text:
# Goldstone boson–nucleon dynamics: Working group summary and outlook

## 1 Introduction

This working group was concerned with processes involving exactly one nucleon (baryon), addressing topics like pion–nucleon scattering, the $`\pi `$N sigma–term, all kinds of nucleon form factors, real and virtual Compton scattering, electromagnetic pion production, strangeness and so on. There has been considerable progress on the experimental as well as on the theoretical side in this domain of chiral dynamics. This was reported in a number of plenary talks as well as the working group contributions compiled in these proceedings. It is the main task of this summary talk to point out the directions of research which should be pursued in the coming years. This certainly is a highly subjective undertaking, nevertheless, the presentations given at this conference have highlighted a variety of clear–cut questions and problems to be addressed. These will be touched upon here.

## 2 Theory: Status and perspectives

Formal aspects: The tool to perform the calculations in chiral perturbation theory (CHPT) or extensions thereof is an effective Lagrangian of the Goldstone bosons coupled to matter fields. General decoupling theorems  tell us that to leading order only the ground–state baryons should be included, the effect of baryon as well as meson resonances appears indirectly through the low–energy constants of the effective Lagrangian. This effective Lagrangian has been worked out to complete one–loop accuracy (fourth order) for the two–flavor case  including renormalization. The precise treatment of the baryon fields is still under debate. The baryon mass scale complicates the power counting. This can be dealt with in two ways. The first solution, the so–called heavy baryon approach (HBCHPT), is by now standard and many processes have been studied in that framework and many interesting results have been obtained. It has the disadvantage that due to the strict expansion in the inverse of the baryon mass, in some cases the analytical structure of a given amplitude can be deformed. That happens e.g. in case of the nucleon scalar form factor or the isovector electromagnetic ones (as detailed below). In the first case, this has numerical consequences, in the second it does not. An alternative approach has been discussed in the plenary talks by Becher and Leutwyler. It is based on a different regularization of the relativistic loop integrals (see also ref.) and automatically fulfills all analyticity requirements in the low–energy region (the cut structure of the so regulated integrals can become incorrect for momenta outside the range where CHPT is valid). The method is called infrared regularization (IR). Another advantage is the automatic resummation of all recoil corrections through the full Dirac propagator. There is, however, some ambiguity in treating the polynomial pieces stemming from the numerators in loop integrals. This very elegant and promising method certainly has to be scrutinized by a thorough investigation of many processes. Such a program is underway at various institutions. Much work has been done to extend effective Lagrangians to higher energies. Only in the case of including the spin-3/2 decuplet (the delta and its cousins) a truly systematic effective field theory has been formulated  after the pioneering work in ref. (based on the observation that the octet-decuplet splitting can be treated as another small parameter compared to the scale of chiral symmetry breaking). The inclusion of vector mesons still needs to be addressed in more detail (see refs. for the present status), the problem to overcome is the non–conservation of boson number, which makes it difficult to formulate a consistent power counting. Furthermore, resummation methods have been used to not only improve convergence but also to generate (pseudo) bound states. This inevitably leads to some model-dependence, which can however be minimized by employing appropriate dispersion relation techniques. This is particularly important for the studies of chiral dynamics with strange quarks, as discussed below, or to extend $`\pi `$N scattering into the region of the first and second resonances.

Nucleon form factors: The electromagnetic form factors are a good testing ground for certain aspects of the theory. First, the isovector radii are dominated by the anomalous threshold in the triangle diagram, which is exactly reproduced in the relativistic (IR) framework. Using HBCHT, one encounters a formal divergence. Its influence is, however, suppressed by phase space and one still obtains a decent description of the isovector spectral functions in HBCHT, as shown in fig.1. Second, from studies of the neutron charge form factor in HBCHT, one expects a bad convergence due to recoil effects. This expectation is borne out by the calculation using IR, it leads to a substantially improved description of this much discussed observable. There is also some progress concerning the strange and bizarre (a.k.a. anapole) form factors, which are at the heart of some dedicated experimental programs at JLab, Bates and MAMI. A third order HBCHPT analysis of the strange proton form factors is available, but it again might prove fruitful to combine these with the dispersive results presented here. In addition, the anapole moment  and corresponding form factor pose a veritable challenge to theory, not so much from the chiral dynamics point (for calculations of the momentum dependence of the anapole form factor, see e.g.), but rather from the point of radiative corrections and parity–violating meson–nucleon interactions. A dedicated theoretical effort is needed to sharpen the tools to uniquely extract the physics hidden in the data of the existing and upcoming parity violation experiments.

Pion–nucleon scattering: Pion–nucleon scattering has long been recognized as a particular playground for chiral dynamics, triggered by the observation that the isoscalar S–wave scattering length vanishes in the chiral limit. In the last years, very detailed and precise studies have been performed or are being performed in the heavy baryon as well as in the IR formalism. Much interest has focused on the so–called sigma term, which is nothing but the matrix element of the QCD quark mass term within proton states at zero momentum transfer. This quantity can only be obtained indirectly by various means \- dispersion relations, sum rules (which let one express the sigma term via threshold parameters and calculable integrals) as well as by CHPT  (or extensions therefore, see e.g.). In all cases, one needs experimental input as given in terms of various partial wave analyses (PWA). Unfortunately, only the by now outdated KA85 PWA passes all these tests. In addition, only recently a new calculation of electromagnetic corrections has become available  and a full CHPT analysis including virtual photons is not yet completed. Since the precise determination of $`\sigma (0)`$ is only possible if one knows a variety of small corrections precisely, a more detailed look at isospin violation is certainly needed. First studies seem to indicate non–negligible effects, see refs. It is important to stress that the large range of values for the sigma term found in the literature appears to have narrowed down sizeably, as discussed in more detail in section 3. Isospin violation is also of importance in the physical region close to threshold. Some phenomenological studies seem to indicate an astonishingly large effect in the S–wave (when comparing elastic scattering and CEX data via a triangle relation), but a complete CHPT calculation including virtual photons to settle this issue is not yet available but has to be done. So far, it has not been possible to obtain an accurate description simultaneously in the physical (threshold) region and inside the Mandelstam triangle. Clearly, a systematic marriage of the dispersive machinery with the chiral constraints has to be done. Such efforts are under way but are also very tedious, so it will take some time before a completely consistent and accurate picture of pion–nucleon scattering from the inside of the Mandelstam triangle to the low energy region of the available data has emerged. Furthermore, as discussed by Rusetsky, the effective field theory study of hadronic atoms offers the possibility of reliably extracting $`\pi `$N scattering lengths from pionic hydrogen and deuterium. Again, it is absolutely necessary to account for isospin violation. Finally, the analysis of the Goldberger-Treiman discrepancies in the octet favors a smaller $`\pi `$N coupling constant, $`f^2=0.075`$, (which is consistent with most recent phase shift analysis of $`\pi `$N and NN scattering) if one assumes the standard scenario of chiral symmetry breaking (for an alternative view, see ref.).

Electromagnetic meson production: Threshold pion photo– and electroproduction has been one of the cornerstones of testing chiral dynamics in the single nucleon sector. In particular, the production of neutral pions off protons and neutrons is very sensitive to explicit chiral symmetry breaking since the corresponding S–wave multipoles vanish in the chiral limit. This multipole also exhibits very clearly the unitary cusp due the opening of the secondary $`\pi ^+n`$ threshold. In addition, it was found many years ago that two particular combinations of the P–waves can also be predicted to high accuracy in a third order calculation. This needs to be sharpened by a complete fourth order calculation, in particular in view of the MAMI data reported here. Also progress has been made for charged pion production and the inverse capture process. The case of neutral pion electroproduction is even more intricate, there appears to be a serious discrepancy between the HBCHPT calculation and the data as discussed by Merkel. Clearly, a more thorough look at the P–waves is also necessary here, in particular at their variation with the photon virtuality. The announced problem in the longitudinal S–wave multipole might well be a reflection of the insufficient treatment of the P–waves. Only after a complete understanding of these processes on the proton has been obtained, a truely qualitative analysis of extracting the corresponding neutron amplitudes from pion production off light nuclei will be feasible. Also, so far all studies have been performed within HBCHPT. While the analysis of photoproduction does not reveal any large recoil effects but rather is sensitive to some special and unique loop contributions, the IR formalism might allow to consider a larger range of photon virtualities in the electroproduction case. More work on these topics is urgently called for.

Compton scattering: Over the last few years, real (RCS) and virtual Compton scattering (VCS) of protons and neutrons has developed into another precision tool for not only testing chiral dynamics but also employing dispersive techniques. Concerning the electromagnetic polarizabilities, it is now well established that major cancellations appear at NLO between the large delta and almost equally large $`\pi `$N loop corrections. This leads to a good agreement of theory with experiment at LO (which is a pure loop effect) and NLO for the proton. Unfortunately, the unsettled experimental situation concerning the neutron does so far not allow to draw any firm conclusion. Much attention has also been paid to the spin sector, which is characterized by four spin–polarizabilities, but so far no direct experimental determinations of these fundamental quantities exist. This area will certainly gain importance in the coming years. Much attention has shifted to VCS, in particular since first data from MAMI have become available. They agree amazingly well with the third order HBCHPT calculation at a fairly large photon virtuality. Clearly, a complete one–loop (fourth order) calculation is called for. A related topic is the momentum dependence of the DHG sum rule. The HBCHPT calculation is only applicable for small virtualities, but in case of the proton–neutron difference, where the resonance contributions drop out to a large extent, this range is somewhat larger. Based on the experience obtained in the form factor calculation, using the IR formalism, this momentum dependence might be accurate up to a photon virtuality where pQCD is still valid. After many years of mumbling and talking, a direct matching of the hadronic to the quark based description is in sight. Such a calculation is underway and its result is eagerly awaited.

Muon capture: Ordinary (OMC) and radiative muon capture (RMC) on the proton is sensitive to the elusive pseudoscalar form factor of the nucleon and its associated coupling constant $`g_P`$. While the presently available data for OMC are consistent with the accurate CHPT prediction, the pioneering experiment on RMC performed at TRIUMF  lead to a value of $`g_P`$ exceeding the expection by 50%. It was one of the highlights of this working group that two different groups  performed detailed analysis, which not only show that the method used by the TRIUMF group of simply rescaling the Born graphs $`g_P`$ is inconsistent with what is known from OMC, but also that the combination of certain small effects related to the strong interactions as well as atomic physics can explain the measured photon spectrum using a coupling constant consistent with theoretical expectations. This is reminiscent of the sigma–term story that unfolded in $`\pi `$N scattering over the last decade. More precisely, the occupation numbers of the atomic structure in muonic atoms/molecules need to be carefully re-examined and a N2LO calculation should be redone including all isospin breaking effects because of the sensitivity to the exact pion mass in the pion-pole contributions.

Strange quarks: Because of the fact that $`m_s\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, it is not so obvious that the strange quark can be treated on the same footing as the light up and down quarks, for example one can entertain the possibility that the three-flavor quark condensate is much smaller than its two flavor cousin. Often, one finds rather sizeable kaon loop corrections which cast some doubt on the convergence of the chiral expansion. Some progress has been made e.g. in the discussion of the baryon masses or magnetic moments because the so–called reordering  of the chiral series based on relating observables to a given order (i.e. performing a chiral expansion of the low energy constants) can improve the convergence dramatically. This needs to be explored in more detail. In addition, the existence of (subthreshold) boundstates in certain channels of the SU(3) meson–baryon system necessitates the implementation of some resummation techniques. While quite a bit of progress has been made in the past years, one should further minimize the model–dependence (which comes in e.g. via the regulator functions in the Lippmann–Schwinger equation). This can be done by using subtracted dispersion relations which has the further advantage that explicit resonance fields can be included by building up the crossed channel (left-hand) cuts in a perturbative manner. In that way, one can address the question whether a particular resonance is “pre-existing” (corresponding to a quark model state) or is dynamically generated through the strong meson–baryon interactions. As an illustrative example how that can work, let us mention meson–meson scattering and the octet of scalar mesons, discussed e.g. in ref. Other areas were three–flavor CHPT is very useful are the CP–violating sector of QCD, or hypernuclear physics.

## 3 Experiment: Status and perspectives

The $`\pi `$N $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ Term – Experiments: With respect to the $`\pi `$N $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ term, presentations were given describing new experiments particularly sensitive to the phases which determine $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$, as well as new analyses of existing data which lead to improved determinations of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$. The new experiments which were described both capitalize on interference regions to heighten their sensitivity to the smaller partial waves.

Meier described  experiments at both TRIUMF and PSI to measure pion-proton analyzing powers at low energies. At TRIUMF the effort focussed on $`\pi ^{}`$p analyzing powers in the S-P interference region, which occurs at backward angles near 50 MeV. At PSI the focus has been on low energy $`\pi ^+`$p analyzing powers near the Coulomb-nuclear interference region, although some $`\pi ^{}`$p data near the S-P interference region are also planned. Both experiments explored the region from roughly 50–100 MeV. By the time of the next chiral dynamics meeting, the data from both these experiments should be published. They should dramatically improve our understanding of the smaller low energy partial waves which have been difficult to accurately determine until now due to the normalization uncertainties which have plagued differential cross section measurements in the past at low energies. On top of that the analyzing power itself is an interference term, which gives it better sensitivity to small partial waves than the differential cross section. These small partial waves dominate at threshold and their accurate determination is crucial to our evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$.

The other new experiment relevant to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ was presented by Tacik. He described measurements ongoing at TRIUMF which map out the angular dependence of the $`\pi ^\pm `$p differential cross section at low energies right through the Coulomb-nuclear interference region. The experiment covers the kinematic regime from $`6^{}<\theta <180^{}`$ and $`15<T_\pi <67`$ MeV. Normalization uncertainties are mitigated by measuring $`\mu ^\pm `$p scattering simultaneously. These data, which also should be available by the time of CD2003, provide a measure of Re(D+) at t=0, where the $`\pi `$N amplitude D is the same amplitude which is directly proportional to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ at the Cheng-Dashen point. In addition these measurements provide a direct measure of the $`\pi `$N scattering length a$`{}_{0+}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}`$, which along with it’s P-wave counterpart a$`{}_{1+}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}`$ characterizes the usual determination of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$. Future plans of the TRIUMF CHAOS group are to explore the $`\stackrel{}{H}(\pi ^\pm ,\pi ^\pm \pi ^+)n`$ reaction near threshold.

Taken together, and in light of the previously existing body of $`\pi `$N experimental data, these new low energy $`\pi `$N cross sections and analyzing powers will to a large extent complete the experimental information we require in order to determine $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$. There are some relatively minor holes to be filled in and improvements to be made to be sure, but on the whole we will have about as complete an experimental picture of low energy $`\pi `$N scattering as we can expect to ever have by the time of CD2003. It seems unlikely that any new experiments will come forward after that which could provide new information relevant to the sigma-term puzzle. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the two experiments discussed above will provide two crucial and at present missing pieces of this puzzle. It is at once unfortunate and exciting that these are probably the last pieces of the sigma-term puzzle that can be provided by $`\pi `$N scattering experiments.

Having said that, it’s important to point out that low energy $`\pi `$N cross section and analyzing power measurements in the single charge exchange channel are still missing and are still important observables to measure. Like the extraordinarily precise pionic hydrogen atom experiments, they are primarily sensitive to isospin odd amplitudes, and are thus to first order not especially relevant to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$, which is determined from isospin even amplitudes. Their importance lies primarily in the context of isospin violation, an extremely interesting topic in its own right. However, it is not yet clear how isospin violation may affect the value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ although first steps have been done in this direction. An effort to provide SCX observables at PSI seems to have stalled due to problems getting the appropriate $`\pi ^0`$ detector to that laboratory. It is hoped that this bottleneck can be overcome by the time of the next meeting, and furthermore, that the impact of isospin violation on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ will have been established theoretically by then as well. SCX at higher energies will be provided by PNPI, as discussed by Kruglov, as well as spin rotation parameters which will be important in pinning down with better precision the higher partial waves which, we are beginning to suspect, play a greater role than previously thought in the determination of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$.

The $`\pi `$N $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ Term – Analyses: In addition to the new experiments reported at the meeting, there were several new analyses of $`\pi `$N scattering data presented which were used to deduce new values for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$. At the time of the last chiral dynamics meeting, only two analyses were available: KH80 and VPI/GWU. In a nutshell, each uses a different selection of the available body of experimental data to determine the $`\pi `$N partial wave amplitudes in the physical region. Each uses different techniques to extrapolate below threshold to the Cheng-Dashen point ($`\nu =0,t=4M_\pi ^2`$) where the connection to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ is made. It is widely agreed that the sub-threshold extrapolation machinery of the KH80 analysis is superior to that employed in the VPI/GWU analysis, although the sophistication of the VPI/GWU analysis is approaching that of the original KH80 analysis through the introduction of dispersion constraints. On the other hand, the data available to the KH80 analysis in 1980 was miniscule compared to what is presently available for use by the VPI/GWU analysis. In fact it appears that some of the most crucial experimental input used in the KH80 analysis was wrong, since it is at variance with all modern measurements performed at all three meson factories. In any case, the situation at CD97 was that the KH80 value for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ was on the order of $`64\pm 8`$ MeV, whereas the VPI/GWU value was a whopping $`92\pm 3`$ MeV, which corresponds to an $`s\overline{s}`$ content in the proton of over 25%!

So it was an important development in the field that at CD2000, several new determinations of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ were presented, and in fact some degree of convergence was even observed. Stahov  reported the results of an analysis which combined fixed-t dispersion relations and interior dispersion relations. As input he chose the VPI/GWU partial waves (SP00) in the s-channel (the VPI/GWU analysis is far more succesful at reproducing experiment than KH80 is). Surprisingly, he found his results were relatively insensitive to the choice of VPI/GWU or KH80 partial wave input, a result at variance with the work of Sainio, discussed below. For the t-channel KH80 input was used. His result was $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}=72\pm 2`$ MeV, where the error reflects only the uncertainty estimated for the extrapolation procedure. The error associated with the input partial waves is difficult to estimate and is one of the reasons we look forward to the next meeting when the results of the experiments discussed above will be available, presumably improving the partial wave input to analyses like these. Pavan  presented the latest VPI/GWU result, which changes in response to the increasing $`\pi `$N database as well as with improvements in their analysis, particularly with respect to their dispersion constraints. Their new result is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}=84\pm 5`$ MeV, around 6 MeV lower than their previous result, but still significantly higher than KH80 or Stahov’s result. Sainio  has reported at the previous meetings the result of an analysis based on six forward dispersion relations and partial wave input above a cutoff momentum of 185 MeV/c. In the past he has chosen KH80 phases as input, and got a result of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}=60`$ MeV, consistent with the KH80 value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}=64\pm 8`$ MeV. At CD2000 he reported a new result based on the same technique but using VPI/GWU phases as input (SP00). This moved his result to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}=93`$ MeV, consistent with the previous VPI/GWU result of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}=90`$ MeV, and underscoring the sensitivity of these analyses to the partial wave input. It would seem obvious, given the vastly superior predictive power of the VPI/GWU phases relative to those of KH80, that a higher value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ is inescapable. Finally, a novel analysis was presented by Olsson  which used fixed-t dispersion relations to derive a new sum rule for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ in terms of threshold paramters like the scattering lengths. His result of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}=71\pm 5`$ MeV supports the trend to a higher value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ relative to the old KH80 canonical value of 64 MeV.

