text:
# Galileo’s Discovery of Scaling Laws

## 1 Introduction

Galileo’s last and crowning achievement was the Two New Sciences , a dialogue in four days. The second half of this book, the third and fourth days, describes his solution to the longstanding problem of projectile motion, a result of obvious importance and the birth of physics as we know it. But this was only the second of his two new sciences. What was the first one?

Two New Sciences begins in the Venetian Arsenal with a discussion of the effect of scaling up or scaling down in practical construction projects, like shipbuilding. The conversation veers away into a dazzling variety of topics, but on the second day, after that long digression, it returns to a serious analysis of scaling, especially in the context of the strength of materials. According to the publisher’s foreword, it is this topic that should be understood as the first of the two new sciences . Since it was the publisher and not Galileo who gave the book its title, this must be what the title means. It should be noted that Galileo was unhappy with the title, perhaps because it seems irrelevant to much of the ingenious speculation of the First Day . It is clear, though, that Galileo did assign enormous importance to the problem of the strength of materials, an importance that modern readers have found more than a little puzzling.

I will show that the key to much of what is strange in Two New Sciences is to be found in two rather neglected early lectures given by Galileo on the shape, location, and size of Dante’s Inferno . The text of these lectures is readily available in the standard 20-volume Opere of Galileo among the “literary” writings in Volume 9. My reconstruction of its actual significance, which is not at all literary, is the subject of this paper.

## 2 Scaling in the Two New Sciences

Two New Sciences begins with the subject of scaling. Galileo’s observations on scaling in general are ingenious and elegant, and entirely deserving of the prominent place he gives them. These ideas are basic in physics, and are introduced, in some fashion, in Chapter 1 of most introductory physics texts under the heading of dimensional analysis. We could even say that modern renormalization group methods are just our most recent way to deal with problems of scale, still recognizably in a tradition pioneered by Galileo. It is true that Galileo didn’t have the algebraic notation to do dimensional analysis the way we do, but his insights within a restricted arena are the same as ours.

An example of such an insight is “the surface of a small solid is comparatively greater than that of a large one”  because the surface goes like the square of a linear dimension, but the volume goes like the cube. Thus as one scales down macroscopic objects, forces on their surfaces like viscous drag become relatively more important, and bulk forces like weight become relatively less important. Galileo uses this idea on the First Day of the Two New Sciences in the context of resistance in free fall, as an explanation for why similar objects of different weight do not fall exactly together, but the lighter one lags behind.

Even though the idea is completely general, most of the discussion on scaling is directed specifically to the strength of materials. That subject is introduced immediately in Two New Sciences with the assertion that large ships out of water risk breaking under their own weight, something that is not a concern with small ships . The same subject occupies most of the Second Day, devoted to the strength of beams. The question is put in an especially paradoxical way by Sagredo, who says “Now, since mechanics has its foundation in geometry, where mere size cuts no figure, I do not see that the properties of circles, triangles, cylinders, cones and other solid figures will change with their size. If therefore a large machine be constructed in such a way that its parts bear to one another the same ratio as in a smaller one, and if the smaller is sufficiently strong for the purpose for which it was designed, I do not see why the larger also should not be \[sufficiently strong\] …” . This is a remarkable argument. It combines (1) faith that physics “is” geometry, and (2) the scale invariance of the theorems of geometry. For the purpose of this paper we will call it Sagredo’s theory of scale invariance .

Two New Sciences modifies Sagredo’s theory of scale invariance. Specifically, Galileo adds material properties to (1) above, while still preserving the essential “geometrical” nature of physics. As Salviati puts it much later, on the Second Day, “… these forces, resistances, moments, figures, etc. may be considered in the abstract, dissociated from matter, or in the concrete, associated with matter. Hence the properties which belong to figures that are merely geometrical and non-material must be modified when we fill these figures with matter and therefore give them weight.”  These modifications break scale invariance, but they do not change the essence of the theory, which is mathematical: “Since I assume matter to be unchangeable and always the same, it is clear that we are no less able to treat this constant and invariable property in a rigid manner than if it belonged to simple and pure mathematics.”

A typical example of the new considerations that arise when “we fill these figures with matter” starts with the breaking of a wooden beam. If the beam breaks, all its longitudinal fibers break, and since their number is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the beam, the beam’s strength in withstanding a longitudinal pull should be proportional to its cross-sectional area. If a supported beam is subject to a transverse force, however, the associated torque must be balanced by the first moment of the stress in the fibers, which introduces an additional factor of the diameter of the beam . Thus the beam’s strength in withstanding a transverse force should be proportional to its diameter cubed . If the beam is made longer, the torque due to the same transverse force applied at a geometrically similar position is proportionately greater and the beam is proportionately weaker, and so forth. There follow Galileo’s very famous observations on why animals cannot be simply scaled up, but rather their bones must become proportionately thicker as they get larger .

All of this material is developed in a series of eight propositions with geometrical proofs. It is clearly the geometrical framework which makes these scaling laws a “science.” After the eight propositions there is some discussion and then a return to geometry, considering certain more detailed questions, such as the problem of locating the weakest point in a beam, i.e., where it would break, and the problem of finding a beam which would have no unique weakest point, but would be, in a sense, equally strong everywhere. These last topics are clearly later than the original scaling theory of the eight propositions.

A persistent oddity on the Second Day is a continuing preoccupation with beams that break under their own weight, the same phenomenon that began the whole discussion in the Venetian Arsenal, except that there it was ships that break under their own weight. Another oddity is the sudden change of subject on the First Day. The conversation, which has just barely gotten underway, is about the strength of ropes, made of fibers, but the question of non-fibrous materials is raised, such as metal or stone. Simplicio wants to know what gives such materials their strength. Just before this, and perhaps intended to motivate it, we had heard about a marble column that broke under its own weight . Although Salviati hesitates to take time over this, Sagredo says “But if, by digressions, we can reach new truth, what harm is there in making one now…?”  and the conversation goes off for the rest of the day into speculations about the atomic theory of matter, cohesive forces among atoms, and questions of the infinitesimally small and infinitely large, among other things. The discussion is diffuse but occasionally brilliant, even if nothing definitive can be said about what holds matter together. The opening lines of the Second Day confirm, however, that the central purpose of all this was that the scaling theory should apply to all solid materials and not just to fibrous materials like wood. Taking everything together, there is an odd hint of a problem in the background which motivates all the discussions of the first two days but which is never actually stated, some object of stone or metal that breaks under its own weight when it is scaled up. This is what the conversation seems to be circling around, without ever quite saying so.

In seeking to understand what the Two New Sciences is really about, we should recall how it came to be written. Galileo was remarkably reticent about publishing: before the Starry Messenger of 1610, the year he turned 46, he had published hardly a thing. His astronomical discoveries of that year brought him instant fame, and he parlayed this into his appointment as Mathematician and Philosopher to the Grand Duke of Tuscany. In the negotiations leading up to that appointment he described the many books he wanted leisure to write, based on the research he had been quietly doing at Padua, but these books did not appear. His life at the Tuscan court was fraught with controversy, and the books he actually wrote were reactions to events and new discoveries, the Discourse on Bodies in Water, and the Sunspot Letters. When the Holy Office declared the opinion of Copernicus formally heretical in 1616, his fondest project was closed off to him. He silenced himself for several years, and when he finally wrote again (The Assayer), after much pressuring from his friends, it was part of a testy controversy that made him new enemies. The debacle over his great Dialogue Concerning the Two Principal World Systems and the disastrous trial of 1633 should have been the end of his career. Yet somehow he found the strength to begin writing what would become the Two New Sciences. And from somewhere in his past research he drew the scaling theory, and placed it first.

Just where the scaling theory comes from is a bit mysterious, since there are few surviving references to it in the record. It was certainly complete by 1612, however, the year Galileo published the Discourse on Bodies in Water. The most vexing problem Galileo deals with there is the problem of a thin lamina of material denser than water which nonetheless floats on the surface, supported by surface tension, as we would say now. At the very end of the Discourse, Galileo points out that if the lamina were supported at its perimeter, a thin sample (say of square shape and fixed thickness) would be more easily supported if it were cut into many smaller squares, because in reducing the size, the area of each piece, and hence its weight, would go down faster than the perimeter, which is the source of its support. Galileo presents this argument purely hypothetically, as contrary to fact, since his own idea of what supports the lamina is quite different. Peculiar details aside, it suffices for our purpose that this is an explicit use of the scaling theory as early as 1612.

An even earlier reference, although not as explicit, occurs in a letter from Galileo to Antonio de’Medici in 1609 . This remarkable letter is in effect a one page outline of the Two New Sciences! Galileo is describing, he says, his most recent investigations, saying “And just lately I have succeeded in finding all the conclusions, with their proofs, pertaining to forces and resistances of pieces of wood of various lengths, sizes, and shapes, and by how much they would be weaker in the middle than at the ends, and how much more weight they can sustain if the weight were distributed over the whole rather than concentrated at one place, and what shape wood should have in order to be equally strong everywhere: which science is very necessary in making machines and all kinds of buildings, and which has never been treated before by anyone.” He then goes on to describe certain insights into the motion of projectiles. This letter makes it clear that the basic organization of Two New Sciences was already in his mind in 1609, and even seems to say that the results were at that time quite fresh. On closer inspection, though, one sees that the detailed results described here belong to the last section of the Second Day, building on the basic results of the first eight propositions, which must therefore be even earlier material. That the projectile theory was still incomplete at this point, and also comes later in Two New Sciences, suggests (what is plausible in any case) that the order of treatment there is chronological. That is, the scaling theory comes first in Two New Sciences because it literally was first, and we will have to look earlier to find it.

The next suggestion for the origin of the scaling theory might well come from Two New Sciences itself. The opening scene in the Venetian Arsenal is peculiarly effective – why not take it at face value? Galileo was obviously familiar with the Arsenal, and it is known that he was consulted there on ship design. What likelier place could there be to encounter problems of scale, in just the way that he says? This could place the origin of the scaling theory as early as 1592, the year he became Professor of Mathematics at Padua. On closer reading, though, one sees that even if Sagredo is surprised by the failure of scale invariance in the shipyard, Salviati is not. He already understands it, and is immediately ready to explain it all to Sagredo. What the scene really says is that Salviati’s mind (read Galileo’s) was already prepared to understand what he saw in the Arsenal, because he had already done the scaling theory. This means we must search for the scaling theory still earlier, at the very beginning of Galileo’s career, or perhaps, in a sense, even earlier than that.

## 3 The Lectures on Dante’s Inferno

Galileo enrolled at the University of Pisa to study medicine at the age of 17, and dropped out at the age of 21. He spent the next several years studying mathematics independently, especially Euclid and Archimedes, and he did tutoring in mathematics. While living at home he assisted his father in remarkable experiments on the pitch of plucked strings under known tension . Fifty years later he briefly summarized their experimental results in Two New Sciences, the First Day . He proved some theorems on centers of gravity, in the style of Archimedes, and he also included those in Two New Sciences, as an appendix. It is clear that Two New Sciences contains some very early material.

