text:
# Exploring the Leo II Dwarf Spheroidal: I. The Variable Star Content

## 1 Introduction

The Leo II dwarf spheroidal galaxy (dSph) was first identified by Harrington and Wilson (1950) on the Palomar Sky Survey. Detailed information about Leo II did not appear in the literature for over three decades due to its extreme distance and small size (except the starcount study of Hodge 1962 and abstracts on variables in Swope 1967 and Swope 1968) . A wave of interest in the 1980’s (Hodge 1982; Demers and Harris 1983, hereafter DH83; Aaronson et.al. 1983; Azzopardi et al. 1985; Suntzeff et al. 1986, S86) revealed Leo II to be a metal-poor, second-parameter horizontal branch object with a handful of carbon stars.

Recently, a series of studies have expanded our knowledge of the Leo II system. Demers & Irwin (1993, DI93) with deep BV CCD photometry, derived a metallicity of \[Fe/H\] = -1.9 and revised Leo II’s distance to 215 kpc. This was followed by the VI CCD studies of Lee (1995, hereafter L95) and Mighell & Rich (1996, hereafter MR96). The former derived a metallicity of -1.97 while the latter derived a metallicity of -1.6 and determined that Leo II formed almost all of its stars between 7 and 14 Gyr ago. Both confirmed a distance modulus close to the DI93 value. Vogt et al. (1995) measured radial velocities in Leo II and derived a mass-to-light ratio of 11.1.

One of the gaps in our knowledge of Leo II remains its variable star content. The seminal work in this field was to be the comprehensive survey of Baade and Swope. Their collection of over a hundred Palomar 200-inch plates was intended to produce a complete catalogue of Leo II variables. Unfortunately, while the catalogue exists, it has not been published, nor has a rigorous analysis been applied to the data. Swope did publish two brief abstracts, one reporting the identification of 152 variables and period measurement for 76 (Swope 1967) and another reporting four anomalous Cepheids (Swope 1968). A later update by van Agt (1973) reported 64 Bailey (1902) type ab RR Lyrae stars, six type c and an average ab period of 0.59 days. Neither report was considered complete by the authors and neither included coordinates, finding charts or light curves. DI93 reported the identification of 80 variable candidates, but did not have enough images to fit light curves.

In this paper, we publish the first comprehensive list of positively identified variable stars in Leo II. We have found 148 RR Lyrae variables, for which we have successfully derived periods and amplitudes for 140. The distribution of periods is very similar to other dSph galaxies, with a moderate fraction of RRc variables. All of our observations are consistent with an “Oosterhoff intermediate” classification for Leo II and this classification is exhibited on a star-by-star basis. We have also identified four anomalous Cepheid variables. The presence and characteristics of these populations confirm that Leo II is metal-poor with a large intermediate age population. The longest period RRab variables hint at the existence of Leo II stars as metal-poor as \[Fe/H\]=-2.3.

## 2 Observations and Reduction

We observed the Leo II dSph with the 4-meter Mayall telescope at Kitt Peak on UT 8-9 April 1997 and 22-23 February 1998. Both observing runs used the T2KB $`2048^2`$ thinned CCD chip and standard Harris prescription UBV filters. Our first observing run used the old Mayall prime focus doublet corrector while our second used the new four-element corrector (now in use with the MOSAIC camera). To avoid the ghost image produced by the four-element corrector, the camera was mounted ten minutes off of the optical axis of the telescope. This increased the distortion of the images, but not to a level that was uncorrectable. All data were reduced by the standard CCDPROC pipeline in IRAF.111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.

All four nights suffered from very non-photometric observing conditions. We are, however, able to transform every frame to an identical instrumental system by inter-comparing individual photometric measures from frame to frame. This correction was applied iteratively until the average frame-to-frame residuals were reduced to 0.001 magnitudes. The combined instrumental magnitudes have been calibrated to the BV data set of DI93 within 0.01 magnitudes by the application of zero point and color corrections.

$`m_V=V_{inst}0.290.12(BV)+0.12(BV)^2`$

$`m_B=B_{inst}0.200.04(BV)+0.10(BV)^2`$

This transformation does leave some non-linearity in the comparison (Figure 1). This non-linearity is approximately 0.1 magnitudes over the four magnitudes of comparison. This may be due to filter differences or a non-linearity in the CCD used in one of the two studies. Independent calibration of the data set will be clearly be required in the future. Because of this non-linearity, all variable measures and light curve determinations were made purely from the instrumental system. However, all average magnitudes and intensity-weighted mean magnitudes in our catalogues have been converted to the DI93 system via the equations listed above.

We found that a total of 72 Leo II UBV images were usable for photometry. All of these images were processed through DAOPHOT (Stetson, 1987) and ALLFRAME (Stetson, 1994). The combined photometry is complete to a depth of $`B=V=24.5`$ with instrumental errors at the horizontal branch of Leo II (V=22.1) of $`(\sigma _V,\sigma _B)=(0.008,0.016)`$. However, the individual images have a wide variation in quality. Their average completeness limit is $`B=V=23.5`$ with individual frame errors of $`(\sigma _V,\sigma _B)=(0.08,0.06)`$ at the horizontal branch.

Accurate stellar positions were derived by using the IRAF task TFINDER with the Hubble Space Telescope Guide Star Catalogue. We were able to derive centroids for eight HST-GSC stars in our central field and used these stars to derive an approximate plate solution. Color and magnitude effects on the derived positions have not been accounted for. The coordinates listed in our variable catalogues (Tables I and III) are accurate to within approximately 0.”5. A CCD template image and the X-Y positions of the variable stars were submitted for electronic availability through the Astronomical Journal.

## 3 Light Curve Fitting

Our UBV data include 56 V band observations of Leo II. All but one of these were deep enough for reasonable photometry of the horizontal branch. Our observations also include thirteen usable B band observations and three usable U band observations, which we have excluded from the period fitting due to the very poor phase coverage of the images. A file containing the Julian dates and V magnitudes of all observations of our variables stars is available electronically through the Astronomical Journal.

To identify variables in our data, we used a slightly modified version of the Welch-Stetson (1993) variability index, adopted from that calculated in the DAOMASTER code included with ALLFRAME. We confined our variability search to V images, as they were more numerous and of better quality. Figure 2 shows the index vs. magnitude plot and our selection criteria (Index $``$ 3.0). A limit of 3.0 was selected as the lowest index where most stars had clear light curves and below which significant numbers of spurious detections began. We restricted our attempts to fit light curves to stars that had at least twenty observations and had been observed in both runs.

Periods were identified by both Phase Dispersion Minimization (Stellingwerf 1978) and Stetson’s (1996) modified version of the Lafler-Kinman index (1965). The IRAF version of PDM proved very useful for identifying true variables and revealing the nature of those variables. It was especially adept at narrowing the range within which to search for periods, at finding periods for the short-period variables, and at producing light curves. The modified LK method proved more effective with longer period stars. Once a family of reasonable periods was identified, we ran each through a $`\chi ^2`$ fitting routine to refine amplitudes and to break the degeneracies of equally suitable periods. This routine used the templates of Layden (1998) for RRab stars and a sinusoidal curve for RRc.

In almost all cases, an obvious best fit was obtained. In some cases, degeneracies remained. These occured in two intervals - large degeneracies of 0.2-0.5 days and small degeneracies of 0.01-0.02 days. Large degeneracies could be broken by using the well-established differences between RRc, RRab and Cepheid stars (rise time, amplitude and color). Small degeneracies were slightly more difficult to break. We settled for the period giving the lowest $`\chi ^2`$ fit. This period was then varied by several $`10^5`$ days to further improve the fit.

The greatest deficiency of this technique is that a star that is not sampled at or near the peak brightness (within 0.1-0.2 in phase) will not be amenable to fitting. In fact, for low amplitude variables, it may not even have the contrast in brightness to be flagged as a variable. We have attempted to increase the number of detected variables by lowering the variability index threshold to 2.0. Approximately 10-20 stars in this range are potential RR Lyrae variables based on their PDM spectra. However, the magnitude contrast over the light curve is so slight that solutions prove very degenerate, if they are obtainable at all. For some of these stars, different periods have a $`\chi ^2`$ value below 1.0, making them statistically equivalent. Rather than include a small number of very poor or very degenerate variables, we left any variable with an index below 3.0 out of our sample.

Classification of variables was straight-forward. The three types of variable stars that commonly occur in dSph galaxies are RR Lyrae type ab, RR Lyrae type c and anomalous Cepheids. All three objects have well-established loci in period–amplitude–luminosity–effective temperature–rise time space.

## 4 The Variable Star Catalogue

Our variable star catalogue (Tables I and III) lists two identification numbers. The first is a running number for the variables alone, beginning with the 80 candidates from DI93. The second is a corresponding number from our master photometry catalogue of Leo II. These ID numbers are from ALLFRAME and roughly correlate with magnitude. Periods, amplitudes and pulsation modes are listed for stars for which these parameters could be derived. Magnitudes for most of the variable stars are intensity-weighted mean magnitudes. They were derived by integrating the template light curve in 0.02 phase increments (the same phase increments used in the Layden templates). For variables for which no variability parameters could be derived, the average observed magnitude is given.

We have compared our catalogue of variable stars to the list of potential variable stars in DI93. Of the 80 potential variable stars, we recover 40 as RR Lyrae type ab, 13 as type c and six as unknown RR Lyrae–like stars. One other star is an anomolous Cepheid. The remaining fifteen are not variables according to our analysis although seven of these fifteen have variability indices between 2.0 and 3.0, which places them just below our selected variable envelope; these may be true variables of very low amplitude or variables which were not in optimal phase during our observations. Table II lists the variable candidates in DI93 that did not meet our variability criterion, along with their corresponding identification number in our master photometry catalogue and our Welch-Stetson variability index.

## 5 The RR Lyrae Variables

Figure 3 shows the amplitude-period distribution of the positively identified RR Lyrae variables in Leo II. Parameters of the variables are given in Table I while light curves are shown in Figure 4.

We note the well-established period-amplitude relationship in the type ab variables. The c variables are of nearly constant amplitude although there is some hint of the parabola-like shape predicted by Bono et al. (1997).

For eight variables with RR Lyrae-like variations we were unable to obtain satisfactory fits to their photometric data. These stars could potentially be Blazhko (1907) variables or double-mode pulsators (Cox et al. 1980; Sandage et al. 1981, hereafter SKS; Cox et al. 1983; Nemec 1985a). Our data are not sufficient for a more rigorous analysis of their light curves. We have identified an additional three variables that have a well-defined light curve in one epoch of data and a poorly defined one in the other. The likely explanation is that these are exhibiting the Blazhko effect. They are listed in Table I with the best fit that could be obtained to one epoch of photometric data; these stars are noted with a classification of “abb”.

