text:
# 4-Dimensional optics, an alternative to relativity

## 1 Introduction

General relativity is rooted on the consideration of Minkowski space-time, which is adequate for the formulation of special relativity. This space functions as tangent space in all other situations. A consequence of this approach is that all spaces of general relativity exhibit the characteristic $`2`$ signature of Minkowski space-time and can never be reduced to Euclidean space, which would be tangent to spaces of signature $`4`$. Our aim in this paper is to suggest that special relativity situations have an equally valid formulation in an Euclidean space, provided appropriate coordinates are chosen. Consequently, general situations can be studied in curved spaces having $`4`$ signature and ultimately can be reduced to an Euclidean tangent space. We have previously presented these concepts in unpublished form  but the present work extends and corrects important aspects.

With the new formulation we hope to deal with equations that are easier to solve, and generally with a simpler geometry. We will show that there is a prospect for unification between gravity and other interactions in nature, mainly by showing how electromagnetic interaction can be accommodated by the theory but also discussing some aspects related to quantum mechanics. There is one drawback, however. The reader must not expect one-to-one correspondence between events in relativistic space-time and points on the space we propose, because we will not be performing a change of coordinates, which could never change the space signature. The physical meaning of the points of this space will not be discussed here. The author thinks, however, that this is a subject that must be addressed in forthcoming work, in order to gain widespread acceptance of his proposal.

The legitimacy of the proposal stems from the following argument: *All movement of particles must follow metric geodesics of the space when all the possible interactions are taken into account in building up the metric. Under these circumstances two different spaces are equally adequate for describing a particular kind of particle movement if it is possible to map geodesics from one space onto the other and furthermore it is possible to map points on corresponding geodesics of both spaces* (note that this implies a one-to-one correspondence of geodesics between both spaces, but not a one-to-one correspondence of points). We will establish the validity of this principle in two particular situations of special relevance to general relativity.

First we will show that geodesics of Minkowski space-time can be mapped onto our proposed space, thus opening the way to the use of general curved spaces of signature $`4`$ for the representation of relativistic phenomena. Later we will show that the most important solution of general relativity for vacuum, namely Schwartzschild’s solution, also is amenable to geodesic mapping onto our proposed space. Besides establishing the legitimacy of the proposal through the discussion of the two mentioned cases, the paper introduces some concepts of quantum mechanics right from the flat space discussion, opening the road for future developments in this area.

It is shown that optical propagation, governed by Fermat’s principle, can be expressed as propagation in a 3-dimensional sub-space of the general 4-dimensional curved space, allowing optical interpretations of several relativistic phenomena, namely the interpretation of the gravitational field as a 4-dimensional refractive index. This contributes to the validation of the suggestion that quantum mechanical phenomena can be included in the theory as the homologous of optical modes in waveguides.

The final sections deal with the inclusion of electromagnetic interaction in the metric, thus allowing the expression of charged particle trajectories as movement along geodesics. The special case of photons is also analyzed and shown to fall perfectly within the previously discussed situation of optical propagation.

The whole theory is based on the hypothesis that there is always a space where particle and photon trajectories follow metric geodesics; this space is characterized by the universal interval

$$c^2(\mathrm{d}t)^2=g_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{d}x^\alpha \mathrm{d}x^\beta ,$$
(1)
where $`c`$ is the speed of light in vacuum111It is customary in relativity to normalize $`c=1`$; in this work we use non-dimensional units obtained by dividing length, time and mass by the factors $`\sqrt{G\mathrm{}/c^3}`$, $`\sqrt{G\mathrm{}/c^5}`$ and $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/G}`$, respectively. $`G`$ is the gravitational constant and $`\mathrm{}`$ is Planck’s constant divided by $`2\pi `$. Electric charge is normalized by the charge of the electron., $`t`$ is time, $`x^0=\tau `$ is a coordinate whose significance will have to be found and the $`x^i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ correspond to the spatial cartesian coordinates $`x,y,z`$222We use greek letters for indices taking values between $`0`$ and $`3`$ and roman letters for indices with values between $`1`$ and $`3`$. We also use indices that refer to a specific coordinate, like $`r`$, $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ with spherical coordinates.. This principle is applicable to all the observable Universe, i. e. the portion of the Universe within the light horizon; we make no predictions for any portions of the Universe which lay beyond the horizon. Eq. (1) establishes that the interval between two neighboring points of the space divided by the time interval between the same points equals the speed of light; this justifies the designation of *optical space* for this space.

It is possible to clarify the concept of optical space through embedding Minkowski space-time in a 5-dimensional space where the interval is defined by $`\mathrm{d}s^2=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{d}x^\alpha \mathrm{d}x^\beta \mathrm{d}t^2`$; on this 5-dimensional space the worldlines of particles follow geodesics of null interval. The same procedure can be extended to all situations in general relativity where the metric is diagonal. We go a step further when we propose that optical space can be applied even when the metric is non-diagonal, in which case null geodesics in 5-dimensional space no longer provide a connection between relativity and 4-dimensional optics.

## 2 Special relativity

The first case we consider deals with the translation of special relativity into our new proposed 4-dimensional optical space. This is characterized by the metric tensor

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }.$$
(2)
We want to show that, by mapping the geodesics of Minkowski space-time to the geodesics of the optical space, there exists a relationship between displacements on corresponding geodesics and, therefore, any inertial movement that can be expressed in Minkowski space-time can also be expressed in optical space. We will use the index $`\mathrm{O}`$ to refer to the proposed space, $`\mathrm{O}`$ standing for *optical*.

Generally for any space, if the interval is expressed by $`(\mathrm{d}s)^2=g_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{d}x^\alpha \mathrm{d}x^\beta `$, it is possible to derive the geodesic equation from the consideration of the Lagrangean $`2L=g_{\alpha \beta }\dot{x}^\alpha \dot{x}^\beta `$, with the ”dot” indicating derivation with respect to the arc length . This Lagrangean is always constant equal to $`1/2`$.

In the optical space Eq. (1) establishes $`\mathrm{d}t`$ as the arc length and so a geodesic can be derived from the Lagrangean

$$2L_\mathrm{O}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\dot{x}^\alpha \dot{x}^\beta =(\dot{\tau })^2+(\dot{x})^2+(\dot{y})^2+(\dot{z})^2,$$
(3)
where the ”dot” is used to represent time derivatives, because time is associated with the interval.

The Lagrangean must be constant, equal to $`1/2`$, so we can write

$$(\dot{\tau })^2=1(\dot{x})^2(\dot{y})^2(\dot{z})^2.$$
(4)
This is to be compared with the equation for a geodesic in Minkowski space-time, which can be derived from the interval

$$(\mathrm{d}s)^2=(\mathrm{d}t)^2(\mathrm{d}x)^2(\mathrm{d}y)^2(\mathrm{d}z)^2.$$
(5)
For time-like geodesics $`\mathrm{d}s>0`$ and so, for these geodesics, we can write

$$2L_\mathrm{M}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}s}\right)^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}s}\right)^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}s}\right)^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}z}{\mathrm{d}s}\right)^2,$$
(6)
where the index $`\mathrm{M}`$ stands for Minkowski.

Eqs. (3) and (6) can represent the same lines if an identification is made between homologous quantities and $`\mathrm{d}s=\mathrm{d}\tau `$. In this instance both spaces verify the relation

$$\dot{\tau }=\sqrt{1(\dot{x})^2(\dot{y})^2(\dot{z})^2}=\frac{1}{\gamma }.$$
(7)
This equation establishes a relationship between $`\tau `$ and $`t`$, which is the same that exists between *proper time* and time for a moving particle in special relativity; we will therefore call *proper time* to the $`\tau `$ coordinate in optical space.

The equivalence between time-like geodesics in Minkowski space-time and the geodesics of optical space does not go very far in ensuring that particle movement can be studied in either space, whenever particles are under the influence of fields that deviate them from the 4-dimensional straight line geodesics. In fact the results are not equivalent, but this is no limitation because all deviation from geodesics is seen as an approximation, which should be preferably addressed through the search for the appropriate metric where particles will follow curved geodesics.

## 3 Mass scaling of coordinates

In the previous section we were concerned with geodesic equations with no concern for the mass of the actual particle moving along a geodesic. This is the usual relativistic standpoint where mass is considered to have a role as gravitational mass, inducing space curvature, which is separate from its role as inertial mass. Obviously the first role does not come into play in special relativity. We will adopt a somewhat different approach, consistent with our initial hypothesis that time intervals always measure arc length along the particle’s trajectory.

