text:
# “All versus Nothing” Inseparability for Two Observers

## Abstract

A recent proof of Bell’s theorem without inequalities \[A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1911 (2001)\] is formulated as a Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger–type proof involving just two observers. On one hand, this new approach allows us to derive an experimentally testable Bell inequality which is violated by quantum mechanics. On the other hand, it leads to a new state-independent proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem and provides a wider perspective on the relations between the major proofs of no-hidden-variables.

Bell’s theorem  refutes local theories based on Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen’s (EPR’s) “elements of reality” . A recently introduced proof without inequalities  presents the same logical structure as that of Hardy’s proof , but exhibits a greater contradiction between EPR local elements of reality and quantum mechanics. Here a simpler version of the proof in  will be introduced. This new version parallels Mermin’s reformulation  of Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger’s (GHZ’s) proof  and, besides being simpler, it emphasizes the fact that  is also an “all versus nothing”  or GHZ-type proof of Bell’s theorem, albeit with only two observers. In addition, this new approach will allow us to derive an inequality between correlation functions which is violated by quantum mechanics. Moreover, this new version will also constitute the basis for a new state-independent proof of the Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem . The whole set of new results provides a wider perspective on the relations between the most relevant proofs of no-hidden-variables.

Consider four qubits labeled 1, 2, 3, 4, prepared in the state

$$|\psi _{1234}=\frac{1}{2}\left(|0011|0110|1001+|1100\right),$$
(1)
which, as can be easily checked, is the product of two singlet states, $`|\psi ^{}_{13}|\psi ^{}_{24}`$.

Let us suppose that qubits 1 and 2 fly apart from qubits 3 and 4, and that an observer, Alice, performs measurements on qubits 1 and 2, while in a spacelike separated region a second observer, Bob, performs measurements on qubits 3 and 4.

By using the following notation: $`z_i=\sigma _{zi}`$, $`x_i=\sigma _{xi}`$, and $`z_ix_j=\sigma _{zi}\sigma _{xj}`$, etc.; and introducing $`()`$ to separate operators or operator products that can be viewed as EPR local elements of reality, it is easy to check that the state $`|\psi `$ satisfies

$`z_1`$ $``$ $`z_3|\psi =|\psi ,`$ (2)
$`z_2`$ $``$ $`z_4|\psi =|\psi ,`$ (3)
$`x_1`$ $``$ $`x_3|\psi =|\psi ,`$ (4)
$`x_2`$ $``$ $`x_4|\psi =|\psi ,`$ (5)
$`z_1z_2`$ $``$ $`z_3z_4|\psi =|\psi ,`$ (6)
$`x_1x_2`$ $``$ $`x_3x_4|\psi =|\psi ,`$ (7)
$`z_1x_2`$ $``$ $`z_3x_4|\psi =|\psi ,`$ (8)
$`x_1z_2`$ $``$ $`x_3z_4|\psi =|\psi ,`$ (9)
$`z_1z_2x_1x_2`$ $``$ $`z_3x_4x_3z_4|\psi =|\psi .`$ (10)
According to EPR, if Alice (Bob) can predict with certainty and without in any way disturbing Bob’s (Alice’s) qubits, the value of a physical quantity of Bob’s (Alice’s) qubits, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity . Eqs. (2)-(10) contain only local (Alice’s or Bob’s) operators and allow Alice to infer EPR local elements of reality for Bob’s observables $`z_3`$, $`z_4`$, $`x_3`$, $`x_4`$, $`z_3x_4`$, and $`x_3z_4`$; they also allow Bob to infer EPR local elements of reality for Alice’s observables $`z_1`$, $`z_2`$, $`x_1`$, $`x_2`$, $`z_1z_2`$, and $`x_1x_2`$. In addition, Eqs. (2)–(10) allow Alice and Bob to predict the following relations between the values of the elements of reality:

$`v(z_1)`$ $`v(z_3)=1,`$ (11)
$`v(z_2)`$ $`v(z_4)=1,`$ (12)
$`v(x_1)`$ $`v(x_3)=1,`$ (13)
$`v(x_2)`$ $`v(x_4)=1,`$ (14)
$`v(z_1z_2)`$ $`v(z_3)v(z_4)=1,`$ (15)
$`v(x_1x_2)`$ $`v(x_3)v(x_4)=1,`$ (16)
$`v(z_1)v(x_2)`$ $`v(z_3x_4)=1,`$ (17)
$`v(x_1)v(z_2)`$ $`v(x_3z_4)=1,`$ (18)
$`v(z_1z_2)v(x_1x_2)`$ $`v(z_3x_4)v(x_3z_4)=1.`$ (19)
However, it is impossible to assign values, either $`1`$ or $`+1`$, that satisfy Eqs. (11)–(19), because when we take the product of Eqs. (11)–(19) each value appears twice in the left-hand side, while the right hand side is $`1`$. We therefore conclude that the predictions of quantum theory for a single copy of the state $`|\psi `$ cannot be reproduced with any local model based on EPR’s criterion of elements of reality.

The GHZ proof of Bell’s theorem provided an “all versus nothing” refutation of EPR elements of reality but required three or more spacelike separated observers. The proof presented here, which is an extension of , is an “all versus nothing” refutation which needs only two observers.

In an ideal situation, the contradiction with EPR elements of reality would appear after many runs of nine different experiments, one for each of Eqs. (2)–(10). These runs would accumulate evidence that the appropriate correlations are strong enough to support elements of reality. By using the results of eight of these experiments, one can make a deduction about the results of the ninth experiment based on elements of reality. According to quantum mechanics, such a deduction would then be contradicted in every single run of this experiment.