### 5.1 Leo II’s Stellar Populations

Sandage (1993a, S93a) demonstrated that the shortest RRab period could be used to discern the location of the blue fundamental edge of the instability strip, which is a function of metallicity. Using his relation of

log($`P_{ab}`$) = -0.122 \[Fe/H\] - 0.500

and the shortest RRab period of 0.50692 days (log(P) = -0.295), we derive a metallicity of -1.68 on the Butler-Blanco scale (Butler 1975; Blanco 1992). This scale is 0.2 dex richer than the standard Zinn-West (1984) scale, so we correct our metallicity to -1.88.222The Zinn-West scale has been examined by Carretta & Gratton (1997) and Rutledge et al. (1997) and has been shown to have non-linearity in comparison to their metallicity measures. While metallicity measurements in this paper use the Zinn-West scale, the non-linearity should have only a minor effect upon our conclusions. This is closer to the low metallicity of DI93 and other ground-based studies than the higher MR96 metallicity of \[Fe/H\]=-1.6. A missing variable with a period of 0.469 days would move the metallicity scale back to the MR96 value. Such a low value does not occur in any of our fitted RRab periods, nor in the degeneracies of our unfitable variables.

S93a also defined several other relations for metallicity determination, which we list in order of declining sensitivity of our data. The mean period of RRab variables is well defined by our data (0.619 $`\pm `$ 0.006 days). S93a defines several relations between average RRab period and metallicity. We have chosen the relationships for cluster variables in which the average period has not been corrected for number density across the instability strip. This relation is use parameters closest to the actual measured quantities:

log$`<P_{ab}>`$ = -0.092 \[Fe/H\] - 0.389

This produces a Zinn-West metallicity of -1.96 $`\pm `$ 0.04 dex. The mean period of RRc variables (0.363 $`\pm 0.008`$ days), via the relation:

log$`<P_c>`$ = -0.119 \[Fe/H\] - 0.670,

produces a Zinn-West value of -1.93 $`\pm 0.08`$ dex. Finally, the longest RRab period defines the red edge of the instability strip and thus the lower bound of metallicty. Our longest ab period is 0.8081 days. The relation:

log($`P_{ab}`$) = -0.09 \[Fe/H\] - 0.280

produces a -2.08 dex (-2.28 on the Zinn-West scale) lower bound for \[Fe/H\].

The beauty of the Sandage relations is that they are completely independent of photometric zero point, reddening or calibration. Our results are consistent with previous metallicity estimates of Leo II, which have usually been around \[Fe/H\]=-1.9 (DH83, S86, DI93, L95).

The notable exception to these consistent metallicity determinations is MR96. Their analysis showed that photometric contamination of the red giant branch by red clump stars could have shifted DI93’s estimated metallicity. However, MR96 also noted a 0.10 magnitude difference between their $`V`$ magnitudes and those of DI93, which they attributed to inaccurate airmass estimates on the part of DI93, possibly as a result of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. We are puzzled by this explanation, since DI93 observed standard stars on the same nights as Leo II. Unless the distribution of Pinatubo debris were extremely inhomogenous, it should affect the extinction terms equally for both standard and Leo II stars. The MR96 explanation would require a conspiracy of higher extinction only during Leo II observations. L95 detected a smaller $`V`$ band difference of 0.02 magnitudes in the brightness range of interest (both L95 and our own comparison show some non-linearity at the bright end of the DI93 CCD data). A zero point correction to the $`V`$ and $`I`$ magnitudes of MR96 might result in a shift of their color, which would produce a metallicity-reddening shift based on the MR96’s use of Sarajedini’s (1994) calibration technique. A shift of 0.06 in color would move the giant branch onto an \[Fe/H\]=-1.9 metallicity relation. In the MR96 analysis, this is a $`6\sigma `$ deviation. However, Stetson (1998) has shown that WFPC2 data’s best attainable photometric precision is approximately 0.02 magnitudes due to charge-transfer efficiency problems in the detectors. When taken in quadrature with MR96’s (very small) photometric scatter and the uncertainties of the HST zero points (Holtzman et al. 1995), we estimate the uncertainties to be more likely near 0.03-0.04 magnitudes. This would reduce the shift of MR96 zero points to a $`1.52\sigma `$ effect. Given the comparisons between the V band magnitudes of MR96, L95, DI93 and our own study, we find a systematic magnitude shift of the WFPC2 data to be a plausible reconciliation of all the metallicity measures of Leo II.

However, the existence of a more metal-rich population could be plausible if it is too young to have a significant RR Lyrae population. MR96 showed that the youngest stars in Leo II are 7 Gyr old, with a typical star having an age of 9 Gyr. This is less than what is generally thought to be the minimum age possible for an RR Lyrae star, 10-12 Gyr (Olszewski et al. 1987, O87).

It is not clear how much weight such an argument should be given. First, O87 and MR96 use different methods of analysis. O87 used the $`BV`$ isochrones of VandenBerg and Bell (1985) and VandenBerg (1985). MR96 averaged eight different age estimates, ranging from 7 to 11 Gyr (their Table 5). Of these, the most comparable age indicator to that used in O87 are the Revised Yale Isochrones (Green et al. 1987) which produced an age of 10 Gyr, just inside the O87 RR Lyrae minimum age envelope. Second, Leo II is only 1-3 Gyr younger than the supposed RR Lyrae minimum age, a difference comparable to the uncertainties (2 Gyr in both cases). Finally, the lower bound of RR Lyrae ages has only been determined by the comparison of Lindsay 1 to other LMC clusters and such an important result will not be conclusive until a wider variety of clusters lacking RR Lyrae’s have been studied. Until the issues involved with globular cluster ages are fully resolved - and more cluster ages are determined - the possibility of a young, more metal-rich, variable-less population remains open.

We are intrigued by the presence of ab variables with periods longer than what should be the red edge of an \[Fe/H\]=-1.9 population. These imply a population that is more luminous than the bulk of Leo II variables. To separate out the more luminous stars in Leo II cleanly, we have applied a period-shift analysis to our data (Sandage 1981a; Sandage 1981b; Carney et al. 1992).

Period shift is measured by comparison to a reference variable population. The usual candidate population is that of M3, for which Sandage (1982a, 1982b) derived a measure of $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP=[0.129A_B+0.088+logP]`$, where $`A_B`$ is the amplitude in the $`B`$ passband. However, we applied this formulation to the recent measurements of M3 variable periods and amplitudes by Caretta et al. (1999) and Kałuz̀ny et al. (1998) and found a period shift of 0.015 by the Sandage formulation. We are unable to explain this discrepancy but have corrected the period shift zero point to produce a $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ of 0.000 for the new M3 data. We have also derived a conversion ratio of $`A_B/A_V`$=1.21. The resulting revised period-shift relations are:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }logP=[0.129A_B+0.112+logP]`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }logP=[0.156A_V+0.112+logP]`$

Our $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ values for Leo II from these relations are plotted in Figure 5.

The pulsation equation of Van Aldada & Baker (1971) is:

$`logP_o=1.7720.68log(\frac{M}{M_{}})+0.84log(\frac{L}{L_{}})+3.48log(\frac{6500}{T_{eff}})`$

Assuming a uniform mass, one can measure changes in luminosity by measuring the period and effective temperature of each star. Effective temperature can not be directly measured, but SKS showed that amplitude, specifically in the blue passband, can be used to measure effective temperature. The most recent revision of this relation is by Catelan (1998):

$`\frac{5040}{T_{eq}}=0.8680.084A_B+0.005[Fe/H]`$

Where $`T_{eq}`$ is the equilibrium temperature. Equilibrium temperature is not the same as effective temperature, but is very similar (Carney et al. 1992). This relation has only a weak dependence upon metallicity. By comparing the periods of two stars with identical amplitudes, we compare stars at identical temperatures. This enables us to measure differences in luminosity.

The resultant theoretical $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_V`$ scale is on the right ordinate of Figure 5. While there is a large amount of scatter intrinsic to the period-shift measure (and our conversion of the relations to the $`V`$ passband only amplifies this scatter) it is clear that the stars in Leo II are dominated by a population 0.08 magnitudes more luminous than the stars of M3 with a higher luminosity tail in the longer period variables.

To confirm the increased luminosity for the longer period variables, we have directly compared the apparent magnitudes of our higher period shift population to the bulk population. We find that the nine most shifted stars ($`\mathrm{\Delta }logP<.08`$) in Figure 5 (excluding the two that clearly deviate from the main magnitude locus in Figure 8) average $`0.09\pm .03`$ magnitudes brighter than the bulk of the RR Lyrae stars. This is smaller than the 0.2 magnitude difference implied by the period-shift analysis (see Figure 5), which indicates a difference in mass for the more extreme Leo II variables.

If we abandon the assumption of fixed mass and use differences in magnitude to constrain luminosity differences, we can measure the relative mass of each star by rewriting the pulsation equation as:

$`0.68log\frac{M_{avg}}{M}=0.336(mm_{avg})+\mathrm{\Delta }logP<\mathrm{\Delta }logP>`$

where $`M_{avg}`$ is the average RR Lyrae mass, $`M`$ is the mass of an individual star, $`m_{avg}`$ and $`m`$ are the average and individual apparent magnitudes, and $`<\mathrm{\Delta }logP>`$ is the average period shift in Leo II. Using this formulation, we estimate the second population of stars to be 13% less massive than the average Leo II RRab star.

While longer period variables can occur in the absence of metallicity effects (Lee & Carney, 1999a; Pritzl et al. 1999), this signature is also seen in Sculptor (Kałuz̀ny et al. 1995, hereafter K95), which has a well-established spread in metallicity (Norris & Bessell 1978; Smith & Dopita 1983; Da Costa 1984; Da Costa 1988; K95; Majewski et al. 1999, hereafter M99; Hurley-Keller et al. 1999). This may warrant a closer look at the Leo II color-magnitude diagram to see if a dual metallicity model may be more appropriate, as in the case of Sculptor. While dramatic conclusions should not be drawn from a handful of unusual stars, if the increased luminosity is the product of metallicity alone, this second Leo II population would have a metallicity of \[Fe/H\]=-2.3 using the RR Lyrae luminosity calibration of Sandage (1993b).

### 5.2 Oosterhoff Classification

It has long been known that Galactic clusters fall into two categories based upon the properties of their RR Lyrae variables (Oosterhoff 1939; see also a history of this phenomenon in S93a and Smith 1995). The ratio of c to ab variables of 0.24, the average RRab period of 0.62 days, and the minimum RRab period of 0.51 days are hallmarks of an Oosterhoff classification for Leo II that is intermediate between OoI and OoII. This classification is also seen in the Sculptor dSph (K95), Sextans (Mateo et al. 1995), several Magellanic clusters (Bono et al. 1994) and possibly the Draco (Nemec 1985b), Carina (Saha et al. 1986) and Ursa Minor (Nemec et al. 1988) dSph’s.

S93a argued that the Oosterhoff dichotomy is the result of a continuous change of RR Lyrae properties with metallicity. The gap between Oosterhoff classes would result from Galactic clusters with metallicites between OoI and OoII having extreme blue horizontal branches that depopulate the instability strip (Renzini 1983; Castellani 1983). Leo II and other Oosterhoff objects, however, have a second parameter effect that populates the red end of the horizontal branch and the instability strip. Figure 6 plots the average ab periods and spectroscopic metallicities of the clusters listed in S93a and the intermediate Oosterhoff clusters and dSph’s listed above. The Oosterhoff imtermediate objects fill in the gap between the Oosterhoff classes and fall close to the relation of S93a. This would support the Renzini-Castellani-Sandage explanation of the Oosterhoff dichotomy.

The one caveat to this conclusion is that the dwarf spheroidal galaxies show evidence of multiple populations (see a summary in Grebel 1997, Grebel 1998 and Mateo 1998). This may be reflected in the variables of Leo II as well as those of Sculptor, which has a metallicity distribution from \[Fe/H\]=-1.5 to -2.3 (Kałuz̀ny et al. 1995; M99). In principle, one could revive the Oosterhoff dichotomy by supposing that Oosterhoff intermediate objects merely reflect a superposition of OoI and OoII populations.

We find this to be a dubious interpretation. In the first place, the four intermediate LMC clusters all clearly have single populations. Second, in the case of Leo II and Sculptor, the consistency between non-variable measures of metallicity and the S93a formulation for the RR Lyrae stars indicates that the less metal-poor population is the origin of the bulk of the variables.

A third argument against this can be seen in Figure 5. The period shift is also a useful measure of the Oosterhoff effect in individual stars. Both cluster stars and field stars exhibit the Oosterhoff dichotomy by avoiding $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ values between -0.01 and -0.05 (Suntzeff et al. 1991). If the Oosterhoff intermediate objects are a superposition of OoI and OoII, the mean $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ value may be in the forbidden zone but individual stars should avoid it. Clearly, just as the Oosterhoff dichotomy is exhibited for Galactic cluster and field stars on a star-by-star basis, so do the variables of Leo II violate that dichotomy on a star-by-star basis. Our reformulation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ measure places 56 of our 106 RR Lyrae ab variables into the forbidden region. Using the classical $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ formulation places 39 of our stars in this region. 333An identical argument is used by Mateo et al. (1995) to show that the RRab stars of Sextans are Oosterhoff intermediate.

This by no means implies that metallicity is the only parameter that affects the bulk and individual properties of cluster RR Lyrae stars. Metallicity has been suggested as the primary factor because of the likely increase in RR Lyrae luminosity with declining metallicity, which would produce the Oosterhoff effect (SKS). Any other effect that increases RR Lyrae luminosity, including HB evolution, would also affect the properties of the variable stars (Lee, Demarque & Zinn 1990, LDZ). Evolution is apparently the best explanation for the deviation of M2 from the primary locus in Figure 6 (Lee & Carney 1999b). However, Figure 6 shows that metallicity is the “first parameter” of average RRab period.

### 5.3 Distance Modulus

RR Lyrae variables are a useful tool for measuring distance modulus. However, the only studies that could be used to calibrate our data to true apparent magnitudes (DH83, DI93, L95, MR96) also use the horizontal branch as a distance indicator. Adapting these other studies to calibrate our RR Lyrae mean magnitudes for the same purpose would be circular and pointless. However, if used in combination with other calibration techniques, our RR Lyrae variable photometry might eventually serve to refine Leo II’s distance measure.

More importantly, the metallicity spread in the RR Lyrae variables of the dSph galaxies could assist with the refinement of the $`M_V[Fe/H]`$ relation. Similar efforts with the globular cluster $`\omega `$ Centauri (Dickens 1989) have been inconclusive, possibly because of the complicating effects of evolution (Gratton et al. 1986; Lee 1991). It has been argued that there is no universal $`M_V[Fe/H]`$ relation that is independent of the effect of evolution as expressed in horizontal branch morphology (LDZ; Clement & Shelton 1999; Lee & Carney 1999a; Demarque et al. 1999). Untangling the evolution–metallicity–absolute magnitude question, especially in the absence of direct spectroscopic measures of RR Lyrae metallicity, is well beyond the scope of this paper.

## 6 Anomalous Cepheids

Swope (1968) identified four anomalous Cepheid variables in Leo II. We have also identified four variables with parameters similar to Swope’s that are cleanly separated from the RR Lyrae locus in period–amplitude–magnitude–color–rise time space. Light curves and derived parameters are given in Figure 7 and Table III respectively. We have listed what we believe to be the correct cross-identificiations to the anomalous Cepheids of the Swope study. However, her V1 and V51 are not clearly distinguishable in the absence of a finding chart.

The apparent magnitudes and periods of all RR Lyrae and Cepheid variables are plotted in Figure 7 with the fundamental and first overtone Cepheid pulsation lines from Nemec et al. (1994). We find three fundamental and one first overtone pulsators among the anomalous Cepheids.

The origin of anomalous cepheids and their implications are still poorly understood (c.f. Nemec et al. 1988; Mateo et al. 1995). They can be indicative of a 5-10 Gyr old population, which MR96 showed exists in Leo II. They can also be mass-transfer binaries, for which a specific ratio of $`110`$ for blue-stragglers to anomalous Cepheids is predicted (Renzini, Mengel & Sweigart 1977). Our photometry of Leo II, at present, does not allow a robust estimate of the blue straggler content due to the rapidly decling photometric accuracy as the data approach the main-sequence turnoff. However, if the suggested ratio were to hold up, the deep photometry of MR96 would be expected to show 0.5-5 blue stragglers (normalizing to the ratio of horizontal branch stars in our study and MR96). Even a cursory glance at their Figure 4 reveals a much higher number of blue stragglers. However, it is unclear as to how centrally concentrated these objects are (the MR96 pointing is close to the center of Leo II). Only deep wide-field photometry of the entire dSph will give an accurate statistical handle on this question.

## 7 Conclusions

### 7.1 Leo II and the Oosterhoff Continuum

The RR Lyrae variables in Leo II place its dominant metallicity at \[Fe/H\]=-1.9. A handful of large $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ stars appears to imply a lower metallicity population. This is not conclusive, but warrants a more comprehensive look at the color-magnitude diagram of Leo II, which we will perform in a future contribution. At present, we can make no contribution regarding Leo II’s distance modulus due to the non-photometric conditions during our observations.

Leo II is Oosterhoff intermediate class, like several other objects, including a number of dSph galaxies. Its violation of the Oosterhoff gap is exhibited in both the bulk and individual properties of its RR Lyrae stars. The Oosterhoff intermediate objects fill in the Oosterhoff gap, and therefore support the interpretation that metallicity is the dominant parameter in determining average RRab period.

### 7.2 The Fornax-Leo-Sculptor Stream Revisited

Lynden-Bell (1982) was the first to note that the dSph galaxies appear to lie in two great streams in the sky. One of these streams appears to include the Fornax, Leo I, Leo II and Sculptor dSph galaxies. Majewski (1992) noted that Phoenix, Sextans and several second parameter objects also lie along this plane. Palma et al. (2000) found that the outermost ($`R_{GC}>25`$ kpc) second parameter globular clusters have the highest probability of being aligned with one of the two streams. While such alignments could be coincidental, they could also result from a common formation mechanism, in which case one might expect some similiarities in the stellar populations of brethren objects.

Comparisons between the populations of Leo II and Sculptor are possible from the available data. Both show a strong low metallicity (\[Fe/H\]=-1.7 in Sculptor), second parameter, Oosterhoff intermediate population. Both also show evidence of a less populous, even more metal-poor population. In Sculptor, this population does not have a second parameter effect and is spatially dispersed (M99). The presence of a spatial gradient in the horizontal morphology of Leo II (Da Costa et al. 1996) may indicate a similar abundance-HB morphology pattern to that observed in Sculptor.

Fornax also has multiple populations. While it is dominated by a population at \[Fe/H\]=-1.5, it shows evidence of populations from -0.7 to -2.2 in both its field star and globular cluster population (c.f. Buonanno et al. 1985; Beauchamp et al. 1995). The most metal-poor population, like that in Sculptor, is much more extended than the metal-rich populations (Grebel & Stetson 1998). One could envision a scenario in which Fornax, Leo and Sculptor all originated in a common \[Fe/H\]$``$-2.3, first parameter HB progenitor, then, after disociation, each object followed it own star formation history. Alternatively, perhaps there is something fundamental about the “threshold” metallicity \[Fe/H\]=-2.3 in small stellar systems. We note that the lowest metallicities in the Milky Way globular cluster system are also around \[Fe/H\]=-2.3 (Harris 1996).

Any firm conclusions about correlations between Leo II, Sculptor and Fornax must await the measurement of their absolute proper motions. This will be the single most powerful discriminant for or against a common history. However, the similarities between the most metal-poor populations in each of Leo II, Sculptor and Fornax are intriguing.

The authors would like to thank Marcio Catelan for reading this article before submission and providing many useful comments. We would also like to thank the anonymous referee for useful remarks. MHS was provided thesis travel support by NOAO. MHS and SRM were supported by awards from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Research Corporation, as well as National Science Foundation CAREER Award grant, AST-9702521.

TABLE I. RR Lyrae Variables

| Var ID | Star ID | RA | DEC | Period | $`A_V`$ | $`m_V`$ | Bailey | $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | J2000.0 | J2000.0 | (Days) |  |  | Type |  |
| V1 | 2350 | 11:13:23.36 | 22:12:56.5 | 0.67352 | 0.723 | 22.08 | ab | -0.053 |
| V2 | 2755 | 11:13:32.25 | 22:12:13.1 | 0.62137 | 0.622 | 22.17 | ab | -0.002 |
| V5 | 4035 | 11:13:39.17 | 22:11:21.7 | 0.57152 | 0.967 | 22.20 | ab | -0.020 |
| V6 | 2597 | 11:13:42.30 | 22:10:58.6 | 0.64544 | 0.604 | 22.09 | ab | -0.016 |
| V8 | 2768 | 11:13:32.68 | 22:11:29.5 | 0.63715 | 0.757 | 22.17 | ab | -0.034 |
| V9 | 2153 | 11:13:27.92 | 22:11:43.3 | 0.62357 | 0.751 | 21.89 | ab | -0.024 |
| V10 | 3149 | 11:13:20.75 | 22:12:02.0 | 0.32033 | 0.769 | 22.13 | c |  |
| V11 | 3373 | 11:13:29.65 | 22:11:23.4 | 0.65546 | 0.619 | 22.24 | ab | -0.025 |
| V14 | 3735 | 11:13:25.80 | 22:11:38.0 | 0.64419 | 0.535 | 22.21 | ab | -0.004 |
| V15 | 2059 | 11:13:31.82 | 22:11:10.6 | 0.62126 | 0.997 | 22.16 | ab | -0.061 |
| V16 | 1892 | 11:13:35.79 | 22:10:53.0 | 0.39198 | 0.386 | 21.71 | c |  |
| V17 | 3262 | 11:13:41.16 | 22:10:18.9 | 0.56056 | 1.040 | 22.36 | ab | -0.023 |
| V18 | 2379 | 11:13:19.63 | 22:11:46.2 | 0.79279 | 0.571 | 22.09 | ab | -0.100 |
| V19 | 3316 | 11:13:34.28 | 22:10:37.0 | 0.40336 | 0.694 | 22.13 | c |  |
| V21 | 3217 | 11:13:38.10 | 22:10:11.8 | 0.65821 | 0.633 | 22.18 | ab | -0.029 |
| V22 | 1965 | 11:13:16.90 | 22:11:36.6 | 0.59125 | 1.017 | 22.08 | ab | -0.042 |
| V23 | 3144 | 11:13:41.58 | 22:09:40.3 | 0.53865 | 1.344 | 22.31 | ab | -0.053 |
| V24 | 4297 | 11:13:24.46 | 22:10:53.0 | 0.39538 | 0.636 | 22.28 | c |  |
| V25 | 3068 | 11:13:20.36 | 22:11:10.3 | 0.38665 | 0.547 | 22.27 | c |  |
| V28 | 3193 | 11:13:32.64 | 22:09:33.2 |  |  | 22.10 | unk |  |
| V29 | 2451 | 11:13:32.27 | 22:09:27.8 | 0.76034 | 0.747 | 22.18 | ab | -0.110 |
| V30 | 3230 | 11:13:30.71 | 22:09:17.3 | 0.57145 | 0.776 | 22.28 | ab | 0.010 |
| V31 | 2676 | 11:13:35.88 | 22:08:47.6 | 0.36563 | 0.778 | 22.18 | c |  |
| V32 | 3992 | 11:13:19.63 | 22:09:55.9 | 0.38714 | 0.502 | 22.27 | c |  |
| V33 | 3273 | 11:13:28.22 | 22:09:17.8 | 0.63122 | 0.743 | 22.26 | ab | -0.028 |
| V34 | 2472 | 11:13:18.82 | 22:09:57.0 | 0.62329 | 0.643 | 22.05 | ab | -0.007 |

TABLE I. Continued. RR Lyrae Variables

| Var ID | Star ID | RA | DEC | Period | $`A_V`$ | $`m_V`$ | Bailey | $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | J2000.0 | J2000.0 | (Days) |  |  | Type |  |
| V36 | 2770 | 11:13:26.43 | 22:09:14.0 | 0.61411 | 0.683 | 22.21 | ab | -0.007 |
| V37 | 4140 | 11:13:26.46 | 22:09:11.3 | 0.35721 | 0.497 | 22.28 | c |  |
| V38 | 3306 | 11:13:27.06 | 22:09:05.0 | 0.26012 | 0.489 | 22.16 | c |  |
| V39 | 3597 | 11:13:33.00 | 22:08:35.9 | 0.61989 | 0.450 | 22.20 | ab | 0.025 |
| V40 | 2863 | 11:13:18.29 | 22:09:38.4 | 0.70926 | 0.510 | 22.01 | ab | -0.042 |
| V41 | 2598 | 11:13:29.06 | 22:08:48.6 | 0.59113 | 0.993 | 22.04 | ab | -0.039 |
| V43 | 3018 | 11:13:32.61 | 22:08:17.2 | 0.56856 | 0.758 | 22.23 | ab | 0.015 |
| V44 | 3092 | 11:13:34.95 | 22:07:59.2 | 0.36896 | 0.559 | 22.16 | c |  |
| V46 | 4203 | 11:13:30.18 | 22:08:17.0 | 0.60083 | 0.942 | 22.21 | ab | -0.038 |
| V48 | 3159 | 11:13:24.68 | 22:08:37.9 | 0.70922 | 0.599 | 22.24 | ab | -0.056 |
| V49 | 2322 | 11:13:19.43 | 22:08:59.4 | 0.76280 | 0.583 | 22.02 | ab | -0.085 |
| V50 | 2736 | 11:13:16.78 | 22:09:08.6 |  |  | 22.00 | unk |  |
| V52 | 2409 | 11:13:23.49 | 22:08:35.1 | 0.55269 | 1.015 | 22.24 | ab | -0.013 |
| V54 | 4201 | 11:13:32.64 | 22:07:48.3 | 0.59702 | 0.711 | 22.26 | ab | 0.001 |
| V55 | 2695 | 11:13:27.61 | 22:08:06.6 | 0.62718 | 1.020 | 22.30 | ab | -0.069 |
| V56 | 4058 | 11:13:28.52 | 22:08:01.5 | 0.34118 | 0.599 | 22.28 | c |  |
| V57 | 2696 | 11:13:17.33 | 22:08:43.8 | 0.42179 | 0.348 | 21.97 | c |  |
| V60 | 4354 | 11:13:27.22 | 22:07:51.8 | 0.60862 | 1.027 | 22.34 | ab | -0.057 |
| V61 | 2712 | 11:13:29.18 | 22:07:34.6 | 0.56883 | 0.810 | 22.20 | ab | 0.007 |
| V62 | 2690 | 11:13:12.35 | 22:08:44.4 | 0.36202 | 0.601 | 22.17 | c |  |
| V64 | 4225 | 11:13:21.44 | 22:07:54.2 |  |  | 22.29 | unk |  |
| V65 | 3354 | 11:13:30.42 | 22:07:12.6 | 0.60716 | 0.686 | 22.21 | ab | -0.002 |
| V67 | 2459 | 11:13:17.38 | 22:07:54.3 | 0.56032 | 1.031 | 22.16 | ab | -0.021 |
| V69 | 3207 | 11:13:35.74 | 22:06:23.9 |  |  | 22.12 | unk |  |
| V70 | 3835 | 11:13:27.33 | 22:06:56.8 | 0.62026 | 0.725 | 22.22 | ab | -0.018 |
| V73 | 3236 | 11:13:13.22 | 22:07:48.7 |  |  | 22.11 | unk |  |

TABLE I. Continued. RR Lyrae Variables

| Var ID | Star ID | RA | DEC | Period | $`A_V`$ | $`m_V`$ | Bailey | $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | J2000.0 | J2000.0 | (Days) |  |  | Type |  |
| V74 | 4029 | 11:13:27.42 | 22:06:39.2 | 0.59392 | 0.854 | 22.26 | ab | -0.019 |
| V75 | 3277 | 11:13:31.50 | 22:06:16.6 | 0.57313 | 1.003 | 22.17 | ab | -0.027 |
| V76 | 2669 | 11:13:10.62 | 22:07:47.1 |  |  | 22.06 | unk |  |
| V77 | 3611 | 11:13:10.70 | 22:07:43.8 | 0.65676 | 0.569 | 22.18 | ab | -0.018 |
| V78 | 4088 | 11:13:20.34 | 22:07:00.0 | 0.56884 | 0.706 | 22.25 | ab | 0.023 |
| V79 | 3548 | 11:13:29.42 | 22:06:08.9 | 0.63790 | 0.787 | 22.07 | ab | -0.040 |
| V80 | 3875 | 11:13:34.82 | 22:05:33.7 | 0.57016 | 0.944 | 22.10 | ab | -0.015 |
| V81 | 1517 | 11:13:07.99 | 22:08:40.7 | 0.80097 | 0.735 | 21.56 | ab | -0.130 |
| V82 | 1675 | 11:13:27.46 | 22:07:27.7 | 0.39731 | 0.289 | 21.42 | c |  |
| V83 | 1770 | 11:13:36.13 | 22:15:51.1 |  |  | 21.57 | unk |  |
| V84 | 1784 | 11:13:43.00 | 22:07:26.4 | 0.60829 | 1.013 | 22.10 | ab | -0.054 |
| V85 | 1900 | 11:13:11.76 | 22:09:13.9 | 0.60888 | 1.080 | 22.08 | ab | -0.065 |
| V86 | 1922 | 11:13:43.72 | 22:10:48.4 | 0.28667 | 0.621 | 21.57 | c |  |
| V87 | 1982 | 11:13:33.26 | 22:10:23.6 | 0.53243 | 1.235 | 22.28 | abb | -0.031 |
| V88 | 1996 | 11:13:52.92 | 22:08:53.0 | 0.80806 | 0.546 | 21.74 | ab | -0.105 |
| V89 | 2025 | 11:13:48.63 | 22:10:13.3 | 0.56978 | 1.180 | 22.26 | ab | -0.052 |
| V90 | 2188 | 11:13:23.76 | 22:15:28.2 | 0.55128 | 1.208 | 22.26 | ab | -0.042 |
| V91 | 2230 | 11:13:15.20 | 22:04:26.6 | 0.36791 | 0.532 | 21.93 | c |  |
| V92 | 2269 | 11:13:16.10 | 22:03:55.2 | 0.39916 | 0.467 | 21.99 | c |  |
| V93 | 2290 | 11:13:44.23 | 22:05:27.8 | 0.28849 | 0.664 | 22.13 | c |  |
| V94 | 2300 | 11:13:13.55 | 22:05:53.4 | 0.60191 | 0.873 | 22.16 | ab | -0.028 |
| V95 | 2312 | 11:13:39.20 | 22:07:15.4 | 0.64360 | 0.757 | 22.07 | ab | -0.039 |
| V96 | 2334 | 11:13:19.34 | 22:07:55.6 | 0.40767 | 0.517 | 21.98 | c |  |
| V97 | 2382 | 11:13:40.25 | 22:07:43.3 | 0.37708 | 0.517 | 22.14 | c |  |
| V98 | 2394 | 11:13:39.79 | 22:07:45.7 | 0.58175 | 0.591 | 22.04 | ab | 0.031 |
| V99 | 2448 | 11:13:37.13 | 22:13:44.0 | 0.54193 | 0.829 | 22.22 | ab | 0.025 |

TABLE I. Continued. RR Lyrae Variables

| Var ID | Star ID | RA | DEC | Period | $`A_V`$ | $`m_V`$ | Bailey | $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | J2000.0 | J2000.0 | (Days) |  |  | Type |  |
| V100 | 2467 | 11:13:18.04 | 22:07:58.8 | 0.51503 | 1.323 | 22.35 | ab | -0.030 |
| V101 | 2497 | 11:13:49.69 | 22:08:35.3 | 0.60588 | 0.779 | 22.13 | ab | -0.016 |
| V102 | 2561 | 11:13:15.43 | 22:10:09.7 | 0.52567 | 1.088 | 22.26 | ab | -0.002 |
| V103 | 2593 | 11:13:21.09 | 22:11:14.8 | 0.59649 | 0.997 | 22.25 | ab | -0.043 |
| V104 | 2607 | 11:13:40.42 | 22:08:34.6 | 0.77449 | 0.542 | 22.06 | ab | -0.086 |
| V105 | 2621 | 11:13:33.61 | 22:04:11.7 | 0.53191 | 1.066 | 22.19 | ab | -0.004 |
| V106 | 2633 | 11:13:21.18 | 22:10:59.2 | 0.67730 | 0.403 | 22.05 | ab | -0.006 |
| V107 | 2688 | 11:13:07.32 | 22:07:02.3 | 0.63038 | 1.166 | 22.03 | ab | -0.093 |
| V108 | 2716 | 11:13:48.58 | 22:15:11.1 | 0.62602 | 0.759 | 22.21 | ab | 0.027 |
| V109 | 2767 | 11:13:22.05 | 22:11:29.5 | 0.58815 | 0.872 | 22.19 | ab | -0.018 |
| V110 | 2801 | 11:13:44.87 | 22:03:39.7 | 0.64623 | 1.130 | 22.25 | ab | -0.099 |
| V111 | 2820 | 11:13:28.25 | 22:07:08.2 | 0.28828 | 0.576 | 22.02 | c |  |
| V112 | 2830 | 11:13:14.64 | 22:09:38.2 | 0.34577 | 0.754 | 22.32 | c |  |
| V113 | 2871 | 11:13:33.23 | 22:12:45.3 | 0.67845 | 0.564 | 22.17 | ab | -0.032 |
| V114 | 2887 | 11:13:49.59 | 22:04:44.7 | 0.64921 | 0.709 | 22.03 | ab | -0.035 |
| V115 | 2896 | 11:13:29.42 | 22:08:23.6 | 0.66809 | 0.530 | 22.11 | ab | -0.020 |
| V116 | 2899 | 11:13:30.10 | 22:01:49.9 | 0.61526 | 1.214 | 22.08 | ab | -0.090 |
| V117 | 2906 | 11:13:35.27 | 22:07:34.5 | 0.64489 | 0.538 | 22.05 | ab | -0.005 |
| V118 | 2943 | 11:13:40.84 | 22:04:01.1 | 0.35405 | 0.559 | 22.18 | c |  |
| V119 | 2962 | 11:13:24.90 | 22:11:02.5 | 0.77051 | 0.361 | 22.13 | ab | -0.055 |
| V120 | 2990 | 11:13:15.84 | 22:12:59.7 | 0.65160 | 0.572 | 22.16 | ab | -0.015 |
| V121 | 3006 | 11:13:36.99 | 22:08:59.5 | 0.62537 | 0.689 | 22.03 | ab | -0.016 |
| V122 | 3031 | 11:13:28.43 | 22:04:49.6 | 0.53380 | 1.008 | 22.21 | ab | 0.003 |
| V123 | 3055 | 11:13:46.00 | 22:07:26.9 | 0.63797 | 0.631 | 22.18 | abb | -0.015 |
| V124 | 3072 | 11:13:42.68 | 22:06:25.4 | 0.41264 | 0.460 | 22.09 | c |  |
| V125 | 3086 | 11:13:39.67 | 22:11:59.1 | 0.65294 | 0.771 | 22.09 | ab | -0.047 |

TABLE I. Continued. RR Lyrae Variables

| Var ID | Star ID | RA | DEC | Period | $`A_V`$ | $`m_V`$ | Bailey | $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | J2000.0 | J2000.0 | (Days) |  |  | Type |  |
| V126 | 3121 | 11:13:20.53 | 22:07:13.3 | 0.58798 | 0.882 | 22.17 | ab | -0.019 |
| V127 | 3122 | 11:13:03.71 | 22:05:51.8 | 0.37047 | 0.580 | 22.15 | c |  |
| V128 | 3166 | 11:13:30.67 | 22:09:12.5 | 0.62768 | 0.857 | 22.10 | ab | -0.043 |
| V129 | 3180 | 11:13:30.03 | 22:05:22.6 | 0.54800 | 1.279 | 22.16 | ab | -0.050 |
| V130 | 3218 | 11:13:19.76 | 22:06:16.2 |  |  | 22.12 | unk |  |
| V131 | 3231 | 11:13:06.56 | 22:02:41.1 | 0.63519 | 0.889 | 22.11 | ab | -0.054 |
| V132 | 3240 | 11:13:36.35 | 22:09:04.3 | 0.32976 | 0.444 | 22.26 | c |  |
| V133 | 3257 | 11:13:40.16 | 22:06:16.4 | 0.66382 | 0.638 | 22.09 | ab | -0.034 |
| V134 | 3351 | 11:13:11.72 | 22:08:54.0 | 0.41174 | 0.592 | 22.10 | c |  |
| V135 | 3355 | 11:13:48.37 | 22:06:15.5 | 0.59801 | 0.967 | 22.21 | ab | -0.040 |
| V136 | 3363 | 11:13:34.75 | 22:07:44.2 | 0.58072 | 0.695 | 22.21 | ab | 0.016 |
| V137 | 3419 | 11:13:32.00 | 22:10:50.2 | 0.54721 | 0.725 | 22.23 | ab | 0.037 |
| V138 | 3470 | 11:13:46.51 | 22:12:51.0 | 0.57274 | 0.789 | 22.18 | ab | 0.007 |
| V139 | 3603 | 11:13:39.59 | 22:12:06.3 | 0.37020 | 0.810 | 22.25 | c |  |
| V140 | 3612 | 11:13:38.01 | 22:06:10.5 | 0.57298 | 0.670 | 22.2 | abb | 0.025 |
| V141 | 3648 | 11:13:12.49 | 22:04:50.4 | 0.53736 | 1.076 | 22.22 | ab | -0.010 |
| V142 | 3655 | 11:13:40.13 | 22:10:37.0 | 0.57900 | 0.806 | 22.17 | ab | -0.000 |
| V143 | 3668 | 11:13:42.93 | 22:07:37.7 | 0.67390 | 0.687 | 22.16 | ab | -0.048 |
| V144 | 3728 | 11:13:43.62 | 22:06:53.2 | 0.60467 | 0.824 | 22.15 | ab | -0.022 |
| V145 | 3753 | 11:13:23.40 | 22:06:11.7 | 0.30380 | 0.442 | 22.14 | c |  |
| V146 | 3756 | 11:13:10.54 | 22:04:10.3 | 0.62178 | 0.529 | 22.14 | ab | 0.012 |
| V147 | 3767 | 11:13:20.15 | 22:05:44.6 | 0.39119 | 0.462 | 22.17 | c |  |
| V148 | 3793 | 11:13:22.04 | 22:10:54.7 | 0.59595 | 0.884 | 22.33 | ab | -0.025 |
| V149 | 3819 | 11:13:17.59 | 22:03:32.8 | 0.59440 | 0.980 | 22.20 | ab | -0.039 |
| V150 | 3827 | 11:13:44.15 | 22:14:33.2 | 0.63607 | 0.599 | 22.20 | ab | -0.009 |
| V151 | 3833 | 11:13:46.82 | 22:09:44.5 | 0.64002 | 0.674 | 22.17 | ab | -0.023 |

TABLE I. Continued. RR Lyrae Variables

| Var ID | Star ID | RA | DEC | Period | $`A_V`$ | $`m_V`$ | Bailey | $`\mathrm{\Delta }logP`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | J2000.0 | J2000.0 | (Days) |  |  | Type |  |
| V152 | 3834 | 11:13:10.49 | 22:07:59.2 | 0.39628 | 0.685 | 22.22 | c |  |
| V153 | 3855 | 11:13:13.11 | 22:06:31.2 | 0.53161 | 1.282 | 22.36 | ab | -0.038 |
| V154 | 3858 | 11:13:27.63 | 22:07:37.0 | 0.57966 | 1.097 | 22.16 | ab | -0.046 |
| V155 | 3899 | 11:13:37.02 | 22:10:09.5 | 0.57998 | 0.938 | 22.29 | ab | -0.022 |
| V156 | 3922 | 11:13:21.68 | 22:12:57.0 | 0.66558 | 0.580 | 22.19 | ab | -0.026 |
| V157 | 3943 | 11:13:32.38 | 22:07:20.5 | 0.70267 | 0.473 | 22.19 | ab | -0.033 |
| V158 | 3949 | 11:13:37.75 | 22:09:35.5 | 0.38603 | 0.418 | 22.20 | c |  |
| V159 | 3970 | 11:13:28.80 | 22:12:35.5 | 0.62165 | 0.648 | 22.18 | ab | -0.007 |
| V160 | 3989 | 11:13:18.88 | 22:05:50.7 | 0.65722 | 0.477 | 22.16 | ab | -0.004 |
| V161 | 4055 | 11:13:18.78 | 22:08:12.5 | 0.42312 | 0.508 | 22.16 | c |  |
| V162 | 4127 | 11:13:45.68 | 22:04:22.8 | 0.60893 | 0.711 | 22.33 | ab | -0.007 |
| V163 | 4147 | 11:13:11.63 | 22:10:37.2 | 0.62955 | 0.633 | 22.31 | ab | -0.010 |
| V164 | 4159 | 11:13:43.33 | 22:11:57.2 | 0.65348 | 0.859 | 22.19 | ab | -0.061 |
| V165 | 4165 | 11:13:22.33 | 22:06:18.2 | 0.61594 | 0.709 | 22.17 | ab | -0.012 |
| V166 | 4200 | 11:13:24.30 | 22:11:12.7 | 0.57983 | 0.879 | 22.33 | ab | -0.012 |
| V167 | 4238 | 11:13:08.79 | 22:11:16.3 | 0.59477 | 0.789 | 22.32 | ab | -0.009 |
| V168 | 4304 | 11:13:21.62 | 22:07:32.4 | 0.50692 | 1.232 | 22.43 | ab | -0.009 |
| V169 | 4331 | 11:13:11.79 | 22:11:15.5 | 0.26704 | 0.542 | 22.34 | c |  |

TABLE II. DI93 Stars that are non-variable

| DI93 ID | Star ID | WS Index |
| --- | --- | --- |
| V3 | 4724 | 1.5 |
| V4 | 3541 | 2.3 |
| V7 | 5486 | 1.1 |
| V12 | 1103 | 1.5 |
| V13 | 4698 | 1.4 |
| V20 | 2365 | 2.8 |
| V26 | 3831 | 1.6 |
| V27 | 5673 | 2.9 |
| V35 | 4612 | 1.2 |
| V42 | 4057 | 1.3 |
| V45 | 3065 | 0.8 |
| V47 | 4421 | 0.9 |
| V51 | 5433 | 1.2 |
| V58 | 4224 | 1.2 |
| V59 | 3939 | 1.2 |
| V63 | 3890 | 2.0 |
| V66 | 1291 | 1.1 |
| V68 | 3558 | 2.7 |
| V71 | 4318 | 2.4 |
| V72 | 3445 | 2.7 |

TABLE III. Anomalous Cepheids

| Var ID | Star ID | RA | DEC | Period | $`A_V`$ | $`m_V`$ | Pulsation Mode | Swope ID |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | J2000.0 | J2000.0 | (Days) |  |  |  |  |
| V53 | 645 | 11:13:22.39 | 22:08:34.6 | 1.48466 | 1.240 | 20.45 | Fundamental | V27 |
| V170 | 737 | 11:13:09.58 | 22:10:26.3 | 1.37955 | 1.050 | 20.59 | Fundemental | V203 |
| V171 | 1205 | 11:13:14.54 | 22:11:41.6 | 0.39191 | 0.879 | 21.38 | Overtone | V51 |
| V172 | 1545 | 11:13:34.75 | 22:13:44.8 | 0.41907 | 0.850 | 21.70 | Overtone | V1 |


format: text

text:
# Non-LTE Abundances and Consequences for the Evolution of the 𝛼-elements in the Galaxy

## 1 Introduction

The determination of abundances of nuclear species at distinct locations in the Galaxy (e.g. halo, disk and bulge) comes mainly from the spectra of late-type star atmospheres. Measured abundances in cool stars at different stages of evolution give not only the understanding of stellar nucleosynthesis, but also provide valuable information about the process of chemical enrichment of the Galaxy.

The archaeological tracers of the chemical evolution of a star system are the elements produced by explosive nucleosynthesis in type II (SNII) and type Ia (SNIa) supernovae events. The interest using such elements as tracers rests on the fact that SNII and SNIa progenitors have different lifetimes; SNII is the final evolution of massive stars and SNIa is a possible final result of evolution of a close binary system of intermediate mass stars. SNII contribute to the enrichment of the interstellar medium (ISM) mainly with elements produced by the capture of $`\alpha `$ particles ($`\alpha `$ elements) and from the r-process, and SNIa produce elements belonging to the Fe peak. Consequently, the basic tools to constraint the evolution of ISM in the Galaxy are usually the analysis of relations between ratios of heavy elements \[element/Fe\] and Fe abundance \[Fe/H\].111$`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{Fe}}/\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{H})\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{Fe}}/\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{H})_{}`$.

A first glance at the temporal behavior of $`\alpha `$ elements shows that the ratio \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\] is approximately constant for halo metal-poor stars (\[Fe/H\]$``$-1.5) and decreases for metal-rich stars (\[Fe/H\]$`>`$-1.5) belonging to the disk. This is reasonably explained by the chemical evolutionary models that assume progressive enrichment of ISM by supernovae: first generation of stars have in their atmospheres the signature of SNII events only (called halo-phase of the Galaxy) and the subsequent generations have a signature of both SNII and SNIa events (disk-phase).

However, a more precise analysis of \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] shows a pronounced scatter, mainly in the region of metal-poor stars. This scatter has been interpreted mostly as a consequence of the inhomogeneity of the matter having made stars rather than resulting of poor observational data (Audouze and Silk 1996).

The derivation of abundances based on the analysis of high resolution stellar spectra is usually made under the assumption of Local Thermodynamical Equilibrium (LTE). In the last 15 years, many efforts to estimate errors on abundance determinations caused by LTE assumption have been done. Recently results for Ba II (Gigas 1986, 1988, Mashonkina & Bikmaev 1996), Sr II (Belyakova & Mashonkina 1997), Na I (Mashonkina et al. 1993), Mg I (Gigas 1986, Mashonkina et al. 1996), Ca I (Drake 1991), B I (Kiselman & Carlsson 1996), Al I (Baumuller & Gehren 1997) and Fe I and Fe II (Thévenin & Idiart 1999, TI99), O I (Mishenina et al. 1999) and Mg I (Zhao, Butler & Gehren 1998) demonstrate that most lines can formed far from LTE conditions. So, some important questions arise: what is the influence of non-LTE abundance calculations on the chemical evolution diagrams of the Galaxy? Do these computations add another different constraints to the chemical history of enrichment of the matter in the Galaxy?

In this work, we present non-LTE abundances derived from computation of statistical equilibrium of Ca and Mg atoms, using published equivalent widths (Sect. 3). The atomic data and stellar atmospheric models used are presented in Sect. 2. $`\alpha `$ elements like Mg and Ca have well-known enhanced abundances in atmospheres of F-G metal-poor dwarf stars as a result of cumulative stellar generations. Recently, Nissen & Schuster(1997) and Jehin et al. (1999) proposed the existence of two sequences of stars having two different \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\] ratios for intermediate stars (\[Fe/H\] $``$ -1). Their works are based on highly accurate observations of stars having approximately same temperatures and surface gravities. Based on our non-LTE computations, we found different branches or sub-populations of stars not only for intermediate metallicities; consequences for chemical evolution models of the Galaxy are presented in Sect. 4. We drawn our conclusions in Sect. 5.

## 2 Atomic data and stellar atmospheric models

The code we used to solve the equations of statistical equilibrium and radiative transfer is the 2.2 version (1995) of MULTI (Carlsson 1986). This code allows us to obtain theoretical spectra of Mg I and Ca I for given stellar atmospheric models and atomic data.

The atomic models used are shown by Grotrian diagrams presented in Figs. 1 and 2, for Mg I and Ca I respectively. We included all the fine structure levels of Mg I below 6eV: 103 levels + continuum and 980 radiative transitions. For calcium, the model has 83 levels + continuum and 483 radiative transitions. We used the atomic energy level tables given by Hirata & Horagushi (1995) (HH95) and Martin et al. (1985). Oscillator strengths are from HH95, Kurucz (1993) and Thévenin (1989, 1990). We followed the procedure described in TI99 for the remaining atomic data: radiative and collisional damping coefficients, excitation and ionization collisional cross-sections. Photoionization cross-sections are from TopBase. The van der Waals damping for all Mg lines was calculated using the approximation given by Unsöld (1955) and multiplied by a factor 1.3 as in TI99. For Ca we followed Cayrel et al. (1996). Note that the factor 1.3 is only important for strong saturated lines. As will be seen in sect. 3, we always tried to use lines lying on the linear part of the curve of growth, where this factor does not play an important role.

Stellar atmospheric models are generated using the Gustafsson et al. (1975) and Bell et al.’s grids (1976), in order to be consistent with TI99, using $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ from Thévenin (1998) and $`\mathrm{logg}`$ and \[Fe/H\] corrected for non-LTE effects from TI99. We also estimated non-LTE $`\mathrm{logg}`$ and \[Fe/H\] values for an additional sample of stars not analyzed in TI99 (see Table 1). Some objects, to which more accurate equivalent widths were recently available, non-LTE surface gravities and \[Fe/H\] were re-estimated (see Table 1). We emphasize that we do not intend to obtain absolute abundance values (see sect. 3), thus in a first approximation we can use LTE atmospheric models and perform our analysis just estimating non-LTE effects in statistical equilibrium.

## 3 Non-LTE calculation and results

To estimate Ca and Mg non-LTE abundances we used published equivalent widths (EW) for 252 stars, including dwarfs, subdwarfs and some subgiants. Sources of EW data are listed in Table 2 with the respective wavelengths of lines used in our analysis. Since we chose to work with one or two lines at maximum, we selected unsaturated and not very weak lines in order to have a more precise abundance determination.

To obtain non-LTE abundances we iterate MULTI with different abundance values until we reproduce the measured EW. This kind of procedure has two basic problems: 1) Our atomic model is not perfect, since, for example we do not take into account all the levels and line transitions of all spectroscopic terms and certainly there are uncertainties in oscillator strengths and in collisional processes with neutral H and He (see TI99, for a discussion). 2) Observational errors in EW measurements and inhomogeneity of EW from different sources (e.g observations with different instruments and different placement of the continua).

In order to avoid systematic effects between EW existing in the literature we renormalized our resulting abundances using common stars (comparison objects) present in the data set of different authors. Of course, a standard procedure of renormalization requires a choice of comparison objects according to each spectral type of the analyzed stars. In our case this step was not necessary, since our selected stars have roughly the same surface gravities (dwarfs and subgiants) and a narrow range of not very cool effective temperatures (5300 $`<`$ $`T_{eff}`$ $`<`$ 6300).

All the stars were renormalized to a given reference system, referred here as Ed93 system (which is based on abundances derived from published EW set of Edvardsson et al. 1993). First, we recalculate solar Ca, Mg and Fe abundances using MULTI and EW taken from Ed93. These values are our solar references. Then we estimate the relative abundances \[Ca/H\] and \[Mg/H\] for Ed93 stars. In principle, this differential procedure also allows us to minimize the imperfections of the atomic models used here. To renormalize the data from other sources we used observed common stars, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. For example, for Mg abundance and mean metallicity $`<[Fe/H]>1`$ to include the data of Jehin et al. (J99) into the Ed93 system, nine common stars between these two data sets were taken, and the average of the differences between estimated abundances was calculated. This averaging procedure was used to transform J99 data to the Ed93 system. The same procedure was performed on data given by Nissen & Schuster (NS97). For metal-poor stars more steps were performed. For the Zhao & Magain (ZM90) data, for example, we renormalized ZM90 into J99 (1 common star), and ZM90 into NS97 (2 common stars), then, as J99 and NS97 have common stars with the Ed93 system, these 2 sequences gave us a renormalization ZM90-Ed93.

The main goal of this procedure is to have a homogeneous table of derived non-LTE abundances. Results are presented in Table 3 for Ca and Mg. Fig. 3 shows the abundance ratios \[Ca/Fe\] and \[Mg/Fe\] for halo and disk phases, presenting parallel structures in both evolutive diagrams.

Errors are hard to estimate because they involve many factors as described previously. We estimated the uncertainties in our abundance determinations caused by the scatter on derived abundances when varying different parameters: stellar (Teff, logg and \[Fe/H\]) and observational (EW). Fig. 4 shows the percentage errors on log($`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{Ca}}`$) and log($`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{Mg}}`$) abundances, corresponding to an incertitude in a given atmospheric parameter. These error estimates are made for a star of $`\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$=0.85, logg=4.2 and \[Fe/H\]=-2.0, for different abundance ratios \[Ca/Fe\] and \[Mg/Fe\], for CaI and MgI lines of table 2. We see that abundance variations are, on the average, more sensitive to uncertainties in $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, reaching a maximum of 2.2% for some CaI lines. We note that in the case of $`\mathrm{logg}`$ and \[Fe/H\], the scatters adopted are the classical LTE errors, so the abundance errors can be overestimated.

A similar analysis is made for EW uncertainties using the same Ca I and Mg I lines. Fig. 5 shows the percentage errors in EW if we have errors in abundance ratios of the order of the structure separations ($``$ 0.15, 0.2 dex in halo phase) displayed in Fig. 3. For example, the EW of CaI $`\lambda \lambda `$ 4578.56 and MgI $`\lambda \lambda `$ 4571.1 lines from Zhao & Magain 1990 have respectively EW errors of 40% and 75% when \[Ca/Fe\] and \[Mg/Fe\] have variations between 0.15 and 0.2 dex. The magnitude of these uncertainties are much greater than the observational errors estimated by EW sources, demonstrating that these structures can be real.

Fig. 3 confirms that effects of data renormalization as sources of these structures can be discarded, since the data of distinct sources are distributed in different parallel structures. As mentioned above, scattering in abundances is sensitive to temperature variations, however this effect seems to be not strong enough to form these structures, as can be seen in Fig. 6 that shows no correlation between abundance ratios and temperatures.

One should have also to keep in mind that such uncertainties in $`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ or $`\mathrm{logg}`$ result in variations on iron abundances of the same magnitude and sign as for Ca and Mg abundances, which minimize uncertainties in the abundance ratios. Thus, one can say that the ratios \[Ca/Fe\] and \[Mg/Fe\] are less sensitive to these uncertainties on the stellar fundamental parameters.

## 4 Discussion

The two non-LTE chemical diagrams in Fig. 3 show up that the chemical enrichment of the matter in the Galaxy may be not so simple as adopted today. On \[Ca/Fe\] diagram, parallel structures appear: a) halo phase shows three well defined structures separated by $``$ 0.15 dex and some Ca very deficient stars. b) in the disk phase (-0.7 $`<`$ \[Fe/H\] $`<`$ 0.4) one can distinguish at least 4 structures. This behavior is also present in the intermediate phase of the Galaxy (-1.2 $`<`$ \[Fe/H\] $`<`$ -0.7), but only on 3 incurved structures.

The \[Mg/Fe\] diagram shows the same structures but with a greater scatter. This scatter can be due essentially for two reasons. The first one, because measured EW for magnesium lines are more imprecise (there are fewer clean weak lines in observed spectra) than for calcium lines and the second, because there are some differences between the mechanisms of Mg and Ca yields production by SNII of distinct progenitor masses. Fig. 7 shows a pronounced scatter in \[Mg/H\] and \[Ca/H\] relation in the halo phase.

Clearly, the structures pointed out by Nissen $`\&`$ Schuster (1997) and Jehin et al.(1999) are present in our Calcium and Magnesium diagrams, and now extend to the disk and the halo phases of the Galaxy. Flat structures of $`[\alpha /\mathrm{H}]`$ ratios vs \[Fe/H\] are consistent with the idea that both elements come from massive supernovae. The question is: how field star formation can produce these structures if, at first, halo stars were formed independently in all the protogalaxy phase?

The existence of such structures and dichotomy exist also in Globular Clusters, as it has been demonstrated since more than 15 years. Calcium branch dichotomy in $`\omega `$ Cen revealed possible self-enrichment due to SN II, postulating two epochs of star formation separated by a hiatus time. Detailed discussion of Norris, Freeman, $`\&`$ Mighell (1996) rejects with convincing arguments a merger origin of the dichotomy of \[Ca/H\] abundances in globular clusters. Another intriguing coincidence is the bimodality of C and N abundances on the main sequence of 47 Tuc (Cannon et al. 1998). As suggested by the authors, an hybrid accretion-enrichment model could help to understand how globular clusters form and the role played by stellar winds and those of SN II. Recently Boesgaard et al. (1998) have observed six turn-off stars in M92, an old very metal-poor cluster. Keeping in mind that the quality of the spectra is low, giving large uncertainties to possible derived chemical abundances from then, we derived non-LTE abundances for iron, calcium and magnesium. As an exercise, we plotted the Ca and Mg ratios for these six stars on our diagram and discovered after renormalisation that they lie exactly at the same place as halo stars. To conclude that this is more than a coincidence is premature but raises an interesting possibility: a common origin of field and globular cluster stars. If such observations could be repeated in other globular clusters for main sequence stars with better signal-to-noise ratios, then they would probably help greatly in the understanding of the formation of the Galaxy. Possible consequences could also be derived concerning the first stars in the protogalaxy as discussed by Cayrel (1986).

Another possible scenario of the formation of the Galaxy that can produce these structures in the halo phase is an incomplete mixing of SNII yields, as suggested by Karlsson & Gustafsson (1999). In an even more recent paper, Argast et al. (1999) have explored this scenario in more detail. Surprisingly, the model proposed by Argast et al. produces structures in the \[Ca/Fe\] and \[Mg/Fe\] diagrams (\[Fe/H\] $`<`$ -1.5) similar to ours, as shown in Fig. 3. Their theoretical \[Mg/Fe\] diagram also shows greater scatter than the \[Ca/Fe\] diagram, suggesting that the origin of this difference is mainly the yield production mechanism (see Argast et al. 1999 for more details), as mentioned in the second paragraph of this section.

For the disk phase, observed structures have a smaller separation, and are more evident in the \[Ca/Fe\] diagram than in the \[Mg/Fe\] diagram. One interesting question is: how can chemical evolution models reproduce this result for disk metal rich stars? Is it that the mixing time scale of enriched gas was larger than the formation time of each generation of stars in the disk, as supposed for the halo phase? Observations of open cluster stars could verify if they have similar behavior of globular cluster stars.

## 5 Conclusions

We report here non-LTE differential abundances for 252 subdwarf to subgiant stars using published high resolution equivalent widths. \[Ca/Fe\] and \[Mg/Fe\] diagrams show remarkable structures, both in the halo and disk phases of the Galaxy, which are not related with observational or atmospheric parameter uncertainties. These results lead us to a possible evolutive galactic scenario of non-homogeneity or incomplete mixing of synthesized SNII yields (Karlsson & Gustafsson, 1999, Argast et al. 1999). A surprising result is the behavior of M92 stars, mainly in the Ca diagram, suggesting a common origin for field and cluster stars. Spectroscopic high resolution with good S/N of stars in clusters are needed to confirm or not the sketch of a new chemical evolution model presented in this work. New non-LTE analysis for other $`\alpha `$-elements is also necessary to verify if this structural behavior applies to all $`\alpha `$-capture SNII products.

We thank the referee for many fruitful comments and suggestions and and for drawing our attention to the paper by Argast et al. T.I. acknowledges the Brazilian agency FAPESP for the grant 97/13083-7 at IAG. This work has been performed using the computing facilities provided by the program Simulations Interactives et Visualisation en Astronomie et Mécanique (SIVAM) at the computer center of the Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur.


text:
# Vector lattice model for stresses in granular materials

## Abstract

A vector lattice model for stresses in granular materials is proposed. A two dimensional pile built by pouring from a point is constructed numerically according to this model. Remarkably, the pile violates the Mohr Coulomb stability criterion for granular matter, probably because of the inherent anisotropy of such poured piles. The numerical results are also compared to the earlier continuum FPA model and the (scalar) lattice $`q`$-model.

Understanding how granular materials sustain externally applied loads is an interesting and difficult scientific problem, with obvious engineering implications. Unlike for elastic materials, the slippages that occur when a granular heap is built make it impossible to define a displacement (and thence a strain) field. One thus has to solve for a tensor stress field (which cannot be expressed in terms of a vector displacement field) using the vector force balance equation. In two dimensions, where the stress tensor has three independent components, this results in one ‘missing’ equation. In three dimensions, the situation is even worse.

One of the main tools used to deal with this difficulty is the Mohr Coulomb (MC) stability criterion. This states that the ratio of the shear to the normal stress at any point inside a cohesionless granular heap, with any orientation of axes, cannot exceed the coefficient of friction $`\mu .`$ This is natural, since otherwise one would expect an appropriately located (and oriented) slip plane to spontaneously destabilize the heap. Using the MC inequality and symmetry (or further assumptions), it is sometimes possible to obtain useful results on the stability of granular heaps . For instance, the elastoplastic model  of granular stresses relies crucially on this criterion. The fixed principal axes (FPA) model  does not invoke the MC criterion, but obtains it as a byproduct.

Both the elastoplastic and the FPA theory yield the surprising result that the MC criterion is saturated in a large outer region of a two-dimensional pile built by pouring from a point. This implies  that an infinitesimal perturbation inside the outer region should destabilize the pile, while one would expect that a poured pile should only be unstable at the surface.

A byproduct of the MC criterion is that the angle of repose $`\varphi `$ should satisfy the equation

$$\mathrm{tan}\varphi =\mu .$$
(1)
In two dimensions, the MC criterion becomes

$$\frac{(\sigma _{xx}\sigma _{yy})^2+4\sigma _{xy}^2}{(\sigma _{xx}+\sigma _{yy})^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi .$$
(2)
Although the MC criterion seems reasonable, there is the implicit assumption that the granular medium is isotropic. This is a questionable assumption for a granular heap built by pouring from a point. As the grains roll down the slopes of the heap, anisotropy can be ‘frozen in’, with different behavior parallel and perpendicular to the slope. In fact, for a two dimensional heap of identical disks in a perfect triangular lattice , the left hand side of Eq.(2) goes to unity at the corner of an infinitely high heap, while $`\varphi =\pi /3.`$ The motivation for this paper is to investigate whether this anisotropy persists away from the special case of the perfect lattice.

In this paper, we consider a two dimensional lattice model, with the grains placed on a triangular lattice (see Figure 1). Each grain rests on its two neighbors in the row below, and supports its neighbors in the row above. Adjoining sites in the same horizontal row are not connected. Forces propagate downwards from each grain to its descendants. In addition to the force from its predecessors, a grain also transmits its own weight downwards. This weight is taken to be the same for every grain.

In order to include disorder in the model, the outgoing bond angles $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ from a site are chosen randomly. For $`N`$ lattice sites, there are $`2N`$ random angles, each of which is chosen independently from a uniform distribution over the interval $`[\theta _{\mathrm{min}},\theta _{\mathrm{max}}].`$ The width of this interval is a measure of the degree of disorder. With equal sized grains, even if the lattice is viewed as a topological rather than a geometrical structure, the bond angles would not be all independent, but such correlations are ignored for simplicity.

Vector force balance is enforced on every lattice site. Solving for the inter-grain force network, proceeding downwards from row to row, inevitably leads to occasional negative (i.e. attractive) inter-grain forces. This is unphysical for a cohesionless granular medium. Accordingly, if the force between a grain and one of its descendants is negative, we interpret this to mean that the grain is unstable, and rolls in the direction of the other descendant. Within the model, this is accommodated by breaking the bond with negative force, and establishing a new bond with the adjacent site (in the same row as the unstable grain) in the opposite direction (see Figure 1). The new bond established necessitates recomputing force balance for the sites in the row; several iterations can be required before a stable configuration is achieved.

In reality, a moved grain would also change the angles for its unbroken bonds. Moreover, since the pile is not really a regular lattice, the link established to the adjacent site would not be horizontal. Both of these issues are ignored. The idea of unstable grains moving and readjusting their contacts has been suggested earlier , although the implementation of this process and the specific system studied are different here.

The model described above is similar to the earlier $`q`$-model  with one key difference: the $`q`$-model has scalar forces, only keeping track of the vertical force on each grain. Even with this limitation, the $`q`$-model successfully accounts for the experimental result  that the vertical forces on individual grains at the bottom of a granular heap have a distribution $`P(f)`$ that decays exponentially for large $`f`$. It also agrees with the experimental observation  that the vertical forces $`f_i`$ and $`f_j`$ on two grains at the bottom of a heap satisfy $`f_if_j=f_if_j.`$ However, the absence of vector forces in the $`q`$-model prevents it from reproducing the visually most striking feature of granular forces: the existence of “force chains” , a sparse network of grains that experience large stresses. Further, while forces on a single grain level are important for the failure of granular materials, one is often interested in a more coarse grained continuum description. There have been earlier work on vectorizing the $`q`$-model indirectly , and directly with a method different from the one here . We shall see that the vector lattice model proposed in this paper agrees well with the same experimental results as the $`q`$-model, and in addition yields force chains, corroborates some aspects of the FPA model while disagreeing with others, and permits a test of the MC stability criterion.

The specific system we consider using the vector lattice model is that of a granular pile built by pouring from a point. This is because this is the system on which most of the FPA model analysis has concentrated, and also because we have reasons to question the validity of the MC criterion in such a system. For convenience, in the numerical simulations, the pile is built from the top down instead of from the bottom up. Thus one starts with one lattice site in the top row and computes the outgoing forces, proceeding to two sites in the next row and so on. If a row has $`m`$ sites, the next row has $`m+1`$ sites unless the sites at the edge require adjacent sites to establish horizontal bonds with. All the numerics in this paper are with bond angles ranging over $`[\pi /6,\pi /3],`$ unless specified otherwise.

Figure 2 shows the result of such a simulation, with 400 rows. One first notices that there is a well defined slope to the pile. From the manner in which the pile is built up, we view the central $`m`$ sites in the $`m`$’th row as the interior of the pile, and the sites that flank this inner region as buttresses, necessary to stabilize the pile. This division into an inner and outer region is in accordance with the FPA model. With the bonds that support unusually high stresses marked, one also sees force chains concentrated in the inner region of the pile, in accordance with experiment . Although the force chains seem perfectly straight, this is because the sites are on a regular lattice. With a more realistic model, where the random bond angles would be accompanied by an irregular lattice, the chains should meander, with a mean orientation of $`\theta .`$

If the horizontal and vertical forces across the bottom of the pile (averaged over many runs) are plotted, the vertical force $`f_y`$ has a flat peak in the inner region and falls off steeply in the outer region. The variation in $`f_y`$ across the inner region is less than $`\pm 5\%.`$ The horizontal force $`f_x`$ varies linearly across the inner region, peaks roughly at the boundary between the inner and outer regions, and falls off in the outer region. The linear profile for $`f_x`$ shows that the pile has a strong tendency to splay.

One can coarse grain and compute ‘continuum’ stresses: Figure 3 shows the components of the stress tensor, calculated by coarse graining over twenty lattice sites at the bottom of a pile of 8000 rows, and then averaging over 2000 runs. Not surprisingly, the division between the inner and outer regions seen in the force components $`f_x`$ and $`f_y`$ is also seen here.

The slight curvature seen in $`\sigma _{yy}`$ in the central region does not decrease as a function of the size of the pile. This is accentuated in the plot of $`\sigma _{xx}/\sigma _{yy}.`$ The steady increase in this stress ratio as one moves away from the symmetry axis violates the BCC hypothesis  of $`\sigma _{yy}\sigma _{xx}`$; this cannot be cured by using the FPA or OSL hypotheses  of $`\sigma _{xx}=k_1\sigma _{yy}+k_2|\sigma _{xy}|,`$ since $`\sigma _{xx}/\sigma _{yy}`$ is quadratic at the center of the pile, whereas $`|\sigma _{xy}|`$ has a linear kink. More importantly, the violation of the FPA hypothesis can be understood physically. At least in the inner region, the splay in the pile makes it increasingly likely for sites to be destabilized outwards as one moves away from the axis of symmetry. Such destabilized sites establish bonds with their adjacent sites. Thus while the forces emerging from a site in the central region propagate downwards to its descendants, there is a steady drift towards more horizontal force propagation as one moves outwards. This reorients the principal axes of the stress tensor and increases $`\sigma _{xx}/\sigma _{yy}.`$ Changing the range of bond angles, $`[\theta _{\mathrm{min}},\theta _{\mathrm{max}}]`$ has no qualitative effect on the results discussed so far: the size of the buttresses flanking the inner region naturally increases when the bond angle range is increased.

The approximately flat profile of the vertical force in the inner region allows us to compute the distribution of vertical forces in this region. Figure 3 was obtained by averaging over many runs and lattice sites, but the forces on a single site in a single run have large fluctuations. Figure 4 shows a semi-log plot of the probability $`P(f)`$ for a grain in (the inner region of) the bottom row to experience a force $`f.`$ Although there is a slight deviation from an exponential for large $`f,`$ this steadily decreases as the size of the pile is increased, suggesting an exponential tail to $`P(f)`$ for infinite system size. If the range of bond angles is reduced, the evolution towards an exponential tail for $`P(f)`$ with increasing system size is slower, but is nevertheless still manifest. Conversely, the inset to Figure 4 shows $`\mathrm{ln}P(f)`$ with a bond angle range of $`[0.01\pi /3,1.49\pi /3].`$ Even though the pile is only 400 rows deep, $`P(f)`$ clearly has an exponential tail.

The small $`f`$ behavior of $`P(f)`$ depends on the range of bond angles. However, in all cases one sees that $`P(f0)0.`$ This is in accordance with experiments , but not with the $`q`$-model. In the model in this paper, if a lattice site receives a large force from above, it transmits large forces to both its descendants. Since it is unlikely that either of its descendants gets a large force from its other ancestor, both  descendants are usually destabilized outwards. The common descendant of the two destabilized grains thus receives no force from either of its ancestors. This yields a $`\delta `$-function in $`P(f)`$ at $`f=0`$ (more precisely, at $`f`$ equal to the weight of a single grain), which leads to $`P(f0)0.`$ Thus the vector lattice model agrees with experiments in this respect because it has arching, which is important in granular materials but is absent in the $`q`$-model.

One can also compute the correlation between vertical forces on adjacent sites (in the inner region of the pile) in the same horizontal row Unlike the $`q`$-model this is not exactly zero, and depends on the bond angle distribution, but is typically about a few percent of the variance in the vertical forces. This is reasonably consistent with the experimental observation  that the vertical forces on different grains are uncorrelated.

Finally, Figure 5 shows the MC ratio, the left hand side of Eq.(2), obtained from the coarse-grained stresses of Figure 3. The dashed line shown is at a height of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha ,`$ where $`\alpha `$ is the angle of repose. It is slightly tricky to define the angle of repose when a regular lattice is combined with random bond angles. If the width of the pile at a depth of $`m`$ rows is $`w(m),`$ and the large $`m`$ limit of $`m/w(m)`$ is $`\lambda ,`$ since the average bond angle is $`\pi /4,`$ $`\alpha `$ is taken to be $`\mathrm{tan}^1\lambda .`$ The numerical curve is seen to clearly go above the straight line, denoting a violation of the MC criterion.

In this paper, we have analyzed a new two dimensional lattice model with vector forces for granular materials. On an individual grain level, the model yields force chains, arching, and is consistent with an exponential tail to the distribution of vertical forces. Continuum stresses show an inner and outer region for a pile poured from a point, but the principal axes of the stress tensor are not fixed. Most importantly, the model violates the Mohr Coulomb criterion, calling in question the validity of this criterion for poured granular heaps.

I thank Sid Nagel, Deepak Dhar and Narayanan Menon for useful discussions.


text:
# A BRIEF NOTE ON THE MAGNETIC EFFECTS OF THE ELECTRON

## Abstract

In this paper it is shown that a recent formulation of the electron in terms of a Kerr-Newman type metric, exhibits a short range magnetic effect, as indeed has been observed at Cornell, and also an Aharonov-Bohm type of an effect.

00footnotetext: E-mail:birlasc@hd1.vsnl.net.in

In a recent model it was shown how an electron could be described as a Kerr-Newman type black hole with Quantum Mechanical inputs. Such a scheme lead to a cosmology consistent with all so called large number relations and which predicted that the universe would continue to expand for ever, as indeed has been subsequently observed. Moreover this scheme also gives a description of the quark picture including such features as the characteristic fractional charge, handedness, confinement and an order of magnitude estimate of the masses.
We would now like to point out two additional consequences of the above model, one an extra magnetic effect in the electromagnetic vacuum and the other an Aharanov-Bohm type effect.
We first observe that the magnetic component of the field of a static electron as a Kerr-Newman black hole is given in the familiar spherical polar coordinates by (Cf.refs.)

$$B_{\widehat{r}}=\frac{2ea}{r^3}cos\mathrm{\Theta }+0(\frac{1}{r^4}),B_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}}=\frac{easin\mathrm{\Theta }}{r^3}+0(\frac{1}{r^4}),B_{\widehat{\varphi }}=0,$$
(1)
whereas the electrical part is given by

$$E_{\widehat{r}}=\frac{e}{r^2}+0(\frac{1}{r^3}),E_{\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}}=0(\frac{1}{r^4}),E_{\widehat{\varphi }}=0,$$
(2)
A comparison of (1) and (2) shows that there is a magnetic component of shorter range apart from the dipole which is given by the first term on the right in equation (1)– infact this model also exhibits the anomalous gyro magnetic ratio $`g=2`$ of the electron. We would like to point out that a short range force the $`B^{(3)}`$ force mediated by massive photons has indeed been observed at Cornell and studied over the past few years.
On the other hand as the Kerr-Newman charged black hole can be approximated by a solinoid, we have as in the Aharonov-Bohm effect, a negligible magnetic field outdside, but at the same time a real vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ which would contribute to a shift in phase. Infact this shift in phase is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{\widehat{B}}=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{A}.\stackrel{}{ds}$$
(3)
There is also a similar effect due to the electric charge given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{\widehat{E}}=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}A_0𝑑t$$
(4)
where $`A_0`$ is the usual electro static potential given in (2). In the above Kerr-Newman formulation, $`(\stackrel{}{A},A_0)`$ of (3) and (4) are given by (Cf.refs.)

$$A_\sigma =\frac{1}{2}(\eta ^{\mu v}h_{\mu v}),\sigma ,$$
(5)
From (5) it can be seen that

$$\stackrel{}{A}\frac{1}{c}A_0$$
(6)
Substitution of (6) in (3) then gives us the contribution of the shift in phase due to the magnetic field.


text:
# Imprints of Discrete Space Time - A Brief Note

## Abstract

We point out that the observed decay mode of the pion and the Kaon decay puzzle are really imprints of discrete micro space-time.

In recent years ideas of discrete space time have been revived through the work of several scholars and by the author within the context of Kerr-Newman Black Hole type formulation of the electron-. Further, even more recently this has been considered in the context of a stochastic underpinning. Let us now consider two of the imprints that such discrete space time would have.
First we consider the case of the neutral pion. Within the framework of the Kerr-Newman metric type formulation referred to above, it is possible to recover the usual picture of a pion as a quark-anti quark bound state , though equally well we could think of it as an electron-positron bound state also. In this case we have,

$$\frac{mv^2}{r}=\frac{e^2}{r^2}$$
(1)
Consistently with the above formulation, if we take $`v=c`$ from (1) we get the correct Compton wavelength $`l_\pi =r`$ of the pion.
However this appears to go against the fact that there would be pair annihilation with the release of two photons. However if we consider discrete space time, the situation would be different. In this case the Schrodinger equation

$$H\psi =E\psi $$
(2)
where $`H`$ contains the above Coulumb interaction could be written, in terms of the space and time separated wave function components as (Cf. also ref.),

$$H\psi =E\varphi T=\varphi ı\mathrm{}[\frac{T(t\tau )T}{\tau }]$$
(3)
where $`\tau `$ is the minimum time cut off which in the above work has been taken to be the Compton time (Cf.refs. and ). If, as usual we let $`T=exp(irt)`$ we get

$$E=\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\tau }sin\frac{\tau r}{2}$$
(4)
(4) shows that if,

$$|E|<\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\tau }$$
(5)
holds then there are stable bound states. Indeed inequality (5) holds good when $`\tau `$ is the Compton time and $`E`$ is the total energy $`mc^2`$. Even if inequality (5) is reversed, there are decaying states which are relatively stable around the cut off energy $`\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\tau }`$.
This is the explanation for treating the pion as a bound state of an electron and a positron, as indeed is borne out by its decay mode. The situation is similar to the case of Bohr orbits– there also the electrons would according to classical ideas have collapsed into the nucleus and the atoms would have disappeared. In this case it is the discrete nature of space time which enables the pion to be a bound state as described by (1).
Another imprint of discrete space time can be found in the Kaon decay puzzle, as pointed out by the author. There also we have equations like (2) and (3) above, with the energy term being given by $`E(1+i)`$, due to the fact that space time is quantized. Not only is the fact that the imaginary and real parts of the energy are of the same order is borne out but as pointed out in this also explains the recently observed decay and violation of the time reversal symmetry which in the words of Penrose, ”the tiny fact of an almost completely hidden time-asymmetry seems genuinely to be present in the $`K^0`$-decay. It is hard to believe that nature is not, so to speak, trying to tell something through the results of this delicate and beautiful experiment.”
From an intuitive point of view, the above should not be surprising because time reversal symmetry is based on a space time continuum and is no longer obvious if space time were discrete.