Based on the geodesic Lagrangean equation (3), we can define a conjugate momentum vector by

$$p_\alpha =\frac{L_O}{\dot{x}^\alpha }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\dot{x}^\beta .$$
(8)
The momentum as defined is not any particle’s momentum but rather a geometrical quantity related to the space geodesics. If we wish the conjugate momentum to be related to the particle’s momentum, it is imperative to include mass in the metric or in the interval; we choose the first option. This can be achieved by a local coordinate scaling, which is required to exhibit an extremum at the precise location of the particle. The new metric is defined as

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=m^2\delta _{\alpha \beta },$$
(9)
with $`m`$ the particle’s rest mass. The movement Lagrangean is conveniently defined as $`L=g_{\alpha \beta }\dot{x}^\alpha \dot{x}^\beta /2`$, allowing us to define the particle’s 4-momentum as

$$p_\alpha =\frac{L}{\dot{x}^\alpha }=m^2\delta _{\alpha \beta }\dot{x}^\beta .$$
(10)
The extremum condition imposed on the scale factor $`m`$ ensures that it can be brought out of the derivative in Eq. (10). It will be noticed that the spatial components of the 4-momentum correspond precisely to the classical momentum when allowance is made for the mass scaling of the coordinates; $`p_0`$ can be shown to represent the particle’s kinetic energy.

There is a crucial difference between the covariant 4-momentum defined here and the contravariant homologous from special relativity. Our option of associating all trajectories with geodesics leads to the association between movement and geodesic Lagrangeans and consequently to the conjugate momentum being defined as a covariant vector.

Mass is here defined as a coordinate scale factor which allows us to maintain our initial hypothesis formulated in Eq. (1). With this modification the particle’s 4-velocity has now a magnitude equal to the speed of light divided by the mass; the special case of zero mass will be dealt with in section 5. It must be stressed that mass scaling is not necessarily a purely local effect. Wherever in space there are point masses, the local coordinates are scaled relative to the vacuum coordinates. Nothing is said about the effect mass has on the immediate vicinity of the traveling particle, although we already know from general relativity that this effect does exist. The consideration of coordinate scaling by the traveling particle’s mass will later be shown to bring more symmetry to the equations of general relativity and unification of the three roles of mass: Inertial mass, gravitational active mass and gravitational passive mass.

## 4 Waves in 4-dimensional optical space

One of the main advantages of the optical space formulation of relativity arises from the fact that it is a natural extension of the 3-dimensional space where ray and wave optics are two alternative ways of describing the same phenomena, wherever the geometrical optics approach is applicable.

We feel it is useful to accompany the relativistic discussion of particle trajectories with a discussion of wave propagation in the same space and draw some consequences which are pertinent to quantum mechanics. Considering Eq. (10) the geodesic equation for a particle of mass $`m`$ away from any fields can be written in terms of momentum as $`\delta ^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha p_\beta =m^2`$; if both sides of this equation are multiplied by the function $`\psi =\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{j}p_\alpha x^\alpha )`$, with $`\mathrm{j}=\sqrt{1}`$, we get the wave equation

$$\delta ^{\alpha \beta }_{\alpha \beta }\psi =m^2\psi ,$$
(11)
which represents a stationary 4-dimensional plane wave pattern of spatial frequency $`m`$ and corresponding wavelength, designated by *World wavelength*, given by

$$\lambda _w=\frac{1}{m}.$$
(12)
We now consider the case of elementary particles to make an identification of $`\lambda _w`$ in the previous equation with Compton’s wavelength $`\lambda _w=2\pi \mathrm{}/mc`$, which corresponds to writing the equation in normal rather than non-dimensional units.

If we temporarily remove the normalization of the speed of light, we will quickly recognize that the Compton frequency, given by $`mc^2/\mathrm{}`$ is expressed by the same number as the particle’s mass when it is expressed in non-dimensional units.

Fig. 1 illustrates a particle’s trajectory with superimposed wavefronts spaced $`\lambda _w`$ apart; these wavefronts intersect 3-dimensional physical space defining a wavelength $`\lambda `$ which, considering Eq. (7) is

$$\lambda =\frac{\lambda _w}{\sqrt{(\dot{x})^2(\dot{y})^2(\dot{z})^2}}=\frac{h}{p};$$
(13)
$`p`$ represents the magnitude of the spatial component of momentum and this equation is exactly the definition of De Broglie’s wavelength. We have thus established a relation between Compton’s and De Broglie’s wavelength as a purely geometric one.

In the previous derivation we have assumed that particles move through 4-space with a 4-velocity with the magnitude of the speed of light and have an associated wavelength given by Eq. (12). If we now allow mass scaling of the coordinates as implied by Eq. (9), Eq. (11) is re-written as

$$\frac{1}{m^2}\delta ^{\alpha \beta }_{\alpha \beta }\psi =\psi .$$
(14)
The spatial frequency becomes unity while the coordinates are scaled by the mass.

## 5 Lorentz equivalent transformations

Our approach to coordinate transformation between observers moving relative to each other is different from special relativity. While in the latter case the interval is given by Eq. (5), thus ensuring that a coordinate transformation preserves the interval and affects both spatial and time coordinates, our option of making time intervals measure geodesic arc length gives time a meaning independent of any coordinate transformation. We thus propose that Lorentz equivalent transformations between a ”fixed” or ”laboratory” frame and a moving frame are performed in two separate phases. The first phase is a tensorial coordinate transformation, which changes the coordinates keeping the origin fixed, with no influence in the way time is measured, while the second phase corresponds to a ”jump” into the moving frame, changing the metric but not the coordinates.

Making use the metric from Eq. (9) it is possible to express $`\dot{x}^0`$ in terms of $`\dot{x}^i`$, in a similar way to what was used to write Eq. (4):

$$m^2\left(\dot{x}^0\right)^2=1m^2\delta _{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j.$$
(15)
What is immediately obvious is that particles with zero mass, such as photons, cannot follow a geodesic of this space unless, as a limiting case, we force them to follow geodesics with $`\mathrm{d}x^0=0`$. We will deal with optical propagation in the next section; for now it will be sufficient to know that photons travel on the 3-dimensional $`x^i`$ space. Photons carry the value of the $`x^0`$ coordinate and can be used to *synchronize* all points in space to the observer’s own measurements of this coordinate. Following this argument we can say that a coordinate transformation must preserve the value of $`\mathrm{d}x^0`$. It will readily be seen that this statement is a direct equivalent to interval invariance in special relativity. On the other hand the time interval must also evaluate to the same value on all coordinate systems of the same frame, due to its definition as interval of the optical space.

Let us consider two unit mass observers $`O`$ and $`\overline{O}`$, the latter moving along one geodesic of $`O`$’s coordinate system. Let the geodesic equation have a parametric equation $`x^\alpha ^{}(t)`$. Our aim is to establish the coordinate transformation tensor between the two observers’ coordinate systems, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\overline{\mu }}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}=x^{\overline{\mu }}/x^\alpha `$; we have already established that $`\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{0}}=\mathrm{d}x^0`$ and so it must be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\overline{0}}{}_{0}{}^{}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\overline{0}}{}_{i}{}^{}=0`$.

A photon traveling parallel to the $`x^1`$ direction follows a geodesic characterized by $`\mathrm{d}t=\mathrm{d}x^1`$ on $`O`$’s coordinates. On $`\overline{O}`$’s coordinates the photon will move parallel to $`x^{\overline{1}}`$ and so we can say that it is also $`\mathrm{d}t=\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{1}}`$. The same behaviour could be established for all three $`(x^i,x^{\overline{i}})`$ coordinate pairs and we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\overline{i}}{}_{i}{}^{}=1`$.

Consider now two points $`𝒫_1`$ and $`𝒫_2`$ on a line parallel to $`x^0`$ axis in $`O`$’s coordinates, separated by a time interval $`\mathrm{d}t=\mathrm{d}x^0`$. On $`\overline{O}`$’s coordinates it will be

$$\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{i}}=\dot{x}^i^{}\mathrm{d}t=\frac{\dot{x}^i^{}}{\dot{x}^0^{}}\mathrm{d}x^0,$$
(16)
allowing us to conclude that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\overline{i}}{}_{0}{}^{}=\dot{x}^i^{}/\dot{x}^0^{}=\stackrel{˘}{x}^i`$, where the notation $`\stackrel{˘}{x}^i`$ is used for derivation with respect to $`\tau `$. Fig. 2 shows graphically the relation between the two coordinate systems.

The coordinate transformation tensor between $`x^\alpha `$ and $`x^{\overline{\mu }}`$ is consequently defined as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\overline{\mu }}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ \stackrel{˘}{x}^1^{}& 1& 0& 0\\ \stackrel{˘}{x}^2^{}& 0& 1& 0\\ \stackrel{˘}{x}^3^{}& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right].$$
(17)
The reverse transformation is obtained changing the sign of $`\stackrel{˘}{x}^i^{}`$.

We are now in position to evaluate the metric for $`\overline{O}`$’s coordinates

$$g_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\overline{\mu }}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\beta }{}_{\overline{\nu }}{}^{}g_{\alpha \beta };$$
(18)
after evaluation we get

$$g_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1+\delta _{a^{}b^{}}\stackrel{˘}{x}^a^{}\stackrel{˘}{x}^b^{}& \stackrel{˘}{x}^1^{}& \stackrel{˘}{x}^2^{}& \stackrel{˘}{x}^3^{}\\ \stackrel{˘}{x}^1^{}& 1& 0& 0\\ \stackrel{˘}{x}^2^{}& 0& 1& 0\\ \stackrel{˘}{x}^3^{}& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right].$$
(19)
The metric given by the previous equation will evaluate time in $`\overline{O}`$’s coordinates in a frame which is fixed relative to $`O`$, that is, this is still time as measured by observer $`O`$. Observer $`\overline{O}`$ will measure time intervals $`\mathrm{d}\overline{t}`$ in his own frame and so, although the coordinates are the same as they were in $`O`$’s frame, time is evaluated with the Kronecker metric $`\delta _{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}`$ instead of metric given by Eq. (19).

Mathematically the metric replacement corresponds to the identity

$$\delta _{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}=\left(g_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}\right)^1g_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }};$$
(20)
this operation will be used later to derive the metric for electromagnetic interaction. We note that this transformation preserves the essential relationship of special relativity, i. e. for a unit mass particle $`\mathrm{d}\overline{t}^2\delta _{\overline{i}\overline{j}}\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{i}}\mathrm{d}x^{\overline{j}}=\mathrm{d}t^2\delta _{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j`$.

## 6 Optical propagation

Let us now consider the situation where the metric has the form

$$g_{0\alpha }=g_{\alpha 0}=0,g_{ij}=n^2\delta _{ij}(i,j0),$$
(21)
with $`n`$ a function of the coordinates. This is really the metric of a 3-dimensional subspace where the coordinate $`x^0`$ does not intervene. Eq. (1) becomes

$$(\mathrm{d}t)^2=n^2\left[(\mathrm{d}x)^2+(\mathrm{d}y)^2+(\mathrm{d}z)^2\right],$$
(22)
which is readily seen to lead to Fermat’s principle when this variational principle is written

$$\delta nd\sigma =0,$$
(23)
with $`n`$ the refractive index of the optical medium and $`\mathrm{d}\sigma `$ the interval in Euclidean space given by

$$\mathrm{d}\sigma =\sqrt{(\mathrm{d}x)^2+(\mathrm{d}y)^2+(\mathrm{d}z)^2}.$$
(24)
Obviously this space supports 3-dimensional waves, as it is none other than the usual optical space where all the rules of optical propagation are well established.

The propagation speed is $`1/n`$ and the corresponding wavelength is $`\lambda =h/nE`$, with $`E`$ the photon energy.

## 7 Gravitation

Stationary vacuum solutions for gravitational field are expected to have a null Ricci tensor, meaning that a suitable coordinate change will produce a diagonal metric with just $`1`$ and $`1`$ elements in the diagonal ; this combined with the characteristic $`4`$ signature of the optical space we are using means that these solutions must be conformal transformations of an Euclidean metric. We define these solutions by the general metric

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=n^2\delta _{\alpha \beta },$$
(25)
where $`n`$ is a function of the coordinates. This is a 4D extension of the optical 3D sub-space discussed in the previous section and further justifies the choice of *optical space* as the designation for our proposed 4-space.

Similarly to what was done for the Minkowski space-time, it is possible to map the geodesics of this particular situation to time-like geodesics of general relativity’s curved space-time for vacuum. Eq. (1) now becomes

$$(\mathrm{d}t)^2=n^2\left(\mathrm{d}\tau ^2+\mathrm{d}x^2+\mathrm{d}y^2+\mathrm{d}z^2\right);$$
(26)
which can be arranged as

$$(\mathrm{d}s)^2=\frac{1}{n}(\mathrm{d}t)^2n\left(\mathrm{d}x^2+\mathrm{d}y^2+\mathrm{d}z^2\right).$$
(27)
Recalling Eq. (27) and making $`(\mathrm{d}s)^2=n(\mathrm{d}\tau )^2`$, we can invoke the Lagrangean unity to arrive at the relation

$$\dot{\tau }=\sqrt{\frac{1}{n^2}\dot{x}^2\dot{y}^2\dot{z}^2}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{n^2}v^2}.$$
(28)
Eq. (25) is obtained from Eq. (2) by multiplication of the right-hand side by $`n^2`$, equivalent to a position dependent scale factor. When $`n`$ is a constant independent of the coordinates the space becomes flat and only the relationship between time and space intervals is altered; this is the same effect that was produced by the particle’s own mass in the special relativity discussion. We are then led to conclude that mass must be a source of space curvature leading eventually to Einstein’s equations modified for the optical space. This will be the subject of a future publication and will not be pursued in the present paper.

Naturally it is possible to extend Fermat’s principle to this 4-dimensional space, deriving particle’s trajectories as if they were 4-dimensional light rays. Just as the refractive index does in optics, gravity can be interpreted as reducing the 4-dimensional wavelength of the particles relative to its $`1/m`$ value away from other masses. Similarly to optics, the refractive index approach is an alternative to space curvature.

Scwartzschild derived the general vacuum solution of Einstein’s equation for a spherically symmetric situation , which can be written

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{d}t^2+n\mathrm{d}r^2+r^2\left(\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{d}\varphi ^2\right),$$
(29)
where $`r`$, $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$ are the spherical coordinates and

$$\frac{1}{n}=\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right),$$
(30)
with $`M`$ the mass of a large body and non-dimensional units in use. The equivalence to optical space can be made by setting $`\mathrm{d}t`$ as the interval

$$\mathrm{d}t^2=n^2\left(\mathrm{d}\tau ^2+\mathrm{d}r^2\right)+nr^2\left(\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{d}\varphi ^2\right).$$
(31)
The fact that this is not in the form of Eq. (26) can be attributed, we believe, to the fact that Schwartzschild’s metric is a direct consequence of the hyperbolic space and is certainly not a necessity in a non-hyperbolic one. There are some implications for the existence and characteristics of black holes which we don’t discuss here.

Newtonian mechanics tells us that the gravitational pull force of a large body, considered fixed with mass $`M`$, over a much smaller body of mass $`m`$ is

$$\stackrel{}{f}=mV,$$
(32)
where the arrows were used to denote vectors in 3D space and the ”nabla” operator has its usual 3-dimensional meaning; $`V`$ is the gravitational potential given by

$$V=\frac{GM}{r};$$
(33)
$`r`$ is distance between the two bodies. The constant $`G`$ was left in the expression so that it would appear in its most traditional form, but it should be removed with non-dimensional units.

If the moving body is under the single influence of the gravitational field, the rate of change of its momentum will equal this force and so we write $`\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{r}/\mathrm{d}t^2=V`$; $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ is the position vector. If we use mass scaling of the coordinates, introduced before, the spatial components of the momentum must appear as $`m^2\delta _{ij}\dot{x}^j`$; the gradient is also affected by the scaling and we expect it to appear as $`_iV/m`$. Using primed indices to denote unscaled coordinates it is

$$\delta _{i^{}j^{}}\ddot{x}^j^{}=_i^{}V,$$
(34)
$$m^2\delta _{ij}\ddot{x}^j=_iV.$$
(35)
We are looking for a Lagrangean of the type $`2L=n^2\delta _{\alpha \beta }\dot{x}^\alpha \dot{x}^\beta `$ where $`n`$ is a function of the radial coordinate only. In Cartesian coordinates it is

$$2L=n^2\delta _{\alpha \beta }\dot{x}^\alpha \dot{x}^\beta .$$
(36)
This lagrangean must be consistent with the non-relativistic form of the gravitational force and the resulting metric must be asymptotically flat.

If we derive the Euler-Lagrange’s equations for the 3 spatial dimensions we get

$$n\delta _{a\beta }\ddot{x}^\beta =_an\delta _{\alpha \beta }\dot{x}^\alpha \dot{x}^\beta =_an\left[\left(\dot{x}^0\right)^2+\delta _{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j\right].$$
(37)
From Eq. (36) we take $`\delta _{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j=1/n^2(\dot{x}^0)^2`$, to be replaced above:

$$n^2\delta _{a\beta }\ddot{x}^\beta =\frac{_an}{n}.$$
(38)
It is now convenient to make the replacement $`n=m\eta `$, so that the previous equation becomes

$$m^2\eta _r^2\delta _{a\beta }\ddot{x}^\beta =\frac{_a\eta _r}{\eta _r}.$$
(39)
If Eq. (39) is to produce the same results as Eq. (35) at appreciable distances from the central body, $`\eta `$ must be a function of $`r`$ that when expanded in series of $`1/r`$ has the first two terms $`1+M/r`$ in non-dimensional units. An interesting possibility is the function

$$\eta =\mathrm{e}^V=\mathrm{e}^{M/r}.$$
(40)
The second members of the relativistic and Newtonian equations are now equal and the first members will be equivalent in non-relativistic situations. So compatibility with Newtonian mechanics is ensured. In Ref.  we used this type of gravitational field to discuss some important gravitational anomalies.

