text:
# On the Radii of Extrasolar Giant Planets

## 1 Introduction

Astronomers are understandably enthusiastic about the prospect of detecting Jovian-type planets transiting bright ($`\mathrm{V}<10`$) chromospherically quiet late-type stars. A bright parent star allows highly accurate orbital parameters to be deduced from Doppler RV measurements, while the transit phenomenon affords direct measurements of the planetary parameters.

Indeed, the celebrated occultations of HD 209458 (V=7.65) (Charbonneau et al. 2000, Henry et al. 2000) have provided a scientific bonanza. The identification of this transit allowed detailed follow-up measurements, including direct and accurate measurements of the planet’s radius ($`1.35\pm 0.06R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ \[Brown et al. 2001\]; $`1.41\pm 0.10R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ \[Cody & Sasselov 2002\]), mass ($`0.69\pm 0.05M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$; \[Mazeh et al. 2000\]), and even the presence of sodium in its atmosphere (Charbonneau et al. 2002).

Following the discovery of 51 Peg (Mayor & Queloz 1995), theoretical models of Jovian-mass planets subject to strong irradiation were computed (Guillot et al. 1996). These models predicted that short-period Jovian planets with equilibrium temperatures of 1300–1400 K at ages of several Gyr would be significantly larger than Jupiter. The discovery that HD 209458b has a large radius initially seemed to be a strong confirmation of these models (Burrows et al. 2000).

While the large observed size of HD 209458b certainly suggests that it is a gas-giant composed primarily of hydrogen, recent work by Guillot & Showman (2002) indicates that a serious gap exists in our understanding of irradiated giant planets. They show that standard evolutionary models can recover the observed radius of HD 209458b only if the deep atmosphere is unrealistically hot. A more nearly correct treatment of radiative heating leads to more rapid and efficient planetary contraction, and predicted radii which are 0.2–0.3 $`R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ too small, that is, in the range $`1.1R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ at an age of 5 Gyr. The results of Bodenheimer et al. (2001), based on similar assumptions, also produce radii which are too small.

Two resolutions to this problem have been suggested. Bodenheimer et al. (2001) argue that HD 209458b might be receiving interior tidal heating through ongoing orbital circularization, whereas Guillot & Showman (2002) propose that strong insolation-driven weather patterns on the planet are leading to some conversion of kinetic wind energy into thermal energy at pressures of tens of bars. At the time the work of Bodenheimer et al. (2001) was done, the eccentricity of HD 209458 was thought to be consistent with zero, thus no obvious source of tidal heating was present. However, as we discuss below, the continued accumulation of RV measurements of HD 209458b will allow for much tighter constraints on the planetary eccentricity and the possible presence of a second planetary companion.

Although there are a number of studies of the evolution of giant planets (for reviews see Hubbard et al. 2002; Burrows et al. 2001), at present there are no published grids of models for planets with equilibrium temperatures in the 500–1000 K regime that are intermediate between Jupiter ($`T_{\mathrm{eq}}=113`$ K) and HD 209458b ($`T_{\mathrm{eq}}1350`$ K). As we discuss below, we expect that transiting planets with intermediate periods ($`10\mathrm{d}<P<200\mathrm{d}`$) will soon be found. One of the major intents of this paper is to provide predictions for the radii of such planets. Indeed, an accurate size and mass determination for even a single intermediate-period planet will help resolve the size discrepancy observed for HD 209458b. A planet with intermediate period will not be experiencing significant internal tidal dissipation, but would still be irradiated to an extent sufficient to produce a significant amount of kinetic heating from the mechanism suggested by Guillot & Showman (2002). We therefore also wish to show that within certain limits such observations can (1) distinguish between planets with and without a solid core, and (2) show whether or not the kinetic heating mechanism is operating. One possible consequence of such a comparison could be that the kinetic heating mechanism is not effective and that therefore HD 209458b’s radius can only be explained by tidal dissipation. On the other hand, if newly-discovered radii were found to be consistent with kinetic heating, constraints could be placed on the (still not-well understood) tidal heating mechanism.

Intermediate-period planets are also interesting because they can harbor dynamically stable large satellites. Indeed, all satellites larger than $`R=70\mathrm{km}`$ orbiting a $`P=3\mathrm{d}`$ Jovian planet are removed over 5 Gyr. However, Mars-mass moons can last for 5 Gyr in the Hill Sphere of a 1 $`M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ planet orbiting a 1 $`M_{}`$ star in a 27 day (0.18 au) orbit, whereas in a 54 day (0.28 au) orbit, Earth-mass moons are dynamically stable (Barnes & O’Brien 2002, Evonuk et al. 2003). Brown et al. (2001) report that with HST, detections of satellites as small as 1 $`R_{}`$ are feasible. Therefore, the discovery of the transit of an intermediate-period planet could be followed up to search for large moons, and, additionally, planetary rings.

## 2 Prospects for Detection of Transiting Planets

The a priori probability that a planet transits its parent star as seen from the line of sight to Earth is given by,

$$𝒫_{\mathrm{transit}}=0.0045\left(\frac{1\mathrm{A}\mathrm{U}}{a}\right)\left(\frac{R_{}+R_{\mathrm{pl}}}{R_{}}\right)\left(\frac{1e\mathrm{cos}(\pi /2\varpi )}{1e^2}\right)$$
$`(1)`$
where $`a`$ is the semi-major axis of the orbit, $`R_{}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ are the radii of the star and planet, respectively, $`e`$ is the orbital eccentricity, and $`\varpi `$ is the argument of periastron referenced to the plane of the sky. In order to obtain an accurate mass for a transiting planet, one requires a good set of RV measurements so that an orbit can be fit. Accurate RV measurements are best obtained for bright parent stars, so it is therefore useful to estimate the number of transiting planets that are likely to be available for accurate mass and radius determinations. If one examines the parameters of the current RV planet catalog111 see, e.g., http://www.transitsearch.org/stardatabase/index.htm , one finds that among the 16 known planets with periods $`P<10\mathrm{d}`$, there are $`<n_\mathrm{T}>=1.62`$ expected transits, and indeed, within this group, a transiting case (HD 209458b) is known. Twelve of the planets with $`P<10\mathrm{d}`$ have firm non-detections (including HD 68988b and HD 217107b, whose properties are discussed in more detail below). Of the remaining three planets with $`P<10\mathrm{d}`$, one, HD 76700b ($`P=3.971\mathrm{d}`$) is currently under surveillance, and two others, HD 162020b ($`P=8.428\mathrm{d}`$), and HD 168746 ($`P=6.403\mathrm{d}`$) will be evaluated during Spring 2003.

Within the aggregate of 23 known planets having periods in the range $`10\mathrm{d}<P<200\mathrm{d}`$, the expected number of transiting planets is $`<n_\mathrm{T}>=0.64`$. Very few of the parent stars in this group, however, have been exhaustively monitored for transits. These stars therefore represent excellent targets for a distributed network of small telescopes. We also note that among the 60 known planets with $`P>200\mathrm{d}`$, one expects $`<n_\mathrm{T}>0.5`$ additional transiting planets. Because of the less well-determined orbits for most of these long-period planets, and because of the infrequent occultations, these stars will remain difficult targets to follow up.

In addition to the current census, more planets with periods suitable for the discovery of transits will soon be emerging from the RV surveys. To see this, consider Figure 1, which plots the periods of 98 known extrasolar planets versus the Julian dates on which their discoveries were announced. The magnitudes of the parent stars are color-coded to range from red ($`V<4`$) to black ($`V>9`$), while the radii of the circles marking each planet are proportional to $`(M_\mathrm{P}\mathrm{sin}i)^{1/3}`$. This diagram shows that the pace of discovery of extrasolar planets with $`P<200\mathrm{d}`$ is proceeding at a steady rate, while the rate of discovery of planets with $`P<10\mathrm{d}`$ has begun to peak. Currently, within the $`10\mathrm{d}<P<200\mathrm{d}`$ range, there are five known planets orbiting stars with $`V<6`$, seven orbiting stars with $`6<V<7`$, six orbiting stars with $`7<V<8`$, and two planets each in the $`8<V<9`$, and $`9<V<10`$ ranges. If we assume that every available chromospherically quiet main sequence dwarf with $`V<6`$ has been adequately surveyed for $`P<200\mathrm{d}`$ planets, and that each magnitude bin of unit width contains 1.8 times as many stars as available for bin $`(V1)`$, then we expect that roughly $`9+16+29+52=106`$ detectable planets with $`10\mathrm{d}<P<200\mathrm{d}`$ exist in orbit around stars with $`V<10`$, indicating that more than 100 additional planets in this category can be detected using current RV techniques for bright stars. Statistically, this implies that 3 intermediate-period RV-detectable transiting planets orbit bright nearby stars. Application of the same argument to planets with $`P<10\mathrm{d}`$ indicates that 4 short-period transiting planets are to be expected in orbit around bright stars.

In summary, we can expect to obtain highly accurate radii and masses for only a limited number of planets. This collection will serve as the major observational basis for our understanding of the structure of giant planets. The ten or so transiting planets that we can expect to find will likely span two orders of magnitude in mass ($`0.1M_{\mathrm{JUP}}<M_P<10.0M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$), and a wide range in temperature ($`300\mathrm{K}<T_{\mathrm{eq}}<2000\mathrm{K}`$). In order to interpret this data, it is useful to compute a grid of models spanning mass and equilibrium temperature at the age of a typical planet-bearing star (5 Gyr).

## 3 Models for Irradiated Giant Planets

Models for the evolution of giant planets of various masses have been computed with a descendant of the Berkeley stellar evolution code (Henyey, Forbes, & Gould 1964). This computer program has received a number of modifications and improvements to the input physics during its forty years of existence. It calculates the evolution and mass accretion rate of the gaseous envelope, under the assumption that the planet is spherical, and that the standard equations of stellar structure apply. It has been used to calculate the formation phase of planets in the solar system (Pollack et al. 1996) and of extrasolar planets by Bodenheimer, Hubickyj, & Lissauer (2000). The physical assumptions employed in the calculations are described in those papers. Energy transport occurs either by radiation or convection, according to the Schwarzschild criterion for convection. Energy sources include (1) gravitational contraction, (2) cooling of the interior, and (3) in some cases energy deposition in the atmosphere, at pressures in the range 1 bar to 100 bars, caused by stellar heating (Guillot & Showman 2002). In the outer envelope of the planet, where radiation is likely to be the energy transport mechanism, dust grains are assumed to have settled into the interior and evaporated, so that they contribute negligibly to the opacity. The assumed absence of grains in the envelopes of low-mass objects is consistent with studies of the detailed observed spectra of T-dwarfs (Tsuji 2002). Pure molecular opacities in the temperature range 70-4000 K were obtained from R. Freedman (private communication) for a near-solar composition. Above 4000 K the table from Alexander & Ferguson (1994) was used; however for such temperatures the models are always convective, so the details of the opacity are unimportant. In convection zones, which always include most of the mass of the planet, the temperature gradient is assumed to take the adiabatic value. The equation of state of Saumon, Chabrier, & van Horn (1995) was employed, slightly softened as suggested by Burrows et al. (2000). At the surface, the luminosity is composed of two components: the internal luminosity generated by the planet ($`L_{\mathrm{int}}`$), and the energy absorbed from the stellar radiation flux and re-radiated (‘insolation’). The boundary conditions at the Rosseland mean photosphere are

$$L_{\mathrm{tot}}=L_{\mathrm{int}}+4\pi R_\mathrm{P}^2\sigma T_{\mathrm{eq}}^4$$
$`(2)`$
$$\overline{\kappa }_{\mathrm{ph}}P_{\mathrm{ph}}=\frac{2}{3}g$$
$`(3)`$
where $`L_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the total luminosity, $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is the equilibrium temperature defined below in equation (8), $`\overline{\kappa }_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is the mean opacity at the photosphere, $`P_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is the pressure at the photosphere, and $`g`$ is the surface gravity. Since the details of the atmosphere, including frequency-dependent effects (Chabier & Baraffe 2000), are not taken into account, the radii derived by this procedure should be regarded as preliminary.

In the case of extrasolar planets, it is not known whether or not a central solid/liquid rock/ice core is present; however its presence or absence could be an important clue to the formation mechanism. The composition, density, and mass of the core would depend on the formation and migration history of the planet. In the case of the solar system giant planets it is likely that cores exist; however, the available constraints from observations and modeling still allow a considerable range in their properties (Wuchterl, Guillot, & Lissauer 2000). In the case of Jupiter, the range of possible core masses is 0 to 10 M, and for Saturn it is 5–15 M. However these planets also have heavy element abundances in excess of solar abundance ratios in their gaseous envelopes. The total heavy element abundance in Jupiter is thought to be about 30 M, or 10% of the total mass, while in Saturn it is thought to be about 25% of the total mass. The division of the heavy elements between envelope and core is uncertain mainly because of uncertainties in the Saumon-Chabrier-van Horn equation of state. With these considerations in mind, we made calculations for each mass and temperature both with a core and without a core. The core mass, which is designed to represent approximately the total excess in heavy elements over solar abundance, is taken to be 40 M in the case of the more massive planets (0.69 MJUP and above) and 20 M for lower masses. Two cases with a 20 M core for 0.69 MJUP were also calculated. Models without cores are assumed to have solar composition ($`X=.70`$, $`Y=.28`$, $`Z=.02`$). In the models with cores, the core density is assumed to have a constant value of 5.5 g cm-3, except for the highest mass ($`3M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$), where the high pressures in the center require a higher core density, which we take to be 10.5 g cm-3. The composition of the envelopes of the models with cores is assumed to be solar. For the case of 1 MJUP, calculations were also made with a core density of 10.5 g cm-3; in an example of a current Jupiter model, Marley (1999) indicates that the range of densities in the core is about 9 to 23 g cm-3. However, much of the heavy-element material in Jupiter is in the envelope at much lower pressures. For the lower masses, a core density of 5.5 g cm-3 is thought to be reasonable; Marley’s (1999) Saturn model has a density of 6–7 g cm-3 in much of the core. A giant planet with enhanced heavy-element abundance can have a significantly smaller radius than one of the same mass with solar abundance.

The initial condition is a planet of $`R2R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ at an age of a few Myr. The planet is assumed to have migrated to its final orbit during the formation phase, thus the assumed equilibrium temperature is constant in time. A calibration run with $`1M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ with a core and with insolation appropriate to Jupiter at 5 AU ($`T_{\mathrm{eq}}=113`$ K) contracted to a final radius of $`1R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ after an evolution time of 4.5 Gyr. At the final time, the temperature at 1 bar pressure in the atmosphere atmosphere was about 160 K, in good agreement with observations of Jupiter.

For each value assumed for the planet mass (0.11, 0.23, 0.69, 1.00, and $`3.0M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$), the models in Table 1 illustrate how the presence of a solid core, as well as the assumed value of $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, affects the planetary radius (given in RJUP). In this table, as well as in Table 2, the core densities are 5.5 g cm-3 for all cases except $`3.0M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$, where it is 10.5 g cm-3. Table 2 presents an exactly analogous sequence of models which also include an energy source term (in addition to the direct radiative heating of the atmosphere), applied as described by Guillot & Showman (2002). This source term deposits 1.7% of the incoming stellar flux in the regions of the planetary envelope where the pressure is tens of bars. The energy deposition fraction of 1.7% was obtained through calibration runs in which the fraction was varied until the radius of HD 209458 was reproduced. Specifically, with that fraction, for the case of 0.69 MJUP, without a core and with $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}=1300K`$, a radius of 1.37 RJUP was obtained at an age of 4.5 Gyr. For all other models, the same fraction of the incident stellar radiation was assumed to be converted to heat at pressure levels from the surface down to $`100`$ bar, with an exponential fall-off of heating with depth. The incident stellar radiation is of course proportional to the projected area of the planet’s star-facing hemisphere; this effect was taken into account during the contraction.

The radii of these models show in many cases observably large variations as the underlying physical parameters (i.e. presence of a core or energy deposition via kinetic heating) are varied. It is therefore likely that the discovery of several more transiting extrasolar planets will make it clear whether giant planets have solid cores, and whether they generally have access to an interior energy source such as the kinetic heating described by Guillot & Showman (2002). We note that the delineation between individual modes is especially clear for both the hotter and the lower-mass planets. For a low-mass relatively short-period planet such as HD 168746b with $`M\mathrm{sin}i=0.23M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$, $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}=1000`$ K, and P = 6.4 days, the two models without kinetic heating have final radii of 0.90 and 1.07 RJUP for cases with a core and without a core, respectively, and the two corresponding models with kinetic heating have radii of 1.34 and 1.53 RJUP, respectively. The four possibilities should be cleanly separable observationally, as the observational uncertainly is about 0.1 RJUP. In the case of a planet with 0.11 MJUP (cf. HD 49674), the effect becomes even larger, with observationally separable differences among the four cases out to $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}=500`$ K (about 0.4 AU for a solar-type star). In the case with a core, this model is intermediate between a Saturn-type and a Neptune-type planet, with an envelope mass of 15 M and a core mass of 20 M.

It is important to note, however, that for a planet as massive as 3 MJUP it is not possible to observationally distinguish between these various cases, except that at very short periods with $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}=1500`$ or 2000 K, it may be possible to determine whether or not kinetic heating is occurring. For 1 MJUP it is in general not possible to distinguish between planets with or without cores; for the calculations without kinetic heating the difference is only about 5%. It is, however, possible to distinguish between planets with or without kinetic heating if the equilibrium temperature is above about 1200 K. Models with 1 MJUP have also been calculated with a core density of 10.5 g cm-3. Their radii are close to 3% smaller in all cases (with or without kinetic heating) than in the case with a density of 5.5 g cm-3, making the difference in radius between a planet with and without a core marginally detectable in some cases. In the case of 0.69 MJUP, planets with or without cores are only marginally separable, while planets with or without kinetic heating are cleanly separable down to $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}=1000`$ K. Calculations were also made for 0.69 MJUP with a core of 20 M, with and without kinetic heating and with $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}=1000`$ K. The radii turned out to be 1.06 and 1.22 RJUP, respectively, intermediate between the values for the case without a core and for the case with a core of 40 M. In this situation the presence of a core could not be detected, but the effect of kinetic heating could still be clearly discerned.

## 4 Constraints Provided by the Current Planetary Census

While additional transiting planets will certainly be of immense importance in clarifying the structural theory of extrasolar giant planets, there is interesting information which can be gleaned from the current census of extrasolar planets. We now use the planet models which were described in the previous section to examine a number of interesting individual cases.

### 4.1 HD 209458b

As Table 1 shows, a standard model for $`M=0.69M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ without a core at $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}=1300\mathrm{K}`$ has a radius of only 1.12 $`R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$; the model with a core is even smaller. Bodenheimer, Lin & Mardling (2001) suggest that internal dissipation of tidal energy arising from orbital circularization is responsible for the large observed size of HD 209458b. If HD 209458b is unperturbed by a third body, then tidal dissipation will circularize its orbit on a timescale (Goldreich & Soter 1966)

$$\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}=\frac{e}{\dot{e}}=\left(\frac{4Q_\mathrm{P}}{63n}\right)\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{P}}{M_{}}\right)\left(\frac{a}{R_\mathrm{p}}\right)^5=0.082\left(\frac{Q_\mathrm{P}}{10^6}\right)\mathrm{Gyr},$$
$`(4)`$
where $`n=2\pi /P=1.783\mathrm{rad}/\mathrm{d}`$ is the planet’s mean motion, $`M_{}=1.1M_{}`$ is the stellar mass, and $`Q_\mathrm{P}`$ is the tidal quality factor. $`Q_\mathrm{P}`$ is associated with substantial uncertainty. Based on the Jupiter-Io interaction, $`Q_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ is estimated to lie in the range $`6\times 10^42\times 10^6`$ (Yoder & Peale 1981). Onset of tidal circularization among main-sequence binaries suggests that the Q-value for stars is of order $`10^6`$ (Terquem et al. 1998). The $`Q_\mathrm{P}`$ values for extrasolar planets are likely to be strong functions of planetary mass, temperature, and composition. As more planets are found with periods, $`P7\mathrm{d}`$, the range of $`Q_\mathrm{P}`$ values appropriate to moderately irradiated planets of a range of masses will become better determined.

The rate of internal energy dissipation is given by,

$$\dot{E}_d=\frac{e^2GM_{}M_\mathrm{P}}{a\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}},$$
$`(5)`$
which for HD 209458b is

$$\dot{E}_d=1\times 10^{29}e^2\left(\frac{10^6}{Q_\mathrm{P}}\right)\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
$`(6)`$
To estimate this rate for particular choices of $`Q_\mathrm{P}`$, we need to estimate the orbital eccentricity for HD 209458b.

To date, the UC-Keck Planet Search has obtained RV measurements of HD 209458 which fall in 33 distinct 2-hour time bins. These updated velocities have been provided by G. Marcy (2002, personal communication). Among these 33 binned observations, 3 have photon-weighted epochs which fall within the periodic transit window for HD 209458b. Radial velocity measurements taken during transit are seriously affected by asymmetric distortions in the stellar line profiles arising from the planet occulting a rotating star (Bundy & Marcy 2000, Queloz et al. 2000). We therefore remove these three points from the RV data set and use a Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm (Press et al. 1992) to fit a Keplerian orbit to the remaining velocities. Repeated observations of the HD 209458b transits which include mid-1990’s data from the Hipparcos epoch photometry (Castellano et al. 2000, Robinchon & Arenou 2000), HST/STIS observations by Brown et al. (2001), and HST/FGS observations by Welsh et al. (2003) have allowed the planetary period and the transit midpoint to be determined to high accuracy. Welsh et al. (2003) report a period $`P=3.5247542\pm 4.4\times 10^6\mathrm{HJD}`$ and a transit midpoint $`T_c=2452223.89617\pm 8.6\times 10^5\mathrm{HJD}`$. With this ephemeris, and for any given choice of the planetary $`e`$ and $`\varpi `$, we can compute the mean anomaly $`M`$ at the epoch of the first data point (JD=2451341.120). We fit for (1) the planetary eccentricity $`e`$, (2) the argument of perihelion $`\varpi `$, (3) the planetary $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$, and (4) the velocity zero-point for the data set. This four-parameter variation returns a best-fit system having $`e=0.033`$, $`\varpi =67.17`$, $`M\mathrm{sin}i=0.679M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=5.36\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$. The fit has a $`\sqrt{\chi ^2}=1.69`$, and an rms scatter of $`8.05\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$. If the eccentricity for the planet is forced to be zero and the velocities are re-fit for $`M`$, $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_1`$, we obtain a best fit having $`M\mathrm{sin}i=0.652`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_1=4.74`$ with an rms scatter of $`8.31\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$. These results are in excellent agreement with those obtained by Marcy (2002; personal communication) who finds a best-fit eccentricity $`e=0.028\pm 0.012`$ using an independent code.

The measured eccentricity of $`e0.03`$ in the one-planet fit to the HD 209458b RV data therefore appears to have some statistical significance. For $`e=0.03`$, the rate of energy dissipation in HD 209458b is $`\dot{E}=1.0\times 10^{26}(\frac{10^6}{Q_\mathrm{P}})\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. A new model calculation was made for the evolution of 0.69 MJUP at $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}=1300`$ K including tidal dissipation energy distributed uniformly in mass throughout the gaseous region of the planet. It was determined that a no-core model requires internal tidal heating of $`\dot{E}_\mathrm{d}4\times 10^{26}`$ erg s-1 to achieve a radius $`R=1.35R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$. Therefore, if the best-fit eccentricity is secure, and if HD 209458b contains no core, the observed radius can be explained by tidal dissipation if $`Q_\mathrm{P}2.5\times 10^5`$, well within the range derived for Jupiter. The required dissipation is higher than that quoted by Bodenheimer et al. (2001) because of changes in the equation of state and opacity since that time. Also, for a model with a core, internal heating of $`4\times 10^{27}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ is required to maintain the same radius. This amount of heating would require, for the same value of $`Q_\mathrm{P}`$, an eccentricity $`e0.1`$, a value which appears to be incompatible with the RV data set.

Any non-zero eccentricity for HD 209458b implies that some mechanism exists to excite eccentricity, since the circularization e-folding time $`\frac{e}{\dot{e}}10^8`$ years is considerably shorter than the estimated system age of 4.5 Gyr (Mazeh et al. 2000). Bodenheimer et al. (2001) suggest that the eccentricity of HD 209458b could be forced by an additional planetary companion, and this process does seem to be occurring in the multiple system $`\upsilon `$ And. Here we examine whether the residual scatter in the HD 209458 RV data set can admit a second planet which is capable of forcing a time-averaged eccentricity $`\overline{e}0.03`$ for HD 209458b.

Figure 2 shows a Lomb-Scargle (Press et al. 1992) periodogram of the RV residuals after the RV contribution due to our 1-planet (e=0.033) fit has been subtracted. The Lomb-Scargle periodogram is optimized to detect periodicities in unevenly sampled data, and is described in detail by Scargle (1982). In our periodogram, modest peaks remain at 365 and 80 day periodicities. The 365 day periodicity is certainly an aliasing peak arising from the 1-year observing cycle. If we make the hypothesis that the 80 day peak arises from a second companion, we estimate the $`M\mathrm{sin}i`$ of this second planet to be $`0.12M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$, in order to model the $`6.0\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$ scatter which is unaccounted for by the rms instrumental error of $`4.8\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$ and an assumed stellar jitter of $`<j>=4.0\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$. This estimate for stellar jitter is based on values reported for several similarly old, chromospherically quiet G stars (Saar, Butler, & Marcy 1998), and could be significantly larger.

We have performed four self-consistent 2-planet fits to the velocities (see Laughlin & Chambers 2001). In the first three fits, we constrain the parameters of the hypothetical second planet “c” by fixing the argument of periastron $`\varpi _c=60.5^o`$, and $`M_c\mathrm{sin}(i)=0.127M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$, and assuming eccentricity values (i) $`e_c=0.0`$, (ii) $`e_c=0.2`$, and (iii) $`e_c=0.4`$. The parameters of the inner planet “b” are allowed to vary as explained above. The mean anomaly at the epoch of the first data point and the period of the hypothetical planet “c” are allowed to vary. These fits are listed as fits(1-3) in Table 3. In each case, the fitted period is $`P_c\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}84}\mathrm{d}`$. We find that all three fits can self consistently reduce the excess scatter to that expected from instrumental noise, added in quadrature to a stellar jitter of $`<j>=4.1\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$ for $`e_c=0.4`$, $`<j>=4.2\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$ for $`e_c=0.2`$, and $`<j>=4.3\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$ for $`e_c=0.0`$. We also performed a fit to the RV data in which we allowed all of the parameters of the hypothetical planet “c” to vary, including the mass and the eccentricity. The resulting system produced an extremely close fit to the data, requiring $`<j>=1.7\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$, which is almost certainly smaller than the velocity jitter of the star. In this fourth model, listed as fit 4 in Table 3, the eccentricity of “c” is 0.7, and the mass has increased to $`0.22M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$. It is important to stress that these fits illustrate only the existence of models that provide a consistent explanation of the stellar RV variations. They by no means constitute the detection of a second planetary companion.

We next examine the dynamical consequences arising from the presence of a second planet in the HD 209458 system. For concreteness, we use our fit in which the eccentricity of the hypothetical second planet is fixed at $`e_c=0.4`$. Inclusion of this second planet causes the fitted eccentricity of HD 209458b to decline to $`e_b=0.019`$. Fischer et al. (2001) have noted that the inclusion of a second planet into a RV fit generally causes the fitted eccentricity of the first planet to decline.

In order to examine the degree of eccentricity exchange between planet “b” and the hypothetical planet “c”, we start with the osculating orbital elements reported in Table 3 for the trial self-consistent 2-planet fit having $`e_c=0.4`$, and integrate the system forward in time using the Burlirsch-Stoer method.

We note that in the absence of relativistic advance of the perihelion of planet HD 209458b, the Laplace-Lagrange secular exchange of angular momentum (e.g. Murray & Dermott 1999) is quite strong – the eccentricity of planet “b” oscillates between 0.018 and 0.14 with a period of $`P40,000`$ years. Relativistic apse precession, however, detunes the secular exchange and reduces the time-averaged $`\overline{e}`$ to 0.03 (see also Mardling & Lin 2002). The results are shown in Figure 3. The two planets experience an apsidal lock when relativistic apse precession is included, but this lock is not required for the secular eccentricity exchange to occur. Note that while the ratio of the total angular momenta $`L_b/L_c1.6`$ is not far from unity, the larger eccentricity excursions for planet “b” occur because its eccentricity is smaller. That is, given that the orbital angular momentum of a planet is

$$L_\mathrm{P}=\frac{M_\mathrm{P}M_{}}{M_\mathrm{P}+M_{}}a^2n(1e^2)^{1/2},$$
$`(7)`$
and that the total angular momentum $`L=L_b+L_c`$ is conserved, the $`(1e^2)^{1/2}`$ dependence in the above equation demands larger eccentricity variations for the planet with smaller eccentricity.

As discussed above, our evolutionary models show that $`\dot{E}`$ for $`\overline{e}=0.03`$ produces sufficient heating in the planet to account for the observed radius in the event that the planet contains no core and $`Q_\mathrm{P}2.5\times 10^5`$.

The rms RV measurement errors for HD 209458b are $`<\sigma >=4.86\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$, and so as more RVs are obtained for this star, the presence of a second companion of the type described here should be confirmed or ruled out. The potential detectability of the perturbing companion “c” is aided by the requirement that its period should be less than the current $`1200`$ day duration of the RV data set. HD 209458 shows a RV trend of only $`0.0007\pm 0.002\mathrm{ms}^1\mathrm{d}^1`$. Trial calculations of secular eccentricity exchange indicate that an exterior planet producing a linear $`0.0007\mathrm{ms}^1\mathrm{d}^1`$ velocity trend is not large enough to maintain a significant time-averaged eccentricity for planet HD 209458b. Hence the perturbing companion, if it exists, has a period short enough to average out a residual trend over a 4-year time frame. The hypothetical $`P=80\mathrm{d}`$ planets considered above easily fulfill this condition.

The current Keck Planet Search RV data set for HD 209458b contains only 33 binned RVs, which means that a significant improvement of the system characterization can be obtained over the next several years if frequent additional measurements are made. Because individual high-precision RV measurements are expensive, it is therefore useful to examine how the detectability of a hypothetical HD 209458 “c” improves as more RV measurements are taken.

To do this, we have taken the hypothetical 2-planet system shown in fit 3 of Table 3, and integrated it forward through JD 2453266 (September 2004). We then generated a simulated campaign of 120 additional RV measurements over the next 1.5 observing seasons for HD 209458 (RA=22:03, DEC=+18:53). Our simulated campaign includes 11 individual RV measurements cadenced according to typical observing runs on the Keck telescope and 109 RV measurements accumulated over 6 dedicated nights on a smaller instrument such as the Lick Observatory 3-meter telescope. This combination of intensive and sporadic monitoring is intended to improve phase coverage of both planets, while expending a reasonable amount of telescope time.

We then sample the integrated reflex velocity of the star in response to the two planets at each of the 120 epochs in the simulated observing campaign. Gaussian scatter consistent with instrumental error (4.8 m/s) and stellar jitter (4.0 m/s) is added to the sampled stellar reflex velocities. This results in a synthetic data set which includes the 30 real plus 120 simulated RV points. We then perform 1-planet and 2-planet fits to all 150 points. The best 2-planet fit results in a total rms scatter of 6.79 m/s, while the best 1-planet fit results in a scatter of 7.41 m/s, suggesting that a moderately intensive campaign on HD 209458b will result in a slow, but nevertheless feasible discrimination between the 1– and 2–planet hypotheses. Additional Monte-Carlo simulations of this type can be used to further refine the observing strategy. If the eccentricity of the hypothetical planet “c” is larger, as in the fourth fit of Table 3, then the planet will be easier to detect, due to the comparatively larger reflex velocity of the star during the peri-astron passage.

We also note that the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ between successive transits for HD 209458b varies by $`\pm 3\mathrm{s}`$ over the course of a single 84 day period of the hypothetical companion. While the average period of HD 209458b can be determined very accurately by spanning a large number of periods (Welsh et al. 2003), it is difficult to obtain 1 s accuracy for the duration of a single orbit. It might be possible, however, to measure precession-induced secular changes in the period of HD 209458b arising from perturbations caused by a second companion (see Miralda-Escudé 2002).

### 4.2 Ongoing Circularization

The period range between 3 and 10 days is now populated by 16 planets covering a wide range of masses and equilibrium temperatures. Equation (4) indicates that if $`Q_\mathrm{P}10^6`$, then planets with periods of order 1 week should be in the process of actively circularizing. The circularization timescale, however, depends sensitively on the planetary radius ($`\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}R_\mathrm{P}^5`$), and so among planets with periods of about a week there should be a wide range of non-zero eccentricities, even in the absence of companions capable of forcing eccentricity. There are two additional uncertainties. Tidal dissipation within the host star can also contribute to the evolution of the planet’s eccentricity, although it is smaller than that due to planetary dissipation (Dobbs-Dixon et al 2003). Past tidal inflation instability can also lead to the circularization of planets with $`P<10\mathrm{d}`$ (Gu et al. 2003). This effect is not important for systems with finite eccentricity. As more planets are discovered in the $`3\mathrm{d}<P<10\mathrm{d}`$ period range, all of the parameters in equation (4) will begin to become overconstrained, eventually allowing $`Q_\mathrm{P}(T_{\mathrm{eq}},M_\mathrm{P})`$ and $`R_\mathrm{P}(T_{\mathrm{eq}},M_\mathrm{P})`$ to be observationally determined.

In order to see how the discovery of additional planets with periods of order 1 week will lead to a better determination for $`Q_\mathrm{P}`$ as a function of planetary mass and temperature, consider Table 4, which lists relevant planetary and stellar information for HD 68988b (Vogt et al. 2002), HD 168746b (Pepe et al. 2002), and HD 217107 (Fischer et al. 1999). In this table, stellar masses, radii and effective temperatures are taken from Allende Prieto & Lambert (1999).

The equilibrium temperature of the planets is calculated as

$$T_{\mathrm{eq}}=\left[\frac{(1A)L_{}}{16\pi \sigma a^2(1+\frac{e^2}{2})^2}\right]^{1/4},$$
$`(8)`$
where the quantity $`a(1+e^2/2)`$ is the time-averaged distance between the planet and the star for a Keplerian orbit of semi-major axis $`a`$ and eccentricity $`e`$, and $`A`$ is the Bond albedo for the planet. We adopt $`A=0.4`$ when computing the values for $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ listed in Table 4.

The last eight rows of Table 4 show our predictions for the planetary radii and circularization e-folding times. The radii are computed via linear interpolation between the relevant models of Tables 1 and 2, and are coded according to the presence or absence of a core (c/nc) and the presence or absence of kinetic heating (k/nk). Circularization times in each case are computed assuming a fiducial value $`Q_\mathrm{P}=10^6`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}i=1.0`$. Note that $`\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}`$ is linearly dependent on $`Q_\mathrm{P}`$.

With these assumptions, we find that for HD 68988b and HD 217107b, the observationally well-established eccentricities of $`e=0.14`$ for both planets are consistent with computed circularization timescales that comfortably exceed the estimated stellar ages. In particular, we note that the non-zero observed eccentricity for HD 68988b is no longer in disagreement with the circularization timescale. A disagreement was noted previously by Vogt et al. (2002), who computed a $`\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}=1.8\mathrm{Gyr}`$ based on a radius estimate for HD 68988b of $`R=1.4R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$, motivated by the observed radius for HD 209458b.

We also note that $`\dot{E}_d=2\times 10^{25}`$ and $`1\times 10^{25}(10^6/Q_\mathrm{P})(R_\mathrm{P}/R_{\mathrm{JUP}})^5`$ erg s-1 for HD 68988b and HD 217107b respectively. In contrast, the assumed kinetic energy deposition rate (1% of the irradiation flux) is $`\dot{E}_k=5\times 10^{26}(R_\mathrm{P}/R_{\mathrm{JUP}})^2`$erg s-1 for both planets. Even with a modest Q-value ($`2.5\times 10^5`$), $`\dot{E}_d`$ is an order of magnitude smaller than $`\dot{E}_k`$ so that tidal dissipation is unlikely to enlarge these planets by a noticeable amount.

For HD 168746, however, the situation is more interesting. Because the planet mass is likely to be small, $`M\mathrm{sin}i=0.23M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$, there is a large range in the predicted planetary radii depending on the presence of a core and/or kinetic heating, and hence the estimates for $`\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}`$ vary widely, from $`\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}=0.26\mathrm{Gyr}`$ for a core-free model with kinetic heating, to $`\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}=3.5\mathrm{Gyr}`$ for a model with a core and no kinetic heating. Pepe et al. (2002) estimate that the star HD 168746 is at least several Gyr old, and report an observed eccentricity of $`e=0.081\pm 0.02`$. Using the 154 RVs posted at CDS in conjunction with the Pepe et al. (2002) paper, we confirm that a best-fit $`\sqrt{\chi ^2}=1.51`$ is obtained for $`e=0.081`$, but this value increases to only $`\sqrt{\chi ^2}=1.54`$ for $`e=0`$, indicating that a circular orbit for HD 168746b is still tenable. Improvement of the orbital elements will certainly result as further RV measurements are accumulated.

For this low-mass planet, $`\dot{E}_d=6\times 10^{24}(10^6/Q_\mathrm{P})(R_\mathrm{P}/R_{\mathrm{JUP}})^5`$erg s-1. We computed two sets (with and without a core of 20 $`M_{}`$) of self-consistent models in which uniform tidal dissipation (in accordance with an eccentricity $`e=0.081`$) is applied to the planetary interior, with $`Q_\mathrm{P}=10^6`$, in addition to the surface irradiation (Bodenheimer et al. 2001). Since the radius as a function of time is not known in advance, we iterate the solution until $`\dot{E}_d`$ at the end of the calculation matches the computed model luminosity. For models with and without cores, $`R_\mathrm{P}=1.01R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ and $`1.33R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ respectively. These tidal models fall between the dissipationless and ad hoc kinetic energy dissipation models in the cases both with and without cores. Although the coreless tidal dissipation model gives the same value for $`R_\mathrm{P}`$ as the core-structure model with kinetic energy input, the observational determination of $`e`$ will remove the degeneracy.

Finally, we remark on the recently reported planet OGLE-TR-56b, $`M_p=0.9M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$, $`P=1.2\mathrm{d}`$, $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},900`$ K (Konacki et al. 2003). In comparison with the results in Table 1, the observationally measured $`R_\mathrm{P}=1.3\pm 0.15R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ is slightly larger than that determined for the irradiated planet with or without a core. But the results in Table 2 indicate that kinetic heating at the rate of $`1.7\%`$ of the surface irradiative flux induces the planet, with or without a core, to have $`R_\mathrm{P}`$ larger than the observed value. Thus, kinetic heating, if it occurs below the surface of a short-period planet, is less efficient than assumed by Guillot & Showman (2002). We also note that in order to prevent tidal dissipation from expanding $`R_\mathrm{P}`$ beyond its observed value, the eccentricity of OGLE-TR-56b must be less than $`12\times 10^3`$, depending on its $`Q_\mathrm{P}`$ value. If the observed parameters are confirmed, the eccentricity damping time scale of the planet $`\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}1.8(Q_\mathrm{P}/10^6)`$ Myr would be much shorter than the main sequence life span of the host star.

## 5 Discussion

Our evolutionary models for giant planets indicate that the planetary radius is sensitively dependent on both the presence or absence of a core and on the amount of energy that is deposited within the interior of the planet. This dependence is strongest for hot low-mass (i.e. $`M<1M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$) planets, while being quite weak for planets with large mass (i.e. $`M3M_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$) regardless of the equilibrium surface temperature. The discovery of additional extrasolar planets which transit bright parent stars will impart a great deal of information on the structure and evolution of giant planets in general. The number of such planets, however, will be quite limited. The parent star of HD 209458b has $`V=7.65`$, yet photometric measurements with HST are photon-limited to a cadence that resolves the critical ingress and egress periods into 80 second time bins (Brown et al. 2001), and a large number of additional RV measurements will be required in order to determine whether the eccentricity of HD 209458b is being forced by a second companion. A similar follow-up effort will be required for additional transiting planets as they are found.

The number of available transiting planets with $`3\mathrm{d}<P<200\mathrm{d}`$ is severely limited by transit probabilities that are generally less than 10%. Information on the interior properties of short-period planets can nonetheless be obtained by examining which of the planetary orbits have been tidally circularized. Circularization times scale as the fifth power of the planetary radius. As a large aggregate of planets is built up, increasingly stringent limits can be placed on the unknown tidal quality factor $`Q_\mathrm{P}`$ and the planetary radii.

Finally, we note that the discovery of intermediate-period transiting planets is a challenging observational task. The most cost-effective way to find these transiting planets is to harness a network of small independent telescopes to obtain multiple (i.e. 3-5 separate observers) differential- photometric time-series of known planet-bearing stars during the well-defined time windows in which transits are expected to occur. We are currently pursuing this strategy using a network of amateur observers and small-college observatories.222http://www.transitsearch.org

We thank Richard Freedman for providing us with Rosseland mean opacities for our planetary models. We thank Geoff Marcy for providing us with the latest Keck RV data set for HD 209458 in advance of publication. We thank Debra Fischer, Richard Freedman, Geoff Marcy and Mark Marley for useful conversations. This work was supported in part by a NASA astrophysics theory program which supports a joint Center for Star Formation Studies at NASA-Ames Research Center, UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz, by the NASA Origins program through grant NCC2-5501, and by the NSF through grant AST-9987417.

Table 1: Predicted Radii of Irradiated Giant Planets at T=4.5 Gyr

|  | $`0.11\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$ |  | $`0.23\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$ |  | $`0.69\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$ |  | $`1.0\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$ |  | $`3.0\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`T_{eq}`$ | core | no core | core | no core | core | no core | core | no core | core | no core |
| 2000 | 0.87 | 1.75 | 1.07 | 1.31 | 1.10 | 1.22 | 1.14 | 1.20 | 1.18 | 1.19 |
| 1500 | 0.74 | 1.20 | 0.95 | 1.14 | 1.03 | 1.13 | 1.08 | 1.13 | 1.12 | 1.13 |
| 1000 | 0.69 | 1.09 | 0.90 | 1.07 | 1.01 | 1.10 | 1.06 | 1.11 | 1.11 | 1.11 |
| 500 | 0.66 | 1.01 | 0.88 | 1.03 | 1.00 | 1.09 | 1.05 | 1.10 | 1.10 | 1.11 |
| 113 | 0.61 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 1.03 | 1.01 | 1.05 | 1.07 | 1.07 |

Table 2: Predicted Radii of Irradiated Giant Planets at T=4.5 Gyr

(Models With Kinetic Heating)

|  | $`0.11\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$ |  | $`0.23\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$ |  | $`0.69\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$ |  | $`1.0\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$ |  | $`3.0\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`T_{eq}`$ | core | no core | core | no core | core | no core | core | no core | core | no core |
| 2000 | $`>`$2.0 | $`>`$2.0 | $`>`$2.0 | $`>`$2.0 | 1.74 | 1.81 | 1.47 | 1.61 | 1.40 | 1.35 |
| 1500 | 1.69 | $`>`$2.0 | 1.61 | 1.80 | 1.35 | 1.51 | 1.30 | 1.38 | 1.25 | 1.26 |
| 1000 | 1.14 | 1.72 | 1.34 | 1.53 | 1.16 | 1.27 | 1.13 | 1.18 | 1.13 | 1.14 |
| 500 | 0.80 | 1.13 | 1.02 | 1.14 | 1.02 | 1.11 | 1.06 | 1.11 | 1.10 | 1.11 |
| 113 | 0.61 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 1.03 | 1.01 | 1.05 | 1.07 | 1.07 |

Table 3: Trial 2-Planet Fits to HD 209458 data

|  | Fit 1 |  | Fit 2 |  | Fit 3 |  | Fit 4 |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Parameter | b | c | b | c | b | c | b | c |
| $`P`$ (d) | 3.5248(f) | 84.17 | 3.5248(f) | 84.37 | 3.5248(f) | 84.29 | 3.5248(f) | 84.714 |
| $`M`$ (deg) | 221.85(f) | 91.59 | 221.85(f) | 101.22 | 221.85(f) | 104.96 | 241.57 | 154.48 |
| $`e`$ | 0.025 | 0.00(f) | 0.022 | 0.20(f) | 0.019 | 0.40(f) | 0.00037 | 0.697 |
| $`\varpi `$ | 67.58 | 60.5(f) | 67.75 | 60.5(f) | 67.74 | 60.5(f) | 47.6 | 31.2 |
| $`M_{\mathrm{JUP}}\mathrm{sin}(i)`$ | 0.679 | 0.127(f) | 0.679 | 0.127(f) | 0.679 | 0.127(f) | 0.64 | 0.227 |

Table 4: Planets with $`6\mathrm{d}<P<8\mathrm{d}`$

|  | HD 68988b | HD 168746 | HD 217107 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`P`$ (d) | 6.276 | 6.403 | 7.125 |
| $`K`$ (m/s) | 187 | 28 | 139.7 |
| $`M\mathrm{sin}(i)(M_{\mathrm{JUP}})`$ | 1.80 | 0.23 | 1.29 |
| $`e`$ | 0.14 | 0.081 | 0.14 |
| $`M_{}/M_{}`$ | 1.11 | 1.04 | 0.98 |
| $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (K) | 5888 | 5754 | 5623 |
| $`T_{\mathrm{eq},\mathrm{P}}`$ (K) | 1004 | 973 | 919 |
| $`R_{}/R_{}`$ | 1.17 | 1.07 | 1.12 |
| Stellar Age (Gyr) | 6 | $`>2`$ Gyr | 5.6 |
| $`R_P(\mathrm{c},\mathrm{nk})/R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ | 1.08 | 0.90 | 1.07 |
| $`R_P(\mathrm{nc},\mathrm{nk})/R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ | 1.11 | 1.07 | 1.11 |
| $`R_P(\mathrm{c},\mathrm{k})/R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ | 1.13 | 1.34 | 1.12 |
| $`R_P(\mathrm{nc},\mathrm{k})/R_{\mathrm{JUP}}`$ | 1.17 | 1.53 | 1.16 |
| $`\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}(\mathrm{c},\mathrm{nk})`$ (Gyr) | 11.5 | 3.5 | 13.9 |
| $`\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}(\mathrm{nc},\mathrm{nk})`$ (Gyr) | 10.1 | 1.5 | 11.6 |
| $`\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}(\mathrm{c},\mathrm{k})`$ (Gyr) | 9.2 | 0.51 | 10.8 |
| $`\tau _{\mathrm{circ}}(\mathrm{nc},\mathrm{k})`$ (Gyr) | 7.9 | 0.26 | 9.1 |


format: text

text:
# Trap environment effects over the quantum statistics and the atom-photon correlations in the Collective Atomic-Recoil Laser

## Abstract

We consider the effects of the trap environment on the atomic and optical quantum statistical properties and on the atom-photon correlations in the Collective Atomic-Recoil Laser. Atomic and optical statistical properties, as well as the atom-photon correlations are dependent on the optical field intensity and phase. In particular, depending on the values of the optical field intensity and phase, the fields statistics varies from coherent to superchaotic.

Realization of Bose-Einstein condensation in trapped atomic gases  has produced new advances in atom optics. Particularly, the interaction of condensates with single mode quantized light fields has been a challenging topic , allowing for instance light and matter wave amplification  and optical control of atomic statistical properties .

It is known that the trap environment can modify the properties of ultracold atoms, such as its critical temperature . In Ref. , the trap environment effect on the Condensate Collective Atomic-Recoil Laser (CARL)  was included by expanding the matter-wave field in the trap matter-wave modes. Such a situation was called Cavity Atom Optics (CAO), in analogy with the Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics (CQE) where the spontaneous emission is modified by the presence of the cavity. The dynamics of this model was compared  with its counterpart free space model  where the matter wave field was expanded in plane waves. It was found that in the CAO regime the atomic and optical fields intensities present two regimes of exponential instability. However, the trap effect over the quantum statistical properties and the atom-photon correlations was not considered. These properties are important to characterize the role of trap environments on the control of atomic and optical statistical properties, which can be useful for quantum information processing.

This Brief Report concerns with the effects of trap environment over the quantum statistical properties and the atom-photon correlations in the CARL. By analyzing the second order correlation functions and intensity cross correlations we verify that the statistical properties of the atomic and optical fields as well as the atom-photon correlations are dependent of the optical field initial intensity and phase. Furthermore, by setting the optical field intensity and phase the fields statistics can be varied from coherent to superchaotic.

Following Ref.  we consider a Schrödinger field of non-interacting bosonic two-level atoms interacting with two single-mode running wave optical fields of frequencies $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$, both being far off-resonant from any electronic transition. By two-photon virtual transitions, in which the atoms internal state remains unchanged, the center-of-mass motion may change due to the recoil. In the far-off resonant regime the excited state population and spontaneous emission may be neglected and the ground state atomic field evolves coherently under the effective Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=d^3𝐫\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(𝐫)\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2+V(𝐫)+\mathrm{}\left(\frac{g_1^{}g_2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\widehat{a}_1^{}a_2e^{i𝐊𝐫}+\frac{g_2^{}g_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}a_2^{}\widehat{a}_1e^{i𝐊𝐫}\right)\right]\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫)+\mathrm{}(\omega _1\omega _2)\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the atomic mass, $`V(r)`$ is the trap potential, $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are the probe and pump coupling coefficients, respectively, and $`𝐊=𝐤_1𝐤_2`$ is the difference between the probe and pump wavevectors. The operator $`\widehat{a}_1`$ is the photon annihilation operator for the probe mode, taken in the frame rotating at the pump frequency $`\omega _2`$. The pump is treated classically and assumed to remain undepleted, and the index of refraction of the atomic sample was assumed equal to the vacuum by neglecting spatially independent light shifts potentials.

Now we distinguish between free propagation and cavity regimes. The free propagation regime is valid for times short enough that atoms at the recoil velocity propagate only over short distances compared to the dimensions of the initial condensate. Following Ref , in this regime the atomic field is expanded onto momentum side modes, which are simply plane waves with a slowly varying spatial envelope. The cavity regime occurs at much longer time scales, when the recoiling atoms propagate over distances larger than the trap dimensions. In the CAO regime the atoms probe the trap environment and the atomic field operator is best expressed in terms of the trap eigenmodes $`\left\{\phi _n(𝐫)\right\}`$ according to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\phi _n(𝐫)\widehat{c}_n`$, where $`\widehat{c}_n`$ is the annihilation operator for atoms in mode $`n`$.

We consider that the condensate mode $`\widehat{c}_0`$ is initially highly populated with a $`N`$ mean number of atoms, allowing treat it as a c-number. Also is neglected condensate depletion, which is valid for short times so that the side mode populations remain small compared to $`N`$. These conditions allow the replacement $`\widehat{c}_0\sqrt{N}`$. For simplicity we assume that the condensate mode couples only to the $`m`$th trap mode. Thus we obtain the following effective Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=\mathrm{}\omega _m\widehat{c}_m^{}\widehat{c}_m+\mathrm{}\delta \widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+\mathrm{}\chi _m\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{c}_m^{}+\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{c}_m+\widehat{c}_m^{}\widehat{a}+\widehat{c}_m\widehat{a}\right),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{}\omega _m`$ is the energy of the $`m`$th trap mode, $`\delta =`$ $`\omega _1\omega _2`$ is the detuning between the pump and probe optical fields, $`\chi _m=\sqrt{N}A_{0m}|g_1||g_2||a_2|/|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ is the coupling constant between atomic and optical fields, $`\widehat{a}=(g_1g_2^{}a_2^{}\mathrm{\Delta }/\left|g_1\right|\left|g_2\right|\left|a_2\right|\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\right|)\widehat{a}_1`$ is the probe annihilation operator times a phase factor related to the phase of the pump laser and the sign of the detuning, and $`A_{0m}=d^3𝐫\phi _0^{}(𝐫)e^{i𝐊𝐫}\phi _m(𝐫)`$ is the matrix element for the optical transition that was assumed a real number. Terms like $`\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{c}_m^{}`$ in (2) correspond to the generation of correlated atom-photon pairs. This is analogous to the Optical Parametric Amplifier (OPA), except that in that case it is correlated photon pairs that are generated.

The Heisenberg equations of motion for the field operators follow from Hamiltonian (2), resulting the $`4\times 4`$ system of equations

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{c}_m\\ \widehat{c}_m^{}\\ \widehat{a}\\ \widehat{a}^{}\end{array}\right)=i\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& \chi _m& \chi _m\\ 0& 1& \chi _m& \chi _m\\ \chi _m& \chi _m& \delta & 0\\ \chi _m& \chi _m& 0& \delta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{c}_m\\ \widehat{c}_m^{}\\ \widehat{a}\\ \widehat{a}^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
where we introduced the dimensionless quantities $`t\omega _mt`$, $`\delta \delta /\omega _m`$ and $`\chi _m\chi _m/\omega _m`$.

The solution of the linear system (3) can be written as

$$\widehat{x}_i(t)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}G_{ij}^{(k)}(t)e^{i\omega _kt}\widehat{x}_j(0),$$
(4)
where we defined $`\widehat{x}_1=\widehat{c}_m`$, $`\widehat{x}_2=\widehat{c}_m^{}`$, $`\widehat{x}_3=\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{x}_4=a^{}`$ for convenience, and $`\omega _k`$ are the system eigenfrequencies. For non-degenerate eigenfrequencies $`G_{ij}^{(k)}(t)=\left[𝐔\right]_{ik}[𝐔^1]_{kj}`$, where $`\left[𝐔\right]_{ik}`$ is the $`i`$th component of the $`k`$th eigenvector of the matrix at RHS of Eq. (3). Following , the stability analysis shows three distinct regimes: (i) The eigenfrequencies are purely real, the system being stable. (ii) Two purely real and two purely imaginary eigenfrequencies of the form $`\left\{\omega _1=\mathrm{\Omega },\omega _2=\mathrm{\Omega },\omega _3=i\mathrm{\Gamma },\omega _4=i\mathrm{\Gamma }\right\}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are both real quantities. There is only one exponentially growing solution at the imaginary frequency $`\omega _4`$ and the system is unstable. (iii) The eigenfrequencies are complex numbers of the form $`\left\{\omega _1=\mathrm{\Omega }+i\mathrm{\Gamma },\omega _2=\mathrm{\Omega }+i\mathrm{\Gamma },\omega _3=\mathrm{\Omega }i\mathrm{\Gamma },\omega _4=\mathrm{\Omega }i\mathrm{\Gamma }\right\}`$. This case presents two exponentially growing solutions, $`\omega _3`$ and $`\omega _4`$, which grow at the same rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but rotate at equal and opposite frequencies $`\pm \mathrm{\Omega }`$, producing a beating in the exponential growth of the fields intensities. A fourth possibility is: (iv) The eingenfrequencies are not imaginary and are degenerate at the critical values $`\delta =0`$, $`\delta =4\chi _m^2`$ and $`\left(1\delta ^2\right)^2/\left|\delta \right|=16\chi _m^2`$ ($`\delta <0`$), which define the threshold separating stable from exponentially unstable solutions. The coefficient $`G_{ij}^{(k)}(t)`$ is a polynomial in $`t`$ of degree one less than the degree of degeneracy. The fields amplitudes acquire a linear time dependence and the system becomes unstable. We are interested in the unstable regimes (ii), (iii) and (iv), which show stationary statistical characteristics as we see below.

Let us first consider the atomic and optical fields statistical properties, which can be characterized by the normalized equal-time second-order correlation function defined by

$$g_{ii}^{(2)}(t)=\frac{\widehat{x}_i^{}(t)\widehat{x}_i^{}(t)\widehat{x}_i(t)\widehat{x}_i(t)}{\widehat{x}_i^{}(t)\widehat{x}_i(t)^2},i=1,3.$$
(5)
We assume that the atomic mode begin in a vacuum state whereas the light field is initially in a coherent state $`|\alpha `$ with complex amplitude $`\alpha =\left|\alpha \right|e^{i\varphi }`$. The calculated expression $`g_{ii}^{(2)}(t)`$ is dependent on the optical field intensity $`\left|\alpha \right|^2`$ and phase $`\varphi `$, as well as of the system parameters. Unfortunately, the analytical expression does not provide so much insight. We begin by considering values of parameters in the regime (ii). After a transient, the exponential with eigenfrequencie $`\omega _4`$ will dominate in the Eq. 4 and both, $`g_{11}^{(2)}(t)`$ and $`g_{33}^{(2)}(t)`$, attains at long time the same constant value. The long time value of $`g_{ii}^{(2)}(t)`$ is plotted in Fig. 1 as function of $`\left|\alpha \right|^2`$ and $`\varphi `$, which shows a strong sensitivity to the initial phase and intensity of the light field. We see that by varying the light field intensity and phase it is possible to continuously change the fields statistics from coherent ($`g_{ii}^{(2)}=1`$), to chaotic ($`g_{ii}^{(2)}=2`$), to superchaotic ($`g_{ii}^{(2)}>2`$). The generation of superchaotic light was first analyzed in Ref.  by considering a two-photon emission process. The situation considered here is rather interesting because it allows to produce a superchaotic atomic source.

In the regime (iii) the atomic and optical correlation functions attain at long times a stationary oscillating values, which are not necessarily the same. In order to explore the long time optical field intensity and phase sensitivity it is plotted in Fig. 2-(a) and 2-(b) the value of $`g_{11}^{(2)}`$ and $`g_{33}^{(2)}`$, respectively, as a function of $`\left|\alpha \right|^2`$ and $`\varphi `$ by considering a fixed large value of time. We see, by comparing Fig. 1 with Figs. 2 that the later one shows less sensitivity to the optical field phase. In the regime (iv) the correlations attains at long time a steady value with amplitude decreasing oscillations around a constant value for $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta =4\chi _m^2`$, and oscillating for $`\left(1\delta ^2\right)^2/\left|\delta \right|=16\chi _m^2`$ ($`\delta <0`$). For $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta =4\chi _m^2`$ an analytical expression for the asymptotic value of $`g_{ii}^{(2)}(t)`$ can be found by maintaining only those terms with linear time dependence in the fields amplitudes. Both $`g_{11}^{(2)}`$ and $`g_{33}^{(2)}`$ attains the same value given by

$$g_{ii}^{(2)}=1+2\frac{\left[1+\delta _c\right]\left[1+\delta _c+8\left|\alpha \right|^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi \frac{\pi \delta _c}{8\chi _m^2})\right]}{\left[1+\delta _c+4\left|\alpha \right|^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi \frac{\pi \delta _c}{8\chi _m^2})\right]^2},$$
(6)
where $`\delta _c=0`$ or $`\delta _c=4\chi _m^2`$. From Eq. (6) we see that $`1g_{ii}^{(2)}(t)3`$, which confirm the presence of superchaotic fluctuations. The behavior of $`g_{ii}^{(2)}(t)`$ at $`\left(1\delta ^2\right)^2/\left|\delta \right|=16\chi _m^2`$ ($`\delta <0`$) is similar to that found in the regime (iii), however no simple analytical expression was obtained.

Now we turn to analyze the atom-photon correlations, which be quantified by the two-mode equal-time intensity cross-correlation function

$$g_{ij}^{(2)}(t)=\frac{\widehat{x}_i^{}(t)\widehat{x}_i(t)\widehat{x}_j^{}(t)\widehat{x}_j(t)}{\widehat{x}_i^{}(t)\widehat{x}_i(t)\widehat{x}_j^{}(t)\widehat{x}_j(t)},ij.$$
(7)
In particular, for classical fields the two-mode correlation function is bounded by

$$g_{ij}^{(2)}(t)\sqrt{g_{ii}^{(2)}(t)g_{jj}^{(2)}(t)},$$
(8)
while quantum fields can violate this inequality, being limited by

$$g_{ij}^{(2)}(t)\sqrt{\left[g_{ii}^{(2)}(t)+\frac{1}{\widehat{x}_i^{}(t)\widehat{x}_i(t)}\right]\left[g_{jj}^{(2)}(t)+\frac{1}{\widehat{x}_j^{}(t)\widehat{x}_j(t)}\right]},$$
(9)
which reduces to the classical limit at large intensities.

In order to explore the general characteristics of the atom-photon correlations we consider only the exponentially ustable regimes (ii) and (iii). Considering the regime (ii), the sequence in Fig. 3 shows the atom-photon correlation function $`g_{13}^{(2)}(t)`$ as a function of time and by considering different values of light field intensity and phase. For comparison, in the same figure it is also plotted the classical upper limit given by Eq.8 (dotted line) and the quantum upper limit given by Eq. 9 (dashed line). Fig. 3(a) shows the spontaneous case ($`\alpha =0`$), in which the fields instability are triggered by the noise from vacuum fluctuations. We see that only at short times the violation of the classical inequality is close to the maximum limit consistent with quantum mechanics. In the case that $`\alpha 0`$ the correlations are also phase-dependent. Figs. 3 (b) and 3(c) show a situation with same intensity $`|\alpha |^2=4`$ , but taking two different values of phase. We see that even at short times, a non-zero intensity reduces the correlations for values close to the classical ones. The phase dependence is evident by comparing Figs. 3(b) and 3(c), where the later one presents no violation of the classical inequality. At long times the correlations attains the classical limit and the fields become uncorrelated ($`g_{ij}^{(2)}=1`$) or correlated ($`g_{ij}^{(2)}>1`$) depending on the optical field intensity and phase.

The regime (iii) presents, at short and intermediate times, similar characteristics to the regime (ii). The main difference is the long time limit where the correlations attain a stationary value below the classical upper limit. Figs. 4-(a)-(b)-(c) illustrate the behavior of $`g_{13}^{(2)}(t)`$ as a function of time and its dependence to the optical field intensity and phase.

Note that in the two-mode OPA the difference of population between the two modes is a constant of motion , revealing that in the spontaneous case ($`\alpha =0`$) the two-mode correlation function shows the maximum violation of the classical inequality consistent with quantum mechanics. There is no such a constant of motion in the model considered in this paper because both the process of emission and absorption of photons transfer atoms to the same quantum state. Thus justifying that the violation of the classical inequality in Figs. 3(a) and 4(a) are not maximized for all times. Furthermore, although the violation of classical inequality indicates nonclassicality, it is not possible to determine whether this represents an entanglement of the two modes or if each mode is in a nonclassical state. Further indication of entanglement is given by the presence of chaotic intensity fluctuations in the individual modes, which means that each of its components is in a mixed state, although the atom-photon system is in a pure state.

In summary, we studied the effects of the trap environment on the quantum statistical properties and on the atom-photon correlations in the CARL. The atomic and optical fields statistical properties and the atom-photon correlations are sensitive to the initial intensity and phase of the light field. This result is contrasting when compared with the counterpart free space regime model  whose statistical properties are only dependent on the intensity of the light field. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of optical control of statistical properties of atoms, while in the free space regime the variation is limited between coherent and chaotic, in the CAO regime also it is possible to reach a superchaotic statistics by setting the optical field intensity and phase.

Thanks to V. V. Dodonov and M. C. de Oliveira for useful discussions and FAPESP-Brazil for financial support.


text:
# On the existence of finite-energy lumps in classic field theories

## I Introduction

Obtaining exact solutions to most realistic field theories is a formidable task. However, limited information about such solutions is often available without solving the corresponding equations. One such general result is Derrick’s theorem Derrick (1964), which precludes non-trivial static scalar field configurations in more than two space dimensions. Some theories have another general feature of their solutions being classified by their topological charges.

Several non-existence theorems have been proved too. For example, pure Yang-Mills fields do not hold themselves together to give finite-energy solutions that are either time-independent Coleman (1975); Deser (1976) or periodic in time Pagels (1977). An even stronger result was proved: the only finite-energy non-singular non-radiating solutions with arbitrary time dependence are vacuum solutions Coleman (1977). This “no-go” theorem forbids the existence of classical glueballs in a pure Yang-Mills system. To support localized solutions, other fields have to be added.

Our particular interest Buniy and Kephart (2002) is in glueballs in QCD, where the $`SU_C(3)`$ gauge fields couple to quarks and confinement is involved. This work is a zeroth order analysis towards understanding this complete physical situation.

In this note we investigate conditions which are imposed on the energy-momentum tensor by the existence of such classical solutions (solitons or lumps). While these solitons are expected to be highly complicated objects, we do not address their existence nor attempt to find their explicit forms, but merely find the resulting restrictions on fields. This information can be used, for example, to find the lower bound for the energy of lumps as we demonstrate for two physically relevant systems: scalar fields and scalar fields coupled to gauge fields. Our theorem is a general result independent of a particular model, and subject to only mild requirements imposed on the fields.

## II Theorem

Let us consider a classical field theory in $`(n+1)`$-dimensional space-time 111In QCD or the Standard Model $`_m`$ depends on vectors, scalars, and spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ fermions in such a way that $``$ is renormalizable. However, the results given here are classical, so we need not require renormalizability. characterized by the energy-momentum tensor $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ and define a quantity

$`G^{i\mu }(t,R)={\displaystyle _{rR}}\text{d}^nxx^i\theta ^{0\mu },`$ (1)
where $`\mu =0,\mathrm{}n`$; $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`r=|𝐱|`$. Using conservation of the energy-momentum $`_\mu \theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$, we find

$`_0G^{i\mu }(t,R)={\displaystyle _{rR}}\text{d}^nx\theta ^{i\mu }{\displaystyle _{r=R}}\text{d}^{n1}S_jx^i\theta ^{j\mu }.`$ (2)
We specify the following asymptotic condition for the energy-momentum tensor,

$`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}r^{n+\delta }\theta ^{\mu \nu }(t,𝐱)=0.`$ (3)
For the energy of the system to be finite we need $`\delta 0`$; this also ensures that the surface term in Eq. (2) vanishes for large $`R`$. However, for the quantity $`G^{i\mu }(t,\mathrm{})`$ to be finite we need $`\delta 1`$. If the function $`G^{i\mu }(t,R)`$ is *bounded*, its derivative’s average value over a time interval $`T`$,

$`_0G^{i\mu }_T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle _0^T}\text{d}t_0G^{i\mu }(t,R)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}[G^{i\mu }(T,R)G^{i\mu }(0,R)],`$ (4)
tends to zero as $`T\mathrm{}`$ Landau and Lifshitz (1971). Averaging Eq. (1) over infinite time interval and taking the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$, we find

$`{\displaystyle \text{d}^nx\theta ^{i\mu }}=0.`$ (5)
Unfortunately, the above argument fails if $`G^{i\mu }(t,R)`$ is *unbounded*. This is a case for many interesting physical situations, where the energy-momentum goes like $`r^{n1}`$ for large $`r`$. For example, the above argument cannot be used for time-dependent fields that asymptotically go like fields of monopoles or dyons in 4D, since under the assumption (3), $`G^{i\mu }(t,R)`$ diverges as $`R^{1\delta }`$ for large $`R`$. In what follows we will show how the result (5) can still be proved in such situations.

For now we restrict our attention to lumps at rest; we can choose a frame such that this is the case for any lump moving slower than the speed of light. For localized and non-radiating lumps at rest, the energy-momentum must have an asymptotic behavior (3) with $`0<\delta <1`$, which is *uniform in time* 222For a lump at rest, outside of a sphere with the radius *independent* of time, fields approach their asymptotic values with a given accuracy for *all* times. This guarantees absence of the outgoing radiation Coleman (1977). For a lucid discussion of uniform convergence see R. Courant, *Differential and Integral Calculus* (Interscience, New York, 1937)..

As a result of these assumptions, for a sphere of large radius $`R`$, the surface term vanishes and the right-hand side of Eq. (2) goes uniformly in time to

$`K^{i\mu }(t)={\displaystyle \text{d}^nx\theta ^{i\mu }}.`$ (6)
This means that for any positive $`ϵ`$ there exists a *time-independent* $`R_0`$ such that for any $`R>R_0`$ we have $`\left|_0G^{i\mu }(t,R)K^{i\mu }(t)\right|<ϵ`$ for all $`t0`$. For such $`R`$,

$`\left|G^{i\mu }(t,R)G^{i\mu }(0,R)tK^{i\mu }_t\right|<ϵt.`$ (7)
On the other hand, using the relation $`|𝐏|E`$ between the momentum and energy of the system, we deduce that $`G^{i\mu }(t,R)`$ is bounded,

$`|G^{i\mu }(t,R)|R\underset{t0}{\mathrm{max}}E(t,R)=\mathrm{\Delta }(R);`$ (8)
$`E(t,R)`$ being the energy inside the sphere of radius $`R`$.

Without a detailed form for the function $`K^{i\mu }(t)`$ we cannot conclude whether the bounds imposed on the function $`G^{i\mu }(t,R)`$ are consistent or inconsistent. There is, however, a simple case where inconsistency is obvious. Let the average $`K^{i\mu }`$ be not zero. Since $`ϵ`$ is arbitrary, we can choose $`ϵ<|K^{i\mu }|`$. Then bounds (7) and (8) cannot possibly be consistent for all $`t0`$ (see Figure 1). It follows that the only resolution is to set $`K^{i\mu }=0`$; this gives Eq. (5).

For pure Yang-Mills theory in 4D, $`K_{}^{i}{}_{i}{}^{}=0`$ leads to $`E=0`$, which is Coleman’s conclusion in Ref. Coleman (1977). One can imagine several cases where $`K^{i\mu }=0`$ is fulfilled: (1) $`K^{i\mu }(t)`$ tends to zero as $`t`$ goes to infinity; (2) for large $`t`$, the function $`K^{i\mu }(t)`$ approaches a periodic function that oscillates around zero.

We conclude this section with a remark on a system described by the Lagrangian density $`(\varphi ,_\mu \varphi )`$. The dilatation transformation $`\delta \varphi =x^\mu _\mu \varphi `$ of such density is

$`\delta =_\mu (x^\mu )+\theta _{}^{\mu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}.`$ (9)
From Eq. (5), it follows that the time average of the Lagrangian is the system’s energy, $`\delta L=E`$.

## III Examples

We apply our result to two theories for which lumps exist (for a review see e.g. Rajaraman (1982)).

*1.—* For a scalar field theory with the Lagrangian density

$`=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _a^\mu \varphi _aU(\varphi _a),`$ (10)
the requirement $`\text{d}^nx\theta _{}^{i}{}_{i}{}^{}=0`$ gives the following expression for the energy,

$`E={\displaystyle \text{d}^nx2U(\varphi _a)+(1\frac{1}{n})(_i\varphi _a)^2}.`$ (11)
We thus have a bound

$`E2{\displaystyle \text{d}^nxU(\varphi _a)}.`$ (12)
For one space dimension the energy density becomes $`2U(\varphi )`$. This agrees with a well-known result for a static scalar field with one component.

For a single scalar field in one space dimension, the potential $`U(\varphi )=1\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ leads to the sine-Gordon equation, which has a breather solution

$`\varphi (t,x)=4\mathrm{tan}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1\omega ^2}\mathrm{sin}\omega t}{\omega \mathrm{cosh}x\sqrt{1\omega ^2}}}\right].`$ (13)
It can be readily checked that this solution saturates the bound (12).

*2.—* For a theory of coupled scalar and gauge fields with the Lagrangian density

$`=\frac{1}{4}F_a^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^a+\frac{1}{2}\text{D}_\mu \varphi _a\text{D}^\mu \varphi _aU(\varphi _a)`$ (14)
we similarly find the total energy is

$`E={\displaystyle \text{d}^nx2U(\varphi _a)+(1\frac{1}{n})(\text{D}_i\varphi _a)^2+(\frac{2}{n}1)F_{0i}^aF_a^{0i}+\frac{1}{2n}F_{ij}^aF_a^{ij}}.`$ (15)
For two and three spacial dimensions (the only interesting cases for the Lagrangian (14)) the sum of last three terms on the right-hand-side in Eq. (15) is positive. We thus have a bound

$`E2{\displaystyle \text{d}^nxU(\varphi _a)},n=2,3.`$ (16)
## IV Massless lumps

We now turn to the case of lumps moving with the speed of light. We carry calculations for a specific model, the 4D Yang-Mills sytem with sources, modifying the argument in Ref. Coleman (1977).

By choosing the 3-axis in the direction of the momentum, we make the fields transverse with their components related by $`E_\alpha =ϵ_{\alpha \beta }H_\beta `$. In terms of light-cone variables $`x^\pm =x^0\pm x^3`$, the only non-vanishing components of the field-strength are $`F_{+\alpha }=2E_\alpha `$. Since $`F_{12}=0`$, we can perform a gauge transformation depending on $`x^1`$ and $`x^2`$ to set $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ to zero. From $`F_\alpha =0`$ it now follows that $`A_{}`$ is independent of $`x^1`$ and $`x^2`$, so we make a gauge transformation depending on $`x^{}`$ to set $`A_{}=0`$. Next, from the Yang-Mills equations of motion with sources $`J_\mu `$ we find $`J_{}=0`$ and

$`^\alpha _\alpha A_+=J_+,`$ (17)
$`^+_\alpha A_++[A^+,_\alpha A_+]=J_\alpha .`$ (18)
Eq. (18) follows from Eq. (17) by differentiation and using covariant conservation of the current. We are left with only Eq. (17) to solve and its general solution is

$`A_+(x^+,x^1,x^2)=\stackrel{~}{A}_+(x^+,x^1,x^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \text{d}\xi ^1\text{d}\xi ^2J_+(x^+,\xi ^1,\xi ^2)\mathrm{log}\left[(x^1\xi ^1)^2+(x^2\xi ^2)^2\right]},`$ (19)
where $`\stackrel{~}{A}_+`$ is a solution to the Laplace equation $`(^1_1+^2_2)\stackrel{~}{A}_+=0`$. It is well known that the only non-singular solution to this equation is a function $`\stackrel{~}{A}_+(x^+)`$ of $`x^+`$ alone. For a non-singular current, the second term in Eq. (19) can have a singularity only at infinity. For large $`r`$, the second term in Eq. (19) is asymptotically $`\frac{1}{2\pi }I\mathrm{log}r`$, where

$`I={\displaystyle \text{d}\xi ^1\text{d}\xi ^2J_+}={\displaystyle _C}(F_{+2}\text{d}\xi ^1F_{+1}\text{d}\xi ^2),`$ (20)
and $`C`$ is an infinite contour in the $`(\xi ^1,\xi ^2)`$ plane, which encloses the sources. Observe that the contour integral form for $`I`$ is the gauge field flux in the transverse plane. Fields are non-singular only when the transverse flux vanishes, $`I=0`$; the asymptotic $`r^2`$ behavior of the field-strength ensures this. In contrast to the relativistic source-free case where only vacuum solutions exist, here we can only constrain the form of lumps moving with the speed of light.

## V Conclusions

To summarize, we have proved a generalized virial theorem which restricts possible forms of massive classical lumps. In particular, it establishes the lower energy bounds for such objects. Also, we have found only mild restrictions on massless solutions. These conclusions were reached for classical systems and they do not restrict forms of possible quantum lumps.


text:
# On the evolutionary status of chemically peculiar stars of the upper main sequenceBased on observations by the Hipparcos satellite

## 1 Introduction

A century ago, Antonia Maury (1897) detected a subclass of A-type stars with peculiar lines and line strengths which thereafter became known as Ap (or CP) stars. Subsequently, these stars revealed other peculiar features, e.g. the existence of a strong global magnetic field (Babcock 1947) with a predominant dipole component located at random with respect to the stellar rotation axis and the center of the star as well as overabundances in respect to the Sun for heavy elements such as silicon, chromium, strontium and europium. This lead to the Oblique Rotator concept of slowly rotating stars with non-coincidence of the magnetic and rotational axes (Stibbs 1950).

The peculiar (surface) abundances for CP stars have been explained by the following two theories: 1) Diffusion of chemical elements depending on the balance between gravitational pull and uplift by the radiation field through absorption in spectral lines (Michaud 1970). 2) Selective Accretion from the interstellar medium (Havnes & Conti 1971) via the stellar magnetic field.

The origin of the magnetic fields is still a matter of debate: those who favor the survival of frozen-in fossil fields originating from the medium out of which the stars were formed are in opposition to those following the idea that a dynamo mechanism is acting in the interior of these stars.

For many decades the evolutionary status of the CP stars has been controversial. Oetken (1984) concluded that the CP2 (magnetic CP stars) phenomenon appears at the late stages of the main sequence evolution. This theory was further strengthened by the results of Hubrig & Schwan (1991) and Hubrig & Mathys (1994) who analysed peculiar objects in the Hyades and the UMa cluster. Hubrig et al. (2000) found that the distribution of CP2 stars of masses below 3 M in the Hertzsprung-Russell-diagram differs from that of the “normal” stars in the same temperature range at a high level of significance: magnetic stars are concentrated toward the center of the main sequence band. In particular, they found that magnetic fields appear only in stars which have already completed at least approximately 30% of their main sequence life-time. No clear picture emerges as to the possible evolution of the magnetic field across the main sequence. Hints of some (loose) relations between magnetic field strength and other stellar parameters are found: stars with shorter periods tend to have stronger fields, as do higher temperature and higher mass stars. A marginal trend of the magnetic flux to be lower in more slowly rotating stars may possibly be seen as suggesting a dynamo origin for the magnetic field. No correlation between the rotation period and the fraction of the main sequence life time completed is observed, indicating that the slow rotation in these stars must already have been achieved before they became observably magnetic.

The results of the Hipparcos mission on the other hand do not support the mentioned above findings. Gómez et al. (1998) presented the Hertzsprung-Russell-diagram of about 1000 CP stars in the solar neighbourhood using astrometric data from Hipparcos satellite as well as photometric and radial velocity data. Most CP stars lie on the main sequence occupying the whole width of it (about 2 mag), just like “normal” stars in the same range of spectral types. Their kinematic behaviour is typical of thin disk stars younger than about 1 Gyr.

North (1993), North et al. (1997) and Wade (1997) reported that the CP stars are distributed uniformly along the width of the main sequence with strong magnetic fields existing at all evolutionary states. Stepien (1998) found no evidence that CP2 stars undergo significant angular momentum loss during their main sequence lifetime.

We have investigated CP2 stars of young open clusters in order to tackle the question of whether young peculiar objects exist or not and to put further constraints on theoretical models. Members of open clusters allow to determine precise luminosities and effective temperatures based on reliable calibrations. With the knowledge of accurate distances (e.g. from Hipparcos measurements) and estimates of the overall metallicities, corresponding isochrones can be fitted, resulting in masses and ages for individual CP2 objects.

We have chosen young open clusters (age $`<`$ 100 Myr) including at least one CP2 with accurate proper motions and distances (error less than 10 %) for our investigation. In total, four open clusters (IC 2391, IC 2602, NGC 2451 A and NGC 2516) fulfill our requirements.

## 2 Program clusters

A main criterion for our target selection was the knowledge of accurate distances. Robichon et al. (1999) have presented parallaxes with errors less than 10 % for nine young open clusters (age $`<`$ 100 Myr) of which four have known CP2 members. We have not investigated older open clusters because members of such aggregates have evolved more than 30 % of their main sequence life-time. Such CP2 stars are already known in the Galactic field.

We have slightly modified the values listed in Robichon et al. (1999). They have taken all objects within 10 pc of the individual cluster centers for their determination of the distances. For our work, only objects within three times the cluster radius (taken from Lyngå 1987) were considered. Furthermore, we have discarded objects with proper motions deviating more than 0.221 $`\pi `$ \[mas yr-1\] (= 1 kms-1) from the calculated overall proper motion of the individual open cluster. Table 1 list these parallaxes with those of Robichon et al. (1999) and other characteristics of our program clusters. All parallaxes agree very well and are also consistent with results from van Leeuwen (1999).

### 2.1 IC 2391

This young open cluster contains two CP2 stars according to North (1984) and Maitzen & Catalano (1986). Both objects are members of IC 2391 (Perry & Hill 1969; numbering system).

* HD 74169 (#18): classified as Ap EuCr(Sr) by Buscombe (1965), Houk (1978) and Levato & Malaroda (1984).
* HD 74535 (#31): peculiar according to the same references as listed above.

The values for the metallicity and reddening were taken from Lyngå (1987).

### 2.2 IC 2602

The overall characteristics of this open cluster was only investigated by Lyngå (1987) who lists log $`t`$ = 7.46, $`E(BV)`$ = 0.04 and \[Fe/H\] = $``$0.20. The numbering in brackets is according to Braes (1962).

* HD 92385 (#71): Bidelman & McConnell (1973) and Houk & Cowley (1975) establish the membership and the peculiar nature which was confirmed by Maitzen et al. (1988).
* HD 92664 (#27): additional classification as B9p (Si) by Whiteoak (1961) and Abt & Morgan (1972).

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ measurements of Maitzen et al. (1988) for both objects show only moderate peculiarity.

### 2.3 NGC 2451 A

What was believed to be one open cluster was actually separated into one less and one more distant aggregate within one line of sight (Eggen 1983, Maitzen & Catalano 1986). Röser & Bastian (1994) postulated two clusters at distances of 220 and 400 pc which was later confirmed by Platais et al. (1996). Carrier et al. (1999) used the Hipparcos data and found two similar aged clusters (log $`t`$ = 7.70) at distances of 197 (NGC 2451 A) and 358 pc (NGC 2451 B). For NGC 2451 A they list 28 members including the peculiar object HD 63401 (#277; Williams 1967). This object was classified as Ap Si by Bidelman & McConnell (1973) and Houk (1982) whereas Hartoog (1976) lists B8III. The photometric CP2 star HD 62992 (#250) is a non-member according to Carrier et al. (1999).

### 2.4 NGC 2516

This open cluster contains at least eight CP2 stars for which spectral classification resolution spectroscopy as well as $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ photometry is available (Maitzen & Hensberge 1981). Mermilliod (1981) gives an age log $`t`$ = 8.03 whereas Lyngå (1987) lists a value of 7.85. Jeffries et al. (1997) derived a metallicity of \[Fe/H\] = $``$0.32(6) for cooler members. Additional estimates were made by Cameron (1985; $``$0.42), Lyngå (1987; $``$0.23) and Debernardi & North (2001; 0). The metallicity calibration of Eggen (1972) for the Johnson $`UBV`$ system results in a value of $``$0.23 whereas Strömgren $`uvby`$ photometry gives $``$0.20 (Snowden 1975, Berthet 1990). Taking all these values into account, we have chosen to use the value of Lyngå (1987) as a “mean” metallicity: \[Fe/H\] = $``$0.23.

Maitzen & Hensberge (1981) have reported a significant differential reddening throughout the cluster area. We have used the $`Q`$-method (Johnson & Morgan 1953) to calculate the overall reddening as well as the individual values for the CP2 stars. The derived values are well in agreement with the results listed by Lyngå (1987).

The following stars are probably CP2 stars (the numbering is according to Cox 1955):

* HD 65712 (not listed in Cox 1955): Dachs & Kabus (1989) list a spectral type of A0p (SiII ) and a high membership probability consistent with the results of Bidelman & McConnell (1973). Maitzen & Hensberge (1981) measured a very high $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$-value of +70 mmag.
* HD 65987 (#15): A possible binary system (Abt & Levy 1972, Snowden 1975, Gieseking 1978) classified as B9.5IVp (SiII ) and B9p Si by Abt & Morgan (1969) and Hartoog (1976), respectively.
* HD 66295 (#26): B8/9IV Si according to Houk & Cowley (1975), listed as member in Dachs & Kabus (1989).
* HD 66318 (#24): member, classified as A0p EuCrSr (Hartoog 1976).
* CP$``$60 944A (#208) and B (#209): the objects have spectral types of B8 III and B8p Si with an apparent confusion about the identification of the individual components.
* CP$``$60 978 (#c): a member (Dachs & Kabus 1989) classified as A0p (SiII ) and A0p EuCrSr (Abt & Morgan 1969; Hartoog 1976).
* CP$``$60 981 (#38): visual binary with a period of 3.2 d (North 1984) with a classification of A2Vp (SrCrEu) given by Hartoog (1976).
* CP$``$60 948 (#8), CP$``$60 1008 (#17) and CP$``$60 1013(#28): Maitzen & Hensberge (1981) measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ of +27 (#17) and +13 mmag (#8 and #28); no other data in the literature were found.

The apparent peculiarity of CP$``$60 948 (#8), CP$``$60 1008 (#17) and CP$``$60 1013(#28) should be confirmed by further spectroscopic data.

New observations at the VLT (Wade, private communication) revealed a very strong magnetic field (4.5 kG longitudinal field, 15 kG surface field) in HD 66318. Weaker fields were found for HD 66295 ($``$0.8 kG longitudinal) and CP$``$60 944A (0.6 kG). No magnetic fields were detected for CP$``$60 948, CP$``$60 981 or any other above listed objects. These results are in excellent agreement with the measurements within the photometric $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$-system.

## 3 Determination of the evolutionary status for the CP2 stars

For the further analysis of the evolutionary status of the CP2 objects, the program stars were located in a log $`L/L_{\mathrm{}}`$ versus log $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ diagram to derive masses and ages. In the following subsections we will discuss this procedure in more detail (see also Pöhnl 2001).

### 3.1 Effective temperature

Since all of our program stars were measured within the Geneva 7-color photometric system (Rufener 1988) we have taken the relevant calibrations within this system. The most recent calibration for the effective temperature in the range from 5800 to 15000 K is given by Künzli et al. (1997). However, this calibration has to be treated with caution for CP2 stars because these objects show a “blueing” effect which manifests in hotter calibrated temperatures due to stronger UV absorption than in normal type stars (Adelman 1980, Maitzen 1980). We have therefore used the modifications for peculiar objects as given by Hauck & North (1993) and Hauck & Künzli (1996). For the calibration within the temperatures an a-priori knowledge of the metallicity and reddening is necessary (although the Geneva $`X`$ and $`Y`$ indices are unaffected by reddening). The small reddening (Table 1) of our program clusters has been accounted for. The metallicities listed in the literature for IC 2602, NGC 2451 A and NGC 2516 were taken into account since they deviate significantly from solar values.

Hubrig et al. (2000) have compared the results of the effective temperature calibration from the Geneva 7-color photometric system with those of spectroscopic investigations as well as the infrared flux method and find a satisfying agreement within the range between 7500 and 15000 K.

The accuracy of the photometric calibration for normal type stars is given between $`\pm `$62 and $`\pm `$386 K depending on the temperature range (Hauck & Künzli 1996). Such error values are statistically derived for a large sample of objects and have to be treated as such. North (1998) investigated 46 CP2 stars and found an error of the mean of 4.4% and 3.4% for objects hotter and cooler than 9500 K, respectively. These percentages transform into $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ log $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ = 0.019 and 0.014 which seems reasonable also for our error estimation.

### 3.2 Luminosity

The luminosity calibration for CP2 stars is also affected by stronger UV absorption. We have followed the approaches presented by Lanz (1984), Stepien (1994) and North (1998) who list correction factors $`\delta _{BC}`$ for the estimation of bolometric magnitudes for chemically peculiar stars. The values for $`\delta _{BC}`$ reach up to 0.3 mag for objects in the range $``$0.85 $`<`$$`(B2G)_0`$$`<`$$``$0.67 within the Geneva 7-color photometric system. The luminosity can be calculated as:

$$\mathrm{log}L/L_{\mathrm{}}=0.4(4.72M_VBC+\delta _{BC})$$

with

$$M_V=m_V+5\mathrm{log}\pi +53.1E(BV).$$

The values for the bolometric correction $`BC`$ and the standard solar value were taken from Flower (1996).

We have also corrected for the so-called “Lutz-Kelker effect”. Lutz & Kelker (1973) were among the first to calculate corrections for the bias in the absolute magnitude of a star as estimated from its trigonometric parallax. The bias is introduced by ubiquitous random errors of measurements which, on average, cause the trigonometric parallax to be overestimated. The correction for our program clusters range between 0.004 and 0.028 mag.

The error of the luminosity based on the relative error of the parallax is given as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}L/L_{\mathrm{}}=2\mathrm{log}\left(1+\frac{\sigma (\pi )}{\pi }\right).$$

The errors of our calibrations (Table 2) are compatible with those listed by e.g. North (1998).

### 3.3 Age and mass

As a next step, we have used the main sequence evolutionary tracks and isochrones from Schaller et al. (1992), Charbonnel et al. (1993) and Schaerer et al. (1993a,b) in order to estimate the individual masses and ages for our program stars. We have compared these models to those given by Claret & Gimenez (1992) and Bressan (1993) and found no significant deviations between them (see also Lastennet et al. 1999 for such a comparison).

The models used are available for different metallicities and masses. For the determination of the masses and ages we have used the grids as tabulated with the hydrogen concentration in the core $`X_\mathrm{C}`$, log $`L/L_{\mathrm{}}`$ and log $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

Our analysis shows that, for example, the values of log $`L/L_{\mathrm{}}`$ at the zero age main sequence are nearly linear correlated with the values for log $`M/M_{\mathrm{}}`$. The same correlation exists for the values at the terminal age main sequence. In addition we find that the log $`L/L_{\mathrm{}}`$ and log $`M/M_{\mathrm{}}`$ values are, at any stage of the stellar evolution, well correlated with $`X_\mathrm{C}`$. Since the data of the used model show that there is a clear dependance of the time for a star on the main sequence $`\tau _{\mathrm{HR}}`$ and log $`M/M_{\mathrm{}}`$ which can be written as

$$\mathrm{log}\tau _{\mathrm{HR}}=9.993.36\mathrm{log}(M/M_{\mathrm{}})+0.67\mathrm{log}^2(M/M_{\mathrm{}})$$

we can use the result of this quadratic regression for the relative age $`\tau /\tau _{\mathrm{HR}}`$. This parameter is independent of the stellar masses and can be described via $`X_\mathrm{C}`$ as

$$\tau /\tau _{\mathrm{HR}}=1.0040.331X_\mathrm{C}1.653X_\mathrm{C}^2.$$

The error for the relative age is less than $`\pm `$5 %. Finally, we have calculated the star’s ages via the above given equations. The grid between the zero and terminal age main sequence is defined by lines of equivalent $`M`$ and $`X_\mathrm{C}`$. With known values for log $`L/L_{\mathrm{}}`$ and log $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, a box in which we have interpolated can be determined. This quadratic interpolation results in $`M`$ as well as $`X_\mathrm{C}`$ and thus the age of the individual program stars.

## 4 Results

All results for the CP2 stars in the four open clusters are summarized in Table 2. In the following we will discuss the objects in the open clusters in more detail.

IC 2391, IC 2602 and NGC 2451 A: All CP2 stars are members of the individual clusters with very young ages.

NGC 2516: Figure 1 shows the location of the CP2 stars together with the isochrone for log $`t`$ = 8.00 and $`[`$Fe/H$`]`$ = $``$0.23 and the evolutionary tracks for individual masses. All but two (HD 65987 and CP$``$60 981) lie very well on the apparent main sequence of this cluster and are members of it. The two deviating objects are both binaries. Their location above the corresponding isochrone can be very well reproduced taking the binarity into account. The masses and ages for the visual binary system CP$``$60 944A + B (both in very good agreement with the values from Debernardi & North 2001) infer that they are physically coupled. The mean value of the age for all six single CP2 stars is 106(17) Myr which is in excellent agreement with the overall age of this cluster (100 Myr).

The location of all investigated CP2 stars within the relevant Hertzsprung-Russell-diagrams qualify them as being members of the corresponding aggregate. Furthermore, their ages (10 $`<`$ ages $`<`$ 140 Myr) are within the expected error of the overall age of the individual open cluster. This proves that CP2 stars do exist at very young evolutionary stages, clearly before they have reached 30 % of their main sequence life-time.

## 5 Conclusions

Several publications during the last decades have been dedicated to the evolutionary status of the CP2 stars. Still this issue is a matter of debate. In principle, there are two working hypotheses: 1) CP2 stars show their peculiar nature soon after arriving at the zero age main sequence or 2) after about 30 % of their life-time on the main sequence, the phenomenon occurs.

We have investigated four young (age not more than 100 Myr) open clusters with known CP2 members. The peculiarity of these objects was established via photometric as well as spectroscopic data. The program clusters were chosen on the basis of available Geneva 7-color photometry and known accurate Hipparcos distances (error $`<`$ 10 %).

We have derived effective temperatures and luminosities for these objects and calibrated ages as well as masses with the help of standard evolutionary models taking the overall metallicities of the individual clusters into account.

All investigated objects are members of their open cluster with ages between 10 and 140 Myr corresponding to a relative age of 0.05 and 0.36 of their main sequence life-time. This clearly proves that the observable CP2 phenomenon occurs already well before a star has reached 30 % of its life-time on the main sequence.

The somewhat discrepant result of Hubrig et al. (2000) can be understood by their bias in selecting objects (not by differences in the reduction procedure): the detection of resolved Zeeman patterns requires a specifically slow rotation. This gives preference to finding such objects in advanced phases on the main sequence band where rotational velocities have been decreased by the growth of stellar radii.

Concerning the question of a parallel evolution of both the magnetic and spectroscopic peculiarities, it seems still premature to draw conclusions from the existing data. A concentrated effort to observe both essential features of the magnetic peculiar stars is highly desirable in order to reveal their nature.

###### Acknowledgements.

Use was made of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. EP acknowledges partial support from the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung, project P14984.