\section{introduction}
The first paragraph of the  seminal paper of Einstein and de Haas \cite{edh} states: ``{\it When it had been discovered by Oersted that magnetic actions are exerted not only by permanent magnets, bnt also by electric currents, there seemed to be two entirely different ways in which a magnetic field can be produced. This conception, however, could hardly be considered as satisfactory and physicists soon tried to refer the two actions to one and the same cause. Ampere succeeded in doing so by his celebrated hypothesis of currents circulating around the molecules withont encountering any resistance.}''

Progress in physics often occurs through unification, where seemingly unrelated phenomena are recognized as manifestations of the same underlying physics. So it happened with the celebrated
experiment of Einstein and de Haas that proved the association between magnetic moment and angular momentum in ferromagnetic materials.
While it may seem obvious to us now, it was not at all obvious at that time that the experiment would confirm the hoped-for unification. This is illustrated by the caveats expressed by Einstein and de Haas \cite{edh}: ``{\it It cannot be denied that these views call forth some objections. One of these is even more serious than it was in Ampere's days; it is difficult to conceive a circulation of electricity free from all resistance and therefore continuing forever. Indeed, according to
Maxwell's equations circulating electrons must lose their energy by radiation...The energy of the revolving
electrons would therefore be a true zero point energy. In the opinion of many physicists however, the existence of an energy of
this kind is very improbable. It appears by these remarks that after all as much may be said in favour of Ampere's hypothesis as against it }''. Their experiment of course proved that these caveats were
unfounded.

It is interesting to note that shortly  before Einstein and de Haas, Kammerlingh Onnes pointed out
a physical realization of Ampere's molecular currents, not in ferromagnets but in superconductors.
In his 1914 paper: ``{\it Further experiments with liquid helium. J. The imitation of an Ampere molecular
current or of a permanent magnet by means of a supraconductor}'' \cite{onnes} Onnes concluded that
``{\it it is possible
in a conductor without electromotive force or  leads from outside
to maintain a current permanently and thus to imitate  a permanent magnet or better a molecular
current as imagined by Ampere}''.

In this paper we argue that the commonalities between ferromagnets and superconductors go
much further than generally assumed.

\section{magnetic moment and angular momentum}

\begin{table}
\caption{Experiments on rotation and magnetization.}
\begin{tabular}{l | c | c | c  }
  \hline
    \hline
& Rotation by    &  Magnetization by   \cr
&   magnetization   &  rotation  \cr
 \hline  \hline
Ferromagnets & Einstein-de Haas & Barnett& \cr
&  effect (1915) \cite{edh} & effect (1915) \cite{barnett}& \cr
 \hline
Superconductors & Gyromagnetic  effect & London moment& \cr
  & (Kikoin and& (Becker et al (1933) \cite{becker}; & \cr
    & Gubar (1940)) \cite{gyro}   & Hildebrandt (1964)) \cite{hild}& \cr
 \hline
 \end{tabular}
\end{table}

The experiments showing the connection between angular momentum and magnetic moment
in ferromagnets and superconductors are summarized in Table I. The experimental
results follow from conservation laws. However the question of
$how$ angular momentum causes magnetization or magnetization causes angular
momentum is a separate question that needs to be addressed and understood.
For ferromagnets, only recently has this question started
to be considered   \cite{chud,niu}, and remains unsolved. For superconductors it isn't
even acknowledged that such a question exists and needs to be answered.

In this paper we address and solve this question  for superconductors. For ferromagnets
it remains an open question.

\section{magnetization in superconductors}
In ferromagnets, the magnetization is due to the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron.
Assuming  there is no spin-orbit interaction, the Ampere molecular currents
consist of each electron spinning around its axis, with mechanical angular momentum $S=\hbar/2$,
contributing magnetic moment
\begin{equation}
\mu=g\frac{e}{2m_ec}S=\mu_B
\end{equation}
with $g=2$ and  $\mu_B$ the Bohr magneton.

 In superconductors, the supercurrent resides within a London penetration depth ($\lambda_L$) of the
surface. Consider a long cylinder in a magnetic field $H$ along its axis. The magnetization of the
cylinder is $M=H/4\pi$ so that the magnetic field in the interior is zero. With
$n_s=$ number of superfluid electrons per unit volume, the magnetic moment $\mu$ contributed by each electron is
\begin{equation}
\mu=\frac{M}{n_s}=\frac{H}{4\pi n_s}=\frac{e}{2m_e c}\ell
\end{equation}
since $g=1$ for orbital motion. Here, $\ell$ is the mechanical angular momentum contributed by each superfluid
electron. The mechanical momentum of electrons in the Meissner current is
\begin{equation}
m_ev=\frac{e}{c}A=\frac{e}{c}\lambda_LH .
\end{equation}
Using the well-known relation between London penetration depth and superfluid density \cite{tinkham}
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\lambda_L^2}=\frac{4\pi n_se^2}{m_ec^2}
\end{equation}
it follows from Eqs. (2), (3) and (4) that
\begin{equation}
\ell=m_ev(2\lambda_L) .
\end{equation}
Therefore the Meissner magnetization $M=H/(4\pi)$ can be understood as arising from each superfluid electron in an orbit
of radius $2\lambda_L$ with orbital angular momentum $\ell$ given by Eq. (5) contributing its orbital magnetic moment Eq. (2).
These orbital motions cancel out in the interior of the cylinder but not within a London penetration depth of the
surface, giving rise to the surface Meissner current.

As we will show in what follows, these Amperian `molecular currents' exist in superconductors also in the absence
of an applied magnetic field, with each electron carrying orbital angular momentum $\ell=\hbar/2$ \cite{sm,bohr}.
Both in the superconductor and the ferromagnet the `molecular currents' in the interior cancel out leaving
a surface current per unit length $cM$ to give rise to the macroscopic magnetization. This is shown
schematically in Fig. 1. For superconductors,
the radius of these currents is $2\lambda_L$ and the speed of motion is $v_\sigma=\hbar/(4m_e\lambda_L)$,
while for ferromagnets  the radius is $r_q=\hbar/(2m_ec)$ and the speed of motion is $c$.
In both cases the angular momentum is $\hbar/2$.  This shows that a remarkable connection exists between superconductors and ferromagnets that was heretofore unrecognized.

           \begin{figure}
 \resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig1.eps}}
 \caption { Common physics of superconductors and ferromagnets. The mechanical angular momentum of the
 carriers giving rise to magnetization is $\hbar/2$ in both cases.
 }
 \label{figure1}
 \end{figure}

In the presence of spin-orbit interaction, the canonical momentum of an electron of spin $\sigma$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\vec{p}=m_e\vec{v}_\sigma+\frac{e}{c}(\vec{A}+\vec{A}_\sigma)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\vec{A}_\sigma=\frac{\hbar}{4m_ec}\vec{\sigma}\times\vec{E}
\end{equation}
is the spin-orbit vector potential derived from the Dirac equation in the presence of  electric field $\vec{E}$ \cite{bohr}.
Electrons in the superfluid move in a positive background of charge density $|e|n_s$, which gives rise to a radial
electric field (in a cylindrical geometry)
\begin{equation}
\vec{E}=2\pi |e|n_s\vec{r}
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
\vec{A}_\sigma=-2\pi n_s\frac{e\hbar}{2m_ec}\frac{\vec{\sigma}\times\vec{r}}{2}\equiv \frac{\vec{H}_\sigma\times\vec{r}}{2}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\vec{H}_\sigma=-2\pi n_s\mu_B\vec{\sigma}=2\pi n_s\vec{\mu}=\frac{\hbar c}{4e\lambda_L^2} \vec{\sigma}
\end{equation}
the `spin-orbit magnetic field'. By this we mean, $H_\sigma$ is the magnetic field that would exert the same force
on the moving charge e as the electric field exerts on the moving magnetic moment $\mu_B$.

In the superconducting state the canonical momentum $p=0$, hence from Eq. (6)
\begin{equation}
m_e\vec{v}_\sigma=-\frac{e}{c}(\vec{A}+\vec{A}_\sigma)
\end{equation}
and the mechanical momentum is
\begin{equation}
m_ev_\sigma=\frac{e}{c}\lambda_L(H+H_\sigma) ;
\end{equation}
In particular, for $H=0$ Eqs. (10) and (12) yield, using Eq. (4)
\begin{equation}
m_ev_\sigma=\frac{1}{2\lambda_L}\frac{\hbar}{2}
\end{equation}
hence from Eq. (5)
\begin{equation}
\ell=\frac{\hbar}{2}
\end{equation}

Therefore,   in the absence of applied magnetic field, superconducting electrons reside in
orbits of radius $2\lambda_L$, and carry orbital angular momentum $\hbar/2$, in opposite direction for
opposite spin. This gives rise to macroscopic zero point motion, a spin current that flows within a London
penetration depth of the surface, an Amperian `molecular current' without magnetization. As a magnetic field is applied, magnetization develops by having the electrons with spin
antiparallel to the magnetic field speed up and those with spin parallel to the magnetic field slow down,
giving rise to a charge current flowing within $\lambda_L$ of the surface. The lower critical field
of type II superconductors
\begin{equation}
H_{c1}=-\frac{\hbar c}{4e\lambda_L^2}
\end{equation}
is precisely the same as the spin-orbit field Eq. 10. This implies that when the applied
magnetic field reaches this value one of the spin current components becomes zero, the
supercurrent stops flowing and superconductivity is destroyed, allowing the magnetic
 field to penetrate \cite{sm,copses}.

In recent experimental work \cite{tallon,tallon2}  it has been shown that the critical current that gives rise to onset of dissipation
in type II superconductors is   given by the universal form
\begin{equation}
J_c=\frac{c}{4\pi\lambda_L}H_{c1}
\end{equation}
with $H_{c1}$ given by Eq. (15), independent of what the actual value of the magnetic field is at the boundary
of the sample. The actual value of the magnetic field can vary by orders of magnitude depending on the sample
size and geometry  \cite{tallon,tallon2}. This finding implies that what determines the onset of dissipation is not vortex formation, but
rather that the carriers of the supercurrent $J_c=n_sev_c$ reach a critical speed $v_c$. From Eqs. (15) and (16)
\begin{equation}
v_c=\frac{\hbar}{4m_e\lambda_L}
\end{equation}
which is the speed of the spin current Eq. (13).
In other words, dissipation sets in when one of the components
of the spin current comes to a stop. At this point the extra kinetic energy due to the charge current flow becomes equal to the condensation energy \cite{copses}.

            \begin{figure}
 \resizebox{7.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig2.eps}}
 \caption {  A magnetic field is applied to a superconductor at rest. A Faraday electric field $E_F$  is generated in the clockwise direction,
 opposing the change in magnetic flux. $E_F$  pushes positive ions (negative electrons) in clockwise (counterclockwise) direction. The body acquires angular momentum
 $\vec{L}_i$  antiparallel to the
 applied magnetic field  and the supercurrent acquires angular momentum $\vec{L}_e=-\vec{L}_i$ parallel to the magnetic field.
 }
 \label{figure1}
 \end{figure}

\section{momentum transfer to the body}

When the magnetization of the superconducting body changes, the mechanical angular momentum of the body has to change
to compensate the mechanical angular momentum change of the electrons carrying the supercurrent.
It is easy to understand how this happens when an external magnetic field is applied to a superconductor \cite{momentum}:
the Faraday electric field generated by the change in magnetic flux exerts a force on the electrons in one direction
to generate the supercurrent and associated magnetization, and on  the positive ions in the opposite direction making the body as a whole
rotate, as shown in Figure 2. This has been verified experimentally (gyromagnetic effect in superconductors) \cite{gyro}.

Instead, it is not easy to understand how the angular momentum of the body changes when the supercurrent
and magnetization
change as a result of a change in temperature. In an applied magnetic field $H$,
there is a critical temperature $T_c(H)$. If initially $T$ is slightly below $T_c(H)$ a supercurrent flows, and
as the temperature is raised above $T_c(H)$ the supercurrent stops as the system becomes normal.
Conversely, starting with temperature slightly above $T_c(H)$, if the temperature is lowered a supercurrent is
spontaneously generated that expels the magnetic field as the system becomes superconducting.

The reason this is not easy to understand is because as these changes occur a Faraday electric field is generated
that opposes these changes. In other words, the Faraday field pushes both the electrons and the body to move
in direction exactly opposite to the direction they move. What is the driving force for the electron motion, and what
is the driving force for the body motion?

The answers within the conventional theory of superconductivity
\cite{eilen,scal,halp} are shown schematically in Figure 3.
The conventional theory assumes that when the system becomes normal
Cooper pairs carrying the supercurrent dissociate, the resulting normal
electrons inherit the center of mass momentum of the Cooper pairs, and transfer it to the body as a whole through impurity scattering, as shown
in Fig. 3a. In the reverse transformation (Meissner effect), it assumes that carriers becoming superconducting `spontaneously'
acquire the momentum of the supercurrent, leaving behind normal carriers with opposite momentum that
transfer it to the body as a whole through impurity scattering, as shown in Fig. 3b.

           \begin{figure}
 \resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig3.eps}}
 \caption { Long cylinders seen from the top. Magnetic field $H$ is parallel to the cylinder axis.  (a) Superconductor goes normal
 (S-N transition). As the phase boundary moves inward, a clockwise Faraday
 electric field $E_F$ is generated. $E_F$ pushes positive ions in clockwise direction, and negative electrons in the supercurrent
 in counterclockwise direction. Instead, body starts rotating in counterclockwise direction and the counterclockwise
 supercurrent stops.
  According to the conventional theory, the supercurrent is stopped by impurity scattering, and these scattering processes
 transfer the counterclockwise momentum of the supercurrent to the body.
 (b) Reverse (N-S, or Meissner) transition.  As the phase boundary moves outward, a counterclockwise Faraday
 electric field $E_F$ is generated. $E_F$ pushes positive ions in counterclockwise direction, and negative electrons in the supercurrent
 in clockwise direction. Instead, body starts rotating in clockwise direction and a counterclockwise
 supercurrent is spontaneously generated.
 }
 \label{figure1}
 \end{figure}

 Note  the role played by the Faraday field. In the S-N transition, it accelerates the supercurrent in the S region close to the boundary and it
 transfers momentum to the ions in that region in clockwise direction, opposite to the motion of the body. Thus, the total  momentum that needs to be
 transferred to the body by impurity scattering is much larger (by a factor $R/(3\lambda_L)$, with $R$ the radius of the cylinder)
  than the momentum acquired by the body, since it has to compensate
 the momentum in opposite direction transferred by the Faraday field. Similarly in the N-S transition, with the signs of momenta
 reversed.

A fundamental   problem with the conventional explanation   is that it relies on impurity scattering to transfer momentum between the electrons and the
body as a whole. Impurity scattering is an inherently  irreversible process, whether it is elastic or inelastic.
A normal electron with the momentum of a supercurrent electron will scatter in a random direction, but a normal electron incident from a
random direction will not be scattered to acquire the momentum of the supercurrent electron.
These scattering processes increase the entropy of the universe, no matter how slowly the transition proceeds. However,
the superconductor-normal transition is known to be a thermodynamically reversible process, that can occur
(under ideal conditions) with no change in the entropy of the universe \cite{gorter,revers}. A valid theory of superconductivity has to have
the ability to explain how momentum is transferred {\it in a reversible way} between the electronic degrees of freedom
and the body as a whole. We have called this `the central question in superconductivity' \cite{centralquestion}.

             \begin{figure}
 \resizebox{7.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig4.eps}}
 \caption { When an electron expands or contracts its orbit in a perpendicular magnetic field its azimuthal
 velocity changes proportionally to the radius of the orbit due to the azimuthal Lorentz force acting on the radially
 outgoing or ingoing charge.
 }
 \label{figure1}
 \end{figure}

 The theory of hole superconductivity \cite{holesc} provides a possible answer to this question. We are not aware that any other answer
exists or is possible.  There are two key parts to the question: (1) how do the electrons lose or acquire their momentum? (2) how does
the body acquire or lose its momentum? The essence of the answer is that the momentum transfer is mediated by
the electromagnetic field \cite{momentum}. It does not involve any scattering processes, hence it is inherently $reversible$.

First, how do electrons acquire or lose their momentum reversibly? We   propose that this results from expansion or contraction
of electronic orbits, as shown schematically in Fig. 4.
The expansion of the orbits when the system goes superconducting is driven by lowering of quantum
kinetic energy \cite{meissnerorigin}. When the orbit expands from a microscopic radius to an orbit of radius $r$, the magnetic Lorentz force on the radially outgoing  motion generates an azimuthal velocity \cite{copses}
\begin{equation}
v_\phi=-\frac{er}{2m_ec}H  .
\end{equation}
Thus, when the orbit expands to radius $r=2\lambda_L$ the electron acquires the azimuthal speed of the Meissner current
Eq. (3). Similarly, when the orbit shrinks from radius $2\lambda_L$ to a microscopic radius the azimuthal Lorentz
force acts in the opposite direction and the supercurrent stops. According to the theory of hole superconductivity when electrons
form a Cooper pair and become part of the superconducting condensate their orbits expand from microscopic radius to radius $2\lambda_L$, and conversely
when electrons depair and become normal the orbits shrink from radius $2\lambda_L$ to a microscopic radius.
This reversible expansion or contraction of the orbits explains how the supercurrent starts and stops in a given
external magnetic field.

The second part of the question is, how does the body as a whole acquire a compensating momentum in the opposite direction?
In the  process just described, momentum conservation holds because  as the orbits expand or contract and
the azimuthal momentum of the electron changes
a compensating azimuthal momentum is stored in the electromagnetic field, as explained in \cite{momentum}. That momentum
is retrieved by a radial flow of normal charge to compensate for the radial charge redistribution that occurs when the
electronic orbit expands or contracts. Here is where the hole-like nature of the normal state charge carriers plays a key role.

             \begin{figure}
 \resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig5.eps}}
 \caption { (a) S-N transition and (b)  N-S transition according to the theory of hole superconductivity.
The supercurrent electrons acquire or lose their momentum through the Lorentz force as the orbits
expand or shrink (dotted circles). The expansion or contraction of the orbits causes radial charge flow,
and there is a radial backflow of normal state charge to preserve charge neutrality.
The backflow is in the form of normal holes moving in the same direction as the phase boundary. Electric and magnetic
forces on the holes ($F_E$ and $F_H$) are balanced so the motion is purely radial. }
 \label{figure1}
 \end{figure}

Figure 5 explains the physics of the process. In (a), the superconducting region is shrinking. $2\lambda_L$ orbits
at the boundary of the N-S region are contracting, which imparts the electron with a clockwise azimuthal impulse,
stopping the supercurrent. At the same time, to compensate for the radial inflow of negative charge, a backflow of
normal charge occurs: normal state hole carriers flow radially inward at speed $\dot{r}_0$, the speed of motion of the phase boundary.  Similarly, when the superconducting region expands (Fig. 5(b)), expansion of the orbits imparts electrons
with a counterclockwise azimuthal impulse, generating the supercurrent, there is a radial outflow of negative
charge and backflow occurs as a compensating radial outflow of positive hole carriers to maintain charge neutrality.

              \begin{figure}
 \resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig6.eps}}
 \caption { Figure 5  redrawn replacing the backflowing holes by electrons flowing in the opposite direction.
 The electric and magnetic forces on electrons
 $F_E$ and $F_H$ point in the same direction, making it clear that another force must exist,
 $F_{latt}$, exerted by the periodic potential of the ions on the charge carriers.
 By Newton's third law, an equal and opposite force is exerted by the charge carriers on the ions,
 $F_{on-latt}$, that makes the body rotate.
 }
 \label{figure1}
 \end{figure}

The azimuthal forces on this backflow of inflowing or outflowing hole carriers
are $F_H$ and $F_E$ shown in Fig. 5. $F_H$ is the magnetic Lorentz force  and
$F_E$ is the electric force due to the Faraday field $E_F$, which  is given according to Faraday's law  by
\begin{equation}
E_F=\frac{\dot{r}_0}{c}H .
\end{equation}
Thus, $eE_F$ is precisely the magnetic Lorentz force on the hole carriers   in opposite direction to the electric force, the
azimuthal forces on the holes exactly cancel out and the hole motion is radial.

Now in order to understand how the transfer of momentum happens we need to remember that holes are just a theoretical construct, the actual carriers of charge in a metal are always electrons of negative charge.
So we redraw the backflows of holes in Figure 5 in terms of electrons that flow in opposite direction to the
motion of the phase boundary in Figure 6. Note that now the electric and magnetic forces on these electrons are $not$ balanced, rather
they point in the same direction. To recover force balance we need to
add another force $F_{latt}$, which is a transverse force that the periodic ionic potential exerts on
the charge carriers moving in crossed electric and magnetic field {\it when the charge carriers are holes}.
By Newton's third law, there is an equal opposite force exerted by the electrons on the ions, which
we denote by $F_{on-latt}$. This force acts in the direction of the body rotation, it is in fact the force that makes the body rotate.

If the normal state charge carriers were electrons rather than holes, there would be no $F_{latt}$ in Fig. 6 and the transverse
electric and magnetic forces would be unbalanced resulting in an azimuthal charge flow that would give rise to
dissipation and irreversibility. Note also that in the absence of backflow there would be an azimuthal current induced by
the Faraday field that would also give rise to dissipation and irreversibility \cite{revers}.

In summary, the transverse force exerted by the ions on the backflowing electrons
{\it for materials where the normal state charge carriers are holes} transfers momentum to the
electrons, and by the same token electrons transfer momentum to the ions and hence to the body as a whole,
making the body rotate and accounting for momentum conservation. This explains how the momentum
acquired or lost by the supercurrent becomes momentum of the body as a whole without any irreversible
scattering processes. The essential ingredient to make this happen is that the normal state carriers
are holes, or equivalently have negative effective mass.
For this reason superconductivity can only
occur if normal state charge carriers are holes. If normal state carriers are electrons there is no
reversible mechanism for momentum transfer between charge carriers and the body and
the normal-superconductor and superconductor-normal transitions, as we know them to take place in
nature, cannot take place.

Here we have only discussed the simplest scenario where the superconducting phase grows or shrinks
with azimuthal symmetry, as shown in Figs. 3, 5 and 6. The same principles are of course at work  in more general situations,
e.g. where the superconducting phase grows by nucleation of many different domains that develop separately and
then merge. Growing domains expel negative charge as they grow, and
there is a backflow of negative charge carried by outflowing normal hole-like carriers. It has just come to our attention that
some elements of this physics have been proposed earlier  by W. H. Cherry and J. I. Gittleman \cite{cg} as being relevant to
the understanding of the Meissner effect.

\section{conclusions}
Since the work of Einstein and de Haas we have known that angular momentum and magnetic moment
are intimately coupled. Both in ferromagnets and in superconductors angular momentum and magnetic moments
are part of the essential physics. In ferromagnets, we know  that
the electron intrinsic magnetic moment $\mu_B$ and its  spin angular momentum
$\hbar/2$ play a key role. However, within the conventional theory of superconductivity \cite{tinkham} the electron spin plays only the
role of labeling states, and the electron's intrinsic magnetic moment plays no role.
Instead, within the theory of hole superconductivity the electron spin and its associated magnetic moment play a
key role.  The theory predicts that just like in ferromagnets there are Amperian ``molecular currents'' composed of elementary units
with mechanical angular momentum $\hbar/2$. These elementary units are electrons in $2\lambda_L$ mesoscopic orbits
orbiting with speed Eq. (17). They acquire this speed as the orbit expands, through the spin-orbit interaction of the
electron magnetic moment with the background electric field of the positive ions \cite{sm,bohr}.
The $orbital$ magnetic moment of electrons in these orbits is $\mu_B/2$, in direction opposite to the
intrinsic electron magnetic moment \cite{100}. When an external magnetic field is applied, the speed of electrons in these orbits is
modified to give rise to the macroscopic magnetization that opposes flux penetration. If the system becomes superconducting
in a magnetic field, the expansion of the orbits provides a dynamical explanation of the Meissner effect, that is
not provided by the conventional theory.

Using these concepts together with the essential fact that the normal state charge carriers are holes we are able to
completely describe the physics that takes place when either magnetization or angular momentum \cite{lm,lm2} changes in
superconductors,
in a way that satisfies the conservation laws, explains the physical processes by which  momentum is transferred between different components
of the system,  and respects the fact that the processes are reversible under ideal
conditions. We cannot say the same thing about ferromagnets. Even though conservation laws will tell us what
happens when magnetization or angular momentum change in ferromagnets, we don't know yet  the detailed
processes by which change in one leads to change in the other. Perhaps thinking about  the way superconductors do it will
help to eventually understand  how ferromagnets do it.


\section{Introduction}

Cataclysmic variables (CVs) are binary systems in close orbit in which a
  secondary component, typically a late-type dwarf, giant or sub-giant star,
transfers H-rich material to the white dwarf (WD)
  main component via an accretion disc
  or directly onto the surface of highly magnetized WDs.
This material builds up onto the WD surface until it reaches
a critical mass limit and experiences a thermonuclear runaway in a
classical nova (CN) event.
Significant amounts of highly processed material ($10^{-5}-10^{-4} M_\odot$)
are ejected at high speeds ($\sim$1000 km~s$^{-1}$).
The expansion of the nebular shell into the interstellar
medium (ISM) can be followed in the next years \citep{Evans_etal1992}.

Nebular shells around CNe are scarce \citep{Sahman_etal2015},
  but their morphologies provide important clues about
  the geometry of the ejecta \citep[e.g., in HR\,Del,][]{HO2003,MD2009} and
  its interactions with the circumstellar material and newly developed stellar
  winds \citep[e.g., as in DQ\,Her and RR\,Pic,][]{GO1998,VOR2007}.
  They can also be used to determine important properties of the
  binary system, such as its orbit inclination
  \citep[e.g., in V2491\,Cyg,][]{Retal2011}, whereas the distance
  and age of the nova event can be derived in conjunction with
  kinematic information \citep{GO2000} or via the expansion
  parallax \citep{DD2000}.
  The shape of the nova shell is probably correlated with the nova
  speed class \citep{SOD1995}.

There are, however, very few studies on the angular expansion of nova
shells.  \citet{Shara_etal2012a} could not detect expansion in
 the nebular remnant of Z\,Cam, while
\citet{Chesneau_etal2012} had to resort to NACO/Very Large Telescope
(VLT) adaptive optics to detect the expansion of the
  nova shell around V1280\,Sco. The nova shell
GK\,Per is probably the best case study, with multiple knots expanding
isotropically at an angular velocity 0\farcs3-0\farcs5~yr$^{-1}$
\citep{Shara_etal2012b,Liimets_etal2012}.  The expansion velocity of
these knots has remained unchanged since their ejection about a
century ago.  This is somehow surprising, because individual knots
reveal notable interactions with each other and with the ISM
\citep{Harvey_etal2016}.

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Knots.eps}
\hspace{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Box.eps}
\caption{
NOT ALFOSC 2017 color-composite picture ([N~{\sc ii}] = red; [O~{\sc iii}]
= blue) of the nova J210204.
  In this picture, the ring of [N~{\sc ii}]-bright knots shows up in magenta,
  whereas the [O~{\sc iii}]-bright bow-shock does in blue.
The left and right panel shows the identification of individual features
and boxes used to determine the expansion of the nova using the PCC and QM
methods, respectively (see text for details).
The size of the arrows in both panels is proportional to the angular
expansion.
}
\label{fig:img}
\end{figure*}

Since the expansion of a nova shell varies according to the local
properties of the ISM, each object is by itself a case study
offering the possibility to investigate the interaction of highly processed
material with the ISM and its subsequent dispersal into the Galaxy
\citep{Shara_etal2017}.
Here we present an analysis of the expansion of the recently discovered CN
shell IPHASX\,J210204.7+471015 \citep[hereafter J210204,][]{Guerrero_etal2018}
using multi-epoch images and high-dispersion spectra.
The observational material in this work is presented in \S2.
The present day expansion of the nova, its expansion velocity and
distance, and its long-term expansion and age are reported in \S3,
\S4, and \S5, respectively.
Finally a short discussion of these results are presented in \S6.

\section{Observations} \label{sec:observations}

\subsection{Multi-epoch Imaging}

Contemporary narrow-band images of J210204 were obtained using the
Andalucia Faint Object Spectrograph and Camera (ALFOSC) attached to the 2.5m
Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) of the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory (ORM)
in La Palma, Spain.
The images were obtained during three different runs in 2015 July 19,
2016 November 26, and 2017 May 28.
The E2V 42-40 2k$\times$2k CCD with pixel size 13.5 $\mu$m was used
in 2015, providing a plate scale of 0\farcs189 pix$^{-1}$ and a field
of view (FoV) of 6\farcm5 arcmin, whereas the E2V 231-42 2k$\times$2k
CCD with pixel size 15.0 $\mu$m was used in 2016 and 2017, providing
a plate scale of 0\farcs211 pix$^{-1}$ and a FoV of 7\farcm2 arcmin.
The 2015 images were acquired through [N~{\sc ii}]
($\lambda_c$=6583 {\AA}, $\Delta\lambda$=36 \AA) and [O~{\sc iii}]
($\lambda_c$=5007 {\AA}, $\Delta\lambda$=43 \AA)
narrow-band filters with total exposure times of 900 and 600 s,
respectively.
The 2016 images were acquired through the same [N~{\sc ii}]
narrow-band filter with total exposure time of 1,800 s.
Although the bandwidth of this [N~{\sc ii}] filter includes the
H$\alpha$ line, the contribution of this line to the [N~{\sc ii}] image
presented here is negligible as the H$\alpha$ line emission is considerably
weaker than the [N~{\sc ii}] emission \citep{Guerrero_etal2018}.
The 2017 images were acquired through [N~{\sc ii}]
($\lambda_c$=6584 \AA, $\Delta\lambda$=10 \AA) and [O~{\sc iii}]
($\lambda_c$=5007 \AA, $\Delta\lambda$=30 \AA) narrow-band
filters with total exposure times of 1,800 and 3,600 s, respectively.
All images were processed using standard {\sc IRAF}\footnote{
  {\sc IRAF} is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory,
  which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
  Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science
  Foundation.
} routines.
  In all cases, images were bias subtracted and flat-field corrected
  using appropriate sky flat field frames.
  Multiple exposures (typically three) were obtained and combined to
  reject cosmic ray hits.
  A small (few arcsec) dither was applied between individual exposures
  to improve the image cosmetics.
The spatial resolution, as determined from the FWHM of field
stars, was 0\farcs6 in 2015, 0\farcs6 in 2016, and 0\farcs7
in 2017.

Intermediate-epoch narrow-band H$\alpha$ images of J210204 obtained
in 2003 and 2009 were downloaded from the IPHAS database
\citep[the INT Photometric H$\alpha$ Survey,][]{Drew_etal2005}.
The images were obtained using the Wide Field Camera (WFC),
with a plate scale of 0\farcs3 pix$^{-1}$ and FoV 30$^\prime$.
Exposure times were 120 s, with typical spatial resolution of
1\farcs4.
An additional 1,200 s INT WFC H$\alpha$ image obtained in 2007
with similar image quality was also used.

Early broad-band images of J210204 are available in
the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS).
A POSS-I-E image was obtained on 1952 July 20 with the Palomar Schmidt
telescope on a red-sensitive 103aE plate with a plexi filter.
The exposure time was 5 min.
The image has a plate scale of 1\farcs7 pix$^{-1}$ and a spatial
resolution of 3\farcs5.
A POSS-II-F UKSTU Red image was obtained on 1990 September 19, with the
Oschin Schmidt Telescope on a IIIaF plate with a RG610 filter.
The exposure time was 6 min.
The image has a plate scale of 1\farcs0 pix$^{-1}$ and a spatial
resolution of 3\farcs0.
We emphasize that the DSS broadband images and INT narrowband H$\alpha$
images are mostly dominated by the [N~{\sc ii}] $\lambda\lambda$6548,6584
emission lines, thus allowing a direct comparison with the NOT narrow-band
[N~{\sc ii}] images.

\subsection{Spectroscopy}

High-dispersion long-slit echelle spectra of J210204 were obtained using
the Manchester Echelle Spectrometer (MES) at the 2.1m telescope of the
Observatorio Astron\'omico Nacional at San Pedro M\'artir, Mexico (OAN-SPM)
on 2016 April 19.
MES was used with a 6\farcm5-long slit using an H$\alpha$ filter to isolate
the H$\alpha$ and [N~{\sc ii}] $\lambda\lambda$6548,6584 emission lines.
The E2V~42-40 CCD was used with a 4$\times$4 binning, resulting in
a plate scale of 0\farcs702 pix$^{-1}$ and a spectral scale of 0.1
\AA~pix$^{-1}$.
The slit width of 150 $\mu$m (1\farcs9) implies a spectral
resolution of $\simeq$12$\pm$1 km~s$^{-1}$.
  A single exposure of 1800 s was obtained.
  The data were reduced using standard {\sc IRAF} routines to subtract
  the bias and rectify the spectrum and apply a wavelength calibration
  using a ThAr arc spectrum obtained at the same telescope position as
  the science exposure.
  The wavelength-calibration resulted in an accuracy $\sim$1 km~s$^{-1}$.

In this work we also use the GTC OSIRIS intermediate-dispersion
spectra presented by \citet{Guerrero_etal2018}.
Although these data have low spectral dispersion, $\simeq$9 \AA,
i.e.\ $\approx$400 km~s$^{-1}$ at the [N~{\sc ii}] $\lambda$6584
\AA\ emission line, a Gaussian fit can provide a measurement of
the centroid of a well-detected line with an accuracy $\sim$10\%
the line width.

\section{Current Nova Expansion} \label{sec:today_expansion}

  A color-composite picture of the 2017 images of J210204 is
  shown in Figure~\ref{fig:img}.
  The nova shell J210204 presents a multitude of [N~{\sc ii}]-bright knots
  distributed along a broken ring.
  The morphology of this arc is very similar to the $\sim$3$^\prime$
  in size ring of the shell surrounding the dwarf nova AT\,Cnc
  \citep{Shara_etal2012c}.
  In contrast to that nova shell, J210204 displays an additional
  bow-shock-like structure very prominent in the [O~{\sc iii}]
  emission line.
  The chemical abundances differences between the ring and bow-shock
  structures imply that the ring is composed of freshly nova ejecta,
  whereas the bow-shock consists mainly of piled up ISM material.
  The reader is referred to \citet{Guerrero_etal2018} for further details.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=20 90 700 850,width=0.5\textwidth]{fit.eps}
\caption{
Minimization of the expansion rate and magnification factor for one
same knot of J210204 using the PCC, SF-QM, and GS-QM methods described
in the text.
The knot has label \emph{``3''} in Figure~\ref{fig:img}-{\it left}
for the PCC method, and labels
\emph{``c''} and \emph{``B''} in Figure~\ref{fig:img}-{\it right}
for the SF-QM and GS-QM methods, respectively.
For the PCC method, the vertical axis corresponds to residuals between the
spatial profiles, whereas for the QM method it corresponds to standard
deviation.
Units in the vertical axis have been normalized and shifted
for easy comparison.
The vertical blue dashed lines mark the best-fit expansion for
each method.
\label{fig:prof}
}
\end{figure}

An inspection of the July 2015 and May 2017 images reveals the nova
expansion.
To quantify the current expansion of J210204 and to investigate possible
anisotropies, the images from these two epochs were compared using
different methods.
As a preliminary step, the images were accurately registered using
30 reference stars in the FoV, the pixel size of the 2017 images
(0\farcs211 pix$^{-1}$) was scaled to that of the 2015 images
(0\farcs189 pix$^{-1}$), and the surface brightness normalized
to the nebular peak value.

\begin{table}
\caption{J210204 expansion measurements}
	\centering
	\label{tab:example_table}
	\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
		\hline
		\hline
          Feature & Emission & Angular & Expansion & Magnification   \\
		 Label     & Line         & Expansion & Rate & $f$  \\
		               &                 &  ($^{\prime\prime}$)     & ($^{\prime\prime}$ yr$^{-1}$) &  \\
	\hline
	\multicolumn{5}{c}{PCC $\equiv$ Profile Cross-Correlation } \\
	\hline
 1	& [N {\sc ii}] &	0.142	    &	0.0753  &	0.0043 \\
 2  & [N {\sc ii}] &	0.203	    &	0.1075  &	0.0066 \\
 3 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.150	    &	0.0794  &	0.0067 \\
 4 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.116	    &	0.0613  &	0.0047 \\
 5 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.068	    &	0.0361  &	0.0051 \\
 6 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.156	    &	0.0824  &	0.0079 \\
 7 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.161	    &	0.0854  &	0.0065 \\
 8 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.173	    &	0.0914  &	0.0057 \\
 9 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.213	    &	0.1125  &	0.0061 \\
10 &  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.133	    &	0.0703  &	0.0048 \\
11 	&  [N {\sc ii}] & 0.221	    &	0.1166  &	0.0083 \\
12 &  [O {\sc iii}] &	0.127	    &	0.0673  &	0.0026 \\
     \hline
     \multicolumn{5}{c}{SF-QM $\equiv$ Single Feature Quantified Magnification } \\
	\hline
a 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.148	    &	0.0784  &	0.0044 \\
 b 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.110	    &	0.0583  &	0.0036 \\
 c 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.136	    &	0.0723  &	0.0061 \\
 d 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.093	    &	0.0492  &	0.0038 \\
 e 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.079	    &	0.0422  &	0.0059 \\
 f 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.134	    &	0.0713  &	0.0072 \\
 g 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.134	    &	0.0713  &	0.0056 \\
 h 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.169	    &	0.0894  &	0.0057 \\
 i 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.212	    &	0.1125  &	0.0061 \\
 j 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.144	    &	0.0764  &	0.0053 \\
 k 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.115	    &	0.0613  &	0.0044 \\
 \hline
 \multicolumn{5}{c}{GS-QM $\equiv$ Global Structure Quantified Magnification } \\
	\hline
 A 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.136	    &	0.0723  &	0.0045 \\
 B 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.114	    &	0.0603  &	0.0052 \\
 C &  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.096	    &	0.0512  &	0.0059 \\
 D &  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.115	    &	0.0613  &	0.0068 \\
 E 	&  [N {\sc ii}] &	0.152	    &	0.0804  &	0.0052 \\
 G &  [O {\sc iii}] &	0.108	    &	0.0573  &	0.0021 \\
 H &  [O {\sc iii}] &	0.098	    &	0.0522  &	0.0021 \\
  \hline
	\end{tabular}
	\label{tab:exp}
\end{table}

The first method consisted in the cross-correlation of radial profiles
extracted along directions chosen to include prominent knots and
filaments.
We will refer to it as the Profile Cross-Correlation (PCC) method.
A set of twelve features were considered, as labeled in
Figure~\ref{fig:img}-{\it left}.
The radial profiles extracted from the 2015 images were then
shifted and its difference with respect to the profiles from
the 2017 images computed to derive the shift that minimizes
this difference, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:prof}.
The expansion rate for the aforementioned features are listed in
Table~\ref{tab:exp}, where features 1-11 correspond to the
[N~{\sc ii}] image and feature 12 to the [O~{\sc iii}] image.

The second method consisted in the minimization of residuals
between images of different epochs.
In this method, that will be referred to as the Quantified Magnification
(QM) method, the 2015 images are magnified by a factor 1+\emph{f} and
then subtracted from the corresponding 2017 images.
The best magnification factor \emph{f} is derived by computing the
statistics in the difference image in boxes around prominent features
and minimizing the dispersion (Fig.~\ref{fig:prof}), i.e., looking
for the difference image with the smallest noise.
This procedure is methodologically similar to that
applied by \citet{Szyszka_etal2011} using the IDL
routine MPFIT \citep{Markwardt2009} to the planetary
nebula NGC\,6302.
Eleven small boxes around the single features (SF-QM method) labeled with
lowercase letters in Figure~\ref{fig:img}-{\it right}, and eight large
boxes around global structures (GS-QM method) labeled with uppercase
letters in the same figure were considered.
The magnification factors for these boxes are listed in
Table~\ref{tab:exp}, where \emph{a}-\emph{k} correspond to
single features in [N~{\sc ii}]\footnote{
For a fair comparison between the PCC and QM methods, the 11 features
selected for the PCC method correspond to the 11 features selected for
the SF-QM method.}, \emph{A}-\emph{F} to global
structures in [N~{\sc ii}], and \emph{G}-\emph{H} to global
structures in [O~{\sc iii}].

Table~\ref{tab:exp} compiles the magnification factors \emph{f} and
expansion rates derived for different features of J210204 using the
PCC and QM methods.
The averaged magnification factors for the [N~{\sc ii}] ring are
0.0061$\pm$0.0013 for the PCC method,
0.0053$\pm$0.0011 for the SF-QM method, and
0.0057$\pm$0.0009 for the GS-QM method,
i.e.\ they agree within the 1-$\sigma$ standard deviation.
The comparison between these methods is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:prof}
for the particular case of knot \emph{3}$\equiv$\emph{c}$\equiv$\emph{B},
for which the three methods provides very similar values of the expansion
rate.
This is the general rule, but features \emph{2}$\equiv$\emph{b}
and \emph{11}$\equiv$\emph{k} exhibit very discrepant values of
the expansion rates, which seem to be associated with noticeable
morphological changes in the features between the two epochs.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=60 80 760 710,width=0.515\textwidth]{figure3.eps}
\caption{
OAN-SPM 2.1m MES gray-scale position-velocity (PV) map over-plotted
with GTC OSIRIS data points (red squares).
The blue dotted line marks the LSR radial velocity of J210204.
The solid red ellipse is the best-fit model to the expansion
of the ring of J210204.
  \label{fig:kin}}
\end{figure}

The averaged magnification factor is 0.0057$\pm$0.0012 for the ring
and 0.0023$\pm$0.0003 for the bow-shock.
The small dispersion of the magnification factor of the ring,
$\approx$20\% the value of the magnification factor, implies
that the ring expands mostly coherently.
It also implies that there are no significant anisotropies.
Otherwise, there is a noticeable difference for the expansion rate
derived for the ring and the bow-shock.
At the tip of the ring, the magnification factor implies an
angular expansion rate 0\farcs100$\pm$0\farcs021~yr$^{-1}$,
while it is 0\farcs059$\pm$0\farcs008~yr$^{-1}$ for the bow-shock.

\section{Nova Expansion Velocity and Distance} \label{sec:kinematics}

  The GTC OSIRIS and OAN-SPM MES data used in this work can be used
  to build a spatio-kinematics model of the ring of J210204 aiming
  at deriving an averaged expansion velocity.
The MES 6\farcm5-long slit, placed across the main ring of
J210204 along of position angle of --13$^\circ$, results in
the position-velocity (PV) map shown in Figure~\ref{fig:kin}.
The OSIRIS slits A and C presented by \citet{Guerrero_etal2018} contain
information on the region of the ring probed by the MES slit, thus the
velocity of discrete knots along these OSIRIS slits has been measured,
corrected to the local standard of rest (LSR) system, and over-plotted
on the MES PV map in Figure~\ref{fig:kin}.
We note that the MES data have higher resolution than the
OSIRIS data, but the latter have much higher sensitivity.

  The kinematics derived from these data confirm the high-velocity of the
  knots.
  Compared to the systemic velocity of the nova shell, which is here
  assumed to be that of the central star, $V_\mathrm{LSR}=+17.5$ km~s$^{-1}$
  \citep{Guerrero_etal2018}, the knots in the ring of J210204 are mostly
  distributed along an arc with radial systemic velocities up to $-200$
  km~s$^{-1}$.
  Although the MES PV map reveals features with notably higher expansion
  velocities, up to $-300$ km~s$^{-1}$, the general kinematics and morphology
  of the [N~{\sc ii}] ring are coherent, implying ordered motion patterns.
  Following other spatio-kinematics models of nova shells, two basic
  geometrical models can be adopted to describe the observed kinematics
  and morphology of this structure:
  a homologous expanding prolate ellipsoid \citep[as in DQ\,Her,][]{VOR2007}
  or a flat ring expanding at constant speed \citep[as the equatorial rings of
  the bipolar nova shells FH\,Ser and HR\,Del,][]{GO2000,HO2003}.
  In the former case, a noticeable line tilt at the tip of the major axis
  would be expected \citep[as in the Ring Nebula,][]{Guerrero_etal1997},
  thus we have adopted a model consisting of an expanding flat circular
  ring.
  Note that an oblate ellipsoid would result in a very similar
  velocity field and morphology.

  The ring inclination angle with respect to the line of sight has been
  adopted to be 53$^\circ\pm$8$^\circ$, as derived from the observed ring
  aspect ratio, assuming it is the elliptical projection onto the sky of
  a circular ring.

The data points and PV maps in Figure~\ref{fig:kin} have then
been fitted using a least-square minimization method.
The expansion velocity is derived to be 285$\pm$30 km~s$^{-1}$, where the
error-bar already accounts for the uncertainty in the system inclination.
The expansion velocity of the ring, in conjunction with its
angular expansion, result in a distance of 0.60$\pm$0.13 kpc.
GAIA DR-2 provides a parallax for the central star of J210204 (source
ID \#2163877198882886656) of $\pi$=1.348$\pm$0.037 milli-arcsec,
i.e.\ a distance of 0.74$\pm$0.03 kpc, which is
  very similar to the value derived in this work.

\section{Long-term Nova Expansion and Age} \label{sec:yesterday_expansion}

The long-term expansion of J210204 is illustrated for the ring Southernmost
tip in Figure~\ref{fig:fig4} using 1952 and 1990 DSS, 2007 INT, and 2017 NOT
images.
The measurement of the expansion rate, however, is hampered by the
different plate scale and spatial resolution of these images.
To overcome this problem, radial profiles along selected directions
including isolated knots in the ring were extracted and the distances
of these knots to the central star were then determined.
Adopting for the ring the same geometrical model as in \S4, i.e.\ the ring
is a flat expanding circular ring tilted to the line of sight by 53$^\circ$,
the position angle on the sky of each of these knots and their radial
distances can be used to derive the semi-major axis of the ring at each
epoch.
The time evolution of the semi-major axis at different epochs
is plotted in the top-panel of Figure~\ref{fig:fig5}.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[bb=30 115 660 582,width=0.975\columnwidth]{figure4.eps}
\vspace*{-0.35cm}
\caption{
Gray-scale image of the Southernmost section of nova J210204 as seen
in 1952 (POSS-I-E), 1990 (POSS-II-F), 2007 (INT IPHAS), and 2017 (NOT).
North is up, east to the left.
The nova expansion can be compared with fiducial background stars
marked by red lines.
The central star of J210204 is marked by a red arrow.
\label{fig:fig4}
}
\end{figure}

A free expansion ($v_\mathrm{exp}=cte$) of J210204 would imply
the linear increase of radius with time shown by the blue line
in Figure~\ref{fig:fig5}-top, for a nova event time circa 1730.
The radius of J210204 in 1952, below this prediction,
indicates that the expansion of the ejecta is not free,
but it has slowed down with time.
Furthermore, a free expansion would imply an expansion velocity of
285~km~s$^{-1}$, which is lower than the typical initial expansion
velocity of novae.
Different expansions laws are investigated next to determine
the nova age from the observed angular expansion with time.

\citet{Duerbeck1987} assumed a quadratic law to describe a nova expansion:
\begin{equation} \hspace{2cm}
r = v_0\times(t-t_0) + a\times(t-t_0)^2
\end{equation}
The best fit to the data using this expansion law (green in
Fig.~\ref{fig:fig5}) suggests that the nova event took place
circa 1880 with initial expansion velocity 1050 km~s$^{-1}$.
Whereas an expansion law with a constant deceleration does not have a
physical support, we note that the fit underestimates the current
expansion rate of J210204 (lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fig5}).

In a supernova there is an initial phase of free expansion followed by a
deceleration phase, the Sedov-Taylor phase, which starts when the swept
mass is greater than the ejected mass.
The expansion is described by the following expressions
\citep{Sedov1959,Taylor1950}:
\begin{equation} \hspace{2cm}
r \propto (t - t_0)^{-0.6} ; \;\;\; v \propto (t - t_0)^{0.4},
\end{equation}
where an initial expansion velocity of 1200 km~s$^{-1}$
has been assumed.
Under this assumption, the phase of free expansion lasts $\sim$25 yr
(black lines in Figure~\ref{fig:fig5}), whereas in supernovae this phase
may last up to 1000 yr.
The nova event is estimated to have happened circa 1885.

In late evolutionary phases of supernovae the ejecta
cools down and expands against the ISM due to its own
inertia.
If we assume J210204 already entered this so-called momentum
conservation or snow-plow phase, its initial mass $m_0$ and
initial and present expansion velocities $v_0$ and $v$ are
related to the medium density $\rho_0$ as:
\begin{equation} \hspace{2.3cm}
m_0 v_0 = (m_0 + \dfrac{4\pi}{3} \rho_0 r^3 ) v
\end{equation}
resulting in the purple line in Figure~\ref{fig:fig5},
which implies the nova event took place in 1875 and
had an initial expansion velocity of 900 km~s$^{-1}$.

Finally, if J210204 were expanding as discrete bullets moving through
the ISM \citep{Williams2013}, its motion could be described by the drag
equation:
\begin{equation} \hspace{3.4cm}
a \propto -v^2
\end{equation}
The fit of this equation to the data points is shown in red
in Figure~\ref{fig:fig5}), for a nova event circa 1850.

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.5\columnwidth]{fig_age.eps}
\caption{Size of the semi-major axis of J210204 at different epochs
  overlaid by the best-fit models of the nova expansion (top) and
  expansion velocity of the different models (bottom).  Each data
  point in the top panel correspond to the average of the semi-major
  axis measurements obtained from a number, typically 3 to 4, of
  features in the ring of J210204 for each epoch.  The error bars in
  the semi-major axis of the top panel correspond to the dispersion of
  the individual values obtained for each epoch.
\label{fig:fig5}
}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Historical search}

Adopting either a typical absolute magnitude $M_\mathrm{v}$=--7 mag
for a CNe \citep{Warner1987} at the distance of 0.60 kpc, or an
average brightening of $\sim$11 mag \citep{BE2008} from its present
$m_\mathrm{v}$=15.8 mag, J210204 would have been at
$m_\mathrm{v}$=1.9--4.8 mag at peak brightness.  Such a nova should
have been detectable to the naked eye.  Although none of the expansion
laws considered above produce a perfect match to the variation of
radius with time and to the present expansion rate of J210204, a
consistent time for the nova event between 1850 and 1890 is achieved
by different models accounting for the deceleration of the ejecta.

At that time, most of the brighter novae continued to be found
by amateurs, although the use of wide-field photography was
introduced and extended in professional observatories in the
last two decades of the 19th century.
We searched evidence for diffuse emission from the nova shell in the
Heidelberg Digitized Astronomical Plates taken at least half a century
after the nova event.
No detection can be claimed, but it must be noted that most of
these images were obtained through blue filters or using blue
sensitive plates, which are not suited for the prevalent
H$\alpha$ and [N~{\sc ii}] (red) emission lines of J210204.

We have examined the most complete list of Galactic novae
provided at https://projectpluto.com/galnovae/galnovae.htm,
which includes a small sample of objects discovered before 1900.
Apparently there is no record of this event.
Only eight bright novae were visible to the naked eye in the 19th century
\citep[with T\,CrB and Q\,Cyg discovered in 1866 and 1876 at 2.0 and 3.0
mag, respectively, among the brightest ones;][]{Warner2006}, compared to
the 30 bright novae visible to the naked eye in the 20th century.
  Assuming similar nova rate for the 19th and 20th centuries, the figures
  above imply that $\sim$75\% of novae visible to the naked eye were
  missed in the 19th century.
It looks like J210204 is one of those novae missed at their time.

\section{Discussion}

The analysis of the long-term expansion of J210204 presented in the
previous section certainly discards its free expansion.
On the other hand, all expansion laws accounting for the deceleration
of the ejecta imply consistent times for the nova event between 1850
and 1890, and initial expansion velocities in the range 1000--1500
km~s$^{-1}$ typical of novae.
Since then, the expansion of the main component of the nova ejecta, the
[N~{\sc ii}]-bright arc, has decelerated down to the current expansion
speed of 285 km~s$^{-1}$.
The situation could be more extreme for the bow-shock,
whose larger distance from the central star and lower
angular expansion would imply a stronger deceleration.
Its chemical composition, mostly consistent with that of the
ISM \citep{Guerrero_etal2018}, indeed suggests it has swept
up a significant volume of the surrounding medium.

The expansion and deceleration of nova shells has received little
attention in the past.
It is a difficult task that requires the availability of
high-quality multi-epoch images with a suitably long time
baseline.
For instance, \citet{Shara_etal2012a} could only determine an upper
limit of $\leq$0\farcs17~yr$^{-1}$ for the expansion of the Z\,Cam
shell using images obtained in 2007 and 2010, i.e.\ a time baseline
of 3 yrs.
\citet{Duerbeck1987} compared photographic plates obtained around 1950 with
more recent (mid 80's) CCD images of four novae (DQ\,Her, GK\,Per, V476\,Cyg,
and V603\,Aql) to conclude that they decelerate with a mean half-times of 75
yrs, i.e.\ the expansion velocity of a nova drops to half its value every 75
yrs.
  Further evidence for shell deceleration is presented by \citet{DD2000}.
This expansion behavior is consistent with \citet{Oort1946} theoretical
estimate based on a simple model of the nova shell interaction with the
surrounding ISM.

These results, however, have been disputed for the nova shells
GK\,Per and DQ\,Her.
GK\,Per nova shell has multiple knots expanding at an angular velocity
0\farcs3-0\farcs5~yr$^{-1}$ that has remained unchanged since
their ejection about a century ago \citep{AK2005,Liimets_etal2012}.
The interaction of these knots with the wind emanating from GK\,Per has been
claimed responsible for their kinematic behaviour \citep{Shara_etal2012b}.
This is also the case for DQ\,Her nova shell, where the presence of
ablated flows associated with clumps, with notable tails extending
outwards with increasing radial velocities, most likely implies the
action of a stellar wind that speeds up the material in the nova
shell \citep{VOR2007}.
More and higher quality images of nova shells spanning over
long time baselines are most required to investigate the
interaction of nova shells with their ambient medium.

  Otherwise, many high quality
studies of the kinematics of nova shells disclose overall expansion
patterns, 3-D structures, and dynamical interactions
as well as undeniable bipolar structures
\citep[e.g.][]{dValle_etal1997,GO2000,HO2003,VOR2007,MD2009,Woudt2009,Shara_etal2012b,Shara_etal2017}.

It is not clear, however, what are the key mechanisms behind the
ejection of bipolar structures in nova shells \citep[for example,
the shaping is attributed to the binary companion or to rotation
of the WD envelope;][]{Lloyd1997,Porter1998}, but it is accepted
that it produces an interaction of the fast ejecta with slow-moving
or stationary material \citep[see,  e.g.,][]{Chomiuk2014}.
Although there are not many detailed numerical works in the literature
addressing these interactions, the consequences of the bipolar
ejections on the observational properties of nova shells have been
discussed thoroughly \citep{Shore2013}.
This interaction piles up material along the equatorial plane, creating
dense ring-like structures around the binary system \citep{Chochol1997}.
Along with these lines, the morphology of the bright [N~{\sc ii}]
arc of J210204 (or AT\,Cnc) can be matched by the simple models of
nova shells presented by \citet{GO1999} for cases of bright rings close
to the equatorial plane and faint polar caps.

Our combined analysis of the angular expansion and radial velocity of
the [N~{\sc ii}]-bright arc of J210204 indicate that the overall
expansion of the different knots is not completely coherent, as shown
by their varying magnification factors and by the complex kinematics.
Nonetheless, these variations are not as large as suggested by the
intricate morphology of this [N~{\sc ii}]-bright arc.  The angular
expansion and kinematics of the nova ejecta provide a value for the
distance to J210204 which is consistent with that derived from GAIA
DR-2, although not exactly the same. The difference may be due to
dynamical effects.

We suggest that, similarly to other astrophysical systems, the interaction
of the current stellar wind of the central star of J210204 with the ring
structure causes hydrodynamical instabilities, most likely of Rayleigh-Taylor
nature.
This could break the ring-structure into clumps that would further develop
cometary tails \citep[see][]{Fang2014,Harvey_etal2016}.
Detailed hydro-dynamical modeling to interpret the morphological
evolution of the knots and to investigate the dynamical evolution
of the nova ejecta will be presented in a future paper (Toal\'a et al. in prep.).

To summarize, J210204 is a CN shell resulting from a nova event that
took place about 130-170 yrs ago, although it was unnoticed at that
time.  The nova has experienced a notable deceleration, most likely
due to its occurrence inside a high density medium as suggested by the
complex H$\alpha$ emission around it \citep{Guerrero_etal2018}.  As
many other ``young'' novae, the CV at its center is in a nova-like
(NL) stage \citep{Guerrero_etal2018} with the WD still experiencing
accretion at a high rate \citep{Collazzi_etal2009}.

\section*{Acknowledgments}

E.S.\ acknowledges support from Universidad de Guadalajara and
CONACyT.  M.A.G.\ acknowledges support of the grant AYA2014- 57280-P,
cofunded with FEDER funds.
G.R.-L.\ acknowledges support from Fundaci\'on Marcos Moshinsky,
CONACyT, and PRODEP (Mexico).
L.S.\ acknowledges support from PAPIIT grant IA-101316 (Mexico).
J.A.T.\ and M.A.G.\ are funded by UNAM DGAPA PAPIIT project IA100318.
We thank Martin Henze for his advise on historical records of novae
and photographic plates.

This article is based upon observations obtained with ALFOSC, which is
provided by the Instituto de Astrof\'\i sica de Andaluc\'\i a (IAA)
under a joint agreement with the University of Copenhagen and NOTSA,
and with OSIRIS at the Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC), both installed
in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto
de Astrof\'\i sica de Canarias, in the island of La Palma, Spain.
Observations carried out at the Observatorio Astron\'omico Nacional
on the Sierra San Pedro M\'artir (OAN-SPM), Baja California, M\'exico,
were also used.

This paper also makes use of data obtained as part of the INT Photometric
H$\alpha$ Survey of the Northern Galactic Plane (IPHAS: http://www.iphas.org)
carried out at the Isaac Newton Telescope (INT).
The INT is operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group
in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto
de Astrof\'\i sica de Canarias.
All IPHAS data are processed by the Cambridge Astronomical Survey Unit
at the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge.
The band-merged DR2 catalog was assembled at the Centre for Astrophysics
Research, University of Hertfordshire, supported by STFC grant ST/J001333/1.
The Digitized Sky Surveys were produced at the Space Telescope Science
Institute (STScI) under US Government grant NAGW-2166.
The images of these surveys are based on photographic data obtained using
the Oschin Schmidt Telescope on Palomar Mountain and the UK Schmidt
Telescope.
The plates were processed into the present compressed digital form with
the permission of these institutions.
The National Geographic Society - Palomar Observatory Sky Atlas (POSS-I)
was made by the California Institute of Technology with grants from the
National Geographic Society.
The second Palomar Observatory Sky Atlas (POSS-II) was made by the
California Institute of Technology with funds from the National
Science Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the Sloan
Foundation, the Samuel Oschin Foundation and the Eastman Kodak
Corporation.
The Oschin Schmidt Telescope is operated by the California
Institute of Technology and Palomar Observatory.
The UK Schmidt Telescope was operated by the Royal Observatory,
Edinburgh, with funding from the UK Science and Engineering
Research Council (later the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy
Research Council), until 1988 June, and thereafter by the
Anglo-Australian Observatory. Supplemental funding for sky-survey
work at the STScI is provided by the European Southern Observatory.
This work made use of the HDAP which was produced at Landessternwarte
Heidelberg-K\"onigstuhl under grant No.\ 00.071.2005 of the
Klaus-Tschira-Foundation.