text:
# Recent CMB Observations and the Ionization History of the Universe

## I INTRODUCTION

In the past year, observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) fluctuations by the BOOMERANG  and MAXIMA  experiments have produced data of unprecedented precision on CMB fluctuations at small angular scales. While generally confirming the adiabatic, flat ($`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$) model predicted by inflation, these observations have several puzzling features. In particular, the position of the first acoustic peak is at a slightly larger angular scale than is predicted in the flat model, and the amplitude of the second peak is unexpectedly low (see, e.g., Ref. ). If these results are fit using the standard set of cosmological parameters, the result is a CMB prediction for the baryon density of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.03`$  \- . In contrast, the prediction for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ from Big-Bang nucleosynthesis is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.02`$ .

This apparent discrepancy could easily vanish in the light of future CMB measurements. For the time being, however, it has led to a great deal of interest in models with non-standard ionization histories, since one way to explain the CMB observations and preserve agreement with the BBN baryon density is to postulate that the epoch of recombination was delayed to a lower redshift than in the standard model. Peebles, Seager, and Hu suggested that this could occur if there were sources of Ly $`\alpha `$ photons present at the epoch of recombination . A more speculative mechanism is a time-variation in the fine-structure constant, $`\alpha `$ -. The authors of Ref.  used such a time-variation (along with changes in the cosmological parameters) as an example of how one might model non-standard recombination in general.

Because there are a variety of models with non-standard ionization histories, we feel that is it worthwhile to try to develop a general framework for analyzing such models. Ideally, one would like to investigate the consequences for the CMB of an arbitary $`x_e(z)`$, the ionization fraction as a function of redshift. It is obviously impractical to investigate arbitrary functional forms for $`x_e`$. Instead, we have attempted to parametrize deviations of $`x_e(z)`$ from the standard ionization history in terms of a small number of physically-motivated parameters. In particular, we multiply the overall ionization/recombination rates by a free parameter $`a`$, and the binding energies by a parameter $`b`$. We then calculate the predictions for the CMB fluctuation spectrum as a function of these parameters and compare with observations. Our parametrization is discussed in the next section, along with the results of modifying the ionization history. Our conclusions are given in Sec. 3. Although we have compared our results with the recent BOOMERANG and MAXIMA experiments, our work provides a general framework for discussing non-standard recombination scenarios, and it can be applied to future observations as well.

## II NON-STANDARD RECOMBINATION

Given that one cannot examine all possible recombination histories, what is the best subset to investigate? We have attempted to model a subset of such recombination histories which is physically motivated and, at least to some extent, reduces to the Peebles et al. model  and the time-varying $`\alpha `$ model - as special cases. There are two possible approaches to modifying the ionization history $`x_e(z)`$. We can directly modify this ionization history, or we can alter the evolution equation for $`dx_e/dt`$. We use the latter approach, but we also examine the relationship between variations in $`dx_e/dt`$ and the resulting form for $`x_e(z)`$.

Consider first the equation for $`dx_e/dt`$: \- :

$$\frac{dx_e}{dt}=𝒞\left[n_px_e^2\beta (1x_e)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{B_1B_2}{kT}\right)\right],$$
(1)
where $``$ is the recombination coefficient, $`\beta `$ is the ionization coefficient, $`B_n`$ is the binding energy of the $`n^{th}`$ H-atom level and $`n_p`$ is the sum of free protons and H-atoms. The Peebles correction factor ($`𝒞`$) accounts for the effect of the presence of non-thermal Lyman-$`\alpha `$ resonance photons; it is defined as

$$𝒞=\frac{1+K\mathrm{\Lambda }(1x_e)}{1+K(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\beta )(1x_e)}.$$
(2)
In the above, $`K=H^1n_pc^3/8\pi \nu _{12}^3`$ (where $`\nu _{12}`$ is the Lyman-$`\alpha `$transition frequency), and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the rate of decay of the 2s excited state to the ground state via 2 photons . The ratio $`\beta /`$ is fixed by detailed balance.

We modify the evolution history for $`x_e`$ as follows. We introduce two new parameters, $`a`$, and $`b`$, into equation (1). The parameter $`a`$ multiplies the overall rate for $`dx_e/dt`$, while $`b`$ multiplies all of the binding energies $`B_n`$. Then equation (1) becomes:

$$\frac{dx_e}{dt}=a𝒞\left[n_px_e^2\beta (1x_e)\mathrm{exp}\left(b\frac{B_1B_2}{kT}\right)\right].$$
(3)
We take $`a`$ and $`b`$ to be constants independent of $`z`$ (a model with redshift-dependent $`a`$ and $`b`$ would simply take us back to arbitrary functional behavior for $`x_e(z)`$). The case $`a=b=1`$ corresponds to the standard model. In order to be completely self-consistent the recombination rate for helium should also be changed with varying $`a`$ and $`b`$. However, this is a very small effect and in all our calculations the recombination history of helium is assumed to follow the standard model. This assumption has no bearing on any of our conclusions.

Our $`a`$ and $`b`$ parameters have a simple physical interpretation. A change in $`a`$ alone represents a change in the ionization and recombination rates which preserves detailed balance at a fixed binding energy, since the ratio of the ionization to recombination rate is unchanged. A change in $`b`$ alone simply shifts the epoch of recombination up or down in redshift by a fixed amount.

This particular parametrization has several advantages. The time-varying $`\alpha `$ model is basically a special case of this model . In the Peebles et al. model  delayed recombination arises from additional Ly-$`\alpha `$ resonance photons produced by some unknown source. We have not directly tested this specific model in ($`a`$,$`b`$)-space, but instead we have examined a related model in which the rates for the Ly-$`\alpha `$ and $`2s1s`$ transitions to the ground state are reduced by a factor $`ϵ`$ which is assumed to be constant in time. In this model the Peebles correction factor is changed relative to Eq. (2)

$$𝒞=\frac{1+K\mathrm{\Lambda }(1x_e)}{1+K(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\beta /ϵ)(1x_e)}.$$
(4)
Although this model is very similar in behaviour to that of the Peebles et al. model , they are not completely equivalent. However, the exact form of the Peebles et al. model is quite speculative, and our purpose here has just been to test some of the possible ways to alter recombination. The Peebles et al. model could be mimicked almost exactly by a time-dependent $`ϵ`$, but this is an unnecessary complication.

In order to examine the viable region in ($`a,b`$) parameter space we have performed a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis on the data from the BOOMERANG  and MAXIMA  experiments. Our procedure is to maximize the likelihood for each point in ($`a,b`$) space for the following free parameters: the total matter density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the Hubble parameter, $`H_0`$, the spectral index of the primordial power spectrum, $`n_s`$, and the overall normalization of the spectrum, $`Q`$. We have assumed a flat geometry so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, and also that reionization is unimportant (assuming that the optical depth to reionization is small, $`\tau 0`$). The vector of free parameters is then

$$\theta =\{\mathrm{\Omega }_m,H_0,n_s,Q\},$$
(5)
and the likelihood function to be optimized is

$$A\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(C_l(\theta )C_{l,obs})^2}{\sigma ^2(C_l)}\right).$$
(6)
The agreement between our models and the observations, as a function of $`a`$ and $`b`$, is shown in Figs. 1a and 1b, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.019`$, and in Fig. 2 for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.03`$. In both figures, the area outside the dark (green) shaded region is excluded at the $`1\sigma `$ level, and the area outside the light (yellow) shaded region is excluded at the $`2\sigma `$ level. The allowed region is a broad band, in which larger values of $`a`$ are compensated by smaller values of $`b`$. (Note that the apparent cutoffs at small $`a`$ and small $`b`$ in Fig. 1 are the real boundaries of the confidence region). This result hides a great deal of information: from these graphs alone it is impossible to tell whether the allowed region corresponds to identical forms for $`x_e(z)`$ produced by different values of $`a`$, $`b`$, or whether $`x_e(z)`$ varies greatly within the allowed region. The latter is, in fact, the case. This is shown in Fig. 3, in which we graph the ionization history for three pairs of $`a`$, $`b`$ within the allowed region. Increasing $`b`$ and decreasing $`a`$ results in a surface of last scattering at higher redshift which is much broader.

We also display, for comparison, the values of $`a`$ and $`b`$ which best fit the models with a change in $`\alpha `$ (Fig. 1a) and our version of the Peebles et al. model, given by equation (4) (Fig. 1b). The behavior of the time-varying $`\alpha `$ model is easy to understand; an increase in $`\alpha `$ results in an increase in all of the binding energies (and thus, an increase in $`b`$) and it also increases the ionization and recombination rates (an increase in $`a`$) . Thus, the curve corresponding to time-varying $`\alpha `$ runs almost perpendicular to our best-fit contour, and we find good agreement for negative values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$, as in Refs.  \- . In Fig. 1b, we see that the correspondence between the modified Peebles, et al., model and our $`a`$, $`b`$ formalism is more complicated. The part of the curve corresponding to $`ϵ<1`$ corresponds to faster than normal recombination and is not physically related to the Peebles et al. model. For $`ϵ>1`$ both $`a`$ and $`b`$ are changing with changing $`ϵ`$. From Fig. 1 in Ref. , it is possible to understand the path taken by the curve in $`a,b`$-space. As $`ϵ`$ is increased recombination is pushed to smaller $`z`$, but at the same time the width of the recombination surface decreases. Therefore, for increasing $`ϵ`$, the best-fit curve should move down and to the right in $`a,b`$ space, exactly what is seen from Fig. 1b. This is different from the varying $`\alpha `$ curve, where the width of the recombination surface increases as $`\alpha `$ decreases. This means that the best-fit values in the time-varying $`\alpha `$ model and the best-fit values in the modified Peebles model lie in slightly different parts of the $`a,b`$ plane.

On first sight the results in Fig. 3 would mean that the large allowed region in $`(a,b)`$-space is entirely due to degeneracy between $`a`$, $`b`$ and the other cosmological parameters. In order to investigate this possibility we have performed a simple Fisher matrix analysis of how degenerate $`a`$ and $`b`$ are with the other cosmological parameters. The Fisher information matrix is given by

$$F_{ij}=\underset{l=2}{\overset{l_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}\frac{1}{\sigma (C_l)^2}\frac{C_l}{\theta _i}\frac{C_l}{\theta _j},$$
(7)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ denote elements in the vector of cosmological parameters to be determined and $`\sigma (C_l)`$ is the uncertainty in the measurement of $`C_l`$. The standard deviation in a measurement of parameter $`\theta _i`$ is then given by $`\sigma (\theta _i)^2=(F^1)_{ii}`$. For simplicity we assume that the measurement error in the $`C_l`$’s is purely due to cosmic variance so that

$$\frac{\sigma (C_l)}{C_l}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{2l+1}}.$$
(8)
The outcome of this analysis is shown in Figs. 4a and 4b. The precision with which either $`a`$ or $`b`$ can be determined drops considerably if $`a`$ and $`b`$ must be determined simultaneously, meaning that $`a`$ and $`b`$ are to some extent degenerate. However, the biggest loss of precision still comes when the other cosmological parameters have to be determined as well. The partial degeneracy between $`a`$ and $`b`$ has a simple physical explanation. If the redshift of recombination is lowered the radiation content at recombination is lower, leading to a smaller early ISW effect. On the other hand, if the width of the recombination surface is narrowed, the diffusion damping of fluctuations is smaller. These two effects can to some extent compensate each other, and lead to a partial degeneracy between $`a`$ and $`b`$. However, the degeneracy is not exact, because the early ISW effect dominates near the first peak in the spectrum, while the diffusion damping dominates at larger $`l`$.

A second possible approach to the problem of the CMB as a function of a generic recombination history would be to modify $`x_e(z)`$ directly by hand. This is a somewhat unphysical approach, so we have instead examined the general behavior of $`x_e(z)`$ as a function of $`a`$ and $`b`$. The two key properties of the ionization history which affect the CMB are the redshift of last-scattering, and the width of the last-scattering surface. We parametrize the former in terms of $`z_{1/2}`$, the redshift at which $`x_e=0.5`$. To estimate the width of the last scattering surface, we define the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ to be $`z(x_e=0.9)z(x_e=0.1)`$. While both of these definitions are somewhat arbitrary, they serve the desired purpose of indicating the redshift and width of the last scattering surface. The behavior of these quantities as a function of $`a`$ and $`b`$ is illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6, and in Fig. 7 we show $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/z_{1/2}`$ as a function of $`a`$ and $`b`$.

Several features are obvious from these plots. In Fig. 5, we see that $`z_{1/2}`$ is a function only of $`b`$ (and is independent of $`a`$) in the limit of large $`a`$. We see the same effect in Fig. 6, in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ becomes a function only of $`b`$, but only for the case of small $`b`$. These results follow from the fact that for large $`a`$, the ionization fraction tracks its equilibrium value nearly exactly, and the equilibrium value of $`x_e`$ at fixed $`z`$ depends only on the binding energies (and hence, on $`b`$). This argument breaks down for small $`a`$, since in this case the ionization fraction no longer tracks the equilibrium abundance. The argument breaks down for large $`b`$ for a more complicated reason. Roughly speaking, $`x_e`$ tracks its equilibrium abundance as long as $`(dx_e/dt)/H>1`$, where $`H`$ is the expansion rate. At large $`b`$, recombination occurs earlier, when $`H`$ is larger (smaller cosmic time), requiring a larger value of $`a`$ to maintain equilibrium. This effect is more apparent in Fig. 6 than in Fig. 5 because of the way that we have defined $`z_{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$. The value of $`z_{1/2}`$ is the redshift at which $`x_e=0.5`$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ depends on the much later redshift at which $`x_e=0.1`$. Hence, $`z_{1/2}`$ will be independent of $`a`$ as long as equilibrium is maintained down to the redshift at which $`x_e=0.5`$, while in order for $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ to be independent of $`a`$, equilibrium must be maintained down to the much lower redshift at which $`x_e=0.1`$.

In the limit of extremely small $`a`$, recombination is continuing at the present, and the lower limit $`x_e=0.1`$ we use to calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is never reached. Hence, there is a limiting value for $`a`$ below which $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is undefined; this is reflected in the degeneracy of our contours for small $`a`$ in Fig. 6.

Finally, if we define the width of our last scattering surface relative to the redshift of last scattering (as in Fig. 7), then we see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/z_{1/2}`$ is essentially a function of $`a`$, and is nearly independent of $`b`$. At large $`a`$, the ionization fraction tracks its equilibrium value nearly exactly (and so is independent of $`a`$). Furthermore, when $`x_e(z)`$ is given by the Saha equation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/z_{1/2}`$ is independent of the binding energy. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/z_{1/2}`$ becomes independent of both $`a`$ and $`b`$ for large values of $`a`$, as seen in Fig. 7.

Figs. 5 and 6 indicate that scanning over all possible values of $`a`$ and $`b`$ is nearly equivalent to scanning over all possible values of the redshift and width of the last scattering surface. Hence, our method of varying $`a`$ and $`b`$ provides a quite general study of arbitrary ionization histories. The one exception is the case of large $`z_{1/2}`$ and small $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, which does not correspond to any values of $`a`$ and $`b`$. However, this case corresponds to a decrease in $`x_e`$ which occurs faster than for the equilibrium case. It is difficult to imagine a mechanism for achieving this. Furthermore, we expect the $`C_l`$ spectrum to become independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ for sufficiently small $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, since the thickness of the last-scattering surface will become irrelevant when it becomes so narrow that diffusion damping can be neglected. For completeness we have also calculated $`\chi ^2`$ for the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0`$, for which we take $`x_e`$ to be a step function. These are shown in Fig. 8. We see that no good fit is obtained for any value of $`z_{1/2}`$ ($`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2/\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}3.8`$).

If we consider the allowed region in Fig. 1 as a function of $`z_{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, rather than $`a`$, and $`b`$, we find that both $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ and $`z_{1/2}`$ are restricted by the current CMB observations. At the 95% confidence level, we have $`300<\mathrm{\Delta }z<900`$ and $`500<z_{1/2}<2000`$. From Fig. 7, we see that our limits translate into an upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/z_{1/2}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z/z_{1/2}<0.5`$.

## III CONCLUSIONS

Our investigation of the effect of a non-standard ionization history on the CMB using a change in the overall ionization/recombination rates (through the parameter $`a`$) and in the binding energies (through the parameter $`b`$) appears to provide a very general framework for studying such variations in the standard model. In particular, it seems possible to model arbitrary changes in both the epoch of last scattering and in the width of the last-scattering surface through such variations, with the exception of ionization histories having a narrow, high-redshift surface of last scattering, for which the ionization fraction decreases faster than in the equilibrium case.

Our results indicate that the BOOMERANG and MAXIMA results with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.019`$ (from BBN) can be well-fit over a broad range of choices for $`a`$ and $`b`$. However, the lower bounds on $`a`$ and $`b`$ are quite robust (i.e., nearly independent of variation in the other parameter). We find that $`b>0.5`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(a)>1.6`$ at the 95% confidence level. If we restrict $`a`$ to its standard model value, changing only the binding energies, the allowed (95%) region is given by $`0.5<b<1.1`$. Similarly, if we restrict the binding energies to be unchanged ($`b=1`$) and change only the overall rates, then $`a`$ is constrained to lie in the range $`1.6<\mathrm{log}(a)<0.4`$. Our best-fit model for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.019`$ has a $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom of 0.50. In comparison, the best fit for standard reionization ($`a=b=1`$) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.030`$ gives $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom of 0.82, so both models are good fits. (These numbers include a 10% calibration error for BOOMERANG and 4% for MAXIMA).

One robust prediction of all of these models is a decrease in the amplitude of the third peak, relative to its height in the standard model. In Fig. 9, we show the ratio $`X`$ of the height of the first peak to the height of the third peak as a function of $`a`$ and $`b`$. The standard model ($`a=b=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.019`$) value, $`X=2.65`$, is shown as a dashed curve. The entire $`1\sigma `$ region gives values for $`X`$ larger than in the standard model. In comparison, the best fit model with high baryon density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.030`$) and a standard recombination history produces a much higher third peak ($`X=1.82`$) than in the standard model.

Our results are more general than previous comments that models with late recombination can be distinguished from high $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ models by the amplitude of the third peak. Our allowed region includes models with recombination at slightly higher redshift than in the standard model (these models lie on the extreme left-hand side of Fig. 9). For these models, the third peak is still reduced in amplitude, but this reduction is due to diffusion damping from an increase in the width of the surface of last scattering, rather than from a decrease in the redshift of last scattering as in Refs.  \- . Our results seem to imply that any modification in the recombination history which fits the BOOMERANG and MAXIMA observations will result generically in a decrease in the height of the third peak.

However, we also find that the actual height of the third peak is a function of $`a`$ and $`b`$. From Fig. 9 it can be seen that this ratio increases as we move through the allowed region from small $`a`$, large $`b`$ to large $`a`$, small $`b`$. So if the universe did have a non-standard ionization history, the amplitude of the third peak as shown in Fig. 9 should allow us to determine precisely the nature of the deviation of $`x_e(z)`$ from its standard evolution.

We thank U. Seljak and M. Zaldariagga for the use of CMBFAST . R.J.S. was supported in part by the DOE (DE-FG02-91ER40690).


format: text

text:
# Symmetries Shared by Particle Physics and Quantum Optics

## I Introduction

Two coupled harmonic oscillators play many important roles in physics. In group theory, it generates symmetry group as rich as $`O(3,3)`$ . It has many interesting subgroups useful in all branches of physics. The group $`O(3,1)`$ is of course essential for studying covariance in special relativity. It is applicable to three space-like variables and one time-like variable. In the harmonic oscillator regime, those three space-like coordinates are separable. Thus, it is possible to separate longitudinal and transverse coordinates. If we leave out the transverse coordinates which do not participate in Lorentz boosts, the only relevant variables are longitudinal and time-like variables. The symmetry group for this case is $`O(1,1)`$ easily derivable from the Hamiltonian for the two-oscillator system.

This simple mathematical device is the basic language for two-photon coherent states known as squeezed states of light . However, this $`O(1,1)`$ device plays a much more powerful role in physics. According to Feynman, the adventure of our science of physics is a perpetual attempt to recognize that the different aspects of nature are really different aspects of the same thing . Feynman wrote many papers on different subjects of physics, but they are coming from one paper according to him. We are not able to combine all of his papers, but we can consider three of his papers published during the period 1969-72.

In this report, we would like to consider Feynman’s 1969 report on partons , the 1971 paper he published with his students on the quark model based on harmonic oscillators , and the chapter on density matrix in his 1972 book on statistical mechanics . In these three different papers, Feynman deals with three distinct aspects of nature. We shall see whether Feynman was saying the same thing in these papers. For this purpose, we shall use the $`O(1,1)`$ symmetry derivable directly from the Hamiltonian for two coupled oscillators direct . The standard procedure for this two-oscillator system is to separate the Hamiltonian using normal coordinates. The transformation to the normal coordinate system becomes very simple if the two oscillators are identical. We shall use this simple mathematics to find a common ground for the above-mentioned articles written by Feynman.

First, let us look at Feynman’s book on statistical mechanics . He makes the following statement about the density matrix. When we solve a quantum-mechanical problem, what we really do is divide the universe into two parts - the system in which we are interested and the rest of the universe. We then usually act as if the system in which we are interested comprised the entire universe. To motivate the use of density matrices, let us see what happens when we include the part of the universe outside the system.

In order to see clearly what Feynman had in mind, we use the above-mentioned couples oscillators. One of the oscillators is the world in which we are interested and the other oscillator as the rest of the universe. There will be no effects on the first oscillator if the system is decoupled. Once coupled, we need a normal coordinate system in order separate the Hamiltonian. Then it is straightforward to write down the wave function of the system. Then the mathematics of this oscillator system is directly applicable to Lorentz-boosted harmonic oscillator wave functions, where one variable is the longitudinal coordinate and the other is the time variable. The system is uncoupled if the oscillator wave function is at rest, but the coupling becomes stronger as the oscillator is boosted to a high-speed Lorentz frame .

We shall then note that for two-body system, such as the hydrogen atom, there is a time-separation variable which is to be linearly mixed with the longitudinal space-separation variable. This space-separation variable is known as the Bohr radius, but we never talk about the time-separation variable in the present form of quantum mechanics, because this time-separation variable belongs to Feynman’s rest of the universe.

If we pretend not to know this time-separation variable, the entropy of the system will increase when the oscillator is boosted to a high-speed system . Does this increase in entropy correspond to decoherence? Not necessarily. However, in 1969, Feynman observed the parton effect in which a rapidly moving hadron appears as a collection of incoherent partons . This is the decoherence mechanism of current interest.

In Sec. II, we review the quantum mechanics of coupled harmonic oscillators in which one of them corresponds to the world in which we do physics, and the other in the rest of the universe. In Sec. III, it is shown that the time-separation variable in a two-body bound state belongs to Feynman’s rest of the universe. It is shown also that Feynman’s oscillator formalism includes this time-separation variable. We show in Sec. IV that this $`O(1,1)`$ formalism enables to construct a covariant model of relativistic extended particles. As a consequence, we show that the quark and parton model are two different aspects of one covariant object. It is shown also that this parton picture exhibits the decoherence effect.

## II Two Coupled Oscillators

Two coupled harmonic oscillators serve many different purposes in physics. It is well known that this oscillator problem can be formulated into a problem of a quadratic equation in two variables. To make a long story short, let us consider a system of two identical oscillators coupled together by a spring. The Hamiltonian is

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}\left\{p_1^2+p_2^2\right\}+\frac{1}{2}\left\{K\left(x_1^2+x_2^2\right)+2Cx_1x_2\right\}.$$
(1)
We are now ready to decouple this Hamiltonian by making the coordinate rotation:

$$y_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(x_1x_2\right),y_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(x_1+x_2\right).$$
(2)
In terms of this new set of variables, the Hamiltonian can be written as

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}\left\{p_1^2+p_2^2\right\}+\frac{K}{2}\left\{e^{2\eta }y_1^2+e^{2\eta }y_2^2\right\},$$
(3)
with

$$\mathrm{exp}(\eta )=\sqrt{(K+C)/(KC)}.$$
(4)
Thus $`\eta `$ measures the strength of the coupling. If $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ are measured in units of $`(mK)^{1/4}`$, the ground-state wave function of this oscillator system is

$$\psi _\eta (x_1,x_2)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}(e^\eta y_1^2+e^\eta y_2^2)\right\}.$$
(5)
The wave function is separable in the $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ variables. However, for the variables $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, the story is quite different.

The key question is how quantum mechanical calculations in the world of the observed variable are affected when we average over the other variable. The $`x_2`$ space in this case corresponds to Feynman’s rest of the universe, if we only consider quantum mechanics in the $`x_1`$ space. As was discussed in the literature for several different purposes , the wave function of Eq.(5) can be expanded as

$$\psi _\eta (x_1,x_2)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\eta }\underset{k}{}\left(\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\eta }{2}\right)^k\varphi _k(x_1)\varphi _k(x_2).$$
(6)
This expansion is corresponds to the two-photon coherent states in Yuen’s paper , and the wave function of Eq.(5) is a squeezed wave function .

The question then is what lessons we can learn from the situation in which we average over the $`x_2`$ variable. In order to study this problem, we use the density matrix. From this wave function, we can construct the pure-state density matrix

$$\rho (x_1,x_2;x_1^{},x_2^{})=\psi _\eta (x_1,x_2)\psi _\eta (x_1^{},x_2^{}),$$
(7)
If we are not able to make observations on the $`x_2`$, we should take the trace of the $`\rho `$ matrix with respect to the $`x_2`$ variable. Then the resulting density matrix is

$$\rho (x,x^{})=\psi _\eta (x,x_2)\left\{\psi _\eta (x^{},x_2)\right\}^{}𝑑x_2.$$
(8)
We have simplicity replaced $`x_1`$ and $`x_1^{}`$ by $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ respectively. If we perform the integral of Eq.(8), the result is

$$\rho (x,x^{})=\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(\eta /2)}\right)^2\underset{k}{}\left(\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\eta }{2}\right)^{2k}\varphi _k(x)\varphi _k^{}(x^{}),$$
(9)
which leads to $`Tr(\rho )=1`$. It is also straightforward to compute the integral for $`Tr(\rho ^2)`$. The calculation leads to

$$Tr\left(\rho ^2\right)=\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(\eta /2)}\right)^4\underset{k}{}\left(\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\eta }{2}\right)^{4k}.$$
(10)
The sum of this series is $`(1/\mathrm{cosh}\eta )`$, which is smaller than one if the parameter $`\eta `$ does not vanish.

This is of course due to the fact that we are averaging over the $`x_2`$ variable which we do not measure. The standard way to measure this ignorance is to calculate the entropy defined as

$$S=Tr\left(\rho \mathrm{ln}(\rho )\right),$$
(11)
where $`S`$ is measured in units of Boltzmann’s constant. If we use the density matrix given in Eq.(9), the entropy becomes

$$S=2\left\{\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\frac{\eta }{2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\eta }{2}\right)\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\frac{\eta }{2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\eta }{2}\right)\right\}.$$
(12)
This expression can be translated into a more familiar form if we use the notation

$$\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\eta }{2}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{kT}\right),$$
(13)
where $`\omega `$ is given in Eq.(4.

It is known in the literature that this rise in entropy and temperature causes the Wigner function to spread wide in phase space causing an increase of uncertainty . Certainly, we cannot reach a classical limit by increasing the uncertainty. On the other hand, we are accustomed to think this entropy increase has something to do with decoherence, and we are also accustomed to think the lack of coherence has something to do with a classical limit. Are they compatible? We thus need a new vision in order to define precisely the word “decoherence.”

## III Time-separation Variable in Feynman’s Rest of the Universe

Quantum field theory has been quite successful in terms of perturbation techniques in quantum electrodynamics. However, this formalism is basically based on the S matrix for scattering problems and useful only for physically processes where free a set of particles becomes another set of free particles after interaction. Quantum field theory does not address the question of localized probability distributions and their covariance under Lorentz transformations. The Schrödinger quantum mechanics of the hydrogen atom deals with localized probability distribution. Indeed, the localization condition leads to the discrete energy spectrum. Here, the uncertainty relation is stated in terms of the spatial separation between the proton and the electron. If we believe in Lorentz covariance, there must also be a time separation between the two constituent particles.

Before 1964 , the hydrogen atom was used for illustrating bound states. These days, we use hadrons which are bound states of quarks. Let us use the simplest hadron consisting of two quarks bound together an attractive force, and consider their space-time positions $`x_a`$ and $`x_b`$, and use the variables

$$X=(x_a+x_b)/2,x=(x_ax_b)/2\sqrt{2}.$$
(14)
The four-vector $`X`$ specifies where the hadron is located in space and time, while the variable $`x`$ measures the space-time separation between the quarks. According to Einstein, this space-time separation contains a time-like component which actively participates as can be seen from

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}z^{}\\ t^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\eta & \mathrm{sinh}\eta \\ \mathrm{sinh}\eta & \mathrm{cosh}\eta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z\\ t\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
when the hadron is boosted along the $`z`$ direction. In terms of the light-cone variables defined as

$$u=(z+t)/\sqrt{2},v=(zt)/\sqrt{2}.$$
(16)
The boost transformation of Eq.(15) takes the form

$$u^{}=e^\eta u,v^{}=e^\eta v.$$
(17)
The $`u`$ variable becomes expanded while the $`v`$ variable becomes contracted.

Does this time-separation variable exist when the hadron is at rest? Yes, according to Einstein. In the present form of quantum mechanics, we pretend not to know anything about this variable. Indeed, this variable belongs to Feynman’s rest of the universe. In this report, we shall see the role of this time-separation variable in decoherence mechanism.

Also in the present form of quantum mechanics, there is an uncertainty relation between the time and energy variables. However, there are no known time-like excitations. Unlike Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation applicable to position and momentum, the time and energy separation variables are c-numbers, and we are not allowed to write down the commutation relation between them. Indeed, the time-energy uncertainty relation is a c-number uncertainty relation , as is illustrated in Fig. 1

How does this space-time asymmetry fit into the world of covariance . This question was studied in depth by the present author and his collaborators. The answer is that Wigner’s $`O(3)`$-like little group is not a Lorentz-invariant symmetry, but is a covariant symmetry . It has been shown that the time-energy uncertainty applicable to the time-separation variable fits perfectly into the $`O(3)`$-like symmetry of massive relativistic particles .

The c-number time-energy uncertainty relation allows us to write down a time distribution function without excitations . If we use Gaussian forms for both space and time distributions, we can start with the expression

$$\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(z^2+t^2\right)\right\}$$
(18)
for the ground-state wave function. What do Feynman et al. say about this oscillator wave function?

In his classic 1971 paper , Feynman et al. start with the following Lorentz-invariant differential equation.

$$\frac{1}{2}\left\{x_\mu ^2\frac{^2}{x_\mu ^2}\right\}\psi (x)=\lambda \psi (x).$$
(19)
This partial differential equation has many different solutions depending on the choice of separable variables and boundary conditions. Feynman et al. insist on Lorentz-invariant solutions which are not normalizable. On the other hand, if we insist on normalization, the ground-state wave function takes the form of Eq.(18). It is then possible to construct a representation of the Poincaré group from the solutions of the above differential equation . If the system is boosted, the wave function becomes

$$\psi _\eta (z,t)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2\eta }u^2+e^{2\eta }v^2\right)\right\}.$$
(20)
This wave function becomes Eq.(18) if $`\eta `$ becomes zero. The transition from Eq.(18) to Eq.(20) is a squeeze transformation. The wave function of Eq.(18) is distributed within a circular region in the $`uv`$ plane, and thus in the $`zt`$ plane. On the other hand, the wave function of Eq.(20) is distributed in an elliptic region with the light-cone axes as the major and minor axes respectively. If $`\eta `$ becomes very large, the wave function becomes concentrated along one of the light-cone axes. Indeed, the form given in Eq.(20) is a Lorentz-squeezed wave function. This squeeze mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 2.

It is interesting to note that the Lorentz-invariant differential equation of Eq.(19) contains the time-separation variable which belongs to Feynman’s rest of the universe. Furthermore, the wave function of Eq.(18) is identical to that of Eq.(5) for the coupled oscillator system, if the variables $`z`$ and $`t`$ are replaced $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ respectively. Thus the entropy increase due to the unobservable $`x_2`$ variable is applicable to the unobserved time-separation variable $`t`$.

## IV Feynman’s Parton Picture

It is a widely accepted view that hadrons are quantum bound states of quarks having localized probability distribution. As in all bound-state cases, this localization condition is responsible for the existence of discrete mass spectra. The most convincing evidence for this bound-state picture is the hadronic mass spectra which are observed in high-energy laboratories . However, this picture of bound states is applicable only to observers in the Lorentz frame in which the hadron is at rest. How would the hadrons appear to observers in other Lorentz frames? To answer this question, can we use the picture of Lorentz-squeezed hadrons discussed in Sec. III.

The radius of the proton is $`10^5`$ of that of the hydrogen atom. Therefore, it is not unnatural to assume that the proton has a point charge in atomic physics. However, while carrying out experiments on electron scattering from proton targets, Hofstadter in 1955 observed that the proton charge is spread out . In this experiment, an electron emits a virtual photon, which then interacts with the proton. If the proton consists of quarks distributed within a finite space-time region, the virtual photon will interact with quarks which carry fractional charges. The scattering amplitude will depend on the way in which quarks are distributed within the proton. The portion of the scattering amplitude which describes the interaction between the virtual photon and the proton is called the form factor.

Although there have been many attempts to explain this phenomenon within the framework of quantum field theory, it is quite natural to expect that the wave function in the quark model will describe the charge distribution. In high-energy experiments, we are dealing with the situation in which the momentum transfer in the scattering process is large. Indeed, the Lorentz-squeezed wave functions lead to the correct behavior of the hadronic form factor for large values of the momentum transfer .

Furthermore, in 1969, Feynman observed that a fast-moving hadron can be regarded as a collection of many “partons” whose properties do not appear to be quite different from those of the quarks . For example, the number of quarks inside a static proton is three, while the number of partons in a rapidly moving proton appears to be infinite. The question then is how the proton looking like a bound state of quarks to one observer can appear different to an observer in a different Lorentz frame? Feynman made the following systematic observations.

* The picture is valid only for hadrons moving with velocity close to that of light.
* The interaction time between the quarks becomes dilated, and partons behave as free independent particles.
* The momentum distribution of partons becomes widespread as the hadron moves fast.
* The number of partons seems to be infinite or much larger than that of quarks.

Because the hadron is believed to be a bound state of two or three quarks, each of the above phenomena appears as a paradox, particularly b) and c) together.

In order to resolve this paradox, let us write down the momentum-energy wave function corresponding to Eq.(20). If the quarks have the four-momenta $`p_a`$ and $`p_b`$, we can construct two independent four-momentum variables

$$P=p_a+p_b,q=\sqrt{2}(p_ap_b),$$
(21)
where $`P`$ is the total four-momentum and is thus the hadronic four-momentum. $`q`$ measures the four-momentum separation between the quarks. Their light-cone variables are

$$q_u=(q_0q_z)/\sqrt{2},q_v=(q_0+q_z)/\sqrt{2}.$$
(22)
The resulting momentum-energy wave function is

$$\varphi _\eta (q_z,q_0)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2\eta }q_u^2+e^{2\eta }q_v^2\right)\right\}.$$
(23)
Because we are using here the harmonic oscillator, the mathematical form of the above momentum-energy wave function is identical to that of the space-time wave function. The Lorentz squeeze properties of these wave functions are also the same. This aspect of the squeeze has been exhaustively discussed in the literature .

When the hadron is at rest with $`\eta =0`$, both wave functions behave like those for the static bound state of quarks. As $`\eta `$ increases, the wave functions become continuously squeezed until they become concentrated along their respective positive light-cone axes. Let us look at the z-axis projection of the space-time wave function. Indeed, the width of the quark distribution increases as the hadronic speed approaches that of the speed of light. The position of each quark appears widespread to the observer in the laboratory frame, and the quarks appear like free particles.

The momentum-energy wave function is just like the space-time wave function, as is shown in Fig. 3. The longitudinal momentum distribution becomes wide-spread as the hadronic speed approaches the velocity of light. This is in contradiction with our expectation from nonrelativistic quantum mechanics that the width of the momentum distribution is inversely proportional to that of the position wave function. Our expectation is that if the quarks are free, they must have their sharply defined momenta, not a wide-spread distribution.

However, according to our Lorentz-squeezed space-time and momentum-energy wave functions, the space-time width and the momentum-energy width increase in the same direction as the hadron is boosted. This is of course an effect of Lorentz covariance. This indeed is the key to the resolution of the quark-parton paradox .

The most puzzling problem in the parton picture is that partons in the hadron appear as incoherent particles, while quarks are coherent when the hadron is at rest. Does this mean that the coherence is destroyed by the Lorentz boost? The answer is NO, and here is the resolution to this puzzle.

When the hadron is boosted, the hadronic matter becomes squeezed and becomes concentrated in the elliptic region along the positive light-cone axis. The length of the major axis becomes expanded by $`e^\eta `$, and the minor axis is contracted by $`e^\eta `$.

This means that the interaction time of the quarks among themselves become dilated. Because the wave function becomes wide-spread, the distance between one end of the harmonic oscillator well and the other end increases. This effect, first noted by Feynman , is universally observed in high-energy hadronic experiments. The period is oscillation is increases like $`e^\eta `$.

On the other hand, the interaction time with the external signal, since it is moving in the direction opposite to the direction of the hadron, it travels along the negative light-cone axis. If the hadron contracts along the negative light-cone axis, the interaction time decreases by $`e^\eta `$. The ratio of the interaction time to the oscillator period becomes $`e^{2\eta }`$. The energy of each proton coming out of the Fermilab accelerator is $`900GeV`$. This leads the ratio to $`10^6`$. This is indeed a small number. The external signal is not able to sense the interaction of the quarks among themselves inside the hadron.

Indeed, Feynman’s parton picture is one concrete physical example where the decoherence effect is observed. As for the entropy, the time-separation variable belongs to the rest of the universe. Because we are not able to observe this variable, the entropy increases as the hadron is boosted to exhibit the parton effect. The decoherence is thus accompanied by an entropy increase.

Let us go back to the coupled-oscillator system. The light-cone variables in Eq.(20) correspond to the normal coordinates in the coupled-oscillator system given in Eq.(2). According to Feynman’s parton picture, the decoherence mechanism is determined by the ratio of widths of the wave function along the two normal coordinates.

## Concluding Remarks

In this report, we reported that the simple mathematical device $`O(1,1)`$ is powerful enough to combine three seemingly different physical ideas of R. P. Feynman. Of course, this group is a one-paramater Lorentz group. The three-parameter $`O(2,1)`$ group and the six-parameter $`O(3,1)`$ are of course much more powerful mathematically, and they may be able to combine many other areas of physics. In this connection, it is interesting to note that the Lorentz group is becoming the basic mathematical language for classical ray optics, including polarization optics , lens optics , interferometers , and multilayer optics.