1: %%% Local Variables: 

2: %%% mode: latex

3: %%% TeX-master: t

4: %%% End: 

5: 

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

7: %\documentclass{emulateapj}

8: %\slugcomment{{\it }}

9: 

10: \def\pomega{\varpi} 

11:  

12: % definitions for units 

13: \def\xe{x_{\rm e}}

14: \def\xm{x_{\rm met}}

15: \def\xmtot{x_{\rm met,tot}}

16: \def\betat{\beta_{\rm t}}

17: \def\betarec{\beta_{\rm rec}}

18: \def\betadiss{\beta_{\rm diss}}

19: \def\betagr{\beta_{\rm gr}}

20: \def\xmp{x_{{\rm met}^+}}

21: \def\xmolp{x_{{\rm mol}^+}}

22: \def\keV{{\rm\,keV}}  

23: 

24: % definitions for units 

25: \def\s{{\rm\,s}} 

26: \def\erg{{\rm\,erg}} 

27: \def\cm{{\rm\,cm}} 

28: \def\m{{\rm\,m}} 

29: \def\km{{\rm\,km}} 

30: \def\mm{{\rm\,mm}} 

31: \def\mum{\,\mu{\rm m}} 

32: \def\gm{{\rm\,g}} 

33: \def\g{{\rm\,g}} 

34: \def\kg{{\rm\,kg}} 

35: \def\au{{\rm AU}} 

36: \def\deg{{\rm deg}} 

37: \def\rad{{\rm rad}}  

38: \def\AU{{\rm\, AU}}  

39: \def\K{{\rm\,K}}  

40: \def\yr{{\rm\,yr}}  

41: \def\Hz{{\rm\,Hz}}  

42:   

43: 

44: \usepackage{amsmath}  

45: \usepackage{epsfig}  

46: 

47: \begin{document}

48: \bibliographystyle{apj}

49: 

50: \shortauthors{Chiang \& Choi}

51: \shorttitle{Kuiper Belt Plane}

52: 

53: \title{The Warped Plane of the Classical Kuiper Belt}

54: \author{Eugene~Chiang\altaffilmark{1} and Hyomin Choi\altaffilmark{2}}

55: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Integrative Planetary Sciences,

56: Department of Astronomy,

57: University of California at Berkeley,

58: Berkeley, CA~94720, USA}

59: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Mathematics,

60: University of California at Berkeley,

61: Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}

62: \email{echiang@astro.berkeley.edu, hyomin@berkeley.edu}

63: 

64: \keywords{comets: general --- Kuiper belt --- solar system: general --- celestial mechanics}

65: 

66: \begin{abstract}

67:   By numerically integrating the orbits of the giant planets and of

68:   test particles over a period of four billion years, we follow the evolution of

69:   the location of the midplane of the Kuiper belt. The Classical

70:   Kuiper belt conforms to a warped sheet that precesses with a 1.9 Myr

71:   period.  The present-day location of the Kuiper belt plane can be

72:   computed using linear secular perturbation theory: the local normal

73:   to the plane is given by the theory's forced inclination vector,

74:   which is specific to every semi-major axis. The Kuiper belt plane

75:   does not coincide with the invariable plane, but deviates from it by

76:   up to a few degrees in stable zones. For example, at a semimajor

77:   axis of 38 AU, the local Kuiper belt plane has an inclination of 1.9

78:   degrees and a longitude of ascending node of 149.9 degrees when

79:   referred to the mean ecliptic and equinox of J2000. At a semimajor

80:   axis of 43 AU, the local plane has an inclination of 1.9 degrees and

81:   a nodal longitude of 78.3 degrees. Only at infinite semimajor axis

82:   does the Kuiper belt plane merge with the invariable plane, whose

83:   inclination is 1.6 degrees and nodal longitude is 107.7 degrees. A

84:   Classical Kuiper belt object keeps its inclination relative to the

85:   Kuiper belt plane nearly constant, even while the latter plane departs from

86:   the trajectory predicted by linear theory. The constancy of relative

87:   inclination reflects the undamped amplitude of free oscillation;

88:   that is, the homogeneous solution to the forced harmonic oscillator

89:   equation retains constant amplitude, even while the inhomogeneous

90:   solution cannot be written down accurately because the planetary

91:   forcing terms are chaotic.  Current observations of Classical Kuiper

92:   belt objects are consistent with the plane being warped by the giant

93:   planets alone, but the sample size will need to increase by a few

94:   times before confirmation exceeds $3\sigma$ in confidence.  In

95:   principle, differences between the theoretically expected plane and

96:   the observed plane could be used to infer as yet unseen masses

97:   orbiting the Sun, but carrying out such a program would be

98:   challenging.

99: \end{abstract}

100: 

101: \section{INTRODUCTION}

102: \label{sec_intro}

103: 

104: If we could map, at fixed time, the instantaneous locations in

105: three-dimensional space of all Kuiper belt objects (KBOs),

106: on what two-dimensional surface would the density of KBOs be greatest?

107: We call this surface the plane

108: of the Kuiper belt (KBP), though by ``plane'' we do not mean to

109: imply that the KBP is flat (we shall find that it is not).

110: The KBP depends on the mass distribution of the solar system---principally,

111: the orbits and masses of the giant planets. There are as

112: many different KBPs as there are dynamical classes of KBO, since

113: each class of object feels a distinct time-averaged force.

114: Here we study the KBP defined by

115: Classical KBOs: objects whose fairly circular, low inclination orbits

116: are not in any strong mean-motion resonance with Neptune

117: (see Elliot et al.~2005 for a classification scheme).

118: %For such objects, the disturbing function is expected to be purely

119: %secular and of low order.

120: 

121: In principle, theoretical determination of the KBP would help observers

122: to discover new KBOs.

123: Conversely, by measuring differences between the

124: theoretical KBP and the actual KBP, we might hope to infer the presence of

125: solar system bodies as yet undetected

126: (``Planet X''; see Gaudi \& Bloom 2005 for a summary of current limits).

127: 

128: There is disagreement regarding the location of the KBP.

129: Brown \& Pan (2004) analyzed the instantaneous proper motion vectors

130: of hundreds of KBOs irrespective of dynamical class and concluded, with

131: greater than $3\sigma$ confidence, that the KBP did not coincide

132: with the invariable plane (IP, the plane perpendicular to the total

133: angular momentum vector of the solar system). They argued 

134: that the observed KBP was consistent instead with the forced plane given by

135: linear secular perturbation theory. 

136: We will refer

137: to this plane as the BvWP, after Brouwer \& van Woerkom (1950),

138: who developed a linear secular theory for the motions of all

139: eight of the major planets. Their theory, in turn, has its

140: origin in the Laplace-Lagrange equations (see, e.g., Murray \& Dermott 1999).

141: The BvWP is a warped and time-variable surface

142: whose properties we review in \S\ref{review}.

143: % a warped, whose

144: % location they computed using linear secular perturbation theory.

145: %By definition, an object in the Laplacian plane---which in general

146: %is not flat but warped---feels no net disturbing force orthogonal

147: %to that plane. Equivalently, the local normal to the Laplacian

148: %plane (the local Laplacian pole)

149: %gives the precession axis of an object's orbit normal.

150: 

151: By contrast, Elliot et al.~(2005) found that the plane determined by

152: Classical KBOs that were observed over multiple epochs

153: was more consistent with the IP

154: ($\lesssim 1 \sigma$ difference) than with

155: the BvWP ($\lesssim 2$--3$\sigma$

156: difference).

157: They listed some arguments, none conclusive,

158: for why the IP might be preferred over the BvWP.

159: The low order of the BvW theory, and its inability

160: to account for time variations in semi-major axes,

161: are causes for concern.

162: %These arguments are recapitulated in \S\ref{question}.

163: 

164: We seek to resolve this disagreement

165: using numerical orbit integrations. In \S\ref{review},

166: we review the linear theory and how it equates the KBP with the BvWP.

167: %we list a series of questions challenging the validity of the theory.

168: In \S\ref{answer}, numerical integrations lasting the age

169: of the solar system are used to reveal

170: the theoretical location of the KBP.

171: In \S\ref{obs}, we compare 

172: theory against current observations of the KBP.

173: %and comment on the prospects for detecting an unseen, outer

174: %solar system planet with improved observations.

175: A summary is given in \S\ref{conc}, including

176: a brief comment on the prospects

177: for detecting an unseen, outer solar system planet using the KBP.

178: 

179: \section{LINEAR SECULAR THEORY}

180: \label{review}

181: 

182: %\subsection{The BvWP}

183: %\label{bvw}

184: 

185: %Figures 1 and 2.

186: 

187: %Introduce the notions ``forced inclination vector'',

188: %``forced node'', ``forced inclination'', ``free inclination vector'',

189: %``free node'', ``free inclination'', ``local Laplacian pole'' (which

190: %should be synonymous with ``forced inclination vector'').

191: 

192: %``Updated BvW'': Table 1 of matrix values, eigenfrequencies for selected JD,

193: %NASA JPL Horizons database.

194: 

195: We study the secular evolution of Classical KBOs by

196: solving the Laplace-Lagrange equations of motion, which

197: neglect all terms higher than second

198: order in orbital eccentricity ($e$) and orbital

199: inclination ($i$). The solution is

200: detailed in the textbook by Murray \& Dermott (1999); we provide a summary

201: here.

202: 

203: We start by describing the motions of the planets.

204: Define an inclination vector \mbox{ \boldmath$i$} $\equiv(q,p)\equiv (i \cos\Omega,i

205: \sin\Omega)$, where $i$  and $\Omega$ equal the inclination and longitude of ascending node.

206: Lagrange's equations governing the inclination vector

207: for the $j$th planet are

208: 

209: \begin{equation}

210:  \dot {q_{j}} = -{{ \frac{1}{n_j a_j^2}}{\frac{\partial

211:    R_j}{\partial p_j}}}

212: \end{equation}

213: \begin{equation}

214: \dot {p_{ j}} =  {{ \frac{1}{n_j a_j^2}}{\frac{\partial

215:       R_j}{\partial q_j}}} \,,

216: \end{equation}    

217: where $n_j$, $a_j$, and $R_j$ are, respectively, the mean motion, semi-major axis, and

218: disturbing function. We consider only the

219: four giant planets so that $j=1,2,3,4$ represents Jupiter, Saturn,

220: Uranus, and Neptune, respectively. The disturbing function, keeping

221: only the leading

222: terms relevant to the inclination evolution of the $j$th planet,

223: reads

224: \[ R_j= -\frac{n_j^2a_j^2}{8} \sum_{k=1,\neq j } ^4 \frac{m_k}{M_{\odot}+m_j} \alpha_{jk} \bar{\alpha}_{jk}

225: b_{3/2}^{(1)}(\alpha_{jk})\left [ q_j^2 + p_j^2 -2(q_jq_k+p_jp_k) \right ] ,\]

226: where $b_{3/2}^{(1)}(\alpha _{jk})$ is a 

227: Laplace coefficient,\footnote{

228: If we declare $\alpha_{jk} = \bar{\alpha}_{jk} = a_j/a_k$

229: and allow the Laplace coefficient to take $\alpha_{jk} > 1$ as

230: an argument, then separating the case $a_j < a_k$ from $a_j > a_k$ is 

231: not necessary. We stick here with the textbook convention, however.}

232: $m_j$ is the mass of the $j$th planet,

233:              \[\alpha _{jk} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 

234:                              a_k/a_j & \mbox{if $a_j > a_k$}\\

235:                              a_j/a_k & \mbox{if $a_j < a_k$}\\

236:                              \end{array}

237:                    \right. \]

238: and

239:  \[  \bar{\alpha}_{jk} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

240:                              1 & \mbox{if $a_j > a_k$} \\

241:                              a_j/a_k & \mbox{if $a_j < a_k$}. \\

242:                              \end{array}

243:                      \right.

244:   \]

245: %Since $i_j ^2 =  q_j^2+p_j^2 $ and $i_ji_k\cos(\Omega_j - \Omega_k) = q_jq_k + p_jp_k$,

246: Eqns. (1)--(2) yield

247: %for $\dot{q_j}$ and $\dot{p_j}$ are first-order polynomials in

248: %$p_1,...,p_4$ and $q_1,...,q_4$, respectively.

249: two coupled systems of first-order differential equations:

250: $(\dot{p_1},\dot{p_2},\dot{p_3},\dot{p_4})^T = A (q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4)^T$ 

251: and $(\dot{q_1},\dot{q_2},\dot{q_3},\dot{q_4})^T=

252: -A(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)^T$, where $A$ is a $4\times 4$ matrix of

253: constant coefficients depending on the masses and semi-major axes

254: of the planets. These equations describe coupled harmonic oscillators;

255: their solution is

256: \begin{equation}

257: q_j= \sum_{k=1}^4 I_{jk} \cos(f_kt + \gamma _k)

258: \label{q_j}

259: \end{equation}

260: \begin{equation}

261: p_j=\sum_{k=1} ^4 I_{jk} \sin(f_kt + \gamma _k) \,,

262: \label{p_j}

263: \end{equation}

264: where the frequencies $f_k$ are the eigenvalues of $A$. The elements

265: $I_{jk}$ of the eigenvectors of $A$, and the phases $\gamma_k$, are

266: fitted to the initial inclinations and ascending nodes of the

267: planets. We take initial conditions and planetary data from the NASA

268: JPL Horizons database for JD $=2451544.5$ (Jan 1 2000;

269: $t=0$ in equations (3) and

270: (4)). Table \ref{table_first}

271: lists the resultant values for $f_k$, $I_{jk}$, and

272: $\gamma_k$. We refer to this solution as the BvW solution,

273: even though Brouwer and van Woerkom (1950) included all eight planets.

274: 

275: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrr}

276: \tablecaption{BvW solution$^{a}$ for Jan 1, 2000 ($t=0$)}

277: \tablewidth{0pt}

278: 

279: \tablehead{          & $k=1$  & 2 & 3& 4 }

280: \startdata

281: %   $j=1$    &1.5791870 &   0.36081102  &  0.055194793 &  -0.066653237 \\

282: %    2      & 1.5791870 &   -0.89903694 &  0.044853230 &  -0.064202880 \\

283: %    3     &  1.5791870 &   0.040669801 &  -1.0119969 &   0.062629848 \\

284: %    4     &  1.5791870 &   0.0045121826&   0.11941028 &    0.67289642    \\   \hline

285: %   $f_{k} $ &   0&     -123.128 &    -14.1021 &    -3.29844 \\

286: %   $ \gamma_{k}$  & 1.8787828 & -0.91729819& 2.3698765& -2.7417966 

287:    $j=1$    &1.5792 &   0.36081  &  0.055195 &  -0.066653 \\

288:     2      & 1.5792 &  -0.89904  &  0.044853 &  -0.064203 \\

289:     3     &  1.5792 &   0.040670 & -1.01200  &  0.062630 \\

290:     4     &  1.5792 &   0.0045122 &  0.11941 &   0.67290    \\   \hline

291:    $f_{k} $ &   0 &     -123.13 &    -14.102 &    -3.2984 \\

292:    $ \gamma_{k}$  & 1.8788 & -0.91730 & 2.3699 & -2.7418

293: \enddata 

294: \tablenotetext{a} {The components $I_{jk}$ of the eigenvectors (in degrees),

295:   eigenfrequencies $f_{k}$ (in radians per Myr), and

296:   phases $\gamma_{k}$ (in radians), calculated using data for the giant planets

297:   on JD = 2451544.5 from NASA JPL Horizons. All elements are heliocentric

298:   and referred to the ecliptic and mean equinox of J2000.}

299: \label{table_first}

300: \end{deluxetable}

301: 

302: 

303:  We now turn to our main concern, the motion of a KBO of negligible mass with

304:  semi-major axis $a>a_j$. Its disturbing function is

305: %\[ \dot {q}= ({-1 / 

306: %   {na^2}}){{\partial R}/{\partial p}} \]

307: %\[ \dot {p}

308: % =({1/{na^2}}) {{\partial R}/{\partial q}} \]

309: \[ R= - \frac{n^2a^2}{8}\sum_{j=1}^4 \frac{m_j}{M_{\odot}} \frac{a_j}{a}

310:  b^{(1)}_{3/2}({a_j/a}) [q^2+p^2-2(qq_j + pp_j)] \,,\]

311: where unsubscripted variables refer to the KBO. Because all masses

312: and semi-major axes are fixed for this secular problem,

313: Lagrange's equations of motion are of the form

314: \[ \dot{q} = -\frac{1}{na^2} \frac{\partial R}{\partial p} = - c_0 p + \sum_{j=1}^4 c_jp_j \]

315: \[ \dot{p} = \frac{1}{na^2} \frac{\partial R}{\partial q} = + c_0 q - \sum_{j=1}^4 c_jq_j \,, \]

316: where the $c$'s are constants.

