynamics in the molecular disk in the central $`4.5\mathrm{kpc}`$ ($`1\mathrm{}`$).

1. Our observations show four distinct components in the molecular disk: the main disk, spiral arms, nuclear disk, and nuclear core.

2. The main disk extends along the galaxy major axis. We detected the inner region of this component, within the radius of $`2\mathrm{kpc}`$ on a zeroth-moment map, while its full extent is not covered in our synthesis observations. Molecular gas shows a smooth distribution on the main disk, and has a gas mass of $`5\times 10^9M_{}`$ within the central $`2\mathrm{kpc}`$.

3. The spiral arms are superimposed on the main disk, forming an inverted $`S`$-shaped pattern on the sky. Abrupt velocity changes of up to $`200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ are observed along the spiral arms, in $`S`$-shaped twists of isovelocity contours and double velocity-peaked features on the spectra. This component and the nuclear disk form the so-called “figure-of-eight” pattern on a PV diagram, which sometimes appears in edge-on barred galaxies.

4. The nuclear disk, appearing in PV diagrams, has an extent of $`600\mathrm{pc}`$ radius. The molecular gas is intensely concentrated on the nuclear disk, where the gas surface density is an order of magnitude higher than that typical of nearby galaxies. Its appearance (bends and twist) on PV diagrams is indicative of oval motions in the gas, rather than circular. And the position angle of the oval orbits is inclined southward from our line-of-sight.

5. The nuclear core has a radius smaller than $`150\mathrm{pc}`$, which is unresolved in our current observations. The gas mass within the central $`150\mathrm{pc}`$ amounts to $`3\times 10^8M_{}`$. This component shows a very high velocity $`200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at the radius of the central $`100\mathrm{pc}`$ on the PV diagram.

6. A weak bar model explain the features of the main disk, spiral arms, and nuclear disk in zeroth- and first-moment maps, PV diagrams, and the spectrum at each spatial point. The main disk and spiral arms result from gaseous $`x_1`$-orbits and their crowding respectively. The nuclear disk arises from gaseous $`x_2`$-orbits. The gas concentration in the nuclear disk is also explained in the context of our model: the gas on $`x_1`$-orbits moves along spiral arms (or offset shocks), collides with the gas on $`x_2`$-orbits, and is accumulated onto the nuclear disk. Assuming that the gas in spiral arms moves along streamlines perpendicular to our line-of-sight, the pattern speed of the bar can be estimated to be $`55\pm 10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{kpc}^1`$.

7. Our model for a bar however does not explain the high velocity of the nuclear core. Moreover, any orbit caused by a bar is not likely to produce that component. Thus we attribute it to a central massive core with a dynamical mass of $`10^9M_{}`$ within the central $`100\mathrm{pc}`$, which is three orders of magnitude more massive than the mass of a central supermassive black hole.

We are grateful to the NRO staff and Rainbow team members for their help with observations. We thank Mr. Toshihito Shibatsuka for kindly showing his results prior to publication. We also thank the referee for useful comments. J. K. thanks Dr. Toshihiro Handa for careful reading of the manuscript and fruitful comments, Dr. Keiichi Wada for useful discussions and continuous encouragements, and Dr. Kentaro Aoki for his help with the analysis of the HST data. J. K. was financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists.


text:
# Improved upper and lower energy bounds for antiferromagnetic Heisenberg spin systems

## 1 Introduction

Rigorous results on spin systems like the Marshall-Peierls sign rule Mar:PRS55  and the famous theorems of Lieb, Schultz, and Mattis LSM:AP61 ; LiM:JMP62  have sharpened our understanding of magnetic phenomena. In addition such results can serve as a basis or source of inspiration for the development of approximate models. For example, the inequalities of Lieb and Berezin Lie:CMP73 ; Ber:CMP75  relating spectral properties of quantum systems to those of their classical counterparts provide a foundation for classical or semi-classical treatments of spin systems.

In this article we will extend the body of rigorous results on Heisenberg spin systems by generalizing the notion of “bi-partiteness”, which is fundamental for the findings of Marshall, Lieb, Schultz, and Mattis Mar:PRS55 ; LSM:AP61 ; LiM:JMP62 . We will introduce two new concepts which rest on the topological properties of the interaction matrix connecting the spins of the systems.

The first concept, n-cyclicity, uses the property of many spin systems that their “net” of interactions can be wrapped round an $`n`$-cycle. The triangular lattice may serve as an example, it can be mapped onto a triangle in an oriented manner as if one would wrap it round the triangle. In such cases an upper bound of the minimal energies $`E_{\text{min}}`$ in each subspace $`(M)`$ of total magnetic quantum number $`M`$ can be derived for Heisenberg models and XXZ models in general.

The second concept which leads to lower bounds rests on n-homogeneity, i. e. on the fact that the set of spins can be decomposed into $`n`$ subsets of equal size where the interactions inside and between spins of different subsets fulfill certain conditions.

Fortunately, many Heisenberg spin systems comply with both concepts such that both bounds are available. For all cases which were investigated it turns out that the upper bounds are rather close to the true minimal energies, whereas the lower bounds are not. Therefore, especially the upper bound can serve are a benchmark or guideline for approximate methods like DMRG or variational methods in order to rate the achieved quality.

The resulting bounds improve earlier findings of Ref. Lie:CMP73 ; Ber:CMP75 ; SSL:EPL01  especially for frustrated spin systems.

The article is organized as follows. In section 2 upper bounds and the concept of n-cyclicity will be discussed, in section 3 lower bounds and n-homogeneity will be introduced. Both sections start with subsections explaining the idea followed by more mathematical subsections presenting the mathematical tools. At the end of each section the resulting bounds are given. Examples are provided in section 4. A more technical calculation is carried out in the appendix.

## 2 Upper bounds

### 2.1 Idea

It is obvious from the Ritz variational principle that an upper bound for the minimal energy can be provided if an appropriate trial state can be found for which the energy expectation value is known analytically and rather close to the exact ground state value. In the following we will construct such trial states for subspaces $`(M)`$, i. e. for total magnetic quantum number $`M`$. Starting point is the magnon vacuum ($`M=Ns`$) which is mapped by means of suitable powers of the total ladder operator into the subspace $`(M)`$. Since the total ladder operator commutes with the Heisenberg Hamilton operator this does not change the energy of that state. In a second step we assume a certain topological property of the spin array namely that it can be wrapped round an $`n`$-cycle and construct a generalized “Bloch operator” which is a unitary operator that adds appropriate phases to the components of the trial state. Utilizing the known action of the Bloch operator onto the Hamiltonian we can evaluate the energy expectation value analytically which results in the expression for the upper bound.

In order to motivate our definitions in the next subsection we recall the definition of a bi-partite spin system in the case of constant coupling: It is required that the spin sites can be grouped into $`+`$sites and $``$sites such that only $`+`$ pairs are coupled but no $`++`$ or $``$ pairs. We suggest the following generalization: Assume that complex phase factors $`e^{i\varphi _j}`$ can be attached to spin sites $`j`$ such that only constant phase differences $`|\varphi _j\varphi _k|`$ occur between adjacent (coupled) spin sites. This is the requirement needed for the above-mentioned construction of the Bloch operator. The attachment of phase factors is no longer arbitrary if there are “loops” in the coupling scheme of the spin system, i. e. periodic sequences of adjacent spin sites. If only even loops exist we may choose the phase differences to be $`|\varphi _j\varphi _k|=\pi `$ and the system is bi-partite. However, in the case of odd loops it becomes necessary to “wrap” the loop around the complex unit circle and the resulting phase differences will be integer fractions of $`2\pi `$. We will make this more precise in the next subsection employing the language of graph theory.

### 2.2 Definition of n-cyclicity

In this section we consider systems with $`N`$ spin sites with spin $`s`$ and constant anti-ferromagnetic coupling. Thus the complete information about the coupling scheme is encoded in some (undirected) graph $`\gamma =(𝒱,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. The vertices of $`\gamma `$ are the spin sites, $`𝒱=\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$, the set of edges of $`\gamma `$ consists of those pairs of sites which are coupled and will be denoted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We make the convention that $`i,j\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ iff $`j,i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`i,i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Hence the number of members of the set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, denoted by $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$, equals twice the number of bonds. Further, we will consider orientations on $`\gamma `$, denoted by $`\gamma ^+`$, i. e. we split $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ into disjoint subsets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, such that $`i,j\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ iff $`j,i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Then the Hamiltonian of $`XXZ`$-type can be written in the form

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\delta {\displaystyle \underset{i,j\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}s_i^{(3)}s_j^{(3)}+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j\mathrm{\Gamma }^+}{}}s_i^+s_j^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{}}s_i^+s_j^{}`$ (1)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }+𝒢+𝒢^{},`$ (2)
where $`\delta >0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{s}_i`$ denote the usual spin observables at site $`i`$ with components $`s_i^{(\mu )},\mu =1,2,3`$, and $`s_i^\pm s_i^{(1)}\pm is_i^{(2)}`$. Of course, only the splitting (2) depends on the orientation, not the Hamiltonian itself.

