text:
# Star Clusters as Type Ia Supernova Factories

## 1 Introduction

Type Ia supernovae (SNeIa) have recently been used to demonstrate that the Universe is apparently not only expanding, but also accelerating (Riess et al., 1998; Perlmutter et al., 1999). If this remarkable discovery survives careful scrutiny it has profound implications for cosmology physics (see Leibundgut 2001 for a review). However, before accepting such a revolutionary change in our view of the universe, it is critical to investigate all challenges to the acceleration interpretation of the data. A thorough compilation of those challenges is given by Riess (2000).

Riess (2000) cites evolution, dust, gravitational lensing, measurement biases, selection biases and alternative cosmological models as potential challenges to the acceleration interpretation of the Type Ia supernova (SNIa) observations. He concludes that the primary source of reasonable doubt is evolution (could SNeIa at redshift z = 0.5 be intrinsically fainter than nearby SNeIa by 25% ?). We simply don’t know for certain what kind of star (or stars?) give rise to these explosions, and hence whether to expect systematic variations in SNIa luminosities with z.

Not knowing the progenitors of SNeIa is embarrassing because of the significant empirical corrections one must apply to supernova luminosities, based on their light curves, to get distances (Phillips, 1993). If one could determine the SNIa progenitor with a high degree of reliability, one could build increasingly sophisticated supernova light curve models. This would lead to a fundamental understanding of the physical behavior of one of the most crucial standard candles in cosmology.

Two competing SNIa models exist: merging double-white-dwarfs (DWDs) and accreting single white dwarfs (ASDs) in close binary systems (see Yungelson & Livio 2000 for a review, including the pros and cons of each flavor of each model). In both cases the model involves the thermonuclear disruption of a white dwarf, most likely of carbon-oxygen (CO) composition, when its mass reaches, or exceeds, the critical Chandrasekhar mass. However, Saio & Nomoto (1998) have raised the possibility that supra-Chandrasekhar mass-accreting white dwarfs will undergo accretion-induced collapse (AIC) and the formation of a neutron star, rather than a SNIa. An important example of why it is so critical to know the progenitors of SNeIa is the following. ASDs accreting helium result in the accumulation of a He layer and an edge lit detonation; the peak luminosity-light curve shape relation of such objects may vary significantly with metallicity and hence redshift (Tout et al., 2001).

It is clearly important to calculate the expected incidence of DWDs and ASDs in the stellar populations of the different types of galaxies where SNIa occur. This has been done for field stars (Yungelson et al., 1996, for example), but hardly for the environs of clusters. We have begun this study, and find that dynamics dramatically alter binary populations and characteristics, including those of DWDs and ASDs. Such an effect has been predicted in the past (Chen & Leonard, 1993) but has yet to be tested by direct means.

Many, and possibly all, stars were born in a star cluster (Kraft, 1983; Lada, Strom & Myers, 1993), or at the very least a loose association (Makarov & Fabricius, 2001, for example). Living in an environment with stellar densities of $`10^2`$stars$`\mathrm{pc}^3`$ to as high as $`10^7`$stars$`\mathrm{pc}^3`$ can dramatically affect the evolution of stars. Physical collisions, and, in the case of binaries, exchange interactions or disruptions of orbits can radically alter the fates of cluster stars. The most direct way to model the evolution of a star cluster is with an $`N`$-body code in which the individual orbits of each star are followed in detail and the internal evolution of each star is also taken into account (Hurley et al., 2001).

We have begun a study of the behavior of populous star clusters using a state-of-the-art $`N`$-body code in conjunction with the powerful GRAPE-6 special purpose computer (Makino, 2001). This will ultimately involve a large number of $`N`$-body simulations covering a wide range of initial conditions, e.g. metallicity, binary fraction, and stellar number density. A related study investigating the fate of planetary systems in star clusters is also ongoing (Hurley & Shara, 2002). The remarkable evolution of close binaries comprised of one or two degenerate members is the focus of this early work. The increased importance of SNIa for cosmology makes these initial results particularly relevant to the scientific community.

Our simulation method is presented in Section 2, and the double white dwarfs are described in Section 3. The accreting white dwarfs are detailed in Section 4. We briefly summarize our results in Section 5.

## 2 Simulation Method

We have carried out simulations with $`\mathrm{22\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ stars and a 10% primordial binary fraction using the Aarseth NBODY4 code (Aarseth, 1999; Hurley et al., 2001). A GRAPE-6 board located at the American Museum of Natural History hosts the code. This special purpose computer acts as a Newtonian force accelerator for $`N`$-body calculations, performing at $`0.5`$Tflops for a 16-chip board ($`30`$Gflops per chip).

The prescription used for single star evolution in NBODY4 is described in Hurley, Pols & Tout (2000). A feature of this algorithm is the inclusion of metallicity as a free parameter, making it applicable to modelling clusters of all ages. It covers all stages of the evolution from the zero-age main-sequence (ZAMS) up to, and including, remnant stages such as the white dwarf cooling track. In terms of examining DWDs as SNIa candidates it is important to note that the WD initial-final mass relation found by Hurley, Pols & Tout (2000, see their Fig. 18) is well matched to observations.

All aspects of standard binary evolution, i.e. non-perturbed orbits, are treated according to the prescription described in Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002). This includes tidal circularization and synchronization of the orbit, mass transfer, and angular momentum loss mechanisms such as magnetic braking and gravitational radiation. The default input parameters to this algorithm (listed in Table 3 of Hurley, Tout & Pols 2002) are adopted. In particular, this means that the common-envelope (CE) efficiency parameter is taken to be $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}=3.0`$ which makes the outcome of common-envelope evolution similar to the alternative, and commonly used, scenario described by Iben & Livio (1993) with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}=1.0`$. Common-envelope evolution occurs when mass transfer develops on a dynamical timescale. In the evolution algorithm this equates to the donor star, generally a giant, having an appreciable convective envelope and a mass-ratio, $`q`$, exceeding some critical value, $`q_{\mathrm{crit}}0.7`$. If the conditions for dynamical mass-transfer are met then the envelope of the giant overfills the Roche-lobes of both stars leaving the giant core and the secondary star contained within a common-envelope. Owing to orbital friction these will spiral together and transfer energy to the envelope with an efficiency $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$. If this process releases sufficient energy to drive off the entire envelope the outcome will be a close binary consisting of the giant core and the secondary, otherwise it leads to coalescence of the two objects.

Various models for binary evolution exist (Portegies Zwart & Verbunt, 1996; Tutukov & Yungelson, 1996; Tout et al., 1997, for example) with each having the similar goal of providing a sufficiently detailed description of binary behaviour while remaining computationally efficient. The main difference between these and the Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002) model referred to in this work, and incorporated in to NBODY4, is the much improved treatment of tidal interactions present in the latter. Tidal friction arising from convective, radiative or degenerate damping mechanisms is modelled and necessarily the stellar spins, which are subject to tidal circularization and synchronization, are followed for each star. Also, by using the single star evolution algorithm of Hurley, Pols & Tout (2000) the Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002) binary prescription not only allows for a wider range of evolution phases, with many of these modelled in more detail and based on updated stellar models, but can also be used to evolve binaries of any metallicity. An additional difference is that models such as those of Portegies Zwart & Verbunt (1996) and Tutukov & Yungelson (1996) follow the Iben & Livio (1993) common-envelope scenario while Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002) utilise the scenario first described in Tout et al. (1997). Subtle variations also exist from model to model in the way that various aspects of mass transfer are dealt with.

Gravitational radiation is an important process in the evolution of close binary systems because it provides a mechanism for removing angular momentum and driving the system towards a mass transfer state, possibly followed by coalescence. In the Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002) binary model orbital changes due to gravitational radiation are calculated using expressions based on the weak-field approximation of general relativity (Eggleton, 2002) and assuming the stars are point masses. This includes a strong dependence on the eccentricity of the orbit, although DWD systems are generally circular.

In the dense environment of a star cluster it is possible for the orbital parameters of a binary to be significantly perturbed owing to close encounters with nearby stars. It is even possible for the orbit to become chaotic as a result of such an interaction. Modelling of such events has been considered in detail by Mardling & Aarseth (2001) whose work is included in NBODY4. Three-body and higher-order subsystems are also followed in detail (Aarseth, 1999, and references within).

We include the outcome of four simulations in the results described below and in Tables 1-3. The first two simulations were carried out assuming a metallicity of $`Z=0.004`$, while the third and fourth simulations had $`Z=0.02`$. In all other respects the initial conditions were identical for each simulation. Masses for single stars are chosen from the initial mass function (IMF) of Kroupa, Tout & Gilmore (1993) within the limits of $`0.150M_{}`$. For primordial binaries the total mass of the binary is chosen from the IMF of Kroupa, Tout & Gilmore (1991), as this was not corrected for the effect of binaries, between the limits of $`0.2100M_{}`$. The component masses are then assigned according to a uniform distribution of mass-ratio, taking care to ensure that the single star mass limits are not violated. Following Eggleton, Fitchett & Tout (1989) we take the distribution of orbital separations for the primordial binaries to be

$$\left(\frac{a}{a_m}\right)^\beta =\mathrm{sec}\left(kW\right)+\mathrm{tan}\left(kW\right),$$
(1)
where $`W[1,1]`$, and uniformly distributed and $`k`$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{sec}k=\frac{1}{2}\left[\zeta ^\beta +\zeta ^\beta \right].$$
(2)
This distribution is symmetric in $`\mathrm{log}a`$ about a peak at $`a_m`$ and ranges from a minimum separation of $`\zeta a_m`$ to a maximum of $`a_m/\zeta `$. We choose the constants $`\zeta `$ and $`\beta `$ to be $`10^3`$ and $`0.33`$ respectively, and take $`a_m30`$AU, i.e. each separation, $`a`$, is within the range $`6R_{}`$ to $`\mathrm{30\hspace{0.17em}000}`$AU. The eccentricity of each binary orbit is taken from a thermal distribution (Heggie, 1975). Initial positions and velocities of the stars are assigned according to a Plummer model (Aarseth, Hénon & Wielen, 1974) in virial equilibrium.

Each simulation started with $`\mathrm{18\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ single stars and $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ binaries and was evolved to an age of $`4.5`$Gyr when $`25\%`$ of the initial cluster mass remained and the binary fraction was still close to 10%. In real time each individual simulation took approximately five days to complete, which corresponds to $`10^3`$ cluster crossing-times, and $`10^{17}`$ floating-point operations on the GRAPE board. Clusters are evolved subject to a standard three-dimensional Galactic tidal field (see Hurley et al. 2001) of standard, i.e. local, strength (Chernoff & Weinberg, 1990, for example) so, in addition to mass loss from stellar evolution, mass is removed from the cluster when stars cross the tidal boundary and are lost to the Galaxy. Because the orbits of some bound stars may momentarily take them outside of the cluster, stars are not actually removed from the simulation until their distance from the cluster centre exceeds twice the tidal radius. At any moment in time less than 2% of the mass in a simulation is found to lie outside of the tidal radius and this has little effect on the evolution of the model (Giersz & Heggie, 1997). Typically the velocity dispersion of the stars in these model clusters was $`2\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ with a core density of $`10^3`$stars$`\mathrm{pc}^3`$. The density of stars at the half-mass radius is generally a factor of 10 less than this. These simulations are clearly in the open cluster regime.

## 3 Double White Dwarfs

Double white dwarf systems must form in all stellar populations with binaries. To form short-period systems isolated binaries must undergo considerable common envelope evolution to shed angular momentum and bring their degenerate components close together. Only when the orbital period of a DWD is less than about 10 hours will gravitational radiation force the system to merge in less than the age of the universe. A key result of this paper is that DWDs formed in clusters can be significantly hardened by interactions with passing stars. Alternatively, hardening of binaries before they reach the DWD stage, and/or exchange interactions, can produce a short-period DWD that would not have formed in isolation. This greatly increases the number of DWDs which merge in less than a Hubble time. Heggie (1975) defined hard binaries to be sufficiently close that their binding energy exceeds the mean kinetic energy of the cluster stars. A binary is said to harden when an interaction with a third body removes energy from the orbit and thus reduces the separation. Three-body interactions may also lead to an exchange in which one of the binary components is displaced by the incoming third star. If an exchange does occur then the expelled star, generally the least massive, invariably leaves the three-body system altogether. Note that four-body interactions involving a second binary are also possible. The likelihood of a binary being the target of an exchange interaction scales linearly with the orbital separation of the binary (Heggie, Hut & McMillan, 1996) and is also more likely to occur in the core of a cluster. Table 1 lists the characteristics of the merging DWDs formed during the four cluster simulations: epoch of formation, types of white dwarf, component and system masses, orbital period at formation epoch, gravitational inspiral timescale, and whether the binary is primordial or due to an exchange. All of these objects will merge in less than a Hubble time, creating a supra-Chandrasekhar object which may yield a SNIa.

From binary population synthesis alone we expect about 10 DWDs to be present amongst 2000 binaries of solar metallicity after $`4`$Gyr of evolution. This expected number rises to 15 DWDs for $`Z=0.004`$ which is mainly a reflection of the accelerated evolution timescale for low metallicity stars with masses less than $`9M_{}`$: the main-sequence (MS) lifetime for stars of Population II composition is roughly a factor of two shorter than for stars of solar composition (see Fig. 4 of Hurley, Pols & Tout 2000). Of these DWDs, only $`0.20.3`$ are expected to be a “loaded gun”, i.e. to have a combined mass, $`M_\mathrm{b}`$, greater than the Chandrasekhar mass, $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}1.44`$, and a merger timescale less than the age of the Galaxy (Hurley, Tout & Pols, 2002). These population synthesis results refer to isolated binaries with initial conditions drawn from the same distributions as used in the $`N`$-body simulations presented here. From Table 1 we see that there are, on average, four “loaded guns” per 2000 binaries, which is $`15`$ times more than expected in a binary population unaffected by dynamical interactions. We note CO-CO DWDs dominate, but that CO-ONe binaries are also common (5 of 16 binaries). The system total masses range from $`1.49M_{}`$ to $`1.96M_{}`$. This range in masses and compositions suggests diversity in the light curves and spectra of the merging objects, whether or not they make SNIa.

Figure 1 highlights the evolution of two of the SNIa candidates formed in the simulations. The binary shown in the top panel of the figure is the DWD formed at $`334`$Myr in the first $`Z=0.004`$ simulation (fourth entry in Table 1). This began as a primordial binary with component masses of $`5.82M_{}`$ and $`3.13M_{}`$, an eccentricity of 0.74, and an orbital period of $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}138}`$d. It underwent two common-envelope events, the first at $`76`$Myr when the $`5.82M_{}`$ star filled its Roche-lobe on the asymptotic giant branch (by which time tides raised on the convective envelope of the primary had circularized the orbit) and became an ONe WD, and the second at $`232`$Myr when the $`3.13M_{}`$ star filled its Roche-lobe on the first giant branch and became a naked helium star. The helium star subsequently evolved to become a CO WD at $`299`$Myr, losing some mass in the process which explains the decrease in binding energy. The DWD resided in the core of the cluster and experienced a strong perturbation to its orbit shortly after formation which caused the orbit to harden. The perturbation did not induce any noticeable eccentricity in to this already circular orbit. Gravitational radiation then removed orbital angular momentum from the system, causing the two WDs to spiral together, until they merged at $`630`$Myr. Without the perturbation to its orbit the period of this DWD binary would not have been short enough for gravitational radiation to be efficient.

The binary shown in the lower panel of Figure 1 is the DWD formed at $`\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}192}`$Myr in the second of the $`Z=0.02`$ simulations (last entry in Table 1). This binary is the result of a 3-body exchange interaction which occurred at $`620`$Myr. The binary involved in the exchange is a primordial binary that had experienced two common-envelope events and was itself a DWD at the time of exchange (see the second entry in Table 2 for Simulation 4). The incoming star had a mass of $`2.02M_{}`$ and after spending a short time as a quasi-stable 3-body system the least massive star, the $`0.82M_{}`$ WD in the primordial, was ejected from the system to leave a MS-WD binary with an eccentricity of 0.63 and an orbital period of $`\mathrm{14\hspace{0.17em}125}`$d. This binary was significantly perturbed at $`914`$Myr (increasing the eccentricity to 0.94) and then experienced a series of common-envelope phases (with the orbital eccentricity having been removed by tidal friction prior to the first CE event) before forming the SNIa candidate of interest at $`\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}192}`$Myr. It bears repeating that possible SNIa systems of this sort never occur naturally in the field.

In Table 2 we list all DWDs which are not SNIa candidates. This is because the total system masses are less than $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$, or the merger timescale is longer than a Hubble time, or both. The large numbers of objects demonstrate the rich variety of DWDs created in clusters. It is particularly remarkable that 93 of the 135 binaries listed in Table 2 were created in exchange interactions. This highlights a second key result of our paper: most of the DWDs in star clusters, and possibly those in the field if they were born in clusters, have progenitors with companions different from the ones we observe today. Furthermore, the orbital period and mass ratio distributions of such objects cannot be reliably predicted without including the effects of dynamics and thus, exchanges. This is particularly important in comparing the results of observational searches for “loaded guns” with theoretical population predictions (Saffer, Livio & Yungelson, 1998). The number of DWDs formed from primordial binaries in the simulations matches well the predicted numbers from the non-dynamical population synthesis. This is also true of the SNIa candidates in Table 1 where the population synthesis predicted either 0 or 1 candidate per simulation.

The histogram of all DWD masses is shown in Figure 2. The distribution of DWDs which will merge in less than a Hubble time is quite similar to that of the DWDs with $`M_\mathrm{b}>M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$. This is also clear from the histogram of all DWD periods, shown in Figure 3. These confirm that the hardening process does not preferentially act on more massive binaries.

The color-magnitude diagrams of the clusters we have simulated are shown in Figures 4-5 for the $`Z=0.004`$ and $`Z=0.02`$ models at $`1`$Gyr intervals. In addition to the single star and binary main-sequences, several blue stragglers and cataclysmic variables (CVs, below and to the left of the MS) are visible in each simulation. The latter have hardly been searched for in open clusters, and this work suggests that systematic searches might be rewarded. Most remarkable are the DWDs, seen in profusion above the white dwarf cooling sequence, and the “loaded guns” shown as circled diamonds in each of the figures.

Figure 6 illustrates the spatial distribution within the cluster at several epochs for the single stars, binaries and DWDs. This clearly demonstrates that the quest for equipartition of energy is dominating the dynamical evolution: heavy objects segregate towards the inner regions of the cluster while lighter objects move outwards. Binaries are on average more massive than single stars and are therefore more centrally concentrated. Furthermore, the progenitor of any DWD was originally at least twice as massive as the cluster MS turn-off mass at the time the DWD formed, i.e. the DWDs form from the high-end of the binary IMF. This explains why DWDs are more centrally concentrated than the other binaries and means that they are most likely to be found in the core of the cluster, especially those with $`M_\mathrm{b}>M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$.

## 4 Accreting Single White Dwarfs

Table 3 lists the possible ASDs generated in our simulations. As with the DWDs, we see that about 2/3 of these binary systems have been involved in exchange interactions. Most are giant-CO-WD pairs, but examples of He and ONe white dwarfs orbiting giants are also present. The number of ASDs is comparable to that predicted by population synthesis without dynamical interactions ($`6`$ per simulation) but considering that only 1/3 of the ASDs evolved from primordial binaries it appears that dynamical interactions are destroying as many systems as are being created.

The ASDs are only listed as possible because they all have $`q>1`$ which, according to most prescriptions for mass transfer, will lead to common-envelope evolution and not steady transfer of material onto the WD (see Section 2). For these systems to become super-soft sources (and possibly SNIa) the common-envelope phase must be avoided, otherwise a DWD, or possibly a single giant, will result. The number of possible ASDs with $`q<1`$ at the onset of mass transfer predicted by population synthesis is only $`0.4`$ per simulation which agrees with what we found. However, there is a fair amount of uncertainty in the value of $`q_{\mathrm{crit}}`$, the mass-ratio above which mass transfer from a giant proceeds on a dynamical timescale. Webbink (1988) presents an expression for $`q_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ which differs by more than a factor of two compared to the model of Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002) for certain values of the giant envelope mass, and which gives $`q_{\mathrm{crit}}>2`$ as the envelope mass becomes small. Furthermore, Yungelson & Livio (1998) have shown that the assumption of a strong optically thick wind from the accreting star can act to stabilize the mass transfer. If we allow all values of $`q_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ to lead to stable mass transfer (on a thermal timescale), and assume that all of the transferred material is accreted by the WD, then Table 3 shows that $`8`$ WDs per simulation will reach the $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$ and explode.

## 5 Discussion

The key result of this paper is that each of the possible progenitors of SNIa is preferentially manufactured in star clusters by orbital hardening and/or exchange interactions. Consequently, in the dense environment of a star cluster, it is binaries altered by, or created from, dynamical interactions that provide the dominant formation channel for short-period DWDs and possible ASDs.

### 5.1 SNIa Locations

An overly simple prediction based on our results is that we might thus expect to see many or most Type Ia supernovae erupting in star clusters, often in their cores. There are two reasons to be cautious with this prediction.

First, open star clusters disperse, usually on a $`16`$Gyr timescale. Stars evaporate from clusters as they acquire energy from other cluster stars, as the Galactic tidal field incessantly tugs at cluster outliers, and through encounters with Giant Molecular Clouds. Second, we don’t know what fraction of stars are created in star clusters, and what fraction of those escape during the earliest stages of cluster life. Observationally checking this prediction is difficult because only a dozen or so SNeIa have been identified closer than the Coma Cluster. Crowding will make at least some SNeIa appear “close” to star clusters, even if they are separated by hundreds of parsecs.

### 5.2 Globular Clusters

At first glance, performing simulations of globular clusters should act to amplify the effects of dynamical interactions on the stellar populations within the cluster. These simulations will operate at higher particle density and thus the rate of stellar encounters will increase. However, in some cases, this may have the effect of closing production channels. Consider the ASD systems which comprise a Roche-lobe filling giant star and a WD secondary. For such a system to evolve to become a SNIa mass transfer onto the WD must be stable for a significant length of time. Observations of globular clusters (Guhathakurta et al., 1998, for example) show that bright giants are depleted in the core of the cluster indicating that they have been involved in collisions, a consequence of their relatively large cross-section. Such collisions could act to reduce the incidence of stable mass transfer from giants in a globular cluster, either by interrupting the mass transfer or preventing it from occurring at all. On the other hand, short-period DWD systems present a relatively small cross-section for collision so the increased stellar density should lead to an increased number of weak encounters. The orbital perturbations resulting from these will enhance the likelihood of DWD merger events.

### 5.3 SNIa Birthrates

The predicted Galactic birthrate of SNeIa from merging supra-Chandrasekhar DWDs is found by Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002) to be $`2.6\times 10^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$. This number is calculated from population synthesis of isolated binaries using the same input parameters to the binary evolution model as used in our NBODY4 simulations. Alternatively, if the Gaussian period distribution for nearby solar-like stars found by Duquennoy & Mayor (1991) is used to determine the initial orbits of the binaries, this number changes by less than 4%. A similar rate is found by Tutukov & Yungelson (1994) using an independent binary evolution algorithm. The observed rate is $`4\pm 1\times 10^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (Cappellaro et al., 1997) so clearly a factor of 10 increase in the predicted rate would bring binary evolution models into conflict with observations. However, Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002) found that if they draw the binary component masses independently from a single star IMF, rather than using a uniform mass-ratio distribution, the predicted rate drops by at least a factor of 10. So the enhancement of SNIa candidates found in our open cluster simulations would allow agreement for the more general mass-ratio distribution when trying to match the results of binary population synthesis studies to observations.

There are additional parameters intrinsic to the binary evolution algorithm which can also affect the production rate of DWDs. The common-envelope efficiency parameter is a prime example. Reducing $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ from 3.0 to 1.0 makes it harder to form short-period binaries via the common-envelope channel and indeed, Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002) found that this also decreased the predicted birthrate of SNeIa from merging supra-Chandrasekhar DWDs by a factor of 10. Because the critical mass-ratio for dynamical mass transfer affects the frequency of common-envelope events, uncertainty in its value (see previous section) will similarly affect any predicted number. Trying to constrain the input parameters to a model of binary evolution by matching the results of binary population synthesis to observations of particular stellar populations is a risky business. The number of uncertain parameters is large and it is entirely possible that an error in one value will mask the error in another. But the key result of this paper remains: hardening of binaries occurs only in clusters, and this preferentially creates SNIa candidates.

### 5.4 Binary Fraction

Clearly the number of DWD binaries produced in the simulations would increase if we had used a higher binary fraction. The fraction of 10% is a rather conservative choice and we note that in some open clusters it has been found that binaries may be as, or even more, populous than single stars (Fan et al. 1996, for example). We cannot stress enough however (this goes for the discussion in the previous paragraph as well) that it is the number of close DWDs produced in the simulations relative to the number produced in the field that is of primary interest in this work. Binaries do present a greater cross-section for dynamical interaction than do single stars (Heggie, Hut & McMillan, 1996) so a higher binary fraction does have the capacity to affect the simulation results. This will be addressed in future work.

### 5.5 Eccentricity

The treatment of gravitational radiation used in the binary evolution algorithm contains a strong dependence on orbital eccentricity, i.e. the removal of angular momentum from the short-period system is accelerated if the orbit is eccentric. Binaries emerging from a common-envelope phase are assumed to be circular so the only way for a short-period DWD orbit to be eccentric is through dynamical interactions subsequent to DWD formation. However, inducing an eccentricity in to an already circular orbit, especially in the case of small orbital separation, is difficult (Heggie & Rasio, 1996). In none of the four simulated SNIa candidates that required perturbations to the orbit of a DWD was a detectable eccentricity induced as part of the hardening process.

On a related matter, Hurley et al. (2001) have shown that the shape of the eccentricity distribution used for the primordial binary population can affect the number of blue stragglers produced from that population, for example. This is less important in the case of DWD binaries as the systems of interest will simply form from a slightly different set of primordial binaries. The same goes for variations in the way that tidal friction is modelled (see Hurley, Tout & Pols 2002 for a detailed discussion).

### 5.6 DWDs and CVs in Clusters

Another intriguing suggestion from this work is that DWDs of all periods should be rather commonplace in open clusters, and likely segregated towards the cluster centres. A significant fraction of these DWDs must have been involved in exchange interactions. We encourage observers to survey for such objects. In the case of CVs we do not find a similar enhancement in open clusters: typically $`12`$ CVs were formed in each simulation. We expect that this is mainly due to the required presence of a low-mass MS star, less massive than its WD companion, in any binary that will evolve to a long-lived, and thus stable, CV state. This means that the progenitors of CVs will on average be less massive than the progenitors of DWDs, either on the ZAMS or after the WD (or WDs) have formed, so that they are less likely to reside in the core of the cluster and be involved in dynamical interactions. Furthermore, in a 3-body exchange interaction, it is normally the least massive star that is ejected so CVs are unlikely to form in this manner. We do not rule out the possiblity that CV production will be enhanced in simulations of globular clusters. We also note that if merging supra-Chandrasekhar DWDs lead to the formation of neutron stars via an AIC then they are still extremely interesting objects in terms of the neutron star retention problem in star clusters (Pfahl, Rappaport & Podsiadlowski, 2002).

## 6 Conclusions

We find a greatly increased rate of production of “loaded guns” - supra-Chandrasekhar double-white-dwarfs with inspiral ages shorter than a Hubble time - in star clusters relative to the field. Orbital hardening and exchange interactions are the responsible mechanisms for the enhanced rates. Neither of these processes operates in the field, and neither has been included in previous population studies of SNIa progenitors.

The production rate of possible accreting single degenerates is not significantly enhanced relative to the field. However, a major fraction of these systems are formed in exchange interactions, which means that modelling of the stellar dynamics is destroying production channels as well as creating them. Whether or not accreting single degenerates will evolve to become super-soft sources, and ultimately type Ia supernovae, depends critically on avoiding the phase of common-envelope evolution that occurs if mass transfer proceeds on a dynamical timescale.

The results are based on studies of open cluster size $`N`$-body simulations, but we expect the effect to be even stronger in the case of globular clusters. The more frequent encounters in globulars will harden DWDs much more rapidly than in open clusters, and hence increase the predicted rate of creation of SNIa progenitors. An increased rate of collisions involving giant stars will deplete the numbers of accreting single degenerate binaries.

We are extremely grateful to Jun Makino and the University of Tokyo for the loan of the GRAPE-6 board. The generous support of Doug Ellis and the Cordelia Corporation has enabled AMNH to purchase new GRAPE-6 boards and we are most grateful for that. MS thanks Ken Nomoto for very helpful discussions and suggestions. We thank Fred Rasio and Vicky Kalogera for organizing the 2001 Aspen Center for Physics meeting on Star Clusters where some of the ideas for this paper were clarified. We also thank the referee for comments that greatly improved certain aspects of this manuscript.


format: text

text:
# On an analytic estimate in the theory of the Riemann Zeta function and a Theorem of Báez-Duarte

## 1. Introduction

The following theorem has been established by Báez-Duarte  ($`\{x\}=x[x]`$ is the fractional part of the real number $`x`$):

###### Theorem 1.1 (Báez-Duarte ).

If the Riemann Hypothesis holds then the function $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{0<t1}`$ belongs to the closure in $`L^2((0,\mathrm{}),dt)`$ of the finite linear combinations of the functions $`t\{1/nt\}`$, $`n1`$, $`n`$.

That the converse holds is (a special case of) the easy half of the classical Nyman-Beurling criterion   (in a minor variant as the original formulation is entirely inside $`L^2((0,1),dt)`$.) The not-so-easy other half of the original version of this criterion states that the Riemann Hypothesis implies that $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{0<t1}`$ belongs to the span of the functions $`t\{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }t\}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ varies in the continuous interval $`[1,\mathrm{})`$. The connection with the Riemann zeta function is established with the help of the classical formula

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\left\{\frac{1}{t}\right\}t^{s1}𝑑t=\frac{\zeta (s)}{s}$$

where the integral is absolutely convergent for $`0<\mathrm{Re}(s)<1`$. Generally speaking the Mellin transform $`f(t)\widehat{f}(s)=_0^{\mathrm{}}f(t)t^{s1}𝑑t`$ establishes an isometry between $`L^2((0,\mathrm{}),dt)`$ and the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions on the critical line for the measure $`|ds|/2\pi `$. So the Nyman-Beurling criterion is that the Riemann Hypothesis holds if and only if one can approximate in the square-mean sense the function $`1/s`$ on the critical line by expressions $`\zeta (s)P(s)/s`$ where $`P(s)=_kc_k\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^s`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k1`$.

This topic has attracted some interest in recent years in a number of publications, among them , , , , , , , , , ,  and it was expected from the expression $`1/\zeta (s)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mu (n)n^s`$ that the values $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k=n`$, $`n\{0\}`$ are enough. This is what has been established by Báez-Duarte. We state again here for future reference his theorem in complex analytic form:

###### Theorem 1.2 (Báez-Duarte ).

If the Riemann Hypothesis holds then $`1/s`$ can be arbitrarily well approximated in square-mean on the critical line by functions $`\zeta (s)P(s)/s`$ with $`P(s)=_{n=1}^Nc_{n,N}n^s`$ a Dirichlet polynomial.

###### Remark 1.1.

It remains an open problem to exhibit for $`N\mathrm{}`$ an explicit sequence of “natural approximations” $`_{n=1}^Nc_{n,N}n^s`$. It is known  that the Hilbert space distance from $`\zeta (s)P(s)/s`$ to $`1/s`$ is bounded below asymptotically by $`C/\sqrt{\mathrm{log}(N)}`$ for a $`C>0`$ (and from  it is known that $`C2+\gamma \mathrm{log}(4\pi )`$.) This applies even to Dirichlet polynomials $`_kc_k\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^s`$ allowing non-integer $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$’s ($`1\mathrm{\Lambda }_kN`$). It is not known whether the restriction to integer $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s may result in a worse rate of convergence. It is naturally expected that this is not the case. But no explicit upper bound to the Hilbert space distance to the optimal natural approximation of degree $`N`$ is currently known.

It is a quite notable feature of Báez-Duarte’s proof that it frees completely the Nyman-Beurling criterion from any appeal to the theory of invariant subspaces of Hardy spaces. In this manner the topic of the Nyman-Beurling criterion becomes less foreign to the more classical analytic number theoretical topics as they are treated in Titchmarsh’s book .

The purpose of this paper is to reinforce this with the help of a purely complex analytical proof of 1.2. While inspired by the original proof and quite directly related to it, our approach relies on a novel analytic estimate on the Riemann zeta function, conditional on the Riemann Hypothesis:

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`ϵ>0`$. Conditional on the Riemann Hypothesis one has:

$$\left|\frac{\zeta (s)}{\zeta (s+A)}\right|=O_ϵ(|s|^{inf(ϵ,A/2)})$$

on the critical line, uniformly with respect to $`0A<\mathrm{}`$.

The other main component of the proof, as in Báez-Duarte’s, is the use of a Theorem of Balazard and Saias \[6, Lemme 2\], which is a version with a fine error estimate of the convergence of $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mu (n)/n^s`$ to $`1/\zeta (s)`$ for $`\mathrm{Re}(s)>1/2`$. We state a slightly weakened form of this Theorem which is directly suitable for our later use:

###### Theorem 1.4 (Balazard-Saias ).

Let $`\frac{1}{2}>ϵ>0`$ and $`\theta >0`$. Conditional on the Riemann Hypothesis one has:

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mu (n)}{n^s}=\frac{1}{\zeta (s)}+O_{ϵ,\theta }(\frac{|s|^\theta }{N^{ϵ/3}})$$

on $`\mathrm{Re}(s)=1/2+ϵ`$.

It will be apparent that the proof of the strengthened Nyman-Beurling criterion in fact would go through equally well with much coarser error estimates than the ones provided by 1.3 and 1.4. But the future developments could possibly use the finer estimates.

This paper is organized as follows: in the first section we prove the Báez-Duarte strengthened “only if” Nyman-Beurling criterion using 1.3 and 1.4. This takes only a few lines. The second section proves 1.3. In a third section we show that the Riemann Hypothesis holds if and only if certain functions considered by Báez-Duarte are square-integrable, and we conclude with some related comments.

## 2. Proof of 1.2

From 1.3 we have in particular on the critical line a uniform upper estimate for $`0A1/2`$:

$$\left|\frac{\zeta (s)}{\zeta (s+A)}\right|C|s|^{1/4}$$

which implies that the functions $`\zeta (s)/s\zeta (s+A)`$ converge in square-mean on the critical line to $`1/s`$ as $`A0`$. If we now pick one such fixed small $`A=ϵ`$ we have from 1.4 that

$$\frac{\zeta (s)}{s}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mu (n)}{n^{s+ϵ}}=\frac{\zeta (s)}{s\zeta (s+ϵ)}+O_{ϵ,\theta }\left(\frac{|s|^\theta }{N^{ϵ/3}}\left|\frac{\zeta (s)}{s}\right|\right)$$

We then only need to invoke (as $`\theta >0`$ may be chosen arbitrarily) a weak bound like $`|\zeta (s)|=O(|s|^{1/4})`$ (\[16, 5.1.8\]) on the critical line to conclude that the left hand side converge in square-mean sense as $`N\mathrm{}`$ to $`\zeta (s)/\zeta (s+ϵ)s`$. This concludes the proof of 1.2.

It is apparent from this proof that any $`\theta <1/4`$ in 1.4 will do, even any $`\theta <1/2`$ if we are ready to use the Lindelöf Hypothesis, which is a known corollary to the Riemann Hypothesis (\[16, XIV\]). Similarly we used only a coarse version of 1.3. What is essential nevertheless is the uniformity as $`A0`$ which is granted by 1.3.

## 3. Proof of 1.3

We restate 1.3:

###### Theorem 3.1.

If the Riemann Hypothesis holds one has for $`ϵ>0`$

$$\left|\frac{\zeta (s)}{\zeta (s+A)}\right|=0_ϵ(|s|^{inf(ϵ,A/2)})$$

on the critical line, uniformly for $`0A<\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

We fix $`ϵ>0`$ and we may assume $`ϵ<1/4`$. The range $`2A`$ obviously reduces to the known Lindelöf Hypothesis bound $`|\zeta (s)|=O(|s|^ϵ)`$. For the range $`2ϵA2`$ it is enough to combine $`|\zeta (s)|=O(|s|^{ϵ/2})`$ on the critical line with $`|1/\zeta (s)|=O(|s|^{ϵ/2})`$ on $`\mathrm{Re}(s)1/2+2ϵ`$ which is known to be true under the Riemann Hypothesis (\[16, XIV\]). Finally for the range $`0A2ϵ`$ we invoke the next lemma. ∎

###### Lemma 3.1.

If the Riemann Hypothesis holds one has on the critical line

$$\left|\frac{\zeta (s)}{\zeta (s+A)}\right|=O(|s|^{A/2})$$

uniformly for $`0A1/2`$.

###### Proof.

Assuming the validity of the Riemann Hypothesis we consider the function

$$\frac{\zeta (sA/2)}{\zeta (s+A/2)}$$

for $`\mathrm{Re}(s)=1/2`$. Let $`\gamma _+(s)`$ be the function appearing in the functional equation of the zeta function:

$$\gamma _+(s)=\frac{\pi ^{s/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s/2)}{\pi ^{(1s)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }((1s)/2)}$$

The following uniform estimate

$$|\gamma _+(w)|=O(|w|^{\sigma \frac{1}{2}})$$

on $`\mathrm{Re}(w)=\sigma `$, $`1/4\sigma 3/4`$, is known (\[16, 4.12.3\]).

So on the critical line and uniformly for $`0A1/2`$:

$$\left|\frac{\zeta (sA/2)}{\zeta (s+A/2)}\right|=|\gamma _+(s+A/2)|=O(|s|^{A/2})$$

Next we consider for a fixed $`A>0`$ the holomorphic function of $`s`$, for $`\mathrm{Re}(s)1/2`$, given by

$$\frac{(s1A/2)\zeta (sA/2)}{(s1+A/2)\zeta (s+A/2)}\frac{1}{s^{A/2}}$$

On a closed vertical strip $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}(s)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we are in a position to apply the Phragmen-Lindelöf principle. Modest growth information is necessary inside the strip for $`|\zeta (sA/2)|`$ and for $`|1/\zeta (s+A/2)|`$ and in fact as in the previous proof both functions are $`O(|s|^C)`$ for a suitable $`C`$. We then let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ and the conclusion is that

$$\left|\frac{(s1A/2)}{(s1+A/2)}\frac{\zeta (sA/2)}{\zeta (s+A/2)}\right|=O(|s|^{A/2})$$

on the closed half-plane $`\mathrm{Re}(s)1/2`$, with an implied constant which is uniform with respect to $`0<A1/2`$. We may of course include $`A=0`$ now. The Lemma then follows from looking at the line $`\mathrm{Re}(s)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{A}{2}`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.1.

A slightly more direct method (in place of the Phragmen-Lindelöf principle) is to invoke the theory of Nevanlinna functions and a result such as \[10, Lemma 2.2\]. This or the simpler Phragmen-Lindelöf principle will also extend the bound 1.3 from the critical line to the closed half-plane $`\mathrm{Re}(s)1/2`$ (avoiding a neighborhood of $`s=1`$ of course.)

###### Remark 3.2.

The bound $`|\zeta (sϵ)/\zeta (s+ϵ)|=|\gamma _+(s+ϵ)|=O(|s|^ϵ)`$ on the critical line also plays an important rôle in Báez-Duarte’s proof . We comment more on this proof in the next section.

## 4. On the functions $`f_ϵ`$ considered by Báez-Duarte and their relation with the Riemann Hypothesis

Báez-Duarte considers for $`ϵ>0`$ the function of $`t>0`$, defined pointwise as:

$$f_ϵ(t)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mu (n)}{n^ϵ}\{\frac{1}{nt}\}$$

for $`0<ϵ`$. From the bound $`\{1/nt\}1/nt`$ one has absolute convergence and $`|f_ϵ(t)|\zeta (1+ϵ)/t`$. Another expression is given by:

$$f_ϵ(t)=\frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)t}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mu (n)}{n^ϵ}[\frac{1}{nt}]$$

where the second term is pointwise a finite sum.

Let $`C_n`$ be the unitary operator $`\varphi (t)\sqrt{n}\varphi (nt)`$. One has pointwise $`f_ϵ(t)=_{n1}\mu (n)n^{ϵ1/2}C_n(\{1/t\})`$, so for $`ϵ>1/2`$ the series is absolutely convergent in $`L^2`$ and the $`L^2`$-Mellin transform $`\widehat{f_ϵ}(s)`$ is

$$\underset{n1}{}\frac{\mu (n)}{n^{ϵ+1/2}}\frac{1}{n^{s1/2}}\frac{\zeta (s)}{s}=\frac{\zeta (s)}{\zeta (s+ϵ)s}$$

It is known (from \[16, 3.6.5\]) that $`1/\zeta (s)`$ is $`O(|s|^\eta )`$ in $`\mathrm{Re}(s)1`$ ($`\eta >0`$ arbitrary) and also that $`\zeta (s)=O(|s|^{1/4})`$ on $`\mathrm{Re}(s)=1/2`$ (\[16, 5.1.8\]). So as $`ϵ\frac{1}{2}^+`$ the functions $`\widehat{f_ϵ}(s)`$ on the critical line converge in square mean. Clearly $`f_ϵ(t)f_{1/2}(t)`$ pointwise so this implies that $`f_{1/2}(t)`$ is square-integrable. Let us recapitulate these simple results:

###### Lemma 4.1.

For $`ϵ\frac{1}{2}`$ the functions $`f_ϵ(t)`$ are square-integrable and their $`L^2`$-Mellin transforms are:

$$\widehat{f_ϵ}(s)=\frac{1}{\zeta (s+ϵ)}\frac{\zeta (s)}{s}$$

It is apparent from this expression that the square-integrability of $`f_ϵ(t)`$ for $`ϵ<1/2`$ should be related with the Riemann Hypothesis. Indeed Báez-Duarte proves, conditionally on the Riemann Hypothesis, that these functions are square integrable (at least for small $`ϵ`$). He actually proves the stronger result that $`t^{ϵ/2}f_ϵ(t)`$ is square-integrable and that its ($`L^2`$)-Mellin Transform is $`\zeta (sϵ/2)/(sϵ/2)\zeta (s+ϵ/2)`$. This is done so that the limit $`ϵ0`$ is easy to deal with. But we can copy his argument and apply it directly to $`f_ϵ(t)`$: under the Riemann Hypothesis, and using the Theorem of Balazard-Saias 1.4, the ($`L^2`$)-Mellin transforms of the finite partial sums converge in square-mean to the function $`\zeta (s)/\zeta (s+ϵ)s`$. So the function $`f_ϵ(t)`$ which is their pointwise limit must be square-integrable. We sum this up as a Lemma, essentially contained in :

###### Lemma 4.2.

If the Riemann Hypothesis holds the functions $`f_ϵ(t)`$ for $`0<ϵ<1/2`$ are square-integrable and their $`L^2`$-Mellin transforms are:

$$\widehat{f_ϵ}(s)=\frac{1}{\zeta (s+ϵ)}\frac{\zeta (s)}{s}$$

What we wish to point out here is the simple observation that the square-integrability of the function $`f_ϵ(t)`$ in itself allows to say things about the Riemann Hypothesis quite independently of its connection with the Nyman-Beurling criterion.

Let $`ϵ>0`$. We have $`f_ϵ(t)=O(1/t)`$ and in particular the function $`_0^1f_ϵ(u)u^{s1}𝑑u`$ is analytic for $`\mathrm{Re}(s)>1`$. We first identify this function unconditionally:

###### Lemma 4.3.

One has unconditionally for $`\mathrm{Re}(s)>1`$:

$$_0^1f_ϵ(u)u^{s1}𝑑u=\frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)}\frac{1}{s1}\frac{1}{\zeta (s+ϵ)}\frac{\zeta (s)}{s}$$

###### Proof.

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}f_ϵ(u)u^{s1}𝑑u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu (a)}{a^ϵ}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{au}}]\right)u^{s1}𝑑u`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s1}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu (a)}{a^ϵ}}{\displaystyle _0^1}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{au}}]u^{s1}𝑑u`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s1}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu (a)}{a^ϵ}}{\displaystyle _0^{1/a}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{au}}]u^{s1}𝑑u`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s1}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu (a)}{a^{s+ϵ}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}]v^{s1}𝑑v`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (s+ϵ)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (s)}{s}}`$
###### Theorem 4.1.

If $`f_ϵL^2`$ then its $`L^2`$-Mellin transform on the critical line is the function

$$\frac{1}{\zeta (s+ϵ)}\frac{\zeta (s)}{s}$$

Furthermore this function is analytic in $`\mathrm{Re}(s)\frac{1}{2}`$ except for a simple pole at $`s=1`$.

###### Proof.

Let us assume that $`f_ϵL^2`$. Its restriction to $`t>1`$ is a non-zero multiple of $`1/t`$ and the corresponding Mellin transform is $`\frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)}\frac{1}{(s1)}`$. Let us write $`k_ϵ`$ for the restriction of $`f_ϵ`$ to the interval $`0<t<1`$. Its Mellin transform defines an element of the Hardy space of $`\mathrm{Re}(s)>\frac{1}{2}`$, in particular it has to be analytic there. We have obviously for $`\mathrm{Re}(s)=\frac{1}{2}`$:

$$\widehat{f_ϵ}(s)=\widehat{k_ϵ}(s)+\frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)}\frac{1}{1s}$$

and we have computed explicitely $`\widehat{k_ϵ}(s)`$ for $`\mathrm{Re}(s)>1`$ hence also for $`\mathrm{Re}(s)1/2`$. This gives the formula

$$\frac{1}{\zeta (s+ϵ)}\frac{\zeta (s)}{s}$$

and that it cannot have any pole in $`\mathrm{Re}(s)1/2`$ apart from $`s=1`$. ∎

So the square-integrability of $`f_ϵ(t)`$ is already a strong statement; we will be content with a trivial observation:

###### Corollary 4.1.

If $`f_ϵL^2`$ and $`\rho `$ is a zero with $`\mathrm{Re}(\rho )\frac{1}{2}+ϵ`$ then $`\rho ϵ`$ is again a zero.

This leads to:

###### Theorem 4.2.

If $`f_ϵL^2`$ for a sequence of $`ϵ>0`$ going to $`0`$ then the Riemann Hypothesis holds.

###### Proof.

The $`\rho ϵ`$ have to be among the zeros for an infinite sequence of $`ϵ0`$, but they accumulate at $`\rho `$. ∎

We have considered the functions $`f_ϵ(t)`$ but we could as well consider the functions $`t^{ϵ/2}f_ϵ(t)`$ ($`0<ϵ<1/2`$). But here arises the situation that under the hypothesis that $`t^{ϵ/2}f_ϵ(t)`$ is square-integrable its Fourier-Mellin transform on the critical line has to be the function

$$\frac{\zeta (sϵ/2)}{\zeta (s+ϵ/2)}\frac{1}{sϵ/2}$$

which is already known to be square-integrable!

Let us define the function $`g_ϵ(t)`$ to be the inverse ($`L^2`$)-Mellin transform of this function from the critical line to the half-axis $`0<t<\mathrm{}`$. The Riemann Hypothesis then becomes equivalent to the statement that $`g_ϵ(t)=t^{ϵ/2}f_ϵ(t)`$ (for small $`ϵ`$’s) or even seemingly weaker statements like $`g_ϵ(t)=C_ϵ/t^{1+ϵ/2}`$ for $`t>1`$. We state here just one such strange reformulation of the Riemann Hypothesis:

###### Theorem 4.3.

The Riemann hypothesis holds if and only if for small $`ϵ>0`$ (a sequence going to $`0`$ is enough), and for all $`\mathrm{Re}(z)<\frac{1}{2}`$ one has:

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{Re}(s)=\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\zeta (s\frac{ϵ}{2})}{\zeta (s+\frac{ϵ}{2})}\frac{1}{s\frac{ϵ}{2}}\frac{|ds|}{sz}=\frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)}\frac{1}{z\frac{ϵ}{2}1}$$

###### Proof.

Let us assume that the integral formula is true. As is known this kind of integral corresponds to orthogonal projection to the Hardy space of the left half-plane $`\mathrm{Re}(z)<\frac{1}{2}`$. Indeed the right hand side is up to a constant the Mellin transform of the function $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{x>1}(x)x^{1ϵ/2}`$. But this then implies that

$$\frac{\zeta (s\frac{ϵ}{2})}{\zeta (s+\frac{ϵ}{2})}\frac{1}{s\frac{ϵ}{2}}\frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)}\frac{1}{s\frac{ϵ}{2}1}$$

belongs to the Hardy space of the *right* half-plane $`\mathrm{Re}(s)>\frac{1}{2}`$. From the absence of poles one then sees using a sequence of $`ϵ0`$ that this implies the Riemann Hypothesis.

If the Riemann Hypothesis holds then

$$\frac{\zeta (s\frac{ϵ}{2})}{\zeta (s+\frac{ϵ}{2})}\frac{1}{s\frac{ϵ}{2}}$$

is the Mellin transform of $`x^{ϵ/2}f_ϵ(x)`$ which restricts to $`x^{1ϵ/2}/\zeta (1+ϵ)`$ for $`x>1`$ and this gives its orthogonal projection to the Hardy space of $`\mathrm{Re}(z)<\frac{1}{2}`$:

$$\frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)}_1^{\mathrm{}}x^{1ϵ/2}x^{z1}𝑑x=\frac{1}{\zeta (1+ϵ)}\frac{1}{z\frac{ϵ}{2}1}$$

We may envision this formulation as a kind of *causality* statement about the Riemann Zeta function: the ratio $`\zeta (sϵ/2)/\zeta (s+ϵ/2)`$ has the same modulus ($`\mathrm{Re}(s)=1/2`$) but not the same phase as the spectral function $`\gamma _+(s+ϵ/2)`$ of the Fourier cosine transform. In  we formulated, generally speaking, the Riemann Hypothesis for all abelian $`L`$-functions as a statement of causality. And we expressed elsewhere  the wish to see this implemented in a novel framework, more truly arithmetical in nature than the ones we have been working in in this and other papers.

Ackowledgements. I thank L. Báez-Duarte for communicating his manuscript and also M. Balazard and É. Saias for the lively discussion that followed.


text:
# GAIA accuracy on radial velocities assessed from a synthetic spectra database

## 1 Introduction

GAIA is the approved ESA Cornerstone 6 mission designed to obtain extremely precise astrometry (in the micro-arcsec regime), multi-band photometry as well as spectroscopy for up to a billion stars in our Galaxy and beyond. The goals are described in the mission Concept and technology study report (ESA-SCI(2000)4, hereafter ESA2000), and summarized by Perryman et al. (2001). Astrometric information will be used to derive star’s position and distance. Proper motion then yields the projection of the velocity vector on the sky plane. The missing, sixth component in the position-velocity space, i.e. the radial velocity of the target, is derived by spectroscopic observations on board (Munari 1999). Apart from astrometry and spectroscopy a number of photometric bands (15 are currently baselined) will collect broad- and narrow-band photometric information useful for general classification purposes (see Sect. 3.3). Spectroscopy can be used to obtain additional astrophysical information that cannot be provided by other means. This includes abundances of individual elements, stellar rotational velocity ($`v\mathrm{sin}i`$), and information on line profiles which is essential for derivation of orbital solutions of spectroscopic binaries (Munari et al. 2001a) or for detection and classification of peculiar stars (Munari et al. 2002). The spectrograph is described in ESA2000 and Munari (2001).

Performance of the spectrograph can be assessed by convolution of spectra of real stars (Munari et al. 2001). Here we resort to synthetic spectra that give more flexibility to simulate parameters of the GAIA spectrograph. The goal of this paper is to assess the accuracy of the radial velocities and to some extent other information as a function of the chosen spectral dispersion. We upgrade the initial assessment (ESA2000) by a database of more realistic spectra, a better treatment of the background, better correlation technique, updated spectrograph parameters and extending results to significantly fainter magnitudes. Most important, the initial assessment was done for only one resolution ($`R=30000`$ sampled at 0.75Å/ pixel, i.e. an undersampled case) while here we explore a range of possible choices ($`2000<R<20000`$, always maintaining the usual criterion of 2 pixels per resolution element). Given the fact that the spectral resolution is the only spectrograph parameter yet to be decided and the possibility to scale the results to any ground-based telescope observing in the near-IR, the paper provides realistic error estimates for any future campaigns in the near-IR domain.

## 2 Synthetic spectra database

We used Kurucz models to calculate a large database of $`10^5`$ synthetic spectra that sample the grid in temperature, surface gravity, metallicity, rotational velocity and spectral resolution. The grid which will be described separately (Zwitter et al. 2002) upgrades the initial calculations of Munari & Castelli (2000) and Castelli & Munari (2001). Fig. 1 illustrates the dependence of spectral properties on basic model parameters. All tracings are ratios to the template spectrum of a non-rotating metal-deficient giant of spectral type G, which is shown in Fig. 1a. Plotting the ratio to the chosen template instead of the spectrum itself permits a quick evaluation of the signal to noise and resolution needed to determine the value of a given parameter. Rise of effective temperature weakens the Ca II lines while the Pashen lines get stronger (Fig. 1b). Increase of gravity (Fig. 1c) also diminishes the width of the Ca II lines. Stellar rotation (Fig. 1d) has a pronounced effect only for fast rotators ($`v\mathrm{sin}i>10`$ km/s), but the smearing is different from that of increase in gravity. The metallicity content (Fig. 1e) influences many lines, but details are different from that of enrichment with the $`\alpha `$-elements (Fig. 1f). These kind of dependencies are typical for relatively low temperature stars that will be the most common GAIA targets.

In the next section we use few of the calculated spectra to assess the performance of the spectrograph for some representative targets.

## 3 Simulations

### 3.1 Spectrograph characteristics

Radial velocity spectrometer instrument aboard GAIA is a slitless spectrograph operating in a time delay integration mode. The field of view is $`2^o\times 1^o`$. The telescope has a rectangular aperture of $`0.75\mathrm{m}\times 0.7\mathrm{m}`$. The focal plane is covered with an array of CCDs. The total efficiency of the telescope + spectrograph + CCD is baselined to 0.35. Each star drifts across the plane in 60.4 s, with its signal read by two consecutive CCDs. The CCDs have 20 $`\mu `$m pixels, corresponding to 1 arcsec on the sky. The readout noise of each CCD is 3.0 e-. The dispersion direction is perpendicular to the drift. Each star has all signal on one or two pixels in the drift direction. It was suggested to study a possibility of binning together the pixels in the drift direction for faint objects and so avoid excessive RON. The background is calculated from a suitable region displaced along the direction of the drift scan. Altogether the number of pixels sent to the Earth is $`3\times 0.06R`$ for bright stars, and $`2\times 0.06R`$ for faint stars binned across the spatial direction (if the binning is used).

### 3.2 Noise sources

For bright targets the results will be limited by Poisson noise, but at the faint limit the read-out noise and noise of the background become more important. GAIA will operate from the second Lagrangian point of the Sun-Earth system. Save for the densest sky regions the dominant background signal will be zodiacal light (ESA2000, see also Sect. 5 below). Here we explore its spatial variation in some detail.

The zodiacal background observed by GAIA will be much the same as seen from Earth, as the cloud of scattering particles extends well beyond the GAIA orbit (Kelsall et al. 1998, Gorkavyi et al. 2000). Observations of the Infrared Telescope in Space (Matsumoto et al. 1996) show that sky brightness at 0.5 and at 1.43 $`\mu `$m has very similar energy density and similar dependence on the viewing direction (Fig. 2). This is consistent with earlier balloon observations at 0.71 $`\mu `$m and 0.82 $`\mu `$m (Frey et al. 1974). The angular distribution of the zodiacal brightness is however remarkably un-uniform. It depends on ecliptic coordinates of the viewing direction (here we neglect minor asymmetries vs. ecliptic plane, see James et al. 1997). Fig. 3a shows the number of zodiacal light photons ($`N_{sky}`$) per pixel detected during a single 60.4 s transit. The number is calculated from data in Levasseur-Regourd & Dumont (1980) using the parameters of the spectrograph cited above and assuming that a suitable filter blocks away any light outside the GAIA spectral window. The numbers show that the zodiacal background noise ($`\sqrt{N_{sky}}`$) is larger than the readout noise for two readouts ($`3.0\sqrt{2}\mathrm{e}^{}`$), except near the ecliptic poles where the two contributions are comparable.

GAIA spectroscope always points perpendicularly to the axis of the satellite, which is aimed at the angle of $`55^o`$ to the Sun. So the sky is not sampled uniformly. Fig. 3b shows that directions at the angle of $`90^o\pm 55^o`$ to the Sun are sampled more often than the ones in between. As the telescope circles the Sun each star will have its helio-ecliptic longitude drifting across the whole range, but its ecliptic latitude remains constant.

Note that the readout noise and the zodiacal background (per pixel) do not depend on the chosen spectral resolution, while the stellar signal per pixel is inversely proportional to the spectral resolution. So for faint targets the background and read-out noise degrade the results more if the spectral resolution is increased.

### 3.3 Single transit and mission average spectra

We ran $`2.4\times 10^5`$ simulations to evaluate performance of the GAIA spectrograph in measuring stellar radial velocities. Three cases were considered: a relatively hot A8 type main sequence star, a cooler K1/2 main sequence star and a G6 type supergiant. These choices are representative of the most important GAIA targets: a hot relatively luminous star that can be seen up to galactocentric distance, a cool dwarf of most common type observed by GAIA and a luminous supergiant that can be seen even in other galaxies.

A spectrum of the object was degraded to a desired spectral resolution and assigned the flux corresponding to its V magnitude. The spectrum was then Doppler shifted to a randomly chosen velocity in the $`\pm 100`$ km/s range. After addition of the zodiacal background the Poisson noise and the readout noise (corresponding to two consecutive CCD readouts during a single transit) were added. The radial velocity was recovered by correlation with a synthetic spectrum (Tonry & Davis 1979). Correlations were done with the xcsao task within the IRAF’s rvsao package (Kurtz et al. 1992). Degradation of spectral resolution, rebinning, Doppler shifts etc. were performed with a custom IRAF script.

It would be unphysical to try to recover the radial velocity using the same template as was used for initial input. GAIA photometric observations will provide quite an accurate guess on the stellar parameters of the target, but the match will never be perfect. Typical errors after the end of the mission will be 125 K in temperature, 0.4 in $`[\mathrm{Z}/\mathrm{Z}_{}]`$ and 0.25 in $`\mathrm{log}g`$ (ESA2000). To stay on the conservative side and to allow for a limited ability to reproduce observed spectra by theoretical calculation we used a larger mismatch: the spectrum used to recover the radial velocity had a random mismatch of 250 K in temperature, 0.5 in $`[\mathrm{Z}/\mathrm{Z}_{}]`$ and 0.5 in $`\mathrm{log}g`$ . The rotational velocity was also different: the initial input spectrum had $`v\mathrm{sin}i=20`$ km/s (for A8 V and K1/2 V star), and $`2`$ km/s (G6 I star), while the one used as a correlation template had $`v\mathrm{sin}i=10`$ km/s (for A8 V and K1/2 V star), and $`5`$ km/s (G6 I star).

Apart from a spectrum obtained during a single passage over the target we also simulated mission-averaged spectra. On the average each target will be observed 100 times during the 4-year mission. So we co-added 100 single mission spectra in order to simulate the ability of deriving radial velocities for single non-varying stars. The conditions for such summation will be met: each spectrum (and not only the correlation function) will be sent to the Earth, and previewed accuracy of wavelength calibration will permit their co-addition at the end of the mission.

## 4 Results

Results of the achievable radial velocity accuracy are presented in Fig. 4 and Tables 1 and 2. Each point presents a standard radial velocity error, $`[_{\mathrm{i}=1}^\mathrm{N}(v_i(\mathrm{true})v_i(\mathrm{recovered}))^2/N]^{0.5}`$, as resulting from some $`N=400`$ tries using a given spectral resolution for a star of a given spectral type and magnitude. The distribution of errors of each point turns out to be Gaussian within statistical errors also for the faintest stars and for all resolutions. The xcsao correlation routine had no appreciable convergence problems even for the faintest stars sampled at the lowest spectral resolution (the convergence was always succesfull in $`>95`$% of the tries). We used 5 different spectral dispersions, colour coded in Fig. 4. The resolution element had always a size of two pixels. The graphs are in three rows, each for a different type of a star. The left column gives results for a single transit spectrum, while the right one is for a mission-averaged spectrum. Top labels at each graph quote a representative distance of the star, assuming no interstellar absorption is present.

Simulations presented in Fig. 4 assume the background of 74 e- per wavelength bin. This is an average value of zodiacal light background for an object on the ecliptic plane with the spectrum falling on a single pixel row (Fig. 3a) and corresponds to $`V=21.53/\mathrm{arcsec}^2`$. We also run an identical set of simulations for a lower value of the sky background (the adopted value of 20 e- per wavelength bin is an average value for an object $`45^o`$ away from the ecliptic).

The results for the three types of stars are remarkably different. Spectrum of a hot A8 V type star (T=7500 K, $`[Z/Z_{}]=0.0`$, $`\mathrm{log}(g)=4.5`$) has relatively few lines, so its results are worse than those obtained for cooler stars. It is dominated by weak and sharp Ca II lines and the Paschen series lines. The relative intensity of the Ca II and Paschen lines rapidly changes with temperature so a mismatch in the spectral type of the star introduces a systematic error in the strength of both sets of lines. The correlation routine tries to compensate for line intensity mismatch by introducing an additional velocity shift that causes a systematic offset in the recovered velocity. This error can be corrected by obtaining spectra with better resolution: better sampling of line profiles means more points carrying radial velocity information, so that the correlation routine can avoid systematic errors in the recovered radial velocity. This is well seen in top-right panel of Fig. 4, where the accuracy of bright star ($`V15`$) measurements depends only on spectral resolution and not on the magnitude. The situation for faint targets ($`V17`$) is different: the adopted relatively high background starts to dominate the statistics for the highest resolutions, so dispersions of 0.5 Å/pix or 0.75 Å/pix perform best for faint hot targets. Note that the point of crossing, i.e. the limit where choosing coarser dispersion starts to pay off, depends on the adopted value of the background. For another set of simulations with assumed background value of 20 e- (Table 2) the crossing occurs only at magnitude $`V=18.0`$.

Cool dwarfs (K1/2 V: T=5000 K, $`[Z/Z_{}]=0.0`$, $`\mathrm{log}(g)=4.5`$) perform better. The reason are very strong, core-saturated Ca II lines that dominate the spectrum. These lines enable correlation at fainter magnitudes, so improving the accuracy. And because Ca II lines are very broad and symmetrical the issue of resolution is less important. Actually the radial velocity accuracy is very similar for all dispersions except for the coarsest one (2 Å/pix) where even the broad Ca II lines get undersampled. The crossing of the 0.25 Å/pix dispersion occurs at $`V15.5`$ (spectrum from a single transit) and $`V18`$ (mission average). If the background were lower (20 e-, Table 2) the errors at the faint end would be 50% lower and the crossing less pronounced. The results for a mission average spectrum are very similar to those of $`2.5`$ magnitude brighter stars observed during a single transit. If the spectrum had no background and readout noise limits, the gain would be a factor of 100 in flux or a difference of 5 magnitudes.

Cool supergiants (G6 I: T=4750 K, $`[Z/Z_{}]=0.0`$, $`\mathrm{log}(g)=1.0`$) will be optimal targets for deriving accurate radial velocities at extreme distances. Their spectra are much richer than those of dwarfs of similar temperature, as the Paschen lines and many lines of metals start to appear. More lines mean more points that can constrain the position of the peak of the correlation function. As a result the radial velocity is derived with remarkable accuracy. The question of resolution is important: better resolution allows for distinction of the Ca II and Pashen lines, as well as deblending of close metallic lines. The crossing of the 0.25 Å/pix dispersion occurs at $`V16.3`$ for single transit spectra, while the highest resolution still performs well even at magnitude $`V=18`$ for a mission averaged spectrum. The reason is the richness of lines so that co-addition of many well-sampled spectra is still advantageous. On the other hand weak lines in faint stars get lost in the noise, so the question of a chosen spectral resolution is less critical at the faint end than it is for bright stars. In the case of low background (20 e-) the errors for the faint stars are 50% lower.

Fig. 4 demonstrates that radial velocities with an accuracy of 2 km/s in A8 dwarfs are obtainable only for the case of the highest spectral resolution (0.25 Å/pix). These stars can be observed up to the distance of $`5`$ kpc. For cooler dwarfs (K1/2 V) the same accuracy is achievable for fainter targets ($`V17`$), corresponding to smaller distances ($`2`$ kpc). The issue of spectral dispersion is less important than for hot dwarfs unless the worst sampling (2 Å/pix) is chosen. Note that accuracy achievable from single transit spectra is important: most spectroscopic binaries or intrinsically variable (spot) stars will be cool dwarfs. Fig. 4 shows that GAIA will be able to measure their radial velocity down to $`V=15`$ with an error of $`3`$ km/s. But the superposition of various dispersions can be misleading in this case: spectroscopic binaries or spotty stars require a sufficient spectral resolution for any meaningful measurement (Munari et al. 2001a, 2002). The cool supergiants can be used to measure kinematics at the largest distances, reaching nearby galaxies.

Tables 1 and 2 give detailed results for two levels of the background. Relative uncertainties of the quoted standard velocity errors are estimated at 3% , as can be seen from comparison of values for bright stars in both tables. We added results for classical Cepheids (T=5500 K, $`[Z/Z_{}]=0.2`$, $`\mathrm{log}(g)=2.0`$, $`v\mathrm{sin}i=10`$ km s-1) and horizontal branch stars (T=5000 K, $`[Z/Z_{}]=0.5`$, $`\mathrm{log}(g)=3.5`$, $`v\mathrm{sin}i=10`$ km s-1) that are important kinematic tracers in the Galaxy (ESA2000). Results can be readily scaled to any ground based spectrograph with collecting area different from 0.53 m2 as the single transit spectra have an effective exposure time of 1 minute and the mission averaged ones 100 minutes.

## 5 Discussion

The results presented in Fig. 4 are compatible with initial performance assessment of the GAIA radial velocity spectrometer (Katz 2000). Recently Munari et al. (2001) published an extensive series of cross-correlations using an observed set of Echelle spectra. They limited themselves to stars brighter than those considered here. But bright stars of identical spectral type are hard to find. So they had to use a large spread of spectral types, and the actual mismatch between spectra and templates was larger than will be for the mission. Correspondingly they derived somewhat larger radial velocity errors (within a factor of 2). But they came to the same basic conclusion: a high-enough spectral dispersion is a critical factor determining radial velocity accuracy for bright stars.

Here we extend this work to fainter magnitudes. We explore a range of spectral types and include simulations of very faint stars having a signal to noise ratio for a single transit $`S/N<1`$. At such extreme conditions a spectrum with the dispersion of 0.25 Å/pix is limited by the sky background. And because this background is mostly zodiacal light a somewhat lower dispersion (0.5 Å/pix) performs better for the faintest ($`V18`$) dwarfs. The resolution of 0.75 Å/pix is also acceptable for the faintest stars.

There are other reasons to collect high dispersion spectra. Fig. 1 shows that values of all spectral parameters can be accounted for by spectroscopy, but note that a high spectral resolution is needed to make secure distinctions. All tracings are plot for $`R=20000`$; halving the resolution already mixes up gravity and rotation or metallicity and $`\alpha `$-element enrichment. Additional set of simulations shows that $`\alpha `$-element enrichment of $`+0.4`$ can be detected down to $`V=14`$, and abundancies of individual elements can be measured for bright stars. Abundance of a particularly difficult one, Manganese (with the only useful line in the GAIA spectral range at $`\lambda =8740.9`$ Å with $`EW0.02`$ Å) can be determined within a factor of 2 for $`V<8`$. Other elements, i.e. N, Si, Fe, Mg and Ti cause much stronger lines and so can be studied down to $`V13`$. Stellar rotation is easy to determine for fast rotators (Munari 1999), but cool dwarfs commonly observed by GAIA rotate slowly. Stellar rotation with an error of 10 km/s of a $`T=5000`$ K dwarf can be measured for $`V<9`$. All results quoted here are for the dispersion of 0.25 Å/pix and depend critically on the spectral resolution.

GAIA will observe many spectroscopic binaries. Munari et al. (2001a) showed that good quality orbital solutions, including masses, can be derived. But also this result critically depends on the resolution of the spectrum. Single Angstrom corresponds to 35 km/s at the wavelengths of the GAIA spectrograph. Velocity amplitudes of most spectroscopic binaries are not much larger than this, so it is clear that a dispersion of 0.25 or 0.5 Å/pix is needed for a proper deblending of lines from both stars.

The Galaxy model (Torra et al. 1999) using Hakkila et al. (1997) extinction law predicts an average surface density $`n`$ of stars (Table 3). This can be translated into an average stellar separation ($`n^{0.5}`$). Two spectra are blended if their spectral tracings are separated by less than the spatial extent $`s`$ of a CCD pixel, i.e. 1 arcsec. This happens if the length of the spectral tracing is larger than the free length $`l=(ns)^1`$. The length of the tracing depends on the dispersion and equals 1000 arcsec for 0.25 Å/pix, 500 arcsec for 0.5 Å/pix and 333 arcsec for 0.75 Å/pix. So Table 3 demonstrates that spectral superposition will be common close to the galactic plane, but not away from it.

Light of contaminating stars will be spread over many pixels, so the zodiacal light will usually remain the dominant background signal. Stellar background features stellar lines and this could influence the radial velocity accuracy. Still, extremely accurate astrometry and photometry of contaminating stars will supply enough information to handle the problem. In the worst cases the situation will be similar to disentangling the two spectra in a spectroscopic binary. But with an extra benefit that spectral overlap varies from transit to transit. So, even if two spectra are badly superimposed, the same two stars will be recorded separately during the next transit.

## 6 Conclusions

We studied performance of a slitless spectrograph observing in a 250 Å window centered at 8615 Å that will be used aboard GAIA. The same spectral range is accessible also from the ground, but cannot be much expanded, due to bracketing telluric absorptions. So the results are relevant also for planning of ground based instruments.

The dominant parameter that can still be changed is the spectral resolution. We used realistic estimates of zodiacal light background and spectrograph parameters to derive expected accuracy of the radial velocity determination. We showed that errors below 2 km/s are achievable for bright enough stars if a high dispersion is chosen. This result could be still improved with correlation methods that use software spectral masks (Baranne et al. 1979, Queloz 1995).

The results show that it is worth to observe very faint targets, down to magnitude 19 even though the expected radial velocity errors can be well above 10 km s-1. Such stars are numerous. One may expect a ratio of $``$ 10:1 in the recorded number of targets between V=17 and 19 compared to stars between V=14 and 16. For such stars the best results are obtained with 0.5 Å/pix or 0.75 Å/pix dispersion. But for brighter stars a high dispersion (0.25 Å/pix) is always a preferred choice and is critical in order to extract relevant information for non-trivial cases, as spectroscopic binaries, variable stars and peculiar stars.

It remains to be determined if telemetry constraints permit to use the dispersions of 0.25 or 0.5 Å/pix. Still it is clear that such a choice has a strong support considering the astrophysical information retrievable from the data.
Acknowledgement. The author wishes to thank U. Munari for initial motivation and many fruitful discussions and to F. Castelli for an introduction to the art of Kurucz models. The referee, D. Katz, is acknowledged for useful comments which improved the quality of the paper. This work was supported by a grant from the Slovenian Ministry of Education, Science and Sport.


text:
# Constraints on nested bars – implications for gas inflow

## 1. Introduction

Any non-axisymmetric perturbation in mass distribution in the galactic disk exerts torques, which pull the disk matter out of circular orbits. The resulting trajectories, which often intersect, can be populated by stars, but gas clouds will collide and drop down the potential well. Thus in general, an asymmetric gravitational potential enhances gas inflow towards its central parts.

The most common asymmetry in the disk plane developed in unstable disks is an $`m=2`$ bar-like mode. Various studies of gas flow in barred galaxies (see Athanassoula 2000 for a recent review) indicate that the gas transport into the central kpc differs from that within the central kpc. On large scale, two straight shocks develop on the leading edges of the bar, and gas falls towards the center along these shocks. Nevertheless, if the galaxy has an inner Lindblad resonance (ILR), the inflow may stagnate inside of it, with gas settling on the nuclear ring there. This mode of gas flow has importance for star-forming nuclear rings observed in barred galaxies. Recently, it has been found that when the cloud velocity dispersion is high enough, gas may avoid stagnating on the nuclear ring, and can flow inwards along a nuclear spiral (Englmaier & Shlosman 2000).

If another, smaller bar exists inside the ILR of the large-scale bar, and if gas flow in this secondary bar is analogous to the one in the main bar, then this secondary bar may force gas deeper into the potential well. This scenario is a modification of the fueling mechanism proposed by Shlosman et al. (1989), which originally involved gaseous bars. Rapidly increasing number of galaxies in which nested stellar bars have been seen (Laine et al. 2002) brought attention to this scenario. However, Maciejewski & Sparke (2000) showed that such double bars are unlikely to increase the inflow because of their orbital structure. Here I examine assumptions behind this last claim, and explore how to waive them.

## 2. The standard model of Maciejewski & Sparke (2000)

Since the two bars in doubly barred galaxies can be seen virtually at any relative orientation, they most likely rotate independently, each with its own pattern speed. Such double bars will not admit any closed periodic orbits in general, which served as a backbone of the steady potential of a single bar. In order to find regular stellar orbits supporting double bars, Maciejewski & Sparke (2000) assigned sets of test particles to imaginary closed strings that change shape as the bars rotate through each other, but return to their original positions after the two bars realign. They call these sets of particles loops, and if the loop remains aligned with one bar or the other, then it contributes to the backbone of this bar. Maciejewski & Sparke constructed a potential which admits simultaneously loops following the inner and the outer bar. Regular (though not closed) orbits of particles populating these loops support the potential of their model, making it dynamically possible. This is the standard model of Maciejewski & Sparke.

In order to minimize the number of chaotic zones around resonances, the standard model assumes resonant coupling between the bars: corotation (CR) of the inner bar coincides with the ILR of the outer bar. In this potential, loops originating from the $`x_1`$ orbits in the large-scale bar (the $`x_1`$ loops) continue to support that bar, while loops that come from the $`x_2`$ orbits (orthogonal to the large-scale bar, and extending inwards from its ILR), now diversify. The outer $`x_2`$ loops remain perpendicular to the outer bar, but the inner ones start to follow the secondary bar in its motion, forming its backbone. Since the dynamics of the outer $`x_2`$ loops is still dominated by the outer bar, the dynamically possible inner bar cannot extend that far in radius, and should end well inside the ILR of the outer bar. In resonant coupling, this means that the secondary bar should end well inside its own CR.

Only a bar extending almost to its CR develops straight shocks (Athanassoula 1992) . If the bar is shorter, shocks start to curve and weaken, and eventually disappear into a ring around the bar. Because the inner bar in the standard model extends only to about half of its CR radius, it may lack principal shocks or dust lanes. In addition, loops that support it originate from the $`x_2`$ orbits in the outer bar: they are rather round, with no cusps, so there is no reason for shocks in the gas flow to develop. Recently, Maciejewski et al. (2002) modeled hydrodynamically gas inflow in the standard model, and confirmed predictions from the orbital analysis: in their models no stationary straight shocks develop in the secondary bar, but the flow organizes into various elliptical and circular rings.

## 3. Proposed alterations to the standard model

In the standard model, the inner bar does not extend to its CR radius, and therefore the gas flow that it induces is completely different from that in the outer bar. Two assumptions of the standard model may influence this result. First, this model was constructed to explore possibly biggest secondary bars, and has a large radius of outer bar’s ILR (38% of its CR radius). Secondly, the resonant coupling was assumed. Below, I examine what happens when these two assumptions are lifted.

Resonant coupling with smaller ILR radius: The ILR can be moved to arbitrarily small radii by decreasing the extent of the central mass concentration. For example, a power-law rotation curve $`\mathrm{\Omega }=ar^b`$ implies the ratio of the ILR and CR radii to be $`(1\sqrt{1(b/2)})^{1/b}`$, which can be arbitrarily small for $`b0`$ (i.e. when approaching solid body rotation). Now, consider a large-scale bar extending almost to its CR, and the inner bar ending at about the ILR of that large-scale bar. If the ILR/CR ratio is small, potential of the inner bar should dominate the region inside the ILR, and the inner bar should be able to drag all the $`x_2`$ loops. In this case, a doubly barred system in resonant coupling with both bars extending to their respective CRs would be possible.

Although only loop calculations can verify plausibility of this model, its setup is unrealistic if the secondary bar forms from the instability in the nuclear disk in the outer bar. Simulations of gas flow in a single bar show that the nuclear ring or disk forms when the ILR is present, with a family of $`x_2`$ orbits inside it. Gas moving into these $`x_2`$ orbits is responsible for the offset of the straight shocks from the bar’s major axis already inside the ILR, and outside of the nuclear ring (disk, spiral), on which gas eventually settles. Thus the outer radius of the nuclear disk is always considerably smaller than the ILR radius. If the inner bar forms from this nuclear disk, there is no disk material to extend the inner bar to its CR, which for resonant coupling is at the outer bar’s ILR. This reaffirms findings of the standard model: the inner bar cannot extend to its own CR in doubly barred galaxies with resonant coupling. Accordingly, resonant coupling excludes straight shocks in the inner bar, implying that such double bars do not increase gas inflow like the large-scale bars do. The left panel of Figure 1 illustrates this situation.

No standard resonant coupling: An alternative to the standard model is shown in the right panel of Figure 1, where the standard resonant coupling between the bars has been lifted. In principle, the secondary bar in such systems can extend to its CR radius, and it can create shocks in gas flow, which in turn enhance the inflow. However, systems without any resonant coupling are likely to be unstable, because the number of chaotic zones doubles there.

One can consider a different resonant coupling when the $`\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa /2`$ curve has a local maximum, outside of which it drops to zero at very small and large radii. In this case, the line of constant bar pattern speed intersects this curve twice, and two ILRs form. The standard case was assuming resonant coupling between the outer ILR of the large bar and the CR of the small bar. Now, consider coupling between the inner ILR of the large bar and the small bar’s CR. The dynamics of such a system drastically differs from the standard model, because inside the inner ILR there are no $`x_2`$ orbits, from which the loops supporting the inner bar used to originate. Detailed loop calculations may find how such systems support themselves, but there are no clear candidates that can naturally follow the secondary bar. In addition, some inner ILRs observed at the small bar’s end can be artificial effects of data resolution: seeing or beam smearing makes inner velocity growth look linear, which falsely implies an inner ILR. The lack of an inner ILR can in fact be beneficial for the inner bar, because in this case the $`x_2`$ loops that support it may extend all the way to the galactic centre.

## 4. Conclusions

By constructing a dynamically possible doubly barred galaxy, Maciejewski & Sparke (2000) showed that double bars, just like single bars, can be supported by regular orbits. However, unlike single bars, their inner bar does not extend to its CR radius, and therefore it neither creates shocks in gas flow, nor increases the inflow. The loop approach was necessary in reaching this conclusion, because it allows to determine the dynamics of the interface between bars.

Contrary to the standard model of Maciejewski & Sparke, a wide-spread conviction persists that nested bars should increase gas inflow. Here, I attempted to waive two most vulnerable assumptions of the standard model in order to find candidates of dynamical systems, in which the secondary bar could extend to its CR, therefore being able to enhance the inflow. I found that making the ILR radius of the large-scale bar smaller can lead to a self-consistent model of a doubly barred galaxy in resonant coupling with both bars extending to their CRs, but such a model is unrealistic if the secondary bar forms from the instability in the nuclear disk. Both bars extending to their CRs may occur in systems without any resonant coupling, but such systems may prove chaotic. One should expect completely different dynamics when the CR of the small bar couples with the inner ILR of the large bar.

## References

Athanassoula E., 1992, MNRAS, 259, 345

Athanassoula E., 2000, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 221, p.243

Englmaier P., Shlosman I., 2000, ApJ, 528, 677

Laine, S., Shlosman, I., Knapen, J., Peletier, R. 2002, ApJ, accepted

Maciejewski W., Sparke L.S., 2000, MNRAS, 313, 745

Maciejewski W., Teuben, P., Sparke L., Stone, J. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 502

Shlosman I., Frank J., Begelman M., 1989, Nature, 338, 45