format: text

text:
# A far IR study of the CfA Seyfert sample: I. The data 1footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA.

## 1 Introduction

The origin of the IR emission from Seyfert galaxies has been a matter of discussion since the early work of Rieke & Low (1972); Stein (1975); Rieke (1978); Neugebauer (1978), and others. These authors found an emission excess between 3 and 5 $`\mu `$m in Seyfert galaxies, that originated a strong controversy between those who supported that the emission was non thermal and those who defended that the excess was emission from dust heated by the nucleus. The use of efficient instruments to observe at 10 $`\mu `$m, and especially the pioneering work at the far IR carried out from the Kuiper Airborn Observatory (KAO) showed the importance of the mid and far IR emission to quantify the bolometric luminosity of Seyfert galaxies (Telesco & Harper 1980; Smith et al. 1983). However, it was the IRAS satellite that provided an extensive set of IR data for a large number of galaxies, from which it was shown that Seyfert galaxies are indeed strong far IR emitters (Rodríguez Espinosa, Rudy & Jones 1987; Edelson, Malkan & Rieke 1987; Spinoglio et al. 1995).

The IRAS satellite was key to the understanding of the importance of the IR emission to the total luminosity of active galaxies. However the IRAS data alone are not sufficient to clarify the nature of the IR emission, as there are measurements only at a limited number of wavebands preventing a good definition of the shape of the Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) at mid and far IR wavelength (see, e.g., Telesco 1988; 1990; Bregman 1990). A proper characterization of the mid and far SED is essential to understand the emission mechanisms that produce the high output of Seyfert galaxies in the IR. Recent studies have discussed the origin of the IR emission suggesting that it is of thermal origin. For example Giuricin, Mardirossian & Mezzetti (1995) have studied a complete sample of Seyfert galaxies at 10 $`\mu `$m and propose that the emission is due to thermal reemission by dust. Bonatto & Pastoriza (1997), based on color studies of IRAS data from diverse Seyfert samples, find that the colors obtained can be explained with a combination of dust heated by the nucleus plus cold dust in the host galaxy. Siebenmorgen et al. (1997) show that the SED at IR and milimetric wavelengths can be modeled assuming that the dust heated by a central source dominates the luminosity output of these objects. Maiolino et al. (1998) confirmed this last result finding, in their high resolution IR images of the Circinus galaxy, an unresolved source, with size $`<`$ 1 pc, that is reprocessing the nuclear output via dust reradiation. Rigopoulou et al. (1997) have observed a sample of AGN in the CO mm line suggesting that the far IR emission of Seyfert galaxies is thermal, based on three different evidences: the correlation found between the far IR and the CO emission, the dependence of the far IR emission to hydrogen molecular mass ratio with dust temperature, and the similarity of the profile shape of the CO and HI lines.

Another important issue is the understanding of the differences between the two Seyfert types. According to the unified models, Seyfert 2 nuclei are intrinsically similar to Seyfert 1 nuclei, the differences observed being due solely to geometrical effects. In Seyfert 2, neither the broad line region nor the optical, UV and soft X ray continuum can be observed directly because the central region is obscured by intervening material in the line of sight. Some authors argue that this material forms a sort of disc or torus of molecular material. This disc or torus is thought to be reponsible for the collimation of radiation and the observed anisotropies, i.e., biconic structures in emission line images (Simpson et al. 1997; Wilson et al. 1993) or highly collimated jets. It is expected that at sufficiently long wavelengths the optical depth of the torus would decrease and the differences between the two Seyfert types should disappear. Several tests have been made to ascertain the presence of these molecular tori (Heckman 1995; Pier & Krolik 1993). These obscuring tori have been theoretically modeled by Pier & Krolik (1992) and Granato & Danese (1994) among others, predicting that the mid IR optical depth is still considerable, thus it should be expected that Seyfert 1s are more luminous than Seyfert 2s in the mid IR.

In this work, we make an attempt to understanding the origin of the mid and far IR emission from Seyfert galaxies through the study of their spectral energy distributions (SED). We present ISO data of the entire CfA Seyfert sample (Huchra & Burg 1992), consisting of 25 Seyfert 1 and 22 Seyfert 2, plus a LINER. Section 2 describes the observations. Section 3 presents the separation of the Spectral Energy Distributions in thermal components by means of the Inverse Planckian Transform. Section 4 describes the thermal emission components obtained from the inversion and in Section 5 we perform a statistical analysis of the parameters obtained and discuss the differences between the two Seyfert types.

As the CfA Seyfert sample is a complete sample of Seyfert galaxies we expect that the results obtained here are statistically significant for all Seyfert galaxies and certainly suggestive for other classes of AGNs.

## 2 The data

Observations of the CfA Seyfert sample have been carried out with the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO; Kessler et al. 1996) through filters at 16, 25, 60, 90 120, 135, 180 and 200$`\mu `$m. NGC 1068 was also observed at 4.9, 7.3 and 11.5 $`\mu `$m. The filter set was chosen to achieve good coverage in wavelength while producing a good sampling of the SEDs. The ISOPHOT instrument (Lemke et al. 1996) was used in the PHT-P and PHT-C configurations, with the P1, P2, C100 and C200 detectors. P1 and P2 are single element photodiodes. C100 is an array of 3x3 pixels, each one projecting onto 45 arcsec in the sky, while C200 is a 2x2 pixel array, each pixel projecting onto 89.4 arcsec in the sky. Integration times were calculated from the signal/noise ratio estimates produced by the ISOPHOT simulator based on interpolations and extrapolations of the IRAS data. The PHT-P observations were done in chopping mode through a 120 or 180 arcsec aperture depending on the size of the objects. The PHT-C observations were done in staring mode. In this case, to set the background level, an empty area adjacent to the source was observed prior to the actual source and with identical instrumental settings. For NGC 1068 we have done maps with C100, at 60 and 105 $`\mu `$m, moving by half a pixel (23”) between two contiguous map positions. Four additional objects (NGC 3079, NGC 3227, NGC 4051 and NGC 4151) have been mapped at 90 $`\mu `$m with the C100 array. Details of the mapping observations of these four galaxies are given in Pérez García, Rodríguez Espinosa & Fuensalida (2000).

The data reduction was done with the help of the PHT-Interactive Analysis (PIA) V.7.0 tool. PIA first deglitchs the data eliminating the cosmic rays and others spurious effects, then corrects for non-linear effects taking into account both the dynamic range of the detectors and the flux level of the observed sources. To determine the signal PIA linearizes the integration ramps, and corrects for detector drifts. The background substraction is achieved by repeating the PIA reduction process for the background measurements files, which are then substracted from the object files. It is also necessary to correct for the PSF fraction that is not seen by the detector (see Lemke et al. 1996). This factor varies with wavelength, hence the actual correction factor for each filter is built-in in a PIA table. The flux calibration is performed using the standard calibration of PIA 7.0. For the PHT-P measurements the process is similar except that the background substraction is performed automatically from the chopped measurements and the flux calibration is done through the use of the internal FCS (Fine Calibration Source; Lemke et al. 1996) since it provides a better match with the actual intensity of the sources. Note that the P detector response is very dependent on the intensity of the source being observed.

The photometric uncertainties are small varying between 1% for the objects with higher signal/noise ratio and 15% for the weakest objects. The final uncertainties are however dominated by the uncertainties in the flux calibration. The calibration factors have kept improving as the detector and instrument characteristics have become better known, although there are still some residual effects (non linearity of detectors) that are yet not adequately modelled. As of this writting, the uncertainty of the calibration is equal or better than 30%. Therefore, throughout this paper, we adopt a conservative uncertainty of 30%.

The fluxes for the observed objects are given in Table 1 and 2. Fluxes are in Janskys. Some objects could not be observed in some or all of the filters for various reasons. These are also given in Table 1.

Figure A far IR study of the CfA Seyfert sample: I. The data 111Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA. shows the Spectral Energy Distributions (SEDs) of the observed objects. The ISO data have been plotted together with IRAS data (Edelson, Malkan & Rieke 1987) at 12, 25, 60 and 100$`\mu `$m showing that the agreement of the ISO and IRAS data is very good in most cases.

## 3 The inversion of the SEDs

It can be seen in fig. 1 that the SEDs describe a well defined energy range with a steady increase from the near IR on to a maximum between 90 and 135$`\mu `$m and the start of a decline toward longer wavelengths. Several results like those mentioned in the introduction point to the mid and far-IR emission of Seyfert galaxies being of thermal origin. Furthermore, we have shown that the SED of a few Seyfert galaxies can be explained as emission produced by two emissivity weighted blackbodies (Rodríguez Espinosa et al. 1996).

However, rather than proceeding with a plain fit of a “ad hoc”number of black bodies, we have preferred to use an inversion method to analize the SEDs of the galaxies in the sample. This has the advantage that no assumptions have to be made as to the number or location of the sources responsible for the observed spectrum. In particular, we have used an Inverse Planckian Transform algorithm, that employs an emissivity ($`ϵ\lambda ^{1.5}`$) weighted Planck function kernel to switch from frequency space to the temperature domain, hence revealing the temperature distribution of the sources that originate the observed SEDs. The method applies Bayes theorem of conditional probability and the Richardson-Lucy iteration algorithm which converges quickly to a optimum result. To increase the number of data points used in the inversion algorithm, whenever available, we have added the four IRAS band fluxes at 12, 25, 60 and 100 $`\mu `$m as given by Edelson, Malkan & Rieke (1987). Furthermore, to avoid boundary convergence problems in the inversion algorithm we have used 10 $`\mu `$m ground-based data from several authors (Rieke 1978; Edelson, Malkan & Rieke 1987; Maiolino et al 1995), and 1.3 mm upper limit data from Edelson, Malkan & Rieke (1987). These additional data have been used solely for the purpose of constraining the inversion algorithm at the borders of the wavelength range of interest. Details of this method are given in Salas (1992) and in Pérez García, Rodríguez Espinosa, & Santolaya Rey (1998) and are not repeated here.

Figure A far IR study of the CfA Seyfert sample: I. The data 111Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA. shows the results obtained after application of the Inverse Planckian Transform to the SEDs of the CfA Seyfert galaxies observed. For each object, the upper pannel in Figure A far IR study of the CfA Seyfert sample: I. The data 111Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA. plots the ISO data (triangles) and the IRAS data (filled squares) and the best fit to the mid and far IR data in heavy black, with the different spectral components contributing to the fit printed in dashed lines; the bottom pannel shows the temperature spectrum that produces these components.

It is important to note that the temperature spectra obtained in this way are continuous. Further, the spectral temperatures of the dust grains group themselves in discrete and well defined features that we have called components. These components can be described by their peak temperature. Figure A far IR study of the CfA Seyfert sample: I. The data 111Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA. shows that 34 out of the 40 galaxies for which we have obtained good temperature spectra show three temperature components: a warm component with central temperature T$``$150 K, a cold component with T$``$40-70 K, and a colder component with T$``$15-25 K. The remaining 6 objects show only two components, although in NGC 1068 when the short wavelength data are added a third component is recovered. Table 3 shows the peak temperatures of these thermal components for each object. This table also gives the spectral and morphological type for each object. These results confirm the analysis made before for a few objects of the same sample (Pérez García, Rodríguez Espinosa, & Santolaya Rey 1998).

The fits obtained from the inversion are, in general, very good. In some cases, weak objects or objects with low signal to noise ratios, the uncertainty in the inversion is higher. For some objects, we have rejected some measurements (the flux at 120$`\mu `$m of NGC 4235, and the fluxes at 90$`\mu `$m of Mrk 270, Mrk 461 and 1614+35) because these data points do not follow the shape of the SEDs defined by the rest of the measurements. In all of these cases the rejected measurement is very noisy. Four other objects (Mrk 590, Mrk 573 and Mrk 841) have not been measured at long wavelengths ($`>`$90$`\mu `$m), because they are below the sensitivity limit for detection with ISO.

Nevertheless, the method still finds three components for three out of the except for NGC 1068, that will be analized in a separate section. four objects. For Mrk 590, the inversion does not converge.

In four of the objects, the warm component peak temperature obtained from the inversion is not high enough to fit the data. These four objects are Mrk 335, NGC 5273, Mrk 1243 and IZw1. Both in Mrk 335 and in NGC 5273 it can be due to the low signal to noise ratio of the data. NGC 5273 shows a discrepancy between the IRAS value at 12 $`\mu `$m and the ISO value at 16 $`\mu `$m (again very likely due to the low signal to noise ratio of the ISO data point) that prevents a good fit to the data. Mrk 1243 has only three data points in the hot part of the spectrum. IZw1 is a special case, since the short wavelength data are of good signal to noise ratio, however it is not detected at 200 $`\mu `$m and the flux at 180 $`\mu `$m is rather low. The fall of the signal at longer wavelengths is fast enough to explain that the object is not detected at 200 $`\mu `$m. Figure A far IR study of the CfA Seyfert sample: I. The data 111Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA. shows that the SED of IZw1 if made of just two components does not account for all of the observed emission. If we substract this initial two-component fit from the actual SED, the residual seems to correspond to yet one third hotter thermal component. The inversion method does not succeed at identifying completely this third component, due to the temperature of this third component being too high, therefore only a small fraction of the energy within this third component falls within the range of wavelength studied. The shape of the residual is however similar to the other two components, a clear hint of the existance of yet another thermal component with a peak temperature of $``$300 K. This temperature is the highest temperature found among all of the SEDs. The cold and very cold components also have peak temperatures higher than the corresponding components of the SEDs of the rest of the CfA sample. IZw1 is one of the more distant and brighter Seyfert galaxies known. Its different spectroscopic characteristics of line width and line ratios were pointed out by Osterbrock and Pogge (1985) and Goodrich (1989). Recently, several authors have pointed out the different nature of IZw1. For example, the optical and X-ray spectra are steeper in IZw1 than in normal Seyfert 1 and 2. Indeed IZw1 shows fast and large amplitude variability in its X-ray emission (see Halpern & Moran 1998 and references there in), and is possibly better associated with the broad line quasars (Boroson & Meyers 1992; Lawrence et al. 1997).

## 4 The dust components

The inversion method assigns to each dust component a range of temperature, i.e., the dust grains have temperatures ranging between a minimum and a maximum temperature. This is indeed an expected and physically meaningful result, as the dust closer to the source or sources of radiation will be warmer than the dust farther away. The existence of temperature components indicates that there are well defined sources with well defined temperature profiles which must be the result of well defined physical scenarios existing in these objects. From the temperature spectra, we can calculate the flux that each dust component contributes to the total mid and far IR emission. For each component, the flux is obtained by integration of the temperature spectrum over the relevant range of temperatures:

$$F_i=_{Tmin_i}^{Tmax_i}\mathrm{\Psi }(T)𝑑Ti=1,2,3$$
(1)
where T$`_{min_i}`$ and T$`_{max_i}`$ are the extreme values of the temperature range that defines each component, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(T)`$ is the temperature distribution obtained from the inversion process. Table 4 shows the fluxes obtained in this way for each component and the total flux for each object. The comparison between the far IR IRAS fluxes (FIR), as calculated from the values at 60 and 100 $`\mu `$m (Lonsdale et al. 1984) and the sum of the cold and very cold components calculated here is in good agreement. The luminosities for each of the components are shown in Table 5. We have used $`H_0`$ = 75 Km s-1 Mpc-1 throughout this paper.

The key point now is wheather these emission components can be physically explained within a sensible scenario. In what follows we review the pieces of evidence that we have for explaining each of components:

a) In a previous paper Rodríguez Espinosa & Pérez García (1997) were able to use optical R band images of a subset of low redshift Seyferts of the present sample to separate the fluxes from the central region from those of the galaxy disks. We found a very good correlation between the ratio of the extended to the compact R band fluxes and the ratio of the cold plus very cold component to the warm emission component. The conclusion was that the warm emission component is related with the central regions of the galaxies while the cold and the very cold emission had to originate in the disk of these galaxies.

b) Furthermore, a correlation has been found between the flux produced by the warm component and the flux in the high ionization coronal lines fluxes like \[OIV\]$`\lambda `$25.9 and \[NeV\]$`\lambda `$14.3$`\mu `$m (Prieto, Pérez García & Rodríguez Espinosa 2000), indicating that the warm component must be heated by the nucleus of these galaxies.

c) In another recent paper, Pérez García et al. (2000) have shown that based on 90$`\mu `$m ISO maps of four nearby Seyferts, the 90$`\mu `$m emission is physically extended up to radii similar or larger than those seen in optical images of these same galaxies. Furthermore, the extension of this 90$`\mu `$m emission has been characterized and its extension, scale length and surface brightness profiles are typical of normal galaxy disks.

Based on the above, a scenario arises in which the warm component is associated with dust heated by radiation coming from the nuclear or circumnuclear regions of these galaxies, while the cold and very cold dust must be heated by process occurring in the galaxy disk. Danese et al. (1992) also conclude that the mid IR emission (10-25$`\mu `$m) is dominated by the nucleus or the circumnuclear region. Further support to this scenario comes from the following:

* Warm dust. Its characteristic peak temperature is in the range 120-170 K, a range of temperatures warmer tham is normal of dust in typical starforming regions. The nuclear origin of the radiation responsible for the heating of the warm dust was already indicated by Rudy (1984) who found a correlation between the \[OIII\]$`\lambda `$5007 emission line flux and the 10 $`\mu `$m emission for a sample of quasars, Seyfert galaxies and radiogalaxies. This author suggested that the dust responsible for the 10 $`\mu `$m emission is mixed with the ionized gas of the Narrow Line Region (NLR) that produces the \[OIII\]$`\lambda `$5007 emission line. More recently, Giuricin, Mardiossian and Mezzetti (1995) support the idea of the nuclear heating of this warm dust, based on 10 $`\mu `$m small aperture observations of a sample of 100 galaxies. They found that the 10 $`\mu `$m emission correlates very well with the 25 $`\mu `$m IRAS emission, while the correlation is poor with the 60 $`\mu `$m emission. From a different perspective Heckmann et al. (1997) have found in the Seyfert 2 galaxy Mrk 477 a strong starburst with very warm dust in an scale of a few hundred parsecs, that confirms the idea that the warm dust can also be heated by nuclear and circumnuclear starformation regions.
* Cold dust. Peak temperatures for this component range between 40 and 70 K, a range of temperatures that is typical of dust in regions of starformation. Note that cold dust is present in mostly all classes of galaxies, including normal and starburst galaxies (Knapp et al. 1996; Chini, Kruger & Kreysa 1992; Klaas et al 1997; Walterbos & Schwering 1987). In all these galaxy types, the heating of the dust is produced by OB stars in star formation regions in the galaxy disks. The higher temperatures corresponding to higher recent starformation rates (Young et al. 1989)
* Very cold dust. Peak temperatures for this component range from around 15 to 25 K, temperatures that are normal of dust heated by the general interstellar radiation field. This very cold dust is tipically composed of big grains in thermal equillibrium with the interstellar radiation field and has been observed in normal spiral galaxies (see, e.g., Walterbos & Greenewalt 1996; Walterbos & Schwering 1987; Cox, Kruger & Metzer 1986). For example, Cox, Kruger & Mezger (1986) predict that the dust of the Galaxy is at a temperature of around 15-20 K, and Walterbos & Schwering show that in the disk of M31 there is very cold dust at 21 K.

### 4.1 NGC 1068

NGC 1068 has been observed at a wider spectral range than the rest of the sample, 11 filters between 4 and 200 $`\mu `$m have been employed. NGC 1068 is indeed one of the best studied Seyfert 2 galaxies in all spectral ranges. Morphologically it is clasified as SAb, and was the first galaxy in which broad emission lines in polarized light were found (Miller & Antonucci 1983; Antonucci and Miller 1985). In the IR range, Tresh-Frenberg et al. (1987) have found that the emission between 5 and 20 $`\mu `$m presents an elongated structure in the nucleus, that they explain as thermal emission by dust heated by both the active nucleus and an active starforming region near (1”-2”) the nucleus. The comparison between 10$`\mu `$m images and HST images (Cameron et al. 1993) indicates a correlation between the hot dust emission and the Narrow Line Region. These autors developed a model that replaces the molecular torus by giant molecular clouds of gas and dust that attenuate the broad lines. Braatz et al. (1993) found a correlation between a 12.4 $`\mu `$m image and both optical continuum and \[OIII\] images; they also observed that the IR emission is aligned perpendicular to the torus plane and infered that the extended IR emission is thermal radiation by dust in molecular clouds heated by collimated nuclear emission, without ruling out a possible contribution by dust in the molecular torus. Telesco & Harper (1980) have studied the far IR emission of NGC 1068 with KAO (Kuipern Airborn Observatory) observations between 30 and 300 $`\mu `$m and have found two thermal components with temperatures of $``$36 K and $``$115 K.

We have applied the inversion method explained before in the same spectral range that we have used for the rest of the objects in the sample, i.e., between 12 and 200 $`\mu `$m. Figure A far IR study of the CfA Seyfert sample: I. The data 111Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA. shows the results obtained, i.e., two thermal components, a cold one with peak temperature of T$``$36 K and a warm one with T$``$115 K in the peak. It remains however to extend the fit to the shorter wavelength data which we have for NGC 1068 alone. When we apply the inversion method to the full range observed (4-200 $`\mu `$m) the SED of NGC 1068 appears now as the sum of three thermal components (see Figure A far IR study of the CfA Seyfert sample: I. The data 111Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA.). Two of them can be identified with the two thermal components previously found before without considering the 4-12 $`\mu `$m range. The peak temperatures of the three components are now 29, 110 and 278 K. The differences between the flux contained in each of the two components common to both inversions is less than 7%.

The three components found in NGC 1068 are explained as in the rest of the objects of the CfA sample. The cold component is produced by dust in the host galaxy, the warm component corresponds to dust heated by the active nucleus and/or circumnuclear starforming regions. The dust at higher temperature is also heated by the active nucleus, and should either be located in the inner part of the torus or be heated by active starforming regions placed in a radius $`<`$100 pc from the active nucleus (González Delgado et al. 1998). The flux enclosed under the component with T$``$278 K is F = 9.17 10-9 erg cm-2 s-1, and the corresponding luminosity L = 2.40 1045 erg s-1, while the total IR luminosity of NGC 1068 is 8.60 1045 erg s-1. Hence this component represents 28% of the total IR luminosity, which agrees with the fraction of the total UV emission that is produced by circumnuclear starforming regions in a sample of Seyfert 2 galaxies (González Delgado et al. 1998).

## 5 Energy balance: The cold emission component

One possible test that can confirm the suggestion made before on the relation between the cold emission component and the presence of starforming regions in the galaxy discs consists of testing the ratio of H$`\alpha `$ emission to far IR output. For instance in NGC 3079, the observed H$`\alpha `$ luminosity is 7.93 1040 erg sec-1 (Armus, Heckman & Miley 1990), a figure that includes both the nuclear and extended H$`\alpha `$ luminosity. Moreover, with a ratio of extended to nuclear H$`\alpha `$ emission of 0.77 (Armus, Heckman & Miley 1990), the extended H$`\alpha `$ emission amounts to 3.49 1040 erg sec-1, which shows the importance of the H$`\alpha `$ flux produced in star forming regions outside the central region in this object. If we take as an average extinction the value measured by Hawarden et al. (1995) AV=7.5 mag, the extinction at $`H_\alpha `$ is A$`_{H_\alpha }`$=6.1 mag, and the extinction corrected extended H$`\alpha `$ luminosity is 0.93 1043 erg sec-1. This is to be compared with the IR output due to dust in starforming regions that competes with the gas for high energy photons from massive stars. In NGC 3079 this is what we have called the cold emission (Pérez García, Rodríguez Espinosa & Santolaya Rey 1998), which amounts to 3.52 1044 erg sec-1, or a ratio of H$`\alpha `$ to cold FIR emission of 0.03. This value is in agreement with the expected value in regions where massive stars are forming (Devereux & Young 1990). Hence for NGC 3079 there is good agreement between the H$`\alpha `$ output from disk HII regions and the cold IR emission, which confirms the results in Pérez García et al. (1998) and in this work indicating that the cold component emission in Seyfert galaxies originates in starforming regions wjthin their disk.

In the case of NGC 4051 we consider the ratio between H$`\alpha `$ and far IR luminosity in two limiting cases. First, we consider the total integrated H$`\alpha `$ luminosity, 4.34 1041 erg sec-1 (Romanishin 1990), which after correction for extinction (AV= 0.24, Ho et al. 1997) becomes 5.22 1041 erg sec-1. Hence, the ratio of total H$`\alpha `$ to cold far IR emission (0.25 1044 erg sec-1) is 0.02. This is an upper limit as the total H$`\alpha `$ emission includes the nuclear emission which to a certain extent can be due to non-thermal processes associated with the AGN. On the other hand, if we consider the H$`\alpha `$ emission coming exclusively from the star-forming regions in the disk of NGC 4051, which according to González Delgado et al. (1997) is 26% of the total emission we get a ratio of extended H$`\alpha `$ to cold far IR emission of 0.006. This is a lower limit as some of the H$`\alpha `$ flux that we have assumed nuclear is very likely due to extended circumnuclear emission that will also contribute to the cold far IR emission. The actual value for the ratio of extended H$`\alpha `$ flux to cold far IR emission ranges therefore between 0.006 and 0.02, a value that is well within the range given by Devereux & Young (1990) as typical of normal HII regions in the disk of spiral galaxies.

In the case of NGC 5033 the integrated H$`\alpha `$ flux is 3.98 1041 erg sec-1 (Kennicutt 1983), which after correcting for extinction (AV= 1.48, Ho et al. 1997) becomes 1.20 1042 erg sec-1. The H$`\alpha `$ emission to cold far IR emission ratio is 0.02, which is again to be taken as an upper limit given that the total H$`\alpha `$ flux includes the nuclear emission which we can not separate because we do not have the necessary data, However this upper limit is similar to that obtained for NGC 4051.

As for the rest of the sample a similar exercise with H$`\alpha `$ fluxes obtained from the literature produce similar results. In very few instances have we been able to separate the extended from the nuclear H$`\alpha `$ emission. For these cases the ratio of extended H$`\alpha `$ emission to cold far IR emission ranges between 1. 10-5 for NGC 5929 and 0.02 for Mrk 270. In most cases this separation between extended and nuclear emission has not been possible and hence ratios between the total H$`\alpha `$ emission and the cold far IR output have been obtained. These range between 1.5 10-4 (Mrk 766) and 2. 10-3 (NGC 3516). In all cases it can be seen that the ratios are within those expected if massive stars are responsible for the ionizing photons as well as for the heating of the dust. We therefore conclude that the cold emission component that appeared naturally from the inversion process is related to radiation from dust in starforming regions in the galaxy discs.

## 6 Seyfert type differences

The current understanding of Seyfert galaxies assumes that the differences between the two Seyfert types are due to geometric factors in the nuclear region. If this is so we should look for differences in the warm emission component between the Seyfert types. Let us therefore turn our attention to the warm dust component that we have suggested it is directly related to the nuclear and circumnuclear dust emission. If there is a molecular torus obscuring the nuclear region and this is sufficiently thick (as the models predict, see e.g. Pier & Krolik 1992; Granato & Danese 1994) we shall observe differences in the warm component emission produced by each of the two Seyfert types.

In order to compare the parameters obtained from the inversion of the SEDs for the different Seyfert types, we establish two different groups of objects within the CfA sample: Seyfert 1s, including galaxies classified as Seyfert 1.5, and Seyfert 2s, including Seyfert 1.8 and 1.9. Therefore, the sample gets divided into 22 Seyfert 1 and 24 Seyfert 2. If we drop those objects not observed or those whose data do not allow obtaining a well defined warm component, the sample with adequate data for this analysis consists of 18 Seyfert 1 galaxies and 22 Seyfert 2 galaxies.

If the dust responsible for the warm emission component is located within the molecular torus that hides both the active nucleus and the broad line region, we expect to find differences between some of the parameters that define the warm component of the Seyfert 1 and 2 objects. If however the dust is located outside the molecular torus, then the geometry does not play anymore a key role and we should not see differences between the two types of Seyfert galaxies.

### 6.1 Temperature differences

Regarding the temperature distribution, it should be realized that in both Seyfert classes we are sampling dust emission produced under similar physical conditions, probed with the same wavelength range, and heated in either case by the active nucleus or by circumnuclear starforming regions. Therefore as temperature is an intensive quantity as opposed to extensive, we expect not to see any difference between the average temperature of the warm component in the two Seyfert types.

Figure A far IR study of the CfA Seyfert sample: I. The data 111Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA. shows the distribution of warm component temperature for the two groups of Seyfert galaxies. It is seen that the median temperature of the Seyfert 1s is slightly higher than the median of the Seyfert 2s though the differences are small, IZw1 excepted. As we pointed out before, IZw1 is a special object, its warm temperature being way far out of every other object in the sample. We have therefore dropped IZw1 from the statistics. To understand the significance of the differences between the two distributons, we have applied a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test. The characteristics of the distributions are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T_1\hfill & =148\hfill & \sigma =12.\hfill \\ T_2\hfill & =144\hfill & \sigma =14.\hfill \end{array}$$

The result of this KS test is that there is a 78% probability that the two distributions are the same and so the differences between them are not significant and both groups (Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2) enjoy, as expected, the same temperature distribution.

### 6.2 Fluxes and luminosities

Recent studies of the mid IR emission from Seyfert galaxies claim that Seyfert 2 galaxies are weaker than Seyfert 1s (Heckman 1995; Maiolino et al. 1995; Giuricin, Mardirossian & Mezzeti 1995; Mulchaey et al. 1994). This result is interpreted within the framework of the unified models as an anisotropy, resulting from the presence of a molecular torus with a given optical thickness in the IR. To test this claim we have compared the fluxes and luminosities of the warm component of the Seyfert SEDs to see if we find significant differences between Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2s.

The median values for the warm luminosities are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}logL_{warm}_1\hfill & =44.7\hfill & \sigma =0.3\hfill \\ logL_{warm}_2\hfill & =44.9\hfill & \sigma =0.8\hfill \end{array}$$

Statistically, the KS test shows that there is a probability 33% that both distributions are the same. Hence there are no significant differences between the Seyfert 1 and 2’s regarding the warm emission.

Turning now to the total far IR luminosities, i.e., the sum of the three emission components, the distributiones are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}logL_{IR}_1\hfill & =45.1\hfill & \sigma =0.8\hfill \\ logL_{IR}_2\hfill & =44.9\hfill & \sigma =0.7\hfill \end{array}$$

In this case the distributions are the same with a significance level of 99% therefore it can not be concluded that the Seyfert 1s are brighter than the Seyfert 2s in the mid and far IR.

We now turn to search wheather there are differences between Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2s in the ratio of warm component to total luminosity. First, we refer to the ratios between the warm and total fluxes. The mean and standard deviations of these distributions are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F_{warm}/F_{IR}_1\hfill & =0.42\hfill & \sigma =0.17\hfill \\ F_{warm}/F_{IR}_2\hfill & =0.28\hfill & \sigma =0.15\hfill \end{array}$$

Figure A far IR study of the CfA Seyfert sample: I. The data 111Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA. shows the flux ratio distributions. A KS test indicates that the distributions are different at the 99% level of significance. This result suggests that the Seyfert 1s emit fractionally more than the Seyfert 2s in the mid IR (warm component). This is consistent, for example, with the models of circumnuclear tori of Pier & Krolik (1992;1993) and of Granato & Danese (1994), that predict anisotropy by absorption of nuclear emission in the mid IR. However this result should be taken with care, as it could indicate either that the nuclear emission is larger in the Seyfert 1s relative to their total FIR flux or that the contribution of the host galaxy is stronger in the Seyfert 2s. To discriminate between these two possible explanations we must normalize the infrared fluxes with an isotropic property of the galaxies in the sample, i.e., with fluxes emitted at long enough wavelengths that they are not suspect of suffering extinction and thus do not depend on the geometry of the sources. Other authors have used \[OIII\]$`\lambda `$5000 $`\AA `$ fluxes, hard X-ray fluxes or radio fluxes (see, for example, Mulchaey et al. 1994). However, the \[OIII\] $`\lambda `$5000 $`\AA `$ fluxes can be affected by absorption due to dust in the NLR. We prefer to use 20 cm radio emission fluxes to normalize the IR flux, since the radio emission is not affected by selective extinction. We have used integrated radio data from Edelson (1987). These data consists of VLA observations at 1.46 GHz (20 cm) with a bandwidth of 45 MHz. The FWHM beamwidth used is 1.5 arcmin, directly comparable with our ISO data.

The distributions of the radio normalized warm IR fluxes show the following characteristics:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}log(F_{warm}/F_{20cm})_1\hfill & =6.5\hfill & \sigma =0.3\hfill \\ log(F_{warm}/F_{20cm})_2\hfill & =6.1\hfill & \sigma =0.3\hfill \end{array}$$

KS tests indicate that both distributions are different at a significance level of 99.9%. Therefore, the warm flux is indeed higher in Seyfert 1s than it is in Seyfert 2s, and it can be concluded that the warm emission from Seyfert 2s is affected by dust extinction to a larger extent that in the Seyfert 1 galaxies.

This result suggests that at shorter wavelengths (mid IR) the emission is still anisotropic, in agreement with the molecular torus models of Pier & Krolik (1992;1993) and Granato & Danese (1994). These and others authors have proposed different models for the absorbing material. Pier & Krolik (1992;1993), Granato & Danese (1994) and Efstathiou & Rowan-Robinson (1994) have modeled the absorbing structures as axially symmetric tori. The models proposed by Granato & Danese (1994) result in thin and extended tori with optical depths ranging from $`\tau `$ 10 to 300 in the UV band and maximum radii ranging from tens to hundreds of parsecs. On the contrary, the models proposed by Pier & Krolik (1993) show thin and compact accretion disks with very large optical depths with values of $`\tau \stackrel{<}{}`$ 1000 in the UV band, and compact radii with dimension of a few pc. If we consider the Seyfert 1 as canonical unobscured objects, and abscribe the differences found between the two Seyfert types to absorption by the obscuring torus we obtain a mid IR optical depth of $`\tau _{IR}`$ 0.4 or a $`\tau _{UV}`$ 80 (assuming $`\tau _\lambda \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/\lambda `$) for the Seyfert 2 objects. This value is indeed very mild and within the range predicted for the thin and extended tori of Granato, Danese & Franceschini (1997).

The validity of ratioing with the 20 cm radio flux has been however questioned based on the idea that Seyfert 2 galaxies may have more star formation in their disks than Seyfert 1s (Maiolino et al. 1995). This would affect the radio emission, and hence the warm to radio flux ratio. It remains to test wether the Seyfert 2 galaxies are indeed stronger emitters of extended far IR radiation. We consider for this test the ratio of the cold far IR component to 20 cm radio flux. For the two groups the values are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}log(F_{cold}/F_{20cm})_1\hfill & =6.7\hfill & \sigma =0.7\hfill \\ log(F_{cold}/F_{20cm})_2\hfill & =6.5\hfill & \sigma =0.5\hfill \end{array}$$

These distributions are similar (60% probability) according to the KS test. Therefore, Seyfert 2s are not stronger emitters in extended IR radiation than Seyfert 1s, and there are no reasons to suspect that they should be stronger radio emitters based solely on the amount of star formation occurring in Seyfert 2s. It is also worth pointing out that the differences found between the type 1 and 2 Seyferts are restricted to the warm emission, while there are not differences regarding the cold and very cold emission, i.e.,the emission from their respective galaxy disks.

## 7 Summary

We have presented far IR photometry with ISO of the CfA Seyfert sample. The data have allowed a detailed study of the far IR SED of these sources using a Bayesian inversion method. It has been shown that the mid and far IR emission of Seyfert galaxies can be explained by the emission of three thermal components, a warm component, associated with dust heated by the nucleus and circumnuclear starformation regions; a cold dust component heated by star forming region in the galaxy disk, and very cold dust component heated by the general interstellar radiation field. The mid to far IR output from Seyfert galaxies does not have a simple origin but different ingredients play an important role in it.

The comparison of cold far IR fluxes with H$`\alpha `$ data confirms that the cold emission component that appeared naturally from the inversion process is related to radiation from dust in starforming regions in the galaxy discs.

We find that the mid IR emission (warm component) is larger in Seyfert 1 than in 2s, suggesting the presence of obscuring material in Seyfert 2s. The median value obtained for the optical depth is in the range predicted by the thin and extended tori models.


text:
# A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

## The basic question

The paradigmatic event that the second law deals with can be described as follows. Take a macroscopic system in an equilibrium state $`X`$ and place it in a room, together with a gorilla equipped with arbitrarily complicated machinery (a metaphor for the rest of the universe), and a weight—and close the door. As in the old advertisement for indestructible luggage, the gorilla can do anything to the system—including tearing it apart. At the end of the day, however, the door is opened and the system is found in some other equilibrium state, $`Y`$, the gorilla and machinery are found in their original state, and the only other thing that has possibly changed is that the weight has been raised or lowered. Let us emphasize that although our focus is on equilibrium states, the processes that take one such state into another can be arbitrarily violent. The gorilla knows no limits.

The question that the second law answers is this: What distinguishes those states $`Y`$ that can be reached from $`X`$ in this manner from those that cannot? The answer: There is a function of the equilibrium states, called entropy and denoted by $`S`$, that characterizes the possible pairs of equilibrium states $`X`$ and $`Y`$ by the inequality $`S(X)S(Y)`$. The function can be chosen to be additive (in a sense explained below), and with this requirement it is unique, up to a change of scale. Our main point is that the existence of entropy relies only on a few basic principles, independent of any statistical model—or even of atoms.

What is exciting about this apparently innocuous statement is the uniqueness of entropy, for it means that all the different methods for measuring or computing entropy must give the same answer. The usual textbook derivation of entropy as a state function, starting with some version of “the second law”, proceeds by considering certain slow, almost reversible processes (along adiabats and isotherms). It is not at all evident that a function obtained in this way can contain any information about processes that are far from being slow or reversible. The clever physicist might think that with the aid of modern computers, sophisticated feedback mechanisms, unlimited amounts of mechanical energy (represented by the weight) and lots of plain common sense and funding, the system could be made to go from an equilibrium state $`X`$ to $`Y`$ that could not be achieved by the primitive quasistatic processes used to define entropy in the first place. This cannot happen, however, no matter how clever the experimentalist or how far from equilibrium one travels!

What logic lies behind this law? Why can’t one gorilla undo what another one has wrought? The atomistic foundation of this logic is not as simple as is often suggested. It not only concerns things like the enormous number of atoms involved ($`10^{23}`$), but also other aspects of statistical mechanics that are beyond our present mathematical abilities. In particular, the interaction of a system with the external world (represented by the gorilla and machinery) cannot be described in any obvious way by Hamiltonian mechanics. Although irreversibility is an important open problem in statistical mechanics, it is fortunate that the logic of thermodynamics itself is independent of atoms and can be understood without knowing its source.

The founders of thermodynamics—Rudolf Clausius, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, Constantin Carathéodory, and so on—clearly had transitions between equilibrium states in mind when they stated the law in sentences such as “No process is possible, the sole result of which is that a body is cooled and work is done” (Kelvin). Later it became tacitly understood that the law implies a continuous increase in some property called entropy, which was supposedly defined for systems out of equilibrium. The ongoing, unsatisfactory debates (see referce \[9, for example) about the definition of this nonequilibrium entropy and whether it increases shows, in fact, that what is supposedly “easily” understood needs clarification. Once again, it is a good idea to try to understand first the meaning of entropy for equilibrium states—the quantity that our textbooks talk about when they draw Carnot cycles. In this article we restrict our attention to just those states; by “state” we always mean “equilibrium state”. Entropy, as the founders of thermodynamics understood the quantity is subtle enough, and it is worthwhile to understand the “second law” in this restricted context. To do so it is not necessary to decide whether Boltzmann or Gibbs had the right view on irreversibility. (Their views are described in Joel L. Lebowitz’s article “Boltzmann’s Entropy and Time’s Arrow”, Physics Today, September 1993, page 32.)

## The basic concepts

To begin at the beginning, we suppose we know what is meant by a thermodynamic system and equilibrium states of such a system. Admittedly these are not always easy to define, and there are certainly systems, such as a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen or an interstellar ionized gas, that can behave as if they are in equilibrium even if it is not truly so. The prototypical system is a “simple system”, consisting of a substance in a container with a piston. But a simple system can be much more complicated than that. Besides its volume it can have have other coordinates, which can be changed by mechanical or electrical means—shear in a solid, or magnetization, for example. In any event, a state of a simple system is described by a special coordinate $`U`$, which is its energy, and one or more other coordinates (such as the volume $`V`$) called work coordinates. An essential point is that the concept of energy, which we know about from the moving weight and Newtonian mechanics, can be defined for thermodynamic systems. This fact is the content of the first law of thermodynamics.

Another type of system is a “compound system”, which consists of several different or identical independent, simple systems. By means of mixing or chemical reactions, systems can be created or destroyed.

Let us briefly discuss some concepts that are relevant for systems and their states, which are denoted by capital letters such as $`X,X^{},Y,\mathrm{}`$. Operationally, the composition, denoted $`(X,X^{})`$, of two states $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ is obtained simply by putting one system in a state $`X`$ and one in a state $`X^{}`$ side by side on the experimental table and regarding them jointly as a state of a new, compound system. For instance, $`X`$ could be a glass containing 100 g of whiskey at standard pressure and $`20^{}`$ C, and $`X^{}`$ a glass containing 50 g of ice at standard pressure and $`0^{}`$ C. To picture $`(X,X^{})`$ one should think the two glasses standing on a table without touching each other.

Another operation is the “scaling” of a state $`X`$ by a factor $`\lambda >0`$, leading to a state denoted $`\lambda X`$. Extensive properties like mass, energy and volume are multiplied by $`\lambda `$, while intensive properties such as pressure stay intact. For the states $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ as in the example above the example above $`\frac{1}{2}X`$ is 50 g of whiskey at standard pressure and $`20^{}`$ C, and $`\frac{1}{5}X^{}`$ is 10 g of ice at standard pressure and $`0^{}`$ C. Compound systems scale in the same way: $`\frac{1}{5}(X,X^{})`$ is 20 g of whiskey and 10 g of ice in separate glasses with pressure and temperatures as before.

A central notion is adiabatic accessibility. If our gorilla can take a system from $`X`$ to $`Y`$, as described above—that is, if the only net effect of the action, besides the state change of the system, is that a weight has possibly been raised or lowered, we say that $`Y`$ is adiabatically accessible from $`X`$ and write $`XY`$ (the symbol $``$ is pronounced “precedes”). It has to be emphasized that for macroscopic systems this relation is an absolute one: If a transition from $`X`$ to $`Y`$ is possible at one time, then it is always possible (that is, it is reproducible), and if it is impossible at one time it never happens. This absolutism is guaranteed by the large powers of 10 involved—the impossibility of a chair’s spontaneous jumping up from the floor is an example.

## The role of entropy

Now imagine that we are given a list of all possible pairs of states $`X,Y`$ such that $`XY`$. The foundation on which thermodynamics rests, and the essence of the second law, is that this list can be simply encoded in an entropy function $`S`$ on the set of all states of all systems (including compound systems) so that when $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are related at all, then

$$XY\text{if and only if}S(X)S(Y).$$

Moreover, the entropy function can be chosen in such a way that if $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ are states of two (different or identical) systems, then the entropy of the compound system in this pair of states is given by

$$S(X,X^{})=S(X)+S(X^{}).$$

This additivity of entropy is a highly nontrivial assertion. Indeed, it is one of the most far reaching properties of the second law. In compound systems such as the whiskey/ice example above, all states $`(Y,Y^{})`$ such that $`XY`$ and $`X^{}Y^{}`$ are adiabatically accessible from $`(X,X^{})`$. For instance, by letting a falling weight run an electric generator one can stir the whiskey and also melt some ice. But it is important to note that $`(Y,Y^{})`$ can be adiabatically accessible from $`(X,X^{})`$ without $`Y`$ being adiabatically accessible from $`X`$. Bringing the two glasses into contact and separating them again is adiabatic for the compound system but the resulting cooling of the whiskey is not adiabatic for the whiskey alone. The fact that the inequality $`S(X)+S(X^{})S(Y)+S(Y^{})`$ exactly characterizes the possible adiabatic transitions for the compound system, even when $`S(X)S(Y)`$, is quite remarkable. It means that it is sufficient to know the entropy of each part of a compound system in order to decide which transitions due to interactions between these parts (brought about by the gorilla) are possible.

Closely related to additivity is extensivity, or scaling of entropy,

$$S(\lambda X)=\lambda S(X),$$

which means that the entropy of an arbitrary mass of a substance is determined by the entropy of some standard reference mass, such as 1 kg of the substance. Without this property engineers would have to use different steam tables each time they designed a new engine.

In traditional presentations of thermodynamics, based for example on Kelvin’s principle given above, entropy is arrived at in a rather roundabout way which tends to obscure its connection with the relation $``$. The basic message we wish to convey is that existence and uniqueness of entropy are equivalent to certain simple properties of the relation $``$. This equivalence is the concern of .

An analogy leaps to mind: When can a vector-field, $`𝐄(x)`$, be encoded in an ordinary function (potential), $`\varphi (x)`$, whose gradient is $`𝐄`$? The well-known answer is that a necessary and sufficient condition is that $`\mathrm{curl}𝐄=0`$. The importance of this encoding does not have to be emphasized to physicists; entropy’s role is similar to the potential’s role and the existence and meaning of entropy are not based on any formula such as $`S=\mathrm{\Sigma }_ip_i\mathrm{ln}p_i`$, involving probabilities $`p_i`$ of “microstates”. Entropy is derived (uniquely, we hope) from the list of pairs $`XY`$; our aim is to figure out what properties of this list (analogous to the curl-free condition) will allow it to be described by an entropy. That entropy will then be endowed with an unambiguous physical meaning independent of anyone’s assumptions about “the arrow of time”, “coarse graining” and so on. Only the list, which is given by physics, is important for us now.

The required properties of $``$ do not involve concepts like “heat” or “reversible engines”, not even “hot” and “cold” are needed. Besides the “obvious” conditions “$`XX`$ for all $`X`$” (reflexivity) and “$`XY`$ and $`YZ`$ implies $`XZ`$” (transitivity) one needs to know that the relation behaves reasonably with respect to the composition and scaling of states. By this we mean the following:

* Adiabatic accessibility is consistent with the composition of states: $`XY`$ and $`ZW`$ implies $`(X,Z)(Y,W)`$.
* Scaling of states does not affect adiabatic accessibility: If $`XY`$, then $`\lambda X\lambda Y`$.
* Systems can be cut adiabatically into two parts: If $`0<\lambda <1`$, then $`X((1\lambda )X,\lambda X)`$, and the recombination of the parts is also adiabatic: $`((1\lambda )X,\lambda X)X`$.
* Adiabatic accessibility is stable with respect to small perturbations: If $`(X,\epsilon Z)(Y,\epsilon W)`$ for arbitrarily small $`\epsilon >0`$, then $`XY`$.

These requirements are all very natural. In fact, in traditional approaches they are usually taken for granted, without mention. They are not quite sufficient, however, to define entropy. A crucial additional ingredient is the comparison hypothesis for the relation $``$. In essence, this is the hypothesis that all equilibrium states, simple or compound, can be grouped into classes, such that if $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are in the same class, then either $`XY`$ or $`YX`$. In nature, a class consists of all states with the same mass and chemical composition—that is, with the same amount of each of the chemical elements. If chemical reactions and mixing processes are excluded, the classes are smaller and may be identified with the “systems” in the usual parlance. But it should be noted that systems can be compound, or consist of two or more vessels of different substances. In any case, the role of the comparison hypothesis is to insure that the list of pairs $`XY`$ is sufficiently long. Indeed, we shall give an example later where the list of pairs satisfies all the other axioms, but which is not describable by an entropy function.

## The construction of entropy

Our main conclusion (which we do not claim isobvious, but whose proof can be found in reference ) is that the existence and uniqueness of entropy is a consequence of the comparison hypothesis and the assumptions about adiabatic accessibility stated above. In fact, if $`X_0`$, $`X`$ and $`X_1`$ are three states of a system and $`\lambda `$ is any scaling factor between 0 and 1, then either $`X((1\lambda )X_0,\lambda X_1)`$ or $`((1\lambda )X_0,\lambda X_1)X`$ must be true, by the comparison hypothesis. If both alternatives hold, then the properties of entropy demand that

$$S(X)=(1\lambda )S(X_0)+\lambda S(X_1).$$

If $`S(X_0)S(X_1)`$ this equality can hold for at most one $`\lambda `$. With $`X_0`$ and $`X_1`$ as reference states, the entropy is therefore fixed, apart from two free constants, namely the values $`S(X_0)`$ and $`S(X_1)`$.

From the properties of the relation $``$ listed above, one can show that there is, indeed, always a $`0\lambda 1`$ with the required properties, provided that $`X_0XX_1`$. It is the largest $`\lambda `$, denoted $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$, such that $`((1\lambda )X_0,\lambda X_1)X`$. Defining the entropies of the reference states arbitrarily as $`S(X_0)=0`$ and $`S(X_1)=1`$ unit, we obtain the following simple formula for entropy:

$$S(X)=\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}\text{units}.$$

The scaling factors $`(1\lambda )`$ and $`\lambda `$ measure the amount of substance in the states $`X_0`$ and $`X_1`$ respectively. The formula for entropy can therefore be stated in the following words: $`S(X)`$ is the maximal fraction of substance in the state $`X_1`$ that can be transformed adiabatically (that is, in the sense of $``$) into the state $`X`$ with the aid of a complementary fraction of substance in the state $`X_0`$. This way of measuring $`S`$ in terms of substance is reminiscent of an old idea, suggested by Pierre Laplace and Antoine Lavoisier, that heat be measured in terms of the amount of ice melted in a process. As a concrete example, let us assume that $`X`$ is a state of liquid water, $`X_0`$ of ice and $`X_1`$ of vapor. Then $`S(X)`$ for a kilogram of liquid, measured with the entropy of a kilogram of water vapor as a unit, is the maximal fraction of a kilogram of vapor that can be transformed adiabatically into liquid in state $`X`$ with the aid of a complementary fraction of a kilogram of ice.

In this example the maximal fraction $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$ cannot be achieved by simply exposing the ice to the vapor, causing the former to melt and the latter to condense. This would be an irreversible process—that is, it would not be possible to reproduce the initial amounts of vapor of ice adiabatically (in the sense of the definition given earlier) from the liquid. By contrast, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$ is uniquely determined by the requirement that one can pass adiabatically from $`X`$ to $`((1\lambda _{\mathrm{max}})X_0,\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}X_1)`$ and vice versa. For this transformation it is necessary to extract or add energy in the form of work—for example by running a little reversible Carnot machine that transfers energy between the high-temperature and low-temperature parts of the system. We stress, however, that neither the concept of a “reversible Carnot machine” nor that of “temperature” is needed for the logic behind the formula for entropy given above. We mention these concepts only to relate our definition of entropy to concepts for which the reader may have an intuitive feeling.

By interchanging the roles of the three states, the definition of entropy is easily extended to situations where $`XX_0`$ or $`X_1X`$. Moreover, the reference points $`X_0`$ and $`X_1`$, where the entropy is defined to be 0 and 1 unit respectively, can be picked consistently for different systems such that the entropy will satisfy the crucial additivity and extensivity conditions

$$S(X,X^{})=S(X)+S(X^{})\mathrm{and}S(\lambda X)=\lambda S(X).$$

It is important to understand that once the existence and uniqueness of entropy has been established one need not rely on the $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$ formula displayed above to determine it in practice. There are various experimental means to determine entropy that are usually much more practical. The standard method consists of measuring pressures, volumes and temperatures (on some empirical scale), as well as specific and latent heats. The empirical temperatures are converted into absolute temperatures $`T`$ (by means of formulas that follow from the mere existence of entropy but do not involve $`S`$ directly), and the entropy is computed by means of formulas like $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=(dU+PdV)/T`$, with $`P`$ the pressure. The existence and uniqueness of entropy implies that this formula is independent of the path of integration.

## Comparability of states

The possibility of defining entropy entirely in terms of the relation $``$ was first clearly stated by Giles . (Giles’s definition is different from ours, albeit similar in spirit.) The importance of the comparison hypothesis had been realized earlier, however . All these authors take the comparison hypothesis as a postulate—that is, they do not attempt to justify it from other simpler premises. However, it is in fact possible to derive comparability for any pair of states of the same system from some natural and directly accessible properties of the relation $``$ . In this derivation of comparison the customary parametrization of states in terms of energy and work coordinates is used, but it has to be stressed that such parametrizations are irrelevant, and therefore not used, for our definition of entropy—once the comparison hypothesis is established.

To appreciate the significance of the comparison hypothesis it may be helpful to consider the following example. Imagine a world whose thermodynamical sytems consist exclusively of incompressible solid bodies. Moreover, all adiabatic state changes in this world are supposed to be obtained by means of the following elementary operations:

* Mechanical rubbing of the individual systems, increasing their energy.
* Thermal equilibration in the conventional sense (by bringing the systems into contact.)

The state space of the compound system consisting of two identical bodies, 1 and 2, can be paramertized by their energies, $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$. If $`X=(U_1,U_2)`$ and $`Y==(U_1^{},U_2^{})`$ are such that $`U_1^{}<U_1<U_2<U_2^{}`$ and $`U_1+U_2<U_1^{}+U_2^{}`$ then one finds that that neither $`XY`$ nor $`YX`$ holds. The comparison hypothesis is therefore violated in this hypothetical example, and it is not possible to characterize adiabatic accessibility by means of an additive entropy function. A major part of our work consists of understanding why such situations do not happen—why the comparison hypothesis appears to be true in the real world.

The derivation of the comparison hypothesis is based on an analysis of simple systems, which are the building blocks of thermodynamics. As already mentioned the states of such systems are described by one energy coordinate $`U`$ and at least one work coordinate, like the volume $`V`$. The following concepts play a key role in this analysis:

* The possibility of forming “convex combinations” of states of simple systems with respect to the energy $`U`$ and volume $`V`$ (or other work coordinates). This means that given any two states $`X`$ and $`Z`$ of one kilogram of our system one can pick any state $`Y`$ on the line between them in $`U`$, $`V`$ space and, by taking appropriate fractions $`\lambda `$ and $`1\lambda `$ in states $`X`$ and $`Z`$, respectively, there will be an adiabatic process taking this pair of states into the state $`Y`$. This process is usually quite elementary. For example, for gases and liquids one need only remove the barrier that separates the two fractions of the system. The fundamental property of entropy increase will then tell us that $`S(Y)\lambda S(X)+(1\lambda )S(Z)`$. As Gibbs emphasized, this “concavity” is the basis for thermodynamical stability—namely positivity of specific heats and compressibilities.
* The existence of at least one irreversible adiabatic state change, starting from any given state. In conjuction with concavity of $`S`$ this seemingly weak requirement excludes the possibility that the entropy is constant in a whole neighborhood of some state. The classical formulations of the second law follow from this.
* The concept of thermal equilibrium between simple systems, which means, operationally, that no state changes takes place when the systems are allowed to exchange energy with each other at fixed work coordinates. The zeroth law of thermodynamic says that if two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with one another. This property is essential for the additivity of entropy, because it allows a consistent adjustment of the entropy unit for different systems. It leads to a definition of temperature by the usual formula $`1/T=(S/U)_V`$.

Using these notions (and a few others of a more technical nature) the comparison hypothesis can be established for all simple systems and their compounds.

It is more difficult to justify the comparability of states if mixing processes or chemical reactions are taken into account. In fact, although a mixture of whiskey and water at $`0^{}`$ C is obviously adiabatically accessible from separate whiskey and ice by pouring whiskey from one glass onto the rocks in the other glass, it is not possible to reverse this process adiabatically. Hence it is not clear that a block of a frozen whiskey/water mixture at $`10^{}`$ C, say, is at all related in the sense of $``$ to a state in which whiskey and water are in separate glasses. Textbooks usually appeal here to gedanken experiments with “semipermeable membrane” that let only water molecules through and withhold the whiskey molecules, but such membranes really exist only in the mind . However, without invoking any such device, it turns out to be possible to shift the entropy scales of the various substances in such a way that $`XY`$ always implies $`S(X)S(Y)`$. The converse assertion, namely, $`S(X)S(Y)`$ implies $`XY`$ provided $`X`$ and $`Y`$ have the same chemical composition, cannot be guaranteed a priori for mixing and chemical reactions, but it is empirically testable and appears to be true in the real world. This aspect of the second law, comparability, is not usually stressed, but it is important; it is challenging to figure out how to turn the frozen whiskey/water block into a glass of whiskey and a glass of water without otherwise changing the universe, except for moving a weight, but such an adiabatic process is possible.

## What has been gained?

The line of thought that started more than forty years ago has led to an axiomatic foundation for thermodynamics. It is appropriate to ask what if anything has been gained compared to the usual approaches involving quasi-static processes and Carnot machines on the one hand and statistical mechanics on the other hand. There are several points. One is the elimination of intuitive, but hard-to-define concepts like “hot”, “cold” and “heat”. Another is the recognition of entropy as a codification of possible state changes, $`XY`$, that can be accomplished without changing the rest of the universe in any way except for moving a weight. Temperature is eliminated as an a priori concept and appears in its natural place as a quantity derived from entropy and whose consistent definition really depends on the existence of entropy, rather than the other way around. To define enetropy, there is no need for special machines and processes on the empirical side, and there is no need for assumptions about models on the statistical mechanical side. Just as energy conservation was eventually seen to be a consequence of time translation invariance, in like manner entropy can be seen to be a consequence of some simple properties of the list of state pairs related by adiabatic accessibility.

If the second law can be demystified, so much the better. If it can be seen to be a consequence of simple, plausible notions then, as Einstein said, it cannot be overthrown.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Shivaji Sondhi and Roderich Moessner for helpful suggestions. Lieb’s work was supported by NSF grant PHY 9820650. Yngvason’s work was supported by the Adalsteinn Kristjánsson Foundation and the University of Iceland.

## References

 C. Kittel and H. Kroemer, Thermal Physics, p. 57, Freeman, NY (1980).

 E.H. Lieb and J. Yngvason, Physics Reports 310, 1 (1999).

 A. Einstein, Autobiographical Notes in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist P. A. Schilpp (ed.), Library of Living Philosophers, vol VII, p. 33, Cambridge University Press, London, 1970.

 P.T. Landsberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 28, 363 (1956).

 H.A. Buchdahl, The Concepts of Classical Thermodynamics, Cambridge University Press, London (1966).

 G. Falk and H. Jung Handbuch der Physik, III/2, S. Flügge ed., p. 199 Springer, Berlin (1959).

 R.Giles, Mathematical Foundations of Thermodynamics, Pergamon, Oxford (1964).

 D.R.Owen, A First Course in the Mathematical Foundations of Thermodynamics, Springer, Heidelberg (1984). J. Serrin, Arch. Rat. mech. Anal. 70, 355 (1979). M. Silhavý, The Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Continuous Media, Springer, Heidelberg (1997). C. A. truesdell, S. Baharata, The Concepts and Logic of Thermodynamics as a Theory of heat Engines, Heidelberg, (1977).

 J.L. Lebowitz, I. Prigogine, and D.Ruelle, Physica A 263, 516, 528, 540 (1999).

 E. Fermi, Thermodynamics, Dover, NY, (1956), page 101.


text:
# Bounds on “charginos nearly degenerate with the lightest neutralino” mass from precision measurements

## 1 Introduction

According to the latest searches performed at LEP II at center-of-mass energies up to $`189\text{ GeV}`$, the present bounds on chargino mass are $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }90\text{ GeV}`$ for the higgsino-dominated case (or when the sneutrino is heavy) and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }80\text{ GeV}`$ in the wino-dominated light-sneutrino scenario.  However, when the lightest chargino and neutralino (the latter being the LSP) are almost degenerate in mass, the charged decay products of the light chargino are very soft, and the above quoted bounds are no longer valid. A special search for such light charginos has been performed recently by the DELPHI collaboration, and the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^\pm m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}100\text{ MeV}`$ is now excluded.  In the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^\pm 1\text{ GeV}`$ the analysis of the Initial State Radiation (ISR) can be used to put a limit on the chargino mass,  but in the case of wino domination with a light sneutrino this technique fails and charginos as light as $`45\text{ GeV}`$ (this bound coming from the measurements of $`Z`$ decays at LEP I and SLC) are still allowed. The case of almost degenerate chargino and neutralino can be naturally realized in SUSY and the possibilities to find such particles are discussed in literature.

In this talk we investigate the radiative corrections to the electroweak precision measurements generated by such almost degenerate particles.  When their masses are close to $`m_Z/2`$ one-loop contributions are large and they spoil the perfect description of experimental data by the Standard Model. Due to the decoupling property of SUSY models, when $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\pm ,0}}m_Z`$ the radiative corrections are power suppressed.

## 2 Discussion

The contributions of new physics to the electroweak precision data through oblique corrections can be conveniently parameterized in terms of the three functions $`V_m`$, $`V_A`$ and $`V_R`$ In the simplest supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model the chargino-neutralino sector is defined by the numerical values of the four parameters $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the case of nearly degenerate lightest chargino and neutralino naturally arise when:

* $`M_2\mu `$: in this limit the particles of interest form an $`SU(2)`$ doublet of Dirac fermions, whose wave functions are dominated by *higgsinos*, and their contribution to the $`V_i`$ functions is:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta ^{\stackrel{~}{h}}V_m& ={\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s^2+s^4)(1+2\chi )F(\chi )\hfill \\ & ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s^2)(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{c^2}})F\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{c^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{s^4}{3}}],\hfill \end{array}`$ (1)
$`\delta ^{\stackrel{~}{h}}V_A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s^2+s^4\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{12\chi ^2F(\chi )2\chi 1}{4\chi 1}}\right],`$ (2)
$`\delta ^{\stackrel{~}{h}}V_R`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}c^2s^2\left[\left(1+2\chi \right)F(\chi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right],`$ (3)
where $`\chi (m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\pm ,0}}/m_Z)^2`$, the function $`F`$ is defined in App. B of Ref. , and $`s^2`$ ($`c^2`$) is the sine (cosine) squared of the electroweak mixing angle;
* $`\mu M_2`$: in this case we get an $`SU(2)`$ triplet of Majorana fermions, with the wave functions dominated by *winos*, and the expressions for the corrections to $`V_i`$ are:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta ^{\stackrel{~}{w}}V_m& ={\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}[c^4(1+2\chi )F(\chi )\hfill \\ & (12s^2)(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{c^2}})F\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{c^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{s^4}{3}}],\hfill \end{array}`$ (4)
$`\delta ^{\stackrel{~}{w}}V_A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}c^4\left[{\displaystyle \frac{12\chi ^2F(\chi )2\chi 1}{4\chi 1}}\right],`$ (5)
$`\delta ^{\stackrel{~}{w}}V_R`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}c^2s^2\left[\left(1+2\chi \right)F(\chi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right].`$ (6)

The $`\chi ^2`$ for the new physics contributions to $`V_i`$ was computed using the computer program LEPTOP and the corresponding Confidence Level (together with the numerical value of the $`\delta V_i`$ functions) is plotted in Fig. 1 against the chargino-neutralino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\pm ,0}}`$. We see that at $`95\%`$ C.L. the bounds $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\pm ,0}}51\text{ GeV}`$ (higgsino-dominated case) and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\pm ,0}}56\text{ GeV}`$ (wino-dominated case) should be satisfied. Note that the main contribution to $`\chi ^2`$ comes from $`\delta V_A`$, which is singular at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\pm ,0}}=m_Z/2`$. This singularity is not physical and our formulas are valid only for $`2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\pm ,0}}m_Z+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$; however, the existence of $`\chi ^\pm `$ with a mass closer to $`m_Z/2`$ will change Z-boson Breit-Wigner curve, therefore it is also not allowed.

## 3 Conclusions

Let us briefly discuss the contributions of other SUSY particles to the $`V_i`$ functions. In the considered limits the remaining charginos and neutralinos are very heavy, so they simply decouple. The contributions of the three generations of sleptons (with masses larger than $`90\text{ GeV}`$) and of the first two generations of squarks (with masses larger than $`200\text{ GeV}`$ to satisfy Tevatron bounds) into $`V_A`$ are smaller than $`0.1`$, so they can safely be neglected. Concerning the contributions of the third generation squarks, although enhanced by the large top-bottom mass difference they are almost universal,  so compensating the negative value of $`V_A`$ will generate large positive terms into $`V_R`$ and $`V_m`$ and the overall $`\chi ^2`$ will not be better. Finally, according to Ref.  the contribution to radiative corrections of the whole MSSM Higgs sector equals with very good accuracy that of a single SM higgs with the same mass as the lightest MSSM neutral higgs, so it is already accounted for in our analysis.

Let us remark that in the case of wino domination with a light sneutrino, which occurs naturally in anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking scenarios,  the analysis of the ISR fails  and the bound $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\pm ,0}}56\text{ GeV}`$ from precision measurements is presently the strongest constraint which can be imposed on the chargino-neutralino mass.

## Acknowledgments

I wish to thank my collaborator M.I. Vysotsky. I am also grateful to A.N. Rozanov for evaluating the C.L. shown in Fig. 1 with the program LEPTOP. This work was supported by DGICYT under grant PB98-0693 and by the TMR network grant ERBFMRX-CT96-0090 of the European Union.