1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\font\cap=cmcsc10
3: \documentclass{emulateapj}
4: \topmargin=0.5cm
5: \usepackage[dvips]{color}
6: \def\figdir{.}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8: \slugcomment{Draft, \today}
9:
10: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
11: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
12:
13: \def\BH{_{\rm BH}}
14: \def\bh{_{\rm BH}}
15: \def\bol{_{\rm bol}}
16: \def\disk{_{\rm disk}}
17: \def\df{_{\rm df}}
18: \def\Edd{_{\rm Edd}}
19: \def\h{_{\rm h}}
20: \def\H{_{\rm H}}
21: \def\IMBH{_{\rm IMBH}}
22: \def\p{_{\rm p}}
23:
24: \def\AU{{\rm\,AU}}
25: \def\kms{{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}}}
26: \def\pc{{\rm\,pc}}
27: \def\kpc{{\rm\,kpc}}
28: \def\Mpc{{\rm\,Mpc}}
29: \def\yr{{\rm\,yr}}
30: \def\Myr{{\rm\,Myr}}
31: \def\msun{{\rm\,M_\odot}}
32:
33: \shorttitle{Kinematic distribution of the young stars in the GC}
34: \shortauthors{Yu, Lu, \& Lin}
35:
36: \begin{document}
37: \title{On the origin of kinematic distribution of the sub-parsec
38: young stars in the Galactic center}
39: \author{Qingjuan Yu$^{1,}$\footnotemark[3], Youjun Lu$^1$, \&
40: D.~N.~C. Lin$^{1,2}$}
41: \affil{$^1$Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of
42: California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA \\
43: $^2$Kavli Institute of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, Peking
44: University, Beijing, China}
45: \footnotetext[3]{Also a Hubble Fellow at the Department of Astronomy,
46: University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720.}
47: \email{yqj, lyj, lin@ucolick.org}
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50:
51: Observations indicate the presence of a massive black hole in the Galactic
52: center. Within a half-parsec from the Galactic center, there is a population of
53: coeval young stars which appear to reside in a coherent disk. Surrounding this
54: dynamically-cool stellar system, there is a population of stars with a similar
55: age and much larger eccentricities and inclinations relative to the disk. We
56: propose a hypothesis for the origin of this dynamical dichotomy. Without
57: specifying any specific mechanism, we consider the possibility that both
58: stellar populations were formed within a disk some 6$\pm$2 Myr ago. But this
59: orderly structure was dynamically perturbed outside-in by an intruding
60: object with a mass $\sim 10^4 M_\odot$, which may be an intermediate-mass
61: black hole or a dark stellar cluster hosting an intermediate-mass black hole.
62: We suggest that the perturber migrated inward to $\sim0.15-0.3\pc$
63: from the Galactic center as a consequence of orbital decay under the action of
64: dynamical friction. Along the way, it captured many stars in the outer disk
65: region into its mean-motion resonance, forced them to migrate with it, closely
66: encountered with them, and induced the growth of their eccentricity and
67: inclination. But stars in the inner regions of the disk retain their initial
68: coplanar structure. Quantitatively, a perturber on a low-inclination or
69: overhead orbit to the disk plane can reproduce the observed kinematic structure
70: of these young stars. But this process is unlikely to produce the
71: controversial two-disk structure. We predict that some of the inclined and
72: eccentric stars surrounding the disk may have similar Galactocentric semimajor
73: axis. Future precision determination of their kinematic distribution of these
74: stars will not only provide a test for this hypothesis but also evidences for
75: the presence of an intermediate-mass black hole or a dark cluster at the
76: immediate proximity of the massive black hole at the Galactic center.
77: \end{abstract}
78:
79: \keywords{Black hole physics: Galaxy: center-stars: kinematics and
80: dynamics: stellar dynamics}
81:
82: \maketitle
83:
84: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
85:
86: Recent observations show that a large number of early-type stars,
87: either O/W-R stars or less massive B stars (totally about 90), reside
88: within the central half-parsec region of the Galactic center (GC)
89: \citep[and references therein]{Genzel03,Ghez03,Ghez05,Paumard06}.
90: These young stars have some distinctive features \citep{LB03,Genzel03,
91: Paumard06}: (a) About 26 stars
92: are found to reside in a well-defined and moderately thin disk, which
93: rotates clockwise in projection and has a scale height-to-radius ratio
94: $h/r\sim 0.12\pm 0.03$. According to \citet{Paumard06}, about a dozen
95: stars reside in a less well-defined counterclockwise rotating disk and
96: these two disks are orientated at a large angle ($\sim 110\arcdeg$)
97: with each other. Note that the existence of the counterclockwise
98: rotating disk is still in controversy; nevertheless, observations
99: indicate that the motion of some stars (probably located at the outer
100: region, see item c below) is non-coplanar with respect to that of
101: stars in the clockwise rotating disk. (b) The stars in the clockwise
102: rotating disk are on low-eccentricity orbits (with eccentricity $e\sim
103: 0.2-0.4$ on average). In contrast, many stars in the counterclockwise
104: disk appear to be on high-eccentricity orbits (say, $e\sim 0.8$). (c)
105: The clockwise rotating disk is compact and has a sharp inner edge at
106: $\sim 1\arcsec$ ($\sim 0.04\pc$ with an assumed GC's heliocentric
107: distance of $8\kpc$), while the counterclockwise component has a
108: ring-like structure which is located further out at $\sim 4\arcsec$
109: ($\sim 0.15\pc$). (d) The stars in the ``two disks'' are coeval with
110: an age of $6\pm 2\Myr$ and
111: probably formed within a time span of $\la 2\Myr$.
112: (e) A cluster of main-sequence B stars ($4\msun\leq
113: M_*\leq 15\msun$) or the so-called ``S-cluster'' exists in the inner
114: $\sim 0.04\pc$ region, which has a spatially isotropic distribution
115: and is distinct from the more massive sub-parsec ($\sim 0.04-0.5\pc$)
116: young stars. Some of these S-stars have high eccentricities (with $e$
117: up to 0.9--1) while others have moderate eccentricities. The S-star
118: orbits have provided strong evidence for the existence of a massive
119: black hole (MBH; with mass $M\bh\simeq 3.6\times 10^6 \msun$) in the
120: GC \citep[and references therein]{Schodel02,Ghez05, Eisenhauer05}.
121: The young stars in the GC, together with the central MBH, provide an
122: interesting dynamical system to study. Specifically, the dynamical
123: architecture of the GC resembles that of the solar
124: system, which is composed of a thin disk of major planets and a thick
125: population of minor planets orbiting around the Sun. As studies of
126: the dynamics in our solar system have provided us considerable
127: insights on the formation and evolution of the Sun and its surrounding
128: planets, investigations on the dynamical system in the GC may also
129: provide us insights into the structure, and the formation and
130: evolution of the central MBH and stars in the nucleus of our own Galaxy
131: and further in general galactic nuclei.
132:
133: The coevality of the sub-parsec young stars suggests that they have a
134: common origin. Since the tidal force of the central MBH may prevent
135: formation of young stars through the collapse of self-gravitating cold
136: molecular gas clouds in the vicinity of the MBH \citep[e.g.,][]
137: {Sanders92, Morris93}, other hypothesis have been proposed to explain
138: the formation and youth of the stars, including some non-conventional
139: {\it in situ} formation scenario and in-spiraling young star cluster
140: scenario. The {\it in situ} formation scenario is based on the
141: assumption that the young stars were formed via the onset of
142: gravitational instability and fragmentation in a hypothetical
143: accretion disk around the MBH which no longer exist today. With a
144: sufficiently large gas surface density, the self-gravity of the
145: perturbation may overcome the impediment of the MBH's tidal force
146: \citep[e.g.,][]{LB03,Genzel03,Goodman03,Levin07}. In the in-spiraling star
147: cluster scenario, it is assumed that the young stars were originally
148: formed in a dense star cluster outside the central half-parsec and
149: transported to their present location by the effect of dynamical
150: friction \citep{Gerhard01}. An intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH; a
151: few thousand solar mass) may be required to stabilize the cluster core
152: against its tidal disruption by the MBH before they move to the
153: central half-parsec region \citep{HM03,Kim04,GR05,MPZ03}. Note that the
154: existence of stellar disks in observations itself is not sufficient to
155: differentiate these competing scenarios since a young stellar disk may
156: form in the vicinity of the MBH in both of the scenarios. (For a
157: review and more discussions on the pros and cons of these scenarios,
158: see \citealt{Genzel03,Ghez05,Paumard06,Alexander05}.)
159:
160: Besides their young age, the peculiar orbital distribution of these stars also
161: provides clues to their formation mechanism and the dynamical structure in the
162: GC. It can also be used to differentiate various models. For example, in the
163: in-spiraling star cluster scenario, the interactions between the central IMBH
164: and the stripped young stars have been studied by \citet{Levin05} and
165: \citet{BH06}. Although they were able to simulate the orbital features of
166: stars on the thin disk, they had difficulties to account for the kinematic
167: properties of those stars with eccentric orbits in the counterclockwise
168: rotating disk.
169: In this paper, we propose a dynamical model to account for the orbital
170: distribution of the sub-parsec young stars in the GC. Rather than
171: simultaneously investigating the formation mechanism of these young stars and
172: their orbital distribution, we assume that all the sub-parsec young stars were
173: formed in a clockwise rotating disk initially (e.g., due to instability or
174: fragmentation of a massive accretion disk) with small eccentricities. We show
175: in \S~\ref{sec:timescales} that, an isolated stellar disk by itself is unlikely
176: to evolve from the presumed circular orbits in a thin disk to the currently
177: observed multi-component orbital configuration. This inference is based on the
178: determination that the timescale (e.g., the two-body relaxation timescale and
179: the resonant relaxation timescale) for a single stellar disk to relax with
180: respect to the background stars is usually substantially longer than the age of
181: the young stars. Thus, the life-long eccentricity growth of the disk stars due
182: to interactions among the stars is insignificant (not substantially larger than
183: 0.2; \citealt{ABA07}). Therefore, the existence of young stars with high
184: eccentricities and high inclination angles relative to the inner stellar disk
185: requires an explanation, at least in the disk formation scenario of the young
186: stars in the GC.
187:
188: It is entirely plausible that, under the action of dynamical friction,
189: a (dark) star cluster and/or an IMBH occasionally sink into the
190: proximity of the GC. The (dark) star cluster (which may also have a
191: central IMBH) or the IMBH plays the role of a massive perturber (or
192: intruder), spiraling inward, inducing asymmetric perturbation of the
193: gravitational potential and exerting torques on the disk stars.
194: Interactions between the perturber and the disk stars, through either
195: close encounters or some resonant interactions, may change the orbital
196: distribution of the young stars. (In contrast to the in-spiraling
197: young cluster hypothesis, the primary role of the cluster
198: is to dynamically excite the eccentricity and inclination of the stars
199: along its path rather than to directly deliver its own young stars to
200: the GC.) In this paper, we develop dynamical models in order to
201: examine whether the single stellar disk initially formed may evolve
202: into the current observed orbital configuration, especially the
203: eccentricity and inclination distribution, during and after the
204: passage of an inward migrating massive perturber.
205:
206: This paper is organized as follows. In \S~\ref{sec:cusp}, we review
207: the components observed in the GC. In \S~\ref{sec:timescales}, we list
208: some relevant dynamical timescales in the GC. In \S~\ref{sec:model},
209: we describe dynamical models of gravitational interaction between the
210: young stars in a primary disk and a massive perturber migrating inward
211: from outside the stellar disk in the GC. We present the results of a
212: set of numerical simulations of the dynamical models. Then we compare
213: the model results with observations. Finally, conclusions are given in
214: \S~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
215:
216: \section{Components in the GC} \label{sec:cusp}
217:
218: We consider three components which contribute to the gravitational potential
219: near the center of the Galaxy: a central MBH, a stellar cusp of old stars, and
220: a population of young stars mentioned in \S~\ref{sec:intro}.
221:
222: The MBH has a mass $M\bh\simeq 3.6\times 10^6\msun$
223: \citep{Ghez05,Eisenhauer05}. The radius of the central MBH's sphere of
224: influence is defined by
225: \be a\H\equiv \frac{GM\BH}{\sigma^2}
226: \simeq 1.6\pc~m\bh
227: \left(\frac{100\kms}{\sigma}\right)^2,
228: \label{eq:aH}
229: \ee
230: where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $\sigma$ is the one-dimensional
231: velocity dispersion, and $m\bh=M\bh/(3.6\times 10^6\msun)$ in the GC.
232:
233: The stellar cusp surrounding the young stars is mainly composed of old stars
234: and stellar remnants including stellar-mass black holes and neutron stars.
235: The mass density of the stellar cusp in the GC can be described by a power law
236: \citep{Genzel03}, i.e.,
237: \be
238: \rho(r)=\rho_0\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{-\alpha_i},\ \ \ i=1, 2,
239: \ee
240: where $\rho_0=1.2\times 10^6 \msun\pc^{-3}$, $r_0=0.4\pc$,
241: $\alpha_1=1.4\pm 0.1$ for $r<r_0$ and $\alpha_2=2.0\pm 0.1$ for $r>r_0$.
242: This mass density gives the enclosed stellar mass in the inner cusp by
243: \begin{eqnarray}
244: M_*(<r)& = &\frac{4\pi\rho_0 r_0^3}{3-\alpha_1}
245: \left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{3-\alpha_1} \nonumber \\
246: & = &\epsilon M\bh f_1(x), \ \ \ if\ \ r<r_0 \label{eq:masscusp}
247: \end{eqnarray}
248: and
249: \begin{eqnarray}
250: M_*(<r)& = &\frac{4\pi\rho_0 r_0^3}{3-\alpha_1}+ \frac{4\pi\rho_0 r_0^3}{3-
251: \alpha_2}\left[\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{3-\alpha_2}-1\right]
252: \nonumber \\
253: & = &\epsilon M\bh f_2(x), \ \ \ if\ \ r>r_0,
254: \end{eqnarray}
255: where $\epsilon=\frac{4\pi\rho_0 r_0^3}{3-\alpha_1}/M\bh\sim
256: 0.16$, $x=r/r_0$, $f_1(x)= x^{3-\alpha_1}$ and $f_2(x)=
257: \frac{3-\alpha_1}{3-\alpha_2}x^{3-\alpha_2}+
258: \frac{\alpha_1-\alpha_2}{3-\alpha_2}. $ The gravitational potential due
259: to the cusp stars is
260: \be
261: \Phi_*(r)=-\frac{GM_*(<r)}{r}+\frac{(3-\alpha_1)\epsilon
262: GM\bh}{r_0}\ln\left(\frac{r} {r_0}\right),
263: \label{eq:potencuspin}
264: \ee for $r>r_0$ and
265: \be
266: \Phi_*(r)=-\frac{GM_*(<r)}{r}-\frac{(3-\alpha_1)\epsilon
267: GM\bh}{(2-\alpha_1)r_0}
268: \left[1-\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{2-\alpha_1}\right],
269: \label{eq:potencuspout}
270: \ee
271: for $r<r_0$. The total potential due to the MBH and the cusp stars is
272: $\Phi(r)=-\frac{GM\bh}{r}+\Phi_*(r)$. Since the young stars interested in this
273: paper mainly reside within the central half parsec and $r_0=0.4\pc$, for
274: simplicity, we adopt $\alpha_2=\alpha_1\sim 1.4$ in our calculations below and
275: use equations (\ref{eq:masscusp}) and (\ref{eq:potencuspin}) even for $r>r_0$.
276: Our main results will not be affected by slightly changing the value of the
277: cusp slope.
278:
279: \section{Some relevant dynamical timescales in the GC}\label{sec:timescales}
280:
281: In this section, we estimate some dynamical timescales in the GC,
282: which may be used for references or to justify the approximations in
283: the dynamical models described in \S~\ref{sec:model}.
284:
285: \begin{itemize}
286: \item
287: The orbital timescale of a star rotating around the central MBH is
288: \begin{eqnarray}
289: T_{\rm orb}& = &2\pi \sqrt{\frac{a^3}{GM\bh}} \nonumber \\
290: & = &1.5 \times 10^3\yr~ m\bh^{-1/2}\left(\frac{a}{0.1\pc}\right)^{1.5},
291: \label{eq:Torb}
292: \end{eqnarray}
293: where $a$ is the orbital semimajor axis of the star.
294:
295: \item The local two-body relaxation timescale $T_{\rm relax}$ is given by
296: \begin{eqnarray}
297: T_{\rm relax}
298: &\sim &\frac{0.34\sigma^3}{G^2\rho_*\langle m_*\rangle \ln\Lambda}\nonumber \\
299: &\sim &\frac{2.0\times 10^{9}\yr}{\ln\Lambda} m\bh^{1/2} \frac{M\bh}{M_*(<r)}
300: \frac{1\msun}{\langle m_*\rangle} \left(\frac{r}{0.4\pc}\right)^{3/2} \nonumber \\
301: &\sim &1.2\times 10^9\yr~ m\bh^{1/2} \frac{10}{\ln\Lambda}
302: \frac{1\msun}{\langle m_*\rangle} \left(\frac{r}{0.4\pc}\right)^{-0.1},
303: \end{eqnarray}
304: where $\langle m_*\rangle$ is the mean stellar mass and $\rho_*$ is the stellar
305: density (e.g., \citealt{BT87,Alexander99}). In the estimate of this timescale
306: below (in Fig.~\ref{fig:f1}), we set $\langle m_*\rangle\sim 1\msun$ and $\ln
307: \Lambda\sim 10$.
308:
309: \item The precession due to the stellar cusp: the stellar cusp (mentioned in
310: \S~\ref{sec:cusp}) may cause stars deviated from purely Keplerian motions and
311: introduce apsidal precession of their orbits. This apsidal precession timescale
312: can be estimated by
313: \begin{eqnarray}
314: T^{\rm cusp}_{\rm prec}
315: &\sim & \frac{M\bh}{M_*(<r)}T_{\rm orb}(r) \nonumber \\
316: &\sim & 7.5\times 10^4\yr~ m\bh^{1/2}
317: \left(\frac{r}{0.4\pc}\right)^{-0.1}
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: with assuming $M_*(<r)\ll M\bh$.
320:
321: \item Resonant relaxation timescales (see details in \citealt{RT96};
322: \citealt{HA06}): in a
323: timescale much longer than the orbital period and shorter than the apsidal
324: precession timescale mentioned above, the star can be approximated by a fixed
325: wire whose mass is the stellar mass, whose shape is a Keplerian ellipse, and
326: whose linear density is inversely proportional to the local speed in the
327: elliptical orbit. The wires precess on the timescale $T^{\rm cusp}_{\rm prec}$
328: and exert mutual torques which induce angular momentum relaxation. The
329: cumulative effects of the torques result in the change of the absolute value
330: of the angular momentum by a timescale of
331: \be T^{\rm res,S}_{\rm relax}\sim
332: 3.56\times \frac{M\bh+M_*(<r)}{\langle m_*\rangle} T_{\rm orb}(r)
333: \ee
334: (hereafter the scalar-resonant relaxation timescale) or the change of the
335: direction of the angular momentum vector by a timescale of
336: \be
337: T^{\rm res,V}_{\rm relax}\sim 0.62\times \frac{M\bh+M_*(<r)}{\langle m_*\rangle}\frac{T_{\rm orb}(r)}{N^{1/2}(<r)}
338: \ee (hereafter the vector-resonant relaxation timescale), where $N(<r)=M_*(<r)/ \langle m_* \rangle$.
339:
340: The sub-parsec massive young stars is a different population from the major
341: component (old stars with $\langle m_*\rangle=1\msun$ set here) in the Galactic
342: center. We still take the above equations as the resonant relaxation
343: timescales of the young stars, since their number and total mass are much
344: smaller than the background old stars and the effect of the resonant relaxation
345: on the young stars should mainly be due to the old stellar population (see the
346: derivation in \citealt{RT96}).
347:
348: \item
349: The apsidal precession due to the general relativity correction to
350: the Newtonian equations of motion is given by \citep{Misner73}:
351: \begin{eqnarray}
352: T_{\rm GR}
353: & = &\frac{a c^2 (1-e^2)}{3G M\bh}T_{\rm orb}(a) \nonumber \\
354: & = &3.0\times 10^7\yr~ m\bh^{-3/2} (1-e^2) \left(\frac{a}{0.04\pc}\right)^{5/2},
355: \label{eq:Pgr}
356: \end{eqnarray}
357: where $c$ is the speed of light.
358:
359: \item
360: The Lense-Thirring precession timescale is given by \citep{Misner73}
361: \begin{eqnarray}
362: T_{\rm LT}&=&\frac{2\pi a^3(1-e^2)^{3/2}}{2J} \nonumber\\
363: & = & 2.2\times 10^{10}\yr~ a_*^{-1} m\bh^{-2} (1-e^2)^{3/2}
364: \left(\frac{a}{0.04\pc}\right)^3, \nonumber \\
365: \label{eq:Plt}
366: \end{eqnarray}
367: where $J$ is the angular momentum of the MBH and $a_*=J/(G M\bh^2/c)$ is the
368: dimensionless spin parameter of the MBH.
369: \end{itemize}
370:
371: The above timescales are plotted as a function of the distance from
372: the central MBH in Figure~\ref{fig:f1}, with using the parameters of
373: the observed stellar cusp described in \S~\ref{sec:cusp} (see a
374: similar diagram in \citealt{HA06}). As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:f1},
375: the timescales $T_{\rm relax}$, $T^{\rm res,S}_{\rm relax}$, and
376: $T^{\rm res,V}_{\rm relax}$ are all much longer than the stellar age
377: $\tau_{ \rm age}$ at $r>0.04\pc$, which suggests that the spatial
378: distribution of the original disk located at $0.04-0.5\pc$ cannot be
379: erased through either two-body or resonant relaxation processes. The
380: apsidal precession timescale $T_{\rm GR}$ is much longer than
381: $\tau_{\rm age}$ for the stars at $a\ga 0.1\pc$ and it is comparable
382: to the age of the disk stars with moderate eccentricity at $a\la
383: 0.04\pc$. The apsidal precession may affect the orbits of the S-stars
384: (since $T_{\rm GR}<\tau_{\rm age}$ for the S-stars), but it should be
385: insignificant to the orbital evolution of the disk stars located at $a
386: \sim 0.04-0.5\pc$. The Lense-Thirring precession is generally
387: not important for those disk stars since $T_{\rm LT}\gg \tau_{\rm
388: age}$ at $a\sim 0.04-0.5\pc$, but it may be important for the
389: innermost two stars S2 \citep{LB03} and S14 ($T_{\rm LT}\sim 4.1\times
390: 10^6 a_*^{-1}\yr$ for S2 $\sim 8.9\times 10^6 a_*^{-1}\yr$ for S14).
391: As seen from this Figure, the apsidal precession timescale due to the
392: stellar cusp is much shorter than the age of the stars but much longer
393: than their orbital period. This precession affects the secular orbital
394: evolution of the young stars in the stellar disk.
395:
396: According to the estimates of these relevant timescales (see
397: Fig.~\ref{fig:f1}), the disk stars in the GC may be described to be moving in a
398: stellar cusp with a {\em smooth} potential (the apsidal precession due to the
399: stellar cusp is naturally included in the description), and the effects of
400: other precessions, apsidal precession due to the general relativity
401: correction and the Lense-Thirring precession, may be neglected in the following
402: calculations. In this paper, we do not pursue a study on the origin of the
403: kinematics of the S-stars (with age of a few $10^7\yr$), for which the resonant
404: relaxation, as well as the precession due to the general relativity correction
405: and the Lense-Thirring precession, are involved (see also discussions in
406: \citealt{HA06,Levin07}) and a smooth potential may not be a good approximation
407: any more.
408:
409: \begin{figure} \epsscale{1.0}
410: %\epsscale{0.8}
411: \plotone{f1.eps}
412: \caption{Relevant timescales for the young stars in the GC as a function
413: of Galactocentric raidus $r$ or semimajor axis of a stellar orbit $a$: the
414: two-body relaxation timescale $T_{\rm relax}$ (blue solid line), the
415: scalar-resonant relaxation timescale $T^{\rm res,S}_{\rm relax}$ (red
416: solid line), the vector-resonant relaxation timescale $T^{\rm
417: res,V}_{\rm relax}$ (magenta solid line), the Lense-Thirring
418: precession timescale $T_{\rm LT}$ by assuming the dimensionless spin
419: parameter of the MBH $a_*=0.5$ and the eccentricity of the stars
420: $e=0.5$ (cyan solid line), the apsidal precession timescale due to the
421: general relativity correction $T_{\rm GR}$ with assuming $e=0.5$
422: (green solid line); the apsidal precession timescale due to the
423: stellar cusp $T^{\rm cusp}_{\rm prec}$ (dashed line); and the orbital
424: periods of the young stars $T_{\rm orb}$ (dotted line). For
425: comparison, the age of those young stars $\tau_{\rm age}\sim 6\pm
426: 2\Myr$ and the inner radius of the clockwise disk $r_{\rm inner}\sim
427: 1\arcsec\sim 0.04\pc$ are marked by the dot-dashed lines. For
428: reference, the relevant timescales for several S-stars
429: \citep{Eisenhauer05,Ghez05} with measured orbital parameters are also
430: marked in this Figure (filled black circles: orbital periods; cyan
431: triangles: Lense-Thirring timescales; green squares: apsidal
432: precession timescales due to the GR correction). See detailed discussions
433: in \S~\ref{sec:timescales}.} \label{fig:f1} \end{figure}
434:
435: In addition, if the young stars were formed in a gas disk, we assume that the
436: gas disk was depleted quickly and gas drag is not important for their orbital
437: evolution (damping the orbital eccentricity) at least for the two reasons based
438: on observations: (1) most of the stars were formed in a short timescale $\la
439: 2\Myr$ compared to their age $6\pm2\Myr$; and (2) the MBH is accreting material
440: via a rate around $10^{-6}-10^{-5} \msun\yr^{-1}$ through a tenuous thick disk
441: \citep[e.g.,][]{MF01}, which should not have any significant drag on the motion
442: of the young stars.
443:
444: \section{Model and numerical experiments}\label{sec:model}
445:
446: It is plausible that occasionally there may be a star cluster (and/or
447: an IMBH) in-spiraling into the central region of the Galaxy (see also
448: discussions in \citealt{PHA07}). In this
449: section, we study how the orbital configuration of the young stellar
450: disk are affected by such a perturber. To isolate the problem, we first
451: estimate how the orbits of the young stars is affected by a perturber
452: rotating around the MBH at a fixed distance in \S~\ref{subsec:nodal}.
453: We consider a range of inclination (from 0$\arcdeg$ to
454: 180$\arcdeg$) between the perturber's orbital plane and the stellar
455: disk plane. In \S~\ref{subsec:migration}, we illustrate how the
456: orbital configuration of the stellar disk is affected by the
457: inward-migration of a perturber.
458:
459: \subsection{Perturbation on the stellar orbits due to a massive perturber at
460: a fixed distance from the central MBH}\label{subsec:nodal}
461:
462: The orbital precession caused by the torque exerted by a massive
463: perturber at a fixed distance from the central MBH (i.e., on a circular
464: orbit) changes the inclination angles of the young stars, but not
465: their eccentricities. In order for the clockwise rotating young stars
466: in the inner region to retain their nascent disk's initial
467: configuration, the oscillation amplitude of the inclination angle,
468: induced by the nodal precession, needs to be small (say, $<20\arcdeg$;
469: this number is roughly the maximum range of the estimated inclination
470: angles of the young stars in the inner disk relative to the disk
471: normal; \citealt{Bel06}). The oscillation amplitude should be small if the
472: inclination angle between the orbital plane of the massive perturber and the
473: stellar disk, denoted by $\beta$, is close to 0\arcdeg or 180\arcdeg, but
474: it can be large for other intermediate values of $\beta$ unless the
475: precession timescale is much longer than the stellar age.
476:
477: Approximating the gravity of the perturber and the stars as rings, their nodal
478: precession frequency is estimated to be \citep{Nayakshin05,Nayakshin06}
479: \be
480: \omega_{*}=\frac{G M\p}{(r^2+r\p^2)^{3/2}}\frac{r\p}{r}
481: \frac{1}{\Omega_{\rm K}} I(\delta,\beta),
482: \label{eq:domegadt}
483: \ee
484: where $M\p$ is the mass of the perturber which is much more massive than a
485: young star, $\Omega_{\rm K}$ is the Keplerian angular frequency of the stars,
486: $\delta=\frac{2r\p r}{r\p^2+r^2}$, %\\
487: $I(\delta,\beta)=\int^{2\pi}_0 \frac{d\phi}{2\pi}\int^{2\pi}_0
488: \frac{d\phi'}{2\pi}\frac{\sin\phi'\sin\phi}
489: {[1-\delta(\cos\beta\sin\phi'\sin\phi+\cos\phi'\cos\phi)]^{3/2}}$, and
490: $I(\delta,\beta)=I(\delta,\pi-\beta)$.
491: Using equation (\ref{eq:domegadt}), we show the precession timescale
492: $\tau_{\rm precess}\equiv 1/\omega_{*}\propto 1/M\p$ in
493: Figure~\ref{fig:f2} with different parameters $r\p$ and $\beta$. As
494: seen from Figure~\ref{fig:f2}, for a perturber with mass $M\p=10^4\msun$
495: and located at a relatively large Galactocentric distance ($r\p\sim0.6\pc$;
496: blue lines), the precession timescales in some region ($r\sim 0.5\pc$)
497: may be smaller than the stellar age for some values of $\beta$ and the
498: orbital inclinations of the stars in this region may have substantial
499: variations due to the nodal precession; but the precession timescale at
500: $r\sim0.04-0.15\pc$ is generally much longer than the stellar age and
501: the initial coplanar structure of the inner disk can be well preserved
502: for any values of $\beta$. If the perturber is located at a smaller
503: Galactocentric distance ($r\p\sim 0.2\pc$; red lines), the nodal precession
504: timescale of the young stars at $r\sim0.1\pc$ is much shorter than
505: or comparable with their age if $\beta$ is in the range
506: $\sim$10\arcdeg--80\arcdeg (or $\sim$100\arcdeg--170\arcdeg);
507: thus the orbital inclinations of the stars not only in the outer region
508: $\sim$0.15--0.5$\pc$ but also in the inner disk may have substantial variations
509: or a warpness may be developed in the stellar disk due to the nodal precession
510: (these qualitative estimates are confirmed by direct numerical calculations
511: of the stellar orbital motion in \S~\ref{subsec:migration}).
512: If the perturber's orbit is almost perpendicular to the initial disk
513: plane (red long-dashed line), the precession timescale for the young
514: stars in the inner region is long enough compared to their age, and thus
515: the inner disk may be not affected by the precession and its initial coplanar
516: structure can be preserved. If the perturber orbit is nearly parallel to the
517: disk plane, as mentioned in the paragraph above, although Figure~\ref{fig:f2} shows that
518: the precession timescale is short compared to the stellar age, the disk
519: configuration in the inner region may still be preserved since the
520: oscillation of the normal to the stellar orbital planes around the normal
521: to the perturber orbital plane is small. Thus, the preservation of the inner
522: disk suggests that if the perturber with mass $10^4\msun$
523: is located at $r\p\sim 0.2\pc$, its orbit should be more likely to be parallel
524: or perpendicular to the assumed primary disk. This result is also
525: demonstrated in \S~\ref{subsec:migration} below.
526: For a substantially smaller $M\p$, the precession timescale $\tau_{\rm
527: precess}$ can be long enough so that the inner disk may be maintained for a
528: large range of $\beta$.
529:
530: \begin{figure} \epsscale{1.0}
531: %\epsscale{0.8}
532: \plotone{f2.eps}
533: \caption{The timescales of the nodal precession of stellar orbits due to the
534: torque exerted by a massive perturber with mass $M\p=10^4\msun$ at a fixed
535: distance from the central MBH $r\p$. The stars are on nearly circular orbits
536: with the Galactocentric distance $r$. The left (red) and right (blue) sets of lines are for
537: a perturber located at $r\p=0.2\pc$ and $r\p=0.6\pc$, respectively. For each
538: set, different line types represent different inclination angles $\beta$
539: between the orbital plane of the massive perturber and that of the stellar disk
540: [from top to bottom: $\beta=85\arcdeg$ (long-dashed lines), 75\arcdeg
541: (short-dashed lines), 45\arcdeg (dotted lines), and 15\arcdeg (solid lines)].
542: The age and position of the inner stellar disk ($\tau_{\rm age}\sim 6\pm2\Myr$
543: and $r\sim$ 0.04--0.15\pc) observed in the GC are marked as solid green lines.
544: The dotted green line illustrates the extension of the assumed original disk to
545: $\sim 0.5\pc$. To preserve the coplanar structure of the stars in the region
546: 0.04--0.15$\pc$ not to be significantly affected by the nodal precession, the
547: perturber should at least (i) be located at a far distance (e.g.,
548: $r\p\sim0.6\pc$), or (ii) have an orbit nearly parallel or perpendicular to the
549: disk plane if the perturber is located at a small distance (e.g., $r\p\sim0.2\pc$),
550: or (iii) have a substantially smaller mass. The orbits of the stars at the
551: outer region ($r\sim$0.15--0.5\pc) can generally be affected by the nodal
552: precession at some values of $\beta$ unless the perturber mass is substantially
553: smaller. See detailed discussion in \S~\ref{subsec:nodal}.
554: } \label{fig:f2} \end{figure}
555:
556: \subsection{Perturbation on the stellar orbits by an inward-migrating
557: perturber}\label{subsec:migration}
558:
559:
560: In this subsection, we study how the background stellar orbits evolve
561: as a massive nearby perturber migrating inward. For simplicity, we
562: assume the perturber to be an IMBH with a point mass potential. If
563: the perturber is a dark cluster, the gradually intensifying Galactic
564: tidal effect is likely to induce the perturber to lose mass during its
565: inward migration. We also consider the possibility that the perturber
566: has a declining mass.
567:
568: Before the perturber becomes bound to the central MBH, the perturber spirals
569: into the Galactic center under the action of dynamical friction which induces
570: a deceleration
571: \be
572: \frac{d\vec{v}\p}{dt}=-\frac{\vec{v}\p}{\tau}-\nabla\Phi(r),
573: \label{eq:dvpdt}
574: \ee
575: where the dynamical-friction timescale
576: \be
577: \tau=t\df=\frac{v\p^3}{8\pi G^2\ln\Lambda M\p \rho(r)
578: [{\rm erf}(X)-\frac{2X}{\sqrt{\pi}}exp(-X^2)]},
579: \label{eq:tdf}
580: \ee $v\p=|\vec{v}\p|$ is the velocity of the perturber,
581: $X=\frac{v\p}{\sqrt{2}\sigma(r)}$, and $\ln\Lambda$ is the logarithm
582: of the ratio of the maximum and minimum impact parameters and
583: $\Lambda\simeq M\BH/M\p$ \citep{BT87}. As the perturber or the IMBH
584: migrates inward and forms a bound binary black hole (BBH) with the
585: central MBH at $r\p\simeq a\H$ (see eq.~\ref{eq:aH}), it continues to
586: lose energy and angular momentum through dynamical friction. But, the
587: influence of dynamical friction on the IMBH's orbit becomes less
588: efficient as its orbital period decreases and its orbital velocity
589: increases. After the BBH becomes hard at $a\h=(M\p/4M\BH)a\H \simeq
590: 0.004\pc~m\bh \left(\frac{M\p/M\bh}{0.01}\right)
591: \left(\frac{100\kms}{\sigma}\right)^2$, it
592: loses energy mainly through three-body interactions with stars passing
593: by its vicinity. The orbital decay timescale of a hard BBH in the GC
594: is about $t\h\equiv r\p/\dot{r}\p\simeq 6\times 10^9\yr$ (see eq.~38
595: in \citealt{YT03}). The gravitational radiation timescale of the BBH
596: is longer than the Hubble time (see eq.~39 in \citealt{YT03}) and it
597: is unlikely to be significant in the spatial range of the BBH
598: considered in this paper. During the transition stage (after the BBH
599: becomes bound but before it becomes hard), the BBH's hardening
600: timescale may be higher than the estimate from the dynamical friction
601: timescale $t\df$($\sim 10^6\yr$ at $1\pc$ for $M\p\sim 10^4\msun$), as
602: this process becomes less efficient, and it increases to that at the
603: hard stage $t\h$ as the IMBH migrates in \citep{Y02}.
604: Under the constraint placed
605: on the distance between Sgr A$^*$ and the center of mass of the BBH
606: (eq.~35 or Fig.~2 in \citealt{YT03}), the mass of the secondary BH (or
607: star cluster)
608: $M\p$ should be smaller than $\sim 0.03M\bh$ if it is located at
609: $0.3\pc$ and smaller than $\sim 0.08M\bh$ if it is located at
610: $0.1\pc$. If the GC (or the central MBH) was formed through the
611: assemblage of sinking star clusters (or IMBHs, which are considered to
612: be candidates for the massive perturber in this paper), we can also
613: infer their masses on the assumption that we are not living in a
614: unique time. Such an argument would lead to a mass estimate for a
615: typical perturber to be $ \sim [M\bh+M_*(<1\pc)]\times 10^7\yr/10^{10}
616: \yr \sim 5\times 10^3\msun$. Finally, star clusters with mass around
617: $10^4\msun$ are found within several tens $\pc$ from the GC. Based
618: on these considerations, we adopt $M\p= 10^4\msun$ as a fiducial mass
619: for the massive perturber in general. We also consider the potential
620: implications for other values of $M\p$.
621:
622: In the first set of simulations of stellar responses to a migrating
623: perturber, its initial orbit is assumed to be nearly circular with a
624: radius $1\pc$. The path of inward migration follows
625: equation (\ref{eq:tdf}), where the migration timescale $\tau$ is set
626: to several different values ($10^6, 10^7, 10^8\yr$).
627: The initial conditions of the perturber are set so that it attains an
628: (almost constant) eccentricity $\sim 0.02$ after it moves sufficiently close
629: to the MBH ($r\p\la0.2\pc$).
630: (In subsequent models, the potential implications for the higher values of
631: the perturber's eccentricity are also considered. But we do not consider
632: a highly eccentric orbit for the perturber, since the
633: orbital decay of a dark cluster or a secondary BH via dynamical friction and
634: three-body interactions with the central MBH and stars generally does not
635: result in a highly eccentric orbit, e.g., with eccentricity $\la 0.3$;
636: \citealt{PR94,Q96}.) The orbital
637: evolution of the perturber is shown in Figure \ref{fig:rpt}. These
638: results indicate that $15\Myr$ (or $10\Myr$) would be required for the
639: perturber to migrate inward from $1\pc$ (or $0.5\pc$) to $0.1\pc$ if
640: $\tau=10^7\yr$. In this paper, we do not address the interesting
641: issue whether the migration of the perturber may be correlated with
642: the formation of the young stars. We simply assume that the young
643: stars formed throughout the disk prior to or during the migration of
644: the perturber. Note that the time $t=0$ does not necessarily
645: represent the time when the young stars formed.
646:
647: \begin{figure} \epsscale{1.0}
648: %\epsscale{0.8}
649: \plotone{f3.eps}
650: \caption{The orbital evolution of a perturber used in the dynamical
651: model proposed in \S~\ref{subsec:migration}. The perturber is initially
652: on a nearly circular orbit at $1\pc$ and its evolution follows equation
653: (\ref{eq:dvpdt}) with $\tau=10^8,10^7,10^6\yr$ from top to bottom.}
654: \label{fig:rpt} \end{figure}
655:
656: We simulate the orbital evolution of 75 test particles
657: as young stars, with the logarithm of their initial semimajor axes $a$
658: distributed uniformly in the radial range $\lg(0.04\pc)$--$\lg(0.5\pc)$.
659: Each star moves independently in the potential of the central MBH, the
660: inward-migrating IMBH, and the stellar cusp.
661: We set the inclination of the
662: perturber to zero and it does not change in the spherical
663: gravitational potential of the cusp. Five sets of initial inclination
664: angles of young stars $i$ are chosen randomly in the range
665: 0\arcdeg--10\arcdeg, 20\arcdeg--30\arcdeg, 80\arcdeg--90\arcdeg,
666: 110\arcdeg--120\arcdeg, and
667: 170\arcdeg--180\arcdeg, respectively. Their other orbital elements
668: relative to the central MBH, such as the longitude of ascending node,
669: argument of pericenter, and true anomaly, are chosen randomly in the
670: range $[0\arcdeg,360\arcdeg]$. The initial eccentricities $e$'s of the orbits
671: around the MBH are set to zero. But, they rapidly attain finite
672: amplitudes, due to the gravity contributed by the stellar cusp.
673: Given the position and velocity of a test particle at a given time, we can
674: still define its time(or position)-dependent semimajor axis and
675: eccentricity by assuming that the particle is on an elliptical orbit
676: around the MBH at the appropriate time. In order to illustrate the
677: change of the orbital configuration of a test particle, the angle of
678: the orbital plane of each particle relative to its initial plane,
679: $\theta$, is used below, which may describe the observed inclination
680: angles of the young stars relative to the observed inner disk
681: (our conclusions do not change if the initial longitudes of ascending
682: node of the particles in the simulations are set to be the same so that
683: all the particles are initially on a thin disk).
684: During their evolution, the orbits of two test particles with the same
685: inclination angles do not generally lie on the same plane.
686:
687: We first show the simulation results for a model in which the
688: perturber lies almost on the initial orbital plane of the disk stars
689: ($i\in [0\arcdeg,10\arcdeg]$). We set the perturber mass to be
690: $M\p=10^4\msun$ and the migration timescale to be $\tau=10^7\yr$. From
691: the simulation results, we find a range of stellar responses. For
692: illustration purpose, it is useful to classify these responses into
693: the following categories with representative cases shown in
694: Figures~\ref{fig:reson1}--\ref{fig:irregular}.
695:
696: \begin{figure} \epsscale{1.0}
697: %\epsscale{0.8}
698: \plotone{f4.eps}
699: \caption{The orbital evolution of a test particle in the dynamical
700: model proposed in \S~\ref{subsec:migration}. The initial inclination
701: angle of the particle is close to 0. From top to bottom, the panels
702: show orbital period ratio to the perturber, semimajor axis,
703: eccentricity, inclination angle to the orbital plane of the perturber,
704: the quantity $C$ defined in \S~\ref{subsec:migration}, argument of
705: pericenter, and the angle between the orbital plane of the particle
706: and its initial orbital plane $\theta$. The particle is first captured
707: into the 2:1 mean-motion resonance and then released from the
708: resonance but into the $\omega=\pm 90\arcdeg$ secular resonance.}
709: \label{fig:reson1} \end{figure}
710:
711: \begin{figure} \epsscale{1.0}
712: %\epsscale{0.8}
713: \plotone{f5.eps}
714: \caption{The orbital evolution of a test particle that is captured
715: into the 2:1 mean-motion resonance and then into
716: $\bar\omega-\bar\omega\p=0\arcdeg$ secular resonance, where
717: $\bar\omega-\bar\omega\p$ is the longitude difference of pericenter
718: between the particle and the perturber.}
719: \label{fig:reson2} \end{figure}
720:
721: \begin{figure} \epsscale{1.0}
722: %\epsscale{0.8}
723: \plotone{f6.eps}
724: \caption{The orbital evolution of a test particle that initially
725: follows the evolutionary pattern as that in Figure~\ref{fig:reson1}
726: and then is on an irregular orbit.} \label{fig:irregular} \end{figure}
727:
728: \begin{figure*} \epsscale{0.9}
729: %\epsscale{0.8}
730: \plotone{f7.eps}
731: \caption{Orbital distribution of simulated test particles when the
732: perturber with mass $10^4\msun$ migrates to $0.15\pc$ (denoted by the subscript ``f''; the initial
733: values of their orbital parameters are denoted by the subscript ``i'').
734: The initial inclination angles of the
735: particles to the perturber plane are in the range
736: $[0\arcdeg,10\arcdeg]$. Note that the distance to the central MBH
737: $r_f$ is generally different from the semimajor axis of the particle
738: $a_f$ due to the non-zero eccentricity $e_f$. See \S~\ref{subsec:migration}.}
739: \label{fig:distr} \end{figure*}
740:
741: \begin{figure*} \epsscale{0.9}
742: \plotone{f8.eps}
743: \caption{Orbital distribution of simulated test particles with initial
744: inclination angles $i\in[80\arcdeg,90\arcdeg]$, when the perturber with
745: mass $M\p=3\times 10^4\msun$ migrates to $r\p=0.3\pc$. Other initial
746: conditions are the same as those in Figure~\ref{fig:distr}.}
747: \label{fig:distrinc90} \end{figure*}
748:
749:
750: A) Figure \ref{fig:reson1} shows the evolution of a test particle
751: ($i\in[0\arcdeg,10\arcdeg]$) which is captured into the 2:1
752: mean-motion resonance of inwardly migrating perturber, i.e., their
753: orbital period ratio becomes 2:1 at $t/\tau\simeq 1$. After being
754: captured, the particle migrates inward with the decaying perturber.
755: During the resonant march, the particle retains an adiabatic invariant
756: which for a $(p+q,p)$ mean-motion resonance is $C\equiv
757: a^{1/2}[(p+q)-p(1-e^2)^{1/2}\cos i]$ \citep{YT01}. The magnitude of
758: $p>0$ and $q>-p$ are integers, and $p=q=1$ for the inner (2,1)
759: resonance (by ``inner'' refers to the resonances lie inside the
760: perturber's orbit, i.e. with $a<a\p$). For this adiabatic invariant, a
761: reduction in the particle's semimajor axis during the migration can
762: be compensated by an increase in its $e$ and $i$. The results in
763: Figure \ref{fig:reson1} indeed indicate a growth in the particle's
764: eccentricity. When its eccentricity is sufficiently high ($\sim 0.9$
765: at $t/\tau\simeq 1.5$), its inclination also grows. A comparison
766: between the results of the two sets of simulations indicates that the
767: inclusion of the stellar cusp in the gravitational potential promotes
768: the elevation of the particle's inclination to a range between
769: 0\arcdeg--90\arcdeg, rather than to a polar ($i=90\arcdeg$) or a
770: retrograde orbits ($i=180\arcdeg$) around a point-mass potential
771: \citep{YT01}. The asymptotic inclination decreases with increasing
772: fractional contribution of the stellar cusp mass to the gravitational
773: potential. During the lifting of its inclination, the particle
774: enters into a secular resonance with perturber's argument of the
775: pericenter $\omega$, librating around $\pm 90\arcdeg$. At an advanced
776: stage of evolution ($t/\tau \sim 1.7$), the particle is released from
777: the perturber's mean-motion resonance when it attains relatively large
778: eccentricity and inclination. But, the particle retains its secular
779: resonance ($\omega\sim \pm90\arcdeg$) with the perturber which
780: prevents close encounters between them. Consequently, the orbit of
781: the particle is stable on the timescale of our integration ($\sim
782: 5\times 10^2$ initial orbital periods of the perturber).
783:
784: B) Figure \ref{fig:reson2} illustrates the evolution of second
785: representative particle with a similar $i\in[0\arcdeg,10\arcdeg]$ but
786: have a different initial location to that in the previous example.
787: The initial evolution of this particle is generally the same as that
788: in the previous model (Figure \ref{fig:reson1}).
789: The particle
790: is captured into the perturber's mean-motion resonance of the
791: perturber at $t/\tau\ga1.1$ (see Figure \ref{fig:reson2}). At
792: $t/\tau\sim1.4$, the test particle enters into a state of secular
793: resonance with the perturber such that the difference of their
794: pericenter longitude $\eta\equiv\bar\omega-\bar\omega\p$ (where ${\bar
795: \omega}= \Omega + \omega$ and $\Omega$ is the longitude of ascending
796: node) librating around 0. During this phase, the quantity $C$ is no
797: longer an invariant. The capture of the particle into this perturber's
798: secular resonance can be understood through the evolution of the
799: difference between the precession rates of the perturber and the test
800: particle, which may be described by $d\eta/dt=A_1+A_2\cos(\eta)$
801: \citep{NLI03}. The right-hand side of this evolution equation
802: includes the contribution from the precession of the test particle
803: induced by the secular interaction with the perturber and also the
804: contribution from the precession of both the perturber and the test
805: particle induced by the stellar cusp. As the perturber and the test
806: particle migrate inward, both of these contributions evolve with time.
807: At some point during the course of migration, $A_1\ll A_2$ and the
808: longitude difference of pericenter librates around $\eta=0$ (or
809: 180\arcdeg). The eccentricity ratio of the test particle and the
810: perturber $e/e\p$ [which evolves as $d(e/e\p)/dt\propto \sin\eta$;
811: \citealt{NLI03}] also librates around an equilibrium value. As the
812: test particle continues to migrate inward with the perturber, it may
813: retain the state of secular resonance but the equilibrium value of the
814: eccentricity ratio changes as the Hamiltonian of the system evolves.
815: Similar secular resonance was discussed in \citet{NLI03}, where the
816: depletion of a protostellar disk around a planetary system causes the
817: change of the precession rates of the system. In this paper, the
818: change of the precession rates is caused by the migration of the
819: system in a stellar cusp.
820:
821: C) Figure \ref{fig:irregular} shows a third example of the evolution
822: of a test particle ($i\in[0\arcdeg,10\arcdeg]$), which has a similar
823: evolutionary pattern as that in Figure \ref{fig:reson1} at $t/\tau\la
824: 1.4$ and is on an irregular orbit afterwards.
825:
826: The above three categories essentially convert the entire domain of
827: stellar responses. But the actual outcome of the perturber's passage
828: sensitively depends on the particles' initial orbital parameters.
829: In this set of simulations, most of the particles with initial semimajor
830: axis in the range 0.2--0.5$\pc$ fall into case C, and the stars with
831: smaller semimajor axes generally fall into case A and a few in case B.
832: Figure \ref{fig:distr} shows the distribution of the orbital
833: parameters of the test particles. In this figure, the subscripts
834: ``i'' and ``f'' of various variables represent their initial and final
835: values, respectively. For the ``final'' values, we refer to those when
836: the perturber migrates to $r\p=0.15\pc$ ($t/\tau\simeq1.1$). (Note that
837: the value of $r\p$ is an instantaneous position of the perturber, and
838: the perturber does not necessarily stop there but continues to migrate inward
839: under the action of dynamical friction with time going on.) As seen
840: from Figure \ref{fig:distr}(g), (d), and (h), the semimajor axes,
841: eccentricities, and inclination angles of particles with small initial
842: semimajor axis ($a_i\la 0.1\pc$) are not greatly affected by the
843: migration of the perturber. Test particles with initial semimajor
844: axes in the range 0.1--0.3$\pc$ have essentially the same final
845: semimajor axes ($\sim 0.1\pc$) because these particles are captured
846: into the 2:1 mean-motion resonance and forced to migrate with the
847: perturber during its orbital evolution. As seen from panels (d)--(g),
848: their eccentricities and inclinations may be excited to high values.
849: Panel (c) indicates that the test particles with high inclination
850: angles generally have high eccentricities. The particles with the
851: same semimajor axes may have different instantaneous distances $r_f$
852: from the central MBH due to the non-zero eccentricity $e_f$. Panels
853: (a) and (b) show the distribution of the eccentricities and
854: inclination angles versus the distances. Panel (a) indicates the
855: tendency that the eccentricities of the test particles are low at the
856: small radii and high at the large radii. Panel (b) indicates that the
857: stellar disk may be maintained at the inner radii [$\lg(r_f/\pc)\la
858: -0.8$] and the test particles at the outer radii have high inclination
859: angles relative to the inner disk. Most particles with initial
860: semimajor axes larger than $\sim0.35\pc$ are captured into 2:1
861: resonance during the early stages of the perturber's evolution but
862: they are released from the resonance and attained irregular orbits
863: after the perturber has migrated inside $r\p=0.15\pc$.
864:
865: We also check the dependence of the final orbital distribution on the
866: perturber's position $r\p$, mass $M\p$, and eccentricity. For a smaller
867: $r\p=0.1\pc$, the inclination angles and eccentricities of the stars at the
868: inner radii ($r_f<0.1\pc$) may also be excited to high values and the inner
869: disk can no longer be maintained. For a larger $r\p=0.3\pc$, although the
870: `final' eccentricity distribution is qualitatively similar to those shown in
871: Figure~\ref{fig:distr}, but the inclination angles $\theta_f$ cannot be excited
872: beyond $20\arcdeg$.
873: A relatively low-mass perturber (e.g., $M\p=10^3\msun$)
874: cannot significantly excite the inclination angles, either, although it can
875: excite some particles' eccentricities to high values by capturing them into the
876: 2:1 or 3:2 mean-motion resonance. An increase in the perturber mass (e.g.,
877: $M\p=3\times 10^4\msun$) enhances its secular perturbation and widens its
878: mean-motion resonances. So does an increase in the perturber's eccentricity or
879: an increase in the test particles' initial eccentricities of the test particles.
880: In these cases, some particles are captured into
881: mean-motion resonances other than the 2:1 resonance, such as, the 3:2, 3:1, or
882: 4:1 resonance. Some particles may transit from one mean-motion resonance to
883: another mean-motion resonance during their orbital evolution. Relatively more
884: particles are captured into secular resonance
885: $\bar\omega-\bar\omega\p=0\arcdeg$ or 180\arcdeg.
886:
887: \begin{figure} \epsscale{1.0}
888: %\epsscale{0.8}
889: \plotone{f9.eps}
890: \caption{The orbital evolution of a test particle with initial
891: inclination angle close to $90\arcdeg$. The particle is first captured
892: into the 2:1 mean-motion resonance and then is on an irregular
893: orbit. }
894: \label{fig:reson3i90} \end{figure}
895:
896: \begin{figure} \epsscale{1.0}
897: %\epsscale{0.8}
898: \plotone{f10.eps}
899: \caption{The orbital evolution of a test particle with initial
900: inclination angle close to $90\arcdeg$. Although the inclination angle
901: of the particle relative to the perturber orbital plane $i$ changes
902: little, the angle of the particle orbital plane to its initial orbital
903: plane $\theta$ changes significantly due to the nodal precession in
904: the gravitational potential of the stellar cusp and the change of the
905: inclination angle from an initial value close to $90\arcdeg$ to $\sim
906: 70\arcdeg$ at $t\sim 0.75\tau$ caused by a close encounter.
907: The angle $\theta$ is almost constant or does not oscillate after
908: $t/\tau\sim 1.5$
909: because the perturber has migrated into the inner region and
910: does not have significant effects on the orbital evolution of the outside
911: particle anymore.
912: }
913: \label{fig:reson3i90p} \end{figure}
914:
915: \begin{figure*} \epsscale{0.9}
916: \plotone{f11.eps}
917: \caption{Orbital distribution of simulated test particles with initial
918: inclination angles $i\in[20\arcdeg,30\arcdeg]$ when the perturber with
919: mass $10^4\msun$ migrates to 0.15\pc. Other initial
920: conditions are the same as those in Figure~\ref{fig:distr}.}
921: \label{fig:distrinc30}
922: \end{figure*}
923:
924: \begin{figure*} \epsscale{0.8}
925: %\epsscale{0.8}
926: \plotone{f12.eps}
927: \caption{Orbital distribution of simulated test particles with initial
928: inclination angles $i\in[20\arcdeg,30\arcdeg]$ when the perturber with
929: mass $5\times10^3\msun$ migrates to 0.3\pc. Other initial
930: conditions are the same as those in Figure~\ref{fig:distr}.}
931: \label{fig:distrinc30rp0.3}
932: \end{figure*}
933:
934:
935: We now consider the possibility that the perturber migrates to the
936: proximity of the stellar disk on a highly inclined orbit. We show the
937: case that the initial disk plane is almost perpendicular to the
938: perturber orbital plane in Figure \ref{fig:distrinc90}, for which
939: $M\p=3\times 10^4\msun$ and $r\p=0.3\pc$. In this case, most of the
940: main features of the distribution in Figure~\ref{fig:distr} are
941: preserved, including the maintenance of a coherent inner stellar disk
942: with $\theta_f\la 20\arcdeg$. The angles of the final orbital plane of
943: the stars relative to their initial disk plane $\theta_f$ have a much
944: larger range 0\arcdeg--180$\arcdeg$ than those shown in
945: Figure~\ref{fig:distr}. Figures~\ref{fig:reson3i90} and
946: \ref{fig:reson3i90p} illustrate two representative particles' orbital
947: evolution. In Figure~\ref{fig:reson3i90}, after the particle is
948: captured into the perturber's 2:1 mean-motion resonance (or 3:2 resonance
949: for some other particles), both its
950: eccentricity and its inclination also increase as the particle
951: migrates inward. The magnitude of $C$ is an adiabatic invariant at
952: $t/\tau\la 0.8$ and the particle is on an irregular orbit after it
953: undergoes a close encounter with the perturber at that epoch. In
954: Figure~\ref{fig:reson3i90p}, the inclination angle of this particle
955: $i$ changes little during the evolution; but after $i$ flips from an
956: initial value close to $90\arcdeg$ to $\sim 70\arcdeg$ because of its
957: close encounter with the perturber at $t/\tau\sim$0.7--0.8, the angle
958: between the orbital plane of the particle and its initial orbital
959: plane changes significantly due to the nodal precession of the
960: particle orbital plane. The excitation of the eccentricities
961: of the test particles shown in Figure \ref{fig:distrinc90} results
962: from their capture into mean-motion resonances and close encounters with
963: the perturber. In addition to resonance capture and close encounters,
964: nodal precession due to the perturber also results in the excitation of
965: the inclination angles $\theta$.
966: The distribution of the final semimajor axes of the particles
967: in the outer region (e.g., see $a_f>0.15\pc$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:distrinc90}e)
968: is broader than that shown in Figure \ref{fig:distr} due to the scattering
969: through close encounters with the perturber and wider resonances that they
970: are captured into.
971:
972: We also calculate the orbital distributions of the particles if their initial
973: inclination angles to the perturber's orbital plane $i$ are in the range
974: 20\arcdeg--30\arcdeg, 110\arcdeg--120\arcdeg, and 170\arcdeg--180\arcdeg,
975: respectively. For the cases of initial $i\in[20\arcdeg,30\arcdeg]$ and
976: $i\in[110\arcdeg,120\arcdeg]$, if the perturber migrates to a position
977: $r\p=0.15\pc$, the stars in the inner radii cannot be maintained on a disk
978: (with $\theta_f$ up to $50\arcdeg$ or 120\arcdeg, e.g., see
979: Fig.~\ref{fig:distrinc30}) due to the nodal precession of the particles'
980: orbital planes, which is consistent with our discussion in
981: \S~\ref{subsec:nodal}. If the perturber has a smaller mass and migrates to a
982: relatively outer position (e.g., $M\p=5\times10^3\msun$ and $r\p=0.3\pc$), the
983: angles $\theta_f$ of the inner stars can be small (e.g., $\la20\arcdeg$), but a
984: warpness may be developed in the disk (the warpness is not indicated by
985: observations so far). For the case of initial $i\in[20\arcdeg,30\arcdeg]$ (see
986: Fig.~\ref{fig:distrinc30rp0.3}), both the eccentricities and inclinations of
987: the stars at the outer region can be excited up due to capture into mean-motion
988: resonances, close encounters with the perturber, and nodal precessions. But the
989: eccentricities cannot be sufficiently excited up in the case of initial
990: $i\in[110\arcdeg,120\arcdeg]$ (e.g., with $e_f\la 0.6$), because our
991: simulations show that they are less likely to be captured into mean-motion
992: resonances compared to the case of $i\in[20\arcdeg,30\arcdeg]$ or that their
993: mean-motion resonances are more likely to be unstable and affected by close
994: encounters with the perturber. A relatively higher perturber mass may increase
995: the excited eccentricities due to close encounters, but it also induces larger
996: nodal precession of stars at the inner radii.
997:
998:
999: For the case of initial $i\in[170\arcdeg,180\arcdeg]$, the inner stars may be
1000: maintained on a disk and on nearly circular orbits. The angles $\theta_f$ of
1001: the stars with large initial semimajor axes (e.g., $a_i>0.3\pc$) can be excited
1002: up to $50\arcdeg$, and their eccentricities can also be excited up. But many
1003: excited particles have large $a_f$ (e.g., $\ga 0.5\pc$) and the excited
1004: eccentricity $e_f$ of the particles at $r\sim 0.15-0.5\pc$ are not high enough
1005: (e.g., $\la 0.6$) compared to the observations shown in Figure \ref{fig:f3}.
1006: In this case, both of the inclination and eccentricity excitations come mainly
1007: from close encounters with the perturber.
1008:
1009: If the perturber is a dark cluster (with a central IMBH), its orbital decay may
1010: be accompanied with mass loss induced by the strong external tidal potential.
1011: Our simulations indicate that for the same initial perturber mass, a decrease
1012: in the perturber mass during its orbital decay may make the inner stellar disk
1013: more likely to be preserved.
1014:
1015: We also test the effects of different perturber-migration
1016: timescales. For longer migration timescales (e.g., $5\Myr$ or
1017: $10\Myr$), the main results are generally not affected. Note that a
1018: very large ($\gg 10\Myr$) migration timescale is not compatible
1019: with the estimated age of the young stars. For a substantially
1020: shorter migration timescale (e.g., $\tau=1\Myr$), the inward-migration
1021: of the perturber is too fast for some particles to be captured into
1022: the mean-motion resonance and the excitation of the eccentricity and
1023: inclination becomes insufficient.
1024:
1025: \subsection{Comparison with observations and discussions}
1026: \label{subsec:obs}
1027:
1028: The numerical models in \S~\ref{subsec:migration} simulate the
1029: interaction between a disk of stars with nearly circular orbits and an
1030: inward-migrating perturber. Provided the perturber's orbit is either
1031: nearly coplanar (in corotating directions)
1032: or essentially overhead, the young stars at the outer region generally
1033: attain high eccentricities (up to unity), while those at the inner region
1034: retain low
1035: eccentricities. In addition, the young stars at the outer region tend
1036: to have a large range of inclination angle relative to the disk, while
1037: those in the inner region roughly remain in the initial disk (see
1038: panels a and b in Figs.~\ref{fig:distr} and \ref{fig:distrinc90}).
1039:
1040: \begin{figure} \epsscale{1.0}
1041: %\epsscale{0.7}
1042: \plotone{f13.eps}
1043: \caption{The eccentricities of the young stars in the GC versus their
1044: observed distance to the central MBH. The open circles represent
1045: those stars having the measurements of the (three-dimensional)
1046: distance ($r$). The solid circles represent those stars only having the
1047: measurements of the projected distance ($r_{\rm proj}$). The inset
1048: shows several S-stars which have the eccentricity estimates. The
1049: figure shows a tendency that the outer stars have high eccentricities
1050: (close to 1) while the inner ones (with exclusion of the S-stars) only
1051: have moderate eccentricities. The data used here are adopted from
1052: \citealt{Paumard06}. Using the Spearman correlation analysis, we find
1053: a quite strong correlation between the eccentricity and the projected
1054: distance and the correlation coefficient between the eccentricity and
1055: the projected distance is $R_S=0.58$ with $P_{R_S}=8\times 10^{-7}$.
1056: } \label{fig:f3} \end{figure}
1057:
1058:
1059: These features are consistent with the observed features of the orbits
1060: partly listed in the items (a), (b) and (c) in \S~\ref{sec:intro}. In
1061: order to make a quantitative comparison with observations, we plot the
1062: eccentricities of the young stars in the GC versus their observed
1063: distance to the central MBH in Figure~\ref{fig:f3} (the data are
1064: adopted from \citealt{Paumard06}). This figure indeed indicates a
1065: correlation that the stars in the outlying regions of GC have high
1066: eccentricities (close to 1) while the inner ones only have moderate
1067: eccentricities. This apparent correlation is reproduced in our model
1068: as shown in panel (a) in Figures \ref{fig:distr} and
1069: \ref{fig:distrinc90}. Note that the low eccentricity of the test
1070: particles in the inner region (with $r_f<0.15\pc$) preserved (panel a
1071: in Figs.~\ref{fig:distr} and \ref{fig:distrinc90}), which appears
1072: inconsistent with the observational range of $0.2-0.4$
1073: (Fig.~\ref{fig:f3}). However, the eccentricities of the young stars at
1074: the inner region may relax to the observed values due to the
1075: interactions among the stars as shown in \citet{ABA07}, which are not
1076: considered in \S~\ref{sec:model}. An N-body numerical simulation of
1077: the model proposed in this paper would provide a quantitative
1078: consistency check.
1079: Our calculations in \S~\ref{subsec:migration} show that the inclination of the
1080: stars in the outer region relative to the inner disk is less excited for a
1081: nearly coplanar perturber orbit (only up to $\sim50\arcdeg$) than for an
1082: overhead perturber orbit. The inclination angles of the outer stars are not
1083: well determined in observations, but if they have higher inclinations (e.g.,
1084: $\sim110\arcdeg$ in item a in the \S~\ref{sec:intro}), the perturber would be more
1085: likely to be on an overhead orbit. Precise determination of the inclination of
1086: the stars in the outer region will be important to distinguish the inclinations
1087: of the perturber.
1088:
1089: In the in-spiraling-cluster scenario (briefly discussed in
1090: \S~\ref{sec:intro} to account for the origin of the young stars), we
1091: note that, within a limited dispersion, the eccentricities of the
1092: tidally disrupted stars are usually comparable to that of the
1093: in-spiraling star cluster. The dominant component of the velocity
1094: vector of the dispersed stars is their co-moving motion with the
1095: cluster and the velocity of the stars relative to the center of the
1096: cluster is relatively small \citep{BH06}. Therefore, it is unlikely
1097: that the observed eccentricity distribution of the young stars shown
1098: in Figure~\ref{fig:f3} can be produced by a disrupted single
1099: in-spiraling young star cluster. In order to reproduce the observed
1100: velocity distribution, the disruption of a second hypothetical
1101: in-spiraling young star cluster may be required (e.g., \citealt{BH06}).
1102: Such a scenario seems contrived because the coeval nature of the
1103: young stars also requires these clusters to be formed simultaneously.
1104:
1105: The model we analyzed here is different from that two in-spiraling star
1106: cluster scenario. In our model, all the young stars are initially in a
1107: single disk and then the orbits of the young stars in the outer region
1108: of the disk are perturbed by an inward-migrating (dark) star cluster
1109: or an IMBH onto high eccentricity and high inclination orbits.
1110:
1111: Figures \ref{fig:distr}, \ref{fig:distrinc90} and \ref{fig:distrinc30rp0.3}
1112: (e) and (f) indicate one
1113: of the features of our
1114: model that because they are captured into mean-motion resonance, some
1115: test particles have nearly the same semimajor axes with widely
1116: different eccentricities. The particles captured into the resonance
1117: are likely to have close encounters with each other, which should
1118: modify the orbital distribution obtained here. Our preliminary N-body
1119: results show that some of the particles captured into the mean-motion
1120: resonance may then be scattered out of the resonance.
1121: Nevertheless, a substantial number of particles still attached to the
1122: resonance. The main conclusion derived in Figs.~\ref{fig:distr} and
1123: ~\ref{fig:distrinc90} are not expected to change significantly. The
1124: existence of resonant stars, if can be extracted from the
1125: observational data, would not only provide an important check for our
1126: model but also strongly signify the possible presence of an IMBH
1127: in the GC.
1128:
1129: Our simulation results show that the inclination angles of the young stars at
1130: the outer region of the initial disk may be excited up to different values as
1131: the perturber migrating inward. The excited stars cannot form a coherent
1132: secondary disk in this model. The formation of a secondary disk is also
1133: challenging in the in-spiraling cluster scenario \citep{BH06}. In any event,
1134: observational evidence of the existence of a secondary disk remains
1135: controversial.
1136:
1137:
1138: \section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusion}
1139:
1140: We studied the dynamical evolution of a young stellar disk surrounding
1141: the MBH in the GC and perturbed by an inward migrating IMBH or a
1142: (dark) star cluster hosting an IMBH. Our numerical simulations show that the
1143: orbits of the young stars in the disk may be significantly modified
1144: from the outside in by the perturber. If the perturber has a low
1145: inclination angle to the initial disk, its migration from a region
1146: outside to $\sim 0.15\pc$ may excite the eccentricities (up to unity)
1147: and the inclination angles of stars in the outer (0.2--0.5\pc) regions
1148: by capturing them into its mean-motion and secular resonances, forcing
1149: them to migrate with it, and/or closely encountered with them. Stars
1150: interior to this region preserve their
1151: initial coplanar structure. The overall dynamical distribution of the stars
1152: reproduces that observed on sub-parsec scale around the GC, i.e.,
1153: an inner disk surrounded by a torus of highly eccentric and inclined
1154: stars. If the perturber migrates to $\sim 0.3\pc$ on an orbit which is nearly
1155: perpendicular to the initial disk, the stars in the outer regions can
1156: still be excited to highly eccentric and inclined orbits through
1157: resonant capture and nodal precession induced by and close encounters
1158: with the perturber. The inclinations can be excited to be in a larger
1159: range in the perpendicular case than those excited in the low-inclination
1160: case. In the perpendicular case, the stars in the inner region can
1161: also retain their low eccentricities and remain on the initial
1162: disk. These results reproduce many features of the observed orbital
1163: distribution of sub-parsec young stars. Note that the predicted position
1164: for the perturber here is an instantaneous value, and the perturber does
1165: not necessarily stop there but continues to migrate inward under the action
1166: of dynamical friction with time going on.
1167:
1168: Further measurements of the orbital parameters of the young stars in
1169: the GC (e.g., semimajor axes, eccentricities, and inclination angles)
1170: would provide important tests for the model proposed in this paper.
1171: It would also be useful to distinguish various scenarios proposed to account
1172: for the formation of the young stars. An important confirmation for
1173: the model proposed in this paper is the discovery of a perturber
1174: [either an IMBH or a (dark) cluster hosting an IMBH] with a mass in the range $3\times
1175: 10^3-3\times 10^4\msun$ at $r\sim0.15-0.3\pc$ with an orbital plane which
1176: is either nearly parallel or perpendicular to the inner disk plane.
1177:
1178: \acknowledgments
1179: We have benefited from discussions with Scott Tremaine.
1180: This work is supported by NASA (NAG5-12151, NNG06-GH45G),
1181: JPL (1270927), NSF(AST-0507424).
1182: Q.Y. acknowledges initial support from NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant
1183: HST-HF-01169.01-A awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is
1184: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.,
1185: for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555.
1186:
1187: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1188:
1189: \bibitem[Alexander et al.(2007)]{ABA07} Alexander, R.\ D., Begelman, M.\ C.,
1190: \& Armitage, P.\ J.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 907
1191:
1192: \bibitem[Alexander(1999)]{Alexander99} Alexander, T.\ 1999, \apj, 527, 835
1193:
1194: \bibitem[Alexander(2005)]{Alexander05} Alexander, T.\ 2005, Phys. Rep., 419, 65
1195:
1196: \bibitem[Beloborodov et al.(2006)]{Bel06} Beloborodov, A.\ M., Levin, Y.,
1197: Eisenhauer, F., Genzel, R., Paumard, T., Gillessen, S., \& Ott, T.\ 2006,
1198: \apj, 648, 405
1199:
1200: \bibitem[Berukoff \& Hansen(2006)]{BH06} Berukoff, S.\ J., \& Hansen, B.\ M.\ S.\ 2006, \apj, 650, 501
1201:
1202: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine(1987)]{BT87} Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S.\ 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
1203:
1204: \bibitem[Eisenhauer et al.(2005)]{Eisenhauer05} Eisenhauer, F., et al.\ 2005, ApJ, 628, 246
1205:
1206: \bibitem[Genzel et al.(2003)]{Genzel03} Genzel, R., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 594, 812
1207: \bibitem[Gerhard(2001)]{Gerhard01} Gerhard, O.\ 2001, \apj, 546, L39
1208:
1209: \bibitem[Ghez et al.(2003)]{Ghez03} Ghez, A.\ M., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 586, L127
1210:
1211: \bibitem[Ghez et al.(2005)]{Ghez05} Ghez, A.\ M., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 620, 744
1212:
1213: \bibitem[Goodman(2003)]{Goodman03} Goodman, J.\ 2003, \mnras, 339, 957
1214:
1215: \bibitem[G\"{u}rkan \& Rasio(2005)]{GR05} G\"{u}rkan, M.\ A., \& Rasio, F.\ A.\ 2005, \apj, 628, 236
1216:
1217: \bibitem[Hansen \& Milosavljevic(2003)]{HM03} Hansen, B.\ M.\ S., \& Milosavljevic, M.\ 2003, \apj, 593, L77
1218:
1219: \bibitem[Hopman \& Alexander(2006)]{HA06}Hopman, C., \& Alexander, T.\ 2006,
1220: \apj, 645, 1152
1221:
1222: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2004)]{Kim04}Kim, S.\ S., Figer, P.\ F., \& Morrison, M.\ 2004, \apj, 609, 123
1223:
1224: \bibitem[Levin(2007)]{Levin07} Levin, Y.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, 515
1225:
1226: \bibitem[Levin \& Beloborodov(2003)]{LB03} Levin, Y., \& Beloborodov, A.\ 2003, \apj, 590, L33
1227:
1228: \bibitem[Levin et al.(2005)]{Levin05} Levin, Y., Wu, A., \& Thommes, E.\ 2005, \apj, 635, 341
1229:
1230: \bibitem[Nagasawa, Lin \& Ida(2003)]{NLI03} Nagasawa, M., Lin, D.\ N.\ C., \& Ida, S.\ 2003, \apj, 586, 1374
1231:
1232: \bibitem[Nayakshin(2005)]{Nayakshin05} Nayakshin, S.\ 2005, \mnras, 359, 545
1233:
1234: \bibitem[Nayakshin et al.(2006)]{Nayakshin06} Nayakshin, S., Dehnen, W., Cuadra, J., \& Genzel, R.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 1410
1235:
1236: \bibitem[McMillan \& Portegies Zwart(2003)]{MPZ03} McMillan, S.\ L.\ W., \& Portegies Zwart, S.\ F.\ 2003, \apj, 596, 314
1237:
1238: \bibitem[Melia \& Falcke(2001)]{MF01} Melia, F., \& Falcke, H.\ 2001,
1239: \araa, 39, 309
1240:
1241: \bibitem[Misner et al.(1973)]{Misner73} Misner, C.\ W., Thorne, K.\ S., \&
1242: Wheeler, J.\ A.\ 1973, Gravitation, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco
1243:
1244: \bibitem[Morris(1993)]{Morris93} Morris, M.\ 1993, \apj, 408, 496
1245:
1246: \bibitem[Paumard et al.(2006)]{Paumard06} Paumard, T., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 643, 1011
1247:
1248: \bibitem[Perets et al.(2007)]{PHA07} Perets, H.\ B., Hopman, C., \&
1249: Alexander, T.\ 2007, \apj, 656, 709
1250:
1251: \bibitem[Polnarev \& Rees(1994)]{PR94} Polnarev, S. \& Rees, M.\ J.\ 1994, A\&A, 283, 301
1252:
1253: \bibitem[Quinlan(1996)]{Q96} Quinlan, G.\ D.\ 1996, NewA, 1, 35
1254:
1255: \bibitem[Rauch \& Tremaine(1996)]{RT96}Rauch, K., \& Tremaine, S.\ 1996, New Astronomy, 1, 149
1256:
1257: \bibitem[Sanders(1992)]{Sanders92} Sanders, R.\ H.\ 1992, \nat, 359, 131
1258:
1259: \bibitem[Sch\"{o}del et al.(2002)]{Schodel02}Sch\"{o}del, R., et al.\ 2002, \nat, 419, 694
1260:
1261: \bibitem[Yu(2002)]{Y02} Yu, Q., 2002, \mnras, 331, 935
1262:
1263: \bibitem[Yu \& Tremaine(2001)]{YT01} Yu, Q., \& Tremaine, S.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 1736
1264:
1265: \bibitem[Yu \& Tremaine(2003)]{YT03} Yu, Q., \& Tremaine, S.\ 2003, \apj, 599, 1129
1266:
1267: \end{thebibliography}
1268: \end{document}
1269: