consistent unification of relativity and quantum mechanics remains an unsolved theoretical problem in spite of many efforts applied to its solution in the 20th century .
the fundamental difference between relativistic and non - relativistic physics follows from the famous einstein s formula @xmath1 .
this formula , in particular , implies that if a system of particles has sufficient energy @xmath2 of their relative motion , then this energy may be converted to the mass @xmath3 of newly created particles .
generally , there is no limit on how many particles can be created in collisions , so any realistic quantum mechanical description of high - energy systems should involve states with any number of particles from zero to infinity . the number of particles is not conserved during time evolution .
the most familiar example of such a behavior is the emission and absorption of light ( photons ) in electrodynamics .
first attempts to describe relativistic quantum systems were undertaken immediately after creation of the formalism of quantum mechanics in 1920 s .
a quantum theory of the electromagnetic field was constructed by quantization of the classical maxwell electrodynamics . in lowest perturbation orders ,
this theory agreed well with experimental results . however , perturbative calculations for the @xmath0-matrix did not work in higher orders , in particular , due to ultraviolet divergences .
the way to calculate the @xmath0-matrix in qft accurately in all orders was provided by the renormalized qed formulated by feynman , schwinger , and tomonaga in the late 1940 s .
however this approach created a host of other problems . according to the prevailing interpretation , the creation and annihilation operators present in the hamiltonian and lagrangian of qed correspond to _ bare _ particles having infinite masses and charges .
however , the bare particles have never been directly observed in experiments . they are believed to be surrounded by clouds of virtual photons and electron - positron pairs , thus forming complex objects called _ dressed _ particles .
the dressed particles are supposed to be the eigenstates of the full hamiltonian .
they have finite experimentally observable masses and charges .
the problem is that the bare particle hamiltonian of qft is formally infinite .
although , these infinities cancel out when the @xmath0-matrix is calculated , the hamiltonian is useless if one wants to calculate the time evolution or to find wavefunctions of bound states via diagonalization procedure .    two lines of research were initiated to cope with these problems .
the _ dressed particle _
approach was suggested by greenberg and schweber @xcite . their goal was to get rid of the bare particles and to express the entire formalism of qft through observable dressed particles only .
the operators for dressed particles were sought as unitary transforms of bare particle operators . from another direction , gazek and
wilson @xcite introduced the _ similarity renormalization _ formalism .
the idea was to apply a unitary transformation to the hamiltonian in order to ensure that interaction potentials rapidly fall off as functions of energy differences , and to guarantee that all loop integrals are convergent .
the similarity and dressing transformations are strikingly similar .
they can be combined into one unitary _
similarity - dressing _ transformation which achieves two goals at once : the theory can be expressed in terms of real dressed particles and the hamiltonian can be made finite in all perturbation orders . at the same time
, the accurate and well - tested @xmath0-matrix of the renormalized theory remains intact .
this combined approach was developed in refs . @xcite and dubbed the relativistic quantum dynamics , or rqd .    in this paper
we will discuss the reasons why the renormalization difficulties ( e.g. , the absence of a well - defined hamiltonian and unsatisfactory treatment of the time evolution ) persist in current relativistic quantum field theories . to avoid unnecessary mathematical complications
, we will be working with a simple model theory which , nevertheless , shares some important features with qed . in section 9 we will explain how the similarity - dressing transformation of this model theory leads to a well defined ( perturbatively ) finite hamiltonian that can be used for all kinds of quantum mechanical calculations ( @xmath0-matrix , bound states , time evolution , etc . ) without the need for renormalization .
in addition , the rqd formalism does not use the dubious notions of bare and virtual particles .
in this paper we will be concerned with three types of phenomena that are normally studied in physical experiments : bound states , time evolution , and scattering .
these three areas account for the most of experimental information available about fundamental particles and their interactions .
the key theoretical quantity involved in quantum mechanical description of these phenomena is the hamilton operator @xmath4 .
the energies @xmath5 and state vectors @xmath6 of bound states can be found as eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the hamiltonian    @xmath7    the development of the state vector @xmath8 from time @xmath9 to time @xmath10 is described by the _ time evolution operator _
@xmath11    @xmath12    if the eigenvalues @xmath5 and eigenvectors @xmath13 of the hamiltonian are known and the initial state is represented as a sum ( and/or integral ) over the basis states    @xmath14    unfortunately , in most cases , the full spectrum of the hamiltonian is not known , and the time evolution is difficult to predict .
this difficulty , however , is not that disappointing , because experimental observations of the time evolution in subatomic world are even more difficult than calculations .
most experiments in high energy physics are performed by preparing free particles or their bound states ( like hydrogen atoms or deuterons ) , bringing them into collision , and studying the properties of free particles or bound states leaving the region of collision . in these experiments , it is not possible to observe the time evolution during interaction : particle reactions occur almost instantaneously and one can only register the reactants and products which move freely before and after the collision .
this gives a lucky break for theoreticians : in such situations the theory is not required to describe the detailed dynamics of particles during the short interval of collision .
it is sufficient to provide a mapping of free states before interaction onto the free states after the interaction . to describe scattering experiments
, one needs only the formula for the time evolution from the remote past @xmath15 to the distant future @xmath16
@xmath17    where the @xmath0__-operator _ _ [ s - oper ] is defined by    @xmath18    one can read the right hand side of eq .
( [ eq : s - oper ] ) from right to left as a sequence of three steps : ( i ) the non - interaction evolution of the system from time @xmath9 in the past to 0 ; ( ii ) the sudden jump at @xmath19 described by the @xmath0-operator ; ( iii ) the free evolution from @xmath19 to the future time @xmath10 .
the most effective technique available for calculations of the @xmath0-operator is the perturbation theory which can be written in many equivalent forms .
the dyson time - ordered expansion provides the most economical expressions that can be encoded in familiar feynman diagrams .
however , for the discussion in this paper , we found more useful two other perturbative expressions which differ from the dyson s formula only by re - shuffling the terms .
the `` old - fashioned '' formula for the @xmath0-operator is    @xmath20    where @xmath21 is the interaction part of the total hamiltonian @xmath22 ,    @xmath23    and the factor latexmath:[$e^{-\epsilon    switching the interaction on and off .
operators with @xmath10-dependence determined by the free hamiltonian @xmath25 as in eq .
( [ eq:8.67 ] ) will be called _
regular_. using convenient symbols for @xmath10-integrals [ underline ]    @xmath26    formula ( [ eq:8.68 ] ) can be written compactly as    @xmath27    where    @xmath28    another equivalent expression for @xmath0 was suggested by magnus @xcite
@xmath29    here the hermitian operator @xmath30 can be represented as a series of multiple commutators with @xmath10-integrations    @xmath31     -\frac{1}{6}[\underline{\underline{v(t)},[v(t)},v(t ) ] ]     -\frac{1}{6}[\underline{[\underline{v(t)},v(t)]},v(t ) ] \nonumber \\   & \mbox { } &   + \frac{i}{12}[\underline{\underline{\underline{v(t)},[[v(t)},v(t)]},v(t ) ] ] \nonumber \\     & + & \frac{i}{12}[\underline{[\underline{\underline{v(t)},[v(t)},v(t)]]},v(t ) ]     + \frac{i}{12}[\underline{\underline{[\underline{v(t)},v(t)]},[v(t)},v(t ) ] ]     + \ldots \label{eq:8.72}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    one important advantage of this representation is that the @xmath0-operator ( [ eq:8.71 ] ) is manifestly unitary .
it follows from equations ( [ eq:8.69 ] ) and ( [ eq:8.71 ] ) that operators @xmath32 and @xmath30 are related to each other    @xmath33    so finding @xmath30 or @xmath32 are equivalent tasks .    the @xmath0-operator and the hamiltonian provide two different ways to describe dynamics .
the @xmath0-operator represents only `` integrated '' time evolution from the remote past to the distant future .
the knowledge of the @xmath0-operator is sufficient to calculate the scattering cross - sections as well as energies and lifetimes of stable and metastable bound states .-
operator on the complex energy plane .
] however , in order to describe the time evolution and the wavefunctions of bound states the full interacting hamiltonian @xmath4 is required .
it can be shown @xcite that two hamiltonians @xmath34 and @xmath35 related to each other by a unitary transformation @xmath36
@xmath37    yield the same scattering @xmath38 as long as condition    @xmath39    is satisfied .
such hamiltonians @xmath4 and @xmath40 are called _ scattering - equivalent_. the energy spectra of two scattering equivalent hamiltonians are identical . however , the eigenvectors are different and , according to eq .
( [ eq:8.61a ] ) , the corresponding descriptions of dynamics are different as well
. therefore scattering - equivalent theories may be not _ physically _ equivalent .
calculations of bound states , time evolution and scattering is a routine practice in non - relativistic quantum mechanics . however , the situation is less certain in relativistic quantum field theories . as mentioned in introduction
, the hamiltonian of renormalized qft is infinite .
therefore , it is not immediately clear if the above formulas ( [ eq:1 ] ) - ( [ eq:8.74 ] ) remain valid for the high energy relativistic phenomena , and what modifications , if any , should be introduced in quantum theory to take into account the variable number of particles . in this paper
we illustrate the difficulties encountered in quantum field theories by analyzing a simple model theory with variable number of particles . we will demonstrate that the hamiltonian can be redefined so that there is no need for renormalization and usual quantum mechanical techniques remain applicable even in the relativistic case .
our model theory describes two kinds of particles .
these are massive spinless fermions which will be called _ electrons _ and massless bosons with zero helicity , which will be called _
photons_. here we disregard the spin and polarization degrees of freedom as they are not so important for the discussion of renormalization . to allow for creation and annihilation of particles ,
the system is described in the fock space which is built as a direct sum of sectors with various numbers of particles .
for example , if we denote @xmath41 the no - particle vacuum state , @xmath42 the one - electron hilbert space and @xmath43 the one - photon hilbert space , then the fock space can be written as an infinite direct sum    @xmath44    the anticommutation and commutation relations for particle creation and annihilation operators ( @xmath45 , @xmath46 for electrons and @xmath47 , @xmath48 for photons , respectively ) are , as usual ,    @xmath49    @xmath50 & = &   \delta ( \mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p } ' )   \label{eq : cc}\\    \{a_{\mathbf{p}},a_{\mathbf{p}'}\ } & = & \{a^{\dag}_{\mathbf{p}},a^{\dag}_{\mathbf{p}'}\ } = 0   \label{eq : aa2}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath51 = [ c^{\dag}_{\mathbf{k}},c^{\dag}_{\mathbf{k } ' } ] = 0 \label{eq : cc2}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    @xmath52&= & [ a^{\dag}_{\mathbf{p}},c_{\mathbf{k } } ] = [ a_{\mathbf{p}},c^{\dag}_{\mathbf{k } } ] = [ a_{\mathbf{p}},c_{\mathbf{k } } ] = 0.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the full hamiltonian @xmath53 is the sum of the free hamiltonian    @xmath54    ( where @xmath55 and @xmath56 are one - particle energies of electrons and photons , respectively ) and the interaction , which we choose in the following form    @xmath57    the coupling constant @xmath58 is the absolute value of the electron charge .
here and in what follows the _ perturbation order _ [ pert - order ] of an operator (= the power of the coupling constant @xmath58 ) is shown by the subscript .
for example , the free hamiltonian @xmath25 does not depend on @xmath58 , so it is of zero perturbation order ; @xmath59 is of the first perturbation order , etc .
the number of electrons is conserved by the interaction ( [ eq:9.69 ] ) , but the number of photons is not conserved .
so , this theory is capable of describing important processes of the emission and absorption of photons .    in this paper
we will discuss ultraviolet divergences associated with the interaction ( [ eq:9.69 ] ) .
however , we will skip completely the discussion of `` infrared divergences '' which are related to the zero mass of photons and singularities @xmath60 in ( [ eq:9.69 ] ) .
the easiest way to avoid infrared problems in practical calculations is to assign a small non - zero mass to photons .    in section [ ss : e - e - scatt ] we are going to calculate the scattering operator ( [ eq:8.69 ] ) with the above hamiltonian . before doing that
, some remarks are in order . the operator @xmath0 is obtained as a sum of products ( [ eq:8.70 ] ) ( or commutators ( [ eq:8.72 ] ) ) of interactions @xmath61 with @xmath10-integrations .
each term in these expressions can be written as a normally ordered product of @xmath62 creation operators @xmath63 and @xmath64 annihilation operators @xmath65 . and @xmath65 refer to generic creation and annihilation operators without specifying the type of the particle .
the pair of integers @xmath66 will be referred to as the _ index _ [ index ] of the term @xmath67 . ]
@xmath68     d_{nm}[\mathbf{q } ]   e^{ite_{nm}[\mathbf{q } ] }      \delta ( \mathbf{p}_{nm}[\mathbf{q } ] )    \alpha^{\dag}_{\mathbf{q}'_1 } \ldots \alpha^{\dag}_{\mathbf{q}'_n } \alpha _ { \mathbf{q}_1 } \ldots \alpha_{\mathbf{q}_m } \label{eq:9.49}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where integration is carried over momenta of all created and annihilated particles @xmath69 $ ] .
the momentum conservation law is guaranteed by the delta function in ( [ eq:9.49 ] ) whose argument is the sum of momenta of created particles minus the sum of momenta of annihilated particles    @xmath70    usually , we will perform explicit integration over one momentum @xmath71 which removes the delta function and expresses @xmath71 as a linear function of other momenta . the argument of the exponent in ( [ eq:9.49 ] )
contains the _ energy function _
@xmath72    which is the difference of energies of particles created and annihilated by @xmath67 .
@xmath73 is a numerical _ coefficient function_.    suppose that a term @xmath67 has coefficient function @xmath73 , then we introduce a useful notation [ circ ] @xmath74 for the operator whose coefficient function @xmath75 is a product of @xmath73 and a function @xmath76 of the same arguments    @xmath77 & = & d_{nm}[\mathbf{q } ] \zeta [ \mathbf{q}]\end{aligned}\ ] ]    then , a @xmath10-dependent regular term @xmath78 can be written as    @xmath79    and its definite @xmath10-integral is    @xmath80    eq .
( [ eq:9.52 ] ) means that each term in @xmath81 is non - zero only on the hypersurface of solutions of the equation    @xmath82    if such solutions exist .
this hypersurface in the momentum space is called the _ energy shell _ [ energy - shell ] of the term @xmath78 .
note that the scattering operator ( [ eq:8.69 ] ) is non - trivial only on the energy shell , i.e. , where the energy conservation condition holds .
in this section we would like to get a further insight into the nature of operators in the fock space by dividing them into three groups depending on their index @xmath66 .
we will call these types of operators _ renorm _ , _ phys _ , and _ unphys_.    * renorm operators * [ oper - renorm ] have either index ( 0,0 ) ( a numerical constant @xmath83 ) or index ( 1,1 ) in which case the same type of particle is created and annihilated .
the most general form of a renorm operator in our theory is omitting all numerical factors , indices , integration and summation signs .
note also that the interaction operator ( [ eq:9.69 ] ) commutes with the operator of charge @xmath84 , so any product or commutator of terms derived from @xmath59 should also commute with @xmath85 .
this is not true for terms like @xmath86 and @xmath87 , so they are not allowed in the theory . ]
@xmath88    the free hamiltonian ( [ eq : free - h0 ] ) is an example of a renorm operator .
the class of renorm operators is characterized by the property that the energy function ( [ eq:9.51 ] ) is identically zero .
so , renorm operators always have an non - empty energy shell where they do not vanish .
regular renorm operators do not depend on @xmath10 .
* phys operators * [ oper - phys ] have at least two creation operators and at least two destruction operators ( index @xmath66 with @xmath89 and @xmath90 ) . in this case
the energy shell is non - empty . for example , the energy shell for phys operator @xmath91 is given by the set of solutions of equation @xmath92 which is not empty .
* unphys operators * [ oper - unph ] have index @xmath93 or @xmath94 .
it can be shown that the energy shell is empty for unphys operators .
for example , the interactions ( [ eq:9.69 ] ) are unphys . the energy shell equation for these two terms @xmath95 does not have a solution , because there are no photon states with zero momentum .
renorm , phys , and unphys operators exhaust all possibilities in our theory , therefore any regular operator @xmath21 must have a unique decomposition    @xmath96    the rules for calculations of commutators , derivatives and @xmath10-integrals with different operator types are summarized in table 9.2 . for example , the @xmath10-integrals of phys and unphys operators are given by formula    @xmath97    @ccccccc type of operator & & & & & & @xmath98 & @xmath99 $ ] & @xmath100 $ ] & @xmath101 $ ] & @xmath102 & @xmath103 & @xmath104 & & & & & & p & p & p+u & p & p & p & p u & p+u & p+u+r & u & u & u & 0 r & p & u & r & 0 & nr & @xmath105
our goal in this section is to introduce the diagram technique which greatly facilitates perturbative calculations of scattering operators ( [ eq:8.70 ] ) and ( [ eq:8.72 ] ) .
let us graphically represent each term in the interaction operator ( [ eq:9.69 ] ) as a _
( see fig .
1 ) . [ diagram ] each particle operator in ( [ eq:9.69 ] )
is represented as an oriented _ line _ [ line ] or arrow .
the line corresponding to the annihilation operator enters the vertex , and the line corresponding to the creation operator leaves the vertex .
electron lines are shown by full arcs and photon lines are shown by broken arrows .
each line is marked by the momentum label of the corresponding particle operator .
free ends of the electron lines are attached to the vertical `` order bar '' on the left hand side of the diagram .
the order of these _ external lines _ [ extern ] ( from bottom to top of the diagram ) corresponds to the order of particle operators in the interaction term ( from right to left ) .
an additional numerical factor is indicated in the upper left corner of the diagram .
the @xmath10-integral @xmath106 differs from @xmath107 only by the factor @xmath108 ( see eq .
( [ eq:9.56 ] ) ) which is represented in the diagram by drawing a box that crosses all external lines .
a line entering ( leaving ) the box contributes its energy with the negative ( positive ) sign to the energy function @xmath109 .
the diagram representation of the integral    @xmath110    is shown in fig .
the product of two operators @xmath111 is represented by simply placing diagram @xmath112 below diagram @xmath98 and attaching the external electron lines of both diagrams to the same order bar .
for example , the diagram for the product of the second term in ( [ eq:9.69 ] ) ( fig .
1(b ) ) and the first term in ( [ eq:9.70 ] ) ( fig .
2(a ) )    @xmath113    is shown in fig .
this product should be further converted to the normal form , i.e. , all incoming lines should be positioned below the outgoing lines . due to the relations ( [ eq : aa ] ) - ( [ eq : cc2 ] )
each exchange of positions of the electron particle operators ( full external lines on the diagram ) changes the total sign of the expression .
each permutation of annihilation and creation operators ( incoming and outgoing lines ) of similar particles creates an additional expression and a new diagram in which the swapped lines are joined together . using these rules we first move the photon operators in ( [ eq:9.71 ] ) to the rightmost positions , move the operator @xmath114 to the leftmost position , and add another term due to the anticommutator @xmath115 .
@xmath116    this expression is represented by two diagrams 3(b ) and 3(c ) . in the diagram 3(b )
the electron line marked @xmath117 has been moved to the top of the order bar . in the diagram 3(c )
the product @xmath118 and the integration by @xmath117 are represented by merging or _ pairing _ the incoming electron line carrying momentum @xmath119 with the outgoing electron line carrying momentum @xmath117 .
this produces the _ internal electron line _ [ intern ] carrying momentum @xmath119 between two vertices .    in the expression ( [ eq:9.72 ] ) , the electron operators are in the normal order , however , the photon operators are not .
the next step is to bring the photon operators to the normal order    @xmath120    according to equation ( [ eq : cc ] ) , the normal ordering of photon operators in 3(b ) yields diagrams 3(d ) and 3(e ) .
diagrams 3(f ) and 3(g ) are obtained from 3(c ) in a similar manner .
using diagrams , with some practice , one can perform calculations of scattering operators ( [ eq:8.70 ] ) and ( [ eq:8.72 ] ) much easier than in the usual algebraic way . during these diagram manipulations
we , actually , do not need to keep momentum labels of lines .
the algebraic expression of the result can be easily restored from an unlabeled diagram by following these steps :    * assign a distinct momentum label to each external line , except one , whose momentum is obtained from the momentum conservation condition . *
assign momentum labels to internal lines so that the momentum conservation law is satisfied at each vertex . if there are _ loops _ , [ loop ] one needs to introduce additional independent _ loop momenta_. is the loop momentum . ] * read external lines from top to bottom of the order bar and write corresponding particle operators from left to right .
* for each box , write a factor @xmath121 , where @xmath122 is the sum of energies of particles going out of the box and @xmath123 is the sum of energies of particles coming into the box . *
write a factor @xmath124 , where @xmath125 is the energy function of the diagram which is the sum of energies of all outgoing external lines minus the sum of energies of all incoming external lines .
* for each vertex introduce a factor @xmath126 , where @xmath127 is the momentum of the photon line attached to this vertex . *
integrate the obtained expression by all independent external and loop momenta .
let us now try to extract some physical information from the above theory .
we will calculate low order terms in the perturbation expansion ( [ eq:8.70 ] ) for the @xmath0-operator .
@xmath128    to obtain the corresponding contributions to the @xmath0-operator we need to take @xmath10-integrals of these expressions    @xmath129    note that the right hand side of ( [ eq:9.73 ] ) and the first term on the right hand side of ( [ eq:9.74 ] ) are unphys .
their energy shell is empty , so , according to table 1 , they do not contribute to the @xmath0-operator .
operator @xmath130 on the right hand side of eq . ( [ eq:9.74 ] ) has two terms corresponding to two types of scattering processes allowed in the 2nd perturbation order .
the term of the type @xmath131 ( see , e.g. , fig .
3(f ) ) annihilates an electron and a photon in the initial state and recreates them ( with different momenta ) in the final state .
so , this term describes the electron - photon ( compton ) scattering .
[ compton2 ] in this paper we will focus on the other term which describes the electron - electron scattering . let us consider in more detail the second - order contribution to this process ( see fig .
3(e ) )    @xmath132 & = &    2 \pi   \int d \mathbf{p } d \mathbf{q }   d \mathbf{k }   \delta ( \omega_{\mathbf{p - k } } + \omega_{\mathbf{q+k } } -\omega_{\mathbf{q}}- \omega_{\mathbf{p } } ) d_2(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q } , \mathbf{k } )   a^{\dag}_{\mathbf{p - k } } a^{\dag}_{\mathbf{q+k } } a_{\mathbf{q}}a_{\mathbf{p } }   \label{eq:9.76}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the coefficient function in ( [ eq:9.76 ] ) can be read from the diagram , according to the rules ( i ) - ( vii ) ,    @xmath133    in the non - relativistic approximation ( @xmath134 ) , the coefficient function @xmath135 has singularity @xmath136 which is characteristic for scattering of two electrons interacting via repulsive coulomb potential [ coulomb1 ]    @xmath137    so , our model theory is quite realistic .
next consider the third term on the right hand side of eq .
( [ eq:9.74 ] ) .
it is given by the diagram in fig .
according to rules ( i ) - ( vii ) this diagram is represented by the expression    @xmath138    there are serious problems with this term .
first , the loop integral by @xmath127 is divergent because the integrand in ( [ eq:9.88 ] ) has asymptotic behavior @xmath139 at large @xmath140 .
however , even if the integral were convergent , the presence of a renorm contribution in the operator @xmath32 is unacceptable , because , according to table 1 , the @xmath10-integral of any renorm term is infinite .
so , the scattering phase in the second order @xmath141 is infinite , which is absurd .
moreover , if we continued calculations ( [ eq:9.73 ] ) - ( [ eq:9.74 ] ) to higher perturbation orders we would find out that even phys terms in @xmath32 become infinite due to divergent loop integrals , so the theory with the hamiltonian ( [ eq : free - h0 ] ) - ( [ eq:9.69 ] ) is seriously flawed .    in a consistent theory
we must require that    @xmath142    therefore , operator @xmath143 must be purely phys    @xmath144    it was shown in ref .
@xcite that condition ( [ eq:11.43 ] ) is equivalent to requiring that the @xmath0-operator leaves the vacuum and one - particle states invariant
@xmath145    this is the _ mass renormalization condition _ of the traditional renormalization theory . to satisfy this condition
, we must modify the hamiltonian ( [ eq : free - h0 ] ) - ( [ eq:9.69 ] ) by adding certain unphys @xmath146 and renorm @xmath147 _ counterterms _ to the interaction operator @xmath59 .
in other words , we are saying that the original hamiltonian    @xmath148    is not correct , and the modified hamiltonian with renormalization counterterms    @xmath149    better describes interactions between particles . to comply with eq .
( [ eq:11.43 ] ) , we must choose the counterterms in such a way that operator    @xmath150    does not contain renorm terms .
from table 1 , it is clear that renorm terms in @xmath151 may appear due to the presence of renorm and unphys terms in @xmath152 and their products .
so , in order to satisfy eq .
( [ eq:11.42 ] ) , there should be such a balance between unphysical and renorm terms in @xmath153 that all renorm terms in @xmath151 cancel out in all orders of the perturbation theory .
the mass renormalization is achieved by adding renorm counterterms in even orders : @xmath154 , @xmath155 , etc .
the charge renormalization procedure will be discussed in section [ ss : charge - renorm ] .
it requires addition of unphys counterterms in odd orders @xmath156 , @xmath157 , etc .
we take these considerations into account by writing the general expression for the hamiltonian of the renormalized theory - independent hamiltonian @xmath158 .
although , at intermediate calculation steps it is convenient to keep all operators @xmath10-dependent , as in eq .
( [ eq:8.67 ] ) , in the end we should set @xmath19 . ]
@xmath159    where    @xmath160    we obtain formulas for @xmath161 ( @xmath162 ) by inserting interaction ( [ eq : inter ] ) in ( [ eq:8.70 ] ) and collecting terms of equal order .
@xmath163    where we denoted    @xmath164    now we go order - by - order and choose counterterms @xmath165 so that renorm terms are eliminated from the left hand sides of eqs ( [ eq:11.47 ] ) - ( [ eq:11.50 ] ) .
the first - order term ( [ eq:11.47 ] ) is unphys , so there is no need for renormalization in the first order . to ensure that @xmath166 does not have a renorm part we choose the counterterm    @xmath167    ( see diagram 3(g ) ) . with this choice , we can rewrite the contributions to the @xmath0-operator in the 4 lowest orders    @xmath168    where    @xmath169    and the superscript @xmath170 denotes the sum of phys and unphys terms .
the term on the right hand side of ( [ eq:11.51 ] ) has odd number of particle operators , hence it is free of renorm parts ( which have either zero or two particle operators ) .
therefore , no renorm counterterms should be added there .
just as we did in the 2nd order , we can choose a renorm counterterm @xmath155 which simply cancels all renorm terms which may be present in the first three terms on the right hand side of ( [ eq:11.52 ] ) . with the above choices ,
the operator @xmath151 does not contain renorm terms up to the 4th order , as required by the mass renormalization condition , ) and in more realistic theories , such as qed , qcd , and standard model .
products or commutators of such terms in ( [ eq:8.70 ] ) or ( [ eq:8.72 ] ) give rise to renorm terms in the @xmath0-operator which should be compensated by adding renorm terms to the hamiltonian .
the operator structure of these terms is the same as in @xmath25 ( [ eq : free - h0 ] ) .
this results in the difference of masses of bare and dressed particles , as discussed at the end of section [ ss : charge - renorm ] . ] and the expression for @xmath171 simplifies    @xmath172    using the diagram technique we find that the @xmath173 part of the first two terms on the right hand side of eq .
( [ eq:11.55 ] ) is represented by 7 diagrams shown in fig .
4 . from diagram rules ( i ) - ( vii ) , we obtain the contribution of diagrams 4(a ) - 4(b ) to the coefficient function @xmath174 for the electron - electron scattering on the energy shell .    @xmath175    where @xmath176 , @xmath177 , @xmath178 , and @xmath179 .
unfortunately , this contribution is infinite ( at large values of @xmath180 the integrand behaves as @xmath181 ) .
thus we conclude that the mass renormalization procedure described above has not removed all divergences .
to solve this problem we need to perform the second renormalization step known as the charge renormalization procedure .
this step is explained in the next section .
first note that the divergent terms ( [ eq:11.58 ] ) have a singularity @xmath182 at @xmath183 . as we know from section [ ss : e - e - scatt ] , such a singularity is responsible for the low - energy electron - electron scattering at large distances . from classical physics we also know that long - distance interactions between charged particles depend on @xmath184 ( in our language , they are of the second perturbation order ) and they are accurately described by the 2nd order term ( [ eq : d2 ] ) .
non - zero terms @xmath185 mean that the charge of the electron is modified by the interaction . actually , this modification is infinite , but even finite values of the terms like ( [ eq:11.58 ] ) are inconsistent with the classical limit .
so , we will postulate that in orders higher that 2nd , singular coefficient functions like ( [ eq:11.58 ] ) should not be present at all , whether they are infinite or finite .
this is the _ charge renormalization condition_. to eliminate the divergent contribution ( [ eq:11.58 ] ) we can choose unphys 3rd order counterterms @xmath186 .
two diagrams describing these counterterms are shown in fig .
5(a ) and 5(b ) .
as expected , they are infinite , and expressions    @xmath187    in ( [ eq:11.52 ] ) exactly cancel unwanted infinite diagrams 4(a ) and 4(b ) on the energy shell .    surviving diagrams 4(c ) - 4(g ) are the 4th order _ radiative corrections _ [ rad - corr ] to the electron - electron scattering . on the energy shell they yield the following contribution to the coefficient function of @xmath32    @xmath188    where    @xmath189
the integrand in ( [ eq:11.59 ] ) is proportional to @xmath190 , and the integral is convergent at large values of the loop momentum @xmath180 .
therefore @xmath191 is finite on the energy shell .
so , in the renormalized theory the electron - electron scattering is represented by a finite @xmath0-operator which up to the 4th order is described by the coefficient function    @xmath192    where @xmath193 is given by eq .
( [ eq : d2 ] ) and @xmath194 is given by eq .
( [ eq:11.59 ] ) .
[ charge - end ]    the renormalization technique presented above has not been applied to realistic theories , such as qed , yet .
however , the close analogy between renormalization issues encountered in our toy model and in qed allows us to speculate that similar renormalization steps can be repeated in all perturbation orders in qed , so that finite and accurate values for various scattering amplitudes can be obtained .
note that in our approach the counterterms in the hamiltonian ( [ eq : ren - ham ] ) have the same operator structure as the terms in the original hamiltonian ( [ eq : org - ham ] ) .
in relativistic renormalizable theories , like qed , even stronger statements can be made : the mass renormalization counterterms differ from the one - particle energy terms in @xmath25 only by a constant ( but infinite ) factor , and the charge renormalization counterterms are equal to the interaction term @xmath21 in the original hamiltonian multiplied by a constant infinite factor .
this conclusion is true in all perturbation orders .
thus , if the original hamiltonian depends on finite masses @xmath195 , @xmath196 and coupling constants ( charges ) @xmath197 , @xmath198    @xmath199    then the addition of renormalization counterterms is equivalent to simply modifying ( making them infinite ) the values of masses and charges .
the hamiltonian @xmath158 after renormalization has the same functional form as @xmath4 where parameters @xmath195 , @xmath196 and @xmath197 , @xmath198 substituted by renormalized ( infinite ) values @xmath200 , @xmath201 and @xmath202 , @xmath203    @xmath204    the traditional approach offers the following physical interpretation of these results .
the creation and annihilation operators present in the theory describe so - called bare particles having infinite masses and charges .
the interaction between bare particles drastically change their properties .
for example , bare electrons constantly emit and re - absorb virtual photons and electron - positron pairs .
so , bare electrons are surrounded by a coat of virtual particles .
the mass of this coat is infinite , thus compensating the infinite mass of the bare particle .
the virtual particles in the coat shield the true ( infinite ) charge of the bare electron .
the resulting mass and charge of the dressed particle is finite and exactly equal to the parameters measured in experiment . in experiment
, we never see the bare particles and their virtual coats , we only see the dressed particles .
the hamiltonian @xmath158 is formally infinite , but these infinities cancel when the @xmath0-operator is calculated by formula ( [ eq:8.68 ] ) , and accurate results are obtained for scattering amplitudes and energies of bound states .
however , the infinities do not cancel when one tries to find the eigenvectors of the hamiltonian @xmath158 or calculate the time evolution operator @xmath205 .
direct application of this formula would lead to unphysical results .
for example , if we calculated the time evolution of the simplest one - electron state we would obtain that this states dissociates into a complex linear combination of states over time    @xmath206    moreover the coefficients multiplying the terms in ( [ eq : ihct ] ) are given by divergent integrals .
therefore , with the infinite hamiltonian @xmath158 the basic formulas of quantum theory ( [ eq:1 ] ) and ( [ eq:8.60 ] ) become useless for practical calculations .
however , in most cases this is not a cause of trouble . as discussed in section [ sc : bound - states ] , most experiments in high energy physics are concerned either with bound state energies or with scattering cross - sections . to calculate these properties ,
the knowledge of the @xmath0-operator is sufficient and the renormalized theory works fine . for approximate description of the time evolution in low energy , e.g. , atomic , systems
, one can use heuristic approaches , such as those based on the dirac - fock hamiltonian .
we see two fundamental problems with the traditional renormalization theory presented above .
first , from the practical point of view , the absence of a well - defined finite hamiltonian does not allow one to study the time evolution of interacting states .
one can expect that with advancement of experimental tools , the time - dependent information from the region of interaction will soon become available .
however , accurate analysis of this information is not possible with ill - defined hamiltonians of renormalized quantum field theories . ) . ]
second , from the theoretical point of view , the traditional approach operates with notions of bare and virtual particles that are , in principle , non - observable .
it is desirable to have a theory formulated directly in terms of dressed particles and their interactions without mentioning the non - observable bare and virtual particles at all .
this idea was first realized in the dressed particle formalism by greenberg and schweber @xcite .    in the rest of this paper
we will discuss the rqd approach @xcite which combines the similarity renormalization and dressed particle ideas .
rqd is capable to fix the both problems of the traditional renormalization formalism mentioned above .
let us first focus on the dressing part of rqd .
there are two approaches to dressing with different interpretations but equivalent physical results .
one approach @xcite tries to find an explicit unitary ( dressing ) transformation connecting creation and annihilation operators of bare particles ( @xmath207 , and @xmath208 ) with creation and annihilation operators of dressed particles ( @xmath209 , and @xmath83 ) and find a function @xmath210 which expresses the hamiltonian @xmath158 of the renormalized theory through dressed operators    @xmath211    another approach @xcite is to pretend that operators @xmath207 , and @xmath208 already describe the dressed particles and try to find a new finite hamiltonian @xmath212 whose functional dependence on bare particle operators is given by the same function @xmath210 which expresses the dependence of @xmath158 on the dressed operators    @xmath213    we will stick to the second approach in this paper .
there are two ways to proceed .
first , we can try to find @xmath212 by applying a unitary dressing transformation to @xmath158 .
this way was described in ref .
@xcite . in this paper
we are choosing another route : we will simply fit the hamiltonian @xmath212 to the finite scattering operator @xmath214 known from the renormalized theory .
there are three requirements that we want to satisfy when looking for the `` dressed particle '' hamiltonian @xmath215 .
* @xmath212 is _ scattering - equivalent _ to @xmath158 .
* @xmath216 is _ finite_. * @xmath216 is _
phys_.    the condition ( a ) is understandable as we know that the @xmath0-operator of renormalized theories ( qed , standard model ) agrees well with experiments , and we would like to preserve this agreement in a theory with the new hamiltonian @xmath212 . using eqs .
( [ eq:8.71 ] ) and ( [ eq:8.72 ] ) we can write    @xmath217 }   \ldots   \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ]    then we see that condition ( a ) implies the following infinite set of relations between @xmath218 and @xmath219 on the energy shell is preferable to the old - fashioned or dyson s formulas , because the right hand sides of eqs .
( [ eq:12.4 ] ) - ( [ eq:12.7 ] ) are expressed through commutators , so they are manifestly hermitian .
in addition , this approach automatically generates cluster separable interactions @xmath220 ( see ref .
@xcite ) . ]    @xmath221 }   \label{eq:12.6}\\ \underbrace{v_i^d(t ) } & = & \underbrace{f_i^c(t ) } + \underbrace{q_i(t ) } , \mbox {         } i > 4 \label{eq:12.7}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath222 denotes a sum of multiple commutators of @xmath223 from lower orders ( @xmath224 ) with @xmath10-integrations .
we have expressions for operators @xmath225 and @xmath191 in the renormalized theory ( eqs .
( [ eq : d2 ] ) and ( [ eq:11.59 ] ) ) .
clearly , we can perform similar calculations for operators @xmath219 whose values on the energy shell are present on the right hand sides of eqs .
( [ eq:12.4 ] ) - ( [ eq:12.7 ] ) .
alternatively , we can express @xmath226 through @xmath151 using relationship ( [ eq:8.74 ] ) .
operators @xmath219 are , of course , finite .
this immediately implies that @xmath227 and @xmath228 are finite on the energy shell . moreover , from eqs .
( [ eq:8.74 ] ) and ( [ eq:11.43 ] ) it follows that @xmath229 and @xmath230 are phys on the energy shell .
therefore , @xmath231 and @xmath232 can be also chosen phys on the energy shell .
this proves that conditions ( b ) and ( c ) are satisfied on the energy shell up to the 3rd order
. however , eqs .
( [ eq:12.4 ] ) - ( [ eq:12.7 ] ) tell us nothing about the behavior of @xmath227 and @xmath228 off the energy shell .
the same is true for interactions in higher orders : the interaction operators @xmath220 off the energy shell remain undetermined by our condition ( a ) .
this freedom in choosing interactions simply means that different choices of the coefficient functions of @xmath220 off the energy shell result in scattering equivalent hamiltonians . since our experimental knowledge about interactions in high energy physics is limited to their effects on scattering , we are allowed to freely choose the behavior of @xmath220 off the energy shell without any danger to get into contradiction with experiment .
this freedom is exactly what is needed to satisfy conditions ( b ) and ( c ) in all orders . as we will see shortly , it is important to choose the behavior of @xmath218 such that their coefficient functions fall off rapidly when the arguments move away from the energy shell . is diagonal , this condition is equivalent to bringing the matrix of the hamiltonian to the band - diagonal form , which is the central idea of the similarity renormalization method @xcite . ] for example , we can choose the coefficient functions being proportional to @xmath233 where @xmath234 is a positive constant and @xmath2 is the energy function . to infinity .
in this case , the coefficient functions of interaction operators @xmath235 become non - differentiable .
this means that interaction is not separable @xcite , and the scattering theory formalism from section [ sc : bound - states ] is no longer applicable . ]
then the electron - electron interaction in the second order takes the form    @xmath236^{ph } \circ \zeta_2 \nonumber \\ & = & \frac {   e^2 } { ( 2 \pi ) ^3 }    \int d \mathbf{p } d \mathbf{q }   d \mathbf{k }   \frac {   e^{- \gamma e^2}e^{-it e } } { |\mathbf{k}|(|\mathbf{k}| + \omega_{\mathbf{p - k } } - \omega_{\mathbf{p } } ) }     a^{\dag}_{\mathbf{p - k } } a^{\dag}_{\mathbf{q+k } } a_{\mathbf{q}}a_{\mathbf{p } }   \label{eq : el - el}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath237 is the energy function .
there are no terms of the type @xmath173 in the 3rd order term @xmath238 .
therefore the lowest ( 4th ) order radiative correction to the electron - electron interaction ( [ eq : el - el ] ) should be obtained from eq .
( [ eq:12.6 ] ) . as discussed above
, the value of @xmath239 on the energy shell is finite .
let us now consider the term    @xmath240 } \label{eq:12.10}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    on the right hand side of eq .
( [ eq:12.6 ] ) .
first , we note that , according to table 1 , this commutator is phys .
second , as we agreed above , the coefficient functions of @xmath227 fall off rapidly outside the energy shell . without this condition ,
the loop integrals encountered in calculations of ( [ eq:12.10 ] ) could be divergent .
in our case these integrals are convergent : when the loop integration momentum goes to infinity , the @xmath227 factors in the integrand go away from the energy shell , i.e. , rapidly fall off .
this guarantees that interaction @xmath241 is phys and finite on the energy shell .
its coefficient function off the energy shell should be again chosen to decay rapidly to ensure the convergence of loop integrals in higher order operators @xmath222 , where @xmath241 may contribute .
these arguments can be repeated in higher orders , which proves that the dressed particle hamiltonian @xmath212 is free of ultraviolet divergences .
the contribution @xmath242 on the right hand side of eq .
( [ eq:12.6 ] ) is well - defined near the energy shell , but this is not true for the contribution @xmath243 $ ] .
this commutator depends on the behavior of @xmath244 everywhere in the momentum space .
so , it substantially depends on our choice of @xmath245 off the energy shell .
there is a great freedom in this choice which is reflected in the uncertainty of @xmath246 even on the energy shell .
it is interesting to note that although the off - shell behavior of the 2nd order interaction and the on - shell behavior of the 4th order interaction can not be separately determined in our theory , they are connected to each other in such a way that the ambiguity of the interaction does not affect the @xmath0-matrix for the electron - electron scattering .
the above construction does not allow us to obtain full information about @xmath216 : the off - shell behavior of interactions is rather arbitrary , and the on - shell behavior can be determined only for lowest order terms .
however , this uncertainty is perfectly understandable : it simply reflects the one - to - many correspondence between the @xmath0-operator and hamiltonians ( see section [ sc : bound - states ] ) .
it means that there is a class of finite phys interactions @xmath247 all of which satisfy our requirements ( a ) - ( c ) and can be used for @xmath0-matrix calculations without encountering divergent integrals . in order to find the unique hamiltonian correctly describing the dynamics of particles , the theoretical predictions
should be compared with time - resolved experimental data . however , our model theory is not sufficiently accurate to be comparable with experiment , and further efforts in this direction require building the dressed particle formulation of the full - blown quantum electrodynamics @xcite .
@lll    operator & physical meaning & perturbation & & orders & * elastic potentials & @xmath173 & electron - electron & @xmath248 @xmath249 & electron - photon ( compton ) & @xmath250 @xmath251 & 3-electron potential & @xmath252 & * inelastic potentials & @xmath253 & bremsstrahlung in electron - electron collisions & @xmath254@xmath255 & photon absorption in electron - electron collisions & @xmath254 * *    in contrast to the original hamiltonian ( [ eq : org - ham ] ) , there seems to be no way to write the dressed particle hamiltonian @xmath212 in a closed form . from the derivation outlined above
it is clear that in higher perturbation orders there are more and more terms with increasing complexity in the interaction operator @xmath216 .
@xmath256    some of them are shown in table 2 .
however , all these high order terms directly reflect real interactions and processes observable in nature .
for example , the term @xmath253 ( _ bremsstrahlung _ ) [ bremsstr ] describes creation of a photon in electron - electron collisions . in the language of classical electrodynamics ,
this can be interpreted as radiation due to the acceleration during interaction of charged particles and is often referred to as the _ radiation reaction _ [ rad - res ] force .
the hermitian - conjugated term @xmath255 describes absorption of a photon by a colliding pair of charged particles .
note that in contrast to the traditional renormalization approach in which the mass renormalization condition ( [ eq:11.42 ] ) was ensured by maintaining a balance between unphys and renorm terms in the interaction , in the rqd hamiltonian these terms are absent altogether .
the interaction operator @xmath216 is purely phys which guarantees that scattering operators @xmath257 and @xmath258 are phys too .
the phys character of the interaction @xmath216 means that it yields zero when acting on the vacuum and one - particle states .
interaction @xmath216 acts only when there are two or more dressed particles present .
this is equivalent to saying that self - interaction effects are not present in the dressed particle approach .
naturally , there should be no dressing in our theory , because we are working with particles which are already fully dressed .
in this paper , we considered a model theory which provides a simplified description of interactions between electrons and photons , similar to exact interactions in qed .
we found that in order to get sensible results for the @xmath0-matrix , the theory should be renormalized , just as qed , by adding infinite counterterms to the hamiltonian .
we also demonstrated that the renormalized version of the theory can be reformulated entirely in terms of dressed particles and their interactions without affecting predictions of the theory about scattering cross - sections or bound state energies .
the dressed particle hamiltonian @xmath212 is finite , thus , the ultraviolet divergences are not present anymore
. there are no bare and virtual particles in the dressed particle approach .
this simplifies substantially the physical interpretation of the theory . from the operator form of the dressed particle hamiltonian ( [ eq : dress ] ) it is clear that dressed particles interact with each other via instantaneous forces that generally do not conserve the number of photons
i am thankful to drs .
igor khavkine , arnold neumaier , and dan solomon for helpful comments , discussions , and criticism and to dr .
arnold neumaier for drawing my attention to ref .
@xcite and related works .
w. magnus , _ on the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator _ , commun .
pure appl . math .
* 7 * ( 1954 ) , 649 ; p. pechukas and j. c. light , _ on the exponential form of time - displacement operators in quantum mechanics _ , j. chem
* 44 * ( 1966 ) , 3897 .
a. krger and w. glckle , _ one - nucleon effective generators of the poncar group derived from a field theory : mass renormalization _ , phys .
c * 60 * ( 1999 ) , 024004 ; m. i. shirokov , _ mass renormalization using noncovariant perturbation theory _ , preprint jinr p2 - 2000 - 277 , dubna ( 2000 ) .
a. v. shebeko and m. i. shirokov , _ unitary transformations in quantum field theory and bound states _ , fiz .
yadra * 32 * ( 2001 ) , 31 [ english translation in phys . part .
* 32 * ( 2001 ) , 15 ] , nucl - th/0102037 .


the search for star clusters in the galaxy is of a great interest for investigators in the recent years . on the one hand
, the usage of new methods and instruments in observations allows scientists to involve clusters in solving a larger number of astrophysical problems and raises many new ones , such as : the processes of formation and evolution of young massive clusters , the nature of nuclear star clusters , the presence of multiple populations in globular clusters . on the other hand ,
the availability of new multiband all - sky surveys stimulates us to search them for new clusters and build a homogeneous catalog of parameters of both newly discovered and already known clusters .    in paper i ( koposov et al .
2008 ) , we described the new method of an automated search for star clusters as a density peaks in huge stellar catalogs .
it is based on the convolution of density maps with a special 2-d filter , which is the difference between two 2-d gaussian profiles and has zero integral .
if convolved with this special filter , the areas of flat or slowly changing background would produce zero signal , whereas the areas of star concentrations would exhibit a high signal . using this method , we analyzed the distribution of stars in two micron all sky survey ( 2mass ) in the field of @xmath3 degrees towards the galactic anticenter and found 15 new open clusters . to verify the reality of detected clusters
, we developed a method , which is based on the assumption that probable cluster members lying along the same isochrone on the color - magnitude diagram ( cmd ) should also form the spatial density peak , whereas the background stars should have a flat distribution .
the other benefit of this method is that it not only allows to verify a cluster candidate , but at the same time estimates the cluster s main parameters  distance , age , and color excess .
we employed this method to derive parameters of 12 new and 13 known , but poorly studied clusters , which were also detected in the field of interest , using the technique of @xmath4 and @xmath5 diagrams built with the data from 2mass catalog .
later , @xmath6 magnitudes of the stars in three new clusters were measured using ccd images taken at 104-cm telescope of aryabhatta research institute of observational sciences ( aries , india ) .
the isochrones fitted to these data using another color - magnitude diagrams , and derived clusters parameters ( glushkova et al .
2009 ) show good agreement with those obtained from @xmath4 and @xmath5 2mass diagrams and therefore independently confirm the reality of clusters found by koposov et al .
( 2008 ) and the correctness of the method of new cluster verification .
the aims of this study are : ( 1 ) search for overdensities in the galactic plane in the range of the galactic latitude @xmath7 using 2mass data ; ( 2 ) verification of some of them as a real clusters ; ( 3 ) estimate of their physical parameters using proven technique we have developed earlier .
for the new clusters search and verification procedures we made use of http://vo.astronet.ru , the virtual observatory ( vo ) resource of the sternberg astronomical institute ( koposov et al .
2007 ) , which provides fast remote access to 2mass catalog data through the standard vo - compliant interfaces .
we detected 11186 overdensities with the significance level of more than @xmath8 in the region of the milky way within the interval of the galactic latitude @xmath1 .
since the open clusters subsystem concentrates to the galactic plane where the interstellar extinction reaches maximum and the background changes rapidly , the most from 11186 overdensities should be attributed to the fluctuations of interstellar dust especially towards the galactic center , where the density fluctuations are maximal .
we undertook a visual inspection of all detected overdensities by images from digitized sky survey ( dss ) and 2mass catalogs to recognize real density concentrations against these background fluctuations .
we selected 962 candidates to clusters and matched them to the online catalogs by dias et al .
( 2002 ) and harris ( 2003 ) .
this match demonstrated that 565 candidates are known open clusters , 114 are known globular clusters , whereas 283 overdensities should be examined in detail as a new cluster candidates , some of which may only be attributed to random star concentrations .
we ran all these 283 overdensities through our verification procedure , which includes the analysis of their hess - diagrams , color - magnitude diagrams and radial density distributions in accordance with the technique by koposov et al .
149 candidates were decided to be the real star clusters .    however , a part of non - selected overdensities may also be real clusters , which we were unable to verify , because they were detected at the sensitivity limit of 2mass catalog .
if we extend our data pattern with the data from the sources with a higher limit in @xmath9 magnitudes , then some other overdensities may manifest themselves as real clusters , and their parameters can also be determined .
we tested this idea by using galactic plane survey of ukirt infrared deep sky survey , data release 3 ( ukidss gps dr3 , warren et al .
2007 ) as an additional data source .
the average 2mass sensitivity in @xmath10 is @xmath11 , whereas in ukidss gps , the magnitude limit for @xmath12-band is as high as @xmath13 .
22 cluster candidates found in 2mass were studied by @xmath4 and @xmath14 diagrams and radial density distributions built using data from ukidss gps .
we verified 9 star clusters and determined their distance moduli , ages and color excesses . among these nine objects , four ( sai 50 , sai 131 , sai 133 , and sai 141 in table 1 ) did not reveal themselves as star clusters when only 2mass catalog data were employed , because the upper part of their main sequences and/or red giant branches is only seen on cmd and hess - diagrams .
for example , left panel of fig .
1 displays @xmath4 diagram of cluster sai 50 built by data from ukidss gps .
one can only see here the red - giant branch limited to the stars fainter than @xmath15 .
if we build such a cmd for this cluster with 2mass data only , we would not detect the cluster at all , because the limiting magnitude for @xmath16-band in this catalog is exactly @xmath17 . in fig .  1 , the isochrone is fitted to give the lower estimate of the distance to the cluster .
thus , after involving ukidss gps data , the number of confirmed clusters reached 153 . for 130 clusters we automatically obtained main physical parameters : ages , distances and color excesses using the data from 2mass or ukidss gps and isochrones of solar metallicity by girardi et al .
@xmath9 magnitudes were taken from the deeper ukidss gps for the nine clusters , whose centers fall into this survey : sai 50 , sai 74 , sai 75 , sai 130 , sai 131 , sai 133 , sai 141 , sai 142 , sai 145 .
the center coordinates , diameters , color excesses @xmath2 , distance moduli and ages as @xmath18 are listed in table 1 .
we consider the position of the maximum in a density peak as the center of a cluster on the density map .
the cluster radius is such a distance from its center , at which the star density becomes flat on the radial density distribution plot .
the errors in color excesses , distance moduli and ages were estimated as described by koposov et al .
( 2008 ) : from the differences in the parameters derived by @xmath4 and @xmath5 diagrams .
we used the relations @xmath19 , @xmath20 , @xmath21 from the paper by dutra et al .
( 2002 ) to derive the distance modulus and color excess @xmath2 , and the relation @xmath22 from the paper by he et al .
( 1995 ) for @xmath12 magnitudes from ukidss gps . for some clusters , we are able to estimate the upper limit of the age only , in particular , when their color - magnitude diagrams do not contain red - giant stars . besides the cluster name sai ( _ _ s__ternberg _ _ a__stronomical _ _ i__nstitute ) , other names from papers by kronberger et al .
( 2006 ) and by froebrich et al .
( 2007 ) are used in table 1 . as mentioned by koposov et al .
( 2008 ) , the authors of both papers published the list of probable cluster candidates where further investigation is necessary to clarify their nature .
some of the overdensities independently found by us coincide with the cluster candidates from papers by kronberger et al .
( 2006 ) and froebrich et al .
( 2007 ) . we performed a thorough analysis of these matching candidates and confirmed some of them as the real clusters .
however , remaining candidates turned to be mere random star concentrations or background fluctuations ( we do not publish this list here ) .
all clusters from table 1 having the other name according to kronberger et al .
( 2006 ) or froebrich et al .
( 2007 ) , are listed neither in the database of open clusters ( webda ) by paunzen , mermilliod ( 2009 ) , nor in the catalog by dias et al .
that is why we consider them as a new clusters .
special attention should be given to the cluster sai 92 from table 1 .
this cluster is situated @xmath23 to the south - east of ngc 2645 , and both clusters feature approximately the same values of parameters . according to webda , the distance from sun to ngc 2645 equals to 1668 pc ; we estimate the distance to the cluster sai 92 to be @xmath24 pc .
color excess @xmath2 in the direction to ngc 2645 is @xmath25 , and to sai 92 , @xmath26 .
both clusters are pretty young , but differ in @xmath18 by 0.72 : webda estimates the age of ngc 2645 as 7.283 , whereas the present study gives @xmath27 for sai 92 .
however , 0.05 is the formal error , which , as mentioned earlier , should be attributed to the difference in the ages determined by @xmath4 and @xmath5 diagrams .
a real error for age estimate by 2mass is not less than 0.3 for clusters which do not contain stars on the red - giant branch .
if we build the @xmath28 diagram of ngc 2645 using data from webda and fit them by the isochrone of solar metallicity by girardi et al .
( 2002 ) using the distance and color excess also from webda , then the lower limit for the age is 7.6 in @xmath18 .
therefore , the age of both clusters can be considered approximately the same taking into account the real errors of its estimate . apparently , ngc 2645 and sai 92 form a double cluster then .
2 shows the image of @xmath29 x @xmath29 from dss where both clusters fall into .
diameters of clusters ( @xmath30 and @xmath31 ) are represented by circles .
sai 50 looks like a globular cluster by its age and cmd built using data from ukidss gps , although the errors in parameters are large , because the isochrone was fitted to the red - giant branch only .
the left panel of fig .
1 represents @xmath4 diagram with fitted isochrone ; the radial density distribution corresponding to this fitted isochrone is displayed in the right panel .
solid circles denote the cluster members that are the stars deviating from the isochrone by less than @xmath32 in color ; open circles denote background stars , that are all other stars .
it can clearly be seen that the members of the cluster are concentrated to its center , whereas field stars exhibit flat distribution with small density fluctuations .    besides 130 clusters which are listed in table 1 , we found 23 new embedded clusters .
they are detected as density peaks and are clearly visible on 2mass images and hess - diagrams .
but such a clusters reveal themselves as a cloud on the cmd @xmath4 and @xmath5 ; therefore , it was impossible to fit isochrones and find their parameters .
coordinates and diameters of these clusters are presented in table 2 .
[ meansp ]    l|l|c|c|c|c|c|c & other name & @xmath33 & @xmath34 & d & e(b - v ) & @xmath35 & age + & & @xmath36 @xmath37 @xmath38 & @xmath39 @xmath40 @xmath41 & @xmath40 & mag & mag & @xmath18     +    sai 1 & & 00:08:20.4 & + 51:43:15 & 4 & 0.34@xmath420.14 & 11.68@xmath420.06 & 9.10@xmath420.05 + sai 2 & & 00:12:28.4 & + 76:14:06 & 5 & 0.81@xmath420.27 & 12.45@xmath420.26 & @xmath437.70 + sai 3 & fsr 480 & 00:14:49.6 & + 61:28:36 & 6 & 0.68@xmath420.02 & 14.18@xmath420.05 & 9.20@xmath42 0.05 + sai 4 & & 00:23:40.0 & + 62:42:14 & 4 & 0.27@xmath42 0.18 & 11.02@xmath42 0.36 & @xmath438.70 + sai 5 & fsr 494 & 00:25:37.8 & + 63:45:40 & 4 & 0.60@xmath42 0.08 & 12.70@xmath42 0.07 & 9.10@xmath42 0.05 + sai 6 & & 00:27:52.6 & + 60:41:21 & 5 & 0.89@xmath42 0.09 & 12.17@xmath42 0.01 & @xmath438.50 + sai 7 & fsr 503 & 00:29:11.3 & + 68:56:11 & 7 & 0.82@xmath42 0.12 & 11.88@xmath42 0.38 & 9.40@xmath42 0.05 + sai 8 & fsr 505 & 00:40:08.8 & + 61:34:03 & 3 & 0.30@xmath42 0.11 & 14.28@xmath42 0.20 & 9.15@xmath42 0.10 + sai 9 & fsr 508 & 00:41:51.9 & + 64:58:51 & 4 & 0.66@xmath42 0.17 & 14.42@xmath42 0.20 & 9.10@xmath42 0.10 + sai 11 & fsr 524 & 00:57:12.4 & + 62:06:18 & 8 & 0.51@xmath42 0.13 & 10.70@xmath42 0.29 & 9.10@xmath42 0.05 + sai 12 & & 01:04:24.1 & + 45:36:25 & 4 & 1.13@xmath42 0.30 & 12.06@xmath42 0.02 & @xmath438.15 + sai 13 & fsr 536 & 01:19:37.6 & + 63:03:20 & 8 & 1.27@xmath42 0.23 & 12.38@xmath42 0.17 & @xmath438.20 + sai 14 & & 01:26:00.3 & + 62:37:33 & 4 & 0.55@xmath42 0.03 & 14.05@xmath42 0.03 & 9.10@xmath42 0.05 + sai 16 & & 02:05:29.6 & + 62:15:54 & 5 & 0.70@xmath42 0.01 & 14.42@xmath42 0.20 & 9.15@xmath42 0.05 + sai 17 & & 02:20:48.3 & + 59:11:06 & 2 & 0.98@xmath42 0.17 & 12.88@xmath42 0.10 & 8.90 @xmath42 0.05 + sai 21 & & 02:34:45.4 & + 62:34:22 & 3 & 0.58@xmath42 0.01 & 11.35@xmath42 0.10 & @xmath438.50 + sai 25 & & 03:00:26.7 & + 57:16:02 & 7 & 0.84@xmath42 0.13 & 11.80@xmath42 0.09 & 9.15@xmath42 0.05 + sai 26 & & 03:09:30.8 & + 56:47:26 & 3 & 1.47@xmath42 0.29 & 11.79@xmath42 0.51 & @xmath438.20 + sai 27 & & 03:11:21.9 & + 68:54:01 & 5 & 0.62@xmath42 0.04 & 10.48@xmath42 0.28 & 9.25@xmath42 0.10 + sai 29 & fsr 634 & 03:40:21.5 & + 59:24:52 & 5 & 0.84@xmath42 0.01 & 12.24@xmath42 0.07 & 9.00@xmath42 0.05 + sai 30 & & 03:40:22.2 & + 82:13:60 & 3 & 1.25@xmath42 0.44 & 12.46@xmath42 0.05 & @xmath438.00 + sai 31 & & 03:51:15.4 & + 58:46:08 & 6 & 0.16@xmath42 0.22 & 12.12@xmath42 0.02 & 9.60@xmath42 0.05 + sai 33 & juchert 19 & 04:02:20.2 & + 52:26:39 & 2 & 0.28@xmath42 0.01 & 10.64@xmath42 0.02 & @xmath439.30 + sai 34 & fsr 660 & 04:02:37.8 & + 51:55:50 & 5 & 1.20@xmath42 0.12 & 13.78@xmath42 0.03 & 9.10@xmath42 0.05 + sai 35 & juchert 20 & 04:10:47.0 & + 46:52:01 & 5 & 0.70@xmath42 0.18 & 11.92@xmath42 0.02 & @xmath438.55 + sai 36 & & 04:16:50.4 & + 41:04:00 & 3 & 0.55@xmath42 0.05 & 12.36@xmath42 0.19 & 9.10@xmath42 0.05 + sai 37 & fsr 687 & 04:39:27.1 & + 48:12:23 & 4 & 0.77@xmath42 0.03 & 14.30@xmath42 0.04 & 9.15@xmath42 0.05 + sai 40 & & 05:00:56.9 & + 41:14:02 & 8 & 0.35@xmath42 0.12 & 13.29@xmath42 0.05 & 8.75@xmath42 0.05 + sai 41 & & 05:07:05.4 & + 38:25:05 & 2 & 0.51@xmath42 0.18 & 13.58@xmath42 0.23 & 9.30@xmath42 0.05 + sai 42 & juchert 23 & 05:07:39.7 & + 17:36:00 & 8 & 0.62@xmath42 0.18 & 11.67@xmath42 0.09 & 8.70@xmath42 0.05 + sai 43 & & 05:08:16.6 & + 49:52:08 & 2 & 0.18@xmath42 0.03 & 12.92@xmath42 0.07 & 8.95@xmath42 0.05 + sai 44 & fsr 716 & 05:11:07.4 & + 45:43:09 & 5 & 0.24@xmath42 0.01 & 12.64@xmath42 0.06 & 8.95@xmath42 0.05 + sai 45 & fsr 727 & 05:16:35.0 & + 45:34:56 & 6 & 0.25@xmath42 0.02 & 10.55@xmath42 0.17 & 9.20@xmath42 0.05 + sai 46 & & 05:19:37.0 & + 36:30:32 & 3 & 0.78@xmath42 0.01 & 13.16@xmath42 0.12 & 9.45@xmath42 0.05 + sai 47 & & 05:23:58.0 & + 42:18:52 & 3 & 0.60@xmath42 0.01 & 12.93@xmath42 0.05 & 8.50@xmath42 0.05 + sai 48 & & 05:24:16.8 & + 33:30:02 & 4 & 0.31@xmath42 0.07 & 11.30@xmath42 0.20 & 9.35@xmath42 0.05 + sai 49 & & 05:26:24.9 & + 50:47:03 & 6 & 0.47@xmath42 0.01 & 12.17@xmath42 0.17 & 9.05@xmath42 0.05 + sai 50 & & 05:28:38.9 & + 35:01:19 & 3 & 0.60@xmath42 0.30 & 16.70@xmath42 0.50 & 9.70@xmath42 0.20 + sai 51 & & 05:30:01.9 & + 33:25:31 & 3 & 0.62@xmath42 0.18 & 9.54@xmath42 0.20 & @xmath43 9.30 + sai 56 & fsr 852 & 05:53:30.6 & + 25:10:41 & 8 & 0.43@xmath42 0.07 & 11.82@xmath42 0.04 & 8.90@xmath42 0.05 + sai 57 & fsr 932 & 06:04:21.5 & + 14:34:22 & 5 & 0.39@xmath42 0.07 & 10.18@xmath42 0.10 & 8.90@xmath42 0.10 + sai 58 & fsr 921 & 06:05:09.4 & + 16:41:03 & 5 & 1.33@xmath42 0.33 & 11.80@xmath42 0.20 & 8.50@xmath42 0.05 + sai 59 & fsr 942 & 06:05:59.2 & + 13:39:52 & 8 & 0.59@xmath42 0.01 & 11.51@xmath42 0.25 & 9.00@xmath42 0.05 + sai 60 & & 06:06:38.6 & + 15:56:51 & 4 & 0.90@xmath42 0.01 & 14.50@xmath42 0.05 & 9.05@xmath42 0.05 + sai 61 & fsr 904 & 06:06:55.2 & + 19:00:26 & 8 & 0.14@xmath42 0.16 & 10.51@xmath42 0.02 & 8.80@xmath42 0.05 + sai 62 & fsr 985 & 06:11:49.0 & + 07:01:22 & 3 & 0.55@xmath42 0.02 & 12.10@xmath42 0.09 & @xmath43 8.60 + sai 63 & fsr 987 & 06:13:44.5 & + 06:56:58 & 4 & 0.37@xmath42 0.13 & 11.40@xmath42 0.09 & 8.65@xmath42 0.05 + sai 64 & fsr 948 & 06:25:55.9 & + 15:51:39 & 4 & 0.08@xmath42 0.13 & 11.84@xmath42 0.17 & 9.00@xmath42 0.05 + sai 65 & fsr 979 & 06:31:16.2 & + 11:04:38 & 3 & 1.17@xmath42 0.17 & 11.65@xmath42 0.05 & 8.45@xmath42 0.05 + sai 66 & fsr 1063 & 06:34:37.9 & -00:16:01 & 5 & 0.58@xmath42 0.01 & 11.47@xmath42 0.14&@xmath43 8.60 + sai 67 & teutsch59 & 06:43:49.0 & -00:52:60 & 6 & 0.57@xmath42 0.14 & 12.34@xmath42 0.04 & @xmath43 8.90 + sai 68 & patchick 90 & 06:44:42.7 & -00:32:22 & 3 & 0.41@xmath42 0.09 & 14.00@xmath42 0.20 & 8.95@xmath42 0.05 + sai 69 & & 06:45:27.8 & -11:47:40 & 3 & 0.35@xmath42 0.07 & 14.27@xmath42 0.10 & 9.10@xmath42 0.05 + sai 70 & fsr 1125 & 06:50:26.6 & -05:26:08 & 4 & 0.39@xmath42 0.01 & 13.99@xmath42 0.09 & @xmath439.10 + sai 71 & fsr 1085 & 06:53:11.2 & -00:11:31 & 4 & 0.08@xmath42 0.09 & 10.62@xmath42 0.19 & @xmath438.60 + sai 72 & & 06:55:48.4 & + 00:13:37 & 5 & 0.82@xmath42 0.06 & 12.49@xmath42 0.05 & 8.50@xmath42 0.20 + sai 73 & fsr 1171 & 07:00:13.1 & -10:19:14 & 2 & 0.65@xmath42 0.07 & 13.07@xmath42 0.29 & 9.50@xmath42 0.05 + sai 74 & fsr 1150 & 07:04:36.6 & -06:36:38 & 3 & 0.94@xmath42 0.06 & 13.60@xmath42 0.26 & @xmath438.30 + sai 75 & patchick 79 & 07:15:22.5 & -07:25:20 & 4 & 0.23@xmath42 0.03 & 12.24@xmath42 0.24 & @xmath438.60 + sai 76 & fsr 1253 & 07:26:17.4 & -18:25:55 & 6 & 0.62@xmath42 0.01 & 12.11@xmath42 0.24 & 8.40@xmath42 0.05 + sai 77 & fsr 1275 & 07:28:06.2 & -21:47:46 & 4 & 0.60@xmath42 0.10 & 12.87@xmath42 0.12 & 9.40@xmath42 0.05 + sai 78 & teutsch 61 & 07:34:39.8 & -19:47:23 & 3 & 0.55@xmath42 0.02 & 11.42@xmath42 0.10 & 6.95@xmath42 0.05 + sai 79 & fsr 1347 & 07:48:03.4 & -33:42:35 & 6 & 1.09@xmath42 0.15 & 11.95@xmath42 0.07 & @xmath438.80 + sai 80 & teutsch 25 & 07:48:26.7 & -27:54:51 & 5 & 0.57@xmath42 0.12 & 11.48@xmath42 0.16 & @xmath439.00 +   +    [ meansp ]    l|l|c|c|c|c|c|c & other name & @xmath33 & @xmath34 & d & e(b - v ) & @xmath35 & age + & & @xmath36 @xmath37 @xmath38 & @xmath39 @xmath40 @xmath41 & @xmath40 & mag & mag & @xmath18     +    sai 81 & & 07:52:07.2 & -28:07:21 & 7 & 0.40@xmath42 0.02 & 12.21@xmath42 0.19 & @xmath43 9.20 + sai 82 & & 07:52:14.4 & -33:02:27 & 3 & 0.39@xmath42 0.07 & 10.30@xmath42 0.05 & 8.65 @xmath42 0.05 + sai 83 & & 07:53:20.1 & -32:33:30 & 3 & 1.00@xmath42 0.15 & 12.96@xmath42 0.34 & 8.85@xmath42 0.05 + sai 84&kronberger 85 & 07:58:21.6 & -34:46:09 & 2 & 1.17@xmath42 0.19 & 14.65@xmath42 0.11 & 8.80@xmath42 0.05 + sai 85 & fsr 1378 & 08:01:11.5 & -40:40:41 & 6 & 1.21@xmath42 0.25 & 11.74@xmath42 0.13 & 8.80@xmath42 0.05 + sai 86 & & 08:08:15.0 & -36:36:33 & 6 & 0.69@xmath42 0.09 & 12.41@xmath42 0.16 & 8.60@xmath42 0.05 + sai 87 & fsr 1380 & 08:11:05.0 & -39:59:51 & 4 & 1.28@xmath42 0.30 & 11.80@xmath42 0.19 & @xmath438.65 + sai 88 & & 08:12:57.6 & -41:53:01 & 2 & 0.92@xmath42 0.02 & 14.58@xmath42 0.25 & 9.00@xmath42 0.05 + sai 89 & fsr 1387 & 08:24:25.3 & -39:56:11 & 3 & 1.19@xmath42 0.11 & 11.82@xmath42 0.18 & @xmath438.80 + sai 90 & & 08:27:58.9 & -41:46:10 & 7 & 1.02@xmath42 0.21 & 12.19@xmath42 0.11 & 9.05@xmath42 0.05 + sai 91 & & 08:37:03.4 & -50:03:52 & 4 & 0.51@xmath42 0.02 & 12.45@xmath42 0.16 & 8.80@xmath42 0.05 + sai 92 & fsr 1436 & 08:39:34.5 & -46:17:54 & 5 & 0.39@xmath42 0.10 & 10.99@xmath42 0.17 & 8.00@xmath42 0.05 + sai 93 & fsr 1415 & 08:40:21.9 & -44:44:01 & 3 & 1.87@xmath42 0.35 & 12.74@xmath42 0.06 & 9.25@xmath42 0.05 + sai 94 & & 08:44:39.8 & -46:17:46 & 5 & 0.48@xmath42 0.05 & 12.96@xmath42 0.29 & 9.10@xmath42 0.10 + sai 95 & fsr 1454 & 08:51:00.6 & -48:27:37 & 5 & 0.57@xmath42 0.03 & 13.96@xmath42 0.05 & 9.15@xmath42 0.05 + sai 96 & fsr 1430 & 08:51:49.4 & -44:15:47 & 4 & 2.50@xmath42 0.33 & 12.27@xmath42 0.33 & 8.85@xmath42 0.05 + sai 98 & fsr 1435 & 08:57:03.0 & -43:45:40 & 6 & 1.06@xmath42 0.06 & 10.27@xmath42 0.30 & 9.75@xmath42 0.10 + sai 99 & & 08:58:04.4 & -43:24:38 & 5 & 1.84@xmath42 0.49 & 12.60@xmath42 0.04 & 8.95@xmath42 0.05 + sai 100 & fsr 1450 & 08:58:12.2 & -46:17:19 & 3 & 1.62@xmath42 0.08 & 13.65@xmath42 0.08 & 9.10@xmath42 0.15 + sai 101 & & 08:58:22.4 & -43:07:35 & 5 & 1.56@xmath42 0.04 & 11.09@xmath42 0.05 & @xmath439.00 + sai 102 & fsr 1402 & 09:05:43.2 & -37:52:05 & 4 & 0.08@xmath42 0.04 & 12.03@xmath42 0.29 & 9.60@xmath42 0.05 + sai 103 & fsr 1460 & 09:07:38.5 & -47:50:01 & 7 & 1.31@xmath42 0.20 & 11.30@xmath42 0.70 & 9.30@xmath42 0.70 + sai 104 & & 09:09:54.8 & -48:51:03 & 3 & 1.17@xmath42 0.11 & 9.59@xmath42 0.14 & @xmath438.90 + sai 105 & & 09:10:24.5 & -49:54:46 & 4 & 1.91@xmath42 0.31 & 12.35@xmath42 0.13 & 9.05@xmath42 0.05 + sai 106 & & 09:17:59.4 & -51:01:46 & 5 & 1.02@xmath42 0.02 & 13.56@xmath42 0.10 & 9.35@xmath42 0.05 + sai 107 & teutsch 103 & 09:28:35.8 & -46:35:60 & 3 & 0.62@xmath42 0.06 & 12.23@xmath42 0.38&@xmath43 8.75 + sai 108 & & 09:38:52.9 & -52:57:28 & 6 & 0.66@xmath42 0.02 & 12.32@xmath42 0.08 & 8.50@xmath42 0.05 + sai 109 & & 09:43:34.4 & -50:47:33 & 5 & 0.23@xmath42 0.04 & 14.43@xmath42 0.50 & 9.20@xmath42 0.20 + sai 110 & fsr 1509 & 09:48:00.8 & -55:04:01 & 2 & 1.17@xmath42 0.13 & 11.59@xmath42 0.05 & 8.75@xmath42 0.05 + sai 111 & fsr 1521 & 09:55:22.6 & -56:36:15 & 8 & 0.90@xmath42 0.17 & 13.00@xmath42 0.30 & 9.45@xmath42 0.10 + sai 112 & & 10:21:24.9 & -59:05:34 & 2 & 1.00@xmath42 0.02 & 14.30@xmath42 0.15 & 9.10@xmath42 0.10 + sai 114 & fsr 1555 & 10:48:55.7 & -59:02:58 & 3 & 0.76@xmath42 0.05 & 13.40@xmath42 0.30 & 9.25@xmath42 0.10 + sai 115 & fsr 1586 & 11:22:44.9 & -62:19:06 & 5 & 1.60@xmath42 0.29 & 11.92@xmath42 0.20 & 8.65@xmath42 0.10 + sai 116 & & 11:49:18.0 & -62:13:47 & 5 & 0.98@xmath42 0.08 & 11.72@xmath42 0.17 & 8.60@xmath42 0.05 + sai 117 & fsr 1663 & 13:41:04.5 & -60:12:27 & 4 & 1.01@xmath42 0.16 & 11.66@xmath42 0.25 & 8.90@xmath42 0.05 + sai 118 & & 13:43:03.8 & -63:09:53 & 8 & 0.17@xmath42 0.21 & 10.28@xmath42 0.62 & 9.75@xmath42 0.25 + sai 120 & & 13:58:42.0 & -61:40:08 & 2 & 1.99@xmath42 0.30 & 12.03@xmath42 0.21 & 8.75@xmath42 0.10 + sai 121 & fsr 1686 & 14:40:06.8 & -60:23:13 & 5 & 1.48@xmath42 0.23 & 13.02@xmath42 0.16 & 8.95@xmath42 0.05 + sai 122 & & 15:00:03.9 & -58:48:13 & 8 & 2.26@xmath42 0.43 & 11.12@xmath42 0.04 & 8.25@xmath42 0.15 + sai 123 & & 16:08:17.4 & -50:32:06 & 7 & 1.35@xmath42 0.18 & 11.35@xmath42 0.18 & 9.20@xmath42 0.05 + sai 124 & fsr 1744 & 16:51:35.8 & -42:25:47 & 3 & 2.58@xmath42 0.34 & 12.48@xmath42 0.26 & 8.85@xmath42 0.20 + sai 127 & fsr 124 & 19:06:52.8 & + 13:14:44 & 4 & 0.98@xmath42 0.12 & 11.56@xmath42 0.41 & 9.10@xmath42 0.05 + sai 128 & fsr 133 & 19:29:46.9 & + 15:33:51 & 6 & 2.26@xmath42 0.45 & 11.59@xmath42 0.12 & 8.35@xmath42 0.05 + sai 129 & fsr 160 & 19:44:44.3 & + 26:54:08 & 3 & 1.42@xmath42 0.05 & 14.38@xmath42 0.30 & 8.95@xmath42 0.05 + sai 130 & fsr 158 & 19:47:58.1 & + 26:01:55 & 8 & 1.17@xmath42 0.04 & 12.78@xmath42 0.11 & @xmath43 8.30 + sai 131 & fsr 154 & 19:48:00.8 & + 23:20:53 & 3 & 0.70@xmath42 0.13 & 12.23@xmath42 0.05 & 9.05@xmath42 0.05 + sai 132 & & 19:57:01.5 & + 31:36:31 & 8 & 0.94@xmath42 0.09 & 12.28@xmath42 0.06 & 8.75@xmath42 0.05 + sai 133 & & 20:01:58.7 & + 31:26:18 & 4 & 1.80@xmath42 0.05 & 13.94@xmath42 0.16 & 7.85@xmath42 0.05 + sai 135 & & 20:02:55.9 & + 24:33:17 & 5 & 1.34@xmath42 0.29 & 12.89@xmath42 0.06 & 9.10@xmath42 0.05 + sai 136&kronberger 36&20:04:35.7 & + 35:13:03 & 6 & 0.76@xmath42 0.18 & 11.40@xmath42 0.26 & @xmath438.40 + sai 137 & & 20:49:52.6 & + 41:15:18 & 6 & 0.89@xmath42 0.08 & 10.12@xmath42 0.24 & @xmath438.70 + sai 138 & fsr 275 & 20:56:43.0 & + 46:53:15 & 10 & 0.76@xmath42 0.05 & 11.98@xmath42 0.11 & 9.25@xmath42 0.05 + sai 139 & teutsch 22 & 21:01:40.8 & + 44:06:43 & 2 & 0.86@xmath42 0.13 & 12.16@xmath42 0.33 & 8.55@xmath42 0.05 + sai 140 & fsr 282 & 21:02:20.1 & + 48:06:26 & 4 & 0.78@xmath42 0.01 & 11.79@xmath42 0.12 & 9.05@xmath42 0.05 + sai 141 & & 21:03:46.9 & + 46:58:50 & 3 & 0.94@xmath42 0.04 & 13.47@xmath42 0.16 & 8.60@xmath42 0.05 + sai 142 & teutsch 156 & 21:03:46.7 & + 47:12:54 & 3 & 0.94@xmath42 0.04 & 12.97@xmath42 0.22 & 8.95@xmath42 0.05 + sai 143 & & 21:10:51.4 & + 50:18:31 & 3 & 1.72@xmath42 0.24 & 14.07@xmath42 0.17 & 9.25@xmath42 0.05 + sai 144 & teutsch 74 & 21:45:43.6 & + 58:05:03 & 4 & 1.05@xmath42 0.17 & 12.12@xmath42 0.53 & 9.05@xmath42 0.05 + sai 145 & fsr 336 & 21:50:47.5 & + 55:16:31 & 8 & 0.55@xmath42 0.09 & 11.67@xmath42 0.37 & 8.90@xmath42 0.05 + sai 146 & fsr 342 & 22:07:38.6 & + 53:06:09 & 8 & 0.27@xmath42 0.01 & 11.52@xmath42 0.47 & 9.05@xmath42 0.05 + sai 147 & fsr 394 & 22:55:04.8 & + 58:42:53 & 5 & 0.70@xmath42 0.04 & 13.73@xmath42 0.21 & 9.40@xmath42 0.05 + sai 148 & fsr 430 & 23:15:29.5 & + 64:09:58 & 5 & 1.08@xmath42 0.20 & 11.93@xmath42 0.05 & 8.05@xmath42 0.05 + sai 149 & & 23:38:01.7 & + 60:32:57 & 7 & 1.29@xmath42 0.30 & 11.87@xmath42 0.07 & @xmath438.20 + sai 150 & fsr 441 & 23:41:58.8 & + 58:32:29 & 5 & 0.78@xmath42 0.14 & 11.84@xmath42 0.04 & 8.55@xmath42 0.05 + sai 151 & fsr 465 & 23:50:54.5 & + 66:10:49 & 5 & 0.78@xmath42 0.04 & 13.60@xmath42 0.10 & 9.20@xmath42 0.05 + sai 153 & fsr 460 & 23:59:07.0 & + 60:40:40 & 7 & 0.86@xmath42 0.19 & 13.45@xmath42 0.09 & 9.20@xmath42 0.05 +   +    [ meansp ]    l|l|c|c|c & other name & @xmath33&@xmath34 & d + & & @xmath36 @xmath37 @xmath38 & @xmath39 @xmath40 @xmath41 & @xmath40 + sai 10 & & 00:43:03.2 & + 41:37:21 & 3 + sai 15 & & 01:49:52.6 & + 53:54:34 & 2 + sai 18 & & 02:21:55.9 & + 61:07:21 & 3 + sai 19 & & 02:26:31.9 & + 61:59:33 & 6 + sai 20 & fsr 584 & 02:27:04.8 & + 61:37:40 & 6 + sai 22 & & 02:48:58.1 & + 60:44:34 & 5 + sai 23 & & 02:54:05.0 & + 60:39:52 & 2 + sai 24 & & 02:59:25.4 & + 60:33:58 & 6 + sai 28 & & 03:39:16.7 & + 55:58:24 & 3 + sai 32 & fsr 655 & 03:56:11.8 & + 53:52:09 & 1 + sai 38 & fsr 699 & 04:56:05.6 & + 47:23:25 & 2 + sai 39 & fsr 696 & 04:58:31.6 & + 47:59:03 & 1 + sai 52 & fsr 812 & 05:38:09.1 & + 31:44:16 & 3 + sai 53 & fsr 874 & 05:40:58.3 & + 20:21:18 & 3 + sai 54 & fsr 855 & 05:42:22.4 & + 22:50:04 & 3 + sai 55 & fsr 826 & 05:42:51.2 & + 28:56:43 & 3
+ sai 97 & fsr 1432 & 08:52:53.3 & -44:12:06 & 4 + sai 113 & & 10:22:43.6 & -59:30:20 & 2 + sai 119 & fsr 1662 & 13:44:14.2 & -62:04:03 & 2 + sai 125 & fsr 31 & 18:06:27.8 & -21:23:27 & 5 + sai 126 & & 18:13:26.7 & -17:52:49 & 3 + sai 134 & fsr 198 & 20:02:26.8 & + 35:40:34 & 4 + sai 152 & fsr 469 & 23:57:04.4 & + 65:24:52 & 1 +   +
table 3 lists the coordinates , diameters , color excesses @xmath2 , distance moduli , distances in pc , and @xmath18 of known , but yet - unstudied clusters .
we detected and investigated all clusters by our methods , which simultaneously allowed us to improve the accuracy of the center coordinates .
for instance , one of the overdensities was attributed to the open cluster berkeley 53 , although it is situated @xmath44 away to the west from the coordinates contained in the catalog by dias et al .
webda gives the same position and the dss image shows no star concentration there .
hence , be 53 was not studied previously .
webda misses all @xmath45 clusters , whereas the dias catalog lists their coordinates and diameters only .
@xmath45 311 - 21 is marked by dias et al .
( 2002 ) as `` doubtful '' , and @xmath45 211 - 03 , as `` not found '' .
diameter of cluster @xmath45 368 - 11 is @xmath46 according to dias et al .
( 2002 ) , but we found it to be @xmath47 .
diameters of other known clusters are also less then that in dias catalog as compared to the data from table 3 in this paper . this difference can be explained by the fact that all these clusters are barely perceptible on dss images , but well noticeable on images from 2mass .
diameters presented in table 3 were derived from radial density distribution plots in the same manner as for newly discovered clusters .
dias catalog and webda only give the coordinates and underestimated diameters for all @xmath48 clusters from table 3 .
open cluster @xmath49 131 is marked as `` doubtful '' by dias et al .
( 2002 ) , @xmath50 19 has no data in the literature available .
koposov et al .
( 2008 ) published the coordinates and diameters only for cluster @xmath51 7 , whereas in present work we determined its age , distance and color excess using the data from ukidss gps .
[ meansp ]    l|l|c|c|c|c|l|c & @xmath33 & @xmath34 & d & e(b - v ) & @xmath35 & distance & age + & @xmath36 @xmath37 @xmath38 & @xmath39 @xmath40 @xmath41 & @xmath40 & @xmath52 & @xmath52 & pc & @xmath18 +    koposov 7 & 05:40:44.1 & + 35:55:25 & 6 & 3.75@xmath42 0.37 & 13.39@xmath42 0.35 & 4760@xmath42 830 & 8.20@xmath42 0.05 + eso 368 - 11&07:44:22.2 & -34:37:07 & 6 & 0.06@xmath42 0.10 & 10.86@xmath42 0.41 & 1490@xmath42 310 & 9.00@xmath42 0.05 + eso 311 - 21 & 08:01:41.6 & -41:35:57 & 5 & 0.49@xmath42 0.02 & 11.84@xmath42 0.08 & 2330@xmath42 90 & 10.10@xmath42 0.05 + ru 48 & 08:02:42.5 & -32:03:02 & 3 & 0.29@xmath42 0.04 & 12.41@xmath42 0.05 & 3030 @xmath42 70 & @xmath438.60 + ru 54 & 08:11:21.7 & -31:56:37 & 2 & 0.35@xmath42 0.04 & 12.71@xmath42 0.27 & 3480 @xmath42 460 & 8.45@xmath42 0.05 + ru 60 & 08:24:23.0 & -47:12:37 & 4 & 0.57@xmath42 0.06 & 12.84@xmath42 0.11 & 3700 @xmath42 190 & @xmath438.65 + eso 312 - 03 & 08:24:26.1 & -41:17:52 & 6 & 0.52@xmath42 0.10 & 11.68@xmath42 0.57 & 2170 @xmath42 650 & @xmath438.90 + eso 312 - 04 & 08:26:51.2 & -41:14:39 & 2 & 0.49@xmath42 0.01 & 11.91@xmath42 0.11 & 2410 @xmath42 130 & @xmath438.75 + ru 63 & 08:32:41.4 & -48:18:21 & 6 & 0.54@xmath42 0.04 & 12.13@xmath42 0.08 & 2670 @xmath42 100 & @xmath438.50 + ru 68 & 08:44:34.5 & -35:54:00 & 10 & 0.39@xmath42 0.05 & 11.49@xmath42 0.08 & 1990 @xmath42 80 & 9.15@xmath42 0.05 + eso 211 - 03 & 08:51:34.3 & -50:14:43 & 5 & 0.90@xmath42 0.07 & 12.88@xmath42 0.04 & 3770 @xmath42 70 & 9.05@xmath42 0.10 + tr 19 & 11:14:20.2 & -57:33:04 & 14 & 0.08@xmath42 0.01 & 11.40@xmath42 0.05 & 1900 @xmath42 50 & 9.65@xmath42 0.05 + bh 131 & 12:26:13.7 & -63:24:50 & 5 & 0.62@xmath42 0.04 & 13.98@xmath42 0.22 & 6250 @xmath42 670 & 9.10@xmath42 0.10 + be 53 & 20:55:55.3 & + 51:02:54 & 10 & 1.31@xmath42 0.20 & 12.74@xmath42 0.13 & 3530 @xmath42 220 & 9.15@xmath42 0.05 +   +
to facilitate dissemination and scientific usage of the results of the present study and data from koposov et al .
( 2008 ) , we have developed a standardized tool for continuous publication of the results of ongoing catalog compilation on the web , available as a dedicated web - site at http://ocl.sai.msu.ru .
besides the standard access via a web browser to the catalog of individual cluster pages with hess - diagrams , color - magnitude diagrams , 2mass or dss cluster images , and catalogs of photometric data ( for clusters with ccd observations ) , the web - site offers the catalog exported to csv , dat , and votable formats as well and implements a standard virtual observatory programmatic access interface for positional queries called _
conesearch_. moreover , it is possible to start the vo client software , such as topcat or cds aladin , by a single click in a web browser with the catalog preloaded for quick - look analysis of the whole sample and all accompanying data we provide for individual clusters .
main results are available as a single table at centre de donnees astronomiques de strasbourg at http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/vizier?-source=v/132 and also within standalone vo client applications running on any workstation connected to the internet , e.g. mentioned topcat and cds aladin tools , using query to search for the catalogs by key words or by authors of this publication .
using @xmath0 photometric data available in 2mass catalog , we have performed an automated search for the star overdensities in the galactic plane for the latitudes ranged within @xmath7 and detected 11186 density peaks .
a short list of 283 new cluster candidates has been compiled after we excluded the overdensities attributed to the background fluctuations or star concentrations coinciding with already known clusters .
employing our method described earlier ( koposov et al . , 2008 )
, we have studied these 283 candidates and verified 149 of them to be real clusters .
having involved the ukidss gps survey in our investigation as an additional data source , we studied 22 more cluster candidates and found four new open clusters .
therefore , the number of new clusters found in the frame of the present paper is 153 . for 130 clusters of them ,
we have determined their main physical parameters : distance , age , and color excess . together with the clusters published in koposov et al .
( 2008 ) , we have found 168 new open clusters in total , and determined parameters for 142 of them . besides that , we confirmed the existence of 14 known , but yet - unstudied clusters and determined their accurate coordinates and other parameters .
3 shows the distribution of 143 open clusters projected onto the galactic plane .
the crosses denote all clusters , except for sai 50 , whose distances are determined in this paper ( 129 new and 14 known clusters ) .
we excluded cluster sai 50 from this pattern because of large errors in its parameters .
solid circle represents the sun .
it can be clearly seen from this figure that no new clusters were discovered in the direction towards the galactic center , because this area features maximum extinction and level of background fluctuations , which makes the detection of clusters more difficult .
the major part of new clusters have been found within the radius of 2.5 kpc from the sun , because of a relatively low limiting values of @xmath53 in the 2mass catalog .
we have not discovered any new clusters closer than 500 pc ; however , we did not attempt to search for them specifically in this range of the distance , because the open cluster sample there is believed to be complete .
for this reason , we used the filter allowing to detect clusters with the diameter of @xmath44 and less , whereas for the close clusters this value is typically greater .
some new rich clusters can only be seen at the ir wavelengths .
for example , sai 122 is well noticeable on the image from 2mass data ( fig .  4 ) and is fully invisible on the dss images , because the color excess in the direction toward this cluster amounts to @xmath54 .
among the clusters discovered by us , there are few , which reveal themselves on the dss images as a very faint objects ; however , it is normally impossible to estimate their parameters
. the majority of new objects are either poorly populated clusters , or rich ones , yet imperceptible against a dense background : for example , sai 132 ( see fig .  5 ) . in both these cases
, an object can not be detected while visually inspecting 2mass images .
thus , the application of our automated method of searching infrared data for density peaks has provided us with the tool capable of detecting these 168 open clusters .
this publication makes use of data products from the two micron all sky survey , which is a joint project of the university of massachusetts and the infrared processing and analysis center / california institute of technology , funded by the national aeronautics and space administration and the national science foundation .
this publication has made use of the digitized sky surveys which were produced at the space telescope science institute under u.s .
government grant nag w-2166 .
the images of these surveys are based on photographic data obtained using the oschin schmidt telescope on palomar mountain and the uk schmidt telescope .