text:
# A Limit Relation between Black Hole Mass and H𝛽 Width: Testing Super-Eddington Accretion in Active Galactic Nuclei

## 1 Introduction

Accretion onto a supermassive black hole is regarded as the energy sources of AGNs (Rees 1984). Energy output from accretion disks strongly depends on their structures and radiation efficiency, which is mainly controlled by the Eddington ratio, defined by the dimenssionless accretion rate $`\dot{m}=\dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, where $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}=1.39\times 10^{18}\eta _1^1\left(M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_{}\right)`$g s-1, $`\dot{M}`$ is the accretion rate, $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ the black hole mass and the accretion efficiency $`\eta =0.1\eta _1`$ (Chen et al. 1997, Frank, King & Raine 2002). It has been realized that many observable features of AGNs could be driven by $`\dot{m}`$ (Boroson & Green 1992, Boroson 2002), however, it is not easy to estimate $`\dot{m}`$ from observations.

We need a more reliable and convenient criteria based on theory to test whether AGNs have super-Eddington accretion rates. Much attention has been given to estimate the black hole masses in AGNs and inactive galaxies (Kormendy & Gebhardt 2001) so that the black hole mass becomes an easily ”measured” quantity. There are currently four fundamental ways to reliably estimate the mass of the black holes by: 1) reverberation mapping methods for AGNs (Wandel, Peterson & Malkan 1999, Kaspi et al. 2000), 2) the empirical relation of the reverberation mapping (Netzer 2003, Vestergaard 2002), 3) relation between $`M_\mathrm{R}M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ (Kormendy & Richstone 1995, Ho 1999, McLure & Dunlop 2001), where $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ is the absolute $`R`$-band magnitudes of the host galaxies, 4) the relation $`\sigma M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ (Ferrarese & Merrit 2000, Gebhardt et al. 2000, Tremaine et al. 2002), including the method from the fundamental plan, where $`\sigma `$ is the dispersion velocity. Employing the empirical relation of reverberation mapping, one can conveniently obtain the masses of the black holes in a large sample spanning a wide range of redshift (Netzer 2003). With these estimations, the Eddington ratio can be estimated via $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=\xi L_{5100}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, where $`\xi =59`$ (Kaspi et al. 2000, Netzer 2003). It has been found that some AGNs may have super-Eddington accretion rates due to $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}>1`$. They consist of some narrow line Seyfert 1 galaxies and quasars (Collin & Huré 2001, Collin et al. 2002, King & Puchnarewicz 2002, Wang & Netzer 2003). One of the most prominent features is the strong soft X-ray humps (King 2002, King & Puchnarewicz 2002, Wang & Netzer 2003).

The structure of the super-Eddington accretion disk remains open. Begelman (1978) and Begelman & Meier (1982) suggested that a photon trapping process may happen in a super-Eddington accretion. The classical model of the slim accretion disk ($`\dot{m}<50100`$) based on the vertical averaged equations advocated by Abramowicz et al (1988) removes the thermal instability of the radiation pressure-dominated region since the advection as an efficient cooling dominates over the diffusive cooling from the disk surface (Chen & Taam 1993). The detail treatment of the photon trapping inside the slim disk has been done by Ohsuga et al. (2002), who showed the maximum luminosity is about Eddington luminosity. This is roughly in agreement with Wang & Zhou (1999). On the other hand, Gammie (1998) showed that a magnetized accretion disk may have photon bubble instability in the radiation pressure-dominated region of the standard accretion disk model (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973). Such an instability in the super-Eddington accretion disks should be enhanced since the photons are trapped inside the disks and the radiation pressure is much higher than that in Shakura & Sunyaev’s disk. Begelman (2002) suggested that the inhomogeneous distribution of the accreted matter will be formed due to the photon bubble instability and the maximum luminosity will exceed Eddington luminosity by a factor of one hundred for galactic mass of the black hole. Both the spectra and the behavior of variabilities from slim disk (Wang et al. 1999; Wang & Netzer 2003; Mineshige et al. 2000) are not sufficiently understood as well as the roles of the photon bubble instability (Begelman 2002). It may be difficult to directly test the structure of the super-Eddington accretion disk in an individual objects, but statistic test may provide invaluable information.

We show in this paper that $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=\xi L_{5100}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ can not properly represent the accretion disk rates in AGNs, particularly for those with super-Eddington accretion rates. We suggest a limit relation between the black hole mass and H$`\beta `$ width based on the theoretical models to test whether the accretion disks in AGNs have super-Eddington accretion rates. These limit relations are useful to probe the structures of the disks with super-Eddington rates.

## 2 The Eddington and Begelman constraints

### 2.1 Size of the broad line region

Measuring the response of the broad emission line to the variations of the continuum can provide the distance of the clouds from the central black hole in AGNs. Kaspi et al. (2000) provided the results of the reverberation mapping in a sample consisting of 34 AGNs and found a strong correlation between the size of the broad line region ($`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$) and the luminosity at 5100Å, namely, the empirical reverberation relation

$$R_{\mathrm{BLR}}=_0\left(\frac{\lambda L_\lambda }{10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^\beta \mathrm{lt}\mathrm{days},$$
(1)
where $`\beta =0.7`$, $`_0=32.9`$ and $`\lambda L_\lambda `$ is the continuum luminosity at wavelength $`\lambda =5100`$Å. This relation has been calibrated by Vestergaard (2002) using the bivariate correlated errors and intrinsic scatter algorithm. The specific values of $`_0`$ and $`\beta `$ are in debate (see Vestergaard 2002, Netzer 2003). A constant ionization parameter $`U`$, defined by $`U=L_{\mathrm{ion}}/4\pi R^2N_e`$, leads to a relation $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}L_{\mathrm{ion}}^{0.5}`$ (Wandel, Peterson & Malkan 1999), where $`N_e`$ is the number density of electrons in ionized medium and $`L_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ is the ionizing luminosity. This is supported by the argument that the outer boundary of the BLR is determined by dust sublimation radius (Netzer & Laor 1993). We keep the uncertainty of the index $`\beta `$ in mind, however it does not influence the existence of the limit relation between $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and H$`\beta `$ width derived in the present paper.

For a given black hole, the continuum luminosity from an accretion disk increases with the accretion rate (but below the Eddington rate) and hence an increase of the BLR size according to the empirical reverberation relation (equation 1). This implies that a high accretion rate leads to a relatively narrow width of H$`\beta `$ for a sub-Eddington accretion disk in AGN if the assumption that the broad line emitting-clouds are virialized in the black hole potential works (see equation 2). When the accretion rate exceeds the Eddington rate, the radiated luminosity from the disk very weakly depends on the accretion rate ($`L_{\mathrm{disk}}\mathrm{log}\dot{M}`$), but linearly proportional to the mass of the black hole in the context of the slim disk model (Abramowicz et al. 1988, Wang & Zhou 1999; Mineshige et al. 2000; Ohsuga et al. 2002). Thus the radiated luminosity is saturated, leading to a constant BLR size independent of the accretion rate for a fixed black hole. We call this the Eddington size and the Eddington width of the emission line accordingly. For AGNs with super-Eddington accretion rates, the Eddington width of H$`\beta `$ directly reflects the potential of the black holes. In the context of the photon trapping disk a relation of $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and FWHM(H$`\beta `$) is then expected.