To summarize, the analyses of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ seem to be converging on values between 71 and 84 MeV, implying that the $`s\overline{s}`$ content of the proton is 18–24%, as depicted in fig.2. New experiments, especially those aimed at threshold parameters, should improve still further the convergence of the different $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$ analyses by the time of the next chiral dynamics meeting.

Strange Form Factors: Rather than probe the isoscalar amplitude connected to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi N}`$, a number of ongoing and planned experiments at electron facilities are probing the electric and magnetic form factors of the strange quark sea in the proton by measuring parity violation in ep scattering. Pitt  presented the status of the four experiments pursuing this line of research. So far only SAMPLE at Bates and HAPPEX at JLab have presented results for publication. By the time of the next chiral dynamics meeting, new results from both those collaborations as well as G0 at JLab and A4 at Mainz will be available. This will permit the separate extraction of $`G_E^s`$ and $`G_M^s`$ over a wide range of Q2 (0.1 - 1.0 GeV/c2) with overlapping results from different experiments at selected Q2 values. The resulting insight ought to be one of the highlights of CD2003. Of related interest is the determination of the anapole moment of the nucleon, a topic discussed by Ramsey-Musolf. Experimental information on this fundamental parameter has been extracted from the SAMPLE experiment at Bates by combining the results of parity violating electron scattering asymmetries on hydrogen and deuterium targets. This, as well as new results in atomic parity violation, has stimulated theorists to revisit the anopole moment prediction using chiral perturbation theory. Unfortunately, the experimental measure of the anapole moment is at least an order of magnitude more challenging than the measure of the strange electromagnetic form factors. As a result, progress on this topic will be relatively slow in coming, and will no doubt be a topic of considerable interest at the next several chiral dynamics workshops.

Tests using electromagnetic probes: Recent progress in our understanding of the axial form factor of the nucleon was summarized by Širca. For some time now there has been a puzzling discrepancy between results for the axial form factor determined on the one hand by quasi-elastic antineutrino nucleus scattering, and on the other by charged pion electroproduction on the proton. However, ancient CHPT work has actually predicted a difference ($``$5%) in the axial mass determined each way. To test this prediction, the A1 group at Mainz has measured p(e,e$`{}_{}{}^{}\pi _{}^{+}`$)n to high precision and has confirmed the predicted axial mass discrepancy. However, their results were acquired far enough from threshold that an effective Lagrangian model had to be employed rather than CHPT directly in the extraction of their result. As a consequence, measurements at lower Q2 are planned, as well as measurements closer to threshold with a new device that should improve the reliability of their result in time for presentation at the next chiral dynamics conference. Measurements of the photon asymmetry in neutral pion photoproduction on the proton using TAPS at Mainz were described by Beck. These data allow the separate determination of all (S- and) P-wave multipoles for the first time. Prior to this only the S-wave E0+ and the P-wave multipoles P1 and P23 (a combination of the P2 and P3 multipoles) could be extracted from the available unpolarized cross sections. Only preliminary results were available at CD2000, but they confirmed the CHPT prediction for P2. It will clearly be interesting to see the outcome of the stringent test of CHPT these data will constitute when the final results for all the multipoles are available at CD2003. By then we should also have the results of further experiments, now in the planning stage, such as that presented by Lindgren to measure $`H(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}p)\pi ^0`$ at Jefferson Lab. This 3 GeV coincidence experiment will cover the Q2 region from 0.05 to 0.8 GeV/c2 and should permit the extraction of the S&P wave multipoles very near threshold. The TAPS group is also planning further work, with higher intensity and with both beam and target polarized.

Another fundamental property of the nucleon which can be predicted by CHPT is its electric and magnetic polarizability. Although these quantities are well measured for the proton, the neutron remains a formidable challenge. Hornidge  described measurements of tagged photon elastic scattering from the deuteron, as well as quasi-free Compton scattering d($`\gamma ,\gamma ^{}`$n)p at SAL which were performed to shed some light on the polarizibilities of the neutron. The elastic data have small statistical errors, but the extraction of polarizibilities is model dependent. Further theoretical guidance here is clearly required. In contrast, the quasi-free data minimized the model dependence but suffered from a lack of statistics. Given that further measurements at SAL are no longer possible, it would be nice to see similar measurements performed somewhere else with more statistical significance by the time of CD2003. Happily, plans exist to measure the quasi-free channel at MAMI and the elastic channel at LUND. It is worth mentioning that a recent MAMI measurement on the bound proton at backward angles gives further credit to the idea of using quasi-free Compton to determine the elusive neutron polarizabilities.

The spin structure functions g1(x,Q2) and g2(x,Q2) for the neutron as well as the Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn sum rule were investigated in an experiment described by Choi  at Jefferson Lab. The $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{He}}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{e}},\mathrm{e}^{})`$ reaction was studied from Q2 of 0.03 to 1.1 GeV/c2. The preliminary results reported at the workshop were in good agreement with older, much less precise data from SLAC and agreed well with a calculation by Drechsel, Kamalov, and Tiator. A follow-up experiment is in the works to pursue these measurements at much lower Q2, where a reliable comparison to CHPT can be made, and where no information presently exists on the GDH integral.

## Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the efforts and contributions of all the speakers in the Goldstone Boson–Nucleon working group. Their hard work and the high quality of their presentations resulted in a stimulating and productive working group. We also thank the organizers of the workshop, Aron Bernstein and José Goity, as well as the hospitality and services provided by the hosting institution, Jefferson Lab. One of us (GRS) wishes to acknowledge the support of the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-84ER-40150.


format: text

text:
# Strange Magnetic Moment of The Nucleon from Lattice QCD

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Recently there has been a considerable interest on the strange magnetic moment of the nucleon ($`G_M^s(0)`$) as it can provide important information about the internal quark structure of the nucleon . There are numerous theoretical predictions over a wide range in between $`0.75`$ to $`+0.30\mu _N`$. Most of them are negative and are in between $`0.45`$ to $`0.25`$ (for summaries see ). On the other hand, recent experiments of SAMPLE collaboration on parity violating electron scattering  suggest that the strange magnetic moment of the nucleon could be positive. Two of their recent results are $`G_M^s(Q^2=0.1GeV^2)=+0.23\pm 0.37\pm 0.15\pm 0.19\mu _N`$  and $`+0.61\pm 0.17\pm 0.21\pm 0.19\mu _N`$ . However, combined with data from the deuteron, the new result is closer to zero with a relatively larger error .

Previously, our group studied the strange quark magnetic moment on a quenched lattice and obtained $`G_M^s(0)=0.36\pm 0.20\mu _N`$  . We extend that calculation and improve the results by employing CH-transformation and unbiased subtraction method, to be discussed subsequently. Finally, we will present our new results on $`G_M^s(0)`$.

## 2 FORMULATION

We follow the same lattice formulation of the electromagnetic vector current as in Ref. . The magnetic moment of the nucleon is extracted from the ratio of the three and two-point correlation function. Two point function is defined as

$`G_{NN}^{\alpha \beta }(t,\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`=`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}}O\text{T}\left(\chi ^\alpha (x)\overline{\chi }^\beta (0)\right)O,`$
and the three point function is

$`G_{PJ_\mu P}^{\alpha \beta }(t_f,t,\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p^{}})={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{x_f},\stackrel{}{x}}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x_f}+i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}`$
$`0\text{T}\left(\chi ^\alpha (x_f)J_\mu (x)\overline{\chi }^\beta (0)\right)0.`$ (2)
Here, $`J_\mu `$ is the point-spilt electromagnetic vector current as defined in Ref. . Finally, taking the ratio ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{\beta \alpha }G_{PJ_jP}^{\alpha \beta }(t_f,\stackrel{}{0};t,\stackrel{}{q})}{G_{PP}^{\alpha \alpha }(t_f,\stackrel{}{0})}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_{PP}^{\alpha \alpha }(t,\stackrel{}{0})}{G_{PP}^{\alpha \alpha }(t,\stackrel{}{q})}}`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{ijk}q_k}{E_q+m}}G_M^L(q^2),`$
where $`G_M^L(q^2)`$ is the magnetic moment of the nucleon on lattice at four-momentum transfer square $`q^2`$.

The three point function incorporates both connected insertion (CI) and disconnected insertion (DI). CI arises due to valence and connected sea quarks and DI originates from the vacuum polarization of the disconnected sea quarks . For the nucleon magnetic moment, strange quarks current, $`\overline{s}\gamma _\mu s`$, contributes only through the DI (Fig. 1), and so, we will concentrate only on DI contribution of Eq. (3).

## 3 LATTICE CALCULATION

In general, DI is very difficult to calculate as it involves loop effect from the self-contraction of the sea quarks of the current. As in the previous DI calculations , for Eq. (3), the current insertion time ($`t`$) from the nucleon source to its sink is summed over, and also the average over three spatial directions is considered. With this average, this ratio R(3pt,2pt)(Eq. (3)) becomes proportional to constant + $`t_f[|\stackrel{}{q}|/E_q+m]G_M^{DI}(q^2)`$ . Therefore, by extracting the slope of R(3pt,2pt) vs $`t_f`$ plot, one can evaluate $`G_M^{DI}(q^2)`$. As shown in Fig. 1, the three point function of DI consists of two parts : nucleon propagator (two-point function) and a loop contribution. Similar to other DI calculations , to evaluate the trace for the quark loop, we use $`Z_2`$ noise trace estimator with a stochastic algorithm. It has been shown earlier that by employing CH-transformation and unbiased subtraction method one can reduce the error in DI substantially . Similar error reduction procedure is adopted here. By CH-transformation we mean the charge conjugation (C) and Euclidean hermiticity (H). Under charge conjugation, the fermion matrix ($`M`$) transforms as $`M^1(x,y,U)=C^1\stackrel{~}{M}^1(y,x,U^{})C`$. Along with this, using hermiticity property of the fermion matrix ($`\gamma _5M^1(x,x+a_\mu )\gamma _5=M^1(x+a_\mu ,x)`$), one can show that under CH-transformation,

$`M^1(x,y,U)=C^1\gamma _5M_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}(x,y,U^{})\gamma _5C.`$ (4)
Using this CH-transformation, it is possible to show that the three point function is either real or imaginary, and for the vector current it is real. Using only Euclidean hermiticity, one can also show that the loop part is imaginary, and thus, after Fourier transformation it becomes real. Therefore, to get the three point function one needs to multiply only real part (real with Fourier transformation) of loop with the real part (real with Fourier transformation) of the two-point function. Thus, one can avoid unnecessary $`imaginary\times imaginary`$ multiplication, and thereby can eliminate unwanted noises.

Along with this CH-transformation, as in angular momentum calculation , we also adopt an unbiased subtraction method (for details discussion about unbiased subtraction, see Ref. ). The trace of an inverse matrix $`A^1`$ can be estimated as :

$`\text{Tr}A^1=E\left[\eta ^{}\left(A^1{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{P}{}}}\lambda _pO^{(P)}\right)\eta \right],`$ (5)
where $`\eta `$s are $`Z_2`$ noise vectors, $`O^P`$s are a set of traceless matrices, and $`\lambda _p`$s are variational coefficients which can be tuned to get the minimum variance in trace estimation. It was found earlier  that a set of traceless matrices obtained from the hopping parameter expansion of the propagaptor

$`M^1=I+\kappa D+\kappa ^2D^2+\kappa ^3D^3+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$
can offset the off-diagonal contribution to the variance of the trace, and thus they can be used as a possible choice of $`O^{(P)}`$ matrices. For our calculation we use traceless matrices up to order $`D^2`$.

Numerical calculation is done on a quenched $`16^3\times 24`$ lattice at $`\beta =6.0`$ with Wilson fermions, and for 100 configurations. Results are obtained for relatively light quarks with $`\kappa =0.148,0.152,`$ and 0.154. For the stochastic trace estimation, 300 noises per configuration is used.

## 4 RESULTS

As mentioned earlier, the strangeness content of the nucleon magnetic moment , $`G_M^s(0)`$, appears only in the DI. The numerical procedure for extracting $`G_M^s(q^2)`$ has been given in detail in Ref. . First, we fix the sea quark mass (loop mass) at the strange quark mass (at $`\kappa =0.154`$), and then, for various valence quark masses ($`\kappa =0.148,0.152`$, and $`0.154`$), we calculate slopes for the summed ratios, R(3pt,2pt), with respect to various final time slices. In Fig. (2), we plot these summed ratios as a function of time slices (at $`|\stackrel{}{q}|=2\pi /L`$). As mentioned earlier, the slope of this plot provides the DI contribution of the magnetic moment, $`G_M^s(q^2)`$. One can easily notice from these plots that we reduce the error-bar of previous calculation  (ratio with open circle) substantially (by a factor of $`2`$). These ratios are calculated at various $`q^2`$, and finally, to obtain the physical $`G_M^s(q^2)`$, we extrapolate the valence quark mass to the chiral limit with a form $`A+B\sqrt{\overline{m}+m_s}`$, where $`\overline{m}`$ is the average $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark mass and $`m_s`$ is the strange quark mass, respectively. This form of $`m_s`$-dependence is chosen as $`G_M^s`$ is proportional to the kaon mass, $`m_k`$. Finally, to obtain the strange quark contribution to the magnetic moment, $`G_M^s(0)`$, we fit different $`G_M^s(q^2)`$ values with monopole and dipole forms, as shown in Fig. (3). For all these fittings (Fig. 2 and 3), required correlations among different quantities are taken into account by covariant matrices, and all errors are estimated from jackknifing the fitting procedure.

From the monopole fit $`G_M^s(q^2)`$, we extract $`G_M^s(0)=0.28\pm 0.10\mu _N`$, with the monopole mass, $`m_M/m_N=0.80\pm 0.09`$. It should be recalled that the previous result (before subtraction) for $`G_M^s(0)`$ was $`0.36\pm 0.20\mu _N`$ , i.e., we have reduced error by almost a factor of 2. Another fit of $`G_M^s(q^2)`$ with dipole form yields $`G_M^s(0)=0.24\pm 0.08\mu _N,`$ and the corresponding dipole mass is $`m_D/m_N=1.44\pm 0.16`$. As argued in Ref. , we choose the monopole form over dipole for DI. Some other useful quantities, e.g., the total sea quark contribution, $`G_M^{sea}(0)`$, are also calculated. Taking account CI results from Ref., we also evaluate the proton and neutron magnetic moments. Since the total sea quark contribution, $`G_M^{sea}(0)`$, is small, these moments are almost same as in Ref.. In Table 1, we summarize our result for various quantities. A comparison is also made to show the error reduction.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

We reduce the error of strange quark magnetic moment, as estimated previously , by a factor of 2. Strangeness magnetic moment of the nucleon is still negative and is $`0.28\pm 0.10\mu _N`$. Once more, we prove that the error reduction procedure, by implementing CH-transformation and unbiased subtraction method, works well in reducing error in the disconnected insertion. Finally, we like to mention that the finding of this work is in disagreement with the results of the next talk .

## 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is partially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, DOE Grant No.DE-FG05-84ER40154, and NSF grant No.9722073.


text:
# 𝐾_{ℓ4} at two-loops and CHPT predictions for 𝜋𝜋-scattering

## Acknowledgments

Work partially supported by the EU TMR Network EURODAPHNE (Contract No. ERBFMX-CT98-0169) and by the Swedish Science Foundation.


text:
# Chapter 1 Galaxies: from Kinematics to Dynamics

## Chapter 1 Galaxies: from Kinematics to Dynamics

Michael R Merrifield
School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Nottingham, UK

### 1 Introduction

As will be apparent to anyone reading this book, the practitioners of N-body simulations have an enormous variety of preoccupations. Some are essentially pure mathematicians, who view the field as an exciting application for abstruse theory. Others enjoy formulating and tackling mathematically-neat problems, with little concern over whether the particular restrictions that they impose are also respected by nature. Still others are closer to computer scientists, inspired by the challenge of developing ever more sophisticated algorithms to tackle the N-body problem, but showing less interest in the ultimate application of their codes to solving astrophysical problems. This contribution is presented from yet another biased perspective: that of the observational galactic dynamicist. Observational astronomers tend to use N-body simulations in a rather cavalier manner, both as a tool for interpreting existing astronomical data, and as a powerful technique by which new observations can be motivated. The aim of this article is to illustrate this profitable interplay between simulations and observations in the study of galaxy dynamics, as well as highlighting a few of its shortcomings.

To this end, the text of this chapter is laid out as follows. Section 2 provides an introduction to the sorts of data that can be obtained in order to study the dynamical properties of galaxies, and goes on to discuss the intrinsic stellar dynamics that one is trying to model with these observations, and the role that N-body simulations can play in this modeling process. Section 3 gives a brief overview of the historical development of N-body simulations as a tool for studying galaxy dynamics. Section 4 provides some examples of the interplay between observations and N-body simulations in the study of elliptical galaxies, while Section 5 provides further examples from studies of disk galaxies, concentrating on barred systems. These sections are in no way intended to be encyclopedic in scope; rather, by selecting a few examples and examining them in some detail, the text seeks to give some flavour for the range of what is possible in this rich field. Finally, Section 6 contains some speculations as to what may lie in the future for this productive relationship between observations and N-body modeling.

### 2 Kinematics and Dynamics

The astronomer can glean only limited amounts of information about galaxies from observations. Some of these limitations arise from the practical shortcomings of telescopes, which can only obtain data with finite signal-to-noise ratios and limited spatial resolution. However, some of the restrictions are more fundamental – one can, for example, only view a galaxy from a single viewpoint, from which it is not generally possible to reconstruct its full three-dimensional shape, even if the galaxy is assumed to be axisymmetric (Rybicki 1986). We must therefore draw a distinction between kinematics, which are the observable properties relating to the motions of stars in a galaxy, and dynamics, which fully describe the intrinsic properties of a galaxy in terms of the motions of its component stars. Much of the study of galaxy dynamics involves attempting to interpret the former in terms of the latter.

Since stars are not the only constituents of galaxies, there is often additional information that one can glean from other components such as gas, whose kinematics may be revealed by its emission lines. These additional components can also confuse the issue, as selective obscuration by dust of some regions of a galaxy can have a major impact on the observed kinematics (e.g. Davies 1991). However, this text is concerned with N-body models, which are primarily used to describe the stellar components of galaxies, so here we concentrate just on the stellar dynamics. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that no description of a galaxy, particularly a later-type spiral system, is complete without considering these other components.

#### 2.1 Kinematics

We begin by looking at what properties of a dynamical stellar system are, at least in principle, observable. The simplest data that one can obtain is what is detected by an image – the distribution of light from the galaxy on the sky, $`\mu (x,y)`$. Even for relatively nearby galaxies, the smallest resolvable spatial element will contain the light from many stars, so $`\mu `$ provides a measure of the number of stars per unit area on the sky.

By obtaining spectra of each of these spatial elements, we can start measuring the motions of the stars as well as their current locations. The observed spectrum will be a composite of the light from all the individual stars. Stellar spectra contain dark absorption lines due to the various elements in their atmospheres, but these absorption lines will be Doppler shifted by different amounts, depending on the line-of-sight velocities of the stars. Thus, as Figure 1 illustrates, the observed absorption lines will appear broadened and shifted due to the superposition of all the individual Doppler shifted spectra. Put mathematically, the observed spectrum of a galaxy made up from a large number of identical stars will be

$$G(u)=dv_{\mathrm{los}}F(v_{\mathrm{los}})S(uv_{\mathrm{los}}),$$
(1)
where $`u=c\mathrm{ln}\lambda `$ is the wavelength expressed in logarithmic units, $`S`$ is the spectrum of the star in the same units, and $`F(v_{\mathrm{los}})`$ is the function describing the distribution of stars’ line-of-sight velocities within the element observed.

Equation 1 is a convolution integral equation, which, in principle, can be inverted to yield the kinematic quantity of interest, $`F(v_{\mathrm{los}})`$, for a given galaxy spectrum, $`G(u)`$, and a spectrum $`S(u)`$ obtained using an observation of a suitable nearby “template” star. In practice, such unconstrained deconvolutions are hopelessly unstable. The usual approach is therefore to assume some relatively simple functional form for this function, and adjust its parameters until Equation 1 is most closely obeyed. The best-fitting version of $`F(v_{\mathrm{los}})`$ then provides a model for the line-of-sight velocity distribution of stars at that point. Conventionally, and with little physical justification, $`F(v_{\mathrm{los}})`$ has usually been assumed to be Gaussian, and the fitting returns optimal values for the mean velocity and dispersion of this model velocity distribution. More recently, however, the quality of data has improved to a point where more general functional forms can be fitted, allowing a less restricted analysis (e.g. Gerhard 1993, Kuijken & Merrifield 1993). With spectra at high signal-to-noise ratios, it is even possible to attempt a non-parametric analysis, yielding a best-fit form for $`F(v_{\mathrm{los}})`$ subject only to the most generic constraints of positivity and smoothness (e.g. Merritt 1997).

Although there are many practical difficulties involved in deriving a completely general description for $`F(v_{\mathrm{los}})`$ \[see Binney & Merrifield (1998) Chapter 11\], it is at least in principle measurable. Thus, the most general kinematic quantity that one can infer for a stellar dynamical system is the line-of-sight velocity distribution at each point on the sky where any of the galaxy’s stars are to be found, $`F(x,y,v_{\mathrm{los}})`$.

#### 2.2 Dynamics

To fully specify a galaxy’s stellar dynamics, we need to know the gravitational potential, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y,z)`$, which dictates the motions of individual stars, and the “distribution function”, $`f(x,y,z,v_x,v_y,v_z)`$, which specifies the phase density of stars, giving their velocity distribution and density at each point in the galaxy.

We would therefore appear to have a completely intractable problem, since we must somehow try to extract the six-dimensional distribution function from the rather complex observable projection of this quantity, $`F(x,y,v_{\mathrm{los}})`$, which only has three dimensions. Fortunately, however, the form of the distribution function is not completely arbitrary. For example, it must be positive or zero everywhere, since one can never have a negative density of stars. Further, stars are (more-or-less) conserved as they orbit around a galaxy, and can only change their velocities in a continuous manner, dictated by acceleration due to gravity. This continuity can be expressed in the collisionless Boltzmann equation,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}f}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{f}{t}+𝐯f\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{f}{𝐯}=0.$$
(2)
By manipulating the collisionless Boltzmann equation, one can derive a number of useful formulae for galaxy dynamics. A full discussion of this field is beyond the scope of this article, and the interested reader is referred to the excellent treatment by Binney & Tremaine (1987). Here, we simply summarize some of the key results:

* By taking a spatial moment of the collisionless Boltzmann equation, one can derive the virial theorem, which relates the total kinetic and potential energies of the system. The kinetic energy can be estimated from the observable line-of-sight motions of stars, from which the potential energy and hence the mass of the system can be inferred. It was this approach that provided the first evidence of dark matter, in clusters of galaxies (Zwicky 1937).
* By integrating Equation 2 over velocity, one obtains the continuity equation, which describes how the density of stars will vary with time due to any net flows in their motions. This equation is central to the dynamics of “cooler” stellar systems like disk galaxies, where mean streaming motions dominate the dynamics; as we shall see below, it has played an important role in studying the properties of barred galaxies.
* By multiplying Equation 2 by powers of velocity and integrating over velocity, one can derive the Jeans equations obeyed by the velocity dispersion, and their higher-moment analogues. The Jeans equations describe the random motions of stars, and have proved particularly important in studies of the dynamics of elliptical galaxies, where there is little mean streaming, and random velocities are generally the dominant stellar motions (e.g. Binney & Mamon 1982).
* By considering integrals of motion, one can derive the strong Jeans theorem: “for a steady state galaxy in which almost all the orbits are regular, the distribution function depends on at most three integrals of motion.” For example, in an axisymmetric galaxy, one may write $`f(x,y,z,v_x,v_y,v_z)f(E,J_z,I_3)`$, where $`E`$ is the energy of the star, $`J_z`$ its angular momentum about the axis of symmetry, and $`I_3`$ is the “third integral” respected by the star’s orbit, which cannot generally be written in a simple analytic form.

This last result provides us with at least the hope that galaxy dynamics presents a tractable problem, since we now need only infer a three-dimensional distribution function from its three-dimensional observable projection, $`F(x,y,v_{\mathrm{los}})`$.

Equation 2 describes the continuity equation of a phase space fluid, which must be solved in order to understand the dynamics of galaxies. N-body simulation codes are really just Monte Carlo integrators tailored to solving this partial differential equation. It is very tempting to interpret the bodies in an N-body code as something more physical, such as the individual stars in a galaxy. However, unlike star clusters, galaxies contain so many stars that current simulations are still several orders of magnitude away from such a one-to-one correspondence. It is therefore much healthier to view an N-body simulation simply as a Monte Carlo solver for the collisionless Boltzmann equation, which is, in turn, a fluid approximation to the description of the properties of the large (but finite) collection of stars that make up a galaxy.

### 3 A Brief History of Galaxy N-body Simulations

Before launching into a discussion of modern applications of N-body simulations to studies of galaxy dynamics, it is instructive to look at the historical development of the field. N-body simulations of galaxies date back to well before the invention of the computer. Probably the first example of the technique was presented by Immanuel Kant in his 1755 publication, Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens. Part of this book was concerned with the properties of the Solar System, discussing how the plane of the ecliptic reflects the ordered motions of the planets around the Sun, while the more random orbits of comets causes them to be distributed in a spherical halo. Kant’s N-body simulation involved using this understanding of the Solar System as an analog computer by which the Milky Way could be simulated. He pointed out that the same law of gravity applies to the stars in the Galaxy as to the planets in the Solar System. He therefore argued that the band of the Milky Way could be understood in the same way as the plane of the ecliptic, arising from the ordered motion of the stars around the Galaxy. The lack of apparent motion in the stars could be explained by the vastly larger scale of the Milky Way. He further pointed out that the scattering of isolated stars and globular clusters far from the Galactic plane could be compared to comets, their locations reflecting their more random motions. Finally, he speculated that other faint fuzzy nebulae were similar “island universes” whose stars followed similar orbital patterns. Quite amazingly, Kant’s simple analog N-body simulation had revealed most of the key dynamical properties of galaxies.

The next major advance in galaxy N-body simulations was made by Holmberg (1941). He used the fact that the intensity of a light source drops off with distance in the same inverse-square manner as the force of gravity. He therefore constructed an analogue computer by arranging 74 light bulbs on a table: the intensity of light arriving at the location of each bulb from different directions told him how large a force should be applied at that position, and hence how that particular bulb’s location should be updated. With this analogue integrator, Holmberg was able to show that collisions between disk galaxies can throw off tidally-induced spiral arms (see Figure 2), and that this process can rid the system of sufficient energy that the remaining stars can become bound into a single object.

The subject really took off in the 1970s with the widespread availability of digital computers of increasing power. Numerical N-body simulations on such a machine allowed Toomre & Toomre (1972) to explore the parameter space of galaxy mergers far more thoroughly than Holmberg had been able. They were thus able to reproduce the observed morphology of tidal tails and other features seen in particular merging galaxies, allowing them to reconstruct the physical parameters of the collisions in these systems. Other fundamental insights into galaxies were also made by N-body simulations around this time, such as the demonstration that a self-gravitating axisymmetric disk of stars on circular orbits is grossly unstable, rapidly evolving into a bar and spiral arms (see Figure 3).

More recently, progress has been driven by developments in algorithms and computer hardware, which allow N-body codes to follow the motions of ever larger numbers of particles. Although we are still a long way from being able to follow the motions of the billions of stars that make up a typical galaxy, the increased number of particles helps suppress various spurious phenomena that arise from the Poisson fluctuations in simulations using small numbers of particles. The increased number of particles also increases the dynamic range of scales that one can model within a single simulation. For example, it is now possible to look in some detail at the results of mergers between disk galaxies; it is has long been suggested that such mergers may produce elliptical galaxies \[see Barnes & Hernquist (1992) for a review\], but the simulations are now so good that we can measure quite subtle details of the merger remnants’ properties such as how fast they rotate and the exact shapes of their light distributions (Naab et al. 1999). We can then compare these quantities with the properties of real elliptical galaxies to test the viability of this formation mechanism. We are fast reaching the stage where a single simulation will have sufficient resolution to model simultaneously the growth of large-scale structure in the Universe and the formation of individual galaxies (e.g. Kay et al. 2000, Navarro & Steinmetz 2000). Thus, within the next few years, we will be able to perform simulations where the formation and evolution of galaxies can be viewed within the broader cosmological framework. However, since these studies depend critically on the treatment of gas hydrodynamics, they lie beyond the remit of this article on N-body analysis of the collisionless Boltzmann equation.

### 4 Modeling Elliptical Galaxies

Elliptical galaxies provide a good place to start in any attempt to model the stellar dynamics of galaxies. The simple elliptical shapes of these systems offers some hope that their dynamics may also be relatively straightforward to interpret; this high degree of symmetry means that the assumption of axisymmetry or even spherical symmetry may not be unreasonable. Further, the absence of dust in these systems means that the observed light accurately reflects the distribution of stars in the galaxy, greatly simplifying the modeling process.

In fact, elliptical galaxies are so simple that N-body simulations would not appear to have much of a role to play. The symmetry of these systems means that one can readily generate spherical or axisymmetric models with analytic distribution functions that reproduce many of the general properties of elliptical galaxies (e.g. King 1966, Wilson 1975). Where one seeks to reproduce the exact observations of a particular galaxy, Schwarzschild’s method (Schwarzschild 1979) is often a much better tool than a full N-body simulation. This technique involves adopting a particular form for the gravitational potential – perhaps, for example, by assuming that the mass distribution follows the light in the galaxy – and calculating a large library of possible stellar orbits in this potential. One then simply seeks the weighted superposition of these orbits that best reproduces all the observational data for the galaxy. Originally, these fits were made just to reproduce the projected distribution of stars, but more recent implementations have also used kinematic constraints such as the line-of-sight streaming velocities and velocity dispersions at different projected locations in the galaxy. It is also possible to start using information from the detailed shape of the line-of-sight velocity distribution (e.g. Cretton et al. 2000); ultimately, one could look for the superposition of orbits that reproduces the entire projected kinematics, $`F(x,y,v_{\mathrm{los}})`$.

There are, however, some aspects of the properties of elliptical galaxies where N-body simulations offer a powerful tool. In particular, if one is concerned with the stability of an elliptical galaxy, one needs to study the full non-linear time evolution of Equation 2, for which N-body solutions are the most natural technique. As an example of the sort of issues one can answer using this approach, consider the distribution of elliptical galaxy shapes. Observations of this distribution have revealed that very flattened elliptical galaxies do not exist: the most squashed systems have shortest-to-longest ratios of only $`0.3`$. This observation could not be explained using the simple modeling techniques described above, since it is straightforward to derive a distribution function corresponding to a much flatter elliptical galaxy. However, if one takes such a distribution function as the initial solution to Equation 2, and uses an N-body simulation to follow its evolution, one discovers that it is grossly unstable, usually to some form of buckling mode, which rapidly causes it to evolve into a rounder system, comparable to the flattest observed ellipticals (see Figure 4). Thus, the absence of flatter elliptical systems has a simple physical explanation: they are dynamically unstable.

Instability analysis using N-body codes has also shed light on other properties of elliptical galaxies. For example, Newton & Binney (1984) successfully constructed a distribution function that could reproduce the photometric and kinematic properties of M87: assuming only that the mass of the galaxy were distributed in the same way as its light and that the galaxy is spherical, they were able to match both the light distribution of M87 and the variation in its line-of-sight velocity dispersion with projected radius. Thus, they would appear to have a completely viable dynamical model for M87. However, Merritt (1987) took this distribution function as the starting point for an N-body simulation, and showed that the preponderance of stars on radial orbits at its centre rendered the model unstable – the N-body model rapidly formed a bar at its centre. Thus, the simple spherical model in which the mass followed the light was invalidated, implying either that M87 is not intrinsically spherical, or that it contains mass in addition to that contributed by the stars.

Although some instability analyses can be carried out analytically, the full calculations of the behaviour of an unstable system, particularly once the instability has grown beyond the linear regime, is almost always intractable, making N-body simulations the best available tool. Some care must be taken, however, to make sure that any instability detected is not a spurious effect arising from the numerical noise in the Monte Carlo N-body integration method (or indeed, that any real instability is not suppressed by the limitations of the method).

N-body simulations can also be applied to the study of elliptical galaxies by providing what might be termed “pseudo-data.” When a new technique is proposed for extracting the intrinsic dynamical properties of a galaxy from its observable kinematics, one needs some way of testing the method. Ideally, one would take a galaxy with known dynamical properties, and see whether the method is able to reconstruct those properties. Unfortunately, it is most unlikely that the corresponding intrinsic dynamics of a real galaxy would be known – if they were, there would be no need to develop the new technique! However, with an N-body simulation, for which the intrinsic properties are all measurable, one can readily calculate the appropriate projections to construct its “observable” properties, $`F(x,y,v_{\mathrm{los}})`$, from any direction. One can then test the method on these pseudo-data to see whether the intrinsic properties of the galaxy can be inferred.

An excellent example of this approach was provided by Statler (1994) in his attempt to reconstruct the full three-dimensional shapes of elliptical galaxies from their observable kinematics. Although these systems have a simple apparent structure, there is no a priori reason to assume that they are axisymmetric, and a more general model would be to suppose that they are triaxial, with three different principal axis lengths (like a somewhat deflated rugby ball). Indeed, there is strong observational evidence that elliptical galaxies cannot all be completely axisymmetric. Images of some ellipticals reveal that the position angles on the sky of their major axes vary with radius. Such “isophote twist” cannot occur if a galaxy is intrinsically axisymmetric, as the observed principal axes of such a system would always coincide with the projection on the sky of its axis of symmetry. Thus, these elliptical galaxies must be triaxial in structure. Statler made a study of the dynamics of some simple triaxial galaxy models, and concluded that one could obtain a much better measure of the shape of the system by considering the mean line-of-sight motions of stars as well as their spatial distribution. As a test of this hypothesis, he took an N-body model, and extracted from it the observable properties of the mean line-of-sight velocity and projected density at a number of positions. Unfortunately, the constraints on the intrinsic galaxy shape inferred from these data were found to be only marginally consistent with the true known shape of the N-body model. Although in some ways rather disappointing, this analysis reveals the true power of using N-body simulations to test such ideas: the N-body simulation did not contain the same simplifying assumptions as the analytic model that had originally motivated the proposed idea, so it provided a truly rigorous test of the technique.

As a final example of the way in which N-body simulations can interact with observations in the study of elliptical galaxies, let us turn to some work on “shell galaxies.” Such systems typically appear to be fairly normal ellipticals, but careful processing of deep images reveals that their light distributions also contain faint ripple-like features in a series of arcs around the galaxies’ centres (e.g. Malin & Carter 1983). The simplest explanation for these shells is that they are the remains of a small galaxy that is merging with the larger elliptical from an almost radial orbit. Each shell is made up from stars of equal energy from the infalling galaxy, which have completed a half-integer set of oscillations back-and-forth through the larger galaxy, and are in the process of turning around. Since the stars slow to a halt as they turn around, they pile up at these locations, producing the observed shells. Shells at different radii contain stars with different energies, which have completed different numbers of radial orbits since the merger. Since the stars in any shell have a very small velocity dispersion compared to that of the host galaxy, they show up clearly as sharp edges in the photometry.

N-bodies simulations (e.g. Quinn 1984) played a key role in confirming that such mergers could, indeed, produce sets of faint shells in the photometric properties of galaxies. It is therefore interesting to go on to ask what the most generally-observable kinematic properties of one of these shells might be. Again, N-body simulation offer an excellent tool with which to address this question. Figure 5 presents the results of such a simulation, showing both the faint photometric shells and the rather stronger kinematic signature of a minor merger. The line-of-sight velocity distribution as a function of position along the major axis shows a characteristic chevron pattern, whose origins are relatively straightforward to explain (Kuijken & Merrifield 1998). Consider the stars in a shell whose outer edge lies at $`r=r_s`$. By energy conservation, the radial velocities of stars at $`r<r_s`$ in this shell are

$$v_r=\pm \left\{2[\mathrm{\Phi }(r_s)\mathrm{\Phi }(r)]\right\}^{1/2},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ is the gravitational potential at radius $`r`$. By simple geometry, the observable line-of-sight component of this velocity is given by

$$v_{\mathrm{los}}^2=\left(\frac{z}{r}v_r\right)^2=2\left(1\frac{x^2}{r^2}\right)[\mathrm{\Phi }(r_s)\mathrm{\Phi }(r)].$$
(4)
Close to the shell edge, where $`rr_sx`$, the maximum value of $`v_{\mathrm{los}}`$ can be shown, by expanding and differentiating Equation 4, to be

$$v_{\mathrm{max}}=\pm \left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{d}r}\right)^{1/2}(r_sx).$$
(5)
Examples of lines obeying this equation are shown in Figure 5; they clearly match the pattern seen in the N-body “observation.” Thus, if one were to make a detailed kinematic observation of a shell galaxy and observed this chevron pattern, not only would one have dynamical evidence for the merger model, but one would also be able to use the slope of the chevrons to measure $`\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{d}r}`$ at the radii of each of the shells. Combining these measurements would allow one to estimate the gravitational potential of the galaxy in a simple robust manner.

Here, then, is an excellent example of the close interplay that is possible between observations and N-body simulations. The photometric discovery of shells in elliptical galaxies led to a merger theory that was validated by N-body simulations. N-body simulations then provided the motivation for further observations to study the kinematics of shells in order to make a novel measurement of the gravitational potentials of elliptical galaxies.

### 5 Modeling Disk Galaxies

We now turn to the use of N-body simulations in the study of disk galaxies. Here, the motivation for using N-body modeling is much clearer. Spiral galaxies contain a wealth of structure, much of which is probably transient in nature, so simple analytic models of the type that do such a good job of describing the basic properties of elliptical galaxies are clearly inappropriate. Instead, one needs a full time-dependent solution to Equation 2, for which N-body simulations provide the most obvious technique.

It should, however, be borne in mind that the use of Equation 2 is often significantly less appropriate in the study of disk galaxies than was the case for ellipticals. Active star formation in many spiral galaxies means that the continuity implied by the collisionless Boltzmann equation is not strictly valid, as stars appear in the formation process, and the brightest, most massive amongst them subsequently disappear in supernovae. Further, the location of these star formation regions is largely driven by the dynamics of the gas from which the stars form. The collisional nature of this gas means that it is poorly described by a collisionless N-body code, and should really be dealt with using much more sophisticated gas codes. As a further complication, the dust found in most spiral galaxies means that a significant fraction of the starlight is scattered or absorbed. Thus, there is a rather complicated relationship between the results of an N-body code (which essentially gives the distribution of stars in the system) and the observed photometric properties of a galaxy. Finally, the likely transient nature of many of the properties of spiral galaxies also complicates comparison between observation and theory: since one has only a snapshot view of a galaxy, one has to search through the complete evolution in time of an N-body simulation to see if it matches the observed properties of the galaxy at any point.

Despite these caveats, N-body simulations have provided a wide variety of insights into the dynamics of disk galaxies. As for the ellipticals, N-body simulations have not only been used to explain many of the observed properties of disk galaxies, but they have also provided data sets that can test novel analysis techniques, and they have provided the key motivation for a range of new observations.

As an example of this synergy between N-body simulations and observations, we consider in some detail the properties of barred galaxies. As we have already described in Section 3, one of the early triumphs of N-body simulations was in demonstrating that a rectangular bar-like structure, similar to those seen in more than a third of disk galaxies, appears due to an instability in a self-gravitating disk of stars. Subsequently, as we shall see below, N-body simulations have enabled us to understand a great deal about the properties of bars.

One of the simplest physical properties of a bar is its pattern speed, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, which is the angular rate at which the bar structure rotates. In a simulation like that shown in Figure 3, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is easy enough to calculate by comparing the bar position angles at different times. In a real galaxy, of course, we do not have the luxury of being able to wait the millions of years required to see the bar pattern move, so it is less obvious that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ can be measured. However, Tremaine & Weinberg (1984) elegantly demonstrated that one can manipulate the continuity equation into a form that contains only the distribution of stars, their mean line-of-sight velocities (observable via the Doppler shift in the starlight at each point in the galaxy), and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. Since the pattern speed is the only unknown, one can derive its value directly from the other observable properties. At the time that this technique was proposed, no observations of barred galaxies had ever produced the quality of spectral data required to implement the method. However, Tremaine & Weinberg were able to prove its viability by taking a single snapshot of an N-body simulation and creating pseudo-observations of the line-of-sight velocities and projected locations of the objects in it. The pattern speed derived from this single pseudo-dataset was found to match that derived from watching the pattern rotate in the complete time sequence of the simulation.

More recently, kinematic observations have progressed to a point where this method can be applied to data from real barred galaxies (e.g. Merrifield & Kuijken 1995). These measurements led to the discovery that bar patterns seem to rotate rather rapidly, with the bar ends lying close to the “co-rotation radius,” which is the radius in the galaxy at which the bar pattern rotates at the same speed that the stars themselves circulate. This finding proved interesting in the light of subsequent N-body simulations of bars (Debattista & Sellwood 2000). These simulations showed that although bars form with this rapid initial rotation rate, in many cases the bar pattern speed rapidly decreases almost to a halt. This deceleration is the result of dynamical friction: the passage of the bar disturbs the orbits of any material orbiting in the halo of the galaxy, concentrating this material into “wakes” of mass that lie behind the rotating bar, exerting a torque that serves to slow the bar’s rotation. Since cosmological N-body models of galaxy formation predict that galaxies should form in centrally-concentrated dark matter halos with plenty of mass at small radii (e.g. Navarro, Frenk & White 1997), one would expect the dynamical friction effects from this halo mass to be strong, yielding slowly-rotating bars. Thus, either the bars with measured pattern speeds happen to have been caught very early in their lives when they have not slowed significantly, or the dark halos in which these barred galaxies reside do not conform to the cosmologists’ predictions.

Finally in this discussion of N-body studies of barred galaxies, let us turn to the ultimate demise of bars. Once a bar has grown, there are several ways that it can be destroyed. A minor merger with an in-falling satellite galaxy can put enough random motion into the stars to mean that they no longer follow highly-ordered bar-unstable orbits, thus destroying the bar \[see, for example, the N-body simulations by Athanassoula (1996)\]. A less violent solution involves the growth of a massive central black hole in the galaxy. Inside a bar, stars shuttle back and forth on ordered orbits aligned with the bar. However, N-body simulations have shown that if a central black hole exceeds a critical mass of a few percent of the bar mass, then the black hole scatters the passing stars so strongly that they end up on chaotic orbits that do not align with the bar, thus destroying its coherent shape (Sellwood & Moore 1999). This mechanism is particularly intriguing, as a bar provides a conduit by which material can be channeled toward the centre of a galaxy. If this inflowing matter is accreted by a central black hole, the central object’s mass can grow to a point where the bar is disrupted, shutting off any further inflow of material – a remarkable case of the black hole biting the hand that feeds it!

Even if left in isolation with no mergers or central black holes, thin bars in disks can have only a very limited lifetime. N-body simulations (Combes & Sanders 1981, Raha et al. 1991) have shown that bars undergo a buckling instability perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy, rather similar to that shown in Figure 4. This instability initially just bends the bar, but the structure then flops back and forth until it fills a double-lobed fattened region perpendicular to the galaxy plane, rather like a peanut still in its shell (see Figure 6).

This N-body discovery has an interesting tie-in with observations: the bulges of approximately a third of edge-on galaxies are observed to have boxy or peanut-shaped isophotes, similar to that seen in Figure 6 (de Souza & dos Anjos 1987). Could it be that these systems are simply barred galaxies viewed edge-on? The fraction certainly corresponds to the percentage of more face-on systems seen to contain bars, but some more direct evidence is clearly needed. Again, numerical simulations pointed the way forward: calculations of orbits in barred potentials have shown that they display a rich array of structure, with highly elongated orbits, and changes in orientation at radii where one passes through resonances. Kuijken & Merrifield (1995) investigated the implications of this complexity for the observable kinematics of edge-on barred galaxies, and showed that the structure is apparent even in projection: as Figure 7 shows, the changing orientations of the different orbit families shows up in a rather complex structure in the observable kinematics, $`F(x,v_{\mathrm{los}})`$. More sophisticated N-body and hydrodynamic simulations, allowing for the complex collisional behaviour of gas, confirm that this structure should also be apparent in the gas kinematics of an edge-on barred galaxy (Athanassoula & Bureau 1999).

This N-body analysis motivated detailed kinematic observations of edge-on disk galaxies, which revealed a remarkably strong correlation: systems in which the central bulge appears round almost all have the simple kinematics one would expect for an axisymmetric galaxy, whereas galaxies with peanut-shaped central bulges almost all display the complex kinematics characteristic of orbits in a barred potential (Bureau & Freeman 1999, Merrifield & Kuijken 1999). Thus, the connection between peanut shaped structures and bars suggested by the instability found in the N-body models has now been established in real disk galaxies. Here, then, is another excellent example of a case where N-body simulations have not only produced a prediction as to how galaxies may have evolved to their current structure, but have also provided the motivation for new kinematic observations that confirm this prediction.

### 6 The Future

Hopefully, the examples described in this article have given some sense of the productive interplay between kinematic observations of galaxies and N-body simulations of these systems, and there is every reason to believe that this relationship will continue to thrive as the fields develop. On the observational side, kinematic data sets become ever more expansive: the construction of integral field units for spectrographs has made it possible to obtain spectra for complete two-dimensional patches on the sky, thus allowing one to map out the complete observable kinematics of a galaxy, $`F(x,y,v_{\mathrm{los}})`$, in a single observation. In the N-body work, developments in computing power result in ever-larger numbers of particles in the code, allowing finer structure to be resolved, and giving some confidence that the results are not compromised by the limitations in the Monte Carlo solution of Equation 2. More powerful computers also allow one to analyze the completed N-body simulations more thoroughly: for example, when comparing transient spiral features in real galaxies to those in a simulation, one can search through the entire evolution of the simulation to see whether there are any times at which the data match the model.

Traditionally, one weakness in combining N-body analysis with kinematic observations is that although the simulations are very good at analyzing the generic properties of galaxies, they do not provide a useful tool for modeling the specific properties of individual objects. However, there is now the intriguing possibility that this shortcoming could be overcome, through Syer & Tremaine’s (1996) introduction of the idea of a “made-to-measure” N-body simulation. In such N-body simulations, in addition to its phase-space coordinates, each particle also has a weight associated with it. This weight can be equated with that particle’s contribution to the total “luminosity” of the model. Syer & Tremaine presented an algorithm by which the weights can be adjusted as the N-body simulation progresses, such that the observable properties of the model evolve in any way one might wish while still providing a good approximation to a solution to the collisionless Boltzmann equation. Thus, for example, one can take as a set of initial conditions a simple analytic distribution function, and “morph” this model into a close representation of a real galaxy. In fact, one can go beyond just the photometric properties of the galaxy, and match the N-body model to kinematic data as well, thus yielding a powerful dynamical modeling tool. Syer & Tremaine’s initial implementation of this method was fairly rudimentary: for example, they did not solve self-consistently for the galaxy’s gravitational potential, but instead imposed a fixed mass distribution. However, there appears to be no fundamental reason why a more complete made-to-measure N-body code could not be developed as a sophisticated technique for modeling real galaxy dynamics.

There has also been a lot of progress in the techniques of stellar population synthesis (e.g., Bruzual & Charlot 1993, Worthey 1994). This approach involves determining the combination of stellar types, ages and metallicities that could be responsible for integrated light properties of a galaxy such as its colours and spectral line strengths. Thus, one can now go beyond the simple-minded dynamicist’s picture of a galaxy made up from a large population of identical stars, as assumed in Section 2; instead, one can begin to pick out the range of ages and metallicities that could be present in a galaxy, and even ask whether the different populations have different kinematics. Here, an extension the made-to-measure N-body approach presents an exciting possibility. In addition to a weight, one could associate an age and a metallicity with each particle. One could then synthesize the stellar population associated with that particle, and hence calculate its contribution to the total spectrum of the galaxy. Projecting such an N-body model on to the sky, one could calculate the spectrum associated with any region of the model galaxy by simply adding up the spectral contributions from the individual particles (suitably Doppler shifted by their line-of-sight velocities). By using the sorts of N-body morphing techniques introduced by Syer & Tremaine (1996), one could then evolve an N-body simulation until it matched the properties of a real galaxy not only in its light distribution and kinematics, but also in its colours, the strengths of all its spectral absorption lines, etc. This complete spectral modeling – in essence, a galaxy model that would fit the spatial coordinates and energy of every detected photon – would represent the ultimate match between N-body simulations and observations. It would be a truly amazing tool for use in the study of galaxy dynamics, and would allow us to integrate the evolution of the galaxy’s stellar population into the dynamical picture, opening up a whole new dimension of information in the study of galaxy formation, evolution and structure.

### References

Athanassoula, E. & Bureau, M., 1999, ApJ, 522, 699

Athanassoula, E., 1996, in Buta R., Croker D.A. and Elmegreen B.G., eds., Barred Galaxies, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, p. 307

Barnes, J.E. & Hernquist, L., 1992, ARA&A, 30, 705

Binney, J. & Mamon, G.A., 1982, MNRAS, 200, 361

Binney, J. & Merrifield, M., 1998, Galactic Astronomy, princeton University Press

Bruzual, A.G. & Charlot, S., 1993, ApJ, 405, 538

Bureau, M. & Freeman, K.C., 1999, AJ, 118, 126

Combes, F. & Sanders, R.H., 1981, A&A, 96, 164

Cretton, N., Rix, H.-W. & de Zeeuw, P.T., 2000, ApJ, 536, 319

Davies, J., 1991, in Sundelius B., ed, Dynamics of Disc Galaxies, Göteborg, p. 65

Debattista, V.P. & Sellwood, J.A., 2000, ApJ, 543, 704

de Souza, r.E. & dos Anjos, S., 1987, A&A, 70, 465

Gerhard, O.E., 1993, MNRAS, 265, 213

Hohl, F., 1971, ApJ, 168, 343

Holmberg, E., 1941, ApJ, 94, 385

Jessop, C.M., Duncan, M.J. & Levison, H.F., 1997, ApJ, 489, 49

Kay, S.T., et al., 2000, MNRAS, 316, 374

King, I., 1966, AJ, 71, 64

Kuijken, K. & Merrifield, M.R., 1993, MNRAS, 264, 712

Kuijken, K. & Merrifield, M.R., 1995, ApJ, 443, L13

Kuijken, K. & Merrifield, M.R., 1998, MNRAS, 297, 1292

Malin, D.F. & Carter, D., ApJ, 274, 534

Merrifield, M.R. & Kuijken, K., 1995, MNRAS, 274, 933

Merrifield, M.R. & Kuijken, K., 1999, A&A, 345, L47

Merritt, D., 1987, ApJ, 319, 55

Merritt, D., 1997, AJ, 114, 228

Naab, T., Burkert, A. & Hernquist, L., 1999, ApJ, 523, L133

Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C. & White, S.D.M., 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

Navarro, J.F. & Steinmetz, M., 2000, ApJ, 538, 477

Newton, A.J. & Binney, J., 1984, MNRAS, 210, 711

Quinn, P.J., 1984, ApJ, 279, 596

Raha, N., Sellwood, J.A., James, R.A. & Kahn, F.D., 1991, Nature, 352, 411

Rybicki, G.B., 1986, in de Zeeuw P.T., ed, Proc IAU Symp 127, The Structure and Dynamics of Elliptical Galaxies, Dordrecht, p. 397

Schwarzschild, M., 1979, ApJ, 232, 236

Sellwood, J.A. & Moore, E.M., 1999, ApJ, 510, 125

Statler, T., 1994, ApJ, 425, 500

Syer, D. & Tremaine, S., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 223

Toomre, A. & Toomre, J., 1972, ApJ, 178, 623

Wilson, C.P., 1975, AJ, 80, 175

Worthey, G., 1994, ApJS, 95, 107

Zwicky, F., 1937, ApJ, 86, 217


text:
# Planet Detection Capabilities of the Eddington Mission

## 1. The *Eddington* mission

The *Eddington* mission is a space telescope designed for two primary goals: asteroseismic studies and extrasolar planet finding. Both goals will be achieved through the acquisition of high-precision wide-field photometry, with a temporal stability that is possible only from space. The basic design is an f/3 triple-reflecting telescope with a 1.2m diameter aperture, 0.6m2 effective area, and a 3 diameter field of view imaged by a 20-CCD mosaic camera. The telescope will be launched into an orbit around the L2 Earth-Sun libration point, from which the entire sky is accessible for observations. The first 2 years of the mission will be dedicated primarily to asteroseismic studies, with pointings lasting up to two months to a variety of targets. The mission’s second part will be dedicated to planet finding by the transit method, where the telescope will survey a single stellar field for 3 years. In total, about 500,000 stars will be surveyed by *Eddington* as potential hosts for planetary systems.

In October 2000, *Eddington* was selected by ESA as a reserve mission for the F2/F3 launch window (2009-2013). More details about the mission can be found in the *Eddington* Assessment study (Favata et al., 2000) and in the *Eddington* web-site (http://astro.esa.int/SA-general/Projects/Eddington/). Here we will give a short overview about its planet detection capabilities.

## 2. Planet detections

The evaluation of *Eddington*’s planet detection performance consisted of two parts: First, we determined the kinds of planets this mission can detect, in terms of the planet’s size, orbital period, and magnitude and type of central star (Deeg et al. 2000). Second, the numbers and characteristics of the detected planets were estimated. This employed Monte-Carlo simulations to fold *Eddington*’s ‘detection space’ with models of the Galactic stellar distribution, density and scale height (Robin & Crézé, 1986). With plausible exo-planet distributions, some 10,000 of planets of *any* size and orbital distance may be detected (Fig 1, left). Of the detected planets the vast majority are both large and in close orbits around their central stars. The most extreme ones, the ‘Hot Giants’, will be detected not only by transits, but also by the reflected light of their central star (even if they do not produce transits) yielding a large and nearly complete sample of these planets. For smaller planets there are fewer sufficiently bright host stars within the observational range, and they will be detected only by transits. The habitable zone corresponds roughly to orbital distances at which planetary surface temperatures of 250-350K are expected. Under the assumption that every main-sequence star has one planet in the habitable zone, a few hundred planets in that zone should be detected, among them a few tens of habitable planets with sizes of less then 2.5 $`R_{Earth}`$, which should have solid surfaces (Fig 1, right). Around larger planets within the habitable zone there exists the intriguing possibility that massive moons may be detected through the perturbations they cause on the arrival time of transit minima (Sarotetti & Schneider, 1999). These moons may themselves be harboring sites for life.

## 3. *Eddington* in perspective

As Fig. 2 shows, *Eddington* is the first mission that will survey the habitable zone, and deliver a broad overview of the abundance of habitable planets in the Galaxy. This is an important step beyond missions like COROT and SIM, which may detect a few special cases of habitable planets. *Eddington* will deliver a large well-defined statistical sample of planets with known planet radii, orbital distances, and host star surface temperature and type. This is critical input for the design and target selection of future missions like Darwin and TPF that aim for detailed characterizations of Earth-like planets. *Eddington* moves us one step closer to resolving the age-old question: Are there other worlds like ours?

## References

Deeg H.J., Favata F., and Eddington Science Team 2000, in ’Disks, Planetesimals and Planets’, Tenerife, Eds. F. Garzon et al., ASP Conf proc., in print. Preprint astro-ph/0006130

Favata F., Roxburgh I., Christensen-Dalsgaard J. (Eds.) 2000, ’Eddington Assessment Study Report’, ESA report ESA-SCI(2000)8

Robin A., Crézé M. 1986, A&A 157, 71

Sarotetti P., Schneider J. 1999, A&AS 234, 553