317: % and

318: %we have adopted the usual summation convention for repeated indices.

319: Substituting each equation into the time derivative of the other, we find

320: \begin{equation}

321: \ddot{q} = -c_0^2 q + \sum_{j=1}^4 c_j[c_0 q_j(t) + \dot{p}_j(t)]

322: \label{ddotq}

323: \end{equation}

324: \begin{equation}

325: \ddot{p} = -c_0^2 p + \sum_{j=1}^4 c_j[c_0 p_j(t) - \dot{q}_j(t)] \,.

326: \label{ddotp}

327: \end{equation}

328: Eqns.~(\ref{ddotq})--(\ref{ddotp}) describe harmonic oscillators

329: of natural frequency $c_0$, forced by the planetary terms in the sums.

330: The motion is composed of a forced oscillation and a free oscillation:

331: % The

332: % five sets of Lagrange's equations---four for the planets and

333: % one for the KBO---again constitute two coupled systems of differential

334: % equations: $(\dot{p_1},\dot{p_2},\dot{p_3},\dot{p_4},\dot{p})^T = B

335: % (q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4,q)^T$ and $(\dot{q_1},\dot{q_2},\dot{q_3},\dot{q_4},\dot{q})^%T =

336: % -B(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p)^T$, where $B$ is a $5\times 5$ matrix of

337: % coefficients. The solutions for $q_j$ and $p_j$ are the same as given in (3) and (4), while  

338: \begin{equation}{q = q_{\rm forced}+q_{\rm free}= q_{\rm forced} + i_{\rm free}\cos (ft +

339:  \gamma)}\label{qfree}\end{equation}

340: \begin{equation}

341:  {p = p_{\rm forced}+p_{\rm free} = p_{\rm forced} +  i_{ \rm free}\sin (ft + \gamma)} \,,\label{pfree}

342: \end{equation}

343: where $i_{\rm free}$ and $\gamma$ are constants determined by initial

344: conditions, and the free precession frequency

345: \[f = c_0 = \sum_{j=1}^4 c_j = -\frac{n}{4}\sum_{j=1}^4\frac{m_j}{M_{\odot}}\frac{a_j}{a} b_{3/2}^{(1)}(a_j/a) \,.\]

346: The functions $q_{\rm forced}$ and $p_{\rm forced}$ depend only on

347: planetary parameters and the KBO semi-major axis $a$:

348: \begin{equation}\label{eq_qforced}

349: {q_{\rm forced}=  - \sum_{k=1}^4 {{\frac{\mu_k}{f-f_k}}\cos(f_kt+\gamma_k)}}

350: \end{equation}

351: \begin{equation}\label{eq_pforced}

352: {p_{\rm forced}=- \sum_{k=1}^4 {{\frac{\mu_k}{f-f_k}}\sin(f_kt+\gamma_k)}}

353: \end{equation}

354: where

355: \[ \mu_k= -\sum_{j=1}^4 c_jI_{jk} = \frac{n}{4} \sum_{j=1}^{4} I_{jk}\frac{m_j}{M_{\odot}}\frac{a_j}{a} b_{3/2}^{(1)}(a_j/a) \,.\]

356: %, and the argument of the Laplace

357: %coefficient is $a_j/a$. 

358: 

359: The inclination vector

360: \mbox{\boldmath{$i$}} of a KBO is the vector sum of a forced inclination vector \mbox{\boldmath{$i$}}$_{\rm forced} \equiv (q_{\rm forced}, p_{\rm

361:   forced})$ and a free inclination vector \mbox{\boldmath{$i$}}$_{\rm free} \equiv(q_{\rm free}, p_{\rm free})$. Throughout this paper, we refer to a forced inclination $i_{\rm forced}\equiv 

362: (q_{\rm forced}^2 + p_{\rm forced}^2)^{1/2}$,  a forced node

363: $\Omega_{\rm forced} \equiv \mbox{arctan} (  p_{\rm forced} /q_{\rm forced} )$, a free inclination

364: $i_{\rm free}\equiv (q_{\rm free}^2 + p_{\rm free}^2)^{1/2} $, and a free node $\Omega_{\rm free}\equiv \mbox{arctan} (

365:   p_{\rm free} / q_{\rm free} ).$ Thus free and forced inclinations

366: refer to magnitudes (not vectors).

367: The free inclination is constant; it is the undamped

368: amplitude of the free oscillation.

369: 

370: \placefigure{fig_diameter}

371: \begin{figure}

372: \epsscale{1.3}  

373: \plotone{f1.eps}  

374: \caption{Locations of forced poles (open diamonds) at various semi-major axes,

375: at $t = 0$ (JD = 2451544.5) and $t = 0.3$ Myr. Coordinates

376: are referenced to the ecliptic and mean equinox of J2000 (the origin

377: marks the location of the J2000 ecliptic pole). The invariable pole is marked

378: by ``I.'' Note how the forced poles at $a > 40.5$ AU lie diametrically

379: opposite to those at $a < 40.5$ AU, reflecting forcing by the $\nu_{18}$

380: resonance at $a = 40.5$ AU. As $a$ approaches 40.5 AU, the forced pole

381: diverges from the invariable pole. As $a$ increases

382: beyond 40.5 AU, the forced pole approaches

383: the invariable pole. We show in this paper that the

384: forced poles point normal to the Kuiper belt plane.

385: }  

386: \label{fig_diameter}

387: \end{figure}

388: 

389: Figure \ref{fig_diameter}

390: shows the evolution of \mbox{\boldmath{$i$}}$_{\rm forced}$

391: at various semi-major axes in the Kuiper belt. The open diamonds,

392: located at the endpoints of \mbox{\boldmath{$i$}}$_{\rm forced}$,

393: mark what we call the forced poles. At fixed time, the forced poles

394: all lie along a line intersecting the invariable

395: pole, denoted \textbf{I}. To the extent that the $k=4$ mode, driven

396: mainly by Neptune, dominates, the forced

397: poles rotate clockwise (regress) about the invariable pole at a single

398: frequency ($f_4$), maintaining constant distance to \textbf{I}.

399: % The dominant mode is $k=4$, driven by Neptune.

400: Note that the forced poles at

401: $a>40.5$AU lie diametrically opposite to those at $a<40.5$AU, and that

402: as $a$ approaches 40.5AU from either above or below, the separation

403: between the forced pole and \textbf{I} increases. These

404: latter two properties reflect the $\nu_{18}$ secular resonance at

405: $a=40.5$AU, where the denominators $f-f_4$ of equations

406: (\ref{eq_qforced})--(\ref{eq_pforced}) vanish:

407: the forced response becomes infinite in magnitude at resonance,

408: and changes phase by $180^{\circ}$ across resonance (the sign

409: of $f-f_4$ switches across $a = 40.5$AU).

410: 

411: \placefigure{fig_phasemix}

412: \begin{figure}  

413: \epsscale{1.2}  

414: \plotone{f2.eps}  

415: \caption{ 

416: Phase mixing and axisymmetry of KBOs about the forced pole.

417: In panel (a), the orbit poles of 100 test particles (solid circles),

418: having semi-major axes randomly distributed between 42.5 and 43.5 AU,

419: are distributed on a grid in $p$-$q$ space.

420: The forced pole at $a = 43$ AU (open diamond)

421: and the invariable pole (``+'') are indicated. As time

422: elapses from panels (b) through (d), the poles of the test particles

423: precess about the forced pole, which itself precesses about the invariable

424: pole. Precession rates differ from one particle to the next

425: according to their semi-major axes, while the distance from

426: each pole to the forced pole---the free inclination

427: (see panel c)---remains constant. Consequently, after a few tens of Myrs,

428: orbit poles tend to phase mix into an annulus centered on the forced pole

429: (not the invariable pole). The evolution shown here was computed

430: using the analytic BvW solution, not the numerical integration.

431: %We choose 100 particles of random ($a$'s)

432: %between 42.50AU and 43.50AU with $(q,p)$ shown in (a). After 20

433: %Myr(c), 'phase mixing' is completed, and the well-mixed phases

434: %are kept after 10 more Myr(d).  

435: }  

436: \label{fig_phasemix}

437: \end{figure}

438: 

439: Figure \ref{fig_phasemix} illustrates how free nodes $\Omega_{\rm free}$

440: phase mix and how

441: such phase mixing helps determine the KBP within the BvW theory.

442: At $t=0$, one hundred KBOs having semi-major axes within 0.5

443: AU of 43 AU are set down with orbit normals approximately aligned

444: about an arbitrary direction

445: (the orbit poles are actually distributed in a small box

446: in $p$-$q$ space). Over tens of Myrs, the orbit poles of the particles

447: drift away from one another: the small dispersion

448: in semi-major axis produces a small dispersion

449: in the free precession frequency $f$ (the rate at which the

450: free inclination vector rotates about the forced pole).\footnote{In the linear

451: theory, precession frequencies $f$ and $f_k$ do not depend on

452: eccentricity or inclination, but in higher order theories they do.}

453: While the free nodes

454: distribute themselves over all phases, the free inclinations $i_{\rm free}$

455: remain fixed.

456: Thus, at late times, the collection of

457: free inclination vectors \mbox{\boldmath{$i$}}$_{\rm free}$

458: are distributed

459: axisymmetrically about the mean forced pole at $a \approx 43$ AU.

460: The axisymmetry arises practically independently of how the particles'

461: orbit normals are initially distributed; the only requirements

462: are that many particles share the same $i_{\rm free}$ (so that

463: such particles, when phase mixed, trace a full circle) and that

464: there exists a small but non-zero dispersion in semi-major axis

465: (so that there exists a non-zero spread in free

466: precession frequencies, enabling phase mixing).

467: Note in Figure \ref{fig_phasemix}

468: how the invariable pole does not coincide

469: with the center of the circular distribution.

470: 

471: We conclude that according to the BvW theory,

472: the mean orbit normal of a phase-mixed group

473: of particles having approximately the same semi-major axis

474: is given by the forced pole corresponding to that semi-major axis.

475: That local forced pole varies

476: with time (Figure \ref{fig_diameter}),

477: but the particles always encircle it (Figure \ref{fig_phasemix}).

478: The KBP is warped because the forced pole changes direction

479: with KBO semi-major axis (Figure \ref{fig_diameter}).

480: 

481: Note finally that the ability of test particles to keep their free

482: inclinations constant relative to a time-variable forced pole 

483: should not be confused with adiabatic invariance.

484: Generally the frequencies $f$ and $f_k$ are not cleanly separated.

485: The constant $i_{\rm free}$ simply reflects the undamped amplitude

486: of free oscillation, and is set by initial conditions. 

487: %In fact, the constancy of $i_{\rm free}$ does not require

488: %that the forced pole evolve according

489: %to the Laplace-Lagrange solution (\ref{q_j})--(\ref{p_j}).

490: %We can consider quite general forms for the forcing

491: %functions $q_j(t)$ and $p_j(t)$

492: %in the equations of motion (\ref{ddotq})--(\ref{ddotp}),

493: %and the free oscillation portion of the motion

494: %(the homogeneous solution of the differential equation) 

495: %would remain as given by (\ref{qfree})--(\ref{pfree}),

496: %independent of the forced motion (the inhomogeneous solution).\footnote{

497: %We can think of two instances where this would not be true: when

498: %the forcing terms

499: %$q_j(t)$ and $p_j(t)$ contain terms that are resonant

500: %with the free oscillation frequency---as occurs in so-called

501: %sweeping secular resonances (Ward et al. 1976)---or when

502: %$q_j(t)$ and $p_j(t)$ change discontinuously. \label{foot}}

503: In the next section, we use numerical simulations

504: to test the constancy of free inclination.

505: 

506: % shows the evolution of \mbox{\boldmath{$i$}} of arbitrarily

507: %chosen initial $(q,p)$ and semi-major axes within a certain range. The

508: %dots, located at the end points of

509: %\mbox{\boldmath{$i$}}, mark what we call the poles of KBOs. Note the

510: %changes in the distribution of the poles; $\Omega_{\rm free}$ become

511: %evenly spread out regardless of its initial values, whereas \(i_{\rm

512: %  free}= | \mbox{\boldmath{$i$}}- \mbox{\boldmath{$i$}}_{\rm forced} |\)

513: %remain the same. In consequence, the poles are located in shape of a

514: %ring about the forced pole at 43AU in $p$-$q$ plane. Provided a sufficient

515: %number of KBOs, the mean pole is the forced pole at

516: %43AU. Since this feature applies to each semi-major axis $a$, we

517: %conclude that at a given $a$, the mean pole of KBOs is the forced

518: %pole, the local Laplacian pole. In other words, the local normal to the

519: %KBP is \mbox{\boldmath{$i$}}$_{\rm forced}$. Hence, the KBP of classical KBOs is

520: %the Laplacian plane.

521: 

522: 

523: %\subsection{Questioning the Validity of BvW}

524: %\label{question}

525: 

526: %We have seen in the previous section that the BvW theory

527: %predicts the location of the KBP: it is a time-dependent, warped

528: %sheet whose local normal is given by the forced pole. The forced pole

529: %does not, in general,

530: %point along the invariable pole but instead precesses about it.

531: %Is the theory correct? There are a few areas of concern,

532: %as discussed in Elliot et al.~(2005):

533: 

534: %\begin{enumerate}

535: %\item The BvW theory retains terms in the disturbing function only

536: %up to second order in inclination. Were higher order terms kept,

537: %the free inclination (the angle between the object's orbit normal

538: %and the forced pole) would no longer be a constant of the motion.

539: %The local mean pole is easily recognized within the BvW theory only because

540: %a given object's free inclination stays constant. If free inclinations

541: %%(magnitudes) 

542: %vary substantially over the timescale that free nodes phase

543: %mix, the circular symmetry of objects in $p$-$q$ space about the local

544: %forced pole would be destroyed.

545: %\item The BvW theory considers only secular effects and neglects mean-motion

546: %resonances. As such, it predicts that semi-major axes are conserved,

547: %when in reality they are not.

548: %%\item The local mean pole

549: %%is easily recognized within the BvW theory

550: %%because a given object's free inclination (the angle between the object's

551: %%orbit normal and the forced pole) stays constant. But are free

552: %%inclinations conserved in reality? In particular, do free inclinations

553: %%(magnitudes) vary substantially

554: %%over the timescale that free nodes phase mix?

555: %%If so, the circular symmetry of objects in $p$-$q$ space about the local

556: %%forced pole would be destroyed.

557: %\item The BvW theory fails to predict the orbits of the giant planets

558: %over Gyr timescales. How, then, can it be expected to predict

559: %the current location of the KBP?

560: %\end{enumerate}

561: 

562: %These questions are addressed using numerical orbit integrations

563: %described in the next section.

564: 

565: \section{NUMERICAL INTEGRATIONS}

566: \label{answer}

567: 

568: \subsection{Initial Conditions}

569: \label{ic}

570: 

571: We calculate the evolution of the KBP at three semi-major axes:

572: $a = 38$, 43, and 44 AU. These are chosen to lie away

573: from strong mean-motion resonances (e.g., the 3:2 resonance resides at

574: 39.5 AU) and outside the $a = 40$--42 AU region of instability

575: carved by the $\nu_{18}$, $\nu_{17}$ and $\nu_8$ secular

576: resonances (see, e.g., Chiang et al.~2007). At each $a$

577: we lay down $N_i \times N_{\Omega}$ test particles

578: whose initial free inclination vectors are distributed axisymmetrically

579: about the local forced pole. That is, each particle's initial

580: $p = p_{\rm forced}(a) + p_{\rm free}$ and

581: initial $q = q_{\rm forced}(a) + q_{\rm free}$, where

582: $i_{\rm free} = (p_{\rm free}^2 + q_{\rm free}^2)^{1/2}$ takes

583: 1 of $N_i=4$ values (0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3 rad) and

584: $\Omega_{\rm free} = \arctan (p_{\rm free}/q_{\rm free})$

585: takes 1 of $N_{\Omega} = 20$ values distributed uniformly

586: between 0 and $2\pi$. This set-up permits us to

587: directly test the BvW theory, which predicts that

588: all $N_{\Omega}$ particles corresponding to a given $a$

589: and given initial $i_{\rm free}$ should keep the

590: same $i_{\rm free}$ for all time: a circle of points

591: in $p$-$q$ space should continue to trace the same-sized

592: circle. Coordinates $p_{\rm forced}$

593: and $q_{\rm forced}$ for the initial forced poles are

594: computed using the BvW solution of \S\ref{review}, for $t = 0$.

595: 

596: Initial osculating eccentricities are zero and initial mean anomalies

597: are chosen randomly between 0 and $2\pi$. The four giant

598: planets are included in the integration, with initial

599: conditions taken from the JPL Horizons database for

600: JD = 2451544.5 ($t=0$ in the BvW theory).

601: The integration is performed with the swift\_rmvs3

602: code, written by Levison \& Duncan (1994) and based

603: on the algorithm developed by Wisdom \& Holman (1991).

604: The duration of the integration is 4 Gyr and the timestep

605: is 400 days (about 1/11 the orbital period of Jupiter).

606: We work in a heliocentric coordinate system, the better to compare with

607: the linear secular theory which uses heliocentric elements.

608: 

609: \subsection{Results}

610: \label{res}

611: 

612: According to the BvW theory, each set of $N_{\Omega} = 20$

613: particles having the same initial $a$ and initial

614: $i_{\rm free}$ should trace the perimeter of a single circle

615: in $p$-$q$ space at any given time, with the

616: center of the circle yielding the local normal to the KBP.

617: %We determine the KBP by plotting, in $p$-$q$ space and at a given time,

618: %the positions of each set of $N_{\Omega} = 20$

619: %particles having the same initial $a$ and initial $i_{\rm free}$.

620: %The center of the circle that best fits their locations

621: %yields the local normal to the KBP. 

622: Figure \ref{43_0.10} tests this prediction; the panels

623: display the $p$-$q$ positions of particles initially having $a = 43$ AU

624: and $i_{\rm free} = 0.1$ rad, sampled at four different times.

625: Most particles at a given time do lie approximately on one circle, although

626: there are outliers (see crosses in panels b, c, and d).

627: The outliers represent particles whose inclinations and eccentricities

628: grow to large values. Many of these particles suffer

629: close encounters with Neptune, whereupon they are removed from

630: the integration.

631: We did not identify the cause of the instability, but probably the

632: various high-order mean-motion resonances in the vicinity (Nesvorn\'y \&

633: Roig 2001) are to blame.

634: Of the 20 particles shown at $t=0$ in panel a, only

635: 12 survive to $t = 4$ Gyr in panel d. Those that survive have

636: semi-major axes that remain constant to within $\pm$0.5 AU.

637: 

638: \placefigure{fig_stir}

639: \begin{figure}  

640: \epsscale{1.2}

641: \plotone{f3.eps}

642: \caption{Tracking the Kuiper belt plane by numerical integration.  In

643:   panel (a), we set up $N_{\Omega}=20$ test particles having initial

644:   semi-major axes of $a_{\rm K}=43$ AU and having orbit poles

645:   distributed in a cone of half-width $i_{\rm free}=0.1$ rad centered on the

646:   local forced pole given by the BvW solution.  In panels (b) through

647:   (d), the orbit poles evolve according to our numerical

648:   integration. Solid circles denote test particles that both survive

649:   the entire 4 Gyr duration of the integration and have osculating

650:   eccentricities less than $e_{\rm cut} = 0.08$; these are fitted to a

651:   circle, whose center yields the local normal to the Kuiper belt

652:   plane (solid diamond). The ``X'' symbols denote test particles that

653:   do not satisfy these requirements. The Kuiper belt pole so obtained

654:   follows closely that predicted by the continuously updated BvW

655:   solution (open diamond), and does not point along the invariable

656:   pole (``+'').  }

657: \label{43_0.10}  

658: \end{figure}

659: 

660: At each $t$, we fit a circle (in a least squares sense) to those

661: particles known to survive the entire length of the integration.

662: The fit is substantially improved by also discarding particles

663: whose instantaneous eccentricities exceed some value $e_{\rm cut}$, as we find

664: that particles on eccentric orbits tend also to be outliers in $p$-$q$ space.

665: The value of $e_{\rm cut}$ is reduced from one until the fit parameters

666: cease to change significantly. Note that a particle that is discarded

667: from the fit by the $e_{\rm cut}$-criterion at one

668: time can be restored to the fit at a later time (if its eccentricity

669: falls below $e_{\rm cut}$ at that later time).

670: Table \ref{stability} lists the values of $e_{\rm cut}$

671: chosen for the various combinations of initial $a$ and initial $i_{\rm free}$.

672: 

673: The circles so fitted are overlaid in Figure \ref{43_0.10}. A typical

674: fit is excellent and the local normal of the KBP (center of the fitted circle;

675: solid diamond) is confidently identified.

676: Figures \ref{43_0.30}, \ref{38_0.10}, and \ref{38_0.30} report

677: analogous results for

678: other choices of initial $a$ and initial $i_{\rm free}$. All 20 particles

679: having $a = 43$ AU and $i_{\rm free} = 0.3$ rad are stable for 4 Gyr

680: (Figure \ref{43_0.30}). By contrast, at $a=38$ AU,

681: where various high-order mean-motion resonances are known

682: to cause instability (Nesvorn\'y \& Roig 2001),

683: only 2 out of 20 particles having $i_{\rm free} = 0.3$ rad

684: remain at the end of 4 Gyr (Figure \ref{38_0.30}).

685: Fitting a unique circle to 2 points is impossible. And

686: as is clear from Figure \ref{38_0.30},

687: even if we were to try fitting circles at earlier times when more particles

688: are present, such fits would be poor.

689: Only certain combinations of $a$-$i_{\rm free}$ permit

690: determination of the KBP, as documented in our Table \ref{stability}.

691: 

692: Panels d of Figures \ref{fig_fourplot_a} and \ref{fig_fourplot_b}

693: plot the radii of the fitted circles versus time, for two

694: choices of initial $a$-$i_{\rm free}$. The BvW linear theory predicts

695: that these radii should be constant. In fact they are nearly so,

696: varying by at most one part out of six.

697: %The radii of the fitted circles are nearly constant

698: %with time, demonstrating that free inclinations---for stable, low-eccentricity

699: %particles---are approximately conserved.

700: %Thus, the numerica

701: %This verifies one of the tenets of the BvW theory.

702: 

703: How can we further test the BvW theory when we know that it fails to

704: predict the orbits of the planets on Gyr timescales? We compute

705: instead a semi-analytic, BvW-based solution as follows. At each time

706: in the numerical integration, we output the inclinations and ascending nodes of

707: the giant planets and use these to recompute the eigenvectors---and

708: thus the forced poles---of the linear theory.  Thus we obtain a

709: prediction of where the KBP should reside according to the linear

710: theory at a given instant, using the simulation results for the planets at that

711: instant to supply the integration constants. This ``continuously

712: updated BvW solution'' for the local normal (forced inclination vector) is shown

713: as an open diamond in Figures \ref{43_0.10}--\ref{38_0.30}.

714: Its location tracks that

715: of the numerically fitted pole (solid diamond) well---much better than

716: does the invariable pole (upright cross); see especially Figures

717: \ref{43_0.10} and \ref{38_0.10}.

718: Figures \ref{fig_fourplot_a} and \ref{fig_fourplot_b} also demonstrate

719: that the continuously updated BvWP hews closely

720: to the numerically fitted KBP.

721: 

722: \placefigure{fig_four}

723: \begin{figure}  

724: \epsscale{1.2}  

725: \plotone{f4.eps}  

726: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{43_0.10}, except that

727: initial $a_{\rm K}=43$ AU, initial $i_{\rm free} = 0.3$ rad,

728: and no $e_{\rm cut}$ criterion is applied. The numerically

729: fitted Kuiper belt pole (solid diamond) tracks the continuously

730: updated BvW pole (open diamond) well; both precess about the invariable pole

731: (``+'').

732: } 

733: \label{43_0.30}  

734: \end{figure}

735: 

736: \placefigure{fig_five}

737: \begin{figure}  

738: \epsscale{1.2}  

739: \plotone{f5.eps}  

740: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{43_0.10}, except that

741: initial $a_{\rm K}=38$ AU, initial $i_{\rm free} = 0.1$ rad,

742: and no $e_{\rm cut}$ criterion is applied. 

743: Here again

744: the numerically determined Kuiper belt pole (solid diamond)

745: is well described by the continuously updated BvW pole (open diamond),

746: not the invariable pole (``+'').

747: }  

748: \label{38_0.10}  

749: \end{figure}

750: 

751: \placefigure{fig_six}

752: \begin{figure}  

753: \epsscale{1.2}  

754: \plotone{f6.eps}  

755: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{43_0.10}, except that

756: initial $a_{\rm K}=38$ AU, initial $i_{\rm free} = 0.3$ rad,

757: and no $e_{\rm cut}$ criterion is applied. 

758: Only two test particles survive the 4 Gyr duration of the

759: integration, rendering determination of the Kuiper belt pole impossible.

760: }  

761: \label{38_0.30}  

762: \end{figure}

763: 

764: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}

765: \tablecaption{Numerical Results for Stability in Initial $a$-$i_{\rm free}$ Space}

766: \tablewidth{0pt}

767: \tablehead{

768: \multicolumn{6}{c}{}\\

769: $a$ & $i_{\rm free}$ & \# of Survivors & $e_{\rm max}$ & $e_{\rm cut}$ & Permits KBP \\

770: (AU) & (rad) & (out of 20) & of Survivors & & Determination? \\

771: }

772: \startdata

773: 38 & 0.01 & 17 & 0.05 & None Applied & Yes \\

774:    & 0.03 & 16 & 0.05 & None Applied & Yes \\

775:    & 0.10 & 8  & 0.07 & None Applied & Yes \\

776:    & 0.30 & 2  & 0.02 & None Applied & No \\

777: 

778: 43 & 0.01 & 19 & 0.12 & 0.04 & Yes \\

779:    & 0.03 & 20 & 0.04 & None Applied & Yes \\

780:    & 0.10 & 12 & 0.12 & 0.08 & Yes \\

781:    & 0.30 & 20 & 0.02 & None Applied & Yes \\

782: 

783: 44 & 0.01 & 20 & 0.11 & 0.03 & Yes \\

784:    & 0.03 & 20 & 0.11 & 0.04 & Yes \\

785:    & 0.10 & 20 & 0.15 & 0.06 & Yes \\

786:    & 0.30 & 20 & 0.29 & 0.08 & Yes \\

787: \enddata

788: %\tablenotetext{a}{Substantially improved fits to a circle are obtained by discarding particles whose eccentricities exceed 0.03 but which otherwise appear stable.}

789: \label{stability}

790: \end{deluxetable}

791: 

792: To summarize the results of our numerical simulations:

793: Linear secular theories like BvW correctly predict

794: how the warped KBP evolves with time, provided the parameters

795: of those analytic theories are continuously updated using

796: either observations or numerical simulations of the 

797: giant planets' orbits. The KBP today is accurately

798: predicted by the updated BvW solution.

799: The KBP does not, in general,

800: coincide with the invariable plane, except at infinite distance

801: from the planets.

802: 

803: \placefigure{fig_seven}

804: \begin{figure}  

805: \epsscale{1}

806: \plotone{f7.eps}  

807: \caption{Results for test particles

808: having initial $a_{\rm K} = 43$ AU and initial $i_{\rm free}=0.1$ rad,

809: demonstrating that the numerically obtained KBP follows the continuously

810: updated BvWP, not the IP.

811: (a) Inclination of the KBP (solid circles),

812: BvWP (open circles), and IP (line), all relative

813: to the ecliptic. (b) Mutual inclination between the KBP and BvWP (solid

814: diamonds), the BvWP and the IP (open diamonds), and the KBP and the IP

815: (solid line). (c) Longitude of ascending node of the KBP (solid circles),

816: BvWP (open circles), and IP (line), all relative to the ecliptic

817: and mean equinox of J2000. (d) Numerically obtained free inclination

818: (solid circles; these are the radii of the fitted circles in

819: Figure \ref{43_0.10}), compared against the initial $i_{\rm free}$

820: (line). The BvW theory predicts that the free inclination should be constant;

821: while it is nearly so in our numerical integration, its mean value

822: is offset by 0.6 deg (10\%) relative to its initial value.

823: Data are sampled every $10^8$ yr and do not resolve

824: the precession of the KBP occurring with a $\sim$$10^6$-yr period

825: (see Figure \ref{fig_ad}).

826: }  

827: \label{fig_fourplot_a}  

828: \end{figure}

829: 

830: \placefigure{fig_eight}

831: \begin{figure}  

832: \epsscale{1}  

833: \plotone{f8.eps}  

834: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig_fourplot_a}, except

835: for initial $a_{\rm K} = 38$ AU and initial $i_{\rm free} = 0.1$ rad.

836: }  

837: \label{fig_fourplot_b}  

838: \end{figure}

839: 

840: \section{THEORY VERSUS OBSERVATION}

841: \label{obs}

842: 

843: We have shown by numerical simulations in \S\ref{answer} that the Classical KBP

844: is given by the BvWP, i.e., by linear secular theory.

845: Here we assess whether observations of KBOs bear out this result,

846: by locating the actual poles of the KBP near 38 AU and 43 AU.

847: These semi-major axes lie to either side of the $\nu_{18}$ resonance;

848: theory predicts that the corresponding poles should lie to either

849: side of the invariable pole, with all three orbit normals lying in one

850: plane (see Figure \ref{fig_diameter}). Our dataset consists

851: of KBOs listed on the Minor Planet Center

852: website on Jan 22 2008 whose (a) astrometric arcs extend longer than 50 days

853: (many objects in our sample have much longer arcs),

854: (b) eccentricities are less than 0.1, (c) inclinations

855: are less than 10 degrees, and (d) are classified by

856: the Deep Ecliptic Survey (DES) as ``Classical'' in at least

857: two out of their three orbital integrations (see Elliot et al. 2005

858: for a description of the classification scheme).

859: In the vast majority of cases, all three DES integrations

860: yield a classification of ``Classical.''

861: Moreover, the typical $3\sigma$ uncertainties in semi-major axes

862: are smaller than $\sim$0.1 AU.

863: We assemble two samples, one for which

864: $38.09 \,{\rm AU} < a < 39.10 \,{\rm AU}$ (the ``38 AU'' sample,

865: containing 10 objects)

866: and another for which $42.49 \,{\rm AU} < a < 43.50\,{\rm AU}$ (the

867: ``43 AU'' sample, containing 80 objects).

868: Object designations are given in Table \ref{table_desig}.

869: 

870: \begin{deluxetable}{cl}

871: \tablecaption{Samples of Observed KBOs for Locating the KBP}

872: \tablewidth{0pt}

873: 

874: \tablehead{ Sample & Objects}

875: \startdata

876:    ``38 AU''    & 1998 WV$_{24}$, 1999 OJ$_4$, 2000 YB$_2$, 82157, 2003 FD$_{128}$, 2003 QA$_{92}$, 2003 YL$_{179}$, \\ 

877:                 & 2003 QQ$_{91}$, 144897, 119951\\

878:    ``43 AU''    & 19255, 1994 EV$_3$, 1996 TK$_{66}$, 33001, 1998 WY$_{24}$, 1998 WX$_{24}$, 1999 CN$_{153}$,\\

879:                 & 1999 RT$_{214}$, 1999 ON$_4$, 1999 XY$_{143}$, 1999 RW$_{214}$, 1999 CH$_{154}$, 1999 RU$_{215}$,\\

880:                 & 1999 HV$_{11}$, 1999 DA, 1999 HJ$_{12}$, 1999 CW$_{131}$, 2000 PU$_{29}$, 2000 PX$_{29}$,\\

881:                 & 134860, 2000 CL$_{105}$, 2000 ON$_{67}$, 2000 PC$_{30}$, 2000 FS$_{53}$, 2000 WV$_{12}$,\\

882:                 & 2000 WL$_{183}$, 2000 OU$_{69}$, 2000 YU$_1$, 88268, 2001 QB$_{298}$, 2001 QD$_{298}$, 2001 XR$_{254}$,\\

883:                 & 2001 QO$_{297}$, 2001 HZ$_{58}$, 2001 RW$_{143}$, 2001 OK$_{108}$, 2001 DB$_{106}$, 88267,\\

884:                 & 2001 XU$_{254}$, 2001 FK$_{185}$, 2001 OZ$_{108}$, 2002 CD$_{251}$, 2002 PX$_{170}$, 2002 PV$_{170}$,\\

885:                 & 2002 FW$_{36}$, 2002 WL$_{21}$, 160256, 2002 VB$_{131}$, 2002 PY$_{170}$, 2002 CS$_{154}$, 2002 PD$_{155}$,\\

886:                 & 2003 SN$_{317}$, 2003 UT$_{291}$, 2003 FK$_{127}$, 2003 QG$_{91}$, 2003 FA$_{130}$, 2003 HY$_{56}$,\\

887:                 & 2003 QY$_{90}$, 2003 TK$_{58}$, 2003 QF$_{91}$, 2003 QE$_{91}$, 2003 QZ$_{111}$, 2003 QL$_{91}$, 2003 QE$_{112}$,\\

888:                 & 2003 YR$_{179}$, 2003 QY$_{111}$, 2003 QD$_{91}$, 2003 TL$_{58}$, 2003 QU$_{90}$, 2003 YT$_{179}$,\\

889:                 & 2003 YX$_{179}$, 2003 YS$_{179}$, 2003 YJ$_{179}$, 2004 UD$_{10}$, 2004 DM$_{71}$, 2005 JZ$_{174}$,\\

890:                 & 2005 GD$_{187}$, 2005 JP$_{179}$, 2005 XU$_{100}$, 2006 HA$_{123}$ \\

891: \enddata 

892: \label{table_desig}

893: \end{deluxetable}

894: 

895: \placefigure{fig_nine}

896: \begin{figure}  

897: \epsscale{1}  

898: \plotone{f9.eps}  

899: \caption{Pole positions of observed Classical KBOs having semi-major axes

900: near 38 AU (open circles) and 43 AU (filled circles), in

901: $q = i \cos \Omega, p = i \sin \Omega$ space, referenced

902: to the J2000 ecliptic. According

903: to theory (\S\ref{review}--\S\ref{answer}), the average pole position

904: at a given semi-major axis (triangles with error bars) should match the

905: forced pole positions (diamonds) calculated from BvW. They do

906: to within $2\sigma$ (error bars are $\pm 3\sigma$,

907: where $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the mean).

908: Unfortunately, the alternate hypothesis that the average pole positions

909: are given by the invariable pole (bold cross) cannot be ruled out

910: with greater confidence.

911: }  

912: \label{fig_real}  

913: \end{figure}

914: 

915: Figure \ref{fig_real} plots the observed ($q$,$p$) positions for the two samples,

916: and compares with theory.

917: %together with the theoretically expected pole positions. 

918: Theory predicts that the average $(\bar{q},\bar{p})$ measured for each

919: sample should equal $(q_{\rm forced}, p_{\rm forced})$ calculated for

920: the average semi-major axis of the sample. The good news is that the

921: data are consistent with this prediction; the differences between the

922: observed poles and the forced poles are less than 2$\sigma$ for both

923: samples (the error bars in Figure \ref{fig_real} are $\pm 3\sigma$,

924: where $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the mean).  The bad news

925: is that the observed poles are also consistent with the invariable

926: pole, at a similar confidence level.  

927: %It is understandable that Elliot

928: %et al. (2005) and Brown \& Pan (2004) disagree on the location of the

929: %Kuiper belt plane; the deviation of the plane away from the invariable

930: %plane is too small, especially at 43 AU, to be reliably measured with current data. SAMPLES ARE DIFFERENT FOR THE TWO STUDIES.

931: While it is encouraging for the theory that the observed pole at 38 AU indeed

932:  lies to

933: the left (toward smaller $q$) of the invariable pole, and that the observed

934: pole at 43 AU lies to the right, there are not enough

935: observations to make more precise

936: statements and to rule out the hypothesis that the KBP equals the IP with

937: greater than $3\sigma$ confidence.

938: 

939: Note that by selecting our sample to have orbital inclinations less

940: than 10 degrees with respect to the ecliptic plane, we bias our measurement

941: of the average pole position towards the ecliptic pole. This systematic

942: error is probably still smaller, however, than our random error.

943: For example,

944: % at 38 AU, the $3\sigma$

945: %error bars encompass the ecliptic pole (the origin

946: %in Figure \ref{fig_real}), and 

947: the observed pole at 38 AU actually lies further

948: from the ecliptic pole

949: than does the theoretically expected forced pole. See Elliot et al. (2005)

950: for ways of reducing this systematic bias.

951: 

952: We also performed a two-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to see whether

953: the $(q,p)$ distributions for the two samples differ (they should).

954: The probability that they do not is 4.9\%---small enough

955: to be suggestive of a real difference, but in our judgement

956: too large to be conclusive.

957: 

958: % From Hyomin. I did not use this table, but the numbers are good!

959: %\begin{deluxetable}{rccc}

960: %\tablecaption{Comparison of various poles^{a}}

961: %\tablewidth{0pt}

962: %\tablehead{    & mean pole  & \mbox{\boldmath{$i$}}$_{\rm forced}$^{b} & \textbf{I} }

963: %\startdata 

964: %  Set (1)     & $( -2.25 \pm 2.865, 2.11 \pm 2.241)$  & $( -2.009,  0.845)$ & $(-0.479, 1.50)$ \\

965: %  Set (2)     & $(-0.0822 \pm 0.780, 1.47 \pm 0.861)$ & $(0.368,1.863)$     & $(-0.479, 1.50)$ \\

966: %\enddata 

967: %\tablenotetext{a}{The components of each pole are in degrees.}

968: %\tablenotetext {b}{The forced pole of Set (1) and Set (2) are calcualted at $a= 38.621$AU and $43.047$AU, respectively.}

969: %\label{poles}

970: %\end{deluxetable}

971: 

972: \section{SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION}

973: \label{conc}

974: 

975: Classical Kuiper belt objects trace a sheet that warps and precesses

976: in response to the planets. The

977: current location and shape of this sheet---the ``plane'' of the

978: Classical Kuiper belt---can be computed using linear secular theory,

979: with the observed masses and current orbits of the planets as input

980: parameters (Brown \& Pan 2004).  The local normal to the plane is given by the

981: theory's forced inclination vector, which is

982: specific to every semi-major axis. At infinite

983: distance from the planets, the plane coincides with the invariable

984: plane. The deviations of the Kuiper belt

985: plane away from the invariable plane, while generally non-zero, are

986: typically small: less than 3

987: degrees outside the secularly unstable gap at $a \approx 40.5 \pm 1$

988: AU (inside the gap no KBOs have been observed, as

989: expected).  As the semi-major axis varies from $< 40.5$ AU to $> 40.5$ AU,

990: the ascending node of the Kuiper belt

991: plane on the invariable plane rotates by very nearly 180 degrees,

992: a result of the sign change in the forced response across

993: the $\nu_{18}$ resonance.

994: 

995: These conclusions

996: are supported by our numerical integrations of giant planet and test

997: particle orbits lasting 4 Gyr.

998: These integrations show that a Kuiper belt object maintains a nearly

999: fixed orbital inclination with respect to the time-variable

1000: Kuiper belt plane. This accords with linear theory, in which

1001: the free inclination represents the undamped, constant amplitude

1002: of a test particle's free oscillation. It may seem surprising

1003: that the linear theory is vindicated in this regard while

1004: it cannot accurately predict planetary motions and hence the future

1005: location of the Kuiper belt plane. But the inaccuracies accrue only

1006: slowly---Figure \ref{fig_ad} shows that it takes several precession

1007: periods for the linear theory to diverge from numerical simulation

1008: in predicting the location of the plane, and the analytic and numerical

1009: solutions are always qualitatively similar. Referring back to the equations

1010: of motion (\ref{ddotq})--(\ref{ddotp}), we see that if we take the planetary

1011: forcing terms $q_j(t)$ and $p_j(t)$ to be given by the more realistic

1012: numerical integration---instead of the inaccurate but qualitatively

1013: similar analytic solution (\ref{q_j})--(\ref{p_j})---then the free

1014: component of the motion (the homogeneous solution of the differential

1015: equation) would still be given by (\ref{qfree})--(\ref{pfree}), irrespective

1016: of the forced component (the inhomogenous solution).

1017: Thus an object can keep its free inclination with respect to the forced

1018: plane fixed, even though the location of the forced plane itself

1019: cannot be forecast analytically.

1020: 

1021: %In fact, though we have not made the connection until now, the

1022: %Classical Kuiper belt plane is given by the Laplacian plane. By

1023: %definition, a test particle residing in the Laplacian plane feels no

1024: %time-averaged disturbing force perpendicular to that plane.  It is clear that

1025: %if the Laplacian plane is stationary, a test particle orbit lying

1026: %in the plane will stay there.

1027: %%Given a set of planetary orbits (Gaussian wires) at some

1028: %%instant, linear secular theory enables us to compute the instantaneous

1029: %%Laplacian plane: the local Laplacian pole is given by the forced

1030: %%pole. 

1031: %In low-order theories, a test particle's 

1032: %inclination relative to a stationary Laplacian plane---the free

1033: %inclination---stays constant; the

1034: %test particle's orbit normal

1035: %precesses about the local normal to the Laplacian plane (the forced pole)

1036: %at a fixed angle.

1037: %(Higher order theories would show the extent

1038: %to which the free inclination varies, i.e., they would reveal nutation.)

1039: % NO, the Laplacian plane is not the forced plane.

1040: 

1041: \placefigure{fig_ten}

1042: \begin{figure}  

1043: \epsscale{1}  

1044: \plotone{f10.eps}  

1045: \caption{Components of the forced pole versus time, computed

1046: using the BvW theory (dashed line)

1047: and the continuously updated BvW theory (solid line).

1048: The latter uses the results of numerical integrations at every timestep

1049: to reset its parameters,

1050: and is therefore essentially a numerical solution.

1051: While the numerical solution eventually diverges from

1052: the BvW solution, the two are qualitatively similar.

1053: %We suspect that

1054: %the slowness with which

1055: %the continuously updated BvWP---which serves as our proxy for the actual

1056: %KBP---drifts from the non-continuously updated BvWP

1057: %makes possible the constancy of free inclination, i.e., how

1058: %the inclination of a KBO relative to the KBP stays constant

1059: %even as the KBP itself evolves.

1060: }  

1061: \label{fig_ad}  

1062: \end{figure}

1063: 

1064: %Our numerical integrations indicate that actual KBOs at semi-major axes outside

1065: %the $a \approx 40.5 \pm 1$ AU gap can be used to locate the Kuiper belt

1066: %plane, provided their inclinations are not too high (see Table \ref{stability}).

1067: Currently the data on actual KBOs

1068: are consistent with, but do not conclusively

1069: verify, our theoretical finding that the

1070: Kuiper belt plane warps by a few degrees to either side of the secularly

1071: unstable gap.

1072: % But

1073: %conclusively distinguishing the Kuiper belt plane from the invariable

1074: %plane will require more observations.

1075: Our analysis of the observations, like that of Elliot et al.~(2005),

1076: suffers from large random errors. The study by Brown \& Pan (2004)

1077: does not, but at the expense of including objects of all dynamical classes

1078: and not following variations in the pole position with semi-major axis.

1079: Quadrupling the 

1080: sample size of low-$i$, low-$e$ objects at 38 AU, where there are currently

1081: ten usable objects, can increase our confidence

1082: in the reality of the warp to greater than 3$\sigma$.

1083: 

1084: Detecting ``Planet X'' via its influence on the Kuiper belt

1085: plane will be substantially more challenging.

1086: We calculate that a 100-$M_{\oplus}$ planet

1087: with a semi-major axis of 300 AU and an orbital inclination with respect

1088: to the ecliptic of 10 degrees would shift the forced poles in the 43--50 AU

1089: region by 0.1 degree.

1090: 

1091: \acknowledgements

1092: We thank Ruth Murray-Clay and Mike Brown for discussions,

1093: and Chris Culter for suggesting this undergraduate research collaboration.

1094: An anonymous referee provided numerous helpful comments.

1095: This work was supported by NSF grant AST-0507805.

1096: 

1097: \begin{thebibliography}{1}

1098: 

1099: \bibitem{bvw}Brouwer, D., \& van Woerkom, A.J.J. 1950, The Secular Variations of the Orbital Elements of the Principal Planets (Astron. Pap. Am. Ephemeris Naut. Alm., 13, 81) (Washington: GPO)

1100: 

1101: \bibitem{bp}Brown, M.E., \& Pan, M. 2004, \aj, 127, 2418

1102: 

1103: \bibitem{c}Chiang, E., et al. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, \& K. Keil (Tucson: University of Arizona Press)

1104: 

1105: \bibitem{e}Elliot, J.L., et al. 2005, \aj, 129, 1117

1106: 

1107: \bibitem{gb}Gaudi, B.S., \& Bloom, J.S. 2005, \apj, 635, 711

1108: 

1109: \bibitem{lm}Levison, H.F., \& Duncan, M.J. 1994, Icarus, 108, 18

1110: 

1111: \bibitem{md}Murray, C.D., \& Dermott, S.F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

1112: 

1113: \bibitem{nr}Nesvorn\'y, D., \& Roig, F. 2001, Icarus, 150, 104

1114: 

1115: %\bibitem{wa}Ward, W.R., Colombo, G., \& Franklin, F.A. 1976, Icarus, 28, 441

1116: 

1117: \bibitem{w}Wisdom, J., \& Holman, M. 1991, \aj, 102, 1528

1118: 

1119: \end{thebibliography}

1120: 

1121: \end{document}

1122: