text:
# HI Survey Science with the Canadian Large Adaptive Reflector

## 1. Introduction

The Large Adaptive Reflector (LAR) is a technical concept for a very large radio telescope that is under development in Canada for potential use for the Square Kilometre Array. A complete technical description of the LAR can be found in Dewdney (2000) and Legg (1998). A technical concept for a proposed prototype, the Canadian Large Adaptive Reflector, is under development. The CLAR would consist of a 300-metre parabolic reflector, with a feed, suspended by a balloon and controled by tethers, consisting of a phased array with 2300 elements synthesising into 150 primary beams, providing a field-of-view of 0.8 with a resolution of 2 arcmin at a frequency of 1.4 GHz. The largest fully-steerable radio telescope in the world, and endowed with a large field-of-view, the CLAR will be uniquely suited for deep spectral imaging over large areas of the sky. Figure 1 shows the mapping efficiency of existing and planned radio telescopes as a function of angular resolution, $`\theta `$. The mapping speed is presented as solid angle imaged to a sensitivity of 1 K in a 0.8 km/s channel in one hour. The plot was adapted from a plot originally created by John Dickey (private communication). While arrays, because of their distributed aperture, have a mapping speed dropping off as $`\theta ^4`$, filled-aperture telescopes follow $`\theta ^2`$ due to their higher brightness sensitivity. Multi-beam feeds arrays such as that at Parkes, and with CLAR, can provide a large field of view, despite the smaller beams (higher resolution) of larger aperture single-dish antennas. The CLAR will therefore be the fastest spectropic survey radio telescope while at the same time providing angular resolution of a few arcminutes at 1420 MHz.

## 2. CLAR Surveys

The CLAR would be operated as a wide-area survey telescope. Two distinct Surveys are planned:

* An All-Sky Northern Hemisphere Survey, conducted over a period of about 3 years, with an effective integration of 2300s per pointing (corresponding to a 3$`\sigma `$ HI mass detection limit of about 5$`\times 10^{10}`$M to z=1)
* A Deep Field Survey, over a 50 square degrees region, requiring two years, with 100 hours per pointing (down to roughly 5$`\times 10^9`$M to z=1)

Each of these surveys will be carried out with several back-ends at the same time, to acquire data simultaneously in different modes:

* 10000 spectral line channels over 700 MHz to 1400 MHz providing HI imaging from z=0 to 1 with sensitivity of 2 mK at a velocity resolution of 13 km/s.
* 1024 spectral line channels at z=0 to provide a velocity resolution of 1 km/s to map HI in the Galaxy and the Local Universe
* another feed and receiver to sample some continuum bands at $`<`$700 MHz
* a pulsar back-end.

## 3. Science Goals

We will concentrate in this section mainly on the HI science that these surveys will enable us to explore. The CLAR All-sky Northern Hemisphere survey will be more than 10 times more sensitive than what is presently underway (see details on the Jodrel Bank HIJASS survey, this volume), as well as offering better resolutions both spatially (2’ instead of 12’) and in velocity (1 km/s for the Local survey, compared to 18 km/s).

### 3.1. Probing the Galactic Halo

The Survey will trace in details the distribution and kinematics of the faint HI layer between the disk and halo of the Milky Way, revealing the physics of mass and energy transfer between the disk and halo, as well as map in details the High Velocity Clouds, and the HI in Local Group objects. At the same time the multiple continuum bands between 700 and 1400 MHz will provide an image of the total power of the continuum emission and the spatial variation of the spectral index, with a receiver allowing for extremely accurate relative photometric calibration. This would be invaluable for deconvolving the foreground emission from upcoming space missions to measure the arcminute scale structure of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (PLANCK).

### 3.2. Defining the HI Large Scale Structure

The surveys will chart the large scale distribution of galaxies in HI out to redshift close to 1, complementing and extending the Sloan Survey at optical wavelengths. All galaxy types are detected in HI, and the survey will be able to detect HI masses as low as $`10^3`$M D$`{}_{Mpc}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. Moreover the CLAR surveys will provide redshifts for galaxies biased against or even completely missed by optical surveys, like Low-Surface-Brightness galaxies (LSBs) and dwarf galaxies. For example the Sloan survey will get follow-up spectroscopy only on objects of surface brightness 24 mag/arsec2 or brigther. Below $`10^7`$M the HI mass function is very ill-defined, the slope needs to be better constrained as there might be a much larger number of low mass galaxies. For example in the nearby Sculptor Group Côté et al (1997) found that 75% of the dwarf galaxies detected in HI are below 2$`\times 10^7`$M.

Using the HI linewidths, this will also provide us with an estimate of the maximum rotation velocities of the galaxies and hence their mass, therefore tracing the dark matter content for all the disk galaxies in the sample. This will enable us to construct a galaxy mass function, of great interest to compare with cosmological scenario predictions.

The survey will also trace the HI gas between galaxies. HI arms and tidal features will be mapped in groups and clusters, tracing out the history of gravitational interactions between galaxies.

### 3.3. Detecting the Cosmic Web

Perhaps most interestingly the CLAR Surveys column density limit will be low enough to study very low column density gas in the Universe never before detected directly in emission. Spectra of QSOs reveal large numbers of Lyman $`\alpha `$ absorption lines, due to absorption by foreground condensations of gas along their line-of-sight. It is not known if this absorbing gas is related to huge diffuse HI halos of galaxies, or HI haloes of undetected LSBs or dwarf galaxies, or intragroup gas. On the other hand hydrodynamical simulations predict the existence of a Cosmic Web, a complicated network of gaseous filaments and sheets, interconnecting overdense regions where galaxies formed in the underlying dark matter potential. The CLAR All-Sky survey will detect in emission HI gas with column densities down to 1017cm-2, while the deep survey will reach 1016cm-2. This is well within the range of HI column densities of many measured Ly$`\alpha `$ lines. With the CLAR the structure of the gas giving rise to these Ly$`\alpha `$ lines and its connection to galaxies will be revealed for the first time.

### 3.4. Mapping the Reionization Epoch

If the reionization of the Universe occured at 5$`<z<`$20 then it should be detectable as a ‘step’ in the radio spectrum between 70 and 240 MHz due to redshifted HI emission. The CLAR will have the sensitivity to detect this step and, more interestingly, to map the structure of the signal on scales of 10’s of arcminutes, revealing the causes of the reionization. For example if it is caused by a large number of stars well distributed in space the step will be abrupt over the whole sky (like a phase transition of the whole universe). But if it is caused by rare quasars it will appear irregular spatially as well as appearing at different redshifts in different directions. The peak intensities of the signal should be readily detectable by the CLAR (see Tozzi et al 2000; Tozzi, this volume).

## 4. Conclusions

The CLAR HI Surveys will give us our clearest view of the HI Universe. It will map the large scale structure of galaxies, trace the cosmic web, and map the reionization epoch. The results of these Surveys would be central to the planning of the future SKA Science surveys.

## References

Côté, S., Freeman, K., Carignan, C., Quinn, P. 1997, AJ 114, 1313

Dewdney, P. 2000, ”The Large Adaptive Reflector as an Element of the SKA”, Jodrell Bank workshop

Legg, T.H. 1998, A&AS 130, 369

Tozzi, P., Madau, P., Meiksin, A., Rees, M. 2000, ApJ 528, 597


format: text

text:
# References

IMSc/2002/04/08

hep-th/0204215

Dynamical Features of Maggiore’s

Generalised Commutation Relations

S. Kalyana Rama

Institute of Mathematical Sciences, C. I. T. Campus,

Taramani, CHENNAI 600 113, India.

email: krama@imsc.ernet.in

ABSTRACT

> We study the dynamical features of Maggiore’s generalised commutation relations. We focus on their generality and, in particular, their dependence on the Hamiltonian $`H`$. We derive the generalisation of the Planck’s law for black body spectrum, study the statistical mechanics of free particles, and study the early universe evolution which now exhibits non trivial features. We find that the dynamical features, found here and in our earlier work, are all generic and vary systematically with respect to the asymptotic growth of the Hamiltonian $`H`$.

PACS numbers: 11.25.-w, 05.90.+m, 98.80.Cq, 04.70.-s

1. The generalised commutation relations (GCRs) are the generalisation of the standard Heisenberg commutation relations. Many generalisations are possible  and are currently of wide interest $``$. It is important to explore the physical consequences of the GCRs, which turn out to be interesting and non trivial. The GCRs, however, are kinematical only. The dynamics is governed by the Hamiltonian $`H`$ which, to the best of our knowledge, is not determined uniquely by any physical principle. In , we studied Maggiore’s GCRs  determined completely under certain assumptions and, considering two specific choices of $`H`$, found that these GCRs lead naturally to varying speed of light, modified dispersion relations, and reduction in the thermodynamical degrees of freedom at high temperatures, features which are all non trivial and are interesting in their own rights .

In this paper, we study further the dynamical features of Maggiore’s GCRs . Throughout in the following, we focus on the generality of these features and, in particular, their dependence on the choice of the Hamiltonian $`H`$. We derive the generalisation of the Planck’s law for black body spectrum, study the statistical mechanics of free particles with different statistics and study the early universe evolution which now exhibits non trivial features.

Since $`H`$ itself is not determined uniquely by any physical principle, we impose two physically reasonable requirements on $`H`$. We then consider a few generic choices of $`H`$ and, thereby, illustrate the dynamical features of Maggiore’s GCRs and their dependence on $`H`$. We find that the dynamical features, found here and in , are all generic and vary systematically with respect to the asymptotic growth of the Hamiltonian $`H`$.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2, we present the relevent details. In section 3, we derive the generalisation of Planck’s law for black body spectrum, and discuss a few general features which are independent of the choice of $`H`$. In section 4, we impose requirements on $`H`$, present a few generic choices, and study the dynamical features of Maggiore’s GCRs and their dependence on $`H`$. In section 5, we mention briefly the resulting consequences for the early universe evolution. In section 6, we conclude with a brief summary, mentioning a few issues for further study.

2. The standard Heisenberg commutation relations between the position operators $`X_i`$ and the momentum operators $`P_j`$, $`i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},d`$, in $`d`$dimensional space can be generalised in many ways . Maggiore has derived in  a set of generalised commutation relations (GCRs) between $`X_i`$ and $`P_j`$ for $`d=3`$, determined completely under the following assumptions: (i) The spatial rotation group and, hence, the commutators $`[J_{ij},J_{kl}]`$, $`[J_{ij},X_k]`$, and $`[J_{ij},P_k]`$ are undeformed where $`J_{ij}`$ is the angular momentum operator in the $`(i,j)`$plane. (ii) The translation group and, hence, the commutators $`[P_i,P_j]`$ are undeformed. (iii) The commutators $`[X_i,X_j]`$ and $`[X_i,P_j]`$ depend on a deformation parameter $`\lambda `$, with dimension of length, and reduce to the undeformed ones in the limit $`\lambda 0`$. Extended to the arbitrary $`d`$ case, Maggiore’s GCRs are given by

$`[X_i,X_j]`$ $`=`$ $`i\stackrel{~}{f}J_{ij},\stackrel{~}{f}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{4\pi ^2}}`$
$`[X_i,P_j]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}f\delta _{ij},f=\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{h^2}}(P^2+m^2c_0^2)}.`$ (1)
The functions $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`f`$, and thus the GCRs, are determined completely upto the sign of the $`\lambda ^2`$-term, chosen to be positive here. 111Choosing the negative sign implies an upper bound on (the eigenvalues of) $`P`$, whose physical significance is not clear to us. In the above equations, $`m`$ is the particle mass, $`h=2\pi \mathrm{}`$ is the Planck’s constant, and $`c_03\times 10^8m/sec`$ is the standard speed of light in vacuum. In the following, we set $`\mathrm{}=c_0=1`$ unless indicated otherwise.

The non vanishing commutator $`[X_i,X_j]`$ implies the non commutativity of space which shows up at length scales of $`𝒪(\lambda )`$ or smaller . Other generalisations with different properties are also possible. Typically, they contain one or more arbitrary function(s). For example, in Kempf’s generalisation , the commutator $`[X_i,X_j]`$ vanishes and, thus, space is commutative. This is achieved by adding a term $`F(P^2)P_iP_j`$ to $`\delta _{ij}f(P^2)`$ in equation (1) with $`F`$ and $`f`$ constrained to satisfy a relation , thus leaving one function arbitrary. In the following, we consider Maggiore’s generalisation only where the GCRs are determined completely.

The energy and momentum scales set by $`\lambda `$, and assumed to be much larger than those set by $`m`$, are given by

$$E_{}=p_{}c_0=\frac{hc_0}{\lambda }mc_0^2.$$
(2)
The low energy, low temperature limit and the high energy, high temperature limit are then given by

$`EE_{}pp_{}\beta \lambda `$ (3)
$`EE_{}pp_{}\beta \lambda `$ (4)
where $`\beta =T^1`$ is the inverse temperature. Note that the limit $`\lambda 0`$ is equivalent to the low energy limit (3).

The GCRs (1) are kinematical only. The dynamics is governed by the Hamiltonian $`H`$. Once $`H`$ is specified, the velocity operator $`V_i`$ for a particle, given by

$$V_i=\frac{dX_i}{dt}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[H,X_i],$$
(5)
can be calculated. We assume rotational invariance. Hence, $`H`$ is a function of $`P^2`$ or equivalently $`\sqrt{P^2+m^2}`$. For free particles, $`H`$ is independent of $`X_i`$ also. The speed $`v`$ for free particles is then given by

$$v(E)=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}v_i^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{pfE^{}}{\sqrt{p^2+m^2}}$$
(6)
where $`v_i`$, $`p`$, and the energy $`E`$ are the eigenvalues of the operators $`V_i`$, $`P`$, and the Hamiltonian $`H`$ respectively, and $`E^{}`$ is the derivative of $`E`$ with respect to $`\sqrt{p^2+m^2}`$. The speed of light, denoted by $`c_\lambda (E)`$, can be identified naturally with the speed of a particle with mass $`m=0`$. Equation (6) then gives

$$c_\lambda (E)=fE^{}\mathrm{and}v(E)c_\lambda (E).$$
(7)
Once $`H(P)`$, equivalently $`E(p)`$, is specified, the statistical mechanics of a system of free particles in a $`d`$-dimensional volume $`V`$ obeying the GCRs (1) can also be studied . Various thermodynamical quantities, calculable easily in the grand canonical ensemble approach, are given by standard expressions . For example, we have, in standard notation,

$`\beta F`$ $`=`$ $`\beta 𝒫V=ln𝒵={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑Eg(E)ln(1+ae^{\beta (E\mu )})`$
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ln𝒵}{\beta }}`$ (8)
where $`a=1,0`$, or $`+1`$ if the particles obey, respectively, Bose-Einstein, Maxwell-Boltzmann, or Fermi-Dirac statistics, $`F`$ is the free energy, $`𝒫`$ is the pressure, $`U`$ is the internal energy, etc.

The measure $`g(E)`$ in equation (8) describes the one-particle density of states. In the present case where the free particles obey the GCRs (1), $`g(E)`$ is calculated easily  and can be written as

$$g(E)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}V}{h}\left(\frac{p}{hf}\right)^{d1}\frac{1}{v(E)}$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ is the area of a unit $`n`$dimensional sphere and $`v(E)`$ is given by (6).

3. We now derive the generalisation of the Planck’s law for spectral radiation density of a perfect black body in thermal equilibrium at temperature $`T=\beta ^1`$. Let $`R(\omega ,T)=\frac{d^3N}{dAdtd\omega }`$ and $`Q(\omega ,T)=\mathrm{}\omega R(\omega ,T)`$ be, respectively, the number of photons and radiative energy per unit area per unit time per unit frequency interval at frequency $`\omega `$, as observed through a small hole of area $`A`$ in the wall of a cavity containing the photons in thermal equilibrium. It then follows from a standard derivation  that

$$Q(\omega ,T)=\mathrm{}\omega c_\lambda (E)\left(\frac{g_s\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}g(E)}{V(e^{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }1)}\right)$$
(10)
where $`E=\mathrm{}\omega `$, $`g_s=(d1)`$ is the number of polarisation degrees of freedom for the photons, and $`g(E)`$ is given by equation (9) with $`m=0`$. In the expression (10) for $`Q(\omega ,T)`$, the $`c_\lambda (E)`$ factor arises from the speed of photons coming out of the hole of the cavity, the factors in the first parenthesis from kinematics, and those in the second parenthesis from the average number density of photons at energy $`E`$ inside the cavity. Note that the explicit $`c_\lambda (E)`$ factor in (10) is cancelled by the $`c_\lambda (E)`$ factor coming from $`g(E)`$. Hence, using equation (9) only, with $`m=0`$, we obtain

$$Q(\omega ,T)=\frac{g_s\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}}{4\pi }\left(\frac{p}{hf}\right)^{d1}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{(e^{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }1)}.$$
(11)
Equation (11) is the generalisation of Planck’s law for the black body spectrum when the system obeys the GCRs (1).

We now discuss a few general features of $`c_\lambda (E)`$, $`g(E)`$, and $`Q(\omega ,T)`$.

* Consider the low energy limit (3). We require

$$E(p)\sqrt{p^2c_0^2+m^2c_0^4}\mathrm{as}\lambda 0.$$
(12)
so as to be consistent with the known results in this limit. In this limit, $`f1`$, and $`g(E)`$ and $`Q(\omega ,T)`$ reduce to the standard expressions as in the $`\lambda =0`$ case. For example, for $`d=3`$, we have

$$Q(\omega ,T)\frac{1}{4\pi ^2c_0^2}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega ^3}{(e^{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }1)}$$
(13)
which is the standard Planck’s law . Now, $`c_\lambda (E)`$ is given in this limit by

$$c_\lambda (E)=1+a_1\lambda ^2E^2+𝒪(\lambda ^4E^4)$$
(14)
where the constant $`a_1`$ depends on the choice of $`E(p)`$ but is, generically, of $`𝒪(1)`$. Equation (14) leads to a bound on $`\lambda `$. For example, upon using the result for the $`\gamma `$ray velocity , we obtain

$$\lambda ^1>𝒪(30GeV).$$
(15)
This bound can likely be improved further perhaps by analyses similar to those of . Such a study, however, is beyond the scope of the present paper and will not be pursued here.
* Consider the high energy limit (4). It then follows easily, upon using equation (2), that $`g(E)g_{}(E)`$ and $`Q(\omega ,T)Q_{}(\omega ,T)`$ where

$`g_{}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}V}{h\lambda ^{d1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_\lambda (E)}}`$ (16)
$`Q_{}(\omega ,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}}{4\pi \lambda ^{d1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{(e^{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }1)}}.`$ (17)
The limiting forms $`g_{}(E)`$ and $`Q_{}(\omega ,T)`$ are, upto numerical factors, independent of the number of spatial dimensions $`d`$. The speed of light $`c_\lambda (E)`$ and, hence, $`g_{}(E)`$ depend on the choice of $`E(p)`$. The limiting form of the black body spectrum $`Q_{}(\omega ,T)`$, however, is independent of the choice of $`E(p)`$ also. Moreover, upto numerical factors, it is formally same as the standard black body spectrum but with $`d=1`$.

4. To proceed further, $`p`$ and $`f`$ in equations (6), (7), and (9) are to be expressed in terms of the energy $`E`$. This requires knowing the Hamiltonian $`H(P)`$ or, equivalently, the energy $`E(p)`$ explicitly. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no physical principle that determines the energy $`E(p)`$ uniquely in the present context. In the absence of such a principle, we impose the conditions that the energy $`E(p)`$ satisfy (12), and that

$$E(p)\mathrm{}\mathrm{as}p\mathrm{}.$$
(18)
These requirements are physically reasonable but are insufficient to determine $`E(p)`$ uniquely. Nevertheless, it turns out that the general dynamical features of the GCRs (1) and their dependence on $`E(p)`$ can be illustrated by studying a few generic choices of $`E(p)`$ satisfying (12) and (18).

The effects of the GCRs (1) in the low energy, low temperature limit (3) will be negligible since, by construction, $`E(p)`$ satisfies (12). Therefore, throughout in the following, we consider the high energy high temperature limit (4) only where the dynamical features of the GCRs (1) can be seen clearly, and study them for three generic choices of $`E(p)`$ which satisfy (18).

It turns out that the leading terms of various quantities upto numerical factors are sufficient to illustrate the dynamical features. Hence, in the following, we calculate the leading terms upto numerical factors only, and present them in a tabular form indicating the choices of $`E(p)`$ as 1, 2, and 3. For the sake of comparison, we present the results for the standard case also, i.e. for the $`\lambda =0`$, $`f=1`$ case, in the high energy high temperature limit where $`Ep`$. We indicate this case as 0.

The three generic choices of $`E(p)`$ we consider and the corresponding $`c_\lambda (E)`$ are given in Table I. Note that $`g(E)g_{}(E)c_\lambda ^1`$, see equation (16).

|  | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`E`$ | $`p`$ | $`\lambda ^1(ln\lambda p)^n`$ | $`\lambda ^1(\lambda p)^n`$ | $`\lambda ^1e^{\lambda p}`$ |
| $`c_\lambda (E)`$ | $`1`$ | $`n(\lambda E)^{\frac{n1}{n}}`$ | $`n(\lambda E)`$ | $`\lambda Eln(\lambda E)`$ |

Table I: Choices of $`E(p)`$ and the corresponding $`c_\lambda (E)`$. $`n>0`$.

The above choices of $`E(p)`$ indicate a few generic ways in which the requirement (18) can be satisfied. Some of these choices may perhaps have a natural origin. For example, the choice 1 with $`n=1`$ can be obtained from the first Casimir operator ; the choice 2 with $`n=1`$ can be obtained by simply assuming that the standard Hamiltonian remains valid when $`\lambda 0`$ also ; the choice 2 with an integer $`n>1`$ may perhaps be thought of as arising from higher derivative terms in an effective action. A detailed analysis of naturalness and origins of $`E(p)`$ is, however, beyond the scope of the present letter. The choices of $`E(p)`$ in Table I are chosen mainly to illustrate the general dynamical features of the GCRs (1) and their dependence on $`E(p)`$.

The following general features of $`c_\lambda (E)`$ can be seen clearly from Table I:

* Faster the asymptotic growth of $`E(p)`$, larger is the speed of light $`c_\lambda (E)`$ and, hence, smaller is $`g_{}(E)`$.
* In units where $`c_0=1`$, $`c_\lambda (E)1`$ for the choice 1 with $`n<1`$; $`c_\lambda (E)=1`$ for the choice 1 with $`n=1`$; and $`c_\lambda (E)1`$ for the choice 1 with $`n>1`$, and for the choices 2 and 3. The physical implications of $`c_\lambda (E)1`$ and its energy dependences are discussed in .

Consider now various thermodynamical quantities given in equations (8). Their behaviour in the low temperature limit (3), namely in the limit $`\beta \lambda `$, is unaffected since $`E(p)`$ is required to satisfy equation (12). Therefore, we study the high temperature limit (4), namely the limit $`\beta \lambda `$, only. With no loss of generality, we set $`m=0`$ and, hence, $`\mu =0`$ in equations (8) and study the $`a=1`$ and $`a=0`$ cases i.e., cases where the particles obey Bose-Einstein and Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics respectively. The results for $`a=1`$ case are formally similar to those for $`a=0`$ case in this limit.

In general, explicit evaluation of the partition function $`ln𝒵`$ is difficult, if possible at all. However, in the limit $`\beta \lambda `$, the leading order behaviour of $`ln𝒵`$ can be obtained easily upto numerical factors, which suffices for our purposes. The method we follow is to split the integral in (8) as follows:222 We thank J. Magueijo for a helpful correspondence on this point.

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E()=_0^{\lambda ^1}𝑑E()+_{\lambda ^1}^{\beta ^1}𝑑E()+_{\beta ^1}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E().$$

We then obtain, upto numerical factors, the $`\beta `$ dependence of each term and, in the limit $`\beta \lambda `$, use the leading order contribution to calculate the quantities of interest, namely $`\beta F`$ and $`\beta U`$, given in equations (8).

The calculations involved are straightforward and are not particularly illuminating. Hence, we omit the details and present only the results. The results for $`\beta F`$ and $`\beta U`$ are presented in Table II for the $`a=1`$ case and in Table III for the $`a=0`$ case, where $`𝒞_0\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}V}{h}`$ and $`𝒞\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}V}{h\lambda ^d}`$.

|  | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`E`$ | $`p`$ | $`\lambda ^1(ln\lambda p)^n`$ | $`\lambda ^1(\lambda p)^n`$ | $`\lambda ^1e^{\lambda p}`$ |
| $`\beta F`$ | $`𝒞_0\left(\frac{1}{\beta }\right)^d`$ | $`𝒞\left(\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}`$ | $`𝒞\left(ln\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\right)^2`$ | $`𝒞\left(ln\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\right)ln\left(ln\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\right)`$ |
| $`\beta U`$ | $`d𝒞_0\left(\frac{1}{\beta }\right)^d`$ | $`\frac{𝒞}{n}\left(\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}`$ | $`𝒞\left(ln\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\right)`$ | $`𝒞ln\left(ln\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\right)`$ |

Table II: $`\beta F`$ and $`\beta U`$ for the $`a=1`$ case.

|  | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`E`$ | $`p`$ | $`\lambda ^1(ln\lambda p)^n`$ | $`\lambda ^1(\lambda p)^n`$ | $`\lambda ^1e^{\lambda p}`$ |
| $`\beta F`$ | $`𝒞_0\left(\frac{1}{\beta }\right)^d`$ | $`𝒞\left(\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}`$ | $`𝒞\left(ln\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\right)`$ | $`𝒞ln\left(ln\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\right)`$ |
| $`\beta U`$ | $`d𝒞_0\left(\frac{1}{\beta }\right)^d`$ | $`\frac{𝒞}{n}\left(\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}`$ | $`𝒞`$ | $`\frac{𝒞}{\left(ln\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\right)}`$ |

Table III: $`\beta F`$ and $`\beta U`$ for the $`a=0`$ case.

The temperature dependence of $`\beta F`$ indicates the effective thermodynamical degrees of freedom (d.o.f) in the system, see  for example. The following general features can then be seen clearly from Tables II and III:

* Faster the asymptotic growth of $`E(p)`$, larger is the reduction in the d.o.f.
* The d.o.f in the case of choice 1 are formally equivalent to that of the standard case but with an effective dimension $`d_{eff}=\frac{1}{n}`$.
* Compared to the standard case, the d.o.f are reduced in the case of choices 2 and 3, and in the case of choice 1 with $`n>\frac{1}{d}`$, whereas they are increased in the case of choice 1 with $`n<\frac{1}{d}`$.
* The reduction in the d.o.f in the case of choice 1 with $`n=1`$ is of the type found in the case of strings at temperatures much higher than the Hagedorn temperature (if $`\lambda String`$ $`length`$) .
* The reduction in the d.o.f in the $`a=0`$ case for the choice 2 with any $`n`$ is of the type found in a lattice theory with a finite number of bose oscillators at each site , or in certain topological field theories  with general coordinate invariance restored at short distances . It will be of interest to investigate whether the types of reduction in the d.o.f seen in the remaining cases also arise in other contexts.
* Let $`w=\frac{𝒫}{\rho }`$, where $`\rho =\frac{U}{V}`$ is the energy density. For perfect fluids in the standard case, $`w`$ is constant and must be $`<1`$ since the speed of sound $`v_s<1`$ in units where $`c_0=1`$. In the present case, $`w`$ can be $`>1`$, see Tables II and III. It can then be checked easily that $`v_s`$ can also be $`>1`$ but remains $`<c_\lambda `$ always.

5. High temperatures where $`\beta \lambda `$ arise naturally in the early universe, dominated by radiation for which $`a=1`$ and which we assume obeys the GCRs (1). We mention briefly the resulting consequences for the early universe evolution, assumed to be determined by the standard equations with radiation pressure $`𝒫`$ and its energy density $`\rho =\frac{U}{V}`$ given in Table II in the limit $`\beta \lambda `$. See  for similar studies.

The relevent line element is given by $`ds^2=c_\lambda ^2dt^2+A^2(t)_{i=1}^ddX^idX^i`$. The comoving horizon radius $`r_h`$ at time $`t_0>0`$ is given by $`r_h=_{t0}^{t_0}𝑑t\left(\frac{c_\lambda }{A}\right)`$ where $`t=0`$ is the time of big bang singularity. Taking the temperature $`T`$ to be the independent variable and using the results given in Tables I and II, it is straightforward to calculate $`t`$, $`A`$, and $`r_h`$ to the leading order in the limit $`\beta \lambda `$. The results for $`t`$, $`A`$, and $`r_h`$ are presented in Table IV, where $`K\left(1\frac{2}{d(n+1)}\frac{2(n1)}{n}\right)`$.

|  | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`E`$ | $`p`$ | $`\lambda ^1(ln\lambda p)^n`$ | $`\lambda ^1(\lambda p)^n`$ | $`\lambda ^1e^{\lambda p}`$ |
| $`\lambda t`$ | $`(\lambda T)^{\frac{d+1}{2}}`$ | $`(\lambda T)^{\frac{n+1}{2n}}`$ | $`\frac{(\lambda T)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(ln\lambda T)^{\frac{3}{2}}}`$ | $`\frac{(\lambda Tln(ln\lambda T))^{\frac{1}{2}}}{ln\lambda T}`$ |
| $`A`$ | $`(\lambda T)^1`$ | $`(\lambda T)^{\frac{1}{nd}}`$ | $`(ln\lambda T)^{\frac{1}{d}}`$ | $`(ln\lambda T)^{\frac{1}{d}}`$ |
| $`\frac{r_h}{\lambda }`$ | $`(\lambda T)^{\frac{d1}{2}}`$ | $`(\lambda T)^{\left(\frac{n+1}{2n}\right)K}`$ | $`\frac{(\lambda T)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(ln\lambda T)^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{d}}}`$ | $`\frac{(\lambda Tln(ln\lambda T))^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(ln\lambda T)^{\frac{1}{d}}}`$ |

Table IV: $`t(T)`$, $`A(T)`$, and $`r_h(T)`$ for the early universe.

The following general features can be seen clearly from Table IV:

* In all the cases, $`T\mathrm{}`$ and $`A0`$ in the limit $`t0`$. The curvature invariants diverge at $`t=0`$, resulting in a big bang singularity.
* For the choice 1 with $`n>\frac{1}{d}`$, and for the choices 2 and 3, $`A(t)0`$ more slowly than in the standard case.
* Let $`T\mathrm{}`$. Then, for the choices 2 and 3, $`r_h\mathrm{}`$. This is true for the choice 1 also if $`K<0`$, equivalently if $`n>n_{}`$ where $`n_{}=\frac{d2+\sqrt{(d2)^2+8d^2}}{2d}`$. Note that $`1n_{}2`$ for $`1d\mathrm{}`$. Hence, $`r_h\mathrm{}`$ for the choice 1 also if $`n2`$. It can then be inferred from table I that $`r_h\mathrm{}`$ if $`c_\lambda (E)`$ grows atleast as fast as $`\sqrt{\lambda E}`$ in the limit $`\lambda E1`$.

Note that $`r_h`$ is finite for the choice 1 with $`1<n<n_{}`$ despite the speed of light $`c_\lambda (E)`$ increasing with energy, see Table I. This implies that $`c_\lambda `$ increasing with energy alone is not sufficient to cause $`r_h`$ to diverge but the scale factor $`A`$ must also vanish at a sufficiently slow pace. Thereby, photons with speed $`c_\lambda (E)1`$, whose number is non negligible as can be seen from the black body spectrum (17), have sufficient time to establish causal contact within the horizon $`r_h`$ before encountering the big bang singularity.

6. We have studied the dynamical fetaures of the GCRs (1) and their dependence on the energy $`E(p)`$ by considering three generic choices of $`E(p)`$. The dynamical features can be seen clearly in the high energy high temperature limit (4), and are summarised briefly as follows. In the limit (4):

* The dynamical quantities are, upto numerical factors, independent of the number of spatial dimensions $`d`$.
* The black body spectrum approaches the limiting form (17), which is independent of the choice of $`E(p)`$ also.
* Generically, the speed of light depends on energy and it is larger, faster the asymptotic growth of $`E(p)`$; the one particle density of states is correspondingly smaller.
* The thermodynamical relations are highly modified. The effective thermodynamical degrees of freedom depend on energy, and their reduction is larger, faster the asymptotic growth of $`E(p)`$.
* In the early universe, the scale factor evolves more slowly; the horizon size $`r_h`$ increases faster, faster the asymptotic growth of $`E(p)`$ and, generically, $`r_h\mathrm{}`$.

In view of the results presented here, we believe that further detailed studies of the GCRs (1), and those in , will be fruitful. It is of interest to study, in particular, if and how the standard Lorentz invariance is modified in the presence of the GCRs. Such a modification, if found, is likely to determine the Hamiltonian uniquely. It is also likely to suggest a general coordinate invariant formulation of the GCRs (1), which can then be used to study rigorously the implications for cosmology and black hole physics.

Acknowledgement: We thank J. Magueijo for a helpful correspondence.


text:
# Magic Number 7±2 in Globally Coupled Dynamical Systems?

## Abstract

The prevalence of Milnor attractors has recently been reported in a class of high-dimensional dynamical systems. We study how this prevalence depends on the number of degrees of freedom by using a globally coupled map and show that the basin fraction of Milnor attractors increases drastically around 5-10 degrees of freedom, saturating for higher numbers of degrees of freedom. It is argued that this dominance of Milnor attractors in the basin arises from a combinatorial explosion of the basin boundaries. In addition, the dominance is also found in a system without permutation symmetry, i,e., a coupled dynamical system of non-identical elements. Possible relevance to the magic number $`7\pm 2`$ in psychology is discussed.

In recent studies of dynamical systems with many degrees of freedom, the prevalence of Milnor attractors has been recognizedKK-Milnor ; pulse . The Milnor attractors are defined as follows: an arbitrary small perturbation to an orbit at a Milnor attractor can kick the orbit away from it to a different attractor, even though a finite measure of initial conditions is attracted to the attractor by temporal evolutionMilnor ; Ashwin ; riddled . In other words, the basin of the attractor touches the attractor itself somewhere. An orbit is often attracted to a Milnor attractor, but can be kicked away from it by infinitesimal perturbation.

It should be noted that Milnor attractors can exist in low dimensional dynamical systems like a two-dimensional map as well. When changing the parameter of a dynamical system, the basin boundary of an attractor may move until, for a specific value of the parameter, the basin boundary touches the attractor. If, for this parameter value, the attractor has a positive measure of initial conditions forming the basin of attraction, it becomes a Milnor attractor. It is naively expected that the above situation occurs only for very specific parameter values (e.g., at a bifurcation point), and that the Milnor attractors may not exist for an open set of parameter values.

In recent studies of a class of dynamical systems, however, Milnor attractors are found to be sometime prevalent, occurring not only for specific isolated parameter values, but for continuous ranges of parameter values. Furthermore, the measure of the initial conditions that belong to the basin of these Milnor attractors is a relatively large proportion of the phase space. Indeed, for some parameter ranges, almost all randomly chosen initial conditions fall onto Milnor attractorsKK-Milnor ; pulse .

Such dominance of Milnor attractors is often found in high-dimensional dynamical systems, for example. globally coupled maps with 10 degrees of freedom or so, and within a range of parameter values where many attractors coexist. The question we address in the present Letter is why can there be so many Milnor attractors in a “high-dimensional” dynamical system, and how many elements are sufficient for constituting such ‘high’ dimensionality. With the help of numerical results obtained from simulations of globally coupled maps, we will show that the dominance starts to be common at $`510`$ degrees of freedom. We propose a possible origin for this dominance of Milnor attractors, by noting a combinatorial explosion of saddle points (or more generally basin boundary points). We will also show that the prevalence of Milnor attractors is observed even in a system without symmetry, i.e., in a coupled dynamical system of non-identical elements. Finally we briefly discuss the possible relevance of our results to the magic number $`7\pm 2`$ discussed in psychology.

As a prototype example to study this problem we use a globally coupled mapKK-GCM

$$x_{n+1}(i)=(1ϵ)f(x_n(i))+\frac{ϵ}{N}\underset{j}{}f(x_n(j)),$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is the discrete time and $`i`$ the index for its elements ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ = dimension of the system). For the elements we choose $`f(x)=1ax^2`$, since the model has thoroughly been investigated as a prototype model for high-dimensional dynamical systems. The coupling parameter $`ϵ`$ is fixed at 0.1, since for this value the typical behaviors of the above GCM that are relevant here can be observed by changing only $`a`$.

In the present model, each attractor can be coded by the so-called clustering condition, that is to say, by the way how the $`N`$ elements of the system partition into mutually synchronized clusters, i.e., a set of elements in which $`x_n(i)=x_n(j)`$ KK-GCM . Each attractor is coded by the number of clusters $`k`$ and the number of elements $`N_k`$ in each cluster with the clustering condition given by $`(N_1,N_2,\mathrm{},N_k)`$rem-band . Indeed, for a GCM with $`N=10`$KK-Milnor , that many initial conditions are attracted to a Milnor attractor. Here, in order to discuss the dependence of the size of the basin fraction of the Milnor attractors on the number of degrees of freedom, we have computed the ratio of initial conditions that are attracted to Milnor attractors.

As shown in Fig.1, the basin fraction of Milnor attractors is large around $`a1.65`$, especially for $`N5`$. Its parameter dependence, however, is quite strongly dependent on $`N`$, at least when $`N`$ is not so large. Hence, it is not that relevant to compare the behaviors for different $`N`$ at a given value of $`a`$. Instead, we compute the average basin fraction of Milnor attractors over the parameter interval $`1.55<a<1.72`$. In Fig.2, this average is plotted as a function of the number of degrees of freedom $`N`$. The increase of the average basin fraction of Milnor attractors with $`N`$ is clearly visible for $`N(510)`$, while it levels off for $`N>10`$Rem .

Now we discuss how the dominance of Milnor attractors appears. In a system with identical elements, due to the symmetry, there are at least $`M(N_1,\mathrm{},N_k)=\frac{N!}{_{i=1}^kN_i!}_{\mathrm{oversetsof}N_i=N_j}\frac{1}{m_{\mathrm{}}!}`$ attractors for each clustering condition, where $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the number of clusters with the same value $`N_j`$KK-Milnor . Then, combinatorial increase in the number of attractors can be expected when many of the clustering conditions are allowed as attractors. However, the increase of the number of attractors cannot explain the increase of the basin for Milnor attractors. In Fig.3. we have plotted the number of attractors and the basin fraction of Milnor attractors for $`N=10`$. As can clearly be seen, the dominance of the Milnor attractors is not necessarily observed when the number of attractors is high. Rather, the fraction of Milnor attractors gets large even when many attractors start to disappear with the increase of $`a`$.

For the parameter region where many attractors start to disappear, there remain basin boundary points separating such (collapsed) attractors and the remaining attractors. To explain the prevalence of Milnor attractors, we discuss how the distance between an attractor and its basin boundary changes with $`N`$. Consider an interval having one basin boundary for $`x_1>x^{}`$ and $`x_1<x^{}`$ separating two attractors. If an $`N`$-dimensional phase space is partitioned by (basin) boundaries at $`x_i=x^{}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{}N`$, it is partitioned into $`2^N`$ units. In this case, the distance between each attractor and the basin boundary does not change with $`N`$.

On the other hand, consider a boundary given by some condition for $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$. In the present system with global (all-to-all) couplings, many of permutational change of $`x_i`$ in the condition give also basin boundaries. Here the condition for the basin is typically related with some attractor (or a ruin of collapsed attractor) that has clustering $`(N_1,\mathrm{},N_k)`$. Then there are $`M(N_1,\mathrm{},N_k)`$ partitions by boundaries equivalent by permutations. The number of regions partitioned by the boundaries increases combinatorially with $`N`$. Roughly speaking, it increases in the order of $`(N1)!`$, when the boundary has a variety of clusterings (i.e., large $`M`$). Recalling that the distance between an attractor and the basin boundary remain at the same order for the partition of the order of $`2^N`$, the distance should decrease if $`(N1)!`$ is larger than $`2^N`$. Since the former increases remarkably faster for $`N>5`$ than the latter, the distance should decrease drastically for $`N>5`$. Since this argument is applied for any basin boundary condition with a complex clustering having combinatorially large $`M(N_1,\mathrm{},N_k)`$, the distance between an attractor and such basin boundary may often go drastically small. For a certain parameter regime ( $`1.64<a<1.68`$ in the present case), basin boundaries with such partitions are dominant, and the above argument is applied to most attractors. Although this explanation may be rather rough, it gives a hint to why Milnor attractors are so dominant when $`N`$ is larger than $`510`$.

Since the above discussion is based mainly on simple combinatorial arguments, what we need is instability in orbits leading to many attractors, and global (all-to-all) coupling to allow for permutations of elements. Then, the dominance of Milnor attractors for $`N\stackrel{>}{}(510)`$ may be rather common in globally coupled dynamical systems. To check this possibility, we have also made numerical simulations for Josephson junction series arrays that are globally coupled through a resistive shunting load and driven by an rf bias currentJJ , given by $`\ddot{\varphi _j}+g\dot{\varphi _j}+sin\varphi _j+g\sigma /N_{m=1}^N\dot{\varphi _m}=i_{dc}+i_{rf}sin(\mathrm{\Omega }_rft).`$ By using the parameter values adopted in JJ , we have computed the basin volumes for Milnor attractors, at the partially ordered phase where a variety of attractors with many clusters coexists. Again, the basin volumes are close to 0 for $`N4`$, and increase at $`5<N<10`$, It is also interesting that pulse-coupled oscillators with global coupling also show the prevalence of Milnor attractors for $`N5`$ pulse .

So far reports on the prevalence of Milnor attractors have been limited to a system with symmetry. For example, in the GCM (1), the permutation symmetry arising from employing identical elements leads to a combinatorial explosion in the number of attractors as mentioned. Then, one may wonder whether the prevalence of Milnor attractors is possible only for such highly symmetric systems, especially because some Milnor attractors are known to disappear when introducing tiny asymmetriesOtt . We have therefore studied a GCM with inhomogeneous parametershetero , given by $`x_{n+1}(i)=(1ϵ)f_i(x_n(i))+\frac{ϵ}{N}_jf_j(x_n(j)).`$ with $`f_i(x)=1a_ix^2`$, and $`a_i=a_0+a_w\frac{i1}{N1}`$.

In Fig.4, we have plotted the basin fraction for Milnor attractors with the change of the parameter $`a_0`$ while fixing $`a_w=0.1`$, for $`N=3,4,\mathrm{},10`$. Although the fraction is smaller than in the homogeneous case, Milnor attractors are again observed and found to dominate the basin volume for some parameter region. As in the symmetric case, the basin fraction of Milnor attractors increases around $`N(510)`$.

Note that even though complete synchronization between two elements is lost, clusterings as with regards to the phase relationships can existPikovsky . For example, there are two groups when considering the oscillations of phases as large-small-large… and small-large-small…, that are preserved in time for many attractors. Similarly, it is natural to expect an explosion in the number of the basin boundaries for some parameter regime. Accordingly the argument on the dominance of Milnor attractors for a homogeneous GCM can be applied here to some degree as well.

The term magic number $`7\pm 2`$ was originally coined in psychology Miller , when it was found that the number of chunks (items) that is memorized in short term memory is limited to $`7\pm 2`$. (See TsudaNicolis  for a pioneering study to relate this number with chaos.) To memorize $`k`$ chunks of information including their order (e.g., a phone number of $`k`$ digits) within a dynamical system, let us assign each memorized state to an attractor of a $`k`$-dimensional dynamical system, as is generally adopted in neural network studies. In this $`k`$ dimensional phase space, a combinatorial variety of attractors has to be presumed in order to assure a sufficient variety of memories. Depending on the initial condition (given by inputs), an orbit has to be separated to different attractors. Then, a combinatorial explosion of basin boundaries is generally expected with the increase of $`k`$, if the neural dynamics in concern are globally coupled (as often adopted in neural networks). Then, following the argument in the present paper, Milnor attractors may be dominant for $`k>(510)`$. (Recall that the number does not strongly depend on the choice of models, since it is given by the combinatorial argument.) Since the state represented by a Milnor attractor is kicked out by tiny perturbations, robust memory may not be possible for information that contains more than $`7\pm 2`$rem3  chunks. Although this explanation is a rough sketch, it can possibly be applied to other systems that adopt attractors as memoryrem5 .

In dynamical systems, it is well known that the dimensional cutoff $`3`$ plays an important role for the existence of chaos. It is interesting then to investigate whether there are certain higher dimensions that similarly form dimensional boundaries beyond which the behavior of a dynamical system changes qualitatively. The present study may shed new light on this possibility. Also, it is interesting to note that in Hamiltonian dynamical systems, agreement with thermodynamic behavior is often observed only for degrees of freedom higher than $`510`$Sasa . Considering the combinatorial complexity woven by all the possible Arnold webs (that hence may be termed “Arnold spaghetti”), the entire phase space volume that expands only exponentially with the number of degrees of freedom may be covered by webs, resulting in uniformly chaotic behavior. If this argument holds, the degrees of freedom required for thermodynamic behavior can also be discussed along the line of the present Letter.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank F. Willeboordse for critical reading of the manuscript. This work is partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture of Japan.


text:
# Structure of Possible Long-lived Asteroid Belts

## 1 Introduction

The most abundant minor bodies of the Solar system are the asteroids whose Main Belt extends between 2 and 3.5 au. The asteroids are remnant planetesimals. It has often been suggested that the Main Belt is perhaps the only zone in the Solar System where planetesimals can survive in long-lived orbits for ages of the order of 4.5 Gyrs (e.g., Chapman 1987; Laskar 1997). Recently, however, Holman (1997) uncovered evidence for a possible belt between Uranus and Neptune by 4.5 Gyr integrations of test particles in the gravity field of the Sun and the four massive planets. Mikkola & Innanen (1995) performed a 3 Myr test particle calculation in the inner Solar system which suggested the existence of narrow bands of stability between each of the terrestrial planets. Subsequently, Evans & Tabachnik (1999) reported the results of 100 Myr test particle calculations. Extrapolating the results to the age of the Solar system, they conjectured that there might be two long-lived belts of stable asteroids in the inner Solar system. These are the domain of the Vulcanoids between 0.09 and 0.20 astronomical units (au) and the Earth-Mars belt between 1.08 and 1.28 au respectively.

In this Letter, we report results on the structure of the belts inferred from high resolution numerical simulations. The general procedure is similar to many recent studies on the stability of test particles in the Solar system. At semimajor axes separated by 0.002 au in each of the two belts, five test particles are launched on initially circular orbits in the ecliptic with starting longitudes $`n\times 72^{}`$ with $`n=0,\mathrm{},4`$. The test particles are perturbed by the Sun and planets, but do not themselves exert any gravitational forces. The full effects of all the planets (except Pluto) are included. The initial positions and velocities of the planets, as well as their masses, come from the JPL Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE405 and the starting epoch is JD 2440400.5 (28 June 1969). After each timestep, the test particles are examined. If their orbits have become hyperbolic, or if they have entered the sphere of influence of any planet or if they have approached closer than ten solar radii to the Sun, then they are removed. The simulations are run for 100 Myr. The calculations for the 300 Vulcanoid test particles are performed in long double precision to minimise round-off error. The 500 test particles in the Earth-Mars belt are simulated using double precision on the Oxford Supercomputer. Even using a fast symplectic integrator with individual timesteps (Saha & Tremaine 1994), the calculations still consumed several months.

## 2 The Vulcanoids

The Vulcanoids are a population of intra-Mercurial bodies originally proposed by Weidenschilling (1978) to resolve seeming contradictions in the geological and cratering history of Mercury. The inner edge of the Vulcanoid belt is $`0.09`$ au. Small bodies closer than this to the Sun are removed as a consequence of both Poynting-Robertson drag and the Yarkovsky effect (e.g., Vokroulický, Farinella & Bottke 2000). Evans & Tabachnik (1999) argued that the outer edge is $`0.20`$ au. Small bodies closer than this to Mercury evolve swiftly into the planet’s sphere of influence. The robustness of orbits in the Vulcanoid belt stems from the fact that there is only one bounding planet and so it is analogous to the stability of the Kuiper-Edgeworth belt. Even after 100 Myr, some $`80\%`$ of the Vulcanoid orbits still have eccentricities $`e<0.2`$ and inclinations $`i<10^{}`$ in our high resolution simulation. The two lower panels of Figure 1 illustrate the eccentricities and inclinations of the surviving test particles at the end of the integration. In the interval $`0.09a_{\mathrm{tp}}0.20`$, the averaged values for the eccentricity are $`e_{\mathrm{inst}}=0.0935`$ and $`e_{\mathrm{max}}=0.15`$ and for the inclination $`i_{\mathrm{inst}}=1.21^{}`$ and $`i_{\mathrm{max}}=5.36^{}`$, the subscripts referring to the instantaneous and maximum quantities respectively. The upper panel indicates the location of the mean motion resonances, which occur when the orbital period of one planet $`n_\mathrm{p}a_\mathrm{p}^{3/2}`$ and a test particle $`n_{\mathrm{tp}}a_{\mathrm{tp}}^{3/2}`$ are commensurable, or close to the ratio of small integers

$$\frac{n_{\mathrm{tp}}}{n_\mathrm{p}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{k+q}{k}\hfill & \text{if }a_{\mathrm{tp}}<a_\mathrm{p}\text{,}\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{k}{k+q}\hfill & \text{if }a_{\mathrm{tp}}>a_\mathrm{p}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
Here, $`a_{\mathrm{tp}}`$ and $`a_\mathrm{p}`$ are the semimajor axes of the test particle and the planet respectively. From classical perturbation theory, the strength of the resonance is roughly indicated by the order of the commensurability $`q`$. On the uppermost panel of Figure 1, each resonance is labelled according to the planet and the number $`k`$. For example, the resonance ME2 at semimajor axis $`a_{\mathrm{tp}}=0.142`$ au with $`q=7`$ corresponds to a mean motion ration of $`9/2`$ with Mercury. As seen from the Figure, some resonances tend to excite the test particle’s inclination (ME1, $`q=6`$), while others pump up the eccentricity (ME1, $`q=4`$; ME2, $`q=7`$; ME1, $`q=3`$; ME3, $`q=7`$). The effect of the Mercurian resonances occurs over a relatively broad span of semimajor axes, (especially near ME1, $`q=3`$) probably because of the wide range of eccentricity ($`0.1<e<0.3`$) and inclination ($`0^{}<i<10.5^{}`$) that Mercury undergoes over the 100 Myr integration timespan. Conversely, the effects of the Venusian resonances (V1, $`q=7`$; V1, $`q=6`$) appear much more localized at semimajor axes 0.181 au and 0.198 au and excite both the eccentricity and the inclination of the test particle.

The collisional time scale in the Vulcanoid belt is short because the volume of space is small and because the relative velocities are high. Any sizeable population of bodies must have evolved through mutual collisions. Numerical models of the collisional processes (Stern & Durda 2000) suggest that a population of at most a few hundred objects with radii larger than 1 km could have survived from primordial times. As collisional evolution proceeds most quickly at smaller heliocentric distances, Stern & Durda suggest that the most favourable location to search is nearly circular orbits near the very outer edge of the dynamical stable Vulcanoid belt ($`0.2`$ au). However, Figure 1 shows that the Venusian resonance (V1, $`q=6`$) at 0.198 au excites both the eccentricity and inclination of such objects. Rather, it is the region slightly inward between $`0.16`$ and $`0.18`$ au that is the most likely to contain surviving objects. In other words, the optimum location in which to search for Vulcanoids is $`9^{}<|\mathrm{}_\mathrm{g}|<10^{}`$ and $`|\beta _\mathrm{g}|<1^{}`$, where ($`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{g},\beta _\mathrm{g}`$) are geocentric ecliptic longitude and latitude.

Very recently, two searches using the Large Angle Spectroscopic Coronagraph (LASCO) on the SOHO satellite have been conducted (Durda et al. 2000; Schumacher & Gay 2001). In particular, Durda et al. found no Vulcanoids to a moving object detection limiting magnitude of $`V8`$, corresponding to objects $`50`$ km in diameter. There have also been a number of daytime searches with infrared telescopes (Leake et al. 1987; Campins et al. 1996), although limited to small fields of view. The closeness of Vulcanoids to the Sun causes them to be hot. The search strategy exploits the fact that Vulcanoids have a substantial component of infrared emission with the K and L bands offerring the best chances of detection. Leake et al. reached a limiting magnitude of $`L5`$ but covered only $`6`$ square degrees of the sky. The new infrared wide-field telescope VISTA 111http:www.vista.ac.uk has a field of view of 0.5 square degrees in the K band and will be ideal for deep Vulcanoid searches in the ecliptic centered around $`9^{}<|\mathrm{}_\mathrm{g}|<10^{}`$.

The European Space Agency (ESA) satellite BepiColombo 222http://sci.esa.int/home/bepicolombo/ is scheduled for lauch in 2009. Its main objective is to orbit and image the planet Mercury. However, it will also be equipped with a small telescope (20-30cm) and CCD camera for asteroid detection. The telescope points in the direction of motion of the satellite, which is in a polar orbit around the planet. Since the satellite is continuously looking at the surface of Mercury, the telescope is rotating with respect to the stars. The field of view of the telescope scans a great circle on the sky every $`2.4`$ hours and all objects brighter than $`V18`$ crossing the scan region may be detected. The telescope will image the area interior to Mercury but it gets no closer to the Sun than $`0.25`$ au. As Figure 1 shows, many of the objects in the outermost part of the belt are on eccentric orbits with aphelion $`Q>0.25`$ au and so will spend some time in the scan region. Therefore, BepiColombo may detect some objects belonging to the outer part of the Vulcanoid belt, although it will not image the bulk of the belt.

## 3 The Earth-Mars Belt

Let us now turn to the Earth-Mars belt. The high resolution simulation between 1.08 and 1.28 au exhibits a rich palette of dynamical behaviour. Figure 2 shows how the Earth-Mars belt has been sculpted by various mean motion and secular resonances. In the two lower panels, the filled circles show the instantaneous values at 100 Myr, while the crosses represent the maxima. For mean motion resonances, the upper panel indicates the semimajor axis of the resonance and order of the commensurability $`q`$. For the secular resonances, the upper panel shows the semimajor axis and inclination at which the effects of the two secular frequencies $`g_6`$ and $`s_6`$ are greatest. These linear secular resonances have been extracted from Michel & Froeschlé (1997) and Williams & Faulkner (1981). At the $`g_6`$ (or $`s_6`$) secular resonances, the averaged precession frequency of the asteroid’s longitude of pericentre (or longitude of node) becomes equal to the sixth eigenfrequency of the planetary system, which is primarily due to Saturn.

The part of the belt between 1.08-1.117 au is populated with extremely stable test particles. This can be seen from the mean values of the instantaneous and maximum eccentricities ($`e_{\mathrm{inst}}=0.037`$, $`e_{\mathrm{max}}=0.082`$) and inclinations ($`i_{\mathrm{inst}}=1.81^{}`$ and $`i_{\mathrm{max}}=4.86^{}`$). The gaps and the spikes in eccentricity and inclination are in good agreement with the location of the mean motion resonances. However, from 1.17 au outwards, the presence of the linear secular resonances with Saturn tends to destabilize the orbits of the low inclination test particles. An island of stability between 1.208 to 1.214 au is able to avoid the disturbing effect of the secular resonances, thanks to the fact that most of the test particles’ inclinations lie in the safety interval $`1.8^{}6.4^{}`$. Objects between 1.214 au and 1.28 au do not survive in this high resolution simulation. Nonetheless, Evans & Tabachnik (1999) found examples of some surviving test particles out to 1.28 au in their original 100 Myr integrations which covered the whole of the inner Solar system. We therefore take 1.28 au as the outermost edge of the Earth-Mars belt.

Conventionally speaking, the members of the Earth-Mars belt fall under the classification of Amor asteroids ($`1.017<q<1.3`$), which are part of the population of Near-Earth Objects (NEOs). Ground-based programs have found $`2000`$ NEOs, of which $`800`$ are Amors. The total number of NEOs is unknown. The present population is believed to have arisen from at least three sources, namely asteroids ejected from the Main Belt by the 3:1 mean motion resonance with Jupiter and the $`s_6`$ secular resonance; asteroids on Mars crossing orbits adjacent to the Main Belt; and defunct comets that have evolved from the Kuiper Belt through planetary encounters (e.g., Bottke et al. 2000). Ejected Main Belt asteroids and evolved comets are always planet-crossing and hence show large fluctuations in their eccentricity. For example, Gladman et al. (1997) show a number of dynamical tracks of asteroids ejected from the Main Belt and their evolution is almost always towards greater eccentricity. In one or two cases studied by Gladman et al., the evolution does pass through low eccentricity phases, but usually only for comparatively short periods of time. The probability of observing this part of the evolution is low. So, NEOs on nearly circular orbits are excellent candidates for being primordial. In other words, if the Earth-Mars belt of remnant planetesimals exists, an enhancement of asteroids on nearly circular orbits is expected in this region. Evans & Tabachnik (1999) carried out a search through Bowell’s (1989) asteroidal orbital element database for objects between the semimajor axes of Earth and Mars which are not planet-crossing and with low inclinations and eccentricities. They found only three objects (1996 XB27, 1998 HG49 and 1998 KG3) among all the asteroids in the database. All three lie between 1.08 and 1.28 au. The success of ground-based surveys of NEOs in recent years has led to a substantial increase in available data, so it is worthwhile repeating the calculations. Using data from The Minor Planet Center, we searched for all objects between the semimajor axes of Earth and Mars which are not planet-crossing and which satisfy $`i<10^{}`$ and $`e<0.2`$. The results are recorded in Table 1. There are twelve such objects known, of which nine lie in the suggested Earth-Mars belt. This tends to support the conjecture of Evans & Tabachnik (1999) that there is an enhancement of asteroids on nearly circular orbits in the belt.

Nonetheless, complex selection effects are present in the NEO dataset. To decide the issue, a catalogue of NEOs with a well-understood selection function is needed. Fortunately, the ESA scanning satellite GAIA 333http://astro.estec.esa.nl/gaia will provide exactly this. GAIA has three telescopes, ASTRO-1 and ASTRO-2 which perform astrometry and broad-band photometry, and SPECTRO which performs spectroscopy and medium-band photometry. GAIA can detect all objects brighter than $`V20`$. For the NEO population, Mignard (2002) shows that objects with absolute magnitude $`H<18`$ will be observed at least two times in the ASTRO or the SPECTRO fields of view with the speed well-determined from the crossings. So, GAIA will provide a reasonably complete inventory of the NEO population with diameters of the order of a kilometre or larger.

## 4 Conclusions

Detailed maps of the fine-structure of two long-lived belts of stable orbits in the Solar system have been provided. This extends the results presented in Evans & Tabachnik (1999), which reported evidence that belts of remnant planetesimals could survive for the age of the Solar system. The Vulcanoid belt lies interior to the orbit of Mercury and extends from 0.09 to 0.20 astronomical units (au), though with a gaps at 0.15 and 0.18 au corresponding to a de-stabilising mean motion resonances with Mercury and Venus. Collisions drive evolution in the Vulcanoid belt and this proceeds slower at larger heliocentric distances. Searches should concentrate on the region between $`0.160.18`$ au where kilometre-sized Vulcanoids are most likely to be found. The Earth-Mars belt between 1.08-1.17 au is an extremely stable zone. It is interrupted at 1.212 au due to the 3:4 commensurability with the Earth, while secular resonances with Saturn can pump up the eccentricities beyond 1.17 au. The belt may extend out to 1.28 au.

There are examples of stable orbits with small eccentricities and inclinations which are nonetheless depleted of bodies (in the outer Main Belt, for instance). The populations of small bodies of the solar system may have been dynamically excited or ejected by unknown processes during the primordial evolution. So the belts are worth searching for because their presence or absence bears strongly on why the inner Solar system looks the way it does today. For example, substantial migration of Mercury would be strongly constrained by the discovery of a population of asteroids in the Vulcanoid belt.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Stephano Mottola for information on BepiColombo. NWE is supported by the Royal Society.


text:
# Monte Carlo study of the elastic interaction in heteropitaxial growth

## I Introduction

Epitaxial growth has been the focus of much interest in the past years. This interest is derived mainly from the fact that this kind of processes have numerous applications  in developing new types of devices and materials with some special characteristics. Among these processes, there is one type of growth characterized by the presence of long-range elastic interactions that play a special role . Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE) under the effect of elastic interactions has been a topic of recent research, with many applications, specially in the fabrication of low dimensional nanostructures, like quantum dots (QD) and quantum wires . One challenging question concerning this topic is how, and by which mechanism, island organization  occurs. A wide range of material/substrate combinations have been observed (e.g., InAS on GaAs). When one kind of material is deposited over a different one –, usually, with a different lattice parameter – it will induce, through this structural difference, a long-range elastic interaction between the deposited atoms during surface growth. The deformation thus obtained originates a strain in the substrate that causes different particles to repel each other. This kind of interaction is supposed to be the mechanism responsible of the self-organization observed experimentally. Many recent studies were developed in order to identify the influence of strain on epitaxial and surface morphology during growth .

Several authors have studied the effect that strain induces on epitaxial growth on different types of systems. For instance, the effect of elastic strain on the properties of the well know Eden model, and for other versions of a harmonic interaction between the lattice atoms. Also, the Lennard-Jones potential was used to study a similar phenomena .

In this paper we shall consider that the strain induced on the system is due to an repulsive elastic interaction between the deposited particles proportional to $`1/r^3`$. This type of potential can be derived from elasticity theory considerations , when a lattice distortion is created (e.g. by cutting out a sphere of the bulk and substituting it by a different radius sphere) a field of lattice strains is created. It is already known that this type of long-range interaction can be applied to the absorption of atoms onto a surface but is only valid on the case of very thin absorbed clusters (submonolayer regime); in more general cases it can be obtained by scaling laws .

## II Elastic Interaction Potential

We define the elastic potential to be of the form, $`E=Gm_im_j/r^3`$, where $`r`$ represents the distance between the particles, $`m_i`$ is the “mass” of the particle $`i`$, and $`G`$ is the coupling constant. $`G`$ usually depends on the elastic properties of the substrate, such as the Young modulus, the Poisson ratio and the lattice mismatch. The coupling constant is given by  as being, $`G=\pi (1\sigma ^2)a^2f^2/E`$, but other authors define it in different ways . The numerical values of the various forms differ on several orders of magnitude. We overcome this difficulty by leaving the analythical form of $`G`$ unspecified and determining a reasonable numerical value for it by physical considerations.

Since we are trying to study the behavior of a macroscopic material, we employed periodic boundary conditions during the simulations. The presence of this type of boundary conditions implies that some treatment must be given to the energy defined above in order to avoid some undesirable “finite-size effects” that could originate “unphysical” results. To accomplish this, we consider an infinite succession of replicas of the system and calculate the total energy of the infinite system thus obtained. The total energy has the contribution of two components, the first being the interaction energy between the particle that is currently suffering the absorption on the original system and all the other copies of this particle that belong to the other systems. This contribution is given by

$$E_1=\underset{i}{}\frac{Gm_i^2}{L^3}\underset{k0}{}\frac{1}{k^3}=\frac{2G\zeta (3)}{L^3}\underset{i}{}m_i^2$$
(1)
where $`L`$ is the linear dimension of the system and $`\zeta (x)`$ is the Riemman Zeta function. The first sum is performed over all particles present in the system at this time.

The second contribution to the total energy is given by the interaction between the deposited particle and all particles deposited previously in the system. This contribution is expressed as,

$$E_2=\underset{i<j}{}\frac{Gm_im_j}{L^3}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(a_{ij}+k)^3}.$$
(2)
where the first sum is performed over all pairs of particles, $`a_{ij}`$ is the distance that separates the two particles in the original system divided by $`L`$. Considering that

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(k+a)^3}=\frac{1}{2}\psi ^{(2)}(a)$$
(3)
where $`\psi ^{(2)}(a)`$ is the second order Polygamma function, and after performing some straightforward algebraic manipulations, the energy $`E_2`$ takes the following form,

$$E_2=\underset{i<j}{}\frac{Gm_im_j}{L^3}\left\{\frac{1}{a_{ij}^3}\frac{1}{2}\left(\psi ^{(2)}(a_{ij})+\psi ^{(2)}(a_{ij})\right)\right\}.$$
(4)
The total energy of the system is then given by

$$\begin{array}{c}E_T=\frac{2G\zeta (3)}{L^3}\underset{i}{}m_i^2+\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{i<j}{}\frac{Gm_im_j}{L^3}\left\{\frac{1}{a_{ij}^3}\frac{1}{2}\left(\psi ^{(2)}(a_{ij})+\psi ^{(2)}(a_{ij})\right)\right\}\end{array}$$
(5)
During the simulations, and since we are not interested in the absolute value of the energy but only in energy differences, we shall only consider the “effective” value of the energy, that is, the part of the energy that is not constant, in order to shorten the CPU time without loss of precision in the results.

## III Simulations

The model described earlier was implemented in a relatively simple way. We consider the substrate to be one dimensional and we shall only consider the regime of submonolayer growth. One site of the system is selected randomly. If that site is occupied, the deposition attempt fails and another site is selected. If the selected position is empty, three possible situations can occur according to the number of nearest neighbor (NN) sites that are occupied. When only one NN is occupied, the particle adheres irreversibly to the preexisting cluster and another deposition attempt is performed. If the two NN are occupied, the particle adheres to both clusters, coalescing them to become one single cluster with mass conservation. Finally, if none of the NN sites is occupied, the particle diffuses, due to the repulsive effect of the potential generated by the mass distribution present in the system, moving away from the larger cluster and becoming closer to the smaller one, until it reaches the local minimum of the energy. At each diffusion step, the energy resulting from the interaction of the adatom with every other particle present in the system is calculated. At this point, the particle begins to diffuse due to the effect of the temperature with probability proportional to $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }E/k_BT}`$, where $`E`$ is the total energy of the system . During this process, a number $`D`$ of random steps is performed. If during this random walk motion, the particle collides with another particle, it aggregates irreversibly and another particle is deposited. This model has several adjustable parameters such as the temperature $`T`$, the number of diffusion steps $`D`$ and the value of the interaction constant $`G`$. In order to make the simulations behave realistically, these parameters must be adjusted and their effect on the final result must be studied and well understood. This has been done by varying the parameters in order to see the effect that each parameter individually has on the final result. During the experimental study of this type of processes, one usually uses temperatures in the interval $`300KT1000K`$. To use this values during the simulations, one must adjust $`G`$ in a way as to make the factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/k_BT1`$. The typical value of the energy differences in this model is of the order $`10^9`$, and considering that $`T10^2`$ we find that $`Gm^2\mathrm{\Delta }E_{ef}/(L^3k_BT)1`$, and so, $`Gm^2/L^3k_B10^7`$.

## IV Results

In this section we will present the results obtained using Monte Carlo simulations. To characterize the coarsening dynamics, two quantities were sampled and averaged over the initial conditions: cluster “mass” distribution, $`P_n(t)`$ and the correlation function at equal times $`C(r,t)`$, defined by

$$C(r,t)=\rho (r^{}+r,t)\rho (r^{},t)\rho (r^{},t)^2$$
(6)
where $`\rho (r,t)`$ is the site density. The most convincing result yielding the self-organization process is the fact that the “mass” distribution function presents a well defined peak.

The shape of the distribution is maintained as one increases the coverage, but the height of the function tends to decrease as the width increases. This fact was expected to happen, larger values of coverage imply that fewer individual clusters are present in the system, but with large sizes.

There exist two basic process that the system has available in order to organize itself. The first, the nucleation of new clusters, is dominant in the early stages of the system evolution, when the coverage is small and the adatoms never collide. The second, is the coalescence of existing clusters. This process becomes dominant as the coverage increases, originating larger clusters but in a smaller number. This two regimes are clearly seen in the inset of Fig.1. In the beginning, the number of clusters in the system seems to grow almost linearly with the coverage. Afterwards, there exists a crossover period when the number of clusters is approximately constant, that happens when the growth of existing clusters becomes more frequent than the nucleation of new ones. Finally, coalescence begins to dominate the dynamics and the number of clusters in the system diminishes until it becomes one when the coverage gets very large.

The behaviour of the system is described by the island-size distribution function, $`P_n(\theta )`$. Assuming there exists a scaling for $`P_n(\theta )`$ one may write, $`P_n(\theta )=\lambda f(\lambda ^\alpha n,\lambda ^\beta \theta )`$. The coverage $`\theta `$ grows with time, but satisfies, $`\theta _{n1}nP_n(\theta )`$. This sum can be approximated by an integral, $`\theta _0^{\mathrm{}}nP_n(\theta )𝑑n`$ resulting a relation between the exponents, $`\beta =2\alpha 1`$. Therefore, one can write,

$$P_n(\theta )=\theta ^{12\alpha /\beta }\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{n}{\theta ^{\alpha /\beta }}\right)$$
(7)
All this results follows from the assumption that there exist only one characteristic size in the system, the average island size, $`S=_{n1}nP_n(\theta )/_{n1}P_n(\theta )\theta ^{\alpha /\beta }`$. The data colapse of $`P_n(t)`$ is shown in Fig.2. It was obtained for $`\alpha =1.47\pm 0.05`$ and $`\beta =1.23\pm 0.05`$.

When we keep the value of the coverage fixed and vary $`D`$, the mass distribution function behaves in a manner similar to the one described above. As $`D`$ increases, the distribution function widens and flattens. This is due to the fact that, with a larger number of diffusion steps, the adatom has a larger probability of diffusing away from the local minimum of energy and coalescing with other particles present in the system, originating larger clusters. On the other hand, when we change the temperature, nothing seems to happen, the distribution function maintains its basic properties.

As it can be seen in Fig4 a, the correlation function $`C(r,t)`$, defined in Eq.6, displays a characteristic behavior, starting at values of the order of 0.2 and decreasing until a minimum, at distances of the order of ten lattice units, and finally oscillating with decreasing amplitude around zero until it becomes effectively zero at distances of the order of 40. As it is easily seen from Fig.4, the correlation function always maintains the same shape, even when $`\theta `$ or $`D`$ are increased. In the latter case, the position of the minimum seems to move to larger distances as $`D`$ is increased, which means that the system becomes more correlated. Once again, the temperature doesn’t have any real effect on the results.

A parameter that usually has a great importance in experimental study of this type of systems is the temperature. As can be seen in the previous figures, the temperature doesn’t seem to have a great influence in the final result, contrary to what was expected. This peculiar behavior of the system can probably be explained by the fact that only the adatom that is being currently absorbed feels the temperature, the rest of the system being actually frozen. If we allowed the system to rearrange itself after the deposition of each particle, the temperature dependence would probably be more realistic, but the computation time required would also be much higher.

## V Conclusion

In conclusion, the simulations carried in a one dimensional system in the submonolayer regime with long range interactions allowed us to observe the mechanism of self-organization through the formation of islands of similar size over all system. The influence of different factors on this behavior was tested. Surprisingly, it does not show any dependence on the temperature, at least for the tested range ($`300K<T<1000K`$).

Ordering occurs to minimize the repulsive elastic interactions between absorbed atoms. This self-organization breaks down when the coverage gets large which makes the adatom have less space to find an equilibrium position and makes the coalescence events become more and more frequent and finally dominate the dynamics of the system. We are now extending this results to the $`2D`$ case.

## VI Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank Serguei Dorogovtsev for collaboration in the early stage of this work. We also thank M.P. Santos for a critical reading of the manuscript. This work was funded in part by the project POCTI/1999/FIS/33141 (FCT-Portugal).

Electronic address: bgoncalves@breathe.com
Electronic address: jfmendes@fc.up.pt