text:
# Weakly Interacting Bose-Einstein Condensates Under Rotation: Mean-field versus Exact Solutions

\[

## Abstract

We consider a weakly-interacting, harmonically-trapped Bose-Einstein condensed gas under rotation and investigate the connection between the energies obtained from mean-field calculations and from exact diagonalizations in a subspace of degenerate states. From the latter we derive an approximation scheme valid in the thermodynamic limit of many particles. Mean-field results are shown to emerge as the correct leading-order approximation to exact calculations in the same subspace.

PACS numbers: 03.75.Fi, 05.30.Jp, 67.40.Db, 67.40.Vs

\]

Following the observation of Bose-Einstein condensation  in vapours of alkali atoms , considerable attention has been devoted to the behaviour of these systems under rotation. Matthews et al.  reported the observation of vortex states in a two-component system, and Madison et al.  demonstrated the existence of vortex states in a stirred one-component Bose-Einstein condensate. Numerous authors have considered the problem of rotation in these systems theoretically . Many of them focused on the Thomas-Fermi regime of strong interactions between the atoms , where the coherence length is much smaller than the spatial extent of the system and where the cloud is expected to exhibit properties like those of a bulk superfluid such as 4He. The other interesting limit, to be considered here, is that of weak interactions between the atoms, where the coherence length is much larger than the size of the cloud of atoms and where one expects to see properties similar to those of superfluid nuclei .

The problem of rotation in the limit of weak interactions has also been considered previously. Wilkin et al.  studied the case of effective attraction between the atoms and showed that, in the ground state of the system, angular momentum is carried by the center of mass. Butts and Rokhsar  examined the problem of effective repulsion between the atoms. They included interaction effects in mean-field approximation using the Gross-Pitaevskii equation and performed numerical calculations of the moment of inertia of the system. In Ref.  one of us demonstrated that these systems exhibit two additional kinds of condensation associated with the degrees of freedom which come from the multiplicity of the degenerate rotating states. Finally, Bertsch and Papenbrock  solved the problem exactly within a subspace of degenerate states for a limited number of particles and angular momenta.

In the absence of interactions, there is a large degeneracy corresponding to the many ways of distributing a given angular momentum among the particles . The challenge is to incorporate interactions in order to lift the degeneracy. This can be done either within the mean-field approximation  or “exactly” by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in an appropriate subspace of the degenerate states. In this Letter we establish a connection between these two approaches.

Our starting point is the hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}=_i\widehat{h}_i+\widehat{V}`$, where

$`\widehat{h}_i={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}\mathbf{}_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M\omega ^2r_i^2`$ (1)
includes the kinetic energy of the particles and the potential energy due to the trapping potential and where

$`\widehat{V}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_0{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\delta (𝐫_i𝐫_j)`$ (2)
is the two-body interaction between particles, which is assumed to be of zero range. Here $`M`$ is the atomic mass, $`\omega `$ is the frequency of an isotropic trapping potential, and $`U_0=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/M`$ is the strength of the effective two-body interaction, with $`a`$ being the scattering length for atom-atom collisions. We assume that $`a>0`$, i.e., we treat only the case of repulsive effective interactions between the atoms. We further restrict our attention to the limit of weak interactions,

$`nU_0\mathrm{}\omega ,`$ (3)
where $`n`$ is the density of the condensed atoms. If the system has angular momentum $`L`$, this condition allows us to work in subspaces of states which are degenerate in the absence of interactions. All other states differ by an energy of order $`\mathrm{}\omega `$, which is much larger than $`nU_0`$ by assumption. Finally, we assume that the cloud of atoms rotates about some axis, and that the system is in its ground state with respect to this axis, which implies that our problem is essentially two-dimensional. In the absence of interactions for the harmonic oscillator potential in two dimensions the single particle energies are

$`ϵ=(2n_r+|m|+1)\mathrm{}\omega ,`$ (4)
where $`n_r`$ is the radial quantum number, and $`m`$ is the quantum number corresponding to the angular momentum. In the lowest energy state of the system all the atoms are in states with $`n_r=0`$, and with $`m`$ being zero or having the same sign as the total angular momentum.

Let us describe briefly the two methods which have been used to attack the problem of rotation, starting with the mean-field approach . Within this approximation the many-body wavefunction with $`N`$ particles and $`L`$ units of angular momentum $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,N}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_N)`$ is a Fock state simply expressed as a product of single particle states:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,N}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\mathrm{},𝐫_N)=\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1)\times \mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_2)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_N).`$ (5)
It is natural to expand the single-particle states $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_i)`$ in the basis of the harmonic-oscillator eigenstates $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m(𝐫_i)`$ with angular momentum $`m\mathrm{}`$ along the axis of rotation:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_i)={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_m\mathrm{\Phi }_m(𝐫_i),`$ (6)
where $`c_m`$ are variational parameters. The quantity $`|c_m|^2`$ gives the probability for the occupancy of state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_m`$. One imposes two constraints on the parameters $`c_m`$. The wavefunction must be normalized,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}|c_m^2|=1,`$ (7)
and the expectation value of the angular momentum per particle must be fixed,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}m|c_m|^2=L/N.`$ (8)
The expectation value of the interaction energy $`\widehat{V}`$ in the state given by Eq. (5) is

$`\widehat{V}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N(N1)U_0{\displaystyle |\mathrm{\Psi }|^4𝑑𝐫}.`$ (9)
Minimizing this energy with respect to the $`c_m`$ subject to the constraints of Eqs. (7) and (8), one obtains the mean field energy and corresponding wavefunction.

Turning to the “exact” approach to this problem , it is convenient to work in the basis $`|N_0,N_1,N_2,\mathrm{}`$ where $`N_m`$ is the number of particles with angular momentum $`\mathrm{}m`$. The constraints on particle number and angular momentum now take the form:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}N_m=N;{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}mN_m=L.`$ (10)
It is convenient to write the interaction energy as

$`\widehat{V}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_0{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}I_{i,j,k,l}a_i^{}a_j^{}a_ka_l,`$ (11)
where $`a_k`$ and $`a_k^{}`$ are annihilation and creation operators respectively, and

$`I_{i,j,k,l}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Phi }_k(𝐫)\mathrm{\Phi }_l(𝐫)𝑑𝐫}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(i+j)!}{2^{(i+j)}\sqrt{i!j!k!l!}}}{\displaystyle |\mathrm{\Phi }_0(𝐫)|^4𝑑𝐫}`$ (13)
when $`i+j=k+l`$ and zero otherwise. The final step is to diagonalize the matrix $`\widehat{V}`$ in the space of the states $`|N_0,N_1,N_2,\mathrm{}`$ which satisfy the constraints of Eq. (10).

Before turning to a comparison of these methods, it is useful to consider their advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, the mean-field approximation gives the energy in the asymptotic limit $`L`$ and $`N\mathrm{}`$ with $`L/N`$ fixed. This limit is not directly accessible to the exact method since the dimensionality of the space increases dramatically with increasing $`L`$ and $`N`$. On the other hand, the exact method provides the entire spectrum of excited states and a lower ground state energy than the mean-field result. The mean-field assumption of a simple product wavefunction ignores correlations between the particles which are contained in the exact diagonalization. The mean-field energy offers only an upper bound for the true ground state energy. To be more specific, the leading term in the ground state energy of the system must grow like $`N^2`$ for the interaction considered. As we show below, the energy obtained by the exact method in the asymptotic limit is bounded from below by an expression which has the same $`N^2`$ coefficient as the mean-field result. Thus, the exact energy differs from the mean-field value by terms of order $`N`$ or less. In addition, we will suggest simple methods for computation of the order $`N`$ correction to the ground state energy in the asymptotic limit.

The spirit of the mean field approximation is that the wavefunction is composed of a large number of states with occupation numbers in the vicinity of $`N|c_m|^2`$ but that these states are of measure zero in the full Hilbert space considered. Up to a staggering related to the phases of the $`c_m`$, the wavefunction should then be a smooth and differentiable function of occupation number for single particle states containing a finite fraction of the particles. Such states are amenable to simple treatment. States with $`c_m=0`$ in a mean field description will require special treatment. Consider the particular case $`L=2N`$ using a Hilbert space $`0m4`$. In mean field theory it is found that the only non-zero coefficients are $`c_0`$, $`c_2`$, and $`c_4`$. Initially retaining only these states, we will consider the basis of states

$`|k=|k,0,N2k,0,k.`$ (14)
Write the wavefunction as

$`|L=2N,N={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(1)^k\psi _k|k,`$ (15)
where the $`k`$-dependent phase has been chosen to minimize the resulting energy. The eigenvalue equation has the form

$`\widehat{V}_{k,k}\psi _k\widehat{V}_{k,k1}\psi _{k1}\widehat{V}_{k,k+1}\psi _{k+1}=_{2N,N}\psi _k,`$ (16)
where $`\widehat{V}_{k,k^{}}=k|\widehat{V}|k^{}`$ is the matrix element of the interaction between the states $`|k`$ and $`|k^{}`$ given by Eq. (14). The two-body interaction $`\widehat{V}`$ connects only states for which $`kk^{}=\pm 1`$, or 0.

Assuming that $`\psi _k`$ is smooth and differentiable over a suitable range, we expand the wavefunction as

$`\psi _{k\pm 1}=\psi _k\pm _k\psi _k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_k^2\psi _k`$ (17)
to obtain the eigenvalue equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{V}_{k,k1}+\widehat{V}_{k,k+1})_k^2\psi _k+V_{\mathrm{eff}}\psi _k=_{2N,N}\psi _k,`$ (18)
where the effective potential is

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(k)=\widehat{V}_{k,k}\widehat{V}_{k,k1}\widehat{V}_{k,k+1}.`$ (19)
The leading term in the energy is of order $`N^2`$ and is simply the minimum value of $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(k)`$. This minimum occurs at

$`k_0=N{\displaystyle \frac{16\sqrt{6}28}{64\sqrt{6}109}}.`$ (20)
The occupancy of the $`m=0`$ and $`m=4`$ states is $`k_0/N`$ in the asymptotic limit; the occupancy of $`m=2`$ is $`12k_0/N`$. This is precisely the result found in Ref.  within the mean-field approximation. Numerical exploration for $`N>10^9`$ indicates that the energy of the minimum of the effective potential, $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(k_0)`$, can be described by the approximate form

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{2N,N}\left(0.177256895N^20.366043N+𝒪(N^0)\right)v_0,$$
(21)
where $`v_0=U_0|\mathrm{\Phi }_0|^4𝑑𝐫`$, with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(𝐫)`$ being the ground state of the harmonic oscillator. As expected, the $`N^2`$ coefficient in this expression is identical to the corresponding term in the mean field . In general, the properties of the minimum of $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(k)`$ reproduce the leading $`N^2`$ term of mean field theory.

Expanding $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(k)`$ around $`k_0`$, we find that the effective potential has the form

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(k)=\stackrel{~}{}_{2N,N}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d(kk_0)^2v_0,`$ (22)
where $`\stackrel{~}{}_{2N,N}`$ is given by Eq. (21) and where the constant $`d0.3732`$ is necessarily positive and of $`𝒪(N^0)`$. The leading, “kinetic energy” term in Eq. (18) is positive with $`\widehat{V}_{k,k1}+\widehat{V}_{k,k+1}0.0381N^2`$. That this term is of $`𝒪(N^2)`$ is a consequence of the fact that $`\widehat{V}`$ is a two-body operator. The ground-state energy for this harmonic oscillator problem is readily found to be

$`_{2N,N}=\stackrel{~}{}_{2N,N}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (23)
with

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{d(\widehat{V}_{k,k1}+\widehat{V}_{k,k+1})}0.1192Nv_0.`$ (24)
The effective oscillator length corresponding to Eq. (18) is proportional to $`([\widehat{V}_{k,k1}+\widehat{V}_{k,k+1}]/d)^{1/4}`$ and is of order $`N^{1/2}`$. This demonstrates the consistency of our assumptions: The ground state wavefunction $`\psi _k`$ is a Gaussian centered at $`k_0`$ with a width of order $`N^{1/2}`$. It contains significant contributions from a large number of states, which, however, is only a vanishingly small fraction of all the states in our Hilbert space. Combining Eqs. (21), (23), and (24) we obtain a ground state energy of

$$_{2N,N}=\left(0.177256895N^20.306406N+𝒪(N^0)\right)v_0.$$
(25)
The general conclusion from this analysis is that the correct $`𝒪(N^2)`$ contribution to the energy can be obtained by determining the classical minimum of the effective potential energy, $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(k)`$. Quantum fluctuations lead to corrections of order $`N`$. Since the kinetic energy term is positive, these corrections are necessarily positive and this leading term thus provides a lower bound on the ground state energy. By contrast, the mean-field approach leads to minimizing the same classical potential but provides an upper bound on the energy as a consequence of its variational character. Thus, the ground state energy is trapped between upper and lower bounds with the same leading term. Thus, we conclude that the $`𝒪(N^2)`$ contribution to the ground state energy obtained by mean field theory is exact in the large $`N`$ limit.

While the space considered in the above example was severely limited, this method can be generalized to include as many states as necessary. Our analysis holds provided that the states included are occupied by a finite fraction of the total number of particles. If this is true, roughly $`N^{1/2}`$ states for each of the variables in the multi-dimensional space will make significant contributions to the wave function and the approximation of differentiability is valid. One can then derive an eigenvalue equation of the form of Eq. (18), of multi-dimensional coupled harmonic oscillators. A crucial assumption in establishing the asymptotic validity of the mean field result is the positivity of the “inertial” parameters such as the coefficient of $`_k^2\psi _k`$ in the case of Eq. (18). We have verified that this is true in a number of specific cases, and we believe that it is true in general.

Let us now return to the states $`m=1`$ and $`m=3`$ in our example. These states are not macroscopically occupied, i.e., the corresponding $`c_1`$ and $`c_3`$ are zero in a mean field calculation. The expansion of Eq. (17) cannot be used for their description, and their incorporation requires some care. To include their effects, we approximate $`|L=2N,N_0`$ by the single state $`|k=k_0`$ of Eq. (14). Starting with this state, we build a basis of states containing $`n_1`$ particles with $`m=1`$ state and $`n_3`$ particles with $`m=3`$, being careful to conserve particle number and angular momentum. The effect of these states with odd $`m`$ values can then be obtained by diagonalizing $`\widehat{V}`$ in this basis. If $`0(n_1+n_3)2Q`$, there will be $`(Q+1)^2`$ states in this basis. Convergence of this calculation to arbitrary accuracy can be obtained by choosing $`Q`$ to be large but none the less of order $`N^0`$. This confirms the fact that the states $`m=1`$ and $`m=3`$ are not macroscopically occupied. In the present case, the lowest eigenvalue of this matrix converges rapidly to an asymptotic value of $`0.1812Nv_0`$. The linear contribution to the energy from such states is general. An improved description of $`|L=2N,N_0`$ would lead to changes in this energy of order $`N^0`$.

We are now able to obtain the asymptotic ground state energy for the case $`L=2N`$ correct to order $`N`$ by combining this correction for the odd $`m`$ states with the result of Eq. (25). We find

$`_{2N,N}\left(0.177256895N^20.487576N+𝒪(N^0)\right)v_0.`$ (26)
This result is in remarkable agreement with the expression

$`_{2N,N}\left(0.177256752N^20.487848N+𝒪(N^0)\right)v_0`$ (27)
obtained by direct numerical diagonalization in the same truncated space $`0m4`$ for values of $`100N220`$. Note that the case $`N=220`$ requires diagonalization of a matrix of dimension $`305990`$. The small discrepancies obtained are a consequence of the limited range of $`N`$ for which exact diagonalization is possible and the largest values of $`Q`$ considered in our approximate calculation. These restrictions are absent in calculations within the same Hilbert space $`0m4`$ for $`L=N/2`$. It is then possible to consider $`N`$ as large as $`600`$. All states have an occupation number of order $`N`$, and the final matrix diagonalization in our approximate treatment is not required. In this case, the quadratic terms in the ground state energy agree to $`10`$ significant figures, and the linear terms differ by $`1`$ part in $`10^5`$.

Additional evidence comes from exact diagonalizations (with no truncation in $`m`$) for the case $`L=2N`$ for $`4N24`$. The resulting energies are well described by

$`_{2N,N}(0.1749N^20.5206N+0.0028)v_0.`$ (28)
As argued above, mean field theory suggests that only states with even $`m`$ are macroscopically occupied in the ground state for $`L=2N`$. This is supported by exact diagonalizations for the same range of $`N`$ from which we have excluded single-particle states with odd $`m`$. The energy is then found to be

$`_{2N,N}(0.1755N^20.2980N0.0905)v_0.`$ (29)
Comparing the coefficients of $`N^2`$ and $`N`$ in Eqs. (28) and (29), we see that only the latter is materially affected by this truncation. This is consistent with our assertion that states which are not occupied macroscopically contribute to the energy at order $`N`$.

In summary we have adopted a “correspondence principle approach” to describe repulsive two-body interactions between the particles in a Bose-Einstein condensate by assuming that the wavefunction in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit is a smooth and differentiable function of the occupation number. This approach leads us to the result that mean field theory provides an exact determination of the $`N^2`$ term in the ground state energy and permits determination of the contribution to this energy of order $`N`$. Butts and Rokhsar have arrived at a similar conclusion . Evidently, the same arguments can be used to describe the spectrum of excited states. The present methods would appear to be a useful and practical supplement to mean field methods whenever these are of value.

G.M.K. was supported by the European Commission, TMR program, under contract No. ERBFMBICT 983142, and S.M.R. under contract No. ERB4001GT 970292. We would like to thank C. J. Pethick for helpful discussions and M. Koskinen for advice regarding numerical questions. G.M.K. would like to thank the Foundation of Research and Technology, Hellas (FORTH) for its hospitality, and S.M.R. would like to acknowledge financial support from the “Bayerische Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst”.


format: text

text:
# A BRIEF NOTE ON FLUCTUATIONS AND INTERACTIONS

## Abstract

In this brief note we re-emphasize the fact that an underpinning of fluctuations characterizes the fundamental interactions in the light of El Naschie’s recent work.

00footnotetext: E-mail:birlasc@hd1.vsnl.net.in

In a recent paper El Naschie has introduced the concept of a fluction , a result of geometric fluctuation which could lead towards a unification of fundamental forces. It is pointed out in this brief note that recent work by the author does indeed emphasize the underpinning of fluctuations for fundamental interactions.
In this recent work, it was pointed out firstly that the fluctuation of the electromagnetic field (or the Zero Point Field) leads to,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }B\sqrt{\mathrm{}c}/L^2,$$
(1)
where $`L`$ is the spatial extent. It was pointed out that if $`L`$ Compton wavelength of a typical elementary particle then from (1) we recover the mass and energy of this particle. In other words at the Compton wavelength the elementary particle ”condenses” out of the background Zero Point Field. Similarly a fluctuation in the metric leads to (Cf.refs.),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }g}{L}l_P/L^2$$
(2)
where $`l_P10^{33}cms`$ Planck scale. Unlike in equation (1), if $`L`$ in (2) is taken to be $`l_P`$ then from (2) we get the gravitational interaction.
That fluctuations tie up equations (1) and (2) can be seen explicitly as follows. As is known, given $`N10^{80}`$ elementary particles in the universe, the fluctuation in the particle number is $`\sqrt{N}`$ which leads to a fluctuational electromagnetic energy which in the above scheme is the energy of the typical elementary particle, so that we have (Cf. also)

$$\frac{e^2\sqrt{N}}{R}=mc^2$$
(3)
Using in (3) the fact that,

$$R=\frac{GNm}{c^2}$$

we get the well known relation

$$e^2Gm^2\sqrt{N}=Gm^210^{40}$$
(4)
Equation (4) is usually interpreted as an adhoc or empirical relation comparing the strengths of gravitational and electromagnetic forces. But once the fluctuational underpinning has been taken into account, we have deduced (4) and can now see the connection between electromagnetic and gravitational interactions. Indeed from (4) one can deduce that at the Planck scale the electromagnetic and gravitational forces become equal, or alternatively the Planck scale of mass $`10^5gms`$ is a Schwarszchild black hole.
Indeed in the model referred to earlier, elementary particles like electrons are Kerr-Newman type black holes giving at once both the electromagnetic and gravitational fields including the Quantum Mechanical anomalous gyro magnetic ratio $`g=2`$.
From this point, it was shown that the strong interactions follow at the Compton wavelength scale itself, where the dimensionality is low (Cf.ref.). Infact within the same scheme, it was shown that the very puzzling characteristics of quarks namely their fractional charge, handedness and confinement besides the order of their massses can be deduced.
It is by the same argument of the fluctuation of the number of particles that it was shown that the weak interactions can also be explained. Indeed similar arguments in a different context were put forward years ago by Hayakawa.
Briefly if the weak force is mediated by a particle of mass $`M`$ and Compton wavlength $`L`$ we get from the fluctuation of particle number, this time

$$g^2\sqrt{N}L^2Mc^210^{14},$$

whence the weak interaction can be characterised.
The conclusion is that the spirit of El Naschie’s fluction is vindicated (Cf.also ref.).


text:
# The role of acceleration and locality in the twin paradox

## 1 Introduction

According to the special theory of relativity, all motions with a constant velocity are relative. The twin paradox consists in the fact that a twin $`B`$ that travels around and eventually meets his brother $`A`$ is younger than his brother $`A`$. How the twin $`B`$ knows that he is the one who is actually moving? An often answer, especially in the older literature, is: “He knows, because he accelerates and consequently feels an inertial force.” However, it has been stressed many times in the literature(1-5) that acceleration is not an essential part of the twin paradox.

The most general explanation of the twin paradox is purely geometrical; the proper lengths of two trajectories in spacetime, which correspond to times measured by the corresponding observers, do not need to be equal. This explanation is perfectly correct and is also the simplest one, because one does not need an explicit coordinate transformation that relates the two observers. Yet, such an explanation may not be completely satisfactory, because one may want to know where and when the different aging of the two observers occurs. Although, strictly speaking, this question is not really meaningful,(4) we show in Sec. 2 that, in a certain sense, the different aging can be attributed to instants of time when one of the observers accelerates. We find that the accelerated observer “observes” that the rate of the differential lapses of time depends not only on the relative velocity, but also on the product of the acceleration and the distance between the observers. This result has already been obtained in Ref. 6, but our derivation is quite different, and, we believe, more elegant. However, we also emphasize that this result does not have a direct operational interpretation because an observer at a certain position can only measure physical quantities that are defined at the same position.

Another way of posing the twin paradox is to ask what, if not acceleration, is the source of asymmetry between the two relatively moving observers. When spacetime is curved(1) or has a nontrivial topology,(3,7,8) one can obtain the twin paradox completely without acceleration. In these two cases it is clear that, owing to a nontrivial geometry or topology, there is no symmetry with respect to rotations of the velocity directions. However, a flat opened universe possesses such a symmetry, so the question of the source of asymmetry for such a case remains opened. We find in Sec. 3 that this asymmetry can be attributed to the fact that noninertial coordinate systems, contrary to inertial coordinate systems, can be correctly interpreted only locally. Recently, this fact has been used to resolve the Ehrenfest paradox,(9) to give the correct interpretation of the Sagnac effect,(9) and to show that the notion of radiation does not depend on acceleration of an observer.(10) In this paper we explain how this fact helps in understanding the twin paradox.

## 2 The role of acceleration

Let $`S`$ be the frame of an inertial observer and $`S^{}`$ the frame of an observer that moves arbitrarily along the $`x`$-axis. $`S`$ is a Lorentz frame, while $`S^{}`$ is actually a coordinate system determined by the Fermi-Walker transport along the trajectory of the arbitrarily moving observer. (We give more comments on this in Sec. 3).

Let $`u`$ be the velocity of the observer in $`S^{}`$ as seen by an observer in $`S`$. Let us also assume that the observers in $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ do not rotate (this makes the analysis simpler, but has no influence on the final results). The coordinate transformation between these two frames is given by(11,9) $`y=y^{}`$, $`z=z^{}`$, and

$$x=\gamma (t^{})x^{}+_0^t^{}\gamma (t^{})u(t^{})𝑑t^{},$$
(1)
$$t=\frac{1}{c^2}\gamma (t^{})u(t^{})x^{}+_0^t^{}\gamma (t^{})𝑑t^{},$$
(2)
where $`\gamma (t^{})=1/\sqrt{1u^2(t^{})/c^2}`$. It was assumed in this transformation that the space origins coincide at $`t=t^{}=0`$. The position of the observer in $`S^{}`$ is $`x^{}=0`$.

The transformation (1)-(2) is linear in $`x^{}`$. However, if $`u(t^{})`$ is not a constant, then this transformation is not linear in $`t^{}`$. Contrary to the case of constant $`u`$, this transformation cannot be simply inverted by putting $`uu`$. This is why the inertial and the noninertial observers are not equivalent. Note, however, that acceleration does not appear explicitly in (1) and (2).

Let us now see how the clock in $`S^{}`$ appears to the observer in $`S`$. Since the clock in $`S^{}`$ is at $`x^{}=0`$, from (2) we find

$$t=_0^t^{}\gamma (t^{})𝑑t^{},$$
(3)
$$\frac{t}{t^{}}=\gamma (t^{}).$$
(4)
Equations (3) and (4) express the fact that the observer in $`S`$ sees that the clock in $`S^{}`$ is slower than the clock in $`S`$ and that $`t/t^{}`$ does not depend on the acceleration, but only on the instantaneous velocity.

Let us now see how the clock in $`S`$, not necessarily at $`x=0`$, appears to the observer in $`S^{}`$. By eliminating $`x^{}`$ from (1) and (2), we find

$$t=_0^t^{}\gamma (t^{})𝑑t^{}+\frac{1}{c^2}u(t^{})[xx_o(t^{})],$$
(5)
where

$$x_o(t^{})=_0^t^{}\gamma (t^{})u(t^{})𝑑t^{}=_0^{t(t^{})}u(t^{}(t))𝑑t$$
(6)
is the position of the observer in $`S^{}`$ as a function of time, $`t(t^{})`$ is given by (3), and $`t^{}(t)`$ is its inverse. It was allowed to use (3) and (4) in the second equality in (6) because, although $`u`$ is expressed as a function of $`t^{}`$, it is, by definition, the velocity seen by the $`S`$-observer, i.e., $`u=dx_o/dt`$. From (5) and (6) we find

$$\frac{t}{t^{}}=\frac{1}{\gamma (t^{})}+\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{du(t^{})}{dt^{}}[xx_o(t^{})].$$
(7)
The fact that (7) and (4) are different is a consequence of the fact that the partial derivative in (7) is calculated with $`x`$ held fixed, while the partial derivative in (4) is calculated with $`x^{}`$ held fixed. Comparing (7) with (4), we see that the first term in (7) corresponds to what we expect from the relativity of motion. However, the second term in (7) shows that acceleration has a direct influence on what the accelerated observer will observe. Note also that the influence of acceleration does not depend only on the acceleration itself, but also on the relative distance between the accelerated observer and the inertial clock. In particular, if the inertial and the noninertial clocks are at the same instantaneous position, then acceleration has no influence.

Now it seems that we understand what is the true origin of the different aging of the inertial and the noninertial clocks. For example, if the observer in $`S^{}`$ moves with a constant velocity and then suddenly reverses the direction of motion, then, at this critical instant of time, it will appear to him that the time of the inertial clock at $`x=0`$ instantaneously jumps forward. There is no such jump of the noninertial clock from the point of view of the inertial observer. This is the reason that, when the two observers finally meet, they have different age. A similar conclusion, although obtained in a completely different way, was drawn also in Ref. 13. However, as we show in the next section, this is not the end of the story.

## 3 The role of locality

The discussion of the preceding section seems to resolve the twin paradox. However, this discussion raises a new paradox. The right-hand side of (7) can be negative, which means that it may appear to the accelerated observer that an inertial clock lapses backward in time. This seems to be in contradiction with the principle of causality.

This paradox is an artefact of the tacit assumption that an observer receives information from a distant clock instantaneously. In that sense, equations (3), (4), (5), and (7) do not represent what the observers will really see, unless the clocks and the observers in $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ are at the same instantaneous position. One could caculate what the observers would really see by assuming that the observers communicate with light signals, which would remove the causality paradox. However, we do not want to introduce a new entity, such as a light beam needed for communication, because such a complication could hide the real origin of the twin paradox. Instead, we insist on resolving the twin paradox using only the properties of the transformation (1)-(2).

An observer at a certain position can measure only the values of physical quantities at this same position. Therefore, equations (5) and (7) have a direct operational interpretation only for $`x=x_o(t^{})`$. Therefore, when the observer in $`S^{}`$ compares his clock with a clock in $`S`$ at the same instantaneous position, he sees

$$t=_0^t^{}\gamma (t^{})𝑑t^{},$$
(8)
$$\frac{t}{t^{}}=\frac{1}{\gamma (t^{})}.$$
(9)
The apparent inconsistency of equations (8) and (9) is a new way of viewing the twin paradox. Equations (9) and (4) correspond to the relativity of motion; the two observers do not agree on which clock is faster. On the other hand, equations (8) and (3) correspond to the twin paradox; the two observers do agree that, at the same instant and the same position, the hand of the clock in $`S^{}`$ points to a smaller number than the hand of the clock in $`S`$. But how is that possible?

Note first that the apparent inconsistency of (8) and (9) has a simple mathematical origin. One should not derive (9) directly from (8), but instead one needs first to calculate the derivative of (5) and then to put $`x=x_o(t^{})`$. However, (8) and (9) are correct equations even for a motion with a constant velocity. What is the source of asymmetry between $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$?

The asymmetry lies in another tacit assumption; the condition $`x=x_o(t^{})`$ corresponds to an experimental arrangement in which the moving clock in $`S^{}`$ is compared each time with another clock in $`S`$, that which, at this instant, is at the same position as the clock in $`S^{}`$. In other words, there is precisely one clock in $`S^{}`$, while there are many clocks in $`S`$ distributed along the $`x`$-axis.

One will say: “OK, but we can arrange our experiment such that there is only one clock in $`S`$, say at $`x=0`$, while there are many clocks in $`S^{}`$ distributed along the $`x^{}`$-axis.” However, now comes the essential point of this section. It was legitimate to use many clocks at different positions in $`S`$ and compare the clock in $`S^{}`$ each time with another clock in $`S`$, because all these clocks in $`S`$ belong to the same frame of reference. On the other hand, if, at least for a short time, $`S^{}`$ is not an inertial frame, then we cannot longer say that clocks at different constant positions $`x^{}`$ belong to the same frame of reference. In other words, the proper coordinates related to the trajectory $`x^{}=\mathrm{constant}`$ depend on this constant. Consequently, it is not legitimate to compare the inertial clock at $`x=0`$ each time with another noninertial clock that does not move with respect to the noninertial clock at $`x^{}=0`$ and interpret the result as something that tell us about the behavior of the clock at $`x^{}=0`$. In the context of the twin paradox, a privileged role of inertial coordinate systems is not related to the fact that inertial observers do not feel an inertial force, but rather to the fact that inertial coordinate systems in flat spacetime have a clear global interpretation, while noninertial coordinate systems only have a clear local interpretation. This purely local interpretation of noninertial coordinate systems has already been explained in more detail in Refs. 9. and 10., but, for the sake of completeness, below we give a short resume of the results of these papers.

Proper coordinates of an observer arbitrarily moving in arbitrary spacetime are determined by the Fermi-Walker transport (12) and are often referred to as Fermi coordinates.(15) They are determined by the trajectory of the observer, as well as by the geometry of spacetime. It is convenient to define them such that the position of the observer is at the space origin of the Fermi coordinates. Even if there is no relative motion between two observers, they belong to different Fermi frames if they are not staying at the same position. In particular, the $`S`$-coordinates in (1)-(2) are the Fermi coordinates of an inertial observer in flat spacetime, while the $`S^{}`$-coordinates are the Fermi coordinates of an observer that moves arbitrarily (without rotation) along the $`x`$-axis with respect to the inertial observer. In general, the coordinate transformation that relates the Fermi coordinates of two different observers is a complicated transformation. However, the coordinate transformation that relates the Fermi coordinates of two inertial observers in flat spacetime that do not move relatively to each other is a simple translation of the space origin, which is a transformation that belongs to the class of restricted internal transformations,(9) i.e., it is a transformation that does not mix space and time coordinates:

$$t^{}=f^0(t),x^i=f^i(x^1,x^2,x^3).$$
(10)
If the Fermi coordinates of two observers are related by such a transformation, then they can be regarded as belonging to the same physical frame of reference. This is why one can regard the clocks at different positions $`x`$ in (5) as belonging to the same frame of reference.

Now we also have a better understanding of the causality “paradox” mentioned at the begining of this section; it is merely a consequence of the fact that the coordinate $`t^{}`$ can be interpreted as a physical time only at $`x^{}=0`$.

At the end, let us also mention some measurable effects related to the local interpretation of noninertial frames. Assume that the $`S^{}`$-coordinates in (1)-(2) refer to a uniformly accelerated observer at $`x^{}=0`$. Assume also that another observer has such a trajectory that his position is given by $`x^{}=`$constant$`0`$. Then this second observer also accelerates uniformly, but with a different acceleration.(14) If, on the other hand, two observers at different positions move in the same direction with equal accelerations and initial velocities, then, as seen by these observers, the distance between them changes with time, which also leads to a variant of the twin paradox.(2)

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to G. Duplančić for asking me questions that motivated the investigation resulting in this paper. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia under Contract No. 00980102.

## References

1. B. R. Holstein and A. R. Swift, Am. J. Phys. 40, 746 (1972).
2. S. P. Boughn, Am. J. Phys. 57, 791 (1989).
3. T. Dray, Am. J. Phys. 58, 822 (1990).
4. T. A. Debs and M. L. G. Redhead, Am. J. Phys. 64, 384 (1996).
5. R. P. Gruber and R. H. Price, Am. J. Phys. 65, 979 (1997).
6. R. J. Low, Eur. J. Phys. 16, 228 (1995).
7. R. J. Low, Eur. J. Phys. 11, 25 (1990).
8. J.-P. Uzan, J.-P. Luminet, R. Lehoucq, and P. Peter, physics/0006039.
9. H. Nikolić, Phys. Rev. A 61, 032109 (2000).
10. H. Nikolić, gr-qc/9909035.
11. R. A. Nelson, J. Math. Phys. 28, 2379 (1987).
12. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H.
Freeman and Company, New York, 1995).
13. W. G. Unruh, Am. J. Phys. 49, 589 (1981).
14. H. Nikolić, Am. J. Phys. 67, 1007 (1999).
15. J. L. Synge, Relativity: The General Theory (North-Holland Publishing
Co., New York, 1960).


text:
# Untitled Document

HYPERGRAVITY AND CATEGORICAL FEYNMANOLOGY

by Louis Crane

Mathematics department, KSU.

Abstract: We propose a new line of attack to create a finite quantum theory which includes general relativity and (possibly) the standard model in its low energy limit. The theory would emerge naturally from the categorical approach. The traces of morphisms from the category of representations we use to construct the state sum also admit interpretation as Feynman diagrams, so the non-categorically minded physicist may think of the models as combinatorial expressions in Feynman integrals, reflecting the topology of the triangulated manifold. The Feynman picture of the vacuum would appear as a low energy limit of the theory.

The fundamental dynamics of the theory are determined by a Topological Quantum Field Theory expanded around a conjectured geometric quasi-vacuum.

Although the model is a 4 dimensional state sum, it would have a stringlike ten dimensional perturbation theory.

The motivation for the name “hypergravity” is the existence of an infinite tower of alternating fermionic and bosonic partners of the gravitational field in the theory, with an n=2 chiral supersymmetry functor connecting them. It is remarkable that a supersymmetry appears in the high energy sector of a theory not founded on supergeometry.

1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to begin a new attempt to produce a quantum theory of nature, including both general relativity and particle physics, out of the categorical approach. \[CKY1,BC1,BC2\].

The categorical approach is a method to produce a type of discrete theory, rather like a lattice QFT, but put on a triangulated manifold, instead of a lattice, in order to make it applicable to curved spacetime.

One replaces the fields and Lagrangian of a QFT by an abstract algebraic structure and its operations. A basis for the algebraic structure is used to label sites on the triangulation, and the operations are used to combine these to make numbers called “local contributions”.These are then combined into a state sum, which can be viewed as closely analogous to a path integral. The analogy is that the elements of the structure are like local fields, while the structure itself is a sort of Lagrangian density.

In higher dimension than 2, the algebraic structure is often some sort of tensor category and the structure which is used to create the QFT is its associator or something similar.

The local contributions from the relevant tensor category are in fact the evaluations of Feynman diagrams for a special QFT on hyperbolic space\[F-K,BC2\]. As we shall argue below, this suggests that the Feynmanology of the matter fields in the model we are proposing may appear directly as traces of morphisms in the category of representations from which we construct the theory.

The current paper is not self contained. It draws heavily on the categorical state sum models for $`BF`$ theory in \[CKY1\], and the Euclidean and Lorentzian signature state sum models in \[BC1,BC2\]. We assume that the reader is familiar with those constructions, as well as the fundamentals of category theory. The entire motivation for the proposal is specific features of these models, and of the tensor category from which they are constructed.

The construction of a four dimensional topological state sum (TSS) in \[CKY1\] assumes a complete tensor category, i.e. one which is closed under the tensor product. In \[BC1,2\], models were proposed for four dimensional discrete quantum general relativity in Euclidean and Lorentzian signatures respectively. Both models were constrained versions of models of the topological type in \[CKY1\], which were constructed by restricting to a suitable subcategory which was not a tensor subcategory. The Euclidean model \[BC1\] was obtained by restricting to the irreducible representations of $`U_qso(4)`$ which had equal half integer indices for the left and right actions of $`U_qso(3)`$ , which we call “balanced”. The Lorentzian model was a similar restriction of the category of representations of the Quantum Lorentz Algebra \[BR 1,2\], specifically to the irreducible representations of the form $`R_{0,p}`$. (the general irreducible representation of the QLA is of the form $`R_{k,p}`$ for k a half integer.) Since these models are not based on closed tensor categories, they are not topological, i.e. they depend on the triangulation used.

In both cases the construction is motivated by the idea that the constraint corresponds to the quantization of the condition that the bivectors on the 2-simplices of a triangulated 4-manifold are simple.

This leaves two difficult problems in the way of developing a serious physical theory:

1. finding the limiting behavior as the triangulation is refined, i.e. the continuum limit

and

2. adding the matter fields.

The behavior of the topological model as the triangulation is refined is not problematical at all. The physical quantities are triangulation independent, so we are already at the continuum limit. The price we pay for this is that there are no local degrees of freedom, not even geometrical ones. The categorical constraint has the effect of breaking topological invariance, so the “smaller” state sum has a “larger” state space.

Several authors have tried to make a continuum limit for the models of \[BC1,2\] or closely related ones by summing over triangulations or slightly more general combinatorial situations \[R-R1,Ba\]. The convergence problem for such an approach seems formidable, however.

Our hope is that the two problems have a single solution.

What we want to propose is that the fundamental dynamics of our universe is actually determined by a categorical topological state sum, but that we are in a sort of “bubble”, i.e. a region in which labels in the sum are restricted to a subspace of the full labelling set of objects of the category which has a relative stability under the dynamics induced by the TSS. This is similar to the suggestion of Witten \[W\] that the fundamental theory has a “topological phase” but we fluctuated out of it, except that it is rather a TQFT that has a nontopological quasiphase.

The constrained subtheory would be a summation over some of the labels for the whole theory, but subject to a constraint which has the property that if we begin a state sum with initial conditions satisfying the constraint, the dynamics of the larger TSS would only produce a very small contribution of labels outside the constraint for a long time as measured by a clock constructed within the constrained label space, provided the curvature of the geometry defined by the labelling within the constrained subsystem was small compared to the Planck scale.

Let us formalize matters:

“DEFINITION”: A geometric quasi-vacuum is a subspace S of the total labelling space T for a TSS such that

1. The constrained labellings can be interpreted as defining a discrete geometry on the underlying manifold.

2. If we calculate the time evolution using the entire TSS, but on initial conditions inside the subspace S, the deviation from the result of the constrained theory will be small provided the curvature of the initial conditions is small in Planck units, for a long time as measured by a clock defined in terms of labels from the set S.

CONJECTURE 1: The Euclidean signature model of \[BC1\] is a geometric quasi-vacuum for the TSS of \[CKY1\] with category Rep $`U_qso(4)`$ , i.e. the space of balanced labels is a suitable S in the above definition. The Lorentzian model in \[BC2\], but with q taken to a root of unity, is a geometrical quasi vacuum of a TSS associated to a version of the QLA with q also a root of unity.

CONJECTURE 2: The set of geometric quasi-vacua associated to the TSSs of conjecture 1 is actually very large, including examples related to string vacua.

Motivation for these conjectures will appear in the bulk of the paper below.

What we are proposing is that the matter fields we see in the universe are the low energy limit of the other labels in the TSS, besides those that satisfy the constraints for the model for general relativity. If we are in a “bubble”, i.e. a region where the labels satisfying the constraints predominate, small fluctuations of the extra labels would appear to propagate through the geometrical background defined by the included labels.

An observer in a region of a TSS which fluctuated into a geometric quasi vacuum would seem to see the world obey the laws of the constrained theory. In particular if the constrained theory approximated the laws of GR coupled to suitable matter, it could easily settle into an expanding solution, so a Planck scale initial fluctuation could appear to become vastly larger to an internal observer. If such an observer attempted to study a region where spacetime was highly curved, then the labels excluded from the constraint would begin to appear, adding at first to the field content of the observed theory. Paradoxically, however, if the observer entered a region which strayed too far from the curvature limitations, and hence from the constrained theory, the additional hierarchy of “fields” would produce a regime in which no local excitations could exist at all anymore, i.e. a topological theory. One way to understand how this would happen is that the new sets of labels which would appear are linked by a supersymmetry functor, so that the corrections which would appear if one refined the triangulation would cancel out in a telescoping supersymmetry.

The way I envision this is that what would appear would be a thermal bath of an ever increasing variety of particles, as predicted by the semiclassical theory in regions of curvature. Eventually,this would reach a critical temperature and make all measurement impossible, destroying any observer in the region.

Put differently, there would not exist a true continuum quantum theory of pure gravity, because at sufficiently high energy densities matter would be formed around the curvature loci. Matter plus gravity would not have a continuum quantum theory, because at still higher temperature the matter fields and metric fields would merge into a topological state sum. Since the higher partners of the labels which give gravity are related by a supersymmetry functor, their contributions to the state sum would telescopically cancel as we refined the triangulation into the region where they became important. Thus, an effect analogous to the no renormalization theorem for supersymmetric theories would cause the state sum to become topological.

This is rather similar to the idea of SUSY breaking, except in a discrete picture, rather than for continuum fields. It is remarkable that the category of unitary representations of the ordinary Lorentz group has a decomposition into partners of the subcategory associated to GR connected by a supersymmetry functor. Infinite supersymmetric hierarchies do not seem to appear in continuum field theories.

The region of spacetime before the fluctuation happened would seem to have a completely degenerate geometry and a thermal state at the Planck temperature to an observer inside the bubble. This would be a plausible scenario for a big bang.

Any region inside the bubble where the curvature became high enough would also begin to see labels from outside the constraint space, which would appear similar to Hawking radiation, until the Planck temperature was reached.

A region within the bubble which appeared so small that any subdivision of it would be dominated by labellings with large curvature would effectively leave the bubble. An attempt by an observer to probe it would yield a thermal state, and no finer determinateness as to the geometry of the small region. Thus the only continuum limit for the theory would be the topological theory.

The “definition” of a geometric quasi-vacuum given above is motivated by a physical picture, and will need considerable refinement to make it mathematically precise enough for further analysis. We will try to argue that various specific facts about the models of \[CKY1 BC1,2\] make this picture plausible. It is with quasi-vacua of the specific TSS related to the unitary representations of the QLA and $`U_qso(4)`$ that we shall be concerned. For brevity, and for reasons discussed below we shall refer to them as “hypergravity”.

In order to advance the program of this paper, the first necessary step will be to make a precise formulation of the definition of quasi-vacuum in terms of the actual categorical state sum. A natural procedure would be to constrain the labels along a 3D hypersurface in the triangulated 4-manifold to lie within the theory, and to constrain the labels on the 2-simplices incident to the hypersurface both to lie within the constraint subcategory and to correspond geometrically to a small time. One could investigate the behaviour of the state sum for some relatively simple constraint subcategory, then try to prove a quantitative form of the conjecture. Lastly, one could try to generalize the behaviour to a large family of constraint subcategories. We are then conjecturing that a very large family of subspaces of the set of labels would satisfy such a stability condition. If our intuition is correct, we would end up with a picture of the vacuum of the TQFT as a froth of many different types of bubble.

What we want to do in this paper is to make a preliminary analysis of the prospects of this direction of development. There are two points which seem to us to make it worthy of study.

1. There seems to be a natural picture in which the low energy fields produced by the excluded labels would reproduce the standard model. This is because the algebraic structure of the category we are proposing to use makes very natural contact with the ideas of the Connes-Chamseddine model \[CC, Coq\].

2. A perturbative treatment of the hypergravity model yields a picture of strings with either bosonic or fermionic labels moving through a 10 dimensional curved space. It is not clear yet if these are related to superstrings as we know them. Nevertheless, this is the motivation for conjecture 2.

In the rest of this paper we will have to treat specific aspects of the CSS’s mentioned above, in order to see to what extent the conjectures are justified.

2. Representation theory of the QLA and the Hypergravity Multiplet. Constraints and Quasi-Vacua.

Let us begin by reviewing the basic facts concerning the unitary representations of the classical Lie algebra so(3,1) which is isomorphic to $`sl(2,C)_R`$. These were first studied by Gelfand, and his collaborator Naimark \[GN,N\]. There is a fundamental family of these, called the principal series. They can be realized as weighted actions of the group of linear fractional transformations on the Hilbert space $`L^2(C)`$. They form a two parameter family $`R_{k,p}`$, where k is a half integer and p is a real number. For any three representations $`R_{k_i,p_i}`$, i=1,2,3; there is a unique intertwining operator $`R_{k_1,p_1}R_{k_2,p_2}R_{k_3,p_3}`$ up to scalar multiple if $`k_1+k_2+k_3`$ is an integer, and there is no intertwiner at all otherwise. The intertwiners are given explicitly in \[N\].

The constraint for the model of \[BC2\] is that k=0; i.e. we consider only a state integral over the 10J symbols for the $`R_{0,p}`$’s.

In order to get a finite model in \[BC2\], we passed to representations of the quantum group associated to the Lorentz group, the QLA of \[P-Wo, Pu, BR 1,2\]. The representation theory of the QLA, for a real deformation parameter q is well analyzed in the above papers, and is quite similar to the picture for the ordinary Lorentz algebra, except that the continuous parameter p only takes values in the interval \[0,$`\frac{4\pi }{ln(q)}`$\]. The picture for intertwiners is also analogous to the result cited for the Lorentz algebra. The result was that it was possible to write down a state integral model using the representations of the QLA, with all the integrals over finite measures, and hence finite.

Now we would like to think of the constrained model of \[BC2\] as a submodel of a TSS. This is not quite possible for real values of q, since the sum over the discrete parameter k would still be infinite.

However, it is natural to conjecture that if we passed to q a root of unity, then there would be a truncation of the family of representations $`R_{k,p}`$ at a sufficiently large k for q a fixed root of unity. The reason to believe that is that the representation $`R_{k,p}`$ decomposes as an ascending chain of representations of $`U_qsu(2)`$ with the lowest spin in the chain given by k. Thus, since the representations of $`U_qsu(2)`$ with spin greater than (lnq/4i)-1 have quantum dimension 0 and decouple, so should the representations of the QLA at the same k. Assuming this conjecture is correct, and it is certainly not too hard to investigate, We can embed the Lorentzian model of \[BC2\] as a constrained subsum of a TSS. We already know that the Euclidean signature model of \[BC1\] can be embedded as a subsum of a TSS, namely the model of \[CKY1\] with category $`RepU_qso(4)`$ for q a root of unity.

In either case, it is interesting to think how the rest of the labelling category appears in relationship to the subcategory we are using as a discrete model for gravity. We shall discuss the Lorentzian signature, the Euclidean situation is very similar. The labelling objects appear as a series of copies of the labels for gravity, one partner set $`R_{k,p}`$ for each half integer k. The couplings for each partner set would be similar to the ones in the gravity labelling set, but different sets would be coupled more weakly to one another by some exponential factor involving the difference in k \[BR 2\].

Thus we would find a hierarchy of “partners” to gravity, alternately bosonic and fermionic.

There is also a natural operation in the category which connects the adjacent partner sets. Tensoring with a finite dimensional representation (necessarily nonunitary) then projecting back to the unitary category would send each $`R_{k,p}`$ to a combination of other k’s determined by the usual Clebsch Gordon formula, but only with the identical p \[BR3\]. In particular, tensoring with either the (1/2,0) or (0,1/2) representations (the complexification of the QLA is isomorphic to the product of 2 copies of $`U_qsl(2,C)`$ ) would give an operation on the hierarchy of partner sets, mapping each $`R_{k,p}`$ to $`R_{k+1/2,p}R_{k1/2,p}`$. Since tensor product is functorial, the morphisms of the category, which we are using to construct our diagrams, are also acted on by the supersymmetry functors.

This is the motivation for the name “hypergravity”. If we think of the labelling category for the TSS as an extension of the labels for the model for GR, it has the appearance of a hierarchy of copies of the GR labels, alternatively fermionic and bosonic, together with two natural chiral fermionic maps relating adjacent elements of the hierarchy. This is reminiscent of supersymmetric field theories, except that the hierarchy seems to be infinite. The coupling of each “hyperpartner” to itself mirrors the gravity multiplet.

The above cited result about coupling of different partner sets is one motivation for conjecture 1 above. For small curvatures, it would be improbable to see k fluctuate by an entire half unit. Another piece of evidence is the fact that if we restrict the models of \[BC1,2\] to configurations corresponding to flat metrics, they in fact become topological themselves \[CKY1\]. Of course the idea that “nearly flat” metrics are “nearly topological”needs a careful quantitative study.

At this point, I hope it is clear that “what would be the low energy effective field content of the hypergravity multiplet?” is a plausible question. One could try to find an analog of the renormalization group for categorical state sums, and try to discover how much of the hypergravity multiplet was relevant.

In the next section we explore the possibility that, because of an algebraic coincidence of noncommutative geometry which does not appear to have a classical geometric analogue, the standard model might well emerge naturally within hypergravity.

3. Connections with the Standard Model and the Connes-Lott Model

In \[C-C\], it was argued that the standard model emerges naturally provided an algebra which the authors called the “world algebra” appeared as a symmetry algebra. The algebra they meant was

$`W=CHM^3(C)`$ .

It was incidentally mentioned in their work, and later elaborated in \[Coq\], that this algebra emerges as the semisimple part of the quantum group $`U_qsl(2,C)`$ when we let q be a third root of unity.

Note that this is different from the common truncation at a 4rth root of unity. This will be still another new algebraic question to study in order to investigate this model.

Now let us remind ourselves that the QLA is a “real form” of $`U_qsl(2,C)U_qsl(2,C)`$, more precisely, that its complexification is exactly that algebra \[BR1\].

Hence a truncation of the QLA at a third root of unity would contain two chiral copies of the “world algebra”as its semisimple part.

It is not unreasonable to expect that a nilpotent piece of an algebra would vanish in a low energy (=long distance) limit, leaving the world algebra as the effective symmetry of the theory.

This suggests that it might be interesting to examine other odd roots of unity as well, to see if they predict hierarchies of fields which include both the standard model and others which might be more massive, but potentially discoverable.

It is not possible at this point to demonstrate that the standard model actually emerges from the hypergravity multiplet at q a third root of unity. The truncated representation theory needs to be studied, to determine how the representations of our category decompose under the action of the world algebra. In addition, a form of the renormalization group needs to be developed for CSS’s, and many hard calculations need to be done. Nevertheless, in QFT symmetry is a very strong principle, and seeing the symmetry of the standard model emerge by accident in the hypergravity picture is very surprizing at least.

4. Categorical Feynmanology

In our proposal, there is no true (continuum) QFT except TQFT. The labels that appear as matter fields in a certain regime merge into a topological sum in the continuum limit. Thus the effective theory of matter should be a combinatorial, algebraic one, which could appear within a tensor category.

Such a point of view already exists in QFT as practiced, namely, that of Feynman.

It has long been one of the disturbing problems of theoretical QFT that neither the derivation of the Feynman rules from a QFT nor the reconstruction of a QFT from Feynman amplitudes is mathematically sound. On the other hand, it is rather the Feynman rules than the continuum QFT which have directly been verified by experiment.

All this makes us wonder if the Feynman diagrams of the physically relevant QFTs could appear directly within the tensor categories we are using in our constructions.

This proposal is not out of harmony with the original ideas of Feynman \[F\], who seems to have believed that fundamental quantum processes were discrete, and to have been rather sceptical of continuum QFT as a framework. The point of view that perturbative QFT simply sidestepped unknown physics that appears at a very high energy has been a popular one for the subsequent development of perturbation theory.

We are proposing that a categorical state sum is the most natural candidate for the unknown high energy Physics.

We want to present some lines of argument to make this plausible.

In the first place, the Feynman rules have a very close formal similarity to the structure of a tensor category. Morphisms in a tensor category can be constructed using graphs, with objects on edges and tensor operators on vertices. Furthermore, duality in tensor categories gives an identification of the set of vertices with a certain number of lines in and the rest out with the vertices with the same number and type of lines, but the separation into in and out lines changed. For example, $`Hom(AB,CD)=Hom(AC^{},B^{}D)`$. This is formally identical to Feynman’s use of CPT invariance to identify vertices with edges going forward in time with similar edges going backwards.

The similarity between Feynmanology and categorical diagrams is not accidental. When one constructs a Lagrangian, one first determines what fields one needs to include, then arranges them as representations of the symmetries the theory is expected to have. Next, one looks for scalar combinations of the fields to include in the Lagrangian. These provide the possible vertices of the Feynmanology of the theory.

Note that representations of a group or algebra form a tensor category, and that by duality, scalars in the theory correspond to tensor operators. Thus, up to this point, the construction of tensor categories and Feynmanologies is identical.

Then there is the question of the Feynman integral, which gives us an evaluation of a Feynman diagram. In \[B, F-K\], it was pointed out that the evaluations of the closed diagrams in the categories of representations for Euclidean 4D GR (relativistic spin nets), were exactly Feynman integrals. In \[BC2, R-R1 \], the same was shown for a regularized definition of an evaluation for closed diagrams in the category of unitary representations of the Lorentz algebra.

It might seem that the analogy between Feynmanology and tensor categories breaks down when we evaluate an open Feynman graph and get a number rather than a morphism. This is not correct. The evaluation of a Feynman graph is a function of momenta for the incoming and outgoing particles. Passing to the momentum representation for the state spaces, we can regard these numbers as the matrix elements of a linear map. It is natural to think of this map as a morphism in a tensor category. The Ward or Slavnov-Taylor relations \[t’H\] amount to the statement that this map is an intertwiner for the gauge algebra, i.e. that it lives in the category of representations of the total symmetry of the system.

In the standard construction of a QFT, we would now select a few fields as the fundamental ones, find which vertices are renormalisable, and adjust the coupling constants in front of them to fit experiment. The picture of the vacuum in Feynmanological QFT is then in effect a subsummation of a categorical state sum, in which only special terms are counted, and with special numerical weights.

We now want to make a specific conjecture as to how Feynmanology as we know it arises.

CONJECTURE OF CATEGORICAL FEYNMANOLOGY: Let us postulate that just below the scale at which the hypergravity model goes topological, we have all the objects and morphisms of the category of representations of the physical symmetries of the standard model appearing in an effective state sum. This would correspond to a sum over Feynman diagrams, but allowing all possible particles and vertices. Let us then assume that the renormalization group acts on this theory, making all the unobserved types of particles become unstable in the low energy limit, and all the unrenormalizable vertices irrelevant (i.e. shrinking their coupling constants to near 0) and giving the remaining coupling constants their physical values.

The Feynman picture of the vacuum then appears as the low energy surviving remnant of the full categorical sum.

The remarkable thing about this conjecture is that it is really not so terribly radical. The idea that “all terms not forbidden by a symmetry appear in the effective Lagrangian” is commonplace in QFT. Particles are considered to be completely specified by their “quantum numbers” which just specify the representation of the physical symmetry which they form. The idea that the observed interactions are determined by the renormalization group is also standard.

It is not clear whether the conjecture above, which boils dow to the assumption that all possible fields appear at the fundamental scale and all vertices appear with equal coupling constants, has any physically testable consequences. It is arguable that it removes an esthetic problem from QFT. There has been the feeling that the Feynman revolution of the late 40s was disturbing in that it consisted of calculational tricks rather than a conceptual leap. If we really should think of summing over the entire category of representations of the total physical symmetry rather than merely the low energy limit, then Feynman in effect discovered the relationship between combinatorial topology and categorical algebra, which in some eyes is an elegant and fundamental departure from continuum Physics after all.

We are led to the idea that the Feynmanology of the standard model could appear directly as terms in our hypergravity TSS corresponding to representations of the world algebra, which, if our conjectures are true, would become important in an expansion around the constrained model in a low energy regime.

This suggests that although the strong force is nonperturbative in the infrared, physical calculations using perturbation theory for QCD could actually be done, since the onset of the topological theory would cut off the perturbation series. Terms with a large but finite number of loops would dominate the physics. Summing them would be equivalent to a categorical state sum on a triangulation with Planck scale spacings.

It is very tempting, in such a model, to take the ideas of Feynman more literally. Perhaps we might think of modifying our quasi-vacuum to include terms which fill the Dirac sea. It is also very natural to think of inserting Feynman vertices, with their invariance wrt time ordering into state sums representing general relativity, where different terms would correspond to different causal orderings.

This picture suggests that we attempt to generalize Feynmanology to the categorical setting. We could attempt to investigate such fundamental ideas of particle physics as renormalizability, anomalies, and current algebras in the greater generalization of a tensor category for example, using representations of a quantum group. Such a study would be inherently interesting, and might also help us to further the program of this paper.

5. Stringy Vacua

It was observed by Lee Smolin \[S\], that the natural perturbation theory around a classical solution in the Euclidean signature categorical state sums we are studying would resemble propagation of a string. This is because the natural basic perturbation to make to a labelled diagram representing a morphism in the category of representations of $`U_qsu(2)`$ is to tensor by a constant spin around a loop. In fact, the binor calculus shows that any “spin net” as such diagrams are also known, is a superposition of such minimal perturbations.

It is not immediately obvious that this stringy picture would work as well in the Lorentzian signature, but that is a common enough problem in string theory.

Thus, if we want to study perturbation theory around a fixed term in a categorical state sum, we insert loops with spin labels, and then ask the probability that some other combination of basic perturbation loops appears later. This can be calculated by tracing the different possible paths for the loops, i.e. by summing over discrete world sheets for a discretized string.

Assuming for the moment that such a perturbation theory has some range of validity (a non-trivial assumption, but at least one which could be investigated), in what sort of space would it appear?

The CSSs we are using in this paper all begin by putting representations on the 2-simplices of a triangulated 4-manifold. Thus, the loops of representations we use as perturbations are occupying little circles of 2-simplices. If we think of the simplices as small, we can approximate these as circles in the bundle of bivectors over the spacetime 4-manifold.

Now the bundle of bivectors over a 4-manifold is a 10 dimensional manifold, fibered over the spacetime with a 6 dimensional fiber.

The natural suggestion is that in the limit of finer triangulations the perturbation theory would look like 10 dimensional string theory. Since the hypergravity multiplet contains both bosonic and fermionic terms with a natural functor connecting them, it is tempting to think it would reproduce superstring theory.

This further suggests that geometries in 10 dimensions could serve as quasivacua for the theory. One would decide what representation to assign to a 2-simplex by finding its area viewed as a surface in the bivector space endowed with a suitable metric.

We seem to be suggesting that the extra 6 dimensions for compactified models should be thought of not merely as small, but as infinitesimal, i.e. as bivectors associated to the tangent space.

This conjecture is principally motivated by the enormous work already existing on superstrings and string vacua. The only connections that are really solid at this point are the coincidence of dimensions, the hierarchy of bosonic and fermionic excitations, and the “stringiness” of the picture.

6 Generalizations. Membrane theory?

In broad outline, we are suggesting that the combination of a TSS and some interesting constrained subtheory might provide a mathematical setting for quantum physics. We have, in effect, begun to study the simplest possible such combination, corresponding to the lowest rank of noncompact quantum groups. It is intriguing that there is some indication that the standard model might emerge from the simplest example.

However, there will certainly be many other similar models which one could investigate. If the idea of obtaining the world algebra from the hypergravity multiplet didnt work, one could try bringing a gauge group directly into the theory by starting with a larger noncompact quantum group, for example. If nothing else, this would pose some very natural questions for representation theory.

Another possible generalization comes from the fact that the four dimensional TSS of \[CKY1\] from which we started is not the most general categorical construction possible. This is because it begins from a braided tensor category, whereas the most general 4D construction would use a spherical tensor 2-category \[M1,2\] or else a Hopf category \[CF\]. The construction we are using is a special case, because a braided tensor category is a 2-category with one object.

The most general construction puts objects from the 2-category on edges of the triangulation, and 1-morphisms on faces. Since a braided tensor category is a 2-category with one object, the labelling of the edges becomes trivial and disappears.

In terms of the diagrammatic description, the edges of the diagram become boundaries of surfaces, which carry new labels, in the most general case.

At this point, I do not know of any physically significant tensor 2-categories. Interesting mathematical examples are constructed in \[M2\].

However, it is amusing to ask what would happen if we tried to find a geometric picture for a perturbation theory for a TSS model based on a general spherical tensor 2-category. The edges would correspond to bivectors as above, while the surfaces bounding them would live in the space of trivectors containing a bivector. The total space of such configurations is a 12 dimensional space. Thus, something like a membrane theory in 12d would be the natural choice for a geometric background. This is of course extremely speculative, but perhaps worth mentioning.

7. Conclusions. A Convergence of Ideas?

The direction we are mapping out is based on four ideas:

1. The fundamental geometry of spacetime is discrete, not continuous, hence should be constructed from a model on a triangulated manifold.

2.The model should be constructed from the structure of a tensor category, or if you prefer from Feynman integrals attached to the simplices.

3. The continuum limit should be fixed by the coming into play of a hierarchy of new fields, corresponding to more parts of the tensor category, which remove the ultraviolet problems by including an entire tensor category and hence becoming topological.

4. The largeness, flatness, and apparent complexity of the universe as we see it is due to an initial fluctuation, which caused it to take an apparent form more complex than the fundamental one.

Aside from the categorical formulation,these ideas are not new in theoretical physics. In particular, the picture of a multiplet of fields which comes into play only at high energies and softens out short distance behavior is very similar to supersymmetric theories.

What is new here is the application of unitary representations of noncompact groups, and the proposal to use the structure of the tensor category they form, and q-deformations of it directly to generate a physical model.

The model we are proposing is quite close to the spin foam picture \[R-R2, Ba\], which itself grew out of the loop variable program \[R-S\]. The most important difference between the two is the passage from a three dimensional to a four dimensional symmetry group, due to the adoption of a Lagrangian approach.

To the (perhaps somewhat partial) eye of the author, one of the remarkable features of the hypergravity model is the number of earlier ideas of twentieth century Physics to which it seems to give a home.

In addition to the spin foam/loop variables picture mentioned above, and to the possible connection with superstring theory, one could mention the old idea of Einstein \[St\] that the fundamental theory should be discrete and algebraic, Feynman’s recasting of particle Physics as a discrete theory (as we can say now, of evaluations of words in a tensor category), Witten’s idea of a “topological phase”, and Connes derivation of the standard model.

Another intriguing connection is with the ideas of Majid \[Maj\]. Since the QLA is the quantum double of a quasitriangular Hopf algebra, it is a very canonical example of the crossed bialgebras he studies. Its role in the models in this paper is therefore reminiscent of the suggestions he makes relating them to quantum gravity. I do not know if his deeper ideas about duality will appear more directly in the development of this program.

Perhaps, even though each of these connections separately needs considerable work to make it more precise, the sheer number of natural connections to other streams of thought is worth noting.

We have made a large conceptual shift here from the mainstream of quantum Physics. We are replacing continuum geometry and fields by combinatorial geometry and categories of representations. The justification for any fundamental reformulation must be that it opens new possibilities for investigation.

It is much too soon to say that this program will solve the problems of theoretical physics. It is fair to say that it contains many directions to explore without obvious analogs in the continuum picture, and with suggestive connections to physical phenomenology. At a minimum, it can hardly fail to suggest interesting new questions in categorical algebra.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

\[B\] J. W. Barrett, The Classical Evaluation of Relativistic Spin Networks, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998), 593-600.

\[BC1\] J. W. Barrett and L. Crane, J. Math. Phys. 39 (1998) 3296-3302.

\[BC2\] J. W. Barrett and L. Crane, A Lorentzian Signature Model for Quantum General Relativity gr-qc 9904025, to appear CQG

\[Ba\] J. C. Baez, Spin Foam Models, Class. Quant. Grav. 15 (1998) , 1827-1858.

\[B-R1\] E. Buffenoir and Ph. Roche, Harmonic Analysis on the Quantum Lorentz group, q-alg 9710022

\[B-R2\] E. Buffenoir and Ph. Roche, Tensor products of Principal Unitary Representations of the Quantum Lorentz Group and askey Wilson polynomials math.QA 9910147

\[CF\] L. Crane and I. Frenkel, Four Dimensional Topological Quantum Field theory, Hopf Categories and the canonical Bases, J. Math. Phys. 35 (1994), 5136-5154.

\[C-C\] A. Connes and A. Chamseddine The Spectral Action Principle hepth 9606001

\[Coq\] R. Coquereaux, On The Finite Dimensional Quantum Group $`M_3+M_{2|1}(Lambda^2)`$ Lett. Math. Phys. 42 (1997) 309-328

\[CKY1\] L. Crane, L. Kauffman, and D. Yetter, State Sum Invariants of 4- Manifolds, JKTR 6(2) (1997), 177-234

\[CY2\] L. Crane and D. Yetter, unpublished.

\[F\] R. Feynman, Theory of Fundamental Processes W. A. Benjamin, 1962

\[F-K\] L. Freidel and K. Krasnov, Simple Spin Networks as Feynman Graphs. hep-th/9903192

\[G-N\] I.M. Gelfand and M. A. Naimark, Unitary representations of the proper lorentz group, Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 11 411 (1947)

\[M1\] M. Mackaay, Spherical 2-categories and 4-Manifold Invariants, Adv. Math. 143 (1999), 288-348.

\[M2\] M. Mackaay, Finite Groups, Spherical 2-Categories and 4-Manifold Invariants, math-QA 9903003, to appear Adv. Math.

\[Maj\] S. Majid, Foundations of Quantum Group Theory Cambridge University Press 1995

\[N\] M. A. Naimark, Decomposition of a tensor product of irreducible representations of the proper lorentz group into irreducible representations, Am. Math. Soc. Translations ser 2 v 36

\[P\]W. Pusz, Irreducible unitary representations of the quantum Lorentz group, Comm. Math. Phys. 152 571–626 (1993)

\[P-Wo\] P. Podles and S. L. Woronowitz Quantum deformations of the Lorentz Group Comm. math. phys 136 399-432, (1990)

\[R-R1\] M. P. Reisenberger and C. Rovelli, Sum Over Surfaces Form of Loop Quantum Gravity, Phys Rev. D56 (1997) 3490-3508

\[R-R2\] M. P. Reisenberger and C. Rovelli, Sum over Surfaces Form of Loop Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997), 3490-3508.

\[R-S\] C, Rovelli and L. Smolin, Spin Networks and Quantum Gravity Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 5743-5759

\[S\] L. Smolin, Strings as Perturbations of Evolving Spin Networks hepth 9801022

\[St\] J. Stachel, Einstein and Quantum Mechanics in Conceptual Problems in Quantum Gravity Birkhauser 1991

\[t’H\] G. t’Hooft and M. Veltman diagrammar in Under the spell of The gauge Principle, World scientific, 1994

\[W\] E. WittenTopological Quantum Field Theory and The Jones Polynomial, Comm. Math. Phys. 121 (1989) 357


text:
# Measurements with the Chandra X-Ray Observatory’s flight contamination monitor

## 1 Introduction

The Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO), the x-ray component of NASA’s Great Observatories launched in July 1999 , underwent the most extensive, by far, system-level calibration program in the history of high-energy astrophysics at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) X-Ray Calibration Facility (XRCF) during the winter and spring of 1997 . One of the key goals was to determine the absolute flux scale to an accuracy of a few percent or less, and detailed analysis of effective area measurements has achieved this goal for the ground calibration . In addition, a high-fidelity ray trace program, maintained by the Chandra Mission Support Team and designed to model the performance of the High Resolution Mirror Assembly (HRMA) in great detail, uses the ground calibration results to predict the on-orbit performance. However, it is still important to verify the transfer of the ground-level calibration to on-orbit operation, particularly in view of the absence of any well characterized astronomical x-ray standard candles and the sensitivity of the Chandra effective area to changes in molecular and particulate contamination  (Fig. 1).

For these reasons, a Flight Contamination Monitor system (FCM), made up of electron-capture radioactive sources emitting x-ray lines, is installed in the Forward Contamination Cover (FCC) of the HRMA (Fig. 2). There are four sources, spaced 90o apart, for each HRMA shell, with activities and radii scaled appropriately for that shell’s aperture. The two objectives of the ground and in-orbit measurements using the FCM and focal plane detectors are:

* Verify the transfer of the HRMA absolute flux scale from the XRCF test phase to the orbital activation phase (OAC).
* Measure or bound any changes in molecular contamination of the HRMA.

The focal plane detectors, the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) and the High Resolution Camera (HRC), also employ their own radioactive calibration sources, in order to monitor any change in detector performance. During ground calibration FCM measurements were taken with ACIS, ACIS-2C (an ACIS surrogate), and HRC-I (the imaging readout for HRC). The FCM measurements during the activation phase were the first look at the on-orbit HRMA/ACIS performance. Figure 3 is a schematic of the x-ray optical path for FCM measurements.

Each FCM source illuminates the portion of the paraboloid aperture immediately in front of it, leading to an image of a slightly curved stripe in the focal plane. The FCM source 180o away contributes a stripe superimposed on the first one, but with a slight curvature in the opposite direction. The pair of FCM sources at 90o with respect to the first two contribute stripes perpendicular to the first two, leading to an image of a cross in the focal plane (Fig. 4). Although the global topology of the image is independent of energy, intensity contours depend slightly on energy due to the differing energy response of the four HRMA shells. Cross-correlation of measured and simulated images provides a measure of any FCC position shifts (§4).

Ideally, direct comparison of ground and on-orbit FCM measurements at as many lines as possible would provide a direct transfer of the absolute flux scale calibration from XRCF to orbit, or would provide direct measures of any discrepancies. In practise, some modelling is necessary due to the differing HRMA/ACIS orientation at XRCF and OAC, the different gravity and thermal environments at XRCF and on-orbit, radioactive decay and ACIS dead time corrections, and possible changes in relative FCM, FCC and HRMA positions, for example due to launch vibrations. Finally, interpretation of any discrepancies with the HRMA model derived from the ground calibration requires ray trace simulations, for which we use the Project Science ray trace code.

In this paper, we describe the characterization of the flight FCM radioactive sources (§2), the spectral analysis of FCM measurements taken at XRCF and during OAC (§3), the registration analysis necessary to determine any positional shifts of the FCC relative to its nominal position (§4), and a comparison of the XRCF and OAC measurements with each other and with ray trace simulations, leading to the conclusion that any difference in HRMA throughput between XRCF and OAC is less than a few percent (§5).

## 2 Radioactive sources

The FCM comprises sixteen (one per shell per quadrant) electron-capture sources positioned midway between support struts (Fig. 3), containing 109Cd and 55Fe prepared at Isotope Products, Inc., packaged by MSFC, and mounted on the FCC. To prevent leakage, MSFC sealed each source assembly with a 100-$`\mu `$m-thick Be window, eliminating the detectability and utility of the Mn L$`\alpha `$ line at 0.64 keV. MSFC measured the individual FCM flight source activities (Table 1 and Fig. 5), with corroborating measurements by the US Army Redstone Arsenal. Dominated by systematic effects, the estimated errors in the measured absolute activities are $``$15%. However, activity ratios between sources are known with significantly higher precision than the absolute activities. Statistical uncertainties (1$`\sigma `$) in the 55Fe activities, derived from measurements of the Mn K$`\alpha `$ line strength, range from 0.2% (shell 1) to 0.4% (shell 6). Statistical uncertainties (1$`\sigma `$) in the 109Cd activities, derived from measurements of the Ag K$`\alpha `$ (22 keV) line strength, range from 0.04% (shell 1) to 0.1% (shell 6). However, the lower energy ($``$3 keV) lines in the Ag L series are significantly affected by the overlying material in the source assemblies. The internal configuration, from the substrate up, is 109Cd ($``$0.3 $`\mu `$m), a gold buffer layer ($``$0.05 $`\mu `$m), 55Fe ($``$0.1 $`\mu `$m), a gold sealing layer ($``$0.05 $`\mu `$m), and finally the beryllium window (100 $`\mu `$m). These layers absorb $``$60% of the 3 keV Ag L series x-rays emitted from the 109Cd. The range over which the actual layer thicknesses vary about their nominal values is unknown.

Ray trace simulations for the registration analysis (§ 4 below) use the activities given in Table 1. The radioactive half-lives of 109Cd and 55Fe are 1.2665+/-0.0011 and 2.73+/-0.03 yr , respectively, so compensation for radioactive decay is necessary in the data analysis. MSFC also mapped source uniformities (see  for examples of uniformity maps). These uniformity maps are now included in the Chandra Project Science ray trace code.

MSFC also used Monte-Carlo simulation of the source assembly to determine fluxes in the forward direction. Predicted absolute fluxes for electron-capture lines are no more accurate than the absolute activity measurements, but relative fluxes should be as accurate as the tabulated branching ratios - a few % . Predicted fluxes, absolute or relative, for fluorescent lines produced in the assemblies (primarily by the Ag K$`\alpha `$ line at 22 keV) are much less secure due to the complexity of the simulations and the number of interaction pathways.

## 3 Spectral analysis

Spectral analysis of FCM data taken at XRCF includes TRW IDs H-IAS-RC-1.001, H-IAS-RC-1.005, H-IAS-RC-1.004, and H-IAS-RC-1.002 for the I array electronic configuration, and H-IAS-RC–8.001 for the S array electronic configuration. RC-1.001 contains $``$12,900 s of data. RC-1.004, RC-1.004, and RC-1.002 together contain $``$ 7,600 s of data and so were combined for all analyses discussed below. RC-8.001 contains only $``$1,350 s of data, so the S array configuration data from XRCF are of very limited utility. Spectral analysis of FCM data taken during OAC includes OBSIDs 62743 for the I array configuration and 62742 for the S array configuration. Longer integrations were necessary to compensate for radioactive decay of the FCM sources, so 62743 contains $``$29,900 s of data and 62742 contains $``$ 18,300 s of data. Regardless of the readout configuration, all data were taken with the optical axis at the nominal S array aim point (Fig. 6), and with the ACIS detector at a position along the optical axis closest to the expected on-orbit position. The six readout CCDs for the I array configuration were all four I array front-illuminated CCDs and the two S array CCDs S2 (front-illuminated) and S3 (back-illuminated), and for the S array configuration all six S array CCDs (four front-illuminated and two, S1 and S3, back-illuminated).

ASCA grades 0, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were selected for further analysis. Using the line list  given in Table 2, fits with four free parameters plus the norm for each line determine the rates in each line for each CCD, amplifier and segment (Fig. 6). The 96 data points per line resulting from this procedure are sufficient for determining FCC position shifts. Figure §7 shows the fitted RC-1.001 spectra for a selected segment on the front-side-illuminated CCD I3 and one on the back-side-illuminated CCD S3. These segments lie near one another and above the optical axis (Fig. 6). The strongest lines in these spectra are the electron-capture lines Ag L$`\alpha `$, the Ag L$`\beta `$ series, Mn K$`\alpha `$, and Mn K$`\beta `$1. The superior energy resolution of the front-side-illuminated CCDs at the time of OAC is apparent. Comparison of XRCF line rates with those from OAC, corrected for radioactive decay, ACIS dead time and FCC position shifts, comprises the verification of the Chandra absolute flux calibration transfer and provides the basis for the search for any possible changes in molecular contamination.

## 4 FCM registration analysis

In order to compare the FCM measurements at XRCF and OAC with each other and with ray trace simulations, the following differences between XRCF and OAC must be taken into account:

* The FCM/FCC/HRMA and ACIS orientation at XRCF differs by 180 degrees from that at OAC.
* The gravity environment at XRCF (one g with compensation) differs from that at OAC (zero g without compensation) leading to small changes in figure.
* The thermal environment at XRCF was $``$30 F warmer than at OAC leading to different thermal contraction of the FCC holding the FCM.
* Since the FCC was removed after XRCF and then remounted, the relative position of the FCM/FCC and HRMA may have changed. During XRCF testing, the FCC V-groove-block and cup-cone positioning mechanism was not aligned, and the magnitude of the resulting displacement, while visually estimated at $``$0.5 mm mostly in Z, is not known accurately. Launch vibrations may also have contributed to changes in FCC positioning.
* The OAC rates must be corrected for radioactive decay and ACIS detector dead time.

Items (1)-(4) require registration of the FCM images from XRCF and OAC by comparing measured images, corrected using the ACIS flat fields taken at XRCF, at chosen line energies with simulated images created using the Eastman-Kodak measured FCM source positions on the FCC with respect to its nominal axis , the as-built telescope model documented in the Chandra Mission Support Team calibration report, and the ray trace code developed at MSFC  with varying relative positions between the FCC and HRMA. We carry out the cross-correlation registration analysis at the strongest lines, Ag L$`\alpha `$ and Mn K$`\alpha `$ (E = 2.984 and 5.899 keV, respectively), letting the overall normalizations for each CCD assume values that minimize the value of $`\chi ^2`$ at the various trial positions of the FCC. We also carry out the analysis at the rate weighted average energy of the Ag L line group (E $``$ 3.198) and at Mn K$`\beta `$1 (E = 6.490 keV).

Although the ray-trace images generated using the Project Science ray trace code appear to adequately reproduce the FCM images, in fact the best-fits are statistically unacceptable due to a variety of systematic effects that are difficult to take fully into account. Error contours were therefore constructed by rescaling $`\chi ^2`$ values to 1 per degree of freedom at the best-fit . Fig. 8 shows the best fit FCC position shifts at Ag L$`\alpha `$, the Ag L$`\beta `$ group, Mn K$`\alpha `$ and Mn K$`\beta `$1, together with 67% and 95% two parameter error contours. The registration results for the XRCF and OAC cases show adequate agreement as a function of energy, and we now continue on to examine constraints on changes in the amount of molecular contamination on the HRMA from XRCF to OAC.

## 5 Constraints on Molecular Contamination

After correcting for radioactive decay and the assumed ACIS on-orbit dead time of 2.5%, and summing over all six CCDs, the percent change (positive meaning the OAC number is larger than the XRCF one) in total I array rate for OAC OBSID 62743 relative to the two XRCF rates is given in Table 3. The assigned errors are 1$`\sigma `$ statistical errors based on counts and do not include possible systematic contributions.

Predicted changes in FCM/HRMA/ACIS rate due to changes in molecular contamination from XRCF to OAC depend on the amount assumed to be present at XRCF, as shown in Fig. 9. The composition of the hydrocarbon layer assumed for these simulations was four hydrogen atoms for every carbon atom with a bulk density of 1 g/cm3. The overall shape of the these predicted curves remains approximately constant but their relative positioning depends dramatically on the amount of hydrocarbon assumed present at XRCF.

Our analysis is much refined from that reported two years ago , but further work is required in the following areas:

* We will perform a more thorough analysis of on-orbit ACIS dead time.
* We will attempt the difficult task of achieving a thorough understanding of sources of systematic errors.

At the present time, we believe our results support the following statements:

* The predicted maximum change in molecular contamination from XRCF to OAC was 10 $`\AA `$ . Because of possible systmatic effects, we can not yet determine whether the actual change satisfies this limit.
* However, any deviations from the predicted on-orbit HRMA throughput due to changes in molecular contamination from that present at XRCF are less than a few percent even at the energies most sensitive to such changes.
* Only a small amount of molecular contamination is present on the HRMA, both on-orbit and at XRCF.

## 6 Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Terry Gaetz, Ping Zhao and Leon Van Speybroeck, and the SAO Chandra Mission Support Team as a whole, for their considerable help in understanding the as-built model for the HRMA. Needless to say the successful construction, launch and operation of the Chandra X-ray Observatory resulted from the efforts of a very great number of dedicated people. We thank them all.


text:
# Stochastic System with Colored Noise and Absorbing States: Path Integral Solution

## Acknowledgement

I am grateful to prof. A.I.Olemskoi for inspiring discussions and helpful comments.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig.1. Phase diagram indicating appearance of the ordered phase ($`x0`$): noise correlation time $`\tau `$ vs exponent $`a`$ (curves 1, 2 correspond to $`\epsilon =0.65`$, 0.7).

Fig.2. Bifurcation diagrams: stationary values of the order parameter vs noise self-correlation time at $`\epsilon =0.7`$ ($`a=0.2`$ (a); $`a=0.6`$, (b)).

Fig.3. Phase diagram indicating the ranges of the parameters $`\tau _c`$, $`\epsilon `$.

Fig.4. Basic types of phase portraits in the ordered state: $`\epsilon =0.7`$, $`\tau =0.4`$ ($`a=0.2`$ (a), $`a=0.8`$ (b)). The notation for stationary points is the same as in Fig.2.

Fig.5. Dependence of the probability $`P`$ of realization of various trajectories on the initial value of the order parameter $`x_0`$ for $`\epsilon =0.7`$ (curves 1, 2 correspond to $`a=0.2`$ $`\tau =0.4`$, 0.6, curves 3,4 correspond to $`a=0.8`$ $`\tau =0.4`$, 0.6. The initial value of the conjugate momentum $`\varphi _0=0.5`$.