text:
# Evidence for Synchrotron Bubbles from GRS 1915+105

## 1 Introduction

The Galactic X-ray transient source GRS 1915+105 was discovered in 1992 by the GRANAT satellite (Castro-Tirado et al. 1992). It has now been established as a black hole binary with the black hole mass of 14$`\pm 4M_{}`$ and the companion K-M III star of mass 1.2$`\pm 0.2M_{}`$ (Greiner et al. 2001). The source was shown to possess relativistic outflows during its radio outbursts (Mirabel & Rodríguez 1994). Extensive monitoring of GRS 1915+105 in the radio and X-ray band showed that the overall radio emission is correlated with its X-ray properties (eg: Harmon et al. 1997). The radio emission can be broadly classified into three classes; (i) the relativistic superluminal radio jets of flux density $``$ 1 Jy with decay time-scales of several days (Fender et al. 1999), (ii) the baby jets of 20 $``$ 40 min durations with flux density of 20 $``$ 200 mJy both in infrared (IR) and radio (Pooley & Fender 1997; Eikenberry et al. 1998) and (iii) the plateau state with persistent radio emission of 20 $``$ 100 mJy for extended durations (Muno et al. 2001). In the case of superluminal jets, the radio emission has steep spectra and are observed at large distances (400 $``$ 5000 AU) from the accretion disk (Fender et al. 1999; Dhawan et al. 2000). The radio emission at this distance is believed to be decoupled from the accretion disk (Yadav 2001; Muno et al. 2001). In contrast, the other two classes of radio emission has flat spectra and occur close to the accretion disk (within a few tens of AU). Even though superluminal jets and baby jets are differentiated by their spectra, decay time scales, and the distance (from the accretion disk) where the emission occurs, there is evidence for ejection of significant amount of relativistic material even during the baby jets (Fender et al. 1999). The radio emission is believed to be due to synchrotron emission from relativistic electrons and the dominant decay mechanism is the adiabatic expansion losses (Mirabel et al. 1998, hereinafter M98). Feroci et al. (1999) have studied an isolated radio flare ($``$ 60 mJy at 15 GHz) in X-ray and radio and present strong evidence for mass ejection (QPO disappears during the radio outburst). Coordinated multi-wavelength studies have indicated strong disk-jet connection (M98; Eikenberry et al. 1998; Yadav 2001).

The time of the ejection of the radio emitting synchrotron plasma from the accretion disk is an important parameter to understand the disk$``$jet connection. Another important parameter is the power-law index ($`p`$) of the electron energy distribution in the plasma which is related to the delay time. Even though simultaneous multi-wavelength radio observations provide $`p`$, in the case of optically thick radio emission it is affected by the optical depth time delay effects and may introduce large error in the estimate of time of ejection, particularly in the case of periodic emission like IR and radio baby jets.

In this Letter we provide a new method, by applying the adiabatic expansion model to baby jets to estimate $`p`$ from single frequency radio observations. This method has the unique advantage in the sense that it surpasses the optical depth effects. We apply this method to isolated baby jets seen in the radio observations of GRS 1915+105 with the Giant Meterwave Radio Telescope (GMRT) at 1.28 GHz and estimate $`p`$ and the time of ejection of the synchrotron bubble. Using this $`p`$ and the multiwavelength data from literature we also calculate the time delays at different observed frequencies and the time at which the synchrotron bubble is ejected. In Section 2 we present the observational details and basic results. The adiabatic expansion model is given in Section 3. Discussions and conclusions are presented in Section 4.

## 2 Observations and Results

The radio observations were carried out at 1.28 GHz with a bandwidth of 16 MHz using the GMRT (Swarup et al. 1991) on 2001 June 18, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30 and July 1. The flux density scale is set by observing the primary calibrator 3C286 or 3C48. A phase calibrator was observed before and after a 45 min scan on GRS 1915+105. The integration time was 32 s. The data recorded from GMRT has been converted to FITS and was analysed using Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS). The lightcurve produced at 5 min interval is shown in Figure 1 (top panel). GRS 1915+105 exhibited significant radio emission on all days, except on June 27. On June 18, the source was quite steady with the flux density $``$ 10 mJy. However, on June 22 the source became bright ($``$ 50 mJy) and showed rapid drop in the flux density by a factor of two and slowly recovered to about the same level. On June 23, the flux density was steady at about 30 mJy. The source became very weak in radio ($``$ 5 mJy) on June 27. However on 28, the flux density was $``$ 5 mJy at about UTC 17 hour (beginning of observation) and reached gradually to 50 mJy at UTC 24 hour. When the observations resumed on 29, the source was “caught” at 70 mJy at UTC 16 hour, and the flux started decaying slowly to the value of 10 mJy at UTC 24 hour. The source was relatively faint on June 30 and July 1.

We have checked the radio data at shorter binning time of 1 min, which showed clear short term variations. Minor flares of amplitude upto 50 mJy have been seen on June 28, 29, 30 and July 1, which are typical of baby jets (Figure 3 and Table 1). The X-ray hardness ratio (5-12 keV/1.5-5 keV) from RXTE/ASM shown in the bottom panel of Figure 1 suggests that overall GRS 1915+105 remained in the low hard state.

## 3 Adiabatic Expansion Model

We propose that the minor flares (baby jets) seen in the GMRT observations are due to adiabatically expanding synchrotron emitting bubbles. Hjellming & Johnston (1988) present models for explaining the persistent radio emission from X-ray binaries by assuming adiabatic expansion dominated by lateral motions. For flaring events, they consider spherical bubbles of relativistic plasma expanding under its pressure. We consider this simple adiabatically expanding sphere model (three dimensional expansion) for the baby jets seen in the GMRT observations to understand their overall radio behavior. We assume that the expansion is uniform and the transition time from optically thick to thin state is negligible.

Consider a spherical cloud of relativistic electrons with the energy distribution $`N(E)dEE^pdE,`$ emitting synchrotron radiation. If this cloud is expanding adiabatically, the observed flux density as a function of time will be (van der Laan, 1966; Hjellming & Johnston, 1988)

$$S_\mathrm{p}/S_\mathrm{s}=(r_\mathrm{p}/r_\mathrm{s})^3$$
(1)
under optically thick conditions, and

$$S_\mathrm{e}/S_\mathrm{p}=(r_\mathrm{e}/r_\mathrm{p})^{2p}$$
(2)
under optically thin conditions. Here $`S_\mathrm{s},S_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`S_\mathrm{e}`$ are the observed flux densities at the start, peak and the end of the flare and $`r_\mathrm{s},r_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{e}`$ are the corresponding radii of the bubble. $`p`$ is the power-law index of electron energy distribution. We define the time sequence of synchrotron bubble as in Figure 2. $`t_\mathrm{s}`$ is the time taken for the bubble to attain the flux density $`S_\mathrm{s}`$, $`t_\mathrm{p}`$ is the time taken since $`t_\mathrm{s}`$ for the flux density to reach its peak value $`S_\mathrm{p}`$ (expansion under optically thick conditions) and $`t_\mathrm{e}`$ is the time taken since $`t_\mathrm{p}`$ by the bubble to decay to the flux level of $`S_\mathrm{e}`$ (expansion under optically thin conditions). Assuming uniform expansion, the profiles will be

$$S_\mathrm{p}=S_\mathrm{s}[1+(t_\mathrm{p}/t_\mathrm{s})]^3$$
(3)
for the rising part of the light curve and

$$S_\mathrm{e}=S_\mathrm{p}\{1+[t_\mathrm{e}/(t_\mathrm{p}+t_\mathrm{s})]\}^{2p}$$
(4)
for the decay part. An interesting case is when the synchrotron bubble is isolated, where the rise, peak and decay of a single bubble is observed. The adiabatic equations (1) and (2) can be solved to obtain $`p`$

$$p=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{log}(S_\mathrm{p}/S_\mathrm{e})}{\mathrm{log}\{1+(t_\mathrm{e}/t_\mathrm{p})[1(S_\mathrm{p}/S_\mathrm{s})^{1/3}]\}}$$
(5)
Thus by measuring the rise and decay time from isolated flares, the electron power-law index $`p`$ can be obtained. For estimating $`p`$, we have considered only those flares where the rise and decay of single flare is clearly visible well above the noise level or steady emission. We fit the above equations (using the least square method) to such isolated flares seen in our data on 2001 June 28, 29, 30 and July 1. The best fit model for two such flares are given in Figure 3. The estimated parameters are given in Table 1. Column 1 gives the date of observation, Column 2 gives the estimated time (UT) of birth of the synchrotron bubble (see Section 4 for details). The duration and peak flux density of the flares are given in Columns 3 and 4. The electron power-law index ($`p`$) and the spectral index ($`\alpha =(p1)/2`$) are given in Columns 5 and 6.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusion

We have presented the GMRT observations of the micro-quasar GRS 1915+105 at 1.28 GHz. Several isolated minor flares which are typical of baby jets have been found. We have suggested that these flares are due to adiabatically expanding bubbles of synchrotron emitting plasma. By applying adiabatic expansion model we have provided a new method to estimate the electron power-law index $`p`$ from single frequency radio observations, which does not need correction for the optical depth time delay effects. The simultaneous multi-wavelength radio observations of GRS 1915+105 reported by Fender et al. (2002) reveal short time large variations in the spectral index from optically thick ($`\alpha 0.2`$)111We define the radio spectral index $`\alpha `$ as $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$ to thin values ($`\alpha 0.7`$) which corresponds to $`p`$ of 2.4 in the optically thin regime. They observed the fast oscillations of about half an hour period on MJD 51751. The power-law index $`p`$ obtained from our observations (Table 1) are in agreement with the measured values of Fender et al. (2002) in the optically thin region. The simplest explanation to this is that at the peak of the oscillation, the contribution from the optically thick radio emission is large and hence the delay time correction becomes important. However, at low flux level the contribution from optically thick emission is reduced and the delay time correction is less important. This explanation for variations in $`\alpha `$ reported by Fender et al (2002) suggests that intrinsically $`p`$ could be constant which is consistent with an adiabatically expanding synchrotron source with no additional acceleration. It is difficult to visualise change in $`p`$ over such a short duration of $``$ 15 min.

We can calculate the time delays between emission at different wavelengths using this $`p`$. The time at which the emission at an wavelength $`\lambda `$ reaches its maximum is given by (van der Laan, 1966)

$$t_{\mathrm{m},\lambda }\lambda ^{\frac{p+4}{4p+6}}$$
(6)
We calculate the proportionality constant of equation 6 using our estimate of $`p`$ and the time delay of 0.25 h between 8.3 GHz and 5 GHz radio emission observed in GRS 1915+105 by M98. The value of $`t_{6\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}}`$ estimated by us for May 15, 1997 observations of M98 is $``$1.2 h (M98 gives 0.9 h assuming $`p`$ = 0) and the ejection of plasma occurred at 14.95 $``$ 1.2 = 13.75 h. Inspection of the X-ray data at this time (Figure 1 of M98) shows that it still falls in the gap in the X-ray data. We have calculated the time of formation of the synchrotron bubble for the flares observed by us which are given in Table 1.

We give in Table 2 the observed time delays between different frequencies from simultaneous multiwavelength observations of GRS 1915+105 reported in the literature. We have estimated the time delays between these frequencies using the weighted mean value of $`p`$ = 1.46 from our observations which are also given in Table 2. For observations on MJD 50675, the calculated time delay of 37 s for the IR emission is consistent with the observation that the spikes in X-ray coincide with the beginning of IR flares (Eikenberry et al. 1998). The time delay of 200-400 s reported by them between the X-ray and IR peaks is probably due to the time required for the evolution of the IR flare as well as for the readjustment of the accretion disk. Our calculated time delay of 804 s is in good agreement with the measured time delay between 15 GHz and 8.3 GHz observations reported by M98 (MJD 50583). In a detailed study of X-ray - radio observations in GRS 1915+105 , Klein-Wolt et al. (2002) measure the time delay of 40 $``$ 45 min from the beginning of state C to the peak radio emission at 15 GHz, which agrees with our estimate of 43 min. The observations of M98 (MJD 50700) has measured time delay of $``$ 960 s between IR and 8.3 GHz, while our calculated value is 3351 s (0.93h), the difference is about 40 min. Inspection of Figure 2 of M98 show that a previous IR peak is separated by about the same amount of time. This suggests that the 8.3 GHz flare most likely corresponds to the IR flare $``$ 0.9 h prior to the 8.3 GHz peak. For observation on MJD 50705, the discrepancy of 547 s between the measured and the calculated time delay between IR and radio emission could be due to larger uncertainty in the measured time delay because of the presence of two IR peaks. From the radio observations at 4.8 and 8.6 GHz on MJD 51751, Fender et al. (2002) find a delay time of $``$ 600 s based on a broad peak ($``$ 300 s) in the cross correlation function while our estimate of time delay is 1030 s. Although the exact answer to this discrepancy is not clear, it may be due to uncertainty in the time delay measurements.

It may be noted here that the time delays estimated using our simple model of synchrotron bubble are in good agreement with many of the observed values between different frequencies available in the literature. However, naive application of this model predicts much higher flux densities than observed at higher frequencies. This discrepancy may be the subject of future studies.

Acknowledgments: We thank the referee, Dr. G. G. Pooley for meticulously reading the paper and making important comments. We also thank several of our colleagues, especially Dr. A. K. Jain and Prof. A. R. Rao for stimulating discussions. We thank the staff of the GMRT that made these observations possible. GMRT is run by the National Center of Astrophysics of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. This research has made use of data obtained from the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Center (HEASARC), provided by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and also of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service.


format: text

text:
# The continuum problem and reality

## 1 The continuum problem

The primary inherent property of any finite set is the number of the set members, i.e., its cardinality. G. Cantor denoted cardinality by double bar above a symbol of the set in order to indicate the double act of abstraction from nature and order of the set members. Indeed, there is no more to abstract from. It is the most fundamental property determined by the most basic relation: equivalence. The belief that this abstraction is possible, i.e., that cardinality is independent of nature and arrangement of a set members, is based on observation on finite sets.

In axiomatic set theory, infinite sets appear due to axiom of infinity and power set axiom, which do not indicate any difference between finite and infinite sets. As a result, the supposed independence was directly extended to infinite sets but was not presented as an axiom: it seemed too trivial.

Unlike a finite set, any infinite set is equivalent to its proper subset. This means existence of a range of equivalence inside any infinite set which is factually an internal symmetry of the set.

Note that the most symmetrical arrangement is the most probable one because such an arrangement has the greatest thermodynamical probability: the number of equivalent (symmetrical) states. Thus free members of any infinite set should form the most symmetrical arrangement determined by its cardinality. In other words, any infinite set cannot be arranged asymmetrically: it possess a unique symmetry inherently (“by birth”) and this symmetry reduces to the corresponding equivalence.

The tendency to symmetrization may be observed in large finite sets. The concept of probability tells us that uncontrolled behavior of a finite number of mutually independent objects of the same nature becomes controlled by a symmetry when the number approach infinity. The independent objects become more and more mutually dependent and tend to form a symmetrical arrangement due to increase of cardinality only. For example, if we throw points, independently, on an continuous interval, configurations of a small number of the points can be different and complicated but a large number of independent throws gives more smooth configurations and we get absolutely homogeneous outputs when number of throwings $`\mathrm{}`$.111To some extent, this example may serve as a justification for the point-set approach to continuum in general.

Some statistical laws, e.g. the law of large numbers, and the concept of probability itself are based on properties which should be regarded as pure set-theoretic and related to the threshold between finite and infinite cardinalities.

G. Cantor found only two infinite cardinal numbers: cardinality of the countable set and cardinality of the set of all real numbers. Since he did not found any set having more members than the countable set and less than the set of all real numbers, he supposed that such a set did not exist (the continuum hypothesis, CH). Formalization of set theory has allowed to prove the independence of CH , i.e., undecidability of the continuum problem. However, there is no interpretation of the independence. Informally the continuum problem is not solved.

In order to clarify the status of the intermediate set, the following two factors should be taken into account. First, by definition, the set of intermediate cardinality $`M`$ should be a subset of continuum $`R`$ (continuum should contain a subset equivalent to the intermediate set). Second, separation of the intermediate set from continuum is a proof of existence of the set and, therefore, is forbidden by the independence of the continuum hypothesis. If we compare this points, we get that the independence of CH should be understood as impossibility, in principle, to separate the subset of intermediate cardinality from continuum. In other words, the independence of CH means that for any real number $`xR`$ the statement $`xMR`$ is undecidable. We, in principle, do not have a rule for separation of any subset with intermediate number of members. Any separation rule for such a subset expressible in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, ZF, is a proof of existence of the intermediate set and, therefore, contradicts the independence of the continuum hypothesis, i.e., any rule (property) we can formulate implies separation of either continuous or countable subset of $`R`$.

The inseparability may be explained by incompatibility between symmetries of arrangements of the intermediate set and continuum. We cannot localize the members of the intermediate subset till they are in the arrangement of continuum. Relative positions of the members of the intermediate set are different from relative positions of the real numbers.

There is no “labeling rule” that allows separation of the set of intermediate cardinality inside continuum. The only way out is to separate it in the full sense: we should delete all excess points outside the continuous set (standard set theory does not forbid to delete points one by one or by some portions) and let the remaining points take the appropriate arrangement.

To simplify the task, consider a continuous interval as initial continuum instead of the set of all real numbers. We cannot get an intermediate interval out of the continuous interval by decrease of the interval length: all intervals with regular length are equipotent. The three infinite numbers of points inside the interval and outside it (left and right) remain equal and constant. If the number of points of the interval begins to decrease, this means that the number of points inside the interval becomes different from the both outside numbers, i.e., two infinite sets of points get outside the interval (left and right regions are mutually disjoint).

In order to produce an interval of intermediate cardinality we should remove some infinite set of points out of the continuous interval. This set cannot be continuous or countable. Elimination of a countable set cannot change cardinality of continuum , i.e., the eliminated set should have intermediate cardinality as well. In other words, we can get the intermediate set by fission of a continuous interval $`\overline{\alpha }`$ into intermediate (equivalent or non-equivalent) subintervals.

Introducing operation of fission of continuum $`\stackrel{fis}{}`$, we can write the simplest scheme of the fission as follows:

$$\overline{\alpha }\stackrel{fis}{}\overline{\gamma }_{}+\overline{\beta }+\overline{\gamma }_{},$$
(1)
where $`|\overline{\gamma }|`$ is a quantum of infinite cardinality (cardinality of the minimum set $`\overline{\gamma }`$ extraction of which is sufficient to change cardinality of continuum). Thus, in ZF terms, we can get the intermediate set through the stage of continuum, by the backward step: $`N\stackrel{2^N}{}R\overline{\alpha }\stackrel{fis}{}I`$.

In order to get smaller intermediate cardinality, we need to press the next pair of quanta out of the interval and make the more rarefied structure. Thus infinite cardinalities are quantized: they decrease by steps with “emission” of some infinite quanta of points over the end points of the interval.

Till the processed interval has cardinality of continuum (the number of deleted points is no more than countable), its points can be put into one-to-one correspondence with points of some whole interval, which is continuous in ordinary sense. This correspondence may be regarded as an rearrangement of the points of the rarefied interval into the complete interval. Due to this fundamental rearrangement, we do not need to use the concept of measure and touch upon related problems (covering, countable additivity, etc.). This is important, since most of the habitual mathematical notions may be “infected” with the continuum hypothesis, i.e., they can implicitly contain properties equivalent to CH.

The output intermediate intervals also cannot be considered as discontinuous, fragmented intervals. The intermediate interval cannot contain discontinuity points (“holes” from removed points) as it is always implied in ordinary calculus. The remaining points should rearrange into some new whole (gapless) structure. Thus the intermediate set is some other type of continuum which may be called incomplete or structured continuum.

Since ordinary discontinuity criterion does not work, intermediate cardinality of the incomplete continuous interval should reveal itself only in the behavior of its length. All continuous intervals have regular length as manifestation of the equivalence to the set of the real numbers, while length of a rarefied intermediate interval must show some irregularity. The “sieve” interval cannot shrink into a regular interval, its length should be affected (damaged or destroyed). In more general terms, such an interval is not self-congruent.

At some step of rarefication of the interval, its length as a manifestation of continuity should vanish, i.e., eventually, the interval should turn to point identically. The non-self-congruent intervals have quite expected transitional cardinality from regular to zero length.

It is relevant here to recall long-term controversy between discrete and continuous notions of space. These notions are not pure mathematical abstract concepts. The problem is the identification of the fundamental physical object, the basic element of reality. Obviously, the set of intermediate cardinality can be neither continuous nor discrete. Thus the continuum problem is related to the concrete fundamental object.

## 2 Quantum mechanics

Coordinate of a particle at any instant is length of the interval between the particle and a reference point. In classical mechanics, we may take the coordinate interval as a unit of measurement. This means that the coordinate of the point is a priori equal to $`1`$ exactly. We do not need to measure the length etalon, we only need to keep it congruent to itself.

In quantum mechanics, the choice of the unit does not cancel quantum indeterminacy and does not allow to avoid measurement and get a priori coordinate. On the other hand, quantum particle is point-like and this point is in space permanently, i.e., the coordinate interval of a quantum particle always exists but it has no definite length before measurement. In other words, coordinate interval of a quantum particle before measurement is not self-congruent and cannot be used as a unit of length (it cannot be used even to measure itself). Measurement of a quantum particle coordinate is an identification of a non-self-congruent interval and some self-congruent interval (existence of exactly self-congruent intervals is a fact too).

This is not an interpretation but the basic and elementary property of the microscopic geometry which may be reduced only to more elementary set-theoretic factors. It is unnecessary and baseless to state that the coordinate interval of a quantum particle does not exist before measurement.

Self-congruence of intervals is included in the first congruence axiom of the Hilbert’s axiomatics of geometry as an addition. Some authors omit this addition as too self-evident. The Euclid’s axiomatics has no axiom of congruence. Thus geometry with non-self-congruent intervals may be called non-Hilbertian. Note that the axioms of congruence imply the continuum hypothesis.

Congruence could be a key word for understanding quantum mechanics (Hilbert’s ”Grundlagen der Geometrie” was published in 1899) but, at the beginning of the 20th century, focus was on the fifth Euclid’s postulate.

## 3 The continuum problem and quantum
mechanics without interpretation

Consider maps of the intermediate set $`I`$ to the sets of real numbers $`R`$ and natural numbers $`N`$:

$$NIR.$$
(2)
Let the map $`IN`$ decompose $`I`$ into the countable set of mutually disjoint infinite subsets: $`I\{I_n\}`$ ($`nN`$). Let $`I_n`$ be called a unit set. All members of $`I_n`$ have the same countable coordinate $`n`$.

Consider the map $`IR`$. By definition, continuum $`R`$ contains a subset $`M`$ equivalent to $`I`$, i.e., there exists a bijection

$$f:IMR.$$
(3)
This bijection reduces to separation of the intermediate subset $`M`$ from continuum. Since one cannot distinguish members of $`M`$ from the remaining real numbers (there is no formulation of a rule ot a property that “marks” the intermediate number of members), each member of the set of intermediate cardinality equally corresponds to all real numbers. It is important that we consider mapping of the isolated intermediate set $`I`$ in its special arrangement. The bijection, as an equivalence relation, instead of expected separation, establishes equivalence between any member of $`I`$ and all real numbers. If we could localize of the intermediate set points, coordinates of the points were self-congruent intervals.

Thus only random (arbitrarily chosen) real number can be assigned to an arbitrary point $`s`$ of the intermediate set.

In the case of inexact measurement of a self-congruent interval, possible results are not equivalent. There is a deviation from exact length evaluating the results and making them non-equivalent. For a non-self-congruent interval, appropriate ”measuring procedure” should ensure equiprobability of equivalent real numbers and unbiased choice of a unique number by a suitable random process.

In quantum mechanics we also have rather some kind mapping than measurement of length in the classical sense: ordinary measurement operations are impossible in principle and the output real number cannot be understood classically.

After the choice has performed, a concrete point gets a random real number as its coordinate in continuum. Thus we get probability $`P(r)dr`$ of finding the point $`sI`$ about $`r`$.

Thus the point of the intermediate set has two coordinates: definite natural number and random (arbitrarily chosen) real number:

$$s:(n,r_{random}).$$
(4)
Only the natural number coordinate gives reliable information about relative positions of the points of the set and, consequently, about size of an interval. But the points of a unit set are indistinguishable. Without loss of generality we shall use a fixed countable mapping.

For two real numbers $`a`$ and $`b`$ the probability $`P_{ab}dr`$ of finding $`s`$ in the union of the neighborhoods $`(dr)_a(dr)_b`$

$$P_{ab}dr[P(a)+P(b)]dr$$
(5)
because $`s`$ corresponds to all real numbers and, therefore, to both neighborhoods at the same time (the events are not independent). It is most natural, in this case, to compute the non-additive probability from some additive object by a simple rule. Since the point corresponds to all real numbers simultaneously, we may associate with the point a function $`\psi (r)`$ defined on the same domain $`R`$ such that $`P(r)=𝒫[\psi (r)]`$ and $`\psi _{ab}=\psi (a)+\psi (b)`$. It is quite clear that the dependence $`𝒫[\psi (r)]`$ should be non-linear. Indeed,

$$P_{ab}=𝒫(\psi _{ab})=𝒫[\psi (a)+\psi (b)]𝒫[\psi (a)]+𝒫[\psi (b)].$$
(6)
We may choose the dependence arbitrarily but the simplest non-linear dependence is the square dependence:

$$𝒫[\psi (r)]=|\psi (r)|^2.$$
(7)
We shall not discuss uniqueness of the chosen options. Our aim is to show that quantum mechanics may be reproduced as a natural descriptions of the set of intermediate cardinality. There is no need to insist that it is a unique or the best way to describe the set.

The function $`\psi `$, necessarily, depends on $`n`$: $`\psi (r)\psi (n,r)`$. Since $`n`$ is accurate up to a constant (shift) and the function $`\psi `$ is defined up to the factor $`e^{i\text{const}}`$, we have

$$\psi (n+\text{const},r)=e^{i\text{const}}\psi (n,r).$$
(8)
Hence, the function $`\psi `$ is of the following form:

$$\psi (r,n)=A(r)e^{2\pi in}.$$
(9)
Our choice of the non-linear dependence allows to ensure the invariance under shift in $`N`$ (and consequently in $`I`$) and we do not need to revert and find more suitable dependence. For our purpose, it is not necessary to prove that this is a unique dependence satisfying the requirements of the non-linearity and the invariance and to replace Born postulate by the uniqueness theorem. Note, however, that the pure postulation is replaced by the choice.

Thus the point of the intermediate set corresponds to the function Eq.(9) in continuum. We can specify the point by the function $`\psi (n,r)`$ before the mapping and by the random real number and the natural number when the mapping has performed. In other words, the function $`\psi (n,r)`$ may be regarded as the image of $`s`$ in $`R`$ between mappings.

Consider probability $`P(b,a)`$ of finding the point $`s`$ at $`b`$ after finding it at $`a`$. Let us use a continuous parameter $`t`$ for correlation between continuous and countable coordinates of the point $`s`$ (simultaneity) and in order to distinguish between different mappings (events ordering):

$$r(t_a),n(t_a)\psi (t)r(t_b),n(t_b),$$
(10)
where $`t_a<t<t_b`$ and $`\psi (t)=\psi [n(t),r(t)]`$. For simplicity, we shall identify the parameter with time without further discussion. Note that we cannot use the direct dependence $`n=n(r)`$: since $`r=r(n)`$ is a random number, the inverse function is meaningless.

Assume that for each $`t(t_a,t_b)`$ there exists the image of the point in continuum $`R`$.

Partition interval $`(t_a,t_b)`$ into $`k`$ equal parts $`\epsilon `$:

$`k\epsilon =t_bt_a,`$
$`\epsilon =t_it_{i1},`$
$`t_a=t_0,t_b=t_k,`$ (11)
$`a=r(t_a)=r_0,b=r(t_k)=r_k.`$
The conditional probability of of finding the point $`s`$ at $`r(t_i)`$ after $`r(t_{i1})`$ is given by

$$P(r_{i1},r_i)=\frac{P(r_i)}{P(r_{i1})},$$
(12)
i.e.,

$$P(r_{i1},r_i)=\left|\frac{A_i}{A_{i1}}e^{2\pi i\mathrm{\Delta }n_i}\right|^2,$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_i=|n(t_i)n(t_{i1})|`$.

The probability of the sequence of the transitions

$$r_0,\mathrm{},r_i,\mathrm{}r_k$$
(14)
is given by

$$P(r_0,\mathrm{},r_i,\mathrm{}r_k)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}P(r_{i1},r_i)=\left|\frac{A_k}{A_0}\mathrm{exp}2\pi i\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }n_i\right|^2.$$
(15)
Then we get probability of the corresponding continuous sequence of the transitions $`r(t)`$:

$$P[r(t)]=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}P(r_0,\mathrm{},r_i,\mathrm{}r_k)=\left|\frac{A_k}{A_0}e^{2\pi im}\right|^2,$$
(16)
where

$$m=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }n_i.$$
(17)
Since at any time $`t_a<t<t_b`$ the point $`s`$ corresponds to all points of $`R`$, it also corresponds to all continuous random sequences of mappings $`r(t)`$ simultaneously, i.e., probability $`P[r(t)]`$ of finding the point at any time $`t_att_b`$ on $`r(t)`$ is non-additive too. Therefore, we introduce an additive functional $`\varphi [r(t)]`$. In the same way as above, we get

$$P[r(t)]=|\varphi [r(t)]|^2.$$
(18)
Taking into account Eq.(16), we can put

$$\varphi [r(t)]=\frac{A_N}{A_0}e^{2\pi im}=\text{const}e^{2\pi im}.$$
(19)
Thus we have

$$P(b,a)=|\underset{allr(t)}{}\text{const}e^{2\pi im}|^2,$$
(20)
i.e., the probability $`P(a,b)`$ of finding the point $`s`$ at $`b`$ after finding it at $`a`$ satisfies the conditions of Feynman’s approach (section 2-2 of ) for $`S/\mathrm{}=2\pi m`$. Therefore,

$$P(b,a)=|K(b,a)|^2,$$
(21)
where $`K(a,b)`$ is the path integral (2-25) of :

$$K(b,a)=_a^be^{2\pi im}Dr(t).$$
(22)
Since Feynman does not essentially use in Chap.2 that $`S/\mathrm{}`$ is just action, the identification of $`2\pi m`$ and $`S/\mathrm{}`$ may be postponed.

In section 2-3 of  Feynman explains how the principle of least action follows from the dependence

$$P(b,a)=|\underset{allr(t)}{}\text{const}e^{(i/\mathrm{})S[r(t)]}|^2.$$
(23)
This explanation may be called “Feynman’s correspondence principle”. We can apply the same reasoning to Eq.(20) and, for very large $`m`$, get “the principle of least $`m`$”. This also means that for large $`m`$ the point $`s`$ has a definite (self-congruent) path and, consequently, a definite continuous coordinate. In other words, the interval of the intermediate set with the large countable length $`m`$ is sufficiently close to continuum (let the interval be called macroscopic), i.e., cardinality of the intermediate set depends on its size.

For sufficiently large $`m`$,

$$m=_a^b𝑑m(t)=_a^b\frac{dm(t)}{dt}𝑑t=\mathrm{min}.$$
(24)
Note that $`m(t)`$ is a step function and its time derivative is almost everywhere exact zero. But for sufficiently large increment $`dm(t)`$ the time derivative $`\frac{dm}{dt}=\dot{m}(t)`$ makes sense as non-zero value.

The function $`m(t)`$ may be regarded as some function of $`r(t)`$: $`m(t)=\eta [r(t)]`$. It is important that $`r(t)`$ is not random in the case of large $`m`$. Therefore,

$$_a^b𝑑m(t)=_a^b\frac{d\eta }{dr}\dot{r}𝑑t=\mathrm{min},$$
(25)
where $`\frac{d\eta }{dr}\dot{r}`$ is some function of $`r`$, $`\dot{r}`$, and $`t`$. This is a formulation of the principle of least action (note absence of higher time derivatives than $`\dot{r}`$), i.e., large $`m`$ can be identified with action. Recall that this identification is valid only for sufficiently large $`dm=\dot{m}dt`$, i.e., for sufficiently fast points in sense of time rate of change of the countable coordinate.

Feynman’s correspondence principle indicates a qualitative leap which is inverse to quantization: action is not the length of the countable path but some new function. We get a new characteristics of the point and a new law of its motion. In modern terms, this is the phenomenon of decoherence explained without referring to environment. It is possible to do with internal reasons (e.g. some “microscopic explosion”, etc.). In contrast to usual decoherence, it is able to explain appearance of classical universe from its early quantum stages.

Since the value of action depends on units of measurement, we need a parameter $`h`$ depending on units only such that

$$hm=_a^bL(r,\dot{r},t)𝑑t=S,$$
(26)
were $`L(r,\dot{r},t)=\frac{d\eta }{dr}\dot{r}`$ is the Lagrange function of the point.

Finally, we may substitute $`S/\mathrm{}`$ for $`2\pi m`$ in Eq.(22) and regard our consideration as an extension of Feynman’s formulation of quantum mechanics which simplifies the original Feynman’s approach because there is no need in classical paths and existence of action from the very beginning.

Note that if time rate of change of cardinality (i.e., of the countable coordinate) is not sufficiently high, action vanishes: $`\dot{m}(t)`$ and, consequently, $`dm=\dot{m}(t)dt`$ is exact zero. This may be understood as vanishing of the mass of the point. Formally, mass is a consequence of the principle of least action: it appears in the Lagrangian of a free particle as its specific property . Thus mass is somewhat analogous to air drag which is substantial only for sufficiently fast bodies.

Consider the special case of constant time rate of change $`\nu `$ of the countable coordinate $`n`$ (since $`n`$ is a natural number, we can always divide $`(t_a,t_b)`$ into intervals of constant $`\nu `$). We have $`m=\nu (t_bt_a)`$. Then “the principle of least $`m`$” reduces to “the principle of least $`t_bt_a`$”. If $`\nu `$ is not sufficiently large (massless point), this is the simplest form of Fermat’s least time principle for light. The more general form of Fermat’s principle follows from Eq.(24): since

$$_{t_a}^{t_b}𝑑n(t)=\nu _{t_a}^{t_b}𝑑t=\mathrm{min},$$
(27)
we obviously get

$$_{t_a}^{t_b}\frac{dr}{v(t)}=\mathrm{min},$$
(28)
where $`v(t)=dr/dt`$. In the case of non-zero action (mass point), the principle of least action and Fermat’s principle “work” simultaneously. It is clear that any additional factor (mass, in this case) can only increase the pure least time. As a result, $`t_bt_a`$ for a massless point bounds below $`t_bt_a`$ for any other point and, therefore, $`(ba)/(t_bt_a)`$ for massless point bounds above average speed between the same points $`a`$ and $`b`$ for continuous image of any point of the intermediate set. Thus, paradoxically, the countably slowest points have the fastest continuous image. Recall that any spacetime interval along a light beam is exact zero (lightlike or null interval). In this sense, a photon, in Minkowski spacetime, is at absolute rest. Recall also that the spacetime interval is directly related to the relativistic action.

On the contrary, a point with mass should permanently have sufficiently high time rate of change of its path cardinality. As a consequence, the continuous image of the point cannot be fixed as well. This quite conforms with the uncertainty principle which is rather “non-stop principle’. It is worthwhile to stress drastic distinction between classical and quantum parts of reality: perpetual motion is the ordinary motion in the quantum world. There is no reference frame in which a quantum particle is at rest. This is true not only for a photon (which underlies the special relativity) but for mass particles too.

We should also expect existence of points with transitional time rate of change of cardinality for which mass is not stable. In this case, mass should vary between exact zero and small, discrete non-zero values. The spectrum of masses should be discrete, since it depends on the countable speed and its threshold values.

Note that recently discovered neutrino oscillations imply necessarily oscillations of their masses. Automatically, we get explanation of the neutrino helicity: frame of reference, which is faster than such a point, obviously, cannot be found (only massless points are faster) and linear momentum of the point cannot be reversed.

## 4 The intervals

Thus we get three kinds of the intervals:

1. macroscopic continuous intervals that have regular length as a manifestation of their equivalence to the set of the real numbers;
2. submicroscopic intervals with unstable lengths;
3. microscopic intervals without length which are, actually, composite points.

A submicroscopic interval is a non-self-congruent extended interval (uncompleted continuum). Its direction is coupled to the direction of the parent continuum.

The intervals are regular, irregular and zero-length coordinates of true and composite points.

If the natural number constant (shift) in Eq.(8) is bound within a composite point $`\overline{s_c}`$, it becomes dependent on the point and its structure: $`\text{const}n^{}(r_c)`$. Then

$$\psi _c(n_c,r_c)=e^{in^{}(r_c)}\psi _c(n_c,r_c),$$
(29)
where $`n_c`$ is the natural number coordinate of any point of the interval. Clearly, this is the origin of the gauge principle. This means that sufficiently close but microscopically distinguishable (non-equivalent) points become exactly equivalent macroscopically, i.e., it is actual conflict of equivalences. On the other hand, gauge symmetry may be regarded as a phenomenological confirmation of existence of the point-like intervals.

Due to the properties of non-equivalent infinite sets, one-dimensional intermediate axis splits into, at least, three non-equivalent subaxes, i.e., “immiscible” substructures with different internal symmetries. The complete description is three-dimensional.

In this case, dimensionality is a classification of cardinalities. The classification with respect to length is the roughest (macroscopic) estimation of cardinality (yes, no, unstable). Length is an indication of the degree of saturation of cardinality: saturated (continuum), unsaturated, close to saturation. Thus we get the following spectrum:

$$|R|>|I_{}|>|I_0|>|N|,$$
(30)
where $`I_{}`$ and $`I_0`$ are the sets of the submicroscopic and proper microscopic intervals respectively.

Since the microscopic intervals are essentially non-equivalent, they form a quantity of different autonomous objects. Therefore, description of the structure and transmutation of the intervals needs additional dimensions down to the single unit set. But these dimensions should manifest themselves rather as qualitative properties (charges) of the composite points.

A moving composite point, in one-dimensional case, forms (formally) a countable two-dimensional “sheet”. For a sufficiently fast point, it gives a continuous variable (action) which may be interpreted as dequantized area of the countable surface.

In the fission Eq.(1), we have the “point-antipoint” pair $`(\overline{\gamma }_{},\overline{\gamma }_{})I_0`$ separated by the unstable continuous interval $`\overline{\beta }I_{}`$ Here we regard a point moving in the direction opposite to the positive direction of the countable axis as an “antipoint”. Recall that we use a fixed countable mapping.

In order to get three point-like intervals as a result of the fission, we need one more set of proper microscopic intervals in the spectrum of infinite cardinalities:

$$|R|>|I_{}|>|I_0^2|>|I_0^1|>|N|.$$
(31)
If all three intervals are point-like, we get a more complex point consisting of three inseparable composite points which are members of $`I_0^2`$. In this case, there are the following possibilities. For countably motionless decomposing interval, we also have the “point-antipoint” pair but separated by one more point-like interval:

$$(,,).$$
(32)
For sufficiently fast interval:

$$\stackrel{}{(,,)},\stackrel{}{(,,)}$$
(33)
and

$$\stackrel{}{(,,)},\stackrel{}{(,,)},$$
(34)
where arrows in the brackets mean zero-length motions of component points (analogue of asymptotically free motion) which are possible in combination with motion of each three-component point as a whole. Obviously, free zero-length motion cannot destroy the complex point. Time rate of change of infinite cardinality has the same discrete spectrum, i.e., it can change by multiples of the infinite “portions”.

In this simplest one-dimensional case, one nevertheless can see obvious analogy with meson and nucleon structures of the Standard Model including some features that have provoked spin crisis: the intergral countable motion (“spin”) of the “nucleons” is not a combination of the individual motions of “quarks” and some individual motions are opposite to the integral one. Then $`()`$ should be regarded as an up quark and $`()`$ as a down quark (in the right moving objects). Thus, preliminarily, $`\stackrel{}{(,,)}`$ may be identified with neutron and $`\stackrel{}{(,,)}`$ with proton:

$$\stackrel{}{(,,)}=ddu,\stackrel{}{(,,)}=duu.$$
(35)
As a result of combination of speeds, all component points of “nucleons” move right, while the “antinucleons” in Eq.(34) consist of “antiquarks” (left resultant speed). It seems to be meaningless to compare masses of the components.

Note that a composite point, in contrast to a true point, cannot have arbitrary countable speed. Cardinality of the composite point determines its level of propagation (range of equivalence) and, consequently, minimum non-zero time rate of change of its path cardinality.

The correct description of composite objects needs taking into account many factors: dimensionality, complete spectrum of cardinalities, all ways of fission and recombinations of the fragments, all kinds and combinations of countable motions of the objects and their components, etc.

The straightforward taking into account dimensionality leads to trebling of objects. We get three kinds of simple composite points, components of complex points and three kinds of extended but unstable submicroscopic intervals (fields).

It should be noted that cardinality does not change not only in the case of a countably motionless point but also in the case of a point with sufficiently high saturated countable speed. This threshold speed obviously decreases with increase of the countable length (cardinality) of a composite point.

Microscopic phenomena should be considered rather in the countable subspace and in its dequantized “version” (spacetime) than in the macroscopic continuous space.

## 5 Conflicts

Feynman’s correspondence principle does not reduce classical mechanics to more precise quantum mechanics but separates their regions of validity and explains the interrelation and the difference between their dynamical laws. Thus classical and quantum mechanic cannot be made equivalent by any correspondence principle, i.e., the macroscopic world is not an extension of the microscopic one.222If quantum mechanics was universaly valid, all distances were non-self-congruent. However, existence of exactly self-congruent distances is a fact. Hence, under some conditions, classical and quantum mechanics can conflict. Since classical and quantum systems are radically different in power (cardinality) their direct contact results in suppression of some features of the weaker system (phenomenon of decoherence).

Theoretically, conflict is not a superposition of different factors acting on the same object but a contradiction between correct descriptions (“programs”) determining behavior of the object.

The measurement problem and the problem of the wave function collapse cannot be solved in the expected formally ideal sense, since the measurement and the collapse are basically conflicts. The general feeling of dissatisfaction (accompanying quantum mechanics and its interpretations from the very beginning) turns out to be unavoidable and even relevant when dealing with discordant microscopic world. It also seems to be impossible to reconcile completely point-set and wholeness formal approaches to continuum.

## 6 Life

The more or less objective concept of conflict can be found only in cybernetics, where it is connected, in particular, with common use of the same resources by different systems or programs that may result in incompatible properties or requirements for some objects. Recall that, according to N. Wiener , cybernetics is “control and communication in the animal and the machine.” Indeed, the functioning of the living matter and man-made systems is a field of reality where conflicts are most apparent as natural phenomena. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the living matter is the region where the parallel descriptions interact by means of some interface that prevents decoherence and makes possible substantial action of very weak system on much more powerful one. It is clear that the region should be accompanied with conflicts which are indications of involvement of discordant laws.

Strictly speaking, in the uniform world which can be described by a unique theory of everything, there is no formally explainable origin of conflicts. Without fundamental contradictions, it is not possible to overcome subjectivity of the concept of conflict, i.e., conflicts cannot be regarded as natural phenomena.

At present, the living matter is regarded as a very rare, random formation without any special reason for its existence. On the contrary, the region of correlation of the parallel substructures is a fundamental spatial phenomenon.

The regulation of conflicts is possible only if very weak influence of extremely small system can affect much more numerous, powerful system which is environment for the microscopic one due to difference of sizes and position in the hierarchy of structures. A stable trend to complication and extraordinary increase in complexity should be expected as a sign of such an influence. The regulation leads to the conception of control as an inherent property of the superstructure. In this case, control is domination of the weaker factor, instead of composition of factors inherent to the inanimate matter.

Some special interface is necessary in order to transfer the weak influence of the small substructure and to prevent destructive impact of more powerful structure. Such an interface is a key factor for possibility of the correlated region. It is clear that the interface should be a part of the more powerful subsystem (recall macroscopic measuring apparatus).

In the living matter, the interface may be formed, for instance, by spatial configurations of organic macromolecules which are definitely macroscopic formations. It is well known that proteins, the necessary basic components of all known forms of life, have rigid spatial structures directly connected to their biological properties and functions. Some small changes of the protein spatial structure have important biological functions. Violation of the spatial structure leads to inability to functionate.

Note that, in the two-slit experiment, which may be regarded as a hint at the interface, we also have a rigid spatial configuration (the slit width, the inter-slit distance, the distance between the slits and the screen), the violation of which destroy the interference pattern.

Pressing-out infinite number of points by an inexpressible rule for it, radically complicates the configuration of the proper microscopic interval. Figuratively speaking, microscopic structures are cut out of the whole “piece” and then assembled into constructions. Paradoxically, complexity of a “monolithic” microscopic object is, in principle, inaccessible for a macroscopic structure of any size consisting of finite number of parts in a regular arrangement (order) or in the state of chaos (disorder) which simplifies the configurations as well.

It is possible to introduce the concept of infinite complexity of the non-constructible (non-assembled) system formed in the negative manner, uniquely connected with the internal symmetry of the corresponding infinite set. An infinite set can have infinite complexity: recall that infinite sets are structures.

The level of complexity and organization is determined by depth of correlation of substructures rather than by “horizontal”, extensional complexity of the constructible macroscopic substructure. This conclusion has an interesting biological confirmation. Human genome is not as different from that of the most primitive organisms as it is reasonable to expect. If we compare this fact with the apparent fact that the human behavior is incomparably more complicated than behavior of any animal (culture, technology, etc.), we get that the difference in complexity of the behavior should be considered as an indication of presence of a directly undetectable additional controlling structure of high complexity in human species which is not included in the description (genome).

Complexity of a growing organism increases without natural selection. Genome is regarded as the only “program” for the personal “evolution” (the central dogma of molecular biology). But the difference in complexity between the human and, for instance, the worm’s genome is not sufficient to ensure the observed difference in complexity of their behaviors under any method of evaluation of the complexities.

Directly undetectable subsystem can manifest itself only in the behavior of the supersystem (its directly perceptible macroscopic part). The behavior of a living object is, on the one hand, unpredictable and, on the other hand, non-random. This is the necessary sign of inaccessible complexity.

Note that the variety of organisms decreases with increase of their level of complexity: there is a great number of simple organisms but the unique most complex one: human being. This is one more confirmative fact: the finite number of different infinite cardinalities decreases from very large number of the unite sets of the smallest continuous interval (the smallest self-congruent interval) down to the single unite set. In case of extensive, combinatorial complexity, the situation would be inverse: the variety of more complex forms should be greater.

Thus the general biological arguments for the hypothesis of life as a correlated region are

> conflicts;
>
> discreteness of the spectrum of species (absence of intermediate forms);
>
> pyramidal form of the spices hierarchy (mirror analog of inverted pyramid of infinite cardinalities);
>
> inexplicably large difference in complexity of behavior of genetically close species.

Without environment of the less complicated species the complex species cannot exist. The simple creatures also adapted themselves to use the complex ones after they had appeared. Thus pyramid of species developed as a whole: “unfit”, simpler species did not vanish but mutated to form necessary complexity levels of biosphere (“upward” correlation as a constructible result of the correlation deepening).

It is sufficiently evident that “vertical” biological evolution is completed, although mechanism of mutation and selection still works.

The most remarkable conclusion is that any living object can contain a subtle autonomous part which, in principle, can remain safe after destruction or detachment of the macroscopic substructure (body).

## 7 Some remarks

Instead of abstract fundamental principles, we get the fundamental object and its properties. This removes the problem of interpretation which is, in essence, authentication of the object under investigation.

The intermediate set gives convincing informal picture and generates the same peculiar concepts that have been introduced into quantum theories for consistency with experiments including the concepts without classical analog. The structure of the formal description of the set follows progressively the structure of fundamental physics which is directly related to the structure of physical reality.

One can find in the mathematical literature a lot of statements which are declared to be independent of cardinalities of sets under consideration. However, in the presented framework, it becomes clear that the true independence cannot be easily achieved. The most of basic geometric and algebraic notions inherently depend on cardinality of complete continuum stronger than it could be expected and, therefore, imply cardinality induced hidden postulates which are, in essence, equivalent to the continuum hypothesis. For instance, presence of the microscopic 10-dimensional objects in spacetime is regarded as identical to 10-dimensionality of spacetime as a whole. In fact, presence of microscopic multidimensional objects inside four-dimensional spacetime is possible without radical change of full-scale spacetime structure. There is no need to introduce six macroscopic, continuous extra dimensions and then to hide them by one more radical change: compactification. Only correct informal understanding of reality can prevent a formal description from fatal logical errors.


text:
# The Validity of the Adiabatic Contraction Approximation for Dark Matter Halos

## 1 Introduction

The hierarchical clustering model is the paradigm for galaxy formation today. In this cosmological scenario, structure forms around peaks of primordial dark matter density fluctuations. The baryonic matter, which can dissipate energy through radiation, cools and falls into the center of its surrounding dark halo. The question of how a spherical mass distribution, e.g. a galactic bulge, will respond to the growth of mass in its center has been adressed by Barnes & White (1984), hereafter BW84. They devised a simple recipe for predicting the density profile of a contracted spherical density distribution. This recipe was used by Blumenthal et al. (1986) to examine contracted dark halos, assuming that the baryonic disk forms in the center so slowly that the time for the increase of mass inside an orbit of a dark particle is long compared to its orbital period. In a slowly varying potential the action integral $`j_i=p_i𝑑q_i`$ is a conserved property of the particle orbit, called an adiabatic invariant (Binney & Tremaine, 1987). Here, j is the action, p and q are the phase space coordinates of the dark particle. As a first approximation, BW84 assumed a spherical density distribution with particles moving on circular orbits. In this case, the radial action integral simplifies to the conservation of angular momentum. With $`L=mvr`$ and the circular velocity $`v^2(r)=GM(r)/r`$ we get the adiabatic invariant $`M(r)r`$.
Given that we know the final baryonic matter distribution, e.g. an exponential disk-like profile $`M_b(r)`$ and the initial dark halo distribution $`M_i(r)`$, we can construct the final dark matter distribution $`M_f(r)`$ according to

$$r_f[M_b(r_f)+M_f(r)]=rM_i(r),$$
(1)
where $`r_f`$ is the final radius of a dark particle. This approximation is strictly valid only if the initial mass distribution is spherically symmetric. The mapping between initial and final radius is unique, because the dark particles are dissipationless and their circular orbits do not cross. The adiabatic compression has been used widely in estimating rotation curves in semi-analytical galaxy models (Ryden & Gunn, 1987; Ryden, 1988, 1991; Flores et al., 1993; Mo, Mao, & White, 1998), in investigating the origin of the Tully-Fisher relation (Courteau & Rix, 1999), in analysing the core structure of dark matter halos (van den Bosch & Swaters, 2001; Marchesini et al., 2002) and in the formation of gaseous disks in cosmological N-body halos (M. Steinmetz 2001, private communication). The adiabatic contraction assumption has been tested qualitatively in a low-resolution study by Blumenthal et al. (1986).

It is surprising that equation (1) should hold in realistic situations, where a non-spherical galactic disk is added to a halo of particles which move on eccentric or chaotic orbits (Valluri & Merritt, 2000). In this paper we investigate the validity of equation (1), using high resolution numerical simulations. Adding a disk potential to an equilibrium N-body halo, we can study its reaction in the adiabatic limit, as well as for an abrupt change of the potential. In §2 we describe the model runs for different disk parameters and contraction times. In §3 we discuss the results and in §4 we draw our conclusions and present suggestions for future work.

## 2 The Simulations

The N-body halo is set up according to the distribution function devised by Hernquist (1990, 1993). Its density distribution is $`\rho (r)=M_hr_h/[2\pi r(r+r_h)^3]`$, where $`M_h`$ is the total mass and $`r_h`$ is the scale length. The Hernquist halo has the same $`\rho r^1`$ dependence in the center as the universal dark matter profile found by Navarro, Frenk, & White (1997), however with a finite total mass as the density in the outermost regions decreases as $`\rho r^4`$. The baryonic component is represented by analytic external potentials of a disk and a central point mass. We used the potential of an exponentially thin disk according to Dehnen & Binney (1998). Its strength depends on the ratio of the disk mass $`M_d`$ to the disk scale length $`r_d`$. Following Navarro, Eke, & Frenk (1996), we started with a very large disk scale length and kept the disk mass constant throughout the simulation. The disk scale length is contracted linearly with time, where the contraction rate is a free parameter. Large contraction time scales compared to the dynamical time scales correspond to the adiabatic limit. In the limit of zero contraction time the halo will go through a phase of violent relaxation. The halo-disk system was allowed to relax after the contraction phase for several dynamical time scales. We applied a massive and a low-mass disk model with 20 % (MD) and 5 % (LD) of the total dark halo mass, and with a typical final scale length of 0.14 $`r_h`$.

In order to test the dependence on the concentration of the potential we used a softened point mass potential following

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_p(r)=\frac{GM_p\mathrm{arctan}(r/r_p)}{r_p}.$$
(2)
Similar to the disk case we kept its mass $`M_p`$ constant and shrank the smoothing length to a final value of $`r_p=0.03`$ (test case PC). We also tested the case where $`r_p`$ was kept constant and $`M_p`$ was allowed to grow (PG). For all calculations we chose $`G=M_h=r_h=1`$, where G is the gravitational constant. Simulations were performed with halos represented by N = $`1\times 10^4`$, $`8\times 10^4`$, $`2\times 10^5`$ and $`1\times 10^6`$ particles in order to test the dependence of the results on the numerical resolution. All model parameters are listed in Table 1. The gravitational softening length $`ϵ`$ was chosen according to the criterium of Merritt (1996). We used a time step at least a hundred times smaller than the dynamical time scale we would expect at the half mass radius for each model. The timestep, adequate for the runs with the highest number of particles, was not enlarged for lower particle number runs. We used a newly developed tree code WINE (Wetzstein et al., in preparation) in combination with special purpose hardware GRAPE-5 (Kawai et al., 2000) at the MPIA, Heidelberg. The refined force accuracy criterium of Salmon & Warren (1994) guarantees that the absolute force error stays below the precision of the GRAPE hardware.

## 3 Results

The four top panels in Fig. 1 show the final density profiles of the contracted halos for two resolutions for the massive and the light disk, respectively (models LD1, LD2 and MD1, MD2). The error bars show the Poissonian error. The softening length is indicated with an arrow on each plot. In the innermost parts of the halo, i.e. $`r2ϵ`$, the density is influenced by at least two effects: The softening length and fluctuations in the density due to small particle numbers. To show the effect of the fluctuations we plot the density profile of four consecutive dumps taken shortly after the contraction has been completed. This is important as the fluctuations sometimes exceed the 1 $`\sigma `$ Poissonian error. At radii larger than two softening lengths the analytical approximation of BW84 gives a very good account of the matter distribution of the halo for every disk model. The two panels at the bottom of Fig. 1 show the point mass case which is also in very good agreement with the theoretical profile, independent of the way we grow the external potential. However, the density is somewhat lower than theoretically predicted inside the scale radius $`r_p`$.

Fig. 2 illustrates for the LD case that the agreement between numerical simulation and theoretical profile improves with increasing particle number, as we are able to probe deeper into the center of the dark matter halo.

In Fig. 3 we examine the response of the halo to an abrupt addition of the external potentials (models MDV, LDV and PV). The profile with the light disk (top left) still matches the theoretical curve. Even in the case of the massive disk (bottom left), the predicted density distribution agrees well with the numerical model although we find a somewhat lower density inside a radius of one disk scale length. Adding the point mass potential instantaneously (bottom right) leads to a density distribution that deviates strongly from the adiabatic prediction. The top right panel in Fig. 3 shows the time evolution of the 1% mass shell radius in each case. For the LD models the mass shells stabilize at more or less the same radius, though the detailed path of contraction is very different for LD2 and LDV. For the more centrally concentrated potential (PV) this is not the case. It stabilizes at radii further outside than in the adiabatic case. Consequently these density profiles are less concentrated in the center than in the adiabatic case.

## 4 Conclusions

We find that the adiabatic approximation is very robust in the parameter space that is occupied by normal spiral or dwarf galaxies. This remains valid even in cases where the contraction timescales are short compared with the dynamical time scales. Only for a point mass potential, a significant difference occurs. We conclude that the validity of the adiabatic approximation depends mainly on the concentration of the added potential. A better understanding of the underlying physics will require a detailed analysis of the orbital distribution of the particles prior and after the contraction phase. We will investigate this question in a subsequent paper.

A program to calculate disk potentials was kindly provided by Walter Dehnen. We want to thank Hans-Walter Rix, Matthias Steinmetz and Chris Gottbrath for helpful comments and discussions.


text:
# The Starlab Environment for Dense Stellar Systems

## 1. A Brief History of Simulations of Dense Stellar Systems

Modeling a star cluster on a computer is a subject with a published history of more than forty years, starting with the 10-body simulations by von Hoerner (1960). These pioneering calculations had to be halted when the first binary was formed. In those days neither was the hardware fast enough, nor the software sophisticated enough to follow the long-term evolution of a perturbed binary. Rapid improvement of both hardware and software allowed the treatment of dynamically formed binaries by the mid-sixties, but the maximum number of bodies remained in the regime $`N<100`$ where relaxation effects could not be ignored on a crossing time. By the early seventies, larger systems could be modeled, up to $`N=500`$. By that time a clear separation between relaxation time and crossing time could be observed.

These simulations showed that the core of a typical star cluster contracts as a result of heat flowing toward its outer regions, on a two-body relaxation time scale. This phenomenon had been predicted theoretically and was dubbed ‘gravothermal collapse’ or ‘core collapse’, where the term ‘collapse’ is perhaps a bit misleading since the process takes billions of years for a typical globular cluster. It was observed in the simulations that this type of collapse continues until a hard binary appears in the center, where the term ‘hard’ indicates that the binary has a binding energy much larger than the typical kinetic energy of a single star. Such binaries tend to give off energy to passing stars, hardening even further while heating their surroundings. In this way, one or more hard binaries were observed to provide the heat source that balanced the heat losses further out in the star cluster, thus ending core contraction. Just as an individual star like the sun balances radiation losses from its photosphere with nuclear energy generation in its core, after the initial contraction of the protostar toward the main sequence, star clusters with a ‘collapsed core’ can similarly balance their energy budget.

Key ingredients in making it possible to integrate these larger 500-body systems in the seventies were the use of individual time steps (Aarseth 1963), as well as special treatments of binaries through various ways of analytical and other forms of regularization (cf. Aarseth 1985, 2002). By the late eighties the mechanism of core collapse had been fully understood, including the conditions for the occurrence of post-collapse core oscillations, using numerical simulations in the conducting gas sphere approximation (Sugimoto & Bettwieser 1983, Bettwieser & Sugimoto 1984), Fokker-Planck approximation (Cohn et al. 1989, Murphy et al. 1990) as well as semi-analytical arguments (Goodman 1987). The first demonstration of the occurrence of core oscillations in direct $`N`$-body systems was given by Makino (1996), using the GRAPE-4 to perform a 32,000-body calculation, a tour de force around that time. Only now, six years later, are simulations of this size becoming more routine. For a review of the GRAPE project, see Makino (2002) and Makino & Taiji (1998).

From an astrophysics point of view, $`N`$-body simulations of star clusters have finally started to become realistic, over the last few years, now that stellar evolution recipes have been tightly coupled to stellar dynamical calculations. The talks at this symposium by Hurley (2002) and McMillan (2002) give pointers to the literature. For more general background information, see Heggie & Hut (2002). Most interesting and most challenging are the treatments of multiple stellar encounters: interactions between binaries and single stars, binary-binary encounters, or even more complex interactions involving, say, an encounter of a triple and a binary, or an encounter of a binary with an interacting tangle of stars in which other multiples have already temporarily been captured. Following such complex interactions poses severe challenges to the development of software needed to choreograph these many-body dances. Let us look at one such system, Starlab, the most advanced in design for simulating dense stellar systems.

## 2. A Software Environment: Starlab

Starlab is a software package for simulating the evolution of dense stellar systems and analyzing the resultant data. It is a collection of loosely coupled programs (‘tools’) linked at the level of the UNIX operating system. The tools share a common data structure and can be combined in arbitrarily complex ways to study the dynamics of star clusters and galactic nuclei. Although most tools are written in C++, Fortran programs and subroutines can be easily included, as well as programs written in other languages. The package is publicly available through our web site $`<`$http://www.manybody.org$`>`$, where links can be found to Starlab, as well as to other packages, such as the Nemo environment (for collisionless stellar dynamics). For a description of the main Starlab components, see Portegies Zwart et al. (2001).

Starlab features the following basic modules:

* Three- and four-body automated scattering packages, constructed around a time-symmetrized Hermite integration scheme.
* A collection of initialization and analysis routines for use with general N-body systems.
* A general Kepler package for manipulation of two-body orbits.
* N-body integrators incorporating both 2nd-order leapfrog and 4th-order Hermite integration algorithms.
* Kira, a general N-body integrator that automatically applies local coordinate transformations in a recursive way, allowing uniform treatment of hierarchical systems of arbitrary complexity within a general N-body framework.
* SeBa, a stellar evolution and binary evolution package that follows the evolution of any star or binary from arbitrary initial conditions, or from later starting conditions following a dynamical interaction.

A novel aspect of Starlab is its flexible external data representation, which guarantees that tools can be combined in arbitrary ways, without loss of data or internally-generated comments. Thus, two tools connected by UNIX pipes may operate on different portions of the same data set, even though neither understands the data structures, or even the physical variables, used by the other. Unknown data are simply passed through unchanged to the next tool in the chain.

This feature is especially important for simulations that include the use of both Kira and SeBa. Although the two programs are linked at compile time, before being run, we have gone to great length to guarantee maximal decoupling between the structures of the two programs. Conceptually we have the following picture:

where the data passing currently takes place via an exchange through a well-defined and minimal interface between the C++ objects that represent the dynamical part of a star and the stellar evolution aspects of that same star.

We are currently planning the next great leap forwards, which will entail three significant improvements. The first is to replace stellar evolution recipes by actual stellar evolution codes. The second is to replace code linking by the more flexible mechanism of message passing. The third is to introduce some form of stellar hydrodynamics code, to model the details of stellar collisions. Conceptually, our goal is to model a dense stellar system as follows:

Let us look at each of these three aspects – stellar evolution, hydrodynamics, and code communication – in turn.

## 3. Truly Interacting Stars

It is a well kept secret that stellar evolution codes cannot follow the full lifetime evolution of a star from beginning to end without human intervention. Modeling the main sequence evolution presents no difficulties, but rapid changes occurring in later stages of stellar evolution will either lead to a crash of the code or to such a slow crawl that the run cannot be completed in a reasonable time. This does not pose a serious problem when we want to make a detailed study of a particular star. In that case we may not be interested in the most unstable phases of its evolution; or if we are, we can help the code along by some suitable choice of parameter changes when necessary.

This state of affairs does pose a serious problem, however, when we want to use a stellar evolution code as a module in a larger system of a hundred thousand stars or more. In that case it would be totally impractical to tweak the late stages of evolution of individual stars by hand. The obvious solution is to simplify stellar evolution codes, letting them skip over some of the most numerically sensitive episodes in their evolution. While this introduces errors, it is surely better than having no information at all about the late-time behavior of the stars. And as long as we can keep track of the approximations involved, we can try to decrease the errors in due time, when faster future computers allow us to spend more CPU time on an individual star.

If we only had to deal with single stars, one could argue that it would be better to use the best codes available, together with a very patient lab assistant who coaxes the code through the difficult stages in its evolution, time and again, for a wide choice of parameters, such as initial mass and initial chemical composition. After producing a multidimensional collection of stellar evolution tracks, the values can be stored in tables, or complicated parameter fits can be made. For each star in a star cluster simulation, the physical parameters describing the stellar structure and composition of a star can then be obtained automatically from the tables or fits.

While this may well be the best approach for dealing with single stars, it will not work for interacting double stars. As soon as one of the stars transfers mass to the other star, the evolution of both stars will begin to diverge from the standard tracks obtained for single stars. What will happen next depends on several parameters: the mass of each of the stars, the initial separation between the stars, the chemical composition of each of the stars. Even if we assume both stars to have the same composition labeled only by metallicity, we suddenly find ourselves with a four-parameter family of pairs of evolution tracks that will need to be tabulated or fitted, in addition to those of the single stars.

And as if that would not be sufficiently impractical, we also have to deal with blue stragglers, stars that have been formed through a merger of two or sometimes even more than two stars. And then there are triple stars, where the outer star can perturb the orbit of the inner two stars, thereby modifying the rate of mass transfer considerably. It is clear that the use of canned stellar evolution tracks is not going to help us here. There seems to be no other choice than to enlist the help of a real stellar evolution code, albeit a simplified one. Such a stellar evolution module should be able to produce results that are at least somewhat reasonable without any need for human hand-holding, and in a rather short amount of computer time.

For example, when we follow $`3\times 10^5`$ stars, of which 10% are part of a primordial binary, there is a potential need to model $`3\times 10^4`$ stars separately. However, many of those binaries will be wide enough to avoid contact, while others may merge quickly and therefore do need much CPU time. As a round estimate, perhaps 1% of the stars will need to be followed in great detail, during the simulation of the full history of the star cluster. If we have one or more fast front end computers connected to a cluster of GRAPE-6 boards, the total star cluster simulation might be completed in a few months. Dividing this total CPU time of $`10^7`$ seconds over the $`3\times 10^3`$ problem stars, we are left with up to an hour per star (even more if we have several CPUs working together on the simulation). This is more than enough for a simple modeling job, and it is clear that CPU time is not the bottle neck. The only real problem lies in the software: there is an urgent need for simple but robust stellar evolution codes.

It may even be feasible to model all stars, single or double, by direct calculation. This would take away the need for the additional complexity in the form of tables and fitting functions. Depending on the number of CPUs in the front end, such a brute-force approach would leave us with a minute or several minutes per star. For single stars, this may already suffice; and if not now, then in the near future, with the next generation of faster computers.

## 4. Hydrodynamics

When two stars in a binary exchange mass in a stable way, on a thermal time scale (with the donor star typically the less massive of the two), it is relatively straightforward to couple two stellar evolution programs together. At the moment of first contact, we already know the precise structure of each star, and if we continue to use a simple spherical approximation for the shape of each star, we only have to change the boundary conditions. Mass shed from the donor star will be taken from its outer layers, and added to the outer layers of the receiving star. Dynamical equilibrium can be easily enforced right away, and the two stars will then take care of the restoration of thermal equilibrium automatically, in the course of their subsequent evolution.

Things get quite a bit more complex when two stars collide. This can occur during an unstable phase of mass transfer, for example when the heaviest star transfers matter to the lighter star. Conservation of angular momentum then tends to decrease the distance between the stars, leading in most cases to further mass transfer, resulting in a spiral-in of the two star cores in their common envelope. Other scenarios leading to stellar collisions include random encounters between single stars in the dense cores of stellar systems, as well as local encounters within interacting systems of three or more stars.

The simplest example of the latter occurs when a binary and a single star meet each other. While there is already a chance for a collision between two or perhaps all three stars during the initial encounter, the collision probability is significantly enhanced when the three stars are temporarily captured in what is called a resonance scattering event (cf. Heggie & Hut 2002). If the stars would truly be point masses, such an unstable three-body system would ultimately fall apart again into a single star and a double star, but the stars may conduct tens or hundreds of passes through the system before finally escaping. Even in relatively wide configurations, the cumulative chance for collisions between at least two of the stars during this protracted dance can be considerable.

In most star clusters a significant fraction of the stars are born in binaries. The probability for two of these primordial binaries to meet each other is relatively high, given the fact that binaries tend to sink to the core of a star cluster on a two-body relaxation time scale, as a result of mass segregation. When four stars meet each other to form a temporarily bound subsystem, the chance for collisions is even higher than in the three-body case, given that there are six pair-wise permutations for which collisions can take place.

The first case mentioned, that of common-envelope evolution, is the hardest one to model. We are dealing with a three-dimensional problem in hydrodynamics, where the initial stages of slow spiral-in can cover a very large number of orbital periods. In contrast, collisions in the other scenarios are almost instantaneous events. The effects of a collision between two stars make themselves felt within the interiors of the stars on a sound crossing time, of order an hour for a main sequence star. Even if a single star passes through a red giant, the collision between the star and the core of the giant will take place on a time scale of hours; and if the star misses the core, the chance is high that no merger will take place at all.

Collisions can be modeled with modest accuracy by using a simple hydrodynamics code, preferably an SPH code. Here SPH stands for Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics, where each particle carries not only a mass, position and velocity, as in stellar dynamics, but also an entropy. With each particle thus representing a fluid element, it is easy to model systems with extreme density contrasts, especially if different particles are allowed to have different masses. With a dynamic particle splitting and merging scheme, it then becomes possible to model both the low-density exteriors as well as the high-density cores of stars involved in a collision.

The central idea is to represent each star by a single mass point together with a stellar evolution module (either a canned stellar evolution track or an simple real-time stellar evolution code), during most of the lifetime of a star. Only just before a strong encounter will the single mass point be replaced by a whole cloud of SPH particles. The internal structure of the SPH object, such as density, temperature and chemical composition as a function of radius, can be determined from the information carried in the stellar evolution module. After the strong encounter is finished, the SPH objects should be given some extra time to settle down on a dynamical time scale. Finally, each object can be collapsed back into a point, to take part once again in the overall dynamical $`N`$-body dance of the star cluster as a whole.

A major complication in this last stage of transformation is the question of how to update the stellar evolution module of each SPH object. The radial distribution of temperature, density and chemical composition can be read off with limited accuracy from the cloud of SPH particles. The challenge is then to construct a new stellar structure model for the object, as a new starting model for the subsequent stellar evolution calculations. Since the stellar structure at this point is likely to be far off from thermal equilibrium, there may not be any standard model available to use as a guiding tool. Again, we must insist on the stellar evolution code to be smart enough to find a new starting model anyway, without any human guidance.

## 5. Message Passing

Our first goal is to have primitive working versions in place of an hydrodynamics code and a stellar evolution code, together with an implementation of the rather complex administrative rules that guide their interaction with each other and with the leading stellar dynamics code. While this already poses quite a few challenges, it is only part of what is required for a full simulation of a star cluster. To make everything work, we have to find ways to couple everything together.

Traditionally, this is done by linking the various modules together at compile time. Each module then acts pretty much as a subroutine in a Fortran program. And while each module can be compiled and tested separately, in the end they together form one massive program where in principle everything is coupled. For an intermediate-size software project, this may not be such a bad thing. A good programming style can go a long way to ensure some form of data abstraction and separation. For example, avoiding the use of global variables (or common blocks when programming in Fortran) would be a good start.

However, the larger the total program becomes, the greater are the dangers of unintended interactions between its parts. This will make debugging increasingly difficult. Since different people will write and maintain different modules, debugging will probably require interactive collaboration between those individuals, further complicating overall code maintenance. Clearly, by the time we have complex working codes for stellar dynamics, stellar evolution, and stellar hydrodynamics, we have to look for better ways to integrate everything.

In theoretical astrophysics, so far there has been little need to go beyond the model of working with a handful of program files, linked together at compile time. But in various areas of software development, starting a couple decades ago, other solutions have been explored in order to deal with increasingly complex configurations of interacting programs. An example is the X window system developed at M.I.T. in the early to mid eighties. Since X is open source, it has been extended widely every since; see $`<`$http://www.X.org/about\_x.htm$`>`$ for a brief introduction. The core ideas in X are to run the different modules asynchronously, without a single core program telling each module what to do and when.

This lack of centralized control allows much greater freedom for the construction and maintenance of individual modules. Each module can be regarded as a black box with a well-defined protocol that allows for exchange of information between the boxes. Communication takes place through message passing, in a client-server model. One module can send a message to another module, which then leads to the appropriate action as soon as possible given the other demands on that module. As with any form of parallelism, an appropriate tuning of priority levels (hopefully) leads to a reasonable minimization of overall waiting times, depending on the ramifications of each request.

We are currently contemplating a somewhat similar implementation for a master framework that will allow stellar dynamics, evolution, and hydro codes to talk to each other. Such a framework, once in place, will make it trivial to mix and match modules written in different styles and in different computer languages. All that is needed for a new module to be installed, or for a current module to be replaced, is to agree upon the interface protocol, including the set of data that can be exchanged and their precise formatting. We hope to start this development, from X windows to ‘windows on the Universe’ in the near future.

## 6. An Extended Software Environment

Currently, Starlab does not have a fully working hydrodynamics module, although we have experimented with some toy models as a proof of concept for translating $`N`$-body particles into polytropic star models realized in SPH, and vice versa. Also, Starlab has not yet incorporated real stellar evolution codes. So far, all effects related to stellar structure and evolution have been handled by the SeBa package mentioned in section 2, which relies on formulas fitted to previously computed stellar evolution tracks (such as given by Hurley et al. 2000).

Even with those restrictions still in place, we have recently encountered the need for additional software improvements, mainly as a result of a vast increase in data throughput. The source of this good news is the fact that a large number of GRAPE-6 boards have come on-line, in the form of the 48-Teraflops cluster in Tokyo as well as smaller clusters elsewhere in the world. This has made it possible for us to model small globular clusters on a star-by-star basis for the duration of a Hubble time. However, the Terabytes of data produced by those runs have posed new challenges in the areas of flexible visualization, efficient archiving, and the exchange of data with other groups. Let us briefly discuss each of these three challenges (see figure 1 for an overview).

### 6.1. Visualization

We have started to explore the possibility of using planetarium domes to create a fully immersive interactive virtual reality environment to display the 4-D space-time data from a complete globular cluster simulation history. Using software developed at NCSA for their CAVE (cf. $`<`$http://evlweb.eecs.uic.edu/pape/CAVE$`>`$), and later adapted to the dome in the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, we have been able to ‘fly through’ our star clusters in space and time. In contrast to a computer screen, which forces the user to zoom in and out repeatedly in order to get a complete picture of what is going on, a dome allows the user to retain the global view while at the same time focusing on individual interaction regions. The extra resolution afforded by a set of seven projectors (two covering the ‘polar cap’, and five covering the azimuthal sweep along the ‘horizon’) makes this simultaneous local-global investigation possible. See Teuben (2002) and Teuben et al. (2001, 2002) for more details.

### 6.2. Archives

With the ability to visualize the complete history of a small globular cluster on a star-by-star and orbit-by-orbit basis, it would be a shame not to store the appropriate data set from, say, a month-long run on a GRAPE-6 cluster. Fortunately, not every position and velocity value has to be stored for each star at each time step. Experimentation has shown that storing only a few percent of those data suffices to reconstruct the orbits through higher-order interpolation, to a degree that is virtually indiscernible from the real thing, to the human eye. Even so, this leaves us with the need to archive Terabytes of data for our largest runs, in such a form that it will be relatively easy to extract information sliced in space as well as in time. In some cases, we may want to display snapshots of the whole system. In other cases, we may be interested on what happened to only a handful of interacting stars, but over a much longer period of time. We are currently experimenting with different ways to solve these conflicting demands efficiently.

### 6.3. Virtual Observatories

The challenge of dealing with enormous data sets has hit observational astronomy long before it has become a problem for theoretical simulations. In various countries new initiatives have started to address these problems through the construction of what are called virtual observatories. These will provide portals on the internet that allow the user to become a virtual observer, ‘observing’ data available in archives from major observatories, ground-based as well as space-based. In addition, the user will be able to correlate information from and submit queries to a diverse range of sources. All this is still in its initial stages, but the results so far are already promising. See the proceedings of the recent conference Virtual Observatories of the Future (Brunneret al. 2001), or the NVO website $`<`$http://nvosdt.org$`>`$ for pointers to the U.S. initiative as well as to parallel efforts in other countries.

## 7. Summary

We are now at the verge of simulating the full history of a globular cluster on a star-by-star basis, following each star dynamically while also modeling their stellar evolution. Initially we will use 100,000 stars, and we hope to extend this number to 300,000 or more; by the end of the decade, with Petaflops computers such as the GRAPE-8, we may reach our holy grail of accurately modeling a million stars for 10 billion years, while resolving local interactions involving binaries and more complex systems on time scales of hours and days.

We expect to deliver two rather different types of results, one oriented to observations, one to theory. On the observational side, we would like to give visitors the option to look at our simulated clusters at any time and distance of their choice, through whatever instrument they like (say, in a given wave length band, using the Hubble Space Telescope, at a distance of 5 kpc when the cluster was 8 billion years old; or using Chandra, the VLA, etc.).

On the theoretical side, we can use our largest runs to provide access to other theorists who have more specific questions about particular objects. For example, if we are interested in finding out how binary pulsars are formed, through what channels and with what type of eccentricity distributions, we have no choice but to run a full simulation of a star cluster, and then to pick out the binary pulsar related events. However, this same simulation will allow others to analyse in detail what happened with the CVs in the system, the blue stragglers, as well as many other variable stars and binaries, triples, etc. So we will invite not only ‘guest observers’, but also ‘guest theorists’ who can pick their favorite objects from our simulation and compare our space-time trajectories and interactions of those objects with their own analytical and/or numerical attempts to model them in isolation. Their modeling may be more detailed but we provide a more realistic context, thus providing complementary ways to shed light on the objects of interest.

We currently have three essential ingredients in place to do these jobs: access to a super-fast computer, the GRAPE-6 running at 48 Teraflops in Tokyo; the software to run our simulations in the form of the Starlab environment; and an opportunity to visualize our results using the Hayden Planetarium dome at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. What is needed now is further software development, both within and around Starlab. Within Starlab we plan to introduce stellar evolution codes as well as hydrodynamics (SPH) codes, together with a message passing framework to connect both type of codes with each other and with the Kira code that governs the stellar dynamics. Around Starlab we plan to improve our use of partiview, the open source version of the Virtual Director software used in the Hayden dome; to create Starlab archives; to develop software for guest observers; and to establish links to virtual observatories.

I acknowledge support from the Alfred P. Sloan foundation, through a grant for research at the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History in New York.