1: %revised manuscript 26-Oct-08

2: \documentclass{emulateapj}

3: %\topmargin 0.5in

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

5: %\usepackage{psfig}

6: %\usepackage{mathrsfs}

7: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.~}

8: \newcommand{\msolar}{M$_\odot$}

9: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}

10: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}

11: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt

12:          \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfill##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim 

13: \crcr}}}

14: \def\be#1{\begin{equation}\label{eq:#1}}

15: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

16: \def\EC#1{(\ref{eq:#1})}

17: \def\bea#1{\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:#1}}

18: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

19: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

20: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}

21: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}

22: \def\ec{{\cal E}}

23: \def\kpc{\,{\rm kpc}}

24: \def\mld{\left (M/L_{\rm R}\right )_{\rm disk}}

25: \def\mlb{\left (M/L_{\rm R}\right )_{\rm bulge}}

26: \def\kmskpc{{\rm ~km~s^{-1}~kpc^{-1}}}

27: 

28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

29: \begin{document}

30: \submitted{Submitted to ApJ \today}

31: 

32: \title{ANATOMY OF THE BAR INSTABILITY IN CUSPY DARK MATTER HALOS}

33: 

34: 

35: \author{

36: John Dubinski\altaffilmark{1},

37: Ingo Berentzen\altaffilmark{2} and

38: Isaac Shlosman\altaffilmark{3,4}

39: }

40: 

41: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics,

42: University of Toronto, 50 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3H4,  

43: Canada;

44: dubinski@astro.utoronto.ca}

45: \altaffiltext{2}{

46: Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Zentrum f\"ur Astronomie, 

47: Universit\"at Heidelberg,

48: M\"onchhofstr. 12-14 69120,

49: Heidelberg, Germany;

50: iberent@ari.uni-heidelberg.de}

51: \altaffiltext{3}{JILA, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0440,

52: USA; shlosman@pa.uky.edu}

53: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of

54: Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0055, USA}

55: 

56: 

57: \begin{abstract}

58: We examine the bar instability in galactic models with an exponential disk

59: and a cuspy dark matter (DM) halo with a Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) 

60: cosmological density profile.

61: The equilibrium models are constructed from a 3-integral composite distribution function

62: but subject to the bar instability.

63: We generate a sequence of models with a range of mass resolution

64: from 1.8K to 18M particles in the disk and 10K to 100M particles in 

65: the halo along with a multi-mass model with an effective

66: resolution of $\sim 10^{10}$ particles.   We describe

67: how mass resolution affects the bar instability,

68: including its linear growth phase, the buckling instability, pattern

69: speed decay through the resonant transfer of angular momentum to the  

70: DM halo, and the possible destruction of the halo cusp.

71: Our higher resolution simulations show a converging spectrum of 

72: discrete resonance interactions between the bar and DM halo orbits.  

73: As the pattern speed decays, orbital resonances sweep through most of 

74: the DM halo phase space and widely distribute angular momentum among 

75: the halo particles. The halo does not develop a flat density core 

76: and preserves the cusp, except in the region dominated by 

77: gravitational softening.  The formation of the bar increases 

78: the central stellar density and the DM is compressed adiabatically

79: increasing the halo central density by $1.7\times$. 

80: Overall, the evolution of the bar displays a convergent behavior for  

81: halo particle numbers between 1M and 10M particles, when comparing 

82: bar growth, pattern speed evolution, the DM halo density profile 

83: and a nonlinear analysis of the orbital resonances. 

84: %Furthermore, we provide an exhaustive analysis

85: %of the effect of a timestep on the system evolution.

86: Higher resolution simulations clearly illustrate 

87: the importance of discrete resonances in transporting the angular 

88: momentum from the bar to the halo.

89: \end{abstract}

90: 

91: \keywords{galaxies: structure --- galaxies: evolution --- galaxies:

92: kinematics and dynamics --

93: methods: N-body simulations --- cosmology: dark matter}

94: 

95: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

96: 

97: \section{Introduction}

98: 

99: More than 2/3 of disk galaxies host stellar bars

100: \citep[e.g.,][]{kna00,gro04,mar07} and evolution of this fraction with

101: redshift is a matter of an ongoing debate \citep[e.g.,][]{jog04,she08}.

102: Numerical simulations of disk galaxies have shown that bars

103: form either as a result of a global gravitational instability 

104: \citep[e.g.,][]{too81,sel93} or they are triggered by galaxy interactions 

105: \citep[e.g.,][]{byr86,nog87} and

106: interactions with DM substructure 

107: \citep[e.g.,][]{gau06,dub08a,rom08}.

108: A large body of theoretical work on the bar instability

109: has examined the properties of bars that emerge in initially  

110: unstable disks in $N$-body simulations.  While these experiments explore  

111: an idealized picture of bar formation, they reveal important aspects 

112: of the phenomenology of the bar instability, including bar growth 

113: within the corotation (CR) radius, the vertical buckling instability, and the

114: transport of angular momentum through gravitational torques from  

115: resonant orbits in the outer disk and the surrounding dark matter (DM) halo.

116: The importance of the resonance nature of angular momentum loss by  

117: bars and spirals was first pointed out by \citet{lyn72}. Angular

118: momentum transfer was studied subsequently both in idealized models 

119: with rigid bars in live halos \citep{wei85,her92,wei02,wei07a}; 

120: and self-consistent $N$-body simulations with bar-unstable disks 

121: \citep[e.g.,][]{sel80,ath96,deb98,val03,one03}, 

122: with resonant transfer mechanisms being explored explicitly in some 

123: studies \citep[e.g.][]{ath02,hol05,mar06,cev07}. 

124: These studies have shown that the halo absorbs angular momentum from the bar 

125: that leads to the decline of the bar pattern speed.

126: 

127: Previous results reveal a close connection between numerical bars and

128: observed galactic systems in many structural details, including a link between

129: the peanut-shaped bulges and (buckled) bars

130: \citep[e.g.,][]{com81,com90,rah91,ber98,pat02,mar06,deb06}.

131: %(e.g., Combes \& Sanders 1981; Combes et

132: %al 1990; Raha et al. 1991; Berentzen et al. 1998; Patsis et al. 2002).

133: The observational determination of bar pattern speeds 

134: \citep[e.g.,][]{ken87,mer95,cor07} suggest that stellar bars are 

135: predominantly ``fast" (but see \citet{rau08} for a different view) meaning that

136: they are near the maximum possible length of the CR radius

137: permitted by the orbital dynamics \citep{con80,ath92}. If evolved for too long, 

138: the numerical bars can appear ``slow" with lengths significantly shorter 

139: than the CR  radius and pattern speeds that seem abnormally low when 

140: compared to observations of real barred galaxies \citep{deb98,deb00}. 

141: However, at higher resolution, even collisionless numerical bars seem 

142: to grow in length towards their CR radius by capturing disk orbits 

143: and so remain ``fast" \citep{mar06}. 

144: Furthermore, the addition of gas

145: may stabilize the bar against braking and results in its speedup instead for

146: prolonged time periods \citep{rom08}.

147: 

148: Some studies claim that bars may destroy 

149: the cuspy profiles of DM halos predicted by the CDM

150: cosmology \citep[e.g.,][]{dub91,nav96}, thus alleviating an apparent  

151: contradiction between the inferred density profiles of DM halos from 

152: galactic rotation curves and this theoretical expectation in some cases 

153: \citep{wei02,hol05,wei07b}.  Simulations demonstrating cusp destruction 

154: use rigid, ellipsoidal bars --- their applicability to self-consistent 

155: dynamical systems is suspect.  Also, there has been some concern about

156: artifical $m=1$ instabilities arising from using a fixed center in

157: $N$-body field expansion methods \citep{sel03,mcm05}.  

158: Current studies have obtained

159: contradictory results on the efficiency of angular momentum transport

160: to the cusp.  \citet{wei07a} have emphasized the importance of 

161: numerical resolution and, specifically, of the total particle number 

162: in simulations.  Since the transport of angular momentum operates mainly 

163: through 

164: low order resonances between the bar pattern speed and halo orbital 

165: frequencies, only a small fraction of the halo mass participates.  

166: Without adequate particle numbers then, they argue that torques associated with 

167: resonant populations may be under-sampled, leading to a spurious calculation 

168: of angular momentum transport and, therefore, the evolution of the bar overall.

169: \citet{wei07b} estimate that at least $10^8$ particles and maybe more may be necessary 

170: to sample the phase-space densely enough to converge to the correct answer.

171: Recently, Sellwood (2008) has disputed this claim in simulations with rigid bars

172: in spherical, isotropic halos with $\sim 10^8$ particles arguing that the resonances

173: are broader than they claim

174: 

175: In this paper, we address the issue of the numerical convergence of bar 

176: evolution using a series of $N$-body simulations of the bar instability in a 

177: self-consistent model galaxy. We analyze bar growth in a

178: bar-unstable $N$-body disk. In contrast to other work, we employ new 

179: galactic models based on the methods of \citet{wid05}, and carry out 

180: simulations with substantially greater numerical resolution 

181: than reported in the literature.  The galaxy is described 

182: by a well-defined distribution function for an exponential disk embedded 

183: within a DM halo with an $r^{-1}$ density cusp, based on a truncated 

184: Navarro, Frenk \& White (1996, NFW) profile.

185: These models are formally in 

186: dynamical equilibrium but are bar-unstable.  Since they are defined by a 

187: distribution function, their $N$-body realizations are equivalent, independent

188: of the particle numbers. Hence, this study can probe the effect of numerical 

189: resolution on collisionless galaxy evolution.  

190: Our goal is to quantify the behavior of a 

191: number of specific parameters describing the bar instability as a function 

192: of particle number, including the bar strength amplitude, 

193: $A_2$, as given by the $m=2$ Fourier mode, as well as its pattern 

194: speed evolution, 

195: angular momentum transport, and evolution of the DM density profiles, 

196: particularly in the region within the halo characteristic NFW scale 

197: radius, $r_s$.  We also perform an orbital spectral analysis of halo and 

198: disk particles, to quantify the effect of the low order resonances 

199: responsible for angular momentum transport \citep{ath02,mar06}.

200: 

201: The plan of the paper is as follows.  In \S 2, we provide a description of

202: the galactic models and the $N$-body experiments to study the bar instability.

203: In \S 3, we present results on the bar growth and the evolution of pattern 

204: speed as a function of numerical resolution.  In \S 4, we examine the 

205: evolution the DM halo density profile as a function of numerical resolution.

206: In \S 5, we study the low order resonances between the bar and the

207: halo particles using orbital integrations and spectral analysis and 

208: again compare results at different resolutions.  We also examine the 

209: details of the evolution of the halo phase space density in our highest 

210: resolution models.  We conclude with a discussion of the 

211: importance of numerical resolution in these experiments and comment on 

212: the reliability of current work in studies of disk galaxy formation and 

213: dynamics.

214: 

215: \section{Methods}

216: \subsection{Initial conditions: An exponential disk with a cuspy dark halo}

217: 

218: The main goal of this study is to characterize the  bar instability in terms

219: of mass resolution.  The galaxy models of \citet{wid05} (WD models  

220: herein) are ideal for this purpose since they are derived from a composite

221: 3-integral distribution function (DF) $f \equiv f_{disk}(E,L_z,E_z) +

222: f_{halo}(E)$. The disk model has an exponential radial profile and 

223: ${\rm sech}^2 z$ vertical profile.  The disk DF $f_{disk}$ is a 3D 

224: extension of the 2D function introduced by \citet{shu69} using the vertical 

225: energy $E_z = 1/2 \dot{z}^2 + \Phi(R,z) - \Phi(R,z=0)$ as an approximate 

226: third integral \citep{kui95}.  This DF applies in the epicyclic approximation 

227: with $\sigma_{R, \phi,z} \ll v_c$ and so the vertical energy is 

228: approximately constant.  This leads to triaxial velocity ellipsoids in 

229: the disk models as seen in real spiral galaxies.  These models generally 

230: provide 

231: near equilibrium initial conditions and show negligible transient behavior at

232: startup \citep{wid05}.  The halo DF $f_{halo}$ describes a truncated 

233: spherical, isotropic NFW model.  When the two DFs are combined, the net 

234: halo density profile changes slightly from the NFW form and is flattened 

235: along the $z$-axis near the center, but preserves the $r^{-1}$ central cusp.  

236: A suitable choice of parameters allows the construction of a realistic 

237: model of bulgeless spiral galaxy with a cosmologically inspired DM halo.

238: Since the models are derived from a distribution function, particle

239: distributions for $N$-body experiments can be generated by direct 

240: Monte-Carlo sampling.  

241: 

242: For the experiments described below, we

243: initially generate a model containing 18M disk particles and 100M

244: halo particles with both disk and halo particles having approximately 

245: the same mass.  The halo is non-rotating.  Lower resolution models are 

246: generated by subsampling this larger model in factors of ten and hence 

247: creating a sequence of models containing numbers of particles in the 

248: range $1.18\times 10^{4-8}$.  One further model is generated with 

249: a multi-mass DM halo to increase the 

250: particle number density in the core by another two orders of magnitude.

251: The particle mass is weighted as an approximate step function in angular 

252: momentum $m \sim m(L)$ such that low angular momentum particles near the halo

253: center below a characteristic angular momentum $L_c$ would have a lower mass.  

254: The number density at the center of this model is more than

255: $100\times$ greater so the effective particle number is $\approx 10^{10}$

256: for this simulation.  We describe the details for generating the multi-mass 

257: model below.  Our highest resolution simulations have large enough particle 

258: numbers to probe the divergence in numerical behavior discussed by 

259: \citep{wei07a}.

260: 

261: Each model is generated and simulated in units with $G=1$ and physical

262: quantities are of order unity.  We have designed the model as a proxy

263: for the Milky Way without a bulge, so natural units for this comparison

264: are $L=10$~kpc, $M=10^{11}$~\msolar, $V=207.8$~km~s$^{-1}$ and $T=47.2$~Myr.

265: By design, the model mass profile closely resembles

266: the one examined by \citet{mar06}.

267: Moreover, the central density cusp is better resolved and the initial

268: conditions are in a better equilibrium, since they are sampled from a  

269: DF.  Throughout this paper we present results in physical units. 

270: 

271: The galaxy mass model is presented in Figure \ref{fig-vrot1} as a

272: rotation curve decomposition.  We use an exponential disk with

273: radial scale-length 2.85~kpc and an exponential vertical

274: scalelength of 250~pc and a total mass $5.5

275: \times 10^{10}$ \msolar.  The disk is truncated smoothly at $R=21$~kpc  

276: equivalent to 7.4 scale lengths. The NFW halo scale radius 

277: in the DF of the WD model is set to $r_s=10$~kpc but results in an

278: effective scale radius of $r_s=4.3$~kpc as measured by a 

279: least-squares fit to the density profile. The peak circular velocity of 

280: the DM halo is $v_{max}=0.77$ (160~km~s$^{-1}$).  We note that the smaller

281: scalelength is not due to an adiabatic contraction, but is the  

282: result of combining two distribution functions \citep{wid05} --- the extra

283: concentration of mass from the potential of the disk causes the halo

284: potential derived from the NFW DF to be more concentrated as well when

285: calculating the self-consistent potential for the model.  

286: The halo extends 

287: to a truncation radius of $r=260$~kpc and has a total mass 

288: $M=3.0$ units ($3.0 \times 10^{11}$ \msolar).  The final model

289: is a realistic facsimile of an exponential disk galaxy with a cuspy DM halo.

290: The square of the radial velocity dispersion $\sigma_R^2$ of these models 

291: follows the same exponential radial decline as the surface density with 

292: $\sigma_R^2 \sim \exp(-R/R_d)$.  We choose a central value

293: $\sigma_{R,0} = 104$~km~s$^{-1}$, so that the Toomre Q 

294: is $Q=1.1$ at $R=10$~kpc.  The disk is, therefore, relatively cold 

295: and responsive.  This model is in dynamical equilibrium but also is

296: strongly bar-unstable.  Our analysis focuses on the development of the bar

297: instability in simulations of this model with different particle numbers.

298: At this point, we also present the final state of the mass model after 9.4 Gyrs

299: of dynamical evolution for direct comparison to the initial state but defer the discussion

300: until later (Fig.~\ref{fig-vrot-final}).

301: 

302: \begin{figure}

303: \begin{center}

304: \plotone{f1.eps}

305: \figcaption{

306: Initial circular velocity curve of the mass model showing the contributions

307: from the disk and the DM halo.  We also plot the mean tangential velocity 

308: in the disk to show the effect of an asymmetric drift on the rotation curve.

309: \label{fig-vrot1}

310: }

311: \end{center}

312: \end{figure}

313: 

314: \begin{figure}

315: \begin{center}

316: \plotone{f2.eps}

317: \figcaption{

318: Final circular velocity curve of the barred galaxy mass model at $t=9.4$ Gyr.

319: We show the contributions from the barred disk and the DM halo.  The disk component 

320: is estimated by axisymmetrizing the barred disk and calculating $v_d^2=R\partial \Phi/\partial

321: R$.

322: \label{fig-vrot-final}

323: }

324: \end{center}

325: \end{figure}

326: 

327: 

328: \subsection{Multi-mass model}

329: 

330: A common way of increasing mass resolution with a number of particles is to use

331: a range of masses, assigning low mass particles to the center

332: where the action is and high mass particles to the periphery \citep{sig95}.

333: We therefore build an additional model that weights the halo particle mass as a 

334: monotonically increasing function of orbital angular momentum 

335: $L=|{\bf r}\times {\bf v}|$, to increase the number density of

336: particles in the region where the bar forms and where the low order

337: resonances occur.  The strategy is to define

338: a mass weighting function $W(L)$ 

339: such that particles with low angular

340: momentum and orbits with small pericenters also have small

341: mass, while those with large angular momentum and pericenters beyond

342: the edge of the disk have a higher mass.  The halo DF is normalized

343: by this weighting function, so that the number density of particles derived

344: from Monte Carlo sampling will be larger for smaller values of $L$.

345: In this way, the probability of selecting a particle with smaller $L$ is

346: greater than with larger $L$.  The biased number density is then corrected 

347: to represent the model with the original DF by multiplying the particle 

348: mass by $W(L)$.  The weighting function is normalized so that the mass of 

349: a particle in the initial distribution is given by

350: %

351: \begin{equation}

352: %m_i = [{M_{halo}W(L_i)}]/\left [ {\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N} W(L_i)} \right ]

353: m_i = \frac{M_{halo}W(L_i)}{\sum_{i} W(L_i)}

354: \end{equation}

355: 

356: The choice of the functional form of $W(L)$ is arbitrary at some level

357: according to the needs of the problem but in our case it should be monotonically

358: increasing with $L$.  We use the step-like weighting function in $L$

359: \begin{equation}

360: W(L) = 1.0 + \frac{W_1-1}{1 + (L/L_{c})^{-\alpha}}

361: \end{equation}

362: where $L_c$ is a characteristic angular momentum for the step,

363: $\alpha>0$ is an exponent and $W_1$ is the asymptotic value of weighting

364: function for large angular momentum.  When $W$ is plotted versus $\log L$ 

365: it takes the form of a step function where the steepness of the transition

366: at $\log L_c$ depends on the choice of $\alpha$.  In practice, we truncate 

367: the function at minimum and maximum values of $L$ at $L_{min}$ and $L_{max}$ 

368: and  set the weight to the value at these limits beyond the endpoints.

369: 

370: After some experimentation, our final choices for these parameters are 

371: $W_1=10^4$, $L_{min}=10^{-3}$, $L_{c}=3$, $L_{max}=7$, and $\alpha=0.9$.

372: The choice of $L_c$ corresponds to particles moving at the circular velocity 

373: at a radius of $R=4.1$ (41 kpc) about twice the radius of the disk.  

374: The choices of $L_{min}$ and $L_{max}$ limit the dynamic range of masses 

375: to about 600 with the least massive particles weighing in at 0.5\% 

376: the equivalent mass for a single-mass model and the most massive particle 

377: weighing in at $3\times$ the equivalent mass.  For comparison, 

378: the single-mass particle in the $N=10^8$ halo is 

379: $3\times 10^3$~\msolar, while in the multi-mass model, the particle 

380: masses range from 16 \msolar~for small $L$ to $10^4$ \msolar~for the 

381: most massive particles in outskirts of the halo.

382: 

383: We plot the ratio of the particle number density in the multi-mass model to

384: the equal mass particle number density in Figure~\ref{fig-nden}.   

385: The number density is about $200\times$ greater within the central 

386: 100~pc of the model and about $10\times$ at $R=1$~kpc.

387: 

388: \begin{figure}

389: \begin{center}

390: \epsscale{0.9}

391: \plotone{f3.eps}

392: \figcaption{

393: The ratio of the number density of the multi-mass 100M particle halo  to the

394: single-mass 100M halo.  The distribution function is sampled such that

395: particle mass is weighted by a smoothed step function of total angular momentum.

396: Particles with low angular momentum have small mass and those with high

397: angular momentum have low mass (see text).  The particle density is more

398: than 100 times higher within 0.1~kpc and at least 10 times higher within 1

399: kpc.  For $R>10$~kpc the number density drops gradually to about half

400: the single-mass case.  The effective numerical resolution at the

401: center of simulation is therefore $N_h\sim 10^{9-10}$.

402: \label{fig-nden}

403: }

404: \end{center}

405: \end{figure}

406: 

407: 

408: 

409: \subsection{Simulations}

410: 

411: We simulate these models using a parallelized treecode \citet{dub96} for

412: 200 time units (9.4~Gyr), permitting us to see the development of the bar

413: instability through various phases roughly over a Hubble time.  We soften

414: gravity with a Plummer model kernel and vary the softening length 

415: $\epsilon$ according to the particle numbers of the  

416: simulation roughly in proportion to $N^{-1/3}$.  The median force errors

417: are ~0.1\% for the chosen treecode parameters.

418: Simulation parameters are given in Table~1.

419: 

420: \begin{deluxetable}{llllll}

421: \tablewidth{0pt}

422: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

423: \tablecaption{Simulation parameters \label{tab-simulations}}

424: \tablehead{ \colhead{Model} & \colhead{$N_{h}$} &

425:   \colhead{$N_{d}$} & \colhead{$\epsilon$ (pc)} &

426:   \colhead{$\delta t$ (kyr)} & \colhead{$N_{steps}$} \\

427: }

428: \startdata

429: m10K & $10^4$ & $1.8\times 10^3$ & 200 & 470  & 20000 \\

430: m100K & $10^5$ & $1.8 \times 10^4$ & 100 & 470 & 20000 \\

431: m1M & $10^6$ & $1.8 \times 10^5$ & 50 & 470  & 20000\\

432: m10M & $10^7$ & $1.8 \times 10^6$ & 20 & 470  & 20000\\

433: m100M & $10^8$ & $1.8 \times 10^7$ & 10 & 470  & 20000\\

434: mm100M & $10^8$ & $1.8 \times 10^7$ & 10 & 235  & 40000\\

435: \enddata

436: \tablecomments{The model mm100M is the multi-mass model.}

437: \end{deluxetable}

438: 

439: 

440: A constant timestep is used for all of the simulations (see Table~1).

441: The circular orbital period in the mass model at the smallest softening radius

442: of $\epsilon=10$~pc is about 15~Myr and so is resolved by 30 timesteps. 

443: Plummer softening smooths gravity over a few softening lengths 

444: so the smallest resolved radius of these simulations is $\approx 3\epsilon$.  

445: We find that total binding energy is typically conserved to within 0.2\% 

446: and angular momentum is  conserved to within 1\% over the course of the 

447: runs.  Each simulation, with the exception of the multi-mass case, is 

448: repeated twice with a different random realization to explore  

449: statistical variance in the growth of the bar mode.

450: 

451: Figure~\ref{fig-animation1} shows an animation\footnote{Quicktime

452: animations are available at the website

453: www.cita.utoronto.ca/$\sim$dubinski/BarsInCuspyHalos/}

454: of the evolution of the 

455: disks in six models in face-on and edge-on views.

456: The lowest resolution model m10K demonstrates how insufficient particle 

457: numbers can lead to spurious results.  A bar develops immediately in the 

458: 1.8K particle disk but  devolves into a compact rapidly tumbling object.  

459: In retrospect, early galaxy formation simulations that introduced 

460: the angular momentum problem \citep[e.g.,][]{nav00} only contained 

461: 2K particles, so part of the problem may have arisen from exceedingly

462: noisy evolution of a bar mode.  The m100K model with an 18K particle disk 

463: still appears noisy, though the buckling instability is clearly visible.  

464: The disk is visibly thicker than the higher resolution models,  however, 

465: and the bar is not as pronounced.  Disk heating by bombardment of halo 

466: particles is a problem.

467: The time of onset of the bar instability is 

468: delayed as $N$ increases, reflecting the effect of Poisson noise.  

469: Since the bar instability grows exponentially from density fluctuations 

470: in the initial conditions, larger $N$ simulations will have smaller initial

471: amplitudes and, therefore, longer times to saturate.

472: 

473: \begin{figure*}

474: \begin{center}

475: \plotone{f4.eps}

476: \figcaption{

477: A comparison of the evolution of the bar instability in 6 simulations 

478: with increasing particle number $N$.  The formation of a bar is delayed for

479: simulations with larger $N$ since the Poisson seed noise has a 

480: lower amplitude and it takes longer for the instability to grow in the 

481: linear regime.  The lowest resolution simulations suffer from heating while

482: the general behavior converges at higher resolution for $N \ge 10^6$ (see

483: Video 1) 

484: \label{fig-animation1}

485: }

486: \end{center}

487: \end{figure*}

488: 

489: 

490: Figure~\ref{fig-animation2} displays the evolution of the multi-mass 

491: halo model with the 18M particle disk close-up and two perpendicular 

492: edge-on views simultaneously. Figure~\ref{fig-animation3}  refers to

493: the face-on view in a frame co-rotating with the bar to emphasize the 

494: growth of the bar mode.  This model starts very quietly and there is 

495: little visible structure until $t\approx 1$~Gyr when the bar begins 

496: to emerge.  The bar grows from the inside out, gradually increasing in 

497: length until it reaches a maximum length at nearly the CR radius 

498: around $t=2$~Gyr.  

499: At this time, the bar also excites a prominent, bi-symmetric spiral 

500: structure.  After saturation, the bar re-structures itself, becoming more  

501: centrally concentrated and weakening, as it settles into a quasi-steady 

502: state.  After settling, the pattern speed begins to

503: decline and the bar's length increases slowly, since the CR radius 

504: is increasing and the bar can capture additional orbits in the disk. 

505: The other notable event is the vertical buckling  instability that

506: occurs around $t=3.5$~Gyr creating a characteristic X-shaped structure

507: as various families of orbits establish themselves causing the bar to

508: thicken vertically.  By the end of the simulation, the inner bar transforms 

509: into a peanut-shaped bulge though it still is obviously elliptical in 

510: the face-on view.

511: 

512: \begin{figure*}

513: \begin{center}

514: \plotone{f5.eps}

515: \figcaption{

516: Evolution of the multi-mass model in the inertial frame showing the face-on

517: view and two perpendicular edge-on views.  The bar grows from the inside

518: out first evolving into a thin bar extending to the co-rotation radius and

519: then settling down into a less elongated ellipsoid.  The buckling instability 

520: vertically thickens the bar 

521: into a peanut-shaped bulge at later times.  The bar grows

522: in length as angular momentum is lost to the halo and new orbits are

523: captured with the co-rotation radius (see Video 2).

524: \label{fig-animation2}

525: }

526: \end{center}

527: \end{figure*}

528: 

529: \begin{figure*}

530: \begin{center}

531: \plotone{f6.eps}

532: \figcaption{

533: Evolution of the multi-mass model in the co-rotating frame showing a global

534: and close-up of the face-on orientation.  The co-rotation radius is clearly

535: visible at the distance where particles reverse the direction of

536: circulation around the bar.  The bar evolves to extend to the 

537: co-rotation radius and remains ``fast" (see Video 3).

538: \label{fig-animation3}

539: }

540: \end{center}

541: \end{figure*}

542: 

543: Figure~\ref{fig-vrot-final} shows the rotation curve decomposition for the model at the

544: final time $t=9.4$ Gyr.   We rotate particles in the final barred disks to random 

545: angles $\phi$ to make the disk potential axisymmetic and then compute the disk rotation 

546: curve component through  $v_d^2=R\partial \Phi/\partial R$.  The halo rotation curve 

547: component is estimated from the spherically-averaged density profile of the dark matter.  The

548: collapse of the bar leads to a concentrated bulge-like component and the rotation curve 

549: flattens slightly creating a galaxy model that more closely resembles real systems. 

550: The halo profile at large radii does not change a lot but we will see

551: in further analysis discussed below that there is slight increase in the central

552: density.  In this barred galaxy model, both the stars and dark matter have comparable

553: contributions to the rotation curve in the inner regions.

554: 

555: In the next section, we quantify these various effects and look for

556: differences in resolution with the hope of finding numerical convergence in

557: physical behavior.

558: 

559: %\clearpage

560: \section{Bar Growth and Pattern Speed Evolution}

561: 

562: The growth of the bar instability is measured by the bar strength 

563: with the $m=2$ Fourier amplitude of the surface density, $A_2$, given by:

564: \begin{equation}

565: A_2 = \frac{1}{M}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^N m_j \exp(2i\phi_j); R<R_c

566: \label{eq-a2}

567: \end{equation}

568: where the summation is performed over a list of particles with

569: masses $m_i$ at angle $\phi_i$ in the $x-y$ plane within some cut-off radius $R_c$.

570: The  normalized amplitude  $|A_2|$ versus time measures

571: the growth rate of the bar instability and the phase angle

572: $\phi = 0.5 \tan^{-1}[{\rm Im}(A_2)/{\rm Re}(A_2)]$

573: with time permits  

574: measurement of the pattern speed by numerical differentiation.

575: 

576: All models were simulated for 200 time units (9.4~Gyr) and every 

577: 10 (or 20 in the multi-mass case) timesteps a face-on surface density 

578: image was generated from the particle distribution resulting in a sequence 

579: of 2000 images.  These  image sequences were analyzed to determine 

580: $A_2$ by summing over pixels rather than particles in equation \ref{eq-a2}.  

581: The amplitudes and phase angles were then tabulated as a function of time 

582: to determine the rate of growth of the bar and the pattern speed evolution.  

583: Pattern speed is  estimated by simply differencing angles in subsequent 

584: pairs of phase angles and dividing by the time interval.  In practice, 

585: we only use values every 50th snapshot to smooth out the noise in 

586: these parameters introduced by limited numbers of particles.  

587: We show below that higher resolution simulations produce smoother curves 

588: of bar growth and pattern speed evolution.

589: 

590: \subsection{Numerical Accuracy}

591: 

592: We first discuss the behavior of the bar instability as a function of integration timestep.

593: \citet{kly08} have claimed that very small timesteps are necessary to resolve

594: the dynamics of bars because of the possible development of cuspy density profiles in

595: the forming bulge-bar system.  Our simulations use a single timestep chosen to resolve 

596: the smallest dynamical timescale in the model.

597: Multiple timestepping schemes often use the criterion, 

598: $\delta t = (2.8 \epsilon/|{\bf g|})^{1/2} \eta$ where $\epsilon$ is the Plummer softening or

599: equivalent, $|{\bf g}|$ is the acceleration and $\eta$ is a free parameter usually chosen with a

600: recommended value of $\eta=0.2$ \cite[e.g.,][]{spr01}.  

601: For density laws following $\rho \sim r^{-1}$ the central

602: acceleration is constant.  The highest value of the acceleration in our galaxy 

603: model occurs in the center, and using it with $\eta=0.2$ we arrive at 

604: $\delta t=0.01$ (470 kyr) for $\epsilon=50$ pc and $\delta t=0.004$ (190 kyr) for 

605: $\epsilon=10$ pc.  Plummer softening of course reduces the maximum value near 

606: the center and it formally falls to zero at $r=0$.

607: We see below that there is only a modest increase in the central 

608: density evolution, so  the maximum value of $|{\bf g}|$ does not change 

609: by much over the course of the run.

610: 

611: The smallest orbital period is $\sim 15$ Myr for an orbit with $R\sim \epsilon$ and our

612: chosen timestep is $\delta t = 470$ kyr, so these orbits are resolved with approximately 30

613: timesteps.  For our highest resolution simulation, we use $\delta t = 235$ kyr 

614: to account for the smaller softening radius.  The fraction of particles with orbital 

615: periods less than 20 Myr is approximately 0.1\% based on a analysis of the radial 

616: frequency of 100K testparticle orbits sampled from the halo integrated

617: within the rigid potential of our mass model.  If the timestep is too large, orbits near the

618: center will be unstable and create an artificial constant density core.

619: Another possible problem occurs for highly radial orbits with longer periods that pass close to the

620: central cusp.  Our orbital analysis showed that approximately 0.13\% of orbits change binding

621: energy by more than 1\% over a 9.4 Gyr integration with $\delta t=470$ kyr.  All of these orbits

622: had small pericentric radii $\sim 100$~pc.   We therefore

623: expect a small fraction of highly radial orbits to diffuse artificially through energy space.  

624: We demonstrate here that the single timesteps

625: of $\delta t = 235$ and 470 kyr are sufficiently small to resolve the dynamics

626: for our choices of the Plummer softening radius.

627: 

628: To test for numerical convergence, we have re-run the model m1M using {\em single} timesteps

629: over the range of $\delta t=15-940$ kyr for a time of 4.7 Gyr.  The model with $\delta

630: t=15$ kyr required 320K single steps.  This galaxy model has

631: $N_d=180$K and $N_h=1$M and a Plummer softening length of $\epsilon=50$ pc. 

632: We examine different metrics of the system evolution including bar growth, pattern speed 

633: evolution and the final density profile of both the stars and DM all as a function of

634: timestep.

635: 

636: \subsubsection{Acceleration Errors}

637: 

638: We first comment on the accuracy of the accelerations determined using the parallel

639: treecode (Dubinski 1996).  Normally force accuracy is not discussed despite a large

640: variety of algorithms used to compute gravitational forces.  We present our errors here

641: so that other researchers may compare to their own standards of numerical accuracy.

642: Figure~\ref{fig-acc-err} shows the distribution of relative acceleration

643: errors for our preferred treecode parameters.  We use an opening angle

644: tolerance $\theta=0.9$ with 

645: quadrupole corrections using a more conservative cell opening criterion than normally described

646: that gives more accurate acceleration values for a given $\theta$ than

647: standard definitions (Dubinski 1996).  Errors are determined by comparing

648: accelerations from the treecode method to a direct force calculation.  The median and

649: mean relative acceleration errors are 0.085\% and 0.13\% respectively with 99.7\%

650: ($3\sigma$ limit) of acceleration errors less than 0.7\%.

651: 

652: \begin{figure}

653: \begin{center}

654: \plotone{f7.eps}

655: \figcaption{

656: Relative acceleration errors for the parallel treecode for runs with

657: $N=1.18$M particles.

658: Errors are estimated by comparing acccelerations computed with our

659: preferred treecode opening angle parameter $\theta=0.9$ with quadrupole

660: order corrections to the exact values determined from a direct

661: calculation.  The mean relative error is 0.13\% with a median value of

662: 0.085\%.  Note the opening angle criterion for the parallel treecode is

663: more conservative than standard definitions and so a larger value of

664: $\theta$ still results in relatively small acceleration errors (Dubinski

665: 1996).

666: \label{fig-acc-err}

667: }

668: \end{center}

669: \end{figure}

670: 

671: \subsubsection{Energy Conservation}

672: 

673: The evolution of the error in total binding energy of an N-body system is a useful indicator 

674: of the fidelity of the results and can reveal potential problems with the integration

675: scheme or choice of timestep.  Figure~\ref{fig-energy} shows the change in total binding

676: energy as function of timestep.  The largest timestep of $\delta t=940$ kyr shows a

677: strong systematic drift in energy reflecting the inadequate timestep 

678: resolution for a significant fraction of orbits.  There is a smaller drift in the energy with

679: a relatively small error of 0.1\% over 4.7 Gyr with our main 

680: choice of $\delta t=470$ kyr and clear convergence with no systematic effects 

681: with $\delta t \le 235$ kyr. We, therefore, conclude that $\delta t = 470$ kyr is 

682: adequate for our models.  We show below that there are no substantial differences 

683: between various metrics of the properties of the bar and halo when using timesteps 

684: with $\delta \le 470$ kyr.

685: 

686: \begin{figure}

687: \begin{center}

688: \plotone{f8.eps}

689: \figcaption{

690: Total energy errors for runs with different time-steps $\delta t$.  The simulation with

691: $\delta t = 940$ kyr shows a systematic drift due to inadequate numbers of 

692: timesteps to follow orbits within the core.   There is a lesser drift for the timestep

693: $\delta t=470$ kyr but the error has only grown to 0.1\% by the end of the run.  All

694: timesteps with $\delta t < 470$ kyr show very little drift.

695: \label{fig-energy}

696: }

697: \end{center}

698: \end{figure}

699: 

700: \subsubsection{Bar Evolution versus Timestep}

701: 

702: We measured both bar growth and pattern speed evolution as a function of timestep in the

703: m1M model with $N_d=180$K and $N_h=1$M.  

704: Figure~\ref{fig-a2-dt} presents the evolution of the bar growth parameter $|A_2|$ measured 

705: within $R<5$~kpc versus timestep.  During the linear growth phase of the bar 

706: instability, all simulations track one another very closely.  However, after the bar

707: instability saturates around $t\sim 1$ Gyr the behavior is quite variable and erratic

708: for different choices of the timestep.  The time of bar buckling shown by the sudden

709: secondary drop in $|A_2|$ changes with different timesteps and lies in the range

710: $t=1.8-2.5$ Gyr.  There is no monotonic trend with timestep.  The range of variability

711: is the same as our study of independent random realizations in \S~\ref{sect-fixed}.

712: The root cause of this

713: behavior is probably the dynamical chaos inherent to this late evolution of the bar

714: instability.  

715: The detailed $N$-body solutions for individual particles diverge exponentially for

716: different choices of integration step in the nonlinear regime of dynamical evolution.  

717: Despite this divergence on the individual particle level, the global properties of the

718: resulting bar are similar as we shall see.

719: 

720: An analysis of the pattern speed evolution shows consistent results for all timesteps

721: (Fig.~\ref{fig-omega-dt}).  The agreement in the linear regime evolution until the 

722: bar instability saturates at $t\sim 1$ Gyr is very close, after which the detailed

723: evolution show differences.  There is a $2-4~\kmskpc$ scatter in the pattern speed at

724: any given time but the general declining trend is the same over the course of the run.  

725: The observed scatter is consistent with the same scatter seen in different random

726: realizations (Fig.~\ref{fig-1M_seq-a2_0.5}).  The mean and variance of the pattern speed

727: at $t=4.7$ Gyr for all timestep runs is $\Omega_b = 16.6 \pm 0.7~\kmskpc$.  We conclude

728: that our choice of timestep leads to a consistent evolution of the bar pattern speed.

729: 

730: 

731: \begin{figure}

732: \begin{center}

733: \plotone{f9.eps}

734: \figcaption{

735: Evolution of the Fourier component, $A_2$ for stars with $R<5$~kpc for a

736: single model with $N_d=180K$ and $N_h=1M$ particles with global timesteps 

737: spanning the range of $\delta t=15$ kyr to

738: 940 kyr.  The linear growth phase of the bar is almost identical until the bar

739: instability saturates at $t \sim 1$ Gyr.  The subsequent nonlinear

740: evolution shows a wide range of behavior for different timesteps with 

741: no monotonic trend.  The nonlinear phase of the bar instability involves 

742: chaotic orbits and so the slight variations introduced by the round-off error of 

743: different discrete timesteps lead to divergent evolutionary behavior.

744: The main manifestation of this chaos are different times for the onset of

745: the buckling instability ranging from 1.8-2.5 Gyr having no dependence on the

746: chosen timestep.   Nevertheless, the behavior is qualitatively similar

747: after the buckling instability with a steady rise of $|A_2|$ at late times

748: as the bar lengthens.

749: \label{fig-a2-dt}

750: }

751: \end{center}

752: \end{figure}

753: 

754: 

755: \begin{figure}

756: \begin{center}

757: \plotone{f10.eps}

758: \figcaption{

759: Evolution of the pattern speed $\Omega_b$ for models 

760: with $N_d=180$K and  $N_h=1$M and timesteps 

761: spanning the range of $\delta t=15$ kyr to

762: 940 kyr.  During the linear growth phase of the bar until $t\approx 1$ Gyr, 

763: the pattern speed evolution is almost the same.  Once the bar becomes

764: nonlinear, there is a small scatter in the detailed behavior of the 

765: pattern speed with a variation of $2 - 4~\kmskpc$ at any given time.

766: By the end of the runs, the results converge with the mean and variance 

767: of the pattern speed $\Omega_b = 16.6 \pm 0.7~\kmskpc$ at $t=4.7$ Gyr.

768: There is no strong dependence of the pattern speed evolution on the choice

769: of timestep.

770: \label{fig-omega-dt}

771: }

772: \end{center}

773: \end{figure}

774: 

775: \subsubsection{Stellar and Halo Central Density versus Timestep}

776: 

777: As a final metric of the accuracy of the simulations versus timestep, 

778: we measured the spherically

779: averaged density profile of the stars and DM at the last snapshot at $t=4.7$

780: Gyr. At this time, the bar has buckled and has formed a concentrated bulge-like object

781: within the halo that has become more dense itself in response to this new

782: bulge (see below).  Figure~\ref{fig-dden-dt} shows the stellar density profile within $r<1$~kpc 

783: of the center for runs with different timesteps.  The density profiles for the

784: bar/bulge are consistent within the error bars for $\delta t \le 470$ kyr.  There is

785: some random scatter in the inner radial bins since there are only a few hundred

786: particles at these small radii.  The model with $\delta t=940$ kyr forms a core with

787: constant density within $r < 200$ pc though the density is only 0.3 dex (about

788: $2\times$) smaller than the density in the first radial bin of the smaller 

789: timestep runs.  The runs with

790: $\delta t \le 470$ kyr agree within $\pm 0.1$ dex for $r<200$ pc and much of that error

791: is due to small particle numbers with $\sim 10^2$ particles per bin.

792: 

793: We also measured the spherically-averaged density profile of the DM at $t=4.7$

794: Gyr (Fig~\ref{fig-hden-dt}).  We have approximately $6\times$ as many particles per bin and

795: so the random errors are smaller.  The DM density profiles are consistent for

796: $\delta t \le 470$ kyr suggesting we have adequate time resolution for the halo

797: density evolution.  Again, we see the development of an artificial

798: constant density core in the simulation with $\delta t = 940$ kyr.  This timestep is

799: clearly too large and does not adequately follow short period orbits in the core.  

800: However, simulations with timesteps smaller than $\delta t \le 470$ kyr adequately follow the

801: dynamics of the evolution of the DM halo.

802: 

803: \begin{figure}

804: \begin{center}

805: \plotone{f11.eps}

806: \figcaption{

807: The spherically averaged density profile of the stellar component that

808: includes the buckled bar and disk at $t=4.7$ Gyr for runs with different 

809: time-steps.  The error bars are $1-\sigma$ estimates of 

810: the $\sqrt{N}$ Poisson error in the

811: density due to discrete sampling e.g., the inner most bins contain

812: $\sim 100$ particles so the $1-\sigma$ error in density is about 10\%.

813: For time-steps with $\delta t \le 470$ kyr,  the density profiles are

814: consistent within the random errors.  The run with $\delta t = 940$ kyr

815: shows the formation of an artificial core due to an insufficient number of 

816: time steps to follow orbits within $r \sim 100$ pc.

817: \label{fig-dden-dt}

818: }

819: \end{center}

820: \end{figure}

821: 

822: \begin{figure}

823: \begin{center}

824: \plotone{f12.eps}

825: \figcaption{

826: The spherically averaged density profile of the dark matter halo

827: at $t=4.7$ Gyr for runs with different 

828: time steps.  The error bars are $1-\sigma$ estimates of 

829: the $\sqrt{N}$ Poisson error in the

830: density due to discrete sampling.

831: For time-steps with $\delta t \le 470$ kyr,  the density profiles are

832: consistent within the random errors. The run with $\delta t = 940$ kyr

833: shows the formation of an artificial core due to an insufficient number of 

834: time steps to follow orbits within $r \sim 100$ pc.

835: \label{fig-hden-dt}

836: }

837: \end{center}

838: \end{figure}

839: 

840: In summary, we have presented the force accuracy and total energy evolution of our

841: simulations with different timesteps.  We have also shown that our results converge

842: experimentally for $\delta t \le 470$ kyr

843: according to different metrics of the bar evolution including pattern speed evolution

844: and stellar and dark matter density central density profile.  We note that there is a

845: random behavior for the time of onset of the buckling instability for different choices

846: of timestep which probably results from the chaotic nature of this dynamical system.

847: (This was shown explicitly by Martinez-Valpuesta \& Shlosman 2004.)

848: If the timestep is too large, the main effect is to create an artificial constant 

849: density core.  Particles with short orbital periods are numerically unstable and are

850: scattered out of the center creating the core.  In the subsequent analysis, we show 

851: that the central density continues to increase at smaller radii with higher mass resolution.  If our

852: timestep was too large, one might expect instead to see the onset of a artificial constant 

853: density core of a fixed radius set by the timestep and independent of the mass resolution.

854: We do not observe this behavior.  We also do not see a sudden change in behavior of the pattern

855: speed evolution at a critical timestep as seen by \citet{kly08}.

856: We, therefore, conclude that we have adequate time resolution to follow the dynamical 

857: evolution of this system all the way down to the radius where Plummer softening dominates.

858: 

859: \subsection{Models at fixed resolution \label{sect-fixed}}

860: 

861: Before presenting results on the bar and pattern speed  evolution versus

862: mass resolution, it is instructive to understand the variance expected 

863: for runs at a fixed resolution.  The seed of both spiral and bar 

864: instabilities in $N$-body simulations is the Poisson noise in the 

865: discrete particle distribution of the disk and  halo.  We, therefore, 

866: expect some variation in the detailed behavior of the growth of the bar 

867: instability in different random realizations and we quantify it here.

868: 

869: We build ten galaxy models with 1M halos particles and 180K disk

870: particles independently from different Monte-Carlo samplings of the

871: galaxy model DF by using a different initial seed for the random number

872: generator.  We measure $|A_2|$ within a radius $R<0.5$ units (5~kpc)  

873: which is within the eventual co-rotation radius of the bar.  Figure

874: \ref{fig-1M_seq-a2_0.5} shows the evolution of the bar strength

875: for the 10 runs.  The detailed behavior varies significantly for

876: the different runs with the minimum and maximum values of $|A_2|$

877: that varying by $\pm 0.05$ during the bar growth phase between $t=1-3.3$ Gyr and

878: final values ranging from 0.35-0.40 at $t=9.4$ Gyr.  While the runs differ

879: in detail there is still a generic behavior with the bar growth  saturating

880: around at $|A_2| \approx 0.5$ and then going through an oscillation  before

881: settling down to a value near $|A_2|\approx 0.3$ around $t=3.3$ Gyr.

882: The bar then grows slowly increasing in length as the pattern speed

883: declines.

884: 

885: \begin{figure}

886: \begin{center}

887: %\plotone{figures/fig-1M_seq-a2_0.5.ps}

888: \plotone{f13.eps}

889: \figcaption{

890: Evolution of the Fourier component, $A_2$ for stars with $R<0.5$ for  10 models

891: with $N_d=180K$ and $N_h=1M$ generated with different initial random

892: seeds.  There is a large variation in evolution of $A_2$ during the 

893: formation of the bar over the time interval $t=20-70$ reflecting

894: detailed differences in the Poisson noise in different random realizations.

895: The plot reveals the approximate scatter in evolutionary behavior expected 

896: for different runs.

897: \label{fig-1M_seq-a2_0.5}

898: }

899: \end{center}

900: \end{figure}

901: 

902: Fig. \ref{fig-1M_seq-omega_0.5} shows the pattern speed $\Omega_b$

903: evolution for the same 10 runs at fixed resolution.  The behavior is

904: similar with the bar starting out with 

905: $\Omega_b \approx 35 \kmskpc$

906: declining to a value between $12-14 \kmskpc$.  

907: The pattern speed  evolution

908: is consistent at the 10\% level despite the different histories of the bar

909: growth as quantified by $|A_2|$.

910: 

911: We, therefore, expect the minimum and maximum values of $|A_2|$ to vary by

912: about 0.05 units between models and pattern speeds to vary conservatively 

913: by $\pm 2 \kmskpc$ for stochastic reasons alone.

914: 

915: \begin{figure}

916: \begin{center}

917: %\plotone{figures/fig-1M_seq-omega_0.5.ps}

918: \plotone{f14.eps}

919: \figcaption{

920: Evolution of the pattern speed, $\Omega_b$, for 10 models with $N_d=180K$

921: and $N_h=1M$ generated with different initial random seeds.

922: The pattern speed is measured by creating a time series of the phase angle

923: of the $A_2$ component for stars with $R<0.5$.   The pattern speed decays

924: after the bar forms as angular momentum is transferred to the dark 

925: halo through dynamical friction.  While the decay rate is similar, 

926: again there is scatter due to statistical variation of the Poisson noise 

927: in the initial conditions.

928: \label{fig-1M_seq-omega_0.5}

929: }

930: \end{center}

931: \end{figure}

932: \pagebreak

933: 

934: 

935: \subsection{Models with increasing mass resolution}

936: 

937: After quantifying the effects of temporal resolution and

938: stochasticity in models at fixed resolution, we go on to

939: examine models of increasing mass resolution with halos containing from $10^5$

940: to $10^8$ particles and the multi-mass model with an effective  

941: resolution of $10^{10}$ particles.  Our goal here is to measure 

942: carefully bar growth and pattern speed and to single out any differences that 

943: are inconsistent with the expected statistical variance.  We have simulated 2

944: models at each resolution in Table 1 with the exception of the multi-mass

945: case where we did only one model.

946: 

947: Figure \ref{fig-lseq-all-a2_0.5} shows the bar growth for all

948: resolutions plotted as $\ln|A_2|$ versus time to emphasize the growth of the

949: instability through the linear regime.  Spiral and bar instabilities grow

950: from seed density fluctuations in Poisson noise through the swing

951: amplification mechanism \citep{too81}.  In the linear regime, the

952: fluctuations grow exponentially and so $\ln|A_2|$ is roughly linear in time.

953: The dashed line to the right is parallel to the model growth rates and

954: corresponds to exponential growth with a timescale of $\tau=370$~Myr.

955: 

956: Once the perturbation goes non-linear, $|A_2|$ reaches a maximum value and

957: then oscillates until reaching a steady state as the bar settles into a 

958: quasi-equilibrium.  All models show a gradual linear rise of

959: $\ln|A_2|$ after reaching equilibrium but are noticeably offset in

960: the saturation time when going to higher resolution.  Since the seed 

961: perturbations arise from Poisson noise, the amplitude of perturbations 

962: $\delta$ varies as $N^{-1/2}$, so the ratio of amplitudes in two different 

963: simulations is $\delta_1/\delta_0 = (N_1/N_0)^{-1/2}$.

964: In the linear regime, $\delta \sim \exp(t/\tau)$, so the time  

965: delay between growing perturbations to reach the same amplitude is 

966: $\delta t  \approx \tau \ln(N_1/N_0)^{1/2}$.  Simulations with a factor of 

967: 10 more particles will, therefore, be delayed in saturating by a time 

968: interval given by $\delta t \sim \tau \ln 10^{1/2}\approx 1.1\tau$.  

969: With $\tau \approx 370$~Myr, we expect a time delay of approximately 400 Myr

970: between simulations differing by a factor of 10 in numbers of particles.  

971: If we select the time when $|A_2|$ reaches a maximum 

972: as a reference time when the bar saturates and the linear regime ends, we 

973: can estimate the time delay between simulations directly.  Using the 

974: 1M particle run as a zero point,  we find delay times of 

975: $\delta t=280$~Myr for 10M particle models and $\delta  t=600-700$~Myr for the

976: 100M models and $\delta t=950$~Myr for the multi-mass 100M model.  The noise

977: characteristics of the multi-mass model are more complicated than the

978: simple ideas discussed here and vary across the model but the onset 

979: of the bar instability is nonetheless delayed further because of 

980: quieter initial conditions. These values are slightly smaller than expected 

981: but are in reasonable agreement with the estimated delays from  

982: considerations of the growth of Poisson fluctuations.  This analysis 

983: emphasizes that {\em the spiral and bar instabilities that arise in 

984: N-body simulations of  disks are wholly dependent on the initial Poisson noise.

985: In the future,  with simulations using more than 10M

986: disk particles it makes sense to control the properties of the noise

987: both in amplitude and power spectrum as done in cosmological  

988: simulations.}

989: 

990: \begin{figure}

991: \begin{center}

992: %\plotone{figures/fig-lseq-all_a2_0.5.ps}

993: \plotone{f15.eps}

994: \figcaption{

995: Initial growth of the bar strength $|A_2|$ for stars with  $R<0.5$

996: for two model sequences using 

997: $N_d=18K,180K,1.8M,18M$ with $N_h=100K,1M,10M,100M$ respectively.

998: The $\ln|A_2|$ grows approximately linearly with time independent of the 

999: choice of $N_d$ and $N_h$ showing the exponential growth of the bar mode.  

1000: The dashed line shows an exponential timescale that is approximately 

1001: $\tau=370$~Myr. Since the bar grows from the Poisson noise within the 

1002: disk then we expect the noise amplitude to be proportional to $N^{-1/2}$.  

1003: Based on exponential growth of the bar mode, we expect the time to 

1004: saturation of $|A_2|$ to be delayed by roughly 

1005: $\delta t\approx \tau \ln(N_1/N_0)^{1/2}$, e.g., 

1006: a factor of 10 change in particle numbers leads to a delay 

1007: $\delta t  \approx 9$.  The difference in saturation times of $|A_2|$ 

1008: between the various simulations are roughly consistent with this 

1009: estimate though  there is some variation.

1010: \label{fig-lseq-all-a2_0.5}

1011: }

1012: \end{center}

1013: \end{figure}

1014: 

1015: Figure \ref{fig-lseq-all-a2_0.5-offset} and \ref{fig-seq-all-a2_0.5-offset}

1016: show the evolution of the bar strength when we account for the time delays

1017: and allow a comparison of the early and late time evolution.  When

1018: synchronized this way, the linear growth phase is readily apparent in

1019: the evolution of $\ln|A_2|$ in Fig.~\ref{fig-lseq-all-a2_0.5-offset}.  

1020: In Fig.~\ref{fig-seq-all-a2_0.5-offset}, the plot of the evolution of $|A_2|$

1021: reveals the details of the non-linear evolution of the bar.  The bar

1022: strength saturates at a maximum value followed by an oscillation

1023: through a minimum and then a slow rise to the end of the simulation.   

1024: For the most part, the range of behavior between different resolutions is

1025: consistent with our expectations of variance from our study of 10

1026: simulations at fixed resolution.  However, the highest-resolution

1027: multi-mass model dips to a lowest minimum value of $|A_2|$ and takes more time

1028: to grow in the later phase.  This difference does lie within the range of

1029: stochastic behavior but still appears slightly anomalous.  We will

1030: find below that the rate of angular momentum transfer between

1031: the bar and the halo is slightly slower for the multi-mass run.

1032: The multi-mass run seems to transport about 10\% less angular momentum

1033: from the bar to the halo than the other runs and this could account  

1034: for the different behavior.

1035: 

1036: \begin{figure}

1037: \begin{center}

1038: %\plotone{figures/fig-lseq-all_a2_0.5-offset.ps}

1039: \plotone{f16.eps}

1040: \figcaption{

1041: Same as Fig. \ref{fig-lseq-all-a2_0.5}

1042: except the curves have been shifted

1043: in time so that the linear regime growth phases overlap with 

1044: the m1M model according to the measured time delays

1045: \label{fig-lseq-all-a2_0.5-offset}

1046: }

1047: \end{center}

1048: \end{figure}

1049: 

1050: \begin{figure}

1051: \begin{center}

1052: %\plotone{figures/fig-seq-all-a2_0.5-offset.ps}

1053: \plotone{f17.eps}

1054: \figcaption{

1055: Evolution of the bar strength $|A_2|$ for stars with $R<0.5$ for two 

1056: model sequences using 

1057: $N_d=18K,180K,1.8M,18M$ with $N_h=100K,1M,10M,100M$ respectively and the

1058: multi-mass model plotted versus linear time.

1059: The curves have been synchronized to the time of maximum bar extent.

1060: This plot emphasizes the variance in behavior after the bar instability

1061: goes nonlinear. 

1062: \label{fig-seq-all-a2_0.5-offset}

1063: }

1064: \end{center}

1065: \end{figure}

1066: 

1067: Finally, we compare the pattern speed evolution of simulations at different

1068: resolutions.  Figure \ref{fig-seq-all-omega-offset} shows the pattern

1069: speed versus time for all simulations where again for a proper comparison

1070: we have synchronized the various runs to the time of the first peak in 

1071: $|A_2|$ as before.   The decline of the pattern speed is similar for 

1072: all resolutions with bars initially forming with 

1073: $\Omega_b \approx 35 \kmskpc$ and ending

1074: with a value around $\Omega_b \approx 12-14 \kmskpc$.  

1075: The range of

1076: curves is again consistent with the scatter seen in the fixed resolution study.

1077: The highest resolution runs with 100M halo particles in both the single

1078: mass and multi-mass case show an apparent oscillation in $\Omega_b$

1079: during the decline. The frequency of this oscillation is approximately half

1080: of the pattern speed $\Omega_b$ itself.  The source of the oscillation is 

1081: not obvious.  We initially speculated that interference from spiral patterns 

1082: beyond the end of the bar rotating at a different pattern speed may have 

1083: altered the measurement of $A_2$ within $R<0.5$.  However, when the pattern 

1084: speed is derived from $A_2$ measured within $R<0.25$ out of influence 

1085: of spirals the oscillations persist at the same frequency.  These oscillations 

1086: may result from uneven bar growth (i.e., variations in length) 

1087: by trapping of the disk orbits by the bar or from

1088: a nonlinear mode coupling \citep{mar06,mar06b}.

1089: 

1090: \begin{figure}

1091: \begin{center}

1092: %\plotone{figures/fig-seq-all-omega-offset.ps}

1093: \plotone{f18.eps}

1094: \figcaption{

1095: Evolution of the pattern speed $\Omega_b$ for two model sequences using

1096: $N_d=18K,180K,1.8M,18M$ with $N_h=100K,1M,10M,100M$ respectively  

1097: ($R<0.5$).  Also,

1098: shown is one model with $N_d=18M$ and $N_h=100M$ with a multi-mass halo

1099: that increases the particle number density near the center of the disk.

1100: The curves have been shifted in time so that the bar growth evolution 

1101: is coincident with the m1M model.  The decline in pattern speed

1102: at different resolutions is similar though there the multi-mass model

1103: does not decay as quickly and has a slightly larger pattern speed at the

1104: last simulated point.  The 100M particle simulations also show a modulation

1105: of the pattern speed that indicates more subtle dynamical effects revealed

1106: by higher resolution.

1107: \label{fig-seq-all-omega-offset}

1108: }

1109: \end{center}

1110: \end{figure}

1111: 

1112: In summary, the bar develops from Poisson noise in the disks in a similar

1113: way for simulations with $N_h>10^6$. The time delay in the growth to the

1114: nonlinear phase for larger $N_h$ are the result of smaller amplitude

1115: Poisson fluctuations that seed the bar at higher resolution.  The variation

1116: in the behavior of the different runs is consistent with the variance

1117: introduced from different random realizations of the models.

1118: The bar pattern speed decays at a similar rate over the course of

1119: the run for resolutions again with $N>10^6$ though the higher resolution

1120: runs decay to a final value that is approximately 10\% larger.  There  

1121: is no dramatic change in dynamical evolution of gross physical properties  

1122: of the bar as we approach $N_h=10^8$ suggesting the models are converging to  

1123: the correct physical behavior.

1124: 

1125: \subsection{A Fast Bar}

1126: 

1127: Orbital dynamics permits a bar of length $a_b$ to extend as far  

1128: as the CR radius $D_L$ \citep{con80}. 

1129: But the developing chaos  

1130: between the Ultra-Harmonic resonance (UHR) and the CR limits the bar  

1131: length to within the UHR, especially in stronger bars.

1132: The dimensionless ratio $\mathcal{R}=D_L/a_b$ is an indicator of a

1133: bar's dynamical state and galaxies with observed or inferred pattern speeds

1134: have $\mathcal{R} = 1.2\pm 0.2$ \citep[e.g.,][]{ath92,deb98}.

1135: Bars emerging from the disk instability are usually born with

1136: $\mathcal{R}\approx 1$ and this value gradually increases as the bar

1137: settles into equilibrium and loses angular momentum to the halo through

1138: dynamical friction. During buckling the bar shortens dramatically

1139: for some period of time \citep{mar04,mar06} and afterwards

1140: gradually lengthens.  However,  the CR radius also increases in  

1141: response to the change in potential of both the outer disk and DM 

1142: halo as they absorb angular momentum from the bar and respond 

1143: to the changing mass profile of the disk. \citet{deb00}

1144: have shown that in many models with dense halos, bars are slowed down

1145: considerably and end up with values of $\mathcal{R}>2$.  Bars are,  

1146: designated as ``fast" if $1<\mathcal{R} < 1.4$ or ``slow" for 

1147: $\mathcal{R} > 1.4$ with all barred galaxies with determined or inferred 

1148: pattern  speeds being ``fast" by this definition.

1149: 

1150: The bar that forms in the model described here is ``fast" with $ \mathcal{R}

1151: \la 1.4$ after reaching a quasi-equilibrium after buckling.  

1152: The result is in  agreement

1153: with \citet{mar06} who used a similar galactic model and  determined the

1154: bar size by means of the last stable orbit supporting it.  At  various times 

1155: after the bar forms, we have determined the curve of the circular orbital 

1156: frequency $\Omega(R)$ by computing the average of the radial acceleration 

1157: $d \Phi/dR$ on points on rings of different radii in the midplane of the disk.

1158: In this way, we average out the asymmetry in the potential introduced by

1159: the bar.  The CR radius is then found by reading off the radius

1160: corresponding to $\Omega(D_L)=\Omega_b$ at the given time.  To  

1161: determine the bar length $a_b$ we fit elliptical contours to the surface 

1162: density  profile and look for a sudden transition in the value of the 

1163: axis ratio $q=b/a$ and the position angle of the isodensity contours.  

1164: In most cases, the transition is sudden, jumping from $q=0.4$ to $q=0.9$ 

1165: over a radial interval of 1 kpc.  We therefore can determine $a_b$ with an 

1166: accuracy of $\pm  0.5$ kpc.  Figure~\ref{fig-contour} shows the isodensity 

1167: contours overlayed with corotation radius and elliptical contour for 

1168: the chosen bar  radius at $t=9.4$~Gyr the final time in the 

1169: simulation for the highest resolution model mm100M.  Even at this time, the

1170: bar nearly extends to the CR radius and $\mathcal{R} = 1.2 \pm  

1171: 0.05$.  Figure \ref{fig-barratio} shows the evolution of $\mathcal{R}$ from

1172: $t=4.7-9.4$~Gyr starting with the time when it just has  settled

1173: into equilibrium until the end of the run.  During this time, the bar  ratio

1174: $\mathcal{R}$ maintains a value less than 1.4 and so would be classified as

1175: a ``fast" bar and remain consistent with the observed barred galaxies.

1176: Despite a 3-fold drop in the pattern speed the bar length and the  

1177: galaxy potential readjusts to keep $\mathcal{R}$ near 1.

1178: \citep{deb00} found that models with $V^2_{disk}/V^2_{halo}=1$ 

1179: do end up with fast bars and indeed our model is consistent with that value 

1180: (Fig.~\ref{fig-vrot1}).  

1181: 

1182: \begin{figure}

1183: \begin{center}

1184: %\plotone{figures/fig-contour.ps}

1185: \plotone{f19.eps}

1186: \figcaption{

1187: Surface brightness contours of the multi-mass model at the last snapshot

1188: at $t=9.4$ Gyr overlayed with the best fit ellipse to the central bar 

1189: and co-rotation

1190: radius.  Even at this late time in the evolution, 

1191: the bar extends to the co-rotation radius.

1192: \label{fig-contour}

1193: }

1194: \end{center}

1195: \end{figure}

1196: 

1197: \begin{figure}

1198: \begin{center}

1199: %\plotone{figures/fig-barratio.ps}

1200: \plotone{f20.eps}

1201: \figcaption{

1202: Evolution of the CR radius to bar length ratio $\mathcal{R}$ for the

1203: multi-mass model over the last half of the simulation.  The value of

1204: $\mathcal{R}$ hovers around 1.1 indicating a fast bar.

1205: \label{fig-barratio}

1206: }

1207: \end{center}

1208: \end{figure}

1209: 

1210: Finally, we estimate the bar mass and shape for comparison to current studies on

1211: bar-halo interactions.   The best fit ellipsoid to the bar with  $a_b=12.5$

1212: kpc has axis ratio $a_1:a_2:a_3 = 3.6:1.4:1$ The mass in the disk within

1213: the elliptical contour of $q=0.4$ with bar length $a_b=12.5$ kpc is

1214: $M_b=3.7\times 10^{10}$~\msolar~compared with a total disk mass of

1215: $M_d=5.5\times 10^{10}$~\msolar.  The bar therefore represents 2/3 of the

1216: total disk mass.  The mass of the DM halo within  the sphere of radius

1217: $a_b=12.5$~kpc is $M_h(r<a_b) = 6.1\times 10^{10}$~\msolar~compared  

1218: with a total halo mass $M_{h,tot} = 3.0\times 10^{11}$~\msolar.  

1219: The ratio  of bar to total halo mass enclosed is $M_b/M_h(r<a_b)\sim 0.6$.

1220: We will see below that this perturbation has a small effect on the 

1221: density profile of the DM halo and is not sufficient to create 

1222: a flat density core as seen in recent work with a rigid bar evolving in 

1223: a spherical $N$-body halo with $M_b/M_h=0.5-1.0$ and a thinner bar with 

1224: $a_1:a_2:a_3=10:2:1$ \citep{wei07b}.

1225: 

1226: \section{Halo Density Profile Evolution}

1227: 

1228: Our next task is to examine the evolution of the dark halo density profile.

1229: \citet{wei02} originally demonstrated that a thin {\em rigid}  

1230: bar rotating within a cuspy dark halo can disturb the central density 

1231: profile and set up a constant density core and follow-up work with 

1232: improved methods and resolution confirmed that result for their 

1233: particular choice of bar parameters \citep{wei07b}.

1234: \citet{sel08} has recently verified these results using

1235: independent methods but has questioned the applicability of the results

1236: of the dynamics of an idealized thin, rigid bar to real barred  

1237: galaxies.  The model described here differs from these studies by examining a

1238: {\em self-consistent model} of a bar forming from an instability in an

1239: exponential disk within a cusped dark halo and so arguably represents a 

1240: system closer to reality.  A detailed characterization of

1241: the model here will allow us to compare our results to these other  

1242: studies.

1243: 

1244: Figure \ref{fig-den-all} presents the evolution of the density profile

1245: as a function of mass resolution.  The plots show the profiles at

1246: changing times along with the differential change with respect to the

1247: initial profile.  Gravitational softening introduces an artificial  

1248: density core within $\sim 3$ Plummer softening lengths but beyond this  

1249: radius the plots clearly show similar behavior in the density profiles.

1250: A comparison of the final density profiles at different resolutions  

1251: again shows similar behavior beyond the softening radius and convergence 

1252: to a similar central behavior.  The central density profile

1253: actually increases by $1.7\times$ while maintaining a central  

1254: cusp (Fig. \ref{fig-gamma}).  The likely cause of this increase is 

1255: the halo response to the  forming bar \citep{sel03,col06}.  

1256: Once the bar buckles it forms a more concentrated mass distribution in 

1257: the center of the disk and the halo responds by contracting adiabatically.

1258: In the multi-mass halo with $N_h=10^8$, the density cusp is present down 

1259: to $r \approx 100$ pc where gravitational softening effects start 

1260: to influence the dynamics.  Within this radius, the halo is well-sampled by

1261: more than 6000 particles and flattens out into a constant density core

1262: dominated by softened gravity.

1263: 

1264: \citet{wei07b} (WK herein) have recently shown that massive bars can 

1265: decrease the central density of DM halos and disrupt the cusp 

1266: over a Hubble time in some cases at radii of about 20\% of the bar length.

1267: Our bar has a length $a_b=12.5$ kpc so we should expect to see

1268: distortions of the density profile at $r\approx 2$ kpc while in fact we see no

1269: signs of a density core developing until softened gravity dominates at 

1270: $r=0.1$~kpc in our highest

1271: resolution case.  The results presented here seem to be in contradiction

1272: so what's going on?  The reasons for disagreement can be understood 

1273: by comparing the detailed 

1274: properties  of the bars used in their models to our self-consistently evolved 

1275: $N$-body bar.  The WK models are rigid, homogeneous ellipsoids of various 

1276: masses, lengths and axis ratios rotating  within a live, isotropic

1277: $N$-body halo.  Their fiducial model which strongly modifies the halo inner

1278: profile has a bar length equal to the NFW halo scale radius $r_s$, i.e.,  

1279: $a_b/r_s = 1.0$, a bar mass equal to half the halo mass within this 

1280: radius $M_b/M_h = 0.5$ and an axis ratio  $a_1:a_2:a_3=10:2:1$.

1281: Our halo is also NFW-like but not precisely a NFW model

1282: due to modifications introduced in setting it up with an embedded  

1283: disk and changes induced by bar formation.  A good proxy for $r_s$ in our  

1284: models is the radius $r_{-2}$ where the density power-law slope

1285: $\gamma=d\log\rho/d\log r \approx -2$ (For an NFW model $\gamma=-2$ at

1286: $r=r_s$).  Figure \ref{fig-gamma} shows that $r_{-2} \approx 3$ kpc initially.  

1287: At late times, the $\gamma$  profile develops a wiggle so that 

1288: $\gamma=-2$ occurs at two different radii, but the average of these

1289: two radii is $r_s\approx 5$~kpc.  The final bar length is about  $12$ kpc

1290: (Fig. \ref{fig-contour}) and so $a_b/r_{-2}=2.4$.  The $N$-body

1291: bar axis ratio measured above is $a_1:a_2:a_3 = 3.6:1.4:1$ considerably 

1292: fatter than the fiducial model of WK.  Finally, the bar-to-halo mass ratio 

1293: within the bar length is  $M_b/M_h=0.6$.  The main differences between 

1294: the WK fiducial model and our model is that their halo is more extended 

1295: and the bar is much thinner overall while the mass ratios are comparable.  

1296: The WK models with thicker bars with $a_2/a_1>0.3$ are the closest ones to 

1297: our $N$-body models and according to their Fig. 13 in \citet{wei07b}

1298: cause no appreciable change in the density profile.  So we find no 

1299: inconsistency with their most closely matching model.

1300: 

1301: While the thin, massive bars described by WK have strong effects on halo

1302: profiles,  the thicker bars that develop through the recurrent buckling 

1303: instabilities are more relevant to the evolution of real barred galaxies. 

1304: Thin bars are subject to the dynamical buckling instability and thicken quickly.

1305: Moreover, the strongest bars, i.e., those with $b/a\sim 0.2$ show a rapid  

1306: decrease in the phase space available to regular orbits and hence an increase  

1307: in the fraction of chaotic orbits in the bar \citep{mar04}.

1308: While vertically thin {\it rigid} bars are immune to any instabilities, 

1309: the DM particle orbits in the cusp can be destabilized

1310: by the mere presence of a more massive analytical potential mixed  

1311: with the live potential.  Vertically thinner bars, i.e., smaller $c/a$, 

1312: will be more efficient in destabilizing the DM trajectories, by analogy 

1313: with smaller $b/a$. In any case, the $c/a = 0.1$ thin bars used by WK cannot 

1314: be justified over a Hubble time.  They are supported neither by 

1315: observations or high-resolution  numerical simulations.

1316: 

1317: 

1318: We conclude that bars that form self-consistently in $N$-body simulations 

1319: from the instability of an exponential disk in NFW-like DM halos

1320: do not destroy the density cusp and in fact can increase the

1321: halo central density slightly.  Our mass resolution study shows a

1322: clear convergence in behavior to higher resolution and the central

1323: characteristics of dark halos are limited only by the particle  

1324: softening and diminishing particle numbers.  We now explore the detailed 

1325: orbital dynamics of the bars to understand angular momentum transport from 

1326: the bar to the halo through low order resonances.

1327: 

1328: \begin{figure*}

1329: \begin{center}

1330: \epsscale{1.0}

1331: %\plotone{figures/fig-den-all.ps}

1332: \plotone{f21.eps}

1333: \figcaption{

1334: Evolution of the dark halo density profile for different mass resolutions 

1335: at $t=0$, 2.4, 4.7 and 7.1~Gyr (black, red, green and blue lines).  The

1336: dotted vertical line shows the value of the Plummer softening length for

1337: each resolution: $\epsilon=50$,20,10 and 10 pc for $N_h=10^6, 10^7, 10^8$

1338: and $10^8$ (multi-mass) halo models respectively.

1339: For $r>10$ kpc, the density profile does not change

1340: significantly.  In the range $1<r<10$ kpc, the density increases  

1341: roughly $1.7\times$, showing adiabatic contraction in response to 

1342: the  buckling instability and the formation of a centrally concentrated 

1343: bulge-like bar within the disk.  The logarithmic slope of the density profile 

1344: is $\alpha \sim -1$ to  within a few softening lengths from the center.  

1345: A constant density core develops within the center with a core radius that 

1346: depends on $N_h$ and  $\epsilon$ with typical values of $\sim 5\epsilon$.  

1347: As $N_h$ increases and $\epsilon$ decreases, central density increases while 

1348: the core radius declines.  The existence of a small core is consistent 

1349: with relaxation due to softened gravity rather than forcing by the bar.

1350: \label{fig-den-all}

1351: }

1352: \end{center}

1353: \end{figure*}

1354: 

1355: \begin{figure}

1356: \begin{center}

1357: %\plotone{figures/fig-gamma.ps}

1358: \plotone{f22.eps}

1359: \figcaption{

1360: Change in the density power-law index profile $\gamma = d\log\rho/d \log r$

1361: at $t=$0 Gyr (solid), 4.7 Gyr (dotted) and 7.1 Gyr (dashed).  The  

1362: density profile maintains a cusped profile with $\gamma < -1$ down 

1363: to $r=0.1$ kpc well within the the scale radius, $r_{-2} \approx 5$ kpc

1364: at late times.  A constant density core does not develop in response 

1365: to the bar and the halo maintains its cusp to the limit of gravitational

1366: softening.

1367: \label{fig-gamma}

1368: }

1369: \end{center}

1370: \end{figure}

1371: %\clearpage

1372: 

1373: \begin{figure*}

1374: \begin{center}

1375: %\plotone{figures/fig-den-final.ps}

1376: \plotone{f23.eps}

1377: \figcaption{

1378: A comparison of density profiles at $t=7.1$~Gyr for different halo

1379: particle numbers $N_h$.  We also show the initial density profile (dashed

1380: line) and the best fit NFW model curve (dotted line) to the initial

1381: profile over the range $0<r<100$~kpc.

1382: The NFW parameters for the fit are $r_s=4.3$ kpc, $v_{max}=160$~km~s$^ 

1383: {-1}$, where $v_{max}$ is the maximum circular velocity at

1384:  $r=2.16 r_s=9.3$~kpc.  Note that this halo is more concentrated than 

1385: the typical galactic dark matter halos in cosmological simulations. We use 

1386: the NFW formula to characterize the profile and show that an $r^{-1}$ cusp  

1387: extends to within at least 100 pc of the center.

1388: The dotted vertical lines show the softening length $\epsilon$ used at

1389: different resolutions.  As $N_h$ increases, the central density increases 

1390: and the core radius decreases suggesting that the core behavior is due 

1391: to mass resolution rather than forcing by the bar.

1392: \label{fig-den-final}

1393: }

1394: \end{center}

1395: \end{figure*}

1396: \pagebreak

1397: 

1398: \section{Bar Orbital Dynamics}

1399: 

1400: Angular momentum is transferred from the bar to the halo through

1401: low order orbital resonances \citep{lyn72,tre84,wei85}.

1402: Following the convention of \citet{wei07a}, 

1403: the condition for planar resonances is 

1404: $l_1 \Omega_r + l_2 \Omega_\phi = m \Omega_b$ 

1405: where $(l_1,l_2,m)$ are an integer triplet with radial and azimuthal

1406: orbital frequencies $\Omega_r$ and $\Omega_\phi$ and 

1407: bar pattern  speed $\Omega_b$ \citep{ath02,wei07a}. 

1408: In the discussion below, we also use the parameters

1409: $\Omega\equiv \Omega_\phi$ and $\kappa\equiv\Omega_r$ to refer to

1410: the true orbital frequencies rather than the epicyclic approximations.

1411: Bars are predominantly a $m=2$ disturbance so integer 

1412: pairs $l_1:l_2$ with $m=2$ correspond to various

1413: resonances with the more important ones being the inner and outer

1414: Lindblad resonances (ILR $-1:2$ and OLR $1:2$) and the corotation 

1415: resonance (COR $0:2$).  Other important resonances that may transfer

1416: angular momentum occur with $l_2=-2,0$ including the direct radial 

1417: resonance (DRR 1:0) discussed by WK.

1418: 

1419: We focus our analysis on resonances with $l_2=2$ that are responsible for

1420: the bulk of angular momentum transfer.

1421: A simple way of characterizing the low order resonances is with the

1422: dimensionless frequency $\eta=(\Omega-\Omega_b)/\kappa$ \citep{ath02,mar06}.  

1423: The half integer values of $\eta$ correspond to low order resonances with

1424: $\eta=-1/2,0,1/2$ corresponding to the OLR, COR, and ILR respectively.

1425: Most angular momentum is transferred to and from orbits

1426: that satisfy this resonant condition.  As the bar loses angular momentum

1427: and $\Omega_b$ declines, the population of halo particles in resonance

1428: with the bar changes.  The potential of the halo also readjusts  

1429: in response to the bar, so orbital frequencies can change as well.  

1430: \citet{wei07a} have  argued that the resonances may only occur over a 

1431: small fraction of the halo mass so that poorly resolved halos may not have 

1432: sufficient numbers of particles to absorb angular momentum.  

1433: Furthermore, noise in lower resolution simulations can cause particles 

1434: to move in and out of resonance in a diffusive manner leading to an 

1435: incorrect determination of angular momentum transfer.  They estimate that 

1436: as many as $10^8$ halo particles are necessary to both populate resonances 

1437: and suppress noise to converge on the correct behavior.  We examine 

1438: these effects directly at different resolutions by studying 

1439: the behavior of angular momentum transfer and orbital resonances using 

1440: our models at the recommended mass resolution and see if 

1441: the results do converge.

1442: 

1443: \subsection{Net Angular Momentum Transfer}

1444: 

1445: We first examine the net angular momentum transfer evolution as a function of

1446: mass resolution (Fig. \ref{fig-jvst}).  We have again offset the  

1447: times at different resolution so that they are synchronized with 

1448: the time of maximum $|A_2|$.  The initial behavior is similar though there 

1449: is no clear trend in behavior between resolutions from $t=2.4-7.2$ Gyr reflecting 

1450: the variance from different random initial conditions.  At late times, however,

1451: the rate of angular momentum transfer from the bar to the halo  

1452: depends on resolution, with lower resolution simulations transferring $J$  

1453: more quickly than the highest resolution case. From $t=7.2-9.4$ Gyr the rate 

1454: of change $J$ is about two times larger for $N_h=1M$ than $N_h=100M$.  

1455: This effect could be the result of noise broadening the resonant 

1456: interaction though this interpretation is complicated by the variance 

1457: in behavior due to different initial conditions.  In summary, there is 

1458: a measurable difference in angular momentum transfer between high and low 

1459: resolution with the  lowest resolution model transferring about 10\% 

1460: more angular momentum.

1461: %\clearpage

1462: 

1463: \begin{figure}

1464: \begin{center}

1465: %\plotone{figures/fig-jvst.ps}

1466: \plotone{f24.eps}

1467: \figcaption{

1468: Evolution of the net angular momentum in the disk and halo at different

1469: mass resolution.  Total angular momentum is conserved to within 1\%.

1470: The evolution is similar for all resolutions plotted starting at

1471: $N_h=10^6$.  The rate of angular momentum transfer is slightly smaller 

1472: at later times for higher resolution simulations leading to about 

1473: a 10\% difference in the total amount of transferred angular momentum in 

1474: the multi-mass case suggesting a significant but small affect due to

1475: resolution.

1476: \label{fig-jvst}

1477: }

1478: \end{center}

1479: \end{figure}

1480: 

1481: %\pagebreak

1482: \subsection{Halo Orbital Resonances}

1483: 

1484: We quantify the importance of low order resonances for angular momentum

1485: transfer in our models using a modified version of the orbital  

1486: spectral analysis method \citep{bin82} in a frozen rotating potential

1487: as described by \citet{ath02} and \citet{mar06}.

1488: We determine the principal orbital frequencies $\kappa$ and $\Omega_\phi$

1489: for a set of $N_{Rh}$ randomly chosen particles

1490: in the halo with $N_{Rh}\sim 10^6$ for simulations with $N_h \ge 10^6$

1491: and $N_{Rh}=N_h$ for smaller simulations.  We then compute the potential and

1492: force field on a grid with variable spacing to be used for interpolating forces

1493: for test particle integrations.  Orbital frequencies are 

1494: determined from test particle integration of particles orbits in 

1495: the frozen potential in a rotating frame at the bar's pattern speed for 

1496: the time of a given snapshot.  The orbits are integrated for about 

1497: 50 bar rotations, starting at three representative times --- 

1498: $t = 2.4,  4.7$ and 7.1 Gyr for the $N_h=10^8$ single and multi mass simulations.  

1499: Appropriate time offsets are applied as discussed above to lower 

1500: $N_h$ simulations to synchronize the time of maximum $|A_2|$.  

1501: Each orbit was sampled with at least 200 constant timesteps per azimuthal period, 

1502: and overall by 10K timesteps. The use of constant timesteps simplifies 

1503: Fourier decomposition of the orbit time series.  Most decompositions lead 

1504: to a line spectrum allowing easy identification of frequencies 

1505: $\Omega$ and $\kappa$ though occasionally the spectrum is 

1506: more complex and no frequencies can be uniquely identified.  

1507: 

1508: We present the results of the spectral analysis for DM halo orbits in 

1509: Fig.~\ref{fig-jspec}

1510: for various resolutions at $t = 7.1$ Gyr for the 100M particle runs.  Again, 

1511: we account for the time offsets discussed above for the lower resolution 

1512: runs for a fair comparison.  The  particles are 

1513: binned in frequency $\eta$ with a bin width $\Delta\eta = 0.005$.

1514: Figure~\ref{fig-jspec} shows the distribution of the particle number

1515: fraction (or mass fraction in the multi-mass model case) as a function of

1516: the dimensionless frequency.  The main resonances -- ILR, COR, OLR - are

1517: present along with higher order ones with COR being the most populated

1518: resonance.  The relative height of the peaks begins to converge when

1519: $N>10^6$ and the behavior is quite similar.  The peak bins contain a few

1520: percent of the total particle numbers or $\sim 10^6$ particles in the

1521: largest case and so provide good coverage of the resonance for angular

1522: momentum transfer.  We can define the amount of mass in

1523: ``resonance" as the sum over particles with dimensionless frequencies 

1524: in the range $\delta \eta \pm 0.05$ at half integer values of $\eta$.

1525: When measured this way about 7\% of the total halo mass is in resonance

1526: instantaneously at late times when the bar has reached quasi-equilibrium and

1527: is slowing down.   \citet{tre84} speculated that orbits may have become

1528: trapped in resonance if the bar slowed down gradually and we can check whether

1529: this trapping is significant.

1530: A comparison of the particles in resonant peaks at $t=4.7$ Gyr

1531: with those at $t=7.1$ Gyr shows that only a small fraction migrate between 

1532: resonances as the system evolves.  Of the 7\% of the total mass in resonance at $t=4.7$ Gyr only 

1533: 1.5\% are still in resonances at $t=7.1$ Gyr with most particles moving

1534: out of resonance.  As the bar is braking,  

1535: new orbits are brought into resonance while orbits 

1536: that have acquired angular momentum move out of resonance.  In this sense, 

1537: the resonance is broad and a significant fraction of halo orbits participate 

1538: in angular momentum exchange with the bar.

1539: 

1540: Figures~\ref{fig-dj} and \ref{fig-dj1} show the resonant transfer of

1541: angular momentum between the two snapshots at $t=4.7$ Gyr and $t=7.1$ Gyr.  

1542: We plot the distribution of the change in z-angular momentum 

1543: $\Delta J_z$ versus $\eta$ measured for the particles at

1544: $t=4.7$ Gyr.  Most angular momentum is absorbed in the halo at the COR and

1545: OLR with smaller amounts absorbed at higher order resonances.  However,

1546: some $J_z$ is emitted and lost from the ILR in accord with fundamental ideas of

1547: angular momentum transport in stellar systems \citep{lyn72}.  The

1548: distributions when viewed with an expanded vertical scale show nice

1549: convergence in detailed behavior at higher resolution (Fig.~\ref{fig-dj1}).  

1550: For $N_h>10^7$, $\approx 50$\% of the total transferred angular 

1551: momentum is is in the resonant peaks (within $\delta \eta = \pm 0.05$

1552: while for $N_h\le 10^6$ we find less than 30\% in the peaks with this same

1553: definition.  The lower resolution simulations are clearly more susceptible

1554: to diffusion.  Nevertheless, despite these differences the total angular

1555: momentum transferred is similar for $N\ge 10^6$ suggesting that the

1556: diffusive process that broadens resonances is not a serious problem for the

1557: global evolution of the system.

1558: 

1559: \begin{figure}

1560: \epsscale{1.1}

1561: \begin{center}

1562: %\plotone{figures/fig-jspec.ps}

1563: \plotone{f25.eps}

1564: \figcaption{

1565: Distribution of DM halo particles as a function of the dimensionless frequency

1566: $\eta$.  Resonant spikes at the half integer values of $\eta$ correspond to

1567: low order resonances.  The bin width is $\delta \eta=0.005$. 

1568: The distributions are similar as a function of mass resolution.

1569: \label{fig-jspec}

1570: }

1571: \end{center}

1572: \end{figure}

1573: 

1574: \begin{figure}

1575: \epsscale{1.1}

1576: \begin{center}

1577: %\plotone{figures/fig-dj.ps}

1578: \plotone{f26.eps}

1579: \figcaption{

1580: Net change in the DM halo particle angular momentum 

1581: between $t=4.7$ and 7.1~Gyr for particles binned as a function of the 

1582: dimensionless frequency $\eta$ measured at

1583: $t=4.7$ Gyr.  The majority of angular momentum is gained

1584: through the CR resonance at $\eta=0$ though some angular momentum is lost

1585: at the ILR at $\eta=0.5$.  The peaks are sharper at higher resolution.

1586: \label{fig-dj}

1587: }

1588: \end{center}

1589: \end{figure}

1590: 

1591: \begin{figure}

1592: \epsscale{1.1}

1593: \begin{center}

1594: %\plotone{figures/fig-dj1.ps}

1595: \plotone{f27.eps}

1596: \figcaption{

1597: Same as Fig.~\ref{fig-dj} with the vertical scale expanded by $10\times$.

1598: The detailed distributions of the change in angular momentum are similar

1599: between the peaks at higher resolution.  

1600: \label{fig-dj1}

1601: }

1602: \end{center}

1603: \end{figure}

1604: \pagebreak

1605: 

1606: 

1607: \subsection{Resonances in Phase Space}

1608: 

1609: Finally, we examine the change in halo phase space density by computing the

1610: particle number density in $(E,J_z)$ space and computing the difference

1611: between $t=0$ and $t=150$ in model m100M in a similar way to 

1612: \citet{hol05}.  In this way,

1613: we clearly see the resonant regions visible as discrete islands of particle 

1614: overdensity in $(E,J_z)$ space (Fig.~\ref{fig-phase}).  We can also overplot 

1615: the values of $(E,J_z)$ for the particles found in the resonant spikes 

1616: in the analysis at the final time $t=150$ to see where they lie in 

1617: phase space.  Figure~\ref{fig-resonant} clearly shows that the peaks

1618: in phase space density are directly related to the discrete resonances 

1619: extracted from our spectral analysis.  An accompanying animation to

1620: Fig~\ref{fig-phase} presents the time evolution of the differential number 

1621: density in phase space and reveals how the resonant islands move through a 

1622: large fraction of the halo mass.  By counting particles in resonant peaks 

1623: at different times we estimate that roughly 20-30\% of the halo particles 

1624: are in resonance with the bar at some time in their history.  Since such a

1625: large fraction of particles are involved in angular momentum transfer then

1626: even lower resolution simulations can do a reasonable job of following the

1627: evolution of the bar.

1628: 

1629: \begin{figure}

1630: \epsscale{1.2}

1631: \begin{center}

1632: %\plotone{figures/fig-phase.eps}

1633: \plotone{f28a.eps}

1634: \figcaption{

1635: Change in particle number density in $(E,J_z)$ space between $t=0$ and

1636: $t=150$ (7.0 Gyr) for the $N_h=10^8$ single mass model.  The resonant 

1637: regions show up clearly as peaks (red regions) in phase space in the 

1638: left panel.  The blue-black region is a valley where a halo bar rotating

1639: along with the disk bar and so de-populated the negative $J_z$ of phase

1640: space at the ILR. See Video 4 to view the time evolution of the particle

1641: phase-space density.

1642: \label{fig-phase}

1643: }

1644: \end{center}

1645: \end{figure}

1646: 

1647: \begin{figure}

1648: \epsscale{1.2}

1649: \begin{center}

1650: %\plotone{figures/fig-resonant.eps}

1651: \plotone{f29a.eps}

1652: \figcaption{

1653: On the phase number density map, we overplot the $(E,J_z)$ coordinates of

1654: a subset of particles located at discrete resonances at $t=150$ 

1655: within $\delta\eta=\pm 0.05$ (black-ILR-$\eta=0.5$, red-COR-$\eta=0.0$, 

1656: green-OLR-$\eta=-0.5$, blue-$\eta=-1.0$, magenta-$\eta=-1.5$, 

1657: and cyan-$\eta=-2.0$.  The resonant particles lay directly on top of the 

1658: peaks and so identify the specific resonant regions in phase space.

1659: \label{fig-resonant}

1660: }

1661: \end{center}

1662: \end{figure}

1663: 

1664: 

1665: 

1666: 

1667: \section{Conclusions}

1668: 

1669: We have carried out a comprehensive set of experiments to explore the

1670: evolution of a self-consistent bar in a galactic model with an exponential

1671: disk and cuspy DM halo using resolutions

1672: with $10^{4-8}$ DM particles and a single experiment using a

1673: multi-mass method with an effective resolution of $10^{10}$. 

1674: Our highest resolution exceeds by far the level prescribed by \citet{wei07a}

1675: necessary to achieve convergent behavior in bar galaxy dynamics.

1676: We have applied various diagnostics of bar evolution as a function of  mass

1677: resolution including bar growth, pattern speed evolution, halo density cusp

1678: evolution and the resonant transfer of angular momentum from the bar to the

1679: DM halo.  In almost all cases, the general behavior is similar at most but

1680: the lowest resolutions with the convergence occurring around $10^{6-7}$, 

1681: depending on the phenomenon.   

1682: Sellwood (2008) has also explored similar effects in a mass resolution study

1683: with rigid bars in cuspy spherical halos with $\sim 10^8$ particles and

1684: come to similar conclusions about minimal resolution requirements.

1685: Notably, in this model the

1686: density cusp is not destroyed by the formation of the bar in apparent

1687: contradiction to the results of WK.  Our best explanation is that the thick bar

1688: that form in our self-consistent models has a weaker affect than the rigid

1689: thin bars in the work of WK and we question the applicability of these thin

1690: bar models over a Hubble time in light of the buckling instability. 

1691: 

1692: The strongest argument for convergence comes from the spectral analysis of

1693: orbits in the rotating barred potential at different resolutions 

1694: that shows in detail similar distributions as a function of the

1695: dimensionless frequency $\eta$ both in mass fractions and angular momentum

1696: transferred between different times.  Analysis of the change in

1697: phase space density show that resonant islands sweep through the phase

1698: space as the bar loses angular momentum leading to effectively broader

1699: resonances with as much as 20-30\% of the halo mass absorbing angular

1700: momentum from the bar.

1701: 

1702: Future studies should examine the bar instability self-consistently using 

1703: the same initial conditions with different $N$-body methods to resolve 

1704: current inconsistent results on the cusp/core evolution of DM halos as well

1705: as explore detailed behavior in phase space.  The model snapshots and initial

1706: conditions from this study are freely available to researchers in the

1707: area who wish to verify our results against their own codes and

1708: methods.

1709: 

1710: \acknowledgements{We acknowledge useful discussions with Jerry Sellwood,

1711: Simon White, James Binney, Linda Sparke and Larry Widrow.  We also thank

1712: the referee for useful comments.  This work 

1713: was supported, in part, by the NSERC 

1714: of Canada and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation.   

1715: I.S. acknowledges JILA Visiting Fellowship and partial 

1716: support from NASA/ATP/LTSA, NSF and  

1717: the STScI. I.B. acknowledges financial support from the Volkswagen

1718: Foundation (Ref: I/80 041-043). Supercomputing 

1719: was provided by SHARCNET  facilities at McMaster University and the 

1720: University of Waterloo as well as  facilities at CITA. }

1721: 

1722: \bibliographystyle{apj.bst}

1723: \bibliography{refs}

1724: 

1725: \end{document}

1726: