1: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

2: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

3: %

4: \newcommand\psr{PSR~B1257+12 }

5: \newcommand\text[1]{\mbox{#1}}                                               

6: \newcommand\mref[1]{(\ref{#1})}

7: \newcommand\figref[1]{Fig.~\ref{#1}}

8: \newcommand{\etal}{{\em et al.}\/\/}

9: \newcommand\pder[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

10: \newcommand\der[2]{\frac{d #1}{d #2}}

11: \newcommand\dt{\frac{d \ }{d t}}

12: \newcommand\dder[2]{\frac{d^2 #1}{d {#2}^2}}

13: \newcommand\bmath[1]{\mbox{\protect\boldmath{$#1$}}}

14: \newcommand\vscalar[2]{ \langle \bmath{#1}, \bmath{#2} \rangle}

15: \newcommand\mscalar[2]{ \langle {#1}, {#2} \rangle}

16: \newcommand\vnorm[1]{ \Vert \bmath{#1}\Vert}

17: \newcommand\mnorm[1]{ \Vert  {\bf #1}\Vert}

18: \newcommand\R{{\bf R}}

19: \newcommand\be{{\bf e}}

20: \newcommand\br{{\bf r}}

21: \newcommand\bR{{\bf R}}

22: \newcommand\bb{{\bf b}}

23: \newcommand\bm{{\bf m}}

24: \newcommand\bn{{\bf n}}

25: \newcommand\bk{{\bf k}}

26: \newcommand\bl{{\bf l}}

27: \newcommand\bp{{\bf p}}

28: \newcommand\bq{{\bf q}}

29: \newcommand\bs{{\bf s}}

30: \newcommand\bx{{\bf x}}

31: \newcommand\by{{\bf y}}

32: \newcommand\bz{{\bf z}}

33: \newcommand\bA{{\bf A}}

34: \newcommand\bD{{\bf D}}

35: \newcommand\bE{{\bf E}}

36: \newcommand\bG{{\bf G}}

37: \newcommand\bI{{\bf I}}

38: \newcommand\bJ{{\bf J}}

39: \newcommand\bN{{\bf N}}

40: \newcommand\bL{{\bf L}}

41: \newcommand\bM{{\bf M}}

42: \newcommand\bQ{{\bf Q}}

43: \newcommand\bP{{\bf P}}

44: \newcommand\bS{{\bf S}}

45: \newcommand\bX{{\bf X}}

46: \newcommand\bY{{\bf Y}}

47: \newcommand\bZ{{\bf Z}}

48: \newcommand\bzero{{\bf 0}}

49: %

50: \newcommand\cA{{\cal A}}

51: \newcommand\cB{{\cal B}}

52: \newcommand\cC{{\cal C}}

53: \newcommand\cx{{\rm x}}

54: %

55: \newcommand\eq[1]{(\ref{#1})}

56: \newcommand\rme{{\rm e}}

57: \newcommand\rmi{{\rm i}}

58: 

59: \begin{document}

60: 

61: \title{Improved timing formula for the PSR B1257+12 planetary system}

62: 

63: \author{Maciej Konacki \altaffilmark{1},

64: Andrzej J.~Maciejewski  \altaffilmark{2}}

65: \affil{Toru\'n Centre for Astronomy, 

66:            Nicolaus Copernicus University,\\

67:            87-100 Toru\'n, Gagarina 11, Poland}

68: \author{Alex Wolszczan \altaffilmark{3}}

69: \affil{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Penn State University \\

70: University Park, PA 16802, USA \\

71: Toru\'n Centre for Astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus University \\

72: ul. Gagarina 11, 87-100 Toru\' n, Poland}

73: \altaffiltext{1}{e-mail: kmc@astri.uni.torun.pl}

74: \altaffiltext{2}{e-mail: maciejka@astri.uni.torun.pl}

75: \altaffiltext{3}{e-mail: alex@astro.psu.edu}

76: 

77: \begin{abstract}

78: We present a new analysis of the dynamics of the planetary system around

79: the pulsar B1257+12. A semi-analytical theory of perturbation between 

80: terrestrial-mass planets B and C is developed and applied to improve

81: multi-orbit timing formula for this object. We use numerical simulations

82: of the pulse arrival times for PSR B1257+12 to demonstrate that our new

83: timing model can serve as a toll to determine the masses of the two planets.

84: \end{abstract}

85: 

86: \keywords{celestial mechanics --- planetary systems --- 

87:           pulsars: individual (PSR B1257+12)} 

88: 

89: \section{Introduction}

90: 

91: The first extra-solar planetary system has been discovered around a 

92: millisecond pulsar B1257+12 \citep{Wolszczan:92::}. The system consists of 

93: three planets named ${\cA}, {\cB}$ and ${\cC}$ with planets ${\cB}$ and 

94: ${\cC}$ having the orbits close to a 3:2 commensurability. This circumstance 

95: allows us to analyze the dynamics of the system beyond the classical Keplerian

96: approximation. Namely, in such configuration, the gravitational interactions 

97: of planets ${\cB}$ and ${\cC}$ give rise to observable time variations of  

98: ${\cB}$ and ${\cC}$ orbital elements. It was thoroughly discussed 

99: by \citet{Rasio:92::} and \citet{Malhotra:93a::} 

100: \citep[see also][]{Malhotra:92::,Malhotra:93b::,Rasio:93::,Peale:93::}. 

101: Subsequently, these studies were used to confirm the existence of the \psr 

102: planetary system through detecting, in the timing observations of the pulsar,

103: the presence of those non-keplerian variations \citep{Wolszczan:94::}

104: 

105: However, the application of non-keplerian dynamics goes further than

106: the confirmation of the discovery.  It can be used to derive some

107: interesting information about the system which is not otherwise

108: accessible.  The aim of this paper is to apply the theory of perturbed

109: planetary motion and derive an improved model for the timing

110: observations of PSR~B1257+12.  Such model, as we show on simulations,

111: should lead to determination of the masses of planets ${\cB}$ and

112: ${\cC}$, as well as the inclinations of their orbits.  To this end, in

113: section \ref{sec:equation} we analyze the equations of motion in the

114: barycentric and Jacobi coordinate systems, which we use in the paper. 

115: In section \ref{sec:timing} we show how these two slightly different representations

116: are related to the commonly used timing model for pulsars with

117: companions. In section \ref{sec:oscul} we demonstrate how to express 

118: such timing formula in terms of the osculating orbital elements. 

119: In section \ref{sec:semi} we show how to obtain the osculating elements of ${\cB}$

120: and ${\cC}$.  In section \ref{sec:timfor} we present an improved timing model

121: describing the motion of this system and finally, in section 

122: \ref{sec:tests}, we perform numerical tests which show how it can be 

123: used in practice.

124:     

125: %

126: \section{Equations of Motion}

127: 

128: \label{sec:equation}

129: 

130: Let us consider a system consisting of a neutron star $P_0$ with the 

131: mass $m_0$, and $N$ planets $P_i$ with masses $m_i$. In an arbitrary 

132: inertial reference frame equations of motion of this system have the form

133: %

134: \begin{equation}

135: \label{eq:nb}

136: m_i \ddot{\bR}_i = -G\sum_{ {\stackrel{\scriptstyle j=0}{j\neq i}}}^N

137: \frac{ m_i m_j}{R_{ij}^3}\left(\bR_i-\bR_j\right),

138: \end{equation}

139: %

140: where

141: \[

142: R_{ij}=\Vert\bR_i-\bR_j\Vert, \qquad i, j = 0, \ldots, N,

143: \]

144: %

145: and $G$ is the gravitational constant. The Hamiltonian function for system 

146: \mref{eq:nb} has the form

147: %

148: \begin{equation}

149: \label{eq:h}

150: H = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=0}^N\frac{1}{m_i}\bP_i^2 - \sum_{0\leq i<j\leq N}

151: \frac{G m_im_j}{R_{ij}},

152: \end{equation}

153: %

154: and equations \mref{eq:nb} can be written as Hamilton's equations

155: %

156: \begin{equation}

157: \label{eq:he}

158: \dt{\bR_i} = \pder{H}{\bP_i}, \qquad \dt{\bP_i} = -\pder{H}{\bR_i}, 

159: \qquad i = 0, \ldots, N.

160: \end{equation}

161: %

162: Analytical perturbation theory for a planetary system is usually formulated 

163: in the so-called Jacobi coordinates $\br_i$, $i=0, \ldots, N$ which are 

164: defined in the following way

165: %

166: \begin{equation}

167: \label{eq:jac}

168: \br_k = \bR_k - \frac{1}{\mu_{k-1}}\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} m_i\bR_i,\quad\text{for}

169: \quad k=1,\ldots, N,

170: \end{equation}

171: %

172: and 

173: %

174: \begin{equation}

175: \label{eq:jac0}

176: \br_0 =  \frac{1}{\mu_{N}}\sum_{i=0}^{N} m_i\bR_i,\qquad \mu_k=

177: \sum_{i=0}^km_i.

178: \end{equation}

179: %

180: In other words, $\br_i$ is the radius vector from the

181: center of mass of bodies $P_0, \ldots, P_{i-1}$ to body $P_i$, and $\br_0$ 

182: is the center of mass of the system. The above formulae define a one-to-one 

183: relationship between Cartesian inertial coordinates and Jacobi coordinates. 

184: The inverse relationship has the form

185: %

186: \begin{equation}

187: \label{eq:jaci}

188: \bR_k = \br_0 + \frac{\mu_{k-1}}{\mu_k}\br_k - \sum_{i=k+1}^N\frac{m_i}{\mu_i}

189: \br_i, \qquad k=0,\ldots, N,

190: \end{equation}

191: % 

192: where we assume $\mu_{-1}=0$.

193: %  

194: In terms of canonical Jacobi coordinates, Hamiltonian \mref{eq:h} reads

195: %

196: \begin{equation}

197: \label{eq:hj}

198: \begin{array}{l}

199: \displaystyle

200: H = \frac{1}{\mu_N}\bp_0^2 + \sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\mu_i}{\mu_{i-1}m_i}\bp_i^2

201:   - G\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{m_0m_i}{r_i} \; + \\[0.5cm]

202: \displaystyle

203: \qquad + \;\tilde H_1\left(\br_1,\ldots, \br_N\right),

204: \end{array}

205: \end{equation}

206: %

207: where $\tilde H_1=\tilde H_1(\br_1,\ldots, \br_N)$ is its perturbative part. 

208: If we assume that masses of planets are small and all 

209: are of the same order $\epsilon$, then $\tilde H_1$ is of order 

210: $\epsilon^2$, i.e., $\tilde H_1 = H_1 + {\cal O}(\epsilon^3)$, where

211: %

212: \begin{equation}

213: \label{eq:h1}

214: H_1 = -G\!\!\!\sum_{1\leq i< j\leq N} \!\!\!m_i m_{j}\left[ \frac{1}{r_{ij}} 

215: - \frac{\br_i\cdot\br_j}{r_i}\right].

216: \end{equation}

217: % 

218: From the form of  Hamiltonian \mref{eq:hj} it follows that $\bp_0$ is a first 

219: integral and that the equations for variables 

220: $\{\br_1,\ldots, \br_N, \bp_1, \ldots, \bp_N\}$ do not depend on its 

221: particular value. Thus, we can assume that $\bp_0=\bzero$ implying 

222: that $\br_0$ is constant and can be set to $\br_0=\bzero$. 

