text:
# Superintegrability, isochronicity, and quantum harmonic behavior

## Abstract

We discuss the properties of superintegrable Hamiltonian systems, in particular those that admit separation of variables in cartesian coordinates. We show that the superintegrability of such potentials is equivalent to the isochronicity of the separated potentials. We use this fact to get a new insight into an old question about the relation between quantum and classical harmonic behavior.

Hamiltonians of the form

$$H=p_x^2/2+p_y^2/2+V_a(x)+V_b(y)$$
(1)
admit two independent second-order integrals, $`H_a=p_x^2/2+V_a(x)`$ and $`H_b=p_y^2/2+V_b(y).`$ They are therefore integrable. Those that admit an additional nontrivial integral of motion are maximally superintegrable since they have $`2n1`$ integrals of motion, $`n`$ being the number of degrees of freedom. Such systems were investigated in Gravel and Winternitz (2002); Gravel (2003); Winternitz et al. (1967).

Theorem A relates the existence of this additional integral of motion to the isochronicity of the separated Hamiltonians. It provides a new characterization of isochronous potentials in classical mechanics, which can easily be adapted to many more general contexts. We use this to propose a new definition of quantum harmonic behavior, based on quantum superintegrability. We then give examples that show that potentials that are harmonic according to this definition do not necessarily have equidistant spectra, which was the usual definition for quantum harmonic behavior, but still exhibit regular behavior. The spectra of our examples can indeed be generated from a finite number of states by the application of a creation operator. Therefore their emission spectrum is highly degenerate, which makes them physically very similar to the usual harmonic oscillator.

###### Remark 1.

We will assume through this paper that all classical potentials are $`C_2`$ over the considered interval of the real axis. The results might be generalizable to $`C_1.`$

###### Definition 1.

A Hamiltonian $`H_a(x,p_x)`$ and, by extension, the potential $`V_a(x)`$ is isochronous if $`V_a`$ has a local minimum and if all its bounded trajectories have the same period.

###### Remark 2.

Since the potentials considered here are differentiable, and the existence of a local maximum would imply trajectories with infinite period, an isochronous potential can have only one local minimum, and the potential must go to infinity on the boundaries of the considered domain.

###### Theorem A.

A Hamiltonian of the form (1) with a local minimum is maximally superintegrable if and only if $`V_a`$ and $`V_b`$ are isochronous.

###### Proof.

The first part of the proof is straightforward. We know, from a theorem due to Nekhoroshev Nekhoroshev (1972), that the bounded trajectories of a maximally superintegrable Hamiltonian are all closed. Since the motion along the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axis can be decoupled, we can consider separately the periods along each direction. If these periods varied, they would do it continuously with respect to initial conditions that are independent (i.e. the $`x_i(0)`$ and $`p_i(0)`$). We could therefore choose initial conditions such that the ratio between the periods is irrational. In this case the two-dimensional motion would not be periodic, leading to a contradiction.

We now have to demonstrate that the converse is true, i.e. that if $`V_a`$ and $`V_b`$ are isochronous the whole system is superintegrable. The idea of the proof is to transform each one-dimensional system into a harmonic oscillator, and then use the two-dimensional integrals of the anisotropic harmonic oscillator to find, via the inverse transformation, integrals of the initial system. We will find directly the appropriate transformation using the trajectories of the system.

We can specify a point in the phase space of a one dimensional isochronous potential that has its minimum at $`x=0`$ by specifying the trajectory on which it lies, and the time it took for a particle moving along that trajectory to get there starting from the turning point with $`x>0.`$ Since there is only one such turning point, and since the system is isochronous, this transformation is well defined and one-to-one on the interval $`t[0,T),`$ $`T`$ being the period of the system.

We therefore consider the transformation $`(x,p)(r,t),`$ where $`r`$ is the value of the turning point with $`x>0`$ and $`t`$ the time for a particle to get to $`(x,p)`$ from that turning point. We will now introduce a lemma that will be demonstrated below.

###### Lemma 1.

The transformation $`(x,p)(r,t)`$ is a diffeomorphism for $`r0`$.

We can compose this change of variables with

$$X=r\mathrm{cos}t,P=r\mathrm{sin}t,$$
(2)
which is a transformation from polar to cartesian coordinates and is continuous and differentiable, except at the origin. The transformation $`(x,p)(X,P)`$ is therefore a diffeomorphism, except possibly at the origin.

The trajectories in the $`(X,P)`$ plane have constant velocity, period $`T`$ and are along circles. Therefore $`X`$ and $`P`$ obey the equations of a harmonic oscillator,

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \dot{X}=P\dot{P}=\left(\frac{2\pi }{T}\right)^2X\end{array}$$
(3)
We use this method for both $`(x_1,p_1)`$ and $`(x_2,p_2),`$ and since the periods in the two directions are commensurable, the resulting system expressed in terms of $`\{X_1,X_2,P_1,P_2\}`$ exhibits the same motion, and therefore the same integrals as the anisotropic harmonic oscillator with rational ratio. This is known Jauch and Hill (1940) to admit three independent integrals of motion, $`\{Q_1,Q_2,Q_3\}.`$

Since the $`X_i`$ and $`P_i`$ are differentiable functions of the $`x_i`$ and $`p_i,`$ The three $`Q_i,`$ expressed in terms of the $`\{x_i,p_i\}`$ are independent integrals of motion of the initial Hamiltonian.

Let us now prove lemma 1.

###### Proof.

Differentiability of $`(x,p)`$ with respect to time is given by the Hamilton equations, $`\dot{x}=p`$ and $`\dot{p}=V^{}(x),`$

The existence of the two derivatives with respect to $`r`$ is given by the theorem of differentiable dependance on initial conditions (see e.g. Hartman (2002)), applied to the Hamilton equations.

In order to show that $`(x,p)(r,t)`$ is also differentiable, we have to show that the determinant of the Jacobian matrix

$$J=\left|\begin{array}{cc}\frac{x}{t}& \frac{x}{r}\\ \frac{p}{t}& \frac{p}{r}\end{array}\right|=\left|\begin{array}{cc}p(t,r)& \frac{x}{r}\\ V^{}(x(t,r))& \frac{p}{r}\end{array}\right|$$

does not vanish on a solution $`(x(t,r),p(t,r))`$. Let us write

$$x(t,r+v)=x_v,p(t,r+v)=p_v,x_0=x,p_0=p.$$

The Jacobian reads

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill p\frac{p}{r}+V^{}(x)\frac{x}{r}=\underset{v0}{lim}p(p_vp)/v+V^{}(x)(x_vx)/v\\ \hfill =\underset{v0}{lim}\left(p_v^2/2p^2/2+V^{}(x)\left(x_vx\right)\right)/v\\ \hfill \underset{v0}{lim}(p_vp)^2/(2v)\end{array}$$

Since $`V^{}(x)(x_vx)V(x_v)V(x)`$ and $`(p_vp)^2/v(p/r)^2v0`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill J=\underset{v0}{lim}(p_v^2/2+V(x_v)(p^2/2+V(x)))/v\\ \hfill =\underset{v0}{lim}(V(r)V(r+v))/v=V^{}(r).\end{array}$$

This is nonzero everywhere except at $`r=0`$. The proof of the lemma is complete. ∎

We now introduce a concept which will allow us to discuss one-dimensional potentials without always referring to the two-dimensional Hamiltonian.

###### Definition 2.

A Hamiltonian $`H_a=p_x^2/2+V_a(x)`$ is called $`2D`$-superintegrable if there exists a $`H_b=p_y^2/2+V_b(y)`$ such that $`H_a+H_b`$ is superintegrable. We shall call $`H_b,`$ Hamiltonian associated to $`H_a.`$ It is also $`2D`$-superintegrable.

###### Remark 3.

If $`H_a`$ is isochronous, theorem A guarantees that it is $`2D`$-superintegrable. The fact that $`H_a`$ is $`2D`$-superintegrable gives no guarantee that it is isochronous, though, unless both $`H_a`$ and its associated Hamiltonian have a local minimum.

$`2D`$-superintegrability is therefore a generalization of isochronicity since it includes potentials such as free motion and the repulsive harmonic oscillator. It is therefore tempting to identify as ”harmonic” $`2D`$-superintegrable potentials in classical mechanics.

Even though some questions regarding the independence of quantum integrals are not yet fully understood Weigert (1992); Hietarinta (1989), the concept of superintegrability can be adapted to quantum mechanics in a straightforward manner, and this had been done since Friš et al. (1965). The adaptation is not so easy for isochronicity. Since well-known examples (such as the harmonic oscillator) have equidistant spectra, it was natural to assume that this property should characterize quantum harmonic potentials Ghosh and Hasse (1981); Mohazzabi (2000); Nieto and Gutschick (1981). It was shown in Ghosh and Hasse (1981); Mohazzabi (2000) that the quantum equivalent to a classical isochronous potential need not be equidistant. We will see that this is still the case when we ask that the quantum equivalent be $`2D`$-superintegrable. The quantum potential will nevertheless exhibit properties that make it similar to the harmonic oscillator, e.g. regarding the infinite degeneracy of the emission spectrum. Therefore it is tempting to identify quantum harmonic behavior and $`2D`$-superintegrability. Studying the properties of $`2D`$-superintegrable potentials will then help us in the search for a more ”property-oriented” definition for quantum harmonic behavior.

The formalism of creation-annihilation operators, defined here as operators $`A`$ such that $`[H,A]=\lambda A`$ with $`\lambda `$ a constant, is useful in dealing with $`2D`$-superintegrable potentials. Let us write $`H=H_a(x_1,p_1)+H_b(x_2,p_2),`$ and let $`Q(x_1,x_2,p_1,p_2)`$ be the additional integral of motion. If the commutator $`[H_a,Q]`$ is nonzero, it is a new integral of $`H.`$ This is likely to be a consequence of the definition of the independence of quantum integrals since it is the case in classical mechanics. Therefore the operator $`M:Q[H_a,Q]`$ is a nontrivial and nonzero linear operator on the vector space of the integrals of motion of $`H.`$ Therefore each nonzero eigenvalue of $`M`$ indicates the existence of a creation or annihilation operator for $`H_a.`$ Notice that the existence of creation-annihilation operators does not guarantee that the spectrum is equidistant. Consider for example the Hamiltonian $`H=p^2/2+ax^2+b/x^2,`$ which is classical and quantum $`2D`$-superintegrable for all values of $`a`$ and $`b.`$ Its spectrum and eigenfunctions are known Winternitz et al. (1967). In the quantum case we can find a creation-annihilation pair by the method just described, with $`|\lambda |=2\sqrt{2a}\mathrm{}.`$

For $`b>3/8\mathrm{}^2,`$ the spectrum of this potential is equidistant. For $`\mathrm{}^2/8<b<3\mathrm{}^2/8,`$ though, the spectrum is given by

$$E=\sqrt{2a}(2k+1\pm \nu )\mathrm{},$$

where $`\nu =\sqrt{1+8b/\mathrm{}^2}/2.`$ Therefore, apart from the special case $`b=0,`$ the potentials with $`1/8\mathrm{}^2<b<3/8\mathrm{}^2,`$ have a spectrum organized in pairs separated by $`2\sqrt{2a}\nu \mathrm{}.`$ Each pair is separated by $`2\sqrt{2a}\mathrm{}.`$ The creation-annihilation operators therefore skip a level every time they are applied. Finally notice that $`b`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{}^2,`$ and therefore $`\nu `$ does not depend on $`\mathrm{}`$. Hence the energy levels are still grouped in pairs as $`\mathrm{}0`$.

The method of dressing chains (see Veselov and Shabat (1993); Veselov (2001)) can be used to construct Hamiltonians for which we can calculate explicitly the spectrum of energy. The idea is to consider a chain of one-dimensional Hamiltonians $`H_n`$ that can be factored as

$$H_n=a_na_n^{}=a_{n+1}^{}a_{n+1}+C_n$$
(4)
with the periodicity condition $`H_{n+N}=H_n`$ This method is directly related to $`2D`$-superintegrability. Indeed, if one of the Hamiltonians in the chain is $`2D`$-superintegrable, it is possible to construct additional integrals for the whole family of Hamiltonians, for if $`[H_n(x,p_x)+H^{}(y,p_y),Q]=0,`$ then

$$[H_{n+1}(x,p_x)+H^{}(y,p_y),a_{n+1}Qa_{n+1}^{}]=0.$$

It turns out indeed that with $`N=3,`$ the first nontrivial case of dressing chains, equations (4) were solved to give a family of $`2D`$-superintegrable potential defined in terms of the fourth Painlevé transcendant (see e.g.Veselov (2001)), classified as (Q.17) in Gravel (2003). Since Hamiltonians satisfying dressing chains have interesting regularity and solvability properties (see Veselov (2001)), the relation between the existence of dressing chains and integrability deserves further study. Here we will simply use one of the results of Veselov (2001) to give two further examples of $`2D`$-superintegrable potentials with interesting spectra.

Let us consider the potential

$$V=\frac{\mathrm{}^2x^2}{8\alpha ^4}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{(x\alpha )^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{(x+\alpha )^2},$$

with $`\alpha ^{},`$ which is a special case of the family of potentials classified as $`(Q.17)`$ in Gravel (2003).

This potentials behaves at infinity like the harmonic oscillator, but has two second-order poles at $`x=\pm \alpha .`$ The method of dressing chains allows us in theory to calculate the spectrum for this potential from that of the harmonic oscillator. Indeed, if we write

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill b=\left(p_x\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2\alpha ^2}xi\mathrm{}f(x)\right)/\sqrt{2}\\ \hfill b^{}=\left(p_x+\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2\alpha ^2}x+i\mathrm{}f(x)\right)/\sqrt{2}\end{array}$$
(5)
where $`f(x)=1/(x\alpha )1/(x+\alpha ),`$ we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_1=b^{}b& =\frac{p_x^2}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2x^2}{8\alpha ^4}\frac{5\mathrm{}^2}{\alpha ^2}\hfill \\ \hfill H_2=bb^{}& =\frac{p_x^2}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2x^2}{8\alpha ^4}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{(x\alpha )^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{(x+\alpha )^2}\frac{3\mathrm{}^2}{4\alpha ^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$

For every eigenvector $`|\varphi `$ of $`H_1,`$ the function $`b|\varphi `$ is either zero, or an eigenvector of $`H_2`$. Conversely, if we have an eigenfunction $`|\psi `$ of $`H_2`$ the function $`b^{}|\psi `$ is zero, or an eigenvector of $`H_1.`$ Since the spectrum and eigenvectors of $`H_1`$ are well-known, we might get the impression that the problem for $`H_2`$ is solved. This is not the case, since the eigenfunctions for $`H_2`$ obtained by the application of $`b`$ on the analytic, bound states of the harmonic oscillator $`\varphi _n(x)`$ have a first-order pole at $`x=\pm \alpha ,`$ and are therefore not square-integrable, unless $`\varphi _n(\pm \alpha )=0.`$ Since this is the case only for $`\varphi _2,`$ and since $`b\varphi _2=0,`$ we can not construct a single square integrable bound state this way.

Let us therefore consider a hypothetic square-integrable ground state $`\psi `$ of $`H_2.`$ We will now use an important result of Veselov Veselov (2001) which states that all solutions of $`H_2\psi =E\psi `$ (his result applies in fact to any Hamiltonian of the form $`(Q.17)`$) must be meromorphic. We can therefore develop $`\psi `$ in Laurent series around $`x=\alpha `$ or $`x=\alpha .`$ Since $`\psi `$ is square integrable and meromorphic, it can not diverge at any finite $`x,`$ hence the Laurent series are in fact Taylor series.

Let us now consider the Schrödinger equation $`H_2\psi =E\psi .`$ Since $`\psi `$ is nonsingular, it must be proportional to $`(x\alpha )^2(x+\alpha )^2.`$ Therefore $`b^{}\psi ,`$ which is a eigenfunction of $`H_1,`$ is proportional to $`(x\alpha )(x+\alpha ),`$ and therefore does not diverge at $`x=\pm \alpha .`$ The function $`b^{}\psi `$ is therefore an analytic eigenfunction of the harmonic oscillator. If $`b^{}\psi =0,`$ we can solve directly for $`\psi `$ and find

$$\psi (x)\frac{\mathrm{exp}\frac{x^2}{4\alpha ^2}}{x^2\alpha ^2},$$
(6)
which is not square integrable. If $`b^{}\psi 0`$ is square integrable, it is a standard solution of the harmonic oscillator, and can be written as

$$h(x)e^{\frac{x^2}{4\alpha ^2}}$$

where $`h(x)`$ is a polynomial in $`x`$.

We have just seen that in this case $`b(b^{}\psi )=E\psi `$ cannot be square-integrable, and therefore $`E=0`$ and $`b^{}\psi =\varphi _2,`$ the second excited level of the harmonic oscillator.

If we solve $`b^{}\psi =\varphi _2,`$ we find

$$\psi \frac{x(x^2\alpha ^2)e^{x^2/4\alpha ^2}\sqrt{2\pi }\alpha ^3e^{x^2/4\alpha ^2}\mathrm{erf}\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}a}\right)}{x^2\alpha ^2}.$$

This function is not square integrable because of its behavior at infinity and at $`x=\pm \alpha .`$

We have therefore proven that if $`\psi `$ is a square integrable eigenstate of $`H_2,`$ the function $`b^{}\psi `$ cannot be a square integrable function.

Since it is an analytic eigenstate of the harmonic oscillator, we know from undergraduate textbooks on quantum mechanics (i.e. Gasiorowicz (1996)) that if $`b^{}\psi `$ is not square integrable, it goes to infinity as a polynomial times $`e^{x^2/4\alpha ^2}.`$ If that is the case, $`bb^{}\psi =E\psi `$ cannot be square integrable at infinity unless it is zero. Since we have already found the two states that have $`E=0`$, we have shown that the Hamiltonian $`H_2`$ has no square integrable eigenfunction. This Hamiltonian is therefore equidistant, but in a quite degenerate manner. Interestingly enough, if we consider the same Hamiltonian along the imaginary axis, or equivalently with $`i\alpha ,`$ we find a real Hamiltonian without singularities. We can this time find square integrable bound states of $`bb^{}`$ from states of the harmonic oscillator. We find indeed that the Hamiltonian $`bb^{}`$ with $`\alpha `$ imaginary admits levels with $`E=0`$, and with $`E=(n+3)\mathrm{}^2/(2\alpha )`$ with $`n,`$ but none at $`E=\mathrm{}^2/(2\alpha )`$ or $`E=\mathrm{}^2/\alpha .`$ We therefore have an example where the creation operator does not skip any level, but where the spectrum is not exactly equidistant either.

The quantum $`2D`$-superintegrable potentials we studied here all have in common with the harmonic oscillator that their spectrum could be generated from a finite number of states by the application of a creation operator. Their emission spectrum is highly degenerate, which is exactly the kind of properties we expect the quantum harmonic potentials to exhibit. Moreover, their classical limit is the (isochronous) harmonic oscillator. Quantum integrals yield classical integrals and it is therefore believed that quantum superintegrable potentials have superintegrable classical equivalents. Therefore quantum $`2D`$-superintegrable Hamiltonians are expected to have $`2D`$-superintegrable classical equivalents. This provides an additional indication that the use of $`2D`$-superintegrability to generalize isochronicity or harmonicity is appropriate.

All this also provides a new insight on the general significance of superintegrability in quantum mechanics. Superintegrability has already been related to superseparability and exact solvability in quantum mechanics Tempesta et al. (2001). We have noticed in Gravel (2003) that quantum $`2D`$-superintegrable potentials known today are all solutions to equations having the Painlevé property. Moreover, the result by Veselov Veselov (2001), and the relation we established between superintegrability and dressing chains tells us that the eigenstates for these Hamiltonians are often meromorphic in the complex plane. Our paper shows that superintegrability is also related to more physical properties, both in classical and quantum mechanics.

We have shown rigorously the equivalence between $`2D`$-superintegrable potentials with a minimum and isochronous ones. We also showed that this characterization of isochronous potentials could easily be transposed into more general contexts, such as potentials without a local minimum, or, more importantly, to quantum mechanics. $`2D`$-integrability can be easily generalized to Hamiltonians separable in different set of coordinates, or else in higher dimensions. Considering maximally superintegrable three-dimensional potentials of the form $`V_1(x,y)+V_2(z),`$ for example, allows us to deal with $`2D`$ isochronous potentials. The results we obtained together with this variety of possible generalizations demonstrates the fruitfulness of the approach presented here.

The author thanks P. Winternitz and C. Rousseau for useful discussions. This work was supported by NSERC of Canada.


format: text

text:
# Uncertainties in stellar abundance analyses

## 1. Introduction

In view of the central role stellar abundance analyses play in the endeavours to decipher the formation and evolution of stars, galaxies and indeed the Universe as a whole, minimizing systematic errors should be of utmost importance. Certainly, there are many potential fallacies that can be made in the process of going from an observed stellar spectrum to the extracted chemical composition of the star, all which deserves very careful consideration. Unfortunately, this is an area which often has not received the attention its importance warrants. Instead, still today most elemental abundance analyses of late-type stars rely on very simplified models for the stellar atmospheres and the spectral line formation processes. Unfortunately, the progress in modelling has not kept up with the dramatic improvements on the observational side over the last couple of decades, leaving the error budget normally dominated by systematic uncertainties.

Due to page restrictions this review focus only on the uncertainties in the derived elemental abundances introduced during the numerical analyses. Potential observational pitfalls such as signal-to-noise, resolving power, fringing, scattered light, continuum placement and blends can certainly also be major sources of error, but are not discussed here. Furthermore, the review is limited to late-type stars as they have traditionally been the most widely used beacons when tracing Galactic chemical evolution. The reader is referred to Werner et al. (2002) for an account of current hot star modelling, which is becoming increasingly important when probing environments beyond our own Galaxy.

## 2. Atomic and molecular data

The most obvious input data needed to derive elemental abundances is the transition probability, normally expressed as the $`gf`$-value. While there is always a continuing need for more and better data in this respect, the overall situation is in fact relatively good today. Provided the stellar spectroscopists are prepared to search the physics literature and databases, there are many accurate experimental and computational $`gf`$-determinations available (e.g. http://physics.nist.gov). The Kurucz database (http://kurucz.harvard.edu) is a very valuable resource but the drawback with such a large-scale computational effort is that individual transitions can be very erroneous, in particular when involving predicted energy levels. Other necessary data (continuous opacities, line broadening, dissociation energies etc) are also in general in reasonably healthy shape now (e.g. Seaton et al. 1994; Barklem et al. 2000), although improvements are certainly encouraged.

As will be discussed further below, the formation of a spectral line depends in principle not only on the line itself but on all other lines also, including those of other elements. In order to compute the statistical equilibrium of a species one needs not only transition probabilities for all relevant lines but also photo-ionization and collisional cross-sections. In terms of photo-ionization there has been marked improvements recently with the advent of large opacity calculations like Opacity Project and Iron Project (e.g. Seaton et al. 1994). For elements up to the Fe-peak the situation is now fairly healthy for late-type stars. The most pressing uncertainty in non-LTE studies today is the cross-sections for collisional excitation and ionization with electrons and hydrogen atoms. The Opacity Project has partly addressed the case of electron collisions but most calculations largely rely on classical recipes like van Regemorter’s (1963) formula. The situation for inelastic H collisions is even worse with the approach of Drawin (1968) mostly used. The few existing experimental and quantum mechanical calculations suggests, however, that the Drawin recipe over-estimates the cross-sections by about three orders of magnitude, at least for Na and Li (e.g. Fleck et al. 1991; Barklem et al. 2003). Whether this is true for all elements is not known. Clearly there is a great need for more quantum mechanical calculations addressing this fundamental problem.

## 3. Stellar parameters

We will here limit the discussion to methods more universally used, noting that in special situations other more accurate options are available (interferometry, eclipsing binaries etc).

Of the fundamental stellar parameters, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is normally the most crucial in order to obtain accurate abundances. There exists a multitude of methods to determine $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of varying model dependence and reliability. Of these, the infrared flux method (IRFM, Blackwell & Shallis 1977) is often advocated as the best. IRFM is based on the ratio of bolometric flux ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}^4`$ and reddening- and model-independent) with an IR monochromatic flux ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and essentially reddening- and model-independent). If the problem of collecting sufficiently accurate (spectro-)photometry can be overcome, IRFM should yield temperatures to better than 50 K (Alonso et al. 1996). Photometric $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ determinations can be almost as good when using colours like $`VK`$ and $`by`$ (corrected for interstellar reddening if significant), in particular if calibrated to an IRFM- or interferometric temperature scale (Bessell et al. 1998). As always with theoretical colours, the zero-point is an outstanding issue.

In principle, hydrogen Balmer lines should be sensitive thermometers but practical problems unfortunately limit their usefulness, not the least observational. The Balmer lines are formed in deep atmospheric layers where convective energy transport is important for setting the temperature structure. The classical mixing length theory for convection in 1D models is unlikely to capture all aspects in this transition from convection to radiation, as will be further discussed below. The line broadening, including self-broadening, of the H lines have recently been improved (Barklem et al. 2002) but these results have not yet been fully disseminated into the wider astronomical community, leading to unnecessary additional errors. At solar metallicities H lines could in the best cases yield $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to within about 100 K but the uncertainties become progressively worse for metal-poor stars. The use of for example excitation balance of Fe i and other lines and various line-depth ratios can achieve highly precise relative temperatures for similar stars but due to possible non-LTE and 3D effects can not be expected to give accurate absolute values. In summary, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can under favourable circumstances be determined to within 100 K, which corresponds to abundance errors of typically 0.1 dex.

The surface gravities are often the most poorly constrained parameter. With the advent of the Hipparcos astrometry the situation has improved dramatically, at least for the stars sufficiently nearby to show measurable parallaxes. Knowing the parallax, the observed magnitude can be converted to a surface gravity: $`\mathrm{log}g/g_{}=\mathrm{log}/_{}+4\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}/T_{\mathrm{eff},}+0.4(M_{\mathrm{bol}}M_{\mathrm{bol},}).`$ The uncertainty is normally dominated by the parallax error going into $`M_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ but if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi /\pi <0.2`$, log $`g`$ can be determined to within 0.2 dex (e.g. Nissen et al. 1997). The Strömgren $`c_1`$-index and isochrone-fitting can also be employed to estimate log $`g`$ but are more uncertain. The pressure-sensitive wings of strong lines, such as the Mg ib triplet (Blackwell & Willis 1977) is a good gravity-meter with the caveat of potential systematic errors due to non-LTE and 3D effects, which have not yet been fully assessed. One of the most commonly used techniques is to force ionization balance between neutral and ionized species such as Fe i/Fe ii and Ti i/Ti ii. In the absence of any of the above-mentioned procedures, this is a viable option but it must be realised that the result may be very severe errors in log $`g`$. Due to over-ionization of neutral minority species (e.g. Fe i) compared with the LTE predictions, this method typically underestimates the gravity by up to 0.5 dex or even more (Thevenin & Idiart 1999). For pressure-sensitive spectral features like molecular lines this can obviously be disastrous. A good habit is to ratio two equally gravity-sensitive species like C i, O i, S i and Fe ii to obtain abundance ratios (e.g. Nissen et al. 2002, 2003; Akerman et al. 2003).

In view of the potentially large non-LTE effects and 3D effects on Fe i lines discussed below, the preferred choice for the metallicity determinations is no doubt Fe ii lines, which are largely immune to such problems (e.g. Thevenin & Idiart 1999; Asplund et al. 1999). This should yield \[Fe/H\] values accurate to typically within 0.1-0.2 dex, depending on how well $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and log $`g`$ can be constrained. The alternative method on relying on colours, in particular Strömgren photometry, normally gives reasonable results with uncertainties $`<0.3`$ dex when properly calibrated. Any error in \[Fe/H\] naturally directly propagates into the derived \[X/Fe\] ratios, re-enforcing the need for a simultaneous \[Fe/H\] determination together with the other elements rather than relying on literature values.

## 4. Stellar model atmospheres

The vast majority of abundance analyses of late-type stars rely on model atmospheres which are 1D, time-independent and hydrostatic, which assume LTE and treat convection with the rudimentary mixing length theory. Even a casual glance at the solar surface reveals that these assumptions and approximations are very disputable. The question is whether this propagates into significant systematic errors in the derived abundances? Recently realistic 3D time-dependent hydrodynamical simulations of stellar surface convection and atmosphere with a detailed treatment of radiative transfer and state-of-the-art equation-of-state and opacities have become available for solar-type stars (e.g. Nordlund & Dravins 1990; Stein & Nordlund 1998; Asplund et al. 1999; Asplund & García Pérez 2001). They successfully reproduce a wide range of observational diagnostics (granulation topology, helioseismology, intensity brightness contrasts, spectral line shapes, shifts and asymmetries etc). It therefore appears that one can place a fairly high degree of confidence in their ability in describing the real stellar atmospheres, in spite of the simplifications necessary in order to carry out the simulations, most notably in terms of numerical resolution and radiative transfer. A notable achievement is that the traditional free parameters of stellar spectroscopy (mixing length parameters, micro- and macroturbulence) have become obsolete with 3D models, greatly reducing the uncertainties.

This new generation of 3D hydrodynamical model atmospheres have started to be applied to stellar abundance analyses. For the Sun, this has caused a very substantial reduction (0.2-0.3 dex) in the solar C, N and O abundances (Allende Prieto et al. 2001, 2002; Asplund et al. 2003b). For the first time, all different diagnostics (permitted, forbidden and molecular lines) give concordant abundances. The new results are also supported by the excellent agreement between observed and predicted line shapes and center-to-limb variations. Other, less temperature-sensitive elements like Si and Fe only show small ($`<0.05`$ dex) 3D abundance corrections (Asplund et al. 2000). The exact 3D effects depend on the ionization stage, excitation potential and strength of the line in question.

The most dramatic differences with standard 1D analyses appears at low metallicities. Due to much lower temperatures in the optically thin layers in the metal-poor 3D models as a result of the shift in balance between expansion cooling and radiative heating, many spectral features are greatly affected (Asplund et al. 1999). In particular molecular lines but also low excitation lines and neutral minority species tend to have large negative 3D abundance corrections in metal-poor stars (i.e. 1D analyses over-estimate the abundances). As a result, Fe i lines are very unreliable but Fe ii lines, which are formed in deeper atmospheric layers where the differences between 3D and 1D models are much smaller, are quite robust. In some cases additional 3D non-LTE effects can conspire to give final results quite close to the 1D non-LTE case, as for Li (Asplund et al. 2003a), but this is obviously not generally true. In the absence of detailed 3D non-LTE calculations, we advise against using Fe i and such species. Extreme caution must be exercised when relying on resonance and other low excitation lines (Al, Mg, Sr, Ba, Eu etc) in halo stars, where the systematic errors may well be $`0.3`$..$`0.5`$ dex. The largest errors, however, occur for molecular lines (Fig. 1) for which the 1D analyses can overestimate the abundances by up to 1.0 dex at \[Fe/H\] $`=3`$ (Asplund & García Pérez 2001; Asplund 2003). Needless to say, such large systematic errors can have a profound impact on the interpretations in terms of stellar nucleosynthesis and galactic chemical evolution.

## 5. Spectral line formation

Spectral line formation essentially always occurs as a non-equilibrium process: under typical atmospheric conditions radiative rates dominate over collisional rates and the radiation field departs from the Planck function. Non-LTE line formation is therefore neither special nor unusual, while LTE line formation is: LTE is an extreme assumption, not a cautious middle-ground. Of course, in many incidences the different line formation processes are such that LTE-based abundances are indeed good approximations but that must always be confirmed a posteriori by detailed non-LTE calculations (e.g. Fe ii). In general, non-LTE effects become progressively worse for higher $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (higher $`J_\nu `$) and lower log $`g`$ (less collisions) and \[Fe/H\] (less e<sup>-</sup> collisions and stronger UV radiation field).

In spite of the availability of efficient and user-friendly non-LTE codes such as multi (Carlsson 1986), not enough work has been devoted to this important area. Amazingly, detailed non-LTE studies of solar-type and metal-poor stars have been undertaken for only a dozen elements or so. Typical non-LTE abundance corrections for halo stars are $`0.20.3`$ dex of either sign (e.g. Be ii, O i, Mg i, K i, Ca i, Fe i, Sr ii, Ba ii) but significantly larger in cases like Al i and B i (Kiselman 1994). It is true that the poorly known H collision cross-sections introduce uncertainties (e.g. Korn et al. 2003) but calculations with and without the classical Drawin (1968) recipe should bracket the expected non-LTE effects; as already mentioned, the available evidence suggests that the Drawin formula over-estimates the H collisions by about three orders of magnitude.

The lack of non-LTE calculations for the majority of elements severely hampers our understanding of stellar nucleosynthesis and galactic chemical evolution. For example, it is not known whether the recently discovered upturn in \[C/O\] at the lowest \[Fe/H\] is due to C production in Pop III stars or can be explained by differential non-LTE effects between C i and O i (Akerman et al. 2003). Clearly, there is huge need for more non-LTE investigations for more elements.

### Acknowledgments.

I thank the organizers (Poul Erik Nissen and Max Pettini) and the other JD15 participants for creating a stimulating meeting. This talk is available at http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/$``$martin/talks/Sydney03\_jd15).

## References

Akerman, C.J., Carigi, L., Nissen, P.E., et al. 2003, A&A, in press

Allende Prieto, C., Lambert, D.L., & Asplund, M. 2001, ApJ, 556, L65

Alonso, A., Arribas, S., & Martinez-Roger, C. 1996, A&AS, 117, 227

Asplund, M., 2003, ApJL, submitted

Asplund, M., Carlsson, M., & Botnen, A.V. 2003a, A&A, 399, L31

Asplund, M., & García Pérez, A.E. 2001, A&A, 372, 601

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.J., et al. 2003b, A&A, submitted

Asplund, M., Nordlund, Å., Trampedach, R., & Stein, R.F. 1999, A&A, 346, L17

Asplund, M., Nordlund, Å., Trampedach, R., & Stein, R.F. 2000, A&A, 359, 743

Barklem, P.S., Belyaev, B.K., & Asplund, M. 2003, A&A, in press

Barklem, P.S., Piskunov, N., & O’Mara, B.J. 2000, A&AS, 142, 467

Barklem, P.S., Stempels, H.C., Allende Prieto, C. et al. 2002, A&A, 385, 951

Bessell, M.S., Castelli, F., & Plez, B. 1998, A&A, 333, 231

Blackwell, D.E., & Shallis, M.J. 1977, MNRAS, 180, 177

Blackwell, D.E., & Willis, R.B. 1977, MNRAS, 180, 169

Carlsson, M. 1986, Uppsala Astronomical Report No. 33

Drawin, H.W. 1968, Z. Physik, 211, 404

Fleck, I., Grosser, J., Schnecke, A., et al. 1991, JPhysB, 24, 4017

Kiselman, D. 1994, A&A, 286, 169

Korn, A.J., Shi, J., & Gehren, T. 2003, A&A, 407, 691

Nissen, P.E., Chen, Y.Q., Asplund, M., & Pettini, M. 2003, A&A, submitted

Nissen, P.E., Høg, E., & Schuster, W.J. 1997, in: ESA $`Hipparcos`$ Symp., 225

Nissen, P.E., Primas, F., Asplund, M., & Lambert, D.L. 2002, A&A, 390, 235

Nordlund, Å., & Dravins, D. 1990, A&A, 228, 155

Seaton, M.J., Yan, Y., Mihalas, D., & Pradhan, A.K., 1994, MNRAS, 266, 805

Stein, R.F., & Nordlund, Å. 1998, ApJ, 499, 914

Thévenin, F., & Idiart, T. 1999, ApJ, 521, 753

van Regemorter, H. 1962, ApJ, 136, 906

Werner, K., et al. 2002, in: Stellar atmosphere modelling \[astro-ph/0209535\]


text:
# Schrödinger Quantization Problem and Neutron Stars

## 1 Introduction

The quantization of the classical mechanical systems is still an open problem. It was raised as a physical problem already in the pioneering article on quantum mechanics by Ervin Schrödinger  in the following form. Suppose we are given a classical particle with mass $`m`$ in a potential field $`V(𝐫)`$. Its classical Hamiltonian is

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩^2}{2m}}+V(𝐫).`$ (1)
The problem is how to find a quantum operator $`\widehat{H}`$ which corresponds to the classical Hamiltonian (1) and which is needed to write down the Schrödinger equation:

$`i\mathrm{}_t\psi (𝐫,t)=\widehat{H}\psi (𝐫,t),`$ (2)
In the coordinate representation we know the position operator $`\widehat{𝐫}=𝐫`$ and the momentum operator $`\widehat{𝐩}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}`$. Unfortunately this is not enough to find the quantum Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$. For this purpose we have to solve, in addition, the operator ordering problem for the non-commutative canonically conjugated variables $`[\widehat{p}_i,\widehat{x}_j]=\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\delta _{ij}`$. The superposition principle tells us that $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}}+\widehat{V(𝐫)}`$, but what are $`\widehat{𝐩^2}`$ and $`\widehat{V(𝐫)}`$ is not known.

Schrod̈inger has stressed that, for example, we can write down the classical quantity $`p_i^2`$ in a classically equivalent form $`\frac{1}{f(𝐫)}p_if(𝐫)^2p_i\frac{1}{f(𝐫)}p_i^2`$ with an arbitrary function $`f(𝐫)0,\mathrm{}`$. Then the canonical ”hat-quantization” will give a corresponding quantum operator $`\widehat{\frac{1}{f(𝐫)}}\widehat{p_i}\widehat{f(𝐫)^2}\widehat{p_i}\widehat{\frac{1}{f(𝐫)}}=\widehat{p}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{}^2_i^2f(𝐫)/f(𝐫)=\widehat{p}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+𝒪(\mathrm{}^2)`$. As a result, in coordinate representation we will have a quantum Hamiltonian

$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }f(𝐫)}{f(𝐫)}}+V(𝐫).`$ (3)
The real quantization problem is not limited to this simple example. A general form of this problem is related with the fact that we do not know how to “quantize” the simple classical number $`1`$, when considered as a dynamical “variable”. This becomes transparent, if we write down the number $`1`$ in a form of a product $`1f_1(x)g_1(p)f_2(x)g_2(p)\mathrm{}f_n(x)g_m(p)`$ of an arbitrary well defined functions $`f_1(x),\mathrm{},f_n(x)`$ and $`g_1(p),\mathrm{},g_m(p)`$, such that $`f_1(x)f_2(x)\mathrm{}f_n(x)1`$ and $`g_1(p)g_2(p)\mathrm{}g_m(p)1`$. These functions have to be introduced at classical level. Therefore they certainly are independent of the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$ and can depend only on the classical macroscopic parameters of the system at hand. Now, “putting the quantum hats” on the letters, we obtain a nontrivial quantum operator, which corresponds to the simple number $`1`$:

$$\widehat{I}:=f_1(\widehat{x})g_1(\widehat{p})f_2(\widehat{x})g_2(\widehat{p})\mathrm{}f_n(\widehat{x})g_m(\widehat{p}).$$

This operator has a limit $`\widehat{I}1,\text{for}\mathrm{}0`$

It is clear, that we have infinitely many such quantum operators $`\widehat{I}`$ and we can put any of them at any position in the expression for every quantum quantity, obtained from some classical one by the use of the correspondence principle. For this purpose one has to put in the corresponding classical quantity the number $`1`$, as a multiplier, at different positions and then, during the “quantization”, we have to replace these numbers by some of their quantum representatives $`\widehat{I}`$. Hence, actually there exist no physical problems for which one can ignore the above Schrödinger quantization problem. We need to use some additional principles, which are independent of the correspondence principle, to be able to fix the right quantization in a given physical problem. After all, the term “right quantization” can have only one meaning: the quantization, which reflects in an adequate way the real properties of the physical objects.

## 2 Some of the Mathematical Problems, Related to the Schrodinger Quantization Problem

It is not easy to formulate in a mathematically correct way the Schrödinger quantization problem, when we consider this problem in the above very wide framework. Here we shell only mark some of the existing problems and approaches.

The first mathematical problem which one must consider, is the fixing of the Hilbert space of the quantum states. This is known to be not a trivial problem and many of the formal operators, obtained by the correspondence principle may turn to be not well defined self-adjoint operators on this Hilbert space. For example, in the simple infinite wall problem the quantum momentum $`\widehat{p}`$ is not well defined self-adjoint operator. A direct way to see this is to take into account that the quantum operator $`\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}a\widehat{p})`$ represents a translation in the coordinate space. This translation will drop out of the any compact finite interval $`x[x^{},x^{\prime \prime }]`$ some part of the quantum states, which in this problem are defined as a functions on this fixed interval: $`\psi (x)0`$ at least for some values of $`x[x^{},x^{\prime \prime }]`$, and $`\psi (x)0`$ for $`x\overline{}[x^{},x^{\prime \prime }]`$.

In contrast, the requirement to have Hermitian operators with respect to some fixed measure in the corresponding quantum space of states, imposes a very weak restriction on the form of the quantum operators and may be easily fulfilled.

Quite more restrictive result is the Van Hove theorem . It states that it is impossible to find a quantization procedure, which transforms the Poisson algebra of the classical quantities onto a quantum one, changing the Poisson brackets with proper quantum commutators. This result was the starting point of developing of the geometrical quantization , where the important notion of a polarization of the classical phase space was introduced.

At first glance it seems that the Feynman path integral approach to quantum mechanics  is able to solve the Schrödinger quantization problem, since in this approach only classical notions are used. As it was shown in , this is not the case. The very Feynman path integral depends on the discretization procedure and this is complete equivalent to the operator ordering problem in the above canonical quantization procedure. A various discretization, which lead to $`\widehat{p}\widehat{x}`$ quantization, $`\widehat{x}\widehat{p}`$ quantization, Weyl quantization, Wick quantization, etc., can be easily found. Hence, the ambiguity in the path integral is of the same nature as the uncertainty in the canonical Schrödinger quantization.

After all it turns out that the Feynman path integral on the classical phase space can throw some new light on the quantization problem. As shown in , the result of the summation on the virtual paths on the classical phase space strongly depends on the choice of the class of the paths, which we include in the Feynman sum. This choice can be described completely in terms of classical mechanics, using different maximal sets of classical first integrals in involution. The choice of such set of local classical first integrals fixes the quantization. This observation may lead to a real progress in the understanding of the quantization problem, since now the very ambiguity of the quantization procedure is described completely only in terms of the classical mechanics. This approach is deeply related with Van Hove theorem and geometric quantization. Another advantage is that the procedure for calculation of the Feynman path integral, based on this approach, uses the Volterra’s multiplicative integral. This permits us to overcome the restriction to consider only Gaussian measures in the path integrals. Unfortunately, at present this approach is not developed enough and suffers from some specific technical difficulties.

There exist another widespread point of view on the operator ordering problem. If one accepts a totally quantum philosophy, one can think that the quantum operators are the primary given objects. Then we postulate the form of quantum Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$, which is considered as known without any need to quantize classical quantities. Then the correspondence principle may be used to establish a correspondence of the given quantum operators to the classical quantities.

In this approach a pure technical problem appears: how to write down the given quantum Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ in the terms of the given quantum operators of the positions – $`\widehat{x}_i`$ and of the momenta – $`\widehat{p}_i`$. This formal problem admits a variety of mathematical solutions. For example, one can write down the quantum Hamiltonian in the following forms: $`\widehat{H}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m,n}H_{mn}^{px}\widehat{p}^n\widehat{x}^m\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m,n}H_{mn}^{xp}\widehat{x}^m\widehat{p}^n\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m,n}H_{mn}^{\{px\}}\{\widehat{p}^n\widehat{x}^m\}\mathrm{}`$. Here the symbol $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ stands for some kind of symmetrization, for example, $`\{\widehat{p}^n\widehat{x}^m\}=\widehat{p}^n\widehat{x}^m+\widehat{x}^m\widehat{p}^n`$. The numerical coefficients $`H_{mn}^{px},H_{mn}^{xp},H_{mn}^{\{px\}}\mathrm{}`$ are different and depend on the Planck constant. In this case the corresponding principle says that replacing the operators $`\widehat{x}^m`$ and $`\widehat{p}^n`$ with their classical counterparts $`x^m`$ and $`p^n`$ we will obtain the classical Hamiltonian $`H(p,x)`$ in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$, no mater which of the above representations of the quantum Hamiltonian we use.

It is clear that this point of view has noting to do with the Schrodinger quantization problem. It is designed to solve only the above formal mathematical problem.

In the present article we will not pay attention to the last formal mathematical problem. Instead we shall make an attempt to consider the Schrodinger quantization problem as a real physical problem.

## 3 The Physical Dificulties in the Schrodinger Quantization Problem

The real physical difficulties originates from the fact, that the differences between different quantizations of a given classical quantity may be of high order with respect to the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$. This means that the deviations from a chosen quantization of this quantity can be extremely small and behind the real experimental abilities for measurements. Therefore at present we have no good real experimental evidences in favor of some definite quantization rule, or in favor of some more general physical theory, which uses simultaneously different quantization rules for different physical purposes.

### 3.1 The Harmonic Oscillator

We shall illustrate the general situation using a simple toy model. Consider the one-dimensional harmonic oscillator with classical Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}p^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\omega ^2x^2.`$ (4)
Let us choose in the formula (3) a cutting-like function $`f(x)=e^{x^2/2a^2}1`$ for $`a\mathrm{}`$, with some macroscopical parameter of length $`a`$. Then the corresponding quantum operator may be written in the form:

$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}_x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\overline{\omega }^2x^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2ma^2}}`$ (5)
with some corrected circular frequency

$`\overline{\omega }=\omega \sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\omega ^2m^2a^4}}}.`$ (6)
Now it becomes clear that the use of the function $`f(x)=e^{x^2/2a^2}`$ in the above nonstandard quantization procedure has a simple physical meaning. This function introduces some specific quantum constraint on the motion of the quantum particle via some specific quadratic quantum wall: $`V_{quant}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2ma^2}\left(x^2/a^21\right)`$. As a result, outside some domain, defined by the parameter $`a`$, i.e., for a big values of the coordinate $`x>>a`$, the wave function now decreases exponentially, (almost)independently of the behavior of the real physical potential $`V(x)`$. This potential may influence only the details of the exponential decay of the wave function, if $`V(x)`$ is limited from the below for $`|x|\mathrm{}`$, i.e. if $`V(x)const>\mathrm{}`$ for $`|x|\mathrm{}`$. When the parameter $`a`$ increases, the domain, where the wave function may oscillate, increases, too. In the limit $`a\mathrm{}`$ this specific quantum constraint disappears.

The spectrum of the Hamilton operator (5) is described by the formula

$`E_n(a)=\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\mathrm{}\overline{\omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2ma^2}}=`$
$`E_n(\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2ma^2}}+\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^3}{2\omega m^2a^2}}+𝒪(\mathrm{}^4).`$ (7)
As we see, the standard levels $`E_n(\mathrm{})=\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{}\omega `$ are shifted by the amount of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_n(a)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2ma^2}`$ and, in addition, we have an increase of the relative distance between the levels, described by the dimensionless quantity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta E_n(a)}{E_n(\mathrm{})}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta ^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\omega ^2m^2a^4}}`$ (8)
in the lowest order with respect to $`\delta `$. The dimensionless parameter $`\delta =\frac{\mathrm{}}{\omega ma^2}`$ controls the deviation of our nonstandard quantization of the harmonic oscillator from the “standard” one.

The generalization of this example for the D-dimensional isotropic oscillator is obvious. Choosing the function $`f=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2a^2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^D(x_i)^2\right)`$, we immediately obtain the quantum Hamiltonian:

$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\mathrm{\Delta }_D+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\overline{\omega }^2x^2D{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2ma^2}}`$ (9)
with the same circular frequency $`\overline{\omega }`$, defined by the formula (6).

### 3.2 The Hydrogen Atom

It is well known, that there exist a simple correspondence between the spectrum of the D=2 isotropic oscillator and the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, see for example . One easily obtains that when one uses in this correspondence the quantum Hamiltonian (9), instead of the usual one (with $`a=\mathrm{}`$), one will arrive at the following corrected formula for the spectrum of the hydrogen:

$`E_n:={\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{}}}{n^2\left(1+\delta ^2\right)}}`$ (10)
where $`R_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{13.605\hspace{0.17em}691\hspace{0.17em}72}(53)eV`$ (Uncert. (ppb): 39) is the standard Rydberg constant. Hence, such unusual quantization of the hydrogen atom is equivalent to a correction of the Rydberg constant with a relative decrease $`\delta R_{\mathrm{}}/R_{\mathrm{}}=\delta ^2`$.

Now, making use of the standard formulas for the hydrogen, we obtain:

$`\delta =\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_B}{a}}\right)^2`$ (11)
where $`a_B0.529177\times 10^8\text{cm}`$ is the Bohr radius. Hence, for a macroscopic length $`a1\text{cm}`$ we will have $`\delta 10^{16}`$. This will lead to relative correction of the Rydberg constant of order of magnitude $`\delta ^210^{32}`$ – too far from any experimental abilities in any foreseen future.

The general rule for inclusion of the correction for our nonstandard quantization in different quantum qantities, related with hydrogen, is very simple: one has to make only the replacement of the principal quantum number $`nn\sqrt{1+\delta ^2}`$. Then we can immediately see the influence of this nonstandard quantization on the Lamb shift. Using standard notations  we obtain:

$`\delta E_{n,0}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^3Z^4}{n^3}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{el}c^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{a_0}}\left(1+\delta ^2\right)^{3/2}.`$ (12)
Hence, the relative deviation in the Lamb shift due to our nonstandard quantization procedure will be of order of magnitude $`\frac{3}{2}\delta ^210^{32}`$. Thus we see that although the measurements of the Lamb shift are at present between the experimental checks of quantum mechanics with a greatest possible precision, these measurements are not able to see such small deviations from the “standard” canonical quantization of the hydrogen.

## 4 Schrödinger Quantization Problem and Neutron Stars

As we sow in the previous section, from experimental point of view the Schrödinger quantization problem seems to be hopeless issue. The corrections to the basic quantum observables are extremely small for systems with small number of degrees of freedom. At the same time the formula (9) shows explicitly that the common shift of the levels is proportional to the number of the degrees of freedom. Obviously the same conclusion is valid in the general case, too, because we are quantizing independently all degrees of freedom and these enter the classical Hamiltonian additively. For systems with a huge amount of degrees of freedom the huge number D can compensate the extremely small quantization correction $`\delta ^2`$ for a single degree of freedom. Then the physical effects may be significant. Hence, to be able to see the effects of the possible different quantization procedures we need some physical system with a huge number of degrees of freedom $`D\delta ^2`$ and in addition this system has to be in a coherent quantum state.

The ideal known physical systems of this sort are the neutron stars. At present their behavior is observed with a great details. See for an additional information, for example, the review articles  and the references therein. Indeed, the neutron stars have some $`10^{57}`$ neutrons in them in a coherent superfluid quantum state. The typical density of matter in the neutron stars is $`2.8\times 10^{14}`$ $`gcm^3`$. In addition, in the neutron stars we have a magnetic fields of order of magnitude $`10^{12}\text{Gauss}`$ and a rotational energy $`2\times 10^{49}\text{erg}`$. These extremal physical conditions make the neutron stars a unique astrophysical laboratories.

The typical radius of the neutron stars is of order of $`3\times 10^5\text{cm}`$. Hence, if we accept the macroscopic parameter $`a`$ to be of order of magnitude of the star’s radius, we will have for the neutron star $`\delta 10^{26}`$. If the quantum corrections due to the change of the quantization procedure (like that for the levels of the hydrogen, or for the Lamb shift) are of order of $`\delta ^210^{52}`$, this extremely small number can be compensated by the huge number of the degrees of freedom of the neutrons in the star. Then for the parameter $`D\delta ^2`$, which controls the possibility for real observation of the effects of different quantization procedures, we obtain $`D\delta ^210^5`$ – an unique big number, in comparison with the corresponding extremely small values of the corrections of this type in all available Earth-laboratory experiments.

## 5 Concluding Remarks

Ofcourse the above consideration is a pure qualitative speculation. Although it is not based on some deep theoretical analysis, it shows that, in principle, an attempts to look for some phenomena in neutron-star physics, which are related with the Schrödinger quantization problem, may have a good physical ground. If we are extremely lucky, it could happen that the macroscopic parameters like the parameter $`a`$ in the simple toy model, considered in the present article, are much smaller then the radius of the star. This may increase essentially the important factor $`D\delta ^2`$.

On the other hand, many of the observed phenomena in neutron-star’s physics are not well understood at present. We shall mansion only two of them: the mechanism of star’s radio emission  and the instabilities of the oscillations of the stars – the so called glitch phenomenon in pulsars – a sudden spin-up of the star’s crust . Ofcourse, a more conventional models of these phenomena, without consideration of quantization problem, are at present in an intensive study.

It seems to us that neutron stars, which appeared at first as a pure theoretical invention in the early 1930’s on the ground of the quantum mechanics and gravity in the independent articles by Landau and by Chandrasekhar, may help us once more to reach a deeper understanding of the quantum mechanics and, especially, for a discovery of a new physics behind the Schrödinger quantization problem.

It is not excluded, too, to look for some new effects, related to the Schrödinger quantization problem in a more usual laboratory conditions, studying the collective quantum phenomena like superfluidity and superconductivity, and using the possible interplay between microscopical quantities, like the Bohr radius $`a_B`$, and the macroscopical ones, like the parameter $`a`$ in the above consideration.

Acknowledgments

I am deeply indebted to Professor S. Randjbar-Daemi for his invitation to visit ICTP, Trieste, where this article was completed.

My special thanks to Professor Ennio Gozzi for his kind help, support and many stimulating discussions and comments on the quantization problem during a long period of time.

I am thankful, too, to Professors G. L. Comer and N. Anderson for useful discussions on neutron star’s physics in the context of the quantization problem during the Conference on Sources of Gravitational Waves, September 2003, Trieste.

This research was supported in part by Scientific Found of Sofia University, Grant Number 3305/2003, by the University of Trieste, by INFN, and by the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy.


text:
# Type II Quasars from the SDSS

## 1. Introduction

Unification models of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) summarize many of the observed properties of AGN in terms of the intrinsic luminosity and the orientation relative to the line of sight (e.g., Antonucci 1993). In particular, there exists a class of low-luminosity AGN (type 2 Seyfert galaxies) which manifest themselves in the optical as objects with narrow high-ionization emission lines. In the context of unification models it is believed that the line of sight to these objects happens to pass through a lot of obscuring material, so that the ionizing radiation itself and the region that emits broad emission lines are shielded from the observer. If the same unification model applies to high-luminosity AGN (quasars) there should exist high-luminosity obscured AGN (type II quasars), which could account for a large fraction of the hard X-ray background if they exist in significant numbers.

Campaigns to look for type II quasars at different wavelengths have resulted in discovery of a few tens of candidates (e.g., McCarthy 1993, Kleinmann et al. 1988, Stern et al. 2002, Norman et al. 2002). In all cases multi-wavelength follow-up has been an important part of the confirmation of the candidates.

We compiled a sample of about 150 type II quasar candidates from the SDSS spectroscopic database in the redshift range $`0.3<z<0.8`$. We outline the selection process, discuss optical properties of these objects and describe prospects for future work.

## 2. Optical selection and intrinsic luminosities

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al. 2000) is an ongoing survey to image 10,000 deg2 of the sky and to obtain spectra for $`10^6`$ galaxies and $`10^5`$ quasars. On each 7 deg2 of the sky, about 600 objects are targeted for follow-up spectroscopy based on photometric information. A small number of objects are targeted because they have counterparts in radio or X-ray surveys (Abazajian et al. 2003 and references therein).

We looked for objects with emission line properties similar to those of Seyfert 2 galaxies. In particular, we required that permitted lines do not have underlying broad components. Based on line ratios and presence of high-ionization lines such as \[NeV\]3426, we distinguished type II AGN from other types of narrow-emission-line objects (star-forming galaxies, narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies). We restricted ourselves to the redshift range $`0.3<z<0.8`$; we thus had spectroscopic coverage of the \[OIII\]5007 emission line in all spectra to enable statistical studies based on this line. The search resulted in 300 type II AGN candidates among 40,000 SDSS spectra in the same redshift range; example spectra are shown in Figure 1. Although many of these objects have counterparts in the FIRST survey, the radio flux levels are typically a few mJy, and almost all objects in our sample are radio-quiet.

The best way to estimate the intrinsic luminosity of obscured AGN would be to observe them in the mid-IR where the absorbed radiation is reemitted by heated dust particles. Alternatively, one would study type II AGN in hard X-rays which are not affected by obscuration. In the optical, since the narrow emission lines are emitted from the extended (and therefore largely unobscured) region, we can use them as proxies to estimate the intrinsic luminosities of AGN. In Figure 2 we show that for a comparison sample of about 2000 broad-line AGN in the same redshift range ($`0.3<z<0.8`$) there is a correlation between the \[OIII\]5007 line luminosity and the broad-band luminosity. Quasars are on the high-luminosity side of this diagram; they are traditionally defined as objects with $`M_B<23`$, although the separation between Seyfert 1 galaxies and quasars is somewhat arbitrary. From Figure 2 we find that the corresponding \[OIII\]5007 luminosity is $`3\times 10^8L_{}`$.

On Figure 3 we plot the \[OIII\]5007 luminosity distribution for the 300 type II AGN from our sample and for the comparison sample of broad-line AGN. We find that about 50% of the objects in our sample have \[OIII\]5007 line luminosities comparable to those of luminous quasars; thus, about 150 objects in our sample can be classified as type II quasars based on their line properties and intrinsic luminosities.

Type II quasars are optically faint and thus are difficult to identify in optical surveys (the median magnitude of our sample is $`r=20.4`$). Selecting such a large number of these objects is possible because of the outstanding size of the spectroscopic survey, part of which is dedicated to the search for unusual objects. Based on the line-luminosity criterion $`L`$(\[OIII\])$`>3\times 10^8L_{}`$ we have identified about 30 type II quasar candidates in the published samples of nearby ($`z<0.1`$) AGN (de Grijp et al. 1992, Whittle 1992), including such well-studied AGN as Mrk34, Mrk463 and Mrk477.

## 3. Conclusions

In these proceedings we described the selection process that allowed us to select a large number of type II quasar candidates from the SDSS spectroscopic database based on their emission line properties. We then studied their properties in the optical and in particular attempted to estimate the intrinsic luminosity of these objects based on the optical emission lines alone. In Zakamska et al. (2003) we discuss other optical properties of the objects in the sample, such as line ratios, line shapes, continuum properties and the contribution from the host galaxy. We have selected 150 type II quasar candidates up to date and expect to expand the sample to about 450 objects upon completion of the SDSS.

Our campaign to perform multi-wavelength follow-up of this sample is now underway. We will study properties of these objects at wavelengths ranging from radio and infrared to hard X-rays. Multi-wavelength studies of a large well-defined sample of type II quasars is the best way to probe their physical nature and to make a connection between samples selected by different methods. We will study host galaxies and environments of type II quasars and attempt to identify just which properties of the galactic host and its environment are associated with the AGN activity. Finally, we will use the sample for statistical studies of the AGN population, in particular, we will attempt to constrain the ratio of type I and type II AGN at high luminosities.

Funding for the SDSS is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, NASA, NSF, DoE, Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society and the Participating Institutions. The SDSS web site is http://www.sdss.org/.

## References

Abazajian, K. et al. 2003, AJ, in press

Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A,31,473

de Grijp, M.H.K., Keel, W.C., Miley, G.K., et al. 1992, A&ASS,96,389

Kleinmann, S.G., Hamilton, D., Keel, W.C., et al. 1988,ApJ,328,61

McCarthy, P.J. 1993, ARA&A,31,639

Norman, C., Hasinger, G., Giacconi, R., et al. 2002,ApJ,571,218

Stern, D., Moran, E.C., Coil, A.L., et al. 2002,ApJ,568,71

Whittle, M. 1992, ApJS,79,49

Zakamska, N.L., Strauss, M.A., Krolik, J.H., et al. 2003, AJ, in press,
astro-ph/0309551


text:
# Effects of Planetesimal Dynamics on the Formation of Terrestrial Planets

## 1. Introduction

Current paradigm of planetary origin (Ruden 1999) assumes that terrestrial planets have formed in protoplanetary nebulae out of swarms of planetesimals — rocky or icy bodies with initial sizes of several kilometers. The same process is thought to account for the growth of solid cores of giant planets in the core instability scenario which postulates that huge gaseous envelopes of gas giants were acquired as a result of instability-driven gas accretion on preexisting cores made of solids (Mizuno 1980).

Our understanding of planetesimal accretion dates back to pioneering works by Safronov (1969) who (1) proposed to use the methods of kinetic theory for investigating the behavior of large number of planetesimals, and (2) included planetesimal dynamics in the picture of their gravitational agglomeration. Gravitational scattering between planetesimals tends to excite their random motions increasing the velocities with which they approach each other. This can have an important effect on their merging because of the phenomenon of gravitational focusing — an enhancement of collision cross-section of two bodies through the deflection of their orbits caused by their mutual gravitational interaction. Gravitational focusing increases collision cross-section by a factor $`1+v_{esc}^2/v_{rel}^2`$ over its geometrical value $`\pi (R_1+R_2)^2`$, where $`R_{1,2}`$ are the physical radii of colliding planetesimals, $`v_{esc}`$ is their mutual escape velocity, and $`v_{rel}`$ is the relative velocity of planetesimals at infinity.

From this formula it can be seen that gravitational focusing is important only provided that $`v_{rel}`$ is significantly below $`v_{esc}`$. Safronov’s original assumption (1969) was that the biggest bodies in the system would be able to quickly increase the velocities of surrounding small-mass planetesimals to $`v_{esc}`$ thus rendering further accretion of planetesimals by these massive protoplanets inefficient. As a result, typical timescale for forming the Earth at $`1`$ AU from the Sun is very long — about $`10^810^9`$ yr. This timescale rapidly increases as one goes further out in the Solar System and reaches $`10^{11}`$ yr at $`10`$ AU from the Sun (roughly present location of Saturn). This timescale is in stark contrast with the age of the Solar System (about $`4.5`$ Gyr) implying that the Safronov’s assumption of $`v_{rel}v_{esc}`$ is faulty.

Wetherill & Stewart (1989) pointed out that at least initially planetesimal velocities in protoplanetary disks are not that large ($`v_{rel}v_{esc}`$) and are moderated by mutual planetesimal scattering rather than by a small number of very massive bodies (which contain too little mass). They showed that in this case planetesimal accretion by massive bodies proceeds in a self-accelerating manner when most massive objects exhibit fastest growth; as a result, a single massive object detaches itself from the continuous mass spectrum of planetesimals. This so called “runaway” accretion allows Moon or Mars sized objects to appear on rather short timescale (typically $`10^410^5`$ yr) in the terrestrial zone. It also seemed to have rescinded the timescale problem for the giant planets by enabling their solid cores to grow within the gaseous nebula lifetime of several Myr at $`510`$ AU from the Sun thus allowing them to accrete gas.

The runaway growth scenario was challenged by Ida & Makino (1993) who demonstrated using N-body simulations that massive protoplanetary “embryos” are in fact able to locally couple dynamically to the planetesimal disk after reaching some threshold mass. The major results of their study were that (1) massive embryo can strongly “heat up” planetesimal velocities within several Hill radii of its orbit (dynamically “heated zone”), and (2) embryo tends to repel planetesimal orbits away from its own orbit thus decreasing the surface density of small bodies at its location. The former effect decreases the role of gravitational focusing while the latter lowers the amount of mass which can be accreted by the massive body. Both of them act to reduce the accretion rate of the embryo and this stops its rapid runaway growth. This accretion regime was termed “oligarchic growth” since in this picture one embryo would reign inside its own heated zone, while there can be many such embryos (and their corresponding heated zones) growing within the local patch of the disk.

Straightforward N-body simulations are neither very well suited for determining the threshold mass at which transition from runaway to oligarchic growth occurs as a function of planetesimal disk properties, nor they can follow the evolution of the system for long enough. Although they can treat gravitational interactions between planetesimals and the embryo directly, without simplifications, they are too time consuming and not very flexible. Thus it is important to come up with alternative approaches which would be better suited for treating this important problem.

## 2. Planetesimal dynamics in the vicinity of protoplanetary embryo

Given the large number of planetesimals present in protoplanetary disks it is natural to employ the statistical approach in studying their dynamics. At the same time, presence of inhomogeneities in the planetesimal disk induced by embryo’s gravity calls for inclusion of spatial dimension into consideration, something which conventional one-zone coagulation simulation are lacking.

Rafikov (2003a, 2003b) came up with an analytical statistical prescription for treating planetesimal-planetesimal and embryo-planetesimal gravitational interactions. He assumed that the distribution function of planetesimal velocities in the disk has a Schwarzschild form, which allows one to considerably simplify the collision operator in the Boltzmann equation (describing the evolution caused by gravitational perturbations). In this approximation, planetesimal disk is unambiguously described by just three quantities for each mass population — surface number density $`N`$, dispersion of eccentricities $`\sigma _e`$, and dispersion of inclinations $`\sigma _i`$ — which are the functions of radial coordinate in the disk (all these quantities are assumed to be azimuthally averaged). A set of three integro-differential equations self-consistently describes the evolution of these quantities in time and space as mutual planetesimal perturbations and gravitational scattering by massive protoplanetary embryos cause them to evolve.

Equations significantly simplify in two regimes: (1) shear-dominated, when the planetesimal random velocities are small compared to the differential shear in the disk across the corresponding Hill radius, and (2) dispersion-dominated, when these velocities are larger than the shear across Hill radius. First case can only be appropriate for the embryo-planetesimal interactions. When it is realized, scattering of planetesimals has a deterministic character which substantially simplifies its treatment. In the dispersion-dominated regime, appropriate for planetesimal-planetesimal scattering and in most cases for embryo-planetesimal scattering, Fokker-Planck expansion can be performed on the collision operator and evolution equations reduce to a set of partial differential equations. Intermediate regime, when planetesimal random velocities are comparable to the shear across the Hill radius can be treated by interpolation between the two limiting cases.

To check the performance of this approach we have compared the results of its application to studying the embryo-planetesimal scattering in different velocity regimes with the outcome of numerical orbit integrations (local) of the same problem (Rafikov 2003b). Representative results for the evolution of $`\sigma _e,\sigma _i`$ and $`N`$ in the dispersion-dominated case (initially $`\sigma _e=\sigma _i=3`$ in Hill units) are shown in Figure 1. Curves of different colors represent different moments of time (displayed in panels (e) and (f) by corresponding color coding). One can see that analytical theory (right panels) is in excellent agreement with numerical simulations (left panels) — they follow each other with considerable quantitative accuracy even in minor details. This makes one confident that semi-analytical approach of Rafikov (2003a, 2003b) is quite robust. It is numerically inexpensive: analytical calculations displayed in Figure 1 took about 1 minute to run on a conventional desktop, while the orbit integrations (following several $`10^5`$ particles for several hundred approaches to the embryo to achieve enough accuracy) required about 1 month on the same hardware. Planetesimal-planetesimal scattering was neglected in this calculation (reasonable assumption for large embryo masses), and only a single mass planetesimal population was considered. One can clearly see both the local excitation of planetesimal velocities and the development of a gap in the surface density of planetesimal orbits near the embryo, in agreement with previous N-body simulations.

This semi-analytical approach thus represents powerful and efficient tool for studying the dynamics of planetesimal disks. It can be easily extended to include the planetesimal-planetesimal scattering (see below), planetesimal mass spectrum and its evolution, dynamics of several embryos, dissipative effects, etc.

## 3. Growth of an isolated embryo

As a particular application of this approach we have studied the growth of an isolated embryo in a single mass planetesimal disk evolving dynamically and spatially under the action of both embryo-planetesimal and planetesimal-planetesimal gravitational interactions (Rafikov 2003c). Planetesimal-planetesimal scattering acts as an effective viscosity in the planetesimal disk opposing the embryo’s tendency of clearing a gap. Masses of planetesimals in a disk are assumed not to vary, a simplification justified when embryo’s mass increases faster than planetesimals grow. This would be the case in the runaway growth regime, as well as in the oligarchic case (Ida & Makino 1993). At the same time, embryo’s mass was allowed to increase by accreting small planetesimals. Accretion rate was calculated analytically taking into account inhomogeneity of planetesimal disk near the embryo and has been checked against the numerical orbit integrations (Rafikov 2003b).

Several calculations for different initial starting embryo masses and planetesimal velocities were carried out and embryo’s mass as a function of time is displayed in Figure 2. Properties of the planetesimal disk are those to be expected at 3.6 AU with planetesimal mass set to $`6\times 10^{20}`$ g ($``$ is embryo’s mass scaled by the planetesimal mass, $`\tau `$ is time scaled by the synodic period of planetesimals separated by a Hill radius; corresponding physical values are displayed on the right and upper axes). Thin solid lines display the mass evolution tracks which embryo follows if its dynamical effect on its surroundings is neglected. As expected, these tracks exhibit unimpeded runaway growth and embryo reaches very large mass on a rather short timescale of $`10^6`$ yr. Thick lines represent tracks with the same initial conditions but with embryo’s local perturbations taken into account. One can see that they initially follow the runaway tracks (solid portions). This is the result of small embryo’s mass, which makes it incapable of perturbing planetesimals around it: their velocity dispersions increase independently of embryo’s growth and planetesimal-planetesimal scattering is strong enough to smooth any inhomogeneities around the embryo. However, when embryo grows beyond some threshold mass ($`10^{24}`$ g in this case) it takes over the control of planetesimal dynamics around it (dashed portions of thick curves): planetesimals are being pushed away from the embryo’s orbit, clearing a gap (similar to the simple calculation described in §2), and their velocities increase in accord with the embryo’s growth. As a result, rapid runaway growth changes to a slower power-law increase of embryo’s mass with time, roughly linearly with $`t`$. Thus, it would require a considerably longer timescale (by a factor of $`10`$) to reach $`1M_{}`$ than simple runaway picture would predict. At 5 AU from the Sun this would stretch the formation timescale of giant planet cores to $`10^8`$ yr which is unacceptable from the point of view of core instability scenario of giant planet formation given short ($`<10^7`$ yr) lifetimes of gaseous nebulae.

## 4. Discussion

Simple problem described above clearly demonstrates the difficulty (encountered by conventional scenarios of planet formation) of producing solid cores of giant planets in the outer Solar System on reasonable timescales. The primary reason for this is the strong dynamical coupling between massive protoplanetary bodies and surrounding planetesimals, which causes their gravitational focusing to decrease with time making accretion less and less efficient. In conclusion we want to suggest several possibilities for curing this problem.

Embryos likely not have evolved in complete isolation — as they grow in mass their heated zones overlap and they start affecting each other’s environment. This would likely reduce the tendency for gap formation around embryo orbits, keeping planetesimal disks homogeneous enough to provide the steady supply of planetesimals.

Dissipative processes such as gas drag and inelastic collisions between planetesimals counteract the tendency of planetesimal velocities to increase under the action of embryo’s perturbations. And one does expect gas to be naturally present during the formation of solid cores of gas giants (and initial stages of core formation of ice giants). This damping would not allow embryos to go back to runaway growth, but it would still let them grow faster than if gravity were the only force affecting planetesimal velocities.

Fragmentation of planetesimals in energetic collisions can grind them down to small sizes in the vicinity of massive bodies. Planetesimals would then be strongly affected by dissipative processes and their velocities could be considerably reduced allowing embryos to grow faster.

Closer look at these processes would hopefully help us in resolving the issue of planet formation timescale in the outer Solar System.

### Acknowledgments.

The financial support of this work by Charlotte Elizabeth Procter Fellowship and W. M. Keck Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

## References

Ida, S. & Makino, J. 1993, Icarus, 106, 210

Mizuno, H. 1980, Prog. Theor. Phys., 64, 544

Rafikov, R. R. 2003a, AJ, 125, 906

Rafikov, R. R. 2003b, AJ, 125, 922

Rafikov, R. R. 2003c, AJ, 125, 942

Ruden, S. P. 1999, in ”The Origins of Stars and Planetary Systems”, eds. C.J. Lada and N.D. Kylafis, (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 643 - 679

Safronov, V. S. 1969, Evolution of the Protoplanetary Cloud and Formation of the Earth and Planets (Nauka, Moscow, 1969)

Wetherill, G. W. & Stewart, G. R. 1989, Icarus, 77, 330