format: text

text:
# Orbital dynamics of three-dimensional bars: II. Investigation of the parameter space

## 1 Introduction

Barred galaxies have bars of very different strength, ranging from the weak bars of SAB galaxies to the strong bars of e.g. NGC 1365 \[Lindblad 1999\]. They may have large, small, or no bulge components in their centers. The possibility that bars in late-type barred spiral galaxies end at their inner Lindblad resonance (hearafter ILR) has also been considered (Lynden-Bell 1979, Combes & Elmegreen 1993, Polyachenko & Polyachenko 1994) and this would imply that in some cases bars may have corotation far beyond their ends. It is thus important to understand whether and to what extent the orbital structure changes with the basic parameters in the models. We investigate this here using a class of models, the individual representatives of which differ in their central mass concentration and in the pattern speed and strength of the bar.

We follow the evolution of all the families of periodic orbits we think may play a role in the dynamics and morphology of bars and peanuts. We believe we indeed have all the main families for two reasons. First, the edge-on profiles of the galaxies are mainly affected by the vertical bifurcations up to the 4:1 vertical resonance. Beyond this resonance the orbits of the bifurcating 3D families remain close to the equatorial plane and thus do not characterize the edge-on morphology. Second, families bifurcated at the n:1 radial resonances for $`n>4`$ do not in general support the bar (e.g. Contopoulos & Grosbøl 1989, Athanassoula 1992).

The models presented here are static, but they may be viewed as corresponding to individual phases of an evolutionary process of the dynamical evolution of a galaxy within a Hubble time. Therefore, a complete investigation of the dynamical system is necessary in order to find all orbits possibly associated with the presence of specific morphological features.

In the first paper of this series (Skokos, Patsis & Athanassoula 2002, hereafter paper I) we presented the basic families in a model composed of a Miyamoto disc of length scales A=3 and B=1, a Plummer sphere of scale length 0.4 for a bulge and a Ferrers bar of index 2 and axial ratio $`a:b:c=6:1.5:0.6`$. The masses of the three components satisfy $`G(M_D+M_S+M_B)=1`$ and are given in Table 1. The length unit is 1 kpc, the time unit 1 Myr and the mass unit $`2\times 10^{11}M_{}`$.

In the present paper we compare the orbital structure of our basic model with those encountered in five more models. Our models, including the fiducial model A1 of paper I, are described in Table 1. G is the gravitational constant, MD, MB, MS are the masses of the disk, the bar and the bulge respectively, $`ϵ_s`$ is the scale length of the bulge, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$b is the pattern speed of the bar, $`E_j`$(r-IILR) and $`E_j`$(v-ILR) are the values of the Jacobian for the inner radial ILR and the vertical 2:1 resonance respectively, and $`R_c`$ is the corotation radius.

This paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we discuss models with fast, or with slow bars. Section 3 introduces a model with no 2:1 resonances, section 4 a model with vertical but no radial ILR, and section 5 a model with a massive bar. We conclude in section 6.

## 2 The effect of pattern speed

### 2.1 A slow rotating bar

Model A2 is the same as model A1 in everything, except for the pattern speed, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$$`{}_{b}{}^{}=0.02`$, which is less than half that of model A1. The corotation in this model is at 13.24, rather than at 6.13 as in model A1, and the outer inner Lindblad resonance (OILR) is now at 6.1, i.e. roughly the end of the bar or the corotation distance of the models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$b = 0.054.

The changes in the dynamical behaviour are much more important than a stretching of the corotation radius by a factor larger than two and an enlargement of the x2-x3 loop in the characteristic and in the stability curves of the model. New bifurcations and new gaps are introduced, while the morphology of some of the existing families changes drastically. The differences are so big as to introduce nomenclature issues. Let us start our examination of the main simple-periodic families and of their bifurcations with the help of the characteristic diagram for planar orbits, shown in Fig. 1.

Following the convention introduced in paper I, we draw with a black line the parts of the characteristics which correspond to stable parts of the families, while grey is associated with instability. There are two main characteristics, or rather families of characteristics. The lower one is confined to the region below $`x5.5`$. It is divided from the upper characteristic by a gap, occurring roughly at $`E_j=0.128`$. There are are also a number of 3D families bifurcating from these characteristics, of which the most important ones will be described at the end of this section.

The main feature of the characteristic diagram is a continuous curve constituted by the simple-periodic 2D families x1, x2 and x3. We will follow it counter-clockwise. Starting close to $`E_j=0.5`$ for $`x=0`$ we walk along the characteristic of the typical x1 family. The orbits there are elliptical-like and support the bar.

At the first S $``$U transition of x1 the family x1v1 is bifurcated. That means we have reached at this energy the vertical 2:1 resonance. It has a similar evolution as in the fiducial case (paper I), but it is complex unstable for a considerably smaller energy range. This affects strongly the vertical profile of the model (Patsis, Skokos & Athanassoula, 2002a hereafter paper III). Since it is a 3D family it is not included in Fig. 1.

The first radial bifurcation occurs at $`E_j0.31`$ and gives the family o1. This is stable for a tiny $`E_j`$ interval, just after the S$``$U transition. It then follows a S$``$U$``$S$``$U sequence and ends again on x1. Thus this family builds a bubble, both in the characteristic and the stability diagram, together with x1 or with its indices, as did family t1 in model A1. Its morphology, however, shows that it is related to a radial 1:1 resonance \[Papayannopoulos & Petrou 1983\], since both cuts with the $`y=0`$ axis are for $`x>0`$ (alternatively $`x<0`$), so that it can be viewed as a distorted circle. It nevertheless has three tips or ‘corners’, of which the two close to the $`y`$ axis are very sharp and for large $`E_j`$ values they develop loops. This morphological evolution is reflected by the small orbits drawn close to the o1 curve on Fig. 1a.

The next S$``$U transition brings in the system x1v3. This is a 3D family, so again it is not included in the diagram. When x1 becomes again stable close to $`E_j0.134`$, its orbits have developed loops along the major axes of the ellipses. Since we are already at the area included in the frame in Fig. 1a, it is easier to follow the evolution of the families on the characteristic in Fig. 1b. We observe that close to $`E_j=0.115`$ the curve has a bend and continues towards lower $`E_j`$ and higher $`x`$ values. On the bend x1 orbits are still very elongated with loops at the $`y`$ axis, as noted by a x1 orbit drawn there. The x1 family has developed these loops well before the bend. Between $`E_j=0.115`$ and $`E_j=0.13`$, at the rising part of the characteristic, towards lower $`E_j`$ values, the x1 orbits become again ellipse-like and their loops vanish (for the time being we forget about the gray branch we observe at the same area). Meanwhile, the characteristic curve has two more bends at $`x`$ roughly 3 and 5 respectively and for almost the same value of $`E_j0.13`$, and then follows the long branch towards lower $`E_j`$ values, which reaches $`E_j0.47`$. On this branch and close to $`E_j=0.13`$ the x1 orbits have small ellipticities and become even rounder as we move to lower $`E_j`$ values. Finally after $`E_j0.17`$ the orbits are elongated along the minor axis of the bar, and are stable (except for $`0.23<E_j<0.2`$), i.e. they belong to the x2 family. At $`E_j0.47`$ the curve folds again and continues its journey towards larger $`E_j`$ values. The orbits at this branch are typical x3 orbits and exist until $`E_j0.29`$, where they change multiplicity. Thus in this model the x2 and the x3 families are continuations of the x1, the transition being made by circular and circular-like orbits, rather than by a gap as in the standard cases (Contopoulos & Grosbøl 1989, Athanassoula 1992a, paper I etc.).

At $`E_j0.23`$ the stability index associated with the 3D bifurcations intersects the $`2`$ axis. So we have the bifurcation of a new family with the same multiplicity. We call this family x2v1. We emphasize the fact that this is a simple periodic family, since in model A1 (paper I) we had already encountered a 3D bifurcation of x2 (family x2mul2), which, however, is of multiplicity 2. Since this new family is a direct bifurcation of x2 at the S$``$U transition close to $`E_j=0.23`$, as we move towards larger values of $`E_j`$, it inherits the stability of the parent family, i.e. it is stable.

It stays stable for a large energy interval, $`0.23<E_j<0.18`$, which means that it is a family that can affect the morphology of the galaxy. Its morphology can be seen in Fig. 2. As we can see this family can support a peanut-like feature, which, however, is elongated not along the major but along the minor axis of the main bar. If such orbits are populated in a real galaxy, then they will support a 3D stellar inner bar with a ‘x2 orientation’.

Close to the part of the x1 characteristic for $`0.13<E_j<0.115`$, where the curve folds and extends towards lower energies (Fig. 1b), we have, besides the ‘x1 part’, a gray branch (unstable orbits) that bridges the main loop with another branch of the characteristic diagram existing at the same energies and for larger $`x`$ values. If this bridge was missing then we would have a classical type 2 gap as at the radial 4:1 resonance regions (Contopoulos & Grosbøl 1989). What we have now could be called a pseudo-gap. The orbits of this branch are unstable and belong to a family we call x13, since it starts for low $`x`$ values as x1 at point ‘A’ (Fig. 1b) and reaches at ‘B’ a horizontal branch, which is the characteristic curve of a x3-like family. x13 is a radial bifurcation in $`\dot{x}`$, so the curve we give in Fig. 1 for this family is just the projection of its characteristic in the ($`E_j`$,$`x`$) plane. The morphology of these orbits is expected to be related with inclined ellipses, whose major axis shifts from being parallel to the bar major axis (for members on or near the major loop characteristic) to parallel to the bar minor axis (for members on or near the x3 characteristic). The shift happens in a small energy interval, in which the x1 orbits have the longest projections on the $`y`$ axis. Successive orbits of x13, as we move from ‘A’ to ‘B’ (Fig. 1b), are given in Fig. 3. The evolution of the stability indices

of x1 in this area follow every possible complication one could imagine in order to avoid bifurcating a stable family with similar morphology. Due to this ‘conspiracy’ it was not possible for us to find a stable x13-like family.

The second part of the characteristic diagram, at the same energies as the ‘x1 part’ and for higher $`x`$ values, has orbits which are x3-like. These orbits are ellipses elongated along the minor axis of the bar and are almost everywhere unstable, except for a tiny part of the characteristic for $`E_j0.175`$. We thus called them x3. Moving along the x3 branch of the characteristic towards larger $`E_j`$ values, we encounter a step-like feature in the curve (Fig. 1b) and beyond it we have planar orbits, which can be easily described as prograde quasi-circular orbits. Their general dynamical properties and their relation with other families at the area resemble those of the x1 family. So this family is a kind of continuation of x1, which we call x1 (as we called, for lower energies, the continuation of the x3 family x3). The stability indices of x1 oscillate and at the tangencies with the $`b=2`$ axis the 3D families x1v4, x1v5 etc. are born. We call them like this because their morphology on the $`(x,z)`$ and $`(y,z)`$ projections resembles the morphology of the x1v4 and x1v5 families of the fiducial case. The bifurcated 3D families remain as stable close to the equatorial plane, i.e. they do not characterize the vertical profile of the model, although they have large stable parts. It is important to note that in this case the shape of the x1 orbits – and of the $`(x,y)`$ projections of x1v4 and x1v5 as well – are not elongated along the major axis of the bar, but are quasi-circular. Thus, they do not enhance the bar towards the corotation radius (13 kpc). This can be seen in Fig. 4.

The characteristic of x1, as in the case of model A1 for x1, has a local maximum at $`E_j0.11`$. At the decreasing branch (lower $`x`$’s for larger $`E_j`$ values) the orbits of the family develop ‘corners’. The usually rectangular-like orbits found in the 4:1 region (cf. Fig. 2g in paper I) are for this model square-like. x1 has a stable part just after the turning point, while in model A1 the decreasing branch is almost everywhere unstable. For yet larger energies, when the orbits at their four apocentra have loops, x1 is unstable.

As can be seen in Fig. 1b the gap at $`E_j0.11`$ is a real type 2 gap, the upper branch of which has stable circular orbits at the ‘increasing $`x`$’ part and unstable hexagonal orbits at the decreasing part following it at larger $`E_j`$ values. The latter are not much elongated along the $`y`$ axis. Due to this morphological evolution of the x1 family there are no elliptical-like orbits elongated along the $`y`$ axis to extend the bar towards corotation. The elongated orbits which reach the farthest out in the $`y`$ direction are elliptical-like orbits with loops, reaching $`y9.4`$, surrounded by a roundish structure reaching the corotation region (Fig. 5).

Before closing our description of model A2, we should mention that the family x1v4, initially bifurcated as double unstable, becomes stable for larger energies and provides the system with 3D orbits with low $`\overline{|z|}`$. The orbit we give in Fig. 6 has $`E_j=0.12`$,

while the family x1v4 bifurcates for $`E_j0.245`$ at a D$``$U transition of x1. The evolution of the stability indices of this family in model A2 is less complicated than in model A1. It nevertheless shows all kinds of instabilities we encounter in 3D Hamiltonian systems and finally ends again on x1. This means that it can be considered both as a direct and as an inverse bifurcation of x1.

Summarizing the main differences of the orbital behaviour of the slow rotating bar model from that in the fiducial case, we underline the existence of a complicated common characteristic of the x1, x2 and x3 families. As a consequence the simple-periodic families of the x1-tree appear in two parts. The second part consists of x1 and its 3D bifurcations. The families of the x1-tree have large stable parts, but they do not help the bar reach closer to corotation since they are quasi-circular (or have quasi-circular projections on the equatorial plane). The rectangular-like orbits in this case are almost squares. The model also includes a simple periodic x2-like 3D family. Other differences in the orbital behaviour from model A1 that should be mentioned is the small complex unstable part of x1v1 and the bifurcation of the family x1v4 at a D$``$U stability transition.

### 2.2 A fast rotating bar

Model A3 has a fast rotating bar. Its pattern speed is 0.0837, which brings corotation to 4.2 kpc, i.e. closer to the center than the end of the imposed bar. All other parameters remain as in models A1 and A2.

The major effect, as expected, is that the OILR approaches the IILR, and the size of what we would call ‘x2-region’ is drastically reduced. In model A3 both x2 and x3 families still exist. The size of the semi-major axis of the largest x2 orbit is 0.63 kpc. This means, that the x2 orbits could support features of sizes about $``$ 1.2 kpc. In other words in such models, the x2 family could play a role in the dynamics of the innermost 1 kpc of the system if the corresponding orbits are populated, despite the fact that the x2-loops we find are tiny ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E_j0.01`$) in comparison to those of models A1 and of course A2. In Fig. 7 we see the evolution of the stability indices of this model. Note the small elliptical features around $`E_j0.385`$, which are made from the combination of the stability indices of x2 and x3. The stability indices of these two families do not have any other cuts or tangencies with the $`b=2`$ or $`b=2`$ axes and thus this model has no 3D families oriented perpendicular to bar major axis and cannot form a peanut with this orientation.

The oscillations of the b1 and b2 curves of x1 bring in the system the families x1v1, x1v3 and x1v5 as stable. Their dynamical behaviour, and thus their importance for the global dynamics of the system, do not differ from what we encountered in the fiducial case, and so we do not discuss it further here. In this model x1v4 is not significant. It remains unstable until its orbits reach high $`z`$ values above the equatorial plane. The curves indicated by $`\stackrel{}{x1}`$ correspond to the orbits at the branch of the characteristic of x1, after the bend of the curve towards lower energies for $`E_j0.235`$ (see Fig. 8 below). Light gray indicates also in Fig. 7 unstable orbits. The lower index almost goes through the point of intersection of x1 with the $`2`$ axis. However, because of the location of the second index, we do not have a loop that closes on x1 there.

The new elements that the study of this model brings to the investigation of the orbital dynamics of barred potentials are focused at the region of the (type 2) gap at the 4:1 resonance. In Fig. 8 we show what is

new in this model on a characteristic ($`E_j`$,$`x`$) diagram of x1. We have also included the ($`E_j`$,$`x`$) projections of a planar family (q0), which has $`\dot{x_0}0`$ in the initial conditions, and a 3D family (x1v8), which is unstable in model A1.

Let us start from the latter. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the stability index associated with the vertical bifurcations has its seventh cut with the $`b=2`$ axis at $`E_j0.265`$ (the depth and size of the unstable region is very small; we observe in Fig. 7 that the depth and size of the successive unstable regions decreases with increasing energy). At this point a new stable family is born. Fig. 8 shows that this family is bifurcated just before the local maximum of the x1 characteristic curve. The $`(x,z)`$ and $`(y,z)`$ morphology of this new family is similar to that of family x1v8 of our fiducial model (cf. Fig. 17c in paper I) and thus, according to the rules set in paper I, we call it x1v8, although it emerges at the seventh vertical bifurcation. In model A3 the succession of appearance of the bifurcating families associated with the vertical 5:1 resonance is reversed compared with the families of the corresponding instability strip in the fiducial case. Now this instability strip is located before the local maximum of the x1-characteristic at $`E_j0.26`$ (Fig. 8), while in model A1 it is located beyond the corresponding local maximum. As discussed in paper I when the evolution of the stability index of x1 associated with the vertical bifurcations has successive cuts with the $`b=2`$ axis giving rise to a S$``$U$``$S sequence in its stability, a stable and an unstable family are introduced in the system. In model A1 for all instability strips at the vertical resonances before the local maximum of the characteristic curve, the families introduced as stable at the S$``$U transition are bifurcations in $`z`$, and the unstable ones, bifurcated at the U$``$S part, are bifurcations in $`\dot{z}`$. The opposite is true for the 5:1 resonance instability strip located beyond the local maximum. There we had a stable family bifurcated in $`\dot{z}`$, which we called x1v7 and an unstable one bifurcated in $`z`$ we called x1v8 (paper I). In the present model the corresponding instability strip of the vertical 5:1 resonance is located before the local maximum of the x1-characteristic for $`E_j0.26`$ (Fig. 8) and the family introduced as stable is a bifurcation in $`z`$. Since we keep the nomenclature introduced in the fiducial model throughout this series of papers, this is family x1v8 and the bifurcation in $`\dot{z}`$, unstable in the present model, is x1v7.

We note that while the x1v7 family of model A1 very soon gets orbits with large $`|z|`$’s, family x1v8 is stable everywhere and its orbits remain confined close to the equatorial plane (Fig. 9).

Almost at the local maximum of the x1 characteristic, at $`E_j0.26`$, we have another S$``$U transition of x1 (Fig. 8). There we have a radial bifurcation with $`\dot{x}0`$ . We call the resulting family q0, since it bifurcates at the 4:1 resonance close to the local maximum, and its morphology is different than that of the q1, q2 families of model A1. Its morphological evolution, as we move along the ($`E_j`$,$`x`$) projection of its characteristic, is given in Fig. 10.

In Fig. 8 we see that q0 is stable almost everywhere with only two small unstable zones. The one closer to the bifurcating point is bridged by a family (not shown in Fig. 8) existing just in this interval. The orbits of this family are slightly asymmetric with respect to the corresponding unstable orbits of q0 at the same $`E_j`$ values. Practically one could say that q0 is stable even there. The second zone of instability is in an area where the loops of q0 are big, so that the orbits are less interesting because of their morphology. Thus we conclude that practically all the morphologically interesting parts of q0 are stable.

Concluding about model A3, we can say that its differences with respect to the fiducial case are focused at the dynamics close to the local maximum of the characteristic at the radial 4:1 resonance. In general, in most other models we examined, the decreasing branches of the x1 characteristics beyond the local maximum harbor mainly unstable families. In that respect, model A3 is an exception, because at this region we can find decreasing branches with large stability regions offered not by x1 itself but by q0 and x1v8. We note that q0 and x1v8 are the most elongated rectangular-like orbits we found in any of the models we studied. In model A3 the bar is supported by the x1 and q0 families up to 3.8 kpc, with corotation at 4.2 kpc (For more details about the supported face-on morphologies of our models, see Patsis, Skokos & Athanassoula, 2002b hereafter paper IV). Further differences are the size of the x2 region, which in model A3 is very small and the insignificance of the x1v4 family. A final difference of A3 from the rest of the models we examined is the lack of a ‘bow’ structure in the stability diagrams. The rest of the orbital structure is similar to that of model A1.

## 3 A model without 2:1 resonances

All models presented until now include an explicit bulge component in the form of a Plummer sphere. In order to investigate the influence of central concentrations on the dynamics of the bar we consider a model without this component, and we increase the mass of the disc accordingly so that the total mass stays the same as that of the other models. This is model B, in which all other parameters are as in model A1. We note that this particular case has been studied by Pfenniger (1984).

The model is characterized by the lack of radial as well as vertical 2:1 resonances. The stability indices of x1 have their first tangency with the $`b=2`$ axis at $`E_j0.240`$. We call the family bifurcated at this point x1v5 because the $`(x,z)`$ and $`(y,z)`$ projections of its orbits have the same morphology as that of the x1v5 family of model A1. x1v5 exists up to $`E_j0.219`$ where it rejoins x1. This family corresponds to the B$`z_1`$ family of Pfenniger (1984). Another 3D orbit is bifurcated from x1 at $`E_j0.217`$, and is morphologically similar to x1v5 so that we name it x1v5. This family has stable orbits with low $`|z|`$ over a reasonable energy range, i.e it is an important family of the system, as was already pointed out by Pfenniger (1984) who named it B$`z_2`$. At $`E_j0.215`$ the x1v7 family is bifurcated, which corresponds to the B$`\dot{z}_3`$ family of Pfenniger (1984). The overall evolution of the stability indices in this model is characterized by a complicated ‘bow’, around $`E_j0.22`$, reminiscent of the bow in model A1. The bow is at the center of the 3:1 region, which in this model is rather extended. The values of the indices of the 3:1 families remain smaller than 0, and all bifurcations are simple periodic families. The model has t1, t2 and 3D 3:1 orbits with t1- and t2-like projections. Its 4:1 gap is of type 2, and beyond this gap, towards corotation, the orbital behaviour resembles that of model A1.

In this model we found one more family, which has large stable parts over a very extended energy range. This family has morphological similarities with x1v4, but it is not related with the x1-tree. This means that at least as far as we have followed, it does not bifurcate from or be linked with a family belonging to the x1-tree. This family exists for $`E_j>0.285`$ and is one of the families of periodic orbits related to the z-axis family, i.e. to the 1D orbits on the rotational axis of the system. The well known bifurcations of the z-axis family are the sao and uao families (Heisler, Merritt & Schwarzschild 1982). They are introduced at S$``$U and U$``$S stability transitions of the z-axis family respectively, at which we have cuts of one of the stability indices with the $`b=2`$ axis. We find them considering the $`z=0`$ plane as a surface of section. However, if the orbits of a single periodic family are repeated $`n`$-times it can be considered as $`n`$-periodic (paper I, §2.2). As explained in Appendix I, specific values of the stability index (Eq. 8) determine the $`E_j`$ value at which an $`n`$-periodic family will bifurcate. These $`n`$-periodic families are the so called ‘deuxième genre’ families of Poincaré (1899). The family we found to be important in this model is a bifurcation of the z-axis family when we consider its orbits repeated three times, i.e. of z3, according to the nomenclature we introduced in paper I. In this case tangencies of the stability indices of z3 with the $`b=2`$ axis will bifurcate two 3-periodic families and the family we discuss here is one of them. The z-axis family does not change its stability at the energies at which the new families are born. Already by studying the evolution of the stability indices of the z-axis family, we can find out from Eq. 8 the $`E_j`$ values at which 3-periodic bifurcations will appear. Thus we know that for $`E_j=0.285`$, a bifurcation of the z-axis orbits with multiplicity 3 will be born. We call this family z3.1s and its position of birth is seen in Fig. 11.

In Fig. 11 we give the evolution of the stability indices of z3. As expected at $`E_j0.285`$ it has a tangency with the $`b=2`$ axis, and z3.1s is bifurcated.

Actually at this point two families are bifurcated. At $`E_j0.256`$ the one initially bifurcated as stable becomes unstable and remains so thereafter, while the opposite is true for the one bifurcated as unstable. We call z3.1s the one which is stable for the largest energy range and z3.1u the one initially bifurcated as stable. In any case their morphologies are very similar. We note that neither of the families have one of the stability indices on the $`b=2`$ axis for some energy interval. Both stay close to it after the bifurcating point, but not on it, as one can realize by looking at the appropriate enlargement of Fig. 11 (not plotted here). The range of energies over which z3.1s is stable emphasizes its importance (Fig. 11).

The multiplicity of an orbit is associated with the surface of section we use. The z-axis orbits are calculated using as surface of section the $`(x,y)`$ plane, so the multiplicity in this case does not refer to the morphology of the projection of the orbit on this plane, but to the number of intersections with this plane. The detailed morphological evolution is given in Fig. 12. We observe that the multiplicity of the z3.1s family if we consider as surface of section the $`y=0`$ plane, as we do for all families of the x1-tree, is 1.

In the $`(x,y)`$ projection we have overplotted with light grey the corresponding x1 orbits. The $`(x,y)`$ projection of z3.1s is always included inside the curve of the x1 orbit. It is evident that the morphology of the x1 orbits is similar but not identical to that of the z3.1s $`(x,y)`$ projection. We observe also that the $`(x,z)`$ and $`(y,z)`$ projections remain close to the plane of symmetry of the galactic model, at least for the lowest energies.

Apart from z3.1s, we have found other families associated with z$`n`$s. A case that could be mentioned is a bifurcation of z5, the shape of which is given in Fig. 13.

Orbits like this can populate a galactic bulge or the central part of disks. Indeed, although we have not an explicit bulge component in this model, our disc is not flat. Due to the geometry of the Miyamoto disc one would need in the central part orbits with projections on the $`z`$ axis of the order of 1 kpc in order to build a self-consistent model. Thus orbits like z5.1s should be considered. In general, however, the tangencies with the $`b=2`$ axis are for larger energies and as a result, these orbits, since they are bifurcations of the z-axis, have big $`\overline{|z|}`$ values, and so, even if they have stable parts, are not interesting building blocks for the disc of our system111This is also the case for the z$`n`$ orbits for $`n<6`$ in all other models studied in this paper. Either they do not exist (models A1, A2, A3 and D) or they are not so important because of their stability in combination with their morphological evolution (model C)..

For this model we underline the presence and importance of the z3.1s orbits and the lack of the 3D families associated with low order vertical resonances, since the first vertical bifurcation of x1 is x1v5, a family bifurcated at the vertical 4:1 resonance.

## 4 A model without radial ILRs

Model C is intermediate between models A1 and B. It has a Plummer sphere bulge, the scale length of which is 2.5 times larger than the scale length of the bulge of A1. It is thus considerably less centrally concentrated, and as a result its $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-$`\kappa `$/2 curve is less peaked. This model does not have any radial ILRs, since we have, like in model A1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$b=0.054.

On the other hand the model does have a vertical 2:1 resonance, where is bifurcated a x1v1 family (Fig. 14),

which in this model is characterized by a large stable part. After the usual S$``$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition at $`E_j=0.08`$ the family remains always complex unstable. Furthermore, at $`E_j=0.26`$ the maximum $`z`$ of the orbits is 1 kpc, and at $`E_j`$ = -0.225 the maximum $`z`$ is 1.5 kpc. This means that it is a very important family for the dynamics of the system. x1v3 exists as well. It has a S$``$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$``$S$``$U sequence of stability types, but the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$``$S$``$U part happens in a very narrow energy range (Fig. 14). At the final S$``$U transition the 3D family x1v3.1 depicted in Fig. 15 is bifurcated.

In this particular model this family is just bridging x1v3 with x1v4 at $`E_j0.2232`$. At this energy x1v4 becomes stable and x1v3.1 can be considered as an inverse bifurcation of it. All this is worth mentioning because x1v3.1 is a 3D family with a $`(x,y)`$ projection resembling that of the family q0 of model A3.

The most important feature of model C is that x1v1 becomes complex unstable for the first time at large energies and not just after it is born as e.g. in the fiducial model A1. The consequences of this stability evolution for the global dynamics of the model are described in detail in paper III.

## 5 A strong bar case

Strong perturbations in Hamiltonian systems result in systems with a larger degree of orbital instabilities, and a larger amount of chaos. Model D has a bar twice as massive as that of the other models and a disc accordingly less massive, so that the total mass is the same. We can see the effect of this change in Fig. 16, which

is a characteristic diagram of families x1, o1 and also of the ($`E_j`$,$`x`$) projection of the characteristic of the 3D family x1v1. The rising part of the branch of the x1 characteristic, for $`E_j<0.205`$, is steeper than in model A1. In this model x1 is mainly stable at its decreasing branch ($`E_j>0.205`$). The morphology of the x1 orbits there is rectangular-like, and this clearly shows that the model with a stronger bar favours this morphology.

The behaviour of x2 in model D is similar to that in model A1. The variation of the stability indices of x1 introduces as first bifurcating family in the system family x1v1. This has first a short stable part and then becomes complex unstable. The branch on Fig. 16 indicated by x1v1 is just the ($`E_j`$,$`x`$) projection of its characteristic curve. On this curve we note with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the complex unstable part. In the S$``$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition there is no family inheriting the stability of x1v1 when the latter becomes unstable. As a result, the only stable family for $`0.38<E_j<0.338`$ is the o1 family, which we also found in the slow bar case. If, at a given energy, we consider the two representatives of this family which are symmetric with respect to the major axis of the bar, we get the combined morphology shown in Fig. 17.

We should also note that the $`(x,y)`$ projection of the x1v1 family, away from the family’s bifurcating point, does not quite follow the morphological evolution of x1 at the same energy. The $`(x,y)`$ projections get squeezed on the sides already before they become rectangular shaped and thus tend to take a shape like ‘8’. This happens just before $`|z|`$ reaches values larger than 2 kpc. This morphology as well as the morphology of family x1v1.1, which bridges a small zone of simple instability of x1v1, can be seen in Fig. 18.

To summarise the specific features of the orbital structure of model D it is worth underlining that, due to its stronger bar, the x1v1 family bifurcates at lower energies than in the other models. After it bifurcates from x1 as stable it has, as usual, a complex unstable part, but beyond the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$``$S transition the orbits have still low $`\overline{|z|}`$. Another interesting feature is the stability of the x1 family at the decreasing part of the characteristic. Also, as in model B, families x1v5 and x1v5 exist and have stable representatives. Finally we note that from the families bifurcated initially as unstable, only x1v6 has away from the bifurcating point a small stability part.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we investigated the orbital structure in a class of models representing 3D galactic bars. The parameters we varied are the pattern speed, the strength of the bar and parameters defining the bulge component of the galactic model. We found all the families that could play an important role in the dynamics of 3D bars, and we registered the main changes which happen as we vary the parameters under consideration. Since evolutionary scenarios of the morphology of the bars within a Hubble time could include an increase of the bulge mass and a deceleration of the bar, as well as an increase or decrease of the bar’s strength, our models could correspond to discrete phases in the dynamical evolution of a barred galaxy. They could thus be used to explain the changes in the underling dynamics when the galaxies evolve. Similarly, they can be used to understand the dynamics of selected snapshots of $`N`$-body simulations.

Our main conclusions in the present paper are:

1. In all models we examined, the extent of the orbits which are most appropriate to sustain 3D bars is confined inside the radial 4:1 resonance. Viewing the models face-on, the orbits with the longest projections along the major axis of the bar are either boxy or elongated with loops at the major axis; these are typical shapes of the orbits in the radial 4:1 resonance region. This behaviour is common to both slow and fast rotating bars.
2. The evolution of the characteristic of the basic family x1 depends heavily on the pattern speed. The slower the bar rotates, the more complicated the x1-characteristic curve becomes. In the slowest of our models the families x1, x2 and x3 share the same characteristic curve. The folding of the characteristic towards lower energies, with most extreme case the one with the slow rotating bar, corresponds to a ‘bow’ feature in the evolution of the stability indices as function of $`E_j`$.
3. The fast rotating bar model A3 did not have the complicated evolution in the x1 characteristic and in the stability diagram corresponding to the ‘bow’. In this case all main 3D families of the x1-tree bifurcate from x1 at an S$``$U transition before the local maximum of the x1-characteristic at the radial 4:1 resonance and have initial conditions $`(x,z,0,0)`$.
4. The bars can be supported not only by x1-originated families but, depending on the model, by 3D orbits bifurcated from families related with the z-axis orbits. This has been encountered in the case of a model without radial or vertical 2:1 resonances.
5. Slow pattern rotation favours the presence of 3D x2-type orbits along the minor axis of the main bar. These orbits, which can lead to a 3D inner bar, are typical orbits of the potentials we studied.
6. The most elongated 4:1 rectangular-like orbits have been encountered in the fast rotating bar model A3. On the contrary, the corresponding orbits in the slow bar of model A2 are square-like and farther out circles and orbits with circular-like $`(x,y)`$ projections. Thus in the slow bar case the bar is supported only by elliptical-like orbits of the x1-tree. The different elongations of the rectangular-like orbits can be explained by the fact that we have, in all models considered, bars of the same length in the imposed potential. Since the corotation radius changes with pattern speed, the non-axisymmetric part of the forcing is relatively larger near corotation for the fast bar than for the slow one.
7. The decreasing part of the x1-characteristic is in most cases unstable, except for the strong bar case (model D). This favours the presence of rectangular-like orbits at the outer parts of strong bars, in good agreement with observations (Athanassoula, Morin, Wozniak et al. 1990). This could be due to the fact that the bar forcing is stronger in the strong bar case. Stable rectangular-like orbits can also be found in the case of the fast rotating model A3, where rectangular-like stable orbits are provided not by the family x1 but by the families q0 and x1v8. This could again be due to the fact that, in the fast bar case, the forcing in the corotation region is larger than in other cases. The two above put together seem to argue that a strong bar forcing in the region around corotation is necessary for the model to have stable rectangular-like orbits which are sufficiently elongated along the bar major axis.
8. Models with low mass concentrations at the center (models B and C) favour the presence of $`zn`$ bifurcations for low $`n`$, which in some cases may be important for the global dynamics of the system (e.g. family z3.1s in model B). In this way we can have bar supporting families unrelated with the x1-tree.
9. In the x1-tree we encounter complex instability mainly in the x1v1 family. It can however, happen (e.g. in model C) that complex instability appears in large energies and thus all orbits with $`\overline{|z|}<2`$ kpc are stable. One must examine in every case the extent in $`z`$ of the complex unstable orbits of x1v1 in order to decide about the significance of this family for a model.

The connection between the families of periodic orbits and the observed morphologies in edge-on disc galaxies is discussed in paper III, and the contribution of orbital theory to the question of the boxiness of the outer isophotes in early type bars in paper IV.

## Acknowledgments

We acknowledge fruitful discussions and very useful comments by Prof. G. Contopoulos. We thank the referee for useful suggestions that allowed to improve the presentation of our work. This work has been supported by E$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ET II and K$`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ 1994-1999; and by the Research Committee of the Academy of Athens. Ch. Skokos and P.A. Patsis thank the Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille, for an invitation during which essential parts of this work have been completed.

## Appendix A  Poincaré’s ‘deuxième genre’ families in Hamiltonian systems

The number $`n`$ of intersections of a periodic orbit with the Poincaré surface of section, when the orbit has a particular direction, defines its multiplicity. So a periodic orbit of multiplicity $`n`$ has $`n`$ points of intersection with the Poincaré surface of section and it is called a periodic orbit of period $`n`$.

The linear stability or instability of a periodic orbit is defined by the eigenvalues of the corresponding monodromy matrix (see for example Yakubovich & Starzhinskii 1975). The columns of this matrix are suitably chosen linearly independent solutions of the so-called variational equations. These equations describe the time evolution of a small deviation from the periodic orbit. The eigenvalues of the monodromy matrix of a periodic orbit can be grouped as pairs of inverse numbers, i.e. if $`\lambda `$ is an eigenvalue then $`1/\lambda `$ is also an eigenvalue (Broucke 1969, Contopoulos & Magnenat 1985). The stability index $`b`$ that corresponds to a particular pair of eigenvalues is defined as:

$$b=\left(\lambda +\frac{1}{\lambda }\right)$$
(1)
An orbit is stable when both stability indices are real numbers in the interval $`(2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})`$, which equivalently means that the corresponding eigenvalues are complex conjugate numbers on the unit circle.

As a parameter of the dynamical system changes the eigenvalues move on the complex plane. When two eigenvalues moving on the unit circle coincide on $`\lambda =1`$ and split along the real axis, the stability type of the orbit changes from stable to unstable. The corresponding stability index is negative and decreases below $`2`$. At the same time a new periodic orbit of the same multiplicity is born. If, on the other hand, the two eigenvalues continue to lie on the unit circle, after coinciding on $`\lambda =1`$, which means that the orbit remains stable, then two new orbits of the same multiplicity are born. A periodic orbit of multiplicity $`1`$ can be also considered as a periodic orbit of multiplicity $`n>1`$ if it is repeated $`n`$ times. It has as monodromy matrix $`M_n`$ the matrix

$$M_n=M_1^n,$$
(2)
where $`M_1`$ is the monodromy matrix of the periodic orbit considered as 1-periodic. If the periodic orbit of period $`1`$ is stable, then it has a pair of eigenvalues of the form

$$\lambda =\mathrm{cos}\vartheta +i\mathrm{sin}\vartheta ,\frac{1}{\lambda }=\mathrm{cos}\vartheta i\mathrm{sin}\vartheta ,$$
(3)
as seen in Fig. 19. Thus the corresponding stability index is:

$$b=\left(\lambda +\frac{1}{\lambda }\right)=2\mathrm{cos}\vartheta .$$
(4)
Considering this orbit as one of period $`n`$ its eigenvalues will be of the form $`\lambda ^n`$, $`(1/\lambda )^n`$, so that the corresponding stability index $`b_{(n)}`$becomes:

$$b_{(n)}=2\mathrm{cos}(n\vartheta ).$$
(5)
A tangency of $`b_{(n)}`$ with the line $`b=2`$ gives birth to two new periodic orbits of period $`n`$, while the 1-periodic orbit remains stable. This bifurcation happens when

$$b_{(n)}=2\mathrm{cos}(n\vartheta )=1$$
(6)
This condition is satisfied if we have e.g.

$$\vartheta =2\pi \frac{1}{n},$$
(7)
or equivalently when the stability index $`b`$ of the period $`1`$ periodic orbit crosses the line

$$b=2\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi \frac{1}{n}\right).$$
(8)
The bifurcating families of periodic orbits are the ‘deuxième genre’ families of Poincaré (1899). In Fig. 20 we plot the lines given by (8) corresponding for $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}10`$. We see that, as we approach $`b=2`$, the density of the lines as well as the period of the bifurcating orbit increase.


text:
# References

hep-th/0204242

Does a Randall-Sundrum scenario create the illusion of a torsion-free universe?
Biswarup Mukhopadhyaya111E-mail: biswarup@mri.ernet.in, Somasri Sen 222E-mail: somasri@mri.ernet.in

Harish-Chandra Research Institute,
Chhatnag Road, Jhusi, Allahabad - 211 019, India

Soumitra SenGupta 333E-mail: tpssg@mahendra.iacs.res.in

Department of Theoretical Physics, Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science,
Calcutta - 700 032, India

PACS Nos.: 04.20.Cv, 11.30.Er, 12.10.Gq

## Abstract

We consider spacetime with torsion in a Randall-Sundrum (RS) scenario where torsion, identified with the rank-2 Kalb-Ramond field, exists in the bulk together with gravity. While the interactions of both graviton and torsion in the bulk are controlled by the Planck mass, an additional exponential suppression comes for the torsion zero-mode on the visible brane. This may serve as a natural explanation of why the effect of torsion is so much weaker than that of curvature on the brane. The massive torsion modes, on the other hand, are correlated with the corresponding gravitonic modes and may be detectable in TeV-scale experiments.

Theories with large compact extra dimensions have gained considerable attention in recent times, primarily because of their role in solving the naturalness problem. A high point of such theories is the prediction of TeV-scale observable effects of the Kaluza-Klein modes of the gravitational field which is assumed to exist in the ‘bulk’. Such speculation can be broadly classified into two schools of thought, based essentially on the approaches of Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali (ADD) on one hand, and Randall and Sundrum (RS) on the other. In both types of models, all visible matter (i.e. the content of the standard model (SM) of particle interactions) is supposed to be confined to a ‘3-brane’ on which the projections of the bulk gravity gives rise to Kaluza-Klein modes. The spacings of these modes and their interactions with the SM fields are determined by specifics of the model.

In various extensions of the above models, implications of other types of bulk fields, such as scalars, gauge fields and fermions, have been explored-. In this note, we examine what happens if bulk spacetime in an RS picture is endowed with both curvature and torsion, a possibility that is motivated from string theory. From such an assumption, we try to explain why, sitting on the visible brane, one might feel the presence of curvature but not of torsion, although both might have originally (i.e. at the bulk level) been on the same footing.

It has been an old suggestion to modify theories of gravity by incorporating torsion in space-time along with curvature. The most straightforward way of including torsion is to add an antisymmetric component to the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$. This is the essence of the so-called Einstein-Cartan type of theories.

Once torsion enters into the theory in the above manner, it can couple with all matter fields with spin. It can be easily seen that such interaction terms in general are of dimension 5, and are suppressed by the Planck mass ($`M_P`$), much in the same way as in the case of gravitonic couplings. Efforts have been on to constrain the torsion field and its coupling strength from a variety of considerations such as atomic energy level splitting  and the phenomena of optical activity in radiation from distant galactic sources. However, it is not clearly understood from any fundamental theoretical consideration whether the coupling of torsion with visible matter should be different from that of curvature, and if so, why. This is precisely the question we address here, within the framework of an RS theory.

In its minimal version the RS scenario, defined in 5-dimensions, is characterised by the background metric

$$ds^2=e^{2\sigma }\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +r_c^2d\varphi ^2$$
(1)
with $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=(,+,+,+)`$, and $`\sigma =kr_c|\varphi |`$. $`r_c`$ is the compactification radius for the fifth dimension, and $`k`$ is on the order of the higher dimensional Planck mass $`M`$. The extra dimension, characterized by a variable $`\varphi `$ ranging from $`\pi `$ to $`+\pi `$, forms an $`S_1/Z_2`$ orbifold. The standard model fields reside at $`\varphi =\pi `$ while gravity peaks at $`\varphi =0`$. The dimensional parameters defined above are related to the 4-dimensional Planck scale $`M_P`$ through the relation

$$M_P^2=\frac{M^3}{k}[1e^{2kr_c\pi }]$$
(2)
Clearly, $`M_P`$, $`M`$ and $`k`$ are all of the same order of magnitude. For $`kr_c12`$ the exponential factor (frequently referred to as the ‘warp factor’) produces TeV scale mass parameters (of the form $`m=Me^{kr__c\pi }`$) from the Planck scale when one considers projections on the ‘standard model’ brane. Thus the hierarchy between the Planck and TeV scales can be accommodated without the need of fine-tuning.

It is well-known that the likely source of torsion is some matter field(s) with spin, just as curvature is associated with mass/energy. Attempts have been made in some earlier works to relate torsion with fermion fields residing either on the brane or in the bulk. Here we take the standpoint that, being as much a characteristic of spacetime as curvature, it is natural for torsion to coexist with gravity in the bulk. We have earlier performed some analyses in this line in the context of an ADD model.

In the scenario adopted by us, the source of torsion is taken to be the rank-2 antisymmetric Kalb-Ramond (KR) field $`B_{MN}`$ which arises as a massless mode in heterotic string theories. To understand the above statement, let us recall that the low energy effective action for the gravity and Electromagnetic sectors in D dimensions is given by

$$S=d^Dx\sqrt{G}\left[R(G)\frac{1}{4}F_{MN}F^{MN}+\frac{3}{2}H_{MNL}H^{MNL}\right]$$
(3)
It has been shown earlier  that an action of the form

$$S=d^Dx\sqrt{G}\left[R(G,T)\frac{1}{4}F_{MN}F^{MN}\frac{1}{2}H_{MNL}H^{MNL}+T_{MNL}H^{MNL}\right]$$
(4)
reproduces the low energy string effective action if one eliminates the torsion field $`T_{MNL}`$ ( which is an auxiliary field) by using the equation of motion $`T_{MNL}=H_{MNL}`$.

Thus torsion can be identified with the rank-3 antisymmetric field strength tensor $`H_{MNL}`$ which in turn is related to the KR field $`B_{MN}`$ as

$$H_{MNL}=_{[M}B_{NL]}$$
(5)
with each Latin index running from $`0`$ to $`4`$. (Greek indices, on the other hand, run from 0 to 3.) Furthermore, we use the KR gauge fixing conditions to set $`B_{4\mu }=0`$. Therefore, the only non-vanishing KR field components correspond to the brane indices. These components, of course, are functions of both compact and non-compact co-ordinates.

The 5-dimensional action for the curvature-torsion sector in this case is

$$𝒮_G=d^4x𝑑\varphi \sqrt{G}2M^3R(G,H)$$
(6)
where $`G_{MN}`$ is given by equation (1) and $`R(G,H)`$ is the scalar curvature constructed from the modified affine connection:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{}^{K}{}_{NL}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{K}{}_{NL}{}^{}\frac{1}{M^{\frac{3}{2}}}H_{NL}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}$$
(7)
Clearly, the action can be decomposed into two independent parts- one consisting of pure curvature, and the other, of torsion:

$$𝒮_G=d^4x𝑑\varphi \sqrt{G}2[M^3R(G)H_{MNL}H^{MNL}]$$
(8)
with $`H_{MNL}`$ related to the Kalb-Ramond field $`B_{NL}`$ as in equation (3).

Thus the 5-dimensional action corresponding to the Kalb-Ramond field, upto a dimensionless multiplicative constant, is given by

$$𝒮_H=d^4x𝑑\varphi \sqrt{G}H_{MNL}H^{MNL}$$
(9)
Using the explicit form of the RS metric, and remembering that $`B_{4\mu }=0`$, we have

$$𝒮_H=d^4x𝑑\varphi r_ce^{2\sigma (\varphi )}[\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu \beta }\eta ^{\lambda \gamma }H_{\mu \nu \lambda }H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\frac{3}{r_c^2}e^{2\sigma (\varphi )}\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu \beta }B_{\mu \nu }_\varphi ^2B_{\alpha \beta }]$$
(10)
Next, we consider Kaluza-Klein decomposition for the Kalb-Ramond field:

$$B_{\mu \nu }(x,\varphi )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_{\mu \nu }^n(x)\frac{\chi ^n(\varphi )}{\sqrt{r_c}}$$
(11)
In terms of the four-dimensional projections $`B_{\mu \nu }^n`$, an effective action of the form

$$𝒮_H=d^4x\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu \beta }\eta ^{\lambda \gamma }H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^nH_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^n+3m_n^2\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu \beta }B_{\mu \nu }^nB_{\alpha \beta }^n]$$
(12)
can be obtained provided

$$\frac{1}{r_c^2}\frac{d^2\chi ^n}{d\varphi ^2}=m_n^2\chi ^ne^{2\sigma }$$
(13)
and subject to the orthonormality condition

$$e^{2\sigma (\varphi )}\chi ^m(\varphi )\chi ^n(\varphi )𝑑\varphi =\delta _{mn}$$
(14)
where $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^n=_{[\mu }B_{\nu \lambda ]}^n`$ and $`\sqrt{3}m_n`$ gives the mass of the $`n`$th mode. In terms of $`z_n=\frac{m_n}{k}e^{\sigma (\varphi )}`$, equation (11) can be recast in the form

$$\left[z_n^2\frac{d^2}{dz_n^2}+z_n\frac{d}{dz_n}+z_n^2\right]\chi ^n=0$$
(15)
The above equation admits of the following solution:

$$\chi ^n=\frac{1}{N_n}\left[J_0(z_n)+\alpha _nY_0(z_n)\right]$$
(16)
where $`J_0(z_n)`$ and $`Y_0(z_n)`$ are respectively Bessel and Neumann functions of order zero. $`\alpha _n`$ as well as $`m_n`$ can be determined from the continuity conditions for the derivative of $`\chi _n`$ at $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\pi `$, which are dictated by self-adjointness of the left-hand side of equation (11). On using the fact that $`e^{kr_c\pi }>>1`$ and the mass values $`m_n`$ on the brane should be on the order of the TeV scale $`(<<k)`$, we obtain from the continuity condition at $`\varphi =0`$

$$\alpha _nx_ne^{2kr_c\pi }$$
(17)
with $`x_n=z_n(\pi )`$. The boundary condition at $`\varphi =\pi `$ gives

$$J_1(x_n)\frac{\pi }{2}x_ne^{2kr_c\pi }$$
(18)
Since the right-hand side of the above equation is very small, the roots can be closely approximated to the zeros of $`J_1(x_n)`$. These roots of $`J_1`$ give $`m_n`$ on the TeV range, as expected initially.

Since $`x_n1`$, from equation (15) $`\alpha _n`$ becomes $`<<1`$. The normalization condition yields

$$N_n=\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{kr_c}}x_ne^{kr_c\pi }$$
(19)
Thus the final solution for the massive modes turns out to be

$$\chi ^n(z_n)=\frac{2\sqrt{kr_c}}{\pi x_n}e^{kr_c\pi }J_0(z_n)$$
(20)
At this point it is useful to compare the solutions with those for bulk gravitons and gauge fields. First, here the massive solutions are governed by zeroth-order Bessel functions, as against second and first order ones in the two other cases. Furthermore, a comparison with the above references shows that whereas a massive gravitonic mode contains the same exponential enhancement factor as that in equation (18), it is absent in the case of bulk gauge fields. This difference can be attributed essentially to the tensorial structures of the different types of bulk fields as well as to the characteristic forms of the 4-dimensional effective actions into which the theory must reduce in the different cases.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ n& 1& 2& 3& 4\\ & & & & \\ m_n^{grav}(TeV)& 1.66& 3.04& 4.40& 5.77\\ & & & & \\ m_n^{tor}(TeV)& 2.87& 5.26& 7.62& 9.99\end{array}$$

Table 1: The masses of a few low-lying gravitonic modes vis-a-vis the massive KR modes for $`kr_c=12`$ and $`k=10^{19}`$Gev.

As table 1 shows, the mass spectrum here is correlated with the masses of the gravitonic modes. This is because the masses in both cases are effectively given, upto an overall factor of $`\sqrt{3}`$, by the zeros of $`J_1(x_n)`$ (as we have already noticed, the right-hand side of equation (16) is negligibly small). Thus the scenario proposed here has an added element of predictability as far as the graviton and torsion KK modes are concerned. The $`B_{\mu \nu }^n`$ spacings ($`n=1`$ onwards) are just scaled with respect to the gravitonic modes by a factor of $`\sqrt{3}`$ to a close approximation, and therefore the low-lying states in the spectrum should be within the reach of TeV-scale collider experiments.

However, a more drastic difference is noticed when we consider the massless mode. In this case the solution to (11) turns out to be

$$\chi ^0(\varphi )=c_1|\varphi |+c_2$$
(21)
The condition of self-adjointness leaves the scope of only a constant solution. Using the normalization condition, one obtains

$$\chi ^0=\sqrt{kr_c}e^{kr_c\pi }$$
(22)
Thus, in contrast to the other types of bulk fields mentioned above, the zero mode $`\chi ^0`$ exhibits a suppression by a large exponential factor. This causes the massless KR mode to be severely suppressed on the visible brane, granting a practically imperceptible presence to torsion.

This can be seen more clearly if we consider the coupling of torsion to matter fields on the visible brane. Let us for example consider the interaction with spin-1/2 fields. Starting with a 5 dimensional action and remembering that the fermion and all its interactions are confined to the brane at $`\varphi =\pi `$, the fermionic action in terms of the modified affine connection is given by:

$$𝒮_\psi =id^4x𝑑\varphi [\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑡}V]\overline{\psi }[\gamma ^av_a^\mu (_\mu \frac{i}{2}G_{LN}\sigma ^{ab}v_a^\nu _\mu v_b^\lambda \delta _\nu ^N\delta _\lambda ^LG_{AD}\sigma ^{ab}v_a^\beta v_b^\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{MB}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}\delta _\mu ^M\delta _\beta ^B\delta _\delta ^D)]\psi \delta (\varphi \pi )$$
(23)
where $`G_{MN}`$ is given by,

$$G_{MN}=v_M^av_N^b\eta _{ab}$$
(24)
and the vierbein $`v_\mu ^a`$ is given in this case by

$$v_4^4=1;v_\mu ^a=e^\sigma \delta _\mu ^a;\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑡}V=e^{4\sigma }$$
(25)
$`a,b`$ etc. being tangent space indices.

Integrating out the compact dimension and using the fact that the fermion field on the brane is consistently renormalized as $`\psi e^{3kr_c\pi /2}\psi `$, one obtains the effective 4-dimensional fermion KR interaction as

$$_{\psi \overline{\psi }H}=\overline{\psi }[i\gamma ^\mu \sigma ^{\nu \lambda }\left\{\frac{1}{M_Pe^{kr_c\pi }}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^0+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi }\frac{2J_0(x_n)}{\pi x_n}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^n\right\}]\psi $$
(26)
where $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^n=_{[\mu }B_{\nu \lambda ]}^n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =M_Pe^{kr_c\pi }`$.

A rather remarkable fact becomes evident from above. Although gravity and torsion are treated at par on the bulk, with the Planck mass characterizing any dimensional parameter controlling their interactions, the coupling of the zero-mode torsion field with fermionic matter suffers an enormous additional suppression via the warp factor when one compactifies the extra dimension in the RS scheme. However, the massless graviton continues to have interactions driven by $`1/M_P`$ on the brane. In a way, this leads to the conclusion that the experimental signatures of torsion will continue to be elusive so long as we are sitting on the brane, with the apparent feeling that we are living in a torsionless universe.

The massive modes $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^n`$, however, have enhanced coupling with matter, caused by the usual warp factor. The lowest-lying modes are in the TeV scale and their interaction strength is suppressed by a mass of similar magnitude. One can hope to see observable effects of these modes through new resonances in TeV scale accelerator experiments, or in the helicity flip of, say, high-energy massive neutrinos interacting with torsion.

As far as the interaction of bulk torsion with standard model gauge fields is concerned, very similar effects can be seen. We show this in the context of the $`U(1)_{EM}`$ gauge field. First it has to be remembered that gauge invariant interactions of this type cannot be obtained without introducing some amount of nonminimality into the theory. A rather convenient way of doing so is to augment the brane components of the torsion tensor $`H_{MNL}`$ with a so-called Chern-Simons term:

$$H_{\mu \nu \lambda }(x,\varphi =\pi )H_{\mu \nu \lambda }(x,\varphi =\pi )+\frac{1}{M^{\frac{1}{2}}}A_{[\mu }(x)F_{\nu \lambda ]}(x)$$
(27)
Such a term is natural in the context of gauge anomaly cancellation in a heterotic string theory. On considering the KK modes $`B_{\mu \nu }^n`$, and appropriately redefining the electromagnetic field on the brane, one ends up with interaction terms of the following nature:

$$_{emH}=\frac{1}{M_Pe^{kr_c\pi }}A^{[\mu }F^{\nu \lambda ]}(x)H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^0(x)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi }\frac{2J_0(x_n)}{\pi x_n}A^{[\mu }F^{\nu \lambda ]}(x)\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^n(x)$$
(28)
where again we notice an additional suppression for the massless modes and an enhancement for the massive ones, just as in the case of spin-1/2 particles coupling to torsion. This extreme suppression of the zero-mode coupling could weaken torsion-induced optical activities, as suggested in some recent works.

The following picture emerges from the above analysis. Torsion, caused by a KR field, can be postulated to exist in the bulk in a 5-dimensional RS scenario, together with gravity. At that level, only one mass parameter (of the order of the Planck scale) controls the actions for both gravity and torsion. The compactification of the fifth dimension gives rise to a spectrum of Kaluza Klein modes for the KR field, just as in the case of gravity. However, the torsion zero mode on the visible brane has an added suppression through the warp factor in its interaction with matter fields. This indicates that it is going to be nearly impossible to see its trace in any observation performed on the visible brane. Therefore, we shall continue to have the impression of residing in a torsionless universe if this scenario is correct. On the other hand, the massive KR spectrum gets correlated with the spectrum of graviton, and their signals in TeV scale accelerator experiments can make the hypothesis of bulk torsion verifiable.

Acknowledgement: The work of BM and SSG has been partially supported by the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences, Government of India. SSG acknowledges the hospitality of Harish-Chandra Research Institute while this work was in progress. SS thanks P. Crawford for hospitality at the University of Lisbon where part of the work was done.


text:
# A Deduced Feynman Rule for Calculating Retarded and Advanced Green Function in Closed Time Path Formalism

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant Nos. 10135030 and 19928511.


text:
# Point field models for the galaxy point pattern

## 1 Introduction

The two-point correlation function $`\xi (r)`$ has been the primary tool for quantifying large-scale cosmic structure (see Peebles 1980). Several estimates of this statistical quantity from redshift surveys suggest a power-law shape of $`\xi (r)`$ for $`0.5h^1\mathrm{Mpc}<r<10h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ ($`h`$ being the Hubble constant in units of 100 km s-1 Mpc-1)

$$\xi (r)=\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^\gamma ,$$
(1)
with $`\gamma `$ between $`1.5`$ and $`1.9`$, see for example Davis & Peebles (1983), Maddox et al. (1990), Martínez et al. (1993) or Pons-Bordería et al. (1999). Thus, $`\xi (r)`$ seems to have a singularity of order $`\gamma `$. However, taking into account that galaxies have a physically finite extended size, the shape of $`\xi (r)`$ has necessarily to deviate, at very small scales, from the power-law behavior.

It is important to be able to generate controllable point processes resembling the galaxy distribution, not only showing visual similar patterns to the observed one, but also reproducing the same statistical properties. These processes are necessary to test the performance and, in particular, the discriminative power of the statistical estimators used to describe the cosmic texture (Martínez & Saar 2002). It is also worth mentioning that two point fields could present similar second-order characteristics, such as the two-point correlation function analyzed in this paper, but show completely different results for higher order statistics.

Several methods have been published so far to generate mock catalogues to mimic the galaxy distribution. We could distinguish two main kinds of methods: Those based on a physically motivated procedure and those based on a stochastic model with controllable statistical properties. The first family of methods includes the following two main approaches:

1. Starting with cosmological $`N`$-body simulations based on the gas–dark matter dynamics, one can extract galaxy catalogues by applying physical schemes related with the galaxy formation processes (Kauffmann et al. 1999). This is obviously the most realistic way to obtain mock representations of the galaxy distribution. However, it requires much computing time and therefore the cost of obtaining several realizations is high.
2. The second possibility is to treat the dynamics of the non-linear clustering of matter by means of approximate methods based on higher order perturbation theory. A recent example is the so-called PThalo model introduced by Scoccimarro & Sheth (2002). These authors select virialized dark matter halos from simulations obtained by applying the second-order Lagrangian perturbation theory. Then, given a biasing scheme which accounts for the fact that the galaxy formation needs not to be proportional to the local matter density, one can extract realistic galaxy distributions.

The second family of models for the galaxy distribution are those which are based on statistical or geometrical prescriptions. These models are more flexible than those from the first family, can be easily simulated and manipulated, and have more controllable statistical properties. In many cases, these statistics can be calculated analytically. The first model of this family was introduced by Neyman & Scott (1958) and became very popular in spatial statistics. The characteristics of this model were probably prefigured by the Lick survey. Peebles (1980) reviews two point processes providing clustering patterns with power-law behavior for the two-point correlation function: The Soneira and Peebles hierarchical model (Soneira & Peebles 1978) and the Mandelbrot’s prescription based on the Rayleigh-Lévy random walk (Mandelbrot 1982). The first model, based on a superposition of several fractal clumps, reproduces well the second-, third-, and fourth-order correlation functions. In the Rayleigh-Lévy model, galaxies are placed at the steps of a random walk starting from an initial position, where each jump takes an isotropically chosen random direction with the length following a power-law probability distribution function. Although this model shows point distributions with little resemblance to the observed one, it has been successfully applied to test the error measurements of counts-in-cells statistics (Szapudi & Colombi 1996). The singularity of the correlation function in these models can be varied in a rather wide interval.

Other point field models published in literature present a two-point correlation function without any singularity or with a singularity of order $`2`$. A well-known example is the Cox segment process, where points are situated on randomly oriented line segments. Its correlation function was derived by Stoyan et al. (1995) and has a singularity of order 2. A similar cluster process was introduced by Buryak & Doroshkevich (1996), where the points (i. e., the galaxies) populate a mixture of randomly oriented lines and planes. The singularity of the correlation function is determined by the line component and has again the order 2.

Van de Weygaert (1991) suggests a point field model which is built from the vertices of a Voronoi tessellation calculated from a randomly distributed nuclei. This model, based on one of the most interesting constructions studied in stochastic geometry, has the property of mimicking the statistical properties of the distribution of clusters of galaxies. However, for this model, the order of the singularity of $`\xi (r)`$ is again 2.

A still simpler point field model is appearing in Stoyan (1992). It is a Poisson cluster process where each cluster consists of only two points. The corresponding two-point correlation function can be given a singularity of any desired order between 0 and 3. Of course, this point field is rather primitive and has no physical motivation. It makes sense only with regard to the singularity of the two-point correlation function.

This paper investigates an idea which leads to a new class of point field models. They can have any desired value of $`\gamma `$ between 0 and 3 and seem to be more realistic than the previous models.

The models listed above are based on simplifying assumptions which are not well fulfilled in reality. The idea is now to model the difference between ideal and real world by means of an additional random element, i. e., by giving independently a random shift to each point of the theoretical model.

The analytical investigation of the effect of these random shifts is very difficult and is therefore carried out only for the case of relatively simple Poisson cluster processes, the Neyman–Scott processes (see Martínez & Saar 2002, for a description of these processes). It will be shown that a suitable shift of the points will reduce $`\gamma `$. However, the shift may also be too big and completely destroy the singularity of $`\xi (r)`$. This is the case, for example, if the shift is Gaussian distributed.

In case of the Voronoi vertices process only simulation based investigations are possible. A segment Cox process is also studied by this means. The analysis performed on both point processes suggest that the effect on $`\gamma `$ is similar to that for Neyman–Scott processes.

## 2 Point field models

This section presents some point field models whose pair correlation functions have a singularity at $`r=0`$. All of them have considerably deficiencies with regard either to the exponent in the power-law (1) or to the underlying physics.

Buryak & Doroshkevich (1996) suggested a cluster process, where the galaxies are situated on randomly oriented lines and planes of infinite extent. It models the observed fact that galaxies often seem to be situated on filamentary and planar structures (Bhavsar & Ling 1988). The cluster points form one-dimensional Poisson processes on the lines and two-dimensional Poisson processes on the planes. The two-point correlation function of this point field is proportional to $`r^2`$ for small $`r`$, thus $`\gamma =2`$.

A similar process has been introduced by Pons-Bordería et al. (1999) for testing the performance of different estimators of the two-point correlation function. A segment Cox point field was used for this purpose. The process is generated by first placing randomly, with a given density $`\lambda _s`$, segments of fixed length $`\mathrm{}`$, within the window. Secondly, points are scattered randomly on the segments with a given value of the mean number of points per unit length on a segment, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$. Stoyan et al. (1995) have calculated the two-point correlation function of this model which reads

$$\xi (r)=\frac{1}{2\pi r^2\lambda _s\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{2\pi r\lambda _s\mathrm{}^2}$$
(2)
Again, a value of $`\gamma =2`$ describes the point process built by the vertices of a Poisson–Voronoi tessellation, see Icke & Van de Weygaert (1987) and Van de Weygaert & Icke (1989). The assumption that $`\gamma `$ is equal to 2 has been verified by Heinrich et al. (1998).

In all these models $`\gamma `$ is too large. A rather simple point field model which may have any $`\gamma `$ between 0 and 3 is presented by Stoyan (1994). The points of a homogeneous Poisson process of intensity $`\lambda _p`$ define the centres of independent clusters. Each cluster consists of two points. The two-point correlation function is

$$\xi (r)=\frac{f(r)}{8\pi \lambda _pr^2},$$
(3)
where $`f(r)`$ is the probability density function of the distance between the two cluster points. This point field is a member of the class of Neyman–Scott processes, see Sect. 3.1. The size of $`\gamma `$ depends on the asymptotic behaviour of $`f(r)`$ for $`r0`$. If $`f(r)`$ behaves as $`r^\alpha `$, $`\gamma `$ is equal to $`2\alpha `$. Therefore, a suitable choice of $`f(r)`$ leads to any desired order. Unfortunately, this point field is very primitive and has no physical motivation. Thus, it is unsuitable to model the galaxy point pattern and is only of technical value. An interesting generalization of this model –the so-called Gauss–Poisson process– has been presented and analyzed by Kerscher (2001). Kerscher et al. (2001) have shown that this model cannot describe well the distribution of the galaxy clusters.

All of the point fields investigated until now have considerable deficiencies. Those which have the right $`\gamma `$ are quite unrealistic models for the galaxy point pattern. And those which are appropriate in some astronomical sense have the wrong $`\gamma `$. The next section provides a method which yields physically motivated models with a two-point correlation function which behaves as desired.

## 3 The effect of independent random shifts

### 3.1 Arbitrary shifts applied to Neyman–Scott processes

This subsection deals with a class of relatively simple Poisson cluster processes, the so-called Neyman–Scott processes Neyman & Scott (1958). They result from homogeneous clustering applied to a Poisson process. The points of a homogeneous Poisson process of intensity $`\lambda _p`$, called parent points, define the centres of clusters. The clusters are independently and identically distributed. A cluster consists of a random number of independently and identically distributed daughter points. The random distance between a daughter point and its corresponding parent point is distributed according to a probability density function $`d(r)`$. The two-point correlation function of such a process is proportional to $`f(r)/r^2`$, see, for example, Stoyan et al. (1995). Here, $`f(r)`$ is the probability density function of the distance between two randomly selected daughter points of the same cluster.

Given such a Neyman–Scott process, we now apply independent isotropic random shifts to all its points. The isotropic random shift consists of shifting a point by a random length in a uniformly distributed direction. The random length of the shift has a probability density function $`d^{}(r)`$. For example, in case of Gaussian shifts $`d^{}(r)`$ is the Weibull density function with $`p=2`$ and $`b=1/(2\sigma ^2)`$

$$\frac{r^2}{\sigma ^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{r^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right),r0$$
(4)
(this is the probability density function of the length of a Gaussian distributed vector in 3-D).

The random shift changes the distribution of the interpoint distance between two points of the same cluster. We denote the corresponding distribution function by $`F^{}(r)`$, and the probability density function by $`f^{}(r)`$. The resulting two-point correlation function is proportional to $`f^{}(r)/r^2`$.

The aim of the following is to determine the asymptotic behaviour of $`f^{}(r)`$ for $`r0`$. This will yield a recipe how to choose the function $`d^{}(r)`$ in order to obtain any desired $`\gamma `$.

For a first step, assume that every cluster contains exactly two points and that only one of them is shifted. $`F^{}(r)`$ is then the probability that the distance between both points is smaller than or equal to $`r`$. For example, let the initial distance between both points be $`x`$ and let the shift of length be $`z`$, see Fig. 1. Then, $`F^{}(r)`$ is equal to the fraction of that part of a sphere of radius $`z`$ centred on the shifted point, which is not farther from the unshifted point than $`r`$.

As the initial distance between the two cluster points is distributed according to the probability density function $`f(r)`$ and as the length of the shift is distributed by $`d^{}(r)`$, we can write

$$F^{}(r)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f(x)d^{}(z)\frac{\mathrm{A}(x;z;r)}{4\pi z^2}\text{d}x\text{d}z,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{A}(x;z;r)`$ is the two dimensional volume of the intersection of a ball of radius $`r`$ with a sphere of radius $`z`$, whose centres are at the distance $`x`$:

$`\text{A}(x;z;r)`$ (9)
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}4\pi z^2,\hfill & \mathrm{if}x<rz\mathrm{and}rz\hfill \\ \frac{\pi z}{x}\left(r^2(xz)^2\right)\hfill & \mathrm{if}|rz|xr+z\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$
(the dashed line in Fig. 1).

It is rather complicated to find the integral (5); we describe it in the Appendix. The result is that the behaviour of $`f^{}(r)`$ for small $`r`$ depends only on the corresponding behaviours of $`d^{}(r)`$ and $`f(r)`$. If $`d^{}(r)`$ behaves as $`r^\alpha `$ and $`f(r)`$ as $`r^{2\gamma }`$ (where $`\gamma `$ is the order of the singularity of the correlation function before the shifts), then $`f^{}(r)`$ behaves as $`r^{3\gamma +\alpha }`$, i. e., the order of the singularity of $`\xi (r)`$ after the shifts is $`\gamma (\alpha +1)`$. It has been reduced, as $`\alpha +1>0`$ (else, $`d^{}(r)`$ cannot be a density function).

Now, let the number of daughter points per cluster be arbitrary and let all of them be randomly shifted. As the daughter points are independently distributed, this situation is principally equal to that one before, only with an initial $`f(r)`$ which behaves as $`r^{3\gamma +\alpha }`$ instead of $`r^{2\gamma }`$ (that is the resulting density function after randomly shifting the first points). It follows immediately that $`f^{}(r)`$ behaves as $`r^{3\gamma +\alpha +(\alpha +1)}=r^{4\gamma +2\alpha }`$. This corresponds to a singularity of $`\xi (r)`$ of order of $`\gamma 2(\alpha +1)`$.

Thus, power-law distributed random shifts with density $`d^{}(r)r^\alpha `$ ($`1<\alpha <0`$) will reduce the order of the pole of the correlation function by $`2(\alpha +1)`$.

### 3.2 Shifting simulated point processes

The Neyman-Scott processes are too simple to describe the observed galaxy distribution. As we have not found analytic expression for the probability density functions for more realistic point processes, we have studied the effect of random shifts on such processes by means of simulations.

The first model to analyze is the Cox segment process introduced in Sect. 2. The realization of the model has been simulated in a box of side $`L=100`$ with parameters $`\lambda _s=10^3`$, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}=0.6`$, and $`\mathrm{}=10`$ (see Fig. 2).

The second model is based on Voronoi tessellations. Van de Weygaert (1991); Van de Weygaert & Icke (1989); Icke & Van de Weygaert (1987) suggested that clusters of galaxies, the peaks of the matter density field, are situated at the vertices of the tessellation. It is remarkable how well this model describes the cluster distribution. When nothing else is known, one can assume a completely random distribution of the initial points, the nuclei that will become the centers of the Voronoi cells, i. e., the empty regions. Since the initial points form a homogeneous Poisson process, the tessellation is usually referred as a Poisson–Voronoi tessellation. Fig. 3 shows a realization of this process consisting of 10085 vertices resulting from the Voronoi tessellation of 1500 Poissonian distributed nuclei within a box of side 100.

The determination of the two-point correlation function of the corresponding vertices process is very complicated. Heinrich et al. (1998) have shown that the singularity of $`\xi (r)`$ at $`r=0`$ is of order 2. As studies of the real galaxy point distribution suggest an order between 1.5 and 1.9, the vertices process cannot strictly be an appropriate model for the galaxy distribution.

A quite natural way to compensate for this difference between the model and reality is to add perturbations to each point of the Voronoi galaxy model, as we did for the Neyman-Scott models in the previous section. That means that, after realizing a sample of this model, each point is independently and randomly shifted. This has the additional effect that the close attraction between the points is relaxed. As it seems to be plausible that the degree of the attraction between the points corresponds to the order of the singularity, the relaxation should lead to a reduction of this order.

Certainly, there is no prior theoretical distribution for the random shifts. But the results of the previous section suggest that a power-law distribution of shifts should work well. There we determined the effect of arbitrary random shifts on the order of the singularity of $`\xi (r)`$ in case of Neyman–Scott processes. As these processes are based on a homogeneous Poisson process as well as both the Cox segment processes and the vertices process of a Poisson–Voronoi tessellation, it is plausible to assume that in all cases the effect of random shifts is similar. Thus, also in case of the simulated processes, any suitable density function $`d^{}(r)`$ should lead to a reduction of the order of the singularity.

We study this conjecture by simulation. We started with the simulated Cox segment process and the Poisson-Voronoi vertices process and applied random shifts. The random shifts used are distributed according to the probability density function

$$d^{}(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.25r^{0.75}\hfill & \text{for }0r1,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
The effects of the power-law shifts are demonstrated in Fig. 4 (right panels).

For comparison, we also tried shifting the points by Gaussian-distribution shifts. As Gaussian distribution is commonly used when modelling an unknown random effect, it can serve as a useful reference model. Thus, given the simulated point fields, both the Cox segment process and the Poisson–Voronoi vertices process, every point is independently shifted by a three-dimensional Gaussian distributed vector with $`\sigma =0.5`$. Fig. 4 (left panels) shows the result of this procedure.

Correlation functions amplitudes usually demand averaging over a rather large number of pair distances and are not easy to use near the pole. The expected power-law behaviour can be analyzed better using the correlation integral – the so-called $`K`$-function,

$$K(r)=_0^r4\pi s^2[1+\xi (s)]\text{d}s.$$
(11)
If $`K(r)`$ behaves as a power law, we can define the correlation dimension $`D_2`$ as the exponent of the relation $`K(r)r^{D_2}`$.

We used Ripley’s estimator for a cuboidal window (Baddeley et al. 1993):

$$\widehat{K}(r)=\frac{V}{N^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j=1}{ji}}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\theta (r|𝐱_i𝐱_j|)}{\omega _{ij}},$$
(12)
where $`V`$ is the volume of the cube, $`N`$ is the total number of points, $`\theta ()`$ is the Heaviside’s step function and the weights $`\omega _{ij}`$ account for the edge correction, being the conditional probability that point $`j`$ would be observed given that it lies at distance $`r`$ from point $`i`$.

If we find all the distances $`r_{ij}=|𝐱_i𝐱_j|`$ and the corresponding weights $`\omega _{ij}`$, we can order them by increasing distance, and define the ordered set $`\{r_\alpha \}_{\alpha =1}^{N^2}`$ with the attached weights $`\{\omega _\alpha \}_{\alpha =1}^{N^2}`$, then the estimator (12) can be rewritten as

$$\widehat{K}(r_\alpha r<r_{\alpha +1})=\frac{V}{N^2}\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}\frac{1}{\omega (r_\beta )}.$$
(13)
for even indices $`\alpha `$, since each $`r_\alpha `$ value is repeated twice. This is the sample estimate of the cumulative probability distribution function of pairwise separations. For a large point sample the function (13) demands a huge memory storage. In practice we can approximate this function by logarithmic discretization of the total pairwise distance interval.

The results are shown in Fig. 5. The $`K`$-function is shown as a staircase, and the straight lines correspond to the expected correlation dimensions ($`D_2=1`$ for pure samples, $`D_2=3\gamma +2(1+\alpha )=1.5`$ for shifted samples). We can clearly see that $`D_2`$ is extremely close to the expected value. The small differences between the expected power law and the real $`K(r)`$ dependence are probably due to the finiteness of the simulated samples and the algorithmic (precision) problems in modelling singular point distributions. The correlation integral for the Gaussian-shifted samples does not reach near the pole and has the (Poisson) correlation dimension $`D_23`$, indicating that the correlation structure has been destroyed.

We have also calculated directly the pair correlation functions: these do not reach to the smallest pair distances, as explained above. Fig. 6 shows the pair correlation functions $`g(r)=\xi (r)+1`$ for the Cox process and the Voronoi vertices process, both before and after the random shifts. We have tried different estimators (see Pons-Bordería et al. 1999), but no significant differences were found amongst them. The correlation functions given in Fig. 6 were calculated using the Rivolo estimator (Rivolo 1986). As in the previous figure, the straight lines correspond to the expected order of singularity $`\gamma =1.5`$. We can see that $`\gamma `$ lies in the expected range, supporting the conjecture that the reduction of the order of the singularity by $`2(1+\alpha )`$, using random shifts with the power-law density $`d^{}(r)d^\alpha `$ is a universal phenomenon.

We also see that Gaussian shifts have completely destroyed the singularity.

## 4 Summary and conclusions

1. This paper is based on the empirical evidence that the two-point correlation function $`\xi (r)`$ of the galaxy point field follows for small $`r`$ a power-law $`\xi (r)r^\gamma `$ with $`1.5<\gamma <1.9`$. Nevertheless, physically motivated published models for the galaxy point pattern do not have this property.
2. A reason for this dilemma may be that these models are usually based on some simplifying assumptions. As these ideal conditions are only an approximation of reality, it is not surprising that also the point field model is an approximation.
3. One way to cover the difference between theory and reality is to add a further random element to the theoretical point field model, i. e. to randomly shift every point.
4. The determination of the effect of randomly shifting on the order of the singularity of $`\xi (r)`$ is too complicated for the general case. Therefore, this paper has investigated this question only for a relatively simple class of Poisson cluster processes, the Neyman–Scott processes. In this case, there is an easy rule how to choose the distribution of the random shifts to get any desired reduction of the order of the singularity. If $`d^{}(r)`$, the distribution of the length of the isotropic shifts, behaves for small $`r`$ as $`r^\alpha `$, then the order is reduced by $`2(1+\alpha )`$. Unfortunately, Neyman–Scott processes are not variable enough to model the galaxy point pattern.
5. The vertices process of a Poisson–Voronoi tessellation and the Cox segment process represent the galaxy clustering better, but their two-point correlation functions have singularities of order $`\gamma =2`$. This is too large. Simulation studies support the conjecture that randomly shifting the vertices by power-law distributed random shifts leads to a reduction of $`\gamma `$ in the same way as it does in the case of Neyman–Scott processes.
6. Thus, a suitably shifted vertices process of a Poisson–Voronoi tessellation or of the Cox segment process may be an appropriate model for the galaxy point pattern, as it is physically convincing and agrees with observations.
7. The method of randomly shifting may be applicable also in case of other initial point fields, apart from the processes studied here. This may lead to a number of reasonable models for the galaxy point pattern.

### Acknowledgments

We thank the referee, Stephane Colombi, for his constructive criticism and useful suggestions. This work was supported by the Spanish MCyT project AYA2000-2045. ES acknowledges support from the Vicerrectorado de Investigación de la Universitat de València.

## Appendix A Derivation of Eq. (5)

Here, the asymptotic behaviour of $`f^{}(r)`$ for $`r0`$ is determined. The starting point is the integral (5)

$$F^{}(r)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f(x)d^{}(z)\frac{\text{A}(x;z;r)}{4\pi z^2}\text{d}x\text{d}z,$$
(14)
where $`f(r)`$ behaves as $`r^{2\gamma }`$ (i. e. the order of the singularity of $`g(r)`$ before the random shifts is $`\gamma `$) and $`d^{}(r)`$ behaves as $`r^\alpha `$, $`\gamma <3`$ and $`\alpha >1`$.

Elementary considerations show that the asymptotic behaviour of $`F^{}(r)`$ is equivalent to the case where $`f(r)=r^{2\gamma }\text{1l}_{[0,1]}(r)`$ and $`d^{}(r)=r^\alpha \text{1l}_{[0,1]}(r)`$, where $`\text{1l}_{[a,b]}(r)`$ is the indicator function of the interval $`[a,b]`$,

$$\text{1l}_{[a,b]}(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \text{for }r[a,b],\hfill \\ \hfill 0& \text{for }r[a,b].\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Thus, the calculations are carried out only for this case.

We can write

$`F^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{rz}{\overset{r+z}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2(xz)^2}{4x^{\gamma 1}z^{1\alpha }}}\text{d}x\text{d}z`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{zr}{\overset{z+r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2(xz)^2}{4x^{\gamma 1}z^{1\alpha }}}\text{d}x\text{d}z`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{rz}{}}}x^{2\gamma }z^\alpha \text{d}x\text{d}z,`$
and its derivative

$`f^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{rz}{\overset{r+z}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2x^{\gamma 1}z^{1\alpha }}}\text{d}x\text{d}z+{\displaystyle \frac{r^{3\gamma +\alpha }}{(3\gamma )(4\gamma )}}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(4+\alpha \gamma )}}r^{3\gamma +\alpha }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{zr}{\overset{z+r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2x^{\gamma 1}z^{1\alpha }}}\text{d}x\text{d}z{\displaystyle \frac{r^{3\gamma +\alpha }}{2^{\gamma 2}(3\gamma )}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(4+\alpha \gamma )}}r^{3\gamma +\alpha }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2(2\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(r+z)^{2\gamma }(rz)^{2\gamma }}{z^{1\alpha }}}\text{d}z`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2(2\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(z+r)^{2\gamma }(zr)^{2\gamma }}{z^{1\alpha }}}\text{d}z`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{r^{3\gamma +\alpha }}{3\gamma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\gamma }}2^{2\gamma }\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2(2\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(r+z)^{2\gamma }}{z^{1\alpha }}}\text{d}z`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2(2\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(rz)^{2\gamma }}{z^{1\alpha }}}\text{d}z`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2(2\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(zr)^{2\gamma }}{z^{1\alpha }}}\text{d}z`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{r^{3\gamma +\alpha }}{3\gamma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\gamma }}2^{2\gamma }\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2(2\gamma )}}{}_{2}{}^{}\mathrm{F}_{1}^{}(\gamma 2,\alpha ,1+\alpha ,1/r)r^{2\gamma }/\alpha `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2(2\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\gamma +\alpha )}}r^{2\gamma +\alpha }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2(2\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1r)^{3\gamma }}{3\gamma }}`$
$`\times {}_{2}{}^{}\mathrm{F}_{1}^{}(3\gamma ,1\alpha ,4\gamma ,11/r)r^{1+\alpha }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{r^{3\gamma +\alpha }}{3\gamma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\gamma }}2^{2\gamma }\right),`$
where $`{}_{2}{}^{}\mathrm{F}_{1}^{}`$ is the Gaussian hypergeometrical function (see Kratzer & Franz 1960).

For small $`r`$ it behaves as

$`{}_{2}{}^{}\mathrm{F}_{1}^{}(\gamma 2,\alpha ,1+\alpha ,1/r)`$ (20)
$``$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\alpha \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\gamma 2\alpha \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\gamma 2\right)}r^\alpha ,\hfill & \mathrm{if}\hfill & 2\gamma +\alpha <0,\hfill \\ \frac{\alpha }{2\gamma +\alpha }r^{\gamma 2},\hfill & \mathrm{if}\hfill & 2\gamma +\alpha 0,\hfill \end{array}`$
and

$`{}_{2}{}^{}\mathrm{F}_{1}^{}(3\gamma ,1\alpha ,4\gamma ,11/r)`$ (23)
$``$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(4\gamma \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\gamma 2\alpha \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\alpha \right)\left(1r\right)^{3\gamma }}r^{3\gamma },\hfill & \mathrm{if}\hfill & 2\gamma +\alpha <0,\hfill \\ \frac{3\gamma }{\left(2\gamma +\alpha \right)\left(1r\right)^{1\alpha }}r^{1\alpha },\hfill & \mathrm{if}\hfill & 2\gamma +\alpha 0.\hfill \end{array}`$
When $`2\gamma +\alpha <0`$, all terms behave as $`r^{3\gamma +\alpha }`$. When $`2\gamma +\alpha 0`$, all linear terms cancel each other out. Thus, in any case there remain only terms which behave as $`r^{3\gamma +\alpha }`$ and so does $`f^{}(r)`$.