The young Galileo hoped to make a reputation in mathematics with his theorems, and he sent them to a number of Italian mathematicians. He was fortunate to get a favorable reply from Guidobaldo del Monte, Inspector of Fortifications to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, someone in a position to help him . They corresponded. When the chair of mathematics at Pisa became open, someone, probably Guidobaldo but perhaps his even more illustrious brother Francesco, who had just been made a cardinal , arranged for Galileo to be invited to address the Florentine Academy to give two lectures on mathematical topics . It was in effect a seminar talk and job interview. Galileo’s lectures charmed his audience. Within a few months the young dropout was Professor of Mathematics at Pisa.

Galileo’s audience at the Florentine Academy was not a mathematical one. The Florentine Academy was a creation of the Medici dynasty (which had ascended to the nobility only in the immediately previous generation), and had as one of its chief functions the glorification of the Medici in every intellectual arena . It was far more important for Galileo to play to this predilection of his audience than to display mathematical erudition. In the event he brilliantly combined a clear exposition of mathematics with a topic Florence loved to hear, their great poet Dante, and in particular the geometry of Dante’s Inferno, based on evidence from the poem. Although Galileo did introduce certain original material in his lecture, he did not call too much attention to this, and represented himself rather as describing two previous rival attempts to determine the plan of Hell. One of these was by Antonio Manetti, who is represented as a member now deceased of the Florentine Academy itself . The other plan, a later attempt, was by Alessandro Vellutello, not a Florentine . Galileo begins in a way that seems evenhanded, but as the second lecture proceeds, on Vellutello’s plan, he becomes more and more sarcastic until in the end he seems to be defending the virtuous Florentine Manetti against the ridicule of the stupid and thoughtless Vellutello, to the delight of his audience, no doubt. This was how a Medici intellectual should defend the honor of Florence!

Only the large scale features of these plans need concern us here. Manetti’s Inferno is a cone-shaped region in the earth, with its vertex at the center and its base on the surface, centered on Jerusalem. But since Galileo is a master of exposition, let him describe it: “… imagine a straight line which comes from the center of the earth (which is also the center of heaviness and of the Universe) to Jerusalem, and an arc which extends from Jerusalem over the surface of the water and the earth together to a twelfth part of its greatest circumference: such an arc will terminate with one of its extremities on Jerusalem; from the other let a second straight line be drawn to the center of the earth, and we will have a sector of a circle, contained by the two lines which come from the center and the said arc; let us imagine, then, that the line which joins Jerusalem to the center staying fixed, the other line and the arc should be moved in a circle, and that in such motion it should go cutting the earth, and move itself until it returns to where it started. There will be cut from the earth a part like a cone; which, if we imagine it to be taken out of the earth, there will remain, in the place where it was, a hole in the form of a conical surface, and this is the Inferno.” As an aside to the mathematically adept, Galileo gave the volume of this region, which he knew from his study of Archimedes.

The various levels of Manetti’s Inferno are regularly spaced, for the most part, with 1/8 the radius of the earth between each level and the next. In particular the first level, Limbo, is at a depth of 1/8 the radius of the earth below the surface, and the shell of material down to this depth forms a cap of this thickness over the whole of Hell. Vellutello’s Inferno, by contrast, is much smaller, located near the center of the earth, and only about 1/10 the radius of the earth in height, making it, as Galileo is quick to say, ridiculously small, only 1/1000 the volume of Manetti’s.

Near the end of his presentation, Galileo says this: “Here one might oppose that the Inferno cannot be so large as Manetti makes it, since, as some have suspected, it doesn’t seem possible that the vault that covers the Inferno could support itself and not fall into the hole, being so thin, as is necessary if the Inferno comes up so high. And especially, beyond being no thicker than the eighth part of the radius of the earth, which is 405 miles more or less, some of it must be removed for the space of the Grotto of the Uncommitted, and even more must be removed \[on the top\] for the very great depth of the sea. To this one answers easily that such a thickness is more than sufficient; for taking a little vault which will have an arch of 30 braccias, it will need a thickness of about 4 braccias, which not only is enough, but even if you used just 1 braccia to make an arch of 30 braccias, and perhaps just 1/2, and not 4, it would be enough to support itself; and knowing that the depth of the sea is a very few miles, or better, even less than one mile, if we believe the most expert sailors, and assigning as many miles as seem necessary for the Grotto of the Uncommitted, a determinate measure not being given by the Poet, if this together with the depth of the sea comes to 100 miles, the said vault will still be very thick, and far more than is necessary to hold itself up.” Since in Galileo’s units the earth’s radius is about 3200 miles, and 1/8 of that is 400 miles, it is clear that he is describing a scale model of the roof of the Inferno, including a certain anteroom hollowed out of it, at a scale of about 1 braccia to 100 miles. A normal man is 3 braccias tall, so the model suggests a large domed roof, somewhat smaller than the famous Brunelleschi dome of the Florentine cathedral which, as Galileo says, is less than 4 braccias thick and supports itself beautifully. This is a convincing argument that Manetti’s model can support itself – but only until you realize that the argument assumes scale invariance! Could you really scale it up by a factor of 100,000? Absolutely not! The scaled up version is effectively weaker by that enormous factor and would immediately collapse of its own weight.

## 4 Discussion

When Galileo realized his mistake, probably just a short time later, it must have struck him like a lightning bolt. This is just how Sagredo reacts, in fact, in strangely emotional language, at the beginning of Two New Sciences where Salviati asserts that nature is not scale invariant: “My brain … reels. My mind, like a cloud momentarily illuminated by a lightning-flash, is for an instant filled with an unusual light, which now beckons to me and which now suddenly mingles and obscures strange, crude ideas…”

We need look no further to know why the problem of scaling and the strength of materials had urgent meaning for Galileo. There is nothing hypothetical about this. It is plain in the record, with no ambiguity at all. He had made a gigantic blunder in the Inferno lectures, sufficient to turn his whole argument on its head, and with it his claim to be an intellectual champion of his country and his sovereign, on whom his young career depended.

It may be difficult, from a modern point of view, to take Sagredo’s overwrought words seriously. Yet the situation was serious enough, apparently, to force Galileo to concentrate on the scaling problem and develop a new theory almost immediately, to judge from numerous internal clues. Then, instead of publishing the theory, he kept it to himself for almost fifty years! This is baffling, if we only ask ourselves how we might have acted. Rather, we must ask how an intellectual of Galileo’s time would have acted, and why.

The lectures themselves were evidently a success, so what was the crisis? Here we must note that the context of the lectures was a dispute, a “duel,” between Manetti and Vellutello. The lectures are actually a savage attack on Vellutello. To an extent that it is hard to appreciate now, Renaissance intellectual life, at least in the vicinity of a court, consisted in attacks and counterattacks, which often functioned as a kind of spectator sport . This kind of ongoing dispute, with reputations on the line, was the very stuff of Italian intellectual life. Galileo’s own career offers many examples. And here was the crisis. Nothing would be more natural than to anticipate another round in this dispute, a reply to Galileo from some partisan of Vellutello. Now an intellectual should expect to be attacked – it went without saying – and he should have a good reply ready. A good reply could be something impressive, or witty, or surprising – any number of rhetorical strategies were possible, but a good reply had to be tenable. The worst disaster was not to be wrong, but rather to have nothing adequate to say. And Galileo’s position on scaling in the lectures was untenable. He had to develop a new position.

In this culture of attack and counterattack, it made a certain kind of sense to keep results secret until they were needed. The most famous example of this phenomenon is probably the solution of the cubic equation, which was held secret for decades  until it was finally published by Cardano in 1545. In the same way, Galileo may have developed the scaling theory and then postponed publishing it because the moment never actually arrived when he needed it.

It is not pure conjecture that Galileo would have followed such a strategy, keeping secret an important result until he needed it for self-defense. Indeed, in the controversy on floating bodies we see him doing exactly this. This controversy began when Galileo asserted, by Archimedes’ Principle, that ice must be less dense than water, since it floats. His Aristotelian opponents asserted that according to Aristotle ice, being cold, must be more dense than water, and that ice floats, despite being more dense, because it is broad and flat. Galileo quickly disposed of this foolish argument, but then his opponents found an example of something (a chip of ebony) that really is denser than water and nonetheless floats, if you carefully put it on the water’s surface (because it is broad and flat, they said). At this point neither side in the controversy had a satisfactory understanding of what they were seeing. Galileo’s slightly odd response was to bring forward a way to prove Archimedes’ Principle by geometry, using some mechanical ideas of balance that had long fascinated him. This was clearly something he had kept ready for just such a moment, even though it did not really address the problem of the floating ebony chip. He made some new observations of this anomalous floating phenomenon (which we attribute mainly to surface tension) and stretched his geometric theory to argue that Archimedes’ Principle could entirely account for it. This strategy worked, in the sense that he argued his opponents to a standstill. He never convinced them, but that was not the point. Rather, he had used his hitherto secret knowledge in a successful defense. As we noted earlier, Galileo also used the scaling theory defensively in this controversy, right at the end, as a clincher, so to speak . Thus it is not implausible that he had kept it for just such a purpose.

When Galileo finally published the scaling theory, at the end of his life, he hints at the story of its discovery, including his original naivete about scale invariance. We have seen how Sagredo endorses scale invariance at the beginning of Two New Sciences, but in fact all three participants do this. On the Second Day, Simplicio, who is often comic in just this way, suddenly endorses scale invariance, as if he had just thought of it, and Sagredo has to point out that he had said it the day before, and this is what they have been talking about. At this point Salviati, who is Galileo’s spokesman, says that he too had assumed scale invariance once, until various observations showed him the contrary . In this way Galileo is commendably frank, truthfully representing his former opinion in the Inferno lecture. On the other hand, he never mentions the lecture itself, which would still have been awkward for the honor of the Florentine Academy. No one can blame him for this. Quite possibly by 1638 there was no one else alive who even remembered this detail of the original lecture. There was no real need to recount this story. Thus the motivating problem of Two New Sciences, the collapse of Manetti’s Inferno, is discreetly avoided, and another one, not particularly convincing, a ship that falls apart of its own weight, is invented in its place.

In fact, Galileo seems to have regarded the Inferno lectures as an embarrassment, and this may be another reason why he postponed publishing the scaling theory. His first biographer, Viviani, was unaware of the lectures, despite living in Galileo’s house during his last years, collecting Galileo’s stories, and devoting himself to Galileo’s memory after his death. Since Viviani is the source of most stories about Galileo, subsequent biographies have also said little or nothing about the Inferno Lectures, which were only rediscovered in the 19th century. Thus one can plausibly conclude that Galileo never told Viviani about them. This is rather odd when you think that they were very likely the pivotal opportunity that got his career started. A letter of 1594 from one Luigi Alamanni  also indicates that Galileo was unhelpful to someone who wanted to get a copy of them. The letter says “About that lecture of Galileo, he is in Padua, and I have not been able to get it from him.”  There were copies with Bacio Valori in Florence, including one written out in Galileo’s own hand, but he apparently did not volunteer this.

There is another hint that Galileo’s scaling theory was originally planned defensively. In working out the scaling theory, Galileo would have noticed a second problem in the Inferno lectures, besides the inevitable collapse of the roof. In the first lecture the dimensions of the lowest regions are determined by comparison with certain giants who have been placed there by Dante, embedded in ice. In the lecture Galileo assumed that these giants have the same proportions as normal men, and his only hesitation on this point was whether giants have the ideal human proportions favored by artists like Albrecht Dürer, who wrote on the subject, or whether they have proportions more like ordinary men. Manetti and Vellutello had differed on this point, and Galileo favored Manetti, of course. But it is a consequence of the scaling theory that giants couldn’t have either of these proportions. If we look in Two New Sciences in the section on scaling in animals , we find that in fact the animal of most concern is man: Galileo is concerned about giant men. He even quotes a poet describing a giant, although it is Ariosto, not Dante, and he suggests, although it is a rather farfetched interpretation of the words, that Ariosto understands that giants would be misshapen. This occurrence of poetic giants and their proportions in Two New Sciences is entirely to be expected if the context is the Inferno lectures. The Ariosto lines make sense as part of a prepared defense: not only could he expound the scaling theory, he could invoke Ariosto as a poet who understands it. Although this might not impress a scientific audience, the audience that mattered was a courtly audience. And although they would not understand the geometry, they would undoubtedly applaud this trick, just as they had applauded his skillful combination of Dante and geometry in the original lecture. Nearly fifty years later, as he finally wrote the scaling theory down, for a very different audience, these associations still persist. This is speculation, of course, but the reader is invited to find a more plausible explanation for what Ariosto’s giant is doing in Two New Sciences.

The setting in the Venetian arsenal seems to promise practical science, and the scene is so effective that it has functioned as a credential for Galileo ever since, showing him to be a practical man of science, right at home with the foreman on the shop floor. There can be no doubt whatever that Galileo really was an ingenious and skilful experimentalist, but this opening scene fails to suggest how theoretical the work on scaling actually is. The Arsenal fades away almost immediately on the First Day, never to reappear. The discussion on the Second Day, when the subject finally comes into focus, is about beams with rectangular and circular cross section because the aim is geometrical proof. And the result toward which the whole development is tending is entirely theoretical, and is given no practical illustration, namely that anything would break of its own weight if it were sufficiently scaled up. This is the content of the culminating Propositions VII and VIII on the Second Day. Proposition VII, for example, is “Among heavy prisms and cylinders of similar figure, there is one and only one which under the stress of its own weight lies just on the limit between breaking and not breaking: so that every larger one is unable to carry the load of its own weight and breaks; while every smaller one is able to withstand some additional force tending to break it.” This 17th century version of “the inevitability of gravitational collapse” is what the Second Day is really about.

It is noteworthy that Galileo describes no experiments to verify the scaling theory, although experiments on the bending of a loaded beam would have been very simple for him, and entirely characteristic of his Padua years. This circumstance suggests that the scaling theory is early, and had no practical motivation.

The Inferno lectures begin by praising the skill and audacity of those discoverers who have measured the heavens, and the surface of the earth, and point out how much more difficult it is to know the earth’s interior, where it seems that no one can go and return – yet even this our Dante has done! It is an implied theme of the lectures that the geometer can do this too: by the use of geometry we see beyond the limitations of our senses, reasoning about otherwise inaccessible things. This insight is, in a way, the heart of physics as Galileo came to understand it. Yet in the Inferno lectures the idea occurs almost accidentally, as part of a glib and clever entertainment. The geometry is merely descriptive. There are no actual discoveries.

It is entirely different with the scaling theory, motivated by the lectures. Suddenly geometry really did give the key to new discovery, a discovery that Galileo was still proud to claim as his own at the end of his amazing career. This must have come as a wonderful surprise. For all the faith that Galileo and a few other mathematical enthusiasts had in geometry, it was, in practice, the everyday tool of artisans and merchants, not the source of new insights. Archimedes, to be sure, had used geometry in this wonderful way, but no one imagined there could be another Archimedes. With the scaling theory, however, Galileo had something truly new, worthy of comparison with Archimedes, something that validated his faith in geometry and hinted at undreamed of successes to come.

Looked at this way, Galileo’s lifelong reluctance to publish seems even more inexplicable, but perhaps this pattern began with the traumatic experience of the Inferno Lectures. He seems to have done his best to make people forget the lectures, and he kept the scaling theory to himself. What he made public, at least in this case, was a source of trouble, while what he kept secret was a source of confidence. This is a lesson that he might have taken to heart then, and it is a view he explicitly voices later on in the opening lines of The Assayer. Galileo frequently claims to have wonderful results that he has not yet revealed. We know that this was true through much of his career, and apparently it was true right from the start.

Finally it seems a fine irony that the first success of Galileo’s mathematical physics, which is close to being the first success of mathematical physics at all, was a response to a problem that was not physical, but rather the collapse of an imaginary structure in a work of literature.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank two anonymous referees for helpful suggestions and criticisms.


format: text

text: # 1


text:
# References

ABOUT THE $`Q^2`$ DEPENDENCE OF THE ASYMMETRY $`A_1`$ FROM THE SIMILARITY OF THE $`g_1`$ AND $`F_3`$ STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS
A.V. KOTIKOV1† and D.V. PESHEKHONOV2†
(1) Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, JINR, Dubna, 141980 Russia
(2) Laboratory of Particle Physics, JINR, Dubna, 141980 Russia
$``$ E-mail: kotikov@thsun1.jinr.ru, peshehon@sunse.jinr.ru

## Abstract

We consider a new approach for taking into account the $`Q^2`$ dependence of asymmetry $`A_1`$. This approach is based on the similarity of the $`Q^2`$ behavior and the shape of the spin-dependent structure function $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ and spin averaged structure function $`F_3(x,Q^2)`$.

An experimental study of the nucleon spin structure is realized  by measuring of the asymmetry $`A_1(x,Q^2)=g_1(x,Q^2)/F_1(x,Q^2)`$. The most known theoretical predictions on spin dependent structure function (SF) $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ of the nucleon were done by Bjorken  and Ellis and Jaffe  for the so called first moment value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=_0^1g_1(x)𝑑x`$.

Studying the properties of $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ and the calculation of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ value require the knowledge of SF function $`g_1`$ at the same $`Q^2`$ in the hole $`x`$ range. Experimentally asymmetry $`A_1`$ is measuring at different values of $`Q^2`$ for different $`x`$ bins. An accuracy of the modern experiments - allows to analyze data in the assumption  that asymmetry $`A_1(x)`$ is $`Q^2`$ independent (i.e. SF $`g_1`$ and $`F_1`$ have the same $`Q^2`$ dependence)

$`A_1(x,Q^2)=A_1(x)`$ (1)
But the precise checking of the Bjorken and Ellis - Jaffe sum rules requires considering the $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`A_1`$ or $`g_1`$. Moreover, the assumption (1) does not follow from the theory. On the contrary, the behavior of $`F_1`$ and $`g_1`$ as a functions of $`Q^2`$ is expected to be different due to the difference between polarized and unpolarized splitting functions.

There are several approaches (see  and references therein) how to take into account the $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`A_1`$. They are based on different approximate solutions of the DGLAP equations. Some of them have been used already by Spin Muon Collaboration (SMC) and E154 Collaboration in the last analyses of experimental data (see  and , respectively).

In this paper we review another idea which is based on the observation in  that the splitting functions of the DGLAP equations for the $`g_1`$ and $`F_3`$ and the SF shapes are similar in a wide $`x`$ range and, thus, their $`Q^2`$ dependences have to be close as a consequence. Our approach for $`Q^2`$-dependence of $`A_1`$ is very simple (see Eq.(3)) and leads to the results, which are very similar to ones based on the DGLAP evolution.

To demonstrate the validity of the observation, we note that splitting functions in the r.h.s. of DGLAP equations for nonsinglet (NS) parts of $`g_1`$ and $`F_3`$ are the same (at least in first two orders of the perturbative QCD) and differ from $`F_1`$ one already in the first subleading order. For the singlet (S) part of $`g_1`$ and for SF $`F_3`$ the difference between splitting functions is also negligible (see ). This observation allows us to conclude that the ratio of the SF $`g_1`$ and $`F_3`$ should be essentially $`Q^2`$ independent, i.e.

$`A_1^{}(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{g_1(x,Q^2)}{F_3(x,Q^2)}}=A_1^{}(x)`$ (2)
and the asymmetry $`A_1`$ at some $`Q^2`$ can be defined than as :

$`A_1(x_i,Q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{F_3(x_i,Q^2)}{F_3(x_i,Q_i^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_1(x_i,Q_i^2)}{F_1(x_i,Q^2)}}A_1(x_i,Q_i^2),`$ (3)
where $`x_i`$ ($`Q_i^2`$) means an experimentally measured value of $`x`$ ($`Q^2`$).

In principle, $`Q^2`$ independence of the $`A_1^{}(x)`$ ratio can be violated at small $`x`$ values, because the SF $`F_3(x)`$ has only nonsinglet structure and the SF $`g_1(x)`$ contains gluon and sea quark contributions. We note, however, that

* in polarized case the gluon and sea quark contributions are not so large even at modern small $`x`$ values (see Fig. 1 which is taken from ): only at $`x10^3`$ these contributions start to be dominant.
* The double-logarithmic estimations of small $`x`$ asymptotics for the SF $`g_1`$ and $`F_3`$ $`g_1^{NS}(x),F_3(x)x^{a_{NS}}`$ and $`g_1^S(x)x^{a_S}`$, given in , lead to the results: $`a_{NS}0.4`$ and $`a_S3/2a_{NS}0.6`$, that supports a similarity of nonsinglet and singlet polarized components.

We note that the estimations in  have been given at small $`Q^2`$ values. However, as it was shown earlier in  and , respectively, the values of $`a_{NS}`$ and $`a_S`$ should be nearly $`Q^2`$-independent, that is supported also by recent fits (see  and references therein).

To apply the proposed approach we use the SMC  data (the SLAC  data have been considered in ). We parameterize CCFR data on $`F_2(x,Q^2)`$ and $`xF_3(x,Q^2)`$  and take also the SLAC parameterization of $`R(x,Q^2)`$  to obtain structure function $`F_1(x,Q^2)`$. We use in Eq.(3) parameterizations of CCFR data  for both SF $`xF_3(x,Q^2)`$ and $`F_2(x,Q^2)`$ to avoid systematic uncertainties and nucleon correlation in nuclei.

The SF $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ is calculated using the asymmetry $`A_1(Q^2)`$ as

$`g_1(x,Q^2)=A_1(x,Q^2)F_1(x,Q^2),`$ (4)
where the spin average SF $`F_1`$ has been calculated using NMC parameterization of $`F_2(x,Q^2)`$ . The results are presented in Fig. 2. Our results are in very good agreement with the calculations based on direct DGLAP evolution.

To make another comparison with the theory we have calculated also the first moment value of the structure function $`g_1`$ at different $`Q^2`$. Using Eq.(3), we recalculate the SMC measured asymmetry of the proton and deuteron and E154 one of neutron at $`Q^2=100\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`30\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`Q^2=10\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and $`3\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and get the value of $`g_1(x)𝑑x`$ through the measured $`x`$ ranges. To obtain the first moment values $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{p(d)}`$ we use an original estimations of SMC and E154 for unmeasured regions. In Table we present the results for the mean values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n`$, because the errors coincide with the errors of original analyses -. The value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n`$ at $`Q^2`$ = 10 GeV2 obtained by direct DGLAP evolution are taken from article .

Let us now present the main results, following from the Table and the Fig. 2.

* The results are in very good agreement with $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ data of SMC, based on direct DGLAP evolution. So, the suggestion about $`Q^2`$ independence of the $`A_1^{}`$ ratio leads to correct results in simplest way.
* Our method allows to test of the Bjorken sum rule in a simple way with a good accuracy. Obtained results on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^n`$ show that used experimental data well confirm the Bjorken sum rule prediction.
* A violation of $`A_1^{}`$-scaling (2) in (future) experimental data will demonstrate large gluon and/or sea quark contributions to SF $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$. Then, the check of $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`A_1^{}`$ ratio should be very useful for an indication of large contributions of gluons and sea quarks in future polarized experiments.

Acknowledgments. One of us (AVK) is grateful very much to Organizing Committee of Workshop DUBNA-SPIN01 for the financial support. A.V.K. was supported in part by Alexander von Humboldt fellowship and INTAS grant N366.


text:
# Pressure-Induced Magnetism and Hidden Order in 𝑈𝑅𝑢₂𝑆𝑖₂

## Abstract

We discuss the discovery of pressure-induced antiferromagnetism in $`URu_2Si_2`$, in the context of neutron, NMR and $`\mu SR`$ results. The identification of a critical pressure separating mean-field and Ising phase transitions leads us to propose that the system lies close to a bicritical point associated with magnetic and (non-magnetic) hidden order. We conclude that the recent observation of an isotropic, field-independent component in the silicon NMR line-width implies that the hidden order parameter breaks time-reversal invariance and present a preliminary discussion of the underlying nature of the hidden order parameter.

journal: SCES’2001: Version 1

The origin of the entropy loss in $`URu_2Si_2`$ at $`T_0=17.5K`$ is an outstanding problem in heavy fermion physics. The observed staggered moment ($`m_0=0.03\mu _B`$) cannot account for the sharp discontinuities in bulk properties  and the entropy change that develop at this transition. The field-dependences of the magnetization and the gap are dissimilar, implying the presence of a hidden order parameter $`\psi `$ that remains uncharacterized.

Neutron experiments on $`URu_2Si_2`$ indicate that the staggered magnetic moment increases linearly with applied pressure, $`MP`$, up to 1 GPa. $`M(T)`$ is mean-field for $`P<`$ 1 GPa but is Ising in character at higher pressures. In a parallel study, NMR measurements on $`URu_2Si_2`$ show that at $`TT_0`$ the silicon NMR line-width develops a field-independent, isotropic component whose temperature-dependent magnitude is proportional to that of the hidden order parameter. These results imply an isotropic field distribution at the silicon sites whose root-mean square value is proportional to the hidden order

$$B^\alpha (i)B^\beta (j)=a^2\psi ^2\delta _{\alpha \beta },$$
(1)
and is $`10`$ gauss at $`T=0`$. This field magnitude is too small to be explained by the observed moment which induces a field $`B_{spin}=\frac{\mu _0M}{a^2}=100`$ Gauss where $`a`$ is the $`UU`$ bond length ($`a=4\times 10^{10}`$). Furthermore this moment is aligned along the $`c`$-axis, and thus cannot account for the isotropic nature of the local field distribution detected by NMR.

Now we try to unify these two experiments within a common framework. It has been widely assumed that the magnetic and the hidden order coexist and are homogeneous. However recent NMR studies of $`URu_2Si_2`$ under pressure indicate that for $`T<T_0`$ there is coexistence of antiferromagnetic and paramagnetic regions, implying that the magnetic and the hidden order parameters are phase separated. Then the change in character of the magnetic transition at $`P=P_c`$ is naturally interpreted as originating from a bicritical point. This picture, supported by $`\mu SR`$ data, suggests that at ambient pressure the observed magnetization is a volume fraction effect which develops separately from the hidden order via a first order transition.

In order to study this scenario further, we assume that the free energy $`F[\psi ,M,V]`$ is function of the hidden order $`\psi `$, the staggered magnetization $`M`$ and the unit cell volume $`V`$

$$F=F_\psi +F_m+g\psi ^2M^2$$
(2)
where $`F_X=(T_X(V)T)X^2+\frac{1}{2}u_X^2X^4`$ with $`X=\{\psi ,M\}`$. and $`T_\psi =T_M`$ at a critical volume $`V_c`$. If $`g^2u_\psi ^2u_M^2`$, there exists a bicritical point at $`V=V_c`$ with an associated first order line as shown in Fig. 1a. For $`V>V_c`$, the hidden order phase transition temperature is stable and $`T_\psi >T_M`$.

In order to transform the $`TV`$ phase diagram (Fig. 1a) into one for $`TP`$ (Fig. 1b), we note that the pressure $`P=\frac{F}{V}`$ is discontinuous across the first-order line in Fig. 1a leading to two distinct pressure scales, $`P_\psi `$ and $`P_M`$, in the $`TP`$ plot (Fig. 1b). In the associated coexistence region (Fig. 1b), the fraction of magnetic phase $`x`$ is given by the expression $`P(x)=(1x)P_\psi +xP_M`$ so that the net magnetization is then

$$=Mx=M\left(\frac{PP_\psi }{P_MP_\psi }\right)$$
(3)
Equation (3) displays the linear development of $`M(P)`$ for $`P>P_\psi `$; here we attribute a small $`P_\psi `$ to a large pressure-change associated with the first-order line in Fig. 1a. In the hidden order phase, the magnetization will develop via a first order phase transition in qualitative agreement with $`\mu `$SR data. Thus this simple approach can model the observed change of the magnetization at low P.

We now discuss the nature of the hidden order parameter, emphasizing the observed isotropic field distribution at the silicon sites. The magnetic fields at these nuclei have two possible origins: the electron-spin interaction and the orbital shift due to current densities. In $`URu_2Si_2`$, the electron fluid exhibits a strong Ising anisotropy along the c-axis, as measured by the Knight shift; thus the electron-spin interaction cannot be reponsible for the isotropic fields at the silicon sites. Alternatively we propose that these local fields are induced by currents that develop inside the crystal as the hidden order develops; thus the observed isotropic line-width is attributed to the orbital shift. We are therefore suggesting that for $`T<T_0`$, $`URu_2Si_2`$ is an orbital antiferromagnet. Such states have been been studied extensively in the context of the two-dimensional Hubbard model, , particularly in connection with staggered flux phases. More recently commensurate current density wave order has been proposed as an explanation of the spin-gap phase in the underdoped cuprate superconductors.

As a simple check on the applicability of orbital antiferromagnetism to $`URu_2Si_2`$, we estimate local fields at the silicon sites due to orbital currents circulating around the square uranium plaquettes in the a-b plane. On dimensional grounds, the current along the $`UU`$ bond is given by $`I=\frac{e\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the gap associated with hidden order formation. A microscopic derivation of this expression can be obtained from the Hubbard model, assuming that the hidden order parameter is the current along a $`UU`$ bond. If this current loops around a plaquette of side length $`a`$, then the field induced at a height $`a`$ above the plaquette is approximately $`B=\left(\frac{\mu _o}{2\pi a}\right)\left(\frac{e\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ Using the values $`a=4\times 10^{10}m`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=110K`$, we obtain $`I=2.3\mu A`$ and $`B=11\text{ Gauss}`$, in good agreement with the local field strength detected in $`NMR`$ and $`\mu SR`$ measurements.

In order to test whether this proposal will yield local isotropic fields, we allow the circulating current around a plaquette (cf. Fig. 2) centered at site $`𝐗`$ to develop staggered order $`(𝐗)=\psi e^{i𝐐𝐗}`$. The current along a bond is then the difference of the circulating currents along its adjacent plaquettes. The field at a silicon site can be computed using Ampere’s law, where the relevant vector potential is

$$𝐀(𝐱)=\frac{\mu _0}{4\pi }\underset{j}{}_{𝐱_j^{(1)}}^{𝐱_j^{(2)}}𝑑x^{}\frac{𝐈(𝐱_j)}{|𝐱(𝐱_j+𝐱^{})|}.$$
(4)
where $`𝐱_j^{(1,2)}`$ are the endpoints of the bond at site $`𝐱_j`$.

The silicon atoms in $`URu_2Si_2`$ are located at low-symmetry sites, so that the fields do not cancel; they reside above and below the centers of the uranium plaquettes. The proposed orbital antiferromagnet must have $`𝐐(\pi ,\pi )`$ in order to produce isotropic field distributions at the silicon sites as displayed in Fig. 3a. Using the vector potential in (4), our initial study finds that an incommensurate $`𝐐`$ vector in the vicinity of $`𝐐=(\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}},\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ (Fig 3b) produces an isotropic field distribution at the silicon sites. Such a configuration is staggered between the $`U`$ layers, with a periodicity of four unit cells in the basal plane.

We end with a brief discussion about the microscopic nature of the underlying hidden order. First, the presence of isotropic local fields at the silicon sites, implies that $`\psi `$ must break time-reversal invariance. Second, we believe that the magnitude of the observed fields indicates that they are current-induced; this proposal is also compatible with the observed robustness of $`\psi `$ to application of high magnetic fields. A simple possibility is to identify the hidden order parameter directly with a charge current, corresponding to the imaginary part of an electron-hopping operator

$$\stackrel{}{I}ic_\sigma ^{}(𝐱+\widehat{𝐢}/2)c_\sigma (𝐱\widehat{𝐢}/2)\text{H.c.}.$$

This bond current order would involve a significant fraction of the entire gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }=110K`$ and thus could account for the observed local fields; furthermore the associated entropy $`\frac{S}{R\mathrm{ln}2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{E_F}`$ at $`T_0`$ could easily account for the experimentally observed value of $`\frac{S}{\mathrm{ln}2}0.2R`$.

Our proposal of incommensurate orbital antiferromagnetism in $`URu_2Si_2`$ can be tested by experiment. $`\mu SR`$ measurements should confirm that the magnetic volume fraction of the sample increases with pressure. The incommensurate current ordering can be probed by neutrons, whose scattering off the fields produced by the orbital antiferromagnetism should produce (i) a small incommensurate Bragg peak with a rapidly decaying form-factor characteristic of an extended object and (ii) a dispersing gapless mode centered around the incommensurate Bragg peak, associated with collective translations of the orbital antiferromagnet.

In summary, we have discussed the implications of three recent experiments on $`URu_2Si_2`$. We conclude that the observed pressure-induced antiferromagnetism is probably due to phase separation. We argue that the development of isotropically distributed magnetic fields at the silicon sites indicates that the hidden s order parameter breaks time-reversal invariance. Based on the size and isotropy of the measured local fields, we propose that $`URu_2Si_2`$ is an incommensurate orbital antiferromagnet and make a number of predictions for experiment.

We acknowledge discussions with G. Aeppli, O. Bernal, S. Chakravarty, G. Lonzarich and D. Morr. Part of this work was performed at the Aspen Center for Physics (P.C. and P.C) and at Los Alamos National Laboratory (J.A.M). This project is supported under grant NSF-DMR 9983156 (Coleman).


text:
# Heavy quark expansion parameters from lattice NRQCD presented by N. Tsutsui

## 1 Introduction

In the calculation of inclusive decay rates of the heavy hadron, the heavy quark expansion (HQE) technique is widely used. At the order $`1/m_Q^2`$ of HQE two nonperturbative parameters

$`\mu _\pi ^2(H_Q)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_{H_Q}}}H_Q\left|\overline{Q}(i\stackrel{}{D})^2Q\right|H_Q,`$ (1)
$`\mu _G^2(H_Q)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_{H_Q}}}H_Q\left|\overline{Q}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}Q\right|H_Q,`$ (2)
appear in the calculation. $`H_Q`$ represents a heavy-light meson or heavy-light-light baryon (for $`b`$ hadrons, $`H_b`$ = $`B`$, $`B^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{}`$). For instance, the lifetime ratio of $`b`$ hadrons is given as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau (H_b^{(1)})}{\tau (H_b^{(2)})}}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\pi ^2(H_b^{(1)})\mu _\pi ^2(H_b^{(2)})}{2m_b^2}}`$ (3)
$`+c_G{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _G^2(H_b^{(1)})\mu _G^2(H_b^{(2)})}{m_b^2}}+O(1/m_b^3),`$
with $`c_G`$ 1.2. While $`\mu _G^2`$ may be evaluated from experimental values of hyperfine splitting, the determination of $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ requires some theoretical inputs. It should be noted that the parameters are defined in the static limit: $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$. For heavy-light meson, $`\mu _{\pi ,G}^2`$ has been calculated using the lattice version of the Heavy Quark Effective Theory .

In this work we calculate $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ and $`\mu _G^2`$ on the lattice using the NRQCD action for heavy quark. Although the individual matrix element suffers from large perturbative uncertainty due to power divergence in the matching calculation, their differences like $`\mu _\pi ^2(H_b^{(1)})\mu _\pi ^2(H_b^{(2)})`$ are free from the uncertainty of the operator. We calculate both $`\mu _\pi ^2(H_b^{(1)})\mu _\pi ^2(H_b^{(2)})`$ and $`\mu _G^2(H_b^{(1)})\mu _G^2(H_b^{(2)})`$, and compare them with the corresponding predictions for mass splittings.

## 2 HQET mass formula

The parameters $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ and $`\mu _G^2`$ can be indirectly obtained from hadron masses, using

$$M_{H_Q}m_Q=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{\mu _\pi ^2\mu _G^2}{2m_Q}+O\left(\frac{1}{m_Q^2}\right),$$
(4)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is the residual energy difference between $`M_{H_Q}`$ and $`m_Q`$ surviving in the infinite heavy quark limit. $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ and $`\mu _G^2`$ appear in the correction terms of $`O(1/m_Q)`$. Therefore, by considering proper mass differences, certain combinations of $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ and $`\mu _G^2`$ can be extracted.

For example, a difference of $`\mu _G^2`$ can be obtained from the mass splitting in a spin multiplet, because $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ have the same value. Also, the spin averaged mass $`M_{\overline{B}}=(M_B+3M_B^{})/4`$ does not depend on $`\mu _G^2`$, because $`\mu _G^2`$ is proportional to the spin of the light degrees of the freedom and the sum of $`\mu _G^2`$ in the spin multiplet vanishes.

## 3 Lattice calculations

We carry out quenched QCD simulations at $`\beta `$=6.0 on a $`20^3\times 48`$ lattice. The NRQCD action including all $`O(1/m_Q)`$ terms and the non-perturbatively improved clover action ($`c_{sw}`$=1.769) is adapted for heavy quark and light quark, respectively. Five heavy quark masses $`am_Q`$=1.3, 2.1, 3.0, 5.0, and 10.0 are used to study the $`1/m_Q`$ dependence of hadron masses and matrix elements, while three hopping parameters $`K`$=0.13331, 0.13384, and 0.13432 are simulated to extrapolate to the chiral limit $`K_c`$=0.135284(8). The inverse lattice spacing $`a^1`$=1.85(5) GeV is determined with the $`\rho `$ meson mass $`m_\rho `$=770 MeV.

We measure the three-point functions $`𝒪_{H_Q}(t)𝒪_{\pi ,G}(t_𝒪)𝒪_{H_Q}^{}(0)`$, where $`𝒪_{H_Q}`$ is an interpolating field to create or annihilate the hadron $`H_Q`$, and $`𝒪_{\pi ,G}`$ is the operator to be measured, $`\overline{Q}(i\stackrel{}{D})^2Q`$ or $`\overline{Q}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}Q`$. We divide them by $`𝒪_{H_Q}(t_1)𝒪_{H_Q}^{}(0)`$ to obtain the desired matrix elements $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ and $`\mu _G^2`$.

## 4 Hyperfine splittings

From (4) the hyperfine splitting $`M_B^{}M_B`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _G^2/2m_Q`$, or equivalently

$$M_B^{}^2M_B^2=\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _G^2(\mu _G^2(B^{})\mu _G^2(B)),$$
(5)
at the leading order. In Figure 1, we plot our results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _G^2`$ together with the measurement of $`M_B^{}^2M_B^2`$. We observe that the relation (5) is satisfied very well, while both are significantly lower than the experimental values for $`B`$ and $`D`$ mesons.

In deriving (5) we used a relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _\pi ^2=\mu _\pi ^2(B^{})\mu _\pi ^2(B)=0,$$
(6)
which holds in the static limit. However, for the NRQCD action including the spin-magnetic interaction term at $`O(1/m_Q)`$, the operator $`𝒪_\pi `$ mixes with $`𝒪_𝒢`$ at order $`\alpha _s/m_Q`$. This is the reason why our result for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _G^2`$ deviates from that of the mass difference in the lighter heavy quark mass region. In other words, the relation (6) may be considered as a renormalization condition for the operator $`𝒪_\pi `$.

Similar analysis can be made for the hyperfine splitting of heavy-light-light baryon, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ splitting. Figure 2 shows the mass difference and the matrix element $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _G^2`$. Both are in good agreement.

## 5 $`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}M_{\overline{B}}`$

The heavy-light meson-baryon mass difference $`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}M_{\overline{B}}`$ is given as

$`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}M_{\overline{B}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(B)`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_Q}}\left[\mu _\pi ^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)+\mu _\pi ^2(B)\right].`$
The intercept at $`1/M_{\overline{B}}`$=0 yields $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(B)`$ while the slope is described by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _\pi ^2=(\mu _\pi ^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)\mu _\pi ^2(B))`$.

In Figure 3 we plot $`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}M_{\overline{B}}`$ as a function of $`1/M_{\overline{B}}`$. For the intercept we obtain $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(B)`$=393(31) MeV. in agreement with a previous work by Ali Khan et al., $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(B)`$=415(156) MeV. Our result is slightly larger than the experimental values for $`b`$ and $`c`$ hadrons. However, to draw a definite conclusion we have to consider several systematic errors, especially the finite volume effect, because our lattice may not be large enough for baryons.

The slope obtained from the fit of the mass difference is consistent with zero: $`0.21(21)`$ GeV2. Our results of direct measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _\pi ^2`$ is plotted in Figure 4, which is consistent with the result from mass difference, but have much better accuracy. Our result is also compatible with the phenomenological estimate $`0.01(3)`$ GeV2  obtained from a combination $`(M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}M_{\overline{B}})(M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}M_{\overline{D}})`$.

## 6 Conclusions

We confirm that the lattice measurements of the matrix elements $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ and $`\mu _G^2`$ are consistent with the HQET mass relations. The well-known problem of quenched lattice calculation that the hyperfine splitting is much smaller than the experiments is also reproduced.

An important extension of our work is to measure the matrix elements of four-quark operators, which are relevant to the $`1/m_Q^3`$ corrections to the lifetime ratios .

This work is supported by the Supercomputer Project No.66 (FY2001) of High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), and also in part by the Grants-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education (Nos. 10640246, 11640294, 12014202, 12640253, 12640279, 12740133, 13640260 and 13740169). K-I.I and N.Y are supported by the JSPS Research Fellowship.


text:
# Complementarity of representations in quantum mechanics

## 1 Introduction

Niels Bohr’s principle of complementarity has both a positive and a negative tenet. According to the positive tenet, a particle can have *either* a sharp position *or* a sharp momentum. According to the negative tenet, a particle can never have *both* a sharp position *and* a sharp momentum. In this paper, I show that both tenets of Bohr’s complementarity principle correspond to straightforward mathematical facts about the existence of representations of the canonical commutation relations (CCRs). In particular, there is a (nonregular) “position representation” with a complete set of position eigenstates, and there is a (nonregular) “momentum representation” with a complete set of momentum eigenstates. However, in any representation with propositions ascribing a precise position value, there is no momentum operator, and all propositions attributing a momentum value to the particle are *contradictory*.

As a foil to my account, I consider two criticisms — one corresponding to each tenet — of Bohr’s complementarity principle. The criticism of the negative tenet is well-known: It is claimed that Bohr makes a suspect inference from lack of joint measurability to lack of joint reality. The results of this paper, however, show that one has no need to appeal to suspect philosophical doctrines in order to provide a solid foundation for the negative tenet of complementarity. The criticism of the positive tenet — although less well-known — is much more difficult to overcome. In particular, it is a simple mathematical fact that there are no states in the standard Schrödinger representation of the CCRs in which a particle has a precise position or momentum.

However, this second criticism provides the key to unlocking both sides of the complementarity principle: If we want to maintain that particles can have precise positions or momenta, we must abandon one of the assumptions that entails (via the Stone-von Neumann theorem) the uniqueness of the Schrödinger representation. Once we drop this assumption, we will see that there is a representation of the CCRs which has the resources to describe precise position values, and there is a representation of the CCRs which has the resources to describe precise momentum values. However, there is no single representation of the CCRs that has the resources to describe *both* precise position values *and* precise momentum values. (Along the way, I argue that the “problem” of inequivalent representations is not peculiar to quantum field theory, but arises already in elementary quantum mechanics.)

Preliminaries:
Let $`\mu `$ denote the Lebesgue measure on $``$. We say that a Borel function $`f`$ from $``$ to $``$ is *square-integrable* just in case $`_{}|f|^2𝑑\mu <\mathrm{}`$. If $`f,g`$ are square-integrable, we write $`fg`$ just in case $`_{}|fg|^2𝑑\mu =0`$, and we let $`[f]=\{g:gf\}`$. Let $`L_2()`$ denote the Hilbert space of equivalence classes (mod $``$) of square-integrable functions from $``$ into $``$, with inner product given by $`[f],[g]=_{}\overline{f}g𝑑\mu `$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }()`$ denote the $`\sigma `$-algebra of Borel subsets of $``$. We define an equivalence relation $``$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }()`$ by setting $`S_1S_2`$ just in case $`\mu (S_1S_2)+\mu (S_2S_1)=0`$.

Let $`\iota `$ be the identity function, $`\iota (x)=x`$, on $``$. Let $`Q`$ denote the self-adjoint operator defined on a dense domain of $`L_2()`$ by $`Q[f]=[\iota f]`$, and let $`P`$ denote the self-adjoint operator defined on a dense domain of $`L_2()`$ by $`P[f]=i[f^{}]`$. (We set $`\mathrm{}=1`$ throughout.) Since $`Q`$ and $`P`$ satisfy the canonical commutation relation $`[Q,P]=iI`$, they can be taken as corresponding, respectively, to the position and momentum observables of a particle with one degree of freedom. For $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }()`$, we define the projection operator $`E^Q(S)`$ on $`L_2()`$ by setting $`E^Q(S)[f]:=[\chi _Sf]`$, where $`\chi _S`$ is the characteristic function of $`S`$. In this case, $`E^Q`$ gives the canonical spectral measure for the self-adjoint operator $`Q`$.

Finally, let $``$ denote the lattice of projection operators on $`L_2()`$, equipped with the standard operations $`,,`$ corresponding respectively to subspace intersection, span, and orthocomplement.

## 2 A problem with position-momentum complementarity

The complementarity between position and momentum is sometimes mistakenly equated with the *uncertainty* relation:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_\psi Q\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_\psi P\right)1/2,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\psi B`$ is the dispersion of $`B`$ in $`\psi `$. But Eqn. 1 says nothing about when $`Q`$ and $`P`$ can *possess* values; at best, it only tells us that there is a reciprocal relation between our *knowledge* of the value of $`Q`$ and our *knowledge* of the value of $`P`$. To infer from this that $`Q`$ and $`P`$ cannot simultaneously possess values would be to lapse into positivism.

A more promising analysis of complementarity is suggested by Bub and Clifton’s  classification of “no collapse” interpretations of quantum mechanics. According to this analysis, we can think of Bohr’s complementarity interpretation as a no collapse interpretation in which the measured observable $`R`$ and a state $`\psi `$ determines a unique maximal sublattice $`(\psi ,R)`$ of the lattice $``$ of all subspaces of the relevant Hilbert space. $`(\psi ,R)`$ should be thought of as containing the propositions that have a definite truth value when $`R`$ is measured in the state $`\psi `$. In particular, $`(\psi ,R)`$ always contains all propositions ascribing a value to $`R`$ (i.e. the spectral projections of $`R`$), and $`\psi `$ can be decomposed into a mixture of 2-valued homomorphisms (i.e. “truth valuations”) on $`(\psi ,R)`$. Thus, we can think of $`\psi `$ as representing our *ignorance* of the possessed value of $`R`$. We would then say that observables $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ are complementary just in case propositions attributing a value to $`R^{}`$ are never contained in $`(\psi ,R)`$ and vice versa.

But there is a serious difficulty in using this analysis to explicate Bohr’s notion of position-momentum complementarity. In order to see this, note that for any $`S_1,S_2\mathrm{\Sigma }()`$, if $`S_1S_2`$ then $`(\chi _{S_1}f)(\chi _{S_2}f)`$, and thus $`E^Q(S_1)[f]=E^Q(S_2)[f]`$. Since this is true for any $`[f]L^2()`$, it follows that $`E^Q(S_1)=E^Q(S_2)`$ when $`S_1S_2`$. In particular $`E^Q(\{\lambda \})=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, for any $`\lambda `$, since $`\{\lambda \}\mathrm{}`$. This enables us to formulate a very simple “proof” that particles cannot have sharp positions.

$`E^Q(\{\lambda \})=\mathrm{𝟎}`$; i.e. $`E^Q(\{\lambda \})`$ is the contradictory proposition.

$`E^Q(\{\lambda \})`$ represents the proposition “The particle is located at the point $`\lambda `$.”

It is always false that the particle is located at $`\lambda `$.

What is more, it follows from the interpretive assumption that “being located in $`S_1`$” is literally *the same property as* “being located in $`S_2`$,” whenever $`S_1S_2`$. Thus, any attempt to attribute a position to the particle would force us to revise the classical notion of location in space.

Halvorson  argues that we can solve these difficulties by reinterpreting elements of $``$ as “experimental propositions” rather than as “property ascriptions,” and by introducing non-countably additive (i.e. non-vector) states on $``$. In particular, suppose that we adopt the alternative interpretive assumption:

$`E^Q(S)`$ means “A measurement of the position of the particle is certain to yield a value in $`S`$.”

Then, $`E^Q(\{\lambda \})=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ does *not* entail that a particle cannot be located at $`\lambda `$, but only that no position measurement can be certain to show that it is located at $`\lambda `$. Moreover, there is a non-countably additive state $`h`$ on $``$ such that $`h(E^Q(S))=1`$ for *all* open neighborhoods $`S`$ of $`\lambda `$. Thus, we could think of $`h`$ as representing a state in which the particle is located at $`\lambda `$.

However, this solution is not fully satisfactory. In particular, there is still no proposition in the “object language” $``$ which can express the claim that the particle is located at $`\lambda `$. \[A pure state $`h`$ on $``$ is countably additive if and only if there is a unique minimal element $`E`$ such that $`h(E)=1`$. Therefore, if we drop countable additivity, we allow for there to be more states than can be described in the language $``$ of the theory.\] Thus, the standard language $``$ of quantum mechanics is incapable of describing particles as having precise positions or momenta. And, if we believe (as Bohr does) that particles *can* have precise positions or momenta, we are forced to conclude that quantum mechanics is *descriptively incomplete* (see ).

## 3 The Solution: Inequivalent Representations

Why should we take $`L_2()`$ as the state space for a particle with one degree of freedom? And, why is the lattice $``$ of subspaces for $`L_2()`$ supposed to give us all possible properties of a particle with one degree of freedom? One answer to these questions is that $`L_2()`$ and $``$ supply the elements needed for an empirically adequate model of such a particle. However, this answer is not sufficient, because it leaves open the possibility that there are inequivalent formalisms which could also model the phenomena. In order to supply a fully convincing answer, we would need a uniqueness theorem which shows that *any* empirically adequate (or physically reasonable) model is equivalent to the standard model.

Now, in the case of elementary quantum mechanics we do have a uniqueness theorem. In order to state this precisely, we first define one parameter groups of unitary operators on $`L_2()`$ by setting $`U_a=\mathrm{exp}\{iaQ\}`$ and $`V_b=\mathrm{exp}\{ibP\}`$ for all $`a,b`$. Then, as is well-known, these groups satisfy the *Weyl form* of the CCRs.

$$U_aV_b=e^{iab}V_bU_a,(a,b).$$
(2)
More generally, we say that any pair $`(\{U_a\},\{V_b\})`$ of one-parameter groups of unitary operators acting a Hilbert space $``$ give a representation of the Weyl form of the CCRs just in case they satisfy Eqn. 2. Furthermore, we say that the representation is *irreducible* just in case no nontrivial subspaces of $``$ are left invariant by all operators $`\{U_a,V_b:a,b\}`$. We say that two representations $`(\{U_a\},\{V_b\})`$ and $`(\{\stackrel{~}{U}_a\},\{\stackrel{~}{V}_b\})`$ on Hilbert spaces $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ are *unitarily equivalent* just in case there is a unitary operator $`W:\stackrel{~}{}`$ such that

$$WU_aW^{}=\stackrel{~}{U}_a,WV_bW^{}=\stackrel{~}{V}_b,$$
(3)
for all $`a,b`$. Finally, a representation of the Weyl form of the CCRs is said to be *regular* just in case $`aU_a`$ and $`bV_b`$ are continuous. (Where $`aU_a`$ is continuous just in case $`a\phi ,U_a\phi `$ is continuous for any $`\phi `$.) In this case, it follows that there is a unique irreducible representation of the CCRs.

###### Stone-von Neumann Uniqueness Theorem ().

Every irreducible regular representation of the CCRs is unitarily equivalent to the Schrödinger representation on $`L_2()`$.

The Stone-von Neumann uniqueness theorem seems to force our interpretive hand: There is a unique representation of the CCRs, and the “language” $``$ of that representation (i.e. the lattice of projection operators) either has no sentences that ascribe precise positions or momenta to particles, or (if one thinks of projection operators as ascribing properties) those sentences are necessarily false. Thus, if quantum mechanics is descriptively complete, particles do not have precise positions or momenta.

However, this analysis is simply wrong. The Stone-von Neumann theorem cannot be used to prove that particles do not have precise positions or momenta, because *the regularity assumption begs the question against position-momentum complementarity*. In particular, Stone’s theorem \[6, Thm. 5.6.36\] entails that a representation of the CCRs is regular if and only if the self-adjoint generators $`Q`$ of $`\{U_a:a\}`$ and $`P`$ of $`\{V_b:b\}`$ exist on $``$. However, if complementarity is correct, then $`Q`$ and $`P`$ cannot both have sharp values. Why, then, do we need to assume that both operators exist in one representation space? What is more, we saw in the previous section that if *both* operators do exist, then *neither* can possess a sharp value. Does this not give us a reason to rethink the regularity assumption?

Let us formulate the previous argument more explicitly. First, let DC denote the claim that the language of quantum mechanics is descriptively complete:

(DC): A particle can have a property $`E`$ only if there is a corresponding projection operator $`\widehat{E}`$ in some representation of the CCRs.

Let SP denote the claim that particles *can* have sharp positions, and let SM denote the claim that particles *can* have sharp momenta. Finally, let R denote the claim that any physically reasonable representation of the CCRs must be regular. Then the Stone-von Neumann theorem shows that:

> DC $``$ R $``$ $`\neg `$SP $``$ $`\neg `$SM

However, this is equivalent to:

> DC $``$ (SP $``$ SM) $``$ $`\neg `$R

Thus, it is logically coherent to maintain the descriptive completeness of quantum mechanics along with the claim that particles can have precise positions or momenta; to do so, we must reject the assumption that any physically reasonable representation of the CCRs needs to be regular. \[It should be noted that the regularity assumption can be replaced with the assumption that the Hilbert space $``$ is separable (see ). However, the warrant for separability is even shakier than the warrant for regularity.\] In order to show that this logical possibility is real, we now construct nonregular representations of the CCRs in which there are *contingent* statements attributing precise position (or momentum) values to a particle.

3.1 The Position Representation.
Let $`l_2()`$ denote the (nonseparable) Hilbert space of square-summable functions from $``$ into $``$. That is, an element $`f`$ of $`l_2()`$ is supported on a countable subset $`S_f`$ of $``$ and $`f:=_{xS_f}|f(x)|^2<\mathrm{}`$. The inner product on $`l_2()`$ is given by

$$f,g=\underset{xS_fS_g}{}\overline{f(x)}g(x).$$
(4)
For each $`\lambda `$, let $`\phi _\lambda `$ denote the characteristic function of $`\{\lambda \}`$. Thus, the set $`\{\phi _\lambda :\lambda \}`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`l_2()`$. For each $`a`$, define $`U_a`$ on the set $`\{\phi _\lambda :\lambda \}`$ by

$$U_a\phi _\lambda :=e^{ia\lambda }\phi _\lambda .$$
(5)
Since $`U_a`$ maps $`\{\phi _\lambda :\lambda \}`$ onto an orthonormal basis for $`l_2()`$, $`U_a`$ extends uniquely to a unitary operator on $``$. Similarly, define $`V_b`$ on $`\{\phi _\lambda :\lambda \}`$ by

$$V_b\phi _\lambda :=\phi _{\lambda b}.$$
(6)
Then $`V_b`$ extends uniquely to a unitary operator on $`l_2()`$. Now, a straightforward calculation shows that,

$`U_aV_b\phi _\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`e^{iab}V_bU_a\phi _\lambda ,`$ (7)
for any $`a,b`$. Thus, the operators $`\{U_a:a\}`$ and $`\{V_b:b\}`$ give a representation of the Weyl form of CCRs on $`l_2()`$.

Furthermore, $`lim_{a0}\phi _\lambda ,U_a\phi _\lambda =lim_{a0}e^{ia\lambda }=1`$, for any $`\lambda `$. Thus, $`aU_a`$ is continuous, and Stone’s theorem entails that there is a self-adjoint operator $`Q`$ on $`l_2()`$ such that $`U_a=\mathrm{exp}\{iaQ\}`$ for all $`a`$. In particular,

$$Q\phi _\lambda =i\underset{a0}{lim}a^1(U_aI)\phi _\lambda =i\underset{a0}{lim}a^1(e^{ia\lambda }1)\phi _\lambda =\lambda \phi _\lambda ,$$
(8)
for each $`\lambda `$. On the other hand, we have:

$$\phi _\lambda ,V_b\phi _\lambda =\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{when}b0,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{when}b=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, $`bV_b`$ is not continuous, and there is no self-adjoint operator $`P`$ such that $`V_b=\mathrm{exp}\{ibP\}`$ for all $`b`$. In other words, the momentum operator *does not exist* in this representation.

3.2 The Momentum Representation.
By means of a completely analogous construction, we can obtain a representation of the CCRs in which, for each $`\lambda `$, there is a vector $`\phi _\lambda `$ such that $`P\phi _\lambda =\lambda \phi _\lambda `$ (see ). In this case, however, it is not possible to define a position operator.

Thus, we have shown that it *is* possible to give a standard Hilbert space description in which a particle has a precise position in the continuum; and it *is* possible to give a standard Hilbert space description in which a particle has a precise, numerical momentum value. However, the representations we constructed have a curious feature: In the position representation we cannot define a momentum operator, and in the momentum representation we cannot define a position operator. We now show that this “complementarity” between position and momentum holds in any representation of the CCRs.

###### Theorem 1.

In any representation of the Weyl form of the CCRs, if $`Q`$ exists and has an eigenvector then $`P`$ does not exist. If $`P`$ exists and has an eigenvector then $`Q`$ does not exist.

###### Proof.

We show that if there is a common eigenvector $`\phi `$ for $`\{V_b:b\}`$ then $`aU_a`$ is not continuous. (The other half of the theorem follows by symmetry.) Indeed, if $`\phi `$ is a common eigenvector for $`\{V_b:b\}`$ then,

$$e^{iab}\phi ,U_a\phi =\phi ,V_bU_aV_b\phi =\phi ,U_a\phi ,$$
(9)
for all $`a,b`$. But this is possible only if $`\phi ,U_a\phi =0`$ when $`a0`$. Since $`\phi ,U_a\phi =1`$ when $`a=0`$, it follows that $`aU_a`$ is not continuous. ∎

Of course, this theorem also shows that the position and momentum representations are inequivalent. And it shows (using the contrapositive of each part) that the momentum and position representations are both inequivalent to the Schrödinger representation. (This latter fact is already clear, though, since the Hilbert spaces differ in dimension.)

## 4 Nonexistent Quantities

I have claimed that if there are eigenstates for the position observable, then the momentum observable “does not exist.” What was actually shown is that if there are eigenstates for the position observable, then $`bV_b`$ is not continuous; and so we cannot reconstruct the momentum operator by taking the derivative $`i(V_t/t)|_{t=0}`$. However, this failure of continuity does not itself carry a natural physical interpretation.

In this section, I give another perspective on the complementarity between position and momentum. In particular, we shall see that, in *every* representation of the CCRs, there are projection-valued measures $`E^Q,E^P`$ representing the position and momentum observables. However, the properties (in particular, the sets of measure zero) of these measures vary between representations. Thus, the complementarity between position and momentum can be formulated as a claim about the relation between $`E^Q,E^P`$ in representations of the CCRs. In particular, our main result shows that if $`E^Q(\{\lambda \})\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for some $`\lambda `$ then $`E^P()=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. That is, if it is possible for a particle to have a point location, then it is impossible for that particle to have any momentum value in $``$.

4.1 Preliminaries.
Let $`BC()`$ denote the $`C^{}`$-algebra of continuous functions from $``$ into $``$ that are bounded in the norm

$$f=\underset{x}{sup}|f(x)|.$$
(10)
Elements of $`BC()`$ are called *bounded continuous functions*. Recall that the space of pure states of $`BC()`$ (equipped with the weak\* topology) is homeomorphic to the Stone-Čech compactification of $``$. In particular, for each pure state $`\omega `$ of $`BC()`$ there is a unique ultrafilter $`𝒰`$ on $``$ such that $`\omega (f)=lim_𝒰f`$.

Let $`X`$ be a Hausdorff topological space, and let $`\pi `$ be a mapping of $``$ into $`X`$. We say that $`(\pi ,X)`$ is a *compactification* of $``$ just in case $`X`$ is compact, and $`\pi `$ is a continuous embedding of $``$ onto a dense subset of $`X`$. \[We do not require $`\pi `$ to be a homeomorphism of $``$ onto $`\pi ()`$.\] There is a one-to-one correspondence between $`C^{}`$-subalgebras of $`BC()`$ and compactifications of $``$ (see \[4, p. 16\]). In particular, since each $`\lambda `$ gives rise to a principal ultrafilter $`𝒰_\lambda `$ on $``$, there is a natural injection of $``$ into the space $`\sigma (𝒜)`$ of pure states of $`𝒜`$. Furthermore, $`\sigma (𝒜)`$ is compact, and $`𝒜`$ is naturally isomorphic to the continuous functions $`C(\sigma (𝒜))`$ on $`\sigma (𝒜)`$. Thus, a subalgebra of $`BC()`$ is naturally isomorphic to the continuous functions on a compact space $`X=(X\backslash )`$, where the elements in $`X\backslash `$ can be thought of as “points at infinity.”

We now define a specific $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`BC()`$. For each $`a`$, let $`u_a`$ denote the function given by $`u_a(x)=e^{iax},(x)`$. Let $`AP()`$ denote the $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`BC()`$ generated by $`\{u_a:a\}`$. That is, $`AP()`$ consists of uniform limits of trigonometric polynomials of the form

$$f(x)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_je^{ia_jx},$$
(11)
where $`c_j`$ and $`a_j`$. Elements of $`AP()`$ are called *almost periodic functions*. The compactification $`b`$ of $``$ corresponding to $`AP()`$ is called the *Bohr compactification* of $``$ (after the mathematician Harald Bohr). Thus, $`AP()`$ is isomorphic to $`C(b)`$.

There is a binary operation $`\widehat{+}`$ on $`b`$ such that $`(b,\widehat{+},0)`$ is a compact topological group in which $`(,+,0)`$ is embedded as a dense subgroup \[8, p. 30\]. Let $`\mu `$ denote the unique (normalized) translation-invariant measure (i.e. *Haar measure*) on the Borel $`\sigma `$-algebra $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(b)`$ of $`b`$. Now define the *invariant mean* $`\omega _\mu `$ on $`C(b)`$ by setting

$$\omega _\mu (f):=_bf𝑑\mu ,(fC(b)).$$
(12)
The invariant mean can also be defined explicitly by

$$\omega _\mu (f)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2N}_N^Nf(x)𝑑x,(fAP()).$$
(13)
Clearly, $`\omega _\mu (u_a)=0`$ for all $`a0`$; and since $`\{u_a:a\}`$ is linearly dense in $`C(b)`$, it follows that $`\omega _\mu `$ is the unique state of $`C(b)`$ with this property.

4.2 The Weyl algebra
There is a unique minimal $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜[^2]`$ containing two one-parameter groups $`\{U_a:a\}`$ and $`\{V_b:b\}`$ of unitary operators obeying the Weyl form of the CCRs . The abelian $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`𝒜[^2]`$ generated by $`\{U_a:a\}`$ is naturally isomorphic to $`C(b)`$ $`(AP())`$, and the same is true of the $`C^{}`$-subalgebra generated by $`\{V_b:b\}`$.

Recall that a representation $`(\pi ,)`$ of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ consists of a $``$-homo-morphism $`\pi `$ of $`𝒜`$ into the $`C^{}`$-algebra of bounded linear operators on $``$. Thus, the irreducible representations of the Weyl form of the CCRs are in one-to-one correspondence with the irreducible representations of $`𝒜[^2]`$. Recall also that two representations $`(\pi ,)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{\pi },\stackrel{~}{})`$ of $`𝒜`$ are *unitarily equivalent* just in case there is a unitary operator $`W:\stackrel{~}{}`$ such that $`W\pi (A)W^{}=\stackrel{~}{\pi }(A)`$ for all $`A𝒜`$.

###### Proposition 1.

For any irreducible representation $`(\pi ,)`$ of $`𝒜[^2]`$ there is a corresponding pair $`(E^Q,E^P)`$ of projection-valued measures on $`b`$ such that

$$\pi (U_a)=_bu_a(\lambda )𝑑E_\lambda ^Q,\pi (V_b)=_bu_b(\lambda )𝑑E_\lambda ^P,$$
(14)
for all $`a,b`$.

###### Proof.

Define a pair $`\alpha ^Q,\alpha ^P`$ of representations of $`C(b)`$ on $``$ by setting $`\alpha ^Q(u_a)=\pi (U_a)`$ and $`\alpha ^P(u_a)=\pi (V_a)`$ for all $`a`$. The result then follows immediately from Theorem 5.2.6 of . ∎

The heuristic integrals in Eqn. 14 can be interpreted rigorously as quantified statements about families of complex Borel measures on $`b`$. In particular, for any vector $`\phi `$ we define a measure $`\mu _\phi `$ on $`b`$ by setting

$$\mu _\phi (S):=\phi ,E^Q(S)\phi ,(S\mathrm{\Sigma }(b)).$$
(15)
Then, we define the left part of Eqn. 14 as the statement:

$$\phi ,\pi (U_a)\phi =_bu_a(\lambda )𝑑\mu _\phi (\lambda ),\phi .$$
(16)
The right part of Eqn. 14 makes a similar statement about complex Borel measures defined in terms of $`E^P`$ and vectors in $``$.

We also claim (without proof) that $`a\pi (U_a)`$ is continuous iff. $`E^Q()=𝐈`$. In this case, $`\{E_\lambda ^Q:\lambda \}`$ gives the spectral resolution of $`Q`$:

$$Q=_{}\lambda 𝑑E_\lambda ^Q.$$
(17)
Similarly, $`b\pi (V_b)`$ is continuous if and only if $`E^P()=𝐈`$, in which case $`\{E_\lambda ^P:\lambda \}`$ gives the spectral resolution of $`P`$.

Irreducible representations of $`𝒜[^2]`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with pure states of $`𝒜[^2]`$. In particular, for any pure state $`\omega `$ of $`𝒜[^2]`$, the GNS construction provides an irreducible representation $`(\pi _\omega ,_\omega )`$ of $`𝒜[^2]`$ such that $`\omega `$ is represented by a cyclic vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\omega `$ \[6, Thm. 4.5.2; Thm. 10.2.3\]. In fact, we can directly produce both the position and momentum representations by means of the GNS construction: For each $`\lambda `$, there is a unique pure state $`\omega _\lambda `$ of $`𝒜[^2]`$ such that $`\omega _\lambda (U_a)=e^{ia\lambda }`$ for all $`a`$; moreover, it follows that $`\omega _\lambda (V_b)=0`$ when $`b0`$ (see ). Thus, $`\omega _\lambda (A)=\phi _\lambda ,A\phi _\lambda `$ whenever $`A=U_a`$ or $`A=V_a`$, for some $`a`$. Since $`\{V_b\phi _\lambda :b\}`$ is also linearly dense in $`l_2()`$, the position representation is unitarily equivalent to the GNS representation induced by $`\omega _\lambda `$ \[6, Prop. 4.5.3\]. A completely analogous construction can be used to obtain a GNS representation that is unitarily equivalent to the momentum representation.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`(\pi ,)`$ be an irreducible representation of $`𝒜[^2]`$, and let $`(E^Q,E^P)`$ be the corresponding pair of projection-valued measures. If $`E^Q(\{\lambda \})\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for some $`\lambda `$ then $`E^P()=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. If $`E^P(\{\lambda \})\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for some $`\lambda `$ then $`E^Q()=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

###### Proof.

The proof splits into two parts: (1.) If $`E^Q(\{\lambda \})\mathrm{𝟎}`$ then $`(\pi ,)`$ is unitarily equivalent to the position representation. (2.) If $`(\pi ,)`$ is equivalent to the position representation then $`E^P()=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

(1.) Let $`(\pi ,)`$ be an irreducible representation of $`𝒜[^2]`$ such that $`E^Q(\{\lambda \})\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Let $`\phi `$ be a unit vector in the range of $`E^Q(\{\lambda \})`$, and define a Borel measure $`\nu `$ on $`b`$ by setting

$$\nu (S):=\phi ,E^Q(S)\phi ,(S\mathrm{\Sigma }(b)).$$
(18)
Then $`\nu `$ is concentrated on $`\{\lambda \}`$, and Prop. 1 entails that

$$\phi ,\pi (U_a)\phi =_bu_a𝑑\nu =u_a(\lambda )=e^{ia\lambda }.$$
(19)
Since $`(\pi ,)`$ is irreducible, $`\phi `$ is cyclic for $`\pi `$. It follows then from the uniqueness of the GNS representation \[6, Prop. 4.5.4\], that $`(\pi ,)`$ is unitarily equivalent to the GNS representation of $`𝒜[^2]`$ induced by the state $`\omega _\lambda `$, and thus to the position representation.

(2.) Suppose that $`(\pi ,)`$ is unitarily equivalent to the position representation. In particular, we can suppose that $``$ $`(=l_2())`$ is spanned by an orthonormal family of vectors $`\{\phi _\lambda :\lambda \}`$ where $`\pi (V_b)\phi _\lambda =\phi _{\lambda b}`$ for all $`b,\lambda `$. Thus, to show that $`E^P()=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, it will suffice to show that $`E^P()\phi _\lambda =0`$ for all $`\lambda `$. Fix $`\lambda `$ and let $`\phi =\phi _\lambda `$. Define a Borel probability measure $`\nu `$ on $`b`$ by setting

$$\nu (S):=E^P(S)\phi ^2=\phi ,E^P(S)\phi ,(S\mathrm{\Sigma }(b)).$$
(20)
Define a state $`\omega _\nu `$ of $`C(b)`$ by

$$\omega _\nu (f):=_bf𝑑\nu ,(fC(b)).$$
(21)
Then Prop. 1 entails that

$$\omega _\nu (u_a)=_bu_a𝑑\nu =\phi ,\pi (V_a)\phi =0,$$
(22)
for all $`a`$. Since $`\{u_a:a\}`$ generates $`C(b)`$, it follows that $`\omega _\nu `$ is the invariant mean. By the Riesz representation theorem \[9, Thm. 2.14\], there is a unique probability measure on $`b`$ corresponding to each state of $`C(b)`$. Thus, $`\nu `$ is the Haar measure on $`b`$, and it follows from translation-invariance (and countable-additivity) that $`\nu ()=0`$. ∎

## 5 Conclusion

It is well-known that the existence of inequivalent representations raises significant issues for the interpretation of quantum *field* theory. However, it would be wrong to think (on the basis of the Stone-von Neumann uniqueness theorem) that the issue of inequivalent representations has no significance for elementary quantum mechanics. Indeed, it is only by employing nonregular representations of the CCRs that we can make sense of Bohr’s views about position-momentum complementarity.

Still, one might wonder whether nonregular representations of the CCRs have any *empirical* relevance. In particular, don’t we have purely empirical grounds for preferring the Schrödinger representation to these representations? But this question betrays a misunderstanding of the nature of representations. The abstract algebra of observables $`𝒜[^2]`$ carries the full empirical content of the quantum theory of a single particle (with one degree of freedom). (We have not mentioned dynamics, but this can also be defined in a representation-indendent manner.) In particular, $`𝒜[^2]`$ has enough observables to describe our measurement procedures, and enough states to describe each laboratory preparation. Thus, a representation does not add anything further to this already given empirical content, and one representation cannot be preferable to another on empirical grounds alone.

However, by saying that any two representations of $`𝒜[^2]`$ are empirically equivalent, we are not committing ourselves to the further claim that there are no *physically significant* differences between representations. In particular, each representation of $`𝒜[^2]`$ comes with a certain set of “sharp propositions” (i.e. projection operators) which can be used to describe “how things are” independent of our experimental interventions. Moreover, different representations give very different stories about how things are. For example, while the Schrödinger representation says that two locations are the same if they differ only by a set of Lebesgue measure zero, the position representation permits us to maintain the classical picture of the spatial continuum in which particles can have precise positions.

Acknowledgments: Thanks to Rob Clifton for many discussions and helpful comments. I am also indebted to John Earman and Laura Ruetsche for their insightful analyses of the issues raised by the existence of inequivalent representations.


text:
# Edinburgh 2001/16 Light hadron spectrum using an O(a)-improved Wilson action with two dynamical quark flavours

## 1 Introduction

The prediction of the spectrum of light hadron masses is one of the fundamental aims of lattice QCD. This has already been done extensively in the quenched approximation by several collaborations. The results for the quenched spectrum have been found to lie within 10% of the experimental values. This is encouraging and motivates a full calculation with dynamical quarks. The results of such a study would test the appropriateness of QCD as the theory of the strong interaction.

In this paper I present work on the light hadron spectrum for the UKQCD Collaboration using a non-perturbatively O(a)-improved Wilson action with two degenerate dynamical quarks. Much of this work can be found in a recent paper on unquenching effects by the UKQCD Collaboration . The three dynamical simulations and one quenched simulation used to study unquenching were performed at values of $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa _{sea}`$(where appropriate) falling on a trajectory of fixed lattice spacing. This was done to minimise variations due to residual discretisation errors and finite volume effects. In addition to these four simulations I include results from two dynamical simulations lying on a different fixed lattice spacing trajectory and one exploratory run at lighter quark mass to test the limits of the current algorithms. The fixed lattice spacing trajectories were determined using the matching techniques in  and the scale set using $`r_0`$ in all simulations.

## 2 Simulation Details

All of the simulations discussed here were performed on a $`16^3\times 32`$ lattice. For the dynamical simulations we used the Wilson gauge field action together with the Sheikholeslami-Wohlert O(a)-improved Wilson gauge-fermion action . The gauge configurations were generated using the Hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm .

Quark propagators were calculated using the O(a)-improved gauge-fermion term for both dynamical and quenched simulations. We used the final published values of the O(a)-improvement coefficient $`c_{sw}`$, as determined by the Alpha collaboration , in the generation of dynamical gauge fields and quark propagators.

In what follows I distinguish the values of the hopping parameter, $`\kappa `$, used in the generation of gauge configurations and quark propagators by $`\kappa _{sea}`$ and $`\kappa _{val}`$ respectively. The cases where $`\kappa _{val}\kappa _{sea}`$ were studied to allow a partially quenched analysis to be performed.

I summarise the simulation parameters in Table 1. The value of $`L/r_0`$ is included as an indicator of the onset of finite size effects. The parameter, $`r_0`$, was determined from calculations of the inter-quark potential and was used to set the scale. I also include $`M_{PS}/M_V`$ to indicate how light the simulations are. This ratio was calculated at $`\kappa _{sea}=\kappa _{val}`$.

It can be seen that all the simulations were performed with relatively coarse lattices. This was to avoid the appearance of finite size effects and was limited by the available computer resources. Previous analysis by UKQCD  has shown that finite size effects in the light hadron spectrum are negligible provided

$$L/r_03.2.$$
(1)
## 3 Fitting Hadron Correlators

In this work I have concentrated on determining the masses of the pseudoscalar and vector mesons and the nucleon and delta baryons. The hadronic interpolating operators used in the calculation of the necessary two-point correlation functions were either local or smeared using the fuzzing procedure of . I use a nomenclature where an FL correlator is one that is fuzzed at sink and local at source.

It should be noted that hadron correlators were calculated for all the possible combinations $`\kappa _{val}`$ as given in Table 1 although baryons with non-degenerate constituent quark masses have not been analysed yet.

The meson masses were determined from their respective correlation functions by correlated $`\chi ^2`$ minimisation with the following ansatz for correlators at time, $`t`$,

$$C(t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}A_n\left(e^{M_nt}+e^{M_n(Tt)}\right).$$
(2)
Here $`T`$ is the temporal extent of the lattice, $`A_n`$ is a time independent factor and $`M_n`$ is the mass of the $`n^{th}`$ excited state with the ground state($`n=0`$) being the mass we wish to calculate. For baryons a similar ansatz was used but with the second exponential term omitted.

In addition to the fits to single correlators, simultaneous fits were performed to LL, FL and FF correlators. Not only did this allow fitting to a common mass but the amplitude factors, $`A_n`$, for the three correlators could be written in terms of two common factors, further constraining the fit and reducing the total number of parameters.

The hadron mass analysis proceeded in all cases by performing fits over a series of time ranges. As an example Figure 1 shows the dependence of the fitted ground state mass for a vector meson on the minimum time of the fit range, $`t_{min}`$. Final fit ranges were chosen when the goodness of fit parameter, $`Q`$, indicated the ansatz was appropriate and when some stability in the fit parameters with respect to small changes in the fit range had been reached. The statistical errors on the fit parameters were calculated by the bootstrap method.

## 4 Results

The fit results for all but the $`(\beta =5.25,\kappa _{sea}=0.1352)`$ and $`(\beta =5.2,\kappa _{sea}=0.13565)`$ datasets can be found in . I present preliminary results for these two remaining datasets in Table 2. Fits to mesonic correlators were performed for all combinations of the valence quark masses, as given by $`\kappa _{val1}`$ and $`\kappa _{val2}`$. Baryonic fits have only been performed with degenerate valence quarks.

All of these results are from simultaneous fits to LL, FL and FF correlators. The results for the $`(5.2,0.13565)`$ dataset and the mesonic fits for the $`(5.25,0.1352)`$ dataset were produced with a ground state only fit ansatz (i.e. $`N=0`$ in equation 2). The remaining baryonic fits were performed with the first excited state contribution included.

## 5 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland and the European Community’s Human potential programme under HPRN-CT-2000-00145 Hadrons/LatticeQCD for their financial support of this work.