text:
# Two-subband electron transport in nonideal quantum wells

## I Introduction

The study of transport properties of semiconductor structures with many occupied electronic subbands has attracted scientific interest for a long time, concerning especially with two-subband occupancy and screening effects in the scattering processes . Moreover, until recently these studies were made in inversion layers of Si-MOS (metal-oxide-semiconductor) structures  in GaAs/AlxGa1-xAs selectively doped heterojunctions with two-subband occupied , where large-scale fluctuations of layers have small effect on the position of the energy levels and transport properties. Recently, new types of quantum wells (QW), e.g., modulation-doped QW , wide parabolic QW , and stepped QW  semiconductor structures with two occupied subbands, have been grown by tailoring the conduction-band edge of III-IV semiconductors. It was shown that these novel heterostuctures with double subband occupancy exhibit a much stronger effect of large-scale disorder on transport properties than the previously studied one-subband systems. For the new systems, the screening is effective only on the average of the external changes of the bottoms of the two occupied subbands, which are different from each other, and caused by smooth variations of QW parameters on the scale of the Bohr radius as illustrated in Fig. 1a. Only essential unscreened large-scale fluctuations of the both occupied QW levels are present in these systems.

This paper addresses the effect of such non-screened variations of both occupied energy levels on the electronic spectrum and the classical magnetotransport by employing different confinement models: hard wall QW (Fig. 1b), parabolic QW (Fig. 1c), and stepped QW (Fig. 1d). Short-range and small-angle elastic scattering mechanisms, within a local response approximation, are included in the linearized kinetic equation. We obtain effective magnetotransport coefficients, which are evaluated from the components of the local conductivity tensor averaged over large-scale inhomogeneities, up to second order in the disorder contributions to the conductivity, for zero temperature. In addition, we calculate the modulation of the effective conductivity by the transverse voltage. We take into account the difference between intra-subband momentum scattering frequencies and the inter-subband contributions. We investigate also the spatial variations of these frequencies. We find an essential broadening of the peak of intersubband transitions due to the large-scale inhomogeneities and we provide numerical estimates of magnetotransport coefficients for the considered models.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II the energy spectrum, which takes into account non-screened variations of levels, and the general conductivity tensor within the linear response approach, are obtained. From the transition probability for a random potential model, we calculate, in Sec. III, the scattering frequencies and magnetotransport coefficients considering short-range and small-angle scattering mechanisms and after averaging the conductivity tensor over in-plane large-scale inhomogeneities. In Sec. IV, we discuss the assumptions, on which the work described here is explicitly dependent, and we present our concluding remarks.

## II General equations

We discuss now our model for the energy levels fluctuations due to random inhomogeneities and we obtain the general expressions of the conductivity tensor based on the local response approach for nonideal QWs with two occupied subbands.

### A Electron energy spectrum

Electron energy levels in a QW with slowly varying width can be described in terms of $`𝐫=\{x,y\}`$ along with the in-plane kinetic energy given by the parabolic dispersion law $`\epsilon _p=p^2/2m`$ with effective mass $`m`$. For instance, the influence of nonideal heterointerfaces in the hard-wall QW, formed by large band offsets, can be studied by assuming that the QW widths, $`d_𝐫`$, are randomly varied. Then, the few lowest energy levels $`s=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ are given by

$$\epsilon _{s𝐫}=\frac{(s\pi \mathrm{}/d_𝐫)^2}{2m}\epsilon _s\left(12\frac{\delta d_𝐫}{d}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\epsilon _s=s^2(\pi \mathrm{}/d)^2/2m`$, $`d`$ is the mean width of the QW, and $`\delta d_𝐫`$ is its random fluctuation due to heterointerface roughness. The energy of an electron in the $`s`$-th subband is given as $`E_{p𝐫}^{(s)}=p^2/2m+\epsilon _{s𝐫}+v_{s𝐫}`$, where $`v_{s𝐫}=𝑑z\left|\phi _{sz}\right|^2V_{𝐫z}`$ is the screening potential averaged over the $`s`$-th subband charge distribution $`\left|\phi _{sz}\right|^2`$ along the $`z`$ direction. The potential $`V_{𝐫z}`$ is determined by the Poisson’s equation as

$$^2V_{𝐫z}=\frac{4\pi e^2}{ϵ}(n_{𝐫z}n_{𝐫z}),n_{𝐫z}=\underset{s=1,2}{}n_{s𝐫}\left|\phi _{sz}\right|^2,$$
(2)
where $`n_{s𝐫}=\rho _{2D}(\epsilon _F\epsilon _{s𝐫}v_{s𝐫})`$ is the electron density in the $`s`$-th subband, $`\rho _{2D}=m/\pi \mathrm{}^2`$ is the 2D density of states, $`\epsilon _F`$ the Fermi energy, $`n_{𝐫z}`$ is the electron density averaged over the random inhomogeneities, and $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric constant, assumed independent of $`z`$. Hereafter, we consider only the case of two occupied subbands.

The solution of Eq. (2) is given as

$$V_{𝐪z}=\frac{2\pi e^2}{ϵq}𝑑z^{}e^{q|zz^{}|}\delta n_{𝐪z^{}},$$
(3)
where $`\delta n_{𝐪z}`$ is the 2D Fourier transform of the nonuniform part of the electron density

$$\delta n_{𝐫z}=\underset{s=1,2}{}\left|\phi _{sz}\right|^2\delta n_{s𝐫}=\rho _{2D}\underset{s}{}\left|\phi _{sz}\right|^2(\delta \epsilon _{s𝐫}+v_{s𝐫}).$$
(4)
Substituting Eq. (4) in Eq. (3), we are led to the system of two linear inhomogeneous equations for the Fourier transforms of screening potentials $`v_{s𝐪}`$ for $`s=1`$ and $`s=2`$ subbands:

$$v_{s𝐪}=\frac{2\pi e^2}{ϵq}\rho _{2D}\underset{s^{}}{}𝑑z\phi _{sz}^2𝑑z^{}e^{q|zz^{}|}\left|\phi _{s^{}z^{}}\right|^2(\delta \epsilon _{s^{}𝐪}+v_{s^{}𝐪}).$$
(5)
Notice that inhomogeneity of Eq. (5) comes from terms $`\delta \epsilon _{s^{}𝐪}`$. Hence the solutions are expressed in terms of the variations of the occupied levels, introduced by Eq. (1). Assuming large-scale variations, $`\mathrm{}_cd`$, it follows from Eq. (5) that only the Fourier components with $`q\mathrm{}_c^1d^1`$ are essential. Then $`\mathrm{exp}(q|zz^{}|)`$ in Eq. (5) can be well approximated by the unity and we have

$$v_{s𝐪}=\frac{4}{qa_B}\underset{s^{}}{}(\delta \epsilon _{s^{}𝐪}+v_{s^{}𝐪}),$$
(6)
where $`a_B`$ is the Bohr radius. Here the right-hand side is independent of $`s`$, so $`v_{1,2𝐪}v_𝐪`$. Further, for $`qa_B/81,`$ from Eq. (6), it follows that

$$v_𝐫\frac{1}{2}\underset{s=1,2}{}\delta \epsilon _{s𝐫},$$
(7)
i.e., screening is relevant only on the average of the external variations $`\delta \epsilon _{1𝐫}`$ and $`\delta \epsilon _{2𝐫}`$. As a result, the electron spectrum energy can be written in the form

$$E_{p𝐫}^{(s)}=\frac{p^2}{2m}+\epsilon _s(1)^s\delta \epsilon _𝐫,$$
(8)
where $`\delta \epsilon _𝐫=(\epsilon _2\epsilon _1)\delta d_𝐫/d3\epsilon _1\delta d_𝐫/d`$ is the non-screened part of potential. For further numerical estimates, we assume Gaussian correlations for the QW width fluctuations

$$\delta \epsilon _𝐫\delta \epsilon _𝐫^{}=\left(\frac{3\epsilon _1}{d}\right)^2\delta d_𝐫\delta d_𝐫^{}=\left(\overline{\delta \epsilon }\right)^2w(|𝐫𝐫^{}|).$$
(9)
Here $`\overline{\delta \epsilon }=3\epsilon _1\overline{\delta d}/d`$, $`\overline{\delta d}`$ is the typical height of the roughness interface and $`w(x)=\mathrm{exp}[(x/\mathrm{})^2]`$ is the Gaussian function with lateral correlation length $`\mathrm{}`$. We can also write analogous expressions for the case of parabolic (Fig. 1c) and stepped (Fig.1d) QWs but we do not give here the pertinent formulas considering further that $`\overline{\delta \epsilon }`$ is a given quantity.

### B Conductivity tensor

Classical transport phenomena for electrons with spectrum, given by Eq. (8), are described by the distribution function $`f_F(E_{p𝐫}^{(s)})+\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐫}}^{(s)}`$ within the linear response theory. Here $`f_F`$ is the unperturbed Fermi distribution and the field-induced distribution is determined from the linearized kinetic equation of $`s`$-th subband given by

$$\left(𝐯_𝐫+(1)^s\delta \epsilon _𝐫\frac{}{𝐩}+\frac{e}{c}[𝐯\times 𝐇]\frac{}{𝐩}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐫}}^{(s)}I_s(\mathrm{\Delta }f|\mathrm{𝐩𝐫})=e𝐄_𝐫\frac{f_F(E_{p𝐫}^{(s)})}{𝐩},$$
(10)
where $`𝐄_𝐫`$ is the electric field, which is zero in the absence of a net current density $`𝐣_𝐫`$, $`𝐇`$ is the magnetic field perpendicular to the QW’s plane ($`𝐯=𝐩/m`$) and the collision integral for the elastic scattering case is written as

$$I_s(\mathrm{\Delta }f|\mathrm{𝐩𝐫})=\underset{s^{}𝐩^{}}{}W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}^{ss^{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }f_{𝐩^{}𝐫}^{(s^{})}\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐫}}^{(s)}).$$
(11)
$`W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}^{ss^{}}`$ is the transition probability per second between states $`s,𝐩`$ and $`s^{},𝐩^{}`$. The total current density $`𝐣_𝐫`$ is given by the standard expression $`𝐣_𝐫=(2e/L^2)_{s𝐩}𝐯\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐫}}^{(s)}`$ and satisfies the continuity equation $`𝐣_𝐫=0`$.

The contributions from the convection and random fields in the left-hand side of Eq. (10) are estimated as $`\overline{v}/\mathrm{}`$ and $`\overline{\delta \epsilon }/(\overline{p}\mathrm{})`$ respectively. These contributions can be discarded when $`\overline{v}\overline{\tau }\mathrm{}`$ and $`\overline{\delta \epsilon }\overline{\epsilon }`$, where $`\overline{\epsilon }=\overline{v}\overline{p}/2`$ is the characteristics electron energy, where we have used the relaxation time approximation to estimate the collision integral as $`\overline{\tau }^1.`$ Under these assumptions, Eq. (10) assumes the form

$$\frac{e}{c}[𝐯\times 𝐇]\frac{}{𝐩}\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐫}}^{(s)}I_s(\mathrm{\Delta }f|\mathrm{𝐩𝐫})=e(𝐄_𝐫𝐯)f_F^{^{}}(E_{p𝐫}^{(s)}),$$
(12)
where $`f_F^{^{}}(E)=f_F(E)/E`$. We look for a solution in the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐫}}^{(s)}=ef_F^{^{}}(E_{p𝐫}^{(s)})\left\{A_s(𝐄_𝐫𝐯)+B_s\frac{e}{mc}([𝐄_𝐫\times 𝐇]𝐯)\right\},$$
(13)
where the coefficients $`A_s`$ and $`B_s`$ depend only on $`p^2`$. Substituting Eq. (13) into the kinetic equation (12), we obtain the linear algebraic system (see Ref. for details)

$`\omega _c^2B_s{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}𝐩^{}}{}}W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}^{ss^{}}\left(A_s^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}}{p}}\mathrm{cos}(𝐩,𝐩^{})A_s\right)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (14)
$`A_s+{\displaystyle \underset{s^{}𝐩^{}}{}}W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}^{ss^{}}\left(B_s^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p^{}}{p}}\mathrm{cos}(𝐩,𝐩^{})B_s\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (15)
The solution of Eq. (15) for our two-level system is expressed through the transport relaxation frequency of $`s`$-th subband given by

$$\nu _s^{tr}=\underset{𝐩^{}}{}W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}^{ss}\left[1\mathrm{cos}(𝐩,𝐩^{})\right]$$
(16)
and the intersubband relaxation frequencies are written as

$$\nu _{ss^{}}=\underset{𝐩^{}}{}W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}^{ss^{}},\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{ss^{}}=\underset{𝐩^{}}{}W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}^{ss^{}}\mathrm{cos}(𝐩,𝐩^{}),$$
(17)
where $`s,s^{}=1,2`$. The solution of Eqs. (15) is

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _1[\omega _c^2+\nu _2^2+\eta _1\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{12}\nu _2]\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{12}[\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{12}\nu _2+\eta _1(\omega _c^2+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{12}^2)]}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (18)
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^2+\nu _2^2+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{12}^2+\eta _1\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{12}(\nu _1+\nu _2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$ (19)
with the cyclotron frequency $`\omega _c=|e|H/mc`$, $`\nu _1=\nu _1^{tr}+\nu _{12}`$, $`\nu _2=\nu _2^{tr}+\nu _{12}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=[(\nu _1\nu _2\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{12}^2)^2+\omega _c^2(\omega _c^2+\nu _1^2+\nu _2^2+2\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{12}^2)]`$. In Eq. (19) we have $`\eta _1=p^{}/p`$, where the momenta $`p^{}`$ and $`p`$ are connected through $`(p^2p^2)/(2m)=\epsilon _2\epsilon _12\delta \epsilon _𝐫`$ from energy conservation. The expressions for $`A_2`$ and $`B_2`$ follows from the above expressions for $`A_1`$ and $`B_1`$, respectively, by changing $`12`$, $`21`$ everywhere in Eq. (19) and taking $`\eta _2=p^{}/p`$ where $`p^{}`$ now satisfies $`(p^2p^2)/(2m)=\epsilon _1\epsilon _2+2\delta \epsilon _𝐫`$.

Furthermore, for the zero-temperature, the coefficients $`A_s`$ and $`B_s`$ are calculated only at the Fermi level. Thus, we have to use $`p=p_{F_1}`$ ($`p=p_{F_2}`$) in $`A_1`$,$`B_1`$ ($`A_2`$,$`B_2`$) while $`\eta _1=p_{F_2}/p_{F_1}`$ and $`\eta _2=p_{F_1}/p_{F_2}`$ correspondingly. The induced current density, at zero temperature, is written as

$$𝐣_𝐫=\frac{e^2}{m}\underset{s}{}n_𝐫^{(s)}\left\{A_s𝐄_𝐫+B_s\frac{e}{mc}[𝐄_𝐫\times 𝐇]\right\}\widehat{\sigma }(𝐫)𝐄_𝐫,$$
(20)
where the electron concentration for the $`s`$-th subband is given by

$$n_𝐫^{(s)}=n_s+(1)^s\rho _{2D}\delta \epsilon _𝐫.$$
(21)
$`n_s`$ is the mean concentration of the $`s`$-th level and $`n=n_1+n_2`$ is the total average concentration. From Eq. (20), the components of the $`2\times 2`$ conductivity tensor are

$$\sigma _{xx}(𝐫)=\frac{e^2}{m}\underset{s}{}A_sn_𝐫^{(s)},\sigma _{yx}(𝐫)=\frac{e^2}{m}\omega _c\underset{s}{}B_sn_𝐫^{(s)},$$
(22)
where $`\sigma _{xx}(𝐫)=\sigma _{yy}(𝐫)`$ and $`\sigma _{yx}(𝐫)=\sigma _{xy}(𝐫)`$. Note, that the conductivity dependence on $`𝐫`$ comes not only due to the spatial variations of $`n_𝐫^{(s)}`$ but also because $`p_{F_1\text{ }}`$and $`p_{F_2}`$ depends on $`𝐫`$.

## III Transport properties

In this section, we study the peculiarities of the steady-state magnetotransport caused by unscreened fluctuations of the QW’s energy levels. In the model of random potentials, the transition probability can be written as

$$W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}^{ss^{}}=\frac{2\pi w}{\mathrm{}L^3}\underset{q}{}\mathrm{exp}[(Q/q_0)^2]|s^{}|e^{iqz}|s|^2\delta (E_{𝐩^{},s^{},𝐫}E_{𝐩,s,𝐫}),$$
(23)
where $`w\mathrm{exp}(Q^2/q_0^2)`$ is the Gaussian correlation function for the random potential with characteristic scale $`q_0^1`$ (note that $`q_0\mathrm{}^1`$), $`𝐐=[(𝐩^{}𝐩)/\mathrm{},q]`$ is a 3D wave vector, and $`L`$ is the normalization length. Summing over $`q`$ in Eq. (23) leads to

$$K_{ss^{}}=\frac{1}{L}\underset{q}{}e^{(q/q_0)^2}|s^{}|e^{iqz}|s|^2=\frac{q_0}{2\sqrt{\pi }}𝑑z𝑑z^{}\phi _{s^{}z}\phi _{sz}\phi _{s^{}z^{}}\phi _{sz^{}}e^{[q_0(zz^{})/2]^2}$$
(24)
and the transition probability transforms into

$$W_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}^{ss^{}}=\frac{2\pi w}{\mathrm{}L^2}\mathrm{exp}\{[(𝐩^{}𝐩)/\mathrm{}q_0]^2\}K_{ss^{}}\delta (E_{𝐩^{},s^{},𝐫}E_{𝐩,s,𝐫}),$$
(25)
where the $`\delta `$-function depends on $`𝐫`$ only for intersubband transitions, $`ss^{}`$. Notice that $`K_{12}=K_{21}`$.

The functions $`K_{ss^{}}`$ are calculated below for the cases of short-range ($`q_0^1d`$) and small-angle ($`\mathrm{}q_0p_{Fs}`$) scattering. We consider three models of confinement potential: hard-wall QWs (see Sec. IIA), parabolic QWs with effective width $`\mathrm{}_{}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _{}}`$, $`\omega _{}`$ is the characteristic frequency of the potential, and stepped QWs with quite different well widths $`d_nd_w`$. The coefficients $`K_{ss^{}}`$ are shown in Table I.

Consider next the relaxation frequencies for these cases. For short-range scattering, straightforward calculations of Eqs. (16), (17), and (25) give

$$\nu _1^{tr}=(mw/\mathrm{}^3)K_{11},\nu _2^{tr}=(mw/\mathrm{}^3)K_{22},\nu _{12}=(mw/\mathrm{}^3)K_{12},$$
(26)
and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{12}=0`$. For small-angle scattering, we obtain

$$\nu _{1,2}^{tr}\frac{mwq_0^3}{8\sqrt{\pi }p_{F_{1,2}}^3}K_{11},\text{and }\nu _{12}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{12}\frac{mwq_0}{2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{}^2\sqrt{p_{F_1}p_{F_2}}}K_{12}e^{(p_{F_1}p_{F_2})^2/\mathrm{}^2q_0^2},$$
(27)
where we assumed that $`(\mathrm{}q_0/p_{F_s})^21`$ and $`p_{F_s}`$ is determined from $`E_{p𝐫}^{(s)}=E_F`$. We point out that, in these conditions for small-angle scattering, we have $`\nu _{12}\nu _s^{tr}`$ due to the exponentially small factor. Indeed, for instance, in the case of the parabolic QW, $`\nu _{12}/\nu _1^{tr}=\sqrt{p_{F_1}/p_{F_2}}(p_{F_1}\mathrm{}_{}/\mathrm{})^2\mathrm{exp}[(p_{F_1}p_{F_2})^2/\mathrm{}^2q_0^2]`$. For the maximum ratio $`p_{F_1}/p_{F_2}`$, we estimate $`\nu _{12}/\nu _1^{tr}=4\sqrt{2}\mathrm{exp}[(p_{F_1}p_{F_2})^2/\mathrm{}^2q_0^2]`$. So, if $`\mathrm{exp}[(p_{F_1}p_{F_2})^2/\mathrm{}^2q_0^2]10^1`$, we obtain $`\nu _{12}/\nu _s^{tr}1`$ for hard-wall and parabolic QWs. Similar condition holds for the stepped QW. For small-angle scattering, we neglect further very small contributions related to $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{12}`$ and $`\nu _{12}`$. Then, as it is seen in the Table I and Eq. (27), the transport coefficients do not depend essentially on the specific QW for small-angle scattering.

In order to analyze the influence of non-uniform contributions, we have to average the local conductivity tensor, Eqs. (22), written in the form $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }(𝐫)=\sigma _{\mu \nu }+_𝐤(\delta \sigma _𝐤)_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐫)`$, where $`\delta \widehat{\sigma }_𝐤`$ is the non-uniform contribution and $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ is the conductivity tensor for an ideal QW with two occupied subbands given by

$$\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\frac{e^2}{m}\underset{s}{}\frac{n_s}{\nu _s^2+\omega _c^2}\{\begin{array}{cc}\nu _s\hfill & \mu =x,\nu =x,\hfill \\ \omega _c\hfill & \mu =y,\nu =x\hfill \end{array}.$$
(28)
Here we assume that intersubband frequencies are negligible. Following Ref. , we obtain, up to the second order in the large-scale disorder, the effective conductivity tensor, from $`𝐣_𝐫=\widehat{\sigma }^{eff}𝐄_𝐫`$, as

$$\sigma _{\mu \nu }^{eff}=\sigma _{\mu \nu }\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{_{\alpha \beta }(\delta \sigma _𝐤)_{\mu \alpha }k_\alpha k_\beta (\delta \sigma _𝐤)_{\beta \nu }}{_{\alpha \beta }k_\alpha \sigma _{\alpha \beta }k_\beta },$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the average over the sample area, i.e., for distances $`r\mathrm{}`$, and $`_𝐤(\delta \sigma _𝐤)_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐤𝐫})=0`$ . The average is performed using Fourier transform of the Gaussian correlation function, Eq. (9), $`\delta \epsilon _𝐤\delta \epsilon _𝐤^{}=\delta _{𝐤+𝐤^{},0}(\pi \overline{\delta \epsilon }^2\mathrm{}_c^2/L^2)\mathrm{exp}[(k\mathrm{}_c/2)^2]`$ with $`k=\sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2}`$.

### A Short-range scattering

Before explicit calculation of the local magnetoconductivity tensor from the general Eq. (22), we present now standard expressions for magnetotransport coefficients of a QW with two occupied subbands. Using the conductivity tensor, given by Eq. (28), we obtain the magnetoresistance

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{}=\frac{n_1n_2\omega _c^2(\nu _1\nu _2)^2}{\nu _1\nu _2[(n_1+n_2)^2\omega _c^2+(n_1\nu _2+n_2\nu _1)^2]},$$
(30)
and the Hall coefficient

$$R=\frac{1}{ec}\frac{n_1(\nu _2^2+\omega _c^2)+n_2(\nu _1^2+\omega _c^2)}{[n_1^2(\nu _2^2+\omega _c^2)+n_2^2(\nu _1^2+\omega _c^2)+2n_1n_2(\nu _2\nu _1+\omega _c^2)]}.$$
(31)
For strong ($`\omega _c\tau 1`$) and weak ($`\omega _c\tau 1`$) magnetic fields, the Hall coefficient do not depend on $`H`$ leading to $`R(\mathrm{})1/ec(n_1+n_2)`$ and $`R(H=0)(n_1\nu _2^2+n_2\nu _1^2)/[ec(n_1\nu _2+n_2\nu _1)^2]`$.

For short-range scattering, all frequencies do not depend on $`p_{F_{1,2}}`$ and as a consequence, the coefficients $`A_s`$ and $`B_s`$ are independent of $`𝐫`$. The non-uniform contribution to the conductivity tensor takes the form

$$\delta \sigma _{\mu \nu }(𝐤)=\frac{e^2\rho _{2D}}{m}\underset{s}{}\frac{(1)^s\delta \epsilon _𝐤}{\nu _s^2+\omega _c^2}\{\begin{array}{cc}\nu _s\hfill & \mu =x,y\nu =x,y\hfill \\ \omega _c\hfill & \mu =y,\nu =x\hfill \end{array}.$$
(32)
After substituting Eq. (32) into Eq. (29) and performing the averaging process, we obtain the components of the effective conductivity tensor as

$$\sigma _{xx}^{eff}=\sigma _{xx}\frac{e^4\overline{\delta n}^2}{2m^2\sigma _{xx}}\left(\frac{1}{\omega _c^2+\nu _1^2}+\frac{1}{\omega _c^2+\nu _2^2}\frac{2(\omega _c^2+\nu _1\nu _2)}{(\omega _c^2+\nu _1\nu _2)^2+\omega _c^2(\nu _2\nu _1)^2}\right),$$
(33)
$$\sigma _{yx}^{_{eff}}=\sigma _{yx}\frac{e^4\overline{\delta n}^2}{m^2\sigma _{xx}}\omega _c\left(\frac{1}{\omega _c^2+\nu _1^2}\frac{1}{\omega _c^2+\nu _2^2}\right)\left(\frac{\nu _1}{\omega _c^2+\nu _1^2}\frac{\nu _2}{\omega _c^2+\nu _2^2}\right),$$
(34)
where $`\overline{\delta n}=\rho _{2D}\overline{\delta \epsilon }`$ gives the concentration fluctuation due to large-scale inhomogeneities.

Using Eqs. (33) and (34), the effective magnetoresistance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{eff}`$, and the Hall coefficient $`R_{eff}`$, can be easily obtained. In Fig. 2, we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{eff}`$ as a function of the magnetic field for $`n_2/n_1=0.5`$. The solid and dot-dashed curves are $`10`$ times enlarged and correspond to parabolic QWs where $`\nu _2/\nu _1=5/6`$ and $`\overline{\delta n}/n_1=0.2`$ and $`\overline{\delta n}/n_1=0`$ respectively, The dotted and dashed curves correspond to stepped QWs for $`\overline{\delta n}/n_1=0.2`$ and $`\overline{\delta n}/n_1=0`$, respectively, with $`d_n10`$ Å, $`d_w350`$ Å, $`U_00.1`$ eV, which leads to $`\kappa 10^6`$cm-1, $`\epsilon _2\epsilon _121.5`$ meV, and $`n_1+n_22.0\times 10^{12}`$cm-2. It follows that $`\nu _2/\nu _1=1/2.1`$. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{eff}0`$ as well as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{}0`$ for the hard-wall QW because $`\nu _2/\nu _1=1`$ for short-range scattering. Then magnetoresistance is absent for hard-wall QWs, while a positive magnetoresistance appears for the parabolic QW, which becomes larger by a factor of $`15`$ in the case of the stepped QW.

In Fig. 3, we depict $`(R_{eff}R_0)/R_0`$, where $`R_0=1/ecn`$ with $`n=(n_1+n_2)`$ using the same curves and conditions as in Fig. 2. Similarly to Fig. 2, the solid and dot-dashed curves represent $`10\times (R_{eff}R_0)/R_0`$ for the parabolic QW. In the case of the hard-wall QW, $`R_{eff}R_0`$ and $`RR_0`$ because $`\nu _2/\nu _1=1`$. Hence for hard-wall QW $`(R_{eff}R_0)/R_0=0`$, while an explicit dependence of $`H`$ is observed for parabolic and stepped QWs. In addition, from Figs. 2,3 it follows that unscreened effect of the large-scale inhomogeneities of a QW parameters is manifested through stronger magnetoresistance at $`\omega _c/\nu _1<1`$ and weaker at $`\omega _c/\nu _1>1`$. While it leads to smaller Hall coefficient for $`\omega _c/\nu _1<0.5`$, for $`\omega _c/\nu _12`$ effect of such large-scale inhomogeneities on Hall coefficient becomes negligible. Notice that in experiment of Ref.  it was observed for magnetic fields, $`B_z<0.2`$ T, practically independent of $`H_z`$ magnetoresistance in GaAs-based parabolic QW with two occupied subbands: which leads to $`\nu _1`$ very close to $`\nu _2`$ that in turn can be valid only when scattering is short-range.

### B Small-angle scattering

For small-angle scattering, large-scale fluctuations of the electron density and scattering frequencies play an important role. As we have seen, scattering frequencies, given by Eq. (27), depend on fluctuations of the Fermi momenta. Further, we can neglect contributions coming from $`\nu _{12}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{12}`$. Using Eqs. (19), (22), (27), and (29), the components of the effective conductivity tensor, for small-angle scattering, can be written as

$$\sigma _{xx}^{eff}/\overline{\sigma }_0=\overline{\sigma _{xx}}\frac{4\overline{\delta n}^2}{n^2\overline{\sigma _{xx}}}\left[F_x^2(H)F_y^2(H)\right],$$
(35)
and

$$\sigma _{yx}^{eff}/\overline{\sigma }_0=\overline{\sigma _{yx}}\frac{8\overline{\delta n}^2}{n^2\overline{\sigma _{xx}}}F_y(H)F_x(H),$$
(36)
where

$$\overline{\sigma _{xx}}=\sigma _{xx}/\overline{\sigma }_0=2\sqrt{2}\underset{s=1,2}{}\frac{(n_s/n_{2D})^{1/2}}{1+\omega _c^2/\nu _s^2}\left\{\left(\frac{n_s}{n}\right)^2+\frac{\overline{\delta n}^2}{n^2}\left[\frac{19}{16}+\left(\frac{7}{4}\frac{3\omega _c^2/\nu _s^2}{1+\omega _c^2/\nu _s^2}\right)^2\right]\right\},$$
(37)
$$\overline{\sigma _{yx}}=\sigma _{yx}/\overline{\sigma }_0=2\sqrt{2}\underset{s=1,2}{}\frac{(\omega _c/\nu _s)(n_s/n)^{1/2}}{1+\omega _c^2/\nu _s^2}\left\{\left(\frac{n_s}{n}\right)^2+\frac{\overline{\delta n}^2}{n^2}\left[\frac{1}{4}+\left(\frac{5}{2}\frac{3\omega _c^2/\nu _s^2}{1+\omega _c^2/\nu _s^2}\right)^2\right]\right\},$$
(38)
and

$$F_x(H)=\underset{s=1,2}{}(1)^s\frac{(n_s/n)^{3/2}}{1+\omega _c^2/\nu _s^2}\left(\frac{5}{2}\frac{3\omega _c^2/\nu _s^2}{1+\omega _c^2/\nu _s^2}\right),$$
(39)
$$F_y(H)=\underset{s=1,2}{}(1)^s\frac{(\omega _c/\nu _s)(n_s/n)^{3/2}}{1+\omega _c^2/\nu _s^2}\left(4\frac{3\omega _c^2/\nu _s^2}{1+\omega _c^2/\nu _s^2}\right).$$
(40)
Here $`\nu _s=mwq_0^4/16\pi \overline{p}_{F_s}^3`$, where $`\overline{p}_{F_s}`$ is independent of $`𝐫`$ and is determined by $`n_s`$, $`\overline{\sigma }_0=e^2n/m\nu _0`$, and a typical scattering frequency $`\nu _0`$ is determined as $`\nu _0^{2/3}=(\nu _1^{2/3}+\nu _2^{2/3})/2`$. Notice that $`\nu _s`$ is related to $`n_s`$, while $`\nu _0`$ corresponds to $`n/2`$. In Figs. 4 and 5 we present our calculated effective conductivity tensor, given by Eqs. (35)-(40), magnetoresistance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{eff}`$ and the Hall coefficient, $`R_{eff}`$.

In Fig. 4, we show $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{eff}`$ for $`n_2/n_1=0.5`$ as a function of $`\omega _c/\nu _1`$. The solid and dashed curves represent $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{eff}`$ for small-angle scattering for $`\overline{\delta n}/n=1/8`$ and $`\overline{\delta n}/n=0`$, respectively. and $`\nu _2/\nu _1=8`$. For comparison, we plot the dotted curve for short-range scattering in the stepped QW as shown in Fig. 2. We observe in Fig. 4 that, for small-angle scattering, large-scale inhomogeneities strongly modifies the effective magnetoresistance in the case of two occupied subbands. Its behavior can be essentially different from the situation of short-range scattering. In this case, as it can be seen in Fig. 2, the magnetoresistance increases before reaching a plateau at $`\omega _c/\nu _11`$. On the contrary, for small-angle scattering, this behavior is observed at $`\omega _c/\nu _18`$. As it is seen in Fig. 4, there is a much larger region of classical magnetic fields in which the magnetoresistance increases in case of small-angle scattering than for short-range scattering. Furthermore, in contrast with the short-range scattering case, we see that large-scale unscreened inhomogeneities lead to substantially smaller values of magnetoresistance at relatively weak magnetic fields, $`\omega _c/\nu _13`$, while contributes to enhance the magnetoresistance at larger magnetic fields, $`\omega _c/\nu _14`$. Notice that according experimental results of Ref. , where all data are given for $`n_2/n_11/2`$, the rather small magnetoresistance was attributed to small-angle scattering, which is confirmed by our calculated $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{eff}`$ given by the solid curve in Fig. 4.

Using the same parameters of Fig. 4, $`(R_{eff}R_0)/R_0`$ is depicted in Fig. 5. We now observe that large-scale unscreened inhomogeneities lead to a substantially weaker dependence of $`R_{eff}`$ on $`H`$ in agreement with the experimental results of Ref. . In conclusion, our theoretical results describe qualitatively well the experimental ones. We point out that the results, in the case of small-angle scattering, are independent of QW confinement model.

### C Transverse field effect on the conductivity

Now we consider the modulation of the effective conductivity under transverse voltage which causes intersubband redistribution of the electron population. From Eq. (33), for zero magnetic field, the effective conductivity, for short-range scattering, can be written as

$$\sigma ^{eff}/\overline{\sigma }=\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }{n\overline{\nu }}\right)\left\{12\frac{\overline{\delta n}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\nu ^2}{n^2\overline{\nu }^2(1+\mathrm{\Delta }n\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /n\overline{\nu })^2}\right\},$$
(41)
where $`\overline{\sigma }=e^2n\overline{\nu }/m\nu _1\nu _2`$, $`\overline{\nu }=(\nu _1+\nu _2)/2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =(\nu _2\nu _1)/2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=(n_1n_2)=\rho _{2D}(\epsilon _2\epsilon _1)`$ with $`n_1=(n+\mathrm{\Delta }n)/2`$ and $`n_2=(n\mathrm{\Delta }n)/2`$. For hard-wall QWs, because $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =0`$, it follows that $`\sigma ^{eff}`$ is independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$. In Fig. 6, we present $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{eff}=\sigma ^{eff}/\overline{\sigma }1`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n/n`$. The dotted and dashed curves correspond to stepped QWs with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /\overline{\nu }0.36`$, for the same parameters used in Fig. 2, and $`\overline{\delta n}/n=1/8`$ and $`\overline{\delta n}/n=0`$, respectively. The thin-solid curve corresponds to a parabolic QW, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /\overline{\nu }=1/11`$, for $`\overline{\delta n}/n=1/8`$ which practically coincides with that for $`\overline{\delta n}/n=0`$. We observe that all curves, plotted in Fig. 6, for short-range scattering, have a negative slope.

For small-angle scattering, the effective conductivity, given by Eq. (35), transforms, for $`H=0`$, into

$`\sigma ^{eff}/\overline{\sigma }_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}})^{5/2}+(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}})^{5/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{15\overline{\delta n}^2}{2n^2}}\left[(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}})^{1/2}+(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}})^{1/2}\right]\right\}`$ (42)
$``$ $`\times \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{25\overline{\delta n}^2}{2n^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n})^{3/2}(1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n})^{3/2}\right]^2}{\left\{(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n})^{5/2}+(1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n})^{5/2}+\frac{15\overline{\delta n}^2}{2n^2}\left[(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n})^{1/2}+(1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n})^{1/2}\right]\right\}^2}}\right).`$ (43)
In Fig. 6, we show the results of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{eff}=\sigma ^{eff}/\overline{\sigma }_01`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n/n`$, calculated from Eq. (43) and represented by solid and dot-dot-dashed curves, which correspond to $`\overline{\delta n}/n=1/8`$ and $`\overline{\delta n}/n=0`$, respectively. We see that in contrast with the short-range scattering, now the curves have a positive slope. We do not discuss here the relation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }n/n`$ and the applied voltage. According to, for instance Refs. ,  and electro-optical measurements( for references see Ref. ), the population redistribution can be essential already for rather small voltages. More detailed behavior can be achieved by performing self-consistent calculations for band structures with diagrams shown in Figs. 1(b-d).

## IV Concluding remarks

We have shown that non-screened variations of the intersubband energy modify essentially the transport properties of quantum wells when two subbands are occupied. Relative changes in the transport coefficients are determined by the degree of the random redistribution of the electron density and by the extent of the asymmetry of scattering processes that, for short-range scattering, are characterized by dimensionless parameters $`\overline{\delta n}/n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu /\overline{\nu }`$, respectively. Our model is founded on some assumptions, which we discuss below, and more detailed numerical calculations, which take into account peculiarities of the band structure and scattering mechanisms, are necessary for a full description of the electron transport. However, our results demonstrate that the kinetic coefficients change when we move from single to double subband occupancy in samples of similar quality.

Along with magnetotransport characteristics (magnetoresistance, the Hall coefficient, etc.) and the field effect (modulation of effective conductivity by transverse voltage), other transport phenomena like Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations and cyclotron resonance are influenced by non-screened variations of subbands. For instance, essential broadening of the peak of intersubband transitions of a QW, due to unscreened large-scale inhomogeneities, takes place also in the case of two occupied subbands. The effect of such inhomogeneities on intersubband optical transitions also requires special study.

We discuss now the model assumptions. We have used the approximation of smooth inhomogeneities in several points: i) dependence of QW energy levels upon the in-plane coordinate $`𝐫`$; ii) we have assumed that characteristic scale of smooth inhomogeneities $`\mathrm{}a_B`$, and the screened potential, given by Eq. (7), results only on the average of variations of the energy levels; iii) the condition that the transport scattering length $`\overline{v}\overline{\tau }\mathrm{}`$ mainly determines the regime of applicability of the treatment; iv) the approximation of small amplitudes for smooth inhomogeneities, which leads to conditions $`\overline{\delta n}/n_{1,2}1`$, reduces quantitatively the effects, but it allows to use theory applied to weakly large-scale inhomogeneous media . In addition, our calculations are based on simple QW spectra models instead of detailed self-consistent calculations of the band structure. However, we believe that the model assumptions, which are commonly used, do not change the overall behavior and numerical estimates of the magnetotransport coefficients. We hope our work can stimulate further experimental study of the transport properties of nonideal QWs with multisubband occupancy in order to verify the effects of large-scale, unscreened inhomogeneities.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by grants Nos. 95/0789-3 and 98/10192-2 from Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de São Paulo (FAPESP). O. G. B and N. S. are grateful to Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for research fellowship.

TABLE I. Coefficients $`K_{ss^{}}`$, which appear in the transition probability given by Eq. (25). The columns labeled I and II stand for the short-range and small-angle scatterings, respectively, and for (b) hard-wall, (c) parabolic and (d) stepped QWs depicted in Fig. 1. $`\mathrm{}\kappa =\sqrt{2m(\epsilon _{21}\epsilon _w)}`$ with $`\epsilon _w=2(\pi \mathrm{}/d_w)^2/m`$, $`\kappa d_n1`$, $`\kappa d_w1`$, and $`q_0d_w1`$ and $`a4.6\times 10^3`$.

|  | I (b) | I (c) | I (d) | II (b) | II (c) | II (d) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`K_{11}`$ | $`3/(2d)`$ | $`1/(\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{}_{})`$ | $`\kappa /2`$ | $`q_0/(2\sqrt{\pi })`$ | $`q_0/(2\sqrt{\pi })`$ | $`q_0/(2\sqrt{\pi })`$ |
| $`K_{22}`$ | $`3/(2d)`$ | $`3/(4\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{}_{})`$ | $`3/(2d_w)`$ | $`q_0/(2\sqrt{\pi })`$ | $`q_0/(2\sqrt{\pi })`$ | $`q_0/(2\sqrt{\pi })`$ |
| $`K_{12}`$ | $`1/d`$ | $`1/(2\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{}_{})`$ | $`4\pi ^2/[d_w(\kappa d_w)^2]`$ | $`aq_0(q_0d)^2`$ | $`q_0(q_0\mathrm{}_{})^2/(8\sqrt{\pi })`$ | $`32\pi ^{3/2}q_0^3/[\kappa ^2(\kappa d_w)^3]`$ |

FIGURE CAPTIONS

FIG. 1. (a) Schematic views of the spatial variations of two occupied energy levels in the QW along the $`x`$ direction with (solid curve) and without (dotted curve) screening. Band diagrams for (b) hard-wall, (c) parabolic and (d) stepped QWs with non-ideal heterointerfaces.

FIG. 2. Magnetoresistance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{eff}`$ as a function of the magnetic field for short-range scattering. The solid and dash-dotted curves plot $`10\times \mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{eff}`$ in case of parabolic QWs, $`\nu _2/\nu _1=5/6`$, with $`\overline{\delta n}/n_1=0.2`$ and $`\overline{\delta n}/n_1=0`$, respectively. The dotted and dashed curves correspond to stepped QWs, $`\nu _2/\nu _1=1/2.1`$, with $`\overline{\delta n}/n_1=0.2`$ and $`\overline{\delta n}/n_1=0`$, respectively. The ratio between average subband populations $`n_2/n_1=1/2`$ and $`\overline{\delta n}`$ is the typical value of the concentration fluctuations in both occupied subbands.

FIG. 3. Hall coefficient $`R_{eff}`$ as function of magnetic field for short-range scattering, where $`R_0=1/ecn`$, $`n=n_1+n_2`$. The curves represent the same cases as pertinent curves in Fig. 2.

FIG. 4. Magnetoresistance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{eff}`$ as function of magnetic field for small-angle scattering. The solid and dashed curves correspond to $`n_2/n_1=1/2`$ with $`\overline{\delta n}/n=1/8`$ and $`\overline{\delta n}/n=0`$, respectively. For comparison with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{eff}`$ behavior for short-range scattering, the dotted curve is the same as in Fig. 2.

FIG 5. Hall coefficient $`R_{eff}`$ as function of magnetic field for small-angle scattering. The solid, dashed, and dotted curves correspond to pertinent curves in Fig. 4.

FIG. 6. Conductivity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{eff}`$, for zero magnetic field, as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=n_1n_2`$ showing the effect of intersubband population redistribution due to transverse electric field. The solid and dot-dot-dashed curves, with a positive slope, are for small-angle scattering and $`\overline{\delta n}/n=1/8`$ and $`\overline{\delta n}/n=0`$, respectively. The thin solid (parabolic QW with $`\overline{\delta n}/n=0`$) dotted (stepped QW with $`\overline{\delta n}/n=1/8)`$, and dashed curves (stepped QW with $`\overline{\delta n}/n=0)`$ are for short-range scattering; other parameters are the same as for the stepped QW in Fig. 2.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Spherically symmetric empty space and its dual in general relativity

Naresh Dadhich Email : nkd@iucaa.ernet.in

Inter University Centre for Astronomy & Astrophysics

P.O. Box 4, Pune-411007, India

(to appear in Current Science)

In the spirit of the Newtonian theory, we characterize spherically symmetric empty space in general relativity in terms of energy density measured by a static observer and convergence density experienced by null and timelike congruences. It turns out that space surrounding a static particle is entirely specified by vanishing of energy and null convergence density. The electrograv-dual1 to this condition would be vanishing of timelike and null convergence density which gives the dual-vacuum solution representing a Schwarzschild black hole with global monopole charge2 or with cloud of string dust3. Here the duality1 is defined by interchange of active and passive electric parts of the Riemann curvature, which amounts to interchange of the Ricci and Einstein tensors. This effective characterization of stationary vacuum works for the Schwarzschild and NUT solutions. The most remarkable feature of the effective characterization of empty space is that it leads to new dual spaces and the method can also be applied to lower and higher dimensions.

PACS no. 04.00, 04.20 Dw, 04.20 Jb, 98,80 Cq

The Newtonian gravitational field equation is given by $`^2\varphi =4\pi G\rho `$ and empty space is characterized by $`\rho =0`$. It is well-known that measure of energy is an ambiguous issue in GR primarily because of the inherent difficulty of non-localizability of gravitational field energy. However there is no difficulty in defining various kinds of energy density, signifying different aspects. The analogue of the Newtonian matter density is the energy density measured by a static observer and defined by $`\rho =T_{ab}u^au^b,u^au_a=1`$, where $`u_a=(\sqrt{g}_{00},0,0,0)`$ and $`T_{ab}`$ is the matter-stress tensor of non-gravitational matter field. Then there is the convergence density experienced by timelike and null particle congruences in the Raychaudhuri equation4. They are defined as the timelike convergence density, $`\rho _t=(T_{ab}\frac{1}{2}Tg_{ab})u^au^b`$ and the null convergence density $`\rho _n=T_{ab}v^av^b,v^av_a=0,v_a=(1,\sqrt{g_{11}/g_{00}},0,0)`$. The energy density $`\rho `$ refers to all kinds of energy other than the gravitational field energy, while the timelike and null convergence densities act as active gravitational charge densities. For perfect fluid they are given by $`\rho _t=\frac{1}{2}(\rho +3p)`$ and $`\rho _n=\rho +p`$. It is important to recognise that these three represent different aspects of energy distribution and its gravitational linkage. They would thus in general be not equal. Obviously all the three can never be equal unless space is flat. However $`\rho =\rho _t`$ implies vanishing of scalar curvature (radiation), $`\rho =\rho _n`$ indicates vanishing of pressure (dust) and $`\rho _t=\rho _n`$ gives $`\rho =p`$ (stiff fluid). It may be noted that the weak field and slow motion limit of the Einstein non-empty space equation is $`^2\varphi =4\pi G\rho `$, while its limit in weak field and relativistic motion is $`^2\varphi =8\pi G\rho _t`$.

In the following, we shall always refer $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _t`$ relative to a static observer, and $`\rho _n`$ to radial null geodesic. This does however bring in a particular choice for the timelike and null vectors but the choice is well motivated by the physics of the situation. The radial direction is picked up by the 4-acceleration of the timelike particle, identifying the direction of gravitational force, and so is the static observer for measure of energy and timelike convergence densities…

The main question we wish to address in this note is, can we characterize empty space solely in terms of these densities?

The answer is yes for the space surrounding a static particle. This may in general be true for isolated particle with some additional conditions which would specify the additional physical character of the problem. It is clear that any specification of empty space must involve density relative to both timelike and null particles. That means $`\rho _n`$ must vanish in any case and in addition one or both of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _t`$ must vanish. Of course there should be no energy flux, $`P^c=h^{ac}T_{ab}u^b=0,h^{ac}=g^{ac}u^au^c`$. It turns out that for spherical symmetry effective equation for vacuum is $`\rho =\rho _n=P_c=0`$, the solution of which would imply $`\rho _t=0`$ and vanishing of the all Ricci components. Thus vanishing of energy and its flux, and null convergence density is sufficient to characterize empty space for spherical symmetry as these conditions completely determine the unique Schwarzschild solution. The effective vacuum equation is less restrictive than the vanishing of the entire Ricci tensor.

What actually happens is, for the spherically symmetric metric in the curvature coordinates, $`P_c=0`$ and $`\rho _n=0`$ lead to $`R_{01}=0`$ and $`R_0^0=R_1^1`$ which imply $`g_{00}=f(r)=g^{11}`$, and then $`\rho =0`$ means $`R_2^2=0`$ which integrates to give the Schwarzschild solution completely with $`g_{00}=12GM/r`$ (we have set $`c=1`$). Thus instead of $`R_{ab}=0`$, the less restrictive effective equation $`\rho =\rho _n=P_c=0`$ also equivalently characterizes empty space for a static particle. It is a covariant statement relative to a static observer and in the curvature coordinates it takes the form $`R_0^0=R_1^1,R_2^2=0=R_1^0`$.

Since there are three kinds of density, which could vanish with two at a time in three different ways, it is then natural to ask what would the other two cases give rise to?

The first thing that comes to mind is to replace $`\rho `$ by $`\rho _t`$ in the effective equation to write $`\rho _t=0=\rho _n=P_c`$, which would imply $`G_0^0=G_1^1,G_2^2=0=G_1^0`$. That is replacing Ricci by Einstein, which represents a duality relation between the two. Remarkably this duality transformation is implied at a more fundamental level by interchange of the active and passive electric parts of the Riemann curvature1. (Active and passive electric parts of the Riemann curvature are defined by the double (one for each 2-form) projection of the Riemann tensor and its double (both left and right) dual on a timelike unit vector, and dual is the usual Hodge dual, $`R_{abcd}=1/2ϵ_{abmn}R_{cd}^{mn}`$). That is interchange of active ($`E_{ab}=R_{acbd}u^cu^d`$) and passive ($`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}=Racbdu^cu^d`$) electric parts implies interchange of the Ricci and Einstein tensors because contraction of Riemann gives Ricci while that of its double dual gives Einstein tensor. We have defined the electrogravity duality transformation1 by interchange of the active and passive electric parts, $`E_{ab}\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab},H_{ab}H_{ab}`$. Under this duality transformation it is clear that $`\rho \rho _t,\rho _n\rho _n,P_cP_c`$.

Then the condition $`\rho _t=\rho _n=P_c=0`$ is electrograv-dual to the effective empty space equation given above, and its solution would give rise to the space dual to empty space. It can be easily verified that it integrates out to give the general solution given by $`g_{00}=g^{11}=18\pi G\eta ^22GM/r`$, where $`\eta `$ is a constant. This is an asymptotically non-flat non-empty space which reduces to the Schwarzschild empty space for $`\eta =0`$. At large $`r`$, the stresses it produces accord precisely to that of a global monopole of core mass $`M`$ and $`\eta `$ indicating the scale of symmetry breaking2. Alternatively it can exactly for all $`r`$ represent a Schwarzschild black hole sitting in a cloud of string dust3. It is remarkable that here it arises as dual to empty space,i.e dual to the Schwarzschild black hole1. A global monopole is supposed to be produced when global symmetry $`O(3)`$ is spontaneously broken into $`U(1)`$ in phase transition in the early Universe. The physical properties of this space have been investigated5 and it turns out that the basic character of the field remains almost the same except for scaling of the Schwarzschild’s values for the black hole temperature, the light bending and the perihelion advance6. The difference between the Schwarzschild solution and its dual can be demonstrated as follows. Both the solutions have $`g_{00}=g^{11}=1+2\varphi `$ with $`^2\varphi =0`$, which would have the general solution $`\varphi =kM/r`$. The Schwarzschild solution has $`k=0`$, while the dual does not. This is the only essential difference between the two. It is this constant, which is physically trivial in the Newtonian theory, that brings in the global monopole charge, a topological defect.

Let us also consider the remaining possibility, $`\rho =\rho _t=P_c=0`$ which would in terms of the Ricci components imply $`R=0,R_0^0=0`$. This integrates out to give the general solution, $`g_{00}=(k+\sqrt{12GM/r})^2,g_{11}=(12GM/r)^1`$, where $`k`$ is a constant. It is an asymptotically flat non-empty space with the stresses given by

$$T_1^1=\frac{2kGM/r^3}{k+\sqrt{12GM/r}}=2T_2^2.$$

Obviously, these stesses cannot correspond to any physically acceptable matter field because $`\rho =0`$. On the other hand the spacetime unlike the dual solution remains asymptotically flat. It will admit a static surface only if $`k<0`$ at $`r_s=2GM/(1k^2)`$ and a horizon at $`r_h=2GM`$. However $`r2GM`$ always for $`g_{00}`$ to be real. The region lying between $`r_s`$ and $`r_h`$ would define an ergosphere where negative energy orbits can, as for the Kerr black hole, occur. The Penrose process7 can be set up to extract out the contribution of $`k`$ only if it is negative. However we do not know physical source for $`k`$.

On the other hand, when $`k>0`$, there occurs no horizon and it can represent a wormhole8 of the throat radius $`r=2GM`$. It is remarkable that that it has the basic character of a wormhole which needs to be further investigated. Pursuing on this track, we are presently working out a viable wormhole model9.

This space is certainly empty relative to timelike particles as both $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _t`$ vanish but not so for photons as $`\rho _n0`$. At the least, it can be viewed as an asymptotic flatness preserving perturbation to the Schwarzschild field.

Further it is also possible to characterize the Reissner-Nordstr$`\ddot{o}`$m solution of a charged black hole by $`\rho =\rho _t,\rho _n=P_c=0`$, and the de Sitter ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ \- vacuum) space by $`\rho +\rho _t=0,\rho _n=P_c=0`$. In the Ricci components, the former would translate into $`R=0,R_0^0=R_1^1`$. This is clearly invariant under the duality transformation. It is a non-empty space with trace-free stress tensor. The de Sitter space is given by $`\rho +\rho _t=P_c=0`$, which implies $`R_{ab}=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}`$. Of course under the duality transformation the sign of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ would change indicating that the de Sitter and anti de Sitter are dual of each-other.

The next question is, could other empty space solutions representing isolated sources be characterized similarly?

It turns out that it is possible to characterize the NUT solution and its dual10,11 in the similar manner. However an additional condition would come from the gravomagnetic monopole12 character of the field. The most difficult and challenging problem would be to bring the Kerr solution in line. That is an open question and would engage us for some time in future. The crux of the matter is to identify the additional condition corresponding to gravomagnetic character of the field and solving the resulting equations. Once that is achieved, our new characterization of vacuum would cover all the interesting cases.

In conclusion we would like to say that it is always illuminating and insighful to understand the relativistic situations in terms of the familiar Newtonian concepts and constructs. Relating empty space to absence of energy and convergence density is undoubtedly physically very appealing and intuitively soothing. The most remarkable aspect of this way of looking at empty space is that it gives rise in a natural manner to the new spaces dual to the corresponding empty spaces. The dual spaces only differ from the orginal vacuum spaces by inclusion of a topological defect, global monopole charge.

Note that the characterization of empty space and its dual is by the covariant equations. Earlier the dual spacetimes1,13 were obtained by modifying the vacuum equation, so as to break the invariance relative to the electrogravity duality transformation, in a rather ad-hoc manner. Now the effective vacuum equation has the direct physical meaning in terms of the energy and convergence density. This characterization could as well be applied in lower and higher dimensions to find new dual spaces. For example, in 3-dimensional gravity the dual space represents a new class of black hole spaces14 with a string dust matter field. For higher dimensions, the method would simply go through without any change for n-dimensional spherically symmetric space and dual space would represent a corresponding Schwarzschild black hole with a global monopole charge. It can be further shown that a global monopole field in the Kaluza-Klein space can be constructed similarly15 as dual to the vacuum solution16. It is thus an interesting characterization of empty space which leads to new spaces dual to corresponding empty spaces.

Acknowledgement: I thank the referee for his constructive comments.

References

1. Dadhich, N., Mod. Phys. Lett., 1999, A14, 337.

2. Barriola, M. and Vilenkin, A., Phys. Rev. Lett.,1989, 63, 341.

3. Letelier, P. S., Phys. Rev., 1979, D20, 1294.

4. Raychaudhuri, A. K., Phys. Rev., 1955, 90, 1123.

5. Harari, D. and Lousto, C., Phys. Rev., 1990, D42, 2626.

6. Dadhich, N., Narayan, K. and Yajnik, U., Pramana, 1998, 50, 307.

7. Penrose, R., Riv. Nuovo Cimento, 1969, 1, 252.

8. Visser, M., Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein To Hawking (American Institute of Physics, 1995).

9. Mukherjee, S. and Dadhich, N., under preparation.

10. Dadhich, N. and Nouri-Zonoz, M., under preparation.

11. Nouri-Zonoz, M, Dadhich, N. and Lynden-Bell, D., Class. Quant. Grav., 1999, 16, 1021.

12. Lynden-Bell, D. and Nouri-Zonoz, M., Rev. Mod. Phys., 1998, 70, 427.

13. Dadhich, N., in Black Holes, Gravitational Radiation and the Universe, eds. B. R. Iyer and B. Bhawal (Kluwer, 1999), p.171.

14. Bose, S., Dadhich, N. and Kar, S., A new class of black holes in 2+1 - gravity, gr-qc/9911069, accepted in Phys. Lett. B.

15. Dadhich, N., Patel, L. K. and Tikekar, R., Global monopole as dual-vacuum solution in Kaluza-Klein spacetime, gr-qc/9909065, Mod. Phys. Lett., 1999, A14, 2721.

16. Banerjee, A., Chatterjee, S. and Sen, A. A., Class. Quant. Grav., 1996, 13, 3141.


text:
# HST Observations of the Wolf-Rayet Nebula NGC 6888

## 1 Introduction

Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars are thought to be the late stage of the evolution of stars more massive than $`30`$ M. WR stars are characterized as possessing significant stellar winds, large in both mass-loss rate and terminal velocity. Observations of 62 Galactic WR stars in the northern sky show that about half are associated with nebular emission (Miller and Chu, 1993), some of which are ring nebulae. Johnson and Hogg (1965) were the first to propose that these ring nebulae were formed by stellar wind interaction with the local interstellar medium. Attempts have been made to analytically explain the formation and structure of such nebulae (Weaver et al., 1977; Van Buren, 1986).

One of the most prominent and best studied examples of this class of object is NGC 6888. NGC 6888 is associated with WR 136 (HD 192163), considered to be a member of the Cygnus OB1 association. Its large angular size (18$`\mathrm{}`$ x 12$`\mathrm{}`$) has made it an attractive object for investigation at a variety of wavelengths. For a distance of 1450 pc (Wendker et al., 1975) the nebula has a physical size of 7.6 pc $`\times `$ 5.0 pc. One of the first detailed studies of NGC 6888 was that of Lozhinskaya (1970) who, assuming that the nebula is prolate ellipsoid, stated that the nebula is tilted $`30^{}`$ out of the sky. Later studies (Parker, 1978; Kwitter, 1981) used emission-line ratios to show that the nebula is overabundant in nitrogen and helium and underabundant in oxygen. Explanations for this enrichment include the transport of processed material from the stellar interior to the outer atmosphere prior to the onset of the RSG phase (Esteban and Vílchez, 1992), and the mixing of interstellar and wind material (Kwitter, 1981). The high level of nitrogen is consistent with the classification of WR 136 as a WN6 star. An \[O III\] skin external to the H$`\alpha `$ nebulosity has previously been observed (Dufour, 1989; Mitra, 1990), suggesting that the stellar wind and the expanding shell are interacting with the bubble outside the RSG shell.

There have been a number of hydrodynamical simulations of the formation of Wolf-Rayet shells like NGC 6888. The most complete of these is García-Segura et al. (1996), based on a model for the evolution of a 35 M star. A summary of the stages in their scenario is as follows.

During its main-sequence (MS) lifetime the star sweeps the surrounding interstellar material into a thin shell with a radius of tens of parsecs. The interior of the MS bubble is filled with hot ($`>10^6`$ K) post-shock stellar wind material. In the absence of thermal evaporation of material at the outer edge, the electron density within the MS bubble should be of order $`10^3`$ cm-3.

After $`4.5\times 10^6`$ years the star evolves off the main sequence and into a red supergiant (RSG). Over its lifetime of $`2\times 10^5`$ years , the RSG wind fills the inner few parsecs of the MS bubble with cold dense material. The characteristic mass loss rate of the RSG phase is $`10^4`$ M yr-1 with terminal velocity 15 km s-1. Between the free-streaming RSG wind and the MS bubble a thin dense shell of post-shock RSG material forms.

Lastly the star enters its Wolf-Rayet phase, with mass loss rate $`10^{4.5}`$ M yr-1, with V$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}`$ 2000 km s-1 over its lifetime of $`2\times 10^5`$ years. The WR wind progressively sweeps up the RSG material, eventually overtaking the outer RSG shell. The resulting collision fractures the outer shell and the WR bubble breaks out into the MS bubble material. At this point the nebular shell reaches maximum brightness due to its high density; according to their model, the nebula should be detectable over a period of order 104 years.

The morphology and dynamics of WR shells are important not only as laboratories for studying wind interactions with the ISM, but also for the insights they provide into the mass-loss history of massive stars as well as the environments into which remnants of core collapse supernovae will propagate and interact. In this paper, we use observations of a region of NGC 6888 obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope WFPC2 to study the ionization structure and infer physical conditions within the shell.

## 2 Observations and Results

### 2.1 Observations

Observations of NGC 6888 were made in July 1995 using the Wide Field/Planetary Camera 2 on the Hubble Space Telescope. The orientation of the field of view is shown on a ground-based image of the nebula in Figure 1. The characteristics of the WFPC2 instrument are described in Trauger et al. (1994). Three of the cameras have an image scale of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0996`$ per pixel; the fourth camera has an image scale of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0455`$ per pixel. Two exposures were made in each of three filters: F502N (\[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$), F656N (H$`\alpha `$), and F673N (\[S II\] $`\lambda \lambda 6717,6731`$). The integration time for each filter was $`2\times 1100`$ seconds. Each pair of exposures was reduced and combined using a cosmic-ray rejection routine. Remaining cosmetic defects were removed by direct inspection of the images. The resultant CCD frames were mosaicked using a routine utilizing the astrometric solution in Holtzmann et al. (1995a). Figure 2 shows a false-color composite of the narrow-band images in a linear stretch, with \[O III\] shown as blue, H$`\alpha `$ as green, and \[S II\] as red. Grayscale images from the individual filters are shown in Figures 3 (H$`\alpha `$), 4 (\[O III\]), and 5 (\[S II\]).

The conversion from DN to surface brightness (in erg cm-2 sec-1 pixel-1) for the narrow-band filters using the procedure outlined in Holtzmann et al. (1995b);

$$F_\lambda =DN\times \left(\frac{14}{GR_i}\right)\times \frac{E_\lambda }{A\times QT_\lambda \times t_{exp}}$$
(1)
where $`DN`$ = total data numbers in a given pixel, $`GR_i`$ 2 for the gain state used (7e-/DN), $`E_\lambda `$ = energy of a photon at the observed wavelength, $`A`$ = collecting area of the HST, $`QT_\lambda `$ = the telescope+filter efficiency at the observed wavelength, and $`t_{exp}`$ = the exposure time of the image.

The flux must then be corrected for internal and interstellar extinction. Mitra (1990) estimates the extinction in the NW region from the H$`\beta `$/H$`\alpha `$ ratio in the spectra. Results for the three positions are C = 0.94, 1.05, and 1.13. Using the median value with the reddening law given by Cardelli et al. (1989), the dereddened surface brightness in this region is given by

$`I(F656N)`$ $`=`$ $`F(F656N)\times 10^{C_{H\alpha }}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`5.27F(F656N).`$
and similarly,

$`I(F673N)=5.04F(F673N),`$ (3a)
$`I(F502N)=10.2F(F502N).`$ (3b)
### 2.2 Results

At a distance of 1450 pc one WF pixel corresponds to $`2.18\times 10^{15}`$ cm. The entire field of view is thus about 1 pc on a side. The network of clumps comprising the nebular shell are photoionized by the central star HD 192163, about 3 parsecs away in the direction indicated in Figure 2. We assume that the nebula is oblate; i.e., the clumps and central star lie approximately in the plane of the sky; hence, distances in the image do not suffer geometric foreshortening. Even accepting the prolate shape of Lozhinskaya (1970), distances would only be compressed by 15%. The photoionized clumps are visible to varying degrees in all three filters, with a strong correlation between \[S II\] brightness and H$`\alpha `$ brightness. The filaments are typically shorter along the axis pointed towards the central star relative to the axis perpendicular to it. The network of filaments is enveloped by a “skin” of \[O III\] emission, formed by the shock driven into the external material by some combination of the nebular shell expansion and the pressure of the post-shock WR wind. The diffuse component of the nebular H$`\alpha `$ and \[S II\] emission, mostly internal to this skin, is a combination of emission from these two regions. In the NW quadrant, one clump deviates significantly from the positions of the rest of the shell. It has an \[O III\] arc extending beyond it, as well as a diffuse H$`\alpha `$ tongue of emission emanating from the clump and extending beyond the arc itself.

## 3 Photoionization Of The Nebular Shell

The material lost by the central star in its previous red supergiant wind has been swept up by the subsequent fast wind of the current WR phase. As the shell thinned it became subject to instability and fragmented. The bright patches of visible emission of NGC 6888 seen here are understood to be the fragmented circumstellar shell photoionized by the UV flux of the central star.

### 3.1 Spatial Profiles

Features were chosen on the basis of high H$`\alpha `$ brightness. Those clumps with significant variation at the resolution limit were rejected. Those clumps that appeared to have a complicated geometry were also rejected. A total of six clumps across the observed region were chosen from the remaining sample. Spatial profiles were extracted along the direction towards the central star with a stepsize of 0.5 pixel. The positions of the spatial profiles are shown in Figure 6. The background level for each profile was fit fit by a linear or quadratic function and subtracted. Finally, the depth along the line of sight was estimated from the geometry of a given clump, using the geometric mean of the major and minor axes for the spheroidal clumps and the overall curvature of the extended clumps as a rough equivalent to the emitting column. The volume emissivity of the gas is then given by

$$4\pi j_\lambda =\frac{4\pi I_\lambda }{\mathrm{\Omega }l},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ = solid angle subtended by one WF pixel, and $`l`$ = estimated line-of-sight depth, in cm.

A first estimate of the hydrogen density can be derived from these emissivities; using Osterbrock (1989), Table 4.2, one sees that for 104 K gas,

$$4\pi j_\lambda =3.56\times 10^{25}n_pn_e\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1$$
(5)
For the clumps chosen the surface brightness and estimated line-of-sight depths result in densities of order 1000 cm-3.

The spatial profiles extracted from the images were modeled using the photoionization code CLOUDY (Ferland et al., 1998). Satisfactory fits were obtained by modeling clumps as thin slabs of constant density with two-component linear wings to the front and rear of the slab. The inflection point of the wings occurs where the density falls to one-half the density of the slab. Thus, each clump model has five spatial parameters: the beginning and end of the slab, the two inflection points, and the total width of the clump model. The abundances in the gas were fixed at solar values with the exception of helium, oxygen, nitrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur. Helium was fixed at twice the solar abundance, following the results of Kwitter (1981). Varying this abundance did not significantly change the emissivity of the other elements. The other abundances were constrained by the observed profiles. For oxygen and sulfur, the elemental abundance was varied to maximize agreement with the appropriate observed profile. For nitrogen, the abundance was chosen to match the \[N II\]/H$`\alpha `$ emission ratio to the value oberved by Parker (1978) for the corresponding area of the nebula. It is necessary to include the nitrogen emission in the model profile, as the F656N filter admits approximately the equivalent of 15% of the \[N II\]$`\lambda 6584`$ line flux (Biretta et al., 1996), which for NGC 6888 can represent 20% of the counts in the F656N image.

Each clump was placed at its projected distance from the central star. The input ionizing spectrum was the model atmosphere for a WN5/WN6 star presented in Hillier and Miller (1998). For comparison to the observed profiles the model profiles were convolved with a gaussian of width corresponding to the PSF in the images, approximately 0.5 pixel.

### 3.2 Model Results

A representative comparison of an observed and model profile is shown in Figure 7. Models with terminating ionization fronts consistently overestimated the separation of the peak \[S II\] and H$`\alpha `$ emissivities, suggesting that the shell does not contain large amounts of neutral material. This is supported by the absence of \[O I\] in the spectrophotometry of Mitra (1990); based on observed line fluxes, I(\[O I\]$`\lambda 6300`$) $`<`$ 0.02 I(H$`\beta `$). The best fit photoionization models required a minumum H-ionizing flux of log$`Q_0`$ = 49.2, with significant deviations for two of the models (clumps 2 and 5) for values less than 49.3. This is in reasonable agreement with the value of 49.0 from the Wolf-Rayet models of Crowther and Smith (1996). It is, however, at odds with Marston and Meaburn (1988), who calculate the Lyman continuum flux required to maintain the observed H$`\alpha `$ brightness as log$`Q_0`$ = 47.6. The implications of this discrepancy are addressed in §4.

Models were constructed for log$`Q_0`$ from 49.2 to 49.4. The uncertainty on the abundance for an individual model is small; variation in the model elemental abundances by as little as 0.02 dex was sufficient to shift the emissivity of the corresponding line out of agreement with the observation. Using the traditional nomenclature the abundances are (12 + log(N/H)) = $`8.1\pm 0.2`$, (12 + log(O/H)) = $`7.8\pm 0.2`$, and (12 + log(S/H)) = $`6.8\pm 0.2`$. The quoted uncertainty represents the spread between the abundances of all of the models, summarized in Table 1 and shown graphically in Figure 8.

One of the primary sources of error in determining abundances with this methodology is the uncertainty in the estimated line-of-sight depth for a given clump. This somewhat counterintuitive result arises from the fact that, while the ionic abundance can be inferred directly from the observations independent of density or line-of-sight depth, the ionic fraction differs significantly with changes in the density and ionizing flux (i.e., changes in the ionization parameter). For example, a 25% error in the estimated line-of-sight depth is roughly equivalent, in its effect on abundances, to an error of about $`\pm 0.05`$ dex in $`Q_0`$. This typically corresponds to an uncertainty of about $`\pm 0.1`$ dex in abundances. In addition, the offset between the peak \[O III\] and H$`\alpha `$ emissivities were consistently underestimated by the models, which we ascribe to the simplicity of the one-dimensional profile model. This deviation suggests that our oxygen abundance may be systematically low; based on the model electron density at the position of the observed peak, this effect is at most 0.15 dex.

### 3.3 Comparison with Ground-Based Spectroscopy

A longstanding question in nebular analysis involves the degree to which spectroscopy integrates over structure within nebulae, and the effect of inhomogeneity on inferences based on those data (e.g., the $`t^2`$ parameter in Peimbert 1967). Indeed, our images show significant density and ionization structure on spatial scales of $`1\mathrm{}`$ and shorter. A single resolution element typical of ground based spectroscopy would necessarily sample a range of physically diverse regions. Further, discrete features are typically embedded within diffuse line-of-sight background that is comparably bright to the features themselves. It is unreasonable to imagine that ensemble-average conditions measured spectroscopically have much physical meaning for specific locations within the nebula. Nor, conversely, can regions sampled spectroscopically be described meaningfully using a single set of physical parameters such as temperature or density.

An examination of inferred electron densities makes the point. Spectroscopy (Kwitter, 1981; Mitra, 1990) of this region typically yields \[O II\] and \[S II\] electron densities in the range from 100 to 450 cm-3, well below our densities of 1000-1600 cm-3. As discussed above, our density estimates are based on no more than the physics of hydrogen recombination. Enforcing spectroscopically-determined densities on features herein would require that their line-of-sight depths exceed their projected sizes by one to two orders of magnitude. A simpler explanation is that ground-based spectroscopy samples not only discrete features, but also unavoidably includes large volumes of lower density, more diffuse material. Roughly speaking, a mix of equal amounts of \[S II\] emission from gas at 1500 cm-3 (typical of our inferred densities) and \[S II\] emission from gas in the low density limit will yield a “measured” spectroscopic density of around 500 cm-3even though there is little or no gas with that density actually present within the sampled volume. Comparable density inhomogeneities also exist within discrete features themselves. Similarly, our models show that Te can easily vary by 1000 K within the region sampled by a spectrograph aperture, even in the absence of background emission.

To employ traditional methods of interpreting spectra (e.g., iCFs) it is necessary to assume a certain degree of homogeneity within a zone responsible for emission from a given ion, as well as some correspondence between zones responsible for emission from different ions. These ad hoc methods have a definite advantage – they yield an answer. However, the physical assumptions upon which they are based are not well supported by our data or our models. While we do not observe the wealth of lines present in a spectrum, we are able to use a few lines from both low and high ionization species to constrain realistic models of the ionization structure of observed features. Our resulting abundance determinations differ from the results of Kwitter (1981) by +0.3 dex, -0.7 dex, and and +0.5 dex for N, O, and S, respectively. The concerns that we raise are in addition to those of Alexander and Balick (1997), who found that the iCF methodology may fail even in cases where the density is homogeneous. While the method we employ embodies its own suite of uncertainties, we suggest that there is ample evidence to warrant increased skepticism regarding the results of traditional nebular abundance determinations.

## 4 Nature of the Skin Emission

The dense shell is enveloped in a thin skin of emission, best seen at the outer edge of the nebula beyond the network of clumps, and most evident in \[O III\]. A perpendicular cut taken into the nebula at a bright part of the skin is shown in Figure 9. Notice that there is a rise in \[O III\] emission, followed by a rise in H$`\alpha `$ a few $`10^{16}`$ cm closer towards the star. If the difference in ionization state across the shell were due to photoionization effects, we would expect that the higher ionization emission would be found interior to the lower ionization emission, as seen in the clump profiles discussed above. Rather, this morphology suggests instead that the leading edge of \[O III\] emission arises in the cooling behind a radiative shock driven into the relatively low density medium surrounding the shell. The recombination region, however, is “incomplete”, and the postshock flow cools and recombines only to the point that it comes into photoionization equilibrium with the ionizing flux from the star. Since the ionization parameter is high in this trailing photoionized zone, the \[O III\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratio remains high ($``$ 5) and \[S II\] remains very weak throughout. There are, however, a few positions where post-shock material is more prominent in H$`\alpha `$. These are probably locations where the shock is partially “shadowed” from the stellar UV flux by dense clumps within the shell.

An arc seen in the NW quadrant of the field in \[O III\] emission extends well beyond the general perimeter of the skin. This is morphologically consistent with the early stage of a “blowout”: a place where the shocked stellar wind has broken more completely through the nebular shell material and is expanding outward into the MS bubble itself. An echelle spectrum of this arc was taken in the light of \[O III\] in December 1997 by Graham et al. (1998) using the 3.5-m telescope at Mt. Hamilton. We do not discuss this spectrum in detail here other than to note that it showed the characteristic velocity structure of an expanding bubble at this location. Assuming the line-of-sight angle of the expansion is the same as the angle of the arc to the general perimeter of the skin, the echelle arc has in an expansion velocity of $`70\pm 12`$ km s-1, implying a shock velocity of $``$ $`93\pm 16`$ km-s-1. This is insufficient to produce such a large \[O III\]/H$`\alpha `$ in a neutral pre-shock medium, suggesting that the pre-shock medium is fully ionized Cox and Raymond (1985). We show below that this is supported by observation.

We estimate the emissivity of the post-shock gas at the leading edge of the NW arc, again using the geometry to estimate the pathlength. Assuming a temperature of $`10^4`$ K, this yields a hydrogen density of 100 cm-3. Due to Poisson noise, the pathlength estimate, and the unknown temperature, the uncertainty is about a factor of 2. If we assume the pre-shock gas temperature is also $`10^4`$ K, then we can use the isothermal assumption to relate the densities of the pre-shock MS material and post-shock skin material; i.e.,

$$\rho _{skin}=2M^2\rho _{MS}.$$
(6)
With the shock velocity 93 km s-1, M = 5.6, and the resulting pre-shock density is 2 cm-3.

On the basis of our analysis, it is clear that the shell is extremely “leaky” to ionizing emission. Using parameters derived below, the optical depth of the postshock region to ionizing radiation is only about $`2\times 10^3`$ assuming log$`Q_0`$ = 49.3, and so any radiation that reaches the shock has effectively escaped from the nebula. The densest knots themselves have optical depths of order 1. As can be seen from the more face-on portions of the shell in 1, such dense knots cover a very small fraction of the surface of the nebula. As a result, Zanstra methods cannot be used to obtain reliable estimates of the total H-ionizing flux of the central stars of objects such as NGC 6888. Based on the H-ionizing flux budget of the nebula obtained by Marston and Meaburn (1988) (log$`Q_0`$ = 47.6) and the value derived in this work (49.3), only 2% of the ionizing photons from HD 192163 are processed within the nebular shell of NGC 6888.

Another consequence of this analysis is that any material surrounding NGC 6888 will be fully ionized. This implies that there cannot be a significant amount of neutral material close to the observed nebula as suggested by Marston (1995). However, an ionized shell of density 2 cm-3 exterior to the nebular shell could contain a significant amount of mass with low surface brightness. It may be that a major portion of the estimated 18 M of material lost in the RSG wind has been lost to the MS bubble, and exists as a low density shell is only visible in post-shock emission.

## 5 Discussion

NGC 6888 is primarily composed of the material from the RSG wind of the Wolf-Rayet progenitor, swept into a shell by the central star’s WR wind. This shell is photoionized by the UV flux from the central star. We combine the results of this paper and previous X-ray observations to create a coherent picture of the past and present state of NGC 6888. In Figure 10 is a sketch of the optical and X-ray emitting regions.

### 5.1 Gas Pressure

The gas pressure of a shocked stellar wind can be expressed in terms of its mass loss rate and its terminal velocity. For an adiabatic shock, the post-shock gas pressure is

$$P_w=\frac{3\dot{M}V_{\mathrm{}}}{16\pi R_w^2}=2.88\times 10^7\dot{M}_4V_3R_w^2\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{K},$$
(7)
where $`\dot{M}_4`$ is the mass loss rate in units of $`10^4`$ M yr-1, $`V_3`$ is the terminal velocity in units of $`10^3`$ km s-1, and $`R_w`$ is the radius of the termination shock in parsecs.

Crowther and Smith (1996) derive the stellar parameters $`\dot{M}_4=1.23`$ and $`V_3=1.75`$ from model fits to infrared observations of WR 136. In addition, they also summarize the results of previous studies for this object. If we assume that the inner edge of the X-ray emission corresponds to the location of the termination shock, we estimate that $`R_w=3.1`$ pc. These results yield a pressure behind the stellar wind shock of

$$P_w=3.45.3\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{K}.$$
(8)
assuming that the location of the termination shock is not changing rapidly.

The X-ray flux comes from the post-shock WR wind material. For the X-ray emitting region, the results of Wrigge et al. (1994) were used for the temperature, emission measure, and emitting volume. (We note that we suspect the value quoted in their paper for the emission measure has a transcription error, resulting in an error of a factor of $`10^{28}`$. We use this corrected value in this paper.) The density can be derived from the emission measure E; i.e.,

$$n_H^2VE\times 4\pi D^2,$$
(9)
where V is the volume of the emitting region, and D is the distance to the nebula. Wrigge et al. (1994) get an emitting volume of $`712\times 10^{55}`$ cm3 and a (corrected) emission measure of $`(1.5\pm 1.1)\times 10^{11}`$ cm-5, then at an assumed distance of 1450 pc the density of the X-ray gas is nH = 0.3 - 0.8 cm-3. With a temperature of $`2.36\pm 0.52\times 10^6`$ K, the pressure of the X-ray gas is

$$P_X=1.43.8\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{K},$$
(10)
roughly equal to that of the post-shock stellar wind. This gas is not simply the post-shock wind material, as its expected temperature is $`4.2\times 10^7`$ K and of such low density that it would be unable to cool quickly to the observed X-ray gas temperature. Instead, this material is probably the result of thermal evaporation of nebular shell material into the post-shock stellar wind (Hartquist et al., 1986). The rough equivalence between the pressure expected from eq. (8) and the pressure of the observed gas from eq. (10) supports this contention.

The gas pressure of each of the regions can be calculated assuming an ideal gas law. For the outer shock and nebular shell, the values used are those derived in the previous sections. For the outer shock, the pressure is

$$P_{skin}2\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{K}.$$
(11)
Given uncertainties in parameters used to infer pressures for the various components of NGC 6888, this is not significantly different from the pressures inferred for the shocked stellar wind and the X-ray gas.

For the clumps comprising the nebular shell the central pressure can be calculated from the models. Using a peak density of 1300 cm-3 at a temperature $`10^4`$ K typical of the spatial profile models yields a pressure of

$$P_{shell}=26\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{K}.$$
(12)
Thus, clumps in the nebular shell are in severe overpressure compared to the surrounding gas, by a factor of order 10. This is consistent with the inclusion of density ramps in the model profiles of these regions, although the magnitude of the discrepancy is surprising. With typical clump size of $`10^{17}`$ cm, isothermal expansion of the clumps at the sound speed should alleviate this pressure discrepancy on a timescale of order 2000 years. This implies that until recently the termination shock was at R$`{}_{w}{}^{}<1.3`$ pc. If we assume that the loss of pressure support for the termination shock would result in its motion outward at the stellar wind velocity, it would take of order 1200 years for Rw to move from 1.2 to 3.1 pc. Considering that the clump pressure was initially higher than now observed coupled with the quadratic dependence of pressure with Rw, there can be a considerable time where the clumps have not yet come into pressure balance with its surroundings.

Is there evidence supporting the contention of rapid depressurization of the bubble interior? Initially, we note that the thickness of the postshock region behind the outer \[O III\] skin provides an estimate of the age of this shock. Assuming a post-shock density of 100 cm-3, a preshock density of 2 cm-3, a shock velocity of $``$ 100 km s-1, and a thickness of $`10^{16}`$ cm, the shock broke through the densest portion of the shell about 1500 years ago. Blowouts can also be seen on the global scale of NGC 6888. In Miller and Chu (1993) Figure 3b, one sees that the elliptical nebular shell is enclosed by a complete, approximately spherical \[O III\] bubble. The loss of containment would cause a rapid drop of internal pressure like that implied by the pressure mismatch between the shell and stellar wind. If we use the time for the clumps to expand into balance with the new pressure as a constraint, then the edge of the blowout has to traverse 1.3 pc in much less than 2000 years, requiring an expansion velocity well over 600 km s-1. This implies that the density in the outer MS bubble drops with increasing distance. Using the present internal pressure as a lower limit, the density of the outer MS bubble is still $`>0.1`$ cm-3.

### 5.2 Comparison with Hydrodynamical Simulations

The most complete numerical simulations of Wolf-Rayet bubble formation and dynamics is García-Segura et al. (1996). In it, they follow the evolutionary phases of a massive star, with main-sequence, red supergiant, and Wolf-Rayet mass loss. In summary, they produce an MS bubble 30 pc in radius, filled with hot ($`10^7`$ K) thin (0.002 cm-3) material; 18.5 M of RSG material, with a thin shell of post-shock RSG material at the RSG-MS interface; and a Wolf-Rayet wind that sweeps up the RSG material, leading to a collision with the thin RSG shell and eventually breakout of the WR wind into the MS bubble. The results of this paper show two main deviations from this picture. First, as argued before, the material filling the MS bubble is at least 0.1 cm-3. For the MS bubble density implied by García-Segura et al. (1996), any outer shock would not be visible. The thermal pressure of the observed material is the same as that assumed for the simulations, so a thin RSG shell can still form. Second, their post-collision shell density (1000 cm-3) is consistent with that derived in this paper, but the total mass of the shell is 4 times higher than that implied by our result of a fully ionized shell. A simple resolution to both of these differences is the presence of thermal evaporation from the thin RSG shell into the MS bubble. At 2 cm-3, a $``$ 1 pc thick annulus of material outside the nebular shell would have a mass of 15 M of material and still be undetectable in the WFPC2 image. A smaller annulus with a density gradient could hide a similar mass. It has also been suggested that the central star’s proper motion can remove it from its relic MS bubble; this does not resolve the RSG mass loss issue. Another minor issue is that of the limitation of these simulations. In a non-spherical shell the pressure will drastically change before the shells collide along the major axis. How that alters the dynamics of the shell is undetermined, although the problem of ellipsoidal shells was pursued in García-Segura and Mac Low (1995).

## 6 Conclusions

NGC 6888 is a bubble formed by the mass loss of the precursor to the central star WR 136. The internal pressure of the shocked WR stellar wind has swept up the ejecta from the previous RSG phase. This material collides with a thin RSG shell formed at the MS bubble interface, fragmenting into the clumps seen today. Models of spatial profiles of selected clumps appear to be fully ionized, resulting in a log Q$`{}_{0}{}^{}>`$ 49.2 for the central star, and average abundances for the shell material of \[N, O, S\] = \[8.1, 7.8, 6.8\]. The oxygen depletion appears even more severe than that seen in previous spectroscopic studies.

The internal pressure of the stellar wind drives a shock into the material external to the visible shell. The shock is visible in \[O III\] and H$`\alpha `$ as a skin enveloping the clump network. The density of this material suggests that the MS bubble cooled efficiently. Combined with the mass of the visible shell compared to the total mass loss of the RSG phase, we argue that thermal evaporation of material from the outer RSG shell has already occurred. Comparing the pressure inside and outside the nebular shell suggests that a radical drop in pressure has recently occurred, and that the clumps have not yet come into equilibrium with the current pressure of the stellar wind.

## 7 Acknowledgments

BDM would like to thank Jason P. Aufdenberg and Ravi Sankrit for helpful comments in the preparation of this paper. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Hillier for providing his WN5/WN6 model atmosphere for the preparation of this paper. This work was supported by NASA grant NAS 5-1661 to the WF/PC Investigation Definition Team (IDT) and NASA contract NAS-7-1260 to the WFPC2 IDT. This work was supported at Arizona State University by NASA/JPL contracts 959289 and 959329 and Caltech contract PC 064528.