text:
# Generalizing the Heisenberg uncertainty relation

## Abstract

The proof of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation is modified to produce two improvements: (a) the resulting inequality is stronger because it includes the covariance between the two observables, and (b) the proof lifts certain restrictions on the state to which the relation is applied, increasing its generality. The restrictions necessary for the standard inequality to apply are not widely known, and they are discussed in detail. The classical analog of the Heisenberg relation is also derived, and the two are compared. Finally, the modified relation is used to address the apparent paradox that eigenfunctions of the $`z`$ component of angular momentum $`L_z`$ do not satisfy the $`\varphi L_z`$ Heisenberg relation; the resolution is that the restrictions mentioned above make the usual inequality inapplicable to these states. The modified relation does apply, however, and it is shown to be consistent with explicit calculations.

LA-UR-00-1318

I. INTRODUCTION

The Heisenberg uncertainty relation in its general form for observables $`A`$ and $`B`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A\mathrm{\Delta }B\frac{1}{2}|i[A,B]|,$$
(1)
is proved in every intermediate quantum mechanics textbook (and also in the Appendix); its best known special case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$, comes from the canonical commutation relation $`[x,p]=i\mathrm{}`$. A very slight modification of a standard proof of this inequality used by both Bohm1 and Sakurai2 yields two useful improvements:

1. The resulting inequality is a stronger one that incorporates the covariance between $`A`$ and $`B`$, a measure of their statistical correlation. As a bonus, this allows a comparison with the corresponding classical inequality, in which the covariance also appears.
2. This result lifts certain restrictions that must be imposed on the state of the system for the standard Heisenberg inequality to be valid. These restrictions are not generally mentioned in textbooks, but you ignore them at your peril. For example, the $`z`$ component of angular momentum $`L_z`$ and the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ form a canonical pair, so from $`[\varphi ,L_z]=i\mathrm{}`$ one expects to find $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }L_z\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$. However, consider the state

$$\psi (\varphi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{im\varphi }.$$
(2)
This is an eigenstate of $`L_z`$, so $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_z=0`$, and a quick calculation yields $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{3}}`$, so

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }L_z=0<\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}.$$
(3)
What went wrong? This example has produced a flurry of commentary over the years3-8, and its resolution lies in the surprising fact that eigenstates of $`L_z`$ do not satisfy the criteria necessary for the standard Heisenberg principle to apply. I will describe these criteria in detail below, as well as why eigenstates of $`L_z`$ do not satisfy them, and once I have derived the modified inequality I will show that it is consistent with this example.

The extension to include the covariance is not new9-11 (in fact, it was known to Schrödinger12 and has been discussed before in this journal13), nor is the modification that removes certain restrictions on the states14,15. However, the proof presented here yields both improvements simultaneously with great ease, and the two together allow one to discuss issues that make it clear that quantum mechanics is not a straightforward generalization of classical statistics, even once one has taken into account the noncommutivity of observables. Certain uniquely quantum mechanical concerns require that even the definitions of statistical quantities be made with care, as will be shown below.
II. THE CLASSICAL UNCERTAINTY RELATION

Since the modified inequality allows me to compare the Heisenberg relation with its classical counterpart, I will derive the classical relation first. (This relation is also derived in Ref. 13.)

Let $`a`$ be a classical statistical variable with mean $`a`$ and uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ defined by

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }a)^2=(aa)^2=a^2a^2,$$
(4)
and let $`\sigma _{ab}`$, the covariance between variables $`a`$ and $`b`$, be defined by

$$\sigma _{ab}=(aa)(bb)=abab.$$
(5)
Notice that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }a)^2=\sigma _{aa}`$ and that $`a`$ and $`b`$ are statistically uncorrelated if and only if $`\sigma _{ab}=0`$. I define a new variable $`\overline{a}`$ by $`\overline{a}=aa`$ and similarly for $`b`$; then $`\overline{a}=\overline{b}=0`$ and

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }a)^2=\overline{a}^2\mathrm{and}\sigma _{ab}=\overline{a}\overline{b}.$$
(6)
Now I can prove the uncertainty relation. Let $`x`$ be any statistical variable; then $`x^20`$ and $`x^2=0`$ if and only if $`x=0`$. Then for the special case $`x=\overline{a}+\lambda \overline{b}`$ for any $`\lambda `$ I have

$$x^2=\overline{a}^2+\lambda ^2\overline{b}^2+2\lambda \overline{a}\overline{b}0$$
(7)
with equality if and only if $`\overline{a}+\lambda \overline{b}=0`$. The central expression above is a quadratic in $`\lambda `$ which according to the inequality has at most one real root (if it had two then it would dip below the $`\lambda `$-axis and be negative). The condition for the quadratic $`Ax^2+Bx+C`$ to have at most one real root is $`B^24AC0`$, with equality in the case of exactly one root. In this case the condition becomes

$$4\overline{a}\overline{b}^24\overline{a}^2\overline{b}^20,$$
(8)
or in terms of (6),

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }a)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }b)^2`$ $``$ $`(\sigma _{ab})^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }a\mathrm{\Delta }b`$ $``$ $`|\sigma _{ab}|,`$ (9)
with equality if and only if $`\overline{a}+\lambda \overline{b}=0`$ for some $`\lambda `$. This is the uncertainty principle for classical statistics.
III. THE MODIFIED HEISENBERG RELATION

Now I shall derive the corresponding quantum mechanical result. Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be observables, and let states be denoted by $`\psi ,\chi `$, and so on. The inner product of states $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$ is denoted $`\psi ,\chi `$, and the norm $`\psi `$ is defined by $`\psi =\sqrt{\psi ,\psi }`$. Finally, the average of $`A`$ is defined by $`A=\psi ,A\psi `$. (I deliberately avoid Dirac’s $`\psi |A|\psi `$ because it obscures an important issue; see below.)

The quantum mechanical derivation cannot simply recapitulate the classical derivation with the appropriate letters capitalized for two reasons:

1. $`A`$ and $`B`$ might not commute.
Because of this, the order of the factors in the cross term in the expansion of $`x^2`$ should be preserved. The problem of noncommutivity actually rears its head earlier, however, in the very definition of covariance, and I must address that issue first. The classical definition of covariance is symmetric in $`a`$ and $`b`$ ($`\sigma _{ab}=\sigma _{ba}`$) because $`a`$ and $`b`$ always commute, but if I employed the same definition in the quantum case I would find $`\sigma _{AB}=\sigma _{BA}+[A,B]`$. A covariance symmetric in $`A`$ and $`B`$ is preferable, and the easiest way to achieve this is to define

$`\sigma _{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(AA)(BB)+(BB)(AA)`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}AB+BAAB.`$
Now $`\sigma _{AB}=\sigma _{BA}`$ and $`\sigma _{AA}`$ has the same form as before, but this definition suffers from another awkward feature that leads to the second point.
2. The domains of operators matter.
The domain of an operator $`A`$, or $`𝒟`$$`(A)`$, is the set of all vectors $`\psi `$ in the system’s Hilbert space such that $`A\psi `$ is also a well-defined member of the Hilbert space. (For more on operators with restricted domains, see Refs. 16, 17, and 18. For some of the consequences for quantum mechanics, see Ref. 19.) There are three main reasons that a given $`\psi `$ might not be in $`𝒟`$$`(A)`$:

1. The operating prescription for $`A`$ is not defined for $`\psi `$. For example, consider the Hilbert space $`L^2(R)`$ and the momentum operator $`p=\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\frac{d}{dx}`$. A necessary condition for $`p\psi `$ to exist is that $`\psi `$ is differentiable almost everywhere (being defined almost everywhere is enough to specify a member of $`L^2(R)`$); but to be in $`L^2(R)`$ a function merely has to be square integrable, which does not imply differentiability or even continuity. This restriction, though real, is of little practical interest, however, since it is exceedingly rare in applications to encounter this problem.
    2. The operating prescription is well-defined, but the resulting vector is not in the Hilbert space. For example, again consider $`L^2(R)`$ and the momentum operator $`p`$, and this time let $`\psi (x)=\sqrt{2|x|}e^{|x|}`$. Now this $`\psi `$ is in $`L^2(R)`$ because it is square integrable (in fact, it is normalized), but its derivative

    $$\psi ^{}(x)=\frac{x}{|x|}\frac{e^{|x|}}{\sqrt{2|x|}}(12|x|),$$
    (11)
    while well-defined everywhere except the origin, is not square integrable. Hence $`\psi ^{}`$ is not in $`L^2(R)`$, so $`\psi `$ is not in $`𝒟`$$`(p)`$. (It is known that $`𝒟`$$`(p)`$ is dense20 in $`L^2(R)`$, so any $`L^2`$ function is arbitrarily close to a function in $`𝒟`$$`(p)`$, and this fact is important for quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, $`𝒟`$$`(p)`$ is not the whole Hilbert space.)
    3. Sometimes $`𝒟`$$`(A)`$ is restricted to guarantee that $`A`$ will be Hermitian. For example, consider the space of $`L^2`$ functions of the polar angle $`\varphi `$ and the operator $`L_z=\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\frac{d}{d\varphi }`$. For any two functions $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$, integration by parts shows that

    $$\chi ,L_z\psi =L_z\chi ,\psi +\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}[\chi ^{}(2\pi )\psi (2\pi )\chi ^{}(0)\psi (0)].$$
    (12)
    Thus $`L_z`$ is Hermitian only if its domain is restricted to functions $`\psi `$ such that $`\psi (2\pi )=e^{i\alpha }\psi (0)`$ for some $`\alpha `$ (note that strict periodicity is not required). As innocent as this seems, this is the source of all of the problems we encountered above with the usual form of the $`\varphi L_z`$ uncertainty relation, as I will show below.

This issue is the reason that I avoid Dirac’s notation $`\chi |A|\psi `$; that expression could mean either $`\chi ,A\psi `$, which requires that $`\psi `$ is in $`𝒟`$$`(A)`$ but leaves $`\chi `$ unrestricted, or $`A\chi ,\psi `$ ($`A`$ is Hermitian), which reverses the restrictions on $`\chi `$ and $`\psi `$. The notation used here, on the other hand, is unambiguous. In the derivation of the uncertainty principle, I must keep track of all of the domain requirements imposed on the states in the proof at each step, because the final result will apply only to those states that satisfy all of the restrictions encountered at every step.

With these concerns in mind, I will now consider the quantum mechanical definitions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ and $`\sigma _{AB}`$. One usually defines $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ by

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }A)^2=\psi ,(AA)^2\psi =A^2A^2,$$
(13)
but notice that this expression is defined only for those states that lie in $`𝒟`$$`(A^2)`$. (Membership in $`𝒟`$$`(A)`$ is a prerequisite for membership in $`𝒟`$$`(A^2)`$.) Now I would certainly like $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ to be defined for every state for which $`A`$ is defined, so I’d like $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ to exist for every state in $`𝒟`$$`(A)`$. The easiest way to do this is to note that by the Hermiticity of $`A`$, for all states for which the above definition is valid it is equivalent to

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }A)^2=(AA)\psi ,(AA)\psi =(AA)\psi ^2,$$
(14)
and this expression is defined for every state in $`𝒟`$$`(A)`$. Hence I take Eq. (14), not Eq. (13), to be my definition for $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$. Remember that it is equivalent to the old definition whenever the old definition is valid, but the old definition is not valid in every case where I would like it to be.

Now on to $`\sigma _{AB}`$. The definition suggested above,

$`\sigma _{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi ,[(AA)(BB)+(BB)(AA)]\psi `$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi ,(AB+BA)\psi AB,`$
requires that both $`AB\psi `$ and $`BA\psi `$ exist, or that $`\psi `$ is in both $`𝒟`$$`(AB)`$ and $`𝒟`$$`(BA)`$. However, I would prefer a definition of $`\sigma _{AB}`$ that made only the weaker requirement that $`\psi `$ is in both $`𝒟`$$`(A)`$ and $`𝒟`$$`(B)`$, not least because I want to relate $`\sigma _{AB}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$, and the weaker requirement is all that is needed to guarantee their existence. Fortunately, this is easy; the Hermiticity of $`A`$ and $`B`$ allows me to rewrite the above as

$`\sigma _{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(AA)\psi ,(BB)\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(BB)\psi ,(AA)\psi `$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}(AA)\psi ,(BB)\psi `$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}A\psi ,B\psi AB,`$
and this definition is valid on the larger set of states that belong to both $`𝒟`$$`(A)`$ and $`𝒟`$$`(B)`$, exactly as desired. Hence I take Eq. (16), not Eq. (15), as the definition of covariance. Again, the two expressions are equivalent whenever both are defined, but the first does not exist in every case where I would like it to be, whereas the second does. Finally, in analogy with the classical case I define $`\overline{A}=AA`$, in terms of which

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A=\overline{A}\psi \mathrm{and}\sigma _{AB}=\mathrm{Re}\overline{A}\psi ,\overline{B}\psi .$$
(17)
Note that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }A)^2=\sigma _{AA}`$, just as in the classical case.

Now for the uncertainty relation. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality says that for any states $`\psi `$ and $`\chi `$,

$$|\chi ,\psi |\chi \psi .$$
(18)
Then, using Eq. (17),

$`\mathrm{\Delta }A\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{A}\psi \overline{B}\psi `$ (19)
$``$ $`|\overline{A}\psi ,\overline{B}\psi |`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{(\mathrm{Re}\overline{A}\psi ,\overline{B}\psi )^2+(\mathrm{Im}\overline{A}\psi ,\overline{B}\psi )^2}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{\sigma _{AB}^2+(\mathrm{Im}\overline{A}\psi ,\overline{B}\psi )^2}.`$
A little algebra shows that Im$`\overline{A}\psi ,\overline{B}\psi =`$ Im$`A\psi ,B\psi `$, so the final result is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A\mathrm{\Delta }B\sqrt{\sigma _{AB}^2+(\mathrm{Im}A\psi ,B\psi )^2}.$$
(20)
This is the modified Heisenberg uncertainty relation.
IV. COMMENTS

First, note that all of the steps leading to Eq. (20) are valid as long as $`\psi `$ lies in both $`𝒟`$$`(A)`$ and $`𝒟`$$`(B)`$, and consequently so is the final result. Therefore, unlike the usual form of the Heisenberg relation, this inequality is guaranteed to hold in all circumstances in which the quantities involved (the uncertainties and covariances) are well-defined; there are no more unpleasant surprises waiting to be discovered.

Next, I shall recover the uncertainty relation with which we are familiar. If $`\psi `$ lies in both $`𝒟`$$`(AB)`$ and $`𝒟`$$`(BA)`$, then the following manipulations are allowed:

$`\mathrm{Im}A\psi ,B\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}A\psi ,B\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}B\psi ,A\psi `$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\psi ,AB\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\psi ,BA\psi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\psi ,(ABBA)\psi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[A,B].`$
Thus when this additional condition is satisfied,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A\mathrm{\Delta }B\sqrt{\sigma _{AB}^2+\frac{1}{4}(i[A,B])^2},$$
(22)
which implies the standard Heisenberg inequality.

Comparing Eq. (9) with either (20) or (22), we see that the sole difference introduced by quantum mechanics is the term Im$`A\psi ,B\psi `$, which on a fairly large class of states is essentially half the expectation value of $`i`$ times the commutator $`[A,B]`$. This is the irreducible indeterminacy present even in states where the two observables are entirely independent statistically.

Now I can reconsider the example of the $`\varphi L_z`$ uncertainty relation discussed at the beginning. For the commutator form of the inequality to apply, $`\psi `$ must lie in the domains of both $`\varphi L_z`$ and $`L_z\varphi `$, and $`\psi =(2\pi )^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(im\varphi )`$ does not satisfy the latter criterion. If it did, then that would mean that $`\varphi \psi `$ would be in the domain of $`L_z`$, but as I noted earlier every state in the domain of $`L_z`$ must satisfy $`\psi (2\pi )=e^{i\alpha }\psi (0)`$, and

$$\varphi \psi (\varphi )=\frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{im\varphi }$$
(23)
vanishes at $`\varphi =0`$ and is nonvanishing at $`\varphi =2\pi `$. Hence $`(L_z\varphi )\psi `$ does not exist, and the commutator inequality does not apply. However, Eq. (20) does apply, and to find it for this special case I calculate

$`\mathrm{Im}\varphi \psi ,L_z\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\varphi \psi ,L_z\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}L_z\psi ,\varphi \psi `$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\varphi \psi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi }{d\varphi }}𝑑\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi ^{}}{d\varphi }}\varphi \psi 𝑑\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\varphi \left(\psi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi }{d\varphi }}+\psi {\displaystyle \frac{d\psi ^{}}{d\varphi }}\right)𝑑\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\varphi }}(\psi ^{}\psi )𝑑\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}[\varphi \psi ^{}\psi ]_0^{2\pi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\psi ^{}\psi 𝑑\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left(12\pi |\psi (2\pi )|^2\right).`$
Thus

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }L_z\sqrt{\sigma _{\varphi L_z}^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}\left(12\pi |\psi (2\pi )|^2\right)^2}.$$
(25)
For the particular $`\psi `$ in question, $`\sigma _{\varphi L_z}=0`$ (again because $`\psi `$ is an eigenstate of $`L_z`$) and $`|\psi (2\pi )|^2=(2\pi )^1`$, so

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }L_z0,$$
(26)
which is consistent with what we found at the beginning.

Incidentally, if one carried out an analogous derivation with $`x`$ and $`p`$ in place of $`\varphi `$ and $`L_z`$, one would find

$$\mathrm{Im}x\psi ,p\psi =\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left(1[x\psi ^{}\psi ]_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\right),$$
(27)
so the usual Heisenberg inequality for $`x`$ and $`p`$ is valid as long as $`\psi `$ falls off faster than $`|x|^{1/2}`$ as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$. Since $`\psi `$ is differentiable almost everywhere it must fall off smoothly, in which case square integrability imposes the above requirement automatically. Hence the standard form of the Heisenberg inequality is always valid for $`x`$ and $`p`$. It is precisely the fact that the coordinate $`\varphi `$ is bounded while $`x`$ is unbounded that allows the sorts of problems considered in this paper to crop up often in one case and not at all in the other.

One final note is in order concerning the $`\varphi L_z`$ inequality. In its current form, Eq. (25), the inequality is not invariant under rotations, as one would prefer, since the direction corresponding to $`\varphi =0`$ has no physical significance. (The fact that one must choose a $`\varphi =0`$ direction just to define $`\varphi `$ is the source of the problem.) Hence the $`\varphi L_z`$ inequality has still not been brought to a quite satisfactory form; to finish the job, one must develop rotation-invariant definitions of uncertainty and repeat the proof, which has been done in Ref. 4.
APPENDIX: ANOTHER STANDARD PROOF OF THE HEISENBERG RELATION

This proof of the uncertainty relation is found, for example, in Ref. 21. Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be observables, let $`\psi `$ be a state in both $`𝒟`$$`(AB)`$ and $`𝒟`$$`(BA)`$ (and thus in $`𝒟`$$`(A)`$ and $`𝒟`$$`(B)`$), and let $`\overline{A}`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ be defined as earlier. Then for any real $`\lambda `$

$`(\overline{A}+i\lambda \overline{B})\psi ^2`$ $``$ $`0`$
$`\psi ,(\overline{A}i\lambda \overline{B})(\overline{A}+i\lambda \overline{B})\psi `$ $``$ $`0`$
$`\psi ,(\overline{A}^2+\lambda ^2\overline{B}^2+i\lambda [\overline{A}\overline{B}\overline{B}\overline{A}])\psi `$ $``$ $`0`$
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }A)^2+\lambda ^2(\mathrm{\Delta }B)^2+i\lambda [A,B]`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (28)
where the last line used the standard quantum mechanical definition of uncertainty and the fact that $`[\overline{A},\overline{B}]=[A,B]`$. The commutator of two observables is anti-Hermitian, so the quantity $`i[A,B]`$ is real. Again we have a quadratic in $`\lambda `$ with at most one real root, so the same condition as mentioned in the text yields

$$(i[A,B])^24(\mathrm{\Delta }A)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }B)^20,$$
(29)
or

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A\mathrm{\Delta }B\frac{1}{2}|i[A,B]|.$$
(30)
This is the standard Heisenberg uncertainty relation. This result can be strengthened by replacing $`i\lambda `$ with $`\lambda e^{i\theta }`$, treating $`\lambda `$ as before, and taking the maximum over all $`\theta `$; the result is Eq. (22). If one modifies this derivation to take into account the new definitions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ and $`\sigma _{AB}`$, Eq. (17), one recovers the main result of this paper, Eq. (20). The derivation in Sec. III is much shorter, however.

Electronic mail: echisolm@lanl.gov

D. Bohm, Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1951), pp. 205-207.

J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics rev. ed. (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1994), pp. 34-36.

D. Judge, “On the uncertainty relation for angle variables,” Nuovo Cimento 31 (1964), pp. 332-340.

K. Kraus, “Remark on the uncertainty between angle and angular momentum,” Z. Phys. 188 (1965), pp. 374-377.

P. Carruthers and M. M. Nieto, “Phase and angle variables in quantum mechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 40 (1968), pp. 411-440.

J. M. Levy-Leblond, “Who is afraid of nonhermitian operators? A quantum description of angle and phase,” Ann. Phys. NY 101 (1976), 319-341.

F. Gesztesy and L. Pittner, “Uncertainty relations and quadratic forms.” J. Phys. A 11 (1978), pp. 1765-1770.

A. Galindo and P. Pascual, Quantum Mechanics (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990), vol. 1, pp. 201-206.

C. W. Gardiner, Quantum Noise (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991), pp. 1-2.

V. V. Dodonov, E. V. Kurmyshev, and V. I. Man’ko, “Generalized Uncertainty Relation and Correlated Coherent States,” Phys. Lett. A 79 (1980), pp. 150-152. This paper also shows that the uncertainty relation with covariance is valid for mixed states as well.

V. V. Dodonov and V. I. Man’ko, “Generalization of the Uncertainity Relations in Quantum Mechanics,” in Invariants and the Evolution of Nonstationary Quantum Systems, Vol. 183 of the Proceedings of the Lebedev Physics Institute, ed. M. A. Markov (Nova Science, Commack, NY, 1989), pp. 3-101. This article also discusses the $`\varphi L_z`$ uncertainty relation as well as higher-order uncertainty relations, relations among an arbitrary number of observables, and entropy-based uncertainty relations, and it has a substantial list of references.

E. Schrödinger, “Zum Heisenbergschen unschärfeprinzip,” Sitzungsber. K. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. (1930), pp. 296-303.

J. Peslak, Jr., “Comparison of classical and quantum mechanical uncertainties,” Am. J. Phys. 47 (1979), pp. 39-45.

F. Gieres, “Dirac’s formalism and mathematical surprises in quantum mechanics,” quant-ph/9907069, pp. 21-22, 26-28.

See Refs. 4 and 7.

N. I. Akhiezer and I. M. Glazman, Theory of Linear Operators in Hilbert Space (Ungar, New York, 1961 and 1963), 2 vol.

N. Dunford and J. T. Schwartz, Linear Operators (Interscience, New York, 1958, 1963, and 1971), 3 vol.

F. Riesz and B. Sz.-Nagy, Functional Analysis (Ungar, New York, 1955).

J. M. Jauch, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1968).

See Ref. 19, p. 43.

C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Laloë, Quantum Mechanics (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1977), Vol. 1, pp. 286-287.


format: text

text:
# Quantum calculation of dipole excitation in fusion reactions

\[

## Abstract

The excitation of the giant dipole resonance induced by fusion reaction is studied with N/Z asymmetry in the entrance channel. The Time Dependant Hartree Fock solution exhibits a strong dipole vibration which can be associated to a giant vibration along the main axis of the deformed compound nucleus. This dipole motion appears to be non linearly coupled to the shape oscillation leading to a strong modulation of its frequency. These phenomenons can be detected in the gamma-ray emission from hot compound nuclei.

\]

Ordered collective motions are a general property of mesoscopic systems. In metallic clusters, electron vibrations are plasmon excitations. In atomic nuclei, oscillations of protons against neutrons generate giant dipole resonances . The general way to excite such modes is to use rapidly varying electromagnetic fields associated with photons or generated by fast electrically charged particles. The collective vibrations can also be thermally excited as it was clearly demonstrated in the studies of the $`\gamma `$ \- emission from hot nuclei. It has been recently proposed that fusion reactions with N/Z asymmetric nuclei may lead to the excitation of a dipole mode because of the presence of a net dipole moment in the entrance channel. The first experimental indications on the possible existence of such new phenomenon have been reported in  for fusion reactions and in  for deep inelastic collisions. However, the real nature of such a vibration is still unclear both from the experimental and the theoretical point of view. In particular only semiclassical approaches or schematic models have been used to infer the properties of the generated dipole mode.

In this letter, we present the first quantum calculation of pre-equilibrium giant collective vibrations using the time dependent Hartree Fock (TDHF) approach . TDHF corresponds to an independent propagation of each single particle wave function in the mean field generated by the ensemble of particles. It does not incorporate the dissipation due to two-body interaction , but takes into account one body mechanisms such as Landau spreading and evaporation damping . The quantal nature of the single particle dynamics is explicitely preserved, which is crucial at low energy both because of shell effects and of the wave dynamics. Moreover TDHF is a strongly non linear theory. Hence it can exhibit new couplings between collective modes.

In the time dependent Hartree-Fock (TDHF) approach, the evolution of the single particle density matrix $`\rho (t)=_{n=1}^N|\phi _n\phi _n|`$ is determined by a Liouville equation,

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\rho [h(\rho ),\rho ]=0$$
(1)
where $`h(\rho )`$ is the mean-field Hamiltonian. We have used the code built by P. Bonche and coworkers with an effective Skyrme mean-field and $`SLy_4`$ parameters .

The effect of the isospin asymmmetry in the entrance channel has been first studied in the $`{}_{}{}^{20}O+^{20}Mg`$ fusion reactions at energies close to the Coulomb barrier. Strong quantum effects are expected in these mirror-nuclei reactions leading to the N=Z $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ca`$ compound system. The density plots obtained in the central collisions at a kinetic energy of $`1MeV`$ per nucleon in the center of mass frame is presented in Fig. $`1`$. The system fuses and shows quadrupole oscillation around a slowly damped prolate deformation. Since $`{}_{}{}^{20}O`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{20}Mg`$ have significantly different N over Z ratios (respectively 1.5 and 0.67), the protons and neutrons centers of mass do not coincide at the initial stage of the collision in contrast to what is obtained in the fusion of two nuclei with the same N over Z ratio.

Let us first start with head on head collisions along the $`x`$ axis. Adequate observables to study the collective motion induced in this mechanism are the dipole moment $`Q_d`$ and its conjugated quantity $`P_d`$. $`Q_d`$ is the net distance between protons and neutrons: $`Q_d=\frac{NZ}{A}(X_pX_n)`$ where $`X_p`$ and $`X_n`$ are the proton and neutron’s centers of mass coordinates. Similarly, $`P_d=\frac{A}{2NZ}(P_pP_n)`$ where $`P_p=_pp_p`$ and $`P_n=_np_n`$ are the moments of protons and neutrons. In Fig. $`2`$ is plotted $`Q_d`$ as a function of $`P_d`$. As time goes on, we observe a spiral in the collective phase space which signals the presence of a damped collective vibration. Indeed, it originates from oscillations in phase quadrature of the two conjugated dipole variables.

In order to associate the observed vibration with the giant dipole resonance (GDR) in the composite nucleus we must study the collective vibration of a $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ca`$ nucleus. The GDR associated to the dipole oscillation of a $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ca`$ ground state has been excited by an isovector dipole field and followed using the TDHF approach. The resulting $`Q_d`$ moment is plotted as a function of time in Fig. $`3c`$. The period of the observed oscillations is around $`80`$ fm/c which corresponds to an energy $`E=15.5MeV`$ in good agreement with skyrme RPA calculations  and close to the experimental value $`E20MeV`$ . For the $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ca`$ formed by fusion (Fig. $`3a`$) it is around $`150`$ fm/c. This large difference is due to the deformation of the fused system. Indeed, as we can see in Fig. 1 the compound nucleus relaxes its initial prolate elongation along the axis of the collision with a typical time much larger than the dipole oscillation’s period. During the considered time window, the averaged value of the observed quadrupole deformation parameter defined by $`ϵ=\frac{<Q_{20}>}{2\sqrt{5}<Q_{00}>}`$ is around $`ϵ=0.23`$.

A lower mean energy is expected for this longitudinal collective motion $`E_{GDR_X}`$ as compared to the one simulated in a spherical $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ca`$. Following a macroscopic model for the dipole oscillation we expect the energy of the GDR to evolve with the deformation as

$$E_{GDR_X}=E_{GDR}\left(1ϵ\right)^2$$
(2)
The frequency of the GDR along the elongation axis, fullfill this relation with $`ϵ0.26`$ in good agreement with the observed average deformation.

The dominant role of the deformation in the lowering of the GDR energy can be easily reproduced by performing a Hartree Fock calculation of a $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ca`$ nucleus in an external quadrupole field. This external field is kept during all the dynamical evolution so that the deformation does not relax. At time $`0`$ a dipole oscillation is induced by a dipole boost. The resulting dipole oscillations have a lower oscillation period. Using the deformation parameter $`ϵ=0.23`$ we find that this period is close to the one observed in the fusion case and agrees with the phenomenological relation (2).

To get a deeper insight in the dipole oscillation observed in fusion reactions we have analyzed the time evolution of its period. From each point on the collective trajectory this quantity can be inferred from the time needed to reach the opposite side of the observed spiral. The resulting evolution is plotted in Fig. $`4a`$. This period shows oscillations too. On the other hand, we calculated the monopole moment $`Q_{00}`$ and the quadrupole moment $`Q_{20}`$ which are presented in figure $`4b`$. We can see that those observables oscillations which are almost in phase with those in Fig. $`4a`$. This points toward a possible coupling between the dipole mode and another mode of vibration. The evolutions of the monopole and quadrupole moments are very similar. In particular, they have the same oscillation’s period around $`166`$ fm/c. Therefore, we conclude that they originates from the same phenomenon, the vibration of the density around a prolate shape. This oscillation modifies the properties of the dipole mode in a time dependent way.

In order to investigate if this density vibration is the origin of the observed behavior of the dipole period we can model the induced mode coupling. We consider a harmonic oscillator with a spring constant which varies in time at a frequency $`\omega `$. This is a simple way to take into account the fact that oscillations of the density, which enters in the mean field potential of the TDHF equation, modify the dipole restoring force. This is a way to take into account the non linear behaviour of mean field dynamic.

It is easy to understand that a lower density as well as in an elongated shapes induce a weaker restoring force. Thus, variations of the density profiles in the TDHF equation can be modeled by a corresponding variation of the constant of rigidity in a spring Hamiltonian. In such a model, the equation of motion becomes the Mathieu’s equation

$$\frac{\ddot{x}}{\omega _0^2}+[1+\beta (\frac{\omega ^2}{\omega _0^2}+2\frac{\omega }{\omega _0})cos(\omega t)]x=0$$
(3)
where $`\omega _0`$ is the pulsation without coupling and $`\omega `$ the pulsation of the density’s oscillation while $`\beta `$ corresponds to the magnitude of the induced frequency fluctuations. We have computed the numeric solution of equation (3) with the typical external frequency of the monopole and quadrupole oscillations. The bare frequency $`\omega _0`$ and the coupling strength $`\beta `$ have been tuned in order to get the same dipole oscillation frequency and typical strength as in the full TDHF calculations. Indeed, because of the presence of the oscillating term, the observed frequency is different from the bare one. The numerical solution of the Mathieu equation shows oscillations with an oscillating period which well reproduces our self consistent calculations with $`\beta =0.15`$ and $`\omega _0`$ changed by a factor 1.2 from the observed value $`E_{GDR_X}`$ (see Fig. 4-a). From this analysis it appears that the observed dipole motion corresponds to a giant vibration along the main axis of an oscillating prolate shape. The observed modulation of the dipole frequency is a source of additionnal spreading of the resonance line shape.

Using coherent state picture the maximal elongation $`d_{max}=\frac{A}{NZ}Q_{d_{max}}1.4fm`$ is related to the number of excited phonons by the expression

$$n_0=d_{max}^2\frac{ME_{GDR_X}}{2\mathrm{}^2}$$
(4)
where $`E_{GDR_X}8`$MeV is the energy of the GDR along the $`(x)`$ axis and $`M=\frac{NZ}{A}m`$ is the reduced mass of the neutron-proton system, m being the nucleon mass. It gives $`n_01.9`$. Obviously this value is an upper limit because the mean field dynamics underestimate the consequences of the damping since two body dissipation is not taken into account. In the same way as ref. , we can compute the $`\gamma `$-decay probability $`P_\gamma `$ over $`\overline{P_\gamma }`$ its mean value in the equilibrium with the expression

$$\frac{P_\gamma }{\overline{P_\gamma }}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+\frac{n_0}{\overline{n_{GDR}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{evap}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{evap}}$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{evap}`$ is the rate at which the compound system decay (see ref. ), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is the decaying rate of the phonons and $`\overline{n_{GDR}}`$ is the mean number of excited phonons in the equilibrium. The latter can be estimated by $`\overline{n_{GDR}}=3e^{\frac{E_{GDR}}{T}}`$ where $`T`$ is the compound nucleus temperature. For $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ca`$ at an excitation energy around 96 MeV, we take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{evap}0.76MeV`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}7MeV`$ and $`\overline{n_{GDR}}0.6`$. It gives $`\frac{P_\gamma }{\overline{P_\gamma }}1.2`$ which shows that the pre-equilibrium effects are only a correction for this system since the value for an entrance channel quenching ($`n_0=0`$) of the GDR using the isospin symmetric reaction $`{}_{}{}^{20}Ne+^{20}Ne`$ would lead to $`\frac{P_\gamma }{\overline{P_\gamma }}0.9`$. It means the first chance gamma emission will be slightly enhanced by about a factor 20 %. This is in good agreement with the values reported in the litterature .

In order to compute the properties of the pre-equilibrium GDR in fusion we shall also study non zero impact parameters. In particular the interplay of dipole vibration and deformation can be affected by the rotation. In addition to the center of mass coordinate system with $`x`$ along the beam axis and $`y`$ perpendicular to the reaction plane we defined a new coordinate system $`x^{},y^{},z^{}`$ where $`x^{}`$ is the deformation axis and $`y=y^{}`$ is the rotation axis. For the head on head reaction studied before, those two frames are the same. In this case, for symmetry reasons the dipole moments along the $`z^{}=z`$ and $`y`$ axis are zero at every time.

If we consider now a finite $`b`$, the symmetry only forbids the vibration to occur along $`y`$. In this case, the amplitude of the oscillations along $`x^{}`$ slightly decreases with the impact parameter (Fig. $`3a`$, dashed line) whereas an oscillation along $`z^{}`$ appears (Fig. $`3b`$, dashed line). First we can see that the period of the dipole oscillation perpendicular to the deformation axis is lower than one along the deformation axis. It is another consequence for the prolate deformation of the nucleus indeed the energy of this excitation along $`z^{}`$ should obey the relation $`E_{GDR_Z^{}}=E_{GDR}(1+ϵ)`$. This relation gives a value of the oscillation’s period of 67 fm/c which is the observed one on (Fig $`3b`$). The oscillation along $`z^{}`$ shows a lower amplitude than this along $`x^{}`$ (approximatively 1 per cent in relative intensity). This oscillation along the $`z^{}`$ axis results from a weak symmetry breaking due to the rotation of the system. Indeed the changing to the rotating frame $`x^{},y=y^{},z^{}`$ leads to the Hamiltonian with a non diagonal term

$$H^{}=R(t)HR^1(t)+\dot{\alpha }J_y$$
(6)
where $`H^{}`$ is the Hamiltonian in the rotating frame, $`\dot{\alpha }`$ is time derivative of the angle between the two frames and $`J_y`$ is the generator of the rotations around $`y`$. The last term induces a motion along the $`z^{}`$ axis from a dipole vibration along $`x^{}`$. This is indeed what is happening since initially the dipole mode is along the $`x^{}`$ axis.

If we now compute the number of excited phonons we see almost no variation of the total phonon number $`n_0`$ with $`b`$. Therefore the conclusions reached for $`b=0`$ can be extended to the full range of impact parameters $`b`$.

Let us now study the role of the incident energy. The lack of two body damping in TDHF doesn’t enable us to go up in energy with this system. So we investigate a lower energy 0.5 MeV per nucleon which is the coulomb barrier. In this case, the number of exciting phonons is 1.0. This value is lower than one obtained at 1MeV/u because the maximum dipole moment decreases with decreasing energy. Therefore the number of pre-equilibrium phonons is lower at lower energy.

We have also investigated the role of the mass of the reactions partners to study if the pre-equilibrium effects survive in heavier compound systems. We have computed the $`{}_{}{}^{40}Ar+^{40}Ti`$ at 1 MeV per nucleon in the center of mass system (slightly above the fusion barrier). We have observed exactly the same phenomenology with a strong excitation of pre-equilibrium GDR. The calculated $`n_0=0.6`$ is smaller than the $`n_0`$ obtained for lighter nuclei reaction. This comes from the fact that the reaction with small nuclei is less damped than the one involving more nucleons. However the pre-equilibrium GDR is also strong in the heavier fusion reaction.

In summary, pre-equilibrium effects related to the N/Z asymmetry in the entrance channel have been for the first time investigated using the TDHF approach. The relation between the mean oscillation’s period and the shape of the nucleus have been established. Because of the deformation the average dipole frequency along the deformation axis is lower than the usual GDR one ,while we observe a weak vibration at higher frequency in the perpendicular direction in the collision plane. In this direction, the oscillation occurs only for a non zero impact parameter. The evolution of the period have been modeled by a Mathieu’s spring model so that the link between the observed phenomena and the giant dipole resonance have been established. The frequency modulation due to this non-linear coupling between modes plays the role of an additionnal spreading of the GDR frequency. The results shows that pre-equilibrium gamma emission are expected in the case of fusion reaction with asymmetric N/Z nuclei.

We want to thank Herve Moutarde for his help about the Mathieu’s equation and Paul Bonche for providing his TDHF code and for helpful discussion at the initial stage of this work. Useful discussions with Pieter Van Isacker and Denis Lacroix are acknowledged.


text:
# Paper 1, 2 and 3

## Abstract

This paper has been withdrawn by the author(s).


text:
# Why is the black hole entropy (almost) linear in the horizon area?

## I Introduction

It has been a quarter of a century since Bekenstein  and Hawking  suggested that the entropy of a black hole is one fourth of its surface area:

$$S_{BH}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{A_{}}{\mathrm{}_P^2}.$$
(1)
Despite considerable effort  on the quantum , dynamic , and statistical  origins of black hole thermodynamics, the exact source and mechanism of the Bekenstein-Hawking black hole entropy remain unclear . By using the brick wall model, ’t Hooft  identified the black hole entropy with the entropy of a thermal gas of quantum field excitations outside the event horizon, whereas Frolov and Novikov  argued that the black hole entropy can be obtained by identifying the dynamical degrees of freedom of a black hole with the states of all fields which are located inside the black hole. A black hole acts as classical thermodynamic object, but its true microscopic structure remains unclear .

One of classical thermodynamics’ aspects is that the entropy and temperature of many systems can be derived within its framework without any need for referring to an underlying quantum theory. An outstanding example is the Stephen-Boltzmann formula for the energy and entropy flux densities of the radiation emitted by a hot black body

$$u=\sigma T^4,s=\frac{4}{3}\sigma T^3.$$
(2)
Historically this formula was derived before the discovery of quantum mechanics. The coefficient $`\sigma =\pi ^2/15\mathrm{}^3`$ was calculated only after a quantum mechanical grasp of the phenomenon was achieved.

Reapplying this train of thoughts, we wish to establish here that the proportionality between black hole entropy and horizon area is a classical result. Any correction to the black hole entropy formula, $`S=\eta A`$, must be quantum mechanical in nature i.e. not derivable from classical thermodynamics. And just as it happened with $`\sigma `$, so here the coefficient $`\eta =1/4\mathrm{}_P^2`$, must be calculated within a semiclassical or a quantum statistical framework .

Such an attempt has been made a few years ago by Gould , who claimed to establish the proportionality between black-hole entropy and horizon area based on the assumption that black holes are classical thermodynamics objects. After giving evidence for the relation $`S=F(A)`$ (to be rediscussed in Sec. II below), Gould uses the principle of equivalence to argue that the local temperature of radiation in the exterior of the black hole may depend only on the local gravitational “pull” felt by the local stationary observer. Accordingly, he concludes that the proportionality factor must be a universal constant of nature. A straightforward calculation shows that this proportionality factor is equal to $`8\pi F^{}(A)`$, and therefore that $`F(A)A`$. However, it seems that Gould’s argument is in not really classical. After all, the general connection between temperature and acceleration as put in evidence by Unruh, depends on quantum field theory.

In this work, we do recognize the quantum mechanical foundation from which Hawking radiation was derived, but also assume that inasmuch as black body radiation may be investigated using the tools of 19th century classical thermodynamics, so may Hawking radiation.

The structure of the paper is as follows. We begin in Sec. II by reviewing the evidence for the relation $`S=F(A)`$, where $`F`$ is a positive definite and non-decreasing function. Bekenstein’s historical argument for the form of the black hole entropy, $`F(A)A`$ has evidently some logical gaps in it; it very much guesses the form of $`F`$. In Sec. III we try to bridge this gap. It is shown that classical thermodynamics decrees the relation $`SA^\gamma `$, with $`\gamma `$ a constant. In Sec. IV, various physical arguments are used in order to explore this relation and constrain $`\gamma `$. The arguments are based upon various ideas at the base of classical thermodynamics, such as positive temperature for systems in equilibrium, negative specific heat for self-gravitating systems, and the generalized second law (GSL). We find that $`\gamma >1/2`$. Then, assuming that Hawking radiation can be described by geometrical optics (short wave approximation) we prove that $`5/6<\gamma 1`$. In Sec. V we present further arguments for why the relation $`SA`$ ($`\gamma =1`$) should be singled out. Finally, the values of the proportionality coefficient and additive constant are discussed.

Throughout we assume that the system under investigation is embedded in a $`3+1`$ spacetime. The question concerning the possible nonlinear relation between black hole entropy and horizon area in higher dimensions, was addressed recently by Castro, Graniky and Naschie . Furthermore, we deal only with bare black holes, excluding the so called ”dirty” black holes, which are known to have a modified entropy formula due to the presence of classical fields on the horizon .

We use units with $`\mathrm{}=G=c=k_B=1`$, unless otherwise stated.

## II Evidence for $`S=F(A)`$

Our framework is classical thermodynamics. We shall not use quantum mechanics nor statistical mechanics. The black hole and surroundings are treated as a thermodynamical system in equilibrium with definite temperature $`T`$ and entropy $`S`$, which are quantities assumed to be definite functions of the black hole macroscopic parameters. In the spirit of the “no hair” theorem, these are the mass $`M`$, charge $`Q`$ and angular momentum $`J`$ of the black hole.

The first law of thermodynamics applied to the system black hole–surrounding may be written as

$$dM=TdSd𝒲,$$
(3)
where $`𝒲`$ is the work done on (or extracted from) the black hole. Specifically, let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the electric potential and the angular velocity on the event horizon respectively. Then the work done (energy extracted) due to changes in angular momentum and electric charge is

$$d𝒲=\mathrm{\Phi }dQ+\mathrm{\Omega }dJ.$$
(4)
Substituting this in Eq. (3) gives

$$TdS=dM\mathrm{\Phi }dQ\mathrm{\Omega }dJ.$$
(5)
By exploring the dynamics of test objects in the black hole exterior, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are found to be

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{4\pi r_+Q}{A},\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{4\pi a}{A}$$
(6)
where $`r_+=M+\sqrt{M^2Q^2a^2}`$ and $`A=4\pi (r_+^2+a^2)`$ are the radius and area of the event horizon respectively, and $`aJ/M`$ is the specific angular momentum.

We proceed by differentiating the horizon area $`A`$ with respect to $`M`$, $`Q`$ and $`J`$. The result is nothing but the first law of black holes mechanics:

$$\frac{1}{8\pi }\kappa dA=dM\mathrm{\Phi }dQ\mathrm{\Omega }dJ,$$
(7)
where $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity given by

$$\kappa =8\pi \left(\frac{M}{A}\right)_{J,Q}=\frac{4\pi \sqrt{M^2Q^2a^2}}{A}.$$
(8)
Combining now Eqs. (5) and (7) gives:

$$\frac{1}{8\pi }\kappa dA=TdS,$$
(9)
which impels us to infer that the black hole entropy must be a definite function of its horizon area:

$$S=F(A).$$
(10)
Gould  obtained the same result based on the argument that two black holes with the same horizon area must have the same entropy, since otherwise one would be able to violate the GSL by Penrose processes .

An interesting question is whether the result that $`S=F(A)`$ is generic, namely, does it apply to others types of black holes besides the Kerr-Newmann black hole? The answer to this query seems to be on the affirmative. For example, a $`(2+1)`$-dimensional (BTZ) black hole obeys the standard first law of thermodynamics (5) augmented by an additional work term, $`𝒫d(2\pi R)`$, where $`𝒫`$ is the surface pressure at the boundary of a cavity of radius $`R`$. Accordingly, the same arguments which served to prove that the relation $`S=F(A)`$ for the Kerr-Newman black hole, may be used now to prove that the entropy of the BTZ black hole must be some function of its horizon area, and indeed, semi-classical calculations yields a linear entropy to horizon area relation . Another example is the dilatonic black hole for which the entropy is proportional to the horizon area . Keeping these other interesting cases in mind, we limit our analysis to the case of the Kerr-Newman black hole, since it captures the essentials of the ideas discussed in this work.

The result $`S=F(A)`$ clashes with a recent result by Vaz and Witten, who showed that in the framework of canonical quantum gravity the entropy of a charged black hole turns out to be the difference between the outer and inner horizon areas. Vaz and Witten explain this disagreement with the semi-classical result, as the product of neglecting the effect of back reaction to any radiation emitted exterior to the black hole. Another explanation involves a similar effect induced by emission of radiation in the interior of the black hole, radiation which is undetectable by an exterior observer. However, as Vaz and Witten admit themselves, their result may be due to the too restrictive boundary conditions imposed on the wave functional in the interior of the black hole (the wave functional is made to vanish beyond the inner horizon). However, they hedge this claim by pointing out that other boundary conditions are in effect unknown.

Keeping this in mind we proceed by noting that the black hole temperature is given by

$$T=\left(\frac{M}{S}\right)=\frac{\kappa }{8\pi F^{}(A)}=\frac{\sqrt{M^2Q^2a^2}}{2AF^{}(A)}.$$
(11)
Interestingly, for the black hole to have a non negative temperature, $`F^{}(A)>0`$ i.e. $`F(A)`$ must be a monotonic non-decreasing function. In view of Hawking’s increasing area theorem, this result had been expected, and indeed was assumed by Bekenstein. In the rest of the paper we resort to classical thermodynamics to specify $`F(A)`$.

## III Investigating $`F(A)`$

Leaning on the parallelism between the zeroth law of black hole mechanics ($`\kappa `$ is constant over the whole of the event horizon surface of a stationary black hole), and the zeroth law of thermodynamics ($`T`$ is uniform over a system in equilibrium), one might conclude that the thermodynamical temperature must be a definite function of the surface gravity, and then invoke Eq. (11) to conclude that $`F^{}(A)=const`$, $`F`$ is linear in $`A`$, and the proof is complete.

However, there is a loophole: $`T`$ may also depend on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which are themselves constants on the horizon. Hence, it is less clear why $`F`$ should be linear in $`A`$. In order to go forward, we first prove the following statement:

The black hole entropy must have the form:

$$S=\eta A^\gamma +S_0,$$
(12)
where $`\eta `$ and $`S_0`$ are constants of integration and $`\gamma `$ is a dimensionless parameter.

To prove this, we consider the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole (the derivation based on the Kerr solution is similar). Taking the logarithm in both sides of Eq. (11) and differentiating gives

$$\frac{dT}{T}+\left(A\frac{F^{\prime \prime }(A)}{F^{}(A)}+1\right)\frac{dA}{A}=\frac{MdMQdQ}{M^2Q^2}.$$
(13)
Consider now an isothermal process ($`dT=0`$). Then

$$1+A\frac{F^{\prime \prime }(A)}{F^{}(A)}=\frac{A}{M^2Q^2}\frac{MdMQdQ}{dA}_{T=\mathrm{const}.}$$
(14)
Using now Eq. (7) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, we find that

$$\frac{MdMQdQ}{dA}_{T=\mathrm{const}.}=\frac{\kappa }{8\pi }\frac{M\left(\frac{M}{Q}\right)_TQ}{\left(\frac{M}{Q}\right)_T\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$
(15)
Substituting this and the expressions for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\kappa `$ (Eqs. (6) and (8), respectively) in Eq. (14), and using the dimensionless parameter $`yQ/M`$, we find that

$`1+A{\displaystyle \frac{F^{\prime \prime }(A)}{F^{}(A)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{1y^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_Ty}{\mathrm{\Phi }_T\frac{y}{1+\sqrt{1y^2}}}},`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{Q}}\right)_T.`$ (17)
Keep in mind that $`|y|1`$, where equality is achieved for extremal black holes. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ can be interpreted as the electric potential on the horizon when the black hole is in equilibrium with a surrounding heat bath. Since we are interested in the classical regime, we expand $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ with the leading term, $`O(\mathrm{}^0)`$ is taken to be classical. Higher order terms in $`\mathrm{}`$ are considered to be quantum corrections. The classical leading term in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ cannot vanish because in the limit $`y1`$ the right hand side of Eq. (17) diverges unless $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T1`$. This may be anticipated, because in the limit of zero temperature (that is $`y=1`$) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ should be equal to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ because the black hole can be considered to be isolated from the thermal bath (i.e. $`T=0`$). Hence, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T(y=1)=\mathrm{\Phi }(y=1)=1`$. Accordingly, hereafter we assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ has a non vanishing classical part.

Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ is a dimensionless quantity it must be a function of $`y`$ only. Consequently we have achieved separation of the variables in the problem, $`y`$ and $`A`$: the right hand side of Eq. (17) is a function of $`y`$ only whereas the left hand side is a function of $`A`$ only. Since, $`A`$ and $`y`$ are two independent parameters this implies that

$$1+A\frac{F^{\prime \prime }(A)}{F^{}(A)}=\mathrm{constant}\gamma .$$
(18)
Solving this for $`F(A)`$ with $`\gamma 0`$ reproduce Eq. (12). One must add that for $`\gamma =0`$, the solution is logarithmic in $`A`$. However in the next section we explain why this possibility must be excluded.

## IV Constraining $`\gamma `$.

Here we use various arguments to constrain $`\gamma `$. In subsection IV A we use some basic principles of classical thermodynamics to set the constrain $`\gamma >1/2`$. This result is of great importance since it emphasizes the fact that black hole thermodynamics is not like ordinary thermodynamics. Surely the choice $`\gamma =1/2`$, e.g. $`S\sqrt{A}`$, seems to stands out because it implies that for $`Q=J=0`$, $`SM`$, in harmony with the extensive character of entropy in ordinary thermodynamics. But as proven below, this later choice clashes with basic principles of black holes and traditional physics, and thus should be rejected.

Consider now, Hawking radiation. Obviously, Hawking’s celebrated derivation of the black hole radiation is quantum-mechanical. Consequently it could be argued that by considering this phenomenon we are actually invalidating our claim that the derivation of black hole entropy may be based on purely classical arguments. But in a sense thermodynamics is sensitive to effects at the quantum level; while classical mechanics is consistent with the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$, classical thermodynamics is not. Accordingly we make the minimal assumption that the laws of thermodynamics apply to the black hole and radiation as a complete system (after all, if the black hole is to be considered a thermodynamical object with entropy and temperature, it must be able to radiate as well as absorb). This implies that the radiation may be described by the Stephan-Boltzmann law. As explained in subsection IV B this leads us to conclude that $`5/6<\gamma 1`$.

It should be pointed out that in his article, Gould does not address the issue of Hawking radiation and the impact it may have on the derivation of the black hole entropy formula. Hawking himself discusses it in .

### A Positive temperature, Negative Specific Heat and the GSL: $`\gamma >1/2`$.

Consider first the temperature of the Schwarzschild black hole Eq. (11),

$$T=\frac{M}{2AF^{}(A)}=\frac{1}{2\eta \gamma (16\pi )^\gamma M^{2\gamma 1}}.$$
(19)
The first obvious fact is that $`\gamma `$ must be positive definite for the system to have positive definite temperature. Examining next the specific heat $`(T/M)^112\gamma `$; we find that for the system to have a negative specific heat, as befits a self-gravitating system, $`\gamma `$ must be greater then $`1/2`$. Note that if the logarithmic solution of Eq. (18) were to be taken seriously, it would imply that the black hole temperature is linear in the mass, and hence the specific heat would be constant independent of the black hole mass.

A somewhat related argument supporting the constraint $`\gamma >1/2`$, involves the interplay between the gravitational and the electric forces in the physics of a Reissner-Nordstrom black hole. It is reasonable to assume that when the black hole charge is small, the thermodynamics of the system is governed primarily by gravitation, which decrees a negative specific heat. However, as the magnitude of the black hole charge is increased, electrodynamics becomes important. At some point the system should begin to show typical qualities of a traditional thermodynamical system, such as a positive specific heat. Consequently, at some critical values of $`Q`$ and $`M`$, the specific heat should switch sign from negative to positive through a second order phase transition. For example, for $`\gamma =1`$ this transition takes place when $`Q=\sqrt{3/4}M`$. For a general $`\gamma `$ this condition translates to $`Q=\sqrt{11/(4\gamma ^2)}M`$. If this phenomenon is to be reproduced, $`\gamma `$ must again be greater than $`1/2`$.

A more rigorous proof for $`\gamma >1/2`$ can be drawn from the following gedanken experiment. Consider two identical Schwarzschild black holes of mass $`M`$, which collide and merge to form a third black hole of mass $``$. The initial entropy of the system is $`S_i=2\eta (16\pi M^2)^\gamma +2S_0`$. During the process of in-spiraling and finally coalescence, the system lose energy primarily by emission of gravitational waves and negligibly by thermal radiation. Accordingly the mass of the black hole at the end state of the system must be smaller then the initial energy contained in the two well separated black holes: $`<2M`$. It follows that the entropy at the end state of the system, $`S_f`$ is bounded from above by $`\eta (64\pi M^2)^\gamma +S_0`$. But by the GSL it must also be greater then the entropy at the initial state of the system. Combining these two arguments gives

$$2\eta (16\pi M^2)^\gamma +2S_0<S_f<\eta (64\pi M^2)^\gamma +S_0.$$
(20)
The only way in which this can be true for arbitrary $`M`$ is for

$$\gamma >1/2.$$
(21)
As a last remark we point out that this gedanken experiment also provide us with clear cut evidence against $`F(A)=\mathrm{ln}A`$, since it implies that the GSL would be violated for $`A>4\mathrm{exp}(S_0/\eta )`$ (note that here $`S_0`$ and $`\eta `$ are both dimensionless).

### B Hawking radiation: $`5/6<\gamma 1`$.

Assume now that the radiation emitted by a Schwarzschild black hole follows the Stephan-Boltzmann law (2). We are clearly assuming that geometrical optics may be applied here, that is, that the characteristic wavelength of the radiation $`\lambda _{max}`$, is smaller than the characteristic length scale of the emitter, namely $`2M`$. In the regime where $`\lambda _{max}M`$ geometrical optics ceases to provide a good description for the radiation, and wave optics must be employed instead. However, since $`\gamma `$ is a constant of the theory, any result concerning $`\gamma `$ which was obtained within a regime describable by geometrical optics, should be extendable to regimes where geometrical optics fails.

Keeping this point in mind, we recall that by the principle of black body radiation, the radiated power (which equals minus the rate of change of the black hole mass) is given by

$$\dot{M}T^4AM^{2(34\gamma )}.$$
(22)
In the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$, the temperature approaches zero and thus should also the radiated power $`\dot{M}`$. This indicate that $`\gamma `$ must be bigger than $`3/4`$. Furthermore, the rate of change of the black hole entropy is

$$\dot{S}=\frac{\dot{M}}{T}M^{56\gamma }.$$
(23)
In the limit where $`T0`$ ($`M\mathrm{}`$), $`\dot{S}0`$, which implies that $`\gamma >5/6`$. Also, combining Eqs. (23) and (22), one finds that

$$\dot{S}\dot{M}^{\frac{56\gamma }{2(34\gamma )}}.$$
(24)
It is reasonable to assume that $`\dot{S}`$ and $`\dot{M}`$ increase (decrease) simultaneously. Accordingly, we infer that $`(56\gamma )/(34\gamma )>0`$. Since it was already shown that $`\gamma >3/4`$, the constraint $`\gamma >5/6`$ is reproduced.

Consider next Wein’s law which teaches us that

$$\lambda _{max}T\mathrm{},$$
(25)
where $`\lambda _{max}`$ corresponds to the wavelength at which the radiation intensity is maximized. This suggests that $`\lambda _{max}1/TM^{2\gamma 1}`$. Recalling now that this would be true provided that

$$\frac{\lambda _{max}}{2M}M^{2(\gamma 1)}1,$$
(26)
we accept that $`\gamma 1`$. Thus we conclude that

$$5/6<\gamma 1.$$
(27)
## V Arguments for $`\gamma =1`$. What can be said about $`S_0`$ and $`\eta `$?

The first argument is based on the observation that the power by which the temperature is raised in the Stephan-Boltzman law is determined by the effective dimension of the phase space by which the system is described. The rule that seems to emerge is that the power by which the temperature is raised is equal to $`𝒟+1`$, where $`𝒟`$ is the effective dimension of the system. Keeping this in mind, we rewrite the expression for the radiated power (22) in term of the temperature

$$\dot{M}T^4AT^{4\frac{2}{2\gamma 1}}.$$
(28)
This suggests that the black hole is in effect a thermodynamic system with an effective dimension $`𝒟`$, fixed by the equality

$$𝒟+1=4\frac{2}{2\gamma 1}.$$
(29)
The constraint on $`\gamma `$ may be used now to constrain $`𝒟`$ and even to tell us something about $`\gamma `$. Solving Eq. (29) for $`\gamma `$ we find

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3𝒟}.$$
(30)
Using the result of the previous section, $`5/6<\gamma 1`$, we infer that $`0<𝒟1`$. Assuming that $`𝒟`$ is an integer (glossing over the possibility of fractal dimensions which is usually an attribute of systems lacking any kind of characteristics scale), we find that $`\gamma `$ may have only one possible value,

$$\gamma =1.$$
(31)
Remarkably, even though the black hole is evidently a $`3D`$ object embedded in a $`3+1`$ dimensional spacetime, it behaves as if it was a one dimensional thermodynamical object!

Imagine now a number of black holes in vacuum momentarily at rest at some distance one from another . The only evident source of entropy is the black holes horizons. Presuming that the entropies of independent systems are additive, we may write

$$S_{total}=\underset{i}{}(\eta A_i^\gamma +S_0).$$
(32)
We make the assumption that the entropy contributed by a specific black hole is not changed by its motion and associated dynamical changes, induced by its companions, so that the formula for $`S_{total}`$ applies also when the black holes falls towards each other. Focus now on two of these black holes, with areas $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$, as they fall towards each other and merge into a single one. By Hawking’s result each $`A_i`$ is bound to increase. Furthermore, the growth of the event horizon area is a continuous process (to be contrasted with the growth of the apparent horizon area which may be discontinues). Therefore, at the moment of coalescence the horizon area of the new black hole is the sum of the areas of the merging constitutes, $`A_{new}=A_1+A_2`$. By the assumption that the relation between entropy and area is still valid in the case of distorted black holes, we may use Eq. (32) for the new black hole. During the infall and the merger processes, semi-coherent gravitational radiation is emitted, which should not have much effect on the entropy balance. Hence at the moment of merger,

$$(A_1+A_2)^\gamma =A_1^\gamma +A_2^\gamma +S_0/\eta .$$
(33)
Obviously one can arrange for the process to occur with $`A_1=A_2=A_0`$, for example by slowly lowering two black holes of equal masses towards each other, so that the area increase and distortion are identical in both black holes. This must be true for any arbitrary $`A_0`$. So we are led to the conclusion that $`\gamma =1`$ and $`S_0=0`$. This agree with the reasonable assumption that the entropy tends to zero as the mass tends to zero. Moreover, the vanishing of the additive coefficient $`S_0`$ indicates that the zero of the entropy is set, without the liberty of adding a constant, as one can do in classical physics.

What can be said about the proportionality coefficient $`\eta `$? Obviously, $`\eta `$ should have dimensions of inverse area. Further insight seems to require the use of quantum physics. However, Wheeler’s heuristic suggestion that the right order of magnitude of $`S`$ should be gotten by just dividing $`A`$ by the Planck length squared $`\mathrm{}_P^2`$, gained support from the observation by Bekenstein  that when an elementary particle is very softly deposited at the horizon of any Kerr-Newmann black hole, the minimal increase of $`S`$ so calibrated is of order unity. Since an elementary particle should carry no more than a unit of entropy, the GSL would fail if we took $`\eta `$ as an inverse length square with a length large on the Planck scale. Also it makes no sense to take this length scale to be smaller than Planck’s length, which is regarded as the smallest scale on which smooth spacetime is a reasonable paradigm. Nothing could be said about the numerical magnitude of $`\eta _0\eta \mathrm{}_P^2`$ without over-stepping the realm of classical thermodynamics.

Thus we close by writing

$$S_{BH}=\eta _0\frac{A_{}}{\mathrm{}_P^2}.$$
(34)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasure to thank Prof. J. D. Bekenstein for suggesting this problem and for his guidance during this work. This research is supported by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation, established by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.


text:
# Type Ia Supernovae and Remnant Neutron Stars

## 1 Introduction

Type Ia supernovae are currently being used as empirical standard candles in the redshift range $`z=0.11`$ to provide evidence that the expansion of the Universe might be accelerating (Riess et al., 1998; Perlmutter et al., 1998, 1999). This has naturally renewed interest in what they might be. The case for cosmological acceleration depends critically on the degree to which Type Ia supernovae can be treated as standard candles, independent of redshift. Only a good understanding of the nature and the origin of these supernovae can provide confidence that they actually are standard candles.

The most favoured scenario (see, for example, Livio 2000) for the SN Ia event is the explosion and complete disintegration of a CO white dwarf, brought about by the accretion of material which pushes the mass of the white dwarf over the Chandrasekhar limiting mass $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}=1.44\mathrm{M}_{}`$. The resulting rapid conversion of about a solar mass of C/O to Ni56, and the subsequent decay of Ni56 to Fe56, provides the right amount of energy to power the observed explosion, and releases it on the right timescale to explain the observed light-curve. It can also account for the lack of hydrogen observed in these supernovae.

While this picture is largely agreed, the main debate concerns the nature of the precursor driving the accretion which pushes the white dwarf mass over the limit. Here the favoured view envisages two main possibilities.

The first possibility is that the precursor is a binary system containing a white dwarf accreting hydrogen from a non–degenerate star (the single–degenerate scenario). This possibility suffers from two main drawbacks. First, the accretion of hydrogen on to a white dwarf can lead to ordinary nova explosions, which over time tend to decrease, rather than increase, the mass of the white dwarf; and second, it is difficult, though not perhaps impossible, to set off a supernova explosion right next to a large mass of hydrogen (the non-degenerate companion) without the supernova ejecta becoming contaminated by the hydrogen from the companion’s envelope (Marietta, Fryxell & Burrows, 2000).

The second possibility is the merger of two white dwarfs (the double–degenerate scenario). The white dwarfs are brought together by gravitational radiation on a timescale $`t_{\mathrm{grav}}`$, until the less massive, and thus the less dense, fills its Roche lobe and begins to transfer mass. The initial timescale for mass transfer is set by gravitational radiation, and for these systems is of order $`10^6`$ years. Many authors (Saio & Nomoto, 1985, 1998; Kawai, Saio & Nomoto, 1987; Mochkovitch & Livio, 1990; Timmes, Woosley & Taam, 1994; Mochkovitch, Guerrero & Segretain, 1997) contend that under such circumstances no explosion takes place, and the result is a quiet, accretion–induced collapse (AIC), forming a neutron star remnant.

In this paper we argue that there is strong observational evidence that the merger of two CO white dwarfs produces both a supernova explosion and a stellar remnant; and further, that since such a supernova does not involve hydrogen it must be of Type I, and probably of Type Ia. Thus at least some, if not all, SNe Ia result from the merging of two white dwarfs. In Section 2, we consider the outcome of the merger if the total mass of the two white dwarfs is less than $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$, and identify the likely merger products as massive and highly magnetic white dwarfs. In Section 3 we consider the case where the combined mass exceeds $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$, and by analogy identify the likely merger products as the magnetars. We summarize our conclusions in Section 4.

## 2 Merger Products

Since the outcome of a CO white dwarf merger is difficult to predict theoretically, we start from a case where the answer is clear, namely when the total binary mass $`M`$ is slightly smaller than $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$. A supernova is unlikely (but see Section 3 below), so there must be a remnant – a massive white dwarf. Indeed Livio, Pringle & Saffer (1992) suggested that a significant fraction of massive white dwarfs are the result of mergers. Furthermore the white dwarf is spun up to rapid rotation by accretion from a disc, and is likely to be highly magnetic because of the winding up of magnetic fields in this disc. Statistical evidence supports this picture. It is now well established that the mass distribution of isolated white dwarfs has, in addition to the dominant peak at 0.57 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, a second peak near 1.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ with a tail which extends up to $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$. Wickramasinghe & Ferrario (2000) show that a large proportion (about 25 per cent) of the white dwarfs in this high mass group are strongly magnetic, while for the white dwarf sample as a whole, only 5 per cent are magnetic. However it is unlikely that all high mass magnetic white dwarfs result from mergers, since some rotate very slowly (periods $`>100`$ yr). These must arise from single star evolution (see Wickramasinghe and Ferrario 2000).

We should next ask for a specific example of such a merger remnant. The best studied massive magnetic white dwarf is RE J0317–853, which has mass $`M_{\mathrm{WD}}=1.35\mathrm{M}_{}`$, magnetic field $`B_0`$ in the range $`3.5\times 10^88\times 10^8`$ G, and spin period $`P_0=725`$ s (see Wickramasinghe & Ferrario 2000 and references therein). This looks remarkably like a white dwarf merger product which missed $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$ by a narrow margin. However before accepting this important conclusion we should examine other possibilities.

### 2.1 Single–star evolution

RE J0317–853 could in principle have formed in the normal course of single–star evolution as the degenerate core of a giant. Its mass $`M_{\mathrm{WD}}M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$ implies that the latter star must have had a mass close to the maximum that will give a white dwarf rather than a neutron star or black hole, i.e. about $`8\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Livio & Pringle (1998) argue that dynamo–generated magnetic fields at the core–envelope interface will make the core of such a star rotate with angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c6.6\times 10^{11}`$ s-1 at the end of the giant phase. The inner $`1.35\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of this core has radius $`0.2\mathrm{R}_{}`$: collapsing this to the likely radius $`R_03\times 10^8`$ cm of RE J0317–853 and assuming angular momentum conservation produces a spin period of about $`4\times 10^7`$ s. This is probably an underestimate, as the white dwarf magnetic field implied by Livio & Pringle’s calculations is much smaller than the observed $`B_0=3.58\times 10^8`$ G: the core field at the end of the giant phase is $`B_c2\times 10^2`$ G, and flux conservation increases this only to $`50`$ G for the white dwarf. Spruit & Phinney (1998) predict somewhat longer white dwarf spin periods $`10^8`$ s, as in their calculations the degenerate core is close to corotation with the giant envelope. We conclude that RE J0317–853’s observed spin period $`P_0=725`$ s cannot be explained if it is the result of single–star evolution. Further, this evolution offers no obvious reason why the observed magnetic field should be so strong.

### 2.2 Binary evolution

Descent from an interacting binary offers a clear avenue for explaining the rapid spin of RE J0317–853.

(a) Conventional CV evolution.

The most straightforward idea is that RE J0317–853 might represent some endpoint of cataclysmic variable (CV) evolution, in which a white dwarf accretes from a low–mass companion. RE J0317–853’s strong field would make it an extreme member of the AM Herculis subgroup (in fact its field is stronger than any known member of this class). In the conventional picture of AM Herculis evolution, the strong field of the white dwarf keeps the spin of this star locked to the orbital motion. RE J0317–853 cannot descend from this evolution, as the minimum orbital period for any CV is about 80 minutes, far above the observed $`P_0=725`$ s.

(b) Unusual CV evolution

In a recent paper, Meyer & Meyer–Hofmeister (1999) argue that AM Her systems may lose synchronism at very short orbital periods, when the secondary becomes so cool that the conductivity of its envelope drops catastrophically. In this case the white dwarf could indeed spin up to much shorter periods, and the companion star would be disrupted on a short timescale as the binary separation shrinks because of the draining of orbital angular momentum to the white dwarf spin. At first sight this looks like an attractive idea for explaining the properties of RE J0317–853. However since the deeper layers of the companion must remain ionized, we would expect this star to retain a strong enough dipole moment to remain synchronous. Even leaving this aside, this idea offers no explanations for the unusually high mass and magnetic field of RE J0317–853.

We conclude that RE J0317–853 is not likely to be be explained as an end–product of these other types of evolution. On the other hand, as we suggested above, it arises quite naturally as the result of a CO white dwarf merger, with at least one of the white dwarfs being mildly magnetic. A variant of this idea is to invoke coalescence of such a CO white dwarf with the fairly massive core of a giant companion through common–envelope evolution. For many purposes these two possibilities are extremely similar.

## 3 What if $`M>M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$?

We concluded above that the massive white dwarf RE J0317–853 is the result of a white dwarf merger with $`M`$ slightly less than $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$. We can now ask what end–product would have emerged had $`M`$ been slightly larger then $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$, and the resulting collapse had left a remnant rather than provoking complete disruption.

We first consider the merger process in a little more detail. If the mass ratio $`q`$ is less than 0.63 mass transfer is stable, and continues at a rate governed by gravitational radiation. However, if $`q>0.63`$, mass transfer is dynamically unstable. Mass is then transferred rapidly until $`q<0.63`$. Stability is achieved on a timescale of $`\tau t_{\mathrm{grav}}^{2/3}P^{1/3}`$, where $`P`$ is the orbital period and $`t_{\mathrm{grav}}`$ is the timescale specifying the rate at which transfer begins. Typically we expect $`t_{\mathrm{grav}}10^6`$ yr, $`P`$ a few hours, and thus $`\tau `$ to be of order a few hundred years. However, the mass transfer rate for an $`n=3/2`$ polytrope obeys $`\dot{M}/MP^{1/2}(t_0t)^{3/2}`$, valid for time $`t`$ less than some reference time $`t_0`$, (Webbink 1985), so the bulk of the mass transfer before stability is achieved occurs on a timescale of several orbital periods. Once stability is achieved, transfer slows once more towards the rate governed by gravitational radiation.

Because no existing computation has been able to consider accretion of He or of C/O on to a white dwarf at such high rates, there is still considerable uncertainty as to what the final outcome might be. For example, Regős et al (2000) argue, from population synthesis models, that the majority of SNe Ia are caused by rapid accretion of He on to a sub–Chandrasekhar–mass white dwarf and a subsequent edge–lit detonation of carbon, leading to the complete thermonuclear disintegration of the white dwarf. In contrast, as we remarked above, many authors contend that such edge–lit ignition can lead to quiet burning of the CO to O/Ne/Mg, and thus speculatively to a quiet accretion induced collapse (at least for $`M=M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$) to form a neutron star but with no supernova explosion and thus with no supernova remnant. While the computations have yet to be carried out, it seems to us hard to escape the conclusion that if the Chandrasekhar limit is exceeded during the mass transfer, collapse to neutron star densities must ensue.

If, during such a collapse, we assume conservation of angular momentum and magnetic flux as the stellar radius shrinks from the $`R_03\times 10^8`$ cm of RE J0317–853 to the $`R=10^6`$ cm of a neutron star, we find a spin period $`P=P_0(R/R_0)^2=7`$ ms and a field $`B=B_0(R_0/R)^2=3.58\times 10^{13}`$ G. We draw attention to the fact that these values are remarkably close to those required in the magnetar model now thought to provide an explanation of the properties of soft gamma repeaters (SGRs) and the related anomalous X–ray pulsars (AXPs) (see Thompson, 1999, and Kouveliotou, 1999 for recent reviews). Moreover, we might expect even more extreme values of these two parameters for two reasons. First, the strongly increased shearing resulting from a collapse to much smaller dimensions is likely to increase the strength of the magnetic field considerably (Thompson & Duncan, 1995; Kluzniak & Ruderman, 1998). Second, with a surface temperature of $`4\times 10^4`$ K, RE J0317–853’s spin period at birth could have been considerably shorter than the current 725 s, as even tiny amounts of mass loss coupling to its large magnetic moment would have caused spindown within its cooling age of several $`10^7`$ yr.

More extreme fields and rotation rates put us squarely in the parameter space ($`P=`$ few ms, $`B10^{14}`$ G) inferred for magnetars at birth. We conclude that the probable outcome of a magnetic white dwarf merger with $`M>M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$ is a magnetar.

## 4 Discussion

We have argued that the merger of two CO white dwarfs results in a remnant which is both rapidly rotating and highly magnetic. If the total mass is less than $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$, the remnant is a massive, magnetic white dwarf. And if the total mass exceeds $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$, the remnant is a rapidly rotating, strongly magnetic neutron star. We have identified such remnants as magnetars.

This conclusion leads to another. Soft gamma ray repeaters (and anomalous X–ray pulsars) are associated with supernova remnants (see, for example, the discussion in Kouveliotou, 1999). This implies that the collapse caused by the merger is not a quiescent ‘accretion induced collapse’, but actually gives rise to a supernova explosion. If our identification of magnetars as CO–CO white dwarf merger products is correct, then the supernovae associated with them should have high–velocity carbon and higher–mass elements (from the disrupted remnant disc), but no hydrogen or helium. We conclude, therefore, that CO–CO white dwarf mergers produce both a Type I supernova and a neutron star remnant, and, further, that if one of the merging white dwarfs has a significant magnetic field (estimated at around 25 per cent of the total), then this neutron star is a magnetar.

We may use this now to estimate an occurrence rate for these supernovae. SGRs and AXPs are known to have rather short lifetimes $`10^4`$ yr, (cf Kouveliotou, 1999; Thompson, 1999), from arguments based on the observed spindown timescale $`|P/\dot{P}|`$, and the typical age of the associated supernova remnants. The magnetar model gives similar (or even shorter) spindown ages. From the current observed total number of SGRs and AXPs ($`10`$), this characteristic age implies an estimate for the formation rate of magnetars of $`10^3`$ yr-1 in the Galaxy.

We now ask: what kind of Type I supernovae do the CO–CO–mergers correspond to? We note first that the inferred SNe Ia rate for the Galaxy is approximately $`10^3`$ yr-1 (Yungelson & Livio 2000). Thus the estimated occurrence rates provide no obvious grounds for rejecting the possibility that most SNe Ia might result from white dwarf mergers. Moreover they cannot be of Type Ib, which are associated with high-mass stars, and, if the above estimates are correct, they are too numerous to be of Type Ic (Cappellaro et al., 1997 show that the combined rate for Types Ib and Ic is lower than for Type Ia).

The white dwarf merger scenario is currently perhaps the less favoured option for SNe Ia, but there are not yet adequate grounds to rule it out. While the weight of opinion appears to be that the merger of two white dwarfs leads to accretion-induced collapse, and no supernova explosion or remnant, the computations required to provide verification have yet to be carried out. Moreover, Regős et al (2000), on the basis of population synthesis calculations, conclude that most SNe Ia result from edge–lit detonations in merging white dwarfs with $`M<M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$. Here we have argued that merging white dwarfs with $`M>M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$ might also give rise to SNe Ia. In both cases, the homogeneity of the initial conditions, and the available energy supply, point to uniformity of outcome which is characteristic of SNe Ia. And in neither case have the necessary computations been performed to determine what that outcome might be.

## 5 Acknowledgments

We thank Carole Haswell, Chryssa Kouveliotou, Chris Thompson and Chris Tout for helpful conversations, and David Branch for a helpful referee’s report. ARK gratefully acknowledges a PPARC Senior Fellowship, and he and DTW thank the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, for hospitality.