In order to define a suitable concept of n-cyclicity we consider graph homomorphisms, i. e. maps between graphs, such that vertices are mapped onto vertices and the corresponding edges onto corresponding edges. Let $`𝒞_n`$ denote the cyclic graph with $`n`$ vertices which will be identified with the $`n`$-th roots of unity

$$e^{i\alpha _{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi i\mathrm{}}{n}\right),\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{},n1.$$
(3)
Further $`𝒞_n^+`$ will denote the cyclic graph with anti-clockwise orientation.

Any graph $`\gamma `$ (or the spin system itself) will be called n-cyclic or having the cyclicity $`n`$ iff there exists a graph homomorphism

$$h:\gamma 𝒞_n.$$
(4)
In this case $`𝒞_n^+`$ will induce an orientation on $`\gamma `$ in an obvious sense.

It is only in certain cases that different cyclicities $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ mean an essential distinctness. This is because for $`n4`$ any $`n`$-cyclic system is also $`(n2)`$-cyclic since three successive vertices and the corresponding edges can be mapped in a forward-backward-forward way, compare the l.h.s. of Fig. 1, which shows a homomorphism of a pentagon onto a triangle, as an example. Each $`2m`$-ring and hence any $`2m`$-cyclic system is $`n`$-cyclic for any positive integers $`m,n`$, since it is $`2`$-cyclic and $`𝒞_2`$ can be homomorphically embedded into any $`n`$-cycle.

Hence it makes only sense to distinguish between even-cyclic systems, which will be called $`2`$-cyclic, and $`(2n+1)`$-cyclic system with maximal integer $`n`$. If a spin system is $`2`$-cyclic in our sense it will be bi-partite in the sense of Refs. LSM:AP61 ; LiM:JMP62 , where, however, the theory also comprises cases with different coupling constants.

We consider some more examples which illustrate the definition of cyclicity. A triangular plane lattice with suitable periodic boundary conditions is $`3`$-cyclic, a square lattice or cubic lattice is $`2`$-cyclic. The kagomé lattice is $`3`$-cyclic but not $`2`$-cyclic. $`3`$-cyclicity is equivalent to $`3`$-colorability. Hence the octahedron, the dodecahedron, the cuboctahedron, and the icosidodecahedron are $`3`$-cyclic, cf. AxL:PRB01 , but the tetrahedron is not, see r.h.s. of Figure 1.

A natural basis for a matrix representation of $`H`$ is provided by the product states $`|𝐦=|m_1\mathrm{}m_N,sm_is`$ with

$$s_i^{(3)}|𝐦=m_i|𝐦,$$
(5)
and

$$s_i^\pm |𝐦=\sqrt{s(s+1)m_i(m_i\pm 1)}|m_1,\mathrm{},m_i\pm 1,\mathrm{},m_N$$
(6)
for all $`i\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$. The state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|s,s,\mathrm{},s`$ will be called the “magnon vacuum”. Further we define

$$a\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_i=NsM,a_i=sm_i\text{ for all }i\{1,\mathrm{},N\}.$$
(7)
We also define a mapping $`\widehat{h}`$ of product states into complex numbers which depends on the graph homomorphism (4) by

$$\widehat{h}(𝐦)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}h(i)^{a_i}.$$
(8)
Then it is easily shown that if $`𝐦|𝒢|𝐦^{}0`$ then $`\widehat{h}(𝐦)=e^{2\pi i/n}\widehat{h}(𝐦^{})`$.

For any $`\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{},N1`$ we define a unitary “Bloch operator” (generalizing the corresponding definition for spin rings in Ref. AfL:LMP86 )

$$U_{\mathrm{}}:(M)(M)$$
(9)
by

$$U_{\mathrm{}}|𝐦=\widehat{h}(𝐦)^{\mathrm{}}|𝐦$$
(10)
and linear extension. Recall that $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=2\pi \mathrm{}/n`$. Then the following relations hold:

$`U_{\mathrm{}}^{}𝒢U_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\alpha _{\mathrm{}}}𝒢`$ (11)
$`U_{\mathrm{}}^{}HU_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}(𝒢+𝒢^{})i\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}(𝒢𝒢^{}).`$ (12)
If $`E_{\text{min}}(M)`$ denotes the minimal energy eigenvalue within the sector $`(M)`$ and $`|\phi (M)`$ is an arbitrary normalized state we have the obvious upper bound

$$E_{\text{min}}(M)\phi |H|\phi .$$
(13)
The problem is to find a state $`|\phi `$ such that $`\phi |H|\phi `$ can be explicitly calculated and represents a close bound. To this end we map the magnon vacuum $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by $`(S^{})^a`$ into $`(M)`$, which remains an eigenstate of $`H`$ with the largest eigenvalue in the Heisenberg case $`\delta =1`$, and change its phases according to the Bloch operator. More precisely, let

$$|\mathrm{\Omega }_MC_M(S^{})^a|\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(14)
where $`C_M`$ is the positive normalization factor, compare (52), ensuring $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M|\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1`$ and define

$$|\phi |\phi _{M,\mathrm{}}U_{\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{\Omega }_M,$$
(15)
Then we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M|\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\frac{\delta |\mathrm{\Gamma }|}{N}\left\{Ns^2\frac{2sa(2Nsa)}{2Ns1}\right\}.$$
(16)
As it must be, this result has the obvious value $`\delta |\mathrm{\Gamma }|s^2`$ for $`a=0`$ and remains unchanged under $`a2Nsa`$. The proof of Eq. (16) is given in appendix A.

Now consider

$`\phi |H|\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M|U_{\mathrm{}}^{}HU_{\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M|\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}(𝒢+𝒢^{})|\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_M|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\delta }}+(𝒢+𝒢^{})|\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$
$`+(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}}{\delta }})\mathrm{\Omega }_M|\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$
$`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|s^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$
$`+(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}}{\delta }}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta |\mathrm{\Gamma }|}{N}}\left(Ns^2{\displaystyle \frac{2sa(2Nsa)}{2Ns1}}\right).`$
In line (18) we used (12) and the fact that $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`𝒢`$ are real in the product basis of the $`|𝐦`$ whence $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M|(𝒢𝒢^{})|\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0`$. Eq. (2.2) follows by Eq. (16) and the observation that $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\delta }+(𝒢+𝒢^{})`$ is a Heisenberg Hamiltonian which has the eigenstate $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ with eigenvalue $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|s^2`$.

For spin rings and $`a=1`$, $`|\phi `$ is nothing else but the relative ground state. Generally for spin rings, $`|\phi `$ has the same shift quantum number as the relative ground state BHS:PRB03 .

### 2.3 Analytical expression for the upper bound

The best bound for $`E_{\text{min}}(M)`$ is obtained if $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ in (2.2) is as low as possible, i. e. $`\mathrm{}=\frac{n}{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=1`$ for even $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{}=\frac{n\pm 1}{2}`$ for odd $`n`$. Therefore the upper bound is given by

$$E_{\text{min}}(M)c|\mathrm{\Gamma }|s^2+(1\frac{c}{\delta })\frac{\delta |\mathrm{\Gamma }|}{N}\left(Ns^2\frac{2sa(2Nsa)}{2Ns1}\right),$$
(21)
where $`c=1`$ in the case of even $`n`$ and $`c=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi }{n}`$ for odd $`n`$. Let $`\delta =1`$ and $`Ns`$ be integer. Then the total ground state lies in the sector $`M=0`$. In this case we obtain

$$E_{\text{min}}(0)c|\mathrm{\Gamma }|s^2+\frac{(1+c)|\mathrm{\Gamma }|s^2}{2Ns1},$$
(22)
which improves the upper Berezin-Lieb bound $`E_{\text{min}}^{\text{classical}}s^2`$, see Lie:CMP73 ; Ber:CMP75 , if $`c|\mathrm{\Gamma }|=E_{\text{min}}^{\text{classical}}`$.

## 3 Lower bounds

### 3.1 Idea

For the lower bound to be derived in the following section the interaction matrix $`𝕁(J_{\mu \nu })`$ describing the coupling between spins at sites $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ must have certain homogeneity properties. The matrix must be symmetric and must have constant row sum. This alone is sufficient to derive some lower bounds SSL:EPL01 , which can be improved using the topological structure of the interactions, as will be shown in the following.

The derivation works by constructing another “averaged” Hamiltonian having an analytically diagonalizable interaction matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝕁}`$, which nevertheless has only eigenvalues already present for the original interaction matrix $`𝕁`$. Since, by construction, $`𝕁\stackrel{~}{𝕁}`$, this relation also holds for the related Hamiltonians, and we arrive at a lower bound. Extending this idea the obtained lower bounds could be improved for particular systems. However, in this article we will confine ourselves to deriving bounds for general classes of systems.

Using the topological structure of the interactions will further enable us to determine the degeneracy of some eigenvalues of $`𝕁`$ and therefore improve the calculations of Ref. SSL:EPL01  where this information was not exploited.

### 3.2 Definition of n-homogeneity

The Hamiltonian used in this section is different from that of the previous section and assumed to be of the form

$$H=\underset{\mu \nu }{}J_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{s}_\mu \stackrel{}{s}_\nu .$$
(23)
The matrix $`𝕁`$ of coupling constants $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ is assumed to be symmetric and having constant row sums $`j`$. The latter property can be viewed as a kind of gauge condition, since adding a diagonal matrix with vanishing trace to $`𝕁`$ does not change the Hamiltonian (23), see Ref. SL:JPA03 .

Being symmetrical, $`𝕁`$ has a complete set of (ordered) eigenvalues $`j_1,\mathrm{},j_N`$. One of them is the row sum $`j`$ with $`\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ as the corresponding eigenvector. Let $`𝕁^{}`$ denote the matrix $`𝕁`$ restricted to the subspace orthogonal to $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, and $`j_{\text{min}}`$ the smallest eigenvalue of $`𝕁^{}`$. $`j_{\text{min}}`$ may be $`m`$-fold degenerate. Further, we will denote the $`\alpha `$-th normalized eigenvector of $`𝕁`$ by $`(c_{1\alpha },\mathrm{},c_{N\alpha })`$, i. e.

$$\underset{\nu }{}J_{\mu \nu }c_{\nu \alpha }=j_\alpha c_{\mu \alpha },\underset{\mu }{}\overline{c_{\mu \alpha }}c_{\mu \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta },\alpha ,\beta ,\mu =1,\mathrm{},N,$$
(24)
where we also allow for the possibility to choose complex eigenvectors. Sums over $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N`$ excluding $`\alpha _j`$ will be denoted by $`^{}`$, where $`\alpha _j`$ denotes the index (within the ordered set of all eigenvalues) of the eigenvalue $`j`$ belonging to the eigenvector $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

For later use we will consider a transformation of the spin observables analogous to the transformation onto the eigenbasis of $`𝕁`$ and define

$`\stackrel{}{T}_\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\overline{c_{\mu \alpha }}\stackrel{}{s}_\mu ,\text{ and }Q_\alpha \stackrel{}{T}_\alpha ^{}\stackrel{}{T}_\alpha ,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N.`$ (25)
The inverse transformation then yields

$$\stackrel{}{s}_\mu =\underset{\alpha }{}c_{\mu \alpha }\stackrel{}{T}_\alpha ,\mu =1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(26)
In particular, $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\alpha _j}=\stackrel{}{S}/\sqrt{N}`$. It then follows directly from the definitions that

$$Ns(s+1)=\underset{\mu }{}(\stackrel{}{s}_\mu )^2=\underset{\alpha }{}Q_\alpha =\frac{1}{N}\stackrel{}{S}^2+\underset{\alpha }{}{}_{}{}^{}Q_{\alpha }^{},$$
(27)
$$H=\underset{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }{}J_{\mu \nu }\overline{c_{\mu \alpha }}c_{\nu \beta }\stackrel{}{T}_\alpha ^{}\stackrel{}{T}_\beta =\underset{\beta }{}j_\beta Q_\beta =\frac{j}{N}\stackrel{}{S}^2+\underset{\beta }{}{}_{}{}^{}j_{\beta }^{}Q_\beta .$$
(28)
For a later use we also need a relation between Hamiltonians with different coupling matrices. Therefore, let $`H`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ be two Hamiltonians of the form (23) with coupling matrices $`𝕁`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝕁}`$, such that $`𝕁\stackrel{~}{𝕁}`$. Then $`H\stackrel{~}{H}`$. As usual the ordering “$``$” of operators is defined by the corresponding inequality for arbitrary expectation values. Since $`H`$ depends linearly on $`𝕁`$ it suffices to show that $`𝕁0`$ implies $`H0`$. But this is obvious in view of (28): $`H=_\beta j_\beta Q_\beta `$ with $`j_\beta 0`$ and $`Q_\beta 0`$.

Next we turn to the suitable definition of n-homogeneity. Let the set of spin sites $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ be divided into $`n`$ disjoint subsets of equal size $`m`$, $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}=_{\nu =1}^n𝒜_\nu `$, such that the coupling constants within each $`𝒜_\nu `$ are $`0`$, but $`0`$ between $`𝒜_\nu `$ and $`𝒜_\mu `$ for $`\nu \mu `$. Moreover, the partial row sums are assumed to be constant:

$$\underset{b𝒜_\mu }{}J_{ab}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}j^{\text{in}}\hfill & \text{if}& a𝒜_\mu \hfill \\ j^{\text{ex}}\hfill & \text{if}& a𝒜_\mu \hfill \end{array}.$$
(29)
A spin system satisfying the assumptions of this section will be called n-homogeneous, see Mar:PRS55 ; LSM:AP61 ; LiM:JMP62 . Note that this notion is incommensurable to n-cyclicity defined in the previous section. However, certain rings, the triangular lattice, the kagomé lattice, and the icosidodecahedron satisfy both definitions. A necessary condition for nearest neighbor Heisenberg systems to be n-homogeneous is that the number of nearest neighbors, which is assumed to be constant, is divisible by $`(n1)`$. Actually, spin rings of even $`N`$ are $`2`$-homogeneous, rings of odd $`N`$ are $`3`$-homogeneous if $`N`$ is divisible by 3. n-homogeneous Heisenberg rings do not exist for $`n>3`$ because they do not fulfill the homogeneity condition (29).

We recall that $`\mathrm{𝟏}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ is an eigenvector of $`𝕁`$ with eigenvalue $`j`$. Due to n-homogeneity there are, after a suitable permutation of the spin sites, further eigenvectors of the form

$$u^{(k)}=(m:1,m:\rho ^k,m:\rho ^{2k},\mathrm{},m:\rho ^{(n1)k}),k=1,\mathrm{},n1,$$
(30)
where $`(m:x,\mathrm{})`$ denotes the $`m`$-fold repetition of the entry $`x`$, and $`\rho e^{2\pi i/n}`$. The corresponding eigenvalues are $`j_k=j^{\text{in}}+j^{\text{ex}}_{p=1}^{n1}\rho ^{pk}=j^{\text{in}}j^{\text{ex}}`$, hence they coalesce into one $`(n1)`$-fold degenerate eigenvalue. By applying the theorem of Geršgorin (c.f. Lan69 , 7.2) this eigenvalue is shown to be the smallest one $`j_{\text{min}}`$.

Next we construct a coupling matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝕁}`$ with the same eigenspaces as $`𝕁`$ but only three different eigenvalues. It has the block structure

$$\stackrel{~}{𝕁}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}A& C& C& \mathrm{}\\ C& A& C& \mathrm{}\\ C& C& A& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right),$$
(31)
where $`A`$ and $`C`$ are $`m\times m`$-matrices of the form

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\beta & \alpha & \alpha & \mathrm{}\\ \alpha & \beta & \alpha & \mathrm{}\\ \alpha & \alpha & \beta & \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right),C=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma & \gamma & \gamma & \mathrm{}\\ \gamma & \gamma & \gamma & \mathrm{}\\ \gamma & \gamma & \gamma & \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right).$$
(32)
The three eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{𝕁}`$ are

$`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (m1)\alpha +(Nm)\gamma ,`$ (33)
$`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}_{\text{min}}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (m1)\alpha m\gamma ,`$ (34)
$`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha +\beta `$ (35)
with degeneracies $`1,n1`$ and $`Nn`$, resp. By choosing

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(nj_2j(n1)j_{\text{min}}),`$ (36)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}((Nn)j_2+j+(n1)j_{\text{min}}),`$ (37)
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{jj_{\text{min}}}{N}},`$ (38)
one obtains

$$\stackrel{~}{ȷ}=j,\stackrel{~}{ȷ}_{\text{min}}=j_{\text{min}},\stackrel{~}{ȷ}_2=j_2.$$
(39)
$`j_2`$ is the remaining smallest eigenvalue of $`𝕁^{}`$ after eliminating $`(n1)`$-times $`j_{\text{min}}`$ from the set of eigenvalues. Thus it can happen that $`j_2=j_{\text{min}}`$ if $`j_{\text{min}}`$ is more than $`(n1)`$-fold degenerate.

Let us write $`\stackrel{}{S}_𝒜_{a𝒜}\stackrel{}{s}_a`$ for any subset $`𝒜\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$. We conclude

$`H`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}=\alpha \left({\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}\stackrel{}{S}_{𝒜_\nu }^2\right)+(\alpha +\beta )Ns(s+1)+\gamma \left(\stackrel{}{S}^2{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}\stackrel{}{S}_{𝒜_\nu }^2\right)`$ (40)
$``$ $`\gamma S(S+1)(\alpha +\gamma )n{\displaystyle \frac{N}{n}}s({\displaystyle \frac{N}{n}}s+1)+(\alpha +\beta )Ns(s+1).`$ (41)
### 3.3 Analytical expression for the lower bound

Hence we obtain for the lower bound

$`E`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{jj_{\text{min}}}{N}}S(S+1)+Nj_{\text{min}}s(s+1)+(Nn)(j_2j_{\text{min}})s.`$ (42)
Since $`j_2j_{\text{min}}0`$ the bound (42) is the better, the smaller $`n`$ is. This is in contrast to the upper bound considered in the previous section, which is improved for large odd $`n`$.

## 4 Examples

In the following examples we calculate the energy eigenvalues by numerical methods as well as lower and upper bounds. All examples are Heisenberg spin systems where the total spin $`S`$ is a good quantum number. It turns out that $`SE_{\text{min}}(S)`$ is always a monotonically increasing function, hence we need not to distinguish between $`E_{\text{min}}(S)`$ and $`E_{\text{min}}(M)`$.

In order to judge the quality of the bounds we provide the deviation of the best upper and lower bound from the exact ground state energy in relation to the energy difference between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic ground state, i. e.

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|E_{\text{bound},0}E_0|}{E(Ns)E_0}}.`$ (43)
The first example we would like to consider is a Heisenberg spin ring with $`N=6`$ and $`s=1/2`$ as well as $`s=5/2`$. Figure 2 shows the numerically determined energy eigenvalues (dashes) as a function of total spin $`S`$. The solid curves display the bounds for the minimal energies considering $`2`$-cyclicity and $`2`$-homogeneity.

As a second example we take a frustrated Heisenberg ring with $`N=9`$ and $`s=1/2`$ as well as $`s=3/2`$. The results are presented in Fig. 3. The solid curves display the upper bounds for the minimal energies considering $`9`$-cyclicity, the dashed curves do the same for $`3`$-homogeneity. Without using the concept of $`n`$-homogeneity the lower bounds are much poorer for frustrated systems SSL:EPL01 .

Another example, an icosidodecahedral Heisenberg spin system, is related to magnetic molecules, which can be synthesized in such structures. One species is given by {Mo<sub>72</sub>Fe<sub>30</sub>}, a molecule where 30 Fe<sup>3+</sup> paramagnetic ions ($`s=5/2`$) occupy the sites of a perfect icosidodecahedron polytopes  and interact via isotropic nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic Heisenberg exchange MSS:ACIE99 . Not much is known about the spectrum of such giant structures since the Hilbert space assumes a very large dimension of $`6^{30}10^{23}`$. So far only DMRG calculations could approximate the minimal energies MeS:PRB03 .

Figure 4 shows as dashes on the l.h.s. the minimal energies for $`s=1/2`$ which are determined numerically by J. Richter with a Lánczos method SSR:EPJB01 ; Ric:PC  and on the r.h.s. the minimal DMRG energies MeS:PRB03 . The icosidodecahedral Heisenberg spin system is $`3`$-cyclic as well as $`3`$-homogeneous. The corresponding bounds are displayed by solid curves. Especially the upper bound for the case of $`s=5/2`$ is very close to the “true” (DMRG) minimal energies and thus could be used to justify approximations of the low-lying spectrum as used in Ref. SLM:EPL01 . The lower bounds are worse than expected, but this behavior is explained by the 10-fold degeneracy of $`j_{\text{min}}`$, therefore $`j_2=j_{\text{min}}`$, and the last term in (42) yields zero, unfortunately.

The last example discusses the triangular spin lattice which is one of the frustrated two-dimensional spin systems. The triangular spin lattice is $`3`$-homogeneous and $`3`$-cyclic, if the periodic boundary conditions are suitably chosen. Figure 5 displays the energy levels for $`N=12`$ and $`s=1/2`$ (l.h.s.) as well as $`s=1`$ (r.h.s.). The bounds of $`E_{\text{min}}(S)`$ are given by solid curves. In both cases the upper bound is very close to the exact minimal energies.

For the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ of the triangular lattice with $`\delta =1`$ we rewrite the bounds by introducing a continuous spin variable $`S_c=S/N`$ running from $`0`$ to $`s`$ and using $`j=6`$, $`j_{\text{min}}=3`$ with twofold degeneracy, and $`lim_N\mathrm{}j_2=3`$. After dividing by $`N`$ the resulting bounds are separated only by $`3s`$:

$`9S_c^23s^23s\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\text{min}}(S)}{N}}9S_c^23s^2.`$ (44)
## Appendix A Proof of Eq. (16)

For easy readability we repeat Equation (16)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M|\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\frac{\delta |\mathrm{\Gamma }|}{N}\left\{Ns^2\frac{2sa(2Nsa)}{2Ns1}\right\}.$$
(45)
Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ is invariant w. r. t. arbitrary permutations of spin sites it suffices to choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }=s_1^{(3)}s_2^{(3)}`$ and to multiply the result for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M|\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ by $`\delta |\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$. We note that

$$[\mathrm{\Delta },S^{}]=(s_1^{(3)}s_2^{}+s_1^{}s_2^{(3)}),$$
(46)
and

$$[[\mathrm{\Delta },S^{}],S^{}]=2s_1^{}s_2^{},$$
(47)
but higher commutators vanish. Hence

$$[\mathrm{\Delta },(S^{})^a]=a(S^{})^{a1}[\mathrm{\Delta },S^{}]+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{2}\right)(S^{})^{a2}[[\mathrm{\Delta },S^{}],S^{}].$$
(48)
Further we define $`\lambda (a,k)`$ by

$$(S^+)^a(S^{})^a(S^{})^k|\mathrm{\Omega }=\lambda (a,k)(S^{})^k|\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(49)
Using $`S^+S^{}=S^2S^{(3)}(S^{(3)}1)`$ one derives the recursion relation

$$\lambda (a+1,k)=(2Nsak)(a+k+1)\lambda (a,k).$$
(50)
Together with $`\lambda (0,k)=1`$ it can be solved and yields

$$\lambda (a,k)=\frac{(2Nsk)!}{(2Nsak)!}\frac{(a+k)!}{k!}.$$
(51)
Obviously,

$$C_M^2=\lambda (a,0)^1=\frac{(2Nsa)!}{(2Ns)!a!},$$
(52)
hence

$$C_M^2\lambda (a1,1)=\frac{(2Nsa)!}{(2Ns)!a!}\frac{(2Ns1)!a!}{(2Nsa)!1!}=\frac{1}{2Ns},$$
(53)
and

$$C_M^2\lambda (a2,2)=\frac{(2Nsa)!}{(2Ns)!a!}\frac{(2Ns2)!a!}{(2Nsa)!2!}=\frac{1}{4Ns(2Ns1)}.$$
(54)
Now we are prepared to calculate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M|\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_M|\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ $`=`$ $`C_M^2\mathrm{\Omega }_M|(S^{})^a\mathrm{\Delta }+[\mathrm{\Delta },(S^{})^a]|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`s^2+aC_M^2\mathrm{\Omega }_M|(S^{})^{a1}[\mathrm{\Delta },S^{}]|\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{2}}\right)C_M^2\mathrm{\Omega }_M|(S^{})^{a2}[[\mathrm{\Delta },S^{}],S^{}]|\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=`$ $`s^2+aC_M^2(S^+)^{a1}(S^{})^{a1}S^{}\mathrm{\Omega }|[\mathrm{\Delta },S^{}]|\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{2}}\right)C_M^2(S^+)^{a2}(S^{})^{a2}(S^{})^2\mathrm{\Omega }|[[\mathrm{\Delta },S^{}],S^{}]|\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=`$ $`s^2+aC_M^2\lambda (a1,1)S^{}\mathrm{\Omega }|[\mathrm{\Delta },S^{}]|\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{2}}\right)C_M^2\lambda (a2,2)(S^{})^2\mathrm{\Omega }|[[\mathrm{\Delta },S^{}],S^{}]|\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=`$ $`s^2+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2Ns}}(4s^2)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4Ns(2Ns1)}}16s^2`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left\{Ns^2{\displaystyle \frac{2sa(2Nsa)}{2Ns1}}\right\}.`$ (60)
In line (A) we used (48). (59) is obtained by means of (53), (54) and the identities

$`S^{}\mathrm{\Omega }|[\mathrm{\Delta },S^{}]|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`S^{}\mathrm{\Omega }|(s_1^{(3)}s_2^{}+s_1^{}s_2^{(3)})|\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=`$ $`2s_2^{}\mathrm{\Omega }|s_1^{(3)}s_2^{}|\mathrm{\Omega }=2s(s(s+1)s(s1))`$
$`=`$ $`4s^2,`$
and

$`(S^{})^2\mathrm{\Omega }|[[\mathrm{\Delta },S^{}],S^{}]|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`(S^{})^2\mathrm{\Omega }|2s_1^{}s_2^{}|\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=`$ $`4s_1^{}s_2^{}\mathrm{\Omega }|s_1^{}s_2^{}|\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=`$ $`4(s(s+1)s(s1))^2`$
$`=`$ $`16s^2.`$
This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Johannes Richter for fruitful discussions.