# Theoretical perspectives

## 1. Introduction

In the case of observations it is easy and meaningful to talk about perspectives. Plans are made for new satellites, new telescopes and new instruments, and from their specifications one can make an educated guess about what new observations will be made and extrapolate to what new information they will bring us (knowing well that some surprises might be in store as a bonus). This is not the case for theory, the progress of which mainly depends on bright new ideas, which are of course impossible to predict.

Theoreticians, however, have one tool, the computer, whose progress over the past few decades has been tremendous, and about whose future advances it is possible to make some predictions. This is true even for personal computers or workstations, but particularly so for machines on which one can perform CPU-intensive numerical simulations. I will thus devote the next section to these types of machines. I will then briefly discuss some theoretical problems of particular interest, on which important progress could be made in the next few years, particularly with the help of numerical simulations.

## 2.  Computers for CPU-intensive calculations

The evolution of computers over the last half-century has been amazing, and the numerical simulations it allowed have been the source of important progress in galactic dynamics. Very large, CPU-intensive calculations are possible on mainly three types of computers, whose advantages and disadvantages will be considered in turn.

### 2.1. Supercomputers

Supercomputers are facilities which are either national or at least institutional. As such, they are run by an operating team and the user does not have to worry about hardware maintenance. They also provide good computer libraries and manuals, greatly facilitating the programming task, while the operating team is often available for advice. Furthermore they often have very large memories. They can, in principle, be used for a very large variety of programs. Finally the rapid recent increase in communication speeds has greatly facilitated the use of these facilities when not in-house.

As disadvantages let us mention the large purchase and running cost, the relatively small flexibility of use (one has to make proposals at given deadlines, sometimes far in advance) and the fact that the software that is tailored for them, since it is largely based on their specific libraries, is non-portable. As a consequence in many countries they start to be phased out in favour of smaller, more dedicated machines, and this tendency will probably be accelerated in the future.

### 2.2. Beowulf-type systems

Beowulf is a name commonly given to a computer consisting of a large number of PCs, coupled by a dedicated and fast network (cf. www.beowulf.org).

Their relatively low price makes it possible for small institutions or departments to acquire them, provided that some engineering personnel is available, or that a few astronomers are ready to invest some of their time. They are somewhat more difficult to program on than supercomputers, since they do not have as efficient libraries, but this is often compensated by their in-house availability and their very good price-to-performance ratio. Furthermore software written for one such system can be relatively easily used on any other.

It is thus easy to predict that such systems will become more and more frequent, and reach ever-increasing performances due to the amazing advances in PC technology.

### 2.3. GRAPE systems

GRAPEs - for GRAvity piPEs - are special purpose boards on which is cabled the most CPU-consuming part of N-body calculations, namely the calculation of the gravitational force. They are coupled to a standard workstation via an Sbus/VMEbus, or a PCI bus interface. The host computer provides the GRAPE with the masses and the positions of all the particles, and the GRAPE calculates and returns the accelerations and the potentials. These boards are developed by a group in Tokyo University, headed initially by D. Sugimoto, and now by J. Makino. The history of the GRAPE project, starting more than 10 years ago with GRAPE-1, is given by Makino & Taiji (1998). There are essentially two families of GRAPEs, those with odd numbers, that have limited precision, and those with even numbers, which have high precision.

#### GRAPE-5

The latest arrival in the family of the odd-numbered GRAPEs is GRAPE-5 (Kawai et al. 1999), and it follows to a large extent the architecture of GRAPE-3. As all other GRAPEs, it calculates the forces and potentials from a set of particles, and also gives the list of nearest neighbours, particularly useful when doing SPH or sticky particle calculations. It has a peak performance of 38.4 Gflops per board and a clock frequency of 80 MHz. Each board has 8 processor chips, and each chip has 2 pipelines. It is coupled to its host computer via a PCI interface.

GRAPE-5 is a vast improvement with respect to GRAPE-3. It is 8 times faster and roughly 10 times more accurate. The communication speed has also improved by an order of magnitude, while the size of the neighbour list is considerably lengthened, so that it can hold up to 32768 neighbours for 48 particles, thus rendering particle-hydro simulations much easier to program. At the time this talk was given, only the prototype GRAPE-5 had been tried out. As I am writing these lines several GRAPE-5 boards are already in use both in Komaba (Tokyo University) and the Observatoire de Marseille, while several more groups make plans to acquire them. Tokyo University has plans for building a massively parallel GRAPE-5 system with a peak performance of about 1 Tflops. On such a system one treecode time-step for 10<sup>7</sup> particles should take about 10 secs.

#### GRAPE-6

GRAPE-6 will be the successor of GRAPE-4, whose architecture it is basically following. It calculates not only the potential and the force, but also the derivative of the force, thus allowing the implementation of individual time-step schemes (e.g. Makino & Aarseth 1992). A single GRAPE-6 chip should be the CPU equivalent of a whole GRAPE-4 board. The chip is presently in its testing phases, and should be commercially available by 2001. Both single chip units (baby-6), and single board units (junior-6, with 16 chips) are planned.

#### PROGRAPE-1

In particle hydrodynamics, GRAPEs are used only to calculate the gravitational forces and the list of nearest neighbours. The actual evaluation of the SPH interactions is done on the host computer, thus hampering the performance. Nevertheless building a special purpose SPH machine may not be a good idea, since there are a large number of varieties of particle hydrodynamics, and each would necessitate its own GRAPE implementation. It is thus preferable to have recourse to reconfigurable computing, or field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA). Such chips, also called programmable chips, consist of logic elements and a switching matrix to connect them, and their logic can thus be reconfigured.

In order to reduce both the work of the designer and that of the application programmer, PROGRAPE is specialised to a limited range of problems, namely the evaluation of particle-particle interactions. The application programmer has to change only the functional form of the interaction. It is thus in a way intermediate between the standard GRAPE systems and general purpose computers. Another project for SPH FPGAs is being developed in a collaboration between groups in Heidelberg and Mannheim. The Tokyo group, after completing PROGRAPE-1 (Hamada et al. 1999), is now starting on PROGRAPE-2, a massively parallel extension of PROGRAPE-1, which should achieve somewhere between 1 and 10 Tflops, and be available in a couple of years.

#### Advantages and disadvantages of GRAPE systems

GRAPE systems are of course limited to N-body type simulations, and thus should not be purchased by groups having other types of CPU-intensive calculations. One of their big advantages is that they are within the reach of a small group or department, while their availability makes it possible to envisage long-term projects. To this one should add their excellent price-to-performance ratio, as witnessed by the two Gordon Bell prices they have won so far. Finally users of GRAPE facilities form a small community with close links, discussing their hardware and software environments, helping each other along, and often exchanging software. For all these reasons I wholeheartedly recommend GRAPE systems to groups which perform CPU-intensive N-body simulations and have a sufficient level of computer knowledge.

We have thus seen that both beowulf-type systems and GRAPEs have important advantages. The choice between the two depends basically on the type of applications (mainly N-body or a broader spectrum) and on personal preference. It is not, however, necessary to chose between the two, since it is possible to envisage a beowulf-type system with GRAPE boards attached to some or all of its nodes. On a similar line the National Observatory of Japan in Mitaka has plans for connecting sixteen GRAPE-5 boards to a supercomputer.

## 3. Problems of particular interest

### 3.1. Dark matter

Although dark halos have been with us for over twenty years, there is still a lot we do not know, or do not understand about them. They were first introduced in the seventies by Ostriker & Peebles (1973) as a way of stabilising discs against the ubiquitous bar instability. Today it is understood that they can achieve this, in the linear regime, only if they are sufficiently concentrated to cut the swing amplifier cycle (Toomre 1981), or, in the non-linear regime, to prohibit the incoming waves from tunneling through to the center of the galaxy. Although the extent and amount of mass in the outer halo is irrelevant to the bar instability, it is crucial for a lot of other dynamical issues.

Even in disc galaxies, where HI extended rotation curves have shown clearly the necessity of an extended dark matter halo <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Unless one allows for a modified gravity (e.g. Bosma 1981), there are still a number of unanswered questions. One of the most crucial ones concerns the disc-to-halo mass ratio in the main body of the galaxy. Are discs maximum? Or are they of relatively low mass, their dynamics to a large extent dominated by the massive halo? Several arguments, both theoretical and observational, have been advanced, and yet the answer is still not clear. Thus for example, if discs were not sufficiently heavy 2-armed structures could not form in them (Athanassoula, Bosma & Papaioannou 1987), while bars would decelerate relatively fast and end up as slow rotators (Debattista & Sellwood 1998), in both cases contrary to observations. On the other hand measurements of velocity dispersions in discs (e.g. Bottema 1993; see also Bosma in these proceedings), favour non-maximum discs, arguing that massive discs would lead to very low values of the Toomre Q parameter (Toomre 1964). Further arguments based on the Tully-Fischer relation come against the maximum disc hypothesis (e.g. Courteau & Rix 1999). Finally cosmological N-body simulations predict less than maximum discs (e.g. Navarro 1998). How can all these be reconciled? Are galactic discs maximum or not? Certainly more work is necessary here to better understand the effect of halos on the dynamics of disc galaxies, and thus their masses.

### 3.2. Evolution of galaxies

Recent observations with the HST, and in the future with the NGST, and with large ground-based telescopes, provide us with information on the properties of galaxies at high $`z`$. We now know more about both their morphology and their kinematics. As implied by the title of this conference, it is one of our main tasks to understand how the morphology and dynamics of galaxies changes with time. As long as such observational data did not exist, the only constraint on evolutionary scenarios was that they had to match observations at $`z=0`$. Observations at higher redshifts make the work of theoreticians more daunting and at the same time more interesting.

For example Abraham et al. (1999) argued that very few barred galaxies can be found at high $`z`$. Since interactions drive bar formation (Noguchi 1987, Gerin, Combes & Athanassoula 1990), wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect more bars at higher redshifts? Several answers can be proposed. One possibility would be that at higher redhifts discs had lower surface densities (since their mass can be assumed to grow in time until its present level). In that case multi-armed structures would be favoured over 2-armed ones. Since such patterns have necessarily inner Lindblad resonances and a small extent between their inner and outer such resonances, one would expect fragmentary multi-armed episodes, driven by interactions, rather than bars, in good agreement to observations at higher $`z`$. This suggestion merits further work, which, together with other scenarios, would lead to a better understanding of the morphology of disc galaxies at high redshifts.

### 3.3. Dynamics of bars

The life of a bar has several episodes: its formation, evolution, possible destruction and perhaps regeneration. All have parts which are poorly understood, but this is particularly true for the third and, even more, the fourth episode.

A bar may be destroyed by the infall of a companion on its host disc (Pfenniger 1991, Athanassoula 1996b). Furthermore bars in discs with a gaseous component are known to commit suicide by pushing gas towards their center, where a central concentration can form, destroy the orbits that support the bar and hence the bar itself. N-body simulations (e.g. Friedli & Benz 1993) show that this occurs on a time-scale of the order of a few bar rotations, i.e. that bars in discs containing gas should be relatively short lived. On the other hand observations show that strong bars are present in over a third of all discs, and weaker ones in yet another third, if not all the remaining discs. How can these two be reconciled? It is of course possible, although highly unlikely, that all bars have formed only a few rotations ago. It is also possible that we are witnessing a second generation of bars, although this solution may have its own problems, as will be shortly discussed below. Finally it is possible that SPH simulations, which have clearly illustrated this third phase in the lifetime of a bar, give shorter time-scales for the gas inflow, and hence for the bar destruction, then what is the case in real bars.

The fourth episode in the life of a bar, namely its possible regeneration, is even less well understood. The disc of the galaxy, as left after the bar destruction, is a hostile environment for a new bar to form. It is hot, since its stars have been heated by the previous bar, and it may have a large central concentration or bulge. How can a bar form in such circumstances? Two suggestions have been made so far. Sellwood & Moore (1999) suggested that freshly infalling gas may cool the disc sufficiently to allow the generation of a new bar, while Miwa & Noguchi (1998) use a very strong external forcing. Are the properties of these second generation bars, different in any way from those of the first generation bars? The simulation of Miwa and Noguchi argues that bars driven by a very strong external forcing should rotate slower than the spontaneous ones and end near their inner Lindblad resonance. Seen the contradiction with observations of early type galaxies, some further such simulations should be carried out, partly to see how general this result is, how much it constrains second generation bars, but also in order to understand the orbital structure in such bars.

Bars are particularly interesting from a dynamical point of view. There is thus a large number of further questions to be examined. What is the fraction of chaotic orbits in self-consistent bars, and, more generally, the relative importance of the different types of orbit families? What are the differences between the properties of bars in early and late type galaxies and what are they due to? How do bars within bars form and evolve? These are only few of the most interesting questions in this context.

### 3.4. Galaxy interactions and mergings. Dynamical effects on galaxies in groups and clusters

Although a considerable effort has been put lately in this very interesting topic (e.g. Barnes 1998 and references therein), still a lot remains to be done. For example we need to understand better interactions and mergings which are more characteristic of higher redshifts, e.g. by using smaller and more gas-rich discs. We also need to know more on mergings of unequal sized galaxies (for some preliminary results see e.g. Barnes 1998 and Athanassoula 1996a,b), an area hitherto insufficiently explored, since a fully self-consistent treatment of such cases requires considerably more particles than equal mass interactions and mergers. Finally most simulations have so far considered the interaction and merging of two unbarred discs. Now that this is getting somewhat better understood we should consider cases in which at least one of the partners is barred (Athanassoula, 1996a, 1996b, and in preparation), or an elliptical. Finally a lot can be learned from better modeling of nearby objects which still elude us, like M51 or the Cartwheel.

The fate of globular clusters (GCs) during mergers can reveal a wealth of information on the processes at work during the merging. Several observations have now shown that the colour distribution of the GCs of many elliptical galaxies are bi-modal or even multi-modal, arguing for the presence of more than one population of GCs around the host galaxy. Several possibilities about their formation have been discussed in the literature. Some could have been initially attached to one of the spirals that merged to make the elliptical, while others could have formed during the merger. Other GCs could have initially formed in dwarf galaxies and been appropriated by the main elliptical during a minor merger. Fully self-consistent high-resolution N-body simulations of mergings, both minor and major, in which the fate of the globular clusters are followed with the help of realistic rules, are necessary to understand the relative importance of the various origins proposed above, as well as the spatial and velocity distributions of the corresponding families of GCs. This study should be extended to galaxy clusters, where one has also to take into account that GCs can be tidally stripped from their parent galaxies and accreted by the brightest cluster member. The wealth of recent observations on this subject are well suited for comparisons with the results of N-body simulations.

More work is certainly necessary to understand the dynamical evolution of loose groups, and also under which (if any) conditions they can lead to compact groups. This would shed more light on the question whether observed compact groups are recently formed, or whether their longevity is due to a massive and not centrally concentrated common halo (Athanassoula, Makino & Bosma 1997).

A deeper understanding of the dynamical evolution of galaxies which are part of groups or clusters requires numerical simulations with a very high number of particles. Except for a couple of notable exceptions, so far progress has been achieved either by simplifying the description of the galaxies (e.g. considering only their halos), or by considering very small groups, or by assuming that the cluster can be described by a rigid potential. All three have led to some interesting results, although they have obvious shortcomings. Yet N-body simulations with a sufficient number of particles to describe a cluster of realistically modeled galaxies are, or will shortly be, within the reach of several computers and progress should be fast in this area.

Several observations of intra-group or intra-cluster stellar populations exist (e.g. Freeman, these proceedings). Here again fully self-consistent N-body simulations where each individual galaxy is realistically modeled should shed some light on the origin and evolution of debris. Some of my preliminary results on this subject show that these should indirectly set constraints on the properties of the common halo of the group or cluster.

### 3.5. Beyond pure stellar dynamics

In order to model a particular phenomenon or effect it is sometimes necessary to consider not only stars but also gas. The first question that arises in such cases is how this gas should be modeled. Using hydrodynamic schemes based on finite differences? Sticky particles? SPH? Before embarking into any extensive use of gas in N-body simulations it seems necessary to compare the results of the various methods of modeling gas in cases where observations “tell us the answer”. Thus in the case of the gas flow in a rigid bar potential there is a very good agreement between SPH and FS2 results (e.g. Patsis & Athanassoula, in prep.) and a relatively good one between FS2 and sticky particles (Athanassoula & Guivarch, in prep.), in as far as the response morphology is concerned. Similar work should be done to compare the rate of gas inflow. The time-scale of the gas inflow depends on the properties of the bar (mass, axial ratio, pattern speed, etc.), but also on viscosity, and thus on the code, so that it is necessary to know how code dependent the various estimates may be. It is thus important to compare inflow rates obtained with FS2, SPH, and other hydro approaches as well as include star formation. Finally including multi-phase interstellar medium might have still some surprises in store for us.

Star formation is on a yet more slippery ground. Various “recipes” have been used so far, based e.g. on Schmidt’s law, or on Toomre’s Q parameter. One has also to take into account the feedback of the stars on the gas, including heating by stellar winds and by supernovae. It is clear that a tight collaboration with people working on star formation would be most fruitful. Nevertheless the problem is rather complicated and real progress may be expected to be slow, since descriptions of numerous processes on a variety of spatial scales need to be combined in a unified framework.

##### Acknowledgments.

I would like to thank A. Bosma and J. Makino for motivating discussions.

## References

Abraham, R. G., Merrifield, M. R., Ellis, R. S., Tanvir, N. R., & Brinchmann J. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 569

Athanassoula, E., 1996a, in Barred Galaxies, R. Buta, D. A. Crocker & B. G. Elmegreen, Astron. Soc. Pac. Conference Series, 91, p. 309

Athanassoula, E., 1996b, in Barred Galaxies and Circumnuclear Activity, Aa. Sandqvist & P. O. Lindblad, Lecture Notes in Physics, 474, Springer Verlag, p. 59

Athanassoula, E., Bosma, A., & Papaioannou, S. 1987, A&A, 179, 23

Athanassoula, E., Makino, J., & Bosma, A. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 825

Barnes, J. E. 1998, in Interactions and Induced star formation: Saas-Fee Advanced Course 26, D. Friedli, L. Martinet, D. Pfenniger, Springer Verlag, Berlin, p. 275

Bosma, A. 1981, AJ, 86, 1825

Bottema, R. 1993, A&A, 275, 16

Courteau, S., & Rix, H.-W. 1999, ApJ, 513, 561

Debattista, V. P., & Sellwood, J. A. 1998, ApJ, 493, 5L

Diaferio, A., Geller M. J., & Ramella, M. 1994, AJ, 107, 868

Friedli, D. & Benz, W. 1993, A&A, 268, 65

Gerin, M., Combes, F., & Athanassoula, E. 1990, A&A, 230, 37

Hamada, T., Fukushige, T., Kawai, A., & Makino, J. 1999, astro-ph/9906419

Kawai, A., Fukushige, T., Makino, J., & Taiji, M. 1999, astro-ph/9909116

Makino, J., & Aarseth, S. J. 1992, PASJ, 44, 141

Makino, J., & Taiji, M. 1998, Scientific Simulations with special-purpose computers, John Wiley, Chichester

Miwa, T., & Noguchi, M. 1998 ApJ, 499, 149

Navarro, J. F. 1998, astro-ph/9807084

Noguchi, M. 1987, MNRAS, 228, 635

Ostriker, J. P., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1973, ApJ, 186, 467

Pfenniger, D. 1991, in Dynamics of Disc Galaxies, B. Sundelius ed., Göteborg press, Göteborg, p. 191

Sellwood, J. A., & Moore, E. M. 1999, ApJ, 510, 125

Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217

Toomre, A. 1981, in The Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, Fall S. M. & Lynden-Bell, Cambridge Univ. press, Cambridge, p. 111