However, the same conclusion cannot be inferred directly from the actual data in a nonideal laboratory realization of the experiment because, for example, the efficiency of real detectors does not allow us to observe the strong correlations assumed both in the EPR original argument  and in the gedanken proofs of Bell’s theorem. To circumvent this problem it is common practice to derive inequalities between experimentally observable correlation functions whose validity relies on very general probabilistic locality conditions but which are violated by the corresponding quantum predictions . Next, I will derive a Bell inequality for the state $`|\psi `$ based on the previously introduced gedanken proof. Such a derivation parallels Mermin’s derivation of an inequality for $`n`$ qubits in a GHZ state .

All the relevant features of the gedanken proof follow from the fact that $`|\psi `$ is an eigenstate of the operator

$`O`$ $`=`$ $`z_1z_3z_2z_4x_1x_3x_2x_4`$ (23)
$`+z_1z_2z_3z_4+x_1x_2x_3x_4`$
$`+z_1x_2z_3x_4+x_1z_2x_3z_4`$
$`z_1z_2x_1x_2z_3x_4x_3z_4,`$
with eigenvalue nine.

We are now interested in the case in which the measurements are imperfect and the observed correlation functions $`E_{z_1z_3}`$, $`E_{z_2z_4}`$, …, $`E_{z_1z_2x_1x_2z_3x_4x_3z_4}`$ fail to attain the values assumed in the ideal case (i.e., $`\psi \left|z_1z_3\right|\psi =1`$, $`\psi \left|z_2z_4\right|\psi =1`$, …, $`\psi \left|z_1z_2x_1x_2z_3x_4x_3z_4\right|\psi =1`$). We therefore inquire whether the measured probability distribution functions $`P_{AB}(a,b)`$ (with $`A`$ being the operator that Alice measures on qubits 1 and 2, $`B`$ being the operator that Bob measures on qubits 3 and 4, and each $`a`$, $`b`$ being $`1`$ or $`+1`$) that describe the outcomes of the nine different experiments on the state $`|\psi `$, can all be represented in the form

$$P_{AB}(a,b)=\rho (\lambda )p(a,\lambda )p(b,\lambda ),$$
(24)
where $`\lambda `$ is a set of parameters common to the four qubits, with distribution $`\rho (\lambda )`$, subject only to the requirement that the outcome of an experiment performed by Alice (Bob) for given $`\lambda `$ does not depend on Bob’s (Alice’s) choice of experiment.

If a representation (24) exists, then the mean of a product of one of Alice’s measured operators, $`A`$, and one of Bob’s, $`B`$, will be given by

$$E_{AB}=\rho (\lambda )E_A(\lambda )E_B(\lambda ),$$
(25)
where each $`E`$ in the integrand is of the form

$$E=p(+1,\lambda )p(1,\lambda ).$$
(26)
In particular, the linear combination of correlation functions corresponding to the linear combinations of operators appearing in the definition of $`O`$ \[Eq. (23)\] can be expressed as

$`F={\displaystyle }\rho (\lambda )(`$ $`E_{z_1z_3}E_{z_2z_4}E_{x_1x_3}E_{x_2x_4}`$ (29)
$`+E_{z_1z_2z_3z_4}+E_{x_1x_2x_3x_4}+E_{z_1x_2z_3x_4}`$
$`+E_{x_1z_2x_3z_4}E_{z_1z_2x_1x_2z_3x_4x_3z_4}).`$
According to quantum mechanics, in the state $`|\psi `$, $`F`$ is given by

$$F_{\mathrm{QM}}=\psi \left|O\right|\psi =9.$$
(30)
However, if it can be expressed in the form (29) there is a more restrictive bound on $`F`$. Each of the 12 quantities $`E`$ ($`E_A`$ or $`E_B`$) appearing in (29) is constrained by (26) to lie between $`1`$ and $`+1`$. Since the integrand of (29) is linear in each $`E`$ (keeping the other 11 fixed), it will take its extremal values when the variables $`E`$ take their extremal values. Therefore, as can be easily checked, if $`F`$ can be represented in the form (29) then

$$F7,$$
(31)
which contradicts the corresponding quantum prediction given by (30).

The first eight experiments involved in the inequality consist of local measurements of single spin components or single products of two spin components on qubits prepared in the singlet state, and do not entail any particular difficulty. To experimentally test property (10), or measure the corresponding correlation function in the inequality (i.e., $`E_{z_1z_2x_1x_2z_3x_4x_3z_4}`$), it is not necessary to measure $`z_1z_2`$ and $`x_1x_2`$ on Alice’s qubits, and $`z_3x_4`$ and $`x_3z_4`$ on Bob’s qubits. Each of such measurements is equivalent  to making a complete discrimination between four Bell states in both spacelike separated regions. If the qubits are polarized photons, such complete discrimination requires nonlinear interactions . An experiment of this kind has been recently reported . On the other hand, a setup for performing joint measurements of $`z_1z_2`$ and $`x_1x_2`$ (or $`z_3x_4`$ and $`x_3z_4`$) for path and spin degrees of freedom of a single particle has been proposed in . However, to experimentally test property (10), it would be enough to be able to measure the product of $`z_1z_2`$ by $`x_1x_2`$ on Alice’s qubits and the product of $`z_3x_4`$ by $`x_3z_4`$ on Bob’s qubits. These measurements are, respectively, equivalent to measuring $`y_1y_2`$ and $`y_3y_4`$ (being $`y_i=\sigma _{yi}`$), and could therefore be performed locally by measuring $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ and multiplying their results, and by measuring $`y_3`$ and $`y_4`$ and multiplying their results. As can easily be checked, results $`y_1y_2=\pm 1`$ are respectively equivalent to results $`z_1z_2x_1x_2=1`$, and results $`y_3y_4=\pm 1`$ are respectively equivalent to results $`z_3x_4x_3z_4=\pm 1`$. However, while it is not difficult to perform spin measurements along either $`x`$ or $`z`$ directions on a qubit flying along direction $`y`$, spin measurements along $`y`$ face several problems. A different solution arises from the observation that distinguishing between the results $`+1`$ and $`1`$ when measuring $`z_1z_2x_1x_2`$ is equivalent to distinguishing between, respectively, the pairs of Bell states $`\{|\varphi ^+_{12},|\psi ^{}_{12}\}`$ and $`\{|\varphi ^{}_{12},|\psi ^+_{12}\}`$, where

$`|\varphi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|00\pm |11\right),`$ (32)
$`|\psi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|01\pm |10\right).`$ (33)
Analogously, distinguishing between the results $`+1`$ and $`1`$ when measuring $`z_3x_4x_3z_4`$ is equivalent to distinguishing between, respectively, the pairs of Bell states $`\{|\chi ^+_{34},|\omega ^{}_{34}\}`$ and $`\{|\chi ^{}_{34},|\omega ^+_{34}\}`$, where

$`|\chi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|0\overline{0}\pm |1\overline{1}\right),`$ (34)
$`|\omega ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|1\overline{0}\pm |0\overline{1}\right),`$ (35)
where $`x|\overline{0}=|\overline{0}`$ and $`x|\overline{1}=|\overline{1}`$. Therefore, previous setups involving only linear elements which distinguish two out four Bell states for photons entangled in polarization  could be used to test property (10).

Returning to the gedanken version, the fact that similar proofs of Bell’s theorem can be developed for every common eigenstate of $`z_1z_3`$, $`z_2z_4`$, $`x_1x_3`$, and $`x_2x_4`$, leads us to wonder whether our gedanken proof of Bell’s theorem could be the basis for a state-independent proof of the KS theorem on the impossibility of ascribing noncontextual hidden variables (i.e., those which assign predefined values to the physical observables, assuming that such values do not depend on which other compatible observables are jointly measured) to quantum mechanics . Mermin has derived such proofs of the KS theorem both from a previous state-dependent proof of the KS theorem by Peres  and from his own simplification  of the GHZ proof .

Table I contains a state-independent proof of the KS theorem based on the “all versus nothing” proof of Bell’s theorem for two observers introduced in this paper. The main difference between Mermin’s proof of the KS theorem inspired by Peres’  and the proof in Table I is that, while the former has two rows containing nonlocal operators, in the latter only the first row contains nonlocal operators (i.e., those which cannot be measured by only one observer). This implies that, while the former cannot be transformed into proof of Bell’s theorem, the latter (and the one derived by Mermin from the GHZ proof) can be converted into proof of Bell’s theorem.

In brief, I have shown that the Hardy-like proof presented in Ref.  can be rearranged as a GHZ-like proof with only two observers which, on one hand, allows us to derive an experimentally testable Bell inequality and, on the other hand, leads to a new state-independent proof of the KS theorem. Thus Ref.  and this paper provide a wider perspective on the relations between the major no-hidden-variables theorems (KS’s and Bell’s) and their proofs (KS’s state-independent , Bell’s with inequalities , Hardy’s without inequalities but with probabilities , and GHZ’s without inequalities or probabilities ).

This work was sparked by a question proposed by N. Gisin. I would like to thank J. Calsamiglia, J. L. Cereceda, N. D. Mermin, and A. Peres for useful comments. This work was supported in part by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (Grant No. BFM2000-0529).


format: text

text:
# Stellar Encounters with the 𝛽 Pictoris Planetesimal System

## 1 Introduction

The dynamical mechanisms that dominate the formation and subsequent evolution of planetary systems may be broadly described as either endogenic or exogenic in origin. The formation of giant planets, and their apparent orbital migration (Goldreich & Tremaine, 1980; Malhotra et al., 2000; Marcy et al., 2000) are probably the most significant endogenic source for modifying a planetary system over time. In our solar system, the giant planets have displaced a significant fraction of small bodies from their formation sites to either the Oort cloud or interstellar space. For circumstellar dust disks observed around nearby main sequence stars, unseen giant planets are believed to produce the ubiquitous central depletions in the dust distributions (Roques et al., 1994; Pantin et al., 1997; Greaves et al., 1998; Liou & Zook, 1999; Wyatt et al., 2000).

However, young systems, such as pre-main sequence stars in clusters and the proplyd objects in Orion, experience significant exogenic forces (Larwood, 1997). Close stellar encounters with other cluster members (Laughlin & Adams, 1998) and radiation pressure from nearby massive stars (Henney & O’Dell, 1999) remove disk material and can disrupt the vertical settling of circumstellar dust and gas. During the evolution of our Solar System, the galactic tide and encounters with molecular clouds and passing stars decoupled comets from the planetary region, preserving them in the Oort cloud (Oort, 1950; Fernandez, 1997).

The dust disk around the A5V star $`\beta `$ Pic displays evidence for both types of dynamical mechanism. A planet may be responsible for clearing dust within $``$20 AU radius of the star (Smith & Terrile, 1984; Lagage & Pantin, 1994), perturbing families of comets towards the stellar photosphere (Beust & Morbidelli, 2000), vertically disrupting the disk at 50 AU radius (Burrows et al., 1995; Mouillet et al., 1997; Heap et al., 2000), and creating a few-hour duration, 0.06 magnitude, achromatic drop in $`\beta `$ Pic’s lightcurve (Lecavelier des Etangs et al., 1997). A recent and close stellar flyby perturbation may be responsible for producing the radially and vertically asymmetric disk structure at large radii (Kalas & Jewitt, 1995), as well as substructure in one disk midplane between 500 and 800 AU projected radius (Kalas et al., 2000; Larwood & Kalas, 2001). Since the age of $`\beta `$ Pic is between 8 Myr (Crifo et al., 1997) and 20 Myr (Barrado y Navascues et al., 1999), understanding the dynamics of objects surrounding $`\beta `$ Pic could elucidate conditions and events that determined the early evolution of our Solar System.

Here we will examine possible exogenic perturbations on $`\beta `$ Pic. A key piece of observational evidence needed to confirm the stellar flyby hypothesis is to identify a perturbing star. Given improved trigonometric parallaxes and proper motions from Hipparcos (ESA, 1997), we are motivated to test the stellar flyby hypothesis empirically. Section 2 presents our method for using $`Hipparcos`$ and radial velocity data to trace the galactocentric motions of stars relative to $`\beta `$ Pic. Section 3 identifies stars that have passed within 5 pc of $`\beta `$ during the past 1 Myr. In Section 4 we assess the significance of the stellar encounters for the evolution of a possible Oort cloud around $`\beta `$ Pic. Section 5 demonstrates the plausibility of very close stellar encounters and presents a list of candidate perturbers for future radial velocity observations.

## 2 Search for $`\beta `$ Pic stellar perturbers

We search for candidate $`\beta `$ Pic perturbers using data from the entire Hipparcos catalog and the Barbier-Brossat & Figon (2000) catalog of stellar radial velocities. The Hipparcos catalog gives the positions, proper motions and parallaxes of 118,218 stars from which we compute the galactocentric coordinates. Barbier-Brossat & Figon (2000) provide the mean radial velocities for 36,145 stars, of which 21,497 stars are also contained in the Hipparcos catalog. We combine the radial velocities with the $`Hipparcos`$ proper motion data (Johnson & Soderblom, 1987) to trace the space trajectories of the 21,497 stars during the past 1 Myr.

The observed disk substructure should be short-lived due to orbital phase mixing. The dynamical models of Kalas et al. (2000) and Larwood & Kalas (2001) indicate that the perturbation occurred as recently as 105 yr ago. However, we choose to extend the search 1 Myr into the past to allow for the uncertainties introduced by the assumptions inherent in the models.

Key factors limiting the completeness of the search are the sensitivity constraints imposed by the two catalogs. In general, we expect that a significant fraction of late type stars near $`\beta `$ Pic ($`d`$ = 19.3 pc) is undetected. For spectral types later than G5, Volume 1 of the $`Hipparcos`$ catalog states a completeness limit: $`m_v7.3+1.1|`$sin$`(b)|`$, where $`b`$ is the galactic latitude. For $`\beta `$ Pic, $`b30`$ degrees, giving a completeness limit $`m_v7.85`$ mag. At $`d`$ = 20 pc this translates to $`M_v`$ 6.3 mag, which corresponds to the absolute magnitude of a K2V star (Cox, 1999). At $`d`$ = 30 pc, $`M_v5.5`$ mag, which is the absolute magnitude of a K0V star (Cox, 1999). Thus, the $`Hipparcos`$ catalog includes a significant fraction of the A - G spectral types in a 10 pc radius volume around $`\beta `$ Pic, but will miss K and M dwarfs \[in Kalas et al. (2000) the $`\beta `$ Pic disk perturber has a mass consistent with an M dwarf\].

Estimating the completeness of the Barbier-Brossat & Figon (2000) catalog is considerably more difficult because it is not an all-sky survey, and the radial velocity information derives from different sources. Even though the majority of stars are $`m_v10`$ mag, comparable to the sensitivity limit of the $`Hipparcos`$ catalog, the $`Hipparcos`$ catalog contains more than three times as many stars. The incompleteness of our sample therefore exceeds 50%, and in Section 3 we estimate an incompleteness of $``$80%. Future missions such as $`FAME`$, $`SIM`$ and $`GAIA`$ will have the sensitivity to significantly improve the perturber search if radial velocity catalogs are also expanded.

For $`\beta `$ Pic’s radial velocity we choose the recent measurement given by Grenier et al. (1999) because the published error, $`\sigma _{RV}`$, is smaller than that determined by Barbier-Brossat & Figon (2000). Experimental trials using other published radial velocities for $`\beta `$ Pic (e.g. Lagrange et al. 1995) show negligible differences from the results presented below.

The relatively short timescale considered here permits a first order estimate of the stellar trajectories using a straight line motion approximation. A correction for the two body interaction is only significant for very close ($`10^2`$ pc) and low relative velocity ($`10`$ km s-1) encounters. For each of the 21,497 stars we calculate a trajectory backward in time and determine the closest approach distance, $`D_{ca}`$ (pc), to $`\beta `$ Pic and the time of closest approach, $`t_{ca}`$ (kyr), where $`t_{ca}`$ = 0 is the present. To test the validity of the linear approximation for deriving trajectories we use a fourth order Runge-Kutta scheme to solve the equation of motion in the Galactic potential for six of the 18 stars that approach within 5 pc of $`\beta `$ Pic. We adopt the axisymmetric Milky Way mass distribution model provided by Allen & Santillán (1991). This model111Consisting of a spherical central bulge, a Miyamoto & Nagai (1975) disk, and a massive spherical halo. has proven to be well adapted to the calculations of orbits (de Boer et al., 1997) and has been already applied to the motions of globular clusters and nearby stars (Allen & Santillán, 1993; Schuster & Allen, 1997). In the galactocentric cylindrical coordinates ($`R,\theta ,z`$) the small value of $`z/R`$ in the range of time considered here permits the decoupling of motions in the galactic plane and on the $`z`$ axis. We check our calculations by reproducing the published results on the nearest approaches of stars with the Sun (García-Sánchez et al., 1999; Müllari & Orlov, 1996; Matthews, 1994). The initial coordinates and velocities have been changed from the heliocentric to the galactocentric reference frame using the current IAU values for the LSR ($`\dot{\theta }_{LSR}`$=220 km s-1, RLSR=8.5 kpc). As expected, the agreement between the ($`D_{ca},t_{ca}`$) values derived from the straight line approximation and the ones calculated from the integrated Galactic orbits allows us to restrict our computations to the linear case for the selection of candidates.

The main advantage of adopting the the linear approximation is that we can determine the influence of the errors for the input positions and velocities on the estimate of ($`D_{ca},t_{ca}`$) through a Monte-Carlo draw. We use the standard deviations provided in the Hipparcos catalog and the Barbier-Brossat & Figon (2000) catalog. We assume a Gaussian distributions for the errors, centered on the average value and with dispersion equal to $`\sigma _{rms}`$. We produce 104 random draws that for each star lead to a probability distribution in the closest approach plane ($`D_{ca},t_{ca}`$).

Table 1 lists the stars that approached within 5 pc of $`\beta `$ Pic during the past 1 Myr. For this subset of stars we then use $`SIMBAD`$ to search the literature for recent radial velocity measurements that may not have been included in the Barbier-Brossat & Figon (2000) catalog. Grenier et al. (1999) have measured the radial velocity for HIP 19893 and give a smaller measurement error than that listed by Barbier-Brossat & Figon (2000). We therefore re-calculate the space trajectory and errors using the Grenier et al. (1999) radial velocity, which is given in Table 1. We make the same correction for HIP 17378, which has a more accurate radial velocity measurement from De Medeiros & Mayor (1999). As with $`\beta `$ Pic, trials using different published radial velocity measurements for each star produce negligible changes in the final values of $`D_{ca}`$ and $`t_{ca}`$.

## 3 Candidate perturbers with $`D_{ca}<`$ 5 pc

From the 21,497 stars selected from the Hipparcos catalog and Barbier-Brossat & Figon (2000) catalog, 18 are found to have $`D_{ca}<5`$ pc with respect to $`\beta `$ Pic in -106 yr $`<t_{ca}<`$ 0. Table 1 lists the values of their respective trajectory parameters. Columns 2 and 3 in Table 2 give the maxima and 1$`\sigma `$ uncertainties for the probability density distributions derived from the Monte-Carlo draws for ($`D_{ca},t_{ca}`$). Figure 1 shows the $`D_{ca},t_{ca}`$ values resulting from the Monte Carlo draw for a subset of stars with $`D_{ca}<`$ 3 pc. Figure 2 presents the results in the form of isocontours representing the 68.3%, 95.4%, and 99% confidence levels for finding a star within a given region in the close encounter plane ($`D_{ca},t_{ca}`$). An encounter probability is determined by dividing the contour area below a specified closest approach limit, by the total contour area in the $`D_{ca},t_{ca}`$ plane. The probabilities that each star approached $`<`$1 pc and $`<`$ 0.5 pc with confidence levels of 95.4% and 68.3% are listed in columns 5 and 6 in Table 2.

Three stars - HIP 23693, HIP 27628, and HIP 29958 - have $`D_{ca}`$ 1 pc. However, the greater uncertainties in the observables for HIP 29958 (Table 1) mean that there is only a 10% probability at the 95.4% confidence level that its closest approach was $`<`$1 pc. For HIP 23693 and HIP 27628, the probabilities that $`D_{ca}<`$ 1 pc are $`>`$50%. HIP 93506 and HIP 116250 are notable because 2-3$`\times 10^5`$ yrs before their closest approach with $`\beta `$ Pic (Table 2), they passed $`<`$3 pc from the Sun (García-Sánchez et al., 1999).

The incompleteness of our sample is evident by comparing the number of candidate perturbers found by this experiment to the number expected. If we assume that $`\beta `$ Pic’s heliocentric distance, $`d`$ = 19.3 pc, places it within the Solar neighborhood, then the stellar encounter frequency should be roughly equal to that of the Sun: $`N=12.4`$ Myr-1 for $`D_{ca}`$1 pc (García-Sánchez et al., 1999). Thus, our search produces a factor of $``$5 too few perturbers. Using the $`Hipparcos`$ catalog, García-Sánchez et al. (1999) give their empirical finding that $`N`$ 3.5 D$`{}_{ca}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2.12}`$ Myr-1, and they conclude that their sample is incomplete by at least 50%. For our $`D_{ca}<5`$ pc cut-off, the empirical relation given by García-Sánchez et al. (1999) yields $`N`$ 106 Myr-1, but for $`\beta `$ Pic we find $`N=18`$ Myr-1 (Table 1). Again, the discrepancy indicates that our sample is $``$20% complete. Thus we expect that a volume-limited search realized with future stellar catalogs will reveal at least $``$102 stars approaching $`\beta `$ Pic within 5 pc.

To determine which candidate perturber had the greatest dynamical impact on $`\beta `$ Pic, we factor in the relative stellar masses and velocities. We calculate the velocity impulse $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ due to each stellar passage on both a $`\beta `$ Pic disk particle ($`r`$=103 AU) and on a hypothetical Oort cloud object ($`r`$=105 AU). Under the impulse approximation, the change of velocity $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ of a comet relative to $`\beta `$ Pic due to the influence of a passing star can be approximated as,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v^2=\left(\frac{2𝒢M_{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }V_{ca}D_{ca}}\right)^2\frac{r^2}{r^2+D_{ca}^22rD_{ca}cos\beta }$$
(1)
where $`M_{}`$ is the mass of the passing star, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{ca}`$ is the relative velocity, and $`D_{ca}`$ and $`r`$ are the distances from $`\beta `$ Pic to the passing star and to a comet, respectively. $`\beta `$ denotes the angle between $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐃_{ca}`$ at the time of closest approach (Oort, 1950; Fernandez & Ip, 1991).

From $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ we can also estimate the change in eccentricity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }e`$, using the following result from numerical simulations (Brunini & Fernandez, 1996): $`\mathrm{\Delta }e2\mathrm{\Delta }v/v`$, where the comet’s orbital velocity $`v`$ is $`v^2=𝒢M_{\beta Pic}/r`$. Integrating Eq. 1 over $`\beta `$ we compute the average perturbation of a given close encounter on a shell of comets at distance $`r`$. The resulting $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }e`$ for both the maximum perturbation ($`\beta =0`$) and the average one at $`r=10^5`$ AU are compiled in Table 3, together with the 1 $`\sigma `$ uncertainties deduced from our Monte-Carlo draws, and plotted in Figures 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4b. For $`r=10^3`$ AU, the values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }e`$ are smaller by a factor determined from Eqn. 1. For example, with the HIP 23693 encounter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{max}`$ is a factor of $`4.4\times 10^4`$ smaller, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }e_{max}`$ is $`4.4\times 10^5`$ smaller.

Among the initial best candidates, HIP 27628 (#8) produces the greatest $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{max}`$ on particles located between itself and $`\beta `$ Pic ($`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{max}`$ 0.7 m s-1) at the time of closest approach (Table 3). However, its effect on the whole cloud is diminished due to its small mass and large relative velocity with respect to $`\beta `$ Pic. Similarly, HIP 29958 (#10), with $`M_{}0.5M_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{ca}=`$102.1 km s-1, does not induce on average any notably large perturbation over the orbiting comets, even at $`r=10^5`$ AU. HIP 23693 (#6) remains then as the most significant perturber as it combines the smallest $`D_{ca}`$ in our sample, a rather small relative velocity to $`\beta `$ Pic (22$`\pm 3`$ km s-1) and a large mass ($`1.4M_{}`$).

## 4 Dynamical influence on the evolution of a $`\beta `$ Pic Oort cloud

The candidate stellar perturbers detected by our search cannot account for the $``$0.005 pc close encounter simulated by Kalas et al. (2000) to explain the observed dust disk morphology. However, the values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }e`$ at $`r=10^5`$ AU may be large enough to impact the dynamical evolution of objects located beyond the detected dust disk, in a $`\beta `$ Pic analog to the Solar Oort cloud. For a circular orbit at $`r=10^5`$ AU, the escape velocity for a $`\beta `$ Pic comet, 176 m s-1, is significantly greater than the orbital velocity, 124 m s-1. Thus, only the cumulative effect of perturbers will dynamically modify a $`\beta `$ Pic Oort cloud. On the other hand, the values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }e`$ are large enough that objects already on eccentric orbits, $`e>0.99`$, could be stripped from the system after a single stellar perturbation. Moreover, objects with $`r>10^5`$ AU will experience a stronger perturbation that could lead to ejection. Below we determine how the $`D_{ca}`$ values for the candidate perturbers compare to the radius of a $`\beta `$ Pic Oort cloud, and then discuss the possible evolutionary effects of the perturbations.

The maximum size of a planetesimal cloud gravitationally bound to $`\beta `$ Pic is defined by the Roche surface of the star, $`a_t`$, set by the galactic tidal field (Tremaine, 1993):

$$a_t=1.7\times 10^5AU\left(\frac{M_{}}{M_{}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{\rho }{0.15M_{}pc^3}\right)^{1/3}$$
(2)
Holmberg & Flynn (2000) give the variance-weighted average from seven different studies for the galactic mass density, $`\rho `$ = 0.11 $`M_{}pc^3`$. If $`M_{\beta Pic}`$ = 1.75 $`M_{}`$ (Crifo et al., 1997), then $`a_t=2.2\times 10^5`$ AU, or $``$1.1 pc. Thus, at least three of the candidate perturbers (Table 2) penetrate $`\beta `$ Pic’s Roche radius.

Other perturbers, though outside the Roche radius, pass close enough to temporarily exceed the gravitational influence of the galactic tidal field. The distance from $`\beta `$ Pic where the gravitational forces of $`\beta `$ Pic and the perturber on an Oort cloud comet are equal is given by (Müllari & Orlov, 1996):

$$R_{eq}=D_{ca}[1(1+\sqrt{M_{\beta Pic}/M_{}})^1]$$
(3)
The last column of Table 3 gives $`R_{eq}`$ for each of the candidate perturbers. In addition to the three perturbers that physically enter the Roche radius, HIP 25544 has $`R_{eq}<a_t`$. Thus a total of four stars out of the 18 in Tables 1 and 2 penetrate a possible Oort cloud around $`\beta `$ Pic.

In general, stars passing near an Oort cloud will either destroy a fraction of the cloud by sending comets into interstellar space or closer to the central star, or help build the cloud by increasing the periastron distances and hence the dynamical lifetimes of comets in the presence of planets. Stellar passages within an Oort cloud may induce comet showers which may briefly increase dust replenishment near the star (Weissman, 1996). To determine which outcome results from the stellar perturbations identified here, we must first consider if the existence of a $`\beta `$ Pic Oort cloud is plausible, and if so estimate its evolutionary state.

The four basic conditions for creating an Oort cloud around a star are (e.g. Fernandez 1997): 1) the formation of planetesimals in a region influenced by planets, 2) the existence of a massive planet to dynamically pump the semi-major axes of planetesimals from their formation site to large distances, 3) exogenic perturbations that decouple the planetesimals from the planets by increasing the planetesimals’ periastra, and 4) sufficient time (stellar age $`>`$ relevant timescales).

For the first condition, the existence of meter to kilometer sized planetesimals around $`\beta `$ Pic is inferred from: a) the short lifetime of dust particles relative to $`\beta `$ Pic’s stellar age that implies a source of replenishment, probably from the collisional erosion of larger, unseen parent bodies (Backman & Paresce, 1993), and b) variable, transient absorption features modeled as the rapid sublimation of comet-like bodies near the photosphere (Beust & Morbidelli, 2000). For the second condition, indirect evidence for a massive planet at $``$1-10 AU radius is summarized in Section 1. The third condition, exogenic perturbations, are expected from passing stars, molecular clouds, and the galactic tidal field.

For the fourth condition, we compare $`\beta `$ Pic’s age, $`t_{\beta Pic}`$, to the timescales required to produce an Oort cloud, as quantified by Tremaine (1993). Two of the most important timescales are the diffusion timescale, $`t_d`$, and the freezing timescale, $`t_f`$. The diffusion timescale is the time for comet apastra to diffuse out to the Roche radius of a star at constant periastra (i.e. the time for a comet’s energy to reach the escape energy from repeated interactions with a planet during periastron). The freezing timescale is the time for the galactic tide to increase comet periastra beyond the planet region, thereby freezing any further increase in the apastra. For a mature Oort cloud (i.e. well-populated and dynamically long-lived) around $`\beta `$ Pic we require $`t_ft_d<t_{\beta Pic}`$.

If $`t_f>t_d`$, then comet apastra will grow too quickly and achieve escape energy with one final encounter with a planet. The timescales are therefore sensitive to planet mass, $`M_p`$, and semi-major axis, $`a_p`$. If $`t_{\beta Pic}<t_d`$, then the system may be in the process of forming an Oort cloud, but the comets are probably still coupled to the planetary region.

To satisfy $`t_d<t_{}`$, Tremaine (1993) gives the following expression:

$$\frac{M_p}{M_{}}\left(\frac{M_{}}{M_{}}\right)^{3/4}\left(\frac{t_{}}{10^9yr}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{a_p}{1AU}\right)^{3/4}$$
(4)
For $`t_ft_d`$, the following relation must be satisfied:

$$\frac{M_p}{M_{}}1.7\left(\frac{M_{}}{M_{}}\right)^{5/7}\left(\frac{\rho }{0.15M_{}pc^3}\right)^{2/7}\left(\frac{a_p}{1AU}\right)^{6/7}$$
(5)
The age-independent constraint given by Eqn. 5 is significant because it generally implies that no dynamically stable Oort cloud will form if $`M_pM_{Saturn}`$, even for a wide range of stellar masses. For example the Saturn-mass extrasolar planet candidates around HD 16141 and HD 46375 (Marcy, Butler & Vogt, 2000) will not produce an extrasolar Oort cloud.

In Figure 5 we plot the regions that satisfy $`t_ft_d<t_{\beta Pic}`$ for a range of $`M_p`$ and $`a_p`$, given $`M_{\beta Pic}/M_{}=1.75`$, $`\rho `$ = 0.11 $`M_{}pc^3`$ and $`t_{\beta Pic}`$ = $`10^7`$, $`10^8`$ and $`10^9`$ yr. For $`\beta `$ Pic’s estimated age $``$107 yr, there is no combination of $`M_p`$ and $`a_p`$ that is capable of producing an Oort cloud by the present epoch that is stable from ejection. In fact, a stable Oort cloud is possible only towards the end of $`\beta `$ Pic’s lifetime, $``$109 yr. If we assume a combination of $`M_p`$ and $`a_p`$ that will eventually result in a $`\beta `$ Pic Oort cloud (e.g. $`M_p`$ = 10 M, $`a_p=5`$ AU), then at the present epoch comet apastra are only a few percent of their final values at $``$105 AU. The dust disk is detected in scattered light as far as $`2\times 10^3`$ AU (Larwood & Kalas, 2001), or $``$1$`\%`$ of the Roche radius. Depending on how future observations refine our knowledge of a planetary system around $`\beta `$ Pic, the observed dust disk may trace the early evolution of an extrasolar Oort cloud.

In summary, objects orbiting $`\beta `$ Pic near $`10^5`$ AU radius might still be coupled to $`\beta `$ Pic’s planetary region. The galactic tidal field is insufficient to decouple these objects from the planetary region before they attain escape energy. The stellar perturbations identified in our search neither eject a significant number of comets into interstellar space, nor do they cause comet showers near the star. The evolutionary role of these stellar perturbations is to build $`\beta `$ Pic’s Oort cloud by decoupling comet periastra from the planetary region.

## 5 Candidate perturbers for future radial velocity study

The most significant constraint on the completeness of this search is the lack of radial velocity information for nearly 100,000 stars in the $`Hipparcos`$ catalog. The completion of an all-sky radial velocity survey, such as one proposed for the $`GAIA`$ mission, has the potential to dramatically increase our knowledge of galactic space motions.

However, given only the position, distance and proper motion data from the $`Hipparcos`$ catalog, it is possible to exclude the stars that would not approach $`\beta `$ Pic for any physically meaningful value of radial velocity, and identify a sample of stars that could plausibly encounter $`\beta `$ Pic. We adopt an iterative approach, first assuming -120 km s$`{}_{}{}^{1}<R_V<`$ 120 km s-1, $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_V`$=10 km s-1, to calculate $`D_{ca}`$ and $`t_{ca}`$ during the past 2 Myr. We select the stars with $`D_{ca}<`$ 5 pc, and repeat the procedure using $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_V`$= 1 km s-1, and finally $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_V`$= 0.1 km s-1 for the stars with $`D_{ca}<`$ 1 pc. We fix the initial positions, distances, and proper motions to the mean values given by the $`Hipparcos`$ catalog, rather than utilize the Monte Carlo method discussed in Section 2.

The results are displayed in Tables 4 and 5. Tables 4 gives the maximum number of perturbers that can be “produced” by adjusting the radial velocity in order to get the closest possible approach to $`\beta `$ Pic. A maximum of 93 stars approach $`\beta `$ Pic with $`D_{ca}<`$ 1 pc and $`t_{ca}>`$ -1 Myr. As expected, very close and very recent crossing events are rare, and the more the time and distance constraints are relaxed, the more events are produced. The values given in Tables 4 are upper limits to the number of encounters experienced by $`\beta `$ Pic, exceeding the expected rate of $`<`$1 pc encounters per Myr by a factor of 7.5 (Section 3).

Table 5 gives the 22 perturber candidates with $`D_{ca}<0.5`$ pc during the past 1 Myr. The columns designate the: (1) name of the star, (2) distance of the closest possible approach, (3) corresponding time, (4) radial velocity that produces $`D_{ca}`$, (5) interval of radial velocities such that the distance of closest approach remains below 0.5 pc, and (6) relative velocity at the closest possible approach. Six candidate perturbers (marked with an asterisk) have $`D_{ca}<`$ 0.1 pc and are capable of perturbing the observed dust disk. Table 5 both gives a specific list of objects that require follow-up observations to determine their true radial velocities, and demonstrates the plausibility of very close stellar encounters with $`\beta `$ Pic.

## 6 Summary

We have tested the hypothesis that $`\beta `$ Pic experienced a close stellar flyby by tracing the space motions of 21,497 stars 1 Myr into the past. We used the $`Hipparcos`$ catalog for position, proper motion and parallax data, and the Barbier-Brossat & Figon (2000) catalog for radial velocity data. The completeness of our sample is $``$20% and is most sensitive to B-G spectral types. Our findings are:

1) In the past 1 Myr, 18 stars in our sample have had a closest approach to $`\beta `$ Pic $`D_{ca}<`$ 5 pc.

2) Two stars, HIP 23693 and HIP 27628, have $`>`$50% probability that $`D_{ca}<`$ 1 pc. The probability that $`D_{ca}<`$ 0.01 pc is negligible, meaning that these encounters cannot account for the large-scale $`\beta `$ Pic disk asymmetries modeled by Kalas et al. (2000) and Larwood & Kalas (2001).

3) The most significant dynamical perturbation on the $`\beta `$ Pic system is due to the HIP 23693 encounter $``$356 kyr in the past. Averaged over a hypothetical $`\beta `$ Pic Oort cloud 0.5 pc in radius, the encounter induced a mean velocity change $``$ 0.3 m s-1, and eccentricity change $``$0.005.

4) The Roche radius of $`\beta `$ Pic set by the galactic tidal field is $``$1.1 pc. Four stellar perturbers penetrate the Roche radius in the past 1 Myr and could dynamically influence planetesimals bound to $`\beta `$ Pic.

5) We summarize evidence favoring the formation of a $`\beta `$ Pic Oort cloud. However, we find that $`\beta `$ Pic is probably too young to have an Oort cloud that is decoupled from the planetary region. The stellar perturbations are significant in helping $`\beta `$ Pic build its Oort cloud by pumping comet periastra away from dynamically unstable regions near planets.

6) We identify a sample of 22 stars detected by $`Hipparcos`$ that are candidate $`\beta `$ Pic perturbers, but require future radial velocity observations to determine their closest approach distances. Six of these stars may have $`D_{ca}<0.1`$ and are potential disk perturbers.

Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful to AURA and the Space Telescope Science Institute for support. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database and the VizieR service, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.