format: text

text:
# The “Mysterious” Origin of Brown Dwarfs

## 1 Introduction

A large number of Brown Dwarfs (BDs) have been discovered in the last few years, both within stellar clusters (e.g. Bouvier et al. 1998; Martín et al. 1998; Zapatero Osorio et al. 2000; Luhman et al. 2000; Hillenbrand & Carpenter 2000; Najita et al. 2000; Comerón et al. 2000; Luhman 2000; Moraux et al. 2001; Béjar et al. 2001; Martín et al. 2001; Lodieu et al. 2002) and among field stars (e.g. Kirkpatrick et al. 1999, 2000; Chabrier 2002). It is now well established that BDs do not hide a significant amount of baryonic dark matter, at least in our galaxy (e.g. Najita et al. 2000; Béjar et al. 2001; Chabrier 2002). The stellar initial mass function (IMF) is flat or decreasing toward sub–stellar masses.

Even if the total mass of BDs is not dynamically important, their abundance relative to hydrogen burning stars is so large that their existence cannot be overlooked in the context of a theory of star formation. According to cluster and field IMFs extended to sub–stellar masses, there are almost as many BDs as regular stars (e.g. Béjar et al. 2001; Chabrier 2002, 2003). BDs may be relevant also for understanding the formation of planets, because their mass is intermediate between that of hydrogen burning stars ($`M>0.07`$$`0.08`$ M) and that of planets ($`M<0.011`$$`0.013`$ M, using the deuterium burning limit to separate planets from BDs).

Surprisingly, very little theoretical research has addressed the problem of the formation of BDs. Most theoretical research on BDs is concerned with modeling the structure and evolution of sub–stellar objects and their atmospheres, in order to derive their observational properties (e.g. Chabrier et al. 2000; Chabrier & Baraffe 2000; Baraffe et al. 2002)

The classical Jeans’ mass (Jeans 1902) at the mean density and temperature of a typical star–forming cloud is several solar masses. Based on the usual assumption that the Jeans’ mass is an approximate estimate of the lower limit to the stellar mass (Larson 1992; Elmegreen 1999), the formation of BDs is an unsolved problem.

Recent observational results have shown that the mass distribution of prestellar condensations is indistinguishable from the stellar IMF (Motte et al. 1998; Testi & Sargent 1998; Onishi et al. 1999; Johnstone et al. 2000b, a; Motte et al. 2001; Johnstone et al. 2001; Onishi et al. 2002), both in the functional shape and in the range of masses, including BD mass cores (Walsh et al. 2004). The problem of the formation of BDs in molecular clouds with a Jeans’ mass much larger than the mass of BDs is thus unlikely to be solved by relying on a significant mass difference between a single collapsing core and its final star.

Elmegreen (1999) stressed the importance of BDs for testing star formation theories. He proposed that BDs are more abundant in ultra-cold regions in the inner disk of M31 or in spiral–arm dust lanes than in normal star–forming clouds. He assumed that the smallest stellar mass is of the order of the thermal Jeans’ mass and therefore the BD abundance should increase with decreasing gas temperature or increasing pressure. His argument is consistent with the present work, where we focus on more typical regions of star formation.

Reipurth & Clarke (2001) proposed that BDs are the leftover of a prematurely interrupted accretion process. Their model assumes that stars are born as multiple systems of small “embryos” sharing a common reservoir of accreting gas. The accretion process of one of them is “aborted” when it is ejected by gravitational interaction with a pair of companions. One problem with this model is that protostellar disks are frequently found around BDs (Natta & Testi 2001; Natta et al. 2002; Liu 2003; Jayawardhana et al. 2003a, b; Klein et al. 2003; Martín et al. 2004; López Martí et al. 2004; Mohanty et al. 2004). Other problems posed by observational data are discussed in Briceño et al. (2002).

Bate et al. (2002) have interpreted the results of a numerical simulation as evidence in favor of the Reipurth & Clarke (2001) model. They simulated the collapse of a 50 M isothermal gas cloud, with an initial random velocity field and uniform density, using a smooth particle hydrodynamic (SPH) code. They found that BDs are formed mainly as members of multiple systems by the gravitational fragmentation of a common protostellar disk. In their simulation, the initial velocity field is not obtained as the solution of the fluid equations self–consistently with the density field. It is instead generated artificially by imposing a power spectrum consistent with Larson’s velocity-size correlation (Larson 1979, 1981), while the initial density is uniform. As the turbulence is not externally driven, it decays while the cloud collapses and there is no time for the flow to rearrange as a realistic supersonic turbulent flow independent of the initial conditions. Another problem is the absence of a magnetic field, which affects significantly the fragmentation process as the magnetic field may modify the shock jump conditions and the angular momentum transport.

Given the numerical limitations in the simulation by Bate et al. (2002), it is possible that turbulent fragmentation has been overlooked as the origin of collapsing cores of BD mass. In the present work we investigate the possibility that BDs are the direct consequence of turbulent fragmentation (Padoan & Nordlund 1999; Padoan et al. 2001; Padoan & Nordlund 2002; Nordlund & Paodan 2002), in the sense that they are assembled by the turbulent flow as gravitationally unstable objects. We first compute the upper limit to the BD abundance in § 2, based on the probability density function (PDF) of gas density in supersonic turbulence. In § 3 we compute the actual BD abundance, according to our analytical model of the stellar IMF, and in § 4 we show that numerical simulations of supersonic magneto–hydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence provide support for our analytical model. Results are summarized and conclusions drawn in § 5.

## 2 An Upper Limit to the BD Abundance

The gas density and velocity fields in star–forming clouds are highly non–linear due to the presence of supersonic turbulence. The kinetic energy of turbulence is typically 100 times larger than the gas thermal energy on the scale of a few pc (the typical rms Mach number is of the order of 10) and the gas is roughly isothermal, so that very large compressions due to a complex network of interacting shocks cannot be avoided. Under such conditions the concept of gravitational instability, based on a comparison between gravitational and thermal energies alone in a system with mild perturbations, does not apply. Dense cores of any size can be formed in the turbulent flow, independent of the Jeans’ mass. Those cores that are massive and dense enough (larger than their own Jeans’ mass) collapse into protostars, while smaller subcritical ones re-expand into the turbulent flow. This is a process that we call turbulent fragmentation, to stress the point that stars and BDs, formed in supersonically turbulent clouds, are not primarily the result of gravitational fragmentation.

Nevertheless, the idea of a critical mass for gravitational collapse is often applied to star forming clouds. The critical mass is defined as the Jeans’ or the Bonnor–Ebert mass (Bonnor 1956; McCrea 1957) computed with the average density, temperature and pressure. The effect of the kinetic energy of turbulence is modeled as an external pressure, $`P_t\rho \sigma _\mathrm{v}^2`$, where $`\rho `$ is the gas density and $`\sigma _\mathrm{v}`$ is the rms velocity of the turbulence. Elmegreen (1999), for example, has proposed that the minimum stellar mass is of the order of this Bonnor–Ebert mass. The minimum stellar mass in typical star–forming clouds is then several M, which contradicts the relatively large abundance of BDs.

Dense cores formed by the turbulent flow need to be larger than their thermal critical mass to collapse (neglecting the magnetic field). Therefore, a necessary condition for the formation of BDs by supersonic turbulence is the existence of a finite mass fraction, in the turbulent flow, with density at least as high as the critical one for the collapse of a BD mass core. As an estimate of the critical mass we use the Bonnor–Ebert mass, instead of the classical Jeans’ mass, because the cores assembled by the turbulent flow are non–linear density enhancements bounded by the shock ram pressure, rather than linear density perturbations as in Jeans’ assumption. The mass, $`m_{\mathrm{BE}}`$, of the critical Bonnor–Ebert isothermal sphere is (Bonnor 1956):

$$m_{\mathrm{BE}}=3.3\mathrm{M}_{}\left(\frac{T}{10K}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{n}{10^3cm^3}\right)^{1/2},$$
(1)
We have verified numerically that this expression is a good estimate of the critical mass, both in simple geometries and in turbulence simulations including selfgravity.

We want to estimate the mass fraction with density at least as high as the critical one for the collapse of a BD mass core. Using the value $`m_{\mathrm{BD}}=0.075`$ M for the largest BD mass, the condition $`m_{\mathrm{BE}}<m_{\mathrm{BD}}=0.075`$ M corresponds to $`n>n_{\mathrm{BD}}=1.8\times 10^6`$ cm-3, using equation (1). The fraction of the total mass of the system that can form BDs is given by the probability that $`n>n_{BD}`$. This is $`_{n_{\mathrm{BD}}}^{\mathrm{}}p(n)𝑑n`$, where $`p(n)`$ is the probability density function (PDF) of the gas density $`n`$. This probability can be interpreted as a fractional volume and therefore the mass fraction available for the formation of BDs is:

$$f_{\mathrm{BD}}=\frac{_{n_{\mathrm{BD}}}^{\mathrm{}}np(n)𝑑n}{_0^{\mathrm{}}np(n)𝑑n}$$
(2)
It is important to stress that $`f_{\mathrm{BD}}`$ is not the BD mass fraction, but only the mass fraction of the gas that could end up in BDs, or the upper limit for the BD mass fraction (assuming BDs are due only to turbulent fragmentation). Most likely the star formation process is rather inefficient for BDs as it is for hydrogen burning stars, and so the actual fractional mass in BDs may be significantly smaller than $`f_{BD}`$.

One of the most important universal properties of turbulent fragmentation is that the PDF of gas density is Log–Normal for an isothermal gas, so that

$$p(n)dn=\frac{1/n}{(2\pi \sigma ^2)^{1/2}}exp\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}n\overline{\mathrm{ln}n}}{\sigma }\right)^2\right]dn,$$
(3)
for the case of $`n=1`$. The average value of the logarithm of density, $`\overline{\mathrm{ln}n}`$, is determined by the standard deviation $`\sigma `$ of the logarithm of density (a property of the Log–Normal, here used again for the case $`n=1`$):

$$\overline{\mathrm{ln}n}=\frac{\sigma ^2}{2},$$
(4)
and the standard deviation of the logarithm of density, $`\sigma `$, is a function of the rms sonic Mach number of the flow, $`M_\mathrm{S}`$:

$$\sigma ^2=\mathrm{ln}(1+b^2M_\mathrm{S}^2)$$
(5)
or, equivalently, the standard deviation of the linear density is:

$$\sigma _\rho =bM_\mathrm{S}$$
(6)
where $`b0.5`$ (Nordlund & Padoan 1999; Ostriker et al. 1999). This result is very useful because the rms Mach number of the turbulence in molecular clouds is easily estimated through the spectral line width of molecular transitions and by estimating the kinetic temperature. The three dimensional PDF of gas density is then fully determined by the value of the rms Mach number.

A contour plot of $`f_{\mathrm{BD}}`$, computed from (2) and with the Log–Normal PDF (3), on the plane $`n`$$`M_\mathrm{S}`$, is shown in Figure 1. The dotted line corresponds to values of rms Mach number and average gas density of typical Larson relations (Larson 1981; Brunt 2003; Heyer & Brunt 2004). Figure 1 shows that in regions following the average Larson relations, approximately 1% of the total mass is available for the formation of BDs (dotted line in Figure 1). If most of the available 1% of the total mass were turned into BDs, the number of BDs would be comparable to the number of hydrogen burning stars even if as much as 10% of the total mass was turned into stars. However, it is possible that the formation of BDs has a typical efficiency of only a few percent, similar to that of hydrogen burning stars. In that case their relative abundance in molecular clouds following the average Larson relations is expected to be rather low.

For a given size and velocity dispersion, cluster–forming regions are a few times denser than clouds following the average density–size Larson relation. In cluster–forming regions, the mass available for the formation of BDs can be very large, $`f_{\mathrm{BD}}0.1`$. As an example, the stellar mass density in the central $`5\times 5`$ arcmin ($`0.35\times 0.35`$ pc) of the young cluster IC 348 (Luhman et al. 2003) corresponds approximately to $`2\times 10^4`$ cm-3. Because the star formation efficiency is likely to be less than unity, the initial gas density in that region must have been even larger. If we assume a gas density of $`5\times 10^4`$ cm-3 (corresponding to a star formation efficiency of 40%) and a velocity dispersion taken from the average velocity–size Larson relation at a size equal to 0.35 pc, we get $`f_{\mathrm{BD}}0.1`$, as shown by the square in Figure 1. Other cluster–forming regions, such as the central region of the Trapezium cluster (Hillenbrand & Carpenter 2000; Luhman et al. 2000), show similar stellar mass densities as IC 348. With such a large value of $`f_{\mathrm{BD}}`$, cluster–forming regions may in principle form as many BDs as hydrogen burning stars, even if the efficiency of BD formation (from the gas with density larger than $`n_{\mathrm{BD}}`$) is as low as the star formation efficiency for hydrogen burning stars.

The cross in the middle of Figure 1 shows the values of $`n`$ and $`M_\mathrm{S}`$ corresponding to the initial conditions in the simulation by Bate et al. (2002). They simulate a cloud with a total mass of 50 M, a diameter of 0.375 pc, a mean molecular weight of the gas of 2.46, a temperature of 10 K and a kinetic energy of the turbulence equal to the cloud gravitational potential energy. From these initial conditions we obtain $`n=3.35\times 10^4`$ cm-3 and rms sonic Mach number of the turbulence $`M_\mathrm{S}=6.5`$. The contour plot indicates that 5% of the total mass is in this case available for the formation of BDs, sufficient to generate as many BDs as hydrogen burning stars, as discussed above. This suggests that under the conditions assumed in that simulation BDs could originate in large abundance as the result of the turbulent fragmentation.

## 3 The Brown Dwarf IMF from Turbulent Fragmentation

In order to provide a quantitative estimate of the BD abundance, a model for the structure of the density distribution is required. There has been significant progress in the analytical theory of supersonic turbulence in recent works (Boldyrev 2002; Boldyrev et al. 2002a, b). Some results regarding the scaling of structure functions of the density field are already available (Boldyrev et al. 2002b; Padoan et al. 2002) and could be used in the future for a rigorous analytical study of the process of turbulent fragmentation.

A simple model of the expected mass distribution of dense cores generated by supersonic turbulence has been proposed in Padoan & Nordlund (2002), on the basis of the two following assumptions: i) The power spectrum of the turbulence is a power law; ii) the typical size of a dense core scales as the thickness of the postshock gas. The first assumption is a basic result for turbulent flows and holds also in the supersonic regime (Boldyrev et al. 2002a). The second assumption is suggested by the fact that postshock condensations are assembled by the turbulent flow in a dynamical time. Condensations of virtually any size can therefore be formed, independent of their Jeans’ mass.

With these assumptions, together with the jump conditions for MHD shocks (density contrast proportional to the Alfvénic Mach number of the shock), the mass distribution of dense cores can be related to the power spectrum of turbulent velocity, $`E(k)k^\beta `$. The result is the following expression for the core mass distribution:

$$N(m)\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}mm^{3/(4\beta )}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}m.$$
(7)
If the turbulence spectral index $`\beta `$ is taken from the analytical prediction (Boldyrev et al. 2002a), which is consistent with the observed velocity dispersion-size Larson relation (Larson 1979, 1981) and with our numerical results (Boldyrev et al. 2002a), then $`\beta 1.74`$ and the mass distribution is

$$N(m)\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}mm^{1.33}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}m,$$
(8)
almost identical to the Salpeter stellar IMF (Salpeter 1955). The exponent of the mass distribution is rather well constrained, because the value of $`\beta `$ for supersonic turbulence cannot be smaller than the incompressible value, $`\beta =1.67`$ (sligthly larger with intermittency corrections), and the Burgers case, $`\beta =2.0`$. As a result, the exponent of the mass distribution is predicted to be well within the range of values of 1.3 and 1.5. In the following we use $`\beta =1.74`$, corresponding to a core mass distribution $`m^{1.36}`$.

While massive cores are usually larger than their critical mass, $`m_{\mathrm{BE}}`$, the probability that small cores are dense enough to collapse is determined by the statistical distribution of core density. In order to compute this collapse probability for small cores, we assume i) the distribution of core density can be approximated by the Log–Normal PDF of gas density and ii) the core density and mass are statistically independent. Because of the intermittent nature of the Log-Normal PDF, even very small (sub–stellar) cores have a finite chance to be dense enough to collapse. Based on the first assumption, we can compute the distribution of the critical mass, $`p(m_{\mathrm{BE}})dm_{\mathrm{BE}}`$, from the Log–Normal PDF of gas density assuming constant temperature (Padoan et al. 1997). The fraction of cores of mass $`m`$ larger than their critical Bonnor–Ebert mass is given by the integral of $`p(m_{\mathrm{BE}})`$ from 0 to $`m`$. Using the second assumption of statistical independence of core density and mass, the mass distribution of collapsing cores is

$$N(m)\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}mm^{3/(4\beta )}\left[_0^mp(m_{\mathrm{BE}})dm_{\mathrm{BE}}\right]\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}m.$$
(9)
The mass distribution is found to be a power law, determined by the power spectrum of turbulence, for masses larger than approximately 1 M (using physical parameters typical of molecular clouds). At smaller masses the mass distribution flattens, reaches a maximum at a fraction of a solar mass, and then decreases with decreasing stellar mass.

The upper panel of Figure 2 shows five mass distributions computed from equation (9). Three of them (solid lines) are computed for $`n=10^4`$ cm-3, $`T=10`$ K and for three values of the sonic rms Mach number, $`M_\mathrm{S}=5`$, 10 and 20. An increase in the rms Mach number by a factor of two, from $`M_\mathrm{S}=5`$ to $`M_\mathrm{S}=10`$, results in a growth of the abundance of 0.07 M stars by more than a factor of ten (relative to stars of approximately 1 M or larger). From $`M_\mathrm{S}=10`$ to $`M_\mathrm{S}=20`$, the abundance of 0.07 M stars increases by approximately a factor of three. The other two mass distributions (dotted lines) are computed for $`M_\mathrm{S}=10`$, $`T=10`$ K and density $`n=5\times 10^3`$ cm-3 (lower plot), and $`n=2\times 10^4`$ cm-3 (upper plot).

The IMF of the cluster IC 348 in Perseus, obtained by Luhman et al. (2003), is plotted in the lower panel of Figure 2 (solid line histogram). The IMF of this cluster has been chosen for the comparison with the theoretical model because it is probably the most reliable observational IMF including both brown dwarfs and hydrogen burning stars. Spectroscopy has been obtained for every star and the sample is unbiased in mass and nearly complete down to 0.03 $`M_{}`$. In the lower panel of Figure 2 we have also plotted the theoretical mass distribution computed for $`n=5\times 10^4`$ cm-3 , $`T=10`$ K and $`M_\mathrm{S}=7`$. As discussed above, these parameters are appropriate for the central $`5\times 5`$ arcmin of the cluster ($`0.35\times 0.35`$ pc), where the stellar density corresponds to approximately $`2\times 10^4`$ cm-3. The figure shows that the theoretical distribution of collapsing cores, computed with parameters inferred from the observational data, is roughly consistent with the observed stellar IMF in the cluster IC 348.

Similar IMFs were obtained for the Trapezium cluster in Orion by Luhman et al. (2000) and for the inner region of the Orion Nebula Cluster by Hillenbrand & Carpenter (2000), using D’Antona and Mazzitelli’s 1997–evolutionary models. However, based on Baraffe et al. (1998) evolutionary models, these two IMFs contain a slightly larger abundance of brown dwarfs than found in IC 348 and predicted by the theoretical model (unless larger values of density or Mach number are assumed). A larger BD abundance is found in $`\sigma `$ Orionis by Béjar et al. (2001), while the IMFs obtained by Najita et al. (2000) for IC348 and the Pleiades’ IMF (Bouvier et al. 1998) are consistent with the IMF in the Orion Nebula Cluster. Several other IMFs of young clusters, including both stellar and sub–stellar masses, have been recently obtained.

The present theoretical model may in some cases underestimate the BD abundance, if a significant fraction of BDs are formed as members of binary systems, because the process of binary formation is not taken into account. As an example, if most prestellar cores assembled by the turbulence were able to fragment into binary stars due to processes unrelated to turbulent fragmentation, the final BD abundance would be increased, while at larger masses the mass distribution would be indistinguishable from the one predicted by the model.

Luhman (2000) found that the number of BDs in Taurus is 12.8 times lower than in the Trapezium cluster (Luhman et al. 2000). This result was based on a single BD detection and on several low mass stars. The deficit of BDs in Taurus relative to the Trapezium cluster has been confirmed in a more recent work by Briceño et al. (2002), although reduced to approximately a factor of two between the BD abundance of Orion and Taurus. The smaller relative abundance of BDs in Taurus may be explained by the analytical model as due to a decrease in the turbulent velocity dispersion (rms Mach number) or in the average gas density by less than a factor of two. This is consistent with the lower velocity dispersion and density in Taurus relative to Orion.

## 4 Numerical Results

The mass distribution of prestellar condensations can be measured directly in numerical simulations of supersonic turbulence. With a mesh of 2503 computational cells, and assuming a size of the simulated region of a few pc, it is not possible to follow numerically the gravitational collapse of individual protostellar condensations. However, dense cores at the verge of collapse can be selected in numerical simulations by an appropriate clumpfind algorithm. We use an algorithm that selects cores by scanning the full range of density levels. It eliminates large cores that are fragmented into smaller and denser ones. Cores are also excluded if their gravitational energy is not large enough to overcome thermal and magnetic support against the collapse, because only collapsing cores are selected.

A mass distribution of collapsing cores, derived from the density distribution in a numerical simulation is shown in Figure 3. The mass distribution is computed from two snapshots of a 2503 simulation with rms Mach number $`M_\mathrm{S}10`$. We have used a random external force on large scale and an isothermal equation of state (for details of the numerical method see Padoan & Nordlund (1999) and references therein). The average gas density has been scaled to 500 cm-3 and the size of the computational box to 10 pc. These values have been chosen to be able to select condensations in a range of masses from a sub–stellar mass to approximately 10 M. With this particular values of average gas density, size and resolution of the computational box, the smallest mass that can be achieved numerically is 0.057 M.

The analytical mass distribution, $`N(m)`$, computed with the same physical parameters used in the numerical simulation ($`n=500`$ cm-3, $`T=10`$ K and $`M_\mathrm{S}=10`$) is plotted in Figure 3 as a dashed line. There is no free parameter to adjust the shape of the analytical function and its mass scale, once the values of density, temperature, and rms Mach number have been specified to agree with those assumed in the numerical experiment. The agreement between the numerical and the analytical mass distributions provides strong support for our simple analytical model of the mass distribution of collapsing cores generated by supersonic turbulence.

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

In this work we have investigated the possibility that gravitationally unstable protostellar cores of BD mass are assembled by turbulent shocks. We have found that a fraction of BD mass cores formed by the turbulence are dense enough to collapse. The predicted BD abundance is consistent with the abundance observed in young stellar clusters if the theoretical IMF is computed with average density and rms sonic Mach number appropriate for dense cluster–forming regions inside molecular cloud complexes.

We have not studied the evolution of turbulent density fluctuations smaller than their critical mass. If subcritical fluctuations of BD mass are inside a larger collapsing core, they would be increasing their density as the background collapses. Additional fluctuations may also be created by turbulence during the collapse. Under appropriate conditions, a fraction of these fluctuations may be able to collapse into additional BDs or giant planets.

Future numerical simulations designed to study this process will require not only a very large dynamical range of scales, possibly achieved only by particle or adaptive mesh refinement codes, but also an accurate physical description of the supersonic turbulence including magnetic forces.

We are grateful to Kevin Luhman and Gilles Chabrier for valuable discussions on the stellar IMF in clusters and to Bo Reipurth for pointing out a numerical error in the definition of the critical mass. The work of ÅN was supported by a grant from the Danish Natural Science Research Council. Computing resources were provided by the Danish Center for Scientific Computing.

Figure captions:

Figure 1: Contour plot of the fractional mass available for the formation of BDs, $`f_{\mathrm{BD}}`$, on the plane of gas density–rms Mach number, $`n`$$`M_\mathrm{S}`$. The dotted line corresponds to values of rms Mach number and average gas density of typical Larson relations. The cross corresponds to the initial conditions in the simulation by Bate et al. (2002) and the square to the physical parameters appropriate for the central region of the young cluster IC 348 (Luhman et al. 2003).

Figure 2: Upper panel: Analytical mass distributions computed for $`n=10^4`$ cm-3, $`T=10`$ K and for three values of the sonic rms Mach number, $`M_\mathrm{S}=5`$, 10 and 20 (solid lines). The dotted lines show the mass distribution for $`T=10`$ K, $`M_\mathrm{S}=10`$ and $`n=5\times 10^3`$ cm-3 (lower plot) and $`n=2\times 10^4`$ cm-3 (upper plot). Lower panel: IMF of the cluster IC 348 in Perseus obtained by Luhman et al. (2003) (solid line histogram) and theoretical IMF computed for $`n=5\times 10^4`$ cm-3, $`T=10`$ K and $`M_\mathrm{S}=7`$ (dashed line). The histogram of IC 348 mass function in Luhman et al. (2003) is computed with 9 bins, while the histogram shown here is computed with 12 bins.

Figure 3: Solid line: Mass distribution of collapsing cores, derived from the density distribution of two snapshots of a 2503 simulation with rms Mach number $`M_\mathrm{S}10`$, external random forcing on large scale and isothermal equation of state. The simulation is scaled to physical units assuming $`n=500`$ cm-3, $`T=10`$ K, and a mesh size of 10 pc. The fractional mass in collapsing cores is 5% of the total mass. Dashed line: Analytical mass distribution computed for $`n=500`$ cm-3, $`T=10`$ K and $`M_\mathrm{S}=10`$.


text:
# An alternative theoretical approach to describe planetary systems through a Schrödinger-type diffusion equation

## I Introduction

In recent years, some authors Marcal -Arp  have suggested a quantum-like approach to calculate the planetary orbits in our solar system, which has led to several impressive results. Besides obtaining the observed orbits of all the planets and of the asteroid belt, such models have made predictions subsequently confirmed by observations.

For example, the existence of asteroids orbiting between Uranus and Neptune, with orbit radii around $`24.77`$ AU Marcal , was confirmed by recent discoveries MPC . Furthermore, the prediction of two intramercurial orbits with radii around $`0.05`$ AU and $`0.18`$ AU Nottale2 ; AF1 , absents of our solar system, has been verified in several extra-solar planetary systems during the last years Schneider .

In spite of these and others positive results, these approaches seem to be very speculative, for the quantization of macroscopic systems is something outside the scope of our known physics. Nevertheless, some possible origins for such effects have been outlined, some of them on the basis of quite orthodox theories.

A large scale quantization can be based, for instance, on an extension of the ordinary commutation rules, in order to recover the equivalence principle in the context of quantum mechanics AF1 ; Greenberger . The general commutation rules derived in this way predict two scales of quantization: the usual microscopic one, and the scale in which the gravitational interactions are dominant. The presence of quantization at so different scales can be related as well to self-similarity concepts SC . And it is also characteristic of fractal space-time approaches Nottale1 , in which the particle trajectories are non-differentiable at very short and very large scales.

The concept of non-differentiability of space-time at short scales has been used by some authors in trying to derive the Schrödinger equation in the context of a classical framework. For example, in the stochastic mechanics of Nelson Nelson , the Schrödinger equation is obtained as a classical diffusion equation, with help of the hypothesis that any particle in the empty space, under the influence of any interaction field, is also subject to a universal Brownian motion without viscosity. Under this hypothesis, a Schrödinger-type equation follows from classical dynamics, with the Planck constant being related to a diffusion coefficient.

The main problem of this kind of derivation of the Schrödinger equation (as well as of other descriptions based on diffusion processes or fluid dynamics Naschie ) is looking for a convincing physical origin for that universal Brownian motion, although some possibilities have been outlined, based for instance on quantum fluctuations on cosmic scale Sidharth , or on the quantum nature of space-time in quantum gravity theories Bergia .

Nevertheless, the important point in Nelson’s work is that a diffusion process can be described in terms of a Schrödinger-type equation. In this context, the possibility of describing a classical process like the formation of solar system in terms of quantum mechanics can be seriously considered. The use of such an approach is also suggested by the chaotic behaviour of the solar system during its formation and evolution Hills -SW , which implies the non-differentiability of trajectories for large time scales Nottale3 .

Despite all these conjectures, the physical principles behind the quantization of large structures cannot be considered completely understood. In the present work, our aim is not to solve this problem, but just to explore a little more the results we can obtain from a quantum-like approach. Our goal is to introduce a new ingredient not considered up to now: the flatness of the solar system. For this purpose, we will look for flat solutions of the Schrödinger-type equation, in contrast to the spherical solutions usually considered in the previous papers.

## II Preliminary remarks

Applying a Bohr-like “quantization” rule to the orbital angular momentum of a planet in circular orbit around the Sun, $`L=mvr=ng^{}/2\pi `$, and using the Newtonian law for the orbital velocity, $`v^2=GM/r`$, one of the authors Marcal  has derived the following expression for the radii of the orbits:

$$r=\frac{n^2g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4\pi ^2GMm^2},$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is an integer, $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, $`M`$ is the solar mass, $`m`$ is the planet mass and $`g^{}`$ stands for a quantum of action, playing the role of a re-scaled Planck constant.

In the case $`n=1`$, equalizing (1) to the observed value of the Mercury orbital radius, using the observed values for $`G`$ and $`M`$, and taking $`m=2.1\times 10^{26}`$ kg (the average mass of the planets of the solar system), we find $`g^{}=3.6\times 10^{42}`$ J.s. This value coincides to a re-scaled quantum of action derived on the basis of self-similarity considerations SC .

Now, equation (1) can be written as $`r=n^2r_1`$, where $`r_1`$ is the Mercury orbital radius. Taking for $`n`$ the next integer values, we can obtain a sequence of values that assures very well the observed values of orbital radii in our solar system Marcal . For $`n=2`$ we obtain the orbit of Mars; for $`n=3`$ the orbit of Camilla (an asteroid located in the outer region of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter); the values $`n=4`$ and $`n=5`$ give the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, respectively; for $`n=6`$ we have the orbital radius of Chiron (an asteroid between Saturn and Uranus); and, for $`n=7`$, $`9`$ and $`10`$, the orbits of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto follow, in this order. The deviations from the observed values are $`19\%`$ for Jupiter, $`4\%`$ for Neptune and less than $`2\%`$ in the other cases.

The value $`n=8`$ predicts an orbit between Uranus and Neptune, with radius $`24.8`$ AU. In reference Marcal , submitted for publication in October 1994, this orbit was considered empty. Surprisingly enough, the value above is in very good agreement with subsequent discoveries of two asteroids located precisely at this radial position, named 1993 HA 2 and 1995 DW 2 MPC . These discoveries were published in 1995, that is, one year after the paper submission, showing the predict power of this kind of model.

The most important drawback of the model is, as already noted by the reader, the absence of Venus and Earth in the above sequence. To include these planets, and also the asteroid Vesta, located in the inner region of the asteroid belt, it has been taken into account an ad hoc second quantum number $`n^{}`$, running from $`0`$ to $`n`$ Marcal , such that relation (1) is generalized to

$$r=\frac{(n^2+n^2)g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8\pi ^2GMm^2}.$$
(2)
For $`n=n^{}`$ we recover the original relation and results.

Another possibility was provided by Agnese and Festa AF1 , taking for $`n=1`$, instead of the Mercury radius, the value $`r_1=0.04`$ AU, which corresponds to $`g^{}=1.2\times 10^{42}`$ J.s. Now, for $`n`$ running from $`3`$ to $`6`$, we obtain the orbital radius of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars; for $`n=8`$ we have the asteroid Ceres; and, for $`n=11`$, $`15`$, $`21`$, $`26`$ and $`30`$, the orbital radius of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto follow, in agreement with the observed values. The problem here, as we can see, is that we fall into a lot of empty orbital positions, that is, radius values predicted by the formula $`r=n^2r_1`$, but not occupied by any observed body, particularly for large values of $`n`$. Nevertheless, the prediction of a fundamental radius at $`0.04`$ AU would be shown an important result.

Another interesting contribution by Agnese and Festa is the introduction of the re-scaled fine structure constant $`\alpha _g=2\pi GMm/g^{}c`$, where $`c`$ is the light velocity. In this way one can rewrite equation (1) as

$$r=\frac{n^2GM}{\alpha _g^2c^2}.$$
(3)
Using for $`m`$ the average mass of planets of our solar system and for $`g^{}`$ the value obtained above, we obtain for $`\alpha _g`$ the value used by Agnese and Festa, $`\alpha _g^1=2.1\times 10^3`$.

This quantum approach also works for other, recently discovered, planetary systems, as shown by Nottale Nottale2 ; Nottale4  and also by Agnese and Festa AF2 ; AF3 . In Nottale’s approach the periods of planets revolution are quantized as

$$T=2\pi GMn^3/\omega _0^3,$$
(4)
where $`\omega _0=144`$ km/s is a characteristic velocity. Using $`T=2\pi r/v`$, $`v^2=GM/r`$ and $`r`$ given by (3), we derive $`\omega _0=\alpha _gc`$. Using $`\omega _0=144`$ km/s, we obtain $`\alpha _g^1=2.1\times 10^3`$, which again is in accordance with the value obtained by Agnesa and Festa.

Therefore, Nottale also predicts a fundamental radius given by $`r_10.04`$ AU. Several extra solar planets recently discovered lie at this distance from their star Schneider . This agreement between a fundamental radius derived years ago and subsequent observations shows once again the predict power of such models.

Some of the above results come from a semi-classical treatment of the problem, based essentially on the application of a Bohr-like quantization condition. In Nottale’s works we can find a more rigorous approach, based on a Schrödinger-type wave equation. In this way he can accommodate all the planets and the asteroid belt of our solar system, with only a few empty orbits Nottale1 . To achieve this goal he treats the inner and outer systems separately, with two distinct values of $`\omega _0`$.

In the next section, we propose to show that flat solutions of the Schrödinger-type equation can furnish important information on the mean planetary radii. Our aim is to enrich the previous studies, including a new ingredient not considered up to now: the flatness of the solar system and of the original disk from which it was originated.

## III The flat solutions

In this section we present the mathematical results obtained from the solution of a Schrödinger-type equation involving an attractive central field. As already mentioned, the orbits of planets and asteroids will be considered approximately in the same plane, and the $`3`$-dimensional equation will be solved taking $`z=0`$.

Let us consider a body of mass $`m`$ moving around another body of mass $`M`$, under an attractive central field with potential $`V(r)`$, where $`r`$ is the axial distance in polar coordinates. The Schrödinger-type equation is given then by

$$\frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\mu }\left(\frac{^2\psi }{r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\psi }{r}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{^2\psi }{\theta ^2}\right)+V(r)\psi =E\psi .$$
(5)
The term in parenthesis is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\psi `$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Laplace operator in polar coordinates ($`r,\theta `$), which is applied to the wavefunction $`\psi `$ of the body of mass $`m`$. The parameter $`E`$ stands for the total energy of the system; $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass $`mM/(m+M)`$; and $`g^{}`$ is a constant, as previously described.

As long as the potential $`V`$ is a function of the radial variable only, we may look for a solution using separation of variables,

$$\psi (r,\theta )=f(r)\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta ).$$
(6)
Replacing (6) in (5) and dividing by $`f(r)\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta )`$, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f(r)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2f(r)}{dr^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{df(r)}{dr}}\right]+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\mu r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta )}{d\theta ^2}}+EV(r)=0,`$ (7)
or, equivalently,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta )}{d\theta ^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{f(r)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2f(r)}{dr^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{df(r)}{dr}}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu r^2}{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}[EV(r)].`$ (8)
Since the term on the left hand side depends only on $`\theta `$ and the term on the right hand side depends only on $`r`$, both terms must be equal to a constant which we denote by $`\mathrm{}^2`$. Therefore, we obtain two ordinary differential equations:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{\prime \prime }(\theta )=\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta ),$$
(9)
and

$$f^{\prime \prime }(r)+\frac{1}{r}f^{}(r)+\left\{\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{r^2}+\frac{2\mu }{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}[EV(r)]\right\}f(r)=0.$$
(10)
Equation (9) has a solution

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta )=e^{i\mathrm{}\theta }.$$
(11)
If we assume the boundary condition

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(0)=\mathrm{\Theta }(2\pi ),$$
(12)
we end up with $`|\mathrm{}|=0,1,2,3\mathrm{}`$; $`\mathrm{}`$ is an integer.

Now we apply a rescaling in (10) by

$$\rho =2\beta r,\beta >0,$$
(13)
where $`\beta ^2=2\mu E/g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. Furthermore we define

$$n=\frac{\mu GMm}{g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\beta },$$
(14)
and, by using $`V(r)=GMm/r`$, equation (10) becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{f}^{}(\rho )+\frac{1}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{f}^{}(\rho )+\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\rho ^2}+\frac{n}{\rho }\right)\stackrel{~}{f}(\rho )=0.$$
(15)
If we consider $`\stackrel{~}{f}(\rho )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho }}}u(\rho )`$ in (15) we obtain

$$u^{\prime \prime }(\rho )+\left[\frac{1}{4}+\frac{n}{\rho }\frac{(\mathrm{}^21/4)}{\rho ^2}\right]u(\rho )=0.$$
(16)
For this equation, $`\rho =0`$ is a regular singular point and $`\rho =\mathrm{}`$ is an irregular singular point. Equation (16) is a confluent hypergeometric equation Ince , referred as Whittaker’s equation PZ . This equation has a regular solution given by a hypergeometric series which converges if, and only if,

$$n=|\mathrm{}|\pm \frac{1}{2}\pm k,k=0,1,2,3\mathrm{}$$
(17)
By definition, $`n0`$. Assuming that the solution $`u(\rho )`$ satisfies the boundary condition

$$\underset{\rho +\mathrm{}}{lim}u(\rho )=0,$$
(18)
and as $`u(0)`$ must be finite, we have

$$n=|\mathrm{}|+\frac{1}{2}+k,k=0,1,2,3\mathrm{}$$
(19)
So far we have the conditions

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|\mathrm{}|\hfill & =& 0,1,2,3\mathrm{}\hfill \\ n\hfill & =& |\mathrm{}|+\frac{1}{2},|\mathrm{}|+\frac{3}{2},|\mathrm{}|+\frac{5}{2}\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
They can be regrouped in the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}n\hfill & =& \frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{2},\frac{7}{2}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & =& 0,1,2,\mathrm{},n\frac{1}{2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
For each pair $`n\mathrm{}`$, the solutions $`u_n\mathrm{}`$ were obtained using Maple V Release 4 Software (Waterloo Maple Inc.). As long as we obtain $`u_n\mathrm{}(\rho )`$, we may find the solution $`f_n\mathrm{}(r)`$ of the original equation (10). Once we know the collection of functions $`f_n\mathrm{}(r)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{}}(r)`$, their products generate the normalized solutions $`\psi _n\mathrm{}`$ of the Schrödinger-type equation.

Now we define

$$P_n\mathrm{}(r)dr=_0^{2\pi }\psi _n\mathrm{}^{}\psi _n\mathrm{}r𝑑r𝑑\theta ,$$
(22)
which is equivalent to

$$P_n\mathrm{}(r)dr=r\left[f(r)\right]^2dr.$$
(23)
As in the case of atomic wavefunctions, the mean radius is obtained by

$$r_n\mathrm{}=_0^{\mathrm{}}rP_n\mathrm{}(r)𝑑r=_0^{\mathrm{}}_0^{2\pi }\left(\psi _n\mathrm{}^{}r\psi _n\mathrm{}\right)r𝑑r𝑑\theta ,$$
(24)
which is equivalent to

$$r_n\mathrm{}=_0^{\mathrm{}}[rf(r)]^2𝑑r.$$
(25)
In this context, we now return to the rescaling factor $`\beta `$ and consider the mean distance of Mercury as $`r_{\frac{3}{2}0}`$. (If we associate Mercury with the first state $`r_{\frac{1}{2}0}`$, all results are inconsistent with the observed mean planetary distances. The orbits of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter, for example, definitely cannot be derived.) For $`n=3/2`$ and $`l=0`$, we obtain for Eq. (16) the solution

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho }}u(\rho )=c_1\left(e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho }+e^{\frac{1}{2}\rho }\rho \right),$$
(26)
and so $`f(r)=c_1e^{\beta r}(2\beta r1)`$. Since $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}r[f(r)]^2𝑑r=1`$ we have

$$c_1=\sqrt{\frac{4}{3}}\beta .$$
(27)
From Eq. (25) we then get

$$r_{\frac{3}{2}0}=\frac{7}{3}\frac{1}{\beta }=0.387AU,$$
(28)
where we have used the observed mean distance of Mercury. So, we obtain

$$\beta =\beta _{\frac{3}{2}}=\frac{1}{0.387}\frac{7}{3}=9.04/(3/2)AU^1.$$
(29)
Therefore, since $`\beta `$ is proportional to $`1/n`$ (see Eq. (14)), for each value of $`n`$ we will consider

$$\beta _n=9.04(1/n)AU^1.$$
(30)
Its important to remark that the orbital radius of Mercury will be the only input parameter used in this model.

## IV Results and discussions

We denote by the triple $`(n,\mathrm{},r)`$ the resulting numbers $`n`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, and the corresponding mean planetary radius $`r_n\mathrm{}`$ (in AU), calculated from equation (25). The first triple found (1/2,0,0.055) does not correspond to any observed orbit in our solar system. As previously mentioned, Nottale Nottale2  also found this radius as the fundamental level in his quantization law, and it was also obtained by Agnese and Festa as the first state in their quantization condition AF1 . As remarked in these two papers, the first extra-solar planet discovered around the solar-type 51 Pegasus lies precisely at 0.05 AU from its star. Other subsequently discovered companions of solar-type stars, which also fall around 0.05 AU, confirm this result Schneider .

The following two states (3/2,0,0.387) and (3/2,1,0.332) are associated with the orbit of Mercury. The triples (5/2,0,1.05) and (5/2,1,0.995) have very similar values for $`r`$ which are equal to the mean planetary distance of Earth. The triple corresponding to Venus is (5/2,2,0.83).

The set of triples (7/2,0,2.04), (7/2,1,1.99) and (7/2,2,1.82) does not correspond to any observed planet in this region of the solar system, but could be associated with the asteroid Hungarias, at $`1.94`$ AU. This radius value was also predicted by Nottale in his quantization law Nottale1  and nearly corresponds to the radius found for a companion of the solar-type star 47 UMa B, lying at 2.12 AU from this star (see Nottale2 ; AF1  and references therein).

The state (7/2,3,1.54) clearly stands for the orbit of Mars. The results obtained for $`n=9/2`$ are (9/2,0,3.37), (9/2,1,3.32), (9/2,2,3.15), (9/2,3,2.88) and (9/2,4,2.49). They are in a very good correspondence with the asteroid belt in the solar system. The lower values 2.88 AU and 2.49 AU correspond to the mean distances observed for the Ceres group (2.64 AU), the central peak of the belt, and for Vesta (2.36 AU), which delimits its interior ring. The upper values 3.32 AU and 3.37 AU correspond to the mean distance observed for Camilla (3.48 AU), which delimits the exterior ring. The intermediate value 3.15 AU has a precise correspondence with the Hygeia group (3.16 AU), the main peak of the asteroid belt.

For larger values of $`n`$, a great number of states is found. Nevertheless (as pointed out by Nottale et al. Nottale3  to explain the circularity of the orbits in the solar system), a great number of states occupying the same region of space, most of them with large eccentricities, leads to a strong chaos and to the crossing of orbits, which on large time scales would generate the condensation of states on the observed, approximately circular orbits. Therefore, for $`n>9/2`$ we will consider only the states with rotational symmetry, that is, with $`l=0`$ (see Eq. (11)).

In this way, the states (11/2,0,5.03) and (15/2,0,9.34) can be associated with the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, respectively. The states (17/2,0,12.0) and (19/2,0,15.0) give mean values around the orbit of the asteroid Chiron, distant $`13.7`$ AU from the Sun. The state (21/2,0,18.3) can be associated with the orbit of Uranus, while the state (25/2,0,25.9) has a mean distance close to the orbital radii of the already referred asteroids 1993 HA 2 and 1995 DW 2. The next state, (27/2,0,30.2), clearly stands for the orbit of Neptune and, finally, the state (31/2,0,39.9) can easily be associated with the orbit of Pluto.

As one can see, all the planets in the solar system (as well as the asteroid belt) are fitted by the model. Apart the fundamental radius $`0.055`$ AU (which should be ruled out for thermodynamical reasons Nottale3 ), we have only three empty orbits, corresponding to the states (13/2,0,7.02), (23/2,0,21.9) and (29/2,0,34.9). In what concerns the occupied states, the deviations from the observed orbital radii are $`15\%`$ for Venus, $`10\%`$ for Chiron, $`6\%`$ for Ceres and Vesta, $`5\%`$ for Uranus and the asteroids HA2 and DW2, $`3\%`$ for Jupiter, Camilla and Hungarias, $`2\%`$ for Saturn, $`1\%`$ for Mars and Pluto, and $`0.5\%`$ for Earth, Neptune and Hygeia.

Beyond the orbit of Pluto, we still have the states (33/2,0,45.2) and (35/2,0,50.8), which could correspond to other mass peaks in the Kuiper belt, a group of about 60 trans-Neptunian objects orbiting up to 50 AU from the Sun Kuiper ; Morbidelli . \[After the completion of this work, it was announced the discovery of Quaoar, the biggest asteroid discovered up to now in the Kuiper belt NS . Its stable orbit has mean radius around 42 AU, which may correspond either to the state (31/2,0,39.9), associated to Pluto’s peak, or to the state (33/2,0,45.2). The relative deviations are $`5\%`$ and $`8\%`$, respectively.\]

## V Conclusions

The set of obtained results in calculating planetary orbits in the present work, as well as those obtained by other authors, are enough to encourage further studies. In all these theoretical approaches, the existence of a fundamental radius around 0.05 AU is predicted, and several planets have been recently discovered orbiting at this radius in extra-solar systems. Furthermore, it was predicted the existence of asteroids between Uranus and Neptune Marcal , a prediction confirmed by observations.

The Scrödinger-type model presented in this work seems to describe the observed mean distances from Mercury until the asteroid belt. For the outer system we have considered only states with rotational symmetry, obtaining good results as well, with only three empty states. All the results were obtained with just one input parameter, namely the orbital radius of Mercury.

The reader may be asking how a set of planets and asteroids with so different masses can be described by just one equation. In other words, why do we need only one input parameter (the value of $`\beta `$ for Mercury), if equation (5) depends explicitly on the reduced mass $`\mu `$?

The answer may reside on the fact that our Schrödinger-type equation is not a genuine quantum equation, but describes a kind of diffusion process. In this context, the re-scaled “Planck constant” present in (5) is related to the diffusion coefficient $`𝒟`$ by $`g^{}=2m𝒟`$ Nelson ; Nottale3 , where $`m`$ is the mass under diffusion. Furthermore, for any planet or asteroid gravitating around the Sun, the reduced mass $`\mu `$ coincides with its mass $`m`$. Therefore, remembering that $`V(r)`$ and $`E`$ are also proportional to $`m`$, it is easy to verify that (5), in fact, does not depend on $`m`$.

Another way of verifying this result is to look at equation (14). Using $`\mu =m`$ and $`g^{}=2m𝒟`$, we obtain $`\beta =GM/(4𝒟^2n)`$. So, for a given diffusion coefficient and a given stellar mass, the parameter $`\beta `$ depends just on $`n`$, as assumed in Eq. (30).

As a last remark, let us point out an observable difference between the flat model presented here and spherical models. In the approaches by Nottale et al Nottale3  and by Agnese and Festa AF1 , there is a predicted orbit at $`0.18`$ AU from the Sun, corresponding to $`n=2`$ (remember that, in their models, Mercury corresponds to $`n=3`$). This orbit is also predicted through the Bohr-like model presented in Marcal , corresponding to the quantum numbers $`n=1`$, $`n^{}=0`$ (see Eq. (2)). As a little planet orbiting at the fundamental radius $`0.05`$ AU is ruled out by thermodynamical constraints Nottale3 , a body at $`0.18`$ AU would be the only new body predicted to orbit near the Sun.

As we have seen in the previous section, such an orbit does not exist in the present model. It is excluded by the flatness of our solutions. Of course, this does not mean that it could not be observed in extra-solar systems. Actually, orbits with radius around this value were already observed Schneider . This fact could suggest that, in contrast to our solar system, the corresponding planetary systems are not flat, which could indicate that they were originated in a different way.

## Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the support and encouragement from Kleber C. Mundim (UnB) and Marcelo M. Moret (UEFS). We would like to thank Naelton Mendes de Araujo ( Sistema Telebras-Embratel) for sending astronomical data about the discovery of the asteroids HA2 and DW2. Also Ricardo Fragelli (UnB) for the extraordinary support on writing Maple programs for the solution of the Schrödinger-type equation. Finally ours thanks to Maristela Rocha (UnB) and Hans-Peter Leeb for reading and providing helpful suggestions on the manuscript. S.C. was partially supported by CNPq, Brazil.