text:
# Exact Optics: A unification of optical telescope design.

## 1 Introduction

When the author saw the optical design for the corrector of the Hobby–Eberly Telescope, which involved four reflections after the primary and produced a four minute of arc field, he decided that it ought to be possible to do better. This led him to study optics from first principles. The methods used have much in common with those of Descartes (1634), (see Smith 1925) but the author has one signal advantage in that Newton’s calculus is known now, whereas Descartes (1596–1650) had to rely on geometry alone; (indeed it is of some interest that Descartes seems to have invented analytical geometry in order to solve optical problems). Optics and optical phenomena have stimulated work by many great scientists besides Descartes. Galileo (1564–1642), Mersenne (1588–1650)(1636), Fermat (1601–1665), Huygens (1629–1695), Hooke (1635–1702), Newton (1642–1727)(1704), W. Herschel (1738–1822), Young (1773–1829)(1802), Fresnel (1788–1827), Hamilton (1788–1856)(1824, 1830, 1832, 1931), Foucault (1819–1868), Zeiss (1816–1888), Seidel (1821–1896)(1856), Maxwell (1831–1879), Abbe (1840–1905), Michelson (1852–1931), Schwarzschild (1873–1916)(1905), Schmidt (1879–1935)(1931), Einstein (1879–1955), Zernicke (1888–1966) made major advances in our understanding. The work of Lord Rosse (1800–1867), Ritchey (1864-1945) and Chrétien (1879–1956)(1922) much improved the optics of large telescopes.

In past centuries aspheric surfaces were very expensive and difficult to make, so attention was concentrated on spherical surfaces or those whose profiles were conic sections (see e.g., Schwarzschild (1905)). The coming of computers has enabled the designer to evaluate the performance of even very complicated optics with ease. Thus computers may be programmed to optimise a design according to whatever criteria are chosen. This has revolutionised optical design. In reality the design is computed by directed trial and error. In the hands of an experienced optical designer this is a very powerful and adaptable method which will doubtless remain the prime tool for the foreseeable future, see e.g., Willstrop, R.V. (1987) who gave a fine wide–field telescope design. Angel’s wide–field survey telescope is based on a development of this design with smaller field and a smaller hole in the primary. I understand that this is now to be built with an eight metre primary mirror.

Traditional optical theory expands all the trigonometric functions in powers of the angles. Baker (1940) and Burch (1942) implemented Petzval’s theory to eliminate the lowest order astigmatism, and the book by Korsch (1992) gives an account of further developments in that direction. Computer based ray–tracing developed by Wynne (1959, 1974) led to fine designs for multi-element glass prime focus correctors which gave larger fields to a whole generation of optical telescopes. However, the design of aerials for centimeter and millimeter radio astronomy and communications led to a requirement for very fast designs where the angles were not small. The coming of computers has allowed such designs to be investigated numerically and this led to a new flowering of computationally based optics. The book by Mertz (1996) gives original, fast and imaginative optical designs. Methods for fast optical designing are given in the book by Cornbleet (1994). This is no place to discuss the myriad of designs produced by computer optics because the paper is devoted to analytical mathematical theory.

Quite recently new optical fabrication techniques have made it possible to produce mirrors of any desired profile, although those with axial symmetry are still much cheaper. This makes the study of systems with mirrors which may be of any shape especially topical. Whereas the earliest workers prescribed the shapes and then asked what the system would do, cataloging its failures as “aberrations”, the modern ray–tracing methods are really solving an inverse problem in which the mirror shapes are varied until the desired performance is achieved as closely as possible. Here we shall use analytical methods but leave the shapes of the two mirrors to be determined so as to give an exact on–axis focus near which all rays give equal magnification. We show that this problem may be solved exactly yielding a two parameter family of exact ray–optical solutions even for very fast $`F`$ ratios. Some of our solutions are more appropriate for spectrograph cameras than for telescopes. Others, with exact foci at which the rays enter over a hemisphere or more, may be appropriate for solar furnaces or lighthouses. In discovering exact formulae for all two mirror telescopes/cameras with neither spherical aberration nor coma the difficult part is not in proving the theorems but in finding the right variables so that the problem can be solved analytically in parametric form. Directed trial and error by a persistent mathematician who feels the problem is simple enough to have a nice solution, here replaces the directed trial and error of the optical designer with a computer. However, although the analytical method covers all cases at once, it is confined to perfect images at and close to the optic axis, whereas the main interest lies in the breadth of field off the axis. The author has gained much from the tutelage of an expert on optics, Dr R.V. Willstrop, and he has used his computer ray–tracing methods to show that these designs give as good off–axis performance as those designed with computers.

Although there are some new designs to be found among our two parameter set of solutions, most of the useful designs were discovered long ago. In this respect, the present paper may be regarded as a unification of all those optical designs into analytical formulae. These formulae have the small advantage of giving ‘perfect’ on axis performance. The reason we have concentrated on the removal of spherical aberration and coma is that these aberrations depend on the lowest powers of the angle off axis, $`\alpha `$. They are therefore the dominant aberrations close to the axis. Table 1 gives the behaviour of the aberrations with that angle and with the $`F`$ ratio, $`F=`$ focal length/aperture.

Whereas our systems are free of the first two aberrations by design, some of them are also free of astigmatism. It may be argued that digital recorders may in principle be made to fit field curvature, and distortion is readily removed in the computer.

Even on axis, the rays emerging from some achromatic axially symmetrical optical train do not generally give a good focus; rather those rays at an angle $`2\theta `$ to the axis will cross it at some point $`x(\theta )`$ which depends on $`\theta `$. The function $`x(\theta )`$ plays a prominent role in our analysis so we call it the defocusing function. Only when it is constant do all the rays pass through a focus without any corrector. Such systems are said to have no spherical aberration.

In section 2 we give a Lemma that shows how to correct a given set of rays for spherical aberration. This Lemma can be useful on its own when only a point focus is needed, so coma is unimportant.

We show that rays with a known defocusing function may be redirected to an exact focus at any chosen point, $`x_f`$, on axis by a corrector mirror whose pole is at $`x_c`$. This mirror’s shape and size are given explicitly in terms of the defocusing function $`x(\theta )`$ and the parameters $`x_f`$ and $`x_c`$. We also show that the corrector mirror’s shape is completely determined by the uniting function $`U(\theta )`$ which unites the dependency on $`x(\theta )`$ with that on $`x_f`$ and $`x_c`$.

In section 3 we show that any given defocusing function can arise from a single primary mirror whose pole is at any chosen $`x_p`$. Thus $`x(\theta )`$ and $`x_p`$ together totally determine the shape, size and position of the primary mirror. We go on to show that any two mirror telescope is characterised by specifying just the uniting function $`U(\theta )`$ and the mirror separation $`x_px_c`$. However, most such telescopes will be almost useless save for limited point spectroscopy because the rays that come to the final focus originating from different rings of the primary mirror will arrive carrying different magnifications. Objects a little off axis will therefore suffer from coma which can be severe.

Many years ago, Abbe (1873) (see Jenkins & White 1957) gave the criterion for eliminating coma near the axis. The rays arriving at focus when projected back must meet the corresponding incoming parallel rays on a sphere centred at the focus.

In section 4 we show that Abbe’s condition used in conjunction with the results of sections 2 and 3 gives a differential equation which we solve to determine the shapes of both primary mirror and corrector. Thus we have determined all perfect–focus two mirror telescopes. The resulting systems depend on three parameters: 1. The scale; 2. A dimensionless ratio $`s`$ that determines the separation of the two mirrors in units of effective focal length of the whole system; 3. The dimensionless ratio $`K`$ that measures the distance of final focus from the secondary measured in that unit. Thus section 4 proves the main theorem, and gives the shapes of the mirror systems parameterised by $`s`$ and $`K`$.

This paper derives and explores the properties of such systems on axis. Their properties off axis are best explored by ray tracing. The accompanying paper describes the results of such studies.

We thank the referee for pointing out, that the problem of designing two aspheric surfaces has been considered more concisely by Born & Wolf (1999) and is the subject of their paragraphs 4.10.1 and 4.10.2. Indeed they treat both the lens and the mirror cases, but paragraph 4.10.2 ends somewhat lamely by giving two complicated simultaneous first order non-linear differential equations with their boundary conditions and saying that they may be integrated numerically case by case. The advance made here is that for two mirrors new variables are found in terms of which the differential equations are integrated analytically to give the general solution for the mirrors’ shapes. Exploration of the full panoply of solutions, for all $`s`$ all $`K`$ and all $`F`$-numbers, is therefore made easy. The actual mirror shapes found for very fast systems have cusps and asymptotes which might prove awkward to compute numerically over the full range in the variables of Born & Wolf. However fore-warned is fore-armed and given the answers here derived those who prefer totally numerical work will no doubt be able now to reproduce each particular case in turn, to the accuracy of the computation.

## 2 A spherical aberration corrector for any rays with an axis

Let the rays emerging from some optical train at an angle $`2\theta `$ to the axis intersect it at some point $`x(\theta )`$ as in Figure 1. We wish to find the shape of a corrector mirror (with pole at $`x_c`$) which will bring rays of all $`\theta `$ to an exact focus at some prescribed point on axis, $`x_f`$.

### Lemma

Spherical aberration can be eliminated by a corrector mirror whose shape $`R(X)`$ is given parametrically as $`R(\theta ),X(\theta )`$, where

$`R(\theta )=U\mathrm{}(\theta )\left[\mathrm{sin}2\theta \left({\displaystyle \frac{1\tau ^2}{2\tau }}\right)\mathrm{cos}2\theta \right],`$
$`X(\theta )=x_fU\mathrm{}(\theta )\left[\mathrm{cos}2\theta \left({\displaystyle \frac{1\tau ^2}{2\tau }}\right)+\mathrm{sin}2\theta \right],`$
where the uniting function $`U(\theta )`$ is given by

$`U(\theta )={\displaystyle _0^\theta }\left[x_fx(\theta )\right]\mathrm{sin}2\theta d\theta (x_fx_c)`$
$`U\mathrm{}(\theta )=dU/d\theta =\left[x_fx(\theta )\right]\mathrm{sin}2\theta ,`$
and

$`\tau ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}U\mathrm{}(\theta )/U(\theta ).`$
Notice that the shape of the mirror is determined completely once the uniting function $`U(\theta )`$ is known but for the position of the mirror we need to know $`x_f`$ as well as the function $`U(\theta )`$

### Proof

From the geometry of figure 1a, a point $`(X,R)`$ on the corrector mirror must obey

$$R/[Xx(\theta )]=\mathrm{tan}2\theta ,$$
(1)
$$x_fX=\rho \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,$$
(2)
$$R=\rho \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(3)
Eliminating $`R`$ and $`X`$ from (1), (2) and (3) we find,

$$\rho (\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}2\theta +\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}2\theta )=\left[x_fx(\theta )\right]\mathrm{sin}2\theta g(\theta ).$$
(4)
As $`x(\theta )`$ and $`x_f`$ are both known, $`g(\theta )`$ may be thought of as given. Writing c.f. fig.1a

$$2\theta +\varphi =2\psi ,$$
(5)
(4) simplifies to give,

$$\rho \mathrm{sin}2\psi =g(\theta ).$$
(6)
The gradient of the corrector mirror can be described in $`\rho ,\varphi `$ polar coordinates at the focus as in figure 1b.

$$\rho ^1d\rho /d\varphi =\mathrm{tan}\psi =\tau .$$
(7)
Differentiating (5) with respect to $`\mathrm{ln}\rho `$,

$`2d\theta /d\mathrm{ln}\rho (1d\psi /d\theta )=\rho d\varphi /d\rho =1/\tau ,`$
so

$$d\mathrm{ln}\rho /d\theta =2\tau (1d\psi /d\theta ).$$
(8)
But, by taking logs and differentiating (6)

$`d\mathrm{ln}\rho /d\theta +\left[\left(1\tau ^2\right)/\tau \right]d\psi /d\theta =g\mathrm{}(\theta )/g.`$
Substituting for $`d\mathrm{ln}\rho /d\theta `$ from (8) and multiplying by $`g/\tau `$

$`g\mathrm{}/\tau \left[\left(1+\tau ^2\right)/\tau ^2\right]\left(d\psi /d\theta \right)g=2g;`$
But from (7), $`(1+\tau ^2)d\psi /d\theta `$ is $`d\tau /d\theta `$ so the left hand side is just $`d(g/\tau )/d\theta `$. We integrate and obtain

$${\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(g/\tau )=U(\theta ),$$
(9)
where $`U=_0^\theta g(\theta )𝑑\theta C`$ and $`U\mathrm{}(\theta )=g`$.

$`C`$ is the constant of integration which we determine by taking $`\psi `$ small then $`\rho \frac{1}{2}g/\tau =UC`$. Furthermore from figure 1, $`\theta `$ is then small and $`\rho x_fx_x`$. Hence $`C=x_fx_c`$ so $`U`$ is totally determined by $`x(\theta ),x_f\mathrm{and}x_c`$,

$$U=_0^\theta [x_fx(\theta )]\mathrm{sin}2\theta d\theta (x_fx_c).$$
(10)
Since $`U(\theta )`$ is totally known in terms of given quantities, it is useful to express the final results in terms of $`U`$. From (9)

$$\tau ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}U\mathrm{}/U,$$
(11)
so $`\tau \mathrm{tan}\psi `$ is known, so from (6),

$$\rho =U\mathrm{}/\mathrm{sin}2\psi ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\tau ^2)U\mathrm{}/\tau =(U^2+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{4}}U^2)/U.$$
(12)
If we put $`T=\mathrm{tan}(\varphi /2)`$ and $`t=\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ then

$$T=\mathrm{tan}(\theta \psi )=(t\tau )/(1+t\tau ),$$
(13)
so $`T`$ is a known function of $`\theta `$ since (11) gives $`\tau (\theta )`$. The equations that determine the corrector’s shape are now parametric equations in terms of $`\theta `$ with $`U(\theta )`$ via (10), $`\tau `$ via (11), $`\rho `$ via (12) and $`T`$ via (13),

$$R=\rho 2T/(1+T^2),$$
(14)
and

$$X=x_f\rho (1T^2)/(1+T^2),$$
(15)
or equivalently,

$$R(\theta )=U\mathrm{}(\theta )\left[\mathrm{sin}2\theta \left(\frac{1\tau ^2}{2\tau }\right)\mathrm{cos}2\theta \right],$$
(16)
$$X(\theta )=x_fU\mathrm{}(\theta )\left[\mathrm{cos}2\theta \left(\frac{1\tau ^2}{2\tau }\right)+\mathrm{sin}2\theta \right].$$
(17)
Q.E.D.

Notice that these equations give $`R(\theta )`$ and $`X(\theta )`$ uniquely once $`x(\theta )`$ and the parameters $`x_f`$ & $`x_c`$ are known. Equivalently, if $`U(\theta )`$ is taken as known, then the shape of the corrector mirror is determined by (11), (16), (17) and different values of $`x_f`$ give the same mirror displaced provided that the same function $`U(\theta )`$ is used. In this respect $`U(\theta )`$ is more closely related to the corrector’s shape than is the defocusing function $`x(\theta )`$. Notice also that systems for which the corrector has the same intrinsic shape but are scaled up by a factor $`\lambda `$ have $`\lambda U`$ replacing $`U`$. So in this respect too the function $`U`$ characterises the corrector mirror. It is therefore sensible to use $`U(\theta )`$ rather than $`x(\theta )`$ where this is possible.

In any particular case we plot $`R(\theta )`$ against $`X(\theta )`$ to get the corrector’s shape.

Post–focus correctors are already included in the analysis if we allow for $`\varphi `$ being of the opposite sign to $`\theta `$ and $`R<0`$. Since the solution – (14) (15) – is given parametrically, we may expect to encounter the cusps and folds of catastrophe theory. Indeed, some of the strangest mirrors come from these.

This Lemma is formally stated here because it is needed in the proof of the main theorem in section 4. The Lemma is not new. Cornbleet (1994) states that $`x(\theta )`$ determines the mirror’s shape, and the principles on which the Lemma is based are clearly stated by Descartes (1634).

### Example – Correctors for a Spherical Primary Mirror

Parallel rays fall on a concave spherical mirror of radius of curvature $`a`$. The reflected rays at angle $`2\theta `$ to the axis meet it at points distant $`a(1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sec}\theta )`$ from the pole, i.e., at

$`{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}a(\mathrm{sec}\theta 1)x(\theta ),`$
from the paraxial focus of rays at small $`\theta `$. We measure $`x(\theta )`$ in the direction of the original parallel rays and here we have taken the origin of $`x`$ at the paraxial focus. While this choice is convenient here, more generally we shall take the defocusing function to be measured from the zero point of whatever coordinate system is in use.

$`U\mathrm{}(\theta )=g(\theta )=\left[x_f{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}a(\mathrm{sec}\theta 1)\right]\mathrm{sin}2\theta =`$
$`\left[2x_f\mathrm{cos}\theta a(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\right]\mathrm{sin}\theta ,`$
$`U(\theta )={\displaystyle _0^\theta }g(\theta )𝑑\theta x_f+x_c=x_f{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\mathrm{cos}2\theta )+`$
$`+a\left[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{4}}(1\mathrm{cos}2\theta )(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\right]+x_c.`$
Thus $`\tau ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}U\mathrm{}/U=`$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\frac{x_f\mathrm{sin}2\theta a(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta }{x_cx_f\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +a\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\right]}.\mathrm{e}$$
(18)
The shapes of all possible correctors are now specified by (16) & (17) with $`\rho (\theta )`$ given by (12) and $`\tau (\theta )`$ by e(18). One merely plots $`R(\theta )`$ against $`X(\theta )`$ to get the form of the corrector mirror.

For a corrected focus at the original polar focus at $`(0,0)`$, we take $`x_f=0`$ and plot four possible corrector mirrors as figure 2a. Extreme rays at $`2\theta =\pm 0.4`$ radians are drawn. The spherical aberration has them crossing at about 0.01 rather than at zero. After hitting any one of these correctors these (and all other rays) will be redirected to pass through the new exact focus at $`0`$.

One of the mirrors is now very strangely shaped (like a trumpet), with a pronounced cusp at the focus. It reflects some rays by external glancing incidence (actually 62% of the light, see figure 3) but gets in the way of those near the axis. We shall say more of this later.

In figure 2b we draw four other correctors for the same spherical primary but we have now moved the final focus to $`0.05`$ to the left of the original paraxial focus. Again all these mirrors reflect the diverging rays to the new focus and all are possible alternative correctors for spherical aberration.

Figure 2c is the same as the others, but now the final focus is to the right of the uncorrected one, so all the mirrors reflect the rays back to make the corrected focus at $`+0.05`$.

The diagrams illustrate the variety of corrector mirrors for just one primary, a fast sphere. There is a two parameter set of possible correctors, however, most of them suffer from very bad coma when used off axis. Most of the rest of this paper is concerned with the question of eliminating this coma by suitable choices of the shapes of both primary and secondary mirrors. We now show that the very strange cusped mirror of figure 2a satisfies Abbe’s condition and has no coma although its peculiar shape gives it a very small field.

This unusual, but interesting, trumpet–shaped corrector is found by taking $`x_f=x_c=0`$ in e(18). Then

$$g=U\mathrm{}=a(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{e}$$
(19)
$$U=a(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\left[\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )1\right],\mathrm{e}$$
(20)
$$\tau =\frac{1}{2}\frac{U\mathrm{}}{U}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\mathrm{cot}(\theta /2)=\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\theta }{2}+\frac{\pi }{2}\right).\mathrm{e}$$
(21)
So

$$2\psi =\theta +\pi \mathrm{and}\varphi =\pi \theta .\mathrm{e}$$
(22)
For such a corrector the rays are not reflected back but are given a glancing reflection which allows them to continue to the focus, see Figure 3. In this case the focus coincides with the paraxial focus of the uncorrected rays. The shape of the corrector as given by (6) and e(21) is

$$\rho =a(1+\mathrm{cos}\varphi )=(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }),\mathrm{e}$$
(23)
which is a cardiod with its cusp at the focus. We have defined the acute angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\pi \varphi `$ which for this system is equal to $`\theta `$. Thus after correction the rays halve their angle to the axis and come into the focus at $`\theta `$ rather than $`2\theta `$. Since the focus is $`a/2`$ from the mirror’s centre of curvature, such rays are parallel to the normals to the primary mirror at the points where they hit it. Since the focus is at $`a/2`$ beyond the centre of curvature, the extrapolated rays from focus meet the corresponding extrapolated incoming parallel rays on a sphere $`a/2`$ behind the primary mirror. Thus the sphere and the cardiod corrector give an example of a perfect focus telescope obeying Abbe’s condition (see section 4). The final image is therefore free of coma. We explore this system in another paper because it leads to very small correctors for very fast spheres.

## 3 The Primary is determined by the defocusing function

Clearly any primary mirror will have a defocusing function, but in this section we are interested in the inverse problem of determining the shape of the primary mirror when defocusing function $`x(\theta )`$ is known and is due to just the primary.

Let $`(X_p,R_p)`$ be a point on the primary mirror as in figure 1. From the geometry

$$R_p=(X_px(\theta ))\mathrm{tan}2\theta ,$$
(24)
and

$$dX_p/dR_p=\mathrm{tan}\theta =t.$$
(25)
Equation (24) may be rewritten

$$\left[\left(1t^2\right)/(2t)\right]R_p=X_px.$$
(26)
Differentiating with respect to $`t`$ and using (25) for $`dX_p/dR_p`$,

$$\frac{1+t^2}{2t}\frac{dR_p}{dt}\frac{1+t^2}{2t^2}R_p=\frac{dx}{dt},$$
(27)
and hence

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{R_p}{t}\right)=\frac{2}{1+t^2}\frac{dx}{dt}.$$
(28)
On integrating by parts and multiplying by $`t`$

$$R_p=\frac{2t}{1+t^2}x2t\left[_0^t\frac{2xt}{\left(1+t^2\right)^2}𝑑tc_1\right],$$
(29)
therefore

$$R_p=x\mathrm{sin}2\theta 2\mathrm{tan}\theta \left[_0^\theta x\mathrm{sin}2\theta d\theta c_1\right].$$
(30)
This gives $`R_p`$ in terms of $`\theta `$, and $`X_p`$ is then determined in terms of $`\theta `$ via (24). Hence (30) and (24) give parametric equations for determining the primary mirror’s shape. Notice that this shape depends on the integration constant $`c_1`$. We may determine this by dividing (30) by $`\mathrm{tan}2\theta `$ and then letting $`\theta 0`$ the left hand side becomes $`x_px(0)`$ from (24), with $`x_p`$ the position of the primary’s pole. The right hand side becomes $`x(0)+c_1`$ so $`c_1=x_p`$ and the only parameter is thus the position of the primary.

We found that $`U(\theta )`$ was preferable to $`x(\theta )`$ at least for the specification of the corrector. It is therefore of interest to re-express the equations for the primary in terms of $`U(\theta )`$ rather than $`x(\theta )`$. From (10)

$$x(\theta )=x_fU\mathrm{}(\theta )/\mathrm{sin}2\theta ;$$
(31)
using this and expression (10) for $`U`$ in (30) we find

$$R_p=+U\mathrm{}+2\mathrm{tan}\theta (U+x_px_c).$$
(32)
<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>footnotetext: when $`x_f<x_c`$ (32) must have $`x_px_c`$ replaced by $`x_p+x_c2x_f`$

Thus, if the function $`U(\theta )`$ is given, the mirror separation $`x_px_c`$ will give us $`R_p(\theta )`$, and $`X_p(\theta )`$ is given by (24)

$$X_p=R_p\mathrm{cot}2\theta U\mathrm{}/\mathrm{sin}2\theta +x_f.$$
(33)
A number of corrector mirrors for a fast sphere are illustrated in figure 2 a, b, c. The rays are drawn for the strangest of these in figure 3. Just as for the secondary, the shape of the primary is determined by $`U(\theta )`$ but it now needs also the mirror separation. The parameter $`x_f`$ is needed only if we want to locate the two–mirror system within our arbitrary coordinate system. Thus $`U(\theta )`$ together with the separation $`x_px_c`$ specifies the 2 mirrors. Notice that we can, if we so wish, choose a coordinate system zeroed at final focus, in which case $`x_f=0`$ and that parameter vanishes from the system.

Glancing incidence primaries can be included in the same analysis by letting $`\theta `$ take the values between $`\pi /4`$ and $`\pi /2`$.

## 4 The Basic Theorem on Two Mirror Systems

We have shown that the uniting function $`U(\theta )`$ together with the mirror separation determines the shapes of both mirrors. We now show how the equal magnification or no coma condition of Abbe can be used to determine $`U(\theta )`$. Abbe’s condition (Abbe 1873) is that rays approaching the final focus when extrapolated back to meet their corresponding incoming parallel rays must intersect them on a sphere centred at the focus. In our notation this means

$$R_p=b\mathrm{sin}\varphi $$
(34)
where $`b`$ is the radius of the Abbe sphere which is the effective focal length of the optical system.

### Theorem

In any two mirror telescope with no spherical aberration and no coma, the angle of the rays to the axis after reflection in the primary, $`2\theta `$, is related to the angle $`\varphi `$ at which those rays enter the final focus by

$$t=\frac{1}{s}\left[T/(1+T^2)\right]\left[1K|1T^2/\eta |^\eta \right],$$
(35)
where $`t=\mathrm{tan}\theta ,T=\mathrm{tan}\varphi /2,\eta =s/(1s)`$ and $`s`$ and $`K`$ are constants which give the mirror separation and position of final focus as fraction of the effective focal length, $`b`$. Furthermore, the shape of the primary mirror $`R_p(X_p)`$ is given parametrically in terms of $`T`$ and $`t(T)`$ by

$$R_p=2bT/(1+T^2),$$
(36)
$$X_p=b\left\{s(1+T^2)^1+(t/T)\left[sT^2/(1+T^2)\right]\right\},$$
(37)
where the origin has been chosen at the final focus, $`(x_f=0)`$. Finally the corrector or secondary mirror $`R(X)`$ is given parametrically by

$$R=\rho 2T/(1+T^2),$$
(38)
$$X=\rho (1T^2)/(1+T^2),$$
(39)
where

$$\rho =bK|1T^2/\eta |^\eta /(1tT).$$
(40)
### Proof

Rewriting (32) in terms of $`U`$ by using (5) and (11) we find, on simplification

$$R_p=2U\left[\mathrm{tan}\left(\theta +\varphi /2\right)\mathrm{tan}\theta \right]+2\left(x_px_c\right)\mathrm{tan}\theta .$$
(41)
(34) and (41) allow us to express $`U`$ in terms of $`\theta ,\varphi ,b`$ and the dimensionless separation of the mirror $`s`$

$$s=(x_px_c)/b.$$
(42)
Thus

$$U=b\left(s\mathrm{tan}\theta \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \right)/\left[\mathrm{tan}(\theta +\varphi /2)\mathrm{tan}\theta \right].$$
(43)
Now write $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi /2=T`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =t`$ as previously and so obtain

$`\mathrm{tan}(\theta +\varphi /2)\mathrm{tan}\theta =\left[t+T(1tT)t\right]/(1tT)=`$
$`=T(1+t^2)/(1tT).`$
Using this in (43) we find with (34)

$$U=b\left[stT^1(1+T^2)^1\right](1tT)/(1+t^2).$$
(44)
Differentiating $`\mathrm{ln}U`$ with respect to $`T`$ we find

$`U^1dU/dT={\displaystyle \frac{stT^2+2T(1+T^2)^2}{stT^1(1+T^2)^1}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{1tT}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dT}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{sT^1}{stT^1(1+T^2)^1}}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{1tT}}{\displaystyle \frac{2t}{1+t^2}}\right\}.`$ (45)
But, by (11) and (5)

$`U^1dU/dTdT/dtdt/d\theta =U^1dU/d\theta =`$
$`=2\mathrm{tan}(\theta +\varphi /2)=2(t+T)/(1tT).`$ (46)
Dividing by $`(dT/dt)(1+t^2)dT/dtdt/d\theta `$ we find

$$U^1dU/dT=2(dt/dT)(t+T)/\left[(1+t^2)(1tT)\right]$$
(47)
with which we replace the left hand side of (45) to give a differential equation for $`t(T)`$. In this the last two terms in the coefficient of $`dt/dT`$ on the right combine with those from the left to give $`+T/(1tT)`$. Multiplying by $`T\left[stT^1(1+T^2)^1\right](1tT)`$ a miracle occurs in that the resulting equation is linear in $`t`$, viz

$$\frac{dt}{dT}\left(s\frac{T^2}{1+T^2}\right)\frac{t}{T}\left[s\frac{T^2(1T^2)}{(1+T^2)^2}\right]=\frac{2T^2}{(1+T^2)^2}.$$
(48)
Such equations have integrating factors, $`I`$, and (see Appendix),

$$I=T^1(1+T^2)|1T^2/\eta |^\eta ,$$
(49)
where

$$\eta =s/(1s),s=\eta /(\eta +1).$$
(50)
(48) becomes,

$$\frac{d(It)}{dT}=2\iota s^1T|1T^2/\eta |^{\eta 1},$$
(51)
where $`\iota =\pm 1`$ according as $`1T^2/\eta `$ is positive or negative. On integration, we find for $`\eta 1`$

$$t=\frac{1}{s}\left[T/(1+T^2)\right]\left[1K|1T^2/\eta |^\eta \right],$$
(52)
where $`K/s`$ is the constant of integration.

Q.E.D.

Using this expression for $`t`$ in the first factor of (44)

$$U=bK\frac{(1tT)|1T^2/\eta |^\eta }{(1+t^2)(1+T^2)}.$$
(53)
Now by (10) $`U(x_fx_c)`$ as $`\theta 0`$ and assuming $`T0`$

$$bK=x_fx_\iota .\mathrm{Hence}K=(x_fx_c)/b.$$
(54)
Thus $`K`$ determines the amount by which the focus lies downstream of the corrector in terms of the effective focal length $`b`$. (52) in the light of (50) depends on only two parameters $`K`$ and $`s`$. These are the distance from the corrector mirror to the final focus and the mirror separation both measured in terms of the effective focal length $`b`$.

The drawing and the limit on which the interpretation is based have assumed that when $`\theta 0,T0`$. This is correct when the corrector mirror reflects the rays towards the primary mirror but is incorrect for the glancing reflection corrector for the sphere considered in the example of section 2. For such systems $`\varphi \pi \theta `$ so $`T=\mathrm{tan}\varphi /2\mathrm{}`$ as $`\theta 0`$. Looking at (52) we find that case is given by taking $`\eta =1`$ $`(s=\frac{1}{2})`$ and $`K=2`$ so that as before

$$t=2T/(1T^2).$$
(55)
Returning to the normal case but with $`T`$ and $`t`$ both small

$$t\left(\frac{1+r}{\eta }\right)\left(1K\right)T\mathrm{so}\theta =\left(\frac{1\eta }{\eta }\right)\left(1K\right)\varphi /2.$$
(56)
we therefore see that $`\eta `$ small gives $`\theta \varphi `$ while $`\eta `$ large gives $`\theta (1K)\frac{1}{2}\varphi `$.

We notice that $`\theta `$ is also small when $`T^2\eta \left[1K^{1/\eta }\right]`$. When $`K=1`$ and $`T`$ is small $`t=\{(1\eta )/\eta ]T^3`$ so $`\varphi =2\left[\eta \theta /(1+\eta )\right]^{1/3}`$.

### 4.1 The Forms of the Mirrors

With $`U`$ given by (53) , $`U\mathrm{}`$ may be found from (46)

$$U\mathrm{}=2bK\frac{(t+T)|1T^2/\eta |^\eta }{(1+t^2)(1+T^2)},$$
(57)
hence from (12)

$$\frac{\rho }{b}=K\frac{|1T^2/\eta |^\eta }{1tT},$$
(58)
with $`\rho `$ known as a function of $`T`$ (14) & (15) determine $`R`$ and $`X`$ parametrically as functions of $`T`$. $`x_f`$ merely gives a zero–point shift which we may take zero so the shape of the corrector is known.

For the primary (34) gives $`R_p=2bT/(1+T^2)`$. Using this and (43) in (33) we find

$$X_px_f=b\left[s\frac{1}{1+T^2}+\frac{t}{T}\left(s\frac{T^2}{1+T^2}\right)\right];$$
(59)
this gives a parametric equation in terms of $`T`$ for the primary mirror. This completes the proof of the second half of the theorem i.e., that which gives the mirror shapes.

## 5 Singularities Asymptotes and Catastrophes in the Mirrors

After equation (17) we commented that because the equations for the corrector mirror’s shape are parametric, cusps and singularities can be expected. Indeed the general theory of the shapes obtained when the parameters of parametric equations are eliminated is called Catastrophe Theory and not without reason. Poincaré was the first to develop it and he applied it both in orbit theory and to the theory of rotating liquid masses. More recently the theory was much developed and elaborated by Thom, Zeeman and Arnold. Both mirrors of the coma and spherical aberration free optical systems are defined by parametric equations so we can expect cusps to occur at special points of each of our mirrors for some $`s,K`$ values. Also it is quite possible for a mathematically defined mirror to reach out to infinity and to come back from the other direction as such asymptotes are common in mathematics. In practice only a small part of a mathematically designed mirror is made and much has to be left out anyway to let the light see the pieces of mirror that are to be used.

Since the special points where cusps or asymptotes occur in the mirror shapes can be determined from a study of the equations that define the mirrors, we now step aside from the main line of this paper to make such a study. Of course it is possible just to draw the shapes of the mirrors from the parametric equations and so discover the singular points merely by observation. Those less interested in mathematics may be well advised to go straight to figure 4 which describes the special points encountered on the mirrors for each value of $`s`$ and $`K`$. The theory that precedes that figure allows the reader to understand why the boundaries between mirrors with different types of cusps or asymptotes occur where they do in the $`s,K`$ parameter space.

$`R_p=2bT/(1+T^2)`$ maximises at $`b`$ when $`T=1`$, that is $`\varphi =\pi /2`$. At that $`\varphi `$ the rays approach the final focus at right angles to the axis. Now from (25) $`dX_p/dT=tdR_p/dT`$ so $`dX_p/dT`$ is also zero at $`T=1`$. Both $`R_p(T)`$ and $`X_p(T)`$ turn back at the same point which makes a cusp in the primary mirror. These cusps point in the direction of increasing $`x`$ when $`t(1)<0`$ and decreasing $`x`$ when $`t(1)>0`$ where $`t(1)=\frac{1}{2s}\left[1K|2\frac{1}{s}|^{s/(s1)}\right]`$. Beyond this cusp the rays enter the final focus backwards $`(\varphi >\pi /2)T>1`$ and we refer to the primary as having its second sheet, see Figure 5a. Since $`R_p`$ remains in the range $`0R_pb`$ for all $`T`$ its radius is always finite, however this does not mean that the mirror is always finite because it can reach out to infinity in directions parallel to the axis. We may rewrite (37)

$$X_p=bsb\left[1(st/T)(1T^2/\eta )\right]/(1+T^2).$$

Using (35) for $`(st/T)`$ we see that $`|X_p|\mathrm{}`$ when and only when $`(1T^2/\eta )^{1\eta }/(1+T^2)^2\mathrm{}`$. This occurs for $`\eta >1`$ when $`T^2=\eta `$ and for $`\eta <1`$ when $`T\mathrm{}`$. The latter case gives a singular backward $`(x\mathrm{})`$ spike on axis for the primary’s second sheet when $`s>1`$. The former case also occurs on the second sheet since $`T^2=\eta >1`$. The mirror then asymptotes to the cylinder $`R_p=2b\eta ^{1/2}/(1+\eta )`$. For $`K>0`$ the mirror approaches this cylinder from the outside ($`R_p`$ decreasing) as $`T`$ increases towards $`\eta `$ and $`X_p\mathrm{}`$. The mirror then reappears at large positive $`X_p`$ and decreasing $`X_p`$ with $`R_p`$ still decreasing. For $`K<0`$ the $`X_p`$ behaviour is reversed.

As $`T\mathrm{}`$ the second sheet of the primary approaches the axis. From (25) $`dX_p/dR_p=t`$ so there will only be a regular pole to the mirror’s second sheet if $`t0`$ as $`T\mathrm{}`$. We already saw that $`\eta <1,s>1`$ the mirror asymptotes to a spike on axis but from (35) $`t(\mathrm{})`$ is still not zero for $`1<\eta 1/2`$. In this range there is a cusp on axis. For $`\eta =1/2`$ it is an open cusp with $`dR_p/dX_p`$ approaching the finite gradient $`\sqrt{2}s/K`$, but for the rest of that range it is a sharp cusp with $`dR_p/dX_p=0`$ there.

The corrector mirrors also have asymptotes unless $`K/s>0`$ with $`\eta `$ negative (i.e., $`s`$ outside the range 0 to 1). Since $`R/X=\mathrm{tan}\varphi `$ these asymptotes are caused as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ and make cones with apices at the final focus. From (40) it seems as though there would be infinities in $`\rho `$ when $`T^2=\eta >0`$, but from (35) we see that $`t`$ has a compensating infinity there, so the only infinities in $`\rho `$ are when $`1tT`$ is zero. Using (35) for $`t`$ and the relation between $`s`$ and $`\eta `$ these occur when

$$(K/s)T^2=|1T^2/\eta |^\eta (1T^2/\eta ).$$

As stated earlier such asymptotes occur unless $`K/s`$ is positive and $`\eta `$ negative in which case the two sides have opposite signs. All other cases have asymptotes.

The occurrence of cusps in the corrector mirror is best considered in polar coordinates $`\rho ,\varphi `$ except that we use $`T=\mathrm{tan}\varphi /2`$ rather than $`\varphi `$. Combining equations (40) and (35) we have the following expression for $`\rho (T)`$.

$$\rho /b=K(1+T^2)/\left[(1T^2/\eta )|1T^2/\eta |^\eta +KT^2/s\right].$$

The zeros on the denominator give the asymptotes that we have just discussed. The gradient change due to the modulus sign is always eliminated by the zero of its factor $`(1T^2/\eta )`$ so does not lead to a cusp. Thus the only cusps occur at focus, $`\rho =0`$ with $`T\mathrm{}`$ and when $`\eta >0`$, i.e., $`s`$ in the range $`(0,1)`$. For $`\eta <0,\rho bs`$ as $`T\mathrm{}`$ and the secondary has a smooth regular pole just as it does when $`T0`$.

The results of this section are summarised in Figure 4.

## 6 Use of the Formulae

Mathematics can be blind and misleading. We have not required that the light can get to the primary without hitting the secondary, nor that the light can actually reach the focus. Some of the foci are virtual, sometimes it is only the backward extrapolation of the ray that is reflected from the primary that would have hit the secondary and been reflected to the focus. Thus, while we have all useful spherical–aberration–and–coma–free two mirror systems, we have to cut away unused pieces of the mirrors to get them and along with useful designs there are many useless ones. There is no substitute for drawing the designs in detail, so that one may ensure that the system can be baffled against stray light. This is done in the companion paper by Willstrop and Lynden-Bell (2002).

In figures 1–6 we assumed that the light came in from the left initially, hit the primary to the right of the diagram, and returned to hit the secondary. In applying the formulae one finds that the two parameter set of designs is best studied in the $`sK`$ plane and that when $`s`$ is negative, the light should be assumed to come in from the right instead. However, we like to maintain the convention that the light comes in from the left so we have left-right reversed figure 7.

Most of the good designs are perfect focus variants of well known ones listed in Table 2 with the values of $`K`$ and $`s`$ that give them.

Figure 5 gives the $`s=0.274,K=0.335`$ perfect focus version Ritchey–Chrétien telescope design. In 5a we have drawn just the mirrors for all values of $`T`$. The primary mirror has the full line. Its profile makes a strange wiggle just prior to the edge cusp. The second sheet is regular and remains smooth on axis. The corrector is drawn dashed; proceeding upwards on its (left-hand) first sheet it also has a wiggle but then asymptotes upper left to infinity reappearing lower right on its second sheet. This second sheet meets the axis in a cusp (in accordance with figure 4). In figure 5b the paths of some representative rays are illustrated. Clearly large parts of the secondary must be cut away to let the light hit the primary. The ray at $`\varphi /2=2.25`$ radians is reflected away from focus by the secondary and so gives only a virtual focus. The focus is marked by a larger circle. In figures 5b, 6a and 7 the primary is represented by a chain of small circles with every fifth one larger and every tenth filled in. The secondary is denoted by a chain of dots with every fifth a circle and every tenth filled. Virtual rays are dashed.

In the lower half of Figure 5c just the useful parts of the mirrors are shown along with a number of rays starting at the plane $`X=0.1`$, initially parallel to the axis, falling on the primary and secondary mirrors in turn, and ending at the focus at $`X=0.0`$. In the upper half of Figure 5c are four spot diagrams. At the left, we show the distribution of rays on the primary mirror. The other three spot diagrams are greatly enlarged, and show the computed distribution of rays at the focus. In this case the image is on axis, and all three of these spot diagrams are identical. Their size is entirely due to the limited accuracy of our computer, which uses double precision codes. The total spread of each image is under $`3\times 10^{14}`$ radians, or $`6\times 10^9`$ arc-seconds.

Figures 6 and 7 are included both to illustrate the catastrophe types of figure 4 and to demonstrate the great variety of perfect focus systems encapsulated in our formulae.

Figure 6 gives a perfect focus version of the Bowen spectrograph camera while figure 7 gives a design in which rays approach the final focus over a full hemisphere. Such coma–free designs are more suitable for solar furnaces or light-house beams than they are for telescopes or spectrographs.

Superficially similar designs are illustrated in Mertz (1996) who says the relevant figure originated in the work of Sebastian von Hoerner. However, on closer inspection, these designs are correctors for a spherical primary and thus cannot obey Abbe’s no coma condition exactly. In spite of this these corrector designs for a sphere may be more practical than those given here with an aspheric primary because the corrector assembly can be moved to follow the sun for a significant time even if the spherical primary is fixed. For an aspheric primary such a movement would destroy the spherical aberration correction. Mertz gives there a number of other designs for solar furnaces.

There are also designs for systems which have either primary or secondary of very low power. One of these gives an all reflecting Schmidt which replaces Schmidt’s corrector plate by a reflector which gives the returning rays just the right corrections for the sphere. Only by turning a normal Schmidt upside-down and punching a large hole in the spherical mirror could any light enter this system and its efficiency would then be very low. It may be that other ‘almost flat’ mirrors could be better replaced by suitably figured glass as in the real Schmidt. However, there are variants of the Strand astrometric telescope at Flagstaff that slightly figure the flat secondary and greatly improve the field.

In the accompanying paper (Willstrop & Lynden-Bell, 2002), we describe how to use the parametric equations of the mirrors to trace off axis rays. We also discuss the designs found over the whole $`sK`$ plane from which the above are a selection.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank Dr R.V. Willstrop for his unflagging enthusiasm and support. Roger Angel and Richard Hills helped to introduce me to the literature. Prof. R. Stobie, Director, SAAO supported a visit that generated this work.

## Appendix A Evaluation of the Integrating Factor

$`d\mathrm{ln}I/dT^2={\displaystyle \frac{s(1+T^2)^2T^2(1T^2)}{2T^2(1+T^2)\left(s+T^2(s1)\right)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1/2}{T^2}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+T^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{s+T^2(s1)}},`$ (60)
hence

$$I=T^1(1+T^2)|1T^2/\eta |^\eta ,$$
(61)
where

$$\eta =\frac{s}{1s},s=\frac{\eta }{\eta +1}.$$
(62)


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Multifractal Fits to the Observed

Main Belt Asteroid Distribution

Adriano Campo Bagatin1,2

Vicent J. Martínez3

Silvestre Paredes4

1. Departamento de Física, Ingeniería de Sistemas y Teoría de la Señal,

E.P.S.A., Universidad de Alicante

Apartado de Correos 99, 03080 Alicante, Spain

2. Physikalisches Institut, Universitaet Bern

Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland

3. Observatori Astronòmic, Universitat de València

Av. Vicent Estellés s/n, Burjassot 46100, Valencia, Spain

4. Departamento de Matemàtica Aplicada y Estadística

Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Paseo Alfonso XIII, 30203 Cartagena (Murcia), Spain

Accepted for publication in Icarus

Abstract.

Dohnanyi’s (1969) theory predicts that a collisional system such as the asteroidal population of the main belt should rapidly relax to a power-law stationary size distribution of the kind $`N(m)m^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha `$ very close to $`11/6`$, provided all the collisional response parameters are independent on size. The actual asteroid belt distribution at observable sizes, instead, does not exhibit such a simple fractal size distribution.

We investigate in this work the possibility that the corresponding cumulative distribution may be instead fairly fitted by multifractal distributions. This multifractal behavior, in contrast with the Dohnany fractal distribution, is related to the release of his hypothesis of self-similarity.

Keywords Asteroids – Collisional Physics – Planetesimals

1. Introduction

A collisional system may be defined as a population of bodies of different sizes, interacting with each other through occasional collisional events, whose probabilities per unit time are given functions of the size of the projectile and the target. As a consequence of an impact, both bodies are converted into a set of fragments whose size distribution depends on the relative size of the colliding bodies, their relative impact velocity, and a number of collisional response parameters determined by the composition, mineralogy, and possibly also their previous collisional history (Davis et al., 1992, 1993, Asphaug, 1999, Durda and Flynn, 1999). In planetary science, at least five examples of such collisional systems are often discussed: accreting planetesimals, planetary rings, the asteroid belt, the Trojan swarms systems and the Edgeworth–Kuiper Belt. To some extent, the case of the asteroid belt is the simplest one, since collisional velocities are so high that impacts mainly give raise to disruptive processes.

A useful mathematical model for the collisional evolution of the asteroid belt was introduced by Dohnanyi (1969) and independently by Hellyer (1970; for the sake of brevity, we shall refer hereinafter to Dohnanyi’s work only). This model is based on one crucial assumption: all the collisional response parameters must be size-independent, implying that the transition from cratering to fragmentation outcomes occurs for a fixed projectile–to–target mass ratio, and no self-gravitational reaccumulation of fragments is taken into account.

The most important result of Dohnanyi’s work is that, since collisional process gives raise to a cascade of fragments shifting mass toward smaller and smaller sizes, a simple power-law mass distribution is approached. Dohnanyi’s theory states that the number of bodies $`dN`$ within the mass interval $`(m,m+dm)`$ is proportional to $`m^{11/6}dm`$, or—in the diameter interval $`(D,D+dD)`$—to $`D^{7/2}dD`$, with the proportionality coefficients decreasing with time as the disruptive processes go on. The relaxation to this stationary mass distribution is fast: in the asteroid belt it occurs over a time span much shorter than the age of the solar system. Other authors (Williams and Wetherhill, 1994; Paolicchi, 1994; and Tanaka et al., 1996) confirmed these results and stated that the stationary exponent of the resulting power-law distribution is independent on the model of the collisional outcome of the fragmentation process, as long as the model remains self-similar. Moreover, they showed that the value of the exponent itself is determined only by the mass–dependence of the collisional rate (Tanaka et al., 1996). Again, Williams and Wetherill (1994) have shown that the $`11/6`$ exponent changes very little, less than $`10^4`$, when Dohnanyi’s collisional physics assumptions are varied in a substantial way, but again, if the whole process remains self-similar. Let’s stress that all along this paper we talk of self-similarity in a physical sense, that is referred to the physical characteristics of the bodies taking part to the collisional evolution.

On the other hand, almost complete and reliable observational data for asteroids of size larger than some 10 km have been collected in the past from direct optical and radar observations. From the analysis of these available data it is straightforward to see that in the asteroid belt distribution such a predicted fractal pattern does not show up at all. The observed size distribution—when represented on a double logarithmic plot—“bends” in between the large mass end and the completeness size, instead of being represented by a straight line, typical of a fractal behavior. This observed pattern has sometimes been mimicked by using some different power-law distributions matched at some transition size.

As a matter of fact, the basic assumptions of Dohnanyi’s theory are not fulfilled in real asteroid collisional systems. Collisional response parameters are not size–independent at all (at least at sizes greater than a few km), as will be explained in Sec.3. This affects the resulting mass distribution in a substantial way, (Fujiwara et al., 1989; Davis et al., 1989, 1994; Campo Bagatin et al., 1994; Campo Bagatin, 1998).

2. Multifractal distributions.

It is possible to model a fragmentation process by means of a multifractal description. To illustrate how this can be done, we shall use an analytical multifractal mass distribution introduced in the analysis of turbulence by Benzi et al. (1984) (see also Menevau & Sreenivasan (1987), and Tel (1988)). Let us consider the unit interval and subdivide it into $`k`$ equal pieces of size $`1/k`$. Assign to each piece a probability, or measure, $`\{p_i\}_{i=1}^k`$ such that $`_{i=1}^kp_i=1`$. We continue this process by subdividing each segment of length $`1/k`$ into $`k`$ new segments of length $`1/k^2`$; now the probabilities $`\{p_i\}_{i=1}^k`$ are assigned to each segment following the same deterministic pattern of the first state distribution. The measure associated to each of the new intervals is just the product of this new assigned value by the $`p_i`$ value of its parent interval. The subdivision procedure is repeated again and again. After $`L`$ steps, we have $`k^L`$ intervals of length $`1/k^L`$, each with a measure being the product of the last $`p_i`$ assigned to that interval by all its ancestors. The distribution of the measure becomes very inhomogeneous after a few steps of this construction. This kind of process is named “self-similar” in mathematics, as it is generated always in the same way, but this should not be confused with the physical definition of “self-similarity” given in Sec.1. The distribution itself is a distribution of mass (see Falconer 1990) and illustrates an inhomogeneous—multifractal—distribution on a compact non–fractal support (the unit interval).

We can see in Fig. 1 how the concentration of mass (represented by the height of the bars) varies widely from one region to another within the unit interval, for the case $`k=3`$. (Note that if one of the values of the probabilities is zero, for example $`p_2=0`$, and the construction is continued indefinitely, the support of the multifractal measure should be the triadic Cantor set, a fractal with dimension $`D=\mathrm{log}2/\mathrm{log}3`$.)

In general, a given set is said to show a multifractal behaviour, if the corresponding statistical analysis takes into account the number of its elements as well as their spatial distribution. In the case shown here the analysis is made only on the number of elements—and the resulting distribution is multinomial—but we shall rather keep the term because the analysis as a whole is indeed a multifractal one.

On the other hand, many different physical phenomena related to the natural processes of multiplicative cascades have been explained in terms of fractal and multifractal distributions (Falconer 1990, Meneveau and Sreenivasan, 1987, Martinez 1990, Borgani 1993, Chiu and Hwa 1991, Takagi 1994). We introduce here a multifractal technique for the analysis of the collisionally evolved population of main belt asteroids as a natural tool to treat this kind of physical systems.

3. Stationary distributions and self-similarity.

If we think about the stationary distribution for any collisional system in terms of fractal distributions, we see it can be characterized by its fractal dimension $`d_0`$, that is by the absolute value of the exponent of the distribution $`N(ϵ)ϵ^{d_0}`$, where $`ϵ=m/M`$, $`m`$ is a generic mass, $`M`$ is the whole mass–range considered and $`N(ϵ)`$ is the number of objects with mass $`m`$. The explicit relationship modelling such a distribution in a collisional system—as expressed in terms of the number of objects $`dN`$ in the mass interval $`dm`$—is of the kind $`dN(m,m+dm)m^\alpha dm`$, with $`\alpha =11/6`$ under Dohnanyi’s hypotheses. Normalizing over $`M`$ we can identify $`d_0`$ with $`\alpha `$, that is the fractal exponent coincides with the Dohnanyi stationary exponent.

The only reliable data about the distribution of the number of objects at a given size in the main asteroid belt are the ones corresponding to the size distribution of asteroids in the observable range, that is from a few km–size to Ceres’ 913 km. The distribution of masses ($`M`$) can be related to that of sizes (diameters, $`D`$) via the obvious relationship $`M=\frac{\pi \rho D^3}{6}`$, assuming a constant density $`\rho `$—likely between 1.5 and 3.5 g/cm3—and spherical shapes.

By analyzing this distribution, it can be easily checked that the observed size distribution is not at all a simple power-law (fractal) distribution (see Fig. 2). The fact that asteroids in this size range do not follow the analytical distribution claimed by Dohnanyi and others is not surprising to us. In fact, one of the hypotheses that lead to the fractal stationary distribution is released here: there is no self-similarity in the collisional processes of asteroids of observable sizes due to two main reasons.

(a) Fragmentation experiments and models suggest a set of scaling–laws in order to accomplish for a realistic description of the resistance of materials to high velocity fragmentation. A typical physical magnitude that is useful in characterizing fragmentation phenomena is the impact strength, defined as the threshold energy density (energy per unit volume) necessary to fragment a target in a way that the greatest fragment produced has $`50\%`$ the mass of the target. Scaling laws take into account both effects due to: (i) gravitational self--compression, that is an increase of the strength ($`S`$) due to the pressure exercised by the upper material layers upon the deepest ones, increasing with the square of target size (Davis et al., 1985): $`S^=S_0+A(\rho D)^2`$ ($`S_0`$ is the impact strength measured in laboratory experiments, $`A`$ is a constant);(ii) the so–called strain--rate effect, which is suggested by the idea that the specific energy necessary for a breakup should decrease as the size of the target increases (Farinella et al., 1982, Housen et al. 1991, Housen and Holsapple 1999): $`SS^/D^q`$ ($`q`$ ranges from $`1/4`$ to $`1/2`$).

(b) The self-gravity of celestial bodies, on the other hand, varies as well at different sizes, and one of its effects is that—apart from the self-compression quoted above—it directly affects the escape velocity, especially in targets of size greater than at least a few hundred meters (the transition size is not univocally determined, as discussed in Holsapple, 1994; Love and Ahrens, 1996; Melosh and Ryan, 1997; Benz and Asphaug, 1999): then—for a fixed mass of projectile to mass of target ratio ($`M_p/M_t`$)—the mass ratio of the escaping fragments divided by the mass of the target is not independent on $`M_t`$ itself. In other terms, the specific energy for disruption Q$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{D}{}^{}`$ (that is the energy per unit mass necessary to disperse “to infinity” half of the mass of the target) is a function of $`M_t`$. This effect, by itself, is a clear example of violation of the self-similarity condition. This significantly modifies the characteristics of the multiplicative cascade, contrarily to what happens in systems in which reaccumulation is non–existing or negligible. But reaccumulation is a common collisional outcome for asteroids, the relative amount of reaccumulated asteroids at observable sizes has been estimated to range between 0.5 and 1 (Campo Bagatin et al., 2001). Finally, a third potential source for non–self-similarity can be deduced from the experimental results reported by many authors (Davis and Ryan, 1994, Nakamura and Fujiwara, 1991, Giblin, 1998), indicating a shallow mass–velocity dependence in the velocity distribution of the ejected fragments of a catastrophic collision.

¿From what shortly described here, it is obvious that the quoted effects imply lack of self-similarity in the physics of fragmentation at different sizes. The resulting stationary distribution may depart from the well-behaved fractal predicted by the Dohnanyi theory and it may need to be represented by the structured multifractal distributions proposed in this work.

4. Multifractal analysis.

The goal of this research is to point out and show that multifractal analysis may be a natural and useful tool to match the observed stationary distributions of collisional systems when self-similarity assumptions in the characteristics of the collisional cascade are not expected to hold.

The multifractal analysis, and the corresponding fits to the observed populations of the main asteroid belt were obtained by means of the following simple procedure. First, we set a size interval ranging from around 30 km ($`D_{\mathrm{min}}`$) to about 400 km ($`D_{\mathrm{max}}`$) for asteroid sizes, and we consider the corresponding cumulative population of estimated masses in the asteroid belt ($`M_{\mathrm{min}}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{max}}`$). We have chosen this range because it is the more reliable as far as completeness of data is concerned. There are only 3 asteroids larger than 400 km, but—due to their size—they are not likely to have been the outcomes of the collisional evolution process since the time it reached the present stationary regime, some 4.5 Gyr ago. Quantitatively, it can be easily checked from previous works on the collisional evolution of the asteroid belt (Campo Bagatin, 1998) that shattering and dispersal of Ceres–size objects, the ones that could produce any single 400–500 km body present in the actual asteroid distribution, is expected approximately once every 4–5 Gys. Since this means that only one of the asteroids larger than 400 km could have been contributing to the collisional cascade, our assumption of neglecting the largest bodies in the collisional process seems reasonable, thence they have not been included into our statistical study.

Then we look for a multifractal distribution described by a set of multinomial probabilities ($`p_i=p_1,p_2,,\mathrm{},p_k`$), such that any given term of the kind $`p_1^{r_1}p_2^{r_2}\mathrm{}p_k^{r_k}`$ corresponds to some mass in the actual distribution, in such a way that the cumulative multiplicity of any given term is equal to the cumulative number of bodies of the corresponding mass. The choice of comparing cumulative distributions rather than differential ones is due to avoid comparing artificial subdivisions of the asteroidal mass range in discrete arbitrary bins, with the multifractal mass distribution. Multinomial terms are transformed to masses by scaling their range to the corresponding given mass range ($`M_{\mathrm{min}}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{max}}`$), chosen accordingly to the size range from about 30 km to about 400 km, as explained above.

In order to derive the probabilities $`p_i`$ we therefore perform a systematic search for sets of probabilities matching the observed distribution, according to an automatic least-squared method, and when we find sets that fulfill the matching conditions, we finally transform back masses to diameters in order to get the plots in Fig.2, in which the observed size distribution and the obtained fits are shown.

At the end of the systematic search we found that for some sets of $`k,L`$, and $`p_i(i=1,k)`$ (shown in Table 1), the matching between the observed distribution and the multifractal ones is fairly good. We found sets of probabilities fitting a large number of multifractal terms and asteroid masses (sizes), corresponding to low dimensions $`k`$, that is to small number of parameters represented by the probabilities $`p_i`$. That happened for $`k=2`$ and $`k=3`$, for which the observed distribution could be best fitted with up to 12 multifractal terms, depending on the different values of the multiplicative level L.

The distributions corresponding to the best matching sets can be seen in Fig. 2A to 2D. The deviations of any cumulative multiplicity of each multifractal term from its corresponding cumulative asteroid number is normally below 20$`\%`$ in any of the $`k=2`$ and $`k=3`$ cases.

A source of uncertainty in the translation from multifractal terms to masses to diameters of asteroids is the one on the value of the density, that we assume to be 2.5 g/cm3. On the other hand, no error bars are shown on plots for the number of observed asteroid at any given size, but it should be pointed out that at least two possible sources for uncertainty in the observed asteroidal size distribution (and the related mass distribution) may affect the present analysis and the sets of probabilities:

i) the estimation of the sizes of asteroids, obtained from observed magnitudes and assumed surface albedos;

ii) the actual cumulative number of asteroids, that should be anyway rather reliable for sizes larger than 50 km, for fixed estimations of albedo and density.

5. Results and conclusions.

A set of reliable fits of the proposed statistical distributions to the observable data for the cumulative size distribution of main belt asteroids larger than 20 km is shown in Fig. 2A through 2D. We have found out a set of different multifractal distributions that may match fairly well the current cumulative distribution of the asteroid belt at observable sizes. This is interesting both on an operative and a physical ground. In fact, if the technique introduced here is used for other sets of collisionally evolved systems, it could provide a useful tool to match such distributions in a reliable way, with no need of guessing different power-law ranges matched somehow to approximately reproduce the data, as it has been done up to now: all we need is the mass distribution, or the size distribution with given assumptions about the shape and density of the bodies.

¿From a physical point of view, the fact that it is possible to fit the population of the main asteroid belt—or of any other nonself-similar collisonal system—by means of a multifractal distribution, introduces the fresh idea that physical inhomogeneities in fragmentation processes produce multifractal structures in this kind of systems. That also shows clearly that in these cases the Dohnanyi’s hypotheses cannot be assumed and his conclusions cannot be generally applied.

But, what is the exact physical meaning of the found probabilities $`p_i`$s? It is not obvious how they may be related to collisional physics and/or to the conditions for the evolution. We suggest that such a correlation is embedded in the collisional cascade process described by multifractal distributions, as it happens to be for other multiplicative systems. We are investigating this major issue, in order to relate quantitatively the multifractal parameters to the physical characteristics of collisional evolution, but we prefer, at this stage, to limit the present interpretation to a phenomenological analysis, and to postpone the answer to this main question.

As far as the asteroid belt is concerned, we observe that at sizes smaller than a few tens of km—that is outside the range of the present work—extrapolations of recent data (Jedicke and Metcalfe, 1998) show a quasi-fractal behavior. This is not in contrast with what we have found in the present work. In fact, in the size range in which self-similarity does not hold, a depart from a simple fractal behavior due to nonself-similarity is expected and observed, leading to the multifractal distribution that we have introduced in this work. On the other hand, as soon as self–similarity begins to show up—like it seems to happen for smaller size bodies, for which self-gravitational effects have no main influence—a fractal behaviour becomes possible, as Dohnany and the other quoted authors have shown in the past. Campo Bagatin et al. (1994) and Campo Bagatin (1998) also showed that the release of one of the simplifying Dohnanyi’s hypothesis—that is the absence of a lower cutoff in the mass distribution of asteroids—lead to a “wavy” pattern in the finally evolved distribution. Here we have shown a consequence of releasing another simplifying hypothesis, that of self-similarity. The two effects could in principle combine in shaping the actual mass distribution of asteroids in the main belt, making the whole picture more difficult to put into a unique simple scheme.

References

Asphaug, E. 1999, Survival of the weakest, Nature, 402, 127–128.

Benz, W., E.Asphaug 1999, Catastrophic disruptions revisited, Icarus 142, 5–20.

Benzi, R., G. Paladin, G. Parisi, A. Vulpiani 1984, On the multifractal nature of fully developed turbulence and chaotic systems, J.Phys.A 17 3521–3531.

Borgani S., G.Maurante, A. Provenzale, R.Valdarnini 1993, Multifractal analysis of the Galaxy Distribution: Reliability of Results from Finite Data Sets, Physical Review E 47 3879–3888.

Campo Bagatin, A., P. Farinella, and J–M. Petit 1994, Fragment ejection velocities and the collisional evolution of asteroids, Planet. Space Sci., 42, 1099–1107.

Campo Bagatin, A. 1998, Collisional evolution of asteroidal systems, Ph.D. Thesis Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.

Campo Bagatin, A., J.-M. Petit, P. Farinella 2001, How many rubble piles are in the asteroid belt?, Icarus 149, 198–209.

Chiu C.B., R.C. Hwa 1991, Multifractal structure of multifractal production in branching models, Physical Review D 43 100–103.

Davis, D.R., C.R. Chapman, S.J. Weidenschilling, and R. Greenberg 1985, Collisinal history of asteroids: Evidence from Vesta and the Hirayama families, Icarus, 62, 30–53.

Davis, D.R., P. Farinella, P. Paolicchi, S.J. Weidenschilling, and R.P. Binzel 1989, Asteroid collisional history: Effects on sizes and spins, in Asteroids II, eds. R.P. Binzel, T. Gehrels and M.S. Matthews (Univ. of Arizona Press), pp. 805–826.

Davis, D.R., P.Farinella, P. Paolicchi, A. Campo Bagatin, A. Cellino, and V. Zappalà 1992, Collisional effect of tiny asteroids on their larger siblings, Bull. Amer. Astr. Soc. 24, 961.

Davis D.R., P.Farinella, P.Paolicchi, A. Campo Bagatin, A. Cellino. and V. Zappalà 1993, Deviations from the straight line: Bumps (and grinds) in the collisionally evolved size distribution of asteroids, Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. XXIV, 377–378.

Davis, D.R., E.V. Ryan, and P. Farinella 1994, Asteroid collisional evolution: Results from current scaling algorithms. Planet. Space Sci., 42, 599–610.

Donhanyi J.W. 1969, Collisional model of asteroids and their debris, J. Geophys. Res. 74, 2531–2554.

Durda, D.D., G.J.Flynn 1999, Experimental study of the impact disruption of a porous, inhomogeneous target, Icarus, 142, 46–55.

Falconer, K.J. 1990. Fractal geometry. Mathematical foundations and applications, John Wiley & Sons Eds..

Farinella, P., P. Paolicchi, V. Zappalà 1982, The asteroids as outcomes of catastrophic collisions, Icarus, 52, 409–433.

Fujiwara, A., P. Cerroni, D.R. Davis, E. Ryan, M. Di Martino, K. Holsapple, and K. Housen 1989, Experiments and scaling laws on catastrophic collisions, in Asteroids II, Eds. R.P. Binzel, T. Gehrels and M.S. Matthews (Univ. of Arizona Press), pp. 240–265.

Giblin, I. 1998, New data on the velocity–mass relation in catastrophic disruption, Planet. Space Sci. 46, 356-364.

Hellyer, B. 1970, The fragmentation of the asteroids, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 148, 383–390.

Holsapple, K.A. 1994, Catastrophic disruptions and cratering of the Solar System: A review and new results, Planet. Space Sci., 42, 1067–1078.

Housen, K.R., Holsapple, K.A. 1999, Scale effects in strength dominated collisions of rocky asteroids, Icarus, 142, 21–33.

Housen, K.R., R.M.Schmidt, and K.A.Holsapple 1991. Laboratory simulations of large scale fragmentation events, Icarus, 94, 180–190.

Jedicke R., and T.S. Metcalfe 1998, The orbital and absolute magnitude distribution of main belt asteroids, Icarus 131, 145–260.

Love, S.G., and T.J. Ahrens 1996, Catastrophic impacts on gravity dominated asteroids, Icarus, 124, 141–155.

Martínez V.J. 1990, Fractals and multifractals in the description of the cosmic structure, Vistas in Astronomy, 33, 337–356.

Melosh H.J., and E.V.Ryan 1997, Asteroids: Shattered not dispersed. Icarus, 129, 562–564.

Meneveau, C. and K.R. Sreenivasan 1987, Simple multifractal cascade model for fully developed turbulence, Phys.Rev.Lett., 1424–1427.

Nakamura, A., Fujiwara, A. 1991, Velocity distribution of fragments formed in a simulated collisional disruption, Icarus, 92, 132–146.

Paolicchi, P. 1994, Rushing to equilibrium: A simple model for the collisional evolution of asteroids, Planet. Space Sci., 42, 1093--1097.

Takagi, F. 1994, Multifractal structure of multiplicity distributions in particle collisions at high energies, Physical Review Letters 72 32–35.

Tanaka, H., S. Inaba, and K. Nakazawa 1996, Steady–state size distribution for the self–similar collision cascade, Icarus, 123, 450–455.

Tel, T. 1988, Fractals, multifractals and thermodynamics, Z. Naturforsch., 42a, 1154–1174.

Williams, D.R., and G.W. Wetherill 1994, Size distribution of collisionally evolved asteroid populations: Analytical solution for self–similar collision cascades, Icarus 107, 117–128.

| Case | A | B | C | D |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| k | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| L | 11 | 12 | 9 | 11 |
| $`p_1`$ | 0.818 | 0.833 | 0.737 | 0.789 |
| $`p_2`$ | 0.182 | 0.167 | 0.168 | 0.178 |
| $`p_3`$ |  |  | 0.095 | 0.033 |

Table I The 4 sets of $`k,L,p_1,p_2,p_3`$ leading respectively to the fits represented in Fig. 4A, B, C, D.

Figure captions

Figure 1. A few steps of the construction of the self-similar multifractal measure described in the text by means of a multiplicative cascade. The values of the initial probabilities are $`p_1=0.3534`$, $`p_2=0.4363`$ and $`p_3=0.2103`$. The support of the measure is the unit interval. At each stage of the construction, the measure associated to each interval is represented by the height of the rectangular box. We show steps 1, 2, 4, and 8, from top to bottom and left to right. After several steps, the distribution of the measure becomes rather inhomogeneous, a characteristic pattern of multifractal distributions.

Figure 2. The four best fits to the main asteroid belt cumulative population of asteroids, using the multifractal technique explained in the text. The dashed lines show the observed distribution and the crosses represent the multifractal fits.

Fig. 2A to 2D correspond respectively to cases A to D shown in Table 1.