1: \documentstyle[aasms4,12pt]{article}
2: \begin{document}
3: \title{ The motion of stars near the Galactic center:
4: A comparison of the black hole and fermion ball scenarios}
5: \author{Faustin Munyaneza and Raoul D. Viollier}
6: \affil{Institute of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics\\
7: Department of Physics, University of Cape Town\\
8: Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa\\
9: fmunyaneza@hotmail.com, viollier@physci.uct.ac.za
10: }
11:
12: \begin{abstract}
13: After a discussion of the properties of degenerate fermion balls, we
14: analyze the orbits of the stars S0-1 and S0-2, which have the smallest
15: projected distances to Sgr A$^{*}$, in the supermassive black hole as well
16: as in the fermion ball scenarios of the Galactic center. It is shown that
17: both scenarios are consistent with the data, as measured during the last six
18: years by Genzel et al. and Ghez et al. The free parameters of the projected
19: orbit of a star are the unknown components of its velocity $v_{z}$
20: and distance $z$ to Sgr A$^{*}$ in 1995.4, with the $z$-axis being in the line
21: of sight. We show, in the case of S0-1 and S0-2, that the $z-v_{z}$ phase-
22: space, which fits the data, is much larger for the fermion ball than for the
23: black hole scenario. Future measurements of the positions or radial velocities
24: of S0-1 and S0-2 could reduce this allowed phase-space and eventually rule out
25: one of the currently acceptable scenarios. This may shed some light into the
26: nature of the supermassive compact dark object, or dark matter in general at
27: the center of our Galaxy.
28: \end{abstract}
29:
30: \keywords{black hole physics-celestial mechanics, stellar dynamics
31: dark matter - elementary particles - Galaxy: center}
32:
33: \section{Introduction}
34: There is strong evidence for the existence of a supermassive compact dark
35: object near the enigmatic radio source Sagittarius A$^{*}$ (Sgr A$^{*}$) which
36: is located
37: at or close to the dynamical center of the Galaxy (Rogers et al. 1994; Genzel et
38: al. 1997; Lo et al. 1998; Ghez et al. 1998). Stars observed in the 2.2 $\mu$m
39: infrared K-band at projected distances $\gtrsim$ 5 mpc from Sgr A$^{*}$, and
40: moving with projected velocities
41: $\lesssim$ 1400 km~s$^{-1}$, indicate that a mass
42: of (2.6 $\pm$ 0.2) $\times$ 10$^{6} M_{\odot}$ must be concentrated within a
43: radius $\sim$ 15 mpc from Sgr A$^{*}$ (Haller et al. 1996; Eckart and Genzel
44: 1996, 1997; Genzel \& Townes 1987; Genzel et al. 1994, 1996, 1999, 2000;
45: Ghez et al. 1998, 2000). VLBA radio
46: interferometry measurements at 7 mm wavelength constrain the size of
47: the radio wave emitting region of Sgr A$^{*}$ to $\lesssim$ 1 AU in E-W
48: direction and $\sim$ 3.6 AU in N-S direction
49: (Rogers et al. 1994, Bower and Backer 1998, Krichbaum et al. 1994, Lo et al.
50: 1998), and the proper motion of Sgr A$^{*}$ relative to the quasar background
51: to
52: $\lesssim$ 20 km~s$^{-1}$
53: (Baker 1996; Reid et al. 1999; Baker and Sramek 1999). As the fast moving
54: stars of the central cluster interact gravitationally with Sgr A$^{*}$, the
55: proper motion of the radio source cannot remain as small as it is now
56: for $\sim$ 200 kyr unless
57: Sgr A$^{*}$ is attached to some mass $\gtrsim$ 10$^{3} M_{\odot}$.
58: In spite of these well-known stringent facts, the enigmatic radio source Sgr
59: A$^{*}$, as well as the supermassive compact dark object that is perhaps
60: associated with it, are still two of the most challenging
61: mysteries of modern astrophysics.
62:
63: It is currently believed that the enigmatic radio source Sgr A$^{*}$ coincides
64: in position with a supermassive black hole (BH) of (2.6 $\pm$ 0.2) $\times$
65: 10$^{6} M_{\odot}$ at the dynamical center of the Galaxy. Although standard
66: thin
67: accretion disk theory fails to explain the peculiar low
68: luminosity $\lesssim$ 10$^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$ of the Galactic center
69: (Goldwurm et al. 1994), many
70: models have been developed that describe the spectrum of Sgr A$^{*}$ fairly
71: well, based on the assumption that it is a BH. The models proposed for the
72: radio emission, range from quasi-spherical inflows (Melia 1994; Narayan and
73: Mahadevan 1995; Narayan et al. 1998; Mahadevan 1998)
74: to a jet-like outflow (Falcke, Mannheim and
75: Biermann 1993; Falcke and Biermann 1996; Falcke and Biermann 1999).
76: Yet, as some of these models appear to contradict each other, not all
77: of them can represent the whole truth.
78: We also
79: note that the Galactic center is a weak source of diffuse emission in the 2-10
80: keV energy range and in the lines of several ions (Sunyaev et al. 1993; Koyama
81: et al. 1996; Sidoli and Mereghetti 1999). Thus, apart from earthbound
82: VLBA radio interferometers, space missions such as the European
83: Multi-Mirror satellite (XMM) and Chandra X-ray satellite,
84: may eventually
85: provide conclusive evidence for the nature of Sgr A$^{*}$ and the supermassive
86: compact dark
87: object at the Galactic center. In fact, the Chandra X-ray satellite
88: has
89: recently detected a point source at the location of Sgr A$^{*}$ (Baganoff et
90: al. 1999) with a luminosity two times smaller than the upper limit set by the
91: ROSAT satellite some years ago (Predehl and Tr\"umper 1994). For more
92: detailed recent reviews on the Galactic center we refer to Morris and Serabyn
93: 1996, Genzel and Eckart 1999, Kormendy and Ho 2000, and Yusef-Zadeh et al.
94: 2000.
95:
96: Supermassive compact dark objects have also been inferred at the centers of many
97: other
98: galaxies, such as M87 (Ford et al. 1994; Harms et al. 1994; Macchetto et al.
99: 1997) and NGC 4258 (Greenhill et al. 1995; Myoshi et al. 1995).
100: For recent reviews we refer to Richstone et al. 1998,
101: Ho and Kormendy 2000, and Kormendy 2000. In fact,
102: perhaps with the exception of dwarf galaxies, all galaxies may harbor such
103: supermassive compact dark objects at their centers. However, only a small
104: fraction of these
105: show strong radio emission similar to that of the enigmatic radio source Sgr
106: A$^{*}$ at the center of our Galaxy. For instance M31 does not have such a
107: strong compact radio source, although the supermassive compact dark object at
108: the center of M31 has
109: a much larger mass ($\sim$ 3 $\times$ 10$^{7} M_{\odot}$) than that of our
110: Galaxy
111: (Dressler and Richstone 1988; Kormendy
112: 1988). It seems, therefore, prudent not to take for granted that the
113: enigmatic radio source Sgr A$^{*}$ and the supermassive compact dark object at
114: the center of our Galaxy are necessarily one and the same
115: object.
116:
117: An unambiguous proof for the existence of a BH requires the observation of
118: stars moving at relativistic velocities near the event horizon. However, in
119: the case of our Galaxy, the stars S0-1 and S0-2, that are presumably closest
120: to the suspected BH, reach
121: projected velocities $\lesssim$ 1400 km~s$^{-1}$.
122: Assuming a radial velocity of $v_{z}$ = 0, this corresponds to the escape
123: velocity at a distance $\gtrsim$ 5 $\times$ 10$^{4}$ Schwarzschild radii
124: from the
125: BH. Thus any dark object,
126: having a mass $\sim$ 2.6 $\times$ 10$^{6} M_{\odot}$ and a
127: radius $\lesssim$ 5 $\times$ 10$^{4}$ Schwarzschild radii,
128: would fit the current
129: data on the proper motion of the stars of the central cluster as well as the
130: BH scenario. One of the reasons why the BH scenario of Sgr A$^{*}$ is so
131: popular, is that the only baryonic alternative to a BH that we can imagine, is
132: a cluster of dark stars (e.g. brown dwarfs, old white dwarfs, neutron stars,
133: etc.), having a total mass of $\sim$ 2.6 $\times$ 10$^{6} M_{\odot}$
134: concentrated within a radius of $\sim$ 15 mpc. However, such a star cluster
135: would disintegrate through gravitational ejection of stars on a
136: time scale $\lesssim$
137: 100 Myr, which is much too short to explain why this object still seems to be
138: around today $\sim$ 10 Gyr after its likely formation together with the
139: Galaxy (Sanders 1992; Haller et al. 1996; Maoz 1995, 1998).
140: Nevertheless, in order to test the validity of the BH hypothesis
141: meaningfully, we definitely need an alternative and consistent finite size
142: model of the supermassive compact dark objects at the galactic centers.
143:
144: \section{ The case for degenerate fermion balls}
145: It is well known that our Galactic halo is dominated by dark matter,
146: the bulk part of which must be nonbaryonic (Alcock 2000). Numerical
147: simulations show that dark matter in the form of a gas of weakly interacting
148: massive particles, will eventually produce a high-density spike at the
149: center of the Galaxy (Navarro et al. 1997; Gondolo \& Silk 1999). It is
150: therefore conceivable that
151: the supermassive compact dark object at the center of our Galaxy is made of
152: the same dark matter that dominates the Galactic halo at large. In fact, some
153: years
154: ago, we suggested that the supermassive compact dark object at the Galactic
155: center may be a gravitationally stable ball of weakly interacting fermions in
156: which the degeneracy pressure balances the gravitational attraction of the
157: massive fermions (Viollier et al. 1992, 1993; Viollier 1994; Tsiklauri \&
158: Viollier 1996; Bili\'{c}, Munyaneza \& Viollier 1999).
159: Such degenerate fermion balls (FBs) could
160: have been formed in the early universe during a first-order gravitational
161: phase transition (Bili\'{c} \& Viollier 1997, 1998, 1999a,b). A further
162: formation mechanism of FBs that is based on gravitational ejection of
163: degenerate matter has recently
164: been discussed in Bili\'{c} et al. 2000.
165:
166: There are three main reasons why it is worthwhile to study such degenerate FBs
167: as an alternative to BHs at the center of the galaxies, in particular our own:
168: \begin{itemize}
169: \item[(i)] Introducing a weakly interacting fermion
170: in the $\sim$ 13 keV/$c^{2}$ to $\sim$ 17 keV/$c^{2}$ mass range, one can
171: explain the full range of the masses and radii of the supermassive compact
172: dark objects, that have been observed so far at the galactic centers, in terms
173: of degenerate FBs
174: with
175: masses ranging from 10$^{6}$ to 10$^{9.5} M_{\odot}$ (Kormendy and Richstone
176: 1995; Richstone et al. 1998). The maximal mass allowed for a FB composed of
177: degenerate fermions of a given mass $m_{f}$ and degeneracy factor $g_{f}$ is
178: the Oppenheimer-Volkoff (OV) limit $M_{OV}$ = 0.54195 $M_{P \ell}^{3}$ $m_{f}^{-
179: 2}$ $g_{f}^{- \frac{1}{2}}$ = 2.7821 $\times$ 10$^{9} M_{\odot}$
180: (15 keV/$m_{f}c^{2}$)$^{2}$(2/$g_{f}$)$^{\frac{1}{2}}$,
181: where $M_{P \ell} = (\hbar c/G)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is the Planck mass (Bili\'{c},
182: Munyaneza \& Viollier 1999). It is tempting to identify the mass of the most
183: massive compact dark object ever observed at a center of a galaxy
184: (Kormendy \& Ho 2000), e.g. that
185: of the center of M87, with the OV-limit, i.e. $M_{OV}$ = (3.2 $\pm$ 0.9)
186: $\times$ 10$^{9} M_{\odot}$ (Macchetto et al. 1997). This requires a fermion
187: mass of 12.4 keV/$c^{2}$ $\lesssim$ $m_{f}$ $\lesssim$ 16.5 keV/$c^{2}$ for
188: $g_{f}$ = 2,
189: or 10.4 keV/$c^{2}$ $\lesssim$ $m_{f}$ $\lesssim$ 13.9 keV/$c^{2}$ for $g_{f}$ =
190: 4.
191: For $M_{OV}$ = 3.2 $\times$ 10$^{9} M_{\odot}$ such a
192: relativistic FB would have a radius of $R_{OV}$ = 4.45 $R_{OV}^{s}$ = 1.36
193: mpc, where $R_{OV}^{s}$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the mass $M_{OV}$.
194: It would thus be virtually indistinguishable from
195: a BH, as the radius of the last stable orbit around a BH is 3 $R_{OV}^{s}$ =
196: 0.92 mpc
197: anyway. The situation is quite different for a nonrelativistic FB of mass
198: $M$ = (2.6 $\pm$ 0.2) $\times$ 10$^{6} M_{\odot}$, which for the upper limit
199: of the allowed fermion mass ranges, $m_{f}$ = 16.5 keV/$c^{2}$ for $g_{f}$ = 2,
200: or $m_{f}$ = 13.9 keV/$c^{2}$ for $g_{f}$ = 4, would have a radius bound by
201: 16.7 mpc $\lesssim$ $R$ $\lesssim$ 17.6 mpc, corresponding to $\sim$ 7 $\times$
202: 10$^{4}$ Schwarzschild radii, as the FB radius scales nonrelativistically like
203: $R \propto m_{f}^{-8/3}$ $g_{f}^{- 2/3}$ $M^{-1/3}$. Such an object is far from
204: being a black hole: its escape velocity from the center is
205: $\sim$ 1,700 km~s$^{-1}$. As the fermions interact only weakly with the
206: baryons,
207: baryonic stars could also move inside a FB without experiencing noticeable
208: friction with the fermions
209: (Tsiklauri and
210: Viollier 1998a,b; Munyaneza, Tsiklauri and Viollier, 1998, 1999).
211: Since the potential within $\sim$ 10 mpc from the center is rather shallow,
212: star formation in this region will be less inhibited
213: by tidal forces than in the BH case.
214: \item[(ii)] A FB with mass $M$ = (2.6 $\pm$ 0.2) $\times$ 10$^{6}
215: M_{\odot}$ and radius $R$ $\lesssim$ 18.4 mpc is consistent with the current
216: data on the proper motion of the stars in the central cluster around Sgr
217: A$^{*}$. This implies lower limits for the fermion masses of $m_{f}$ $\gtrsim$
218: 15.9 keV/$c^{2}$ for
219: $g_{f}$ = 2 and $m_{f}$ $\gtrsim$ 13.4 keV/$c^{2}$ for $g_{f}$ = 4, which partly
220: overlap with the fermion mass ranges derived for M87. By increasing
221: the
222: fermion mass, one can interpolate between the FB and the BH scenarios.
223: However, for fermion masses $m_{f}$ $\gtrsim$ 16.5 keV/$c^{2}$, for
224: $g_{f}$ = 2 and $m_{f} \gtrsim$ 13.9 keV/$c^{2}$ for $g_{f}$ = 4, the
225: interpretation of some of the most massive compact dark objects in terms of
226: degenerate FBs is no longer possible. It is quite remarkable that we can
227: describe the two extreme cases, the supermassive compact dark object at the
228: center of M87 and that of our Galaxy, in terms of self-gravitating degenerate
229: FBs using a single fermion mass. This surprising fact is a consequence of the
230: equation of state of degenerate fermionic matter; this would
231: not be the case for degenerate bosonic matter. Indeed, for a
232: supermassive object consisting of nonrelativistic self-gravitating degenerate
233: bosons, mass and radius would scale, for a constant boson mass, as $R \propto
234: M^{-1}$, rather than $R \propto M^{-1/3}$, as for a supermassive object
235: consisting of nonrelativistic self-gravitating degenerate fermions, for a
236: constant fermion mass. The ratio of the radii of the supermassive objects with
237: 10$^{6.5} M_{\odot}$ and 10$^{9.5} M_{\odot}$ would be 10$^{3}$ in the boson
238: case, instead of 10 as in the fermion case. Thus it would not be possible
239: to fit mass and radius of both the supermassive compact dark object at the
240: center of M87 and that of our Galaxy, in the boson case. We therefore conclude
241: that,
242: if we want to describe all the supermassive compact dark objects in terms of
243: self-gravitating degenerate particles of the same kind and mass, these objects
244: cannot be composed of bosons, they must consist of fermions.
245: \item[(iii)] The FB scenario provides a natural cut-off of the emitted
246: radiation at infrared frequencies $\gtrsim$ 10$^{13}$ GHz, as is
247: actually observed in the spectrum of the Galactic center (Bili\'{c}, Tsiklauri
248: and Viollier 1998; Tsiklauri and Viollier 1999; Munyaneza and Viollier 1999).
249: This is because matter, e.g. in the form of stars, gas, dust or
250: dark matter, etc.
251: falling from infinity at rest towards the FB, cannot
252: acquire velocities larger than the escape velocity from the center of the FB,
253: i.e. $\sim$ 1,700 km~s$^{-1}$. Consequently, there is also a natural cut-off of
254: the high-frequency tail of the radiation emitted by the accreted baryonic
255: matter. This is quite a robust prediction of the FB scenario, because it is
256: virtually independent of the details of the accretion model. In a thin disk
257: accretion model, the radiation at the observed cut-off is emitted at
258: distances $\sim$ 10 mpc from the center of the FB. This is also the region,
259: where the gravitational potential becomes nearly harmonic due to the finite
260: size of the FB. The fermion masses required for a cut-off at the observed
261: frequency $\sim$ 10$^{13}$ GHz
262: depend somewhat on the accretion rate and the inclination angle of the disk assumed,
263: but
264: $m_{f}$ $\lesssim$ 20 keV/$c^{2}$ for
265: $g_{f}$ = 2 or $m_{f}$ $\lesssim$ 17 keV/$c^{2}$ for $g_{f}$ = 4
266: seem to be reasonable conservative upper limits (Tsiklauri and Viollier 1999,
267: Munyaneza and Viollier 1999).
268: \end{itemize}
269: Summarizing the preceding arguments (i) to (iii), we can constrain the
270: allowed fermion masses for the supermassive compact dark objects in our Galaxy
271: to 15.9 keV/$c^{2}$ $\lesssim$ $m_{f}$ $\lesssim$ 16.5 keV/$c^{2}$ for
272: $g_{f}$ = 2 or 13.4 keV/$c^{2}$ $\lesssim$ $m_{f}$ $\lesssim$ 13.9
273: keV/$c^{2}$ for $g_{f}$ = 4, where the lower limits are determined from
274: the proper motion of stars in
275: the central cluster of our Galaxy, while the upper limits arise from the
276: supermassive compact dark object at the center of M87.
277: This fermion mass
278: range is
279: also consistent with the infrared cut-off of the radiation emitted by the
280: accreted baryonic matter at the Galactic center. Of course, one of the major
281: challenges will be to accommodate, within the FB scenario, the properties
282: of Sgr A$^{*}$ which is perhaps peculiar to our galaxy.
283:
284: We now would like to identify a suitable candidate for the postulated weakly
285: interacting
286: fermion. This particle should have been either already observed, or its
287: existence
288: should have been at least predicted
289: in recent elementary particle theories.
290: The required fermion cannot be the gaugino-like neutralino,
291: i.e. a linear combination of the bino, wino and the two higgsinos,
292: as its mass is expected to be in the $\sim$ 30 GeV/$c^{2}$ to
293: $\sim$ 150 GeV/$c^{2}$ range (Roszkowski 2001).
294: It cannot be a standard
295: neutrino either (however, see Giudice et al. 2000),
296: as this would violate the cosmological bound on neutrino mass
297: and, more seriously, it would contradict the Superkamiokande data
298: (Fukuda et al. 2000). However, the
299: required fermion could be the sterile neutrino that has been recently
300: suggested as a cold dark matter candidate in the mass range between $\sim$ 1
301: keV/$c^{2}$ to
302: $\sim$ 10 keV/$c^{2}$ (Shi and Fuller 1999; Chun \& Kim 1999; Tupper et al.
303: 2000), although one would have to stretch the mass range a little bit and
304: worry about the (possibly too rapid) radiative decay into a standard neutrino.
305: This sterile neutrino is resonantly produced with a cold spectrum and near
306: closure density,
307: if the initial lepton asymmetry is $\sim$ 10$^{-3}$.
308: Alternatively, it could be either the gravitino, postulated in supergravity
309: theories with a mass in the $\sim$ 1 keV/$c^{2}$
310: to $\sim$ 100 GeV/$c^{2}$ range (Lyth 1999), or the axino, with a mass
311: in the range between $\sim$ 10 keV/$c^{2}$ and $\sim$ 100 keV/$c^{2}$, as
312: predicted by the
313: supersymmetric extensions of the Peccei-Quinn solution to the strong
314: CP-problem (Goto \& Yamaguchi 1992). In this scenario, the axino mass arises
315: quite naturally as a radiative correction
316: in
317: a model with a no-scale superpotential. In summary, there are at least three
318: promising candidates which have been recently predicted for completely
319: different reasons
320: in elementary particle theories. One of these particles could play the role of
321: the weakly interacting
322: fermion required for the supermassive compact dark objects at the centers of
323: the galaxies and for cold or warm dark matter at large, if its mass is in the
324: range between
325: $\sim$ 13 keV/$c^{2}$ and $\sim$ 17 keV/$c^{2}$ and its contribution to the
326: critical density is $\Omega_{f} \sim$ 0.3.
327:
328: \section{Outline of the paper}
329: The purpose of this paper is to compare the predictions of the BH and FB
330: scenarios of the Galactic center, for the stars with the smallest projected
331: distances to Sgr A$^{*}$, based on the measurements of their positions during
332: the last six years (Ghez et al. 2000). The projected orbits of three stars,
333: S0-1 (S1), S0-2 (S2) and S0-4 (S4), show deviations from uniform motion on a
334: straight line during the last six years, and they thus may contain nontrivial
335: information about the potential.
336: We do not rely on the accelerations
337: determined directly from the data by Ghez et al. 2000, as this was
338: done in the constant acceleration approximation which we think is not
339: reliable. Indeed, the Newtonian predictions for the acceleration vary
340: substantially, both in
341: magnitude and direction, during the six years of observation.
342: In view of this fact, we prefer to work with the raw data directly, trying
343: to fit
344: the projected positions in right ascension (RA) and declination
345: of the stars in the BH and FB scenarios. For our analysis we have selected only
346: two stars,
347: S0-1 and S0-2, because their projected distances from SgrA$^{*}$ in 1995.53,
348: 4.42 mpc and 5.83 mpc, respectively, make it most likely that
349: these could be orbiting within a FB of radius $\sim$ 18 mpc. We thus may
350: in principle distinguish between the BH and FB scenarios for these two stars.
351: The third star, S0-4, that had in 1995.53 a projected distance
352: of 13.15 mpc from Sgr A$^{*}$, and was moving away from Sgr A$^{*}$ at a
353: projected
354: velocity of $\sim$ 990 km~s$^{-1}$, is now definitely
355: outside a FB with a radius $\sim$ 18 mpc. One would thus not be
356: able to distinguish the two scenarios for a large part of the
357: orbit of S0-4.
358:
359: In the following, we perform a detailed analysis of the orbits of the stars S0-1
360: and S0-2, based
361: on the Ghez et al. 1998 and 2000 data, including the error bars of the
362: measurements, and varying the unknown components of the position and velocity
363: vectors of the stars in 1995.4, $z$ and $v_{z}$.
364: For simplicity, we assume throughout this paper that the supermassive compact
365: dark object has a
366: mass of 2.6 $\times$ 10$^{6} M_{\odot}$, and is centered at the position of
367: Sgr A$^{*}$ which is taken to be at a distance of 8 kpc from the sun. In fact,
368: because of the small proper motion $\lesssim$ 20 km~s$^{-1}$ of Sgr A$^{*}$,
369: there are strong dynamical reasons to assume in the BH scenario, that Sgr
370: A$^{*}$ and the supermassive BH are at the same position, while in the FB
371: scenario, Sgr A$^{*}$ and the FB could be off-center by a few mpc without
372: affecting
373: the results. We do not vary the mass of the supermassive compact dark object,
374: as the calculations are not very sensitive to this parameter, as long as the
375: mass
376: is within the range of the error bar inferred from the
377: statistical data on the proper motion of the stars in the central
378: cluster (Ghez et al. 1998).
379:
380: This paper is organized as follows: In section 4, we present the main equations
381: for the description of the supermassive compact dark object as a FB,
382: as well as the formalism for the description of the dynamics of the stars
383: in the gravitational field of a FB
384: or a BH.
385: We then investigate, in section 5,
386: the dynamics of
387: S0-1 and S0-2, based on the Ghez et al. 2000 data,
388: and conclude with a summary and outlook in section 6.
389:
390: \section{The dynamics of the stars near the Galactic center}
391: As the stars near the Galactic center have projected velocities $\lesssim$
392: 1,400 km~s$^{-1}$, one may very well describe their dynamics
393: in terms of Newtonian mechanics for both the BH and the FB scenarios.
394: Similarly, fermions of mass $m_{f} \sim$ 13 keV/$c^{2}$ to $\sim$ 17
395: keV/$c^{2}$,
396: which are condensed
397: in a degenerate FB of (2.6 $\pm$ 0.2) $\times$ 10$^{6} M_{\odot}$, are
398: nonrelativistic,
399: since their local Fermi velocity is certainly smaller than the escape
400: velocity of $\sim$ 1,700 km~s$^{-1}$ from the center of the FB. The
401: fermions will, therefore, obey the
402: equation of hydrostatic equilibrium, the Poisson equation and the
403: nonrelativistic equation of state of degenerate fermionic matter
404: \begin{equation}
405: P_{f} = K n_{f}^{5/3}
406: \end{equation}
407: with
408: \begin{equation}
409: K = \frac{\hbar^{2}}{5 m_{f}} \; \left( \frac{6 \pi^{2}}{g_{f}} \right)^{2/3}
410: \; \; .
411: \end{equation}
412: Here, $P_{f}$ and $n_{f}$, denote the local pressure and particle number density
413: of the fermions, respectively. FBs have been discussed extensively in a number
414: of
415: papers (e.g. Viollier 1994; Bili\'{c}, Munyaneza and Viollier 1999;
416: Tsiklauri and Viollier 1999). Here we merely quote the equations
417: that we need further below, in order to make this paper self-contained.
418: The gravitational potential of a degenerate FB
419: is given by
420: \begin{eqnarray}
421: \Phi (r) =
422: \left\{
423: \begin{array}{l}
424: \displaystyle{\frac{GM_{\odot}}{a} \; \left( v'(x_{0}) - \frac{v(x)}{x}
425: \right) \; \; , \; \; x \leq x_{0} } \\ [.5cm]
426: \displaystyle{- \frac{GM}{ax} \hspace{3.35cm} , \; \; x > x_{0} } \; \; ,\\
427: \end{array} \right.
428: \end{eqnarray}
429: where $a$ is an appropriate unit of length
430: \begin{equation}
431: a \; = \; \left( \frac{3 \pi \hbar^{3}}{4 \sqrt{2}\; m_{f}^{4}\; g_{f}\; G^{3/2}
432: \; M_{\odot}^{1/2}} \right)^{2/3} \; = \; 0.94393\;\mbox{pc} \;
433: \left( \frac{15 \; \mbox{keV}}{m_{f} c^{2}} \right)^{8/3} \; g_{f}^{- 2/3} \;
434: \; ,
435: \end{equation}
436: $r = ax$ is the distance from the center of the FB and $R = ax_{0}$ the
437: radius of the FB.
438: The dimensionless quantity $v(x)$, that is related to the gravitational
439: potential $\Phi (r)$ through eq.(3),
440: obeys the Lan\'{e}-Emden differential
441: equation
442: \begin{equation}
443: \frac{d^{2} v}{d x^{2}} \; = \; - \; \frac{v^{3/2}}{x^{1/2}} \; \; ,
444: \end{equation}
445: with polytropic index $n = 3/2$. For a pure FB without a
446: gravitational point source at the center, the boundary conditions at the
447: center and the surface of the FB are $v(0) = v(x_{0}) = 0$.
448: All the relevant quantities
449: of the FB can be expressed in terms of $v$ and $x$, e.g. the matter
450: density as
451: \begin{equation}
452: \rho \; = \; \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} \; \frac{m_{f}^{4}\; g_{f}}{\pi^{2}
453: \hbar^{3}} \; \left( \frac{GM_{\odot}}{a} \right)^{3/2} \; \left( \frac{v}{x}
454: \right)^{3/2} \; \; ,
455: \end{equation}
456: where $m_{f}$ and $g_{f}$ are the mass and the spin degeneracy factor of
457: the fermions and antifermions, respectively,
458: i.e. $g_{f}$ = 2 for Majorana and $g_{f}$ = 4 for Dirac fermions and
459: antifermions. Based on eqs.(5) and (6), the mass enclosed within a radius $r$
460: in a FB is given by
461: \begin{equation}
462: M(r) \; = \; \int_{0}^{r} \; 4 \pi \; \rho \; r^{2} \; dr \; = \;
463: - \; M_{\odot} \; \left(v'(x) x - v(x) \right) \; \; ,
464: \end{equation}
465: and the total mass of the FB by
466: \begin{equation}
467: M \; = \; M(R) \; = \; - \; M_{\odot} \; v'(x_{0}) \; x_{0} \; \; .
468: \end{equation}
469: From eq.(5), one can derive a scaling relation for the mass and radius of a
470: nonrelativistic FB, i.e.
471: \begin{eqnarray}
472: M R^{3} &=& x_{0}|v'(x_{0})|x_{0}^{3} \; a^{3} \; M_{\odot} \; = \;
473: \frac{91.869 \; \hbar^{6}}{G^{3} m_{f}^{8}} \; \left( \frac{2}{g_{f}}
474: \right)^{2} \nonumber \\
475: &=& 27.836 \; M_{\odot} \; \left( \frac{15 \; \mbox{keV}}{m_{f} c^{2}}
476: \right)^{8}
477: \;
478: \left( \frac{2}{g_{f}} \right)^{2} \; (\mbox{pc})^{3} \; \; .
479: \end{eqnarray}
480: Here $v(x)$ is the solution of eq.(5) with $v(0)$ = 0 and $v'(0)$ = 1,
481: yielding $v(x_{0})$ = 0 again at $x_{0}$ = 3.65375, and $v'(x_{0})$ = --
482: 0.742813. The precise index of the power law of the scaling relationship (9)
483: depends on the
484: polytropic index of the equation of state (1). As the mass of the FB approaches
485: the OV
486: limit, this scaling law is no longer valid, because the degenerate fermion gas
487: has
488: to be described by the correct relativistic equation of state and
489: Einstein's equations for the gravitational field and hydrostatic equilibrium
490: (Bili\'{c}, Munyaneza \& Viollier 1999).
491:
492: We now turn to the description of the dynamics of the stars near the Galactic
493: center. The mass of the BH and FB is taken to be $M$ = 2.6 $\times$ 10$^{6}
494: M_{\odot}$. In order to emphasize the differences between the FB and the BH
495: scenarios, we choose the fermion masses $m_{f}$ = 15.92 keV/$c^{2}$ for
496: $g_{f}$ = 2 or $m_{f}$ = 13.39 keV/$c^{2}$ for $g_{f}$ = 4. These are the
497: minimal fermion masses consistent with the mass distribution inferred from
498: the statistics of proper motions of the stars in the central cluster (Munyaneza,
499: Tsiklauri and Viollier, 1999; Ghez et al. 1998). The dynamics of the stars in
500: the gravitational field of the supermassive compact dark object can be
501: calculated solving Newton's equations of motion
502: \begin{eqnarray}
503: \ddot{\vec{r}} \; = \; - \; \frac{GM(r)}{r^{3}} \; \vec{r} \; \; ,
504: \end{eqnarray}
505: taking into account the position and velocity vectors at e.g. $t_{0}$ =
506: 1995.4 yr, i.e. $\vec{r}(t_{0}) \equiv (x,y,z)$ and $\dot{\vec{r}}(t_{0})
507: \equiv (v_{x}, v_{y}, v_{z})$. For the FB scenario, $M(r)$ is given by eq.(7),
508: while in the
509: BH case it is replaced by $M$ of eq.(8). The $x$-axis is chosen in the direction
510: opposite to the right ascension (RA), the $y$-axis in the direction of the
511: declination, and the $z$-axis points towards the sun. The BH and the center of
512: the FB are assumed to be at the position of Sgr A$^{*}$ which is also the
513: origin of the coordinate system at an assumed distance of 8 kpc from the sun.
514:
515: \section{Analysis of the orbits of S0-1 and S0-2}
516: In 1995.4, the projected positions and velocities of S0-1 reported by
517: Ghez et al. 1998,
518: were $x = - 0.107''$, $y = 0.039''$, $v_{x}$ = (470 $\pm$ 130) km~s$^{-1}$ and
519: $v_{y}$ = (-1330 $\pm$ 140) km~s$^{-1}$. We now investigate how the
520: projected orbits,
521: calculated using eq.(10), are affected by (i) the error bars of $v_{x}$ and
522: $v_{y}$ of S0-1 measured in 1995.4, (ii) the lack of knowledge of $z$ of S0-1
523: in
524: 1995.4, (iii) the lack of information on $v_{z}$ of S0-1 in 1995.4. We then
525: compare the results with the S0-1 data recently reported by Ghez et
526: al. 2000.
527:
528: Fig.1 shows the RA of S0-1 as a function of time, taking into account
529: the error bars of $v_{x}$ and
530: $v_{y}$ and choosing $z = v_{z}$ = 0 in 1995.4.
531: The top panel represents the RA of S0-1 in the BH scenario, while the bottom
532: panel illustrates the same quantities in the FB case. From Fig.1 we conclude
533: that, for $z = v_{z}$ = 0 in 1995.4, the error bars of
534: $v_{x}$ and $v_{y}$ of 1995.4 do not allow for a fit of the new Ghez et al.
535: 2000 data of S0-1 in the
536: BH scenario, whereas the data are described quite easily within the error
537: bars in the FB case. In Fig.2,
538: the declination is plotted as a function of time for the same values of $v_{x}$,
539: $v_{y}$, $z$ and $v_{z}$ in 1995.4. We arrive at the same conclusion
540: as in Fig.1: For $z = v_{z}$ = 0 the error bars of $v_{x}$ and $v_{y}$ allow
541: for a fit of the data in the FB scenario only.
542:
543: As a next step, the sensitivity of the orbits to the $z$-
544: coordinate of S0-1 in 1995.4 is investigated. To this end, we restrict ourselves
545: to bound orbits of S0-1 only.
546: The conserved total energy of the star S0-1 is given by
547: \begin{equation}
548: E \; = \; \frac{1}{2} m \; \dot{\vec{r}}^{2}
549: \; + \; m \Phi (r) \; \; ,
550: \end{equation}
551: where the unknown star mass can be chosen as $m$ = 1 without loss of
552: generality.
553: S0-1 is unlikely to have a total energy $E > 0$, because,
554: in the absence of swing-by events caused by stars of the central cluster, S0-1
555: will have to fall in with a velocity that is inconsistent with the velocity
556: dispersion of the stars at infinity.
557: The condition $E \leq$ 0 thus yields upper limits,
558: $|v_{z}| \leq |v_{z}^{\infty}|$ and $|z| \leq |z_{\infty}|$,
559: which depend on
560: $v_{x}$ and $v_{y}$ as can be seen from Table~1.
561: In this context, it is worthwhile to note that, at a radius equal to the
562: projected distance of S0-1 to Sgr A$^{*}$ in
563: 1995.4, the escape
564: velocity from a BH is $2,250~{\rm km \ s^{-1}}$, while
565: that from a FB is $1,613~{\rm km \ s^{-1}}$.
566: The escape velocity from the center of the FB is 1,672 km s$^{-1}$.
567:
568: %\placetable{zvz}
569: Fig.~3 presents the sensitivity of the RA of S0-1 with respect to the
570: $z$-coordinate
571: in both the BH and FB scenarios.
572: In the case of a BH, the RA depends strongly on the value of $z$ in
573: 1995.4, while the
574: $z$-dependence in the FB scenario is rather weak.
575: In both the top and bottom panels,
576: $v_{x}=340 \ {\rm km \ s^{-1}}$,
577: $v_{y}=-1190 \ {\rm km s^{-1}}$ and $v_{z}=0$ has been assumed while
578: $z$ is varied, all in 1995.4 values.
579: In the BH scenario, none of the other input values for $v_{x}$ and $v_{y}$
580: would
581: fit the new Ghez et al. 2000 data if we restrict ourselves to
582: bound orbits.
583: In the FB case, the input values $v_{x}=340~{\rm km \ s^{-1}}$ and
584: $v_{y}=-1470~{\rm km \ s^{-1}}$ describe the Ghez et al. 2000 data as well as
585: $v_{x}=340~{\rm km \ s^{-1}}$ and
586: $v_{y}=-1190~{\rm km \ s^{-1}}$.
587: Looking at Fig. 3, we thus conclude that the RA data of S0-1 are well
588: fitted with
589: $|z| \approx 0.25''$ in the BH scenario, and
590: with $|z| \lesssim 0.1''$
591: in the FB case.
592: The dependence of the declination on $z$ is shown in Fig.4.
593: In order to describe
594: the Ghez et al. 2000 data for the declination of S0-1, we require
595: $0.25'' \lesssim |z| \lesssim |z_{\infty}| = 0.359''$
596: for the BH scenario, while in the FB case,
597: the declination can be fitted with
598: $|z| \lesssim 0.359''$.
599:
600: Fig.5 represents an investigation of how the RA of S0-1 is affected by $v_{z}$
601: of
602: 1995.4.
603: In this graph we have chosen $v_{x}$ = 340 km~s$^{-1}$,
604: $v_{y}$ = - 1190 km~s$^{-1}$
605: and $z$ = 0 in 1995.4.
606: Increasing
607: $|v_{z}|$ up to
608: its maximal value $|v_{z}^{\infty}|$ = 1879 km~s$^{-1}$ does not help fitting
609: the RA data of S0-1
610: in the BH scenario.
611: In the FB case, the orbits are rather insensitive to
612: $|v_{z}|$. Thus all $|v_{z}| \; \lesssim \;
613: |v_{z}^{\infty}|$ = 1036 km~s$^{-1}$
614: fit the RA data of S0-1 quite well.
615: The weak dependence of the RA on $|v_{z}|$ in the FB scenario is due to the
616: harmonic
617: oscillator like shape of the FB potential at small distances, where the
618: Newtonian
619: equations of motion nearly decouple in Cartesian coordinates.
620: Fig.6 exhibits the declination as a function of time for
621: various values of $|v_{z}|$, keeping $v_{x}$, $v_{y}$ and $z$ in 1995.4
622: as in Fig.5. The top panel of Fig.6 shows that increasing $|v_{z}|$ from zero up
623: to its
624: maximal value $|v_{z}^{\infty}|$ = 1879 km~s$^{-1}$ barely helps fitting
625: the data in the BH scenario.
626: In the FB scenario, the declination may be described by
627: $|v_{z}| \lesssim$ 900 km~s$^{-1}$.
628:
629: Summarizing the results of Figs.3-6, we can plot in Fig.7 the $z-v_{z}$
630: phase-space of 1995.4
631: that fits
632: the data. The small range of acceptable
633: $|z|$ and $|v_{z}|$ values in the BH scenario (solid vertical line)
634: reflects the fact that the
635: orbits of S0-1 depend strongly
636: on these two parameters.
637: Conversely, the weak dependence of the orbits on $|z|$ and $|v_{z}|$
638: in the FB case is the reason for the much larger $z-v_{z}$ phase-space that is
639: fitting the Ghez et al. 2000
640: data of S0-1, as shown by the dashed box. The dashed and solid curves
641: describe the $E$ = 0 (just bound) orbit in the FB and BH scenarios,
642: respectively.
643:
644: Fig.8 shows some typical projected orbits of S0-1
645: in the BH and FB scenarios.
646: The Ghez et al. 2000 data of S0-1 may be fitted in both
647: scenarios with appropriate choices of $v_{x}$, $v_{y}$, $z$ and $v_{z}$
648: in 1995.4. The inclination angles of the orbit's plane
649: $\theta = \arccos \left( L_{z}/|\vec{L}|\right)$, with $\vec{L} = m \vec{r}
650: \times \dot{\vec{r}}$, are shown next to
651: the orbits.
652: The minimal
653: inclination angle that describes the data in the BH
654: case is $\theta = 70\arcdeg$, while in the FB scenario it is $\theta$ =
655: 0$^{o}$.
656: In the BH case, the minimal
657: and maximal distances from Sgr A$^{*}$
658: are $r_{min} = 0.25''$ and $r_{max} = 0.77''$, respectively, for the orbit
659: with $z = 0.25''$ and $v_{z}$ = 0 which has a period of $T \approx $ 161 yr.
660: The orbits with $z = 0.25''$ and $v_{z}$ = 400 km s$^{-1}$
661: or $z = 0.25''$ and $v_{z}$ = 700 km~s$^{-1}$ have periods of $T \approx$ 268 yr
662: or
663: $T \approx$ 3291 yr, respectively.
664: In the FB scenario, the open orbit with $z = 0.1''$ and $v_{z}=0$ has a
665: ``period''
666: of $T \approx$ 77 yr with $r_{min} = 0.13''$ and $r_{max} = 0.56''$.
667: The open orbits with $z = 0.1''$ and $v_{z}$ = 400 km~s$^{-1}$
668: or $z$ = 0.1'' and $v_{z}$ = 900 km~s$^{-1}$ have ``periods'' of
669: $T \approx$ 100 yr or $T \approx$
670: 1436 yr, respectively.
671:
672: Fig.9 is a prediction of $|v_{z}|$ as a function of time
673: for both the BH and FB scenarios and
674: various acceptable input parameters (see Fig.7).
675: This shows that the radial velocity
676: $|v_{z}|$ of S0-1, if measured in a few years time, could serve to distinguish
677: between the BH and the FB scenarios.
678: For the BH case, we predict by the year 2005 a radial velocity $|v_{z}| \;
679: \lesssim$ 900 km~s$^{-1}$, while in
680: the FB scenario the radial velocity
681: will be $|v_{z}| \; \lesssim$ 500 km~s$^{-1}$.
682: Radial velocities $|v_{z}| \; \gtrsim$ 1000 km~s$^{-1}$ before 2010 would
683: be excluded in both the BH and FB scenarios.
684:
685: We now repeat the analysis in the case
686: of the star S0-2.
687: The $x$- and $y$-components of the position and velocity vectors
688: of S0-2
689: at $t_{0}$ = 1995.4 yr are $\vec{r} (t_{0})$ = ($0.007'',0.151''$) and
690: $\dot{\vec{r}} (t_{0})$ = (-290 $\pm$ 110, -500 $\pm$ 50) km~s$^{-1}$,
691: respectively (Ghez et al. 1998).
692: Restricting ourselves to bound orbits,
693: the Ghez et al. 2000 data of S0-2 can be fitted in the
694: BH scenario, with $v_{x}$ = -290 km~s$^{-1}$, $v_{y}$ = -500 km~s$^{-1}$,
695: $|z| \approx 0.25''$ and $|v_{z}| \lesssim$
696: 1280 km~s$^{-1}$ in 1995.4.
697: In the FB scenario, the allowed $z-v_{z}$ phase-space is
698: $|z| \; \lesssim$ 0.1'' and $|v_{z}| \lesssim$
699: 1000 km~s$^{-1}$ for the same values of $v_{x}$ and $v_{y}$ in 1995.4.
700: The range of acceptable values of $|z|$ and $|v_{z}|$ is shown in Fig.10,
701: where the solid and dashed curves denote the limits on
702: $|z|$ and $|v_{z}|$ for $E$ = 0 (just bound) orbits in the BH and FB cases,
703: respectively. Here again the $z-v_{z}$ phase-space turns out to be much
704: larger in the FB (dashed box) than in the BH scenario (vertical solid
705: line).
706:
707: Fig.11 exhibits some typical projected orbits of S0-2
708: corresponding
709: to the acceptable $z-v_{z}$ phase-space of Fig.10 in both the BH and FB
710: scenarios.
711: Next to the orbits the inclination angles of the orbit's plane
712: are shown.
713: In the BH scenario, the lower limit of the inclination angle is $\theta
714: = 74\arcdeg$, for the
715: orbit (1) with $z = 0.25''$ and $v_{z} = 0$.
716: The minimal and maximal distances from the center are
717: $r_{min} =0.045''$ and $r_{max} = 0.307''$, respectively.
718: The period of this closed orbit is minimal with $T \approx$ 34 yr.
719: However, this value disagrees with the minimal period $T \approx$
720: 16 yr quoted by Ghez et al. 2000. The orbit (2) with $z = 0.25''$ and
721: $v_{z}$ = 500 km~s$^{-1}$ or
722: $z$ = 0.25'' and $v_{z}$ =1000 km~s$^{-1}$ have periods $T \approx$ 42 yr or
723: $T \approx$ 135 yr, respectively. In the FB scenario the minimal inclination
724: angle of the orbit's plane is $\theta = 0\arcdeg$. The open orbit (1) with
725: $z = 0.25''$ and $v_{z} = 0$ has minimal and maximal distances from the center
726: of
727: $r_{min} = 0.15''$ and $r_{max} = 0.31''$, respectively,
728: with a ``period'' of $T \approx$ 46 yr.
729: The open orbits with (1) $z = 0.25''$ and $v_{z}$ = 500 km~s$^{-1}$ or
730: (2) $z = 0.25''$ and $v_{z}$ = 1000~km~s$^{-1}$ have ``periods''
731: $T \approx$ 51 yr or
732: $T \approx$ 174 yr, respectively.
733: The minimal ``period''
734: $T \approx$ 37 yr
735: is obtained for an open orbit with $z = v_{z}$ = 0
736: and inclination angle $\theta = 0\arcdeg$.
737:
738: In Fig. 12 the predictions for the radial velocity $|v_{z}|$
739: are plotted as a function
740: of time for various acceptable input values of $z$ and $v_{z}$ in
741: 1995.4.
742: It is seen that a radial velocity of
743: $|v_{z}| \; \gtrsim$ 1000 km~s$^{-1}$
744: is excluded in the FB scenario.
745:
746: \section{Summary and outlook}
747: In this paper, we have shown that the orbits of S0-1
748: and S0-2, observed by Ghez et al. 2000 during the last six years, are consistent
749: with either a BH or a FB of 2.6
750: $\times$ 10$^{6} M_{\odot}$ at the center of the Galaxy.
751: In order to fit the data in the BH scenario, S0-1
752: and S0-2 must have had in 1995.4 a $z$-coordinate of $|z| \approx 0.25''$
753: and radial velocities of $|v_{z}| \; \lesssim$ 750 km~s$^{-1}$ or
754: $|v_{z}| \; \lesssim$ 1280 km~s$^{-1}$ for S0-1 or S0-2, respectively.
755: In the BH scenario, the orbits of S0-1 and S0-2 strongly depend on $z$
756: in 1995.4. The new data of S0-1 and S0-2 can be
757: fitted in the FB scenario with $z = v_{z}$ = 0 in 1995.4. Due to the weak
758: dependence
759: of the orbits on $|z|$ and $|v_{z}|$ in the FB case,
760: $|z| \lesssim 0.1''$ and $|v_{z}| \lesssim$ 900 km s$^{-1}$ for S0-1 or
761: $|z| \lesssim 0.25''$ and
762: $|v_{z}| \; \lesssim$ 1000 km~s$^{-1}$ for S0-2 are
763: also consistent with the Ghez et al. 2000 data. As new
764: measurements become available, the acceptable $z-v_{z}$
765: phase-space of 1995.4 could be further constrained.
766:
767: We have plotted some typical orbits of
768: S0-1 and S0-2 in both the BH and FB scenarios and have shown that the
769: minimal inclination angle of the orbit's plane is $\theta = 70\arcdeg$ as
770: in the BH case and $\theta = 0\arcdeg$
771: in the FB scenario.
772: We have established that by the year 2005, the measurement of the
773: radial velocities $|v_{z}|$ of
774: both S0-1 and S0-2 could discriminate between the two scenarios of the
775: supermassive compact dark object at the Galactic center. In concluding,
776: it is important to note again that, based on the Ghez et al. 2000 data of the
777: stars S0-1 and S0-2,
778: the FB scenario cannot be ruled out. On the
779: contrary, in view of the $z-v_{z}$ phase-space, that is much larger in FB
780: scenario than in the BH case, there is reason to
781: treat the FB scenario of the supermassive compact dark object at the center of
782: our Galaxy with the respect it deserves.
783:
784: We now turn to the discussion of promising techniques for proving or
785: disproving the FB or BH scenarios of the Galactic center. These can be basically
786: divided into two classes:
787: \begin{itemize}
788: \item[(i)] probing the gravitational potential at distances $\lesssim 0.5''$
789: from the Galactic center, and
790: \item[(ii)] observing the decay or the annihilation of the fermions of the FB
791: into visible particles, at distances $\lesssim 0.5''$ from the Galactic
792: center.
793: \end{itemize}
794: %%%%%%% New 2/3/2001 %%%%%%
795: In the first category, the most promising method is still
796: monitoring the proper motions and radial velocities of stars that are
797: located
798: at
799: projected distances $\lesssim 0.5''$ from Sgr A$^{*}$, as well as
800: interpreting these observations in terms of the FB or BH scenarios. However,
801: a further interesting possibility is the observation of gravitationally
802: lensed stars in the line of sight behind
803: the FB (Bili\'{c}, Nikoli\'{c} and
804: Viollier 2000), as a FB of $\sim$ 18 mpc radius is a much more
805: efficient gravitational lens than a BH of the same mass. In fact, a star
806: crossing the line of sight with a minimal distance of $\sim$ 0.2 mpc,
807: $\sim$ 200 pc behind the center of the FB, will
808: produce for a few years up to three distinct moving images within
809: or just outside the Einstein ring
810: radius of $\sim 0.13''$ or $\sim$ 5 mpc. Two of these star images will pop
811: out of nothing at some point inside the Einstein
812: ring, and they will first separate, then approach each
813: other again and finally annihilate each other at a different point
814: within the Einstein ring.
815: The third image moves around the Einstein ring while the projection of the
816: source crosses the ring area.
817: Unfortunately, the rate for such a remarkable
818: event, which would be the smoking gun for an extended supermassive object, is
819: estimated to be only $\sim$ 10$^{-4}$/yr.
820: In the BH case, the manifestations of gravitational lensing are less
821: spectacular with only two observable lensed moving images (Wardle and
822: Yusef-Zadeh 1992).
823: Another possible test of the gravitational potential
824: could be the spectrum of the radiation emitted by the accreted
825: baryonic matter,
826: once the
827: model dependence of the calculations can be controlled.
828:
829: In the second category, the particle content of FBs could be proven e.g. through
830: the
831: radiative decay of the fermion (assumed here to be a sterile neutrino) into a
832: standard neutrino, i.e. $f
833: \rightarrow \nu \gamma$. If the lifetime for this decay is 1.4 $\times$
834: 10$^{18}$ yr, the luminosity of the FB would be 4 $\times$ 10$^{34}$ erg/sec.
835: The signal would be a sharp X-ray line of $\sim$ 8 keV
836: for $g_{f}$ = 2 or $\sim$ 7 keV for $g_{f}$ = 4. The X-ray luminosity would be
837: tracing the fermion matter density. Of course the spatial resolution of the X-
838: ray telescope would have to be $\lesssim 0.5''$. A further possible test could
839: be the annihilation of two fermions into two or three photons, i.e. $f \bar{f}
840: \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ or $f \bar{f} \rightarrow \gamma \gamma \gamma$.
841: However, the branching ratios of these two annihilation processes
842: with respect to a presumably dominant but unobservable
843: $f \bar{f} \rightarrow \nu' \bar{\nu'}$ channel
844: are most probably too
845: small to be observable. Nevertheless, the signal would be a sharp line
846: of $\sim$ 16 keV ($g_{f}$ = 2) of $\sim$ 14 keV ($g_{f}$ = 4) for
847: $f \bar{f} \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$, and a continuous spectrum with a maximum
848: at $\sim$ 10 keV ($g_{f}$ = 2) or $\sim$ 9 keV ($g_{f}$ = 4) for
849: $f \bar{f} \rightarrow \gamma \gamma \gamma$. For s-wave annihilation
850: the X-ray luminosity would
851: trace the square of the fermion matter density, while for p-wave
852: annihilation the concentration of the X-ray emission towards the center of
853: the FB would be even more pronounced.
854:
855: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}
856: This work is supported in part by the Foundation for Fundamental Research (FFR)
857: grant number PHY 99-01241.
858: F.~Munyaneza gratefully acknowledges the financial support from the
859: British Department of Social Security (DSS).
860: We have enjoyed valuable discussions with
861: N. Bili\'{c}, T.
862: Koch, D. Tsiklauri and G.B. Tupper.
863:
864: \begin{thebibliography}{0-99}
865: \bibitem{} Alcock, C. 2000, Science, 287, 74
866: \bibitem{} Backer, D.C. 1996, in Unsolved problems in the Milky Way,
867: eds.L. Blitz and P. Teuben, Proc. of IAU Symp. No. 169
868: (Dordrecht: Kluwer)
869: \bibitem{} Backer, D. C., Sramek, R. A., 1999, ApJ, 524, 805
870: \bibitem{} Baganoff, F., et al. 1999, American Astronomical Society Meeting,
871: 195, 6201
872: \bibitem{} Bili\'c, N., Lindebaum, R. J., Tupper, G. B., Viollier, R. D.2000,
873: astro-ph/0008230
874: \bibitem{} Bili\'c, N., Munyaneza, F., Viollier, R.D. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59,
875: 024003
876: \bibitem{} Bili\'c, N., Nikoli\'c, H., Viollier, R. D. 2000, ApJ, 537, 909
877: \bibitem{} Bili\'c, N., Tsiklauri, D.G., Viollier, R.D. 1998, Prog. Part.
878: Nucl.
879: Phys., 40, 17
880: \bibitem{} Bili\'c, N., Viollier, R.D. 1997, Phys. Lett. B, 408,75
881: \bibitem{} Bili\'c, N., Viollier, R.D. 1998, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.)
882: B, 66,256
883: \bibitem{} Bili\'c, N., Viollier, R.D. 1999a, Gen. Relativ. Grav., 31,
884: 1105
885: \bibitem{} Bili\'c, N., Viollier, R.D. 1999b, Eur. Phys. J. C, 11,
886: 173
887: \bibitem{} Bower, G.C. Backer, D.C. 1998, ApJ, 496, L97
888: \bibitem{} Chun, E. J., Kim, H. B. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 60, 095006
889: \bibitem{} Dressler, A. Richstone, D.O., 1988, ApJ, 324, 701
890: \bibitem{} Eckart, A., Genzel, R. 1996, Nature, 383,415
891: \bibitem{} Eckart, A., Genzel, R. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 576
892: \bibitem{} Falcke, H., Biermann, P. L. 1996, A\&A, 308, 321
893: \bibitem{} Falcke, H., Biermann, P. L. 1999, A\&A, 342, 49
894: \bibitem{} Falcke, H., Mannheim, K., Biermann, P. L. 1993, A\&A, 278, L1
895: \bibitem{} Ford, H.C., et al. 1994, ApJ, 435, L27
896: \bibitem{} Fukuda, S., et al. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 3999
897: \bibitem{} Genzel, R., Eckart, A., Ott, T., Eisenhauer, F. 1997,MNRAS,
898: 291, 219
899: \bibitem{} Genzel, R., Eckart, A. 1999,
900: in Proc. The Central Parsecs of the Galaxy,
901: eds. Falcke, H., Cotera, A., Duschl, W., Melia, F., Rieke, M., ASP Conf.Series, Vol. 186
902: \bibitem{} Genzel, R., Hollenbach, D.J., Townes, C.H. 1994, Rep. Prog. Phys., 57,417
903: \bibitem{} Genzel, R., Pichon, C., Eckart, A., Gerhard, O. E. \& Ott, T. 2000, MNRAS,317, 418
904: \bibitem{} Genzel, R., Thatte, N., Krabbe, A., Kroker, H., \& Tacconi-Garman, L.E. 1996, ApJ, 472, 153
905: \bibitem{} Genzel, R., \& Townes, C.H. 1987, ARA\&A, 25, 377
906: \bibitem{} Ghez, A.M., Klein, B.L., Morris, M., \& Becklin, E.E. 1998, ApJ, 509, 678
907: \bibitem{} Ghez, A. M., Morris, M.,Becklin, E. E., Tanner, A., \& Kremenek, T. 2000, Nature, 407, 351
908: \bibitem{} Giudice, G.F. et al. 2000, hep-ph/0012317.
909: \bibitem{} Goldwurm, A. et al. 1994, Nature, 371, 589
910: \bibitem{} Gondolo, P. \& Silk, J. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1719
911: \bibitem{} Goto, T., \& Yamaguchi, M. 1992, Phys. Lett., B276, 123
912: \bibitem{} Greenhill, L.J., Jiang, D.R., Moran, J.M., Reid, M.J.,Lo, K.Y.,
913: \& Claussen, M.J. 1995, ApJ, 440, 619
914: \bibitem{} Haller, J. W., Rieke, M. J., Rieke, G.H., Tamblyn, P., Close , L.,
915: \& Melia , F. 1996, ApJ, 456, 194
916: \bibitem{} Harms, R. J., et al. 1994, ApJ, 435, L35
917: \bibitem{} Ho, L. C., \& Kormendy, J., 2000, in Encyclopedia of Astronomy
918: and Astrophysics, ed. Institute of Physics Publishing, astro-ph/0003267
919: \bibitem{} Kormendy, J. 1988, ApJ, 325, 128
920: \bibitem{} Kormendy, J. 2000, Nature, 407, 307
921: \bibitem{} Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D. 1995, ARA\&A, 33, 581
922: \bibitem{} Kormendy, J., \& Ho, L.C., 2000, in Encyclopedia of Astronomy
923: and Astrophysics, ed. Institute of Physics Publishing, astro-ph/0003268
924: \bibitem{} Koyama, K., et al., 1996, PASJ, 48, 249
925: \bibitem{} Krichbaum, T.P. et al. 1994, in Compact Extragalactic Radio Sources
926: (Proc. NRAO Workshop, Socorro, New Mexico), ed. J.A. Zensur and
927: K.I. Kellermann (Greenbank: NRAO), 39
928: \bibitem{} Lo, K. Y., Shen, Z.-Q., Zhao, J.H., \& Ho, P. T. 1998, ApJ, 508, L61
929: \bibitem{} Lyth, D.H., hep-ph/9911257
930: \bibitem{} Macchetto, F., et al. 1997, ApJ, 489, 579
931: \bibitem{} Mahadevan, R. 1998, Nature, 394, 651
932: \bibitem{} Maoz, E. 1995, ApJ, 447, L91
933: \bibitem{} Maoz, E. 1998, ApJ, 494, L181
934: \bibitem{} Melia, F. 1994, ApJ, 426, 577
935: \bibitem{} Morris, M., \& Serabyn, E. 1996, ARA\&A, 34, 645
936: \bibitem{} Munyaneza, F., Tsiklauri, D., \& Viollier, R. D. 1998, ApJ, 509,
937: L105
938: \bibitem{} Munyaneza, F., Tsiklauri, D., \& Viollier, R. D. 1999, ApJ, 526,
939: 744
940: \bibitem{} Munyaneza, F. \& Viollier, R.D., astro-ph/9907318
941: \bibitem{} Myoshi, M., Moran, J. M., Hernstein, J., Greenhill, L., Nakai,
942: N.,Diamond, P., Inoue, M. 1995, Nature, 373, 127
943: \bibitem{}Narayan, R., et al. 1998, ApJ, 492, 551
944: \bibitem{}Narayan, R., Yi, I., \& Mahadevan, R. 1995, Nature, 374,623
945: \bibitem{} Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S. \& White, S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493
946: \bibitem{}Predehl, P., \& Tr\"umper, J. 1994, ApJ, 509, 678
947: \bibitem{}Reid, M. J., Readhead, A. C. S., Vermeulen, R. C., Treuhaft, R. N.
948: 1999,ApJ, 524, 816
949: \bibitem{}Richstone, D., et al. 1998, Nature, 394, A14
950: \bibitem{}Rogers, A.E.E., et al. 1994, ApJ, 434, L59
951: \bibitem{} Roszkowski, L. 2001, hep-ph/0102327
952: \bibitem{}Sanders, R. H. 1992, Nature, 359, 131
953: \bibitem{}Shi, X., \& Fuller, G. M. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett., 82, 2823
954: \bibitem{}Sidoli, L., \& Mereghetti, S. 1999, A\&A, 349, L49
955: \bibitem{}Sunyaev, V., et al. 1993, ApJ, 407, 603
956: \bibitem{}Tsiklauri, D., \& Viollier, R.D. 1996, MNRAS, 282,1299
957: \bibitem{}Tsiklauri, D., \& Viollier, R.D. 1998a, ApJ, 500, 591
958: \bibitem{}Tsiklauri, D., \& Viollier, R.D. 1998b, ApJ, 501, 486
959: \bibitem{}Tsiklauri, D., \& Viollier, R.D. 1999, Astropart. Phys., 12, 199
960: \bibitem{} Tupper, G.B., Lindebaum, R.J. \& Viollier, R.D. 2000, Mod. Phys.
961: Lett. A, 15, 1221
962: \bibitem{}Viollier, R.D. 1994, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 32, 51
963: \bibitem{}Viollier, R.D., Leimgruber, F.R., \& Trautmann, D. 1992,Phys. Lett. B,
964: 297, 132
965: \bibitem{}Viollier, R.D., Trautmann, D., \& Tupper, G.B., 1993, Phys. Lett. B,
966: 306, 79
967: \bibitem{} Wardle, M., \& Yusef-Zadeh, F., 1992, ApJ, 387, L65
968: \bibitem{} Yusef-Zadeh, F., Melia, F. \& Wardle, M. 2000, Science, 287, 85
969: \end{thebibliography}
970: \newpage
971: \subsection*{Figure captions:}
972: Fig.1 : The RA of S0-1 as a function of time, taking into account the error bars
973: of the projected velocity in 1995.4 (Ghez et al. 98). The top panel is drawn
974: for the case of a black hole (BH), while the bottom panel corresponds to a
975: fermion ball (FB), both centered at Sgr A*. The labels of the graphs stand for
976: the
977: velocity components: (1) $v_{x}$ = 470 km~s$^{-1}$, $v_{y}$ = -1330
978: km~s$^{-1}$ (median values); (2) $v_{x}$ = 340 km
979: s$^{-1}$, $v_{y}$ = -1190 km~s$^{-1}$; (3) $v_{x}$ = 340 km~s$^{-1}$,
980: $v_{y}$ = -1470 km~s$^{-1}$;
981: (4) $v_{x}$ = 600 km~s$^{-1}$, $v_{y}$ = -1190 km~s$^{-1}$; (5) $v_{x}$ = 600
982: km~s$^{-1}$, $v_{y}$ = -1470 km~s$^{-1}$, all for 1995.4.
983: In this plot, $z$ and $v_{z}$ are taken to be zero in 1995.4.
984: One thus concludes that, within the error bars of the projected velocities of
985: 1995.4, the data points recently reported by Ghez et al. 2000 can be fitted
986: in the FB scenario with $v_{z}=z$ = 0 (lines 2 and 3), while this is not
987: the case in the BH scenario. In this figure, the masses of both the FB
988: and the BH, are $M$ = 2.6 $\times$ 10$^{6}M_{\odot}$. The fermion mass is
989: taken to be $m_{f}c^{2}$ = 15.92
990: keV with a degeneracy factor of $g_{f}$ = 2, or $m_{f}c^{2}$ = 13.39 keV
991: with $g_{f}$~=~4.
992: Fig.2: This is an analysis similar to that of Fig.1 but for the
993: declination of S0-1 as a function of time.
994: Assuming $v_{z}$ = $z$ = 0 in 1995.4, the
995: data points can be represented within the error bars
996: of $v_{x}$
997: and $v_{y}$ in 1995.4 in the FB scenario only.
998: Fig. 3: Here we investigate the dependence of the RA of S0-1 on the
999: $z$-coordinate.
1000: The data can be described with $v_{x}$ = 340
1001: km s$^{-1}$, $v_{y}$ = -1190 km~s$^{-1}$, $v_{z}$ = 0 and
1002: $|z| \approx 0.25''$
1003: in
1004: the BH case. In the FB scenario, the data can be fitted for
1005: the same values of $v_{x}$, $v_{y}$, $v_{z}$ and $|z|
1006: \; \lesssim 0.1'' $. We note that the RA strongly depends on $z$ in the BH
1007: case, while in the FB scenario the dependence on $z$
1008: is rather weak, as the equations of motion nearly decouple for small
1009: $x,y$, and $z$. The limit value $|z_{\infty}| = 0.359''$ corresponds to a just
1010: bound orbit with total energy $E=0$
1011: and $v_{z}$ = 0 (see Table 1).
1012: Fig.4 : The dependence of the declination of S0-1 on $|z|$ for $v_{z}$ = 0,
1013: $v_{x}$ = 340 km~s$^{-1}$ and
1014: $v_{y}$ = -1190 km~s$^{-1}$, all in 1995.4 values. The declination can be
1015: fitted from $|z| \approx 0.25''$ to $|z_{\infty}| = 0.359''$ in the BH case.
1016: In the FB scenario all values $|z| \lesssim 0.359''$
1017: fit the data.
1018: Fig.5: Here we explore how the RA of S0-1 depends on $|v_{z}|$ while
1019: keeping $z=0$, $v_{x}$ = 340 km~s$^{-1}$ and $v_{y}$ = -1190 km~s$^{-1}$,
1020: taken in 1995.4. Increasing $|v_{z}|$ up to its maximal value
1021: $|v_{z}^{\infty}|$ = 1879 km~s$^{-1}$, which corresponds to a
1022: $E$ = 0 (just bound) orbit with $z$ = 0,
1023: does not help fitting the data in the BH scenario. In the FB case,
1024: there is a weak dependence on $v_{z}$, and all the values $|v_{z}| \; \lesssim$
1025: 1879 km~s$^{-1}$ describe the data.
1026: Fig.6: The declination of S0-1 as a function of $|v_{z}|$ for $z=0$, $v_{x}$
1027: = 340 km~s$^{-1}$ and $v_{y}$ = -1190
1028: km s$^{-1}$, all in 1995.4 values. In the BH case, the data can only be
1029: described for very large $|v_z|$, while in the FB scenario the data are fitted
1030: for $|v_{z}| \; \lesssim$ 900 km~s$^{-1}$.
1031: Fig.7: The $z-v_{z}$ phase-space of 1995.4 that fits the S0-1 data
1032: with $v_{x}$ = 340 km~s$^{-1}$ and $v_{y}$ = - 1190 km~s$^{-1}$ in 1995.4.
1033: In the BH case,the data require $|z| \approx 0.25''$ (vertical solid line), as
1034: the orbits
1035: strongly depend on $z$, and $|v_{z}| \; \lesssim$ 750 km~s$^{-1}$.
1036: The large range of acceptable $|z|$ and $|v_{z}|$ values in the FB case,
1037: denoted by the dashed rectangular box, is
1038: due to the fact that the orbits depend weakly on these two parameters.
1039: Values of $|z| \; \lesssim 0.1''$ and $|v_{z}| \; \lesssim$ 900 km~s$^{-1}$
1040: are consistent with the measured positions of S0-1 in the FB scenario.
1041: The solid and dashed curves correspond to the limits of possible values of
1042: $|z|$ and $|v_{z}|$ for $E$ = 0 (just bound) orbits of S0-1 in the BH and FB
1043: cases, respectively.
1044: Fig.8: Examples of typical orbits of S0-1
1045: for $v_{x}$ = 340 km~s$^{-1}$ and $v_{y}$ = - 1190 km~s$^{-1}$ in 1995.4.
1046: The inclination angles of the
1047: plane of the orbit are indicated next to the curves.
1048: In the BH case, the orbit with $z = 0.25''$ and $v_{z}=0$ in 1995.4 has minimal
1049: and maximal
1050: distances from Sgr A* of $r_{min} = 0.25''$ and $r_{max}$ = 0.77'',
1051: respectively, with a period of $T \approx$ 161 yr. The orbits with
1052: $z = 0.25''$ and $v_{z}$ = 400 km~s$^{-1}$ or $z$ = 0.25'' and $v_{z}$ = 700
1053: km~s$^{-1}$ in 1995.4 have
1054: periods of $T \approx$ 268 yr or $T \approx$ 3291 yr, respectively.
1055: In the FB scenario, the open orbit with $z = 0.1''$ and $v_{z}$ = 0 has a
1056: ''period'' of
1057: $T \approx $ 77 yr with $r_{min} = 0.13''$ and $r_{max} = 0.56''$.
1058: The open orbit with $z$ = 0.1'' and $v_{z}$ = 400 km~s$^{-1}$ in 1995.4 has a
1059: ''period'' $T \approx $ 100 yr,
1060: while that with $z$ = 0.1'' and $v_{z}$ = 900 km~s$^{-1}$ has a
1061: ''period'' of $T \approx$ 1436 yr.
1062: We note that the minimal inclination angle of the orbit's plane is
1063: $\theta = 70\arcdeg$
1064: in the BH case and $\theta = 0\arcdeg$ in the FB scenario.
1065: Fig.9: The prediction for $|v_{z}|$ as a function of time for S0-1.
1066: In the BH scenario with $|z| = 0.25''$ and $v_{z}$ = 0 in 1995.4, $|v_{z}|$
1067: should be $\lesssim$ 900
1068: km~s$^{-1}$ by the year 2005. The FB scenario predicts a
1069: $|v_{z}|$ $\lesssim$ 500 km~s$^{-1}$ by the
1070: year 2005, for $v_{z}$ = 0 and $|z|= 0.1''$ in 1995.4. Thus, once the radial
1071: velocities are measured, this figure
1072: could serve to distinguish between the BH and FB scenarios of Sgr A*.
1073: Fig. 10: The $z-v_{z}$ phase-space of 1995.4 that fits the S0-2 data
1074: with $v_{x}$ = - 290 km~s$^{-1}$ and $v_{y}$ = - 500 km~s$^{-1}$ in
1075: 1995.4. The solid and dashed curves denote the limits on $|z|$ and $|v_{z}|$
1076: for $E$ = 0 (just bound) orbits in the BH and FB scenarios, respectively.
1077: In the BH case, the vertical solid line at
1078: $|z| \approx 0.25''$ up the BH curve stands for the region of the allowed
1079: values of $|z|$ and $|v_{z}|$ for S0-2. In the FB scenario, the large
1080: allowed $z-v_{z}$ phase-space
1081: denoted by the dashed rectangular box, is due to the fact that the
1082: open orbits depend rather weakly on these two parameters.
1083: Fig.11: Examples of typical orbits of S0-2 for $v_{x}$ = - 290 km~s$^{-1}$
1084: and
1085: $v_{y}$ = - 500 km~s$^{-1}$ in 1995.4.
1086: The labels of the orbits in both the upper (BH) and lower (FB) panels stand
1087: for: (1) $z = 0.25''$, $v_{z}$ = 0; (2) $z$ = 0.25'', $v_{z}$ = 500 km~s$^{-
1088: 1}$; (3) $z = 0.25''$, $v_{z}$ = 1000 km~s$^{-1}$. The parameters of the label
1089: (0) $z$ = 0, $v_{z}$ = 150 km~s$^{-1}$ fit the S0-2 data in the FB
1090: scenario only.
1091: The inclination angles
1092: of the plane of the orbit are indicated next to the curves.
1093: In the FB case, these values correspond to the maximal possible
1094: $|z|$ and $|v_{z}|$ in 1995.4 for bound orbits. Bearing in mind that
1095: $|z| \; \lesssim 0.25''$ in the FB case, the
1096: inclination angle can take any value from
1097: $\theta = 0\arcdeg$ to $\theta = 82\arcdeg$.
1098: As an example, an orbit with $\theta = 29\arcdeg$
1099: with the label (0) is shown in the lower panel.
1100: However, in the BH scenario, the lower limit for the inclination angle
1101: is $\theta = 74\arcdeg$. The closed orbit with label (1)
1102: has $r_{min} = 0.045''$, $r_{max}= 0.307''$ and a period of
1103: $T \approx$ 34 yr. The closed orbits with labels (2) and (3)
1104: have periods of $T \approx$ 42 yr and $T \approx$ 135 yr, respectively.
1105: The open orbit with label (1) has a ``period'' of $T \approx$ 46 yr with
1106: $r_{min}$ = 0.15'' and $r_{max}$ = 0.31''. The open orbits with labels (2) and
1107: (3) have ``periods'' of $T \approx$ 51 yr and $T \approx$ 174 yr,
1108: respectively.
1109: Fig.12: The prediction for $|v_{z}|$ as a function of time for S0-2.
1110: This could serve to distinguish between the FB and the BH scenarios of
1111: the supermassive dark object at the Galactic center. A radial velocity
1112: $v_{z} \; \gtrsim$ 1000 km~s$^{-1}$
1113: would rule out the FB scenario.
1114: \newpage
1115: \begin{table*}
1116: \begin{center}
1117: \begin{tabular}{|cc|cc|cc|} \hline
1118: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{black hole}&
1119: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{fermion ball}\\
1120: \hline
1121: $v_{x} \ ({\rm km \ s^{-1}})$ & $v_{y} \ ({\rm km \ s^{-1}})$& $|z_{\infty}|$
1122: \ (arcsec) & $|v_{z}^{\infty}| \ ({\rm km \ s^{-1}}$) & $|z_{\infty}|$ \
1123: (arcsec)&
1124: $|v_{z}^{\infty}| \ ({\rm km \ s^{-1}}$)\\
1125: \hline
1126: 470 & -1330& 0.27& 1753 & 0.24& 784 \\
1127: 340 & -1190& 0.359 & 1879& 0.359 & 1036 \\
1128: 340 & -1470& 0.226 & 1669& 0.165 & 572 \\
1129: 600 & -1190& 0.304& 1813& 0.295 & 910 \\
1130: 600 & -1470& 0.1985& 1594& 0.079& 287 \\
1131: \hline
1132: \end{tabular}
1133: \end{center}
1134: \caption{Maximal values of $|z|$ and $|v_{z}|$ in 1995.4 for $E$ = 0 (just
1135: unbound) orbits of S0-1. \label{zvz}}
1136: \end{table*}
1137: \end{document}
1138: