text:
# ORTHONORMAL EIGENBASES OVER THE OCTONIONS

## 1 Introduction

In previous work  we considered the real eigenvalue problem for $`3\times 3`$ octonionic Hermitian matrices. 111There are also eigenvalues which are not real , whose intriguing physical properties were discussed in . A related eigenvalue problem, which admits only real eigenvalues, was discussed in . For this case, there are 6, rather than 3, real eigenvalues . We showed that these come in 2 independent families, each consisting of 3 real eigenvalues, which satisfy a modified characteristic equation rather than the usual one. Furthermore, the corresponding eigenvectors are not orthogonal in the usual sense, but do satisfy a generalized notion of orthogonality. Finally, all such matrices admit a decomposition in terms of (the “squares” of) orthonormal eigenvectors, although these matrices are not idempotents (matrices which square to themselves).

It is the purpose of this paper to extend these results by showing how to project an arbitrary 3-component octonionic vector into the eigenspaces determined by the real eigenvalues of a given $`3\times 3`$ octonionic Hermitian matrix. Somewhat surprisingly, this turns out to require all 6 eigenvalues; generic 3-component octonionic vectors therefore have 6 vector components, rather than 3.

## 2 Octonionic Eigenvectors

In this section, we summarize the main results of our previous work .

The (real) octonions $`𝕆`$ are the noncommutative, nonassociative division algebra generated by adjoining 7 anticommuting square roots of $`1`$, with a particular multiplication table, to the real numbers $``$. 222This construction can be performed over any field $`𝕂`$, although this will not in general yield a division algebra. We restrict ourselves here to the real octonions, as was done in . As was explicitly verified in , most of these results hold over an arbitrary field, since division is only used in constructing normalized eigenvectors. This generalizes both the complex numbers $``$ and Hamilton’s quaternions $``$; further details can be found in  or . We refer to a matrix as complex or quaternionic if its components lie in some complex or quaternionic subalgebra of $`𝕆`$, respectively.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a $`3\times 3`$ octonionic Hermitian matrix. We consider solutions of the eigenvalue equation

$$𝒜v=\lambda v$$
(1)
where $`v𝕆^3`$ and $`\lambda `$. Then $`\lambda `$ satisfies a modified characteristic equation of the form

$$det(\lambda IA)=\lambda ^3(\mathrm{tr}A)\lambda ^2+\sigma (A)\lambda detA=r$$
(2)
where the determinant is defined in terms of the Freudenthal product and where

$$\sigma (A)=\frac{1}{2}\left((\mathrm{tr}A)^2\mathrm{tr}(A^2)\right)$$
(3)
The real number $`r`$ is a root of the quadratic equation

$$r^2+4\mathrm{\Phi }r|\alpha |^2=0$$
(4)
where both the associative 3-form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the associator $`\alpha `$ are totally antisymmetric functions of the non-real components of $`𝒜`$, which are given explicitly in Section 4. There are 3 real solutions for $`\lambda `$ corresponding to each solution for $`r`$, which labels the families.

If the roots $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ of (4) are the same, then, over the real octonions, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0=\alpha `$, which forces $`𝒜`$ to be quaternionic (and $`r_1=0=r_2`$). Unless $`𝒜`$ is complex, there are still two families of eigenvectors, but $`r`$ can not be used to label them. Rather, as described in the next section, one family consists of the usual quaternionic eigenvectors, while the other eigenvectors are purely octonionic, in the sense that their components are orthogonal (as vectors in $`^8`$) to the quaternionic subalgebra containing the components of $`𝒜`$. Finally, if $`𝒜`$ is complex, there is only one family of eigenvectors, obtained by (right) multiplying the usual complex eigenvectors by arbitrary octonions.

Within each family, many of the usual properties hold. Two eigenvectors $`u`$, $`v`$ corresponding to different eigenvalues in the same family are orthogonal, but in the generalized sense that

$$(uu^{})v=0=(vv^{})u$$
(5)
Even in the case of repeated eigenvalues, 3 normalized, orthogonal eigenvectors $`v_m`$, with eigenvalues $`\lambda _m`$, can be found in each family. Orthonormality can be expressed in the form

$$=\underset{m=1}{\overset{3}{}}v_m^{}v_m^{}$$
(6)
where $``$ denotes the identity matrix, and these eigenvectors can be used to decompose $`𝒜`$ in the form

$$𝒜=\underset{m=1}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda _mv_m^{}v_m^{}$$
(7)
## 3 Quaternionic Projections

In this section, we consider the much easier case of quaternionic matrices. While we are primarily interested in the $`3\times 3`$ case, all results in this section apply to $`n\times n`$ quaternionic Hermitian matrices.

It is easily shown  that the right eigenvalue problem

$$𝒜v=v\lambda $$
(8)
for quaternionic Hermitian matrices $`𝒜`$ admits solutions only for $`\lambda `$. It is straightforward to find an orthonormal basis $`\{v_n\}`$ of (quaternionic) eigenvectors, which satisfies

$`𝒜v_m`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _mv_m`$ (9)
$`v_m^{}v_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{mn}`$ (10)
Given any quaternionic vectors $`v`$, $`x`$, the projection of $`x`$ along $`v`$ is simply $`v(v^{}x)`$, so that any quaternionic vector has vector components of the form

$$x=v_m^{}(v_m^{}x)$$
(11)
which makes sense, since (the parentheses are not needed and) orthonormality can be written as

$$=v_m^{}v_m^{}$$
(12)
We now ask about the octonionic properties of the quaternionic matrix $`𝒜`$. To do this, we view the octonions through the Cayley-Dickson process as

$$𝕆=\mathrm{}$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is any octonionic unit orthogonal (as vectors in $`^8`$) to all elements of $``$, the quaternionic subalgebra of $`𝕆`$ containing the components of $`𝒜`$. 333If $`𝒜`$ is complex, the choice of $`𝕆`$ is not fixed. In this case, however, there is only one family of (octonionic) eigenvectors. We assume in what follows that $`𝒜`$ is not complex.

What are the octonionic eigenvectors of $`𝒜`$? As discussed in , if the components of $`𝒜`$ and $`v`$ lie in the (same) quaternionic subalgebra $``$, then we have

$$𝒜(\mathrm{}v)=\mathrm{}(\overline{𝒜}v)$$
(14)
Thus, if $`u`$ is an eigenvector of $`\overline{𝒜}`$, then $`\mathrm{}u`$ is an eigenvector of $`𝒜`$ with the same eigenvalue! This implies that, over $`𝕆`$, the real eigenvalues of $`𝒜`$ consist of its eigenvalues over $``$ together with the eigenvalues of $`\overline{𝒜}`$ over $``$.

As expected, there are two families of (octonionic) eigenvectors of $`𝒜`$, the usual family from the quaternionic eigenvalue problem, together with an “extra” family, namely $`\{\mathrm{}u_m\}`$ where $`\{u_m\}`$ are the (quaternionic) eigenvectors of $`\overline{𝒜}`$, with real eigenvalues $`\mu _m`$. This latter family also leads to a decomposition of $`𝒜`$. To see this, note that if $`u`$ is quaternionic then

$$(\mathrm{}u)(\mathrm{}u)^{}=\mathrm{}(uu^{})\overline{\mathrm{}}=\overline{uu^{}}$$
(15)
from which it follows that for any quaternionic $`u`$, $`x`$

$$\left[(\mathrm{}u)(\mathrm{}u)^{}\right](\mathrm{}x)=\overline{uu^{}}(\mathrm{}x)=\mathrm{}(uu^{}x)$$
(16)
But this means that $`(\mathrm{}u)(\mathrm{}u)^{}`$ has precisely the same projection properties over $`\mathrm{}`$ as $`uu^{}`$ has over $``$. Thus, if $`\{u_m\}`$ are (quaternionic) orthonormal eigenvectors of $`\overline{𝒜}`$, then $`\{\mathrm{}u_m\}`$ are (octonionic) orthonormal eigenvectors of $`𝒜`$, and in particular

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle (\mathrm{}u_m^{})(\mathrm{}u_m^{})}`$ (17)
$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mu _m(\mathrm{}u_m^{})(\mathrm{}u_m^{})}`$ (18)
Putting this all together, we can decompose an arbitrary octonionic vector $`x`$ in terms of the eigenvectors of $`𝒜`$ and $`\overline{𝒜}`$. First of all, there is a unique decomposition of $`x`$ into a quaternionic piece and a “purely octonionic” piece, given by

$$x=x_1+\mathrm{}x_2$$
(19)
where both $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are quaternionic. The rest is easy: Expand $`x_1`$ in terms of the (quaternionic) eigenvectors of $`𝒜`$, and $`x_2`$ in terms of the (quaternionic) eigenvectors of $`\overline{𝒜}`$. Equivalently, expand $`x_1`$ in terms of $`\{v_m\}`$ and $`\mathrm{}x_2`$ in terms of $`\{\mathrm{}u_m\}`$. This leads to

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle v_m^{}(v_m^{}x_1)}+{\displaystyle \left((\mathrm{}u_m^{})(\mathrm{}u_m^{})\right)(\mathrm{}x_2)}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle v_m^{}v_m^{}x_1}+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle u_m^{}u_m^{}x_2}`$
We have therefore succeeded in projecting $`x`$ into vector components, each of which is an eigenvector of $`𝒜`$. However, there are twice as many components as one would have expected from the purely quaternionic problem. Furthermore, while it is clear that $`v_m^{}v_m^{}x_1`$ is an eigenvector of $`𝒜`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda _m`$, since it is a quaternionic right multiple of $`v_m`$, it is rather surprising that $`\mathrm{}(u_mu_m^{}x_1)`$ is an eigenvector of $`𝒜`$, since it is not in general a multiple of $`\mathrm{}u_m`$!

We will see in the next section that this entire structure carries over to the fully octonionic setting, but that the identification of the two families is not as easy.

## 4 Decompositions of the Octonions

In this section, we summarize and interpret some of the more technical results from , which we will need to prove our main theorems in Section 8. These results are interesting in their own right, however, as they lead to the consideration of several intriguing ways of decomposing the octonions into subspaces.

Write the components of the octonionic Hermitian matrix $`𝒜`$ as

$$𝒜=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}d& a& \overline{b}\\ \overline{a}& e& c\\ b& \overline{c}& f\end{array}\right)$$
(21)
with $`d,e,f`$ and $`a,b,c𝕆`$. With these conventions, the associative 3-form  is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{Re}(a\times b\times c)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}\left(a(\overline{b}c)c(\overline{b}a)\right)$$
(22)
and the associator is given by

$$\alpha =[a,b,c]=(ab)ca(bc)$$
(23)
Viewing the octonions as the real vector space $`^8`$, we introduce the subspace $`𝕋𝕆`$ spanned by the elements of $`𝒜`$. In other words, $`𝕋`$ is the real vector space consisting of all (real) linear combinations of the components of $`𝒜`$, that is

$$𝕋=1,a,b,c$$
(24)
Since the quaternionic case was covered in the previous section, we will assume throughout the remainder of the paper that $`\alpha 0`$, which in turn implies that $`𝕋`$ has dimension 4 (as a real vector space).

Define the characteristic operator $`K`$ associated with $`𝒜`$ by

$$K[x]=𝒜\left(𝒜(𝒜x)\right)(\mathrm{tr}𝒜)\left(𝒜(𝒜x)\right)+\sigma (𝒜)(𝒜x)(det𝒜)x$$
(25)
where $`x𝕆^3`$. As we may readily verify, the operator $`K`$ is diagonal, and can thus be reinterpreted as an operator acting on single octonions. This operator, also called $`K`$, can be written in the form

$$K[p]=c(b(ap))+\overline{a}(\overline{b}(\overline{c}p))\left(c(ba)+\overline{a}(\overline{b}\overline{c})\right)p$$
(26)
for any $`p𝕆`$. In this form, $`K`$ is the same as the operator introduced in , where it was shown to satisfy the same quadratic equation as $`r`$, that is (compare (4))

$$K^2+4\mathrm{\Phi }K|\alpha |^2=0$$
(27)
In fact, comparing (25) with (2), we see that if $`v`$ is an eigenvector of $`𝒜`$, so that (1) holds, then

$$K[v]=rv$$
(28)
with $`r`$ a solution of (4). Thus, the operator $`K`$ can be used to distinguish the 2 families of eigenvectors, labeled by the 2 possible values of $`r`$. 444Recall that, over the real octonions, the two solutions of (4) are distinct unless $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0=\alpha `$, in which case $`𝒜`$ is quaternionic and can be handled by the methods of the previous section, and $`K`$ is not needed to distinguish the two families.

Using results from , we can show that $`K`$ takes a particularly simple form on $`𝕋`$, namely

$$K[t]=t\alpha (t𝕋)$$
(29)
Since

$$𝕋^{}𝕋\alpha $$
(30)
it follows using (27) that

$$K[u]=u(\alpha +4\mathrm{\Phi })(u𝕋^{})$$
(31)
An intriguing property of the decomposition

$$𝕆=𝕋𝕋\alpha $$
(32)
is that it is almost of the Cayley-Dickson form. Direct computation establishes the multiplication table (for $`t_1,t_2𝕋`$)

$`t_1(t_2\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`(t_2t_1)\alpha `$ (33)
$`(t_1\alpha )t_2`$ $`=`$ $`(t_1\overline{t_2})\alpha `$ (34)
$`(t_1\alpha )(t_2\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{t_2}t_1|\alpha |^2`$ (35)
which is of the Cayley-Dickson form. However, this is not a true Cayley-Dickson extension of $`𝕋`$, since $`𝕋`$ is not closed under multiplication.

Using these ideas, it can be shown (Proposition 3.1 of ) that the eigenspace of $`K`$ with eigenvalue $`r`$ is precisely $`𝕋(r+4\mathrm{\Phi }+\alpha )`$, that is

$$K[q]=r_mqt𝕋:q=t(r_m+4\mathrm{\Phi }+\alpha )$$
(36)
where the solutions of (4) are denoted $`r_m`$, with $`m=1,2`$. If we define 555Since $`r_1+r_2+4\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, the denominator can only vanish if $`r_1=r_2`$, or equivalently $`\tau =0`$ in the notation of ; this cannot happen here since we are assuming $`\alpha 0`$.

$$s_m=\frac{r_m+4\mathrm{\Phi }+\alpha }{2(r_m+2\mathrm{\Phi })}$$
(37)
then the decomposition of $`𝕆`$ into its eigenspaces under $`K`$ takes the form

$$𝕆=𝕋s_1𝕋s_2$$
(38)
and the normalization is chosen such that

$$s_1+s_2=1$$
(39)
The eigenspaces $`𝕋_m:=𝕋s_m`$ are orthogonal, since $`K`$ is self-adjoint. Explicitly, the inner product in $`^8`$ takes the form

$$2pq=p\overline{q}+q\overline{p}=\overline{p}q+\overline{q}p(p,q𝕆)$$
(40)
and $`K`$ satisfies

$$K[p]q=pK[q]$$
(41)
It is now straightforward to define projection operators

$$K_m=\frac{K+r_m+4\mathrm{\Phi }}{2(r_m+2\mathrm{\Phi })}$$
(42)
from $`𝕆`$ to $`𝕋_m`$, which satisfy

$$K_1+K_2=1K_1K_2=0=K_2K_1K_1^2=K_1K_2^2=K_2$$
(43)
Finally, since $`\overline{s_1}s_2`$ is proportional to $`\alpha `$, we also have

$$𝕋_2𝕋_1\alpha $$
(44)
The following two results are key to understanding the family structure. First, assertions (v) and (vi) of Proposition 3.2 of  imply

$$p,q𝕋_mp\overline{q}𝕋$$
(45)
Second, as we also see from Proposition 4.1 of , for any $`p_1,p_2𝕋`$ and $`q𝕋_m`$, we have

$$[p_1,p_2,q]=p_3q$$
(46)
where $`p_3𝕆`$ depends on $`p_1,p_2`$ (and $`m`$), but does not depend on $`q`$. These two results are the primary ingredients in the proofs in Section 8 of our main results.

## 5 Octonionic Projections

We now return to the discussion of octonionic eigenvectors, showing how to project any vector into the 6 eigenspaces they determine. We begin with the following result.

Theorem 1: Let a $`3\times 3`$ octonionic Hermitian matrix $`𝒜`$ be given, and suppose that $`\mathrm{v}𝕆^3`$ is an eigenvector of $`𝒜`$, that is, $`𝒜\mathrm{v}=\mathrm{\lambda }\mathrm{v}`$ with $`\mathrm{\lambda }`$. Suppose further that $`\mathrm{K}[\mathrm{v}]=\mathrm{r}\mathrm{v}`$, with $`\mathrm{K}`$ as in (25), and let $`\mathrm{y}𝕆^3`$ be any other vector satisfying $`\mathrm{K}[\mathrm{y}]=\mathrm{r}\mathrm{y}`$ (for the same $`\mathrm{r}`$). Then

$$(vv^{})\left((vv^{})y\right)=(v^{}v)\left((vv^{})y\right)$$
(47)
Proof: See Section 8.

In other words, $`(vv^{})y`$ is an eigenvector of a new $`3\times 3`$ octonionic Hermitian matrix, namely $`vv^{}`$; if $`v`$ is normalized, the eigenvalue is $`1`$. Note, however, that $`(vv^{})y`$ is not necessarily a multiple of $`v`$! If $`u`$ is another eigenvector of $`𝒜`$ in the same family, so that $`K[u]=ru`$ and $`𝒜u=\mu u`$ and where we assume $`\lambda \mu `$, then $`u`$ and $`v`$ are orthogonal (in the sense (5)). This in turn means that $`u`$ and $`(vv^{})y`$ are eigenvectors of the matrix $`vv^{}`$ with different eigenvalues, and hence must themselves be orthogonal, that is

$$uu^{}\left((vv^{})y\right)=0$$
(48)
This shows that, restricted to the appropriate $`K`$ eigenspace, $`uu^{}`$ and $`vv^{}`$ are projection operators! Extending this to a family $`\{u,v,w\}`$ of orthonormal eigenvectors, we obtain using (7)

$$𝒜\left((vv^{})y\right)=\lambda \left((vv^{})y\right)$$
(49)
Furthermore, (6) leads to

$$y=(uu^{})y+(vv^{})y+(ww^{})y$$
(50)
which expresses $`y`$ as the sum of its projections along the eigenvectors.

Given an arbitrary vector $`x𝕆^3`$, we can use the projection operators $`K_m`$ to project $`x`$ into the eigenspaces of $`K`$, by defining

$$x_n=K_n[x]$$
(51)
and noting that

$$x=x_1+x_2$$
(52)
We can then use (50) to expand each of $`x_m`$ along the appropriate eigenvectors. Putting this all together, any vector $`x`$ can be expanded into six terms, consisting first of the projections into the 2 eigenspaces of $`K`$, then decomposing each of these separately into 3 eigenspaces of $`𝒜`$.

## 6 Families of Eigenvectors

Is the family structure a property of the matrix $`𝒜`$, or of its eigenvectors? We show in this section that it is the latter.

Decompose $`𝒜`$ in terms of an orthonormal eigenbasis as in (7), yielding

$$𝒜=\lambda uu^{}+\mu vv^{}+\nu ww^{}$$
(53)
Then, by the results of the last section, all of $`u`$, $`v`$, $`w`$ have the same eigenvalue under $`K`$, namely

$$r=\lambda \mu \nu det𝒜$$
(54)
Note that this result holds regardless of the values of $`\lambda `$, $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$; it is a property of the orthonormal “basis” $`\{u,v,w\}`$, not of a particular matrix $`𝒜`$.

Consider the special case where $`𝒜=vv^{}`$, with $`v^{}v=1`$. Then $`v`$ is an eigenvector of $`𝒜`$ with eigenvalue $`1`$, and

$$K[v]=(det𝒜)v$$
(55)
since

$$\mathrm{tr}𝒜=1\sigma (𝒜)=0$$
(56)
In this case, (47) simplifies to

$$K[y]=(detvv^{})yvv^{}\left((vv^{})y\right)=(vv^{})y$$
(57)
since the converse follows immediately from the definition of $`K`$ (with $`𝒜=vv^{}`$). Special cases of vectors $`u`$ satisfying this condition are $`u`$ orthogonal to $`v`$, so that

$$𝒜u=(vv^{})u=0$$
(58)
or

$$uu^{}=svv^{}$$
(59)
with $`s`$, in which case

$$𝒜u=(vv^{})u=\frac{1}{s}(uu^{})u=\frac{1}{s}u(u^{}u)=u$$
(60)
The decomposition (50) shows that any $`y`$ satisfying

$$K[y]=(det𝒜)y$$
(61)
can be written as the sum of terms of one of these two types.

If $`vv^{}`$ is complex, then $`v`$ determines a single “family” containing all vectors. Furthermore, $`v`$ must then be a (right) octonionic multiple of a complex vector $`v_0`$; the “family” structure in this case corresponds to completing $`v_0`$ as usual to a complex orthonormal basis. However, there are also other families containing $`v`$. (If $`v`$ is a real eigenvector of $`𝒜`$, then $`𝒜`$ must be real or complex, and there is then no nontrivial family containing $`v`$.)

If $`vv^{}`$ is not complex, there is an $`8`$-parameter family of vectors orthogonal to $`v`$, and a $`4`$-parameter family of vectors satisfying (59). We therefore see that $`v`$ alone determines a 12-parameter family of vectors satisfying both (47) and (61). This family consists precisely of the (real) linear combinations of a family of eigenvectors of any matrix of the form (53). In other words, a family of eigenvectors is just an orthonormal “basis”, but each such basis spans only half of $`𝕆^3`$.

We can complete this picture by showing that each vector $`v`$ (with $`vv^{}`$ not complex) lies in exactly one such family. To do this, we first remove the requirement that $`v`$ be an eigenvector from (47). Specifically, we have

Theorem 2: Let $`\mathrm{K}`$ be the operator constructed via (25) from a given $`3\times 3`$ octonionic Hermitian matrix $`𝒜`$, and let $`\mathrm{y},\mathrm{z}𝕆^3`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{K}[\mathrm{y}]=\mathrm{r}\mathrm{y}`$ and $`\mathrm{K}[\mathrm{z}]=\mathrm{r}\mathrm{z}`$ with $`\mathrm{r}`$. Then

$$(yy^{})\left((yy^{})z\right)=(y^{}y)\left((yy^{})z\right)$$
(62)
Proof: See Section 8.

This finally allows us to argue that if $`y`$ is in the family defined by $`v`$, by virtue of satisfying either (and hence both) of (47) and (61), then $`v`$ is also in the family defined by $`y`$. This follows immediately from Theorem 2, since (61) is enough to satisfy the condition of the theorem, and (62) (with $`z=v`$) ensures that $`v`$ is in the family defined by $`y`$.

More generally, Theorem 2 shows that $`u`$, $`w`$ belong to the same family (with $`u`$ normalized by $`u^{}u=1`$) if and only if

$$uu^{}\left((uu^{})w\right)=\left((uu^{})w\right)$$
(63)
For, (63) shows that $`w`$ is in the family defined by $`u`$. If $`u`$ is in the family defined by $`v`$, say, then the previous argument shows that $`v`$ is also in the family defined by $`u`$. But then $`v`$ and $`w`$ are both in the family defined by $`u`$, and the theorem shows that they must each be in the family defined by the other. This shows that any family which contains $`u`$ must also contain $`w`$. The converse, namely that $`u`$, $`w`$ in the same family implies (63), follows immediately from the theorem.

## 7 Discussion

As made clear in Section 4, the family structure, which was originally discovered on $`𝕆^3`$ arising from the eigenvectors of $`𝒜`$, can be viewed as a property of the octonions themselves. From this point of view, the only purpose of $`𝒜`$ is in determining the octonions $`a,b,c`$ used to define $`𝕋`$.

So suppose $`a,b,c𝕆`$ are given, and further assume that $`\alpha =[a,b,c]0`$. Does this decomposition of $`𝕆`$ depend on the choice of $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, or merely on $`𝕋`$? Suppose $`A,B,C𝕋`$, so that

$$A=A_0+A_1a+A_2b+A_3c$$
(64)
with $`A_m`$, and similarly for $`B`$ and $`C`$. If we write $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ for $`(A_1,A_2,A_3)^3`$, etc., then

$`[A,B,C]`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C})[a,b,c]`$ (65)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(A,B,C)`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C})\mathrm{\Phi }(a,b,c)`$ (66)
where $`(\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C})=(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{B})\stackrel{}{C}`$ is the vector triple product, assumed to be nonzero. Since both $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ scale with the same factor, so does $`r`$ — which means that the $`s_m`$ are unchanged! The decomposition of $`𝕆`$ thus depends only on the subspace $`𝕋`$.

In terms of matrices, this means that any matrix with non-real components $`A,B,C𝕋`$ satisfying $`(\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{B},\stackrel{}{C})0`$ determines the same family structure as the original matrix $`𝒜`$. The 2 families determined by $`𝒜`$ are just

$$𝕆^3=𝔽_1𝔽_2:=(𝕋_1)^3(𝕋_2)^3$$
(67)
An essential ingredient in this picture is the result (45), which ensures that, for any vector $`v𝔽_m`$, the components of $`vv^{}`$ are in $`𝕋`$!

We conclude by emphasizing that the subspaces $`𝕋_m`$ have many of the properties of the quaternions: They are 4-dimensional, they lead to an almost Cayley-Dickson multiplication table for the octonions, and, our main result, they have just enough associativity to enable arbitrary vectors to be projected into eigenspaces.

## 8 Proofs of the Theorems

We give here the proofs of our two theorems. This section can be skipped on first reading; all results have also been independently derived using Mathematica.

Theorem 1: Let a $`3\times 3`$ octonionic Hermitian matrix $`𝒜`$ be given, and suppose that $`\mathrm{v}𝕆^3`$ is an eigenvector of $`𝒜`$, that is, $`𝒜\mathrm{v}=\mathrm{\lambda }\mathrm{v}`$ with $`\mathrm{\lambda }`$. Suppose further that $`\mathrm{K}[\mathrm{v}]=\mathrm{r}\mathrm{v}`$, with $`\mathrm{K}`$ as in (25), and let $`\mathrm{y}𝕆^3`$ be any other vector satisfying $`\mathrm{K}[\mathrm{y}]=\mathrm{r}\mathrm{y}`$ (for the same $`\mathrm{r}`$). Then

$`(vv^{})\left((vv^{})y\right)=(v^{}v)\left((vv^{})y\right)`$
Proof: By (36), $`v,y(𝕋_m)^3`$, and by (45) the components of $`vv^{}`$ are in $`𝕋`$. Thus, introducing a natural matrix associator, (46) implies that

$$(vv^{})\left((vv^{})y\right)=\left((vv^{})(vv^{})\right)y+[vv^{},vv^{},y]=𝒱y$$
(68)
where $`𝒱`$ does not depend on $`y`$! But alternativity implies that the vector associator satisfies

$$[v,v^{},v]0$$
(69)
which in turn implies that

$$(vv^{})\left((vv^{})v\right)=(v^{}v)\left((vv^{})v\right)$$
(70)
(and the right-hand-side simplifies even further). We want to show that

$$𝒱=(v^{}v)(vv^{})$$
(71)
but (70) in fact only shows that

$$𝒱=(v^{}v)(vv^{})+𝒱_1;𝒱_1v=0$$
(72)
However, if $`u`$ is a different eigenvector of $`𝒜`$ in the same family, that is, if

$`𝒜u`$ $`=`$ $`\mu u`$ (73)
$`K[u]`$ $`=`$ $`r_mu`$ (74)
where we assume without loss of generality that $`\mu \lambda `$, then the orthogonality (5) of $`u`$ and $`v`$ implies that

$$(vv^{})\left((vv^{})u\right)=(v^{}v)\left((vv^{})u\right)$$
(75)
(since each side is $`0`$). Since the right-hand-side is $`𝒱u`$, we must also have

$$𝒱_1u=0$$
(76)
so that $`𝒱_1=0`$ when acting on any eigenvector of $`𝒜`$ (in the same family as $`v`$). But this means that $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜+𝒱_1`$ have the same decomposition and are therefore equal, which forces $`𝒱_1=0`$, and establishes (71).  $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 2: Let $`\mathrm{K}`$ be the operator constructed via (25) from a given $`3\times 3`$ octonionic Hermitian matrix $`𝒜`$, and let $`\mathrm{y},\mathrm{z}𝕆^3`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{K}[\mathrm{y}]=\mathrm{r}\mathrm{y}`$ and $`\mathrm{K}[\mathrm{z}]=\mathrm{r}\mathrm{z}`$ with $`\mathrm{r}`$. Then

$`(yy^{})\left((yy^{})z\right)=(y^{}y)\left((yy^{})z\right)`$
Proof: As in the proof of the Theorem 1, $`y,z(𝕋_m)^3`$ by (36), and the components of $`yy^{}`$ are in $`𝕋`$. We can therefore write

$$yy^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}d_1& t_3& \overline{t_2}\\ \overline{t_3}& d_2& t_1\\ t_2& \overline{t_1}& d_3\end{array}\right)$$
(77)
with $`d_n`$ and $`t_n𝕆`$. Introducing the components $`y_n,z_n𝕋_m`$ of $`y,z`$, direct computation using alternativity shows that

$$t_2(t_3y_2)=y_3|y_1|^2|y_2|^2=d_1\overline{t_1}y_2$$
(78)
and cyclic permutations, where we have used the fact that

$`d_1`$ $`=`$ $`|t_3|^2`$ (79)
$`t_3`$ $`=`$ $`y_1\overline{y_2}`$ (80)
and so forth. But (46) implies that

$$t_2(t_3q)=(t_2t_3)q+[t_2,t_3,q]=pq$$
(81)
for some $`p𝕆`$ which is independent of $`q𝕋_m`$, and we have therefore shown that

$$p=d_1\overline{t_1}$$
(82)
In particular, we must have

$$t_2(t_3z_2)=d_1\overline{t_1}z_2$$
(83)
and cyclic permutations. A similar argument establishes

$$\overline{t_1}(\overline{t_3}q)=d_2t_2q$$
(84)
for any $`q𝕋_m`$, together with its cyclic permutations.

We are now ready to compute both sides of (62) explicitly. We have first of all

$$(yy^{})z=\left(\begin{array}{c}d_1z_1+t_3z_2+\overline{t_2}z_3\\ \overline{t_3}z_1+d_2z_2+t_1z_3\\ t_2z_1+\overline{t_1}z_2+d_3z_3\end{array}\right)$$
(85)
Multiply on the left by $`yy^{}`$, and consider for simplicity only the last component, which is

$`t_2(d_1z_1+t_3z_2+\overline{t_2}z_3)+\overline{t_1}(\overline{t_3}z_1+d_2z_2+t_1z_3)+d_3(t_2z_1+\overline{t_1}z_2+d_3z_3)`$
$`=`$ $`(d_1+d_3)t_2z_1+\overline{t_1}(\overline{t_3}z_1)+t_2(t_3z_2)+(d_2+d_3)\overline{t_1}z_2+(|t_1|^2+|t_2|^2+d_3^2)z_3`$
$`=`$ $`(d_1+d_2+d_3)(t_2z_1+\overline{t_1}z_2+d_3z_3)`$
where we have used (79), (80), (83), and (84) in the last equality. Repeating this for the remaining components, and noticing that

$$d_1+d_2+d_3=\mathrm{tr}(yy^{})=y^{}y$$
(87)
completes the proof.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Theorem 1 clearly follows from Theorem 2. But one can also argue that the reverse is true, thus avoiding the detailed computation given above. The argument goes as follows: $`yy^{}`$ is itself a Hermitian matrix with components in $`𝕋`$, and, by the argument given in Section 7, it determines the same family structure as the given matrix $`𝒜`$, and can therefore be used instead of $`𝒜`$ in applying Theorem 1.


format: text

text:
# Where are the high velocity clouds?

## 1. Introduction

The nature of the high-velocity clouds (HVCs) seen in 21 cm HI emission remains controversial since their discovery over three decades ago (Muller, Oort & Raimond 1963). Most fundamentally, the distances, hence mass and environment of these objects remain poorly constrained, largely due to the difficulty of finding background sources (against which the clouds would appear in absorption) at known, comparable distances. It is possible that the HVCs may not have a single common origin, but rather they are a mix of relatively nearby ($`|z|<10\mathrm{kpc}`$), “Galactic fountain” clouds, of material stripped from the Magellanic Clouds and other satellites of the Milky Way, and perhaps of extra-galactic objects (Blitz et al. 1999; Braun & Burton 1999, 2000). This latter possibility is most intriguing since the HVCs would provide a link to the numerous dark matter substructure halos expected in the hierarchical cold dark matter model (Moore et al. 1999, Klypin et al. 1999).

Previous studies have used the morphological, two phase core-envelope structure of the HVCs to infer approximate distances (Wolfire et al. 1995). Bland-Hawthorn & Maloney (1999) have proposed the use of sensitive $`H_\alpha `$ emission measurements, together with a model for the ionizing photon flux as a function of position within the Galactic halo to infer their distances. A handful of HVCs have upper distance limits that are $`<10`$ kpc due to the presence of background stars (c.f. Gibson et al. 2000).

Brüns et al. (2000, 2001) found that $`20\%`$ of HVCs exhibit position-velocity gradients, termed *head-tail* HVCs by analogy with the structures of comets. A likely cause for their elongated morphology is that they are interacting with a more diffuse, ionized ambient wind. Further evidence for such cloud-halo interactions are evident from the compressed leading fronts of many HVCs. In this letter we use high resolution hydro-dynamical simulations to examine the morphologies of HVCs moving through a diffuse medium. This allows us to infer the efficiency of the stripping process and will place limits on the possible environment of the HVCs. A detailed study of the interaction between clouds and a diffuse medium can be found in Murray et al. (1993).

## 2. The structure of the HVCs

The typical angular size of HVCs are $`\theta 1^{}`$ and in order to be included in existing catalogues (eg, Brüns et al. 2000) their HI column density, $`N_{HI}`$, should be $`>10^{19}`$ cm-2. For a cloud at distance $`D`$, we can estimate its radius, $`R`$, mean spatial HI density, $`n_c`$, and mass, $`M_c`$, as follows. $`R=\theta D2\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}(\theta /1^{})(D/100\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})`$ and $`n_c=N_{HI}/2R`$, i.e.

$$n_c10^3\mathrm{cm}^3\left(\frac{N_{HI}}{10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2}\right)\left(\frac{\theta }{1^{}}\right)^1\left(\frac{D}{100\mathrm{kpc}}\right)^1$$

The cloud mass $`M_cf_{HI}^1N_{HI}\pi R^2m_{HI}`$, can be written;

$$M_c2\times 10^5f_{HI}^1M_{}\left(\frac{N_{HI}}{10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2}\right)\left(\frac{\theta }{1^{}}\right)^2\left(\frac{D}{100\mathrm{kpc}}\right)^2$$

where $`f_{HI}`$ is the neutral hydrogen fraction. A cloud is gravitationally bound when it satisfies the virial relation $`R\sigma _c^2GM_c`$. With our model assumptions and $`\sigma _c10`$ km/s, this translates to

$$10^{12}\frac{\mathrm{cm}^2}{s^2}=2\times 10^{10}\frac{\mathrm{cm}^2}{f_{HI}s^2}\left(\frac{N_{HI}}{10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2}\right)\left(\frac{\theta }{1^{}}\right)\left(\frac{D}{100\mathrm{kpc}}\right)$$

.

The general conclusion is that the nearby HVCs at distances $`D=110`$ kpc, have masses $`M_c=10100M_{}`$ and must be in pressure equilibrium with the warm ionised medium located within and above the galactic disk. HVCs at several hundred kpc may also be pressure confined by some external medium, or they may be gravitationally bound by a dark matter halo. For both type of clouds we assume that they consist mainly of warm gas with temperature $`T_c10^4K`$, velocity dispersion $`\sigma _c10`$ km/s, and density $`n_c`$. The dark matter dominated HVCs are constructed by adopting a dark matter density profile $`\rho (r)=A/(r_c^2+r^2)`$ where $`A=v_{cir}^2/4\pi G`$, $`v_{cir}=15`$ km/s and $`r_c=1`$ kpc. The HI lies primarily within the constant density core of the dark matter halo and we adjust its temperature profile to maintain hydro-static equilibrium. A typical cloud may be at a distance of 300 kpc, have a radius of $`1`$ kpc and a total gas mass of $`1.6\times 10^7M_{}`$. This leads to a central column density of $`10^{20}`$ cm-2 which is higher than the average quoted by Wakker and van Woerden (1991) but similar to those observed by Brüns et al. (2001).

The diffuse halo material (number density $`n_w`$) is taken to be at a temperature $`T_h10^6K`$, comparable to the virial temperature for a circular velocity of 200 km/s. The wind velocity $`v_w`$ should be of this same order; this is confirmed by the observed distribution of HVC galactocentric velocities. Clouds ejected from the disk in a Galactic fountain would fall back to the disk with a velocity $`\sqrt{GM_{disk}/z}200`$km/s, where $`M_{disk}5\times 10^{10}M_{}`$ and vertical height $`z10`$ kpc.

## 3. The density of diffuse gas in galactic halos

The properties of the diffuse outer halo of the Milky Way is poorly known. Such a halo is expected to exist as left over material that has been unable to cool since the formation of the Milky Way. Observations so far provide only upper limits on its mean density. Constraints come from the measured soft X-ray background (Snowden et al. 1997, Benson et al. 2000), from the dispersion measures of pulsars in globular clusters and in the Magellanic Clouds, from the kinematics (Moore & Davis 1994) or lifetime (Murali 2000) of the Magellanic Stream. All of these constraints place the density of the ionised Galactic halo gas $`n_w(50\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})<5\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}^3`$. Blitz & Robishaw (2000) derive a halo gas density that is a factor of 2 lower than this at a distance of 200 kpc by applying ram pressure stripping to the halo dwarf spheroidals. Deep ROSAT observations of nearby disk galaxies provide complimentary upper limits on a very extended component, but they give positive detections of ionised gas close to the disks that has a density of $`n_w(10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})10^3\mathrm{cm}^3`$ (Bregman & Houck 1997, Ehle et al. 1998). We caution that direct observational limits of the diffuse gas density at 200-500 kpc do not exist.

The fact that the HVCs are moving at 150-300 km/s through this medium provides an upper limit to its density by considering their terminal velocity (c.f. Benjamin & Danly 1997). The equation of motion of a pure gas cloud of mass $`m_c`$, area $`A`$ and velocity $`v_c`$ through a diffuse medium of density $`\rho _w`$ is $`mdv_c/dt=\rho _w(r)v_c^2Am_cg(r)`$. Assuming that the gas is at terminal velocity will give an upper limit to $`\rho _w(r)`$. In this case $`dv_c/dt=0`$ and $`v_t=\sqrt{N_{HI}.(GM/r^2)/\rho _w(r)}`$, therefore a pure gas cloud with column density $`N_{HI}=10^{20}`$ cm-2, at distances of 10 kpc and 100 kpc moving at $`v_t=300`$ km/s constrains the local IGM $`n_w(10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})<3\times 10^3`$ cm-3 and $`n_w(100\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})<3\times 10^4`$ cm-3 (for pure gas clouds).

The amount of gas stripped from a dark matter dominated HVC can be estimated using the analytic approach described in Gunn & Gott (1972). The gaseous component will be stripped when the ram pressure of the environment is larger than the gravitational restoration force, $`\rho _wv_w^2=(\varphi _{_{DM}}/r)\sigma `$ where $`\sigma `$ is the surface density. This is plotted in Figure 1 for our fiducial dark matter dominated HVC and predicts that it will survive intact for halo densities $`n_w<10^5`$ cm-3 but would be completely stripped if $`n_w`$ is an order of magnitude larger than this. Figure 1 also shows the results for gas clouds embedded within a cuspy density profile with $`\rho (r)r^1`$. The steeper potential can retain gas more easily and may explain why tiny dwarf galaxies such as Fornax can hold on to gas and form new stars at its center.

## 4. Results

The simulations have been tackled as pure hydro-dynamical processes. The HI is described by a perfect fluid with equation of state $`p=(\gamma 1)\rho ϵ`$ where $`\rho `$ is the density, $`ϵ`$ the specific internal energy, and the adiabatic exponent $`\gamma =5/3`$. The pure gas HVCs are constructed to be in pressure equilibrium with the external hot medium, whereas the dark matter dominated clouds have an additional potential field that maintains their dynamical equilibrium. In order to integrate the hydro-dynamic equations describing the evolution of HVCs moving through an ionised medium we have used the high-resolution shock-capturing method described in Quilis, Ibáñez and Sáez (1996). This code was specially designed for an accurate treatment of fluid dynamical processes, and is extremely good at dealing with shocks, strong discontinuities, turbulent regions and low density regimes. A specially adapted version for the HVC simulations has been developed. We employ a fixed grid with ratio of sides 2:1:1 and a wind blowing down the long axis. The timestep is set by the minimum Courant condition in the simulation volume which typically sets several hundred steps per crossing time.

We ran a grid of simulations, varying the density and temperature of the external medium from $`10^3`$ to $`10^6`$ cm-3 and $`10^610^4`$K respectively, and cloud velocities between 170 km/s and 400 km/s in order to be conservative. Most of our simulations were run without allowing radiative cooling, although a test run with cooling switched on showed no difference in the response of the HVC to the wind. Our model HVCs are simplistic since they have no internal structure, however we do not expect that this would greatly influence our conclusions.

### 4.1. I. Dark matter dominated clouds

Figure 2 shows snapshots of the dark matter dominated HVC after $`3\times 10^8`$ years which is approximately 20 crossing times ($`t_{cr}2R/v_w`$) at a wind velocity $`v_w=200`$ km/s. The physical size of the box is 12 kpc$`\times `$12 kpc$`\times `$24 kpc, and the number of cells used $`128\times 128\times 256`$, giving a nominal numerical resolution of 90 pc. We ran several test simulations with $`256\times 256\times 512`$ cells and found no difference with the lower resolutions runs. The grey scale shows the projected surface density of neutral gas and we plot column density contours of cold HI. We define a tail as visible if it has column density higher than $`10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. For wind densities $`2\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}^3`$ we find no visible tails, although very weak features with $`N_{HI}10^{18}`$ cm-2 are present.

Panel (b) of Figure 2 shows the same dark matter dominated HVC moving though a medium an order of magnitude denser. Although this may be unrealistic for a Galactic halo component, it does give rise to visible tails of gas. All of the neutral gas has been pushed away from the dark matter potential, as expected from the application of the Gunn and Gott stripping criteria. This material will eventually be completely stripped away and evaporate within the hot component.

In all cases that we simulate we find a similar behaviour. A weak bow shock is visible in front of the cloud that penetrates the IGM and increases its local temperature. The neutral gas at the front edge of the HVC is compressed and heated, whilst a region of low pressure is created immediately behind the cloud. Panels (c) and (d) of Figure 2 shows the rich structure and detail that can be captured with our code. If the wind is not strong enough to cause ram-pressure stripping, viscous/turbulent stripping will continue to remove gas, however, the timescale for this process is fairly long, hence the tails can be quite weak.

### 4.2. II: Pure gas clouds

Figure 3 shows the evolution of the pure gas clouds. In each case, the physical size of the box is 180 pc$`\times `$180 pc$`\times `$ 360 pc the number of grid cells used is $`128\times 128\times 256`$, giving a numerical resolution of 3 pc. The evolution and features are similar as the dark matter dominated clouds; when the wind is dense enough then visible tails of stripped HI are created.

If the initial column density is too low, the pure gas clouds are compressed at the leading edges and the velocity of the entire cloud decreases as it moves towards its terminal velocity. The main difference between the HVCs in Figure 3(a) and 3(d) are their initial gas densities, which is an order of magnitude higher in Figure 3(d). The IGM density and velocities are the same, but the denser HVC shows visible tails whereas the tails in Figure 3(a) are below $`10^{19}`$ cm-2 and would not be observable.

The mass ratio of gas in the head and tails is typically around 10:1. This result appears very robust regardless of the parameters used in the simulation and is lower than the 3:1 ratio quoted by Brüns et al. (2000). The characteristic lifetimes of the pure gas clouds are quite short and once they enter a diffuse environment that is sufficiently dense to create visible tails, they are rapidly destroyed on a timescale of $`10^7`$ Myrs. Therefore the high fraction of observed clouds with tails suggests that we are observing them soon after they are impacting into a region of high density gas. The tails trail directly behind the motion of the clouds therefore we might expect an alignment effect as the clouds fall directly onto the disk.

## 5. Summary

We have performed hydro-dynamical simulations of HVCs moving through a diffuse medium in an attempt to explain observations of head-tail structures and compression fronts. We find that these features are reproduced in either pure gas clouds or gas embedded within a dark matter halo, as long as the wind density is higher than $`10^4`$ cm-3. This is supported by a simple application of Gunn & Gott’s (1972) stripping criteria.

A variety of direct and indirect observations suggest that the density of gas in the outer halo is $`n_w(50\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})<5\times 10^5`$ cm-3. Although observational constraints on the halo gas density at 100–400 kpc are highly uncertain, our naive expectation is that it should decrease at larger radii. The ionised gas close to the Galactic disk can reach much higher densities, $`10^3`$ cm-3, therefore a Galactic fountain mechanism can reproduce these observations. If the halo gas density increases between 50 and 300 kpc by a factor of two then the observed head-tail structures could also be associated with infalling extra-galactic dark matter dominated clouds.

The lifetime of the neutral tails in our simulations is $`10^9`$ years after which time the column density drops below the observational threshold. Since the observations suggest that approximately 20% of HVCs show evidence of tails or compression fronts, a timing problem may exist since we must be witnessing the destruction of a large fraction of the HVC population at the current epoch. The Galactic fountain can circumvent this problem since clouds are continuously created and destroyed. The high fraction of clouds with signs of interaction is expected since clouds are only visible as they condense and fall back onto the disk at which point they are susceptible to stripping.

Our simulations show that all HVCs should show tails of stripped gas at lower column densities $`<10^{18}`$ cm-2 which may be detectable with higher resolution observations. One may also detect $`H_\alpha `$ emission from the secondary shocks that heat the front of the cloud.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Sergio Gelato, Mary Putman and Leo Blitz for useful discussions. VQ is a Marie Curie Fellow (grant HPMF-CT-1999-00052), BM is supported by the Royal Society. Simulations were carried out as part of the Virgo consortium on COSMOS an Origin 2000.


text:
# Empirical Constraints on Convective Core Overshoot

## 1 Introduction

Understanding the physics of convective core overshoot is important in interpreting the color-magnitude diagrams (CMD’s) and the luminosity functions of open star clusters, and generally of intermediate-age stellar populations. This is due to the facts that increasing the mixed core mass modifies the evolutionary tracks of stars (affecting the isochrone shape), and lengthens the evolutionary lifetimes of stars (affecting age determinations and luminosity functions near the main sequence turnoff). Thus, in addition to the classical problem of establishing the chronology of star clusters in the Galaxy and nearby systems, core overshoot affects the spectral dating of young and intermediate age galaxies observed at large redshifts.

Convective core overshoot is loosely understood here as the presence of material motions and/or mixing beyond the formal boundary for convection set by the classical Schwarzschild criterion (1906). An early study by Saslaw & Schwarzschild (1965), based on thermodynamic grounds (i.e. the edge of the convective core in massive stars is sharply defined in an entropy diagram), suggested that little overshoot takes place at the edge of convective cores. For this reason, it was believed that the presence of a gap in the CMD of open star clusters and it’s magnitude could be used as indicators of the age and chemical composition of the cluster (Aizenman, Demarque & Miller 1966). However, Shaviv & Salpeter (1973) pointed out that if one takes into account the presence of hydrodynamic motions and turbulence, one might expect some non-negligible amount of overshoot.

In fact, observational studies of the size of gaps near the turnoff in open star cluster CMD’s suggest better agreement with theoretical isochrones which admit some amount of core overshoot (Maeder & Mermilliod 1981; Stothers & Chin 1991; Carraro et al. 1993; Daniel et al. 1994; Demarque, Sarajedini & Guo 1994; Kozhurina-Platais et al. 1997; Nordström, Andersen & Andersen 1997). Several computational schemes of various degrees of sophistication in treating the physics of overshoot have been developed for stellar evolution codes (Prather & Demarque 1974; Cogan 1975; Maeder 1975; Maeder & Meynet 1988; Bertelli et al. 1990). As well, studies of detached eclipsing binaries in which the components have convective cores suggest some core overshoot of the order of 0.2 pressure scale height (Ribas, Jordi & Gimenez 2000).

Stothers & Chin (1991) pointed out the high sensitivity of the amount of convective core overshoot to the adopted opacities. For example, increases in radiative opacities from the OPAL group (Iglesias & Rogers 1996) over the previous generation Los Alamos Opacity Library (Huebner et al. 1977), decrease the need for overshoot in comparison with observational data. In fact, the nature of the overshoot depends on the details of the local physics at the convective core edge. As pointed out by Zahn (1991), the local Péclet number, which characterizes the relative importance of radiative and turbulent diffusivity, determines whether in the mixed overshoot region, penetration takes place (i.e. the temperature gradient is the adiabatic gradient), or rather the local radiative transfer dominates the energy transport (overmixing). In the latter case, the stable temperature gradient is unaffected by the mixing.

Roxburgh (1989, 1992) also considered the physics of convective core overshoot from a different point of view. His integral constraint argument places an upper limit on the amount of core overshoot which can take place in the stellar interior. Zahn (1991) argued that overshoot is practically adiabatic at the edge of the convective core, except in a thin transition layer, and therefore the Roxburgh’s integral constraint defines the convective core size.

More information can be gained from numerical simulations of convection. Because of the long relaxation times involved, it is not possible to perform 3D simulations of convective cores in full physical detail. Useful scaling information can however be derived from idealized 3D simulations (Singh, Roxburgh & Chan 1995, 1998).

The likely presence of differential rotation deep within stars brings further complexity to the overshoot problem, as one might expect a shear layer to develop at the edge of a convective core (Pinsonneault et al. 1991). Deupree (1998, 2000) considered the combined effects of rotation and convective overshoot in massive stars, which have large convective cores, with the help of 2D hydrodynamic calculations. Rotation likely plays a role in the case of less massive stars as well (in the range 1.5-2.0 $`M_{}`$), with shear driven turbulence near the edge of the convective core inducing mixing from the helium enriched core into the envelope.

Since a complete physical theory predicting the amount of overshoot for a star of a given mass and chemical composition, free of arbitrary parameters, is not available at this point, we approach the problem of core overshoot in the spirit of the work of Rosvick & VandenBerg (1998) in this paper. We consider and test parameterizations of convective overshoot, which are compatible with sound physical principles and with the growing data available on open cluster CMDs. These simple parameterizations have the merit of being readily implemented in a stellar evolution code.

## 2 Test of Overshoot Treatments

The local pressure scale height is often used to empirically constrain the amount of convective core overshoot in stellar evolution calculations. This conventional method assumes that the radial size of the overshoot region is proportional to the pressure scale height at the edge of a convective core, i.e. $`d_{os}`$ =$`\alpha `$$`H_p`$.

Observational studies of open clusters show that a moderate amount of core overshoot is essential to explain the observed gap near the turnoff in CMDs. In a study of NGC 2420, Demarque et al. (1994) found that $`\alpha `$=0.23 is required for the best fit CMD. Also, Kozhurina-Platais et al. (1997) estimated $`\alpha `$=0.20 and 0.25 for NGC 3680 and NGC 752 repectively by isochrone fitting (cf. Nordström et al. 1997 for NGC 3680). Overshoot effects appear to decrease due to the decreasing mass of stars near the turnoff in older clusters (Carraro et al. 1994; Sarajedini et al. 1999). Although open clusters do not have many member stars, these studies of near solar metallicity clusters show that the conventional method constrains the amount of core overshoot relatively well for intermediate-mass stars.

However, this pressure scale height method brings unsatisfactory results for low-mass stars ($``$ 1.1- 1.2 $`M_{}`$for Z= $`Z_{}`$). These stars have very small cores or no convective core at all, thus the local pressure scale height at the convective core edge would be very large implying a large amount of overshoot. Figure 1 illustrates the effects of the convective core and core overshoot on stellar evolution. With no overshoot, models of mass $``$ 1.2 $`M_{}`$show a MS hook which is caused by abrupt contraction of a convective core due to the flat hydrogen profile. When overshoot is included, evolutionary tracks show a redder MS hook due to the hydrogen supply from mixing in the overshoot region which lengthens the hydrogen core burning lifetime. However, the effect of overshoot on low-mass stars seems too large compared with observations. If the amount of overshoot is set to 0.2 $`H_p`$, low-mass stars with 1.0 and 1.1 $`M_{}`$show a prominent overshoot effect in their evolutionary shape. However, these low-mass stars are not expected to have large overshoot regions since relatively old open clusters do not show an overshoot gap near the turnoff. Therefore, simple use of the $`\alpha `$parameter cannot give consistent results for a wide range of masses and ages.

Roxburgh’s integral constraint (Roxburgh 1989; Zahn 1991) is another way to quantify the amount of core overshoot since it provides an upper limit to the extent of convective penetration in the following formula:

$$_0^{r_c}(L_{rad}L_{tot})\frac{1}{T^2}\frac{dT}{dr}𝑑r=0$$
(1)
where $`L_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑜𝑡}}`$ is the total luminosity produced by nuclear reactions, $`L_{\mathrm{𝑟𝑎𝑑}}`$ is the radiative luminosity, and $`r_c`$ is the radius of the effective core. Since the energy is transported by both radiation and convection inside a convective core, the integrand is positive until it reaches the Schwarzschild boundary where $`L_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑜𝑡}}`$ = $`L_{\mathrm{𝑟𝑎𝑑}}`$. The region of convective overshoot is located beyond this boundary where $`L_{\mathrm{𝑟𝑎𝑑}}`$ $`>`$ $`L_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑜𝑡}}`$ up to the point $`r`$ = $`r_c`$, which satisfies the constraint.

However, Canuto (1997) pointed out in his theoretical investigation that Roxburgh’s integral only gives an upper limit to the overshoot extent. Rosvick & VandenBerg (1998) used this constraint on NGC 6819 and found that a factor of 0.5 in Roxburgh’s integral is required for the best fit CMD. Therefore, simply adopting Roxburgh’s integral to quantify the amount of overshoot is not valid, and the fuzzy factor (analogous to the $`\alpha `$parameter in the pressure scale height method) should be tested for clusters of various ages and metallicities.

Faced with the current situation of the core overshoot treatments, we developed a consistent approach which can be used regardless of stellar mass. Our simple approach of core overshoot is discussed in the next section. All stellar evolutionary tracks are constructed with Yale Rotating Evolution Code (YREC) with OPAL opacities (Iglesias & Rogers 1996). The general description of stellar evolution models can be found in Yi et al. (2001).

### 2.1 Maximum amount of core overshoot ($`\beta `$ limit)

Roxburgh (1992) showed that his integral constraint gives an upper limit on the extent of convective penetration ($`d_{max}`$ =$`\beta `$ $`R_{core}`$). For very small convective cores, the maximum amount of the extent of penetration is $``$ 18 $`\%`$ of the core radius, independent of the details of energy generation and opacity. The maximum amount, $`\beta `$ limit, varies from 0.18 to 0.4 depending on the size of the convective core.

Following Roxburgh’s integral constraint, we implemented an upper limit of overshoot within the conventional pressure scale height method in order to remove the erroneously large overshoot effect on low-mass stars. In other words, we limited the core overshoot in a way that the amount of overshoot, $`d_{os}`$ (= $`\alpha `$$`H_p`$), cannot be larger than a portion of the core radius, $`d_{max}`$ (= $`\beta `$ $`R_{core}`$). The merit of this modification is that the ad hoc size of overshoot regions for low-mass ($``$ 1 $`M_{}`$) stars can be effectively corrected without affecting the evolution of higher mass stars.

Since the integral constraint is obtained for convective penetration which maintains a nearly adiabatic temperature structure, we used the adiabatic temperature gradient in the overshoot region. The effect of the temperature structure will be discussed in the following section. Accepting the result of open cluster studies, we used $`\alpha `$=0.2, and performed numerical experiments with various $`\beta `$ limits for solar metallicity stars.

The effect of the $`\beta `$ limit on stellar evolution is presented in Fig. 2. For low-mass stars, the presence of the overshoot effect is very sensitive to the choice of the upper limit of overshoot. It can be easily noticed that the overshoot effect on low-mass stars (mass $``$ 1.1 $`M_{}`$) becomes negligible for $`\beta `$ $``$ 0.15. However, if the upper limit is greater than 20 % of the core radius, the overshoot effect is still too large for low-mass stars. This result is consitent with Roxburgh’s value of 0.18 for a nearly zero convective core radius. Thus, the erroneously large effect of core overshoot due to the failure of $`\alpha `$parameterization for low-mass stars can be effectively corrected by limiting the amount of overshoot to $``$ 15 % of the core radius.

The choice of $`\beta `$ does not significantly affect the evolution of intermediate-mass stars (1.5 - 2.0 $`M_{}`$) when $`\beta `$ $``$ 0.15 is used. These models are consistent with those of the same $`\alpha `$without limiting the overshoot extent. However, if the amount of overshoot is restricted to much less than 15 % of the core radius, the overall overshoot effect would be significantly reduced. Therefore $`\beta `$ $``$ 0.15 for intermediate-mass stars gives effectively the same result with a smaller $`\alpha `$of the conventional method, which is undesirable in our effort to modify the $`\alpha `$paramerterizaion with the $`\beta `$ limit for a given $`\alpha `$value. Combining the criteria for low-mass and intermediate-mass stars, we conclude that 15 % of the core radius ($`\beta `$ =0.15) is a proper limit of overshoot for intermediate to low-mass stars.

Due to the effects of overshoot on stellar evolution, such as shape of evolutionary locus near turnoff and time scale in hydrogen-burning stage, the ensuing isochrones are expected to show a different shape. We used 1.0 - 2.0 $`M_{}`$evolutionary tracks with mass bin size 0.1 $`M_{}`$in order to generate isochrones and test the effect of the $`\beta `$ limit. We compared $`\alpha `$=0.2 isochrones with/without limiting the amount of overshoot (Fig. 3). As expected from the comparison of evolutionary tracks, $`\beta `$ =0.2 isochrones are not much different from the isochrones without the $`\beta `$ limit. When overshoot is limited to 10 % of the core radius, overall isochrones are dimmed due to the reduced size of the overshoot region, especially for younger ages. This result is similar to when smaller $`\alpha `$is used. Thus, $`\beta `$ =0.1 is too small to keep the amount of overshoot of intermediate-mass stars given by $`\alpha `$=0.2.

Focusing on the modification of the $`\alpha `$parameter method, we increased $`\beta `$ with increasing stellar mass in order to minimize the effect of limiting the extent of overshoot for stars of mass $``$ 1.5 $`M_{}`$. Since the maximum extent of core overshoot depends on the size of a convective core, higher mass stars would have larger limits according to Roxburgh’s integral constraint. Thus, we assumed a simple linear relation between stellar mass and the upper limit of overshoot ($`\beta =aM+b`$). The coefficients are determined for $`\beta `$ = 0.1 and 0.4 for 1 and 2 $`M_{}`$stars respectively. Fig. 4 demonstrates how the mass-$`\beta `$ relation changes stellar evolution. Compared with $`\beta `$=0.15 models, models with increasing $`\beta `$ show slightly bluer and brighter isochrones for younger ages. Although increased $`\beta `$ models are closer to the models without the $`\beta `$ limit, the difference is not significant.

### 2.2 Penetration and Overmixing

The overshoot region generally represents a well mixed zone between convective and radiative zones. The temperature structure of the overshoot region depends on the physical conditions such as the ratio of radiative to kinetic timescales at the convective core boundary. According to Zahn (1991; also see Demarque et al. 1994), if the adiabatic cells penetrate into the radiative zone sufficiently far, then the temperature gradient of the overshooting zone would be adiabatic also (convective penetration). Or, if the adiabatic cells dissolve rapidly, then only mixing would occur with the remaining radiative gradient (overmixing).

However, it is not well known whether the temperature structure of the overshoot region is adiabatic or radiative. In order to test the effects of the temperature structure on stellar evolution, we generated evolutionary tracks and isochrones with/without forcing the temperature gradient of the overshoot region to be adiabatic.

Stellar evolutionary tracks of solar metallicity show almost no difference between overmixing and convective penetration when the conventional method of $`\alpha `$=0.1 - 0.3 is used. This is also true when the amount of overshoot is limited by any factor of the core radius (Fig. 5). We conclude that temperature structure of the overshoot region does not play a crucial role in stellar evolution, at least when the local pressure scale height method is used. This is due to the fact that this transition region is very thin. Note that the effect is slightly larger in low-mass stars.

## 3 Conclusion

This paper presents an approach to the treatment of convective core overshoot in stellar evolutionary models for stars with convective cores. By limiting the amount of convective core overshoot, the failure of the pressure scale height method can be effectively corrected. 15 % of the core radius would be a proper limit of core overshoot for intermediate to low mass stars. We intend to use evolutionary tracks based on this approach to explore population synthesis and the spectral dating of high redshift galaxies.

It is crucial to test stellar evolution by observation. Several observational approaches to test stellar models with convective overshoot are under way. The systematic study of open star clusters that exhibit hydrogen exhaustion phases provides important constraints that stellar models must satisfy. The WIYN Open Cluster Study (WOCS) project, provides a comprehensive study of open clusters in the Galaxy selected to provide a range of chemical compositions and ages. In addition to photometric and spectroscopic observations of individual stars, WOCS includes an astrometric proper motion study to establish cluster membership, a necessary condition. Because the number of stars in open clusters is small, establishing membership is essential for carrying out detailed tests of stellar evolutionary models using a cluster CMD and luminosity function. This advantage is demonstrated in recent deep proper motion studies of NGC 188 (Dinescu et al. 1996) and NGC 3680 (Kozhurina-Platais et al. 1997). An excellent overview of WOCS objectives and results obtained so far has been written by Mathieu (2000).

Observations of the CMDs of some of the more populous star clusters in the Magellanic Clouds will provide more information on core overshoot in intermediate age stellar populations. Although more distant than open clusters in the Galaxy, the Magellanic Cloud clusters have the advantage of testing the evolution of stars with a lower metallicity.

Finally, stellar seismology, by analyzing oscillations that propagate deep in stellar interiors, promises to probe sensitively the convective cores of stars evolving off the main sequence in the intermediate mass range. Similarly, the mass of the exhausted helium core in subgiants and giants can be derived on the basis of physical models. Already observations of oscillations of nearby stars near the main sequence and in the subgiant and giant evolutionary phases have been done from the ground (Kjeldsen et al. 1995; Martic et al. 1999; Bedding et al. 2001) and in space (Buzasi et al. 2000). Preliminary analysis of some of these observations with the help of stellar models show the unmistakable signature (mixed p- and g-modes) of exhausted core size in the case of the more evolved stars (Christensen-Dalsgaard, Bedding & Kjeldsen 1995; Guenther & Demarque 1996).

Acknowledgement. This research has been supported in part by NASA grant NAG5-8406.


text:
# A quantum field theoretic description of the delayed choice experiment

## Abstract

Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment, a well known manifestation of the complementarity principle, has proved somewhat difficult to physically interpret. We show that, restated in quantum field theoretic language, the experiment submits to a simple explanation: that wave- or particle-nature is imposed not at the slit plane but at the detector system. The intepretational difficulty conventionally encountered is due to the assumption of enforcement of complementarity at the former.

Introduction: As is well known, quantum mechanics manifests several non-classical phenomena arising because of superposition and entanglement . One such is the delayed choice experiment (DCE) , which is essentially a dramatic realization of Bohr’s complementarity principle (CP) , an interpretation of wave-particle duality of matter. In Bohr’s viewpoint, objective reality is denied and what we observe depends on how we ask. Only through the irreversible act of amplification induced by measurement do phenomena come to exist. Wheeler picturesquely allegorized Bohr’s viewpoint as a “smoky dragon” with its tail in the light source and mouth biting the detector. As an illustration of CP, let’s consider a double-slit illuminated by a coherent source. An observer behind the slit plane is equipped with a dual detector system whereby he can observe the diffracted light with a screen or with two telescopes, one focussed on each slit. Detection at the screen produces a Young’s double-slit pattern as each photon passes through both slits and interferes with itself. On the other hand, a detection at a telescope would imply the passage of the photon through that slit on which the telescope is focussed. This forces particle nature on the light and no Young’s interference pattern is seen.

In DCE, the observer waits until after the light has passed the slit plane to decide whether he measures the wave- or particle-nature of the light. In the popular and scientific literature, it has provoked intriguing questions  like: how does the light “decide” whether to pass through both slits or one of them in order to conform to the future decision of the observer? Does it do so via a backward-time effect? Or does it “know” what the observer will decide later on? In the following account, we present, using the formalism of quantum field theory, a conventional explanation of DCE in which this difficulty in physically interpreting the effect does not appear. This conclusion is in agreement with Wheeler’s observation that the aspect of matter manifested depends on the registering device chosen . Consideration of such issues in the foundations of quantum mechanics is relevant to the burgeoning field of quantum information , because they help to better visualize the nature and flow of information in quantum systems.

Derivation: We specialize to the single particle case the more general formalism used in the treatment of multiparticle interference . Consider a source S that illuminates a diaphragm O perforated by two slits $`a`$ and $`b`$. The state of the photon is given by the two-mode state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=|\mathrm{vac}+\frac{ϵ}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{a}^{}e^{i\varphi _A}+\widehat{b}^{}e^{i\varphi _B})|\mathrm{vac},$$
(1)
where $`ϵ`$ determines the strength of the optical field, $`\widehat{X}^{}`$ is the creation operator for the photon mode corresponding to slit $`X`$, $`\varphi _X`$ is the phase factor associated with the mode $`X`$, $`|\mathrm{vac}`$ is the underlying vacuum state. Hence, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a superposition of Fock states in modes $`a`$ and $`b`$.

The light diffracts at the double-slit and falls on the screen to form an interference pattern, or perhaps on the aperture of a telescope to permit a path detection. The positive frequency part of the field operator at some point $`x`$ on the detector is given by

$$E^{(+)}(x)=\widehat{a}\mathrm{exp}(ik[d_s+d_{ax}])+\widehat{b}\mathrm{exp}(ik[d_s+d_{bx}]),$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{X}`$ is the annihilation operator for the mode corresponding to slit $`X`$, $`k`$ is the wave-number, $`d_s`$ the distance from the coherent source to either slit and $`d_{Xx}`$ the distance from slit $`X`$ to point $`x`$ on the screen. The probability $`P(x)`$ for detecting a photon at point $`x`$ on the screen is given by $`E^{()}(x)E^{(+)}(x)`$, where the angles $`\mathrm{}`$ represent expectation value in the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. We find

$$P(x)1+\mathrm{cos}(d_{ax}d_{bx}),$$
(3)
if we set $`\varphi _A=\varphi _B`$, though this is not necessary to observe fringes. Eq. (3) is the usual far-field Young’s double-slit pattern.

On the other hand, let us suppose the screen is replaced with a telescope focussed on one of the slits, say $`X`$. A detection with it is represented by the positive frequency part of the field operator, $`E_X^{(+)}`$, whose measurement implies the photon’s passage through slit $`X`$. Then $`E^{(+)}(x)`$ is given by

$$E_a^{(+)}(x)\widehat{a}\mathrm{exp}(ik[d_s+d_{a\xi }])\mathrm{or}E_b^{(+)}(x)\widehat{b}\mathrm{exp}(ik[d_s+d_{b\eta }]).$$
(4)
Here $`x=\xi `$ is the position of the telescope focussed on slit $`a`$, and $`x=\eta `$, that of the telescope focussed on slit $`b`$. The probability for detection at either telescope is given by $`E_a^{()}(x)E_a^{(+)}(x)=E_b^{()}(x)E_b^{(+)}(x)ϵ^2`$. Therefore in this case, the probability for detection on either telescope is uniform and shows no fringes. This, as well as the result Eq. (3), is in keeping with what one expects for unentangled quantum systems on basis of the complementarity principle: that path information and first-order interference pattern are mutually exclusive.

We note that there is no explicit reference to time in the above calculation. Thus, there is no reason to expect that these results should not hold if the observer chooses to use the screen or the telescopes after the light crosses the slit plane. Therefore, the results derived above are sufficient to explain how delayed choice works.

Physical interpretation: Let us physically interpret the above results. The main point is that CP is not enforced on the photons at the slit plane. The photon passing through the slits does not need to “decide” whether to pass through both slits or one of them. It passes through both, irrespective of whether the observer subsequently measures position or momentum. The decision to manifest particle or wave nature occurs at the detector system according the observable, and hence allowed eigenstates, chosen by the observer. Amplitude information from both paths superpose at all $`x`$’s. Even when the observer trains his telescope on one of the slits, amplitude information from both slits fall on the telescope aperture. But subsequently, the amplitude for one of the slits is filtered out by the telescope optics until only that for the focussed slit falls on the eye-piece. This, of course, is equivalent to measurement with one of the operators $`E_X^{(+)}`$.

Similar arguments apply also to a quantum eraser in which paths are potentially distinguishable via entanglement or one of the paths is unitarily marked (say, by a polarization rotator) . This would force the expression of particle nature. However, as in DCE, the total information is not destroyed but remains hidden. Subsequent erasure of path information re-manifests correlated interference based on the superposition of amplitudes from both paths. However, we note that the status of complementarity is not always obvious in entangled systems. For example, a possible non-standard effect is discussed in Refs. .

The assumption implicit in DCE that in order to manifest particle nature the photon should have passed through only one of the slits turns out to be unnecessary for obtaining the required statistical predictions of the theory. It is this feature that frees the current explanation from having to invoke backward-time effects or cognitive interpretations. Suppose on the other hand that the slits are equipped with a suitable device to find out the slit the photon passes through. This, of course, forces a particle-like behaviour and destroys interference in the traditional sense of the complementarity principle. In this case there is a genuine lack of simultaneous information from both slits. Thus, we see that complementarity can be enforced both by an intermediary which-path measurement as well as at the final detection. These considerations suggest that wave-particle duality reflects a deeper information theoretic and quantum field theoretic nature of photons and, in general, matter.