However, it has been argued that magnetized disks with dominance of radiation pressure are suffering from photon bubble instability (Gammie 1998). The disks become so inhomogeneous on scales much smaller than the radiation pressure scale height that the radiation will be squeezed by gravity out of overdense region enhanced by the magnetic tension while the underdense regions become tenuous due to the acceleration of radiation force. Some of the trapped photons may be liberated from the disk via this instability. Thus the Eddington limit may be relaxed by this way. Begelman (2001, 2002) investigated the photon bubble instability in a super-Eddington accretion disk and found the maximum radiated luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{max}}300M_{\mathrm{BH},6}^{1/5}L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{BH},6}=M_{\mathrm{BH}}/10^6M_{}`$, keeping a geometrically thin shape, when the accretion rate reaches its maximum. We call this the Begelman limit. It is not clear what the radiated luminosity is before $`\dot{M}`$ reaches its maximum as well as the emergent spectrum from such disks. If the photon bubble instability works as a mechanism liberating the trapped photons in AGN super-Eddington accretion disks, the BLR size will be larger than the Eddington size, resulting in a narrower width of H$`\beta `$ than the Eddington width. Thus the different structure of the super-Eddington accretion disk should lead to different limit relations between FWHM(H$`\beta `$) and $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. This lends us a possibility to statistically test the structure of the super-Eddington accretion disk based on the available data of FWHM(H$`\beta `$) and $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$.

### 2.2 A limit relation between FWHM(H$`\beta `$) and $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$

The broad line H$`\beta `$ emitting clouds are virialized in the gravitational potential of the supermassive black hole, the mass of the black hole is expressed by the FWHM(H$`\beta `$)

$$M_{\mathrm{BH}}=1.46\times 10^5f^2\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{BLR}}}{\mathrm{lt}\mathrm{days}}\right)\left(\frac{\upsilon _{\mathrm{FWHM}}}{10^3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^2M_{},$$
(2)
where we take $`\upsilon =\sqrt{3}f\upsilon _{\mathrm{FWHM}}/2`$ for the corrections of geometry and kinetics (Peterson & Wandel 1999, Fromerth & Melia 2000, McLure & Dunlop 2001, Krolik 2001). The factor $`f`$ remains a matter for debate of BLR geometry, but $`f=1`$ is expected. We need to calculate the luminosity at 5100Å from the emergent spectrum from the slim disk. This has been done in detail by Wang et al. (1999). We find that $`\epsilon =L_{\mathrm{disk}}/L_{5100}=4.07.5`$ for a supermassive black hole. Combining the equations (1) and (2), we have a relation between FWHM(H$`\beta `$) and $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$,

$$M_{\mathrm{BH},6}=\left(\frac{_\mathrm{R}}{𝒞}\right)^{\beta /(1\beta )}\upsilon _{\mathrm{FWHM},3}^{2/(1\beta )},$$
(3)
where $`\upsilon _{\mathrm{FWHM},3}=\upsilon _{\mathrm{FWHM}}/10^3`$km s-1 and the constant $`𝒞`$ is

$$𝒞=\frac{\epsilon }{1.26}\left(\frac{10}{1.46_0f^2}\right)^{1/\beta },\mathrm{and}_\mathrm{R}=\frac{L_{\mathrm{disk}}}{L_{\mathrm{Edd}}}.$$
(4)
This relation clearly relies on two model-dependent parameters $`\epsilon `$ and $`_R`$, which are determined by the spectrum and the structure of the super-Eddington accretion disk. Such a dependence can thus be used to probe the structures of the super-Eddington accretion disks.

The photon trapping process efficiently lowers the radiated luminosity from the disk, resulting in a very weak dependence of the radiated luminosity on $`\mathrm{log}\dot{M}`$. For a photon trapping accretion flow, $`_\mathrm{R}1`$ (Wang & Zhou 1999, Ohsuga et al. 2002), we have the Eddington limit from equation (3) as

$$M_{\mathrm{BH},6}=𝒞_1\upsilon _{\mathrm{FWHM},3}^{2/(1\beta )},$$
(5)
where $`𝒞_1=𝒞^{\beta /(\beta 1)}`$. For the empirical relation of reverberation mapping given by Kaspi et al. (2000), $`\beta =0.7`$ and $`_0=32.9`$, we have a limit relation of $`M_{\mathrm{BH},6}=𝒞_1\upsilon _{\mathrm{FWHM},3}^{6.67}`$, where $`𝒞_1=2.912.62`$ for $`\epsilon =4.07.5`$ and $`f=1`$. The Eddington limit lines are shown in Figure 1. This is a very strong dependence on FWHM(H$`\beta `$). Those objects below this line in the FWHM(H$`\beta )M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ plot have sub-Eddington accretion rates.

On the other hand, the photon bubble instability may operate in a super-Eddington accretion disk and the maximum luminosity from the disk reads $`L_{\mathrm{max}}_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{max}}M_{\mathrm{BH},6}^{1/5}L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ where $`_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{max}}300`$ for the maximum accretion rate (Begelman 2002). Such a high luminosity will strongly affect the BLR size, equation (3) for the Begelman limit is changed to

$$M_{\mathrm{BH},6}=𝒞_2\upsilon _{\mathrm{FWHM},3}^{10/(56\beta )}$$
(6)
where $`𝒞_2=\left(_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{max}}/𝒞\right)^{5\beta /(56\beta )}`$. The spectrum from a disk with the photon bubble instability is highly unknown, we take $`\epsilon =4`$ to get $`𝒞_2`$ for an illustration, we have $`M_{\mathrm{BH},6}=8.0\times 10^{12}\upsilon _{\mathrm{FWHM},3}^{12.5}`$ if the Kaspi et al.’s relation is used. This relation is highly different from that determined by the photon trapping process. For a disk with the photon bubble instability, the FWHM(H$`\beta )M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation is beyond the scope of the frame of Figure 1, we draw $`_\mathrm{R}=2`$ line for the illustration of the Begelman limit in Figure 1. A potentially realistic situation may be a hybrid structure undergoing the photon trapping and photon bubble instability in the region between the Eddington and the Begelman lines, where some objects appear if they have a super-Eddington accretion rate.

The Eddington ratio is usually estimated by $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=\xi L_{5100}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, where $`\xi =59`$ (Kaspi et al. 2000, Telfer et al. 2002, Netzer 2003). If $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}>1`$, this object is generally thought to be a super-Eddington accretor. However, we argue that $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=\xi L_{5100}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}>1`$ does not simply imply a super-Eddington accretion in practice. If an object with $`\xi L_{5100}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}>1`$ really has a super-Eddington accretion rate, it should locate on the Eddington limit line (photon trapping), or between the Begelman and Eddington lines (a hybrid structure of photon trapping and photon bubble instability). The FWHM(H$`\beta )M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation can be used to reliably test the super-Eddington accretion in AGNs.

It should be noted that the FWHM(H$`\beta )M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation is very sensitive to $`\beta `$ due to the indices $`2/(1\beta )`$ and $`10/(56\beta )`$. Any small calibrations on the empirical relation of reverberation mapping will be important to the limit relation. $`\beta =0.58`$ and $`_0=33.1`$ were suggested by Netzer (2003) for the cosmology assumed in the present paper $`H_0=75\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ based on the BCES (bivariate correlated errors and intrinsic scatter) estimator. We plot the Eddington limit lines for both of the Kaspi et al’s and Netzer’s values of ($`\beta ,_0`$), and the Begelman limit line for Kaspi et al’s value in Figure 1.

## 3 Super-Eddington accretions in AGNs

It is interesting to search super-Eddington accretions and to test their structures in AGNs via the limit relation of FWHM(H$`\beta )M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. We assemble objects from the literatures,

in which their black hole masses can be estimated by 1) the reverberation mapping, 2) the $`M_RM_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation and 3) the $`\sigma M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation. The three methods are independent of the method of the empirical reverberation relation as used by Netzer (2003) in a large sample of AGNs. This allows us to test the super-Eddington accretion disks in AGNs. We still estimate the Eddington ratio via $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=\xi L_{5100}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, where $`\xi =5`$ (Telfer et al. 2002, Netzer 2003) in order to compare with the FWHM(H$`\beta )M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ limit relation.

We omitted five objects (IC 4329A, NGC 3227, NGC 7469, PG 1700 and PG 1704) in Kaspi et al.’s sample since their lower uncertainties are too large. There are 30 objects measured by reverberation mapping, 29 from Kaspi et al.’s sample and NGC 3783 from Onken & Peterson (2002). McLure & Dunlop (2001) present 45 objects with host galaxy absolute magnitude $`M_R`$, in which 15 Seyfert galaxies of objects have been measured by reverberation mapping (Kaspi et al. 2000). We thus use the results of the reverberation mapping but we take the absolute magnitudes of IC 4329A, NGC 3227 and NGC 7469 since their lower limits of the black hole mass are too uncertain by the reverberation mapping. We take 17 of 37 radio-loud quasars with $`M_R`$ assembled by Wang, Ho & Staubert (2002)\[the rest radio-loud quasars in Wang et al. (2002) overlap with that given by McLure & Dunlop (2001)\]. We then use the relation $`\mathrm{log}\left(M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_{}\right)=0.5M_\mathrm{R}2.96`$ to get the masses of the black holes (McLure & Dunlop 2002). Shields et al. (2002) extend the relationship $`\sigma `$$``$FWHM(\[O iii\]) in Nelson (2000). Using FWHM(\[O iii\]) as the stellar dispersion velocity $`\sigma `$, the relation $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=10^{8.13}\left(\sigma /200\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\right)^{4.02}M_{}`$ (Tremaine et al. 2002) enables us to reliably estimate the masses of the black holes in 84 quasars (35 RLQs + 49 RQQs) in Shields’ sample. The error bars in this sample are given by the largest intrinsic scatter ($`<30\%`$) (Shields et al. 2002). Totally there are 164 objects in our present sample.

Figure 1 shows the $`\upsilon _{\mathrm{FWHM}}`$(H$`\beta )M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ plot of the 164 AGNs. According to $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=\xi L_{5100}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ and $`\xi =5`$, 19 of 84 quasars in Shields et al.’s sample are super-Eddington accretors. The

Table 1

List of Candidates of Super-Eddington AGNs

|  |  | FWHM | $`\mathrm{log}\left(M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_{}\right)`$ | | |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| No. | Name | (H$`\beta `$) | $`M_RM_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ | $`\sigma M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ | Rev. | note |
| 1. | PG 0157+001 | 2140 | 9.19 |  | 8.18 | DM01 |
| 2. | Q 0204+292 | 1040 | 8.69 |  | 7.13 | DM01 |
| 3. | PG 1001+054 | 1740 |  | 8.77 | 7.65 | S02 |
| 4. | PG 1351+640 | 1170 |  |  | 7.66 | K00 |
| 5. | PG 1440+356 | 1450 |  | 8.12 | 7.33 | S02 |
| 6. | Q 2247+140 | 2220 | 8.94 |  | 8.07 | DM01 |
| 7. | MS 2254$``$37 | 1545 |  | 8.17 | 7.04 | S02 |

Notes— S02: Shields et al. (2002); MD01: McLure & Dunlop (2001); K00: Kaspi et al. (2000).
$``$ there is an error in estimation of 0204+292 in MD01.
$``$ FWHM(H$`\beta `$) is in unit of km s-1.

values of $`\mathrm{log}L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ of the 19 quasars span from zero (VCV 0331-37) to the maximum 0.7 (PG 1216+069), however these objects are located far below the Eddington limit line as shown by Figure 1. If we take $`\xi =9`$, there will be a quite large fraction of the objects with $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}>1`$ and most of these objects are still located far below the Eddington limit lines. It follows from the Eddington limit that these objects have sub-Eddington rates though they have $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}>1`$. We find that PG 1001+054, Mrk 478 and MS 2254-37 with $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}<1`$ are located above the Eddington limit line. The three may be super-Eddington accretors. This inconsistency between the Eddington limit line and $`\xi L_{5100}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ values in some objects reflects: 1) the intrinsic scatter of $`\xi `$, namely, the ratio $`\xi L_{5100}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ is not fully reliable to estimate $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ as noted by Netzer (2003); 2) the estimation of the black hole mass via FWHM(\[O iii\]) has a larger uncertainty. As shown by Boroson (2003) in SDSS EDR sample of 107 radio-quiet quasars and Seyfert 1 galaxies, the correlation between FWHM(\[Oiii\]) and $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is rather scatter, where $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is determined by Kaspi et al’s empirical relation of reverberation mapping. The FWHM(H$`\beta )M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation also indicates the scatters of FWHM(\[Oiii\])$`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation by this inconsistency. Therefore, the FWHM(H$`\beta )M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation may be more reliable to test whether an object has a super-Eddington accretion rate if the mass of the black hole is well determined. Mrk 478, PG 1001+054 and MS 2254-37 are narrow line Seyert 1 galaxies \[FWHM(H$`\beta )<2000`$ km s-1\] (Grupe et al. 1999). Table 1 lists the estimation of the black hole masses of the three objects. We find that the differences of $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ given by $`\sigma M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and the empirical relation of reverberation mapping are large, 1.1, 0.8 and 1.1 dex for PG 1001+054, Mrk 478 and MS 2254-37, respectively, showing the mass given by $`\sigma M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is larger than that given by the empirical relation of reverberation mapping. Even we use the masses by empirical relation of reverberation, the three objects are still located on or close to the Eddington limit line. We thus suggest that they are probably super-Eddington accretors.

In the sample of McLure & Dunlop (2001), we take the data of Mrk 355 from the reverberation mapping measurements by Kaspi et al. (2000) and the data of $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=1.4_{0.6}^{+1.0}\times 10^6M_{}`$ and FWHM(H$`\beta )=1110\pm 190`$km s-1 in NGC 4051 from Peterson et al. (2000). The values of $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ are given from $`L_{5100}`$, object with $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}>1`$ has not been found in this sample. But the three radio-quiet quasars PG 0157+001, Q 0204+292 and Q 2247+140 have been found above the Eddington limit line. Table 1. also lists the three objects. We find that the masses of the black holes in PG 0157+001, Q 0204+292 and Q 2247+140 are quite different from $`M_RM_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and reverberation relation methods. The mass of the black hole in Q 0204+292 is of $`10^{8.9}M_{}`$ from $`M_RM_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation since the magnitude of its host galaxy is quite bright $`M_R=23.3`$ (McLure & Dunlop 2001). On the other hand its FWHM(H$`\beta )=1040`$ km s-1 is very narrow, the black hole mass is $`10^{7.13}M_{}`$. The three objects locate above the Eddington limit lines even for their masses from empirical reverberation relation. We suggest that the three objects may be candidates of super-Eddington accretors.

No object with $`L/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}>1`$ has been found in Kaspi et al.’s sample, but PG 1351+640 locates above Eddington limit line. It may thus be a super-Eddington accretor. No super-Eddington has been found in the radio-loud quasar sample of Wang, Ho & Staubert (2002), who obtain the Eddington ratio from the converting the total emission line luminosity into ionizing luminosity. There is only one marginal object, PG 2201+315, which is located close to the Eddington limit whereas the others locate below the Eddington limit. We would like to stress that the above remarks are based on that the black hole masses are fully reliable.

For Kaspi et al.’s relation $`\beta =0.7`$, we find a handful of objects that locate above the Eddington limit lines. These objects may be really super-Eddington accretors. For $`\beta =0.58`$ empirical relation (Netzer 2003), we find that the FWHM(H$`\beta )M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation becomes flatter ($`M_{\mathrm{BH}}\upsilon _{\mathrm{FWHM}}^{5.0}`$) and there are 23 of 164 ($`14\%`$) objects that locate above the Eddington limit lines (but they are not far away from the Eddington limit lines). If the black hole masses of these objects are less uncertain, they are likely super-Eddington accretors. We note that these objects locate the region between the Begelman and Eddington limit lines. One interesting possibility is that these objects are undergoing a hybrid process of photon trapping and photon bubble instability. It would be necessary to do the observation of reverberation mapping for these objects or measure the stellar dispersion velocity of their host galaxies in order to more reliably determine the black hole masses and the structure of the super-Eddington accretion disks. Additionally, the variabilities in the X-ray band will be very helpful to understand the physics in these objects (photon trapping or photon bubble instability).

All the objects listed in Table 1 have a narrower width of H$`\beta `$ ($`<2300`$ km s-1). Based on the limit relation, one of prominent features of super-Eddington accretion candidates is the presence of the relatively narrow width of H$`\beta `$. If the largest black hole mass is of $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{max}}=2\times 10^{10}M_{}`$ among ANGs (Netzer 2003), the maximum Eddington width is given by

$$V_{\mathrm{FWHM}}^{\mathrm{max}}(\mathrm{H}\beta )=(3.03.8)\times 10^3\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{max}}}{2.0\times 10^{10}M_{}}\right)^{0.15}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(7)
Therefore searching super-Eddington AGNs should be confined in those with H$`\beta `$ width narrower than this Eddington width $`V_{\mathrm{FWHM}}^{\mathrm{max}}(\mathrm{H}\beta )=3.03.8\times 10^3`$ km s-1. An interesting work is to apply the present limits to narrow line Seyfert 1 galaxies, which are regarded to be less massive black hole with higher accretion rates. The instability may make the disk inhomogeneous (Fabian et al. 2002). However the current data does not allow us to do so. It is suggested to do measurements of reverberation mapping for a sample of NLS1 for the determination of the black hole masses in order to probe the structures of the super-Eddington accretion disks.

The objects in the present samples used in this paper are low redshift. The above discussion can be easily extended to the relation between C iv/Mg ii width and the mass of the black hole for high redshift quasars using the empirical relation of reverberation mapping (Vestergaard 2002, Netzer 2003).

Finally, we would like to point out the response of BLR size to the increases of disk’s luminosity. According to the Kaspi et al.’s relation, the virializing timescale of the clouds in BLR is of $`\tau _{\mathrm{vir}}=R_{\mathrm{BLR}}/\upsilon _{\mathrm{FWHM}}7.0M_{\mathrm{BH},8}^{1/2}\left(L_{5100}/10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\right)^{1.05}`$ (yrs), where $`M_{\mathrm{BH},8}=M_{\mathrm{BH}}/10^8M_{}`$, which is much shorter than the super-Eddington accretion timescale ($`10^6`$ yrs). Thus the locations of H$`\beta `$-emitting clouds will be rapidly re-arranged in BLR according to the luminosity. If the super-Eddington accretion lasts several million years, we should observe its effects on the width of broad emission lines.

## 4 Conclusions

Based on the super-Eddington accretion disk models of the photon trapping and photon bubble instability, we have derived a limit relation between the black hole mass and H$`\beta `$ width via the empirical relation of reverberation mapping in AGNs. We apply the present limits to several samples. We find that most of the objects locate below the Eddington limit line. In Shields et al.’s sample, there is a significant fraction of the obejects have $`\xi L_{5100}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}>1`$, but they are far below the Eddingtomn limit line. This inconsistency implies that the present limit relation is more reliable and convenient to test the super-Eddington accretions in AGNs. We find that there are a handful of objects locate above the Eddington limit lines, but below the Begelman limit line. We suggest they may be candidates of super-Eddington accretors. The maximum width of H$`\beta `$ is $`3.03.8\times 10^3`$ km s-1 for the maximum black holes with super-Eddington accretion rates among AGNs, which confines the candidates in future search for super-Eddington accretions among AGNs. The FWHM(H$`\beta )M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation is more reliable and convenient to test whether the objects have super-Eddington accretion rates, and can also be used to probe the structure of the super-Eddington accretion disks in AGNs.

The helpful comments from an anonymous referee are thanked. I am very grateful to Hagai Netzer for numerous useful suggestions and comments on the manuscript. The supports from Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Special Funds for Major State Basic Research Projects and NSFC are acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE AS A SYMMETRY

## 1 Introduction

The Weak Equivalence Principle is commonly taken to mean that in a gravitational field the acceleration of a test particle is independent of the properties of the latter, including its rest mass. Recently, however, the extension of 4D general relativity to 5D has led to the isolation of a fifth force, which exists for both induced-matter theory  and membrane theory . These two versions of what used to be called Kaluza-Klein theory allow dependence on an extra coordinate $`l`$, and it is now known that their field equations are essentially the same . In both theories, the extra force per unit rest mass is an acceleration which is inertial in the Einstein sense, arising from the motion in the fifth dimension with respect to the 4D part of the manifold which we call spacetime . This extra acceleration has already been related to the (inertial) rest mass $`m`$ of a test particle  in certain choices of coordinate frame (or gauge), and in general its presence represents a technical violation of the 4D WEP. Such violations of the 4D WEP in $`N(>4)D`$ field theory have been mentioned before \[7-11; for a short review see ref. 6, pp. 85-88\]. However, the WEP is known from experiments conducted from the time of Galileo to now to be obeyed with an accuracy of at least 1 part in 1011 . The purpose of the present work is to clarify the status of the 4D Weak Equivalence Principle in $`N(>4)D`$ extensions of general relativity. We will do this for 5D; but the extension to higher $`N`$ as in 10D superstrings, 11D supergravity and 26D string theory is straight-forward, and in fact guaranteed by Campbell’s theorem \[13-15\]. The plan is as follows: (a) Marshall extant mathematical results \[16-22\], showing that they have the consistent physical interpretation that the extra coordinate $`l`$ measures the (inertial) rest mass of a test particle $`m`$; (b) Illustrate the cogency of this inference by giving 3 exact $`l`$-dependent solutions of the 5D field equations which generalize the 4D de Sitter solution of general relativity as widely used in particle physics \[23-27\], thereby generalizing the concept of “the vacuum” and opening a way to a resolution of the cosmological-constant problem; (c) Use the scalar potential as a classical analog of the Higgs field , leading to an expression for the masses of real particles which avoids the hierarchy problem; (d) Conclude that the WEP is a geometric symmetry, valid only in the limit where the mass of a test particle is negligible compared to the mass of the source, thus supporting new endeavors  to look for violations.

## 2 The Nature of the Fifth Coordinate

There are 5 degrees of coordinate freedom in an unrestricted 5D Riemannian manifold, of which 4 can be used to remove the potentials of electromagnetic type, giving the line element $`dS^2=g_{AB}dx^Adx^B=g_{\alpha \beta }(x^\gamma ,l)dx^\alpha dx^\beta +ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2dl^2\left(A=O,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}123},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4};\alpha =O,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}123}\right)`$. The signature is $`+()ϵ`$ where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ is not restricted by Campbell’s theorem \[13-15\], the usual $`ϵ=1`$ admitting particle-like solutions and $`ϵ=+1`$ admitting wave-like solutions . The coordinates are $`x^0=t`$ for time, $`x^{123}=xyz`$ (or $`r\theta \varphi `$) for space and an extra one $`x^4=l`$. All will be taken to have physical dimensions of length, and the constants $`c,G,h`$ will usually be absorbed by a choice of units. It will turn out to be useful to defer usage of the fifth degree of coordinate freedom, though in principle it is available to suppress the scalar potential $`\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$ or to restrict the velocity in the fifth dimension. With regard to velocities, we wish to make contact with 4D physics couched in terms of $`ds^2=g_{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta `$ and 4-velocites $`u^\alpha dx^\alpha \mathrm{}ds`$. We will therefore parametize motions in terms of the elements of 4D proper time $`ds`$, a choice which also allows us to handle null 5D paths with $`dS=0`$ . With this setup, we can make several observations on the physical nature of the fifth coordinate.

(i) The extra force which appears when the manifold is extended from 4D to 5D has been derived in different ways for induced-matter theory  and brane theory . But a generic and shorter way is as follows. The relation

$$g_{\alpha \beta }(x^\gamma ,l)u^\alpha u^\beta =1$$
(1)
is a normalization condition on the 4-velocities. When multiplied by the inertial rest mass $`m`$ of a test particle, it gives the usual relation $`E^2p^2=m^2`$ where $`E`$ is the energy and $`p`$ is the 3-momentum. (Alternatively, $`p^\alpha p_\alpha =m^2`$ where $`p^\alpha mu^\alpha `$ are the 4-momenta.) There is actually no information in (1) about the possibility that $`m=m\left(s\right)`$, which applies for example to the case of a rocket which loses mass as it burns fuel and so accelerates. The acceleration in such a case is given by appeal to the law of conservation of linear momentum (see below). However, we can consider the effect of a slight change in the 5D coordinates (including $`l`$) by differentiating (1) with respect to $`s`$. Doing this and using symmetries under the exchange of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ to introduce the Christoffel symbols $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$, there comes

$$2g_{\alpha \mu }u^\alpha \left(\frac{du^\mu }{ds}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\mu u^\beta u^\gamma \right)+\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }}{l}\frac{dl}{ds}u^\alpha u^\beta =0.$$
(2)
This reveals that in addition to its usual 4D geodesic motion (the part inside the parenthesis), a particle feels a new acceleration (or force per unit mass). It is due to the motion of the 4D frame with respect to the fifth dimension, and is parallel to the 4-velocity $`u^\mu `$. Explicitly, the parallel acceleration is

$$P^\mu =\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }}{l}u^\alpha u^\beta \right)\frac{dl}{ds}u^\mu _.$$
(3)
This has no analog in 4D field theory, including Einstein gravity and Maxwell electromagnetism, where forces are orthogonal to the velocities and obey $`F^\mu u_\mu =0.`$ (Another way of seeing that an extra force must appear in the extension from 4D to 5D is to note as in ref. 1 that if $`F^Au_A=0`$ then $`F^\mu u_\mu =F^4u_40`$.) To investigate (3), we can evaluate it in the canonical coordinate system, which is so called because it leads to great algebraic simplification of the geodesic equation and the field equations (see below) and has been extensively used \[6, 17-19, 22\]. Then $`g_{\alpha \beta }(x^\gamma ,l)=\left(l^2\mathrm{}L^2\right)\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta }\left(x^\gamma \right),`$ where $`L`$ is a length introduced for dimensional consistency, and for vacuum 4D spacetimes is given by $`L^2=3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant . The acceleration (3) can now be evaluated and simplified using (1). Its nature becomes clear in the Minkowski limit, when the motion of the particle is given by

$$\frac{du^\mu }{ds}=P^\mu =\frac{1}{l}\frac{dl}{ds}u^\mu ,$$
(4)
$$\text{or}\frac{d}{ds}\left(lu^\mu \right)=0.$$
(5)
The last is just the expected law of conservation of linear momentum, provided $`l=m`$.

(ii) The action can be used to confirm this. Let us write the 5D interval in terms of its 4D and extra parts using a coordinate system which is perturbed from the pure canonical one noted above. Then with $`d\overline{s}^2\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta `$ we have

$`dS^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{L^2}}\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta }(x^\gamma ,l)dx^\alpha dx^\beta +ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2(x^\gamma ,l)dl^2`$ (6)
$`L^2dS^2`$ $`=`$ $`l^2d\overline{s}^2+ϵ\left(\mathrm{\Phi }L\right)^2dl^2.`$ (7)
Clearly the first term on the right-hand side here involves the conventional element of action $`md\overline{s}`$ if $`l=m`$. It should be noted that even in 4D the action should be written $`m𝑑\overline{s}`$ to account for the possibility that the mass changes along the path, and that in 5D the expression (6) is still general. So the conventional action is the 4D part of a 5D one.

(iii) The 5D geodesic equation minimizes paths via $`\delta \left(𝑑S\right)=0`$, which generalizes the equations of motion in 4D and adds an extra component for the motion in the fifth dimension. The working requires the specification of a starting gauge, and is generally tedious. (See ref. 6, pp. 132-138 and pp. 161-167 for the cases where electromagnetism is and is not included respectively, as well as references to other work.) We therefore quote here two results which are relevant. First, for 5D metrics which are canonical in form, the fifth force noted above is proportional to $`dl\mathrm{}d\overline{s}`$, and disappears if the latter is zero, making the 4D part of the motion geodesic in the usual sense. It should be noted in passing that the conventional geodesic equation is a statement about accelerations (not forces) caused by the motion of reference frames, so this result means that 4D geodesic motion is a special case of 5D motion, which latter is inertial in the Einstein sense. Second, for 5D metrics which are independent of $`x^0=t`$, there is a constant of the motion which is the analog of the 4D particle energy. When the metric is $`l`$-factorized as in the canonical case, electromagnetic terms are absent and the 3-velocity $`v`$ is projected out, this constant is

$$E=\frac{l}{\left(1v^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
(8)
One does not have to be Einstein to see that this gives back the conventional 4D energy provided $`l`$ is identified with the particle rest mass $`m`$.

(iv) The field equations for 5D relativity are commonly taken in terms of the Ricci tensor to be $`R_{AB}=0\left(A=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}123},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\right)`$; and by Campbells theorem \[13-15\] these contain those of general relativity, which in terms of the Einstein tensor and the energy-momentum tensor are $`G_{\alpha \beta }=8\pi T_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`\left(\alpha =0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}123}\right)`$. Here $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ is constructed as usual from the 4D, $`l`$-independent parts of the 4D Ricci tensor and scalar. However, $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ is an effective or induced source, constructed from the $`l`$-dependent parts of these quantities and the scalar field $`\left(g_{44}=ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)`$. As such, the latter includes parts which can be identified with conventional matter and parts which by default refer to the “vacuum”. We will return to the latter concept below, but here we note that the general expression for the source can be written down after some lengthy algebra. With the metric in the general form $`dS^2=g_{\alpha \beta }(x^\gamma ,l)dx^\alpha dx^\beta +ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2dl^2,`$ it is

$`8\pi T_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi },_{\alpha ;\beta }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{,4}g_{\alpha \beta ,4}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}g_{\alpha \beta ,44}+g^{\lambda \mu }g_{\alpha \lambda ,4}g_{\beta \mu ,4}`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu ,4}g_{\alpha \beta ,4}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\alpha \beta }}{4}}[g_{,4}^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu ,4}+\left(g^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu ,4}\right)^2]\}.`$
Here a comma denotes the partial derivative with respect to $`x^4=l`$ and a semicolon denotes the usual 4D covariant derivative. The expression (9) is known to give back the conventional matter content of a wide variety of 4D solutions , but in order to bolster the physical identification of $`l`$ we note a generic property of it. For $`g_{\alpha \beta ,4}=0`$, (9) gives $`8\pi T8\pi g^{\alpha \beta }T_{\alpha \beta }=g^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\alpha ;\beta }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$; but the extra field equation $`R_{44}=0`$, which we will examine below, gives $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ for $`g_{\alpha \beta ,4}=0`$. Thus $`T=0`$ for $`g_{\alpha \beta ,4}=0`$, meaning that the equation of state is that of radiation when the source consists of photons with zero rest mass. This is as expected.

(v) Algebraic arguments for $`l=m`$ can be understood from the physical perspective by simple dimensional analysis. The latter is actually an elementary group-theoretic technique based on the Pi theorem, and one could argue that a complete theory of mechanics ought to use a manifold in which spacetime is extended so as to properly take account of the three mechanical bases M, L, T. Obviously, this has to be done in a manner which does not violate the known laws of mechanics and recognizes their use of the three dimensional constants $`c`$, $`G`$ and $`h`$. The canonical metric of induced-matter theory, as employed in several instances above, clearly satisfies these criteria . But the warp metric of brane theory leads to similar results ; and it has indeed been argued that the two theories are essentially the same one, expressed in different ways . This leads to an important point: the physical identification of $`x^4=l`$ requires a choice of 5D coordinates or gauge. To illustrate this, consider a 5D metric given by

$$dS^2=\left(\frac{L}{l}\right)^{2a}\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta }\left(x^\gamma \right)dx^\alpha dx^\beta \left(\frac{L}{l}\right)^{4b}dl^2.$$
(10)
Here $`a`$, $`b`$ are constants which can be constrained by the full set of 5D field equations $`R_{AB}=0`$ . There are 3 choices: $`a=b=0`$ gives general relativity embedded in a flat and physically innocuous extra dimension; $`a=1,b=0`$ gives the pure-canonical metric already discussed; while $`a=b=1`$ gives a metric which looks different but is actually the canonical one after the coordinate transformation $`lL^2\mathrm{}l`$. We see that the last two cases describe the same physics but in terms of different choices of $`l`$. Temporarily introducing the relevant constants, these are

$$l_E=\frac{Gm}{c^2},l_P=\frac{h}{mc}$$
(11)
in what may be termed the Einstein and Planck gauges. These represent convenient choices of $`x^4=l`$, insofar as they represent parametizations of the inertial rest mass $`m`$ of a test particle which fit with known laws of 4D physics such as the conservation of momentum (see above: the fifth force conserves $`l_Eu^\mu `$ or $`l_P^1u^\mu `$). However, 5D relativity as based on the field equations $`R_{AB}=0`$ is covariant under the 5D group of transformations $`x^A\overline{x}^A\left(x^B\right)`$, which is wider than the 4D group $`x^\alpha \overline{x}^\alpha \left(x^\beta \right)`$. Therefore 4D quantities $`Q(x^\alpha ,l)`$ will in general change under a change of coordinates that includes $`l`$. This implies that we can only recognize $`m`$ in certain gauges.

The import of the preceding comments (i)-(v) is major for the Weak Equivalence Principle. In gauges like those of Einstein or Planck, or ones close to them, the dependence of the ordinary 4D metric of spacetime on the extra coordinate $`l=m`$ will in general cause the acceleration of a test particle to depend to a degree (determined by the solution) on the rest mass of the latter. This is a clear violation of the WEP. Even in other gauges, $`l`$ and its associated potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must be connected with the concept of particle (as opposed to source) mass. We will formalize this using the field equations below, but here we point out that such a dependency can be expected on physical grounds: a test particle of mass $`m`$ in the field of a source mass $`M`$ only has a negligible effect on the metric in the limit $`m\mathrm{}M0`$. The effects that follow from $`m\mathrm{}M0`$ have traditionally been handled in areas such as gravitational radiation by considering the “back reaction” of the test particle on the field of the source . This is clearly an approximation to the real physics, and must break down when $`m\mathrm{}M`$ is significant. In other words, the WEP as viewed from 5D is a geometric symmetry which must break down at some level.

## 3 Vacua in 5D

To illustrate the argument that the 4D WEP is a symmetry of a 5D metric, it is natural to look at solutions of the field equations that represent a test particle in an otherwise empty space. Many $`l`$-dependent solutions of the field equations are known, including ones for cosmology and the solar system which are in agreement with observations . However, the class of solutions which represents empty 3D space has not been much studied. There are technical and conceptual reasons for this. Technically, the field equations $`R_{AB}=0`$ involve in general 15 nonzero components of the Ricci tensor. Even if we look for static non-electromagnetic solutions, it is still not easy to find ones of the desired type, which should have 3D spherical symmetry and be $`(r,l)`$-dependent. Conceptually, the idea of a vacuum in 5D is blurry. Even in 4D, $`R_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ admits solutions which are empty of ordinary matter but have 4D curvature, the prime example being the de Sitter solution in which spacetime is curved by the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, or alternatively by a vacuum fluid with density and pressure given by $`\rho _v=p_v=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}8\pi `$. This solution has been extensively used in models of the origin of the classical universe based on quantum effects, such as tunneling . In 5D, the equations $`R_{AB}=0`$ admit solutions which are apparently empty, but whose 4D subspaces may be curved and contain “ordinary” matter as determined by the embedded Einstein equations $`G_{\alpha \beta }=8\pi T_{\alpha \beta \text{ }}`$ (see above). A clever but only partially successful way to sidestep these issues is to look for 5D solutions which are not only Ricci-flat with $`R_{AB}=0`$ but also Riemann-flat with $`R_{ABCD}=0`$ \[25-27\]. We will present 3 such solutions below, but wish to make a cautionary remark based on the contents of the preceding section: The physical application in 4D of any $`l`$-dependent solution in 5D depends on the choice of gauge. The solutions which follow are all equivalent to a flat 5D (Minkowski) manifold, but the 5D coordinate transformations which must exist between them are for technical reasons unknown, and their different forms describe different 4D physical vacua.

The following solutions may be confirmed by hand or computer to satisfy $`R_{AB}=0`$ and $`R_{ABCD}=0`$:

$`dS^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{L^2}}\left\{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{L^2}}\right)dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{\left(1r^2\mathrm{}L^2\right)}}r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right\}dl^2`$ (12)
$`dS^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{L^2}}\left\{\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{L^2}}\right)^{1/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha L}{l}}\right]^2dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{\left(1r^2\mathrm{}L^2\right)}}r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right\}`$ (13)
$`dl^2`$
$`dS^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{L^2}}\{[(1{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{L^2}})^{1/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha L}{l}}]^2dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{\left(1r^2\mathrm{}L^2\right)}}`$ (14)
$`(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta L^2}{rl}})^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\}dl^2.`$
Here $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)`$, so all 3 solutions are spherically symmetric in 3D. The first is a 5D canonical embedding of the 4D de Sitter solution provided the identification $`L^2=3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is made (see above). However, in general $`L`$ measures the size of the potential well associated with $`x^4=l`$, as shown by the de Sitter form (12). Solutions like (12)-(14) depend in general on two dimensionless constants $`\alpha ,\beta `$. We have examined the properties of (12)-(14) extensively, but here note only their generic features. These can be appreciated by combining (12)-(14) in the following form:

$`dS^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{L^2}}\left\{A^2dt^2B^2dr^2C^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right\}dl^2`$ (15)
$`A`$ $``$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{L^2}}\right)^{1/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha L}{l}},B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1r^2\mathrm{}L^2\right)^{1/2}}},C1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta L^2}{rl}}.`$ (16)
The 4D subspaces defined by these solutions are curved, with a 4D Ricci scalar $`{}_{}{}^{4}R`$ which by Einstein’s equations is related to the trace of the 4D energy-momentum tensor by $`{}_{}{}^{4}R=8\pi T`$. The general expression for $`{}_{}{}^{4}R`$ for any 5D metric of the form $`dS^2=g_{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta +ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2dl^2`$ as used before is:

$${}_{}{}^{4}R=\frac{ϵ}{4\mathrm{\Phi }^2}\left[g_{,4}^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu ,4}+\left(g^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu ,4}\right)^2\right].$$
(17)
The special expression for (15), (16) is:

$${}_{}{}^{4}R=8\pi T=\frac{2}{L^2}\left[\frac{1}{AB}+\frac{2}{ABC}+\frac{1}{C^2}+\frac{2}{C}\right].$$
(18)
This shows that stress-energy is concentrated around singular shells where one of $`A`$, $`B`$ or $`C`$ is zero. The equation of state is in general anisotropic $`\left(T_1^1T_2^2\right)`$. If one replaces $`1\mathrm{}L^2`$ in (18) by its de Sitter limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}3`$, it becomes obvious that the meaning of the cosmological “constant” requires a drastic rethink. The effective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is in general a function of $`r`$ and $`l`$, opening a way to a resolution of the cosmological-constant problem. Indeed, there is no such thing as “the vacuum” in 5D physics, but rather structured vacua.

## 4 Particle Masses in 5D

A common view, notably from inflationary quantum theory, is that particles are intrinsically massless, gaining masses from the Higgs field . This view is in principle compatible with the recent demonstration that particles which move on null paths in 5D can move on timelike paths in 4D, both for induced-matter theory  and brane theory . The scalar field $`g_{44}=ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ of 5D relativity can be suppressed by use of one of the 5 degrees of coordinate freedom (see above); but solutions are known for both solitons and cosmologies where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ contains significant physics, and it has been suggested that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the classical analog of the Higgs field . There are in fact several ways to define the mass of a particle in 5D. Here, we wish to give a short account of one which is mathematically straightforward  and builds on the physical identification of the extra coordinate arrived at in section 2.

There we saw that $`m=l`$ for metrics of the canonical form with $`\left|g_{44}\right|=1.`$ For metrics which are of other forms, we can define an effective mass by

$$m\left|\mathrm{\Phi }\right|𝑑l=\left|\mathrm{\Phi }\left(dl\mathrm{}ds\right)\right|𝑑s.$$
(19)
This is in line with how proper distance is defined in 3D. In practice, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ would be given by a solution of the 5D field equations, and $`dl\mathrm{}ds`$ would be given by a solution of the extra component of the 5D geodesic equation (or directly from the metric for a null 5D path and a particle at rest in 3D). We note that a potential problem with this approach is that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ may show horizon-like behaviour. An example is the Gross/Perry/Davidson/Owen/Sorkin monopole, which in terms of a radial coordinate $`r`$ which makes the 3D part of the metric isotropic has $`g_{44}=\mathrm{\Phi }^2=\left[\left(1a\mathrm{}2r\right)\mathrm{}\left(1+a\mathrm{}2r\right)\right]^{2\beta \mathrm{}\alpha }`$ where $`a`$ is the source strength and $`\alpha `$$`\beta `$ are dimensionless constants constrained by the field equations to obey $`\alpha ^2=\beta ^2+\beta +1`$ \[ref. 6 p. 70\]. This problem may be avoided by restricting the physically-relevant size of the manifold . Another potential problem is that real particles may have $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\gamma ,l)`$ so complicated as to preclude finding an exact solution. This problem may be avoided by expanding $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in a Fourier series:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\gamma ,l)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(n\right)}\left(x^\gamma \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(inl\mathrm{}L\right).$$
(20)
Here $`L`$ is the characteristic size of the extra dimension, which by (17) is related to the radius of curvature of the embedded 4-space which the particle inhabits. It should be noted that in both modern versions of 5D relativity, namely induced-matter theory and brane theory, the extra dimension is not compactified \[1-5\]. Thus we do not expect a simple tower of states based on the Planck mass, but a more complicated spectrum of masses that offers a way out of the hierarchy problem.

Underlying the comments of the preceding paragraph is the field equation $`R_{44}=0`$ which governs $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The full set of field equations $`R_{AB}=0`$ contains 15 components. These can be reduced by tiresome algebra for the general metric noted before, namely $`dS^2=g_{\alpha \beta }(x^\gamma ,l)dx^\alpha dx^\beta +ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^2(x^\gamma ,l)dl^2`$, which only uses 4 of the 5 degrees of coordinate freedom to remove the potentials $`\left(g_{4\alpha }\right)`$ of electromagnetic type. The result is sets of 10, 4 and 1 equations . The first set comprises the Einstein equations $`G_{\alpha \beta }=8\pi T_{\alpha \beta }`$, with $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ given by (9). The second set comprises the conservation equations

$`P_{\alpha ;\beta }^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (21)
$`P_\alpha ^\beta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Phi }}}\left(g^{\beta \sigma }g_{\sigma \alpha ,4}\delta _\alpha ^\beta g^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu ,4}\right).`$ (22)
These are usually easy to satisfy in the continuous fluid of induced-matter theory as developed by Wesson and others, and are related to the stress in the surface $`\left(l=0\right)`$ of membrane theory with the $`Z_2`$ symmetry as developed by Randall and Sundrum (see ref. 5 for a discussion of both). The remaining field equation is the scalar relation

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{ϵ}{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left[\frac{g_{,4}^{\lambda \beta }g_{\lambda \beta ,4}}{2}+g^{\lambda \beta }g_{\lambda \beta ,44}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{,4}g^{\lambda \beta }g_{\lambda \beta ,4}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right].$$
(23)
Here as before $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }g^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\alpha ;\beta }`$ and some of the terms on the right-hand side are present in the energy-momentum tensor of (9). In fact, one can rewrite (23) for the static case as Poisson’s equation with an effective source density for the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-field. In general, (23) is a wave equation with a source induced by the fifth dimension. This supports the series expansion (20), and implies that the inertial rest mass of a particle as defined by (19) arises from the scalar field.

## 5 Conclusion

Gravity in general relativity is a force which is encoded in the Christoffel symbols as coupled to the 4-velocities, and is inertial in the sense that it arises from the motion of a particle with respect to a 4D frame of reference or manifold which is not flat. The fifth force of induced-matter and membrane theory is similar . The normalization condition for the 4-velocities (1) shows that ordinary 4D geodesic motion is augmented by a fifth force (per unit mass) or acceleration (2), which while it depends on the velocity in the fifth dimension has the unique property of acting parallel to the 4-velocity (3). This force depends in general on $`x^4=l`$, the fifth coordinate of the particle, and therefore violates the Weak Equivalence Principle, at least technically. However, it is compatible with the principle of conservation of linear momentum (5), which leads to the identification of $`l`$ with the (inertial rest) mass of the test particle $`m`$. Other aspects of 4D gravity support this. The presence of $`x^4=l`$ in exact solutions of the 5D field equations (12)-(14), which would otherwise be called empty, lead to the realization that there are 5D vacua with structure. A definition for the rest mass $`m`$, analgous to that of proper distance and valid for any 5D metric (19), is compatible with the identification of the scalar field of classical 5D relativity with the Higgs field of particle physics, its field equation (23) describing a wave with a source. The above conclusions clearly open ways to resolving well-known problems that arise from mismatches of classical and quantum physics, notably the cosmological-constant and hiearchy problems.

The WEP, however, is rendered particularly transparent. It is a geometric symmetry, valid only in the limit in which the metric is independent of $`x^4=l`$, that is the limit where the mass of a test particle is negligible compared to other terms such as the mass of the source. New techniques to measure departures from the WEP are technically challenging \[28-30\]. But if the 4D world is part of one with 5 or more dimensions, violations of the WEP must exist.

Acknowledgements

This work is based on previous collaborations with H. Liu and B. Mashhoon. It was supported by N.S.E.R.C.

References

1. P.S. Wesson, B. Mashhoon, H. Liu, W.N. Sajko, Phys Lett. B 456, 34 (1999).
2. S.S. Seahra, P.S. Wesson, Gen. Rel. Grav. 33, 1731 (2001).
3. D. Youm, Phys. Rev. D 62, 084002 (2000).
4. D. Youm, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16, 2731 (2001).
5. J. Ponce de Leon, Mod. Phys. Lett. A16, 2291 (2001).
6. P.S. Wesson, Space-Time-Matter, World Scientific, Singapore (1999).
7. D.J. Gross, M.J. Perry, Nucl. Phys. B 226, 29 (1983).
8. S. Deser, M. Soldate, Nucl. Phys. B 311, 739 (1989).
9. Y.M. Cho, D.H. Park, Gen. Rel. Grav. 23, 741 (1991).
10. A. Billyard, P.S. Wesson, D. Kalligas, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 4, 639 (1995).
11. P.S. Wesson, in STEP: Testing the Equivalence Principle in Space, ed. R. Reinhard, European Space Agency, WPP-115, 566 (1996).
12. C.M. Will, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 1, 13 (1992).
13. J.E. Campbell, A Course of Differential Geometry, Clarendon, Oxford (1926).
14. J.E. Lidsey, C. Romero, R. Tavakol, S. Rippl. Clkmass. Quant. Grav. 14, 865 (1997).
15. E. Anderson, J.E. Lidsey, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 4831 (2001).
16. G.W. Ma, Phys. Lett. A 143, 183 (1990).
17. B. Mashhoon, H. Liu, P.S. Wesson, Phys. Lett. B 331, 305 (1994).
18. P.S. Wesson, H. Liu, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 36, 1865 (1997).
19. B. Mashhoon, P.S. Wesson, H. Liu, Gen. Rel. Grav. 30, 555 (1998).
20. W.B. Belayev, gr-qc/0110099 (2001).
21. J. Ponce de Leon, Phys. Lett. B 523, 311 (2001).
22. P.S. Wesson, J. Math Phys. in press (2002) (gr-qc/0105059).
23. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. B 117, 25 (1982).
24. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 37, 888 (1988).
25. G. Abolghasem, A.A. Coley, D.J. McManus, J. Math Phys. 37, 361 (1996).
26. H. Liu, P.S. Wesson, Gen. Rel. Grav. 30, 509 (1998).
27. P.S. Wesson, H. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 432, 266 (1998).
28. R.B. Mann, P.S. Wesson (eds.), Gravitation: A Banff Summer Institute, World Scientific, Singapore (1991).
29. R. Reinhard (ed.), STEP: Testing the Equivalence Principle in Space, European Space Agency, WPP-115 (1996).
30. R.T. Jantzen, G.M. Keiser, R. Ruffini (eds.), Proc. 7th. Marcel Grossman Meeting, World Scientific, Singapore (1996).