223: This is equivalent to the assumption that our inertial frame is a certain 

224: barycentric reference frame. The dynamics of the system is governed by 

225: Hamilton's equations with the Hamiltonian of the form  

226: %

227: \begin{equation}

228: \label{eq:hper}

229: H = H_0 + H_1 + \cdots,

230: \end{equation}

231: %

232: where 

233: %

234: \begin{equation}

235: \label{eq:h0}

236: H_0 = \sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\mu_i}{\mu_{i-1}m_i}\bp_i^2  - G\sum_{i=1}^{N}

237: \frac{m_0m_i}{r_i},

238: \end{equation}

239: %

240: is the unperturbed part of the Hamiltonian describing a system of $N$ 

241: independent planets. It follows from the form of Eq. \mref{eq:h0} that 

242: each planet moves in a Keplerian orbit in the same way as a body with the mass 

243: $m_i\mu_{i-1}/\mu_i$ around a fixed gravitational center $m_0 m_i$. 

244: Each of these Keplerian motions can be parameterized by Keplerian elements 

245: $\{ T_p, a,e,i,\omega,\Omega\}$---the time of pericenter, semi-major axis, 

246: eccentricity, inclination, argument of pericenter  and the longitude of

247: ascending node, respectively.

248: 

249: \section{Timing model and coordinate systems}

250: 

251: \label{sec:timing}

252: 

253: Timing observations of pulsars represent measurements of the times of arrival

254: of pulsars pulses (TOAs). An extraordinary precision of timing measurements 

255: allows a detection of very low-level effects in timing residuals 

256: \citep[see for review][]{Lyne:98::}. In the case of a binary pulsar the 

257: observed TOAs exhibit periodic variations resulting from the motion of the 

258: pulsar around the center of mass. Such variations are modeled with the 

259: formula

260: %

261: \begin{equation}

262: \Delta t = x\left[\left(\cos E - e\right)\sin\omega + \sqrt{1 - e^2}\sin

263: E\cos\omega\right],

264: \end{equation}

265: where

266: %

267: \[

268: x = a\sin i/c, \quad E - e \sin E = n\left(t- T_p\right), \quad

269: n = \frac{2\pi}{P}, 

270: \]

271: %

272: and $\Delta t$ is the additional delay/advance in TOAs, $E$ is eccentric

273: anomaly, ${a,e,\omega,\sin i,P,T_p}$ are Keplerian elements of the orbit

274: and $c$ is the speed of light. When a pulsar has $N$ planets the

275: TOA variations become

276: %

277: \begin{equation}

278: \begin{array}{l}

279: \label{eq:kep::}

280: \displaystyle

281: \Delta t = \sum_{j=1}^{N}x_j\Bigl[\left(\cos E_j - e_j\right)\sin\omega_j 

282: \; + \\[0.5cm]

283: \displaystyle

284: \hspace{2cm} + \; \left.\sqrt{1 - e_j^2}\left.\sin E_j\cos\omega_j

285: \right)\right].

286: \end{array}

287: \end{equation}

288: %

289: Note that in practice the parameters of the model which we  

290: determine, by means of the least-squares fit to the data, are 

291: ${x_j,e_j,\omega_j,P_j,T_{pj}}$, i.e., the projection of  semi-major axis

292: of the {\it pulsar's} orbit, 

293: eccentricity, argument of pericenter, orbital period and time of pericenter. 

294: In order to precisely understand and interpret these parameters we describe 

295: the pulsar's motion in the barycentric reference frame with

296: the $z$-axis of the system directed toward the barycenter of the solar system 

297: and $xy$ plane of the reference frame in the plane of the sky. This way, 

298: we have

299: %

300: \begin{equation}

301: \label{eq:dt}

302:   \Delta t = -\frac{1}{c}  \bR_0\cdot \widehat\bZ ,  

303:   \quad \bR_0 = - \frac{1}{m_0} \sum_{i=1}^N m_i\bR_i,

304: \end{equation}

305: %

306: where $\widehat\bZ$ is the unit vector along the $z$-th axis of the pulsar

307: system barycentric frame and $\bR_j$ are barycentric positions of planets. 

308: Assuming that

309: %

310: \begin{equation}

311: \frac{m_j}{m_0}a_j\sin i_j = x_j c, 

312: \quad \frac{Gm_0}{(1 + m_j/m_0)^2} = n_j^2 a_j^3,

313: \end{equation}

314: %

315: with {\it planets'} orbital parameters $a_j,n_j,e_j,\omega_j,T_{pj}$, 

316: we can most naturally interpret the motion of the pulsar as a superposition 

317: of the elliptic motions of its planets around the barycenter of the system. 

318: However, as it was mentioned in the previous section, the analytical 

319: perturbation theory is usually formulated in Jacobi coordinates in which 

320: the TOA variations become

321: %

322: \begin{equation}

323: \Delta t = -\frac{1}{c}  \bR_0\cdot \widehat\bZ, \quad  

324: \bR_0 = -  \sum_{j=1}^N \kappa_j\br_j, \qquad

325: \kappa_j = \frac{m_j}{\mu_j}, \quad

326: \end{equation}

327: %

328: where $\br_j$ are positions of planets. Furthermore, we have the following 

329: relations

330: %

331: \begin{equation}

332: \kappa_ja_j\sin i_j = x_j c, \quad 

333: \frac{Gm_0\mu_j}{\mu_{j-1}} = \frac{Gm_0}{1 - \kappa_j}  

334: = n_j^2 a_j^3. 

335: \end{equation}

336: %

337: Thus from the timing formula for TOA variations of a pulsar with planets

338: it is possible to obtain two somewhat different descriptions of the pulsar

339: motion. Although, they both represent a sum of a certain number of elliptic 

340: motions, the interpretation of some of their parameters is slightly 

341: different. Throughout the rest of this paper, we will use Jacobi coordinates 

342: as they are more convenient in the formulation of the theory of perturbed 

343: motion.

344: %

345: 

346: \section{Osculating orbital elements}

347: %

348: \label{sec:oscul}

349: The non-keplerian motion of the \psr system can be described by 

350: means of the osculating ellipses (i.e. by means of ellipses which

351: parameters change with time). The time evolution of orbital elements

352: can be determined by solving the classical Lagrange's perturbation

353: equations \citep[see, for example][]{Brouwer:61::} with the perturbation

354: Hamiltonian given by equation \mref{eq:h1}. Such approach leads

355: to the solution in the form 

356: %

357: \begin{equation}

358: \label{eq:dx}

359: \cx = \cx^0 + \Delta\cx\left(t-t_0\right),

360: \end{equation}

361: %

362: where $\cx$ stands for a specific orbital element, $\cx^0$ its initial 

363: value and $\Delta\cx$ for its time dependent part of small magnitude 

364: $\Delta\cx(t-t_0)/\cx^0 \ll 1$. In the case of the \psr planetary

365: systems the most significant part of the perturbations comes from

366:  planets $\cB$ and $\cC$. Therefore, we 

367: can assume that the orbital elements of  planet $\cA$ are approximately 

368: constant while the elements of planets $\cB$ and $\cC$ change with time.

369: Thus using the formulae for $\Delta t$ from the previous section 

370: (Eq. \mref{eq:kep::}) and assuming the time evolution of orbital elements in 

371: the form \mref{eq:dx}, the additional TOA variations 

372: $\delta t_j, j = \{\cB,\cC\}$ due to the interactions between 

373: planets $\cB$ and $\cC$ can be expressed as follows

374: %

375: \begin{equation} 

376: \label{eq:small}

377: \begin{array}{l}

378: \displaystyle

379: \frac{c\delta t_j}{\kappa_j\sin i^0_j} = 

380: -\Delta h_j\left(\frac{3}{2}a_j^0 + \frac{1}{2}a_j^0

381: \cos\left(2\lambda^0_j\right)\right) \; +

382: \\[0.3cm] 

383: \displaystyle

384: \hspace{2cm} + \; \frac{1}{2}\Delta k_j a_j^0\sin\left(2\lambda^0_j\right) 

385: \; + \\[0.3cm]

386: \displaystyle

387: \hspace{2cm} + \; \Delta a_j\sin\lambda_j^0 + 

388: \Delta\lambda_ja_j^0\cos\lambda^0_j,

389: \end{array} 

390: \end{equation}

391: %

392: where

393: %

394: \begin{equation}

395: \begin{array}{l}

396: \displaystyle

397: h_j = e_j\sin\omega_j, \quad k_j = e_j\cos\omega_j, \\[0.3cm]

398: \displaystyle

399: \lambda_j = n_j(t - T_{pj}) + \omega_j,

400: \end{array}

401: \end{equation} 

402: %

403: and equation \mref{eq:small} is given to first order in 

404: $\Delta a_j, \Delta\lambda_j, \Delta h_j, \Delta k_j$ and

405: the lowest order in $e_j$ (or $h_j$ and $k_j$, since

406: the eccentricities of planets $\cB$ and $\cC$ are very small).

407: The above equations can be obtained from the following 

408: well-known expansions

409: %

410: \begin{equation}

411: \begin{array}{c}

412: \displaystyle

413: \cos E = -\frac{e}{2} + 2\sum_{k \in {\cal Z}_0}\frac{1}{k}J_{k-1}(ke)\cos(k M),

414: \\[0.3cm]

415: \displaystyle

416: \sin E = \frac{2}{e}\sum_{k \in {\cal Z}_0}\frac{1}{k}J_{k-1}(ke)\sin(k M),

417: \quad M = \lambda - \omega

418: \end{array}

419: \end{equation}

420: %

421: where $J_k(x)$ is a Bessel function of the first kind of order $n$ and

422: argument $x$, ${\cal Z}_0$ denotes the set of all positive and negative integers  

423: excluding zero; and an approximate relation for Bessel functions of 

424: small arguments

425: %

426: \begin{equation}

427: J_{k}(x) \approx \frac{x^k}{2^k k!}, \quad x << 1

428: \end{equation}

429: %

430: 

431: Now, our next step is to find the explicit form of the functions

432: %

433: \begin{equation}

434: \begin{array}{l}

435: \displaystyle

436: a_j(t) = a_j^0 + \Delta a_j(t), \quad \lambda_j(t) = \lambda_j^0 + 

437: \Delta \lambda_j(t), \\[0.3cm]

438: \displaystyle

439: h_j(t) = h_j^0 + \Delta h_j(t), \quad k_j(t) = k_j^0 + \Delta k_j(t).

440: \end{array}

441: \end{equation}

442: %

443: 

444: 

445: \section{Semi-analytical perturbation theory}

446: 

447: \label{sec:semi}

448: Mutual gravitational interactions between planets cause periodic and 

449: secular changes of their orbital elements. In the case of  \psr

450:  periodic variations can be related to conjunctions (`close encounters') 

451: of  planets $\cB$ and $\cC$ with the frequency $n_{ce} = n_\cB - n_\cC$

452: and to the 3:2 near-commensurability with the frequency 

453: $n_{r} = 3n_{\cC}-2n_{\cB}$. The dynamics of this system was

454: studied by \citet{Rasio:92::} and \citet{Malhotra:93a::} \citep[see 

455: also][]{Malhotra:93b::,Rasio:93::,Peale:93::}. \citet{Malhotra:93a::} 

456: solved the Lagrange's perturbation equations

457: for the orbital elements assuming non-resonant system with coplanar orbits. 

458: This first order perturbation theory is valid for $(\sin i)^{-1} \gtrsim 10$ 

459: (orbital inclinations larger than about 6 degrees) which corresponds to mass 

460: ratios $m_j/m_0 \gtrsim 6\times10^{-5}$ (and non-resonant case). When  

461: planets $\cB$ and $\cC$ are locked in the exact resonance it is necessary 

462: to develop a different theory of motion \citep{Malhotra:92::,Rasio:93::}.

463: 

464: It turns out that the first-order perturbation theory for this system

465: developed by \citet{Malhotra:93a::} is not accurate enough for 

466: the purpose

467: of determination of the planets' masses. Therefore, in this paper we present

468: a new approach to this problem which precisely addresses the issue.

469: Namely, first we assume that the orbits of ${\cB}$ and ${\cC}$ are not

470: coplanar however their relative inclination $I$ is small. The geometry

471: of the system can be represented as in Fig. 1 and the perturbative part of

472: Hamiltonian expanded to the first order in $I$ and the product of the

473: mass of planets ${\cB}$ and ${\cC}$, $m_1m_2$, has the following form

474: %

475: \begin{equation}   

476: H_1 = -\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r_2}\left[\left(1 - 2\frac{r_1}{r_2}

477: \cos\psi 

478: + \left(\frac{r_1}{r_2}\right)^2\right)^{-1/2} -\frac{r_1}{r_2}\cos\psi\right],

479: \end{equation}

480: %

481: where

482: %

483: \[

484: \begin{array}{l}

485: \displaystyle

486: \psi = f_1 + \omega_1 - f_2 - \omega_2 - \tau, \quad 

487: \tau = \tau_1 - \tau_2 ,\\[0.5cm]

488: \displaystyle

489: r_j = \frac{a_j\left(1 - e_j^2\right)}

490: {1 + e_j\cos f_j}, \quad j={1,2},

491: \end{array}

492: \]

493: %

494: and $f_j$ is the true anomaly. Note that in the above expansion,

495: $H_1$ does not depend on $I$. The first term in which $I$ appears is 

496: of the second order; precisely it is $\sin^2(I/2)$. Thus as long as

497: $\sin^2(I/2)$ is negligible, the above expansion is valid.

498: 

499: Next, from the classical form of Lagrange's perturbation equations 

500: \citep[see, for example][]{Brouwer:61::} we can obtain the following set 

501: of the first order differential equations for the elements $a_j, e_j, 

502: \omega_j, \lambda_j$

503: %

504: \begin{equation}

505: \label{osc}

506: \begin{array}{c}

507: \displaystyle

508: \dot a_j = \frac{-2}{\mu_jn_ja_j}

509: \frac{\partial H_1}{\partial\sigma_j}, \\[0.7cm]

510: \end{array}

511: \end{equation}

512: \[

513: \begin{array}{c}

514: \displaystyle

515: \dot e_j = \frac{1}{\mu_jn_ja_j^2e_j}\left[

516: -\left(1 - e_j^2\right)\frac{\partial H_1}{\partial\sigma_j}

517: + \sqrt{1 - e_j^2}\frac{\partial H_1}{\partial\omega_j}\right], \\[0.7cm]

518: \displaystyle

519: \dot\omega_j = 

520:  \frac{-\sqrt{1 - e_j^2}}{\mu_jn_ja_j^2e_j}

521: \frac{\partial H_1}{\partial e_j}, \\[0.7cm]

522: \displaystyle

523: \dot\lambda_j = n_j + \frac{2}{\mu_jn_ja_j}\frac{\partial H_1}{\partial a_j}

524: - \frac{e_j\sqrt{1 - e_j^2}}{\mu_jn_ja_j^2\left(1 + \sqrt{1 - e_j^2}\right)}

525: \frac{\partial H_1}{\partial e_j},

526: \end{array}

527: \]

528: %

529: where $n_j$ is the mean motion and $\sigma_j$ is related to time of

530: pericenter through $\sigma_j = -n_j T_{pj}$ so as the Kepler equation

531: reads 

532: %

533: \begin{equation}

534: E_j - e_j\sin E_j = n_jt + \sigma_j = \lambda_j - \omega_j,

535: \end{equation}

536: %

537: and the true anomaly $f_j$ is related to the eccentric anomaly $E_j$

538: through 

539: %

540: \begin{equation}

541: \tan\frac{f_j}{2} = \sqrt{\frac{1 + e_j}{1 - e_j}}\tan\frac{E_j}{2}.

542: \end{equation}

543: %

544: And it should be noted that the elements $\Omega_j, i_j$ remain approximately

545: constant in the case of small relative inclinations. 

546: 

547: In principle, such set of equations could be solved for $a_j, e_j, \omega_j,

548: \lambda_j$. In practice however, it is extremely complicated. On the other 

549: hand, in fact we do not need analytical formulae such as those presented in 

550: \citet{Malhotra:93a::}. Thus the most suitable approach is to solve 

551: this problem numerically. In order to do so we just need the explicit form

552: of the right-hand-side functions of  equations \mref{osc} which can be

553: easily obtained using the perturbing Hamiltonian $H_1$. Subsequently, 

554: the equations can be solved numerically for $a_j, e_j, \omega_j, \lambda_j$. 

555: As we show in section 7, this approach gives very accurate results, much 

556: more accurate than any reasonable analytical treatment. From the form of 

557: equations \mref{osc} it follows that the change of  orbital parameters 

558: $\Delta\cx$ (strictly speaking here $\Delta\cx$ stands for 

559: $\Delta\lambda,\Delta h,\Delta k$ and $\Delta a/a_0$) is proportional to 

560: $m_1/m_0$ and $m_2/m_0$. Precisely, corrections $\Delta\cx_1$ are proportional

561: to $m_2/m_0$ and $\Delta\cx_2$ are proportional to $m_1/m_0$. Let us finally 

562: note that in this model there is one additional parameter $\tau$ which in 

563: general is not known a priori. However, it can be determined through a 

564: least-squares analysis of the data. 

565: 

566: \section{Timing formula}

567: \label{sec:timfor}

568: 

569: We have now all the components necessary to derive a useful timing formula

570: which will describe the motion of the \psr system. First of all, let us note

571: that due to the small mass of planet ${\cal A}$ we will have:

572: %

573: \begin{equation}

574: \begin{array}{c}

575: \displaystyle

576: \kappa_{\cA} = \kappa_1 = \frac{m_{\cA}}{m_0}, \\[0.4cm]

577: \displaystyle

578: \kappa_{\cB} = \kappa_2 = \frac{m_{\cB}}{m_0 + m_{\cA} + m_{\cB}}

579: \approx \frac{m_{\cB}}{m_0 + m_{\cB}}, \\[0.4cm] 

580: \end{array}

581: \end{equation}

582: \[

583: \kappa_{\cC} = \kappa_3 = \frac{m_{\cC}}{m_0 + m_{\cA} + m_{\cB} + m_{\cC}}

584: \approx \frac{m_{\cC}}{m_0 + m_{\cB} + m_{\cC}}. 

585: \]

586: %

587: 

588: The problem of finding masses and inclinations of planets ${\cB}$ and

589: ${\cC}$ can be now formulated as a least-squares problem in which we fit

590: to the data the following function

591: %

592: \begin{equation}

593: \Delta t = \Delta t_{K}(\Psi) + 

594: \delta t_{\cB}(\Psi,\gamma_{\cB},\gamma_{\cC}) + 

595: \delta t_{\cC}(\Psi,\gamma_{\cB},\gamma_{\cC}),

596: \end{equation}

597: where 

598: \begin{equation}

599: \begin{array}{l}

600: \displaystyle

601: \Psi = \left\{x^0_{\cB},n^0_{\cB},e^0_{\cB},\omega^0_{\cB},

602: T^0_{p\cB},x^0_{\cC},n^0_{\cC},e^0_{\cC},\omega^0_{\cC},

603: T^0_{p\cC}\right\}, \\[0.4cm]

604: \displaystyle

605: \gamma_{\cB} = \frac{m_{\cB}}{m_0}, \quad \gamma_{\cC} =

606: \frac{m_{\cC}}{m_0},

607: \end{array}

608: \end{equation}

609: %

610: $\Delta t_{K}(\Psi)$ describes the Keplerian part of the motion given

611: by  equation \mref{eq:kep::} and

612: %

613: \begin{equation}                                      

614: \begin{array}{l}

615: \displaystyle

616: \delta t_{\cB} = x_{\cB}^0\Bigg[-\Delta h_{\cB}\left(\frac{3}{2} 

617: + \frac{1}{2}\cos\left(2\lambda^0_{\cB}\right)\right) \; +

618: \\[0.4cm] 

619: \displaystyle

620: \hspace{2cm} + \; \frac{1}{2}\Delta k_{\cB}\sin

621: \left(2\lambda^0_{\cB}\right) 

622: \; + \\[0.4cm]

623: \displaystyle

624: \hspace{2cm} + \; \frac{\Delta a_{\cB}}{a_{\cB}^0}\sin\lambda_{\cB}^0 + 

625: \Delta\lambda_{\cB}\cos\lambda^0_{\cB}\Bigg],\\[0.5cm]

626: %

627: \displaystyle

628: \delta t_{\cC} = x_{\cC}^0\Bigg[-\Delta h_{\cC}\left(\frac{3}{2} 

629: + \frac{1}{2}\cos\left(2\lambda^0_{\cC}\right)\right) \; +

630: \\[0.4cm] 

631: \displaystyle

632: \hspace{2cm} + \; \frac{1}{2}\Delta k_{\cC}\sin

633: \left(2\lambda^0_{\cC}\right) 

634: \; + \\[0.4cm]

635: \displaystyle

636: \hspace{2cm} + \; \frac{\Delta a_{\cC}}{a^0_{\cC}}

637: \sin\lambda_{\cC}^0 + 

638: \Delta\lambda_{\cC}\cos\lambda^0_{\cC}\Bigg],

639: \end{array}

640: \end{equation}

641: %

642: describe its non-keplerian part. In this model the initial values of 

643: osculating orbital

644: elements replace the Keplerian elements as parameters of the model

645: and we additionally have the parameters, $\gamma_{\cB}$ and 

646: $\gamma_{\cC}$, related to the masses of ${\cB}$ and ${\cC}$. We also

647: need the derivatives of $\Delta t$ with respect to the parameters 

648: $\{\Psi,\gamma_{\cB},\gamma_{\cC}\}$. With sufficient accuracy the

649: derivatives with respect to $\Psi$ can be computed from the Keplerian part

650: $\Delta t_K$ of the model only and the derivatives with respect to $\gamma_{\cB}$ and 

651: $\gamma_{\cC}$ can be easily obtained as $\delta t_{\cB}$ and

652: $\delta t_{\cC}$ are proportional to them

653: %

654: \begin{equation}

655: \frac{\partial\Delta t}{\partial{\gamma_{\cB}}} = 

656: \frac{\delta t_{\cC}}{\gamma_{\cB}}, \quad

657: \frac{\partial\Delta t}{\partial{\gamma_{\cC}}} = 

658: \frac{\delta t_{\cB}}{\gamma_{\cC}}.

659: \end{equation}

660: %

661:  

662: Now, determination of masses of ${\cB}$ and ${\cC}$ and inclinations 

663: $i_{\cB}$ and $i_{\cC}$ can be carried out in the following way. First, we 

664: assume that the mass of the pulsar $m_0$ is canonical (i.e. $1.4$M$_{\odot}$) 

665: and derive $m_{\cB}$, $m_{\cC}$ directly from $\gamma_{\cB}$ and $\gamma_{\cC}$.

666: Subsequently inclinations can be computed from the following equations

667: %

668: \begin{equation}

669: c x^0_j = \kappa_j a^0_j\sin i^0_j,\quad

670: \frac{Gm_0}{1 - \kappa_j} = {n^0_j}^2{a^0_j}^3,

671: \end{equation}

672: %

673: where $j = \{\cB,\cC\}$.

674: 

675: \section{Numerical tests and conclusions}

676: 

677: \label{sec:tests}

678: 

679: We start the tests with the comparison of our approach for computing

680: osculating elements with that of \citet{Malhotra:93a::}. It turns

681: out that the most significant component of the non-keplerian motion comes

682: from the changes of mean longitude $\lambda_j$. Therefore in Fig. 2

683: we present $\Delta\lambda_j$ for the case of coplanar, edge-on orbits.

684: As we can see, the approach developed in this paper is in fact as good

685: as the integration of full equations of motion. For other elements

686: we obtain very similar results. It should be mentioned that because 

687: the model of \citet{Malhotra:93a::} is not accurate  enough in 

688: predicting the secular change of $\Delta\lambda_j$ and because

689: $\Delta\lambda_j$ are proportional to $\gamma_{\cB}$ and $\gamma_{\cC}$, using 

690: such model would result in a significant error in determination of the 

691: planets' masses. Next, we compared the TOA residuals due to the non-keplerian

692: part of the motion calculated from our model with those obtained by means

693: of  numerical integration of full equations of motion. In Fig. 3,

694: as one can see, for small relative inclinations (Fig. 3 (a) and (b)) our 

695: model is very accurate. For larger $I$ (Fig. 3 (c) and (d)) one can 

696: see small differences but this is consistent with the assumptions made 

697: to obtain the model.

698:   

699: Finally, we performed the tests which show how the derived timing model

700: can be used to obtain the masses of planets. To this end we used the 

701: TEMPO software package (see the Internet location 

702: {\tt http://pulsar.princeton.edu/tempo}) modified to include our model

703: of the non-keplerian motion of  \psr. We simulated two different

704: sets of artificial TOAs assuming the parameters of  \psr

705: \citep{Wolszczan:94::}. The first set of TOAs sampled every day 

706: covered a period of 10 years. We also added Gaussian noise with

707: $\sigma = 0.1 \mu s$. The second set was prepared to resemble the real

708: timing observations of PSR B1257+12. Under such conditions we simulated

709: TOAs for the cases described in Fig. 3. Subsequently, we applied

710: the modified TEMPO to obtain the masses of planets $\cB$ and $\cC$. The

711: results are presented in Table 1.

712: 

713: The tests performed on  Set 1 were used to establish a limit on 

714: applicability of our model. As one can see, for the relative inclinations

715: $I$ of about 10 degrees the model becomes inaccurate and the relative error

716: of determination of masses is at the level of 20$\%$. Because the relative

717: inclination weakens the interactions of planets, using the model which

718: assumes a small $I$, results, in such situations, in the determined masses 

719: that are smaller than the real ones. From the tests performed on  Set 2 

720: we also learn that this error is bigger than uncertainty originating in

721: TOA measurement errors. On the other hand, when $I$ is relatively small 

722: we obtain a very accurate determination of  masses thus proving that

723: our model can be successfully applied as long as the assumptions made

724: to derive it are satisfied.

725: 

726: To sum up, our model can be applied in all

727: the cases when the `observational' uncertainties of the planets' masses

728: are bigger than the uncertainties resulting from the assumptions made to

729: derive the timing model. This, in general, depends on  masses of planets

730: and the relative inclination of the orbits $I$ as well as the

731: characteristic of the observations  but one can estimate that

732: in the case of the \psr data $I$ should be smaller than 10 degrees.

733: We should also mention that for non-coplanar orbits the angle

734: $\tau$ will be in general different from zero therefore we have to find

735: it in order to get the proper values of the planets' masses. It can 

736: be done by computing the least-squares value of $\chi^2$ for a range of 

737: $\tau$ and then choosing the $\tau$ that corresponds to the minimum

738: of $\chi^2$. And eventually, one has to remember that the \psr planetary

739: system could be in such configuration that a more significant alteration

740: must be done to our model. First of all, the relative inclination

741: of the orbits could be large. In such  case one would have to use

742: the full form of the perturbative Hamiltonian $H_1$ which would lead

743: to a much more complicated model with four additional parameters $\Omega_{\cB},

744: \Omega_{\cC},i_{\cB},i_{\cC}$ (instead of one $\tau$). Secondly, the 

745: presence of a massive distant planet, if significant for the theory of 

746: motion, would have to be taken into account.

747: 

748: \begin{thebibliography}{}

749: 

750: \bibitem[Brouwer \& Clemence (1961)]{Brouwer:61::} Brouwer, D.  \& 

751: Clemence, G. M. 1961, Methods of Celestial Mechanics,

752: (New York: Academic Press)

753: 

754: \bibitem[Lyne \& Graham-Smith (1998)]{Lyne:98::} Lyne, A. G. \& 

755: Graham-Smith, F. 1998, Pulsar Astronomy, 

756: (New York: Cambridge University Press)

757: 

758: \bibitem[Malhotra \etal (1992)]{Malhotra:92::} Malhotra, 

759: R., Black, D., Eck, A. \& Jackson, A. 1992, \nat, 356, 583 

760: 

761: \bibitem[Malhotra (1993a)]{Malhotra:93a::} Malhotra, R. 1993a, \apj, 407, 

762: 266 

763: 

764: \bibitem[Malhotra (1993b)]{Malhotra:93b::} Malhotra, R. 1993b, ASP Conf. 

765: Ser. 36: Planets Around Pulsars, 89, (San Francisco: ASP) 

766: 

767: \bibitem[Peale (1993)]{Peale:93::} Peale, S. J. 1993, \aj, 105, 1562 

768: 

769: \bibitem[Rasio \etal (1992)]{Rasio:92::} 

770: Rasio, F. A., Nicholson, P. D., Shapiro, S. L. \& Teukolsky, S. A. 1992, 

771: \nat, 355, 325 

772: 

773: \bibitem[Rasio \etal (1993)]{Rasio:93::} 

774: Rasio, F. A., Nicholson, P. D., Shapiro, S. L. \& Teukolsky, S. A. 1993, 

775: ASP Conf. Ser. 36: Planets Around Pulsars, 107, (San Francisco: ASP) 

776: 

777: \bibitem[Wolszczan \& Frail (1992)]{Wolszczan:92::} Wolszczan, A. \&

778: Frail, D. A. 1992, \nat, 355, 145

779: 

780: \bibitem[Wolszczan (1994)]{Wolszczan:94::}

781: Wolszczan, A. 1994, Science, 264, 538

782: 

783: \end{thebibliography}

784: 

785: \clearpage

786: 

787: %

788: % FIGURE CAPTIONS

789: %

790: 

791: \figcaption[fig1.ps]

792: {Geometry of the system. The angles $\omega_1$, $\omega_2$ 

793: are the arguments of pericenter, $\Omega_1$, $\Omega_2$ longitudes 

794: of ascending node and $i_1$, $i_2$ inclinations of the orbit of the 

795: planets ${\cB}$ and ${\cC}$; $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are the angles

796: $n_1On_{12}$ and $n_2On_{12}$ respectively. The angles $I,\tau_1,\tau_2$

797: can be found by solving the spherical triangle $n_1n_{12}n_2$.}

798: 

799: \figcaption[fig2.ps]

800: {Time evolution of the mean longitude 

801: $\Delta\lambda(t) = \lambda(t) - \lambda^0(t)$ for 

802: the planets $\cB$ and $\cC$ in the case of coplanar, edge-on orbits. 

803: The solid line indicates the solution

804: by means of the numerical integration of full equations of motion,

805: the open circles indicate the solution obtained with the approach

806: presented in this paper and the dash-dotted line with the model by

807: \cite{Malhotra:93a::}.}

808: 

809: \figcaption[fig3.ps]

810: {TOA residuals due to the non-keplerian part of motion of the 

811: PSR B1257+12 in four different configurations. The solution

812: obtained by means of the numerical integration of full equations

813: of motion is indicated with the dots and the one obtained using

814: our model with the solid line.}

815: 

816: \clearpage

817: 

818: %

819: % TABLES

820: %

821: 

822: %

823: % TABLE 1

824: %

825: 

826: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrrr}

827: \tablecolumns{11}

828: \tablewidth{0pc}

829: %

830: %\tablewidth{460pt}

831: %\scriptsize

832: \tablecaption{ Assumed and derived parameters of simulations

833: \tablenotemark{a}}

834: %

835: \tablehead{

836: \colhead{} &

837: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Assumed} &

838: \colhead{} &

839: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Set 1} &

840: \colhead{} &

841: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Set 2} \\

842: \cline{2-5} \cline{7-8} \cline{10-11}\\

843: \colhead{} &

844: \colhead{$\tau$} &

845: \colhead{$I$} &

846: \colhead{$m_{\cB}$} &

847: \colhead{$m_{\cC}$} &

848: \colhead{} &

849: \colhead{$m_{\cB}$} &

850: \colhead{$m_{\cC}$} &

851: \colhead{} &

852: \colhead{$m_{\cB}$} &

853: \colhead{$m_{\cC}$} \\

854: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & 

855: \colhead{$[M_{\earth}]$} & \colhead{$[M_{\earth}]$} &

856: \colhead{} &

857: \colhead{$[M_{\earth}]$} & \colhead{$[M_{\earth}]$} &

858: \colhead{} &

859: \colhead{$[M_{\earth}]$} & \colhead{$[M_{\earth}]$} }

860: \startdata

861: (a)\dotfill& $0.\!\!^\circ0$ & $0.\!\!^\circ0$ & 3.41 & 2.83 & 

862: & 3.42(1) & 2.82(1) & &

863: 3.53(51) & 2.63(51) \\

864: (b)\dotfill& $0.\!\!^\circ0$ & $2.\!\!^\circ0$ &4.99 & 4.32 &   

865: & 4.98(1) & 4.26(1) & & 

866: 5.07(51)& 4.06(48) \\

867: (c)\dotfill& $0.\!\!^\circ0$ & $10.\!\!^\circ0$& 4.82 & 4.94 &  

868: & 4.06(3) & 4.11(3) &  &

869: 4.06(51)&3.79(48) \\

870: (d)\dotfill& $9.\!\!^\circ7$ & $10.\!\!^\circ3$ &9.96 & 16.33 &  

871: & 8.42(12) & 13.39(12)& &

872: 8.25(45)&13.16(42) \\

873: \enddata

874: \tablenotetext{a}{Figures in parentheses are $3\sigma$

875: uncertainties in the last digits quoted.}

876: \end{deluxetable}

877: %

878: 

879: \clearpage

880: 

881: %

882: % FIGURES

883: %

884: 

885: %

886: % FIGURE 1

887: %

888: 

889: \begin{figure}

890: \figurenum{1}

891: \epsscale{0.75}

892: \plotone{fig1.ps}

893: \caption{}

894: \end{figure}

895: %

896: 

897: 

898: %

899: % FIGURE 2

900: %

901: 

902: \begin{figure}

903: \figurenum{2}

904: \epsscale{0.9}

905: \plotone{fig2.ps}

906: \caption{}

907: \end{figure}

908: %

909: 

910: 

911: %

912: % FIGURE 3

913: %

914: 

915: \begin{figure}

916: \figurenum{3}

917: \epsscale{0.9}

918: \plotone{fig3.ps}

919: \caption{}

920: \end{figure}

921: %

922: 

923: 

924: \end{document}

925: