1: % \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: 

3: %

4:  \documentclass[10pt]{emulateapj}

5: %

6: 

7: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in The Astrophysical 

8:              Journal (Date: July 9, 2007)}

9: 

10: \shorttitle{UNSTABLE DISK GALAXIES. I. MODAL PROPERTIES}

11: \shortauthors{M. A. Jalali}

12: 

13: \begin{document}

14: 

15: \title{UNSTABLE DISK GALAXIES. I. MODAL PROPERTIES}

16: 

17: 

18: \author{Mir Abbas Jalali

19: %\altaffilmark{1}

20: }

21: \affil{Sharif University of Technology, Azadi Avenue, Tehran, Iran;

22: mjalali@sharif.edu}

23: 

24: 

25: %\altaffiltext{1}{E-mail: mjalali@sharif.edu}

26: 

27: \begin{abstract}

28: 

29: I utilize the Petrov-Galerkin formulation and develop a new method

30: for solving the unsteady collisionless Boltzmann equation in both

31: the linear and nonlinear regimes. In the first order approximation, 

32: the method reduces to a linear eigenvalue problem which is solved

33: using standard numerical methods. I apply the method to the dynamics

34: of a model stellar disk which is embedded in the field of a

35: soft-centered logarithmic potential. The outcome is the full

36: spectrum of eigenfrequencies and their conjugate normal modes for

37: prescribed azimuthal wavenumbers. The results show that the

38: fundamental bar mode is isolated in the frequency space while

39: spiral modes belong to discrete families that bifurcate from the

40: continuous family of van Kampen modes. The population of spiral

41: modes in the bifurcating family increases by cooling the disk and

42: declines by increasing the fraction of dark to luminous matter. It

43: is shown that the variety of unstable modes is controlled by the

44: shape of the dark matter density profile. 

45: \end{abstract} 

46: 

47: \keywords{stellar dynamics,

48:           instabilities,

49:           methods: analytical,

50:           galaxies: kinematics and dynamics,

51:           galaxies: spiral,

52:           galaxies: structure}

53: 

54: 

55: 

56: \section{INTRODUCTION}

57: 

58: Dynamics of self-gravitating stellar systems and plasma fluids

59: are governed by the collisionless Boltzmann equation (CBE) \citep{BT87}.

60: Finding a general solution of the CBE has been a challenging problem

61: in various disciplines of physical sciences. Due to existing difficulties

62: of the general problem, finding a solution to the linearized CBE became

63: the center of attraction in the twentieth century when \citet{L46} and

64: van Kampen (1955) discovered the normal modes of collisionless ensembles.

65: Later in 1970's, \citet{K71,K77} developed a matrix theory that was

66: capable of computing normal modes of stellar systems through solving a

67: nonlinear eigenvalue problem. His theory remained as the only analytical

68: perturbation theory used by the community of galactic dynamicists over

69: the past three decades.

70: 

71: \citet{K77} assumed an exponential form

72: $\exp(-{\rm i}\omega t)$ for the time-dependent part

73: of physical quantities where ${\rm i}=\sqrt{-1}$, and

74: solved the linearized CBE for the perturbed distribution

75: function (DF) $f_1$ in terms of the perturbed

76: potential $V_1$. After expanding the potential and

77: density functions in terms of bi-orthogonal basis sets

78: in the configuration space, he used the weighted residual

79: form of the fundamental equation

80: %

81: \begin{equation}

82: f_1 d \textbf{\textit{v}} d \textbf{\textit{x}}=

83: \Sigma_1 d \textbf{\textit{x}},

84: \end{equation}

85: %

86: to obtain a nonlinear eigenvalue problem for the complex

87: eigenfrequency $\omega$. For self-consistent perturbations

88: the surface density $\Sigma_1=\int f_1 d \textbf{\textit{v}}$ is

89: related to $V_1$ through Poisson's integral, and the symbols

90: $ d \textbf{\textit{v}}$ and $ d \textbf{\textit{x}}$ denote the

91: elements of velocity and position vectors.

92: 

93: \citet{Z76} used Kalnajs's theory to compute the modes of the

94: isothermal disk \citep{M63}, which has the astrophysically important

95: property of a flat rotation curve. His analysis was then extended by

96: \citet{ER98a,ER98b} to general scale-free disks with arbitrary cusp

97: slopes. Application of Kalnajs's theory to soft-centered models of

98: stellar disks has been mainly focused on the isochrone and

99: Kuzmin-Toomre disks \citep{K78,H92,PC97}.

100: A disk with exponential light profile and an approximately

101: flat rotation curve was also investigated by \citet{VD96}.

102: More recently Jalali \& Hunter (2005a, hereafter JH) gave

103: new results for soft-centered models of stellar disks. They showed

104: the importance of a boundary integral in the modal properties of

105: unidirectional disks and computed a fundamental bar mode and a

106: secondary spiral mode for the isochrone, Kuzmin-Toomre and a newly

107: introduced family of cored exponential disks. JH also extended Kalnajs's

108: first order perturbation theory to the second order, and illustrated

109: energy and angular momentum content of different Fourier components.

110: Their bar charts showed that only a few number of expansion terms in

111: the radial angle govern the perturbed dynamics.

112: 

113: Implementation of Kalnajs's (1977) theory, however, has some technical

114: problems due to the nonlinear dependency of his matrix equations

115: on $\omega$. Most computational methods that deal with nonlinear

116: eigenvalue problems are iterative. They start with an initial guess

117: of the solution and continue with a search scheme in the frequency

118: space. Newton's method is perhaps the most efficient technique that

119: guarantees a quadratic convergence should the initial guess be close

120: enough to the solution. The key issue in success of any iterative

121: scheme is the attracting or repelling nature of an eigenvalue.

122: It is obvious that only attracting eigenvalues can be captured by

123: iterative methods while we have no priori knowledge of their

124: basins of attraction in order to make our initial guess.

125: The mentioned computational difficulties make it a formidable task 

126: to explore all normal modes of a stellar system, which include 

127: growing modes as well as stationary van Kampen modes. Moreover, 

128: it is not easy to develop a general nonlinear theory based on 

129: Kalnajs's method for studying the interaction of modes. 

130: 

131: \citet{P04,P05} introduced an alternative method for the normal mode

132: calculation of stellar disks whose outcome was a linear eigenvalue

133: problem for $\omega$. His method is capable of finding all

134: eigenmodes of a stellar disk should one use fine grids in the action

135: space. Polyachenko's method is somehow costly because it results in

136: a large linear system of equations to assure point-wise convergence

137: in the action space and mean convergence of Fourier expansions in

138: the space of the radial angle. Extension of his method to nonlinear

139: regime is another challenging problem yet to be investigated.

140: \citet{T05} has also followed an approach similar to \citet{P05} and

141: studied the instability of stellar disks surrounding massive

142: objects. His eigenvalue equations involve action variables, and

143: practically, need to be solved over a discretized grid in the space

144: of actions.

145: 

146: Recent developments in fluid mechanics \citep{DG95,MS99} inspired me

147: to formulate the dynamics of stellar systems in a new framework,

148: which is capable of solving the CBE not only in the linear regime,

149: but also in its full nonlinear form. The method systematically

150: searches for smooth solutions of the CBE by expanding the perturbed

151: DF using Fourier series of angle variables and an appropriate set of

152: trial functions in the space of actions. Coefficients of expansion

153: are unknown time-dependent amplitude functions whose evolution

154: equations are obtained by the Petrov-Galerkin projection \citep{F72} 

155: of the CBE. That is indeed taking the weighted residual form of the 

156: CBE by integration over the action-angle space and deriving a system 

157: of nonlinear ordinary differential equations (ODEs) for the amplitude

158: functions. The associated first order system of ODEs leads to a

159: linear eigenvalue problem, which is solved using standard numerical

160: methods.

161:  

162: In this paper I present my new method and apply it to explore the

163: modal properties of a model galaxy. In a second paper, I will

164: address the nonlinear evolution of modes and wave interactions. The

165: paper is organized as follows. In sections

166: \ref{sec::dynamical-theory} and \ref{sec::linear-theory}, I use the

167: Petrov-Galerkin method to project the CBE to a system of ODEs in the

168: time domain and derive a system of linear eigenvalue equations. Section

169: \ref{sec:modes-exp-disk} presents the eigenfrequency spectra and

170: their corresponding mode shapes of the cored exponential disk of JH.

171: The stars of this model move in the field of a soft-centered

172: logarithmic potential. I also investigate the effect of physical

173: parameters of the equilibrium model on the modal content. 

174: In section \ref{sec:final-discussions}, I discuss on the nature of 

175: a self-gravitating mode and compare the performance of my method 

176: with other theories. Some fundamental achievements of this work 

177: are summarized in section \ref{sec:conclusions}. 

178:   

179:  

180: \section{NONLINEAR THEORY}

181: \label{sec::dynamical-theory}

182: 

183: I use the usual polar coordinates $\textbf{\textit{x}}=(R,\phi)$ and assume

184: that the temporal evolution of the DF and gravitational potential

185: starts from an axisymmetric equilibrium state described by

186: $f_0(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}})$ and $V_0(R)$ so that

187: %

188: \begin{eqnarray}

189: f(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}},t) &=&

190: f_0(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}})+

191: f_1(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}},t), \\

192: %

193: V(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}},t) &=&

194: V_0(R)+V_1(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}},t).

195: \label{eq:perturbations}

196: \end{eqnarray}

197: %

198: Here $\textbf{\textit{p}}=\left (p_R,p_\phi \right )$ is the

199: momentum vector conjugate to $\textbf{\textit{x}}=\left (R,\phi \right )$.

200: Motion of stars in the equilibrium state is governed by the

201: zeroth order Hamiltonian

202: %

203: \begin{equation}

204: {\cal H}_0=\frac 12 \left ( p_R^2+\frac {p_\phi^2}{R^2}\right

205: )+V_0(R). \label{eq:zeroth-order-H}

206: \end{equation}

207: %

208: For bounded orbits, $R$ and $\phi$ become librating and rotating,

209: respectively. One can therefore describe the dynamics using the

210: action variables $\textbf{\textit{J}}=\left (J_R,J_\phi \right )$,

211: %

212: \begin{equation}

213: J_R=\oint p_R  d R,~~J_\phi=\oint p_\phi

214: d \phi=p_\phi,\label{eq:define-actions}

215: \end{equation}

216: %

217: and their conjugate angles $\Theta=(\theta_R,\theta_\phi)$. A

218: transformation $(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}})\rightarrow

219: (\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})$ leaves the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_0$ as

220: a function of actions only, ${\cal H}_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})$, and

221: therefore, the phase space flows of the equilibrium state lie on a

222: two dimensional torus $\textbf{\textit{J}}=\textbf{\textit{c}}$ with

223: $\textbf{\textit{c}}$ being a constant 2-vector. An action-angle

224: transformation can locally be found for any bounded regular orbit,

225: but it is a global transformation if only one orbit family occupies

226: the phase space. The axisymmetric potential $V_0(R)$ supports only

227: rosette orbits. Radial and circular orbits are the limiting cases of

228: rosette orbits with $J_\phi=0$ and $J_R=0$, respectively. By

229: representing $f$ in terms of the action-angle variables, the CBE

230: reads

231: %

232: \begin{equation}

233: \frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+[ f,{\cal H} ]=0,

234: \label{eq:CBE-action-angle}

235: \end{equation}

236: %

237: where $[,]$ denotes a Poisson bracket taken over the action-angle

238: space. According to Jeans theorem \citep{J1915,L-B62} $f_0$ depends

239: on the phase space coordinates through the integrals of motion,

240: which are the actions in the present formulation, and one obtains

241: $[f_0,{\cal H}_0]=0$. Subsequently, equation (\ref{eq:CBE-action-angle})

242: may be rewritten as

243: %

244: \begin{equation}

245: \frac{\partial f_1}{\partial t}=-\left [f_1,{\cal H}_0 \right ]-

246: \left [ f_0,{\cal H}_1 \right ]-\left [f_1,{\cal H}_1 \right ],

247: \label{eq:CBE-perturbed}

248: \end{equation}

249: %

250: where ${\cal H}_1$ is the perturbed Hamiltonian. A dark matter halo

251: contributes both to ${\cal H}_0$ and to ${\cal H}_1$ if it is live,

252: i.e., if it exchanges momentum/energy with the luminous stellar component.

253: In this paper I confine myself to a rigid halo that only contributes

254: to ${\cal H}_0$ through $V_0$ and assume that ${\cal H}_1=V_1$ is the

255: perturbed potential due to self-gravity.

256: 

257: Let me expand $f_1$ and $V_1$ in Fourier series of angle variables

258: and write

259: %

260: \begin{eqnarray}

261: f_1(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}},t) &=& \!\!

262: \sum_{m,l=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} d^{ml}_j(t)

263: \Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})e^{{\rm i}\left(m\theta_\phi+l\theta_R

264: \right)},

265: \label{eq:expansion-f1} \\

266: V_1(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}},t) &=& \!\!

267: \sum_{m,l=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} b^{ml}_j(t)

268: \Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})e^{{\rm i}\left(m\theta_\phi+l\theta_R

269: \right)}, \label{eq:expansion-V1}

270: \end{eqnarray}

271: %

272: where $\Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$ and

273: $\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$ are

274: some trial functions in the space of action variables, and

275: $d^{ml}_j(t)$ and $b^{ml}_j(t)$ are time-dependent amplitude

276: functions. On the other hand, one can expand $V_1$ and its

277: corresponding surface density $\Sigma_1$ in the configuration space

278: as

279: %

280: \begin{eqnarray}

281: \Sigma_1(R,\phi,t) &=& \!\!

282: \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} a^m_j(t)

283: \sigma^{|m|}_j(R)e^{{\rm i}m\phi},

284: \label{eq:expansion-sigma1-config} \\

285: V_1(R,\phi,t) &=& \!\! \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}

286: a^m_j(t) \psi^{|m|}_j(R)e^{{\rm i}m\phi}. \label{eq:expansion-V1-config}

287: \end{eqnarray}

288: %

289: Here $\psi^{|m|}_j(R)$ and $\sigma^{|m|}_j(R)$ are bi-orthogonal

290: potential--surface density pairs that satisfy the relation

291: %

292: \begin{equation}

293: \label{eq:Djk-definition}

294: 2\pi \int\limits_{0}^{\infty}

295: \psi^{|m|}_j(R)\sigma^{|m'|}_{j'}(R)R d R = D_j(m)\delta

296: _{m,m'}\delta_{j,j'},

297: \end{equation}

298: %

299: where $\delta_{m,m'}$ is the Kronecker delta and $D_j(m)$ are some

300: constants. It is remarked that the real parts of $\Sigma_1$, $V_1$

301: and $f_1$ describe physical solutions. In this work I utilize the

302: \citet{CB72} functions

303: %

304: \begin{eqnarray}

305: \psi^{|m|}_j &=&

306:       -\frac {1}{b} \left (\! {1-\xi \over 2}\! \right )^{1/2} \!\!

307:              P^{|m|}_i(\xi),~~\xi={R^2-b^2\over R^2+b^2}, \\

308: \sigma^{|m|}_j &=& \left (\! {2|m|+2j+1\over 2\pi b^2}\! \right )

309:                \left ( {1-\xi \over 2}\right )^{3/2}\!\!

310:                P^{|m|}_i(\xi),

311: \end{eqnarray}

312: %

313: that yield \citep{AI78,H80}

314: %

315: \begin{equation}

316: D_j(m)=D_j(-m)= -{(2|m|+j)!\over 2b j!}.

317: \end{equation}

318: %

319: $P^{|m|}_i(\xi)$ are associated Legendre functions with $i=|m|+j$.

320: Clutton-Brock functions have a length scale $b$, which makes

321: them suitable for reproducing the potential and surface density of

322: soft-centered models. The choice of this parameter is an important

323: step in the calculation of normal modes. I will discuss on this issue

324: later in \S\ref{sec:modes-exp-disk}.

325: 

326: Equating (\ref{eq:expansion-V1}) and (\ref{eq:expansion-V1-config}),

327: multiplying both sides of the resulting equation by 

328: $\exp[-{\rm i}(l\theta_R+m\theta_{\phi})]$ and integrating over the

329: $\left (\theta_R,\theta_{\phi} \right )$-space, lead to 

330: (see also Kalnajs 1977 and Tremaine \& Weinberg 1984)  

331: %

332: \begin{eqnarray}

333: &{}& \!\!\! \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} b^{ml}_j(t) \Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})

334:   \!=\! \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} a^m_j(t) \tilde \Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}}),

335:  \label{eq:relation-b-and-a} \\

336: %

337: &{}& \!\!\! \tilde \Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \!=\!

338:      {1\over \pi}\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}

339: \psi^{|m|}_j(R) \cos [l\theta_R+m(\theta_{\phi}-\phi)] d \theta _R,

340:  \label{eq:fourier-coeffs}

341: \end{eqnarray}

342: %

343: where $\tilde \Psi^{ml}_j$ are the Fourier coefficients of the basis

344: potential functions in the configuration space. The trial functions

345: used in the expansion of $V_1$ in the action-angle space are not

346: necessarily identical to $\tilde \Psi^{ml}_j$. However, subsequent

347: mathematical derivations are greatly simplified by setting

348: $\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})= \tilde

349: \Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$, which implies

350: $b^{ml}_j(t)=a^m_j(t)$. To build a relation between $d^{ml}_j(t)$

351: and $a^m_j(t)$, I use the fundamental equation

352: %

353: \begin{equation}

354: f_1(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}},t) d \textbf{\textit{J}} d \Theta

355: =\Sigma_1(R,\phi,t) R dR d \phi,

356: \label{eq:fundamental-equation}

357: \end{equation}

358: %

359: where $ d \textbf{\textit{J}} d \Theta$ is the volume of

360: an infinitesimal phase space element. On substituting

361: (\ref{eq:expansion-f1}) and (\ref{eq:expansion-sigma1-config})

362: in (\ref{eq:fundamental-equation}), multiplying both sides of

363: the resulting equation by $\psi^{|m|}_j(R)e^{-{\rm i}m\phi}$ and

364: integrating, one obtains

365: %

366: \begin{eqnarray}

367: a^m_j(t)&=& \frac

368: {4\pi^2}{D_j(m)}\sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}

369: \Lambda^{ml}_{jp}d^{ml}_p(t),\label{eq:a-versus-d} \\

370: %

371: \Lambda^{ml}_{jp} &=& \int

372: \Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})

373: \Phi^{ml}_p(\textbf{\textit{J}}) d \textbf{\textit{J}},

374: \end{eqnarray}

375: %

376: which is inserted in (\ref{eq:expansion-V1}) to represent $V_1$

377: in terms of the amplitude functions $d^{ml}_j(t)$ as

378: %

379: \begin{equation}

380: V_1 \! =\!\!\!\!

381: \sum_{m,l,k=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{j,p=0}^{\infty}\frac

382: {4\pi^2}{D_j(m)}\Lambda^{mk}_{jp}\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})

383: d^{mk}_p(t)

384: e^{{\rm i}\left(m\theta_\phi+l\theta_R \right)}.

385: \label{eq:expansion-V1-vs-dmlj}

386: \end{equation}

387: %

388: 

389: It would be computationally favorable to collect $d^{ml}_j(t)$

390: in a single vector $\textbf{\textit{z}}(t)=\{z_n(t)\}$ by defining

391: a map $(m,l,j)\rightarrow n$. In practice the infinite sums in

392: (\ref{eq:expansion-f1}) are truncated and approximated by finite

393: sums so that $-l_{\rm max}\le l \le l_{\rm max}$,

394: $-m_{\rm max}\le m\le m_{\rm max}$ and $0\le j\le

395: j_{\rm max}$. For $1\le n\le n_{\rm max}$,

396: a simple map between indices will be

397: %

398: \begin{eqnarray}

399: n &=& \left ( m+m_{\rm max}\right )

400: \left ( 2l_{\rm max}+1\right )(j_{\rm max}+1)

401: \nonumber \\

402: &{}& + \left (l+l_{\rm max}\right )(j_{\rm max}+1)+j+1,

403: \label{eq:map-mlj-to-i} \\

404: n_{\rm max} &=& \left ( 2m_{\rm max}+1\right )

405:       \left ( 2l_{\rm max}+1\right )

406:       (j_{\rm max}+1). \label{eq:maximum-n}

407: \end{eqnarray}

408: %

409: One can now use (\ref{eq:expansion-f1}) and

410: (\ref{eq:expansion-V1-vs-dmlj}) in (\ref{eq:CBE-perturbed}) and

411: apply the Petrov-Galerkin method to construct the weighted residual

412: form of the CBE. That is to multiply (\ref{eq:CBE-perturbed}) by

413: some weighting functions $W^{ml}_j(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})$ and to

414: integrate the identity over the action-angle space. The outcome is

415: the following system of nonlinear ODEs 

416: %

417: \begin{equation}

418: {\rm i} { d z_p\over  d t}\!=\! \sum_{q=1}^{n_{\rm max}}

419: \! A_{pq} z_q \!+ \!\! \sum_{q,r=1}^{n_{\rm max}}

420: \! B_{pqr} z_q z_r,~~p=1,2,\cdots,n_{\rm max},

421: \label{eq:nonlinear-ODE}

422: \end{equation}

423: %

424: for the amplitude functions $z_n(t) \equiv d^{ml}_j(t)$. The

425: elements of $A_{pq}$ and $B_{pqr}$ have been determined in Appendix

426: A. Each equation in (\ref{eq:nonlinear-ODE}) is the projection of

427: the CBE on a subspace spanned by a weighting function. 

428: Therefore, the left

429: hand side of (\ref{eq:nonlinear-ODE}) is the projection of $\partial

430: f_1/\partial t$, the summation over first order terms is the

431: projection of $-\left [f_1,{\cal H}_0 \right ]- \left [ f_0,{\cal

432: H}_1 \right ]$, and the second order terms are the projections of

433: $-\left [f_1,{\cal H}_1 \right ]$. The second order terms of

434: amplitude functions, characterized by $B_{pqr}$, show the

435: interaction of modes in both the radial and azimuthal directions.  

436: 

437: Distribution of angular momentum between different Fourier components

438: provides useful information of the disk dynamics. I compute the rate

439: of change of the total angular momentum ${\cal L}$ using

440: (see Appendix B in JH)

441: %

442: \begin{equation}

443: { d {\cal L}\over  d t}=-\frac {1}{4}

444: \int\int \left ( f_1+\overline{f}_1 \right )

445: {\partial \over \partial \theta_{\phi} }

446: \left ( V_1+\overline{V}_1 \right ) d \textbf{\textit{J}} d \Theta,

447: \label{eq:rate-change-L-one}

448: \end{equation}

449: %

450: where a bar denotes complex conjugate. Substituting

451: (\ref{eq:expansion-f1}) and (\ref{eq:expansion-V1-vs-dmlj})

452: in (\ref{eq:rate-change-L-one}) and evaluating the integrals,

453: yield

454: %

455: \begin{eqnarray}

456: { d {\cal L}\over  d t} &=& {\rm i}\pi^2 \!\!\!

457: \sum_{m,l=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{j,p=0}^{\infty}

458: \biggl \{  m\left [ a^{(-m)}_{j}(t)

459: +\overline{a^{m}_{j}}(t) \right ] \Lambda^{ml}_{jp}

460: d^{ml}_{p}(t) \nonumber \\

461: &{}& - m\left [ a^{m}_{j}(t)

462: +\overline{a^{(-m)}_{j}}(t) \right ] \Lambda^{ml}_{jp}

463: \overline{d^{ml}_{p}}(t) \biggr \}. \label{eq:rate-change-L-two}

464: \end{eqnarray}

465: %

466: Define $a^m_j(t)=u^m_j(t)+{\rm i}v^m_j(t)$ with $u^m_j(t)$ and

467: $v^m_j(t)$ being real functions of time. According to identity

468: (\ref{eq:a-versus-d}), one may further simplify equation

469: (\ref{eq:rate-change-L-two}) to

470: %

471: \begin{eqnarray}

472: { d {\cal L}\over  d t} &=&

473: \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} L_m(t),

474: \label{eq:rate-change-L-three} \\

475: L_m(t) &=& -\frac {m}{2}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}

476: D_j(m) \nonumber \\

477: &{}& \times \left [ u^m_j(t)v^{-m}_j(t)+u^{-m}_j(t)v^m_j(t) \right ].

478: \label{eq:rate-change-L-four}

479: \end{eqnarray}

480: %

481: The share of the $m$th mode from $ d {\cal L}/ d t$ is thus

482: determined by $L_m(t)$. As one could anticipate for an isolated

483: stellar disk, $ d {\cal L}/ d t$ vanishes and the total

484: angular momentum remains constant because the terms $L_m(t)$ and

485: $L_{-m}(t)$ cancel each other in (\ref{eq:rate-change-L-three}),

486: and $L_0(t)$ is annulled by the factor $m$

487: in (\ref{eq:rate-change-L-four}).

488: 

489: 

490: \subsection{Trial and Weighting Functions}

491: \label{sec::trial-and-test-fncs}

492: 

493: Choosing the trial functions $\Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$ is

494: the most delicate step in the reduction of the CBE to a system of ODEs.

495: One possible way is to set $\partial f_1/\partial t=0$ in

496: (\ref{eq:CBE-perturbed}) and solve the first order equation

497: %

498: \begin{equation}

499: \left [f_1,{\cal H}_0 \right ]+\left [f_0,{\cal H}_1 \right ]=0,

500: \label{eq:CBE-linear-equilibrium}

501: \end{equation}

502: %

503: for $f_1$. Substituting (\ref{eq:expansion-f1}) and

504: (\ref{eq:expansion-V1}) in (\ref{eq:CBE-linear-equilibrium}) gives

505: %

506: \begin{eqnarray}

507: d^{ml}_j\Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}}) &=& b^{ml}_j

508: \varrho^{ml}_{0}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}}),

509: \label{eq:trial-functions-one} \\

510: \varrho^{ml}_{0}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) &=& {l\frac {\partial f_0}{\partial

511: J_R}+ m\frac {\partial f_0}{\partial J_\phi} \over

512: l\Omega_R+m\Omega_\phi },

513: \end{eqnarray}

514: %

515: where

516: %

517: \begin{equation}

518: \Omega_R(\textbf{\textit{J}})=\frac {\partial {\cal H}_0}{\partial J_R},~~

519: \Omega_\phi(\textbf{\textit{J}})=\frac {\partial {\cal H}_0}{\partial J_\phi}.

520: \end{equation}

521: %

522: Equation (\ref{eq:trial-functions-one}) suggests to choose

523: %

524: \begin{equation}

525: \Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})=\varrho^{ml}_{0}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

526: \Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}}),\label{eq:trial-functions-two}

527: \end{equation}

528: %

529: as the trial functions (in the space of actions) for an unsteady

530: $f_1(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}},t)$. These functions have integrable

531: singularities for resonant orbits with $l\Omega_R+m\Omega_{\phi}=0$.

532: For unidirectional disks with only prograde orbits, they also

533: include a term with the Dirac delta function $\delta(J_\phi)$

534: (see JH). One should therefore avoid the partial derivatives of

535: $\Phi^{ml}_j$ with respect to the actions by evaluating the weighted

536: residual form of $[f_1,{\cal H}_1]$ through integration by parts

537: (Appendix A).

538:  

539: For deriving the relation between $a^m_j$ and $d^{ml}_{j}$

540: in (\ref{eq:a-versus-d}), the fundamental equation

541: (\ref{eq:fundamental-equation}) was multiplied by the complex

542: conjugates of the basis functions used in the expansion of

543: $V_1(R,\phi,t)$. One may follow a similar approach for

544: obtaining the weighted residual form of the CBE and set

545: %

546: \begin{equation}

547: W^{ml}_j(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})=\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})

548: e^{-{\rm i}(m\theta_\phi+l\theta_R)},\label{eq:weight-functions}

549: \end{equation}

550: %

551: which are the complex conjugates of the basis functions used in the 

552: expansion of $V_1(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}},t)$ in the action-angle 

553: space. The trial and weighting functions introduced as above, are not 

554: orthogonal but they result in a simple form for the linear part of 

555: the reduced CBE as I explain in \S\ref{sec::linear-theory}. 

556:  

557: 

558: 

559: \section{LINEAR THEORY}

560: \label{sec::linear-theory}

561: 

562: In a first order perturbation analysis, the second order terms of

563: the amplitude functions are ignored. The evolution of modes is

564: then governed by the linear parts of (\ref{eq:ODE-for-z-one}) as

565: %

566: \begin{equation}

567: {\rm i} \textbf{\textit{M}}\cdot { d \over  d t}

568: \textbf{\textit{z}}(t) =

569: \textbf{\textit{C}}\cdot \textbf{\textit{z}}(t).

570: \label{eq:ODE-for-z-linear}

571: \end{equation}

572: %

573: A general solution of (\ref{eq:ODE-for-z-linear}) has the

574: form $\textbf{\textit{z}}(t)=e^{-{\rm i}\omega t}\textbf{\textit{z}}_0$,

575: which leads to the following linear eigenvalue problem

576: %

577: \begin{equation}

578: \textbf{\textit{C}}(m)\cdot \textbf{\textit{z}}_0=

579: \omega \textbf{\textit{M}}(m)\cdot \textbf{\textit{z}}_0,

580: \label{eq:eigenvalue-problem-one}

581: \end{equation}

582: %

583: for a prescribed azimuthal wavenumber $m$.

584: Operating $\textbf{\textit{M}}^{-1}$ on (\ref{eq:eigenvalue-problem-one})

585: yields

586: %

587: \begin{equation}

588: \textbf{\textit{A}}(m)\cdot \textbf{\textit{z}}_0=

589: \omega \textbf{\textit{z}}_0,

590: \label{eq:eigenvalue-problem-two}

591: \end{equation}

592: %

593: where $\textbf{\textit{A}}$ is a general non-symmetric matrix. A reduction

594: to Hessenberg form followed by the QR algorithm \citep{Press01}

595: gives all real and complex eigenvalues. Real eigenvalues correspond

596: to van Kampen modes and complex eigenvalues, which occur in conjugate

597: pairs, give growing/damping modes. I utilize the method of singular value

598: decomposition for finding the eigenvectors and perform the decomposition

599: $\textbf{\textit{A}}-\omega \textbf{\textit{I}}=\textbf{\textit{U}}\cdot

600: \textbf{\textit{S}}\cdot \textbf{\textit{V}}^T$

601: where $\textbf{\textit{I}}$ is the identity matrix and the diagonal matrix

602: $\textbf{\textit{S}}$ is composed of the singular values $S_j$

603: ($j=1,2,\cdots,n_{\rm max}$). The column of $\textbf{\textit{V}}$ that

604: corresponds to the smallest $S_j$ is the eigenvector associated

605: with $\omega$.

606: 

607: Calculation of $\textbf{\textit{C}}$ and $\textbf{\textit{M}}$

608: involves evaluation of some definite integrals in the action space.

609: There will be two types of such integrals (instead of three) if one

610: uses the trial functions defined in (\ref{eq:trial-functions-two}).

611: Let me introduce the auxiliary integral

612: %

613: \begin{equation}

614: {\cal I}^{ml}_{jk}=

615: \int  d \textbf{\textit{J}} \left ( l{\partial f_0\over \partial J_R}+

616: m{\partial f_0\over \partial J_\phi} \right )

617: \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Psi^{ml}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}),

618: \end{equation}

619: %

620: and apply the trial functions $\Phi^{ml}_{j}=\varrho^{ml}_0\Psi^{ml}_{j}$

621: in (\ref{eq:A-tensor}). The elements of $\textbf{\textit{M}}$ and

622: $\textbf{\textit{C}}$ are thus computed from

623: %

624: \begin{eqnarray}

625: M_{pq} &=& \delta_{l,l'}\Lambda^{ml}_{jj'}, \label{eq:bar-M-matrix} \\

626: C_{pq} &=& \delta_{l,l'}{\cal I}^{ml}_{jj'}-

627: \sum_{k=0}^{j_{\rm max}} \left [ {4\pi^2\over D_{k}(m)}\right ]

628: {\cal I}^{ml}_{jk}\Lambda^{ml'}_{kj'}. \label{eq:bar-A-matrix}

629: \end{eqnarray}

630: %

631: Both $\Lambda^{ml}_{jk}$ and ${\cal I}^{ml}_{jk}$ consist of

632: boundary integrals when the unperturbed stellar disk is

633: unidirectional with the DF

634: $f_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})=H(J_\phi)f^P_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})$.

635: Here $H$ is the Heaviside function. The boundary terms are

636: %

637: \begin{eqnarray}

638: \tilde \Lambda^{ml}_{jk} &=& \int_{0}^{\infty} d J_R\left [

639: {mf^P_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})

640: \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Psi^{ml}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \over

641: l\Omega_R(\textbf{\textit{J}})+m\Omega_{\phi}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) }

642: \right ]_{J_{\phi}=0}, \\

643: %

644: {\tilde {\cal I}}^{ml}_{jk} &=& \int_{0}^{\infty} d J_R\left [

645: mf^P_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})

646: \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Psi^{ml}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \right

647: ]_{J_{\phi}=0}.

648: \end{eqnarray}

649: %

650: 

651: Dynamics of modes with different azimuthal wavenumbers are decoupled

652: in the linear regime and the matrix $\textbf{\textit{A}}$ is an odd

653: function of the wavenumber $m$. i.e.,

654: $\textbf{\textit{A}}(-m)=-\textbf{\textit{A}}(m)$. An

655: immediate result of this property is $a^{-m}_j(t)=\overline {a^m_j}(t)$.

656: Consequently, $L_m(t)$ becomes equal to zero for all $|m|\ge 0$ and

657: each mode individually conserves the total angular momentum.

658: 

659: The present theory has three major advantages over Kalnajs's formulation.

660: Firstly, all eigenmodes relevant to a prescribed azimuthal wavenumber

661: are obtained at once with classical linear algebraic algorithms. This makes

662: it possible to explore and classify all families of growing modes beside

663: pure oscillatory van Kampen modes. Secondly, the constituting integrals

664: of the elements of $M_{pq}$, $C_{pq}$ and $K_{pqr}$

665: (Appendix \ref{app::Petrov-Galerkin}) are regular

666: at exact resonances when the condition $l\Omega_R+m\Omega_\phi-\omega=0$

667: holds. Finally, nonlinear interaction of modes, and the mass and angular

668: momentum exchange between them, can be readily monitored by integrating

669: the system of nonlinear ODEs given in (\ref{eq:nonlinear-ODE}). In the

670: proceeding section I will be concerned with the calculation and

671: classification of modes in the linear regime.

672: 

673: %

674: \begin{figure*}

675: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}

676: \plottwo{f1c.eps}{f1d.eps}

677: \plottwo{f1e.eps}{f1f.eps}

678: \caption{Eigenfrequency spectra of a cored exponential disk

679: with $v_0=1$, $R_C=1$ and $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(6,1,0.42)$.

680: Eigenfrequencies have been displayed for the azimuthal wavenumbers

681: $0\le m \le 5$. The results correspond to $l_{\rm max}=10$ and

682: $j_{\rm max}=15$ in the series expansion of the perturbed

683: distribution function. \label{pic:full-spectra}}

684: \end{figure*}

685: %

686: 

687: %

688: \begin{figure*}

689: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}

690:  \caption{({\em a}) Zoomed

691: eigenfrequency spectra (filled squares) of a cored exponential disk 

692: with $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(6,1,0.42)$ for the azimuthal wavenumber $m=2$.

693: The (isolated) bar mode has been labeled B1. The most prominent

694: growing modes belong to a discrete family that bifurcates from a van

695: Kampen mode. The members of this family, labeled as S1, S2,

696: S3,$\cdots$, have spiral patterns. Circles show the eigenfrequencies

697: of the fundamental and secondary modes calculated using Kalnajs's

698: (1977) method (see Table 4 in JH). ({\em b}) The eigenfrequency loci

699: of the same model of panel {\em a} as $\alpha$ is increased

700: continuously from $0.2$ to $0.42$. A few sample eigenfrequencies

701: have been displayed on each locus.

702:  \label{pic:spectrum-m2-unstable}} 

703: \end{figure*}

704: %

705: %

706: \begin{figure*}

707: \plotone{f3a.eps}

708: \plotone{f3b.eps}

709: \caption{Mode shapes of the cored exponential disk for $R_C=1$,

710: $v_0=1$ and $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(6,1,0.42)$. Panels have been

711: labeled by the corresponding mode name. The contour plots show the

712: positive part of $\Sigma_1(R,\phi,0)$. The contour levels range

713: from 10$\%$ to 90$\%$ of the maximum of $\Sigma_1(R,\phi,0)$ with

714: increments of 10$\%$. The panel below each mode shape shows the

715: amplitude of wave patterns as defined in equation (\ref{eq:mode-shape}).

716: \label{pic:mode-shape-m2}}

717: \end{figure*}

718: %

719: 

720: \section{MODES OF THE CORED EXPONENTIAL DISK}

721: \label{sec:modes-exp-disk}

722: 

723: JH calculated barred and spiral modes of certain stellar

724: disks for the wavenumber $m=2$. Among the models

725: studied in JH, the cored exponential disk with the surface

726: density profile

727: %

728: \begin{equation}

729: \Sigma_D(R)=\Sigma_s \exp \left ( -\lambda

730: \sqrt{1+R^2/R_C^2}\right ),~~\lambda=\frac{R_C}{R_D},

731: \label{eq:density-exp-disk}

732: \end{equation}

733: %

734: and embedded in the field of the soft-centered logarithmic

735: potential

736: %

737: \begin{equation}

738: V_0(R)=v_0^2\ln \sqrt{1+R^2/R_C^2},

739: \label{eq:potential-cored-logarithmic}

740: \end{equation}

741: %

742: is a viable model that resembles most features of realistic spirals.

743: Here $R_C$ is the core radius, $R_D$ is the length scale of

744: the exponential decay, and $\Sigma_s$ is a density scaling factor.

745: The velocity of circular orbits in this model rises from zero at

746: the galactic center and approaches to the constant value $v_0$

747: in outer regions where the light profile falls off exponentially.

748: \citet{JHb} have derived the gravitational potential corresponding

749: to $\Sigma_D(R)$. I denote this potential by $V_D(R)$. The gradient

750: %

751: \begin{equation}

752: F_H=\frac{d}{dR}\left [V_0(R)-V_D(R)\right ],

753: \end{equation}

754: %

755: will give the gravitational force of a spherical dark matter component,

756: computed inside the galactic disk. The density profile of the dark

757: component, $\rho_H$, can then be determined using $F_H$. The positiveness

758: of $\rho_H$ imposes some restrictions on the physical values of $\lambda$

759: and $\alpha=G\Sigma_s R_D/v_0^2$ as Figure 5 in JH shows. For a given

760: $\lambda$, $\alpha$ cannot exceed a critical value $\alpha_{cr}$.

761: The parameter $\lambda$ determines the shape of the dark matter density 

762: profile. A model with $\lambda=1$ and $\alpha=\alpha_{cr}$ is maximal 

763: in the region where the rotation curve is rising. i.e., there is no

764: dark matter in that region. Models with $\lambda >1$ and

765: $\alpha=\alpha_{cr}$ are still maximal but only in the vicinity of

766: the center for $R<R_D$. In such models the rotational velocity of

767: stars due to dark matter ($v_H=\sqrt{R F_H}$) has a monotonically

768: rising profile. For $\lambda<1$, dark matter penetrates into the 

769: galactic center and its density profile becomes cuspy in the limit 

770: of $\lambda \rightarrow 0$. The role of the parameter $\alpha$ is 

771: to control the fraction of dark to luminous matter. Models with 

772: $\alpha \ll \alpha_{cr}$ are dominated by dark matter. 

773:  

774: JH introduced a family of equilibrium DFs that reproduces

775: $\Sigma_D(R)$ and depends on an integer constant $N$.

776: This parameter controls the population of near-circular

777: orbits and the disk temperature: the parameter $Q$ of \citet{T64}

778: decreases by increasing $N$. The DFs of JH have an isotropic part

779: that determines the fraction of radial orbits. That isotropic part,

780: which reconstructs the central density of the equilibrium state,

781: shrinks to central regions of the galaxy as $N$ increases.

782: 

783: I apply my new method to the cored exponential disks of JH and calculate

784: the spectrum of $\omega=\omega_R+{\rm i}\omega_I$. Subsequently, 

785: the eigenvector $\textbf{\textit{z}}_0$ is calculated 

786: from (\ref{eq:eigenvalue-problem-two}) and it is used 

787: in (\ref{eq:a-versus-d}) to compute

788: $a^m_j(t)=e^{-{\rm i}\omega t}a^m_j(0)$ and the perturbed density

789: %

790: \begin{equation}

791: \Sigma_1(R,\phi,t)= e^{\omega_I t} P_m(R) \cos \left [

792: m\phi \!-\! \omega_R t \!+\! \vartheta_m(R)\right ],

793: \label{eq:mode-shape}

794: \end{equation}

795: %

796: which is the real part of (\ref{eq:expansion-sigma1-config}).

797: $P_m(R)$ and $\vartheta_m(R)$ are the amplitude and phase functions

798: of an $m$-fold circumferential wave that travels with the angular

799: velocity $\omega_R/m$. The factor $e^{\omega_I t}$ shows the exponential

800: growth/decay of the wave amplitude. I normalize all length, velocity, 

801: and time variables to $R_C$, $v_0$ and $R_C/v_0$, respectively, and 

802: set $G=R_C=v_0=1$.  

803: 

804: I begin my case studies in \S\ref{sec:maximal-disk} with a near 

805: maximal disk of $(N,\lambda,\alpha)$=$(6,1,0.42)$ and compute its 

806: eigenfrequency spectra for the wavenumbers $0\le m\le 5$. I then 

807: classify unstable $m=2$ modes of this model and investigate their 

808: evolution as the parameter $\alpha$ is varied. 

809: In \S\ref{sec:variations-of-lambda} and \S\ref{sec:variation-of-N},

810: I study the behavior of unstable $m=2$ waves as the parameters 

811: $\lambda$ and $N$ are changed. The eigenfrequency spectrum of a 

812: model with an inner cutout is also computed and discussed 

813: in \S\ref{sec:cutout-models}. 

814: 

815:  

816: \subsection{A Near Maximal Disk}

817: \label{sec:maximal-disk}

818: 

819: I pick up the first model from Table 4 of JH with

820: $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(6,1,0.42)$ and start solving the

821: eigensystem (\ref{eq:eigenvalue-problem-two})

822: with $(l_{\rm max},j_{\rm max})=(2,4)$ and increase these limits

823: until complex eigenfrequencies converge. For an error threshold

824: of $1\%$ the program terminates when

825: $(l_{\rm max},j_{\rm max})=(10,15)$, which gives a size of

826: $336\times 336$ for the matrix $\textbf{\textit{A}}$. In such a

827: circumstance, out of $336$ eigenfrequencies of $\textbf{\textit{A}}$

828: (for each wavenumber $m$), less than 15 pair have non-zero

829: growth rates ($\omega_I\not =0$). Further increasing of

830: $l_{\rm max}$ and $j_{\rm max}$ does not alter the number and

831: location of complex eigenfrequencies in the $\omega$-plane.

832: This shows that unstable modes do not constitute a continuous

833: family.

834: 

835: Figure \ref{pic:full-spectra} displays the eigenfrequency spectra

836: for the azimuthal wavenumbers $0\le m\le 5$. Eigenfrequencies on

837: the real axis are oscillatory van Kampen modes. Their calculation

838: requires evaluation of Cauchy's principal value \citep{V03}

839: if one uses Kalnajs's first order theory. In the present formalism,

840: van Kampen modes are found together with growing modes without any

841: special treatment. More van Kampen modes are obtainable

842: by increasing the truncation limit $l_{\rm max}$ of Fourier terms

843: in the $\theta_R$-direction. Toomre's $Q$ is marginally greater

844: than 1 for the model (Figure 7{\em b} in JH), and therefore,

845: one could expect that the disk is stable for $m=0$ excitations

846: (see top-left panel in Figure \ref{pic:full-spectra}).

847: The model is highly unstable for $m>0$ excitations although the

848: average growth rate of unstable modes decreases for larger

849: wavenumbers. It is evident that either unstable modes are isolated

850: or they are grouped in {\it discrete families}. 

851: Depending on the wavenumber, there may be one or more discrete 

852: families. The most prominent family bifurcates from van Kampen modes. 

853: Members of this family have spiral patterns with multiple peaks in 

854: their $P_m(R)$ functions. The (global) fastest growing mode belongs 

855: to the spectrum of $m=2$. That is the bar mode of a two-member 

856: unstable family. 

857: 

858: The length scale of Clutton-Brock functions has been set to $b=1.5$

859: for $m=2$ and $b=2$ for other wavenumbers. Changing this length

860: scale slightly displaces the eigenfrequencies although the spectrum

861: maintains its global pattern. Large values of $b$ lead to a better

862: computation accuracy of extensive modes (with smaller pattern

863: speeds), while compact bar modes show a rapid convergence for small

864: values of $b$. Moreover, the suitable value of $b$ differs from one

865: azimuthal wavenumber to another. Finding an optimum length scale

866: that gives the best results for all modes and wavenumbers is an open

867: problem yet to be investigated precisely. For the cored exponential 

868: disks with $0.5 \le R_C,R_D\le 2$, working in the range $1\le b\le 2.5$ 

869: gives reasonable results.

870: 

871: %

872: \begin{figure*}

873: \plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps} 

874: \caption{({\em a}) Eigenfrequency loci (solid lines) of cored 

875: exponential disks with $(N,\lambda)=(6,0.625)$ for $0.2\le \alpha \le 0.36$. 

876: Large squares show the eigenfrequency spectrum of a model 

877: with $\alpha=0.34$, and circles show the eigenfrequencies of the 

878: fundamental and secondary modes calculated using Kalnajs's method 

879: (see Table 4 in JH) for $\alpha=0.34$. ({\em b}) Same as panel {\em a} 

880: but for models with $(N,\lambda)=(6,2)$ and $0.25 \le \alpha \le 0.6$.

881: Some sample eigenfrequencies have been demonstrated on each locus.

882: \label{pic:spectrum-m2-vary-lambda}}

883: \end{figure*}

884: %       

885: 

886: For $m=2$, I have zoomed out and plotted in Figure

887: \ref{pic:spectrum-m2-unstable}{\em a} the portion of the spectrum

888: that contains growing modes. The first and second modes reported in

889: Table 4 of JH have been shown by circles in the same figure. The

890: most unstable mode (labeled as B1) is a compact, rapidly rotating

891: bar. The majority of unstable modes belong to a discrete spiral

892: family that bifurcates from a van Kampen mode with $\omega \approx

893: 0.43$. I have labeled these modes by S1,$\cdots$,S6. The number of

894: density peaks along the spiral arms is proportional to the integer

895: number in the mode name. Both B2 and G are double peaked spirals but

896: I have classified B2 as a bar mode, and collected it with B1 in a

897: two member family, for it takes a bar-like structure when it is 

898: stabilized by decreasing $\alpha$. I classify mode G as an isolated 

899: mode because it does not behave similar to either of S- or B-modes 

900: as the model parameters vary. There is another isolated mode in 

901: the spectrum, C1, which exhibits a spiral pattern. By decreasing

902: $\lambda$, mode C1 joins a new family of spiral modes, which are

903: accumulated near the galactic center (see

904: \S\ref{sec:variations-of-lambda}). 

905: 

906: Reducing $\alpha$ increases the abundance of dark matter and

907: according to \cite{T81} and JH the growth rate of modes should decrease.

908: My calculations show that by reducing $\alpha$, spiral modes are

909: affected sooner and more effective than the bar mode, and they join

910: to the stationary modes, one by one from the location of the

911: bifurcation point until the whole S-family disappears. This is

912: a generic scenario for all $\lambda \ge 1$ models regardless of the

913: disk temperature controlled by $N$. Solid lines in

914: Figure \ref{pic:spectrum-m2-unstable}{\em b} show the {\it eigenfrequency

915: loci} of a model with $(N,\lambda)=(6,1)$ as $\alpha$ increases from

916: $0.2$ to $0.42$. It is evident that mode B1 is destabilized through

917: a pitchfork bifurcation while the loci of modes B2 and C1, and S-modes

918: exhibit a tangent bifurcation. All modes except mode G are stable

919: for $\alpha <0.23$. Surprisingly, mode G resists against stabilization

920: even for very small values of $\alpha$. This indicates that 

921: mode G is not characterized by the fraction of dark to luminous 

922: matter. In \S\ref{sec:variations-of-lambda} and \S\ref{sec:variation-of-N}, 

923: I will show that this mode is highly sensitive to the variations of 

924: $\lambda$ and $N$. According to my computations 

925: (e.g., Figure \ref{pic:spectrum-m2-unstable}{\em b}), by increasing 

926: $\alpha$ all S-modes are born at the same bifurcation frequency 

927: $\omega_{S}\approx 0.43$, but mode B2 comes out from a van Kampen 

928: mode with $\omega_{B}\approx 0.83$. This result completely rules out

929: any skepticism that mode B2 is a member of S-family.  

930: 

931: % 

932: \begin{figure*}

933: \plotone{f5a.eps}

934: \plotone{f5b.eps}

935: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{pic:mode-shape-m2} but for a model

936: with $(\lambda,\alpha)=(0.625,0.34)$. The fastest growing spiral

937: mode, S1, has also been found by JH. Modes C1, C2 and C3 have

938: emerged due to dark matter presence at the galactic center.

939: They shrink to central regions and grow slower as their pattern

940: speed increases.

941: \label{pic:mode-shape-m2-SR34}}

942: \end{figure*}

943: %

944:  

945: Figure \ref{pic:mode-shape-m2} displays the wave patterns and

946: amplitude functions of modes B1, B2, G, S1, S2 and S3. It is seen

947: that the patterns of S-modes rotate slower and become more extensive 

948: as the mode number increases. Mode S6, which is at the bifurcation 

949: point of the spiral family, has the largest extent. Eight wave packets 

950: of this mode are distributed by a phase shift of 90 degrees along 

951: major spiral arms. Mode G has at most two density peaks on its major 

952: spiral arms but the magnitude of its second peak increases as the disk 

953: is cooled. Modes B1, B2, S1, S2 and S3 are, respectively, analogous to 

954: modes A, B, C, E and F of a Gaussian disk explored in \citet{T81}. 

955: There are three low-speed modes in Figure 11 of \citet{T81} that 

956: have not been labeled, but they are analogs of modes S4, S5 and S6. 

957: Mode G and Toomre's mode D also have some similarities but are of 

958: different origins (see \S\ref{sec:final-discussions}). None of them

959: can be stabilized only by increasing the fraction of dark matter. 

960: 

961: Figure \ref{pic:spectrum-m2-unstable}{\em a} shows that the 

962: fundamental mode obtained by JH coincides 

963: with mode B1. The wave pattern of mode B1 (displayed in Figure

964: \ref{pic:mode-shape-m2}) is identical to the mode shape computed

965: using Kalnajs's theory and demonstrated in Figure 8 of JH. JH found a

966: secondary mode which lies between modes B2 and G. That mode is also

967: a double-peaked spiral and it is not easy to identify its true

968: nature unless we investigate its evolution as the model parameters 

969: vary. By comparing Figure 10{\em a} of JH with 

970: Figure \ref{pic:spectrum-m2-unstable}{\em b}, one can see that both 

971: mode B2 and the secondary mode of JH are destabilized through a 

972: tangent bifurcation while mode G has a different nature. 

973: The bifurcation frequency of mode B2 that I find  

974: ($\omega_{B}\approx 0.83$) matches very well with the frequency 

975: of the stabilized secondary mode of JH (see Figure 10{\em a} in JH

976: but note that their vertical axis indicates $\Omega_p=\omega_R/2$). 

977: Therefore, I conclude that the secondary mode of JH is indeed 

978: mode B2 although it seems to be closer to mode G. The existing 

979: discrepancy is due to different length scale of Clutton-Brock 

980: functions that JH have used for finding the secondary mode. 

981: By adjusting $b$ one can improve the location of B2. However, 

982: this is an unnecessary attempt given the fact that mode B2 has 

983: already been identified, and the computation accuracy of other 

984: eigenfrequencies has an impressive level.  

985: 

986: \subsection{Variations of

987: $\lambda$} \label{sec:variations-of-lambda}

988: 

989: The parameter $\lambda$ controls the density profile of the dark

990: matter component, specifically near the galactic center. The

991: fraction of dark to luminous matter has its minimum value in

992: marginal models with $\alpha\approx \alpha_{cr}$. I choose a

993: marginal $\lambda <1$ model with

994: $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(6,0.625,0.34)$, which has also been investigated 

995: by JH. Figure \ref{pic:spectrum-m2-vary-lambda}{\em a} shows the portion 

996: of the spectrum that contains complex eigenfrequencies of this model. 

997: The spectrum has been computed for $b=1.5$. 

998: Although $m=2$ bar and spiral modes survive 

999: in this model, their pattern speeds and growth rates drop considerably.

1000: Mode G has been wiped out of existence by dark matter penetration into 

1001: the center, and four unstable modes (C1, C2, C3 and C4) have emerged 

1002: that constitute a new family of spiral modes. They populate the central 

1003: regions of the disk in most of $\lambda <1$ models. Again, the location 

1004: of eigenfrequencies obtained by JH have been marked by circles. 

1005: The agreement between the results of JH and the present study is very 

1006: good and the variance is less than $2\%$.

1007: 

1008: The population of spiral modes is changed by varying $\alpha$, 

1009: and the eigenfrequencies of unstable modes are altered 

1010: significantly. Solid lines in Figure

1011: \ref{pic:spectrum-m2-vary-lambda}{\em a} show the loci of growing

1012: modes as $\alpha$ increases from $0.2$ to $\alpha_{cr}\approx 0.36$.

1013: Similar to the previous $\lambda=1$ model, S-modes and mode B1 are

1014: destabilized through tangent and pitchfork bifurcations,

1015: respectively. All C-modes are born by a pitchfork bifurcation 

1016: although some minor modes of the same nature come and go as $\alpha$

1017: varies. The loci of modes B1 and S1 (in Figure 

1018: \ref{pic:spectrum-m2-vary-lambda}{\em a}) are in harmony with the

1019: results of Kalnajs's method plotted in Figure 10{\em b} of JH. 

1020: It is noted that the locus of mode B1 steeply joins the real axis,

1021: well before stabilizing the S-modes. This is how slowly growing 

1022: spirals may dominate a stellar disk.   

1023: 

1024: There are no new families of growing modes in $\lambda>1$ models.

1025: Dark matter in these models induces a rising rotation curve on the

1026: disk stars (see Figure 6 in JH) and the population of S-modes declines. 

1027: The growth rate of mode B2 increases proportional to $\lambda$, but 

1028: that of mode G falls off although mode G is still robust against 

1029: the variations of $\alpha$. Mode G has its maximum growth rate in

1030: $\lambda=1$ models, which suggests that it must be a self-gravitating 

1031: response of the luminous matter that involves only the potential 

1032: of the disk, $V_D$. The function $P_2(R)$ of mode C1 loses 

1033: its minor peaks and becomes smoother as $\lambda$ increases.  

1034: Figure \ref{pic:spectrum-m2-vary-lambda}{\em b} shows the  

1035: eigenfrequency loci of models with $(N,\lambda)=(6,2)$ as 

1036: $\alpha$ increases from $0.25$ to $\alpha_{cr}\approx 0.6$. 

1037: The eigenfrequency loci of modes C1 and B2, and S-modes (as $\alpha$ 

1038: varies) are similar to $\lambda=1$ models, but the locus of mode B1 

1039: loses its steepness and stretches towards small pattern speeds in 

1040: an approximately linear form until it joins the real $\omega_R$-axis.

1041: The bifurcation frequency of mode B2 differs from S-modes and it is 

1042: larger. 

1043:  

1044: Figure \ref{pic:mode-shape-m2-SR34} shows the wave patterns of modes

1045: B1, B2, S1, C1, C2 and C3 for the model with 

1046: $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(6,0.625,0.34)$. The (isolated) mode B1 is still 

1047: a single-peaked bar although its edge is more extensive as the flat

1048: part of its $P_2(R)$ plot indicates. Mode S1 is a triple-peaked

1049: spiral (as before) and mode B2 is being stabilized ($\omega_{\rm

1050: B2}=0.775+0.007{\rm i}$). It is seen that mode B2 has a bar-like

1051: structure, which justifies its classification as the secondary bar

1052: mode. The pattern of S1 and its $P_2(R)$ plot can be compared with

1053: Figure 9 in JH. The agreement is quite satisfactory. There is a

1054: remarkable difference between the patterns of C- and S-modes

1055: although both families have spiral structures. In contrast to

1056: S-modes that become more extensive as their growth rate decays,

1057: C-modes are shrunk to central regions because their pattern speed

1058: increases. C-modes are also a bifurcating family, but their

1059: bifurcation point lies on large pattern speeds associated with the

1060: azimuthal frequency ($\Omega_\phi$) of central stars.  

1061:  

1062: The parameters $\alpha$ and $\lambda$ are essentially controlling 

1063: the fraction and density profile of dark matter component, respectively. 

1064: However, the radial velocity dispersion $\sigma_R$ of the equilibrium

1065: state is also playing an important role in the perturbed dynamics. 

1066: $\sigma_R$ is an indicator of the initial temperature of the disk. 

1067: \citet{ER98b} had already pointed out that the pitch angle of spiral 

1068: patterns decreases when $\sigma_R\rightarrow 0$ (see their Figure 7). 

1069: Apart from this morphological implication, can the variation in the 

1070: disk temperature affect the modal content? In the following subsection, 

1071: I trace the evolution of growing waves by changing the disk temperature 

1072: and show that the population of S-modes is larger in rotationally 

1073: supported, cold disks.   

1074: 

1075: 

1076: %

1077: \begin{figure*}

1078: \plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps}

1079:  \plottwo{f6c.eps}{f6d.eps}

1080:  \caption{The evolution of the eigenfrequency spectra as the

1081: disk temperature drops from left ($N=4$) to right ($N=8$) panels.

1082: Top and bottom panels correspond to $(\lambda,\alpha)=(1,0.42)$

1083: and $(\lambda,\alpha)=(0.625,0.34)$, respectively.

1084: \label{pic:spectrum-vary-N}}

1085: \end{figure*}

1086: % 

1087: %

1088: \begin{figure}

1089: \plotone{f7.eps}

1090:  \caption{Eigenfrequency spectrum

1091: of a cutout model with $L_0=0.1$ and $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(6,1,0.42)$. 

1092: Circles show the eigenfrequencies found by JH using Kalnajs's theory. 

1093: \label{pic:spectrum-cutout}}

1094: \end{figure} 

1095: % 

1096: 

1097: \subsection{Variations of the Disk Temperature}

1098:  \label{sec:variation-of-N}

1099: 

1100: The parameter $N$ of the DFs of JH controls the disk temperature by

1101: adjusting the size of the isotropic core and the population of near

1102: circular orbits. As $N$ increases, the streaming velocity $\langle

1103: v_{\phi}\rangle$ approaches the rotational velocity of circular

1104: orbits and the stellar disk is cooled. Figure \ref{pic:spectrum-vary-N}

1105: displays the eigenfrequencies of previous $(\lambda,\alpha)=(1,0.42)$

1106: and $(\lambda,\alpha)=(0.625,0.34)$ models for $N=4$ and $N=8$. The

1107: spectra for the intermediate value of $N=6$ have already been shown

1108: in Figures \ref{pic:spectrum-m2-unstable}{\em a} and

1109: \ref{pic:spectrum-m2-vary-lambda}{\em a}.

1110: 

1111: Increasing $N$ gives birth to more S-modes while the bifurcation

1112: point of the family is preserved. As a new member is born at the

1113: bifurcation point, other members including mode S1, are pushed away

1114: from the real axis on a curved path. This behavior is observed in

1115: both models but the branch of S-family in the model with

1116: $(\lambda,\alpha)=(0.625,0.34)$ stays closer to the real axis than

1117: the other model. The growth rates of C-modes increase remarkably as

1118: the disk is cooled. Despite mode B1 which rotates and grows faster

1119: in cold disks, mode B2 grows faster in warmer disks. Variation

1120: in the disk temperature changes the eigenfrequency of mode G more

1121: effective than what $\alpha$ could, but nothing is more influential

1122: than the role of $\lambda$.  

1123: 

1124: Another consequence of cooling the stellar disk is that $m=0$ waves

1125: are no longer stable. The parameter $Q$ of Toomre was marginally

1126: greater than unity for $N=6$ models. For $N=8$, I find $Q<1$

1127: over an annular region because the plot of $Q$ versus $R$ exhibits a

1128: minimum at some finite radius (e.g., Figure 7 of JH). For instance, 

1129: I find three growing

1130: $m=0$ modes for the model $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(8,1,0.42)$. They

1131: correspond to pure complex eigenfrequencies $\omega_1=0.621{\rm i}$,

1132: $\omega_2=0.494{\rm i}$ and $\omega_3=0.238{\rm i}$. Mode shapes

1133: have (obviously) ringed structures but the number of rings, which is

1134: identical to the number of peaks of $P_0(R)$, depends on the growth

1135: rate. The modes associated with $\omega_1$, $\omega_2$ and

1136: $\omega_3$ have three, four and five rings, respectively. Ring modes

1137: are very sensitive to the variations of model parameters and they

1138: are suppressed by decreasing $\lambda$ and $\alpha$. 

1139: 

1140: 

1141: \subsection{The Effect of an Inner Cutout}

1142: \label{sec:cutout-models}

1143: 

1144: In order to simulate an immobile bulge, which does not respond to

1145: density perturbations, JH utilized an inner cutout function of the

1146: form

1147: %

1148: \begin{equation}

1149: H_{\rm cut}=1-e^{-\left(J_\phi/L_0\right)^2},

1150: \end{equation}

1151: %

1152: where $L_0$ is an angular momentum scale. Multiplying $H_{\rm cut}$

1153: by the self-consistent DF of the equilibrium state, prohibits the

1154: stars with $J_{\phi}< L_0$ from participating in the perturbed

1155: dynamics. Consequently, incoming waves are reflected at some finite

1156: radius and the innermost wave packets of multiple-peaked modes are

1157: diminished. My calculations show that all S-modes survive in cutout 

1158: models, mode G disappears, and the growth rate of mode B2 increases.

1159: The pattern speed of mode B1 is boosted so that the corotation

1160: resonance is destroyed, but its growth rate drops drastically.

1161: Figure \ref{pic:spectrum-cutout} shows the eigenfrequency spectrum

1162: of a model with $L_0=0.1$ and $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(6,1,0.42)$. 

1163: Circles show the eigenfrequencies found by JH. Again, the agreement

1164: between the results of JH and the present work is very good. The

1165: reason that I have identified mode B2 as the second member of

1166: B-family, and not the most unstable S-mode, is that its $P_2(R)$

1167: function has an evolved double-peaked structure (see Figure 11 in JH)

1168: and its locus versus $\alpha$ does not emerge from the same bifurcation 

1169: frequency of S-modes. Disappearance of mode G in cutout models confirms 

1170: my earlier note that it is a self-gravitating mode. 

1171: 

1172: 

1173: \section{DISCUSSIONS}

1174: \label{sec:final-discussions}

1175: 

1176: There are similarities between mode G of this study and Toomre's (1981) 

1177: mode D. Both of these modes resist against stabilization by increasing 

1178: the fraction of dark to luminous matter and they have at most double 

1179: peaks on their spiral arms. Nonetheless, these modes are not the same 

1180: because mode G is amplified through a feedback from the galactic center 

1181: but Toomre's mode D has been identified as an edge mode. A question 

1182: remains to be answered: why Toomre (1981) did not detect mode G and I 

1183: do not find an edge mode? The most convincing explanation is that to 

1184: excite a self-gravitating wave inside the core of the stellar component, 

1185: the governing potential in that region should mainly come from the 

1186: self-gravity of stars. This requirement is fulfilled in my $\lambda\ge 1$ 

1187: models for $R<R_D$. However, the completely flat rotation curve imposed 

1188: by Toomre (1981) nowhere follows the rotational velocity induced by the 

1189: self-gravity of stars and it prohibits the Gaussian disk from developing 

1190: a G-like mode. On the other hand, I don't find an edge mode because the 

1191: density profile of the cored exponential disk does not decay as steep as 

1192: the Gaussian disk to create an outer boundary at some finite radius for 

1193: reflecting the outgoing waves.    

1194: 

1195: Similar to the first order analysis of \S\ref{sec::linear-theory},

1196: Polyachenko's (2005) approach results in the full spectrum of

1197: eigenfrequencies for a given azimuthal wavenumber. There are some

1198: differences between his method and the present formulation.

1199: Polyachenko directly uses Poisson's integral to establish a

1200: point-wise relation in the action space between the Fourier

1201: components of the perturbed DF and its self-consistent

1202: potential. Combination of equations (5) and (9)

1203: in his paper is analogous to equation (\ref{eq:expansion-V1-vs-dmlj})

1204: in this paper. The main departure of the two theories is in the way

1205: that the linearized CBE is treated. Polyachenko forces a point-wise

1206: fulfillment of the CBE in the action space while the present method

1207: works with a weighted residual form of the CBE.

1208: 

1209: A point-wise formulation poses a challenge for the numerical

1210: calculation of the eigenvalues and their conjugate eigenvectors.

1211: According to the bar charts of JH, at least ten Fourier

1212: components ($-3 \le l \le 6$) are needed in the $\theta_R$-direction

1213: to assure a credible convergence of $f_1$ in a typical soft-centered

1214: galaxy model. Therefore, if one chooses a grid of $n_a\times n_a$ in the

1215: action space, Polyachenko's eigenvector $\textbf{\textit{F}}$ will have a

1216: dimension of $10\times n_a\times n_a$. Therefore, for a {\it very coarse}

1217: grid with $n_a=21$ that Polyachenko uses, the unknown eigenvector

1218: will have a dimension of 4410. This number must be compared with

1219: the dimension of $\textbf{\textit{z}}_0$ in equation

1220: (\ref{eq:eigenvalue-problem-two}). That is indeed $n_{\rm max}=336$

1221: for the most accurate calculations carried out by setting

1222: $(l_{\rm max},j_{\rm max})=(10,15)$ which means that $21$

1223: Fourier components in the $\theta_R$-direction and $16$

1224: expansion terms in the $R$-direction have been taken into account.

1225: Noting that the definite integrals ${\cal I}^{ml}_{jk}$ and

1226: $\Lambda^{ml}_{jk}$ are independently evaluated over the action

1227: space with any desired accuracy, the present theory proves to

1228: be more efficient for eigenmode calculation (in the linear regime)

1229: than other existing alternatives.

1230: 

1231: The agreement between the results of this work and those of JH, who

1232: have used Kalnajs's method, is impressive. There is only a

1233: discrepancy in the results for a double-peaked spiral mode of

1234: $\lambda=1$ models. In fact, these models have two double-peaked

1235: modes, modes B2 and G, and JH find mode B2. The origin of

1236: discrepancies was attributed to the length scale of Clutton-Brock

1237: functions, $b$, which is a fixed number for the whole spectrum of 

1238: a given azimuthal wavenumber. Provided that JH optimized $b$ for each

1239: growing mode that they calculated (see also \S\ref{sec:maximal-disk}), 

1240: some minor deviations from the results of this paper are reasonable. 

1241: In most cases the algorithm used by JH converges to mode B1 and the 

1242: fastest rotating S-mode. They capture mode B2 only if

1243: its growth rate is large enough. Other modes remain unexplored

1244: because Newton's method needs an initial guess of $\omega$,

1245: which has a little chance to be in the basin of attraction of the

1246: other members of S-family. The separation of eigenfrequencies near

1247: the bifurcation point of S-modes is very small and one could

1248: anticipate complex boundaries for the basins of attraction of these

1249: eigenfrequencies. Thus, there is no guarantee that successive

1250: Newton's iterations keep an estimated eigenfrequency on the same

1251: basin that it was initially. Nevertheless, in Kalnajs's formulation,

1252: a systematic search for all growing modes is possible by introducing

1253: the mathematical eigenvalue \citep{Z76,ER98b} and investigating its

1254: loci as the pattern speed and growth rate vary.

1255: 

1256: 

1257:    

1258: \section{CONCLUSIONS}

1259: \label{sec:conclusions}

1260: 

1261: After three decades of Kalnajs's (1977) publication, it was not

1262: known exactly whether growing modes of stellar systems appear as

1263: distinct roots in the eigenfrequency space or they belong to

1264: continuous families as van Kampen modes do. In this paper, I

1265: attempted to answer this question using the Galerkin projection

1266: of the CBE and unveiled the full eigenfrequency spectrum of a

1267: stellar disk. I showed that similar to gaseous disks \citep{AJ06},

1268: majority of growing modes emerge as {\it discrete families} 

1269: through a bifurcation from stationary modes. There are some 

1270: exceptions for this rule, the most important of which are 

1271: the isolated bar and G modes.  

1272: 

1273: The model that I used to test my method allows for dark matter

1274: presence as a spherical component, whose potential inside the

1275: galactic disk contributes to the rotational velocity of stars.

1276: By varying the parameters of the model, and investigating the

1277: eigenfrequencies and their associated mode shapes, I showed that

1278: it is not the fraction of dark to luminous matter that controls

1279: the variety of growing modes. What determines that variety is

1280: indeed the shape of the dark matter density profile controlled

1281: by the parameter $\lambda=R_C/R_D$. My survey in the parameter

1282: space revealed that the concentration of dark matter in the 

1283: galactic center ($\lambda <1$) destroys mode G and weakens the 

1284: growth of B-modes substantially. Emergence of spiral C-modes 

1285: that accumulate near the galactic center is another remarkable 

1286: consequence of dark matter presence in central regions of a 

1287: cored stellar disk.  

1288: 

1289: Although the solution of the Galerkin system showed a credible

1290: convergence of the series expansions, the existence of strong

1291: solutions for the CBE, in its full nonlinear form, is still an

1292: open problem. It has been known for years that van Kampen modes

1293: make a complete set \citep{C59}, and therefore, they may be used

1294: for a series representation of stationary oscillations. But there is

1295: not a mathematical proof for the completeness of the discrete families

1296: of growing modes. In other words, whether an observed galaxy can be

1297: assembled using the modes of a linear eigensystem, requires further

1298: analysis.

1299: 

1300: In the second part of this study, I will investigate the mechanisms

1301: of wave interactions in the nonlinear regime and will probe the mass

1302: and angular momentum transfer between waves of different Fourier

1303: numbers.

1304: 

1305: 

1306: \acknowledgments I am indebted to Chris Hunter for his instructive

1307: and valuable comments since the beginning of this work. I also thank

1308: the referee for helpful suggestions that improved the presentation

1309: of the results. This work was partially supported by the Research 

1310: Vice-Presidency at Sharif University of Technology. 

1311:  

1312: 

1313: \appendix

1314: 

1315: \section{WEIGHTED RESIDUAL FORM OF THE COLLISIONLESS BOLTZMANN EQUATION} 

1316: \label{app::Petrov-Galerkin}

1317: 

1318: Let me define a nonlinear operator ${\cal A}$ and denote 

1319: $\textbf{\textit{u}}^{(\ell)}$ as the $\ell$th prolongation \citep{OL93}

1320: of the physical quantity $u$ in the domain of independent 

1321: variables. Assume a (nonlinear) partial differential equation

1322: % 

1323: \begin{equation}

1324: {\cal A} \left ( u^{(\ell)}, x,t \right )=0, 

1325: \label{eq:general-operator-prolonged}

1326: \end{equation}

1327: %

1328: and its associated initial and boundary conditions that govern 

1329: the evolution of $u(x,t)$ in the domain of the 

1330: spatial variable $x$ and the time $t$. A weighted

1331: residual method \citep{F72} attempts to find an approximate solution 

1332: of the form 

1333: % 

1334: \begin{equation}

1335: u(x,t)=

1336: \sum_{k=1}^{k_{\rm max}} a_{k}(t) 

1337: \varphi_{k}(x),

1338: \label{eq:expansion-for-u-general}

1339: \end{equation}

1340: %

1341: through determining the time-dependent functions $a_k(t)$ for a given 

1342: set of trial (basis) functions $\varphi_{k}(x)$.

1343: The trial functions should satisfy the boundary conditions and be 

1344: linearly independent. Using (\ref{eq:expansion-for-u-general}) and taking 

1345: the inner product of (\ref{eq:general-operator-prolonged}) by some weighting 

1346: functions $W_{k'}(x)$, yield the determining equations 

1347: of $a_k(t)$ as

1348: %

1349: \begin{equation}

1350: \left ( {\cal A},W_{k'} \right ) \equiv 

1351: \int {\cal A} W_{k'} dx=0,~~

1352: k'=1,2,\cdots,k_{\rm max}. 

1353: \label{eq:weighted-residual-form-general}

1354: \end{equation}

1355: %

1356: There are several procedures for choosing $W_{k'}(x)$

1357: and each procedure has its own name. The method with $W_{k'}=\varphi_{k'}$ 

1358: is called the Bubnov-Galerkin, or simply the Galerkin method. The 

1359: Petrov-Galerkin method is associated with $W_{k'}\not=\varphi_{k'}$.

1360: The well-known collocation method uses Dirac's delta functions for 

1361: the weighting purpose. There is an alternative interpretation for the 

1362: inner product $\left ({\cal A},W_{k'} \right )=0$. That is projecting 

1363: the equation ${\cal A}=0$ on a subspace spanned by the weighting function 

1364: $W_{k'}$. Therefore, equation (\ref{eq:weighted-residual-form-general}) 

1365: is often called the {\it Galerkin projection} of 

1366: (\ref{eq:general-operator-prolonged}). In what follows, I use the 

1367: Petrov-Galerkin method and construct the weighted residual form of 

1368: the CBE.   

1369:    

1370: Assume the functions $U(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})$ and

1371: $V(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})$, and define their inner product over the

1372: action-angle space as

1373: %

1374: \begin{equation}

1375: \left (U,V \right )=\int\int

1376: U(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})V(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})

1377:  d \textbf{\textit{J}} d \Theta.

1378: \end{equation}

1379: %

1380: Taking the inner product of the perturbed CBE by the weighting functions

1381: $W^{ml}_{j}(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})=

1382: \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})e^{-{\rm i}

1383: \left (l\theta_R+m\theta_\phi \right)}$ gives

1384: % 

1385: \begin{equation}

1386: \left (\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial t},W^{ml}_{j}\right )=

1387: -\left ( \left [f_1,{\cal H}_0 \right ],W^{ml}_{j}\right )

1388: -\left ( \left [f_0,{\cal H}_1 \right ],W^{ml}_{j} \right )-

1389: \left ( \left [f_1,{\cal H}_1 \right ],W^{ml}_{j}\right ).

1390: \label{eq:CBE-weighted-residual-1}

1391: \end{equation}

1392: %

1393: Note that the CBE is the governing equation of the perturbed DF whose

1394: trial functions are $\Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$. With my choice 

1395: of the weighting function (as above) I am following the 

1396: Petrov-Galerkin method. On substituting (\ref{eq:expansion-f1}) and

1397: (\ref{eq:expansion-V1-vs-dmlj}) in

1398: (\ref{eq:CBE-weighted-residual-1}) and after some rearrangements of

1399: summations, one obtains  

1400: % 

1401: \begin{eqnarray}

1402: &{}& {\rm i}\sum_{m',l'}^{}\sum_{j'}^{} \delta_{m,m'}\delta_{l,l'}{{\rm

1403: d}\over  d t}d^{m'l'}_{j'}(t)\int  d \textbf{\textit{J}}

1404: \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})=

1405: \nonumber \\

1406: %

1407: &{}& \sum_{m',l'}^{}\sum_{j'}^{}

1408: \delta_{m,m'}\delta_{l,l'}d^{m'l'}_{j'}(t)

1409: \int  d \textbf{\textit{J}} \left ( l'\Omega_R+m'\Omega_\phi \right

1410: )\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1411: \nonumber \\

1412: %

1413: &-& \sum_{m',l'}^{}\sum_{j'}^{} \delta_{m,m'} d^{m'l'}_{j'}(t)

1414: \sum_{k}^{} \left [ {4\pi^2\over D_k(m')}\right ] \Lambda^{m'l'}_{kj'}

1415: \int  d \textbf{\textit{J}} \left ( l{\partial f_0\over \partial J_R}

1416: +m'{\partial f_0\over \partial J_{\phi}} \right

1417: )\Psi^{m'l}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Psi^{m'l}_k(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1418: \nonumber \\

1419: %

1420: &+& \sum_{m',l'}^{}\sum_{j'}^{}

1421:     \sum_{m'',l''}^{}\sum_{j''}^{}

1422: \delta_{m'',(m-m')} d^{m'l'}_{j'}(t) d^{m''l''}_{j''}(t)

1423: \sum_{k}^{} \left [ {4\pi^2\over D_k(m'')} \right ]

1424: \Lambda ^{m''l''}_{kj''} \nonumber \\

1425: %

1426: &\times& \Biggl [ \int  d \textbf{\textit{J}}

1427: \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1428: \left ( l'{\partial \over \partial J_R}+

1429:         m'{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )

1430: \Psi^{m''(l-l')}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \nonumber \\

1431: %

1432: &{}& \qquad -\int  d \textbf{\textit{J}}

1433: \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1434: \Psi^{m''(l-l')}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1435: \left ( (l-l'){\partial \over \partial J_R} +

1436:         m''{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )

1437: \Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \Biggr ],

1438: \label{eq:weighted-residual-expan}

1439: %

1440: \end{eqnarray}

1441: %

1442: where $-m_{\rm max}\le m,m',m''<m_{\rm max}$,

1443: $-l_{\rm max}\le l,l',l''\le l_{\rm max}$ and $0 \le

1444: j,j',j'',k\le j_{\rm max}$. Using equation (\ref{eq:map-mlj-to-i})

1445: and carrying out the index mappings $(m,l,j)\rightarrow p$,

1446: $(m',l',j')\rightarrow q$ and $(m'',l'',j'')\rightarrow r$ one may

1447: introduce the arrays

1448: %

1449: \begin{eqnarray}

1450: M_{pq}&=& \delta_{m,m'}\delta_{l,l'}\int  d \textbf{\textit{J}}

1451: \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}}),

1452: \label{eq:M-tensor} \\

1453: %

1454: C_{pq}&=& \delta_{m,m'} \Biggl [ \delta_{l,l'}

1455: \int  d \textbf{\textit{J}}

1456: \left ( l'\Omega_R+m'\Omega_\phi \right )\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1457: \Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \nonumber \\

1458: &{}& \qquad \qquad -\sum_{k=0}^{j_{\rm max}}

1459: \left [ {4\pi^2\over D_k(m')}\right ]

1460: \Lambda^{m'l'}_{kj'} \int  d \textbf{\textit{J}} \left ( l{\partial

1461: f_0\over \partial J_R} +m'{\partial f_0\over \partial J_{\phi}}

1462: \right )\Psi^{m'l}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1463: \Psi^{m'l}_k(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Biggr ],

1464: \label{eq:A-tensor} \\

1465: %

1466: K_{pqr}&=& \delta_{m',(m-m'')} \delta_{l',(l-l'')}

1467: \sum_{k=0}^{j_{\rm max}} \left [ {4\pi^2\over

1468: D_k(m'')} \right ] \Lambda ^{m''l''}_{kj''} \nonumber \\

1469: &{}& \times \Biggl [ \int  d \textbf{\textit{J}}

1470: \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1471: \Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1472: \left ( l'{\partial \over \partial J_R}+

1473:         m'{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )

1474: \Psi^{m''l''}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \nonumber \\

1475: %

1476: &{}& \qquad -\int  d \textbf{\textit{J}}

1477: \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1478: \Psi^{m''l''}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1479: \left ( l''{\partial \over \partial J_R} +

1480:         m''{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )

1481: \Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \Biggr ].\label{eq:B-tensor}

1482: %

1483: \end{eqnarray}

1484: %

1485: Consequently, equation (\ref{eq:weighted-residual-expan}) takes the

1486: following matrix form

1487: %

1488: \begin{equation}

1489: {\rm i}\sum_{q=1}^{n_{\rm max}} M_{pq} { d \over  d t}z_q(t) =

1490: \sum_{q=1}^{n_{\rm max}} C_{pq}z_q(t)+\sum_{q,r=1}^{n_{\rm max}}

1491: K_{pqr}z_q(t)z_r(t),~~z_p(t)\equiv d^{ml}_j(t),~~

1492: p=1,2,\cdots,n_{\rm max}.

1493: \label{eq:ODE-for-z-one}

1494: \end{equation}

1495: %

1496: Let the matrix $\textbf{\textit{M}}^{-1}=[M^{-1}_{pq}]$ be the inverse of

1497: $\textbf{\textit{M}}=[M_{pq}]$ and left-multiply (\ref{eq:ODE-for-z-one})

1498: by $\textbf{\textit{M}}^{-1}$ to get

1499: %

1500: \begin{equation}

1501: {\rm i} { d \over  d t}z_p(t) =

1502: \sum_{q=1}^{n_{\rm max}} A_{pq}z_q(t)+\sum_{q,r=1}^{n_{\rm max}} B_{pqr}

1503: z_q(t)z_r(t),~~\textbf{\textit{A}}=\textbf{\textit{M}}^{-1}

1504: \cdot \textbf{\textit{C}},~~

1505: B_{pqr}=\sum_{s=1}^{n_{\rm max}}M^{-1}_{ps}K_{sqr}.

1506: \label{eq:ODE-for-z-two}

1507: \end{equation}

1508: %

1509: Evaluation of the integrands in (\ref{eq:B-tensor}) will be

1510: considerably simplified if one avoids the partial derivatives

1511: of $\Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$ through integrating (\ref{eq:B-tensor})

1512: by parts. That gives

1513: %

1514: \begin{eqnarray}

1515: K_{pqr}= &{}& \delta_{m',(m-m'')} \delta_{l',(l-l'')}

1516: \sum_{k=0}^{j_{\rm max}} \left [ {4\pi^2\over

1517: D_k(m'')} \right ] \Lambda ^{m''l''}_{kj''} \nonumber \\

1518: \times \biggl \{ &{}& \int {\rm

1519: d}\textbf{\textit{J}} \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1520: \Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1521: \left ( l{\partial \over \partial J_R}+

1522:         m{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )

1523: \Psi^{m''l''}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \nonumber \\

1524: %

1525: &+& \int  d \textbf{\textit{J}}

1526: \Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1527: \Psi^{m''l''}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1528: \left ( l''{\partial \over \partial J_R} +

1529:         m''{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )

1530: \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1531: \biggr \}.\label{eq:B-tensor-by-parts}

1532: \end{eqnarray}

1533: %

1534: When all stars move on prograde orbits, the equilibrium DF takes the

1535: form $f_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})=H(J_\phi)f^P_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})$

1536: where $H$ is the

1537: Heaviside function. Upon using (\ref{eq:trial-functions-two}),

1538: this contributes a term including Dirac's delta function

1539: $\delta(J_\phi)$ to the trial functions. Thus, the following

1540: boundary terms

1541: %

1542: \begin{eqnarray}

1543: K^b_{pqr} \! &=& \! \delta_{m',(m-m'')} \delta_{l',(l-l'')}

1544: \sum_{k=0}^{j_{\rm max}}

1545: \left [ {4\pi^2\over D_k(m'')} \right ]

1546: \Lambda ^{m''l''}_{kj''} \nonumber \\

1547: %

1548: \times \Biggl \{ \int_{0}^{\infty} \!\! &  d J_R &

1549: \left [ {m' f^P_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1550:                           \Psi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \over

1551:          l'\Omega_R(\textbf{\textit{J}})+m'\Omega_\phi(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1552:         }

1553: \left ( l{\partial \over \partial J_R}+

1554:         m{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )

1555: \Psi^{m''l''}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \right ]_{J_{\phi}=0} \nonumber \\

1556: %

1557: + \int_{0}^{\infty} \!\! &  d J_R & \left [

1558:         {m' f^P_0(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \Psi^{m''l''}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1559:                              \Psi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1560:    \over l'\Omega_R(\textbf{\textit{J}})+m'\Omega_\phi(\textbf{\textit{J}})

1561:         }

1562: \left ( l''{\partial \over

1563: \partial J_R} +

1564:         m''{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )

1565: \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \right ]_{J_\phi=0}

1566:  \Biggr \}, \label{eq:B-tensor-boundary}

1567: \end{eqnarray}

1568: %

1569: must be added to $K_{pqr}$ when the equilibrium

1570: disk is unidirectional. The partial derivatives of

1571: $\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$ needed for equations

1572: (\ref{eq:B-tensor-by-parts}) and (\ref{eq:B-tensor-boundary})

1573: are calculated by differentiating equation (\ref{eq:fourier-coeffs})

1574: partially with respect to an action:

1575: %

1576: \begin{eqnarray}

1577: {\partial \Psi^{ml}_j\over \partial J_{\nu}} &=&

1578: {1\over \pi} \int\limits_{0}^{\pi} \biggl \{

1579: {\partial \psi^{|m|}_j \over \partial R}{\partial R \over

1580:  \partial J_{\nu}}\cos [l\theta _R+m(\theta _\phi -\phi)] \nonumber \\

1581: &{}& \qquad -m\psi^{|m|}_j(R){\partial \over \partial J_\nu}

1582:      \left(\theta_{\phi}-\phi\right)

1583:      \sin [l\theta _R+m(\theta _\phi -\phi)] \biggr \}

1584:  d \theta _R,~~\nu \equiv R,\phi. \label{eq::deriv-fourier-coeff}

1585: \end{eqnarray}

1586: %

1587: Jalali \& Hunter (2005b) encountered these partial derivatives

1588: in their second order perturbation theory devised for computing

1589: the energy of eigenmodes. I adopt their technique for calculating

1590: the quantities $\partial R/\partial J_{\nu}$ and

1591: $\partial \left( \theta_{\phi}-\phi \right )/\partial J_{\nu}$.

1592: The variables $R$, $(\theta _\phi -\phi)$, and $p_R$ are regarded

1593: as functions of $(J_R,J_{\phi},\theta_R)$ because the action-angle

1594: transformation

1595: $(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}})\rightarrow

1596: (\textbf{\textit{J}},\Theta)$

1597: is defined in the phase space of an axisymmetric state. From

1598: $v_R=dR/dt=(\partial R/\partial \theta_R)\Omega_R$ one may write

1599: %

1600: \begin{equation}

1601: \label{eq::dRdJ}

1602: \frac{ d }{ d t}\left[{\partial R \over \partial J_\nu}\right]=

1603: {\partial^2 R \over \partial \theta_R \partial J_\nu}\frac{d\theta_R}{dt}

1604: =\Omega_R\frac{\partial}{\partial J_\nu}

1605: \left({\partial R \over \partial \theta_R}\right)

1606: =\Omega_R\frac{\partial}{\partial J_\nu}\left(\frac{v_R}{\Omega_R}\right)

1607: ={\partial v_R \over \partial J_\nu}-\frac{v_R}{\Omega_R}

1608: {\partial \Omega_R \over \partial J_\nu}.

1609: \end{equation}

1610: %

1611: Similarly, one obtains

1612: %

1613: \begin{eqnarray}

1614: \frac{ d }{ d t}\left[{\partial \over \partial J_\nu}

1615:  (\theta _\phi -\phi)\right]

1616: &=& {\partial \Omega_{\phi} \over \partial J_\nu}

1617: -\frac{\delta_{\nu,\phi}}{R^2}

1618: +{2J_{\phi} \over R^3}{\partial R \over \partial J_\nu}

1619: -\frac{1}{\Omega_R}\left[\Omega_{\phi}-\frac{J_{\phi}}{R^2}\right]

1620: {\partial \Omega_R \over \partial J_\nu}, \label{eq::dthetadJ} \\

1621: \frac{ d }{ d t}\left[{\partial v_R \over \partial J_\nu}\right]

1622: &=& {2J_{\phi} \over R^3}\delta_{\nu,\phi}

1623: -\left[{3J_{\phi}^2 \over R^4}+V_0^{\prime\prime}(R)\right]

1624: {\partial R \over \partial J_\nu}

1625: -\frac{1}{\Omega_R}\left[{J_{\phi}^2 \over R^3}-V_0^{\prime}(R)\right]

1626: {\partial \Omega_R \over \partial J_\nu}. \label{eq::dvdJ}

1627: \end{eqnarray}

1628: %

1629: The set of three equations (\ref{eq::dRdJ}) through (\ref{eq::dvdJ})

1630: can be integrated along an orbit, and they

1631: provide the additional values needed to evaluate

1632: the partial derivatives (\ref{eq::deriv-fourier-coeff}).

1633: Initial values are $\partial v_R/\partial J_\nu=

1634: \partial(\theta_{\phi}-\phi)/\partial J_\nu=0$ at $\theta_R=t=0$

1635: where $R=R_{\rm min}$ because $v_R=\theta_{\phi}-\phi=0$ for

1636: all orbits. However the initial $R_{\rm min}$ values change with the

1637: actions, and initial values for the derivatives of $R$ with respect

1638: to the actions are

1639: %

1640: \begin{equation}

1641: \left[ {\partial R \over \partial J_R}\right]_{R=R_{\rm min}}=

1642: \frac{R^3_{\rm min}\Omega_R}

1643: {R^3_{\rm min}V_0^{\prime}(R_{\rm min})-J^2_{\phi}}, ~~

1644: \left[ {\partial R \over \partial J_{\phi}}\right]_{R=R_{\rm min}}=

1645: \frac{R_{\rm min}(R^2_{\rm min}\Omega_{\phi}-J_{\phi})}

1646: {R^3_{\rm min}V_0^{\prime}(R_{\rm min})-J^2_{\phi}}.

1647: \end{equation}

1648: %

1649: They are obtained by differentiating the zeroth order energy equation.

1650: 

1651: 

1652: 

1653: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1654: 

1655: \bibitem[Aoki \& Iye (1978)]{AI78} Aoki, S., \& Iye, M. 1978,

1656:     \pasj, 30, 519

1657: 

1658: \bibitem[Asghari \& Jalali (2006)]{AJ06}

1659:    Asghari, N. M., \& Jalali, M. A. 2006, \mnras, 373, 337

1660: 

1661: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine (1987)]{BT87} Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S.

1662:    1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press)

1663: 

1664: \bibitem[Case (1959)]{C59} Case, K. M. 1959, Annals of Physics, 7, 349

1665: 

1666: \bibitem[Clutton-Brock (1972)]{CB72} Clutton-Brock, M.  1972,

1667:     Ap\&SS, 16, 101

1668: 

1669: \bibitem[Doering \& Gibbon (1995)]{DG95} Doering, C. R., \& Gibbon, J. D.

1670:     1995, Applied Analysis of the Navier-Stokes Equations

1671:     (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

1672: 

1673: \bibitem[Evans \& Read (1998a)]{ER98a} Evans, N. W., \& Read, J. C. A.

1674:     1998a, \mnras, 300, 83

1675: 

1676: \bibitem[Evans \& Read (1998b)]{ER98b} Evans, N. W., \& Read, J. C. A.

1677:     1998b, \mnras, 300, 106

1678: 

1679: \bibitem[Finlayson (1972)]{F72} Finlayson, B. A. 1972, 

1680:     The Method of Weighted Residuals and Variational Principles

1681:     (New York: Academic Press)

1682:  

1683: \bibitem[Hunter (1980)]{H80} Hunter, C.  1980, \pasj, 32, 33

1684: 

1685: \bibitem[Hunter (1992)]{H92} Hunter, C.  1992, in

1686:      Astrophysical Disks, ed S. F. Dermott, J. H. Hunter Jr.,

1687:      \& R. E. Wilson (New York: Annals NY Acad. Sci. 675), 22

1688: 

1689: \bibitem[Jalali \& Hunter (2005a)]{JHa} Jalali M. A.,

1690:     \& Hunter, C. 2005a, \apj, 630, 804

1691: 

1692: \bibitem[Jalali \& Hunter (2005b)]{JHb} Jalali M. A.,

1693:     \& Hunter, C. 2005b, astro-ph/0503255

1694: 

1695: \bibitem[Jeans (1915)]{J1915} Jeans, J. H. 1915, \mnras, 76, 70

1696: 

1697: \bibitem[Kalnajs (1971)]{K71} Kalnajs, A. J.  1971, \apj, 166, 275

1698: 

1699: \bibitem[Kalnajs (1977)]{K77} Kalnajs, A. J.  1977, \apj, 212, 637

1700: 

1701: \bibitem[Kalnajs (1978)]{K78} Kalnajs, A. J.  1978, in IAU Symp. 77,

1702:      Structure and Properties of Nearby Galaxies, ed. E. M. Berhuijsen \&

1703:      R. Wielebinski (Dordrecht: Reidel) 113

1704: 

1705: \bibitem[Landau (1946)]{L46} Landau, L. D. 1946, J. Phys. USSR, 10, 25

1706: 

1707: \bibitem[Lynden-Bell (1962)]{L-B62} Lynden-Bell, D. 1962, \mnras, 124, 1

1708: 

1709: \bibitem[Mattingly \& Sinai (1999)]{MS99} Mattingly, J. C.,

1710:     \& Sinai, Ya. G. 1999, Commun. Contemp. Math., 1, 497

1711: 

1712: \bibitem[Mestel (1963)]{M63} Mestel, L. 1963, \mnras, 126, 553

1713: 

1714: \bibitem[Olver (1993)]{OL93} Olver, P. J. 1993, 

1715:     Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations

1716:     (New York: Springer-Verlag) 

1717: 

1718: \bibitem[Pichon \& Cannon (1997)]{PC97} Pichon, C.,

1719:     \& Cannon, R. C.  1997, \mnras, 291, 616

1720: 

1721: \bibitem[Polyachenko (2004)]{P04} Polyachenko, E. V. 2004,

1722:     \mnras, 348, 345

1723: 

1724: \bibitem[Polyachenko (2005)]{P05} Polyachenko, E. V. 2005,

1725:     \mnras, 357, 559

1726: 

1727: \bibitem[Press et al. (2001)]{Press01} Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A.,

1728:     Vetterling, W. T., \& Flannery, B. P. 2001, Numerical Recipes

1729:     in Fortran 77 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

1730: 

1731: \bibitem[Toomre (1964)]{T64} Toomre, A. 1964, \apj, 139, 1217

1732: 

1733: \bibitem[Toomre (1981)]{T81} Toomre, A.  1981, in Structure

1734:     and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, ed S. M. Fall \& D. Lynden-Bell

1735:     (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 111

1736: 

1737: \bibitem[Tremaine (2005)]{T05} Tremaine, S., 2005, \apj, 625, 143

1738: 

1739: \bibitem[Tremaine \& Weinberg (1984)]{TW84} Tremaine, S., \&

1740:     Weinberg, M. D.  1984, \mnras, 209, 729

1741: 

1742: \bibitem[Vandervoort (2003)]{V03} Vandervoort, P., 2003,

1743:     \mnras, 339, 537

1744: 

1745: \bibitem[van Kampen (1955)]{vK55} van Kampen, N. G. 1955,

1746:     Physica, 31, 949

1747: 

1748: \bibitem[Vauterin \& Dejonghe (1996)]{VD96} Vauterin, P., \& Dejonghe, H.

1749:     1996, A\&A, 313, 465

1750: 

1751: \bibitem[Zang (1976)]{Z76} Zang, T. A.  1976, PhD Thesis,

1752:     Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

1753: 

1754: \end{thebibliography}

1755: 

1756: \end{document}

1757: 

1758: