text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In some scenarios where linear and mildly nonlinear structures create a time varying gravitational potential, the photons of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) undergo a late Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect. In the absence of any cosmological constant, the partial time derivative of the gravitational potential tends to zero as the universe approaches a flat one and, consequently, the ISW effect tends also to zero. This paper is devoted to the study of some aspects poorly known of the ISW effect: our goal is a detailed analysis of the locations and scales of the subhorizon structures contributing to this effect. We are particularly interested in the scales corresponding to observable objects as voids, the Great wall, et cettera and, by this reason, we will only consider scales smaller than the horizon. We choose an adequate formalism to deal with this analysis.

Two scenarios are considered: a flat universe with cold dark matter (CDM) and cosmological constant and an open universe with CDM, they are hereafter referred to as scenarios (or models) I and II, respectively. In both cases the spectrum has been first normalized by the condition $`\sigma _8=1`$, to consider other normalizations (other $`\sigma _8`$ values) when necessary. In case I, the spectrum corresponds to cold dark matter (CDM) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d=0.25`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =0.7,`$ $`h=0.65`$ and $`n=1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ are the density parameters corresponding to baryonic matter, dark matter, and the cosmological constant, respectively, $`h`$ is the reduced Hubble constant ($`h=H_0/100`$, $`H_0`$ being the Hubble constant in units of $`Km/s.Mpc`$), and $`n`$ is the spectral index of the primordial scalar energy density fluctuations. The scenario II involves CDM and the relevant parameters are: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d=0.25`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$, $`h=0.65`$ and $`n=1`$. Model I is currently preferred according to recent observations of far Ia supernovae and the CMB spectrum (location of the Doppler peak), while model II can account for the abundances of rich clusters and Einstein’s rings and, here, it is mainly used for comparisons. As it is well known, the normalization $`\sigma _8=1`$ does not lead to a good normalization of the CMB angular power spectrum in most cases; in other words, when the $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients are calculated (for $`\sigma _8=1`$), the resulting values do not fit well with the values observed by COBE, TENERIFE and other experiments. In each scenario, appropriate fits to the observed CMB spectrum correspond to $`\sigma _8`$ values which are, in general, different from unity. The so-called bias parameter is $`b=1/\sigma _8`$.

Since our attention is focused on subhorizon scales, we will estimate the late ISW anisotropy in the $`\mathrm{}`$–interval $`(10,40)`$. For $`\mathrm{}<10`$, super-horizon scales would be important (see Kamionkowski and Spergel, 1994) and, then, the spatial curvature could be only neglected in model I; furthermore, the cosmic variance would lead to important uncertainties ($`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}`$ is proportional to $`[2/(2\mathrm{}+1)]^{1/2}`$, see Knox, 1995) and the Sachs-Wolfe effect would be very important. For $`\mathrm{}>40`$, the Doppler effect starts its domination hidding other effects as the ISW one. An appropriate linear approach is used in next sections to estimate the $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients for $`10\mathrm{}40`$. The method used to do this estimation should facilitate the separation of the ISW effect from other contributions to the angular power spectrum and, moreover, this method should give information about the sizes and locations of the main subhorizon structures contributing to the late ISW effect. The numerical integration of the Boltzmann equation or the computational strategy of Hu and Sugiyama (1994) could be used to perform the analysis of this paper; nevertheless, another appropriate approach –based on a certain approximation to the sources– is described and used in next sections.

In previous papers, it was claimed that some Great Attractor-Like (GAL) objects located between redshifts $`2`$ and $`30`$ in open enough universes (without cosmological constant) could account for an important part of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect. Arguments in those papers were based on the Tolman-Bondi (TB) solution of Einstein’s equations, which was used to estimate both the anisotropy produced by a single GAL structure (Arnau, Fullana & Sáez, 1994; Sáez, Arnau & Fullana, 1995) and the abundance of these structures (Sáez & Fullana 1999). Unfortunately, our TB simulations have some features, as the spherical symmetry and a particular form of compensation, which could affect abundance and anisotropy estimations. By this reason, the mentioned claim should be discussed using a general formalism (not TB solution). It is done in Section 4 as a subsidiary application (in model II) of the formalism described along the paper.

In section 2, the method used to compute the angular power spectrum inside the $`\mathrm{}`$ interval  is described. Results are presented in Section 3 and, Section 4 is a general discussion and a summary of conclusions. Finally, some words about notation: whatever quantity ”$`A`$” may be, $`A__L`$ and $`A_0`$ stand for the $`A`$ values on the last scattering surface and at present time, respectively. Simbols $`x^i`$, $`\varphi `$, $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, $`\stackrel{}{n}`$, $`\rho __B`$, $`\delta `$, $`a`$, $`t`$, $`G`$, stand for the comoving coordinates, the peculiar gravitational potential, the peculiar velocity, the unit vector in the observation direction, the background mass density, the density contrast, the scale factor, the cosmological time, and the gravitational constant, respectively. Units are chosen in such a way that the speed of light is $`C=1`$. Quantities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ are defined as follows: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\mathrm{\Omega }_b+\mathrm{\Omega }_d+\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_b+\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$. The comoving wavenumber is $`k_c`$, while $`k`$ is the physical one.

## 2 $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ ESTIMATIONS IN THE $`\mathrm{}`$ INTERVAL

We are interested in the ISW effect produced by structures much smaller than the horizon scale and, consequently, the region of the hypersurfaces $`t=constant`$ where the inhomogeneities interact with the CMB can be considered as flat; namely, the spatial curvature can be neglected in the open model II. This means that, even in the open case, the spatial part of the functions defining the linear structures under consideration can be expanded in plane waves. It is not necessary the use of the complicated solutions of the Helmholtz equation, which should be used in open backgrounds to do an exact and rigorous treatment of structure evolution. Of course, in model II, the time evolution is studied taking into account the existence of a space-time curvature distinguishing the open universe from the flat one.

The potential approximation is used in our estimates. The basic equations (Martínez-González et al. 1994, Sanz et al. 1996) are:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}=\frac{1}{3}\varphi __L+\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{v}__L+2_{t_e}^{t_o}𝑑t\frac{\varphi }{t},$$
(1)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =4\pi G\delta a^2\rho __B,$$
(2)
where $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}`$ is the relative temperature variation –with respect to the background temperature– along the direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$, and the integral is to be computed from emission ($`e`$) to observation ($`o`$) along the background null geodesics. Initially, this approach was designed to study the flat case (scenario I); nevertheless, the potential approximation can be also used in the open case (scenario II) provided that we are concerned with structures smaller than the horizon scale (Sanz et al. 1996). The first, second, and third terms of this equation give the Sachs-Wolfe, the Doppler and the ISW anisotropies, respectively. Hereafter, we write $`A^^S`$, $`A^^D`$, or $`A^^I`$ to indicate that the quantity $`A`$ has been estimated using only the first, the second or the third term, respectively.

In the linear pressureless approach, the density contrast evolves as follows:

$$\delta (x^i,t)=\frac{D_1(a)}{D_1(a_0)}\delta (x^i,t_0),$$
(3)
where $`D_1(a)`$ describes the evolution of the growing mode of the density contrast (Peebles, 1980). The form of the function $`D_1(a)`$ is different in models I and II. Hereafter, $`D_{1q}(a)`$ stands for the functions $`D_1(a)`$ corresponding to our two scenarios. The same notation based on the subscript $`q`$ is also used for other quantities. This subscript $`q`$ is only used along the text to distiguish the model I (q=I) from the model II (q=II). Functions $`D_{1q}(a)`$ and all the quantities having the subscript $`q`$ are written in Appendix A for q=I and q=II.

The peculiar gravitational potential can be written as follows

$$\varphi (x^i,t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x^i)\frac{D_1(a)}{a},$$
(4)
where function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^i)`$ satisfies the equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=B_q\delta (x^i,t_0)`$.

Let us focus our attention on the angular power spectrum of the CMB; namely, on the coefficients

$$C_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{m=\mathrm{}}{}}|a_\mathrm{}m|^2.$$
(5)
We begin with the contribution –to these coefficients– of the third term of the right hand side of Eq. (1), which corresponds to the ISW effect. An appropriate formula giving this contribution to the $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$’s has been derived. The most useful feature of this formula is that, given two $`k`$–values and two redshifts, it allows us to obtain a good measure of the ISW effect produced by the density perturbation located between the chosen redshifts and having scales between the chosen ones. A few words about the derivation –similar to the usual derivation of the $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients of the Sachs-Wolfe effect– and characteristics of this formula are worthwhile.

Since the angular brackets in Eq. (5) stand for a mean performed from many realizations of the microwave sky, quantity $`|a_\mathrm{}m|^2`$ is first computed for an observer having comoving coordinates $`x__P^i`$ in a reference system attached to the Local Group (origin of spatial coordinates) and, then, an average over position $`x__P^i`$ is done to get the $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ quantities.

The equations of the null geodesics passing by the origin of spatial coordinates are

$$x^i=\lambda _q(a)e^i.$$
(6)
Furthermore, in flat cases (as model I), the null geodecis passing by point $`x__P^i`$ are:

$$x^i=x__P^i+\lambda _q(a)e^i,$$
(7)
while in model II, this last equation is also valid when point P is well inside a sphere centred at the Local Group and having the size of the curvature scale. This is because –in such a case– the spatial curvature can be neglected.

Using the third term of the right hand side of Eq. (1), and Eqs. (3), (4) and (7), some Fourier expansions lead to the following relation

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}(\stackrel{}{x}__P,\stackrel{}{n})=\frac{2B_q}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}d^3k_ce^{i\stackrel{}{k}_c\stackrel{}{x}__P}\frac{\delta _{\stackrel{}{k}_c}}{k_c^2}__P^^Qe^{i\lambda _q(a)\stackrel{}{k}_c\stackrel{}{n}}\frac{d}{da}\left[\frac{D_{1q}(a)}{a}\right]𝑑a,$$
(8)
where the components of $`\stackrel{}{x}__P`$ are $`x__P^i`$, the observer located at P estimates $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}`$ in the direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$, and point Q is the intersection between the last scattering surface of P and the null geodesic determined by $`\stackrel{}{n}`$.

Finally, from Eq. (8) plus the usual expansions in spherical harmonics and, after performing the average in $`x__P^i`$, the following angular power spectrum arises:

$$C_\mathrm{}q^^I=\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^^I\frac{P(k)}{k^2}\xi _\mathrm{}q^2(k)𝑑k,$$
(9)
where

$$\xi _\mathrm{}q(k)=_{a_0}^{a__L}j_{\mathrm{}}[\lambda _q(a)ka_0]\frac{d}{da}\left[\frac{D_{1q}(a)}{a}\right]𝑑a.$$
(10)
Function $`P(k)=|\delta _k|^2`$ is the power spectrum of the energy density fluctuations, $`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the spherical Bessel function of order $`\mathrm{}`$, and coefficients $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^^I`$ are given in Appendix A for models I and II (all the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ coefficients appearing below are also listed in the same appendix).

A similar computation leads to the $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients corresponding to the first and second terms of Eq. (1), which are usually referred to as Sachs-Wolfe and Doppler terms. In the Sachs-Wolfe case, these coefficients can be written as follows:

$$C_\mathrm{}q^^S=\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^^S\frac{P(k)}{k^2}j_{\mathrm{}}^2[\lambda _q(a)ka_0]𝑑k$$
(11)
and, the coefficients of the Doppler term are

$$C_\mathrm{}q^^D=\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^^DP(k)j_{\mathrm{}}^2[\lambda _q(a)ka_0]𝑑k,$$
(12)
where $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{}(x)=(d/dx)j_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$.

Eqs. (9) – (12) are written in a form which is adequate to perform our numerical estimates. We define the functions $`\mu _\mathrm{}q^^I(k)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^^Ik^2P(k)\xi _\mathrm{}q^2(k)`$, $`\mu _\mathrm{}q^^S(k)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^^Sk^2P(k)j_{\mathrm{}}^2[\lambda _q(a)ka_0]`$, and $`\mu _\mathrm{}q^^D(k)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^^DP(k)j_{\mathrm{}}^2[\lambda _q(a)ka_0]`$, whose integrals in the variable $`k`$ give $`C_\mathrm{}q^^I`$, $`C_\mathrm{}q^^S`$, and $`C_\mathrm{}q^^D`$, respectively. These definitions will be useful below.

If the three terms of the right hand side of Eq. (1) are simultaneously taken into account in order to get $`|a_\mathrm{}m|^2`$, the resulting $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ quantities include three crossed contributions mixing the ISW, SW, and Doppler effects. We have not found fully convincing arguments to neglect these contributions in all the cases and, consequently, they have been systematically estimated using the following formulae:

$$C_\mathrm{}q^{^{SD}}=2\left[\mu _\mathrm{}q^^S(k)\mu _\mathrm{}q^^D(k)\right]^{1/2}𝑑k,$$
(13)
$$C_\mathrm{}q^{^{SI}}=2\left[\mu _\mathrm{}q^^S(k)\mu _\mathrm{}q^^I(k)\right]^{1/2}𝑑k,$$
(14)
$$C_\mathrm{}q^{^{DI}}=2\left[\mu _\mathrm{}q^^D(k)\mu _\mathrm{}q^^I(k)\right]^{1/2}𝑑k.$$
(15)
Since the late ISW effect is produced by inhomogeneities evolving after decoupling, quantities $`C_\mathrm{}q^^I`$ can be estimated using the above pressureless approach for the sources; however, the Sachs-Wolfe and Doppler effects are produced by other inhomogeneities, which evolve in the recombination-decoupling period and, consequently, a certain radiation pressure is acting on the subdominant baryonic component. Taking into account that the importance of pressure effects increases as $`\mathrm{}`$ does, we only apply our pressureles approach to calculate the Sachs-Wolfe, Doppler and crossed coefficients in the case $`\mathrm{}=10`$. This calculation is performed with the essential aim of obtaining a rough estimate of the unknown crossed terms and, for this purpose, our approach suffices.

In the $`\mathrm{}`$ interval , we can only expect significant contributions to the $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients coming from: (1) a possible background of primordial gravitational waves (this contribution would be almost independent on $`\mathrm{}`$ in the interval under consideration and it is not studied here), (2) each of the three effects considered above and, (3) some crossed terms. Other effects as Sunyaev–Zel’dovich, lens anisotropy, nonlinear gravitational effects et cettera are not expected to be relevant for these angular scales, but for much smaller ones.

The sources of the term $`C_\mathrm{}q^^I`$ have been identified in both scale and position using the following definitions:

$$D_\mathrm{}q^^I(Z_{min},Z_{max})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^^I\frac{P(k)}{k^2}\zeta _\mathrm{}q^2(k,Z_{min},Z_{max})𝑑k,$$
(16)
where

$$\zeta _\mathrm{}q(k,Z_{min},Z_{max})=a_0^1_{Z_{min}}^{Z_{max}}j_{\mathrm{}}\left[\lambda _q\left(\frac{a_0}{1+Z}\right)ka_0\right]\frac{d}{dZ}\left[D_{1q}\left(\frac{a_0}{1+Z}\right)(1+Z)\right]𝑑Z.$$
(17)
For $`Z_{min}=0`$ and $`Z_{max}=Z__L`$, where $`Z__L`$ is the redshift of the last scattering surface, functions $`\zeta _\mathrm{}q(k,Z_{min},Z_{max})`$ and $`D_\mathrm{}q^^I(Z_{min},Z_{max})`$ are identical to $`\xi _\mathrm{}q(k)`$ and $`C_\mathrm{}q^^I`$, respectively. Quantity $`D_\mathrm{}q^^I(Z_{min},Z_{max})`$ can be considered as a measure of the contribution –to the ISW effect– of the inhomogeneities lying between redshifts $`Z_{min}`$ and $`Z_{max}`$; nevertheless, it is worthwhile to emphasize that the right hand side of Eq. (16) involves the function $`\zeta _\mathrm{}q^2(k,Z_{min},Z_{max})`$, which implies that the quantities $`C_\mathrm{}q^^I=D_\mathrm{}q^^I(0,Z__L)`$ are not the linear superposition of quantities of the form $`D_\mathrm{}q^^I(Z_{min},Z_{max})`$, even if these quantities are calculated in disjoint redshift intervals covering the total interval ($`0,Z__L`$). From Eq. (16) it follows that the contribution of each scale to $`D_\mathrm{}q^^I(Z_{min},Z_{max})`$ is measured by the function $`\nu _\mathrm{}q^^I(k,Z_{min},Z_{max})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{}q^^IP(k)\zeta _\mathrm{}q^2(k,Z_{min},Z_{max})/k^2`$. This function measures the contribution of the scale $`k`$ –for the inhomogeneities placed between redshift $`Z_{min}`$ and $`Z_{max}`$– to the late ISW effect . For $`Z_{min}=0`$ and $`Z_{max}=Z__L`$, function $`\nu _\mathrm{}q^^I(k,Z_{min},Z_{max})`$ is identical to function $`\mu _\mathrm{}q^^I(k)`$ and it weights the contribution of each scale –whatever the inhomogeneity location may be– to the ISW angular power spectrum.

Our calculations require a value of $`Z__L`$. Since the Sachs-Wolfe and Doppler effects are produced by inhomogeneities located very near the last scattering surface, estimates of $`C_\mathrm{}q^^S`$ and $`C_\mathrm{}q^^D`$ based on Eqs. (12) and (11) are sensitive to the value of $`Z__L`$; however, the late ISW effect is produced by inhomogeneities located far from this surface (see Section 3) and, consequently, it is almost independent on the assumed value of $`Z__L`$. In order to do the best estimate of the Doppler and SW effects for $`\mathrm{}=10`$ –allowed by our formalism– we have taken $`Z__L=1140`$, which is the redshift corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d=0.25`$ according to the formula $`Z__L1100(\mathrm{\Omega }_m/\mathrm{\Omega }_b)^{0.018}`$ (see Kolb & Turner 1994). Fortunately, we are focusing our attention on the late ISW effect, which is almost independent on the choice of $`Z__L`$.

## 3 RESULTS

Assuming the normalization $`\sigma _8=1`$, quantities $`C_\mathrm{}q^^I`$, $`C_{10q}^^S`$, $`C_{10q}^^D`$, $`C_{10q}^{^{SD}}`$, $`C_{10q}^{^{SI}}`$, $`C_{10q}^{^{DI}}`$, and $`C_{10q}`$ have been computed in models I (q=I) and II (q=II). For this first normalization, Quantity $`[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_\mathrm{}q^^I/2\pi ]^{1/2}`$ is shown in the left panel of Fig. 1 (for models I and II). The entries 1 and 2 of Table 1 gives $`[110C_{10}/2\pi ]^{1/2}`$ for all the $`C_{10}`$ quantities. In this Table we see that: for $`\mathrm{}=10`$ and model I, the ISW effect is smaller than the Doppler and SW ones, while for $`\mathrm{}=10`$ and model II, the ISW and the SW effects are similar. A different normalization facilitates some comparisons of the anisotropies appearing in models I and II. We have observed that most theoretical predictions based on COBE normalization give $`[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}]^{1/2}28\mu K`$ for $`\mathrm{}=10`$, with a small dispersion around 28 $`\mu K`$. This is true for a wide range of variation of the cosmological parameters: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ et cettera. This condition is also compatible with all the observational evidences (FIRS, TENERIFE). By these reasons, the ISW effects corresponding to models I and II with the normalization $`[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}]^{1/2}=28\mu K`$ for $`\mathrm{}=10`$ are represented in the right panel of Fig. 1, where we see that: (i) the ISW effect corresponding to model I (with cosmological constant) is much smaller than that of the model II (very open universe), and (ii) the ISW effect of model I is small but it is not negligible. Entries 3 and 4 of Table 1 correspond to the second normalization, for which, the bias parameter of model I (II) appears to be 0.93 (1.98). This means that the currently preferred model (with cosmological constant) leads to a very natural compatibility between the CMB observational data and the value $`\sigma _81`$ extracted from the analysis of galaxy surveys.

In scenario I, the greatest $`\mathrm{}=10`$ crossed term is the SW–Doppler one ($`C_{10I}^{^{SD}}`$), which is shown in the entries 1 and 3 of Table 1. The remaining crossed terms (SW-ISW and Doppler-ISW) are not given because they have appeared to be negligible. In entries 3 and 4 of Table 1, we give the SW-ISW crossed term ($`C_{10II}^{^{SI}}`$) of the scenario II, which is not negligible; however, the terms Doppler–SW and Doppler–ISW can be neglected. As it follows from Eqs. (13) – (15), any crossed term is proportional to an integral (in the variable $`k`$), and the function to be integrated can be written as the product of two $`k`$ functions corresponding to the mixed effects. For example, in the SW–Doppler (SW–ISW) case, we must integrate the product $`\left[\mu _\mathrm{}q^^S(k)\right]^{1/2}\left[\mu _\mathrm{}q^^D(k)\right]^{1/2}`$ ($`\left[\mu _\mathrm{}q^^S(k)\right]^{1/2}\left[\mu _\mathrm{}q^^I(k)\right]^{1/2}`$). In Fig. 2, we display the functions to be multiplied to get the SW-Doppler crossed term of model I (left panel) and the SW-ISW term of model II (right panel). We have assumed $`\mathrm{}=10`$ in both models, evidently, these crossed terms are not negligible as a result of the existence of a wide enough $`k`$ interval where the positive functions to be multiplied take on large enough values simultaneously.

Where are located the inhomogeneities producing the ISW effect? This question can be answered using Eqs. (16) and (17) to calculate $`D_\mathrm{}q^^I(0,Z_{max})`$ for appropriate values of $`Z_{max}`$. Results are shown in Fig. 3, where $`D_\mathrm{}q^^I(0,Z_{max})`$ is represented as a function of $`Z_{max}`$ in models I (top) and II (bottom). The points of the horizontal straight lines of Fig. 3 have the ordinate $`C_\mathrm{}q^^I=D_\mathrm{}I^^I(0,1140)`$ and, consequently, the curves $`D_\mathrm{}q^^I(0,Z_{max})`$ must tend to the horizontal lines as $`Z_{max}`$ tends to $`1140`$. In the top panel, we see that $`D_\mathrm{}I^^I(0,Z_{max})`$ approaches the horizontal lines very quickly. Quantity $`D_\mathrm{}I^^I(0,2)`$ is very similar to quantity $`C_\mathrm{}q^^I=D_\mathrm{}I^^I(0,1140)`$, which means that the most part of the late ISW is produced by inhomogeneities located at very low redshift ($`Z2`$). This is because the cosmological constant is known to be significant only at very low redshifts; before, the universe can be considered as a flat one with a negligible cosmological constant, and no ISW effect is expected in this situation. In model II (bottom panel), we see that $`D_{\mathrm{}II}^^I(0,Z_{max})`$ approaches the corresponding horizontal line more slowly than in model I. The most important part of the ISW effect is produced by inhomogeneities located at redshift $`Z<10`$, but inhomogeneities at $`Z>10`$ also produce a small but appreciable effect.

Now, let us look for the spatial scales contributing significantly to the ISW effect in the $`\mathrm{}`$ interval . As stated before, the contribution of the scale $`k`$ to the ISW effect –for arbitrary location of the inhomogeneities– is weighted by the function $`\mu _\mathrm{}q^_I(k)`$. In Fig. 4, this function is represented with solid lines in cases I (top) and II (bottom). Left (right) panels correspond to $`\mathrm{}=10`$ ($`\mathrm{}=40`$). Taking into account that, for $`h=0.65`$, the spatial size (diameter in the spherical case) of the structures associated to the wavenumber $`k`$ is $`\frac{2}{k}h^1Mpc`$, Fig. 4 can be easily interpreted. In each panel, the solid lines show a $`k`$ value for which the function $`\mu _\mathrm{}q^_I(k)`$ reaches a maximum. The spatial scale corresponding to this $`k`$ value is hereafter denoted $`D^{}`$. It is the most significant scale for ISW anisotropy production. Solid lines also show the existence of a minimum $`k`$ value where $`\mu _\mathrm{}q^_I(k)`$ starts to increase from negligible values. The spatial scale associated to the minimum will be denoted $`D_{max}`$. Scales larger than this maximum one do not contribute to the ISW effect significantly. The scales $`D^{}`$ and $`D_{max}`$ corresponding to the four solid lines of Fig. 4 are given in Table 2. The meaning of these scales is discussed in next section.

Finally, among all the inhomogeneities located between redshifts $`Z_{min}=0`$ and $`Z_{max}`$, which of them are contributing to the ISW effect? Which are the spatial scales of these inhomogeneities? In order to answer this question we have put $`Z_{min}=0`$ and various values of $`Z_{max}`$ into Eq. (17); thus, we have found various functions $`\nu _\mathrm{}q^^I(k,0,Z_{max})`$ of the variable $`k`$. Only two of these functions are displayed in each panel of Fig. 4. The function corresponding to $`Z_{max}=1140`$ is identical to $`\mu _\mathrm{}q^^I(k)`$ and it is drawn with solid lines, while the dotted lines correspond to $`Z_{max}=0.5`$ in model I (top panels) and to $`Z_{max}=2`$ in model II (bottom panels). In Fig. 3, we see that for these $`Z_{max}`$ values, a significant part of the ISW effect is produced by inhomogeneities located at $`Z<Z_{max}`$. The dotted lines of Fig. 4 lead –as the solid lines– to new values of $`D^{}`$ and $`D_{max}`$ which are presented in Table 2 and interpreted below. These scales correspond to inhomogeneities located at low redshifts smaller than the chosen values of $`Z_{max}`$

## 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have accurately estimated the scales and locations of the inhomogeneities contributing to the late ISW effect. The chosen formalism has facilitated our analysis. Now, let us focus our attention on the meaning of the resulting scales (see Table 2). They are not the scales of the inhomogeneities (density contrasts) producing the effect. According to Eq. (3 ), the ISW effect is produced by the scales contributing significantly to the partial time derivative of the peculiar gravitational potential and, in the linear regime under consideration, these scales are identical to those of the potential itself (see Eq. (4)).

The significant spatial scales of an overdensity and those of its peculiar gravitational potential are different, this is proved by the relation $`\varphi _\stackrel{}{k}\delta _\stackrel{}{k}/k^2`$ between the Fourier transforms of the density contrast $`\delta _\stackrel{}{k}`$ and the peculiar potential $`\varphi _\stackrel{}{k}`$. The factor $`1/k^2`$ implies that the regions where the potential is significant are more extended than those where the density contrast is not negligible. What is the size of the regions where the potential is contributing to the late ISW effect? In order to answer this question let us consider a spherically symmetric overdensity. In such a case, Eq. (2) leads to the relation

$$\frac{\varphi }{r}\frac{M(r)}{r^2},$$
(18)
where $`M(r)`$ is the total mass inside a sphere of radius $`r`$. This relation allows us to get various important features of the peculiar gravitational potential generated by a compensated overdensity. In fact, according to the cosmological principle, any overdensity must be compensated at some distance, $`r_c`$, from its center, at which the total mass excess $`M(r_c)`$ vanishes. This excess also vanishes for $`r>r_c`$. Then, according to Eq. (18), the derivative $`\frac{\varphi }{r}(r_c)`$ vanishes for $`r>r_c`$ and, consequently, the potential reaches a minimum constant value, which should be zero to achieve good boundary conditions at infinity. We see that the potential of a compensated structure tends to zero as $`r`$ tends to $`r_c`$; hence, all the shells forming a certain structure –up to compensation radius– would contribute to the ISW effect, although this contribution would be small for r values close to $`r_c`$; hence, the late ISW effect produced by a given structure depends on the way in which it is compensated; namely, it depends on the size $`2r_c`$ of the region where the potential is contributing to the ISW effect. This region is hereafter referred as to the pot-region associated to the inhomogeneity. Since we are considering linear scales where the peculiar velocities are proportional to the gradients of the peculiar gravitational potential, these velocities also vanish for $`r>r_c`$ and, consequently, the pot-region contributing to the ISW effect is that where the peculiar velocities (potential gradients) are significant. A given overdensity would contribute to a certain $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficient, if the angular scale subtended by its pot-region (not the angular scale subtended by itself) is appropriate.

The compensation of cosmological objects is a statistical phenomenon and, consequently, structures of the same type (for example various GAL structures) could be compensated at different distances from their cores; therefore, although the compensation radius of the Great Attractor has been estimated to be $`r_c^{^{GA}}100h^1Mpc`$ (study of the velocity field around the GA), other GAL structures could compensate at other distances, perhaps at distances of a few times $`r_c^{^{GA}}`$. Voids and Abell clusters would compensate at distances of a few tens of Mpc from the central region. Taking into account these considerations we are going to interpret the results summarized in Table 2.

For model I and $`\mathrm{}=40`$ ($`\mathrm{}=10`$), pot-regions with radius larger than $`250h^1Mpc`$ ($`1000h^1Mpc`$) are not contributing to the late ISW effect. Those having radius larger than $`50h^1Mpc`$ ($`200h^1Mpc`$) and located at $`Z<0.5`$ do not contribute either. The maximum effect is produced by pot-regions with radius close to $`100h^1Mpc`$ ($`300h^1Mpc`$) and located between redshifts $`0.5`$ and $`2.`$ and, finally, the maximum effect produced at $`Z<0.5`$ is due to pot-regions having about $`40h^1Mpc`$ ($`140h^1Mpc`$) radius. This means that, in model I, GAL structures with $`r_c100h^1Mpc`$ produce the maximum contribution to $`C_{40}`$ (the smallest of the $`C_\mathrm{}I^^I`$ coefficients, see the top panel of Fig. 1). GAL objects with sizes $`r_c140h^1`$ would contribute to $`C_{10}`$ when located at $`Z<0.5`$ and GAL objects with pot-regions of a few times $`100h^1Mpc`$ would contribute to all the $`C_\mathrm{}I^^I`$ coefficients from $`\mathrm{}=10`$ to $`\mathrm{}=40`$. Pot-regions with radius of $`40h^1Mpc`$ and located at $`Z<0.5`$ contribute to $`C_{40}`$.

In model II, a similar study has been developed. For $`\mathrm{}=40`$ ($`\mathrm{}=10`$), the following conclusions can be obtained: (i) for arbitrary locations, the most large compensation radius contributing to the late ISW is $`650h^1Mpc`$ ($`2500h^1Mpc`$), (ii) for structures located at $`Z<2`$, the most large radius is $`125h^1Mpc`$ ($`500h^1Mpc`$), (iii) for arbitrary locations, the most large contributions to the late ISW come from compensation radius of $`300h^1Mpc`$ ($`1000h^1Mpc`$), and (iv) for structures located at $`Z<2`$, the most large contributions correspond to radius of $`110h^1Mpc`$ ($`350h^1Mpc`$). In model II, the scales are larger than those of model I. Scales of a few times $`10h^1Mpc`$ do not play any role. GAL structures with $`r_c100h^1Mpc`$ only contribute to $`C_{40}`$ if located at $`Z<2`$. GAL objects compensated at radius around $`300h^1Mpc`$ would play an important role in generating the $`C_\mathrm{}I^^I`$ coefficients, in particular, for $`\mathrm{}=40`$. This conclusion is in agreement with previous claims about the possible relevance of GAL structures in generating the late ISW effect in open universes (Arnau, Fullana & Sáez, 1994; Sáez, Arnau & Fullana, 1995). The GAL objects simulated in those studies (based on TB) undergo effective compensations at distances of a few hundred of Megaparsec from their cores and, in agreement with the results of this paper (Table 2), this type of structures would be contributing significantly to the late ISW effect.

It is worthwhile to emphasize that we have discussed the contribution to the late ISW effect of great cosmological structures (which produce peculiar velocities up to distances of tens or hundreds of Mpc). A linear approach suffices to estimate the potential (also the peculiar velocities) produced by these structures (GAL objects, voids et cettera). We have never considered the Rees-Sciama effect produced by strongly nonlinear substructures lying inside the Great Attractor and other extended inhomogeneities. Such an effect would produce CMB anisotropy on smaller angular scales and its estimate would require other nonlinear approaches.

APPENDIX A
Some quantities used in this paper have the subscript ”$`q`$”. Here, the explicit form of these quantites is given for $`q=I`$ (model I of Section 1) and $`q=II`$ (model II). We summarize the information as follows:

MODEL I ($`q=I`$)

The growing mode of the scalar energy density fluctuations is

$$D_{1I}(a)=\frac{1}{x}\left[\frac{2}{x}+x^2\right]^{1/2}_0^x\left[\frac{2}{y}+y^2\right]^{3/2}𝑑y,$$
(19)
where

$$x=\left[\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda }{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}\right]^{1/3}(1+Z)^1.$$
(20)
The constant $`B_q`$ is

$$B_I=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_mH_0^2}{D_1(0)}.$$
(21)
The function $`\lambda _q(a)`$ can be written as follows:

$$\lambda _I(a)=\kappa (a)H_0^1,$$
(22)
where

$$\kappa (a)=_a^1\frac{db}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}b+\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda b^4)^{1/2}}.$$
(23)
Now, we give the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^^I`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^^S`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^^D`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{^{SD}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{^{SI}}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^{^{DI}}`$ defined in Section 2.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^^I=\frac{18H_0^4}{\pi }\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}}{D_1(0)}\right]^2,$$
(24)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^^S=\frac{H_0^4}{2\pi }\left[\frac{D_1(L)\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}(1+Z__L)}{D_1(0)}\right]^2,$$
(25)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^^D=\frac{2H_0^2}{\pi }\left[\frac{D_1(L)}{D_1(0)}\right]^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}(1+Z__L).$$
(26)
In order to derive these formulae, the cosmological constant has been assumed to be negligible at $`Z__L`$ (see comments of Section 3) and, consequently, as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}`$ tends to unity, quantities $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^^S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I^^D`$ tend to the right values corresponding to a flat universe without cosmological constant ($`H_0^4/2\pi `$ and $`2H_0^2/\pi (1+Z__L)`$).

MODEL II ($`q=II`$)

The same quantities as in model I are now listed:

$$D_{1II}(a)=1+\frac{3}{\zeta }+\frac{3(1+\zeta )^{1/2}}{\zeta ^{3/2}}ln[(1+\zeta )^{1/2}\zeta ^{1/2}],$$
(27)
where

$$\zeta =\frac{H_0(1\mathrm{\Omega }_0)^{3/2}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}a.$$
(28)
$$B_{II}=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_0\left[H_0D_1(a_0)(1\mathrm{\Omega }_0)^{3/2}\right]^1.$$
(29)
$$\lambda _{II}(a)=2\mathrm{tanh}(y/2),$$
(30)
where

$$y=\mathrm{cosh}^1\left[\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}\right]\mathrm{cosh}^1[\frac{2(1\mathrm{\Omega }_0)^{3/2}H_0}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}a+1)].$$
(31)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^^I=\frac{18\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2H_0^2}{\pi (1\mathrm{\Omega }_0)D_1^2(a_0)},$$
(32)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^^S=\frac{H_0^4}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2(1+Z__L)^2\frac{D_1^2(a__L)}{D_1^2(a_0)},$$
(33)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^^D=\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{\pi (1\mathrm{\Omega }_0)D_1^2(0)(1+Z__L)}\left(\frac{dD_1}{da}\right)__L^2.$$
(34)
As $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ tends to unity, function $`D_1(a)`$ tends to the growing mode of a flat background, which is proportional to $`a`$. Taking into account this fact and Eqs. (33) and (34), one easily concludes that –as the universe approaches a flat one– quantities $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^^S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^^D`$ tend to $`H_0^4/2\pi `$ and $`2H_0^2/\pi (1+Z__L)`$, respectively. These limit values coincide with the well known values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^^S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{II}^^D`$ corresponding to the flat background without cosmological constant.

REFERENCES
Arnau J.V., Fullana M.J., Sáez D., 1994, MNRAS, 268, L17
Hu, W., & Sugiyama, N., 1994, Phys. Rev. 50D, 627
Kamionkowski, M., & Spergel, D.N., 1994, ApJ, 432, 7
Knox, L., 1995, Phys. Rev., 52D, 4307
Kolb, E.W., & Turner, M.S., 1994, The Early Universe, Addisson Wesley
Peebles, P.J.E., 1980, The Large Scale Structure of the Universe, Princeton University Press
Martínez-González, E., Sanz, J.L. Silk, J., 1994, ApJ, 436, 1
Sáez D., Arnau J.V., Fullana M.J., 1995, Astro. Lett. and Communications, 32, 75
Sáez D., Fullana M.J., 1999, Astro. Lett. and Communications, in press
Sanz, J.L., Martínez-González, Cayón, L., Silk, J.L., Sugiyama, N., 1996, ApJ, 467, 485

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. This work has been partially supported by the Spanish DGES (project PB96-0797).

FIGURE CAPTIONS

FIG. 1.– Each panel shows the quantity $`[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_\mathrm{}q^I/2\pi ]^{1/2}`$ (in $`\mu K`$) as a function of $`\mathrm{}`$. Left (right) panel corresponds to the normalization $`\sigma _8=1`$ ($`[\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}]^{1/2}=28\mu K`$ for $`\mathrm{}=10`$).

FIG. 2.– Left panel shows the quantity $`\mu _{10I}^{1/2}\times 10^5`$ defined in the text as a function of $`k`$ for the SW (solid) and Doppler (dotted) effects. In the right panel, quantity $`\mu _{10I}^{1/2}\times 10^4`$ is plotted vs. $`k`$ for the SW (solid) and ISW (dotted) effects. These functions must be multiplied to get the corresponding crossed contributions to the CMB angular power spectrum.

FIG. 3.– Top panel shows the quantity $`D_\mathrm{}I^^I(0,Z_{max})`$ defined in the text as a function of $`Z_{max}`$ for $`\mathrm{}=10`$ (solid, not horizontal) and $`\mathrm{}=40`$ (dotted, not horizontal). These curves approach the horizontal lines of the same type as $`Z_{max}`$ increases, crossing them at $`Z_{max}=1140`$. Bottom panel has the same structure, but it shows the quantity $`D_{\mathrm{}II}^^I(0,Z_{max})`$.

FIG. 4.– Top left: plot of $`\nu _{10I}^^I(k,0,Z_{max})`$ (see text) vs. $`k`$ for $`Z_{max}=1140`$ (solid) and $`Z_{max}=0.5`$ (dotted); top right: the same as in top left panel for the quantity $`\nu _{40I}^^I(k,0,Z_{max})`$; bottom left: plot of $`\nu _{10II}^^I(k,0,Z_{max})`$ vs. $`k`$ for $`Z_{max}=1140`$ (solid) and $`Z_{min}=2`$ (dotted); and bottom right: the same as in bottom left for $`\nu _{40II}^^I(k,0,Z_{max})`$.


format: text

text:
# Radio Continuum Emission from the Central stars of M20 and the Detection of a New Supernova Remnant Near M20

## 1 Introduction

The Trifid Nebula (M20), one of the most spectacular optical HII regions in the sky, is centered on a small cluster of hot stars which include components A through G of HD 164492. M20 is located at a distance of $``$1.7 kpc in the Sagittarius spiral arm (but see also Kohoutek, Mayer & Lorenz 1999); it’s angular size of 6 corresponds to about 3pc at this distance. The ionizing flux of $`10^{48.8}`$ s-1 required to maintain the HII region (Chaisson and Wilson 1975) is supplied by the O7.5III star HD 164492A (Wallborn 1973), which has Mv=–5.3 for A$`{}_{v}{}^{}`$1.3 towards the central stars (Lynds and O’Neil 1985). This nebula is associated with the young star cluster NGC 6514 and a molecular cloud to the southwest (Ogura and Ishida 1975). The recent detection of several molecular condensations associated with protostellar sources in the HII region and HH 399, a remarkable jet-like structure, suggest a new generation of star formation induced by the nebula (Cernicharo et al. 1998). Hester et al. (1999) have recently shown the high resolution images of the SE corner of the nebula based on observations made with WFPC2 of the HST. The emission from this corner of the HII region is dominated by a photoionized photoevaporative flow.

M20 shows many similarities to M42 such as its interaction with its parent molecular cloud and its inhomogeneous nebular structure, but the Trifid is thought to be significantly younger than the Orion Nebula ($`10^5`$ yr rather than $`10^6`$ yr) and the protostellar molecular condensations associated with massive star formation are even younger (104 yr) (Cernicharo et al. 1998).

Here we present near IR and radio observations of M20. We have detected a number of near-IR stellar sources within the central star cluster in J, H, K and L images. All seven of the components of HD 164492 (A–G) appear to varying degrees in these images. Three components – B, C and D – coincide with compact radio continuum sources within 12 arcseconds of HD 164492A. These detections suggest that the central massive star is photoionizing the envelope of cool stars in its immediate vicinity similar to the “proplyds” in the Orion Nebula (Churchwell et al. 1987; Garay et al. 1987; O’Dell et al. 1993). Radio images of the nebula at 20 and 6 cm show dark features suggesting the presence of cold and dense regions of dust and gas clouds within the HII region shadowing the UV radiation from HD 164492A. Lastly, on a scale of tens of arcminutes, we report the discovery of a new candiate barrel-shaped supernova remnant (SNR) lying adjacent to M20 and two shell-type features to the north and east of SNR W28.

## 2 Observations

The Very Large Array of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory222The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation, operated under a cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. was used in its compact C and D configurations at $`\lambda `$20, 6 and 2cm in 1987 (Yusef-Zadeh et al. 1991). Follow-up high resolution observations in the wide BnA array were also carried out at 3.6, 6 and 20cm in 1998. In all observations 3C286 was used as standard amplitude calibrator and 1748-253 and 1730-130 as phase calibrators. The 2 and 6cm data were successfully self-calibrated in the BnA array configuration. The $`\lambda `$20cm and 6cm data corresponding to each configuration were combined before the final images were constructed using VTESS in AIPS. In order to measure the polarization characteristics of G7.06–0.12, we used a different antenna pointing at 6cm centered at $`\alpha ,\delta (1950)=17^h59^m18^s,22^055^{}45^{\prime \prime }`$ which is offset to the north of the central star HD 164492A.

Wide-field $`\lambda `$90cm observations towards the supernova remnant W28 which includes M20 were also obtained in the D configuration of the VLA in 1996. In this case 3C48 and 3C286 were used as amplitude calibrators, while 1828+487 (3C380) was used for phase calibration. The 90 cm data were processed using the wide-field imaging task DRAGON present in the NRAO Software Development Environment (SDE) reduction package. DRAGON successfuly completed 5 loops of self-calibration and CLEAN-based deconvolution to generate the final $`\lambda `$90cm image.

J (1.2 $`\mu `$m), H (1.6 $`\mu `$m), K (2.2 $`\mu `$m) and L (3.5 $`\mu `$m) images were obtained in July 1995 using the near-IR array camera NSFCAM at the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility333The NASA Infrared Telescope Facility is operated under contract by the University of Hawaii.. Due to the short time spent taking these images, some of the brighter stars were slightly saturated and stars fill the blank sky images. However, the main results presented here are not affected by the quality of the images.

## 3 Results and Discussion

### 3.1 Central Stars of M20

Figure 1 shows contours of 3.6cm emission with a resolution of 0.63$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 0.45^{\prime \prime }`$ (PA=800) with rms$`33\mu `$Jy. Radio continuum peaks whose flux densities and sizes are listed in Table 1 coincide with the positions of HD164492 B, C and D. Optical positions of HD164492 A, B and C are also listed in Table 1 using the Hipparcos coordinates which are based on a fit to a multiple source model. The quality of the model solution for ”C” using the Hipparcos database was poor, so we did not include it. However, there is an excellent agreement between the absolute position of radio and optical sources to within 0.1′′, especially for sources B and C.

The grayscale images in Figure 2 show the components of multiple star HD 164492 and are identified on the J image, which is very similar to visible images. The central star A coincides with the optical star HD 164992A but is not detected at a level of rms$`33\mu `$Jy at 3.6cm. Source C, the brightest radio source, has a flux of 2.43 mJy at 3.6cm. HD 164492D lies only 2 arcsec west of star C and was found to be a strong H$`\alpha `$ emission source by Herbig, who classified it as a Be-star and named it LkH$`\alpha `$ 123 (Herbig 1957). It was also included as H$`\alpha `$-emission star number 46 in a survey by Velge (1957) and star number 145 in the survey of Ogura and Ishida (1975). The D star is the brightest point source in recent 12.5 and 17.9 $`\mu `$m images that were taken with the JPL MIRLIN camera at the IRTF (Ressler and Shure 1995). Notice several objects in the L image which are either unseen or are very much dimmer shortward of K. Among these newly discovered sources is one roughly 3 arcsec NE and the other only 2 arcsec N of star A. If they are physically associated with this star (2′′ = 3400 AU at 1.7 kpc), they would represent some of the first low-mass companions to high-mass stars.

All three sources B, C and D are also detected at 6cm based on our high resolution BnA array data. Accurate spectral index measurements between 6 and 3.6cm using similar uv coverage and spatial resolution of 0.99$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 0.7^{\prime \prime }`$ (PA=–870) showed $`\alpha `$0 for sources B and C and $`\alpha `$=–0.19, where F$`{}_{\nu }{}^{}\nu ^\alpha `$, for source D. The D star as listed in Table 1 is the only star resolved in our 3.6cm measurements with a deconvolved size of 0.19$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 0.12^{\prime \prime }`$ (PA=1290).

### 3.2 Dense neutral gas associated with stars B,C, and D

What is the origin of the emission from B,C, and D? By analogy with the Orion nebula, one suspects that these sources are externally ionised neutral condensations being photoevaporated by the intense UV field of the O7.5III star HD 164492 A. The argument that this is so proceeds similarly to those of Garay et al. (1987) Churchwell et al. (1987) applied to the proplyds first detected in radio continuum in the Orion nebula.

The flat spectra of sources B,C, and D indicate that their radio continuum arises from optically thin free-free emission. For $`T8000`$ K, the volume emission measures are $`n_e^2V1\times 10^{57}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and for the emission to be optically thin the characteristic scale $`R`$ of the emission region $`50\mathrm{AU}`$. If this region is a roughly constant-density compact Hii region, this scale represents the outer boundary. However, the gas is then gravitationally unbound to the central star and the Hii region would expand on a time scale of $`30`$ yr. On the other hand, if the emitting region is an ionized wind with $`n_er^2`$, the emission is dominated by the innermost radii and $`R`$ corresponds to the *inner* boundary. An ionized stellar wind can be discounted, because then $`R50\mathrm{AU}`$, and the mix of optically-thin and optically-thick contributions at any given frequency produces a $`\nu ^{0.6}`$ spectrum; further the source would be much weaker than observed. Thus we conclude that the emitting region is an ionized wind that is photoevaporated from a reservoir of neutral material near the star.

The neutral reservoir cannot be too large as sources B and C are unresolved and source D is barely resolved. Adopting a distance of 1.7 kpc to M20, the geometric mean of the semi-major and semi-minor axes of source D (see Table 1) is $`R130AU`$, and the corresponding upper limit on sources B and C is 80 AU. The neutral reservoir will be even smaller, and is therefore clearly associated with the star.

The O7.5III star HD 164492 A is likely to be the dominant source of the ionizing photons. An O7.5III star emits $`9.6\times 10^{49}`$ ionizing photons $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Panagia 1973), so that the total ionizing flux incident on a 130 AU radius target at the projected distance of star D ($`0.095\mathrm{pc}`$) is $`1.1\times 10^{45}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This is comparable to the hydrogen recombination rate of source D, $`6.6\times 10^{44}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The recombinations in source B and C are also consistent with this hypothesis. Note, however, that stars HD 164492 B,C, and D are of spectral type B (Kohoutek et al 1999) and produce $`10^{45}`$ Lyman continuum photons $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ or more, so they may contribute significantly to the ionization if enough photons can intercept the nearby neutral material.

Our observations do not determine the distribution of the neutral material associated with stars B,C, and D, but we speculate that it is in circumstellar disks, as for the “proplyds” in Orion.

### 3.3 Embedded EW Dust Lane in M20

A $`\lambda `$6cm grayscale image with resolution of 2.3$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 1.1^{\prime \prime }`$ (PA=–800) and an optical image based on the Palomar Sky Survey are compared in Figures 3a and b. The prominent elongated dust lanes to the SW, SE and NW of the optical image have no counterpart in radio, indicating that these dust features lie in front of the HII region. However, there is a remarkable EW dark radio feature which closely mimics the shape of the optical dust lane seen to the SW of the central hot star in Figure 3b near $`\alpha ,\delta (1950)=17^h59^m17^s,23^002^{}50^{\prime \prime }`$. Figure 4 shows a NS slice cut across this feature in the 6cm radio image. The radio continuum emission is depressed by a factor of 3 where the optical nebula appears to be crossed by an EW dark dust lane with a thickness of about 40′′ (0.3 pc). The correlation between reduced radio emissivity and the optical dust lane is evidence for the dust lane being embedded within the nebula. Other examples of dark features are also apparent in the inhomogeneous large-scale distribution of ionized gas beyond the inner region shown in Figure 3. These dark features are particularly noticeable as broken shell-like structures surrounding the 6 size of the nebula and correlate with the distribution of the HCO+ J=1–0 emission from the nebula presented by Cernicharo et al. (1998). We also note a column of dark feature labelled as dark shadow within the nebula to the east of TC1. These dark features are unlikely to be produced by a lack of short uv spacing data but are instead due to dense 104 cm-3 column of gas arising from the surface layer of the molecular cloud and causing the HII region to become ionization bounded. The dearth of emission from a series of dark features including the EW feature, as best represented in Figure 3a, are interpreted to be the peaks of dense gas shielding the ionizing flux arising from the central hot star. These columns of dense gas are responsible to reduce the emission measure $`n_e^2L`$ where $`n_e`$ and L are the electron density and the path length.

### 3.4 Ionized Rims of TC1 and TC2

Figure 5 shows total intensity contours over the central part of the HII region at 2.3$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 1.1^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution (PA$`=80^0`$). The two extended ionized features to the NW and SE are associated with two bright point-like condensations of dust emission at 1.3mm denoted TC1 and TC2 by Cernicharo et al. (1998). High velocity broad wings in the HCO+ emission from TC1 and a jet-like HH feature associated with TC2 led Cernicharo et al. to suggest that these condensations are associated with protostars. The age of these condensations are estimated to be about 104 yrs and therefore formed after the birth of the HII region. The extended photoionized features in Figure 5 delineate the ionized rims of TC1 and TC2 facing the central hot star. High resolution WFPC2 observations of TC2 using a number of spectral lines was recently reported by Hester et al. (1999) who interpret the ionized layer of TC2 as a photoionizing photevaporative flow. The typical flux density of the ionized rims of TC1 and TC2 is about 0.5 mJy/beam which corresponds to $`n_e2\times 10^3`$ cm-3.

## 4 Discovery of a Supernova Remnant and two Shell-like Features

### 4.1 G7.06–0.12: A Barrel-shaped SNR

Figure 6 shows a large-scale grayscale image of M20 and its immediate vicinity at 20cm (D array only) with a resolution of $`59.1^{\prime \prime }\times 33.7^{\prime \prime }`$ (PA=–20). We note the prominent W28 SNR to the SW and report here a newly discovered shell-type SNR, G7.06-0.12, with a diameter of 13 adjacent to the NW rim of M20. Radio continuum measurements at 6cm show linearly polarized emission at the northern rim of M20 near $`\alpha ,\delta (1950)=17^h59^m22^s,22^055^{}`$. The degree of polarization is about 28% at 6cm based on D array data with a resolution of 29.8$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times 14.3^{\prime \prime }`$ (PA=-270). This radio source has no obvious optical counterpart and is a previously uncataloged, synchrotron emitting SNR.

Further evidence that G7.06-0.12 is a SNR is provided by its morphology, revealed in the contour map of the 20cm image centered on the remnant and displayed in Figure 6a. Here G7.06–0.12 is revealed as a classic barrel shaped SNR aligned roughly with its major axis parallel to the Galactic equator (Gaensler 1998). The western rim of the barrel is more extensive and is about 3-4 times brighter than the eastern rim, which protrudes north of M20 near $`\alpha =17^h59^m25^s`$. We also note several clumps of 20cm continuum features to the north of 7.1–0.1 and a 8 elongated structure running north-south toward the center of the SNR.

Finally, the identification of G7.06–0.12 as a barrel-shaped SNR is confirmed by its nonthermal continuum spectrum and morphology as determined from complimentary 90cm observations. Figure 7b is D array, 90cm contour image centered on the bright SNR W28 with an angular resolution of 5.5$`{}_{}{}^{}\times 2.6^{}`$(PA=13.40). Protruding north of the W28 SNR near $`\alpha =17^h58.5^m`$ is the western half of G7.06–0.12, whose eastern half is now smothered by M20 centered near $`\alpha =17^h59.3^m`$. G7.0.6–0.12’s barrel shaped morphology is also revealed on reinspection of the higher resolution ($`20^{\prime \prime }`$) wide-field 90cm image centered near the SNR G5.4-0.1 (Frail, Kassim, and Weiler 1994). The 90cm image is dominated by W28, whose integrated flux is 350$`\pm `$50 Jy.

Confirmation of the nonthermal spectrum of G7.06–0.12 comes from comparing the integrated flux of the well defined western half of the barrel, giving an average of $``$3.9 Jy as obtained from the two 90cm measurements and $``$1.9 Jy from the 20 cm image. This yields the canonical $`\alpha `$-0.5$`\pm `$0.15 nonthermal spectrum of a typical shell-type SNR, as expected. The images are sufficient to confirm that the eastern half of G7.06–0.12 is also nonthermal, but higher resolution 90cm data is required to determine the spectrum of either side of the barrel more accurately than this. It is interesting to note that the integrated flux of M20 from our D array 90 cm map, which includes some flux from the eastern half of G7.06–0.12, is 11$`\pm `$2 Jy. Together with the 14$`\pm `$3 Jy integrated flux present on our 20 cm map this indicates a slightly inverted spectrum revealing that the HII region has started to become optically thick at 90 cm as is common.

While the eastern rim of G7.06–0.12 merges with the northwest segment of M20, there is no morphological evidence for the interaction of the SNR and M20. We cannot rely on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ relationship to estimate the distance to G7.06–0.12 (Green 1991) but VLA observations at 74 MHz should be able to determine the relative positions, since at that frequency M20 would have become completely optically thick and it would be apparent whether the eastern side of the barrel was being absorbed or not. We note this region of the Galaxy is rich in a having a number of HII complexes ( M8, M20), the SNR W28 expanding into an adjacent molecular cloud (e.g. Wooten 1981) as well as a young star cluster NGC 6514. Thus, it is plausible that SNR G7.06–0.12 is associated with the young cluster, but further studies are needed.

### 4.2 G6.67-0.42: A Nonthermal Shell-type Feature

An additional new radio continuum source identified in this rich region of the Galaxy is G6.67–0.42, located 20 south of M20 as labelled in Figure 6. G6.67–0.42 is clearly distinct from W28 and shows a protruding feature in the eastern part of W28 near $`\delta (1950)=23^023^{}`$. This feature which is curving convex downwards is another previously, unidentified source. It’s morphology is clearly shell-like, as indicated from the 20 cm image displayed in Figure 7a. However the limitation of the 20 cm field of view together with the confusion from W28 allows only a northeastern fragment of an apparently circular shell to be clearly delineated. High-resolution observations at 20cm reveals this new feature which otherwise would have been associated to W28 in earlier low-resolution measurements. The 90cm image shown in Figure 7b shows G6.67–0.42 merged with the eastern part of the shell in W28.

Estimating the spectrum of G6.67–0.42 was done by convolving the 20 and 90cm images to the same resolution 328.8$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\times `$ 157.6′′. The spectrum is estimated to be $``$0.35$`\pm `$0.15 from the peak flux and integrated flux of the shell fragment at 20 and 90cm. The nonthermal emission could be supplied or be part of the W28 remnant itself, such as resulting from a so-called ”blow-out” where the main blast wave has encountered a lower density ISM region. However, the geometry of the weaker shell-like feature and its distinct structure from W28 is not classic blow-out morphology in that its implied center of curvature is significantly different than that of the main W28 shell. Future observations should clarify if the nonthermal shell fragment is either part of W20 or yet another previously unidentified shell-type SNR.

### 4.3 G6.83-0.21: A Shell-type Structure

Lastly, we detect a weakly emitting shell-like source G6.83–0.21 lying between M20 and W28, as labelled in Figure 6. This source lies in a difficult region of our 20cm image where a “negative bowl” surrounding both W28 and M20 suppresses any emission arising from this weak source. In spite of this difficulty, we note a shell source with a diameter of about 15 lying between the northern and southern edges of W28 and G7.06–0.12, respectively. The eastern edge of of G6.83–0.21 is brighter and has a typical flux density of about 4 mJy beam -1 above the negative depression at a level of –6 mJy beam -1.

It is difficult to determine the nature of G6.83–0.21 because of the lack of spectral and polarization information. However, two observational anomalies, described below, imply that G6.83–0.21 is possibly a distinct shell-type SNR. The bright compact source 6.833–0.093 and the pulsar PSR 1758-23 lie at the geometrical center of the shell source G6.83–0.21. An association between PSR 1758-23 and the W28 SNR has been suggested on the basis of age, even though the pulsar lies outside the W28 shell. This hypothesis has the difficulty that it has a much larger dispersion measure than expected if the pulsar were placed 2kpc away (Kaspi et al. 1993), although Frail, Kulkarni and Vasisht (1991) have argued that the large dispersion and scattering of the pulses from PSR 1758-23 are caused by a dense screen of ionized gas located along the line of sight. Another anomaly is the kinematics of the OH(1720 MHz) masers observed across the northern part of W28 (Claussen et al. 1998). OH(1720 MHz) masers have recently been identified as a signature of SNRs interacting with molecular clouds (e.g. Frail, Goss & Slysh 1994; Lockett, Gauthier & Elitzur 1999; Wardle 1999). The kinematics of these masers are generally found to be similar to the systemic velocity of molecular clouds into which SNRs are expanding. Claussen et al. (1998), however, notice an exception in W28, where the masers fall into low and high velocity groups. Two molecular clouds have been observed toward W28 at 7 and 17 km s-1 in various molecular lines (Wooten 1981). To explain this velocity difference, Claussen et al. (1998) suggest that the entire low-velocity molecular cloud has been accelerated by the SNR shock along our line of sight.

The above anomalies may be resolved if G6.83–0.21 is a shell-type SNR associated with the PSR 1758-23 and is interacting with a distinct 7 km s-1molecular cloud. The distance to G6.83–0.21 is difficult to estimate but it has to be placed at a larger distance than 2 kpc to be consistent with the high dispersion of pulsar signals. Future observations of G6.83–0.21 should be important to clarify if this feature is a confusing source in this complex region of the Galaxy or it is a new member of the class of SNRs with associated OH(1720 MHz) masers lying within the inner several degrees of the Galactic center (Yusef-Zadeh et al. 1999).

F. Yusef-Zadeh’s work was supported in part by NASA. Basic research in radio astronomy at the Naval Research Laboratory is supported by the Office of Naval Research.

## Figure captions