format: text

text:
# Star cluster ecology V: Dissection of an open star cluster—spectroscopy

## 1 Introduction

Open clusters are useful laboratories for studying the interplay between single star evolution, binary star evolution and stellar dynamics. Unlike their bigger (and older) siblings, the globular clusters, they contain a manageable number of stars, and the evolution of the majority of the stars is not expected to be strongly affected by the dynamics. Still, a significant number of collisions and subsequent stellar mergers can take place, as well as dynamically induced exchange reactions between single stars and binaries. For all these reasons, the usual zoo of objects created in binary stellar evolution is significantly enlarged by the presence of even more exotic specimens that could not have formed in vitro through isolated evolution, but only in vivo through the dynamical interplay of initially unrelated (single or multiple) stars.

The simulations reported here have been run on a GRAPE-4 (Makino et al. 1997) system, a special-purpose computer designed to speed up stellar-dynamical calculations. While the models in this paper contain only $`3`$,000 stars, appropriate for open clusters, we have started to use the next-generation special-purpose computer, the GRAPE-6, to extend our simulations to include one or two orders of magnitude more stars. This will enable us to model globular clusters on a star-by-star basis, including those with very dense cores where most stars are influenced by various ‘traffic accidents’ in the form of encounters and mergers. The simulations reported here thus play a double role: astrophysically, they provide insight in the evolution of open clusters, and computationally, they help pave the way for the modeling of the more complex globular clusters.

In this paper we describe a series of self-consistent simulations of the evolution of open star clusters. All important effects are included to some degree of realism: stellar evolution, binary evolution, the internal dynamical evolution and the effects of the tidal field of the Galaxy. This is the fifth paper in a series in which we have gradually increased the ‘ecological’ complexity of stellar interactions to a realistic level. In this paper we analyze the results of the same eight calculations performed for our previous Paper IV (Portegies Zwart et al. 1999). There we concentrated on global cluster properties and compared them with observed open clusters, such as the Pleiades, Praesepe and Hyades. Specifically, we took a photometric standpoint and studied changes in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and cluster morphology as functions of time and initial conditions. Here we concentrate on the binary population and on higher-order multiple systems, and we study the dynamical and observational effects of these binaries and multiples on the evolution of the stellar system as a whole.

Detailed descriptions of the numerical methods used and global assumptions made in our calculations are given in Paper IV. Since we analyze the same data from a different perspective we do not repeat this information here. Instead, we quickly review the initial conditions of our models, and restate the methods used; for more details, see Paper IV.

## 2 Methods

In this section we briefly discuss the initial conditions of our models and the numerical techniques used in our model calculations. For details, refer to Appendix B and C of Paper IV (Portegies Zwart et al. 1999).

### 2.1 Initial conditions

We are interested in moderately rich ($`1000`$ stars) open clusters of intermediate age ($`\stackrel{<}{}1`$ Gyr). Starting from the currently observed mass and dynamical properties of such clusters we have reconstructed two plausible sets of initial conditions, which are presented in Table 2. Each calculation is performed four times with different random seeds in order to improve statistics. The notation in this paper is identical to that used in Paper IV (see its Appendix A for an overview).

For our simulations we assume a Scalo (1986) initial mass function, with minimum and maximum masses of 0.1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and 100 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, respectively, and mean mass $`m0.6\mathrm{M}_{}`$ at birth. Consistent with the above mass estimates, our simulations are performed with 1024 single stars and 1024 binaries, for a total of 3096 (3k) stars.

Stars and binaries within our model are initialized as follows. A total of 2k single stars are selected from the initial mass function and placed in an equilibrium configuration in the selected density distribution (see below). We then randomly select 1k stars and add a second companion star to them. The masses of the companions are selected randomly from the IMF between 0.1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and the primary mass (see Tab. 3). For the adopted binary fraction, the restricted secondary mass range translates into an overall mean mass of $`0.53\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Then the other binary parameters are determined. Binary eccentricities are selected from a thermal distribution between 0 and 1. Orbital separations $`a`$ are selected with uniform probability in $`\mathrm{log}a`$ between Roche-lobe contact and an upper limit of 5,000 A.U. (= $`10^6`$$`\mathrm{R}_{}`$, or 0.02 pc). When a binary appears to be in contact at pericenter, that particular orbit choice is rejected and new orbital parameters are selected. Table 3 gives an overview of the various distribution functions from which stars and binaries are initialized. (Figure 4 shows the initial distributions of orbital period and eccentricity.)

We select initial density profiles from the density distributions described by Heggie & Ramamani (1995) with $`\mathrm{W}_0=4`$ and $`\mathrm{W}_0=6`$, and refer to these models as W4 and W6, respectively, throughout this paper. We have performed four independent simulations for each set of initial conditions, labeled $`I`$ to $`IV`$.

All our cluster models start with the same virial radius of $`R_0=2.5`$ pc. This implies a conveniently constant scaling between the cluster dynamical time scale $`\left(GM_0/R_0^3\right)^{1/2}`$ ($`=1.5`$ Myr for $`M_0=1600\mathrm{M}_{}`$) and the time scale for stellar evolution. Each cluster is assumed to precisely fill its Jacobi surface at birth. Given the observed Oort constants in the solar neighborhood, we find that a model with $`\mathrm{W}_0=6`$ has to be placed slightly farther (10.4 kpc) from the Galactic center than the Sun, while a model with $`\mathrm{W}_0=4`$ has to reside somewhat closer (6.8 kpc), in order to obey the above relationships.

For a total cluster mass of 1600 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the Lagrange points of our two standard clusters lie at distances 14.5 pc ($`\mathrm{W}_0=4`$) and 21.6 pc ($`\mathrm{W}_0=6`$), from the cluster center. Stars are removed from a simulation when their distance to the cluster’s density center exceeds twice the distance to the first Lagrangian point. Table 2 reviews the selected parameters and initial conditions.

### 2.2 The N-body integrator

The N-body integration in our simulations is carried out using the kira integrator, operating within the Starlab software environment (McMillan & Hut 1996; Portegies Zwart et al. 1999). Kira uses a fourth-order Hermite scheme (Makino & Aarseth 1992), incorporates block time steps (McMillan 1986a; 1986b; Makino 1991), includes special treatments of close two-body and multiple encounters of arbitrary complexity, and a robust treatment of stellar and binary evolution and stellar collisions (see below). As mentioned above, the special-purpose GRAPE-4 (Makino et al. 1997) system is used to accelerate the computation of gravitational forces between stars.

### 2.3 Stellar evolution

The evolution of the stars is adapted from the prescription by Portegies Zwart & Verbunt (1996, §2.1). However, some changes are made to the mass loss in the main-sequence stage for massive stars and for mass-transfer remnants. We follow the details of model B from Portegies Zwart & Yungelson (1998). For our treatment of stellar mass loss, see Portegies Zwart et al. (1998).

Neutron stars receive a high-velocity kick at the moment of their formation. The reasons for the occurrence of these high kick velocities have been discussed in detail by Portegies Zwart & van den Heuvel (1999) and the implications for binary evolution are discussed by Portegies Zwart (2000). The distribution from which the kick velocity should be taken is less certain. We adopt the velocity distribution proposed by Harmann (1997) which has a dispersion velocity of 450 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Each neutron star formed received a kick chosen from this distribution and oriented in a random direction.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Overall evolution of the models

In this section we review the global properties of models W4 and W6, summarizing the more extensive discussion presented in Paper IV. Where we discuss individual models, we focus on the same two models discussed in Paper IV (model W4-IV and W6-III). In other cases the data for several models, or even all models, are combined in order to improve statistics; those cases are indicated specifically below.

Figures 1 and 2 present the overall evolution for our two sets of cluster initial conditions. Figure 1 shows the time evolution of the cluster mass. Models W4 and W6 lose mass at roughly constant rates of about 1.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (0.09%) and 0.82 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (0.05%) per million years, respectively. These mass loss rates result in the disruption of the cluster at about 1 Gyr for model W4 and around 2 Gyr for the more concentrated model W6. The higher mass loss rate of model W4 is mainly attributable to its closer proximity to the Galactic center and not per se to its lower concentration. These rates are consistent with a mass loss rate of 1.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ per million years for the slightly more massive star cluster studied by Hurley et al. (2001; 2002). The mass-loss rates per half mass relaxation time derived by Portegies Zwart et al. (2001) for dense star clusters near the Galactic center are about a factor of four higher than the corresponding rates for the clusters studied here.

Figure 2 shows the evolution of the Lagrangian radii containing 5%, 25%, 50% and 75% of the cluster mass, for models W4 and W6. Both clusters expand by about a factor of three during the first half-mass relaxation time ($`140`$ Myr). It is not clear whether the clusters experience any significant core collapse during this early phase. In Paper IV we concluded that the clusters do not experience core collapse due to the effects of binary activity, which tends to counteract core contraction (see McMillan et al. 1990, 1991). At later times ($`t\stackrel{>}{}650`$ Myr for model W4 and somewhat later for model W6), the Lagrangian radii decrease again as the cluster starts to dissolves in the tidal field of the Galaxy.

### 3.2 Global binary properties

Both models start with 50% binaries, so two-thirds of the stars are initially members of binary systems. The adopted upper limit ($`10^6`$$`\mathrm{R}_{}`$) on the initial semi-major axis means that most initial binaries are relatively wide. The fraction of hard ($`|E|\stackrel{>}{}1kT`$) binaries was $`0.46\pm 0.01`$ for all models, irrespective of the initial density profile. (The thermodynamic unit $`kT`$ is defined in Paper $`IV`$).

Figure 3 shows the evolution of the binary fraction. Shortly after the start of the runs, the binary fractions drop to about 42% and 48% for models W4 and W6, respectively, and remain roughly constant thereafter. This initial decrease in binary frequency is consistent with the disruption of all soft ($`|E|\stackrel{<}{}1kT`$) binaries. Supernova explosions dissociated 1.8% of the binaries in the W4 models, and about half that number in the W6 models. This difference is mainly the result of random fluctuations. Fluctuations in the binary fraction after $`100`$ Myr are mainly the result of escapers and mergers. The number of mergers resulting from unstable mass transfer or direct collisions is $`12.1\pm 0.5`$% for models W4 and W6. The escape rate of binaries closely follows the escape rate of single stars; both are relatively constant with time. Model W6 loses one binary per 2Myr; the escape rate for model W4 is about twice as high.

### 3.3 Evolution of binary parameters

The ecological interplay between stellar (and binary) evolution, stellar (and binary) dynamics, and the external tidal influence of the Galaxy transforms the initial distributions of stars and binaries in complex ways. We assume that initially all binaries are distributed throughout the cluster in the same way as single stars. However, since binaries are on average more massive than single stars, they subsequently tend to sink to the cluster center, where superelastic encounters quickly modify the spatial distributions of both stars and binaries.

These encounters come in many forms, from the more common single-star–binary and binary–binary types to the rare forms that involve triples and occasionally even higher-order multiple systems. The combined effects of such encounters significantly modifies the binary distribution functions, in terms of radius and binding energy as well as stellar type. In addition, stellar evolution and isolated binary evolution also cause binary parameters to evolve in time, independent of the occurrence of dynamical close encounters. In this subsection, we will present some of the net results of these complex processes.

#### 3.3.1 Distributions of orbital period and eccentricity

Figure 4a shows the initial distribution of orbital period (in years) and eccentricity of a subset of the primordial binaries of model W6 (the initial conditions for model W4 are identical). Figures 4b and c show the same distributions for models W4 (panel b) and W6 (panel c) at 600 Myr. In the middle panel, for model W4, only 871 binaries remained. In order to facilitate visual comparison, the upper and lower panels also show only 871 binaries out of the larger numbers that could have been plotted.

A striking feature of the three panels in Fig 4, is the lack of wide ($`p_{\mathrm{orb}}\stackrel{>}{}10^4`$ yr) binaries at later times. These binaries are completely absent in model W4, while in model W6 a small population of wide binaries remains. This deficiency in wide binaries in evolved clusters is caused by ionization of the soft binaries by dynamical encounters (see also Figure 3). For model W4 this process is more efficient than for the more concentrated models because 1) the W4 models experience a high density phase during their early evolution, and 2) the W6 models have extended outer regions with relatively low stellar densities because of the weaker tidal field. All surviving binaries with $`p_{\mathrm{orb}}\stackrel{>}{}10^5`$ year are located well beyond the cluster’s half mass radius, and most contain at least one white dwarf. In many cases, the orbital periods of these non-interacting binaries has increased substantially due to the large amount of mass lost from one (or both) of the component stars.

Binaries located above and to the left of the left-most dotted curves experience strong tidal effects during their early evolution. As a result, they quickly circularize, as can be seen by their precipitation to the zero-eccentricity line at the bottom in the last two panels. The majority of these systems contain at least one white dwarf or helium star. Occasionally a binary may enter the ’forbidden’ left-most area at a later time as a result of a strong dynamical encounter. Such a binary will either be quickly circularized or its components will collide and merge to form a single star (see §3.5).

Figure 5 shows how the percentage of tidally circularized binaries evolves over time. Not surprisingly, the very hard binaries, which have high binding energy and therefore tight orbits, have on average undergone much stronger tidal interactions and therefore have had a much larger chance to circularize. The four percentages presented in the figure—hard binaries and all binaries for each of the two classes of model—at first change little during the evolution of the cluster, but they increase at later times in the case of model W4.

Note that in Fig 4 there are some circularized binaries with long orbital periods, far to the left of the right-most dotted line, in the middle and lower panel. These are absent in the upper panel, which shows the initial conditions. The tidal circularization of these systems occurred when one of the stars ascended the giant branch before the onset of mass transfer. While in many cases this type of evolution leads to a later shrinking of the orbit, in some rare cases the binaries remain wide after a period of modest mass transfer.

Since tidal forces drop off quickly with distance, in most cases they either succeed in fully circularizing a binary, or they do not cause much of an effect. Consequently, the eccentricity distribution of most non-circularized binaries changes little with time. Figure 6 illustrates this by presenting the cumulative distribution of all binaries with the exception of those with zero eccentricity. Note that this general argument does not hold for the hardest binaries: when we select only the hard ($`|E_{\mathrm{bin}}|\stackrel{>}{}1000kT`$) or super-hard ($`|E_{\mathrm{bin}}|\stackrel{>}{}10^4kT`$) binaries, clear deviations from the initial thermal distribution are evident. This is not surprising: a $`10^4kT`$ binary simply does not have enough room to develop an eccentricity of, say, 0.9, because the semimajor axis is too small.

#### 3.3.2 Radial distribution of binaries

Figure 7 shows the binary fraction as function of distance to the cluster center at birth and at $`t=600`$ Myr, adopted as a representative snapshot of an older cluster. (Qualitatively similar results would have been obtained had we selected any other time between $`200`$ Myr and 1 Gyr.) The upper solid line shows the initial distribution for all binaries, regardless of their binding energy. The lower solid line presents the initial fraction of binaries with a binding energy of at least $`|E_{\mathrm{bin}}|>1000kT`$. To avoid clutter, we have shown the statistical uncertainties in the form of error bars only for the bullet points; the uncertainties in the open and close triangles can be estimated by the scatter between neighboring points.

The triangles in Figure 7 shows the distribution for all binaries at $`t=600`$ Myr for model W6 (open) and for model W4 (filled). The two distributions show similar trends, except for a generally smaller binary fraction in model W4 (see also Figure 5). The binary fraction in the central portion of the cluster is considerably higher than it was initially (upper solid line), because of mass segregation. For higher $`r`$ values, the fraction of objects that are binary remains below the original value, all the way to and beyond the tidal radius.

The bullets indicate the distribution of binaries with $`|E_{\mathrm{bin}}|>1000kT`$ at a cluster age of 600 Myr. In other to improve our statistics, we have combined the data from the two models; the distributions are similar, with model W6 containing $`8`$ % more hard binaries than model W4. Note that we find a higher proportion of hard binaries over the entire cluster field as compared to the initial distribution. This is mainly a result of dynamical evolution: hard binaries tend to get harder, and therefore some of the binaries contributing to the bullet points started off with a binding energy less that $`1000kT`$, and thus were not counted in the construction of the lower solid line.

The higher central concentration of very hard binaries, as compared to less hard binaries, is evident in Figure 8, which figure shows the cumulative distribution for single stars, hard $`|E_{\mathrm{bin}}|>1000kT`$ and super hard $`|E_{\mathrm{bin}}|>10^5kT`$ binaries. The figure also presents the cumulative radial distribution for higher order (mostly triple) systems. The left-most and right-most dotted curves in Figure 8 show the radial distribution for model W6 at birth and at an age of 600 Myr, respectively. Initially, both single stars and binaries follow the left-most dotted curve. At an age of 600 Myr, all binaries are more centrally concentrated than the single stars (see the figure caption). The harder the binaries, the more centrally concentrated their distribution has become. In the case of triples, the condensation toward the center is extreme, with a triple half-mass radius of around 0.3 pc.

The high central concentration of the very hard $`|E_{\mathrm{bin}}|>10^5kT`$ binaries is in part due to their early history. These binaries are largely the product of an unstable phase of mass transfer. The stellar components in these binaries were therefore more massive than they are at $`t=600`$ Myr, so they are more more strongly affected by mass segregation, causing them to sink to the central regions. In contrast, the moderately hard binaries with binding energies between $`100kT`$ and $`10kT`$ (not shown in Figure 8) are barely more centrally concentrated than the single stars. The triples are strongly centrally concentrated. This is a the most dramatic result of dynamical interactions: triple systems were not initially present, and must be created dynamically through encounters. Since the encounter rate increases sharply toward the cluster center, triples and higher-order systems are born, and often quickly destroyed again, near the very center of the cluster.

### 3.4 Escapers

The most important mechanism by which stars escape from the cluster is tidal stripping. Stars are assumed to have been tidally stripped once they reach two Jacobi (tidal) radii from the cluster center; they are then removed from the simulation. Stripped stars generally leave the cluster with relatively low velocities, as illustrated in Figure 9, which shows the distribution of escaper speeds for models W4 and W6.

It is convenient to draw a distinction between tidal evaporation and dynamical ejection of stars. Operationally, we distinguish between the two processes by the speed of the escaper; an “ejected” single star or binary leaves the cluster with a speed exceeding the escape velocity. That is, we infer the dynamics from the speed. Typically, this velocity is imparted to the escaping object during a strong interaction with another object in the cluster core. Because of the relatively low central densities (and hence low reaction rates) in our model clusters, this type of ejection is rather uncommon. White dwarf ejection velocities are not significantly different from those of main sequence stars, but giants have on average somewhat lower escaper velocities. This is mainly a consequence of the fact that giants are generally large and therefore cannot have very close encounters without colliding, so they are less able to pick up large escape velocities.

Another important escape mechanism is supernova explosions. A neutron star formed in a core-collapse supernova is hurled into space with a “kick” velocity that can easily exceed several hundreds of kilometers per second, greater than the cluster escape speed by 1–2 order of magnitude. These objects are hidden in the high-velocity tail of Figure 9; however, they are clearly visible in Figure 10 as the population of high-speed single objects with masses between 1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and 2 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

A supernova in a binary system has several effects on the velocity distribution of both single and binary stars. The sudden mass loss in the supernova event, as well as the asymmetric velocity kick, affect a binary’s internal orbital parameters and its center of mass velocity. When the binary is dissociated in the supernova, the companion to the exploding star is ejected with its orbital velocity, while the newly formed compact object receives an additional velocity kick. The effects of supernovæ on binary systems, and on the velocities of the binaries and single stars which result, are reviewed by Portegies Zwart (2000).

Figure 9 shows the velocity distribution of escaping stars and binaries from models W4 and W6. Due to the similarities in escape speeds between the two models, we have combined the data in a single plot. The escaper velocity distribution for single stars is slightly higher than that of the binaries. For clarity we show only the combined distribution of single and binary escapers in Figure 9. Escaper velocities are generally only slightly higher than the cluster velocity dispersion, and somewhat higher in the W4 models than in W6. The small fraction of high-velocity escapers in Figure 9 is due to neutron stars escaping after supernovae explosions.

In addition to the overall escaper velocities for the combined models, Figure 9 also shows the distribution for stars which escaped within the first half-mass relaxation time (right solid line). This distribution has a considerably higher mean than the overall distribution. The figure also shows the velocity distributions for escaping stars more massive than 2 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (top dashed curve) and $`m_{\mathrm{esc}}>4`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (lower dashed). These distributions are very different from the average escaper speed. Both models W4 and W6 experience high-density phases during their early evolution, within 1 initial half-mass relaxation time. The early escapers therefore have higher velocities. A similar process operates for the more massive escapers. The turn-off mass of a 2 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ star is about 800 Myr, while a 4 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ star lives for less than about 140 Myr. The distribution of escaper speeds for stars which escaped within $`t_{\mathrm{rlx}}`$ includes the stars with $`m>4`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Still, the distributions are considerably different, in the sense that the massive stars have relatively high escape speeds. The reason for this discrepancy is the greater dynamical activity of the high-mass stars, which take part much more often in dynamical encounters with binaries.

The dependence of escaper velocity on escaper mass is illustrated in Figure 10. Most escapers have low masses and low velocities. The average escaper velocity in the W4 and W6 runs was 1.14 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and 1.00 kms, respectively. Higher mass stars (and binaries) have considerably higher velocities. This trend was first observed by Blaauw (1961, see also Gies & Bolton 1986). Binaries are mostly ejected by dynamical encounters. Supernovae are also responsible for numerous high velocity escapers, both from kicks and from binary effects, as mentioned above. The neutron stars are clearly visible in Figure 10 as the objects having masses of about 1.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$and velocities up to $``$1000 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

Two rather low-mass ($`m0.11\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and m$`0.7\mathrm{M}_{}`$) stars have unusually large ($`100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`185\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, respectively) escape velocities. The more massive of the two was ejected from a tight binary at about $`t=5.6`$ Myr when its companion exploded in a Type Ib supernova, dissociating the binary. The low-mass object was ejected following a three-body encounter at $`t=223`$ Myr.

Of all stars ejected from models W4 and W6, only 109 ($``$0.93% out of a total of roughly 12,000) have velocities exceeding three times the dispersion velocity $`v_{\mathrm{disp}}`$ of the parent cluster. Of these, 46 are neutron stars. However, 57% of escapers with masses between 4 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and 11 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, and 75% of escapers more massive than 11 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, have velocities more than $`3v_{\mathrm{disp}}`$. The average escaper velocity of stars between 4 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and 11 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ is 8.5 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$; stars with masses exceeding 11 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ have an average escaper velocity of 21 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which is much higher than the cluster dispersion velocity.

These numbers are unusually high compared to the number of runaways in the Galactic disk. However, as our criterion here we have adopted three times the cluster velocity dispersion, instead of Blaauw’s (1961) criterion of 40 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (or three times the velocity dispersion in the Galactic disk). The fraction of high velocity stars following Blaauw (1961) was between $`1`$ % for stars with $`m\stackrel{<}{}11`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, about 2.5% for early B stars and about 20% among O stars ($`m\stackrel{>}{}16`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, see also Sone 1991). Among stars of spectral type A, Stone (1991) found a runaway frequency of $`\stackrel{<}{}0.3`$ %. These numbers are consistent with binary population synthesis studies of binaries in which stellar dynamical encounters are not taken into account (Portegies Zwart 2001).

The velocity dispersion of all stars in the cluster at an age of 600 Myr is $`v_{\mathrm{disp}}=0.72\pm 0.23`$$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. For stars within 1 pc (about the core radius) of the cluster center, $`v_{\mathrm{disp}}=0.98\pm 0.34`$$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$; stars between 10 and 15 pc of the center have $`v_{\mathrm{disp}}=0.59\pm 0.16`$$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Most striking is the higher velocity dispersion for stars well outside the tidal radius ($`r>15`$ pc) which have $`v_{\mathrm{disp}}=0.75\pm 0.20`$$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. A KS test indicates that the various velocity distributions are significantly different.

Drukier et al. (1998) reported a similar effect in the Globular cluster M15, and attributed it to tidal shocking. However, this process is not included in our models; we therefore conclude that the observed increase in the velocity dispersion outside the tidal radius cannot simply be a consequence of tidal shocks.

### 3.5 Collisions and Coalescence

Stellar mergers result from unstable mass transfer in a binary system or from direct collisions between stars. Sometimes (unstable) mass transfer is initiated by the presence of a third star.

Table 4 gives an overview of the 241 collisions occurring during the model calculations discussed here. A schematic diagram of the relative frequencies of various collision configurations in presented in Figure 11. This figure may be compared directly with Figure 2 of Paper I, and with Figure 5 of Paper II. For easier comparison, we have added to Table 4 two columns summarizing the results of Papers I and II. Note, however, that the comparison with papers I and II is not really appropriate, as these model calculations lasted for 10 Gyr. According to a KS test there is no significant difference between the time histories of the collisions in the W4 and the W6 models.

Most ($`\stackrel{>}{}80`$%) mergers in models W4 and W6 occur between two main sequence stars (see Table 4). This was also the case in Papers I and II. In Paper I, however, only collisions between single stars were considered, and the high proportion of main-sequence collisions simply reflects the high proportion of main-sequence stars. Paper II included both collisions between single stars and mergers resulting from binary mass transfer, so the results in that case should compare better with models W4 and W6. The collisions reported in this paper, however, have a rather small contribution from {ms, wd} mergers compared to those in Papers I and II. This may be due in part to the smaller ages ($`\stackrel{<}{}1`$ Gyr) of our models compared with Papers I and II ($`<10`$ Gyr).

Although clearly limited by small number statistics, an apparent difference between models W4 and W6 is the number of {wd, wd} mergers, which are much more common in model W4. This difference is reflected in the higher Type Ia supernova rate in model W4. Interestingly, the calculations in Paper II also had a high {wd, wd} merger fraction. In fact, if the binary population of models W4 and W6 were allowed to evolve after the disruption of the cluster, the rate of {wd, wd} mergers would be very similar to the results of Paper II. The cause of the high proportion of white-dwarf mergers in model W4 and Paper II is the larger amount of dynamical activity in these models, which drives more binaries into a state of mass transfer, favoring the formation of white-dwarf binaries (see also Hurley & Shara 2002). The resulting Type Ia supernova rate is discussed in the next section.

Figure 12 shows the radial distribution of collisions in models W4 and W6. More than 80% of all collisions occur within the initial half-mass radius ($`3`$ pc). Collisions in the W6 models tend to be more concentrated to the cluster core than in the W4 models. It is striking that some ($`5`$%) collisions occur far ($`\stackrel{>}{}8`$ pc) from the cluster center. These collisions are induced by binary evolution, whereas mergers in the core are mainly caused by stellar encounters.

The expected distribution of masses and radii of colliding stars can be calculated following Portegies Zwart et al. (1997; see their Eq. 14). Assuming a Maxwellian velocity distribution with velocity dispersion $`v`$ and including the effects of gravitational focusing, the number of collisions in the cluster per $`10^8`$ year may be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{10^3\mathrm{pc}^3}\right)^2\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{core}}}{\mathrm{pc}}\right)^3\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)\left(\frac{d}{\mathrm{R}_{}}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}{v}\right),$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the stellar mass. This rate is averaged over all other masses. (Note that, based on this estimate, we expect no collisions during the time span of our simulations for our adopted cluster parameters, underscoring the importance of binary interactions.)

Figure 13 shows the expected (upper panel; see paper III for details) and observed (lower panel) distributions of primary and secondary masses of stars involved in collisions in models W4 and W6. We excluded here the stars which merged as a result of unstable mass transfer. The upper panel is created via Eq. 1 from the initial mass function and the same mass-radius relation for zero-age main-sequence stars as was used in the model calculations. Gray shades indicate collision probability; darker shades correspond to higher values. The collisions observed in our models are presented in the lower panel. The masses of the colliding components in our model calculations are on average somewhat higher than expected. This phenomenon was first observed by Portegies Zwart et al. (1999; see also Portegies Zwart & McMillan 2002) in simulations of young star clusters having high central stellar densities. Portegies Zwart et al (1999) used R 136, a compact and very dense star cluster in the 30 Doradus region, as template for their simulations. We return to this comparison in the discussion section.

For 240 of the 241 stellar pairs experiencing a collision, we were able to reconstruct the orbit before the collision occurred. Figure 14 shows the orbital parameters for the bound systems thus obtained. The single pair for which this reconstruction was not possible experienced a collision during a supernova event—the neutron star formed in the supernova was ejected directly into its 1.9 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ main-sequence companion. In 181 of the 240 collisions ($`71`$%), the orbit was circular on merger. The eccentricity distribution in the other bound cases is consistent with a thermal distribution. This result is consistent with the findings in Paper II, where for model $`S`$, 19% of the collisions were the result of a dynamical encounter.

### 3.6 Supernovae

Supernovae can dramatically affect the evolution of a star cluster. During a supernova, the exploding star ejects a large fraction of its mass at high speed. This mass quickly leaves the cluster, as the ejection velocity far exceeds the cluster’s escape speed. In addition, the newborn compact object may also receive a kick velocity large enough to escape the cluster. Binaries are very fragile to supernovae, and each binary hosting a supernova is likely to be dissociated.

#### 3.6.1 Supernova types

Tables 5 and 6 present overviews of the supernovae observed in the models discussed in this paper, and compare them with expected supernova rates. Table 5 lists supernovae by type; Table 6 gives the evolutionary state of the exploding star and also indicates the possible presence of a binary companion. For comparison, we also present the expected number of supernovae given the same initial conditions, but ignoring the effects of dynamical evolution.

The adopted Scalo (1986) initial mass function contains 0.41 stars per thousand with $`m>25`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and 3.1 stars per thousand with $`8<m<25`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. In a naive evolution model, single stars with masses $`\stackrel{>}{}25`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ may result in a Type Ic supernova, while stars more massive than 8 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ produce a Type II supernova. For a population of 2000 single stars we then expect $`0.82`$ Type Ic and $`6.2`$ Type II supernovae. (Note that this estimate does not include binaries, and is therefore inapplicable to Type Ia and Ib supernovae.)

We compare these numbers with purely binary evolution models of Portegies Zwart & Verbunt (1996). According their model AK, the Type Ic supernova rate is enhanced compared to models of only single stars. In the non-dynamical models (W4-nd and W6-nd), Type Ia and Ib supernovae occur without affecting the other supernova types. One reason for this is the fact that many Type Ib supernova originate from stars that were once part of a mass-transferring binary. The primary star in these binaries tends to lose its envelope in a phase of mass transfer and explode in a Type Ib supernova. The companion star, although initially not massive enough to experience a supernova, may accrete some material from the primary star. This accreted material may be sufficient to raise the secondary star’s mass over the limit for experiencing a supernova. Stellar mass is, in a sense, recycled to produce more supernovae (see also Portegies Zwart & Yungelson 1999).

The relative numbers of supernova types Ia:Ib/c:II for the 8 model clusters (models W4 and W6 combined) are 0.18:0.27:0.55; in the models where stellar dynamics is ignored these ratio are 0.05:0.34:0.61. The addition of dynamical interactions to the models enhances the Type Ia supernova rate at the expense of the Type Ib/c and Type II supernova rates. The enhancement of Type-Ib/c supernova in model W4 is due to close (post mass transfer) binaries, possibly because these binaries experience more dynamical encounters during the shallow collapse of the cluster core (see the discussion in §3.1).

#### 3.6.2 Binary survival rate

Only two binaries survive their first supernova. One remains bound because the supernova results in a black hole, which does not receive a velocity kick. This binary experiences a second phase of mass transfer (see §3.7 for details). The other surviving binary is the result of a supernova in a rather short-period binary with a main-sequence companion. The resultant neutron star receives only a mild kick and the binary remains bound. Later this binary becomes an X-ray source (see §3.7 for details).

Two supernovae are triggered by collisions between carbon stars, resulting in Type Ia events, and one Type II supernova follows a collision between two supergiants. One neutron star is shot into its 1.9 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ main sequence companion following a supernova. The resulting collision product, a Thorn-Zytkow star, is ejected from the star cluster before collapsing to a black hole.

Only two out of 29 binaries survive the formation of a neutron star and one survives the formation of a black hole. A total of six black holes result from type Ic supernovae.

Figure 15 gives the time history of the supernovae in models W4 and W6. First black holes (bullets) are formed, followed by neutron stars (circles, triangles and plus signs). The supernovae in the W4 models seem to occur somewhat earlier than in the W6 models, but the mean time at which a supernova occurs, 23.3 Myr and 23.5 Myr for models W4 and W6, respectively, are not significantly different. The formation of a black hole at 46 Myr in model W6 is the result of a radio pulsar colliding with its carbon-star companion (see §3.7).

### 3.7 Mass transfer and peculiar binaries

#### 3.7.1 First Roche-lobe contact

The high binary fractions in our models result in frequent episodes of mass transfer. This is illustrated in Figure 16, which shows the distribution of the times of first Roche-lobe contact in models W4 and W6. The various symbols indicate the state of the donor at the moment of first contact. (Note that helium stars, although likely to be the remnant of an earlier phase of mass transfer, are still counted in this figure.).

In most cases the mass is transferred to a main-sequence star, except in the cases indicated with $`\times `$, where the mass transfer is onto a compact object (mostly a white dwarf). In the majority of these latter cases the donor is a (sub)giant, but there are two occasions where the donor is a helium star, and in one case a main-sequence star (see Figure 17. One episode of mass transfer occurs between a (sub) giant and a black hole (model W4 at $`t=829`$ Myr).

The time histories of models W4 are significantly different from those of models W6, according to a $`\chi ^2`$ test on the cumulative distributions of Figure 16. In the W4 models, mass transfer tends to occur earlier than in the W6 models. As discussed above, the difference is a result of the greater dynamical activity during the early phase of model W4. In fact, the higher binary activity in this case is caused by the early phase of shallow core collapse in the W4 models, which does not occur in the W6 models.

#### 3.7.2 X-ray binaries

Mass transfer from a hydrogen- or helium-burning star onto a compact object generally leads to an X-ray phase. Figure 17 shows the distribution of orbital periods (in days) at the onset of Roche-lobe overflow for binaries with white-dwarf (in one case a black hole) accretor. Note the clear distinction between main-sequence and helium-star donors at short orbital periods and giant donors at larger periods. The wide systems with giant donors are probably most comparable to the supersoft sources (X-ray binaries where a white dwarf accretes at a super-Eddington rate for a solar-mass object, emitting at a rate of about $`10^{38}`$ erg/s).

A peculiar object which might be observable as an X-ray source results from a binary in which a helium giant (2.5 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$) transfers mass to a 1.17 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ carbon-oxygen white dwarf. First contact occurs at 45.9 Myr at an orbital period of 1.7 days. When the carbon star explodes and becomes a neutron star (at 46.07 Myr) it receives a kick of only 16 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. At that moment the companion star still fills its Roche lobe, and as a result the two stars coalesce into a single object. The merger product collapses a little later to form a 2.42 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ black hole.

### 3.8 Triples and higher order systems

Long-lived triples and higher-order systems pose severe challenges to any numerical code. We encountered a total of 41 long-lived multiples in our runs, 21 triples \[4 quadruples\] in W4 and 13 triples \[3 quadruples\] in W6. Only one of the quadruple systems is hierarchical; the others are binary-binary systems.

The first multiple systems form as early as 20 Myr (by a binary-binary interaction); some survive for as long as 900 Myr. Figure 18 presents an overview of all triples in all models from $`t=0`$ to 600 Myr. (At later times the numbers of triples decrease as the clusters dissolve.) The orbital period of the outer binary is generally rather constant. This is not surprising as, for the triple to be long-lived, it must be hierarchical and isolated, and the orbital energies and hence periods are adiabatic invariants. The systems showing a significant period derivative are driven by binary evolution or by temporary close encounters with other cluster members.

The fractions of long-lived triple and quadruple systems in our models are only $`0.26`$% and $`0.12`$%, respectively, considerably smaller than the fraction of triples observed in the Galactic field (2.6%, Duquennoy & Mayor 1991) or in the Pleiades cluster ($`2`$%, Mermilliod et al. 1990, 1992). Note also that these are the total numbers of multiple systems created at any time during our simulations. The mean lifetime of such a system is $`280\pm 180`$ Myr.

We can study the population of short-lived multiple systems by selecting a bound pair of stars and searching for a third nearby star which forms a bound subsystem. At any moment in time the number of such short-lived multiple systems is about twice as high as the number of persistent triples. At $`t=600`$ Myr we counted a total of 46 bound multiple systems in all models (W4 and W6), implying in a triple frequency of about 0.6% per star. For comparison, Kroupa (1995) found a triple fraction of 0.5% using a similar technique. The outer orbits of these triples, however, are generally rather soft.

Nine collision products in our models W4 became members of persistent triples or quadruples. These collisions occured in transient triples. In about half (5) the cases, the two stars in the inner binary collided while the intruding star remained bound to the merged star. (For definiteness, we take the “inner” orbit in a quadruple system to be the larger of the two inner orbits.) In a few cases (3), the merger product and its companion became bound to another third star, forming a stable triple. In two of these cases, the encounter resulted in second collision with the merger product. Both these triple collisions resulted in blue stragglers which had, at some time, a mass exceeding twice the turnoff mass of the cluster.

Of the total of 117 collisions in the W4 models, nine occured in transient triple systems. With a triple frequency of only $`0.26`$%, one naively expects less than one collision to occur in triples, making the frequency of collisions in triples unusually high. In part, this higher fraction of collisions in multiples is due to the dynamics—such systems generally form close to the cluster center, where the stellar density is highest and most collisions are expected. In addition, collision products tend to be found near the center, because they are more massive than average. The higher combined mass of three stars and the relatively large cross section of the outer orbit also increases the collision probability. Similar circumstances led to the high collision rates observed in the R 136 simulations of Portegies Zwart et al. (1999, see also Portegies Zwart & McMillan 2002). Thus, triples are favorable for collisions, and collision products favor triple systems.

We can characterize the triple systems formed in our simulations as follows: All inner orbits have periods less then 100 year with an average of about 5.1 years. All outer orbital periods exceed 100 year and have an average of about 4600 years. The eccentricities of the inner and outer orbits are quite distinct. The inner orbits have generally rather small eccentricies ($`e=0.44\pm 0.3`$) and its distribution is consistent at a 98.8% level with the inner eccentricity distribution of observed triples (Tokovinin 1997). The distribution of outer eccentricities ($`e=0.65\pm 0.14`$) is consistent with thermal.

## 4 Comparison with previous work

### 4.1 McMillan & Hut 1994

The simulations reported by McMillan and Hut (1994) used up to 2048 stars, with up to 20% (rather soft: $`120`$ or $`1100kT`$) primordial binaries, and included the Galactic tidal field. However, they excluded stellar evolution and hence any stellar mass loss. In the absence of a physical time scale associated with stellar evolution, they presented their results in units of the initial relaxation time. Our W6 models have half lives of about 6 initial relaxation times, much shorter than the $`12`$–30 initial relaxation times for the most comparable McMillan & Hut models. Stellar mass loss is the main reason for the more rapid dissolution of our models; in addition, the McMillan & Hut runs all began with the cluster well inside its Jacobi surface, so the clusters had to expand significantly before significant tidal mass loss occurred. As discussed previously, all the McMillan & Hut models experienced core collapse, which is not seen in our simulations, where core collapse is arrested by stellar mass loss.

McMillan & Hut found that the binary fraction in their simulations first fell due to as binaries were destroyed by interactions with other binaries in the cluster core, then rose again at late times as the cluster evaporated in the Galactic tidal field. In contrast, we find that the (initially $`50`$%) binary fraction in our models remains roughly constant throughout the calculation, then increases significantly to $`70`$% when only $`10`$% of the cluster mass remains. These differences are most likely attributable to the lack of significant core collapse and the stronger tidal fields in our runs.

One of the most interesting conclusions made by McMillan & Hut is that the spatial distribution of hard binaries is different than the distribution of soft binaries (see their Figure 9). In Figure 7 we showed that hard binaries $`E>1000kT`$) are slightly more centrally concentrated than average.

### 4.2 Kroupa 1995

The main difference between our calculations and those of Kroupa (1995) is his neglect of binary evolution and his inclusion of a prescription for pre-main-sequence binaries. The eccentricity distribution of his ’primordial’ binaries was therefore somewhat different from ours, but this affects only binaries with the highest eccentricities and the shortest orbital periods. On the other hand, his neglect of binary evolution underestimated the fraction of tidally circularized binaries. In his calculations the boundary between hard and soft binaries was at an orbital period of roughly $`2.7\times 10^4`$ years, similar to that in our models W4. We have already compared the characteristics of the populations of triple systems in our calculations (see §3.8).

### 4.3 De La Fuente Marcos 1997

De la Fuente Marcos (1997) performed studies of the evolution of small ($`N750`$), tidally limited open clusters having a variety of initial mass functions, with and without the inclusion of stellar (but not binary) evolution. All models started with a substantial fraction (1/3) of primordial binaries having mass ratios of 0.5 and energies in the $`1`$$`10kT`$ range. He found that the dissolution time scale of his models depended quite sensitively on the choice of IMF, and that the binary population shortly before dissolution could show characteristic features allowing remnants of rich and poor clusters to be distinguished observationally. It is unclear how these results extend to larger systems.

The binary fraction in the de la Fuente Marcos simulations ranged from 33% initially to about $`51\%\pm 0.19`$% near the disruption of the cluster (averaged over all 20 of his simulations). By the time the clusters dissolved, the binary fraction in the core had dropped to $`15\%\pm 0.13\%`$. We find a similar increase in the total binary fraction, but clearly the core binary fraction in our models is much higher (see Figure 7). The small binary fractions in the core near the end of his simulations are the direct result of his choice of initial binary binding energies.

### 4.4 Papers I, II

The comparison between the relative collision frequencies in Tab. 4 and those of model $`S`$ in Paper I are quite striking. In that paper only encounters between single stars were studied and primordial binaries were neglected. Still, in Paper I 77% of all collisions occurred between two main-sequence stars, and 14% between a main-sequence star and a giant; the remaining 9% involved giants and remnants.

The (ms, ms) merger rates in our models are comparable to the merger rates in paper II, but (ms, wd) were much greater in model S of paper II because it is older (10Gyr). The (ms, gs) merger rate is lower because there are fractionally fewer main-sequence stars in paper II.

### 4.5 Hurley et al. 2001

Hurley et al. (2001) have modeled the open cluster M67, using a simulation code similar in many ways to our own. Both codes use fitting formulae for single star evolution, and include a series of recipes for dealing with binary star evolution. The main difference between Hurley et al. (2001) and the current paper lies in the parameter choices for their simulations: they evolved 15,000 stars to an age of 2500 Myr, before adding dynamics, in the form of a direct $`N`$-body calculation. They then evolved the combined model to an age of 4300 Myr, appropriate for the old open cluster M67. They also present the results from smaller $`N`$-body runs, starting at earlier times.

Hurley et al. (2001) focused mostly on the formation of blue stragglers, and reported that their simulations indeed produced roughly the right number of blue stragglers, in agreement with observations of M67. They also performed a non-dynamical binary evolution population synthesis, and found that the number of blue stragglers in that case fell short of that required by observations. They concluded that dynamical encounters have been crucial in the evolution of M67. While it is difficult to make a quantitative comparison between their simulations and ours, given the rather different types of initial conditions, our main results concerning the numbers and types of collisions, and the formation rate of triples are in broad agreement.

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

We have performed detailed N-body calculations of intermediate-mass open clusters near the Sun. The initial conditions were selected to mimic star clusters such as Pleiades, Praesepe and Hyades. Our calculations included the effects of dynamical encounters between stars and higher order systems, the tidal field of the parent Galaxy and the evolution of single stars and binary stars.

### 5.1 Cluster lifetime and structure

Our model star clusters dissolved in the tidal field of the Galaxy within about 1 billion years. The rate of mass loss remained roughly constant, at $`0.8`$$`1.4\mathrm{M}_{}`$ per million years, corresponding to a cluster half-life of $`600`$–1000 Myr, depending on distance from the Galactic center.

The density profiles of the model clusters changed dramatically during the cluster lifetime. Core collapse was prevented by stellar mass loss and binary heating. Our less concentrated (W4) models became more compact during the first few million years, whereas the more concentrated (W6) models expanded from the beginning. The W4 models still dissolved more quickly in the Galactic tidal field, however, mainly due to their closer proximity of the Galactic center.

Mass segregation is a very efficient process. After only a small fraction of an initial relaxation time, single white dwarfs, giants, collision products, hard binaries, mass transferring binaries and binaries with one or two massive components (compared to the mean mass in the cluster) were all noticeably more centrally concentrated than the average star, as measured by the half mass radii of the various components.

### 5.2 Binary stars

The numbers of binaries decreased with time at roughly the same rate as the numbers of single stars, with the result that the binary fractions in our models remained more or less constant over the studied range of cluster ages. The binary fraction generally decreased during the first few million years by several percent, due to supernovae and dynamical encounters, both of which tended to disrupt binaries. For the remainder of the evolution, this fraction slowly increased. The maximum binary fraction of $`65\%`$ is reached near disruption. The fraction of binaries in the core remained between 50% and 60% higher than the fraction near the half-mass radius over the entire lifetime of the cluster.

The widest binaries were dissociated soon after the start of the simulations. A considerable fraction ($`4.5\pm 0.6\%`$) of highly eccentric binaries with rather short orbital periods circularized and some experienced mass transfer early in the evolution of the cluster. These short-period binaries were generally more centrally concentrated than wider binaries or single stars, because they are on average more massive than single stars and do not interact.

The overall distributions of binary parameters, however, hardly change with time. Apart from the loss of binaries with the largest orbital periods and those with short orbital periods and high eccentricities, most binaries were relatively unaffected by either stellar evolution or stellar dynamics. The observed binary populations in open clusters may therefore be a reasonable representation of the initial primordial population.

### 5.3 Escapers

We define three families of escaping stars. (1) Neutron stars were ejected from the cluster with very high velocities. About 0.4% of all stars were ejected as neutron stars due to supernova explosions. (2) Massive stars tended to have rather high escape velocities, because they were often found in close binaries which were disrupted by the explosion of the primary star, possibly after a phase of mass transfer. The average escape velocity of all single main sequence stars in model W4 was $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}=1.2\pm 0.51`$$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, whereas stars with $`m\stackrel{>}{}4`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ had $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}=17.4\pm 2.3`$$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. For model W6 these numbers are only slightly smaller. (3) The mean escaper velocity of low-mass stars ($`v_{\mathrm{esc}}=1.0\pm 0.28`$$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for stars with $`m<0.5`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$) was comparable to the cluster velocity distribution; the mean velocity of escaping binaries was ($`v_{\mathrm{esc}}=0.97\pm 0.29`$$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for model W4 and $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}=0.81\pm 0.29`$$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for model W6), somewhat smaller than that for single stars.

### 5.4 Stellar collisions

Not surprisingly, collisions tended to occur near the cluster center, but a considerable fraction of mergers occured farther out, near the tidal radius. More than 80% of all collisions occurred within about two core radii. Most ($`80`$%) collisions occurred between two main sequence stars. About 70% of the collisions were the result of an unstable phase of mass transfer. The rest occurred in single-star–binary or binary–binary encounters. Multiple collisions were rare: only two out of 241 in our model calculations.

Collision participants were somewhat more massive than expected based on the simple cross section arguments presented in Paper III. Most (85%) collisions occurred between main-sequence stars; most of the remainder involved a main-sequence star and a giant (12%). Only 3% of the collisions occurred between two remnants. The dynamical activity in the cluster core, however, caused quite a few white dwarfs to become binary members, which would later merge due to the emission of gravitational waves. This leads to a rather high merger rate among white dwarfs (see also Shara & Hurley 2002).

### 5.5 Supernovae and stellar remnants

The overall supernova rate in our simulations was consistent with rates observed in the Galaxy. However, the ratios of Type II to Type Ia, Ib, and Ic supernova are quite different. Most striking is the order of magnitude enhancement of type Ia supernovae in the W4 models compared to the non-dynamical models and the population synthesis of non-interacting binaries. In these same models, Type Ib supernova are enhanced by about a factor of two compared to a population of binaries without dynamical encounters.

Because of the assumed neutron-star kick distribution, pulsars were generally not retained in our cluster models. Only one out of 61 neutron stars was retained to form an X-ray binary later in its lifetime. The observed velocity distribution of ejected pulsars was somewhat smaller than the input kick velocity distribution. X-ray binaries in which a white dwarf accretes from a companion star were about an order of magnitude more common. X-ray binaries containing black holes were rare simply because such objects form from the highest-mass stars, which are themselves rare.

Among the more unusual collisions, in our simulations, we observed one between a neutron star and a helium giant, two between CO white dwarfs, resulting in type Ia supernovae and the formation of an X-ray binary with a black hole as accretor. Several white dwarfs experienced a phase of mass transfer from a companion star. The donor was most often a (sub)giant. In total, 13 X-ray binaries were formed, most with a white dwarf as accretor.

### 5.6 Multiple systems

The number of persistent triples formed in our calculations was about an order of magnitude smaller than the observed fraction of triples in open clusters and the Galactic disk, although the frequency of triples and higher-order systems present at any moment in our simulations was comparable to the numbers actually observed. The majority of these were transient, however, and their orbital parameters differed considerably from observations. The orbital parameters of the outer orbits of the formed triples formed in our models was not representative of triples observed in the Galaxy, which tend to have shorter periods and lower eccentricities.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01112.01-98A (NASA contract NAS 5-26555) by the Space Telescope Science Institute, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences (KNAW), the Netherlands organization for scientific research (NWO), by NASA ATP grants NAG5-6964 and NAG5-9264. Calculations were performed on the GRAPE-4 systems at Tokyo University, Drexel University and the University of Bloominton. SPZ is grateful to Drexel University, Tokyo University and the Institute for Advanced study for their hospitality.


text:
# Untitled Document

A MORE SENSITIVE LORENTZIAN STATE SUM

Louis Crane and David Yetter

Dept. of Mathematics

Kansas State University

Manhattan, KS 66503

crane@math.ksu.edu, dyetter@math.ksu.edu

ABSTRACT We give the construction modulo normalization of a new state sum model for lorentzian quantum general relativity, using the construction of Dirac’s expansors to include quantum operators corresponding to edge lengths as well as the quantum bivectors of the Barrett Crane model, and discuss the problem of its normalization. The new model gives rise to a new picture of quantum geometry in which lengths come in a discrete spectrum, while areas have a continuum of values.

I. INTRODUCTION

The state sum models for quantum general relativity in  have attracted considerable attention, especially since the discovery of their finiteness in . Unfortunately, they seem to have two weaknesses. The first is the well noted difficulty of finding a classical limit for them, the second is the fact that they contain an excessively large contribution from degenerate geometries .

In hindsight, it is clear why such problems should arise. The models do not have quantum operators corresponding to edge lengths or components of edge vectors. In the classical derivation of the model, the constraints on the bivectors implied that edge lengths would exist, except in degenerate configurations. This led some researchers to hope that it would be possible to have “edges without edges,” i.e. to recover the geometry of the edges as a side effect of the constraints. The discovery of the degenerate configurations seems to indicate that this hope was misplaced.

The problem now arises of how to modify the model in such a way as to retain its positive features, while removing the degenerate configurations, and being able to impose more stringent matching conditions between adjacent 4-simplices, thus providing a more natural classical limit.

One promising approach to this problem was proposed in . This approach may be described as conservative, in the sense that it retains the basic form of the model, as a multiple integral in hyperbolic space, while projecting out the dangerous region of the integral.

We want to propose a “radical” approach. We construct a state sum model which has both edge length and bivector operators. The new model will use the expansors of Dirac , as quantizations of the edges of a triangulation, decompose their tensor products to obtain unitary Lorentz representations to represent quantizations of the bivectors on the faces as in the model of , then combine them in 10J symbols as in the BC model. The objective is to retain the dynamics of the BC model, while enlarging the variables to allow more precise joining conditions between simplices.

The expansors of Dirac can be thought of as a relativistic analog of the solutions of the spherical harmonic oscillator. Much as the eigenvectors of the spherical harmonic oscillator form a basis for $`L^2(R^3)`$, the expansors give a basis for $`L^2(R^4)`$, and can be considered a quantization of an edge displacement in a four dimensional simplex.

Very roughly, the physical idea is to augment the model by including solutions of the Schrodinger equation with radial terms analogous to the solutions for the hydrogen atom instead of just the angular pieces which correspond to spins (the harmonic oscillator in 3D as a radial potential, is very similar to, though not identical with, the hydrogen atom since they are both radial potentials). This is consonant with the intuition that the triangulations of this model are “atoms of geometry”. Motivated by this intuition, we will explore using the oscillator hamiltonian to normalize the theory.

Another intuitive way of understanding the new model is that the models of , were quantizations of a description of the geometry of a triangulated manifold by the bivectors on its 2-simplices, which can be related to the infinitesimal generators of the rotation group. The new model is a quantization of a description of the displacement vectors on edges and bivectors on 2-simplices, which can be related to the full set of generators of the poincare group, translations on edges, rotations on faces.

Our proposal can also be understood in a categorical context. The various state sum models for quantum GR are all constrained versions of categorical state sums related to topology . From the higher categorical standpoint , it is rather odd that we are using only a tensor category, rather than a tensor 2-category in a 4D state sum. Indeed,  has shown that a state sum in 4D similar to the ones in , can be constructed from a “spherical” 2-category. The most obvious difference between the two types of state sums is that in the 2-categorical approach both edges and faces get information.

The new state sum we are proposing is related to a new 2-category  which corresponds to the combination of the poincare and lorentz groups into a categorical group . The construction makes use of a new class of categorical structures called “measured categories.” Indeed, it is the coincidence of a natural higher categorical picture with some natural quantum geometry which motivates the model we will be describing. The categorical aspects of this construction will appear in a companion paper , the present paper, intended for an audience in mathematical physics, will not discuss them.

Since the expansors are no longer familiar, we will begin with an exposition of them, which should be self contained for anybody familiar with the unitary lorentz representations which play a role in . Then we will outline the construction of the new model.

II. THE EXPANSORS

In 1945, Dirac  introduced the first study of unitary representations of noncompact lie groups by constructing a family of examples, which he called the expansors, for the lorentz group.

His construction is a lorentz signature analog of the three dimensional spherical harmonic oscillator. Let us first review the construction in the three dimensional euclidean signature case. We can take as representing spaces the homogeneous polynomials of degree n in the formal variables $`\xi _x,\xi _y,\xi _z`$.

The action on this space of the three dimensional rotation group SO(3) is given by substitution of the rows of the matrices for group elements into the polynomials. A simple calculation shows that such a substitution preserves the inner product on the space of polynomials in which monomials with different exponents are orthogonal and each monomial $`\xi _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}\xi _{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}\xi _{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}`$ has length $`(n!l!m!)^{1/2}`$. Thus the expansors of each degree form a unitary representation of SO(3).

These representations are not irreducible. In general, the homogeneous polynomials of degree n decompose into a direct sum of one copy each of every irreducible representation whose parity is the same as n from 0 or 1 up to n. This fact is well known in nuclear physics. This result is closely analogous to the well known solution of the hydrogen atom, whose three quantum numbers would correspond to the degree n, the spin of the representation, and the z component of the spin.

The relationship between the representations so constructed, which Dirac called expansors because they come from an expansion of a polynomial under a substitution, and the solutions of the spherical harmonic oscillator, is that the $`\xi `$ variables correspond to the raising operators for the three harmonic oscillators in the three dimensions.

$`\xi _x=x+d/dx`$ etc.

The inner product given on the basis above then corresponds to the ordinary inner product in $`L^2(R^3)`$ as a simple calculation shows. The degree of the polynomial is just the energy level of the solution.

This construction is not original to Dirac. His contribution was extending the construction to the lorentzian signature, while preserving the unitary nature of the representations.

Before we discuss the lorentzian signature result, we will briefly describe the four dimensional analog of this construction, because it may well prove interesting in the study of euclidean quantum gravity.

The construction in 4D is the same as in 3D except we must include a fourth $`\xi `$ variable. In complete analogy to 3D; we thus obtain for each n a reducible unitary representation of SO(4).

The decomposition into irreducibles is similar, with the interesting new feature that only the balanced representations of SO(4) now appear. For the case of SO(4), this means that the two half integers indexing the representation are equal. This is not surprizing, since only they appear as harmonics on $`S^3`$. Nevertheless, for readers familiar with the development to date in the state sum models, it is already clear that certain simplifications are going to ensue.

In order to use a similar construction to obtain unitary representations of SO(3,1), Dirac hit on the expedient of including a fourth parameter $`\xi _t`$, and considering the homogeneous polynomials in $`\xi _x,\xi _y,\xi _z,`$ and $`(\xi _t)^1`$. This is no longer a finite dimensional space for any positive or negative degree, as is necessary, since SO(3,1) is noncompact. Assigning a length

$`(l!m!n!)^{1/2}(p!)^{1/2}`$

to the monomial

$`\xi _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}\xi _{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}\xi _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}\xi _{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}`$

we again find that SO(3,1) preserves the inner product on the space of homogeneous expansors of degree n, which we denote $`E^n`$.

This discovery of Dirac’s was the first example of a family of unitary representations of a noncompact group to appear. Just as in the Euclidean case, the representations compose into series of irreducibles.

The irreducibles which appear are in the principal series  of representations $`R(n,\rho )`$ of SO(3,1) for n integer and $`\rho `$ real. Interestingly, only the balanced representations R(n,0) and R(0,k) appear in them. Negative degree extensors decompose as strings of \[n/2\] R(i,0)’s of the same parity as n, followed by all the R(0,i)’s, while the positive degree extensors decompose into strings of R(0,i)’s only, beginning with i=n and containing all the R(0,i)’s of appropriate parity. These facts are easy to check, comparing the formulas in  and .

The expansors have an interpretation in terms of the tensor product of 4 harmonic oscillators with the oscillator in the t direction assigned a negative energy. The degree is then the energy level of the solution.

Using the eigenbasis for the “lorentzian harmonic oscillator”, we can thus quantize minkowski space in the form

$`L^2(M^4)=E^n`$;

with the further decomposition as representations of SO(3,1) following immediately.

The positive and negative parts of our sum quantize the timelike and spacelike regions. We believe this could be treated using geometric quantization.

III. THE QUANTUM TRIANGLE

Now we have a tool for constructing a quantized description of the geometry on a lorentzian simplex. We first need to see how to combine data on a triangle to produce quantum edges and a quantum bivector.

The classical conditions we need to impose are that the vector sum of the displacements on the three edges is 0, and that the bivector is the wedge product of any two of them, with a sign depending on orientation. It is actually slightly easier to order the 3 vertices of the triangle 1,2,3, orient the edges by ascending order, and require the vector on the edge labelled 13 to be the sum of the other two vectors.

It is easy to see how to quantize this. The space $`T_q=(E^n)^2`$ is naturally identified with the space $`T_S=L^2[\{(a,b,c)|a,b,cϵM^4;c=b+a\}]`$ . We can restrict to the skew symmetric part of $`T_q`$ . Passage from one ordering to another would give us a different description of the same space. Explicitly,

$`\sigma _q;L^2[a,b]L^2[a,c]`$ for $`c=b+a`$.

Furthermore, this map from one parametrization of $`T_S`$ to another is equivariant with respect to the action of SO(3,1), so the decomposition of the skew part of $`T_q`$ would still give the same combination of irreducible representations of SO(3,1) after a change of ordering. Thus, the sum of representations of SO(3,1) occurring in $`T_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}`$ is a natural setting for a quantization of the bivector in the quantum triangle. The action of the operators corresponding to components of the bivector is just the action of the lie algebra elements on the representations, as in the correspondence in  between the lie algebra and the bivectors.

We now have a space, $`T_S`$ identified with its presentation $`T_q`$, which is a quantization of a minkowskian triangle, while its skew symmetric part is a natural setting for the quantum bivector.

How should we extract a “quantum bivector?” To see this, we should think about the geometry of the situation where two vectors are wedged into a bivector. The map

$`\pi :v_1\times v_2v_1v_2`$

is a fibration with fiber $`R^2\times S^1`$, since the set of vectors with a given wedge is the set of pairs in the plane which make a parallelogram with a given area. The image of $`\pi `$ is the set of simple bivectors of $`M^4`$.

We want a quantization of the image of $`\pi `$, so we want to identify the representations in the decomposition of $`T_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}`$ which pass down to the image. The answer is interesting, if familiar. Ths $`S^1`$ piece of the fiber of $`\pi `$ is rotated by the rotation in the plane of the bivector to which it is sent. Thus, the part of the function space on the fiber which is constant along $`S^1`$ transforms the same way as the corresponding function on the image.

Now, which representations correspond to constants along $`S^1`$, and which to higher Fourier components? The little group of a bivector is contained in a maximal torus of SO(3,1), so the representations of the principal series are induced from it. Tensoring with a nontrivial fourier component will therefore change a representation $`R(0,\rho )`$ to $`R(k,\rho )`$.

Thus, in order to make a quantum description of the bivector on the quantum triangle, we must project out the unbalanced representations appearing in $`T_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}`$.

This result is not surprizing, since we should only obtain simple bivectors when we wedge two vectors, but it is reassuring that it emerges naturally from our categorical quantization procedure. We will now have an infinite overcounting of the representations which survive in the image of $`\pi `$, from the tensor product with the $`L^2(R^2)`$ piece from the fiber of $`\pi `$. It is already clear from the definition of $`T_q`$ that it will contain infinitely many copies of each representation.

Let us describe more explicitly the representation of the quantum bivector in the quantum triangle. We are taking the skew part of the tensor product of the direct sum of all the expansors $`E^n`$. Each of these decomposes into a tower of copies of $`R(0,\rho _i)`$ for all integer valued of $`\rho `$ beginning with n and of the right parity. We then project onto the balanced part, ie. only the copies of $`R(0,\rho )`$ , where now $`\rho `$ is any positive real number. Thus we get copies of the direct integral of all the $`R(0,\rho )`$ for each combination of two indices n, and two $`\rho _i`$, skew symmetrized with respect to the pair of indices. The n indices are the quantum version of the length operators on the sides. The other index $`\rho _i`$ is analogous to the angular momentum quantum number for the hydrogen atom. We do not yet understand its quantum geometry.

In this construction, we are using two different operations on the expansor space. One is the identification $`\sigma _q`$ of $`L^2[a,b]`$ with $`L^2[a,c]`$ above, the other is the skew symmetric tensor product of representations of SO(3,1). These are quantum versions of vector addition and the wedge product of vectors. The fact that our expansor space can both be naturally added and wedged, which we are exploiting here, is related to the categorical idea mentioned above, that representations of the poincare and lorentz groups should be fused into a higher categorical structure. $`T_q`$ and its transformation $`\sigma _q`$ are the same space and transformation which occur in the 2-categorical picture, where the natural decomposition of $`L^2(M^4)`$ is as a direct integral of characters of the translation group, and $`\sigma _q`$ is simply tensor product of characters . This view makes even clearer the fact that $`T_q`$ is a good quantization of the triangle: tensor product of characters of the translation group is simply vector addition.

IV. AN OUTLINE OF THE NEW MODEL

Now that we have our basic toolkit, it is easy to see how to set about constructing a new model. We attach one copy of $`T_q`$ to each triangle in the triangulation, decompose the alternating part of each into irreducible representations of SO(3,1) by tensoring the decompositions of each $`E^n`$, project out all except the balanced representations, form regularized 10J symbols from them as in , and form the sum over all choices of irreps in the triangulation of the product of all 10J symbols. We restrict our sum to terms in which all edges in four simplices which are incident in the triangulation have the same $`E^n`$. This is a quantization of requiring all matching edges to have the same lengths, all triangles to close, and the bivectors on faces to correspond to the edges.

At the price of vastly increasing our degrees of freedom, we now have a state sum with quantum edge variables which match between adjacent 4-simplices, and a dynamics which will reproduce the Einstein-Hilbert action by the usual argument.

We conjecture that the degenerate states of the old model  will now be of measure 0, since they do not correspond to any assignment of edge lengths. This is a rather subtle conjecture, since some global constraints must appear among the quantum bivector data on a 4-simplex.

Of course, in this naive unnormalized version of the model, the sum will be infinite. We discuss issues of normalization below.

It is interesting that the new model is a more complicated sum of combinations of balanced representations only, with more projections of tensor products of balanced representations onto balanced representations. This means it is built out of the same mathematical pieces as the B-C model , and can therefore be represented as multiple integrals of Feynman type over $`H^3`$ . This is an optimistic sign that it will have a good normalization.

To see more explicitly what the new model will look like, it is a good idea to pick an ordering of the vertices of a four simplex. We can then choose to represent the copies of $`T_S`$ on the six triangles incident on the vertex labelled 1 by the copy of $`T_q`$ corresponding to the two edges incident on 1, in lexicographic order. This means starting with 4 copies of $`E^n`$, one on each of the four edges out of vertex 1, decomposing into representations of SO(3,1), and forming alternating tensor products in pairs. This can be thought of as a “quantum frame”. The other four triangles can be represented in terms of the representations on the four edges by using the transformation $`\sigma _q`$ of $`T_S`$ corresponding to a reordering. In further developing the model it will be necessary to give an explicit form for $`\sigma _q`$ . It is analogous to the problem of writing a plane wave in terms of atomic orbitals, so familiar from scattering theory.

This procedure gives a map

$`\mu :(E^n)^4R(0,\rho )^{10}`$

which will need to be studied carefully to test the above conjecture.

V. ISSUES OF NORMALIZATION; SMALL ATOMS

Our first suggestion in regard to normalization relates to a change in point of view as to the meaning of terms in our quantum state sum.

We want to think of the quantum data on our 4-simplices as “atoms of geometry,”  rather than as possibly large regions which happen to be utterly flat. We have several reasons for this. In the first place, the idea of spacetime as a nondenumerably infinite point set seems inextricably wedded to classical physics. We believe the point of our spin foam models is to replace this picture with a superposition of discrete structures. In the second place, a large volume which is treated as completely flat is unphysical. We would also mention the unpleasant behavior of spin foam models in the large J limit as something to be avoided.

Motivated by the above considerations and by the connection between the decomposition of $`L^2(R^4)`$ we are using and the spherical harmonic oscillator hamiltonian, we propose to put another factor in our state sum. This would be a product of $`e^H`$ for each edge in the triangulation. Actually 2 choices are possible, we can either make the edges spacelike, or make them timelike and use the opposite sign convention in our definition of $`H=x^2+y^2+z^2t^2`$. In the expansor picture, this amounts to an exponentially damped weight on $`E^n`$ terms.

Certainly, this would help a lot with the divergence. More delicate computation will be needed to see if it suffices.

It seems clear that the problem of the multiplicity of copies of $`R(0,\rho )`$ due to the indices n would be controlled by this ansatz. The other multiplicity needs to be better understood. It appears to be an artifact caused by the overcounting from the extra degrees of freedom in the fibration discussed above, but a nice way to cancel it is needed.

We ought to remind ourselves that the initial normalization of the BC model, motivated by the connection with TQFT, turned out to be not the best one, and that it was a rederivation of the model as an expansion in feynman diagrams that gave the correct one .

This poses the question of finding some feynmanological picture for the new model. We believe this is an interesting question for several reasons.

In the first place, the integrals in the BC model turned out to be essentially feynman integrals in curved space. The new model will be composed of slightly more complicated integrals of a similar type.

Secondly, feynman diagrams are essentially morphisms in a tensor category. The new model is 2-categorical in a geometrically natural way, so it should be a good place to try to understand the 2-categorical analog of feynmanology, which should be important in advancing the spin foam picture.

VI CONCLUSIONS

Let us restate the construction of the model as far as we currently understand it. We begin by summing over an assignment of one $`E^n`$ to each edge in the triangulation. We then put a normalization factor of $`e^n`$ on each edge, impose the projection onto $`T^q`$ for each triangle of each 4-simplex, decompose the skew tensor product on each triangle into irreps of the lorentz algebra, project onto the balanced irreps, form the B-C 10J symbols, and take the integral of products of terms. It is not clear yet how much our constraints help us with our naive infinities, or whether further normalization is necessary. We believe a deeper study of the new quantum geometry of this model will clarify this.

The fibration picture for the quantum triangle suggests that the naive divergences in this model just come from an infinite multiplicity corresponding to the volume of $`R^2\times S^1`$. This makes us optimistic that a consistent regularization can be found, much as the divergences in the model of  were all controlled by dividing out a single infinite volume.

The hope is that the classical states (terms of stationary phase) in this sum will be discrete einstein metrics with all simplices very small.

We note that the idea of , that we need to divide by an infinite diffeomorphism volume factor to regularize a state sum, is formally similar to the current situation. We are not sure if there is a deeper connection.

Since there is some interest in the question of discrete versus continuous spectra for geometrical quantities in quantum general relativity, let us note that the length variables in our model are discrete because of the decomposition of the expansor spaces described above, but that the area spectrum will be continuous because the decomposition of the tensor product of the irreducible unitary representations takes the form of a direct integral, not a discrete sum.

It is also interesting to consider the possibility of a q-version of the present model. Since it is well known that a natural q-harmonic oscillator exists , it is easy to see how to go about constructing q-expansors. A q-version of the B-C model has been studied in . It would be interesting to study the decomposition of the q-expansors, and to see if they led to a manifestly finite version of the 2-categorical model.

At this point, it is still rather speculative to be thinking about adding matter to this system. Nevertheless, we point out that we are only including a factor which exponentially damps the length on each edge in our preliminary proposal for a normalization. This is in contrast to state sum models for TQFTs in which rather subtle terms arise, which would not make sense for nonmanifold configurations. It is therefore possible to consider the suggestion of conical matter  in the model of this paper.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper was strongly motivated by conversations with John Barrett and Marco Mackaay, who were kind enough to show one of us reference 14 in an unfinished state.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. J. W. Barrett and L. Crane, Relativistic spin nets and quantum gravity, J. Math. Phys. 39 No. 6 (1998) 3296-3302

2. J. W. Barrett and L. Crane, A lorentzian signature model for quantum general relativity Class. Quant. Grav. 17 No 16 (2000) 3101-3118

3.L. Crane A. Perez and C. Rovelli, A finiteness proof for the lorentzian state sum model for quantum genreral relativity. gr-qc 0104057

4.J. C. Baez, . D. Christensen, and G. Egan, Asymptotics of 10J symbols, Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002) 6489

5. J. W. Barrett and C. M. Steele, Asymptotics of relativistic spin networks, gr-qc 0209023

6.L. Freidel and D. Louapre, Asymptotics of 6J and 10J symbols, hepth 0209134

7.P. A. M. Dirac, Unitary representations of the lorentz group, Proc. Roy. Soc. A. 183 (1945) 284-295.

8. L. Crane, L. H. Kauffman and D. Yetter, State sum invariants of 4-manifolds, JKTR 6(2) 1997 177-234

9.J. Baez, Higher dimensional algebra and plank scale physics, gr-qc 9902017

10.L. Crane and I. B. Frenkel, Four dimensional topological quantum field theory, Hopf categories, and the canonical bases, JMP 35 No. 10, (1994) 5136-5154

11. M. Mackaay Spherical 2-categories and 4-manifold invariants Adv. Math. 143 (1999) 288-348

12. M. Mackaay Finite groups, spherical 2-categories and 4-manifold invariants Adv. Math. 153(2) (2000) 353-390

13L. Crane and D. Yetter, Measured Categories and Representations of 2-Groups, in preparation

14.J. W. Barrett and M. Mackaay, Categorical representations of categorical groups, to appear.

15. J. Baez, Higher Yang Mills theory, hep-th 0206130

16. Harish-Chandra, Infinite irreducible representations of the lorentz group, P. Roy Soc. A. Math, 189 (1947) 372

17. I. M. Gelfand, I. M. Graev, and N. Vielkin, Generalized Functions, vol 5, Academic Press 1966

18. J. Barrett, The classical evaluation of relativistic spin nets, Adv. Th. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 593-600

19. L. Freidel and K. Krasnov, Simple spin networks as feynman graphs, J. Math. Phys. 41 (2000) 1681-1690.

20 M. Reisenberger, private conversation.

21. R. De Pietri, L. Freidel, K. Krasnov and C. Rovelli, Barrett Crane model from a Boulatov-OOguri field theory over a homogeneous space Nucl. Phys. B574 (2000) 785-801.

22. L. Freidel and D. Louapre, Diffeomorphisms and spin foam models gr-qc 0212001

23. A. J. Macfarlane, Qn q-analogues of the harmonic oscillator and quantum group $`SU(2)_q`$ J. Phys. A 22 (1989) 4581

24.K. Noui and P. Roche Cosmological deformations of lorentzian spin foam models, gr-qc 0211109

25 L. Crane, A new approach to the geometrization of matter, gr-qc 0110060