1: %% LyX 1.5.5 created this file. For more info, see http://www.lyx.org/.
2: %% Do not edit unless you really know what you are doing.
3: \documentclass[twoside,english]{emulateapj}
4: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5: % \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
6: % \usepackage[latin9]{inputenc}
7: \setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
8: \usepackage{graphicx}
9:
10: \makeatletter
11:
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LyX specific LaTeX commands.
13: %% Because html converters don't know tabularnewline
14: \providecommand{\tabularnewline}{\\}
15: %% A simple dot to overcome graphicx limitations
16: \newcommand{\lyxdot}{.}
17:
18:
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% User specified LaTeX commands.
20: \usepackage{times}
21:
22: \makeatother
23:
24: % \usepackage{babel}
25:
26: \begin{document}
27:
28:
29:
30: \title{The efficiency of resonant relaxation around a massive black hole}
31:
32:
33: \author{Ehud Eilon\altaffilmark{1}, G\'abor Kupi and Tal Alexander\altaffilmark{2}}
34:
35:
36: \affil{Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel}
37:
38: \altaffiltext{1}{Present address: Israel Aerospace Industries, MLM Division, PO Box 45, Beer-Yaakov, 70350, Israel}
39:
40: \altaffiltext{2}{William Z. and Eda Bess Novick Career Development Chair}
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43: Resonant relaxation (RR) is a rapid relaxation process that operates
44: in the nearly-Keplerian potential near a massive black hole (MBH).
45: RR dominates the dynamics of compact remnants that inspiral into a
46: MBH and emit gravitational waves (extreme mass ratio inspiral events,
47: EMRIs). RR can either increase the EMRI rate, or strongly suppress
48: it, depending on its still poorly-determined efficiency. We use small-scale
49: Newtonian $N$-body simulations to measure the RR efficiency and to
50: explore its possible dependence on the stellar number density profile
51: around the MBH, and the mass-ratio between the MBH and a star (a single-mass
52: stellar population is assumed). We develop an efficient and robust
53: procedure for detecting and measuring RR in $N$-body simulations.
54: We present a suite of simulations with a range of stellar density
55: profiles and mass-ratios, and measure the mean RR efficiency in the
56: near-Keplerian limit. We do not find a statistically significant dependence
57: on the density profile or the mass-ratio. Our numerical determination
58: of the RR efficiency in the Newtonian, single-mass population approximations,
59: suggests that RR will likely \emph{enhance} the EMRI rate by a factor
60: of a few over the rates predicted assuming only slow stochastic two-body
61: relaxation.
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: \keywords{black hole physics---galaxies: nuclei---stars: kinematics and dynamics---gravitational
65: waves}
66:
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: Dynamical relaxation processes near massive black holes (MBH) in galactic
71: centers affect the rates of strong stellar interactions with the MBH,
72: such as tidal disruption, tidal dissipation, or gravitational wave
73: (GW) emission \citep[e.g.][]{ale05}. These relaxation processes may
74: also be reflected by the dynamical properties of the different stellar
75: populations there \citep{hop+06a}, as observed in the Galactic Center
76: \citep{gen+00,pau+06}. Of particular importance, in anticipation
77: of the planned Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) GW detector,
78: is to understand the role of relaxation in regulating the rate of
79: GW emission events from compact remnants undergoing quasi-periodic
80: extreme mass ratio inspiral (EMRI) into MBHs.
81:
82: Two-body relaxation, or non-coherent relaxation (NR), is inherent
83: to any discrete large-N system, due to the cumulative effect of uncorrelated
84: two-body encounters. These cause the orbital energy $E$ and the angular
85: momentum $J$ to change in a random-walk fashion ($\propto\!\sqrt{t}$)
86: on the typically long NR timescale $T_{\mathrm{NR}}$. In contrast,
87: when the gravitational potential has approximate symmetries that restrict
88: orbital evolution (e.g. fixed ellipses in a Keplerian potential; fixed
89: orbital planes in a spherical potential), the perturbations on a test
90: star are no longer random, but correlated, leading to coherent ($\propto\! t$)
91: torquing of $J$ on short timescales, while the symmetries hold. Over
92: longer times, this results in resonant relaxation (RR) (\citealt{rau+96,rau+98};
93: \S \ref{ss:RR}), a rapid random walk of $J$ on the typically short
94: RR timescale $T_{\mathrm{RR}}\!\ll\! T_{\mathrm{NR}}$. RR in a near-Keplerian
95: potential can change both the direction and magnitude of $\mathbf{J}$
96: ({}``scalar RR''), thereby driving stars to near-radial orbits that
97: interact strongly with the MBH. RR in a near-spherical potential can
98: only change the direction of $\mathbf{J}$ ({}``vector RR'').
99:
100: RR is particularly relevant in the potential near a MBH, where compact
101: EMRI candidates originate. \citet{hop+06a} show that RR dominates
102: EMRI source dynamics. Depending on its still poorly-determined efficiency,
103: RR can either increase the EMRI rate over that predicted assuming
104: NR only, or if too efficient, it can strongly suppress the EMRI rate
105: by throwing the compact remnants into infall (plunge) orbits (cf Fig.
106: \ref{f:EMRI} below) that emit a single, non-periodic and hard to
107: detect GW burst. A prime motivation for the systematic numerical investigation
108: of RR efficiency presented here, are the still open questions about
109: the implications of RR for EMRI rates and orbital properties.
110:
111: This paper is organized as follows. In \S \ref{s:theory} we briefly
112: review the theory of NR and RR relaxation and derive a new relation
113: between scalar and vector RR. In \S \ref{s:ACF} we describe our
114: method of analyzing and quantifying the effects of RR in $N$-body
115: simulations, which are described in \S \ref{s:simulations}. We present
116: our results in \S \ref{s:results} and discuss and summarize them
117: in \S \ref{s:conclusions}.
118:
119:
120: \section{Theory}
121:
122: \label{s:theory}
123:
124:
125: \subsection{Non-coherent Relaxation (NR)}
126:
127: \label{ss:NR}
128:
129: The NR time for $E$-relaxation, $T_{\mathrm{NR}}^{E}$, corresponds
130: to the time it takes non-coherent 2-body interactions to change the
131: stellar orbital energy by order of itself, $\left|\Delta E\right|\!\sim\! E$
132: (by stellar dynamical definition convention, $E\!>\!0$ for a bound
133: orbit). Similarly, the NR time for $J$-relaxation, $T_{\mathrm{NR}}^{J}$,
134: corresponds to the time it takes the stellar orbital angular momentum
135: to change by order of the circular angular momentum $\left|\Delta J\right|\!\sim\! J_{c}$,
136: where near a MBH of mass $M$, $J_{c}\!=\! GM/\sqrt{2E}$. The $E$-relaxation
137: timescale can be estimated by considering the rate $\Gamma$ of gravitational
138: collisions in a system of size $R$ at a relative velocity $v$, between
139: a test star and $N$ field stars of mass $m$ and space density $n\!\sim\! N/R^{3}$,
140: at the minimal impact parameter where the small angle deflection assumption
141: still holds, $r_{min}\!\sim\! Gm/v^{2}$. The collision rate is then
142: $\Gamma\!\sim\! nvr_{min}^{2}\!\sim\! G^{2}m^{2}n/v^{3}$. Taking
143: into account also collisions at larger impact parameters increases
144: the rate by the Coulomb logarithm factor $\textrm{ln}\Lambda\!\sim\!\textrm{ln}(R/r_{min})$.
145: Therefore, $T_{\mathrm{NR}}^{E}\!\sim\! v^{3}/(G^{2}m^{2}n\textrm{ln}\Lambda)$.
146: Near the MBH $v^{2}\!\sim\! GM/R$, and so $\ln\Lambda\!\sim\!\ln Q$,
147: where $Q\!\equiv\! M/m$ is the mass ratio.
148:
149: When the stars move under the influence of the central MBH ($Q\!\gg\! N$),
150: the relaxation time can be expressed as $T_{\mathrm{NR}}^{E}\!\sim\!(M/m)^{2}P/(N\textrm{ln}\Lambda)$,
151: where $P\!=\!2\pi\sqrt{R^{3}/GM}$ is the Keplerian period. Following
152: the notation of \citet{rau+96} (RT96), the NR changes in $E$, $J$
153: and $\mathbf{J}$ over the dimensionless time-lag $\tau\!\equiv\!(t_{2}-t_{1})/P_{1}$
154: are\begin{eqnarray}
155: \left|\Delta E\right|/E & \equiv & \left|E_{2}-E_{1}\right|/E_{1}=\alpha_{\Lambda}\sqrt{N}(m/M)\sqrt{\tau}\,,\label{e:alphaL}\\
156: \left|\Delta J\right|/J_{c} & \equiv & \left|J_{2}-J_{1}\right|/J_{c,1}=\eta_{s\Lambda}\sqrt{N}(m/M)\sqrt{\tau}\,,\label{e:etasL}\\
157: \left|\Delta\mathbf{J}\right|/J_{c} & \equiv & \left|\mathbf{J}_{2}-\mathbf{J}_{1}\right|/J_{c,1}=\eta_{v\Lambda}\sqrt{N}(m/M)\sqrt{\tau}\,,\label{e:etavL}\end{eqnarray}
158: where $\alpha_{\Lambda}\!\equiv\!\alpha\sqrt{\textrm{ln}\Lambda}$
159: and $\eta_{s,v\Lambda}\!\equiv\!\eta_{s,v}\sqrt{\textrm{ln}\Lambda}$
160: are dimensionless constants, whose exact values are system-dependent
161: and cannot be estimated with accuracy without detailed calculations
162: or simulations. The corresponding NR timescales are related to these
163: coefficients by $T_{\mathrm{NR}}^{E}\!=\!(M/m)^{2}P/(N\alpha_{\Lambda}^{2})$,
164: $T_{\mathrm{NR}}^{J}\!=\!(M/m)^{2}P/(N\eta_{s\Lambda}^{2})$ and $T_{\mathrm{NR}}^{\mathbf{J}}\!=\!(M/m)^{2}P/(N\eta_{v\Lambda}^{2})$.
165:
166:
167: \subsection{Resonant Relaxation (RR)}
168:
169: \label{ss:RR}
170:
171: When the potential has symmetries that restrict the orbital evolution,
172: for example to fixed ellipses in the potential of a point mass, or
173: to planar annuli in a spherical potential, the perturbations on a
174: test star are no longer random, but correlated. This leads to a coherent
175: changes in $\mathbf{J}$ on times $P\!\ll\! t\!<\! t_{\omega}$, $\Delta\mathbf{J}\!=\!\mathbf{T}t$,
176: by the residual torque $\left|\mathbf{T}\right|\!\sim\!\sqrt{N}Gm/R$
177: exerted by the $N$ randomly oriented, orbit-averaged mass distributions
178: of the surrounding stars (mass wires for elliptical orbits in a Kepler
179: potential, mass annuli for rosette-like orbits in a spherical potential).
180: The coherence time $t_{\omega}$ is set by deviations from the true
181: symmetry, which lead to a gradual orbital drift and to the randomization
182: of $\mathbf{T}$. For example, the enclosed stellar mass leads to
183: non-Keplerian retrograde precession; General Relativity leads to prograde
184: precession. Ultimately, the coherent torques themselves randomize
185: the orbits (alternatively, this can be viewed as the result of potential
186: fluctuations due to the finite number of stars). The effective coherence
187: time is set by the shortest de-coherence (quenching) process in the
188: system. The accumulated change over $t_{\omega}$, $\left|\Delta\mathbf{J}_{\omega}\right|\!\sim\!\left|\mathbf{T}t_{\omega}\right|$,
189: then becomes the basic step-size, or mean free path in $\mathbf{J}$-space,
190: for the long-term ($t\!\gg\! t_{\omega}$) non-coherent ($\propto\!\sqrt{t}$)
191: relaxation of $\mathbf{J}$. Since this step-size is large, RR can
192: be much faster than NR. The RR timescale $T_{\mathrm{RR}}$ is then
193: defined by $\Delta J/J_{c}\!=\!(\Delta J_{\omega}/J_{c})\sqrt{t/t_{\omega}}\!\equiv\!\sqrt{t/T_{\mathrm{RR}}}$.
194: Note that the relaxation of \emph{$E$} is not affected by RR because
195: the potential of the system is stationary on the coherence timescale,
196: and so $E$ changes incoherently on all time scales. The torques exerted
197: by elliptical mass wires in a Kepler potential can change both the
198: direction and magnitude of \textbf{J}. In contrast, the torques exerted
199: by planar annuli can only change the direction of \textbf{J}.
200:
201: Here we consider only Newtonian dynamics. The coherence timescale
202: for scalar RR is determined by the time it takes for the orbital apsis
203: to precess by angle $\sim\!\pi$ due to the potential of the enclosed
204: stellar mass ({}``mass precession''),\begin{equation}
205: t_{\omega}=t_{M}=A_{M}\left(M\left/Nm\right.\right)P\,,\end{equation}
206: where $A_{M}$ is an $O(1)$ factor reflecting the approximations
207: in this estimate. The coherence timescale for vector RR is determined
208: by the time it takes for the coherent torques to change $\Delta\left|\mathbf{J}\right|\sim J_{c}$
209: (alternatively, this is the timescale $t_{\phi}=(\phi/\Delta\phi_{\star})P/2$
210: to accumulate $O(1)$ fluctuations in the stellar potential $\Delta\phi_{\star}\!\sim\!\sqrt{N}Gm/R$
211: relative to the total gravitational potential $\phi$ as the stars
212: rotate by $\sim\!\pi$ on their orbits),
213:
214: \begin{equation}
215: t_{\omega}=t_{\phi}=A_{\phi}\left(\sqrt{N}\left/2\mu\right.\right)P\simeq\left[A_{\phi}(M/m)\left/2\sqrt{N}\right.\right]P\,,\end{equation}
216: where $A_{\phi}$ is an $O(1)$ factor, $\mu\!=\! Nm/(M+Nm)$ and
217: where the approximate equality is for the Keplerian limit $Nm\!\ll\! M$.
218: Following RT96, the RR changes in $J$ and $\mathbf{J}$ during the
219: coherent phase $(\tau\!<\!\tau_{\omega})$ can be expressed as
220:
221: \begin{eqnarray}
222: \left|\Delta J\right|/J_{c} & \equiv & \left|J_{2}-J_{1}\right|/J_{c,1}=\beta_{s}\sqrt{N}(m/M)\tau\,,\label{e:betas}\\
223: \left|\Delta\mathbf{J}\right|/J_{c} & \equiv & \left|\mathbf{J}_{2}-\mathbf{J}_{1}\right|/J_{c,1}=\beta_{v}\sqrt{N}(m/M)\tau\,,\label{e:betav}\end{eqnarray}
224: where the $O(1)$ dimensionless coefficients $\beta_{s}$ and $\beta_{v}$
225: depend on the parameters of the system and reflect the uncertainties
226: introduced by the various approximations and simplification of this
227: analysis. Accurate determination of their values requires detailed
228: calculations or simulations.
229:
230: The scalar RR change $\Delta J$ on time-lags $\tau\!\gg\!\tau_{M}$
231: is then
232:
233: \begin{equation}
234: \left|\Delta J\right|/J_{c}\!\equiv\!\left|J_{2}\!-\! J_{1}\right|/J_{c,1}\!=\!\beta_{s}\sqrt{A_{M}(m/M)}\sqrt{\tau}\,,\end{equation}
235: and the scalar RR timescale is
236:
237: \begin{equation}
238: T_{\mathrm{RR}}^{J}=\left[(M/m)\left/A_{M}\beta_{s}^{2}\right.\right]P\,.\end{equation}
239: The RR efficiency factor $\chi\!=\!(\beta_{s}/\beta_{s,\mathrm{RT}96})^{2}$
240: defined by \citet{hop+06a} expresses how much shorter $T_{\mathrm{RR}}^{J}$
241: is relative to the value estimated by RT96. Scalar RR is faster than
242: NR by a factor $T_{\mathrm{NR}}^{J}/T_{\mathrm{RR}}^{J}\!\propto\!(M/m)/N\ln\Lambda$.
243: Similarly, the vector RR change $\left|\Delta\mathbf{J}\right|$ on
244: time-lags $\tau\!\gg\!\tau_{\phi}$ in the Keplerian limit is
245:
246: \begin{equation}
247: \left|\Delta\mathbf{J}\right|/J_{c}\!\equiv\!\left|\mathbf{J}_{2}\!-\!\mathbf{J}_{1}\right|/J_{c,1}\!=\!\beta_{v}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}A_{\phi}\sqrt{N}(m/M)}\sqrt{\tau}\,,\end{equation}
248: and the vector RR timescale is
249:
250: \begin{equation}
251: T_{\mathrm{RR}}^{\mathbf{J}}=\left[2(M/m)\left/\sqrt{N}A_{\phi}\beta_{v}^{2}\right.\right]P\,.\end{equation}
252:
253:
254: RT96 performed a limited set of near-Keplerian simulations to check
255: their predictions. They analyzed the results both star by star and
256: in the average and observed the coherent growth of $\Delta J/J_{c}$
257: and $\left|\Delta\mathbf{J}\right|/J_{c}$ relative to the simulation's
258: initial values. Although the evolution of the of these quantities
259: for any single star was very noisy and the proportionality factors
260: had a very large scatter, RR was clearly observed, as predicted.
261:
262:
263: \subsubsection{Relation between scalar and vector RR}
264:
265: \label{sss:sv}
266:
267: The population averages of the scalar and vector coefficients $\eta_{s,v}$
268: and $\beta_{s,v}$, are not independent quantities. Rather, $\left\langle \eta_{v}\right\rangle \!=\! c\left\langle \eta_{s}\right\rangle $,
269: and $\left\langle \beta_{v}\right\rangle \!=\! c\left\langle \beta_{s}\right\rangle $
270: (on timescales $t\!<\! t_{\omega}$), where the constant $c$ depends
271: on the averaging procedure. Here we average $\left|\Delta\mathbf{J}\right|(\tau)$
272: and $\Delta J(\tau)$ by the rms over the stellar population (\S
273: \ref{s:ACF}). We focus on the limit where $\left|\Delta\mathbf{J}\right|/J\!\ll\!1$,
274: and assume that the change is isotropic on average, $\left\langle \mathbf{\left|\Delta J\right|}^{2}\right\rangle \!=\!3\left\langle \left|\Delta J_{i}\right|^{2}\right\rangle \!=\!\delta^{2}$,
275: (\emph{$i\!=\! x,y,z$}), as is indicated by our simulations (\S
276: \ref{s:simulations}). The rms of vector RR is $\delta$. Defining
277: the $z$-axis along $\mathbf{J}$, then $\Delta J\!=\!\Delta J_{z}$
278: in the small change limit, and its rms is $\delta/\sqrt{3}$. Therefore
279: (see Eqs. \ref{e:etasL}, \ref{e:etavL}, \ref{e:betas}, \ref{e:betav})
280: $\eta_{v}\!=\!\sqrt{3}\eta_{v}$ for all $\tau$ and $\beta_{v}\!=\!\sqrt{3}\beta_{s}$
281: for $\tau\!\ll\!\tau_{M},\tau_{\phi}$, as is indeed seen in the simulations%
282: \footnote{It can be shown that if the population's mean absolute difference
283: $\left\langle \left|\Delta\mathbf{J}\right|\right\rangle $ is used
284: to define $\beta_{s,v}$, then $\beta_{v}\!=\!2\beta_{s}$.%
285: } (Fig. \ref{f:Q1e6}).
286:
287: The constant ratio between the population averages of the vector and
288: scalar coefficients is in part a geometrical effect (1D vs 3D changes)
289: and in part a reflection of the symmetries of the perturbations (isotropic
290: $\Delta\mathbf{J}$). This strict proportionality is not expected
291: to hold when $\left|\Delta\mathbf{J}\right|/J\!\sim\!1$, for example
292: when only very eccentric stars ($J\rightarrow0$) are included in
293: the sample, or for very long time-lags.
294:
295:
296: \section{RR detection by auto-correlation analysis}
297:
298: \label{s:ACF}
299:
300: Given the high computational cost of the $N$-body simulations, and
301: the very large variance in the evolution of individual orbits, it
302: is essential to extract the RR signal as efficiently and robustly
303: as possible from the simulated data. After some experimentation, we
304: adopted the auto-correlation analysis for detecting and measuring
305: RR in $N$-body simulation snapshots. Our procedure is as follows.
306:
307: (1) The stellar phase space coordinates are transformed to the rest-frame
308: of the MBH, which is almost identical with the center of mass in the
309: near-Keplerian system close to the MBH.
310:
311: (2) The energy $(E_{i}^{(n)})$, angular momentum $(\mathbf{J}_{i}^{(n)})$,
312: circular angular momentum $(J_{c,i}^{(n)})$ and Keplerian period
313: $(P_{i}^{(n)})$ are calculated for the $n$'th star $(n\!=\!1\ldots N)$
314: at discrete times $t_{i}$ in the simulation ({}``snapshots'').
315:
316: (3) To make full use of the data, we assign a normalized time-lag
317: $\tau_{ji}^{(n)}\!=\!(t_{j}\!-\! t_{i})/P_{i}^{(n)}$ for each pair
318: of times $(t_{j}\!>\! t_{i})$. For each of the \emph{$N$} stars,
319: we calculate the normalized energy and angular momentum differences
320: at all lags, $(\Delta E/E)_{ji}^{(n)}\!=\!(E_{j}^{(n)}\!-\! E_{i}^{(n)})/E_{i}^{(n)}$,
321: $(\Delta J/J_{c})_{ji}^{(n)}\!=\!(J_{j}^{(n)}\!-\! J_{i}^{(n)})/J_{c,i}^{(n)}$
322: and $(\Delta\mathbf{J}/J_{c})_{ji}^{(n)}\!=\!\left|\mathbf{J}_{j}^{(n)}\!-\!\mathbf{J}_{i}^{(n)}\right|/J_{c,i}^{(n)}$.
323:
324: (4) The differences from all stars are binned into discrete $\tau$-bins
325: according to their associated $\tau_{ij}$. The bin rms values and
326: their standard deviations are calculated and plotted against the bin's
327: average time-lag $\tau\!=\!\left\langle \tau_{ij}\right\rangle $,
328: thereby creating the auto-correlation curve.
329:
330: By using all possible time-lags recorded in the simulation, this approach
331: makes maximal use of the entire data set and averages over the strongly
332: fluctuating individual relaxation curves (cf the RT96 procedure, \S
333: \ref{ss:RR}). However, this method is not entirely free of bin-to-bin
334: bias. Since the number of orbital periods completed by a star with
335: a mean period $P_{i}^{(n)}$ over the simulation time $t_{\mathrm{sim}}$
336: is $t_{\mathrm{sim}}/P^{(n)}\!=\!\tau_{max}^{(n)}$, long-period stars
337: will not contribute to a high-$\tau$ bin, $\left\langle \tau\right\rangle _{i}$
338: if $\tau_{max}^{(n)}\!<\!\left\langle \tau\right\rangle _{i}$. Conversely,
339: short-period stars will not contribute to a low-$\tau$ bin, $\left\langle \tau\right\rangle _{i}$,
340: if $\tau_{min}^{(n)}\!>\!\left\langle \tau\right\rangle _{i}$, where
341: $\tau_{min}^{(n)}\!=\!\min_{j}(t_{j+1}\!-\! t_{j})/P^{(n)}$ is set
342: by the minimal time difference between consecutive snapshots. In extreme
343: cases some stars may not contribute to the relaxation curve at any
344: $\left\langle \tau\right\rangle _{i}$. Since long and short period
345: stars could well have systematically different responses to RR, this
346: introduces bias to the relaxation curve. This bias can be minimized,
347: at the cost of losing some information, by using only the middle range
348: of the $\tau$ -bins, or at a computational cost, by longer simulations
349: with a higher snapshot rate.
350:
351:
352: \section{Simulations}
353:
354: \label{s:simulations}
355:
356: %
357: \begin{figure}
358: \noindent \begin{centering}
359: \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{f1}
360: \par\end{centering}
361:
362: \caption{\label{f:phase}Phase drift in a 2-body system over a time of $\tau_{\mathrm{sim}}=1.35\times10^{4}$
363: for a $Q=3\times10^{-7}$ mass ratio and an extreme eccentricity of
364: $e=0.99995$. The line is the initial phase curve ($r$ as function
365: of $\psi$); the dots are the simulated data. The phase drift of $\Delta\psi=0.2875$
366: corresponds to $\tau_{\Delta\psi}\simeq3.3\times10^{5}$.}
367:
368: \end{figure}
369:
370:
371: %
372: \begin{figure}[t]
373: \begin{centering}
374: \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{f2}
375: \par\end{centering}
376:
377: \caption{\label{f:evol}The measured (points) and fitted (lines) auto-correlation
378: curves for $\Delta E/E$, $\left|\Delta J\right|/J_{c}$ and $\left|\Delta\mathbf{J}\right|/J_{c}$
379: in a $Q\!=\!10^{6}$, $\gamma\!=\!1.5$ simulation with $N\!=\!200$
380: particles. The points are the results of the $N$-body simulation,
381: the thick lines are the predicted theoretical curves; the thin straight
382: lines show the asymptotic ($\tau\!\gg\!\tau_{0}$) linear behavior.
383: The best fit parameters and related quantities are also listed.}
384:
385:
386: \begin{centering}
387: \label{f:Q1e6}
388: \par\end{centering}
389: \end{figure}
390: Our $N$-body code uses a 5th order Runge-Kutta integrator with individual
391: time-steps and pair-wise K-S regularization \citep{kus+65}, without
392: gravity softening. The time steps were chosen to conserve total energy
393: at the level of $\Delta E_{\mathrm{tot}}/E_{\mathrm{tot}}\!\sim\! O(10^{-5})-O(10^{-8})$,
394: well below the NR energy changes expected in the simulations.
395:
396: The $N$-body code must maintain phase coherence to a high enough
397: accuracy to reliably simulate RR. It is thus important to verify that
398: the numerical phase drift in the simulation is much smaller than that
399: due to physical processes, such as mass precession. Experience shows
400: that most of the phase drift $\Delta\psi$ accumulates near periapse,
401: where the acceleration is largest, and is therefore more pronounced
402: in eccentric orbits. We estimated the phase drift by integrating a
403: highly eccentric ($e\!=\!0.99995$) 2-body system over many orbits,
404: and plotted the relative distance between the 2 masses as function
405: of the orbital phase (Fig. \ref{f:phase}), as it evolved during the
406: simulation. The phase spread relative to the theoretical phase curve,
407: $\Delta\psi$, was measured near $\psi\!=\!\pi/2$. We define the
408: phase de-coherence timescale as $\tau_{\Delta\psi}\!\equiv\!(\pi/\Delta\psi)\tau_{\mathrm{sim}}$.
409: We estimate conservatively that our near-Keplerian simulation typically
410: have $\tau_{\Delta\psi}\!>\!10^{5}$ (This is for highly eccentric
411: orbits. We do not detect any phase drift up to $\tau\!\sim\!10^{5}$
412: in orbits with moderate eccentricities). Since $\tau_{\Delta\psi}\!>\!\tau_{w}\!\gg\!\tau_{\mathrm{sim}}$
413: for the models simulated here (cf Fig. \ref{f:evol}), it can be safely
414: neglected.
415:
416: Our simulations consisted of 200 particles (including the MBH as a
417: free particle). The initial orbital semi-major axes were randomly
418: drawn from a $\rho(a)\mathrm{d}a\!\propto\! a^{2-\gamma}\mathrm{d}a$
419: distribution for $\gamma\!=\!1,\,1.5,\,1.75$, for $a$ in the range
420: $(0,1/2)$, with eccentricities drawn from a thermal $\rho(e)\mathrm{d}e=2e\mathrm{d}e$
421: distribution, with random phases, orbital orientations and isotropic
422: velocities. This distribution corresponds to an $r^{-\gamma}$ number
423: density distribution with an outer cutoff at radius $r\!=\! R\!=\!1$
424: from the MBH (in dimensionless units where $G\!=\!1$, $M\!+\! Nm\!=\!1$).
425: These stellar cusps span a wide range of possible physical scenarios
426: \citep[e.g.][]{bah+77}, and in particular those of LISA targets,
427: which are expected to be relaxed galactic nuclei \citep{ale07}. A
428: typical simulation lasted a $\mathrm{few\!\times\!100}$ system orbital
429: times and resulted in $\mathrm{few\!\times\!100}$ snapshots of the
430: system configuration. In order to decrease the statistical errors
431: we ran $n_{\mathrm{sim}}\!=\!5$--$8$ simulations with different
432: initial conditions for each of the ($\gamma$,$Q$) models we studied.
433:
434: In Fig. (\ref{f:Q1e6}) we plot the measured auto-correlation curves
435: in a typical simulation for $\tau\!\ll\!\tau_{\omega}$: $(\Delta E/E)(\tau)$,
436: $(\Delta J/J_{c})(\tau)$ and $(\Delta\mathbf{J}/J_{c})(\tau)$. The
437: curves reflect the joint effects of NR and RR. The coefficients $\eta_{s,v}$
438: and $\beta_{s,v}$ are measured by fitting the auto-correlation curves
439: in the coherent phase to the functions
440:
441: \begin{eqnarray}
442: \left|\Delta J\right|/J_{c} & = & \sqrt{N}(m/M)\sqrt{\eta_{s\Lambda}^{2}\tau+\beta_{s}^{2}\tau^{2}}\,,\label{e:dJs}\\
443: \left|\Delta\mathbf{J}\right|/J_{c} & = & \sqrt{N}(m/M)\sqrt{\eta_{v\Lambda}^{2}\tau+\beta_{v}^{2}\tau^{2}}\,,\label{e:dJv}\end{eqnarray}
444: where the two terms in the square root express the contributions
445: of NR and RR, respectively. Note that on short timescales, $\tau\!<\!\tau_{0}\!\equiv\!(\eta_{s\Lambda}/\beta_{s})^{2}$,
446: the RR auto-correlation curve rises as $\sqrt{\tau}$ due to the effect
447: of NR. It then rises as $\tau$ in the RR-dominated coherent phase
448: at times $\tau_{0}\!<\!\tau\!<\!\tau_{\omega}$, before turning over
449: again to a $\sqrt{\tau}$ rise in the accelerated random-walk phase
450: at $\tau\!>\!\tau_{\omega}$ (not shown in Fig. \ref{f:Q1e6}). The
451: NR and RR parameters were derived from the best 2-parameter fits of
452: Eqs. (\ref{e:alphaL}, \ref{e:dJs}, \ref{e:dJv}) to the data. To
453: control the star to star variance, we limited our analysis to time-lag
454: bins that sampled at least 0.75 of the stars in the simulation (\S
455: \ref{s:ACF}). The excellent fit of the data points to the predicted
456: auto-correlation curves seen in Fig. (\ref{f:Q1e6}) indicates that
457: RR is present and measurable.
458:
459:
460: \section{Results}
461:
462: \label{s:results}
463:
464: Although the auto-correlation analysis stabilizes against star to
465: star scatter in a single simulation, we still find a large simulation
466: to simulation scatter in the derived values of the coefficients. We
467: therefore constructed a large grid of near-Keplerian models (within
468: the computational time limitations), where RR should be clearly detected.
469:
470: %
471: \begin{table}
472: \caption{\label{t:coeff}Measured NR and RR coefficients $^{a}$. }
473:
474:
475: \noindent \begin{centering}
476: {\scriptsize $\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$}\begin{tabular}{c@{\extracolsep{3pt}}c@{\extracolsep{1pt}}c@{\extracolsep{1pt}}c@{\extracolsep{4pt}}c@{\extracolsep{4pt}}c@{\extracolsep{4pt}}c@{\extracolsep{3pt}}c}
477: \hline
478: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
479: {\scriptsize $\gamma$} & {\scriptsize $Q$} & {\scriptsize $n_{\mathrm{sim}}$} & {\scriptsize $\bar{\alpha}_{\Lambda}$} & {\scriptsize $\bar{\eta}_{s\Lambda}$} & {\scriptsize $\bar{\eta}_{v\Lambda}$} & {\scriptsize $\bar{\beta}_{s}$} & {\scriptsize $\bar{\beta}_{v}$}\tabularnewline[1pt]
480: \hline
481: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
482: {\scriptsize $1$} & {\scriptsize $10^{6}$} & {\scriptsize $5$} & {\scriptsize $10.60\!\pm\!0.58$} & {\scriptsize $4.26\!\pm\!0.27$} & {\scriptsize $6.56\!\pm\!0.46$} & {\scriptsize $1.15\!\pm\!0.10$} & {\scriptsize $2.00\!\pm\!0.16$}\tabularnewline[1pt]
483: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
484: {\scriptsize $1$} & {\scriptsize $10^{7}$} & {\scriptsize $6$} & {\scriptsize $10.85\!\pm\!0.91$} & {\scriptsize $4.60\!\pm\!0.34$} & {\scriptsize $6.82\!\pm\!0.42$} & {\scriptsize $1.28\!\pm\!0.13$} & {\scriptsize $2.17\!\pm\!0.22$}\tabularnewline[1pt]
485: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
486: {\scriptsize $1$} & {\scriptsize $10^{8}$} & {\scriptsize $6$} & {\scriptsize $11.57\!\pm\!1.52$} & {\scriptsize $4.17\!\pm\!0.18$} & {\scriptsize $6.18\!\pm\!0.29$} & {\scriptsize $1.06\!\pm\!0.09$} & {\scriptsize $1.95\!\pm\!0.13$}\tabularnewline[1pt]
487: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
488: {\scriptsize $1.5$} & {\scriptsize $10^{6}$} & {\scriptsize $5$} & {\scriptsize $12.20\!\pm\!1.23$} & {\scriptsize $4.03\!\pm\!0.27$} & {\scriptsize $6.40\!\pm\!0.42$} & {\scriptsize $1.03\!\pm\!0.10$} & {\scriptsize $1.76\!\pm\!0.15$}\tabularnewline[1pt]
489: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
490: {\scriptsize $1.5$} & {\scriptsize $10^{7}$} & {\scriptsize $6$} & {\scriptsize $15.63\!\pm\!4.33$} & {\scriptsize $4.17\!\pm\!0.33$} & {\scriptsize $6.92\!\pm\!0.53$} & {\scriptsize $1.02\!\pm\!0.06$} & {\scriptsize $1.83\!\pm\!0.08$}\tabularnewline[1pt]
491: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
492: {\scriptsize $1.5$} & {\scriptsize $10^{8}$} & {\scriptsize $8$} & {\scriptsize $19.12\pm6.05$} & {\scriptsize $5.09\!\pm\!0.52$} & {\scriptsize $8.43\!\pm\!1.11$} & {\scriptsize $1.16\!\pm\!0.11$} & {\scriptsize $2.35\!\pm\!0.35$}\tabularnewline[1pt]
493: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
494: {\scriptsize $1.75$} & {\scriptsize $10^{6}$} & {\scriptsize $6$} & {\scriptsize $13.00\!\pm\!1.15$} & {\scriptsize $3.95\!\pm\!0.19$} & {\scriptsize $6.12\!\pm\!0.39$} & {\scriptsize $1.03\!\pm\!0.09$} & {\scriptsize $1.93\!\pm\!0.17$}\tabularnewline[1pt]
495: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
496: {\scriptsize $1.75$} & {\scriptsize $10^{7}$} & {\scriptsize $8$} & {\scriptsize $19.61\!\pm\!3.76$} & {\scriptsize $4.05\pm0.53$} & {\scriptsize $6.11\!\pm\!.057$} & {\scriptsize $0.97\!\pm\!0.09$} & {\scriptsize $1.81\!\pm\!0.15$}\tabularnewline[1pt]
497: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
498: {\scriptsize $1.75$} & {\scriptsize $10^{8}$} & {\scriptsize $6$} & {\scriptsize $16.05\!\pm\!2.31$} & {\scriptsize $3.70\!\pm\!0.15$} & {\scriptsize $5.67\!\pm\!.017$} & {\scriptsize $0.97\!\pm\!0.07$} & {\scriptsize $1.80\!\pm\!0.09$}\tabularnewline[1pt]
499: \hline
500: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
501: \multicolumn{3}{l}{{\scriptsize Grand average$^{b}$}} & {\scriptsize $\left\langle \alpha\right\rangle $} & {\scriptsize $\left\langle \eta_{s}\right\rangle $} & {\scriptsize $\left\langle \eta_{v}\right\rangle $} & {\scriptsize $\left\langle \beta_{s}\right\rangle $} & {\scriptsize $\left\langle \beta_{v}\right\rangle $}\tabularnewline[1pt]
502: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
503: & & $56$ & {\scriptsize $3.65\!\pm\!0.28$} & {\scriptsize $1.06\!\pm\!0.03$} & {\scriptsize $1.65\!\pm\!0.05$} & {\scriptsize $1.07\!\pm\!0.03$} & {\scriptsize $1.97\!\pm\!0.07$}\tabularnewline[1pt]
504: \hline
505: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
506: \multicolumn{8}{l}{{\scriptsize $^{a}$ The quoted errors are the errors on the mean
507: (the sample rms is $\sqrt{n_{\mathrm{sim}}}$ times larger).}}\tabularnewline[1pt]
508: \noalign{\vskip\doublerulesep}
509: \multicolumn{8}{l}{{\scriptsize $^{b}$ $\left\langle \alpha\right\rangle \!=\!\left\langle \alpha_{\Lambda}/\sqrt{\ln\Lambda}\right\rangle $,
510: $\left\langle \eta_{s,v}\right\rangle \!=\!\left\langle \eta_{s,v\Lambda}/\sqrt{\ln\Lambda}\right\rangle $
511: over all simulations for $\Lambda\!=\! Q$.}}\tabularnewline[1pt]
512: \hline
513: \end{tabular}
514: \par\end{centering}
515: \end{table}
516:
517:
518: %
519: \marginpar{%
520: }%
521: \begin{figure}
522: \begin{centering}
523: \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{f3}
524: \par\end{centering}
525:
526: \caption{Measured NR energy coefficient $\alpha_{\Lambda}$ as function of
527: mass ratio $Q$ and for stellar density profiles with logarithmic
528: slopes of $\gamma\!=\!1,1.5,1.75$. A $\propto\sqrt{\ln Q}$ curve
529: is shown to guide the eye.}
530:
531:
532: \begin{centering}
533: \label{f:alphaL}
534: \par\end{centering}
535: \end{figure}
536:
537:
538: %
539: \begin{figure}
540: \begin{centering}
541: \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{f4}
542: \par\end{centering}
543:
544: \caption{Same as Fig. (\ref{f:alphaL}), for the measured NR scalar angular
545: momentum coefficient $\eta_{s\Lambda}$ (bottom points) and the vector
546: angular momentum coefficients $\eta_{v\Lambda}$ (top points). }
547:
548:
549: \begin{centering}
550: \label{f:etasL}
551: \par\end{centering}
552: \end{figure}
553:
554:
555: %
556: \begin{figure}
557: \begin{centering}
558: \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{f5}
559: \par\end{centering}
560:
561: \caption{Same as Fig. (\ref{f:alphaL}), for the measured RR scalar angular
562: momentum coefficient $\beta_{s}$ (bottom points) and vector angular
563: momentum coefficient $\beta_{v}$ (top points). RR does not depend
564: on a Coulomb factor.}
565:
566:
567: \begin{centering}
568: \label{f:betas}
569: \par\end{centering}
570: \end{figure}
571:
572:
573: We summarize our results in table (\ref{t:coeff}) and in Figs. (\ref{f:alphaL},
574: \ref{f:etasL}, \ref{f:betas}). The coefficients $\alpha_{\Lambda}$
575: and $\eta_{s,v\Lambda}$ do not directly express the intrinsic properties
576: of NR, since they should vary as $\sqrt{\textrm{ln}\Lambda}\!\simeq\!\sqrt{\ln Q}\!\simeq\!4(1\!\pm\!0.07)$
577: over the $Q$-range of our models. This small fractional difference
578: and the relatively low statistics of our simulation suite may explain
579: why we do not detect a clear $Q$-dependence in these quantities.
580: Since we do not see a clear $\gamma$ or $Q$ dependence, we adopt
581: as the best fit estimates of the values of $\alpha$, $\eta_{s,v}$
582: and $\beta_{s,v}$ their grand average over all the simulations (table
583: \ref{t:coeff}). The measured ratio $\left\langle \beta_{v}/\beta_{s}\right\rangle \!=\!1.85$
584: is consistent with the predicted ratio of $\sqrt{3}\!\simeq\!1.73$
585: (\S \ref{sss:sv}).
586:
587: RT96 derived from their simulations smaller mean values for $\beta_{s}$
588: ($0.53$, as compared to $1.07$ here) and for $\alpha_{\Lambda}$
589: and $\eta_{s\Lambda}$ ($3.09$ and $1.37$ as compared to $14.76$
590: and $4.25$ here). At least part of the difference in $\alpha_{\Lambda}$
591: and $\eta_{s\Lambda}$ can be traced to their use of a softening length
592: $\epsilon=10^{-2}R\!\gg\! Gm/v^{2}\!\sim\!(m/M)R$ in the calculation
593: of the gravitational force. This decreases the effective value of
594: the Coulomb factor, since $\Lambda\!\sim\! R/\max(\epsilon,Gm/v^{2})\!=\!10^{2}$
595: and so $\sqrt{\ln\Lambda}\!\simeq\!2.1$, about twice as small as
596: in our simulations. Indeed, RT96 noted that decreasing the softening
597: length to $\varepsilon\!=\!10^{-4}R$ led to an increased value of
598: $\alpha_{\Lambda}\!=\!5.5\pm0.2$.
599:
600: %
601: \begin{figure}[t]
602: \begin{centering}
603: \includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{f6}
604: \par\end{centering}
605:
606: \caption{\label{f:EMRI}The change in the EMRI and plunge rates relative to
607: that predicted assuming only NR, as function of the RR efficiency
608: $\chi$ (Adapted from \citealt{hop+06a}, Fig. 5). The RT96 estimate
609: of $\beta_{s}$ ($\chi\!=\!1$) predicts an increase of $\times7.1$
610: in the EMRI rate due to RR, close to the maximum. Our (EKA08) new
611: measured efficient RR ($\chi\!=\!4.1$) predicts a higher plunge rate
612: and thus a smaller increase of $\times4.6$ in the EMRI rate.}
613:
614: \end{figure}
615:
616:
617: It is difficult to trace the specific reason for the discrepancy between
618: our best estimate value for $\beta_{s}$ and that derived by RT96,
619: given the many differences in both the simulations and the methods
620: of analysis. Our statistics are better due to the larger number of
621: simulations and more efficient use of the data, and the analysis here
622: is more rigorous. We therefore briefly consider the implications of
623: this revised value of $\beta_{s}$ for EMRI rates. \citet{hop+06a}
624: parametrized the RR efficiency by a factor $\chi\!=\!\left[\beta_{s}/\beta_{s,\mathrm{RT}96}\right]^{2}$,
625: and derived the $\chi$ dependence of the branching ratio of the EMRI
626: and infall (plunge) rates (Fig. \ref{f:EMRI}). The RT96 value $\chi\!=\!1$
627: happens to lie very close to the maximum of the RR-accelerated EMRI
628: rate. We find here $\beta_{s}/\beta_{s,\mathrm{RT}96}\!\sim\!2$,
629: which corresponds to a factor $\sim\!5$ increase in the EMRI rate
630: compared to that estimated for NR only, but is a factor $\sim\!1.5$
631: smaller than implied by the RT96 value, because the higher RR efficiency
632: leads to a higher plunge rate at the expense of the inspiral rate.
633:
634:
635: \section{Discussion and summary}
636:
637: \label{s:conclusions}
638:
639: We characterized and measured the mean efficiency coefficients of
640: NR ($\alpha_{\Lambda},\eta_{s,\Lambda},\eta_{v,\Lambda}$) and RR
641: ($\beta_{s},\beta_{v}$) in Newtonian $N$-body simulations of isotropic,
642: thermal, near-Keplerian stellar cusps around a MBH. We derived a simple
643: analytical form for the rms RR auto-correlation curves of $\mathbf{J}$
644: and $J$, and showed that the two are simply proportional to each
645: other. We then measured these coefficients in a large suite of small
646: scale $N$-body simulations with different stellar density distributions
647: and MBH/star mass ratios. We found no statistically significant trends
648: in the values of these coefficients as function of the system properties.
649: This may require better statistics.
650:
651: Our measured RR efficiency suggests that RR increases the EMRI rate
652: by a factor of $\sim\!5$ above what is predicted for NR only. This
653: estimate of RR efficiency is consistent with that suggested by the
654: analysis of the dynamical properties of the different stellar populations
655: in the Galactic Center \citep{hop+06a}. However, this conclusion
656: is still preliminary, since several important open issues remain,
657: which should be addressed by larger scale simulations. These include
658: (1) The dependence of the RR coefficients on the orbit of the test
659: star, for example its eccentricity \citep{gur+07}. We find that $N\!\sim\!200$
660: is not enough for reliable statistics on sub-samples within given
661: \emph{E} or \emph{J}-bins. The eccentricity dependence of RR is particularly
662: relevant for the supply rate of stars to the MBH from $J\!\rightarrow\!0$
663: orbits (the loss-cone refilling problem). (2) The effects of a stellar
664: mass spectrum. This will likely affect RR by decreasing the RR timescale,
665: and changing the stellar density distribution through strong mass
666: segregation (\citealt{ale07}; Alexander \& Hopman 2008, in prep.).
667: (3) The robustness of RR against perturbations from the larger non-Keplerian
668: stellar system in which the inner near-Keplerian region of interest
669: is embedded. (4) The role of post-Newtonian effects in RR, such as
670: General Relativistic precession and GW emission. These are expected
671: to play a key role in enabling inspiral by quenching RR just as the
672: compact remnant enters the EMRI phase, and in regulating the GW inspiral
673: rate \citep{hop+06a}.
674:
675:
676: \acknowledgements{TA is supported by ISF grant 928/06, ERC Starting Grant 202996-2
677: and a New Faculty grant by Sir H. Djangoly, CBE, of London, UK.}
678:
679: \bibliographystyle{apj}
680: %\bibliography{ref}
681: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
682: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
683:
684: \bibitem[{{Alexander}(2005)}]{ale05}
685: {Alexander}, T. 2005, \physrep, 419, 65
686:
687: \bibitem[{{Alexander}(2007)}]{ale07}
688: {Alexander}, T. 2007, in {Black Holes}, ed. M.~{Livio} \& A.~{Koekemoer}
689: ({Cambridge University Press}), {in press, arXiv:astro-ph/0708.0688}
690:
691: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} \& {Wolf}(1977)}]{bah+77}
692: {Bahcall}, J.~N. \& {Wolf}, R.~A. 1977, \apj, 216, 883
693:
694: \bibitem[{{Genzel} {et~al.}(2000){Genzel}, {Pichon}, {Eckart}, {Gerhard}, \&
695: {Ott}}]{gen+00}
696: {Genzel}, R., {Pichon}, C., {Eckart}, A., {Gerhard}, O.~E., \& {Ott}, T. 2000,
697: \mnras, 317, 348
698:
699: \bibitem[{{G{\"u}rkan} \& {Hopman}(2007)}]{gur+07}
700: {G{\"u}rkan}, M.~A. \& {Hopman}, C. 2007, \mnras, 379, 1083
701:
702: \bibitem[{{Hopman} \& {Alexander}(2006)}]{hop+06a}
703: {Hopman}, C. \& {Alexander}, T. 2006, \apj, 645, 1152
704:
705: \bibitem[{{Kustaanheimo} \& {Stiefel}(1965)}]{kus+65}
706: {Kustaanheimo}, P. \& {Stiefel}, E. 1965, J. Reine Angew. Math., 218, 204
707:
708: \bibitem[{{Paumard} {et~al.}(2006)}]{pau+06}
709: {Paumard}, T. {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 643, 1011
710:
711: \bibitem[{{Rauch} \& {Ingalls}(1998)}]{rau+98}
712: {Rauch}, K.~P. \& {Ingalls}, B. 1998, \mnras, 299, 1231
713:
714: \bibitem[{{Rauch} \& {Tremaine}(1996)}]{rau+96}
715: {Rauch}, K.~P. \& {Tremaine}, S. 1996, New Astronomy, 1, 149
716:
717: \end{thebibliography}
718:
719: \end{document}
720: % Remember to replace bibliographic data base with *.bbl file!
721: