text:
# Chaos and Shadowing Around a Homoclinic Tube

## 1. Introduction

In , Silnikov introduced the concept of a homoclinic tube which can be obtained through a transversal intersection of the center-unstable and center-stable manifolds of a normally hyperbolic invariant manifold under a map in $`^n`$. Intuitively speaking, a homoclinic tube can be regarded as a homoclinic orbit on which points are replaced by submanifolds. Under certain assumption \[Equation (11) on page 625 of \] which is uncheckable, all the invariant tubes in the neighborhood of the homoclinic tube can be labeled symbolically. Such a symbolic labeling does not imply Bernoulli shift of a single map. The result was proved through a contraction map argument on a sequence of metric spaces. In the current article, we will adopt a different approach developed in . We will establish Bernoulli shift dynamics of submanifolds through shadowing lemma. The uncheckable assumption of Silnikov is removed. We will work in a Banach space, while Silnikov worked in $`^n`$.

Especially for high dimensional systems, homoclinic tubes are more dominant structures than homoclinic orbits. In fact, the invariant manifold that the homoclinic tube is asymptotic to, can contain smaller scale chaotic dynamics as discussed in  . Although structures in a neighborhood of a homoclinic orbit have been extensively and intensively investigated, structures around a homoclinic tube have not been well studied   . I believe that homoclinic tubes will play an important role in the theory of chaos in Hamiltonian partial differential equations.

The article is organized as follows: section 1 is the introduction, section 2 contains the setup and definitions, section 3 deals with Fenichel fiber coordinates and a $`\lambda `$-lemma, and section 4 deals with shadowing lemma and chaos.

## 2. The Setup and Definitions

The setup is as follows:

* (A1). Let $`B`$ be a Banach space on which a $`C^3`$-diffeomorphism $`F`$ is defined. There is a normally (transversally) hyperbolic invariant $`C^3`$ submanifold $`S`$. Let $`W^{cu}`$ and $`W^{cs}`$ be the $`C^3`$ center-unstable and center-stable manifolds of $`S`$. There exist a $`C^2`$ invariant family of $`C^3`$ unstable Fenichel fibers $`\{^u(q):qS\}`$ and a $`C^2`$ invariant family of $`C^3`$ stable Fenichel fibers $`\{^s(q):qS\}`$ inside $`W^{cu}`$ and $`W^{cs}`$ respectively, such that

$$W^{cu}=\underset{qS}{}^u(q),W^{cs}=\underset{qS}{}^s(q).$$

There are positive constants $`\kappa `$ and $`C`$ such that

$`F^n(q^{})F^n(q)Ce^{\kappa n}q^{}q,n^+,qS,q^{}^u(q),`$
$`F^n(q^+)F^n(q)Ce^{\kappa n}q^+q,n^+,qS,q^+^s(q),`$
$`F^n(q_1)F^n(q_2)Ce^{\kappa _1|n|}q_1q_2,n,q_1,q_2S,`$
where $`\kappa _1\kappa `$, for example, $`\kappa _1<\kappa /300`$. $`W^{cu}`$ and $`W^{cs}`$ intersect along an isolated transversal homoclinic tube $`\xi `$ asymptotic to $`S`$. $`\xi =(\mathrm{}S_1S_0S_1\mathrm{})`$ where $`S_j=F^jS_0`$, $`j`$, and $`S_0`$ is $`C^3`$. $`j`$ and $`q_jS_j`$, $`q_j`$ is on a unique stable fiber $`^s(q_+)`$, $`q_+S`$, and a unique unstable fiber $`^u(q_{})`$, $`q_{}S`$. We denote such correspondences by $`\phi _j^+`$ and $`\phi _j^{}`$ respectively, $`\phi _j^\pm (S)=S_j`$. $`\phi _j^\pm `$ are $`C^2`$ diffeomorphisms. Let

$$\phi _j^\pm \text{id}_{C^1}=\underset{qS}{sup}\{\mathrm{max}\{\phi _j^\pm (q)q,D\phi _j^\pm (q)\text{id}\}\}$$

where id is the identity map and $`D\phi _j^\pm `$ denotes the differential of $`\phi _j^\pm `$. As $`j+\mathrm{}`$,

$$\phi _j^+\text{id}_{C^1}0.$$

As $`j\mathrm{}`$,

$$\phi _j^{}\text{id}_{C^1}0.$$

Let

$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\underset{u,v,w,q_jS_j,j}{inf}\left\{\mathrm{min}\{uv,vw,wu\}\right|uT_{q_j}^u(q_{}),`$
$`vT_{q_j}^s(q_+),wT_{q_j}S_j,u=v=w=1\},`$
where $`T_{q_j}`$ indicates the tangent space at $`q_j`$. In this article, transversality always implies that such angle $`\theta `$ is positive.
* (A2). Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a neighborhood of $`S`$. Then there exists a $`J>0`$ such that $`S_j\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`|j|J`$. Let

$$d=\underset{qS_jS,|j|J}{inf}\{\text{distance}\{q,\mathrm{\Omega }\}\},$$

then $`d>0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ be a neighborhood of $`S_j,|j|<J`$,

$$d_j=\underset{qS_j}{inf}\{\text{distance}\{q,\mathrm{\Omega }_j\}\},$$

then $`d_j>0`$. The collection $`B_\xi =\{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }_j|j|<J\}`$ is called a tubular neighborhood of $`\xi S`$. For any $`0<n<\mathrm{}`$, there exists such a tubular neighborhood $`B_\xi `$ of $`\xi S`$, such that for any $`q_1B_\xi `$ there is a $`q\xi S`$, $`q_1`$ and $`q`$ belong to the same $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ $`|j|<J`$,

$$D^{\mathrm{}}F^{\pm n}(q_1)D^{\mathrm{}}F^{\pm n}(q)<1,(\mathrm{}=1,2).$$

Moreover,

$$\underset{+,}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{q\xi S}{sup}D^2F^{\pm n}(q)<\mathrm{}.$$

Let

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{+,}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{qB_\xi }{sup}D^{\mathrm{}}F^{\pm n}(q)<\mathrm{},(\mathrm{}=1,2).$$

If $`\xi S`$ is compact, then assumption (A2) holds . Next we will introduce a pseudo-invariant tube. An invariant tube is a sequence of submanifolds $`\{B_j\}_j`$ such that

$$F(B_j)=B_{j+1},F^1(B_j)=B_{j1},j.$$

###### Definition 2.1.

Segment-0 is defined as the finite sequence of 2N+1 $`S`$’s

$$\eta _0=(S\mathrm{}S),$$

and Segment-1 is defined as the finite sequence

$$\eta _1=(S_NS_{N+1}\mathrm{}S_0\mathrm{}S_{N1}S_N),$$

where $`N`$ is a large positive integer.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a set that consists of elements of the doubly infinite sequence form:

$$a=(\mathrm{}a_2a_1a_0,a_1a_2\mathrm{}),$$

where $`a_k\{0,1\}`$, $`k`$. We introduce a topology in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by taking as neighborhood basis of

$$a^{}=(\mathrm{}a_2^{}a_1^{}a_0^{},a_1^{}a_2^{}\mathrm{}),$$

the set

$$𝒜_j=\{a\mathrm{\Sigma }|a_k=a_k^{}(|k|<j)\}$$

for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. This makes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a topological space. The Bernoulli shift automorphism $`\chi `$ is defined on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by

$$\chi :\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma },a\mathrm{\Sigma },\chi (a)=b,\text{where}b_k=a_{k+1}.$$

The Bernoulli shift automorphism $`\chi `$ exhibits sensitive dependence on initial conditions, which is a hallmark of chaos.

For any $`\delta >0`$, there exists $`N>0`$, such that

$$\phi _j^+\text{id}_{C^1}<\delta ,\phi _j^{}\text{id}_{C^1}<\delta ,jN,$$

by assumption (A1).

###### Definition 2.3.

To each $`a_k\{0,1\}`$, we associate the Segment-$`a_k`$, $`\eta _{a_k}`$. Then each doubly infinite sequence

$$a=(\mathrm{}a_2a_1a_0,a_1a_2\mathrm{})$$

is associated with a $`\delta `$-pseudo-invariant tube

$$\eta _a=(\mathrm{}\eta _{a_2}\eta _{a_1}\eta _{a_0},\eta _{a_1}\eta _{a_2}\mathrm{}).$$

## 3. Fenichel Fiber Coordinates and a $`\lambda `$-Lemma

### 3.1. Fenichel Fiber Coordinates

We will introduce Fenichel fiber coordinates in a neighborhood of $`S`$. For any $`\theta S`$, let

$$E^u(\theta )=T_\theta ^u(\theta ),E^c(\theta )=T_\theta S,E^s(\theta )=T_\theta ^s(\theta ),$$

where $`T_\theta `$ indicates the tangent space at $`\theta `$. $`E^u`$ and $`E^s`$ provide a coordinate system for a neighborhood of $`S`$, that is, any point in this neighborhood has a unique coordinate

$$(\stackrel{~}{v}^s,\stackrel{~}{\theta },\stackrel{~}{v}^u),\stackrel{~}{v}^sE^s(\stackrel{~}{\theta }),\stackrel{~}{v}^uE^u(\stackrel{~}{\theta }),\stackrel{~}{\theta }S.$$

Fenichel fibers provide another coordinate system for the neighborhood of $`S`$. For any $`\theta S`$, the Fenichel fibers $`^s(\theta )`$ and $`^u(\theta )`$ have the expressions

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{v}^s=v^s,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\theta }=\theta +\mathrm{\Theta }_s(v^s,\theta ),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{v}^u=V_s(v^s,\theta ),\hfill \end{array}\text{and}\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{v}^u=v^u,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\theta }=\theta +\mathrm{\Theta }_u(v^u,\theta ),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{v}^s=V_u(v^u,\theta ),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`v^s`$ and $`v^u`$ are the parameters parametrizing $`^s(\theta )`$ and $`^u(\theta )`$,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_z(0,\theta )=\frac{}{v^z}\mathrm{\Theta }(0,\theta )=V_z(0,\theta )=\frac{}{v^z}V_z(0,\theta )=0,z=u,s;$$

and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_z(v^z,\theta )`$ and $`V_z(v^z,\theta )`$ ($`z=u,s`$) are $`C^3`$ in $`v^z`$ and $`C^2`$ in $`\theta `$. The coordinate transformation from ($`v^s,\theta ,v^u`$) to ($`\stackrel{~}{v}^s,\stackrel{~}{\theta },\stackrel{~}{v}^u`$)

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{v}^s=v^s+V_u(v^u,\theta ),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\theta }=\theta +\mathrm{\Theta }_u(v^u,\theta )+\mathrm{\Theta }_s(v^s,\theta ),\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{v}^u=v^u+V_s(v^s,\theta ),\hfill \end{array}$$

is a $`C^2`$ diffeomorphism. In terms of the Fenichel coordinate ($`v^s,\theta ,v^u`$), the Fenichel fibers coincide with their tangent spaces. From now on, we always work with the Fenichel coordinate ($`v^s,\theta ,v^u`$).

### 3.2. $`\lambda `$-Lemma

$`j`$ and $`q_jS_j`$, $`q_j`$ is on a unique stable fiber $`^s(q_+)`$, $`q_+S`$, and a unique unstable fiber $`^u(q_{})`$, $`q_{}S`$. Let

$$E^u(q_j)=T_{q_j}^u(q_{}),E^c(q_j)=T_{q_j}S_j,E^s(q_j)=T_{q_j}^s(q_+).$$

By assumption (A1), $`E^u(q_j)`$, $`E^c(q_j)`$, and $`E^s(q_j)`$ are $`C^2`$ in $`q_jS_j`$.

###### Lemma 3.1 ($`\lambda `$-Lemma).

For any $`ϵ>0`$, there exists a $`J>0`$ such that

1. When $`jJ`$, $`E^u(q_j)E^c(q_j)`$ is $`ϵ`$-close to $`E^u(q_+)E^c(q_+)`$.
2. When $`jJ`$, $`E^s(q_j)E^c(q_j)`$ is $`ϵ`$-close to $`E^s(q_{})E^c(q_{})`$.

Proof: When $`j`$ ($`>0`$) is large enough, $`q_j`$ is in a neighborhood of $`S`$ where $`^s(q_+)=E^s(q_+)`$. Let $`v_1E^u(q_j)E^c(q_j)`$, $`v_1=1`$. One can represent $`v_1`$ in the frame ($`E^s(q_+),E^u(q_+)E^c(q_+)`$),

$$v_1=(v_1^s,v_1^{uc}).$$

Let $`\lambda _1=v_1^s/v_1^{uc}`$. By assumption (A1), transversality implies that $`\lambda _1`$ has an absolute upper bound. The rest of the argument is the same with that in . Q.E.D.

### 3.3. A Rectification

Next we conduct a rectification in a neighborhood of $`S`$, which is necessary for graph transform argument later on. When $`j`$ ($`>0`$) is large enough, $`q_j`$ is in a neighborhood of $`S`$ where $`^s(q_+)=E^s(q_+)`$. Thus $`E^s(q_j)=E^s(q_+)`$. For any $`\stackrel{~}{v}^uE^u(q_+)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{v}^u=1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{v}^u`$ has the representation in the frame ($`E^s(q_j),E^u(q_j)E^c(q_j)`$),

$$\stackrel{~}{v}^u=v^s+v^{uc}.$$

All such $`v^{uc}`$’s span the projection $`\stackrel{~}{E}^u(q_j)`$ of $`E^u(q_+)`$ onto $`E^u(q_j)E^c(q_j)`$. $`E^u(q_j)E^c(q_j)`$ is $`C^2`$ in $`q_j`$. Shifting $`E^u(q_+)`$, $`E^c(q_+)`$, and $`E^s(q_+)`$ to $`q_j`$, they are also $`C^2`$ in $`q_j`$. Representing $`E^u(q_j)E^c(q_j)`$ in the frame ($`E^u(q_+),E^c(q_+),E^s(q_+)`$), $`\stackrel{~}{E}^u(q_j)`$ can be obtained from $`E^u(q_j)E^c(q_j)`$ by restricting $`\theta =0`$, where $`\theta `$ coordinatizes $`E^c(q_+)`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{E}^u(q_j)`$ is also $`C^2`$ in $`q_j`$. The rectification amounts to replacing $`E^u(q_j)`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{E}^u(q_j)`$. We will use the same notation $`E^u(q_j)`$. Similarly, when $`j`$ ($`>0`$) is large enough, one can rectify $`E^s(q_j)`$ inside $`E^s(q_j)E^c(q_j)`$.

## 4. Shadowing Lemma and Chaos

Let $`\eta _a`$ be a $`\delta `$-pseudo-invariant tube defined in Definition 2.3,

$$\eta _a=(\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{S}_1\stackrel{~}{S}_0\stackrel{~}{S}_1\mathrm{})$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{S}_j=S_k`$ or $`S`$; $`j,k`$. Denote by $`\widehat{E}`$ the transversal bundle

$$\widehat{E}=\{(q,E^u(q),E^s(q))|q\eta _a\},$$

which serves as a coordinate system around $`\eta _a`$, with the coordinate denoted by

$$(q,x^u,x^s),\text{where}q\eta _a,x^uE^u(q),x^sE^s(q).$$

In this coordinate system, the map $`F^n`$ has the representation

$$F^n(q,x^u,x^s)=(f(q,x^u,x^s),g^u(q,x^u,x^s),g^s(q,x^u,x^s)),$$

where $`n`$ is a large positive integer. If $`q\stackrel{~}{S}_j`$, then $`f(q,x^u,x^s)\stackrel{~}{S}_{j+n}`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

$`\mu >0`$, fix a $`n`$ large enough, and fix a $`ϵ`$ small enough, if $`\delta `$ is sufficiently small, then

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)^k\mathrm{\Pi }_3^s<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},(0k2),\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}^s<\mu ,(\mathrm{}=1,2),`$
$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)^k\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2^u<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},(0k2),\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}^u<\mu ,(\mathrm{}=1,3),`$
where $`x^uϵ`$, $`x^sϵ`$, $`D_1=D_q`$, $`D_2=D_{x^u}`$, $`D_3=D_{x^s}`$, and

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}^s=\underset{q,x^u,x^s}{sup}D_{\mathrm{}}g^s(q,x^u,x^s),(\mathrm{}=1,2,3),`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}^u=\underset{q,x^u,x^s}{sup}D_{\mathrm{}}g^u(q,x^u,x^s),(\mathrm{}=1,2,3),`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2^u=\underset{q,x^u,x^s}{sup}\{D_2g^u(q,x^u,x^s)\}^1.`$
Proof: The proof of this lemma follows from assumptions (A1) and (A2), and the fact that along Segment-0 and Segment-1, the center-unstable and center-stable bundles $`E^u(q)E^c(q)`$ and $`E^s(q)E^c(q)`$ are invariant under the linearized flow . Q.E.D.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_ϵ`$ be the space of sections of $`\widehat{E}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_ϵ=\{\sigma |\sigma (q)=(q,x^u(q),x^s(q)),q\eta _a,x^u(q)ϵ,x^s(q)ϵ\}.$$

We define the $`C^0`$ norm of $`\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_ϵ`$ as

$$\sigma _{C^0}=\mathrm{max}\{\underset{q\eta _a}{sup}x^u(q),\underset{q\eta _a}{sup}x^s(q)\}.$$

Then we define a Lipschitz semi-norm on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_ϵ`$:

$$\text{Lip}\{\sigma \}=\mathrm{max}\{\underset{q_1q_2\mathrm{\Delta }}{sup}\frac{x^u(q_1)x^u(q_2)}{q_1q_2},\underset{q_1q_2\mathrm{\Delta }}{sup}\frac{x^s(q_1)x^s(q_2)}{q_1q_2}\}$$

for some small fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ϵ,\gamma }`$ be a subset of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_ϵ`$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ϵ,\gamma }=\{\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_ϵ|\text{Lip}\{\sigma \}\gamma \}.$$

For any $`\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{ϵ,\gamma }`$,

$$\sigma (q)=(q,x^u(q),x^s(q)),q\eta _a,$$

we define the graph transform $`G`$ as follows:

(4.1)
$$(G\sigma )(q)=(q,x_1^u(q),x_1^s(q)),$$

where

$`f(q^{},x^u(q^{}),x^s(q^{}))=q,`$
$`g^s(q^{},x^u(q^{}),x^s(q^{}))=x_1^s(q),`$
$`f(q,x_1^u(q),x^s(q))=q^+,`$
$`g^u(q,x_1^u(q),x^s(q))=x^u(q^+),`$
for some $`q^{}`$ and $`q^+`$.

###### Theorem 4.2.

The graph transform $`G`$ is a contraction map on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ϵ,\gamma }`$. The graph of the fixed point $`\sigma ^{}`$ of $`G`$ is an invariant tube under $`F`$.

Proof: The proof of this theorem is similar to that given in details in . Q.E.D.

Graph$`\{\sigma ^{}\}`$ is the invariant tube that $`ϵ`$-shadows the $`\delta `$-pseudo-invariant tube $`\eta _a`$. Let $`S^{}`$ be the element of Graph$`\{\sigma ^{}\}`$, that shadows the mid-element of $`\eta _a`$, which is either $`S_0`$ or $`S`$. Such $`S^{}`$’s for all $`\eta _a`$ forms a set $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ of submanifolds. It is obvious that the following theorem holds.

###### Theorem 4.3 (Chaos Theorem).

The set $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ of submanifolds is invariant under the map $`F^{2N+1}`$. The action of $`F^{2N+1}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is topologically conjugate to the action of the Bernoulli shift automorphism $`\chi `$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. That is, there exists a homeomorphism $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Xi }`$ such that the following diagram commutes:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Sigma }& \stackrel{\varphi }{}& \mathrm{\Xi }\\ \chi & & F^{2N+1}\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }& \underset{\varphi }{}& \mathrm{\Xi }\end{array}$$


format: text

text:
# Static Three-Quark Potential in SU(3) Lattice QCD Monte-Carlo Simulation

## Abstract

The static three-quark(3Q) potential is investigated in the SU(3) lattice QCD at the quenched level, using the standard Wilson action with $`\beta =5.7(a0.2\mathrm{fm})`$ and $`12^3\times 24`$. With the 3Q Wilson loop, the ground-state 3Q potential $`V_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$ is calculated for 16 patterns of the 3Q configuration, using the smearing technique, which enhances the ground-state overlap of the 3Q operator. With the accuracy better than a few %, the lattice QCD data for $`V_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$ are well described by a sum of the Coulomb term, a constant and the linear term which is proportional to the minimal length $`L_{\mathrm{min}}`$ of the flux-tube linking the 3 quarks. Our results seem to support the Y-type flux picture rather than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-type one. From the comparison of $`V_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$ with the $`\mathrm{Q}`$-$`\overline{\mathrm{Q}}`$ potential, we find the universality of the string tension, $`\sigma _{3\mathrm{Q}}\sigma _{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}`$ as well as the OGE relation on the Coulomb coefficient, $`A_{3\mathrm{Q}}\frac{1}{2}A_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}`$.

## 1 Theoretical Consideration

In this paper, we study the 3Q potential $`V_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$ in the SU(3) lattice QCD. In the inter-quark potential, the short-distance behavior is described with the one-gluon-exchange (OGE) Coulomb potential originating from P-QCD, and the long-distance behavior seems characterized by the flux-tube picture, which is derived from the strong-coupling QCD. For instance, the quark-antiquark ($`\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}`$) static potential is well described as

$`V_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}={\displaystyle \frac{A_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}}{r}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}r+C_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}.`$ (1)
In SU(3) QCD, there appears the ‘junction’ combining three flux tubes in the baryonic 3Q system, so that the Y-type flux formation is expected. Then, the 3Q potential $`V_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$ is conjectured to be described as

$`V_{3\mathrm{Q}}={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_{3\mathrm{Q}}}{|\stackrel{}{r_i}\stackrel{}{r_j}|}}+\sigma _{3\mathrm{Q}}L_{\mathrm{min}}+C_{3\mathrm{Q}},`$ (2)
where $`L_{\mathrm{min}}`$ denotes the minimal length of the flux tube linking the 3 quarks.

## 2 Numerical Results

We investigate the 3Q potential $`V_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$ using the 3Q Wilson loop in the SU(3) lattice QCD simulation. Here, the standard Wilson action is used with $`\beta =5.7`$ $`(a0.2`$ fm) on $`12^3\times 24`$ lattice at the quenched level. To enhance the ground-state overlap of the 3Q operator, the smearing technique is applied on the spatial link variables. After the smearing, more than 80% ground-state overlap is achieved.

We show in Fig.1 the numerical result on $`V_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$ for 16 patterns of the 3Q configuration, where 3 quarks are located at $`(i,0,0),(0,j,0),(0,0,k)`$ in $`𝐑^3`$. With the accuracy better than a few %, the 3Q potential is well reproduced by Eq.(2) with the parameters in Table 1. (As a comparison, we try to fit $`V_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$ with $`_{i<j}\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_{3\mathrm{Q}}}{|\stackrel{}{r_i}\stackrel{}{r_j}|}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{3\mathrm{Q}}L_\mathrm{\Delta }+\stackrel{~}{C}_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$ with the perimeter $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In this $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-type fit, $`\chi ^2/N_{\mathrm{DF}}`$ is more than 10.9, which seems too large to be acceptable.)

Fig.1 :

3 quark potential $`V_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$ as the function of $`L_{\mathrm{min}}`$, the minimal length of flux linking 3 quarks, in the lattice unit. Apart from a constant, $`V_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$ is almost proportional to $`L_{\mathrm{min}}`$ in the infrared region.

|  | $`A`$ | $`\sigma `$ | $`C`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}`$ | 0.2793(116) | 0.1629(47) | 0.6293(161) |
| $`3\mathrm{Q}`$ | 0.1316(62) | 0.1528(27) | 0.9140(201) |

Table 1:

The Coulomb coefficient, the string tension and the constant term for $`\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}`$ and 3Q potentials in the lattice unit.

Next, we compare the $`3\mathrm{Q}`$ potential with the $`\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}`$ potential in terms of the fit parameters ($`A_{3\mathrm{Q}},\sigma _{3\mathrm{Q}},C_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$) and ($`A_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}},\sigma _{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}},C_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}`$) as shown in Table 1.

* We find the OGE relation on the Coulomb coefficient as $`A_{3\mathrm{Q}}\frac{1}{2}A_{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}`$.
* The universality of the string tension is found as $`\sigma _{3\mathrm{Q}}\sigma _{\mathrm{Q}\overline{\mathrm{Q}}}`$.

To conclude, the lattice QCD data for $`V_{3\mathrm{Q}}`$ are well reproduced by Eq.(2).


text:
# Discriminant of a generic projection of a minimal normal surface singularity

## 1 Polar curves and discriminants

Let $`(S,0)`$ be a normal complex surface singularity $`(S,0)`$, embedded in $`(^N,0)`$: for any $`(N2)`$-dimensional vector subspace $`D`$ of $`^N`$, we consider a linear projection $`^N^2`$ with kernel $`D`$ and denote by $`p_D:(S,0)(^2,0),`$ the restriction of this projection to $`(S,0)`$.

Restricting ourselves to the $`D`$ such that $`p_D`$ is finite, and considering a small representative $`S`$ of the germ $`(S,0)`$, we define, as in  (2.2.2), the polar curve $`C_1(D)`$ of the germ $`(S,0)`$ relative to the direction $`D`$, as the closure in $`S`$ of the critical locus of the restriction of $`p_D`$ to $`S\{0\}`$. As explained in loc. cit., it makes sense to say that for an open dense subset of the Grassmann manifold $`G(N2,N)`$ of $`(N2)`$-planes in $`^N`$, the space curve $`C_1(D)`$ are equisingular in term of strong simultaneous resolutions.

Then we define the discriminant $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_D}`$ as (the germ at $`0`$ of) the reduced analytic curve of $`(^2,0)`$ image of $`C_1(D)`$ by the finite morphism $`p_D`$.

Again, one may show that, for a generic choice of $`D`$, the discriminants obtained are equisingular germs of plane curves, but we will need a much more precise result, that demands another definition (cf.  IV.3) :

###### Definition 1.1.

Let $`(X,0)(^N,0)`$ be a germ of reduced curve. Then a linear projection $`p:^N^2`$ will said to be generic w.r.t. $`(X,0)`$ if the kernel of $`p`$ does not contain any limit of secants to $`X`$ (cf.  for an explicit description of the cone $`C_5(X,0)`$ formed by the limits of secants to $`(X,0)`$).

We now state the following transversality result (proved for curves on surfaces of $`^3`$ in  thm. 3.12 and in general as the “lemme-clé” in  V (1.2.2)) :

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`p_D:(S,0)(^2,0)`$ be as above, and $`C_1(D)(S,0)(^N,0)`$ be the corresponding polar curve, then there is an open dense subset $`U`$ of $`G(N2,N)`$ such that for $`DU`$ the restriction of $`p`$ to $`C_1(D)`$ is generic in the sense of def. 1.1.

###### Definition 1.3.

For all $`D`$ in the open subset $`U`$ of thm. 1.2, the discriminant $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_D}`$ are equisingular in the sense of the well-known equisingularity theory for germs of plane curves (cf. e.g. the account at the beginning of ) : we will call this equisingularity class the generic discriminant of $`(S,0)`$.

## 2 Polar curves for minimal singularities of surface after Spivakovsky

We first recall how one may define a minimal singularity in the case of normal surfaces (cf.  II.2) :

###### Definition 2.1.

A normal surface singularity $`(S,0)`$ is said to be minimal if it is rational with reduced fundamental cycle (see  for these latter notions).

Let $`\pi :(X,E)(S,0)`$ be the minimal resolution of the singularity $`(S,0)`$, where $`E=\pi ^1(0)`$ is the exceptional divisor, with components $`L_i`$. A cycle will be by definition a divisor with support on $`E`$ i.e. a linear combination $`a_iL_i`$ with $`a_i`$ (or $`a_i`$ for a $``$-cycle).

Considering the dual graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ associated to the exceptional divisor $`E`$ (cf.  I. 1) in which each component $`L_x`$ gives a vertex $`x`$ and two vertices are connected if, and only if, the corresponding components intersect, the minimal singularities have the following easy characterization (cf. loc. cit. II. 2) :

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be as above the dual graph associated to the minimal resolution of a normal surface singularity $`(S,0)`$. For each vertex $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, one defines its weight $`w(x):=L_x^2`$ (self-intersection of the corresponding component $`L_x`$) and its valence $`\gamma (x)`$ which is the number of vertices connected to $`x`$. Then $`(S,0)`$ is minimal if, and only if, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a tree and for all $`x\mathrm{\Gamma },w(x)\gamma (x)`$.

To two vertices $`x,y\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (which is a tree), we associate the shortest chain in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ connecting them, which we denote by $`[x,y]`$. The distance $`d(x,y)`$ is by definition the number of edges on $`[x,y]`$.

In  III. 5, generalizing an earlier work by G. Gonzalez-Sprinberg in , M. Spivakovsky further introduces the following number $`s_x`$ associated to each vertex $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`Z.L_x<0`$ (where . denotes the intersection number) then put $`s_x:=1`$ (and $`x`$ is said to be non-Tyurina). Otherwise $`x`$ is said to be a Tyurina vertex, then denote $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the Tyurina component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ containing $`x`$ (i.e. the maximal connected subgraph of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ containing only Tyurina vertices), and put $`s_x:=d(x,\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta })+1`$.

These numbers $`s_x`$ coincide, in the special case of minimal singularities, with the desingularization depths introduced in  p. 8.

Let $`x,y`$ be two adjacent vertices : the edge ($`x,y)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called a central arc if $`s_x=s_y`$. A vertex $`x`$ is called a central vertex if there are at least two vertices $`y`$ adjacent to $`x`$ such that $`s_y=s_x1`$ (cf. loc. cit.).

Eventually, we define the following $``$-cycle $`Z_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on the minimal resolution $`X`$ of $`(S,0)`$ by :

$$Z_\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{x\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}s_xL_xZ_K,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the dual graph of the resolution, and $`Z_K`$ is the numerically canonical $``$-cycle 111uniquely defined by the condition that for all $`x\mathrm{\Gamma },Z_K.L_x=2L_x^2`$ since the intersection product on $`E`$ is negative-definite.

One may now quote the important theorem 5.4 in loc. cit. in the following way :222see also the account in  (7.4), just beware that one term is missing in the formula giving $`m_x:=Z_\mathrm{\Omega }.L_x`$ there.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`(S,0)`$ be a minimal normal surface singularity. There is a open dense subset $`U^{}`$ of the open set $`U`$ of thm. 1.2, such that for all $`DU^{}`$ the strict transform $`C_1^{}(D)`$ of $`C_1(D)`$ on $`X`$ :

a) is a multi-germ of smooth curves intersecting each component $`L_x`$ of $`E`$ transversally in exactly $`Z_\mathrm{\Omega }.L_x`$ points,

b) goes through the point of intersection of $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$ if and only if $`s_x=s_y`$ (point corresponding to a central arc of the graph). Further, the $`C_1^{}(D)`$, with $`DU^{}`$ do not share other common points (base points) and these base points are simple, i.e. the $`C_1^{}(D)`$ are separated when one blows-up these points once.

## 3 From polar curves to discriminants, key lemmas

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`(S,0)`$ be a minimal normal surface singularity, embedded in $`^N`$ and $`\pi :X(S,0)`$ its minimal resolution. It is known that $`\pi `$ is (the restriction to $`S`$ of) a composition $`\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _r`$ of point blow-ups in $`^N`$. We claim that this composition of blow-ups is also the minimal resolution of the generic polar curve $`C_1(D)`$ for $`DU^{}`$ as in thm. 2.3.

###### Proof.

The fact that $`\pi `$ is a composition of point blow-ups is general for rational surface singularities (for a non-cohomological proof in the case of minimal singularities, see  5.9). Conclusion a) in thm. 2.3 certainly gives that $`\pi `$ is a resolution of $`C_1(D)`$. We prove that this resolution is minimal : among the exceptional components in $`X`$ obtained by the last point blow-up, there is a component $`L_x`$ corresponding either to a central vertex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or to the boundary of a central arc.

If $`L_x`$ corresponds to a central vertex, one computes from (1) page 1, the number of branches of $`C_1^{}(D)`$ intersecting $`L_x`$, i.e. $`Z_\mathrm{\Omega }.L_x=(s_y+(s_x+1)L_x^2+2)`$. By the definition of a central vertex (before thm. 2.3), this must be at least two, which proves that these branches are not separated before $`L_x`$ is obtained.

If $`L_x`$ is the boundary of a central arc, let $`L_y`$ be the other boundary : then both $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$ appear as exceptional components of the last blow-up $`\pi _r:XS_{r1}`$ at $`0_{r1}`$. Now, the strict transform of $`C_1(D)`$ at the point $`0_{r1}`$ can not be smooth. Indeed, by an argument in  1.1, if it were smooth, then its strict transform $`C_1^{}(D)`$ on $`X`$, smooth surface, would go through a smooth point of the exceptional divisor. ∎

###### Lemma 3.2.

For $`DU^{}`$ as in thm. 2.3, the polar curve $`C_1(D)`$ on ($`S,0)`$ has only smooth branches and branches of multiplicity two, the latter being exactly those whose strict transform go through a central arc as in b) of theorem 2.3.

###### Proof.

For $`DU^{}`$ one may compute the multiplicity $`e(\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_D},0)`$ of the discriminant en $`0`$ by the following (cf. e.g.  § 4.4 : here the divisorial discriminant is reduced by genericity) :

$$e(\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_D},0)=\mu 1+e(S,0),$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ is the Milnor number of a generic hyperplane section of $`(S,0)`$ and $`e(S,0)`$ is the multiplicity of the surface. A well-known formula (see e.g.  prop. 5, taking $`I=m`$) for $`\mu `$ reduces, for $`(S,0)`$ minimal, to $`\mu =1+Z.Z_K`$. In turn, $`e(S,0)=Z^2`$ (cf. ), which in (2) reads :

$$e(\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_D},0)=Z.Z_KZ^2.$$
(3)
On the other hand, the number $`n_b`$ of branches of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_D}`$ is described by thm. 2.3 : denote by $`n_{bs}`$ the number of those branches which go through a central arc and so are counted twice in $`Z.Z_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then :

$$n_b=Z.Z_\mathrm{\Omega }n_{bs}.$$
(4)
Using expression (1) for $`Z_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in (4), and then using (3) yields : $`n_b=_{x\mathrm{\Gamma }}s_xL_x.Z+Z.Z_Kn_{bs}`$ and $`n_b=e(\mathrm{\Delta },0)n_{bs}_{x\mathrm{\Gamma }}(s_x1)Z.L_x`$, but, by definition $`s_x=1`$ if $`Z.L_x0`$, whence :

$$n_b=e(\mathrm{\Delta },0)n_{bs}.$$
(5)
Since we know from the proof of lemma 3.1 that all the branches of $`C_1(D)`$ counted in $`n_{bs}`$ are actually singular, (5) proves the whole assertion of the current lemma. ∎

###### Corollary 3.3.

Take the chain of point blow-ups over $`(^N,0)`$ that gives the minimal resolution of $`(C_1(D),0)`$ for $`DU^{}`$. Then performing over $`(^2,0)`$ the “same” succession of blow-ups (this makes sense because of footnote 3), we get the minimal resolution of the plane curve $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_D}=p_D(C_1(D))`$.

###### Proof.

Since, by lem. 3.2, the multiplicity of the branches of $`C_1(D)`$ is at most two, these branches are plane curves and so are equisingular to their generic projection by $`p_D`$ (here we use thm. 1.2) : so much for the branches. Further, by another result of Teissier’s (see  Chap. I (6.2.1) and remark p. 354) a generic projection is bi-lipschitz, which implies that it preserves the contact between branches.333 Indeed, the contact between two branches $`\gamma _1(t)`$ and $`\gamma _2(t)`$ which are both of multiplicity one or two, that we define as the number of blow-ups to separate them, may be read from the order in $`t`$ of the difference $`\gamma _1(t)\gamma _2(t)`$, which is a bi-lipschitz invariant. Since we blow-up always in the “same chart” these blow-ups actually dominate the blow-ups of the plane, as claimed in the corollary.

## 4 Statement of the main result

Gathering the results from lemma 3.1 to cor. 3.3, we obtain :

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`(S,0)`$ be a minimal normal surface singularity, embedded in $`^N`$ and $`\pi :X(S,0)`$ its minimal resolution, which is a composition $`\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _r`$ of point blow-ups in $`^N`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{S,0}`$ be the generic discriminant of $`(S,0)`$ (cf. def. 1.3). Then, performing over $`(^2,0)`$ the “same” succession of blow-ups (cf. footnote 3), we get the minimal resolution of the plane curve $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{S,0}`$.

We claim that this result, together with thm. 2.3 gives an easy way to get a combinatorial description of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{S,0},0)`$ :

###### Notation 4.2.

i) We denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_n}`$ the generic discriminant of the $`A_n`$ surface singularity, which is the equisingularity class of the plane curve defined by $`x^2+y^{n+1}=0`$.

ii) We denote by $`\delta _n`$ the generic discriminant of the singularity which is a cone over a rational normal curve of degree $`n`$ in $`_{}^n`$ : it is defined by $`2n2`$ distinct lines through the origin.

The assertion in ii) follows from the fact that $`C_1(D)`$ is the cone over the critical locus of the projection from the rational normal curve onto a line, which has degree $`2n2`$ by Hurwitz formula.

We need to introduce several subsets of a dual graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ : we denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NT}=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ the set of Non-Tyurina vertices in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which are here the $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`w(x)>\gamma (x)`$ (notation as in lem. 2.2).

We denote by $`𝒞_v`$ resp. $`𝒞_a`$ the set of central vertices resp. central arcs in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (cf. def. before thm. 2.3).

###### Corollary 4.3.

From thm. 2.3 we know that the components of the strict transform $`C_1(D)^{}`$ of $`C_1(D)`$ on the resolution $`X`$ of $`(S,0)`$ go through components corresponding to elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NT}𝒞_a𝒞_v`$, and we also know the number of branches of $`C_1(D)^{}`$ on each of these components.

From thm. 4.1 we know the contact between the corresponding branches of $`C_1(D)`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{S,0}`$) : the contact between two branches whose strict transforms lie respectively on a component $`L_x`$ and a component $`L_y`$ equals $`1+N`$, where $`N`$ is the number of blow-ups necessary so that $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$ no longer be in the same Tyurina component of the corresponding $`(S_N,0_N)`$ singularity, with the further requirement that if ,say, the first branch actually goes through a central arc $`L_xL_x^{}`$, the number $`N`$ corresponds to the number of blow-ups so that both $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ no longer be in the same Tyurina component as $`y`$.

From this, we easily see that each $`x_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NT}`$ contributes with a $`\delta _{x_i}:=\delta _{w(x_i)\gamma (x_i)}`$ (cf. 4.2 ii)), i.e. $`2(w(x_i)\gamma (x_i))2`$ lines, and that the contact between these $`\delta _{x_i}`$ and other branches of the discriminant is one. For the contribution of the central elements, we first compute the number of branches on each components with thm. 2.3 and use thm. 4.1 for the contact as in the following examples :

###### Example 1.

Consider $`(S,0)`$ with the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as on figure 1 below, where the $``$ denote Tyurina vertices (with $`w(x)=\gamma (x)`$), and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NT}=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_4\}`$ with the weights indicated on the graph. Remark that as a general rule $`\delta _{x_i}=\mathrm{}`$ when $`w(x_i)=\gamma (x_i)+1`$, hence here only $`x_1`$ actually gives a $`\delta _{x_1}`$equals to four lines.

i) In the first Tyurina component (bounded by $`x_1,x_2,x_4`$) there is a central vertex and a central arc, which respectively give a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_5}`$ and a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_4}`$ curve.

After two blow-ups the boundaries of the central arc and the central vertex are in distinct Tyurina components, hence the contact between the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_5}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_4}`$ is three.

ii) In the second Tyurina component (bounded by $`x_2`$ $`x_3`$), there is a central vertex : this gives a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_3}`$ which has contact $`1`$ with the others $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_i}`$ obtained.

Hence, using coordinates, we may give as representative of the equisingularity class of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{S,0}`$ :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{S,0}:(x^4+y^4)(x^2+y^6)(x^2+y^5)(y^2+x^4)=0.`$

###### Example 2.

If $`(S,0)`$ is a cyclic-quotient singularity i.e. has a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as on figure 2, we may order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NT}=\{x_1<x_2<\mathrm{}<x_n\}`$ and each central element $`x`$ (central vertex or central arc) lies in a unique $`[x_i,x_{i+1}]`$ and is easily seen to contribute to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{S,0}`$ by a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x:=\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_{l([x_i,x_{i+1}])}}`$, where $`l[x_i,x_{i+1}]`$ is the number of vertices on the chain $`[x_i,x_{i+1}]`$ ; the contact between each $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ is one (i.e their tangent cones have no common components). Here $`\delta _{x_i}`$ is $`2w(x_i)4`$ lines for $`i=1`$ and $`i=n`$, and $`2w(x_i)6`$ for $`1<i<n`$, all this lines being distinct. So, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_n}`$ as in notation 4.2 i) :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{S,0}=\delta _{x_1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_{l[x_1,x_2]}}\delta _{x_2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_{l[x_{n1},x_n]}}\delta _{x_n},$$

with contact one between all the curves in the “$``$”.

###### Remark 1.

In particular, the equisingularity type of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{S,0},0)`$ depends only on the resolution graph of $`(S,0)`$ i.e. of the topological type of $`(S,0)`$, what is known to be wrong for other normal surface singularities as shown in .

Acknowledgement The origin of this work is an intuition of Lê’s that these discriminants should be describable. I learnt the fine property 1.2 from B. Teissier himself. It is a pleasure to thank both of them for all I’ve learnt from them. I am very grateful to M. Merle and M. Spivakovsky for they pointing out to me respectively the reference  and a mistake in an earlier formulation of this work.

C.M.I., 39 rue F. Joliot-Curie,
13453 Marseille Cedex 13
France
email : bondil@cmi.univ-mrs.fr


text:
# Host galaxies and black hole masses of low and high luminosity radio loud active nuclei.

## 1 Introduction

There is a general consensus about the existence of supermassive black holes (SBH) at the center of normal galaxies as well as in the nuclei of active galaxies and quasars (see e.g. the recent review of Ferrarese 2002). A large body of data, in particular based on high resolution HST observations, is now available to strongly support the presence of such massive BH.

SBHs play an important role in the formation and evolution of massive galaxies and are also a key component for the development of the nuclear activity. In spite of this apparently ubiquitous presence of SBH in galaxies our understanding on how the galaxies and their central BHs are linked in the process of formation of the structures remains unclear but several attempts of explanation have been proposed (e.g. Silk & Rees 1998; Haehnelt & Kauffmann 2000; Adams et al 2001; Burkert & Silk 2001; Merritt & Ferrarese 2001a; Balberg & Shapiro 2002).

From the observational point of view it was shown that the BH mass is correlated with the properties of the bulge component of the host galaxy, which is translated into the relationships between MBH and the bulge luminosity (Kormendy & Richstone 1995; Magorrian et al. 1998; Richstone et al. 1998; Kormendy & Gebhardt 2001) and between MBH and the velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ of the host galaxy (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000; Merritt & Ferrarese 2001b). Any theory of SBH and galaxy formation must therefore take into account and explain such observed empirical relations (e.g. Silk & Rees 1998, Haehnelt & Kauffmann 2000; Ciotti and van Albada 2001). On the other hand, although these relations have a significant scatter ( $``$0.4 in Log MBH), they offer a new tool for evaluation of BH masses in various types of AGN if a reliable measurement of the host galaxy luminosity or of $`\sigma `$ is done. While for AGN with strong emission lines (as QSO and Seyfert galaxies) the standard methods (e.g. reverberation mapping) under virial assumptions of the emitting regions can be used to derive MBH ( see e.g. Wandel et al. 1999 and Kaspi et al. 2000), the above relations may be the only way to estimate MBH for active galaxies that lack of emission lines or that are too far away (as BL Lac objects and many nearby radiogalaxies) to resolve the region of influence of the BH with present-day instrumentation. The two different approaches lead to consistent estimates of BH masses within the assumed uncertainties of the two methods (McLure & Dunlop 2002).

Given the difficulty to obtain $`\sigma `$ from spectroscopy of the galaxies hosting active nuclei, only for few AGN it was possible to use $`\sigma `$ to evaluate MBH (Ferrarese et al. 2001, Barth et al. 2002,2003; Falomo et al. 2002,2003). On the contrary the galaxy luminosity is much easier to measure for active galaxies and can therefore be used to determine MBH for larger data set.

In this paper we use the MBH – Lbulge relation to investigate and compare the BH mass distribution of a sample of low and high luminosity radio-loud AGNs (BL Lacs and RLQs respectively). Both classes are found to reside in massive giant ellipticals (Urry et al. 2000; Dunlop et al. 2001), which makes them rather homogeneous for such kind of analysis. To ensure uniformity of the results we have considered only objects at z$`<`$0.5 and that have been imaged by HST. This allows us also to better constrain their host properties. In section 2 we describe our samples of BLLs and RLQs and compare their host galaxy luminosity functions. In section 3 we discuss the MBH-Lbulge relation and derive the central black hole mass for each object. Finally in section 4 we discuss our findings comparing with recent results on radiogalaxies. In our analysis H0=50 Km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$=0 were used.

## 2 Luminosity of the host galaxies

We have collected host galaxy data for BL Lacs and RLQs at z$`<`$0.5 imaged by HST with the WFPC2 and have constructed a homogeneous dataset of the host galaxies luminosities. This yields a sample 57 BL Lacs and 18 RLQs that represent, respectively, low and high luminosity radio loud active galaxies.

Since most of the observations were obtained in the F702W and F675W filters we converted all HST magnitudes into R Cousins band (Holtzman et al. 1995). In the few cases where the filters F555W, F606W were used we applied a color correction V-R = 0.61 for the elliptical host galaxies (Fukugita et al. 1995). Absolute magnitudes have been k-corrected following Poggianti (1997) prescriptions and corrected for galactic reddening using the Bell Lab Survey of neutral hydrogen NH (Stark et al. 1992) with the conversion logNH/E(B-V)=21.83 cm-2 mag-1 (Shull & van Steenberg 1985) assuming a total-to-selective extinction AR=2.3E(B-V) (Cardelli, Clayton & Mathis 1989). Since the objects are distributed over a significant redshift interval we have also applied a correction to set the host galaxy luminosity to present epoch assuming a passive stellar evolution for massive ellipticals (Bressan et al. 1994). This correction ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m $``$ -0.2 ) allows us to properly use the MBH-Lbulge relations which refers to local galaxies. In the following MR represents the host galaxy absolute magnitude including all correction terms specified above.

### 2.1 The BL Lac Objects sample

The HST snapshot image survey of BL Lacs (Urry et al. 2000, Scarpa et al. 2000) has provided a homogeneous set of 110 short exposure high resolution images through the F702W filter. From this we have extracted all resolved objects at z$`<`$0.5, yielding 57 sources with redshift between 0.027 and 0.495 ($`<z>`$=0.20$`\pm `$0.11). The host galaxy morphology of these objects is always well described by an elliptical model (Scarpa et al. 2000). The absolute MR magnitude for each object is reported in Table 1. The host galaxy average luminosity is $`<M_R>`$=-23.49$`\pm `$0.5, roughly one magnitude brighter than the characteristic galaxy magnitude M$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{R}{}^{}`$= -22.75 (Metcalfe et al. 1998). According to the shape of their spectral energy distribution (SED), BL Lacs are broadly distinguished into two types (see Padovani & Giommi 1995) : those the SED of which peaks at near-infrared/optical and the $`\gamma `$-ray MeV regions (low frequency peaked BL Lacs or LBL), and those that have SED peaking in the UV/X-ray and the $`\gamma `$-ray TeV energies (called high frequency peaked BL Lacs or HBL). As shown by Urry et al. 2000 the host galaxy properties of HBL and LBL Lacs are indistinguishable, and therefore the two subclasses will not be separated for this analysis.

### 2.2 The RLQs sample

Since there is not a homogeneous and large set of HST observations for RLQs, we have constructed a sample of 18 RLQ from the merging of three different subsets (BK: Bahcall et al. 1997 and Kirhakos et al. 1999; Bo: Boyce et al. 1998; D: Dunlop et al. 2003). Bahcall et al. 1997 and Kirhakos et al. 1999 studied 8 RLQ in the F606W and F555W filters and in the redshift range 0.158$`<z<`$0.367; Boyce et al. 1998 reported the analysis for 5 sources with 0.223$`<z<`$0.389 in the F702W filter. The largest subsample was investigated by Dunlop et al. (2001), who report host galaxy properties for 10 radio-loud quasars with 0.1$`<z<`$0.25 observed in the F675W filter. As in the case of BLL an elliptical model is always a good representation for the host galaxies. The average properties of the three subsamples are reported in Table 2. Our evaluations of MR are consistent with absolute values reported by the quoted authors when galactic extinction, filter correction and evolution correction are taken into account. Since these subsets have statistically indistinguishable host luminosity distributions we have merged these subsamples to construct a representative sample of RLQ (see also Treves et al. 2002), taking average values for objects observed twice. The combined dataset consists therefore of 18 objects with redshift in the range 0.158$`<z<`$0.389, $`<z>`$=0.26$`\pm `$0.07 and $`<M_R>=24.04\pm 0.4`$. In Table 3 we give for each source the redshift z, the assumed galactic extinction in the R-band AR, the host galaxy apparent magnitude R and the absolute magnitude MR. In figure 1 we compare the redshift distributions for the RLQ and BLL samples.

### 2.3 Comparison of the host luminosity of BLL and RLQ

Both BLL and RLQ in our sample have been mostly discovered as counterparts of radio and/or X-ray sources. Therefore the objects considered here were selected on the basis of the nuclear properties, and because there is not a significant correlation between the nuclear and host galaxy luminosity (Urry et al. 2000; Percival et al. 2001; Dunlop et al 2003 ), we can consider the distribution of the host galaxy luminosity is unbiased by selection effects. Moreover the homogeneous treatment of the data attests a reliable comparison of host luminosity between the two classes (BLLs and RLQs). The main limitation of this comparison remains however the exiguity of the RLQ sample.

We find that the average absolute magnitude of RLQ is about 0.5 magnitude brighter than that of BLL. The difference is illustrated in figure 2 where we compare the cumulative absolute magnitude distributions of the hosts for the two samples (a KS test indicates that they are statistically different at the $`>`$ 99% level). Since the two samples span slightly different redshift range we checked that this does not affect our result. If we consider a subsample of BLL with redshift distribution matched with that of RLQ (see figure 1 (c)) we find $`<M_R>_{BLL}`$ (matched)= -23.54$`\pm 0.47`$ thus confirming our finding. Given the homogeneity of data analysis and the procedure for the selection of the objects we believe that this difference is not biased. We note, however, that a larger number of objects (in particular of RLQ) is required to confirm this result on a firm statistical basis.

To further compare the luminosity distributions of the host galaxies we constructed the host galaxy luminosity function (HGLF) for the two subsets of objects. To set the normalization of the HGLFs we simply assume the space density of both class of objects as derived from studies of complete samples. For BL Lacs we use the value $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$= 10-5 Mpc-3mag-1 of the FR I radiogalaxies luminosity function at MR=-22.8 given by Padovani and Urry (1991) under the assumption that FR I radiogalaxies are the parent population of BL Lacs (e.g. Urry and Padovani 1995). For RLQ, we took the value of the LF of close-by radio quiet QSO (Koehler et al 1997, Grazian et al 2000) at MB= -25.1, which corresponds to the average value of the nuclear magnitude for our sources, and scaled it by a factor 10 to account for the ratio between RQQ and RLQ (e.g. Moderski et al 1998). This yields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$=2.3$`\times `$10-9 Mpc-3 mag-1.

In figure 3 we show the HGLF of BLL and RLQ compared with that of inactive ellipticals (Metcalfe et al. 1998). To quantify the differences in shape of the HGLF we fitted the luminosity distributions of the host galaxies with a modified Schechter function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$=K $`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_S`$ $`\times `$ (L/L)β, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_S`$ is the Schechter function for elliptical galaxies (Metcalfe et al. 1998): $`\mathrm{\Phi }_S`$=$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ $`\times `$ (L/L)α $`\times `$ exp(-L/L), assuming $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=8.5\times 10^2`$ Mpc-3, $`\alpha `$=-1.2 and L=2.25 $`\times `$ 1044 erg s-1 (Metcalfe et al. 1998). The best fit to HGLF was estimated minimizing $`\chi ^2`$ for the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We find $`\beta =`$2.7 $`\pm `$0.2 for BLLs, $`\beta =`$3.6$`\pm `$0.3 for RLQ. The shapes of the two HGLF are somewhat different, but only at the 2-$`\sigma `$ level.

This suggests that a given elliptical has a probability of having a radio-loud active nucleus depending on the galaxy luminosity. Moreover one can argue that the steepness of this behavior depends on the intrinsic luminosity of the nucleus as hinted by the different value of $`\beta `$ for BLL and RLQ.

It turns out therefore that both types of radio loud active galaxies exhibit a remarkable different distributions with respect to normal ellipticals, with clear preference for more luminous (and massive) galaxies to show nuclear activity. This behavior disagrees with that found by Wisotzki et al. (2001) for the host galaxies of radio-quiet QSO. The shape of HGLF of the latter objects in fact appears to be consistent with that of ordinary inactive early type galaxies.

## 3 Mass of the Central Black Hole

Basing on dynamical studies of nearby early type galaxies it was shown that there is a linear relation between the luminosity of the spheroidal component of a galaxy (Lbulge) and the mass MBH of the central black hole (e.g. Kormendy & Gebhardt 2001 and references therein). This correlation has a scatter of $``$ 0.4 in Log(MBH) that can be ascribed mainly to the errors of measurements of MBH and to the uncertainties to disentangle the bulge from the disc component of the galaxies. Nevertheless it can be used to estimate MBH for our objects provided that consistent and reliable host galaxy luminosities are used.

To avoid systematic effects it is important that the adopted absolute magnitude of the galaxy be homogeneous (in terms of spectral band, adopted cosmology, extinction correction, filter, etc) with that used to derive the MBH-Lbulge relation. To satisfy this requirement we used the relationship between MBH and MR derived by Bettoni et al. (2003) for 20 inactive ellipticals assuming the same calibrations of MR we have adopted here.

From the analysis of the inactive sample of ellipticals Bettoni et al. give

$$log(M_{BH}/M_{})=0.50\times M_R3.00$$
(1)
that is used to derive MBH from absolute (total) magnitude MR of ellipticals (H0=50 Km s-1 Mpc-1). This relation has rms scatter of 0.38 in log(MBH) and it is similar to that derived by McLure & Dunlop (2002).

Since the host galaxies in the samples considered here are all bona-fide ellipticals we used relation (1) to derive MBH for the two samples of radio loud AGN (BL Lacs and RLQs) and report the value for each object in table 1 and 2, respectively. The uncertainty on the estimated black hole mass is dominated by the scatter of relation (1) while the uncertainties on the host galaxy magnitude are usually smaller.

The distributions of MBH for the two samples are shown in Figure 4. The two classes exhibit an average difference by a factor $``$ 2 in MBH as a consequence of the different average host luminosity. We find that the average values of MBH are $`<log(M_{BH}/M_{})>=8.75\pm `$0.25 and $`<log(M_{BH}/M_{})>=9.02\pm `$0.20 respectively for BLLs and RLQs.

A complementary method to derive BH masses is based on the relation between the BH masses and $`\sigma `$ of the host galaxy (Gebhardt et al. 2000 and Ferrarese et al. 2000). This has been applied to a small number of nearby BL Lac objects (Falomo et al. 2002,2003; Barth et al. 2002;2003). As shown by Falomo et al 2003 there is a good agreement in the results obtained with the two techniques. Thus no estimates of BH mass of RLQ are available from $`\sigma `$ because of the lack of measurements.

Wu, Liu and Zhang (2002) and Woo and Urry (2002) have derived estimates of the BH mass of BL Lacs using the MBH$`\sigma `$ relation where the latter quantity was inferred from measurements of the effective surface brightness and the effective radius of the host galaxy and by assuming these are linked to $`\sigma `$ through the Fundamental Plane relationship. Although in principle this method could work we believe it is less accurate than the direct use of the MBH – M(bulge) relation. In fact in addition to the uncertainty in the measured quantities ($`\mu _e`$ and Re), which are much larger than the total magnitude of the galaxy, one has to take into account the uncertainty due to the intrinsic scatter of the FP relation and that of the MBH$`\sigma `$ relation. Comparison of our BH masses (see Table 1) with those derived by Woo and Urry or Wu et al 2002 indicate remarkable differences of MBH for many objects mainly because of the wrong evaluation of the velocity dispersion. In some cases (e.g. 1807+698, 1104+384) the poor estimate of the velocity dispersion via the FP method has been clearly confirmed by direct measures of $`\sigma `$ (Barth et al; Falomo et al).

We also note that in the Woo & Urry (2002) estimates additional errors derive from a mistreating of the FP parameters because instead of the average surface brightness ($`<\mu >_e`$), the isophotal surface brightness was used.

## 4 Discussion

The analysis of HST images for low redshift BL Lacs and radio loud quasars has shown that for both types of active nuclei the host galaxies are very luminous ellipticals. On average they are $``$1-2 mag more luminous than the typical galaxy luminosity (M$`{}_{R}{}^{}`$ –22.75; Metcalfe et al. 1998). After homogeneous treatment of the data we also found that host galaxies of RLQ are systematically more luminous by $``$0.5 magnitudes than BL Lac hosts. Although this result does not seem to depend on the selection of the objects, a larger sample of RLQ is needed to reach a firm conclusion. We have shown that the distribution of the host galaxy luminosity exhibits a marked drop towards less luminous galaxies and that it is somewhat different for the two classes (BLL and RLQ). This indicates that such kind of nuclear activity occurs preferentially (or lasts longer) in massive galaxies. The different distributions of host luminosity for BLL and RLQ may simply reflect the very large range of intrinsic nuclear luminosity (about two orders of magnitude, see below). High power nuclear activity like that observed in RLQ can occur only in the most luminous and massive galaxies and it is therefore a rare event. On the other hand, low power nuclear activity as that observed in BL Lacs (or in radio galaxies believed to be identical objects non affected by beaming effects) can be present also in galaxies with intermediate luminosities.

On the assumption that the galaxy luminosity is correlated with the central BH mass, the host galaxy luminosity can be translated into central BH masses. It turns out thus that, within a factor of two, BLL and RLQ have similar BH masses but their total intrinsic nuclear luminosities are remarkably different. In addition to the higher observed nuclear/host ratio of RLQ with respect to BLL we have to take into account the fact that, while we consider RLQ basically unbeamed, for BLL a substantial beaming factor is present ($`\delta `$15 see Ghisellini et al. 1998, Capetti & Celotti 1999). The intrinsic nuclear luminosities therefore differ by about a factor 100. This implies a dramatic difference of the Eddington ratio $`\xi _E=L/L_E`$ where LE= 1.25$`\times `$10$`{}_{}{}^{38}\times `$(MBH/M) erg s-1 (see also O’Dowd et al 2001, 2002; Treves et al 2002). Basing on the estimated total QSO luminosity of L$`3\times `$ 10$`{}_{}{}^{12}L_{}^{}`$ (e.g. Elvis et al. 1994) and assuming BH masses of 1-5 x 109 M, we find that RLQ may be emitting at rates of 10% or higher than their Eddington power, while BLL are always emitting at regimes that are much lower than LE.

According to the unification schemes of radio loud AGN (e.g. Urry and Padovani 1995) BL Lacs are radiogalaxies the jet of which is closely oriented toward the observer. Based on arguments of number density, luminosity functions and unbeamed properties (as the extended radio luminosity or the host galaxies) the parent population of BL Lacs is likely formed by FR I radio galaxies with some contamination by FR II sources (Padovani and Urry 1990; Wurtz et al 1996; Falomo and Kotilainen 1999; Cassaro et al 1999; Urry et al 2000). Under this hypothesis the BH mass of BL Lacs ($`<log(M_{BH}/M_{})>=8.75\pm `$0.25 ) and of the parent (unbeamed) objects must be identical. In figure 5 we compare the distribution of the BH mass for our sample of BL Lacs with that of low redshift radiogalaxies from the sample of Govoni et al 2000 (see also Bettoni et al 2003). The two distributions are rather similar although the most massive BH in luminous FR I radiogalaxies do not appear to have counterparts in the known BL Lacs. The average values of MBH are $`<log(M_{BH}/M_{})>=9.04\pm `$0.30 and $`<log(M_{BH}/M_{})>=8.78\pm `$0.35 for, respectively, FR I and FR II radio galaxies.

Finally we wish to note that in addition to the mass the other parameter which characterizes a black hole and that may play a relevant role in the observed phenomenology is the BH spin. It has been suggested that the spin energy is responsible for the jet emission Lj and therefore for the development of the radio-emission (e.g Blandford 2000, Dunlop et al 2003). The spin is clearly not directly measurable but it could be deduced from an estimate of Lj and the BH mass using the Blandford and Znajek (1977) formula. While Lj could be obtained from the spectral energy distribution (e.g. Tavecchio et al 2000, 2002), the BH mass may come through the procedures described in this work.

## Acknowledgments

This work has received partial support under contracts COFIN 2001/028773, ASI-IR-115 and ASI-IR-35.