text:
# On the Plutinos and Twotinos of the Kuiper Belt

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The substantial eccentricity, $`e_p`$, of Pluto’s orbit is well explained by Malhotra’s (1995) theory of resonant capture by Neptune. In this scenario, Neptune migrated radially outwards from the sun by scattering planetesimals towards Jupiter, captured Pluto into its 3:2 mean-motion resonance, and amplified $`e_p`$ upon continuing its migration. The resonant amplification of $`e_p`$ can be understood either mechanistically using Gauss’s equations (see, e.g., Peale 1986), or in terms of the preservation of an adiabatic invariant (see, e.g., Yu & Tremaine 2001). The discovery of dozens of Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) that share the 3:2 Neptunian resonance with Pluto and that also exhibit large orbital eccentricities (Jewitt & Luu 2000) apparently vindicates this proposal that Neptune plowed its way outwards through a field of planetesimals early in the history of the solar system (Fernandez & Ip 1984).

In the particular numerical simulation presented by Malhotra (1995), the 2:1 Neptunian resonance is predicted to be about as equally populated as the 3:2 resonance. For brevity, we will refer to KBOs in the latter resonance as “Plutinos” and KBOs in the former resonance as “Twotinos.” As of July 4, 2002, the Minor Planet Center (MPC) database contains $``$41 Plutino candidates (objects observed at multiple oppositions having fitted semi-major axes, $`a`$, within 0.3 AU of the exact 3:2 resonance location at $`a_{3:2}=39.5\mathrm{AU}`$), and $``$5 Twotino candidates (objects whose $`a`$’s lie within 0.3 AU of the exact 2:1 resonance location at $`a_{2:1}=47.8\mathrm{AU}`$).111http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/TNOs.html The Twotino candidates possess substantial orbital eccentricities, $`e0.2`$$`0.4`$, in accord with the predictions of resonant capture and migration. Membership in a resonance is confirmed by verifying that the appropriate resonant argument librates rather than circulates (see §2); an orbit classification scheme based on this more rigorous criterion is currently being developed by the Deep Ecliptic Survey (DES) Team (see Millis et al. 2002). For the present paper, we will consider the observed Twotinos to be outnumbered by the observed Plutinos by a factor of $`F_{obs}8`$. Part of this bias must simply reflect the fact that $`a_{2:1}>a_{3:2}`$; all other factors being equal, more distant objects are fainter and more difficult to detect. But part of this bias may also reflect selection effects that depend on the longitude and latitude of observation. A mean-motion resonant object will be preferentially found at certain locations with respect to Neptune—what we will call “sweet spots” on the sky. The sweet spots for Twotinos are not necessarily those of Plutinos.

Ida et al. (2000) point out that Neptune’s ability to resonantly capture objects varies with migration timescale. A migration timescale that is 20 times shorter than that considered by Malhotra (1995) is found to severely reduce the probability of capture into the 2:1 resonance. For the 3:2 resonance, the capture probability is affected less dramatically by reductions in the migration timescale. The relative robustness of the 3:2 resonance compared to the 2:1 resonance is explored analytically by Friedland (2001), who underscores the importance of the indirect potential for the latter resonance.

This paper quantifies, within the confines of the model of resonant migration, the bias against finding KBOs in the 2:1 resonance over those in the 3:2 resonance. In §2, we set forth general, model-independent considerations for calculating this bias. In §3, we describe in detail the results of a particular simulation of resonant migration. In this section, we present illustrative snapshots of the instantaneous spatial distributions of Twotinos and of Plutinos. In §4, we explore how our results change by varying the migration rate of Neptune. In §5, we discuss our theoretical results in the context of the observations. There, we begin to examine critically the belief that Plutinos intrinsically outnumber Twotinos. A summary of our main findings is provided in §6. Our computations may serve not only to de-bias extant observations and thereby constrain the true relative resonant populations, but also to guide future observational surveys.

## 2 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The ability of an observational survey to detect KBOs residing within a given resonance depends on the KBOs’ (1) spatial distribution, and (2) size and albedo distributions. In this section, we offer comments regarding the former consideration.

### 2.1 Mean-Motion Resonances

By definition, an object inhabits a $`j+1`$:$`j`$ outer Neptunian resonance if the resonant argument,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{j+1:j}(j+1)\lambda j\lambda _N\stackrel{~}{\omega },$$
(1)
librates (undergoes a bounded oscillation about a particular angle). Here $`j`$ is a positive integer, $`\lambda `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ are the mean longitude and longitude of periastron of the object, respectively, and $`\lambda _N`$ is the mean longitude of Neptune. A restricted range for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{j+1:j}`$ implies that the resonant particle will most likely be found at particular longitudes with respect to Neptune. For example, if an object inhabits the $`j=1`$ resonance such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}`$ librates about $`180\mathrm{°}`$ with a negligibly small libration amplitude, then such an object attains perihelion when Neptune is $`180\mathrm{°}`$ away in longitude. The eccentricity of the resonant object may be so large that the orbits of Neptune and of the particle cross, but the particle avoids close encounters with Neptune by virtue of the boundedness of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}`$.

It has been remarked that because $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}`$ for Pluto and the Plutinos librates about a mean value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}=180\mathrm{°}`$, these objects tend to be found at longitudes displaced $`\pm 90\mathrm{°}`$ from Neptune when they reach perihelion and are at their brightest (e.g., Jewitt, Luu, & Trujillo 1998). This argument is not strictly correct; it neglects the Plutinos’ often substantial libration amplitudes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}`$. Just as a librating pendulum is most likely found near the turning points of its trajectory, a Plutino’s resonant argument is most likely found near $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}`$ or near $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}`$, not $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}`$. Figures 1a and 1b portray two toy models for the spatial distributions of 3:2 resonant objects. They demonstrate that the spatial distribution of resonant particles is sensitive to the distribution of libration amplitudes, $`dN/d\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and not just to the value of the libration center, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. For each panel, the instantaneous locations of 15000 co-planar particles are calculated according to the following scheme: semi-major axes are randomly chosen from a uniform distribution between 39.0 and 39.8 AU, mean longitudes are randomly drawn from a uniform distribution between $`0\mathrm{°}`$ and $`360\mathrm{°}`$, and eccentricities are randomly selected from a uniform distribution between 0.1 and 0.3. Resonant arguments of particles are taken to equal $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}=\pm 180\mathrm{°}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}\mathrm{sin}A`$, where the upper and lower signs are equally probable and $`A`$ is randomly drawn from a uniform distribution between $`0\mathrm{°}`$ and $`360\mathrm{°}`$. For Figure 1a, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}`$ is randomly selected from a uniform distribution between $`100\mathrm{°}`$ and $`120\mathrm{°}`$, and for Figure 1b, the underlying distribution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}`$ is given by the solid histogram in Figure 6. The longitude of perihelion of each particle is calculated according to $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=3\lambda 2\lambda _N\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}`$, where $`\lambda _N`$ is assigned its present-day value of 302$`\mathrm{°}`$.

The resultant plots illustrate two ways that Plutinos could be distributed, both of which are possible in principle. In Figure 1a, the objects cluster in 4 locations, respecting the $`2\times 2`$ turning points of the resonant argument—2 turning points for each of the 2 libration centers, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}=\pm 180\mathrm{°}`$. Thus, it is not true a priori that 3:2 resonant objects must cluster at only two locations in the sky. By contrast, in Figure 1b, there are enough small-amplitude librators $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}<1\mathrm{rad})`$ that the concentration of objects does gently peak at longitudes $`\pm 90\mathrm{°}`$ away from Neptune, in abeyance with the usual expectation.

Toy models such as these are useful for analyzing the results of numerical orbit integrations. In anticipation of such integrations, we present Figure 2, which displays a toy model for the distribution of Twotinos. The parameters of the model are described in the figure caption.

### 2.2 Secular Resonances

Secular resonances might also play a role in determining the spatial distribution of KBOs. Chief among these are Kozai-type resonances in which $`\omega `$, the argument of perihelion, librates about particular angles, usually $`\pm 90\mathrm{°}`$, $`0\mathrm{°}`$, or $`180\mathrm{°}`$. Pluto inhabits a Kozai resonance established by the total secular potential of all 4 giant planets, such that its $`\omega `$ librates about 90$`\mathrm{°}`$ with an amplitude of $`23\mathrm{°}`$ (for a review, see Malhotra & Williams 1997). Thus, Pluto attains perihelion and is brightest only when it sits above the invariable plane by its orbital inclination of $`i_p16\mathrm{°}`$. If enough Plutinos inhabit Pluto-like Kozai resonances, their detection would be influenced by selection effects that depend on the latitude of observation.

How many Plutinos and Twotinos inhabit Kozai-type resonances? Nesvorny, Roig, & Ferraz-Mello (2000) find that few observed Plutinos, $``$2–4 out of 33, exhibit libration of $`\omega `$. They explore a scenario by which Pluto gravitationally scatters other Plutinos out of the Kozai resonance. They find the scenario to be viable, though whether it is required by the model of resonant capture and migration is unknown; the efficiency of capture into a Pluto-like Kozai resonance in Malhotra’s (1995) model of planetary migration might already be small enough to explain the observations. Unlike the case for the 3:2 resonance, we are not aware of any study of the possibility of $`\omega `$-libration within the 2:1 resonance. In §3.4 below, we investigate by direct numerical simulation the capture probability into Kozai-type resonances for both Plutinos and Twotinos within the model of planetary migration.

## 3 MIGRATION MODEL

Here we describe our model for the radial migration of the four giant planets and the resonant capture of planetesimals. Model ingredients are supplied in §3.1, mean-motion resonance capture efficiencies are computed in §3.2, mean-motion resonance libration statistics and retainment efficiencies are discussed in §3.3, and the statistics of secular resonance capture are presented in §3.4. Those readers interested in the spatial distribution of resonant objects may skip to §3.5 without much loss of continuity.

### 3.1 Initial Conditions and Migration Prescription

To effect the migration, we follow Malhotra (1995) and introduce a perturbative acceleration on each planet of the form

$$\delta \ddot{r}=\frac{\widehat{v}}{\tau }\left(\sqrt{\frac{GM_{}}{a_f}}\sqrt{\frac{GM_{}}{a_i}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau ),$$
(2)
where $`a_i`$ and $`a_f`$ are the initial and final semi-major axes of a given planet, respectively, $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, $`t`$ measures time, $`\tau `$ is a time constant, and $`\widehat{v}`$ is the unit vector pointing in the instantaneous direction of the planet’s velocity. Equation (2) corrects a typographical sign error in equation (7) of Malhotra (1995). This prescription causes each planet’s semi-major axis to evolve according to

$$a(t)=a_f(a_fa_i)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau ),$$
(3)
but does not directly induce long-term changes in the planet’s eccentricity and inclination. We adopt values for $`(a_i,a_f)`$ for each of the planets as follows (in AUs): Jupiter $`(5.00,5.20)`$, Saturn $`(8.78,9.58)`$, Uranus $`(16.2,19.2)`$, and Neptune $`(23.1,30.1)`$.

We work in a coordinate system that takes the reference plane to be the invariable plane of the solar system. The positions and velocities of each planet at $`t=0`$ are adapted from Cohen, Hubbard, and Oesterwinter (1973), with the positions multiplied by $`a_i/a_f`$ and the velocities multiplied by $`\sqrt{a_f/a_i}`$. We employ the symplectic integrator, SyMBA, developed by Duncan, Levison, & Lee (1998), which is based on the algorithm by Wisdom & Holman (1991). The integrator was kindly supplied to us by E. Thommes, M. Duncan, & H. Levison.

For simulations Ia and Ib that are described in §3, we take $`\tau =10^7\mathrm{yr}`$. Shorter migration periods of $`\tau =10^6\mathrm{yr}`$ and $`\tau =10^5\mathrm{yr}`$ are considered in §4.

In simulation Ia, we focus on the efficiency of capture into, and the resultant dynamics within, the 3:2 resonance. We introduce 400 massless test particles whose initial semi-major axes lie between 31.4 AU ($`=1\mathrm{AU}`$ greater than the initial location of the 3:2 resonance) and 38.5 AU ($`=1\mathrm{AU}`$ short of the final location of the 3:2 resonance). All particles in this region have the potential to be captured into the sweeping 3:2 resonance. Their initial eccentricities and inclinations are randomly drawn from uniform distributions between 0 and 0.05, and between $`0\mathrm{°}`$ and $`1.4\mathrm{°}=0.025\mathrm{rad}`$, respectively. Arguments of periastron ($`\omega `$), longitudes of ascending nodes ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$), and mean anomalies ($`M`$) are uniformly sampled between 0 and $`2\pi `$. The duration of the integration spans $`t_f^{\mathrm{Ia}}=6\times 10^7\mathrm{yr}=6\tau `$.

In simulation Ib, we concentrate on the 2:1 resonance. The only essential difference between simulations Ia and Ib is that for the latter, the 400 test particles are distributed initially between 37.7 AU ($`=1\mathrm{AU}`$ greater than the initial location of the 2:1 resonance) and 46.8 AU ($`=1\mathrm{AU}`$ less than the final location of the 2:1 resonance). Thus, all such particles are potentially captured into the 2:1 resonance. The duration of this simulation is $`t_f^{\mathrm{Ib}}=8\times 10^7\mathrm{yr}=8\tau `$.

### 3.2 Capture Efficiencies

Of the 400 test particles in simulation Ia, 92 are captured into the 3:2 resonance. By definition, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}`$ librates for these 92 objects but circulates for the remaining 308. This capture efficiency of $`f_{3:2}23\%`$ reflects (1) the probability of capture into the isolated 3:2 resonant potential just prior to resonance encounter (Henrard & Lemaitre 1983, Borderies & Goldreich 1984), (2) losses due to pre-emptive capture into “competing” resonances such as the 5:3 and 2:1 which lie exterior to the 3:2, and (3) losses due to violent scattering by close encounters with the planets. Figure 3 displays the final eccentricities and inclinations versus the semi-major axes of those test particles having $`a60\mathrm{AU}`$.

From simulation Ib, we estimate the capture efficiency of the 2:1 resonance to be $`f_{2:1}212/400=53`$%. This value is more than twice as high as $`f_{3:2}`$, reflecting both the lack of competition from other sweeping resonances which lie interior to the 2:1, and the lower probability of scattering by Neptune at these greater distances. Figure 4 displays the final ($`a`$,$`e`$,$`i`$) for those test particles having $`a60\mathrm{AU}`$ at the close of simulation Ib. Note that many objects remain uncaptured by any low-order resonance at semi-major axes $`43\mathrm{AU}a47\mathrm{AU}`$; these non-resonant bodies presumably represent members of the low-inclination Classical Kuiper Belt that is observed today (Levison & Stern 2001; Brown 2001).

These capture efficiencies are recorded in Table 1. We emphasize that $`f`$ represents only the efficiency of capture, as distinct from the efficiency of retainment of captured objects, $`g`$, over the age of the solar system. Whether a captured KBO remains in a given resonance over $`4\times 10^9\mathrm{yr}`$ is discussed in §3.3.

Mean inclinations, $`i`$, of Plutinos and Twotinos are plotted against mean eccentricities, $`e`$, in Figure 5. The mean is taken over the last $`1\times 10^7\mathrm{yr}`$ in simulation Ia, and the last $`3\times 10^7\mathrm{yr}`$ in Ib, during which times the migration has effectively stopped. There is a tendency for the Plutinos to have their $`i`$’s and $`e`$’s inversely correlated. No apparent correlation exists between $`i`$ and $`e`$ for the Twotinos. The predicted inclinations seem too low to compare favorably with the observed inclinations; the inadequacy of the migration model in explaining the inclination distribution of Plutinos has been noted by Brown (2001). We note further that 4 out of the 5 observed Twotino candidates have orbital inclinations between $`11.8\mathrm{°}`$ and $`13.5\mathrm{°}`$—values characteristically larger than what the migration model predicts for objects in the 2:1 resonance.

### 3.3 Libration Statistics and Retainment Efficiencies

For the Plutinos in simulation Ia, we find that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}=\pi `$, as expected from resonant perturbation theory for low eccentricity orbits. The distribution of libration amplitudes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}[\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2})\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2})]/2`$, is supplied in Figure 6. Most objects have substantial libration amplitudes $`1\mathrm{rad}`$. Levison & Stern (1995) and Morbidelli (1997) calculate that Plutinos having large $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can escape the 3:2 resonance over the age of the solar system. Thus, many of the Plutinos that are captured in our simulation Ia would not likely survive if we were to extend our integration to $`t_f^{\mathrm{Ia}}=4\times 10^9\mathrm{yr}`$. We define the retainment efficiency, $`g_{3:2}`$, to be the fraction of captured Plutinos that either have $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }<110\mathrm{°}`$ or that exhibit libration of $`\omega `$ about $`\pm 90\mathrm{°}`$. These selection criteria are motivated by the stability study of Levison & Duncan (1995; see their Figure 7). Of the 92 captured Plutinos in simulation Ia, 42 satisfy our criteria for long-term residency; the resultant value for $`g_{3:2}=46`$% is recorded in Table 1.

For the Twotinos in simulation Ib, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}`$ groups about 3 values: $``$$`\pi /2`$, $`\pi `$, and $``$$`3\pi /2`$. The splitting of libration centers at large $`e`$ from a single center at $`\pi `$ to two additional centers at $``$$`\pi /2`$ and $``$$`3\pi /2`$ was explored by Morbidelli, Thomas, & Moons (1995), Malhotra (1996), and references therein. Figure 7 plots $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}`$ against $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}`$. Objects that reside more deeply in the resonance librate about $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}3\pi /2`$ and $`\pi /2`$. The former center is more heavily populated than the latter at the level of 93 to 85 objects. Though this difference is formally statistically insignificant, we nonetheless believe that it reflects a heretofore unnoticed and physically significant signature of the migration model. Further evidence supporting our contention is provided in §4, where we demonstrate that faster migration speeds dramatically enhance the asymmetry to levels of statistical significance. Unlike for the case of the 3:2 resonance, long-term, systematic studies of the stability of objects within the 2:1 resonance have not been published. It might be thought that the requirements for stability within the 2:1 resonance are less stringent than for the 3:2 resonance, because the $`\nu _8`$ and $`\nu _{18}`$ secular resonances do not overlap the 2:1 (Morbidelli et al. 1995). Simulations by Malhotra (2002, personal communication) indicate that the retainment efficiency is roughly $`g_{2:1}=50\%`$, and we will adopt this value in this paper.

Many of the objects having $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}[\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1})+\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1})]/2\pi `$ also librate from time to time about $``$$`\pi /2`$ and $``$$`3\pi /2`$. An example of such a “three-timing” Twotino is displayed in Figure 8. A histogram of libration amplitudes of Twotinos is given in Figure 9.

For completeness, $`e`$, $`i`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{j+1:j}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{j+1:j}`$ are plotted against one another in Figures 10 and 11. One correlation that emerges is that between $`e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}\pi /2`$, $`3\pi /2`$. Increasing $`e`$ increases the separation of the two principal libration centers away from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}=\pi `$, an effect seen previously by Malhotra (1996). Another correlation appears between $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}`$ and $`i`$. Large amplitude librators tend to have large $`i`$.

### 3.4 Capture into Secular Resonances

Of the 92 captured Plutinos in simulation Ia, 9–17 evince libration of $`\omega `$ over the last $`1\times 10^7\mathrm{yr}`$ of the simulation. Our uncertainty arises because for 8 Plutinos, the duration of the simulation is too short to see either a complete cycle of libration or of circulation. The libration centers, $`\omega `$, are distributed over $``$90$`\mathrm{°}`$, $``$$`180\mathrm{°}`$, and $``$$`270\mathrm{°}`$ for the 9 confirmed $`\omega `$-librators. A sampling of the time evolution of $`\omega `$ for three $`\omega `$-librators in the 3:2 resonance is provided in Figure 12.

Only a subset of the 92 captured Plutinos are likely to remain bound to the 3:2 resonance over $`4\times 10^9\mathrm{yr}`$. Of the 92, we estimate that 42 are potential long-term residents: they either have $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}<110\mathrm{°}`$ or their $`\omega `$’s librate with small amplitude about $`\pm 90\mathrm{°}`$ \[compare with Levison & Stern (1995)\]. Of these 42, 8–12 are $`\omega `$-librators, or 20–30%. Since the $`\omega `$-librators comprise a minority among surviving 3:2 resonant objects, and since $`\omega `$ can equal $`180\mathrm{°}`$ in addition to $`\pm 90\mathrm{°}`$, we conclude that secular libration of $`\omega `$ resulting from the migration model probably does not introduce strong latitudinal selection effects for the discovery of Plutinos. Of course, a zeroth-order assessment of latitudinal selection effects for resonant objects probably requires that we move beyond, or in the extreme case abandon, the model for resonant migration, since it apparently cannot reproduce very well the observed inclination distributions; see §3.2 and Brown (2001).

Similar conclusions are obtained for Twotinos. Of the 212 objects captured into the 2:1 resonance, only 12–15 evince libration of $`\omega `$. Figure 13 samples three of them.

Our results address a question posed by Nesvorny, Roig, & Ferraz-Mello (2000; see their footnote 3). Could the observed paucity of Plutinos in the Kozai resonance today be a primordial relic of resonant capture and migration? Of the 42 captured Plutinos in simulation Ia that might survive in the 3:2 resonance over the age of the solar system, only 3–5 occupy a Kozai resonance for which $`\omega =90\mathrm{°}`$. This fraction of $``$4/42 compares well with the observed fraction of $``$3/33 reported by Nesvorny et al. (2000). Thus, our answer to their question is yes—scattering effects by Pluto need not be invoked to explain today’s observed low fraction of Plutinos in the Kozai resonance. We leave unaddressed two issues: (1) the effects of collisions amongst KBOs in the primordial belt in populating the Kozai resonance, and (2) whether the fact that the most massive Plutino yet discovered also inhabits the Kozai resonance is coincidental.

### 3.5 Spatial Distribution of Resonant Objects

We synthesize instantaneous snapshots of the spatial distribution of resonant objects from our simulation data as follows. Essentially, the positions of $`R`$ resonant particles sampled at $`T`$ different times are taken to represent the positions of $`R\times T`$ particles sampled at 1 time. Take the 2:1 resonance as an example. The inertial Cartesian coordinates of Neptune $`[(x_N,y_N,z_N)]`$ and of the $`R=212`$ Twotinos $`[(x_i,y_i,z_i),i=\{1,\mathrm{},212\}]`$ at a time, $`t`$, in the simulation are rotated about the $`\widehat{z}`$-axis by an angle

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(t)=\mathrm{arccos}\frac{x_N(t)X_N+y_N(t)Y_N}{\sqrt{[x_N(t)^2+y_N(t)^2](X_N^2+Y_N^2)}}.$$
(4)
Here $`X_N=30.1\mathrm{cos}(302\mathrm{°})\mathrm{AU}`$ and $`Y_N=30.1\mathrm{sin}(302\mathrm{°})\mathrm{AU}`$ are the approximate current coordinates of Neptune. This procedure shifts the positions of all bodies into the Neptune-centric frame. We repeat this operation for $`T`$ different instants of the simulation to generate $`T`$ different snapshots. These snapshots are then overlaid on one another to yield a single image, a representation of the present-day spatial distribution of $`R\times T`$ resonant particles.

As noted in §3.3, only a subset of captured Plutinos will be retained by the 3:2 resonance over $`4\times 10^9\mathrm{yr}`$. We employ the subset of $`R=g_{3:2}\times f_{3:2}\times 400=42`$ objects to construct the Plutino snapshot plot (Figure 14) and those figures quantifying the longitudinal variations of Plutino density (Figures 16a and 17).

Our method is not strictly justifiable if Neptune does not execute a perfectly circular orbit that remains in the invariable plane. In practice, Neptune’s eccentricity and inclination are so small that we do not consider this a serious violation. A more weighty concern is whether the true distributions of orbital elements—eccentricities, inclinations, and libration amplitudes—of $`R\times T`$ particles are well represented by only $`R`$ particles. Since $`R`$ is not small for either simulation, and since the distribution functions displayed in Figures 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 do not betray poor coverage of phase space, we proceed with confidence.

Figures 14 and 15 showcase the present-day snapshots of Plutinos and Twotinos, respectively. For the former figure, $`T=1000`$ time slices of $`R=42`$ particles are sampled uniformly between $`t_1=5\times 10^7\mathrm{yr}`$ and $`t_2=6\times 10^7\mathrm{yr}`$; for the latter figure, $`T=190`$, $`R=212`$, $`t_1=5.000\times 10^7\mathrm{yr}`$, and $`t_2=5.190\times 10^7\mathrm{yr}`$. More time slices could be sampled for the Twotinos, but we restrict $`T`$ to keep the plots legible. These snapshots resemble closely the toy models presented in Figures 1b and 2d; we conclude that (weak) correlations between orbital elements such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}`$ and $`e`$—correlations that are missing from the toy models—do not significantly influence the organization of resonant populations.

Plutinos in the migration model cluster $`\pm 90\mathrm{°}`$ away from Neptune. Twotinos cluster $`\pm 75\mathrm{°}`$ away. Plutinos avoid longitudes near Neptune and longitudes that are $`180\mathrm{°}`$ away from Neptune. Twotinos largely avoid longitudes near Neptune. Longitudinal variations in the density of resonant objects are quantified in Figure 16, where we plot the number of objects per degree in longitude, $`N_{j+1:j}`$, inside a heliocentric distance, $`r`$. In constructing Figure 16, we employ all available time slices ($`T=1000`$ in simulation Ia and $`T=3000`$ in simulation Ib), and then normalize the curves for $`N_{j+1:j}`$ so that the total population within each resonance, integrated over all longitudes, equals 10000 objects.

The sweet spots on the sky for finding resonant objects are sweetest—that is, the contrast between maximum object density and minimum object density is greatest—for small limiting $`r`$ (e.g., $`r40\mathrm{AU}`$). In the large $`r`$ limit, the maximum contrast in object density is $``$200% for Plutinos and $``$40% for Twotinos. Note that the two sweet spots for Twotinos differ in strength; the spot displaced by $`75\mathrm{°}`$ from Neptune contains more objects than the spot displaced by $`+75\mathrm{°}`$, reflecting a greater population of objects librating about $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}3\pi /2`$ rather than $``$$`\pi /2`$. See §3.3 and §4 for more discussion of this asymmetry.

In Figure 17, we divide $`N_{3:2}`$ by $`N_{2:1}`$ to compute the longitudinal bias in finding Plutinos over Twotinos. Though the population of each resonance is normalized to the same number, many more Plutinos will be found than Twotinos at small $`r`$, simply because the 3:2 resonance is located closer than the 2:1. Most interestingly, however, there exists a special longitude interval between $`210\mathrm{°}`$ and $`240\mathrm{°}`$ (between $`90\mathrm{°}`$ and $`60\mathrm{°}`$ of Neptune’s longitude) where approximately equal numbers of Plutinos and Twotinos are expected to be found. Within this longitude interval, the yield of Twotinos to Plutinos ranges from 0.4 to 1 as the limiting $`r`$ increases from 40 AU to $`\mathrm{}`$ (assuming that the two resonances are equally well populated). The absolute object density ($`N_{j+1:j}`$) for each resonance is also maximal over this longitude range, making this interval the sweetest of spots. A similar spot exists between $`0\mathrm{°}`$ and $`40\mathrm{°}`$ longitude ($`+60\mathrm{°}`$$`100\mathrm{°}`$ of Neptune’s longitude); here $`N_{2:1}/N_{3:2}`$ varies from 0.3 to 0.9 as the limiting $`r`$ increases from 40 AU to $`\mathrm{}`$.

## 4 VARYING THE MIGRATION SPEED

Simulations IIa and IIb are identical to Ia and Ib, respectively, except that we set $`\tau =10^6\mathrm{yr}`$ and $`t_f^{\mathrm{II}}=5\times 10^6\mathrm{yr}`$. For simulations IIIa and IIIb, $`\tau =10^5\mathrm{yr}`$ and $`t_f^{\mathrm{III}}=5\times 10^5\mathrm{yr}`$.

Table 1 summarizes the computed capture efficiencies, $`f`$, and estimated retainment efficiencies, $`g`$, for each simulation. The retainment efficiency equals the fraction of captured objects that are expected to remain in the resonance over $`4\times 10^9\mathrm{yr}`$. For Twotinos, we assume that $`g=0.5`$ (see §3.3). For Plutinos, $`g`$ equals the fraction of captured objects that either have $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }<110\mathrm{°}`$ or that librate about $`\omega =\pm 90\mathrm{°}`$.

For $`\tau =10^6\mathrm{yr}`$, $`f_{2:1}15`$%, more than three times lower than the corresponding value for $`\tau =10^7\mathrm{yr}`$. By contrast, $`f_{3:2}(\tau =10^6\mathrm{yr})78\%`$, more than three times as high as $`f_{3:2}(\tau =10^7\mathrm{yr})`$ because fewer objects are lost to capture by the 2:1 or to close encounters with Neptune. For $`\tau =10^5\mathrm{yr}`$, $`f_{2:1}0\%`$, while $`f_{3:2}30\%`$. Our results are consistent with those of Ida et al. (2000) and Friedland (2001).

The Plutinos’ distribution of libration amplitudes shifts substantially towards smaller values as $`\tau `$ is reduced. Figure 6 plots histograms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}`$ for all three simulations, Ia, IIa, and IIIa. Table 1 records how the retainment efficiency, $`g`$, more than doubles for Plutinos as $`\tau `$ is reduced from $`10^7\mathrm{yr}`$ to $`10^6\mathrm{yr}`$, a consequence of the smaller libration amplitudes that characterize faster migration rates.

Remarkably, objects fill the 2:1 resonance asymmetrically: captured Twotinos prefer to librate about $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}270\mathrm{°}`$ rather than $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}90\mathrm{°}`$. Figure 18 plots $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}`$ against $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}`$ for simulation IIb. The preferential filling of one resonance lobe over another dramatically affects the spatial distribution of Twotinos, as illustrated by Figure 19 and as quantified in Figure 20. The difference in populations is at the level of 330% and is statistically significant.222We have verified that for $`\tau =3\times 10^6\mathrm{yr}`$, the sign of the asymmetry remains the same and its magnitude is statistically significant and intermediate between that of simulations Ib and IIb—among the 141/400 objects captured into the 2:1 resonance, $`3`$ $`\times `$ as many Twotinos librate about $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}270\mathrm{°}`$ than about $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}90\mathrm{°}`$. Establishing the relative populations of Twotinos ahead and behind of Neptune would offer a powerful constraint on the migration history of that planet.

Figure 21 is appropriate for $`\tau =10^6\mathrm{yr}`$ and is analogous to Figure 17.

## 5 DISCUSSION

Under the hypothesis of resonant capture, the number of Plutinos having diameters greater than $`s`$, divided by the number of similarly sized Twotinos, is given today by

$$F(s,\tau )\frac{f_{3:2}(\tau )g_{3:2}(\tau )\eta _0(s,a35\mathrm{AU})}{f_{2:1}(\tau )g_{2:1}(\tau )\eta _0(s,a42\mathrm{AU})}.$$
(5)
Here $`\eta _0(s,a)`$ equals the number of objects having diameters greater than $`s`$ that occupied an annulus of heliocentric radius $`a`$ and radial width $`8\mathrm{AU}`$ just prior to the era of Neptune’s migration. From our findings in this paper, $`(f_{3:2}g_{3:2})/(f_{2:1}g_{2:1})`$ equals 0.40, 9.6, and $`\mathrm{}`$ for $`\tau (\mathrm{yr})=10^7,10^6`$, and $`10^5`$, respectively (see Table 1).

We interpret the observation that the 2:1 resonance today contains at least one (candidate) object having a large eccentricity to imply that the migration timescale, $`\tau `$, cannot be as low as $`10^5\mathrm{yr}`$. More refined estimates of $`\tau `$ can be made by measuring the relative number of Twotinos whose resonant arguments $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}`$ librate about $``$$`3\pi /2`$ rather than about $``$$`\pi /2`$; i.e., the relative number of Twotinos observed to reach perihelion at longitudes behind of as opposed to in front of Neptune’s longitude.

Estimates for the intrinsic $`F`$ cannot be established without first de-biassing $`F_{obs}`$. As Figures 17 and equation (5) attest, $`F_{obs}`$ depends not only on $`\tau `$ and the ratio of primeval populations, $`\eta _0(a35\mathrm{AU})/\eta _0(a42\mathrm{AU})`$, but also on (1) the longitude of observation, (2) the limiting magnitude of the observation, (3) the relative size distributions of Twotinos and Plutinos, (4) the relative albedo distributions, (5) the relative inclination distributions, and, because of consideration (5), (6) the latitude of observation. For purposes of discussion, let us assume that Plutinos and Twotinos follow the same size, albedo, and inclination distributions, so that we can focus on considerations (1) and (2) exclusively.

Roughly speaking, most KBOs have been detected by surveys having limiting magnitudes $`m_V24`$ (Millis et al. 2002; see also the survey statistics compiled in Chiang & Brown 1999). For this limiting magnitude, all objects that are inside $`r44\mathrm{AU}`$ and that have sizes $`s200\mathrm{km}`$ and albedos $`0.04`$ would be detected. These sizes and albedos are comparable to those estimated by the Minor Planet Center. Moreover, a glance at Figures 14 and 15 reveals that indeed, all but one of the observed Plutino and Twotino candidates have been discovered at $`r<44\mathrm{AU}`$.

Thus, if we assume that $`\tau =10^7\mathrm{yr}`$, and take the dotted curve for $`r44\mathrm{AU}`$ in Figure 17 as our guide, then we crudely estimate the bias in finding Plutinos over Twotinos, averaged over all longitudes for which Plutinos have been discovered ($`330\mathrm{°}`$$`90\mathrm{°}`$, and $`150\mathrm{°}`$$`270\mathrm{°}`$), to be $`N_{3:2}/N_{2:1}2.2`$. Then the observed ratio, $`F_{obs}8`$, should be de-biassed down to values closer to $`8/2.23.6`$. We emphasize that this is a model-dependent estimate of $`F`$ that assumes that $`\tau =10^7\mathrm{yr}`$. Since $`(f_{3:2}g_{3:2})/(f_{2:1}g_{3:2})|_{\tau =10^7\mathrm{yr}}0.40`$, we would estimate the ratio of primeval populations to be $`\eta _0(a35\mathrm{AU})/\eta _0(a42\mathrm{AU})3.6/0.409`$. This would reflect a steep drop in mass density over a short distance in the ancient planetesimal disk. Nonetheless, it would be consonant with the idea that a “Kuiper Cliff” (Chiang & Brown 1999; see also Allen, Bernstein, & Malhotra 2001; Jewitt, Luu, & Trujillo 1998; Gladman et al. 1998) delineates the edge of the classical Kuiper Belt at $`a48\mathrm{AU}`$.

If we assume instead that $`\tau =10^6\mathrm{yr}`$ and repeat the same analysis by using the dotted line for $`r44\mathrm{AU}`$ in Figure 21, we estimate an intrinsic $`F8/3.02.7`$, and a corresponding ratio of primeval populations of $`\eta _0(a35\mathrm{AU})/\eta _0(a42\mathrm{AU})2.7/9.60.3`$. Thus, while our estimate that Plutinos intrinsically outnumber Twotinos by a factor of $``$3-to-1 seems robust to changes in $`\tau `$, a dramatic drop in mass density with distance in the primordial planetesimal disk is by no means an assured conclusion.

The above estimates for $`F`$ are plagued by other observational biases that are difficult to quantify. For example, the Minor Planet Center dataset probably contains more Plutinos relative to Twotinos than it should because (1) MPC orbit fitting algorithms for objects discovered a few AU inside Neptune’s orbit and having short astrometric arcs favor Plutino-like orbits as trial solutions (B. Marsden 2002, personal communication), and (2) the astrometric recovery rate of Plutinos is probably higher than that of Twotinos because the former objects are, on average, closer and therefore easier to re-detect by virtue of their brightness and large apparent proper motion. Both these factors lead us to conclude that our above estimates for $`F`$ should be considered upper limits.

Superior estimates for $`F`$ can be obtained by coupling our theoretical calculations to the results of surveys having well-documented discovery statistics and minimal bias in their algorithms for orbit fitting. The Deep Ecliptic Survey (DES; Millis et al. 2002), for example, promises to be one such survey; it employs the more objective method of Bernstein & Khushalani (2000) in fitting orbits with short arcs. We defer analysis of the resonant populations using their large and homogeneous dataset to future study.

An early but intriguing comparison between theory and observation lies in the complete absence of observed Twotino candidates at longitudes behind that of Neptune (see Figures 15 and 19). By contrast, our numerical experiments demonstrate that resonant capture and migration preferentially fill the 2:1 resonant lobe displaced behind of, rather than ahead of, Neptune’s longitude. Moreover, this asymmetry is only enhanced by faster rates of migration (Figure 19). With only $``$5 candidate Twotinos, the probability of finding all of them in the forward lobe and not the backward lobe is 1/32, under the prior that a Twotino is as likely to be found in one lobe as the other. Whether the actual Kuiper Belt defies the predicted sign of the asymmetry—in which case the present theory of resonant capture and migration must be considered either incomplete or incorrect—only continuing surveys for KBOs will tell.

## 6 SUMMARY

We have analyzed quantitatively the predictions of the model of resonant capture and migration for the 2:1 (Twotino) and 3:2 (Plutino) populations of the Kuiper Belt. We summarize our main findings as follows:

1. The instantaneous spatial distribution of resonant objects depends not only on the libration centers of their resonant arguments, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, but also on their distribution of libration amplitudes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$. For example, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }1\mathrm{rad}`$ for most Plutinos, the usual expectation that such objects are most readily found $`\pm 90\mathrm{°}`$ away from Neptune’s longitude would not be valid. The distribution of libration amplitudes within a given resonance is model-dependent.
2. We have numerically evaluated the capture efficiencies, $`f`$, of the sweeping 2:1 and 3:2 resonances for three values of the migration timescale, $`\tau (\mathrm{yr})=10^7,10^6,`$ and $`10^5`$. The timescale is assumed to be one of exponential decay. We define the capture efficiency to equal the fraction of objects whose orbits are initially spread uniformly over the complete path of a given sweeping resonance and that are ultimately captured by it. This efficiency depends not only on the probability of capture into the isolated resonant potential of interest, but also on the probability of pre-emptive capture into other resonances that lie exterior to the given resonance, and on the probability of violent scattering by close encounters with the planets. The capture efficiency for Twotinos, $`f_{2:1}`$, decays from 53% to 0% as $`\tau `$ is reduced from $`10^7\mathrm{yr}`$ to $`10^5\mathrm{yr}`$. The capture efficiency for Plutinos, $`f_{3:2}`$, increases from 23% to 78% as $`\tau `$ decreases from $`10^7\mathrm{yr}`$ to $`10^6\mathrm{yr}`$; the shorter migration timescale breeds fewer close encounters and fewer objects are lost to the competing 2:1 resonance. For $`\tau =10^5\mathrm{yr}`$, $`f_{3:2}30\%`$.
3. At least 1 Twotino candidate having a large eccentricity has been observed. This observation, interpreted within the confines of our migration model, implies that $`\tau `$ cannot be equal to or lower than $`10^5\mathrm{yr}`$. This conclusion is subject to the caveat that the migration model does not fully account for the observations; e.g., the model fails to generate the large orbital inclinations that are observed throughout the Kuiper Belt.
4. We have simulated the instantaneous spatial distributions of Twotinos and Plutinos as predicted by the migration model. If $`\tau =10^7\mathrm{yr}`$, Twotinos cluster at longitudes displaced $`\pm 75\mathrm{°}`$ away from Neptune’s longitude, where the upper sign corresponds to those objects librating with low amplitudes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}1\mathrm{rad}`$, about $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}\pi /2`$, and the lower sign corresponds to objects librating with similarly low amplitudes about $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}3\pi /2`$. Plutinos cluster at longitudes displaced $`\pm 90\mathrm{°}`$ away from Neptune’s longitude, and all librate about $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{3:2}=\pi `$. Longitude-to-longitude variations in the sky densities of Plutinos and Twotinos persist even for surveys that are not volume-limited in their ability to detect resonant objects of a given size. These variations sharpen as the limiting distance out to which resonant objects can be detected decreases.
5. Over the longitude interval $`210\mathrm{°}`$$`240\mathrm{°}`$ ($`90\mathrm{°}`$ to $`60\mathrm{°}`$ of Neptune’s longitude), the bias in finding Plutinos over Twotinos is minimized. If the population of one resonance is identical to the other in terms of number, sizes, albedos, and orbital inclinations, then the migration model for $`\tau =10^7\mathrm{yr}`$ predicts 0.4 to 1 times as many Twotinos to be found over this longitude interval than Plutinos, as the limiting distance out to which objects are detected increases from 40 AU to $`\mathrm{}`$. If $`\tau =10^6\mathrm{yr}`$, the bias over this special longitude range varies from 0.4 to 1.1. A similar interval exists between $`0\mathrm{°}`$ and $`40\mathrm{°}`$ (+$`60\mathrm{°}`$$`100\mathrm{°}`$ of Neptune’s longitude) if $`\tau =10^7\mathrm{yr}`$, but does not exist if $`\tau =10^6\mathrm{yr}`$ (see next point).
6. The 2:1 resonance fills asymmetrically in the migration model—more objects are captured into libration about $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}3\pi /2`$ than about $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2:1}\pi /2`$. The difference betwen populations is $``$10% if $`\tau =10^7\mathrm{yr}`$, and increases to $``$330% if $`\tau =10^6\mathrm{yr}`$. We reserve an analytic explanation for our numerical discovery to future study.333We have performed additional numerical and analytic studies that demonstrate that this asymmetry can be understood purely within the restricted, circular, 3-body problem where the perturber’s orbit expands outward. The asymmetry in libration centers translates directly into an asymmetry in the instantaneous spatial distribution of Twotinos—more Twotinos are expected to be found at longitudes behind that of Neptune than in front of it. A differential measurement of the Twotino density ahead and behind of Neptune would powerfully constrain the migration history of that planet.
7. Measuring the relative populations of Plutinos to Twotinos is a model-dependent enterprise. Under the assumption that Twotinos and Plutinos share the same sizes, albedos, and orbital inclinations, we employ the results in this paper to crudely de-bias the current tally of $``$43 observed Plutinos to $``$5 observed Twotinos to estimate an intrinsic population ratio of $`F=2.7`$–3.6. The range in our estimate reflects an order-of-magnitude difference in the assumed $`\tau `$, from $`10^7\mathrm{yr}`$ to $`10^6\mathrm{yr}`$. We suspect that our estimate is an upper limit because Plutinos probably enjoy a greater frequency of astrometric recovery than Twotinos, and because orbit fitting algorithms employed by the Minor Planet Center, whose dataset we use, favor Plutino-like trajectories. Improved estimates for $`F`$ can be obtained by coupling our calculation to KBO surveys having well-documented discovery statistics. While it tentatively appears that Plutinos might intrinsically outnumber Twotinos by a factor not exceeding $``$3, this conclusion can but does not necessarily imply that the surface density of the primordial planetesimal disk dropped dramatically with distance in the vicinity of $``$42 AU.

This work was supported by a National Science Foundation Planetary Astronomy Grant AST-0205892, two Faculty Research Grants awarded by the University of California at Berkeley, and a UC Berkeley Letters & Science Undergraduate Research Travel Grant awarded to ABJ. We thank Marc Buie, Jim Elliot, Susan Kern, Renu Malhotra, Bob Millis, David Trilling, and Larry Wasserman for encouraging discussions, and an anonymous referee for providing a critical and insightful report.


format: text

text:
# 4-D homogeneous isotropic cosmological models generated by the 5-D vacuum.

## 1 Introduction

There is a number of fundamental problems in multidimensional geometric Kaluza-Klein theories. Among such problems the question of physical meaning of the scalar fields, given by extra components of metric $`G_{55},G_{66}`$…, takes a significant place. One can indicate four viewpoints on the status of scalar fields:

1) Scalar fields are superfluous . In this approach scalar fields are eliminated on the geometric Lagrangian level by additional conditions like $`G_{55}=const`$.

2) Extra components describe new unknown physical (massless) scalar fields . The problem of their experimental observation is posed. Some researchers connect such fields with the hypothesis of the so-called ”fifth” force, others with the hypothesis of variable fundamental constants. To this line adjoin investigations in the context of scalar-tensor gravitation theories of Jordan-Brans-Dicke type .

3) Scalar fields can be understood as a geometric simulation of matter , which is substituted arbitrarily to the right-hand side of the Einstein equation through energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ in 4-d GR.

4) In a number of variants of a unified multidimensional theory of the gravitational and electroweak interactions geometric scalar fields describe Higgs particles .

In this paper the third from the above approaches is investigated in the context of the 5-d Kaluza-Klein theory. The possibility of describing matter by a geometric scalar field in homogeneous isotropic cosmological models of Friedmann type is considered.

## 2 Physically meaningful quantities in the 5-D Kaluza-Klein theory

The problem of the physical meaning of scalar fields is closely related to another question of greater importance: what quantities in multidimensional theory are to be endowed by physical meaning? Recall that the same question appears in 4-d GR. There it has been solved with the help of the monad method of describing reference frames , which is often called the 1+3-splitting method. Therewith the metric can be represented as

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\tau _\mu \tau _\nu h_{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where Greek indices take values 0,1,2,3; $`\tau _\mu `$ is 4-d vector field, oriented along the corresponding observer’s world line, $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is orthogonal to $`\tau _\mu `$ and has the meaning of a metric in a local 3-d space section. A physical meaning is ascribed only to quantities projected onto the $`\tau `$-direction or onto the orthogonal space section.

It is convenient to apply the monad method in a special coordinate system, where the coordinate lines $`x^i=const,i=1,2,3`$ are directed along world lines of the frame of reference. In this case the vector $`\tau _\mu `$ has the components

$$\tau ^\mu =\frac{g_0^\mu }{\sqrt{g_{00}}}.$$
(2)
The monad method in such coordinate systems has been called method of chronometric invariants . In this method the following coordinate transformations are distinguished:

$$x^0=x^0(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3);$$
(3)
$$x^i=x^i(x^1,x^2,x^3).$$
(4)
A physical meaning is possessed by chronometrically invariant quantities, i.e. quantities, which are invariant under the transformations (3) and covariant under the transformations (4).

For the description of physically meaningful quantities in 5-d Kaluza-Klein theory one should use a similar method of 1+4-splitting of the 5-dimensional manifold into the fifth direction and the 4-d classical space-time. The 5-d metric tensor $`G_{AB}`$ has the following form:

$$G_{AB}=\lambda _A\lambda _B+\stackrel{~}{g}_{AB},$$
(5)
where $`A,B=0,1,2,3,5,\lambda _A`$ is a 5-d unit vector oriented along the fifths direction, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{AB}`$ is a metric of the 4-d section orthogonal to $`\lambda _A`$. It appears reasonable that only quantities projected onto the $`\lambda `$-direction or orthogonal 4-d directions (by the projector $`\stackrel{~}{g}_B^A`$) have a physical meaning.

There is a correspondence between the method of chronometric invariants and that of gauge invariants111The appearance of this method can be traced back to the works of Mandel , then it was improved in the works of Einstein and Bergmann . It was ultimately formulated in the works by one of the present authors   in 5-d theory, wherein coordinate systems, in which $`\lambda _A`$ is oriented along the fifths coordinate $`x^5`$ are selected. Then the vector $`\lambda ^A`$ is given by the expression

$$\lambda ^A=G_5^A/\sqrt{G_{55}},$$
(6)
the 4-d metric has the components

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }=G_{\mu \nu }\frac{G_{5\mu }G_{5\nu }}{G_{55}};\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }=G^{\mu \nu },$$
(7)
and the following coordinate transformations are distinguished:

$$x^5=x^5(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3,x^5);$$
(8)
$$x^\mu =x^\mu (x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3).$$
(9)
Gauge invariant quantities now become physically meaningful, i.e., quantities invariant under transformations (8) and 4-d covariant under the transformations (9). Recall that in such a theory the electromagnetic field tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is described by a gauge invariant expression, while the gauge-non-invariant components $`\lambda _\mu `$ correspond to components of the electromagnetic vector potential.

A new circumstance, which was absent in 4-d GR, appears when describing the ”generalized frames of reference” of this kind. It is connected with the fact that if the quantities of a multidimensional theory depend on extra coordinates, then they will have an electric charge and may be other charges (hyphercharge, isospin). Since the gravitational and electromagnetic fields are neutral, the 5-metric should not dependent on $`x^5`$. Then (8) should be narrowed to

$$x^5=x^5+f(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3),$$
(10)
which conserves the cylindricity condition of $`G_{AB}`$ with respect to $`x^5`$. Under this transformations the components of $`\lambda _\mu `$ transform by the law

$$\lambda _\mu ^{}=\lambda _\mu +\frac{f}{x^\mu },$$
(11)
that corresponds to the well-known gauge transformations of electrodynamics.

A new circumstance lies in the fact that the component $`G_{55}`$ is invariant under the transformation (10). It means in turn that any of the conformally corresponding metrics

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }/(G_{55}),$$
(12)
can be physically meaningful, where the conformal factor $`(G_{55})`$ is an arbitrary function of $`G_{55}`$. There is an uncertainty in choosing the conformal factor. What factor $``$ should be chosen? — this question has been posed and discussed in the book by one of the authors . A number of works on 5-d theories were there analyzed and the following three most frequently used cases were distinguished:

a) $`(G_{55})=1`$ (immediate identification of the metric obtained from the 1+4-splitting procedure). This case is used in most works on 5-d theories, in particular, in the papers by Wesson .

b) The case $`(G_{55})=(G_{55})^{1/2}1/\phi `$ is of interest because after 1+4-splitting the effective energy-momentum tensor of the scalar field has a canonical form (without second derivatives of $`\phi =\sqrt{G_{55}})`$.

c) The relation $`(G_{55})=G_{55}=\phi ^2`$ has been used, for example, in our works . This case is of interest because the gravitational ”constant” in the 4-d Einstein equations is a true constant and in the fifteenth Einstein equation the scalar of curvature $`{}_{}{}^{4}R`$ appears with the coefficient -1/6, as in the case of a conformally invariant scalar field.

Other cases are possible as well. A reasonable question arises: what is hidden behind this arbitrary choice of $`(\phi )`$? It turns out that, in the context of the approach to the physical meaning of $`\phi `$ proposed here, a specific choice of the conformal factor means specifying the equation matter of state.

## 3 Exact solutions

Let us take vacuum (without a right-hand side) 5-d Einstein equation

$${}_{}{}^{5}R_{AB}^{}=0.$$
(13)
We shall find its solutions which correspond to 4-d homogeneous isotropic cosmological models

$$dI^2=dt^2e^{2\lambda }[dr^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)]e^{2\varphi (t)}(dx^5)^2,$$
(14)
where $`\lambda (t)`$ and $`\varphi (t)`$ are two so far unknown functions of $`t`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}r^2\hfill & \text{for flat 3-d section;}\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}^2r\hfill & \text{for close 3-d section;}\hfill \\ \mathrm{sinh}^2r\hfill & \text{for open 3-d section.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Substituting (14) to (13), one can write the Einstein equations in the form

$$\{\begin{array}{c}3(\ddot{\lambda }+\dot{\lambda }^2)+\ddot{\varphi }+\dot{\varphi }^2=0;\hfill \\ \ddot{\varphi }+\dot{\varphi }^2+3\dot{\varphi }\dot{\lambda }=0;\hfill \\ \ddot{\lambda }+3\dot{\lambda }^2+\dot{\lambda }\dot{\varphi }+2se^{2\lambda }=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where $`s=0,+1,1`$, according to the three outlined cases.

The solutions of (15) are exhausted by the following four:

1) The metric of Kasner type with a flat 3-d space section

$$dI^2=dt^2dr^2r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)t^2(dx^5)^2,$$
(16)
has been considered in . This solution describes flat 5-d space-time.

2) The metric with a flat 3-d section

$$dI^2=dt^2t[dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)]\frac{1}{t}d(x^5)^2,(t0)$$
(17)
has been analyzed in  and by others. It is of Kasner type too.

3) The metric with a 3-d space section of positive curvature

$$dI^2=dt^2(t_0^2t^2)[dr^2+\mathrm{sin}^2r(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)]\frac{t^2}{t_0^2t^2}d(x^5)^2,$$
(18)
$$(0|t|t_0)$$

has been obtained in other coordinates in our work  and by others .

4) The metric with a 3-d space section of negative curvature

$$dI^2=dt^2(t^2t_0^2)[dr^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2r(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)]\frac{t^2}{t^2t_0^2}d(x^5)^2,(|t|t_0),$$
(19)
has been obtained in  too. Note that all these solutions will be valid for the case of a timelike 5-th coordinate (after changing the sign).

## 4 Conformal transformations and equations of state

We restrict our attention to conformal factors of the form

$$(\phi )=\phi ^{2n},$$
(20)
Take the metrics of the form

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }\phi ^{2n}.$$
(21)
as observable ones. We consider models with flat space sections separately. The metric (16) after the transformation (21) takes the following form:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}ds_n^2=d\tau ^2\tau ^{2n/n1}[dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)]\hfill & ,\text{if}n1;\hfill \\ ds_1^2=d\tau ^2e^{\pm 2\tau }[dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)]\hfill & ,\text{if}n=1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
where $`\tau `$ is the world time. Similarly one can derive an observable metric for the solution (17)

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}ds_n^2=d\tau ^2\tau ^{2(n+1)/(n+2)}[dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)]\hfill & \text{if}n2;\hfill \\ ds_2^2=d\tau ^2e^{\pm \tau }[dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)]\hfill & \text{if}n=2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
Let us use the well known expression for the matter energy-momentum tensor in GR

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(p+\epsilon )u_\mu u_\nu pg_{\mu \nu }$$
(24)
In our case there is no nongeometric matter, however there is the scalar field $`\phi `$, and we shall consider it to be describing external matter. Substituting the metric components from (22)–(23) to the left-hand side of the Einstein equations and $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ from (24) to right-hand side, we can deduce expressions for the energy density $`\epsilon `$ and the pressure $`p`$ of the effective simulated matter in comoving reference frame:

$$\epsilon =3\dot{\lambda }^2;p=3\dot{\lambda }^22\ddot{\lambda }^2,$$
(25)
where $`\dot{\lambda }d\lambda /d\tau `$. Let us introduce $`k`$ which determines the equation of state:

$$p=k\epsilon .$$
(26)
For the flat space section $`k`$ is constant. For the metrics (22) we have

$$k=1+\frac{2}{3}\frac{n1}{n},$$
(27)
for instance,

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\text{if}n=1\hfill & \hfill & p=\epsilon \hfill & \text{Zeldovich matter;}\hfill \\ \text{if}n=2\hfill & \hfill & p=0\hfill & \text{dust;}\hfill \\ \text{if}n=1\hfill & \hfill & p=\epsilon /3\hfill & \text{radiation;}\hfill \\ \text{if}n=1/2\hfill & \hfill & p=\epsilon \hfill & \text{stiff matter;}\hfill \end{array}$$

For the metrics (23) in a similar manner we find

$$k=1+\frac{2}{3}\frac{n+2}{n+1},$$
(28)
For instance,

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\text{if}n=2\hfill & \hfill & p=\epsilon \hfill & \text{Zeldovich matter;}\hfill \\ \text{if}n=1\hfill & \hfill & p=0\hfill & \text{dust;}\hfill \\ \text{if}n=0\hfill & \hfill & p=\epsilon /3\hfill & \text{radiation;}\hfill \\ \text{if}n=1/2\hfill & \hfill & p=\epsilon \hfill & \text{stiff matter;}\hfill \end{array}$$

So, for any equation of state (any $`k`$=const) in both solutions one can select an appropriate value of the index $`n`$ for the conformal factor and vice versa, i.e. the 5-d solutions (16) and (17) describe all cosmological 4-d models of Friedmann type with a flat 3-d space section and the matter equation of state $`p=k\epsilon `$. This result is in accordance with those, obtained in  by another method.

## 5 Nonflat cosmological models

For the solutions (18) and (19), corresponding to cosmological models with nonflat 3-d space sections, the 4-d metrics after the conformal transformation can be written in the form

$$A)ds^2_n=\frac{(t_0^2t^2)^n}{t^{2n}}dt^2\frac{(t_0^2t^2)^{n+1}}{t^{2n}}[dr^2+\mathrm{sin}^2r(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)],$$
(29)
where the proper time $`\tau `$ can be found from the expression

$$\tau =\pm \frac{(t_0^2t^2)^{n/2}}{t^n}𝑑t+\tau _0;$$
(30)
$$B)ds^2_n=\frac{(t^2t_0^2)^n}{t^{2n}}dt^2\frac{(t^2t_0^2)^{n+1}}{t^{2n}}[dr^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2r(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)],$$
(31)
where

$$\tau =\pm \frac{(t^2t_0^2)^{n/2}}{t^n}𝑑t+\tau _0;$$
(32)
Simple reasoning provides the following expression for the effective $`\epsilon `$ and $`p`$

$$\epsilon =3\dot{\lambda }^2+3se^{2\lambda };p=3\dot{\lambda }^22\ddot{\lambda }se^{2\lambda }.$$
(33)
In both these cases the coefficient $`k`$ is

$$k=\frac{(2n+1)t^2(n+2)nt_0^2}{3[(2n+1)t^2+n^2t_0^2]},$$
(34)
i.e. is in general a function of time. There are some special cases, when $`k=const`$:

) $`n=0`$ or $`1`$ $`k=1/3`$ — radiation;

b) $`n=1/2k=1`$ — stiff matter. In all other cases $`k`$ is a function of time. Below we comment on some peculiarities of 8 variants, depending on values of $`n`$:

a) each variant contains a time interval, when the Universe is expanding;

b) for most of the variants matter passes through a dust-like state;

c) for $`n(0,1)`$ and $`n(2,1)`$ in closed models there is an infinite expansion for a finite time;

d) there is no variants that could give the sequence matter states: vacuum — radiation — dust. For instance, open models for $`n1`$ contain the sequence: vacuum — dust — radiation and for $`n(0,1)`$ closed models give the sequence: radiation — dust — vacuum;

e) when $`n1/2`$, for open models the function $`k(t)`$ acquires vertical asymptotes and has the corresponding peculiar moments of time. At these moments a specific kind of ”phase transition” takes place;

f) cases with $`n1`$ contain examples of cosmological models without cosmological singularities.

## 6 General conformal transformation

Results that have been obtained in the previous section, demonstrate pros and cons of the interpretation, proposed here. As since Big Bang matter has evolved and passed through a number of a different states it would be reasonable to create 4-d cosmological solutions with a variable equation of state that would have in this case a phenomenological nature. The application of a conformal transformation, on the other hand, gives a variable equation of state automatically, but there appears the problem of choosing the conformal factor. Conformally transformed 5-d solutions with nonzero space curvature, as have been shown in previous section, give neither the required sequence of matter states, nor equations of state of the form $`p=k\epsilon `$ with arbitrary $`k=const`$.

To obtain this class of equations of state, it is necessary to abandon the restriction (20) and consider the case of a general conformal transformation $`(\phi )`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{^2(\phi ^2)}g_{\mu \nu }.$$
(35)
Then for close models we have

$$ds^2=^2(\phi ^2)dt^2^2(\phi ^2)(t_0^2t^2)dl_+^2;\phi ^2=\frac{t^2}{t_0^2t^2}.$$
(36)
In the same way for open models

$$ds^2=^2(\phi ^2)dt^2^2(\phi ^2)(t^2t_0^2)dl_{}^2;\phi ^2=\frac{t^2}{t^2t_0^2}.$$
(37)
Here $`l_+`$ and $`l_{}`$ are the 3-d intervals of closed and open models. A calculation, performed in the same way as in section 3, leads to the following expression for $`k`$:

$$k_+=\frac{p}{\epsilon }=\frac{4t_0^4t^2(^22^{\prime \prime })4^{}t_0^2(t_0^4t^4)+t_0^2^2(t_0^2t^2)^2}{12^2t^2t_0^412^{}t^2t_0^2(t_0^2t^2)+3^2t_0^2(t_0^2t^2)^2}.$$
(38)
$`k_{}`$ for open model can be derived from $`k_+`$ by changing $`tit`$, $`t_0it_0`$, $`\phi ^2\phi ^2`$:

$$k_{}=\frac{4t_0^4t^2(^22^{\prime \prime })+4^{}t_0^2(t_0^4t^4)+t_0^2^2(t_0^2t^2)^2}{12^2t^2t_0^4+12^{}t^2t_0^2(t_0^2t^2)+3^2t_0^2(t_0^2t^2)^2}.$$
(39)
Here $`^{}=d(\phi ^2)/d(\phi ^2)`$. Making a change of the variable and the function,

$$x=t^2/(t^2t_0^2),u=^{\frac{2\sigma }{2}},(\sigma =13k2)$$

we obtain for open models the hyphergeometric Gauss equation

$$x(x1)u^{\prime \prime }+[(\alpha +\beta +1)x\gamma ]u^{}+\alpha \beta u=0,$$
(40)
where $`\alpha +\beta +1=(\sigma +1)/2;\gamma =1/2;\alpha \beta =\sigma (\sigma 2)/16`$. For closed models $`x`$ should be changed to $`x`$. The general solution of (40) has the form

$$u=C_1F(\alpha ,\beta ,1/2,x)+C_2\sqrt{x}F(\alpha +1/2,\beta +1/2,3/2,x)$$
(41)
where $`F`$ is the hyphergeometric function.

So, if geometrized matter has the equation of state $`p=k\epsilon `$, where $`k=const`$, then the conformal factor $``$ should have a form more general then (20) and should satisfy (40). For example, for dust $`(k=0)`$ Eq. (40) has the particular solution $`=1+\sqrt{1\pm \phi ^2}`$ for closed and open models, respectively. For Zeldovich matter $`(k=1)`$ $`=1\pm \phi ^2`$. For $`\sigma =2`$ $`(k=1/3)`$ we obtain a linear equation of second order for $``$ and it’s solution can be written in terms of elementary functions.

## 7 Conclusion

So, in 5-d Kaluza-Klein theory, matter can be indeed described by a geometric scalar field $`(\phi =\sqrt{G_{55}})`$, while in 4-d GR it is conventional to substitute an arbitrary through tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. The freedom in choosing the conformal factor corresponds to different possible equations of state for matter. In the present paper it has been demonstrated that for flat cosmological models the equations of state is prescribed by the index of the conformal factor $`\phi ^n`$. For nonflat models a number of variants is possible. Variable equations of state with ”phase transitions” of matter are obtained automatically. To describe of matter with constant equations of state it is necessary to use conformal factors of a more general form than the exponential function.