text:
# Conformal symmetry and deflationary gas universe

## 1 Introduction

Thermodynamic equilibrium in the expanding universe is only possible under special circumstances. For a simple gas model of the cosmic medium e.g., the relevant equilibrium condition can be satisfied only for massless particles, corresponding to an equation of state $`P=\rho /3`$, where $`P`$ is the pressure and $`\rho `$ is the energy density . This equilibrium condition is equivalent to a symmetry requirement for the cosmological dynamics: The quantity $`u^a/T`$, where $`u^a`$ is the four velocity of the medium and $`T`$ is its temperature, has to be a conformal Killing vector (CKV) . For deviations from $`P=\rho /3`$ the conformal symmetry is violated and no equilibrium is possible. If we give up the diluted gas approximation on which this model is based and take into account additional interactions inside the many-particle system, the situation changes. Suitable interaction terms give rise to a generalization of the equilibrium conditions of the gas (see  and references therein). Among these generalized equilibrium configurations are “true” equilibrium states, i.e. states with vanishing entropy production, but there are also specific types of non-equilibrium states. The latter are characterized by an equilibrium distribution function, the moments of which are not conserved, however. The corresponding source terms in the balance equations for the moments are connected with the production of particles and entropy. They represent not necessarily small deviations from “standard” equilibrium which are of interest for the investigation of cosmological out-of-equilibrium processes.

Gas models of the cosmic medium have the advantage that the relation between microscopic dynamics (kinetic theory) and a macroscopic thermo-hydrodynamical description is exactly known. An apparent disadvantage of these models is that they are restricted to “ordinary” matter with equations of state in the range $`0<P\rho /3`$. However, periods of accelerated expansion, either inflation or a dark energy dominated dynamics, require “exotic” matter, namely a substratum with an effective negative pressure that violates the strong energy condition $`\rho +3P>0`$. Usually, such kind of matter is modeled by the dynamics of scalar fields with suitable potentials. Here we show that the generalized equilibrium concept provides a framework which makes use of the advantages of gas models and at the same time avoids the restriction to equations of state for “ordinary” matter. The point is that the specific non-equilibrium configurations mentioned above may give rise to a negative pressure of the cosmic medium. If the latter is sufficiently large to violate the strong energy condition, it induces an accelerated expansion of the universe. Our main interest here is to understand the “deflationary”  transition from an initial de Sitter phase to a subsequent FLRW period as a specific non-equilibrium configuration which is based on the generalized equilibrium concept. Moreover, we show that the non-equilibrium contributions may be mapped onto an refraction index $`n_r`$ of the cosmic medium which is used to define an “optical” metric $`\overline{g}_{ik}=g_{ik}+\left[1n_r^2\right]u_iu_k`$ (cf. ). The circumstance that this kind of non-equilibrium retains essential equilibrium aspects is reflected by the fact that $`u^a/T`$ is a CKV of the optical metric $`\overline{g}_{ik}`$ during the entire transition period. As the FLRW stage is approached, the refraction index tends to unity which implies $`\overline{g}_{ik}g_{ik}`$.

## 2 Fluid description

Let the fluid be characterized by a four velocity $`u^i`$ and a temperature $`T`$. Under the conditions of spatial homogeneity and isotropy the Lie derivative $`\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi g_{ik}`$ of the metric $`g_{ik}`$ with respect to the vector $`\xi ^a\frac{u^a}{T}`$ may be decomposed into contributions parallel and perpendicular to the four-velocity:

$$\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi g_{ik}\left(\frac{u_i}{T}\right)_{;k}+\left(\frac{u_k}{T}\right)_{;i}=2Au_iu_k+2\varphi h_{ik},$$
(1)
where $`h^{ik}=g^{ik}+u^iu^k`$. Units are chosen so that $`c=k_B=1`$. With the help of the projections

$$\frac{\dot{T}}{T}=AT=\frac{T}{2}u^iu^k\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi g_{ik},\mathrm{\Theta }=3T\varphi =\frac{T}{2}h^{ik}\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi g_{ik},$$
(2)
one obtains the rate of change of the temperature $`\frac{\dot{T}}{T}`$, where $`\dot{T}T_{,a}u^a`$, and the fluid expansion $`\mathrm{\Theta }u_{;a}^a`$, respectively. $`\frac{\dot{T}}{T}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are given by orthogonal projections of the Lie derivative. However, in a cosmological context one expects a relationship between these two quantities which represents the cooling rate of the cosmic fluid in an expanding universe. To establish this link we take into account that the fluid is characterized by a particle flow vector $`N^i`$ and an energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\left(eff\right)}^{ik}`$:

$$N^i=nu^i,T_{\left(eff\right)}^{ik}=\rho u^iu^k+Ph^{ik},P=p+\mathrm{\Pi }.$$
(3)
Here, $`n`$ is the particle number density, $`\rho `$ is the energy density seen by a comoving observer, $`P`$ is the total pressure with the equilibrium part $`p`$ and the non-equilibrium contribution $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. The balance equations are

$$N_{;a}^a=\dot{n}+3Hn=n\mathrm{\Gamma },u_iT_{\left(eff\right);k}^{ik}=\dot{\rho }+3H\left(\rho +P\right)=0,$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the particle production rate, i.e., we have admitted the possibility of particle number non-conserving processes. Moreover, we have introduced the Hubble rate $`H`$ by $`\mathrm{\Theta }3H`$. Furthermore, we assume equations of state in the general form $`p=p(n,T)`$ and $`\rho =\rho (n,T)`$, i.e., particle number density and temperature are the independent thermodynamical variables. Differentiating the latter relation, using the balances (4) and restricting ourselves to constant entropy per particle, we obtain the cooling rate

$$\frac{\dot{T}}{T}=3H\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{p}{\rho }\right)_n,\mathrm{\Delta }1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{3H}.$$
(5)
Comparing the expressions in (2) and (5) for the temperature evolution, we find that they are consistent for

$$\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi g_{ik}=\frac{2\mathrm{H}}{T}\left\{g_{ik}+\left[13\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{p}{\rho }\right)_n\right]u_iu_k\right\}.$$
(6)
In the special case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, $`p=\frac{\rho }{3}`$ we recover that $`\frac{u^a}{T}`$ is a CKV of the metric $`g_{ik}`$. Equation (6) represents a specific modification of the CKV condition. Since the CKV property of $`\frac{u^a}{T}`$ is known to be related to the dynamics of a standard radiation dominated FLRW universe, the question arises to what extent the replacement $`g_{ik}g_{ik}+\left[13\mathrm{\Delta }\left(p/\rho \right)_n\right]u_iu_k`$ in (6) gives rise to a modified cosmological dynamics. In particular, it is of interest to explore whether this modification admits phases of accelerated expansion of the universe. To clarify this question we recall that the CKV property of $`\frac{u^a}{T}`$ may be obtained as a “global” equilibrium condition in relativistic gas dynamics. In the following we ask whether the more general case, corresponding to the mentioned modification of the conformal symmetry, can be derived in a gas dynamical context as well.

## 3 Gas dynamics

Relativistic gas dynamics is based on Boltzmann’s equation for the one-particle distribution function $`f=f(x,p)`$,

$$p^i\frac{f}{x^i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{il}^kp^ip^l\frac{f}{p^k}+mF^i\frac{f}{p^i}=C[f],$$
(7)
where $`C\left[f\right]`$ is Boltzmann’s collision integral. $`F^i=F^i(x,p)`$ is a not yet specified effective one-particle force. Let us restrict ourselves to the class of forces which admit solutions of Boltzmann’s equation that are of the type of Jüttner’s distribution function $`f^0(x,p)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha +\beta _ap^a\right]`$, where $`\alpha =\alpha \left(x\right)`$ and $`\beta _a\left(x\right)`$ is timelike. For $`ff^0`$ the collision integral vanishes: $`C\left[f^0\right]=0`$. Substituting $`f^0`$ into Eq. (7), we obtain the condition $`p^a\alpha _{,a}+\beta _{(a;b)}p^ap^b=m\beta _iF^i`$. For the most general expression of the relevant force projection, $`\beta _iF^i=\beta _iF_a^i\left(x\right)p^a+\beta _iF_{ab}^i\left(x\right)p^ap^b`$ (cf. ), this condition decomposes into the generalized equilibrium conditions

$$\alpha _{,a}=m\beta _iF_a^i,\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\beta _{(k;l)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\pounds }_\beta g_{kl}=m\beta _iF_{kl}^i.$$
(8)
With the identification $`\beta _a\frac{u_a}{T}`$ we may read off that a force with

$$m\beta _iF_{ab}^i=\frac{H}{T}\left\{g_{ab}+\left[13\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{p}{\rho }\right)_n\right]u_au_b\right\}$$
(9)
reproduces the previous consistency relation (6). The latter is recovered as generalized equilibrium condition for particles in a specific force field.

One may interpret this feature in a way which is familiar from gauge theories: Gauge field theories rely on the fact that local symmetry requirements (local gauge invariance) necessarily imply the existence of additional interaction fields (gauge fields). In the present context we impose the “symmetry” requirement (6) (below we clarify in which sense the modification of the conformal symmetry is again a symmetry). Within the presented gas dynamical framework this “symmetry” can only be realized if one introduces additional interactions, here described by an effective force field $`F^i`$. Consequently, in a sense, this force field may be regarded as the analogue of gauge fields.

In its quadratic part the force has the structure $`m\beta _iF^i\left\{m^2+\left[3\mathrm{\Delta }\left(p/\rho \right)_n1\right]E^2\right\}H/T`$, where $`Eu_ap^a`$ is the particle energy. (For a discussion of the linear part see .) This force, which governs the particle motion, depends on macroscopic and microscopic quantities. The macroscopic quantities determine the motion of the individual microscopic particles which themselves are the constituents of the medium. This means, the system is a gas with internal self-interactions.

In a next step we calculate the macroscopic transport equations for the self-interacting gas. The first and second moments of the distribution function are

$$N^i=\text{d}Pp^if(x,p)\text{ , }T^{ik}=\text{d}Pp^ip^kf(x,p)\text{ .}$$
(10)
While $`N^i`$ may be identified with the corresponding quantity in Eq. (3), the second moment $`T^{ik}`$ does not coincide with the energy-momentum tensor in Eq. (3). With $`ff^0`$ we obtain

$$N_{;a}^a=3nH\left(1\mathrm{\Delta }\right),u_aT_{;b}^{ab}=3H\left(\rho +p\right)\left(1\mathrm{\Delta }\right).$$
(11)
For $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$ there appear “source” terms in the balances. The crucial point now is that these source terms may consistently be mapped on the effective viscous pressure $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of a conserved energy-momentum tensor of the type of $`T_{\left(eff\right)}^{ik}`$ in Eq. (3), according to (cf. )

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=1+\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{\rho +p}\dot{\rho }+3H\left(\rho +p+\mathrm{\Pi }\right)=0.$$
(12)
In the following the cosmic medium is assumed to be describable by an energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\left(eff\right)}^{ik}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is related to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by the latter correspondence.

## 4 Conformal symmetry

For a homogeneous, isotropic, and spatially flat universe, the relevant dynamical equations are

$$8\pi G\rho =3H^2,\dot{H}=4\pi G\left(\rho +p+\mathrm{\Pi }\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{3H}=1+\frac{2}{3\gamma }\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2},$$
(13)
where $`\gamma =1+p/\rho `$. A non-vanishing viscous pressure, in our case equivalent to the creation of particles, back reacts on the cosmological dynamics. To solve the equations (13), assumptions about the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/H`$ are necessary. Generally, one expects that particle production is a phenomenon which is characteristic for early stages of the cosmic evolution, while lateron a standard FLRW phase is approached. In case $`H`$ is a decaying function of the cosmic time, this is realized by the simple ansatz $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/HH`$ with the help of which Eqs. (13) for ultrarelativistic matter ($`\gamma =4/3`$) may be integrated:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{H}HH=2\frac{a_e^2}{a^2+a_e^2}H_e\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{a^2}{a^2+a_e^2}.$$
(14)
The Hubble rate $`H`$ changes continuously from $`H=2H_e`$, equivalent to $`a\mathrm{exp}\left[Ht\right]`$ at $`aa_e`$, to $`Ha^2`$, equivalent to $`at^{1/2}`$, the standard radiation-dominated universe, for $`aa_e`$. For $`a<a_e`$ we have $`\ddot{a}>0`$, while $`\ddot{a}<0`$ holds for $`a>a_e`$. The value $`a_e`$ denotes that transition from accelerated to decelerated expansion, corresponding to $`\dot{H}_e=H_e^2`$. For $`a0`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }3H`$, while for $`aa_e`$ we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$.

Now we ask, how such kind of scenario may be realized within the previously discussed gas dynamics. To this purpose we introduce the redefinition $`mF^iF^i`$ of the force since the ultrarelativistic limit corresponds to $`m0`$. From the second of the generalized equilibrium conditions (8) with (9) and with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from (14) one obtains the relevant force term:

$$\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi g_{ik}=\frac{2H}{T}\left[g_{ik}+\frac{a_e^2}{a^2+a_e^2}u_iu_k\right],u_iF^i=HE^2\frac{a_e^2}{a^2+a_e^2}.$$
(15)
An internal interaction, described by this component of an effective one-particle force $`F^i`$ which is self-consistently exerted on the microscopic constituents of the cosmic medium, realizes the deflationary dynamics (14).

The explicit knowledge of the self-interacting force allows us to consider the microscopic particle dynamics which corresponds to the deflationary scenario. The solution of the equation of motion for the particles, $`\text{D}p^i/\text{d}\lambda =F^i`$, is $`ET\left[a_e^2/\left(a^2+a_e^2\right)\right]^{1/2}`$, i.e., the equilibrium distribution is indeed maintained which proves the consistency of our approach . The particle energy changes from $`E=\mathrm{const}`$ for $`aa_e`$ to $`Ea^1`$ for $`aa_e`$.

The outlined framework represents an exactly solvable model of a deflationary transition from an initial de Sitter phase to a subsequent radiation dominated FLRW period, both macroscopically and microscopically. This transition is accompanied by a characteristic change of the “symmetry” condition (8) with (9) from

$$\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi g_{ik}=\frac{2H}{T}h_{ik}\mathrm{for}aa_e\mathrm{to}\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi g_{ik}=\frac{2H}{T}g_{ik}\mathrm{for}aa_e.$$
(16)
In order to clarify in which sense the modification of the conformal symmetry is a symmetry again, we introduce the “optical metric” (cf. )

$$\overline{g}_{ik}=g_{ik}+\left[1n_r^2\right]u_iu_k,n_r^2=1+a_e^2/a^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^1,$$
(17)
where $`n_r`$ plays the role of a refraction index of the medium which in the present case changes monotonically from $`n_r\mathrm{}`$ for $`a0`$ to $`n_r1`$ for $`aa_e`$. For $`a=a_e`$ we have $`n_r\left(a_e\right)=\sqrt{2}`$. Optical metrics are known to be helpful in simplifying the equations of light propagation in isotropic refractive media. With respect to optical metrics light propagates as in vacuum. Here we demonstrate that such type of metrics, in particular their symmetry properties, are also useful in relativistic gas dynamics. Namely, it is easy to realize that the first relation (15) is equivalent to

$$\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi \overline{g}_{ik}=\frac{2H}{T}\overline{g}_{ik}.$$
(18)
The quantity $`\frac{u^a}{T}`$ is a CKV of the optical metric $`\overline{g}_{ik}`$. This clarifies in which sense the modification of the conformal symmetry is again a symmetry. The transition from a de Sitter phase to a FLRW period may be regarded as a specific non-equilibrium configuration which microscopically is characterized by an equilibrium distribution function and macroscopically by the conformal symmetry of an optical metric with a time dependent refraction index. In the following sections we demonstate, how the presented scenario may be related to other approaches. Firstly, we point out that it is equivalent to a phenomenological vacuum decay model and secondly, that it may be translated into an equivalent dynamics of a scalar field with a specific potential term.

## 5 Phenomenological vacuum decay

Combining the Friedmann equation in (13) with the Hubble parameter in (14), we obtain the energy density $`\rho `$, which is constant for $`aa_e`$. For $`aa_e`$ the familiar dependence $`\rho a^4`$ is recovered. The temperature behaves as $`T\rho ^{1/4}`$. The evolution of the universe starts in a quasistationary state with finite initial values of temperature and energy density at $`aa_e`$ and approaches the standard radiation dominated universe for $`aa_e`$. This scenario may alternatively be interpreted in the context of a decaying vacuum (cf. ). The energy density may be split into $`\rho =\rho _{_{\left(v\right)}}+\rho _{_{\left(r\right)}}`$, where

$$\rho _{_{\left(v\right)}}=\frac{3H_e^2}{2\pi }m_P^2\left[\frac{a_e^2}{a^2+a_e^2}\right]^3,\rho _{_{\left(r\right)}}=\left(\frac{a}{a_e}\right)^2\rho _{_{\left(v\right)}}.$$
(19)
We have replaced here $`G`$ by the Planck mass $`m_P`$ according to $`G=1/m_P^2`$. The part $`\rho _{_{\left(v\right)}}`$ is finite for $`a0`$ and decays as $`a^6`$ for $`aa_e`$, while the part $`\rho _{_{\left(r\right)}}`$ describes relativistic matter with $`\rho _{_{\left(r\right)}}0`$ for $`a0`$ and $`\rho _{_{\left(r\right)}}a^4`$ for $`aa_e`$. The balance equations for $`\rho _{_{\left(r\right)}}`$ and $`\rho _{_{\left(v\right)}}`$ are

$$\dot{\rho }_{_{\left(r\right)}}+4H\rho _{_{\left(r\right)}}=\dot{\rho }_{_{\left(v\right)}},\dot{\rho }_{_{\left(v\right)}}+3H\left(\rho _{_{\left(v\right)}}+P_{_{\left(v\right)}}\right)=0,$$
(20)
where $`P_{_{\left(v\right)}}/\rho _{_{\left(v\right)}}=\left(a^2a_e^2\right)/\left(a^2+a_e^2\right)`$. For $`aa_e`$ the effective pressure $`P_{_{\left(v\right)}}`$ approaches $`P_{_{\left(v\right)}}=\rho _{_{\left(v\right)}}`$. Effectively, this component behaves as a vacuum contribution. Acording to (20) the radiation component may be regarded as emerging from the decay of the initial vacuum.

## 6 Scalar field dynamics

In this section we discuss the interconnection between the previous fluid picture and the dynamics of a scalar field in terms of which inflationary cosmology is usually described. To this purpose we start with the familiar identifications $`\rho +P=\dot{\varphi }^2`$ and $`\rho P=2V\left(\varphi \right)`$. Integration yields

$$\varphi \varphi _0=\frac{m_P}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{Arsh}\frac{a}{a_e}\frac{a}{a_e}=\mathrm{sinh}\left[\sqrt{2\pi }\frac{\varphi \varphi _0}{m_P}\right],$$
(21)
where we have restricted ourselves to $`\varphi \varphi _0`$. The potential is given by

$$V=\frac{H_e^2}{2\pi }m_P^2\left[\frac{a^2}{a_e^2}+3\right]\left[\frac{a_e^2}{a^2+a_e^2}\right]^3=\frac{H_e^2}{2\pi }m_P^2\frac{32\mathrm{tanh}^2\left[\sqrt{2\pi }\frac{\varphi \varphi _0}{m_p}\right]}{\mathrm{cosh}^4\left[\sqrt{2\pi }\frac{\varphi \varphi _0}{m_p}\right]}.$$
(22)
A scalar field description with this potential implies the same cosmological dynamics as a self-interacting gas model in which the particles self-consistently move under the influence of an effective one-particle force characterized by the second equation in (15). The above relations allow us to change from the fluid to the scalar field picture and vice versa. In principle, it is possible to “calculate” the potential if the self-interacting fluid dynamics is known.

## 7 Conclusions

We have presented an exactly solvable gas dynamical model of a deflationary transition from an initial de Sitter phase to a subsequent radiation dominated FLRW period. The entire transition dynamics represents a specific non-equilibrium configuration of a self-interacting gas. Although connected with entropy production, this configuration is characterized by an equilibrium distribution function of the gas particles. Mapping the non-equilibrium contributions onto an effective refraction index $`n_r`$ of the cosmic matter, the deflationary transition appears as the manifestation of a timelike conformal symmetry of an optical metric $`\overline{g}_{ik}=g_{ik}+\left[1n_r^2\right]u_iu_k`$ in which the refraction index $`n_r`$ changes smoothly from a very large value in the de Sitter period to unity in the FRLW phase. The deflationary gas dynamics may alternatively be interpreted as a production process of relativistic particles out of a decaying vacuum. Furthermore, there exists an equivalent scalar field description with an exponential type potential which generates the same deflationary scenario as the self-interacting gas model.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


format: text

text:
# References

AMES-HET-01-02

BNL-HET-01/9

CP Asymmetry Measurements in $`J\mathbf{/}\psi K^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and the CKM Paradigm

David Atwood1

Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

Amarjit Soni2

Theory Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
11footnotetext: email: atwood@iastate.edu 2email: soni@bnl.gov

> Abstract:
>
> Recent experimental observations of CP asymmetry in $`BJ/\psi +K^0`$ constitute the first significant signal of CP violation outside the neutral kaon system; thus they represent an important milestone to test the CKM paradigm. We, therefore, undertake a critical appraisal of the existing experimental and theoretical inputs used to deduce constraints on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and other important parameters and thus find, in particular, $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta >0.47`$ at 95% CL which is completely compatible with the combined experimental result: $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.48\pm 0.16`$, representing an important success of the CKM model of CP violation. Searches for new physics in $`B`$ decays to $`J/\psi +K^0`$ like final states will require improved precision; we make some suggestions to facilitate these. We also present a global fit including the new CP asymmetry measurements in $`BJ/\psi +K^0`$ as an additional input yielding e.g. $`\gamma =(29^{}67^{})`$, $`\overline{\eta }=(.20.37)`$, $`\overline{\rho }=(.08.36)`$, $`J_{CP}=(1.83.1)\times 10^5`$, $`Br(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })=(0.520.92)\times 10^{10}`$, $`Br(K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu })=(0.110.31)\times 10^{10}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}=(15.2\text{}28.3)ps^1`$, all at 95% CL.

Recent measurements of CP asymmetry in the $`B^0J/\psi K^0`$ and related processes  by the BELLE  and BaBar  detectors at the KEK and SLAC $`B`$-factories together with the earlier measurement by CDF  constitute the first significant signal of CP violation outside of the neutral kaon system. As such, they afford a unique test of the CKM paradigm  along with possible clues for the presence of new physics. In this work, we present a critical appraisal of the theoretical and experimental inputs used in such analysis and suggest directions for improvement to facilitate more precise studies of the future. Furthermore, we specifically address the question: When should one begin to take seriously a conflict between the value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta (\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1[7])`$ as measured in $`B^0J/\psi K^0`$ decays and that deduced from other processes?

In the Kobayashi-Maskawa  description of CP violation which is an integral part of the Standard Model (SM), a “clean”, (i.e. free of hadronic uncertainties) determination of the angle $`\beta `$ of the unitarity triangle  can be made by measuring the time dependent partial rate asymmetry for $`B_d`$ and $`\overline{B}_d`$ decays to a common final state which is a CP eigenstate :

$`a(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_d(t)f)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_d(t)f)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_d(t)f)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_d(t)f)}}=f_{CP}\mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_dt)`$ (1)
where $`f_{CP}`$ is the CP eigenvalue of $`f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ is the $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mass difference.

The recent experimental determination of the phase $`\beta `$ by the BELLE , BaBar  and CDF  groups, through the use of eqn. (1) is:

$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =\{\begin{array}{cc}0.58\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+0.32}{0.34}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+0.09}{0.10}\hfill & [BELLE]\hfill \\ 0.34\pm 0.20\pm 0.05\hfill & [BaBar]\hfill \\ 0.79\pm 0.44\hfill & [CDF]\hfill \end{array}`$ (5)
By combining these with the earlier results  which are consistent with these but have larger errors, we get the average

$`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.48\pm 0.16`$ (6)
In the Wolfenstein representation  of the CKM matrix, two of the parameters are rather well known , $`\lambda =0.2196\pm 0.0023`$, $`A=0.85\pm .04`$. Considerable efforts are under way for a better determination of the remaining two parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$, or, equivalently , $`\overline{\rho }=\rho (1\lambda ^2/2)`$ and $`\overline{\eta }=\eta (1\lambda ^2/2)`$ which are introduced in the generalization which maintains unitarity to higher order in $`\lambda `$ .

Currently, there are four important inputs that constrain the values of $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ : (1) The $`ϵ_K`$ parameter of indirect CP-violation of the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ system, (2) $`R_{uc}|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ which is deduced from the fraction of semi-leptonic $`B`$-decays to charmless final states, (3) $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, the mass difference which drives $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ mixing and (4) the LEP bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ ($`\mathrm{}15ps^1`$), the mass difference which drives $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixing.

In order to determine the parameters $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ and the sensitivity of physical quantities to theoretical inputs, we will use a set of “nominal” inputs for evaluating the four physical quantities mentioned above. In our nominal input we take $`R_{uc}=0.085\pm 0.017`$, although later we will also consider the case where the error is inflated to 0.0255 \[i.e. to a total of 30%\] for a more “conservative” interpretation of the current results.

The SM expression for $`ϵ_K`$ in terms of CKM elements involves the non-perturbative hadronic parameter $`B_K<K|(\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d)^2|\overline{K}>/(8/3f_K^2m_K^2)`$. For the corresponding renormalization group invariant (to NLO) quantity we take $`\widehat{B}_K=0.86\pm 0.06\pm 0.14`$ in our nominal input from lattice calculations . The lattice calculation of this quantity, with the stated error is quite safe as it has now been calculated with staggered fermions as well as with the newer method of domain wall quarks which have superior realization of chiral symmetry. The error due to unquenching and due to SU(3) breaking are each estimated at around $`5\%`$ and are included in the stated systematic error .

For the evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ we need $`f_{B_d}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_d}}`$ and the analysis of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ requires the $`SU(3)`$ breaking ratio $`\xi `$ $``$ $`f_{B_s}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_s}}/(f_{B_d}`$$`\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_d}})`$. These quantities have been studied extensively using lattice Monte Carlo methods. Bernard in his review at Lattice 2000  (as well as Aoki ) gave their values as $`f_{B_d}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{b_d}}=230\pm 40`$ MeV and $`\xi =1.16\pm 0.05`$. We have inflated the error on $`f_{B_d}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_d}}`$ by about 20% to 50 MeV for our nominal input. Also, in our nominal input we will increase the error on $`\xi `$ to 0.08 to reflect our concern that the “direct” evaluation of the SU(3) breaking via:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{<B_s|[\overline{b}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)s]^2|\overline{B}_s>}{<B_d|[\overline{b}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d]^2|\overline{B}_d>}}={\displaystyle \frac{m_s^2}{m_d^2}}\xi ^2`$ (7)
tends to give somewhat larger central values  although with rather large errors so that within errors the results are compatible in the two methods. Since $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_d}`$ is an extremely important phenomenological constant it will certainly be very helpful if improved lattice studies via (7) re-confirm the value of $`\xi `$ obtained via the $`f_{B_s}\sqrt{B_{B_s}}/(f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}})`$ method .

In Table 1 we collect the “nominal” inputs for the important parameters taken from experiment and from the lattice. The Table also shows our inputs for the four parameters \[$`R_{uc}`$, $`\widehat{B}_K`$, $`f_{B_d}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_d}}`$ and $`\xi `$\] for the “conservative” solution. For this case we take $`\widehat{B}_K=0.90\pm 0.06\pm 0.14`$ as there are preliminary indications from some lattice calculations of a few percent increase of this quantity in dynamical simulations . Similarly there are indications  that $`B_{B_d}`$ tends to decrease by about 11%; therefore, in our conservative choice we will take $`f_{B_d}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_d}}=217\pm 50`$ MeV and also we will inflate the error on $`\xi `$ to 0.1. Note that these “conservative” choices are made as they tend to lower the value of $`(\mathrm{sin}2\beta )_{min}`$.

Fig. 1(a) shows the resulting constraints from our nominal input in the $`\overline{\eta }`$-$`\overline{\rho }`$ plane. Fig. 1(b) shows the bounds on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, e.g. $`0.51\mathrm{sin}2\beta 0.88`$ at 95% CL. In the second part of Table 1 we show the resultant confidence intervals for a number of quantities that depend on the CKM matrix. Based on the “nominal” and “conservative” inputs, we quote the angular quantities $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ as well as the parameters $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ and the ratio $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|`$. We also include the Jarlskog invariant of the CKM matrix, $`J_{CP}A^2\lambda ^6\overline{\eta }`$ , and give the corresponding predictions for the kaon decays $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$. These two decay modes are sensitive to the magnitude and imaginary part of $`V_{td}`$ respectively.

We have also studied the sensitivity of the results on $`\widehat{B}_K`$, $`f_{B_d}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_d}}`$, $`\xi `$, $`R_{uc}`$ and on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ bound; of these the dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ is especially interesting and important. As Fig. 2 shows the bound on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is quite insensitive to the experimental bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ so long as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}9}\mathrm{}ps^1`$. Lower values of this quantity do tend to effect the bound. It is somewhat reassuring that so long as the LEP bound  is $`9\mathrm{}ps^1`$, i.e. almost 50% of its stated value, it does not have a major effect on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$.

Fig. 3 summarizes our results on the bounds on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ with various inputs. In addition to the two sets of inputs mentioned above, i.e. “nominal” and “conservative”, we also include here the following 2 cases.

Do not use $`f_{B_d}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_d}`$ and use only $`ϵ_K`$, $`R_{uc}`$, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_d}`$ with the “conservative” input from Table 1.

Disregard $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_d}`$ as it may be of some concern that while, at present, we only have a bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$, used in conjunction with the parameter $`\xi `$ which the lattice gives with rather tight errors, it ends up playing a rather important role; thus use only $`ϵ_K`$, $`R_{uc}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$.

We see that $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta >\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}.47}`$ (at 95% CL) if all four of the experimental inputs are used. Fig. 3 also shows the experimental results for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. It is clear that the experimental information available so far is completely compatible with theoretical expectations of the CKM model; there is no glaring need of new physics or new CP-odd phase(s). Searches for the effects of new CP-odd phase(s) , at least in these channels, will require precision studies.

An interesting feature of Fig. 3 is that the $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ interval depends little on whether or not we include $`f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}`$ (i.e. the input $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$). This is because the main effect of this constraint is on the magnitude of $`V_{td}`$ while $`\beta `$ depends on its phase. Thus, $`\beta `$ and $`f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}`$ tend not to be correlated. Another notable aspect of Fig. 3 is that the lower bound on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ gets appreciably reduced to $`0.35`$ (95% CL) if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ is not included as an input. Thus, if improved experimental determinations of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ end up finding a value lower than in eqn (6) then that may be indicative of problems with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ bound of $`15\mathrm{}ps^1`$.

It is useful to compare our analysis to the one by Gilman et al  given in the Particle Data Book. There are small differences with us in various inputs such as $`\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$; the most notable one is that our central value for $`f_{B_d}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_d}`$ is bigger by about 10%. This is in line with recent assessment of effects of quenching . The main effect of these differences is that our value for $`\overline{\rho }`$ tends to be somewhat bigger compared to Gilman et al. .

Since a very important source of error in the hadronic parameters that we took from the lattice originates from the quenched approximation, improvements are quite challenging and are likely to take considerable time and effort. Therefore, the bounds that we deduced on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ and other quantities are not likely to change any time soon. On the other hard, experiments from $`e^+e^{}`$ and hadronic $`B`$-facilities are expected to rapidly increase the pool of data by almost an order of magnitude or even more in the next year or two. Therefore, our bound should be able to facilitate tests of the CKM paradigm more definitively in the near future.

The case when $`ϵ_K`$ is not used in the input data set is of special significance as then the remaining three inputs ($`R_{uc}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_d}`$) are all from CP-conserving $`B`$ experiments \[Fig. 4\]. The resulting constraint on $`\overline{\eta }`$ is therefore especially important as a non-vanishing lower bound on $`\overline{\eta }`$ would then imply the need for the CP violation phase even when accounting for CP conserving $`B`$ experiments . Furthermore, if the CKM model is correct then the lower bound on $`\overline{\eta }`$ thus deduced from $`B`$ experiments must satisfy the constraint from $`ϵ_K`$ on the $`\overline{\eta }`$-$`\overline{\rho }`$ plane; in particular $`ϵ_K`$ requires $`\overline{\eta }>.12`$ (see Fig. 1(a)). Unfortunately the current accuracy of input data sets is not sufficient to give a 95% CL nonvanishing lower bound on $`\overline{\eta }`$ although at 68% CL that is the case: $`0.084<\overline{\eta }<0.324`$ at 68% CL and $`0.014<\overline{\eta }<0.410`$ at 95% CL. Thus as the accuracy on $`\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ and the hadronic parameters from the lattice improves it is very likely that in the near future the CP conserving $`B`$ experiments would lead to a non-vanishing lower bound on $`\overline{\eta }`$ even at 95% CL thereby providing a completely non-trivial test of the CKM model. Meantime, the $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ measurements of eq. (6) via $`B^0J/\psi K^0`$ may also now be included with the other three $`B`$-experiments \[$`R_{uc}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_d}`$\] to give a solution entirely from $`B`$-physics. One thus finds, $`\overline{\eta }=0.130.27`$ at 68% CL and $`\overline{\eta }=0.070.35`$ at 95% CL.

Since CP asymmetry results, eq. (6), on $`B^0J/\psi K^0`$ are found to be completely compatible with the expectations of the CKM model, we can now include these latest results, so that our input set now consists of $`ϵ_K`$, $`R_{uc}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ to obtain the new global fits (see Fig. 5). The corresponding 68% and 95% CL results for various CKM parameters and other quantities of interest are given in Table 2.

In conclusion, from Table 1 and Fig. 3 it is apparent that if $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is eventually measured to be significantly $`<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.47}`$, the CKM model of CP violation, or some subset of the theoretical inputs regarding matrix elements or the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ bound, will have a problem. On the other hand, if $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta >\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.47}`$ improvements in the theoretical inputs and or additional experimental input(s) will be needed to refine our tests of the Standard Model CKM picture. Bearing that in mind we now briefly mention a few areas where experimental and/or theoretical progress could be very useful.

1. Along the same lines as mentioned above, it would be extremely useful to deduce the entire unitarity triangle from $`K`$-physics so that one can make more decisive comparisons, in particular of the Jarlskog invariant , $`J_{CP}`$, deduced from $`B`$-physics with that from $`K`$-physics and not just contend ourselves with the lower bound on $`\overline{\eta }`$ that $`ϵ_K`$ gives or the constraints from $`ϵ_K`$ only. Studies of $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ can give a rather clean determination of $`|V_{td}|`$ and study of $`K_L^0\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ can give $`\overline{\eta }`$ or $`J_{CP}`$ very cleanly and can be very useful in that regard .
2. Although direct experimental measurement of $`f_B`$ via $`B^\pm \tau ^\pm +\nu `$ still remains difficult due to the low branching ratio, some experimental information on $`f_B`$ could be obtained via the radiative decays $`B^+\mathrm{}^++\nu _{\mathrm{}}+\gamma `$. The branching ratio is expected to be  $`5\times 10^6`$ using $`f_B=200`$ MeV and $`\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{uc}}=0.085`$. Therefore, by adding $`e^+`$, $`e^{}`$, $`\mu ^+`$, $`\mu ^{}`$ the effective branching ratio is about $`2\times 10^5`$ and may well already be accessible. Furthermore, the photon spectrum is relatively hard as it originates from a spin-flip; the initial pseudoscalar meson emits the photon and becomes a vector or axial vector state for annihilation into $`\mathrm{}+\nu `$ without having to pay the penalty of helicity suppression. The calculations are model dependent but perhaps an accuracy of $`30\%`$ on $`f_B`$ could be attained through this method and that may provide a useful experimental check on the lattice calculations.
3. It is clearly important to determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ via $`B_s`$-$`\overline{B}_s`$ oscillation. This is likely to come from CDF/$`D\mathrm{}`$ at the Tevatron and perhaps also from HERAB, TeVB, and LHCB. Meantime, it would be useful to attain information on $`\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}`$ via $`B^0\rho ^0+\gamma `$ . The ratio $`\frac{B^0\rho ^0+\gamma }{B^{}K^{}+\gamma }`$ should give $`\frac{|V_{td}|}{|V_{ts}|}`$ up to SU(3) corrections to a very good approximation. Calculation of $`B\rho (K^{})+\gamma `$ involves only one form factor . It would be extremely useful to use lattice and other methods to calculate the SU(3) breaking effects on that form factor  which would be needed to relate measurements of $`(B^0\rho ^0+\gamma )/(BK^{}+\gamma )`$ to $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|`$.

We acknowledge useful discussions with Sinya Aoki, Adam Falk and Fred Gilman. This research was supported in part by US DOE Contract Nos. DE-FG02-94ER40817 (ISU) and DE-AC02-98CH10886 (BNL)

Figure Captions

Figure 1:

(a) A plot of the allowed region in the $`\overline{\rho }`$-$`\overline{\eta }`$ plane using our nominal inputs. The 1-$`\sigma `$ constraints resulting from $`ϵ_K`$ are shown with the dashed lines; those from $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ are shown with the dash-dotted lines and the 1-$`\sigma `$ constraints resulting from the $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ oscillation rate are shown with the dotted lines. The thin solid line, obtained by using the 95% CL bound $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s>15ps^1`$ and $`\xi 1.32`$ (which is the 2-$`\sigma `$ bound), indicates the limit from $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ oscillation. The solid coutours indicate the interval allowed by the combined constraints with the inner contour indicating the $`68\%`$ confidence interval and the outer one the $`95\%`$ confidence interval.

(b) The likelihood function for various values of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. The dotted box indicates the 68% confidence interval while the dashed box indicates the 95% confidence interval.

Figure 2: The solid lines indicate the upper and lower confidence (95% CL) interval in $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ as a function of the bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ in units of $`\mathrm{}ps^1`$.

Figure 3: The 68% and 95% CL allowed intervals in $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ are shown for various fits to the CKM matrix discussed in the text. Also shown are the $`1\sigma `$ ranges for the data from BaBar, BELLE , CDF as well as their combined result.

Figure 4: The $`\overline{\eta }`$-$`\overline{\rho }`$ plot as in Figure 1(a) (i.e. with nominal input) except that the $`ϵ_K`$ data are not used in the global fit shown so that the input set consists of only the CP conserving B-experiments, namely $`R_{uc}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s/\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$; in this figure we take the sign of $`\overline{\eta }`$ to be positive .

Figure 5: Figure shows the global fit using the nominal four inputs from Table 1 but in addition including also the $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ measurements (see eq. (6)).


text:
# Migration of giant planets in planetesimal discs.

## 1 Introduction

According to the most popular theory on the formation of giant planets in the solar system, planets were formed by accumulation of solid cores (Safronov 1969; Wetherill & Stewart 1989; Aarseth et al. 1993), known as planetesimals, in a gaseous disc centered around the sun. When the core mass increases above $`10M_{}`$, it begins a rapid accretion phase (Mizuno 1980; Bodenheimer & Pollack 1986) in which the protoplanet can capture a gas envelope from the protoplanetary disc leading to the formation of a giant planet (Pollack et al. 1996). Jupiter-mass planets may require most of the lifetime of the disc to accrete ($`10^6`$-$`10^7`$ yr) (Zuckerman et al. 1995; Pollack et al. 1996).
Protostellar discs around young stellar objects that have properties similar to that supposed for the solar nebula are common: between 25 to 75% of young stellar objects in the Orion nebula seem to have discs (Prosser et al. 1994; McCaughrean & Stauffer 1994) with mass $`10^3M_{}<M_\mathrm{d}<10^1M_{}`$ and size $`40\pm 20`$ AU (Beckwith & Sargent 1996). Moreover recently several planetary companion orbiting extra-solar stars were discovered. The extrasolar planets census, updated at October 2000, gives 58 planets. For reason of space, we report only a small number of them: the companions orbiting 51 Peg (Mayor & Queloz 1995), $`\tau `$ Boo(Marcy et al. 1997 - San Francisco University Team hereafter SFSU), $`v`$ And (SFSU), $`\rho ^1`$ Cnc (SFSU), $`\rho `$ CrB (Noyes et al. 1997 - AFOE team), HD 114762, 70 Vir, 16 Cyg, 47 UMa (Butler & Marcy 1996). In the above list, with the exception of 47 Uma, the new planets are all at distances $`<1`$AU. In recent years has been discovered other extrasolar planets orbiting at distances $`>1\mathrm{A}\mathrm{U}`$ from the central star:
$`ϵ`$ Eridani, HD210277, HD 82943, 14 Her, HD 190228, HD 222582, HD10697, HD 29587, representing only 15% of all the planets. Three planets (51 Peg, $`\tau `$ Boo, $`v`$ And) are in extremely tight circular orbits with periods of a few days, two planets ($`\rho ^1`$ Cnc and $`\rho `$ CrB)have circular orbits with periods of order tens of days and three planets with wider orbits (16 Cyg B, 70 Vir and HD 114762) have very large eccentricities. The properties of these planets, most of which are Jupiter-mass objects, are difficult to explain using the quoted standard model for planet formation (Lissauer 1993; Boss 1995). This standard model predicts nearly circular planetary orbits, and giant planets distances $`1`$ AU from the central star, distance at which the temperature in the protostellar nebula is low enough for icy materials to condense (Boss 1995, 1996; Wuchterl 1993, 1996). Standard disc models show that at 0.05 AU, the temperature is about 2,000 K, which is too hot for the existence of any small solid particles. Moreover the ice condensation radius does not depend strongly on stellar mass, so that it does not move inward rapidly as the stellar mass decreases. For star masses, $`M_{}=1`$, 0.5, 0.1 $`M_{}`$, the ice condensation radius moves inward from $`6`$ to $`4.5`$ AU(Boss 1995). Another problem with the in situ formation of a planetary companion is that even though the present evaporation rate is negligible, this effect would have been of major importance in the past. In fact during the early history of a planet, its radius was a factor ten larger than the present value, implying that the escape speed was much less than its present value. Hence evaporation mechanisms and ablation by the stellar wind might prevent its formation. The question that arises is: if such massive planets cannot form at the actual locations, how did they reach their actual position ? Four mechanisms have been proposed to explain the quoted dilemma.
The first mechanism consists of a secular interaction with a distant binary companion (Holman et al. 1997; Mazeh et al. 1996; Kiseleva & Eggleton 1997; Eggleton & Kiseleva 1997). While this mechanism can also produce significant eccentricities for the longer period extrasolar planets it is unable to explain objects like 51 Peg. In fact, 51 Peg has been extensively searched for a binary companion (Marcy et al. 1997), but none has been found. Consequently, in the particular case of 51 Peg, this mechanism is not responsible for the orbital decay.
The second possible mechanism proposed to explain short period planets is dissipation in the protostellar nebula. Tidal interaction between a massive planet and a circumstellar disc gives rise to an angular momentum transfer between the disc and the planet (Goldreich & Tremaine 1979, 1980; Ward 1986; Lin et al. 1996; Ward 1997). The planet’s motion in the disc excites density waves both interior and exterior to the planet. A torque originates from the attraction of the protoplanet for these non-axisymmetric density perturbations (Goldreich & Tremaine 1980). Density wave torques repel material on either side of the protoplanet’s orbit and attempt to open a gap in the disc, whose size depends on the viscosity of the disc and inversely on the planet’s mass (Lin & Papaloizou 1986; Takeuchi et al. 1986) (note that exists a minimum mass for gap opening, which is of the order of magnitude of Jovian planets mass, which prevents the nonsense of an infinite large gap for a zero-mass planet). If gap formation is successful (for example in the case of a Jupiter mass planet), the protoplanet becomes locked to the disc and must ultimately share its fate (Ward 1982; Lin & Papaloizou 1986, 1993). This mechanism is called $`\mathrm{𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒}`$ II drift. The situation is different if the object is not yet large enough to open and substain a gap. Also in this case the protoplanet migrates inwards but with a time-scale even smaller than that of $`\mathrm{𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒}`$ II drift (Ward 1997). This is called $`\mathrm{𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒}`$ I drift. In both cases, the rate of radial mobility of the planet, with respect to the central star, is indicated with the term ’drift velocity’ (see Ward 1997) (in some cases, see the case of Neptun below, the drift velocity can be directed outwards). Since, in this model, the time-scale of migration is $`10^5\frac{M_\mathrm{p}}{M_{}}\mathrm{yr}`$ (Ward 1997), the migration has to switch off at a critical moment, if the planet has to stop close to the star without falling in it. The movement of the planet might be halted by short-range tidal or magnetic effects from the central star (Lin et al. 1996) (in any case, as shown by Murray et al. (1998), it is difficult to explain, by means of these stopping mechanisms, planets with semi-major axes $`a0.2`$ AU).
A resonant interaction with a disc of planetesimals is another possible source of orbital migration. In this model, planet migration starts when the surface density of planetesimals, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ satysfies the condition $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{c}`$, being $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{c}`$ a critical value for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{c}`$. The advantage of this mechanism is that the migration is halted naturally at short distances when the majority of perturbed planetesimals collide with the star. Moreover wide eccentric orbits can also be produced for planets more massive than $`3M_\mathrm{J}`$. However the model has some disavantages, since the protoplanetary disc mass required for the migration of a Jupiter-mass planet to $`a0.1`$ AU is very large (Ford et al. 1999).
Finally, the fourth and last mechanism deals with dynamical instabilities in a system of giant planets (Rasio & Ford 1996). The orbits of planets could become unstable if the orbital radii evolve secularly at different rates or if the masses increase significantly as the planets accrete their gaseous envelopes (Lissauer 1993). In this model, the gravitational interaction between two planets, during evolution, (Gladman 1993; Chambers et al. 1996) can give rise to the ejection of one planet, leaving the other in eccentric orbit. The orbit of this can then circularize at an orbital separation of a few stellar radii (Rasio et al. 1996) if the inner planet has a sufficiently small pericenter distance. Simulations of multiple giant planets systems, showed that successive mergers between two or more planets can lead to the formation of a massive ($`10M_\mathrm{J}`$) object in a wide eccentric orbit (Lin & Ida 1997). While it is almost certain that this mechanism operates in many systems with multiple planets, it is not clear if they can reproduce the fraction of systems similar to 51 Peg observed.
In this paper we propose another model to explain the orbital parameters of extraterrestrial planets. The model is based on dynamical friction of a planet with a planetesimal disc. While the role of dynamical friction on the planetary accumulation process has been studied in several papers (Stewart & Kaula 1980; Horedt 1985; Stewart & Wetherill 1988), very few papers have studied its role on radial migration of planets or planetesimals in planetary discs (see Melita & Woolfson, 1996; Haghighipour 1999). This attitude is due to the fact that, so far, many people have assumed a priori that radial migration due to dynamical friction is much slower than the damping of velocity dispersion due to dynamical friction. Therefore most studies on dynamical friction were concerned only with damping of velocity dispersion (damping of the eccentricity, $`e`$, and inclination, $`i`$), adopting local coordinates. Analytical works by Stewart & Wetherill (1988) and Ida (1990) adopted local coordinates. N-body simulation by Ida & Makino (1992) adopted non-local coordinates, but did not investigate radial migration. Moreover most models of the planetesimal disc assume that, except for the influence of aerodynamic drag, which loses its effectiveness for planetesimals larger than a few kilometers, the primary cause of radial migration is mutual scattering (Hayashi et al. 1977 and Wetherill 1990). In order to calculate protoplanets migration, we apply the model introduced in Del Popolo et al. (1999) to study KBOs (Kuiper Belt Objects) migration, and we suppose that the gas in the disc is dissipated soon after the planet forms so that it has little effect on planet migration. We are particularly interested in studying the role of planetesimals in planet migration and the dependence of migration on the disc mass and on its evolution.
The plan of the paper is the following: in Sect. 2 we introduce the model used to study radial migration. In Sect. 3 we show the assumption used in the simulation. In Sect. 4 we show the results that can be drawn from our calculations and finally the Sect. 5 is devoted to the conclusions.

## 2 Planets migration model

In a recent paper by Del Popolo et al. (1999), we studied how dynamical friction, due to small planetesimals, influences the evolution of KBOs having masses larger than $`10^{22}`$ g. We found that the mean eccentricity of large mass particles is reduced by dynamical friction due to small mass particles in timescales shorter than the age of the solar system for objects of mass equal or larger than $`10^{23}`$ g. Moreover the dynamical drag, produced by dynamical friction of objects of masses $`10^{24}`$ g, is responsible for the loss of angular momentum and the fall through more central regions in a timescale $`10^9`$ yr. Here we apply a similar model to study the planets radial migration. We suppose that a single planet moves in a planetesimal disc under the influence of the gravitational force of the Sun. The equation of motion of the planet can be written as:

$$\ddot{𝐫}=𝐅_{}+𝐑$$
(1)
(Melita & Woolfson 1996), where the term $`𝐅_{}`$ represents the force per unit mass from the Sun, while $`𝐑`$ is the dissipative force (the dynamical friction term-see Melita & Woolfson 1996). Calculations involving dynamical friction that are used to study planetesimal dynamics often use Chandrasekhar’s theory (Stewart & Wheterill 1988; Ida 1990; Lissauer & Stewart 1992) for homogeneous and isotropic distribution of lighter particles. This choice is not the right one, since dynamical friction in discs differs from that in spherical isotropic three dimensional systems. This is because disc evolution is influenced by effects different than those producing the evolution of stellar systems:
1) In a disc, the contribution to the friction coming from close encounters is comparable to that due to distant encounters (Donner & Sundelius 1993, Palmer et al. 1993).
2) Collective effects in a disc are much stronger than those in a three-dimensional system (Thorne 1968).
3) The peculiar velocities of planetesimals in a disc are small. This means that differential rotation of the disc dominates over planetesimals’ relative velocities.
4) The velocity dispersion of particles in a disc potential is anisotropic.
We assume that the matter-distribution is disc-shaped and that it has a velocity distribution described by:

$$n(𝐯,𝐱)=n(𝐱)\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{v_{}^2}{2\sigma _{}^2}+\frac{v_{}^2}{2\sigma _{}^2}\right)\right]\frac{1}{\sigma _{}^2\sigma _{}}$$
(2)
(Hornung & al. 1985, Stewart & Wetherill 1988) where $`v_{}`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$ are the velocity and the velocity dispersion in the direction parallel to the plane while $`v_{}`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$ are those in the perpendicular direction. We suppose that $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$ are constants and that their ratio is simply taken to be 2:1. Then according to Chandrasekhar (1968) and Binney (1977) we may write the force components as:

$`F_{}`$ $`=`$ $`k_{}v_1=B_{}v_1\left[2\sqrt{2\pi }\overline{n}G^2\mathrm{lg}\mathrm{\Lambda }m_1m_2\left(m_1+m_2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1e^2}}{\sigma _{}^2\sigma _{}}}\right]`$ (3)
$`F_{}`$ $`=`$ $`k_{}v_1=B_{}v_1_{}\left[2\sqrt{2\pi }\overline{n}G^2\mathrm{lg}\mathrm{\Lambda }m_1m_2\left(m_1+m_2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1e^2}}{\sigma _{}^2\sigma _{}}}\right]`$ (4)
where

$`B_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{2\sigma _{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+q}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{2\sigma _{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^2+q}}\right]\times {\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\left[\left(1+q\right)^2\left(1e^2+q\right)^{1/2}\right]}}`$ (5)
$`B_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{2\sigma _{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+q}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2}{2\sigma _{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^2+q}}\right]\times {\displaystyle \frac{dq}{\left[\left(1+q\right)\left(1e^2+q\right)^{3/2}\right]}}`$ (6)
and

$$e=(1\sigma _{}^2/\sigma _{}^2)^{0.5}$$
(7)
while $`\overline{n}`$ is the average spatial density, $`m_1`$ is the mass of the test particle, $`m_2`$ is the mass of a field one, and $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Coulomb logarithm. The frictional drag on the test particles may be written as:

$$𝐅=k_{}v_1𝐞_{}k_{}v_1𝐞_{}$$
(8)
where $`𝐞_{}`$ and $`𝐞_{}`$ are two versors parallel and perpendicular to the disc plane.
When $`B_{}>B_{}`$, the drag caused by dynamical friction will tend to increase the anisotropy of the velocity distribution of the test particles. In other words, the dynamical drag experienced by an object of mass $`m_1`$ moving through a less massive non-spherical distribution of objects of mass $`m_2`$ is not directed in the direction of the relative motion (as in the case of spherically symmetric distribution of matter). Hence the already flat distribution of more massive objects will be further flattened during the evolution of the system (Binney 1977). As shown by Ida (1990), Ida & Makino (1992) and Del Popolo et al. (1999) damping of eccentricity and inclination is more rapid than radial migration so in this paper we deal only with radial migration and we assume that the planet has negligible inclination and eccentricity, $`i_\mathrm{p}e_\mathrm{p}0`$ and that the initial heliocentric distance of the planet is $`5.2\mathrm{AU}`$. The objects lying in the plane have no way of knowing that they are moving into a non-spherically symmetric potential. Hence we expect that the dynamical drag is directed in the direction opposite to the motion of the particle:

$$𝐅k_{}v_{}𝐞_{}$$
(9)
## 3 Simulation parameters

In order to calculate the effect of dynamical friction on the orbital evolution of the planet, we suppose that $`\sigma _{}`$=$`2\sigma _{}`$ and that the dispersion velocities are constant. If the planetesimals attain dynamical equilibrium, their equilibrium velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _\mathrm{m}`$, would be comparable to the surface escape velocity of the dominant bodies (Safronov 1969) such that

$$\sigma _\mathrm{m}v_{\mathrm{esc}}\left(\frac{Gm_{}}{\theta r_{}}\right)^{1/2}$$
(10)
where $`\theta `$ is the Safronov number, $`m_{}`$ and $`r_{}`$ are the mass and radius of the largest planetesimals, (note that the planetesimals velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _\mathrm{m}`$, now introduced, is the velocity dispersion to be used for calculating the $`\sigma `$ which is present in the dynamical friction force). If instead we consider a two-component system, consisting of one protoplanet and many equal-mass planetesimals the velocity dispersion of planetesimals in the neighborhood of the protoplanet depends on the mass of the protoplanet. When the mass of the planet, $`M`$, is $`10^{25}`$ g, the value of $`<e_\mathrm{m}^2>^{1/2}`$ (being $`e_\mathrm{m}`$ the eccentricity of the planetesimals) is independent of $`M`$ therefore:

$$e_\mathrm{m}20(2m/3M_{})^{1/3}$$
(11)
(Ida & Makino 1993) where $`m`$ is the mass of the planetesimals. When the mass of the planet reaches values larger than $`10^{25}`$-$`10^{26}`$ g at 1 AU, $`<e_\mathrm{m}^2>^{1/2}`$ is proportional to $`M^{1/3}`$:

$$e_\mathrm{m}6(M/3M_{})^{1/3}$$
(12)
(Ida & Makino 1993). As a consequence also the dispersion velocity in the disc is characterized by two regimes being it connected to the eccentricity by the equation:

$$\sigma _\mathrm{m}(e_\mathrm{m}^2+i_\mathrm{m}^2)^{1/2}v_\mathrm{c}$$
(13)
where $`i_\mathrm{m}`$ is the inclination of planetesimals and $`v_\mathrm{c}`$ is the Keplerian circular velocity. The width of the heated region is roughly given by $`4[(4/3)(e_\mathrm{m}^2+i_\mathrm{m}^2)a^2+12h_\mathrm{M}^2a^2]^{1/2}`$ (Ida & Makino 1993) where $`a`$ is the semi-major axis and $`h_\mathrm{M}=(\frac{M+m}{3M_{}})^{1/3}`$ is the Hill radius of the protoplanet. The increase in velocity dispersion of planetesimals around the protoplanet decreases the dynamical friction force (see Eq. 8) and consequently increases the migration time-scale.
In the simulation we assume that the planetesimals have all equal masses, $`m`$, and that $`m<<M`$, $`M`$ being the planet mass. This assumption does not affect the results, since dynamical friction does not depend on the individual masses of these particles but on their overall density. We also assume that the surface density in planetesimals varies as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(1\mathrm{A}\mathrm{U}/r)^{3/2}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$, the surface density at 1 AU, is a free parameter. The total mass in the planetesimal disc within radius $`r`$ is then:

$$M_\mathrm{D}1.4\times 10^3(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}/10^3\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2)(r/\mathrm{AU})^{0.5}$$
(14)
We assume that $`1\%`$ of the disc mass is in the form of solid particles (Stepinski & Valageas 1996). To be more precise, assuming metal abundance $`Z=0.02`$, the disc mass in gas interior to Jupiter’s orbit is $`0.16M_{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}/10^3\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2)`$ (Murray et al. 1998). In our model the gas is almost totally dissipated when the planet begins to migrate and we assume that the value of disc mass reported in the following part of the paper is contained within $`40`$ AU (Weidenshilling 1977). We integrated the equations of motion in heliocentric coordinates using the Bulirsch-Stoer method.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 Migration in a non-evolving disc

Our model starts with a fully formed gaseous giant planet of $`1M_\mathrm{J}`$ at $`5.2`$ AU. As mentioned in the previous section, the circumstellar disc is assumed to have a power-law radial density and to be axisymmetric. According to several evidences showing that the disc lifetimes range from $`10^5`$ yr to $`10^7`$ yr (Strom et al. 1993; Ruden & Pollack 1991), we assume that the disc has a nominal effective lifetime of $`10^6`$ years (Zuckerman et al. 1995). This assumption refers to the gas disc. Usually, this decline of gas mass near stars is more rapid than the decline in the mass of orbiting particulate matter (Zuckerman et al. 1995). Moreover the disc is populated by residual planetesimals for a longer period. We are interested in studying the migration due to interaction with planetesimals and for this reason we suppose that the gas is almost dissipated when the planet starts its migration. Since Jupiter-mass planets may require most of the lifetime of the disc to accrete ($`10^6`$ to $`10^7`$ years) (and meanwhile the disc is subject to evolutionary changes) and since the disk is also subject to evolution after this time interval (Pollack et al. 1996; Zuckerman et al. 1995), we incorporated this possibility in our model by running also models allowing some disc to dissipate during the planets migration. We integrated the model introduced in the previous section for several values of the disc surface density or equivalently several disc masses: $`M_\mathrm{D}=0.01`$, 0.005, 0.001, 0.0005, 0.0001 $`M_{}`$.

The results of this first set of calculations (assuming that the disc does not evolve) is shown in Fig. 1. The curves show the evolution of a 1 $`M_J`$ planet in a disc with planetesimals surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(1\mathrm{A}\mathrm{U}/r)^{3/2}`$. The simulation is started with the planet at 5.2 AU and $`i_\mathrm{p}e_\mathrm{p}0`$. In any case, similarly to what showed by Murray et al. (1998), planets with masses $`M>3M_\mathrm{J}`$ during their migration can increase the value of $`e_\mathrm{p}`$. The curves correspond, from bottom to top (short-dashed long-dashed line, dotted line, long dashed line, dot-short dashed line, solid line) to the following values of $`M_\mathrm{D}`$: 0.01, 0.005, 0.001, 0.0005, 0.0001 $`M_{}`$. As expected the most massive disc ($`0.01M_{}`$) produces a rapid radial migration of the planet. Discs having masses lower than $`0.01M_{}`$ produce a smaller radial migration of the planet. In particular, we found that for $`M_\mathrm{D}=0.01M_{}`$ the planet moves to $`0.05`$ AU in $`4\times 10^7`$ yr. The migration halts for the reason explained in the following (with the term ’halt’ we mean that the planet has not had time to migrate any further, even if it is still migrating). If $`M_\mathrm{D}=0.005,0.001,0.0005,0.0001M_{}`$ we have respectively, for the time needed to reach 0.05 AU: $`8\times 10^7`$ yr, $`4\times 10^8`$ yr, $`7.5\times =10^8`$ yr, $`3.5\times 10^9`$ yr.

In other words, disc mass is one of the parameters that controls radial migration. An interesting feature of the model is that migration naturally halts without needing any peculiar mechanisms that avoid the planet from plunging into the central star. In fact as shown in Fig. 1 the migration time to reach $`0.05`$ AU increases with decreasing disk mass. If the disk mass is $`0.00008M_{}`$ the time needed to reach the quoted position is larger than the age of the stellar system and the planet does not fall into the star. Then, the planet can halt its migration without falling in the star if the initial disc mass is $`0.00008M_{}`$. Even if the disc density does not fall below the critical value, the planet must halt at several $`R_{}`$ from the star surface ($`R_{}`$ is the stellar radius). In fact solid bodies cannot condense at distances $`7R_{}`$, and planetesimals cannot survive for a long time at distances $`2R_{}`$. When the planet arrives at this distance the dynamical friction force switches off and its migration stops. This means that the minimum value of the semi-major axis that a planet can reach is $`0.03`$ AU.

### 4.2 Migration in an evolving disc

In the previous calculations, we supposed that the disc mass did not undergo time evolution but in reality the disc evolves as the planet moves inward and tends to dissipate.

In our model, we are fundamentally interested in the evolution of solid matter and planetesimals in discs. To this aim, it is very important to note that the distribution of solid particles follows a global time evolution, which accompanies the time evolution of the gaseous component of the disc. Due to viscous torques, the gaseous disc spreads and its mass diminishes. If initially the solid particles are small and coupled to the gas, they decouple from it when they gain mass because of coagulation. (Stepinski & Valageas 1996). Particles having radius $`r<0.1`$ cm, can be considered perfectly coupled to the gas, while those having $`r>10^5`$ cm can be considered completely decoupled from it and their mean velocities remain practically unchanged with time (Stepinski & Valageas 1996). Moreover, as shown in a recent study by Ida et al. (2000) the radial migration of a planet of Jupiter-mass produce a very rapid capture of planetesimals in the 2:1 and 3:2 resonances: the resonance capture occurs if the migration time, $`\tau _{\mathrm{mig}}`$, of the planet is $`\tau _{\mathrm{mig}}>10^4`$ yr for 2:1 resonance and if $`\tau _{\mathrm{mig}}>10^3`$ yr for 3:2 resonance. If the result is correct this means that the disc should be rapidly depleted with a consequent rapid stopping of migration. As can be understood by what previously told, disc evolution depends on disc and system characteristics.

In this paper we tried to take account of disc evolution by supposing that the total mass in solids decays with time from its original value to the present value as shown in Fig. 2 (see Stepinski & Valageas 1996). The results of this calculation are shown in Fig. 2 to Fig. 5.
Fig. 2 shows the evolution of the disc mass used in the calculations of radial migration (see Stepinski & Valageas 1996, Fig 6). We suppose that the mass in the disc decreases exponentially with time from its original value $`M_o`$ to $`10^3M_o`$ in $`3\times 10^8`$ yr (dashed line), $`10^8`$ yr (dotted line) and $`10^7`$ yr (solid line). Fig. 3 is the same as Fig. 1 but now we suppose that the mass in the disc decreases as described.

If $`M_\mathrm{D}=0.01M_{}`$, the planet stops its migration at $`a0.1`$ AU, while if $`M_\mathrm{D}=0.005,0.001,0.0005,0.0001M_{}`$, we have $`a0.7,3.5,4.3,5`$ AU. Fig. 4 is obtained by supposing that the mass decreases, as previously quoted, in $`10^8`$ yr. As can be shown the planet embedded in a disc having $`M_\mathrm{D}=0.01`$, 0.005, 0.001, 0.0005, 0.0001 $`M_{}`$ respectively migrates to 1.47, 2.7, 4.58, 4.88, 5.1 AU. Finally in Fig. 5 the time-scale for disc evolution is $`10^7`$ yr. The planet embedded in a disc with $`M_\mathrm{D}=0.01`$, 0.005, 0.001, 0.0005, 0.0001 $`M_{}`$ migrates respectively to 4.58, 4.88, 5.13, 5.17, 5.2 AU.
Our distribution of final masses and heliocentric distances predicts that massive planets can be present at any heliocentric distances between their formation locations and extremely small orbits, depending on the initial mass of the disc and its evolution. As we shall show in the following, the model can explain the locations of not only the close companions (at $`0.1`$ AU), but it can also reproduce other observed planets, including Jupiter.

### 4.3 Comparison of the model results with observations

Configuration of planets like $`\tau `$ Bootis b, 51 Peg b, having very small semimajor axis, can be reproduced by models with no evolution (see Fig. 1) or high values of the initial disc mass and low time evolution (e.g., $`M_\mathrm{D}=0.01M_{}`$, $`t_{\mathrm{evol}}=4\times 10^8`$ yr)(Boss 1996) and disc mass a bit lower can explain the configuration of planets like 55 Cnc b ($`a=0.11`$ AU), $`\rho `$ CrB b ($`a=0.23`$ AU). The parameters of 47 UMa b ($`a=2.11`$ AU) can be explained, for example, by supposing a low mass disc and evolution (e.g., $`M_\mathrm{D}=5\times 10^3M_{}`$, $`t_{\mathrm{evol}}=3\times 10^8`$ yr). Planets like 70 Vir b ($`a=0.43`$, $`e_\mathrm{p}=0.4`$; $`M\mathrm{sin}i_\mathrm{p}6.6M_J`$) and HD 114762 b ($`a=0.3`$; $`e_\mathrm{p}=0.25`$; $`M\mathrm{sin}i_\mathrm{p}10M_\mathrm{J}`$) have high eccentricities and masses larger than Jupiter’s. The low semimajor axis can be explained by radial migration, as shown, while the high value of eccentricities can be explained in a model of interaction planet-planetesimals like ours in a way similar to that shown by Murray et al. (1998). If a planet having mass $`M3M_\mathrm{J}`$, which is the case of 70 Vir b and HD 114762, moves in a planetesimal disc during interactions, planetesimals scattered from their Hill sphere can be ejected with $`|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\mathrm{\Delta }L}|<1`$, (where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ are respectively the energy and angular momentum removed from a planet by the ejection of a planetesimal), and the eccentricity $`e_\mathrm{p}`$ tends to increase. For sake of completeness we must say that there are also some systems a bit puzzling. For example $`v`$ And has $`M\mathrm{sin}i_\mathrm{p}=0.68`$ and an high eccentricity, $`e_\mathrm{p}0.15`$, HD210277 has $`M\mathrm{sin}i_\mathrm{p}=1.36`$ and $`e_\mathrm{p}=0.45`$. Such high eccentricities could be explained supposing an encounter with an object having mass $`M_{}`$ or alternatively supposing that the systems are seen at small $`i_\mathrm{p}`$. In the case of the companion to 16 Cyg B ($`M\mathrm{sin}i_\mathrm{p}=1.5`$; $`e_\mathrm{p}0.68`$) the high eccentricity may be due to interactions with the stellar companion (Murray et al. 1998).
Our Solar System could have been subject to giant planet migration. For example, a shrinkage of the orbit of Jupiter of 0.1-0.2 AU could naturally explain the depletion of the outer asteroid belt (Fernandez & Ip 1984; Liou & Malhotra 1997). Some of our model runs produce a 1 $`M_J`$ planet that move from 5.2 AU inwards for a fraction of AU. The planetesimal disc enabling this small migration has a lifetime $`10^7`$ yr, so that the disc gas must have disappeared soon after Jupiter fully formed (Boss 1996).
This last result is obviously strictly valid only for a single planet orbiting around the Sun because in presence of several planets, migration becomes more complex. A close example is that of the solar system. In this case two planets, Uranus and Neptune were subject to outward migration, which is the opposite of what expected. Several models have been proposed to explain this outward migration. A first model is connected to gravitational scattering between planet and residuals planetesimals (Malhotra 1993; Ida et al. 2000). A second model allowing Neptune outward migration is connected to the dissipation in the protostellar nebula. In this case both inwards and outwards planet migration are allowed. In fact in a viscous disc, gas inside a particular radius, known as the radius of maximum viscous stress, $`r_{\mathrm{mvs}}`$, drifts inwards as it loses angular momentum while gas outside $`r_{\mathrm{mvs}}`$ expands outwards as it receives angular momentum (Lynden-Bell & Pringle 1974). Neptune’s outwards migration is due to the fact that the gas in the Neptune forming region has a tendency to migrate outwards (Ruden & Lin 1986). In Fig. 6 we show the drift velocity, $`\frac{dr}{dt}`$, as function of mass, $`M`$. As shown, objects having masses $`<M_{}`$ have velocity drift increasing as $`M`$, while after a threshold mass any further mass increases begins to slow down the drift. As the threshold is exceeded the motion fairly abruptly converts to a slower mode in which the drift velocity is independent of mass. As previously explained, this behaviour is due to the transition from a stage in which the dispersion velocity is independent of $`M`$ to a stage in which it increases with $`M^{1/3}`$ (Ida & Makino 1993). This last stage is known as the protoplanet-dominated stage. The phenomenon is equivalent to that predicted in the density wave approach (Goldreich & Tremaine 1980; Ward 1997). In this approach, the density wave torques repel material on either side of the protoplanet’s orbit and attempt to open a gap in the disc. Only very large objects are able to open and sustain the gap. After gap formation, the drift rate of the planet is set by disc viscosity and is generally smaller than in absence of the gap. We stress that the decaying portion of the curve corresponding to the transition from the first to the second stage does not correspond to any particular model because following Ida & Makino (1993) we do not have information on the evolution of $`\sigma `$ in the transition regime.

### 4.4 Enhancements of metallicity

Another important point is that the dynamical processes leading to planets migration can also affect the evolution of the central star. Gonzales (1997, 1998a,b) showed that several stars with short-period planets have high metallicities, $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]0.2`$. Gonzales (1998b) proposes that their metallicities have been enhanced by the accretion of high Z-material which leads to the speculation that there may be a relationship between stars with higher metallicities and stars with planets. Alternatively, the correlation could arise, if metal-rich stars have metal-rich discs which are more likely to form planets.
Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the high metallicity of stars having extra-solar planets. One of this mechanism is related to the Lin et al. (1996) migration model but this model has two severe drawbacks. Models in which gas disc material accretes on the star are not able to significantly alter the observed metallicity because the disc has a metallicity slightly larger than the star. Good results are obtained in models in which asteroids or planetesimals accrete on to the star (Murray et al. 1998). As previously quoted, Murray et al. (1998) suggest that a giant planet can induce eccentricity growth among residual planetesimals through resonant interactions. Subsequent close encounters cause most of the affected planetesimals to be ejected outwards while the planet migrates inward. A substantial population of planetesimals could induce a Jupiter-mass planet to migrate a large distance inward. Neglecting any planetesimals that are scattered into the star until the planet reaches its final orbit and assuming that the fraction of planetesimals scattered onto the star consist of only those that become planet crossing before colliding with the star, the mass accreted on the star is given by:

$$M_{\mathrm{acc}}f(a)M/\alpha $$
(15)
where

$$f(a)0.15(a/\mathrm{AU})^{0.374}$$
(16)
(Ford et al. 1999), where $`f(a)`$ is the fraction of planetesimals scattered onto the star by the planet at distance $`a`$ and $`\alpha `$ is a parameter $`0.51`$. As shown by Eq. 16 the fraction of planetesimals scattered onto the star increases with decreasing distance from it. At $`a=0.05`$ $`f(a)0.460.92`$ if $`\alpha =0.51`$. For example, the mass of planetesimals which would be scattered into 51 Peg, whose final orbit has $`a=0.05`$ AU, is $`130M_{}`$ (Ford et al. 1999). By starting from a star with solar metallicity adding $`130M_{}`$ of asteroids to 51 Peg the observed $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]`$ increases to 0.48 (Ford et al. 1999). The value found is an inferior limit because it takes account only of planetesimals scattered from the planet located in its final orbit. Moreover it is calculated for a value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}4000\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ less than the maximum disc mass used in Murray et al. (1998). Using the largest values of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ used by Murray et al. (1998) one expects a value of $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ double than that previously quoted.
Even if we assume $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}130M_{}`$, this value is larger than that observed in 51 Peg ($`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]0.21`$). Then following the Ford et al. (1999) model for 51 Peg, the prediction for metallicity abundance is larger than that observed. This means that unless most of the acquired heavy elements are able to diffuse in the radiative interior, the planetesimal-scattering scenario for orbital migration would require more than 90 % of the close encounters to result in the outward ejection of planetesimals (Sandquist et al. 1998).
Our model predicts a smaller value for metallicity close to the observed value for 51 Peg. In fact, our model, similarly to that by Murray et al. (1998), explains the planets migration by planet-planetesimals interaction, but differently from the Murray’s et al. (1998) our model needs less planetesimal mass for radial migration. When the planet reaches its final location, Eq. 15 $`÷`$16 (giving the quantity of planetesimals scattered in the star) can be applied after scaling Murray et al. (1998) result to reflect our disc mass. In the case of the more massive disc ($`M_\mathrm{D}=0.01M_{}`$) we find $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}40M_{}`$ and $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]0.2`$.
An important point to stress is that the plausibility of such an explanation depends, among other, on the size of the stellar convective envelope at the time of accretion. In order to be efficient, the accretion must take place sufficiently late in the stellar evolution when the outer convective envelope is shallow. Accretion taking place while the star was still on the pre-main-sequence, and consequently having a large convective envelope, would have little effect on stars’ observed metallicities. The time it takes for a planet to migrate to a $`<0.1`$ AU orbit, in our model, is $`>10^7`$ yr. Once the planet stops its migration, planetesimals inside its orbit are quickly cleared out. As shown by Ford et al. (1999), the right time to produce the observed metallicities is at $`23\times 10^7`$ yr. This value can therefore be regarded as an important constraint for disc models.

## 5 Conclusions

The discovery (Mayor & Queloz 1995; Marcy & Butler 1996; Butler & Marcy 1996; Butler et al. 1997; Cochran et al. 1997; Noyes et al. 1997) of extra-solar planets has revitalized the discussion on the theory of planetary system formation and evolution. Although close giant planets formation may be theoretically possible (Wuchterl 1993; Wuchterl 1996), it requires the initial formation of a solid core of at least 5 $`÷`$ 10 $`M_{}`$ which may be difficult to achieve very close to the parent star. It is therefore more likely that Jupiter-mass extra-solar planets cannot form at small heliocentric distances (Boss 1995; Guillot et al. 1996). After those discoveries, the idea that planets can migrate radially (Goldreich & Tremaine 1980; Ward & Hourigan 1989; Lin & Papaloizou 1993; Lin et al. 1996) for long distances has been taken more seriously than was made in the past years.
In this paper, we showed that dynamical friction between the planet and a planetesimals disc is an important mechanism for planet migration. We showed that migration of $`1M_J`$ planet to small heliocentric distances ($`0.05`$ AU) is possible for a disc with a total mass of $`10^4÷10^2M_{}`$ (we remember that, according to Stepinski & Valageas 1996, and Murray et. al 1998, only $`1\%`$ of the disc mass is in the form of solid particles) if the planetesimal disc does not dissipate during the planet migration or if the disc has $`M_\mathrm{D}>0.01M_{}`$ and the planetesimals are dissipated in $`10^8`$ yr. The model predicts that massive planets can be present at any heliocentric distances for the right value of disc mass and time evolution.
We also showed that the drift velocity of planets and than the migration time are very similar to the predictions of the density wave approach (Ward 1997): the drift velocity increases as $`M`$ for masses smaller than $`0.1M_{}`$ and is constant for larger masses. Finally we showed that the metallicity enhancement observed in several stars having extrasolar planets can also be explained, similarly to what proposed by Murray et al. (1998) and Ford et al. (1999) by means of scattering of planetesimals onto the parent star, after the planet reached its final configuration. Comparing our model with other models, that attempt to explain planets migration, we think our model has some advantages:
1) differently from models based on the density wave theory (Goldreich & Tremaine 1980; Ward 1986, 1997), our model does not require a peculiar mechanism to stop the inward migration (Lin et al. 1996). Planet halt is naturally provided by the model. It can explain planets found at heliocentric distances of $`>0.1`$ AU or planets having larger values of eccentricity. It can explain metallicity enhancements observed in stars having planets in short-period orbits;
2) differently from Murray et al. (1998) model, our model shows that radial migration is possible with not too massive planetesimals disc (which is one of the drawbacks of the Murray’s et al. (1998) model) and predicts the right metallicity enhancement.

## Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous referees whose comments and suggestions helped us to improve the quality of this work. We are grateful to E. Ford and E. Spedicato for stimulating discussions during the period in which this work was performed. A. Del Popolo and E.Nihal Ercan would like to thank Bo$`\stackrel{˘}{g}azi`$çi University Research Foundation for the financial support through the project code 01B304.