## 8 Electrostatic field

Let us now turn our attention to electrostatic field by consideration of the electrostatic force on a charged particle of mass $`m`$ and electric charge $`q`$. This force can be written as

$$\stackrel{}{f}=qV.$$
(41)
Here $`V`$ is the electrostatic potential such that $`V=\stackrel{}{E}`$ with $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ the electric field. We use a procedure similar to what was used in the previous section to say that if the particle is under the single influence of the electrostatic force we must have $`m\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{r}/\mathrm{d}t^2=qV`$. Again after coordinate scaling it is

$$m^2\delta _{ab}\ddot{x}^b=\frac{q}{m}_aV.$$
(42)
We are now looking for a Lagrangean which includes mass in the spatial components of the momentum and the field in the 0th component.

$$2L=g_{00}\left(\dot{x}^0\right)^2+m^2\delta _{ab}\dot{x}^a\dot{x}^b;$$
(43)
this must be consistent with the non-relativistic form of the electrostatic force. For speeds much smaller than the speed of light $`(\dot{x}^0)^21/g_{00}`$. If we derive the Euler-Lagrange’s equations for the 3 spatial dimensions we get

$$2m^2\delta _{ij}\ddot{x}^j=_ig_{00}\left(\dot{x}^0\right)^2;$$
(44)
one possible solution to get compatibility between Eqs. (42 and 44) is to make $`g_{00}=m^2\mathrm{exp}(2qV/m)`$.

The metric for the electrostatic situation follows directly

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=m^2\left[\begin{array}{cccc}V_0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right],$$
(45)
with $`V_0=\mathrm{exp}(2qV/m)`$.

The geodesics of the space defined above correctly predict particle movement under an electrostatic field in the non-relativistic situation and provide a plausible generalization for the relativistic cases. The relativistic prediction is not entirely coincident with those based on general relativity, which allow deviation from geodesics. The proposed optical space’s predictions are equivalent to general relativity only in those cases when movements follow geodesics; the allowance that is made in general relativity for parallel transport can also be made here as an approximation to the desired approach, which involves finding the metric for each and every particle movement. When particles are allowed to deviate from geodesics we do not expect a perfect match between results obtained in the optical and relativistic spaces.

The parallel with optics can now be completed recalling that we associate to every elementary particle its Compton frequency $`f=mc^2/h`$, as suggested before. The particle’s worldline is then marked by the Compton wavelength and 3D projection of this wavelength is found to define the De Broglie wavelength, as we saw earlier. When the electric or gravitational potential exhibit a minimum restricted to a small region of space, the particle can enter a closed orbit, which is the 3-dimensional counterpart of an helix shaped worldline. This type of worldline is analogous to a light ray confined to an optical waveguide. It is no wonder that propagation modes start to develop as the orbit diameter decreases, which are the 4D counterparts of quantum phenomena.

The wave equation for an elementary particle under both electric and gravitational field can be written

$$\frac{1}{V_0}_{00}\psi +\delta ^{ij}_{ij}\psi =m^2n^2\psi .$$
(46)
If the partial derivative $`_0\psi `$ is expressed in terms of $`_t\psi `$ and $`_i\psi `$ through the metric, the equation will become a 3-dimensional wave equation which has been shown to degenerate in Schrödinger equation in the non-relativistic limit . Outside this limit Eq. (46) will produce a relativistic 3D wave equation which is expected to be compatible with quantization due to electrostatic force.

## 9 Electromagnetism and light propagation

In a non-relativistic situation the Lorentz force on a moving particle of electric charge $`q`$ can be written $`\stackrel{}{f}=q(\stackrel{}{E}+\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B})`$, where the arrows were used to identify vectors in 3D non-relativistic mechanics, $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is the electric field, $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ the magnetic field and $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ the particle’s speed. We now use Einstein’s argument  to say that if we place our frame on the moving particle this will be under the influence of an electrostatic force, due to the zeroing of the velocity on the Lorentz force expression. The electromagnetic force should then be the consequence of expressing the electrostatic force on a frame that is not moving with the particle.

We then use Eqs. (18 and 20) to transform the metric of Eq. (45) into the electromagnetic situation; the bar over the indices indicates the particle’s frame.

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=\left(g^{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}\right)^1g_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}=m^2\left[\begin{array}{cccc}V_0& V_1& V_2& V_3\\ V_1& 1+\frac{(V_1)^2}{V_0}& \frac{V_1V_2}{V_0}& \frac{V_1V_3}{V_0}\\ V_2& \frac{V_1V_2}{V_0}& 1+\frac{(V_2)^2}{V_0}& \frac{V_2V_3}{V_0}\\ V_3& \frac{V_1V_3}{V_0}& \frac{V_2V_3}{V_0}& 1+\frac{(V_3)^2}{V_0}\end{array}\right],$$
(47)
with

$$V_0=e^{2qV/m},V_i=V_0\frac{\dot{x}^i^{}}{\dot{x}^0^{}}.$$
(48)
Note that the $`\dot{x}^\alpha ^{}`$ of the previous equation refer to the movement of the frame where the Lorentz force becomes purely electrostatic and not to any particle’s movement.

We can now write the Lagrangean for a geodesic of the electromagnetic space using Eq. (47), the $`x^\alpha `$ representing the inertial movement of a particle under electromagnetic force:

$$L=g_{\alpha \beta }\dot{x}^\alpha \dot{x}^\beta .$$
(49)
The electromagnetic field can be associated to an anti-symmetric tensor $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ such that

$$F_{\alpha \beta }=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& E_1& E_2& E_3\\ E_1& 0& B_3& B_2\\ E_2& B_3& 0& B_1\\ E_3& B_2& B_1& 0\end{array}\right].$$
(50)
$`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ can be obtained from $`V_\alpha `$ through

$$F_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{m}{2qV_0}\left(_\alpha V_\beta _\beta V_\alpha \right).$$
(51)
If we start with the field tensor referred to a frame where the Lorentz force becomes purely electrostatic and use the transformation tensor to refer to the fixed frame we can write

$$F_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{\mu }}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{\nu }}F_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }},$$
(52)
with

$$F_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& E_1& E_2& E_3\\ E_1& 0& 0& 0\\ E_2& 0& 0& 0\\ E_3& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right];$$
(53)
the final result is

$$F_{\alpha \beta }=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& E_1& E_2& E_3\\ E_1& 0& E_2\stackrel{˘}{x}^1E_1\stackrel{˘}{x}^2& E_3\stackrel{˘}{x}^1E_1\stackrel{˘}{x}^3\\ E_2& E_1\stackrel{˘}{x}^2E_2\stackrel{˘}{x}^1& 0& E_3\stackrel{˘}{x}^2E_2\stackrel{˘}{x}^3\\ E_3& E_1\stackrel{˘}{x}^3E_3\stackrel{˘}{x}^1& E_2\stackrel{˘}{x}^3E_3\stackrel{˘}{x}^2& 0\end{array}\right].$$
(54)
Let us look at a particular solution pertaining to the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, which should have a null component of momentum along the $`x^0`$ direction. Considering Eq. (49) the first component of the momentum vector is

$$p_0=2m^2V_\alpha \dot{x}^\alpha =2m^2\left(V_0\dot{x}^0+V_i\dot{x}^i\right).$$
(55)
The particular solution we are searching calls for $`p_0=0`$

$$\dot{x}^0=\frac{V_i\dot{x}^i}{V_0}.$$
(56)
We note immediately that if $`x^0`$ is not to grow indefinitely it must average zero and so we postulate that it is a periodic function of $`t`$. Eq. (56) can be replaced in Eq. (49)

$$L=m^2\delta _{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j.$$
(57)
The result is a Lagrangean which depends only on the spatial variables and is a special case of the optical propagation condition given by Eq. (21); here $`m^2`$ plays the role of the refractive index. In fact an optical medium is expected to have a complex metric and the final refractive index will be the result of all the contributions, including the mass distribution. It is noticeable that if we had derived Eq. (57) in a gravitational field situation, this would appear as an $`n^2`$ factor in the second member, accounting for the redshift induced by gravity and light bending near massive bodies.

## 10 Conclusions and further developments

We proposed two main premises for relativistic mechanics as 4-dimensional optics, these being: *”All trajectories will follow geodesics in a suitably defined 4-dimensional space”* and *”Geodesic or trajectory length can be measured by the time interval multiplied by the speed of light in vacuum.”* We find it virtually impossible to demonstrate the validity of those premises and so we chose to show that they will produce the same consequences as General relativity in two particularly important situations, namely Minkowski and Scwartzschild metrics. The equivalence to General relativity was based on the argument that *”If particle’s trajectories follow metric geodesics, the mapping of geodesics between two spaces is a sufficient condition for those spaces to be equivalent from the point of view of particle movement.”* We derived an exponential gravitational field compatible with Newtonian mechanics in non-relativistic situations, which we believe is more appropriate than Schwartzschild’s in 4-dimensional optics.

We also showed that optical propagation follows the same rules as particle trajectories but is restricted to a 3-dimensional sub-space. The association of a 4-dimensional wave equation to the trajectories of elementary particles, in a similar way to the 3-dimensional waves associated with photons, allowed the derivation of an important connection between Compton’s and De Broglie’s wavelengths as a purely geometrical one. Quantization was also shown to result whenever particles are restricted to small orbits or to orbits under strong fields.

The Lorentz force and electromagnetism were also shown to be compatible with the initial premises, allowing the prediction of trajectories under electromagnetic interaction and the connection between light propagation in optical media, the metric and optical refractive index.

Two main directions of forthcoming work are expected to produce results and contribute to validate the theory. One area of work will try to establish equations equivalent to Einstein’s in this new formulation. This will be a direct consequence of the coordinate scaling by the mass that was introduced in this paper for point particles. A straightforward generalization will replace mass by mass density and coordinate scaling by curvature. It is expected that this line of work will yield further validation but most of all it is expected to lead to equations that are easier to solve then Einstein’s in a variety of situations.

A different aspect will be the exploitation of the 4-dimensional wave equation, namely for particle interactions. We feel that we have only skimmed the surface of this rich field and that there is scope for a large number of important results integrating gravitation with electromagnetism and eventually with all the known particle interactions.


format: text

text:
# On Big Bang Relics, the Neutrino Mass and the Spectrum of Cosmic Rays

## 1 Introduction

In the 66 years that have passed since Pauli postulated the existence of neutrinos, a great deal has been learned about these evasive particles. A large variety of experiments have been performed on neutrinos produced by nuclear reactors, by the Sun, by particle accelerators, in the Earth’s atmosphere and in a Supernova explosion. However, the most important (and in many respects the most interesting) source of neutrinos remains unexplored until today: The Big Bang. In my contribution to this conference, I will talk about the relic Big Bang neutrinos, I will suggest a process through which they might reveal themselves, and I will confront you with some experimental facts that seem to be strongly in support of this process.

## 2 Relic neutrinos

According to the Big Bang model of the evolving Universe, large numbers of (electron) neutrinos and antineutrinos have been around since the beginning of time. In the very first second, when the temperature of the Universe exceeded 1 MeV, the density was so large that the (anti-)neutrinos were in thermal equilibrium with the other particles that made up the primordial soup: photons, electrons, positrons and nucleons. Photon-photon interactions created $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs, which annihilated into photon pairs. Interactions between (anti-)neutrinos and nucleons turned protons into neutrons and vice versa.

This leptonic era came to an end when the density dropped to the point where the mean time between subsequent $`\nu `$ interactions started to exceed the lifetime of the Universe, $`1`$ second after the Big Bang. The production of neutrons through $`\overline{\nu }_ep`$ reactions had already stopped slightly earlier, since it became energetically impossible. The (anti-)neutrinos decoupled from the other particles in the Universe and the $`n/p`$ ratio determined the primordial He/H ratio.

Since that moment, the wavelengths of the (anti-)neutrinos have been expanding in proportion to the size of the Universe. Their present spectrum is believed to be a momentum-redshifted relativistic Fermi–Dirac distribution:

$$N(p)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(pc/kT_\nu )+1}$$
(1)
characterized by a temperature $`T_\nu =1.95`$ K, since $`(T_\nu /T_\gamma )^3=4/11`$ and $`T_\gamma =2.726\pm 0.005`$ K . The present density of these Big Bang relics is estimated at $``$ 100 cm-3, for each neutrino flavor. That is nine orders of magnitude larger than the density of baryons in the Universe.

In spite of this enormous density, relic neutrinos have until now escaped direct detection. The single most important reason for that is their extremely small kinetic energy, which makes it difficult to find a process through which they might reveal themselves.

## 3 How to detect relic neutrinos?

Let us imagine a target made of relic $`\overline{\nu }_e`$s and let us bombard this target with protons. Let us suppose that we can tune this imagined proton beam to arbitrarily high energies, orders of magnitude beyond the highest energies that can be reached in our laboratories. Then, at some point, the proton energy will exceed the value at which the center-of-mass energy of the $`p\overline{\nu }_e`$ system exceeds the combined mass of a neutron and a positron. Beyond that energy, the inverse $`\beta `$-decay reaction

$$p+\overline{\nu }_en+e^+$$
(2)
is energetically possible.

The threshold proton energy for this process depends on the mass of the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ target particles. If this mass is large compared to the $`10^4`$ eV kinetic energy typically carried by the target particles, this may be considered a stationary-target problem, and the center-of-mass energy of the $`p\overline{\nu }_e`$ system can be written as

$$E_{\mathrm{cm}}=\sqrt{m_p^2+m_\nu ^2+2E_pm_\nu }\sqrt{m_p^2+2E_pm_\nu }$$
(3)
since $`m_\nu m_p`$. When the experimental mass value of the proton (938.272 MeV) is substituted in Equation 3 and the requirement is made that $`E_{\mathrm{cm}}>m_n+m_e`$ (940.077 MeV), this leads to

$$E_pm_\nu >1.710^{15}(\mathrm{eV})^2$$
(4)
This process will thus take place when

$$E_p(\mathrm{eV})>\frac{1.710^{15}}{m_\nu (\mathrm{eV})}$$
(5)
In our Gedanken experiment, this threshold would reveal itself through a decrease in the fraction of beam protons that traversed the target without noticing its presence, as $`E_p`$ is increased beyond the threshold. Is there any experimental evidence for a phenomenon of this type?

## 4 The cosmic knee

Obviously, the target needs to be huge in order to see any effect of the described process. The largest target we can imagine is the entire Universe, which is indeed filled with $`\overline{\nu }_e`$s. This target is continuously traversed by protons, and by other atomic nuclei which together constitute the cosmic rays.

Figure 1 shows the spectrum of these cosmic rays, compiled by the Particle Data Group . The spectrum falls extremely steeply with energy. In general, it is well described by a power law

$$\frac{dN}{dE}E^n$$
(6)
with $`n2.7`$ for energies below 1 PeV. In order to display characteristic features of this spectrum which would otherwise be hard to discern, the differential energy spectrum has been multiplied by $`E^{2.7}`$ in Figure 1. The steepening that occurs between 1 PeV and 10 PeV, where the spectral index $`n`$ changes abruptly from 2.7 to 3.0, is known as the knee of the cosmic ray spectrum. Ever since its discovery, this feature has been the subject of intense interest.

We notice that this knee exhibits exactly the features that we expected to see in our Gedanken experiment: The particle flux suddenly starts to decrease when the threshold is passed. Therefore, we postulate the following hypothesis:

The change of the spectral index in the all-particle cosmic ray spectrum at an energy of $`410^{15}`$ eV is caused by the onset of the reaction $`p+\overline{\nu }_en+e^+`$, which becomes energetically possible at this point.

This hypothesis necessarily implies (Equation 5) that the mass of the electron neutrino equals 0.4 eV. Also, the knee would have to be an exclusive feature of the proton component of the cosmic ray spectrum, if the hypothesis were correct. Beyond 4 PeV, one would thus expect to see a gradual drop in, for example, the $`p/\alpha `$ event ratio, and this could be experimentally verified.

## 5 A second knee?!

If protons interact with the relic background neutrinos, other cosmic ray particles may as well. The equivalent reactions in which $`\alpha `$ particles are dissociated in collisions with relic neutrinos and antineutrinos

$`\alpha +\nu _e3p+n+e^{}`$ (7)
$`\alpha +\overline{\nu }_ep+3n+e^+`$ (8)
have $`Q`$-values of 27.5 MeV and 30.1 MeV, respectively. The threshold energies for these reactions are larger than the threshold energy for reaction (2) by factors of 61 and 66, respectively. The cosmic ray spectrum in the range around the “knee” was measured in detail by the Akeno extensive air-shower experiment. From a fit to their experimental data, the kink was located at $`\mathrm{log}E_p(\mathrm{eV})=15.67`$.

If the above explanation of the origin of the knee is correct, a kink in the spectrum of cosmic $`\alpha `$ particles should thus be expected at an energy that is larger by a factor of 61-66: $`\mathrm{log}E_\alpha 17.5`$ ($`E_\alpha 310^{17}`$ eV). It is remarkable that several extensive air-shower experiments that have studied the cosmic ray spectrum at these high energies have reported a kink in the area around $`\mathrm{log}E=17.5`$. The Fly’s Eye detector, which obtained the largest event statistics, observed a change in the spectral index from $`3.01\pm 0.06`$ for energies $`<10^{17.6}`$ eV to $`3.27\pm 0.02`$ for energies $`10^{17.6}<E<10^{18.5}`$ eV. The Haverah Park detector also reported a kink at $`\mathrm{log}E=17.6`$, with the spectral index changing from $`3.01\pm 0.02`$ to $`3.24\pm 0.07`$.

The differential energy spectrum measured with the Fly’s Eye detector is shown in Figure 2$`b`$. The contents of the energy bins have been multiplied by $`E^3`$ in this figure (compared to $`E^{2.7}`$ in Figure 1). The abrupt change of the spectral index $`n`$ from 3.01 to 3.27 becomes very clear in this way.

The Fly’s Eye detector is also capable of measuring the altitude at which the shower maximum is located. Figure 2$`a`$ shows the amount of material (air) penetrated by the shower particles when they reach the shower maximum, $`X_{\mathrm{max}}`$, as a function of the shower energy. It is remarkable that this distribution exhibits an unmistakable kink at approximately the same energy as the energy spectrum itself. This indicates a clear change in the chemical composition of the cosmic rays at that point.

The dashed curve in Figure 2$`a`$ represents the results of a simulation modeling showers initiated by protons. The equivalent curve for showers induced by $`\alpha `$ particles can be derived from this in a straightforward manner. Two effects have to be taken into account. Both effects cause $`X_{\mathrm{max}}`$ to be smaller for $`\alpha `$s than for protons of the same energy.

The first effect concerns the interaction length ($`\lambda _{\mathrm{int}}`$) which for $`\alpha `$s is shorter than for protons. The interaction length of protons in air amounts to 90 g/cm2. Since the total cross section for interactions of highly energetic ions with atomic number $`A`$ scales with $`A^{2/3}`$, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{int}}`$ scales with $`A^{2/3}`$. This gives $`\lambda _{\mathrm{int}}=55`$ g/cm2 for $`\alpha `$s in air.

The second effect concerns the particle multiplicity. In the first nuclear collision, the energy carried by the incoming $`\alpha `$-particles is distributed to a larger number of secondary particles. In the subsequent shower development, the shower maximum is thus reached earlier than in case of showers induced by protons of the same energy. The effect of this can, in first approximation, be estimated by considering the ion-induced shower as a collection of $`A`$ separate showers, each with an energy $`E_A/A`$. From the slope of the dashed line in Figure 2$`a`$, one may estimate $`\alpha `$-induced showers in air to reach their maximum earlier than proton-induced ones, by 30 g/cm2, counting from the first nuclear interaction.

These (somewhat oversimplified) considerations thus lead to $`X_{\mathrm{max}}`$ values for $`\alpha `$-induced reactions in the atmosphere that are 65 g/cm2 smaller than the values for protons of the same energies, as indicated by the dotted curve in Figure 2$`a`$.

The experimental data shown in Figures 2$`a`$ and 2$`b`$ are in complete and detailed agreement with the expectations following from our hypothesis. These expectations can be summarized as follows:

* At energies below $`410^{15}`$ eV, the chemical composition of the cosmic rays is constant. Protons are the most dominant component. The average shower maximum follows the dashed line (Figure 2$`a`$), as required by the well-known logarithmic energy dependence. The spectral index $`n=2.7`$.
* At $`410^{15}`$ eV, the threshold for reaction (2) is crossed. The spectral index changes from 2.7 to 3.0. Beyond the threshold, protons gradually disappear from the spectrum, which becomes more and more dominated by $`\alpha `$s. As $`E`$ increases, the shower maximum thus moves away from the dashed line to the dotted line in the $`X_{\mathrm{max}}`$ plot.
* For energies around $`10^{17}`$ eV, $`\alpha `$s have replaced protons as the most dominant component. The spectral index is still 3.0
* At $`310^{17}`$ eV, a new threshold is crossed, this time for reactions (8) and (9). The spectral index changes from 3.0 to 3.25. Beyond the threshold, $`\alpha `$s gradually disappear from the spectrum. In that process, protons carrying a significant fraction of the energy are produced. This leads to a gradual enrichment in protons. Therefore, in the $`X_{\mathrm{max}}`$ plot, the position of the shower maximum moves back from the dotted line to the dashed line, as the energy increases.
* At $`10^{18.5}`$ eV, a new threshold is crossed, known as the ankle of the cosmic-ray spectrum. At this energy, the gyromagnetic radius of a proton starts to exceed the galactic radius and therefore extragalactic protons may reach the Earth. The spectral index changes back to its original value of 2.7. The chemical composition continues to change in the same sense as before, i.e. , a further gradual enrichment in protons.

This sequence of effects is graphically shown in Figure 3, which is an extension of Figure 2 and includes the knee area. The experimental data are in excellent agreement with these predictions.

## 6 How is this all possible?

We now turn our attention to the million-dollar question: How can the process that is the basis of our hypothesis play such a significant role, given its extremely small cross section?

The cross section for the inverse process, $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ scattering off protons, was measured to be proportional to the available energy in the center-of-mass system, i.e. the energy above the $`Q`$-value of 1.805 MeV:

$$\sigma =0.34(E_{\mathrm{cm}}Q)10^{41}\mathrm{cm}^2$$
(9)
with the energies expressed in units of MeV. Therefore, the cross section rises almost proportional to the energy of the incoming protons in the energy range between $`10^{16}`$ eV ($`\sigma 10^{41}`$ cm2) and $`10^{18}`$ eV ($`\sigma 10^{39}`$ cm2). For a target density of $`100`$ cm-3, these cross sections translate in mean free paths of $`10^{3739}`$ cm, or average lifetimes of $`10^{1921}`$ years, i.e.  9 – 11 orders of magnitude longer than the age of the Universe. If this is all there is, the high-energy cosmic ion spectra could thus never have been affected at a significant level by the hypothesized process.

However, it is important to realize that, with a mass of 0.4 eV, the relic $`\overline{\nu }_e`$s would be nonrelativistic ($`kT10^4`$ eV). Typical velocities would be of the order of $`10^5`$ m/s in that case, less than the escape velocity from the surface of the Sun. Such neutrinos may be expected to have accumulated in gravitational potential wells. Weiler recently estimated that the density of relic neutrinos in our own galaxy would increase by four orders of magnitude (compared to the universal density of 100 cm-3) if their mass was 1 eV.

Locally, this effect could be much more spectacular. Extremely dense objects, such as neutron stars, black holes or active galactic nuclei (AGN) could accumulate very large numbers of relic neutrinos and antineutrinos in their gravitational field. Let us consider, as an example, a typical neutron star, with a mass ($`M`$) of $`310^{30}`$ kg and a radius of 10 km. Even at a distance ($`r`$) of one million kilometers from this object, the escape velocity is still considerably larger than the typical velocity of these relic neutrinos: 700 km/s.

The concentration of relic neutrinos in such a local potential well is ultimately limited by the Pauli principle, which limits their phase-space density to $`4g_\nu h^3`$, where $`g_\nu `$ denotes the number of helicity states and $`h`$ Planck’s constant. Since the escape velocity scales with $`r^{1/2}`$, the maximum neutrino density is proportional to $`r^{3/2}`$, and reaches values of $`𝒪`$$`(10^{12}/\mathrm{cm}^3)`$ near the surface of this neutron star. If the source of the potential well has a larger mass, the achievable neutrino densities increase proportional to $`M^{3/2}`$. In the “neutrino atmosphere” surrounding an AGN with a mass of $`10^6M_{}`$, the lifetime of a $`10^{16}`$ eV proton could thus even be reduced to only a few years.

The example of a neutron star was chosen since objects of this type may well play a role in accelerating protons to the very high energies considered here. Neutron stars usually rotate very fast and exhibit very high magnetic fields (typically $`10^8`$ T). When the magnetic axis does not correspond to the rotation axis, the changing magnetic fields in the space surrounding the neutron star may give rise to substantial electric fields, in which charged particles may be accelerated to high energies. The strong magnetic fields, in turn, will tend to confine the accelerated particles to the region surrounding the neutron star. When the charged particles are electrons, the acquired energy is emitted in the form of synchrotron radiation, a characteristic signature of many pulsars.

However, for protons this type of energy loss only plays a significant role at energies that are 13 orders of magnitude ($`(\gamma _p/\gamma _e)^4`$) larger than for comparable electrons. For example, a 1016 eV proton describing a circular orbit with a radius of 1,000 km loses per orbit about 0.6% of its energy in the form of synchrotron radiation. To put this in perspective, that is about a factor of five less than the fractional energy loss experienced by 100 GeV electrons in CERN’s LEP ring.

It is, therefore, not inconceivable that a stationary situation might arise in which protons and heavier ions, initially attracted by gravitational forces, and accelerated to high energies in the electric fields mentioned above, end up in a closed orbit around the dense object (neutron star, black hole, AGN) in which energy gained and synchrotron losses balance each other. In that case, the ions could spend a long time in the dense neutrino atmosphere surrounding the gravitational source and collisions with relic neutrinos might become a realistic possibility.

The idea that an AGN might act as the engine that produces cosmic rays is not at all new. If this engine works as a synchrotron, as described above, there are two ways in which the trapped accelerated ions can escape to other regions of the galaxy: Through collisions with other nuclei or through collisions with relic neutrinos. In the first case, the reaction products acquire transverse momentum and are scattered out of the acceleration plane. However, if a proton collides with a relic $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, the resulting neutron has approximately the same four-vector as the original proton. The escaping neutron thus remains in the acceleration plane. That also holds for the proton into which this neutron decays after a while (100 years or so!). If the Earth was not located in the AGN’s acceleration plane, these protons would thus never reach us, in contrast with the protons scattered in nuclear collisions. The measured proton spectrum would thus exhibit a kink at the threshold for the $`p\overline{\nu }_e`$ reaction.

## 7 Conclusions

The high-energy cosmic ray spectrum exhibits some intriguing features that can be explained in a coherent manner from interactions between cosmic protons or $`\alpha `$ particles and relic $`\overline{\nu }_e`$s if the latter have a restmass of 0.4 eV/$`c^2`$:

* Kinks at $`410^{15}`$ eV and $`310^{17}`$ eV, which would correspond to the thresholds for the $`p\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\alpha \overline{\nu }_e`$ reactions.
* The energy separation between these kinks is consistent with the difference between the $`Q`$-values of the $`p\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\alpha \overline{\nu }_e`$ reactions.
* The change of the chemical composition at $`310^{17}`$ eV, where $`\alpha `$s start to disappear from the spectrum and the protons reappear.

If collisions with relic neutrinos were indeed responsible for these features, a large concentration of such neutrinos should be present in the vicinity of the source of the high-energy cosmic baryons. The required conditions could be met if these baryons were accelerated in the electromagnetic fields surrounding an AGN.

There are various ways to test this hypothesis experimentally. First, one could explicitly measure the chemical composition of the cosmic-ray spectrum in the energy region from 1014 to $`10^{18}`$ eV. Second, one could measure the shower-maximum distributions for energies below the Fly’s Eye lower limit to see if the predicted kink near 4 PeV (Figure 3$`a`$) corresponds to reality.

It should be emphasized that the predictions derived from our hypothesis are completely at variance with those derived from the “Standard Model of Cosmic Ray Physics” . In this model, the cosmic rays are the result of particle acceleration in the shock waves produced in supernova explosions. This model predicts, for example, a maximum energy proportional to the nuclear charge $`Z`$ of the particles. In this model, the “knee” would thus be a feature of the high-$`Z`$ component of the cosmic rays, while we predict it to be a feature of protons and protons alone.

Measurements of the high-energy cosmic proton and $`\alpha `$ spectra would thus not only constitute a crucial test of our hypothesis, but also check some key predictions of this “Standard Model”.


text:
# Highly clustered scale-free networks

## Previous models

The earliest and most basic model generating scale-free networks has been introduced by Barabási and Albert , henceforth we use the acronym BA-model. This model explicitly incorporates the preferential attachment in the dynamical rules. At each time step a new node is added to the network and new links are attached from this new node to old nodes. The probability that a node obtains an additional link is proportional to its current degree. It can be interpreted as an application of Simon’s growth model in the context of networks , readily explaining the emergent scaling in the degree distribution. The BA-model has been successively modified reproducing the scale-free behavior of the connectivity distribution . For the sake of clarity, in the remaining of the paper we will refer to the BA-model as a well-established model of growing scale-free networks.

Real-world networks have properties that cannot be accounted for by the BA-model. We find a discrepancy with respect to empirical data in the correlation between a node’s age and its rate of acquiring links. For the network of scientific citations this correlation is negative: the mean rate of citations a paper receives decreases with increasing age. This is supported by citation rate data of the years 1987-1998, shown in Figure 1. Except for the three first years prior to the publication year, the citation rate decreases with age . In contradiction to this empirical result, in the BA-model the mean attachment rate is positively correlated with age. Here the attachment rate is proportional to the degree, being largest for the oldest nodes since these began accumulating links earliest. A further consequence of this feature is a strong positive correlation between the age of a node and its degree. This kind of correlation has not been found in the network formed by the hyperlinks of the World Wide Web . We also notice that if the oldest nodes are disregarded, the networks generated by the BA-model are not scale-free any more. However, real-world networks have shown to be scale-free even though they are truncated, i.e. the major part of the oldest nodes is disregarded.

## Growth and deactivation model

The shortcomings indicated in the previous paragraph motivate our attempt to model self-organization of scale-free networks. The approach presented here is based on the degree-dependent deactivation dynamics of the nodes. Preferential attachment and the convergence to a power-law degree distribution are shown to be emergent properties of the dynamics.

The model describes the growth dynamics of a network with directed links. By $`k_i`$ we denote the in-degree of node $`i`$, i.e. the number of links pointing to node $`i`$. Each node of the network can be in two different states: active or inactive. A new node added to the network is always in the active state first. It receives links from subsequently generated nodes until it is deactivated. Then the node does not receive links any more. The transition of a node from the active to the inactive state can be interpreted as a collective “forgetting” of the node since new nodes do not connect to it any more. For the construction of the model we assume that the probability rate $`P`$ of deactivation decreases with the in-degree of the node. Considering for instance the case of citation networks, this means that the more often a paper has been cited, the less likely it is forgotten. Specifically, we make the assumption that the deactivation probability can be written as $`P(k+a)^1`$, where $`a>0`$ is a constant bias.

At any step of the time-discrete dynamics $`m`$ nodes in the network are active, all the other nodes are inactive. As the initial condition we use a network consisting of $`m`$ active, completely connected nodes. Then the dynamics runs as follows:

1. Add a new node $`i`$ to the network. The new node is disconnected at first, so $`k_i=0`$ at this point.
2. Attach $`m`$ outgoing links to the new node $`i`$. Each node $`j`$ of the $`m`$ active nodes receives exactly one incoming link, thereby $`k_jk_j+1`$.
3. Activate the new node $`i`$.
4. Deactivate one of the active nodes. The probability that the node $`j`$ is deactivated is given by

$$P(k_j)=\frac{\gamma 1}{a+k_j},$$
(1)
where $`a>0`$ is a constant bias and the normalization factor is defined as $`\gamma 1=\left(_{l𝒜}\frac{1}{a+k_l}\right)^1`$. The summation runs over the set $`𝒜`$ of the currently active nodes.
5. Resume at 1.

The average connectivity of the network is given by the number of outgoing links per node, $`m`$. It is worth noting that a node receives incoming links during the lifetime $`T`$ it is active, and once inactive it will not receive links any longer. Thus for each node $`i`$ the time $`T_i`$ spent in the active state and the in-degree $`k_i`$ are equivalent.

The deactivation mechanism strongly simplifies the dynamics of growing complex networks. Neither gradual aging nor possible reactivation are taken into account. For instance, in the context of citation networks, the model does not consider the rediscovery of “forgotten” papers. Moreover, the functional form of the deactivation probability might well differ from Eq. (1). However, we will show that the model reproduces several features of real growing networks.

## Degree distribution

The distribution $`N(k)`$ of the in-degree $`k`$ can be obtained analytically for the model defined above, considering the continuous limit of $`k`$. Let us first derive the distribution $`p^{(t)}(k)`$ of the in-degree of the active nodes at time $`t`$. For $`k>0`$, the time evolution is determined by the following master equation

$`p^{(t+1)}(k+1)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1P(k)\right)p^{(t)}(k)`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{a+k}}\right)p^{(t)}(k)`$ (3)
where $`a`$ and $`\gamma `$ are defined in step 4 of the model definition. The boundary value p(0) is a constant reflecting the constant rate of new nodes with initial $`k=0`$.

Assuming that the fluctuations of the normalization $`\gamma 1`$ are small enough, such that $`\gamma `$ may be treated as a constant, the stationary case $`p^{(t+1)}(k)=p^{(t)}(k)`$ of Eq. (2) yields

$$p(k+1)p(k)=\frac{\gamma 1}{a+k}p(k).$$
(4)
Treating $`k`$ as continuous we write

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}p}{\mathrm{d}k}=\frac{\gamma 1}{a+k}p(k),$$
(5)
and obtain the solution

$$p(k)=b(a+k)^{\gamma +1},$$
(6)
with appropriate normalization constant $`b`$. In case the total number $`n`$ of nodes in the network is large compared with the number $`m`$ of active nodes, the overall degree distribution $`N(k)`$ can be approximated by considering the inactive nodes only. Thus $`N(k)`$ can be calculated as the rate of change of the degree distribution $`p(k)`$ of the active nodes. We find

$$N(k)=\frac{\mathrm{d}p}{\mathrm{d}k}=c(a+k)^\gamma $$
(7)
with $`c=(\gamma 1)a^{\gamma 1}`$. The exponent $`\gamma `$ is obtained from a self-consistency condition obtained from the average connectivity

$$m=c_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{k}{(a+k)^\gamma }𝑑k,$$
(8)
which gives

$$\gamma =2+\frac{a}{m}.$$
(9)
Thus the exponent $`\gamma `$ depends only on the ratio $`a/m`$. Similar expressions have been obtained for a version of the BA-model with directed links . Although the growth and deactivation model has been formulated for directed networks, it can be easily applied also to generate undirected networks.

### Numerical results

Figure 2(a) shows the cumulative distribution of the total degree $`k^{}=(m+k)`$ obtained by simulating the model for $`5\times 10^4`$ time steps. We obtain a power law scaling for several decades, in agreement with the analytical result in Eq. 7. The exponent found numerically is 1.9, slightly below the analytical result $`\gamma 1=2+a/m1=2`$ for the case $`a=m`$. The deviation can be explained by the continuous limit used in the theoretical derivation of $`\gamma `$ and the assumption that $`\gamma `$ is a constant. Conducting further simulations for various values of $`m`$ and $`a`$, we find that the fluctuations of $`\gamma `$ become smaller when increasing $`m`$ and/or $`a`$. Then the discrepancy between analytical and numerical results decreases. Figure 2(a) also shows corresponding simulation results for the BA model, using $`m=10`$ and $`5\times 10^4`$ time steps as well. In the range $`k^{}<1000`$ we obtain almost the same distribution as for the growth and deactivation model. However, the main difference between both models is the presence of a cutoff at a lower value for the BA-model.

Up to this point we have considered degree distributions including all nodes of the network. However, in many cases empirical data contain only those nodes and links of the network that have been created most recently. For instance, studies on scientific citation networks  are restricted to papers that are not older than 20 years, thereby ignoring the major part of the initial network. A pronounced power law regime is observed in the degree distribution of these truncated networks. Therefore it is important to investigate the robustness of the scale-free networks obtained from models under truncation in time. Figure 2(b) shows the cumulative degree distributions analogous to Fig. 2(a), but now regarding the truncated network where the fraction $`\mathrm{\Delta }=50\%`$ of oldest nodes and all their links are disregarded. Concerning the BA-model the effect of truncation is drastic. The truncated network does not exhibit a scale-free range in the degree distribution. This is different for the growth and deactivation model. The influence of the truncation on the degree distribution is a slight shift of the cutoff for high $`k^{}`$. In order to view systematically the effect of truncation, we consider the largest degree $`k_{max}^{}`$, occurring in the truncated network, as a function of the fraction $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of disregarded nodes. According to Fig. 2(c), $`k_{max}^{}`$ decays as a power law (with an approximate exponent of 0.5, $`k_{max}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{0.5}`$) for the BA-model. On the other hand, the new model introduced here exhibits only a weak dependence of the maximum degree on the truncation.

## Linear preferential attachment

Another relevant dynamical property is the degree-dependent attachment rate $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$. It is measured as follows: Consider the set $`𝒦`$ of nodes with degree $`k`$ at a certain time $`t`$. Measure the average degree $`k+\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ of the nodes in $`𝒦`$ at a later time $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Then let $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)=\mathrm{\Delta }k/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. In recent studies of various growing networks, it has been found empirically that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ is an increasing function . This phenomenon is called preferential attachment. For the Internet and citation networks the preferential attachment is linear, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)k`$.

We can calculate $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ for the model introduced in the present Paper. At a time $`t`$, the network contains $`t`$ nodes. $`tN(k)`$ of these have degree $`k`$. The number of active nodes with degree $`k`$ is $`mp(k)`$. A time step later, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$, each of the active nodes has increased its degree by 1, whereas the degree of the inactive nodes remains unchanged. Thus, according to Eqs. (6) and (7), the average increase of the degree is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(k)=\frac{mp(k)}{tN(k)}(a+k).$$
(10)
The model shows linear preferential attachment as an emergent property of the degree-dependent deactivation dynamics.

## Age distribution

Let us now consider the distribution of the age $`\tau `$ of nodes receiving a new link. We define the time-dependent age distribution $`h(\tau ,t)`$ as the probability that a new link created at time $`t`$ attaches to a node of age $`\tau `$, i.e. to a node created at time $`t\tau `$. For the model defined here, the age distribution $`h`$ is easy to obtain. Only active nodes receive links, and for these nodes their age $`\tau `$ and their in-degree $`k`$ have the same value. Therefore the probability that the node of age $`\tau `$ obtains a new link is the same as the probability for a node with $`\tau `$ links to be active, given by equation (6). It is independent of $`t`$:

$$h(\tau )(a+\tau )^{\gamma +1}.$$
(11)
For comparison we calculate the age distribution for the BA-model. Apart from small deviations, the total degree of the node $`i`$ created at time $`t_i`$ is :

$$k_i^{}=m\left(\frac{t}{t_i}\right)^{0.5}=m\left(\frac{t}{t\tau }\right)^{0.5},$$
(12)
where the second equality is due to the substitution $`t_i=\tau t`$. The probability of obtaining a new link is proportional to the total degree, thus we find

$$h(\tau ,t)=\frac{1}{2mt}m\left(\frac{t}{t\tau }\right)^{0.5}=\frac{1}{2}[t(t\tau )]^{0.5}.$$
(13)
In the BA-model the probability of receiving a new link increases with the age of the node. In sharp contrast, the growth and deactivation model displays a forgetting of old nodes where the rate of forgetting is a power-law, Eq. (11). Figure 3 shows plots of the age distributions for both models, to be compared with the empirical data in Fig. 1. The age distribution of the growth and deactivation model decays with $`\tau `$. This agrees with the empirical data on citation networks except for the first 3 years after publication.

## Clustering coefficient

The clustering coefficient $`C`$  is one of the parameters used to characterize the topology of complex networks. It is a local property measuring the probability with which two neighbors of a node are also neighbors to each other (nodes $`i`$ and $`j`$ are neighbors if there is a link between $`i`$ and $`j`$). It has been found that many real world networks present a clustering coefficient much larger than the corresponding random graph, which scales with the system size $`N`$ as $`C_{rand}k/N`$.

Fig. 4(a) shows that for the growth and deactivation model the clustering coefficient tends towards an asymptotic value ($`0.83`$) as the network grows. The analytical derivation of $`C`$ is facilitated by the observation, that the clustering $`C_i`$ of a node merely depends on the node’s in-degree $`k_i`$. A detailed calculation gives an asymptotic value $`C=5/6`$ for the case of $`a=m`$ considered here. Thus the model generates networks with a higher clustering than the corresponding one-dimensional regular lattices, $`C_{1D}<3/4`$. The large value of the clustering coefficient and the fact that it does not decrease with network size is in qualitative agreement with recent data on the Internet . For the sake of comparison, in Fig. 4(b) the clustering coefficient of the BA-model is plotted for several network sizes $`N`$. Here the clustering clearly decays with increasing $`N`$. The quantitative behavior of the decay can be described by $`C(\mathrm{ln}N)^2/N`$. The detailed derivation of the clustering coefficients for both models is included in (Klemm and Eguíluz, unpublished work).

## Conclusions

The analysis of citation networks suggests a negative correlation between the age of a node and its probability to obtain further links. Older nodes are less likely to increase their connectivity than those added to the network more recently. Motivated by this finding, we have proposed and analyzed a new approach based on nodes with one degree of freedom, a memory, indicating the ability of the node to attract further links. We have found that with the simple setting of the model the degree distribution converges to a power law, where the exponent can be obtained analytically. As emergent properties of the model, (1) preferential attachment is obtained, a feature observed recently in various real growing networks, and (2) the correlation between age and linking probability is negative, in agreement also with the empirical results mentioned above. Unlike previous models, degree and age of nodes are uncorrelated in the model introduced here. Therefore the networks retain the power-law distribution of the degree even though only the most recent nodes are considered. This agrees with the fact that also truncated real-world networks are observed to be scale-free. Finally it is worth noting the resemblance of the grown networks to regular lattices. The highly clustered scale-free networks make a connection between scale-free networks and regular lattices. They define a new class of scale-free networks. Interesting extensions of the model include the introduction of random links, similarly to models of small-world networks. We expect to find a connection between scale-free growing networks and the small-world transition from regular lattices. Research along this line is in progress.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Anthony F.J. van Raan for providing us with the age-distribution data in Figure 1. VME acknowledges financial support from the Danish Natural Science Research Council. We are grateful to Emilio Hernández-García and Kristian Schaadt for useful comments on the manuscript.